Page images

combination of individuals. There are things which it is lawful for
an individual to do which it is not lawful for a combination of in-
dividuals to do. (Mass.) Pickett v. Walsh, 272.

4. LABOR UNIONS-Unlawful Combinations.-The members of a
labor union cannot by a strike refuse to work with other workmen,
for an arbitrary cause. (Mass.) Pickett v. Walsh, 272.

5. LABOR UNION, Strike by to Compel Discharge of Persons not
Belonging to the Union and to Obtain Employment for Themselves.--
A strike by bricklayers and masons to refuse to lay brick and stone
where the work of pointing is given to others, and thereby to compel
such work to be given to such bricklayers and masons, is not unlaw
ful. (Mass.) Pickett v. Walsh, 272.


STRIKE, When Unlawful.--A Strike by a Labor Union Against
A, with Whom It Has No Dispute, Because He Works for B, with
Whom It Has a Dispute, for the purpose of forcing A to force B to
yield to the strikers' demand, is not justifiable. Organized laborers'
right to coercion and compulsion is limited to strikes against persons
with whom the organization has a dispute. (Mass.) Pickett V.
Walsh, 272.

7. LABOR UNIONS, Liability of Members of.-A defendant is
liable for an intentional and unjustifiable interference with the pursuit
on the part of the plaintiff of his calling, whether it be of labor or of
business. (Mass.) Pickett v. Walsh, 272.

8. PRACTICE-Unincorporated Labor Union.-An unincorporated
labor union cannot be made a party defendant. (Mass.) Pickett v.
Walsh, 272.



TREATIES-Construction.-If treaty rights are conferred of a
nature to be enforced in a court of justice, the court resorts to the
treaty for the rule of decision as it would to a legislative enactment.
(Pa.) Maiorano v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 778.

2. TREATIES-Construction.-In construing a treaty the general
rule obtains that the court is to be guided by the intention of the
parties, and if the words clearly express the meaning and inten-
tion, no other means of interpretation can be employed. (Pa.)
Maiorano v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 778.

3. TREATIES-Rights Under-Who Entitled to. The provision
in the treaty between the United States and Italy stipulating that
citizens of that country while in the United States shall enjoy, in
the protection and security of their persons and property, the same
rights which the citizens of the United States enjoy, applies only to
such citizens of Italy with respect to their persons or property as are
within the jurisdiction of the United States. (Pa.) Maiorano v.
Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 778.

See Death.


See Animals.


In General.

1. PRACTICE.-The Defense that the Plaintiffs Have not Legal
Capacity to Sue cannot be made out by showing that they have not
sufficient facts to rest upon. (N. Y.) Ullman v. Cameron, 553.

2. PRACTICE-Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.-If the find-
ings of a special verdict in connection with the undisputed evidence
will not sustain a judgment for the plaintiff, it is immateral in ren-
dering judgment for the defendant whether the verdict is set aside,
or the answers therein changed. (Wis.) Woodard v. German-
American Ins. Co., 17.

3. PRACTICE.—Unfair Argument of Counsel to the jury is ground
for setting aside the verdict. (Mich.) Detroit Nat. Bank v. Union
Trust Co., 319.

4. JURY TRIAL, Taking Exhibits to the Jury-room Without the
Consent of the Defendant.-The fact that the jurors, without the con-
sent of the defendant, took to the jury-room certain exhibits which
had been received in evidence and examined by them during the trial,
does not entitle the defendant to a new trial, where it does not
appear what use was made of the exhibits while in such room.
Y.) People v. Dolan, 521.



5. TRIAL-Instructions.-An instruction which, after defining two
methods of impeaching a witness, proceeds by stating that "if
the jury believe that any witness for the defense has been success-
fully impeached by either of the methods aforesaid, then you are at
liberty to disregard the evidence of such witness, except so far,
if at all, as he may have been corroborated," is erroneous, and mis-
leading in singling out a witness for the defense. (Ill.) Godair v.
Ham Nat. Bank, 172.


TRIAL-Instructions.-The fact that matters of evidence and
other unnecessary allegations are set out in the complaint does not
justify the court in instructing the jury that such allegations must
be proved, especially when they are immaterial. (Ark.) Strange v.
Bodcaw Lumber Co., 92.

7. TRIAL-Omissions to Charge on Evidence.-If the court in
its charge to the jury in reviewing the evidence omits or insufficiently
refers to portions that counsel think material, it is the duty of the
latter to call the court's attention to them before the case goes to
the jury, so that the error, if there is one, may be corrected before
it has done any harm. (Pa.) Commonwealth v. Minney, 763.

