Skip to main content

Full text of "Principles of contract at law and in equity; a treatise on the general principles concerning the validity of agreements in the law of England and America"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 



^TtSF^fr'' 



-j'^^rS'TiP^i^rrr^j^*: 



r^ir^^K^Uf^M^J^Kl'^^^^^^^^^^.'r.^^^A.'J^^J'.-J-^^^^^.^^'J'^J-J',.^ 



N 




4 



PRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT 

AT LAW AND IN EQUITY 



A TBBATIBB ON THB 



GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE VALIDnT OP 
AGREEMENTS IN THE UW OF ENGLAND AND AMERICA 



BT 



SiE FREDERICK POLLOCK, Babt., 

OF LmooLM'B imr, Bj/BSfBTAT law; 

OOBPOB FBOFBHOB OV JUBUPBITDKHCS m THK UNIYBBaiTT Of OXFORD; LATB FELLOW OF 

tbhrtt oollbgb, caicbbxdob; d. o. l. ozfobd; bon. ll. d. KDnniUBaH, Dublin axd 
basyabd; axd oobskfohdihg mdcbbb of TBS msTiTUTB of fbanos. 

THIRD AMERICAN FROM THE SEVENTH ENGLISH EDITION 



ANNOTATIONS AND ADDITIONS 



GUSTAVUS H. WALD, 

L4ra DBAH OF TBS LAW 8GBOOL OF TBS USIVSB8ITT OF GnranOriXL 

A2n> 



SAMUEL WILLISTON, 

wbld fbo^bm6» of ^^w'tir BAttTJOtP cMivsBsrrr. 



"TUa BOtton of oontract is part of men's common stock erta. outside tbe field of 
legal adenee, and to men of law so familiar and necessary in its Tarlous applications that 
wa mlf^t aspect a settled and Just apprehension of it to preTsil everywhere. Kererthe- 
!•« wo are yet far short of thls.''~SAViairT, Syttem des heutigen rSmigchen BechU, 1 140. 



NHW YORK: 

BAKER, VOGKHIS & COMPANY. 
1906. 



OorntibKr, iWtr, 
6t RICHARD H. WALD. 



262489 



J. B. LYOW COMPANY 
PKINTBRS AK2> BINDKKS 
. M. Y. 



PREFACE. 



This l)d6lc oWifi 'Ita 61^, 'A thU thlb imt^lieft, to tlie work of 
tJie late CNifltavuB H. Wald. H© devoted much time iii lafa eatly 
manhood to the "pffepaAtli**! of two eartielt ciditicfeis of Sit 
Frederick i]?6lloeVk WoA, tBe \hHir df which aj^ired in 1885, 
and fhe 'tlrorotl^l aiid iH£o1{frl;^'dh5»%etet^(]tf Ids Aiii^ean knno- 
tkdotid "won 'dfeseriritfd i^o^iudoii. HaVhfg In 'itdn<J the posallrilll^ 
of furtlier edtftionk ]ftt. Wkfld hklntttaDy noted in tHi^ir appfo- 
•prikte places ih an interleaved copy of his book ail decisidhs 
bearing on topics thei.ein discussed, which his regular e^ninink- 
tion of current reports brought to his attention. At his untpnely- 
death in June^ ldp2, these manuscript annotations c'ohtkinfng 
citations of the decisions of the courts for the preceding seVen- 
teenyears came into the possession of his brother, Sfr. xlichard 
H. wald, who, impressed with their value, and feeling that prop- 
erly prepared for the press, they would furidih thfe nakls for a 
new edition, put the material, both printed and unprinted, into 
my hands. His only stipulation in so doing was that the book 
which I should prepare should be " Wald's Pollock on Contracts^^' 
and it is rightly so called. The material necessarily had to be 
recast and put in shape for the printer. In doing this I have 
had a free hand and have endeavored simply to make as good a 
book as I could with the use not only of Mr. Wald's materials 
but of matter which I had accumulated while teaching the sub- 
ject of contracts at the Harvard Law School. It has not been 
jnracticable to distinguish in the American notes between the late 
Mr. Waldos work and my own. Where I have thought I could 
make an improvement I have done so, and few of the notes are 
in the exact form in which Mr. Wald left them, but the great 
bulk of the work — not only the collection of cases, but the 
statement of their effect and the comment upon them — is Mr. 
Wald's. 

Sir Frederick Pollock has unfortunately never fully com- 
pleted his book on contracts. In the preface to the fourth edition 
he expressed the hope of filling in later editions gaps left by the 

[iii] 



IT PREFACE. 

omissions of such topics as the performance and discharge of 
contracts. The chapter entitled Duties under Contract, first 
inserted in the fifth edition, is the only chapter, however, which 
has been added by the author, and this, though excellent as far 
as it goes, is not a full presentation of the subject with which it 
deals. In order to make this edition, so far as possible, a com- 
plete treatise on the law of contracts, I have written a chapter 
on the discharge of contracts and portions of chapters on promises 
for the benefit of a third person and on the repudiation of con- 
tracts. The responsibility for these additions is wholly mine. 
They are included in pages 237-278, 333-369, 811-880. 

The American annotations are printed in full lines at the 
bottom of the pages and are numbered with arabic figures^ 
being thus readily distinguishable from the English notes, which 
are printed in half lines and headed with italic letters. In a 
few instances additional m-atter has been inserted in the English . 
notes, but such additions are always in brackets. The English 
text has not been altered. 

My thanks are due to Sir Frederick Pollock for his cordial 
assent to my request for permission to prepare this edition. 

SAMUEL WILIISTON. 

Cambbidge, November 1, 1905. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

AOBEEMENT^ FbOPOSAL, AI7I> AoOSPTANOS. 

PAGE. 

Nature of contract 1 

Definitions 2 

Agreement : nature of consent required 3 

Obligation 4 

Ways of declaring consent 6 

Promise 6 

Contract 7 

Void agreements 7 

Voidable contracts 8 

Bules as to proposal and acceptance 9 

Express and tacit contracts, and quasi-contracts 10 

Proposals to unascertained persons (contracts by offer of reward, Ac.) . . 13 

Discussion of cases 15 

Difficulties considered 19 

Theory of floating obligation inadmissible 21 

Other kinds of general proposal 24 

Contract by indirect communication 26 

Revocation of offer 27 

Determination of offer 29 

Communication of revocation. . . ./^. , 30 

Dickinson v. Dohha considered 32 

Can there be double acceptance? 33 

Communication of acceptance. . ^ 35 

Contracts by correspondence 37 

Artificial theories on the subject 38 

State of English authority 39 

Effect of death of proposer 42 

Certainty of acceptance 43 

Agreements in terms where consent not final 45 

Certainty of terms of agreement 48 

Illusory promises 49 

Construction of tacit acceptances 02 

Promises by deed may bind without acceptance 55 



CHAPTER 11. 

Capacity of Pabties. 

Variations in persoqal capacity 58 

Artificial persons • 59 

Limitations of capacil^. 59 

InfanU, General statement 59 

Contracts voidable, not void 59 

Supposed distinction between void and voidable contracts now ex- 
ploded «0 



Yl TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAm. 

Special classes of contracts considered on this point* . . . • • 61 

Avoidance of infant's contracts 66 

Infant's Relief A<rt.. ISVjl. ,...,. ^.. ' ■ 69 

Liability dh obh^tidos tnddSnt to property 73 

On beneficial contract 74 

For necessaries 76 

Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 2 76 

What are necessaries 78 

Certain contracts of infants biiicUhg liy custom 81 

Bjr statute 81 

Liability of infants on wrongs collateral to oontract 82 

In equity, dh tefyi^^sihtaHriOnSof fttll kge 84 

.Sid>Bequent contract after full age prevails , 86 

2. Married Women^ Can contract only as to separate propttfty. .' 87 

I%i$ mariti and survivorship 89 

Cannot revive barred debt by acknowledgment. 90 

Exceptions at common law JM) 

Custom of London as to married woman trading Hloae 91 

Agreements for separation between husband nwL wife alone 9^ 

Statutory exceptions: judicial separatioB, fte ^3 

Equitable doctrine of separate estate 94 

Married Women's Property Aet, 1882 M 

3. Lunatia and Drunken Pereont* Old law 9'8 

Modem law: contract not ndS but V0ld*b1« lOO 

4. Cimvidi, 4c m 

Extension of capacity l6it 

1. Agmwy IQ5 

Authority of agent lOH 

Contracts by authorized agents 107 

When agent known to be such, there is contract with nrfliiil^ Wt 

If principal named, frima faoie no oontract with afeent l&t 

If principal not named, fnima faeie there is ettntffc^ With ilg^it 10.8 

These rules subject to evidence of contrary int#liiibn Ill 

When agent not known to be sueh, there Is ^gwi^fally eObitaet l^itfc 

undisclosed princinal 112 

Exceptions to and limits of the rule 118 

Rights of other contracting party 115 

Professed arent not having authority cannot stie on the contract 'if 

a responsible principal has been named Il7 

Nor be sued on it 110 

But may be sued on implied warranty 4)f authority 110 

Where no principal named, or one who could not be VespmittlbU, pro- 
fessed agent is treated as principal 12) 

2. Artificial PerBons 124 

Nature of artificial persons '. 124 

Corporations : common law doctrine 126 

Capacities of corporations In themselves 128 

As limited by positive rules 133 

As determined oy purposes of incorporation 139 

Application of partnership law 134 

Public policy and interests of the public 138 

Corporations cannot bind themselves by negotiable Instruments: ex- 
planations of this 143 

Exceptions 146 

Conflicting theories in U. S 146 

Corporations bound by estoppel, Ac 147 



XABLE or COVTEirZS. vu 



FoBM o? CoNTiLvgi;, 

L rormAHiif.i^XQrh.MtipMkldm 148 

Mo4<i7i piiiicipUs9.«B.to ivqiiirQ]|i»ijt8 of form UM 

Position of informal contracts in ancient law 149 

Formal and informal contrjiqts. ia Eogoaii le^w 149 

Archaic modes of proof . . . . J '..*...'. 150 

The deed in English medieval law 150 

Remedies on conttiictft: diift in ocnetfuit or tAiApU eontract 151 

Action of oorenant 152 

Action of account 153 

11. 7*^ AoHom o/ A93umpeit 154 

IntFodnciion of assumpsit to supply remedy on executory a^r^meuts.. 154 

nL Modem RequiremenU o* Form 157 

Modmi law: requirements of form exceptional 157 

Contracts oi record 157 

Contracts subject to special forms 15ii 

1. ContraoU of Corporations 159 

Old law; rctjuirement of seal . . .% 159 

Modem exceptions 161 

Trading corporations: eoptracts in course of business 162 

N6<i-t¥)tding eor{>oHiktion8': contracts necessary and incidental to cpr- 

porate purposes 164 

Municipal corporations, Ac. 164 

Appofdlmtots of officers . ' 165 

Executed contracts with corporations 166 

Statutory forms of contract 167 

Summary . . . . .'.' *. 168 

2. Jfegotiahle Infirumento 168 

S. Staiuionf Forms 168 

A. Btaiute of Frauds 168 

Guarantees 169 

Agreements upon consideration of marriage 172 

Interests in land .• 172 

Agreements not to be performed within a year 175 

Sale of goods 178 

The ** note or meiporandum " 178 

Transfers of sHij^ and copyright 183 

B. Marine Insurance 183 

C. Transfer of Shores . 184 

B. Aekmowledfff n e n t of Barred Debts 184 



CHAPTBa IV. 

OoNSmSBATION. 

Dainil^qp. of ^i|8i.4^fktiqn 185 

Oi^ltuitous proi|i(sM -. 186 

Esfly histoid of the doctripe 187 

Aamippsit '. 189 

OssM (4 Ronm law 189 

Baief|t V> promisor* 192 

Adequacy of <^i|8id^(«tto|i. 198 

P*«t eoaiMlQil^on^ iacCeeli^l 199 

Aaknowledgment of bi^rTjed 4ebts 201 

Ikvmises to peiionn duties already asistfng 203 



7U1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

^ . PAGB. 

Performanoe of obligation to third person 206 

Ck>n8ideration for discharge of contract 210 

For variation of contract 212 

Forbearance to sue 212 

Compromises 214 

Treatment of gratuitous contracts under seal in equity 216 

Imperfect gifts . 218 

CHAPTER V. 

PXBSONS AFFECTED BY OoNTBAOT. 

Preliminarj 220 

Definitions and rules 221 

1. Parties must be certain 223 

2. Third persons not bound 224 

Apparent exceptions 225 

Novation 227 

3. Third persons not entitled by the contract itself 228 

Apparent exceptions 228 

Trusts 230 

Exception of certain provisions for children 231 

Statutory exceptions 232 

Contract for benefit of third person gives him no rig^t of action 

at law 233 

Authorities in equity 233 

Third person cannot be empowered to sue for convoiience of parties. . 235 

Negotiable instruments payable to holder of office 236 

Law of the United Stotes 237 

Distinctions of property rights, agency, novation, ke 237 

Contracts for the sole benefit of a third person 242 

Contracts to discharge a debt of the promisor 244 

Law of Massachusetts denies rights to sole beneficiary 247 

Law of other States 240 

Life insurance and other illustrative cases 251 

Law as to promises to discharge a debt 255 

Assumption of mortgages 260 

Other illustrative cases 266 

Rights of the promisee 268 

Creditor's right to sue both debtor and new promisor 270 

Defences 271 

Rescission or release ' 273 

Contracts under seal ^ 276 

Incidental beneficiaries * 277 

4. Assignment of contracts 278 

Notice to debtor * 281 

Assignment " subject to equities " 284 

Assignment free from equities by agreement of pairties: transfer- 
able debentures 287 

Negotiable instruments 200 

Rights of bona fide holder 291 

What instruments may be negotiable 292 

How instruments may cease to be negotiable 294 

Transferable shares 295 

Obligations attached to property 297 

Covenants running with land 298 

Bills of lading 302 

Conflict between common law and equity as to burden of covenants 

running with the land 304 

The foundation of the equitabk doctrine 305 



TABLE OF C0KTEKT8. IZ 

CHAPTER VI. 
, Duties UNBE^t Contbaot. 

PAGB. 

1. Interpretation generally 307 

Necessity of interpretation 307 

Agreements in writing: rule against parol variations 310 

Apparent exceptions 311 

Extrinsic evidence 313 

Customs of the country 316 

Trade usages, &c 310 

Construction : preference of general intention 317 

Special rules of construction .• . . . 318 

2. drder and Mutuality of Performance 320 

Order of performance in executory contracts 320 

Modem authorities look to general intention of contract 320 

Effect of default 324 

Agreements presumed to be entire 325 

3. Default in fu^8t or other instalments of Diaoontinuoua Performanoe .,. . 327 

Sales for delivery by instalments 327 

Effect of default in instalments 327 

Sale of Goods Act 332 

4. Repudiation of Contracts 333 

A. Rescission 334 

Restitution of money, land, chattels, Ac 334 

Where no performance 338 

Repudiation or breach sufficient 330 

Election must be manifested 345 

Civil law and Indian Contract Act 346 

B. Action on the Contbact 347 

Lord Cockbum's rule . 348 

Inconsistent with American decisions 348 

True rule 350 

Contract not terminated 351 

Election need not be manifested 353 

Prospective inability to perform 354 

C. Tdce When Right of AcnoN Accrxtes 355 

Explanation of early decisions 356 

Hochster y, De la Tour 359 

Law in England and America 360 

Distinction between defence and right of action 361 

Distinction between action for restitution and action on the 

contract 362 

Ko inconsistency in allowing full damages before all performance 

due 362 

Time of performance fixed by act of the other party 363 

Contracts to marry 365 

Practical convenience 366 

Hiustrations of inconvenience 367 

Measure of damages 360 

CHAPTER Vn. 

Unlawful Agreements. 

Of unlawfal agreements in general, and their classification 373 

A. Contrary to positive law 374 

Agreements to comTnit an offence 374 

Agreements wrongiul against third persons 376 



ZABLK OF OOKXSirTS. 

PAOK. 

Fraud on creditors 377 

Dealings between creditor and principal debtor to prejudice of * 

surety ; 383 

Dealings by agent, executof , te,, against his duty*. 386 

Settlements in fraud of marital right ' 3IK 

Married Women's Wo^er^' Act, 1882 393 

Marriages withiA pjTpt^ibi^ d^g^ees 395 

Royal Marriage Act .*.' 397 

A^eem^nts illegal by statute 397 

Riires for construction 6t prohibitory st^tut^ 398 

When apeements may Be not Void' thougii foirbiddeq. or Toid ivith- 

' oiit'beihg ille^l .' ',', ,\\.\'.\ ; 404 

Wagers . . . l.',. 405 

Agreements contrary to morals or good manners 4H) 

A^'cements in'6onsiderat{o|i of illicit cohabitation 411 

Validity of separation cteeds 413 

Amenient for future 8ej)aration void 418 

Fublicaf ion of immoral or sedQiious works is sot merely inunornl 

bujb »4 offence .*!.'... i .. ! 41S 

Contracts as to slaves 420 

Agreements' contrary to public policy 421 

Connection of the doctrine with ttie common law as to w&gers 421 

Modern extent of the doctrine : Egerton v. BrfhumUAO 428 

Public policy as to external relations of the State 426 

Trading with enemies 426 

Effect of war on subsisting contracts 427 

Negotiable instruments between England and hostile coimtry 429 

Hostilities against friendly States 430 

Trade with Denigerents not unlawful 431 

Foreign revenue laws 431 

Public policy as to internal government : attempts to influence legis- 
lation, &c., by improper means 434 

Sale of offices, Ac. ... .'.* 438 

Assignment* of salaries 439 

'' 'Stifling prosecutions'' and compounding offences 440 

Compromise of election petition 443 

Secret agreement' as to conduct of windiog-up 445 

Agreements for reference to arbitration: extent of their validity 

at common law, anil by the Arbitration Act 445 

Maintenance and champerty 449 

Rules as to chainper^ 452 

Purchase of subject-matter of suit 455 

Statute of Henry Vlll. against buying pretended titles 457 

lifaantenahce in generaji 460 

Public policy as to duties of individuals 461 

A^ireements as to cufitody ^ c;hildren 461 

Discretion of equity 462 

Custody of In/ants Act 463 

Insurance of seamen's wages 463 

Agreements against social duty 464 

Public policy as to' freedom of individual action 464 

Agreements in restraint of marriage 465 

Agreements to influence testators 466 

Agreements in restraint of trade 467 

General principles 467 

Early history of the doctrine 471 

Freedom of trfi,<j^ upheld by l^e eommoa law 47^ 

Particular restraint admitted i74 

Restrictive covenants in l7th century 474 

Limits of space . . ' 475 

Moidern rule as to limits 475 



TABLB OF CONTENTS. XI 

PAGE. 

Table of dedsions linoe 1854 478 

Measure of distances 480 

Indian Contract Act 480 

Contracts to serve for life or exclusively 481 

D. Judicial treatment of unlawful agreements in general 481 

Independent promises, where some lawful and some not 482 

Where consideration or immediate object imlawful 483 

Unlawful ulterior intention 485 

Connection with imlawful design already executed 480 

Securities for payment under unlawful agreement are void 401 

Extrinsic evidence of illegality 402 

Specific unlawful intention, how shown or contradicted 403 

When payments can be recovered : rule as to party in pari delicto . . 406 

Exceptions: duty of agents to principal unaffected 408 

Money recoverable where agreement not executed 502 

Where the payment was compulsory 503 

In eauity where circumstances of fraud, ke,, as between the parties. 504 

Final statement of the rule and qualification 505 

Conflict of laws in space 506 

Generally lew loci eoluiUmie prevails 506 

Exceptions — when a prohibitory municipal law is not merely local. 506 

When agreement is immoral iure gentium 508 

Treatment of slave contracts in English courts: Santoe v. Illidge., 500 
Other instances of conflict of laws as to validity of agreement 

considered 511 

Agreements against interests of the local sovereign 513 

Conflict of laws in time: subsequent illegality dissolves contract.. 514 
Rules as to knowledge of parties collected 516 



CHAPTER VIIL 

Imfossi^lb Agkebmentb. 

Performance of agreement may be impossible in itself, by law, or in fact 

(i. e., by reason of particular state of facts) 518 

General statement of law 520 

Agreement impossible in itself is void 520 

Practical impossibility 522 

Logical imp<Msibility n. 522 

Impossibility merely relative to promisor no excuse 523 

Agreements impossible in law 524 

Performance becoming impossible by law 525 

Buying one's own property 526 

Impossibility in fact no excuse where contract absolute 527 

Performance forbidden by foreign law 530 

Obligation to pay rent when premises accidentally destroyed 530 

Exceptions in cases of events not contemplated by the contract 534 

Performance dependent on" specific thing existing 536 

Appleby V. Meyers 637 

Impossibility at date of contract from existing state of things not known 

to the parties 530 

Sale of cargo already lost: Couturier v. Hastie 540 

Covenants to work mines. &c., Clifford v. Watts 541 

Construction of express exceptions in certain contracts : 542 

^rformance dependent on life or health of promisor 543 

Robinson V. Davison 544 

Anomalous decision on contract to marry in Hall v. Wright, 546 

Limits of rule as to personal services 547 



Xll TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

PAOBi 
Rights already acquired under contract not discharged by subsequent 

impossibility ; * 548 

Substituted contracts .!..!.!!!!!!!.!!!. 549 

Impossibility by default o' either party: such default of promisor is 

equivalent to breach of contract 549 

Default of promisee discharges promisor 549 

Alternative contracts where one alternative is or becomes impossible. . . . 552 

Conditional contracts 654 

Impossible conditions in bonds: peculiar treatment of them 555 

Indian Contract Act on impossible agreements 558 



CHAPTER IX. 
Mistake. 

Pabt I.— Of Mistake in General, 

Classification of conditions affecting validity of consent in agreement: 

Mistake, Fraud, Ac 661 

A. Mistake in general 504 

Generally it is in itself inoperative either to avoid civil liabilities 

(Except in certain special cases, and exc^t so far as in the case 
of purchaser for value without notice ignorance is a condition of 

acquiring rights) 664 

Or to take away or alter existing rights 570 

Or to alter construction of contract 572 

Saving as to variation by mutual consent 572 

Special cases where mistake important 574 

B. Mistake of Fact and of Law 574 

Limits of the distinction : where certainly or probably not applicable. 575 

Common mistake and rectification of instruments 576 

Renunciation of rights 577 

Recovering back money paid 679 

Pabt II. — Mistake as Excluding Trtie Consent. 

Division of cases under this head 681 

A. Error as to nature of transaction 583 

Thoroughgood's case 583 

Foster v. Mackinnon 586 

Cases in equity 587 

Error as to legal character of transaction 589 

B. Error as to the person of the other party 590 

Analogous doctrines : satisfaction by stranger 593 

Personal contracts not transferable 594 

Agency 597 

C. Error as to the subject-matter 697 

With rejrard to identity of specific thing 599 

Inclusion of parcels by mistake on sale of land 600 

Contracts to take shares exceptional 602 

Error with regard to kind, quantity, &c 603 

Error in price 605 

Error .as to quality inoperative unless material and common to 

both parties 606 

Even if error of one party known to. but not caused by, the other. . 609 
Cases diRtinguished where misdescription of estate on sale entitles 

purchaser to rescind 61 1 

Error as to existence of subject-matter 611 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. ZUi 

PAOEL 

Purchase of one's own property 015 

Herein of ignorance of law: Cooper v. Phihha 615 

AssignmenU of leases for lives 617 

Where only one party is ignorant of the material fact 617 

Where fundamental error produced by fraud or misrepresentation. 619 

Error as to sample in case of sale by sample 619 

Remedies of party to void agreement 620 

Election to adopt agreement 621 

Past III. — Mistake in Expressing True Consent, 

Correction of mistake in expressing intention 622 

1. Rules of construction common to law and equity 622 

Effect given to general intent 623 

2. Peculiar rules of construction in equity 625 

A. Restriction of general words 625 

B. Stipulations as to time 626 

Where time of essence of contract 628 

Indian Ck>ntract Act thereon 629 

C. Relief against penalties , 629 

S. Peculiar defences and remedies derived from equity 633 

A. Defence against specific performance 633 

Effect of Statute of Frauds herein 635 

B. Rectification of instruments 636 

Oral evidence how far admissible 637 

Real intention must be distinctly proved, and common to all 

parties 639 

Quasi estoppel of one party acting as other's agent in framing in- 
strument 641 

Reformation of settlements 642 

Who is entitled to have deed rectified 643 

Rectification as alternative to cancellation 64J 

Disentailing deeds 644 

Agreement executed by Court cannot be rectified 644 

Cronsent orders 645 



CHAPTER X. 

MiSBEPBESENTATION AND FsAXTD. 
Pact I. — Oenerally. 

Of misrepresentation in general 646 

As to innocent statements 647 

Deceit in relation to contract 647 

Judicial language as to ** constructive fraud " formerly ambiguous 648 

Estoppel 648 

Representation as term of contract 649 

The doctrine of '* making representations good " 649 

Pabt II. — Misrepresentation and non-disoloswe. 

So general positive duty of disclosure 650 

But such duties implied in certain contracts 651 

Classes of contracts specially treated 652 

Representations amounting to Warranty or Condition 652 

Distinctions between warranty and condition on sale of goods 652 



XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Cases specially treated: PAOB. 

A. Insurance 6S»6 

Marine Insurance ^ 656 

Life Insurance 657 

Fire Insurance 658 

B. Suretyship and Guaranty 659 

Extent of creditor's duty to surety 660 

C. Sales of land 662 

Specific performance and compensation: three classes of cases dis- 
tinguished 663 

General duty of vendor to describe property correctly 669 

Wilde V. (Hhson considered 671 

D. Family Settlements . . .' 673 

E. Partnership, contracts to take shares in companies, and contracts 

of promoters 674 

The Companies Act, 1900 676 

Contract to marry not exceptional 677 

VolunUry gifts 678 

Pabt III. — Fraud or Deceit, 

Fraud generally but not always includes misrepresentation 678 

Right of rescission 680 

Fraudulent representation or concealment 680 

" Active concealment " 681 

Fraud as actionable wrong: reckless ignorance equivalent to knowledge 

of untruth 682 

Representation of expectation as present fact 683 

Special rule r.3 • to sales by auction 684 

Marriage an exception : not avoided by fraud 685 

But knowledge of nature of ceremony essential 685 

Consent of third person procured by fraud is voidable 686 

• 

CHAPTER XL 
The Right of Rescission. 

General rules as to rescission for misrepresentation or fraud 687 

The representation relied on must be of fact 6S8 

Not of mere matter of opinion 69 1 

The representation must be such as to induce the contract 693 

Effect of party misled having means of knowledge 693 

Materiality of representation 696 

Contracts connected with previous fraud 698 

Representation must be by a party to the contract 693 

Representations of agents and liability of principals 699 

Statements of directors and promoters 702 

Agent always liable for his own wrong 703 

Representation must be in same transaction 703 

Rights of party misled : option to rescind 705 

Election how to be made 707 

Right exercisable by and against representatives 712 

No rescission where the former state of things cannot be restored. .'. 712 

No rescission against innocent purchasers for value 715 

Distinction in cases of obtaining goods by fraud where no property passes. 718 

Repudiation of shares 719 

Rescission must be within reasonable time, i. c, a time not such as to 

show acquiescence 721 

Special duties of shareholders in companies. 723 

Result of unfounded charges of fraud 724 

Cancellation of instruments 725 



lABLB OF 00NTENI8. XT 

CHAPTER XII. 

DUBBSS AND UnDUS InFI.TTBNOB, ..^ 

L IhuuM at OomnMm Law 728 

Reeorery of money paid under compnlsion 730 

n. The equitable doctrine of Undue Influence 732 

PrMumption of influence from confidential relations 734 

Rolea as to burden of proof 738 

Rules as to voluntary Bettlements 738 

Presumptions against and duties of persons in fiduciary relations... 739 

Family arrangements 743 

Particular cases where influence presumed 744 

Relations analogous to parent and child 744 

To solicitor and client 746 

Spiritual influence 746 

Undue influence without fiduciary relation 747 

Duty of trustees 748 

Undervalue material only as evidence 749 

Whether in itself a groimd for refusing specific performance 752 

Exceptional protection of expectant heirs and reversioners 765 

Old law as to sales of reversions 758 

Act of 1867 759 

Rules of equity as to '* catching bargains " not affected 759 

What are "catching bargains" 760 

Burden of proof 761 

Terms of relief 762 

The Money-Lenders Act, 1900 763 

Sales of reversionary interests 764 

"Surprise" and "improvidence'' not substantive ground of relief 

against contracts, but only evidence of fraud, &c 765 

Rig^t of rescission for undue influence 767 

Confirmation and acquiescence 769 

Special questions as to relation of solicitor and client 770 



CHAPTER XIII, 

AOREEMEITTS OF ImPEBFECT OBLIGATION. 

Katore of Imperfect Obligations : Right without remedy 772 

1. Remedy lost. Statutes of Limitation 773 

Rights of creditor notwithstanding loss of remedy by action 774 

Ac^owledgment 777 

What is sufficient acknowledgment 777 

Statutes of Limitation belong to lew fori 779 

2. Conditions precedent to remedy not satisfied 782 

A. Statute of Frauds, s. 4 782 

A law of procedure only, not of substance 784 

Results of informal agreement 785 

Where money paid 785 

Where agreement executed 787 

Part performance in equity 790 

Informal ante-nuptial agreements, and confirmation by post-nuptial 

writing 792 

Informal agreement as defence 794 

Distinction of equitable estoppel 795 

B. The " Slip " in marine insurance 795 

Recognition of it for collateral purposes by modem decisions 796 

Of stamp duties in general 798 



XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PACK. 

C. Statutes regulating profesmons 799 

Costs of uncertificated solicitors 800 

Medical practitioners • 801 

Medical Act, 1886 802 

Apothecaries Act 802 

Special questions on Medical Act 802 

3. No remedy at all 803 

Arbitrators 803 

Counsel's fees 803 

As to non-litigious business, or account with solicitor 804 

Judicial recognition of counsel's fees 806 

Solicitors* Remuneration Act, 1881 806 

Special agreements between solicitor and client 806 

Certain contracts of infants since Infants' Relief Act 807 

Tippling Act 807 

Trade Union agreements 808 

A converse case on repeal of usury laws 808 

Treatment of equitable obligations at Common Law 809 

Summary of results of this chapter 81f 



CHAPTER XIV. 
DiscHABOB OP Contracts. 

Methods of discharge 811 

Release 812 

Nature and effect of 812 

Effect of statutes 813 

Covenant to forbear 813 

Conditional release 811 

Construction 814 

Rescission by parol agreement 815 

Elements of such agreement 815 

Agreements before breach of unilateral contract to discharge the 

obligor 817 

Agreements to discharge a party to a bill or note 819 

Written contracts 821 

Contracts under seal 825 

Accord and satisfaction 828 

Definition 828 

Whether an accord is a valid contract 829 

Unexecuted no bar at law 831 

Equitable relief 833 

Accord if taken as satisfaction is a bar 834 

Sealed contracts 835 

Debts of record 836 

Requisites of satisfaction 837 

Check sent in satisfaction of a disputed claim 838 

Accord and satisfaction with a third person 840 

Cancellation and surrender 843 

Normal method of discharging specialties 843 

Bills and notes 844 

Simple contracts 844 

Alteration 845 

Common law rule — PigoVs case 845 

Distinction between conveyances and covenants 845 

Kinds of contract to which the rule is applicable 851 

Excusable alteration, authority, and ratification 852 

Effect of immaterial alterations 859 



lABLB OF 00NTBNT8. 



XVJl 



PAGE. 

Whmt altcimtioiis are material 860 

What alterations are immaterial 803 

Aasignmeiit of altered contracts 866 

When a debt survives the writing 868 

Alteration before execution 871 

Pleading and evidence 872 

Merger 874 

By judgment or bond 874 

Bequisites of merger 876 

Arhitmiion and avoard 877 

Authority revocable before award 878 

Arbitrator must follow authority 879 

Statutory arbitration 880 



APPENDIX. 



Note A. Terminology and fundamental conceptions of contract 881 

Note B. Authorities on contract by correspondence 882 

Note C. History of the equitable doctrine of separate estate 886 

Note I>. Authorities on limits of corporate powers 896 

Note E. Classification of contracts in Roman and Medieval Law 902 

Note F. Early authorities on assignments of choses in action 906 

Note 6. Occupations, dealings, &c., regulated or restrained by statute.. 909 

Note H. Bracton on fundamental error 913 

Note I. MisUke in wills 914 

Note K. On the supposed equitable doctrine of '' making representations 

good" 916 

Note Lk French law on '' inofficious " gifts and oaptatUm 922 

ii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



A. PAGB. 

A. A. Cooper Wagon Co. v. Wool- 

dridge 862 

A. R. Beck Co. v. Rupp 786 

A. Wiglit Co. V. Steinkemeyer ... 719 

Aftron V. Harlej 79 

Aaron's Reefs v. Twies 714 

Abbey r. BiUups 161 

p. CbAse 119 

Abbott p. Abbott 850, 857 

- V. BbjUj 01 

V. Creal 102 

v. Doane 208, 210 

I?. Draper 786 

V. Hapgood 121, 226 

P.Hunt 174 

p. Inakip 789 

p. Jaekaon 892 

■ p. Johnson 134 

p. McKinley 110 

p. Roae 586 

p. Shepard 39 

p. Sworder 754 

p. Treat 688 

Abel P. Alexander 206, 206 

. p. Boynton 469 

Abell p. Insurance Co 428 

Aberaman Ironworks Co. P. Wiek- 

ens 669 

Abemathy p. Wheeler 566 

Abraham p. Insurance Co. . . 677, 642 

Abrams p. Wingo 390 

Acer p. Hotchkiss 708 

Ackcnburgh v. McCool 390 

Acker p. Bender 834 

Ackerman r. Rubens 836 

Ackert v. Barker 451, 452 

Ackl<7 School District P. Hall.... 146 

-^— p. Westervelt 890 

Ackroyd p. Smith 304 

Acme Harvester Co. p. Butterfleld. 863 

Adair p. Adair 734 

p. Winchester 279 

Adam r. Meldnim 717 

p. Newbigging 714 

Adam, etc, Co. p. Stewart 716 

Adama p. Adams . . 49, 248, 253, 444 

792, 879 

p. Barrett 488 

p. Beall 67, 69 

P. Burbank 650 



PAGE. 

Adams p. Byerly 361, 365 

p. Coulliard 432, 486 

p. Cowen 748, 768 

p. Frye 866 

p. His Creditors 160 

p. Honness 216 

r. Irving Bank 729, 747 

p. Kuehn 258, 259, 266 

^— ' p. Leavens • 286 

p. LindseU 31, 882, 884 

r. Morgan 312 

— p. Nichols 528 

p. Palmer 685 

p. Rodarmel 286 

p. Sayre 388 

p. Schiffer 731 

p. South British Ins. Co. .. 448 

p. Stevens 802 

p. Stringer 728 

p. Union R. R. Co. 242, 250, 268 

p. Wadhams 268 

p. Yates 873 

Adams Coun^ p. Hunter 204 

Adams Radiator Works p. 

Schnader 51 

Adamson p. Lamb 820 

Addinell's Case 44 

Addison p. Cox 283 

Adkins p. Flemming 501, 502 

Adolph p. Minneapolis Ry. Co 583 

JEtruL Ins Co. p. Commonwealth. . 468 

p. Fowler 661 

^tna Life Ins. Co. r. Nexsen 363 

iBtnaNat. Bank p. Fourth Nat. 

Bank 258, 267 

Agar p. Atheneum Life Assur. 

Soc 900 

Aggs p. Nicholson 293 

Agricultural Cattle Ins. Co. p. 

Fit^erald 846, 848, 850 

Aguilar p. Aguilar 895 

Ah Foe p. Bennett 736 

Aheam p. Ayres 19 

Aheame r. Hogan 735, 746 

Ahem p. Baker 33 

Aigen p. Boston ft Me. R. R.. 257, 259 

Aiken p. Blaisdell 402, 486 

p. Nogle 178 

p. Short 580 

p. Western Union TeL Co.. . 264 



[xix] 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAQK. 

Ainsworth r. Mount Moriah Lodge. 532 
I?. Kitt 632 

V. Wilding 666 

Aitken v. Lang's Adm 42 

Aitkins v. Gamble 603 

Akerman, Re 776 

Akin V. Kellogg 691 

Alabama Ins. Co. r. Garner 658 

Alabama Land Co. v. Thompson . . 848 
Alaska Packers' Assoc, v. Do- 

menico 204 

Alaska Packing Assoc, v, Alaska 

Imp. Co 419 

Albany r. McNamara 11 

Albany City Sav. Inst. t?. Burdick. 639 

Albee v, Wyman 417 

Albert v. Perry 461 

Albert's Ex. t\ Ziegler's Ex. . 828, 844 

Albert Lea College v. Brown. 186, 187 

Albion Steel Wire Co. v, Martin . . 389 

Alcalda v. Morales 258 

Alden r. Hart 652 

Alderson t\ Langdale 869 

• r. Maddison 915, 918 

Alderton v. Buchoz 782 

Aldous V. Cornwell 859 

V, Hicks 260, 264 

Aldrich v. Ames 171 

■ V. Jackson 654 

r. Smith 859 

Alexander v. Brogley 584, 585 

V. Crosbie 638 

17. Dorsey 532 

— — t\ Gardner 359 

V. Hickox 845 

i\ McNear 880 

17. N. W. C. University 388 

r. Pierce 729 

t\ Swackhamer 592, 718 

Alfred v. Kankakee, etc., R. Co . . . 880 

Alger V. Anderson 390, 392 

r. Keith 694, 709 

t\ Scoville 170 

i\ Thacker 474 

Alie V. Nadeau 876 

Alison, Eo) parte 613 

Alkire r. Alkire 394 

Allaire v. Ouland 495 

Allard v. Lamirande 451 

Allcard t?. Skinner.. 733, 737, 738, 747 

769, 771 

r. Walker 577 

Allcock V. Moorhouse 299 

Allen V. Allen 62 

- V. Anderson 608 

V, Baker 547 

r. Berryhill 101 

r. Bryson 11 

V. Chouteau 47 

p. Coit 110 

t?. Dayison 249, 253 



PAOfi. 

Allen r. Doman 863 

V. Duffie 187 

r. Dunham 441 

V. First Nat. Bank 404 

V, Flood 225 

• V. Ford 707 

r. Frazee 452, 460 

V. Hammond 612, 614 

r. Harris 826, 829, 830, 878 

V. Hart 692 

r. Henly 386 

V, Jaquish 345 

r. Kirwan 18 

V, Leflore Co 747 

r. McNear 880 

r. Maine Cent. R. Co 571 

V. Milner 877 

17. Mut. Compress Co 61 

r. Pegram 122 

t7. Rouse 204 

r. St. Louis Bank 389 

17. Sanders 324 

V. Schuchardt 782 

17. Sharpe 384 

V, Smith . . . ., 786 

17. Thomas 238 

r. Turck 210 

V. Watson 878 

17. Willis 571 

17. Withrow 855 

Allen's Appeal 685 

Aller 17. Aller 217 

r. Pennell 550 

Alliance Bank 17. Broom 213 

Alliance Bank of Simla 17. Carey. 781 
Alliance Mut. L. Assn. Soc. t\ 

Welch 257 

Allis 17. Billings 61, 101 

Allison V. Abendroth 211 

r. Sutlive 114 

Allison Bros. Co. 17. Allison 640 

Allkins 17. Jupe 496, 910 

Allore r. Jewell 750, 768 

Ailsopp 17. Wheatcroft 480 

Almy V. Orme 377 

Alpers r. Hunt 452 

Alsop v. Riker 774 

Alston 17. Durant 731 

t 17. Richardson 675 

Alt V. Groff 82 

Althen t\ Vreeland 468 

Alton 17. First Bank 616 

r. Midland Ry. Co 84 

Alvanley r. Kinnaird 602 

Alvarez de la Rosa 17. Prieto 803 

Alves 17. Schlesinger 460 

Alvord V. Cook 388, 390 

17. Smith 14, 405 

17. Spring Valley Gold Co. . 266 

261, 262 
-— * V, SyracuM Say. Bank 187 



TABLE OF OASES. 



XXI 



PAGE. 

Ambler v. Cox 175 

Amer v. Folk 839 

American Assoc, v. Bear 593 

American Bank v. American Wood 
Paper Co 145 

r. Bangs 864 

r. Gluck 144 

1 r. Wall Paper Co 142 

American Broom Co. v. Addicks . . 332 
American Cotton Oil Co. r. Kirk. . 197 
American Ins Co. v, Bass Bros. .. 448 
American Life Ins. Co. v. McAden. 344 
American Live Stock Co. r. Chi- 
cago Live Stock Exchanffe Co. . 372 

American Mtge Co. v. Wright ... 69 
American Nat. Bank v. Klock. . . 261 

269, 272 
American Oak Leather Co. v. Por- 
ter 181 

American Pub. Co. v. Fisher 852 

r. Walker 349 

American Refrigerator Co. r. Chil- 
ton 197 

American Splane Co. v. Barber. . . 257 

276 
American Steamship Co. v. Younff. 731 
American Stravboard Co. v. Hal- 

deman Paper Co 298, 300 

American Telegraph Co. v. Len- 

nig 383 

American Unitarian Assoc, r. Mi- 

not 302 

Amerman v. Dean 306 

Ames V, Colbum 854 

V, Jackson 786 

r. Manhattan Ins. Co 873 

r. Moir 336, 408 

Ames-Brooks Co. r. Mtna. Ins. Co. 197 

Amey r. Granite State Ins Co 480 

Amonett r. Montague 272 

Amsden r. Jacobs 409 

Anchor Electric Co. r. Hawkes. . . 468 

Anchor Insurance Co. Case 578 

Anchor Mill Co. v. Railroad Co. . 302 

Ancliff V. June 464 

Anderson r. Adams 522 

r. Anderson 416 

r. Armstead 88 

1 V. Baxter 778 

r. Beard 108 

V. Bellenger 862 

V, Board of Public Schools. 18 

r. Burnett 693 

r. Eggers 11 

1 V, FiUgerald 658 

r. Haskell 342 

V. Jett 425, 468 

r. Kennedy 635 

p. Line 892 

r. May 528, 539 

9. Milkr 282 



PAGE. 

Anderson v. Moncrief 498 

17. Portland Mills 110 

' V. Powell 500 

V. Radcliffe 453, 455 

V, Rice 346 

V. Soward 69 

V, Standard Granite Co. . . . 839 

r V, Timberlake 107 

V, Van Alen 283 

V. Walter 585 

Anderson's Case 571 

Anderson County v. Beal 137 

Anderson Transfer Co. v. Fuller. . 160 

Anderton v, Shoup 110 

Anding v. Levy 515 

Andreae v. Redfield 779 

Andres v. Fry 160 

Andrew v. Boughey 828 

V. Brewing Assoc 498 

V. Spurr 577 

Andrews, Re 461 

V. Andrews 634, 640, 644 

V. Becker 284 

V. Belfield 51 

1 r. Burdick 852, 854 

t\ Cheney 346 

V. Jones 768 

V. Marrett 383 

V. Mockford 700, 705 

r. Salt 462 

i\ Simms 860 

• V, Schreiber 40 

Andrews Co. t?. Youngstown Co. . . 634 
Angell, Re 805 

r. Duke 173, 313, 633, 921 

Anglo-American Co. v. Davis Co. . 167 

r. Prentiss 30 

Anelo-Egyptian Navigation Co. v, 

Rennie 538 

Angier r. Eaton C. & B. Co 194 

Angus V, Scully 538 

Anheuser-Busch Assoc, i;. Mason. 486 

Anheuser-Busch Co. r. Bond 514 

Ankeney r. Harmon ^ . 890 

Ankeny v, Clark 343, 344 

Anketel v. Converse 568 

Ann, Re 96, 890 

Anonymous 334, 394, 685, 753 

Ansell V. Baker 876 

Anthony r. German Am. Ins. Co. 269 
V. Herman 261, 277 

p. Hutchins 747 

V. Mott 261 

Antisdel v. Williamson 264, 382 

Antoine r. Morshead 429 

V. Smith 413 

Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble... 352 

353, 560 

ApoUinaris Co. r. Scherer 298 

Apperson r. Cross 383 

V. Gogin 834 



TTIl 



TABLE OF OASES. 



PAOI. 

Applefaj V. Johiuoa 44 

r. Myen 637 

Appleton p. Tiimball 387 

Appleton Bank r. MeQilTray 576 

Arbenz v. Exley 631 

Arbuthnot v, Norton 440 

Archer r. Galilomia Lumber Co. 630 

1 p. Helm 176 

p. HudBon 786, 740, 744 

p. Stone 118 

Ardglaeee p. Muschamp 767 

Arend p. Smith 204, 210 

Arendale p. Morgan 716 

Argenti p. San Francisco 142, 161 

ArgoU P. Cheney 845, 846 

Arffus Co. P. Albany 181 

Arkanaas Smelting Co. p. Belden 

Co 595 

Arlington p. Hinds 268 

Armijo p. Abeytia 827, 836 

Armistead p. Brooke 776 

Armitage p. Widoe 67 

Armour p. Insurance Co 659 

Armstrong p. American Bank. . . . 409 
p. Armstrong 493 

p. Bank 292 

- r. Karshner 689 

- p. Kattenhom 791 

p. Levis 493 

p. McGhee 3 

r. Masten 878 

p. Noble 295 

— -* p. St. Paul, etc., Co 353 

p. School District 842 

r. Stokes 109, 116 

p. Toler 486, 489 

Arnault v. Arnault 736 

Amegaard p. Arnegaard 396 

Amett p. Cloudas 716 

p. Smith 831 

Arnold p. Alden 231 

p. Arnold 672, 667 

— — • p. Chesebrough 168 

p. Georgia R. ft B. Co 679 

p. Hagerman 703 

-^— r. Lyman 257 

p. Mayor of Poole 159, 165 

p. Nichols 258, 266, 272 

p. Richmond Iron Works. . . 101 

103 

p. Rothschild's Sons Co. . . . 46 

p. Teel 682 

Amot p. Pittston, etc., Coal Co. . 468 

486 

p. Woodbum 296 

Arrison p. Harmstead. . 847, 849, 850 

851 

Arrowsmith, Ea parte 909 

Arthur p. Blackman 636 

r. Gordon 30 

— ^ r. Griswold 702 



PAfiB. 

Arthur P. Palatine Ins. Co 659 

p. Wynne 547 

Artman p. Ferguson 893 

Arundel p. Gardiner 496 

Arundel's Case 127 

Ashbrook p. Hite 346 

Ashbumer p. Parrish 439 

Ashbury Ry. Carriage and Iron 
Co. p. Riche. .134, 136, 139, 143, 624 

902 

Ashby P. Smith 386 

Ashcraft p. Allen 649 

p. De Armond 102 

Ashcroft P. Butterworth 19 

Asher p. Brock 794 

Ashley p. Henahan 11 

Ashley's Case 710 

Ashling p. Boom 799 

Ashmore p. Cox 369, 630, 659 

Ashton p. Dashaway Assoc 132 

p. Thompson 735, 737 

Ashurst's Appeal 389 

Asiatic Banking Corporation, Ea 

parte 24, 287 

Askey p. Williams 79, 81 

Aspden p. Nixon 876 

p. Seddon 301 

Atchison p. Pease 176 

Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. P. Eng- 
lish 176, 789 

r. Johnson 451 

Athenaum Life Assurance Soc. p. 

Pooley 289 

Atherfold p. Beard 422 

Atherton p. Low 608 

— H p. Roche 677, 643 

Athey p. McHenry 634 

Atkins p. Farr 843 

Atkinson p. Allen 729 

p. Bell 337 

p. Denby 504, 732 

p. Hawdon 869 

p. Railroad Co 140 

p. Ritchie 514, 527 

Atlantic, etc., Coal Co. p. Mary- 
land Coal Co 639 

Atlantic Dock Co. p. New York. . 842 

Atlas Nat. Bank p. Holm 470 

Atlee p. Backhouse 728 

— H p. Bartholomew 107, 181 

p. Fink 390 

Attaway p. Third Bank 439 

Attenborough p. St. Katharine's 

Dock Co 716, 713 

Attorney-General p. G. E. Ry. 

Co 134, 139, 902 

p. Jacobs Smith 231 

p. London Cotmty Council . . 902 

p. Railway Co. 139 

p. Ray 668 

r. Sitwell 638 



TABLE OF GASB8. 



xzm 



PAOB. 

Attornej-Qeneral v. Whitney 875 

AttomfjB mnd Solicitors Ait, Be. 452 

Attwood r. Small 693, 694 

Attj r. Parish 344 

Atwater p. Manville 500 

Atwell r. Jenkins 66, 100 

Atwood V. Fisk 488 

Anhom Works r. Shults 187 

Andenried's Appeal 735, 746 

Auditor p. Ballard 14 

Anerbaeh r. Le Sueur MUl Co.. . . 144 

Aulick r. Wallace 622 

Aolt P. Dustin 349, 361 

Aoltman v. Olson 585, 687 

p. Waddle 461 

Aoltman A Taylor Co. p. Mead. . . 343 
Austerberry p. Corporation of Old- 
ham 300, 302 

Austin p. Burgess 515 

p. Daris 190 

— i— p. .Guardians of Bethnal 

Green 159, 165 

— « p. G. W. Ry. Co 669 

p. Harkham 380 

p. Wack's 627, 628 

Austin Co. p. Bahn 206 

Australian Royal Mail, etc., Co. p. 

Marzetti 163 

Austria, Emperor of P. Day and 

Kossuth 420 

Austrian p. Springer 181 

Autcliff p. McAnally 528 

Anten p. Gruner 586 

Averbeck p. Hall 441 

ATerett P. Lipsoombe 633 

Arerill p. Heidge 30 

p. Wood 816 

ATery p. Bowden 345, 360, 524 

p. Everett 91 

1 p. Halsey 496 

p. Langford 477 

r. Vansickle 891 

Azford P. Reid : 96 

Azson p. Blakely 90 

Axtel p. Chase 242, 343, 346 

Aycock p. Kimbrough 175 

Ayer p. Warren 91 

r. Western Union Tel. Co. . 604 

Ayer's Appeal 249, 250, 255 

Ayers p. Bums 80, 81 

p. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. . 204 

p. IMxon 261, 269 

' P. South Australian Bank- 
ing Co 72 

Ajent p. Jenkins. . 412, 413, 488, 498 

Ayles p. Cox 667 

Aylesford, Earl of P. Morris. . 755, 756 
757, 768, 769, 760, 761, 763 

AylliTe p. Tracy 180 

Aylsworth r. Whitcomb 739 



PAGE. 

Ayr Harbour Trustees p. Oswald. 138 

Ayres P. Gallup 259, 267 

p. Desportes 508 

p. Probasco 855 

Asdmar p. Casella 608, 653 

B. 

B. F. Bruce, The 655 

B. S. Green Co. P. Blodgett 436 

Babb p. Clemson 848, 850 

Babbage P. Coulbum 448 

Babbett P. Young 108 

Babcock p. Bonnell 571 

p. Chase 249, 251, 253 

p. Hawkins 834, 836 

p. Lawson 716, 718 

V. Murray 872 

• P. Read 174 

p. Trice 652, 653 

Bach p. Ballard 175 

p. Tuch 708 

Bache p. Billingham 447 

Backer p. Pyne 695 

Backus P. Byron 450 

p. Spalding 286 

Bacon p. ^onham 459 

p. Cobb 528 

p. Green 342 

: P. Hooker 851, 852 

p. Reich 876 

P. Woodward 248, 249, 253 

Badger p. Celler 452 

p. Phinney 68 

Badger Mining Co. P. Drake 109 

Badger Paper Co. p. Rose 187 

Badlam p. Tucker 557 

Badische Anilin, etc., Fabrik P. 

Schott 426, 477 

Baehr p. Clark 718 

p. Wolff 441, 605 

Baer r. Knewitz 261 

Baer's Sons Co. p. Cutting Fruit 

Packing Co 449 

Bagaley p. Waters 258 

Bagge P. Slade 207, 838 

Bagley p. Cleveland Rolling Mill 

Co 653 

p. Findlay 336 

p. Fletcher 63 

\ p. Peddie 633 

Bagnall r. Carlton 676 

Bagshaw r. Seymour 704 

Bagster p. Earl of Portsmouth ... 99 

Baham p. Bach 684 

Bahia and San Francisco Ry Co., 

Re 289 

Bailey p. Austrian 197 

p. Bamberger 67, 68 

p. Butler 775 

V. Dillon 415 



XXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 
Bailey 17. Oilman Bank 859, 870 

i\ Harris 403 

Bailey r. Hemenway 174 

— ' — V. Hope Ins. Co 39 

V. Insurance Co 577 

r. Mogg 515, 802 

r. Ogden 179 

' V, Piper 668 

r. Smock 696 

r. Stephens 304 

V. Tillinghast 598 

Baillie v, Edinburgh Oil Oas- 

Light Co 880 

Baillie's Case 592 

Bally V. De Crespigny . . 523, 525, 534 

— *— V. Smith 292 

Baily's Case 30 

Bain v. Brown 390 

r. Buff 891 

V, Fothergill 611 

Bainbridge v. Downie 112 

— — p. Firmstone 194 

Bainbrigge v. Browne 744 

Baines v. Oeary 477 

r. Woodfall 46 

Baird v. Boehmer 483 

1;. Mayor 706, 709, 721 

p. Sheehan 470 

Baird's Case 135 

Baker r. Baker 685, 875 

p. Bradley 744 

— H— V, Briggs 386 

V, Bryan 253 

• V, Cartwright 677 

r. Cooper 417 

v. Eglin 245, 258 

p. Farris 440 

P. Flick 173 

p. Hedgecock 477 

V. Holt 43 

p. Humphrey 387 

p. Johnson 525 

p. Johnson Co 30, 43 

p. Jordan 393 

p. Kennett 66, 67, 69 

p. Kinsey 295 

— *— p. Lever 722 

p. Loader 746 

p. Massey 576 

p. Maxwell 695 

V. Monk 750, 765 

p. Morton 729 

p. Read ^43 

p. Stone 82 

■ V, Stonebraker's Admrs. ... 781 

p. Whiting 387 

Bal r. Van Staden 39 

Bald Eagle Valley R. Co. P. Mit- 

tany Valley R. Co 302 

Baldwin p. Barrows , . . . 585 



PAGE. 

Baldwin p. Central Bank 214 

p. Emery 257, 268, 269 

Baldwin p. Flagg 407 

p. F088 579 

p. Insurance Co 577 

p. Kerlin 639 

—*— p. Lessner 346 

p. Liverpool, etc., Co 731 

p. Marqueze 353 

— — p. National Hedge Co 636 

p. Parker 736 

. V. Potter 498 

p. Rosenman . 379 

p. Schiappacasse 107 

Baldy p. Hunter 431 

p. Stratton 411 

Balfour v. Ernest 293, 898, 899 

Ball p. Campbell 408 

p. Dowd 449 

p. Newton 14 

p. Storie 636, 638 

Ballanoe p. Vanuxem 326 

Ballard r. Brown 405 

p. Burton 185 

— *— p. Franklin Ins. Co 870 

r. Oreen 409 

V. Pope 495 

Bal len tine r. Robinson 336 

Ballingham Co. p. Brisbois 285 

Ballman p. Burt 331 

Ballou p. Billings. . 335, 339, 344, 345 

p. Hale 175 

p. Taylor 775 

Baltimore p. Chester 91 

p. Peat 299 

p. Schaub 332 

Baltimore Breweries Co, v, Cal- 
lahan 176 

Baltimore Coal Tar & Mfg. Co. p. 
Fletcher 112, 115 

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. P. Dia- 
mond Coal Co 497 

Baltimore, etc., R. Co. P. Brydon. 52 

p. O'Donnell 514 

p. Stankard 449 

Baltimore Ry. Co. p. Voigt 436 

Baltimore Retort Co. p. Mali 218 

Baltimore Sugar Co. P. Campbell 

& Zell Co 392 

Baltzen p. Nicolay 119 

Bamfield P. Rogers 678, 738 

Banchor r. Mansel 486 

Bancroft r. Dumas 399, 402 

p. Otis 736 

p. Scribner 595 

r. Union Embossing Co .... 468 

Bane P. Detrick 730 

Banet P. Railroad Co 135 

Bangs V. Dunn 439 

p. Hornick 409 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XXV 



PAGE. 

Banigan r. Bard 719 

Bank v. Adams 292 

r. Anderson Co 660 

F. Archer 142 

r. Balliet 286 

V. Bangs 23 

r. Bellis 88 

r. Bemis 302 

r. Bertschy 786 

r. Blakesley 137 

r. Board of Trustees 137 

r. Brown 722 

r. Brownell 660 

r. Bryan 729 

r. Burchard 142 

r. Burt 628 

r. Butler 14 J 

- r. Bynum 286 

r. Charlotte 135 

r. Chase 108 

r. Qark 25 

V. Collins 891 

r. Cook 110 

r. Cooper 661 

. V. Coster's Exrs 25, 26 

r. Crafts 443 

r. Curry 867 

V. Daridson 508 

r. Davis 161 

r. Dean 293 

r. Dearing 141 

F. Dickerson , 383 

r. Dief endorf 292 

F. Dix 122 

F. Donally 781 

F. Downey 391 

r. Drake 389 

F. Eastman 849 

F. Elliott 302 

F. Eltinge 575 

V. Farmers' L. & T. Co 388 

F. Faurot 145 

r. Field 384 

F. Flour Co 147 

F. Forty-second St. R. Co. . . 701 

r. Friend 119 

F. Gallaudet 654 

F. Garlinghouse 142 

t?. Geary 578 

F. German Ins. Co 108 

r. Globe Works 144 

F. Graham 130 

F. Grand Lodge 250, 259 

F. Gregg 701 

F. Hall 43 

F. Hammond 856 

r. Harrison 142 

F. Hart 23 

F. Hatch 383 

F. Hawkins 147 



PAGE. 

Bank v. Hendrie 437 

V. Hobba 141 

i\ Hoeber 378 

i\ Hollenbeck 108 

F. Holtsclaw 292 

F. Hooper 291 

V. Hornberger 741 

V. Hunt 695 

i\ Hyde 3S2 

F. Insurance Co 577 

F. Irebein Co 125 

F. Jacobs 140, 144 

F. Johns 585 

r. Joy 110 

F. Kaufman 25 

r. Keene 443 

F. King 483 

F. Kurtz 654 

F. Lansingburgh 173 

r. Legrand 384 

F. Lierman 585 

F. Lineberger 385 

F. Lucas 383 

F. Luce 25 

F. Ludlum 699 

F. Lynch 25 

F. Matthews 141, 142 

F. McCoy 102 

V. McNeir 291 

F. Mann 577 

F. Mich. Barge Co 144, 699 

V, Mining Co 160, 161 

F. Monteath 110 

V. Moore 102 

F. Morgan 292 

F. Morton 125 

F. Mott 443 

F. Mumford 279 

F. Neet 294 

F. Nolan 142 

F. Nolting 112 

F. Ohio Buggy Co 378 

F. Owens 142, 390 

F. Page 3£ ;> 

F. Partee 87, 91 

r. Pierce 108 

F. Plimpton 115 

F. Porter Township 137 

F. Pratt 141 

r. Pruyn 892 

F. Railroad Co 160 

r. Rice 2.') 

V. Richards 25 

F. Savery 291 

F. Schuler 281 

V. Sherwood 142 

F. Simons 388 

F. Smith 585 

r. Sneed 102 

F. Sprague 470, 684 



XZYl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAQE. 

Bank v. Steffes 685 

V. Stegall 400 

17. Stein 108 

V. Stevens 660 

V. Strauss 63, 66 

t?. Swayne 142 

V. Taylor 891 

r. Texas 295 

17. Thayer 386 

V, Torrey 386 

V. Traube 383 

V. Traver 891 

V. Union R. & T. Co 303 

r. United States 382 

V, Vanderhorst 106 

t7. Waggoner 142 

V. Wallaoe 375, 601 

17. Webb 583 

17. Weston 291 

V. Whitman 384 

17. Whitney 142 

V, Young 386 

Bank of Australasia v. Breillat. . 135 

482 
r. Harding 877 

17. Nias 877 

17. Palmer 312, 313 

Bank of Batavia v. Railroad . . . 302 

Bank of Billings 17. Wade 868 

Bank of China 17. Morse 508 

Bank of Columbia v, Patterson.. 161 
Bank of Commerce v, Hoeber ... 378 

380 
Bank of England t\ Anderson . . 400 
Bank of Hindustan v. Alison ... 613 

17. Smith 853 

Bank of Ireland v. Evans' Char- 
ities 147, 160 

Bank of Mo. v. Benoist 257 

Bank of New Zealand V. Simpson. 314 
Bank of Ohio Valley t?. Lock- 
wood 857 

Bank of United States v. Daniel. 576 

580 

17. Merchants' Bank ...876, 877 

17. Owens 400 

Bank Commissioners v. New 

Hampshire Trust Co. 323, 355 

Bank Supervisors v, Clark 383 

Bankart t?. Bowers 321 

Banking Assn. v. White Lead Co. 144 

Banks v. Crossland 785 

17. Harris Mfg. Co 181 

17. Lee 860, 863 

17. Poitiaux 141 

Bannan v. Graeff 541 

Banner 17. Johnston 230 

Bannerman 17. White 608, 609 

651, 668 
Banta r. Palmer 690 



Barabaaz v. Kabat 666 

Barber v. Lamb 877 

Barbour t7. Barbour 444 

Barclay v. Pearson 406, 601 

Bardift r. Treeoe 874 

Barcus 17. Dorries 692 

Barden 17. Keverberg 91 

17. Southerland 855 

Barge i;. Haslam 172, 178 

Barham v. Thanet 260 

— — 17. Turbeville 83 

Barickman v. Kuykendall 787 

Barker 17. Barker 452, 461 

17. Barth 284 

17. Bradley 268 

17. Bucklin 258 

V. Cox 666 

c. Dinsmore 692, 718 

17. Furlong 665 

17. Hibbard 79 

17. Hodgson 614^ 630 

17. McClure 385 

17. Parker 498 

17. Scudder 171 

V, Valentine 158 

Barkley 17. Railroad Co 106 

Barkworth t*. Young 552, 563, 793 

Barlow 17. Buckingham 854 

17. Delaney 892 

17. Myers 258 

17. Smith 199 

Barnard 17. Backhaus 406, 407 

r. Campbell 716,717 

17. Paber 656, 659, 920 

17. Lee 627 

Bamardo 17. McHugh 463 

Barnes v, Allison 175 

17. Barnes 736 

t\ Black 794 

17. Brown 377* 439, 605 

17. Gibbs 877 

V. McMullins 295 

i?. Morrison •. 470 

17. Perrine 35 

17. Reed 22 

17. Shoemaker 591 

V. Smith 409 

17. Strong 461 

17. Toye 77 

17. Van Keuren 863 

Bamet i?. Gilson 880 

Bamett, Ex parte 692 

r. Franklin College 187 

17. Howard 94, 97 

17. Kinney 508 

17. Pratt 257 

r. Sweringen 52, 337 

Bamev v, Newcomb 25 

Bamsdall 17. Boloy 866 

Bamum 17. Read 219 



TABLE OF OASES. 



xxni 



PAOE. 

Batt 9. Logan 334 

V. New Yort etc., R. Co. . . 723 

Barrett «. Dean 35 

V. GeUinger 217, 467 

i;. Hartley 761 

V. Koella 707 

V. McHugh 170 

V, Tfaomdike 846 

V. Weber 441 

Barron r. Porter 283 

V. Tueker 441 

V. Vandvert 204 

i;. WiUia . . . .736, 736, 740, 742 

768, 770 

Barrow r. Isaaes 574 

i;. Ker 43 

r. Riehard 302 

Barrow S. S. Co. f;. Mexican Cent. 

Ry. Co 35, 43 

Barry r. Capen 436, 493 

V, Coombe 180 

V. Croskey 608 

c. Doremue 177 

r. Hamburfl^Bremen Ins. Co. 631 

V. Harding 260 

r. Kirkland 443 

v. Merchants' Exchange Co. 140 

144 

V. Page 109, 114 

V. Ransom 171 

r. Schmidt 3S8 

Barth p. Graf 171 

r. Iroquois Furnace Co. . . 608 

Bartholomew v. Jackson 12 

V. Leech 387 

V. Markwick 337 

Bartholomew Co. Commrs. v. 

Jameson 460 

BarUett v, Bailey 68 

V, BarUett 610 

V. Blaine 878 

r. Holbrook 194 

V. Smith 406, 409 

i;. Tnchin 334 

r. Tucker 119 

V. Wells 84 

r. Wheeler 780 

V. Wyman 204 

r. Tonng 175 

Hartley r. Conn 258 

Barton v, Benson 470 

V. Gray 821, 824, 826, 826 

V. Kane 606 

V, London & N. W. Ry. Co. 29 

V. Muir 898 

V, Mulvane 490 

V, Piggott 403 

Barton Co. Commrs. v, Newell. . . 429 
Barwick v. English Joint Stock 

700 



PAGE. 

Basford v. Pearson 865 

Bashaw's Adm. v. Wallaoe^s Adm. 864 

Baskcomb v. Beckwith 668 

Basket v. Moss 439 

Basseit v. Bassett 867 

V. Bradley 261, 262 

V. Hughes 269, 274, 276 

V. Shoemaker 387 

Baston v. Clifford 345 

Batchelder v. Sargent 891 

V. White 848 

Bate p. Hooper 681 

Bateman v. Butler 170 

V. Countess of Ross 92 

r. Paber 97 

V, Mid-Wales Ry. Co 146 

V, Pinder 777 

V. Robinson 603 

Bates, E» parte 86 

r. Babcock 174 

r. Ball 104 

V. Hyman 101, 102 

V. Lancaster 602 

V. Moore 177 

r. Bandy 215 

V. Townley 877 

Bates County v. Winters 135 

Bates Machine Co. v. Norton Iron 

Works 628 

Bateson v. Gosling 384 

Bath Gas light Co. v, Claffy.. 139, 142 
Bath, Earl of, and Montague's 

Case 766 

Batson v, Murrell 776 

r. Newman 405 

Battersbee v. Farrington 794 

Batturs v. Sellers 182 

Batty V, Chester 412 

V. Snook 630 

Bauer v. Bauer 744 

V, Roth 684 

V. Samson Lodge 449 

Bamn v, Baum 415, 444 

V, Birchall 886 

Baurman v. Binzen 49 

Bawden v. London, Edinburg 

and Glasgow Assur. Co 668 

Baxendale v. Bennett 687 

V, Seale 601 

Bazley v, Linah 877 

Baxter v. Billings 643 

V, Bush 83 

V. Camp 260, 269, 852, 874 

1?. Uttle 296 

V, Sherman 116 

Bay V, Shrader 865 

r. Williams 261,273 

Bayard r. Lathy 25 

V, McLane 462 

Baykr v. Commonwealth 469 



zzvm 



TABLE OF OASES. 



PAGE. 

Baylies v. FetiTplaoe 428 

BaylisB r. Williams 737, 745 

Bayly v Oarford 846 

Bayne v. Wiggins 182 

Beach r. Endress 844 

p. First M. E. Church.. 42, 187 

Beachey v. Brown 616, 677 

Beadles v. Bless 406 

Beal V, Brown 786 

r. McVicker 439 

r. Minneapolis Co. 341 

v. Polhemus 377, 436, 437 

Beall i\ McQehee 688 

v, Mann 734 

Beals r. Beals 249, 252 

t?. See 102 

Beam p. Copeland 581 

Beaman v, Russell 874 

Bean v. Amsinck 378, 504 

V. Atwater 324 

1?. Bean 880 

V, Brookmire 378, 504 

V. Heath 88 

V, Miller 332 

- c. Morgan 91 

Beanland v. Bradley 744 

Beard r. Beard 444 

V. Kirk 106 

V. Webb 92 

Beardslee v. Morgner 267, 269 

Beardsley v. Duntley 634, 791 

r. Hotchkiss 66 

Bearss p. Ford 630 

Beary p. Haines 866 

Beasley p. Webster 256 

Beasly v. Texas^ etc., Ry. Cd 437 

Beath v. Chapoton 441 

Beattie P. Lord Ebury 119, 688 

Seattle Mfg. Co. v, Gerardi 238 

Beatty v. Howe Lumber Co.. 332, 353 

V. Western College 187, 050 

Beaty p. Grim 170 

Beaubien I*roduce Co. p. Robert- 
son 40 

Beauchamp, Earl v, Winn 564 

Beaumont P. Dukes 1)19 

V, Reeve 411, 412 

Beauprd v. Telegraph Co 19 

Beavan v. M'Donnell 102 

Beaver v. Beaver 219 

V. Fulp 211 

Bebout V. Bodle 384 

Bechervaise P. Lewis 380 

Bechtel P. Cone 788 

Bechuanaland Exploration Co. p. 
London Trading Bank. 145, 2dS, 203 

Beck p. Blue 631 

V, Pierce 98 

Beck's Case 45 

Becker p. Howard 631 



PAGE. 

Becker p. Kecdnik Water Works. . 254 

Beckhuson v. Hamblet 108 

Beckwith v. Bank 286 

Beckham p. Drake 109, 112, 114 

p. Brackett 351 

V. Frisbie 731 

p. Talbott 182. 

Bedell p. Hering 585 

p. Wilder 612 

Bedford p. Bagshaw 704 

Bedford, Duke of, p. Trustees of 

British Museum 306 

Bedgood p. McLain 873 

Bedinger p. Wharton 68 

Beebe p. Insurance Co 659 

V. Johnson 522, 624, 530 

V, Real Estate Bank 295 

Beecher p. Conradt 324 

Beed p. Blandford 342 

Beeler p. Clarke 778 

p. Young 77, 79, 80, 81 

Beemer p. Packard 258 

Beer v. Landman 488, 492 

Beere p. Beere 393 

Beers p. Robinson 258 

p. Spooner 240 

Beeson v. Green 261 

Beeston p. Beeston 499 

Begbie p. Phosphate Sewage Co. . 498 

B^gs p. State 64 

Behl p. Schuett 730 

Behler v. Weybum 88 

Behn v. Bumess 651, 655 

Behrens p. McKenzie 102 

Belden p. Ham 861 

p. Munger 444 

Belding r. Frankland 679 

p. Smythe 505 

p. State 557 

Belfast Nat. Bank p. Harriman. . 866 

Belknap v. Bender 238 

r. Gleason 775 

p. National Bank 866 

p. Schild 112 

Bell v. Balls 180 

p. Bank 56 

p. Banks 876 

p. Bell 392 

p. Bennett 98 

V. Bruen 624 

p. Campbell 747 

p. Chapman 430 

p. Eaton 677 

p. Hewitt's Ex 176 

p. Lamprey 725 

V. Leggett 380 

p. McConnell 388 

p. Mahin 856, 859 

V. Mendenhall 257, 267 

V. Morrison 777 



TABLE OF CASES. 



X^ 



BeU p. Moes 671 

V. Offutt 47, 336 

f?. Packard 886 

V. Reid 420 

r. Reynolds 112 

©. Sappington 241 

V. Thompeon 664 

Bellairs v. Bellairs 466 

r. Tucker 692 

Bellamy v, Debenham 667 

Bellamy r. Sabine 744 

Bellas r. Fagely 258, 269 

Seller r. Block 109 

BeHeriUe Works r. Samuelson. . . 717 

Bellevue Assn. v. Jeckel 661 

Bellows r. Russell 470 

V. Sowles 216 

Belmont v. Coman 262 

Belahaw v. Bush 694, 841 

Belt r. Ferguson 393 

r. McLaughlin 261 

Bement r. La Dow 691, 716 

r. National Harrow Co 469 

Bence r. Shearman 283 

Bender r. Fromberger 624 

Bendix v. Ayers 211 

Benedict r. Beebee 174 

F. Cowden 865 

V. Hunt 272 

Benedict v. Lynch 628 

r. Miner 866 

r. Roome 747 

Benge v. Hiatt's Adm 249, 253 

Benjamin v. Birmingham . . . 266, 261 

V, Bruce 197 

p. McGonnel 866 

t. Zell 174 

Benecke r. Haebler 361, 366 

V. Bennecke r. Insurance Co. 614 

Bennett v. Bates 275 

p. Bennett 685 

V. Covington 409 

r. Dyer 791 

(Doe d.) V. Hale 804 

p. Ingoldsby 847 

r. Judson 702 

p. Littlefleld 219 

r. Mahler 177 

17. Merchantville Building 

Assoc 238, 258 

p. Morse 522 

r. Rosenthal 258 

p. Shaughnessy 332, 342 

Bensick p. Thomas 389 

Benaimer p. Fell 258 

Bensinger v. Wren 382 

Bensley p. Bignold 399, 911 

Benson p. Cowell 343 

V. Cutler 629 

V. Markoe 677, 641 



FAGS. 

Benson p. Mole 812 

V, Phipps 206 

Bent P. Priest 391, 462 

p. Underdown 719 

Bentinck v. Franklin 462 

Bentley p. Davis 878 

r. Greer 69 

p. Mackay. . . . 672, 639, 644, 769 

p. Root 282 

r. State 628, 530, 638 

r. Vilmont 717 

Benton t;. Holland 778 

Benton County Bank P. Boddicker. 404 

Bentsen v. Taylor 655 

Benwell p. Inns 478 

Benyon v. Nettlefold 412 

Beram v, Kruscal 496 

Beran p. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank. 285 

Bercich p. Marye 566 

Berdoe v. Dawson 769 

Bergen r. Frisbie 436 

V, Udall 768 

Berger P. Ebey 639 

Berk p. International Explosives 

Co 197 

Berka p. Woodward 399 

Berkly v. Cannon 100 

Berkmeyer p. Kellerman 735, 745 

Berkshire L. I. Co. p. Hutchings. 261 

Berkson P. Heldman 697, 699 

Berlin Works P. Perry 468 

Bermudez Co. P. Crichfleld 436 

Bernard p. Dickins : 346 

p. Torrance 29 

Bernard, etc., Mfg. Co. v, Packard. 892 

Bemier p. Cabot Mfg. Co 178, 790 

Bemshouse p. Abbott 114 

Berrien p. McLane 453, 513 

Berry v, American Ins. Co. . . 616, 689 

p. Bakeman 677 

p. Berry 728, 729 

p. Doremus 258 

i;. Graddy 216, 786, 789 

p. Henderson 911 

p. Sewald 175 

p. Whitney 689 

Berryman p. Manker 862 

p. Trustees 437 

Berthold v. St. Louis Construction 

Co 332, 358 

Berwick p. Oswald 836 

Berwind p. Schultz 109, 116 

Besant, Re 461, 463 

p. Wood 416 

Besse p. Dyer 23 

Best V. Bauder 402 

V. Stow 633 

Bestor p. Hickey 69 

p. Wathen 437 

Beswick r. Swindells 666, 658 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAfil. 

Bethany 9. Howard 269 

Bethel r. Salem Improrement Co. 352 

Bethell v, Bethell 688 

I?. Clark , 671 

Bettini t;. 6ye 325 

Bettle V. Wilson 415 

Betts f . Burch 632 

V, GihbonB 495 

r. Ounn 577 

Beverley r. Lincoln Qaa Co. 163 

Beverley's Case 98 

Beverii^e v. New York Elevated 

R. R. Co 250, 256 

Beyer v. National Assoc 691 

Beyerstedt r. Winona Mill Co. . . 197 

Beymer v. Bonsall 116 

Beynon v. Cook 756, 759, 762, 763 

Bibb V. Freeman 216 

r. Miller 498 

Bick V. Overfelt 452 

Bickel V. Sheets 486 

Bickerton v. Burrell. ... 117, 118, 123 

Bicknall r. Waterman 607 

Bidault V, Wales 679 

Biddel v, Brizzolara 261, 274 

Bidder v. Bridges 210, 212 

Biddle v. Coryell 324 

Bierbauer v. Wirth 441 

Bierman v. City Mills Co 652 

Biery v. Haines 861 

V. Steckel 415 

Biest V. Ver Steeg Shoe Co. . . 176, 178 

Biffin V, Bignell 730 

Bigelow V. Benedict 408 

V. Bigelow 216 

V. Grannie 69 

V. Railway Co 142 

V. Stilphen 853 

Biggers r. Owen 34 

Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf 899 

Biggs V, Barry 679 

V, Fisk 63 

I?. Harris 596 

Bigham v, Madison 610 

Bigler r. Jack 631 

V, Morgan 335 

Bignall, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Pierce, 

etc., Mfg. Co 361 

Bilgerry v. Branch 430 

Bill r. W. U. Telegraph Co 389 

Billage v, Southee 737, 746 

Billings V. O'Brien 439 

Billingsley r. Clelland 215 

V, Dempelwolf 170 

Billington r. Cahill 178 

V, Wagoner 883 

Bindley t?. MuUoney 418 

Binford v. Adams 841 

V. Bniso 684 

V. Blng V. Will^ 443 



PAfll. 

Bingham v. Bingham 676, 61& 

V. Browning 211, 813, 839 

r. Scott 408 

V. Wentworth 383 

Birch p. Anthony 444 

V, Steppler 88 

Birchell p. Neaster 170 

Bird p. Bird 850 

p. Breedlove 434 

V, Jacobus 466 

p. Lanius 257, 260 

p. Morrison 174 

p. Munroe 782 

Bird's Trust 317 

Bird Coal Co. i;. Hume 391 

Birdsall p. RusseU 866 

Birkmyr p. Darnell 172, 179 

Birmingham Co. P. Elyton Co. . . . 689 
Birmingham and District Land 

Co. p. AJlday 305 

Birmingham Ins. Co. P. Pulver . . . 448 

Birnie P. Main 775 

Birrell p. Dryer 309, 315 

Bisbee p. McAUen 402 

Biscoe p. Kennedy 893 

Bish p. Beatty 692 

' p. Johnson 135 

Bishop P. Allen 584 

p. American Preservers' Co. 468 

p. Busse 204 

p. Douglas 262 

p. Eaton 22 

p. Holcomb 281, 285 

p. Honey 486 

p. Insurance Co 640 

p. Palmer 406, 483, 484 

p. Small 691 

' p. Stewart 258 

Bissell p. Fobs 296 

. p. Heath 720 

p. Jaudon 778 

p. Jeffersonville 137 

p. Lewis 25 

p. Railroad Co 144 

Bissing P. Britton 171 

Bitter P. Rathman 892 

Bivins p. Jamigan 413, 735 

Bizby P. Moore 10, 483 

Blachford p. Preston 439 

Black P. Canal Co 135 

p. Cord 217 

p. Railway Co 684 

p. Security Mut. Assoc. . . . 402 

p. White 778 

p. Woodrow 349, 650 

Blackburn P. Haslam 657 

p. Mann 172, 178 

p. Ormsby 832 

p. Reilly 331, 332, 340 

p. Smith 342, 715 



TABLE OF 0ASB8. 



PAfiX. 

Bbdd>iiiii 9. Vigors 657 

BlAdue r. Clark. . . . 641, 735, 738, 746 

BUcklock V. Dobie 380 

BlmcknaU r. Parish 855 

Blaeksmith's Case, The 471 

Bladcstone v. Miller 862 

BlackweU r. Webster 513 

Blackwood v. London Chartered 

Bank of Australia 567 

Blade f;. Noland 844 

Blades P. Free 42, 106 

Blagbome v. Hunger 815, 826 

Blain p. Pacific Exp. Co 14 

Blaine r. Knapp 49 

Blair p. Chicago k Alton Co 625 

p. Insurance Co 383 

p. Smith 175 

V. T. L., etc., Co. p. Walker. 257 

Blaisdell v. Ahem 451 

Blake p. Comwell 791 

p. Hamburg-Bremen F. I. 

Co. 39 

p. Lobb's EsUte 541 

p. McCIung 125 

P. NUes 557 

r. Pine Mountain Co. 310 

p. Railroad Co 389 

p. Voight 176 

p. White 833 

Blake's Case 826, 835, 878 

Blake Co. p. Insurance Co 640 

Blakeley p. Benneke 122 

Blakely p. Sousa 376, 543 

Blakeman p. Blakeman 576 

Blakeney p. Goode 176 

Blakeston p. Wilson 880 

Blakey v. Johnson 853, 868 

Bladdstone p. Bank 49 

Blalock P. Phillips 707 

Blanchard p. Fesjing 631 

p. Jones 390 

p. Weeks 176 

Blanding p. Sargent 176, 789 

Bianey p. Hoke 48 

' p. Rogers 612 

Blank p. Nohl 444 

Blanton p. Commonwealth 860 

— • p. Knox 789 

Blasdel p. Fowle 380, 491 

Blass p. Terry 174, 262 

Blattmacher p. Saal 120, 495 

Bleakley p. White 842 

Bledsoe p. Thompson 501 

Blenn p. Lyford 295 

Bless p. Jenkins 177, 789 

Bleweti p. Bash 874 

Bliaa p. Kaweah Canal, etc., Co. 160 

p. Lawrence 439 

p. Matteson 378 

9. Mclntyre 848, 850 



PAGE 

Bliss P. Plummer's Ex 259 

Block p. Darling 502 

Blodgett p. Hobert 634 

Blood P. Crew Levick Co. . . 262, 269, 

272 

p. Enos 550, 815 

— ' — p. La Serena Land Co 389 

Bloodgood p. Bruen 778 

Bloom p. Richards 399 

Bloomer p. Bernstein 323, 340 

p. Nolan 68, 69 

p. Spittle 600, 644 

Blooming Grove Ins. Co. p. Mo- 

Enemey 668 

Blossom p. Dodd 53 

p. Railroad Co 16 

p. Shotter 629 

Blount p. Harvey , 304 

p. Robeson 387 

p. Spratt 102 

Bloxaih p. Met. Ry. Co 457, 897 

Bluck p. Qompertz 855 

Blu^ p. Capital Nat. Bank 377 

Blumenberg p. Adams 91 

Blumenthal p. Goodall 34 

' p. Shaw 565 

Bly p. Bank 492 

Blyer p. Monholland 262 

Blymire p. Boistle 258, 259 

Blyth k Co.'8 Case 798 

Boaler p. Mayor 876 

Boals P. Nixon 256 

Board p. Branham 382 

p. Duparquet 285 

p. Gray 856, 857, 860 

p. Greenleaf 861 

Board of Education p. Greens- 

baum 161 

p. Townsend 536, 552 

Board of Marion Co. P. Shipley. . . 26 

Board of Supervisors p. Randolph. 137 

Boardman P. Keeler ... 558 

p. ^>ooner 180 

p. Thompson 451 

p. Ward 11 

Boast P. Firth 544, 546 

Bobbett p. Pinkett 292 

Bobbs-Merrill Co. P. Snellenburg. 298 

Bobo P. Richmond 175 

Bocchino p. Cook 731 

Boddy p. Henry 683 

Bodine r. Kileen 88 

p. Morgan 729 

Boeckler p. McGowan 890 

Boffinger r. Tuyes 837 

Bogard p. Turner 787 

Bogardus r. N. Y. Life Ins Co. , . 340 

p. Young 258 

Bogart, Re 776 

p. Phillips 272 



XKXll 



TABLE OF OASES. 



PAGE. 

Bogarth v, Breedlove 860 

Boggs V, Pacific Laundry Co 176 

Bogie V. Nolan 735 

Bogk V. Gassert 311 

Bohanan v. Pope 257, 271 

Bohannon v. Pace 786 

Bohn V. Lowry , 802 

Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Lewis 187 

Boigneres v. Boulon 411 

Boisaubin t\ Boisaubin 734 

Boisot V, Chandler 261 

Boisseau v. Fuller 46 

Bokemper v. Hazen 102 

Boland v. O'Neil 415 

Bold V. Hutchinson 643 

Bolles V. Crescent Drug & Chemi- 
cal Co 548 

Bellman v. Loomis 390 

Bolman t?. Overall 466, 467 

Bolton V. Bishop of Carlisle. . 845, 847 

r. Lambert 47, 107 

— '— V, Madden 195 

t\ Salmon 383 

Bolton, Duke of r. Williams. 887, 895 

Bolton Co. r. Stoker 708 

Bomeisler r. Forster 833 

Bomier v. Caldwell 627 

Bompart v. Roderman 175 

Bonar r. Macdonald 382 

Bond r. Bunting 844 

' V. Conway 89 

' V. Dolby 261 

V. Jackson 827 

t\ Heirs of, t?. Smith 776 

Bone r. Ekless 501 

Boney r. Hollingsworth 745 

Bonhote i\ Henderson 641, 644 

Bonner r. American, etc., Mfg. Co. 226 

r. G. W. Ry. Co 138 

r. Tottenham Society. . 244, 260 

Bonnett v. Bonnett 402 

Bonnewell r. Jenkins 47 

Bonnot Co. r. Newman 584 

Bonta r. Gridley 377 

Boody V. McKenny 68 

Boofrher v. Life Assn. of America. 130 
Booker r. Stivender 845, 857 

V. Wingo 488 

Bool r. Mix 63, 67 

Boone r. Chiles 568 

V. Eyre 327 

Boord r. Boord 216 

Booth r. Bank of England 400 

V. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. 259 

260 

r. Cottingham 99 

- r. Eighmie i/O 

V. Hoskins 774 

r. Powers 870 

r. Robinson 631 



Booth p. Spuyten Duyvil R. M. 

Co 523, 528, 539 

Boothby t?. Plaisted 886 

r. Scales 608 

Boots V, Steinberg 448 

Borcherling v. Katz 110 

Borden v, Boardman 257, 259 

Borel V. Mead 217 

Borell V. Dann 754 

Borley v. McDonald 573 

Bom v. Schrenkeiser 639 

Borrekins v. Bevan 653 

Borries t7. Imperial Ottoman bank. 115 

Borst V. Corey 775, 794 

— — V. Spelman 89 

Boruflf V. Hudson 257 

Bosanquet v. Wray 810 

Boschen's Ex. v. Jurgen's Ex 610 

Bosley t?. National Machine Co. . . 675 
Bosshardt Co. i\ Crescent Oil Co. 27 

Bostick V. Haynie 700 

Bostock V. N. Staffordshire Ry. 

Co 138 

Boston, etc., Co. v. Ansell 352 

Boston Hat Manufactory v, Mes- 

singer 382 

Boston Ice Co. t?. Potter 591 

Boston, etc, R. Corp. v. Nashua, 

etc., R. Cor., 878 

Boston Rubber Co. t?. Peerless 

Wringer Co 839 

Boston Safe Deposit Co. v. Salem 

Water Co. 254 

Bostwick r. Beach 666 

V. Leach 173, 174 

V. Mutual Ins. Co 710, 713 

v. Railroad Co 54 

r. Van Voorhis 662 

Botsford V, Morehouse 850 

Bottelle V. Northwestern Co 226 

Bouchell V. Clary 79, 81 

Boulton V. Jones 591 

Bourn v, Davis 690 

Bourne v. Shapleigh 46 

Bouscaren v. Brown 299 

Boussmaker, Ex parte 428 

Boutelle r. Carpenter 864 

Bowdell r. Parsons 360, 365 

Bowditch V. New England Ins. Co. 403 

404 

Bowdoin College i?. Merritt 736 

Bowen v. Bailey 324 

r. Buck 442 

V. Fenn 692 

V. Hall 225 

r. Hart 44 

V. Kurtz 261 

Bower r. Cooper 300 

V. Webber 409 

Bowers, Re 741 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xsdii 



PAUC. 

Bowers v. Bowers 438 

r- Briggs 862, 863 

D. HutcMnson 415 

t7. JeweU 854, 861 

F. WTiitney 180 

p. Worth 605 

Bowery Bank p. Wilson 439 

Bowes V. Shand 314« 326, 629 

Bowker r. Bradford 893 

Bowlin r. Silver 625 

Bowling V. Flood 384 

Bowman v. Carithers 693 

r. Coflfroth 434 

p. Hiller 729 

f?. McClenahan 684 

— 1?. Mitchell 870 

V, Officer 387 

c. Patrick 32 

t?. Wright 818, 826 

Bowser v. Cole 850, 853, 861 

i?. Patrick 275, 452 

V. Randell 862, 863 

Bcnree v. Edwards 25 

— — V. McCtillough 822 

V. Tabb 421, 514 

Boyd, Ex parte 95 

V. Boyd 734 

V. Brotherson 872 

p. De La Montagnie. . .505, 735 

768 

«7. Graves 175 

i?. Hallowell 52 

V. Hanson 409 

V. Hawkins 770 

p. Kennedy 145 

p. McConnell 853 

p. McCuUough 324 

Boyden r. Boyden 69 

Boyer p. Berryman 101 

p. Fidmer 541 

V, Soules 171 

Boykin r. Campbell 595 

Boyle p. Adams 470 

p. Albert Lea 132 

V. Lybrand 299 

Boynton p. Ball 876 

p. Frye 870 

p. Hubbard 464 

'BcFyse P. Rossborough . . . 562, 733, 736 

Bozeman r. Browning 66, 68 

Brace p. Calder 350, 544 

Bracewell v. Williams 215 

Bracken Co. p. Daum 860, 871 

Brackett r. Griswold 693, 704 

p. Hoyt 399 

Bradbury v. White 633 

Braddick P. Thompson 826 

Bradford r. Bank 633 

p. Jenkins 421, 514 

V. Manly 608 

iii 



PAGX. 

Bradford p. Mstcalf 226 

V. Romney 311 

I?. Roulston 200 

p. Symondson 614 

p. Williams 321 

Bradlangh v, Newdegate 451, 461 

Bradley v, Ballard 142 

r. Bertoumieux 340 

p. Bradley 700 

r. Dells Lumber Co 873 

p. Glenmary Co 210 

p. Gregory 832 

p. Barter 823 

r. King 332 

p. Levy 346 

V. Obear 716 

p. Pratt 80, 81 

r. Sadler 792 

V. Seaboard Bank 699 

Bradshaw v. Bradshaw 579 

r. Davis 832 

F. Lanes, and Yorks. Rjf^ 

Co 223 

t\ Yates 721, 745 

Bradstreet r. Baer 892 

Brady i\ Berwind- White Co.. 865, 873 

p. Finn 694, 695 

i\ Horvath 498 

p. Insurance Co 529 

i\ Nally 112 

Bragg V. Davidson 650, 821 

p. Israel 200 

p. Stanner 474 

Brahmaputra Tea Co. p. Scarth. . 481 

Brainard v, Arnold 639 

Braithwaite p. Skinner 244, 252 

Braley p. Powers 690 

Brail, Re 61 

Bramah v, Roberts 145 

Bramble v. Ward 384 

Brampton p. Beddoes 480 

Branch p. Haas 431 

Branch f. Palmer 332, 408 

Brand v, Johnrowe 873 

Brandao v, Barnett 291 

Brandon p. Brown 68 

r. Nesbitt 430 

Branham p. Stall ings 496 

Branson p. Turner 608 

Brant p. Ehlen 720 

Brantley r. Thomas 652 

p. Wolf 68, 82 

Brassel v. Troxel 323, 355 

Brassell p. McLemore 629 

Braswell t\ Insurance Co 106 

Brattleboro Bank v. Trustees 137 

Bratton p. Massey . . . « 416 

Brauer v. Shaw \ 31, 33, 39 

Braun f. Wisconsin Rendering Co. 577 
Braunn v. Keally 486 



zxny 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Bray v. Kettel 109 

Brayshaw i;. Eaton 77 

Brazee v. Schofield 175 

Breck r. Blanchard 730 

Breckenridge v. Lewis 585, 867 

V. Crocker 182 

Brecknock School District v. 

Frankheuser 14 

Breed v. Judd 68 

Brenner t?. Luth 257, 267, 277 

Brentnall v. Marshall 324 

Brereton v. Hull 726 

Breslin v. Brown 470 

Breton v, WooUven 219 

Brett, Ea parte 679 

Brett V, Marston 854 

Brewer v, Arantz 693 

- V, Broadwood 354 

<?. Brown 667 

V. Dyer 257, 269, 271 

— ^ V, Hieronymus 467 

V. HoTst-Lachman Co 182 

^v. Marshall 304 

r. Maurer 262, 265, 274 

Brewer Lumber Co. v, Boston, 

etc., R. Co 571 

Brewing Assoc, v. Nipp 197 

Brewster v. Hatch 676 

. V, Woostcr 344 

Brewton v. Glass 310 

Brey v. Hagan 872 

Brice, Re 86 

Brick V. Gannar 178 

Brick Ca v. Pond 541 

Brick Presb. Church v. New York. 514 

524, 526 

Bricker v, Bricker 624 

t?. Hughes 173 

Brickley v. Edwards 703 

Bridge v. Connecticut Ins. Co. 282, 294 

Bridge Co. c. Frankfort 161 

Bridgeford v. Adams 708 

Bridgeport Bank v. New York, 

etc., R. Co. 856 

Bridger v. Goldsmith 289 

i\ Savage 499 

Bridgers v. Hutchins 844 

Bridges v. Stevens 779 

V. Winters 860 

Bridgewater Iron Co. v. Insurance 

Co 599, 607, 612 

Bridgford v. Crocker 336 

Bridgman v. Green 745, 766 

Briggs, Ex parte 709 

Briggs V, Boyd 731 

V, Ewert 585 

V. Partridge 110, 112 

V. Ryan 97 

t?. United SUtes 427 

V. Walker 427 

Brigham v, Fayerweather 101 



PAGE. 

Brigham v, Henriek 204, 816 

V. Lipman, etc., Co. 130 

t7. Newton 736, 741 

Bright V. Legerton 721 

V. Taylor 550 

Brightman v. Bates 411 

V. Hicks 650 

Brindle v. Mcllvaine 282 

Brinkley v. BrinKley . . 394, 396, 793 

Brinley v. Whiting 452 

Brisban v. Boyd 45 

Briscoe v. Ashby 569 

Bristol V. Scranton 391 

Bristol Milling & Mfg. Co. v. Pro- 

basco 125 

Briston f?. Lane 256 

Bristow T. Secqueville 434 

BriUin r. Rossiter . . . 782, 790, 791 
British and American Telegraph 

Co. V. Colson 884, 885 

British Linen Co. v, Drummond . . 780 
British' Waggon Co. t?. Lea & Co. . 223 

Brittain r. McCay 173 

Britton v. Bishop 295 

V. Dierker 861, 871 

V. Phillips 39 

Britzell v. Fryberger 257 

Broad 17. Jollyfe 474 

V. Munton 671 

Broadwater t?. Dame 101 

Broadwell v. Getman 177, 789 

Brock V, Hidy 627 

17. Odell 577 

Brodhead v. Reinbold 324, 354 

Brodrib v, Brodrib 101 

Brodt t7. Hickman 395 

Brogden v, Metrop. Ry. Co. 10, 31 

36, 47 

Brokaw r. Duffy 335 

V. Railroad Co 130 

Bromley v. Smith 763 

Bronnenberg v. Cobum 205 

Bronson r. Coffin 300, 301 

Bronson Electric Co. v. Rheubot- 

tom 717 

Brook V. Brook 396 

17. Ho<* 443 

Brookbank t\ Brookbank 847 

Brooke v. Logan 461 

Brookfield Bank v. Kimble 786 

Brooklyn Bank v. De Grauw 832 

Brookman t7. Kurzman 623 

Brookman's Trust, Re 466 

Brooks r. Allen 853 

17. Ball 193 

17. Berryhill 729 

17. Cooper 470 

i\ Curtis 791 

r. Martin 500, 742 

V, Matthews 583, 584 

17. Meekin 395 



TABLE OF OASES. 



XXXV 



PAGE. 

Broofci o. Merchants' Bank 200 

V. Scott'g Exec 346 

r. Wichita 633 

Brophy V, Marble 205 

Broanan v. McKee 174 

Brotherhood's Case 901 

Brothers v. Brothers 387 

Brotherton r. Reynolds 694 

Broa 9. Becnel 877 

Brooi^ton r. Fuller 857, 859 

V. Hutt 676, 616 

- V. Manchester Waterworks 
Co. 144 

V. West 862 

Broim r, Kennedy 643, 746 

Brower r. Fass 488 

V. Goodyer 679 

Brower Lumber Co. v. Miller 254 

Brown p. Adams 171 

V, Ambler 25 

9. Ames 664 

p. Austin 112 

V. Bank 110, 142 

V. Beauchamp 450 

p. Bell 789 

r. Bigne 452 

V. Bowen 791 

^— V. Bradlee 23 

V, Brine 445 

r. Bronson 395 

V. Brown 170, 377, 791 

- V, Browning 509 

V. Bulkley 736 

^— • P. Burbank 736, 746 

V. Bums 776 

-^— V. Byers 145 

r. C. C. ft R. Gravel Road Co. 576 

^-— P. Colquitt 855 

V. Cranberry Co 108 

- V, Curran 258 

p. Dale 132 

— — r. Delano 514 

r. Dillehanty 557 

— • V. Duncan 402, 432 

p. Durham 82 

V. Eaton 174 

r. Equitable 8oc 285, 294 

V. Everett, etc., Co. . . . 378, 604 

r. Express Co 54 

— -• r. First Bank. 434, 436, 438, 445 

r. Foster 61 

r. Gardner 104, 427 

- r. German- American Htle & 
TVustCo 258 

r. Ginn 451, 452 

p. Godfrey 205 

— ^ p. Griswold 174 

p. Guarantee Trust Co 330 

• p. Hall 761 

p. Hartford Ins. Co 283 

p. Joimaon 863 



PAGE. 

Brown p. Killingsworth 88 

» r. Kinsey 411, 413 

p. Knapp 253 

p. Lamphear 600 

V, Latham 199, 778 

r. Leavitt 284, 879 

V, McCreight 442 

• P. McCune 82 

p. McGill 888 

p. Markland 258 

p. Mayor of London . .. 526, 657 

p. Mercantile Co 738, 739 

p. Minis 285 

P. Mi» 879 

^— P. Montgomery 654 

p. Muller 360, 360, 369 

p. Nealley 378, 380 

p. N. Y. Asntral R. R. Co. 46, 47 

p, Norman 713 

p. O'Brien 258 

V. Odill... 361, 365, 444, 465, 617 

p. Parker 110, 781 

p. Railroad Co. 53 

p. Railway Co 298, 301 

p. Ralston 344 

P. Rawlings 786 

p. Reed 865 

p. Reiman 116 

p. Rice 27 

p. Rounsavell 469 

p. Royal Ins. Co.. . 628, 629, 553 

p. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co. 346, 346 

p. Savage 847 

■ P. Savings Union 27 

P. Smith 693 

p. Stillman 265 

V. Strait 256 

p. Telegraph Co 116 

p. Tillinghast 575 

p. Timmany 502 

p. Tuttle 411 

p. Whipple 179, 182 

p. Winnisimmet Co 140 

p. Witter 343 

Brown & Haywood Co. v. ligon . . . 250 

Browne p. Carr 384 

p. McDonald 42 

r. Patterson 629 

p. United States 639 

p. West 452 

Brownell v. Briggs 396 

r. Winnie 857, 868, 863 

Brownfield v, Johnson 605 

Brownfield's Ex. v, Brownfield... 822 

Browning p. Bancroft 708 

p. De Ford 708 

p. Gosnell 856, 857, 863 

p. Magill 667 

p. Parker 786 

p. Wright 624, 625 



2XXV1 



TABLE OF GASES. 



PAG£. 

Brownlee v. Love 210 

Brownlie v, Campbell.. 649, 699, 921 

Brcywnson t*. Weeks 200 

Bruce 17. Bishop 3 

V, Hastings 174 

t?. Lee 380 

r. Osgood 174 

Bruflf V. Thompson 890 

Bruhl V. Coleman 592 

Brumby «. Smith 538 

Brummitt v. McGuire 575 

Brummond v. Krause 744 

Brundige v, Blair 640 

Bruner v. Wheaton 43, 45, 890 

Brunswick v. Dunning 127 

V. Valleau 486 

Brunswick Co. v. U. S. Gas Fuel 

Co 142 

Brunswick, etc., Ry. Co. v. Clem. . 834 
Brunswick Terminal Co. t?. Na- 
tional Bank 780 

Brunton's Claim 289 

Brush V. Sweet 450 

Brutt 1?. Picard 854 

Bryan (Doe d.) v. Bancks 61 

V. Brazil 108 

V. Hunt 821 

V. McNaughten 387 

V, Reynolds 436 

r. Spruill 725 

Bryant v. Bank 855, 857 

i\ Booze 39 

V. Crosby 173 

V, Flight 50 

V, Herbert 152 

i7. Isburgh 608 

V. Peck 488 

t\ Vix 292 

V. Wells 112 

V, Whitcher 567 

Bryant's Pond Co. v. Felt . . 27, 187 
Bryant and Barningham's Con- 
tract, Re 597 

Bryce i?. Insurance Co 639 

Bryson t\ Haley 486 

V. McShane 467 

Bubb V. Yelverton 913 

Buchanan v. Cleveland Oil Co. . . 1 12 

t?. Curry 429 

V. Griggs 63 

V. Layne 541 

V. Tilden 249, 251, 253 

Buchner i\ Ruth 415 

Buck V. Albee 499 

V. Bank 436, 441 

V. Coward 468 

r. Pickwell 173, 180. 784 

Buckingham v. Ludlum 789 

Buckland v. Buckland 95 

r. Rice 419 

Bucklen v. Huff 384 



VAOE. 

Buiddey v. Bank 292 

V. Buckley 177, 789 

1?. Gray 704 

V. Humason 402 

V. Meidroth 61 

Buckmaster v. Consumers' Ice Co. 49 

Buckner v. Street 420, 775 

Buel V. Miller , 822 

Buell t7. Buckingham 387 

Buel V. Chapin 40 

Buena Vista Co. r. Billmyer 689 

Buerger v. Boyd 532 

Buffalo, etc., Co. v. Bellevue, etc., 

Co 535 

i\ Medina Gas Co 125 

Buifalo Cement Co. v. McNaugh- 

ton 249, 254 

Buffalo Oil Co. v. Standard Oil 

Co. 130 

Buffalo Press Club v, Greene 440 

Buffalow r. Buffalow . . .745, 750, 768 

Buford V, Adair 91 

Buford t\ Speed 430 

Bugg V. Shoe Co 679 

Buirhman v. Bank 679 

Buhl t?. Stephens 176, 177, 784 

Bulfield V. National Supply Co. . . 114 

Bulger V, Roche 780 

V, Ross 736 

Bulkley v. Landon 199 

V. Morgan 708 

V. Wilford 301 

Bull V. Bull 839 

V. Griswold 173 

V. Harragan 402 

f. McCrea 176 

V. Sink 282 

V, Titsworth 272 

Bullard V. Smith 408, 786 

V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. . . 514 

Bullen V, Milwaukee Trading Co. 160 

Bullion Bank v. Uegler 778 

Bullock I*. Adams Exr 628 

r. Sprowls 68, 873 

Bult t\ Morrel 145 

Bulteel r. Plummer 466 

Bulwinkle v. Cramer 108 

Bumps V. Taggart 798 

Bumpiis t\ Bumpus 49 

Buncombe T. Co. r. McCarson ... 161 

Bundy V. Cocke 892 

Bunn r. Postell 101 

t?. Schnellbacher 691 

V. Winthrop 411 

Bunnell r. Carter 264 

j Bunse v, Agee 640 

Buntain v, Curtis 879 

I Burbank r. Dennis 389, 676 

— V. Gould 242, 257, 268 

— r. Pillsbury 301, 302 



TABLE OP CA8B8. 



XXXVll 



PAGE. 

Burch 9. Pope 854 

Burchell, Re 384 

V. Clark 317 

Burcliinell r. Hirsch 679 

Bnrdett r. Williams 82 

Burge V. Ashley and Smith 501 

p. Burge 231 

p. Cedar Rapids, etc., R. R. 

Co 343 

Burgess p. Blake 848 

p. Denison Mfg. Co. 829 

p. Eve 385 

Burgess's Case 720 

Burgess Fibre Co. P. Broomfield. . 197 

Burghart r. Hall 78 

Burgin p. Burgin 566 

Burgoon r. Johnston 633 

Burgwin r. Bishop 873 

Bnrkard P. Crouch 791 

Burke p. Allen 100, 103 

p. Levy 721 

p. Purifoy 528 

p. Shaver 361, 365, 411 

p. S. E. Ry. Co. 64 

p. Taylor 595 

p. Wells Fargo 14, 23 

Burkhalter p. Jones 606 

Burkhardt P. Georgia School 

Township 625 

Burkholder P. Beetem's Adm 495 

r. Lapp's Ex. 861 

Burkholder's Appeal 92, 231 

Burkholder's Ex. P. Plank 217 

Burley p. Russell 82 

Bnrlingame t. Brewster 864 

Burlington Co. P. Evans Co 587 

Bum p. Carvalho 281 

Bumard p. Haggis 83 

Bumes p. Scott 452 

p. Simpson 157 

Burnett p. Hawpe's Ex 889, 891 

p. McCIuey 850, 861 

Bumey, Heirs of p. Ludeling. 377, 437 
Bumey P. Savannah Grocery Co . . 893 
Bumham p. Ayer.. . 859, 864, 866, 873 

p. Goanell 862 

p Heselton 736, 741 

p. Railroad Co 53 

Bums P. Fidelity Real Estate Co.. 822 

823 

p. Lynde 855 

Buraside p. Wayman 855 

Burr p. Beers 261, 262 

p. Boyer 386 

Burrell, Ex parte 379, 689 

Burritt P. Insurance Co 659 

Burroughes r. Bayne 164 

Burroughs p. Hunt , 501 

p. Pacific Guano Co... 685, 694 

Burrow p. Scanunell 668 

Burrows v, Klunk 868 



PACDB. 

Bursinger p. Bank of Watertown.. 100 

Burson p. Huntington 587, 868 

Burt p. Bowles 688, 689 

p. Mason 683 

p. Union Central Ins. Co . . . 376 

Burtis p. Thompson 361, 365 

Burton p. American Ins. Co.. 852, 873 

874 

p. Dupree 487 

p. Gage 281 

p. Great Northern Ry. Co. . . 197 

r. Larkin 277 

V. Perry 452 

p. Shotwell 27 

V. Sturgeon 93 

Burton's Appeal 294 

Burton Lumber Co. p. Wilder 592 

Burwell p. Orr 866, 867 

Bury p. Hartman 284 

Busby p. Littlefleld 634 

Buse p. Page 631 

Bush P. Breinig 101 

p. Cole 109 

p. Koll 51 

p. Lathrop 281 

— : — P. Linthicum 63 

p. Rawlins 204 

p. Wick 65 

Busjahn p. McLean 854 

Bussman p. Ganster 632, 533 

Bute, Marquis of P. Thomjison. . . 541 

Butler p. Butler 98, 393, 395, 560 

p. Duncan 757, 761 

r. Eschleman - 677 

p. Greene 878 

r. Haskell 770 

V. Kaulback 108 

p. Kidder 531 

p. Lee 789 

v, Legro 451, 452 

r. Moses 606 

p. Prentiss 697, 713 

p. Shehan 176 

P. Winona Mill Co 50 

Butler and Baker's Case 56 

Butterfield i\ Byron 628, 537 

p. Hartshorn 240 

P. McNamara 677 

Butters p. Haughwout 717 

Buttigieg V. Booker 834 

Button i\ Hoffman 125 

p. Rathbone 717 

Buxton p. Hamblen 402 

p. Jones 693 

p. Rust 180 

Buzzard r. Houston 726 

Bwlch-y-Plwm Lead Mining Co. P. 

Baynes 710 

Byars r. Dooro'a Admr 119 

Byars p. Stubbs 683 

Bvassee p. Reese 173 



ZZXVIU 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAOE. 

Byers v. ChApin 608 

BjingUm v» Simpson 108 

Byrd r. Hughes 390 

Byrd v. Rautman 090 

^ V. Wells 776 

Byrne v. Schuyler 135 

— i?..Van Tienhoven 31 

C. 
C. F. Jewett Pub. Ck). v. Butler. . . 323 
356, 495, 596 

Caballero v. Henty 670 

Gabe v. Jameson 836 

Cable r. Foley 728 

V. United States Ins. Co... 658 

699 

Cabot V. Christie 697 

r. Haskins 241 

Cadman p. Peter 631 

Cadwallader v. West 735, 746, 750 

768 

Cady V. Straus 27 

r Walker 879 

Cagwin v. Town of Hancock 137 

Cahen r. Piatt 332 

Cahill V. Bigelow 786 

V. Cahill 93 

Cain V. McGuire, etc., 173 

i\ Spann 295 

f?. State 557 

Caines v. Smith 359, 365 

Caird v. Moss 644 

Cake V. Peet 636 

Caldecott, Ex parte 443, 498 

Oeilder v. Dobell 105, 107, 108 

Caldwell v. Caldwell 387, 390 

^— V Depew 633 

V. Harding 498 

t?. Henry 695 

V, Parker 865 

V. Shepherd 452 

V. Steamboat Co 130 

V, Wentworth 402 

Caldwell's case 558 

Caledonian Ins. Co. v. Oilmour . . 448 

Calhoun y. Calhoun 421 

California Fig Syrup Co. v, Put- 
nam 419 

Calkins v, Falk 179 

Call V. Calef 460 

V. Hagar 879 

Callahan v. Ackley 199 

Callender v. Edniison 269, 270 

Calliope Min. Co. v. Herzinger . . 821 

Calloway v. Snapp 384 

Calloway's Admr. v, Saunders . . 786 

Calverley r. Williams 600 

Calvert v. Carter 880 

V. Idaho Stage Co 161 

Calvo V. Dftviea 264, 383 

Camberwell and S. London Build- 
ing Society v. Holloway 667 



PAOK. 

Cambioso v. Maffitt 432, 500 

Cambridge, Mayor of v. Dennis . . 382 

Cambridie Bank r. Hyde 864 

Camden Iron Works v. Fox 629 

Cameron r. Estabrooks 584 

V. Little 284 

V, White 349, 622 

Camer<m and Wells, Re 231 

Camp V, Barker 550 

Camp Mfg. Co. r. Parker . . . 627, 628 

Campanari v, Woodbum 42 

Campbell, Ew parte 613 

Campbell r. Baldwin 778 

r. Campbell 443 

t?. Christie 852 

i\ Dearborn 631 

r. Findley 258 

V. Fleming 709 

V. French 914 

1?. Holt 774, 781 

V. Hurd 834 

V. Insurance Co 668 

17. Lacock 258, 259, 266 

V, Lambert 197 

<;. McLeod 332 

V, Maple's Adm. 774, 775 

V, Mayhugh 876 

V. Patterson 257 

V. Richardson 406 

V. Segars 399 

V, Smith 261 

r. Stakes 83 

V. Thomas 175 

Campbeirs Case 898, 901 

Campbell's Est 821 

Campbell Printing Press Co. v. 

Marsh 339, 342, 343 

V. Thorp 51 

Campion v, Whitney 383 

Canada v. Canada 550 

Canal Ca v. Racecourse Co 50 

V. Ray 827 

Canal and Dock Co. v. Russell 622 

Cauda V. Wick 364 

CJanedv r. Marcy 577, 638 

Canhain t?. Barry 523, 680 

V. Piano Mfg. Co 608 

Cannam v. Farmer 87 

Cannan r. Bryce 487 

Canning r. Farquhar 19, 20, 47 

Cannon r. Alsbury 66 

V. Hunt 528 

Cannon Rivers Assoc. i>. Rogers . 829 

Canon v. Grisby 866 

Canterbury r. Sparta 40 

Canton Inst. v. Murphy 624 

Cape Ann Bank v. Burns . . . 866, 872 

Capital Bank v. Armstrong 854 

CapiUl Ins. Co. i?. Watson 661 

Caples V. Steel 683 

Caplice r. Kelley 751 

Cappell r. Hall 427 



TABLE OF GASES. 



XXXIX 



PAOB. 

Oqniro 9. tDMananm Cou 725 

OudiiuU «. Haaiey 610 

Carew «. Rutiierford 731 

Orew's EtUte, iSe, 470 

Gaicy 9. Bumia 892 

«. Dyer 217 

r. Hulett 158 

Cargo est Argos 398 

Cargill V, Bower 702 

V. Corby 136 

Carluuri'8 Appeal 218 

Carington, Lord v. Wycombe Ry. 

Co. 138 

Carl V. Riggs 257 

Garleton 9. Lombard 652 

V. Whitcher 438, 483 

V. Woods 483 

Ou-ley V. Prac 260 

Carlill r. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 13 
19, 21, 23, 36 

Carlisle «. People's Bank 861 

Carlson v» Presbyterian Board . . 533 
Carlton v. Western^ etc., R Co. . . 204 
Carmarthen, Mayor of v. Lewis . . 166 

Oarmichael 9. Carmichael 467 

V, State 158 

r. Vandebur 695 

Carmody v. Powers 121 

Camagy p. Woodcock 628 

Qimahan v. TouMey 261, 264, 274 

Carnegie v, MorriscA 257 

Carney r. Mosher 176 

V. Newberry 345, 346 

p. Plimmer 407 

Camig p. Carr 176 

Camochan p. Christie 879 

Carolina Assoc, p. Bhick 82 

Carpenter p. Bank 292 

p. Carpenter 67, 68, 82 

p. Carpenter's Ex'rs 88 

p. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. . . . 832 

p. Fisher 388 

p. Galloway 823 

p. Hatch 734 

p. Hogan 388 

V. LoE^^an 292, 299 

r. Osbom 416 

p. Rodgers 101, 103 

p. Snelling 79S 

p. Soule 813 

p. State 774 

p. Taylor 204 

p. Wright 695 

Garr p. Carr 631 

- P. CloQgfa 67 

p. Dooley 173 

p, Dural 29 

p. Jackson Ill, 124 

p. Learitt 174 

p. Lynch 179 

p. McCarthy 176 



PAGE. 

Carr p. National Bank 701 

p. Waugh 284 

P. Welch 864 

Carrier p. Sears 103 

Carrington p. Boots 783 

Carris p. Carris 685 

Carrol p. Blenoow 91 

p. Forsyth 778 

p. Girard Ins. Co 448 

Carrothers p. Russell 438 

Carson p. Allen 346 

r. Browder 173 

p. Carter 880 

p. Dunham 427 

r. Munay 414, 415 

Carstarphen t*. Holt 176 

Carstens p. McDonald 361 

Carter P. Beckwith 99. 

p. Black 842 

p. Brown 789 

p. Calvert 880 

p. Carter 415 

p. Dixon 734 

p. Duncan 383 

^— p. Howe Machine Co 130 

p. Insurance Co. 270 

p. McLaren 565 

p. Producers' Oil Co 135 

p. Tloe 736 

p. Wormald 832 

p. Zenblin 820 

Carthage Bank p. Butterbaugh . . 443 

Cartmell r. Newton 30, 43 

Cartney v. Tyrer 786 

Cartwright p. Cartwright 418 

Cartwright p. Hateley 596 

Carville p. Crane 172 

Cary p. Greenman 608 

Cary v. Hess 378 

Casbome p. Bursham 740 

Case V. Barber 829 

p. Gerrish 378 

p. Smith 445 

Case Co. p. Smith 181 

Case Works p. Ross 717 

Casey p. Casey 743 

Cash p. Clark 180, 182 

Cashen p. Berlin School Dist. . . . 552 

Cashman p. Root 408 

Cason p. Grant County Bank 867 

868 

Cas(mi p. Jerome 853, 860 

Caspari p. First Germ. Church of 

New Jerusalem 746 

Cass County r. American Bank . 874 
Cass County Bank p. Brickner . . 441 

Oassell p. Dows 26 

Casserleigh r. Wood 445, 451 

Cassiday p. McKenzie 106 

Cassidy p. St. Germain 798 

Castle p. Wilkinson 666 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 
Caswell V, Black River MIg. Co. . 346 

V. Hunton 697 

t?. Parker 82 

t?. Putnam 603 

Gate V. Blodgett 673 

Cathcart v, Robinson 753 

Catlett V, Dougherty 822 

Catlin V. Haddox 69 

V, Henton 441 

Catlin Coal Co. v, Lloyd 874 

Catling V, King 179 

Cato V, Thompson 311 

Caton V. Caton 791, 792 

V. Stewart 434 

Catt V, Tourle 478 

Catts V. Phalen 491) 

Caudell v. Shaw 92 

Caulkins v. Fry 100, 102 

V. Whisler 586 

Cavanaugh v. Jackson 175 

Cavendish v. Geaves 286, 287 

Caylor t?. Roe 172 

Cecil V, Henderson 779 

Center i?. McQuesten . . 170, 240, 245 
Central, etc., R. Co. v. Cheatham. 23 
Central Ry. Co. of Venezuela v. 

Kisch 675, 694, 723 

Central Salt Co. r. Guthrie . 425, 468 
Central Shade RoMer Co. v. Cush- 

man 469 

Central Transportation Co. v. 

Pullman Co 142, 143, 147 

Central Trust Co. v. Berwina- 

White Co 256, 276 

V. East Tenn. Land Co. . . . 389 

r. Railroad Co 573 

- V. Respass 500 

V. West India Co. 285 

Cesar v, Kountz 673 

Chabot V. Winter Park Co 628 

Chadwick t?. Eastman 860 

Chadwick v. Knox 434 

' r. Manning 910 

Chaires v. Brady 749 

Chalfant v. Payton 465 

Challis's Case 602 

Chalmers, Ex parte, 323 

t\ Turriipseed 875 

Chamberlain v. Beller 495 

V, Dorrance 725 

■■ r. Grimes 452 

V. Williamson 546 

Chamberlin i\ Fisher 486 

V. Fuller 695 

V. Morgan 363 

r. Scott 337 

V. White 854 

i?. Whitford 199, 201 

Chambers v. Chambers 745 j 

— — V. Liverraore 633 

V, McDowell 875 



PAGE. 

Chambers v. Manchester and Mil- 
ford Ry. Co 400 

f?. Watson 914 

V, Whitney 778 

Chamblee v, McKende 250 

Chambliss v, Matthews 286 

Champion r. Genin. 179 

V. Rigby 770 

Champlain Co. v, O'Brien 210 

Champlin v. Champlin 394 

Chance v. Board of Commission- 
ers 715 

Chandler v. Coe 108, 110, 112 

V. Fulton 571 

V, HoUingsworth 393, 396 

t\ Johnson 440, 483 

V. Sanger 731 

V. Simmons 68 

Chandley v. Cambridge Springs . 448 

Chanter v. Hopkins 653 

V. Leese 235 

Chanute Bank v, Crowell 267 

Chapin v. Brown 425 

V. Chapin 444 

t?. Dobson 173 

V. Freeland 781, 794 

V. Longworth 596 

<?. Shafer 67 

Chapleo v, Brunswick Building 

Society 701, 900 

Chapman t\ Barnes 778 

V. Beltz Co 361, 528 

V. Brainard 877 

r. Chapman 67, 158 

V, Cole 590 

V. County of Douglas. . 142, 405 

r. Forbes 581 

V, Gray 414, 415 

V. Hughes 717 

V, Kansas City, etc., Ry. 

Co 364 

V. Mears 246, 258 

V. Rockford Ins. Co 448 

V. Rose 585 

i\ Shattuck 282, 284 

V, Veach 586 

Chappelle r. Olney 89 

Chappie V, Cooper 79 

Chapsky v. Wood 461, 462 

Charch v, Charch 204 

Charles v. Hastedt 82, 85 

Charles E. Wisewall, The 402, 490 

Charles P. Kellogg Co. t?. Horkey. 717 

Charlcptown v. Hay 552 

Charlesworth i?. Holt 417 

Charter r. Charter 914 

r. Trevelyan .... 388, 712, 721 

Chase r. Corcoran 12 

V. Dwinal 731 

r. Fitz . 172, 547 

V, Insurance Co. 659 



TABLE OF GASES. 



xli 



PAGE. 

Cbsae v. Bedfield Creunery Co. . 226 

t;, Swain 876 

Chasemore «. llumer 777 

diAttanooga Bank v. Rome Irou 

Co 768 

Chattock V. MuUer 470 

Cniayasse, Ev parte 431 

Cheale r. Kenward 195 

Cheek v. Nail 851, 865, 870, 871 

Cheesman r. Wiggins 171 

Cheever r. Smith 116 

r. Wilson 891 

Chemical Bank t. City Bank 110 

Chemical Nat. Bank v. World's 

Fair Exposition 323, 355 

Chemin de fer du Dauphine v. 

Clet 538 

Cheneiy r. Dele 175 

Cheney r. Cook 28 

r. Eastern Tansp. Line 47 

V. Idbby 627, 628 

r. Stone 775 

Cherokee Iron Co. v, Jones 135 

Cheriy v. Colonial Bank of Aus- 

tralaaia 119 

r. Frost 294 

V. Heming 177, 182, 789 

Cheny Valley Works v. Florence, 

etc Co 353 

Chesapeake Fuel Co. v. United 

States 469 

Chesebrongh v. ConoTer 436 

Cheshire r. Payne 393, 394 

Chesley r. Frost 845, 848, 849 

Chesaman v. Whittemore 845 

849, 850, 853 

Chester r. Dickerson 174 

Chester Co. r. Barber 451 

Chester Glass Co. r. Dewey 142 

Chesterfield r. Janssen. . 755. 756. 757 

Chevalier v. Carter 458 

Cheveront r. Textor 378 

Chew c. Bamet 569 

Chezun r. McBride 856 

Chicago r. Cameron 135 

r. Railroad Co 514 

V. Selden 573 

r. Sexton 337 

r. Tilley 560 

Chicago Bg. Co. r. Creamery Co . 226 

Chicago, etc., Co. v. Barry 349 

Chicago Dock Co. r. Kinzie .... 786 
Chicago and O. E Ry. Co. v. 

Dane 196 

Chicago, etc., R. R. Go. r. Bell. . . 249 

255 

V. Gardiner .'508 

r. Pullman Co 469 

r. Sebring 14 

Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. f?. Belli- 

with 684 



PAGE. 

Chicago, etc., Ry. Co v. Clark... 211 

17. Cobum 437 

V. Lewis 100 

1?. Merchants' Bank 292 

r. Wabash Ry. Co 500 

Chicago Title Co. 17. Smith 284 

Chicago Training School v, Dav- 

ies 337 

Chicago Trust Co. r. O'Marr 863 

Chicago Wrecking Co. v. United 

States 632 

Chickasaw Co. v. Pitcher 383 

Chicora Fertilizer Co. t?. Dunan. 830 

834 

Chilcott .'. Trimble 10 

Child V. l^ureka Powder Works. . .877 

Childer t. Bank 573 

Childs 1?. Dobbins 67 

Chiles t?. Nelson 39 

Chilton r. Brooks 263, 264 

r. Corporation of London. . . 232 

V. Bobbins 384 

Chimene r. Pennington 486 

Chinnock v. Marchioness of Ely . . 46 
Chippewa Lumber Co.. v. Phenix 

Ins. Co 448 

p. Valley Co. v. Chicago, 

etc., Co 436 

Chisholm v. Montgomery 146 

Chism V. Bank 292 

V. Schipper 289 

Chisolm V, Newton 283 

Cholmondeley r. Clinton 458 

Chorley, Ex parte 289 

Chouteau v, Jupiter Iron Works. 816 

821 

Chresman t\ Hodges 816 

Christian r. Cabell 663 

Christian College v, Hendley 187 

Christian County Bank v. Goode. . 853 

Christmas r. Russell 780 

Christopher St. Ry. Co. r. Twenty- 
third St. Ry. Co 640 

Christy t\ Flemington 778 

Chrysler r. Canaday 692 

Chubb r. Stretch 893 

r. Upton 720 

Chubbuck r. Cleveland 700 

Church r. Fowle 853 

V. Howard 860 

r. Imperial Gaslight, etc., 

Co 159, 163 

V. Proctor. . . . 197, 37r, 419, 488 

493 

t7. Sterling 387 

Chvrch Wardens r. Mayor 127 

Churchill v. Bradley 193, 194, 384 

r. Rogers 634 

r. Scott 768 

t?. White 8f 



ilu 



TABLE OF 0ASB8. 



PAiQB. 

Chute V. Pattee 206 

V, Quincy 606 

Chytraus v. Smitli 39 

Cicotte i;. Church of 8t. Aane 11 

Cilley 17. Colby 384 

Cincinnati p. Cincinnati Qaa Co. 573 

679 
Cincinnati Cras Co. v. Western Sie- 
mens Co. 591 

Cincinnati R. Co. v. Bensley 11 

Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoff- 

meister 125 

Citizens' Bank v. Babbitt ...214, 215 

V. Importers' Bank 292 

f>. Lay 295 

p. Richmond 871 

V. Smout 892 

p. Williams 858 

Citizens' Bank of Louisiana p. 
First National Bank of New Or- 
leans 795, 919 

Citizens' Nat. Bank p. Richmond. 858 

City Bank, Eof parte 145, 146, 288 

City Bank v. Bangs 14 

p. Dun 701 

p. Nat. Bank 575 

p. Wright 786 

City National Bank p. Kusworm. 441 

729, 748 
Clack p. Hadley 639, 640 

p. Holland 284 

Claes, etc., MYg. Co. p. McCord.. 350 

361 

Claffey p. Ledwith ." 734 

Clafiin p. Godfrey 581 

p. Ostrom 258, 266, 269 

Claflin et al. p. Carpenter 173 

Claggett V, Crall 695 

*?. Salmon 386 

Claiborne County p. Brooks 147 

Clampet p. Bells 179 

Clancy i\ Flusky 552 

Clanton p. Young 14 

Clapp V. Hoffman 616 

V. Mass. Benefit Assoc 658 

p. Wilder 302 

Clare r. Hatch 248 

r. Lamb 580 

Clark, Re 81 

p. Allen 388 

p. Baker 343 

p. Bayer 462 

p. Boyd 282 

p. Burr 43 

p. Bush 813 

p. Busse 637 

p. Clark 168, 415 

P. Collier 628, 638 

p. Connecticut Peat Co. . . . 285 

p. Dales 45 

— — P. Davidson 787 



PAGE. 

aark P. Des Moines 146 

p. Eckstein 873 

p. Fairfield 346 

p. Fey . 823 

P. Fisk 262, 274 

r. Fosdick 415 

p. Franklin 638 

V, Gilbert 548 

p. Girdwood 642 

P. Guest 173 

p. Hart 577 

p. Henry 630 

p. Howard 258 

p. Insurance Co 659 

p. Jones 170 

r. Lillie 572 

p. Lopez 750 

p. McCleery 335 

p. McMahon 794 

p. Malpas 750 

p. Manchester 337 

p. Marsiglia 349 

r. Mayor 337 

r. National Benefit Co 360 

p. Needham 468 

p. Northampton 147 

p. Pease . 730 

P. Pendleton 172, 176 

p. Ralls 691 

t\ Reeder 693 

p. Russell 214 

p. Shehan 786 

p. Stanhope 470 

p. Tanner 508 

p. Tate 68 

r. Terry 789 

p. Tumbull 729 

t\ Valentino 91 

p. Van Court 69 

Clark's Appeal * 193 

Clarke r. Birley 384 

r. Cobley 84 

r. Cuckfield Union 164 

t\ Dickson 713, 714 

r. Dinsmore 832 

r. Dunraven (Earl of ) ... 6, 26 

r. Dutchcr 579 

r. Foss 409 

r. Grant 312 

V, Hawkins 832 

p. Hogeman 281 

p. Insurance Co S99 

p. Lincoln Lumber Co 400 

V, McFarland's Exec. . . 249, 253 

p. Reins 664, 666 

p. White 378 

Clarkson p. Edge 478 

ClarksTille Land Co. p. Haniman. 659 

Clawson p. Gustin 861 

Clay p. Allen 408, 409 

P. Freeman • 776 



T4QM Q7 C49^ 



PAQB. 

CU^v.Towtil ,... 46(11 

V. R^y 491, 492 

V. Van Wlnkl^ 892 

r. Woodrum 272 

V. Yatcf 337, 3^1 

CUyton r. Adams 88 

V. Clark 211 

r. Corby 303 

17. Preet 677, 639 

©. Merrett 106 

r. lUwe 88 

Clearwater r. Meredith 549 

Cleaiy r. Sohier 637 

Cleaveland v. Richardson 683 

Cleaver v. Burcky 275 

r. Mut. B^erve Fund life 

Assoc 243, 252 

Cleaves r. Stockwell 696 

Cleere r. Cleere 737 

Cl^gg r. Clegg 447 

p. Hands 299 

Ciem V. Railroad Cq 688 

Clement r. Mattiton 98 

Clement's Appeal 171, 378, 491 

Clements t?. L. & N. W. Ry. 

Co 60, 75 

r. Clements v. Moore 365 

Clementson r. Blessig 427 

Clendenning v. Hawks 388 

r. Wyatt 459 

Cleye v, Financial Corporation . . . 195 

Cleveland v. Williams 106 

Cleveland Rolling Mill v. Rhodes. 331 

360, 629 

Cleves p. Willoughby 673 

Clews p. Jamieson 408, 409 

Clifford I?. Hunt 429 

V. Watts .... 619, 620, 541, 642 

Oifton V. Latchfleld 832 

Clinan r. Cooke 635 

Clinch r. Financial Corporation. . 725 

Cline V. Goodale 852, 854 

Cline r. Guthrie 685 

r. Hovey 634 

V. Templeton 215 

Clinton r. Fly 595 

r. Strong 731 

Clinton Bank v. Studemann . . 245, 257 

Clippenger r. Hepbaugh 436 

aitherall v, Ogilvie 753 

Clitheroe p. Simpson 243 

Clive r. Beaumont 45 

Clodfelter p. Cox 281, 285 

p. Hulett 257, 688 

Clopton p. Bolton 324 

GSose V. Close 385 

r, Croseland 608 

(lough p. Adams 750 

p. Hosford 335 

V. L. k N. W. Ry. Co 679 

698, 708, 710, 711, 713, 724 



PAGE. 

Clough p. Seay 57Q 

Clover V. (io^ty^^ 1337, 343 

Clow 17. Borst '. 842 

p. Derby Coal Go 385 

Plowes P. Higginson 3U, iSO^, 635 

Club|) ^. ^utson 442 

Clugas p. Penaluna 433 

Clute p. Small 87Q 

Clyne p. Helmes 673 

Coaks p. Boswell 670, 671 

Coale p. Merryman 638 

Coates p. Collins 617 

p. Cook 620 

V. Early 584 

Coats p. Gordon 87 

Cobb p. Charter 731 

p. Cole 610 

— - p. Fishel 281, 265 

p. Force 40 

P. Hall 786 

p. Hatfield 709 

r. Heron 256, 273 

r. Knapp 1 16 

p. Tirrell 378 

Cobbett P. Brock 736, 768, 769 

Coburn p. Raymond 101 

Cochran v. Atchison 292 

r. Baker 119 

F. Nebeker 865, 866 

p. People's Ry. Co 528 

p. Perry 595 

r. Stewart 294 

p. Tatum 346 

r. Ward 782, 784 

Cochrane p. Willis 614, 615 

Cock p. Moore 268 

p. Richards 465 

Cockcroft P. Muller 335. 

Cockell p. Taylor 749 

Cocker's Case 228 

Cocking p. Ward 788 

Cockrell p. Thompson 409 

Cocks p. Vamey 258, 276 

Codding r. Munson 122 

Coe p. Hobby 827 

Coe p. Smith 648 

Coffee p. Ruffin 749 

Coffey p. Commonwealth 14 

Coffin p. Adams 260 

p. Bradbury 257 

p. Portland 37 

Coffman v. Bank 748 

r. Harrison 119 

Cogan p. Duffield 643 

Cogley p. Cushman 67, 69 

Cohen p. Berlin Envelope Co 468 

V. Insurance Co 429 

p. Kittell 409 

Cohn p. Heimbauch 488 

p. Plumer 48 

Cohrt P. Kock 274 



zUt 



TABLE OF OASES. 



PAOK. 

Coit V. HouBton 832 

V. N. C/Gold Amalgamating 

Co 720 

V. Schwartz 653 

V. Starkweather 860 

Golbome and Strawbridge, E9 

parte 288 

Colcord t;. Fletcher 880 

Cold Blast Co. v. Kansas City Co. 197 

Coldcleugh v. Johnson 775 

Coldcot r. Hill 626 

Cole V. Clark 11 

r. Cole 98, 266 

V, Getzinger 750 

V. Gibbons 766 

r. Gibson 464 

V. Hawes 624 

V. Hills 854, 863, 874 

r. Joliet Opera House Co. .« 725 

17. O'Neill 393 

V. Pennoyer 66 

V. Savage 276 

V. Saxby 62 

Cole's Lessee r. Pennington 864 

Coleman r. Applegarth ... 28, 33, 35 
V. Bank 112 

V. Billings 451 

I?. Frazer 99 

V. Grubb 678 

r. Hatcher 246 

17. Hiler 249, 251, 262 

I?. Rowe 324 

V. United States 11 

V. Waller 380 

f?. Wooley's Exr 889 

Coleman's Est 735 

Coles t?. Bowne 605, 640 

V. Clark 665 

V. Pilkington 186, 917 

V, Trecothick 754 

V. Yorks 851, 866 

Colgan r. Jones 453 

Collamer t?. Day 406 

College i\ Wilkinson 99, 102 

College Mill r. Fidler 19 

CoUen V, Wright 119 

Collet r. Jaques 847 

Collier v. Baptist Soc 187 

t7. Brown 753 

Collins r. Ball 873 

r. Blantern 442, 493 

V, Bradbury 292 

V. Delaporte 349 

r. Fowler 388 

r. Goldsmith 88 

V, Locke 448, 473 

- V, Martin 11 

V, Murrell 483 

V. Prosaer 857, 863 

V. Rfflli 719 

V. Westbury 728 



PAOE. 

Collyer r. Fallon 439 

V. Moulton 349, 816, 818 

Colman i?. E. C. Ry. Co 897 

Coloma V, Eaves 137 

Colorado Springs Co. v, American 

Pub. Co 140 

Colson V, Amot 292 

Colson t\ Meyers 601, 602 

Colt r. McConnell 193 

Columbia Bank v, Holdeman 602 

Columbia Carriage Co. v. Hatch. 483 
Columbia Wire Co. v. Freeman 

Wire Co 197 

Columbia Iron Works v, Douglas. 608 

653 
Columbus, etc., Ry. Co. v, Gaffney. 12 

Colyear r. Mulgrave 234 

Comer v, Thompson 879, 880 

Comes V, Lamson 178, 789 

Comfort t?. Betts 279 

Comley v. Dazian 240 

Comly r. Hillegass 405 

Commercial Bank r. Patterson. . . 864 
Commercial Bank v. Pirie 716 

r. Wood. .258, 259, 261, 264, 273 

Commercial Ins. Co. v, Hallock . . 39 
Commercial Tel. Co. v. Smith... 46 
Commercial Union Ass. Co. v. 

Hocking 449 

Comroings v. Heard 877 

Commissioners v. Aspinwall 137 

r. Bolles 187 

t\ Emigrant Bank 866 

V, January 137 

r. Vandyke 495 

r. Young 524, 626 

Commissioners of Guilford Co. v. 

March 411 

Commissioners of Sewers v, Reg. 636 
Commonwealth r. Aves 510 

p. Bassford 507, 508 

V, Central Bridge Co 131 

t\ Cooper 389 

r. Gabbert's Admr 383 

r. Holmes 383 

i\ Kennedy 486 

r. Lane 306, 509 

V, Leeds 696 

V. Munson 158 

i\ Overby 557 

V. Peaslee 486 

r. Pulaski Co 130 

r. Railroad Co 130, 131 

r. Savings Bank 137 

V, Sides 284 

V. Terry 557 

r. Vandyke 205 

r. Webster 557 

v: Williamstown 146 

Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Knabe. 886 
Companies' Acts, Re 526 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlv 



PAfflB. 

Compton r. Mkrtin 177 

Oomstock, Re 87 

Comatock r. Adams 444 

r. Herron 660 

r. Howd 187 

p. Price 336 

r. Smith 276, 874 

Conable v, Keeiaey 856 

V. Smith 856 

Conant r. Alvord 119 

r. B. F. Canal Co 147 

Conaiy p. Sawyer 63 

Ccmboj r. Howe 77 

Condict V. Flower 853 

V. Blackwell 743 

Condon 9. Barr 200 

r. Walker 402 

Cooe r. Rusaell 376, 377, 439 

Confederate Note Case, Tlie 431 

Congdon r. Darcy 46 

Conger v. James 880 

Congregational Soc. v. Flagg. 246, 258 

V. Peny 187 

Congresa Spring Co. r. Knowlton. 495 

Conors and Holland's Case 817 

Conine v. Railroad Co 160 

Conker r. Bond 388 

Conklin r. Conway 601 

V. Smith 257 

Conkling v. Tattle 204 

Conlan v. Roemer 690, 692, 713 

Conlcy 9. Nailor 736 

V, Palmer 616 

Conn V, Cobum 80 

Connecticut Ins. Co. v. Chase ... 661 
-r. Hamilton 448 

— V. Jones 876 

-p. United States 532 

-p. Way 452 

Connecticut Hut. L. I. Co. p. 

Knapp 272 

V. Mayer 264 

Connecticut River Lumber Co. v. 

Brown • 839 

Connell v. Kitchens 399 

Connelly p. Devoe 550 

Conner r. Canter 438, 439 

r. Drake 446 

r. Fitzgerald 790 

9. Fleshman 874 

p. Sharpe 872 

Connolly r. Branstler 88 

V. Union Pipe Co. 490 

Connor ▼. Black 408, 502 

p. Jones 262 

— V. Simpson 880 

«. Stanley 746, 747 

Conorer p. Hobart 275 

r. Stillwell 204 

Conqnest's Case 227 



PA0B. 

Conrad v. Lane 82 

p. Schwamb 666 

17. Williams 465 

Conroe -p. Birdsall 82 

Conrow p. little 708 

Consaul p. Sheldon 852 

Consolidated Co. p. Curtis 566 

Consolidated Exploration and 

Finance Co. r. Musgrave 443 

Consolidated Milling Co. v. Fogo. 679 
Ccmstable p. National Steamship 

Co 250, 259, 277 

Consumer's Ice Co. p. Jennings. . . 852 
Continental Nat. Bank v. Mc- 

Geoch 380 

Continental Trust Co. p. Toledo, 

etc., Ry. Co 390 

Converse p. Michigan Dairy Co. . 299 

Conway -r. Cutting 281 

p. Garden City Co. 470 

V. Gore 634 

Conway's Exrs. v. Alexander 631 

Conyers, Admr. of, r. Magrath. ... 114 

Coody p. Gress Lumber Co 173 

Coogan p. Parker 631, 634 

Cook p. Anderson 631 

p. Andrews 641 

t?. Berlin W. M. Co 390 

p. Berrott 258 

p. Bradley 199 

p. Casler 34 

p. Coxwell 872 

p. Doggett 787 

c. Field 459 

p. Lister 295, 693 

p. liston 639 

p. McCabe 628 

p. Morris 876 

p. Preston 634 

r. Sherman 500 

p. South Columbia Co. 389 

p. Tullis 121 

p. Walker 643 

Cooke p. Cooke 446, 458 

-p. Eshelby 115 

p. Lamotte 737 

p. Murphy 204 

r. Nathan 689 

r. Oxley 27, 31, 34 

p. Pool 452 

Cooksey v. Kansas City, etc., R. 

Co 876 

Cool p. Cunningham 197 

Cooley p. Lobdell 790 

1\ Steele 88 

Coolidge r. Payson 25 

r. Rhodes 690 

Coombes v. Chandler 294 

p. Dibble 912 

Coombs r. Emery 402 

p. Gorden 567 



Hji 



T4fl^.j5 PF p^s?^. 



