Table of Contents.
CHAPTER I.
WRITS OF SUMMONS.
Section Page
1. What Is ProcevSs?
Brooks V. Nevada Nickel Syndicate (1898) 24 Nev. 311 1
Table of Contents.
2. Designation of Court and Parties.
Eggleston v. Wattawa (1902) 117 la. 676 2
Lyman v. Milton (1872) 44 Cal. 632 4
3. Designation of Time fob Appearance.
Lawyer Land Co. v. Steel (1906) 41 Wash. 411 7
CHAPTER I.
4. Description of Cause of Action.
Bewick v. Muir (1890) 83 Cal. 368 9
5. Signature, Teste and Seal.
Lowe V. Morris ( 18.53 ) 13 Ga. 147 11
Choate v. Spencer ( 1S93 ) 13 Mont. 127 13
Ambler V. Leach (1879) 15 W. Va. 677 17
WRITS OF SUMMONS.
Section
Page
1. WHAT Is PROCESS?
Brooks v. Nevada Nickel Syndicate (1898) 24 Nev. 311......
1
6. Indorsement of Amount Claimed.
Elmen v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (1905) 75 Neb. 37 24
2.
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
7. Alias Writs.
Parsons V. Hill (1900) 15 App. Cas. D. C. 532 28
CHAPTER II.
3.
SERVICE AND RETURN OF SUMMONS.
DESIGNATION oF Co &T A "D PARTIE .
Eggleston v. Wattawa (1902) 117 Ia. 676...................
Lyman v. Milton ( 1872) 44 Cal. 632. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
4
DESIO ATION OF T IME FOR APPEARANCE.
Lawyer Land Co. v. Steel (1906) 41 Wash. 411............
7
DESCRIPTIO OF CAUSE OF ACTION.
Bewick v. Muir ( 1890) 83 Cal. 368. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
9
SIGNATURE, T ESTE A ~n SEAL.
Lowe v. Morris (1853) 13 Ga. 147..........................
Choate v. Spencer (1893) 13 Mont. 127... .. ..... .. .........
Ambler v. Leach (1879) 15 W. Va. 677......................
11
13
17
INDORSEMENT OF AMOU T CLAIMED.
Elmen v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (1905) 75 Neb. 37............
24
WRITS.
Parsons v. Hill (1900) 15 App. Cas. D. C. 532..............
28
Personal Service.
McKenzie V. Boynton (1910) 19 N. D. 531 38
4.
Krotter & Co. v. Norton (1909) 84 Neb. 137 39
Boggs V. Inter-American Mining and Smelting Co. (1907) 105
Md. 371 41
5.
Substituted Service.
Barwick v. Rouse ( 1907 ) 53 Fla. 645 44
Constructive Service.
Harness v. Cravens (1894) 126 Mo. 233 46
6.
D'Autremont v. Anderson Iron Co. (1908) 104 Minn. 165 52
Nelson v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (1906) 225 111. 197 59
Kennedy v. Lamb (1905) 182 N. Y. 228 64
7.
Place of Service.
ALIAS
Wallace v. United Electric Co. (1905) 211 Pa. St. 473 69
Barry v. Wachosky (1899) 57 Neb. 535 73
(ix)
CHAPTER II.
SERVICE AND RETURN OF SUMMONS.
1.
2.
3.
4.
PERSONAL SERVICE.
McKenzie v. Boynton (1910) 19 N. D. 531.... ..............
Krotter & Co. v. Jorton (1909) 84 Neb. 137................
Boggs v. Inter-American Mining and Smelting Co. (1907) 105
Md. 371..................... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.
Barwick v. Rouse ( 1907) 53 Fla. 645.. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
CoNSTR TIVE SERHCE.
Harness v. Cravens (1894) 126 110. 233. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .....
D 'Autremont v. Anderson Iron o. (1908) 104 Minn. 165....
Nelson v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. (1906) 225 Ill. 197. . . . . . . . . . . .
Kennedy v. Lamb (1905) 182 N. Y. 228............... .....
46
52
59
64
PLACE OF SER ICE.
Wallace v. United Electric o. (1905) 211 Pa. St. 473.......
Barry v. Wachosky ( 1899) 57 Neb. 535. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
69
73
(ix)
38
39
x
X TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Section Page
5. Return of Service.
Jones V. Bibb Brick Co. (1904) 120 Ga. 321 76
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Section
Page
5. RETURN OF SERVICE.
Jones v. Bibb Brick Co. (1904) 120 Ga. 321................
76
Smoot v. Judd ( 1904) 184 Mo. 508. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
79
Crosby v. Farmer (1888) 39 Minn. 305. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Smoot V. Judd ( 1904 ) 184 Mo. 508 79
Crosby v. Farmer (1888) 39 Minn. 305 87
6.
PRIVILEGE FROM SERVICE.
Parker· v. Marco ( 1893) 136 N. Y. 585. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greenleaf v. People's Bank (1903) 133 N. C. 292............
6. Privilege from Servue.
Parker v. Marco (1893) 136 N. Y. 585 91
91
95
Greenleaf v. People's Bank ( 1903 ) 133 N. C. 292 95
CHAPTER III.
APPEARANCE.
1. What Constitutes a Special Appearance?
CHAPTEH III.
Belknap v. Charlton (1893) 25 Ore. 41 101
Fulton V. Ramsey (1910) 67 W. Va. 321 105
APPEARANCE.
2. Manner of Making Special Appearance.
Wall V. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (1899) 37 C. C. A. 129 112
1.
Greer v. Young (1887) 120 111. 184 116
WHAT CONSTITUTES A SPECIAL APPEARANCE?
Belknap v. Charlton (1893) 25 Ore. 41.. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • • . .
Fulton v. Ramsey (1910) 67 W. Va. 321....................
3. Waiver of Special Appearance.
101
105
Neosho Valley Investment Co. v. Cornell (1899) 60 Kan. 282. 123
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
Louisville Home Tel. Co. v. Heeler's Adm'x (1907) 125 Ky. 366 126
2.
MANNER OF MAKING SPECIAL APPEARANCE.
Wall v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (1899) 37 C. C. A. 129....
Greer v. Young ( 1887) 120 Ill. 184.. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .
Linton v. Heye (1903) 69 Neb. 450 130
Wabash Western Ry. Co. v. Brow (1896) 164 U. S. 271 132
112
116
Fisher, Sons & Co. v. Crowley (1906) 57 W. Va. 312 135
Corbett v. Physicians' Casualty Ass'n (1908) 135 Wis. 505 140
3.
WAIVER OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE.
Neosho Valley Investment Co. v. Cornell (1899) 60 Kan. 282.
Louisville Home Tel. Co. v. Beeler's Adm'x (1907) 125 Ky. 366
Linton v. Heye (1903) 69 Neb. 450. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wabash Western Ry. Co. v. Brow (1896) 164 U. S. 271......