See Continuance; Criminal Law; Dismissal and Nonsuit; Jury.


1. If A TRUST is Invalid as to Creditors of the Beneficiary, title
to the property vests in him so far as the claim of such creditors are
concerned. (N. Y.) Ullman v. Cameron, 553.

2. TRUST, When Invalid as Against Creditors-Attempt to
Exempt Property from Execution.-A will giving all the property
of the testatrix to a trustee, to be held by him for the purpose of
paying over annually to her husband all of the income thereof nee-
essary for his support and maintenance during his life, and when-
ever he should wish to engage in any business, to pay over to him
so much of the principal as he may desire, and after his death giving
the residue to certain other persons, is an attempt to create a trust
in fraud of, and therefore void as against, his creditors, and for
their benefit the title should be declared to be vested in their debtor
and subject to the suit of his judgment creditors. (N. Y.) Ullman
v. Cameron, 553.

3. TRUST, When not Created by a Devise to the Testator's Wife
for the Purpose of Maintaining Herself and Their Children.-A
devise and bequest to the testator's wife of his real and personal
estate for the purpose of maintaining herself and our children, to
her and her heirs forever," creates an estate in fee in her when she
becomes his widow and no trust in favor of the children. (Mass.)
Pitts v. Milton, 223.

4. TRUST, When Created by Will.-Though a will does not pur-
port to create a trust nor to devise property to a trustee, nor show that
such property is. to be managed by persons designated as trustees,
yet a trust is created if the duties imposed on such persons are
those of trustees. (N. Y.) Mee v. Gordon, 613.


TRUST Against Assets in the Hands of an Administrator, When
may be Established.-If the proceeds of trust property can be traced
into a particular fund, the trust may be established and enforced as a
charge upon the fund. (Mass.) Lowe v. Jones, 225.

6. TRUST Against General Assets in the Hands of an Adminis-
trator When cannot be Established.-A trust cannot be established
against the proceeds of trust property wrongfully disposed of by the
trustee on the ground that the proceeds of the trust property went
into the general assets and thereby increased the amount in the hands
of the administrator. (Mass.) Lowe v. Jones, 225.

7. TRUST, Administrator of Deceased Trustee, When cannot be
Compelled to Apply General Assets to Relieve Trust Property.-If a
trustee has wrongfully pledged trust property under such circum-
stances that it cannot be recovered from the pledgee, the administrator
of the trustee cannot be compelled to use the general assets of the
estate to exonerate such property from the liability for which it was
pledged. (Mass.) Lowe v. Jones, 225.

8. TRUST Against Proceeds of Trust Property, When cannot be
Established. A trust cannot be established against the proceeds of
trust property which has been disposed of unless the proceeds can be
identified and traced into some particular fund or property. (Mass.)
Lowe v. Jones, 225.

See Monopolies; Perpetuities.


See Gifts; Wills.


See Building and Loan Associations.


EARNEST MONEY-When may be Recovered.-If a con-
tract to convey land is unenforceable, and the vendor refuses to con.
vey, the earnest money paid under such contract may be recovered.
(Minn.) Larson v. O'llara, 342.

[blocks in formation]



1. WILLS.-In the Construction of Wills the object is not to
seek flaws and declare them invalid, but to sustain them if legally
possible. (N. Y.) Mee v. Gordon, 613.

2. WILLS, Construction of-Trust, When Created as to Remainder.
Under a devise and bequest of property to M., to be invested by
the testatrix's executors for M.'s benefit during his natural life and
for the benefit of his wife and issue after his death, a trust is not
created as to the wife and children, but the title vests in them ab-
solutely on M.'s death. (N. Y.) Mee v. Gordon, 613.

3. WILL, Devise in Fee, When Cut Down by Subsequent Words.—
A devise and bequest in favor of a testatrix's brother and her
nephew and niece, share and share alike, accompanied by a direction
that the share of the brother be invested for his benefit during his
natural life and for the benefit of his wife and his issue after his
death, does not give the brother a fee in his share, but cuts his es-
tate down to one for life. (N. Y.) Mee v. Gordon, 613.

4. WILLS-Perpetuities-Vested Interest, When will not be De-
vested. An absolute bequest which has once vested in interest in
the beneficiary will not be devested for the benefit of the testator's
heirs merely because a subsequent limitation, which is intended to
take effect neither as an executory devise or by reducing in the
contingency named the absolute interest previously given, must fail
of effect. (Mass.) Gray v. Whittemore, 246.

