« PoprzedniaDalej »
§ 3. Rights and liabilities as to third
persons. Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see “Bank
Where the president of a corporation gives inruptcy," $ 3.
dividually his note under seal and pledges as collateral stock in the corporation which is his
own property, the debt cannot be enforced PREJUDICE.
against the corporation.-Andrews Co. v. Na
tional Bank of Columbus (Ga.) 633. Ground for reversal in civil actions, see “Appeal *The agency of a person recognized by both and Error," $ 17.
parties as agent in a particular transaction is
sufficiently proved when wholly uncontradicted PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.
by the adverse party.-J. F. Bailey Co. v. West
Lumber Co. (Ga. App.) 120. On criminal charge, see "Criminal Law," $ 5. A suit to enforce rights based on unauthoriz
ed acts of an agent shows ratification of such
acts.-J. F. Bailey Co. v. West Lumber Co. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. (Ga. App.) 120.
Though an undisclosed principal may sue on See “Injunction," $ 4.
a contract with his agent, yet the other party can set off claim against the agent.-Durant
Lumber Co. v. Sinclair Lumber Co. (Ga. App.) PREMIUMS.
485. For insurance, see "Insurance," $ 3.
An undisclosed principal held entitled to enforce a contract for the sale of land, entered
into by his agent, to whom the agent of the PRESCRIPTION.
owner of the land had been authorized to sell.
- Nicholson v. Dover (N. C.) 444. Acquisition of rights, see “Adverse Possession," In an action for land that defendant bought $ 1.
it of one having a power of attorney to sell, Establishment of highways, see “Highways," | held to constitute an equitable defense in eject$ 1.
ment.--Rogerson v. Leggett (N. C.) 596.
In an action against a principal for money PRESENTMENT.
borrowed by his agent, certain evidence held
admissible on the question whether plaintiff Of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," $ 5.
knew that the agent was exceeding his authori
ty.-Swindell v. Latham (N. C.) 1010. PRESUMPTIONS.
*In an action against a principal for money
loaned to his agent, an instruction fixing the As. to construction of statute, see “Statutes,” liability of the principal therefor held erroneous.
-Swindell v. Latham (N. C.) 1010. In civil actions, see "Evidence," $ 2.
*An agent can only contract for his prinIn criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,” |cipal within the limits of his authority, and one 886, 34; "Homicide," $ 5.
dealing with an agent having limited powers On appeal or error, see “Appeal and Error," $ must generally inquire as to the extent of his
authority.--Swindell v. Latham (N. C.) 1010.
*An agent with authority to buy or sell has, PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY.
in the absence of any restriction to the con
tary, the power to buy or sell for cash or See "Criminal Law," $ 2.
credit.-Swindell v. Latham (N. C.) 1010.
* An agent authorized to buy goods, where no
funds are advanced to him, has implied authorPRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
ity to buy on the credit of his principal.
Swindell v. Latham (N. C.) 1010. Admissions by agent, see "Evidence," $ 5. Agency of husband for wife, see "Husband and *One hcld not entitled to the benefit of a conWife," 8 1.
veyance made to another on the ground that he Reference in suit involving partnership agency, had the right to and did ratify the act:-Virginia see "Reference," $ 1.
Pocahontas Coal Co, v. Lambert (Va.) 561. Sales by agent, see "Sales," 1. Telegraph company as agent of sender of tele
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY. gram, see “Telegraphs and Telephones," $ 1. Agency in particular relativno, offices, or oc
Sureties on bonds for performance of duties cupations.
of trust or office. See “Attorney and Client"; "Brokers”; "Fac- See. "Executors and Administrators," § 8; tors."
"Guardian and Ward," $ 2. Corporate agents, see "Corporations." $ 3. Insurance agents, see "Insurance," $$ 1, 9.
Sureties on bonds in judicial proceedings.
See “Bail"; "Garnishment," $ 6; “Replevin," $ 1. The relation.
$ 2. *The declarations of an alleged agent are inadmissible to prove agency, but are admissible & 1. Remedies of creditors. in corroboration.-Ham v. Brown Bros. (Ga.
Petition in action on contractor's bond held App.) 316.
demurrable.-McGarry v. Seiz (Ga.) 856. § 2. Mutual rights, duties, and liabilities.