PAGE. 

Coombs V, Railway Co 7%2 

i?. Wilkes . : 179 

Coon V, Rlgden 180 

Cooney v. Lincoln 102, 104 

Cooper V, Altimus Z^ 

V. Austin 175 

t?. Commonwealth 500 

p. Cooper U 

V. Evans 662 

<?. Foss 261 

r. Gum 335 

t\ Hornsby 786 

r. Insurance Co 639 

V. Joel 662 

V. Johnson 878 

r. Lansing Wheel Co. 197 

V, Lee 736 

■' 1?. Lovering 690, 692 

r. Parker 838 

V. Phibbs 664, 576, 679, 015 

616 

V. Simmons 74, 79, 596 

t\ State 81 

V, Vesey 668, 593 

V. Yazoo, etc., R. Co 830 

Coors 17. German Bank 291 

Coover r. Davenport 120, 495 

Cope V, Parry 241 

r. Rowlands 400 

r. Thames Haven, etc., Co. IG5 

Copeland v. Boaz 444 

r. Insurance Co 388 

i\ Manton 281 

V. Wading River Co 879 

Copenrath r. Kienby 101 

Copps r. Matthews 112 

Copley V. Grover S. M. Co 13^ 

Coppell V. Hall 497 

Copper r. Mayor 145 

Copper Miners of England t\ 

Fox 163 

Coppock t'. Bower 444, 493 

Coquillard r. Bearss 451 

Corbett r. Cochran 170 

v. Lucas 821 

r. Underwood 40S 

r. Waterman 261, 264 

Corbin v, Wachhorst 486 

Corbyn v. Brokmeyer 215 

Corcoran r. Corcoran 444 

V, Doll 873 

i\ Lehigh Coal Co 408 

r. White 44 

Cordes v. Miller 514, 529 

Cordingley r. Cheesebrough .... 665 

Corey r. Powers 246, 258 

Cork and Bandon Ry. Co. v. 

Cazenove 73 

Cork and Youghal Rv. Co. Re . . . 400 

Corley r. T^rd Stafford 391, 642 

v, Williams 442 



PAGE. 

Corn r. Matthews 6^, 7^ 

Com Exch. Bank v. Nassau 

Bank 29? 

Cornell r. Cornell 551 

V, Crane 696 

V, Hall 631 

v. Hichens 292 

Comelson v. Insurance Co. 14 

Comer t?. Mackey 259, 266 

c. Sweet 814 

Corafoot V. Fowke 700 

Cornford r. Carlton Bank ISQ 

Coming r. Abbott 402 

p. Burton 2^^ 264 

Cornish v. Wiessman 302 

Corns r. Clouser 436, 483 

Cornwall i\ Henson 34p, ^45 

r. McFarland 692 

Corrigan v. City 53? 

f . Tiernay , 630 

Cort v. Ambergate, etc., Ry. 

Co 353, 364 

Corttlvou r. Hoagland 171 

Cortland Mfg. Co. v. Piatt 699 

Cory r. Gertcken 85 

V. Patton 796 

Cosgrove V. Fanebust 874 

Costa Rica Ry. Co. r. Forwood. . . 391 

Coster r. Albany, Mavor of 258 

27U 

Costigan t*. Hastier 755 

Cote, Ex parte 30, 571 

Cotes V, Bennett 261 

Cothran r. Ellis 406 

Cottage Street Church v, Ken- 
dall 35^ 186, 187 

Cotten r. Williams 857 

Cotton V. Edwards 858 

r. McKenzie 48*? 

Cottrill V, Krum 695 

Couchman's Admr. i\ Couchman . 735 
Coughlin V, Knowles 786 

r. Railroad Co 451 

Coulson V. Allison 735 

Coulter r. Clark 692 

I'. Robinson 491 

County of Gloucester Bank t;. 

Rudry Merthyr, etc., Co 899 

County Life Assurance Co. Re . . 898 

County of Macon t?. Shores 144 

Pourcamp v. Weber 873 

Coursolle v. Weyerhauser ... 66, 174 

Courtenay r. Williams 776 

Courtis r. Cane 565 

Courtright r. Burns 452 

V. Courtrisrht 577 

Coutts r. Acworth 768 

Courturier r. Hastie . . 540, 612, 916 

Covell i\ Bostwick 194 

C'oventry r. R.irton 495 

Cover V, McLaughlin 346 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlvii 



boveHUde b. ISAMrpoA , M 

Cover^ ¥. TeHiiMal WlurehoiM 

Co ilO 

CmiagUm v. Hireadglll 300, 400 

4d2, 483 

Cowan V. Baird 902 

y. Fairbr^iker 468 

V. Milbourn . 372, 420« 488, 480 

on 

-•— - V. O'Comior 30 

Gmard v. Hughes 580, 750 

CMrat4 and Adam's Purchase 

He 04 

boinajeh HaiUtbho^ P. Lallhhoy 

VuUnMioj 644 

Ctmdin r. Oottgctreu 170 

Cowdrqr v. Vandenbutgh 204 

Cowdty r. Day 630 

t&vree r. CorneU 103, 737, 738 

Cowell f?. Lumloy 53J 

Coireil r. Truefttt, Ltd 317 

Cowing 9. Cloud 202 

Cowletf i;. Morgan 880 

-r — «. Raguet 488 

Cowles Electtid Co. v. Lowrej ... 622 

Cowley r. Slii^h 602 

Cox r. AleiAAder 867 

r. Britt : 622 

V. Hann 388 

r. Hoxife 275 

r. Jagger S70 

r. McLaughlin 332, 352 

«. Montgomery 723 

r. Prentice 610, 621 

r. Railroad Co 64, 383 

Cox Shoe Co. t, Adams 717 

Coxhead f . Mullis 70 

gy r. Dowliie 631 
yle r. Baum 341 

Coynet r. Lydde 204 

Crabill t. Marsh 700 

Crabtree v. Kile 607 

t. May 64 

.; r. Measersmith 361 

Craft V. Kendrick 170 

-^ r. VcCoQoughy 468, 500 

gift's Appeal 201 
aftsbury t?. ffill 870 

Cragie r. Hadley 701 

Cragin r. Lovell 110, 277 

Crago^ r. Jofaes 383 

Crtiig r. Butler 631 

t. Dimtek 708 

r. Harper 27 

' V. Kittredge 634 

*. Lowe 870 

r. Town of Andes 137 

-J- — r. Van BeUier 68 

Craighead «. McLoney 865 



PAOB. 

Cram 0. Oottrell M 

CtaniCr t>: Hahaford 800 

f. Lepper « 275 

Crampton v. Ballird ^50 

p. Ridley 803 

t?. Varna Ry. Co 166 

Crandall t>. Auburn Bank 858 

r. Willig 28, 217 

Crane v. Crane 685 

t. C. Crane & Co 107 

P. Wheeler 171 

— - t. Wilson 620 

Craniner v. Porter 850 

Cranson r. Cranson 305 

V. Gfoas 405 

Crass V. Cniggs 831 

Cravens r. Booth 88 

Craver v, Homburg 608 

Crawford v. Berry 880 

r. Edison 170 

t?. Edwards 260, 263, 275 

r. Insurance Co 65, 428 

r. Longstreet 140, 161 

r. Mail & Express Co 52 

V. Millspaugh 816, 821 

V, Osmuh 505 

r. Rohrer 710 

17. Russell 464 

p. Scovell 102 

V, Spencer 406, 400 

V. West Side Bank 861, 871 

r. Wick 469 

V, Witherbee 301 

Crawshaw v. Roxbury 23 

Crayton v, Clark 286 

Cream City Co. v. Friedlander. . . 108 

Crears r. Hunter 213 

Creed v. Henderson 186 

Creekmore tk Chitwood 402 

CreesT t?. Willis 200 

Creigh's Admr. r. Boggs 664 

Creighton v. Gregory 840 

Crescent Co. v. Bear 500 

Cresinger r. Welch 63, 68, 69 

Cress V. Blodirett 261, 273 

Cresdwell t. McCaig 786 

V, M^rtindale 332 

Cribben v. Deal 855, 856 

Cribbins v. Markwood 757 

Cribbs r. Sowle 729 

Crim r. Fitch 170 

Cripps r. Hartnoll 170, 171 

Criss V. Criss 774 

Crisiip r. Grosslight 441 

Critcher v, Holloway 487 

Crocker v. Arey 780 

p. Bellange 456 

V, Higgins 250 

17. Manley 601 

— — P. Railroad Co 16, 27 



xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 
Crockett v. Doriot 890 

V. Thomaaon 869 

Croft r. Graham 759 

f?. White 853 

Crofts V. Middleton 398 

Crolley v. Railway Co 141 

Cromwell v. Wilkinson.. 341, 342, 629 

Crone v. Stinde 249, 261, 265 

Cronin r. Watkins 298 

Croninger v. Crocker 605 

V, Paige 608 

Cronk p. Cole 691 

Cronkhite v. Nebeker 868 

Croockewit v. Fletcher 873 

Crook V, Corporation of Seaford. . 147 

Crooker v. Holmes 52 

Crooks p. Crooks 218 

V. Nippolt 708 

Crookshank v. Rose 807 

Cropton V, Davies 317 

Crosby r. Meeks 703 

V. Wadsworth 783 

Cross t?. Brown 295 

t\ Button 531 

r. Cross 444 

r. Powell 843 

t\ State Bank 855 

r. Tniesdale 257 

Crossley v. Conn. Ins. Co 448 

t\ Maycock 44 

r. Moore 378, 504 

r. Stanley 661 

Crossman v. Lurman 878 

p. Universal Rubber Co 707 

p. Wohlleben 205 

Croswell p. Labree 854 

Crouch p. Credit Foncier of Eng- 
land 288, 293, 294 

Crow p. Kimball Lumber Co 831 

p. Lewis •. 272 

V. Robinson 285 

- p. Rogers 244 

Crowell P. Currier 263, 274, 276 

p. Hospital of St. Barnabas. 274 

-r p. Jackson 683 

Crowley p. Genesee Mining Co. . .. 161 

p. Langdon 690 

Crown Cycle Co. p. Brown 707 

Crown Point Iron Co. P. ^tna Ins. 

Co 40 

Crowther p. Farrer 830 

Croyle p. Moses 681 

Crozier, Re 260 

p. Shants 283 

Crum p. Sawyer 814 

Crumbauffh p. Kugler 258 

CrumlisVs Admr. p. Central Imp. 

Co 841 

Crump p. Morgan 98 

p, U S. Mining Co. 676, 700, 701 



PAGB. 

Cnitcher p. Trabue 384 

Crutchfield p. Donathon 788 

CucuUu p. Walker 267, 274 

Cudney p. Cudney 736 

Cuff p. Penn 823 

Culbreath p. Culbreath 679 

CuUen p. Bimm 652 

p. Thomson's Trustees and 

Kerr 703 

Culmer P. American Co 285 

Culp p. Love 468 

Culver p. Banning 187 

Cumber p. Wane 211, 838 

Cumberland Assoc, p. Gibbs.. 385, 661 

Cumberland Bank p. Penniman . . . 859 

Cummer p. Butts 49 

Camming p. Ince 730 

I Cumming's Appeal 193 

Cummings p. Arnold 821, 823 

p. Bramhall 776 

p. Gann 13, 23 

p. Little 386 

p. Union Stone Co 468 

Cundy p. Lindsay 592, 718 

Cunningham p. Barnes 463 

p. Carpenter 283 

r. Dunn 530 

p. Jones 453 

p. Munroe 731 

p. Neeld 179 

p. Williams 180, 850 

Cuno, RCf Mansfield v, Mansfield. 95 

Curlewis p. Clark 838 

Curley p. Dean 878 

Curran p. Curran 789 

p. Downs 402 

Currie P. Goold 581 

p. Misa 185 

Curry p. Curry 11 

r. Rogers 250, 255 

Curtin p. Patton 82 

Curtis P. Albee 563, 639 



Aspinwall 684 

Blair , 174 

Curtis 469, 814 

Gibney 332 

Gokey 375 

La Grande Water Works. 791 
Lakin 723 



p. 
p. 
r. 
p. 
p. 
p. 
p. 
p. Leavitt 



140 

p. McDougal 69 

p. Sage 177 

p. Smith 650 

p. lyier 262 

p. Van Bergh 633 

p. Williamson 116 

Curzon p. Belworthy 765 

Gushing p. Field 859 

p. Rice 112 

Cushman p. Insurance Co 658 



TABLE OF OASES. 



zliz 



PAGE. 

Cathbertson's Appeal 734 

Cutler V, Gilbreth 608 

r. Haven . 282 

V. Pope 173 

V. Roee 851 

r. Welsh 487 

Cutter r. Cook 295 

r. GUlette 363 

r. Powell 327 

Cutta t?. Guild 599 

V. United States 864 

r. Ward 913 

Cuzon p. Chadley 240 

D. 

D. C. r. Gallagher 318 

Da Costa v, Davis 552 

r. Jones 425 

Dacre P. Goiiges 600 

Dadirrian p. Yacubian 419 

Dady p. Condit 693 

Dagenham Dock Co., iZe 632 

Da^tt r. Flanagan 284 

p. Johnson 51 

Dailey r. Cohen 798 

r. Hollis 470 

p. King 214 

Daily p. Minnick 193, 195, 200 

Dakota, etc., Co. p. Price 335 

Dale, Re 548 

p. Hamilton 174, 791 

p. Robinson 891 

Dalev P. Peoples* Assoc 346, 352 

Dallas p. Heard 891 

Dallv P. Wonham 743 

Dalryniple r. Scott. 348, 360, 367, 368 

Dalton P. Angus 304 

p. Gib 78 

p. Midland Ry. Co 80 

r. Thurston 670 

Dambmann p Schulting 683 

Dame p. Baldwin 567 

Damron v, Comm 82 

Dana p. Hancock 823 

r. Steams 63 

Danby v, Coutts 815 

Danforth r. Culver 777 

r. Walker 349 

Dangel v. Levy 873 

Dangler p. Baker 699 

Daniel P. Bowles 495 

p. Daniel 872 

p. Frazer 782 

p. Hill 730 

V, ^fason 88 

p. Robinson , 170 

Daniel's Settlement 317 

Daniell r. Sinclair 676, 679 

Daniels v. Benedict. 92, 414, 415, 735 

r. Gibson p 170 

p. Hallenbeck 842 

p. Johnson 261, 267, 631 

iv 



PAGE. 

Daniels p. Kewton. 968, 859, 364 

Daniher p. Grand Lodge 440 

Dannat p. Fuller 540 

Dansby r. Frieberg 378, 380 

Dant p. Head 177, 789 

Danube, etc., Co. p. Xenos 360 

Danziger p. Hoyt 842 

Darby p. Kroell 693 

Darland p. Taylor 844 

Darling r. Cumming 182 

Darlington's Appeal 735, 768 

Darlington Iron Co. v, Foote 39 

Darrell p. Hastings 79 

t\ Tibbitts 533, 659 

Darrow V, H. R. Home Co. . 108, 112 

Darst p. Gale 142 

Darwin p. Ripley 860 

Dashwood p. Jermyn 918 

Daskam r. UUman 654 

Daubuz p. Morshead 429 

Dauglish p. Tennent 378 

Dauler p. Hartley 501 

Davenport p. Bishopp 234 

p. First Congregational Soc. 210 

p. Gentry's Admr 596 

P. Reg 61 

Davey p. Shannon 177, 479 

David p. Park 695 

p. Ryan 514, 529 

Davidson p. Burke 211, 816 

p. Cooper 853, 873 

p. Greer 640 

p. Kelly 875 

r. Little 749, 757, 768 

Davidson's Appeal 88 

Davie p. Lumbermen's Mining Co. 49 

50 

p. Bums 205 

Davies 65, 70, 477, 481 

Fitton 637, 638 

Jenkins 889 

London and Provincial 

Marine Ins. Co 660, 681 

p. Lyon 701 

p. Makuna 801, 803 

r. Smith ^ 52 

p. Stowell 460 

Davis p. MtoB. Mut. F. Ins. Co. . . 39 

p. Allen 116 

p. Arledge 495 

p. Bank 106 

p. Bauer 857, 859 

p. Betz 688, 706, 708, 709 

p. Boggs 623 

p. Bronson 349 

p. Brown 468 

p. Building Union 144 

p. Caldwell 77 

p. Calloway 257, 260 

p. Campbell 187, 852 

p. Carlisle 853 

p. Cobum 695 




9nwnm 99 Gi»So« 



_ PAGOB. 

DiYig «. 06taiiMmwA!Ul.....4M; 461 

p. CiirtU ,. 876 

V. Davis 106, 407 

V. Dean 744 

V. Dexter Co 226 

V, Dudl«7 69 

V. Duke of Marlborough 440 

r. Ely . : : 634 

p. Eppler 860 

^ — V, George 673 

r. Gerber 174 

r. Gi-iiiia Rapid*, etc., Co. . . 361 

p. Gray 194 

^ — p. Hamlin 390 

V, Hardy 271 

p. Hartlerode 608 

- p. Henry 865 

- V. Holbrook 602 

p Hulett 263 

p. Inscoe 786 

p. Jeffris 326 

p. Lane 100, 106 

p. Laning 91 

p. McFarlan* 173 

r. Meeker 692 

p. Miller 295 

P. Morgan 199, 204 

p. Munson 205 

p. Nat. Bank of Commeroe.. 271 

p. Kewman 581 

p. Noll 295 

— — r. Parker 666 

P.Patrick 171 

r. Pryor ;.. 120, 158, 495 

p. Railroad Co 142, 143 

p. Richardson 798 

— — V. School District 11 

V. Seeley 291 

t?. Settle 452 

P. Shafer 857 

p. Shields 180 

p. Smith 890, 893 

p. Snyder 683 

p. Stout 206 

r. Strangers Exrs 735 

p. Stuard 721 

r. Tarver 99 

p. Thomas 631 

p. Tift 170 

r. Tingle 88 

p. Tubbs 353 

p. Water Works; 254 

p. Wells 22, 35 

p. Williams 437 

r. Wrigley 775 

Davis, etc., Works p. McHugh. ... 28 

Davison p. Davison 790 

p. Von Lingen 655 

Davisson P. Ford 215 

Davoue p. Fanning 387 



Ikvy V. BaagB. ......:.; ; .... 406 

Dnwe V. Morris. .;..;.. 066, 686, 693 

Dawes, Bw parte 624 

Dawes v. Harness 710 

p. Jackson 112 

bawkins p. Gill 446 

-1 — p. Sappington 14 

Dawson p. Bnms. ..:...;; 584 

— - V, Oollis 334, 342 

r. Dawson 89 

p. Ellis ; 789 

p. Fitigerald . . . ; 4^8, 440 

p. Helmes 66 

p. State 383 

Day p. Caton n 

P. Cloe 170 

r. Connecticut, etc., Cd 361 

t^. Day 636, 644 

p. Fort Scott Co 689, 854 

p. Gardner 210 

— ^ P. Holmes 389 

p. McLea 839 

p. New York Cent. R. R. Co. 176 

p. Newman 753, 754 

p. Patterson . . . ; 261 

p. Pool 608 

r. Putnam Ins. Co 205 

p. Singleton 611 

p. Vinson 695 

p. Wilson 786 

Dayton p. Fargo 456 

p. Turnpike Co 226 

Dayton Co. p. Sloan 780 

Deacon v, Gridley 203 

Dean v, Carmth 56 

P. DHggs 293 

r. Emerson 483 

p. Oliver 690 

r. Rice 385 

V, Rose 693 

P. Walker 265 

r. Yates 692 

Dearborn p. Bowman 199, 201 

Dearden v. Adams 67 

Dearie p. Hall 281 

Dearmond p. Dearmond 395 

Deatley's Heirs p. Murphy 605 

Deaton p. Munroe 767, 738 

p. Tennessee Coal Co 176 

Deaver v. Bennett 601 

De Baun p. Brand. 470 

De Bebian r. Gola 112 

toe Beil p. Thomson 466, 915 

Debenham r. Ox 466 

De Bolld i\ Pennsylvania Ins. Co.. 276 
De Bussche p. Alt. 388, 389, 392, 596 

723 

De Camp r. Hamma 585 

Decan p. Shipper 692, 718 

Decell p. Lewenthal 77 



tABt^fi Olf CASES. 



ii 



^ CKimbnin t. Sdkefliefilotti. .. 50$ 

tfecker r. Decker dl4 

^ — r. Fk^ericks 70^ 

Dedridc v. Blyker 264 

Dee V. DowDB 171 

t. Key Citjr Ins. Co 448 

t>eere r. Morgan 679, 709 

Deering v. Chapman 4^3 

0. Cililiiinghain 434, 436 

r. EArt of WincheUea 386 

t>. Moblre 212 

l)eering Go. p. Peugh 662 

leering Harvester Co. V. White. . 85^ 

pefenbangh v. Weaver 827 

De Francesco p. Bamum 75 

0e Freest v. Warner 778 

Be GHtmim f. Jones 89^ 

t)e Grbff p. Ainer. L. T. Co 142 

r. Uiiited States 879 

DeHoghton i^. Mon^... 226, 453, 460 

457 

Deierling v. Sloop 409 

Deischer P. Price 644 

Deits r. Insurance Co il2 

De Jamett r. Cooper ^34 

De Jonge P. Hunt 43 

Delacroix v, Bulkley. 827 

De la Cuesta P. Insurance Co. 579, 731 

Delafleld p. Parish 734 

De Lancey p. Finnegan 630 

De Lassale p. Gulldforit 173, 313, 533 

921 

De la Touche's Settlement, Re 623 

De La Vergne Co. p. German Sav. 

Inst 143 

Delavina P. Hill 486 

Delaware, etc., Co. I?. Common- 
wealth 131 

Delaware Couhty p. Diebold Safe 

Co. 595 

D. & H. C. Co. r. Penn. Coal Co. 448 

p. Westchester Bank... 238, 258 

Delaware Navigation Co. p. Key- 

bold 420 

Delaware, etc., R. Co. p. Frank. . . 490 

IM Lednis f. Walsh 502 

Delier p. Plyttouth Soc 405 

Dellett p. Kemble. . . . : 791 

Delllilger p. Gillespie 584 

Delmas p. Insurance Co 420, 431 

Delone p. Hull 707 

De Longuemere p. Insuratice Co.. 657 

De Lovenso p. Hughes 839 

Delp p. Brewing Co 258, 259, 266 

De MalariA r. United States 855 

Demars P. MusserSahtry Co 214 

De Martin p. Phelan 630 

De Mattos P. Gibson 298 

Demeritt p. Bickford 171 

Deming r. Darling 690 694 

p. State 503 



De Montague p. BMshliriidll iQ 

Dempsey p. Harm 498 

-. p; Law^dii 337 

Den p. WH^hi 853 

Dendy p. Heildersion 478 

De Nich611s p. SaUndfers 594 

De Nicols, Ris 174 

Deuio p. Statfe 38^ 

Denisoli p. Deriisoh J58 

DfeumAn p. BaylfeAS 879 

P. MfeMahin 820, 844 

Denn P. Wilfdfd 624 

Dfennehy P. McNultft 490 

Iteimett p. AtJ^erton 304 

— ^ p. beunett 104 

— : — P. Lawson 813 

tteimey p. JdhndOU 431 

T-^-^ P. WheelWriglit 52 

Defanii P. Jones 709 

t>. Nbrthern Pafe. Co 634 

Dehny P. Hahcoek 602 

p. WlllidAis 782 

Dehslnofe Oil C6. P. Dendmore,.. 389 

674, 676 

Delit P. Bennett 735, 737, 746 

— — t>: Ferguson 496 

— ^ P. tong 769 

Denton i?. English 413 

*?: G. N. Ry. Co 15, 19 

p. Peters 291 

Denver, etc., Co. r. Stout 448 

Denver, etc., R. R. Co. p. Riley. . . 448 

De Pauw r. Bank 867, 868 

De Perez v. Everett 699 

De Peyster r. Hasbrouck 634 

Deposit Bank v. Heame 661 

Deposit Life Assur. Co. p. Ays- 
cough 710 

Derby p. Johnson 337, 349, 550 

. P. Phfelps 172, 178 

p. Thtall 863 

Dermott r. Jones 528 

Derocher P. Continental Mills 67 

Derr p. Keaough 868 

Derry p. Duchess of Mazarine. ... 91 

p. Peek 647, 677, 683, 684 

Des Farges r. Pugh 679 

Deshon p. Fosdick 43 

p. Wood 794 

Desilver, Estate of. 101 

Des Moines Univ. P. Livingston.. 186 

De Sobry P. De Laistre 511 

Detroit Bank r. Blodgeti 729 

Dettra p. Kestner 716 

Deutsch r; Pratt 97^, 604 

Deux p. Jeflferies 836 

DeveChiOn p. Shaw §, 196. 216 

Dfevendorf r. W. Va. Oil, etc., Co. 110 

Devers r. Howard 249, 251, 263 

Dfevine P. Edwards 576, 610 

p. Harkness 470 



lii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Devine v. State 567 

Devlin v. Mayor 695 

Devoe v. Brandt. 679, 717 

Devonshire's (Earl of) Case 163 

Dew V, Parsons 731, 732 

De Wahl v, Hraune 91, 104 

Dewees v. Miller 406 

Deweese t?. Cheek 832 

V. Muff 106 

Dewey v, Merritt 873 

V, Union School Dist 662 

De Witt V. Berry 662 

r. Railway Co 30 

V, Walton 110 

De Witt Co. r. New Jersey Co. . . 468 

De Wolf V. French 62 

Dews 17. Olwill 286 

De Wtttz t\ Hendricks 430 

Dexter v. Edmands 780 

r. Hall 43, 100, 101 

V. McCellan 390 

V, Norton 634, 569 

r. Young 879 

Dey V, Martin 383 

Dial V. Crain 822 

Diamond v. Harris 631 

Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber. . . 426 

468, 478 

Dibbins v. Dibbins 107 

Dibble r. Insurance Co 56 

Dibblee v. Sheldon 708 

Dick V. Leverich 292 

r. Page 106 

Dickerman v Miner 863 

V. Northern Trust Co 490 

i\ Mays 787 

Dickey, Succession of 801 

V, Linscott 645 

Dickinson, Ex parte 508 

f. Burrell 456 

t\ Calahan 543 

i\ Doddfi ... 27, 28, 32, 34, 42 

V. Gay 620 

V, Seaver 456 

r. Valpy 145 

Dickie V. Nashville Abstract Co. . 700 
Dickson v. Bamberger 856 

t\ Kittson 439 

r. Miller 893 

v. Patterson 709 

V. Renter's Telegram Co 233 

V. Swansea Vale Ry. Co 288 

Dickson's Exr. v. Thomas... 406, 407 
Dickson Mfg. Co. t?. American 

Locomotive Co 449 

Diddle r. Needham 789 

Diem v. Koblitz. . .323, 336, 366, 361 

671 

Dietrich v. Hoefelmeir 177 

Dietz, Re 380 



PAOB. 

Dietz's Assignee r. Sntcliffe 707 

Diffenderfer r, Scott 195 

Diggle t*. Higffs 406, 601, 912 

V, London and Blackwall 

Ry. Co 162 

Diggs V. Denny 679 

Di lorio p. Di Brasio 215 

Dikeman r. Arnold 346 

Dilks V. Hammond 879 

Dill V, Bowen 68 

Dillaby v. Wilcox 171 

Dillard v, Brenner 408 

Dillard v. Insurance Co 428 

Dillaway r. Alden 409 

V, Peterson 264 

Dillinger's Appeal 416 

Dillman v. Nadlehoffer 688 

Dillon V. Allen 399 

V. Anderson 349 

r. Cunningham 894 

Diman r. Railroad Co 639, 641 

Dimmick v. Register 256, 268 

Dimmock v. Hallett 666 

Dingeldein v. Third Ave. R, R. 

Co 268 

Dingley v. Oler 360, 368 

Dinkier r. Potts 717 

Dinsmore v. Duncan 853 

P. Stimbert 685 

r. Tidball 661 

Dinwiddle p. Self 577 

Dion P. St. John Baptiste Soc 406 

j Distilled Spirits, The 108 

Distilling Co. p. Nutt 486 

District of Columbia p. Camden 

Iron Works 160 

p. Gallaher 673 

Ditcham v, Worrall 70 

Ditson p. Ditson 685 

Dittoe's Adm'r v, Cluney's Exrs. . 844 

Dively i\ Cedar Falls 146 

Diver v. Friedheim 860 

Diversy v. Kellogg 106 

I Dix p. Cobb 286 

I Dixie p. Worthy 200 

, Dixon, Ex parte II4 

I r. Bovill 293 

i\ Dixon 417 

p. Duke 786 

P. Fridette 340 

P. Olmstead 441, 488 

p. Pace 240 

p. Spencer 383 

r. Wilmington Trust Co . . . 706 

Dixon County r. Field 137 

Doane p. Chicago City R. R. . 436, 437 

p. Dunham 662 

p. Eldridge 861 

Dobbin p. Cordiner 88 

P. Hubbard 891, 893 



TABLE OF CASES. 



mi 



PAGE. 

DdbfaiiiB 9. Higgina 332 

Dobell 9. Stevens 694 

DobMn V. Espie 8l7, 818 

Dockeiy v. McLellan 451 

Dod V. Edwards 812 

Dodd r. Bartholomew G23 

r. Charton 629, 561 

- V. Wakeinan 391 

Dodder v. Snyder 173 

Dodge, Re 39 

r. Adams 199 

V. Hopkins 107, 174 

r. Nat. Exchange Bank 258 

r. Zimmer 173 

' Dodge's Admr. v. Moss 257, 274 

Doe 9. Bingham 860 

r. Bumham 402 

r. Catomore 873 

V. Hirst 846, 846, 848 

Doe d. Bennett v. Hale 804 

Doe d. Bryan r. Bancks 61 

Doe d. Gramons r. Knight 6, 55 

Doe d. Leach v. Micklem 317 

Doe d. Pennington r. Taniere 166 

Doe d. Williams r. Evans... 458, 459 

Doegett V. Emerson 701 

Doneny v. Lacy 737 

Doherty c. Dolan 336 

V. Hill 179 

Dolan V. Rodgers. . 536, 636, 638, 559 

Dolbeer v. Livingston 855, 856 

Dolbier v, Norton 859 

Doll F. Crume 249, 254, 273 

V. Noble 52 

Dollar p. Parkington 178 

Dolson V, Hope 402 

Don r. Lippmann 781 

Donaldson r. Farwell 679, 712 

p. Williams 846 

Donegal r. Vomer 445 

Donellan v Read 789 

Donnell v, Bennett 469 

Donnelly r. Currie Hardware Co. . 40 

r. Newbold 210 

Donnelly's Will 735 

Donner r. Redenbaugh 600 

Donovan r. Daiber 409 

r. Donovan 685 

V. Ward 69 

Don Yook r. Washington Mill Co. 258 

Doolcj 9. Jackson 602 

Doolin r. Ward 470 

Doolittle V. McCnllongh 337, 728 

Doran v, McConlosue 738 

Dorland «. MnlhoUan 26 

Dorr V. Oory 690 

r. Fisher 608 

Dorrington v. Minniek 270 

Dorsey r. Conrad 874 

V. Packwood 218 

Dorwin r. Smith 460 



PACK. 

Doty V. Railroad Co 298 301 

Dougan v, Macpherson 387 

DoughertjT v. Bash. , . , 172 

V, Catlett 822 

V, Powe 101 

V. Seymour 487 

V, Sprinkle 891 

Dougherty Bros. v. Central Bank. 823 

365 

Doughten v. Camden Assoc 343 

Doughty r. Manhattan Brass Co.. 180 

V, Savage 379, 660 

Douglas r, Culverwell 631 

Douglass r. Branch Bank 276 

r. Ferris 384 

p. Matting . . . : 685 

p. Scott 867, 872 

Dover p. Robinson 856 

Dow V. Clark 267 

f>. Harkin 336, 341, 346 

p. Sanborn 679 

r. Tuttle 833 

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. P. Schroeder. . 584 

685 

Dowie V. Driscoll 737, 746 

Downard p. Hadley 391 

Downer t\ Bank 569 

V. Thompson 605 

Downes v. Jennings 393, 394 

Downey v. Riggs 345 

Downing v. Ringer 399 

Downs r. Donnelly 579 

Dows t?. Glaspel 409 

p. Perrin 302 

p. Swett 171 

Doyle p. Dixon 178 

p. Union Pacific Co 673 

Draheim r. Evison 790 

Drake p. Beckham 109 

p. Glover 88 

p. Goree 339 

p. Lauer 493 

p. Siebold 402 

p. White 552 

Draughan p. Bunting 171 

Draycott p. Harrison 97 

Dreer p. Pennsylvania Co 263 

Dreifus p. Columbian Co 204, 816 

Drennan p. Douglas 411 

Dresael p. Jordan 629 

Dresser P. Dresser 176 

p. Norwood 108, 116 

Drew p. Claggett 342 

p. Nunn 43, 100, 104, 106 

p. Wheelihan 292 

p. Wiswall 667 

Driefontein Consol. Gold Mines p. 

Janson 427 

Drimmie p. Davies 244 

Drinkall p. Movius Bank 488 



liT 



tAiH± tf* tklSH, 



PAGS. 

StiBbJtl 9. Carliil. : 565 

*7— V. Winters Ste 

t)roege r. Ahrem 708 

I>rude r. GiirtiB 82 

Druiff V. Lord Parker. . 812, 637, 638 

btam V. Drum 853 

brummond v. United States. . 14, 23 

— i7. Vail Iflgffii. ........ 620, 652 

Dfiiiy r. Foster 88, 856, 857 

-re— V. Yom^ 180 

DUU V. Beandrj 67 

mibliil and Wicklow Ry. Co. r. 

. Black 73 

Vti Bois r. Watet Works Go 528 

Xhfbose r. Wheddon. 81 

Dnbowaki v. Goldstein 470, 483 

ITitcker v, Rapp 383 

r. Whitson 217 

Dilckett r. Cover 807 

Dudgeon v. Pembroke 480, Oil 

Dudte7 V. Dudley 304, 305 

V. Lindsey 157 

V. littlefleld 174 

— V. Odom 470 

Duflfy V. Hobson 708 

Dugan V. Anderson 361 

Dugdale v. Lovering 11 

Duggan r. tJppendi£l 175 

Duggar V, Dempsey 330 

Dugger r. Bocock 431 

Duke 17. Clark 285 

r. Harper 451 

Duker r. Franz 854 

Dukes r. Spangler 840 

Dulany v. Rogers 641 

Du Larans t>. Railroad Co 17 

Dulo V. Miller 630 

Dumont v. Dufore 488 

*— ^ r. Williamson 654 

Dunbar r. Dunbar 214 

Dunbarton v. Franklin 158 

Duncan r. Cashin 887 

V, Central, etc., R. R. Co. . . 306 

— — r. Charles 324 

— V. Dixon 65, 70 

-^— V, Duncan 175 

V. Louisville, etc 202 

— r. New York Ins. Co 612 

r. Niles 110 

V. Sylvester 175 

V. Topham 884 

Duncan's Appeal 303 

Duncan, Fox & Co. v. N. and S. 

Wales Bank 386 

Dunctclee v. Greenfield Co 282 

Duncombe r. Richards 745 

toundfts f. Dutens 703 

Dundas' Appeal 387 

Dundee Works v. Connor 751 

Dunj? V. Parker 120 

Dunham v. Averill 014 



l>iiAliam 9. Oriswolfl. ;.:...: m 

V. New Britain : 024, 6ti 

' V, St. Croix M^. C<J : .: 406 

Dtmkin V, Hodg^ 441, 40ft 

Dunks p. Fuller 700 

Dtmlop r. HiqggiliS 8^4, 885 

Dtinibore (Countess of) P. Alex- 
ander 883 

bunn V. Beaman 786 

V. Chambers 740 

V, Drmnmond 501 

— — r. Dunn 730, 741 

v. MAcdonald 112,110 

17. Record 453, 7^6, 741 

V. St. Andrew's Church 161 

r. Bteubing 620 

p. West 171 

Dunnage v. White 750 

Dunne r. English 301 

Dunnigan, Re 86 

punninff v, Leavitt 272 

DunHock 17. t)unnock 305 

bunphy V, Ryan 174 

Dunston t, IMpeHal Gas Light 

Co. 165 

Dunsworth v. Wood Machine Co. 846 

Dunton v. Brown 63, 66, 67 

p. Dunton 106 

Duplan Silk Co. p. Spencer 768 

Duplex Co. i7. Garden '. . 62 

Durant p. Burt 408 

V, Crowell 568 

— - 9. Roberts & Co 113 

Duren p. Getchell 878 

Durfee r. Jones 500 

p. O'Brien 177, 780 

Durgin p. Dyer 800, 402 

Durham p. Bischof 275 

p. Durham 00 

p. Insurance Co 630 

Durham (Earl of) p. Legard. 611, 667 

Durham Bros. P. Robertson 270 

Durham Co. P. Guthrie 181 

Durkee p. Moses 486 

p. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co.. 30 

604 

Durkin P. Cobleigh 667 

Dumherr p. Rau 277 

Duryea P. Bliven 415 

Dusenbury p. Callaghan 842 

pushane P. Benedict. 652, 653 

Dustan P. McAndrew 336 

Dutch 47. Warfen 334 

Dutton p. Dutton 02, 414 

p. Marsh 203 

p. Poole 233 

p. Solomson 346 

p. Thompson 730 

p. Wniner SOl 

Duval r. Well man 464, 503, 505 

Duvergier p. Fellows 402 



TAQLB QV OASES. 



PAGE. 

]>wi]iel V, Brown 098 

Dwinnell v.liCcJ^pgiqi 384 

Dwyer r. Mayor. . : 630 

r. Tulane, etc., Adma 364 

Dyer p. Brai|noc|F- • • 1^8 

r. Hargrave.. 664, 668, 603, 694 

V, Winston 180 

Dyer's Caise, The 471 

Dykera r. Townsend 108, 180 

I^kea r. Wyman 728, 731 

E. 
E. C. Dailey Co. v. Clark Can Co.. 197 

Eadie v. Slimmon 747 

Eada v, Carondelet 46 

Eager Co. r. Burke 486 

Eagle r. Smith 14 

Eagle Fire Co. r. Lent 63 

Eagle Ins. Co., Bx parte 898 

Eagle Iron Works v. Des Moines 

By. Co 608 

Eagle, etc.. Machine Co. v. Shat- 

tSek 171 

Eaf lesfield r. Marquis of London- 

<&rry 576, 598 

Eakin v. Shultz 265 

Eakright v. Torrent 337 

Earhart V, Holmes 744 

Earl r. Peck 193 

Earle r. Angell 43 

r. Chace 735 

r. Cobum 12 

r. Hopwood 454 

r. Kingscote 87 

p. Oliver 198 

r. Reed 81 

Early r. Burt 211 

p. Mahon 809 

East V. Cayuga Lake Ice Co 197 

r. Xew Orleans Ins. Assoc. 271 

r. Wood 684 

East Lincoln v, Davenport 135 

East Line Co. v. Scott 176 

East Londofi Waterworks Co. v, 

Bailey 162 

East St. Louis r. Freels 402 

Easter r. Railroad Co 301 

V, White 171 

Eastern Advertising Co. P. Mc- 

Gaw 595 

Eastern Arkanssf Fence Co. r. 

Tanner 337 

Eastern Counties Ry. Co. r. 

Hawkes 902 

Eastern Granite Co. r. Peim 550 

Eastern Township Bank v. Beebe. 877 

Eastland v. Sparta 346 

Eastman v. Miller 204 

r. Plumer 753 

r. Wrifijht 282 

Easton r. Jones 332, 354 



PAGE. 

Eastoy V, Wojrthi«ft»i| 

Eastwood V. Kehyon 170, 

Eatherly p. Bath^fly 628 

Eaton V, Basker 167 

-^ — V, Davidson 717 

V. Eaton 102, 104 

t?. tairbury Water Works 

Co 249, 254 

P. Hill 83 

r. Kegan 402 

p. Libbey 195, 241 

p. Littlefleld 380 

p. Winnie 695 

Eaton Cole and Bumham Co. p. 

Avery 699 

Ebbw Vale Co.'s Case 163 

Eberstein p. Willets 727 

Eblin r. Miller's Exec 204 

Ebsworth and Tidy's Contract... 669 

Eccles. Comrs. P. Merral 166 

Eckert p. Louis 853, 866 

V. Pickel 869, 870 

Eckler v, Galbraith 52 

Eclipse Windmill Co. p. Thornton. 114 

Eddy p. Capron , 438 

p. Clement 528 

p. Davis 324 

p. Graves 827 

p. Herrin 729 

p. Roberts 256 

Edelman P. Latshaw 690, 692 

Edelmuth p. McGarren 487 

Eden P. Chaflfee 170 

r. Ridsdale, etc., Co 736 

Edenfield r. Canady 169 

Edgar p. Breck 653 

Edgcomb i?. Dee 151, 154, 188 

Edgcombe r. Rodd 841 

Edie Moor Bridge Works P. Bris- 
tol 18, 46 

Edgell r. McLausrhlin 406 

Edgerton p. Peckham 627 

• p. Weaver 213 

r. Wolf 67 

Edgett v. Tucker 245 

Edgeworth r. Wood 136 

Edffinsrton p. Fitzmaurice . . 689, 691 

^^ 697 
Edgware HiQ:hway Board p. Har- 
row Gas Co 185, 494 

Edick P. Green 258, 266 

Edinboro Academy p. Robinson. .. 187 

Edison P. Hawthorne 125 

Edmond's Appeal 640 

Edmunds P. Bushell 110 

p. Illinois Central R. Co 456 

r. Merchants* Desp. Transp. 

Co *.. 502, 718 

Edmundson r. Penny. . . 250, 253, 269 

Edson V. Hudson 717 

Edward v. Estelle 790 



Ivi 



TABLE OP GASES. 



PAGE. 
Edward Hiaes Lumber Co. v. Al- 
ley 360 

Edward Thompson Co. v, Baldwin. 864 

Edwards, Be 461 

Edwards r. Aberayron, etc.. So- 
ciety 448, 449 

r. Bedford Chair Co 384 

r. Brown 586 

V. Burt 763 

Carter 66 

Clements 259 

Davenport 100, 101 

Fairbanks 141 

Fry 791 

Gasoline Works 136, 296 

Gildermeister 112 

Golding 112 

Handler 834 

McEnhiU 893 

McLean 531, 673 

Mattingly 872 

Meyrick 743 

.. Nelson 199 

t?. Noel 608 

Handle 438, 439 

Roberts 709 

Sheridan 89 

Skirving 492 

Thomas 291 

Walters 816, 918 

_ Weeks 817 

Edwards Brokerage Co. v, Steven- 
son -*o«' 12? 

Efiinger v, Kenney 431 

Effan 1?. Guardians of Kensington 

Union 804 

Eeerton v. Earl of Brownlow 421 

* 422, 423, 425, 434 

Egger V, Nesbitt 30, 39, 43, 45 

Eggleston r. Morrison 261 

V. Wagner 43 

Ehrensperger v. Anderson 339 

Ehrlich r. iEtna L. Ins. Co 337 

Ehrman r. Bartholomew 480 

V. Insurance Co 140, 141 

Eichclberger v. Morris 383 

Eidelin v. Clarkson's Exrs 788 

Eidenmiller, Re 86 

Eingartner i\ Illinois Steel Co. . 781 

Eisel r. Haves 468 

Ekerly t\ McGee 890 

Elbinger Actien-Gesellschaft v. 

Claye 100 

Elder r. Chapman 339 

V. Elder 034 

Eldredge r. Walker 388 

Eldridge r. Dexter, etc., Co 584 

Elerick r. Reid 602 

Eley t?. Positive Assurance Co... 177 

235, 243 



V. 
V, 
V. 
V, 
V. 
17. 

r. 

V. 
V, 

1?. 

17. 

r. 
r. 

V. 



17. 

r. 
r. 

V. 
V, 

r. 



PAGE. 

Elgin V, Hall 873 

Ellas t7. Enterprise Assoc 101 

Eliason r. Henshaw 2C, 43 

Elizabeth r. Force 866 

Elkhart County Lodge v, Crary. . 436 

Elkin F. Timlin 171 

Elkins r. Parkhurst 399 

f>. Railroad Co 135 

Ellen «?. Topp 651, 826 

EUerman v, Chicago, etc., Co. 140, 375 
EUesmere Co. t7. Cooper.... 858, 871 

872 

EUett 17. McGhee 20d 

EUicott r. Turner 177 

17. White 602 

EUiman Sons & Co. v. Carrington 

A Son 477 

Elliot t\ Ince 102, 103 

Elliott 17. Blair 869, 870 

17. Dazey 830 

t?. Gower 891 

t?. Levings 867 

V. McClelland 452 

t\ Richardson 445 

r. Royal Exch. Assur. Co.. 448 

449 

17. Sackett 639 

17. Swartwout 731 

Ellis f7. Andrews 692 

r. Barker 748, 769 

t\ Clark 9 

V, Harrison. . 247, 267, 267, 272 

V. Midland Ry. Co 559 

t7. Smith 452 

V, Staples 876 

17. Wilmot 384 

Ellison 17. Mobile, etc., R. Co 873 

Elliston r. Berryman 495 

Ellsworth V. Fogg 844 

r. Randall 123, 592 

Ellwood t?. Monk 258 

Elmore v, Johnson 453 

17. Sands 53 

Elphinstone (Lord) i?. Monkland 

Iron and Coal Co 632 

Elrod r. Meyers 77 

Elstner 17. Fife 569 

Elston r. Jasper 101 

Eltham r. Kingsman 422 

Elting 17. Vanderljm 214 

El well 17. Chamberlain 701 

■ 17. Martin 84 

17. Mersick 115 

17. Walker 794 

t\ Wilson 451 

Elv r. Early 640 

— ^ 17. Ely 533, 874 

17. Ormsby 782 

r. Stewart 693 

17. Webster 466 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ivii 



PAGE. 
ElysrUle, etc., Go. &. Okisko Go. . 161 

Elyton Co. v. Hood 384 

Emanuel 17. Dane 335, 336 

Embler v. Hartford Ins. Go 277 

Embrey v. Jemison 406 

Emerson r. Opp 856 

V. White 623 

Emery v, Burbank 782 

V. Darling 467 

17. KempU>n 495 

r. Ohio Gandie Go 468, 498 

500 

V. Smith 177 

Emery's Sons t?. Bank 302 

Emley v. Perrine 281 

Emmerson v, Townsend 492 

l^nunerson's Case 613 

Emmitt r. Brophy 258, 274, 276 

Emmittsburg r. Donoghue 215 

Emmons v. Alvord 392 i 

r. Murray 67 I 

Empire Transportation Go. v. I 

Steele 302' 

Emporia Bank v. Shotwell: 592 

Express Engineering Co 121, 234 

235, 243, 244 

Empson's Case 588 , 

Enders r. Enders 462 

Endriss v. Belle Isle Ice Co 204 ' 

Engbretson r. Seiberling 211 

Engel r. BroTvn ,,. 778 

Engeseite v, MeGilvray 361 

Engine Co. v. Green 27 

England v. Davidson 23, 205 

V. Dowiis 392, 393 

Englebert v. Troxell 66, 68, 77 

Englehart r. Clanton 704 I 

Ei^sh r. Porter 104 

F. Young 409 I 

English's Exr. 17. McNair's Admr. 622 j 
En^^lish and foreign Credit Co. v, > 

Arduin 46 , 

Enloe r. Hall 112 ! 

Ennis r. Bumham 744 

V. H. Bomer & Co 681 

r. Pullman 211 

Eno r. Dunn 419 , 

Enochs-Hayis, etc., Co. v. New- j 

comb 281 I 

Enos r. Sanger 262, 265 ' 

Ensel r. Levy 700 

Ensminger v. Horn 14 ' 

Ensworth v. King 56 ' 

Episcopal Mission v. Brown.. 272, 273 j 

Eppens r. Littlejohn 523, 559 \ 

Epperson r. Nugent 7& ! 

Epstein, Re 699, 708 , 

Equitable Ass'n v. Brennan 302 

Equitable As&ur. Soc. v. McElroy. 658 

Kquitflble Co. v. Hersoe 708 

Equitable Ins. Co. v. Hearne 641 



PAGE. 

Eirary r. American Rubber Co. . . . 51 

Erb r. Brown 204 

Erickson v. First Bank 859, 866 

V. Fisher ..^ 695 

Erie Ry. Co. ads. Union L. & E. 

E. Co 482 

Erie Ry. Co. t\ Winter's, Admr. . 53 

Erkens v, Nicolin 579 

Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phos- 
phate Go 676, 724, 736 

Ernest i?. NichoUs 899 

Ernst V. Crosby 486.487 

Errlngton, lie 260 

Erskine v. Adeane. 173, 313, 533, 921 

r. Plummer 173, 784 

Erwin v, Erwin 49 

V. Myers 664, 668 

Esch V. Home Ins. Co 642 

t?. White 171 

Esham r. Lamar 751 

Eshleman v, Lightner 608 

Espert V, Wilson 753 

Espey r. Lake 745 

Esposito V, Bowden 426, 428, 429 

514 
Essex V. Day 639 

i;. Insurance Co 636 

Essley v, Sloan 275 

Estabrook v. Smith 624 

Esterly Co. p. Pringle 204 

Estes r. Reynolds 721 

Estill V. Rogers 158 

Etter t?. Greenwalt 253 

Etting r. Bank 661 

Eubanks r. Banks 507 

Euneau v, Rieger 452 

Eureka r. Gates 639 

Eureka Co. p. Bailey Co 160 

r. Edwards 68 

Eureka Iron Works v, Bresnahan. 140 

Evans, Re 461 

Evans v. Bell 199 

r. Bicknell 915 

r. Bremridge 662 

f?. Carrington 417, 678 

r. Edmonds 672, 682 

r. Ellis 736, 741 

17. Evans 444 

r. Foreman 854, 850 

-^ — V, Hoare 180 

— 31- t?. Green 174 

r. Lee 160 

r. Llewellyn 765, 766 

t\ Partin 858, 872 

r. Powis 834 

V, Prothero 799 

r. Sheldon 880 

V, Smallcombe 900 

V. Trenton 408 

V. Wain 108 

r. Williamson 853 



Iviii 



TA9LS 07 OASES. 



PAGE. 

Vykbl'b App«»l 679 

Evans, etc. v, McFadden 157 

Kvanturel r. Evantui^l 424 

Eve V, Rogers. 120 

Evelyn v. Chichester 73 

Everet r. Williams 374, 600 

Everhardt v, Searl^ 388, 38Q 

Everhart r. Dolph 180 

V. Puckett 444 

Everhart's Appeal 174 

Everingham v, Meighan 407 

Everitt v. Everitt 739 

Everman v, Hemdon 182 

V. Hyman 123 , 

r. Piron 775 ^ 

Eversole v. Maule 295 i 

Everson v, Interpational Oranite I 

Co 606 

Everstein v, Qerstenberg 306 

Ewell 1?. Daggs 61 

Ewer r. Jones 244, 252 

Ewing V. Bass 735 

V. Crouse 628 

V, Ewing 828 

V. Smith 891 

r. Toledo S. B. & T. Co. . . . 141 

Ewins V, Gordon 627, 629 

Exchange Bank v. Gaitskill 703 

t\ Rice 257, 259 

Exhaust Ventilator Co. r. Chicago, 

etc., Ry. Co 51 

Express Co. v, Haynes 64 

V. Moon 54 

r. Stettaners 54 

Express Pub. Co. v, Aldine Press . 854 

Exter t?. Sawyer 389, 676 

Exton V. Scott 55 

Eyre v. Potter 749 

Ezell V, King 199 



Fabacker v. Bryant 468 

Faine v. Brown 754 

Fairbank Canning Co. v. Metzger. 608 

653 
Fairbanks v. Bank 378 

t'. Richardson Drug Co 638 

V, Sargent 281 

V. Snow 727, 728, 729 

Fairchild t*. Feltman 268 

V. McMahon 690, 701 

r. North Eastern Assoc 276 

V. Philadelphia R. Co 508 

Fairfax i\ Fairfax's Ex 776 

Fairhurst v. Liverpool Adelphi L. 

Assoc 87 

Fairlie t?. Fenton 108 

Fairplay v. O'Neal 49 

Falcke t?. Gray 754 



Falk 17. GurtJ4 Fi4>« Co )90 

Falkingham r. Victories ^J' 

Comrs 879 

Fallis V. InauTMOiB Co 630 

r. Keys 890 

Falls Wire Mfg. Co. v. Broderick. 43 

Fane \\ Fan« 674 

Fanning v. Russell 241 

Fapt 17. Miller 434 

Fanton v. Middlebrook 780 

Fare v» John 18 

Fareira r. Gabell 406, 407 

Farewell v. Coker 625 

Fargo V, Arthur 14 

Fargo Coke Co. v. Fargo Electric 

Co 695 

Fergusson v. Winslow 731 

Farina v. Fickus 60 

Farley r. Cleveland 241, 258 

V. Parker 101 

Farlow v. Kemp 257 

Farmer r. Farmer 735 

V, People's Bank 292 

V. Rand 860, 866 

Farmer's Ex. v. Farmer 743 

Farmers' Assoc, v, Scott 703 

Farmers' Bank r. Myers 862, 863 

Farmers' etc.. Bank v. Railroad 

Co. 141 

Farmers' Co. r. Bazore 886 

Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Galesburg. 342 
Farmers' Trust Co. v. Floyd. 119, 120 
r- f7. Siefke 872 

V. Wilson 106 

Farmington v. Hobert 109, 276 

Famam v. Brooks 104, 743 

Farnham r. Benedict 137 

Farnsworth r. Cotts 383 

r. Duffner 694 

V. Sharp 874 

Famum r. Patch 296 

Farquharson v. King 719 

Farrar v. Bessey 90 

r. Churchill 693 

r. Farrar 849 

17. Toliver 815 

r. Walker 720 

Farrell v. Lovett 291 

Farrer v. Nightingale 334 

Farris v. Richardson 86 

Farrow v. Wilson 223, 543 

Farson v, Fogg 436 

Farwell v. Hanchett 679 

t\ Myers 708 

Farwell Co. t?. Hilton 708 

Fassett 17. Mulock 282 

r. Ruark 659 

Faulkner v. Faulkner 243 

Faurie v. Morin's Syndics 438 

Faviell v, E. C. Ry. Co 165 



TAMJi 'or cAiai. 



Hx 



PAGK. 

fliwwtt V. JMriiwattr e06 

r. Osborn 567 

». WlutohovM 674 

Fkweett and Holmeti Be 668 

Fifty V. Burditt 101 

9. OaUey 441» 442 

V. OliTev .... 330, 343, 344, 715 

r. Suddenon 238 

V. SUughter 443 

V. Tow«r 384 

Fayette Land Co. v. Railroad. ... 141 

Fear v. Jones 605 

Fcam o. Mayers 506 

Fcamley r. De Mainyille. . . 377, 437 

FearoD v. Earl of Aylesford 417 

Fears v. Sykes 781 

Feehheimer v. Baum 61^0 

9. Pierce 892 

Feeney v. Bardsley S45 

Fegley 9. McDonald 380 

Fehlbeif^ v. Cosine 600 

Feineman r. Sachs 486 

Feist r. Schiffer 258 

Felch V. Taylor 248, 240, 253 

Feldman v. Gamble 378 

r. McGuire 258, 271 

Felix V. Qriffiths 531 

Fellowea r. Lord Owydyr... 117, 118 

r. Steamboat Co. 106 

Feltbouse v. Bindl^ 20, 42 

Feltmakers, Co. of r. Davis 232 

Pelton V. Dickinson 248, 240, 253 

Fenn v. Union Co 271 

Fenner r. Tucker 470 

Fennees v, Rciss 376 

Fcnnessey r. Fennessey 304, 395 

Fenton r. Clark 545, 548 

t?. White 81 

Fenwick r. Grimes 689 

Ferebee r. Pritchard 303, 395 

Fereira v. Savers 544 

Feret r. Hill 488, 670 

Feriguson v. Bobo 82, 83 

Ferinison T. Carrington 679, 707 

Ferguson r. Coleman 405 

r. Harris 199 

17. Lowery 736, 740 

r. Oxford Mercantile Co. . . . 141 

Ferguson's Succession 261 

Fergusson v. Norman 403 

Femald v. Gilman 177, 780 

Ferrand r. Beshoar 802 

©. Bischoffsheim 113 

Ferre Canal Co. p. Burgin 46 

Ferrell r. Maxwell 171 

Ferrier v. Storer 80, 30 

Ferris r. Adams. .., 438 

V. American Brewing Co. . . 240 

255, 460 

r. Carson Water Co.... 240, 254 

268 



PAOX 

Ferris v. Cran/etd. 276 

V. Hogian 335, 342 

V. Irving 106 

r V. Snow 110 

V, Spooner 361 

Perry p. Moore 116 

r. Stephens . * 211, 813 

Fessenden f>. Ockington 640 

Feeterman v. Parker 204 

Festing v. Hunt 330, 344 

Fetrow t?. Wiseman 66 

Fickus, Re 40, 650, 018 

Fidelity Assoc, v, Dewey 382 

Fidelity Co. v. Lawler 171 

V, Railroad Co 160 

Field I?. Chipley 430 

V, Moore 65 

V. Stagg 855, 856 

t>. Steams 716 

V, Woods 878 

Fields t7. Helms 630 

Fife r. Clayton 636 

Fightmaster p. Levi 720 

Filbert v. Philadelphia 528, 530 

Filby V, Hounsell 44, 47, 170 

Filgo V, Penny 500 

Fillieul V. Armstrong. 327 

Filson's Trustees v. Himes. . .438, 483 

Financial Corporation's daim 288 

Finch p. Finch 702 

V. Mansfield 432, 886 

V. Simon 813 

Findlay r. Pertz 302, 436 

Findley t?. Hulsey 727 

• Findon v. Parker 460 

Fine r. Rogers 816 

Finlay v, Bristol and Exeter Ry. 

I Co 163, 168 

V, Chimey 223, 547 

Finucan v. Kendig 730 

Fire Alarm Co. v. Big Rapids 51 

Fire Assoc, p. Rosenthal 529 

Fire Ins. Assoc, v, Wickham.. . 0, 211 

I 625 

Firestone r. Firestone 387 

First Bank, Re 892 

First Bank v. Buchanan 384 

V. Chalmers 170 

V. Drew 654 

V. Fricke 859, 860 

; V. Gerke 382 

; 1 V, Hayes 606 

j v> Hendrie 437 

P. Johns 867 

V. Leppel 408 

' V. Marshall 813 

. V, Payne 861 

V, Perris 285 

— V, Ryan 869 

— t?. Sowles 180, 704 

— P. Thomas . 775 

— V. Watkins 731 



TABLB OF CAS1& 



PAQK. 

First Bank «, Webster. 868 

r. Weidenbeck ... 869, 862, 863 

V, Woodman : . . . 778 

V, Zeims 687, 868 

Firet Church v. Donnell 186 

t?. Gillis 187 

V, Pungs 187 

t?. Swanson 180 

First Nat Bank v. Clark 285 

17. Mack 673 

t?. Oskaloosa Packing Co... 406 

V. Pipestone 267 

V. Smith 404 

V. Spear 324 

V, Watkins 22, 35 

Firth V. Midland Ry. Co 549 

Fischer v. Hope Mut. life Ins. Co. 271 

277, 363 

V. Kamala Naicker 400 

Fish V, Cleland 688, 745 

1?. Hayward 264 

Fishack v. Ball 634 

Fishback v. Miller 697 

Fishbume v. Ferguson 733 

Fishell V. Gray 483, 484 

Fisher t?. Bishop 733, 737 

V. Bridges 490, 491, 492 

V. Budlong 683 

V, Fisher 408 

V. Hildreth 601 

r. Knox 282 

V. Koontz 444 

t\ Lighthall 673 

V. Liverpool Marine Insur- 
ance Co 796, 797 

t?. Lord 432, 486 

r. May 578 

r. Merchants' Ins. Co. . .448, 449 

V. Mershon 844 

V. N. Y. Com. Pleas 689 

r. Seltzer 15 

r. Smith 827 

r. White 263 

V. Wilmoth 257 

r. Worrall 118 

Fisher's Appeal 387 

Fisher & Co. v. Apollinaris Co. . . 442 

Fisherdick v. Hutton 863, 866 

Fisheries Co. v. Lennen 468 

Fishkill Sav. Inst. v. Bank 701 

Fishmongers' Co. v, Robertson. . 159 

166 

Fisk t?. McGregoiy 170 

V. McNeal 864 

Fisk's Claim 866 

Fiske 17. Insurance Co 656 

Fitch V. Chandler 257 

t\ Fitch 459 

r. Johnson 300, 301 

17. Jones 406, 407, 622 

V. Reiser 744 



iFiteh V. Snedaker 14 

;t7. Sutton 838 

Fitter t7. Comm<niwealth 110 

FitU 17. Hall 82 

Fitz 17. lies 480 

Fitzgerald v. Allen 337 

V, Barker 261, 272 

17. Chapman 93 

V, First Bank 573 

17. McClay 249 

r. Vestal 459 

Fitzhugh V. Jones 45 

Fitzpatrick v, Fitzpatrick 850 

t7. Schoql Commrs 443 

Fitzsimmons v. Joslin 70O 

Fivaz 17. Nicholls 498 

Fivey t?. Pennsylvania R. Co 725 

Flach V. Gottschalk Co 102 

Flagg 17. Baldwin 406, 508 

I 17. Mann 631 

' Flaherty t\ Cary 377, 439 

\ Flanagan 17. Hutchinson 257 

i Flanders t7. Abby 892 

17. Blandy 219 

17. Doyle 276 

1?. Fay 206 

17. Wood 470 

Flandrau 17. Hammond 664 

Flannegan 17. CruU 109 

Flannery 17. Jones 684 

Flash r. American Glucose Co 608 

Flavell, Re, 242 

Fleckner 17. Bank 161 

I Fleet 17. Murton 106, 111 

I 17. Perrins 89 

I Fleetwood i7. Brown 612 

t\ Hull 299 

Fleming i?. Hanley 716 

17. King 531 

17. Ramsey 216 

Flesh 17. Lindsay 87 

Fletcher v. Ashley 393 

V. Cole 342 

V, Fletcher 65 

17. Gamble 386 

17. Harcot 495 

V. Hickman 463 

V. Minneapolis Ins. Co.. 852, 856 

, t?. Peck 515 

17. Warren 413 

' 17. Webster 880 

1 Flickinger p. Saum 249, 253 

I Flight 17. BoUand 66, 71 

17. Booth 611, 663 

V, Reed 72, 809, 912 

' Flinn v. Brown 864 

I 17. Carter 813 

I 17. Mowry 366 

I Flint 17. Cadenasso 264 

' 17. Clinton Co 160 

1 17. Gilpin 640 



TABLB OF CA8B8. 



Ixi 



PAQE. I 

Hint p. Pierce 257, 269 

V. Woodin 684 

Florence Cotton Go. v. Field 816 

Florence R. Co. v. Bank 144 

Florida Central Co. v. State 437 

Flory r. Hauck 792, 794 

Flower v. Bamekoff 174 

T. Bmmbach 708 

r. L. & N. W. Ry. Co 76 

r. Sadler 441 

Floyd r. Calvert 168 

r. Ort 267, 271 

V. Patterson 498 

Fluharty v. Mills 174 

Florean v. Thomhill 611 

Fly r. Brooks 610 

Flynn v. Insurance Co 276 

r. Mass. Ben. Assoc 242 

Foakes «. Beer 211, 212 

Fogel r. Church 467 

Fogg 17. Blair 726 

€?. Boston k Lowell R. Co. . 130 

T. Griffin 701 

r. Portsmouth Athenaeum. . 11 

Fogg's Admr. v, Rodgers 663, 654 

Fol^ p. Crow 629, 664 

V. Felrath 28 

V. Greene 747 

«. Piatt 205 

V. Bpeir 438, 483 

Foley Co. v. Solomon 874 

Follansbee v, Adams 361 

V. Johnson 238, 261 

V. O'Reilly 388 

Follett r. Brown 708 

p. Buyer 286 

Folmar r. Siler 686 

Fols<Hn V. Insurance Co 667 

Folty p. Ferguson 68 

Foltz p. Wert 174 

Fonner r. Smith 267, 267 

Fonseca p. Cunard 8. 8. Co. . . 63, 607 

Fooks T. Lawson 878 

Foote p. Cincinnati 632 

p. Emerson 377 

p. Uambrick 864 

p. Nickerson 416 

Forbes p. Cochrane 610 

p. McDonald 377, 439 

p. Sheppard 383 

p. Thylor 863 

p. Watt 673 

Forbes & Co.'s Claim 659 

Forchheimer p. Holly 431, 798 

Ford p. Beech. .317, 813, 814, 833, 836 
p. BeU 290 

p. Cameron Bank 863 

p. Cotesworth 630 

"p. Crenshaw 210 

p. Finney 266, 261 

- p. Ford 735, 866 



PAQE. 

Ford p. Gamer 210 

p. Harrington 606 

p. Hennessy 746, 768 

p. Hurd 666 

p. Joyce 640 

V. Newth 196 

p. Olden 761, 768 

p. Phillips 69 

P. Stier 686, 727 

V. Tiley .... 368, 363, 364, 366 

p. White 284 

p. Williams 112 

Ford and Hill, Re 673 

Fordyce p. Kosminski 868 

Foreman p. Bigelow 706, 720 

Forepaugh p. Delaware R. Co 608 

Forget p. Ostigny 408 

Forinquet p. Tegarden 496 

Forman p. The Liddesdale 345 

Forman p. Wright 580, 769 

Formby p. Barker 301 

p. Pryor 434 

Forney p. Shipp 114 

Forrer p. Nash 364 

Forrest p. Hart 601 

Forrest p. Manchester, etc., Ry Co. 897 

Forshaw p. Chabert 852 

Forster p. Green 11 

p. Taylor 402 

Forsythe p. Bonta 443 

Fort p. Allen 879 

p. Wells 566 

Fort Dearborn Bank p. Carter 698 

Fort Payne Co. p. Webster ... 323, 364 

Fort Wayne Co. p. Miller 187 

Fort Worth City Co. v. Smith 

Bridge Co 140 

Fortenbury p. State 408 

Fortier p. Bank 142 

Fortunato p. Patten 281 

Forward p. Armstead 216 

Fosdick p. Fosdick 416 

Foshay p. Ferguson 728 

Foss p. Cummings 407 

Foss, etc., Co. p. Bullock 360, 360 

Fossett p. Wilson 730 

Foster p. Bartlett 342 

p. Bear Valley Co 791 

p. Boston 27 

p. Cockerel! 281 

p. Dawber . . 816, 818, 819, 820 

p. Graham 112 

p. Hanchett 677 

p. Jacks 451 

p. London, etc., Ry. Co 140 

p. Lookout Water Co 254 

F. Mackinnon .... 585, 688, 619 

p. Marsh 269 

p. Means 98 

p. Metts 215 

P. Peyser 673 



Ixii 



PAiQB. 

ftotter tt. Purdy $1$ 

■I. 17. BedgniYe • . 77 

«. The Bich»rd Bostaed 876 

«-**— 17. Thurston 486 

V. Wheeler 2, 51 

Foulkes V. Metro. Dist By. Co. . . 660 

Fountain i;. Harrington 879 

Fountain Spring Co. v, Boberte. . . 392 
Fountaine v. Carmarthen Bv. Co. . 898 
Fourth Street Bank v, Yardley. . . 894 

Foust V, Bd. of Publication 42 

V, Benno 865, 866 

Fowell V, Forreat 812 

Fowkes V, Maneheeter and London 

Aasuranoe Assoc 309 

Fowle t?. Park 469 

Fowler v. Bott 531 

r. Brooks 206, 384 

V. CoUan 452 

V. Fowler 639 

V. Hollins 666 

r. McCann 698 

V. Monmouthshire Canal Co. 800 

t?. Smith 837 

V, Water Co 254 

V. Woodward 623 

Fox r. Bank 291 

<?. Davis .- 415 

t?. Kitton 363, 361 

V. Nott 303 

V. Bogers 493, 495 

r. Tabel 113, 117 

V. Turner 30 

V. Webster 679 

Foxworthy v, Colby 860 

Foy V. Houghton 603 

Fradley v. Hyland 115 

Frailey's Adm. t>. Thompson 11 

Fraker v. CuUum 856 

V. Little 575, 856 

Fraley's Appeal 281 

Frame v. Coal Co 114 

Francis t\ Deming 829 

Francisco v, Shelton 263 

Franco-Texan Co. v. Simpson 610 

Frank v. Bobbitt 508 

V, Eltingham 170 

1?. Hoey 886 

V. Ingalls 53 

t?. Lanier 054 

V. Lillenfeld 202, 889 

f?. Miller 182 

Franke v. Hewitt 46 

V, Biggs 790 

Franklin v. Baker 874 

V. Brown f 73 

V. Franklin 416 

V. Miller 325, 389, 841 

Franklin At. Qerm. Sav. Inst, i). 

Board, etc., of Boscoe 141 

Franklin Bank v. Severin 820 



FAQB. 

FimiikUii Bridge Co. v. Wood.... 149 
Franklin Co. v, I^wistoa Inst, lor 

Savings 142 

Franklin Min. Oo. v. O'Brian. ... 900 

Franks, Ea parte 01 

PranbE v. Brown 884 

Franz v. Bieler 48S 

Franzen v. Hutchinson 608 

Frary i;. Sterling 177 

Fraser v. Ehrensperger 878 

Fraser v. Gates 177, 780 

e. Hatton 204 

r. Hill 493 

Frazee v, Frazee 87 

Frazer v, Fulcher 01 

Frazier v. Gelston 88 

17. Jeakins 387 

t\ Moore's Admr 877 

p. Thompson 484 

Frear v. Hardenbeigh 174 

Fred Heim Co. v, Hazcn 861 

Fredenburg v. Turner 540 

Fredericks v, Fasnacht 46 

Freed t?. Brown 101 

Freedley v, French 585 

Freedman v. Provident Ins. Co. . . 658 

" Freedom," The 303 

Freeland v. Compton 384 

Freeland t?. Williams 157 

Freeman, Be 837 

t?. Auld 275 

V, Bernard 877 

17. Boland 84 

V. Bridger 70 

i\ Cooke 640 

17. Curtis 581 

V, Foss 178, 790 

t?. Freeman 791 

V, Hartman 393 

r. Jeffries 715 

t\ Pa- R. B. Co 258, 259 

Freeman Imp. Co. v, Osbom 226 

Freer v. Walker 80 

Freeth v. Burr. .328, 320, 830, 333, 330 

340 

Freichnecht v, Meyer 576 

Fremont Foundry Co. v. Norton. . 830 

French v, Amett 625 

V. Burns 631 

V. New 870 

V, Price 116 

V, Richards 531 

V. Ryan 602 

V, Shoemaker 728 

t?. Vix 277 

Frend 17. Dennett 167 

Freshfield's Trusts, Be 281 

Fresno Canal Co. f>. Dunbar. . 301, 861 
Fresno Milling Co. v. Fr«sno C. & 

L C6. 586 

Freyman v. Kneeht 608 



TABLB OF CASES. 



Iziii 



PAGE. 

Mat 0. Smith 888 

Frick r* Joseph 834 

friedlaiider v. TexAS, etc., Ry. Co. 808 

Friedman p. Bierman 418 

Friend r. Miller 440 

V, Woods 635 

Fripp V. Fripp 753 

Fritta r. Palmer 141 

Fritz p. Ootnmissioners 854 

p. Fintnerty 388 

Fritz's Est., Re 459 

Fritzler v. Robinson 612 

Friseell v. Rnndle 865 

Froelich t?. FXt>elidi Trading Co. . 110 

Fnmtmac Loan Co. v. Hysop 260 

Frost p. Qage 379, 380 

p. Knight . . . .20, 348, 360, 365 

367, 368, 394 

p. 8t^e 786 

P. Tarr 176 

Fry r. Insnranse Co 22 

p. Lane 751, 759, 764 

f rybaiger P. SimpMm 501, 502 

Fiyer p. Rishell 88 

Foentes p. Montis 302 

Fogate p. Hansford's Ex 180 

Fiwnre r. Mat. 8oc. of St. Joseph. 250 

Fonaloye p. Parker 800 

Fuller p. Barilett 88 

' p. Rrown « 548 

p. Bame. .377, 428, 487, 464, 466 

p. Bavis 556 

p. Green 866 

p. Hooper 110 

p. Kemp 2H 

p. Leet 886 

p. tVirmenter 450, 460 

p. Parrish 681 

p. Rice 790 

r. Steiglits 286, 508 

Fnller, etc., Co. p. McHemry 893 

Follerton p. SturgeB 853, 867 

Fnlmer r. Seitz 857 

r. Wightman 259, 273 

FoHon P. Andrew 585, 784, 914 

p. Colwell 640 

P. Day 515, 809 

P. Whitney 387 

FmUc.p. .Oallivan 399 

Foqna p. PiOist Co 469 

F^u^uacm p. Bond 860 

Fnrmaa P. Parke 14 

Pumas c. Durgin 270 

Fumival p. Combes 122 

Fnrtado p. Rodgers 427 

Futrell p. Vann 595 

G. 

Qaar v. Green 204 

Gabbert p. Schwartz 292 

QabeU p. S. E. Ry. Oo 54 



PAGE. 

Gabriel p. Dresssr. 838 

Gadd p. Houghton HI 

Gaffney p. Hayden< 67 

Gage p. Allen.. « 579 

p. Ames * . * * 876 

P. Bissell 174 

■■' P. ^wney 452 

- P. Du Puy 452 

— — P. Fidier . . 377 

Gage p. Lewii 689 

P. Riverside Trust Oo 775 

Gaines p. Transportation Oo 54 

Gaines' Adm. p. Poor 418 

Gainesville Bank p« Bambairgw. . . 699 

Gainer p. Gainor 393 

Gaither v. Dougherty 878 

Galbraith p. Lunsford 88 

- P* MoLain 459 

Gale PL GaU 231 

-»^- p. yivon 848 

Gala Mfg. Co. p. Stark 608 

Galena t». Corinth 140 

Galena, etc., R. p. Ennor 28 

Gall p. Gall 158, 466 

Gallagher p. Button 673 

P. Gallagher TOO 

— — p. Hathaway, et«.> Cotp 10 

P. Nichols * . . . 549 

Gallaher p. Liaoolik 438 

GAlley p. Galley 789 

Galloway p. Bartholomew 874 

P. Mayor of London. 188 

Gallup p. Bemd 610 

Galton P. Emuss 470 

GalUsha p. Galusha 415, 417 

Galvin P. Prentice 789 

Galway p. Shields 786 

Galyon p. Ketchen 528 

Gamble P. Wilson 299 

Gambs P. Sutherland's Est 486 

Gammaye p. Moore 636 

Gammill p. Johnson 695 

Gammon p. Blaisdell 624, 526 

Gammons p. Gulbranson 452 

r. Johnson 452 

Gandell p. Pontigny 337 

Gandolfo p. Hartman 430 

Gandy p. Gandy 241, 243 

p. Macaulav 626 

Gano r. Farmers' Bank 661 

p. Heath 862 

Gany, Re 697 

Garberino p. Roberts . . 324, 354, 361 

Garbracht p. Commonwealth 886 

Garbutt p. Bank 679 

Gardiner r. Harback . . . 856, 857, 865 

p. Menage 576 

1?. Morse 470 

Gardner p. Allen's Ex 114 

p. Arnett 547 

p. Case 729 



Ixiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Gardner v, Caylor 673 

r. Cazenove 631 

V. Clark 332 

r. Gardner 844 

V. Lane 590, 603, 619 

V. Newman 878, 879 

r. Ogden 387 

V. Raisbeck 876 

r. Tatum 402 

V, Van Nostrand 385 

r. Walsh 857, 862, 863 

17. Wateon 383 

Garland v, Carlisle 566 

r. Garland 414 

V. Pamphlin 891 

V. Wells 686 

Gamett r. Farmers' Bank 383 

V. Macon 663, 753 

Gamons (Doe d.) v. Knight ... 6, 55 

Gamsey r. Mundy 739 

V. Rogers 256, 266, 274 

Garrard v. Frankel 600, 644 

V. Haddan 868 

i\ Lauderdale 239 

-^— V. Lewis 867 

Garretson r. North Atchison Bank. 40 

Garrett t?. Pierson 776 

p. Trabue 106 

Garrett's Adm. r. Garrett 787 

Garrey v, Stadler 802 

Garrison r. Bums 492 

t?. Technic Works 692, 701 

Garst r. Hall & Lyon Co 298 

p. Harris 469, 633 

Gartrell t?. Stafford 180 

Garver i\ Miller 92, 416 

Garvey r. Jarvis 837 

Garvin v. Linton 809 

r. Mobley 267, 276 

V. Williams 736, 737, 740 

Gary t\ Newton 459 

Gas & Fuel Co. v. Diary Co 140 

Gas Light and Coke Co. v. 

Turner 485, 487 

Gascoyne v. Edwards 878 

Gashwiler t?. Willis 125 

Gaslight Co. P. Lansden 130 

Gasque t?. Small 753 

Gass r. Stinson 382 

Gasser r. Sun Fire Office 448 

GasRett t?. Glazier 377 

Gaston v. Drake 438 

Gastonia v. McEntee-Peterson Co. 254 

Gates City Co. r. Post 704 

Gates r. Goodloe 514, 531 

v. Green 531, 634 

r. Raymond 713 

V. Renfroe 461 

r. Finning 405 

Gatling v. Rodman 88 

Gatt's Ex. 17. Swain 187 



PAIS. 

Gaullagher v. CaldweU 282, 284 

, Gault V. Brown 176 

I Gause v, Clarksnlle 146 

, Gaussen p. United States 383 

Gautzert p. Hoge 276 

Gavagan p. Bryant 689 

Gay p. Gillilan 736 

p. Witherspoon 749 

Gaylord p. Pelland 636 

p. Soragen 432, 486 

Gear p. Gray 662 

Gebhard p. Gramier 167 

Geddes p. Blackmore 867, 872 

Gee p. Hicks 789 

Geer p. Frank '. . 461 

p. School Dist 137 

Geere p. Mare 491 

Geier p. Shade 442 

Geiger p. Blackley 891 

Geipel p. Smith 428, 642, 647 

Gelpcke p. Dubuque 482 

General Electric Co. p. Wise 490 

Genereaux p. Sibley 68 

Genet P. Delaware Canal Co 708 

Gennert p. Ives 702 

George v. Andrews 263, 264 

p. Clagett 114 

r. East Tenn. Co 469 

p. Hoskins 171 

Georgia Medicine Co. p. Hyman . . 684 

Gerber p. Wabash R. R. Co 495 

Gerhard p. Bates 704 

Gerhart Realty Co. P. Northern 

Assur. Co 834 

Gerlach t?. Redinger 892 

p. Skinner 483 

Gerli p. Poidebard Silk Co 332 

Germain Fruit Co. P. Western 

Union TeL Co 604 

German p. Gilbert 185 

German, etc., Assoc, p. Droge. . . . 335 

German Bank p. Dunn 856, 859 

German Saving Soc. p. Lashmutt. 101 

Gemer p. Yates 683 

Gerrish p. Glines 865 

Getty p. Devlin 389 

p. Peters 845 

Gettysburg Nat. Bank p. Chis- 

holm 863, 866 

Geurinck p. Alcott 498 

Ghegan p. Young 299 

Ghent p. Adams 112 

Gibbins p. N. E. Metropolitan 

Asylum District 46 

Gibbon P. Budd 802 

Gibbons p. Bente 187, 349 

P. Gibbons 444 

-p. Grinsel 187 

p. Proctor 14, 21 

r. Vouillon 814 

Gibbs p. Consolidated Gas Co. of 

Baltimore 399, 406, 468 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixv 



PACK. 

6iU» 9. Harding 416 

V, Linabury 685 

IT. Penny 631 

r. Smith 470 

Gibson v. Cranage 51 

V. Daniel 206 

p. lyEste 671, 672 

r. £. I. Go 165 

17. Gibeon 844 

V. HoUand 180 

p. Jeyes 734, 736, 741 

V. Kirk 167 

€. Pellde 612 

V. Ferry 531 

V. Powell 879 

V. Soper 101, 102 

r. Spear 82 

Giddings r. Baker 683 

p. Eastman 513 

V. Giddings' Adm 103 

Gidley v. Lord Palmerston 112 

Gieve, Re 408 

Giffert p. West 654 

Gifford p. Corrigan 261, 264 

266, 274 

P. Dyer 014 

V. Father Matthew Soc 272 

P. WUlard 787 

Gilbert r. Anthony 865 

p. Baxter 43 

r. Bulkley 850 

p. Carlan 83 

p. Finch 377 

p. Lewis 725 

p. Peteler 302 

V. Sanderson 267, 274 

p. Sykes 422 

r. Thompson 876 

V. Wetherell 844 

Gilbert-Arnold Co. p. Superior. . . 460 
Gilbert, etc., Co. p. Butler. . 536, 537 

550 

Gilehnst. Esd parte 95, 98 

V. McGee 175 

p. WillUms 776 

GQes r. Edwards 334, 660 

V. Paxson 61 

r. Williams 725 

Gilgallon r. Bishop 102 

Gilkerson-Sloes Co. p. Salinger... 893 

Gilkes p. Leonino 27 

Gilkeson Co. r. Bond 452 

Gill p. Bradley 627 

p. Hopkins 864 

p. Weller 271 

Gfllard v. Brittan 335 

GOlaspie p. Kelley 867 

Gilleland v. Failing 461 

Gillespie, In re 281, 282 

p. Bailey 69 

V. Battle 788 

V 



PAOS. 

Gillespie v, Darwin 386 

V, Moon 634 

Gillett p. Sweat 860 

Gillette p. Smith 869, 870 

Gilliam v. Alford 579 

I V, Bro^^n 498, 500 

Gilliland v. Phillips 515 

j Gillis p. Goodwin 67, 68 

I Gilman p. Jones 450 

j Gilmore t?. Lewis 14, 205 

I r. Williams 608, 655 

: V. Woodcock 501 

Gilroy p. Alis 600 

Gipps Brewing Co. p. De France. . 39 

886 

Girard t?. Taggart 363 

Girdner p. Gibbons 866 

Girty p. Standard Oil Co 729 

Gisaf p. Neval 413 

Gist V. Western Union Tel. Co. . . 408 

608, 512 

Gittings p. Mayhew 186 

Givan p. Maaterson 746 

Given's Appeal 492 

Glass V. Hulbert 634, 791, 792 

Glass Co. V. Mathews 382 

Glasscock V. Glasscock 214 

GlaEspoole p. Young 666 

Glazebrook p. Woodrow 326 

Gleason v. Allen 832 

17. Hamilton 853 

Glen p. Fisher 253 

t?. Hope Mutual L. I. Co.. 249 

277 
Glencoe Lime Co. p. Wind. . 249, 251 

253, 267 

Glenmavis, The 608 

Glenn p. Marbury 278, 279 

V, Mathews 377 

p. Rossler 336 

Glens Falls Gas Light Co. p. Van 

Vranken 249, 251 

Gidden p. Strupler 88 

Globe Tobacco Warehouse Co. P. 

Leach 490 

Glocke V. Glocke 335 

Gloucester Glue Co. p. Russia Ce- 
ment Co 469 

Glover r. Ott 79 

V, Taylor 439 

Glubb, Re 678, 738 

Gluckstein p. Barnes 681, 690 

Glynn p. Moran 573 

Goble p. American Nat. Bank. ... 831 

p. O'Connor 470 

Goddard r. Beebe 415 

p. Johnson 89 

p. O'Brien 210 

F. Railroad Co 130 

p. Snow 393 

p. Wescott 647 



Uvi 



TABLE OF CABBB. 



PAOB. 

Goddep V, Pienon 171 

Godfrey tu Thornton 88 

Godkin r. Monahan. 310 

Godinatt v. Meizael 408 

Godwin v. Fiiancis 119 

Goebel 9. laim. 204 

Goetter v. WeU 584 

GoeU r. Fobs 170 

Goff r. Bankston 662 

Gold r. Ogdcsi 272 

r. PMUipa 241, 268 

Gold Medal Sewing Machine Co. 

i>. Harris 813 

Gold Mining Qif^. v, Nat. Bank. . . 403 

Goldberg r. Feiga 502 

Golden v, Hardesty 586 

Goldman v, Goldman 536 

- V. Roaenbeig 536 

Goldaborough 17. Cradie 23 

t?. Gable 204 

Goldamith v. Guild 628 

Goman v. Salisbury 311 

Gompertz v. Bartlett 606 

r. Denton 342 

Gooch V, Faucett 508, 512 

Gooch's Case 63, 64 

Good 1?. Cheesman 212, 834, 835 

V. Elliott 421 

V. Zook 746 

Goodall V, Cooley 803 

V, Thurman 411 

Goode V. Harrison 64 

V. Hawkins 470 

I?. Rilgr 634, 6^9 

Goodell V, Bleld 640 

Goodenough, In re 463 

Goodfellow r. Inslee 853 

Groodger v, Finn 708 

Goodhue v. Daris 391 

Goodin r. Canal Co 389 

Goodman v. Alexander 78 

i>. Eastman 868, 871 

!?. Harvey 291 

V, Pocock 346 

V. RandaU 276 

-r — t?. Sayers . 681 

V. Simonds 291 

V, Walker 452 

Goodnow r. Empire Lumber Co. . . 69 

V. Moulton 11 

Goodrich v. Gordon 25 

r. Johnson 176, 177 

1?. Northwick 61 

V, Shaw 750 

V. Stanley 834 

V, Tenney 445 

Goodsell V. Myers 69 

Goodson i\ Whitfield 394 

Goodspeed v. Bank 130 

V. Cutler 856 

Groodwin v. Buzzell 778 

V. Crowell 440 



iG66dwin V, Ciinwinghain. MB 

V. Goodwin 444, 743 

V. Mass. Trust Co.... 716, 717 

V. Morria 781 

t?. Norton 845 

V. Robarte 293, 294 

r. Thompson 64 

Goodyear Co. v. Selz 633 

Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v 

Dancel 250, 259 

Coram v. Sweeting 910 

Gorder V. Plattsmouth Canning Go. 160 
Gordon v. Brewster. * 363 

p. Butler 691 

p. Dalby 439 

V. George 299 

V, Gordon 210, 674 

v. McCarty 720 

V. Parmelee 691 

V. Railroad Co 16 

r. Robertson 854 

V. Street 597, 697 

V. Third Bank 861 

Gore r. Gibson 100 

Goree 17. Wilson 193 

Gorffier r. Mieville 294 

Gorham r. Gilson 125 

17. Keyes 440 

Gorrell r. Greensboro Water Co.. 249 

254 

j Gortinge 17. Read 748 

Gorsuth 17. Butterfleld 402, 615 

Gosbell r. Archer 334 

Goss 17. Lord Nugent. . . 821, 822, 824 
I Gossler r. Eagle Sugar Refinery. 652 

Gott 17. Dinsmore 64 

! Gottlieb 17. Thatcher 761 

Gough 17. Williamson 639 

, Gould 17. Bank 710 

! 17. Kendall 600 

17. McFall 579 

17. Partridge 302 

V. Stein 620, 652, 653 

Goulding 17. Davidson 200 

Governor, The v. Allen 127 

I Governor i?. Lagow 872 

Govett V, Richmond 226 

Gowans t?. Pierce 275 

I Gowen 17. Pierson 448 

' Gower v, Andrew 390 

I 17. Sterner 636 

Gowers r. Klaus 179 

I Gowing r. Thomas 831, 832 

' Grace 17. Adams ,, 64 

1 r. Hale 79 

V. Lynch 177, 789 

Gradle t\ Hoffman 385 

17. Warner 181 

Graef r. Bernard 877 

Grieme r. Wroughton 491, 911 

Graf r. Cunningham 332 



«ttbS or CAffM. 



ixvii 



PAGE. 

Qnirei«itein-G..il|«rteui 992 

Gwtftop g-, gmnroinffl 179 

r. St, Louis, etc.. By. Go. . . 205 

Orahun v, Clucago> etc. By. Co. . 515 
€, Graham 60, 736 

r. Hoilpwaj 346 

r. Holt 855 

r. Johnaon 287, 288, 289 

r. Little 744 

9. litarks 729 

17. Pancoasf 692 

r. kaiiroad Co 125 

V. Itu«h 872 

r. Stanton 11, 199 

V. tilf ord 380 

Graham Paper Co. v, Pembroke.. 281 

Grain's Case 227, 228 

Grand Isle r. Kinney 187 

Grai|d Lodge v. FamhaiA 42, 187 

Grand Lodge, etc. v. Stepp 143 

Qrandin v. Grandln 215 

Granger v. Roll 262 

Grannia r. Hooker 709 

Grant r. Bradatreet 262 

c. Bmrgwyn 876 

V, piebold Safe Co 250 

- 17. Gold Exploration, etc., 
Syndicate of Britiah Columbia. 388 

392 

r. Green 210 

V. Maddox 314 

r. Porter 199 

V. Southern Contract Co. . . 132 

p. Walsh 701 

Grant's Cfiaa 41, 391 

Gnrttan p. Wiggins 786 

Chratz v. Qrats 880 

Grau r. McVicker 360 

Gravely v. Barnard. . . . 195, 475, 478 

Graves v. Bank 292, 660 

r. Berdan 531, 632 

V. Graves' Exs 780 

p. Johnson 432, 485 

17. Legg 825, 327 

T. Saline Co 147 

p. White 335, 340, 345, 745 

Gray v. Barton 211, 813 

p. Central R. R. Co 51 

p. Chicago Ry. Co 437 

V, Fowler 708, 709 

p. Gibson 236 

p. Gray 786 

r. Hamil 199 

p. Herman 841 

c. Hook 438 439 

p. Lewis 160, 897 

p. Mathias 411, 412, 413 

F. Meek 324 

p. Moore 655 

p. Palmer 174 



PAGE. 

Gtay #. Pearson 236 

P. Richmond BUsyfd/B Co. . . . 877 

p. Seigler 442 

p. Sims 514 

V. Warner 890 

p. WUson 446, 449 

Gray's Ex. p. Brown 384 

Graybill p. Brugh 217 

Greary v. Bangs 332 

Greason p. Keteltas 446 

Great Northern Ry. Co. p. Easis- 

chke 584 

P. Palmer 56 

p. Witham 196,197 

Greathouse p. Throckmorton 409 

Greaves p. Ashlin 835 

Gt«ele P. Parker 25 

Greely p. Dow 833 

Green, In re.. 406 

Green p. Adams 895 

p. Baverstock 684 

p. Burton 170 

p. Campbell 462 

P. Cole 48 

P. Collins 486 

p. Creighton 802 

- t. Drummond 174 

p. Duckett 731 

p. Estes 170,257 

f . Gilbert 645, 648 

P. Goodall 394 

P. Green 08, 34^, 392 

p. Greenbank 82 

p. Holway 798 

F. Jones 791 

p. Kelley 210 

p. Langdon 211, 813 

p. Levin 346 

p. Makwey 583 

p. Morrison 256, 261 

p. North Buffalo Township. 584 

F. Parker 261 

F. Railroad Co 677, 786 

p. Sevin 628 

r. Sixer 431 

p. Sneed 854 

F. Starr 877 

F. State 685 

p. Stone 263, 272, 276 

F. Thompson 75 

p. Turner 272 

p. Wells 528, 816, 836 

F. Wilding 66 

p. Wilkie 585 

P. Wynn 384 

Green Bay Co. p. Hewitt 577 

Greenburg f. Early 544 

Greene r. Bateraan 605 

p. Haley 342, 550 

r. Smith 577 



Izviii 



TABLB OF CA8B8. 



PAGE. 

Greenfield's Estate 684, 736 

Greenfield Bank v. Stowell. . 857, 867 

868 

Greenleaf v, Allen 299 

V, Gerald 697 

V. Hill 89 

Greenman v. Cohee 452 

Greenough v, Balch 399 

Greentree r. Rosenstock 281 

Greenway v, Gaither 366 

Greenwell v. Porter 377, 439 

Greenwich Bank v. De Groot 41 

Greenwood v. Curtis... 508, 510, 511 

p. Greenwood 317 

Gregg V. Pierce 205 

t\ Sanford 136 

V. Woolscroft 107 

Gregory v. Boston Safe Dep. Co.. 878 
t?. Lee 80 

V. Pierce 91 

t?. Pike 878 

i\ Spieker 468 

V. Wendell 406, 409 

V. Williams 234, 244 

c. Wilson 399 

t?. Winston 393 

Grell V, Levy 452, 512 

Gremm r. Carr's Adm 12u 

Grenier v, Cota 30 

Gresley r. Mousley. 712, 736, 768, 770 

Grever r. Taylor 703 

Greville r. Da Costa 334, 344 

Grey r. Tubbs 628 

Gribben v. Atkinson 541 

V. Maxwell 101, 102 

Grice r. Noble 29 

Gridley v. Gridley 253 

Grierson v. Mason 312 

Grievance Committee v. Brown ... 446 

Griffin v, Boynton 847 

V. Cunningham 170 

«?. Deveuille 745 

r. Farrier 692 

V. Ranney 798 

r. Rembert 26 

Griffith t\ Burden 145 

V. Diffenderffer 736 

r. Fowler 567 

V. Godey 750 

r. Sebastian Co 612 

t?. Sitgreaves 729 

r. Thompson 789 

V. Tower Pub. Co 596 

V, Townley 676 

V, Wells 402 

v. Young 787 

Griffiths r. Hardenbergh 496 

V. Jones 602 

r. Kellogg 585 

r. Robins 745 

V. Sears 492 



Grigby r. Cox 735 

Grigg V. LandiB 628, 629 

Griggs V. Swift 544 

t\ Woodruff 709 

Grim v. Murphy 175 

Grimaldi r. White 338 

Grime c. Borden 415 

Grimes i?. Butts 174 

t?. Piersol 859 

Grimsted v. Briggs 856 

Gring v. Lerch 547 

Grlswold V. Hazard 576 

V. Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. 437 

V. Waddington 429 

Groat r. Pracht 878 

Grommes v. Sullivan 144 

Gronstadt v. Withoff 573 

Gross t?. Arnold 27 

t?. Caldwell 11 

t\ Drager 584 

t?. Leber 617 

Grosvenor v, Flint 446 

V, Sherratt 742, 745 

Grotenkemper r. Achtermyer 15 

Groton v. Waldborough 438 

Grover v. Hoppock 206 

Grow V. Garlock 386 

Grubb's Adm. t\ Suit 547 

Gruman v. Smith 408 

Grumley v, Webb 390 

Grymes v. Blofield 840, 841 

V. Sanders 721, 723 

Guard v. Whiteside 813 

Guardhouse r. Blackburn... 312, 914 

Guckenheimer v, Angevine 713 

Guderian v. Leland 384 

Guerin r. Stacey 633 

Guernsey v. American Ins. Co 640 

r. Cook 376, 376, 439 

r. West Coast Lumber Co. . 332 

Guest V, Burlington Co 107 

V, Smythe 388 

Guild r. Baldridge. . . . ^ 675 

V. Butler 384, 386 

Guild & Co. V. Conrad 170 

Guildhall, The 608 

Guilleaume r. Rowe 730 

Guinness v. Land Corporation of 

Ireland 902 

Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hefley 495 

t\ Smith 300 

r. Winton 49, 60, 197 

Gulick f?. Gulick 120 

r. Ward 470 

- — t\ Webb 470 

Gullich V. Alford 342,343 

Gunn's Case 37 

Gunnell v. izimers n 269 

Gunning v. Royal 216 

Gunnison County Comrs. v. Rol- 
lins 187 



TABLE Oir CASES. 



Ixix 



PAOS. 

Qunter V. Addy 854, 855, 863 

V. Leckey 402 

r. Mooney . . 276 

r. Williams 8»2 

GuptUl V. Verback 677 

Gupton r. Gupton 467 

Gurin v. Cromartie 35 

Gurn^ V. Behrend 302 

p. Womersley 608 

Gnthartt? Gow 448 

Gutiunif V. Lynn 48 

Guthman v, Parker 601 

Guthrie r. Baahline 283 

V. Kerr 250, 252 

- F. Morris 81 

Gotta Percha Co. v. Mayor 157 

Guy V. Chureliill 453, 456, 461 

Gwin 17. Anderson 874 

r. Simes 809 

GwynB V. Gwynn 893 

V. Schwartz 175 

Gwynne r. Heaton 749 

V. Hitchner 51 



H. V. W 418 

H« D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. ' 

Schofield 326 

H. W. Williams Trans. Line v. I 

Darius Cole Trans. Co 608 

Haack r. Weicken 735 : 

Haarstick r. Fox 39 ' 

Haas-r. Myers 39, 40, 41 

V, Shaw 893 

Hebeler t?. Rogers 336 

Habricht r. Alexander's Exs 427 

Hack V. Rollins 395 

Hacheny r. Leary 39 

Hack r. London Provident Build- 
ing Society 447 

Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay. 137 
Hacker v. Australian, etc., Co. . . 340 
Hackett r. King 730 

V, Martin 282 

Hackettstown ada, Swackhammer. 146 
Hackley r. Headley 728, 731 

V, Ockford 44 

Hadcock v, Osmer 682, 692 

Hadley v. Clarke 428 

V. Clinton Importing Co... 681 

Hadlock v. Brooks 461 

Haflin v. Bingham 173 

Hagan v. Insurance Co 874 

Hagee v. Grossman 693 

Hagey v, Detweiler 175 

V. Hill 383 

Haggard v. Conkwright 430 

Haggerty v, Johnston 257 

Jiaggett V, Hurley 893 

Hahn r. Baker Lodge 532 

Haigh V. Brooks 194 

~~ V. North Bierly Union 164 



PAGE. 

Haines v. Busk 494 

Haines v. Dearborn 10 

V, Dennett 66 

r. Lewis 434, 441 

V. Starkey 108 

Haines' Adm. r. Tarrant 80, 81 

Hairston v. Jaudon 787 

Halbot V. Lens 120 

Haldane v. United States. 28, 29, 41 

Hale 17. Dressen 818, 821 

V, First Bank 285 

V, Forbis 205, 206 

V. Gerrish 69 

V. Hollon 459 

—^ V. Insurance Co 147 

V. Ripp 249, 255 

1?. Sherwood 501, 502 

r. Wall 429 

V, Wilkinson 753 

Haley i;. Congdon 295 

Halford v. Cameron's Coalbrook, 

etc., Co 293 

Halhead v. Young 310 

Halifax Union Guardians v. Wheel- 
wright 586 

Hall, Ex parte 199 

Re 805 

Hall v. Alford 256, 257, 27 J 

V, Bainbridge 236 

17. Bishop 402 

1?. Butterfield 68 

v. Carmich.ael 393 

t?. Cazenove 523 

r. Cockrell 109 

V. Conder 609 

V. Dimond 571 

V. Dyson 380 

V. Eccleston 891 

17. Ewin 203, 306 

1% First Bank 49, 573, 833 

17. Fuller 869 

17. Gilman 467 

17. Gird 452 

17. Hall 630, 736, 739 

17. Hickman 286 

17. Hinks 716 

V. Huntoon 250 

V. Jones 241 

t\ Kimmer 492 

V. Knappenberger 738 

17. Loomis 666 

i\ Mayor of Swansea 167 

V. Mesenbeimer 179 

17. Odber 877 

t?. Old Talargoch Lead Min- 
ing Co 719 

T. Palmer 55, 413 

17. Perkins 744 

V, Railroad Co 17 

17. Rogers 171 

r. Smith 934, 872 

17. Timmons 83 



Ixx 



TABU OP cAan. 



PAGE. 

HaU t?. United States 68 

V. Warien 08 

t?. Weaver 866,872 

V. Wheeler 578 

V, Wright. . . 465. 543, 546, 547 

Hall's Adm. v, MeHenry 862, 872 

Hall-Dare v, Hall-Dare 644 

Halle r. Newbold ^1 

Hallenbeck v, Dewitt 584 

V. Kindred 258 

Hallett V. Holmes 385 

P. New England Grate Co. . 680 

V. Oakcs 99 

V. Wylie 581 

Halletsville v. Long 662 

Halliburton u, Nance 240 

Hallidie -r. Sutter St. Ry. Co. . . . 51 

Hallock «. Insurance Co 89 

Hallows V, Femie 692 

Hails V. Thompson 693 

Halsey v. Grant 663, 664 

i;. Reed 262 

Halsted v, Francis 269 

Ham r. Greve 660 

Hamarskold v* Bull 112 

Hambell v. Hamilton 789 

Hamblet v. Insurance Co. 43, 657 

Hamblin v. Bishop 616 

Hamer v. Sidway 186, 196 

Hamet v. Letcher 692, 718 

Hamilton «. Browning 299 

t?. Grainger . * 403 

I?. Gray 461 

V. Hamilton 444 

r. Hart 827 

V. Hector 462 

V, Home Ins. Co. 445, 448 

V. Hooper 862. 863 

V, Insurance Co 161, 429 

-^— V. Lycoming 39 

r. Railroad Co 161 

V, Smith 394 

i;. Stewart 839 

t\ Thirston 789 

17. Thrall 832 

V. Vaughan-Sherrin & Co 69 

r. Vought 292 

V, Watson 660, 601 

V. Wood 854, 861 

Hamilton Co. v. Milliken 703 

Hamlen v. Werner 301 

Hamlin r. Abell 683 

17. Drummond 240 

17. Great Northern Ry. Co. . , 16 

Hamlyn & Co. 17. Talisker Dis- 
tillery 446, 506 

Hammer v. Breidenbaoh 549 

Hammersley v. Baron de Beil 466 

915, 916, 917, 918 

Hammond r. Hopping 809 

17. Messenger 279 



PA6B. 

Hammflirii 9w Pennock. .710, 719 

Hampden v. Walsh 501 

V.Mayes 869 

Hanauer i?. Doane. 409, 431, 486, 489 

17. Gray 483 

t7. Woodruff 431, 497 

Hanback i?. Corrigaa 696 

Hanchett r. Blair 786 

Hancock 17. Hancock 96 

17. Harper 774 

17. Peaty W 

V. Watson 622 

Hand i;. Baynes 628, 680 

17. Svans Marble Co. . . 257, 269 

17. Hand 88 

17. Kennedy 261 

Handforth t7. Jackson 343, 716 

Handlin i7. Davis 746 

Hattdy i7. St. Paul Globe Co 616 

17. Waldron 692 

Hanford 17. Blessing 631 

Hanger v. Abbott 428 

Hatinington 17. Du Chaatal 438 

Hankins 17. Shoupe 295 

Hanks 17. Barron 204, 210 

17. Nagles 411 

Hanley v. Pearson 643 

— 17. Sweeney 683 

Hanlott 17. Doherty 820 

— — 1?. Wheeler 79 

HattHa 17. Ingram 408 

— r. Kasson 749 

V. Mills 846 

17. Wilcox 736 

Hannah v. Fife 470 

Hannahs v. Sheldon 103 

Hannan 17. Prentis 388 

Hannigan t7. Ailen 25Sy t66 

Hannum v. Rldiardaon 664 

Hanover Bank r. First Bank 487 

Hanover Fire Ins. Cd. v. Lewis. . . . 448 

Hanover Nat. Bank 17. Blake 379 

Hanrahan 17. National Assoc 706 

Hansen 17. Gaar 204, 216 

17. Myer 298 

Hansley r. Railway Co 17 

Hanson 17. Crawley 860 

17. Marsh 179 

Hanson v. Waller 566 

Hanson Trustees 17. Stetson 187 

Hanthorn 17. Quinn 528 

Harben i?. Phillips 897 

Harberg 17. Arnold 265 

Harbers i7. Gadsden 664 

Harbison v. Lemon 104 

Harbor 17. Morgan 829 

Harcrow v. Harcrow 377 

Harden r. Lang 343, 340 

Hardesty v. Cox 257 

17. Jones 170 

Hardin v. Boyd 775 



TABLE or CAflBS. 



Izxi 



PAGE. 

Hardin Ow Young 99 

HAidfag, In the Goods of 00 

«. American Qineoaa Go. . . . 185 

— fL Diucand 776 

•. Gibte 27 

». Hagar 402 

p. Hale 677 

Hardman «. Booth 692, 718 

Hardware Co. v. Deere 121 

Hardwidc 9. King 897 

Hardy v. Dyat 101 

r. Jones 601 

9. Metropolitan Land and 

Finance Go. 570 

9. Van Harlingen 735 

r. Waters 66 

Hare r. Murphy 261, 265 

Hare's Gase 602, 711 

Harford v. Street 876 

Hagardine V. McKittri<dc Go 80 

Hargcave v. Conroy 548 

Harker v. Hough 879 

Harlan v. Central Phoepuate Go. . 676 

616 

Harland v. Person 252 

Harlem v. Lehigh Co 612 

Harlow 9. Beaver Falls Borough. 337 

V, Homestead 628, 530 

9. La Bnm 690 

V. Putnam 48, 194 

Harman r. Herman 790 

Harman's Csse 228 

Ebumon 9. Adams 35 

V. Birchard 566 

9. Harmon 729 

Harmony 9. Bingham 6$S8, 781 

Harmony Lodge 9. White 299 

Harms 9. McCormick 276 

9. Parsons 478 

Ham 9. Smith 175 

Hamden 9. Melby 502 

Hamer 9. Dipple 66 

9. Fisher 118 

Harnett 9. Holdrege 860 

Harper 9. Bank 110 

9. Hampton 836 

9. Harper 176, 505 

9. Little 106 

9. Beeves 848, 874 

9. Stroud 862, 863 

9. Terry 713 

Harran 9« Fol^ 606 

Harrmway v. Harraway 735 

Harrell 9. Miller 173 

9. Watson 217 

Harries 9. Edmonds 850 

Harriman, The 528 

Haninan 9. T^ndale 180 

Harrington 9. Gomior 125 

9. Harrington 877 

9. Kansas City R. R. Co. . . 176 



PAGE. 

Htrxingtoa r. Long 458, 457 

; 9.. Rutherford 689 

9. Victoria Graving l>ock 

Ca 389 

9. Watson 531, 582 

Harrington's Adm. 9. Crawford.. 495 

Harris v. Brisco 451, 461 

9. Cannon 63 

r. Cannody 729 

9. Carstarphen 737 

•^— 9. Carter 204 

9. Cassady 210 

•^— 9. Charab«rlain 439 

r. G. W. Ry. Co 54 

9. Harris 217 

9, Heackman 299, 631 

9. Johnson 543 

9. Kiekerson 16, 18 

9- Oakley 175 

V, Owen 848, 851 

9. Pepperell 600, 644 

-: — 9. Porter 178 

9. Powers 173 

V, Quine 780 

9. Runnels 402, 432 

r. Scott 30 

9. Smith 589 

17. Social Mfg. Co 880 

9. Taylor 89 

9. Tremenheere 746 

9. Tumbridge 408 

9. Tyson 683 

9, Wall 06 

9. Wamsley 760 

9. Watson 204 

9. White 405, 406 

9. Wilson 889 

9. Woodruff 498 

r. Young 169 

Harris' Case 884, 885 

Harrisburg Assoc. 9. United States 

Fidelity Co 383 

Harrison r. Cage 202 

9. Gluoose Co 468 

V, Good 301 

9. Guest 760, 762 

9. Harrison ®6, 685 

9. Hatcher 488 

9. Hicks 841 

r. Howe ^^^ 

9. Insurance Co 660, 661 

9. Jones 5^^ 

9. Luke ^46 

t'.Myer \l\ 

9. Otley •••• i^} 

9. Owei - ®*®' f,\ 

9. Polar Star Lodge 816 

— J |-^^- :::::::::::: ^ 

9. Seymour ... 267, 26r 

=::TanSr";.:.' «^ 



Izzii 



TABLE or CASES. 



PAGE. 

Harrison v. Town 7^ 

V, Tuberville 853 

V, Wilcox 212 

V, Wright 257, 267 

Harrison Machine Works v. Mil- 
ler 342 

Harrod v. Carder's Adm 776 

Harse v. Pearl Life Ass. Co 405 

Harshberger's Adm. v, Alger 889 

Harson r. Pike 14, 22 

Hart r. Adler 292 

t?. Bank 108 

V. British Ins. Co 656 

r. Gregg 459 

r. Hart 49 

V. Miles 194 

V. Mills 604 

V, Norton 12 

r. Sharpton 874 

V. State 451 

V. Swaine 672 

Barter i;. Christoph 640 

r. Elzroth 654 

V, Harter 914 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. r. Chicago, 

etc., Ry . Co 515 

r. Davenport 248, 259 

Hartford Ins. Co. v. Hon 449 

V, Lasher Stocking Co 39 

Hartford, etc., R. Co. v, Jackson. . 599 

Hartley v. Cummings 197, 481 

r. Harrison 276 

©. Ponsonby 204, 205 

V. Rice 465 

V. Sandford 171 

Harts V. Emery 261, 270 

Hartung v, Witte 176, 298, 301 

Hartwell v. Gumey 684 

Harvey v. Briggs 68 

17. Curry 890 

r. Dale 654 

V, Facey 19, 45 

V, Famie 579 

t?. Gibbons 524 

V. Girard 579 

v, Grabham 822, 824 

V. Harris 599 

V. Himt 378 

V, Merrill 406, 408 

V. Mount 745 

t7. Smith 865, 868 

V, State 876 

V, Sullens 734 

V. Tama County 841 

Harvey Lumber Co. v. Herriman 

Lumber Co 257 

Harwell t\ Steele 776 

Hasbrouck r. Tappen 823, 824 

Haskell v. Burdette 383 

< V. Champion .... 859, 660, 862 



FAOE. 

Haskell v. Davidson 23 

r. Starbird 699, lUi 

t?. Tukesbury 179, 214 

Hassinger v, Newman 171 

Hastelow v. Jackson 501, 503 

Hastings, Lady, Re 895 

V. DolUrhide 66, 67, 69 

r. Lovejoy 827 

17. Lovering 652, 653 

Hatch V, Coddington 106 

r. Douglas 408 

V, Hanson 600 

V. Hatch . . . .736, 736, 744, 845 

t?. Hatch's Est 69 

V. Leonard 90 

V. Mann 205 

V. Searles 867 

V. Spottord 877 

Hatcher v. Buf ord 395 

Hathaway v. Lynn 818 

Hatton, Re 834 

Hatzfield v. Gulden 434 

Haubelt V. Rea & Paffe Mill Co. . 604 
Hauessler v. Missouri Iron Co. . . 304 

Haugh V. Blythe's Exs 177, 789 

Havana Press Drill Co. v, Ashurst. 210 

Haven v. Foster 580 

Haven r. Russell 51 

Haviland r. HaUtead 120 

V. Willets 614, 618, 689 

Haw V. American Wire Nail Co. . 181 

Hawes v, Dingley 716 

Hawk V. Marion County 14 

Hawkins v. Chaoe 180 

r. Davis 592 

p. Graham 51, 52 

vl Hawkins 584 

V. Pemberton 654 

t?. Smith 402 

Hawkinson v, Harmon 181 

Hawksworth p. Hawksworth 462 

Hawley r. Bibb 292, 407 

V, Exchange Bank .... 257, 267 

V. Foote 829 

V. Howell 103 

p. Moody 787 

t\ Smith 550 

V. Wilkinson 257 

Hawralty v. Warren 572 

Hay p. Insurance Co 639 

Hay's Case 389 

Hay's Estate 470 

Haycraf t p. Creasy C92 

Haydel v. Mutual Life Assoc 673 

Hayden p. Devery 272 

p. Goodnow 874 

-p. Snow 272 

p. Souger 22, 205 

Haydock r. Haydock 737, 738 

Hayes p. Allen 832 

V, Gross 638 



TABLB OF CAS18. 



Ixxiii 



PACT. 

HftTw V. Qsrde Pftrk 432 

V, JaekBon 178 

V. llfnwurhnfwtts Co 214 

V. Nashville 352 

V. Parker 86 

V. Wagner 848, 868, 869 

V, WaTcrly, etc, Co 301 

r. Wells 384 

Haje's EzB. v. Hayes 914 

Haygarth v. Wearing. . 670, 672, 765 

Haymaker v. Eberly 214 

Haynumd v. Oamden 430 

Uaynes v. Doman 477, 479, 483 

V. Nice 785 

r. Rudd 440, 496, 747 

V. Second Baptist Church.. 528 

638 

Hayncy v, Coyne 451 

Hajrs V. Cage 877 

V. Gas Light Co 142 

r. Hall 324 

V, Kershaw 217 

V. Midas 708 

f?. Odom 863 

9. Railroad Co 130 

Hayward r. Andrews 279 

V, Barker 200 

«. Hayward 89 

V. Leeson 389, 670 

r. Nordberg Mfg. Co 436 

Haywood v. Brunswick Building 

Society 302, 305 

V, Cope 754 

V. McNair 295 

Hasard r. Dillon 500 

V. Griswold 684, 725, 729 

V. Insurance Co 699 

r. Railroad 302 

Hazen v. Mathews 302 

Hazle V, Bondy 261 

Hazlerigg r. Donaldson 728 

Hazlett r. Burge 680 

r. Sinclair 300, 301 

Head r. aark 15 

V. Diggon 31 

V, Goodwin 782 

Headley r. Pickering 689 

Heady v. Boden 66 

Heagney r. J I. Case Machinery 

Co 350 

Heaps V. Dunham 729 

Heard v. Bowers 368, 369 

r. Pillcy 174 

V. Tappan 866 

Heam v. Kiehl 832 

Heame r. Chadboume 178 

V. Insurance Co. 641 

Heartley r. Nicholson 219 

Heath r. Blake ... 861, 864, 863, 870 

V. Crealock 668 

u Heath 176 



PAOE. 

Heath r. Vaughn 834 

V. West 67 

Heathcote v. Paignon 754 

Heaton v. Eldridge 784 

p. Norton Co. Bank 729 

Heaver v, ,l<anahan 349 

Hebb's Case 31, 35, 884 

Hebblethwaite v, Hepworth 158 

Hebum r. Warner 801 

Hecht V. Batcheller 607, 654 

V. Caughron . ,,^ 256 

Hecker v. Mahler 863 

Heckman v. Doty 498 

t?. Manning 820 

17. Swartz 488 

Hedin r. Minneapolis Institute. . . 692 

Heermans v, Ellsworth 282 

Heeter v, Glasgow 312 

Heffer v, Martyn 470 

Heffield v. Meadows 315 

Heffron r. Pollard 110 

Heflin P. Milton ^ 170 

Hefner v. Vandolah 443 

Hefter v. Cahn 378 

Hegenmyer v, Marks 743 

Hei r. Heller 173 

Heideman v. Wolfstein 180 

Heilbronn v, Herzog 707 

V. McAleenan 718 

Heilbutt r. Hickson 342, 619 

Heim v. Vogel Lui, 265 

Heinlin v. Fish 816 

Heins v, Lincoln 146 

Heim v. Carron 832 

V. McCaughan 17 

Heiserman v. lUilroad Co 731 

Heisley v. Swanstrom 823 

Helberg v, Nichol 390 

Helbum v, Mofford 531, 532 

'■Helen," The 431 

Helfenstein's Est 42, 187 

Hellen v. Anderson 464 

Heller t?. Elliott 708 

Helmer v, Krolick 292 

Helms V. Douglas 291 

r. Franciscus 415 

Helps V. Clavton 79 

Heman p. Gilliam 863 

Hemingway v. Coleman 749 

V, Hamilton 679 

Hemmer v. Cooper 690 

Hemminffer r. Western Assur. Co. 337 

Hemphill r. McClimans 199, 200 

Hemsley v. Hotel Co 302, 300 

Hendee f . Cleaveland 387 

Henderson v. Australian Royal 

Mail, etc., Co 162, 163 

r. Bellew 275 

V, Fox 74, 80 

V, Gibbs 7 IG 

V. Henderson 416« 921 



Jtxxir 



XASU OP CAntk 



Hinderspp CI. KUl^ • Ml 

V. MoPoofiM .... 940, 252, 27d 

V. Palmer 440 

V. Ruilroad Co 701 

V, Stevenson 63 

r. Stokes 6;j9, 640 

^— V. WtLggoner 487 

t?. WilUftiM 719 

Henderson Bridge Go. t?. McGrath. 50 

Hendricks v. Knilroad Go. 54 

' V. Gom^tpck 780, 781 

V, Frank . , 267, 260 

--^ V. tsaacs . . , , 02 

V. Lindsay 276 

V, Robinson 199 

Hendriokson r. Trenton Bank 285 

Henkel p, Pape 604 

Henkle v. Royal Ezch. Assee. Go. 639 

Henley v. Hotaling 631 

Hennen v. Oilman 427 

Hennequin 17. Naylor 679 

Hennessy r. Bacon 345 

V, Bond 259, 277 

Henning v. Werkheiser 8o6, 866 

Henninger v. Heald 713 

Henricus r. Englert 110 

Henry r. Goats 862 

V. Dennis 700 

V. Gauthreaux 88 

r. Heeb 443 

t?. Henry 792 

V, Murphy 246. 256, 271 

t\ Root 175 

17. Vance 681 

Henry, etc., Assoc, r. Walton 443 

Henshaw v. Bobbins 654 

Hensler v. Jennings 501, 6v;2 

Henthom r. Eraser . . 28, 30, 31, 33 

36, 38, 41 

Hentz r. Jewell 409 

V. Miller 592, 718 

Hepburn v, Auld 664 

Hepler r. Mt. Carmel Bank 864 

Herbert v, Mueller 214 

Herbst V. Hagenaers 880 

Herdman v. Bratten 859 

Hereford and South Wales Waggon 

and Engineering Go., Re 698 

Herman v. Hall 696 

Herman v, Jeuchner 443, 502 

Hemdon v. Gibson 470 

Herpolsheimer v. Funke 469 

Herr v. Payson 453 

Herreshoff r. Boutineau. 468 

Herrick r. Baldwin 850 

V, Lynch 505 

p. Malin 645 

r. Newell 787 

Herriman r. Mencies 469 

Herron v. Herron 745 

Hershey v. Luce 573 



BmrOief V. a^^Sk *.^... 6M 

Htrshizer.v. Florence to9 

Herster v. Herster 736 

Herter v. Mullen 669 

Hertsler v. Geigley 402, 498 

Hert8(« r. Hertsog 11, 12 

Hervey v. Bervey 869 

Herzog r. Purdy 332 

V. Sawyer 826, 836 

Hess 17. Dawson 332 

V. Draffen 692 

Hesse v. Bterensoo 624 

Hessick r. Hessick 735 

Hewes v. PUtts 402 

Hewett V, Carrier 215 

Hewitt 17. ^deraon 14 

r. Wilcox 802 

Heysham v, Dettre 728 

Heywood v. Mallalieu 671, 674 

Heyworth V. Hutchinson 664 

Hibblewhite r. McMorine 855 

Hick V, Raymond 530 

Hickerson t?. Benson 502 

Hickey V, O'Brien 197 

V. Railway Co. 301 

Hickman t;. Berens 603 

V. Haynes 824 

17. Layne 249, 254 

Hickock V, Hoyt ^ 345 

Hicks r. Aylsworth 628 

r. British Am. Assur. Go... 361 

v. Cleveland 782 

17. Cody 577 

17. Hamilton 265 

17. Hicks 630 

17. McGarry .* 259 

17. McGoun 880 

17. Steel 743 

17, Stevens 695 

17. Wyatt 256 

Hidden r. Cbappel 238 

Hides 17, Hides 746 

Higby 17. WhitUker .... 342, 344, 345 

Higert i7. Trustees 187 

Higgens's Case 875 

Higgins t\ Dale 199 

i\ Eagleton 345, 854 

i\ Hayden 701 

17. niinois Bank 654 

17. Pitt 880 

t% Railway Co 665 

17. Russo 495 

17. Samels 696 

17. Scott 776 

17. Senior 106 

Higginson r. Clowes 601, 636 

17. Schaneback 174 

V. Simpson 499 

BiSSs ^' Northern Assam Tea Go. 289 

High V. Worley 88 

Highberger 17. StiflOer 744 



TABLB OF CASBS. 



Izxv 



PAGE. 

Hilbom V. Bnekmaoi 729 

HilenuuD v. Wright 634 

Hill r. Baker 4ft7 

r. Blake 340, 342 

*- r. Boyle 456 

t?. Cooper 03 

r. Day 100, 106 

p. Freeman 413 

r. Govld 226 

r. Gray 681 

V, Grigsby 324 

r. Hooper 178 

r. Jamieson 176 

r. Levy 409 

r. More 445, 87» 

r. Morris 696 

- V. Myers 890 

V. Omaha, etc, R. R. Co. . . 277 

p. CNeUl 871 

t7. Railroad Co 64 

r. Spear 309, 486, 509 

r. Sweetser 662 

^— f?. Thixton 289 

V. Trainer 384 

c. Tupper 303, 304 

r. Walker 776 

r. WUson 311, 589 

Hillestad V. Lee 839 

HiUhouae r. Jennings 178 

Hilliard 9. Eiffe 672, 725 

HUliard r. New York, etc, Co. 531, 532 

ffills r. Barnes 873 

V. Loomis 631 

9- Metzenroth 301 

r. Rowland 641 

c. Snell 690 

r. Sughrue 519, 627, 642 

Hillyard v, Mntual Benefit Ins. Co. 614 

HiHon r. Crooker 695 

V. Eckersley 472, 473 

p. Guyot 167 

r. Shepherd 68 

V. Woods 462 

Himrod v. Gilman 292 

Himrod Co. r. Cleveland Co 181 

Hinchman r. Kelley 466 

r. Weeks 699 

Hwckley v. Pittshurg Steel Co.. . 364 

V. Southgate 178 

Hiad r. Holdship 193, 268, 269 

Hisdley r. Marquis of Westmeath. 418 

Hindley's Case 30 

Hindwian v. Bank 700 

r. First Baidc 704 

Hinda v. Vattier 668 

Hindaon r. Weatherill 736 

Hiaely v. Margaritz 69 

Hiskley v. Fowler 267, 276 

^— r. Smith 890 

1?. Walters 776 

iP.Hapgood 803 



PACTE. 

Hinton v. Insiiranee Co 640 

Hipwell V. Knight 628 

Htrsch V, Chicago Carpet Co 210 

Hirschbach t7. Ketchum 462 

Hirschfeld v, London, Brighton 

South Coast Ry. Co 689 

Hirschman, Re 708 

Hirschman v, Budd 861 

Hirst V, Tolson 648 

Hiscodc r. Harris .• 879 

HisTop r« Leckie 305 

Hitchcock V. Bacon 626 

t?. Coker 471, 476, 476 

V. Giddings 614 

V, Libby 176 

Hitshina r. Pettingill 634 

Hitner's Appeal 414 

Hoadly v. House 608 

V, McLaine 179, 181 

Hoaglin r. Henderson 893 

Hoare v. Bremidge 726 

p. Rennie 328, 329, 330 

Hobart r. Butler 803, 804 

V. Johnson 892 

Hobbs V. ColumMa Falls Co. . 323, 341 

366, 816 
V, Greifenhagen 199 

V. Insurance Co. 446 

r. McLean 376 

V, MassasBoit Whin Co 10 

Hoboken, Mayor of, v. Bailey 14 

Hoch's Appeal 776 

Horhmark v, Richler 857, 872 

Hochstein v. Berghauaer 640 

Hochster v. De La Tour 338, 352 

363, 369, 361, 363, 364, 365, 367 

Hockenbury Adm. Meyers 214 

Hockett 17. Bailey 88 

Hocking v. Hamilton 361, 362 

Hocknell v. Sheley 870 

Hodgdon v. White 776 

Hodge t;. Farmers' Bank 860 

r. Scott 874 

V. Sloan 304 

r. Tufts 608 

Hodges p. Elyton Co 264, 384 

r. Hall 169 

V. Rowing 180 

V. Nalty 187 

V. Phelps 250, 253, 263 

r. Richmond Mfg. Co 176 

r. Smith 813, 836 

Hodgson, Re 890 

r. Dexter 112 

V, Perkins 595 

t?. Temple 432 

Hodson 17. Davis S\f'Z 

V. Heuland 790, 791 

Hodson's Settlement, Re 66, 60 

Hoe V. Marshall 368, 813 

Hoe's Case 813, 814 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAOE. 

Hoes t;. Van Hoesen 815 

Hoey V, Jarman 874 

f. McEwan 644 

Hoff's Appeal 262, 269 

HofiOin 17. Moss 289 

Hoffman r. Carow 565, 567 

V. Dixon 653 

V. Gallagher 51 

V. Hoffman 880 

V. Machall 375 

V, Maffioli 197 

17. Molloy 870 

V. Planters' Bank 854, 859 

V. Riehl 623 

V, Vallejo 451, 452 

Hoffman Coal Co. v» Cumberland 

Coal Co 389 

Hogan 17. Kyle 324 

17. Shorb 114 

17. Stophlet 205 

17. Wixted 720 

Hoggins r. Gordon 803, 804 

Hoghton 17. Hoghton . . . 584, 737, 744 

Hoile V, Bailey 259 

Hoit V. Bcrger-Crittenden Co 880 

17. Hodge 501 

Holberg r. Jaffray 778 

V. Armstrong 177 

17. Connor 690, 691 

r. Electric Appliance Co 816 

i\ Investment Co 628 

17. Tiffany 803 

r. Weaver 390 

Holden 17. Banes 199, 200 

17. Cosgrove 809 

17. Rutland R. R 114, 859 

17. Upton 403 

Holder v, Nat. Bank 274 

Holdridge i?. Gillespie 390 

Hole V. Bradbury 596 

Holladay v. Patterson 425, 437 

Holladay-Klota Co. r. T. J. Moss 

Co 845, 848, 850, 873 

Holland, Re 793 

17. Cincinnati, etc., Co 336 

r. Hall 496 

Hollida 17. Shoop 174 

Hollingsworth 17. Holbrook. . 845, 851 

853 

17. Pickering 880 

Hollins 17. Fowler 665, 592, 718 

Hollis t\ Chapman 538 

r. Stowers 177 

Hollister v. Nowlen 54 

Hollowav V. Griffith 361, 365 

-^ 17. Hill 301 

17. Lowe 452 

Holloway's Assignee i7. Rudy. 199, 201 

210 

Holman t?. Johnson 432, 433, 497 

17. Loynes 736, 740, 743, 768 



PAGE. 

Holme V. Brunakill 382 

17.. Guppy 551 

Holmes i7. Bell 876 

V. Blogg 69 

17. Board of Trade 11, 12 

17. Boyd 206 

17. Doane 204 

17. Gardner 292, 299 

17. Holmes 211, 395, 813 

17. Jacques 237 

17. Knights 171 

f\ McCray 174 

17. Mackrell 180 

17. Trumper 867 

Hoist 17. Stewart 694, 695 

Holt 17. Green 399, 402 

17. Holt 173 

17. Silver 550 

V. Thurman 439 

17. Ward Clarencieux 66 

Holzapfel's Co. i7. Rahtjen's Co... 419 

Homan i7. Steele 187 

Homans i7. Tyng 813 

Home Ins. Co. v. Elwell 780 

17. Watson 213 

Home Nat. Bank i7. Waterman's 

Est 264 

Homer i?. Thwing 83 

17. Wallis 866 

Homersham v. Wolverhampton 

Waterworks Co 162 

Honck 17. Mailer 329 

Honeyman i7. Marryat 44 

Honour 17. Equitable Soc 366 

Honsding v. Solomon 61 

Hood 17. Bloch 652 

r. Hammond 776 

17. Hampton, etc., Co 649 

r. People's, etc., Assoc 344 

V. Smith 611 

Hood-Barrs i?. Cathcart 97 

17. Heriot 94, 97 

Hooker r. De Palos 496 

r. Williamson 880 

Hoole r. G. W. Ry. Co 897 

Hoop r. Plummer 89 

Hooper r. Brundage 286 

Hooper i\ Hooper 170, 258 

r. Whitaker 798 

Hooper's Case 875 

Hoover t7. Hoover 253 

17. Sidener 607 

Hope t\ Hope 416, 444, 612 

Hopkins i?. Cockerell 775 

r. Commonwealth 557 

i\ Ensign 193, 470 

i\ Farwell 295 

V. Insurance Co 585 

i\ I^gan 206 

17. O'Kane 408 

17. Prescott 433 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixzvii 



PACUL 

Hopldiifl t. RiehATdson 199 

V. Smith 301 

I?. Snedeker 713 

r. Warner 261, 262 

Hopkins Mfg. Co. v. Aurora F. & 

M. Ins. Co 248 

Hopkinson v, Foster 894 

r. Warner 271 

Hopper 17. Covington 146 

Hoppin V. Tobey 737 

Hopple V, Brown Township 137 

V. Hippie 137 

Hord V. Taubman 859 

Horn 17. Bray 171 

r. Buck 608 

V. Fuller 241 

V. Keteltas 631 

V. Newton Bank. . 857, 869, 866 

Homberger I7. Feder 336 

Homblower v. Crandall 701 

Home 17. Smith 345 

Home's Case 300 

Homer r. Chicago Ry. Co 437 

17. Parkhurst 608 

Homer's Appeal 821, 828 

Horrocks i?. Rigby 668 

Horsfall v. Fauntleroy 116 

17. Thomas 696 

Horst 17. Wagner 869 

Hort's Case 227, 228 

BoTton V. Davis 275 

V. Horton's Est 864 

F. New York Life Ins Co. . . 39 

V, Williams 717 

Horton's Appeal 595 

Hoekins v. Mitcheson 786 

Hosier v. Beard 99, 102 

V, Hursh 832, 834 

HoBmer v. McDonald 673 

r. Wilson 349, 364 

Hoetetter v. Alexander 292 

r. Auman 173 

V. Hollinger 250, 252 

Hotchkin 17. Third Bank 693 

Hotchkiss 17. Banks 291 

17. Dickson 495 

Hotel Co. 17. Jones 136 

Hotel Lanier Co. v. Johnson.... 854 

Hotson V. Browne 310 

Hottell 17. Farmers' Assoc 301 

Houck V. Graham 862 

r. Wright 402, 490 

Hough 17. Brown 43 

• — r. Hersey 275 

• — V. Manzanos * 111 

• — 17. Richardson . . . 693, 697, 715 

Hough, Admrs. of, i?. Hunt 751 

Houghtaling v. BaU 782 

- — 17. Hills 670 

Houghton 17. Milbum 277 

Houghwout 17. BoSsaubin 180 



PAOB. 

Houldsworth «. City of Glasgow 

Bank 701, 704 

V. Evans 901 

Hoult 17. Baldwin 608 

Houlton 17. Dunn 436 

17. Nichol 436 

House 17. Alexander 79 

Household Fire Ins. Co. 17. Grant. 40 

885 
Housekeeper Pub. Co. 17. Swift. . . 816 

Houseman 17. Grossman 88 

Houser 17. Lamont 786 

Houston V, Kentlinger 468 

17. Thornton 683, 704 

Houston, etc., R. Co. 17. Texas 431 

Hovey v. Chase 104 

17. Hobson 101, 102, 104 

r. Page 546 

How V, How 276 

Howard 17. American Mfg. Co 550 

17. Brownhill 809 

17. Bergen 176 

Howard v. Daly 361 

17. Doolittle 531 

17. EdgeU 749 

17. F. I. Church of Balti- 
more 436 

17. Harris 630 

17. Hoey 652 

17. Huffman 860 

17. Industrial School 19 

17. Odell 631 

17. Bobbins 262 

p. Simpkins 79 

17. Smedley 51 

17. Turner 720 

17. Wilmington, etc., R. Co. 816 

Howard Col. 17. Turner 363 

Howarth 17. Brearley 803 

Howden 17. Haigh 379 

Howden (Lord) v. Simpson 493 

Howe 17. Batchelder 173 

17. Howe 101 

V. Hutchinson 338, 352 

17. Nickels 22 

1?. Peabody 858, 860, 871 

17. Smith 338 

17. T&ggart 214 

17. Watson 181 

17. Wilder 849 

Howe Machine Co. 17. Farrington. 662 

Howell 17. Coupland 539 

17. Field 170 

17. George 753, 755 

17. Hair 781 

17. Hale 88 

17. Hough 257 

1?. Insurance Co 656 

17. Kelly 174 

17. Monical 877 

17. Ransom 736, 742 



tsxYiii 



TABLB OF CA«B«. 



PAGE. 

HoweU V. Qievart , 487 

r. VV ebb 875 

Hawells v. Stroock 29 

Howeate & Osborn's Contract, Be. 863 

Uowland t*. Lounds 14 

-- — V, Maynard 130 

Howley v. Knight 127 

V, Whipple a04 

Howlin f. Castro 336 

Howsmon v. Trenton Water Co. . 249 

251, 254 
Hoxie r. Lincoln 67 

V. Potter 462 

Hoxsie V. {Empire Lumber Co 832 

Hoy 1-. Holt 533 

Hoyle, Re 171 

V. Southern Works.... 715, 740 

r. S*:owe 63 

Hoyt 17. Cross 492 

V. Latham 723 

r. Murphy 256 

r. Thompson 160 

V. Wilkinson 67 

Hubbard t?. Belden 548 

r. Bugbee 200 

V. Matthews 429 

t?. Moore 486 

v, Ogden 383 

r. Sayre 488 

r. Tenbrook 112 

r. Williamson 865 

Hubbell r. Carpenter 385 

r. Custer City 146 

r. Pacific Mut. Ins. Co 340 

r. Von Schoening C27 

Hubbert r. Borden 112 

Huber v. Guggenheim 689 

r. Johnson 451, 4o2 

r. Steiner 780, 781 

Huckabee r. May 256 

Huckins r. Hunt 378, 380 

Huckleaby r. Hook 180 

Hudders field Banking Co. v. Lis- 
ter 615, 645 

Hudson, Re J Creed v. Henderson. 186 

r. Hudson 460 

r. Revett 857 

Hudson's (Lody) Case 846 

Hudson's Co. i\ Tower 27, 187 

Hudson Iron Co. v, Stockbridge 

Iron Co 640 

Hudspeth v. Thomason 638 

Huff V. Cole 864 

Huffman v. Hummer 027 

V. Long 123, 592 

r. Mulkey 335, 822 

V. Western Mortgage Co. . . 262 

274 

Huger, Re 776 

Hughes, Re 93, 890 

Hughes V. Done 807 



PAGE. 

Hughes r. Gross . . , 544 

— - I?. Hamilton 890, 891 

— ^- r. Humphreys 913 

V. Jones 6^ 606, 609 

I?. Klingender 609 

V, Littlefield 854 

t?. Oregon Co 258, 276 

t\ Pennsylvania R, Co 608 

t?. Sheaff 631 

V. So. Warehouse Co 204 

V, Wamsutta MUls 645 

r. Wilson 730 

Huguenin v, Baseley , . 737, 746, 747 

768 

V. Courtenay 530 

Hulbert v. Clark 775 

Hulen t\ Earel 468 

Hulhorst V. Scharner 492, 505 

Hull r. Caldwell 008 

Hull f. Hayward 262, 264, 209 

V. Johneon 839, 840 

V. Buggies 432, 480 

V. Watts 610 

Hull Coal Co. r. Empire Coal Co. 332 

351 

Hulle 17. Heightman 337 

Hulme V, Coles 385 

t\ Tenant 887, 893 

Hulse, Ew parte 030 

r. Young 109 

Humaston v. Telegraph Co 550 

Humble r. Curtis 285 

t7. Hunter 113, 592 

Hume r. Mazelin 205, 206 

r. Pocock 095 

r. United States 606 

Humes v, Decatur Co 210 

Humfrey v. Dale Ill, 316 

Humiston v. Wheeler 532 

Hummel r. Stem 52 

Humphrey v. Eddy Transporta- 
tion Co 389 

f. Merriam 693 

Humphreys r. Green 790 

r. Guillow 856 

V. New York, etc., R. Co, . . 573 

r. Third Nat. Bank 832 

r. Polak 463 

Hun f. Van Dyck 842 

Hungerford r. Hungerford . . . 92, 415 

Hunnewell r. Duxbury 703, 704 

Hunstock r. Palmer 486, 487 

Hunt, In the Goods of 587 

r. Baker 690 

r. Brown 830, 834, 835 

r. Elliott 375.470 

r. Gray 853, 869, 874 

r. Higman 39 

r. Hunt 172, 410, 414, 415 

410, 418 

V. King 263 



TABLB OF CABBft. 



IzxLi 



PAOB. 

Hmt 9. Idfvmuofe 49 

r. New Hampihire Fire As- 
soc. 259 

r. Peaks 65 

9. Postlewmit 205 

9. Rottsmaniere's Adminis- 

trmton 570, 577, OSO, 041 

9. Sbaddeford 280 

r. Silk 342, 715 

V. Strew 269 

V. Ttest 480 

p. Wimbledon Local Board.. 147 

104, 187 

r. Wjman 28 

Himter v. Agee 495 

p. Atkins 708 

p. Bilyen 033 

r. Cobb 798 

V. Daniel 463, 457 

r. McLaughlin 091 

Nolf 438, 439 

Owens 750 

Parsons 800 

Pfeiffer 470, 500 

SUrkes 778 

Tolbard 100 

Walters. 580, 588, 593 

WUson 250, 270 

Asher 304 

807 

p. Bardwell 470 

p. Clark 379 

p. Finch 802 

p. Knox 109, 114 

p. Wellington 171 

HuntsviUe p. Huntsyille Gas Light 

Co 114 

Hurd p. Bickford 717 

p. Gill 550 

finrlbut P. Han 800 

p. Phelps 830 

Huron Printing Co. p. Kittleson. . 220 

Hnrst p. Beach 844 

p. Litchfield 879 

Hurt P. Pord 171 

Buss p. Morris 039 

Hussey P. Home-Payne 44, 47 

Hnsted p. Van Ness 039 

Hustis p. Picklands 402 

Huston P. Railroad Co 301 

Hutches p. J. I. Case Co 802 

Butcheson p. Blakeman 43 

p. Eaton Ill 

Hutchings r. Miner 258 

p. Stilwell 501 

Hutchins p. Dixon 415 

p. Kimmell 158, 509 

p. Scott 848 

Hutchinson p. Hutchinson 170 

p. Tatham 105, 111 

p. Wright 384 




PAGB. 

Huthmacher p. Harrises Adm 590 

Hutley P. Hutley. 451, 458, 401 

Button p. Bulloch 109 

p. Campbell 380 

p. Dewmg 708 

p. Button's Adm 92, 410 

p. Warren 310 

Buyett Mfg. Co. p. Chicago Edi- 
son Co ,. 538 

Hjatt p. Dale Mfg. Co 194 

p. Robinson 729 

Hjbart p. Parker 230 

Hyde p. Byde 4 Woodmansee 509 

p. Miller 202, 204 

p. Wolf 110 

p. Wreneh 30 

Byderille Co. p. Eagle R. R. Co.. . 827 
Bydraulic Engineering Co. p. Mc- 

Baffle 029 

Byer p. Byatt 00, 80 

p. Little 749 

Byer p. Richmond Traction Co. . . 470 

Byman p. Cain 80 

Hynds p. Bays 484 

Bynes p. McDermott 158 

Hynson p. Dunn 725 

L 

lasigi p. Brown 700 

Ide p. Churchill 382 

Ilett p. Collins 775 

Ilgenfritz p. Ilgenfrits 736, 742 

nfinoiB Central R. Co. p. Schwartz 877 

Blinois Land Co. p. Speyer 450 

IllinoiB Leather Co. P. Flynn 079 

Bsley p. Merriam 106 

Imlay p. Buntington 231, 891 

Imperial Loan Co. p. Stone. . 98, 100 

103 

Inchbald p. Western, etc, Co 303 

Ind's Case 003 

India Bagging Assn. p. Kock 408 

Indiana v» Woram 142 

Indiana Mfg. Co. p. Bayes 10 

Indiana Meeting p. Baines.. . 722, 889 

Ingalls p. Bobbs 073 

p. Miller 747 

p. Sutliff 204 

IngersoU p. Martin 199, 812 

p. Roe 747 

Ingle P. Bartman 388 

Inglish p. Breneman 881, 807 

Ingraham r. Baldwin 101. 

p. Whitmore 880 

Ingram p. Ingram 281, 204, 470 

p. Little 855 

p. Osbom 2,59 

P. State 558 

Inhabitants P. Buntress 850 

Inman r. Inman 80 

Innis P. Templeton 88 



Ixxz 



TABLB OF CA8IC& 



PAGE. 

