Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

LITERARY PROPERTY.

1. AUTHOR HAS A RIGHT OF PROPERTY in his books, letters, and other literary productions, unless they have been published with his assent. Hoyt v. Mackenzie, 178.

& PUBLICATION OF PRIVATE LETTERS WILL NOT BE ENJOINED, if they have no value as literary property. Id.

LOST BONDS.

See BONDS, 1.

LUNACY.

See INSANITY.

MAILS.

See OFFICES AND OFFICERS, 4, 5.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

1. ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WILL LIE, after the discharge of the aocused, if the proceedings, though defective, were maliciously prosecuted without probable cause. Kline v. Shuler, 402.

2 IN ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF AN INDICTMENT, the facta that the defendant's name was uot indorsed on the indictment as prosecutor, and that plaintiff did not prove he gave evidence against him on the trial, are not conclusive that the defendant was not the prosecutor, as he may have promoted the prosecution, and been the cause of it, though not avowedly the prosecutor, appearing of record. Id.

& DEFENDANT IN ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION is liable if in point of fact the indictment was preferred at his instance, though he is not avowedly the prosecutor, appearing of record. Id.

4. IN ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF AN INDICTMENT, the fact that the warrant of arrest issued by the justices was without a seal can not impair its force as evidence of the defendant's connection with the preferring and prosecuting the indictment. Id.

MANDAMUS.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 15, 16.

MANSLAUGHTER.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 8-10, 12.

MAPS.

See CORPORATIONS, 9.

MARITAL RIGHTS.

See MARRIED WOMEN, 9, 10.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

DIVORCES ARE THE SUBJECT-matter of JUDICIAL ACTION, and can not be granted by the legislature, in the absence of a power conferred upon it by the constitution; but to avoid evil consequences, since the legislature

has long exercised this power, divorces so granted will not be declared void, but the exercise of the power will be simply declared to be unwarranted and unconstitutional. Bingham v. Miller, 471.

See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 1.

MARRIED WOMEN.

1. FEME COVERT CAN NOT DISPOSE OF HER SEPARATE PERSONAL ESTATE as a feme sole unless empowered by the deed of settlement, and if so em. powered, the mode there prescribed must be strictly followed. Calhoun v. Calhoun, 667.

2. COURT OF EQUITY CAN NOT CONFIRM A SALE OF A WIFE'S SEPARATE ESTATE where the deed creating the estate expressly prohibits her alienation of it. Id.

8. SALE OF FEME COVERT'S SEPARATE PROPERTY by her will not be sustained by a court of equity unless it is voluntary, even if there are no restrictions in the deed of conveyance to her. Id.

4. Sale of WIFE'S PROPERTY to Pay Debts of the Husband will not be confirmed by a court of equity. Id.

5. MARRIED WOMAN DOES NOT CONVEY HER LANDS IN FEE unless she joins with her husband in the granting part of the deed. Purcell v. Goshorn, 448.

6. DEED OF A MARRIED WOMAN WILL NOT BE CORRECTED by a court of equity, as against her, so as to make it convey the fee where by mistake it relinquishes her right of dower only; although, it seems, a clerical error may be corrected. Id.

7. WHERE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED TO SEPARATE USE OF FEME COVERT, with power by her to revoke and appoint to new uses, a conveyance by herself and husband, though not referring to the power, passes the estate. Coryell v. Dunton, 489.

8. ID.-A SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCE BY THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, intended as a confirmation of the first, would have the effect of a new appointment by the wife, if the first deed were invalid. Id.

9. UNLESS HUSBAND COLLECTS MONEY OR DISPOSES OF INTEREST OF WIFE in a legacy in the administrator's hands, the right of the wife continues, and would survive to her or her representatives. Arrington v. Screws,

408.

10. ON LEGACY TO WIFE, LAW REQUIRES PLAIN EXCLUSION OF THE HUSBAND to deprive him of his marital rights; such a legacy considered and held not to exclude the husband. Barnes v. Simms, 435.