Fisher, Sons & Co. v. Crowley ( 1906) 57 W. Va. 312. . . . . . . .
Corbett v. Physicians' Casualty Ass'n ( 1908) 135 Wis. 505. . . .
4. Withdrawal of Appearance.
Eldred v. Bank (1873) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 545 142
Ins. Trust & Agency v. Failing ( 1903 ) 66 Kan. 336 144
6. Authority of Attorney to Appear.
Hamilton v. Wright (186S) 37 New York 502 146
Danville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rhodes (1897) 180 Pa. St. 157.... 149
123
126
130
132
135
140
CHAPTER IV.
CONTINUANCE.
••
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Grom (1911)
142 Ky. 51 152
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE.
Eldred v. Bank (1873) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 545................
Ins. Trust & Agency v. Failing ( 1903) 66 Kan. 336. . . . . . • • • •
1. StmPBTSE at the Trial.
6.
AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY TO APPEAR.
Hamilton v. Wright (1868-) 37 New York 502..............
Danville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rhodes (1897) 180 Pa. St. 157. . . •
Peterson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (1908) 211 Mo. 498 155
Rahles v. J. Thompson & Sons Mfg. Co. (1909) 137 Wis. 506. . 158
142
144
146
149
2. Absence of Witness.
Campbell v. Dreher (1908) 33 Ky. L. R. 444 160
Teirapin v. Barker (1910) 26 Okla. 93 161
Bean v. Missoula Lumber Co. (1909) 40 Mont. 31 163
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hammond (1907) 41 Colo. 323 165
CHAPTER IV.
Brown v. Abilene Nat. Bank (1888) 70 Tex. 250 166
3. Absence of Attornkv.
OONTI.NU ANCE.
Cicerello t. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (1909) 65 W. Va. 439. 167
Rankin r. Caldwell (1908) 15 Ida. 625 171
1.
8UBPRISE AT THE TRIAL.
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Grom (1911)
142 Ky. 51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peterson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. ( 1908) 211 Mo. 498. . . . . .
Rahles v. J. Thompson & Sons Mfg. Co. ( 1909) 137 Wis. 506. .
2.
ABSENCE OF WIT ESS.
Campbell v. Dreher ( 1908) 33 Ky. L. R. 444. . . . . . . . • • • • • • • .
TeITapin v. Barker ( 1910) 26 Okla. 93. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . .
Bean v. Missoula Lumber Co. (1909) 40 Mont. 31............
art!ord Fire Ins. Co. v. Hammond ( 1907) 41 Colo. 323. . . .
Brown v. Abilene Nat. Bank (1888) 70 Tex. 250. . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
152
155
168
160
161
163
166
166
ABSEN CE OF ATTO&N E Y.
Cicerello T. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. (1909) 65 W. Va. 439.
R&nkin T. Caldwell (1908) 15 Ida. 625......................
167
171
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Section
xi
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xl
..
Section Page
ABSENCE OF PABTY.
Jeffe v. Lilienthal (1894) 101 Cal. 175......................
175
4. Absence of Pakty.
Jeffe V. Lilienthal (1894) 101 Cal. 175 175
5.
WITHDRAW AL OF JUROR.
Usborn v. Stephenson ( 1899) 36 Ore. 328. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • •
B. WlTHDEAWAL, OF JiTEOE.
177
Usborn v. Stephenson (1899) 36 Ore. 328 177
6. Tebms.
6.
Maund v. Loeb (1888) 87 Ala. 374 180
TERMS.
Maund v. Loeb ( 1888) 87 Ala. 37 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . • • • •
180
CHAPTER V.
THE JURY.
1. Right to a Jury Trial.
Lee V. Conran (1908) 213 Mo. 404 181
CHAPTER V.
2. Waiver of Jury.
Schumacher v. Crane-Churchill Co. (1902) 66 Neb. 440 184
THE JURY.
3. Objections to the Panel.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Schwab (1907)
127 Ky. 82 188
1.
4. Qualifications of Jurors.
2.
181
WAIVER OF JURY.
Schumacher v. Crane-Churchill Co. (1902) 66 Neb. 440..... .
Kumli V. Southern Pacific Co. ( 1892 ) 21 Ore. 505 197
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.
Lee v. Conran (1908) 213 Mo. 404........ .................
Ullman v. State (1905) 124 Wis. 602 192
184
Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co. (1905) 191 Mo. 395 203
Wilson V. Wapello County (1905) 129 la. 77 208
3.
OBJECTIO "S TO THE P ANEL.
Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Schwab (1907)
127 Ky. 82. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
Ullman v. State (1905) 124 Wis. 602......................
Searle v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield (1909) 203
Mass. 493 211
5. Questioning the Jury.
188
192
GofE v. Kokomo Brass Works (1908) 43 Ind. App. 642 215
6. Method of Empanelling.
4.
7. Challenges.
Coughlin v. People (1893) 144 HI. 140 225
State v. Myers (1906) 198 Mo. 225 227
McDonald v. State (1909) 172 Ind. 393 230
State V. Cady (1888) 80 Me. 413 236
QUALIFICATION
OF JUROR .
Kumli v. Southern Pacific Co. (1892) 21 Ore. 505... . . . . . . . . .
Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co. ( 1905) 191 Mo. 395. . . . . . . .
Wilson v. Wapello County ( 1905) 129 Ia. 77. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Searle v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield ( 1909) 203
Mass. 493 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U. S. 396 220
5.
211
QUESTIO ING THE JURY.
Goff v. Kokomo Brass Works (1908) 43 Ind. App. 642........
8. Discharge of Juror.
197
203
208
215
State V. Davis (1888) 31 W. Va. 390 238
9. Oath Administered.
6.
METHOD OF EMPANELLING.
Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U. S. 396..............
Wells V. Smith (1901) 49 W. Va. 78 241
220
CHAPTER VI.
THE RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.
7.
CHALLENGES.
Coughlin v. People ( 1893) 144 Ill. 140. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State v. Myers (1906) 198 Mo. 225.................... .....
McDonald v. State (1909) 172 Ind. 393. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
State v. Cady (1888) 80 Me. 413...........................
Johnson v. Josephs ( 1884 ) 75 Me. 544 243
Buzzell v. Snell ( 1852 ) 25 N. H. 474 245
Lake Ontario Nat. Bank v. Judson (1890) 122 N. Y. 278 250
Gardner v. Meeker (1897) 169 111. 40 253
8.
DISCHARGE OF JtrnOR.
State v. Davis (1888) 31 W. Va. 390............ ............
9.
225
227
230
236
238
OATH ADMINISTERED.
Wells v. Smith (1901) 49 W. Va. 78.........................
241
CHAPTER VI.
THE RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.