Inskoe v. Proctor 636 

taaurance Co. v. Atwood's Admx. 429 
.. V. Babooek 891 

f. Bachler 650 

V. Bailey 726 

17. Blankenship 102 

V. Brehm 688 

' V. Clopton 429 

V. Crane 640 

V. Doll 673 

V, Duerson 429 

V, Dutcher 573 

17. Elliott 499 

r. Findley 385 

V. France 658 

V. Frear Stone Mfg. Co 719 

V. Gridley 668 

t% Hachfield 291 

'. i\ Hamill 659 

17. Harmer 659 

- t?. Heame 641 

V. Henderson 689, 640 

V, Hilliard 66, 429 

V. Hodgkins 584 

V. Holoway 385, 661 

r. Horan 659 

t?. Hull 440, 492, 503 

V. Humble 701 

r. Hunt 102 

V, Hutchinson 633, 726 

V, Ireland 177 

t?. Knabe Co 39 

r. Mabbett 662 

17. Manning 146 

r. Massachusetts 136 

V. McCain 106 

17. McWhorter 684 

t?. Meeker 729 

t\ Morse 446 

17. Noyes 74, 79 

V, Oakley 161 

17. Pyle 658 

t\ Railroad Co 64 

V, Reed 688 

17. Ruden's Ad 656 

V. Ruggles 657 

17. Ruse 614 

17. Scott 385 

17. Simmons 385 

t\ Spradley 487 

t\ Stoney 656, 657 

V, Turner 675 

17. Tuttle 886 

17. Warwick 429 

17. Wise 658 

Interior Woodwork Co. 17. Prasser 140 
International Bank 17. (rerman 

Bank 294 

v. Parker 865 

International Trust Co. r. Wilson 291 



PAGB. 

Interstate Tel. Co. v. Baltimore 

Tel. Co 116 

lonides v. Pacific Insurance Co. . . 796 

17. Pender 656, 697 

Iowa Valley Bank t\ Sigstad 861 

Ipswich Tailors' Case 472 

Ireland v. Ireland 735 

17. Rittle 175 

Irick t;. Fulton's Exs 602 

Imham (Lord) 17. Child 677 

Iron Co. r. Harper 388 

Irvin 17. Irvin 444 

Irvine 17. Irvine 69 

t'. Watson 115 

Irwin V. Johnson 821, 828 

17. Lee 324 

17. Locke 199 

r. Lombard University 187 

249, 265 

17. Williar 389, 406 

17. Wilson 682, 699, 603, 618 

Isberg 17. Bowden 114 

Ish 17. Crane 106 

Isler 17. Baker 103 

Isnard 17. Torres bd8 

Ison V. Wright 449 

Ivans V, Laury 652 

Ivens 17. Butler 894 

Ives 17. Bank 867 

r. Hazard 635 

17. Jones 495 

17. Sterling 187 

Ivey 17. Lalland 432, 508 

Izard 17. Izard 794 

f. Middleton 176 

J. 

J. B. Alfree Mfg. Co. v. Grape. . . 346 

J. G. 17. H. G 416 

J. I. Case Co. v. Peterson 872 

J. I. Case Works 17. Marr 52 

Jackson, Ex parte 401 

Jackson 17. Blodgett 299 

17. Brick Assoc 500 

17. Burchin 63 

r. Campbell 160 

17. Carpenter 63 

p. City Bank 486, 487 

17. Cobbin 204 

17. Creswell 528 

17. Day 873 

17. De Long 880 

V. Duchaire 377 

17. Ely 625 

17. Evans 173 

17. Gould 845, 848 

17. Hall 347 

17. Hamm 281 

v. Harder 175 

17. Hayner 584 

V. Higgins ^ . 174 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxi 



PAGE. 

JadcBon v. JolmBon 856 

r. Ligon 627 

r. Litch 823 

r. Loogwell 775 

r. Ludeling 377 

c. Malin 859 

V. Olney 689 

r. PennsylYania R. Co 842 

€?. Perrine 573 

r. Stackhoiue 828 

V. Stanfield 786 

€?. Stevenson 306 

r. Turquand 44 

r. Union Marine Insurance 

Co 543 

r. Willard 299 

Jackson Iron Co. r. N^faunee Co. 177 

277 

Jacobs, E» parte 384 

Jacobs r. Credit Lyonnais. . . 614, 630 
r. Gilreath 856 

r. Locke 664 

V. Revell 665 

r. Seward 670 

Jacquinet r. 6outron« 653 

Jaffray r. Davis 211, 844 

c. Wolf 707 

Jaggar r. Winslow 688 

James, Ew parte 580 

James, In re 657 

James t;. Burcheli 324, 354 

r. Clough 187 

r. Cotton 334 

c. Couchman 739 

r. Cutler 639 

r. Darby 30, 44 

r. Day 264 

r. Fulcrod 470 

r. Gillen 68 

c. Hodsden 697 

c. Isaacs 593, 841 

r. Jellison 483 

r. Kerr 461 

r. Patten 180 

r. Roberts 492, 605 

r. Smith 783 

r. Steere 444 

V. Tilton 854 

James H. Rice Co. v. Penn Co.. . 369 

James T. Hair Co. v. Daily 391 

Jameson 9. Gregory 486 

Jamieson v. Indiana Gas Co 614 

Jamison v. Calhoun 495 

V. Ludlow 199 

r. Petit 175 

Jangraw v, Perkins 464 

Janney r. Goehringer 856 

January v. Martin 763 

Janvrin v. Exeter 14 

Jaqua «. Montgomery 289 

• 

71 



PAGE. 

Jaques v. Withy 515 

Jaquess 17. Thomas, Re Thomas. . 454 

Jaquith v, Adams 346 

Jarboe c. Severin 787 

Jarman t;. Wilkerson 891 

Jarratt v. Aldham 771 

Jarrett v. Hunter 179 

Jarvis v. Cowger's Heirs 627 

V. Rogers 294 

r. Schaefer 108, 388 

Jay and Amphlett, Re 894 

Jee I?. Thurlow 417 

Jefferson r. Asch.. 260, 254, 256, 276 
V, Burhans 497 

r. Hewitt 691 

Jefferson County v. Hawkins 579 

Jefferys r. Gurr 167 

Jeffrey r. Bigelow 702 

r. Rosenfeld 854, 870 

Jeffreys v. Southern Ry. Co 625 

Jeffries v. Insurance Co 658 

r. Mutual Ins. Co 461 

V. Wiester 388 

Jefts r. York 122 

Jehle r. Brooks 260 

Jellison v. Jordan 787 

Jemison v. Bank 142 

Jenkins v. Clarkson 204 

V, Freyer 89 

V. Frink 470 

V, Jenkins 623 

V. Jenkins' Heirs 98 

V. Jones 458 

V. Kebren 23 

V, Mapes 590 

f. Morris 104 

V. Pye 735, 769 

V. Stetson 459 

17. Trager 175 

Jenks V, Fritz 610 

t\ Fullmer 571 

17. Shaw 775 

Jenners p. Howard 104 

Jenness v. Lane 204, 832 

17. Mount Hope Iron Co. ... 43 

Jennings t*. Broughton 693 

17. Gratz 652 

V, Johnson 454, 912 

r. Lyons 544, 548 

17. McConnell 736 

V, Rundall 83 

Jennings' Appeal 134 

Jenson t?. Lee 337 

Jepherson p. Hunt 160 

Jervis v. Berridge 312 

V. Tompkinson 542 

Jester t\ Sterling 264 

Jesup 17. City Bank 863 

V. Illinois Central R. R. Co. 246 

269, 723 



Ixxxii 



TABLB or CA8B& 



Jewell 9. Neidj 461,460 

Jeweien* Pnb. Co. 9. Jaeobe 140 

Jewdl V, Behroeppel S49 

Jewett V. Garter 701 

r. Railroad Co. 1S5 

Jewitt f7. Eekhardt 183 

Jilson r. GUbert 176 

Jcrfiannes r. Phenix Ins. Go.. 2669 267 

277 

Johanncesen r. Munroe 25 

John r. Sabattis 176 

John Brothers Co. «. Holmes 901 

John Griffiths Cyele Corp. v. Hum- 

her & Co 180 

John V. Farweli Go. v. Nathanson. 679 

V. Wolf 466 

Johnasson v. Bonhote 783 

Johns 17. Fritchey 104 

17. Wilson 250, 260, 269 

Johnson t?. Allen 331 

t?. Bank 869 

17. Bemheim 136 

17. Bloodgood 295 

i\ Bragge 634, 638 

V. Brown 862 

f. Buck 109, 182 

17. Carpenter 292 

17. Christian 106 

V, Cunrniins 889 

17. E. C. Land Co 173 

t\ Elkins 440 

r. Eveleth 571 

r. Fall 406 

17. Filkington 27 

r. Gallagher . 888, 893, 894, 895 

r. Heagan 865 

17. Hilton 451 

17. Hubbell 467 

c. Hudson 402 

17. Hulings 402, 497 

V. Hunt 464 

17. Insurance Co 68, 489 

17. Johnson 743 

17. Johnson's Adm 199 

f. Kimball 11, 201 

17. Kincade 98 

17. Knapp 257 

V, Lansley 499 

V, Lines 77 

17. Lusk 89 

V. McClung 250, 269 

17. Meeker 349, 406 

17. Monnell 679 

17. Moore 850, 861, 861 

17. Otterbein University 187 

V. Parker 864 

17. Parmely 275 

17. Peck 717 

17. Peterson 393 

17. Pie 82 

- 17. Portwood 832 



PAOX. 

I Johnson 9. Railroad Co. 774 

V. Raylton 315 

— — V. Stephenson 43 

p. Stockham 689 

r. Terry 461 

V, Tyng 332 

V. Van Wydc 461 

p. Walker 645 

V. Watson 789 

r. Way 291 

t\ Whitman Works 608 

V. Wilson 176 

Johnson's Adm. v. Beller^s Adm.. 210 

Johnson's Appesl 390 

Johnson For^ Co. 17. Leonard. . . 832 
Johnson Harvester Co. 17. McLean. 868 

Johnston v. Allen 488 

17. Boyes 18 

17. Cole 662 

17. Crawley 160 

r. Georgit Co .,. . . 17 

17. Hussey .* . . . 778 

17. Jones 176 

17. Lobat 174 

r. McConndl 402 

17. May 861 

V. Miller 408, 409 

17. Patterson 672, 684 

V.Rogers 19 

17. Russell 602 

V, Trippe 28 

Johnstone t\ Marks 77 

r. Milling.. . . 341, 348, 367, 368 

Joliife 17. Baker 673 

JonasBohn r. Young 332, 339 

Ew parte 86, 889, 891 

Re ([1893] 2Ch.) 65, 800 

Jones 17. Ames 407 

17. Backley 321 

r. Bacon 171 

17. Bangs 871 

V. Bank 14, 487, 776 

17. Booth 822 

17. Broadhurst 291, 593 

694, 840, 841 

17. Brown 707 

17. Caswell 470 

r. Cavanaugh 501 

17. Chamberlain 836 

V. Clifford 576, 616 

r. Clifton 415 

17. Colvin 77 

17. Comer 177, 562, 780 

17. Crowley 859 

17. Daniel 44 

17. Dannenberg Go 440 

17. Degge 749 

17. Emery 680 

r. Fleming 890 

17. Foster 269 

J 17. Gibbons 300 



TABLB OF CASBB. 



Izxziii 



PAOX. 

JOBM 9. GflCB 91Z 

V. OordoB 291 

V. Harria 878, 888, 895 

r. Hay 177 

V, Higgins 272 

r. Hoard 869 

V. Hodgkina 106 

V. Holm 548 

r. Hook 780 

V. Houghton 729 

r. Humphreys 279 

V. InsuTance Co 116, 275 

r. Jamison 877 

9. Jones 289, 466, 743, 745 

780, 788 

V, Judd 525 

V. Just 652 

V. Lane 292 

9. Lees 478 

9. Lloyd 387 

r. Loweiy 285 

p. MeMiehael 176 

9. Merionethshire Building 

Soeiety 440, 443 

r. Mial 352 

p. Nat. Bid. Assn 701 

V. North 473, 516 

r. Padfic Wood Co 258 

V. Parker 85 

r. Pashby 175 

p. Peterson 729 

r. Poueh 176 

9. Quinnipiack Bank 813 

r. Railroad Co 550 

9. Ransom 837 

9. Reeres 175 

9. Rice 442 

9. Ricketts 759 

-^— 9. Rimmer 670 

9. Risley 204 

9. Robinson 235 

9. St John's Collie, Ox- 
ford 529 

9. Sarchett 385 

9. Seyier 409 

9. Shaekleford 664 

r. ShelhyWlie liis. Co 872 

9. Shorter 171 

r. State 590 

9. Surprise 486 

9. Sweet 638 

9. Thomas 258, 269, 276 

9. United States. 523, 528, 539 

p. Victoria Dock Co... 180, 181 

p. Voorhees 54 

p. Waite.... 194,207,417,484 

P.Walker 550 

9. Ward 384 

p. Welwood 879 

9. WUliams 439 



PAGB. 

Jones 9. Witter 284 

Jones County 9. Norton 11 

Jordan 9. CoAeld 79 

p. Dobbins 42 

9. Donahue 253 

p. Great Northern Ry. Co.. 211 

9. Indianapolis Co 197 

9. James 671 

9. Jordan 774 

9. Kats 822 

9. Loftin 662 

9. Osgood 679 

9. Parker 716 

p. Railroad Co 130 

9. Sayre 776 

9. Stevens 616 

9. Stewart 873 

9. Westerman 444 

9. White 257, 261 

Jorden P. Mx>ney. . . 791, 916, 917, 919 

Jorgensen 9. Jorgensen 791 

Joseph p. MeCowsky 419 

Josephs 9. Pebrer 296 

Joelm p. Cowee 708 

9. N. J. Car Spring Mfg. 

Co 258, 276 

JoBsey 9. Railroad Co 584 

Joy p. Adams 775 

9. Metealf 451 

9. St. Louis 300 

Joyce p. Shafer 824, 354 

p. Swann 45 

p. White 550 

Judah 9. M'Namee 801 

Judd 9. Harrington 425, 468 

Judge of Probate Court 9. Cham- 
berlain 89 

Judson p. Corcoran 281, 282 

p. Dada 261, 272 

9. Gray 258 

p. Miller 634 

p. Railroad Co. 64 

Judy 9. Louderman 193, 194 

Justice r. Lang 180 

jMz&n p. Toulmin 749 

K. 

Kadish p. Young 353, 361 

Kahn v Gumberts 378 

Kansas r. Smelting Co 296 

Kahn p. Traders' his. Co 449 

9 Walton 406 

Kahnweiler r. Phosnix Ins. Co. . . 448 

Kaiser p. Richardson 624 

Kalkhoff r. Nelson 361, 548 

Kamena r. Huelbig 281 

Kanaga p. Taylor 508 

Kane p. Jenkinson 345 

Kansas City Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coal- 
son • 878 

Kansas City R. R. Co. p. Coulee. 178 



Ixxxiy 



TABLE OF CA8IC& 



PAOE. 

Kansas City, etc, R. R. Co. v. 

Morley 210 

Kansas City Sewer Pipe Co. v. 

Thompson 253 

Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins. 257 

271 
Kansas, etc., Ry. Co. v. McCoy. . . 436 

Karberg's Case 226, 676 

Kase V. Insurance Co. 695 

V John 008 

Kasling v. Morris 23, 205 

Kaster v, Welsh 877 

Katama Land Co. t;. Jem^^n. . . 135 

Katzenbach v. Holt 258 

Kauffman V. Raeder 327, 343 

Kauffman Milling Co. v, Stiickey.608 

Kaufman v. U. S. Nat. Bank 257 

Kaufmann c. Cooper . . 249, 254, 273 
Kay V. Allen 22 

V. Smith 745 

Kaye v. Waghome 836 

Kayton v, Bamett. 110, 113, 123, 592 

Keady v. White 794 

Kean v. Brandon 388 

V. Johnson 135 

Kearley t?. Thomson 602 

Kearney v. Doyle 337 

V, Taylor 470 

V. Whitehead Colliery Co.. 484 

Kearon r. Pearson 527 

Kearsley i;. Cole * 383 

Keates r. Earl Cadogan 673, 681 

Keates t?. Lyon 301, 305 

Keating v. Price 663, 667 

Keator v. Brown 664 

Keck V. Hotel Owners' F. 1. Co.. 840 
Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v, Gorie 

Mahomed 186 

Kee V. Cahill 257 

Keech v. Sandford 390 

Keefe v. National Soc 448 

V. Sholl 702 

Keeler v. Clifford 52, 332, 337 

V. Harding 877 

Keen v. Coleman 87 

t\ Hartman 87 

V, Stuckley 755 

V, Vaughan's Exs 829 

Kecnan v. Handley 215 

Keene i;. Demelman 600, 672 

V, Weeks 869 

Keene Mach. Co. v, Barratt 857 

Keesling r. Frazier 171 

Kehoe v. Patton 258 

Kehr i?. Smith 414 

Keighler v. Savage Mfg. Co.. 387, 388 
Keighley, Maxsted & Co. v. Du- 

rant 113 

Keily, Re 24 

Keiper v. Miller 451, 452 



PAQE. 

Keir v. Leeman 441, 442 

Keim r. Andrews 206 

Keisselbrack v. Livingston 634 

Keith 17. Herschberg Co 469 

V. Kellam 734 

V. Woodruff 639 

Keithley v. Pitman 240 

Kekewicb r. Manning 217 

Keller i;. Ashford 263, 264 

p. Fisher 627 

c. Holderman 3 

V, Johnson 725 

r. Lee 264, 269, 270 

V, Reynolds 327 

V. Ruppold 585 

v. Ybarru 197 

Kelley p. Boettcher 774 

I r. Insurance Co 289 

I V. McKinney 634 

V, Riley 495 

I V. Thompson 177, 789 

, Kellogg V. Mix 622 

I V. Olmsted 205, 206 

V. Peddicord 735 

V, Robinson 301 

p. Scott 383, 624 

p. State 716 

p. Stockton 22 

V. Turpie 707 

Kelly p. Babcock 240 

p. Bliss 818 

p. Insurance Co 489 

V. Kelly 452 

p. McGrath 395 

p. Riley 120 

V. Solari 675 

p. Terrell 178 

p. Thuey 179, 859 

p. Trumble 854, 861 

p. Whitney 292 

Kelner P. Baxter 121, 122 

Kelsey p. Harrison 679 

p. Hibbs 171 

p. New England Co 392 

Kelso's Appeal 88 

Kemp p. Balls 841 

p. Falk 570 

p. Freeman 607 

p. National Bank 786 

Kempe p. Bader 781 

Kemper, etc., Co. p. Kidder Bank. 717 

Kempner p. Cohn 31, 39 

Kempson p. Ashbee 745, 770, 771 

Kendall p. Garneau 177 

p. Kendall 850, 851 

V, May 99 

Kendrick t;. Latham 873 

p. Neisz 69 

Kenicott p. Supervisors 292 

Kenigsberger p. Wingate 210 



TABLB OF CASES. 



IXXXV 



PAGE. 

Kennedy, In re 157 

~ p. Bank 147 

9. Brown 804, 805, 806 

V. Brown 275 

V. Crandell 870 

p. Embry 336, 346 

r. Green 687, 588 

r. Lancaster Bank 856 

r. Lee 27 

r. Lyell 468 

r. Panama, etc., Mail Co. . . 697 

606, 607 

V. Parke 281 

r. Richardson 691 

Kenner v. Harding 681 

Kenneth r. Railroad Co 731 

Kennett r. ChamBets 430 

Kennion r. Kels^ 875 

Kenny v, Lembeck 470 

Kensington, The 53, 54, 508 

Kent r. Freehold Land Co.. 602, 711 

r. Kent 176 

r. Miltenberger 407 

V, Rand 200 

V. Reynolds 844 

r. Snyder 725 

Kentucky Distillers' Co. v. War- 
wick Co 627 

Kentuckjr Mot. Ins. Co. r. Jenks. 39 

Kenworthy r. Sawyer 385 

Keppell r. Bailey 304, 306 

Kerfoot r. Hyman 392 

Kern r. Myll 673 

p. Thurber 716 

Kemohan v. Durham 285, 295 

p. Manss 292, 299 

Keron v, Cashman 590 

Kerper r. Wood 781 

Kerr r. Bell 68 

V. Corry 145 

■ p. Emerson 608 

' p. Hill 173 

p. Lucas 193 

p. ^decker 775 

p. Urie 892 

Kershaw p. Kelsey. 104, 426, 427, 429 

430 

p. Kershaw 459 

Kessler p. Smith 181 

Ketchum p. Catlin 612 

p. Erertson 346 

Kettle p. Eliot 73 

p. Hanrey 324 

Kettle Riyer R. Co. p. Eastern 

Ry. Co 304 

Keuka CoU^ p. Ray 187 

Key p. Jennings 721 

p. Vattier 460 

Keys P. Harwood 346 

P. Weaver 126 



PAGE. 

Keyser p. District 173 

V. Hit* 892 

Keystone Bridge Co. p. McCluney. 720 
Keystone Lumber, etc., Co. v. Dole. 550 

Kibble, Eiv parte 70 

Kickland v. Menasha Woodenware 

Co 137 

Kidd p. Hurley 386 

Kidder p. Blake 215 

p. Hunt 787 

p. Kidder 816, 821, 832 

Elidderminster, Mayor of v. Hard- 
wick 159, 165, 166 

Kiefer p. Rogers 096 

Kien p. Stukeley 756 

Kiewert p. Rindskopf 498, 501 

Kilbom V. Field 444 

Kilboum p. Bradley 809 

p. Brown 87 

Kilbreath p. Bates 142 

Kilbride p. Moss 169 

Kilgore p. Bruce 690 

p. Jordan 82 

p. Rich 80 

Killmer p. New York Central R. 

Co 731 

Kilmer v. Smith 639 

Kimball p. Noyes 259 

V. Ranney 387 

Kimberly p. Arms 390, 742 

Kimbrough p. Lane 440, 483 

Kime p. Jesse 851 

Kinard v. Glenn 864, 866 

Kincaid p. Eaton 23 

p. Higgins 52 

Kincheloe p. Holmes 22 

Kine p. Turner 470 

King p. Barnes 174 

p. Batterson 113, 695, 664 

p. British Am. Co 336 

p. Brown 789 

p. Bushnell 786 

p. Dahl 45 

p. Doolittle 576, 680, 612 

P. Downey 253 

P. Duluth Ry. Co 204 

p. Faist 338, 711, 823 

p. Gillett 816, 817 

p. Green 498 

P. Hamlet 761 

p. Hawkins 439 

p. Haynes 383 

p. Holbrook 639 

p. Howard 446 

p. King 372, 465, 484 

p. Knapp 663 

p. Merritt 623 

p. Mollahan 92 

p. Murphy 249, 264, 273 

p. Nichols 383 



Izzzri 



TABLB or CA8B8. 



PAQC 

King 9. Raniogton 387 

V. RudanEn 627 

r. Smith 78t 

r. Steiren 363 

p. Victoria Insurance Co. . . 279 

V. Watennan 361 

f?. Welcome 790 

V. Whitely 262, 265 

17. Wight 306 

r. Winanta 470, 600 

King's Est., Re 440 

King Co. V. Yenj 872 

King, etc., Co. v, St. Louis 540 

King Philip Mills v. Slater 331 

Kinghome i;. Montreal TeL Co.. . 19 

Kingman r. Stoddard 708 

Kingman r. Western Mfg. Co 349 

550 

Kingsbury v, Earle 258 

17. Kirwan 406 

f7. Westfall 533 

Kingsford v, MetTj 590, 592, 719 

Kingsley 17. Daris 116 

Kingsman R. Co. v. Quinu 725 

Kingston r. Preston 321 

Kinkead, In re 892 

Kinley p. Irvine 887 

Kinloch v. Savage 180 

Kinne r. Webb 394, 723 

Kinney v, Baltimore, etc.. Asso- 
ciation 449 

r. Commonwealth 397 

r. Murray 790 

p. Schmitt 867 

Kinsey p. Feller 88 

Kinsman p. Parkhurst 194, 498 

Kintrea, Em parte 686, 696 

Kintzing p. McElrath 683 

Kirby f. Harrison. . 338, 342, 345, 628 

p. Landis 384 

Kirchner p. New Home Co 626 

Kirk V, Bromley Union 166 

t7. Merry 205 

V. Morrow 499 

Elirkland p. Benjamir 440 

Kirkpatrick p. Adams 407, 409 

V. Bonsall 406, 408 

V, Clark 488 

p. Howck 386 

p. Peshine 301 

p. Stainer 109 

Kirksey p. Kirksey 215 

Kiser p. Holladay 11 

Kisling V, Shaw 736 

Kistler p. Indianapolis R. Co 839 

Kitchen p. Greenabaum 499 

P.Lee 68 

p. Loudenback 291 

Kitchin p. Hawkins 578 

Kittredge p. Nicholes 775 



PABB. 

KitEiBger «. Beck 284 

Klamath Falls V. Sadn 137 

Klapworth v. Dressier 263 

Klauber v. Street Ry. Ck> 625 

626, 528 

Kleckley r. L^den 402 

Kleeb v. Bard 864, 874 

ELleeman f>, Collins 180, 784 

p. Frisbie 292 

Klein p. Caldwell 87 

r. Qerman Bank. 874 

V, Isaacs . . 272 

p. McNamara 631 

Kleinhaus p. Qeneroua. . . ^ 384 

Klenke p. Koeltse 890, 893 

Kline 17. Baker 886 

V, Kline 735 

p. L'Amoureux 77 

p. Raymond 853. 

Kling p. Bordner 790 

Knab, Re 52 

Knaggs p. Green 69 

Knapman Whiting Co. r. Middle- 
sex Water Co 528 

Knapp p. Connecticut Mut. L. I. 

Co 272 

t7. Mayor 146 

p. Roche 842 

r. Standley 285 

Knappen v. Freeman 701 

Kneedler's Appeal 102 

Kneeland p. Gibson 147 

Knickerbocker p. 'Wilcox 122 

Knickerbocker Ice Co. t7. Smith.. 447 
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. p. 

Nelson 275 

Knight p. Bowyer 4oi, 455, 457 

f>. Clark , 112 

p. Cooley 19 

p. Crockford 180 

p. Hunt 380 

r. Lee . . ^ 500, 912 

p. Marjoribanks , 751 

17. Railway Co ' 302 

p. Simmons 305 

Knight, Distributees of, v, God- 
bolt 776 

Knights Templars Co. 17. Jarman. 376 

Knill 17. Williams 865 

Knisely p. Brown 240 

Knitting Co. p. Blanchard 679 

Knobb t\ Lindsay 753 

Knoebel p. Kincner 856 

Knott p. Dubuque, etc., Ry. Co. . . 257 

p. Stephens 877 

Knottsville Mill Co. p. Mattingly. 135 
Knowles v. Krwin. . 249, 251, 252, 273 

p. Shapleigh 878 

p. Toone 891, 892 

Knowlton p. Keenan.. . . 650, 689, 916 



TABLB OF CA8B& 



IZJLXVii 



PAOX. 

Kwnc 9. Buffingioii 136 

«-*- «. Childenburg Laad Co. . . 524 

V. Clark 65 

V. Gye 231. 774 

r. Haralson 173 

r. McFarran 717 

V. RosBi 798 

Knox Blasting Co. v, Grafton 

Stone 633 

KnoxTiUe Bank r. Clarke 868 

Knye v. Moore 412 

Koch r. Branch « 6o5 

V. Lyon 679. 712 

V. Willi 114 

Koeher r. Cornell 890, 891 

Kocourek v. Marak 729 

Koegel p. Trust Co 286 

Koehler p. Black River, etc., Co.. 160 

r. Saunders 419 

Koenigsberg r. Lennig. 199 

Kohn r. Melcher 486 

r. Renaisance 432 

Kohne r. Insurance Co 667 

Kokomo Co. r. Inman 332 

Koilodc r. Parcher 262 

KoUs r. De Lever 892 

Koonce v. Wallace 64 

Koons r. Vanconsant 441 

Koonts V, Bank 575 

Kopp r. Reiter 175 

Komegay v. Everett 577 

Korsmeyer Co. p. MeClay... 249, 254 

Koster r. Seney 483 

Koonts r. Davis 69 

r. Houlthouse 258, 259 

p. Kennedy 858 

Kowalke p. Milwaukee Eleetric 

Co 607 

Kraemer r. Adelsberger 631 

Kraft r. Koenig 769 



Krake p. Alexander. 
Kraker p. Byrum . . . 

Kramer p. Cook 

r. Faulkner 



409 

77 

531 

565 

Kramrath p. Albany 161 

Kranert p. Simon 717 

Kiaus p. Oliompson 708 

Krause p. CrotLorsnlle 528 

p. Meyer 869 

Krauser p. McCurdy 839 

Kiell p. Codman 217, 467 

Kremdberg r. Kremelberg.. . 416, 417 

Kretschmar p. Bnus 382 

Kribben p. Haycraft 434 

Kriger p. Leppel 789 

Kroeger r. Pitcaim 119 

Kromer p. Heim 832 

Kronheim p. Johnson 182 

Kronschnabel-Smith Co. p. Kron- 

schnabel 468 

Knmse p. Woodward. 603 



PAOX. 

Krueger p. ^'errant 673 

Krum p. Chamberlain 44 

Knunm r. Beach 702 

Kruae p. Steffens 387 

Krutz p. Fisher . 387 

Kugler p. Wi^man 550 

Kuhl P. Chicago & N. W. R. B 267 

Kuhlman p. Leavens 384 

Kuhn p. Freeman 524, 526 

Kuhn's 5st., Re 459 

Kullman p. Greenebaum 378, 380 

Kulp p. Brant 699 

Kunert p. Strong 631 

Kunwar Ram Lai P. Nil Eanth. . 460 

762 

Kurtz p. Frank 361, 365, 411 

Kusterer r. Beaver Dam 451 

Kyle p. Kavanagh 699 



Lacey, Ea parte 386 

Lachlsn p. Reynolds 670 

Lacbman p. Block 22 

p. Lehman 145 

V. Wood 83 

Lacy p. Gard 174 

p. Getman 543 

*. Hall 390 

p. Kynaston 836 

p. Sugarman 430 

Ladd p. King 823 

P. Lord 702 

p. Nystol 725 

Lafargue p. Harrison 25 

Lafayette Co. p. Neely 725 

La Fayette Corporation P. Ryland. 187 

Lafferty, Re 786 

p. Jelly 390 

Laffey p. Kaufman 786 

Lafltte p. Selogny 200 

Lagunas Nitrate Co. p. Lagnnas 

Syndicate 676 

Lahmers p. Schmidt 261 

Laidlaw p. Morrow 566 

p. Organ 651, 683 

Laing p. McCall 443 

Laird p. Farwell 665 

p. Wilder 419 

Lake p. Brown 286 

r. Reed 

p. Tyree . 

i Lake Shore R. Co. p. 
i P. Richards . 



Prentice.... 
. 326, 349, 



291 
691 
130 
352 
550 

p. Rosenzweig 130 

Lakeman r. Moimtstephen . . 169, 170 

p. Pollard 649 

Lally p. Crookston Co 789 

Lamar p. Micou 430 

— — V. Simpson 856 

Lamare p. Dixon 919, 920 



ixxxviii 



TABLE OF CASKS. 



PAGE. 

Lamb v, Brewster Oil 

t?. Cranfield 581 

r. Tucker 261 

Lamb's Case 524, 657 

Lamb Knit Goods Go. v. Lamb. . . 391 
i^mbert v. Clewley 213 

V. Shitler 383 

Lamberton v. Dunham 683 

Lambom v. County Commrs 579 

Lamott V, Sterett ^ 531 

L'Amoureux v. Gould 35 

Lampet's Case 278 

Lampleigh v. Brathwait. . 12, 186, 200 

LamprelT v, Billericay Union 1 04 

Lamprey v. Lamprey 211, 217 

Lamson v. Moffatt 631 

Lamson Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co. 449 

Lanahan i;. Patterson 499 

Lancaster v, Elliot 39 

V, Fresooln 254 

V, Roberts 664 

V. Walsh 14, 23 

Lancaster Bank t;. Huver . . . 323, 355 
Lancaster, etc., Co. t;. Murray, 

etc., Co 226 

Land Trust Co. v. Northwestern 

Bank 592 

Landa r. Obert 729, 743 

Landauer v. Cochran 716 

Landell v, Hamilton 301, 306 

Lander v, Castro 119 

Landesman v. Gummersell 605 

Landis v. Royer 199, 200 

V. Saxton 392 

Landon v, Hutton 816 

Landreth Co. v, Schenerel 689 

Landt v. McCullough 873 

Lane v. Bishop 893 

i\ Dayton, etc., Co 68 

r. Evans 291 

V. Horlock 759 

V, Pacific, etc., Ry. Co 854 

Lane's Appeal 383 

Lang V, Henry 259 

V, Lynch 402, 480 

Langan r. Supreme Council. 361, 303 

Langden t\ Stokes 817 

Lange v. Werk 483 

Langenberger t\ Kroeger 853 

Langfort t\ Tiler 335 

Langston v. Aderhold 778 

Lanning t*. Carpenter 577 

Lanpher v. Glenn 531 

Lansden v. McCarthy 595 

Lansing v, Michigan Central R. 

Co 67 

Lantry v. Wallace 141, 719, 720 

Lanzit v. J. W. Sefton Mfg. Co.. 468 

Lapp r. Smith 839 

Larey r. Baker 390 

Larkin v, Hardenbrook 844 



PAOK. 

Larkins v. Biddte 577 

Larmon t;. Jordan 28, 29 

Larne v. Groezinger 595 

Lamed v, Andrews 402 

Larrabee v. Baldwin 157 

La Rue v, Gilkyson 99 

Larwell v, Hanover S. F. Society. 140 

142 

Lasar i;. Johnson 187 

Lash t;. Parlin 181 

Lassalle r. Guildford 173, 533. 

Lassence v, Tiemey 792 

Lassiter's Adm. r. Lassiter's ihL. 104 

Latapee v, Pecholier 832 

Latham v. Smith 798 

Lathrop r. Bank 161 

r. Morris 335 

r. Soldiers' L. & B. Assn 88 

Latrobe v. Winans 886 

Latshaw v, Hiltebeitel 859, 871 

Lattimore v, Harsen 204 

V. Simmons 647 

Laub V. Paine 860 

Lauer Brewing Co. v, Riley 661 

Laughter's Case 562, 557 

Laur V, People 876 

Lauten v. Rowan 409 

Lavender v. Hall 786 

Laver v, Dennett 644 

Lavery v, Pursell 173 

v. Turley 788 

Law V, Blomberg 865 

V. Crawford 865 

V. Grant 699, 701 

r. Hodson 402 

I Lawes v. Purser 194 

Lawing v. Rintles 528 

Lawrance v. Norreys 725 

Lawrason t*. Mason 26 

Lawrence v. Bank 575 

r. Beaubien 616 

r. Clark 378 

V. Dale 346 

t?. Fox 241, 256, 258, 260 

266, 267, 268 

V. McArter 66 

t\ McCalmont 193 

r. Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co. . 48 

r. Oglesby... 199, 249, 252, 253 

V. Smith 419 

V. Staigg 600 

Lawton v. Estes 492, 496 

Lawyer r. Post 823 

Layne v. Bone 699 

Lazarus v, Cowie 295 

Leach r. Duvall 395 

Leach (Doe d.) v, Micklem 317 

Leach r. Mullett 603 

V. Nichols 585 

V, Republic Ins. Co 449 

Leahi v, Dugdale's Adm 282 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Izxxix 



PAGE. 
.. 284 

.. 96 
.. 267 
.. 616 
. . 577 
.. 122 



Jjmhj 9. Dngdale 

Leak 9. Driffield 

Leake c. Ball 

Leal V. Terbush 

Lear r. Prather 

Learn r. Upstill 

Learoyd r. Brook 551 i 

Leaxy r. King 393 

Leas r. Walls 868 

Leaak r. Scott 691, 717 

Leatlier Cloth Co. v. Hieroni- 

mus 182, 823 

Leather Cloth Co. r. Lorsont 474 

476, 478 
Learitt p. Dover 628 

V, Morrow 841 

V. Palmer 482, 577 

p. Windsor, etc., Co 673 

Leaycraft v, Hedden 893 

Leazare v. Hillegas 141 

Lebeau v. General Steam Naviga- 
tion Co 659 

Lebel r. Tueker 291 

Le Brasseor and Oakley, Re, 806 

Le Bret P. Papillon 104 

Leeomte p. Toudouze 175 

Ledbetter p. Davia btf5 

Leddy p. Barney 684 

Ledger p. Stanton 836 

Ledlow P. Becton .169 

Lee, Et parte 427 

p. Alexander 852, 863 

p. Briggs 353 

p. Bude, etc., Ry. Co 398 

p. Bumham 708 

p. Cherry 180, 181 

p. Cohick 891 

p. Downey 776 

-»— p. Flemmtngsburg 14 

p. Gaskell 174 

p. Hawkfl 824 

p. Hills 6^4 

p. Jones 660, 661, 681 

p. Kimball 717 

p. Kirby 577, 763 

p. Lee. 284, 736, 864 

p. Mutual, etc., Assoc 361 

p. Newman 261, 275, 276 

p. Onstott 879 

p. Pearce 768 

r. Peckham 515 

p. Portwood 716 

p. Sellers 378 

p. Simmons 679 

Lee's Adm. p. Hill 178 

Lee's ExB. p. Boak 844 

Leech p. Leech 846 

Leeds r. Cheetham 531, 532 

Lees p. Colgan 205 

Leesofn p. iSiderson 211 

p. North British, etc., Co.. 353 



PAGE. 

Lefferson p. Dallas 786 

Le Oendre p. Byrnes 387 

Legge r. Croker 672 

Leggett p. N. J. Mfg. etc., Co. . . . 160 

Leggott P. G. N. Ry. Co 223 

Le Grand p. Eufaula Bank 679 

Leban p. €rOod 8/7 

Lehigh Zinc and Iron Co. p. Bam- 

ford 541, 682 

Lehman p. Central Co 868 

p. Feld 409 

p. Press ^91 

p. Shackleford 728 

p. Strassberger 407 

Lehow p. Simonton 256 

Lehr p. Beaver 92 

Leicester p. Rose 379 

Leifchild's Case 219 

Leigh P. Leigh 284 

p. Patterson 369 

Leighton p. Orr 735 

Leinbach p. Templin 890 

Leitensdorfer p. Hempstead 63 

Leman p. Fletcher 802 

V. Houseley 403, 802 

Lemayne p. Stanley 180 

Lemmon v. Beeman 66, 68 

Lemon p. Grosskopf 498, 499 

Lemonius p. Mayer 408, 608 

Lempridre p. Lange 86 

Lenderman p. Talley 89 

Lennard p. Robinson HI 

Lennig's Est., Re 469 

Lenning's Est 262 

Lennon p. Brainard 292 

p. Napper 627, 630 

Lennox p. Hendricks 176 

p. Murphy 323, 356 

Lenoir p. Linville Improvement 

Co 648 

Lenz p. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co 267 

Leonard v. Bates 324 

p. Boynton 631 

p. DuSin 200 

p. Poole 468, 500 

p. Smith 5o0 

p. Vredenburgh 172 

p. Wills 577 

Leopold p. Salkey 326, 645 

Le Page t\ Lalance Mfg. Co 840 

Lerch p. Gallup 495 

Lemed r. Johns 1 12 

r. Wannemacher 182 

Leroux r. Brown 784 

Leroy p. Crowninshield 780 

Leskie p. Haseltine 18 

Leslie P. Fitzpatrick 62, 74 

liesson r. Anderson 214 

Lestapies v. Ingraham 498 

Lester v. Buel 408, 601 

p. Howard Bank 404 



xo 



TABUD OF CA8B8. 



PAGE. 

LMter V. Mahaa 751 

Lesure Lumber Co, v. Mutual 

Fire Ins. Ck> 448 

Letcher v. Bates. 854 

Letchford, Re \ 81 

Letson p. Kenyon 778 

Leupert v. Shields 444, 517 

Lever v. Koffler 181 

Levering v. Mayor 160 

t\ Shockey 87 

Levet V. His Creditors 488 

Levi V. Levi 470 

V. Mendell 861 

Levine v, Lancashire Ins. Co 448 

Levisohn t\ Waganer 39 

Levy 17. Cohen 3», 886 

V. Glassberg .^. 330 

V. Gray . . . . ! 88 

V. Green 604 

V. Loeb 345, 388 

V. Maddox 176 

V, Spencer 390 

r. Tatum 437 

17. Very 827 

Levy, etc., Co. 17. Kau£fman 9 

Lewallen tJ. Overton 175 

Lewellen v, Garrett 575 

Lewinson v, Montauk Theatre Co. 839 

Lewis, Re 679 

t7. Alexander 487 

i\ Bannister . 727 

17. Brass 48 

I?. Bright 404 

V, Brown 460 

17. Browning 41 

r. Bruton 501 

t\ Covelland 256 

v. Denver 439 

V. Gollner 302 

V, Harrison 174 

V. Jones 688 

t?. Kerr 106 

17. Kirk 292 

t\ Knox 438 

V. Latham 486 

- t?. Lewis 98 

t?. Littlefield 83 

V. McGrath 735 

p. Nicholson 119 

V. Payn 847, 853, 869 

- t?. Schenck 854, 869 

V. Seabury 173 

t?. Simons 199 

17. Tapman 178, 361 

365, 685 

1?. Tilton 122 

17. Tipton 52 

p. Welch 402 

P.Wood 179 

Lewy p. Crawford 501 



PAQB. 

Lexington p. Butler 144 

Lqrland p. lUingworth 601, 664 

p. Stewart 183 

Libby v. Douglas 552 

p. Downey 402 

Idberman p. Gurensky 778 

Liberty Paper Co. p. Stoner Co. . . 595 

Licey p. Licey 843, 844 

Litchfield p. Baker 581 

Lichtenstein p. Brooks 363 

Lieberman p. First Bank 704 

Liening p. Gould 204 

Life Association of Scotland p. 

Siddal 722 

Light p. Killinger 864 

Lightbone P. Weeden 847 

Lightbum p. Cooper 608 

Lighthall p. Moore 505 

Ligon's Adm. p. Rogers 577 

Liles p. Terry 741 

Lilienthal P. Suffolk Co. 692, 693 

Lillard p. Mitchell 501 

p. Turner 891 

Lilley p. Ford 778 

Limer p. Traders' Co 12 

Limited Investment Assoc, p. 

Glendale Investment Assoc. ... 691 

Lincoln p. Battelle 780, 781 

p. Lincoln 872 

p. Rowe 889 

Lincoln College Case 61 

Lindauer p. Hay 679, 699 

Lindell p. Rokes 196 

Lindley p. Hof man 585 

Lindo p. Lindo 625, 815 

Lindsay p. Cundy 592 

p. Smith .... 440, 442, 482, 484 

p. Wilson 281 

Lindsay Petroleum Co. p. Hard. . 691 

722 
Lindsey P. Veasy.. 672, 698 

p. Lamb 855 

Lindus p. Bradwell 110 

Line p. Blizzard 729 

p. Nelson 212, 813 

Linington p. Strong 856 

Linker p. Smith 393 

Linn p. Barkey 640 

p. McLean 39 

p. Rugg 295 

Linnemsui P. Moross 250, 252 

Linton p. Allen 624 

Lipp p. South Omaha Co 282 

Lishman r. Northern Maritime 

Insurance Co 797 

Liska p. Lodge 584 

Lisle p. Rogers 859, 861 

Lister P. Hodgson 643 

p. Lister 417 

p. Pickford 670 



TABLS OF GAW8. 



xci 



PAGE. 

Utter 9, 43tiiUM ^2 

LUtan i^. Jenkias 623 

Latehfield v. JOint 258 

. Litt r. Camhtj ' i^71 

littauer v, Goldman 607, 654 

lattle r. Banks. £40, 251 

V. Fowler 669 

V. Hemdon 873 

V, Little 789 

r. Martin 788 

t;. McCaiter 170 

r. Poole 402 

Little Roek, etc., Co. v. Walker. . 665 

UUlefield v. Coombs 864 

V. Smith 285 

r. Story 284 

Littlejohn r. Gordon 775 

Livermore r. Land Co 689 

r. Northrup 786 

p. Peru 579 

Liyerpool Ins. Co. v. Creighton. . . 448 

Liverpool Wharf v. Preeoott 175 

Livings r. Wiler 443 

Livingston v. Lynch 134 

p. Ralli 445 

Lizzie Merry, The 595 

Llanelly Ry. and Dock Co. v. L. & 

N. W. Ry. Co 218, 447 

Uoyd r. Attwood. 722 

V. Banks 283 

17. Brewster 708 

r. Clark 745 

r. Colston 388 

p. Conover 175 

r. Crispe 524 

r. Guibert 318 

p. Nowell 44, 47 

Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson 283 

Lloyd's Bank, Ltd. p. BuUock. ... 588 

Lloyd Edwards, Re 29 

Lloyds V. Harper 242 

Lead p. Green.... 679, 712, 716, 722 

Loader p. Clarke 394 

Lobdell r. Bank 378 

p. 3la8on 174 

Locke P. Homer 270 

p. Locke 610 

p. Smith 80 

p. Steams 701 

Locknane P. Emmerson 858 

Lochren P. Rustan 488 

Lockwood p. Pitts 715 

p. St/ykholm 90 

Lockwood Co. p. Mason Co 61 

Loder p. Hatfield 263 

Loeb p. Flash 716 

p. Peters 717 

p. Stem 408 

r. Trustees 147 

p. Weis «5/ 

p. WilUs 273 



Loewer p. 'Harris ^681 

Lofft P. Dennis 531; S82, 534 

Loffus p. Maw 917 

Log Cabin Assoc, p: Gross 275 

Logan V; Davidson 839 

p. Mc€rinnis 467 

p. MUler 586 

p. Musick 408, 409 

p. Simmons 394 

p. Smith 292 

Logan County Bank P. Townsend. 503 

Lohre p. Aitchison 320 

Lomerson p. Johnston 747 

London Assurance Co. t\ Mansel. 657 

658 
London Chartered Bank of Aus- 
tralia p. Lampridre 725, 888 

London^ etc., Co., Re 548 

London Dock Co. p. Sinnott 163 

London Joint Stock Bank p. 
Mayor of London 129 

p. Simmons 294 

London Land Co. p. Harris . . 726 

London, Mayor of v. Cox 566 

London and Northern Bank, Re. . 31 

41 
London and N. W. Ry. Co. p. 

M'Michael 67, 73, 74 

London and Provincial Insurance 

Co. p. Seymour 726 

London and S. W. Ry. Co. p. 

Blackmore 625, 815 

London and S. W. Ry. Co. v. 

Gomm 302 

London Trust Co, p. Mackenzie.. . 132 

Lonergan p. Buford 731 

Long p. Battle Creek 49 

p. Brown 199 

p. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co 259 

p. Dollarhide 174 

p. Hartwell 822, 823 

r. Long 685 

p. Mulford 733, 737 

p. Neville 205 

p. Ferine 311 

r. Railway Co 141 

r. Rankin 200 

r. Rhawn 295 

I . Scanlan 832 

p. Thayer 106 

r. Towl 215 

p. White 173 

p. Woodman 689 

Longenecker p. Church 720, 737 

Longmate p. Ledger 750, 751 

Longnecker p. Shields 486 

Ix!ng8hore p. Longshore 459 

Longworth p. Mitchell 29 

Lonsdale p. Bank 25 

Lookout Mountain R. R. Co. p. 

Houston 258 



zcii 



TABLB OF CASBS. 



PAGE. 

LoomiB 9. Newhall , 199 

Loque v. Smith 864 

Loranger v. Jardine 402 

Lord V. American Assoc 685 

I?. Grow 664 

t7. Lord 262 

V. Parker 893 

V. Thomas 349 

V. Wheeler 637 

Lorentz t;. Cornier 402 

Lorillard, Re 778 

Lorillard v. Clyde.. 249, 260, 376, 636 

Lorimer v, Lorimer 168 

Loring v. Boston 23, 24, 30 

V. Folger 666 

Los Angeles Traction Co. r. Wil- 

shire 34, 36, 343 

Losecco V. Gregory 639 

Losee v, Morey 753 

Loss f?. Obry 636 

Lothrop V. King 378 ! 

V, Marble 790 

lioud V. Hamilton 441, 748 

V, Loud 415 

r. Pomona Land Co 324 

Loudenback r. Tennessee Co.. 197, 332 

Louis V. Connecticut Ins. Co 658 

Louisiana v. Mayor 12, 157 

Louisville v. Henning 679 

Louisville Asphalt Varnish Co. v, 

Lorick 180, 182 

Louisville Banking Co. v, Eisen- 

man 125 

Louisville, etc., R. Co. v, Alex- 
ander 893 

Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Donne- 

gan 449 

Louisville, etc., R. Co. &. Helme. . 839 
Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Offutt 176 

17. Whitman 130 

Louisville Ry. Co. v. Sunmer 437 

Louisville Trust Co. v. Railroad 

Co 137 

Lound r. Grimwade 440, 446 

Lounsbury v. Beebe 6is9 

Love V, Hackett 777 

p. Harvey 406, 602 

V. Hoss 390 

r. Shoape 857 

Lovejoy v, Howe 267, 267 

r. Kaufman 498 

r. Michels 468 

Lcvell V. Insurance Co 648, 550 

Lovelock V, Pranklyn 358, 359 

Loveren v. Loveren 444 

Loveridge 9. Cooper 281 

Lovering r. Coal Co 535, 5?0 

Lovesy r. Smith 642 

Lovett V, Steam Saw Mill Assn. . 160 
Loving V. Milliken 631 



PAOX. 

Low V, Aigrove 866 

V. Railroad Co 226 

Lowber v, Connit 180, 181 

Lowden v. Schoharie Bank. . 867, 868 

Lowe r. Hamilton 261 

V, Harwood 363, 364 

V, London and N. W. Ry. 

Co 163, 167 

r. Peers 465 

V. Sinklear 67 

Lowell V, Daniels 87, 88 

Lowenstein v. Glass 708 

Lower v. Winters 174 

Lowery i?. Cate 82 

Lowis V, Runmey 776 

Lowremore v. Berry 864 

Lowry v, Adams 25 

V. Dillman 406 

f. Spear 459 

Lowther v. Lowther 388 

Lozear v. Shields 104 

Lucas V. Allen 434 

V, Anstey 917 

V. Crippen 691 

V. Dixon 182 

V. Mitchell 633 

V. Scott 666 

Lucas Co. V. Rbberts 386 

Luce r. Gray 249, 261, 262 

Lucesco Oil Co. v. Brewer 332 

Luckett p. Williamson 664, 792 

Luckhart P. Ogden 180 

Lucy p. Bundy 787 

Luddy's Trustee p. Peard 741 

I.uders p. Anstey 917 

Ludington P. Bell 21 1 

p. Ford 639 

p. Patton 706 

Ludlow p. Hardy 809 

Ludlow, Mayor of P. Charlton. . . 159 

164 

Ludwig P. Gillfespie 112 

Lufkin Rule Co. p. FringelL 468 

liUhrs p. Hancock 101 

Luker p. Dennis 304 

Lum p. McEwen 377, 437, 439 

Lumberman's Co. P. Gilchrist 628 

Lumley r. Gye 225 

p. Railway Co 584, 625,. 725 

Lumsden's Case 64 

Luney p. Mead 261 

Lungstrass P. German Ins. Co ... . 39 

Lunt p. Silver 862, 863, 872 

Lupkin p. Mayall 67 

Lurman, Matter of 878 

Lush's Trusts 795 

Luxon A Co. (No. 2) 73 

Lyall p. Edwards 626 

Lyddon p Moss 741 

Lydick p. Railroad Co 60, 302 



TABLB OF CASB& 



xciii 



PAOX. 

Lydig 9. Brmman 181 

Ljle r. ShinndMiTger 173, 575 

Lymaii f>. Brown 877 

17. IiiBurance Co 639, 640 

r. Kansas City R. Co 573 

p. Lincoln 249, 251, 254 

I?, Robinson 46, 47 

r. Suburban K. Co 437 

p. Townsend 487 

Lynch, Bm parte ^. 86 

Lynch v. Curfman 608 

r. Fallon i88 

V. Hicks 864 

V. Mercantile Tnist Co 695 

701 

r. Moser 261 

r. Rosenthal 406 

Lynde p. Anglo-Italian Hemp 

Spinning Co. 702 

p. Lynde 444 

Lynn p Bruce 826, 830, 832, 834 

Lyon p. Annable 334 

p. Bertram 607 

p. Culbertson 406 

p. Haynes 297 

p. Home 746, 922 

p. Lyon 914 

p. Mitchell 436 

p. Waldo 727 

Lyons p. Blenkin 462 

p. Brim 691 

Lvsaght p. Bryant 56 

Lyth p. Ault 211 

Lytle p. Breckenridge 354 



McAfee v. Ferguson 393 

p. McAfee 786 

McAlister p. Marberry 276 

p. Safley 349 

McAllister p. Mitchner 849 

McAndrews P. Tippett 551 

McAnnnlty p. McAnnulty 793 

p. Seick 631 

McArthur P. Goddin , . 780 

p. Times Printing Co.. . 121, 226 

Macbeath p. Haldimand 112 

McBIair p. Gibbes 431, 490 

McBrataey p. Chandler 436 

McBride p. Floyd 258 

p. Insurance Co. 428 

Macbryde p Weekes 629 

McCabe p. Grey 286 

p. O'Connor 186 

MeCall's Adm. p. Hampton 460 

MCallan p. Mortimer 498 

MeCandlesii P. Allegheny, etc., 
Ca 205, 426 



McCann p. Lewis 205 

McCardle p. Kennedy 336 

McCarren p. MoKulty 51 

McCarteney p. Wyoming Nat. 

Bank 260, 276 

McCarthy p. Decaix 579 

p. Henderson 68 

- p. Insurance Co 289 

p. Mt. Tecarte Co 284 

p. Nicrosi 68 

McCartney p. Shepard 495 

McCarty p. Hampton Bldg. Assn. 204 

p. New York Ins. Co 713 

p. Woodstock Iron Co 67 

McCasland p. Doorley 266 

McCaughey p. Smith 862, 863 

McCauley p. Coe 33 

McCausland's Estate 158 

McCeney p. Duvall 608 

McClain r. Davis 102 

McClair p. Wilson 729 

McClallen p. Adams 801 

McClanahan p. McKinley 691 

McClaskey p. Barr 106 

McClatchie P. Haslam 441 

M'Clean p. Clydesdale Banking 

Co 293 

McClean p. Kennard 573 

Maclean's Trusts 440 

McCleandon p. Kemp 879 

McClellan p. Citizens' Bank 470 

p. Kennedy 578 

p. Sanford 177, 789 

p. Scott 692, 695 

McClelland p. McClelland 335 

McClintick p. Cummins 729 

McClintock p. S. Penn. Oil Co. 

39, 107 

McClung p. Kelly 652 

McClure p. Brigg^ 51 

P. Central Trust Co. . . 654, 663 

p. Law 377, 391 

p. Lewis 737, 745, 770 

p. Little 854 

p. McClure 444 

p. Miller 393 

p. Raben 459 

p. Times Pub. Co 37 

Mcaurg p. Terry 3 

p. Whitney 816 

McColley P. The Brabo 11 

McCollum p. Edmonds 194 

McComb p. Kittredge 206 

McConaughy p. Wilsey 779 

McConkey p. Cockey 740 

McConnell p. Barber 786 

p. Brillhart 180 

p. Hector 430 

p. Kilgallen 337 



:?^?^ 



jfgi-^.F sm^ 



PAOS. 

McConnell v. Kitcheiw 402 

--:.-:-• r.-Reed . : . . 5f: ... . . ..... . *1» 

MaccOfd t?.08born6. . : 778 

^IcCormick v. Basal ' &51 

— -^v: Chefevera ^ .......' 173 

- i;. Dniihtoett 176 

V. QYky .V 879 

I?. Lfeggett 6t 

47. Malln 737, 743, 761, 770 

V, M6lburg 684 

v: St. Louifl 83d 

McCormick .Co. v. Knoll 608 

'-^--^ i>: Lauber . 861 

'-^ — t?. Miller 729 

*-^ V. Ockerstrom 5l 

MlcCormick; etc., Co. v. Cnesrown. 6l 

'-^ — t>: Rae 384 

McC6rmick Machine Co. v. Brown. 350 

McCotte* V. Mayor, 43 

McCoubray v, Thomson 243 

McCown 17. Schrimpf 262, 274 

McCoy 17. Able 449 

r. Lockwood 866 

McCracken i7. Clarke 879 

V, San Francisco 121 

McCracken Co. v. Mercantile 

Trust Co 774 

McCray v. Railroad Co 135 

McCreery v. Day 341, 827, 836 

McCrillis v, Bartlett 99 

V. Carlton 715 

V, How 81 

McCroskey v, Ladd 324 

M'Culloch 17. Gregory 672 

McCulloch 17. Insurance Co 39 

17. Scott 715 

McCuUough r. Baker 332, 337 

V. Franklin Coal Co 837 

V. Virginia 482 

McCune v. Lytle 878 

McCurdy v, Rogers 120 

McDaniel v. Gray 335, 344 

17. Whitsett 866, 858 

McDaniels 17. Rutland 839 

McDermott 17. Evening Journal 

Assn 130 

McDill 17. Gunn 261 

McDonald, Re 384 

17. American Bank 238, 240 

247, 249, 260 

17. Bewick 27 

Macdonald v. Bond 878 

McDonald v. Bom 486 

V, Buckstaff. 436 

r. Chemical Nat. Bank 40 

17. Crosby 789 

17. Dickson 167 

17. Huff 27 

17. Jackson 844 

17. Kneeland 286 



Macdonald v. Law, Uiiipn. Ininr- 

' ' aXice Co .*. . tZTrZ: .tTT. fifiS 

J^acdomild 17. Lon^f^tl^. SX4 

McDonald v, ' Lund. . . '. ^ 

-^-^ 0. McCoy ; : 1^1 

- — 17. McDonald . . . 4^9 

17. Mountain I^e Co 836 

' 17. Sargeiit 66 

17. Yungbluth 034 

HcDohough v. Webster 501 

MacDougall v. Gardiner 897 

McDougall 17. Perce 735 

i\ Walling .' 384 

McDowell 17. Hendxix 541 

17. Laey '. .' . 269, 276 

17. Simms 684 

McDuffie 17. Dam^ 295 

17. Sin)jott 781 

McElhenny 17. Hubert Oil Co.. 389 

676 

McElmoyle 17. Cphen 780 

McElroy i7. Carmichael 406 

t\ Ludlum 178, 789 

17. Maxwell 684 

17. Percheron Hqrse Co 1^5 

17. Swope . * 174 

McElven v, Sloan 199 

McElwee v, Bridgeport Land Co. 324 

353 
McFadden r. Henderson.. 46, 112, 629 

17. Jenkyns 244 

17. Lecka 134, 296 

17. Wilson 284 

McFarlin 17. First Bank 698 

McGann v. Marshall 63 

McGavock r. Mortpn 871 

17. Puryer 487 

McGee r. Hall 722 

McGeehen 17. Duffield 878 

McGibbons i?. >Vilder 695 

McGill 17. Wallace 876 

McGilvray 17. Avery 877 

McGinn r. Tobey 689 

McGinty v. Henderson 779 

McGiverin v. James 39 

McGoren r. Avery 612 

McGovern v. Hem 179 

McGowan v. Reid 775 

McGowen r. West 788 

McGrann i7. North Lebanon R. Co. 827 

McGrath v. Clark 871 

17. Gegoer 332 

17. Kennedy 601 

McGraw v. Solomon 717 

McGreal v, Taylor 68, 82 

Macgrfgpr 17. Dover k Deal Ry. 

Co 139 

McGregor v. MpGregor. . . 93, 177, 414 
McOregor, etc., R. Co. 17. Sjoux' 

City, etc., R. Co 879 



TABLB OF CASES. 



XOf 



MeOuire v. Adanu. 
r. CaakejT 



PAGE. 

821 

306 

V. McOulre 249, 467 

17. PitU 286 

McGnnn v. Hanlin. 610 

McHarry v. Irwin 745 

MeHenry v, Davies 8d4, 805 

r. Duffidd lis 

r. Hazard 726 

MeHugfa r. County of Schuylkill. 443 

V. O'Connor 299 

Mclntire v. Cagley 633 

Ifelntoah r. Aubrey 440 

r. Miner 826, 827 

Ifclntyre v. Ajax Mining Co 206 

r. Parka 432, 486, 507 

r. Velte 851 

V. Williamson 625 

V. Yates 241 

IfcKamy r. Cooper 82 

McKanna r. Merry 77 

Kackay, Em parte 401 

Hackay o. Commercial Bank of 

New Brunswick 700 

Mackay v. Dick 551 

McKay r. Jackman 194 

c. Simpson 677, 636 

V. Ward 262, 266 

V. WillUms 387 

McKecknie v. Ward 385 

McKce r. Eaton 695 

r. Lamon 238 

- V. Manice 602 

— = — «. Miller , 549 

MeKee's Adm. v. Pumell 99 

McKeen v. Morse 839 

r. Olyphant 880 

McKcnna o. Kirkwood 286, 295 

V, Rowlett 889 

Mackenaie r. Coulson 641 

McKenzie v. Donnell 101 

r. Harrison 827 

p. Heaketh 601, 605 

r. Lego 388 

V. McKensie 577 

r. Nerins 109 

r. Rothschild 679 

Mackenzie r. Seeberger 690 

McKenzie v. Weineman 700 

McKewan v. Sanderson 378, 380 

McKinlay v. Gaddy 776 

McKinney r. Andrews 486 

r. Cobell 863 

r. Hanrie 786 

p. Hensley 744 

r. Mcaoekey 177 i 

r. Pinckard 751 

McKnight Flintie Stone Co. v. i 

Mayor 630 



PAGB. 

McLachlin v. Brett 108, 114 

McLanahan r. Insurance Co 656 

McLaren v, Hutchinson 256 

McLaurin v. Wilson 88 

McLay v. Bruce Co 130 

McLean t\ Bank 142 

— — V. Brown 326 

V. Clapp 721 

McLees v. Hale. 177 

McLennan r. Boutell. 174 

V McLennan . 397 

McLeod 17. Bullard 630 

McMahan v. Smith 73j3 

McMahon r. Botd'eh 404 

v: McGraW 387 

V. Rooney 72B 

c. Smith 44b 

McManus v. Bark 206, 21^ 

p. Cassidy 34^ 

V. Cooke 790 

McMath V Johnson 32^ 

McMerty v, Morrison ^. , 780, 781 

McMicken v. Beauchamp 873 

McMillan r. Ames 35, 55 

V. Fish 577, 639 

r. Fox 536 

V. Harris 684 

V. Hefferlin 867 

V, Railroad Co 54 

■ V. Solomon 632 

McMillen v. Pratt 174 

McMinn v. Richmonds 81 

McMinns Legatees v, Phipps 470 

McMuUen r. Hoffman 434, 470 

498, 500 

McMurphy v. GhLrland, 827 

McMurtey v. Sparks... 854, 858, 861 

McNab V. Young 855 

McNaiight p. Fisher 199 

McNaughten v. Patridge 875 

McNaughton v, Conkling 25 

McNear v. Bailey 879 

McNeil V. Bank 294 

V, Jordan 586, 589 

McNeile v. Cridland 701 

McNeilly v. Insurance Co 106 

McNeilFs Case 711 

McNish V. Reynolds 206 

McNutt 17. Dix 391 

McParland r. Larkin 736 

McPherson r. Cox 461, 728 

V, Fargo 180 

17. Watt 741 

McQuade v. Rosecrans 483 

McQuaid v, Ross 607 

McQueen r. Burhans 723 

t?. Wilson 736, 740, 746 

McQuie V. Peay 855 

McRaven v. Crisler 854 

McSparran v, Neeley 102, 292 



ZCVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

McVeigh v. United States 430 

McVey r. Cantrell 891 

McWilliams r. Webb 285 

M. F. Parker, The 650 

M. & M. Railroad Co. 17. M. & W. 

Railroad Co 456 

Mabry i\ Bullock 402 

Macauley r. Smith 630 

Macey v. Childress 171 

Mack 1?. Bragg 789 

t\ Prang 441 

Mackey v. Mackey's Adm 48 

V. Peterson 585 

Macknet v. Macknet 579 

Maclay v. Harvey 29 

Maclure, Ew parte 548 

Macomber r. Detroit, etc., R. Co. 784 

V. Peckham 634 

Mactier's Adms. v. Frith 28, 39 

Macullar t?. McKinley 699 

Madan v. Sherard 53 

Madden v. Boston 5 

V. Floyd 786 

Maddison v. Alderson 650, 782 

784, 790, 795, 917 

Maddon v. White 62, V4 

Mader r. Cool n 204 

r. Jones 608 

Jkladhub Chumder Poramanick v. 

Rajcoomar Das 481 

Madison Ave., etc., Church r.Bapt. 
Church in Oliver street.. 141, 142 

Madison Co. r. Brown 137 

Madison Plk. Rd.. Co. v. Water- 
town Plk. Rd. Co 142 

" [Madras," The 537 

Maffet V. Jjams 470 

Magaw r. Lambert 533 

Magdalen Hospital, Governors of 

t\ Knotts 01 

Magee v. Allison 874 

v. Insurance Co 6G0 

V. Lavell 632 

V. Scott Lumber Co 51 

Magennis r. McCullock 84(5 

Magers v. Dunlap 805 

Maggart v. Freeman 699 

Magnes r. Sioux City Seed Co 330 

Magnolia v, Sharman 731 

Magnolia Metal Co. r. Price 468 

Magoon v. Marks 204 

Magruder r. Peter 775 

Maguire r. Eichmeier 869 

V. Maguire 685 

r. Smock 436 

Mahaffey r. Ferguson 654, 694 

Mahaiwe Bank r. Douglass 872 

Mahan r. United States 782 

Maher r. Martin 190 

V. Van Horn 502 



PAOK. 

Maher's Est., Re, 158 

Mahoney v, McLean 110 

V. East Holyford Mining 

Co 898 

Mahood r. Tealza 486 

Main r. Ryder 735 

Main Street Co. v. Los Angeles 

Co 204 

Mainprice v. Westley 18 

Maitland v. Backhouse 769 

r. Irving 736, 744 

Majestic, The 63 

Major V. Kelly 383 

Majors v. Hickman 550 

Makemson r. Kauffman 436 

Malcolmson 17. Wappoo Mills 548 

Maldaner v. Smith 874 

Malins v. Freeman 61, 600 

Mallalieu i\ Hodgson 203, 204, 379 

I Mallet V. Bateman 171 

V, Simpson 141 

I t\ Lewis 176 

I Mallinckrodt Works t;. Nemnich. . 468 

iMallory r. Gillett 172 

i r. Insurance Co 658 

t\ Leach 681 

' V. Oil Co 143, 468 

r. Stodder 845 

Malone v. Crescent Co 256 

' t\ Keener 171 

i r. Kelly 736 

^ V. Railroad Co 53 

■ Maloney t?. Nelson 443 

I Malott r. Wilson 55 

^laltby V. Austin 692 

r. Eisenhauer 361 

Manby v. Scott 889 

Manchester v. Braedner 778 

r. Tibbetts 786 

Manchester, Mayor of v. Williams. 129 
Manchester Brewing Co. v. 

Coombs 279 

Manchester Ry. Co. r. Concord Ry. 

Co 500, 503 

Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. 

Pearson 448 

Mandorbach v. Bethany Orphans' 

Home. 300 

Mandeville t\ Welch 282 

Mandlebaum v, Gregovitch 402 

Manes r. Durant 394 

Maness r. Henry 820, 864 

Mangles r. Dixon 286 

Manhattan Brass Co. v, Keger . . . 704 

Manhattan Co. r. Ironwood 137 

, V. Thompson 892 

! Manhattan Ice Co., Re 363 

Manhfittan Medicine Co. r. Wood. 419 

Manikee v. Bovd 395 

Manistee, The 402 



TABLE OF CASB& 



xcvii 



PAGK. 

Mann v. Pamum 11 

1?. Merchants' Trust Co 285 

r. Richardson. 120 

V, Russey 749 

p. Stephens 304 

Mannakee r. McCloekej 211 

Manning v. Albee 690, 691 

I?. Columbian Lodge 441 

r. Johnson 68 

V. Maroney 864 

V. Pippen 177, 789 

1?. RUey 792, 794 

Manny r. Frasier 257 

Mansfield v. Gordon 63, 66 

V. Hodgdon 28, 309 

V. Lynch 579, 681 

r. Mansfield, Re Cimo 95 

V, Mayor of New York 277 

V. N. Y. Central R. R. Co.340, 651 

V. Trigg 653 

r. Watson 101 

Manter t?. Churchill 213 

Manton v. Gammon 346 

Manuel r. Campbell 880 

Manufacturers' Bank 17. Follett.. 864 

t?. Iron Co 389 

Manufacturing Co. v. Burrows . . . 257 

Maple V. Railroad Co 116 

Marble r. Grant 380 

r. Standard Oil Co 49 

Marble Bank r. Mesarvey 265 

Marcett v. Wilson 253 

March i?. Pike 262 

t?. Railroad Co 135, 879 

Miarchant v. Morton, Down & Co . . 279 
Marcy r. Crawford 495 

p. Dunlap 847, 851 

V, Marcy 177, 789 

Marden v. DoVthy 585, 589 

V. Phillips 491, 498 

Maigrett, Ex parie, Be Soltykoff . . 80 

Marie v. Garrison 470 

Marienthal v. Mosler 778 

Marigny r. Remy 257 

Marines v. Goblet 791 

Markel p. W. U. Tel. Co 249, 254 

Marking p. Needy 205 

Markley p. Mineral City 142 

Markowitz p. Greenwall po 361 

Marks p. Dayis 789 

V. Schram 443, 856 

V, Taylor 636 

p. Van Eghen 360 

Marksbury p. Taylor 413 

Marlett p. Jackman 106 

V, Wilson 249 

Marquand p. N. Y. Mfg. Co 595 

Marqueze P. Caldwell 180 

Marr v. Hanna 282 

p. Hobson 849, 860 

Marriot v. Hampton 731 

vii 



PAQK. 

Marseilles p. Kenton 878 

Marsh p. Fulton 135 

p. Gamey 284, 285 

P. Gold 205, 495 

p. Low 607 

V. Rainsford 200 

p. Russell 470 

p. Whitmoie 387, 390 

Marsh and Earl Granville 671 

Marshall p. Baltimore and Ohio 

Railroad Co 125, 434 

V, Berridge 573 

p. Bullard 211, 841 

p. Caldwell 664, 668 

p. Carson 387 

V, Collett 539 

p. Craig 549, 557 

p. Ferguson 173 

p. Oilman 715 

p. Green 173 

p. Lynn 823, 824 

p. Mackintosh 353 

p. Marshall 41o 

p. Means 456 

p. Button 89 

p. Sherman 432 

p. Thompson 630 

p. Thurston 407 

p. Westrope 577 

Marshalltown Stone Co. p. Des 

Moines Brick Co 470 

Marstin p. Hall 809 

Marston p. Bigelow. .248, 249, 253, 622 

p. Marston 844 

p. Simpson 722 

p. Swett 194 

Marten p. Bums Wine Co 709 

Martendale p. Follett 870 

Martin p. Adams 380 

p. -^tna Ins. Co 268 

p. Black 171 

p. Buffalo 855 

p. Chapman 353 

p. Clarke 450, 451 

p. Frantz 212 

p. Gale 80 

p. Hodge 499 

p. Jennings 777 

t?. Kunzmuller 286 

p. L. C. A D. Ry. Co 226 

p. McCormick 616 

p. Marlow 459 

V, Martin 387, 768 

p. Meles 187, 361 

p. Merritt 666 

p. Moulton 388 

p. Northwestern Fuel Co . . . 43 

p. Pycroft 310, 635 

p. Quinn 841 

p. Railroad Co 577 

p. Richardson 499 



XCVlil 



TABLE OF CASBS. 



PAGE. 

Martin r. Smith 684 

V. Smylee 585 

F. Thomas 857 

17. Tradesmen's Ins. Co.. 852, 853 

8ttO 

V, Wade 438, 430 

17. Wharton 688 

Martin's Claim 798 

Martin-Alexander Co. r. Johnson. 831 

Martindale 17. SmitiiK 335 

Marvel v. Phillips 54a 

Marvin 17. Bennett 612 

V. Treat 23 

Marx 17. Luling Assoc 864 

V, McGlynn 736, 746 

Marysville Co. 17. Johnson 226 

Mashbum I7. Donnenberg Co 717 

Mason v. Campbell 190 

17. Crosby 694, 701 

17. Decker. 181 

V. Frick. 145 

V. Hall 256 

17. Harris 897 

t7. Jordan 88 

r. Lawing 344 

t7. Martin 387 

V. Payne 408 

t7. Pewabic Mining Co 135 

V. Ring 740 

Mason & Hamlin Co. v, Bancroft. 384 
Maspons y Hermano v. Mildred . . 109 

114 

Mass 17. Bromberg 175 

Mass. Mut. L. I. Co. r. Robinson. 241 

Massey t7. Davies 391 

17. Wallace 411 

Massie 17. Byrd 431 

Master v. Miller 852, 866 

Masterson v, Masterson 92 

Masury t\ South worth. . .298, 299, 304 

Materne i?. Horwitz 376, 419, 486 

Mather 17. Day : . 880 

17. Lord Maidstone 213 

Mathers i?. Carter 256 

Mathesius 17. Railroad Co 786 

Matheson t?. Ross 798 

Mathews v. Cowan 83 

Mathias v. Leathers 853 

Matlack's Appeal 815 

Matlock r. Todd 696 

f?. Wheeler 856 

Matteson 17. Ellsworth 869 

V. Holt 608 

t\ Scofield 45 

Matthewman's Case 892 

Matthews t:. Baxter 103 

17. Bliss 697 

V. Coalter 873 

17. Fitch 35 

17. Houphton 282 

r. Light 387 

r. McStea 428, 429 



PAOE. 

Aiatthews 17. Matthews. 361 

17. Poythraw. 291 

17. Wallwyn. 300 

Matthewson, Case of 845 

17. Clarke 695 

17. Fitch 22 

17. Phoenix Iron Foimdry. . . 158 

Mfitthiessen, etc;, 06. v. MeMahon's 

Adm 100, 102, 106 

MauBsell 17. Hedges White... 916, 918 

Mavor i?. Pyne 337 

Maw 17. Topham 668 

Mawson 17. Fletcher 665 

Maxfield 17. Burton 284 

1?. Schwartz 267, 267, 272^ 

Maxim Nordenfelt Co. 17. Norden- 

felt 476, 477 

Makon i\ Scott. 890 

Maxwell 17. Griswold 731 

May V. Hewitt 110 

17. King 817 

17. O'Neal 470 

17. Piatt 601, 634, 637^ 644 

17. Williams 171 

Mayd i?. Field 999, 890 

Mayeir v, Adrian 179, 182^ 

17. Chattahooehee Bank.. 239, 245 

17. Dean 701 

17. MoCreeiy » 49 

r. Mayor, etc., of N. T.'. . . . 575 

17. Soyster 898 

Majrfield 17. Nale. 802 

Maygi^r v. Cruse 217 

Mayhew i?. Cooae 820 

17. Crickett 386 

Maynard 17. Eaton 711 

17. Hill 686 

17. Insurance Co 130 

Mayne's Case 353, 356 

Mayo 17. Knowlton 388, 603 

Mayor v. Bailey 257 

V. Leyer 392 

— — the (of NashTille) 17. Ray.. 146 

147 

17. Wetumka Whatf. Co 146 

Mays 17. Carrington 757 

17. Joseph 495 

Maze 17. Owingsville Banking Co. . 654 

Meacham 17. Dow 438, 439 

17. Meacham 175 

Mead 17. Bunn 695 

- 17. Insurance Co 639 

17. Norfolk R. Co 577 

r. Phenix Ins. Co 599 

Mead v. Young 569 

Meaher 17. Cox 449 

Meares, In re 99 

Mearing i?. Hellings 503 

Mears 17. Wapples 716 

Mease 17. Wagner 169 

Meason 17. Kaine 174 



TAMlfeOI^'CAWi.' 



ZCIZ 



PAGE. 

litfrhKt/kt^ Ssviflgft Sc&ie r. Ooff. 2dSr 

HMorney v. SUnley 213 

Medboiy v. Hc^pkins 780 

V, WatrouB 67 

MedliB r. Commonwealtli 558 

r. Platte Co 853 

V. Steele 175 

Medl^ck r. Merritt 98 

MedBker p. Ri^hafdsoli 257 

Meech «. EBBign 261 

Heck r. Peny 736, 73T 

Meeker v. Johnson* 342 

V, Winthrop Iron Co 389 

Meeker Co/ Bank v.- Youngr 299 

MeekB v. Dewbeny 45T 

V. Stillwell 643 

UitgtL^ V, Mcriloy 620' 

M^er V, Stewart 269 

Memth o. Gray 384" 

MeOtdre v. Corwine 4^, 438^ 

Meier v. mm' 28fl, 2dS 

Melffs r. Dexter 6/ 55 

Meiley r. Butler 8^ 

Mefaike v. Nelmm 17^ 

Meister r. Moore 15F 

Meiswinkel^ v. St. Paul Ins: Co.. 640 

1?. Jung 515' 

Kelboume Banking Corporation* 

r. BroQgham 14Y 

Melcher v. Insurance Co 214 

Melebert v. Telegraph* Co 406 

Mekbotr v. MdCart^. . 399, 400, 809 
MeihMdo v. Porto Alegre' Ry. Go. 

2^. 243 

MeDedge v. Boetoh Iron Co'. 110 

MeSen t?. WRipt^le 259, 260 

Melrin «. Bullard 844 

MemphlB, City of, P. Brown .. 493 

Men<Ull 9. Davi^ 816 

Mendenhall v. IVeadway 720 

Menier v. Hooper's Telegraph 

Works 897 

Menifee v. Clark 384 

Menke 9. Gerbracht 384 

Mente v, Townsend 864 

Menu V. Newwitter 179 

Mercantile Bank of London v. 

Evans 279 

Mercantile Co. v. Corcoran 282 

Mercantile Trust Co. v. Balti- 
more, etc., R. R. Co 246, 259 

Mercer v. MerceHs Adm 249 

Mercer County v. Hackett. . 145, 288 
Merchant r. p*Rourke. . .170, 782, 785 
Merchant Banking Co. of London 
r. Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co. 

289, 293 
Merchants' Bank v, Armstrong. 704 

p. State Bank 130, 137 

Merehants' Ins. Co. v. Prince.. 389 



PAGE. 

Merdianis' of the Staple t.' Bank 

of England 147 

Meredith v, Crawford 67 

17. Ladd 438 

Meriden Co. v. Zingsen 170 

Menriam p. Cunningham.. 77, 79, 82 
V, Jobnson 743 

I?. Lapsley 43 

V. Miles 264 

V. Railroad Co 88 

V. Wolcott 654 

Merrick, t?. Boury 869 

V. Giddings 210, 274 

V. Wiltee 608 

Merrick's Estate 109 

Merrill p, Carr 441 

V. Green 258, 266, 

V, Monticello 146* 

V, Peaslee 44* 

Merrills v. Swift 56 

Merriman, Re 199 

Merriman v. Knox 402 

r. McManUS , 170 

r. Moore 26tf, 262, 2^5 

17. SodAl Mffe. Co..\ . . .i5B; 2d7 

Merritt v. Boyden 866 

V. Clason 180' 

V. Dufur 698 

V, Duncall' 292, 

17. Lambert 452' 

17. Merritt 100,878 

p. Miflard 49S 

— — p. Swimley 4^ 

Mefriweather p. Nixon 495 

Merriweather p. LowUdles Co..... 528 

Merryman p. Euler 736 

Mersereau' P. Lewis 170 

Mersty Steel and Iron Co. P. 

Naylor 328, 330, 340 

Mersman p. Werges 863 

Mens Capsule Co. p. Capsule Co. 460 

Mess p. Duffus 323, 355 

Metcalf p. Kent 816 

p. Putnam 639 

r. Williams Ill 

Metcalfes's Trusts 768 

Meth. £p. Church p. Jacques 891 

Methudy p. Ross 47 

Methven p. S. L Light Co 281 

Metropolitan Bank r. St. Louis 

Dispatch Co 774 

Metropolitan Coal Consumers* As- 
sociation, Re 226, 676 

Metropolitan Ins. Co. p. Fuller. . 452 
Metropolitan Trust Co. p. New 

York, etc., Ry. Co 258 

Metz r. Todd 264 

Metzgar i\ Metzgar 286 

Mexican Banking Co. p. Lichten- 

stein 499 

Meyer p. Ester 886 



TABLB OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Meyer v. Haas 683, 584 

V. Hanchett 388 

r. Hartman 170, 270 

V. Huneke 852, 870 

c. Lowell 267 

17. Meyer 876 

t?. Richarda 607, 664 

r. Roberta 176 

V, Shamp 257 

Meyer's Appeal 387 

Meyerhoff v, Daniels 701 

V. Frodhch 777 

Meyers v. Bank 383 

V, Markham 323, 354 

t?. Schemp 173 

Miamisburg Twine Co. v, Wohl- 

huter 620 

Michael v. Bacon 486 

r. Morey 231 

MichaeU's Case 846 

Michel V. Hallheimer 335 

Michener r. Payson 720 

Michigan Bank t;. Eldred 867 

Michigan Bolt Works v. Steel 197 

Michigan Leather Co. v. Foyer. . . 839 
Michigan Trust Co. v, Chapin . . 444 

Michoud V. Girod 387 

Mickey v, Stratton 160 

Middle Division Elevator Co. v. 

Vandeventer 332 

Middleborough r. Rochester 98 

Middlebury College v. Chandler. . 79 
Middleditch v. Ellis 344 

r. Williams 746 

Middleton r. Brown 762 

Midgley r. Midgley 776 

Midland G. W. Ry. Co. of Ire- 

land V. Johnson 163, 572 

Midland Ry. Co. t;. Ontario Roll- 
ing Mills 341 

r. Pye 93 

Milberry v. Stover 866 

Miles r. Dover Iron Co 749 

V, Mcllwraith 113 

V. N. Z. Alford Estate Co. 

213, 214 

t\ Schmidt 446, 449 

Milford V. Commonwealth 12 

r. Water Co 121 

Miliani v. Tognini 258 

Milks r. Rich 171 

Mill V. Hawker 132 

Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey 160 

553, 558 

Millar v. Craig 626 

V. Cuddy 50 

Millard r. Baldwin 276 

Miller r. Ammon 402 

V, Ballard 186 

V. Benjamin 326 

V. Billingsly 249 



PAOS. 

Miller p. Board, etc., of Dearborn 

Co 140 

V, Bomberger 286 

p. Brenham 780 

V. Brigham 595 

V. Coates 211 

p. Cook 759 

p. Davis 636 

p. Eagle, etc., Ins. Co 406 

p. Finley 102, 863 

p. Fox 813 

p. Gilleland 861 

p. Heller 624 

p. Hemphill 827 

p. Hirschberg 495 

p. Hughes 273 

p. Insurance Co 614, 668 

p. Junction Canal Co 879 

p. Kennedy 262, 264 

- p. Larson 496 

p. Lea 108, 114, 115 

p. Leo 197 

p. lord 572 

V. McGlann 175 

p. McKenzie 22, 35 

p. McManis 10 

p. McGuire 487 

p. Manwaring 846 

p. Marx 892 

p. Miller 444, 728 

P. Minor Co 727 

p. Morris 640 

p. Phillips 342 

p. Pierce 822 

p. Post 402 

p. Railroad Co 180 

p. Ratterman 375 

p. Rhodes 495 

p. Ruble 182 

p. Rutledge 104 

p. Savage 643 

p. Simonds 735, 768, 769 

p. Sims 64 

p. Slade 854 

P.Smith 68 

p. Stem 662 

p. Stewart 382 

V. Sullivan 332 

p. Teeter 778 

r. Thompson 260, 263, 275 

p. Voorheis 692 

p. Weinstein 387 

p. Wilson 782, 784 

r. Winchell 269 

p. Zufall 173 

Miller's Case 227 

Miller's Ex. r. Sullivan 116 

Miller & Aldworth p. Sharp 790 

Millican p. Millican 738, 744 

Milligan p. Lallance, etc., Mfg. 

Co 194 



TABLE OF CASBS. 



ci 



PAGE. 

IfOliken v. Loring 284 

V, Marlin 866 

r. Pratt 397, 886 

1^. Skillings 608 

c. W. uTTclegraph Co 112 

Millington r. HUl 252, 275 

Million V, Ohnsorg 451 

V. Taylor 746, 750 

Mills 17. Brown 171 

V. Central Railroad ... 135, 713 

p. City 721 

V, Dunham 375, 477, 479 

r. Fowkes 776 

1?. Fox 919 

r. Hunt 108, 109 

V. Larrance 217, 812 

r. Mills 436 

r. CDaniel 215 

r. Osawatomie 346 

V. Scott 232 

r. Wyman 199 

Millward p. Littlewood. 120, 376, 396 

495 

Milne's Appeal 776 

Milner, Ea parte 378, 380 

Milner p. Patton 486 

Miltenbenrer v. Cooke 490 

p. Morrison 470 

Milwaukee Assoc, p. Niezerowski. 469 

Minah Min. Co. P. Briscoe 61 

Minard p. Mead 110 

Miner p. Belle Isle Co 389 

p. Bradley 343 

p. Hess 640 

p. Hoyt 295 

Miners Ditch Co. p. Zellerbach.. 137 

140 
Mineral Water Bottle Co. v. 

Booth 473 

Mingus p. Dougherty 386 

Minick P. Huflf 171 

Minn^polis Land Co. P. McMil- 
lan 729 

Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. p. Co- 
lumbus Rolling Mills 30 

MSnnesota Luml^r Co. p. White- 
breast Coal Co 197 

Minnesota Oil Co. p. Collier Lead 

Co 30, 40 

Minn. Threshing Co. p. Wolfram. 608 

Minnetonka, The 53 

Minnock p. Eureka F. k M. Ins. 

Co 248, 259 

Minock r. Shortridge 64 

Minor p. Beveridge 408 

p. Sharon 673 

Mintum p. Main 109 

Minaesheimer p. Doolittle. . 492, 508 

512 
Mlrams, Re 440 



PAQK. 

Miskey's Appeal 735, 739 

Misner p. Knapp 405 

Misselhom v. Mutual Assoc 614 

Mission Ridge Co. p. Nixon. . 66, 69 
Mississippi R. R. Co. p. Southern 

Assoc 276 

Mississippi, etc., S. S. Co. v. Swift. 46 

Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. p. Smith. .. 452 
Missouri Valley Land Co. p. Bush- 

nell 141 

Mitchel p. Reynolds 471, 473, 475 

Mitchell p. Abbott 23 

p. Allen 175 

V, Colby 453 

p. Cooley 274 

p. Culver 867 

r. Doggett 515 

p. Gile 346 

p. Hawley 837 

-p. Homfray 770 

r. Lancashire and Yorkshire 

Ry. Co 570 

Mitchell p. Lapage 591, 592 

p. Mitchell 644 

p. Railton . . . •. 22 

p. Raymond : . . 891 

p. Reed 390 

p. Ryan 50 

r. Taylor 595 

p. TomIin6on 585 

Mitchell's Claim 777 

Mittelholzer p. Fullarton 535 

Mittenthal p. Mascagni 446, 508 

Mitterwaller p. Supreme 'Lodge . . 839 

Mix p. People 558 

Mize P. Barnes 241 

Mizell p. Burnett 30, 173, 180 

Mizner p. Kussell 681 

Mnazek p. Libera 706 

Mobile, etc., R. R. Co. p. Dis- 

mukes 495 

Mobile, etc., R. R. Co. P. Owen. . . 816 

p. Owen 816 

Mobile R. Co. p. Postal Tel. Co.. . 468 

469 

Mockler r. St. Vincent's Inst 871 

Mody p. Gregson 620, 653 

Moelle p. Sherwood 850, 861 

Moflfett p. Parker 285 

r. Rochester 606, 641 

Mogul SS. Co. p. McGregor, 

Gow A Co 372, 377, 426, 473 

Mohlis P. Trauffler 855 

Mohr p. Miesen 407 

Moley p. Brine 63 

Moline Iron Co. p. York Iron Co.. 108 

MoHne Plow Co. p. Carson 681 

Moline Scale Co. p. Beed 349 

Molk p. Daviess County Assoc 405 

Moller p. Tuska 708 



cii 



TABLV OF CAOBR 



PAGE. 

Mollett 9. Bobinaon 388 

Molony v, Kernan 742, 746, 768 

Molton V. Canuroux 100, 101, 103 

Monarch v. Board of School Fand. 337 
Monarch Cycle Co. c. Royer 

Wheel Co 332^, 340 

Mondel v. Steel 655 

Mondorfa Will, Re 735 

Monkman v. Shepherdsoh 210 

Monnlelf v. Monelf 49 

17. Potta 641 

Monongah Coal Co. v, Flemitig. . . 180 
Monongahela Kav. Co. v, Fenlon.. 448 

Monopoliea, Caae of 472 

Monroe v. Barclay 735* 

Montagu p. Forwood 115 

Montague v, Oamett 177 

V. Smith 276 

V. Weil 47 

Montauk Aaaoc. r. Daly 18D, 181 

Montclair Academy v. North Jer- 

aey Ry. Co 437 

Montgomei^ r. American Central 

Ina. Co 815, 821 



r. Crossthwait 856, 860 

V, Downey 200 

17. Perkins 770 

V. Rief 25b, 254 

r. United SUtes .427 

V. Water Works 10 

Montgomery R. Co. v. Hurst. 864, 863 
Mcmtpelier Seminary v. Smith's 

Estate 187 

Montreal Gas Co. v, Yasey 49 

Moody V, Aiken 174 

t7. Blake 692, 718 

V. Smith . . 787 

Mooera v. Gooderham 608 

Moon 17. Foster 430 

V. Martin 215 

Mooney v, Byrne 630, 631 

V. Miller 691 

Moor V. Salter 846 

Moore r. Adams 488 

r. Allen 495, 792 

r. Appleton 495 

r. Bank 294 

r. Barr 343 

i\ Bennett 469 

V. Bonnell 508 

t?. Booker 262, 263 

t\ Campbell 823 

t\ Church 608 

r. Crawford 786 

v. Darton 244 

17. Detroit Locomotive Works 204 

V. Elmer 200 

• 17. Granby xviining, etc., Co.. 110 

V. Harrison 793 



PAGE. 

Moore v. Hart ....*..... 180^ 

V. Haviland 704 

V, Hegeman 397 

17. Herahey 102 

17. HUl 665 

V. Houae 276 

V. Ivera ' 853 

V. Johnaon 81 

V. Kerr 174 

17. McKenney 214 

17. Macon Bank 864 

r. Mandlehaum 392 

V. Moore .... 219, 887, 581, 750 

774, 79^ 

r. Moimteastle 180 

t?. Paine S8i3, 38r 

17. Parker 673' 

r. Pierscm 39 

r. Potter 338' 

17. Quirk 798 

V, R^ding^ 206' 

t?. Ryd^ 272 

V. Stovall , . . 258, 262 

V, Sun Printing Aaao<5. . 108, 534 

V. Thompaon 180 

r. Wade 63" 

V. Waldron 

Moore, etc., Co. v. Towers Co. . . , 125 
Moore and De la Toii-e'a Caae.. 675 . 

707 

Moorehbuae i7. Crangle.'. 169, 

p. Colvih 50. 

Moors t7. Bigelow 610 

Moran t7. Commissioners 137 

17. Moran IQL 

». Peace 204 

t?. Pitt ... .^ 183 

Mordecai r. Boylan 914 

i\ DaWkins 486 

More V. Bennett 425 

17. Bonnet 483, 484 

Morehead v. Homer 569 

t\ Hunt 684 

r. Parkersburg Bank 867 

r. Wriston 259 

17. Comstock 652 

Morehouse r. Second Nat. Bank. . 834 

Moreland t7. Atchison 689 

Morgan v. Bain 323 

17. Beaumont 405, 601 

r. Elam 845 

V, Grimth... . 173, 313, 633, 921 

17. Groflf 601 

r. Malleson 219 

17. Overman 256, 267 

17. People 604 

17. Perhamus 890 

17. Randolph-Clowes Co 269 

260, 262, 267 



y^g|.E.^F.^9!f»8. 



ciii 



PAOS. 

Hornii 9. Bainey «10 

'^i-^t?. Ri^biitSb6&' *. .*.'. ........ * ^0 

1^.' Rowlands 778 

V. Skiddy 697, 702, 704 

V. Smrth .'.•.*. ..•...:....... 385 

o. South Milwaukee Co. ... 262 

^; V. Btefi .:*....... .106 

-^ r. Thompson 384 

p. ' Yarborbiigfa 172 

Morison V, Thompson 3.^ 

Morley v. Loughnan 737, 747 

— '— V, Railroad 157 

Moroney v, Ro'ughan 341 

Morphett r. Jones. 71)1 

Morrell v. Cowan. 889 

r. Morrelt 914 

V. QuaHes 23, 205 

Morrill r. Aden. 82 

V. Allen 267, 259 

r. Blackman 679 

p. Colehour 174 

p. NiAtiligale 729 

r. Pahnet '. 120, 158 

p. Tehiuna Co 46 

Morris p. Creach 878 

p. Globe Refining Co 353 

p. Hunt 805, 806 

p. Keil 160 

p. McCoy 633 

p. Mix 265 

P. Morris 685 

P. Munroe 214, 578 

p. Norton 9, 199, 491 

p. State Mut. L. Assur. Co.. 376 

p. Stoker 736 

p. Talcott 679 

p. Vanderen 859 

Morris Co. P. Van Vorst 211 

Morris Run Coal Co. p. Barclay 

Coal Co 468 

Morrison p. Bennett 500 

p. Deadrick 456 

p. Garth 857 

p. Herrick 791 

p. Huggins 869 

p. Rogers 464 

p. Schlesinger 378 

p. Universal Marine Ins. Co. 656 

657, 713, 724, 797 
p. Welty 861, 869, 870 

p. Wilson '. 88 

Morrow p. Bright 286 

p. Moore 175, 180, 343 

p. Southern Ex. Co 197 

p. Turner 779 | 

Morse p. Bellows 85 

p. Ely 68 

P.Moore 653; 

P. Royal 769,770 

«. Tkppan 167 



PAQK. 

Mone P. Union Stock Yard Co. . . .663 

-^^-^' P. Wheeler .*....: 69 

^ortag p. ' Linn .S73 

Mortara' p. Hall 78 

Mortimer p. Bell ^$4 

— - V. Capper 763 

p. Shortall ......638 

Hortlock P. Buller 'i6.64 

p. Williams 839 

Morton p. Dean ^82 

p. Dillon 386 

P.Lamb 322 

: p. Morris 729 

• p. Rutherford 515 

p. Steward . : 80 

Morville r. Amer. Tract Soc 503 

Mosby p. SUte 856 

p. Wall 634 

Moseley p. Bush 279 

Moses p. Bagley 451 

p. Clerk 261 

p. Insurance Co 657 

p. Katzenberger 879, 693 

c. Loomis 827 

p. Railroad Co 64 

Mosher p. Post 692 

Mosier p. Parry 673 

Mosley p. Stone 14 

Moaman r. Bender 257 

Mosness p. German-American Ins. 

Co 448 

Moss p. Atkinson 180 

p. Averill 144 

p. Exchange Bank 408 

p. Moss 677, 685 

p. Riddle 662 

p. Rosaie Mining Co 140 

p. Smith 522 

Mostyn p. Mostyn 804, 805 

p. West Mostyn Coal and 

Iron Co 620, 673 

Motes p. People's Assoc 691 

Motherway p. Hall 689 

Mott p. Harrington 453 

Mottram p. Heyer 671 

Motz p. Mitchell 731 

Mouflet p. Cole 480 

Moult p. Halliday 315 

Moulton p. Bennett 579 

p. Kershaw 19 

p. Trask 650 

Mound p. Barker 486 

Mount p. Van Ness 265 

Mountjoy p. Metzger 361 

Mounts^epben p. Lakeman 169 

Mowatt p. Londesborough 876 

Mowrey p. Railroad Co 136 

p. Walsh 667 

Mowry p. Kirk 816 

Moxley p. Moxley 30 



civ 



TABLB OF CA8IDIS. 



PAGE. 

Moxon 17. Payne 746, 769 

Moyoe v, Newingtmi. 717 

Moye V. Herndon 859 

Mojer V. Cantieny 434 

Mozley v. Tinkler 35 

Mudd V, Dillon 643 

Mludge V, Oliver 591 

Mudsill Min. Co. v. Watroue. ... 681 

692, 722 

Mueller v, Dobschuetz. 385 

17. Wiebracht 785 

Mugan V. Regan 332, 342 

Muhlenberg 17. Henning 541, 612 

Muhlig 17. Flake 1^/0 

Muir V, Schenk 281 

Muldon 17. Whitlock 116 

MulhoUand v, Bartlett 215 

Mulkey v. Long 856, 871, 873 

Mullaly V. Greenwood 49 

Mullen V. Hawkins 193 

- 17. Keetzleb 388 

17. Kerr 402 

Muller V. Eno 608, 842 

17. Kelly 451 

' 17. Trafford 299 

Mulliken i?. Millar 679 

Mullin r. Bloomer 345 

MuUiner v. Midland Ry. Co 138 

Muloek 17. Mulock 643 

Mulvane 17. O'Brien 391 

Mulvey i?. King 663 

Mumford r. Gething 478 

Mumper i7. Kelley 257 

Munday v. Whissenhurst 452 

Mundy 17. Stevens 384, 857 

17. Whittemore 728 

Munf ord 17. Railroad Co 383 

Municipal Building Society 17. 

Kent 447 

Munro, Ew parte •. 806 

r. Bowles 56 

Munroe r. Perkins 836 

17. Philadelphia Warehouse 

Co 302 

Munsey v, Butterfield 338 

Munson v. Carter^ 733 

i\ Magee 389 

17. Railroad Co 226 

V. Straits of Dover SS. Co. . 446 

r. Washband 79 

Murchie r. Cornell 652 

Murdoch 17. Finney 281 

Murdock v. Caldwell 363 

r. Lantz 666 

Murphin r. Scovell 663 

Murphy r. Arkansas Co 295 

17. Boese 182 

V, Christian Press, etc., Co. 298 

i\ De France 470 



PAQB. 

Murphy t7. De Haahn 789 

17. Foiget 538 

17. Kaatner 211 

17. Murphy 2i4 

V, Rooney 633 

17. Sloan 387 

r. Webber 785 

Murphy's Will, Re 736 

Murray v. Albertaon 673 

17. Barlee 888 

17. Carrothers 112, 120 

17. E. India Co 144 

V, Emery 261 

i\ Flavell 234 

r. Insurance Co 289 

V. Klinzing 866 

17. Lardner 291 

17. Marshall 264 

17. Mayo 364 

17. Murray 393, 395 

17. Parker 637 

17. Peterson 853 

17. Pinkett 284 

17. Tolman 692 

Murrell 17. Scott 386 

Murry v. Ocheltree 409 

Muscatine Co. 17. Lumber Co 161 

Musick 17. Dodson 200 

Musselman 17. Cravens 101 

Mussen v. Price 346 

Musser r. Johnson 160 

Musson 17. Fales 495 

Mustard r. Wohlford 63, 66, 68 

Muflton r. Blake 341 

Mutual Assoc. i7. Taylor 361 

367, 368 

Mutual Ins. Co. i7. Alvord 448 

17. Newton 876 

r. Pearson 658 

Mutual L. I. Co. 17. J*hinney 688 

Mutual Reserve Assn. r. Cleve- 
land Woolen Mills 446 

Muzzarelli 17. Hulshizer 302 

Myer t\ Wegener 443 

17. Wheeler 832 

Myers v. Davis 286 

17. Hazzard 292 

V, Jenkins 446, 449 

t\ League 628 

17. Meinrath 496 

V, Sari 813, 314 

r. Watson 919 

Mygatt 17. Coe 300 

Myles r. Myles 176 

Myrick v. Slason 345 

N. 
Nachtrieb v. The Harmony Settle- 
ment 747 



TABLB OF CASBS. 



CV 



PAGE. 

Kmden, Bm parte, 413 

Naff I?. Crawford 431 

Kance v. Lary 586 

Kantea v, Ck>rrock 888 

Kaah v, Armstrong 826, 830, 836 

t?. Commonwealth 238, 248 

r. Hodgson 776 

V. MinnesoU Title Co. . 683, 691 

r. Towne 108, 334 

Kaah^ille Trust Co. v. Smythe. . . 292 

Kason r. Cockroft 116 

Kassoiyt?. Tomlinson... 211, 834, 839 

Natcbes r. Minor 854 

Nathan v. IMerssen 175 

National Bank v, Chicago, etc., 

R. Co 718 

V. Fidelity Co 661 

17. Fink 439 

V. Grand Lodge 260, 269 

r. HaU 30 

V. Hancock 466 

V. Illinois Lumber Co 720 

1^. Matthews 403 

r. Nickell 872 

V. Petrie 499 

17. Sprague 470 

r. Wheelock 61, 728 

r. Whitney 403 

Nat. Bank of Augusta v, Cunning- 
ham 407 

National Co. r. Haberman 468 

r. Hudson River Co 448 

r. Union Hospital Co 426 

National Distilling Co. r. Cream 

City Importing Co 402, 490 

Nat Feather Duster Co. v, Hib- 

bard 88 

National Furnace Co. v. Keystone 

Mfg. Co 197 

National Harrow Co. t?. Hench . . . 468 

V, Quick 468 

National Lead Co. v. S. £. Qrote 

Co 490 

Nat. Loan Co. r. Rockland Co 144 

National ^lachine Co. r. Standard 

Machinery Co 326 

Nat. Mecluuiics' Banking Assn. v. 

Conkling 383, 624 

Nat, Park Bank v, German- 
American Co 142 

National Provincial Bank of Eng- 
land, Ew parte 638 

National Provincial Bank of Eng- 
land r. Jackson 688 

Nat. Trust Co. v. Miller 142, 143 

National Water Works v. School 

District 673 

National Works v. Oconto Water 
Co 121 



PAGE. 

Naugle r. Terkes 343 

Naumbeig v. Young 173, 673 

Nave V, Wilson 499 

Navigation Co. v. Wilcox 550 

Neaele t?. Kelly 170 

Neal V, Boggan 336 

1?. First Bank. 443 

t?. Read 675 

V. Sheffield 813 

Neale r. Turton 14 

Neally v. Greenough 729 

Nealon v. Henry 706. 722 

Nebecker v. Cutsinger 686 

Neblett v. Macfarland 714 

Nebraska Bank V. Nebraska Hy- 
draulic Co 238, 259 

Nebraska Trust Co. v. Ignowski. . 639 

Necker r. Koehn 66 

Nedby r. Nedby 736 

Needles' Exs. v. Needles 469 

Needy v, German Ins. Co 446, 449 

Neely r. Jones 841 

V. Thompson 839 

Neff t?. Homer 863 

V. Landis 83 

Negley ». Hagerstown Co 676 

r. Jeffers 825 

Neidefer v. Chastian 691 

Neill V, D. of Devonshire 318 

t\ Shamburg 683 

Neilson, Ex parte 400 

Neininger v. State 634, 640 

Nelson v. Bank 26 

V. Brown 261, 264 

t\ EvauB 461 

r. Hanson 338, 342 

V. Insurance Co 66 

17. McDonald 686 

V. Munch 386 

r. Pickwick Associated Co.. 204 

V. Rogers 265 

r. Shelby Mfg. Co 786 

r. Stocker 86 

r. Von Bonnhorst 52 

Nelson's Will, Re 736 

Nelson Distilling Co. v, Loe 257 

Nelthorp v, Dorrington 846 

Nerac, Est. of 104 

Nesbit r. Riverside Dist 137 

Nesbitt V. Berridge 758 

p. Turner 855, 874 

Ness r. Minn. & Col. Co 204 

Nester r. Continental Brewing Co. 468 
Nettleton r. Billings 623 

r. Land Co 386 

V. Sikes 173 

Nevada Co. v, Famsworth ... 10, 12 

Neves r. Scott 231 

Nevill 17. Snelling. . 760, 761, 762, 763 



CVl 



y^pi-B.9P.c4^s. 



PAGK. 

^ifeykiB r. Dunlap jft39 

JTew 17. Wanibach 639 

New Bedfoird Copper Go. v. J^oulih- 

ard : : . . ^9 

New Brunswick, etc., Co. r. Cony- 

beare ..'. 695, 702 

New Brunswick, etc., Co. v. Mug- 

geridge 675 

New Buffalo v. Iron Co 135 

New England, The 5S 

New England Co. r. Rockport Co. 10 
New England, etc., Co. v. Union, 

etc., Co 147 

New England Iron Co. r. Railroad 

Co 695 

New England Trust Co. v. Abbott. 52 

753 

New Haven v. Railroad 277, 437 

Sew Haven Trust Co. v. Nelson. . 720 

New Home Co. r. Simon 662 

New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. 

Bank 54 

New Jersey Works v, Ackennan.. 446 
New Orleans St. Joseph's Assoc. 

17. Magnier ^. 265, 277 

New iSombrero I^hosphate Co. v, 

Erlanger 389, 676 

New York Bank Note Co. v. Ham- 
ilton, etc., Co 298 

New York Bg. Co. v, Fisher 82 

N. Y. & C. Ssteamship Co. r. Har- 
bison 120, 122 

New York Co. t\ Schuyler 282 

N. Y. Giiaranty, etc., Co. v, Mem- 
phis Water Co 279 

New York, etc., Ins. Co. 17. Mc- 

Master 584 

New York L. I. Co. t?. Aitkin. ... 261 

r. Hamlin 269 

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Sta- 

tham 429 

New York, etc., R. Co. r. McHenry. 877 

New York Rock Co. r. Brown 469 

New Zealand Banking Corpora- 
tion, EsD parte 288 

New Zealand La^id Co. r. Watson. 109 

Newark t?. Stout 661 

Newbegin r. Newton Bank 598 

Newbigging r. Adam 681, 712 

Newberry v. Creedon 11 

■ r. Ruflan 335 

Newberry Land Co. r. Newberry. 250 

277 

Newburgh r. Newbu^gh 914 

Newby r. Rogers. 180 

Newcastle Wig, Co. v. Railroad 

Co. . 109 

NewMMnb I7. Brooks 387 



PAGS. 

^ewoomb v. De Roos ^ ^6 

— -^'r.'Ramer '.........;..'.... 173 

Newcombe 17.' Leavitt.. 781 

J^ewcome r. Ewing 606 

Newell r. Cochran 174 

t7. Higg^ 378 

17. Mayberry 848, 858 

V. New Holstein Canning Co. 539 

V. Radford 179 

r. Randall 681 

Newhall v. Vargas 571 

Newiiigton i?. Levy 914, 833 

Newlin I7. Hoyt..* 181 

Newman v, Freitas 444 

i\ Kimbrough 397 

t?. King 871 

V. Morris 892 

V. Schwerin 722 

!?. Streator 22 

17. Sylvester 120 

Newport News Co. v. McDonald 

Brick Co.'s Assignee ^25 

Newry and Enniskillen Ry. Co. v, 

Coombe 67, 73 

Newsom r. Buff erlow. 634 

Newton v. Bronson 174 

r. Carson 213 

i\ Chicago, etc., Ry. Co 210 

t?. Newton 285, 395, 467 

r. Tolles 600 

17. Wooley 632 

Niagara Ins. Co. v. Miller 659 

Nibert v. Baghurst 791 

Niblo 17. Binsse 538 

Nical 17. Fitch 528 

Nichol v, Gk)dts 310 

17. Lytic 175 

r. Steger 77 

17. Thomas 101, 102 

Nicholls t\ Granger 46 

17. MoShane 708 

Nichols 17. Haywood 846 

17. Hooper 285 

t\ Johnson 179, 180, 862 

853, 869 

r. Marsland 538 

17. Mudgett 438 

17. Palmer 415 

17. Pixmer 679 

17. Poulson 616, 802 

17. Raynbred 202 

V, Rogers 726 

i\ Rosenf eld 864 

17. Ruggles 376 

V. Scrai^ton, etc., Co 361 

362, 560 

17. Weaver 178 

Nicl^>ls, etc., Co. i7. Sayder 68 

Nicholson 17. Bra4field Union 164 



TABLE OF CA8B8. 



cvii 



PAGE. ' 

tfieholfloii «. Combs... 863 

p. Wilbom 78 , 

Niekallfl v. Meny 316 

Nidcels r. Kite's Adm 451 < 

Kickdson v. Wilson 441 j 

Kiekenon r. Bridgeport Hydrau- 
lic Co 254 , 

». Ma88. Title Ins. Co 683 

V. Kailroad Co 673 

p. RuBsell 644 ! 

r. Swett 863, 867 

KickoU V, Ashton 369, 638 

Nicolp. Fitch 337 

r. Nicol 417 

NicoU r. Burke 108 

Nicolls ad8. Rogers 780 

Niedermeyer v. Curators 22 

Niell V. Morley. 100 

Kiemeyer p. Wright 402 

Nilson r. Morse 366 

Nims p. Ford 248, 252 

p. Mt. Herrnon School 130 

Nineveh, The. 880 

Nisbett r. Galbraith 25 

Nix p. Wiswell 259 

Nixon p. Halley 88 

iCoakes & Co. r. Rice 630 ' 

Noble p. BuBhwell 608 

p. Harris 878 

p. Moses 736 

p. Thompson Oil Co 286 

p. Ward .... 311, 794, 799, 823 

Noel p. Drake 876, 439 

p. Kinney 88, 893 

Noice p. Brown 120, 444, 615 

Nolan P. Bank of New York 821 

Ndand p. Bull 62 

NoHn r. Blackwell 776 

Noll p. Smith 866 

Korcroes r. James 301, 304 

Norcum p. Shehan 63 

Nordenfelt p. Maxim-Nordenfelt, 

etc., Co 467, 476, 479, 480 

Nordyke p. Kehlor 582, 612 

NoHleet r. Cromwell 299, 300 

Norfolk Hosiery Co. p. Arnold. . . 721 

Norfolk Ry. p. McNamara 877 

Norman p. Norman 397 

p. Wells 299 

Norrington p. Wri^t 321, 330 

331, 629 

Norris p. Blethen 679 

p. Doniphan 430 

p. Harris 332 

-^ — p. Vance 82 

p. Wait 83 

North P. Henneberry.. . 846, 851, 860 

— p. Mallory 337, 560 

-^— P. Mendel 182 



PAGS. 

North p. Mudg« 876 

p. Perciyal 44, 47 

r. Robinson 170 

North Ala. Development Co. p. 

Short 256, 268 

North Bank p. Brown 877 

North British Insurance Co. p. 

Lloyd 660, 661 

North Chicago R. R. Co. p. Ack- 

ley 461 

North River Co. p. Shrewsbury 

Church 874 

Northampton, Marquess of p. Pol- 
lock 630 

Northampton, etc., Ins. Co. p. 

Tuttle 39 

Northeastern Ry. Co. p. Hastings. 310 

Northern p. Stete 173 

Northern Bank p. Hoopes 12 

Northern, etc., R. R. p. Eslow. . . 187 
Northern Ry. p. Commonwealth.. 131 

Northern Trust Co. p. Snyder 299 

Northfleld P. Plymouth 158 

Northington, Ex parte 99 

Northrop p. Mercantile Trust Co. 363 

Northrup p. Buffington 499 

p. Graves 679 

r. Phillips 500 

Northumberland Avenue Hotel 

Co., Re 121 

Northwestern Bank p. Great Falls 

Opera House 210, 816 

N. W. Iron Co. p. Meade 43 

Norton p. Blinn 498 

p. Marden 580 

p. Nichols 88 

p. Norton 505 

r. Relly 747 

p. Tuttle 456 

Norwich, Chandlers ot. Re 471 

Norwich, Mayor of p. Norfolk 

Ry. Co 139, 374, 515 

Norwich Bank c. Hyde 867 

Norwich Lock Mfg. fco. p. Hocka- 

day 135 

Norwood p. De Hart 265 

p. Lathrop 345 

p. Read 224 

Note Holders p. Funding Board. . 859 

866 

Nothe p. Nomer 343 

Nottidge p. Prince 746 

Nottingham Brick Co. p. Butler.. 305 

671 

Nounnan p. Sutter County Co 691 

Nourse, Re 466 

p. Henshaw 892 

Nouvion p. Freeman 877 

Nowack p. Berger 231, 792 



CVUl 



TABLE OF CA8B& 



PAGB. 

Nowlin V. Pyne 36, 677 

Noyes v. Landon 387, 391 

17. Loring 119 

17. AiarBfa 376 

•^ V, Pugin 337 

Nugent V, Delhomme 864 

- V. Smith 636 

r. Supervisors 136 

V, Wolfe 171 

Nunez v, Dautel 62 

Kunn V. Fabian 790 

Kunn 17. Givhan 889 

Nunnery v. Cotton 869, 866 

Nute V. Insurance Co 446, 446 

Nutt 17. Easton 769 

V, Humphreys 112 

Nuttall t\ Bracewell 304 

Nutter 17. Stover 292 

Nye 17. Hoyle 301 

17. Storer 726 

Nyulasy v. Rowan. 3, 27 

O. 

O. A C. R. R. Co. 17. Potter 216 

Oak r. Dustin 729 j 

Oakdale Mfg. Co. 17. Garst 469 

Oakden r. Pike 628 

Oakeley r. Pasheller 384, 386 

Oakes v, Cattaraugus Co 226 

17. Turquand 662, 602 

706, 719, 723 
Oakland Ins. Co. v. Bank of Com- 

uierce 271 

Oakley 17. Port of Portsmouth and 

Ryde Steam Packet Co 636 

17. Shelley 103, 630 

Oaks 17. Weller 22 

Oaten 17. SUnley 340 

Oates 17. Lilly 776 

O'Bear v. First Bank 780 

Obert 17. Landa 729, 748 

O'Brien t\ Boland 28, 753 

17. Brietenbach 488 

r. Hilbum 88 

V. Miller 673 

17. Young 167 

O'Bryan i?. Fitzpatrick 499 

17. Kinney 64 

Occum V, Sprague Mfg. Co 141 

Ocean City Assoc. 17. Headley 306 

Ockendon 17. Barnes 725 

Ockerson v. Crittenden 502 

O'Connell i?. Hotel Co 660 

0*Conner v. Hurley 12 

17. O'Conner 258 

t?. Ward 605 

O'Dea 17. Winona 51 

Odell V. Buck 104 

— — 17, Montroes 630 



PAGE. 

Odessa Tramways Co. r. Msndel . . 483 

Odlin 17. Insurance Co 428 

O'Donald t\ Constant 708 

O'Donnell v, Qinton. .. 6, 32, 312 583 

t\ Leeman 182 

O'Donnell Brewing Co. v. Farrar. 692 

Oelricks v. Ford 109 

Ofenstein r. Bryan.. 443, 866, 866, 872 

Oflford r. Davies 34 

Ogden 17. Maxwell 731 

V. Ogden 172 

17. Raymond 120 

Ogilvie 17. Insurance Co 709 

Ogilvie 17. Jeaffreson 688 

Ogle, Ew parte 666 

Ogle t7. Vane 824 

Oglesby 17. Williams 179 

Oglesby 17. Yglesias Ill 

Oglesby Coal Co. 17. Pasco 88 

O'Hara 17. Carpenter 434 

Ohio 17. Board of Education 482 

17. Standard Oil Co 126 

Ohio, etc., College 17. Love's Ex. . 187 
Ohio Ins. Co. 17. Merchants' Ins. 

Co 404 

Old Colony Trust Co. 17. Dubuque 

Light Co 696 

Old Saucelito Co. 17. Commercial 

Ass. Co. 448 

Oldershaw v. King 213 

r. Knowles 408 

Oldfield's Case 876 

Oldham 17. Mt. Sterling Imp. Co. 226 

Oliphant 17. Markham 486 

Oliver Ex parte 379 

Oliver v. Bank of England.. .119, 664 

Oliver i?. Bragg 841 

V. Gilmore 468 

17. Goetz 342 

V. Hunting 182 

17. Insurance Co 676 

r. McClellan 83 

V. Morawetz 1 19 

Olley 17. Fisher 638 

OUive 17. Booker 656 

Olmstead v. Brush 252 

r. Latimer 206 

Olsen t7. Hunter-Benn 656 

Olson 17. Lamb 463, 470 

17. Lovell 668 

17. Orton 695 

Oltman r. Moak 69 

Omaha Bank 17. Kraus 28 

r. Simerall 775 

O'Malley r.Twenty-flve Associates. 673 

Omerod v. Hardman 311 

O'Neal, Matter of 462 

17. Kelly 382 

17. Phillips 616 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cix 



PAGE. 

OT^ttl V. Seixas 668 

Oneale v. Long 862 

ODeida Bank v. Ontario Bank 503 

O^Neil V. Railroad Ck> 782 

O^eiU V. Capelle 631 

r. aark 272, 879 

V. Supreme Council... 361, 363 

Onondaga Bank v. United States. 575 
Ontario Fruit Assoc, v. Cutting 

Packing Co 539 

Ontario Lantern Co. v. Hamilton 

Mlg. Co 360 

Onward Building Society v.Smith- 

•on 300, 586, 589 

Opera House Co. 9. M. B. & L. 

Anoe 142 

Oppenheimer v. Collins 444 

Opper V, Hirsch 251 

C^itenburg r. Skelton 608 

Orchardson v. Cofield 747 

Oreutt r. Butler 879 

17. Nelson 691 

Ordway v. Downey 262 

O'Regan v. Cunard S. S. Co 53 

55, 608 

Oregon Pac R. Co. v. Forrest 728 

Or^on Ry. Co. v. Or^gonian R. 

Co. 143 

Oregon 8. N. Co. v. Winsor 483 

Org^ V. Allison 861, 874 

Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs 125 

Oriental Financial Corporation v. 

Orerend, Gumey & Co 384 

Orland v. Finnell 176 

Orlando r. Gooding 853 

Oman v. North Alabama Co 260 

271 

Onnerod r. Dearman 441 

Ormes t?. Beadel 709, 748 

Ormes v. Daucfay 375, 507 

Ormsbee 9. Howe 292 

Onnsby r. Rhoades 68 

Ome V. Friedenberg 306 

O'Rorke t?. Bolingbroke 759, 760 

764 
O'Rourke v, John Hancock Ins. 

Co. 66, 68, 74, 83 

f>. Wahl 292 

Orr V, Equitable Mortgage Co. . . 101 

r. Goodloe 689 

V, Laoey 142 

Orrick v, Colston 861, 867 

Ort V. Fowler 686 

Ortman r. Weaver 29, 30 

Orton V. Scofield 388 i 

Oabom r. Andrees 854 I 

V. Bank 161 | 

r. Farr 63 

V. Hall 864 



PAGE. 

Osbom V, Low 383 

V. McClelland 294 

V. Nicholson 420, 421, 510 

525, 531, 539 

V. Phelps 633, 634 

V. Bobbins 729, 730 

Osborne v. Bradley 301 

V. Cabell 263, 265, 272 

V, Francis 61 

V. Henderson 244 

V. Kerr 112 

V. O'Reilly 204 

r. Rogers 12 

V. Williams 439, 505 

Oscanyan r. Arms Co 377, 436 

607, 508 

Osgood V. Bander 482 

». Franklin 753 

V. Lewis 653 

V. Miller 383 

V. Stevenson 852 

O'Shea v. Collier, etc., Co 378 

Osier r. Hobbs 11 

Oskamp v. Southern Express Co. 592 

Osment v. McElrath 176 

Ostrander v, Scott 211, 214, 839 

0*Sulliyan r. Overton 179 

r. Thomas 501 

Oswald V. Godbold ,. . . 346 

r. McPehee 694 

V, Mayor of Berwick-on- 

Tweed 382 

Oswego V, Kellogg 856 

Oswego Starch Factory v, Len- 

drum 679, 716 

Otis r. Adams 332 

V. Cullum 654 

V, Browning 856 

V, Gardner 294 

V, Payne 39 

Ott V. Garland 788 

Otto V. Haeff 854, 869 

Outen V. Bodes 438 

Outoun r. Dulin 854 

Overseers t?. Scar 127 

Overton v. Banister 85 

r. Matthews , 866, 867 

Owen r. Davies. .'. 100 

V. Davis 499 

V, Evans 286 

V. Hall 869 

V. Homan 519, 683 

t?. Thomas 180 

Owens V, Dickenson 888 

r. Lewis 783, 784 

V. Mynatt 729 

V. Sturges 607 

Owing's Case 262 

Owings V, Owings 249 



ex 



TABLE OF CA8S& 



PAGE. 

Oxford V. Rodney 2^ 

Oxford (Mayor of) v. Crow 165 

Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradlev 144 

486 
Ozark Lumber Co. v. Chicago 

Lumber Co 836 

Ozley r. Ikelheimer 691 

P. 

Pabst Brewing Co. v. Liston. 601, 502 

Pace V, Bartles 631 

Pace r. Pace's Adm 386 

Pacific Co. V. Adier 468 

r. Anglin 698 

Pacific Express Co. v. Shearer . . . 692 
Pacific Guano Co. t\ Mullen... 402 

483, 608 
Pacific Rolling Mill Co t\ Rail- 
way Co 44 

Packer v. Benton 169 

V. Hinckley Locomotive 

Works 106 

Packet Co. v. Sickles 177 

Padden r. Taylor 716 

Paddock r. Robinson 120, 444 

495, 517 

Padfield r. Padfield 395 

Paducah Lumber Co. v. Paducah 

Water Supply Co 247, 249, 254 

Page r. Becker 257, 201 

r. Cook 62 

r. Cowasjee Eduljee 335 

V. Cox 234 

t'. Higgins 699, 600 

r. Horn 735 

r. Krekey 382 

V. Morse 63 

r. Norfolk 47 

r. Parker 690 

Paget r. ^larshall 601 

Paice t?. Walker 108, 111 

Paige V. Chapman 292 

t\ FuUerton Woolen Co 48 

V. Hieronymus 441 

t\ Sherman 610 

v. Stone 116 

Paine r. Drew 780 

r. Harrison 708 

V. Insurance Co 42 

V. Jones 264, 382 

V. Loeb 123 

V. Pacific Ins. Co 612 

V. Paine 880 

r. Schenectady Ins. Co 877 

r. Strand Union 164 

r. Upton 610 

Painter r. Polk County 679 

Pakenham's Case 300 



PAQB. 

Palfr^ t7. Portland, etc., R. R. 

' Co 215 

Palliser v. Gumey 890 

Palm V. Ohio, etc., R. Co 35^ 

Palmer t;. Andrews 677 

r. Bell 693 

f?. Blaine 170 

V. Bosley 830 

V, Breen 332 

V. Courtney 654 

r. Harris 419 

V. Hartford Ins. Co 29 

r. Johnson 666, 673 

V. Lareent 864 

V. Locke 466 

V. Lorillard 428 

r. Marston 426 

r. Meriden Britannia Co... 32/ 

V. Neave 395 

r. Palmer 444 

r. Stebbins 481 

Palmer Bank v. Insurance Co... 241 

248 

Palmeter r. Carey 262 

Palo Alto, The 31, 32, 42 

Palo Pinto County r. Ganb . . 595 

Palyart v. Leckie '. 503 

Pana r. Bowler 137 

Panama and S. Pacific Telegraph 

Co. V. India Rubber Co 342, 392 

Pancake r. Cauffman 631 

Pangbom v. Saxton 258 

t\ Westlake 402, 404 

Panmure, Esc parte 119 

Panton r. Duluth Water Co 731 

Pape r. Wright 493 

Paquin r. Milliken 708 

Paradine f. Jane 630, 532, 63l 

Pardee v. Kanady 323, 355 

r. Piatt 283 

r. Treat 260 

Pardey t\ American Windlass Co. 79 

Parfitt r. Lawless 736 

Parham v. Randolph 690 

Paris r. Strong ITS 

Paris Skating Rink Co., Re ^50 

Parish r. Wheeler 141, U2 

Park r. Glover 859, 873 

r. Johnson 035 

1?. National Assoc 460 

r. Wliitney 80 

Parke Co. r. White River Lumber 

Co 850, 870 

Parker r. Butcher 761 

r. Cowan 200 

r. Donaldson 108, 114 

V. Dorsey 880 

r. G. W.* Ry. Co 731 

V, Jeffery 64, 256 



TABLE OF CA8B8. 



CXi 



PAGE. 

P^rfcer v, Ka9A. 850 

V, Lftmbert 9& 

V, (lu^ster 729 

— *- V, McKenna 390» 725 

— r. Mae^miier 648 

17. Marks 800 

V. Moore ., . 409 

^. Nightuigaie 301 

V. Oakley .63 

V. Otis 40i8 

V. Pettit 361 

^. Scott . . 628 

r. S. E. By. 66 64 

r. tainter 787 

V. Thomaa 688, 696 

Parker's Adm. v. Parker's Adm. . 738 

Parker's Case 54 

Parker Vein Goal Co. v, O'Hern. 549 

Parkersburg v. Brom 142, 603 

i^arkes r. ,Smitfi 878 

V, White 888 

Parkhurst v. dosford 750 

Parkin i. Thorold. . . .,. 6?7, 628, 630 

Parkinson v. City of Parker ICO 

p. Sherman 261, 275 

Parks V. Barrowman 88 

-^ V. Francis 177, 789 

r. Hazelrigg 182 

p. Robs •^. . 112 

Pannalee v. Thompson 204, 206 

Parmelee v, Cameron 749, 767 

Parmlee r. Adolph 692 

^rmlj V. Buckley 284 

Parr r. dreenbush. 877 

l^arry v. LiVerpopl Malt Co 447 

17. Nicholson . 864 

Parry Mig. Co. v. Tobin 608 

T^rsell V. Stiyker 467 

Parsons v. Alexander 912 

i;. Clark 778 

«?. Blj 459 

V. &eys 77, 80 

V. Parsons 444 

V. Sexton . , 342 

V. Taooma Co 389 

-T V. Trask 481 

j^artinston r. Atij.-Gien 90 

Partre^e v. Hood 442 

V. Messer 378 

V. Strange 458 

l^ass r. Gtenada Comity. . ., 579 

Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. Biltkey. . 490 

Paiek r. Waples 311 

Paterson o. Higgins 853 

Pitman r. Harland 301 

Ptttmore v. Colbum 816 

Patrick V. Bowman. ...... 31, 32, 122 

V, Littell 891 

V. Milner 628 



PAOC. 

Patrick v. Putmun 548 

Ptftl^ V. Hicks 177 

PattersoQ v.. Ackerson 631 

V. Boehm 378 

V. Clark 502 

V. Donner 446 

V. Fagan 873 

t?. Gibson 729 

V. X^wrence 88 

— :— V, National PreMinm Ins. 

Co 376 

Patterson v. Neuer 778, 77# 

V, Patterson 336 

V. Babb 286 

V, Bobinson 161 

r. Wright 689 

17. Yeaton 849 

Patt^son's Appeal 500 

Pattle V, Hornibrook 312 

Patton v^ Adkins 261 

17. Allison 734 

17. Mills 171 

r. Xaft 377 

17. Thompson 387 

17. Wilson 286 

Patton';B Ex. 17. Hassinger 22 

Pattridge, 17. Oildermeister 342 

Patty 17. Qity Bank 600 

Paul t. Kunz 88 

V. Leeper 873 

r. Mesenrey 816 

17. Smith 79 

r. Virginia » 125 

Pauling- 17. L. & N. W. By. Co 163 

Pawle*8 Case 711 

Paxton r, Bich 775 

V. Smith 673 

Payler i?. Homersham 815 

Payne 17. Cave 15 

17. Eden . . 380 

17. Long 856, 866 

r. Pomeroy 334, 354 

17. Pusey 776 

17. Tliomason 898 

Payne's Appeal 11, 12Q 

Payne's Case 686 

Payson 17. Burnham 301 

Peabody i?. Flint 125 

17. Peabody 844 

r. Bice 879 

r. Speyers 180 

Peacock i7. Evans 749, 756 

17. Monk 887 

17. Penson 920 

17. State 558 

17. Wiiliajms 259 

Peake v. La Baw 892 

PearcQ r. Brooks. . . 485, 486, 487, 488 
17. Gardner 182 



cxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Pearce v. Langflt 41 

V. Railroad Co 136, 142 

V. Smith 108 

V. Spalding 19 

V. Watta 48 

V. Wilson 442, 483 

V. McDowell 99 

Pears v. Laing 779 

PearsoU v. Chapin 61 

Pearson r. Bailey 277 

V. Thompson 211 

Pease v. Gloahec 717 

V. Pease 110 

r. Smith 565 

Peaslee v. Bobbins 103 

Pechell V, Watson 450 

Peck V. Brighton 629 

p. Conway 301 

V. Henrich 451 

V. Ledwidge 531 

V. List 684 

V, Requa . 204 

Peck Colorado Co. v. Stratton. . 9, 343 

Pccke V. Redman 202 

Pecot V. Armelian 174 

Peddicord v. Hill 813 

V. Gurney 681, 683, 704 

V. Peek ... ... 395, 505, 791, 792 

Peel V. Peel 242, 243 

V, Shepherd 115 

I'eeler v. Levy 066 

Peelman v, Peelman 210 

Peerless Glass Co. v. Pacific 

Crockery Co 605 

Peeters v. Opie 626 

Peevey t?. Haughton 181 

Pegram v. Railroad Co 387 

Peirce v. Corf 182 

Pellcat t?. Angell . , 432, 433 

Pelletier v. Couture 63 

Pellman v. Hart 284, 285 

Pelton v. Prescott 856 

t?. San Jacinto Co 871 

Pelton Bros. v. Harrison 96 

Peltz V, Eichele 483 

Pemberton t?. Hoosier 204 

Pence v, Arbuckle 586 

v. Langdon 722 

Pender v, Lushington 897 

Pendery v, Allen 262 

Pendleton v, Asbury 470 

Pendleton County v. Amy 147 

Penn v, Bornman 399 

V. Whitehead 63, 892 

Penn Ins. Co. v. Crane 697 

t>. Mechanics' Bank 657 

Penn Plate Glass Co. 17. Spring 

Garden Ins. Co 449 

Pennegar v. State 397 



PAGE. 

Penniman v. Hartshom 180 

Pennington p. Howland 51 

Pennington (Doe d,) v. Taniere. 166 

Pennock's Appeal 684 

Pennsylvania Co. r. Dolan 176 

V. Lombardo 452 

r. Railroad 143 

V. Wentz 63, 399, 482 

Penrose v. Curren 84 

Pentz V. Stanton 110 

People V. Aldridge 340 

I p. Bartlett 657, 558 

V, Call 862 

, V, Chicago Gas Co 468 

I V. Fallon 405 

, — V. Foster 581 

I p. Fromme 798 

I p. Gates 798 

p. Insurance Co 534, 548 

I p. Kneeland 857, 858, 871 

p. Manning 557 

I p. Mercein 418 

i p. Milk Exch 425 

P. North River Sugar Rfg. 

Co 468 

V, 0. B. of S. B. B. Co. 387, 743 

p. Organ 855 

p. Peckens 692 

p. Pullman Palace Car Co. 140 

p. Railroad Co 131 

p. San Francisco 688 

p. Sheldon 425 

P. Speir 12 

p. Stephens 470, 709 

p. Tompkins 382 

p. Tubbs 557 

p. Tyroler 53 

p. Vilas 383 

p. White Lead Works . 130 

People's Bank p. Alabama R. Co. 402 

People's Bank p. Collins 276 

People's Savings Bank p. Gififord. 407 

Peoria Savings Co. p. Elder 876 

Pepper Telegraph Co 604 

Percival p. Dunn 280 

Perdew p. Tillma 834 

Pereau p. Frederick 851, 867 

Perin p. Parker 408 

Perkins, Be 815 

Perkins p. Clay 177, 193, 789 

p. Eaton 501 

p. Frazer 361 

p. Gilman 833 

p. Guy 781 

p. Hadley 839 

p. Hadsell 22, 35 

p. Hinsdale 170 

p. Hyde 602 



TABLB OF CA8B& 



Gxiii 



PAGE. 

Perkins 9. Lane 483 

V. littlefield 170 

V. Lougee 689 

V. Rogers 427, 430 

V. Savage 40 .: 

r. Seott 750 

Perkins Windmill Co. v. Till- 
man 853, 856 

Perley v. Balch 608 

Perls V. Saalfeld 477 

Perrett's Case 602 

Perrin v. Wilson 77 

Perrine v. Dmin 461 

Perry r. Bamett 499 

V, Dicken 451 

V. Mt. Hope Iron Co.. 40, 41 

606, 886 

V. Tuscaloosa Co 392 

Person r. StoU 337 

Persse r. Persse 460 

Peruvian Rys. Co., Re 145 

Peter r. Compton 177 

Peters v. Davenport 438 

r. Fleming 76 

r. Grim 501 

r. Railroad Co 731, 782 

r. Westborough 177 

Peters Co. r. Lesh 718 

Peterson v, Breitag 215 

r. Laik 63 

r. Mayor ,. 161 

F. Seagraves 802 

Petesch v. Hambach 634 

Petillon f?. Hippie 501 

Petit V. Woodlief 839 

Pctrie F. Torrent 174 

Pettee r. Peppard 260 

Pettigrew r. Chellis 681 

Pettit V. Braden 170 

Pettit's Adm. v. Pettit's Dis- 
tributees 483 

Petty F. Petty 395 

F. Trustees 187 

Peu£^h F. Davis 630, 631 

Pew F. Laughlin 853 

Peyin F.Soci6t6 St. Jean Baptiste. 449 

Peyto's Case 829 

Pfaff V. Golden 299 

Pfeuffer r. Maltby 600 

Pflugar F. Pults 467 

Pbalen F. Clark 499 

Pharmaceutical Soc. f. London & 

Provincial Supply Assoc 131 

Phelan r. Moss 292, 865 

Phelps F. Borland 384 

f?. Dennett 199 

V. Dolan 879 

r. Holdemess 407 

■ r. Johnson 813 

viii 



I PAOB. 

Phelps F. Lyle 236 

F. Mayor 579 

F. Samson 717 

F. Seely 822, 827 

F. Stone 170 

F. Sullivan 855 

r. Walther 91 

r. Worcester 79 

F. ZuBchlag 730 

Phenix Bessemer Steel Co., Re.. 323 

Phenix Ins. Co. F. Raddin 658 

Phenix Iron Foundry r. Lockwood. 271 

Phettiplace F. Railway Co 17 

Phibbs F. Buckman 693 

Phillip F. Gallant 672 

Phillips r. Alhambra Palace Co. 544 

F. BistoUi 599, 622 

F. Blatchford 296 

F. Calddeugh 611, 663, 666 

F. Clagett 626 

F. Columbus Assoc 809 

F. Foxall 386 

F. Gifford 406 

F. Graves 891 

F. Hatch 427 

F. Henry 748 

F. Hemdon 845 

F. Homfray 670 

F. Hull Alhambra Palace 

Co 223 

F. Lloyd 79 

F. McConica 581 

F. Meyers 416, 444 

F. Miller 668 

F. Moor 45 

F. Mullings 737 

F. O'Neal 616 

F. Phillips 567, 568 

F. Probyn 413 

F. PuUen 749 

F. South Park Ins. Co 451 

F. Thorp 444 

Phillips's Est 281 

Phillips Co. F. Seymour 332, 342 

Phillpotts F. Evans 338, 353 

359, 369 

Philpot F. Gruninger 9 

Philpott F. Elliott 634 

F. Jones 807 

Phippen f. Stickney 470 

Phipps F. Jones 42 

F. Lovegrove 283, 286 

Phoenix Assur. Co. r. Davenport . . 125 
Phoenix Bridge Co. F. United 

States 52H 

Phoenix, etc., Co., In re 340, 354 

Phoenix Co. f. McEvony 717 

Phoenix Insurance Co. f. Con- 
tinental Insurance Co 302 



CXIT 



TABLB OF GA8B8. 



PAGB. 

Ptenix lofuraaee Co. 0. WXjwt . . 

, nan 862, 854 

Phcenix Insunuice Co. v. Ibrenion 

Water Co. 249, ?51, 264 

Phomix Insurance Co. v, ?lot)cy. 449 
Phosphate of Lone Co. v. Green. . 901 
Piatt V. Hubbell 175 

r. Longworth's Deviaees 387 

Picard v. Hine 888, 890 

V. McCormick ?!92 

V. Sears 649 

Picker f. London and County 

Banking Co 294 

Pickering v, Ilfracombe Ry. Co.. 285 

483 

t?. Pickering 878 

V. Stephenson 896 

Pickering^s Claim 110 

Pickett r. Gore 11 

V. Leonard 778 

V. Wadlow , . . 631 

Pickle Marble Co. v. McClay. 249, 254 

Pickslay v, Starr 914 

Picot V, Sanderson 844 

Pidcock t'. Bishop 661 

Pieratt p. Young 683 

Pierce r. Chace,. 88 

V. Goldsberry 206 

t'. barker 814 

V. Payne 177 

r. Pierce 483, 484, 735 

V, Robinson 630, 631 

f . Seymour 774 

V. Tennessee, etc., R. R. Co. 360 

363 

r. Walton 199 

V. Wilson 700 

Piercy r. Young. , 447 

Piercy's Heirs t?. Pierc/s Exs 844 

861 

Pieronnet ». Lull 408 

Pierrepont v. Barnard 784 

Pierson t\ Morch 23 

r. Spaulding 346 

Pietsch t?. Krause 676 

Piggott V, Stratton 791, 919 

Pigot's Case. . . 482, 845, 846, 850, 859 

Pigott r. Thompson 232, 241 

Pike V. Colvin 566 

i\ Fitzgibbon 893 

V. Ongley Ill 

Pike Electric Co. r. Richardson 

Drug Co 538 

Pilcher i?. Rawlins 567 

Pilie t\ New Orleans 23, 205 

Pilkington t;. Scott 481 

Pillans t\ Van Mierop 198 

Pince V. Beattie 452 

Pinch V, WiUard 631 



PAGE. 