PRIORITIES. An agent cannot, without the knowledge of his principal, represent himself and the prin- Between execution and other liens, see “Execucipal where their interests conflict.-Swindell v. tion," $ 1. Latham (N. C.) 1010.
Of mortgages, see "Chattel Mortgages," $ 2. *Point annotated. See syllabus.
*Standing timber is realty, and a contract
for the sale thereof affects realty.--Midyette 1. Malicious obstruction of, see “Malicious Mis- Grubbs (N. C.) 795. chief."
*It is incumbent on those alleging that posPrivate railroad crossings, see "Railroads," $ 3. session of land is unlawful to establish such Rights of way, see “Easements."
fact.-Langston v. Cothran (S. C.) 956.
Tax receipts are admissible to show that the PRIVILEGE.
party paying the taxes claimed the land.-Lang.
ston v. Cothran (S. C.) 956.
Against entry of public land, see "Public Lands,"
$ 1. PROBATE.
Of bill or note, see "Bills and Notes," $ 5.
Of will, see “Wills," $ 3.
PROVINCE OF COURT AND JURY. PROCESS.
In civil actions, see "Trial," & 5. Effect of appearance, see "Appearance.".
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
Of collision, see "Collision," $ 1.
Of death of animals caused by operation of rail.
road, see "Railroads," $ 10. In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,” of injury in general, see "Negligence," $ . 8 5.
Of injury caused by operation of railroad, se On appeal, see "Appeal and Error," 8 5.
“Railroads," $ 9. To revive judgment, see "Judgment," $ 11. Of injury to servant, see “Master and Servant," Particular forms of writs or other process.
PUBLIC DEBT. Of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see "Intoxicat. See “Counties,". 4; “Municipal Corporations." ing Liquors."
87; "States," $ 1.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. See “Bills and Notes."
By municipalities, see "Municipal Corporations."
PUBLIC LANDS. Of loss insured against, see "Insurance," $ 7.
§ 1. Disposal of lands of the states,
On trial of a protest against an entry on state PROPERTY.
land, under Revisal 1905, $ 1709 et seq., the burden is on the entryman as against the protes
, Constitutional guaranties of rights of property, tant to show that the land was unappropriated see “Constitutional Law," 8 0.
and subject to entry at the time his entry was Dedication to public use, see “Dedication."
made.-Bowser v. Wescott (N. C.) 748. Particular species of property.
A proceeding supporting a protest against 4 See “Animals”; “Logs and Logging"; "Mines state land entry, under Revisal 1905, $ 1709 et and Minerals.”
seq., is not a civil action, but a special proceeds
ing to try the entryman's right to enter the Remedies involving or affecting property. land as against the protestant-Bowser v. WesProtection of rights of property by injunction, cott (N. C.) 748. see “Injunction," $ 2. Transfers and other matters affecting title.
Affecting validity of contract, see "Contracts," *The owner of the soil, who has conveyed $ 1. the timber, is not revested with the title by a verbal declaration of the owner of the timber that he surrendered it to him.- Warren v. Ash
See "Schools and School Districts," $ 1. *Point annotated. See syllabus.
1. Railroad companies.
*In an action against a railroad company for Dedication of property, see "Dedication." personal injuries, judgment of nonsuit sustainTaking property for public use, see “Eminent ed for want of jurisdiction. --Tatum v. SeaDomain."
board Air Line Ry. (Ga.) 465.
Under Revisal 1905, $ 424, held, any action PUBLIC WORKS.
against a railroad may be tried in the county
where a cause of action arose or where plaintiff Validity of contract restraining competition in then resided. Allen-Fleming Co. v. Southern bidding for, see "Contracts," $ 1.
Ry. Co. (N. C.) 793.
A contract binding an owner to convey to a See "Criminal Law," $ 40.
railway company a right of way construed.
Albert v. Tidewater Ry. Co. (Va.) 575.
§ 3. Construction, maintenance, and
equipment. Against game law, see "Game." Disturbing public worship, see “Disturbance strain building of spur tracks by defendant de
Petition of plaintiff railroad company to reof Public Assemblage." Violation of injunction, see “Injunction," $ 6. nied. --Atlantic & B. Ry. Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co. (Ga.) 465.