Johnson v. Josephs (1 4) 75 Me. 544......................
Buzzell v. Sne ll (1 52) 25 N. H. 474........................
Lake Ontario N::tt. Bank v. Judson (1890) 122 N. Y. 278......
Gardner v. 1eeker (1897) 169 Ill. 40......................
243
245
250
253
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Section
CHAPTER VII.
3^11 TABLE OF CX)NTENTS.
Section Page
CHAPTER VII.
OPENING STATEMENT OF COUNSEL.
OPENING STATEMENT OF COUNSEL.
Scripps v. Reilly ( 1877) 35 Mich. 371. . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. • • • .
Fosdi ck v. Van Arsdale ( 1889) 7 4 Mich. 302. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Miguel Mining Co. v. Bonner ( 1905) 33 Colo. 207. . . . . . . •
Piet s ch v. Pietsch (1910) 245 Ill. 454.... . ...... . . . .. . ......
Lindley v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. (1891) 47 Kan. 432..
Redding v. Puget Sound Iron, etc., Works (1905) 36 Wash. 642
Scrlpps V. Reilly (1877) 35 Mich. 371 255
Fosdiclc V. Van Arsdale ( 1889 ) 74 Mich. 302 262
San Miguel Mining Co. v. Bonner (1905) 33 Colo. 207 263
Pietsch V. Pietsch (1910) 245 111. 454 266
Lindley r. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. (1891) 47 Kan. 432. . 270
Redding v. Puget Sound Iron, etc., Works (1905) 36 Wash. 642 272
255
262
263
266
270
272
CHAPTER VIII.
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
Cobb V. Wm. Kenefick Company (1909) 23 Okla. 440 275
CHAPTER VIII.
Hoover v. Horn ( 1909 ) 45 Colo. 288 277
Sternberg v. Levy (1901) 159 Mo. 617 279
CHAPTER IX.
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE.
Cobb v. Wm. Kenefick Company ( 1909) 23 Okla. 440. . . . . . . .
Hoover v. Horn ( 1909) 45 Colo. 288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sternberg v. Levy (1901) 159 Mo. 617......................
Copeland v. New England Ins. Co. (1839) 22 Pick. (Mass.) 135 281
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Templeton
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
( 1894 ) 87 Tex. 42 288
275
277
279
Fritz V. Clark ( 1881 ) 80 Ind. 591 290
Bennett v. Perkins (1900) 47 W. Va. 425 293
Hopkins v. Railroad (1895) 96 Tenn. 409 296
CHAPTER IX.
CHAPTER X.
DISMISSAL, NON-SUIT AND DIRECTED VERDICT.
1. Dismissal.
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE.
(a) Circumstances Under Which Plaintiff May Dismiss.
Copeland v. New England Ins. Co. (1839 ) 22 Pick. (Mass.) 135
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio R y . Co. v. Templeton
(1 894) 87 Tex. 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fritz v . Clark ( 1881) 80 Ind. 591.... . ... .. ................
Bennett v. Perk ins (1900) 47 W. Va. 425. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hopkins v. Railroad ( 1895) 96 Tenn. 409. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bertschy v. McLeod (1873) 32 Wis. 205 302
Carlton v. Darcy (1878) 75 N. Y. 375 305
(b) Time When Plaintiff May Dismiss.
Carpenter & Sons Company v. New York, New Haven & Hart-
ford R. R. Co. (1903) 184 Mass. 98 307
Oppenheimer v. Elmore ( 1899 ) 109 la. 196 310
281
288
290
293
296
Ashmead V. Ashmead (1880) 23 Kan. 262 313
(c) Effect of Dismissal.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller (1909) 217 U. S. 209 314
CHAPTER X.
Francisco v. Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. (1906) 79 C. C. A. 292. . 315
(d) Form of Motion.
Ferguson v. Ingle ( 1900) 38 Ore. 43 321
DISMISSAL, NON-SUIT AND DIRECTED VERDICT.
2. NoN-SriT.
Carroll v. Grande Ronde Elec. Co. (1907) 49 Ore. 477 322
Smalley v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co. (1908) 34 Utah 423. . 325
1.
D ISMISSAL.
( a ) Circumstances Und er Which Plainti ff May Dismiss.
Ber tschy v. McLeod (1873) 32 Wis. 205.... . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . •
Carlton v. Darcy (187 8 ) 75 N. Y. 375.......................
Bopp v. N. Y. Elec. Vehicle Transp.'Co. (1903) 177 N. Y. 33.. 334
( b ) T ime When P laintiff May D i smi ss.
Carpenter & Son s Com pany v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. ( 1903 ) 184 Mass. 98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Oppenheimer v. E lmore ( 1 99) 109 Ia. 196. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
Ashmead v. Ashmead (188 0) 23 Kan. 262...................
302
305
307
310
313
( c Effect of Dismissal .
outhern Ry. o. v. Miller (1909) 217 U. S. 209 . ...... . ....
Francis o v . Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. (1906) 79 C. C. A. 292..
314
315
( d) Form of Motion.
· erguson v. Ingle ( 1900) 38 Ore. 43. . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . .
321
rande Ronde • lee. Co. ( 1907) 49 Ore. 477.. . . . .
mall y v. lo Grande Vestern Ry. Co. (1908) 34 Utah 423..
Do p v. N . Y. El lec. Vehicle Transp:Co. (1903) 177 N. Y. 33..
322
325
334
2.
TABLE OF CO TE, 'TS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xiii
Section
Section Page
;,.
xiii
Page
DIRECTED VERDI T.
(a) Wl1en Proper.
■J. DiKECTKD Verdict.
Meyer v. Houck (1892) 85 Ia. 319..........................
McDonald v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (1901) 167 N. Y. 66..
Giles v. Giles ( 1910) 204 Mass. 383. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a) Wh('7i Proper.
Meyer v. Houck (1892) 85 la. 319 338
McDonald v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (1901) 167 N. Y. 66.. 343
338
343
346
( b) Effect of Requests by Both Parties.
Giles V. Giles (1910) 204 Mass. 383 346
Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atch., T. & S. F. Ry. o. (1907)
210 u. s. 1... ... .................... ............... ...
Wolf v. Chicago Sign Printing Co. (190 ) 233 Ill. 501.... ..
(b) Effect of Requests by Both Parties.
Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atch., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (1907)
210 U. S. 1 348
348
352
Wolf V. Chicago Sign Printing Co. (1908) 233 111. 501 352
(c) When Motion to Be Made.
(c) When Motion to Be Made.
Rainger v. Boston Mut. Life Ass'n (1897) 167 Mass. 109....
Rainger v. Boston Mut. Life Ass'n (1897) 167 Mass. 109 356
356
(d) Power of Court to Compel Verdict.
(d) Power of Court to Compel Verdict.
