not multifarious.-Brickner Woolen-Mills Co. v. Henry, (Wis.) 809.
Obstruction, see Trespass, 1, 2.
Probate and contest.
1. Each of the subscribing witnesses to a will identified his signature, but denied recollection of signing it, and testified that he had never been in testator's house; and evidence was given that at the date of the will testator was too ill to leave the house, but nothing was shown which was likely to impress the date of the illness on the recollection of the witnesses, while the tes- timony that he was able to leave the house was as strong. Held, that the presumption of subscription by the witnesses in the presence of the testator was not overcome. -Riordan v. O'Hagan, (Wis.) 649.
2. The court having found that the will was executed by the testator in the city of B., on the day it bore date, and was at the same time subscribed by the attesting wit- nesses, it was unnecessary to make specifie findings on the questions: "At what place in the city did the testator and the wit-
nesses subscribe it?" "Was the testator
able to leave his house on that date?" and,
Transactions with decedents, see Con- tracts, 12.
Competency-Transactions with de-
1. Under Gen. St. Minn. 1878, c. 73. § 8, forbidding a party to the action, or one in- terested in its event, to testify as to any conversation with, or admission of, a de- ceased or insane party or person relative to any matter at issue, testimony by one to whom a certificate of deposit had been paid that the payee, plaintiff's intestate, had given it to him causa mortis, is incom- petent in favor of defendant bank. -Beard v. First Nat. Bank, (Minn.) 842.
2. Code Iowa, § 3639, making a party to an action or person interested therein in- competent to testify against the personal representative of a deceased person as to had with such person during his life-time, a personal transaction or communication does not disqualify an heir and distributee from testifying for the defendant in an ac- tion by a creditor of the estate, who is also heir and distributee, against the executor. Following Leasman v. Nicholson, 12 N. W. Rep. 270, 13 N. W. Rep. 289.-Harrow v. Brown, (Iowa,) 708.
Laws 1885, No. 139, which provides that in 3. How. St. Mich. § 7545, amended by
istrator is a party the opposite party shall be precluded from testifying to matters equally within the knowledge of deceased and himself, applies to an action on a note indorsed by deceased, brought against the maker only, a stranger to the estate, where the executor indemnifies the defendant, and takes on himself the defense of the suit. Following 36 N. W. Rep. 670.-Hill- man v. Schwenk, (Mich.) 924. Examination.
all actions wherein an executor or admin-
4. A party may, on direct examination, to refresh the recollection of his witness, inquire if he has not at another time testi- fied to facts inconsistent with his present testimony.-State v. Cummins, (Iowa,) 124.
4. Where a husband and wife, orally, bind themselves to make a particular dis- 5. When a defendant testifies in his own position of their land by will, which is fully behalf, he may be cross-examined as any performed by the husband, and the bene other witness, and may be compelled to fits accepted by the wife, the agreement is testify whether he did not write to a per- taken out of the statute of frauds, and eq-son for money, stating that he would need uity will prevent the wife from violating $500 to clear him.-People v. Howard, her part of the contract in fraud of parties (Mich.) 789. interested.-Carmichael v. Carmichael, (Mich.) 173.*
5. Where the wife, after the husband's death, makes a conveyance in violation of the agreement, those to whom she agreed to will may sue her to set aside the convey- ances.-Id.
6. Memoranda to refresh the memory of a witness must have been made up recent- ly after the event in regard to which he testifies. Memoranda prepared by the at- torneys of the witness several months after the occurrence of the events testified to, such memoranda being prepared from
other evidence in possession of the wit- ness, are not admissible to refresh his memory.-Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong, (Neb.) 413.*
7. In an action on a note procured by an agent of plaintiff, a farm machine com- pany, defendant's contention being that the note sued on was a forgery, he may in- quire of the agent if he had not previously turned in a note to another company which falsely purported to be signed by defend- ant, where the witness does not claim the privilege of not answering because it would tend to criminate him.-Johnston Harvester Co. v. Miller, (Mich.) 429.
8. Defendant, a registered pharmacist, was indicted for maintaining a liquor nui- sance. The state introduced certificates showing the purchase of liquor from de- fendant, and witnesses swore that the signatures thereto were theirs, and were genuine. The state then rested, and de- fendant asked the court to direct a verdict on the ground that no witnesses had testifi- ed that they obtained liquor from defend- ant by means of the certificates. The state contending that they had so testified, the court allowed the witnesses to be recalled to testify on that point. Held, no error.- State v. Huff, (Iowa,) 720.
9. A witness in whose possession notes had been, which were alleged to have been fraudulently altered, testified, in chief at the taking of his deposition, that the notes were signed in his presence by the persons whose signatures appeared thereon. On cross-examination he declined to state whether the notes when signed were in their present condition, on the ground that it might tend to criminate him. Held, that the suppression of the deposition, on the ground that he had waived his privilege by his first answer, and thus should have an- swered the second question, was error.- Lombard v. Mayberry, (Neb.) 271.