IiQclm'9 C^e , 164, 8»4 

Pinckney v. Dambmantt. 361 

Pinger v. Pinger 335 

Plngty V. Washburn 437 

Pinkett V, Wright 284 

Pinkham v, Libbey 636 

Pinkstoi^ r. Brown 605 

Pinners Case 211 

Pinney v. Hall 388 

PIntard r. Martin 709 

Pioneer Mfg. Co. v. Phoenix Ass. 

Co. 448 

Pioneer Savings Co. v, Nonne- 

macher 821 

Piper V. Fosher 177, 789 

r. Hoard 231 

Pipes V. Buckner 175 

Pipp V. Reynolds 259 

Pippoi v. Insurance Co 67 

p. Wesson 892 

Pironi v, Corrigan 335, 740, 746 

Pisini r. A.-G. for Gibraltar 741 

Pistel 17. Imperial Ins. Co 52 

Pitcher f>, Hennessey 577 

t?. Wilson 178 

Pitkin f?. Noyes 215 

Pitt V. Gentle 187 

Pittam r. Foster 90 

Pittman f?. Pittman 361 

Pittsburgh B. S. Rail Co. v. 

Hinckley 550 

Pittsburg Carbon Co. i>, McMillin. 498 
P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Vol- 

kert 451 

Pittsburgh Iron Co f?. Lake Su- 
perior Iron Co 175 

Pittsburg Mining Co. f>, SpooAer. 676 
Pittsfield Cottonwear Co. t\ Pitts- 
field Shoe Co 254 

Pixley t?. Boynton 409 

Place V. Hayward 505, 736, 741 

Planch^ V. Colbum 337 

Plank V. Jackson 486, 487 

Piano Mfg. Co. v. Burrows 271 

Plant r. Bourne 179 

V, Condit 608 

r. Gunn 441 

V, Gunton 729 

Plant Seed Co. v. Hall 43 

Planter's Bank r. Union Bank ... 498 

Plating Co. r. Farquharson 460 

Piatt f>. Brand 361 

V. Bromage 579 

Piatt r. Broderick 51 

v. Railroad Co 533 

Playford t?. United Kingdom Elec- 
tric Telegraph Co 233 

Pledge V, Buss 386, 660, 661 

Plevins e*. Downing 823 



7ABLB or CASES. 



CXV 



PAOS. 

FtowB 9. Baktr 446 

PlimptOQ 9. CuitiM 176 

Plumb V. CampbeU S4, 36, 406 

Plnmer v. Lord. 692 

r. SMih .. , 487 

Plnmmer v. Btfcknani 786 

-; t. People 729 

Plnnkett v. Daris Co 382 

17. Hanacka 798 

Pljrler r. Elliott 870 

Plympton v. Dnnn 7(]f9> 723 

Pochd V, New Orleans Co. 343 

Poeock V. Lafayette Bldg. Assoc. 142 

Poe V. Dixon 269, 271 

Poillon r. Martin 741, 768 

V, Poillon . 415 

Poindexter t. Davis 409 

Polrier r. OraTel 361 

Poland V. Brownell 692 

Poland Pa^r Co. o. Fooie 204 

Po)heniiis r. HeimaA 608 

Polhill r. Walter 684 

police Jury i?. Brftton 146, 147 

Pollard, Ew parte 323, 35.5 

r. Reardon 303 i 

V. Scears 776 

t. Vinton 302 

PoUman Coal Co. r. St. Louis... 211 

839 

Pollock V. Agaet 501 

r. Cojien 121 

r. Smith 721 

r. Sullivan l20, 495 [ 

Poison p. Stewart 444 

Pomeroy t. Slade 204 

Pond V, Smith .^. 430 

Ponder v. Jeroine Hill Cotton Co. 407 

Ponsford r. Johnson 397 

Pool r. Boston 205 

r. (3ott 462 j 

t. Homer 200 ' 

F. Pratt 65, 80 

Poole V. Hintrager 257 

r. Kelsey 841 

r. Mass. Plush Co 310 

Pope V, AlUs 653 

r. Branch County Bank ... 867 

V, Chafee 853 

t. Garrard 631 ' 

r. Hanke 407, 608, 512 | 

p. Hariwig 291 1 

«. Hooper 640 ; 

p. Meadow Spring Distilling i 

Cd no' 

^ — P. Porter . 275, 331 ' 

Pope Iron Co. P. Best 52 

Popham p. Brooke 742 

Poplett P. Stdckdale 376 

Popnleln p. Foley 634 

Foioage p. Cole 322 

Porell P, Oavanaugh 716 



PAGE. 

Pbrritt p. Baker ; 91M 

Port p. Russell 389 

Port Huron Co. p. Shennan 853 

Ptfrt of London Co.'s Case 899 

Porter p. American Legion. 361, 363 

p. Arrowhead Reservoir Co. 342 

352 

1?. Blood 778 

P. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co 841 

V. Cook 839 

V. Day 406 

p. Doby 861 

r. Dunn 337 

p. Fletcher 696 

p. Hardy 586, 867 

p. Hill 175 

p. Hodenpuyl 384 

p. Jackson 262 

p. Merrill 108 

V. Perkins 175 

p. Railroad Co 160 

p. Scdtt , . . , 879 

— r- V. Sherman County Banking 

Co. . - 498 

p. Woodruff 388, 389 

p. Woods 257 

Porter's Case 494 

Porterfield p. Butler 200 

Portland Trust Co. v, Nunn 265 

Portner v. Kirschner 441 

PoSey p. Bank 25 

Poska p. Stearns 697, 699 

Posner t?. Seder 337 

Post p. Dart 275 

p. Davis 47 

p. Losey 861 

p. Mason 734 

Postal Tel. Co. p. Schaefer 604 

Postelle p. Rivers 486 

Poston p. Balch 505 

Potomac Coal Co. p. Railroad Co. 731 
Potter p. Adams 849 

r. Ajar Mining Co 452 

V. Carpenter 11 

p. DougUss 839 

p. Fidelity Co 395, 739 

V. Jacobs 791 

p. Potter 640 

p. Sanders 884 

p. Stransky 775 

p, Taggart 343,710 

Potts p. Bell 427 

V. First Nat. Bank 256 

p. Polk Co 215 

p., Rose Valley Mills 548 

r. Whitehead 29, 39, 43 

Poulton p. Lattimore 342 

Pound p. Williams 607 

Pounds p. Chatham 245 

Poussard p. Spiers and Pond 545 

Powder River Co. p. Lamb 176 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Powell r. Banks 851 

r. Bradlee 679 

I?. Divett 852 

V. Elliot 666 

V, Flanary 441 

17. Morisev 643 

r. Newell 645 

V. Pearlstine 860, 861, 861 

V. Powell 98, 736, 745 

V. Rich 173 

r. 6aiiimona 342 

V. Smith 572 

V. Thomas 791 

r. Banks 127 

Power 17. Wells 336, 336 

Power's Appeal 459, 814 

Powers 17. Benedict 708, 716 

r. Clarkson 173 

V. Hale 753 

17. Insurance Co 658 

f7. Skinner 436 

Powers Dry Goods Co. v. Harlin. . 378 

Prall t7. Tilt 294 

Prarie v, Jenkins 383 

Prater v. Campbell 173, 298 

Prather v. Burgess 393 

f7. Zulauf 884 

Pratt r. Baptist Soc 42, 187 

t?. Barker 746 

V. Bates 170 

r. Bowman 664 

17. Conway 261 

V. Humphrey 170 

17. Oshkosh Match Co 226 

17. Philbrook 709 

17. S. Freeman &, Sons Mfg. 

Co 336 

r. Short 141 

Pratt's Appeal 281 

Pray r. Burbank 402 

Preble <7. Bottom 332, 342 

Precious Blood Soc. r. Elsythe. . . 715 

Press 17. Coke 751 

Prendergast v, Lee 340 

Prentice v, Brimhall . 248, 249, 253, 260 

17. London 447 

Prentiss 17. Paisley 87 

Presbury v. Fisher 482 

Presby v. Parker fOl 

Prescott r. Battersby 402 

17. Jones 10, 29, 32, 650 

r. Norris 82 

President v. Green 565 

Pressly i7. Kemp 738 

Prest P. Cole 832 

Preston r. Dania 556, 632 

17. Luck 572 

17. Missouri, *tc.. Lead Co. . . 144 

161 

r. Morris 292 

—^ V. Smith 408 



PAGE. 

I Prettyman v. Goodrich 865 

. Price t7. Berrington 102 

17. Cannon 204 

r. Dyer 311 

V. Easton 233, 234, 244 

17. First Nat. Bank 215 

V, Furman 67, 68 

17. Greene 483 

17. Hewett 83 

17. Ley 636 

17. Macaulay 694 

r. Mitchell 206 

17. Pepper 536 

r. Price 120 

17. Sanders 80 

r. Summers 442 

17. Tallman 865 

17. Trusdell 238, 258 

Price's Appeal 769 

Price Co. Bank v. McKenzie 386 

Prichard r. Budd 112 

Pride r. Bubb 887, 890 

Prideaux i\ Lonsdale. . . 303, 394, 739 

Priest 17. White 703 

Priestley v. Femie 116 

Prim 17. Hammel 859, 861, 867 

Primrose p. Western Union Tel. 

Co 54 

Prince 17. Griffin 628 

r. McRae 802 

r. Oriental Bank 853 

Prince's Mfg. Co. 17. Prince's 

Paint Co 419 

Prince of Wales Assce. Co. 17. 

Harding 900 

Pringle r. Pringle 395 

Printing and Numerical Regis- 
tering Co. 17. Sampson 426, 478 

Printup 17. Mitchell 873 

Pritchard i?. Merchants' Life In- 
surance Society 614 

Pritchard 17. Norton 781 

Proctor r. Cole 461 

17. Keith 204 

Produce Exchange Trust Co. 17. 

Bieberback 854, 862 

Prole r. Soady 917 

Prosser v. Edmonds. . . 449, 453, 456 

457 

Proudfoot 17. Montefiore 657 

Prout 17. Pittsfield Fire District. 214 

Prouty 17. Wilson 850 

Providence Coal Co. r. Coxe 331 

Providence Tool Co. 17. Norris .... 436 

Pruden i?. Williams 263 

Prugnell r. Gosse 475 

Pryse r. Pryse 458 

Pugh 17. Barnes 273 

Pulbrook V, Lawes 787 

Pullman Palace Car Co. 17. Cen- 
tral Transportation Co 405 



TABLE OF CA8B& 



cxvil 



PAGE. 

Pnlafoid V. Richudi 707 

PulTer V, Skinner 258 

Puroell 17. McNamara 740 

Purcell ( W. H.) c. Sa^ 197 

Pnrdy v. Rome, etc, R. Co 818 

Purner v, Piercy 173 

Pursley v. Hays 68 

Panrines v, Harrison 644 

Putnam r. Dike 780 

V. Field 257 

r. Glidden 336 

r. Tennyson 199 

r. Woodbury 210 

Putnam Bank v. Snow 25 

Putney v. Famham 245,259 

Pybufl V. Gibb 382 

Pyke, Ex parte 409 

P^le V. Cravens 66 

Pym r. Campbell 312 

Pyne r. Wood 79 

Pyott f>, Pyott 98 

Q. 

Qnarrier v. Colston 511 

Queen v, Bernardo 461 

Queen Ins. Co. v. Texas 469 

Queen-Empress v. Narottam-dAs 

Motirilm 407 

Quick V. Wheeler 25, 27 

Quimby v. Insurance Co 446 

r. Melvin 879 

V. Vanderbilt 53 

Quincey v. Sharpe 777 

Qninlan v. Myers 791 

Quinn r. Brown 589 

r. Leathem 225, 377 

r. Roath 628 

V. South Carolina R. Co 130 

Quinn's Estate 893 

Quirk V. Muller 445 

R. 

Raabe v. Squier 332 

Raatc, Re 707 

Rabberman v, Kiskamp 256 

Rabe v. Dunlap 135 

Rackeman v. lUverbank Imp. Co. 

173, 701, 721 

Radcliffe v. Vamer 136 

Radenhurst v. Bates 235 

Radford v. Carwile 891 

Radloff p. Haase 633 

Rae p. Hulbert 157 

Raffles p. Wiehelhaus 599 

Rafolovitz p. American Tobacco 

Co 197 

Raggett p. Bishop 808 

p. Musgrave 808 

Raffuet p. Roll 440, 488 

Rahilly p. St. Paul, etc, Co. . . . 53 
Rahier P. Bank 402 



PAGE. 

Raife p. Gorell 200 

Railroad Co. r. Anderson 695 

p. Arnold 132 

— 7" r. Babcock 753 

— '— V, Barrett 54 

r. Bartlett 27, 28 

i\ Beckett 17 

r. Blocher 130 

r. Bowler 389 

r. Boyd 54 

r. Brownlee 54 

r. Burke 130 

r. C. V. & W. Coal Co 731 

r. Campbell 53 

p. Cary 446 

p. Casey 385 

p. Chatham 147 

r. Christy 121 

p. Comm<mwealth .... 130, 131 

p. Commrs. of Miami Co. . 749 

p. Continental Trust Co. . 61 

p. Cox 53 

V. Croswell 135 

p. Dalby 17, 130 

r. Dane 30, 197 

r. Dow 142 

p. Dunn 130 

p. Elliott 67 

p. Fifth Baptist Church 130 

r. Franklin Bank 701 

p. Gow 385 

r. Harris 135 

p. Hine 780 

r. Howard 144, 147, 288 

p. Jackson 605 

r. Jones 170 

V. Kerr 716 

f. Kindred 390 

p. King 431 

f. Ling 385, 661 

p. Live Stock Bank 302 

r. Loewenthal 292 

t\ Manufacturing Co 54 

p. Mathers 437, 488 

p. Mitchell 197 

p. Morgenstem 100 

p. Norwich, etc.. Society. . 137 

144 

p. Orton 141 

p. Pattison 388, 731 

p. Poor 389 

p. Power 301 

p. Quigley 130 

p. Rafale 791 

p. Ralston 437 

p. Reeves 301 

p. Reichert 523 

p. Reynolds 54 

p. Rhodes 286 

p. Richards<m. . . . 119, 120, 654 

p. Rinard 17 



^xviii 



TKBLB OF CA8B8. 



PAOB. 
Kailroad Ca v. Rodebaogli. . . .. . 6S 

V. Bogen 17, 130 

V. Bow 70© 

V. Ryan ^37 

V. Sohunick 583 

1^. Schuyler 137, 701 

V, Seeley 437 

p. Shay 684 

V. South 17 

p. Spear 622, 637 

V. State 131 

V. Steinfeld 639, 706 

V. Taylor 437, 483 

r. Tipton 147 

v. Transportation C5a 142 

^ — t>. Trimble 578, ,775 

— ^ V. Trust Co 142 

- t?. Turner 63 

•^ V. Union Steamboat Co 140 

BJiiltoff V, MfftheWft 659, 661 

Railway jCo. V, Avery 54 

— ' — V. Bimey 17 

r. Carter 54 

p. Clark 204 

17. Commonwealth 131 

p. Conder 565 

p. Danforth 549 

r. Deloney 53 

p. Dewey 389 

• p. Ellis 126 

r. Gaffney 10 

p. Gilmer 301 

r. Green 577, 584 

p. Harris 130 

H Hennesey 91 

p. Herr .* 101 

p. Holmes ; . . . . 53 

p. Hooper 140, 528 

r. Hoyt 628 

p. James 125 

p. Jurey 54 

V, Keokuk Bridge Co 161 

V. Louisville Trust Co 125 

V, I>nde 144 

p. Newman 53 

V. Simon 54 

r. Steiner 731 

p. W6od 177 

V. Wright 54 

Rainwater p. Durham 79 

Raisin v. Clark 388, 389 

Rajah Mokham Singh p. Rajah 

Rup Singh 762 

Rake's Adms. p. Pope 177, 789 

Raleigh, etc., R. Co. 17. Lowe 302 

Ralcy r, Victor Co 545 

Ralphsnyder P. Shaw 470 

Ralston t\ Boady 487 

V. Turpin 742 

Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chun- 

der Canto Mookerjee 460 



PAOB. 

Rambouflek Q. SupoMiA Couacll.. 87$ 

Rambos p. StoweU 88 

RamloU Thackoon^4ass t, Soo- 

. jumnell Dhondmull 422 

Ramsay v. Joye6 394 

-: p. Warner , 776 

Bamadale p. Horton 268, 269 

Ramsden v. Brearley 94 

p. I^soQ 791 

p. Railroad .Co 130 

Rams^ .V. Smith 486, 639 

p. Thompson Mfg. Co , 676 

Ramsey's Est. v. Whitbeck 483 

Ramsgate Hotel Co. p. GokUmid. 30 

F. Montefiore 30 

Ranchau v. Railroad Co 53 

Rand p, Columbia Bank 698 

Randall v. Brodhead 211 

p. Dudley 125 

p. Qhent 643 

p. Kelsey 170 

p. Morgan 784 

V. Phoenix InlL Co 448 

p. Randall 416, 444 

p. SSanders 630 

p. Sweet 80 

p. Ti^eli 402 

p. Turner 176 

p. Van Vechten 161 

Randegger p. Holmes 446 

Randall P. Trimen 120 

Randeil, Saunders & Co. 17. 

Thompson 447 

Randolph Iron Co. p. Elliott 592 

Rax^iey p. Spring 88 

Ranger v. Cary 295 

Ranken p. Pattbn .768, 769 

Rankin P. Potter 546 

Rann v. Hughes. 198 

Ransier p. v anorsdol 845, 850 

Paper p. Birbeck 853 

Raphael p. Bank of England 291 

Rapid, The 427 

Rapp p. Giddings 839 

Rapp, Estate of, v. Phcenix Ins. 

Co 385 

Rappleye P. Racine Seeder Co. . . 323 

355, 696 

Rashdall p. Ford 688 

Rasmussen p. State Bank 199 

Ratcliff p. Planters' Baidc 856 

Ratcliflfep. Smith 488 

Rath p. Vanderlyn 743 

Rathbone p. Tucker 116 

Ratzer p. Burlington, etc.. Rail- 
way Co 303 

Ran p. Von Zedlitz 747, 770 

Raubitchek p. Blank 181 

Rsiven P. Smith 877 

Rfliwdon p. Rawdon 98 

RAwley p. Rawley 70 



TABLE OF CA8B8. 



CZIX 



SawUas 9. Wkkham. 



PAGfe. 

.080, 682, tto 
707 

RawBon v. durk. 537 

r. CopeUna 270 

c. Davidson 861 

V. Kailroad Co 59 

Ray p. Haines 07 

i;. Jones 833 

V. Mackin 470 

r. Tubbs 84 

Raymond v, Leayitt 372 

V, Minion 661 

r. Royal Baking Powder Co. 419 

V. Vaughan 103 

Rayner r. Grote 118, 123 

Rayaor f^. Berkley Co 10 

Rea V. Bishop 101 

Read r. Anderson 499 

V. Hall 88 

V. Johnson 778 

r. Legard 99 

V, Smith 600 

V. State Ins. Co 448 

Reade 9. Lambe 783 

V. Livingston 794 

Ready r. Noakes 753 

Reaffer v. Kendall 679 

Real Est. Sav. Inst. v. Linder 579 

Reando r. Misplay 99 

Reciprocity Bank, in the matter 

of ihe.* 892 

Rector r. Bemaschina 310 < 

V. Collins 677 I 

V. Higgins 270 

- — r. Teed 186, 241, 240 i 

Rector, etc., of St. Bartholomew I 

r. Wood 147 

Redding v. Hall 631 

Redelsheimer v. Miller 257 

Redfearn r. Craig. 258 

Redfem r. Bryning 317 

Redgrave v. Hard 681, 694 

Redhefter v, Leathe 695 

Redlands Assoc, v, Gorman 629 

Redlich r. Doll 867 

Redinond v. Dickerson 132 

V. Wynne 289 j 

Beece r. Kyle 426 

Beedr. Bank 130 

r. Bartlett 838 

r. Beaxl^ 415 

r. Bond 488 

V, Brewer 486 

r. Culp 864 

p, Deere 799 

r. Gold 177, 789 

r. Kemp 869 

©. MoGrew 715 

V. McKee 440 ! 



PAGE. 

Reed p. MaiUe 282 

V, Marshall 776 

V, Morton 856 

p. Nevins 283 

V. Paul 270 

c, Peterson 760 

V. Reed 630, 631 

p. Root 677 

^^— r. Tarbell 814 

r. Warner 387 

Reeder p. Gorsuch 631 

p. Reeder 336 

Bees p. Berrington .« 386 

p. De Bemardy 464, 764 

p. Lowry 299 

p. Overbaugh 863 

p. Rees ■; 844 

p. Williams 806, 912 

Reese p. United States 382, 857 

Reese River Silver Mining Co. p. 

Smith 675, 682, 710 

Reeve P. Dennett 631, 703 

Reeves p. Coming 691 

p. Heam 826, 830 

R. P. Ashwell 690 

P. Aspinwall 377 

p. Commissioners of Sewers 

for Essex 635 

p. Cumberland (Justices of). 165 

166 

p. Demers 196 

p. Doutre 805 

p. G. N. of Eng. Ry. Co. 129, 130 

p. Holmes 886 

p. Lord 62 

p. Mayor of Stamford 165 

p. McDonald 72 

p. Middleton 590 

p. Prince 565 

p. Ramsey and Foote 420 

p. Rowlands 376 

p. Warburton 377 

Regina p. Hardey 878 

Reichel p. Jeffrey 836 

Reichenbach r. Sage 528 

Reid p. Alaska Packing Co 522 

p. Bird 717 

p. Bradley 684 

r. Diamond Glass Co 173 

p. Hibbard 837 

p. Hoskins . ..... 346, 360, 524 

p. Reid 95 

Reidpath's Case 884 

Reif p. Page 22, 205 

Reilly p. Gautschi 599 

p. Otto 306 

p. Smith 666 

Reimensnyder p. Gans 187 

Reinhard p. City 503, 730 



cxz 



TABLE OF CASB8. 



PAQE. 

Reinheimer v. Carter 177, 789 

Reinskopf v. Rogge. 100 

Reis V. Lawrence 88 

Reiser v. Mears 349 

Remelee v. Hall 363 

Remington v. Palmer 173 

V. Wright 729 

Remington S. M. Co. v. Kezertee. 681 

Remy v. Olda 361 

Renals v. Cowlishaw 301, 305 

Renard v, Sampson 816, 875 

Rennick e, Butterfield 388 

Renz, Re.. .• 99 

Republic Ins. Co. v. Swigert 719 

Respass v, Jones 850 

Resseter v. Waterman 171 

Rettinghouse v, Ashland... 211 

Reuss V, Picksley 181 

Renter v. Electric Telegraph Co. . 163 

V, Sala 329, 330, 629 

Revel V. Revel 89 

Reybold v, Voorhees 332 

Reymond v. Newcomb 778 

Reynard i;. Arnold 633 i 

Reynell v. Sprye. . . 460, 451, 453, 493 

506, 681, 694 

Reynolds r. Bank 141 

V. Caldwell 448 

r. Crawfordsville National 

Bank 403 

V. Excelsior Co 725 

V, Hall 382 

V. Harrell 443 

r. Lawton 258 

V, Nugent 210 

V. Reynolds 211, 353, 685 

813, 879 
V, Robinson 312 

V. Trustees 160 

Rhea t?. Renner 91 

Rheel v. Hicks 612 

Rhoades V, Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. 816 

t\ Leach 857, 858f 863 

Rhoads v. Armstrong County 876 

V, Jones 875 

Rhoda V. Annis 701 

Rhodes, Re H, 99 

Rhodes v. Bate 740, 745, 771 

V. Hardy 880 

Haynes 285 

Matthews 257 

Neal 441 

Rhodes 790 

Summerhill 427 

Swithenbank 75 

Co. r. Brecon, etc., 
340 



V, 

V. 

i\ 

— V. 

Rhymney Ry. 

Ry. Co 

Ricard v. Sanderson 261 

Ricardo v, Garcias 877 



PAGE. 

Rice V. Boyer 66, 82 

V. Butler 79 

r. Carter 170 

V. Dwight Mfg. Co. 612 

17. Fidelity Co 658 

p. Gist 406 

V, Gordon 622, 749 

V, Insurance Co 658 

r. London Co 211 

V, Manly 786 

V. Maxwell 380 

V. Partello 337 

V, Sanders 260 

p. Waddill 396 

V. Weber 639 

p. Wood 377, 888 

Rich p. Black 388 

p. Doane 631 

p. Lord 815 

Richard p. Brehm 158 

Richards r. Daily 295 

p. Delbridge 219 

V, Doyle 666 

p. Fisher 813 

p. Green 66 

p. Grinnell 174 

p. Home Assurance Assoc. . . 37 

Richardson p. Brix 402 

p. Buhl 468 

p. Coffman 51 

p. Comstock 216 

V. Crandall 425 

p. Denegre 701 

p. Fellner 865, 874 

p. Gosser 216 

p. Hickman , 566 

p. Mather 866 

p. New Orleans Co 701 

p. Olivier 701 

p. Pate 69 

p. Pierce 176, 385 

V, Richards 876 

p. Richardson 219 

r. Rowland 452, 513 

t?. Rowntree 53, 54 

p. Scott's Bluff Coimty.... 436 

p. Strong 99 

r. Thomas 778 

i\ Tobey 300 

V. Tolliver 88 

P. Williamson 1 19 

Richardson Co. p. Hampton 215 

Riche p. Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. 139 

900 
Richelieu Hotel Co. p. Interna- 
tional Co 187 

Richeson v. Mead 62 

Richmond p. Aiken 775 

p. Foss 402 

p. McGirr 146 

Richmond, Adm., Petitioner 776 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CZXl 



PAGE. 

Rick V. Hoffman 261, 264 

Ridcards r. Cimniiigham 786 

Rickenon 9. Insuranoe Co 672 

Ricketto v. Harvey 441 

V, Scothom 660 

Rickman r. Miller 246, 261 

Ricord v. Railroad Co 130 

Riddell r. Johnson 734 

Riddle v. Backus 176 

r. HaU 440 

r. Perry 502 

T. Stevens 867 

Ridgely r. Conswago Iron Co 541 

V. Robertson 264 

Ridgeway r. Herbert 69 

Ridgway r. Ingram 182 

r. Sneyd 541 

V, Wharton 47 

Riegel r. American Ins. Co. . .612, 615 

Rielly r. Brown 750 

Ries 9. Rowland 876 

Riesz's Appeal 666 

Rifener v. Bowman 845 

Rigby V. Connol 808 

Rigdon V. Walcott 715 

Riggan v. Green 101, 102 

r. Sledge 699 

Riggles 9. Erney 790 

RiggB V. Cage 106 

9. Protective Assoc 211 

9. St. Clair 865 

Righter 9. Roller 6D8 

Rigney 9. Plaster 101 

Riley 9. Carter 101 

9. Jordan 487 

9. MalloTy 67 

9. Minor 174 

9. Riley 837, 874 

9. Starr 631 

9. Walker 353 

Rineer 9. Collins 179 

Ring 9. Jamison 69 

Ringo 9. Binns 387 

9. Wing 256 

Rintonl r. White 172 

Riordan r. Doty 408 

9. First Church 276 

Rioux 9, Kyegate Brick Co 332 

Ripley 9. iEtna Ins. Co 818 

9. Case 654 

r. M'Clure 361, 353, 369 

9. Wightman 531 

Risch 9. Von Lilienthal 695 

Riser 9. Snoddy 776 

9. Walton 701 

Rison c. Moon 879 

Ritcher 9. Laycock 63 

Ritchie 9. Boynton 402 

9. Smith 402 

Ritenour 9. Mathews. 210, 841 

Rittenhoiue 9. Levering 857 



PAGE. 

Ritter 9. Mutual Life Ins. Co. . . 376 

548 

9. Phillips 275 

9. Railroad Co 392 

Hitter's Appeal 776 

Rivaz 9. Gerussi 656 

River Wear Commissioners 9. 

Adamson 398 

Rivers 9. Gregg 78 

9. Moss' Assignee 431 

9. Rivers* Exs 467 

Roach 9. Karr 584 

Robb 9. Mudge 276 

9. Shephard 88 

Bobbins 9. Ayres 257 

9. Eaton 69 

9. Martin 664 

9. Roscoe 56 

9. Webb 300, 301 

Roberts 9. Bank 204 

9. Berry 627 

9. Blair 409 

9, Brett 323 

9. Bury Commissioners. 560, 551 

9. Carter 286 

9. Cobb 249, 255 

9. Donovan 385 

9. Ely 238 

17. Fitzallen 261, 268 

9. Griswold 199 

9. Insurance Co 281 

9. Plaisted 695 

9. Scull 302 

9. Security Co 7, 46, 56 

9. Smith 49, 60 

Roberts, Edw., Heirs of 9. Love- 
joy 664 

Robertson 9. Blewett 462 

9. Breedlove 295 

9. Broadfoot 495 

9. Cloud 106 

9. Coleman 692 

r. Frank Bros. Co 731 

9. Hay 863, 859 

9. Lonsdale 244 

9. Moline, etc., Co 631 

9. Reed 268, 269, 266 

9. Roberts 566 

9. Robinson 438 

9. Stuhlmiller 268 

Robinson r. Barrows 515 

9. Beall 452 

r. Berryman 859, 871 

9. Bird 565 

r. Bland 507, 51 1 

9. Boyd 185 

r. Braiden 640 

9. Buck 393 

9. Davenport 323 



cxxii 



TABLB OF CABB8. 



PAGE. 

Robinson 9. Dftviaon. . . . 8£S, 644, 6d9 

V. Ezzell 731 

V, Georgei Ins. Co 449 

i;. Glass 584 

V. Gould 729 

V, Holmes 261, 276 

V. Hosldns 68 

17. Hurst : 199 

17. Jewett 210, 390 

V. Leir 716 

V. L'l^ngle 531 

f7. Lyman 295 

V. McFaul 818 

V. Mandell 466 

V. Mollett 389 

17. Myers 874 

17. Otnmanney 460 

r. l>age 311 

17. t»eyton 780 

r. Perry 295 

V. Phoenix Ins. Co 850 

r. Pickering 888, 890 

17. Reed . : 868, 861 

r. Reynolds 89 

17. State 590 

V. Turrentine 892 

17. Weeks 66, 67 

r. Weller 43 

17. Willoughby 630 

Robinson A Co., Ltd., r. Heuer.. 479 

Robinson, King k Co. 17. Lynes ... 96 

Robison t\ McCraeken 377, 500 

Robson 17. Bohn 331, 342 

17. Dodds 897 

17. Drummond 223, 227, 592 

' 17. Mississippi Logging Co. . . 528 

559 

Roby 17. West 89fl, 615 

Rocco 17. Frapoli 432, 495 

Rochefoucauld t7. Boustead. 7^3, 784 

Rochester r. Levering 743 

r. Whitehouse 832 

Rochester Lantern Co. r. Stiles 

Co 595 

Rock 17. Matthews 492 

Rockafellow i?. Newcomb 735 

Rockville Bank r. Holt 384, 385 

Rockwell 17. Blair Bank 261 

Rockwood 17. Brown 283 

Roddam i7. Morley 774, 779 

Rodemer p. Hazlehurst 337 

Rodenbarger 17. Bramblett.. 269, 271 

Rodes p. Patillo 431 

Rodgers r. Bass 429,431 

r. Comptoir D'Escomte. . . 717 ! 

Rodliff V. Dallinger 113, 123, 592; 

Rodman r. Devlin 876 

V, Thalheimer 679 

Rodriguez r. Bienvenu 420 

Roe 17. Barker 266 

17. Town Ins. Co 867 . 



PAGE. 

Roe 17. Tranmarr 6^6 

17. York . 846 

Roebling r. Lock Stitch Fence Co.. 331 

349 

Roehm 17. Horst 358, 360, 366, 367 

369 

Roger 17. Raines 608 

Rogers 17. Atkinson 633 

17. Blackwell 101 

r. Castle 272 

17. Edwards 631 

17. Galloway College 187 

249, 255 
17. Gosnell 238, 257, 269 

273, 276 

17. Hadley 313 

17. Hanson 608 

t\ Herron 261 

«. Higgins 709, 769 

17. Hill 441 

17. Hosegood 300, 301 

302, 305 

p. Huie 665 

17. Ingham 678, 581 

p. Kimball 820 

p. Lockett 387 

p. Maddocks 479 

17. March 109 

p. Marriott 407, 409 

p. Marshall 453, 735, 742 

— :- p. Parry 474 

p. Pattie 610 

V. Payne 826 

p. Phillips 88 

V, Place 584 

p. Rogers . . . 204, 415, 776, 850 

p. Shaw 858 

p. Skipworth 565 

V. Union Stone Co 257, 259 

p. Walker 101 

Rogers Locomotive Works p. 

Kelley 239 

Rohman p. Gaiser 249, 254 

Rohrbough p. Leopold 718 

Rohrer u. Muller 180 

Rohroflf p. Schultze 695 

Roland p. Gundy 567 

Rolfe P. Flower 227 

p. Wooster 295 

Roll p. Raguet 440, 488 

P. Roll 415 

Roller p. Ott 469 

Rolling Stock Co. p. Railroad Co. 389 
Rollins p. Lashus . ^ 730 

p. Marsh 204, 815 

p. Townsend 879 

Roman p. Mali 606, 736 

p. Peters 382 

Romberg p. McCormlck 292 

Romford p. Canal Co 898 



TABLB OF GAOBS. 



CXZU^ 



PAQX. 

Bommel v. Wingate 604 

Booke r. Lord KenalngtoiL. . 624, 041 

KooeeTelt v, Dofterty 108 

r. Mark , T78 

fiooi V. Pinney 515 

r. Wright 261, 266, 275 

Koper V, Doncaster 889; 890 

r. Holland 810 

V, Johnson 350, 360, 369 

V. Trusteea 661 

Bofloorla v, Thomas 199 

Hobo v. Gould 776 

V. Haydfin 174, 387 

V. Kimberly Co 608 

V, Mitchell 486 

r. Wollenberg 171 

Boeelle o. Beckoneier 498 

V. McAnliffe 500 

RoBeohamn v. Hayes 488 

1?. U. S. Credit Co. . . . 372, 432 

495, 548, 580 

Rosenberg v. Jett 874 

Bosenfield v. Fortler 839 

Rosenheim v. Insurance Co 656 

Rosenthal v. Mayhugh 88, 91, 459 

f?. Weir 571 

Rosewame r. Billing 407 

Rosher r. Williams. 203, 752 

Roes V. Allen 180 

V, Conway 746, 769 

c. Doland 585, 867 

V, Drenkard's Adm 685 

r. Green 406 

r. Kennison 261 

V. Milne 250 

r. Singleton 88 

Ross's Appeal 394 

Rosser v, Darden 114 

Rossiter r. Cooper. 51 

r. Miller 47, 179 I 

r. Walsh 746 ; 

Rossman r. McFarhmd 399 i 

Roazell v, Roszell 639 j 

Roth V. Taysen 350, 360, 369 t 

Rotherham Alum and Chemical 

Co. Re 235, 243 | 

Rothermel v. Bell & ZoUer Co. . . 257 

271, 

Rothmiller v. 8tein 654 , 

Rothwell F. Skinker 257, 277 : 

Rottman v. Wasson 174 

Ronndtree r. Baker 421, 510 

17. Smith 407 

Ronntree r. Lane 175 

Bouse V. Bartholomew 271 

V. Bradford Banking Co. ... 385 

r. Meier 878 

RousiJIon p. Rousillon . . . 479, 480, 508 
Boutledge a Hislop 346 



PAGE. 

BoT^n^o V. DeffararL... 606 

Rowan p. Sharp'a Bifle M^;. Co. . 382 

Bowe «. Bowman. 865 

V. Rand 814 

r. Baper 80 

V. Stevens 388. 

t?. Williams 879 

Rowell V. Bowdl 414 

Rowland v. Boozer 174 

v. Miller 308 

V. New York, etc., R. Co. . 599 

605 

V. Rorke 171 

Rowley r. Bigelow 571, 716 

V. Rowley 93 

Bownson, Re 776, 787 

Boyal r. Lindsay 206 

Boyal British Bank t?. Turquand. 162 

898, 900 
Royal Exchange Assurance Cor- 
poration V, Sjorforsakrings 

Aktiebolaget Vega 483 

Boyal Ins. Co. v. Beatty 10 

Boyalton r. Cushing 841 

Rojer Wheel Co. v. Miller G39 

Boyse v. State Bank 863 

Royston v. Miller 589 

Bubidoex v. Parks 743 

Buble V. Massey 549 

Buby V. Talbott 857 

Bucker v. Donovan 571 

V. Harrington 823 

Ruckman v. Alwood 631 

V. Bergholz 388, 402 

r. Bryan 487 

V. Pitcher 502 

Budd V, Lascelles 666 

Ruddell V. Dillman 585 

Rudeaill P. Coimty Court 864 

Budge V. Bowman 613, 618 

Budolph V. Hewitt 199 

Budulph V. Brewer 863 

Budy F. Ulrich 735 

Bue V. Meirs 249 

Bued V. Cooper 408 

Buflf V. Jarrett 697 

Buffier V. Womack 631 

Buffles 17. Alston 418 

Buffner p. Love 22 

Bugan p. Sabin 721 

Bugg P. Moore 332 

Buggies p. Brock 720 

P. Insurance Co 657 

Ruhling p. Hackett 261 

Buiz r. Norton 112, 115 

— — p. Benauld 25 

Bumball P. Metropolitan Bank... 293 

Bummington p. Kelley 342 

Bumsey p. Berry 406, 409 



cxxir* 



TABLB or CASB8. 



PAQK. 

Rnndle v. Spencer 68 

Runnamaker v, Cordray 876 

Rupley V, Daggett 599, 605 

Rupp V. Sampson 388 

Rural Homestead Go. v. Wildes. . 720 

Rush 9. Dilkff. 262 

Rusk V. Fenton. 88, 102 

Russ Lumber Co. v. Muscupiabe 

Co. 324 

Russell V. American Tel. Co 294 

V, Branham 688 

V. Critchfield 654 

V. Da Bandeira 551 

V. Daniels 215 

r. Davis 779 

V. Durham 748 

V, Falls Mfg. Co. 30 

- V. Langstaffe 867 

V. Longmoor 854 

V, Lytle 832 

V. Reed 850, 861 

V. Russell 447, 735, 792 

V. Shoolbred 386 

V. Southard 630, 631 

r. Stewart 14 

17. Thornton 35 

V. Wakefield Waterworks 

Co 897 

r. Western Union Tel. Co.. 271 

t\ Wiggin 25 

r. Young 573 

Russeirs Appeal 739 

Russell's Application, Matter of.. 205 

Rust V. Larue 452 

Rutenberg v. Main 174 

Ruth i\ Katterman 500 

Rutherford v. Mclvor 575 

Ruthven v. Clarke 285 

Rutland Electric Light Qo v. 

Bates 391, 392 

Rutland R. R. Co. v. Cole 258 

Rutledge r. Qreenwood 10 

Ruzicka v. Hotovy 178 

Ryall r. Rowles 440, 458 

Ryan t?. Ashton 736 

t\ Dayton 339, 548 

V. First Bank 859, 863 

V, Growney 85 

f). Hamilton 468 

t?. Martin 451 

V, Railway Co 389 

V, Smith 70 

V. Ulmer 652 

r. United States 179, 182 

Ryder v. Hulse 89 

V. Loomis 179 

V, Ryder 685 

V, Wombwell 76, 77, 78 

Ryer v. Stockwell 14, 23 



S. 



PAGE, 



I 8. Jarvis Adams Co. v. Knapp. . . 466 
I Sackville-West v. Viscount 

I Holmesdale 643 

Sacramento Co. v. Southern 

I Pacific Co...... 147 

I Saddlery Mfg. Co. v, Hillsborough 

I Mills 469 

Safford v. Grout. 697 

Sagadahoc Co. v. £wing 723 

Sage V. Fargo Township 147 

j t?. Truslow 270 

Saint V. Wheeler, etc, Co 661 

; St. Alban r. Harding 758 

St. Andrew v. Manchcmg 286 

St. Andrew's Church's Appeal . . . 302 
St. Anthony Falls Co. v. Merri- 

man 640 

St. George v. Wake 393» 394 

St. John r. St. John 415 

St. John's Mfg. Co. v. Munger. . . 226 

St John's V, Charles 282 

St. Joseph V, Rogers 137 

St. Joseph's Orphan Asylum v, 

Wolpert 11 

St. Leonard's, Shoreditch (Guard- 
ians of) r. Franklin 131 

St. Louis V. St. Louis Gaslight 

Co 446, 879 

St. Louis V. Von Phul. . 249, 251, 253 
St. Louis Brewing Assoc, v. Mc- 

I Enroe 608 

St. Louis Gas Light Co. v. St. 

, Louis 573 

St. Louis Hay Co. v. United 

; States 177 

St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v, Johns- 

I ton 701 

St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. 

1 Phillips 750 

St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Postal 

i Tel. Co 469 

! St Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. T. H., 

etc., Ry. Co. . , 141, 488 

St. Mary's Church, Case of 160 

St. Paul Co. V. Dayton 161 

j St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co. t?. Black- 

1 mar 573 

[ St. Philip's Church r. Zion Church. 160 

Salbadore v. Insurance Co 23 

Salem v. Anson 633 

Salesbury v. Shirley 299 

Salinas v. Stillman 436 

Salinas v, Wright 52 

Salisbury v. Barton 699 

Salley v. T^rrill 687 

Salmon v. Brown 257 

17. Hopkins 110 

Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. v, Goddard. 179 



TABLB or cases; 



iSEXf 



PAGB. 

SalBbory r. TVaf*.. :-..:. ...-:. 391 

Salt Lake City v, Holliflter 130 

Baiter v. .Bradshaw. 768 

Salton I'. N£w Beeston Cycle Co. 106 

Saltiu V. Belford Co. 104 

Salyers v. Smith 363 

Sammona r. Halloway 798 

Sample v, Barnes 492 

V. Cochran 386 

V. Hale 249, 261, 264 

Sampson ^. Camperdown Mills. . . 409 
V, Madge 577 

r. Shaw 497, 501 

V, Townsend 486 

Sams P. Stockton 79 

Samuel r. Cheney 718 

p. Fairgrieve 199 

Samuels v. Oliver 407 

San Antonio v, Lewis 161 

r. Mehaffy 137 

San Diego R. Co. v, Paoiflo Beach 

Co 389 

San Francisco Bridge Co. v, Dum- 
barton Co 342 

San Juan v. St. Johns Gas Co. . . 200 
Sanforn v. Fireman's Ins. Co 178 

p. Flagler 179 

V. Little 286 

p. Maxwell 877 

p. Neal 120 

Sanders v, Clason 257 

p. Coleman 647 

p. Munson 673 

V. Pottlitaer Co. 48 

p. St. Neot's Union 164 

Sanderson r. Aston 382, 385 

r. Grayes.. .. 789, 799, 824, 825 

c. Morgan 104, 439 

r. Symonds 859 

Sands p. Church 275 

p. Insurance Co 429 

Sandwick Mfg. Co. P. Krake.... 439 
Sanford v, Emory's Adm 345 

p. Gregg 136 

p. Kane 299 

V. Somborger 729 

Sanger p. Dun 589 

V. Hibbard 67 

Sanson v. Rumsey 847 

Santa Clara Co. P. Hayes. . . 468, 482 
Santos r. lUidge.. 507, 609, 510, 512 

912 

Sapp p. Fairdoth 169 

Sargeant v: Solberg 56 

Sargent' P. Baldwin 739 

V. French 891 

r. Southgate 295 

V. Sturm 716 

Sarles p. Sharlow 176 

Barter p. Gordon 763 



Sartwell p. Sowles. .'..... '.;....'. 878 

Sasportas . v. . Jennings 728 

" Satanita " (The) 26 

Satterfield p. Malone 631 

Satterthwaite p. Emley 794 

Sattler 17. Hallock 673 

Saufiey p. Jackson 744 

Saulet p. Trepagnier 386 

Saunders p. Blythe 812 

p. Griggs's Adm 876 

V, Hatterman 692 

p. McClintock 261, 272 

V. Phelps Co 408 

p. Saunders 14 

p. Stewart 631 

p. Whitcomb 206, 311 

Savage p. Blanchard 836, 837 

V. Canning 337, 346 

V. Gregg 286 

p. Mason 300, 301 

p. Sayage 854, 869 

V. Tyers 317 

Sayannah Co. v. Collins 659 

Savannah Ice Co. v. American 

Refrigerator Co 197, 332 

Savannah, etc., Ry. Co. v, Atkin- 
son 335 

Savery v. King 740, 744, 769 

Saville v. Saville 753 

Savin v. Hoylake Ry. Co 410 

Savings Bank v. Bums 403 

p. National Bank 488 

Savings Soc. -P. Davidson 630 

Sawtells P. Howard 879 

Sawyer, Re 380 

Sawyer V. Brossart 43 

P. Campbell 864 

p. Hovev 572, 639 

p. Lufkin 99 

p, Macaulay 780 

• p. Peters 849 

p. Prickett. 292, 689, 692 

p. Sawyer 786 

p. Senn 884 

p. Smith 402 

p. Taggart 408, 409, 493 

Sax p. Detroit Ry. Co 61, 62 

Saxon Life Assurance Society, Re. 678 

Saxton p. Seiberling 470 

Sayers p. Collyer 306 

Sayles p. Sayles 444 

Sayre p. King 383 

Sayward P. Dexter 250 

Scales P. Ashbrook 677 

Scaltock p. Harston 299 

Scanlan i. Cobb 101, 102 

p Grimmer 261, 275 

Scanlon p. Oliver 40 

p. Warren 409 

Scarlett p: Stein 628 

Scarpdlinir. Atcheson 774 



«3WTi 



TAUA or CftSMk 



PiLOS. 

8e*nitt, Hatter of 4in 

Soera r. True 11, IS, M 

ftBhaferman t?. O'Bries 879 

9K^ap8 V. liehner. 102 

Seharf v. Moore 820 

dchawhan v. Van Kest S86 

Se^eftel v. Hays 721, 728 

Sehenectadj Stove Co. r. Hol- 

brook 19, 27, 43 

Schenks v. Strong 84 

Soherer v. Scl^erer 415 

Gchemierl^om v. Talman 509 

- r. Vanderheyde 249 

Seiieuer v. Monash 177 

Sekierman v. Beckett 788 

6ehiffer v. t>ieiz 715 

gehilling v, Mullen 284 

Schimmelpennich v. Bayard 25 

Schintz V. AlcManamy 586, 856 

Schlageck v. Wid'halm 853 

Schlapback r. Lonff 893 

Schlee r. Guckenheimer 408 

Schlegel v, Herbein 673 

Schleicher r. Montgomery I^ht 

Co 62 

Schlicher r. Keeler 66 

SchliesB i;. Grand Rapids 528, 530 

Schloss V, Feltus 717 

V. Hewlett 439 

Schlottman t\ Hoffman 914 

Schmaltz r. Avery 123 

Schmelz v, Rix 856 

Schmid v. N. Y., etc.. Railway. . . 258 

Schmidt p. Glade 256 

• V. Quinzel 852 

V. Reed 628 

Schmitheimer v, Eiseman 82 

Schmitt r. Schnell 361 

Schmucker v. Sibert 241, 261 

Schneider r. Henschenheimer 204 

V. Turner 408 

I?. Verier 175 

V. White 258 

Schnell v. Nell 193 

Schoen v. Houghton 812 

Schoenberg v. Adlei* 409 

Schofleld V. BaAk 140 

Scholeffeld v. Templer 721, 723 

Scholey t. Central Ry. Co. of 

Vefiezuela 709 

t^. Mumford 731 

Sebol field r. Earl of Londes- 

borough 868 

V. Eichelberger . . 427 

Scholtz V. Northwestern Ins. Co. . 49 

Schommer p. Parwell 730 

Schomp t?. Schenck 452 

School Directors t?. Boomhour 678 

School District v. Hayne 342 

r. Howard . . . .*. 652 

V, Livers 27a 



BAool District No. 1 •. Dancby. . 618 

Sokoolfield v. Hirsb 28S 

ao&oaAovcr v. BM|^rtrty 639, 643 

•— — V. Osborne * . 696 

- V. Voochow 780 

Sebotsmans r. Laitcashire and 

Yorkshire Ry. Co 670 

Sebott, In the Goods ol 914 

Scbreyer v. Turner Mills Co 226 

Scbroeder v, Finl^ 215 

V. Kinney 264 

Schryver v. Hawkes. 864 

Schuchart v. Schuchart 158 

Sehuff V. Ransom lOi 

Sebuler v, Israel' 876 

Scbuler v. Myton 210 

Schuite r. Hennessy 549 

Schultz V, Catfin 729 

V. Culbertson 729 

V. Insurance Co 39 

r. ifohnson^s Adm 643, 696 

Schuster v. Kas. City., etc., Ry. 

Co 257 

Schutt r. Missionary Soc 467 

Schuyler v. Hoyle 89 

Schuylkill County r. Copley 584 

Schwalto V. Holmes 469 

t?. Mclntyre 852 

Schwartz v, McCloskey 716 

r. Saunders 537 

V. Wilmer.. . . 860, 861, 866, 867 

Schwarz V. Oppold 872 

Schwarzenbaeh r. Odorless Exca- 
vating Co. 579 

Schwass V. Hershey 633, 637 

Schweizer r. Tracy 716 

Schwenk p. Naylor 696 

Scofield t>. Ford 865 

p. Tomkins : 633 

Scofield, etc., Co. v. State 701 

Scolfield V. Penna. Co 53 

Scollans r. Flynn 409 

Scotland Bank v. O'Connel. . . 867, 868 

Scotson V. Pegg 207 

Scott p. Armstrong 286 

V. Avery 448 

V, Barnes 879 

tJ. Bibo 856 

V. Buchanan 63 

p. Corp. of laverpool 448 

P. Deweese 675 

P. Duffy 511- 

p. Duncan 642 

p. Ebuxy (Lord) 121 

p. Fields 628 

p. Freeland 387 

p. Giflmore 807 

p. Kittanning Coal Co 332 

p. tane ^ 795 

p. Lewis 790 



TABLE OF CA8BB. 



dzvii 



PAGB. 

Beott V. LittlecLale 601 

V. PHJdBgton 24 

V. Sanders' Heirs 876 

V. Sebright 677, 727 

V. lyier 466 

8eott*8 AdBL r. Gill 261 

Scott's Heirs v. Soott 335 

Beotten r. State^ , 603 

Scottish Am. Mortgage Co. v, 

Davis 41 

Scottish Ins. Co. v. Clancy 448 

Scottish Petroleum Co., Re,. . 676, 711 

920 
Seovill r. Bamej. 760 

r. McMahon 524, 626 

r. Thayer 719 

Scribner v. Collar 388 

r. Flagg Mfg. Co 177 

Seullv V. Kirkpatriek 557 

Sea Ins. Co. v. Johnston 39 

Seager, Re 84 

V. Aston 775 

Seaman v. Hasbnmck. 258, 274 

Searing v. Benton 261, 271 

V. Searing . . . . , 89 

Sears v. Grand Lodge. . . 215, 578, 615 

r. Leland 613 

V. Railroad Co. 16 

.. I?. Shafer 745, 768 

Seaton v. Grant 897 

V. Heath 656, 660, 662 

V, Benson 846 

V, Seaton 81 

p. Tohill 66 

Seattle Board v. Hayden 893 

Seayer r. Phelps 101, 102 

Seavey r. Potter 708 

Sebastian May Co. v. Codd 654 

Secor r. Lord 258 

Seearitf Trust Co. v. Dodd 508 

Seddon r. Rosenbamn 176 

Sedgwick v. Stanton 450 

Seear r. Lawson 453, 456 

Sert>erger v, McCormick 119 

Btmx r. Edwards 392 

Seebom v. Hale 391 

Seeiey r. Welles 51 

Seemuller r. Fuchs 109 

Scgars V, Segars 787 

Bdbel V, Vaughan 865 

Seiber v. Price 730 

Seiffert Lumber Co. r. Hartwell. . 274 

Seig r. Acord's Ex 776 

Sei?man r. HoffackpT. . . 257, 259, 276 
Seller v. Economic Life Assoc.. . . . 376 

Seipel r. Insurance Co 548, 550 

Selby V, Case 217 

Selden v. Myers 584 

Self p. Cordell 177 

Religman v, Le BoutilHer 446 

Sellers r. Stevenson 652 



PAOB. 

Selma p. Mullen. 161 

Selsey (Lord) p. Rhoades 746 

Semmes v. Insurance Co 525 

V. Worthingt<« 791 

Sennott t?. Mallin 537 

Serapis, The 119 

Service v. Heermance 725 

Serviss v, McDonnell 258, 266 

Sessons v, Sessons 623 

Seton V. Slade 628 

Setter v. Alvev 488 

Seward r. Ro<£ester 448 

Sewell V, Burdick 303 

V. Richmond 402 

V. Royal Exchange Assur- 
ance Co 494 

Sewers (Commis. of) 9. Reg 536 

Sext V. Qeise ITO 

Sevbolt V. New York, etc., R. R. 

fco; 210 

Seymour v. Armstrong 19, 43 

17. Bailey 430 

V. Bridge 499 

If. Butler 815 

p. Cushway 174, 179 

p. Delancy 753 

c. Detroit, etc.. Mills 377 

<?. Maekay 630 

r. Mickey 854 

p. Minturn 818, 821 

Shaber v. St. Paul Water Co 299 

300 

Shackamaxom Bank v. Yard 383 

Shackleford v, Hamilton 547 

Shadbume p. Daly 213 

Shaddle v. Disbrough 753 

Shade p. Creviston 691 

Shadwell v. Shadwell 207 

Shaeffer r. Sleade 715 

Shafer v. Insurance Co 108 

Shaffer v. MeKee 292 

Shaffner r. Killian 341 

Shafher v. State 64 

Shahan r. Swan 177, 790 

Shaklett r. Polk 427 

Shamp p. Meyer 267, 267 

Shand v. Du Buisson 894 

Shank p. Mingle 411 

Shannon r. Bruner 439 

p. Marmaduke 387 

Shapley p. Abbott 779 

Shardlow P. Cotterell 170 

Share P. Anderson 875 

Sharington p. Strotton 191 

Sharkey p. McDermott 790 

Sharman r. Brandt 123, 388 

Sharon v. Gaeier 747 

p. Sharon 158 

Sharp p. Binnkenship 175 

p. Leach 745 

p. Ropes 301 



cxxvyi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



-- - PAGE. 

Sharp f?. Stalker 492 

— - V. ^ayfoV . 433, 494, 600 

' r.' I'eese 380 

Sharper.' feellis 871 

V. Foy 795 

r. Orme 845 

Sharpies v. Adams 284 

Sharp] ess v, Gummey 699, 703 

Sharp] ev v. South and East Coast 

Ry. Co. . 709 

Shattoclc V. Shattoclc 888, 894 

Shattuclc p. Gay 639 

: r. insurance Co 886 

Shaub V, Lancaster 24 

Shaw V. Carpenter 484 

V. CofBn 84 

F. Foster 231 

V. Gilbert 692, 697 

r. Jeffery 381 

V. Lady Ensley, etc., Coal Co. 570 

V. Pratt 820 

r. Railroad Co 302 

r.. R^ed . . 440 

— -- V. Republic L. I. Co 361 

t\ Silloway 774 

r. Spooner 440 

r.. Rt^te 879 

t;. Thompson 99 

r. Walbridj?e 630 

r. \Yoodcoclc 731, 786 

Sbp\v:> Claim 410 

Shnwmut Bnnlc r. Boston 53!2 

Shea\i{iTi, r. Barry 361, 365, 677 

Shealy r, Tooje 199 

P^ oar r. Wri/jht 559 

Shears r.. We^tover 643 

ci.n.i^ir^sj^, r. Pudweiser Brewing 

Co,,... 375 

Shoel|.in r. AJlen 101 

V. Davis 160 

.r.. Suljivan 735 

Sheeliy.f. Adarene 177, 789 

V. Shinn 408 

Sheer r. Austin 812 

Shceran v.. Moses 324 

Sheers V. Stejn 463 

Sheets t?. 3eldfn 112, 533 

Sheffield v. Ladue 119 

Sheffield (Earl of) v. London 

Joint Stock Bank 294 

Sheffield Nickel Co. r. Unwin 715 

Shelby v. Guy 781 

Sheldon V. Sutler 171 

r. Capron 599 

f. Davidson 689 

V. Fairfax 161 

r. Haxtun 809 

Shell r. Stephens 109 

Shelly r. Mikkelson 324 

Shelton r. Deering 850 

v. Ellis 606 



PAGE. 

Shelton v. Healy. 602 

17. Jackson 211 

r. Johnson 801 

Shepard t\ Carpenter _49 

V. Mills 337 

17. Rhodes 193, 199 

r. Rinks 174 

v. Whetstone . . 858 

Shepard, etc., Co. v. Burroughs.. 717 

Shepardson r. Stevens 335 

Shephard v. Newhall 570 

Shepherd r. Bevin 753 

r. Lewis 832 

V. May . 264 

V. Thompson 206, 777 

Sheppard f. Oxcnford 500 

Shepperd r. Sa^-yer 408 

Sherburne v. Shaw 179 

Sheridan v. Carpenter 8G0 

Sherfy v. Argenbright 431 

Sherley r. Peehl 28, 30 

r. Riggs 461 

Sherman t\ American Stove Co. 675 

^ t\ Sherman t;. Kitzmiller.. 49 

' V. Sherman 844 

Sherman County v. Howard 525 

r. Simons . 137 

Sherraden r. Parker 386 

Sherry v. Picken 173 

Shcrwiu t'. Brigham 210 

1-. Fletcher . : 186 

I r. Nat. Cash Register Co... . 31 

V. Rutland, etc., R. Co 827 

V. Sanders 200 

Sherwood r. Merritt 854 

f. Salmon 691 

i*. Sherwood 914 

I'. Walker 606, 612 

I Shethar r. Gregory 414 

Shewalter v. Pirner 141 

Shewen i;. Vanderhorst 786 

Shields r. Titus 302 

Shillito r. Hobson 218 

Shillito Co. V. Richardson 780 

Shingleur t*. W'estem Union Tel. 

Co 604 

I Ship's Cuse 602 

I Shipley i\ Bnnn •. 1)7 

i V. Carrol 587 

I V. Patton 173 

Shipman r Bank 292 

V. Fumiss 735, 737 

r. Horton 67 

t\ Seymour 679 

Shipp r. McKee HO 

r. Suggett 862, 8G3 

Shirk V. Schultz C^ 

Shirley r. Harris 216 

f. Swafford 864 



TiLBLE OF CASES. 



CZXIX 



PAGE. 

Shirts V. Ovcrjohn 585 

Shisler v. Vandike 443 

Shively «. Semi-Tropic, etc., Co.. 324 

354 

Shively c. Welch 640 

Shiyers r.. Simmona 88 

Shober, etc., Lithographing Co. v, 

Kerting 256 

Shoecraft r. Beard 775 

Shook r. People 657 

Shoolbred r, Roberts 501 

Short r. Price 217 

V. Stone. 368, 359, 365 

r. Stotts 172 

Shorter r. Cobb 420 

Shortle v, Terre Haute, etc., R. R. 

Co 210 

Shotwell V. IIa:mblin 405 

Shoultera v Allen, 102 

Shreve r. Brereton 633 

Shrevea r,. Allen. 201 

Shrewsbury. (Earl of) v, N. Stof- 

fordshire Bj. Co. 437 

Shropshire .r.. Burns 66 

Shuey v. United States 23, 25 

Shufeldt V. Pease 717 

Shulter's Case , 683 

Shupe r. Galbraith 213 

Shurtleff I?. MUlard 67 

V. Dorr 176, 177 

V, Heath 468 

V, Hennessy . . . r, 332 

Shuttler v, Brandfass 689 

Sibley v. Alba 452 

Sibley o. Pelton 46, 47 

Sidall 9. CUrk 484 

Sidenham v. Worlington 200 

Siebert v. Leonard 830 

Siebold i>. Davis; 39 

Siegel V. Eaton A Prince Co 538 

Siegert v, Abbott 419 

Sieydcing v. Litzler 691 

Sigoumey v. Sibley 813 

Silber Light Co. v. Silber 897 

Silberman v. Munroe 699 

Siler r. Gray 543 

Sill r. Reese 854 

.Sillem V. Thornton 669 

Silliman v. Gillespie 664 

V. Railroad Co 136 

r. United States 728 

Silsbee r. Webber 747 

Silsby Mfg. Co. v, Chico 51 

Silverthom r. Wiley 200 

Simar p. Canaday 692 

Simonds, Em parte 580 

Simmons r Atkinson 867, 868 

p. Clark 834 

r. Headlee 790 

ix 



PAGS. 

Simmons r. More 119 

t?, Simmons 677 

Simmons Creek Co. v, Doran 639 

640 
Simmons Medicine. Co. v. Mans- 
field Drug Co 419 

Simms t?. Hervey ^ 855 

V, McClure 102 

Simon r. Goodyear Co 708, 709 

Simonds v. Heard 108 

Simons v. G. W. Ry. Co 587 

V. Patchett 119 

Simons i?, Vulc Oil Co 389, 676 

Simpkins. v* W.indsor 873 

Simpson t?, Crippin 328, 329 

t?. Denison .896 

. V. 5ggi^gton 593, 841 

r. Evans ....... r .-206 

V, Qarlanid . ^ . U9 

V. ^a^ 293, 786 

f?. Lamb 453, 455 

— — V, Lord Howden 412, 437 

. t?. Nance 171 

V. Prudential Ins. Co 67, 68 

V, Roberts 443 

r. Sheley.. 870 

t?. Simpapn . . 415 

t?, .United States 528 

Simrell f, .Miller 779 

Sims r. Alabama Brewing Co 482 

17. Bond . . 114 

V. Everhardt 69, 82 

r. Ferrill 689 

r. Hutchins 786 

Vn Lq.ndray 182 

V, Sims 98 

Simson v. Brown 256 

Sinard v. Patterson 827 

Sinclair v. Bradley 169 

V, Healey . . , 716 

V. Richardson 170 

Singer v. Schilling 708 

Singer Mfg! Co. r. Draper. . 402, 496 
r, Rawson 747 

t?. Sammons 716 

Singerly v. Thayer 51 

Singleton v. Bank of Monticello. . 408 

480 

V. Bremar 411 

r. McQuerry 862, 863, 871 

Singleton's Adm. v, Kennedy 681 

Sinsheimer v. Garment Workers. . 490 

Sioux City Co. v. Trust Co 142 

Sioux City Stock Yards Co. v, 

Sioux City Packing Co 835 

Sirrine v, Briggs 873 

Simsey v, Eley 412 

Sissung r. Sissung 685 

Skaaraas r. Finnegan 120 



cxxx 



TABLE or CUB8. 



PAOK. ' 
Bbeate «. Beale 728 

Skeet V. Lindsay 777 

Skidmore v. Bradford 017 

V, Jett 889 

Skiff V, Johnson 486 j 

r. Stoddard 889, 408 ! 

Skilbedc r. Hilton 626, 715 j 

Bkillen r. Water Works Co. . 531, 588 

SkilleU v.. Fletcher 383 

Bkilling 9. Bolknau 302, 717 

SkillingB V. Coolid^ 879 

BkillraaB Hardware Co. r. Davis.. 841 

Bkinn r. Revtter 298 

V, Oeld Mine Co 294 

V. Harker 261 

V. Henderson 602 

9, Maxwell 66 

V. Tirrell 12 

V. Wood Co 194 

EOEobis 9. Ferge 280, 292 

Skottowe «. WiUiams 728 

Skrainka v. Allen 719 

Skyring v. Greenwood 579 

Blade v. Mvtrie 844 

Blade's Case 156 

Blagle V. Goednow -679 

Slater v. Jones 814, 888 

r. Smith 190 

Slator V. Brady 62, 87 

r. Trimble 67 

Slattery v. Sehwanneeke 108 

V. Slattery 945 

Slaughter v. Bernards 850 

Slaughter's Adm. v. Gerson 693 

Blayton v, Barry 92 

r. McDonald 346 

Sleeper t?. Dayis 798, 717 

Slingerland v. Slingerland 791 

Sloan 9. Becker 981 

r. Sommers 282 

17. Williams 595 

17. Wolf Co 698 

Slocmn V. Wooler 436 

Slocumb V. Small 798 

Sloman 17. Cox 869 

17. Walter 632 

Slutz r. Desenherg 631 

Small 17. Boudinot 725 

17. Railroad Co 452 

Small 17. Sehaefer 267, 259 

V, Small 395 

Smalley 17. Greene 177, 595, 789 

Smart t\ Smart 170, 462 

17. Tetherly 240 

V. West Ham Union 165 

V. White 503 

Smethurst r. Mitchell 116 

Smiley r. Barker 824, 825 

t\ Bell 279 



PAGE. 

Smith, Matter ci WiU isf. ... 734, 736 

Smith r. Adm&^of Smith 787 

Smith 17. Alien. 640 

17. Anderson 910 

17. Applegate 437 

17. Arnold 402 

17. AtwDod 729 

r. Bank 679 

17. Bartholomew 204, 821 

V, Bateman 28 

17. Beatty 683 

17. Becker 91 

«. Bfaufldey 501, 503 

r. Bond 892 

V. Bromley 604 

17. Brown 691, 836 

17. Bryan 173 

V. Bumham 174 

17. Cartwright 165 

V, Chadwick 692, 697 

17. Clarke 684 

V. Collins 387 

17. X>>untrymaa 683 

17. Crooks 964 

V. Crosby 631 

V. Cross 866, 266 

17. Cuff 604 

v. Delasf^ 171 

17. Doak 662 

V. Elrod ....!!.'!!!'..'!.'!.' 834 

17. Evans , i . 48 

17. Farmers' Mutual Int. 

Assoc 656 

«. Felter 108, 112 

17. Flack 274 

17. Georgia Lmkb C*. 369 

17. Godfrey 699 

17. Gowdy 19 

17. Gwely 634 

17. Green 794 

17. Greenlee 479 

17. Hale 606 

— ^ 17. Harrison 299 

17. Hartford Water Works. . 121 

17. Holcomb 880 

17. Holzhauer 868 

17. Hughes.. . . 309, 582, 618, 650 

696 

17. Iliffe 643 

17. Jewett 253 

17. Jones 180 

17. Jordan 636, 639 

17.- Josselyn 661 

17. Kay ....693, 697, 733, 734, 

745, 748 
17. Keating 239 

17. Keith Coal Co 331 

17. Kelly 816 

17. Kerr 827 



or 



cttti 



PAOS. 

AnithOiXiag tl 

V. lUtobeiu fS8 

0. lABd amd House Property 

Corporation 6$9 

— r. Ledyard -W 

V. Lewie 827 

V. Lindo 404, 988 

«. liTiiijSBtoii 281 

— 17. Loomie 824 

V, Los Angeles, etc., Ay. €o. 266 

r. Looae 68, 817 

V, M^Leafe 881 

— V. BficLeod 888 

9. MeNair «54 

V, liaee 870 

V. AfopleUek 818, €86 

«. llarrablt ^78 

9. Mawhood 402, 408 

V. Meekanios' S«& 282 

9. Meere «8 

V. Morse 187 

«. tteHl^ 178, i81 

-i t>. NieoUs i 877 

— V, Osfeermey«r -261 

•. Oweas 1IT8 

». ^ean 878 

V. Peoria Co 888 

9. Phillipe 204 

' 9. Pf eree W! 

V. Pleasant Plains Scfaool 

District 982 

r. Pntaam 174 

«. Railroad Co 446, 850 

V. fiobsoh 52 

V. Saynrard 171 

9. Skeeley 141 

' V. Sherman 847 

V. I^lenee 81 

V. Smith. . . . . 247, 248, 860, 895 

406, 564, 678, 685, 864, 870 

■ V, Sorfay 892 

V. Steele. 384 

9. Steely 440 

— "^ v. 'Sterritt 285 

9. Sweeney 743 

■ 9, Thompson 456 

t7. Tramel 443 

9, Tyler 204 

9. Xniman 470 

9. United SUtes 860 

9, Walton 913 

9. Webster 44 

9, Wetmore 362 

9, Wheatcroft 591 

9, Whildin 205 

9, White 487 

9. Williama 298 

9, Wrison 313 

9. Wyatt 211 

Smith's Appeal 4A3 



PAGE. 

SnHtlili Case. . 675, 688, 488, 708, 786 

Smith's Ex. e. Railroad Co 775 

Smith, Kline ft French Co. 9, 

Smith 690 

Smith Typewriter Co. 9, Stidger. . 592 

Smithers 0. Junkier 49, 50, 52 

I Smock tz. Smock 178 

9, Tandy 173 

I Stttoofs Case 354 

I Smout 9. nbery 106 

Smull 9, Jones 470 

Smurthwaite «. WHkins 803 

I Smutzer 9» Stimson 444 

Smyth c. Ames 125 

9. Field 408 

f?. 'Gfliilin 412 

- — V. Munroe 68 

Snavfily «. Pickle 631 

Shead 9, Deal 890 

Sneed 9. .Sakfaml Co 659 

Snell 9. Dwight 500 

V. Insaranee Co 578 

— — 9. Ives 256 

SnelliDg's Will, Be, 786 

Snevily m. Read 199 

Sniddr «. Adams Express Co.. 265, 268 

V. W4lley * . * 440, 488 

Snook 9. Georgia Imp. Co 136 

Snow 4>. Alley 848, 718 

9. Church 877 

9. mx 128 

9. HutcMBB S8 

' 9, Insurance Co 657 

Snowhitl 9. Snoi^ll €8 

Snowman <r. H«rford <tt7 

Snyder ^. lAubach 102 

9. Ph»ro 842 

9, ReoBO 654 

■ 9, SmnmcTs 268 

9, Wolfred 174 

Snyder^ Adm. i^. McOomb''s Ex.. . 877 

Soaps 9, Bichberg 854, 863 

Society 9. Brumfield 34 

! Socie^ of Friends 9. Haines .... 262 
I Society of Practical Knokledge 9, 

I Abbott 125, 132 

; Sohier 9, Loring 883,385 

Solaiy V, Stnltz 204 

Sole 9. Hines 346 

i Solinger v. Barle 880, 504 

1 9, Jewett 610 

' Solomon 9. Dreschler 402 

Solomon's Lodge v. MontmoUin .. . 160 
Solon 9. Williamsburgh Bank.867, 868 

Soltau r. Gerdau 719 

Soltykoff, Re, Ex parte Margrett. 80 

Sommeraett's Case 481, 510 

Sondheimt?. Gilbert. 408, 409, 486, 511 

Sonstiby 9, Keeley 257 

Sooltan Chund i>. Schiller 347 



czxzii 



TABLB or CA8B8. 



PAGE. 

6007 adt. State 060, 661 

Soper V. Arnold 672 

V. Baum 777 

V. Gabe 824 

V. Peck 685 

Soper Lumber Co. v. Halsted Co. . 713 

Sornberger v. Lee 778 

Sortwell V. Hughes 486 

Sottomayor v. De Barros 306, 397 

South African Trust Co., Re 350 

360, 369 
South Baltimore Co. v. Mullbach.174 

South Bapt. Society v. Clapp 160 

South Gardner Lumber Co. v. 

Bradstreet 361 

South Hetton Coal Co. v. Haswell 

Coal Co 46 

South Hetton Coal Co. v. N. E. 

News Association 130 

South of Ireland Colliery Co. v. 

Waddle 162 

South Side Planing Mill Assoc, v. 

Cutter, etc., Co 257, 271, 277 

South Yorkshire, etc., Co. v. G. N. 

Ry. Co 896 

Southall V. RigK 580, 769 

Southampton (Lord) v. Brown.. 109 

232 

Southard v. Boyd 436 

V. Curley 640 

Southern Bldg. Assoc, v. Price. . . 337 
Southern B..& L. Assoc, r. Casa 

Granda Co 142 

Southern Cotton Oil Co. t?. Heflin. 349 
Southern Development Co. 1;. 

SiLva . 687, 691 

Southern Ex. Co. v. Platten 130 

Southern Ins. Co. v. Tumley 448 

Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton 446 

V. Prosser 778 

Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrison. . . . 495 

Southey r. Sherwood 419 

Southwell V, Bowditch Ill 

Southwell V. Breezley 605 

South worth v. Flanders 120 

Sovereign v. Ortman 787 

Sowards t?. Moss 180 

Sowers i?. Parker 690 

Spackman v, Evans 901 

Spader v. Mural Decoration Co. . . 548 

Spafford r. Warren 88 

Spaids V. Barrett 728 

Spalding v. Archibald 784 

V. Ewing 434, 436 

V. Irish 880 

V. Rosa 543, 545 

Spangler v. Danforth 180 

r. Dukes 850 

Spann r. Cochran 258, 267 

Sparenburgh f>. Bannatyne 430 

Sparks 17. Despatch Transfer Co. . 110 



PAGE. 

Sparks'a Will, 1^, 736 

Sparliiig r. Brereton 800 

r. Marks 607, 608 

Sparman . r. Keim 63 

Spaulding r. Crawford 729t 

r. Davis . 275 

Speake t?. United States 866 

Spear v. Bank 171 

V, Griffith 19ft 

Spear v. Orendorf 790 

Spears v. Hartly 77& 

Specialty Glass Co. v. Daley 21 L 

Speck V. Dausmah 444 

Spedding.r, Nevell lift 

Speed r. Hollipgworth 695l 

V, May 285^ 

Spiers v. Union. Forge Co... 350, 363 

Spelts V. Ward 684 

Spence t?. Chodwick 630 

v.. Healey 836 

V. Steadman 631 

V. Wilmin^rton Cotton Mills. lOa 

Spencer t?. Harding 13, 1& 

V. Morris... 440 

r. St. Clair , 34a 

r. Sanduslq^ 663 

t?. Spencer 11, 393 

Spencer's Appeal 387. 

Spencer's Case..^ 298 

Spicer r. Earl 68 

t?. Martin 301, 305 

Spier I?. Hyde 815, 834. 

Spiller V, Paris Skating Rink Co. 12 L 

Spink V. Co-operative Ins. Co. . . . 448, 

Spinks V. Davis 377. 

Spinney r. Downey 46 

r. Hill 78ft 

r. Miller 275 

Spitler t?. James 867. 

Splidt V. Bowles 298 

Spofford t\ Spofford 880 

Sporrer t\ Eifler. 798 

Sprague v. Edwards 622. 

r. Poster 178 

t\ Rooney 486 

V, Tyson 891 

Sprankle t?. Truelove 595 

Spring Co. r. Knowlton 502. 

Springer r. Kleinsorge 684 

r. Toothaker 380 

; Sprott V. United States 431, 489 

Spr>'e r. Porter 450, 453, 454, 455 

SpuVgeon V. McElwain 486 

; Spurr t\ Benedict 663, 672 

I V. Cass . 124, 235 

' Spurrier r. La Cloche 448 

; Squire v. Tod 334 

V. Whitton 224, 661 

Squires r. Hydliff 68 

' — V. Squires 416 

Staats t;. Bergen 387 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXZXlll 



PAOS. ' 

Stae^ 9. F068 601' 

SUc7 i' i^tate Bank 205 

Stafford v. Bacon 109 

r. Btaunton 677 

Stafford (Mayor of ) 9. Till 166 

Stahelin r. Sowle 342 

Stahl V. Berger 867 

V. Van Vleck 35 

StahUchmidt v, Lett 776 

Staines v. Shore 684 

Stainton p. Brown 52 

Stakes v. Baars 332 

Stamey r. Western Union Tel. Co. 54 

Stamper r. Hayes 813 

V. Temple 3, 2o5 

Standard Cable Co. r. Stone. 862, 872 

Standard Co. r. St. Louis Co. 469 

Standard Furniture Co. v. Van 

Alstine . 486 

Standifer v. Bush 876 

Stanford v\ McGill 361, 365, 367 

V. Treadwell 880 

Stangler v. Temple 14 

Stanley v. Dowdeswell 44 

p. Epperson 845 

V. Jones 453 

V. Southwood 880 

Stanley Co. r. Bailey 194 

Stans p. Bartley 158 

Stanton r. Eager 571 

V. Haskin 451 

- V. Kenrick 261, 271 

- V. Tattersall 611, 669 

Staples r. Qould 408 

r. Schmid 565 

Star Fire Insurance Co. v. Bank. 292 

Star Glass Co. v. Langley 605 

Star Publishing Co. v. Associated 

Press 469 

Starbird r. Cranston 256,261 

273 276 

SUrin r. Kraft 827^ 836 

Stark V. Duvall 361 

p. Raney 495 

Stark's Adm. p. Thompson's Exs. 842 
Starr r. Bennett 688 

p. Blatner 863 

p. Lashmutt 737 

State r. Adams 658 

p. Allen 558 

— - r. Berg 853 

r. Bittick 158 

v. Brown 509 

p. Butler 199 

p. Carver 442 

p. Chitty 461 

P. Churchill . 856, 857, 871, 872 

V. Cincinnati Fertilizer Co. 129 

1311 

V. Cobb 866 I 

V. Collier 438 I 



PAGE. 

Stete P. Craig 858, 860, 871, 872 

— p. Davenport 204 

Dean 863, 867 

Ducker . 690 

Elting . 438 

Findley . .' 8o7, 860 



P. 
p. 
p. 
p. 
p. Frank' 



64Q 
p. Gherkin 866 

p. Griswold 860, 872 

p. Groves 886 

p. Hastings 294, 440 

p. Hearn 286 

p. Horn 557 

p. Hughes 886 

V. Jefferson Turnp. Co 675 

V. Jenning . 284 

r. Johnson 434 

p. Kennedy 397 

V. Loomis 249, 253 

p. Lowell 64 

p. McGonigle 868 

p. Matthews 586 

p. Miller 864 

p. Murfreesboro 131 

p. Nebraska Distilling Co.. 468 

p. Nelson 728 

V, Passaic Soc 131 

V. Portland 130 

p. Purdy 438 

p. Railroad Co. . . 129, 130. 131 

p. Richmond 61 

p. Robinson 590 

p. Ross 609 

p. Rousseau 69 

V, St. Louis ft S. F. Ry. 

Co. 266, 257, 267 

p. Shattuck 397 

p. Shinn . ,... 172 

p. Smith 867, 861 

p. Swinney 383, 

p. Towle 464, 465 

p. Tripp 855, 856 

p. Tutty 397. 

p. Van Pelt 857 

p. Welbes 062 

r. Williamson 439 

p. Wilson 158 

p. Worthingham 158 

p. Worthington 552, 553 

r. Young 856 

State Bank v. Buhl 575 

p. Hutchinson 729 

V. Shaff'^r 869 

State Board v. Railroad Co 142 

State Trust Co. p. Turner 720 

Statham v. Ferguson 743 

p. Insurance Co 428, 429 

Stavner r. Joyce 874 

Steacy p. Railroad Co 720 

Stead p. Dawber 823 

Steam Nav. Co. p. Weed 142 



czzziv 



TABLfi or CABBB. 



PAGE. 

SteamtAiip Co. v. BnrekliarAt 716 

Bteams r. Cope S79 

V. Felker 451, 452 

V. Reidy 452 

V, Wiborg 877 

StebbiiiB r. Bruce 284 

V. Crawford 1^ 

V, Morris 92, 415 

^ V, Niles 813 

jP. Palmer 547 

- — V. Union Pac. R. R. Co. ... 284 

Stedman v. flart ^ 

Stedwell r. Anderson 577 

Steed V. Calley 745 

V. Steeds 827, 836 

Steele v. Biggs 628 

V. Branch 627 

r. Clark 256 

r. Cnrle 486 

' V, Friers<xi 45^ 

■ V. Harmer 145 

V, McElroy 110 

V, Spencer 866 

V, Steele 196, «6 

V, Waiiariw 731 

I?. Worthhigton 749 

Steele-Smith Co. f?. Fotttiast.... 116 

Steeley's Creditors v, Stedey 708 

849, 861 

Steene ». Aylesworth 259, 269 

Steere v, Brownell 879 

Steers r. Steamship Co 53 

Stees 17. Leonard 528, 827 

StefBam i;. >Iilmo Bank 586 

Steman v. Harrison ^23 

Stensgaard v. Smith 35 

Stenton v, Jerome 408' 

Stephen t?. Beall Wl 

V, Alabama Co <J91 

V. Davis S65 

t?. Follctt 598 

V. Graham 860 

r. Muir 275 

V. Ozboume 749 

V. Southern Pac. Ry. Co. . , 514 

r. Venables 286 

Stephenson v. Arnold 789 

t?. Ewing 402 

V. Piscataqua Ins. Co 449 

Sterling r. Baldwin 174 

V. Simiickson 465 

Sterling Remedy Co. v. Wyckoff . . 421 
Stem V. La Compagnie Qenerale. 780 

Sternberg r. Bowman 378 

Stemberger v. McGovem 666 

Sterne r. Bank 9 

1?. McKinney 386 

Sterry r. Clifton 438 

Stetson r. Insurance Co. . . . , 659 

Steuben Co. Bank v. Mathewson. . 441 
Stevens v. Benning 223, 596 



PAGE. 

Sterens v. BHler 114 

V, Breiman 717 

V. Coon 524 

r. Gushing 341 

V. Flannagan 249, 262 

r. Gidding «63 

V. Gourley 403 

V. Hewitt 777 

p. Hohnan «34 

V. Moore 725 

V. I%iiadeh>hia Ball Gub.. 145 

V, Railroad Co 135 

T. Stevens 286 

Stevens' Est., Re 589 

Stevens Inst, v, Sheridati 272 

Stevensoh r. Gray 397, 509 

17. MftcLean .... 27, 31, 84> 35 

V, Newidkam 716, 717 

V. PettU 120, 496 

t^. Polk 343 

Stewart, Re W 

Stewart r. Alliston 601 

-p. Bradford 215 

17. Casey 200 

17. Conrad's Adm "91 

17. Eddowes 181, 021 

V. Emerson . 670 

17. Erie, etc., Ttimspoitation 

Co 133 

17. First Nat. Bank .. . . 866 

17. Gordon <J39, 640, 041 

17. JI. ft T. C. Ry. Co 452 

r. Hidden -844 

17. Hopkins 798 

17. James River & Kanawha 

Co 268 

■ V. Kennedr 673 

t?. Keteiai 20'4, 649 

17. Xioring 55*4? 

17. McFarland 778 

r. Marvel 50 

r. Mather 888 

17. Parker 383 

r. Schall 407 

t\ Stewart 395, 67«, 615 

r. Stone 536, 639 

17. Thayer 483 

V. Waterloo Turn Verein. . . 131 

r. Welch 462 

- t\ Wyoming Rancne Co. . . . 681 
Stewart's Case (Agriculturists' 

Cattle Ins. Co.) 001 

Stewarts Case (Russian Vyk- 

sounskv Ironworks 602 

Sthreshly r. Broadwell 879 

Sticken v. Schmidt 890 

Stickler r. Giles 200 

Stikeman t?. Dawson 82, 85 

Stiles V. Laurel Fork Co 778 

17. Probst 857 

17. Willis 640 



table: of CA^fM* 



CXXXY 



PAOS. 

StUk V. UjTiek 2M 

fiftill 9^ l^u^Q*. S77»4S8 

Stfllian k Turner ^7 

StUliiiui r. Wicklkm 3B2 

Stillwell r. Glasscock i^O 

p. Patton .' 8Y3 

Btnaat V. Stilson 444 

Stilwell 9. Aaron 3^3 

V. Wilkhw 749 

StimpBon r. Bishop 299 

p. Maiden 66fl 

6tin€9 r. Dorman 302 

Stites f . Thompson 202, 27T 

Stitt V. Huidekopers 27 

btiverA V. Tucker 88 

Stockbri^^ r. DaiQoii 295 

8tockbrid^ Iron Co. v, Hudson 

Iron Co. 634 

Stockdalo v, Onwhyn 419 

Stocker v, Insuranes Co 656 

Stocks r. Dobson 283 

bcocksdale «. Schuyler 346 

Stockton Saving ft Loan boc. v, 

Harold 262 

Stoddard v. Doane 778 

V, Ham 5, 692 

V, jtfeAuliffe 60i 

^— p. Penniman . 859 

Stoddart v. Smith 664 

Stogdon 9. Lee 96, 888 

Stokes V, Anderson ; . 444 

V. Baar 323 

V. Bums 708 

V. Detriek 283 

V. Goodykoontz 581 

9. McKay 361 

StoUenwerck v. Thaeher 202 

Stone V. BeUows 634 

V. City and County Bank. . . 719 

V. Clarke 573 

V. aay 405 

V. Dennison 68, 789 

V, Godfrey 678 

V. Hackctt 218 

V. Hale 636 

t?. Nichols 346 

v.Tyree 791 

V. White 863 

Stonebumer v. Motley 201 

Sioner v. Ellis 873 

c. Weiser 392 

Stoney v. Insurance Co 144 

Stoney Creek Woolen Co. v. Smal- 

ley 392, 690, 691 

Stong V. Lane 699 

btoner's Trusts 96 

Storck V. Mesker 204 

Storey v. Lofloui 25 

V. WtMHe 620, 645, 726 

Storrs 9. St. Luke's Hospital 456 

0t«y «. Saloman 406 > 



PAGE. 

Sttory p. Springer .T 6U 

vl Sfery^:: 176 

Sterz i;. ^nklestein 486 

Stoudenmeier v. WUIiamson 204 

Siough V. Ogden. , 874 

Slout f>. Eni^is 78^ 

V. Folger 270 

S4outenburgh i;. Konkle 708 

- 17. Lybrand 444 

Stovall V. McCutchen 469 

Stover V. Bounds 630 

' p. Eycleshei'mer 459 

-: — V, Mitcheir 579 

Stover's Adm. v. Wood 690 

Stow V. Russell 816 

V. Steel 622 

Stowe V. Flagg 140 

Stowell V. Eldred 108, 110, 112 

V. Grider 891 

V. Hazlett 786 

v. Robinson '. . . . 823 

Stowers v. Hollis 176 

Strand v. Griffith 695 

Strange v. Brennan 452, 454 

p. Houston, etc., Ry. Co. 282, 294 

Stratford Gas Co. v. Stratf ord.522, 523 
Straughan v, Indianapolis, etc., R. 

R. Co 176 

Strauss v. Insurance Co 140 

t>. Meertief 350, 363 

V, United Telegram Co 145 

V. Wessel 302 

Strawbridge v. Railroad Co 383 

Stray v. Russell 524 

Street v. Blay 334, 342, 598 

V, Goodale 257 

V. Rigby 446, 879 

Stribley v. Imperial Marine Insur- 
ance Co 656, 657 

Strickland v, McCuUoch 336 

V. Turner 614 

Stringf ellow v. Somerville 462 

Stringfield v. Heiskell 596 

Strobridge Lith. Co. r. Randall . 19, 47 

Strohauer p. Voltez 270 

Strohecker v. Grant.249, 258, 259,276 

Strohn v. Railroad Co 54 

Strong p. Darling 402 

V, Foote 79 

p. Kamm 258, 269 

p. Marcy 249, 253 

p. Menzies 393 

V. Sheffield 49, 50, 213 

i>. Strong 282, 631 

Stroud V. Smith 438 

Strouse v. Elting 182 

Struble v. Hake 256 

Struthers v. Kendall 864 

Stryker v. VanderbiH 206 

Stuart V. Baker 68, 175 



czxxyi 



TABLB OF CASKS. 



PAGB. 

Stuart V, Blum . .- 378 

Vi Diplock 480 

V. Landers 167 

V. Sears 676 

Stubbings r. Evanston 631 

Stubbs V. Holywell Rv. Co 648 

Studda V. Watson. . T 182 

Studley v. Ballard 206 

Studwell y. Shapter 82, 83 

Stuht p. Sweesy 200 

Stump V: Gaby 769 

Stuxnpf i;. Stumpf 680 

Sturge i;. Starr 698 

V, Sturge 750 

Sturgis V. Preston 581 

Sturlyn v. Albany 193 

Sturm V. Boker 28, 688 

Sturtevant v. State 462 

Stuts V, Strayer 382 

Stutz V, Handley 689 

Stuyresant v. Western Mtge. Co. . 261 

273 

Styles V, Long Co 264, 276 

Swan V, Caffe 893 

Suber v. Pullin 340 

V. Richard 778 

Suffell V, Bank of England . . 865, 866 
Suggett's Adm. v. Cason's Adm. . 177 

Suit v. Suit 815 

Sullivan v. Boley 346 

V. California Realty Co 864 

V. Horgan 483 

V, McMillan 361 

V. Murphy 257 

V. Rudisill 862, 863 

V. Shailor 112 

V. Sullivan 219, 249, 251 

Suman v. Springate 88 

Summerall v, Graham 343 

Summers v. Griffiths 740 

V. Hibbard 623, 528, 539 

V, Hutson 281 

- V. Vaughn 199 

Sumner v. Seaton 791 

- V. Sumner 440 

V, Williama 624 

Sumpter v. Hedges 327, 346 

Sun Ins. Office v. Varable 631, 532 

Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ocean Ins. 

Co 657 

Sun Publishing Co. v. Moore .... 632 

Superior Land Co. v. Bickford 187 

Supervisors v. Schenk 144 

Supple V. Iowa State Ins. Co 345 

Supreme Assembly «. Campbell . . 744 
Supreme Council v, Forsinger... 449 

V. Garrigus 449 

Supreme Lodge r. McLaughlin. . . 658 

Surcome i\ Pinniger 792 

Surles V, Pipkin 99 



PAGE. 

Surman - v: Wharton.'. 97 

Susquehanna; etc.; Co. v. People. . 131 
Sussex Peerage <:ia8e. . .307, 398, 400 

Sutch'B Est...., 199, 200 

Sutherland v. Reeye 281 

v. Wyer 363 

Sutphen v. Siitphen 176 

V, Crocer. 501 

Sutter V, Rose. 721 

Sutton V. Dudley 215 

V, Grey 171 

V. Hayden 467 

V. Head 469 

V. Tyrell 549, 873 

V. Warren 509 

Sutton's Hospital Case.. 126, 133, 141 

Suydam v, «Jadcson 631 

V. Vance 385 

Swafford v. Ferguson 66 

Swain v. Seamans 821, 823 

Swisland v. Dearsley 667 

Swan, EsB parte 295 

v. Benson 816 

V, Chorpenning 370 

V. Mathre 692 

V. North British Australa- 
sian Co 291, 586 

V. Railroad Co 17 

V. Swan 399, 609 

V. Scott 492 

Swansea Friendly Society 129 

Swanston v. Morning Star Mining 

Co 451 

Swanzey v. Moore 789 

Swarm t?. Boggs 630, 631 

Swartz V. Ballon 866, 856 

Swasey t?. Vanderheyden 81 

Swazey v. Choate Mfg. Co 345 

Sweatman v. Parker 257 

Sweeney v, McLeod 436 

Sweet V, Brackley 780, 876 

17. Desha Lumber Co 176 

V. Kimball 730 

V. Lee 786 

V, Parker 631 

p. Sweet 415, 417 

Sweitzer v. Heasly 215 

Swenk i?. Wykoff 439 

Swett V. Stark 292 

Swift v. Bank 292 

V. Bennett 80 

V, Jewsbury 701 

V.Kelly 685 

V. Rounds 690 

V. Swift 176, 462 

V. Tyson 291 

V. Winterbotham 703 

Swift Co. V. United States. . .731, 732 

Swigert v, Tilden 468 

Swim V. Wilson. 663 



TAtLt OF CASBtL 



czxxvii 



PAOS. 

Swindott Wktertrt>lrk0 Co. v. Wilts 
and Berks Caiutl Navigation Co. 138 

Swiney r. Barry 853 

Swing V, Munson 402 

Swire 9. Frtecis 700 

Switaer r. Skiles 387, 470 

Swobe v; New Omaha Electric 

Light 327 

Sword V. Keith 176 

v: Toung 502 

Sydney ft Co. r. Bird 676 

Sykes v. Beadon. 600, 910 

V. Chadwick . 104 

Sylrius v, Kosek 640 

Symee r. Hughes 503 

Symmes v. Frazier. 14 

Synge «• Synge 360, 467 

T. 

Tabor r. Cerro Gordo, The 876 

t;. Cilley 577 

Taddiken v, Cantrell 866 

Taddy r. Sterions 298 

Taft V. Sergeant 60 

Taffue r. Hayward 790 

Tain tor r. Prendergast 109 

Tait V. Insurance Go 428 

Taite v, Goslin 300 

Talbot r. Bowen 174 

f>. Pettigrew 19 

V, Staniforth 744 

V, Wilkins 256 

Talbot's Devisees v, Hooser 749 

Talbott r. English 839 

V, Luckett 392 

f?. Stemmons' Ex 195 

Talcott V. Henderson 679 

Taliaferro v. Day 260, 253 

Talley r. Robinson's Assignee. . . . 753 

798 

Tallman v. Coffin 298 

Talpey v, Wright 704 

Tamplin r. James 601, 602, 605 

606, 753 

Tancre v. Pullman 740 

Tancred r. Delagoa Bay and East 

Africa Railway Co 279 

Tanner r. Merrill 211 

Tapley v. Tapley 729 

Tappan r. Aylaworth 743 

Tappenden p. BaQda)l 602 

Tarbell v. Box^nan , 610 

Tarbox v. Gotzian 197 

Tardy v. Creasy 304 

Tarleton r. Baker 501 

p. Bank 430 

Tamer v. Walker 23 

Tarr r. Smith 716 

Tartt i^. Negus. . .*. 158 

Tasker P. Bartlett. 558 

p. Shepherd . 644 



PAGX. 

Tasker v. Small. 226 

Tatam p. Reeve. . . . 407, 409, 409, 912 

Tate p. Fletcher. 870 

V. Foshee 174, 176 

p; Hawkins 775 

p. Jones 791 

v: Pegues 498 

p. Security Trust Co 717 

p. Williamson 734, 742, 746 

Taussig V. Hart. 388, 389 

Tayloe p. Merchants' Fire Insur- 
ance Co 31, 39, 40, 886 

Taylor, Ew parte 69 

P. Acom 863 

t>. Ashton 682 

p. Atwood 750 

p. Bell Soap Co 490, 500 

p. Bemiss 462 

r. Bowers 602, 603 

p. Brewer 49 

p. Caldwell 530, 532 

636, 644, 648, 666, 668, 559 

P. Castle 296 

p. Chester 497 

p. Chichester and Midhurst 

Ry. Co 139, 515 

P. Cottrell 729 

• p. Crowland Gas Co 403 

p. Deseve 177 

p. Deverell 634 

p. Drake 172 

P. Oilman 452, 625 

p. Gould 776 

p. G. E. Ry. Co 782, 783 

p. Hassett 18 

P. Hinton 451 

p. Hollard 778 

p. Hunt 776 

p. Hutchins 429 

p. Jaques 440 

p. Johnson 862 

P. Johnston 61, 746 

V, Jones 886 

p. Leyy 487 

p. Lincumfelter 11 

P. Longworth 627, 628 

p. Manners lOo 

V. Mayhew 421 

P. Meads 887 

r. Miss. Mills 679* 

p. Nostrand HO 

p. Owen 304 

p. Page 292 

P.Pa^ 226 

P. Pells 498 

p. Portington * • • • 48 

p. Pngh.V. ^^^'^li 

p. Rennie •.: • ^^ 

p. St. Helens (Corporation 

OfV • ' 318 

- r. Short. v.. '»» 



czzx?iii 



TAB^B OF CASBS. 



PAQB. 

Taylor v. Smith 178 

V. Taintot 651 

I?. Tkylor 735, 861 

V. Weeks 215 

r. Whitmore 260 

Taylor's Eatote '. 408 

Taymon v. Mitchell 608 

Teass r. St. Albans 175 

Teeumaeh Nat. Bank r. Best 257 

Tedri«k v. Hiner 402 

Tegler v. Shipman 886 

Teipel i?. Meyer 197 

Telegraph Co. r. Barnes 385 

Tell City Co. t?. Nees 62 

Temple 17. Johnson 791 

Temple Bank v. Warner 631 

Tenant t?. Elliott 498 

Ten Eyck r. Manning 66 

p. WTiitbeck 744 

V. Pawcett 50 

Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank. 720 

r. Tennents 749 

Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. 

Rudy 267 

Tenney v. Lumber Co 160, 623 

Tepoel r. Saunders County Bank. 725 

Tercese r. Geray 847 

Terrett v. Taylor 127 

Terrill r. Auchauer 61 

Terry v. Birmingham Bank 389 

r. Brightman 248, 249 

V, Durant Land Co 260 

V. Hazlewood 864 

V. Hopkins 393 

r. Tuttle 688, 593 

Terry & White's Contracts, Re.., 665 

Tesson v. Insurance Co 636 

Tete tJ. Lanaux 644 

Teter r. Teter 158 

" Tentonia," The 543 

Texas r. White 431 

Texas Cotton Press ft Mfg. Co. r. 

Mechanics' Fire Co 205 

Texas Oil Co. r. Adoue 469 

Texas Printing Co. r. Smith 860 

Thacker r. Hardy 406, 407 

V. Key 466 

Thackrah p. Haas 713 

Thallhimer r. Brinkerhoff 461 

Thames Haven, etc., Co. v. Hall.. . 165 

Thatcher r. England 23 

r. Morris 607 

Thayer r. Burchard 197 

p. Daniels 281, 285 

r. Knote 614, 618 

V. Luce.. . 108, 112, 175, 181, 182 

©. Marsh 261 

r. Star Mining Co 629 

r. Thayer 395 

Theiss p. Weiss 3 

Theobald p. Burleigh 6£4 



PAOB. 

' Thepold P. Deike 86l( 

Theus^ V. Dujgft* 893 

Thibodeau p. Hfldreth 46a 

p. Levasseur 780 

Thiedemann p. Goldsclumdt 292 

Thiis p. Byers 527 

Third Bank p. Hastings 384 

p. Owen 661 

Thomas, Re, Jaques p. Thomas. . . 454 

■ P. Armstrong 176 

p. Atkinson 115 

P. Barnes 35, 204 

p. Beals 706 

p. Brewer 778 

p. Brown 92, 415, 786 

p. Casey 778 

V. Cauftett 445 

V. Coultas 710 

p. Cronise 488 

p. Davis 625 

p. Knowles 536 

p. McCue 346 

p. Railroad Co. . . . 142, 143, 573 

r. Richmond 503 

p. Stewart 332 

p. Sweet 391 

p. Thomas 9, 186, 192, 696 

p. Thomasville Club 11 

p. Turner's Adm 741 

Thomas Mfg. Co. p. Prather. . 256, 267 

277 

Thompson P. Adams 795 

p. Bertram 261 

p. Cheesman 262 

V. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co 841 

p. Conover 336 

p. Cummings 496 

p. Davies 470 

V, Dearborn 261 

p. Dulles 628 

p. Elliott 816 

p. Gaffey 550 

p. Gordon 250, 252, 273 

p. Harvey . 608 

p. Hawkes 746 

p. Hudgina 199 

r. Hudson 632 

p. Insurance Co 688 

p. James 883 

p, Kelly 109 

p. Lambert 140, 142 

V. Lm 770 

9. Libby 700 

p. Marshall 460 

p. Milligan 402 

p. New England Co 101 

p. Percivial 211 

«. Powles 430 

p. Reed 780 

p. Reynolds 450 



TA^^ QV CAIV«. 



CXX^Vf 



PAQS. 

-— 1p, Jtflfe . , .TTVV: . 298, 679, 710 

— r— r. Stevens 50 

**.*- t?. Thompson 29%, 828, 849 

-*-^ V. Universal Salvage Co... }4$ 

V. Westbrook 335 

-^- V. Wharton 434, 436 

V. Whitmore 641, 643 

V, Williams 488, 857 

Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Hawes. ... 11 

Thomson v. IHivenport 107 

r. Eastwood 725 

V. Kyle 361 

V. Miles 359 

V. Poor 174 

V. Weems 658 

Thorington v. Smith 431 

Thorn r. Mavor of liondon 529 

V. Pinkiam 441, 747 

Thomborow v, Whitacre 521 

Thomhill v. O'Rear 601 

Thomley v. United SUtes 308 

Thornton v. Appleto|i 854 

V. Bank.: U\ 

V. Guioe 169 

r. Kelly 180 

r. Kempster 604 

V. Missouri, etc.. By. Co. . . 206 

r. Ogden 745, 750 

r. Wynn 607 

Tboron v. The Mississippi 659 

Thoroughgood v. Walker 633 

Thoroughgood^s Case 683, 588 

Thorp t. Keokuk Coal Co 261 

r. Smith 392 

r. Stewart 170 

V. Thorp 397 

ThraU v, Wright 79 

Thresher v, Stonington Bank 334 

345 

Tbrupp r. Fielder 69 

Thummel v. Holder 855 

Thurman v. Wild 841 

Thorsby v. Plant 298 

Thurstan v, Nottingham Perma- 
nent Benefit Building Soc. . 72, 74 

Thurston r. James 813 

V. Percival 450 

Thwaites v. Coulthwaite 494, 500 

Thweatt V. Bank 141 

r. McLeod 709 

Tibbetts v. Flanders 786 

V. West & South Ry. Co. . . . 174 

Tioe V. Freeman 182 

Tschener, lU. . « 280 

Tiedemaan, Re 107 

llemeyer r. TumqvuBt BOO 

Tier v. Lampson 106 

Tinman r. Roland 627 



PACT. 

Tiemey v. McGaxitx. . . , 2^6 

j^iffany v. Boatman s Institution. ii42 

f iffin Glass Co. v, Stoehr 548 

Tift V. Quaker City Pank 220 

liger V. Lincoln 812 

Tighe V. Morrison 171 

, Tildon 17. Stilson 299 

, Tileston r. Newell 125 

I Tilley v. Thomas 627 

I Tillinghast v. Boothby 4^8 

I - — V, Lumber Co 888 

Tillman r. Searcy 400 

Tilton V, Alcott 832 

I Timken Carriage Co. v. Smith... 608 

• Timlin v. Brown 541 

I Tingle r. Fisher 281 

, Tingley v. Bellingham Co 180 

, Tinken v, Tallmadge 119 

Tinker v. Hurst 380 

Tinkler i\ Swaynie 269 

Tinn r. Hoffman 6, 29, 30 

Tirrell v. Freeman 378, 380 

Tischler v. Kurtz 827 

Tisdale v. Bailey 394 

Tison r. Howard 302 

Titcomb r. United States 10 

V. Wood 716 

Titus r. Poole ; 692 

r. Rochester Ins. Co 689 

Tobey t?. County of Bristol. . 446, 879 
V. Robinson 496 

V, Wood 04 

Tobin V. Central Vt. Ry. Co 110 

Toby r. Brown 876 

Todd V. Grove 787, 746 

r. Kentucky Land Co 14^ 

V, Leach 344 

r. Lee 890 

V, McLaughlin 344 

V. Meyers 801 

V. Raffert/s Adm 500 

t\ Railroad Co 88 

r. Weber. . 22, 35, 249, 251, 253 

Tode V. Gross 468, 409 

Toker v, Toker 738 

Tolhurst 17. Associated Portland 

Cement Manufacturers .... 223, 594 

Tolman 17. American Bank 592 

Tolmie v. Bean 60, 204 

Tomblin P. Cullen 409 

Tome V, Railroad Co 701 

Tomlin r. Hilyard 174 

Tompkins v. Dudley 528 

Tomson r. Judge 770 

Tone 17. Columbus 88 

Toner r. Wagner 864 

Toof V, Brewer 803 

Toomer r. Rutlahd 870 

Toomey v. Nichols 879 



GXl 



TABLB OF CA8B8. 



PAGE. < 

Topham v. Moreeraft 800 i 

Topliff V. Topliff 673 

Toplitz V. Bauer 206 ' 

Toppin t'. Lomas 822 

Tornado, The 630 

Torrance v. Bolton 611, 665, 660 

Torre r. Torre 643 

Torrence v, Shedd 462 

Torrence v. Campbell.. 268, 250, 266 

Tottenham v. Emmett 766 

V, Green 762, 763, 760 

Totterdell v, Fkreham Brick Co. . 808 
Touche V, Metropolitan Ry. Ware- 
housing Co 235, 243 

Tourville v, Wabash R. Co 876 

Towers v. Barrett 334 

Towie V. Dresser 67 

r. Leavitt 684 

Town V, Rice 202 . 

Towne v, Thompson 673 

r. Wiley 84 , 

Towner r. McClelland ?02 

Townsend v. Cowles 680 

r. Coxe 60S 

V. Cowdy 676 

r. Felthousen 600 , 

V. Gowey 206 

V. Hargraves 782 

r. Jemison 780 

r. Long 268, 260, 266 

t?. Minford 178 

r. Rackham 240, 260, 252 

t;. lyndale 775 

p. Vanderwerker 700 

Townsend's Case 884 

Townshend v. Stangroom. . . . 634, 638 

Towsley v. Moore 789 

Townson v. Moore 736, 744 

Tracy v. Keith 87 

V, Kerr 877 

V. Sackett 760 

r. Talmage 486, 603, 604 

Trader r. Lowe 60 , 

Traders Bank r. Steere 488 

Traders' Nat. Bank p. Parker... 214 , 

Traer v. Clews 456 

Traflford r. Hall 205 

Traflet v. Empire Life Ins. Co 877 

Traill r. Baring 697, 600, 020 

Train v. Gold 36, 103, 405 

Train r. Kendall 608 

Trainer r. Trumbuli 77, 80 

Trainor r. Phcenix Fire Ass. Co. . 448 

Trammell r. Ashworth 693 

r. Vaughan 361, 365, 547 

Transportation Co. v. Dater 54 

Tranter r. Hibbard 850, 860 

' Traphagen's Ex. v, Voorhees 193 

828 



PAOS. 

Traub r. MiUiken 114 

Travelers' Ins. Co. v, Johnson 

City U 

V. Redfield 344 

Travers v. Crane 106 

V, Dorr 264 

Travis v. Ins. Co 27 

Traylor v. Cabann^ 180 

Treadwell t?. Stote 600 

Treat r. Hiles 363 

V. Smith 384 

V, Stanton 241 

Trecy v, Jefts 618 

Tremper r. Hemphill 864 

Trenery «. Goudie 301, 602 

Trentman v, Wahrenberg .-. . 460 

Trenton Co. v. Clay Co 630 

Trenton v, Pothen 108 

Treswaller v. Keyne 817 

Trevor v. Wood 30, 40 

Trigg V. Read 676 

I?. Taylor 866 

Trigge r. LavalUe 216 

Trimble v, Elkin 873 

r. Hill 406, 601, 012 

p. Reid 682 

p. Strother 272, 274 

Trimyer p. Pollard 776 

Trinkle P. Reeves 335 

Tripler p. Campbell 630, 631 

Tripp p. Hasceig 640 

Trist P. Child 436, 436 

Triit's Adm. p. Colwell's Adm... 283 

Trotter p. Erwin 775 

p. Heckscher 332, 340 

p. Hughes 262, 265 

p. Str<mg 383 

Trounstine p. Sellers 30, 37 

Troup p. Horbach 720 

p. Lucas 806 

p« Goodman 634 

Trovinger p. McBurney 413 

Trowbridge p. Wetherbee 174 

Troy Fertilizer Co. P. Logan 180 

True p. Ranney 98, 500 

Trueblood p. Trueblood 66 

Trueman p. Loder 106 

Truesdell p. Lehman 677 

Truett P. Wainwright 861 

Trull p. Eastman 450 

p. Skinner 630, 840 

Trumbull p. Brock 204 

r. O'Hara 607 

p. Tilton 378 

Trumpu r. Trumpu. . .*. 300 

Trundle P. Riley 205 

Trust Co. p. Bear Valley Co 488 

Trustees r. Anderson 275 

p. Bennett 528 



TABLE OF CASES. 



oxU 



PAGE. 

Ttnstees r. Brooklya Fire Ins. Co. 176 

V. Fleming 187 

V. Galatian 496 

V. Ganrey 186 

r. HaakeU 187 

r. Insurance Co 177 

V. Lynch 302 

V. McKechnie 160 

V. Mulford 161 

V. Nelson 187 

V. Thacher 306 

V. Walrath 633 

V. Wheeler 282 

T^Ton 9. Hart 815 

Tuck V. Downing 690, 602, 603 

Tudcer v. Andrews 303 

V. Bennett 642 

V. Billings 332 

-^— V. Linger 316 

V. Madden 640 

p. Magee . 605 

V. Moreland 63, 68 

V. Ronk 215 

V. Vowles 305 

V. West 809 

V, White 691 

Tuffree v. Polhemus 174 

Tufts r. Brace 174 

V. Lamed 640 

V, Lawrence 349 

©. Weinfeld 349 

Tttggles p. Callison 816 

Tnlane v. Clifton 828 

Tulare County Bank 9. Madden. . 261 

262 

Tnlk V. Moxhay 304 

Tullett V, Armstrong 888 

Tullis p. Jacson 289, 426 

Tunison r. Bradford 217 

Tupper p. Cadwell 74, 77, 79 

Tumbull p. Strohecker 776 

Turner p. Baker 175 

p. Beggarly 295 

— ^ p. Billagram 854 

p. Collins 644, 735, 769 

p. Gaither 69, 79 

p. Goldsmith 638 

p. Green 651 

p. Harvey 618 

p. Haupt 695 

p. Insurance Co 720 

p. Kerr 631 

p. LorilUrd 179 

p. Lucas 108 

p. McCarty 259 

p. Rqmall 802 

p. Sawyer 390 

p. Turner 815 

P. Welwter 606, 606 



PAGE. 

Tumock p. Sartoris 447 

Turnpike Co. 'P. McNamara 798 

p. State 131 

Tuson p. Crosby 827 

Tuthill p. Wilson 110, 116 

Tutt p. Hobbs 112 

p. Ide 731 

p. Thornton 864 

Tuttle p. Armstead 170 

p. Burgett 173 

V. Holland 486, 886 

p. Railroad Co 136 

p. Swett 178 

Tuxbury p. Miller 380 

Tweddell v. Tweddell 260, 744 

Tweddle P. Atkinson. . . . 233, 243, 244 
Tweeddale v. Tweeddale. 250, 273, 274 
Tweedie Trading Co. p. James P. 

Macdonald Co 530 

Twenty-third St, Church p. Cor- 
nell 42, 187 

Twenty-sixth Ward Bank P. 

Steams 662 

Twistleton p. Griffith 756 

Two Sicilies (King of) v. Wilcox. 131 

Twopenny P. Young 875 

Tyars P. Alsop 770 

Tjrers P. Rosedale Co 825 

Tyler P. Ames 61 

V. Carlisle 486, 487 

V. Freeman 109 

p. Sanbom 387 

p. Tyler 395 

p. Yates 759, 760 

Tyrell P. Painton 734 

l^son p. Doe 346 

P. Dorr 812, 814 

p. Tyson's Exs 736 



Ubben p. Binnian 408 

Udall p. Metcalf 499 

Udell p. Atherton 680 

Uhler p. Cowen 632 

p. Semple 674 

Uhrig p. Williamsburg Ins. Co. . . 448 

Ullman p. Meyer 178 

p. Thomas 786 

Ulmer p. Famsworth 11 

p. Ryan 662 

Ulrich p. McCormick 106 

Underbill p. Horwood 749 

Underwood p. Barber 479 

p. Barker 426 

p. Hitchcox 753 

p. Lovelace 841 

p. Patrick 780 

p. Underwood 212 

Unf ried p. Heberer 88 

,Unger p. Smith 260 



c^lii 



TABU or C4«WI. 



PAGE. 

Ungl^y v. Ungley-, 707, l»0 

Vaion Bank v. C^U 8t2 

— — p. Cook 861 

— i— 17. Geary 214 

V. German Ins. Co.. 688 

Ui^ion Banking Co. v. Martin's Es- 
tate , . 862 

Union Ins. Co. v. Berlin 390 

r. Central Trust Co.. . . 361, 369 

446 
Union L. & E. Co. v. Railway Co.. 507 

Union Lock Co. r. Towne 135 

Union Mining Co. r. Bank 160 

V. Rocky Mountain Nat. 

Bank 404 

Union Mut. L. I. Co. v. Hanford. . 264 

269 
Union Nat. Bank r. Carr 408 

p. Grant 384 

V. Roberts 863 

Union Pac. Co. v. Anderson 448 

V. Artist 624 

Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Baker. . . 877 
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., 

R. Co 140 

V. Metcalf 257, 268 

Union Ry. Storage Co. v. McDer- 

mott 257, 26§ 

Union Stave Co. p. Smith 496 

Union S^ove Works v, Caswell . . . 264 

Union Strawboard Co. r. Bonfleld. 468 
United Press P. New York Press 

Co 49 

United States p. Addystone Pipe 

Co 372 

r. American Bonding Co. ... 661 

r. Barker 430 

V. Behan 337, 550 

r. Bufbrd 27fi 

r. Charles 61-^ 

r. Cheeseman JS'* 

r. Coffin 73f; 

r. Dalles Military Road Co. 698 

p. Dietrich 514 

V. Freel 382, 857 

p. Gaussen 383 

V. Gleason 528 

■ ■ V. Grossmayer 427 

p. Hatch 853 

V. Huckabee 728 

— -— P. John Kelso Co 130 

p. Joint Traffic Assoc 468 

V, Knight Co 425 

V, Lyman 875 

p. M'lntyre 384 

p. Mai linckrodt Works 468 

V. National Surety Co 250 

r. Nelson 855 

p. Olnev 406 

p. Peck. 363, 549, 650 

P. Pond 40 



PAGE. 

UnitAd Steles v. Q^^igbKf 49T 

--— V. Railroad Co 87S 

-rrr- V. Rodgers 609 

r. Ryder 443 

-r^— V' Sauy^^ 4G2 

V- Sum^ojui 443 

p. Simons 14 

r y. Spalding ... 854 

-p. Trans-MiBBouri Assoc . . . 420 

468 

p. Union Pac. Ry. Co 460 

p. Van Fossen 557 

■ V, Vaughan 285 

V. West 845 

United States Co. p. Provident Co. 426 
United States Fidelity Co. v. 

Charles 440 

United States Glass Co. r. West 

Virginia Flint Co 382, 852 

U. S. Mortgage Co. r. Henderson. 215 
United States Raisin Co. v. Griffin. 468 

Unity Bank, Ex parte 86 

Universal Life Assurance Co., Ex 

parte 289 

Universal Stock Exchange v. Stev- 
ens 408 

i\ Strachan 408, 502 

University p. Hayes 874 

Unruh i?. Lukens 735 

Updegraft p. Edwards 29« 

Updike n. Campbell 487 

r. Ten Broeck 176, 789 

p. True 199 

Upington p. May 385 

Upper San Joaquin Co. v. Roach.. 813 

820 

Upperton P. Nickolson 629 

I'pshaw p. Gibson 83 

Upton p. Archer 855 

r. Englehart 675, 688 695 

701, 706, 720, 724 

r. Jackson 709 

p. Tribilcock 576, 589 676 

688, 723, 724 

Upton Mfg. Co. r. Huiske 608 

Urmston r. Whitelegg 468 

Urquhart v. Brayton 262 

p. Mucpherson 715 

Usher r. Waddinghara 107 

Utah Optical Co. p. Keith 532 

Utley p. Donaldson 654 

V. 

Vace Valley Co. r. Mansfield. 686. 855 

Vacuum Brake Co. p. Prosser 341 

Vail P. Foster 26^ 

p. Reynolds 70'J 

p. Winterstein 892 

Valentine p. Bell ' 800, 204 

P. Conali 72 



VAilLB 0* CASB8. 



ezUU 



PAO. 

VtlflMiev. Flih : ttj 

-^ — i\ Limt Ti 

V. Stewtlri 441 

ValUnM 9. Blagdea 41S 

VftllAiidiagham 17. JMnHmn. 6S 

Valldtt p. Tillmali:'. 382 

VaUcMlf V. Tedens 300 

Valley Citjr Milling Co. t^.PraHge. 541 
VaUey By. Co. r. JLako Bri« I»ob 

Ca : 579 

Valpeor f. Rea 101 1 

Van Aradale v. Howard 000 

Vanasae r. Reid . ,.,.. 453 

Van Ankm v. nomfac k 844, 859 

Van Brocklen v, Smeallie 330 

Tan Brunt r.. MUmer 875 

Vanbrunt r. Singley 586 

Van Buren v. Di^pea 651 

Vanbuflkirk v, Hartford Ins. Co.. . 285 

Van Bnakirk v. Warren 285 ' 

Vance v, Anderson 631 

V. Lowther ... . • 866 , 

V. Railroad Co i 130 , 

V. Word 82 I 

Vtn Clere v. Berkey 720 

7an Cott p. VaaBntni 720 

Vandcigrift 9. Gonrltib Engineering 

Co. . 3^3, 365^ 861, 548» 505 

Vanderb^ 9. Rochester 670 

— V. Vanderbedc . s 844 

VanderbUt v. Sqlireyer 204, 210 

Vanderfaaize v. Hngues 630 

Yanderheyden v, B&llory 893 

Van Deusen v. Sweet 101 

VandiYer r. Hodgei 775 

V. PoVLak 496 

Van Duzor v. Allen 716 

Van Dyke r. Wilder 839 

jUn £man v, Stanehftrid 241 

Van Ctia v. fiyenson 855 

Van Fleet v. Sledj^ 640 

Van Horn v, 19ann .99 

— ^ V. Kitteltas Coiihiy 445 

iTan Home v. Bick 384 

V. Watrons * 448 

Van Honten r. Morse 677, 681 

Van Keuren v. Corkins 282 

Yanmeters' Ex. 9. Vanmeters. 246, 258 

Vail Kote 9. Cook 448 

Vannby 9. Psittbn 402 

VUi nttt^ 9. Beais 101 

Vlii Plslf b. Coi^dne 67 

VIA RtS^dk 9. Gotidliae 850 

?&& Sktat 9. W%lt 88 

tkh Sklitvoord 9. Smith 821 

flA Sehai^ 9. Raflroad Co. 226, 276 

Tatt ifaik^ jMobbuis 61 

Vlll8ideM»l^:W^il;Af^ftCo... Y86 
flAsittart 9. Vansittort. . 02, 415, 462 

VlfcTaetor 9. State. ;....... 4W 

V&&VediteB9.8inith tol 



PAOB. 
Van Vleek 9. Van Vledt. ..;....: 492 

Van Voorhis i^. Brittf tiall . ; 8^7 

Van Wifik«» &. 6«IMHkfJd. 875 

V^ Wyek 9. A41eB. 653 

VaHey 9. Whip]^. i . . . . . . 864 

Wmfer <?. Carson 750 

Viirney 9. Brewster 878 

VksoA 9. Bell.... 231 

Vass 9. Riddiok 6lElO 

Vassar iK Campt m^ 80, 41 

Vassault 9. Edwards, .v 181 

V«Bse V, Smith » . . 82, 83 

Valighan 9. Fowler............ 861 

•— 9. Thomas T54 

9. Vaaderstegen 88T 

Vaughn '9. Hemdon 878 

— - 9. Marabte 460 

9. Baker 109 

Veach 9. Thompson 727 

Veazey 9. All«ll. : 436 

Veazie 9. Williams 684» 701, 722 

VeHch 9. Russell 801, 803 

VenaUe 9. Brown 786 

V^t 9. Osgood 67 

Ventress 9. Smith 567 

V«fdin V. Robertson 604 

Vei^ycken 9. Vandenbrooks . . 206, 728 

Vei'meule 9. Vermeule 809 

Vermont Marble Co. 9. Smith 699 

Vernon 9. Keys. 689, 691 

Ver PUnek 9. Lee 262 

Verrier 9. Guillou 776 

Very «. Levy 830, 832, 834 

Vidkers 9. Electroione Commer- 
cial Co 353, 861 

— - 9. Vickers 879 

Vider V. Ferguscm 341 

Vidita 9. CHagan 65 

Viddard v. Cushman 857 

Viele 9. Hoag 385 

9. Railroad Co 763 

Vierling 9. Bender 547 

9. Iro<}uois Furnace Co.... 312 

Vigel 9. Gatton 409 

Vigfers9. Piteft 715 

9. Sanderson 603 

Viffniau 9. Ruffins ^ . • . 261 

Vilas 9. Downer 4. 802 

Vllfey 9. Pettit Id9 

V8)a 9. Rodriguea . . . . v w 680 

Villet 9. Moler 692 

Yinal 9. Continental Co 612, 877 

Vlnar 9. Insurants Co 180 

Vince, Re..; 49 

Vincent 9. Groom. . « ; 442 

-^— »- 9. Vieths 174 

9. Watson 246, 259 

Villet 9. Bns....;.. i 261 

Viney 9. Bignold 448 

Viillng 9. Bricker; 404 



cxliv 



TABLE or CASES. 



PAOB. 

Violett p. Mangold 408 

Virden v. Murphy 487 

Virginia Hot Springs Co. v, Har- 
rison 47 

Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt 675 

Viser v, Bertrand 200, 444 

Visher v. Webster 867 

Viterbo v, Friedlander 631, 634 

Vittyt?. Eley 14 

Vocke t?. Peters 452 

Vogel V, Melms 171 

V. Pekoe 49,197 

Vogle t?. Ripper 869, 870 

Vogt v. Hedcer 628, 638 

Voisey, Ew parte 401 

Vollf v. Stowell 643 

Voltz V. National Bank 404 

Vondal v. Vondal 685 

Von Storch r. Griflftn 677 

Von Trotba v. Bamberger 174 

Vorhees v. Combs 204 

V. De Myer 664 

i>. Earl 608 

V. Reed 210 

Voris V. Star, etc., Assoc 170 

Vorley v, Cooke 688 

Vosburgh v. Teator 175 

Vose t;. Strong 176 

Voss V, Robertson 302 

Vosser v. Voaser 217 

Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co. 675 

680 

V. Turner 378 

V, Van Blarcom 301 

Vroman v, Darrow 827 

Vrooman v. Turner 250, 256, 266 

Vyne v, Glenn 728 

Vynior's Case 357, 878 

W. 

W. f?. B 505 

W. B. Steel Works v. Atkinson. . 780 
W. & H. M. Goulding Co. v, Ham- 
mond 30 

W. W. Johnson Co. i\ Triplett. . . 679 

Wabash Ry. v. Brow 813 

Waberley v, Cockerell 843 

Wace V, Allen 312 

Wachsmuth v. Bank 130 

V. Martini 698, 699 

Waddell v. Blockey 714 

V, Lanier 742 

Waddington v, Buzby 734 

Wade V, Kalbfleisch 547, 685 

V. Pettibone 387 

V. Pulsifer 722, 737, 770 

V. Ringo 691 

Wadhams v. Gay 218 

Wadsworth v. Henderson 157 

Waeber v. Talbot 662 



Wager r. Link 261» 262 

Wagg r. Gibbons 91 

Waggoner v. MillingUm 8G7 

Waggoner's Est 55 

Wagner i^. iireed 486 

r. National Ins. Co. ...283, 6c^9 

693, 703 

Wagoner r. Watts 71a 

Wahl 17. Bamum 21o 

Wailes v. Cooper 568 

Wain V, Bailey 847 

t?. Warlters 179 

Wainwriffht r. Bridges 420 

V. Queens County Water Co. 249 

254 

V. Straw 347 

Wait r. Pomeroy 865 

Waite i>. Barry 880 

V, Moreland 93 

V. O'Neil 632 

Wake P. Harrop 312 

Wakefield v. Marvin 286 

r. Newbon 731 

Wald V. Arnold 778 

Walden v. Skinner 636 

Waldo V. Railroad Co 675, 701 

Waldoborough r. Railroad Co 136 

Waldorf v, Simpson 853 

Waldy V. Gray 668 

Walker f;. Armstrong 636 

V. Bamburger 28 

t?. Bank 119, 120 

V. Beal 414 

r. Brooks 279 

V, Brown 201 

V, Christian 112 

- V. Davis 83 

V, Ebert 686 

r. Farmers' Bank 630 

V, Gregory 411 

V. Hill 170 

t?. Jeffries 487 

t?. McKay 286 

V, Mayo 380 

t;. Metropolitan Ins. Co. . . . 176 

V, Nevill 833 

V. Nicroei 769 

V, Norton 169 

V. Palmer 387 

r. Parker 728 

V, Perkins 412 

V. Railway Co 294 

V. Smith 786 

r. Swartwout 112 

r. Tucker 636 

V. Walker 396, 414» 415 

Walker's Ezs. v. United States.. 431 

489 

Walkley V, Clarke 867 

Wall V. Arrington 634 



TABLE OF CASBS. 



cxlv 



PAGE. 

Wall V. County of Monroe 147 

r. MeUke 636, 640, 688 

V, Mining Co 226 

V. Muster's Ex. . 587 

V. Schneider 493 

Wall's Appeal 50 

Wall's Case 885 

Walla Walla Co. v. Ping. . . 855, 867 
Wallace v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. . 451 

580 

- V, Cravens 708 

r. Gibson 172 

V. Harmstad 847, 840 

V. Jewell 854, 862 

9. Johnstone 631 

r. Lark 486 

V, Long 780 

r. Morss 83 

V. Rappleye 411 

V. Stevens 174 

r. Tice 854 

V, Townsend 42 

V. Wallace 744, 869 

Wallace's Case 20 

Wallace r. Latham 60 

Waller v. Shannon 870 

r. Staples 664 

Waller's Adm. t?. Marks 215 

Wallerstein v. Ervin 142 

Wallis r. Carpenter 633 

V. Day 476, 481 

V. Smith 310, 632 

Walls V, State 64 

Walsh 17. Association 469 

V. Barton 141, 170, 684 

p. Bishop of Lincoln Oil 

V. Colclough 780 

V. Colquitt 385 

V. Dwight 460 

V, Fisher > 540 

r. Hun 868 

V, Jenvey 337 

r. Mayer 780 

V. Myers 350, 363, 368 

V. St. Louis Exposition 18 

Walter v. Everard 70, 80 

Walter p. James 843 

r. Victor G. Bloede Co 821 

823 
Walters v. Bredin 623 

V, Hutchins 878 

V, Swallow 384 

Walton r. Gaines 63 

V. Horkan 285 

- V, Jordan 173 

©. Lowrey 173 

V, Buggies 270 

Walton Plow Co. 9. Campbell... 870 

Wampol r. Kounts 701 

Wann v. Coe 740 

r. Kelly 500 

X 



PAQE. 

Wannell v. Kern 605 

Warburton v. Storr 878 

Ward V. Allen 443, 850 

r. Bank of New Zealand. . . 386 

V, Cheney 873 

V, Cowdrey 260 

9. De Oca 265 

9. Dulaney 08 

r. Duncombe 281, 284 

r. Hackett 858, 862 

868, 872 

9. Elasbrouck 170 

9. Hudson River Bg. Co 528 

r. Insurance Co 132 

9. Jack 778 

9. Johnson 144 

9. Lumley 848, 851 

V. Morrison 281, 285 

9. Smith 420 

9. Walton 821 

9. Ward 304, 305 

9. Warren 350 

9. Wick 384 

9. Yorba 630 

Warden 9. Railroad Co 380 

Warden p. Jones 703, 705 

9. Reser *. 584 

Warden Coal Washing Co. 9. 

Meyer 197 

Warder v. Fisher 608 

Warder Co. 9. Whitish 584 

Warder, etc., Co. 9. Willyara 870 

Wardrop 9. Dublin, etc., Co 337 

Ware 9. Allen 170, 312 

9. Brown 703 

- 9. Curry 775 

9. Jones 486 

9. McCormack 654 

9. Morgan 120, 215 

Waring 9. Smyth 846, 851 

Waring's Case 230 

Warlow 9. Harrison 17, 18, 20 

Wame 9. Routledge 801 

Warner 9. Beers 206 

9. Grace 205 

9. Landis 584 

9. Southern Pac. R. Co 130 

9. Texas and Pacific Ry 176 

177 

9. Willington 52 

9. Wilson 550 

Wamick v. Grosholz 170 

Warpole 9. Ellison 854, 858 

Warren 9. Abbett 171, 172 

9. Arctic Ice Co 652 

9. Batchelder 240, 250, 271 

9. Branch 660 

r. Buckminster 336 

9. Chapman 484 

9. Fant 384, 866, 871 

9. Farmer 257 



ttm 



^^mxtjk tut tAistA, 



t^Tarfcn I?. Hewitt wi 

V. Hodg^ fe04 

p. La^ton S60, 873 

V. Lyons 362 

V. Mayer Mf^. Co. . ^1, 822, 8^3 

V. Saxby 802 

r. Sklnii^r 211, 813, 834 

V, Smith 170 

V, Wagbier 531 

V. Whitney 109 

V. Wilder 268 

V, Williainson 215, 578 

Wartcnder v. Warrender 416 

Warrick r. Smith 634 

Warriner v, Rogers 219 

Warring r. Williams 867 

Warrington r. Early 8B4 

Warters P. Herring 338 

Warwick v. Brace 61, 66 

V, Cooper 64, 65 

p. Richardson 877 

Wasatch Mining Co. t?. Crescent 

Mining Co 648 

Washburn p. Dosch 789 

r. Fletcher 39 

r. Interstate Investment Co. 253 

258 

Washington v, Ogden 663 

Washington Irrigation Co. p. 

Knitz 436 

Wason p. Wareing 680 

Wassermann v. Sloss 501, 602 

Water Commrs. p. Brown 46 

Water Valley Mfg. Co. p. Seaman. 675 

697 

Waterbury p. Andrews 699 

Waterhouse P. Jamieson 719 

Waterman p. Banks 628 

p. Dutton 634 

p. Morgan 249, 262, 273 

p. Vose 871 

Waters p. feean 199 

p. Reed 735 

Watford and Rickmansworth Ry. 

Co. p. L. & N. W. Ry. Co 447 

Watkins P. Baird 730 

p. Braht 745 

p. Barnes 187 

p. Rymill 54 

p. Nash 312 

Watrous p. Morrison 176 

Watson, J5a? porfe 86 

p. AUcock 196, 385 

p. AtwDod 695 

p. Billings 82 

p. Crandall 699 

p. Cross 80 I 

p. Dunlap 199 

p. Earl of Cfaarlemont 697 

p. Fletcher 500 

p. Ford 342 , 



Whtactt 1^. Jaciftytt. . . . .* 170 

p. Kendall 242 

p. Maban 746 

p. Mkttton 633, 762, 753 

P. Mid-Wales Ry. Cb 286 

p. Murnay 600, 507 

p. Rickard 120 

p. Russell 39, 41 

— - P. Silrt^y B79 

— ^ p. Spratley 174 

Watson Coal, «te., Cb. t?. Caated.. 715 

Watteau p. F^nwiek 113 

Watters p. McOuigan 174, 375 

Wattles p. South Omaha Co 531 

Watts p. French 204 

IS Porter 285 

Waugh p. Bedk 486, 487 

p. Morris 494, 515 

Waul p. Kirkman 181 

Way p. Dunham 384 

p. East 494 

p. Heam 662, 705 

p. Langley 378 

p. Ryther 690 

p. Union Ins. Co 736 

p. Wakefield 347 

p. Wright 558 

Way's Trusts 739 

Wayman p. Jones 261, 264 

Waymell p. Reed 432, 433 

Waymire p. Jfetmore 98 

Wayne's Coal Co. p. Morewood. . . 332 

Weakly p. Hall 451 

Weare p. Gore 119 

Weart P. Hoagland's Adm.. . . 344, 346 

Weatherbee p. Baker 720 

p. Potter 173 

Weatherford Co. P. Granger 121 

Weathersly v. Weathersly 630 

Weaver p. Bentley. 335, 344 

p. Burr 28 

p. Childress 324 

p. Harlan 601, 602 

p. Shriver 708 

Webb, Estate of 218 

p. Armstrong 452 

p. City Council of Alexan- 
dria 576 

p. Corbin 686 

p. Fulchire 499, 603 

p. H^me Bay Commission- 
ers 147, 287, 290 

p. Hewitt 384 

p. Hoselt6n 292 

p. Hughes 628 

P. Jlggs 244, 252 

p. Mullitts 864 

p. Robbins 301 

p. Stephenson 824, 364 

p. Whiffin 297 

Webber p. Donnelly 486, 886 



TASM OF CAMfl. 



cxlrH 



PACO. 

WM>ber r. flow^ (li^ 

: V. St. Paul Ry. €o 547 

W«j«r ». banvtt t4t 

IT. Bridffmui IW 

v. Couch 212 

V. SluLj 4S4, 441 

W*beter r. Cedl t06 

r. Cook 780 

V. De Taste 4BS 

V. Enfield «46 

V. Ekmiag 261, 276 

p, Sanborn 406 

V. Zielly 173 

Wd>ster'e Case 602 

Wtdffwood V. Adams 754 

Weed r. Beebe 69 

V. Black 436 

V. Oberreich 383 

Weedon v. Waterhouse 643 

Weeks r. Currier 682, 701, 713 

V, Hill 444 

17. Hunt 286 

' V. Lippencott 437 

V. Little 651 

V. Mays 547 

V. Propert 119 

r. Robie 345 

V. Weeks 89 

Wcg^ier V, Green^tine 448 

Wegner v. SUte 854 

Wehrman v. Conklin 726 

Weichardt v. Hook 878 

Weidman r. Symes 867 

Weidner v. Hoggett 112 

Weil, Be 699 

Weill V. American Metal Co 353 

Weinreich v. Weinreich 249, 252 

. 269 

Weinwick r. Bender 284 

Weir V. Bamett 702 

r. BeU 700, 702 

Weir Plow Co. v. Walmsley. . 382, 671 

Weis p. Devlin 528, 586 

Wteiser «. Welch 729 

Weislger 9. Richmond Machine 

Co. 709 

Weits p. Independent District 18 

Weloh r.Bunce 67 

p. Mandeville 282 

r. Miller 878 

V. Sackett 66 

Weld p. Lancaster 470 

p. Locke 726 

Weldon p. "Winslow 96 

Welford P. Chane^lor 887 

Welter's Appeal 684 

Wellin|[rt(ni p. Apthor 65, 467 

p. Jackson 443 

p. Kelly 446, 463, 842 



PACOB. 

W^Us p. -Gahmn 636 

p. Cook 704 

p. Hardy 66, 80 

p. Hargrave 778 

p. Hartford Co 861 

p. Houston 104 

p. Kingston-upon-Hull. 165, 173 

p. M^^CJeoch 601 

p. Malbon 93 

p. National Life Assoc 660 

p. Seixas W 

p. Smitji 6^S 

r. Stout 414, 415 

p. Thorman 8^1 

p. Wood 769 

p. Yated 639 

Wellston CoAl Co. p. Franklin 

Paper Co 337 

Welman p. Welman 638 

Welsh p. Gossler 340, 342 

p. Saoe 291 

Welz p. Rhodius 176 

Wenlock (Baroness) p. River Dee 

Co 133, 134 

Wcnnall P. Adney 198, 199 

Wentworth p. Day 14, 23 

Went2 p. Dehaven 844 

p. Meyersohn 834 

Wenzel p. Schult*. 585 

Werdenba^gh p. Reed 786 

Werner p. Padula 531 

Wemli p. Collins 342, 528 

Weacott p. Waller 211 

Wessell p. Glenn 867 

West P. Bechtel 332, 340 

p. Blakeway 826 

p. Camden .' . . . 376, 439 

p. Carter 405 

p. Holmes 601 

p. Houghton 242 

p. Mahaney 634 

p. Morse 82 

p. O'Hara 170 

r. Raymond 453 

p. Reed 630 

j p. Stanley 878 

p. steward 845, 848 

p. Suda 636 

I p. W. U. Tel. Co 257 

, West of England Ins. Co. p. 
Isaacs 533 

, West Feliciana R. Co. t. Thornton. 876 
West Florida Land Co. p. Stude- 

baker 701 

West London Commercial Bank p. 

.Kitson 12^,689 

W. Va. Transp. Co. p. Pine Line 

' Co. 804, 469 

WestbroiA p. Eager 17S 



CXIVIH 



TABLE OF CA8B& 



PAGE. ' 

Westbrook r. Harbeson 634 ! 

Weetcott V. Mitchell 204 ; 

Wester v, Bailey 866, 857 j 

Westerman v. Evans 108 I 

Western v, Russell 754 j 

V, Sharp 337 ] 

Western Ass. Co. v. Hall 449 , 

Western Bank r. National Bank. . 890 
Western Bank of Scotland r. Ad- 
die 701, 703, 714 1 

Western News Co. v. Wilmarth. . 130 , 

Western R. Co. t;. Stockdale 53 | 

Western Ry. Equipment Co. v. \ 

Missouri Iron Co 816 

Western Seminary c. Blair 160 

Western Suburban, etc., Co. v, 

Martin 447 

Western Union Co. r. Semmes . . . 550 
W. U. Tel. Co. I?. A. U. Tel. Co. . 469 

V. B. & S. W. Ry. Co 469 

482, 483 
V. Balto., etc., Tel. Co 469 

V. Dubois 254 

V. Fenton 254 

V. Flint River Co 604 

V. Hope 254 

v. Jones 254 

V, Nat. Tel. Co 469 

V. Shotter 604 

v. U. P. Ry. Co 392 

Western Wagon and Property Co. 

V, West 280 

Westervelt v, Demarest 689 

Westlake r. Adams 193 

V. St. Louis *. 731 

Westmeath r, Salisbury 414 ! 

417, 418 ' 
Westmeath, Marquis of v. Mar- 
chioness of Westmeath... 415, 418 
Westmoreland v. Carson 180 

V, Porter 816 

V. Westmoreland 873 

Weston r. Clark 837 ' 

V, Hunt 127 I 

r. Metropolitan Asylum Dis- | 

trict 632 

r. Mowlin 817 ' 

Wetherbee v. Potter 174 

Wetmore r. Barrett 408 

Weybrich t;. Harris 608 

Weygant v, Bartlett 850 

Whfden v. Brennan 470 i 

V. Gordon 608 ; 

Whaley t?. Dawson 175 j 

Whallen v, KaufTman 624 

Wharton v, Duncan 386 

V. Mackenzie 76 

r. Stoutenburg^ 48, 541 

V, Winch 353 I 



PAGS. 

Whatman v. Oibson 304 

Wheadon t\ Olds 610 

Wheat r. Cross 31, 39, 607 

Wheat V. Rice 158, 266, 272 

t?. Lane 278 

Wheatley r. Slade 668 

Wheeden v. Fiske 816 

Wheedon v, American Trust Co. . 633 
Wheeler v. Dunn 693 

V. Harrison 452 

r. Klaholt 10 

r. McNeil 706, 723 

V. Pounds 451 

r. Russell 402 

I?. Single 850 

V. Smith 751 

17. Spencer 501 

V. State 558 

V. Stewart 250 

Wheeler's Exs. v, Wheeler 459 

Wheeler, etc., Co. v. Boyce 130 

Wheeling, etc., Co. v. Koontz 717 

Wheelock v. Freeman 865 

f?. Moulton 125 

V, Pacific Gas Co 813 

Wheel ton v. Hardisty 657, 699 

Wheelwright v, Depeyster 567 

Whelan v, Ansonia Clock Co 538 

V, Cook 104, 430 

t\ Palmer 312 

r. Sullivan 49 

t?. Whelan 768 

Whelen v. Osgoodby 640 

Wheless r. Bank 130 

Whelpdale's Case 727 

Whichcote v. Lawrence 388 

Whilden v. Bank 25 

Whincup V, Hughes 548i 

Whippen v. Whippen 397 

WTiipple V. Barton 736 

V, Blackington 778 

V. Johnson 775 

V. Parker 177 

Whitaker v. Eilenberg 830 

V. Hawley 531, 532, 533 

V, McCormick 652, 653 

Whitcher t?. State 14 

Whitcomb v, Denio 706, 714, 721 

V, Josl3m 82 

t?. Whitcomb 249, 251, 253 

V. Whiting 779 

White V. Ashton 650 

p. Atkins 324 

V, Bank 602, 503 

17. Beal 708 

V, Beard 324 

V. Beeton 327 

17. Bigelow 792 

17. Bluett 203, 820 



TABLE OF CASB8. 



cxlix 



PAQS. 