Cahill V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (1896) 20 C. C. A. 184. . 358
Cahill v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (1896) 20 C. C. A. 184..
CHAPTER XL
358
INSTRUCTING THE JURY.
1. Questions of Law axd Fact.
(a) General Theory of Division of Functions Between Court and
CHAPTER XI.
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
Jury.
State V. Wright (1865) 53 Me. 328 360
INSTRUCTING THE JURY.
(b) Qtiestions of Law Not to Be Submitted to the Jury.
Aaron v. Missouri & Kan. Teleph. Co. (1911) 84 Kan. 117 369
Baker v. Summers ( 1903 ) 201 111. 52 372
1.
QUESTIO S OF LAW A.l'lD FACT.
(a) General Theory of Division of Functions Between Court and
Jury.
Atch., Top. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Woodson (1909) 79 Kan. 567. . 373
Mitchell V. Town of Fond du Lac (1871) 61 111. 174 375
State v. Wright ( 1865) 53 Me. 328. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Winchell v. Town of Camillus (1905) 109 N. Y. App. Div. 341 376
(b) Questions of Law Not to Be Submitted to the Jury.
Aaron v. Missouri & Kan. Teleph. Co. (1911) 4 Kan. 117. . . .
Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co. (1909) 65 W. Va. 170 378
(c) Questions of Fact Not to Be Taken from the Jury.
Baker v. Summers ( 1903) 201 Ill. 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Atch., Top. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Woodson 1909) 79 Kan. 567..
Mitchell v. Town of Fond du Lac (1871) 61 Ill. 174..........
Winchell v. Town of Camillus (1905) 109 N . Y. App. Div. 341
Diddle v. Continental Casualty Co. ( 1909) 65 W. Va. 170. . . .
Standard Cotton Mills v. Cheatham (1906) 125 Ga. 649 380
Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Johnson (1906) 221 111. 42 381
Buttram v. .lackson (1861) 32 Ga. 409 385
(d) Comments by the Court on the Weight of the Evidence.
New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Walden (1815) 12 Johns (N.
360
369
372
373
375
376
37
Y. ) 513 387
(c) Questions of Fact
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. Vickers (1887)
ot to Be Taken from the Jury.
Standard Cotton Mills v. Cheatham ( 1906) 125 Ga. 649. . . . . .
Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Johnson (1906) 221 Ill. 42 .... ....
Buttram v. Jackson (1861) 32 Ga. 409......................
122 U S 360 392
Kleutsch V. Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1904) 72 Neb. 75. . 394
State V. Dick (1864) 60 N. C. 440 398
380
381
385
Commonwealth V. Barry (1864) 9 Allen (Mass.) 276 400
(d) Comm nt
2. Scope of Instructioxs.
by the Court on the Weight of the Evidence.
New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Walden (1815) 12 Johns (N.
Y.) 513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. v. Vickers (18 7)
122 . s. 360. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kleutsch v. Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1904) 72 Neb. 75. .
State v. Dick ( 1864) 60 N. C. 440. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commonwealth v. Barry (1864) 9 Allen ( fass.) 276........
(a) Relation to Pleadings and Evidence.
Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. Co. r, Neff (1891) 28
Fla. 373 404
Hanson v. Kline (1907) 136 la. 101 408
Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Boling (1908) 32 Ky. L. R. 816 411
Douda V. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (1909) 141 la. 82 413
387
392
394
398
400
Buyken v. Lewis Construction Co. (1909) 51 Wash. 627 415
Karrer v. City of Detroit ( 1905 ) 142 Mich. 331 417
(b) Emphasis and Disregard of Portions of Evidence.
Trustees of Schools v. Yoch (1908) 133 111. App. 32 418
Taubert v. Taubert ( 1908 ) 103 Minn. 247 420
McBride v. Des Moines City Ry. Co. (1907) 134 la. 398 422
2.
SCOPE OF
I '
TR CTIOX .
(a) Relation to Pleadings and Evidence.
Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. Co. v. Neff (1891) 28
Fla. 373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hanson v. Kline (1907) 136 Ia. 101.........................
Owensboro ragon o. v. Boling (1908 32 Ky. L. R. 16......
Douda v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (1909) 141 Ia. 2......
Buy ken v. Lewis onstruction Co. ( 19 9) 51 Wash. 627. . . . . .
Karrer v. City of Detroit ( 1905) 142 Mich. 331. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
404
40
411
41 . .
415
417
(b) Emphasis and Disregard of Portions of Eticlence.
Tru tees of Schools v. Yocb (19 ) 13 Ill. App. 32... . . . . . . .
Taubert v. Taubert 190
103 Minn. 247....................
McBride v. Des Moines City Ry. Co. (1907) 134 Ia. 398......
41
420
~22
xiv
TABLE OF CONTENT
Section
Pago
Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co. v. Joyner's Adm'r (1895) 92
Va. 354 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boyce v. Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. (1906) 120 Mo. App. 168..
Life Ins. Co. of Va. v. Hairston (1908) 108 Va. 832......... .
xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Section Pago
Seaboard & Roanoke R. R. Co. v. Joyner's Adm'r (1895) 92
Va. 354 425
425
426
428
Boyce v. Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. (1906) 120 Mo. App. 168. . 426
Life Ins. Co. of Va. v. Hairston (1908) 108 Va. 832 428
3.
3. Form of Instructions.
Murphy v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (1910) 135 Ga. 194 430
Parker v. National Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n (1904) 55 W.
Va. 134 432
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Davis (1910) 138 Ky. 667 434
State V. Legg (1906) 59 W. Va. 315 439
City of Chicago v. Moore (1891) 139 111. 201 441
Klofski V. Railroad Supply Co. (1908) 235 111. 146 444
McDivitt V. Des Moines City Ry. Co. (1909) 141 la. 689 446
4.
4. Requests fob Instructions.
Central Railroad v. Harris ( 1886 ) 76 Ga. 501 449
Morgan v. Mulhall (1908) 214 Mo. 451 452
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Sandusky (1902) 198 111. 400 455
FORM OF IN TRUCTIONS.
Murphy v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. (1910) 135 Ga. 194....
Parker v . National Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n (1904) 55 W.
Va. 134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. Davis (1910) 138 Ky. 667.......
State v. Legg (1906) 59 W. Va. 315........................
City of Chicago v. Moore (1891) 139 Ill. 201..... .. .... ... ..
Klofski v. Railroad Supply Co. (1908) 235 Ill. 146........
McDivitt v. Des Moines City Ry. Co. ( 1909) 141 Ia. 689. . . . . •
432
434
439
441
444
446
I STRUCTIONS.
Central Railroad v. Harris (1886) 76 Ga. 501................
Morgan v. Mulhall (1908) 214 Mo. 451.......... ..........
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Sandusky (1902) 198 Ill. 400. . . . . . . .
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Stock (1905) 104 Va. 97......