A railroad company held not required, under PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
Civ. Code 1902, § 2183, to keep crossing over
private way in repair.-Moragne v. Charleston For failure to deliver telegram, see “Telegraphs & W. C. Ry. Co. (S. C.) 150.
and Telephones," $ 1. For obstructing easement,
see “Easements," $ 4: Operation-Duty to operate.
In the absence of certain limitations, a rail
way company may exercise its discretion in reQUASHING.
moving a side track at which it has been ac
customed to receive and deliver freight.-Durden Attachment, see “Attachment," $ 4.
v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga. App.) 299. Execution, see “Execution," $ 2.
A railroad company owes to the public the
duty of giving reasonable notice of the intention QUESTIONS FOR JURY.
to abandon a side track, if the removal leaves
no facilities for the receipt or delivery of goods In civil actions, see “Trial," $ 4.
received and delivered there.-Durden v. SouthIn criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,” ern Ry. Co. (Ga. App.) 299. 8 20; "Homicide,” 8 6.
What is a reasonable notice by a railroad
company to a shipper of an intention to abandon QUIET ENJOYMENT.
a side track is for the jury.-Durden v. South
ern Ry. Co. (Ga. App.) 299. Covenants for, see "Covenants," $ 2.
The damage recoverable by a shipper by the unexpected removal of a side track is so much
of his loss as he would not have sustained if QUO WARRANTO.
reasonable notice of the intention to remove had
been given.-Durden v. Southern Ry. Co. (Ga. Remedy by as ground for denying injunction, App.) 299. see "Injunction,” 8 2.
Statutory, municipal, and offi
cial regulations. RAILROADS.
A road crossing referred to in Civ. Code
1895, $ 2222, is the crossing by a railroad of Accrutal of limitations for trespass by, see "Lim- a public highway, used and maintained as such itation of Actions," § 2.
by proper authorities.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Amendment of pleading in action for injuries Co. v. Bunn (Ga. App.) 538.
caused by operation of, see "Pleading,” 8 4. As employers, see Master and Servant.
Companies and persons liable Carriage of goods and passengers, see “Carriers."
for injuries. Competency of evidence in action for death of * Where both a lessor railroad and a lessee are
animals caused by operation of, see “Evi- sued for negligence of the lessee, a non suit dence." $ 3.
should not be granted to the lessor unless it Exercise of power of eminent domain, see “Emi- should also be granted to the lessee.- Jackson v. nent Domain," $$ 2, 3, 5.
Southern Ry. Carolina Division (S. C.) 605. Granting the exclusive right of entering train to solicit" transportation of passengers and $ 7.
Injuries to licensees or tresbaggage as creating monopoly, see “Monopo
passers in general. lies," $1.
*In an action against a railroad for injuries Requests for instructions in action for damages to a person visiting the depot to transact busi. from fires caused by operation of, see “Trial,"
ness, evidence held to authorize judgment for
plaintiff.--Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Hunter Requests for instructions in action for death (Ga.) 154.
caused by operation of, see "Trial,” $ 9. Requests for instructions in action for death of
$ 8. Accidents at crossings. animals caused by operation of, see “Trial,” burden is on defendant to show that the injury
*In an action for injuries at a crossing, the SO Review of questions of fact and findings in ac- Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. North (Ga.) 647.
was the result of contributory negligence. tion for death of stock caused by operation of, see "Appeal and Error," $ 16.
*In an action for injuries at a crossing, eviUse of streets, see "Municipal Corporations," dence held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff, -5.
Central of Georgia Ry, Co. y. North (Ga.) 647.
* Point annotated, See syllabus. 58 S.E.-77
to show by what right plaintiff's husband was lantic & B. Ry. Co. v. Smith (Ga. App.) 54. plaintiff's husband on the track which failed essary was as laid down in such section.-At whether he was walking, standing, or lying up- for killing a team at a crossing stalled on the on the track, is insufficient.-Central of Georgia track, the question whether a railroad bridge public crossing.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Flynt crossing was the proximate cause of the killing adjacent highways to regulate the speed of their by one of its engines.--Southern Ry. Co. 1.