White V. Boyoe 108 

V. Breen 182 

V. Bubs 399, 487 

V, Cannon 841 

V. Corlies 32, 34 

«. Cuddon 666 

V, Cuyler 876 

V, Damon 754 

V, Duggan 586 

V. East Saginaw 383 

17. Equitable Nuptial Benefit 

Union 465 

V. Garden 679, 716 

V, Gilleland 601, 602 

r. Goldsberg 88 

V. Graves 698 

V, Gray 830, 832 

r. Hart 421 

V. Hass 870 

r. Hunter 413 

V, Kuntz 378, 380 

r. Lee 194 

V. Life Assoc, of America.. 385 

660 

V. McGannon 753 

t?. Madison 119,120 

V. Mann 543 

V. Middlesex R. Co 449 

r. Miller 653 

V, Molyneuz 531 

r. Mt. Pleasant Mills. . 257, 259 

V. Murtland 176, 177 

r. New Bedford, etc., Co 68 

I?. Oakes 652 

F. O^Bannon 794 

V. Robinson 654 

V. Sawyer 701 

©. Solomonsky 170 

r. Southend Hotel Co 299 

V. Stelloh 607 

V. Thielens 258, 259, 266 

r. Thompson 753 

V, Walker 827 

V. Warren 736 

V, Western Assur. Co 375 

r. Wheland 787 

r. White 431, 645 

r. Whitney 383 

V, Wiley 281 

r. Wilson's Adm 409 

V. Tarborough 409 

White Co. V. Dakin 853 

White Sewing Machine Co. v, 

Saxon 853, 854, 865, 866 

Whitehead v, Anderson 571 

V. Burgess 249, 255 

V, Kennedy 736, 741 

c. TattersaU 877, 878 

Whitehill P. Wilson 816 

Whitdey v, Edwards 94 



PAGS. 

Whiteley's Case 676, 711 

Whitmore i;. Cope 175 

Whiteside v. Tall 286 

Whitesides v. Hunt 406, 409 

Whitfield.!?. Levy 633 

V. Riddle 431 

Whithed 17. J. Walter Thompson 

Co 608 

Whiting 17. Daniel 864 

17. Dugan 50 

Whitlock 17. Heard 707 

p. Manciet 853 

Whitman t\ Citizens' Bank 780 

17. Ewin 439 

V.Merrill 716 

Whitmarsh v. Hall 67 

r. Walker 173 

Whitmer i?. Frye 861, 872 

Whitmore t?. Nickerson 872 

17. San Francisco Sav. Union. 776 

Whitnall v. Bigham 786 

WTiitney i?. Am. Ina. Co 256, 267 

17. Boardman 653 

17. Clary 193 

r. Cochran 452 

17. Cook 834 

V. Dutch 66 

17. Hay 467 

V. Kirtland 452 

V. Railroad Co 301 

17. Spencer 667 

17. Whitney 415 

Whitney Arms Co. p. Barlow 142 

Whitsett 17. Clayton 832 

Whittaker, Ex parte 679 

Whittaker 17. Belvidere Co 263 

V. Kershaw 96, 97 

Whittemore 17. Wentworth 170 

p. Whittemore 667 

Whitten p. Fitzwater 679 

Whittenton Mfg. Co. P. Staples.. 300 

301, 302 

Whittington p. Wright 83 

Whitwell p. Carter 501 

Wickes p. Caulk 859, 866 

Wickham p. Hyde Park Assoc. . . 271 

p. Winchester 33 

Wickiser p. Cook 736 

Wicks p. Mitchell 889 

Widdle p. Lynam 334 

Widgery p. Tepper 89 

Widoe p. Webb 483 

Wiebler p. Milwaukee Ins. Co 176 

Wiedemann p. Walpole 29 

Wieland p. Koebick 82 

Wier p. Batdorf 176 

Wiessner p. Ayer 824 

Wiest P. Gktrman 749 

Wigand p. Sichel 707 

Wiggin p. Bush 380 



d 



TABU or GAttBfi. 



PAOB. 

Wiggin 9. Tador Al5 

V, WifKin 26S 

Wiggins V. Bimbo 600 

r. Day 716 

I?. Keiier • 177, 109 

Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Raflway Co. 200 

Wiggiesworth v, Dallison 816 

Wight V. Railroad Co 805 

V. Rindskopf 508 

Wightman v, Wightman 08 

Wilbur v. Hough 8SD 

«?. How 470 

r. Johnson 172 

V. Stoepel 376 

V. Wilbur 260 

Wilby V, Elgee 218, 216, 777 

Wilcox r. Arnold 200 

V. Bates 631 

V, Cline 27, 41 

V. Jackson 104 

V. Stuart 847 

Wild V. Harris 120, 495 

17. Howe 883 

Wilde r. Fort 334 

V. Gibson 671, 672 

Wilder t?. Adams 104 

V, Aidrich 89 

V. Beede 701 

I?. Cowles 108 

V. Weakly's Eat. 101 

Wildes f?. Dudlow 171 

Wildey v, Bonneys . » 176 

V. Collier 434, 436 

Wilding 17. Sanderson 573, 645 

Wiklrick I7. Swain 761 

Wiley i\ Brown 778 

r. Christ : 850 

r. SUrbudt 141 

Wilfong V, Johnson 335 

Wilhelm i?. Caylor 774 

r. Fimple 335 

t?. Hardman 178 

17. Voss 170 

Wilhite 17. Wilhite 397 

Wilk 17. Key 679 

Wilkerson v. Crescent Ins. Co. . . . 600 

Wilkes Co. t7. Coler 147 

Wilkie p. Womble 787 

Wilkins v. Carter 22 

t?. Wilkinson 102 

Wilkins Mfg. Co. v. H. M. Loud 

Co 43 

Wilkinson r. Blount 345 

V. Clements 326 

17. Evans 180 

t?. Ferree 836 

17. Flowers 775 

r. Gibson 93 

V. Jeffers 205 

17. Johnson 853 



WfUdBSMi 9. LoudoMa^k ;.f^ll6 

-^^ t7. Stitt ^05 

r. Toualey 001 

Willaa V. Wilfaii 628 

Willard 17. Faistham B02 

V. Nelson 888 

V. Stone 88 

V.Taylor 28 

17. Wood 288, 278, 278 

r. Worsham ; . . 268, 276 

I Willcox V, Hlne* 878 

i Willemin v. Bateaon 488, 452 

I 17. Dunn 788 

I Willes p. Carpenter 48 

I Willesford v, Wataon 446, 44T 

I Willey t7. Hodge 848 

V, National Paper Co 400 

I William Bagaley, Hie 429 

I Williams, Ew parte 401 

t Williams, In re 880 

i Williams p. Balfour 280 

— p. Bank 430, 550 

— p. BaHcley 824 

— P. Bayley.... 440, 441, 732, 747 

— p. Bemis 780 

— p. Byrnes 28, 179 

— p. Carle 898 

— P. Carr 407 

— p. Carwardine 18, 21 

— P. Cox 701 

— p. Crutcher 855 

— p. Englebrecbt 488 

I Williams (Doe d.) p. Erans. 468, 460 

Williams p. Flood 784 

p. Fowler 270 

— p. Gait 66 

— p. Given 718 

— p. Glenton 628 

— p. Hamilton 630 

T- P. Hart 296 

— P. Hathaway 122 

— p. Hedley 804 

— p. Helme 286 

— p. Hugunin 892 

— p. Huntington . 291 

— p. IngersoTl 281, 286 

— p. Insurance Co 130 

— p. Jensen 198 

— p Jordan 170 

' P, King 891 

p. Lilley 633 

— - p. Lyman 385 

i p. Mabee 69 

P. Merle 665 

p. Moor 66 

' — p. Morris 665 

P. Naft:?ger 261, 262 

I p. Nichol 252 

- p. Noisseux 835 

! p. North Gertnaa Ina. Co. . 842 



TABLB OF CASKS. 



cli 



PAGE. 

WQIiamB V. Oats 391 

V, Owen 631 

V. Paine 427 

V. Powell 743 

V, Protheroe 457 

V. Bobbins 110 

V. Boblnsoh 180 

V, Rogers 170 

r. Sapieha lOl 

r. Scott 390 

V, Spnrr 683 

r. Urmston 889 

p, Vaaderbilt 543 

v. Van Tuyl 851 

©. Wentworth 99 

r. W«t Chicago Ry. Co 14 

WilliaBis, app., Wheeler, resp . . . 784 

Williams o. Williams 728, 744 

Williama' Case 686, 696 

Williamson v. Baley 486 

- r. Cline 889, 890 

V. Gihpn 469 

f>, lilonroe 390 

p. Railroad Co... 437, 721, 724 

t. Raney 698 

t?. Russell 716 

V. Tjrson 701 

V, Yager 241 

Wllliamscn-Stewart Co. tl Sea- 
man 256,267 

Williamsport v. Commonwealth . . 147 

Willing V, Peters 199 

Willingale 9. Maitland 232 

Willis V. Compress Co 439 

V, Henderson 634 

' r. Hoover 601 

t. Jenldns 914 

V, Roberts 89 

r. Thorp 913 

p. Patteson 430 

WiUmott t?. Barber 791 

Willoughby v. Lawrence 301 

p. Moulton 721 

Wills p. Carpenter 44 

p. Wilson 857, 860 

Willson P. Binford 877 

- p. Love 632 

p. liayor 633 

p. Owen 498, 500 

Wilmot p. Lyon 679 

Wilmoth p. Hensel 23 

Wilson p. Bevaiis 256 

p. Bryatit 270 

- P. Bnell 876 

p. Burke 344 

- p. Burr 200 

P. Carpenter 697 

p. Cline 28 

p. Clonbrock Co 196 

P. Cox 664 

P. Daniel 393 



PAGE. 

Wilson P, Prumrite CSII 

r. Ensworth 411 

p. Finch-Hatton 673 

V. First Presbyterian Church 

249, 255 

p. Gerhardt 209 

p. Giddings 631 

p. Hart 301 

p. Hayes 856, 873 

r. Henderson 856 

p. Hentges 171 

p. Hill 659 

p. Hundley 704, 706, 709 

» p. Insurance Co 617 

p. King 91 

p. Lawren,ce 663 

p. Lewiston Mill Co 182 

p. Lloyd 227, 384 

r. Lunt 256 

p. Miller 586 

p. Monticello .• 661 

p. Powers 205, 206 

p. Railroad Co 53,604 

c. Randall 610 

p. Rankin 489 

P. Ray 176, 504 

- p. Stilwell.. 269, 270, 274, 285 

p. Stump 27 

P. Tibbetts 384 

p. Wall 470 

p. West Hartlepool Ry. Co. 147 

p. Wilson 317, 391, 394 

395, 415, 416, 418, 623 

Wilson's Appeal 734 

Wilson's Gdn. P. Wilson 82 

Wilt p. Ogden 549 

p. Welsh 84 

Wilton p. Chambers 800 

p. Eaton 193, 194 

Wilton k Co. P. Osbom 764 

Wimar p. Overseers 210 

Winans r. Huston 833 

p. Wilkie 260 

Winchester p. Glazier 573 

p. Howard 113 

r. Newton 332 

Winchester Co. p. Veal 496 

Windhill Local Board p. Vint... 440 

442 

Windle p. Hughes 262 

Windram p. French 700 

Windsor f. McVeigh 430 

Winfield p. Henning 301 

Winfteld Bank r. Croco 747 

Wingate v. Hamilton 666 

p. King 721 

Winn p. Albert 794 

p. Bull 47 

r. Lippincott Investment Co. 257 

p. Thomas 378 

Winne p. Reynolds 664 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



PAGE. 

Winnebago Mills v. Trayit 22 

Winnin^hoff v. Witting. 259 

Winnipisiogee Paper Co. v. New 

Hampshire Land Co 854 

Winpenny v, French 436 

Winslow V, Jones 855, 857 

Winsor r. German Soc 448 

Winter v. Kansas City Ry. Co. . . 812 

813 

V, Pool 868 

Wintermute, Exs. of, v, Exs. of 

Snyder 749 

Winterport, etc., Co. v. The Jas- 
per 39 

Winters V. Hub Mining Co. . . 121, 263 
Winward v. Lincoln. 407, 408, 508, 512 

Wirebach v. Bank 102 

Wise V. Fuller 263, 265, 272 

r. Grant 716 

Wiseman r. Beake 757 

Wiser i;. Lawler 389, 676 

V. Lockwood 68 

Wiswall V, Hall 634 

r. McGowan 628 

p. Plank Road Co 135 

Withee v. Brooks 120 

Withers v, Atkinson 848, 851 

V. Edwards 377 

V, Ewing 210 

r. Reynolds.. . 325, 328, 330, 339 

V. Richardsoa 172 

Withersby v. Sleeper 28 

Witherwax v. Riddle 749 

Withrow V. Commonwealth 557 

Witt V. Corcoran 447 

Witters v. Sowles 892 

Witty t?. Southern Pacific Co 205 

Witz V. Fite 876 

Wolcott V. Heath 408 

V. Mount 653, 654 

Wolf V. Goddard 161 

V, Marsh 361 

r. National Bank 406, 408 

t?. Schlacks 342, 345 

V. Wolf 175 

Wolfe V. Howes 548 

p. McClure 405 

V. Matthews 808 

Wolferman r. Bell 854, 874 

Wolflf V, Liverpool Ins. Co 448 

r. Pickering 334, 346 

Wolford r. Powers 193, 195 

Wolke V. Fleming 257 

Wollmer r. Lehman 679 

Wollums t\ Horsley 753 

Wolverhampton Banking Co., Ew 

parte 443 

Wolverton v, Davis 171 

Wolz t;. Parker 204 



PAQB. 

Womack v. Austin 737 

r. Loran 434 

V, McQuarry 631, 532 

Wonderly v. Booth 121, 122 

Wonsettler v. Lee 789 

Wood V. Abrey. 749, 751 

V. Amory 725 

V, Barker 379 

V. Boynton 607 

V. Calnan 41 

V. Cincinnati Co 585 

V. Coman 622 

V. Corcoran 170 

r. Davis 180 

V, Downes 453, 455, 460 

V. Fenwick 61, 74 

r. Fleet 176 

r. Gamble 877 

17. Griffith 664 

p. Lake 615 

r. McCann 436 

V. Manchester, etc., Co 377 

V. Mayor 286 

I?. Moriarty 258, 271, 274 

r. Partridge 281 

r. Boeder 688 

V. Scarth 634 

V. Sheldon 654 

V, Steele 858, 861, 871 

V. Tate 166 

V. Terry 88 

V, Wood 501 

Wood's Appeal 294 

Wood's Ex. V. Devers 734 

Wood Machine Co. v. Smith 51 

Woodbury p. Allegheny, etc., Co. 856 

p. Blair 122 

p. Gardner 791 

p. Luddy 666 

Woodbury, etc., Co. p. Louden- 

slager 389 

Woodcock p. Bostic 269, 260, 263 

Wooden p. Perkins 891 

Woodfolk p. Blount. 753 

WoodhuU P. Longstreet 176 

Woodman p. Junes 377, 437 

Woodruff p. Berry 470 

p. Dobbins 832 

p. Graddy 607 

p. Hinman 483 

p. McOehee 112, 115 

p. Saul 378 

p. Wentworth 376, 377, 439 

Woods r. Armstrong 399, 515 

p. Elliott 776 

p. Evans 50 

p. Hall 684 

p. Hilderbrand . . . 845, 648, 850 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cliii 



PAGE. 

Woods V, wader 430 

Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond 

and Dansville Extensicm Co 377 

389, 437 

Woodward r. Aston 84C 

V. Atwater 880 

r. Barnes 87 

V, Griffiths, etc., Co 25 

p. Roberts 798 

V. Smith 197 

V. Steams 402 

Woodworth v. Anderson 870 

V, Bank of America 864 

V, Bennett 498, 500 

Wooldridge r. Stem 177 

Woolf V. Woolf 85 

Woolfe V. Home 109 

Woolf oik t>. Bank of America.. 864 

867 

Wooliscroft r. Norton 301 

WooUej V, Oaines 101 

Woolsey r. Fonke 573 

Woonsocket Rubber Co. v. Loe- 

wenberg 717 

Wooton V. Hinkle 470 

Worcester v, Eaton 488 

Worcester Mfg. Co. v, Waterbury 

Brass Co. 607 

Woorden v. California Fig Syrup 

Co 419 

Worden v, Houston 834 

r. Railroad Co 595 

V, Sharp 789 

Work r. Beach 52 

Workingmen's Bkg. Assn. v. Rau- 

tenberg 400 

Workman r. Campbell 856 

r. Wright 443 

Works p. Hershey 52 

World Pub. Co. v. Hull 346 

Worley r. Tuggle 034 

Wormouth r. Hatch 261 

Worrall v. Gheen 868 

— r. Jacob 415 

r. Munn 174 

Worrell r. Forsyth 827, 836 

Worth V, Case 56, 193 

Worthington, Re 440 

Worthington v. Beeman 50 

V. Cowles 654 

r. Curtis 600, 910 

r. Gwin . ^ 326, 332 

r. Insurance Co 428 

Worthy r. Jones 176 

Wray r. Milestone 829 

Wrayton v. Naylor 334 

Wright V. Arnold 83, 88 

V. Brown 679 



PAGE. 

Wright V, Buck 856 

V, Cabot 115 

p. Cain 461 

p. Chard 895 

p. Davenport 008 

p. Evans 878 

p. Fisher 104 

p. Haskell 340 

p. Inshaw 865 

p. Kelley 850, 863 

p. Leonard 87 

p. McPike 584 

p. Monarch Investment 

Building Society 447 

p. Mutual Benefit Assoc 289 

p. Pipe Line Co 142, 144 

P. Proud 745 

p. Puckett 791 

p. Remington 729 

- p. Reusens 550 

p. Rindskopf 440 

p. Snowe 85 

p. Terry 256 

p. Tinsley 467 

p. Vanderplank. . . 722, 740, 769 

p. Vermont Life Ins. Co. . . 248 

252 

P. Waller 101 

p. Wright 786, 859 

p. Young 660 

Wright's Case 675, 698, 711 

Wright's Est., Re, 50 

Wrigley r. Swainson 393 

Wrisley Co. p. Iowa Soap Co 419 

Wroten's Assignee p. Armat 404 

Wulff p. Jay 386 

Wulschner p. Ward 608 

Wimderlich p. Sadler 262 

Wyatt P. Hertford 116 

Wyche p. Green 638 

Wyckoflf p. Johnson 869 

Wycombe Ry. Co. p. Donnington 

Hospital 572 

Wylie p. Gamble 708 

p. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co 866 

Wylson r. Dunn 182 

Wyman p. Yoemans 861 

Wynn p. Shropshire Union, etc., 

Co 514 

Wynne's Case 4S 

Wyrick p. Missouri, etc., Ry. Co . . 49ft 

Wythes p. Labouchere 589, 66(1 

XenoB p. Wickham 6, 55, 796 

Y. 

Yakima Bank p. Knipe 874 

Yale p. Curtiss 10 



cliy 



TABLB OV C4Wt. 



PAGE. 

Yale V. Pederer 898 

V. Edgerton 170 

Yale 6aB Stove Co. v. Wttooz. . . 380 

676 
Yarborough v. Bank oi Esgland. . 167 

Yard v. Yard 768 

Yates, E» parte 862, 863 

Yates V, Robertson 436 

Yauger r. Skinner 102 

Yazoo, etc^ R. Co. v, Fulton 834 

Yeager v. Musgraye 853 

Yeagley v. Webb 585 

Yeamans v. James 453 

736, 741 

Yearly i;. Long 253 

Yeaton v. Brown 870 

Yeiser v. United States Board 

Co 389 

Yelland's Case 648 

Yellow Poplar Lumber Co. r. 

Daniel 392 

Yenner v. Hammond 633 

Yeoman v, Lasley 392, 691 

Yeomans v. Chatterton 380 

r. Williams 795 

Yerkes v. Wilson 684 

Yerrington f>. Green 643 

Yock V, Insurance Co 583 

Yocum V. Smith 866, 866 

Yonge p. Hooper 736 

York V. Hinkle 729 

V. Janes 860 

Yorke v, Conde 695 

Yost V. Dwelling-house Ins. Co. . 449 
V. Watertown Steam En- 
gine Co 864 

Youle r. Richards 630 

Young V. Arintze 721 

t?. Clark 753 

V, Currier 860 

i\ Frost 753 

V, Grote 868 

V. Hawkins 256, 262, 271 

V, Hopkins 696 

r. Hughes 392 

V. Jones 832 

V. Kinney 879 



PAOB. 

Twmg o. Leaiy M6 

IL Ijebmaa 866 

r. Mitabdl ...; 431 

V, Paul 666 

V. Power 816 

V. Shriner 295 

V. Stevens 102 

V. Trainor 388 

V. Ward 867 

r. Wright 854 

r. Young 218, 219 

Young & Co. V. Afayor of Leam- 
ington 167 

Young Men's Assoc, v. Croft 265 

Y. M. C. A. Gymnasium Co. r. 

Bank 295 

Youngblood v. Birmingham Trust 

Co 399 

Youngs V, Trustees 275 

Yundt V. Roberts 484 

Z. 

Zabriskie r. Railroad Co 135 

V. Smith 456 

Zaleski v. Clark 51 

Zalesky v. Home Ins. Co 448 

Zang r. Adams 690 

Zebley r. Sears 666 

Zeigler v, Hughes 736 

T. Mize 452 

r. Sprenkle 872 

Zeis V, Potter 695 

Zeph, Re 91 

Ziechen v. Smith 354 

Zimmer v. Railroad Co 54 

r. Sennott 252 

p. Settle 414 

Zimmerman v, Bitn^ 733, 745 

t;. Judah 857 

r, Rote 865,868 

Zinc Carbonate Co. v. Bank 130 

Zindorf Co. v. Western Co 448 

Zoebisch v. Von Minden.... 199, 215 

Zoeller v, Riley 716 

Zouch V, Parsons 62 

Zuck V. McClure 361, 367 



TRINCIPLES OF CONTRACT. H 



CHAPTER I. 
Agreement, Proposal, and Aooeptance. 

PAGE. PAGE. 

Nature of contract, 1 Other kinds of general proposal, 24 

Definitions^ 2 Contract by indirect communica- 

Agreement: nature of consent re- tion, 26 

quired, 3 Revocation of offer, 27 

Obligation, 4 Determination of offer, 29 

Ways of declaring consent, 5 Communication of revocation, 30 

Promise, 6 Dickinson v. Dohha considered, 32 

Contract, 7 Can there be double acceptance? 33 

Void agreements, 7 Communication of acceptance, 35 

Voidable contracts, 8 Contracts by correspondence, .37 

Rules as to proposal and accept- Artificial theories on the subject, 38 

ance, 9 State of English authority, 39 

Express and tacit contracts, and Effect of death of proposer, 42 

quasi-contracts, 9 Certainty of acceptance, 43 

Proposals to unascertained persons Agreements in terms where oon- 

( contracts by offer of reward, sent not final, 46 

Ac.>, 13 Certainty of terms of agreement, 48 

Discussion of cases, 15 Illusory promises, 49 

Difficulties considered, 19 Construction of tacit acceptances, 52 

Theory of floating obligation in- Promises by deed may bind with- 

admissible, 21 out acceptance, 55 

The law of Contract may be described as the endeavour of the State, 
a more or less imperfect one by the nature of the case, to establish a 
positive sanction for the expectation of good faith which has grown 
up in the mutual dealings of men of average right-mindedness. 
Accordingly the most popular description of a contract that can be 
given is also the most exact one, namely that it is a promise or set of 
promises which the law will enforce. The specific mark of contract 
is the creation of a right, not to a thing, but to another man's conduct 
1 in the future. He who has given the promise is bound to him who 

f accepts it, not merely because he had or expressed a certain intention, 

but because he so expressed himself as to entitle the other party to 
rely on his acting in a certain way. This is apt to be obscured in 
common cases, but is easily seen to be true. Suppose that A, agrees 
to sell to B. a thing of which not he but C. is the true owner. C. gives 
the thing to B. Here, though B. has got the thing he wanted, and 

[!]■ 



*fy*V^ AGREEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

*• • 

• • 

on better terms than he expected, A. has not kept his promise; and, 
if the other requisites of a lawful contract were present as between 
himself and B., he has broken his contract. The primary questions, 
then, of the law of contract are first, what is a promise? and next, 
what promises are enforceable? 

2] *The importance and difficulty of the first of these questions de- 
pend on the fact that men can justly rely on one another's intentions, 
and courts of justice hold them bound to their fulfilment, only when 
they have been expressed in a manner that would convey to an indif- 
ferent person, reasonable and reasonably competent in the matter in 
hand, the sense in which the expression is relied on by the party 
claiming satisfaction. Judges and juries stand in the place of this 
supposed indifferent person, and have to be convinced that the deal- 
ings in the particular case contained or amounted to the promise 
alleged to have been made and relied upon. 

Our first business must therefore be to separate and analyse the 
elements which, generally speaking, must concur in the formation 
of a contract. A series of statements in the form of definitions, 
though necessarily imperfect, may help to clear the way. 

1. Contract Every agreement and promise enforceable by law is a 
contract. 

2. Agreement. An agreement is an act in the law whereby two or 
more persons declare their consent as to any act or thing to be done 
or forborne by some or one of those persons for the use of the others 
or other of them (a). 

3. Expression of consent. Such declaration may take place by 

(a) the concurrence of the parties in a spoken or written form of 

words as expressing their common intention, or 

(b) an offer made by some or one of them, and accepted by the 

others or other of them. 

4. Promise and offer. The declaration of any party to an agreement, 
so far as relates to anything to be done or forborne on his part, 
3] *is called a promise. The expression of a person's willingness to 
become, according to the terms expressed, a party to an agreement, is 
called an offer or proposal. 

An offer may become a promise by acceptance, but is not a promise 
unless and until it is accepted (&). 

(a) This statement has been (6) This does not imply that every 

adopted by Kekewich J. Foster v. offer is revocable until acceptance. 

Wheeler (1887) 36 Ch. D. 695, 698, How far that is so is a question not 

57 L. J. Ch. 149. of definition but of substantive law. 



CONSENT. 3 

6. Void agreement. An agreement which has no legal effect is said 
to be void. An agreement which ceases to have legal effect is said 
to become void or to be discharged. 

6. Voidable contracts. An agreement is said to be a voidable contract 
if it is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties 
thereto but not at the option of the other or others. 

We proceed to develop and explain these statements, so far as 
appears convenient at the outset of the work. 

1. Definition of agreement — Nature and scope of consent The first 
and most essential element of an agreement is the consent of the parties. 
Ttere must be the meeting of two minds in one and the same intention. 
But in order that their consent may make an agreement of which the 
law can take notice, other conditions must be fulfilled. The agree- 
ment must be, in our old English phrase, an act in the law : that is, 
it must be on the face of the matter capable of having legal effects. 
It must be concerned with duties and rights which can be dealt with 
by a court of justice. And it must be the intention of the parties that 
the matter in hand shall, if necessary, be so dealt with, or at least 
they must not have the contrary intention. An appointment between 
two friends to go out for a walk or to read a book together is not an 
agreement in the legal sense: for it is not meant to produce, nor 
does it produce, any new legal ♦duty or right, or any change in [4 
existing ones (<:).* Again, there must not only be an act in the law, 
but an act which determines duties and rights of the parties. A con- 

" Offer " and " proposal " are synlony- not legally bound to have meat and 

moua terms : " proposal " is often drink ready for B., so that if A. had 

eonvenient as allowing " proposer " forgotten his invitation and gone else- 

to be used as a correlative term where B. should have a right of ac* 

rather than the legitimate but clumsy tibn f Only because no legal bond 

"offeror." was intended by the parties. It 

(c) Nothing but the absence of in- might possibly be said that these are 

tention seems to prevent a contract really cases of contract, and that only 

from arising in many cases of this social usage and the trifling amount 

kind. A. asks B. to dinner and B. of pecuniary interest involved keep 

accepts. Here is proposal and accept- them out of courts of justice. But 

ance of something to be done by B. I think Savigny's view, which is here 

at A.'s request, namely, coming to adopted, is the better one. There is 

A.'s house at the appointed time, and not a contract which it would be 

the trouble and expense of doing this ridiculous to enforce, but the orig- 

are ample consideration for A.'s prom- inal proposal is not the proposal of 

ise to provide a dinner. Why is A. a contract. 

llf the parties intended by an agreement merely a joke or banter, there 
will be no contract. Keller v. Holderman, 11 Mich. 248; McClurg v. Terrv, 
2! N. J. Eq. 225; Theiss v. Weiss, 166 Pa. 9; Bruce v. Bishop, 43 Vt. 161; 
Nyulaay v. Rowan, 17 Vict. L. R. 5. But see Armstrong i\ McGhee, Add. 
(Pa.) 201; Stamper v. Temple, 6 Humph. 113. 



4 AOREEliENT^ PROPOSAL^ AND ACCEPTANCE. 

sent or declaration of several persons is not an agreement if it affects 
only other people's rights, or even if it affects rights or duties of the 
persons whose consent is expressed without creating any obligation 
between them. The verdict of a jury or the judgment of a full Court 
is a concurrent declaration of several persons affecting legal rights; 
but it is not an agreement, since the rights affected are not those of 
the judges or jurymen. If a fund is held by the trustees of a will to 
be paid over to the testator's daughter on her marriage with their 
consent, and they give their consent to her marrying J. S., this dec- 
laration of consent affects the duties of the trustees themselves, for it 
is one of the elements determining their duty to pay over the fund. 
Still it is not an agreement, for it concerns no duty to be performed 
by any one of the trustees towards any other of them. There is a 
common duty to the beneficiary, but no mutual obligation. 

ObligatioiL By obligation we mean the relation that exists between two 
persons of whom one has a private and peculiar right (that is, not a 
merely public or official right, or a right incident to ownership or a per- 
manent family relation) to control the other's actions by calling upon 
him to do or forbear some particular thing (d). An agreement 
5] might *be defined, indeed, as purporting to create an obligation; 
and the mark which distinguishes an obligation so created from any 
other kind of obligation is that its contents are wholly determined by 
the will of the parties (e). But for the purposes of English law we 
prefer to say (what is in effect the same) that an agreement contem- 
plates something to be done or forborne by one or more of the parties 
for the use of the others or other. The word ULse (representing the 
Latin opus through an Anglo-French form oeps, not vsus) is familiar 
in English law-books from early times in such a connexion as this. 

Proof of consent The common intention of the parties to an agree- 
ment is a fact, or inference of fact, which, like any other fact, has to 
be proved, according to the general rules of evidence. When it is said, 
therefore, that the true intent of the parties must govern the decision 
of all matters of contract, this means such an intent as a court of 
justice can take notice of. If A., being a capable person, so bears 
himself towards B. that a reasonable man in B.'s place would natu- 
rally understand A. to make a promise, and B. does take A.'s words 
or conduct as a promise, no further question can be made about what 

(d) Savigny, Syst. i. 338-9; Obi. i. pretation, not necessarily a will com- 

4, seq. pletely expressed on the face of the 

{€) That is, their will as ascer- transaction, 
tained by the proper rules of inter- 



EXPRBS8I0N OP CONSENT. 

was passing in A/s mind. ^^ Mental acts or acts of the will/' it has 
been well said^ ^^are not the materials out of which promises are 
made'' (/).* Under such circumstances, as well as in certain other 
more special cases, the law does not allow a party to show that his 
intention was not in truth such as he made or suffered it to appear. 
But in the common and regular course of things the consent to which 
the law gives effect is real as well as apparent. 

2. Ways of declaring consent — Proposal and acceptance. Two distinct 
modes of the formation of an agreement are here specified. It is 
♦possible, however, lo analyse and define agreement as constituted [6 
in every case by the acceptance of a proposal. In fact this is done in 
the Indian Contract Act. And it is appropriate to most of the con- 
tracts which occur in daily life, buying and selling, letting and hir- 
ing, in short all transactions which involve striking a bargain. One 
party proposes his terms; the other accepts, rejects, or meets them 
with a counter-proposal: and thus they go on till there is a final re- 
fusal and breaking off, or till one of them names terms which the 
other can accept as they stand. The analysis is presented in a strik- 
ing form by the solemn question and answer of the Boman Stipulation, 
where the one parly asked (specifying fully the matter to be con- 
tracted for) : That you will do so and so, do you covenant? and 
the other answered with the same operative word: I covenant (g). 
Yet the importance of proposal and acceptance as elements of con- 
tract has, until of late years, been much more distinctly brought out 
in the Common Law than by writers on the modem civil law. 

Is tlie analysis universally applicable? It seems overstrained to apply 
this analysis to a case in which the consent of the parties is declared 
in a set form, as where they both execute a deed or sign a written 
agreement. Some say that, although there is no proposal or accepts 
ance in the final transaction, the terms of the document must have 

(f) Langdell, Summary, i 180. to have a kind of magical effect. But 

(^) No doubt the formulA Spondesf it waa necessary that the stipulator 

tpondeOy originally the only binding should hear the promisor's answer. 

one and almost certainly of religious Cp. Palgrave, Commonwealth of £ng- 

origin, was in early times supposed land, 2, cxxxvii. cxli. 

s Assent in the sense of the law is a matter of overt acts, not of inward 
unanimity of motives, design or the interpretation of words. O'Donnell t?. 
Clinton, 145 Mass. 461, 463. See also Stoddard v. Ham, 120 Mass. 383, and 
infra, p. •244. . 

Even overt acts, when neither communicated nor done at the request of 
the other party, are insufficient. Therefore cross-proposals by mail, made 
by each of the proposers in ignorance of the other's act, do nut constitute a 
contract Tinn v. Hoffman, 29 L. T. N. S. 271. See also Madden v. Bost<Hi, 
177 Mass. 360. 



6 AOREBMENT^ PBOPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANOS. 

been settled by a process reducible to the acceptance of a proposal; 
but this hardly suffices : for the formal instrument has a force apart 
from and beyond that of the negotiation which fixed its terms. And 
it may well be, and sometimes is the case^ that the parties intend not 
to be legally bound to anything until their consent is formally de- 
7] clared. In such a case it cannot be said that the proposal and *ac- 
ceptance constitute the final and legal agreement. Take the com- 
mon case of a lease. There is generally an enforceable agreement, 
constituted by letters or memorandum, before the lease is executed. 
But the lease itself is (besides its effect as a transfer of property) 
a new contract or series of contracts. In this who is the proposer and 
who the acceptor ? Are we to say that the lessor is the proposer be- 
cause in the common course he executes the lease before the lessee exe- 
cutes the counterpart? Or are we to take the covenants severally, 
and say that in each one the party with whom it is made is the pro- 
poser, and the party bound is the acceptor? What, again, if two 
parties are discussing the terms of a contract and cannot agree, and 
a third indifferent person suggests terms which they both accept? 
Shall we say that he who accepts them first thereby proposes them to 
the other ? And what if they accept at the same moment ? The case 
of competitors in a race who, by accepting rules laid down by the 
managing committee, become bound to one another to oWrve those 
rules (^), is even stronger. The truth is, as I venture to think, that 
the exclusive pursuit of the analytical method in dealing with legal 
conceptions always leads into some strait of this kind, and if the 
pursuit be obstinate, lands us in sheer fictions. 

3. Promise — Effect of deed in making simple promise operative. Except 
in the case of simultaneous declaration just mentioned, a promise is 
regularly either the acceptance of an offer or an offer accepted. Where 
the promise is embodied in a deed, there is an apparent anomaly; 
for the deed is irrevocable and binding on the promisor from the 
moment of its execution by him, even before ajiy acceptance by the 
8] promisee (t).^ But this *depends on the peculiar nature of a 

{h) Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven a proposer as regards every one wlio 

[1897] A. C. 69, 66 L. J. P. 1. Here comes in later. 

we are driven to say that every party (i) Xenoa v. Wickham (18SC) 

is an acceptor as regards every one L. R. 2 H. L. 296, 323; Doe d. Gar- 

'who has sent in his name earlier, and nons v. Knight (1826) 5 B. & C. 671, 

3 Many of the American cases hold acceptance by the promisee or grantee a 
prerequisite to the validity of a deed. Most of the numerous decisions relate 
to conveyances of land. See Meigs r. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217: Gray's Cases on 
Property, III, 633-735 ; Devlin on Deeds. § 200. The English case of Xenos 
r. Wickham is sharply criticised in Holland, Jurisprudence (9th ed.), 265, n. 1. 



PROMISE. 7 

deed in our law. The party who sets his hand and seal to a deed 
witnessing his promise does not, strictly speakings thereby create an 
obligation^ but rather declares himself actually bound, under normal 
conditions. In fact it is only in modem times that special defences, 
on the ground of fraud and the like, have been allowed to avail a 
man against his own deed. Thus the questions of consent and ac- 
ceptance are not open, as ordinary questions of fact, to any discussion. 
The part^ has recorded his own promise in solemn form, and cannot 
require proof that any other positive condition was satisfied. As 
matter of history, the very object of the Anglo-Norman writing under 
seal was to dispense with any other kind of proof, and to substitute 
the authenticated will of the parties themselves for an appeal to the 
hazards of oath, ordeal, or judicial combat. It is not that an anoma- 
lous liability is created; the contracting party is estopped (special and 
exceptional causes excepted) from disputing that he is liable. Not 
the promise, but the deed itself, is irrevocable and operative without 
need of external confirmation. Whether it is convenient, on the 
whole, for the purposes of modern law to retain the deed with its 
ancient qualities is a question beyond our present limits (;'). 

4. Definition of contract — Restriction of contract to enforceable agree- 
ments. The term contract is here confined to agreements enforceable 
by law. This restriction, suggested perhaps by the Roman distinction 
between contractus and pactum, is believed to have been first intro- 
duced in English by the Indian Contract Act. It seems a manifest 
improvement, and free from the usual drawbacks of innovations in 
terminology, as it makes the legal meaning of the words more precise 
without any violent interference with their accustomed use. 

*5. Void agreements — Void agreement; distinction of void and void- [9 
able. The distinction between void and voyiable transactions is a fund- 
amental one, though it is often obscured by carelessness of language. 
An agreement or other act which is void has from the beginning no 
legal effect at all, save in so far as any party to it incurs penal conse- 
quences, as may happen where a special prohibitive few both makes 
the act void and imposes a penalty. Otherwise no person's rights, 
whether he be a party or a stranger, are affected. A voidable act, 
on the contrary, takes its full and proper legal effect unless and 
until it is disputed and set aside by some person entitled so to do. 

29 R. R. 356, and see Pref. to 29 (;) The old law has been altered in 

R. R. V — ix. TRoberts v. Security various ways in many American 
Co. [1897] 1 Q. B. 111]. States. 



8 AGREEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

The definitions of the Indian Contract Act on this head are simpler 
in form than those given above: but certain peculiarities of English 
law prevent us from adopting the whole of them as they stand. It is 
not correct as an universal proposition in England that " an agree- 
ment not enforceable by law is said to be void/' for we have agree- 
ments that cannot be sued upon, and yet are recognized by law for 
other purposes and have legal effect in other ways (k), 

6. Voidable contracts. The definition here given is from the Indian 
Contract Act. The idea is not an easy one to express in terms free 
from objection. Perhaps it would be better to say that a voidable 
contract is an agreement such that one of the parties is entitled at 
his option to treat it as never having been binding on him. The 
Anglo-Indian definition certainly covers rather more than the ordi- 
nary use of the terms. Cases occur in English law where, by the effect 
of peculiar enactments, there is a contract enforceable by one party 
alone, and yet we should not naturally call it a voidable contract. 
An example is an agreement required by the Statute of Frauds to be 
in writing, which has been signed by one party and not by the other. 
10] 'Here the party who has signed is bound and *the other is free. 
"Voidable contract^' seems not exactly the appropriate name for 
such a state of things. And it may even be said that a contract which 
has been completely performed on one side is literally " enforceable by 
law at the option of one of the parties " only. But the definition as 
it stands cannot practically mislead (Z). 

Consideration. Consideration is sometimes treated as if it were 
among the necessary elements of an agreement (m). But the con- 
ception, in the generality with which we use it, combined with its 
restriction within the limits of exchangeable value of some kind, is 
peculiar to the Common Law. It does not exist in the jurisprudence 
of the Continent or of Scotland. In our law we require, for the 
validity of an informal contract, not merely agreement or deliberate 
intention, but bargain ; a gratuitous promise is not enforceable unless 
included in th« higher obligation of a deed. The rules as to pro- 
posal and acceptance cannot be fully understood without bearing this 

(fc) See Ch. XIII, below. rather than of completed effect. 

(1) There is a similar but slighter Hence in the fifth definition I have 

difficulty about the use of the word introduced the word discharged as an 

void. A contract when it is fully alternative. 

performed ceases to have legal effect; (m)Thus it is defined in the inter- 
it is diaohargedf but there is some- pretation clause of the Indian Con- 
thing harsh in saying that it becomes tract Act. 
void, a term suggestive of inefficacy 



BXPKSSS OB TACIT PROPOSAL. 9 

in mind; still the requirement of consideration is a condition imposed 
by positive law and has nothing universal or necessary about it. 

Hereafter a fuller discussion will be given : for the present it may 
serve to describe consideration as an act or forbearance, or the promise 
thereof, which is offered by one party to an agreement, and accepted 
by the other, as an inducement to Ihat other's act or promise.* 

Spedal inlet govenung proposal and acceptance. Proposal and accept- 
ance, though not strictly necessary parts of the general conception of 
Contract, are in practice the normal and most important elements. 
When agreement ha& reached the stage of being embodied in a form 
of ♦words adopted by both parties, the contents of the document [11 
and the consent of the parties are generally simple and easily proved 
facts: and the only remaining question (assuming the other require- 
ments of a valid contract to be satisfied) is what the words mean. 
The acceptance of a proposal might seem at first sight an equally 
simple fact. But the complexity of human affairs, the looseness of 
common speech, the mutability of circumstances and of men's inten- 
tions, and the exchange of communications between parties at a 
distance, raise questions which have to be provided for in detail. 

We may have to consider separately whether the offer of a contract 
was made; what the terms of that offer were; whether there was any 
acceptance of it; and whether the acceptor was a person to whom 
the offer was made. 

Communications in general. 

Proposal and acceptance — Express or tadt. The proposal or acceptance 
of an agreement may be communicated by words or by conduct, or 
partly by the one and partly by the other. In so far as a proposal or 
acceptance is conveyed by words, it is said to be express. In so far 
as it is conveyed by conduct, it is said to be tacit 

It would be as difficult as it is needless to adduce distinct authority 
for this statement Cases are of constant occurrence, and naturally 
in small matters rather than in great ones, where the proposal, or the 

4 There is a distinction between consideration and motive; the motive for 
making a promise may be something entirely different from the act, or forbear- 
ance, or promise thereof, which is offered and accepted in exchange for the 
promise. "Nothing is consideration that is not regarded as such by both 
parties." Philpot t?. Gruninger, 14 Wall. 570, 577 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q. B. 
859, per Patterson, J.; Fire Ins. Assoc, r. Wickham, 141 U. S. 664, 579; 
Morris v. Norton, 76 Fed. Rep. 912, 926; Peck Colorado Co. v, Stratton, 95 
Fed. Rep. 741. 744; Levy, etc., Co. v. Kauffman, 114 Fed. Rep. 170, 174; 
Sterne v. Bank, 79 Ind. 549, 651; Devecmon v. Shaw, 69 Md. 199; Ellis v. 
Clark, 110 Mass. 389; cp. Holmes on the Common Law, 293-296. 



10 AOBEEMEKT^ PBOPOSAL^ AND ACCEPTANCB. 

acceptance, or both, are signified not by words but by acts.** For 
example, the passenger who steps into a ferry-boat thereby requests 
the ferryman to take him over for the usual fare, and the ferryman 
accepts this proposal by putting off. In the case of obtaining a chattel 
from an automatic machine (where putting in our coin is the accept- 
ance of a standing offer made by the owner of the machine) there is 
no possibility of accepting in words. 

12] ^Distinction of tacit from fictitious promises. A promise made in this 
way is often said to be implied : but this tends to obscure the distinc- 
tion of the real though tacit promise in these cases from the fictitious 
promise "implied by law," as we shall immediately see, in certain 
cases where there is no real contract at all, but an obligation qiuisi ex 
contractu, and in others where definite duties are annexed by rules 
of law to special kinds of contracts or to relations arising out of 
them.* Sometimes it may be difficult to draw the line. " Where a 
relation exists between two parties which involves the performance 
of certain duties by one of them, and the payment of reward to him 
by the other, the law will imply [fictitious contract] or the jury may 
infer [true contract] a promise by each party to do what is to be done 
by him" (n).'' It was held in the case cited that an innkeeper 
promises in this sense to keep his guests' goods safely. The case of a 
carrier is analogous. So where A. does at B.'s request something not 
apparently illegal or wrongful, but which in fact exposes A. to an 
action at the suit of a third person, it seems to be not a proposition 

(n) Per Cur. Morgan v. Ravey (1861) 6 H. & N. 263, 30 L. J. Ex. 131. 

B " Whenever circumstances arise in the ordinary business of life in which 
if two persons were ordinarily honest and careful the one of them would make 
a promise to the other it may properly be inferred that both of them under- 
stood that such a promise was given and accepted." Ex parte Ford, 16 Q. B. D. 
305, 307. Cases discussing or involvinor the principles of tacit proposal or 
acceptance are Brogden i\ Metropolitan Rwy. Co., 2 App. Ca. 666 ; Titcomb v. 
United States, 14 Ct. CI. 263; Miller r. McManis. 57 111. 126; Hobbs v. 
Massassoit Whip Co., 158 Mass. 104; Wheeler v. Klaholt. 178 Mass. 141; 
Prescott V. Jones, 69 N. H. 145; Yale v. Curtiss, 151 X. Y. 598; Royal Ins. 
Co. V. Beatty, 119 Fa. 6; Indiana Mfg. Co. r. Hayes, 155 Pa. ICO; Haines V, 
Dearborn, 199 Pa. 474; Rutledge v. Greenwood, 2 Desaus. 389; Raysor i?. 
Berkeley Co., 26 S. C. 610. See also cases in the following notes. 

Montgomery t\ Water Works, 77 Ala. 248; Bixby v, Moore, 51 N. H. 
402; Railway Co. r. Gaffney, 65 Ohio St. 104. 114. 118. "An implied promise 
does not differ from an express promise, except in the evidence by which it is 
proved." Chilcott v, Trimble, 13 Barb. 502. 

An agreement " is express none jthe less that it is expressed by conduct and 
not by words." Gallagher v. Hathaway, etc.. Corp., 172 Mass. 230, 232. 

7 Nevada Co. v. Famsworth, 89 Fed. Rep. 164, 167. 



TACIT PBOlilSES. 11 

of law, but an inference of fact which a jury may reasonably find, 
that B. must be taken to haye promised to indemnify A. (o). 

If A. with B/s knowledge, but without any express request, does 
work for B. such as people as a rule expect to be paid for, if B. 
accepts the work or its result, and if there are no special circum- 
stances to show that A. meant to do the work for nothing or that B. 
honestly believed that such was his intention, there is no difficulty in 
inferring a promise by B. to pay what A/s labour is worth. And 
this is a pure inference of fact, the question being whether B/s con- 
duct has been such that a reasonable man in A/s position would 
understand from it that B. meant to treat the work as if done to his 
express order. The *doing of the work with B.*s knowledge is [13 
the proposal of a contract, and B.^s conduct is the acceptance.® The 
like inference cannot be made if the work is done without B.'s knowl- 
edge. For by the hypothesis the doing of the work is not a proposal, 
not being communicated at the time : B. has no opportunity of ap- 
proving or countermanding it, and cannot be bound to pay for it 
when he becomes aware of the facts, although he may have derived 
gome benefit from the work; it may be impossible to restore or reject 
that benefit without giving up his own property (p).* If A. of his 

(o) Dugdale v. hovering (1875) L. J. Ex. at p. 332. The effect of a 

L. R. 10 C. P. 196, 44 L. J. C. P. subsequent express promise to pay 

197. for work already done comes under 

(p) Cp. dicta of Pollock C. B. 25 the doctrine of Consideration. 

8 See McColley v. The Brabo, 33 Fed. Rep. 884; Cincinnati R. Co. v. 
Bensley, 51 Fed. Rep. 738, 742; Travelers' Ins. Co. r. Johnson City, 99 
Fed. Rep. 663; Goodnow r. Moulton, 51 la. 555, 557; Day f. Caton, 
119 Mass. 513; Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370; Spencer v. Spencer, 
181 Mass. 471; Cicotte r. Church of St. Anne, 60 Mich. 552; Holmes 
r. Board of Trade, 81 Mo. 137; Fogg v, Portsmouth Athenaeum, 44 N. H. 
115; Ashley v. Henahan, 56 Ohio St. 559, 574; Riser r. Holladay, 29 
Oreg. 338; Hertzog r. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 465; Curry r. Curry, 114 Pa. 367; 
6ro88 r. Caldwell, 4 Wash. 670. Services intended to be gratuitous at the 
time when they are rendered cannot subsequently be used to raise an implied 
promise to pay for them. Osier r. Hobbs, 33 Ark. 215; Allen v. Bryson, 
67 la. 691; Collins r. Martin, 43 Kan. 182; Johnson r. Kimball, 172 
Mass. 398; Potter v. Carpenter, 76 N. Y. 157; Taylor v, Lincumfelter, 1 
Lea, 83, even though the person rendering them was moved po to do by 
reason of a state of facts mistakenly supposed to exist. Coleman v. United 
States, 152 U. S. 96; Jones County r. Norton, 91 la. 680: St. Joseph's Orphan 
Asylum r. Wolpert, 80 Ky. 86; Cole r. Clark, 85 Me. 336: Newberry r. 
Creedon, 146 Mass. 134; Forster v. Green, 111 Mich. 264: Boardman r. Ward, 
40 Minn. 399; Albany r. M«Namara, 117 N. Y. 168. But see contra, Thomaa 
V. Thomasville Club, 121 N. C. 238. See further Keener on Quasi Contracts, 
317 and Re Rhodes, 44 Ch. D. 94 ; Payne's Appeal, 65 Conn. 397 ; Frailev'a Adm. 
r. Thompson, (Ky.) 49 S. W. Rep. 13; Graham r. Stenton, 177 Mass. 321; 
Scevs r. True, 53 N. H. 627; Pickett r. Gore, (Tenn. Ch.) 58 S. W. Rep. 402. 
Cp. Anderson r. Eggers, 61 N. J. Eq. 85. 

• Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Hawes, 73 L. T. 369; Mann r. Famum, 17 Col. 427; 
Davis V, School District, 24 Me. 349, 351; Ulmer v, Farnsworth, 80 Me. 500; 



12 AGEBBMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

own motion sends goods to B. on approval, this is an offer which B. 
accepts by dealing with the goods as owner. If he does not choose to 
take them, he is not bound to return them; nor indeed is he bound 
to take any active care of them till A. reclaims them (g). 

Duties quasi ez contractu in English law. But it does not follow that 
because there is no true contract, there may not be cases falling within 
this general description in which it is just and expedient that an obli- 
gation analogous to contract should be imposed upon the person receiv- 
ing the benefit. In fact there are such cases :^® and as the forms 
of our common law did not recognize obligations quasi ex contractu 
in any distinct manner, these cases were dealt with by the fiction of 
an implied previous request, which often had to be supplemented 
(as in the action for money had and received) by an equally fictitious 
promise. The promise, actual or fictitious, was then supposed to 
relate back to the fictitious request, so that the transaction which was 
the real foundation of the matter was treated as forming the considera- 
tion in a fictitious contract of the regular type. Here, as in many 
other instances, the law was content to rest in a compromise between 
14] the forms of pleading and the convenience *of mankind. These 
fictions have long ceased to appear on the face of our pleadings, but 
they have become so established in legal language that it is still neces- 
sary to understand them (r). 

Under Indian Contract Act. The Indian Act provides for matters of 
this kind more simply in form and more comprehensively in sub- 
stance than our present law, by a separate chapter, entitled *' Of cer- 
tain Relations resembling those created by Contract" (ss. 68 — 72, cp. 
s. 73). The term constructive contract might properly be applied to 
these obligations; it would be exactly analogous to " constructive pos- 

iq) It is prudent, however, to in- (r) For details see notes to Lamp- 
form the sender that the goods sent leigh v. Brathtoaii in 1 Sm. L. C. 
without request are at his disposal and Oahome v. Rogers, 1 Wms. 
and risk. Saund. 357. 

O'Conner v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 145; Holmes t?. Board of Trade, 81 Mo. 137; 
Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28 ; Hart v, Norton, 1 McCord, 22 ; and see 
Limer v. Traders Co., 44 W. Va. 176. Contra, is Chase v. Corcoran, 106 Mass. 
286; with which cp. Earle v, Coburn, 130 Mass. 596; Skinner t?. Tirrell, 159 
Mass. 474. 

10 See Louisiana r. Mayor, 109 U. S. 286 ; Nevada Co. v. Farnsworth, 89 Fed. 
Rep. 164; Northern Bank r. Hoopes, 98 Fed. Rep. 935, 938; Sceva r. True, 
53 N. H. 627; People v. Speir. 77 N. Y. 144, 150; Columbus, Ac, Ry. Co. v. 
Gaffney, 65 Ohio St. 104, 113; Hertzog r. Hertzog, 29 Pa. 466, 467. Cp. Mil- 
ford 17. Commonwealth, 144 Mass. 64. 



ACTING UPON REQUEST. 13 

seeeion^^ and "constructive notice/' But it has never come into 
use. The term QuasirContract is now current in America and recog- 
nized in England. 

Ptrfonnaiice of conditions^ ftc., as acceptance. A corollary from the gen- 
eral principle of tacit acceptance, which in some classes of cases is of 
considerable importance, is thus expressed by the Indian Contract 
Act(s. 8): — 

" Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or thef ac- 
ceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which 
may be oflEered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the pro- 
posal."" . 

Offers by advertiaement This rule contains the true legal theory of 
offers of reward made by public advertisement for the procuring of 
information, the restoration of lost property, and the like. On such 
offers actions have many times been brought with success by persons 
who had done the things required as the condition of obtaining the 
reward. 

It appears to have been once held that even after performance an 
offer thus made did not become a binding promise, because " it was 
not averred nor declared to whom the promise was made '' (s). But 
the established modem doctrine is that there is a contract with any 
person who ♦performs the condition mentioned in the advertise- [15 
ment {i). That is, the advertisement is a proposal which is ac- 
cepted by performance of the conditions. It is an offer to become 
liable to any person who happens to fulfil the contract of which it is 
the offer {u)P Until some person has done this, it is a proposal 

(«) Noy, 11; 1 Rolle Ab. 6 M. pi. 1. too Carlill v. CarhoUc Smoke Ball 

it) WiUiamsv, Carwardine (1833) Co. [1893] 1 Q. B. 266, per Lindley 

4 B. & Ad. 621, 38 R. R. 328. L.J. at p. 262, per Bowen L.J. at p. 

(1*) Per Willes J. Spencer v. Bard- 268, 62 L. J. Ch. 257. 

ing (1870) L. R. 5 C. P. 663. See 

11 Ab to the distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts in the 
matter of acceptance, see postf p. 22, n. 21. 

l^The performance of an act, for the doing of which a reward is offered, 
gives rise to a unilateral contract. 

The promise of a reward " was but an offer until its terms were complied 
with. When that was done it thenceforth became a binding contract, which 
the offerer was bound to perform his share of." Cummings t*. Gann, 52 Pa. 
St. 484.. 490. 

'* Until something is done in pursuance of it, it is a mere offer and may be 
revoked. But if, before it is retracted, one so far complies with it as to perform 
the labor, for which the reward is stipulated, it is the ordinary case o/ labor 
done on request, and becomes a contract to pay the stipulated compensation." 



14 AOBEEKENT^ PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

and no more. It ripens into a promise only when its conditions are 
fully satisfied. As Sir W. Anson has well put it, ^^ an offer need not 
be made to an ascertained person, but no contract can arise until it 
has been accepted by an ascertained person " (x).^^ 

In the same manner each bidding at a sale by auction is a proposal ; 
and when a particular bid is accepted by the fall of the hammer (but 

iw) Principles of the English Law or invitation to all men to whose 

of Contract, p. 39, 9th ed. We have knowledge it comes. The Germans 

no special term of art for a proposal call it Aualohung, 
thus made by way of general request 

Wentworth r. Day, 3 Met. 352, 354; Furman r. Parke, 21 N. J. L. 310; Gil- 
more r. Lewis, 12 Ohio, 281 ; Ryer r. Stockwell, 14 Cai. 134; Janvrin v. Exeter, 
48 N. H. 83 ; AlTord r. Smith, 63 Ind. 58, 62 ; Harson v. Pike, 16 Ind. 140. 
^ To entitle one to the reward, he must show that the terms of the offer have 
been complied with. Williams r. West Chicago Ry. Co., 191 111. 610; Cor- 
nelson r. Insurance Co., 7 La. Ann. 345; Furman v, Parke, 21 N. J. L. 310; 
Jones V. Bank, 8 N. Y. 228; Fitch v, Snedaker, 38 N. Y. 248; Clanton v. 
Young, 11 Rich. L. 546; Blain v. Pacific Exp. Co., 69 Tex. 74. Cp. Mosley 
r. Stone« 108 Ky. 492. 
>^ llie decisions in S3rmme8 r. Frazier, 6 Mass. 344, and Hawk r. Marion 
County, 48 la. 472, that where a reward is offered for the recovery of a sum 
of money lost, the finder of a part is entitled to a pro rata portion of the re- 
ward offered, cannot, it is believed, be sustained. And see contra, Blain v. 
Pacific Ex. Co., 69 Tex. 74. 

Where several persons successively give the information requested by the 
offer the first one only can recover the reward. Lancaster v. Walsh, 4 M. & 
W. 16; United States r. Simons, 7 Fed. Rep. 709. As to the rights of parties 
where the consideration requested has been performed by the combined efforts 
of several persons, see Janvrin r. Exeter, 48 N. H. 83; Whitcher r. State, 68 
N. H. 605 ; Fargo v, Arthur, 43 How. Pr. 193. 

It has been held in several cases that it is not necessary that the person who 
does the act, for doing which the reward is offered, should have had any knowl- 
edge of the offer, in order to entitle him to the reward. Gibbons v. Proctor, 
64 L. T. N. S. 594; Burke v. Wells Fargo, 50 Cal. 218; Eagle r. Smith, 4 Houst. 
293; Dawkins t\ Sappington, 26 Ind. 199; Auditor r. Ballard, 9 Bush, 572; 
Coffey V, Commonwealth (Ky.), 37 S. W. Rep. 575; Russell r. Stewart, 44 Vt. 
170. See also Drummond r. United States, 35 Ct. Claims, 356. 

But this is utterly inconsistent with the idea that the obligation to pay the 
reward arises out of contract. " Where a contract is proposed to all the world, 
in the form of a proposition, any party may assent to it, and it is* binding, 
but he cannot assent without knowledge of the proposition." Rowland v, 
Lounds, 51 N. Y. 604, 609; Chicago, Ac, R. R. Co. i\ Sebring, 16 111. App. 181; 
Ensminger r. Horn, 70 III. App. 605; Williams v. West Chicago St. Ry. Co., 
191 111. 610; Lee t*. Flemingsburg, 7 Dana, 28 (overruled) ; Ball r. Newton, 7 
Cush. 599; Mayor of Hobokcn r. Bailey, 36 X. J. L. 490; Fitch r. Snedaker, 
38 N. Y. 248 ; Stangler r. Temple, 6 Humph. 115. See also City Bank r. Bangs, 
2 Edw. Ch. 95 ; Brecknock School District v, Frankheuser, 58 Pa. 380. 

That the act must be done not only with knowledge of, but with the inten- 
tion of accepting the offer, see Hewitt v. Anderson, 56 Cal. 476 ; Vitty r. Eley, 
51 N. Y. App. Div. 44; tw/ra, p. 21. See further on rewards, 54 Cent. L. J. 
184. 

13 A covenant " with such person as may be the wife of A, at his decease " 
to pay her a sura of money is invalid. It does not purport to create a present 
agreement, nor to be a continuing offer, it is " an attempt to create a covenant 
to arise wholly in the future between a defendant and a party who at the 
time was unascertained, and from whom no consideration was to move." 
Saunders r. Saunders, 154 Mass. 337. 



INVITATION OF OFFERS. 15 

not before), there is a complete contract with the particular bidder to 
whom the lot is knocked down (y).^* 

Difficulties in application. The principle is sufficiently clear, but its 
application is not wholly free from difficulties. The-^ are partly re- 
ducible to questions of fact or of interpretation, but partly arise from 
decisions which appear to give some countenance to a fallacious theory. 

Distinction between offer and inyiUtion of offers. First, we have to con- 
sider in particular cases whether some act or announcement of one 
of the parties is really the proposal of a contract, or only an invita- 
tion to other persons to make proposals for his consideration (z). 
This depends on the intention of the parties as collected from their 
language and the nature of the transaction, and the question is one 
either of pure fact or of construction. ♦Evidently it may be [16 
an important one, but due weight has not always been given to it. 

The proposal of a definite service to be done for reward, which is 
in fact a request (in the sense of the ordinary English law of con- 
tract) for that particular service, though not addressed to any one 
individually, is quite different in its nature from a declaration to all 
whom it may concern that one is willing to do business with them in 
a particular manner. The person who publishes such an invitation 
doe^'^'indeed contemplate that people who choose to act on it will do 
whatever is necessary to put themselves in a position to avail them- 
selves of it. But acts so done are merely incidental to the real ob- 
ject; they are not elements of a contract but preliminaries. It does 
not seem reasonable to construe such preliminaries into the considera- 
tion for a contract which the parties had no intention of making. 
Yet there are some modem decisions which seem to disregard the 
distinction between mere invitations or declarations of intention 
and binding contracts (a) . We shall now examine these cases. 

Examination of cases: In Denton v. 0, N, Railway Co. (&), the facts 
were shortly these: The plaintiff had come from London to Peter- 

(y) Payne y. Cave (1789) 3 T. R. rung zu Antragen as opposed to 

148, 1 R. R. 679. Prof. Langdell Antrag, 

(Summary, i 19) thinks it would {a) Compare the judgments in 
have been better to hold that every Harris v. Nickerson (1873) L. R. 8 
bid coDstitntes "an actual sale, sub- Q. B. 286, 42 L. J. Q. B. 171. 
ject to the condition that no one else (6) (1856) 5 E. & B. 860^ and bet- 
shall bid higher." ter in 25 L. J. Q. B. 129, where the 

(z) In German this is Aufforde- case stated is given at length. 

H Sale of Goods Act, i 58 (2) ; Blossom r. Railroad Co., 3 VTall. 96; Groten- 
kemper v. Achtermyer, 11 Bush, 222; Head r. Clark, 88 Ky. 362, 364; Fisher r. 
Seltzer, 23 Pa. 308/ It is so provided also in the German Biirgerliches Gesetz- 
buch, { 156. 



16 AGREEMENT, PKOPOSAL, AND AOOEPTANCE. 

b<)rough, had done his businees there, and wanted to go on to Hull the 
same night. He had made his arrangements on the faith of the 
company's current time-tables, and presented himself in due time at 
the Peterborough station, applied for a ticket to Hull by a train 
advertised in those tables as running to Hull at 7.20 p.m., and offered 
to pay the proper fare. The defendant company's clerk refused to 
issue such a ticket, for the reason that the 7.20 train no longer went 
to Hull. The fact was that beyond Milford Junction the line to Hull 
belonged to the North Eastern Railway Company, who formerly 
17] ran a *train corresponding with the Great Northern train, for 
which the Great Northern Railway Company issued through tickets 
by arrangement between the two companies. This corresponding 
train had now been taken off by the N. E. R. Co., but the G. N. R. 
time-table had not been altered. The plaintiff was unable to go fur- 
ther than Milford Junction that night, and so missed an appoint- 
ment at Hull and sustained damage. The cause was removed from a 
County Court into the Queen's Bench, and the question was whether 
on the facts as stated in a case for the opinion of the Court the 
plaintiff could recover (c). 

It was held by Lord Campbell C.J. and Wightman J. that when 
anyone offered to take a ticket to any of the places to which the train 
was advertised to carry passengers the company contracted with him 
to receive him as a passenger to that place according to the adver- 
tisement. Lord Campbell treated the statement in the time-table as 
a conditional promise which on the condition being performed became 
absolute. This proposition, reduced to exact language, amounts to 
saying that the time-table is a proposal, or part of a proposal, ad- 
dressed to all intending passengers and sufficiently accepted by tender 
of the fare at the station in time for the advertised train.**^ Cromp- 

(c) As to the measure of damages, ticket having been taken there was 

which here was not in dispute, see an unquestionable contract). [See 

Hamlin v. G. N. R. Co. (1856) 1 H. 36 Cent. L. Jl. 390]. 
& N. 408, 26 L. J. Ex. 20 (where a 

15 In Gordon r. Railroad Co., 52 N. H. 596, it was held that the company 
would not be liable for failure to transport the plaintifT (who was the holder 
of a season ticket over its road) in accordance with its, published time-table, 
if it " had done all that due care and skill could do " to transport him 
punctually. 

" The publication of a time-table, in common form, imposes upon a railroad 
company the obligation to use due care and skill to have the trains arrive 
and depart at the precise moments indicated in the table; but it does not 
import an absolute and unconditional engagement for such arrival and de- 
parture, and does not make the company liable for want of punctuality which 
is not attributable to their negligence." Cp. Sears v. Railroad Co., 14 Allen, 
433. In Crocker r. Railroad Co., 24 Conn. 249. the defendants had established, 
and given public notice of, a regulation that the fare on their line from N. to 



PROMISES BY AOVEBTISEMENT. 17 

ton J. (d) did not accept this view^ nor was it necessary to the actual 
decision: for the Court had only to say whether on the given facts 
the plaintiff could succeed in any form of action, and they were 
unanimously of opinion that there was a good cause of action in tort 
for a false representation;^® an opinion itself questionable, but not 
in this place (e). 

Warlow T. HarriioiL In Warlow v. Harrison (f) a sale by auction 
was '^announced as without reserve, the name of the owner not [18 
being disclosed. The lot was put up, but in fact bought in by the 
owner. The plaintiff, who was the highest real bidder, sued the 
auctioneer as on a contract to complete the sale as the owner's agent. 
The Court of Queen's Bench held that this was wrong ; the Court of 
Exchequer Chamber affirmed the judgment on the pleadings as they 
stood, but thought the facts did show another cause of action. Wat- 
son and Martin BB. and Byles J. considered that the auctioneer con- 

id) The fuller report of his judg- (/) (1858-9) 1 E. & E. 295^ 28 

ment is that in 5 £. & B. L. J. Q. B. 18, in Ex. Ch. 1 E. & £. 

(e) See Pollock on Torts, 6th ed. 309, 29 L. J. Q. B. 14. 
290, 618. 

N. L. would be fifty cents to passengers purchasing tickets before entering their 
ears, and to others fifty-five cents. Plaintiff took a seat in the train at N., 
and after it had started, being called upon by the conductor, offered to pay 
fifty cents, and refused to pay more for his fare from N. to N. L., and was 
thereupon removed from the train by defendants' servants. An action of tres- 
pass having been brought by him for having been wrongfully removed from 
the train, it appeared that plaintiff, on going a reasonable time before the time 
of departure of the train to defendants' ofiice where tickets were usually soldr 
found it closed, and was unable then, or afterward at any time before the train 
left, to procure a ticket, of which facts he informed the conductor when the 
latter demanded his fare. The regulation of defendants was admitted to be 
lawful and reasonable.* Held: " 1. That as common carriers the defendants 
were under no legal obligation to furnish tickets, or carry passengers from N. 
to N. L. for less than fifty-five cents each. 2. That the plaintiff's claim to 
such a passage for fifty cents rested entirely on the assumed engagement of the 
defendants to furnish tickets, and the plaintiff's endeavor to procure one, de- 
feated by the defendants. 3. That said regulation of the defendants was not 
a contract, creating a legal debt or duty, but a mere proposal, which might 
be suspended or withdrawn, by closing the defendants' office, and the retire- 
ment of their agent therefrom. 4. That the proposal being withdrawn, the 
parties were in the same condition as before it was made ; the defendants con- 
tinuing common carriers were bound to carry the plaintiff for fifty-five cents, 
but not otherwise. 5. That the plaintiff refusing said sum, the conductor had 
a right to remove him from the cars, using no unnecessary force for that pur- 
pose^ and that for such removal the defendants were not liable in an action for 
trespass." Cp. Johnston r. Georgia Co., 108 Ga. 496; Railroad Co. t\ Dalby, 
19 IlL 353; Railroad Co. r. South, 43 111. 176; Railway Co. r. Bimey, 71 111. 
391; Railroad Co. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1; 38 Ind. 116; Railroad Co. v. Rinard, 
46 Ind. 293; Railroad Co. r. Beckett, 11 Ind. App. 547; Du Larans v. Railroad 
Co., 15 Minn. 49; Swan r. Railroad Co., 132 Mass. 116; Hansley v. Railway 
Co., 117 N. C. 665; Hall v. Railroad Co., 28 S. C. 261; Phettiplace V. Railway 
Co., 84 Wis. 412. 

isHeim r. McCaughan, 32 Miss. 17. 
2 



18 AOBEEMENT^ PROPOSAL^ AKD ACCEFTAKOB. 

tracted with the highest bona fide bidder that the sale shotQd be 
without reserve. They said they could not distinguish the case 
from that of a reward ofiFered by advertisement, or of a statement in 
a time-table, thus holding in effect (contrary to the general rule as 
to sales by auction) that where the sale is without reserve the con- 
tract is completed not by the acceptance of a bidding, but by the 
bidding itself, subject to the condition that no higher bona fide bidder 
appears. In other words, every bid is in such a case not a mere 
proposal but a conditional acceptance. Willes J. and Bramwell B. 
preferred to say that the auctioneer by his announcement warranted 
that he had authority to sell without reserve, and might be sued for 
a breach of such warranty. The result was that leave was given to 
the plaintiff to amend and proceed to a new trial, which however was 
not done (g). 

Doctrine of Warlow v. Harrison doubted. The opinions expressed by 
the judges, therefore, are not equivalent to the actual judgment of 
a Court of Error, and have been in fact regarded with some doubt 
in a later case where the Court of Queen's Bench decided that at all 
events an auctioneer whose principal is disclosed by the conditions 
of sale does not contract personally that the sale shall be without 
19] reserve (h). Later, again, the same Court held that when *an 
auctioneer in good faith advertises a sale of certain goods, he does 
not by that advertisement alone enter into any contract or warranty 
wiui those who attend the sale that the goods shall be actually sold(i). 
In an analogous case (Jc) it was decided that a simple offer of stock 
in trade for sale by tender does not amount to a contract to sell to 
the person who makes the highest tender.*^ 

ig) The parties agreed to a stet distinct from the contract of sale. 

procesaue; see note in the L. J. The plaintiff failed on another point, 

report. [See Taylor v. Hassett, 65 N. Y. Supp. 

ih) Mainprice v. Weatley (1865) 988]. 

6 B. &. S. 420, 34 L. J. Q. B. 229. (i) Harris v. Nickerson (1873) L.R. 

But in Johnston v. Boyea [1899] 2 3 Q. B. 286, 42 L. J. B. 171. [See 

Ch. 73, 68 L. J. Ch. 425, Cozens- Fare v. John, 23 la. 286]. 

Hardy J. was prepared to hold {k) Spencer y, Harding (1970) h.'R. 

on the authority of Warlow v. 5 C. P. 661, 39 L. J. C. P. 332. In 

Harrison that there is a contract each of these cases we have the unani- 

by the vendors with the highest mous decision of a strong Court, 
bidder that he shall be the purchaser, 

IT So the lowest bidder for a public contract, in the absence 6i statute, has 
no enforceable right. Even where the bid had been accepted by formal vote, but 
the written contract which was to be executed had not been signed, there was 
held to be no contract in Edge Moor Bridge Works v. Bristol, 170 Mass. 628. 
8te also Weitz v. Independent District, 79 la. 423 ; Walsh r. St. Louis Exposi- 
tion, 16 Mo. App. 602, 90 Mo. 459; Anderson v. Board of Public Schools, 122 
Mo. 61; Leskie t*. Haseltine, 155 Pa. 98. 



PB0MI8ES BY ADVERTISEMENT. 19 

IHficiiltiet of deciiioaa. The doctrine of these cases^ though capable^ 
as we have seen, of being expressed in a manner conformable to the 
normal analysis of contract^ goes to the utmost limit warranted by 
sound principle^ and is not likely to be extended. If a man adver- 
tises that he has goods to sell at a certain price^ does he contract with 
any one who comes and offers to buy those goods that until further 
notice communicated to the intending buyer he will sell them at 
the advertised price? (ly^ Again^ does the manager of a theatre 
contract with every one who comes to the theatre and is ready to pay 
for a place that the piece announced shall be performed?^® or do 
directors or committee-men who summon a meeting contract with 
all who come that the meeting shall be held ? Offers to negotiate, in 
other words expressions of willingness to consider offers, must not 
be confounded with offers to be bound (m). 

Caniiins v. Farquluir. The distinction between the proposal of a con- 
tract and the mere preliminaries is clearly brought out by a later 

(I) See per Crompton J. in Denton (m) See per Bowen L.J. CarUll v. 

Y. 0. N. R. Co. Mupra. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 

Q. B. 256, 268. 

Win Moulton r. Kershaw, 69 Wis. 316, the defendants wrote to the plaintiflf 
as follows : " In consequence of a rupture in the salt trade, we are authorized 
to offer Michigan fine salt in full car-load lots of eighty to ninety-five bbls. de- 
livered in your city at 85c. per bbl., to be shipped per C. & N. W. R. R. Co. 
only. At this price it is a bargain, as the price in general remains unchanged. 
Shall be pleased to receive your order.*' On the following day the plaintiflf 
telegraphed: "Your letter of yesterday received and noted. You may ship 
me 2,000 bbls. Michigan fine salt, as offered in your letter. Answer." It was 
held that the letter and telegram did not together make a contract ; the letter 
was construed as being in the nature of an adveixisement that the writers were 
in a condition to supQly salt at the price named, and requesting- the person to 
whom it was addressed tq deal with them, but not an offer by which, if ac- 
cepted, defendants were tb be bound. 

In Beaupr^ v. Pacific & Atlantic Telegraph Co., 21 Minn. 155, the plaintiff 
wrote: "Have you any more northwestern mess pork? also extra mess? 
Telegraph price on receipt of this." The reply was telegraphed : ** Letter re- 
ceived. No light mess here. Extra mess $28.75." The plaintiffs replied by 
telegraph: "Despatch received. Will take two hundred extra mess, price 
named. The Court held there was no contract. 

In Johnston v. Rogers, 30 Ont. 150, the defendants wrote in the course of a 
letter " We quote you " specified goods at specified price, " car lota only." The 
plaintiffs telegraphed " We will take two cars ... at your offer of yes- 
terday;" it was held that no offer had been made and there was no contract. 
See also Harvey V. Facey, [1893] A. C. 552; Strobridge Lith. Co. v. Randall, 
73 Fed. Rep. 619; Talbot v. Pettigrew, 3 Dak. 141; Knight r. Cooley, 34 
la. 218; Howard 9. Industrial School, 78 Me. 230; Smith v, Gk>wdy, 8 Allen, 
566; Ashcroft r. Butterworth, 136 Mass. 511; Ahearn r. Ayres, 38 Mich. 692; 
Schenectady Stove Co. t?. Holbrook, 101 N. Y. 45; Allen r. Kirwan, 159 Pa. 
612; Kinghome v, Montreal Tel. Co., U. C. 18 Q. B. 60. 

Cp. Seymour v, Armstrong, 62 Kan. 720; College Mill v. Fidler, [Tenn.] 58 
S. W. Rep. 382. 

It See Pearoe v. Spalding, 12 Mo. App. 141. 



20 AQBEEMENT^ PBOPOSAL^ AND ACCEPTAKCE. 

decision of the Court of Appeal. A ^^ proposal '^ in the usual form 
was made to a life assurance society; the actuary wrote a letter 
stating that the proposal had been accepted at a certain premium, but 
20] adding this note : ^^ No ^assurance can take place until the first 
premium is paid." Afterwards, and before the time limited for that 
payment, an accident happened to the assured which affected his 
health, and the society, being informed of this, refused the premium 
when tendered. It was held that they were entitled to do so. The 
letter of acceptance did not conclude a contract, first, because the 
amount of premium was then first specified, and the assured had 
therefore not consented to that material term of the agreement ; nexty 
because of the express declaration of contrary intention (n). 

Another matter for remark is the effect of notice of revocation. 
Suppose the traveller had seen and read a new and correct edition 
of the time-table in the booking-oflBce immediately before he offered 
to take his ticket. This would clearly have been a revocation of the 
proposal of the company held out in the incorrect time-table, and 
accordingly no contract could arise. Similarly if on putting up a 
particular lot the auctioneer expressly retracted as to that lot the 
statement of the sale being without reserve, there could be no such 
contract with the highest bona fide bidder as supposed in Warlow v. 
Harrison (o) : yet the traveller's or bidder's grievance would be the 
same. 

Difficulty of fizins the supposed contract There is also di£Sculty in de- 
termining what are the contents and consideration of the contract 
supposed to be made. In the case of the time-table, for example, 
it is not sufiicient to say that the statements of the table are a 
lerm in the company's ordinary contract to carry the passenger. 
They may well be so after he has taken his ticket But here we 

21 ] have a contract said to be concluded by the ♦mere demand of 
a ticket and tender of the fare, which, therefore, cannot be the 
ordinary contract to carry. So in the case of the auction ve have 
a contract alleged to be complete not on the acceptance but on the 
making of a bid. The anomalous character of these contracts may 

(n) Canning y. Farquhar (1886) 16 the revocation must be so communi- 

Q. B. Div. 727, 55 L. J. Q. B. 225 ; cated as to amount to reasonable no- 

cp. Wall<ice*a case [1900] 2 Ch. 6^1, tice is not admissible in our law: see 

69 L. J. Ch. 777 (application for note to Fro»t y. Knight (1870) L. R. 

shares under an amalgamation agree- 5 Ex. at p. 337, and pp. 26, 27, below, 

ment by a shareholder in the old As to the somewhat analogous sug- 

company). sestion made in that case, see s. c. 

(o) The Continental doctrine that m Ex. Ch. L. R. 7 Ex. at p. 117. 



PROMISES BY ADVERTISEMENT. 21 

further be illustrated by considering whether it would be possible to 
maintain a remedy ex contractu in the case of a merely capricious 
refusal to issue tickets or hold the sale, as the case might be. On the 
whole it seems that at least some of the dicta in this class of cases 
cannot be supported. 

Must there be a real acceptance? Another diflSculty (though for Eng- 
lish lawyers hardly a serious one) is raised by the suggestion that in 
these cases the first offer or announcement is not a mere proposal, but 
constitutes at once a kind of floating contract with the unascertained 
person, if any, who shall fulfil the prescribed condition. Savigny 
quite justly held that on this theory the right of action could not be 
supported : there cannot be a vinculum iuris with one end loose ; but 
he strangely missed the true explanation (p). To a certain extent, 
however, this notion of a floating obligation is countenanced by the 
language of the judges in the cases above discussed, and also in the 
much earlier case of Williams v. Carwardine (q). There a reward 
had been offered by the defendant for information which should lead 
to the discovery of a murder. A statement which had that effect was 
made by the plaintiff, but not (as the jury found) Trith a view to 
obtaining the reward; it does not appear to whom it was made, or 
whether with any knowledge that a reward had been offered. The 
Court held; nevertheless, that the plaintiff had a good cause of action, 
because "there was a contract with any person who performed the 
condition mentioned in the advertisement," and the motive with 
which the information was given was immaterial : but on *thi8 [22 
it must be observed that the question is not of motive but of inten- 
tion. The decision seems to set up a contract without any privity 
between the parties. Such a doctrine cannot now be received (r),^ 
though the decision may have been right on the facts. There cannot 
be an acceptance constituting a contract without any communication 
of the proposal to the acceptor, or of the acceptance to the proposer.*^ 

(p) Obi. 2, 90. Yet within a few can authorities collected in 28 Am. 

pages be does gives the true analysis Law Reg. 2d S. 116. The solitary 

for the not dissimilar case of a sale modern case of Oihbons v. Proctor 

by auction. (1891) 64 L. T. 594, would no doubt 

iq) (1833) 4 B. & Ad. 621, s. c. at support or even extend Willicwia v. 

N. P. 6 C. A P. 566, 38 R. R. 328. Carwardine if it could be relied on. 

(r)Cf. Langdell, I 3, and Ameri- But it cannot be law as reported. 

so See ante, p. 13. n. 12. 

2iAlthou^ communication of the proposal to the acceptor is, communi- 
cation of the acceptance to the proposer is here not necessary. Carlill v. Car- 



22 AGBEEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

The question may arise whether the party claiming the reward has 
in fact performed the required condition according to the terms of 

bolic Smoke Ball Co., [1892] 2 Q. B. 484, [1893] 1 Q. B. 256, 269, per Bowen, J., 
p. 262, per Lindley, J. ; Maithewson t?. Fitch, 22 Col. 86 ; Perkins r. HadBell, 
50 111. 216; Harson v. Pike, 16 Ind. 140; Hayden v. Souger, 56 Ind. 42; First 
Nat. Bank v, Watkins, 154 Mass. 385; Bishop v, Eaton, 161 Mass. 496; Nied- 
ermeyer v. Curators, 61 Mo. App. 654; Todd v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181, 191; 
Miller t?. McKenzie, 95 N. Y. 575; Fry v. Insurance Co., 40 Ohio St. 108; 
Cooper i\ Altimus, 62 Pa. 486; Patton's Ex. v. Hassinger, 69 Pa. 311; Reif V. 
Page, 55 Wis. 496. As stated, supra, p. 13, n. 12, the performance of an act 
for the doing of which a reward is offered gives rise to a unilateral contract, 
and unless by the terms of the offer proposing a unilateral contract communi- 
cation of its acceptance is expressly or impliedly required as part of the con- 
sideration to be performed, it need not be made. In a bilateral contract com- 
munication of acceptance of the proposal is always necessary. A bilateral 
differs from a unilateral contract in this respect, for the reason that the con- 
sideration of a unilateral contract is something done, while the consideration 
of a bilateral contract is on each side a promise. In a bilateral contract the 
promise made in the proposal remains without consideration until there is an 
acceptance by means of a counter promise, and this counter promise has no 
existence, until it is communicated, while the consideration of a unilateral 
contract is furnished by performance of the act or acts requested to be done, 
and for doing which compensation is promised. An offer proposing a uni- 
lateral contract, therefore, becomes a binding promise imm^iately upon the 
performance of the act or acts requested to be done so that unless communi- 
cation to the proposer is one of the things requested it is not necessary. 
That notice is not necessary for the validity of a unilateral contract seems 
clearly recognized except in the case of offers of guaranty conditional upon 
giving credit to a third person. In such cases the weight of American au- 
thority (though there are many contrary decisions) holds that the offerer 
cannot be held unless notice is given by the acceptor that he has given credit 
as requested. The numerous cases are exhaustively collected in Ames's Cases 
on Suretyship, pp. 225-237. See also Parsons on Contracts, Vol. 11, p. •13, 
n. 1. It is often supposed that the reason of this requirement is that notice 
of acceptance is always an essential element to the formation of a contract. 
Davis f?. Wells, 104 U' S. 159 ; Barnes Co. v. Reed, 84 Fed. Rep. 603 ; Newman 
r. Streator, 19 111. App. 594; Ruffner v. Love, 33 111. App. 601; Kincheloe v. 
Holmes, 7 B. Mon. 5 ; Lachman v. Block, 47 La. Ann. 505 ; Howe v. Nickels, 
22 Me. 175; Winnebago Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480; Mitchell t\ Railton, 
45 Mo. App. 273; Kay v. Allen, 9 Pa. 320; Kellogg t?. Stockton, 29 Pa. 460; 
Wilkins v. Carter, 84 Tex. 438. 

The better reason of the rule is well expressed by Knowlton, J., in Bishop 
V. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496. The offer to guarantee "w^as an offer to be bound 
in consideration of an act to be done, and in such, a case the doing of the 
act constitutes the acceptance of the offer and furnishes the consideration. 
Ordinarily there is no occasion to notify the offerer of the acceptance of such 
an offer, for the doing of the act is a sufficient acceptance, and the promisor 
knows that he is bound when he sees that action has been taken on the faith 
of his offer. But if the act is of such a kind that know^ledge of it will not 
quickly come to the promisor, the promisee is bound to give him notice of 
his acceptance within a reasonable time after doing that which constitutes the 
acceptance. In such a case it is implied in the offer that, to complete the 
contract, notice shall be given with due diligence, so that the promisor may 
know that a contract has been made. But where the promise is in considera- 
tion of an act to be done, it becomes binding upon the doing of the act so far 
that the promisee cannot be affected by a subsequent withdrawal of it, if 
within a reasonable time afterward he notifies the promisor.'* See also Oaks 
V. Weller, 13 Vt. 106. 



PBOMISES BY ADVERTISEMENT. 23 

the advertisement^ In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke BdU Co. (s) it 
arofie in a curious manner. The advertisement of a remedy for 
influenza and similar diseases offered a sum of money to any one who 
should contract such disease " after using " the remedy according to 
the directions supplied with it, and for a certain time. A buyer who 
used the remedy as directed, and caught influenza while still using it, 
was held entitled to the sum offered, notwithstanding the argument 
strenuously urged for the defendant that the offer was too vague to 
be taken seriously, and the performance could not be verified. 

Xevocatioii of offer by advertisement. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has held that a general proposal made by public 
announcement may be effectually revoked by an announcement of 
equal publicity, such as an advertisement in the same newspaper, 
even as against a person who afterwards acts on the proposal not 
knowing that it has been revoked. For "he should have known," 
it is said, " that it could be revoked in the manner in whi^h it was 
made" (t). In other words, the proposal is treated as subject to a 
tacit condition that it may be revoked by an announcement made by 
the same means. *This may be a convenient rule, and may per- [23 
haps be supported as a fair inference of fact from the habits of the 
newspaper-reading part of mankind : yet it seems a rather strong piece 
of judicial legislation.^ 

(*) [1893] 1 Q. B. 256, 62 L. J. (t) 8huey y. United States (1875) 

Q. B. 257. C. A. 92 U. S. 73. 

22 Caaes which involye this question are : Lancaster v. Walsh, 4 M. & VT.' 16 ; 
Smith r. Moore, 1 C. B. 438 ; Thatcher v. England, 3 C. B. 254, 15 L. J. C. P. 
241; Tamer v. Walker, L. R. 1 Q. B. 641, 2 Q. B. 301; England v. Davidson, 
11 A. & E. 856; Shucy v, U. S., 92 U. S. 73; Morrell i\ Quarles, 35 Ala. 544; 
Ccfntral, Ac., R. Co. v. Cheatham, 85 Ala. 292; Ryer r. Stockwell, 14 Cal. 134; 
Burke r. Wells, Fargo & Co., 50 Cal. 221 ; Marvin v. Treat, 37 Conn. 96 ; Matter 
of Kelly, 39 Conn. 159; Bank t?. Hart, 55 111. 62; Loring v. Boston, 7 Met. 409; 
Crawshaw v. Roxbury, 7 Gray, 374; Jenkins r. Kebren, 12 Gray, 330; Besse 
r. Dyer, 9 Allen, 151 ; Kincaid v. Eaton, 98 Mass. 139 ; Pilie v. New Orleans, 
19 La. Ann. 274; Salbadore r. Insurance Co., 22 La. Ann. 338; Haskell v, 
Davidson, 91 Me. 488 ; Goldsborough v. Cradie, 28 Md. 477 ; Brown v, Bradlee, 
156 Mass. 28; Bank v. Bangs, 2 Edw. Ch. 95; Pierson v. Morch, 82 N. Y. 503; 
Wilmoth r. Hensel, 151 Pa. 200; Kasling r. Morris, 71 Tex. 584. 

One finding lost property for the restoration of which a reward is offered, 
has a lien upon it so that he need not deliver it until the reward is paid. 
Everman r. Hyman, 3 Ind. App. 459; Wentworth v. Day, 3 Met. 352; 
Cummings r. Gann, 52 Pa. St. 484. 

« An offer of reward expires after lapse of a reasonable time. In Drum- 
mond r. United States, 35 Ct. CI. 356, it was held that a right to a reward 
offered for the arrest of a criminal was gained by making the arrest ten 
years after the offer was made, the criminal being still a fugitive from 
Justiee. 

In Mitchell r. Abbott, 86 Me. 338, it was held that a lapse of twelve years 



24 AGREEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

Other general pxoposals.— Other kinds of general proposals have also 
been dealt with as capable of acceptance by any one to whose hands 
they might come. 

Ez parte Asiatic Banking Corporation.— In Ex parte Asiaiic Banking 
Corporation (w), the following letter of credit had been given by Agra 
and Masterman's Bank to Dickson, Tatham and Co. 

''No. 394. You are hereby authorized to draw upon thia bank at six 
months' sight, to the extent of £15,000 sterling, and such drafts I undertake 
duly to honour on presentation. ITiis credit will remain in force for twelve 
months from this date, and parties negotiating bills under it are requested 
to indorse particulars on the back hereof. The bills must specify that they 
are drawn under credit No. 394, of the 31st of October, 1865." 

The Asiatic Banking Corporation held for value bills drawn on 
the Agra and Masterman's Bank under this letter; the Bank stopped 
payment before the bills were presented for acceptance, and Dickson, 
Tatham and Co. were indebted to the Bank in an amount exceed- 
ing what was due on the bills : but the Corporation claimed neverthe- 
less to prove in the winding-up for the amount, one of the grounds 
being "that the letter shown to the person advancing money con- 
stituted, when money was advanced on the faith of it, a contract by 
the Bank to accept the bills." Caims L.J. adopted this view, hold- 
ing that the letter did amount to "a general invitation" to take 
bills drawn by Dickson, Tatham and Co. on the Agra and Master- 
man's Bank, on the assurance that the Agra and Masterman's Bank 
would accept such bills on presentation; and that the acceptance of 
the offer in this letter by the Asiatic Banking Corporation con- 
24] stituted a binding legal contract *again8t the Agra and Master- 
man's Bank (x). The difficulties above discussed do not seem to 

(u) (1867) L. R. 2 Ch. 391. 36 preme Court of New York on a very 

L. J. Ch. 222. Cp. Bhugwandass similar state of facts. [Scott v, 

V. Netherlands, dc. Insce. Co. (1888) Pilkington, 15 Abb. Pr. 280.] The 

14 App. Ca. (J. C.) 83, decided on decision of the English Courts was 

the ground that the " open cover " that the law applicable to the case 

was a proposal of insurance ad- was the law of New York, and that 

dressed to any one having insurable the judgment having been given by 

interest in the cargo. a court of competent jurisdiction in 

(a?) In Scott V. Pilkington (1862) a case to which the local law was 

2 B. & S. 11, 31 L. J. Q. B. 81, on properly applicable, there was no 

the other hand, an action was room to question its correctness in 

brought on a judgment of the Su- an English court. So far as any 

between the time when the reward was offered and the time of performance 
was more than a reasonable time. 

In The Matter of Keily, 39 Conn. 159, it was held that an offer of reward 
for a particular crime would not laps^' until the Statute of Limitations 
barred conviction for the crime. See nlso Ijoring r. Boston. 7 Met.* 409; 
Shaub V. Lancaster, 166 Pa. 362; Langdell Sum. Cont., f 156. 



PROMISES BY OEXEBAL OFFEB. 25 

exist in this case. From an open letter of credit (containing too in 
this instance an express request to persons negotiatlDg bills under 
it to indorse particulars) there may be inferred without any violence 
either to law or to common reason a proposal or request by the 
author of the letter to the mercantile public to advance money on 
the faith of the undertaking expressed in the letter. This under- 
taking must then be treated as addressed to any one who. shall so 
advance money: the thing to be performed by way of consideration 
for the undertaking is definite and substantial, and is in fact the 
main object of the transaction.^ If any question arose as to a revo- 
cation of the proposal, it would be decided by the rules which apply 
to the revocation of proposals made by letter in general (y). 

Statute of Frauds. The bearing of the Statute of Frauds on these 
contracts made by advertisements or general offers was discussed 
incidentally in a case brought before the Judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South 

opinion was expressed by the Court and as a concession to the defend- 
as to what should have been the de- ants, and is therefore no positive 
cision on the same facts in a case authority. 

governed by the law of England, it {y) See however Shuey v. United 

was against any right of action at Statea, p. *22, above. [Also Bank t*. 

law being acquired by the bill-hold- Clark, 61 Md. 400; Quick v, Wheeler, 

ers. This however was by the way, 78 N. Y. 300.] 

i* "A letter written within a reasonable time before or after the date of a 
bill of exchange, describing it in terms not to be mistaken, and promising to 
accept it, is, if shown to the person who afterwards takes the bill on the 
credit of the letter, a virtual acceptance, binding the person who makes the 
promise." Coolidge r. Payson, 2 Wheat. 66, 75; Schimmelpennich r. Bayard, 
1 Pet. 264; Boyce v. Edward.s, 4 Pet. Ill; Bayard v. Lathy, 2 McLean, 462; 
Lafargue r. Harrison, 70 Cal. 380; Brown v. Ambler, 66 Md. 391; Storey r. 
Logan. Mass. 55; Bank r. Rice, 08 Mass. 288; Bank r. Richards, 100 Mass. 
413; Woodward V. Griffiths, Ac, Co., 43 Minn. 260; Greele r. Parker, 5 Wend. 
414; Goodrich v, Gordon, 15 Johns. 6; Steman r. Harrison, 42 Pa. 49. 

See IL Ames* Cas. B. & N. 787, 788: "An absolute authority to draw is 
fquivalent to an unconditional promise to pay a bill of exchange." Ruiz r. 
Renauld, 100 N. Y. 256. 

Further, it is well settled that if A. give to B. a letter (which, though ad- 
dressed to B., is designed to be shown to and acted upon by others), promising 
to pay any bills which B. may draw, or to stand as surety for any indebtedness 
which he may incur, an action will lie against A. in favor of any person who 
gives value to B. on the faith of and within the terms of the letter. I^wrason 
r. Mason. 3 Cr. 492; Russell r. Wijrcin. 2 Rtorv, 213; Cassell r. Dows, 1 
Blatchf. 335; Smith r. Ledyard, 49 Ala. 279; Whilden r. Bank. 64 Ala. 1; 
Nelson r. Bank, 48 HI. 36; Nisbett r. Galbraith, 3 La. Ann. 690: Bank r. 
Lynch, 52 Md. 270; Barney v, Newcomb, 9 Gush. 46; Bissell r. I^wis, 4 Mich. 
450; Bank v. Coster's Ex., 3 N. Y. 203; Johannessen v. Munroe. 158 N. Y. 641 ; 
Lonsdale r. Bank, 18 Ohio, 126; Borland r. Mnlhollan, 10 Ohio St. 192; 
Lowry r. Adams, 22 Vt. 160; McNaughton r. Conkling, 9 Wis. 316. Cr». Posev 
r. Bank, 7 Col. App. 108; Bank r. Luce, 1.39 Mass. 488;, Putnam Bank v. 
Snow, 172 Mass. 569; Bank r. Kaufman, 93 N. Y. 273. 



26 AOSBEMENT^ PROPOSAL^ AKD ACCEPTANCB. 

Wales (z). It is settled that the requirements of the statute in the 
cases where it applies are generally not satisfied unless the written 
evidence of the contract shows who both the contracting parties 
are. But it was suggested in the Colonial Court that in the case of a 
25] proposal made by advertisement, where the ♦nature of the con- 
tract (e,g. a guaranty) was such as to bring it within the statute, 
the advertisement itself might be a sufficient memorandum, the 
other party being indicated as far as the nature of the transaction 
would admit (a). The Judicial Committee, however, showed a strong 
inclination to think that this view is not tenable, and that in such a 
case the evidence required by the statute would not be complete 
without some further writing to show who in particular had accepted 
the proposal* It was observed that as a matter of fact the cases 
on advertisements had been of such a kind that the statute did 
not apply to them, and it was a mere circumstance that the adver- 
tisement was in writing (b). We are not aware of the point having 
arisen in any later case. 

Formation of contract by indirect commnnication. It is possible for a 
contract to be formed without any direct communication between the 
parties or any persons who in an ordinary sense are their agents. 
Where competitors enter for a club race under express rules pre- 
scribed or adopted by the managing committee, and those rules 
declare that any competitor breakuig them shall be liable for dam- 
ages arising therefrom, this is sufficient to create a mutual contract 
between the competitors to be liable for and discharge any such 
damages (c). Here the secretary of the club who receives the entries 
may be regarded as an agent to receive, as between the competitors, 
the offer of every competitor to be bound by the rules, and the 
acceptance of every other competitor; and his authority to do so is 
implied in the nature of the transaction. There may be cases of this 
kind in which it would be hard, if the question were raised, to de- 

(g) Williams v. Byrnes (1863) 1 the Statute of Frauds is not ap- 

Moo. P. C. N. S. 154. plicable to contracts made in this 

(a) Per Stephen C.J. at pp. 167, manner. 
184. (c) Clarke v. Earl of Dunraven 

ih) See at p. 198. The language {The "fifa/awi<a") [1897] A. C, 59, 

of the headnote is misleading; there 66 L. J. P. 1. The only question 

is no auergefition in the judgment of seriously argued in the H. L. was 

any such proposition of law as that on the construction of the rules. 

25 This objection was raised by counsel, but did not prevail, in Bank v. 
Coster's Ex'rs, 3 N. Y. 203, and Griffin r. Rembert, 2 S. C. 410. See also 
Board of Marion Co. r. Shipley, 77 Tnd. 553. 



RBVOCATION. 27 

termine whether the parties intended to create a legal or a merely 
honorary obligation. 

^Revocation. [26 

Serocatioii of offer. An offer may be revoked at any time before 
acceptance but not afterwards. 

Cooke T. Ozley — Dickmaon ▼. Dodds. For before acceptance there is 
no agreement, and therefore the proposer cannot be bound to any- 
thing (d).^ So that even if he purports to give a definite time for 
acceptance, he is free to withdraw his proposal before that time has 
elapsed.^ He is not bound to keep it open unless there is a distinct 
contract to that effect, founded on a distinct consideration. If in 
the morning A. offers goods to B. for sale at a certain price, and 
gives B. till four o'clock in the afternoon to make up his mind, 
yet A. may sell the goods to C. at any time before four o'clock, so 
long as B. has not accepted his offer (e). But if B. were to say to 

(d) The same rule applies to a 49 L. J. Q. B. 701. But the action 
proposal to vary an existing agree- was for not delivering goods, as on a 
ment: Oilkes v. Leonino (1858) 4 complete bargain and sale; and this 
C. B. N. S. 485. was insisted upon in the argument. 

(e) Admitted in Cooke v. Oxley The Court may possibly have sup- 
(1790) 1 R. R. 783, 3 T. R. 653; posed that acceptance of an offer 
affd. in Ex. Ch., see note; Finch Sel. made any appreciable time before 
Ca. 2nd ed. 85. The decision goes far- was not complete without a fresh 
ther, and has been the subject of sign of consent from the proposer, 
much criticism. For the conflicting Cp. Kennedy v. Lee (1817) 3 Mer. 
views see Benjamin on Sale, 69 (4th 441, 17 R. R. 110. [The decision in 
ed.) and Langdell's Summary, S 182. Cooke r. Oxley has been generally 
I now agree with Mr. Langdell that condemned in this country. " The 
it cannot be supported in any sense. criticisms which have been made 
If the defendant's offer had been re- upon the case are sufficient to destroy 
yoked before the plaintiff's accept- its authority/' 2 Kent 477 n. (d). 
ance, it was for the defendant to "It can not be considered as of any 
plead and prove it. [Wilson v. authority." Railroad Co. r. Bartlett, 
Stump, 103 Cal. 255, 258; Quick t\ 3 Cush. 224, 228; and see Metcalf on 
Wheeler, 78 N. Y. 300]. The de- Contracts, 19-23; 1 Duer on Insur- 
cision would have been right if the ance, 118; 2 Amer. Jurist N. S. 17 
action had been on a promise to keep eeq. Also the Australian case of 
the offer open, as seems to be sup- Nyulasy v. Rowan, 17 Vict. L. R. 
posed by Lush J. in Stevenson v. 663.] 

McLean (1880) 5 Q. B. D. at p. 351, 

MStitt V. Huidekopers, 17 Wall. 384; Travis r. Ins. Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 486; 
McDonald r. Huff, 77 Cal. 279; Crocker r. Railroad Co., 24 Conn. 249, 261; 
Harding r. Gibbs, 125 111. 85; Gross v. Arnold, 177 111. 575; Burton v. Shot- 
well, 13 Bush, 271; Bryant's Pond Co. v. Felt, 87 Me. 234; Railroad Co. ». 
Ba'rtlett, 3 Cush. 224; Craig v. Harper, 3 Cush. 158; Foster r. Boston, 22 
Pick. 33; Hudson O. r. Tower, 156 Mass. 82; McDonald r. Bewick, 51 Mich. 
79; Wilcox r. Cline, 70 Mich. 517; Brown r. Rice, 29 Mo. 322; Houghwout 
r. Boisaubin, 18 N. J. Eq. 315; Schenectady Stove Co. v, Holbrook, 101 
N. Y. 45; Engine Co. r. Green, 143 Pa. 269; Cady r. Straus, 97 Va. 701; 
Johnson r. Filkington, 39 Wis. 62. 

«T Brown r. Savings Union, 134 Cal. 448; Bosshardt Co. v. Crescent Oil Ck)., 



28 AGREEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND AGOEPTANCR. 

A. : "At present I do not know, but the refusal of your offer for a 
definite time is worth something to me; I will give you so much to 
keep it open till four o'clock," and A. were to agree to this, then 
A, would be bound to keep his offer open, not by the offer itself, but 
by the subsequent independent contract (/).^ If A. on Wednesday 
27] hands to *B. a memorandum offering to sell a house at a certain 
price, with a postscript stating that the offer is to be "left over" 
till nine o'clock on Friday morning, A. may nevertheless sell the 
house to C. at any time before the offer is accepted by B. If B., with 
notice of A.'s dealing with C, tenders a formal acceptance to A., this 
is inoperative (g). It is different in modern Roman law. There a 
promise to keep a proposal open for a definite time is treated as bind- 
ing, as indeed there appears no reason why it should not be in a 
system to which the doctrine of consideration is foreign : nay, there 
is held in effect to be in every proposal an implied promise to keep 
it open for a reasonable time (h). In our own law the effect of 
naming a definite time in the proposal is simply negative and for the 
proposer's benefit;^ that is, it operates as a warning that an accept- 
ed) We find something like this in (g) Dickinson v, Dodda (187ft) 2 
early Germanic law, where earnest on Ch. Div. 463, 45 L. J. Ch. 777. The 
a sale was not payment on account case suggests, but does not decide, 
of a completed contract, but the price another question, which will be pres- 
of the seller's forbearance to sell to ently considered. Contra Langdell, 
any other person for a limited time. Summary', p. 244; and on principle 
Heusler, Inst, des D. P. R. ii. 256, perhaps rightly, 
cp. Glanv. x. 14, showing the law to {h) Sec L. R. 5 Ex. 337, n. 
be then still doubtful in England. 

171 Pa. 109; Weaver t?. Burr, 31 W. Va. 730. Where, on a treaty for a sale, 
an article is taken on trial, with an option to purchase if liked, there is no 
contract, but only an offer until the option is determined ; Sturm r. Boker, 150 
U. S. 312; Davis, &c.. Works v. McHugh, 115 la. 415; Hunt v. Wyman, 100 
Mass 198; Omaha Bank t?. Kraus, 62 Neb. 77. But where the article is taken 
with an option to return if not liked, there is a contract in the first place, sub- 
ject to a right of rescission; Foley i\ Felrath, 98 Ala, 176; Withersby P, 
Sleeper, 101 Mass. 138. See further, 9 Harv. L. Rev. 110. 

28 So an option or offer under seal is irrevocable during the time which it 
specifies. Willard v, Taylor, 8 Wall. 557; Johnston r. Trippe, 33 Fed. Rep. 
530; Mansfield r. Hodgdon, 147 Mass. 304, 307; O'Brien r. Boland, 166 Mass. 
481 ; Walker r. Bamberger, 17 Utah, 239. 

29W'hen an offer is in terms made to remain open until a fixed time, the 
proposal so limited comes to an end of itself at the end of that time, but a 
willingness to contract on the part of the party making the offer on the terms 
named in it, is presumed to continue during the time limited. Hen thorn r. 
Fraser [1892], 2 Ch. 31; Haldane i\ United States, 69 Fed. Rep. 819; Smith 
r. Bateman, 8 Col. App. 336; Larmon v. Jordan, 56 111. 204; Galena, &c. R. v. 
Ennor, 116 III. 65; Crandall r. Willig, 166 111. 233; Coleman r. Apple- 
garth, 68 Md. 21 ; Railroad Co. r. Bartlett, 3 Cush. 224, 227 ; Wilson v. Cline, 
70 Mich. 517; Mactier's AdmVs r. Frith, 6 Wend. 103, 122; Cheney v. Cook, 
7 Wis. 413; Sherley r. Peehl, 84 Wis. 46. 



BEVOOATIOK. 29: 

ance will nat be recdved after the lapse of the time named, not as 
an undertaking that if given sooner it shall be. In fact, the proposal 
so limited comee to an end of itself at the end of that time, and there 
is nothing for the other party to accept.*® This leads us to the next 
rule, namely: — 

Conditions of offer. 

Detenniiuttioii of offer by lapse of time. The proposer may prescribe 
a certain time within which the proposal is to be accepted, and 
the manner and form in which it is to be accepted.*^ If no time 
is prescribed, the acceptance must be communicated to him within 
a reasonable time. In neither case is the acceptor answerable for 
any delay which is the consequence of the proposer's own default. If 
no manner or form is prescribed, the acceptance may be communi- 
cated in any reasonable or usual manner or form. 

This is almost self-evident, standing alone; we shall see ♦the [28 
importance of not losing sight of it in dealing with the difficulties 
to be presently considered. Note, however, that though the proposer 
may prescribe a form or time of acceptance, he cannot prescribe a 
form or time of refusal, so as to fix a contract on the other party if 
he does not refuse in some particular way or within some particular 
time {i)P 

Among other conditions, the proposal may prescribe a particular 
place for acceptance, and if it does so, an acceptance elsewhere will 
not do {k). The question in cases of this kind is whether the condi- 
tion as to time, place, or manner of acceptance was in fact part of the 
terms of the proposal. 

There is direct authority for tiie statement that the proposal must 

(t) Felihouse V. Bindley (1862) 11 {k) Eliason v. Henahaw (1819) 

C. B. N. a 869, 875, 31 L. J. C. P. (Sup. Ct. U. S.) 4 Wheat. 226, Lang- 
204. dell, Sel. Ca. on Cent. 48, Finch Sel. 

Ca. 66. 

aoLarmon v. Jordan, 56 111. -204; Potts v. Whitehead, 20 N. J. Eq. 66, 50; 
Longworth p. Mitchell, 26 Ohio St. 334, 342. See also Haldane v. United 
States, 69 Fed. Rep. 819, and cases cited in the preceding note. 

Si Where the proposal stipulated for an acceptance by return mail, and the 
acceptance was not posted until two days after the receipt of the proposal, it 
was held that the promisor was not bound. Maclay r. Harvey, 90 111. 625. 
See further as to the effect of these words, Tinn r. Hoffman, 29 L. T. N. S. 271 ; 
Carr v. Duval, 14 Pet. 77, 82; Ortman ». Weaver, 11 Fed. Rep. 358, 362; 
Bernard P. Torrance, 5 O. & J. 383 ; Taylor p. Rennie, 35 Barb. 272 ; Palmer 
t. Insurance Co., 84 N. Y, 69 ; Howells v. Stroock, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 344. 

82 Barton p. London k N. W. Ry. Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77 ; Wiedemann p. Wal- 
pole [1891], 2 Q. B. 634; Re Lloyd Edwards, 61 L. J. Ch. 23; Grice v. Noble, 
59 Mich. 515, 523; Prescott p. Jones^ 69 N. H. 305. 



30 AGREEMENT^ PROPOSAL^ AND ACCEPTANOB. 

at all events be taken as limited to a reasonable time (l) ;^ nor has 
it ever been openly disputed. The rule is obviously required by c<hi- 
venience and justice. It may be that the proposer has no means of 
making a revocation known {e. g., if the other party changes his 
address without notice to him, or goes on a long journey), and he 
cannot be expected to wait for an unlimited time. Words of present 
obligation (but not capable of operating to that effect) have been 
held to constitute an offer with limit of time (m). 



Limits of Revocation. 

Revocation must be communicated before acceptance.- A proposal is re- 
voked by communication to the other party of the proposer's inten- 
tion to revoke it, and the revocation can take effect only when that 
communication is made before acceptance. 

29] *The communication may be either express or tacit, and notice 
received in fact, whether from the proposer or from any one in his 
behalf or otherwise, is a sufficient communication. 

A person who has made an offer must be considered as continu- 
ously making it until he has brought to the knowledge of the per- 
son to whom it was made that it is withdrawn (n). But that person's 
refusal or counter-offer puts an end to the original offer (nn).^ 

Revocation after acceptance too late. The first point under this head 
is that an express revocation communicated after acceptance, though 

{I) Daily' 8 case (1868) L. R. 6 (n) Lord Herschell, Henthom v. 

Eq. 428, L. R. 3 Ch. 592, 37 L. J. Ch. Eraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27, 31, 61 L. J. 

265 ; Ramsgate Hotel Co. v. Monte- Ch. 373, 66 L. T. 439. 
fiore; same Co. v. Ooldsmid (1866) (nn) Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 

L. R. 1 Ex. 109, 35 L. J. Ex. 90. Beav. 334, 52 R. R. 144. [Tinn v. 

(w) Hindley's case [1896] 2 Ch. Hoffman, 29 L. T. N. S. 271.] 
121, 65 L. J. Ch. 691, C. A. 

83 Minnesota Oil Co. r. Collier Lead Co., 4 Dillon, 431 ; De Witt v. Railway 
Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 484; Hargadine t\ McKittrick Co., 64 Fed. Rep. 560; Averill 
V. Hedge, 12 Conn. 424 ; Ferrier v. Storer, 63 la. 484 ; Trounstine v. Sellers, 26 
Kans. 447; Moxley r. Moxley, 2 Met. (Ky.) 309; Loring v. Boston, 7 Met. 457; 
Park r. .'Whitney, 148 Mass. 278; Railroad Co. v, Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Mizell 
V. Burnett, 4 Jones L. 240; Sherley r. Peehl, 84 Wis. 46. 

84 A counter-offer rejects the original offer. National Bank r. Hall, 101 U. 
S. 43, 50; Minneapolis, &c.. Ry. Co. r. Columbus Rolling Mills, 119 I^. S. 140; 
Ortman r. Weaver, 11 Fed. Rep. 358; Arthur r. Gordon, 37 Fed. Rep. 558; 
W. & H. M. Goulding Co. r. Hammond, 54 Fed. Rep. 639 (C. C. A.) ; James 
V. Darby, 100 Fed. Rep. 224; Anglo-American Co. r. Prentiss, 157 111. 506; 
Grenier r. Cota, 92 Mich. 23; Baker r. Johnson Co.. 37 la. 186, 189; Cartmel 
r. Newton, 79 Ind. 1, 8; Fox v. Turner, 1 111. App. 153; Egger v. Nesbitt, 122 
Mo. 667 ; Harris v, Scott, 67 N. H. 437 ; Russell v. Falls Mfg. Co., 106 Wis. 329. 



COJiJiUNICATIOK OF RBYOCATION. 31 

detennined upon before the date of the acceptance, is too late.^ 
This was decided so lately as in 1880 in two distinct cases (o). It 
will suffice to give shortly the facts of the earlier one(p). The 
defendants at Cardiff wrote to the plaintiffs at New York on the 
Ist of October, 1879, offering for sale 1000 boxes of tinplates on 
certain terms. Their letter was received on the 11th, and on the 
same day the plaintiffs accepted the offer by telegraph, confirming 
this by a letter sent on the 15th. Meanwhile the defendants on 
the 8th of October had posted a letter withdrawing their offer of 
the 1st: this reached the plaintiffs on the 20th. The plaintiffs 
insisted on completion of the contract; the defendants maintained 
that there was no contract, the offer having been, in their view, 
withdrawn before the acceptance was either received or despatched. 
Idndley J. stated as follows the questions to be considered: ^^1. 
Whether a withdrawal of an offer has any effect until it is com- 
municated to the person to whom the offer has been sent? 2. 
Whether posting a letter of withdrawal is a communication to 
the person to whom the letter is sent? " The ♦first he answered [30 
in the negative, on the principle " that a state of mind not notified 
cannot be regarded in dealings between man and man, and that an 
uncommunicated revocation is for all practical purposes and in point 
of law no revocation at all." ^ The second he likewise answered in 

(o) (1880) Byrne r. Van Tien- [1892] 2 Ch. 27, 61 L. J. Ch. 373, 

hoven, 6 C. P. D. 344, 49 L. J. C. P. fully confirms these decisions. 

3ie, Finch Sel. Ca. 104; Stevenson (p) Byrne v. Van Tienhoven, last 

▼. McLean (1880) 6 Q. B. D. 346, 49 note. 
Lw J. Q. B. 701; HeniKom v. Fraser 

SBRerocation is ineffectual until received by the offeree: Re London & North- 
ern Bank, ri900] 1 Ch. 220; Tayloe r. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. 390; 
Pfttriek r. Sowman, 149 U. S. 411, 424; The Palo Alto, 2 Ware, 343; Kempner 
V. Cohn, 47 Ark. 519; Sherwin r. Nat. Cash Register Co., 5 Col. App. 162; 
Wheat r. Cross, 31 Md. 99; Brauer r. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198. The contrary 
implications in Cooke r. Oxley, 3 T. R. 653; Adams r. Lindsell, 1 B. & Aid. 
681 ; Head r. Diggon, 3 Man. & R. 97 ; Hebb's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 9, must be 
regarded as overruled. 

In Patrick p. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, the Court, after holding that a revoca- 
tion of an offer not received before acceptance was ineffectual, said (at p. 424) : 
''There is indeed, in a case of this kind, some reason for urging that the 
party making the revocation should be estopped to claim that his attempted 
withdrawal was not binding upon himself ; but this could not be done without 
infringing upon the inexorable rule that one party to a contract cannot be 
bound unless the other be also, notwithstanding that the principle of mutuality 
thm applied may enable a party to take advantage of the invalidity of his 
own act." 

MTbe principle that the law takes no notice of mere mental operations 
apart from a physical expression of them, was quaintly stated by Brian, C J., 
if Edw. IV, T. Pasch., case 2, who said, as quoted by Lord Blackburn, in 
Brogdcn v. Metropolitan Rwy. Co., 2 App. Cas. 666, 692, " it is trite law that 



32 AGREEMENT, PBOPOSAL, AKD ACCEPTANCE. 

the negative, on grounds of both principle and convenience, and 
notwithstanding an apparent, but only apparent, inconsifitencj with 
the rule as to acceptances by letter which will be presently considered. 
This doctrine has been accepted by the Supreme Court of the United 
States (q). 

Tacit xevocatioii. It seems impossible to find any reason in principle 
why the necessity for communication should be less in the case of a 
revocation which is made not by words but by conduct, as by disposing 
to some one else of a thing oflfered for sale. Nor does it seem practica- 
ble in the face of the decisions just cited, though they do not actually 
cover such a case, to say that any such difiEerence is recognized by 
the law of England. The authority most in point, Dickinson v. 
Dodds (r), is not of itself decisive. The facts were these. A. offered 
in writing to sell certain houses to B., adding a statement that the 
offer was to be "left over" until a time named; which statement, as 
we have already seen^ could have no legal effect unless to warn B. 
that an acceptance would not be received at any later time. B. 
made up his mind the next morning to accept, but delayed communi- 
cating his acceptance to A. In the course of the day he heard from 
a person who was acting as his agent in the matter that A. had 
meanwhile offered or agreed to sell the property to C. Early on the 
following day (and within the time limited by A.^s memorandum) 
B. sought out A. and hcmded a formal acceptance to him; but A. 
answered, "You are too late. I have sold the property." It was 
held in the first instance by Bacon V.C. that A. had made to B. 
31 ] an offer which up to the time of acceptance he had ♦not re- 
voked, and that consequently there was a binding contract between 
A. and B. But in the Court of Appeal it was said that, although 
no "express and actual withdrawal of the offer" had reached B., 
yet by his own showing B., when he tendered his acceptance to A., 
well knew that A. had done what was inconsistent with a continued 
intention of contracting with B. Knowing this, B. could not by 
a formal acceptance force a contract on A. («). It does not appear 

(q) Patrick V. Bouman (1S03) 149 («) The headnote says: " Semhle, 

U. S. 411. 424. that the sale of the property to a 

(r) (1876) 2 Ch. Div. 463. 45 L. J. third person would of itself amount 

Ch. 777. One or two immaterial de- to a withdrawal of the offer, even 

tails are omitted in stating the facts. although the person to whom the 

the thought of man is not triable, for even the devil does not know what the 
thought of man is." See also Bowman v. Patrick, 36 Fed. Rep. 138, 144; 
The Palo Alto, Davies, 343, 357; O'Donnell r. Clinton, 145 Mass. 461, 463 j 
Prescott V, Jones, 69 N. H. 305, 307 ; White v. Corlies, 46 N. Y. 467, 469. 



COMJiUNICATION OF BEVOCATIOK. 33 

that the knowledge which B. in fact had was conveyed to him or hia 
agent by or through A., or any one intending to communicate it on 
A/b behalf. Yet the Court held that knowledge' in point of fact 
of the proposer's changed intention, however it reaches the other 
party, will make the proposer's conduct a sufficient revocation.^' 
But what if B. had communicated his acceptance to A. without 
knowing anything of A.'s dealings with C? This question remains 
open, and must be considered on principle. 

Possibility of donble acceptance. Suppose that A. offers to sell one 
hundred tons of iron to B., not designating any specific lot of iron, 
and that B. desires time to consider, and A. assents. Then A. meets 
with C, they talk of the price of iron, and C. offers A. a better price 
than he has asked from B., and they strike a bargain for a hundred 
tons. Then B. returns, and in ignorance of A.'s dealings with C. 
accepts A/s offer formerly made to him. Here are manifestly two 
good contracts. A. is bound to deliver 100 tons of iron to B. at 
one price, and 100 tons to C. at another. And if A. has in fact 
only 100 tons, and was thinking only of those hundred tons, it 
makes no difference. He would be equally bound to B. and C. if he 
had none. He must deliver them iron of the quantity and quality 
contracted ♦for, or pay damages. How then will the case stand [32 
if, other circumstances being the same, the dealing is for specific 
goods, or for a house? ^ Here it is impossible that A. should per- 
form his agreement with both B. and C, and therefore they cannot 
both make him perform it; but that is no reason why he should 
not be answerable to both of them. The one who does not get per- 
formance may have damages. It remains to ask which of them 
shall have the option of claiming performance, if the contract is 
otherwise such that its performance can be specifically enforced. 
The most convenient solution would seem to be that he whose ac- 
ceptance is first in point of time should have the priority: for the 
preference must be given to some one, and the first acceptance 
makes the first complete contract. There is no reason for making 
the contract relate back for this purpose to the date of the proposal. 
This is consistent with everything that was really decided in 

offer was first made had no knowl- and of Mellish L.J. at p. 475, and 

edge of the sale." But this seems per Lord Herschell, Henthom v. 

unwarranted by the judgments. See Eraser [1892] 2 Ch. at p. 33. 
the remarks of James L.J. at p. 472, 

STMcCauley r. Coe, 150 HI. 311, 319; Coleman r. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 
Qicc. Cp. Wickham r. Winchester, 75 la. 327 ; Brauer r. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198. 
8S See Ahem v. Baker, 34 Minn. 98. 
8 



34 AGREBMENT^ PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

Dickinson v. Dodda (t). The reasoiis given for that decision cannot, 
it is Bubmitted, be relied on. 

It is right to add that Cooke v. Oxley (u) may be so read as to sup- 
port the opinion that a tacit revocation need not be communicated at 
all. But the apparent inference to this effect is expressly rejected in 
Stevenson v. McLean (x). If Cooke v. Oxley be still authority for 
anything, it is not authority for that.^ 

it) 2 Ch. Div. 463« 45 L. J. Ch. damages, but apparently nothing waa 
777. Note that the suit was for said about it. 

specific performance, and cp. Lang- (u) (1790) 1 R. R. 783, 3 T. R. 

dell, Summary, 245-6, and Anson, 653. 

33-35. There was also a claim for iw) (1880) 5 Q. B. D. at p. 351, 

49 L. J. Q. B. 701. 

89 One of the most troublesome questions in regard to revocation relates to 
the right of an offerer to revoke an offer to make a unilateral contract after 
the consideration has been partly performed but before it has been completely 
performed. On principle it is hard to see why the offerer may not thus 
revoke his offer. He cannot be said to have already contracted, because by 
the terms of his offer he was only to be bound if something was done, and it 
has not as yet been done, though it has been begun. Moreover, it may never 
be done, .for the promisee has made no promise to complete the act and may 
cease performance at his pleasure. To deny the offerer the right to revoke is, 
therefore, in effect to hold the promise of one contracting party binding, 
though the other party is neither bound to perform nor has actually per- 
formed the requested consideration. The practical hardship of allowing revo- 
cation under such circumstances is all that can make the decision of the 
question doubtful. The only reference to the matter in the English books is 
in Offord r. Davies, 12 C. B. N. S. 748, where in the course of the Argument 
Williams, J., asked : '' Suppose I guarantee the price of a carriage to be 
built for a third party who, before the carriage is finished, and consequently 
before I am bound to pay for it, becomes insolvent, may I recall nay guar- 
anty?" The counsel replied: "Not after the coach builder has commenced 
the carriage," and Erie, C. J., added : " Before it ripens into a contract, 
either party may withdraw, and so put an end to the matter. But the moment 
the coach builder has prepared the materials he would' probably be found by 
the jury to have contracted." A somewhat similar suggestion is made by 
the Illinois Supreme Court in Plumb t'. Campbell, 129 III. 101, 107: Appellant 
(the offerer) could be bound in three ways: "First by appellee engaging 
within a reasonable time to perform the contract on his part; second, by 
beginning such performance in a way which would bind him to complete it, 
and third, by actual performance." See also Blumenthal r. Goodall, 89 Cal. 
251; Los Angeles Traction Co. v, Wilshire, 135 Cal. 654, 658; Society i\ 
Brumfield, 102 Ind. 146. 

The difficulty with these solutions of the problem is that they fail to take 
into account the offerer's right to impose such conditions as he chooses in his 
offer. An offer conditional on the performance of an act does not become a 
contract by the doing of anything else, such as part performance or giving 
the offerer a promise to do the act. See White v. Corlies, 46 N. Y. 467. Nor 
can it be admitted that beginning performance by one to whom an offer of 
a unilateral contract has been made imports any promise on his part to com- 
plete the performance. The decision in Bigpers r. Owen, 79 Ga. 658, there- 
fore, seems sound, although the result is harsh. In that case it was held that 
an offer of reward might be withdrawn, after the plaintiff had nearly com- 
pleted the performance requested. See also Cook v. Casler, 87 N. Y. App. 
Div. 8. 

By express provision of the codes in many European countries, an offer is 



COMMUNICATION. *35 

Limits of Acceptance or of its Revocation. 

CommunicAtioii of accepUnce. There is a material distinction^ though 
it is not fully recognized in the language of our authorities, between 
the acceptance of an offer which asks for a promise, and of an offer 
which asks for an act, as the condition of the offer becoming a 
promise.*** Where the acceptance is to consist of a ♦promise, it [33 
must be communicated to the proposer (y).. But where the accept- 
ance is to consist of an act — as despatching goods ordered by post — ^ 
it seems that no further communication of the acceptance is necessar/ 
than the performance of the proposed act, or at any rate the proposer 

(y) Moeley Y, Tinkler (1835) 1 C. 804, 29 L. J. Ex. 9; Hehh'9 ease 
M. & R. 692, 40 R. R. 675 ; RusseU v. ( 1867} L. R. 4 £q. 9. 
Thornton (1859) 4 H. & N. 788, 798, 

irrevocable until the person addressed has had a reasonable time to answer it. 
See Valdry, Contrats par Correspondance, p. 167. In the absence of such 
legislation the weight of opinion in the civil law is that an offer maj be 
revoked, ibid. There has been much difference of opinion, however, as to 
the liability of an offerer who revokes his offer for such damage as the person 
addressed may have incurred by acting in reliance on the offer. The theory 
of the offerer's liability was first elaborated by von Ihering, Jahrbttcher far 
Dogmatik, IV, p. 1 seq., under the heading of ctUpa in contrahendo. For the 
varying views of other writers, see Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, 
II. f 307, n. 8 (8th ed.) ; Val6ry, § 185. 

M When the consideration on each side is a promise, the contract is bilateral ; 
a binding promise, the consideration of which is anything else than a promise, 
is a unilateral contract; see Langdell, Summary, S 183. In a bilateral con- 
tract, both parties must be bound at the same time, or neither is bound. In 
a unilateral contract the offeree is not bound to perform at all, nor until per- 
formance by him is the offerer bound, but upon performance by the offeree the 
proposal of the offerer is converted into a binding promise. '"Dius if A. 
promises B. to pay him a sum of money if he will do a particular act^ and B. 
does the act, the promise thereupon becomes binding, although B. at the time 
of the promise does not engage to do the act;" Train v. Gold, 5 Pick. 
380, 385; Matthews t;. Fitch, 22 Cal. 86; Perkins r. Hadsell, 50 111. 216; 
Plumb V. Campbell, 129 111. 101; C:k>ttage Street Church r. Kendall, 121 
Mass. 628, 530; Wellington v. Apthorp, 145 Mass. 69; McMillan r. Ames, 33 
Minn. 257; Stensgaard r. Smith, 43 Minn. 11; Barnes v. Perrine, 9 Barb. 202; 
L'Amoureux v. Gould, 7 N. Y. 349; Todd v. Weber, 96 N. Y. 181, 191-192; 
Miller v. McKenzie, 95 N. Y. 575 ; Beckwith r. Brackett, 97 N. Y. 52 ; Morse 
r. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549; Gurin i\ Cromartie, 11 Ired. 174; Stahl v. Van Vleck, 
53 Ohio St. 136, 148. 

The distinction between unilateral and bilateral contracts was fully recog- 
nised three hundred years ago, but lack of appropriate names caused the im- 
portance of the distinction to be frequently overlooked. The earliest use of 
the words bilateral or unilateral in our law seems to have been by Judge 
Dillon, in Barrett v. Dean, 21 la. 423. The terms were popularised by Pro- 
fessor Langdell, and are now in common use in the reports. See, e. ff,, Steven- 
son c. McLean, 5 Q. B. D. 346, 351; Davis r. Wells, 104 U. S. 159, 166; Har- 
mon r. Adams, 120 U. S. 363, 365; Los Angeles Traction Co. t\ Wilshire, 135 
Cal. 654, 658; Nowlin v. Pyne, 40 la. 166; Coleman r. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 
25, 27; First Bank v. Watkins, 154 Mass. 385, 387; Thomas r. Barnes, 156 
Mass. 581; McMillan v. Ames, 33 Minn. 257; Stensgaard t*. Smith, 43 Minn. 
11, 15; Barrow S. S. Co. r. Mexican Cent. Ry. Co., 134 N. Y. 15, 24. 



36' AOREEHENT^ PHOPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

may dispeiiBe with express communication, and an intention to dis- 
pense with it may be somewhat readily inferred from the nature of 
the transaction (z). 

Means anthorized by proposer. Further,, even when the acceptance con- 
sists of a promise, and therefore must be communicated, any reason- 
able means of communication prescribed or contemplated by the 
proposer are deemed suflBcient as between the acceptor and himself. 

Post or telegraph. If an acceptance by means wholly or partly be- 
yond the sender's control, such as the public post or telegraph (a), is 
contemplated by the parties, then an acceptance so despatched is com- 
plete as against the proposer from the time of its despatch out of the 
sender's control ; and, what is more, is effectual notwithstanding any 
miscarriage or delay in its transmission happening after such 
despatch. 

The parties are presumed to contemplate acceptance by post or 
telegraph whenever the circumstances are such as to make such 
acceptance reasonable in the usual course of business (b). 

General rule of communication. It should seem obvious that an un- 
communicated mental assent, since it is neither the communication 
of a promise nor an overt act of performance, cannot make a contract 
in any class of cases; though so lately as 1877 it was found needful to 
34] reassert this principle in the House of Lords (c). ♦At the same 
time a proposer who prescribes a particular manner of communication 
may preclude himself from afterwards showing that it was not in 
fact sufficient. In Lord Blackburn's words, " when an offer is made 
to another party, and in that offer there is a request express or im- 
plied that he must signify his acceptance by doing some particular 
thing, then as soon as he does that thing there is a complete contract." 
The most important application of this exception will come before us 
immediately. But it is not true " that a simple acceptance in your 
own mind, without any intimation to the other party, and expressed 

iz) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball (b) Henthom v. Eraser [1892] 2 

Co. [1893] 1 Q. B. 256, per Lindley Ch. 27, 61 L. J. Ch. 373. 

L.J. at pp. 262-3, Bowen L.J. at p. (o) Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry, 

269. [See cwite, p. 21, n. 21.] Co. (1877) 2 App. Ca. at p. 688 

(a) As to the telegraph being on (Lord Selborne), at p. 691 (Lord 

the same footing as letter post, Blackburn), and at p. 697 (Lord 

Cowan V. O'Connor (1888) 20 Q. B. Gordon). The judgments in the 

D. 640, 67 L. J. Q. B. 401. Court below which gave rise to these 

remarks are not reported. 



CONTRACTS BY CORBESPONDENCE. 37 

by a mere private act, such as putting a letter into a drawer," will, 
as a rule, serve to conclude a contract (d).^^ 

Contracts by correspondence. We now come to the special rules which, 
after much uncertainty, have been settled by our Courts as to contracts 
entered into by correspondence between persons at a distance. Before 
dealing with authorities it may be useful to show the general nature 
of the difficulties that arise. We start with the principle that the 
proposer is bound from the date of acceptance. Then we have to con- 
sider what is for this purpose the date of acceptance, a question of 
some perplexity, and much vexed in the books. It appears just and 
expedient, as concerning the accepting party's rights, that the ac- 
ceptance should date from the time when he has done all he can to 
accept, by putting his affirmative answer in a determinate course of 
transmission to the proposer. From that time he must be free to 
act on the contract as valid, and disregard any revocation that 
*reache8 him afterwards. Hence the conclusion is suggested that [35 
at this point the contract is irrevocable and absolute. But are we to 
hold it absolute for all purposes? Shall the proposer be bound, 
though, without any default of his own, the acceptance never reach 
him ? Shall the acceptor remain bound, though he should afterwards 
despatch a revocation which arrives with or even before the accept^ 
ance ? The first question is answered by our Courts in the affirmative ; 
the second is still open. On principle a negative answer to both would 
seem the more reasonable. The proposer cannot, at all events, act on 
the contract before the acceptance is communicated to him ; as against 
him, therefore, a revocation should be in time if it reaches him to- 
gether with or before the original acceptance, whatever the relative 
times of their despatch. On the other hand, it seems not reasonable 
that he should be bound by an acceptance that he never receives. He 
has no means of making sure whether or when his proposal has been 
received (e), or whether it is accepted or not, for the other party 

id) As to a different rule formerly company for which the shares are a 

supposed to have been introduced in necessary qualification, is enough, 

the case of agreements to take shares This of course is quite in accordance 

under the Companies Act, 1862, see with general principles. Richards v. 

Ounn*9 case (1867) L. R. 3 Ch. 40, Home Aanirance Aasociation (1871) 

37 L. J. Ch. 40. There need not be L. R. 6 C. P. 591, 40 L. J. C. P. 290. 

formal notice of allotment; acting [See Coffin v. Portland, 43 Fed. Rep 

towards the applicant on the footing 411, 413.] 

that he has got the shares, e. g, ap- (e) It is possible to obtain an 

pointing him to an office under the official acknowledgment of the due 

41 Trounstine r. Sellers, 25 Kan. 447. See McClure v. Times Pub. Co., 169 
P^ 213; ante, p. 14, n. 12. 



38 AOREEHEKT^ PROPOSAL, AND AOOSPTANOB. 

need not answer at all. The acceptor might more reasonably be left 
to take the more avoidable risk of his acceptance miscanying. 

Theories proposed in English cases. In the judicial treatment of these 
questions, however, considerations of a different kind have prevailed. 
It has been assumed that there must be some one moment at which 
the consent of the parties is to be deemed complete, and the contract 
absolute as against both of them and for all purposes ; and further, a 
peculiar character has been attributed to the post-office as a medium 
of communication. In some of the cases it is said that the acceptance 
of a proposal by post completes the contract as soon as the letter is 
despatched, because the post-office is the common agent of both parties. 
36] This may be so as regards the ♦property in the letter, but the 
promise expressed by the words written on the paper is not a subject 
of bailment. But the reason has been put in a different way; namely, 
that a man who requests or authorizes an acceptance of his offer to be 
sent in a particular way must take the risks of the mode of trans- 
mission which he has authorized, and that in the common course of 
affairs the sending of a written offer by post amounts to an authority 
to send the answer in the same manner; and still more lately (/) it 
has been put on the broader ground that persons who are not in im- 
mediate neighbourhood contemplate the post-office as the ordinary 
and reasonable means of communication. But if the proposer of a 
contract by letter does not really choose the post as a means of com- 
munication any more than the acceptor, it is not easy to see why the 
risk of miscarriage should be thrown on him by preference. 

Revocation arriving before acceptance. Much of the language that has 
been used suggests, though it only suggests, the consequence that even 
a revocation despatched after the acceptance and arriving before it 
would be inoperative. If the contract is absolutely bound by posting 
a letter of acceptance, a telegram revoking it would be too late; and 
this even if the letter never arrived at all, so that the revocation were 
the only notice received by the proposer that there ever had been an 
acceptance. 

This is a startling consequence at first sight, but the hardship is 
less than it seems, for a party wishing to reserve his freedom of action 
as long as possible will still have two ways of doing so : he may make 
his acceptance in writing expressly subject to revocation by telegraph, 

delivery of a registered letter; but (/) Henthom v. Fraser, [1892] 2 

this does not prove that the contents Ch. 27, 61 L. J. Ch. 373. 
have actually come to the knowledge 
of the addressee. 



CONTRACTS BT CORRESPONDENCE. 39 

or he may abstain from answering by letter at all, and only telegraph 
his final decision. English Courts may now be bound to hold that an 
unqualified acceptance, once posted, cannot be revoked even by a 
telegram or special messenger outstripping its arrival. 

* Earlier cases on contracts by correspondence. Turning to the au- [37 
thorities, we need not dwell much on the earlier cases, of which an ac- 
count is given in the Appendix (g). They established that an accept- 
ance by post, despatched in due time as far as the acceptor is concerned, 
concludes the contract notwithstanding delay in the despatch by the 
proposer's fault (as if the offer is misdirected), or accidental delay in 
the delivery; and that the contract, as against the proposer, dates 
from the posting, so that he cannot revoke his offer after the accept- 
ance is despatched.** Until 1879 it was uncertain whether a letter of 

(g) See Note B. For recent Con- fflr bflr^rl. Recht, March. 1889; 
tinental opinions see Prof. J. Kohkr, Val^ry, Des Contrats par Correspond- 
Vertrag unter Abweaenden, in Archiv anoe, Paris, 1895. 

^ The same rule applies in the United States and Canada : Tayloe r. Mer- 
chants' F. Ins. Co., 9 How. 390; Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U. S. 411; Winter- 
port, &c., Co. V. The Jasper, 1 Holmes, 99; Re Dodge, 9 Ben. 482; Darlington 
Iron Co. r. Foote, 16 Fed. Rep. 646; Sea Ins. Co. r. Johnston, 105 Fed. Rep. 
286, 291, (C. C. A.) ; Levisohn p. Waganer, 76 Ala. 412; Linn t'. McLean, 80 
Ala. 360; Kempner v. Cohn, 47 Ark. 519; Levy f. Cohen, 4 tJa. 1; Bryant r. 
Booze, 55 Ga. 438; Haas r. Myers, 111 111. 421; Chytraus v. Smith, 141 111. 
231, 257; Kentuclr)r Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jenks, 5 Ind. 96; Moore r. Pierson, 6 la. 
279; Ferrier r. Storer, 63 la. 484; Siebold v. Davis, 67 la. 560; Hunt r. 
Higman, 70 la. 406; Gipps Brewing Co. r. De France, 91 la. 108, 112; Chiles 
r. Nelson, 7 Dana, 281; Bailey v, Hope Ins. Co., 56 Me. 474; Wheat r. Cross, 
31 Md. 99; Lungstrass v, German Ins. Co., 48 Mo. 201; Lancaster r. Elliot, 
42 Mo. App. 503; Egger r. Nesbitt, 122 Mo. 667, 674; Horton r. New York 
Life Ins. Co., 151 Mo. 604; Abbott t\ Shepard, 48 N. H. 14; Davis r. JEtna 
Mut, F. I. Co., 67 N. H. 218; Hallock v. Commercial Ins. Co., 26 N. J. L. 268; 
Connnercial Ins. Co. v, Hallock, 27 N. J. L. 645; Northampton, &c., Ins. Co. v. 
Tuttle, 40 N. J. L. 476; Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wend. 103; Vassar r. Camp, 11 
N. Y. 441 ; Trevor r. Wood, 36 N. Y. 307 ; Watson p. Russell, 149 N. Y. 388, 
391; Hachenv r. Leary, 12 Ore. 40; Hamilton r. Lycoming M. I. Co., 5 Pa. 
St. 339; McClintock P. South Perin. Oil Co., 146 Pa. 144, 161; Otis v. Payne, 
86 Tenn. 663; Blake r. Hamburg-Bremen F. I. Co., 67 Tex. 160; Haarstick r. 
Fox, 9 Utah, 110; Durkee r. Vermont Central R. R, Co., 29 Vt. 127; Hart- 
ford Ins. Co. P. Lasher Stocking Co., 66 Vt. 439; Washburn t\ Fletcher, 42 
Wis. 152 ; McGiverin r. James, 33 U. C. Q. B. 203. The only contrary decision 
not overruled seems to be McCuHoch r. Eagle Ins. Co., 1 Pick. 278. Whether 
this case would now be followed in Massachusetts may be doubted. See 
Brauer r. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198; Insurance Co. r. Knabe Co., 171 Mass. 265. 
The letter must -be properly directed and stamped. Potts r. Whitehead, 5 C. 