449
452
455
459
430
REQUESTS FOR
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Stock (1905) 104 Va. 97 459
5. Cautionary Instructions.
(a) Admissions.
Scurlock V. City of Boone (1909) 142 la. 580 461
Kaufman V. Maier (1892) 94 Cal. 269 463
5.
CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTIONS.
(a) Admissions.
Scurlock v. City of Boone ( 1909) 142 Ia. 580. . . . . . . . • . • . . . . •
Kaufman v. Maier (1892) 94 Cal. 269............. .........
461
463
(b) Burden of Proof.
Crabtree v. Reed (1869) 50 111. 206 466
Altschuler v. Coburn (1894) 38 Neb. 881 467
(c) Positive and Negative Testimony.
(b) Burden of Proof.
Crabtree v. Reed (1869) 50 Ill. 206.........................
Altscb.uler v. Coburn (1894) 38 Neb. 881...... ...............
466
467
In re Estate of Wharton (1907) 132 la. 714 468
McLean v. Erie Rd. Co. (1903) 69 N. J. L. 57 469
(d) Credibility of Witnesses.
Cline V. Lindsey (1886) 110 Ind. 337 470
Gustafson v. Seattle Traction Co. (1902) 28 Wash. 227 474
Higgins V. Wren (1900) 79 Minn. 462 476
Fifer v. Ritter (1902) 159 Ind. 8 478
(e) Falsus in Vno, Falsus in Omnibus.
Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. v. Kelly (1904) 210 111. 449 479
(c) Positive and Negative Testirnony.
In re Estate of Wharton (1907) 132 Ia. 714 ................
McLean v. Erie Rd. Co. (1903) 69 N. J. L. 57 ................
468
469
(d) Credi bility of 1Htnesses.
Cline v. Lindsey ( 1886) 110 Ind. 337. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Gustafson v. Seattle Traction Co. (1902) 28 Wash. 227......
Higgins v. Wren (1900) 79 Minn. 462......................
Fifer v. Ritter (1902) 159 Ind. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . • • • •
470
474
476
478
(e) Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.
Chicago & Alton Rd. Co. v. Kelly (1904) 210 Ill. 449........
Cameron v. Wentworth (1899) 23 Mont. 70................
Ward v. Brown (1903) 53 W. Va. 227......... •• • • • • • • • • • •
479
482
486
Cameron v. Wentworth (1899) 23 Mont. 70 482
Ward V. Brown (1903) 53 W. Va. 227 486
CHAPTER Xn.
ARGUMENT AND CONDUCT OF COUNSEL.
Baldwin's Appeal from Probate (1876) 44 Conn. 37 488
Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Reaume (1908) 32 Ky. L.
R. 946 490
Wagoner v. Hazle Twp. (1906) 215 Pa. St. 219 493
McCarthy v. Spring Valley Coal Co. (1908) 232 111. 473 495
Brown v. Swineford (1878) 44 Wis. 282 497
Toledo, St. L. & W. Rd. Co. v. Burr (1910) 82 Ohio St. 129.. 501
CHAPTER XII.
ARGUMENT AND CONDUCT OF COUNSEL.
Fertig v. State (1S98) 100 Wis. 301 504
German-American Ins. Co. v. Harper (1902) 70 Ark. 305 507
Murphy's Executor v. Hoagland (1908) 32 Ky. L. R. 839 509
Williams v. BrooUlyn Elevated R. R. Co. (1891) 126 N. Y, 96. , 511
Wilkinson v. The People (1907) 226 111. 135 614
Baldwin's App al from Probate (1876) 44 Conn. 37... ....... 488
Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Reaume (1908) 32 Ky. L .
. . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 490
Wagoner v. Hazle Twp. (1906) 215 Pa. St. 219............ 493
McCarthy v. Spring Valley Coal o. (1908) 232 Ill. 473...... 495
Brown v. wineford (187 ) 44 Wis. 2 2.... ................ 497
Tol do, St. L. & 'W. Rd. Co. v. Burr (1910) 82 Ohio St. 129.. 601
• rtig v. Sta e (l , 9 ) 100 Wis. 301.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
Garman· Am rl<'an Ins. 'o. v. Harper ( 1902) 70 Ark. 305. . . . 607
lurphy's Ex ulor v. Hoagland ( 908) 32 Ky. L. R. 839...... 609
Williams v. rooldyn ~ l vat d R.R. o. (1891) 126 N. Y. 96.. 511
Wilkinson v. The l eople ( 1907) 226 Ill. 135. . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • 614
TABLE OF CO TE TS.
Section
Camp bell v. l\laher ( 1885) 105 Ind. 383. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hansell-Elcock Foundry Co. v. Clark (1905) 214 Ill. 399....
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV
Section Page
x
Page
517
619
Campbell v. Maher ( 1885 ) 105 Ind. 383 517
Hansell-Elcock Foundry Co. v. Clark (1905) 214 111. 399 519
CHAPTER XIII.
CHAPTER XIII.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Purpose, Scope and Effect.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES.
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Dunleavy (1889) 129 III. 132.... 521
Constitutionality.
1.
PURPOSE, SCOPE AND EFFECT.
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Dunleavy ( 1889) 129 Ill. 132. . . •
Walker v. New Mex. & Pac. Rd. Co. (1897) 165 U. S. 593 530
621
Abgument and Insteuctions as to Proper Answers.
Ryan V. Rockford Ins. Co. (1890) 77 Wis. 611 534
2.
CoNSTI'fUTIONALITY .
Walker v. New Mex. & Pac. Rd. Co. (1897) 165 U. S. 593. ...
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Gore (1903) 202 111. 188 535
530
Capital City Bank v. Wakefield (1891) 83 la. 46 536
Coffeyville Vitrified Brick Co. v. Zimmerman (1900) 61 Kan.
3.
FoBM OF Interrogatories.
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Worley (1886)
107 Ind. 320 539
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Harrington (1901) 192 111. 9 541
Atchison, Topeka & S. Fe R. R. Co. v. Ayers (1895) 56 Kan. 176 547
ARGUMENT AND IN TRUCTIO?\S .A.S TO PROPER ANSWERS.
Ryan v. Rockford Ins. Co. ( 1890) 77 Wis. 611. . . . . . . . . . . • . .
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Gore (1903) 202 Ill. 188.......
Capital City Bank v. Wakefield ( 1891) 83 Ia. 46. . . . . . . . . . . .
Coffeyville Vitrified Brick Co. v. Zimmerman (1900) 61 Kan.
750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
750 538
4.
Compelling .Icry to Give Direct Answers.
Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Ry. Co. v. As-
bury (1889) 120 Ind. 289 549
Effect of Answebs on General Verdict.
534
535
536
538
FORM OF INTERROGATORIES.