*A railway company is not legally responsible ened.–Southern Ry. Co. v. Flynt (Ga. App.) for producing unusual noises in the running of 374. its trains, unless such noises are unnecessary:Brunswick & B. R. Co. v. Hoodenpyle (Ğa.) danger to persons on the highway, it is their
Where those in charge of a train see apparent 705.
duty to use reasonable and practicable care to *A complaint alleged that those in charge of prevent injury.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Flynt a locomotive of defendant company caused great (Ga. App.) 374. volumes of steam to be suddenly emitted from a locomotive, thereby frightening plaintiff's horse.
*The violation of a rule of a railroad comHeld not open to general demurrer on the ground pany in the operation of its trains is not actionthat it did not allege that the noise of the es- able negligence unless it is the proximate cause caping steam was unnecessary.-Brunswick & B. of the injury.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Flynt (Ga. R. Co. v. Hoodenpyle (Ga.) 705.
App.) 374. In an action for death at a crossing, the
*A logging railroad held negligent in not keepcourt having read to the jury Civ. Code '1895, ing a lookout along the track in the direction &$ 2322, 3830, the charge held not erroneous as its train was going.Sawyer v. Roanoke R. & instructing a recovery for plaintiff, even though Lumber Co. (N. C.) 598. the negligence of deceased and that of defend *One who went on a railroad track was struck ant company were equal, or that of the com- by lightning and rendered unconscious, and afpany was less than that of deceased.-Wrights- terwards run over by a train which kept no lookville & T. R. Co. v. Gornto (Ga.) 769.
out, held not guilty of contributory negligence.In a suit for death at a crossing, it is not er- Sawyer v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co. (N. C.) ror to charge that, if the train was not running 598. on schedule time, the jury may consider that circumstance in determining whether the de
§ 10. Injuries to animals on or near ceased had to apprehend danger.
tracks. Wrightsville & T. R. Co. v. Gornto (Ga.) 769. tained by a person by the running of a train,
An instruction that, when an injury is sus*If a person with knowledge of the impending the presumption is that defendant was negli danger steps on the track and seeks to cross gent, held not subject to objection that it led immediately in front of an engine, and is in the jury to believe that it was necessary to re jured, he cannot recover.-Harris v. Southern but this presumption by evidence of defendant Ry. Co. (Ga.) 873.
-Brunswick & B. R. Co. v. Hoodenpyle (Ga.) *In an action for the death of a person killed
705. by a train, evidence of contributory negligence held sufficient to warrant a nonsuit.- Drawdy at a crossing or to prevent stock from getting
*The act of an engineer in blowing the whistle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S. C.) 980.
on the track held not negligence unless the *Where a railroad fails to comply with the whistle was blown in an unnecessary and us: signal statute when approaching a crossing, and usual manner. -Southern Ry. Co. V. Purgear a person is killed there by the train, the non- (Ga. App.) 306. compliance is presumed to be the negligence which caused the death, unless it is shown to for the death of a borse, the evidence or some
To render a railroad company responsible have been caused in some other manner. Drawdy v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S. C.) its death resulted from injuries caused bs the 980.
railroad's negligence.--Southern Ry. 00. v. Pur $ 9. Injuries to persons on or near
year (Ga. App.) 306. tracks. *In a petition in an action for the death of a
The rule of diligence required of railroads to person on the track, an allegation that the per that the stock law is in existence in the district
prevent killing stock is not altered by the fact son injured was free from fault was an unneces: inathich the road was run. – Atlanta & W. P. sary averment, and defendant had no right to R. Co. v. Hudson (Ga. App.) 500. Fral of Georgia ry. Co. v. Brandenburg (Ga.) the presum company from proof of the bil ube
A against 658.
In an action for injuries to a person on the finannanimesterna A. R. Co. v. Clark (Ge. track, a paragraph of the petition held sufficient App.) 500. to put defendant on notice that the negligence proper appliances. ---Central of Georgianality. With error in instruction was to diligence held have v. Brandenburg (Ga.) 658.
less, especially where the court gave Civ. Code on the track the time he was killed, whether the killing was at a public crossing and Ry. Co. v. Brandenburg (.) 658. of speed at a public crossing is inapplicable
In a suit against a railroad for killing stock
1895, $ 2321, defining the diligence required
*Railroads are under no duty to travelers on to property caused by a fire negligently set out
1094. where the injury occurred elsewhere than at a
Whether a a railroad a (Ga. App.) 374.
of a team stalled on the track in consequence of *Railroads are not required to give any warn
the defect held for the jury.-Thompson v. Seaof the approach of a train.-Southern Ry. Co. in signal to travelers on adjacent highways board Air Line Ry. (s. C.) 1094. V. Flynt (Ga. App.) 374.