5. WILLS-If a Limitation Over is Void for Remoteness, it places
all prior rights in the same situation as if the devise over had not been
made. (Mass.) Gray v. Whittemore, 246.

6. WILLS, Constructing.-When the Language of the Testator
is of Doubtful Import, Remainders will be Regarded as Vested
unless a contrary intention is to be gathered from the provisions of
the will. (Mass.) Gray v. Whittemore, 246.

7. WILLS, Heirs at Law, Who are.-A Trust or Bequest in Favor
of the Heirs at Law of a Child of the Testator means those who
would inherit his estate at the time of his death. (Mass.) Gray v.
Whittemore, 246.

8. WILLS-Heirs at Law, Husband, When may Take as.-If, by
statute, a husband surviving his wife who leaves no issue is entitled
to take her real property up to a sum specified, he is entitled up to such
amount to take property devised to his wife's heirs at law. (Mass.)
Gray v. Whittemore, 246.

Undue Influence.

Verdict.-Whether the

9. WILLS-Undue Influence-Directing
court committed error in directing the jury to find for the proponents
in a will contest does not involve any question as to the preponderance
of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses, or the force
to be given to the evidence having a tendency merely to impeach
the veracity of the witnesses, but only whether there was any evi-
dence fairly tending to sustain the allegations of the bill with re-
spect to undue influence and want of capacity in the testator as
charged. (Ill.) Cheney v. Goldy, 145.

Verdict. The active

10. WILLS-Undue Influence-Directing
agency of the beneficiary of a will in procuring it to be drawn, es-
pecially in the absence of those who have at least equal claims upon

the justice of the testator, and where the testator is enfeebled by old
age and long-continued disease calculated to weaken his mental
faculties, are circumstances indicating the probable exercise of undue
influence, and in such case it is error for the court to peremptorily
direct the jury to find a verdict for the proponents of the will.
(Ill.) Cheney v. Goldy, 145.

11. WILLS-Undue Influence.-Proof of undue influence in the
execution of a will which will invalidate it may be wholly circumstan-
tial and inferential, and the influence may be that of a third person
as well as of direct beneficiaries. (Ill.) Cheney v. Goldy, 145.

12. WILLS—Undue Influence-Evidence.-If a will disposing of
the testator's property to strangers is sought to be set aside for
undue influence or want of mental capacity, evidence tending to show
that friendly relations existed between the deceased and some of his
relatives is admissible. (Ill.) Cheney v. Goldy, 145.

13. WILLS-Evidence to Show Undue Influence or Want of Tes-
tamentary Capacity.-Declarations made at different periods of his
life by a testator as to his views and intentions as to the disposi-
tion of his property may be introduced in evidence if consistent
with the provisions of his will, but not to invalidate the will as having
been made under undue influence. (Ill.) Cheney v. Goldy, 145.

[blocks in formation]

1. WITNESSES-Compulsory Attendance.-If an accused has
made the required oath, he is entitled, as a matter of right, to sum-
mon witnesses beyond the statutory number allowed him. (La.)
State v. Freddy, 195.

2. WITNESSES-Power to Limit Number of.-A rule of court
arbitrarily limiting the number of witnesses on each side to four
in a damage suit, upon the issue of damages or no damage, cannot
be defended. It is both unreasonable and arbitrary. (Mo.) St.
Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Aubuchon, 499.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Witnesses of Tender Years.-The
statute authorizing the reception of unsworn testimony of children
under twelve years of age is not in derogation of the constitutional
right of the citizen. (N. Y.) People v. Sexton, 621.

4. WITNESS-Testimony Against Deceased Person.-In an action
by a corporation against an executor or administrator, the general
manager of the company is not disqualified to testify under the rule
that a party shall not be allowed to testify, where the adverse
party is an executor or administrator, of facts which occurred before
the death of the decedent. (Ohio St.) Cockley Milling Co. v. Bunn,

5. WITNESSES-Part of Conversation.-A witness may testify to
a part of a conversation heard by him. (La.) State v. Freddy, 195.

Credibility of Witness.


EVIDENCE-Witnesses-Instruction to Disregard Evidence.-
It is reversible error for the court to instruct the jury in a criminal
case that if they find that one of the witnesses has sworn falsely,
then "such witness is not to be believed in any respect, and you
have to disregard his testimony." (Pa.) Commonwealth v. Ieradi,

« PreviousContinue »