E. Green, 65; Britton r. Phillips, 24 How. Pr. Ill; Blake r. Hamburg-Bremen 

F. I. Co., 67 Tex. 160. But see Schultz r. Insurance Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 395. 
In the Transvaal decision of Bal r. Van Staden, 20 S. African L. Jl. 407, it 
was held that where postal communication was interrupted by war, mailing a 
letter did not complete the contract. 

The caae of Ex parte Cote, L. R. 9 Ch. 27, seems to indicate that the Eng- 
lish doctrine is based on the assumption that a letter when mailed is no longer 



40 AGREEMEKT^ PBOPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

acceptance that miscarried altogether was binding on the proposer. 
In that year the point came before the Court of Appeal (h).. An 
application for shares in the plaintiff ccxnpany^ whose office was in 
London, was handed by the defendant to a country agent for the com- 
pany. A letter of allotment, duly addressed to the defendant, was 
posted from the London office, but never reached him. The company 
went into liquidation, and the liquidator sued for the amount due on 
the shares. It was held by Thesiger and Baggallay L. J J. that '^ if an 
offer is made by letter, which expressly or impliedly authorizes the 
sending of an acceptance of such offer by post, and a letter of accept- 
ance is posted in due time, a complete contract is made at the time 
when the letter of acceptance is posted, though there may be delay in 
its delivery '' (t ) ; that, on the grounds and reasoning of the authori- 
ties, this extends to the case of a letter wholly failing to retich its 
address ; that in the case in hand the defendant must under the cir- 
cumstances be taken to have authorized the sending by post of a letter 
of allotment; and that in the result he was bound. They were dis- 
38] posed to limit the rule " to cases in ♦which, by reason of general 
usage, or of the relations between the parties to any particular trans- 
actions, or of the terms in which the offer is made, the acceptance of 
such offer by a letter through the post is expressly or impliedly au- 

{h) Household Fire Insurance Co, {%) Baggallay L.J. 4 Ex. Div. at 

V. Grant (1879) 4 Ex. Div. 216, 48 p. 224. 
L. J. Ex. 677, Finch Sel. Ca. 133. 

within the control of the sender, and that where as in France the sender may 
reclaim his letter the contract should not be regarded as completed by the 
mailing of an acceptance. In the United States, by complying with required 
formalities, the sender of a letter may regain it. Postal Regulations, §$ 531, 
533. See also Crown Point Iron Co. r. iEtna Ins. Co., 127 N. Y. 608, 619. But 
in McDonald r. Chemical Nat. Bank, 174 U. S. 610, 620, the Court says: 
" Nor can it be conceded that except on some extraordinary occasion and on 
evidence satisfactory to the post-office authorities, a letter once mailed can 
be withdrawn by the party who mailed it. When letters are placed in a post- 
office, they are within the legal custody of the officers of the government, and 
it is the duty of postmasters to deliver them to the parties to whom they are 
addressed. United States v. Pond, 2 Curtis, C. C. 265; Buell f. Chapin, 99 
Mass. 594; Morgan v, Richardson, 13 Allen, 410; Tayloe r. Merchants' Fire 
Ins. Co., 9 How. 390." In Canterbury v. Sparta, 91 Wis. 53, a letter was 
mailed in acceptance of an offer, containing a draft payable to the offerer. 
The sender induced the post-office officials to return the letter to him, but 
the court held him liable to the offerer for the amount of the draft. 

If the use of the telegraph is authorized expressly or impliedly, the delivery 
of the acceptance to the telegraph office is held to complete the contract. 
Minnesota Oil Co. v. Collier Lead Co., 4 Dill. 431 ; Garretson r. North Atchison 
Bank, 47 Fed. Rep. 867; Andrews v, Schreiber, 93 Fed. Rep. 369; Haas t?. 
Myers, HI III. 421, 427; Cobb t\ Force, 38 111. App. 255; Trevor v Wood, 36 
N.-Y. 307; Perry v. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 15 R. I. 380. Contra is Beaubien 
ProduB« Co. V. Robertson, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 18 C. S. 429. 



CONTRACTS BY COBBESPONDENCE. 41 

tliorixed^'(i). Cases outside these limits, however, are not likely to 
be frequent; and now, in Henthom v. Eraser (Z), it is decided that 
an offer delivered by hand may authorize, or, in the terms preferred 
by the Court, contemplate, an acceptance by post (m).*^ In Grant's 
case Bramwell L.J. delivered a vigorous dissenting judgment, in which 
he pointed out among other things the absurdity of treating a revoca- 
tion which overtakes the acceptance as ineffectual, but relied mainly 
on the broad ground that a letter not delivered at all is not a com- 
munication (n). In Henthom v. Fraser Kay L.J. did not conceal 
his dissatisfaction with the reasoning of the authorities by which the 
Court was bound. It may perhaps not be too presumptuous, but it 
seems useless, to regret that these views could not prevail. It will be 
seen by reference to the Appendix that the decisions of the Court of 
Appeal confirm that sense in which a previous decision of the House 
of Lords was generally understood. The practical conclusion seems 
to be that every prudent man who makes an offer of any importance 
by letter should expressly make it conditional on his actual receipt of 
an acceptance within some definite time. It would be impossible to 
contend that a man so doing could be bound by an acceptance which 
either wholly miscarried or arrived later than the specified 
time (o). 

* Acceptance does not relate back. We have seen that in general the [39 
contract dates from the acceptance ; and though the acceptance be in 
form an acknowledgment of an existing agreement, yet this will not 

(h) Baggallay L.J. 4 Ex. Div. at Mich. 402, 411; Greenwich Bank v, 

p. 228; the same limitation seema De Groot, 7 Hun, 210; Watson V. 

admitted by Thesiger LJT. at p. 218. Russell, 149 N. Y. 388, 391.] 

il) [1892] 2 Ch. 27, 61 L. J. Ch. (n) 4 Ex. Div. at p. 234. 

373. (o) See per Thesiger L.J. 4 Ex. 

(m) Delivery to a postman who is Div. at p. 223« and per Bramwell 

not authorized to recejve letters for L.J. at p. 238. Held ace. in Massa- 

the post is not equivalent to posting: chusetts (where, however, the general 

Re London and Northern Bank [1900] doctrine that an acceptance by post 

I Ch. 220, 69 L. J. Ch. 24. [But In concludes the contract from the date 

the United States letter carriers are of posting is not received) ; Lewis v. 

authorized to receive letters and con- Browning (1880) 130 Mass. 173. 

sequently handing to a carrier is [Dicta to the same effect are in Haas 

equivalent to posting. Pearce t?. r. Myers, 111 111. 421; Vassar V. 

Langiit, 101 Pa. 507, 511. Deposit Camp, 11 N. Y. 441, 451. See also 

ing in a street letter box is, of Haldane v. United States, 69 Fed. 

course, posting. Wood r. Calnan, 61 Rep. 819.] 

43 The use of the telegraph was held to be impliedly authorized under some- 
what similar circumstances in Perry r. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 15 R. I. 380. See 
also Wilcox V. Cline, 70 Mich. 517; but see Scottish Am. Mortgage Co. v. 
Davis, (Tex.) 74 S W. Rep. 17. 



42 AGBEEMENTy PROPOSAL^ AND ACCEPTANCE. 

make the contract relate back to the date of the proposal^ at all ereniB 
not 60 as to affect the righta of third persons (p). 

Deatli of proposer, a roTOcation thongli not known to other party. 

There ip believed to be one positive exception in our law to 
the rule chat the revocation of a proposal takes effect only when 
it is communicated to the other party. This exception is in the 
case of the proposer dying before the proposalis accepted. This event 
is in itself a revocation, as it makes the proposed agreement impossible 
by removing one of the persons whose consent would make it (g).** 
There is no distinct authority to show whether notice to the other 
party is material or not;**^ but in the analogous case of agency the 
death of the principal in our law, though not in Roman law, puts an 
end ipso facto to the agent's authority, without regard to the time 
when it becomes known either to the agent or to third parties (r). It 
would probably be impossible not to follow the analogy of this doctrine. 
The Indian Contract Act makes the knowledge of the other party 
before acceptance a condition of the proposal being revoked by the 
proposer's death. 

Insanity no revocation. As for insanity, which is treated in the same way 
by the Indian Act, that would not in general operate as a revocation 
by the law of England,^ for we shall see that the contract of a lunatic 
(not so found by inquisition) is only voidable even if his state of 
mind is known to the other party. But it has been said that " if a 

ip) Felthouse y. Bindley (1862) 11 C. 167, 32 R. R. 620; Campanari v. 

C. B. N. S. 869. 31 L. J. C. P. 204. Woodhurn (1854) 15 C. B. 400, 24 

iq) Per Mellish L.J. in Dickinson L. J. C. P. 13, 2 Kent Comra. 646, D. 

V. Dodda (1876) 2 Ch. Div. at p. 475, 46, 3, de solut. et liberal. 32. The 

45 L. J. Ch. 777. Indian Contract Act, s. 208, illuat 

(r) Blades v. Free (1829) 9 B. & (c), adopts the Roman rule. 

44 The Palo Alto, 2 Ware, 343, 359; Paine v. Insurance Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 
689; Grand Lodge r. Farnham, 70 Gal. 158; Pratt r. Baptist Soc, 93 111. 475; 
Beach v. First Church, 96 111. 179; Aitken v, Lang's Adm., 106 Ky. 652; 
Twenty-third St. Churtl. v. Cornell, 117 N. Y. 601; Wallace r. Townsend, 

43 Ohio St. 537; Phipps v. Jones, 20 Pa. 260; Helfenstein's Est., 77 Pa. 328; 
Foust V. Board of Publication, 8 Lea, 555. See also Jordan v. Dobbins, 122 
Mass. 168; Browne r. McDonald, 129 Mass. 66. This rule is the same in the 
civil law. Val6ry, Contrats par Correspondance, § 204; Windscheid, Pandek- 
tenrecht, S 307 (2). The BOrgerliches Oesetzbuch, however, has changed the 
rule in Germany. It provides, $ 153, " A contract is not prevented from com- 
ing into existence by the death or incapacity of the offerer before acceptance, 
unloAs the offerer has expressed a contrary intention." 

4fi Held immaterial in Wallace v. Townsend, 43 Ohio St. 537. 

4C That insanity of the proposer before acceptance will operate as a revoca- 
tion of the offer, see Beach v. First Church, 90 III. 177; The Palo Alto, 
Davies, 343. 



CERTAINTY OF ACCEPTANCE. 43 

man becomes so far *in8ane as to have no mind^ perhaps he ought [40 
to be deemed dead for the purpose of contracting '^ (s). 

Certainty of Acceptance, 

Aocfptance mnst be unqualiflea. The next rule is in principle an ez- 
eeedingly simple one. It is that 

" In order to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must 
be absolute and unqualified " (t).*^ 

For unless and until there is such an acceptance on the one part of 
terms proposed on the other part, there is no expression of one and 
the same common intention of the parties, but at most expressions of 
the more or less different intentions of each party separately — in 
other words, proposals and counter-proposals. Simple and obvious as 
the rule is in itself, the application to a given set of facts is not 
always obvious, inasmuch as contracting parties often use loose and 
inexact language, even when their communications are in writing and 
on important matters. It will be seen that the question whether the 
language used on a particular occasion does or does not amount to an 
acceptance is wholly a question of construction, and generally though 
not necessarily the construction of a written instrument. The cases in 
which such questions have been decided are numerous (u), and we 

(«) Bramwell L.J. Drew v. Nunn (t) Indian Contract Act, a. 7, 

(1879) 4 Q. B. Div. at p. 669, 48 sub-s. 1. 

L. J. Q. B. 591. [See Dexter v. Hall, (u) For collected authorities, see 

16 Wall, 9. 20.] {inter alia) Fry on Specific Perform- 

ance, c. 2. 

47£Iia8on r. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225, 228; Deshon r. Fosdick, 1 Woods, 
286; Merriam v, Lapsley, 2 McOary, 606; Martin v. Northwestern Fuel 
Co., 22 Fed. Rep. 596; Hamblet r. Insurance Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 118; Robin- 
son r. Weller, 81 Ga. 704; Sawyer t\ Brossart, 67 la. 678; Gilbert r. Baxter, 
71 la. 327; Plant Seed Co. v. Hall, 14 Kan. 553; Seymour v. Armstrong, 62 
Kan. 720; Hutcheson v, Blakeman, 3 Met. (Ky.) 80; Barrow t*. Ker, 10 La. 
Ann. 120; Jenness t*. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 53 Me. 20; Harlow r. Curtis, 121 
Mass. 320 ; Johnson r. Stephenson, 26 Mich. 63 ; Eggleston r. Wagner, 46 Mich. 
610; Wilkins Mfg. Co. v. H. M. Loud Co., 94 Mich. 158; Bruner v. Wheaton, 
46 Mo. 363; Falls Wire Mfg. Co. r. Broderick, 12 Mo. App. 378; Egger r. 
Nesbitt, 122 Mo. 667 ; Potts r. Whitehead, 23 N. J. Eq. 512 ; Hough r. Brown, 
19 N. Y. Ill, 115; M'Cotter r. Mayor, 37 N. Y. 325; Schenectady Stove Co. r. 
Holbrook, 101 N. Y. 45; Barrow S. S. Co. r. Mexican Central Co., 134 N. Y. 15; 
N. W. Iron Co. r. Meade, 21 Wis. 474; Baker r. Holt, 56 Wis. 100; Clark r. 
Burr, 85 Wis. 649. "Acceptance upon terms varying from those offered is a re- 
jection of the offer," Bank r. Hall, 101 U. S. 43, 50; Baker v. Johnson Co., 37 
la. 186, 189; Cartmell r. Newton, 79 Ind. L 8. It is in effect a counter offer 
and as such terminates the original offer. See ante, p. 30. Where parties are 
dealing orally face to face, if the acceptance varies from the offer, a jury may 
infer the offerer's assent to the variation from his silence. Earle t?. Angell, 
157 Mass. 294. 



44 AGBEEMEKT, PROPOSAL^ AND AOCEFTANGE. 

shall here give by way of illuBtration only a selection of modem 
ones (z). 

In Honeyman ▼. Marry at {y), before the House of lordB, a proposal for a 
sale was accepted "subject to the terms of a contract being arranged" be- 
41 ] tween the vendor's and purchaser's solicitors: this was clearly no 'contract. 
Compare with this Hussey v. Home-Payne {z), from which it seems that an 
acceptance of an offer to sell land *' subject to the title being approved by 
our solicitors" is not a qualified or conditional acceptance, but means only 
that the title must be investigated in the usual way; in other words, it 
expresses the conditions annexed by law to contracts of this class, that a good 
title shall be shown by the vendor. 

In Appleby v. Johnson (a), the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, a calico- 
printer, and offered his services as salesman on certain terms, among which 
was this : " a list of the merchants to be regularly called on by me to be 
made." The defendant wrote in answer : " Yours of yesterday embodies 
the substance of our conversation and terms. If we can define some of the 
terms a little clearer, it might prevent mistakes; but I think we are quite 
agreed on all. We shall therefore expect you on Monday. (Signed) — J. 
Appleby. — F.S. — I have made a list of customers which we can consider to- 
gether." It was held that on the whole, and especially having regard to the 
postscript, which left an important term open to discussion, there was no 
complete contract. 

In Croasley v. Maycock (&), an offer to buy certain land was accepted, but 
with reference to special conditions of sale not before known to the intending 
purchaser. Held only a conditional acceptance. 

In Lloyd v. Noicell (c), an agreement "subject to the preparation by my 
solicitor and completion of a formal contract" was held (1) to exclude the 
formation of a binding agreement; (2) not to be a condition which the 
vendor could waive as being only for his benefit. But in North v. Percival 
(d), the words "heads of agreement . . . subject to approval of condi- 
tions and form of agreement by purchaser's solicitor " were held by Kekewich 
J. consistent with a complete contract. 

In Filhy v. Hounsell, [1896] 2 Ch. 737, 66 L. J. Ch. 852, an acceptance by 
a purchaser " subject to contract as agreed/* i.e. a form set out on the vendor's 
own conditions of sale, was held without difficulty to be absolute. 

In Stanley v. Dowdeswell (e), an answer in this form: " I have decided or 
taking No. 22, Belgrave Road, and have spoken to my agent, Mr. C, who 
will arrange matters with you." was held insufficient to make a contract, as 
not being complete and unqualified, assuming (which was doubtful) that the 
letter of which it was part did otherwise sufficiently refer to the terms of 
the proposal. 
42] *In AddinelVs case (f) and Jackson v. Turquand (^), a bank issued a cir- 

(a?) Cp. also the French case in the (b) (1874) L. R. 18 Eq. 180, 43 

Court of Cassation given in Lang- L. J. Ch. 379, followed in Jones v. 

deirs Select Cases on Contract, 155. Daniel [1894] 2 Ch. 332, 63 L. J. Ch. 

(1/) (1857) 6 H. L. C. 112, 26 L.J. 562. 
Ch. 619, by Lord Wensleydale. The (c) [1895] 2 Ch. 744, 64 L. J. Ch. 

case was not argued, no one appear- 744. 
ing for the appellant. (d) [1898] 2 Ch. 128, 67 L. J. Ch. 

{z) (1879) 4 App. Ca. 311. 322, 48 321. 
L. J. Ch. 846. [See also James t?. (e) (1874) L. R. 10 C. P. 102. 
Darby, 100 Fed. Rep. 224 (C. C. A.) ; Compare Smith v. Webster (1876) 3 
Pacific Rolling Mill Co. r. Railway Ch. Div. 49, 45 L. J. Ch. 628. [Hack- 
Co., 90 Cal. 627; Corcoran v. White, lev r. Ockford, 98 Fed. Rep. 781; 
117 111. 118.] Wills V. Carpenter, 62 Mich. 50.] 

(a) (1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 158, 43 (f) (1865) L. R. 1 Eq. 225* 

L. J. C. P. 146. [See also Bowen t\ (g) (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. 305, 39 

Hart, 101 Fed. Rep. 376; Krum r. L. J. Ch. 11. 
Chamberlain, 57 Neb. 220.] 



CERTAIKTY OF ACCEPTANCE. 46 

enUr offering new shares to existing shareholders in proportion to their 
interests, and also asking them to say if in the event of any shares remaining 
they should wish to have any more. Certain shareholders wrote in answer, 
accepting their proportion of shares, and also desiring to have a certain num- 
ber of additional shares, if they could, on the terms stated in the circular. In 
reply to this the directors sent them notices that the additional shares had 
been allotted to them, and the amount must be paid to the bank by a day 
named, or the shares would be forfeited. It was held by Kindersley V.-C. and 
confirmed by the House of Lords, that as to the first or proportional set of 
shares the shareholder's letter was an acceptance constituting a contract, but 
as to the extra shares it was only a proposal; and that as the directors' 
answers introduced a material new term (as to forfeiture of the shares if not 
paid for within a certain time), there was no binding contract as to these. 

In Wffnne's <xi8e {h) two companies agreed to amalgamate. The agreement 
was engrossed in two parts, and contained a covenant by the purchasing 
company to pay the debts of the other. But the purchasing company (which 
was unlimited) before executing its own part inserted a proviso limiting the 
liability of its members under this covenant to the amount unpaid on their 
shares. This being a material new term, the variance between the two parts 
as executed made the agreement void. In this, and later in Beckys case (t), 
in the same winding-up, a shareholder in the absorbed company applied for 
shares in the purchasing company credited with a certain sum according to 
the agreement, and received in answer a letter allotting him shares to be 
credited with a " proportionate amount of the net assets " of his former 
company. It was held that, apart from the question whether the allotment 
was conditional on the amalgamation being valid, there was no contract to 
take the shares. 

A. telegraphs to B. : " Will you sell us Whiteacre ? Telegraph lowest cash 
price, answer paid." B. telegraphs in reply : " Lowest price for Whiteacre, 
900{." This has been held not to amount to an offer to sell, so that a tele- 
gram from A. purporting to agree to the purchase at OOOi. is itself only an 
offer (fc). 

Where a seller imdertook to accept the highest net money tender made by 
either of two competitors for the purchase, and one of them offered such sum 
as would exceed by 200 Z. the sum (unknown) which might be offered by the 
other: this was held no acceptance of the seller's terms, and incapable of con- 
stituting a contract ({)• 

Instances of sufficient acceptance. On the other hand, the following in- 
stances will show that the rule *must be cautiously applied. An accept- [43 
ance may be complete though it expresses dissatisfaction at some of the terms, 
if the dissatisfaction stops short of dissent, so that the whole thing may be 
described as a "grumbling assent" (m). 

Again, an acceptance is of course not made conditional by adding words 
that in truth make no difference ; as where the addition is simply immaterial 
(n)^, or a' mere formal memorandum is enclosed for signature, but not 

(h) (1873) L. R. 8 Ch. 1002. (m) Joyce v. Swann (1864) 17 

(») (1874) L. R. 9 Ch. 392, 43 C. B. N. S. 84; cp. per Ix)rd St. 

L. J. Ch. 531. T^eonards, 6 H. L. C. 277-8 (in a dis- 

(fc) fforreyv.Focey (J. CO [1893] sen ting judgment ) . 
A. C. 552, 62 L. J. P. C. 127. (n) Clire v. Beaumont (1847) 1 

il) South Hetton Coal Co. v. Has- De G. & S. 397. 
well, rfc. Coal Co. [1898] 1 Ch. 465, 
67 L. J. Ch. 238, C. A. 

48 See McFadden r. Henderson, 128 Ala. 221; Phillips r. Moor, 71 Me. 78; 
De Jonge r. Hunt, 103 Mich. 94; King v. Dahl, 82 Minn. 240; Bruner v. 
Wheaton, 46 Mo. 363 ; Egger v. Nesbitt, 122 Mo. 667 ; Clark r. Dales, 20 Barb. 
42; Brisban r. Boyd, 4 Paige, 17; Fitzhugh v. Jones, 6 Munf. 83; Matteson 
V. Scofield, 27 Wis. 671. 



46 AGRBEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACGEPTAKOB. 

ahown to contain any n«w term (o). And further, if the person answering 
an unambiguous proposal accepts it with the addition of ambiguous words, 
which are capable of being construed consistently with the rest of the docu- 
ment and so as to leave the acceptance absolute, they will if possible be so 
construed (p). 

Again, the unconditional acceptance of a proposal is not deprived of its 
eiTect by the existence of a misunderstanding between the parties in the con- 
struction of collateral terms which are not part of the agreement itself (g). 

An acceptance on condition is absolute if expressed in a manner which estops 
the acceptor from denying that the condition has been performed, or that he 
has waived its performance (r). 

Parties may postpone conduaion of contract^ till the tenns are embodied 
in a formal instrument One further caution is needed. All rules about 
the formation and interpretation of contracts are subject to the im- 
plied proviso, "unless a contrary intention of the parties appears." 
And it may happen that though the parties are in fact agreed upon 
the terms — in other words, though there has been a proposal suf- 
ficiently accepted to satisfy the general rule — yet they do not mean 
the agreement to be binding in law till it is put into writing or into 
a formal writing. If such be the understanding between them, they 
are not to be sooner bound against both their wills. " If to a proposal 
or offer an assent be given subject to a provision as to a contract, then 
the stipulation as to the contract is a term of the assent, and there is 
44] no agree*ment independent of that stipulation" (*)•** Whether 

(o) Gihbina v. N. E. Metrop. Asy- C. B. N. S. 667, 28 L. J. C. P. 338. 

lum District (1847) 11 Beav. 1. The facts unfortunately do not admit 

(p) English and Foreign Credit of abridgment. 

Co, V. Arduin (1870-1) L. R. 5 H. L. (r) Roberts v. Security Co, [1897] 

64, per Lord Westbury, at p. 79, 40 1 Q. B. Ill, 66 L. J. Q. B. 119. C. A. 

L. J. Ex. 108. is) Chinnock v. Marchioness of 

iq) Baines v. Woodfall (1859) 6 Ely (1865) 4 D. J. S. 638, 646. 

49 In the following cases it was held that no contract existed until the execu- 
tion of a written contract, the signing of which was one of the terms of a 
previous agreement. Spinney t*. Downing, 108 Cal. 666; Fredericks v, Fas« 
nacht, 30 La. Ann. 117; Ferre Canal Co. v. Burgin, 106 La. 309; Mississippi, 
Ac. S. S. Co. V. Swift, 86 Me. 248; Willes r. Carpenter, 75 Md. 80; Lvman v. 
Robinson, 14 Allen, 242; Sibley r. Felton, 156 Mass. 273; Edge Moor Bridge 
Works V, Bristol, 170 Mass. 528; Eads r. Carondelet, 42 Mo. 113; Bourne r. 
Shapleigh, 9 Mo. App. 64; Morrill r. Tehama Co., 10 Nev. 125; Water Com- 
missioners V. Brown, 32 N. J. L. 504; Donnellv r. Currie Hardware Co., 66 
N. J. L. 388; BroAvn r. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 79; Commercial 
Tel. Co. r. Smith. 47 Hun. 404; Nicholls r. Oranjorer, 7 X. Y. App. Div. 113; 
Arnold v, Rothschild's Sons Co., 37 N. Y. App. Div. 564, alTd 164 N. Y. 662; 
Franke t?. Hewitt, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 497; Congdon v, Darcy, 46 Vt. 478; 
Boittseau v. Fuller, 96 Va. 45. 

In Mississippi, &c. S. S. Co. v. Swift, 86 Me. 248, 258, the Court say: 
" From these expressions of courts and jurists, it is quite clear that, after 
all, the question is mainly one of intention. If the party sought to be charged 
intended to close a contract prior to the formal signing of a written draft, 
or if he signified such an intention to the other party, he will be bound by 
the contract actually made, though the signing of the written draft be omitted. 
If, on the other hand, such party neither had nor signified such an intention 



FINALITY OF ACCEPTANCE. 47 

sach is in truth the imderstandiiig ja a qnestioii^iHrich depends on the 
crcumgta nces of each particular case; if the evidence of an agree- 
ment consists of written documents, it is a question of construction 
(not subject to any fixed rule of presumption ) whether the expressed 
agreement is final (t). For this purpose the whole of a continuous 
correspondence must be looked at, although part of it, standing alone, 
might appear to constitute a complete contract (u)J^ 

It is not to be supposed, " because persons wish to have a formal 
agreement drawn up, that therefore they cannot be bound by a previ- 
ous agreement, if it is clear that such an agreement has been made; 
but the circumstance that the parties do intend a subsequent agree- 
ment to be made is strong evidence to show that they did not intend 
the previous negotiations to amount to an agreement" (a:)." Still 
more is this the case if the first record of the terms agreed upon is in so 
many words expressed to be *' subject to the preparation and approval 
of a formal contract" (y) r*^ or where a certain act, such as payment 
of the first premium of insurance, is expressly mentioned to fix the 
commencement of the contract (z). But again: "it is settled law 
that a contract may be made by letters, and that the mere reference in 
them to a future formal contract will not prevent their constituting a 
binding bargain " (a)J^ And in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry, Co. (b). 

it) Rossiter y. Miller (1878) 3 [z) Canning t. Farquhar (1886) 

App. Ca. 1124, 1152. 48 L. J. Ch. 10. 16 Q. B. Div. 727, 55 L. J. Q. B. 225. 

(tt) Hussey y. Home- Payne (1879) (a) James L.J. in Bonneicell v. 

4 App. Ca. 311, 48 L. J. Ch. 846. Jenkins (1878) 8 Ch. Div. 70, 73, 

ix) Ridgxcay v. Wharton (1856-7) 47 L. J. Ch. 758; Bolton v. Lambert 

6 H. L. C. 238, 264, 268, p€fr Lord (1889) 41 Ch. Div. 295, 305. [See 

Cranworth C, and see per Lord also Filby v. Hounsell [1896] 2 Ch. 

Wenslevdale at pp. 305-6, 27 L. J. 737; North v. Percival [1898] 2 Ch. 

Ch. 46.' 128.] 

(y) Winnv.Bull (1877) 7 Ch. D. (ft) (1877) 2 App. Ca. 666: sec 

29. Lord Cairns' opini<Hi. 

to close the contract until it was fully expressed in a written instrument and 
attested by signatures, then he will not be bound imtil the signatures are 
affixed. The expression of the idea may be attempted in other words: if 
the written draft is viewed by the parties merely as a convenient memorial, 
or record of their previous contract, its absence does not affect the binding 
force of the contract; if, however, it is viewed as the consummation of th« 
negotiation, there is no contract until the written draft is finally signed.** 

BoStrobridge Co. r. Randall, 73 Fed. Rep. 619. 

M Lyman i\ Robinson, 14 Allen, 242, 254 ; Allen r. Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309 : 
Methudy r. Ross. 10 Mo. App. 101, 106; Brown r. Railroad Co., 44 N. Y. 79 
86; Virginia Hot Springs Co. r. Harrison, 93 Va. 569. 

52 Lloyd r. Nowell, [1895] 2 Ch. 744; Page v. Norfolk, 70 L. T. N. S., 781 j 
Sibley v. Felton, 156 Mass. 273. 

M In the following rises it was held that there was a contract, though it 
was agreed that a written contract should be Rubsequentlv prepared. Post v. 
Davis, 7 Kan. App. 217; Bell r. ©ffutt, 10 Bush 632; Montague r. Weil, 30 
La. Ann. 50; Cheney v. Eastern Transportation Line, 59 Md. 557; Allen v. 



48 AGREEMENT, PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

it was held by the House of Lords that the conduct of the parties, who 
45] in fact *dealt for some time on the terms of a draft agreement 
which had never been formally executed, was inexplicable on any other 
supposition than that of an actual though informal consent to a 
contract upon those terms. 

The tendency of recent authorities is to discourage all attempts to 
lay down any fixed rule or canon as governing these cases. The ques- 
tion may however be made clearer by putting it in this way — whether 
there is in the particular case a final consent of the parties such that 
no new term or variation can be introduced in the formal document 
to be prepared (c). 

Certainty of Terms, 

Agreement must be certain. An agreement is not a contract.unless its 
terms are certain or capable of being made certain. 

For the Court cannot enforce an agreement without knowing what 
the agreement is. Such knowledge can be derived only from the 
manner in which the parties have expressed their intention. It is 
their business to find such expressions as will convey their meaning 
^ith reasonable certainty to a reasonable man conversant with affairs 
dt the kind in which the contract is made. The question then is 
whether such certainty be present in the particular case. One or two 
instances will serve as well as many. A promise by the bu3'er of a 
horse that if the horse is lucky to him, he will give 5?. more, or the 
buying of another horse, is **much too loose and vague to be con- 
sidered in a court of law." " The buying of another horse " is a term 
to which the Court cannot assign any definite meaning (rf). An 
agreement to sell an estate, reserving " the necessary land for making 
a railway," is too vague (e). An agreement to take a house "if put 
46] into *thorough repair," and if the drawing-rooms were " hand- 
somely decorated according to the present style," has been dismissed 
as too uncertain to be specifically enforced (f). A statement by a 
parent to his daughter's future husband that she will have " a share ** 

(r) Lord Blackburn. 3 App. Ca. at {e) Pearce v. Watts (1875) L. R. 

p. 1151. In addition to cases already 20 Kq. 492, 44 L. J. Ch. 492. 
cited see Lewis v. Brass (1877) 3 (f) Taylor v. Portington (1865) 7 

Q. B. Div. 667. D. M. & G. 328. This of course did 

id) Gulhing v. Lynn (1831) 2 B. not decide that an action for dam- 

& Ad. 232. ages would not lie. 

Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309; Green v. Cole (Mo.). 24 S. W. Rep. 1058; Wharton V. 
Stoutenbourgh, 35 N. J. Eq. 266; Sanders v. Pottlitzer Co., 144 N. Y. 209; 
Blaney r. lloke, 14 Ohio St. 292; Mackey r. Mackey's Adm., 29 Gratt. 158; 
Paige t?. FuKerton Woollen Co., 27 Vt. 485; Lawrence t?. Milwaukee, Ac. Ry 
Co., 84 Wis 427 ; Cohn v. Plumer, 88 Wis. 622. 



CERTAIKTY OF TERMS. 49 

of his property cannot be construed as a promise of an equal 
share (g)-^ On the other hand an agreement to execute a deed of 
separation containing ^' usual covenants^' is not too vague to be 
enforced (A)." 

maaory piomises. To this head those cases are perhaps best re- 
ferred in which the promise is illusory^ being dependent on a con- 
dition which in fact reserves an unlimited option to the promisor. 
"Nulla promissio potest consistere, quae ex voluntate promittentis 
statum capit^' (*)•" Thus where a committee had resolved that for 
certain services "such remuneration be made as shall be deemed 
right/' this gave no right of action to the person who had performed 
the services; for the committee alone were to judge whether any or 
what recompense was right (Je). Moreover a promise of this kind, 
though it creates no enforceable contract, is so far effectual as to ex- 
clude the promisee from falling back on any contract to pay a reason- 
able remuneration which would be inferred from the transaction if 
there were no express agreement at all. In Roberts v. Smith (l) 

ig) Re Pickus [1900] 1 Ch. 331, {k) Taylor v. Brewer (1813) 1 M. 

69 L. J. Gh. 161. & S. 290, 2i R. R. 831. 

ih) Hart V. Hart (1881) 18 Ch. D. il) (1859) 4 H. & N. 315. 28 L. J. 

670, 684, 50 L. J. Ch. 697. Ex. 164. 

(i)D. 45, 1. de verb. obi. 108, 6 1. 

M An agreement between parties " that they will in the future make such 
contract as they may then agree upon amounts to nothing." Shepard r. Car- 
penter, 54 Minn. 163. An agreement by the plaintiffs to work defendant's mine 
at a certain rate based on the ore produced " as long as they could make it 
pay " imposes no obligation for the future. Davie v. Lumbermen's Mining Co., 
93 Mich. 491. An agreement to give a lease of premises to be first altered 
according to plans " to be mutually agreed upon ** is unenforceable. Mayer f^. 
McCreery, 119 N. Y. 434. As is an agreement to renew a lease, naming no 
term. Baurman t?. Binzen, 16 N. Y. Supp. 342, and an agreement to "help 
out " the plaintiff. Blakistone t\ Bank, 87 Md. 302. See further, Re Vince, 
[1892] 2 Q. B. 478; Erwin r. Erwin, 25 Ala. 236; Adams r. Adams, 26 Ala. 
272; Whelan r. Sullivan, 102 Mass. 204; Marble v. Standard Oil Co., 169 Mass. 
553; Hall r. First Bank, 173 Mass. 16; Cummer v. Butts, 40 Mich. 322; 
Long r. Battle Creek, 39 Mich. 323 ; Bumpus -t?. Bumpus, 53 Mich. 346 ; 
Buckmaster r. Consumers' Ice Co., 5 Daly, 313; United Press v. New 
York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406; Monnett v, Monnett, 46 Ohio St. 30, 34; 
Sherman v. Kitzmiller, 17 S. ft R. 45. 

B5 Nor an agreement to give a lease in the form usual in the city where the 
premises are situated. Scholtz v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 100 Fed. Rep. 573 
(C. C. A.). 

MSee Montreal Gas Co. v. Vasey, [1900] A. C. 595; Smithers v. Junker, 
41 Fed. Rep. 41; Lee's Appeal, 53 Conn. 363; Vogel v. Pekoe, 157 Dl. 339; 
Fairplay v. 0*Neal, 127 Ind. 95 ; Hunt t?. Livermore, 5 Pick. 395, 397 ; Davie 
V. Lumberman's Mining Co., 93 Mich. 491 ; Scanlon v, Oliver, 42 Minn. 
538; Mnllaly v. Greenwood, 127 Mo. 138; Blaine r. Knapp, 140 Mo. 241; 
Strong V. Sheflleld, 144 N. Y. 392; Gulf, &c. Ry. Co. v. Winton, 7 Ter. 
Civ. App. 67. 

4 



50 AGBEBM£NT> PROPOSAL^ AND ACGEPTANCB. 

there was an agreement between A. and B. that B. should perform 
certain services, and that in one event A. should pay B. a certain 
salary, but that in another event A. should pay B. whatever A. might 
think reasonable. "Hiat other event having happened, the Court held 
47] there was no contract which B. could enforce. Services *had 
indeed been rendered, and of the sort for which people usually are 
paid and expect to be paid; so that in the absence of express agreement 
there would have been a good cause of action for reasonable reward. 
But here B. had expressly assented to take whatever A. should think 
reasonable (which might be nothing), and had thus precluded him- 
self from claiming to have whatever a jury should think reasonable. 
It would not be safe, however, to infer from this case that under no 
circumstances whatever can a promise to give what the promisor shall 
think reasonable amount to a promise to give a reasonable reward, or 
at all events something which can be found as a fact not to be illusory. 
The circumstances of each case (or in a written instrument the con- 
text) must be looked to for the real meaning of the parties; and "I 
leave it to you " may well mean in particular circumstances (as in 
various small matters it notoriously does), " I expect what is reason- 
able and usual, and I leave it to you to find out what that is/* or, 
" I expect what '^ reasonable, and am content to take your estimate 
(assuiiiing that it will be made in good faith and not illusory) as that 
of a reasonable man'* (m).*'' 

Another somewhat curious case of an illusory promise (though 
mixed up to some extent with other doctrines) is Moorhouse v. 
Colvin (n).^ There a testator, having made a will by which he left 
a considerable legacy to his daughter, wrote a letter in which he said, 
after mentioning her other expectations, " this is not all : she is and 

(m) Such a case (if it can be sup- was for the jury to ascertain how 

ported, see the remarks on it in Rob- much the defendant, acting bona fide, 

erta v. Smith) was Bryant v. Flight would or ought to have awarded. 
(1839) 5 M. & W. 114, where the (n) (1851) 15 Beav. 341, 348, affd. 

majority of the Court held that it by L.JJ. ib, 350, n. 

67 See Canal Co. v. Racecourse Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 37 ; Henderson Bridge Co. t*. 
McGrath, 134 U. S. 260, 275; Worthington v. Beeman, 91 Fed. Rep. 232; Millar 
V. Cuddv, 43 Mich. 273 ; Butler v. Winona Mill Co., 28 Minn. 205 ; Stewart v. 
Marvel, 101 N. Y. 357; Whiting v. Dugan, (Tex.) 39 S. W. Rep. 148; Tolmie 
17. Dean, 1 Wash. 57. Cp. Tennant v. Fawcett, (Tex.) 55 S. W. Rep. 611. 

BSSee also Farina i'. Fickus, [1900] 1 Ch. 331; Smithers t\ Junker, 41 Fed. 
Rep. 101; Woods v. Evans, 113 111. 186; Davie r. Lumberman's Co., 93 Mich. 
491; Graham v. Graham, 34 Pa. 475; Thompson r. Stevens, 71 Pa. 161; WalPs 
App., Ill Pa. 460; Re Wright's Est. 155 Pa. 64; Gulf, Ac. Ry. Co. t\ Winton, 
7 Tex. Civ. App. 57. A promise to dispense with performance of an act so 
long as it may please the promisor is no consideration for a counter-promise. 
Lydick r. Railroad Co., 17 W. Va. 427 ; Strong t?. Sheffield, 144 N- Y. 392. 



CEBTAINTY OF TERMS. 51 

shall be noticed in my will^ but to what further amount I cannot pre- 
cisely Bay/' The legacy was afterguards revoked. It was contended on 
behalf of the daughter's husband, *to whom the letter had with [48 
the testator's authority been communicated before the marriage, that 
there was a contract binding the testator's estate to the extent of the 
legacy given by the will as it stood at the date of the letter. But it 
was held that the testator's language expressed nothing more than a 
vague intention, although it would have been binding had it referred 
to the specific sum then standing in the will, so as to fix that sum as 
a minimum to be expected at all events. 

Promise to make contract with third person. A promise to enter into a 
certain kind of agreement with a third person is obviously dependent 
for its performance on the will of that person, but is not thereby 
rendered so uncertain as not to afford a cause of action as between the 
parties to it. The consent of a third person is not more uncertain 
than many other things which parties may and do take on themselves 
to warrant (o).** 

(o) Foster v. Wheeler (1888) 38 Ch. Div. 130, 67 L. J. Ch. 149, 871. 

6S Where by the terms of the agreement an article is to be furnished which 
riisll be satisfactory to the defendant, if he is genuinely, though unreasonably 
dissatisfied therewith, neither the contract price nor reasonable remunera- 
tion can be recovered. Andrews r. Belfield, 2 C. B. N. S. 779; Silsby Mfg. Co. 
i\ Chico, 24 Fed. Rep. 893 ; Campbell Printing Press Co. r. Thorp, 36 Fed. Rep. 
414; Giles v, Paxson. 40 Fed. Rep. 283; Allen r. Mut. Compress Co., 101 Ala. 
674; Hallidie r. Sutter St. Ry. Co., 63 Cal. 573; Bush v, Koll, 2 Col. App. 
48; Zaleski r. Clark, 44 Conn. 218; Goodrich r. Nortwick, 43 111. 445; Buckley 
r. Meidroth, 93 111. App. 460; McCarren v, McNulty, 7 Gray, 139; Brown v, 
Foster, 113 Mass. 136; Lockwood Co. r. Mason Co., 183 Mass. 25; Gibson r. 
Cranage, 39 Mich. 49 ; Wood Machine Co. v. Smith, 50 Mich. 565 ; Sax v. Detroit 
Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 252 ; Piatt r. Broderick, 70 Mich. 577 ; Fire Alarm Co. v. Big 
Rapids, 78 Mich. 67; Honsding r. Solomon. 127 Mich. 654; McCormick Ma- 
chinery Co. r. Chesrown, 33 Minn. 32 ; OT)ea v. Winona, 41 Minn. 424 ; Magee 
V, Scott Lumber Co., 78 Minn. 1 1 ; Gwynne v. Hitchner, 66 N. J. L. 67 ; Hoff- 
man V. Gallaher, 6 Daly, 42 ; Tyler v. Ames, 6 Lans. 280 ; Gray t?. Central R. 
R. Co.. 11 Hun, 534; Haven t?. Russell, 34 N. Y. Supp. 292; Singerly v. Thayer, 
108 Pa. 291; Seeley r. Welles, 120 Pa. 69; Howard v. Smedley, 140 Pa. 81; 
Adams Radiator Works v. Schnader, 155 Pa. 394; Pennington v. Howland, 
21 R. I. 66; Rossiter v. Cowier, 23 Vt. 522; McClure v, Briggs, 58 Vt. 82; 
Osborne v. Francis, 38 W. va. 312; Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Chicago, &c. 
Ry. Co., 66 Wis. 218, 69 Wis. 454. Cp. Daggett v, Johnson, 49 Vt. 345. 

"Such agreements usually are construed, not as making the defendant's 
declaration of dissatisfaction conclusive, in which case it would be difficult to 
say that they amounted to contracts, but as requiring an honest expression." 
Hawkins r. Graham, 149 Mass. 284; Richardson r. Coffman, 87 la. 121; Mc- 
Cormick Co. 17. Ockerstrom, 114 la. 260; Lockwood Mfg. Co. r. Mason Co., 183 
Mass. 26; Frary r. American Rubber Co., 62 Minn. 264. 

As a matter of construction " when the consideration furnished is of such a 
nature that its value will be lost, either wholly or in great part, unless paid 
for, a just hesitation must be felt, and clear language required, before deciding 
that payment is left to the will, or even to the idiosyncrasies, of the interested 



52 AGREEK£NT> PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANOE. 

Acceptance by Conduct. 

Tacit acceptance mmt be vnambigiioiii. Conduct which is rdied on as 
constituting the acceptance of a contract must (no less than words 
relied on for the same purpose) be unambiguous and uncon- 
ditional (p). 

Where the proposal itself is not express, then it must also be shown 
that the conduct relied on as conveying the proposal was such as to 
amount to a communication to the other party of the proposer's 
intention. 

(p) Warner t. Willingion (1856) 3 Drew. 523, 533, 25 L. J. Ch. 662. 

party. In doubtful cases, courts have been inclined to construe agreements of 
this class as agreements to do the thing in such a way as reasonably ought to 
satisfy the defendant." Hawkins v. Graham, 149 Mass. 284. 

In New York the courts go so far as always to construe a contract 
which does not involve from its nature a question of taste as requiring 
only such performance as would be satisfactory to a reasonable man, al- 
though personal satisfaction is expressly stipulated for. Duplex Co. v. 
Garden, 101 N. Y. 387; Doll v. Noble, 116 N. Y. 230; Hummel v. Stem, 
164 N. Y. 603; and a few other States have followed the New York rule. 
Keeler v. Clifford, 166 111. 544; Boyd v. Hallowell, 60 Minn. 225; Pope 
Iron Co. V. Best, 14 Mo. App. 502; Barnett t?. Sweringen, 77 Mo. App. 64; 
Richeson r. Mead, 11 S. Dak. 630. See also Schleicher v. Montgomery Light 
Co., 114 Ala. 228; Baltimore, &c. R. Co. v. Brydon, 60 Md. 404; J. I. Case 
Works I'. Marr, 33 Neb. 215. This rule makes necessary a distinction, often 
troublesome, between contracts involving taste and those which do not. See 
Smith V, Robson, 148 N. Y. 252; Crawford v. Mail & Express Co., 163 N. Y. 
404. Cp. Sax V. Detroit Ry. Co., 125 Mich. 252. 

A promise made by a stockholder on receiving stock to offer it, on a certain 
contingency, to the corporation at a valuation then to be made by the latter is 
binding. New England Trust Co. v, Abbott, 162 Mass. 148. 

Where one executed a written instrument under seal, acknowledging an in- 
debtedness to another, and promising to pay the same whenever in his opinion 
his circumstances should enable him to do so. such instrument was held to im- 
pose no legal obligation enforceable by action. Nelson v. Von Bonnhorst, 29 
Pa. 352. But see Smithers v. Junker, 41 Fed. Rep. 101 ; Pistel v. Imperial Ins. 
Co., 88 Md. 552; Page v. Cook, 164 Mass. 116: Lewis r. Tipton, 10 Ohio St. 
88. A promise to pay when able is generally held to impose an obligation to 
that exact extent. Cole v. Saxby, 3 Esp. 159; Davies v. Smith, 4 Esp. 36; 
Tell City Co. v. Nees, 63 Ind. 245; Stainton r. Brown, 6 Dana, 249; Eckler 
r. Galbraith, 12 Bush, 71; Denney v. Wheelwright, 60 Miss. 733; Work t?. 
Beach, 13 N. Y. Supp. 678; Re Knab, 78 N. Y. Supp. 292; Salinas v, Wright, 
11 Tex. 672. In Work v. Beach, it was held that the defendant several years 
after making a promise to pay about $14,000 on such a promise was not 
liable though he had been continuously in receipt of a salary of $15,000 a 
year, as he saved nothing therefrom. 

In some cases, however, it has been held that one who makes such a promise 
is bound to pay within a reasonable time. Nunez V, Dautel, 19 Wall. 662; 
Works V, Hershey, 36 la. 340; De Wolf v, French, 51 Me. 420; Crooker f>. 
Holmes, 65 Me. 195; Lewis v, Tipton, 10 Ohio St. 88; Noland v. Bull, 24 Oreg. 
479, and in Kinoaid v, Higgins, 1 Bibb, 396, the promisor was held bound to 
pay at once. 

If the promisor has once become able to pay a right of action vests, which 
is not divetted by •upcfrvening inability. D^mey v. Wheelwright^ 60 Miss. 



TACIT ACCEPTANCE. 53 

Caaet of fpedal conditions on tickets. Difficult questions may arise on 
this pointy and in particular have arisen in cases where public com- 
panies entering into contracts for the carriage or custody of goods 
have sought to limit their liability by special conditions printed on a 
ticket delivered to the passenger or depositor at the time of making 
the contract The tendency of the earlier cases on the subject is to 
hold that (apart from the statutory restrictions of the Railway and 
Canal Traffic Act, ♦1864, which do not apply to contracts with [49 
steamship companies, nor to contracts with railway companies for the 
mere custody as distinguished from the carriage of goods) such con- 
ditions are binding. A strong opposite tendency is shown in Hen- 
derson V. Stevenson (g), where the House of Lords decided that in 
the case of a passenger traveling by sea with his luggage an indorse- 
ment on his ticket ^ stating that the shipowners will not be liable for 
loss does not prevent him from recovering for loss caused by their 
negligence, unless it appears either that he knew and assented to the 
special terms, or at any rate that he knew there were some special 
terms and was content to accept them without examination (r).®^ 

{q) (1875) L. R. 2 Sc. & D. 470. tion of the special terms would have 

Lord Chelmsford's and Lord Hather- to be shown. But the later cases 

ley's dicta (pp. 477, 479) go farther, have not adopted this view, 
and suggest that the contract is com- (r) Followed in Riohardaon d Co. 

plete before the ticket is delivered at v. Roumtree [1894] A. C. 217, 63 

all, so that some other commnnica- L. J. Q. B. 283. 

WThe ticket as such is a mere token or voucher that the holder has paid 
his fare, not the contract between the parties. Erie R. Co. v. Winter's Adm., 
143 U. S. 60; Scolfleld r. Penna. Co., 112 Fed. Rep. 855; The Minnetonka, 132 
Fed. Rep. 62 ; Bumham v. Railroad Co., 63 Me. 298 ; (^uimby r. Vanderbilt, 
17 N. Y. 306; Rawson p. Railroad Co., 48 N. Y. 212; Elmore v. Sands, 54 
N. Y. 512, 515; Railroad Co. r. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647, 658; Pennsylvania 
Co. V. Wents, 37 Ohio St. 333; Frank v. Ingalls, 41 Ohio St. 560; Wilson p. 
Railroad Co., 21 Gratt. 654. Also an article on tickets by Professor J. H. 
Beale, 1 Harv. L Rev. 17. But see Western R. Co. r. Stockdale, 83 Md. 245 ; 
RahUly v. St. Paul, Ac. Co., 66 Minn. 163; People r. Tyroler, 157 N. Y. 
116, 123. 

«See The Majestic, 166 U. S. 375; The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263; The 
New England, 110 Fed, Rep. 415; The Minnetonka, 132 Fed. Rep. 52; Railway 
Co. V. Deloney, 65 Ark. 177; Railroad Co. r. Cox, 29 Ind. 360; Railroad Co. 
p. Rodebaugh, 38 Kan. 45; Malone p. Railroad Co., 12 Gray, 388; Brown r. 
Railroad 0>., 11 Cush. 97; Railway Co. p. Holmes, 75 Miss. 371; Madan v. 
Sherard, 73 N. Y. 329; Blossom p. Dodd, 43 N. Y. 264; Rawson r. Railroad 
Co., 48 N. Y. 212; Railroad Co. p. Campbell, 36 Ohio St. 647; Railroad Co. 
V. Turner, 100 Tenn. 213; Railway Co. v. Newman, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 606; 
Ranchau p. Railroad Co., 71 Vt. 142; Wilson p. Railroad Co., 21 Gratt. 654; 
cp. Fonseca p. Cunard 8, S. Co., 153 Mass. 553 ; O'Regan P. Cunard S. S. Co., 
160 Mass. 356; Steers p. gteamship Co., 57 N. Y. 1. . 

Common carriers, it is to be remembered, are bound to serve every one wno 
applies to them, and to their calling certain duties and liabilities are, by law, 
aiUched; it requires no contract to create these; it does require ono to ^^J^^ 
them. It is well settled that a mere notice is not enough to relieve tbe <»rri€T 
from his common law liability without proof of its having been noi oniy 



54 AQREEHE?/T^ PROPOSAL, AND ACCEPTANCE. 

Since this there have been reported caseB arising out of the deposit of 
goods, for safe custody or otherwise, in exchange for a ticket on which 
were endorsed conditions limiting the amount of the receiver's lia- 
bility (s). The result, as it stands at present, appears to be that it is 
a question of fact whether the notice given in each case was reasonably 
sufficient to inform the party receivkig it at the time of making the 
contract that the party giving it intended to contract only on special 
50] terms. A person who, knowing this (2), enters *into the con- 

(8) Harris v. O. W. R, Co, (1876) v. 8. E, R. Co, (1879) 6 C. P. D. 1, 

1 Q. B. D. 515, 45 L. J. Q. B. 729; 49 L. J. C. P. 107. 
Parker v. S, E, R, Co. (1876) ; 0<ibell {t) Knowledge that there are 

V. 8, E, R, Co. (1877) 2 C. P. Div. special conditions must be found as 

416, 46 L. J. C. P. 768, reversing in a fact. It may be inferred from 

Parker* a case the judgment of the reasonable means of knowledge; in 

C. P. Div. 1 C. P. D. 618, 46 L. J. deciding whether the means offered 

C. P. 768; Watkins v. Rymill (1883) are reasonable all the circumstances, 

10 Q. B. D. 178, 52 L. J. Q. B. 121, such as the class of persons to whom 

where the former cases are fully re- the notice is addressed, are properly 

Tlefwed by Stephen J. CompBLTe Burke taken into account: Richardson d 

actually seen, but also assented to by the other party. When goods are 
delivered to a carrier under a notice, if any implication is to be indulged in, 
" it is as strong that the owner intended to insist upon his rights as it is 
that he assented to their qualification." New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Bank, 
6 How. 344, 383; Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 318; Judson P. 
Railroad Co., 6 Allen, 486, 491; Moses t-. Railroad Co., 24 N. H. 71; Same v. 
Same, 32 N. H. 523; Hollister t. Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234; Jones r. Voorhees. 
10 Ohio, 145; Railroad Co. v, Barrett, 36 Ohio St. 448, 453; Brown v. 
Express Co., 15 W. Va. 812. 

When concurrently with his delivery of the goods to the carrier, a bill of 
lading containing restrictive conditions is given to the shipper and retained 
by him, it is held in some States that he is estopped to deny that he assented 
to its terms, and that evidence to show that he never read it is inadmissible. 
Railroad Co. r. Brownlee, 14 Bush, 590; Grace r. Adams, 100 Mass. 505; Cox 
V, Railroad Co., 170 Mass. 129; McMillan v. Railroad Ck)., 16 Mich. 80; 
O'Brvan r. Kinney, 74 Mo. 125; Insurance Co. r. Railroad Co., 72 N. Y. 90; 
HillV. Railroad Co., 73 N. Y. 351; Zimmer v. Railroad Co., 137 N. Y. 460. 
See also The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263 ; Lawson, Contracts of Carriers, | 102. 
But compare on the other hand, Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 
318; Express Co. r. Haynes, 42 111. 89; Express Co. v. Stettaners, 61 111. 184; 
Transportation Co. v. Dater, 91 III. 195; Railway Co. v, Simon, 160 111. 648; 
Express Co. v. Moon, 39 Miss. 822. 

As to similar questions arising in contracts with telegraph companies, see 
Primrose r. Western Union Tel. Co., 154 U. S. 1; Stamey t?. Western Union 
Tel. Co., 92 Ga. 613. 

Where goods are delivered to a carrier under a verbal contract, not limiting 
the carrier's liability, and afterwards a bill of lading containing restrictive 
conditions is given to the shipper, it requires for the release of the carrier 
from his common law liability not onlv the express assent of the shipper 
(Railway Co. r. Jurey, 111 U. S. 594; Railroad Co. r. Boyd. 91 111. 268; Gott 
r. Dinsmore. Ill Mass. 45; Bostwick r. Railroad Co., 45 N. Y. 712; Gaines r. 
Transportation Co., 28 Ohio St. 418) ; but also, it is submitted, a new consider- 
ation. Railroad Co. r. Reynolds, 17 Kan. 251; Hendrick r. Railroad Co., 170 
Mass. 44, 47; Railway Co. r. Carter, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 677; Railway Co. r. 
Avery, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 235; Railway Co. r. Wright, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 136; 
Strohn v. Railroad Co., 21 Wis. 562. See 5 C. L. J. 134. 



PB0KISE8 IN DBED8. 55 

tract, is then deemed to assent to the special terms; but this, again, 
is probably subject to an implied condition that the terms are relevant 
and reasonable. It cannot be said that the subject is yet free from 
doubt 

Promiies ezpieesed in deeds. It has already been pointed out that the 
ordinary rules of proposal and acceptance do not apply to. promises 
embodied in a deed. It is established by a series of authorities which 
appear to be confirmed by the ratio decidendi of Xenos v. WicJe- 
ham (u), in the House of Lords, that a promise so made is at once 
operative without any question of acceptance;®^ and this because it 
derives its force not from anything passing between the parties, but 
from the promisor's — or, in the regular language of conveyancing, 
covenantor's — solemn admission that he is bound. Thus an obligation 
is created which whenever it comes to the other party^s knowledge 

Co. V. Roumiree [1894] A. C. 217, 63 Palmer [1896] 1 Q. B. 862, 64 L. J. 
L. J. Q. B. 283. [Cp. with this case Q. B. 316, \vhere the point whether 
O'Regan v. Cunard S. S. Co., 160 there was sufficient notice of the con- 
Mass. 356.] Compare Ulpian's re- dition was not open, 
marks on a fairly analogous case, D. (u) (1886) L. R. 2 H. L. 296. 
14, 3, de inst. act. 11, fi 2, 3. De The previous cases were Doe d. Gar- 
quo palam prosfiriptum fuerit, ne nona v. Knight (1826) 5 B. & C. 671, 
cum eo contrahatur, is praepositi 29 R. R. 355 (a mortgage) ,• Eirton 

loco non habetur Proecribere v. Scott (1833) 6 Sim. 31, 38 R. R. 

palam sic accipimus: daris litteris, 72 (the like) ; Hall v. Palmer (1844) 

unde de piano recte legi possit, ante 13 L. J. Ch. 352 (bond to secure an- 

tabemam scilicet, vel ante eum nuity after obligor's death) ; Ftefc^icr 

locum, in quo negotiatio exercetur, v. Fletcher (1845) 14 L. J. Ch. 66 

non in loco remoto, sed in evidenti (covenant for settlement to be made 

.... Certe si quis dicat ignorasse by executors). Xenos v. Wickham 

se litteras, vel non observasse quod might have been decided on the 

propositum erat, cum multi legerent, ground that the company's executicm 

eumque palam esset propositum, non of the policy was the acceptance of 

audietur. Before the recent cases on the plaintiffs' proposal, and the 

the subject the conditions printed by plaintiffs' broker was their agent to 

railway companies on their tickets, receive communication of the accept- 

and the correspcmding notices ex- anoe. But that ground is distinctly 

hibited by them, were not often, they not relied upon in the opinions of 

are still not always, "claris litteris, the Lords: see L. R. 2 H. L. at pp. 

unde de piano recte legi possit," or 320, 323. [Xenos v. Wickham was 

" in loco evidenti." As to conditions followed in Roberts t?. Security Co. 

on passenger tickets see per Wills [1897] 1 Q. B. 111. See also Malott 

and Wright JJ. in O. V, R, Co, v. v, Wilson [1903] 2 Ch. 494.] 

«See also Crawford v. Insurance Co., 125 Cal. 609; Dibble v. Insurance 
Co., 70 Mich. 1 ; McMillan t*. Ames, 33 Minn. 257 ; Waggoner's Est., 174 Pa. 
558. But in Meigs v. Dexter, 172 Mass. 217, it was said: '' It is well settled 
in this Commonwealth that the delivery of a deed is not complete and effectual 
without an acceptance by the grantee, or by some one authorized to represent 
him, and whose act of acceptance is afterwards ratified." See also Nelson v. 
Insurance Co., 120 N. C. 302. Almost all of the cases on the essentials of de- 
livery of a deed have arisen in regard to conveyances, and the subject is 
generally treated in connection with the law of real property. Devlin on 
Deeds, f 260 et seg.; Gray's Cases on Property, Vol. Ill, pp. 633-735. 



56 AGBEEKENT, PROPOSAL, AND AOCSPTAKCE. 

affords a cause of action without any other signification of his assent^ 
and in the meanwhile is irreYocable.® But if the promisee refuses 
his assent when the promise comes to his knowledge the contract is 
avoided. 

51 ] *^' If A makes an obligation to B., and deliver it to C. to the use 
of B., this is the deed of A. presently; but if C. offers it to B., then B. 
may refuse it in pais*' (i.e, without formality) "and thereby the 
obligation will lose its force/' (x).^ 

{w) Butler and Baker's case, 3 Co. means the special form of deed other- 
Rep. 26, quoted hj Blackburn J. L. R. wise, and now exclusiyely, called a 
2 H. L, at p. 312. "Obligation" bond, 
here, as always in our older books, 

63 That a promissory note also differs from a simple contract in this respect, 
namely, that, if delivered, a payee may recover upon it, though not aware of 
its existence until after the maker's death, see Dean t^. Carruth, 108 Mass. 
242; Worth v. Case, 42 N. Y. 362; 2 Ames, Cas. on Bills and Notes, 878, s. v. 
Specialty, fi 18. As to an indorsee, see Lysaght v. Bryant, 0. B. 46; Williams 
t?. Gait, 96 111. 172. 

<M See in accord Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257 (a mortgage) ; Ensworth 
V. King, 50 Mo. 477 (the like), and the following eases of simple conveyances: 
Munro v. Bowles, 187 111. 346; Schlicher r. Keeler, 61 N. J. Eq. 394; Bobbins 
V, Rascoe, 120 N. C. 79; Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377, 382. But see 
contra, Bell v. Bank, 11 Bush, 34 (a mortgage) ; Welch v. Sackett, 12 Wis. 
270 (the like, cp. Sargeant r. Solberg, 22 Wis. 132) ; Knox t^. Clark, 15 Col. 
App. 356 (a deed). See also 49 Am. L. Reg. (O. S.) 116. 



CAPAOITT OF PABTIEB. 



67 



♦CHAPTEB II. 
Capacity of PABTisa 



[52 



PAQB. 

VariatioiiB in personal capac- 
ity, 68 

Artificial persons, 69 

Limitations of capacity, 60 

1. Infants. General statement, 69 
Contracts voidable, not Toid, 69 
Supposed distinction between 

void and voidable now ex- 
ploded, 60 
Special classes of contracts 

considered on this point, 61 
Avoidance of infanrs con- 
tract, 66 
Infants Relief Act, 1874, 69 
Liability on obligations inci- 
dent to properly, 73 
On beneficial contract, 74 
For necessaries, 76 
Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 2, 76 
What are necessaries, 78 
Certain contracts of infants 

binding by custom, 81 

B^ statute, 81 

Liability of infants on wrongs 

collateral to contract, 82 

In equity, on representations 

of full age, 84 

Subsequent contract after full 
age prevails, 86 

2. Married Women, Can con- 

tract only as to separate 
property, 87 

lue mariti and survivorship, 89 

Cannot revive barred debt by 
acknowledgment, 90 

Exceptions at common law, 90 

Custom of London as to mar- 
ried woman trading alone, 91 

Agreements for separation be- 
tween husband and wife 
alone, 92 

Statutory exceptions: judicial 
separation, Ac., 93 

Equitable doctrine of separate 
estate, 94 

Married Women's Property 
Act, 1882, 94 

3. Lunatics and Drunken Persons. 

Old law, 98 

Modem law: contract not 

void but voidable, 100 

4- Convicts, rfc, 104 

Extension of capacity, 105 



PAfflB. 

1. Agency y 106 
Authority of agent, 106 
ContracU by authorized 

agents, 107 

When agent known to be such, 
there is contract with prin- 
cipal, 107 

If principal named, prima 
facie no contract with agent, 107 

If principal not named, prima 
facie tnere Is contract with 
agent, 108 

These rules subject to evi- 
dence of contrary intention. 111 

When agent not known to be 
such, there is generally con- 
tract with undisclosed prin- 
cipal, 112 

Exceptions to and limits of 
the rule, 113 

Rights of other contracting 
party, 116 

Professed agent not having au- 
thority cannot sue on the 
contract if a responsible 
principal has been named, 117 

Nor be sued on It, 119 

But may be sued on implied 
warranty of authority, 119 

Where no principal named, or 
one who could not be respon- 
sible, professed agent is 
treated as principal, 123 

2. Artificial Persons, 124 
Nature of artificial persons, 124 
Corporations : common law 

doctrine, 126 

Capacities of corporations in 

themselves, 128 

As limited by positive rules, 133 
As determined by purposes of 

incorporation, 133 

Application of partnership 

law, 134 

Public policy and interests of 

the public, 138 

Corporations ' cannot bind 
themselves by negotiable in- 
struments: explanations of 
this, 143 

Exceptions, 146 

Conflicting theories in U. S., 146 
Corporations bound by estop- 
pel, &c., 147 



68 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

YarUtions in perioaal capacity. All statements about legal capacities 
and duties are taken, unless the contrary be expressed, to be made 
with reference to " lawful men," citizens, thai, is, who are not in any 
manner unqualified or disqualified for the full exercise of a citizen's 
normal rights. There are several ways in which persons may be or 
become incapable, wholly or partially, of doing acts in the law, and 
among other things of becoming parties to a binding contract. 

Infancy. All persons must attain a certain age before they are ad- 
mitted to full freedom of action and disposition of their property. 
This is but a necessary recognition of the actual conditions of man's 
life. The age of majority, however, has to be fixed at some point of 
time by positive law. By English law it is fixed at twenty-one years; 
and every one under that age is called an infant (Co. Litt. 171 &). 

Coverture. Every woman who marries has to sustain, as incident to 
her new status, technically called coverture, a loss of legal capacity in 
various respects ; a loss expressed, and once supposed to be suflBciently 
explained, by the fiction that husband and wife are one person. 

Insanity, &c. Both men and women may lose their legal capacity, 
permanently or for a time, by an actual loss of reason. This we call 
insanity when it is the result of established mental disease, intoxica- 
tion when it is the transient effect of drink or narcotics. Similar con- 
sequences, again, may be attached by provisions of positive law to 
53] conviction for *criminal offences. Deprivation of civil rights 
also may be, and has been in England in some particular cases, a 
substantive penalty; but it is not thus used in any part of our law 
now in practical operation.* 

Extension of natural capacity: agency. On the other hand, the capacity 
of the "lawful man" receives a vast extension in its application, 
while it remains unaltered in kind, by the institution of agency. One 
man may empower another to perform acts in the law for him and 
acquire rights and duties on his behalf. By agency the individual's 
legal personalty is mutiplied in space, as by succession it is con- 
tinued in time. The thing is now so familiar that it is not easy to 
realize its importance, or the magnitude of the step taken by legal 
theory and practice in its full recognition. We may be helped to this 
if we remember that in the Roman system there is no law of agency 

iThe system of slavery which formerly existed in this country involved 
the incapacity of slaves to contract. " It was an inflexible rule of the law of 
African slavery, wherever it existed, that the slave was incapable of entering 
into any contract, not excepting that of marriage." Hall v. United States, 92 
U. S. 27, 30. 



GONTBi.CTS OF INFANTS. 59 

as we understand it. The slave, who did much of what is now done 
by free servants and agents, was regarded as a mere instrument of 
acquisition for his owner, except in tlie special classes of cases in 
which either slaves or freemen might be in a position analogous, but 
not fully equivalent, to that of a modern agent. As between the 
principal and his agent, agency is a special kind of contract. But it 
differs from other kinds of contract in that its legal consequences are 
not exhausted by performance. Its object is not merely the doing of 
specified things, but the creation of new and active legal relations 
between the principal and third persons. Hence it may fitly have its 
place among the conditions of contract in general, though the mutual 
duties of principal and agent belong rather to the treatment of agency 
as a species of contract. 

Artifidal persons. While the individual citizen^s powers are thus ex- 
tended by agency, a great increase of legal scope and safety is given to 
the conjoint action of many by their association in a corporate body 
or artificial person. The development of corporate action presupposes 
a developed law of agency, ♦since a corporation can execute its [54 
intentions only through natural persons generally or specially author- 
ized to act on its behalf. And as a corporation, in virtue of its per- 
petual succession and freedom from all or most of the disabilities 
which may in fact or in law affect natural persons, has powers exceed- 
ing those of a natural person, so those powers have to be defined and 
limited by sundry rules of law, partly for the protection of the indi- 
vidual members of the corporation, partly in the interest of the public. 

We proceed to deal with these topics in the order indicated: and 
first of the exceptions to the capacity of natural persons to bind them- 
selves by contract. 

PART I. 

I. Infants. 

General statement of the law. An infant is not absolutely incapable 
of binding himself, but is, generally speaking, incapable of absolutely 
binding himself by contract (a). His acts and contracts are void- 
able at his option, subject to certain statutory and other exceptions. 

By the common law a contract made by an infant is generally void- 
able at the infant's option, such option to be exercised either before (6) 
his attaining his majority or within a reasonable time afterwards. 

Where the obligation is incident to an interest (or at all events to a 

(a) Stated in this form by Hayes (5) As to this see p. *61, below. 

•T. 14 Ir. C. L. Rep. at p. 356. 



60 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

beneficial interest) in property, it cannot be avoided while that in- 
terest is retained. 

Some agreements are, exceptionally, not voidable but void. 

By the Infants^ Belief Act, 1874, loans of money to infants, con- 
tracts for the sale to them of goods other than necessaries, and ac- 
55] counts stated with them are absoli^tely *void; and no action can 
be brought on a ratification of any contract made during infancy. 

(When the agreement of an infant is such that it cannot be for his 
benefit, it has been said to be absolutely void at common law; but 
this distinction is believed to be exploded by modem authorities.) 

On the other hand an infant is bound to pay a reasonable price for 
necessaries sold and delivered to him; where "necessaries^' mean 
goods suitable to his condition in life and his actual requirements at 
the time (c). 

An infant's express contract may be valid if it appears to the Court 
to be beneficial to the infant.^ 

In certain other cases infants are enabled to make binding contracts 
by custom or statute. 

An infant is not liable for a wrong arising out of or immediately 
connected with his contract, such as a fraudulent representation at 
the time of making the contract that he is of full age. But an infant 
who has represented himself as of full age is bound by payments made 
and acts done at his request and on the faith of such representations, 
and is liable to restore any advantage he has obtained by such repre- 
sentations to the person from whom he has obtained it. 

1. Of the contracts of infants in general ai common law, and as 
affected by the Act of 1874. 

Supposed rule distinction that some contracts of infants are whoUy void. 
It was once commonly said that an agreement made by an infant, if 
such that it cannot be for his benefit, is not merely voidable, but abso- 
lutely void ; though in general his contracts are only voidable at his 
56] option (d). *But this distinction is in itself unreasonable, and 
is really unsupported by authority, while there is considerable au- 

(c) Sale of Goods Act, 1893, b. 2. voidable. Litt. s. 259, but it is said 

This confirms the opinion that an in- that if it is not such as to take effect 

fant's obligation to pay for neces- " by the delivery of his own hand," 

saries is not created by agreement it is void, Perk. 12, Shepp. Touch, 

but imposed by law; in other words, 232-3, Co. Litt. 51 5, n., .3 Burr, 

that there is not a true contract but 1805, 2 Dr. & W. 340. It is assumed 

a quasi-contract. in modern practice that an infant's 

{d) An infant's deed is generally sale or gift of personal chattels with 

2 Clements r. London, &c. Ry. Co. [1894], 2 Q. B. 482. 



00KTBA0T8 OF INFANTS. 61 

fhoriiy agamrt ii The use of the word void provoB nothings for it ifl 
to be found in cases where there has never been any doubt that the 
contract is only voidable. And as applied to other subject matters it 
has been held to mean only voidable in formal instruments (e) and 
even in Acts of Parliament (/).* 

Bnle uumpportad by authority. Actual decision is the only safe guide; 
and as early as 1813 it was clearly laid down in the Exchequer 
Chamber^ as the general nde of law^ that the contract of an infant 
may be avoided or not at his own option. The Court refused to recog- 
nize any variation of the rule as generally applicable to trading 
contracts (g). 

There is nothing to set against this in any reported case of co-ordi- 
nate authority. Dicta in cases of inferior authority to the effect that 
trade contracts of infants are void (as distinct from voidable) could 
not prevail against a decision of the Exchequer Chamber even if they 
were necessary to the judgments in which they occur. Examination 
shows that they were superfluous in every case cited for the formerly 
current doctrine; but it seems needless to repeat what was said in 
earlier editions, as that doctrine is now, I believe, abandoned every- 
where. 

Contract of service. In a modem case, indeed, the following opinion 
was given by the Court of Queen's Bench on the conviction of *a [57 
servant for unlawfully absenting himself from his master's employ- 
ment : — 

"Among many objections <me appears to us clearly fatal. He was an in- 
fant at the time of entering into the agreement, which authorizes the master 
to stop his wages when the steam engine is stopped working for any cause. 
An agreement to serve for wages may be for the infant's benefit (A.) ; but an 

actual delivery is good: Taylor v. 8, with Govemora of Magdalen Eos' 

Johnston (1880) 19 Ch. D. 603, 608. pital v. Knotts (1879) 4 App. Ca. 

According to the old bo<^ it would 324, 48 L. J. Ch. 579, in which 

teem to be voidable. case this latitude has at last been 

{€) Lincoln College's ease (1595) restrained. 

3 Co. Rep. 59 6; Doe d. Bryan v. {g) WarvAch v. Bruce, 6 Taunt. 
Baneke (1821) 4 B. & Aid. 401, 23 118, affg. s.c. M. & S. 205, 14 R. R. 
R. R. 318; MaUne v. Freeman (1838) 638. 

4 Bing. N. C. 395, 44 R. R. 737. (A) It seems that prima fade it is 
{f) Compare Davenport y. Reg. so, even if it contains clauses impos- 

(1877) (J. C. from Queensland) 3 ing penalties, or giving a power of 
App. Ca. at p. 128, 47 L. J. P. C. dismissal, in certain events: Wood v. 

SSee remarks of Bell, J., in State v, Richmond, 26 N. H. 232. See also 
Be Brail, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381; Ewell v, Daggs, 108 U. S. 143; Minah Min. Co. 
V, Briscoe, 47 Fed. Rep. 276; Railroad Co. t?. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 
Rep. 497, 625; Van Shaack v, Robbins, 36 la. 201; Allis r. Billings, 6 Met. 
415; Terrill r. Auchauer, 14 Ohio St. 80, 85; National Bank v. Wheelock, 
52 Ohio St. 534; Pearsoll r. CHiapin, 44 Pa. 9. 



62 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

agreement which compels him to serve at all times during the term bnt leares 
the master free to stop his work and his wages whenever he chooses to do so 
cannot be considered as beneficial to the servant. It is inequitable and wholly 
void. The conviction must be quashed "(i). 

But this is mere laxity of language. Court decided only that the 
agreement was not enforceable against the infant. It cannot have 
meant to say that if the master had arbitrarily refused to pay wages 
for the work actually done the infant could not have sued him on 
the agreement. 

Leases. Again^ it is said that a lease made by an infant^ without 
reservation of any rent (or even not reserving the best rent), is abso- 
lutely void. But this opinion was disapproved by Lord Mansfield, 
whose judgment Lord St. Leonards adopted as good law, though the 
actual decision was not on this particular point in either case (;). 
And in a modem Irish case (A:) it was expressly decided that at all 
58] events *a lease made by an infant reserving a substantial rent, 
whether the best rent or not, is not void but voidable; and further 
that it is not well avoided by the infant granting another lease of the 
same property to another person after attaining his full age. There 
is good English authority for the proposition that if a lease made by 
an infant is beneficial to him he cannot avoid it at all ({). 

Sale, &c., of land. It appears to be agreed that the sale, purchase (m), 
or exchange (n) of land by an infant is both as to the contract and 
as to the conveyance only voidable at his option.* 

Fenwick (1842) 10 M. & W. 195; C. L. Rep. 61. The Court inclined 

Leslie v. Fitzpatrich (1877) 3 Q. B. to think that some act of notoriety 

D. 229, 47 L. J. M. G. 22, distin- by the lessor would be required, such 

guishing Reg, v. Lord (next note). as entering, bringing ejectment, or 

(t) Reg, V. Lord (1848) 12 Q. B. demanding possession (note that a 

757, 17 L. J. M. C. 181, where the freehold estate for the life of the 

headnote rightly says " void against lessor or twenty-one years had passed 

the infant,'* [See also Com v. Mat- by the original lease) ; however there 

thews, [1893] 1 Q. B. 310.] was another reason, namely, that the 

(;') Zouch V. Parsons (1765) 3 second lease might be construed as 

Burr. 1794 (where the decision was only creating a future interest to 

that the reconveyance of a mort- take effect on the determination of 

gagee's infant heir, the mortgage the first. 

being properly paid off, could not (I) Maddon v. White (1787) 2 

be avoided by his entry before full T. R. 159, 1 R. R. 453. 
age) ; Allen v. Allen (1842) 2 Dr. & (m) Co. Lit. 2 5, Bac. Ab. Infancy, 

W. 307, 340; and see Bac. Ab. 4, 361. I. 3 (4, 360). 

(k) Slator v. Brady (1863) 14 Ir. (n) Co. Lit. 51 6. 

4 If an infant make a feoffment of land, since he must be in possession to 
make it, he must again re-enter, in order to avoid it; and hence his mere 
deed to another, without a re-entry, is not a disaffirmance of the feoffment 



CONTRACTS OP INFANTS. 63 

Partntidiip and aluTelioldins. Again, there is no doubt that an infant 
may be a partner* or shareholder (though in the latter case the com- 
pany may refuse to accept him) (o) ; and though he cannot be made 
liable for partnership debts during his infancy, he is bound by the 
partnership accounts as between himself and his partners and cannot 
claim to share profits without contributing to losses.^ And if on 
coming of age he does not expressly disaffirm the partnership he is 
considered to affirm it, or at any rate to hold himself out as a partner, 

(o) But the company cannot dis- Oooch'a case (1872) L. R. 8 Ch. 266, 

pute the validity of a transfer to an 42 L. J. Ch. 381. And see Lindley, 

infant after the infant has trans- 82-S4. 
f erred over to a person 9ui iuria: 

first made. But in this country conveyance by bargain and sale, and not by 
feoffment, is the mode generally adopted, and hence a re-entry by the infant is 
not usually necessary. Where the infant remains in possession of the land 
granted by him, his deed to another, on arriving at majority, is a complete 
disaffirmance ; where the grantee of the infant goes into possession, there is a 
subsequent deed of the grantor will, or will not be effectual as a disaffirmance, 
according as the law of the State where the land lies, is, or is not, that one out 
of possession of land can make a good deed of it without re-entry. Tucker v, 
Moreland, 10 Pet. 58; Bagley v, Fletcher, 44 Ark. 153; Harris v. Cannon, 6 
Ga. 382; Ritcher r. Laycock, 7 Ind. 398; Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky. 
288; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107; Norcum t*. Shehan, 21 Mo. 25; Peter- 
son V. Laik, 24 Mo. 541; Jackson t;. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 539; Jackson v. 
Burchin, 14 Johns. 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; Hoyle r. Stowe, 2 
Dev. & Bat. L. 320; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; Scott v. Buchanan, 11 
Humph. 468, 473, 474; Mustard 9. Wohlford, 15 Gratt. 329. 

In Biggs V. Fisk, 64 Ind. 100, it was held that although a conveyance, made 
by a grantor on attaining the age of twenty-one years, of lands adversely held 
by one claiming title thereto, under a conveyance made by the same grantor 
during his infancy, is void as against the adverse holder, yet it operates as a 
disaffirmance of ^he first deed, and authorizes the grantee thereunder to sue 
the adverse holder in the name of the grantor for the recovery of such lands. 

In order that a later deed should operate as a disaffirmance of an earlier, 
the two must be so inconsistent that both cannot stand together. Leitens- 
dorfer v. Hempstead, 18 Mo. 269; Buchanan r. Griggs, 18 Neb. 121; Eagle 
Fire Co. r. Lent, 6 Paige, 635; McGann v. Marshall, 7 Humph. 121. 

Heirs of a dead minor may disaffirm his deed. Walton v. Gaines, 94 Tenn. 
420. Cp. Mansfield r. Gordon* 144 Mass. 168. 

5 Bush r. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344 ; Dana v. Steams, 3 Cush. 372 ; Dunton v. 
Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Osbom r. Farr, 42 Mich. 134; Bank t\ Strauss, 137 
N. Y. 148; Parker v. Oakley, (Tenn.) 57 S. W. Rep. 426; Penn i?. Whitehead, 
17 Gratt. 503. 

8 In Moley r. Brine, 120 Mass. 324, the memberB of a partnership, one of 
whom was an infant, contributed to the common stock in unequal propor- 
tions, with an agreement that the profits should be equally divided between 
them. The firm dissolved ; the assets remaining at the time of the dissolution 
being insufficient to pay back the contributions of the several members in 
full, it was held that the loss of capital must fall upon the partners in equal 
proportions, and that the infant could not throw upon his co-partners the 
obligation of making up the deficiency. Moley v. Brine was followed in Page 
p. Morse, 128 Mass. 99. See also Conary v. Sawyer. 92 Me. 463; Pelletier 
9. Couture, 148 Mass. 269; Sparman v. Keim, 83 N. Y. 245; Shirk v. Schultz, 
113 Ind. 571, 27 Am. L. Reg. 620, and note. 



64 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

ftnd is thereby liable for the debts of the finn contracted sliice his 
majority (p) J 

The liability of an infant shareholder who does not repudiate his 
shares to pay calls on them rests^ as far as existing authorities go^ on 
a somewhat different form of the same principle (of which after- 
wards). As to contribution in the winding up of a company, Lord 
Lindley (q) ^'is not aware of any case in which an infant has been 
59] put on the list of contributories. Upon principle, however, ♦there 
does not appear to be any reason why he should not, if it be for his 
benefit; and this, if there are surplus assets, might be the case.'* 
Otherwise he cannot be deprived of his right to repudiate the shares, 
unless perhaps by fraud; but in any case if he " does not repudiate his 
shares, either while he is an infant or within a reasonable time after 
he attains twenty-one, he will be a contributory,^' and still more so if 
after that time he does anything showing an election to keep the 
shares. On the whole it is clear on the authorities (notwithstanding 
a few expressions to the contrary), that both the transfer of shares to 
an infant and the obligations incident to his holding the shares are 
not void but only voidable (r). 

Marriage. Marriage is on a different footing from ordinary con- 
tracts (s), and it is hardly needful to say that the possibility of a 
minor contracting a valid marriage has never been doubted in our 
Courts. Even if either or both of the parties be under the age of 
consent (fourteen for the man, twelve for the woman) the marriage 
is not absolutely void, but remains good if when they are both of the 
age of consent they agree to it (^).® But the Marriage Act, 4 Geo. 4, 

(p) Lindley on Companies, 6th ed. (a) Continental writers have wasted 

811, 828; Ooode v. Harrison (1821) much ingenuity in debating with 

5 B. & Aid. 147, 24 R. R. 307. which class of contracts it should be 

(^) On Companies, 809. reckoned. Sav: Svst. S 141 (3. 317) ; 

(r) LufMden*8 case (1868) L. R. Ortolan on Inst. 2. 10. 
4 Ch. 31; Oooch's case, last page; cp. {t) Bacon, Abr. 4. 336. 

p. ♦66, infra, 

Tin Miller r. Sims, 2 Hill (S. C), 479, where an infant partner after at- 
taining full age, transacted the business of the firm, received its moneys and 
paid its debts, it was held that these acts unexplained amounted to a confirma- 
tion of the partnership, and made him liable for a debt of the firm contracted 
during his infancy, although he was ignorant of the existence of the debt at the 
time of such confirmation, and had, on being informed of it, refused to pay it. 
But see Crabtree v. May, 1 B. Mon. 289 ; Tobey v. Wood, 123 Mass. 88 ; Minock 
r. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304. 

8 Goodwin v, Thompson, 2 Greene (la), 329; State v. Lowell, 78 Minn. 166; 
Koonce v, Wallace, 7 Jones L. 194; Warwick v. Cooper, 6 Sneed, 659. 
Cp. Beggs V. State, 55 Ala. 108; Walls v. State, 32 Ark. 565 with Shafher v. 
State, 20 Ohio, 1. 



CONTRACTS OF INFANTS. 65 

c. 76 (88. 8, 22), makes it very difficult, though not impoflsible, for a 
minor to contract a valid marriage without the consent of parents or 
guardians (u). 

Promiiea to marry. As to promises to marry and marriage settle- 
ments, it '''has long been familiar law that just as in the case of [60 
his other voidable contracts an infant may sue for a breach of promise 
of marriage, though not liable to be sued (x).^ 

Hanias^ settlements. An infantas marriage settlement is not binding 
on the infant unless made under the statute (see post, pp. *73, *75), 
and the Court of Chancery has no power to make it binding in the 
case of a ward (y), A settlement of a female infant's general per- 
sonal property, the intended husband being of full age and a party, 
can indeed be enforced, but as the contract not of the wife but of the 
husband; the wife's personal property passing to him by the marriage, 
he is bound to deal with it according to his contract (z). And par- 
ticular covenants in an infant's settlement may be valid (a). In any 
case the settlement is not void but only voidable; it may be confirmed 
by the subsequent conduct of the party when of full age and sui 
iuris (b), and can be repudiated only within a reasonable time after 
attaining full age (c). 

(«) In moflt Continental countries point by Edwards v. Carter [1893] 

the earliest age of legal marriage is A. C. 3S0, S3 L. J. Ch. 100. 
fixed: In France it is eighteen for (6) Davies y. Davies (1870) L. R. 

the man, fifteen for the woman, and 9 Eq. 468, 39 L. J. Ch. 343. This is 

consent of parents or lineal ancestors not affected by the Infants' Relief 

is required up to the ages of twenty- Act, 1874: Duncan v. Dixon (1890) 

five and twenty-one respectively : Code 44 Ch. D. 211, 59 L. J. Ch. 437. A 

Civ. 144 sqq. But this consent may woman married under age is not dis- 

be dispens^ with in various ways by abled by the coverture from confirm- 

matter subsequent or lapse of time: ing an ante-nuptial settlement after 

see art. 182, 183, 185. The marriage she is of age: Re Hodaon's Settle- 

law of other states (except a very ment [1894] 2 Ch. 421, 63 L. J. Ch. 

few where the canon law may still 609. 

prevail) appears to differ little on (c) Without regard to the date at 

the average from the law of France which any particular interest affected 

in this particular. may fall into possession: Edwards 

{w) Bacon, Abr. Infancy and Age, v. Carter [1893] A. C. 360, 63 L. J. 

1. 4 (4. 370). Per Lord Ellenbor- Ch. 100, with which Re Jones [1893] 

ough, Warwick v. Bruce (1813) 2 M. 2 Ch. 461. 62 L. J. Ch. 996, does 

ft 6. 205, 14 R. R. 634. not seem reconcilable. And election 

(y) Field v. Jfoore (1855) 7 D. M. must be made once for all, not sep- 

& G. 691, 710, 25 L. J. Ch. 66. arate elections for each acquisition — 

(e) Davidson, Conv. 3, pt. 2, 728. see Viditz v. O'Hagan [1899] 2 Ch. 

(a) Smith v. Lucas (1881) 18 pp. 569, 576. 
Ch. D. 631, not overruled on this 

• Cannon r. Alsbury, 1 A. K. Marsh. 76 ; Hunt r. Peake, 5 Cow. 475 ; Willard 
V. Stone, 7 Cow. 22; Bush v. Wick, 31 Ohio St. 621; Warwick v. Cooper, 6 
Sneed, 659; Wells v. Hardy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 648; Pool v. Pratt, 1 Chip. 252. 
5 



66 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

Hagotuibte inatnunentt. Again an infant's contract on a bill of ex- 
change or promissory note was once supposed to be wholly void, but 
is now treated as only voidable (d).^^ 

Aocoiuts stated. The same holds of an account stated (e).^^ 

Infant cannot have specific perfonnance. There is one exception to 
the rule that an infant may enforce his voidable contracts against the 
61 ] other party ♦during his infancy,^* or rather there is one way in 
which he cannot enforce them. Specific performance is not allowed 
at the suit of an infant, because the remedy is not mutual^ the infant 
not being bound (/)." 

Wlien infant may avoid his contracts. An infant may avoid his voidable 
contracts (with practically few or no exceptions) either before or 

id) Undisputed in Harris v. WaU (e) WUliama v. Moor (1843) 11 

(1847) 1 Ex. 122, IS L. J. Ex. 270, M. & W. 266, 264, 266, 12 L. J. Ex, 
foil. In re Uodson's Settlement [ 1894] 253. 

2 Cfa. 421. 63 L. J. Ch. 609. {f) FUght v. BoUand (1828) 4 

Rubs. 298. 28 R. R. 101. 

10 Heady r. Boden, 4 Ind. App. 475; Insurance Co. v. Billiard, 63 Ohio St. 
478; Mission Ridge Co. v. Nixon, (Tenn.) 48 S. W. Rep. 405; Daniel on 
Neg. Inst. § 223 seq; 1 Ames, Cas. on Bills and Notes, 463, note. 

11 " The numerous decisions which have been had in this country justify 
the settlement of the following definite rule, as one that is subject to no 
exceptions. The only contract binding on an infant is the implied contract 
for necessaries ; the only act which he is imder a legal incapacity to perform 
is the appointment of an attorney; all other acts and contracts, executed or 
executory, are voidable or confirmable by him at his election ;'* 1 Am. L. C. 
300; Shropshire v. Bums, 46 Ala. 108; Hyer v, Hyatt, 3 Cr. C. C. 276; Boie- 
man r. Browning, 31 Ark. 364, 373; Cole i?. Pennoyer, 14 111. 168; Fetrow t'. 
Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148 ; Rice v, Boyer, 108 Ind. 472 ; Mansfield v, Gordon, 144 
Mass. 168, 169; McDonald t?. Sargent, 171 Mass. 492; Baker v, Kennett, 54 
Mo. 82, 88; Necker v. Koehn, 21 Neb. 559; Englebert r. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195; 
Beardsley v, Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201; Bank v. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148, 152; 
Skinner r. Maxwell, 66 N. C. 45, 47 ; Hamer v. Dipple, 31 Ohio St. 72; Lemmon 
V, Beeman, 45 Ohio St. 505, 509; Insurance Co. v. Billiard, 63 Ohio St. 478, 
491 ; Mustard r. Wohlford, 15 Gratt. 329. 

However, there are even some recent cases approving the threefold division 
into binding, voidable and void promises. See Green t*. Wilding, 59 la. 679; 
Robinson v. Weeks, 56 Me. 102; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Swafford v. 
Ferguson, 3 Lea, 292. 

A power of attorney or agent's appointment was held void in Trueblood v, 
Trueblood, 8 Ind. 195; Pyle v. Cravens, 4 Litt. 17; Lawrence t?. McArter, 10 
Ohio, 37. But voidable only in Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Hardy 
V. Waters, 38 Me. 450; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457, 461; Coursolle t?. 
Weyerhauser, 69 Minn. 328. 

12 The other party cannot refuse to perform a contract because of the in- 
fant's inability to bind himself conclusively. Holt v. Ward Clarencieux, 2 
Strange, 937; Insurance Co. r. Hilliard, 63 Ohio St. 478, 491; O'Rourke v. 
John Hancock Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 457, 462. See also Atwell r. Jenkins, 163 
Mass. 362. 

IS Richards r. Green, 23 N. J. Eq. 536, 538 ; Ten Evck v. Manning, 52 N. J. 
£q. 47, 51. But see Seaton 17. Tohill, 11 Col. App. 211. 



CONTRACTS OF INFANTS. 67 

within a reasonable time after coming of age: the rule is that '' mat- 
ters in fait [i.e., not of record] he shall avoid either within age or at 
full age,'' but matters of record only within age (Co. Lit. 380 b) (g). 
Subject to the general rule, established for the benefit of innocent 
third persons, that voidable transactions are not invalid until ratified 
but valid until rescinded (A), an infant cannot deprive himself of the 
right to elect at full age, and only then can his election be conclu- 
sively determined (i)." 

ig) See per Farke B. Jfetory and in a Court of Record, see Y. B. 20 A 

BtmUkillen Ry. Co, v. Cwmbe (1849) 21 Ed. I. p. 320. 
3 Ex. 666, 18 L. J. Ex. 326; per Cur. {h) Per Lord Colonsay, L. R. 2 

L. d N, W, R. V. M'Michael (1850) H. L. 375. 

5 Ex. 114, 20 L. J. Ex. 97. As to (i) L, d N. W, R, v. M*Miehael, 

an infant being bound when he comes 9uyra, note {g) ; Slator v. Trimble 

of age by an acknowledgment made (1861) 14 Ir. C. L. Rep. 342. 

M In Edgerton v. Wolf, 6 Gray, 453, it was decided that an infant having 
during his minority rescinded a contract for the sale of a horse, this was final, 
and precluded his afterwards avoiding the rescission. So in Pippen v. Insur- 
ance Co., 130 N. C. 23, it was held that an infant's surrender of a policy for 
its cash value was conclusive. Cp. Lansing v. Michigan Central R. Co., 126 
Mich. 663. As to real estate, the rule in this coimtry generally is that 
an infant cannot avoid his deed until his majority. Hastings i?. Dollar hide, 
24 Cal. 196; Chapman r. Chapman, 13 Ind. 396; Welch v. Bunce, 83 Ind. 382; 
Baker r. Kennett, 64 Mo. 82, 88; Shipley v, Bunn, 126 Mo. 445; Emmons v. 
Murray, 16 N. H. 386; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119; McCormick r. Leggett, 
8 Jones L. 426. Rescission after majority is a final election. McCarty r. 
Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 463. Contracts of a personal kind, or relating 
to personal estate, he may avoid during infancy. Shipman v. Horton, 17 Conn. 
481; Riley t>. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 46 Ind. 142; 
Childs V. Dobbins, 65 la. 205; Bailey r. Bamberger, 11 B. Mon. 113; Towle v. 
Dresser, 7^ Me. 252 ; Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53 ; Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 
140; Simpson r. Prudential Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348; Coglev r. Cushman, 16 
Minn. 397; Heath r. West, 26 N. H. 191; Carr r. Clough, 26 N. H. 280; 
Chapin r. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407 ; Pippen v. Insurance Co., 130 N. C. 23 ; Price 
V. Farman, 27 Vt. 268; Hoyt r. Wilkinson, 67 Vt. 404. Contra, Dunton r. 
Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Armitage r. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Lansing r. Michigan 
Central R. Co., 126 Mich. 663. Any attempted affirmance during infancy is 
ineffectual. Sanger v. Hibbard, 104 Fed. Rep. 446 (c. c. A.). 

Money paid by a minor under a contract which has not yet been performed 
by the other party may be recovered back. Robinson r. Weeks, 66 Me. 102; 
Medbury v. Watrous, 7 Hill, 110; Shurtleff r. Millard, 12 R. I. 272. 

An infant may avoid an express contract of hiring and service, and recover 
upon qiumtum meruit the value of the services he has rendered under it. Ray 
V. Haines, 52 111. 485; Van Pelt v. Corwine, 6 Ind. 363; Meredith r. Craw- 
ford, 34 Ind. 399; Derocher r. Continental Mills, 68 Me. 217; Vent r. Osgood, 
19 Pick. 672; Oaffney v. Hayden, 110 Mass. 137; Dub« v. Beaudry, 150 Mass. 
448 ; Lowe v. SInklear, 27 Mo. 308 ; Lupkin v, Mayall, 25 N. H. 82 ; Whitmarsh 
V. Hall, 3 Denio, 376; Medbury v. Watrous, 7 Hill, 110; Dearden v. Adams, 
19 R. I. 217; Railroad Co. r. Elliott, 1 Cold. 611 ; Hoxie v. Lincoln, 25 Vt. 206. 

Some of the cases cited hold that the infant can recover only the value of 
his services, less the damage suffered by his employer by reason of the breach 
of his contract. But this makes the engagement of the infant a contract bind- 
ing on him to the extent of holding him liable for a breach of it, leaving it 
voidable prospectively only, and not ah initio, and seems clearly wrong on 



68 CAPACITY OF PASTIES. 

Mon«7 ptid under Avoided contract, when not recoverable. If an infant 
pays a sum of money under a contract^ in consideration of which the 
contract is wholly or partly performed by the other party, he can ac- 
quire no right to recover the money back by rescinding the contract 
when he comes of age. Such is the case of a premium paid for a 

principle. Cp. McCarthy r. Henderson, 138 Mass. 310; O'Rourke v. John Han- 
cock Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 457. 

An infant's agreement to labor, in consideration of being furnished board, 
clothing, etc., may amoimt to a contract for necessaries, and if it is reasonable 
and has been executed will be binding. James r. Gillen, 3 Ind. App. 472; 
Stone r. Dennison, 13 Pick. 1; Squires v, Hydliff, 9 Mich. 274; Ormsby r. 
Rhoades, 69 Vt. 505. Cp. Breed v, Judd, 1 Gray, 455 ; Spicer 9. Earl, 41 Mich. 
191. See Gcnereaux v, Sibley, 18 R. I. 42. 

Where a contract is executory on the part of the infant^ and has been per- 
formed on the part of the other party, if the infant avoids the contract, he 
thereby divests himself of all right to what he may have received under it, if 
then still possessed by him in specie, and the other party may repossess him- 
self thereof in whatever condition it may then be, but if the infant have al- 
lowed it to deteriorate, or wasted or consumed it, the other party has no. 
remedy therefor. Brandon t?. Brown, 106 111. 519, 627; Badger v, Phinney, 15 
Mass. 359; Miller t\ Smith, 26 Minn. 248; Nichols, &c., Co. t\ Snyder, 78 
Minn. 502; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige, 107; 
Mustard t?. Wohlford, 15 Gratt. 329; Bedinger v. Wharton, 27 Gratt. 857. 

And in the case of an executed contract of sale, or exchange, if the infant 
no longer possesses the consideration received by him, having consumed or 
disposed of it during infancy, he may avoid the contract without putting the 
other party in statu quo. Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 68, 73, 74; Manning 
r. Johnson, 26 Ala. 446; Eureka Co. r. Edwards, 71 Ala. 248; Carpenter t\ 
Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Dill v. Bowen, 54 Ind. 204; Chandler 17. Simmons, 
97 Mass. 508; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458; White v. New Bedford, ^., Co., 
178 Mass. 665; Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140; Simpson r. Prudential Ins. 
Co., 184 Mass. 348; Brantley v, W^olf, 60 Miss. 420; Harvey v, Briggs, 68 Miss. 
60; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; Clark r. Tate, 7 Mont. 171; Bloomer 
r. Nolan, 36 Neb. 51; Englebert t\ Troxell, 40 Neb. 195; Green v. Green, 69 
N. Y. 553; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156; Lemmon v. Beeman, 45 Ohio St. 
505; Bullock r. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188; Price r. Furman, 27 Vt. 268; Wiser f>. 
Lockwood, 42 Vt. 720. But see, on the other hand, Bozeman t'. Browning, 31 
Ark. 364; Bailey r. Bamberger, 11 B. Men. 113; Johnson v. Insurance Co., 
56 Minn. 365; Kerr t\ Bell, 44 Mo. 120; Bartlett v. Bailey, 59 N. H. 354; 
Hall V, Butterfield, 59 N. H. 408; Smith r. Evans, 5 Humph. 70; Lane €. 
Dayton, &c., Co., 101 Tenn. 581; Stuart r. Baker, 17 Tex. 417; Folty t?. Fergu- 
son. 77 Tex. 301. 

In Lane t\ Dayton, &c., Co., 101 Tenn. 581, it was held that an infant could 
not avoid an accord and satisfaction without returning the consideration he 
had received, if he still had it. 

In McGreall r. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688, an infant made a trust deed to secure 
money borrowed to pay off incumbrances and make improvements on the 
infant's land, and the money was so used. The deed having been disaffirmed, 
the lender was held subrogated to the rights of the incumbrancers who had 
been paid, and the money spent on improvements was considered still in the 
infant's hands. Somewhat similarly an infant grantor of land was held liable 
to the grantee for improvements made by the latter. Bundle v, Spencer, 67 
Mich. 189. 

If the infant, after reaching majority, sell, or, for an unreasonable time, 
retain what he has received under the contract, this will be treated as an 
affirmance, and will preclude him from subsequently avoiding it. McCarthy i*. 
Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332; Pursley t?. Hays, 17 la. 310; Robinson v. Hoskins, 14. 
Bush, 393; Boody v, McKenny, 23 Me. 517; Hilton v. Shepherd, 92 Me. 160; 



CONTBACTS OP INFANTS. 681 

lease (k), or of the price of goods (not being necesBaries) sold and 
delivered to an infant and paid for by him : and so if an infant enters 
into a partnership and pays a premium^ he cannot either before or 
after his fuU age recover it back,*' nor therefore prove for it in the 
bankruptcy of his partners (I). 

♦ Infants' Relief Act^ 1874. We must now consider the Act of 1874 [62 
(37 & 38 Vict c. 62), which enacts as follows: — 

1. All contracts whether by specialty or by simple contract henceforth 
entered into by infants for the repayment of money lent or to be lent, or for 

{k) Holme9 y. Blogg (1817) 8 has reccdved no consideraticm at all he 

Taunt. 35, 508, S. G. 1 Moore, 466, 2 can recover: Hamilton v. Vaughan^ 

Moore^ 652, 19 R. R. 445. Sherrin, dc. Co, [1894] 3 Ch. 589, 63 

{I) E» parte Taylor (1856) 8 D. L. J. Ch. 795. 
M. A 0. 254, 258. But if the infant 

Boyden v. Boyden, 9 Met. 519; Bobbins v, Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; Williams v, 
Mabee, 3 Halst. Ch. 500; State r. Rousseau, 94 N. C. 355; Mission Ridge Co. 
V. Nixon, (Tenn.) 48 8. W. Rep. 405. Contra, as to lumber built into a house. 
Bloomer t?. Nolaxi^ 36 Neb. tl. 

But mere acquiescence for any length of time short of the statutory period 
of limitation will not operate as an affirmance of an infant's deed of land, 
in the absence of other circumstances sufficient to raise an equitable estoppel. 
Irvine r. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617, 627; Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300, 312; 
Kountz V. Davis, 34 Ark. 590; Wells v. Seixas, 24 Fed. Rep. 82; Richardson 
V. Pate, 93 Ind. 423 ; Davis v, Dudley, 70 Me. 236 ; Prout 17. Wiley, 28 Mich. 
164; Donovan v. Ward, 100 Mich. 601; Wallace v. Latham, 52 Miss. 291, 297; 
8hipp V. McKee, 80 Miss. 741; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio 156; Gillespie v. 
Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70. Contra, Hastings r. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 19*5; Bentley 
r. Greer, 100 Ga. 35; Goodnow r. Empire Lumber Co., 31 Minn. 468, and 
cases cited. 

Where a person of full age promises to perform a contract entered into 
during his minority, he thereby ratifies the contract, although he does not 
know at the time of the promise, that by reason of his minority at the time 
of the contract he is not legally liable thereon. American Mtge. Co. r. 
Wright> 101 Ala. 658; Bestor v, Hickey, 71 Conn. 181; Clark v. Van Court, 
100 Ind. 113; Morse t?. Wheeler, 4 Allen, 570; Taft V. Sergeant, 18 Barb. 320; 
Rinff V, Jamison, 66 Mo. 424 ; Anderson v. Soward, 40 Ohio St. 325. Contra, 
Trader v, Lowe, 45 Md. 1 ; Turner r. Gaither, 83 N. C. 357 ; Hinely v. Mar- 
garitz, 3 Pa. St. 428; Hatch r. Hatch's Est., 60 Vt. 160. 

Ratification in ignorance of the fact that the party ratifying was an infant 
at the time of the original transaction is not binding. Ridgeway v, Herbert, 
150 Mo. 606, 614. 

When an infant purchases property, and in pursuance of the contract gives 
a purchase-money mortgage upon it, he cannot avoid the mortgage without 
also avoiding the purchase and restoring the property; and in such case, if 
the infant sells the mortgaged property, his purchaser takes it subject to the 
mortgage. Cogley v, Cushman, 16 Minn. 397; Oltman v. Moak, 3 Sandf. Ch. 
431; Curtis v. McDougal, 26 Ohio St. 66; Knaggs v. Green, 48 Wis. 601. And 
see. Weed v. Beebe, 21 Vt 495. 

Acknowledgment or part payment of a debt incurred during minority does 
not amount to a ratification. Thrupp r. Fielder, 2 Esp. 628; Kendrick v. 
Keiaz, 17 Col. 506; Catlin v, Haddox, 49 Conn. 492; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. 
202; Hale r. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374; Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82; Goodsell v, 
Myen, 3 Wend. 479. Contra, American Mtge. Co. v. Wright, 101 Ala. 658. 
Kor is a promise to a third party sufficient. Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill, 120. 

tf Adams 9. BealL 67 Md. 53. 



70 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

goods supplied or to be supplied (other than contracts for necessaries), and 
all accounts stated with infants, shall be absolutely void: provided always 
that this enactment shall not invalidate any contract into which an infant 
may by any existing or future statute or bv the rules of common law or equity 
enter, except such as now by law are voidable. 

2. No action shall be brought whereby to charge any person upon any 
promise made after full age to pay any debt contracted during infancy, or 
upon any ratification made after full age of any promise or contract made 
during infancy, whether there shall or shall not be any new consideration 
for such promise or ratification after full age. 

3. This Act may be cited as The Infants' Relief Act, 1874. 

Ratification still operative for some purposes. The 2nd section (m) for- 
bids an action to be brought on any promise or ratification of a con- 
tract made during infancy, and it applies to a ratification since the 
Act of a promise made in infancy before the passing of the Act (n), 
whether the agreement is or is not one of those included in s. 1 (o). 
It probably also prevents the ratification from being available by 
way of set-off (p). This, however, is a different thing from depriv- 
ing the ratification of all effect. For it may have other effects than 
giving a right of action or set-off, and these are not touched. While 
the matter was governed by Lord Tenterden's Act (m) there were 
many cases where a contract made during infancy might be adopted 
or confirmed without any ratification in writing so as to produce im- 
portant results. Thus in the case of a marriage settlement the mar- 
63] ried. persons are bound not so *much by liability to be sued 
(though in some cases and for some purposes the husband's covenants 
are of importance) as by inability to interfere with the disposition 
of the property once made and the execution of the trusts once con- 
stituted : and so far as concerns this an infant's marriage settlement 
may, as we have seen, be sufficiently confirmed by his or her conduct 
after full age (q). Again an infant partner who does not avoid the 
partnership at his full age is, as between himself and his partners, 

(m) It supersedes the 5th section ise: Ditcham v. Worrall (1880) 5 

of Lord Tenterden's Act (9th Geo. 4, C. P. D. 410, 49 L. J. C. P. 688, by 

c. 14), by which no ratification of Lindley and Denman JJ. diss. Lord 

such a contract could be sued upon Coleridge C.J. 

unless in writing and signed by the (p) Rawley v. Rawley (1876) 1 

party to be charged, since expressly Q. B. Div. 460, 45 L. J. Q. B. 675. 
repealed by the Statute Law Revision {q) Davies v. Davies (1870) L. R. 

Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 66). 9 Eq. 468, 39 L. J. Ch. 343, supra, 

(n) Ex parte Kibble (1875) L. R. p. •60. In Duncan v. Dixon (1890) 

10 Ch. 373, 44 L. J. Bk. 63. 44 Ch. D. 211, 59 L, J. Ch. 437, an 

(o) Coxhead V. Afullis (1878) 3 C. attempt was made to bring an in- 
P. D. 439, 47 L. J. C. P. 761. It is fant's marriage settlement within 
held, however, that in a case which s. 1, on the ground that it must be 
would before the Act have been one read as including all contracts what- 
of ratification it may be left to the ever. The Act is not quite so ill- 
jury to say whether the conduct of drawn as to admit this construction, 
the parties amounts to a new prom- 



infants' belief act. 71 

completely bound by the terms on which he entered it without any 
formal ratification; and in taking the partnership accounts the Court 
would apply the same rule to the time of his minority as to the time 
after his full age. Again an infant shareholder who does not dis- 
claim may after his full age, at any rate, be made liable for calls 
without any express ratification ; on the contrary, the burden of proof 
is on him to show that he repudiated the shares within a reasonable 
time (r). 

And as Lord Tenterden's Act did not formerly stand in the way of 
these consequences of the aflBrmation or non-repudiation of an infant's 
contract, so the Act of 1874 will not stand in the way of the same or 
like consequences in the future. In fact the operation of the present 
Act seems to be to reduce all voidable contracts of infants ratified 
at full age, whether the ratification be formal or not, to the position 
of agreements of imperfect obligation, that is, which cannot be directly 
enforced but are valid for all other purposes. Other examples of such 
agreements and of their legal effect will be found in the chapter 
specially assigned to that subject. 

Specific peiformance. A collateral result of this enactment appears to 
be that one who has made a contract during his infancy is not 
♦now able to obtain specific performance of it after his full age, [64 
for the same reason that he cannot and formerly could not do so 
sooner («). 

Proviso as to new connderation.- The proviso as to new consideration 
meets such cases as that of an attempt to set up as a new contract the 
compromise of an action brought on the original promise (t). It is 
reinforced by s. 5 of the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, 
which absolutely avoids all agreements and instruments (even nego- 
tiable ones), made for the payment of money representing or con- 
nected with a loan advanced during infancy (w). 

Section x, making certain contracts void. In the first section of the 
principal Act, the words concerning the purchase of goods are not 
free from obscurity. If we might construe the Act as if it said " for 
payment for goods supplied," &c., it would be clear enough: but it 
is not so clear what is the precise operation of an enactment that 
contracts " for goods supplied or to be supplied," other than neces- 
saries, shall be void. It seems to follow that no property will pass 

(r) See pp. •5S, •ee. (t) Smith v. King [1892] 2 Q. B. 

(8) Flight V. Bollofid (1828) 4 543, 67 L. T. 420. 
Kiiss. 208, 28 R. R. 101, p. *61, supra. (u) 55 Vict. c. 4. The rest of tlie 

Act is criminal. 



72 CAPACITT OF PABTIB8. 

to the infftnt by the attempted oontract of sale, and that if he pays 
the price or any part of it before delivery of the goods he may recover 
it back; as indeed he might have done before the Act, for the con- 
tract was voidable, and he was free to rescind it within reasonable 
time. But it does not follow that if the goods are delivered no prop- 
erty passes or that if they are paid for the money may be recovered 
back. At all events an infant who has paid for goods and received 
and used them cannot recover the money back (x). The contrary con- 
struction would be unreasonable, and is not required by the policy of 
the statute, which is to protect infants from running into debt, not to 
disable them from making purchases for ready money. It is certain 
that when a particular class of contracts is simply declared to be un- 
65] lawful, this does not prevent property from passing by an ♦act 
competent of itself to pass it, though done in pursuance or execution 
of the forbidden contract (y). Moreover it has been held that an in- 
fant may be guilty of larceny as a bailee though the goods were deliv- 
ered to him on an agreement void under the Act (z). On the whole 
it seems that the contract is voidable, but that goods actually delivered 
can be returned, and the price recovered back, only so far and so long 
as complete restitution is possible. 

It has been suggested that the exception of " contracts for neces- 
saries '' may include loans of money advanced and in fact used for 
the purpose of buying necessaries. The point is not known to have 
been judicially considered. 

It is doubtful whether a bond, bill of exchange, or note given by a 
man of full age, for which the consideration was in fact the supply of 
goods not necessaries during his infancy, would be void under s. 1 (a). 
But s. 2 (which indeed seems altogether more useful than s. 1) would 
no doubt eflfectually prevent it from being enforced as between the 
immediate parties, though perhaps the words are not the most apt for 
that purpose. 

The Building Societies Act, 1874, enables an infant to be a member, 
but this does not imply any exemption from the disability to mort^ 
gage his real estate created by the Infants* Relief Act: for that is not 
the sole purpose or a necessary purpose of membership (aa), 

(«) Valentini v. Canali (1889) 24 (a) Cp. Flight v. Reed (1863) 1 

Q. B. Div. 166, 59 L. J. Q. B. 74. H. & C. 703, 32 L. J. Ex. 265. 

iy) Ayfira v. South Australian (aa) Thurstan v. Ifottingham, do. 

Banking Co, (1871) L. R. 3 P. C. Building 8oo, [1902] 1 Ch. 1, 71 K J. 

548, 559. 40 L. J. C. P. 22. Ch. 83, C. A, 

(;;) R, v. MoDonald (1885) 15 
Q. B. D. 323, 52 L. T. 583. . 



infants: liability as owneb. 73 

2. Of the liability of infants on ohligaMons incident to interests in 
permanent property. 

LiabUity on oUigationi incident to property. In an old case reported 
under various names in various books (&)^ it was decided that an in- 
fant lessee who con*tinues to occupy till he comes of fxdl age is [66 
after his full age liable for arrears of rent incurred during his infancy. 
In like manner a copyholder who was admitted during his minority 
and has not disclaimed is bound to pay the fine (c). The same prin- 
ciple is applied to the case of infant shareholders in railway com- 
panies. An infant is not incapable of being a shareholder {d)y and 
as such is prima fade liable when he comes of age to be sued for calls 
on his shares. He can avoid the liability (which, though regulated 
by statute, has the general incidents of contract) only by showing 
that he repudiated the shares either before attaining his full age (e), 
or in a reasonable time afterwards (/). A railway shareholder is not 
a mere contractor, but a purchaser of an interest in a subject of a 
permanent nature with certain obligations attached to it; and those 
obligations he is bound to discharge,* though they arose while he was 
a minor, unless he has renounced the interest. A mere absence of 
ratification is no sufficient defence, even if coupled with the allegation 
that the defendant has derived no profit from the shares. For if 
the property is unprofitable or burdensome, it is the holder's business 
to disclaim it on attaining his full age, if not before; and perhaps 
he could not exonerate himself even during his minority by showing 
that the interest was not at the time beneficial, unless he actually 
disclaimed it (^). Comparing the anal'^'ogous case of a lease, [67 
the Court said — ** We think the more reasonable view of the case is 

(6) Kettle y. Eliot (1614) Rolle infant shareholder was made abso- 

Ab. 1, 731, K., Cro. Jae. 320, Brown- lutely liable by the general form of 

low, 120, 2 Bukt. 69. See tiie judg- the enactment in the Companies 

ment of the Court of Exchequer in Clauses Consolidation Act defining 

L. d N. W. Ry. Co, v. M'Michael the liability of shareholders. See 

(1850) 6 Ex. 114, 20 L. J. Ex. 97. per Lord Denman C.J. and Patteson 

(e) Evelyn V, Chichester (1765) 3 J. in Cork d Bandon Ry. Co, v. 

Burr. 1717. Cazenove (1847) 10 Q. B. 935. This 

(d) He can subscribe a memoran- view was afterwards abandoned as 
dnm of association : Luwon d Co. inconsistent with the established rule 
(No. 2) (1891) 40 W. R. 621. that general words in statutes are 

(e) Vevory d EnniskUlen Ry. Co. not to be construed so as to deprive 
T. Coomhe (1849) 3 Ex. 565, 18 L. J. infants, Iimatics, ftc, of the protec- 
Ex. 325. tion given to thcfm by the common 

if) A plea which merely alleged law. 
npndiation after full age was there- {g) It is submitted that in such 

fore held bad in Dublin d Wickloto a case the disclaimer if made would 

B^. Co. V. Black (1852) 8 Ex. 181, conclusively determine his interest 

22 L. J. Ex. 94. At one time it seems and not merely suspend it. 
to have been thought that even an 



74 CAPACITY OF PABTIB8. 

that the infant, even in the case of a lease which is disadvantageoiu 
to him, cannot protect himself if he has taken possession, and if he has 
not disclaimed, at all events unless he still be a minor ''(A). Sixni- 
larly an infant member of a building society who has purchased land 
by means of an advance from the society cannot claim to hold the 
property free from the societ/s charge for the money advanced (t). 
In all the decided cases the party appears to have been of full age at 
the time of the action being brought, but there is nothing to show 
that (except possibly in the case of a disadvantageous contract) he 
might not as well be sued during his minority. 

The same results, except as to suing the shareholder while still a 
minor, would follow from the general principles of the law of part- 
nership even if the company in which the shares were held had not 
any permanent property. 

3. Of the liability of an infant when the contract is for his benefit, 
and especially for necessaries. 

Liability on beneficial contract. It has been laid down in general 
terms that if an agreement be for the benefit of an infant at the 
time, it shall bind him (;), or even that the contract is binding unless 
manifestly to the infant's prejudice {h)}^ An infant's contract of 
apprenticeship (Z), or an ordinary contract to work for wages, will, 
if it be reasonable, be considered binding on the infant, so that he 
may no less than an adult incur the statutory penalties for unlawfully 
68] absenting *him8elf from his master's employment (m).s An 
infant entered the service of a railway company and, as a condition 
of the service, became a member of an insurance society established 
by the company; the funds were augmented by the company to the 
extent of five-sixths of the premiums payable by the members. The 

(fc) L. rf y. W. Ry, Co, V. {I) Wood v. Fenwick (1842) 10 

M'Michael (1860) 5 Ex. 114, 20 L. J. M. k W. 195. 

Ex. 97, 101. (m) In Leslie v. Fiiepairiok [1^11 ) 

(i) Thurston v. Vottingham Per- 3 Q. B. D. 229, 47 L. J. M. C. 22, a 

manent Benefit Building 8oc. [1901] case of summary proceedings under 

1 Ch. 88; affirmed on this point the Employers and Workmen Act, 

[1902] 1 Ch. 1, 71 L. J. Ch. 83. 1876, it may be collected that the 

(;) Maddon v. White (1787) 2 facts were of the same kind, though 

T. R. 159, 1 R. R. 463. the employer's plaint was in terms 

{k) Cooper v. Simmons (1862) 7 for a breach of contract. As to in- 

H. ft N. 707, 721 ; per Wilde B. Not fant apprentices in London see p.*74, 

BO strongly put in the L. J. report, below. 

31 L. J. M. C. 138, 144. 

IS Contracts for necessaries are alone binding in this country. Henderson 
V. Fox, 5 Ind. 489; Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 560; Insurance Co. v, Noyes, 

32 N. H. 345; O'Rourke v. John Hancock Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 457, 462; supra, 
p. 66, note 11. 



infants: beneficial contracts. 75 

rules provided for compensation in all cases of accident not due to 
the member's own wilful act or gross negligence, and bound the mem- 
bers to accept the benefits of the society in lieu of any claims under 
the Employers' Liability Act. The Court of Appeal held that the 
infant was boimd by this agreement as being on the whole for his 
benefit (n). But an action will not lie against an infant on a cove- 
nant in apprenticeship indentures (o) ; and if the terms are not rea- 
sonable the agreement is void for all purposes^ so that an action will 
not lie against a stranger for enticing away the apprentice (p). 
Again there are many conceivable cases in which it might be for an 
infant's benefit, or at least not manifestly to his prejudice, to enter 
into trading contracts, or to buy goods other than necessaries : one can 
hardly say for example that it would be manifestly to the disadvantage 
of a minor of years of discretion to buy goods on credit for re-sale 
in a rising market; yet there is *no doubt whatever that such a [69 
contract would at common law be voidable at his option. A contract 
whereby an infant agrees with a railway company, in consideration of 
being allowed to make a certain habitual journey to and fro on special 
terms, to waive all claims for accident to himself or his property, is 
detrimental to the infant and not binding on him (q). Nor has it 
ever been suggested that an infant partner or shareholder is at liberty 
to disclaim at full age only in case the adventure has been unprofit- 
able or is obviously likely to become so. However, inasmuch as since 
the Infants' Relief Act, 1874, an infant's contract, if not binding 
on him from the first, can never be enforced against him at all, it 
seems quite possible that the Courts may in future be disposed to 
extend rather than to narrow the description of contracts which are 
considered binding because for the infant's benefit (r). 

(n) Clement a t. L. d N, W, Ry, to the master's own act, say a lock- 
Co. [1804] 2 Q. B. 482, 63 L. J. Q. B. out, is not reasonable: Com v. Mat- 
837. It seems, though it was not thew8 [1893] 1 Q. B. 310, 62 L. J. 
necessary to decide the point, that M. C. 61, C. A., dist. Orevn v. Thomp- 
the principle of an infant's contract son [1899] 2 Q. B. 1, 68 L. J. Q. B. 
being valid when the Court is satis- 719, where the exception was of days 
fied that it was for his benefit is not when the business should be at a 
ecMifined (as was argued for the plain- standstill by accidents beyond the 
tiff) to contracts of apprenticeship or control of the master. 
labour; see eepecially the judgment (q) Flower v. L. d N, W, Ry. Co. 
of Kay L.J. [1894] 2 Q. B. 65, 63 L. J. Q. B. 547, 

(o) De Franceeco v. Bamum C. A. 

(Xo. 1) (1889) 43 Ch. D. 165, 59 (r) In an action brought by an 

Ia J. Ch. 151. Infant, an undertaking given by the 

(p) De Franoeeoo t. Bamum infant's next friend is not binding if 

(No. 2) (1890) 45 Ch, D. 430, 63 the circumstances are such that it 

L. T. 438. A clause enabling the cannot be for the infant's benefit: 

Biaater to suspend the apprentice's Rhodes v. Stcithenhank (1889) 22 

wages in an event which may be due Q. B. Div. 577, 58 L. J. Q. B. 287. 



76 OAPAOITT OF PABTIE8. 

So. Contracts for necessariea. 

LUbUity for necetsariea. By the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 2 — 

. . . '^ Where neceBsaries are sold and delivered to an infant . . • 
or to a person who by reason of mental incapacity or drunkenness is 
incompetent to contract, he must pay a reasonable price therefor. 

" * Necessaries ' in this section mean goods suitable to the condition 
in life of such infant ... or other person, and to his actual require- 
ments at the time of the sale and delivery.'' 

This enactment is a legislative declaration of the law as settled by 
a series of authorities, of which the judgment of the Exchequer Cham- 
ber in Ryder v. Wombwell is the chief : — 

"The general rule of law is clearly established, and is that an infant is 
70] 'generally incapable of binding himself by a contract. To this rule there 
IB an exception introduced, not for the benefit of the tradesman who may trust 
the infant, but for that of the infant himself. This exception is that he may 
make a contract for necessaries, and is accurately stated by Parke B. in 
Peters v. Fleming {a), ' From the earliest time down to the present the word 
necessaries is not confined in its strict sense to such articles as were neces- 
sary to the support of life, but extended to articles fit to maintain the par- 
ticular person in the state, degree and station in life in which he is; and 
therefore we must not take the word necessaries in its unqualified sense, but 
with the qualification above pointed out'"(t). 

What are necessaries. What in any particular case may fairly be 
called necessary in this extended sense, is what is called a question of 
mixed fact and law: that is, a question for a jury, subject to the 
Court being of opinion that there is evidence on which the jury may 
not reasonably find for the plaintiff. 

The station and circumstances of the defendant and the particulars 
of the claim being first ascertained, it is then for the Court to say 
whether the things supplied are prima fade such as a jury may rea- 
sonably find to be necessaries for a person in the defendant's circum- 
stances, or " whether the case is such as to cast on the plaintiff the 
onus of proving that the articles are within the exception [i.e,, are 
necessaries],, and then whether there is any suflficient evidence to 
satisfy that onus." In the latter case the plaintiff must show that 
although the articles would generally not be necessary for a person 
in the defendant's position, yet there exist in the case before the 
Court special circumstances that make them necessary. Thus articles 
of diet which are prima facie mere luxuries may become necessaries 
if prescribed by medical advice (u). It is said that in general the 

(«) (1840) 6 M. & W. at p. 46. («) See Wharton v. Ma4skensBie 

it) (1868) L. R. 4 Ex. 32, 38; (1844) 6 Q. B. 606. 13 L. J. Q, B. 

in the Court below L. R. 3 Ex. 90, 130, and per Bramwell B. L. R. 3 Ex. 

38 L. J. Ex. 8. at p. 96. 



infants: NECESSARIES: 77 

teet of neceesitj is tusef ulness, and that nothing can be a necessary 
which cannot possibly be *iiseful: but the converse does not [71 
hold, for a useful thing may be of unreasonably costly fashion or 
material. It is to be borne in mind that the question is not whether 
the things are such that a person of the defendants means may rea- 
sonably buy and pay for them, but whether they can be reasonably 
said to be so necessary for him that, though an infant, he must obtain 
them on credit rather than go without. For the purpose of deciding 
this question the Court will take judicial notice of the ordinary cus- 
toms and usages of society (x). 

If the Court does not hold that there is no evidence on which the 
supplies in question may reasonably be treated as necessaries, then it 
is for the jury to say whether they were in fact necessaries for the 
defendant under all the circumstances of the case.*^ 

Svpply from other soarces. The Act has laid down, in accordance 
with the weight of authority (y), that the buyer^s actual require- 
ments must be considered. If the goods supplied are necessary, the 
tradesman will not be the less entitled to recover because he made 
no inquiries as to the infant's existing supplies; but if the infant is 
already so well supplied that these goods are in truth not necessary, 
the tradesman's ignorance of that fact will not make them necessary, 
and he cannot recover. There is no rule of law casting on him a posi- 

(») L. R. 4 Ex. at p. 40. open in Ex. Ch., L. R. 4 Ex. 42) ; but 

(y) Brayahato v. Eaton (1839) 5 this was disaented from in Barnes v. 

Bing. N. C. 231, 7 Scott, 183, 50 R. R. Toye (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 410, and 

773; Foster v. Redgrave (1866) L. R, (by members of the C. A. sitting as 

4 "Ex, 35, n.; to the contrary, Ryder a Divisional Court) Johnstone v. 

Y. Wombwell (1868) L. R. 3 Ex. 90, Marks (1887) 19 Q. B. D. 509, 57 

38 L. J. Ex. 8; (the point was left L. J. Q. B. 6. 

iTMcKanna v. Merry, 61 111. 177; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519; Tupper v. 
Cadwell, 12 Met. 559, 563; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cash. 40; Decell t'. 
Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331; Englebert v, Troxell, 40 Neb. 195. 

If the infant is already supplied, he cannot bind himself even for articles 
of a necessary kind. Conboy v. Howe, 59 Conn. 112; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 
Cush. 512; Trainer t\ Trumbull, 141 Mass. 527; Perrin v. Wilson, 10 Mo. 451; 
Jones V, Colvin, 1 McMull. L. 14; Kraker v. Byrum, 13 Rich. L. 163; Elrod 
r. Meyers, 2 Head, 33; Parsons v. Keys, 43 Tex. 557. 

Ignorance on the part of the seller that the infant was already partially or 
wholly supplied makes no difference; he contracts with the infant at his 
peril. Kline v. L'Amoureux, 2 Paige, 419; Nichol v, Steger, 2 Tenn. Ch. 328; 
affd., 6 Lea, 393. 

Where one sells to an infant articles, necessaries in kind, but in inordinate 
ipmntity, a recovenr can be had for such quantity only as was actually necet- 
wry. Johnson v, Line8« 6 W. & S. 80, 



78 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

tire duly to make inquiries, but he omits to do so at his peril.^ But 
the defendant having an income out of which he might keep himself 
supplied with necessaries for ready money is not equivalent to his 
being actually supplied, and does not prevent him from contracting 
for necessaries on credit («).^* 

72] ^Apparent means of bvyer not materiaL It would be natural for 
juries, if not warned against it, to fall into a way of testing the neces- 
sary character of supplies, not so much by what the means and position 
of the buyer actually were, as by what they appeared to be to the seller, 
and such a view was not altogether without countenance from author- 
ity (a). It is conceived, however, that the knowledge or belief of 
the tradesman has nothing to do with the question whether the goods 
are necessary or not. It may be said that the question for the Court 
will, as a rule, be whether articles of the general class or description 
were prima facte necessaries for the defendant, and the question for 
the jury will be whether, being of a general class or description 
allowed by the Court as necessary, the particular items were of a kind 
and quality necessary for the defendant, having regard to his station 
and circumstances. For instance, it would be for the Court to say 
whether it was proper for the defendant to buy a watch on credit, and 
for the jury to say whether the particular watch was such a one as 
he could reasonably afford. But this will not hold in extreme cases. 
In Ryder v. Wombwell (&)the Court of Exchequer Chamber held, 
reversing the judgment of the majority below on this point, that be- 
cause a young man must fasten his wrist-bands somehow it does not 
follow that a jury are at liberty to find a pair of jewelled solitaires 
at a price of 251. to be necessaries even for a yoimg man of good 
fortune. 

What the term " necessaries " includes. Hitherto we have spoken of a 
tradesman supplying goods, this being by far the most common case. 

(z) Burghart v. Hall (1839) 4 M. Bing. N. C. 128, 50 R. R. 758, and 

& W. 727, 51 R. R. 788. Contra Preface; 7 Scott, 117, much weight 

Mortara v. Hall (1834) 6 Sim. 465. is given to the apparent rank and 

The doctrine there laid down secfms circumstances of the party. This 

superfluous, for the supplies there amounts to supposing that an infant 

claimed for (such as 209 pairs of may be liable, by a kind of holding 

gloves in half a year) could not have out, for goods which are not neces- 

been reasonably found necessary in sary in fact, 
any case. (&) (1868) L. R. 4 Ex. 32. 38 

(a) In Dalton v. Oib (1839) 5 L. J. Ex. 8. 

IS The plaintiff does not have to prove that the infant had no parent whose 
duty it was to provide for him. The burden is on the defendant to show that 
he had such a parent. Goodman r. Alexander, 166 N. Y. 289. 

10 See Nicholson r. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467 ; Rivers v. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq. 274. 



infants: necessaries. 79 

But the range of possible contracts for ^^necessaries'' is a much 
♦wider one. " It is clearly agreed by all the books that speak of [73 
this matter that an infant may bind himself to pay for his necessary 
meat^ drink, apparel, physic [including, of course, fees for medical at- 
tendance, &c., as well as the mere price of medicine^], and such other 
necessaries and likewise for his good teaching and instruction, whereby 
he may profit himself afterwards "(c). Thus learning a trade may 
be necessary, and on that principle an infantas indenture of appren- 
ticeship has been said to be binding on him (d).^ The preparation 
of a settlement containing proper provisions for her benefit has been 
held a necessary for which a minor about to be married may make a 
Talid contract, apart from any question as to the validity of the 
settlement itself (e).^ 

A more remarkable extension of the definition of necessaries is to 
be found in the case of Chappie v. Cooper (/), where an infant widow 
was sued for her husband's funeral expenses. The Court held that 
decent burial may be considered a necessary for every man, and hus- 
band and wife being in law the same person, the decent burial of a 

{c) Bac. Abr. Infancy and Age, I. Hartin B. See, however, p. 63, 

(4. 335). And see Chappie v. Cooper supra. 

(1844) 13 M. k W. 252, 13 L. J. Ex. (e) Helps v. Clayton (1S64) 17 

286. As to instruction in trade, Ac., C. B. N. 8. 653, 34 L. J. C. P. 1, see 

Walter v. Everard [1891] 2 Q. B. the pleadings, and the judgment of 

369, 60 L. J. Q. B. 738, C. A. the Court ad fin, 

id) Cooper v. Simmone (1862) 7 if) (1844) 13 M. ft W. 252, 13 

H. ft N. 707, 31 L. J. M. C. 138, per L. J. Ex. 286. 

>o Strong V. Foote, 42 Conn. 203 (a dentist's bill for filling teeth). 

21 See Pardey r. American Windlass Co., 19 R. I. 461. 

A common-school education is, but a collegiate or professional education Is 
not, recognized as one of the necessaries for an infant. Turner v. Gaither, 83 
N. 0. 357; Bouchell v. Clary, 3 Brev. 194; Middlebury College v. Chandler, 
16 Vt. 683. 

2S A " wedding suit " has been held to be a necessary for an infant about 
to be married. Sams v. Stockton^ 14 B. Mon. 232. So a bridal outfit. Jordan 
r. Coffield. 70 N. C. 110. 

An infant is liable for counsel fees for services rendered in a criminal or 
quasi-criminal proceeding against him. Barker t*. Hibbard, 54 N. H. 539; 
Askey o. Williams, 74 Tex. 294. So for services rendered in prosecuting suit 
for personal injuries. Hanlon f. Wheeler, 45 S. W. Rep. 821 (Tex. C. A.). 
Cp. Phelps r. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51; Thrall t?. Wright, 38 Vt. 494. 

Timber furnished an infant to enable him to build a dwelling on his land. 
Freeman c. Bridger, 4 Jones L. 1, repairs upon his dwelling-house, Tupper v, 
Cadwell, 12 Met. 559 ; Phillips v. Lloyd, 18 R. I. 99, insurance of his property 
against fire. Insurance Co. r. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345, a bicycle, Pyne v. Wood, 
145 Mass. 558; Rice v, Butler, 160 N. Y. 578, a buggy, Howard v. Simpkins, 
70 6a. 322, a wagon, Paul v. Smith, 41 Mo. App. 275, have been held not to 
be necessaries. 

Other cases deciding' what are, and what are not, necessaries, are, Munson 
r. Washband, 31 Conn. 303; Darrell r. Hastings, 28 Ind. 478; House v, 
Alexander, 105 Ind. 109; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519; Merriam r. Cunning- 
ham, 11 Cush. 40; Ryan r. Smith, 165 Mass. 303; Epperson r. Nugent, 57 
Hiss. 45; Glover r. Ott, 1 McCord. 572; Rainwater r. Durham, 2 Nott ft M. 
624 ; Aaron r. Harley, 6 Rich. L. 26 ; Grace v. Hale, 2 Humph. 27. 



80 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

deceased husband is therefore a neoeseaiy for his widow. It would 
perhaps have been better to adopt the broader ground that a contract 
entered into for the purpose of performing a moral and social, if 
not legale duty, which it would have been scandalous to omit, is of as 
necessary a character as any contract for personal service or purchase 
of goods for personal use.* 

The liaDility is on simple contract only. The supply of necessaries to 
an infant creates only a liability as on simple contract, and it cannot 
74] be made the *ground of any different kind of liability.^ Coke 
says : " If he bind himself in an obligation or other writing with a 
penalty for the payment of any of these, that obligation shall not 
bind him "(g). A fortiori, a deed given by an infant to secure the 
repayment of money advanced to buy necessaries is voidable (h). 
But in these and similar cases the infants liability on simple con- 
tract, or rather quasv-contrsict, is not affected (t). An infant is not 
in any circumstances liable on a bill of exchange or promissory 
note (k).^ 

ig) Co. Lit. 172 a, cp. 4 T. R. 363. {k) Re SoUykof, Ex parte Mar- 

ih) Martin v. Gale (1876) 4 Ch. grett [1891] 1 Q. B. 413, 60 L. J: 

D. 428, 46 L. J. Ch. 84. Q. B. 339, C.A. 

(») Walter v. Everard [1891] 2 

Q. B. 369, 60 L. J. Q. B. 738, C.A. 

28 In Rowe v, Raper, 23 Ind. App. 27, it was held the funeral expenses of 
a deceased infant were not a charge upon his estate, if he left a father sur- 
viving and able to pay them. See remarks upon this case in 13 Harv. L. 
Rev. 306. 

34 The obligation of the infant for necessaries furnished seems rather to 
be quasi em contractu than a real contract. He can make no binding executory 
contract to purchase necessaries. Gregory t\ Lee, 64 Conn. 407; Wells t^. 
Hardy, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 454; Pool t;. Pratt, 1 Chip. 252, 254. 

Where necessaries have been furnished him, the law creates an obligation 
to pay for them, though the infant may have been too young to understand 
the nature of a contract. Hyman v. Cain, 3 Jones L. 111. And where an 
express promise is made, the price stipulated is not binding, but the seller 
recovers only the reasonable value of the article furnished. Hyer v. Hyatt, 3 
Cr. C. C. 276; Gregory i\ Lee, 64 Conn. 407; Ayers v. Burns, 87 Ind. 245; 
Trainer v, Trumbull, 141 Mass. 527; Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346; Parsons 
t\ Keys, 43 Tex. 557 ; and see also the cases cited in note 25, infra. At com- 
mon law a loan of money could not be deemed equivalent to necessaries, though 
actually spent on necessaries: Bac. Abr. 4. 356. But though not liable at 
law for money loaned him with which to purchase necessaries, an infant is 
liable for money paid at his request to a third person for necessaries fur- 
nished. Kilgore t\ Rich, 83 Me. 305 ; Swift r. Bennett, 10 Cush. 436 ; Conn 
I?. Coburn, 7 N. H. 368; Randall r. Sweet, 1 Denio, 460; Haines' Adm'r v. 
Tarrant, 2 Hill (S. C), 400; Bradley t\ Pratt, 23 Vt. 378. 

Where one lends money to an infant with which to purchase necessaries, 
and the money is so applied, the lender may recover in equity. Price v, 
Sanders, 60 Ind. 310; Beeler t?. Young, 1 Bibb, 519; Watson r. Cross, 2 Duv. 
147, 149. 

26 In some States it is held that no action lies on a note or bond given by an 
infant for necessaries. Morton v. Steward, 5 111. App. 633; Henderson 9. 



infants: statutory powers. 81 

WlMt coatraeti an infant eaa nuke by cnatom. There are some par- 
ticular contracts of infants valid by costonL By custom incident 
to the tenure of gavelkind an infant may sell his land of that tenure 
at the age of fifteen^ but the conveyance must be by feoffment, and 
is subject to other restrictions (2). This, however, is not really a 
capacity of contracting, for there is no reason to suppose that an 
acticm could be brought against the infant for a breach of the con- 
tract for sale, or specific performance of it enforced. 

"Also by the custom of London an infant unmarried and above 
the age of fourteen, though under twenty-one, may bind himself ap- 
prentice to a freeman of London by indenture with proper cove- 
nants; which covenants by the custom of London shall be as binding 
as if he were of full age/* and may be sued upon in the superior 
courts as well as in the city courts (m). 

What eontracts an infant can make by statute. Infants, or their guard- 
ians in their names, are empowered by statute (11 Geo. 4 & 1 Wm. 4, 
c. 65, ss. 16, 17) to grant renewals of leases, and make leases under 
the direction of the Court of Chancery, and in like manner to sur- 
render *Iease8 and accept new leases (s. 12) (n-). And by a [75 
later Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 43) (o), infants may with the sanction 
of the Court makr? vilid marriage settlements of both real and per- 
sonal property. 

(I) Robinson on OaTelkind, 104. (o) This Act does not affect cover- 

(m) Bacon, Abr. Infancy, B. 4. ture or any disability other than 

340; 21 E. IV. 6, pi. 17. infancy: Beaton v. Heaton (1888) 13 

(n) See Dan. Ch. Pr. 2. 1917; Re App. Ca. 61, 67 L. J. Ch. 661. And 

Clark (1866) L. R. 1 Ch. 292, 35 ^. whether it applies to postrnuptial 

L. J. Ch. 314; Re Letohford (1876) settlements. It does apply to cove- 

2 Ch. D. 719, 45 L. J. Ch. 530. (The nants to settle after-acquired prop- 

proTisions as to renewals of leases erty: Moore v. Johneon [1891] 3 Ch. 

extend also to married women.) 48, 60 L. J. Ch. 499. 

Fox, 6 Ind. 489; Ayers v. Bums, 87 Ind. 245; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519; 
MeCrillis v. How, 3 N. H. 348; Fenton v. White, 1 South. HI; Swasey v. 
Vanderheyden, 10 Johns. 33; Bouchell v. Clary, 3 Beav. 194; McMinn v. Rich- 
mondfl, 6 Yerg. 9. 

In others, that the infancy of the promisor, being shown, is prima facie a 
bar to the action, but that it is competent for the plaintiff to show that the 
note was given for the price of necessaries, in which event he will recover only 
•o much of the note as shall appear to have been given for necessaries at 
their fair value, without regard to the price stipulated to be paid by the 
minor. Guthrie v. Morris, 22 Ark. 411; Cooper v. State, 37 Ark. 421; Earle 
r. Reed, 10 Met. 387; Duboee r. Wheddon, 4 McCord, 221; Haines' Adm*r v* 
Tsrrant, 2 Hill (S. 0.)> 400; Askey v. WiUiams, 74 Tex. 294; Bradley v. Pratt^ 
23 Vt S78. 