10. Where a witness has been questioned in regard to statements contradictory of his testimony, evidence of the statements is admissible to impeach his credibility, though made after the occurrence which is the subject-matter of the suit.-Welch v. Abbott, (Wis.) 223.*
11. Where, on cross-examination, a wit- ness testifies that he has not been im-
peached in previous suits, and denies that
on one occasion he asked a man if he was going to swear that he (witness) had a bad reputation for veracity, and no effort is made to contradict him on the last point, its admission is harmless error.-Mears v. Cornwall, (Mich.) 931.
chased the liquor for medicinal purposes, but may inquire of him how many times. he was sick, the nature of his ailments, when he made the purchases, etc., to show that the alleged object of the purchase was a mere pretense, and that defendant knew that fact.-State v. Cummins, (Iowa,) 124. 13. In an action on a note taken by an agent to plaintiff, a farm machine company, where the agent testifies in chief that he saw defendant sign it, and knew nothing of the consideration of a former note in place of which it was given, he may prop- erly be asked by defendant, on cross-exam- ination, if he has not made contrary state- ments, and defendant is not bound by his denial.-Johnston Harvester Co. v. Miller, (Mich.) 429.
14. On trial for rape upon respondent's own daughter, who is the only witness for the people, respondent may show, by the evidence of other witnesses, that the daughter has made similar charges falsely against other men, even though the daugh- ter has denied, on cross-examination, that she made such charges; the question, under the circumstances. not being collateral to the main issue.-People v. Evans, (Mich.) 473.*
15. Under Pen. Code Minn. § 531, pro- viding that a person convicted of crime is a competent witness, but the conviction may be proved by the record or cross-exam- ination, a defendant in a criminal case, sworn as a witness in his own behalf, may, on cross-examination, be asked if he has been convicted of crime.-State v. Curtis, (Minn.) 263.
16. In trover for the value of horses siezed under a void attachment and deliv- ered to the debtor, but claimed by plaintiff as purchased from the latter, in order to ascertain plaintiff's bias or interest, and to test his credibility, it is proper to inquire, on his cross-examination, whether he knew the attachment was issued when he bought the horses, and whether he had not aided the debtor in other suits with the attach- ment plaintiff by becoming his surety.- Mears v. Cornwall, (Mich.) 931.
Words and Phrases. "Depot grounds," see Railroad Companies,
See, also. Attachment; Certiorari; Execu- tion; Garnishment; Injunction; Manda- mus; Replevin.
Service of process.
1. The question whether a warrant was issued and delivered to an officer for serv- 12. On trial of a pharmacist for the un- ice within the required time is for the jury. lawful sale of liquor, the state is not bound-People v. Clement, (Mich.) 190. by a statement of its witness that he pur-
2. When Sp. Laws Minn. 1877, c. 185. § 2,
providing that summons to be served in Ramsey county shall be served by the sheriff, was repealed by Sp. Laws 1881, c. 371, the provisions of the general law on the subject (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 56, allow- ing service by any one not a party to the action,) took effect in that county.-Miller v. Miller, (Minn.) 261. Publication.
service was made, nor that the court ac- quired jurisdiction, unless that is affirma- tively shown.-Id.
of a summons is not conclusive on defend- ant, but may be impeached by affidavit, on motion or other direct proceedings in the action to set aside the judgment on default. -Crosby v. Farmer, (Minn.) 71.
5. The return of an officer of the service
6. In an action to enforce a judgment against property in the hands of the debt-
3. Proof, by affidavit, of publication for "six successive weeks" does not show the publication to have been made "once in each week" for the period named.-God-or's grantee, the latter cannot show, to frey v. Valentine, (Minn.) 163. avoid the judgment, that service of process 4. The record of judicial proceedings in the action wherein it was obtained was stating that the summons was served by accepted in another state, when it does publication against a non-resident, who not appear from the acceptance that it was was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, in another state.-Wright v. Mahaffey, it will not be presumed that other proof of | (Iowa,) 112.
TABLES OF NORTHWESTERN CASES
We herewith furnish tables of all those cases which, originally published in the NORTHWESTERN REPORTER, have since appeared in the various State Reports. Reference is made in each case to the volume and page of both the State Report and the NORTHWESTERN REPORTER. Similar tables will be made and issued hereafter. The advantage of such tables, both for purposes of reference and citation, are obvious,-much increasing the permanent value of the series.
Jones v. Matthieson (11 N. 109).... 523 Wambole v. Foote (2 N. 239)...................
Alleman v. Stepp (3 N. 636)......... 626 | Betts v. City of Glenwood (2 N. 1012) 124 American Em. Co. v. Iowa R. L. Co.
Black v. Boyd (2 N. 1044) Bostwick v. Bostwick (2 N. 1050)... 721 Bowman v. Brown (3 N. 609)....... 437 319 Brandt v. McDowell (2 N. 1100).... 230 745 Brayley v. Hedges (3 N. 652).. 623 731 Brooks v. Polk Co. (3 N. 494)... 672 Brundige v. Maloney (2 N. 1110).... Bryan v. Brazil (3 N. 117)........ Bunt v. Rheum (3 N. 667)
Burbank v. Warwick (3 N. 519) Burdick v. Kent (3 N. 643)..
Burrows v. Waddell (3 N. 37)...... 195
359 Case v. Woleben (3 N. 486)...
Bailey v. Landingham (3 N. 460).... Barr v. Patrick (3 N. 743). Beecher v. Clay Co. (2 N. 1037).. Bellows v. Tod (3 N. 102).
137 City of Ottumwa v. Schaub (3 N. 529) 515 265 Clow v. Murphy (3 N. 723)...
« ПретходнаНастави » |