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Worley (1886)
107 Ind. 320.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Harrington (1901) 192- Ill. 9....
Atchison, Topeka & S. Fe R.R. Co. v. Ayers (1895) 56 Kan. 1"6
539
541
547
Ax. WER .
Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Ry. Co. v. Asbury (1889) 120 Ind. 289..............................
549
Runyan v. Kanawha Water & Light Co. (1911) 68 W. Va. 609 551
Evansville & Southern Traction Co. v. Spiegel (1911) — Ind.
5.
App. — ; 94 N. E. 718 555
Devine v. Fed. Life Ins. Co. (1911) 250 111. 203 557
CoMPELLING JURY TO GIVE DIRECT
Effect of Answers Inconsistent with Each Other.
Drake v. Justice Gold Mining Co. (1904) 32 Colo. 259 560
6.
St, Louis & San. F. Ry. Co. v. Bricker (1899) 61 Kan. 224.. 562
CHAPTER XIV.
SPECIAL VERDICTS.
First National Bank v. Peck (1871) 8 Kan. 660 564
Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. (1902) 201 Pa.
St. 645 566
Wabash Railroad Co. v. Ray (1899) 152 Ind. 392 569
7.
EFFECT OF ANSWERS ox GEXERAL VERDICT.
Runyan v. Kanawha Water & Light Co. (1911 68 W. Va. 609
Evansville & Southern Traction Co. v. Spiegel (1911) - Ind.
App.-; 94 N. E. 718..................................
Devine v. Fed. Life Ins. Co. (1911) 250 Ill. 203...... ........
551
555
557
EFFECT oF A~sWERS Ixco~ I TENT WITH EACH OTHER.
Drake v. Justice Gold Mining Co. (1904) 32 Colo. 259....
St. Louis & San. F. Ry. Co. v. Bricker (1899) 61 Kan. 224..
560
662
Darcey v. Farmers' Lumber Co. (1894) 87 Wis. 245 570
Baxter v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (1899) 104 Wis. 307 572
CHAPTER XV.
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.
Plunkett v. Detroit Electric Ry. Co. (1905) 140 Mich. 299.. 577
CHAPTER XIV.
Floyd v. Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. (1897) 10 Colo. App. 54 578
Cruikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1899) 75 Minn.
266 582
SPECIAL VERDICTS.
First National Bank v . Peck (1871) 8 Kan. 660. . . . . . . . . . . .
Standard Sewing Mach. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co. (1902) 201 Pa.
St. 645................ . ................. ....... ..... ..
Wabash Railroad Co. v. Ray (1 99) 152 Ind. 392 . . . . . . . . . . .
Darcey v. Farmers' Lumber Co. ( 1894) 87 Wis. 245. . . . . . . .
Baxter v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (1899) 104 Wis. 307
564
566
569
570
572
CHAPTER XV.
JUDGMENT NOTWITHST ANDI rG THE VERDICT.
Plunkett v. Detroit Electric Ry. Co. (1905) 140 Mich. 299..
Floyd v. Colo. Fuel & Iron Co. (1897) 10 Colo. App. 54.....
Cruikshank . St. Paul Fire & farine Ins. Co. ( 1 99) 75 Minn.
266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
577
57
582
xvi
xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Section
CHAPTER XVI.
Section Page
CHAPTER XVI.
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
ARREST OP JUDGMENT.
1. Fob What Defects.
Pelican Assurance Co. v. Am. Feed & Grocery Co. (1909) 122
1.
FOB
Gray v. Commonwealth (1895) 92 Va. 772 586
Hubbard v. Rutland R. R. Co. (1908) 80 Vt. 462 587
Bull V. Matthews (1897) 20 R. I. 100 589
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. City of Chi-
cago (1908) 144 111. App. 293 591
2. Time for Making Motion.
Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Clausen (1898) 173 111. 100 594
WHAT DEFECTS.
Pelican Assurance Co. v. Am. Feed & Grocery Co. ( 1909) 122
Tenn. 652 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gray v. Commonwealth (1895) 92 Va. 772..................
Hubbard v. Rutland R. R. Co. (1908) 80 Vt. 462............
Bull v. Matthews ( 1897) 20 R. I. 100. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago (1908) 144 Ill. App. 293..........................
Tenn. 652 585
2.
585
586
587
589
591
TIME FOR MAKING MOTION.
Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v. Clausen (1898) 173 Ill. 100 ....
Newman v. Perrill (1880) 73 Ind. 153............. . ........
Keller v. Stevens (1886) 66 Md. 132. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . • . . . .
Newman v. Perrill (1880) 73 Ind. 153 597
Keller v. Stevens (1886) 66 Md. 132 598
3. Effect of Motion.
594
597
598
State ex rel. Henry W. Bond v. Fisher (1910) 230 Mo. 325.. 599
Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. L. & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Case
3.
EFFECT OF MOTION.
State ex rel. Henry W. Bond v. Fisher (1910) 230 Mo. 325..
Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. L. & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Case
(1889) 122Ind.316 ... ... ....... . ......................
Jewel v. Blandford (1838) 7 Dana 472......................
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
(1889) 122 Ind. 316 604
Jewel T. Blandford (1838) 7 Dana 472 605
CHAPTER XVII.
NEW TRIALS.
599
604
605
1. General Purpose.
Gunn V. Union Rd. Co. (1901) 23 R. I. 289 607
Caldwell v. Wells ( 1909 ) 16 Ida. 459 615
CHAPTER XVII.
Armstrong v. Whitehead (1902) 81 Miss. 35 617
State V. Phares (1884) 24 W. Va. 657 620
NEW TRIALS.
Dubcich V. Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen
(1903) 33 Wash. 651 621
2. Disqualification of Jurors.
1.
GENERAL PuRPOSE.
Gunn v. Union Rd. Co. (1901) 23 R. I. 289..................
Caldwell v. Wells (1909) 16 Ida. 459........... ........ ...
Armstrong v. Whitehead (1902) 81 Miss. 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State v. Phares ( 1884) 24 W. Va. 657. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dubcich v. Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen
(1903) 33 Wash. 651. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Harrington v. Manchester & Lawrence Rd. (1882) 62 N. H. 77 623
Johns V. Hodges (1883) 60 Md. 215 631
Fitzpatrick V. Harris (1855) 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 561 633
Knights of Pythias v. Steele ( 1901 ) 1 07 Tenn. 1 635
United States v. Christensen (1890) 7 Utah 26 637
Florence, El Dorado & Walnut Valley Rd. Co. v. Ward (1883)
607
615
617
620
621
29 Kan. 354 641
3. Misconduct of Jury or Party.
2.
DISQUALIFICATIO N OF J UR ORS.
Harrington v. Manchester & Lawrence Rd. (1882) 62 N. H. 77
Johns v. Hodges (1883) 60 Md. 215. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fitzpatrick v. Harris (1 855) 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 561. . . . . . . . . .