6 



iZ CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

. . 4. Of an infanf^ ifntnunity as to wrongs connected toUh cfintrad. 

-loifaiit not lUbte (or wrdng wliere tlie «Uim is in «abtUiice ex tontracttt. 
An infant is generally no less liable than an adult for wrongs com- 
mitted by him, subject only to his being in fact of such age and dis- 
cretion that he can have a wrongful intention, where such intention is 
QCiaterial; but he cannot be sued for a wrong, when the cause of action 
is in substance ex contractu, or is so directly connected with the con- 
tract that the action would be an indirect way of enforcing the con- 
tract — which, as in the analogous case of married women (p), the 
law does not allow.^ Thus it was long ago held that an infant inn- 
k^per could not be made liable in an action on the case for the loss of 
his guest's goods (q). There is another old case reported in divers 
books (r), where it was decided that an action of deceit will not lie 
upon an assertion by a minor that he is of full age.*' It was said 
that if such actions were allowed all the infants in England would 

(p) Seep. •80, infra. Sm. 113, 16 L. J. Ch. 206; and see 

(9) Rolle Ab. 1. 2, Action but other cases collected ib. at p. 110, 

Case, D. 3. where " the case mentioned in Keble " 

(r) Johnson v. Pie (1666) Sid. is that which, as stated in the text, 

268, 1 Lev. 169, 1 Keb. 913, fully occurs in his report of Johnson ▼. 

cited by Knight Bruce V.C. in Stike- Pie, 

man v. Datcaon (1847) 1 De G. ft 

2« Green r. Grecnbank, 2 Marsh. 485; Vasse t\ Smith, 6 Cr. 226; Brown v, 
Durham, 1 Root, 272; Caswell r. Parker, 96 Me. 39; Prescott v. Norris, 32 
N. H. 101; Lowery r. Cate, 108 Tenn. 54; Gibson i?. Spear, 38 Vt. 311; Morrill 
r. Aden, 19 Vt. 505; West r. Morse, 14 Vt. 447. See also Drude v, Curtis, 
183 Mass. 317; contra, Vance r. Word, 1 Nott ft McC. 197. 

27 Ace. Slayton r. Barry, 175 Mass. 513; Brown v. McCune, 5 Sandf. 224; 
Curtin r. Patton. 11 S. ft R. 305. 309. But see Rice t\ Boyer, 108 Ind. 472 ; 
Fitts V. Hall, 9 N. H. 441 ; New York Bg. Co. r. Fisher, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 
363. See also 8 Yale L. J. 235. 

The infant was held not liable in trover for obtaining goods by representing 
himself of age in Slayton r. Barry, 175 Mass. 513. 

Nor will the representation estop the infant. Burdett r. Williams, 30 Fed. 
Rep. 697; McKamy v. Cooper, 81 Ga. 679; Carpenter i\ Carpenter, 45 Ind. 
142; Merriam v, Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Conrad r. Lane, 26 Minn. 389; 
Alt V. Groff, 66 Minn. 191; Burley t?. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Conroe r. Bird- 
sail, 1 Johns. Cas. 127; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Carolina Assoc. 
V. Black, 119 N. C. 323; Norris r. Vance, 3 Rich. L. 164; Whitcomb r. Joslyn, 
61 Vt. 79. Otherwise by statute in Iowa, Code of 1897, § 3190. 

In Schmitheimer v. Eiseman, 7 Bush, 298, it was held that *' a deed made by 
an infant feme covert cannot be avoided by her on the ground of her infancy, 
when to induce an innocent purchaser to make the purchase, she and her hus- 
band made oath before a notary that to the best of their knowledge and infor- 
mation she was then more than twenty-one years of age." And see Damron 
V Comm., 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1717; Ferguson r. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121; Brantley v. 
Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; KiJgore r. Jordan, 17 Tex. 341. 

In Sims v, Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300, on the contrary, it was decided that the 
infant was not estopped by any declaration which at the time of executing the 
deed she made in regard to her age. Ace. MeGreal v. Tavlor. 167 U. S. 688, 
^98; Watson r. Billings, 38 Ark. 278; Wieland r. Koebick, 110 111. 16. And 
see Wilson's Gdn. r. Wilson, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1971; Baker v. Stone, 136 Maes. 
405; Alt r. Groff, 66 Minn. 191; Charles v. Hastedt, 51 N. J. Eq. 171. 



INFANTAS IMMUNITY FOB WBONGS. 83 

be ruined^ for though not bound by their contracts^ they would be 
made liable as for tort ; and it appears in Keble's report that an infant 
hiad ^already been held not liable for representing a false jewel [76 
not belonging t6 him as a diamond and his own. The modem case 
usuaUy cited for this rule is Jennings v. Rundail (s), where it was 
Bought to recover damages from an infant for overriding a hired 
mare." 

Infant liable for wrong apart from contract, though touching the tnbject- 
■latter of a contract But if an infants wrongful act, though con- 
cerned with the subject-matter of a contract, and such that but for 
the contract there would have been no opportunity of committing it, 
18 nevertheless independent of the contract in the sense of not being 
an act of the kind contemplated by it, then the infant is liable.^ 
The distinction is established and well marked by a modem case 
where an infant had hired a horse for riding, but not for jumping, 
the plaintiff refusing to let it for that purpose ; the defendant allowed 
his companion to use the horse for jumping, whereby it was injured 
and ultimately died. It was held that using the horse in this manner, 
being a manner positively forbidden by the contract, was a mere tres- 
pass, for which the defendant was liable (t).^ 

(*) 8 T. R. 335, 4 R. R. 680. It C. B. N. S. 45, 32 L. J. C. P. 189. A 

U ftlso recognized in Price y. Hetcett bailment at will would have been de- 

(1852) 8 Ex. 146 (not a decision on 'termined, as where a bailee commits 

the point). theft at common law by "breaking 

it) BumardY. Haggis (1863) 14 bulk." 

Although there are numerous dicta to the contrary, it is believed that 
an infant may be bound by estoppel by conduct in a case of fraud apart from 
eontract; as if an infant owning property, and of sufficient understanding 
to comprehend the import of his act should, concealing his own title, induce 
a purchaser to buy the property from another. Whittington t\ Wright, 9 Ga. 
23; Gilbert v, Carlan, Ot. App. Ky., stated in Wright t?. Arnold, 14 B. Mon. 
at p. 619; Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121; Hall r. Tinunons, 2 Rich. Eq. 120; 
Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swan, 437. But cp. Lackman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 147 ; 
Upshaw V. Gibson, 63 Miss. 341; Norris v. Wait, 2 Rich. L. 148. Consult 
Bigelow on Estoppel, p. 515. 

False representations as to his age by an infant purchaser were held ground 
for rescission by the seller. Neff v, Landis, 110 Pa. 204. Cp. O'Rourke r. 
John Hancock Ins. Co., 23 R. I. 457, where it was held that a false warranty 
by an infant did not give the insurance company to which it was made a 
defense on the policy. This decision is criticised in 15 Harv. L. Rev. 739. 

26 While the infant would not be liable for mere unskillfulness or negli- 
gence, he would be liable for positive willful acts causing injury to the animal. 
Baton V. Hill, 50 N. H. 235 ; Campbell r. SUkes, 2 Wend. 137. 

2»yasse P. Smith, 6 Cr. 226; Oliver v. McClellan, 21 Ala. 675; Lewis v. 
Littlefleld, 16 Me. 233, 17 Me. 40; Baxter v. Bush, 29 Vt. 465. 

An infant has been held chargeable by action for a tort in obtaining goods 
fraudulently, with the intention of not paying for them. Wallace f>. Morss, 5 
Hill, 391; Mathews r. Cowan, 59 HI. 341; dist. Studwell r. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 
249. And see Walker v. Davis. 1 Gray, 506. 

» So an infant who hires a horse to cro to a place agreed upon, but drives 
it to another and further place to its injury, is liable in tort. Homer v. Thwing, 



84 OAPAOITT OF PABTIBB. 

Qmk% whttbtr lUbto on eontxaet inpltod in Uw. It is doubtful whether 
in infant can be made liable qtuui ex contractu (as for money re- 
eeired), when the real cause of action is a wrong independent of con- 
tract; but since the Judicature Acts have abolidied the old forms of 
action, the question seems of little importance (ii). 

5. Liability in equity on representation of full age. 

In equity liable, if he xepreaent himself as of full agft. When an in- 
fant has induced persons to deal with him by falsely representing him- 
77] self as of full age, he incurs an *obligation in equity, which how- 
eyer in the case of a contract is not an obligation to perform the 
contract, and must be carefully distinguished from it (x). Indeed 
it is not a contractual obligation at all. 

Limitatioii. It is limited to the extent we have stated above (p. *55), 
and the principle on which it is founded is often expressed in the 
form: "An infant shall not take advantage of his own fraud/' 
A review of the principal cases will clearly show the correct doctrine. 
In Clarke v. Cobley (y) the defendant being a minor had given his 
bond to the plaintiff for the amount of two promissory notes made 
by the defendant's wife before the marriage, which notes the plaintiff 
delivered up. The plaintiff, on discovering the truth, and after the 
defendant came of age, filed his bill praying that the defendant might 
either execute a new bond, pay the money, or deliver back the notes. 
The Court ordered the defendant to give back the notes, and that he 
Bhould not plead to any action brought on them the Statute of Limita- 

(u) The liability is affirmed by Declaration for goods sold, &c. Plea, 

Leake (p. 470), [aco, Shaw v. Cof- infancy. Equitable replication, that 

fin, 68 Me. 254; Elwell v, Martin, 32 the ocMitract was induced by defend- 

Vt. 217; Cooley on Torts, 112.] and ant's fraudulent representation that 

disputed by Mr. Dicey (on Parties, he was of age. The replication was 

284), who is supported by a dictum held bad, as not meeting the defence, 

of Willes J. assuming that infancy but only showing a distinct equitable 

would be a good plea to an action for right collateral to the cause of action 

money received, though substantially sued upon. 

founded on a wrong. Alton v. Mid- (y) (1789) 2 Cox, 173, 2 R. R. 25. 

land Ry. Co. (1865) 19 C. B. N. S. at It must be taken, though it is not 

p. 241, 34 L. J. C. P. at p. 297. [See clear by the report, that the defend- 

Re Seageir, 60 L. T. R. 665.] ant falsely represented himself as of 

(0) Aco, Bartleti y. WelU (1862) full age. 
1 B. & S. 836, 31 L. J. Q. B. 67. 

8 Pick. 492; Churchill r. White, 58 Neb. 22; Freeman v. Boland, 14 R. I. 39; 
Towne v. Wiley, 33 Vt. 355; Ray t\ Tubbs, 50 Vt. 688. Contra, Wilt r. Welsh, 
6 WAtts, 9; Penrose v, Curren, 3 Rawle, 351. And see Schenks v. Strong, 1 
South. 87. 



infants: false kepresentations of age. 85 

tion or any other plea which he could not have pleaded when the bond 
was given ; but refused to decree payment of the money^ holding that 
it could do no more than take care that the parties were restored to 
the same situation in which they were at the date of the bond. In 
LemprUre v. Lange, a quite recent case, it was held that an infant 
who had obtained the lease of a furnished house by representing him- 
self of full age could not be made liable for use and occupation, 
although the lease could be set aside and the infant ordered to pay 
the costs of the action (z). Cory *v. Gertcken (a) shows that [78 
when an infant by falsely representing himself to be of full age has 
induced trustees to pay over a fund to him, neither he nor his repre- 
sentatives can afterwards charge the trustees with a breach of trust 
and make them pay again.^^ Overton v. Banister (b) confirms this: 
it was there held, however, that the release of an infant cestui que 
irust in such a case is binding on him only to the extent of the sum 
actually received by him. The later case of Wright v. Snowe (c) 
seems not to agree with this, though Overton v. Banister was cited, 
and apparently no dissent expressed. There a legatee had given a 
release to the executrix, representing himself to her solicitor as of 
full age; afterwards he sued for an account, alleging that he was an 
infant at the date of the release. The infancy was not sufficiently 
proved, and the Court would not direct an inquiiy, considering that 
in any event the release could not be disturbed. This appears to go 
ihe length of holding the doctrine of estoppel applicable to the class 
of representations in question, and if that be the effect of the decision 
its correctness may perhaps be doubted. 

nere mvst be a positive representation. In Stikeman v. Dawson {d) 
ihe subject of infant's liability for wrongs in general is discussed 
in an interesting judgment by Kjiight Bruce V.-C. and the important 
point is decided that in order to establish this jequitable liability it 
must be shown that the infant actually represented himself to be of 
foil agie; it is not enough that the other party did not know of his 

{t) (1879) 12 Ch. D. 675. Fol- (6) (1844) 3 Ha. 603. 

lo>wed on the question of costs, Woolf (c) (1848) 2 De G. ft Sm. 321. 

T. Woolf [1899] 1 Gh. 343, 68 L. J. (d) (1847) 1 De G. ft Sm. 90, 16 

Ch. 82. L. J. Oh. 205. 

(a) (1816) 2Madd. 40, 17 R. R. 
180. 

n Hayes r. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq. 630, occ. Cp. Jones t>. Parker, 67 Tex. 76. 

In Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474, a plaintiff who had represented himself 
to be of age when selling property was denied equitable relief. See also 
Charles r. Hastedt, 51 N. J. Eq. 171. 



86 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

minority. And as there must be an actual false representation, 
so it has been more lately held that no claim for restitution can be 
sustained unless the representation actually misled the person to whom 
it was made. No relief can be given if the party was not in fact 
deceived, but knew the truth at the time; and it makes no difference 
79] where the business *was actually conducted by a solicitor or 
agent who did not know (e). 

Proof in bankruptcy. A minor cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt in 
the absence of an express representation to the creditor that he was 
of full age. The mere fact of trading cannot be taken as a con- 
structive representation (/) . But if a minor has held himself out as 
an adult, and so traded and been made bankrupt, he cannot have the 
bankruptcy anulled on the ground of his infancy (g) ; and a loan ob- 
tained on the faith of an express representation that he is of full age 
is a claim provable in bankruptcy (h),^ 

But subseqnent valid contract after fnU age prevails. A transaction of 
this kind cannot stand in the way of a subsequent valid contract with 
another person made by the infant after he has come of age; and the 
person who first dealt with him on the strength of his representing 
himself as of age acquires no right to interfere with the performance 
of the subsequent contract (t). This is another proof that the in- 
fant's false representation gives no additional force to the transaction 
as a contract. > 

It was also held in the case referred to that, assuming the first 
agreement to have been only voidable, it was clearly avoided by the 
act of the party in making another contract inconsistent with it after 
attaining his full age. But it has been decided in Ireland (as we 
have seen) that this is not so in the case of a lease granted by an 
infant; the making of another lease of the same property to another 
lessee after the lessor has attained full age is not enough to avoid 

(e) kelson v. Stocker (1859) 4 Ves. 265; Eat parte Bates (1841) 2 

De G. & J. 458, 28 L. J. Ch. 751. Mont. D. & D. 337. 

if) Ex parte Jones (1881) 18 Ch. {h) Ex parte Unity Bank (1858) 3 

Div. 109, 50 L. J. Ch. 673, overruling De G. & J. 63, 27 L. J. Bk. 33; see 

Ex parte Lynch (1876) 2 Ch. D. 227, observations of Jessel M.R. thereon, 

45 L. J, Bk. 48. 18 Ch. D. at p. 121. 

ig) Ex parte Watson (1809) 16 (i) Inman v, Inman (1873) L. R. 

15 Eq. 260. 

82 If an infant owes debts which he cannot disaffirm, he is within the scope 
of the Bankruptcy Law. Re Brice, 93 Fed. Rep. 942. Cp. Farris f. Richardson, 
6 Allen, 118. Otherwise not. Re Dunnigan, 95 Fed. Rep. 428; Re Eidemiller, 
105 Fed. Rep. 595. 



MARBIED WOHEK: ^COUUOV LAW. 87 

'Qie fittt lease (fe). The fact that an *intere8t in property and [80 
a right of possession has passed by the first lease, though Toidable, 
explains the distinction. 

11. Married WoHEN. 

Married women can contract only as to separate property. A married 
woman is capable of binding herself by a contract only " in respect of 
and to the extent of her separate property " (I). This limited capac- 
ity is created by a statute founded on the practice of the Court of 
Chancery, which for more than a century had protected married wo- 
men's separate interests in the manner to be presently mentioned. 
Except as to separate property the old common law rule still exists, 
though with greatly diminished importance. That rule is that a 
married woman cannot bind herself by contract at all. 

If she attempts to do so " it is altogether void, and no action will 
lie against her husband or herself for the breach of it" (m).** And 
the same consequence follows as in the case of infants, namely^ that 
although a. married woman is answerable for wrongs committed by 
her during the coverture, including frauds, and may be sued for 
them jointly with her husband, or separately if she survives him, 
yet she cannot be sued for a fraud where it is directly connected with 
a contract with her, and is the means of effecting it and parcel of the 
same transaction, e.g., where the wife has obtained advances from 
the plaintiff for a third party by means of her guaranty, falsely 
representing herself as sole (m) ; but it is doubtful whether this ex- 
tends to all cases of false representation by which credit is ob- 
tained (n). For the same reason — that the law will not allow 
the contract to be indirectly enforced — a married * woman is [81 
not estopped from pleading coverture by having described herself as 
sui iuris (()).•* 

The fact that a married woman is living and trading apart from 

(*) aiatorr. Brady (1863) 14 Ir. (n) Wright v. Leonard (1861) 11 

C. L. Rep. 61, 9upra, p. •67. C. B. N. S. 258, 30 L. J. C. P. 365, 

(I) Married Women's Property where the Court was divided. 
Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1. (o) Cannam v. Farmer (1849) 3 

(m) Per Cur. Fairhurst v. Liver- Ex. 698. 
pool Adelphi Loan A$8ociation { 1854) 
9 Ex. 422, 429, 23 L. J. Ex. 164. 

SSBank v. Partee, 99 U. S. 326, 330; Re Comstock, 11 N. B. R. 169, 181; 
Prentiss v. Paisley, 26 Fla. 927; Frazee r. Frazee, 79 Md. 27; Tracy r. Keith, 
11 Allen, 214; Flesh v. Lindsay, 115 Mo. 1, 13; Keen v. Hartman, 48 Pa. 497; 
Woodward r. Barnes, 46 Vt. 332. See also Earle t*. Kinirscote, [1900] 1 Ch. 
203, 2 Ch. 585. 

^Re Comstock, 11 N. B. R. 169, 181; Kilbourn r. Brown, 66 Conn; 149; 
levering r. Shockey, 100 Ind. 658 ; Coats v. Gordon, 144 Ind. 19 : Lowell t>. 
Daniels, 2 Gray, 161; Keen r. Coleman, 39 Pa. 299; Klein v. Caldwell, 91 



88 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

lier hnsbftiid does not enable her at oommon law to contract to as to 
give a right of action against herself alone (p).^ Nor does it make 

(p) Clayton y. Adam9 (1796) 6 T. R. 605. 

Pa. 140, 144 ; Maaon v. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193. See also Honeeman v, GroMman, 
177 Pa. 463. 

Contra, Reis r. Lawrence, 63 Cal. 129; Hand v. Hand, 68 Cal. 135; Patter- 
son 17. Lawrence, 90 111. 174; as to the rule under the ciyil law, Henry v. 
Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1103. 

But a married woman mav be bound by estoppel, not onlr as to her separate 
estate, or property held by her under statutes permitting her to contract as a 
feme sole, Bean v. Heath, 6 How. 228 ; Drake v. Glover, 30 Ala. 382 ; Lathrop 
V. Soldiers' L. ft B. Ass'n, 45 Ga. 483; Hockett r. Bailey, 86 111. 74; Nixon v. 
Halley, 78 111. 611; Anderson v. Armstead, 69 111. 452; Spafford v. Warren, 47 
la. 47; Frazicr t\ Gelston, 35 Md. 298; Levy v. Gray, 56 Miss. 318; Read v. 
Hall, 57 N. H. 482; Bodine v. Kileen, 53 N. Y. 93; Smyth v. Munroe, 84 N. Y. 
354; Noel v. Kinney, 106 N. Y. 74, 81; Meiley v. Butler, 26 Ohio St. 535; Tone 
r. Ck>lumbus, 39 Ohio St 281, 310; Fryer v. Rishell, 84 Pa. 521; White V. 
Goldsberg, 49 S. C. 530; Howell v. Hale, 6 Lea, 405; Cravens v. Booth, 8 Tex. 
243; O'Brien t\ Hilbum, 9 Tex. 207, but also independently thereof, Nat. 
Feather Duster Co. v. Hibbard, 11 Bies. 76; Ramboz r. Stowell, 103 Cal. 588; 
Birch V. Stepj^er, 11 Col. 400; Patterson v, Lawrence, 90 HI. 174; Gatling v, 
Rodman, 6 Ind. 289; Wright v. Arnold, 14 B. Hon. 613; Rusk v, Fenton, 14 
Bush, 490; Snow r. Hutchins, 160 Mass. Ill; Norton v, Nichols, 35 Mich. 
148; Robb v, Shephard, 50 Mich. 189; Dobbin r. Cordiner, 41 Minn. 165; 
Shivers v. Simmons, 54 Miss. 520; Richardson v. Toliver, 71 Bliss. 966; Rosen- 
thal 17. Mayhngh, 33 Ohio St. 155 ; Cooley v. Steele, 2 Head, 605 ; Galbraith r. 
Lunsford, 87 Tenn. 89 ; Godfrey v. Thornton, 46 Wir. 677, 690. 

lliat a declaration by a wife at a public sale of her husband's realty that 
she will not claim* dower therein will not estop her is decided in Kelso's Ap- 
peal, 102 Pa. St. 7 ; that it will, in Connolly v, Branstler, 3 Bush, 702. 

Conduct of a wife in the presence of her husband will not ordinarilv estop 
her, as she is presumed to be suh potestate viri, Draks v. Glover^ 30 Ala. 382, 
390; Carpenter t\ Carpenter's Ex'rs, 27 N. J. Eq. 502; Kinsey v. Feller, 64 
N. J. Eq. 367 ; Clayton v. Rose, 87 N. C. 106; Paul v. Kunx, 188 Pa. 504. But 
see Davis v. Tingle, 8 B. Mon. 539. 

The preponderance of authority is to the effect that a married woman can- 
not, by estoppel, transfer title to her real estate. Drury v, Foster, 2 Wall. 24 ; 
Vansandt v. Weir, 109 Ala. 104; Wood v. Terry, 30 Ark. 385; Morrison 9. 
Wilson, 13 Cal. 495; Ross v. Singleton, 1 Del. Ch. 149; Oglesby Coal Co. v. 
Pasco, 79 111. 170; Behler i;. Weybum, 59 Ind. 143; Unfried v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 
67; Suman v, Springate, 67 Ind. 115, 121; Parks i;. Barrowman, 83 Ind. 561; 
Rangley v. Sprmg, 21 Me. 130; Lowell v. Daniels, 2 Gray, 161; Pierce v. 
Chace, 108 Mass. 254; Todd r. Railroad Co., 19 Ohio St. 514; Innis r. Temple- 
ton, 95 Pa. 262; Davidson's Appeal, 95 Pa. 394; Gliddent?. Strupler,52 Pa. 400; 
Stivers r. Tucker, 126 Pa. 74; Mason r. Jordan, 13 R. I. 193; McLaurin r. 
Wilson, 16 S. C. 402; Daniel v. Mason, 90 Tex. 240. And see Merriam v. Rail- 
road Co., 117 Mass. 241. 

The principle upon which these cases are rested is that the greatest force 
is given to an estoppel when it is made equal to the deed of the person 
against whom it is invoked, and that the deed of a married woman is void. 
A man, it is true, can convey his land onl^ by deed ; but its execution is only 
a formality, his having complied with which he may be estopped to deny. A 
married woman is powerless alone to convey her land; as to her sole deed 
there is a question, not of compliance with a formality, but of power ; as she 
can in no way alone convey her land, it follows that she can in no way estop 
herself to say that she has not conveyed it. See Collins v. Goldsmith, 71 Fed. 
Rep. 580. 

88 High V. Worley, 33 Ala. 196 ; Rogers V. Phillips, 8 Ark. 366 ; Fuller v. 
Bartlett, 41 Me. 241; Bank r. Belli3, 10 Cush. 276; Brown v. Killingsworth, 



MABRIBD women: COMMON LAW. 89 

may difference if she is living s^arate from her husband under an 
express agreement for separation, as no agreement between husband 
and wife can change their legal capacities and characters (9).^ 

But may acquire contractual rights. But ^^ a married woman, though 
incapable of making a contract-, is capable of having a chose in action 
conferred upon her, which will survive to her on the death of the 
husband, unless he shall have interfered by doing some act to reduce 
it into possession": thus she might, before the Married Women's 
Property Act, buy railway stock, and become entitled to sue for 
dividends jointly with her hilsband (r).^ When a third person as- 
sents to hold a sum of money at the wife's disposal, but does not pay 
it over, this is conferring on her a chose in action within the meaning 
of the rule («). 

During the joint lives of the husband and wife the husband is 
entitled iure mariti to receive any sum thus due; "but if the wife 
dies before the husband has received it, the husband, although his 
beneficial right remains the same, must in order to receive the money 
take out administration to his wife;^ and if he dies without having 
done so, it«is necessary that letters of administration should be taken 

(9) Manhatt v. Ruit<m (1800) 8 see Williams on Executors, 1. 734 

T. R. 645, 6 R. R. 448. aqq, {9ih ed.), Widgery v. Tepper 

(r) Per Cur. Dalion v. Midlatid (1877) 6 Ch. D. 616, 7 CSi. Div. 423, 

Ry. Co. (1853) 13 C. B. 474, 22 L. J. 47 L. J. Ch. 650. 

C. P. 177. And see 1 Wms. Saund. («) Fleet v. Perrina (1869) U R. 

222, 223. On the question what 3 Q. B. 636, 4 Q. B. 500, 38 L. J. 

amounts to reduction into possession, Q. B. 257. 

4 McCord, 429; Freer v. Walker, 1 Bailey, 184; Harris v. Taylor, 3 Sneed, 636; 
Robinson v. R^olds, 1 Aikens, 174; cp. infra, p. 91, note (a). 

se Parker v. Lambert^ 31 Ala. 89. 

»T Chappelle v, Olney, 1 Sawyer, 401 ; Lenderman r. Talley, 1 Houst. 623 ; 
Bond r. Conway, 11 Md. 612; Hayward v. Hayward, 20 Pick. 617; Schuyler r. 
Hoyle, 6 Johns. Ch. 196; Searing r. Searing, 9 Paige, 283; Borst v, Spel- 
man, 4 N. Y. 284, 288; Snowhill r. Snowhill, 2 N. J. Eq. 30, 36; Revel f. 
BeTel, 2 Dev. k Bat. L. 272; Weeks v. Weeks, 5 Ired, Eq. Ill ; Hoop V. Plum- 
mer, 14 Ohio St. 448; Wilder v. Aldrich, 2 R. I. 618; Johnson v. Lusk, 6 
Coldw. 113. C<mtrat Edwards v. Sheridan, 24 Conn. 165. 

ss Willis V, Roberts, 48 Me. 267 ; Jenkins 17. Freyer, 4 Paige, 47 ; Dawson v, 
Dawson, 2 Strobh. Eq. 34; Hardin v. Young, (Tenn.) 41 S. W. Rep. 1080; 
Contra, Qreenleaf v, BLiU, 31 Me. 562; GJoddard v. Johnson, 14 Pick. 362; Ryder 
V. Hulse, 24 N. Y. 372. 

The statutes 21 H. VIII.; 22 and 23 Car. II., cap. 10, and 29 Car. II., cap. 3, 
f 25, together, gave the husband the right to administer upon his deceased 
wife's estate, and to take for his own benefit her chattels real, choses in action, 
tmats, and every species of personal property. Judcre of Probate r. Chamber- 
lain, 3 N. H. 129. In many, perhaps m most of the United States, the statutes 
prevailing; describe a different rule. Bishop on the Law of Married Women, 
If 172-182. 



90 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

out to the wife's estate"^ (for such is still the legal character of the 
82] money), but the wife's administrator is ♦only a trustee for the 
representative of the husband'* (t). Ajccordingly the Court of Pro- 
bate cannot dispense with the double administration, even where the 
same person is the proper representative of both husband and wife^ 
and is also beneficially entitled (u). 

Cannot dnring covertnre renew debt barred by Statute of Limitation. 
Inasmuch as according to the view established by modem decisions a 
promise to pay a debt barred by the Statute of Limitation operates 
not by way of post-dating the original contract so as to " draw down 
the promise " then made, but as a new contract founded on the sub- 
sisting consideration, a married woman's general incapacity to con- 
tract prevents such a promise, if made by her, from being effectual; 
and where before the marriage she became a joint debtor with another 
person, that person's acknowledgment after the marriage is also in- 
effectual, since to bind one's joint debtor an acknowledgment must be 
such as would have bound him if made by himself (x).^ 

The rules of law concerning a wife's power to bind her husband by 
contract, either as his actual or ostensible agent or, in some special 
circumstances, by a peculiar authority independent of agency, do not 
fall within the province of this work.*^ 

Exceptions at common law. 

Queen consort. The wife of the King of England may sue and be 
sued as a feme sole (Co. Litt. 133 a). 

Wife of person civilly dead. The wife of a person civilly dead may 
sue and be sued alone {lb, 132 b, 133 a). The cases dwelt on by Coke 
are such as practically cannot occur at this day, and it seems that the 
only persons who can now be regarded as civilly dead are persons con- 
83] victed of felony, and not lawfully at *large under any 

it) Per Lord Westbury, Parting- {a) Pittam v. Foster (1823) 1 B. 

ton y. Att.-Qen, (1869) L. R. 4 H. L. & C. 248, 26 R. R. 386; 1 Wms, 
100, 119. Saund. 172. 

(u) In the Goods of Harding 
(1872) L. R. 2 P. & D. 394. 

SOLockwood V, Stockholm, 11 Paige, 87, 91. 

40 Axson V. Blakely, 2 McCord, 6 ; Farrar t?. Bessey, 24 Vt. 89. 

41 As to the liability imposed on the husband irrespective of authority given 
by him, see Keener on Quasi Contracts, 22; Hatch v, Leonard, 166 N. Y. 436, 
439. 



MABSIED women: COMMON LAW. 91 

license (y).** An alien enemy, though disabled from suing, is not 
civilly dead, and his wife cannot sue alone on a contract made with 
her either before or during coverture; so that while he is an alien 
enemy neither of them can maintain an action on the contract. The 
remedy may thus be irrecoverably lost by the operation of the Statute 
of Limitation, but this inconvenience does not take the case out of the 
general rule (z). This decision does not expressly overrule any earlier 
authority (and there is such authority) (a) for the proposition that 
she may be sued alone. But it is conceived that such must be the 
result. 

Wife of alien not resident in the kingdom. It appears to be the residt 
of the authorities that the wife of an alien husband who has never 
been or at least never resided in England may bind herself by contract 
if she purports to contract as a feme sole (b).^ 

Harried woman trading in London. " By the custom of London, if a 
feme covert, the wife of a freeman, trades by herself in a trade with 

(y) Transportation was considered Co. Litt. 131 b). Bracton, however, 

as an abjuration of the realm, which speaks of outlawry (426 b) as well as 

could be determined only by an actual religious profession (301 b) as mor$ 

return after the sentence had expired : oivUia. A person under the penalties 

Carrol v. Blencow (1801) 4 Esp. 27. of praemunirey which include being 

The analogy to Coke's " Civil Death " put out of the Ring's protection, 

is discussed, org. in Ex parte Franks would, I suppose, be in the same 

(1831) 7 Bing. 762. plight as an outlaw. The Roman 

{z) De Wahl v. Braune (1856) 1 mors oivilia was a pure legal fiction, 

H. & N. 178, 25 L. J. Ex. 343. Per- introduced not to create disabilities, 

haps it may be doubted whether but to obviate the inconvenient re 

" civil death " was ever really appro- suits of disabilities otherwise created. 

priate as a term of art in English (Sav. Syst. 2. 164.) As to the mort 

courts except " when a man entereth civile of modem French law ( now 

into religion [t.e. a religious order abolished since 1854), see tb. 151 9qq, 

in England] and is professed": in (a) Derry v. Duchess of Mazarine 

that case he could make a will and (1697) 1 Ld. Raym. 147. 

appoint executors (who might be (b) Harden v. Keverherg (1836) 2 

sued as such for his debts, F. N. B. M. & W. 61, 6 L. J. Ex. 66. But the 

121, O.), and if he did not, his goods question is now of little interest. 
eould be administered (Litt. s. 200, 

42 Wilson r. King, 69 Ark. 32; Smith r. Becker, 62 Kan. 541; Avery v. 
Everett, 110 N. Y. 317; Re Zeph, 50 Hun, 523; Frazer r. Fulcher, 17 Ohio, 
260; Davis v. Laning, 85 Tex. 39; Baltimore r. Chester, 53 Vt. 315. 

^ Where the huslmnd was never within the State, or has gone beyond its 
ju.'isdiction wholly renouncing his marital rights and duties and deserting his 
wife, she may contract, and sue, and be sued in her own name. Rhea v. 
Renner, 1 Pet. 105 ; Bank r. Partee, 99 IT. S. 325, 330 ; Blumenberg r. Adams, 
49 Cal. 308; (Hark c. Valentino, 41 Ga. 143; Smith r. Silence, 4 la. 321 ; Ayer 
r. Warren, 47 Me. 217; Gregory r. Pierce, 4 Met. 478; Abbott r. Bayley, 6 
Pick. 89; Phelps r, Walther, 78 Mo. 320; Rosenthal v, Mayhugh, 33 Ohio St. 
155; Wagg v. Gibbons, 5 Ohio St. 580; Bean r. Morgan, 4 McCord, 148; Rail- 
way Co. r. Hennesey, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 316; Buford t?. Adair, 43 W. Va. 211, 
64 Am. St. Rep. 854. Cp. Stewart v. Conrad's Admr., 100 Va. 128. See 26 
Am. L. Reg. 745. 



92 CAPACITY OF PAETIE8. 

which her husband does not intermeddle^ she may sue and be sued as 
84] ' a feme sole, and the husband shall be named only for *con- 
formity; and if judgment be given against them, she only "shall be 
taken in execution/' (Bacon, Abr. Customs of London, D.) This 
custom applies only to the city courts (c), and even there the formal 
joinder of the husband is indispensable. But if acted upon in those 
courts it may be pleaded as matter of defence in the superior 
courts {d), though they do not otherwise notice the custom (e). 

Contracti with huiband ai to separatioiiy &c^ may be good. In certain 
exceptional cases in which the wife has an adverse interest to the 
husband she is not incapable of contracting with him. Where a 
wife had instituted a suit for divorce, and she and her husband had 
agreed to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration, her next friend 
not being a party to the agreement, the House of Lords held that 
under the circumstances of the case she might be regarded as a feme 
sole, that the agreement was not invalid, and that the award was 
therefore binding (/). 

The real object of the reference and award in this case having been 
to fix the terms of a separation, it was later held that the Court 
would not refuse to enforce an agreement to execute a deed of sepa- 
ration merely because it was made between the husband and wife 
without the intervention of a trustee (^).** In the simpler case of an 
agreement to live apart, with incidental. provisions for maintenance, 
the agreement does not require the intervention of a trustee, and the 
wife (apart from the Married Women's Property Act, which does 

(e) CoAidell v. Shaw (1791) 4 T.R. (e) Cwudell ▼. Bhaw, 4 T. R. 361. 

361. If) Bateman y. Ca%miea$ of Rosf 

{d) Beard v. Wehh (1800) 2 Boa. (1813) 1 Dow, 236, 14 R. R. 65. 
ft P. 93. Since the Act of 1882 the ig) VwnaiiiartY, Vanaittart (1858) 

only effect of the custom, if any, 4 K. & J. 62, 27 L. J. Ch. 222; but 

seems to be that a married woman the agreement not enforceable for 

trading in the City of London may other reasons; aiBrmed on appeal, 

be subject to greater personal lia- 2 De G. & J. 249, 27 L. J. Ch. 280; 

bility Uian elsewhere. but no opinion given on this point. 

^ "A parol post nuptial agreement between husband and wife, made in view 
of a voluntary separation, and fully executed on the part of the husband, 
whereby, for a consideration which, in the light of all the circumstances of the 
parties at the time the contract is made, is fair, reasonable, and just, the wife 
relinquishes all claim to a distributive share of the husband's personal estate 
in case she survives him, will be upheld and enforced in equity, and the inter- 
vention between them of a trustee is unnecessary." Garver t?. Miller, 16 Ohio 
St 527 ; and see Daniels r. Benedict, 97 Fed. Rep. 367 ; Dutton v, Dutton, 30 
Ind. 452 ; King t?. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683 ; Masterson t\ Masterson, 22 Ky. L. 
r.ep. 1193; Stebbins i\ Morris, 19 Mont. 115; Hendricks r. Isaacs, 117 N. Y. 
411; Thomas r. Brown, 10 Ohio St. 247: Lehr r. Beaver, 8 W. & S. 102; Hut- 
ton t?. Hntton's Adm*r, 3 Pa. St. 100; Burkholder's Appeal, 105 Pa. 31. The 
agreement must, however, be fair. Hungerford t\ Hungerford, 161 N. Y. 560. 



IfARRTTO WOMSN: STATUTES. 93 

mot ftpply) cui sne the husband for arrears of maintenance due 
under ii (&). It *does not follow that in such transactions a [85 
married woman has all the powers of a feme sole. She has only those 
which the necessity of the case requires. She is apparently competent 
to compromise the suit with her husband (t) : but she cannot, as a 
term of the compromise, bind her real estate (not being settled to 
her separate use) without the acknowledgment required by the Fines 
and Beooveriee Act (k). 

Staiuiory exceptions other than Married Women's Property Act 

Judidal separations and protection orders. By the Act constituting the 
Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, a 
wife judicially separated from her husband is to be considered whilst 
so separated as a feme sole for the purposes of {inter alia) contract, 
and suing and being sued in any civil proceeding (s. 2G) (l) ; and a 
wife deserted by her husband who has obtained a protection order is 
in the same position while the desertion continues (s. 21). This 
section is so worded as when taken alone to countenance the sup- 
position that the protection order relates back to the date of desertion. 
It has been decided, however, that it does not enable the wife to 
maintain an action commenced by her alone before the date of the 
order (m). Her powers of disposing and contracting apply only to 
property acquired after the decree for separation or the desertion (or 
protection order?) as the case may be (n). These provisions are 
extended by *an amending Act in certain particulars not material [86 
to be noticed here (21 & 22 Vict. c. 108, ss. 6-9) ; and third parties 
are indemnified as to payments to the wife, and acts done by her 
with their permission, under an order or decree which is afterwards 
discharged or reversed (s. 10). The words as to "suing and being 

{h) McGregor Y. McGregor (1888) v. Sturgeon (1876) 2 Ch. Div. 318, 

21 Q. B. Div. 424, 67 L. J. Q. B. 691. 46 L. J. Gh. 633. 

(t) Rowley v. Rowley (1866) L. R. (m) Midland Ry. Co. v. Pye (1861) 

2 Be. ft D. 63. 10 C. B. N. S. 179, 30 L. J. C. P. 314. 

{k) CaMllY.CahiU (1883) 8 App. (n) Watte v. Morland (1888) 38 

Ca. 420. Ch. Div. 136, 67 L. J. Ch. 665; HiU 

(I) The same oonBequenoee follow v. Cooper [1893] 2 Q. B. 85, 62 L. J. 

a fortiori on a dieeolutUm of mar- Q. B. 423, C. A. As to the combined 

riage, though there is no express en- effect of this Act and 8. 4 of the 

aetment that they shall : Wilkinson Married Women's Property Act, 1882, 

T. Gibson (1867) L. R. 4 Eq. 162, 36 in making property subject to a mar- 

li. J. Ch. 646; see also, as to the ried woman's disposing power assets 

divorced wife's rights, Wells v. Mai- for the payment of her debts, see Re 

hon (1862) 31 Beav. 48,^31 L. J. Ch. Hughes [1898] I Ch. 629, 67 L. J. 

844; Fitzgerald v. Chapman (1876) Ch. 279, C. A. 
1 Ch. D. 563, 46 K J. Ch. 23; Burton 



94 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

sued " in this section arc not confined by the context to matters of 
property and contract^ but are to be liberally construed: a married 
woman who has obtained a protection order may sue in her own name 
for a libel (o). 

Equitable doctrine of separate estate. 

In the eighteenth century, if not earlier, the Court of Chancery 
recognized and sanctioned the practice of settling property upon 
married women to be enjoyed by them for their separate use and 
free of the husband's interference or control. To this was added, 
towards the end of that century, the curious and anomalous device 
of settling property in trust for a married woman " without power of 
enticipation," so that she cannot deal in any way with the income 
until it is actually payable. During the nineteenth century a doc- 
trine was elaborated, not without difficulty and hesitation, under which 
a married woman having separate property at her disposal (not sub- 
ject to the peculiar restraint just mentioned) might bind that 
property, though not herself personally, by transactions in the nature 
of contract. Some account of this doctrine is given for reference in 
the Appendix, as being useful, if not necessary, for the fidl under- 
standing of the modern law. 

It should be observed that restraint on anticipation, being allowed 
87] only for the purpose of protecting the fund *as capital, does 
not apply to income of the fund when it reaches the married woman's 
hands, or the hands of some person from whom she can immediately 
demand it. The income so paid or payable is ordinary separate 
property, and therefore on principle not exempt from the subsequent 
claims, equitable or statutor}', of the married woman's creditors (p). 

The Married Women's Property Act. 

45 & 46 Vict., c. 75. The provisions of the Married Women's Property 
Act, 1882, extended by an amending Act of 1893, are so much wider 
that they may be described as a new body of law, consolidating and 
superseding the results of many cases in equity as well as the previous 

(o) Ramaden v. Brearley (1875) Whifeley v. Edxoards [1896] 2 Q. B. 
L. R. 10 Q. B. 147, 44 L. J. Q, B. 46. 48, 65 L, J. Q. B. 467, C. A. ; this 
She can give a valid receipt for a principle seema to have been over- 
legacy not reduced into possession looked by the C. A. in construing the 
before the date of the order: Re Act of 1893 in Bamett v. Houxjvrd 
Coirard rf Adam's PurchaJie (1875) [1900] 2 Q. B. 784, 69 L. J. Q. B. 
L. R. 20 Eq. 179, 44 L. J. Ch. 384. 955. See Mr. T. Cyprian Williams'a 

(p) See Hood Barrs v. Heriot remarks in L. Q. R. xvii. 4. 
[1896] A. C. 174, 65 L. J. Q. B. 352; 



KARRIEI women's PROPERTY ACT. 95 

Acts of 1870 and 1874, which this Act repealed. The law, as now 
declared, itf to this effect: 

Separate property is 

(i) Property acquired by any married woman after January 1, . 

1883, including earnings (q) : 
(ii) Property belonging at the time of marriage to a. woman 

marrying after January 1, 1883 (r). 
Special trusts created in favour of a married woman by will, set- 
tlement or otherwise, are not affected by the Act (s). 

Subject to any settlement (t)^ a married woman can bind herself 
by contract '^in respect of and to the extent *of her separate [88 
property," and can sue and be sued alone (u). 

Damages and costs, if recovered by her, become her separate prop- 
erty ; if against her, aro payable out of her separate property and not 
otherwise (x) . A married woman trading alone can be made bank- 
rupt in rospect of her separate property (y). 
A contract made by a married woman 

(i) Is deemed to be made with respect to and to bind her separate 
property (z), and, if made since 5 Dec. 1893, whether or not 
she has any separate property at the date of the contract (a) : 

iq) Ss. 5, 25. Property falling do not give any greater power of dis- 

into possession since the Act under posal than is given by the specific 

a title acquired before it is not in- words of ss. 2 and 5, with which s. 1 

eluded: Reid v. Keid (1886) 31 Ch. must be read: Re Cuno, Mansfield 

Div. 402, 55 L. J. Gh. 294. v. Mansfield (1889) 43 Ch. Div. 12, 

(r) S. 2. 62 L. T. 16. 

(«) S. 19, which "prevents the (») S. 1, subs. 2. 

previous enactment from interfering {y) S. 1, sub-s. 5. An unexecuted 

with any settlement which would general power of appointment is not 

have bound the property if the Act " separate property," and a married 

bad not passed " : Cotton L.J. Ha/n- woman cannot be compelled to exe- 

cock V. Hancock (1888) 38 Ch. Div. cute such a power for the benefit of 

78, 90, 67 L. J. Ch. 396. This pro- her creditors: Ex parte Oilchrisi 

.'ision covers both s. 2 and s. 5. See (1886) 17 Q. B. Div. 521, 65 L. J. 

Buckland v. Buckland [1900] 2 Ch. Q. B. 678. S. 19 does not prevent 

534, 69 L. J. Ch. 648. property to which she is entitled 

(f) See Stonor's Trusts (1883) 24 under a settlement, without restraint 

Ch. D. 195, 52 L. J. Ch. 776. on anticipation, from passing to the 

(tt) As to the retrospective opera- trustee in bankruptcy: Ex parte 

tion of the Act with regard to power Boyd (1888) 21 Q. B. Div. 264, 57 

to sue on a cause independent of con- L. J. Q. B. 553. 

tract, see Weldon v. Winslow (1884) {z) Formerly there was no such 

13 Q. B. Div. 784, 53 L. J. Q. B. 528. presumption unless she was living 

As to liability on causes independent apart from her husband. See Appen- 

of contract, Whiftaker v. Kershaw dix. Note C. 
(1890) 45 Ch. Div. 320, 60 L. J. (a) 56 & 57 Vict c 63. 

Ch. 9. The general words of 8. 1 (1) 



96 OAPACITT OF PASTIES. 

(ii) If BO made and binding, binds her after-acquired aeparaie 
property (b), provided, as to contracts of earlier date than 
5 Dec. 1893, that there was some separate property at the 
date of the contract (c). 

A married woman's separate property fs liable for her ante-nuptial 
debts and obligations (J). She is also liable at common law for 
such debts, and judgment may go against her personally (e). She 
cannot avoid this liability by settling the property on herself without 
89] power of anti*cipation (/). As to women married before Jan- 
uary 1, 1883, such liability applies only to separate property acquired 
by them under the Act (g). 

The Act contains other provisions as to the effect of the execution 
of general powers by will by married women (h), the title to stocks 
and other investments registered in a married woman's name either 
solely or jointly (i), the effecting of life assurances by a married 
woman, or by either husband or wife for the benefit of the family (;), 
procedure for the protection of separate property (k), and other 
matters which belong more to the law of Property than to the law 
of Contract. ' 

It is not expressly stated by the principal Act whether on the 
termination of the coverture by the death of the husband, or by 
divorce, a married woman's debts contracted during the coverture 
with respect to her separate property do or not become her personal 
debts; but it has been assumed that they do (l), and the Act of 1893 
expressly makes this the rule for contracts subsequent to its date (m). 
If not, the only remedy would be against her separate property which 
existed as such during the coverture, and was not subject to restraint 
on anticipation (n), so far as it could still be identified and followed. 

The Act does not remove the effects of a restraint on anticipation. 
A married woman's creditor is not enabled to have execution or any 

(b) 56 & 57 Vict. c. 63, ss. 1, 4. {h) Re Ann [1894] 1 Ch. 540, 63 

(c) Siogdon v. Lee [1891] 1 Q. B. L. J. Ch. 334. 
661, 60 L. J. Q. B. 669, C. A. (♦) Ss. 6-10. 

id) S. 13. This liability is at least (;) S. 11. 

doubtful in cases not under the Act: {k) S. 12. 

see Note C. As to the Act of 1870, (I) Harriwn ▼. Harriton (1888) 

Axford V. Beid (1889) 22 Q. B. Div. 13 P. Div. 180; Leak v. Driffield 

648, 68 L. J. Q. B. 230. (1889) 24 Q. B. D. 98. 

(e) Rdhineon, King d Co. ▼. Lynee (m) 56 & 67 Vict. c. 63, 8. 1 (o). 

[1894] 2 Q. B. 577, 63 L. J. Q. B. (n) Pelton Broa. ▼. HarriMm 

759. [1891] 2 Q. B. 422, 60 L. J. Q. B. 

if) S. 19. 74, 0. A. 

ig) 6ee note (<i), last pagt. 



MABRIED women's PROPERTY ACT. 97 

incidental remedies against property subject to such restraint (o) ; 
though this affects only the remedy^ not the cause of action (p). But 
the Act of ♦1893 gives power to order costs to be paid out of such [90 
property (q) in any action or proceeding instituted by or on behalf 
of a married woman (r). 

It was settled under the Act of 1882, after some difference of 
judicial opinions, that income of separate property subject to restraint 
on anticipation is, when paid or accrued due, "free money*' and 
liable to satisfy a judgment not of prior date to the date of such 
income becoming payable («). It has since been held that s. 1 of 
the Act of 1893 has the effect of abrogating this rule, and protecting 
the income actually payable from separate property which was sub- 
ject to restraint on anticipation at the date of the contract, even 
if the restraint on the capital has been removed by the cessation of 
the coverture before the date of the judgment : but the soundness of 
this decision appears exceedingly questionable (i), and it is practically 
certain that the result is in any case foreign to the intention of the 
Act. 

A married woman cannot free herself from a restraint on anticipa- 
tion attached to any property held for her separate use by any act of 
her own, whether in the nature of admission, estoppel, or otherwise (w). 

Where the surviving husband of a married woman takes her separate 
estate iure mariti, he is at once her " legal personal representative " 
for the purposes of the Act, and liable to her creditors to the extent 
of that separate estate {x), 

♦On the other hand the Act does not exclude such equitable [91 
rights and remedies against a married woman's separate estate as were 
previously recognized. Where a married woman carries on a separate 
business, her husband can sue her for advances made during the 

(o) Draycoit v. Ea/rrison (1886) or other steps taken in a cause by a 

17 Q. B. D. 147. But he may when married woman who is a defendant: 

the restraint is removed by the hus- but it does apply to a counterclaim 

band's death: Briggs v, Ryan [\^9%] by her: Eood Barra v. Cathcart 

2 Ch. 717, 68 L. J. Ch. 663 — at any [1895] 1 Q. B. 873, 64 L. J. Q. B. 
rate a trustee in bankruptcy may : ih. 620. 

(p) Whittaker y, Kershato (1890) (a) Hood Barra v. Herioi [1896] 

46 Cb. Div. 320, 327, 60 L. J. Ch. 9. A. C. 174, 65 L. J. Q. B. 352. 

iq) 56 k 67 Vict. c. 63, s. 2. S. 1 (t) Bamett v. Howard [1900] 2 

does not make such property liable to Q. B. 784, 69 L. J. Q. B. 955 ; see 

satisfy a contract. See the proviso. p. 87, above. 

(r) Hood Barra v. Cathcart [1894] («) Bateman v. Faher [1898] 1 

3 Ch. 376, 63 L. J. Ch. 793, C. A. ap- Ch. 144, 67 L. J. Ch. 130, C. A. 
proved, Ht)od Barra v. Heriot [1897] (a?) 8. 23 of the principal Act, as 
A. C. 177, 66 L. J. Q. B. 356. This applied in BurmanY. Wharton [1891] 
does not apply to motions, appeals, 1 Q. B. 491, 60 L. J. Q. B. 233. 

7 



98 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

coverture for the purposes of that business (y), on the genei-al prin- 
ciple that in respect of her separate estate she is treated as a fetM 
sole. And it may still be possible in some cases not within the Act 
to enforce a married woman's contract by means of the equitable 
dr.ctrine of imperfect exercise of a power («). 

With regard to a husband's liability for his wife's ante-nuptial 
debts, the Court of Appeal has decided in a considered judgment that 
it is distinct, and not merely a joint liability with the wife's separate 
estate ; but that, for the purposes of the Statute of Limitation, there 
is not a distinct cause of action accruing against the husband at the 
date of the marriage (a).** 

III. Lunatics and Drunken Persons. 

It will be convenient to consider these causes of disability together, 
since in our modem law drunken men (so far as their capacity of 
contracting is affected at all) are on the same footing as lunatics. 

Old law as to lunatics. The old law as to a lunatic's acts was that he 
could not be admitted to avoid them himself, though in certain cases 
the Crown, and in other cases his heir could (b). Even the fact of a 
defendant having been found lunatic by inquisition was not conclusive 
as against a plaintiff who was not present at the inquisition (c), A 
lunatic who has lucid intervals has apparently always been held 
92] capable of ♦contracting (among other acts) during such inter- 
vals (d). The marriage of a lunatic is void,^ and the same degree 

iy) Butler ▼. Butler (1885) 16 (b) See the judgment of Fry L.J. 

Q. B. Div. 374, 65 L. J. Q. B. 55. in Imperial Loan Co, v. Stone [1892] 

(z) See per Fry L.J. Ew parte 1 Q. B. at p. 601. 

Gilchrist (1886) 17 Q. B. Div. at (c) Hall v. Warren (1804) 9 Ves. 

p. 532. 605, 609, 7 K. R. at p. 308. 

(a) Beck v. Pierce (1889) 23 Q. B. (rf) Beverley's case (1603) 4 Co. 

Div. 316, 58 L. J. Q. B. 516. Rep. 123 6; Hall v. Warren, last note. 

45 In the various States of America statutes have been passed enlarging the 
rights of a married woman to contract and to acquire property. These stat- 
utes are summarized in 1 Parsons on Contracts, (9th ed.) 417 et seq. 

-WRawdon v. Rawdon, 28 Ala. 565; Bell V. Bennett, 73 Ga. 784; Medlock r. 
Merritt, 102 Ga. 212; Pyott r. Pyott, 191 111. 280; Powell r. Powell. 18 Kan. 
371; Jenkins r. Jenkins' Heirs, 2 Dana, 102; Middleborough v, Rochester, 12 
Mass. 363; Ward r. Dulaney, 23 Miss. 410; True f. Ranney, 21 N. H. 52; 
Wightman t\ Wightman, 4 Johns. Ch. 343; Johnson v. Kincade, 2 Ired. Eq. 
470; Crump r. Morgan, 3 Ired. Eq. 91 ; Sims r. Sims, 121 N. C. 297; Waymire 
V, Jetmore, 22 Ohio St. 271; Clement r. Mattison, 3 Rich. L. 93; Foster r. 
Means, 1 Speer'a Eq. 569. 

But such a marriage was held not void for every kind of insanity in Lewis 
r. Lewis. 44 Minn. 124: and in Cole r.Cole, 5 Sneed, 57, it was decided that a 
lunatic, on regaining his senses, may, without a new solemnization, affirm a 
marriage celohrated while he was insane. But see the last three cases above 
cited. Consult 1 Bishop, Mar. & Div., § ld5, sqq. 



LUNACY AND DBUNEENNESS. 99 

of sanity is required for marriage as for making a will or for any 
other purpose, though the burden of proof is on the party alleging 
insanity (e). Marriage, however, is a peculiar transaction, and 
the exceptional treatment of it in our law, though perhaps histori- 
cally due to the influence, in ecclesiastical Courts, of more gen- 
eral rules of civil or canon law, may well be justified on grounds 
of convenience. 

Liability for necessaries, &c. It is equally settled that a lunatic or his 
estate may be liable qttasi ex contractu for necessaries supplied to him 
in good faith (/) f and this applies to all expenses necessarily incurred 
for the protection of his person or estate, such as the cost of the pro- 
ceedings in lunacy (i^).*® A person who supplies necessaries to a luna^ 
tic or provides money to be expended in necessaries knowing him to 
be such can have an action against the lunatic if he incurred the ex- 
pense with the intention, at the time, that it should be repaid. The 
circimistances must be such as to justify the- Court in implying 
an obligation to repay; there is no doubt that such an obligation 
may exist in a proper case (A).^ A husband is liable for neces- 
saries supplied to his wife while he is lunatic; for the wife's 
authority to pledge his credit for necessaries is not a mere agency, 
but springs from the relation of husband and wife and is not re- 
Toked by the husband's insanity (t).*^ In the same way drunken- 
ness or lunacy would be no answer to an action for money had and 

(0) Hancock v. Peaty (1867) L. R. 614. As to goods sold and delivered, 

1 P. ft D. 335^ 341, 36 L. J. Mat. Sale of Goods Act, 1893, a. 2. 

67; with which Durham v. Durham {g) Williama y, Wentvyorih (1842) 

(1886) 10 P. D. 80 does not conflict 5 Beav. 325; Stedmany, Hart (1854) 

<m this point. The statute 15 Geo. 2, Kay, 607. 

a. 30, is rep. by the Stat. Law Re- {h) Re Rhodes (1890) 44 Ch. Div. 

Tision Act, 1873. 94, 59 L. J. Ch. 298. 

if) Bageter y. Earl of Portemouth (i) Read v. Legard (1851) 6 Ex. 

(1826) 6 B. & C. 170, s. c. more fully, 636, 20 L. J. Ex. 309. 
ii<»n. Baxter v. Earl P., 7 D. & R. 

*fEtB parte Northington, 37 Ala. 496; Davis r. Tarver, 65 Ala. 98, 102; 
Coll^re c. Wilkinson, 108 Ind. 314, 320; Coleman v. Frazer, 3 Bush, 300, 310; 
McKee's Adm'r r. Purnell, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 879; Sawyer r. Lufkin, 56 Me. 
308; Kendall r. May, 10 Allen, 59; Reando v. Misplay, 90 Mo. 261; Sceva r. 
True, 63 N. H. 627 ; Van Horn v. Hann, 39 N. J. L. 207 ; Richardson v. Strong, 
13 Ired. L. 106; Surles v. Pipkin, 69 N. C. 513; Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 
398. 403; La Rue r. Gilkyson, 4 Pa. St. 375. 

«SHallett r. Gakes, 1 Cush. 296; McCrillis v. Bartlett, 8 N. H. 669; Carter 
r. Beckwith, 128 N. Y. 312; Tn re Meares, 10 Ch. D. 552. 

^ See Re Renz. 79 Mich. 216. 

BO Booth r. Cottingham, 126 Ind. 431; Pearl v. McDowell, 3 J. J. Marsh. 
058; Shaw v. Thompson, 16 Pick. 198. Or for his wife's funeral expenses. 
Be Stewart, 14 N. J. L. Jl. 244. 



100 CAPACITY OP PABTIS8. 

received, or for the price of goods furnished to a drunken or insane 
93] nian and kept by him after he had recovered his ^reason : in this 
last case, however, his conduct in keeping the goods would be evi- 
dence of a new contract to pay for them (Jfc). 

There is also express authority (which one would tiiink hardly 
necessary) to show that contracts made by a man of sound mind 
who afterwards becomes lunatic are not invalidated by the lunacy (Z). 
It seems that an agency is determined by the principal becoming 
insane, except as to persons who deal in good faith with the agent 
in ignorance of the principal's insanity (m)." 

No intelligible reason is given for the early rule that a lunatic 
(or person who had been under temporary mental incapacity) should 
not be received **to disable his own person/^ and it has long been 
discarded. Suggestions, but only suggestions, may be found in 
various later cases to the effect that, on the contrary, a lunatic's 
acts are absolutely void. 

Present law: Contract voidable if the lunacy, &c, known to other party. 
The modem rule, however, as to the contract of a lunatic or 
drunken man who by reason of lunacy or drunkenness is not capable 
of understanding its terms or forming a rational judgment of its 
effect on his interests is that such a contract is voidable at his 
option, but only if his state is known to the other party. The de- 
fendant who sets up his own incapacity as a defence must prove not 
only that incapacity but the plaintiff^s knowledge of it at the date 
of the contract (n).^ 

{k) Oore v. Oihson (1845) 13 M. & equity, but without deciding whether 

W. 623, 14 L. J. Ex. 151. there was a contract at law: Niell 

(1) Owen V. DavieSy 1 Ves. Sr. 82. v. M or ley (1804) 9 Ves. 478. The 

(m) See Drew v. Nunn (1879) 4 rule is apparently peculiar to the 

Q. B. Biv. 661, 48 L. J. Q. B. 591. Common Law, and is impugned by a 

(n) Molton v. Camroux, in Ex. learned civilian as unjust to the 

Ch. (1848) 2 Ex. 487, 4 Ex. 17, 18 lunatic: Prof. Goudy, "Contracts by 

L. J. Ex. 68, 356; Imperial Loan Co, Lunatics," L. Q. R. xvii. 147. See 

y. Stone [1892] 1 Q. B. 599, 61 L. J. contra Mr. Rankine Wilson, " Lunacy 

Q. B. 449, C. A. The same principle in relation to Contract, Tort, and 

had long before been acted upon in Crime/' L. Q. R. xviii. 21. 

51 Dayis v. Lane, 10 N. H. 156 ; Matthiessen, etc., Co. v. McMahon's Adm'r, 
38 N. J. L. 636; Hill v. Day, 34 N. J. Eq. 150, 157. 

B2 The American law exhibits considerable conflicts on this subject. 

I. Some decisions hold that if a man is no drunk, idiotic, or insane as not to 
know what he is about his contract is absolutely void. Edwards t?. Davenport, 
4 McCrary, 34; Caulkins v. Fry, 35 Conn. 170; Reinskopf v. Rogge, 37 Ind. 
207; At well v. Jenkins, 163 Mass. 362; Burke v, Allen, 29 N. H. 106; Berkly 
r. Cannon, 4 Rich. L. 136; Hunter r. Tolbard, 47 W. Va. 258; Bursinger t?. 
Bank of Watertown, 67 Wis. 75. See alwo Chicago, Ac. Ry. r. Lewis, 109 
111. 120. 

Similarly a lunatic's power of attorney has been held absolutely void. Dex- 



LUNACY AND DRUNKENNESS. 101 

In Molton v. Camroux the action was brought by ♦admimp-^.{94 
traton to recover the money paid by the intestate to an assniaiice 
and annuity society as the price of two annuities determinable with 
bis life. The intestate was of unsound mind at the date of the^ 
purchase, but the transactions were fair and in the ordinary course' 
of business, and his insanity was not known to the society. It 
was held that the money could not be recovered; the rule being 
laid down in the Exchequer Chamber in these terms : *' The modern 
cases show that when that state of mind was unknown to the other 
contracting party, and no advantage was taken of the lunatic, the 
defence cannot prevail, especially where the contract is not merely 
executory but executed in the whole or in part, and the parties 
cannot be restored altogether to their original positions.'' 

ter r. Hall, 15 Wall. 9; Rigney v. Plaster, 88 Fed. Rep. 686, 97 Fed. Rep. 12; 
Ellas V. Enterpriae Assoc., 46 S. C. 188. Contra, Williams v. Sapieha, 94 
Tex. 430. 

Similarly . a lunatic's deed also, has been held absolutely void. German 
Saving Soc. p. Lashmutt, 67 Fed. Rep. 399; Thompson r. New England Co., 
110 Ala. 400; Dougherty v, Powe, 127 Ala. 577; Wilkins r. Wilkinson, 129 
Ala. 279; Van Deusen r. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 378; Farley t?. Parker, 6 Oreg. 106; 
Estate of Desilver, 5 Rawle, HI; Rogers v. Walker, 6 Pa. St. 371. And see 
Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. 9; Edwards v, Davenport, 4 McCrary, 34; Valpey 
V. Rea, 130 Mass. 384 ; Brigham v. Fayerweather, 144 Mass. 48. 

II. The weight of American authority, however, does not go so far. A con- 
tract made by one who is drunk or of unsound mind, so as to be incapable of 
understanding its effect, is generally held not void, but voidable at his option. 
Wright r. Waller, 127 Ala. 557; Coburn r. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484; Orr v. 
Equitable Mortgage Ck>., 107 Ga. 499; Woolley v. Gaines, 114 Ga. 122; Joest 
9. Williams, 42 Ind. 565; Musselman v. Cravens, 47 Ind. 1; Railway Co. v, 
Herr, 135 Ind. 591; Mansfield v, Watson, 2 la. Ill; Allen v, Berryhill, 27 la. 
534; Van Patten r. Reals, 46 la. 62; Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. 304; Car- 
penter V, Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384; Broadwater r. Dame, 10 Mo. 277; Ingra- 
bam r. Baldwin, 9 N. Y. 45; Bush r. Breinig, 113 Pa. 310. Or at the option 
of his administrator. Bunn r. Postell, 107 Ga. 490. The deed of a lunatic 
ia thus generally held not void but only voidable. Luhrs r. Hancock, 181 
U. S. 567, 574; Woolley t\ Gaines, 114 Ga. 122; Scanlan v. Cobb, 85 Dl. 
206; Nichol v, Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Freed r. Brown, 55 Ind. 310; Schuff v. 
Ransom, 79 Ind. 458; Boyer r. Berriman, 123 Ind. 451; Harrison f?. Otley, 101 
la. 652; Gribben v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8; Hovey v, Hobson, 53 Me. 451; Allis 
r. Billings, 6 Met. 415 ; Riley t?. Carter, 76 Md. 581 ; Arnold v, Richmond Iron 
Works, 1 Gray, 434; Gibson I7. Soper, 6 Gray, 279; Howe v. Howe, 99 Mass. 
88, 98; Rogers v. Blackwell, 49 Mich. 192 (aemble) ; Moran r. Moran, 106 
Mich. 8; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236; Elston r. Jasper, 46 Tex. 409. See 
also Hardy r. Dyas, 203 111. 211 ; Sheehan r. Allen, 67 Kan. 712. 

It was held in Coburn t?. Raymond, 76 Conn. 484, and Mckenzie t\ Donnell, 
151 Mo. 431, that in order to avoid his deed a lunatic must restore the con- 
sideration. But see contra, Hovey v, Hobson, 53 Me. 451, 453; Bates r. 
Hyman, (Miss.) 28 South. Rep. 567, and (where he was unable to do so) Gib- 
son r. Soper, 6 Gray. 279; Rea r. Bishop, 41 Neb. 202. 

III. In some jurisdictions where a person drunk or insane contracts with 
one who is ignorant of his condition, if the contract be fair and has been exe- 
cuted, or so far executed that the parties cannot be replaced in statu ono^ 
H will be treated as binding. Brodrib v, Brodrib. 56 Cal. 563; Wilder r. 
Weekly's Est, 34 Ind. 181; Fay v. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433; Copenrath v. Kienby, 



102 .•••.^ CAPACITY OF PAKTIE8. 

irbe**contezt shows that the statement was considered equally ap' 
.jplicable to lunacy and drunkenness, and the law thus stated in* 
^Ives though it does not expressly enounce the proposition that 
•J'iUe contract of a lunatic or drunken man is not void but at most 
•••Voidable. The general rules as to the rescission of a voidable con- 
tract are then applicable, and among others the rule that it must 
be rescinded, if at all, before it has been executed, so that the for- 
mer state of things cannot be restored: which is the point actually 
decided. The decision itself was fully accepted and acted on (o), 

(o) Beawin ▼. M'Donnell (1854) 9 486, 495, reyg. 8. c. 7 Ha. 394; EUiot 
Ex. 309, k3 L. J. Ex. 94; Price v. v. Ince (1857) 7 D. M. G. 475, 488, 
Berrington (1850-1) 3 Mac. k G. 26 L. J. 821. 

83 Ind. 18; Insurance Co. r. Blankenship, 94 Ind. 635, 544; Behrena r. 
McKenzie, 23 la. 333; Abbott v. Creal, 56 la. 175; Bokemper v. Hazen, 96 
la. 221; Gribben t\ Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8; Flach r. Gottachalk Oo., 88 Md. 
368; Shoulters r. Allen, 51 Mich. 529; Schaps r. Lehner, 54 Minn. 208; Mat- 
thiessen, etc., Co. v. McMahon's Adm'r, 38 N. J. L. 537 ; Young 17. Sterens, 48 
N. H. 133; Insurance Co. v. Hunt, 79 N. Y. 541; Hosier r. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 
398; Beals v. See, 10 Pa. 56; Kneedler's Appeal, 92 Pa. 428; Cooney c. 
Lincoln, 21 R. I. 246; Simms r. McClure, 8 Rich. Eq. 286. 

Ajid this principle applies to the case of a deed made by a lunatic. Ashcraft 
V. De Armond, 44 la. 229; Rusk r. Fenton, 14 Bush, 490; Yauger v. Skinner, 
14 N. J. Eq. 389 ; Riggan r. Green, 80 N. C. 236. Contra, Nichol r. Thomas, 
53 Ind. 42; Hovey v. Hobson, 53 Me. 451, 55 Me. 256, 275; Bates r. Hyman, 
(Miss.) 28 South. Rep. 5C7 ; Gilgallon r. Bishop, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 350; 
Crawford v. Scovell. 94 Pa. 48. 

The cases last cited, in which, it is submitted, the question did not fairly 
arise, are based upon Gibson r. Soper, 6 Gray, 279, wnere it was held that 
"an insane person or his guardian may bring an action to recover land of 
which a deed was made by him while insane, which deed has not since been 
ratified or affirmed, without first restoring the consideration to the grantee." 
But it does not appear in that case that the grantee was ignorant of the grant- 
or's lunacy. See on the other hand, Scanlan r. Cobb, 85 111. 296; Eaton r. 
Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108, 117, 118. In Seaver r. Phelps, H Pick. 304, an action 
of trover for a promissory note pledged to the aefendant by the plaintiff 
while insane, it was held not to be a defense " that the defendant at the time 
when he took the pledge was not apprised of the plaintiff's being insane, and 
had no reason to suspect it, and did not overreach him, nor practice any fraud 
or unfairness." But the report does not disclose the nature of the contract 
upon which the pledge was made. 

Where the consideration does not inure to the benefit of the lunatic, the 
contract has been held voidable, although fair in all respects, and executed by 
the other party in ignorance of the lunatic's condition. Insurance Co. v. 
Blankenship, 94 Ind. 535; College t\ Wilkinson, 108 Ind. 315. But see Abbott 
V, Creal, 56 la. 175; Blount t\ Spratt, 113 Mo. 48; Bank r. Sneed, 97 
Tenn. 120. 

So negotiable paper executed by a lunatic is binding in the hands of an inno- 
cent holder for value, if the lunatic received a proper consideration therefor. 
Bank i?. Moore, 78 Pa. St. 407 ; Snyder v, Laubach, (S. C. Pa.) 7 W. N. C. 464, 
9 C. L. J. 496 (contra, Hosier v. Beard, 54 Ohio St. 398), but is not binding 
if he did not; McClain r. Davis, 77 Ind. 419; Moore r. Hershey, 90 Pa. St 
196; Wirebach v. Bank, 97 Pa. 543. 

Drunkenness of the maker was held no defense to a note in the hands of a 
bona fide holder in Caulkins v. Fry, 35 Conn. 170; Miller r. Finley, 26 Mich. 
249; Bank f?. McCoy, 69 Pa. St. 204; McSparran r. Neeley, 91 Pa. St. 17. 

Insanity of the indorser at the time of the indorsement has been held to be a 



LUNACY AND DRUNKENNESS. 103 

thongh the merely voluntary acts of a lunatic, e. g,, a voluntary 
disentailing deed (a class of acts with which we are not here con- 
cerned) remain invalid (p). 

Developmeiit of the doctrine: Matthews v. Baxter. The complete ju- 
dicial interpretation of the result of Molton v. Camroux (q) was given 
in Matthews v. Baxter (r). The declaration was for breach of 
contract in not completing a purchase: plea, that at the time of 
making the alleged contract the defendant was so drunk as to be 
incapable of *tran8acting business or knowing what he was about, [95 
as the plaintiff well knew: replication, that after the defendant 
became sober and able to transact business he ratified and confirmed 
the contract As a merely void agreement cannot be ratified,**® this 
neatly raised the question whether the contract were void or only 
voidable: the Court held that it was only voidable, and the replica- 
tion therefore good." 

Imperial Loan Co. ▼. Stone. In Imperial Loan Co. v. Stone (s) a 
defendant sued on a promissory note set up the defence of insanity at 
.the time of making the note. The jury found that he was insane 
when he signed the note, and could not agree whether the plaintifEs' 
agent, then present, knew of his insanity or not. It was held that 
this could not be taken as a verdict for the defendant, but there must 
be a new trial. The Court was unanimous, and the decision may be 
taken as finally settling the law if there was still any room for doubt. 
It also shows that a distinction formerly suggested between executed 
and executory contracts is not tenable. 

The special doctrine of our Courts with regard to partnership 
(which is a continuing contract) is quite in accordance with this: 
it has long been established that the insanity of a partner doe«* not 
of itself operate as a dissolution of the partnership, but is only a 
ground for dissolution by the court.*^ 

(p) Elliot V. Ince, last note. Q. B. 449, C. A. It does not appear 
(g) Note (n) last * page. from the argument as reported how 
(r) (1873) L. R. 8 Ex. 132, 42 counsel for the defendant dealt with 
L. J. Ex. 73. Molton v. Camroux, which was bind- 
er) [1892] 1 Q. B. 599, 61 L. J. ing on the Court. 

defense to the maker of a note at the suit of the indorsee. Burke r. Allen, 29 

N. H. 106; Peaslee ©. Robbins, 3 Met. 164 (explained in Carrier v. Sears, 4 

Allen, 336) ; Hannahs r. Sheldon, 20 Mich. 278. 

63Spence p. Wilmington Cotton Mills, 116 N. C. 210. ^ ,, 

54 Oakley v, Shelley, 129 Ala. 467; Hawley t\ howell, 60 la. 79; Arnold 

r. Richmond Iron Works, 1 Gray, 434; Carpenter r. Rodgers, 61 Mich. 384. 
» Raymond v. Vaughan, 128 111. 256. But it was held in Isler f. ^^^^; *> 

Humph. 85, that an inquest of lunacy found against one partner dissoivea ine 

partnership %p»o facto. 



104 CAPACITT OF PABTIB8. 

PartiAl delmtOBi compatible with captdty for eoBttaetiac. It is to be 
noted that the ezifitence of partial delusions does not necessarily 
amount to insanity for the purposes of this rule. The judge or 
jury^ as the case may be, must in every case consider the practical 
question whether the party was incompetent to manage his own 
affairs in the matter in hand (t).^ 

96] *IV. Convicts, etc. 

Disability of coBvicts. At common law convicted felons (as also 
outlaws) could not sue, but remained liable to be sued, on contracts 
made by them during outlawry or conviction (u). Since the Act 
to abolish forfeitures for treason and felony, convicts are incapable 
of suing or making any contract, except while they are lawfully 
at large under any licence («)." 

Alien enemies. Alien enemies, as we have seen above, are dii-abled 
from suing in an English Court even if the cause of action arose 
in time of peace (y),** but not from binding themselves by contract 
during war between their country and England, nor from enforcing, 
such a contract after the war has ceased (2),^ unless meanwhile 
the right of action has been barred by the Statute of Limitation. 

{t) Jenkins y. Marria (1880) 14 {a) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, 88. 8, 30. 

Ch. Diy. 674; compare remark of ly) Le Bret y. Papillon (1804) 4 

Bramwell L.J. in Dreto y. Nunn East, 602, 7 R. R. 618. 

(1879) 4 Q. B, Diy. at p. 669, 48 {e) De Wahl y. Braune (1856) 1 

L. J. Q. B. 691. H. k N. 178. 25 L. J. Ex. 343: note 

(tt) Dicey on Parties, 4. (z), ante, p. •SS. 

66 In the absence of fraud, mere drunkenness or lack of mental capacity 
is not enough to make the transaction yoidable, unless it be so great as to 
render the person affected incapable of understanding the effect of the 
transaction. Bates r. Ball, 72 111. 108; English v. Porter, 109 111. 286; 
Harbison t\ Lemon, 3 Blackf. 51; Jenners i\ Howard, 6 Blackf. 240; Wil- 
cox t*. Jackson, 61 la. 208; Lassiter's Adm. v. Lassiter's Ex., 23 Ky. L. 
Rep. 481; Hoyey r. Hobson, 65 Me. 256; Hoyey r. Chase, 52 Me. 304; 
Johns V. Fritchey, 39 Md. 258; Famham v. Brooks, 9 Pick. 212, 220; 
Wright V. Fisher, 66 Mich. 275; Dennett r. Dennett, 44 N. H. 631; Lozear 
r. Shields, 23 N. J. Eq. 509; Eaton r. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 108, 113; 
Odell r. Buck, 21 Wend. 142; Cooney v. Lincoln, 21 R. I. 246; Wells V. 
Houston, 23 Tex. Ciy. App. 629 ; Miller v. Rutledge, 82 Va. 863. 

57 See Est. of Nerac, 35 Cal. 392. 

M Whelan v. Cook, 29 Md. 1 ; Sanderson v. Morgan, 39 N. Y. 231. 

5© Kershaw v. Kelscy, 100 Mass. 661; Brown v. Gardner, 4 Lea, 145. 



▲OSNOY. 106 



PABT 11. 



Siteiiaion of powen. We now come to the extensions by special in- 
etitntions of the ordinary power of making contracts. And first of 
agency. 

I. Aqenot. 

Analjrait of contracts by agent We have not here to do with the re- 
lations created between principal and agent by agency regarded as 
a species of contract^ but only with the manner in which rights 
and duties accrue to the principal through the dealings of the agent. 
We must also distinguish cases of real agency from those where the 
agency is apparent only, and we shall further notice, for the sake 
of completeness, the position of the true or apparent agent as regards 
third persons. 

*A person who contracts or professes to contract on behalf of a [97 
principal may be in any one of the following positions : 

1. Agent having authority (whether at the time or by subse- 
quent ratification) to bind his principal. 

(A) known to be an agent 

(a) for a principal named; 
(p) for a principal not named. 

(B) not known to be an agent (a). 

2. Holding himself out as agent, but not having authority to 
bind his principal. 

(A) where a principal is named 

(a) who might be bound, but does not in fact au- 
thorize or ratify the contract; 
(p) who in law cannot be bound. 

(B) where the alleged principal is not named. 

Authority of agent, its constitution and termination. 1. As a rule an 
agent may be appointed without any special formality; though 
an agent to execute a deed must himself be appointed by deed, 
and in certain cases the appointment is required by the Statute 
of Frauds to be in writing. Revocation of an agenfs authority 
takes place either by the principaPs actual withdrawal of his 
will to be represented by the agent (which may be known either 

(a) Since the cases of Calder v. that the true leading distinction is 

DobeU, Fleet v. Murton, and Hutch- whether the agent is known to be an 

•fisofi V. Tatham (see following agent or not, rather than whether 

notes), it may perhaps be considered the principal is named or not. 



106 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

by express declaration or by conduct manifesting the same inten- 
tion) or by his dying or ceasing to be 5111 iuris, and thus becoming 
incapable of continuing it(&). In these last cases the authority 
16 said to be revoked by the act of the law. " The termination of 
the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take 
98] effect *before it becomes known to him, or, so far as regards 
third persons, before it becomes known to them^' (c)-^ It is held 
in England, but anomalously, that this rule does not apply to revoca- 
tion by the death of the principal (d).** It does apply in the case 
of the principal becoming insane,® and it may perhaps yet be de- 
cided that in the ease of death the principal's estate is liable to the 
other party for the actual loss incurred by the principal's representa- 
tion — which, as regards him, was a continuing one at the date of 
the contract — ^that the agent was authorized (e). 

(b) On the whole subject see at 2008, 2000, and Gennan Civil Code, 
large Story on Agency, §§ 474, sqq. gg. 167 — 171; and see Kent, Comm. 

(c) I. C. A. 208, cp. Story on 2. 646. The dissolution of a corn- 
Agency, S 470 ; Trueman y. Loder pany has the same effect as the death 
(1840) 11' A. & E. 589, 52 R. R. 451. of a natural person: Saltan y. New 

(d) Blades y. Free (1829) 9 B. & Beeaton Cycle Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 43, 
C. 167, 32 R. R. 620; Smout y. Ilhery 69 L. J. Ch. 20. 

(1843) 10 M. & W. 11. Contra, {e) Drew v. Nunn (1879) 5 Q. B. 

I. C, A. s. 208 (Illust. c). Code Nap. Div: 661 ; see per Brett L.J. at p. 668. 

<» Hatch V. Coddington, 95 U. S. 48 ; Insurance Co. v. McCain, 96 U. S. 84 ; 
Johnson 1;. Christian, 128 U. S. 374; Fellows v. Steamboat Co., 38 Conn. 197; 
Diversy f. Kellogg, 44 111.114; Ulrich v. McCormick, 66 Ind. 243; Jones v, 
Hodgkins, 61 Me. 480; Packer v. Hinckley Locomotive Works, 122 Mass. 484; 
Robertson v. Cloud, 47 Miss. 208; Beard t?. Kirk, 11 N. H. 379; McNeilly t;. 
Insurance Co., 66 N. Y. 23; Barkley t?. Railroad Co., 71 N. Y. 205; Bras- 
well V. Insurance Co., 75 N. C. 8; Morgan 1;. Stell, 5 Binn. 305; Tier v. Lamp- 
son, 35 Vt. 179. 

61 Long V. Thayer, 160 U. S. 520; Ferris v, Irving, 28 Cal. 645; Travers v. 
Crane, 15 Cal. 12; Lewis v, Kerr, 17 la. 73; Harper v. Little, 2 Me. 14; 
Marlett v. Jackman, 3 Allen. 287; Clayton v. Merrett, 52 Miss. 353; 
Weber r. Bridgman, 113 N. Y. 600; Farmers' Trust Co. v. Wilson, 130 N. Y. 
284 ; Riggs r. Cage. 2 Humph. 350 ; Cleveland r. Williams, 29 Tex. 204 ; Davis 
r. Bank, 46 Vt. 728. It has been held in Alabama, however, that where an 
offer was mailed by an agent before his principal's death, a contract was made 
by acceptance of the offer after the principal's death, the death being unknown 
to the acceptor. Garrett r. Trabue, 82 Ala. 227; Davis r. Davis, 93 Ala. 
173. And more generally it has been held "that a bona fide transaction by 
an agent, not necessarily to be done in the name of the principal, as a 
deed, etc., but a matter in pais merely, done after the death of the principal, 
but in ignorance of the event, and within the scope of the agency, is neverthe- 
less, valid and binding on the representatives of the principal." Ish v. Crane, 
13 Ohio St. 574; S. C, 8 Ohio St. 520. And see Dick t?. Page, 17 Mo. 234; 
Deweese v. Muff, 57 Neb. 17; Bank r. Vanderhorst, 32 N. Y. 553; Cassiday v. 
McKenzie, 4 W. & R. 282. lah r. Crane was, however, disapproved in Mc- 
Claskey i;. Barr, 50 Fed. Rep. 712, 714. See an article by Joseph Wilby, Esq., 
19 A. L. Rej?. 401. 

ffl Matthiesseu, etc., Co. v. McMahon's Adm'r, 38 N. J. L. 536 ; Hill v. Day, 
34 N. J. Eq. 150. 157; Davis f. Lane, 10 N. H. 156; Merritt t?. Menritt, 43 
N. Y. App. Div. 68. 



CONTRACTS OP AGENTS. 107 

Batification must in every ease be within a reasonable time, and 
where a time is expressly limited within which an act must be 
done, and an unauthorized person purports to do it on behalf of the 
principal within that time, a ratification after the time has expired 
will not serve (/). 

Authority conferred by ratification relates back, as against the 
other party as well as the principal, to the date vt the act done by 
the agent {g)>^ 

I. Agent for eadsting prindpaL In all cases where there is an au- 
thorized agent dealing on behalf of a real principal, the intention 
of the parties determines whether the agent, or the principal, or 
both, are to be liable on the contract and entitled to enforce it. 
The question is to whom credit was really given (h),^ And *the [99 
general rules laid down on the subject furnish only provisional 
answers, which may be displaced (subject to the rules as to admissi- 
bility of evidence) by proof of a contrary intention. 

A .Known to be an agent: contract with principal ab initio. When the 
■ agent is known to be an agent, a contract is made, and knowingly 
made, by the other party with the principal, on which the principal 
is the proper person to sue and be sued.®^ 

a. Principal named: agent prima facie does not contract in person. And 
when the principal is named at the time, then there is prima facie 
no contract with the agent: but when the principal is not named, 
then prima facie the agent, though known to be an agent, does 
bind himself personally, the other party not being presumed to give 
credit exclusively to an unknown principal (t).^ 

if) Dihhina v. D%bhin8 [1896] 2 by an undisclosed principal, see p. 

Ch. 348, 65 L. J. Ch. 724. •103, below. 

ig) Bolton Partners v. Lambert (h) Story on Agency, §§ 279 sqq. 

(1889) 41 Ch. Div. 295, 58 L. J. Ch. 288. Thomson v. Davenport (1829) 

425 (see, however, the note on this 9 B. & C. 78, 32 R. R. 678; Calder v. 

case in Fry on Specific Performance, Dohell (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 486, 40 

3rd ed.) ; McClintock v. 8, Penn, Oil L. J. C. P. 224. 

Co. [1892] 28 Am. St. Rep. 785; l^e (») But one who deals with an 

Tiedemann [1899] 2 Q. B. 66, 68 agent known to he such cannot set 

li. J. Q. B. 852. As to ratification off against the principaFs claim a 

63 Gregg 17. Wooliscroft, 52 111. App. 214; Baldwin 17. Schiappacasse, 100 
Mich. 170; Dodge r, Hopkins, 14 Wis. 630; Atlee r. Bartholomew, 69 Wis. 
43, are contrary to the English decision. See the discussion of the question 
by Prof. Wamhaugh, in 9 H. L. Rev. 60. 

•4 Usher i?. Waddingham, 62 Conn. 412; Guest v, Burlington Co., 74 la. 457. 

65 Anderson p. Timberlake, 114 Ala. 377. 

^ Where one citizen of Massachusetts sold goods in that State to another, but 
ftt the same time disclosed to the purchaser the fact that the goods belonged 
to a citizen of another State, without, however, disclosing the name of the 



108 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

p. PxindpAl not named: agent prima fade doea contract in peraon. But 
when the agent would not prima fade be a oontracting party in 
person he may become so in various ways. Thus he is personally 
liable if he expressly undertakes to be so (i;) :^ such an undertak- 
ing may be inferred from the general construction of a contract 
in writings and is always inferred when the agent contracts in his 
own name without qualification (0>^ though the principal is not 
the less also liable^ whether named at the time or not (m)^^ or if 

debt due to him from the agent. 361. But see contra Bank v, Qer- 

[Moline Iron Co. v, York Iron Co., man Ins. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 473; 

83 Fed. Rep. 66; Miller t? Lea, 36 Pearce v. Smith, 126 Ala. 116. See 

Md. 396; McLachlin v. Brett, 105 also Trentor t\ Pothen, 46 Minn. 298 ; 

N. Y. 391; Parker v. Donaldson, 2 Haines v. Starkey, 82 Minn. 230; 

W. & S. 9; Evans v. Wain, 71 Pa. St. Slattery r. Schwannecke, 118 N. Y. 

69.] If he has employed an agent on 543; Bank v. Pierce, 6 Wash. 491; 

his own part, tha. agent's knowledge Story on Agency, S 140; Mechem on 

is for this purpose treated as the Agency, | 721; Wade on Notice, || 

employer's own; and this even though 667, 688]. 

the knowledge was not acquired in {k) Story on Agency, f ^^^i 

the course of the particular employ- Smith, Merc. Law, 158. 
ment: Dresser v. Norwood (1863) {I) See Fairlie v. Fenton (1870) 

Ex. Ch., 17 C. B. N. S. 466, 34 L. J. L. R. 5 Ex. 169, 39 L. J. Ex. 107; 

C. P. 48, revg. s. c. 14 C. B. N. S. Paioe v. Walker (1870) L. R. 6 Ex. 

574, 32 L. J. C. P. 201. Contra I. 173, 39 L. J. Ex. 109. The latter 

C. A. s. 229. Qu, by design or acci- case, however, goes too far; see note 

dent? [The view of the Ex. Ch. as (a), p. *101. 

to notice was approved and adopted (m) Higgins v. Senior (1841) 8 

in The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. M. & W. 834: the law there laid 

366; Bank v. Chase, 72 Me. 226; down goes to superadd the liability 

Bank v, Hollenbeck, 29 Me. 322; of the agent, not to take away that 

Brown v. Cranberry Co., 72 Fed. Rep. of the principal: Calder v. Dohell 

96; Westerman v, Evans, 1 Kan. (1871) L. R. 6 C. P. 486, 40 L. J. 

App. 1; Hart v. Bank, 33 Vt. 252, C. P. 224. 
270 ; Shaf er v. Insurance Co., 53 Wis. 

owner, a subsequent discharge of the purchaser under the insolvent laws of 
Massachusetts was held to be no bar to an action by the owner for the price 
of the goods. Ilsley v. Merriam, 7 Cush. 242. 

«7 Wilder t?. Cowles, 100 Mass. 487, 491. 

«8Nash t;. To\^Tie, 5 Wall. 689; White v. Boyce, 21 Fed. Rep. 228; Bryan 
r. Brazil, 52 la. 350: Simonds v. Heard, 23 Pick. 120; Porter v. Merrill, 138 
Mo. 555; Chandler v. Coe, 54 N. H. 561; Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wend. 431; Babbett 
r. Young, 51 N. Y. 238; Jarvis t?. Schaefer, 105 N. Y. 289; Bulwinkle v, 
Cramer, 27 S. C. 376; Cream City Co. v. Friedlander, 84 Wis. 53. When a 
broker received orders from various principals and lumped them in a single 
contract with the plaintiff the latter was held not entitled to sue the various 
principals. Beckhuson t\ Hamblet, [1900] 2 Q. B. 18. The converse also is 
true. Roosevelt t\ Doherty, 129 Mass. 301. 

69 Story on A^ncy, § 160a.: Anderson r. Beard, [1900] 2 Q. B, 260; Dar- 
row t?. H. R. Home Co.. 57 Fed. Rep. 463; Moore t?. Sun Printing Co., 101 
Fed. Rep. 591, affd., 183 U. S. 642; Butler r. Kaulback. 8 Kan. 668; Bank 
r. Stein, 24 Md. 447; Byin^ton r. Simpson, 134 Mass. 169; Smith r. Felter, 
63 N. J. L. 30; Dykers r. Townaend, 24 N. Y. 57; Nicoll t?. Burke, 78 N. Y. 
581 ; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62, 78; Turner v, Lucas, 13 Gratt, 705, 716; 
Stowell r. Eldred, 39 Wis. 614. CHiandler i\ Coe, 54 N. H. 561, holds other- 
wise in case the principal is named. 



CONTRACTS OF AGENTS. 109 

he himself has an interest in the subject-matter of *the contract, [100 
as in the case of an auctioneer (n) J® And when the agent is deal- 
ing in goods for a merchant resident abroad, it is held on the ground 
of mercantile usage and convenience that without evidence of ex- 
press authority to that effect the commission agent cannot pledge 
his foreign constituent's credit, and therefore contracts in per- 
son (o).'" 

Technical role as to deed of agent When a deed is executed by an 
agent as such but purports to be the deed of the agent and not of 
the principal, then the principal cannot sue or be sued upon it at 
Jaw, by reason of the technical rule that those persons only can 
sue or be sued upon an indenture who are named or described in it 
as parties (p)-''^ And it is also held that a party who takes a deed 

(fi) 2 Sm. L. C. 399. As to an v. Bulloch (1873) L. R. 8 Q. B. 331, 

auctioneer's personal liability for affirmed in Ex. Ch. L. R. 9 Q. B. 

non-delivery to a purchaser of goods 572, that he cannot be sued: New 

bought at the auction, Woolfe v. Zealand Land Co. v. Watson (1881) 

Home (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 355, 46 7 Q. B. D. 374, 60 L. J. Q. B. 433. 

L. J. Q. B. 534; Neto Zealand Land In Maspons y Hermano v. Mildred 

Co. V. Wataon (1881) 7 Q. B. Ddv. (188») 9 Q. B. Div. 530, 53 L. J. Q. 

374, 50 L. J. Q. B. 433. [Shell t;. B. 33, the Court of Appeal refused to 

Stephens, 50 Ho. 375 ; Mills v. Hunt, extend this doctrine to a case where 

20 Wend. 431 ; and see Bush v. Cole, the commission agent as well as the 

28 N. Y. 261 (sale of real estate)]. principal was foreign; the decision 

(o) ArtMtrong v. Stokes (1872) was affirmed in H. L., 8 App. Ca. 

L. R. 7. Q. B. 598, 605, Ace. Elhinger 874, but this point not discussed. 
Aetiet^Oesellschaft v. Claye (1873) (p) Lord Southampton v. Brown 

li. R. 8 Q. B. 313, 41 L. J. Q. B. (1827) 6 B. & C. 718. 30 R. R. 511; 

253 (affirmed on another point, L. Beckham v. D^rake (1841) 9 M. & W. 

R. 9 Q. B. 473, 43 L. J. Q. B. 211), at p. 95, affirmed sub nom. Drake v. 

showing that the foreign principal Beckham, 11 ih. 315, 12 L. J. Ex. 

eannot sue on the contract: Button 486. 

TOBeller r. Block, 19 Ark. 566; Flannegan v, Crull, 53 111. 352; Seemuller 
r. Fuchs, 64 Md. 217; Tyler r. Freeman, 3 Cush. 261; Hulse r. Young, 16 
Johns. 1; Minturn r. Main, 7 N. Y. 220. 

"An auctioneer employed to sell real estate on terms which contemplate the 
payment of a deposit into his hands by the buyer at the time of the auction, 
and before the completion of the sale by the delivery of the deed, may sue for 
such deposit in his own name whenever an action for it, separate from the 
other purchase-money, may become needful." Thompson r. Kelly, 101 Mass. 
291; Johnson v. Buck, 35 'X. J. L. 338. 

71 The rule is not recognized as absolute in this country ; that the principal 
is resident in a foreign country is only one circumstance enterinjor into the 
controlling question, " to whom was credit in fact given ? " It is doubtful if 
the different States of the Union can be considered as foreign to each other 
within the operation of the rule. Oelricks r. Ford, 23 How. 49: Borwind f. 
Schultz, 25 Fed. Rep. 912; Vawter r. Baker, 23 Ind. 63: Newcastle MTg Co. 
V. Railroad Co., (La.) 1 Rob. 145; Rogers r. March, 33 Me. 106; Brnv r. Ket- 
tell, 1 Allen, 80; Barry r. Page. 10 Gray, 398: McKenzie r. Nevins, 22 Mo. 138; 
Kirkpatrick v. Stainer, 22 Wend. 244; Tnintor r. Prendergast, 3 Hill, 72; 
Merrick's Est.. 5 W. A S. 9. See 13 Am. L. Rev. 663. 

T2 Badger Mining Co. r. Drake, 88 Fed. Rep. 48; Hall v. Cockrell, 28 Ala. 
507; Farmington r. Hobert, 74 Me. 416; Huntington v. Knox, 7 Cush. 371, 



110 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

Tinder seal from an agent in the agent's own name elects to charge 
the agent alone (g).'"* A similar rule has been supposed to exist 
as to negotiable instruments: but modem decisions seem to show 
that when an agent is in a position to accept bills so as to bind his 
principal, the principal is liable though the agent signs not in the 
principal's name but in his own, or, it would appear, in any other 
name. It is the same as if the principal had signed a wrong name 
with his own hand (r).''* 

iq) PickeHng'8 claim (1871) L. R. C. B. 583, 17 L. J. C. P. 123. Cp. 
6 Cn. 525. Edmunds v. BusheU (1865) L. R. 1 

(r) Lindus y. Bradwell (1848) 5 Q. B. 97, 35 L. J. Q. B. 20. 

374; New England Co. t?. Rockport Co., 149 Mass. 381; Tobin r. Central Vt. 
Ry. Co., 185 Mass. 337, 339; Ferris v. Snow, 124 Mich. 659; 130 Mich. 254; 
Mahoncy t\ McLean, 26 Minn. 415; Borcherling r. Katz, 37 N. J. £q. 150; 
Briggs i\ Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357; Tuthill v. Wilson, 90 N. Y. 423; Henricus 
17. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488; Steele r. McElroy, 1 Sneed, 341; Story on Agency, 
I 160; cp. Stowell r. Eldred, 39 Wis. 614; Moore c. Granby Mining, etc., Co., 
80 Mo. 86. 

T8 Cp. Wharton on Agency, | 283. 

74 See May v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 161; Bank r. Joy, 41 Me. 568; cp. Minard 
V. Mead, 7 Wend. 68. 

In this country the rule is general that the legal liability of an unnamed 
principal to be sued on a negotiable instrument cannot be shown by oral evi- 
dence. Cragin v, Lovell, 109 U. g. 194; Fuller u. Hooper, 3 Gray, 334, 341; 
Williams v. Bobbins, 16 Gray, 77; Brown r. Parker, 7 Allen, 337; Sparks v. 
Despatch Transfer Co., 104 Mo. 531; Chandler v. Coe, 54 N. H. 561; Pentz 
r. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271; Anderton v. Shoup, 17 Ohio St. 125; Bank t?. 
Cook, 38 Ohio St. 442. This rule, however, does not apply to warehouse 
receipts made negotiable by statute. Anderson f7. Portland Mills, 37 Oreg. 483. 

Though not liable on the instrument, the principal may be liable for the 
value of the consideration where that inures to his benefit. Pope r. Meadow 
Spring Distilling Co., 20 Fed. Rep. 35; Allen r. Colt, 6 Hill, 318; Pentz v, 
Stanton, 10 Wend. 271; Kayton v, Barnett, 116 N. Y. 625; Harper v. Bank, 
54 Ohio St. 425. 

A person may become a party to a negotiable instrument by any nlark or 
designation he chooses to adopt as a substitute for his name ; Brown v. Bank, 6 
Hill, 443; DeWitt r. Walton, 9 N. Y. 571; hence when a bill or note is 
signed with a name under which the defendant has chosen to do business, 
that may be shown to make him liable. Pease v. Pease, 36 Conn. 131; Sal- 
mon r. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47; Chemical Bank r. City Bank, 156 111. 149; 
Melledge r. Boston Iron Co., 5 Cush. 158; Fuller r. Hooper, 3 Gray, 334; 
Chandler r. Coe, 54 N. H. 561; Bank r. Monteath, 1 Den. 402; Froehlich u. 
Froehlich Trading Co., 120 N. C. 39; Abbott v. McKinley, 2 Miles, 220; 
Devendorf r. W. Va. Oil, etc., Co., 17 W. Va. 135. 

WHiere this is also the name of the agent who signs the note *' it requires 
very clear and cogent proof to show that it was not designed to be his con- 
tract." Williams r. Bobbins, 16 Grav, 77, 82. And 'see Pease v. Pease, 35 
Conn. 131, 148; Devendorf v. W. Va. OU, etc., Co., 17 W. Va. 1.35. 

And in Heffron r. Pollard, 73 Tex. 96, it was held not permissible to show 
by parol evidence that a contract signed by an agent in his principal's name 
per himself as agent, was meant to bind the agent and that he used the 
prinoipaPs name as his own business name. 

Where a partnership business is carried on in the individual name of a 
member of the firm, the authorities differ as to the presumption which arises 
in the case of a note executed in the name of such member, with reference to 
its being a partnership or individual obligation. The decided weight of 



OOKTRACTS OF AGENTS. Ill 

Sridence of contrary intentioiL Again, an agent who would other- 
wise be liable on tiie ♦contract made by him may exempt him- [101 
self from liability by contracting in such a form as makes it ap- 
pear on the face of the contract that he is contracting as agent only 
and not for himself as principal (s) : but even then he may be treated 
as a contracting party and personally bound as well as his principal 
by the custom of the particular trade in which he is dealing (0- 
Or he may limit his ability by special stipulations, e.g. when a char- 
ter-party is executed by an agent for an unnamed freighter, and 
the agent's signature is unqualified, but the charter-party contains 
a clause providing that the agent^s responsibility shall cease as soon 
as the cargo is shipped (u). 

(#) Words in the body of a docu- not quite overruled: see Hough y. 

meot which amount to a personal ManzanoB (1879) 4 Ex. D. 104, 48 

contract by the agent are not de- L. J. Ex. 398. 

prived of their effect by a qualified {t) Humfrey v. Dale (1857) 7 E. 

signature: Lewnard v. Robinson, & B. 266, E. B. & E^ 1004, 26 L. J. 

(1855) 5 E. ft B. 126, 24 L. J. Q. B. Q. B. 137; Fleet v. Murton (1871) 

275; Hutohe9on v. Eaton (1834) 13 L. R. 7 Q. B. 126, 129, 41 L. J. Q. 

Q. B. Div. 861, see per Brett M. R. B. 49; Hutchinson v. Tatham (1873) 

at p. 865; [Metcalf r. Williams, 104 L. R. 8 C. P. 482, 42 L. J. C. P. 260; 

U. S. 93, 98]; and the description of Pike v. Ongley (1887) 18 Q. B. Div. 

him as agent in the body of the docu- 708, 56 L. J. Q. B. 373. On the gen- 

ment may under special circum- eral question of the construction of 

stances not be enough to make him contracts made by brokers for their 

safe: Paice v. Walker (1870) L. R. principals, see Southwell v. Bovoditch 

5 Ex. 173, 39 L. J. Ex. 109: see the (1876) 1 C. P. Div. 374, 45 L. J. 

remarks on that case in Oadd v. C. P. 374, 630. 

Houghton (1876) 1 Ex. Div. 357, (u) Ogleshy v. TgUsiae (1858) E. 

46 L. J. Ex. 71, which decides that B. ft E. 930. 27 L. J. Q. B. 356; Carr 

a contract "on account of" a named v. Jackeon (1852) 7 Ex. 382, 21 L. 

principal conclusively discharges the J. Ex. 137. 
agent. Paice v. Walker is nearly but 

authority is, that these facts alone appearing are insufficient to establish the 
liability of the partnership. Yorkshire Banking Co. r. Beaston, 6 C. P. D. 
109; United States r. Binney, 5 Mason, 176; Buckner v, Lee, 8 Ga. 285; 
Bank r. Winship, 5 Pick. 11; Germon v, Hoyt, 90 N. Y. 631; Oliphant r. 
Mathews, 16 Barb. 608; Bank v. Ingraham, 58 Barb. 290; Bank v. Monteath, 
1 Den. 402; Miflin r. Smith, 17 S. ft R. 165. 

In Fosdick r. Van Horn, 40 Ohio St. 459, it was decided that "if there 
are two firms of the same name in the same community, each consisting of 
the same persons, but each engaged in different kinds of business, one of which 
contains a dormant partner and the other does not, and suit is brought on a 
promissory note for borrowed money bearing the signature of the common 
firm name, the presumption is that it is the note of the firm not containing 
the dormant partner. The plaintiff, to recover against the dormant partner, 
must prove either that the money for which the note was given was borrowed 
on the credit of the firm in which the dormant partner was interested, or that, 
when obtained, it was used in the business, or for the benefit of that firm; 
and the fact that the money was borrowed on the credit of that firm may be 
proved by representations to that effect made by the ostensible partners at 
the time of the transaction, or it may be proved by c«rcumstanoo<»." See also 
Baker v. Nappier, 19 Ga. 520; Bank v. Hibbard,'48 Mich. 452; Gushing v. 
Smith, 43 Tex. 261. 



112 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

It Ib alfio a rule that an agent for a govemment is not personally 
a party to a contract made by him on behalf of that government 
by reason merely of having made the contract in his own name (x).^ 
In some cases the agent> though prima facie not a party to the con- 
tract as agent, can yet sue or be sued as principal on a contract which 
he has made as agent. These will be mentioned under another head 
of this subject (y). 

102] *WTiere an undertaking is given in general terms, no promisee 
being named, to a person who obviously cannot be a principal in the 
matter, it may be inferred as a fact from the circumstances that some 
other person interested is the real unnamed principal, and that person 
may recover on the contract {z). 

6. Agent not known to be an agent When a party contracts with an 
agent whom he does not know to be an agent, the undisclosed principal 
is generally bound by the contract and entitled to enforce it, as well 
as the agent with whom the contract is made in the first instance (a) J* 

(op) Macheath v. Haldimand (a) The rule is not excluded by 

<1786) 1 T. R. 172, cp. tb. 674, 1 the contract being in writing (not 

R. R. 177 1'Gidlei/ v. Lord Palmeraton under seal) and signed by the agent 

(1822) 3 Brod. & B. 275, 24 R. R. in his own name: Beckham v. Drake 

668; Story on Agency, § 302, sqq. (1841) 9 M. & V7. at p. 01. See p. 

(y) Infra, pp. •109— •111. •lOO, supra. 

iz) Weidner v. Hoggett (1876) 1 
C. P. D. 533. 

75 Parks V. Ross, 11 How. 362; Sheets t?. Selden, 2 Wall. 177; Belknap v. 
Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 17; Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cr. 345; Murray r. Carrothers, 
1 Met. (Ey.) 71; De Bebian v, Gola, 64 Md. 262; Brown t?. Austin, 1 Mass. 
208; Dawes v, Jackson, 9 Mass. 490; Ghent t\ Adams, 2 Kelly, 214; Copes t;. 
Matthews, 10 S. & M. 398; Tutt f. Hobbs, 17 Mo. 486; Knight t\ Clark, 
48 N. J. L. 22; Osborne f. Kerr, 12 Wend. 179; Walker t?. Swartwout, 12 
Johns. 444; Hamarskold v. Bull, 11 Rich. L. 493; Enloe v. Hall, 1 Humph. 
303; Walker t\ Christian, 21 Gratt. 291. Where he is not personally bound 
he cannot sue upon the contract. Bainbridge v. Downie, 6 Mass. 253. Nor 
is he subject to the rule that an agent yrar rants his authority. Dunn v. 
McDonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 401, 555, post, p. ^109. 

TO Ford r. Williams, 21 How. 287 ; Darrow r. H. R. Home Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 
463; Buchanan v, Cleveland Oil Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 88; Bell v, Reynolds, 78 
Ala. 511; McFadden f. Henderson, 128 Ala. 221; Ruiz v, Norton, 4 Cal. 355; 
Sullivan v. Shailor, 70 Conn. 733; Woodruff r. McGehee, 30 Ga. 158; Nutt 
17. Humphreys, 32 Kan. 100; Edwards r. Gildermeister, 61 Kan. 141; Gushing 
V. Rice, 46 'Me. 303; Balto. Coal Tar & Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 61 Md. 288; 
Lerned v. Johns, 9 Allen, 419; Foster t?. Graham, 166 Mass. 202; Chandler 
r. Coe, 54 N. H. 561; Bryant r. Wells, 56 N. H. 152: Smith v. Felter. 63 N. J. 
L. 30; Briggs v. Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357, 362; Coleman v. Bank, 53 N. Y. 388; 
Ludwig V. Gillespie, 105 N. Y. 653; Milliken r. W. U. Telegraph Co., 110 N. Y. 
403, 410; Brady v. Nally, 151 N. Y. 258; Thayer v. Luce, 22 Ohio St. 62, 78; 
Hubbert v. Borden, 6 Whart. 79; Hubbard v. fenbrook, 124 Pa. 291; Edwards 
V. Gelding, 20 Vt. 30; Bank v. Nolting, 94 Va. 263; Deitz v. Insurance Co., 31 
W. Va. 851; Stowell v. Eldred, 39 Wis. 614. 

Even though the contract stipulates that it shall not be assignable without 
the co-contractor's consent. Prichard v. Budd, 76 Fed. Rep. 710. 



CONTRACTS OF AGENTS. 113 

C<mtraet with the undiadoaed principAL It has been held that an un- 
disclosed principal is as much liable as a known one for contracts 
made by the agent within the general apparent authority of agents 
in that business (b),''^ 

Bzceptioiis. But the limitations of this rule are important. In the 
first place, it does not apply where an agent for an undisclosed prin- 
cipal contracts in such terms as import that he is the real and only 
principal* There the principal cannot afterwards sue on the con- 
tract (c).'^ Much less, of course, could he do so if the nature of 
the contract itsef (for instance, partnership) were inconsistent with 
a principal unknown at the time taking the place of the apparent 
contracting party. Likewise, "if the principal represents the ageht 
as principal he is bound by that representation. So if he stands by 
and allows a third person innocently to treat with the agent as prin- 
cipal he cannot afterwards turn round and sue him in his own 
name'* (d). 

It was long undecided whether an agent for an undis*clo8ed [103 
principal must have authority at the time, or a man might adopt 
as principal an act not purporting at the time to be done on behalf 
of any principal, and not then authorized by him. A majority of 
the Court of Appeal held in a late case that such ratification was 
possible, but this was reversed by the House of Lords as contrary 
to such authority as there was (with one obscure exception) and to 
the general reluctance of the Common Law to give effect to alleged 
intentions which were not disclosed or recorded at the time when, 
if at all, they were material (e). 

(ft) Watteau v. Fenimck [1893] 1 {e) Durant v. Roberta d Co, 

Q. B. 346; »ed qu., see L. Q. R. ix. [1900] 1 Q. B. 629, 69 L. J. Q. B. 

111. 382, diss. A. L. Smith L. J., revd. 

(c) Humble v. Hunter (1848) 12 nom. Keighley, Mawsted d Co, v. 

Q. B. 310, 17 L. J. Q. B. 350. Ihirant [1901] A. C. 240, 70 L, J. 

{d) Ferrand v. Bischoffaheim K. B. 662. 
(1858) 4 C. B. N. 8. 710, 716, 27 L. 
J. C. P. 302. 

77 Cp. Miles r. Mcllwraith, 8 App. Gas. 120. 

7S Winchester o, Howard, 97 Mass. 303; Hamer r. Fisher, 58 Pa. 453. 

The rule does not apply to a contract which by reason of its personal char- 
acter would not be assignable. King v, Batterson, 13 R. I. 117. But the 
principal may be sued on principles of quasi-contract for any benefit he has 
received, even though in the course of the negotiation the plaintiff expressly 
declared that he would not sell to the defendant, and the agent assured him 
he was buying for himself. Kayton v, Bamett, 116 N. Y. 625; cp. Rodliff v. 
Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1. 

Conversely if the plaintiff represents himself as a mere agent he cannot 
sue as principal. Fox v. Tabel, 66 Conn. 397. 



114 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

LimiUtioiM of the rale when it applies. Again, in the cases to which 
the rule does apply, the rights of both the undisclosed principal and 
the other contracting party are qualified as follows: 

Biahta of principaL The principal '^ must take the contract subject 
to all equities in the same way as if the agent were the sole prin- 
cipal^^ (/). Accordingly if the principal sues on the contract the 
other party may avail himself of any defence which would have been 
good against the agent (g):''^ thus a purchaser of goods through a 
factor may set off a claim against the factor in an action by the 
factor's principal for the price of the goods (h).^ "Where a con- 

if) Story on Agency, § 420; per {h) George v. Clageti (1797) 7 

Parke B. Beckham v. Drake, (1841) T. R. 369, 4 R. R. 462; Sims v. Bond 

9 M. & W. at p. 98. P. 100, aujn-a. (1833) 5 B. & AcL 389, 393, 39 R. R. 

ig) If the agent sues in his own 511, 515. Per Cur., leherg v. Bow- 

name the other party cannot set off den, 8 Ex. at p. 859. It does not 

a debt due from the principal whom matter whether the factor is or is 

he has in the meantime discovered, not actually authorized by his prin- 

there being no mutual debt within cipal to sell in his own name without 

the statute of set-off; laherg v. Bou>- disclosing the agency: Ev parte 

den (1853) 8 Ex. 852, 22 L. J. Ex. Dixon (1876) 4 Ch. Div. 133, 46 L. 

322. Under the Judicature Acts, J. Bk. 20 ; nor what restrictions may, 

however, he can make the principal as between himself and the principal, 

a party to the action by counter- be imposed on him as to the price 

claim and have the whole matter he is to sell at: Stevens v. BUler 

disposed of. (1883) 26 Ch. Div. 31. 

f^lt the agent sues in his own name, any defense good against the prin- 
cipal is available against the agent. Holden r. Rutland R. R., 73 Vt. 317. 
But if the agent is sued on the contract he cannot by way of set-off avail 
himself of a debt due to his ^principal by the plaintiff. Forney v, Shipp, 4 
Jones L. 527. 

80 " Where a principal permits an agent to sell as apparent principal, and 
afterwards intervenes, the buyer is entitled to be placed in the same situ- 
ation at the time of the disclosure of the real principal as if the agent had 
been the real contracting party, and is entitled to the same defense, whether 
it be by common law or by statute, payment, or set-off, as he was entitled 
to at the time against the agent — the apparent principal." Miller v. Lea, 
35 Md. 396 ; Gardner v. Allen's £xr., 6 Ala. 187 ; Huntsville v. Huntsville Gas 
Light Co., 70 Ala. 190; Rosser v, Darden, 82 Ga. 219; Allison v, Sutlive, 90 
Ga. 151; Koch r. Willi, (»r. 111. 147; Eclipse Windmill Co. r. Thornton, 46 
la. 181; Traub v. Milliken, 57 Me. 63; Huntington v. Knox, 7 Cush. 371; 
Barry v. Page, 10 Gray, 398; Hogan r. Shorb, 24 Wend. 458; Parker c. 
Donaldson, 2 W. & S. 9 ; Frame v. Coal Co., 97 Pa. 309 ; Bulfield v. National 
Supply Co., 189 Pa. 189. 

But this does not apply to a purchase from a mere broker, who has not the 
possession or is not intrusted with the indicia of property in the goods. 
Bemshouse v, Abbott, 45 N. J. L. 631. 

Of course it does not apply if the seller was known to be an agent. Mas- 
pons V. Mildred, 9 Q. B. D. 530, 544; Parker i\ Donaldson, 2 W. & S. 9; 
Admr. of Conyers r. Magrath, 4 McCord, 392. 

Nor where after an executory contract to sell the agent before delivery under 
the contract advises the purchaser that the property belongs to a third person 
for whom the seller is acting as agent. McLachlin' r. Brett, 105 N. Y. 391. 

And it seems that the same result follows where, without actual knowledge 



CONTRACTS OP AGENTS. 115 

tract is made by an agent for an undiscloeed principal, the principal 
may enforce performance of it, subject to this qualification, *that [ 1 04 
the person who deals with the agent shall be put in the same 
position as if he had been dealing with the real principal, and con- 
sequently he is to have the same right of setoff which he would have 
against the agent'' (0*^^ ^^^ ^^ claim to be allowed such setoff 
is not effectually met by the reply that when he dealt with the agent 
he had the means of knowing that he was only An agent The ex- 
istence of means of knowledge is not material except as evidence of 
actual knowledge (Jc).^ On the other hand this equity against an 
undisclosed principal depends (so the House of Lords has held) on 
the third person's actual belief that he was dealing with a principal 
in that particular transaction. Mere absence of knowledge or belief 
whether the agent is dealing as an agent or on his own account is not 
enough (/) . 

Sishta of the other party. It has been said that conversely the right 
of the other contracting party to hold the principal liable is subject 
to the qualification that the state of the account between the prin- 
cipal and the agent must not be altered to the prejudice of the 
principal. But this doctrine has been disapproved by the Court of 
Appeal as going too far. The principal is discharged as against 
the other party by payment to his own agent only if that party 
has by his conduct led the principal to believe that he has settled 
with the agent, or, perhaps, if the principal has in good faith paid 
the agent at a time when the other party still gave credit to the 
agent alone, and would naturally, from some peculiar character of 
the business or otherwise, be supposed by the principal to do 
BO (m).® ♦Again, the other party may choose to give credit to [105 

(♦) Per Willes J. Dresser v. Nor- ' (fc) Borriea v. Imperial Ottoman 

toood (1S63) 14 C. B. N. S. 574, 589, Bank (1873.) L. R. 9 C. P. 38, 43 

32 L. J. C. P. 201, 205. The re- L. J. C. P. 3. 

versal of this case in the Ex. Ch. (1) Cooke v. Eahelhy (1887) 12 

17 C. B. N. S. 466. 34 L. J. C. P. 48, App. Ca. 271, 66 L. J. Q. B. 505. 

does not affect this statement of the It is useless to criticize the decision 

general law. The principle is not in England : but see L. Q. R. iii. 358. 
eonfined to the sale of goods, e.g. (m) Irvine v. Watson (1880) 5 Q. 

Montagu v. Fonvood [1893] 2 Q. B. B. Div. 414« 49 L. J. Q. B. 531, which 

360, C. A. seems on this point to reduce the 

of the agency, the circumstances are such as fairly to put the purchaser on 
inquiry. Miller v. Lea, 35 Md. 396; Baxter v, Sherman, 73 Minn. 434; Wright 
r. Cabot, 89 N. Y. 570, 574; cp. Elwell r. Mersick, 50 Conn. 272. 

81 Ruiz r. Norton, 4 Cal. 355; Peel r. Shepherd, 58 Ga. 365; Woodruff v, 
McGchee, 30 Gn. 158; Btilto. Coal Tar & Mfg. Co. v. Fletcher, 61 Md. 288; 
Bank r. Plimpton, 17 Pick. 159; Miller's Ex. r. Sullivan, 39 Ohio St. 79. 

88 But see supra, note 80 ad fin. 

n Fradley v, Hyland, 37 Fed. Rep. 49 ; Thomas r. Atkinson, 38 Ind. 248. 



116 CAPACITY OF PABTIB8. 

the agent exclusiyely after diflcovering the principal, and in that 
case he cannot afterwards hold the principal liable; and statements 
or conduct of the party which lead the principal to believe that 
the agent only will be held liable, and on the faith of which the 
principal acts, will have the same result (n).®* And though the 
party may elect to sne the principal, yet he mnst make such election 
within a reasonable time after discovering him (o). When it is 
said that he has a right of election, this means that he may sue either 
the principal or the agent, or may conmience proceedings against 
both, but may only sue one of them to judgment; and a judgment 
obtained against one, though unsatisfied, is a bar to an action against 
the other. Such is the rule as to principal and agent in general,* 
and there is no exception in the case of a shipowner and freighter, (p). 
The mere commencement of proceedings against the agent or his 
estate after the principal is discovered, although it may possibly 
be evidence of an election to charge the agent only, does not amount 
to an election in point of law (g).®* 

Professed agent not having authority. 2. We have now to point out 
the results which follow when a man professes to make a contract 
as agent, but is in truth not an agent, that is, has no responsible 
principal. 

106] We may put out of consideration all cases in which the ♦pro- 
fessed agent is on the face of the contract personally bound as well 

authority of Armstrong v. Btokea don v, Whitlock, 1 Cow. 290; Rath- 

(1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 508, 41 L. J. bone v. Tucker, 15 Wend. 498; Davis 

Q. B. Div. 414, 49 L. J. Q. B. 531, r. Allen, 3 N. Y. 168; q>. Fitter V. 

peculiar facts. Commonwealth, 31 Pa. St. 406.] 

(n) Story on Agency, ^^ 279, (o) Smethurat v. MitcheU (1859) 

288, 291 ; Uorsfall V. FoAintleroy 1 E. & E. 622. 28 L. J. Q. B. 241. 
(1830) 10 B. & C. 755; but the prin- (p) Priestley v. Femie (1865) 3 

eipal is not discharged unless he has H. & C. 977, 983, 34 L. J. Ex. 173 ; 

actually dealt with the agent on the cp. L. R. 6 C. F. 499. 
faith of the other party's conduct so {q) Curtis v. Williamson (1874) 

as to change his position: Wyatt v. L. R. 10 Q. B. 57, 44 L. J. Q. B. 27. 
Hertford (1802) 3 East, 147. [Mul- 

84 Berwind v, Schultz, 25 Fed. Rep. 912 ; Hyde t?. Wolff, 4 La. 234 ; Brown 
r. Telegraph Co., 30 Md. 39; French v. Price, 24 Pick. 13; Paige 17. Stone, 10 
Met. 160; Cheever t?. Smith, 16 Johns. 276. 

SBKingsley r. Davis, 104 Mass. 178; Jones v. Insurance Co., 14 Conn. 601; 
Tuthill t?. Wilson, 90 N. Y. 423. 

But it has been held, and there is much reason for the position, that where 
a contract is made with one who does not disclose his agency, an unsatisfied 
judgment obtained against him is not a bar to an action against the principal. 
Beymer r. Bonsall, 79 Pa. ?98 ; Brown v, Reiman, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 295. 

"A judgment against an agent for a fraud committed while acting within the 
scope of his agency, on which no collection or payment has been made, is no 
bar to an action against the principal for the same fraud." Maple v. Railroad 
Co., 40 Ohio St. 313; Interstate Tel. Co. r. Baltimore Tel. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 49. 

se Ferry r. Moore, 18 111. App. 135; Steele-Smith Co. v. Potthast, 109 la. 
413; Cobb t\ Knapp, 71 N. Y. 348; Nason r. Cockroft, 3 Duer, 366. 



CONTRACTS OF AGENTS. 117 

MB his pretended principal: for his own contract cannot be the 
less vtilid because the contract he professed at the same time to make 
lor another has no effect. But when the contract is not by its form 
or otherwise such as would of itself make the professed agent a party 
to it there are several distinctions to be observed. 

Principal named. First, let us take the cases where a principal is 
named. The other party prima facie enters into the contract on 
the faith of that principal's credit. But credit cannot be presumed 
to be given except to a party who is capable of being bound by the 
contract: hence it is material whether the alleged principal is one 
who might authorize or ratify the contract, but does not> or is one 
who could not possibly do so. 

Who miaht be responsible. The more frequent case is where the 
party named as principal is one who might be responsible. 

It is settled law that there, subject to the qualifications which will 
appear, the pretended agent has not either the rights or the liabilities 
of a principal on the contract. 

Profeiaed agent cannot mat on the contract First, as to his rights. In 
Bickerton v. Burrell {r)^ the plaintiff had signed a memorandum 
of purchase at an auction as agent for a named principal. Afterwards 
he sued in his own name to recover the deposit then paid from the 
auctioneer, and offered evidence that he was really a principal in the 
transaction. But he was non-suited at the trial, and this was upheld 
by the full Court, who laid down that '^ where a man assigns himself 
as agent to a person named, the law will not allow him to shift his 
position, declaring himself principal and the other a creature of 
straw. ... A man who has dealt with another as agent {s) is 
not at liberty to retract that character mihoui notice and to turn round 
and sue in the ♦character of principal. The plaintiff misled the [ 1 07 
defendant and was bound to undeceive him before bringing an ac- 
tion." This leaves it doubtful what would have been the precise 
effect of the plaintiff giving notice of his real position before suing : 
but the modem cases seem to show that it Would only have put the 
defendant to his election to treat the contract as a subsisting contract 
between himself and the plaintiff or to repudiate it at once. 

Contrary flecition of Fellowes v. Lord Gwydyr. One reported case, how- 
ever {i)y appears to be directly opposed to Bickerton v. Burrell, Tlie 

(r) (1816) 5M. d^S. 383. {t) Fellowes v. Lord Choydyr 

(8) /. e. for a named and responsi- (1826-9) 1 Sim 63, 1 Ruas. ft M. 
falo principal. 83, 32 R. R. 148. 

87 See also Fox f>. Tabel, 66 Conn. 397. 



118 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

facts were shortly these. Lord Gwydyr was entitled as Deputy Grand 
Chamberlain to the decorations used in Westminster Ekll at the 
coronation of George IV. He sold these to the plaintiff Fellowes, 
who re-sold them to the defendant Page at an advanced price, but 
professed to be selling as the agent of Lord Gwydyr, and signed the 
agreement for sale in that character. Fellowes, being unable to 
procure Lord Gwydyr's consent to his name being used in an action, 
sued Page in his own name in equity for a balance due on the agree- 
ment. It was argued for the defendant that he had been misled " as 
to a most important ingredient in the contract, as to the person, 
namely, with whom he had really contracted^' (u). However it was 
held by Sir John Leach V.C. and by Lord Lyndhurst on appeal, that 
Page could not resist the performance of the contract without show- 
ing that he had been actually prejudiced by having it concealed 
from him that Fellowes was the real principal. It is submitted that 
this decision is contrary to the principles laid down in Bicherton v. 
Burrell and the other cases to be presently cited, and is not 
law (x).^ 

1 08] ♦ Rayner v. Grote. The doctrine under consideration was further 
defined in Rayner v. Orote (y). There the plaintiff sued to recover a 
balance due upon the sale by him to the defendants of a quantity of 
soda ash according to a bought note in this form : — " I have this day 
bought for you the following goods from J, & T. Johnson — 50 tons 
soda ash, .... J. H. Rayner.'' It was proved that the plaintiff 
was the real owner of the goods, and 13 tons out of the 50 had been 
delivered to the defendants and accepted by them at a time when 
there was strong evidence to show that they knew the plaintiff to 
be the real principal. The law was stated as follows (z) : — 

" In many such cases [viz. where the contract is wholly unperformed] 
such as for instance the case of contracts in which the skill or solvency of 
the person who is named as the principal may reasonably be considered as 
a material ingredient in the contract, it is clear that the agenl cannot then 

(ii) 1 Kuss. & M. at pp. 85, 88. this is not mentioned in the judg- 
ed?) It may have been right on the ments. Equitable cause of action 

facts, on the groimd that Page con- there was really none. No judicial 

tinned to act under the contract af- comment on the case has been met 

ter knowing the true state of things with. 

(as was said in argument for the (i/) (1846) 15 M. ft W. 359, 16 

plaintiff, 1 Russ. & M. 83, 32 R. R. L. J. Ex. 79. 

151), which would bring the case (ar) Per Cur. 15 M. & W. at p. 

within Rayner v. Grote (1846) 15 305; and see the remarks on Bicker- 

M. k W. 359, 16 L. J. Ex. 79, but ton v. Burrell, ad fin, 

88 This criticism of Fellowes r. Lord Gwydyr is justified by the contrary de- 
cision in Archer v. Stone, 78 L. T. Rep. '34. See also Fisher t\ Worrall, 6 
W. & S. 475, 483; Ames's Cas. Eq. Jur. 354, n. 



C0NTBACT8 OF A0BNT8. 119 

Rhow himself to be the real principal and sue in hie own name; and perhaps 
it may be fairly urged that this, in all executory contracts, if wholly unper- 
formed, or if partly performed without the knowledge of who is the real 
principal, may be the general rule." 

But here part performance had been accepted by the defendants 
with full knowledge that the plaintiff was the real- principal, and 
ii was therefore considered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. 

The profesaed agent cannot be sued on the contract. Next> as to the pre« 
tended agenf s liability. It was at one time thought that an agent 
for a named principal who turned out to huve no authority might be 
sued as a principal on the contract (a).^ But it has been deter- 
mined that he is not liable on the contract itself (b).^ 

Implied warranty of authority. He is liable however on an implied 
warranty of his authority to bind his principal. This was decided in 
Collen V. *Wright (c), and has been followed in several later [109 
cases (d).^^ In the rare case of a person purporting to contract as 

(o) Cp. Pothier, Obi. | 75. L. R. 7 Ch. 777, 7 H. L. 102, 41 L. J. 

(6) Lewis V. Nicholson (1852) 18 Ch. 804, 44 t5. 20; Weeks V. Propert 

Q. B. 503, 21 L. J. Q. B. 311. (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 427, 437, 42 

(c) (1857) 7 E. & B. 301, 26 L. J. L. J. C. P. 129. And the rule can- 

Q. B. 147 ; in Ex. Ch. 8 E. ft B. 647, not be applied to make a public ser- 

27 L. J. Q. B. 215. vant acting on behalf of the Crown 

id) Richardson v. Williamson personally liable: Dunn v. Macdon- 

(1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 276, 40 L. J. aid [1897] 1 Q. B. 555, 66 L. J. Q. 

Q. B. 145 ; Cherry v. Colonial Bank B. 420. C.A. As to the measure of 

of Australasia (1869) L. R. 3 P. C. damages, Simons v. Patchett (1857). 

24, 31; Oliver v. Bank of England 7 E. & B. 568, 26 L. J. Q. B. 195,- 

[1901] 1 Ch. 652, 70 L. J. Ch. 377 Spedding v. Nevell (1869) L. R 4 

[aff'd [1902] 1 Ch. 610]. But the C. P. 212, 38 L. J. C. P. 133; God- 

representation of the agent that he toin v. Francis (1870) L. R. 5 C. P- 

baa authority must be a representa- 295, 39 L. J. C. P. 121 ; Ea parte 

tion oi matter of fact and not of Paaimure (1883) 24 Ch. Div. 367. 
law: Beattie v. Lord Ehury (1872) 

MOoffman v, Harrison, 24 Mo. 624; Byars v, Doore's Adm'r, 20 Mo. 284; 
Weare v, Gove, 44 N. H. 196; Walker v. Bank, 9 N. Y. 582, 585; Oliver r. 
Morawetz, 97 Wis. 332. 

»The Serapis, 37 Fed. Rep. 436; Lander t?. Castro, 43 Cal. 497; Duncan v. 
Niles, 32 III. 532; Noyes v, Loring, 65 Me. 408; Simpson r. Garland, 76 Me. 
203; Bartlett v. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336; Sheffield v. Ladue, 16 Minn. 388; 
White r. Madison. 26 N. Y. 117. 

91 Bank r. Friend, 90 Fed. Rep. 703; Seeberger r. McCormick, 178 111. 404; 
Railroad Co. r. Richardson, 135 Mass. 473, 475 ; Conant v, Alvord, 166 Mass. 
811; Tlnken v. Tallmadge, 54 N. J. L. 117; White r. Madison, 26 N. Y. 117; 
Baltzen r. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467; Simmons v. More, 100 N. Y. 140; Taylor i?. 
Nostrand, 134 N. Y. 108; Farmers* Trust Co. v, Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525; Coch- 
ran p. Baker, 34 Oreg. 555; or in a special action on the case: McHenry v, 
Duffleld, 7 Blackf. 41; Noyes v, Loring, 55 Me. 408; Abbey v. Chase, 6 Cuah. 
64; Bartlett r. Tucker, 104 Mass. 336; Sheffield v, Ladue, 16 Minn. 388: 
Kroeger v. Pitcairn, 101 Pa. 311. 

If an agent in good faith contracts with one to whom he discloses the 
facta relating to his supposed authority, or who is equally with the agent 
chargeable with a knowledge of them, he does not become personally liable. 



120 



CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 



agent for a named principal, and at the same time expressly dis- 
claiming any present authority, the implied warranty is excluded, 
for the other party does not rely on the existence of authority and 
is not misled, but is content to take the chance of ratification for 
what it may be worth (e). The pretended agent is also generally 
liable to an action in tort if he did not believe that he had author- 
ity (/). The liability on implied warranty is not aflfected by the 
supposed agent's good faith where he does so believe, and it has 
been suggested that the rule now applies even where a real authority 
has been determined, unknown to the agent, by the death of the 
principal {g)^ 



(e) Halhot T. Len$ [1001] I Ch. 
344, 70 L. J. Ch. 125. It would 
seem arguable that in such a case 
there is nothizig capable of ratifi- 
cation. 

if) Randell v. Trimen (1856) 18 
C. B. 786, 25 L. J. C. P. 307. The 
object of cMtablishing the liability 
em eontractu was to have a remedy 
against executors; 

For a somewhat similar doctrine 
applied to the contract to marry, 
see MUhoard v. Littlewood (1850) 5 
Ex. 775, 20 L. J. Ex. 2, and Wild v. 
Harris (1849) 7 C. B. 999, 18 L. J. 
C. P. 297. Here however there is 
not properly a warranty, for the 
promisor's undertaking that he is 
legally capable of maxrying the 
promisee is a term in the principal 
contract itself. See Chap. VII. bel- 
low, ad fin, [In accord see Paddock 
t*. Robinson, 63 111. 99; Davis v, 
Pryor, 3 Ind. Ty. 396; Kelly v. Riley, 
106 Mass. 339; Stevenson v. Pettis, 
12 Phila. 468; Coover v, Davenport, 1 
Heisk. 368. 

In Blattmacher t^. Saal, 29 Barb. 22, 
and Pollock v. Sullivan, 63 Vt. 607, it 
was held that an action of deceit 
would lie. See also Morrill v. 
Palmer, 68 Vt. 1. 



If the woman knew the man to be 
married the agreement would, of 
course, be unlawful. Davis t^. Pryor, 
112 Fed. Rep. 274; Paddock v. Robin- 
son, 63 111. 99; Eve r. Rogers, 12 
Ind. App. 623 ; Noice v. Brown, 38 N. 
J. L. 228; 39 N. J. L. 133. 

Where a statute made absolutely void 
the marriage of a person incurably im- 
potent, it was held that no action 
would lie for the breach of such per- 
son's promise of 'marriage made to 
one who knew his condition. Gulick 
V. Gulick, 41 N. J. L. 13. And see 
Haviland v, Halstead, 34 N. T. 643. 

In Price v. Price, 76 N. Y. 244, it 
was decided that an action to recover 
damages for fraud on the part of de- 
fendant, in that he induced plaintiff 
to marry and cohabit with him by 
means of false and fraudulent repre- 
sentations that his first wife was 
dead, and that he was legally capable 
of marrying, did not survive against 
his personal representatives. Aoo. 
Payne's App., 65 Conn. 397; Qremm 
V. Carr's Adm., 31 Pa. 633. Contra, 
Withee v. Brooks, 66 Me. 14.] 

ig) Halbot V. LenSt note (e) 
above. 



N. Y. & C. Steamship Co. r. Harbison, 16 Fed. Rep. 688; Ware v. Morgan, 67 
Ala. 461; Ogden v. Raymond, 22 Conn. 378; Mann v. Richardson, 66 III. 481; 
Newman t\ Sylvester, 42 Ind. 106 ; Watson v. Rickard, 25 Kan. 662 ; Murray 
V. Carrothers, 1 Met. (Ky.) 71; Southworth v. Flanders, 33 La. Ann. 190; 
Sanborn r. Neal, 4 Minn. 126; Walker v. Bank, 9 N. Y. 582, 687; Snow v. 
Hix, 64 Vt. 478; McCurdy r. Rogers, 21 Wis. 197. 

As to the measure of damages, see Railroad Co. v. Richardson, 135 Mass. 
473; Skaaraas v. Finnegan, 31 Minn. 48; White t\ Madison, 26 N. Y. 117; 
Dung V. Parker, 52 N. Y. 494, 600; Farmers' Trust Co. t\ Floyd, 47 Ohic 
St. 525. 



CONTRACTS OF AGENTS. 121 

/?. Soles applicable only where alleged principal conld be rach. The 
roles last stated are applicable only where the alleged principal waa 
ascertained and existing at the time the contract was made, and 
might have been in fact principal. 

♦Here the doctrine of ratification is important. When a prin- [110 
cipal is named or described, but is not capable of authorizing the 
contract so as to be bound by it at the time, there can be no binding 
ratification : for " ratification must be by an existing person on whose 
behalf a contract might have been made at the time^' W-^ 

There fall under this head contracts entered into by professed 
agents on behalf of wholly fictitious persons, or uncertain persons 
or sets of persons with whom no contract can be made by the descrip- 
tion given, persons in existence but incapable of contracting, and 
lastly (which is in practice the most important case) proposed 
companies which have not yet acquired a legal existence (t).^ Now 
when a principal is named who might have authorized the contract, 
there is at the time of the contract a possibility of his being bound 
by subsequent ratification. But when the alleged principal could not 
have authorized the contract, then it is plain from the beginning 
that the contract can have no operation at all unless it binds the pro- 

(h) Per Willee J. and Bjles J. referred to: 8ooU v. Lard Ehury 
Kelner v. Boater (1866) L. R. 2 (1867) ib. 255; Empress Engineer- 
C. P. 174, 185, 36 L. J. C. P. 94; ing Co. (1880) 16 Ch. Div. 125, 
Bcott V. Lard Ehury (1867) L. R. 2 overruling Spiller v. Paris Skating 
C. P. 255, 267, 36 L. J. C. P. 161. Utiifc Co. (1878) 7 Ch. D. 368. Corn- 
When ratification ia admitted, the panies have been held in equity to 
original contract is imputed by a be bound by the agreements of their 
fiction of law to the person ratify- promoters, but on grounds independ- 
ing; and the fiction is not allowed ent of contract. Action upon such 
to be extended beyond the bounds of an agreement by the company, un- 
possibility. Perhaps there is no solid der the mistaken belief that it is 
rea8<m for the rule, but it is an binding, cannot be treated as evi- 
established one. denoe of a new agreement: Re 

(♦) Kelner v. Bawter (1866) L Northumberland Avenue Hotel Co. 

R. 2 C. P. 174, and authorities there (1886) 33 Ch. Div. 16, 54 L. T. 777. 

«It is essential that the party ratifying should be able to do the act 
ratified not merely at the time the act was done, but also at the time of 
ratification. Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 332, 338. National Works r. Oconto 
Water Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 1006; Hardware Co. v. Deere, 53 Ark. 140; Mc- 
Craeken v. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 591; McDonald v. McCov, 121 Cal. 55; 
McArthur r. Times Printing Co., 48 Minn. 319; Pollock v. Cohen, 32 Ohio St. 
514; Railroad v. Christy, 79 Pa. 54; Milford r. Water Co., 124 Pa. 610. 

w Winters r. Hub Mining Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 287 ; Abbott r. Happood, 150 
Mass. 248; Carmody r. Powers, 60 Mich. 26; Wonderly r. Booth, 36 N. J. L. 
250; Weatherford Co. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350; 36 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 545, 560, 
600, 673. 

But a note given by a corporation, after its formation, for services ren- 
dered previously was held valid in Smith v. Hartford Water Works, 73 Conn. 
626. 



122 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

fessed agent. It is construed accordingly ut res magis valeat quam 
pereat, and he is held to have contracted in person (k).^ 

This principle has been carried so far that in a case where certain 
persons^ churchwardens and overseers of a parish, covenanted ^'for 
themselves and for their successors, churchwardens and overseers of 
111] the parish/' and there was *an express proviso that the cove* 
nant should not bind the covenantors personally, but was intended 
to bind the churchwardens and overseers of the parish for the time 
being as such churchwardens, &c., but not otherwise, it was held 
that since the funds of the parish could not be bound by the instru- 
ment in the maimer intended, the effect of the proviso was to make 
no one liable on the covenant at all, and therefore the proviso was 
repugnant and void, and the covenantors were personally liable (0«** 

Accordingly the proper course for the other contracting party is 
to sue the agent as principal on the contract itself, and he need not 
resort to the doctrine of implied warranty (m).** And as the agent 

{k) Kelner v. Baxter (1866) L. bound if the principal cannot be? 

R. 2 G. P. at pp. 183, 185. In Kelner y. Baxter oral evidence 

(0 Furnival v. Coomhee (1843) 6 was ofTered that such was the inten- 

M. & Gr. 736, 12 L. J. C. P. 265. tion, but was rejected as contrary 

But the doctrine of this case will to the terms of the writing sued 

certainly never be extended (see upon. 

Williame V. Hathaway (1877) 6 Ch. (m) Kelner v. Baxter, note {k), 

D. 544) ; and qu. whether it would last page. Cp. West London Com- 

apply to an instrument not under merciai Bank v. Kiteon (1884) 12 

seal. It is clearly competent to the Q. B. D. 157, where a bill was ac- 

parties to such an instrument to cepted by directors on behalf of a 

make its operation as a contract con- company which had no power to ac- 

ditional on any event they please; cept bills; the liability was put on 

and in such a case as this why may the ground of deceit in 13 Q. B. Div. 

they not agree that nobody shall be 360, 53 L. J. Q. B. 345. 