11. SEPARATE ESTATE OF WIFE IS CHARGEABLE for necessaries contracted for by her while a minor and sole. Dickson v. Miller, 71.

12. SEPARATE PROPERTY OF WIFE can not ordinarily be subjected to payment of her debts contracted during coverture, except when a distinct intention to bind such property is shown. Id.

13. VERDICT OBTAINED THROUGH Plea of BankrUPTCY, in an action at law for necessaries supplied the wife while minor and sole, is no bar to a bill in equity to subject the separate property of the wife to the payment of the debt so contracted.

Id.

14. FRAUD AND DURESS OF WIFE TO OBTAIN HER SIGNATURE to a deed of her

land may be shown, and the deed avoided as to purchasers with notice;
otherwise as to purchasers without notice. Schrader v. Decker, 538.
15. DEED OF INFANT FEME COVERT, though dated after her majority, is void.
Id

See ATTACHMENTS, 1; HUSBAND AND WIFE,

MASTERS.

See SHIPPING, 1, 2.

MECHANIC'S LIEN.
See LIENS, 4.

MERGER.

LANDLORD AND TENANT, 8; MORTGAGES

MILLS.

See-WATERCOURSES, 1, 8-6.

MINES.

Bee COVENANTS, 1-4.

MISDEMEANOR.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 2-5, 7, 8.

MISREPRESENTATIONS.

See INSURANCE-FIRE, 6.

MISTAKE.

Bee ESTATES OF DECEDENTS, 1, 2; MORTGAGES, 18, 18.

MOBS.

See COVENANTS, 10.

MONOMANIA.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 12.

MORTGAGES.

1. MORTGAGE GIVEN TO SECURE A SPECIFIC DEBT THEREIN NAMED can not,
as against subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers, be extended by parol
evidence so as to secure a different debt. Bank of Utica v. Finch, 175.
2 MORTGAGEE DOES NOT LOSE HIS SECURITY by extending the time for pay-
ment, though such extension is affected by the renewal of a note held as
collateral security. Id.

3. MORTGAGE OR JUDGMENT FOR FUTURE ADVANCES, or as general security
for balances which may from time to time become due, is valid. Id.
4. MORTGAGORS MAY BE DECREED TO PAY THE RENTS AND PROFITS of the
mortgaged premises to the mortgagees, where by an appeal they have for
a long time kept the mortgagees out of such rents and profits. Id.
6. MORTGAGE GIVEN TO SECURE FUTURE ADVANCES WILL BE POSTPONED,
as to such advances, to a second mortgage recorded before the advances
were made. Spader v. Lawler, 461.

6. SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE on record in another state are not affected by such lien, unless they have actual or constructive notice thereof; and a petition which seeks to enforce such lien as against them must contain an averment of such notice. McClen ney v. McClenney, 738.

7. MORTGAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IS A CONDITIONAL TRANSFER which may be valid without actual delivery; if the condition be not performed, the whole title vests absolutely at law in the mortgagee. Lucketts v. Townsend, 723.

8. MORTGAGE FOLLOWS THE NOTE IT IS INTENDED TO SECURE, and the assignee of the note has an equitable interest in it, even though not aware of its existence at the time of the purchase of the note. Roberts v. Halstead, 541.

9. MORTGAGEE HAVING SOLD THE NOTE SECURED by the mortgage, can not cause satisfaction of it to be entered on the record to its destruction as a security to the note holders. Id.

10. INNOCENT PURCHASER OF MORTGAGED PREMISES WILL BE PROTECTED, if the mortgage appears on the record to have been satisfied. Id.

11. PURCHASER OF MORTGAGED PREMISES WITH NOTICE that the note secured by the mortgage was unpaid, and that the mortgage had been satisfied by the mortgagee without the knowledge of the holder of the note, takes subject to the mortgage. Id.

12. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE MONEY AFTER SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE, without requiring the production of the notes secured by the mortgage, will not release the land from the lien, where the notes have passed into other hands. Id.

18. ASSIGNMEnt of a MORTGAGE BY A NOMINAL MORTGAGEE shows his acceptance of the mortgage, and establishes a valid delivery of the mort. gage to him. Lady Superior v. McNamara, 184.

14. BRINGING SUIT ON AN ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE by the assignee, the assignment having originally been delivered to the mortgagor for the benefit of the assignee, is an assent to such assignment, and relates back to the original delivery. If the mortgagor had refused to deliver such assignment, he could have been compelled to do so. Id.

15. MORTGAGE TO ONE PERSON TO SECURE THE DEBT OF ANOTHER makes the former a trustee of the latter, who may compel an assignment to be made, or may have a foreclosure decreed for his benefit.

Id.

16. ASSIGNEE OF MORTGAGE WITHOUT NOTICE TAKES it subject to all the equity of the mortgagor, but not to any equity of a third person against the assignor. Mott v. Clark, 566.

17. ASSIGNEE OF MORTGAGE IS NOT BOUND TO REGISTER THE ASSIGNMENT. Id.

18. MORTGAGOR IS COMPETENT WITNESS to prove that assignor of the mortgage had notice that the whole of the land did not belong to the mortgagor, but was, by mistake, included in the description, where the assignee sues a stranger in ejectment. Id.

19. BOND AND MORTGAGE MAY BE DECREED TO BE DELIVERED UP and canceled when both parties thereto have acted under a mistake, as where the legal title was already in the mortgagees, when supposed by the parties to be in the mortgagora. Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 189.

20. MORTGAGE IS NOT NECESSARILY MERGED by coming into possession of the

owner in fee. It depends on the intent, and intent to prevent merger
will be presumed where it is to the interest of the party that it be not
merged. Duncan v. Drury, 565.

21. MORTGAGEE PURCHASING AT SHERIFF'S SALE which does not extinguish
the mortgage, and retaining the money bid, will not be considered as
having applied it to the payment of the mortgage, except as to such sur-
plus as would be in his hands after payment of all prior liens. Mott v.
Clark, 566.

See ATTORNEY AND CLIENT, 8; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 11; LIENS, 1;
SURETYSHIP, 1.

MULTIFARIOUSNESS.

See PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 1, 2.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

Bee CORPORATIONS, 8-12; FENCES, 2; HIGHWAYS; SUNDAYS, &.

MURDER.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 9, 10, 12.

NAVIGABLE RIVERS.

See WATERCOURSES, 6.

NECESSARIES.

See INSANITY; MARRIED WOMEN, 11, 18.

NECESSARY PARTIES.

See GUARANTY, 2.

NEGLIGENCE.

ONE CAN NOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE when his own wrong-

ful act has contributed to the injury of which he complains. Tonawanda
R. R. Co. v. Munger, 239.

See AGENCY, 1; Common CarriERS, 4, 7–9; CORPORATIONS, 10-12; EXEOU-
TIONS, 3, 4, 23, 24; EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 4; FENCES, 1;
GUARDIAN AND Ward, 1; Highways, 1, 2; JUDGMENTS, 1; NUISANCE, 5;
PUBLIO LANDS, 5; TRESPASS, 7.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.

1. A BILL OF EXCHANGE which, although bearing the indorsement of the
payee, has been negotiated by the drawer (or by a partner in a firm who
are the drawers), for his benefit, the payee not being a party to the
transaction, may be treated as if drawn payable to a fictitious person or
to "bearer. Coggill v. American Exch. Bank, 310.

2. OFFERING FOR DISCOUNT A BILL BEARING THE INDORSEMENT OF THE PAYER
is an implied assertion of the genuineness of the indorsement, and estops
one who obtains discount on the faith of the indorsement from denying
its genuineness as against the transferee. Id.

« AnteriorContinua »