Knights of Pythias v. Steele (1901) 107 Tenn. 1............
United States v. Christensen ( 1890) 7 tah 26. . . . . . . . . . . .
Florence, El Dorado & Walnut Valley Rd. Co. v. Ward (1 83)
29 Kan. 354. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Underwood v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co. (1910) 31 R. I. 253 645
Craig & Co. v. Pierson Lumber Co. (1910) 169 Ala. 548 648
Baker v. Brown ( 1909 ) 151 N. C. 12 650
Flesher v. Hale ( 1883 ) 22 W. Va. 44 652
Corley v. New York & Harlem Rd. Co. (1896) 12 N. Y. App.
Div. 409 657
4. Accident, Mistake and Surprise.
Mehnert v. Thleme (1875) 15 Kan. 368 659
3.
'T OF J RY OR PARTY.
Underwood v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co. (1910) 31 R. I. 253....
Craig & o. v. Pierson Lumber o. ( 1910) 169 Ala. 54 . . . .
Baker v. Brown (1909) 151 N. C. 12................ ........
Flesher v. Hale (18 3) 22 W. Va. 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corl y v. New York & Harlem Rd. Co. (1896) 12 N. Y. App.
I iv. 409. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
641
MISCOND
GrifTin v. O'Neil (1891) 47 Kan. 116 661
Staunton Coal Co. v. Menk (1902) 197 111. 369 662
West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Chamblee (1898) 122 Ala. 428 664
Hoskins v. Hight (1891) 95 Ala. 284 666
4.
623
631
633
635
637
A
IDE T, MISTAKE A ' D
S
645
648
650
652
657
RPRI E.
M hn rt v. Thieme (1875 ) 15 Kan. 368. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..
riffin v. O'Neil (1891) 47 Kan. 116. .. .....................
Staunton o I o. v. Menk (1902) 197 Ill. 369..............
West. n. T 1. o. v. h · mb lee (189 ) 122 Ala. 428..........
Hoskins v. Hight (1891) 95 Ala. 2 4... .. .... .... ...........
659
661
662
664
666
T
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvii
LE OF
ONTENTS.
Section
Section Page
Gotzian v. McCullum (1896) 8 S. D. 186 670
Hill V. McKay (1907) 36 Mont. 440 672
xvii
Page
Gotzian v. Mccullum ( 1896) 8 S. D. 186. . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • •
Hill v. McKay (J907) 36 Mont. 440........................
Nellums v. Nashville (1900) 106 Tenn. 222............. . ..
670
672
677
Vmn1CT Co~TRARY To E\'IDEN E.
Serles v. Serles ( 1899) 35 Ore. 289. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Harrison v. Sutter St. Ry. Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 156..........
Graham v. Consolidated Traction Co. (1900) 65 N. J. L. 539..
Tathwell v. City of Cedar Rapids (1903) 122 Ia. 50 ..........
679
68:689
691
Nellums v. Nashville (1900) 106 Tenn. 222 677
5. Veedict Contrary to Evidexce.
5.
Series v. Series ( 1899 ) 35 Ore. 289 679
Harrison V. Sutter St. Ry. Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 156 685
Graham v. Consolidated Traction Co. (1900) 65 N. J. L. 539. . 689
Tathwell v. City of Cedar Rapids (1903) 122 la. 50 691
6. Verdict Contrary to Law.
6.
VERDI OT CoNTRARY TO LA\ .
Lynch v. Snead Architectural Iron Works (1904) 132 KY. 241
Lynch v. Snead Architectural Iron Works (1904) 132 Ky. 241 697
697
7. Newly Discovered Evidence.
(a) Cumulative Evidence.
7.
Winfield Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. McMullen ( 1898) 59 Kan. 493
Waller v. Graves ( 1 50) 20 Conn. 305. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
German v. Maquolrnta avings Blt. (1874) 38 Ia. 36 . . . . . . . .
Brown v. Wheeler (1901) 62 Kan. 676......................
Layman v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. ( 1896) 66 Minn. 4:-2. . . . . .
Waller v. Graves ( 1850 ) 20 Conn. 305 705
German v. Maquoketa Savings Bk. (1874) 38 la. 368 710
Brown v. Wlieeler (1901) 62 Kan. 676 712
Layman v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. (1896) 66 Minn. 452 713
(b) Impeaching Evidence.
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDE CE.
(a) Cumulative Evidence.
Winfield Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. McMullen (1898) 59 Kan. 493 703
703
705
71
712
713
Blake v. Rhode Island Company (1911) 32 R. L 213 715
(b) Impeaching Eviden e.
Chicago & Eastern 111. Rd. Co. v. Stewart (1903) 203 111. 223. 718
Blake v. Rhode Island Company (1911) 32 R. I. 213 ........
Chicago & Eastern Ill. Rd. Co. v. Stewart (1903) 2 3 Ill. 223.
Moore v. Chicago, St. L. & New Orleans Rd. Co. (1 81) 59
Miss. 243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moore v. Chicago, St. L. & New Orleans Rd. Co. (1881) 59
Miss. 243 720
(c) Necessary Diligence.
Nicholson v. Metcalf ( 1904 ) 31 Mont. 276 721
Coffer V. Erickson (1911) 61 Wash. 559 723
715
718
720
(c) Necessary Dilig ence.
Nicholson v. Metcalf (1904) 31 Mont. 276. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coffer v. Erick on (1911 61 Wash. 559....................
Whittlesey v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Ry. Co.
(1903) 121 Ia. 597....................................
Wliittlesev v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Ry. Co.
(1903) 121 la. 597 726
(d) Probability of Change in Result.
Parsons v. Lewiston, Brunswick & Bath St. Ry. (1902) 96 Me.
721
723
726
503 727
Oberlander v. Fixen & Co. (1900) 129 Cal. 690 732
(d) Probability of Change in Result.
Parsons v. Lewiston, Brunswick & Bath St. Ry. (1902) 96 Me.
Ellis v. Martin Automobile Co. (1909) 77 N. .L L. 339 735
503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Effect of Statutes Enumerating Grounds.
Oberlander v. Fixen & Co. (1900) 129 Cal. 690.. . ......... ..
Ellis v. Martin Automobile Co. (1909) 77 N. J. L. 339.. ....
St. Louis & San Francisco Rd. Co. v. Werner (1904) 70 Kan.
190 737
727
732
735
Valerius v. Richard (1894) 57 Minn. 443 739
Bottineau Land & Loan Co. v. Hintze (1911) 150 la. 646.. 744
8.
9. On Court's Own Motion.
Fort Wayne & Belle Isle Ry. Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge
(1896) 110 Mich. 173 746
Hensley v. Davidson Bros. Co. (1907) 135 la. 106 747
10. Discretion of Court.
9.