M K. Y. & C. Steamship Co. t*. Harbison, 16 Fed. Rep. 688; Allen v. Pegram, 
16 la. 163; Woodbury v, Blair, 18 la. 572; Blakeley v. Benneke, 59 Mo. 193; 
Codding i\ Munson, 62 Nebr. 580; Learn v, Upstill, 52 Nebr. 271; Wonderly 
V. Booth, 36 N. J. L. 250 ; cp. Jefts t\ York, 10 Cush. 392. See also Knicker- 
bocker V. Wilcox, 83 Mich. 200. 

80 In Bank r. Dix, 123 Mass. 148, the instrument sued upon was in the form 
of a promissory note, beginning, " We as trustees but not individually prom- 
ise to pay," and was signed, "A., B. and C. trustees." The makers were held 
not personally liable. The court said : " Even if it be found that the con- 
tract, according to its true meaning, has no legal validity, or fails to become 
operative, it is not for the court, in order to give it operation, to suppose a 
meaning which the parties have not expressed, and which it is certain they 
did not entertain. It must be assumed that all the language used in the con- 
tract was selected with some purpose, and is to be of some effect. If a party, 
therefore, in a contract into which he voluntarily enters, and not in the 
execution of any official trust or duty, makes it an express stipulation that 
he is acting for somebody else, and is in no event to be personally liable, he 
certainly cannot be rendered so by law." 

96 Patrick t\ Bowman, 149 U. S. 411, 412: Lewis r. Tilton, 64 la. 220. 



CONTRACTS OF AGENTS. 133 

can be sued, so it is apprehended that, in the absence of fraud, he 
might sue on the contract in his own name. 

When professed agent may be his own unnamed principal. A slightly 
different case is where a man professes to contract as agent, but with- 
out naming his principal. He is then (as said above) prima facie 
personally liable in his character of agent. But even if the contract 
is so framed as to exclude that liability (and therefore any correlative 
right to sue), he is not precluded from showing that he himself is 
the principal and suing in that character. This was decided in 
Schmaltz v. Avery {n).^ The action was on a charter-party. The 
charter-party in terms stated that *it was made by Schmaltz & [1 12 
Co. (the plaintiffs) as agents for the freighters; it then stated the 
terms of the contract, and concluded in these words : " This charter 
being concluded on behalf of another party, it is agreed that all re- 
sponsibility on the part of G. Schmaltz & Co. shall cease as soon as 
the cargo is shipped." This' clause was not referred to in the declara- 
tion, nor was the character of the plaintiff as agent mentioned, but 
he was treated as principal in the contract. At the trial it was proved 
that the plaintiff was in point of fact the real freighter. Before the 
Court in banc the cases of Bickerton v. Burrell and Rayner v. Orote{o) 
were relied on for the defence, but it was pointed out that in those 
cases the agent named a principal on the faith of whose personal 
credit the other party might have meant to contract. Here ''the 
names of the supposed freighters not being inserted, no inducement 
to enter into the contract from the supposed solvency of the freighters 
[could] be surmised. . . . The plaintiff might contract as agent 
for the freighter, whoever the freighter might turn out to be, and 
might still adopt that character of freighter himself if he chose " (p),^ 
And conversely, a man who has contracted in this form may neverthe- 
less be sued on the contract as his own undisclosed principal, if the 

(n) (1851) 16 Q. B. 655 (the Brandt (1871) L. R. 6 Q. B. 720, 

statement of the facts is taken from 40 L. J. Q. B. 312), there are some 

the judgment of the Court, p. 658), expressions not very consistent with 

20 L. J. Q. B, 228. this, but they were by no means 

(o) See pp. *106^*108, above. necessary for the decision. More- 

(p) In a later case in the Ex- over Schmaltz v. Avery was not 

chequer Chamber {Sharman v. cited. 

OTBut see Paine v. Loeb, 96 Fed. Rep. 164 (c. c. A.). 

96 See also Huffman v. Long, 40 Minn. 473; cp. Ellsworth r. Randall, 78 
la. 141. 

But where A. refused to sell goods to B. personally, and B. falsely stating 
that he was acting as agent for another, induced A. to let him have the 
goods, the sale was held void. Rodliff r. Dallinger, 141 Mass. 1 ; cp. Kayton 
V. Bamett, 110 N. Y. 625. 



124 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

other party can show that he is in truth the principal^ but not other- 
wise (q). In the same manner it is open to one of several persons 
with whom a contract was nominally made to show that he alone was 
the real principal, and to sue alone upon the contract accord- 

113] *n. Artificial Persons. 

Nature of artificial penons: In a complex state of civilization, such 
as that of the Roman Empire, or still more of the modem Western 
nations, it constantly happens that legal transactions have to be under- 
taken, rights acquired and exercised, and duties incurred by or on 
behalf of persons who are for the time being charged with offices of 
a public nature involving the tenure and administration of property 
for public purposes, or interested in carrying out a common enter- 
prise or object. This enterprise or object may or may not be of a 
kind likely to be worked out within a definite time, and may or may 
not further involve purposes and interests of a public nature. The 
rights and duties thus created as against the world at large are wholly 
distinct from the rights and duties of the particular persons imme- 
diately concerned in the transactions. Those persons deal with in- 
terests beyond their own, though in many cases including or involving 
them, and it is not to their personal responsibility that third parties 
dealing vrith them are accustomed to look. 

This distinction (the substantial character of which it is important 
to bear in mind) is conveniently expressed in form by the B<Hnan 
invention, adopted and largely developed in modem systems of law, 
of treating the collective persons who from time to time hold such 
a position — or, in some cases and according to some opinions, the 
property or office itself — as a single and continuous artificial per- 
son (s) or ideal subject of legal capacities and duties. It is possible 
to regard the artificial person as a kind of fictitious substance con- 
ceived as supporting legal attributes; and in fact this was, until 
lately, the prevailing theory of modem civilians on the Continent (0- 
114] But it is equally *possible, and it seems not only more philo- 

(g) Carr v. Jackson (1852) 7 Ex. "moral person," but it has not been 

382, 2 L. J. Ex. 137. generally adopted by English writ- 

(r) Spurr v. Cass (1870) L. R. 5 ers. Observe that the English term 

Q. B. 656, 39 L. J. Q. B. 249. " artificial " is not the same aa " fic- 

(») Fr. corps or itre moral, per- titious." 
Sonne morale (but this does not {t) See Prof. Maitland's Intro- 

necessarily import capacity to sue or duction to Gierke's Political Theo- 

be sued in a corporate name) ; Germ. ries of the Middle Age, Cambridge 

furistische Person; Ital. ente morale. 1900; further references there, at p. 

Kent, Comm. 2. 268, uses the term xxvi. 



CORPORATIONS. 1^5 

flophical but more bnfimesfi-like, to hold that what we call the artificial 
identity of a corporation is within its own sphere and for its own 
purposes jnst as real as any other identity (u). The corporation 
becomes, within the limits assigned to its existence, ^^ a body distinct 
from the members composing it, and having rights and obligations 
distinct from those of its members."®* This is often called a fic- 
tion: but it represents a class of facts not confined to legal usage 
or legal purposes. In the case of an ordinary partnership the firm 
is treated by mercantile usage as an artificial person, though not 
recognized as such by English law; and other voluntary and un- 
incorporated associations are constantly treated as artificial persons 
in the language and transactions of every-day Ufa An even more 
remarkable instance is furnished by the artificial personality which 
is ascribed to the public journals by literary custom or etiquette, 

(u) In the United States a cor- Constitution. Blake v. McClung, 172 

poration duly created by the laws of V. S. 240, 176 U. S. 59, 65. Nor 

any state is treated as a person within the 14th amendment. Paul f>. 

dwelling in, and therefore a citizen Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Orient Ins. 

of, that state within the meaning of Co. r. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 561. 

the constitutional provision which But the property rights of a cor- 

enablRS the Federal courts to enter- poration are protected under the 

tain suits between citizens of differ- 14th amendment, as if it were a 

ent states. See Marshall v. Balti- *' person." Railway Co. t?. Ellis, 165 

more and Ohio Railr. Co. 1853) 16 U. S. 150; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 

Howard, 314- [Railway Co. V, 466.] On the philosophy of legal 

James, 161 U. S. 545; Railway Co. personality cp. R. Wallaschek, 

V. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 652, Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Leip- 

665. A corporation is not, however, zig, 1889. 
a citizen within art. 4 sec. 2 of the 

Wit is "too familiar to everybody to require being formally stated and 
explained that a corporation is a person in law distinct from all the mem- 
bers composing it;" per Shaw, C. J., in Bank v, Morton, 4 Gray, 156, 159; 
Society of Practical Knowledge r. Abbott, 2 Beav. 559, 567 ; Graham v. Rail- 
road Co., 102 U. S. 148, 160; Edison v, Hawthorne, 108 Fed. Rep. 839, 840; 
Moore, Ac, Co. v. Towers Co., 87 Ala. 206; Gorham v. Gilson, 28 Cal. 479; 
Buffalo, Ac. Co. v. Medina Gas Co., 162 N. Y. 67, 76 ; Bank v, Irebein Co., 59 
Ohio St. 316; Button t*. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 20. But see Ohio v. Standard Oil 
Co., 49 Ohio St. 137; Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Ohio St. 
189, 200. 

A deed of lands belonging to a corporation, executed by all the members, 
does not pass the title of the corporation. Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11, 19; 
Wheelock r. Moulton, 16 Vt. 619. But see Phoenix Assur. Co. r. Daven- 
port, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 283; McElroy v, Percheron Horse Co., 96 Wis. 
317. And the covenant of all the members that the corporation will do a 
certain thing is not binding as the covenant of the corporation. Tileston v. 
Newell, 13 Mass. 406; Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen. 62, 56. And see Grant on 
Corporations, 16; Bristol Milling k Manufacturing Co. v. Probasco, 64 
Ind. 406. 

If a single stockholder acquires all the shares of a corporation, it does not 
dissolve the corporation, and it, not he, is the owner of the corporate property. 
Keys 9. Weaver, 96 la. 13; Louisville Banking Co. v. Eisenman, (Ky.) 40 Am. 
4 Eng. Corp. Cas. 243, and note; RandaU 9. Dudley, 111 Mich. 437; Harring- 
ton V. Connor, 61 Neb. 214. 



126 CAPACITY OF PARTIB8. 

and is so familiar in writing and conversation that its curiosity most 
commonly escapes attention. The existence of these artificial per- 
sons by private convention, if we may so call them, shows that, if 
indeed there be any fiction in the matter, it is not snperfinous oi 
arbitrary (10). 

CorpoTations in the Common Law. In the Common Law no speculative 
opinion on the subject has been definitely adopted (a;), though it 
seems likely that only Coke's incapacity for grasping any gen- 
115] cral *theory, good or bad, saved us from what is now known 
as the " fiction theory '' among Continental publicists (y) . 

In our authorities and practice the necessary marks of legal cor- 
porate existence are a recognized collective name (which however 
need not be expressly conferred at the outset), and capacity to sue, 
be sued, and do other acts in the law, in that name. 

Perpetual succession, that is, the existence of a body independent 
of the natural life of any one or more members, and a common 
seal to authenticate the corporate acts, are consequences or incidents 
of incorporation rather than primary constituents. A corporation 
legally qualified to act as such can exist only with the sanction of 
the State, which may be expressed in England by a royal charter (2) 
or by statute. The statutory sanction may take the form — ^as in 
the familiar case of the Companies Acts — of authorizing persons 
who are so minded to constitute themselves into corporations by ful- 
filling specified general conditions. In this class of cases, at any 
rate, it would seem that the operative registration, or other appointed 
formality, is not properly considered as involving fiction of any kind, 
but is the official recognition and regulation of substantial matters 
of fact. With us the official sanction is a matter of procedure and 
public convenience. In the Eoman law of the Empire it was an 
offence to form any kind of association without public authority; 

(w) "Th« orthodox doctrine of Co. Rep. at fo. 29 b, shows that, if 

the common law, which recognizes any theory had been formulated, it 

only individuals and corporations as would have been the then received 

entities, undoubtedly lags far be- one of the civilians, 

hind the ordinary conceptions of lay- {z) The want of this has to be 

men": Harv. Law Rev. xv. 311. supplied in some cases by the fiction 

{x) Hobbes gives an admirable ex- of a lost grant: Blackst. Comm. i. 

position of the purely individualist 473. See the whole chapter (Book 

view in the 16th chapter of his Levi- I. ch. 18) for a literary exposition 

athan, but of course without regard of the Common Law doctrine as it 

to authority. stood in the latter part of the 18th 

(y) The slight reference to Roman century, 
law in the Button* s Hospital case, 10 



C0BP0RATI0N8. 127 

thuB the early Christian churches were exposed to penalties by the 
mere fact of being collegia illicita. This principal has largely sur- 
vived in the modem public law of the Continent; only the faintest 
signs of any attempt to imitate it occur in ours (a). 

*The holders of ecclesiastical benefices and dignities are said, [116 
by an analogy which is of no great antiquity, to be "corporations 
sole." ^ Little or no useful result seems to be attained, for the alleged 
corporate character of a parson does not prevent the freehold of the 
church from being m abeyance when he dies, though a grant to an 
existing parson and his successors is effectual. By a still more doubt- 
ful extension of the analogy, the Crown is said to be a corporation 
sole {b)f and the same description has been applied by statute to 
the holders of a certain number of public offices (c). It may be 
sufficient to observe, so far as the principle is concerned, that for 
many centuries the Vatican and its contents — ^to say nothing of 
the spiritual powers and other formal temporal possessions of tho 
Holy See — ^have been held under an absolutely unique system of 
succession, but it has never occurred to any one to call the Pope 
a corporation sole. At any rate, the persons whom we have to call 
corporations sole in England can do very little in their corporate 
capacity, and in particular cannot bind or even benefit their official 
successors by contract, except in one or two peculiar cases (d). 
We therefore have nothing to learn in that quarter for the purposes 

(a) It is said to be an offence to ecutors." Arundel's case, Hob. 64; 

" assume to act as a corporation," 20 E. iv. 2, pi. 7 ; Hotoley v. Knight 

but this is far short of the Roman (1849) 14 Q. B. 240, 19 L. J. Q. B. 3. 

prohibition. ** Regularly no chattel can go in sue- 

{h) The theory of the King's cession in a case of a sole corpora- 
"body politic" is given at some tion": Co. Litt. 46 6; [See Over- 
length in Plowd. 213. It would seem seers v. Sear, 22 Pick. 122, 126.] it 
to have been a fashionable novelty was otherwise in the case of the 
at the time. head of a religious house, as he 

(c) See Prof. Maitland, The Cor- could not make a will. Ro. Ab. 1. 
poration Sole, L. Q. R. xvi. 335; The 515. See the old authorities summed 
Crown as Corporation, tb. xvii. 131. up in Blackst. Comm. ii. 431—433, 
The notion of a corporation sole ap- who attempts to find reasons. A 
pears to date only from fhe 16th curious recent case where a fund of 
eentury. stock was vested in certain rectors 

(d) Generally "bishops, deans, and their successors by a private 
parsons, vicars, and the like cannot Act is Power v. B<mk9 [1901] 2 Ch. 
take obligation to them and their 487, 70 L. J. Ch. 700. 
successors, but it will go to the ex- 

iSee, e.<7., Terrett r. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43; Church Wardens r. Mayor, 82 Oa. 
656; Weston r. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500; Brunswick v. Dunning, 7 Mass. 445; 
Overseers r. Sear, 22 Pick. 122, 125-126. 

2 The Governor of a State has been held to be a corporation sole. The 
Governor r. Allen, 8 Humph. 176. 



1)^8 CAPACITY OF PABTIES. 

of this work^ and we may practically confine our attention to cor- 
porations aggregate. 

We have to ascertain what contracts corporate bodies can make, 
117] and how they are to be made. The second of *the8e questions 
is reserved for the following chapter on the Form of Contracts. 
The first cannot be adequately treated except in connexion with a wider 
view of the capacities, powers, and liabilities of corporations in general. 

Natural limitations of capacities and liabilities of corporation. The ca- 
pacities of corporations are limited 

(i) By natural possibility, t. e,, by the fact that they are artifi- 
cial and not natural persons: 

(ii) By legal possibility, t. e., by the restrictions which the power 
creating a corporation may impose on the legal existence and action 
of its creature. 

First, of the limits set to the powers and liabilities of corpora- 
tions by the mere fact that they are not natural persons. The re- 
quirement of a common seal (of which elsewhere) is sometimes said 
to spring from the artificial nature of a corporation. The fact that 
it is not known in Scotland is however enough to show that it is 
a mere positive rule of English law. The correct and comprehensive 
proposition is that a corporation can do no executive act except by 
an agent; and a corporate seal is only one way of showing that the 
person entrusted with it is an authorized agent of the corporate 
body. We say that executive acts of a corporation must be done 
by an agent. It does not seem necessary or plausible to extend the 
proposition to deliberative acts and resolutions. When, for example, 
the assembled Fellows of a College resolve to grant a lease of cer- 
tain college land, their resolution, whether unanimous or by the 
statutable majority, would seem to be the act not of agents but of 
tlie College itself. For if the Fellows voting are agents, who au- 
thorized them, and when? But when they proceed to order the 
fiffixing of the College seal to the lease, then the officer of the College 
^vho is directed to afiix it is an appointed agent, whether he is him- 
self a member of the governing body or not. There seem also 
to be cases in which the permanent authority of the head or other 
118] acting member ♦of a corporation is derived not from any au- 
thority specifically conferred on him, but from the original con- 
stitution of the corporation. Here, however, the conception of an 
implied agency is convenient and fairly applicable. Indeed, the 
Common Law doctrine of agency is so wide and flexible that we 
practically tend to regard all acts whatever done in the name of a 



CORPORATIONS. 129 

coTpoTation as derived from some authority^ general or special, vested 
in the natural persons by whom they are done. This appears not 
to be a strictly correct view, but it has largely saved ns from the 
speculative questions which have vexed Continental jurists ever since 
the thirteenth century, and probably also from much more serious 
errors. 

A corporation obviously cannot be subjected to death, corporal 
punishment, or imprisonment, though it can be fined or made to 
pay damages as easily as a natural person. Further, it is under- 
stood that a corporation is incapable of committing the graver kinds 
of crime, such as treason, felony, perjury, or offenses against the 
person (e), as well as of being punished for them. There can be 
no real authority to commit such acts. Any or all of the members 
or officers of a corporation who should commit acts of this kind 
(e. g., should levy war against the King) under cover of the cor- 
porate name and authority would be individually liable to the ordi- 
nary consequences. " Offences, certain offences of commission, are 
the offences of indi*vidual8, not of corporations '* (/). Nor [119 
can a corporation undertake duties which, though it might be strictly 
possible for a corporation to perform them by its officers or agents, 
are on the whole of a personal kind {g). 

As to acts of agents. On the other hand, it is subject to the same 
liabilities as any other employer for the acts, neglects; and defaults 
of its agents done in the course of their employment {h) f and con- 

(e) Reg. v. Q. N. of Eng, Ry, Co. Cincinnati Fertilizer Co., 24 Ohio St. 

(1846) 9 Q. B. 315, 326, 16 L. J. 611.] We are not aware that any 

If. C. 16; nor, it is said, oan it bcf English writer has thought it neces- 

excommunieated, for it has no soul: sary to state in terms that a cor- 

10 Co. Kep. 32 by the ultimate au- poration cannot be married or have 

thority for this was a decree of In- any next of kin. The statement is 

Dooent IV. at the Council of Lyons to be found in Savigny, Syst. 3. 239; 

in 1245; but otherwise as to inter- but is in part not quite so odd as it 

diet: Gierke, Deutsche Genoesen- looks, as in Roman law patria 

■chaftsrecht, iii. 348-9. So a cor- poteatas and all the family relations 

poration cannot do homage : Co. Litt. arising therefrom might be acquired 

66 6. Nor can it be subject to the by adoption. 

Jurisdiction of a customary court if) Bramwell L. J. 5 Q. B. D. at 

whoee process is exclusively per- p. 313. Cp. Mayor of Manchester v. 

Bonal: London Joint Stock Bank v. Williams [1891] 1 Q. B. 94, 60 L. J. 

Mayor of London (1875) 1 C. P. D. Q. B. 23. 

1, 45 Lw J. C. P. 213. in C. A. chiefly (g) Ex parte Swansea Friendly 

on other grounds, 5 C. P. Div. 494; Society (1879) 11 Ch. D. 768, 48 L. J. 

affirmed on this point in the House Ch. 577. 

of Lords, 6 App. Ca. 393. [State v. (h) Difficulties, formal and ma- 
Railroad Co., 23 Ind. 362; State r. terial, which used to be entertained 

S"An action may be maintained against a corporation for its malicious 
or negligent torts, however foreign they may be to the object of its creation 
or beyond its granted powers. It may be sued for assault and battery, for 
9 



130 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

Tersely it may sue in its corporate capacity for a libel reflecting 
on the management of its bu8ine86*(t). And the same principle 
is extended to make it generally subject to all liabilities incidental 
to its corporate existence and acts^ though the remedy may be in 
form ex delicto or even criminal. 



<M 



Indictable in some cases. Although it cannot commit a real crime, 
it may be guilty as a body corporate of commanding acts to be 
done to the nuisance of the community at large/' and may be indicted 
for a nuisance produced by the execution of its works or conduct 
of its business in an improper or unauthorized maimer, as for ob- 
structing a highway or navigable river (Jc).* A corporation may even 

on this head are now removed. Even generally maintained by the civili- 

malicious 2prosecution is not now ans: Gierke, op. cit. 402. 
thought to be an exception; see {%) Bouth Hetton Coal Co. V. N. 

Comford V. Carlton Bank [1900] 1 E. News Assoc. [1894] 1 Q. B. 133, 

Q. B. 22, 68 L. J. Q. B. 1020, C. A. 63 L. J. Q. B. 293, C. A. 
In the Middle Ages the poesibiliiy of {k) Beg. v. O. N. of Eng. Ry. Co. 

a corporation committing a delict (1846) 9 Q. B. 315^ per Cur. p. 326, 

was ^sputed by the canonists but 16 L. J. M. C. 16. 

fraud and deceit, for false imprisonment, for malicious prosecution, for 
nuisance, and for libel." Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699, 702; Railway Co. 
r. Harris, 122 U. S. 597; Salt Lake City v. HoUister, 118 U. S. 256; Railroad 
Co. V. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 330; Merchants' Bank v. State 
Bank, 10 Wall. 605, 645; Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202; Falk v. 
Curtis Pub. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 989 ; Southern Ex. Co. v. Flatten, 93 Fed. Rep. 
936; Jordan v. Railroad Co., 74 Ala. 85; Western News Co. r. Wilmarth, 
33 Kan. 510; Maynard r. Insurance Co., 34 Cal. 48; Railroad Co. r. Dalby, 
19 111. 353; Goodspeed 17. Bank, 22 Conn. 530; Copley v. Grover S. M. Co., 2 
Woods, 494 ; Vinar v. Insurance Co., 27 La. Ann. 367 ; Carter v. Howe Machine 
Co., 51 Md. 290; Reed^v. Bank, 130 Mass. 443; Ramsden r. Railroad Co., 104 
Mass. 117; Fogg v. Boston k Lowell R. Co., 148 Mass. 513; Nims v. Mt. 
Hermon School, 150 Mass. 177; Wachsmuth v. Bank, 96 Mich. 426; Williams 
V. Insurance Co., 57 Miss. 759; Boogher v. Life Assn. of America, 75 Mo. 319; 
Ricord t\ Railroad Co., 15 Nev. 167; Brokaw r. Railroad Co., 32 N. J. L. 328; 
Vance v. Railroad Co., 32 N. J. L. 334 ; McDermott v. Evening Journal Assn., 
44 N. J. L. 430; Buffalo Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 106 N. Y. 669; 
Wheless v. Bank, 1 Baxter, 469; Zinc Carbonate Co. v. Bank, 103 Wis. 125. 
See also Gaslight Co. i\ Lansden, 172 U. S. 534. A municipal corporation 
could not be liable for a libel, was held in Howland r. Maynard, 159 Mass. 
434. But see contra, McLay !?. Bruce Co., 14 Ont. C. P. Div. 398. 

Corporations are liable in exemplary damages for malicious or oppressive 
acts, and acts of wanton recklessness. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wliitman, 
79 Ala. 325; Warner r. Southern Pac. R. Co., 113 Cal. 105; Railroad Co. ». 
Rogers, 38 Ind. 110; Wheeler, etc., Co. f. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350; Goddard v. 
Railroad Co., 57 Me. 202; Railroad Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 277; Railroad 
Co. V. Burke, 53 Miss. 200 ; Caldwell t'. Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282 ; Railroad 
Co. r. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162; Brigham r. Lipman, etc., Co., 40 Oreg. 363; 
Lake Shore R. Co. r. Rosenzweig, 113 Pa. 519; Quinn r. South Carolina 
R. Co., 29 S. C. 381; Havs r. Railroad Co., 46 Tex. 272. Cp. Lake Shore 
R. Co. r. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101. 

4 United States r. John Kelso Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 304; Railroad Co. V. 
Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 137: Commonwealth r. Pulaski Co.. 92 Ky. 197 
State r. Portland, 74 Me. 268; Commonwealth r. Railroad Co., 4 Gray, 22 
People r. White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471; State r. Railroad Co., 3 Zabr, 360 



CORPORATIONS. 131 

be liable by prescription, or by having accepted such an obligation 
in its charter, to repair highways, &c., and may be indictable for 
not doing it (Z).'^ A corporation carrying on business may likewise 
become liable to penalties imposed by any statute regulating that 
business, if it appears from the language or subject-matter of the 
rtatute that corporations were meant to be included (m).® A steam- 
ahip company has been *held (on the terms of the particular [120 
statute, as it seems) to be not indictable under the Foreign Enlist- 
ment Act of Geo. 3, and therefore not entitled to refuse discovery 
which in the case of a natural person would have exposed him to 
penalties under the Act (n). As to the difficulty of imputing 
fraudulent intention to a corporation, which has been thought to 
be peculiarly great, it may be remarked that no one has ever doubted 
{hat a corporation may be relieved against fraud to the same ex- 
tent as a natural person. There is exactly the same difficulty in 
Bupposing a corporation to be deceived as in supposing it to deceive, 
and it is equally necessary for the purpose of doing justice in both 
cases to impute to the corporation a certain mental condition—- of 
intention to produce a belief in the one case, of belief produced in 
{he other — ^which in fact can exist only in the individual mind of 
the member or servant of the corporate body who acts in the trans- 
action (o). Lord Langdale found no difficulty in speaking of two 

(I) See Grant <m Corporations, authority: Ouardiana of 8i. Leon- 

277, 283; Angell k Ames on Cor- wrd% Shoreditck Y, FrankUn (1878) 

rationB, H 304-7; Wms. Saund. 3 C. F. D. 377. 

614, 2. 473. (n) King of Two Sioiliee v. Wilcoo 

(m) Pharma4!euiical Society v. (1850) 1 Sim K. S. 335, 10 L. J. Ch. 

London and Provincial Supply Aaao- 488. 

daiion (1880) 5 App. Ca. 857; see (o) See per Lord Blackburn, 3 

per Lord Blackburn at p. 869. A App. Ca. 1264. A company may 

eorporation cannot sue as a common ** feel aggrieved/' Companies Act, 

informer without special statutory 1880, 43 Vict. c. 19, s. 7, sub-s. 5. 

State r. Passaic Soc., 54 N. J. L. 260; Delaware, etc., Co. v. Commonwealth, 
60 Pa. 367 ; Northern Ky. v. Commonwealth, 90 Pa. 300 ; Railroad Co. v. State, 
3 Head, 523; SUte v. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 103. 

Aliier, where the common law as to crimes and criminal procedure having 
been abolished, the legislation substituted makes no provision for bringing 
an indicted party into court by summons, or otherwise than by actual arrest 
of his person. State v. Railroad Co., 23 Ind. 362; State v. Cincinnati 
Fertilizer Co., 24 Ohio St. 611. 

B Railroad Clio. v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 147; Commonwealth v. Central 
Bridge Co., 12 Cush. 242; Railroad Co. v. State, 32 N. H. 215; Susquehanna, 
etc., Co. r. People, 15 Wend. 267; People r. Railroad Co., 134 N. Y. 671; 
Railway Co. «?. Commonwealth. 101 Pa. 192; Commonwealth r. Railroad 
Co., 165 Pa. 162; State v. Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. 217; Nashville, etc., Turn- 
pike Co. V. State, 96 Tenn. 249. A corporation may be indicted for Sabbath- 
breaking. State V. Railroad Co., 15 W. Va. 362. 

• Stewart v. Waterloo Turn Verein, 71 la. 226. 



132 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

railway companies as ^^ guilty of fraud 'and collusion,'' fhougli not 
in an exact sense (p). 

Is not bound by acts of even all its mambexs when of a non-corporate diar- 
acter. However the members of a corporation cannot even by giving 
an express authority in the name of the corporation make it respon- 
sible, or escape from being individually responsible themselves, for 
a wrongful act which though not a personal wrong is such that if 
lawful it could not have been a corporate act (g) J Such is a tres- 
pass in removing an obstruction of an alleged highway. For the 
right by which the act has to be justified is the personal right to 
121 ] use the highway, and a Corporation as such cannot use *a high- 
way. Likewise it is not competent to the governing body or the 
majority, or even to the whole of the members for the time being, 
of a corporation constituted by a formal act and having defined 
purposes, to appropriate any part of the corporate funds to their 
private use in a manner not distinctly warranted by the constitution ; 
for it is not to be supposed that all the members of the corporation 
are equivalent to the corporation so that they can do as they please 
with corporate property.® A corporation does not exist merely for 
the sake of the members for the time being. Lord Langdale held 
on this principle that the original members of a society incorporated 
by charter, who had bought up the shares of the society by agreement 
among themselves, were bound to account to the society for the full 
value of them (r).® The fallacy of the assumption that a corporation 

(p) 12 Beav. 382. (r) Society of Practical Knowl- 

(q) Mill V. Hawker (1874) L. R. edge v. Abbott (1840) 2 Beav. 559, 

9 Ex. 309, 318, 44 L. J. Ex. 49; no 667, 50 R. R. 288, 294. Cp. Sav. 

judgment on this part of the case Syst. 3. 283, 336. But it may be 

in Ex. Ch. L. R. 10 Ex. 92. It otherwise if the corporation has no 

might be, by statute, the right or definite constitution and no rules 

duty of a corporation to remove ob- prescribing the application of its 

structions, and the real question here property. Such cases are sometimes 

was whether a highway board had met with: Brown v. Dale (1878) 9 

such a power or duty. Ch. D. 78. 

7 A municipal corporation is not liable for the tortious act of the officers 
or agents, where the act is wholly ultra vires in the sense that it is not within 
the power or authority of the corporation to act in reference to the matter 
under any circumstances. Boyle r. Albert Lea, 74 Minn. 230. 

sfifupra, note 99. Redmond r. Dickerson, 1 Stockt. 507, 514, 516. "The 
directors of a corporation, even with the consent of the stockholders, 
are not authorized to discontinue the corporate business and to distribute the 
capital stock among the stockholders, unless they are specially authorized to 
do so by a legislative act;, or by a decree of the Court of Chancery dissolving 
the corporation in the manner prescribed by the statutes." Ward v. Insurance 
Co., 7 Paige, 294; Grant r. Southern Contract Co., 104 Ky. 781. 

»See also London Trust Co. r. Mackenzie, 68 L. T. Rep. 380; Ashton v. 
Dashaway Assoc, 84 Cal. 61; Railroad Co. i\ Arnold, 167 N. Y. 368. 



CORPORATIONS. 133 

Las no rights as against its unanimous members is easily exposed by 
putting tiie extreme case of the members of a corporation being by 
accident reduced till there is only one left^ who thereupon unani- 
mously appropriates the whole corporate property to his own use (5). 

Limitatioii of corporate capacities by positiye rules. The powers of a 
corporation are necessarily limited in some directions by the nature 
of things. There remains the question whether there are any general 
rules of law limiting them farther and otherwise. If our law had 
committed itself to the doctrine that the personality of a corporation 
is a mere fiction of the sovereign power, it might have been held as 
a natural consequence that a corporation could in no case have any 
powers except such as were conferred on it, expressly or by necessary 
implication, by the same act which created it. But this did not 
happen, and *the judicial discussion of the subject has been [122 
evoked by the rapid growth of incorporated commercial and in- 
dustrial societies in modem times, and guided by reasons founded 
not in the nature of a corporation in itself, but in the need for safe- 
guarding the interests partly of the individual members of com- 
panies, regarded as substantially partners in a joint undertaking, 
and partly of outside creditors dealing with companies, and looking 
to their corporate funds and credit, on the faith of apparently au- 
thorized acts and promises of their directors or agents. These two 
classes of inter^ts are to some extent opposed, and the law has not 
reached the fairly settled condition in which it now stands without 
considerable fluctuations of opinion. On these, however, it is no 
longer needful to dwell at length. 

"At common law a corporation created by the King's charter 
has . . . the power to do with its property all such acts as an 
ordinary person can do, and to bind itself to such contracts as an 
ordinary person can bind himself to*^ (t), (subject to the corporate 
acts being sufficient in form, which we are not considering in this 
place). This rests on authority which, though it seems at times 
to have been forgotten, has never been disputed (u). 

Powers of statutory corporations determined by purposes of incorporation. 
But when a corporation is created directly by special statute, or 
indirectly by a statute authorizing the formation of a class of cor- 

(«) Say. Syst. 3. 329 aqq. §§ 97- lock v. River Dee Co, (18S3) 30 Ch. 

99. Tbe illustration in our text is D. 675, 685, n. 

given at p. •SSO, note, with the re- (w) Button's Hospital ease, 10 Co. 

mark, "Hier ist gewiss Einstim- Rep., where it is said (at p. 30 b) 

migkeit Torhanden.'* that when a corporation is duly 

(t) Bowen L. J. in Baroness Wen- created, all other incidents are tadte 

annexed. 



134 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

porations on specified conditions, for purposes declared by the stat- 
ute, or which the founders of the corporation are required to declare, 
then the question is different. As to powers expressly conferred 
on the corporation, or clearly authorized by general provisions, there 
can be no doubt; when farther powers are claimed, it must be con- 
sidered what was the intention of the Legislature, and only such 
123] powers can be attributed to the *corporation as are necessary or 
reasonably incident to the fulfillment of the purposes for which it is 
established. Members of the company have the right to rely on those 
purposes not being exceeded ; the public can ascertain them, and have 
not any right to hold the company liable for undertakings outside 
them. On the whole, " where there is an Act of Parliament creating 
a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that 
particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorize 
is to be taken to be prohibited ^^ (x) — prohibited in the sense not 
that penalties or disabilities follow on such an act if done, but that 
the attempt to do it can from the first have no kind of validity as 
a corporate act. 

Reasons for the limitation, how derived. The reasons for this rule, as we 
have hinted, are derived (1) from the law of partnership: (2) from 
principles of public policy. 

1. From partnership law. In trading corporations the relation of the 
members or shareholders to one another is in fact a modified (y) con- 
tract of partnership, which in view of courts of equity is governed 
by the ordinary rules of partnership law so far as they are not excluded 
by the constitution of the company. 

Rights of dissenting partners. Now it is a well-settled principle of 
partnership law that no majority of the partners can bind a dissenting 
minority, or even one dissenting partner, to engage the firm in trans- 
actions beyond its original scope. ^^ In the case, therefore, of a 

(»)Lord Blackburn in A, O. V. (1885) 10 App. Ca. 354, 360, 64 L. J. 

G. E. Ry. Co, (1880) 5 App. Ca. 473, Q. B. 577. 

481, stating the effect of Aahhury Ry, (y) Namely by provisions for 

Carriage and Iron Co, v. Riche transfer of shares, limited liability 

(1876) L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 44 L. J. of shareholders, and other things 

Ex. 185, a leading case on the Com- which cannot (at least with con- 

paniee Act, 1862, but not confined to venience or completenees) be made 

the construction of that Act. See incident to a partnership at common 

Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co, law. 

10 Abbott V. Johnson, 32 N. H. 9; Livingston r. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. 673; 
McFadden v, Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513; Jennings' Appeal, (Pa.) 16 At. Rep. 19. 



COBPORATIONS. 136 

corporation whose members are as between themselves partners in 
the business carried on by the corporation, any ^dissenting [124 
member is entitled to restrain the governing body or the majority 
of the company from attempting to involve the company in an 
undertaking which does not come within its purposes as defined by 
He original constitution.^^ Courts of equity have been naturally 
called upon to look at the subject chiefly from this point of view, 
that is, as giving rise to questions between shareholders and directors, 
or between minorities and majorities. Such questions do not re- 
quire the court to decide whether an act which dissentients may 
prevent the agents of the company from doing in its name might 
not nevertheless, if so done by them with apparent authority, be 
binding on the corporate body, or a contract so made be enforceable 
by the other party who had contracted in good faith. This distinc- 
tion was not always kept in sight. 

Doctrine as to limited agency. But further, according to the law of 
partnership a partner can bind the firm only as its agent: his au- 
thority is prima facie an extensive one («), but if it is specially re- 
Car) James L. J. Baird'a case tralasia v. Breillat (1847) 6 Moo. 
(1870) L. R. 6 Ch. 733; Story on P. C. 152, 195; Partnership Act, 
Agency, H 124, 125, adopted by the 1800, es. 5—8. 
Judicial Ck)mmittee in Bank of Aua- 

11 Mowrey r. Railroad Co., 4 Biss. 78 ; Byrne v. Schuyler, 65 Conn. 336 ; 
Cherokee Iron Co. r. Jones, 62 Ga. 276; Harding v. American Glucose Co., 
182 III. 551; Chicago r. Cameron, 120 111. 447; Knottsville Mill Co. f. 
Mattingly, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 246; Stewart r. Erie, etc., Transportation Co., 
17 Minn. 348; March i\ Railroad Co., 43 N. H. 515; Rabo v, Dunlap, 51 
X. J. Eq. 40; Mills c. Central Railroad, 41 N. J. Eq. 1; Black r. Canal Co., 
24 N. J. Eq. 455 ; Elkins v. Railroad Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5 ; Zabriskie v. Railroad 
Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 178; Kean r. Johnson, 1 Stockt. 401; Wiswall r. Plank 
Road Co., 3 Jones Eq. 193; Carter r. Producers* Oil Co., 104 Pa. 463; Stevens 
r. Railroad Co., 29 Vt. .545. But see Waldoborough v. Railroad Co., 84 Me. 469. 

A subscriber for stock in a corporation is released from his subscription by 
a subsequent fundamental alteration of the organization or purpose of the 
corporation. Snook t*. Georj^a Imp. Co., 83 Ga. 61 ; McCray r. Railroad Co., 
9 Ind. 3o8; Banet r. Railroad Co., 13 III. 504, 511; Katama Land Co. v, 
Jemegan, 126 Mass. 155 ; Union Lock Co. r. Towne, 1 N. H. 44 ; Railroad Co. 
r. Croswell. 5 Hill, 383 ; Bank r. Charlotte, 85 N. C. 433 ; Norwich Lock Mfg. 
Co. r. Hockaday, 89 Va. 557. And sec Tuttle r. Railroad Co., 35 Mich. 247 ; 
Marsh v. Fulton, 10 Wall. 676; Railroad Co. r. Harris, 27 Miss. 517. 

Unless at the time of subscription such change was provided for by the 
charter itself, or the general law of the State. New Buffalo v. Iron Co., 10) 
U. S. 73; Bates County r. Winters, 112 U. S. 325; East Lincoln v. Daven- 
port, 94 U. S. 801; Nugent r. Supervisors, 19 W^all. 241; Bish v. Johnson, 
21 Ind. 299; Jewett v. Railroad Co., 34 Ohio St. 601. 

On dissolution of a corporation the majority cannot against the will of 
the minority insist on selhng the assets to a new corporation, requiring the 
minority to accept shares in a new corporation or their pro rata value in 
money. Mason r. Pewabic Mining Co., 133 U. S. 50. 



136 OAPACITT OF PABTIE8. 

Btricted by agreement between the partners, and the restriction is 
known to the person dealing with him, he caimot bind the firm to 
anything beyond those special limits." 

In public companies limits of diroctorsP authority prasumed to bo kaown. 
Ldmits of this kind may be imposed on the directors or other officers 
of a company by its constitution; and if that constitution is em- 
bodied in a special Act of Parliament, or in a deed of settlement 
or articles of association registered in a public office under the pro- 
visions of a general Act, it is considered that all persons dealing 
with the agents of the corporation must be deemed to have notice of 
the limits thus publicly set to their authority.^* The corporation 
is accordingly not bound by anything done by them in its name when 
the transaction is on the face of it in excess of the powers thus defined. 
And it is important to remember that in this view the resolutions 
125] of meetings however numerous, *and passed by however 
great a majority, have of themselves no more power than the pro- 
ceeding of individual agents to bind the partnership against the 
will of any single member to transactions of a kind to which he did 
not by the contract of partnership agree that it might be boimd. 

Irregularities in the conduct of the internal afibirs of the body 
corporate, even the omission of things which as between shareholders 
and directors are conditions precedent to tiie exercise of the directors' 
authority, will not however invalidate acts which on the face of them 
are regular and authorized: third parties dealing in good faith are 
entitled to assume that internal regulations (the observance of which 

i2Radcliffe r. Varner, 55 Ga. 427; Knox v. Buffington, 50 la. 320; Cargill 
i;. Corby, 15 Mo. 425; cp. Johnson v, Bernheim, 86 N. G. 339. 

laPearce r. Railroad Co., 21 How. 441, 443; Davis r. Railroad Co., 131 
Mass. 258, 260; Silliman v. Railroad Co., 27 Gratt. 110, 130. 

In England joint stock companies may be formed by the execution of two 
documents, a memorandum of association, and articles of association; the 
former is the charter of the company, the latter define the powers of the 
directors as agents of the whole body of shareholders. Acts beyond the 
memorandum are acts ultra virea the company; acts of the directors beyond 
the articles only are but acts of agents in excess of their authority, and 
always capable of ratification. Ashbury Ry. Car Co. v, Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 
653; see 5 Am. L. Rev. 272. In this country, in some States, statutes also 
allow the formation of joint stock companies which are not strictly corpora- 
tionsy though they have some of the attributes of corporations. Some of the 
large express companies are associations of this sort. See Hotel Co. v, Jones, 
177 U. S. 449; Sanford r. Gregg, 58 Fed. Rep. 620; Gregg v. Sanford, 65 Fed. 
Rep. 151; Edwards v. Gasoline Works, 168 Mass. 564; Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 
N. J. L. 463. 

An English joint stock company having the faculties and powers incident 
to a corporation will be treated aa a corporation in this country, although 
Acts of Parliament declare that it shall not be held to be a corporation. 
Insuranee Co. v, Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. 



CORPORATIONS. 137 

it may be difficult or impossible for them to verify) have in fact 
been complied with.^^ 

AiMBt of lU the members win remove objectiona on tbia bead. But it is 
to be obaerved that in the ordinary law of partnership there is nothing 
to prevent the members of a firm, if they are all so minded, from ex- 
tending or changing its business without limit by their unanimous 
agreement. As a matter of pure corporation law, the unanimity of 
the members is of little importance: it may supply the want of a 
formal act of the governing body in some cases (a), but it can in 
no case do more. As a matter of mixed corporation and partnership 
law this unanimity may be all-important as being a ratification by all 
the partners of that which if any one of them dissented would not 
be the act of the firm: for although the corporate body of which 
they are members is in many respects different from any ordinary 
partnership, it is treated, and justly treated, as a partnership for 

(a) Eren this ia in BtrietneBS incorporated to them and their auc- 
bard^ consistent with the principle oessors by the name of X, then A -h 
that if A, B, C Ac., are B -f C -f . . . Ac. are not = X. 

14 Where the authority of the officers of a corporation to bind it by their 
act depends upon the performance of a condition precedent, or the existence 
of an extrinsic fact, and the question of compliance with the condition, or of 
the existence of the fact, is required to be determined by them, or rests 
peculiarly within their Imowledge, their representation (which may some- 
times consist simply in doing the act) that the condition has been complied 
with, or that the fact does exist, may be relied on by one acting in good faith, 
and ia conclusive and binding on the corporation. Commissioners t\ Aspin- 
wall, 21 How. 539; Bissell r. Jeffersonville, 24 How. 287; Moran v. Com- 
missioners, 2 Black, 722; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604, 
644; St. Joseph r. Rogers, 16 Wall. 644; Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484; 
Commissioners r. Bolles, 94 U. S. 104; Commissioners r. January, 94 U. S. 
202; San Antonio v. Mehaflfy, 96 U. S. 312; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529; 
Sherman County r. Simons, 109 U. S. 735; Anderson County t\ Beal, 
113 U. S. 227; Gunnison County Comrs. v, Rollins, 173 U. S. 255; Louisville 
Trust Co. F. Railroad Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 433, 468; 174 U. S. 552; Brattleboro 
Bank r. Tru^itees, 98 Fed. Rep. 524, 532; Miners' Ditch Co. t?. Zellerbach, 
37 Cal. 643, 587 ; Railroad Co. r. Norwich, etc., Society, 24 Ind. 457 ; Common- 
wealth r. Savings Bank, 137 Mass. 431; Madison Co. r. Brown, 67 Miss. 684; 
Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kav, 36 N. J. Eq. 648; Railroad Co. i?. Schuyler, 
34 N. Y. 30, 73; Famham v, Benedict, 107 N. Y. 159; Bank v, Blakesley, 
42 Ohio St. 645; Board of Supervisors v, Randolph, 89 Va. 614; Kickland v, 
Menasha Woodenware Co., 68 Wis. 34. Contra, Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 
84 N. Y. 532; Craig r. Town of Andes, 93 N. Y. 405. Cp. Alvord v. Syracuse 
Svffs. Bk., 98 N. Y. 607. 

But a representation of the existence of facts which the corporate officers 
bad no authority to determine, or which are as well ascertainable by the 
other party as by the corporate agents, or a recital of matters of law, does not 
bind the corporation. Bank r. Porter Township, 110 U. S. 608; Dixon County 
r. Field, 111 U. S. 83; Nesbit v. Riverside Dist., 144 U. S. 610; Manhattan 
Co. r. Ironwood, 74 Fed. Rep. 535, 639; Geer r. School Dist., 97 Fed. Rep. 
732; Bank f. Board of Trustees, 98 Fed. Rep. 524, 633; Hopple r. Brown 
Townabip, 13 Ohio St. 311; Hopple r. Hippie, 33 Ohio St. 116; Klamath 
raia 1^. Sachs, 95 Oreg. 326. 



138 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

this purpose. It appears^ then, that the unanimons assent of the 
members will remove all objections founded on the principles of 
126] partnership, and will so far *leave the corporation in full pos- 
session of its common law powers. There are nevertheless many 
transactions which even the unanimous will of all the members can- 
not make binding as corporate acts. For the reasons which de- 
termine this we must seek farther. 

2. Powers must not bo used to defeat special purposes of incorporatioiL 

Most corporations established in modem times by special Acts of 
Parliament have been established expressly for special purposes the 
fulfilment of which is considered to be for the benefit of the public 
as well as of the proprietors of the imdertaking, and for this reason 
they are armed with extraordinary powers and privileges. Whatever 
a corporation may be capable of doing at common law, there is no 
doubt that unusual powers given by the Legislature for a special 
purpose must be employed only for that purpose : if Parliament em- 
powers either natural persons or a corporation to take J. S.'s lands 
for a railway, J. S. is not bound to let them take it for a factory or to 
let them take an excessive quantity of land on purpose to re-sell it 
at a profit (6). If Parliament confers immunity for the obstniction 
of a navigable river l^y building a bridge at a specified place, that 
will be no excuse for obstructing it in the like manner elsewhere. 
Moreover we cannot stop here. It is impossible to say that an in- 
127] corporation for *special objects and with special powers gives a 
restricted right of using those powers, but leaves the use of ordinary 
corporate powers without any restriction. The possession of extraor- 
dinary powers puts the corporation for almost all purposes and in 
almost all transactions in a wholly different position from that which 

(h) See GaXlowoAf v. Mayor of ing property takes it with all its 

London (1866) L. R. 1 H. L. at p. 43, rights and incidents as against 

36 L. J. Ch. 477 ; Lord Carington v. strangers, subject only to the duty 

Wycombe Ry. Co, ( 1868 ) L. R. 3 Ch. of exercising those rights in good 

377, 381, 37 L. J. Ch. 213. Nor may faith with a view to the objects of 

a company hold regattas or let out incorporation: 8tc4ndon Watenoorka 

pleasure-boats to the inconvenience of Co, v. Wilts and Berks Canal Navigc^ 

the former owner on a piece of water tion Co. ( 1875 ) L. R. 7 H. L. 697, 

acquired by them under their Act 704, 710, 45 L. J. Ch. 638; Bonner V. 

for a reservoir: Bostock v. N, Btaf- 0, W, Ry, Co. (1883) 24 Ch. Div. 1; 

fordahire Ry. Co. (1856) 3 Sm. & G. and a corporation cannot bind itself 

283, 292, 25 L. J. Ch. 325 ; nor alien- not to use in the future special pow- 

ate land similarly acquired except ers which have presumably been con- 

for purposes authorized by the Act: f erred to be used for the public 

MulUner v. Midland Ry. Co. (1879) good: Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Os- 

11 Ch. D. 611, 622, 48 L. J. Ch. 268. uxild (1883) 8 App. Ca. 623. 
But a statutory corporation aoquir- 



CORPORATIONS. 139 

it would have held without them ; and apart from the actual exercise 
of them it may do many things which it was otherwise legally com- 
petent to do, but which without their existence it could practically 
never have done. Any substantial departure from the purposes con- 
templated by the Legislature^ whether involving on the face of it a 
misapplication of special powers or not^ would defeat the expectations 
and objects with which those powers were given. When Parliament, 
in the public interest and in consideration of a presumed benefit to 
the public, confers extraordinary powers, it must be taken in the same 
interest to forbid the doing of that which will tend to defeat its 
policy in conferring them; and to forbid in the sense not only of 
attaching penal consequences to such acts when done, but of making 
ihem wholly void if it is attempted to do them. Accordingly con- 
tracts of railway companies and corporations of a like public natute 
which can be seen to import a substantial contravention of the policy 
of the incorporating Acts are held by the courts to be void, and are 
often spoken of as maia prohibxta, and illegal in the same sense that a 
contract of a natural person to do anything contrary to the pro- 
visions of an Act of Parliament is illegal (c). Others prefer to say 
that the Legislature, acting indeed on motives of public policy, has 
simply disabled the corporation from doing acts of this class; "to 
regard the case as one of incapacity to contract *rather than [128 
of illegality, and the corporation as if it were non-existent for the 
purpose of such contracts" (d).^^ This appears the sounder, and is 
now the more generally accepted view (e).^® 

(c) Blackburn J. in Taylor v. somcf means of restraining them in 

ChicheMter d Midhurat Ry. Co, a court of common law at the in- 

(1867) L. R. 2 Ex. at p. 379, 39 L. J. stance of the Crown: A. G. v. O. E. 

Ex. 217; and (Brett and Grove JJ. Ry. Co. (1880) 11 Ch. Div. at pp. 

concurring) in Riche v. Aahbury Ry. 501 — 3. 

Carriage Co. (1874) L. R. 9 Ex. at {e) The agreement of a third person 

pp. 262, 266, 43 L. J. Ex. 177. Lord to procure a company to do some- 

Hatherley, s. c. nom. Aahhury Ry. thing foreign to its proper purposes 

Carriage Co. v. Riche ( 1875 ) L. R. is plausibly called illegal : MacGregor 

7 H. L. at p. 689. v. Dover d Deal Ry. Co. (1852) 18 

id) Archibald J., L. R. 9 Ex. 293; Q. B. 618, 22 L. J. Q. B. 69; and 

Lord Cairns, L. R. 7 H. L. at p. 672 ; see per Erie J. in Mayor of Nortoich 

Lord Selbome, i5. 694. And Bram- v. Norfolk Ry. Co. (1*855) 4 E. & B. 

well L.J. rather strongly disap- 397, 24 L. J. Q. 6. 105; but it is 

proved of calling such acts illegal, really void as being the promise of 

pointing out that if they were prop- a performance impossible in law (Ch. 

erly so called there would have been VIII., below). 

15 Bath Gas Light Co. r. Claffy, 151 N. Y. 24. 

Incorporations may exercise all such powers as are expressly conferred 
upon them, and all others which are necessary to the exercise of those ex- 
pressly conferred ; and " necessary " is to be taken not in the sense of " in- 
dispensable " but of " reasonably incidental." Atty.Genl. v. Railway Co., 6 



140 CAPACITY OF PABTIE8. 

InteiMt of the public as inyeiton. There is anotlier consideration of 
a somewhat similar kind which applies equally to what may be called 
public companies in a special sense — i.e., such as are invested with 
special powers for carrying out defined objects of public interest — 
and ordinary joint-stock companies which have no such powers. The 

App. Ca. 473, 478, 481; Foster r. London, etc., Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 711; 
Railroad Co. v. Union Steamboat Co., 107 U. S. 98, 100; Fort Wortb City Co. 
V, Smith Bridge Co., 151 U. S. 294, 301; Railway Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 
514; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 163 U. S. 564; Colorado 
Springs Co. v, American Pub. Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 843, 849; Schofield f?. Bank, 
97 Fed. Rep. 283; Jewelers' Pub. Co. v. Jacobs, 109 Fed. Rep. 509; Galena 
p. Corinth, 48 111. 423; People v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 1^5 111. 125; 
Miller v. Board, etc., of Dearborn Co., 66 Ind. 162, 167 ; Thompson r. Lambert, 
44 la. 239; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen, 326; Eureka Iron Works 
V, Bresnahan, 60 Mich. 332 ; Crawford v, Longstreet, 43 N. J. L. 326 ; Ellerman 
V. Chicago, etc., Co., 49 N. J. £q. 217; Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 
Sandf . Ch. 280 ; Moss v. Rossie Mining Co., 5 Hill, 137 ; Curtis v, Leavitt, 15 
N. Y. 965; Larwell r. Hanover S. F. Society, 40 Ohio St. 274, 282; Gas A 
Fuel Co. V, Dairy Co., 60 Ohio St. 96; Bank v. Jacobs, 6 Humph. 515, 525; 
Interior Woodwork Co. v. Prasser, 108 Wis. 557. 

In the United States they can be created only by the Legislature. Miners' 
Ditch Co. V, Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 604 ; Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397 ; Frank- 
lin Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga. 80; Atkinson v. Railroad Co., 15 Ohio St. 21, 33. 

And as the theory of "general capacity" of corporations is limited by 
the rule that corporations created by legislative enactment must be taken 
to be prohibited from doing any acts which amount to a substantial de- 
parture from the purpose of their incorporation, it would seem to make but 
little difference whether the theory of general or special capacities be adopted 
for the purpose of determining whether a given act is, or is not, ultra vires 
in the case of a given corporation. But for the purpose of determining the 
effect to be ascribed to the unauthorized engagements of a corporation the dis- 
tinction between the doctrine which rests upon the want of capacity to do an 
act, and that which rests upon a prohibition against doing an act, thus im- 
pliedlv admitting a capacity to do it, is important. 

Perhaps the strongest statement of the doctrine of special capacities is to 
be found in the case of Strauss v. Insurance Co., 5 Ohio St. 60, where it was 
held that a corporation, which was authorized to make and receive negotiable 
paper in the course of its business, having, in the execution of an unauthor- 
ized contract, taken by indorsement from the other party to the contract 
the promissory note of a third person, could not recover on the note against 
the maker. The court said : " The contract of indorsement, like every other, 
must have parties ; without two parties competent to contract there can be no 
agreement by which the one can lose and the other acquire the title to 
negotiable paper. The powers and capacities of a corporation must be 
derived from the law of its creation or they do not exist. If a fair construc- 
tion of its charter does not confer the power it is incompetent to become 
a party to the contract of indorsement, and without capacity to take or 
hold the title. As well might a dead man, by the mere act of the indorser, 
be vested with the legal interest, as a corporation which only lives for the 
purposes and objects intended by the Legislature. Beyond those limits it 
has no existence, and its acts are neither more nor less than a nullity." 
Cp. Ehrman r. Insurance Co., 35 Ohio St. 324. 

Upon this theory every unauthorized engagement of a corporation, whether 
executory or wholly executed, must always remain utterly void and inoperative 
as a contract for "want of parties; if it includes an alienation by or to the 
corporation the title cannot pass for want of a grantor or grantee as the 
case may be. 

But that this metaphysical view of the limits of the capacity of corporis 



CORPORATIONS. 141 

provisionB for limited liability and for the easy transfer of shares in 
both sorts of companies must be considered^ in their modem form 
and extent at least, as a statutory privilege. These provisions also 
invest the companies with a certain public character and interest 
apart from the nature of their particular objects in each case, but 
derived from the fact that they do professedly exist for particular 
objects. 

Buyers of thares and creditors have a right to assume that the company's 
professed objects are adhered to. By far the greater part of their capital 
represents the money of shareholders who have bought shares in the 

tions drawn from their artificial constitution, is founded in error, is shown 
by the common-law rule as laid down in the case of Sutton's Hospital, 10 
Co. Rep. 30, b., infra. Appendix, n. D. A statutory and a common-law cor- 
poration are equally artificial beings, alike creatures of the law, and any limi- 
tations upon their capacity, inherent in their nature as such artificial beings, 
inhere equally in both ; so that if a common-law corporation is not, by reason 
of its artificial nature, unable to exercise powers not conferred upon it, 
neither is a statutory corporation. If a corporation has no existence save for 
the purposes for which it was created, then as no corporation was ever 
created for that purpose, it cannot any more than a " dead man " commit a 
tort. That in legal contemplation, as well as in fact, corporations have the 
capacity to and do acts not only not authorized by their charters, but ex- 
pressly prohibited, is shown by the fact that the law provides the remedy 
by quo warranto against them for such very abuse and usurpation of power. 
The other, and, it is believed, the correct theory in regard to corporations 
is that once created they have the capacity, limited only by natural possibility, 
of doing any act or making any contract, but that in addition to the express 
prohibitions mentioned in their charters there is an implied prohibition 
against any corporation's doing any act or making any contract not fairly 
incidental to the objects for which it was incorporated. But such prohibited 
act or contract, when done or executed, is not necessarily always unlawful or 
void to all intents; the effect of the prohibition here, as with prohibitory 
statutes, in general {infra, pp. 397-404) is a question of construction. 

Thus it is held that an alienation of property, made in execution of a 
contract ultra vires, passes title. Smith v. Sheelev, 12 Wall. 358; Reynolds t?. 
Bank, 112 U. S. 405; Bank r. Matthews, 98 U. S* 621, 628; Fritts t\ Palmer, 
132 U. S. 282; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. r. T. H., etc.,*Ry. Co., 145 U. S. 393; 
Lantry v, Wallace, 182 U. S. 536; Railroad Co. r. Orton, 6 Sawyer, 157; 
Long r. Railway Co., 91 Ala. 619; Edwards r. Fairbanks, 27 La. Ann. 449; 
Bank r. Butler, 157 Mass. 548; Crolley v. Railwav Co., 30 Minn. 541: She- 
waiter V. Pimer, 65 Mo. 218; Thornton v. Bank, 71 Mo. 221; Franklin Av. 
German Sav. Inst. v. Board, etc., of Roscoe, 75 Mo. 408; Missouri Valley 
Land Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192; Parish r. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494, 604; 
Mallet V, Simpson, 94 N. C. 37; Walsh r. Barton, 24 Ohio St. 28; Ehrman 
V. Insurance Co., 35 Ohio St. 324; Leazure r. Hillegas, 7 S. & R. 312: Banks 
r. Poitianx, 3 Rand. 136; Fayette Land Co. v. Railroad, 93 Va. 274, 285; 
Farmers', etc.. Bank r. Railroad Co., 17 Wis. 372. But see contra, Occum v. 
Sprague Mfg. Co., 34 Conn. 529; Thweatt v. Bank, 81 Ky. 1. See also Madison 
Ave., etc.. Church r. Bapt. Church in Oliver Street, 73 N. Y. 82. 

A prohibition against a corporation's making a particular contract may be 
accompanied by a specific penalty, such as itself to indicate that the con- 
tract if made shall not be held void. Bank v. Bearing, 91 U. S. 29; Fritts v. 
Palmer, 132 U. S. 282; Wiley r. Starbuck, 44 Ind. 298; Bank t\ Hobbs, 11 
Gray, 250; Bank v. Pratt. 115 Mass. 539: Ferguson r. Oxford Mercantile 
Co., 78 Miss. 65; Pratt v. Short, 79 N. Y. 437; Ewing v, Toledo S. B. & T. Co., 



142 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

market without any intention of taking an active part in the manage- 
ment of the concern, but on the faith that they know in what sort of 
adventure they are investing their money, and that the company's 
funds are not being and will not be applied to other objects than those 
set forth in its constitution as declared by the act of incorporation, 
memorandum of association, or the like. This is not a mere repetition 
129] of the objections *groimded on partnership law; the incoming 

43 Ohio St. 31; Bank v, Garlinghouse, 22 Ohio St. 492; Brown v. Bank, 72 
Pa. 200. 

A corporation forming ultra vires a partnership with an individual cannot 
ignore this, and prove against the firm in bankruptcy as a creditor. Wal- 
lerstein v, Ervin, 112 Fed. Rep. 124. 

A contract which corporations and natural persons are both forbidden to 
make, as where the charter of a bank forbids its loaning money at more than 
a certain rate of interest, and by the general law there is a similar pro- 
hibition applying to natural persons, will not be void when made by a cor- 
S>ration, wnen it would not be void if made by an individual. McLean v. 
ank, 3 McLean, 687, 609; Railroad Co. r. Trust Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 124; 
Bank r. Harrison, 57 Mo. 503; Bank v. Nolan, 7 How. 'Miss.) 508; Bank 
V. Archer, 8 S. & M. 151; Bank v. Burchard, 33 Vt. 346; Bank v, Sherwood, 
10 Wis. 230; contra, Orr v. Lacey, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 230; Bank v. Swayne, 
8 Ohio, 257 ; Kilbreath r. Bates, 38 Ohio St. 187 ; Bank r. Owens, 2 Pet. 627 ; 
Cf. S. C. sub. nom. Bank r. Wagffoner, 9 Pet. 378. And see Tiffany i?. Boat- 
man's Institution, 18 Wall. 375; tn/ra, p. 400. 

The defense of ultra vires will generally not be suffered to prevail where 
the party raising it has actually received the property or money of the 
other party and is trying to evade payment therefor; the party having re- 
ceived the money or property of the other cannot retain it and object that 
the corporation had no right to make the contract under which it was 
received. Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 629; Bank v. Whitney, 103 U. S. 
99; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487; Chapman v. County of Douglas, 
107 U. S. 348; Fortier v. Bank, 112 U. S. 439; Central Transportation Co. 
V. Pullman Co., 139 U. S. 24; 171 U. S. 138; Railroad Co. v, Dow, 19 Fed. 
Rep. 388 ; American Bank i\ Wall Paper Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 85 ; Sioux City Co. 
r. Trust Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 124; Southern B. k L. Assn. t?. Casa Grande 
Co., 128 Ala. 624 ; Argenti r. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255 ; Darst v. Gale, 83 III. 
136; Bradley f. Ballard, 55 111. 413; Pocock v. Lafayette Bldg. Assn., 71 Ind. 
357 ; Thompson v. Lambert, 44 la. 239 ; Opera House Co. v. M. B. & L. Assn., 
60 Kan. 65 ; Brunswick' Co. v. U. S. Gas Fuel Co., 85 Me. 532 ; Chester Glass 
Co. r. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94; Bath Gas Light Co. r. Claffy, 151 N. Y. 24; Madi- 
son Av., etc.. Church r. Bapt. Church in Oliver Street. '73 N. Y. 82; Whitney 
Arms Co. r. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62 ; Parish r. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494, 506 ; De Groff 
17. Amer. L. T. Co., 21 N. Y. 124; Indiana r. Woram, 6 Hill, 33; Steam Nav. 
Co. r. Weed, 17 Barb. 378; Hays v. Gaslight Co., 29 Ohio St. 330, 340; Lar- 
well V. Hanover S. F. Society, 40 Ohio St. 274, 285; Markley r. Mineral 
City, 60 Ohio St. 430; Railroad Co. v. Transportation Co., 83 Pa. 160; 
Wright r. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. 204; Bigelow v. Railway Co., 104 Wis. 109. 

But where a corporation has not actually received the money or property 
of the other party to the contract, it cannot be held liable upon a contract 
prohibited as being a departure from the purposes for which it was created. 
Thomas r. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71; Pearce v. Railroad Co., 21 How. 442; 
Franklin Co. r. Lewiston Inst, for Savings, 68 Me. 43 ; Davis v. Railroad Co., 
131 Mass. 258; Nat. Trust Co. r. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. 155; Nat, Park 
Bank v. German- American Co., 116 N. Y. 281 ; Jemison r. Bank, 122 N. Y. 135; 
Madison Plk. Rd. Co. i'. Watertown Plk. Rd. Co., 7 Wis. 59; contra to Davis 
f-. Railroad Co.. supra, on a similar state of facts, is State Board v. Railroad 
Co., 47 Ind. 407. 



CORPORATIONS. 143 

shareholder may protect himself for the future, l?ut the mischief may 
be done or doing at the time of the purchase : moreover persons other 
than shareholders deal with the company on the faith of its adhering 
to its defined objects. They are entitled to "know that they are 
dealing with persons who can only devote their means to a given class 
of objects, and who are prohibited from devoting their means to any 
other purpose'* (g). The assent of all those who are shareholders 
at a given time will bind them individually, but it will not bind 
others (h). If I buy shares in a company which professes to make 
3 railway plant in England I have a right to assume that its funds 
are not pledged to pay for making a railway in Spain or Belgium, 
and it is the same if dealing with it as a stranger I lend money or 
otherwise give credit to it. Accordingly the provisions of the Com- 
panies Act, 1862, are to be considered as having been enacted in the 
interests of " in the first place, those who might become shareholders 
in succession to the persons who were shareholders for the time being ; 
and secondly, the outside public, and more particularly those who 
might be creditors of companies of this kind" (t). Accordingly it 
is settled that a company registered under the Companies Act is 
forbidden to enter, even with the unanimous assent of the share- 
holders for the time being, into a contract foreign to its objects as 
defined in the memorandum of association (A?).^^ 

Inability of corporations to make negotiable instnunents. It is not 
within our scope to discuss the particular contracts which particular 

ig) Lord Hatherley, L. R. 7 H. L. Co. v. Riche (1875) L. R. 7 H. L. 

at p. 684. 663, 44 L. J. Ex, 185. See note D. 

{h) See L. R. 9 Ex. 270, 291. in Appendix for some further ac- 

(♦) Lord Cairns, L. R. 7 H. L. at count of the authorities by which the 

p. 667. rules were settled in the latter part 

{k) Aahhury By, Carriage d Iron of the nineteenth century. 

IT In Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71, 83, the court said of Ashbury 
Ry. Carriage Co. v, Riche, sujyra, note (fc), that it "established the broad 
doctrine that a contract not within the scope of the powers conferred on 
the corporation cannot be made valid by the assent of every one of the 
shareholders, nor can it by any partial performance become the ^foundation of 
a right of action. It would be a waste of time to attempt to examine the 
American cases on the subject, which are more or less conflicting, but we 
think we are warranted in saying that this latest decision of the House of 
Lords represents the decided preponderance of authority in this country and 
in England, and is based upon sound principle." The case is also approved 
and followed in Pennsylvania Co. r. Railroad, 118 U. S. 290; Oregon Rv. Co. 
r. Oregonian R. Co.. 130 IT. S. 1; Central Transportation Co, v, Pullman 
Co., 139 U. S. 24; 171 U. S. 138; De La Vergne Co. r. German Sav. Inst., 
175 U. S. 40; Davis r. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 258; Xat. Trust Co. r. Miller, 
^^S: i* ^- ^^^'' ^^""^^ ^^>^e, etc t?. Stepp, S. C. Pa., 17 Rep. 61; Mallory 
V. Oil Co., 86 Tenn. 598. *'*'»» r 



144 CAPACITY OF PABTIS6. 

corporate bodies have been held incapable of making. One class of 
contracts, however, is in a somewhat peculiar position in this respect, 
130] and ^requires a little separate consideration. We mean the 
contracts expressed in negotiable instruments and governed by the 
law merchant. As a general rule a corporation cannot bind itself 
by a negotiable instrument (2)-^^ "^his is not because a corporation 
cannot be presumed to have power to do so, but, in the first place, 
because of the general rule of form that the contracts of a corpora- 
tion must be made under its common seal (m). It follows from this 
that a corporation cannot prima facie be boimd by negotiable instru- 
ments in the ordinary form. The only comparatively early authority 
which is really much to the point was argued and partly decided on 
this footing (n). But the corporate seal may now take the place of 

(Z) A different rule prevails in notes, &c., within certain limits. In 

the United States, where it is held Murray v. E, India Co. (1821) 5 B. 

that a corporation not expressly pro- & Aid. 204, 24 R. R. 325, the statu- 

hihited from so doing may give ne- tory authority to issue bills was not 

gotiable promissory notes for any of disputed; a difficulty was raised as 

the legitimate purposes of its incor- to the proper remedy, but disposed 

poration. This appears more con- of in the course of argument: 5 B. 

venient at the present day. & Aid. 210; 24 R. R. 330. Other 

(m) See more as to this in the ca«es at first sight like these relate 

following chapter. to the authority of particular agents 

(n.) Brought on v. Manchester War to bind a corporate— or unincorpor- 

ienjoorka Co. (1810) 3 B. k Aid. 1, ated — association irrespective of the 

22 R. R. 278. The chief point was theory of corporate liabilities. See 

on the statutes giving the Bank of note (q) next page. 
England exclusive rights of issuing 

IS In the United States, "no question is better settled upon authority 
than that a corporation, not prohibited by law from doing so, and without 
any express power in its charter for that purpose, may make a negotiable 
promissory note payable either at a future day or upon demand, when such 
note is given for any of the legitimate purposes for which the company 
was incorporated." Moss v. Aver ill, 10 N. Y. 449, 457 ; Railroad Co. v. How- 
ard, 7 Wall. 392, 412; Grommes r. Sullivan, 81 Fed. Rep. 45; Oxford Iron Co. 
V. Spradley, 46 Ala. 98; Ward r. Johnson, 95 III. 215; Davis r. Building 
Union, 32 Md. 285; Preston v. Missouri, etc., Lead Co., 61 Mo. 43; Barry 
r. Merchants' Exch. Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280; Railway Co. t\ Lynde, 55 Ohio 
St. 23; Bank v. Jacobs, 6 Humph. 515. 

Wliere a corporation has power to issue bills and notes under any circum- 
stances, a bona fide holder may rely on the presumption that they were right- 
fully issued. Supervisors r. Schenk, 5 Wall. 772, 784; Lexington i?. Butler, 
14 Wall. 282; Todd f. Kentucky Land Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 47; Grommes v, 
Sullivan, 81 Fed. Rep. 45; Nat. Loan Co. v. Rockland Co.. 94 Fed. Rep. 335; 
Florence R. Co. r. Bank, 106 Ala. 364; Railroad Co. r. Norwich, etc., Society, 
24 Ind. 457 ; Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57 ; American Bank v, Gluck, 
68 Minn. 129; Auerbach r. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291; Bank v. Mtch. 
Barge Co., 52 Mich. 438; Bissell r. Railroad Co., 22 N. Y. 258, 289; Stoney 
r. Insurance Co., 11 Paige, 635; Banking Assn. r. White Lead Co., 35 N. Y. 
605; Wright v. Pipe Line Co.. 101 Pa. 204; County of Macon t?. Shores, 97 
U. S. 272, 278-9. Supra, p. ^124, n. 14. 



COBPORATIONS. 145 

signature in bills and notes (o),'^^ and transferable debentures under 
a companjr's seal hare been held to be negotiable (p). Thus the ob- 
jection of form does not seem of great importance in modem practice. 
The question of authority to bind the company in substance is more 
serious. 

Ordinary rales of partnership agency not applicable. It may be asked, 
why should not the agents who are authorized to contract on behalf 
of a company in the ordinary course of its business be competent 
to bind the company by their acceptance or indorsement on its 
behalf, just as a member of an ordinary trading partnership can 
bind the firm ? There is a twofold answer. First, the extensive im- 
plied authority of *an ordinary partner to bind his fellows can- [131 
not be applied to the case of a numerous association, whether incor* 
porated or not, whose members are personally imknown to each other, 
and it has been often decided that the managers of such association? 
cannot bind the individual members or the corporate body, as the case 
may be, by giving negotiable instruments in the name of the concern, 
unless the terms of their particular authority enable them to do so 
by express words or necessary implication (q). In the case of a cor- 
poration this authority must be sought in its constitution as set forth 
in its special Act, articles of association, or the like. Secondly, the 
power of even a trading corporation to contract without seal is limited 
to things incidental to the usual conduct of its business. But as was 
pointed out by a judge who was certainly not disposed to take a 
narrow view of corporate powers, a negotiable instrument is not merely 
evidence of a contract, but creates a new contract and a distinct cause 

(o)BUl8 of Exchfuige Act, 1882, 8. k W. 252, 16 L. J. Ex. 112. As to 

91. incorporated companies: Steele V. 

(p) Beehuanaland Exphration Co. Harmer (1845) 14 M. & W. 831 (in 

V. London Trading Bank [1808] 2 £z. Ch. 4 Ex. 1, not on this point) ; 

Q. B. 658, 67 L. J. Q. B. 987. Thompson v. Universal Salvage Co. 

iq) A» to unincorporated joint (1848) 1 Ex. 694, 17 L. J. Ex. 118; 

stock oompanies: Neale v. Turton Re Peruvian hys. Co, (1867) L. R. 

(1827) 4 Bing. 149, 29 R. R. 631; 2 Ch. 617, 36 L. J. Ch. 864; cp. Eof 

Dickinson v. Valpy (1829) 10 B. A parte City Bank (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 

C. 128, 34 R. R. 348; Bramah v. 758, per Selwyn LJ. The two last 

Roberts (1837) 3 Bing. N. C. 963; cases go rather far in the direction 

Bult Y. Morrel (1840) 12 A. k E. of implying such a power from gen- 

745; BrouTfi v. Byers (1847) 16 M. eral words. 

IB So In the United States. Mercer County r. Haekett, 1 Wall. 83, 95; 
Ackley School District r. Hall, 113 U. S. 135; Lachman r. Lehman, 63 Ala. 
547; Griffith t?. Burden, 35 la. 138; Strauss v. United Telegram Co., 164 
Mass. 130; Boyd v. Kennedy, 38 N. J. L. 146; Copper v. Mayor, 44 N. J. L. 
634; Bank r. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532; Kerr v, Qottj, 105 Pa. 282; Mason 
0. Friek, 105 Pa. 162; Stevens v, Philadelphia Ball C^ub, 142 Pa. 52: 
American Bank r. American Wood Paper Co., 19 R. I. 149; Crawford's Ne- 
gotiable Instruments' Law, f 25; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 268, note (a). 

10 



146 CAPACITY OF PARTIES. 

of action^ and " it would be altogether contrary to the principles of 
the law which regulates such instruments that they should be valid or 
not according as the consideration between the original parties was 
good or bad;*' and it would be most inconvenient if one had in the 
case of a corporation to inquire " whether the consideration in respect 
of which the acceptance is given is sufficiently connected with the 
purposes for which the acceptors are incorporated *' (r). 
132] *The result seems to be that in England a corporation can be 
bound by negotiable instruments only in the following cases : — 

1. When the negotiation of bills and notes is itself one of the 
purposes for which the corporation exists — " within the very scope 
and object of their incorporation *' (s) — as with the Bank of England 
and the East India Company, and (it is presumed) financial cotn- 
panies generally, and perhaps even all companies whose business 
wholly or chiefly consists in buying and selling (s), 

2. When the instrument is accepted or made by an agent for the 
corporation whom its constitution empowers to accept bills, &c., on its 
behalf, either by express words or by necessary implication. 

The extent of these exceptions cannot be said to be very precisely 
defined, and in framing articles of association and similar instru- 
ments, it is therefore desirable to insert express and clear provisions 
on this head. 

American decisions. In the United States the Supreme Court has 
decided that local authorities having the usual powers of adminis- 
tration and local taxation have not any implied power to issue 
negotiable securities which will be indisputable in the hands of a 
bona fide holder for value (<), and has been equally divided on the 
question whether municipal corporations have such power (u),^ It 
seems however that in American Courts a power to borrow money is 

(r) Per Erie C.J. Bateman v. Mid {s) Per Montague Smith J. L. R. 

Wales Ry, Co. (1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 1 C. P. 512; Ex parte City Bank 

499, 509, 35 L. J. C. P. 205. Rail- (1868) L. R. 3 Ch. 768. 

way companiee are expressly forbid- it) Police Jury v. Britton (1872) 

den to issue negotiable or assignable 15 Wall. 566, 572. 

instruments without statutory au- (u) The Mayor Y, Ray (1873) 19 

thority, on pain of forfeiting the Wall. 466. 
nominal amount of the security: 7 
A 8 Vict. c. 85, s. 19. 

20 The weight of authority is against their having such power. Chishclm 
V. Montgomery, 2 Woods, 584; Gause v, Clarksville, 5 Dillon, 166; Hopper 
V. Covington, 8 Fed. Rep. 779; Merrill v, Monticello, 14 Fed. Rep* 628; Insur- 
ance Co. r. Manning, 95 Fed. Rep. 597 ; Mayor r. Wetumka Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 
611, 625; Qark v. Des Moines, 19 la. 199; Dively v. Cedar FaUs, 21 la. 565; 
Heins v. Lincoln, 102 la. 71, 78; Hackettstown ads. Swackhammer, 37 N. J. L. 
191; Knapp v. Mayor, 39 N. J. L. 394; Hubbell t?. Custer City, 15 S. Dak. 55. 
Contra, Richmond v, McGirr, 78 Ind. 192; Commonwealth v, Williamstown, 
156 Mass. 70; Williamsport v. Commonwealth, 84 Pa. St. 487, where previous 



CORPORATTOXS. 147 

held to carry with it as an incident the power of issuing n^otiable 
securities («.)** 

Estoppel and part perf oxmance apply to corporations. The common law 
doctrine of estoppel (y),^ and the kindred equitable doctrine of part 
performance (z),^ applj to corpo*rations as well as to natural [133 
persons. Even when the corporate seal has been improperly affixed 
to a document by a person who has the custody of the seal for other 
purposes, the corporation may be bound by conduct on the part of 
its governing body which amounts to an estoppel or ratification, but 
it will not be bound by anything less (a).^ The principles applied 
in such cases are independent of contract, and therefore no difficulty 
arises from the want of a contract under the corporate seal, or non- 
compliance with statutory forms. But it is conceived that no sort 
of estoppel, part performance, or ratification can bind a corporation 
to a transaction which the Legislature has in substance forbidden it 
to undertake, or made it incapable of undertaking.^ 

{m) PoUee Jury v. Britton, 15 fined however to cases where the cor- 

Wall. 566. poration is " capable of being bound 

(y) Wehh V. Heme Ba/y Commis- by the written contract of its direct- 

eUmere (1870) L. R. 5 Q. B. 642, 39 ors as an individual is capable of 

L. J. Q. B. 221. being bound by his own contract in 

(«) WiUon' V. West Hartlepool writing:" per Cotton L.J. Hunt v. 

Ry, Co. (1864-5) 2 D. J. S. 475, 403, WimbUdon Local Board (1878) 4 C. 

per Turner L.J. 34 L. J. Ch. 241 ; P. Div. at p. 62, 48 L. J. C. P. 207. 
Crook V. Corporation of Beaford (o) Bank of Ireland v. Evwnt^ 

(1871) L. R. 6 Ch. 551; Melbourne ChaHtiea (1855) 5 H. L. C. 389; 

Banking Corporation V. Brougham Merchante of the Staple v. Bank of 

(1878-9) 4 App. Ca. at p. 169, 48 England (1887) 21 Q. B. Div. 160, 

L. J. C. P. 12. This must be con- 57 L. J. Q. B. 418. 

authorities in accord with that decision are collected. The opinion of Mr. 
Justice Bradley, in Mayor v, Ray, is approved in Wall v. County of Monroe, 
103 U. S. 74, and Claiborne County r. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400. 

In the case last cited the court say, p. 410: "It is undoubtedly a ques- 
tion of local policy with each State what shall be the extent and character 
of the powers which its various political and municipal organizations shall 
possess ; and the settled decisions of its highest courts on this subject will be 
regarded as authoritative by the courts of the United States; for it is a 
question that relates to the internal constitution of the body politic of the 
State." So Loeb t?. Trustees, 179 U. S. 472, 492; Wilkes Co. v. Coler, 180 
U. S. 506, 531. 
See further Dillon, Municipal Corp., § 117 sqq. 
^^JSupra, p. '129, n. 19. 

22 Pendleton County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 297; Railroad Co. v. Howard, 13 
How. 307, 335; New England, etc., Co. v. Union, etc., Co., 4 Blatchf. 1; 
Railroad Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; Sacramento Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 
127 Cat. 217; Railroad Co. v. Chatham, 42 Conn. 465; Hale r. Insurance Co., 
32 N. H. 295; Bank r. Flour Co. S. C. Com. Ohio, 13 Wkly. Law BuU. 368; 
Kneeland r. Gibson. 24 Wis. 39. 
28Conant r. B. F. Canal Co., 29 Vt. 263. 
24 Rector, etc., of St. Bartholomew r. Wood, 80 Pa. 219. 
26 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman Co., 139 U. S. 24; 171 U. S. 138; 
Graves r. Saline Co., 161 U. S. 359; Kennedv r. Bank, 167 U. S. 362, 371; 
Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U. S. 364; Clark v. Northampton, 105 Fed. Rep. 312; 
Sage V. Fargo Township, 107 Fed. Rep. 383. 



118 



FOBM OF CONTRACT. 



134] 



♦CHAPTEB III. 
FoBH OP Contract. 



PAQS. 

I. FormoUty in Early BngUsh 

Law, 148 

Modern principles as to re- 
quirements of form, 148 
Position of informal contracts 

in ancient law, 149 

Formal and informal contracts 

in Roman law, 149 

Archaic modes of proof, 150 

The deed in English medieval 

law, 160 

Remedies on contracts: debt 
on covenant or simple con- 
tract, 151 
Action of covenant, 152 
Action of account, 153 

II. The Action of Assumpsit, 154 
Introduction of assumpsit to 

supply remedy on executory 
agreements, 154 

III. Modern Requirements of 
Form, 157 

Modem law: requirements of 

form exceptional, 157 

Contracts of record, 157 

Contracts subject to special 

forms, 168 

1. Contracts of Corporations, 159 

Old law: requirement of seal, 159 



PAOB. 

161 



Modem exoeptionB, 

Trading corporations: con- 
tracts in course of business, 162 

Non-trading corporations : con- 
tract necessary and inci- 
dental to corporate purposes, 164 

Municipal corporations, &c., 164 

Appointments of officers, 

Executed contracts with cor- 
porations. 

Statutory forms of contract. 

Summary, 
2. Negotiable Instruments, 
9. Statutory Forms, 

A. Statute of Frauds, 
Guarantees, 

Agreements upon considera- 
tion of marriage, 

Interests in land. 

Agreements not to be per- 
formed within a year. 

Sale of goods, 

The ** note or memorandum," 

Transfers of ships and copy- 
right, 

B. Marine Insurance, 

C. Transfer of Shares, 

D. Acknowledgment of Barred 

Debts, 



166 

166 
167 
168 
168 
168 
168 
169 

172 
172 

176 
178 
178 

183 
183 
184 

184 



I. Formality in Early English Law. 

Modem principles: form required only for special reasons. The law of 
contract exists chiefly for the security of men in their daily buBiness, 
conducted in many diflPerent modes from hour to hour, and in whatever 
mode suits the circumstances, by word of mouth (nowadays including 
telephone), written agreement, letter, or telegraph. Hardly any 
limit can be set to the diversity of forms in which men bargain with 
one another ; but business, in the commercial sense, has this common 
feature in all its branches, that it depends on bargain of some kind. 
Therefore the Common Law does not, as a general rule, require any 
particular form in contracts, provided that there is a bargain intended 
to be binding, though in certain cases evidence in writing is required 
for special reasons of precaution, or by mercantile custom embodied 
in the law, and in some cases formalities are imposed for the pro- 



HISTORY OF FORMAL CONTRACTS. 149 

tection of the revenue. Transactions of bounty, on the other hand, 
are not in the ordinary way of business, and if a man wants to bind 
himself without bargain, or to dispense with proof of a bargain, he 
must do so with a certain amount of solemnity (reduced, however, to 
a matter of no great trouble or necessary cost in modem practice) 
by expressing his promise in a deed. Accordingly agreements made 
for valuable consideration are subject to conditions of form only by 
way of exception in particular cases, but solemn form is necessary to 
make a gratuitous promise binding. In some such words as the 
foregoing the broad principles of our modem law, and the *rea- [135 
Bons which make us fairly content with it as it stands, may be stated 
with tolerable accuracy. 

Otherwiae in early law. But such a statement would be misleading 
if taken as implying the assertion that the law came to be what it is 
by any such logical process. English law started from a groundwork 
of archaic Germanic ideas not unlike those of the early Koman law, 
and quite unrelated to the common sense of a modem man of busi- 
ness. Form and ceremony were everything, substance and intention 
were nothing or almost nothing. Only those transactions were recog- I 

nized as having legal efficacy which fulfilled certain conditions of 
form, and could be established by one or other of certain rigidly 
defined modes of proof. The proof itself was formal and, when once | 

duly made, conclusive. The history of this branch of our law, through 
the Middle Ages and even later, consists of the transition from the 
ancient to the modem way of thinking. 

No asrstematic rules of contract Taking English courts and the rem- 
edies they administered as they were about the middle of the thirteenth 
century (for it is needless to go farther back for our present pur- 
pose) (a), we find that what we should call elaborate contracts or 
covenants, and of sufficiently varied kinds, can be annexed to grants of 
land and interests in land, but there is very little independent law 
of contract, and, if by a law of contract we mean a law which enforces 
promises as such, it can hardly be said that there is any at all. Still 
less is there any theory or system of the law. Those who aim at 
having one must go to the now rising Continental science of Roman 
law, and gather crumbs from the tables of the renowned glossators. 
Bracton, so far as he has a system, copies Azo of Bologna with I 

(a) There was practically no secu- ed.; "English Law before the Nor- 

lar law of contract before the Nor- man Conquest," by the pi^aent 

man Conquest. See Pollock and writer, L. Q. R. xiv. 291, 303. 
Maitland, Hist Eng. Law, i. 57, 2nd 



150 FORM OF CONTRACT. 

variations due partly to misunderstanding and partly to the impos-. 
sibility of contradicting the actual English practice (&). But 
136] the *only classification for which the practical English lawyer 
cares is a classification of forms of action, process, and remedies. 
Bracton was largely read and used, and was more or less closely fol- 
lowed by the unknown authors of the books called Britton and Fleta, 
but his Roman or Romanized arrangements of legal topics never ac- 
quired any authority, and produced no effect whatever on the registers 
of writs or on the technical vocabulary of pleaders. English lawyers 
would not believe — and on the whole were right in not believing — 
that an English charter had anything to do with the Roman rules 
about the verbal contract by stipulation, or an appeal of felony with 
an action under the Lex Aquilia (c). 

Archaic modes of proof. The only modes of proof known to early 
Germanic law were oath and ordeal. The archaic oath is not a 
confirmation of testimony open to discussion, but a one-sided oath 
of the party and his helpers, which may be preliminary, for the 
purpose of giving him a standing before the Court, or final and 
decisive. One regular form of deciding issues on the Continent, but 
not in England until it was introduced from Normandy, was trial by 
battle, not material in the history of this part of the law, but still 
theoretically possible in an action of debt as late as the time of 
Henry II. (d). Ordeal, abolished in the thirteenth century, was con- 
fined to criminal matters. Proof by writing is ultimately of Roman 
origin, but was adopted by the Germanic nations of the Continent at 
an early time. Duel and writing are the two normal modes of proof 
in the King's Court in the twelfth century (e). The charter or deed 
of medieval English law was not a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon 
" book,", but a Norman importation, representing the Frankish branch 
of what we may call Roman conveyancing tradition (/). Now the 
137] old Roman formal contract, the stipulation by question *and 
answer, had been practically transformed into a written contract even 
before the legislation of Justinian (g) ; and stipulatio or adstipulatio 

(Z>) See Prof. F. W. Maitland'a {f) The English charter of feoff- 

" Bracton and Azo." Selden Society, ment and memorandum of livery of 

1895. seisin are really the carta and noti- 

(c) ''Actio legis Aquiliee de homini- tia familiar in Continental practice 
bus per feloniam occisis vel vul- as early as the ninth century, 
neratis": Bracton, fo. 103 5. {g) Brunner, Zur Rechtsgesch. 

(d) Glanv. x. 12. der rSmischen und germanischen 

(e) /ft. X. 17. Urkunde, 63; Moyle's Justinian, 2nd 

ed. 498. 



MEDIEVAL HISTORY. 151 

had long since, in Continental conveyancing, become a name for the 
signing or execution of a written instrument (h). 

Thus the charter came to us with all the historical dignity of the 
most solemn form of obligation known to Roman law (t) ; and if this 
was not enough, its authority was completed by the fact that all proof 
was formal in Germanic law, and was conclusive when once made in 
due form. '* Proof was what satisfied the law, not what satisfied the 
Court" (Jc). A deed was, and, subject to grounds of exception ad- 
mitted only at a later time, still is binding, not because it records 
this or that kind of transaction, but by the form of the record itself. 
And, when a promise to pay money was recorded in a deed, the action 
which the promisee could bring was not an action on the promise. 

Remedies in thirteenth century — Debt on covenant The remedy to re^ 
cover money secured by deed was the action of debt, which retained 
its essential form and characters through the whole history of commoh 
law procedure, so long as the forms of action were preserved at all. 
This was a writ of right for chattels, an action, not to enforce a 
promise, but to get something conceived as already belonging to the 
plaintiff: it was called an action of property as late as the Restora- 
tion (Z), a conception which lingers even in some of Blackstone's 
language. A promise, where it was operative at all, operated not by 
way *of obligation, but as a grant of the sum expressed (m). [138 
It was a good defence that the part/s seal had been lost and affixed 
by a stranger without his knowledge, at least if the owner had given 
public notice of the loss (n) : but not if it had been misapplied by a 
person in whose custody it was; for then, it was said, it was his own 
fault for not having it in better keeping. 

ih) Brunner, R5m. u. Germ. action of Property": Edgcomb V. 

Urkunde, 220 sqq. For an English Dee, Vaugh. at p. 101. 

example, see Kemble, C. D. No. 623. (m) Harv. Law Rev. vi. 399; 

(t) The summary view of the Ro- "contracts of debt are reciprocal 

man classification of contracts for- grants/' Edgcomb v. Dee, last note, 

merly given in this chapter was (n) Glanvill (L. 10, c. 12) has 

written at a time when English text- not even this: Britton, 1, 164, 166, as 

books on Roman law were few and in the text. *'Pur ceo qe il ad conu 

trustworthy ones fewer. It is now, le fet estre soen en partie, soit 

perhaps, needless, but is preserved agard^ pur le pleyntif et se purveye 

in the Appendix (Note E) in case it autre foiz le defendaunt de meillour 

may be sometimes useful for imme- gardeyn." Cp. Fleta, 1. 6, c. 33, § 2; 

diaie reference. c. 34," § 4. That the practice of pub- 

{k) Salmond, Essays in Juris- lishing formal notice in case of loss 

prudence, &c., p. 16. really existed is shown by the exam- 

(Z) The action of assumpsit was pie given in Blount's Law Diction- 
said by Vaughan C.J. to be "much ary, s. v. Sigillum, dated 18 Ric. II. 
inferior and ignobler than the action In modern law such questions, when 
of debt, which by the Register is an they occur, come under the head oi 

estoppel. 



152 FOBK OP OONTBAOT. 

Debt OB simple contract, detinue, fcc An action of debt (o) might also 
be brought, without proof by deed, for such things as money lent, or 
the price of. goods sold and delivered, and an action of detinue 
(which was but a species of debt) for chattels bailed (p), the cause 
of action being still not any promise by the defendant but his pos- 
session of the plaintiff 's money (so it was conceived) or goods. The 
first thing needful to found the action of debt was, as it still is in 
jurisdictions where the old forms of action persist, that a certain 
sum of money should be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 
In debt and detinue the text-writers could profess to recognize the 
Boman contractus innominati (do ui des, &c.) which Bracton, carry- 
ing out the medieval notion that a promise to pay or deliver is a 
grant immediate in execution and only suspended in operation, put 
under the head, strange to us nowadays, of conditional grants (g). 
139] In the course of the next two centuries we *find it quite clear 
that an action of debt, provided the sum be liquidated, will lie (as 
we should now say) on any consideration executed, and also that on a 
contract for the sale of either goods or land an action may be main- 
tained for the price before the goods are delivered or seisin given of 
the land (r). In 1294 debt was brought to recover money paid 
on a failure of consideration and the action was held good in form 
(though there was in fact a covenant (s), and it was said that 
money paid as the price of land might be recovered back in debt 
if the seller would not enfeoff the buyer. 

Covenant. Other remedies applicable .to contracts were of limited 
scope and utility. The action of covenant, of which we do not hear 
before the thirteenth century, was grounded on agreement, conventio, 
both in form and in fact, but it was practically confined to agree- 
ments relating to interests in land. Attempts at extending it were 

(o) For fuller statement see Pol- possunt and ut repetere poasim are 

lock & Maitland, Hist. £!ng. L. ii. corrupt. The true readings, conjee- 

210. turally restored long ago by Gfiter- 

(p) For the precise difference in bock, and in fact given almoet ideaiti- 

the developed forms of pleading see cally by the best MSS., are aed . . 

per Maule J. 15 C. B. 303. The possum . . . non ut repetere poasim. 
decision of the C. A. in Bryant v. (r) Y. B. 12 Ed. III. (Rolls ed.) 

Herlert (1878) 3 C. P. Div. 389, 47 687 [Ad. 1338]; Mich. 37 H. VI. 

L. J. C. P. 670, that an action for [A. D. 1459], 8, pi. 18, by Prisot 

wrongful detention is " founded on C.J., where it is added that in the 

tort" within the meaning of the case of goods sold, though not of 

County Court Acts is, and professes land, the buyer may take the goods: 

to be,' beside the historical question. this follows from the theory of 

iq) Bracton 18 5, 19 a; Fleta 1. 2, "reciprocal grant." 
c. 60, I 23. In Bracton fo. 19 a, lines («) Y. B. 21 & 22 Ed. I. 600. 

14, 15 in ed. 1569, si (the second). 



FORMS OF ACTION. 153 

cut short by the establishment, after some vacillation, of the rule that 
writing under seal was the only admissible proof; so that in the 
modem common law covenant is the proper name of a promise made 
by deed. The writ of covenant remained a solitary and barren form 
of action, without influence on the later development of the law (t). 

Aceoimt. The action of account (u) was a remedy of wider appli- 
cation (sometimes exclusively, sometimes concurrently with debt) to 
enforce claims of the kind which in modem times have been the 
subject of actions of assumpsit for money had and received or the 
like. It covered apparently all *sort8 of cases where money had [140 
been paid on condition or to be dealt with in some way prescribed 
by the person paying it (x). One must not be misled by the state- 
ment that ^^no man shall be charged in account bat as guardian 
in socage, bailiff or receiver '* (y) : for it is also said **a man shall 
have a writ of accoimt against one as bailiff or receiver where he 
was not his bailiff or receiver : for if a man receive money for my use 
I shall have an account against him as receiver; or if a man deliver 
money unto another to deliver over unto me, I shall have an account 
against him as my receiver" («). This action might be brought by 
one partner against another (a). At common law it could not be 
brought by executors, except, it seems, in the case of merchants, nor 
against them unless at the suit of the Crown (b) : but it was made 
applicable both for and against executors by various statutes to which* 
it is needless to refer particularly (c). In modem times this action 
was obsolete except as between tenants in common (d). Like the ac- 
tion of debt, it was in the nature of a writ of right, and founded not 
on a promise, but on the duty— 'in this case not of paying a sum 
certain but of rendering an account — attached by law to the defend- 
ant's receipt of the plaintiff's money. 

it) See PoUock & Maitland, ii. {x) See caaes in 1 Rol. Abr. 116. 

21«, Harv. Law Rev. vi. 399-401. (y) 11 Co. Rep. 89, Co. Lit. 172 a. 

The Statutum Walliae [A.D. 1284] (z) F. N. B. 116 Q. 

18 the most instructive document. (a) lb, 117 D. Mr. Langdell dis- 

Tbe suggestion in Blackstone, Comm. putes this, but Fitzherbert is clear 

iii. 158, that Assumpsit is an action and express on the point 

on the case analogous to the writ of (Z>) Co. Lit. 90 h, and see Earl of 

covenant, is quite unhistorical, Devonshire's case, 11 Rep. 89. 

though ingenious. (c) The action is given against 

iu) 62 Hen. IIL (Stat. Marlb.) c. executors by 4 A 5 Ann. c. 3 (Rev. 

17, 13 Ed. L Stat. Westm. 2) c. 23. Stat.; 4 Ann. c. 16 in Ruifhead) s. 

For more history and details see Mr. 27. 

I^ngdell in Harvard Law Rev. ii. {d) See Lindley on Partnership, 

243, 251. 547, note o. 



154 FORM OF CONTRACT. 

. On informal executory agreements there was in general no remedy 
in the King's Courts (c). The Ecclesiastical Courts however en^ 
forced them freely in suits pro l(iesione fidei, within (and sometimes, 
it would seem, not within) (f) the limits set by the Constitutions of 
141 ] Clarendon, and deiSned *later by the ordinance or so-called stat- 
ute of Circumspecte agatis. Executory mercantile contracts were also 
recognized in the special courts which administered the law merchant. 
But we cannot here attempt to throw any light on that which Lord 
Blackburn found to be one of the obscurest passages in the history 
of the English law (g). Also there were exceptions by local custom. 
" In London a man shall have a writ of covenant without a deed 
for the covenant broken,'' and there was a like custom in Bristol (h). 

II. The Action of Assumpsit. 

Later introdiictioii of assimipait. In the later middle ages a general 
remedy became indispensable ; but it was introduced from a different 
branch of the law, and by a device which at first was thought too 
bold to succeed. This was a new variety of action on the case, 
framed, it seems, as often on the writ of deceit (t) as on that of 
trespass, and it ultimately became the familiar action of assumpsit 
and the ordinary way of enforcing simple contracts. Failure to per- 
form one's agreements did not create a debt (k), but it was found to 
be a wrong in the nature of deceit for which there must be a remedy 
in damages. The final prevalence of assumpsit over debt, like that 
of trover over detinue (Z), was much aided by the defendant not being 
142] able to wage his law and by the *greater simplicity and latitude 
of the pleadings: but the reason of its original introduction was to 
supply a remedy where no other action would lie. This was not ef- 

ie) See further Amea, " Parol Latch. 134, 1 Leo. 2, 4 Leo. 106. Un- 

Contracts prior to Assumpsit," Harv. less indeed we really have here rules 

Law Rev. viii. 252. of the law merchant which were 

if) Harv. Law Rev. vi. 403; Pol- pleaded as local customs as the only 

lock & Maitland, H. E. L. ii. 200. way of getting them recognized by 

Neither the authority nor the actual the King's Courts, 

text of Circumspecte agatis is cer- (t) "The breach of promise is al- 

tain. leged to be mixed with fraud and 

(<7) Blackburn on the Contract of deceit to the special prejudice of the 

Sale, 207-208. In addition to the plaintiff, and for that reason it is 

quotation there from the Year Book called trespass on the case": Pinch- 

of Ed. IV., see Y. B. 21 & 22 Ed. I., on's case, 9 Co. Rep. 89a. 

p. 458. And see Master Macdonnell's {Jc) "No man hath property by a 

introduction to Smith's Mercantile breach of promise, but must be re- 

Jjaw, 10th ed. 1890; A. T. Carter, paired in damages": Vaughan C.J. 

The Early History of the Law Mer- in Edgcomb v. Dee, Vaughan at p. 

chant in England, L. Q. R. xvii. 232. 101. 

(h) F. N. B. 146a, Liber Albus {I) See per Martin B. Burroughes 

191a, 14 H. IV. 26a, pi. 33, Godb. v. Bayne (1860) 5 H. A N. at p. 301, 

49, 336, Sty. 145, 198, 199, 228, 29 L. J. Ex. 188. 



HISTORY OP ASSUMPSIT. 166 

fected without dispute and dissent. In the first recorded case (wi), 
iiic action was against a carpenter for having failed to build cer- 
tain houses as he had contracted to do. The writ ran thus : " Quare 
cum idem [the defendant] ad quasdam domes ipsius Laurentii [the 
plaintiff] bene et fideliter infra certum tempus de novo construend' 
apud Grimesby assumsisset^ praedictus tamen T. domos ipsius L. 
infra tempus praedictum, &c., construere non curavit ad dampnum 
ipsius Laurentii decem libr*, &c.'' The report proceeds to this effect: — 

" Tirwit — Sir, you see well that his count is on a covenant, and 
he shows no such thing: judgment. 

Oascoigne, — Seeing that you answer nothing, we ask judgment and 
pray for our damages. 

Tirwit. — This is covenant or nothing {ceo est merement un cove* 
nant), 

Brenchesley J. — It is so: perhaps it would have been otherwise 
had it been averred that the work was begun and then by negligence 
left unfinished. 

(Hankford J. observed that an action on the Statute of Labourers 
might meet the case.) 

RickhUl J. — For that you have counted on a covenant and show 
none, take nothing by your writ but be in mercy.'' 

The word fideliter in the writ is significant. It seems to denote 
a deliberate competition with the jurisdiction of the Courts Christian 
in matters of fi,dei laesio. We will show you, the pleader says in 
effect, that the King's *judges too know what belongs to good [143 
faith, and will not let breach of faith go without a remedy. It may 
also have been intended to show that there was a bargain and mutud^^ 
trust (n). 

This adverse decision was followed by at least one like it (o), 
but early in the reign of Henry VI. an action was brought against 
one Watkins for failure to build a mill within the time for which 
he had promised it, and two out of three judges (Babington C.J. and 
Cockaine J.) were decidedly in favour of the action being maintain- 
able and called on the defendant's counsel to plead over to the 

(m) Mich. 2 H. IV., 3 5, pi. 9. is still held that there is an alterna^ 

The full and careful historical dis- tive remedy in contract and in tort), 

cussion of the whole subject by Prof. but an action for mere non-feasance 

Ames of Harvard in Harv. Law Rev. was a novelty. 

ii. 1. 53, supersedes all previous re- (n) Modem pleading would re- 
searches. Actions of trespass on the quire, of course, a much more dis- 
ease had previously been allowed for tinct averment of consideration: but 
malfeasance by the negligent per- the doctrine was not yet formed. 
formaim of contracts (for which it (o) Mich. 11 H. IV. 33, pi. 60. 

And see Bigelow L. C. on Torts, 687. 



156 FORM OF CONTRACT. 

merits (p). Martin J. dissented, insisting that an action of trespass 
would not lie for a mere non-feasance: a difficulty by no means 
frivolous in itself. ** If this action is to be maintained on this matter/' 
he said, ^^one shall have an action of trespass on every agreement 
that is broken in the world." This however was the very thing sought, 
and so it came to pass in the two following reigns, when the general 
application of the action of assumpsit was well established. But only 
in 1596 was it conclusively decided that assumpsit was admissible 
at the plaintiflPs choice where debt would also lie (g). The fictior. 
of the action being founded on a tort was abolished by the Common 
Law Procedure Act 

Meanwhile the relation between the parties which was assumed 
as the foundation of the duty violated by the defendant, and which 
involved the plaintiflPs having in some way changed his position for 
the worse on the faith of the defendant's undertaking, was tranf>- 
formed into the modem doctrine of Consideration, coalescing on the 
144] way, *in fact if not in strict theory, with the existing require- 
ment of the actions of debt and account. Of this we shall speak 
separately. 

Rule tliat deeds may not be written on wood, Ac It is stated in several 
books of authority (e.g. Shepp. Touchst. 54) that a deed must be 
written on parchment or paper, not on wood, &c. This seems to refer 
to the then common use of wooden tallies as records of contracts. Pitz- 
herbert in fact says (r) that if such a tally is sealed and delivered 
by the party it will not be a deed ; and the Year Books afford evidence 
of attempts to rely on sealed tallies atf equivalent to deeds; and it 
appears that by the custom of London they were so (s). These tallies 
were no doubt written upon as well as notched, so that nothing could 
be laid hold of to refuse them the description of deeds but the fact 
of their being wooden: the writing is expressly mentioned in one 
case (t), and theExehequer tallies used till within recent times were 
likewise written upon (u). 

(p) Hil. 3 H. VI. 36, pi. 33. (t) Trin. 12 H, IV. 23, pi. 3. The 

iq) Blade's case, 4 Co. Rep. 91 a, other citations we have heen able to 

in Ex. Ch. It was still later before verify are Pasch. 26 Ed. III. 83 

it was admitted that the substantial (wrongly referred to as 40 in the 

cause of action in assumpsit was the last case and in the margin of 

contract. O. W. Holmes, The Com- Fitzh.), pi. 9, where the reporter 

mon Law, 284-287. For the earlier notes it is said to be otherwise in 

history see Prof. Ames, Harvard Law London ; and Trin. 44 Ed. III. 21, pi. 

Rev. ii. 16. 23. 

(r) F. N. B. 122 I. {u) See account of them in Penny 

is) "Un taille de dette enseale Cyclopedia, s. v. Tally; Hall, An- 

par usage de la citee est auxi fort tiquities of the Exchequer, 118 9qq. 
come une obligacoun": Liber Albus 
191 a. 



OOKTRACTS OF RECOBD. 167 

III. Modem requirements of form. 

ReqidxcniMita of form now ezceptioiu]. We have seen how in the an- 
cient Tiew no contract was good (as indeed no act in the law was) 
unless it brought ^itself within some favoured class by satisfying [146 
particular conditions of form, or of evidence, or both. The modem 
view to which the law of England has now long come round is the 
reverse, namely that no contract need be in any particular form unless 
it belongs to some class in which a particular form is specially 
required. 

Contracts of record. Before we say anything of these classes it must 
be mentioned that contracts under seal are not the only f oimal con- 
tracts known to English law. There are certain so-called " contracts 
•f record " which are of a yet higher nature than contracts by deed. 
The judgment of a Court of Eecord is treated for some purposes 
as a contract:* and a recognizance, t. e. "a writing obligatory ac- 
knowledged before a judge or other officer having authority for that 
purpose and enrolled in a Court of Record," is strictly and properly 
a contract entered into with the Crown in its judicial capacity. The 
statutory forms of security known as statutes merchant, statutes 
staple, and recognizances in the nature of a statute staple, were 
likewise of record, but they have long since fallen out of use (x). 

The French (art. 1333) and Italian shire not many years ago. I have 

(art. 1332) Civil Codes expressly ad- seen them, in a rougher form, in use 

mit tallies as evidence between in a village baker's shop in Nor- 

traders who keep their accounts in mandy. Specimens of English tal- 

this way ; nor is the use of them un- lies both ancient and recent may be 

known at this day in England. By seen in the medieval room of the 

the courtesy of Mr. J. B. Matthews, British Museum, and at the Record 

of the Middle Temple, formerly of Office. Cp. Col. Yule's note on Marco 

W^orcester, I have a specimen of the Polo, ii. 78, 2nd ed. 
tallies with which the hop-pickers in (a?) As to Contracts of Record, see 

Herefordshire still keep account of Anson, p. 55, 9th ed., and for an ac- 

the quantities picked. They were count of statutes merchant^ &c. 2 

osed in the Kentish hop country Wms. Saund. 216-222. 
within living memory, and in Hamp- 

1 Stuart r. Landers, 16 Cal. 372; Gebhard r. Gamier, 12 Bush, 321; Morse 
V. Tappan, 3 Gray, 411. 

But a judgment is not, properly speaking, a contract. Louisiana v. Mayor, 
109 U. S. 285 ; Freeland r. Williams, 131 U. S. 405 ; Morley v. Railroad, 146 
U. S. 162; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 201; Wadsworth r. Henderson, 16 
Fed. Rep. 447, 461; Evans, etc. r. McFadden, 105 Fed. Rep. 293; Larrabee 
r. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 155, 168; Rae v. Hulbert, 17 HI. 572, 580; Bumes v. 
Simpson, 9 Kan. 658; Dudley r. Lindsey, 9 B. Mon. 486, 489; O'Brien r. 
Toung, 95 N. Y. 428; Gutta Percha Co. v. Mayor, 108 N. Y. 276; Anglo- 
American Co. V. Davis Co., 169 N. Y. 506, 509; McDonald v. Dickson, 87 
N. C. 404; In re Kennedy, 2 S. C. 216. 



15S: FORM OF CONTRACT. 

Contracts subject to specisl fonns. The kinds of contract subject to 
restrictions of forms are these: 

(1). At common law, the contracts of corporations. Tlie rule that 
such contracts must in general be under seal is earlier than 
the time when the modem doctrine of contracts was formed. 
Of late years great encroachments have been made upon it, 
which have probably not reached their final limits; the 
law is still unsettled on some points, and demands careful 
consideration. Both the historical and the practical reason 
lead us to give this topic the first place. 

146] *(^). Party by the law merchant (now codified in England) 
and partly by statute, the peculiar contracts expressed in 
negotiable instruments. 

(3). By statute only— 

A. The various contracts within the Statute of Frauds. 

Certain sales and depositions of property are regulated 
by other statutes, but mostly as transfers of owner- 
ship or of rights good against third persons rather 
than as agreements between the parties. 

B. Marine insurances. 

C. Transfer of shares in companies (generally). 

D. Acknowledgment of debts barred by the Statute of Limi- 

tation of James I. 

E. Marriage: This, although we do not mean to enter on 

the subject of the Marriage Acts, must be mentioned 
here to complete the list.^ 

2 Under the law prevailing in most of the United States, marriage is not 
a formal contract. Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, § 279 et seq.; Meister 
r. Moore, 96 U. S. 76; Matthewson t\ Phoenix Iron Foundry, 20 Fed. Rep. 
281; Arnold v, Chesebrough, 58 Fed. Rep. 833; Davis v. Pryor, 112 Fed. 
Rep. 274; Tartt i;. Negus, 127 Ala. 301; McCausland's Estate, 52 Cal. 568; 
Sharon t?. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1; Port i'. Port, 70 111. 484; Hebblethwaite v. Hep- 
worth. 98 111. 126; Re Maher's Est., 204 111. 25; Teter r. Teter, 101 Ind. 129; 
Schuchart v. Schuchart, 61 Kan. 597; Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126; 
Lorimer v, Lorimer, 124 Mich. 631; Barker r. Valentine, 125 Mich. 336; 
State 17. Worthingham, 23 Minn. 528; Carey r. Hulett, 66 Minn. 327; Floyd 
r. Calvert, 53 Miss. 37; Dyer r. Brannock, 66 Mo. 391; State v. Bittick, 103 
Mo. 183; Clark f. Clark, 52 N. J. Eq. 650; Hynes r. McDermott, 82 N. Y. 
41, 46; 91 N. Y. 451; Gall r. Gall, 114 N. Y. 109: Carmichael r. State, 12 
Ohio St. 553; Richard v, Brehm, 73 Pa. St. 140; Chapman r. Chapman, 16 
Tex. Civ. App. 382; Stans r. Bartley, 9 Wash. 115. Contra, Estill r. Rogers, 
1 Bush, 62; Denison r. Denison, 35 Md. 361; Commonwealth r. Munson, 127 
Mass. 459; Dunbarton t\ Franklin. 19 N. H. 257; State r. Wilson, 121 N. C. 
650; Northfield r. Plymouth, 20 Vt. 582; Morrill t'. Palmer, 68 Vt. 1. See 
27 Am. L. Reg. 101, 35 id. 221, 223 seq. 



CONTRACTS OF CORPORATIONS. 159 

1. As to contraeU of corporaiions. 

Old rale: Sul fneraHy xeqniied. The doctrine of the common law 
was that corporations could bind themselves only under their 
common seal, except in small matters of daily occurrence^ as the ap- 
pointment of household servants and the like(y). The principle 
of these exceptions being, in the words of the Court of Exchequer 
Chamber, ** convenience amounting almost to necessity " (2), the vast 
increase in the extent, importance, and variety of corporate dealings 
which has taken place in modem times has led to a corresponding 
increase of the exceptions. Before considering these, however, it is 
well *to cite an approved judicial statement of the rule, and of [147 
the reasons that may be given for it : — 

**The seal in required as authenticating the ooncurrence of *'**T 
body corporate. If the legislature, in erecting a body corporate, invest any 
member of it, either expressly or impliedly, with authoritv to bind the wnoie 
body by his mere signature or otherwise, then undoubtedly the adding » «f** 
would be matter purely of form and not of substance. Everyone becoming 
a member of such a corporation knows that he is liable to be bound in nis 
corporate character by such an act; and persons dealing with the corpora- 
tion know that by such an act the bodv wiD be bound. But in other 
eases the seal is the only authentic evidence of what the corporation Has 
done or agreed to do. The resolution of a meeting, however numerously 
attended, is, after all, not the act of the whole body. Every member knows 
he is bound by what is done under the corporate seal and by nothing else. 
It is a great mistake, therefore, to speak of the necessity for a seal as a 
relic of ignorant times. It is no such thing: either a seal or some sub- 
stitute for a seal, which by law shall be Uken as conclusively evidencing tne 
sense of a whole body corporate, is a necessity inherent in the very nature 
of a corporation "(a). 

It is, no doubt, a matter of "inherent necessity^ ibat when a 
natural person acts for a corporation, his authority must be shown 
in some way; and the common seal in the agent's custody, when an 
act in the law purports to be the act of the corporation itself, or his 
authority under seal, when it purports to be the act of an agent for 
the corporation, is in English law the recognized evidence for that 
purpose.* But there is no reason in the nature of things why his 

see old authorities collected m notes (1840) 6 M- & . ' iSavor of Kidder- 

i^^Tn ""'a^^Z r^ ^^^/f ^^®*2) by Pollock B- J^^ ^i873) L. R. » 

4 M. A Gr. 860 12 L. J. C. P. 97; minster v. Bardtr^^ ^^ 9. and see 

and Ftshmongert^ Company v. Rob- Ex. at p. 24, 43 ]^' .^^ v. Qwirdians 

V'T^^i^^L ' ^ * ^'' ^^^' 12 per Keating J' ^•^Vr874) L. R. 9 

(z) Church V. Impenal Gas Light C P at o. »^» ^ 
Company (1838) 6 A, A E. 846, 861 •'"*'*' 

45 R. R. 638, 643. 

the presence of the 

• The signatures of the proper officers beinif P^-^^'^'amxed by authority. 
corporate senl 1, prima facie evidence that it ^** 



160 FORM OF GONTRACT. 

authority should not be manifested in other ways: nor is the seal 
of itself conclusive^ for an instrument to which it is in fact affixed 
without authority is not binding on the corporation (6).* On the 
other hand, although it is usual and desirable for the deed of a cor- 
poration to be sealed with its proper corporate seal, it is laid down 
148] by *high authorities that any seal will do (c).^ A company 
under the Companies Act, 1862, must have its name engraved in 
legible characters on its seal, and any director, &c., using as the seal 
of the company any seal on which the name is not so engraved is sub- 
ject to a penalty of 60^ (ss. 41, 42) : but this would not, it is con- 
ceived, prevent instruments so executed from binding the company (d). 
The seal of a building society incorporated under the Building So- 

(5) Bank of Ireland y. Evans* of the private seal of a director being 

Charitiea (1855) 5 H. L. C. 389. used when the company had been so 

(o) 10 Co. Rep. 30 h, Shepp. recently formed th&t there had been 

Touchst. 67. Yet the rule is doubted, no time to make a proper seal, Oray 

Grant on Corp. 50, but only on the v. Letns (1869) L. R. 8 £q. at p. 531, 

ground of convenience and without The like direction and penalty are 

any authority. The like rule as to contained in the Industrial and 

sealing by an individual is quite P-^vident Societies Act, 1893, s. 66 

clear and at lea«t as old as Bracton: (repeating an earlier enactment). 

Non multum refert utrum [cajta] As to execution of deeds abroad by 

proprio vel alieno sigillo sit signata, oompanes under the Acts of 1862 and 

cum semel a donatore coram testibus 1867, see the Companies Act, 1862, 

ad hoc vocatis recognita et concessa b. 55, and the Companies Seals Act, 

fuerit. fo. 38 a. Cp. Britton. 1. 257. 1864 (27 A 28 Vict. c. 19) ; in Scot- 

{d) Notwithstanding the statutory land, the Conveyancing (Scotland) 

penalty, there is a reported instance Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 94), s. 56. 

Mickey r. Stratton, 5 Sawy. 475; Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124; Union Mining 
Co. i;. Bank, 2 Col. 226; Conine v. Railroad Co., 3 Houst. 288; Solomon's 
Lodge V. Montmollin, 58 Ga. 547; Railroad Co. t*. Morgenatem, 103 111. 149; 
Anderson Transfer Co. 17. Fuller, 174 111. 221; Adams v. His Creditors, 14 La. 
454; Morris i?. Keil, 20 Minn. 531; Musser r. Johnson, 42 Mo. 74; Gorder 
r. Plattsmouth Canning Co., 36 Neb. 548; £vans v, Lee, 11 Nev. 194; Flint 
r. Clinton Co., 12 N. H. 430 ; Lovett v. Steam Saw Mill Assn., 6 Paige, 54 ; 
Trustees v. McKechnie, 90 N. Y. 618; Sheehan v, Davis, 17 Ohio St. 571; 
Parkinson v. City of Parker, 85 Pa. 313; Levering v. Mayor, 7 Humph. 553; 
Fidelity Co. v. Railroad Co., 32 W. Va. 244; Bullen v, Milwaukee Trading Co., 
109 Wis. 41. 

4Koehler t?. Black River, etc., Co., 2 Black, 715; Bliss r. Kaweah Canal, 
etc., Co., 65 Cal. 502: Leggett v. N. J. Mfg., etc., Co., Saxt. Ch. 541; Jack- 
son f?. Campbell, 5 Wend. 572; Hoyt v, Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320, 335; Case 
of St. Mary's Church, 7 S. & R. 517, 530. 

5 Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. 488; Bank v. Mining Co., 89 Fed. 
Rep. 439, 447 ; 95 Fed. Rep. 23 ; Porter v. Railroad Co., 37 Me. 349 ; Mill Dam 
Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; Tenney i?. Lumber Co., 43 N. H. 343; South 
Bnpt. Society r. Clapp, 18 Barb. 35; St. Philip's Church r. Zion Church, 23 
8. C. 297 ; Bank t;. Railroad Co., 30 Vt. 159. Infra, Appendix, n. D. This is 
true, even of a municipal corporation. District of Columbia v, Camden Iron 
WorkSj 181 U. S. 453. A scroll seal is sufficient in those States whose laws 
recognize the validity of such a seal when used by a natural person. Johnston 
r. Crawley, 25 6a. 316; Reynolds v, Trustess, 6 Dana, 37; Western Seminarr 
«. Blair, I Disney, 370. 



CONTRACTS OF CORPORATIONS. 161 

cieties Ajct, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 42, a. 16, sub-s. 10), ''shall in 
all casee bear the registered name thereof," but no penalty or other 
consequence is annexed to the non-obseirance of this direction. 

Hodem exceptions— Bank of Columbia ▼. Patterson. We now turn to 
the exceptions. According to the modem authorities it is now es- 
tablished, though not till after sundry conflicting decisions, that the 
" principle of convenience amounting almost to necessity " will cover 
all contracts which can fairly be treated as necessary and incidental 
to the purposes for which the corporation exists : and that in the case 
of a trading corporation all contracts made in the ordinary course 
of its business or for purposes connected therewith fall within this 
description. The same or even a wider conclusion was much earlier 
arrived at in the United States. As long ago as 1813 the law was 
thus stated by the Supreme Court : — 

'' It would seem to be a sound rule of law that wherever a corporation is 
acting within tlie scope of the legitimate purposes of its institution all 
*parole contracts made by its authorized agents are express promises of [149 
the corporation, and all duties imposed on them by law, and all benefits con- 
ferred at their request, raise implied promises for the enforcement of which 
an action may well lie " {e)fi 

Not 80 wide in England. In England this rule still holds good only 
for trading corporations, and perhaps also for non-trading corpora- 
tions established in modem times for special purposes. The former 

(e) Bank of Columbia y, Patterson that the appointment by a corpora- 
CIS 13) 7 Cranch, 299, 306. It is also tion of an agent, officer, or attorney 
held by the American authorities need not be under seal. 

6 Railway Co. v. Keokuk Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371; Bank v. Mining Co., 
89 Fed. Rep. 439, 447; 95 Fed. Reo. 23; Selma i\ Mullen, 46 Ala. 411; Argent! 
r. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; Muscatine Co. v. Lumber Co., 85 la. 112; 
Bridge Co. v. Frankfort, 18 B. Men. 41; Elysville, etc., Co. t\ Okisko Co., 1 
Md. Ch. 392; St. Paul Co. r. Dayton, 37 Minn. 364; Abbey t\ Billups, 36 Miss. 
618; Preston r. Missouri, etc.. Lead Co., 51 Mo. 43; Crawford t\ Longstreet, 
43 N. J. L. 325; Trustees r. Mulford, 3 Halst. 182; Dunn r. St. Andrew's 
Church, 14 Johns. 118; Peterson t\ Mayor, 17 N. Y. 449; Kramrath r. Albany, 
127 N. Y. 575; Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Oreg. 412; Hamilton r. Insur- 
ance Co., 6 Pa. St. 339 ; San Antonio v, Lewis, 9 Tex. 69 ; Sheldon v. Fairfax, 
21 Vt. 102. 

And the appointment by a corporation of an agent, officer, or attorney need 
not be under seal. Fleckner v. Bank, 8 Wheat. 338, 357 ; Osbom r. Bank, 9 
Wheat. 738, 829; Crowley r. Genesee Mining Co., 55 Cal. 273; Bank r. Davis, 
8 Conn. 191; Board of Education v. Greensbaum, 39 111. 609; Hamilton v. 
Railroad Co., 9 Ind. 359; Lathrop v. Bank, 8 Dana, 114; Randall r. Van 
Vechten, 19 Johns. 60, 65 ; Insurance Co. r. Oakley, 9 Paige, 496 ; Buncombe T. 
Co. P. MeCarson, 1 Dev. & Bat. L. 306; Wolf v. Goddard, 9 Watts, 544. 

Where a contract made in the name of a corporation by its president is 
one the corporation has power to authorize its president to make, or to ratify 
after it has been made, the burden is upon the corporation of showing that 
it was not authorized or ratified. Patterson v, Robinson, 116 N. Y. 193. 

11 



162 FORM OP CONTRACT. 

conflict of decisions is much reduced, but there remains the incon- 
venient distinction of two if not three different rules for corporations 
of different kinds. 

Trading corporations: Contracts in course of bttsiness do not want seal. 
As concerns trading corporations the law may be taken as settled 
by the unanimous decisions of the Court of Common Pleas and of the 
Exchequer Chamber in South of Ireland Colliery Co. v. Waddle (f). 
The action was brought by the company against an engineer for non- 
delivery of pumping machinery, there being no contract under seal. 
Bovill C.J. said in the Court below that it was impossible to reconcile 
all the decisions on the subject: but the exceptions created by the 
recent cases were too firmly established to be questioned by the earlier 
decisions, which if inconsistent with them must be held not to be 
law: — 

"These exceptions apply to all contracts by trading corporations entered 
into for the purposes for which they are incorporated. A company can only 
carry on business by agents, — managers and others ; and if the contracts made 
by these persons are contracts which relate to objects and purposes of the 
company, and are not inconsistent with the rules and regulations which 
govern their acts {g), they are valid and binding upon the company, though 
not under seal. It has been urged that the exceptions to the general rule 
zco] are still limited to matters of *frequent occurrence and small importance, 
llie authorities, however, do not sustain the argument." # 

Cases overruled. The decision was affirmed on appeal without hear- 
ing counsel for the plaintiffs, and Cockbum C.J. said the defendant 
was inviting the Court to reintroduce a relic of barbarous antiquity. 
It is submitted that the following cases must since this be considered 
as overruled : — 

East London Waterworks v. Bailey (1827) 4 Bing. 283. Action for non- 
delivery of iron pipes ordered for the company's worlu (h). Expressly said in 
the Court below to be no longer law, per Montague Smith J. See *L. R. 3 
C. r. 476. 

Homersham v. Wolverhampton Waterworks Co. (1851) 6 Ex. 137, 20 L. J. 
Ex. 193. Contract under seal for erection of machinery: price of extra work 
done with approval of the company's engineer and accepted, but not within the 
terms of the sealed contract, held not recoverable. 

Digyle v. London d Blackioall Ry, Co. (1850) 5 Ex. 442, 19 L. J. Ex. 308. 
Work done on railway in alterations of permanent way, &c. : this case already 
much doubted in Henderson v. Australian Royal Mail, do. Co. 5 E. & B. 409, 

if) (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 463, in above. For details see Note D. in 

Ex. Ch. 4 C. P. 617, 38 L. J. C. P. Appendix. 

338. Most if not all of the previous {h) The directors were authorized 

authorities are there referred to. by the incorporating Act of Parlia- 

ig) This qualification is itself sub- ment to make contracts; but it was 

ject to the rule established by Royal held that this only meant they might 

British Bank v. Turquand (i856) 6 affix the seal without calling a 

E. & B. 237, 25 L. J. Q. B. 317, and meeting, 
similar cases, and mentioned at p. 126 



TRADING AND NON-TRADING CORPORATIONS. 163 

24 L. J. Q. B. 322, which is now confirmed in its full extent by the principal 



Probably Finlay v. Bristol d Eweier Ry. Co, (1852) 7 Ex. 409, 21 L. J. 
Ex. 117, where it was held that against a corporation tenancy could in no 
ease be inferred from payment of rent so as to admit of an action for use and 
occupation without actual occupation. 

Also London Dock Co. v. Sinnott (1857) 8 E. A B. 347, 27 L. J. Q. B. 129, 
where a contract for scavenging the company's docks for a year was held to 
require the seal, as not being of a mercantile nature nor with a customer of 
the company, can now be of little or no authority beyond its own special cir- 
cumstances: see per Bovill C. J. L. R. 3 C. P. 471. 

Even in the House of Lords it has been assumed and said, though fortu- 
nately not decided, that a formal contract under seal made with a railway 
company cannot be subsequently varied by any informal mutual consent: 
Midland G. W, Ry. Co. of Ireland v. Johnson (1858) 6 H. L. C. 798, 812. 

Cases affirmed. The following cases are affirmed or not contradicted. 
Some of them were decided at the time on narrower or *more [151 
particular grounds, and in one or two the trading character of the 
corporation seems immaterial: — 

Beverley v. Lincoln Gas Co, (1837) 6 A. & E. 829; 45 R. R. 626. Action 
against the company for price of gas meters supplied. 

Church T. Imperial Gas Co. (1838) 6 A. & E. 846, 45 R. R. 638 in Ex. 
Ch. Action by the company for breach of contract to accept gas. A sup- 
posed distinction between the liability of corporations on executed and on 
executory contracts was exploded. 

Copper Miners of England v. Foa (1851) 16 Q. B. 229, 20 L. J. Q. B. 174. 
Action (in effect) for non-acceptance of iron rails ordered from the company. 
The company had in fact for many years given up copper mining and traded 
in iron, but this was not within the scope of its incorporation. 

Loioe V. L. d N. W. Ry. Co. (1852) 18 Q. B. 632, 21 L. J. Q. B. 361. The 
company was held liable in an action for use and occupation when there had 
been an actual occupation for corporate purposes, partly on the ground that 
a parol contract for the occupation was within the statutory powers of the 
directors and might be presumed: cp. the next case. 

Pauling v. L. d N.W. Ry. Co. (1853) 8 Ex. 867, 23 L. J. Ex. 105. Sleepers 
supplied to an order from the engineer's office and accepted: there was no 
doubt that the contract could under the Companies Clauses Consolidation 
Act be made by the directors without seal, and it was held that the accept- 
ance and use were evidence of an actual contract. 

Henderson v. Australian Royal Mail Co. (1855) 6 E. & B. 409, 24 L. J. 
Q. B. 322. Action on agreement to pay for bringing home one of the com- 
pany's ships from Sydney. Here it was distinctly laid down that " where 
the making of a certain description of contracts is necessary and incidental 
to the purposes for which the corporation was created " such contracts need 
not be under seal (by Wightman J.) : " Tlie question is whether the con- 
tract in its nature is directly connected with the purpose of the incorpora- 
tion " (by Erie J.). 

Australian Royal Mail Co. v. Marzetti (1855) 11 Ex. 228, 24 L. J. Ex. 
273. Action by the company on agreement to supply provisions for its pas- 
senger ships. 

Reuter v. Electric Telegraph Co. (1856) 6 E. & B. 341, 26 L. J. Q. B. 46: 
where the chief point was as to the ratification by the directors of a con- 
tract made originally with the chairman alone, who certainly had no author- 
ity to make it. 

Ehhw Vale Company's case (1869) L. R. 8 Eq. 14, decides that one who sells 
to a company goods of the kind used in its business need not ascertain that 
the company means so to use them, and is not prevented from enforcing the 
contract even if he had notice of an intention to use them otherwise. 



164 FORK OF CONTRACT. 

Non-trading corporations — "Necessary and incidental" contracts. As 
concerns non-trading corporations^ the question has never been 
152] decided by a Court of Appeal. But the weight *of authority 
seems on the whole to warrant the statement that all contracts neces- 
sary and incidental to the purposes for which the corporation exists 
may be made without seal, at least when the corporation has been 
established for special purposes by a modern statute or charter. On 
the rule as thus limited the latest case is Nicholson v. Bradfield 
Union (t), where it was held that a corporation is liable without 
a contract under seal of goods of a kind which must be from time 
to time required for corporate purposes, at all events when they have 
been actually supplied and accepted. Earlier decisions are as fol- 
lows : — 

Bandera v, St, Neota Union (1846) 8 Q. B. 810, 15 L. J. M. C. 104. Iron 
gates for workhouse supplied to order without seal and acceptance. 

Paine v. Strand Union (1846) ih. 326, 15 L. J. M. C. 89, is really the same 
way, though at first sight contra: the decision being on the ground that mak- 
ing a plan for rating purposes of one pariah within the union was not inci- 
dental to the purposes for which the guardians of the union were incorporated : 
they had nothing to do with either making or collecting rates in the several 
parishes, nor had they power to act as a corporation in matters confined to 
any particular parish. 

Clarke v. Cuckfield Union (1862) 21 L. J. Q. B. 340 (in the Bail Court, 
by Wightman J.). Builders' work done in the workhouse. The former cases 
are reviewed. 

Haigh v. North Bierley Union (1868) E. B. & E. 873, 28 L. J. Q. B. 62. 
An accountant employed to investigate the accoimts of the union was held 
entitled to recover for his work as " incidental and necessary to the purposes 
for which the corporation was created," by Erie J., Crompton J. doubting. 

In direct opposition to the foregoing we have only one decision, but a 
considered one, Lamprell v. Billericay Union (1849) 3 Ex. 283, 18 L. J. Ex. 
282. Building contract under seal, providing for extra works on written direc- 
tions of the architect. Extra work done and accepted, but without such 
direction. Held, with an expression of regret, that against an individual this 
might have given a good distinct cause of action on simple contract, but this 
would not help the plaintiff, as the defendants could be bound only by deed. 

Hunt V. Wimbledon Local Board (1878) 4 C. P. Div. 48, 48 L. J. C. P. 207. 
Whether the preparation of plans for new offices for an incorporated local 
board, which plans were not acted on, is work incidental and necessary to 
the purposes of the board, qucpre. The actual decision was on the ground 
that contracts above the value of 501. were imperatively required by statute 
to be under seal. 

153] * Municipal corporations, etc.— Old rule in force. With regard to 
municipal corporations (and it is presumed other corporations not 
created for definite public purposes) the ancient rule seems to be still 
in force to a great extent. An action will not lie for work done on 
local improvements (k), or on an agreement for the purchase of 

(i) (1866) L. R. 1 Q. B. 620, 35 {k) Mayor of Ludlow v. Charlton 

L. J. Q. B. 17G, (1840) 6 M. & W. 815. 



MUKIOIPAL OORPOBATIONS. 165 

tollB by auction (Z), or for the grant of a lease of corporate prop- 
erty (m), without an agreement under seal. Where a municipal 
corporation owns a graving dock^ a contract to let a ship have the 
use of it need not be under the corporate seal; but this was eaid to 
fall within the ancient exception of convenience resting on the fre- 
quency or urgency of the transaction. The admission of a ship 
into tiie dock is a matter of frequent and ordinary occurrence and 
sometimes of urgency (n). 

Appointments to offices by corporations. There has also been little dis- 
position to relax the rule in the case of appointments to offices, and . 
it seems at present that such an appointment, if the office is of any 
importance, must be imder the corporate seal to give the holder a right 
of action for his salary or other remuneration. This appears by the 
following instances: — 

Appointment of attorney: Arnold v. Mayor of Poole (1842) 4 M. A Gr. 
860, 12 L. J. C. P. 97. It is true that the Corporation of London appoints 
an attorney in court without deed, but that is because it is a matter of record : 
see 4 M. A 6r. pp. 882, 896. But after an attorney has appeared and acted 
for a corporation the corporation cannot, as against the other party to the 
action, dispute his authority on this ground: Faviell v. E. C. Ry. Co. (1848) 
2 Ex. 344, 17 L. J. Ex. 223, 297. Nor can the other party dispute it after 
taking steps in the action: Thames Haven, dc, Co. v. Hall (1843) 5 M. A 
Gr. 274. Cp. Reg. v. Justices of Cumberland (1848) 17 L. J. Q. B. 102. 

Grant of militarv pension by the East India Company in its political capac- 
ity: Oibson V. E.^I. Co. (1839) 6 Bing. N. C. 262, 60 R. R. 688. 

Increase of town clerk's salary in lieu of compensation: Reg. v. Mayor of 
Stamford (1844) 6 Q. B. 434. 

*Office with profit annexed (coal meter paid by dues) though held at [154 
the pleasure of the corporation: Smith, y. Cartwright (1851) 6 Ex. 927, 20 
L. J. Ex. 401. (The action was not against the corporation, but against the 
person by whom the dues were alleged to be payable. The claim was also 
wrong on another ground.) 

Collector of poor rates: Smart v. West Ham Union (1855) 10 Ex. 867, 
24 L. J. Ex. 20 1 ; but partly on the ground that the guardians had not under- 
taken to pay at all, the salary being charged on the rates; and wholly on 
that ground in Ex. Ch., 11 Ex. 867, 25 L. J. Ex. 210. 

Clerk to master of workhouse: Austin v. Guardians of Bethnal Oreen 
(1874) L. R. 9 C. P. 91, 43 L. J. C. P. 100. 

Dunston v. Imperial Oas Light Co. (1832) 3 B. A Ad. 125, 37 R. R. 352, 
as to directors' fees voted by a meeting; but chiefly on the ground that the 
fees were never intended to be more than a gratuity. 

Cope V. Thames Haven, do. Co. (1849) 3 Ex. 841, 18 L. J. Ex. 345: agent 
appointed for a special negotiation with another company not allowed to 
recover for his work, the contract not being under seal nor in the statutory 
form, viz., signed by three directors in pursuance of a resolution, although by 
another section of the special Act the directors had full power to " appoint 
and displace ... all such managers, officers, agents ... as they 

(I) Mayor of Kidderminster v. ration sought to enforce the agree- 

HarduHck (1873) L. R. 9 Ex. 13, 43 ment. 

L. J. Ex. 9. (n) Wells v. Kingston-upon-Hull 

(m) Mayor of Oxford v. Crow (1875) L. R. 10 C. P. 402, 44 L. J. 

[1893] 3 Ch. 635, where the corpo- C. P. 257. 



166 FORM OF CONTRACT. 

shall think proper." It seems difficult to support the decision; this was not 
like an appointment to a continuing office; and cp. Reg, v. Justices of Cum- 
berland (1848) 17 L. J. Q. B. 102, where under very similar enabling words 
an appointment of an attorney by directors without seal was held good aa 
against third parties. 

No equity to enforce informal agreement againit corporation. It has 
been decided (as indeed it is obvious in principle) that inability to 
enforce an agreement with a corporation at law by reason of its 
not being under the corporate seal does not create any jurisdiction 
to enforce it in equity (o). 

Sight of corporations to sue on contracts executed. The rights of cor- 
porations to sue upon contracts are somewhat more extensive than 
their liabilities. When the corporation has performed its own part 
of the contract so that the other party has had the benefit of it, the 
corporation may sue on the contract though not originally bound (p). 
155] For this reason, if possession is given under a *deinise from a 
corporation which is invalid for want of the corporate seal, and rent 
paid and accepted, this will constitute a good yearly tenancy (q) 
and will enable the corporation to enforce any term of the agreement 
which is applicable to such a tenancy (r), and a tenant who has 
occupied and enjoyed corporate lands without any deed may be sued 
for use and occupation (s). Conversely the presumption of a demise 
from year to year from pajTnent and acceptance of rent is the same 
against a corporation as against an individual landlord: *' where the 
corporation have acted as upon an executed contract, it is to be 
presumed against them that everything has been done that vras neces- 
sary to make it a binding contract upon both parties, they having 
had all the advantage they would have had if the contract had been 
regularly made " (t). And a person by whose permission a corpora- 
tion has occupied lands may sue the corporation for use and occu- 

{o) Kirk y. Bromley Union {ISA6) (r) Eccles. Commra. v. Merral 

2 Ph. 640; Crampton v. Varna Ry. (1869) L. R. 4 Ex. 162, 38 L. J. Ex. 

Co, (1872) L. R. 7 Ch. 562, 41 L. J. 93. By Kelly C.B. this is correlative 

Ch. 817. to the tenant's right to enforce the 

(p) Fishmongers* Co. v. Robertson agreement in equity on the ground of 

(1843) 5 M. & Gr. 131, 12 L. J. C. P. part performance, sed qu. 

185. The judgment on this point is (s) Mayor of Stafford v. TiU 

at pp. 192-6; but the dictum con- (1827) 4 Ring. 75, 29 R. R. 511. The 

tained in the passage " Even if . . . like as to tolls. Mayor of Carmarthen 

against themselves," pp. 192-3 (ex- v. Lewis (1834) 6 C. & P. 608, but 

tending the right to sue without see Serj. Manning's note, 2 M. ^ Gr. 

limit) is now overruled. See Mayor 249. 

of Kidderminster Y. Hardwick (1873) (t) Doe d. Pennington v. Taniere 

L. R. 9 Ex. 13, 21, 43 L. J. Ex. 9. (1848) 12 Q. B. 998, 1013, 18 L. J. 

iq) Wood V. Tate (1806) 2 Boa. & Q. B. 49. 
P. N. R. 247, 9 R. R. 646. 



CONTRACTS OF CORPORATIONS. 167 

pation (u). In the case of a yearly tenancy the presumption is of 
an actual contract, but the liability for use and occupation is rather 
gwui ex contractu (x) . 

Corporations liable on q