*is trains to prevent horses from becoming fright. Thompson (Ga.) 1014.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
*The statute requiring signals and a checking Homepsons sin seaboard Air Line Rs. (8. C)
The measure of diligence required of a rail
REAL PROPERTY. road company as to spark arresters to prevent fire is ordinary care to apply to its engines the See "Property." best appliances in general use consistent with the practical operation of the engines.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) 1014.
RECEIPTS. *Ordinary care required of a railroad company to guard against fires from sparks must See “Accord and Satisfaction." be used as well in equipping the engines with Delivery of warehouse receipts as delivery of arproper appliances as in the operation of the ticles sold, see “Sales," $ 4. engine.--Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) 1044.
RECEIVERS. A railroad company is liable for fires set out on its right of way if it is negligent in allow- Appealable orders in proceedings to enjoin, see ing combustible matter to accumulate thereon. “Appeal and Error," 1. Southerri Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) 1044.
8 1. Actions. *Where plaintiff pleaded several acts of neg Where money is held by a receiver, which by ligence resulting in the burning of his property decree is payable to plaintiff, it is error on apby fire set out by defendant's engine, plaintiff plication of a general creditor of such plaintiff could not recover except on proof of the acts so set out.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) such creditor can prosecute a suit to judg
to order the same held by the receiver until 1044.
ment.-Spence v. Solomons Co. (Ga.) 463. *A presumption of negligence arising from fire from sparks from an engine may be rebutted by proof that the company and its agents
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. used all ordinary and reasonable care.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) 1044.
See “Larceny," $ 1. *Where a presumption of negligence arises Though after committing larceny in an adfrom proof that property was destroyed by fire joining state the thief brings the stolen propfrom sparks from an engine, such presumption erty into Georgia, he does not commit larceny may be rebutted by evidence either of plaintiff in the state, and it is not, therefore, a crime or defendant.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson for one to receive in the state goods so stolen. (Ga.) 1044.
--Golden v. State (Ga. App.) 557. *Civ. Code 1895, $ 2321, raising a presumption In those states only in which it is larceny of negligence against railroad companies in ac to bring into the state goods stolen in another tions for loss to persons or property by the run- state, one who there receives goods with knowlning of locomotives, etc., held applicable to edge that they have been stolen is liable to infires set out by engines.-Southern Ry. Co. v. dictment for receiving stolen goods.--Golden v. Thompson (Ga.) 1044.
State (Ga. App.) 557. In an action against the railroad company for fire alleged to have been negligently set out,
RECOGNIZANCES. an instruction held erroneous
as broadening the issue and placing a greater burden on defendant than it was required to bear.-Southern For release from arrest, see “Arrest,” $ 2.
See "Bail," $ 1. Ry. Co. v. Thompson (Ga.) 1044.
*Liability of railroad for damages by communicated fire to cotton on its right of way,
RECORDS, under Civ. Code 1902, § 2135, determined.-German-American Ins. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. Of particular facts, acts, instruments, or pro(S. C.) 337.
ceedings not judicial.
See "Deeds," § 2; "Mortgages," $ 2.
Of judicial proceedings.
Abstract for purpose of review, see "Appeal and
Error," 8 6. 8 1. Prosecution and punishment. Entry on execution docket, see "Execution,"
*Corroboration of prosecutrix is unnecessary 8 5. to support a conviction of assault with intent to Transcript on appeal or writ of error, see "Aprape.-Fields v. State (Ga. App.) 327.
peal and Error," 8 6; "Criminal Law," 8 30. On a trial for assault with intent to rape under certain evidence error held to be committed in refusing to give in charge the law of
REDELIVERY. assault or assault and battery as the indictment may authorize.--Fields v. State (Ga. App.) 327. Of property taken in replevin, see "Replevin,”
Nature, grounds, and order of ref-
*A case, involving partnership agency and trust relations and the examination of a long
account, held a proper case for a compulsory *Point annotated. See syllabus.