Loftus V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (1909) 220 Mo. 470 751
York V. Stiles ( 1899 ) 21 R. I. 225 754
North Center Creek Mining & Smelting Co. v. Eakins (1880)
STATUTE ENUMERATI:NG Gnouxo .
St. Louis & San Francisco Rd. Co. v. Werner (1904
EFFE T OF
70 Kan.
190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Valerius v. Richard (1894) 57 Minn. 443....................
Bottineau Land & Loan Co. v. Hintze (1911) 150 Ia. 646..
737
739
744
Ow MoTrox.
Fort Wayne & Belle Isle Ry. Co. v. Wayne ~ ir uit Judge
(1896) 110 Mich. 173....... . ..........................
Hensley v. Davidson Bros. Co. (1907) 135 Ia. 106..........
746
747
ON Cou&T'
23 Kan. 317 756
Brooks V. San Francisco & North Pac. Ry. Co. (1895) 110 Cal.
173 758
Cohen v. Krulewitrh (1902) 77 N. Y. App. Div. 126 761
Stauffer v. Reading (1903) 206 Pa. St. 479 763
Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Ry. Co. v. Hall (1911) 13 Ariz.
270 765
10.
Co RT.
Loftus v. Metropolitan St. Ry. o. (1909 220 Mo. 470. . . . . .
York v. Stiles <1899) 21 R. I. 225..........................
North enter reek 1iuing & Smelting Co. v. Eakins ( 1 O)
23 I<:an. 317.... . .... . ...... . .. ...... . .... .............
Brooks v. San Fran isco & rorth Pac. Ry. Co. (1 95) 110 al.
DISCRETION OF
173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ohen v. Krule\'it1 h ( 1902) 77 . Y. pp. Div. 12 . . . . . . . . .
Stauffer V. Reading (19 a 2 6 a. t. 479......... ....... ..
Gila Valley, Globe & rorthern R . Co. v. Hall (1911 1· Ariz.
270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-"
751
754
75
"'5
761
763
765
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
xviii
Section
xviii TAB1.E OF CONTENTS.
11.
Page
NOTI E OF MOTION.
Hansen v. Fish (1871) 27 Wis. 535.........................
Boarman v. Hinckley ( 1897) 17 Wash. 126. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Grand Forks (1895) 5 N. D. 80
Krakower v. Davis (1897) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 350............
Simpson v. Budd (Cal. 1891) 27 Pac. 758. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . •
Section Page
11. Notice of Motion.
Hansen v. Fish (1871) 27 Wis. 535 768
Boarman v. Hinckley (1897) 17 Wash. 126 770
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Grand Forks (1895) 5 N. D. 80 771
768
770
771
772
773
Krakower v. Davis (1897) 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 350 772
Simpson v. Budd (Cal. 1891) 27 Pac. 758 773
12.
12. Time fob Motion.
City of St. Joseph v. Robison (1894) 125 Mo. 1 775
Bailey v. Drake (1895) 12 Wash. 99 776
Hayes v. Ionia Circuit Judge (1900) 125 Mich. 277 777
Roggencamp v. Dobbs ( 1884 ) 15 Neb. 620 779
Hellman v. Adler & Sons Clothing Co. (1900) 60 Neb. 580.. 780
Herz V. Frank (1898) 104 Ga. 638 782
People V. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65 784
TIME FOR MOTION.
City of St. Joseph v. Robison (1894) 125 Mo. 1...............
Bailey v. Drake (1895) 12 Wash. 99 .............. . .... ,...
Hayes v. Ionia Circuit Judge ( 1900) 125 Mich. 277. . . . . . . . . .
Roggencamp v. Dobbs (1884) 15 Neb. 620..................
Hellman v. Adler & Sons Clothing Co. ( 1900) 60 Neb. 580. .
Herz v. Frank (1898) 104 Ga. 638..........................
People v. Bank of San Luis Obispo (1910) 159 Cal. 65........
Seward v. Cease ( 1869) 50 Ill. 228. . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .
775
776
777
779
780
782
784
789
Seward v. Cease (1869) 50 111. 228 789
13. Form of Motion.
13.
Generated for facpubupdates (University of Michigan) on 2014-06-16 13:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t47p93w7n
Public Domain / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd
King V. Gilson (1907) 206 Mo. 264.. 795
Rutherford V. Talent (1886) 6 Mont. 112 798
14. Affidavits.
Vose V. Mayo (1871) 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 484 800
Draper v. Taylor (1899) 58 Neb. 787 801
Phillips V. Rhode Island Co. (1910) 32 R. I. 16 802
Mattox V. United States (1892) 146 U. S. 140 811
Wolfgram v. Town of Schoepke (1904) 123 Wis. 19 815
FORM OF MOTION.
Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Johnson (1905) 114 Tenn. 632......
King v. Gilson ( 1907) 206 Mo. 264.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
Rutherford v. Talent (1886) 6 Mont. 112....................
Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Johnson (1905) 114 Tenn. 632 791
14.
791
795
798
AFFIDAVITS.
Vose v. Mayo ( 1871) 3 Cliff. ( U. S.) 484. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
Draper v. Taylor (1899) 58 Neb. 787......................
Phillips v. Rhode Island Co. (1910) 32 R. I. 16..............
Mattox v. United States (1892) 146 U. S. 140 ......... .'....
Wolfgram v. Town of S choepke (1904) 123 Wis. 19........
800
801
802
811
815
CHAPTER XVIII.
TRIAL AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT.
Fowler v. Towle (1870) 49 N. H. 507 820
Utah Nat. Bank v. Nelson (1910) — Utah — ; 111 Pac. 907.. 826
Darling v. Miles (1911) 57 Ore. 593 831
CHAPTER XVIII.
Slayton v. Felt (1905) 40 Wash. 1 833
Graham v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners (1879) 66
Ind. 386 836
City of Owensboro v. Wier ( 1893 ) 95 Ky. 158 838
Gaines & Co. v. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co. (1904) 107
Mo. App. 507 839
City of Buffalo v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co.
(1907) 190 N. Y. 84... 841
TRIAL AND FINDINGS BY THE COURT.
Fowler v. Towle (1870) 49 N. H. 507 ......................
Utah Nat. Bank v. Nelson (1910) - Utah - ; 111 Pac. 907..
Darling v. Miles (1911) 57 Ore. 593 ........................
Slayton v. Felt (1905) 40 Wash. 1.........................
Graham v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners (1879) 66
Ind. 386 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Owensboro v. Wier (1 93) 95 Ky. 158... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gaines & Co. v. Whyte Grocery, Fruit & Wine Co. (1904) 107
Mo. App. 507. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of B uffalo v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co.
(1907) 190 N. Y. 84 .••••••••.••.••.•••.••.••.••.••••••
820
826
831
833
836
838
839
841