case and barred only after six years, and not
an action for "injury to the person," barred
after two years under Statute of Limitations, § See Intoxicating Liquors, § 43.
3, as amended in 1896 (3 Comp. St. 1910, p.
3164).-Crane v. Ketcham, 84 A. 1052.
II. COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF
(F) Ignorance, Mistake. Trust, Fraud, and
Concealment of Cause of Action.
$102 (Md.) An administrator cannot plead
limitations as regards his individual debt to the
-estate.-Long v. Long, 84 A. 375.
(H) Commencement of Action or Other
Proceeding.
LOGS AND LOGGING.
See Evidence, § 314; Replevin, § 72.
§3 (Md.) A purchaser of timber held entitled
remove logs after expiration of a period
limited for cutting the timber.-Petey Mfg. Co.
v. Morris, 84 A. 238.
§ 10 (Me.) Findings of a log scaler held bind-
ing on parties to an agreement for his services,
in the absence of fraud or mathematical mis-
take.-Hutchins v. Merrill, 84 A. 412.
A scaler of logs held not liable to a purchas-
er for the negligent performance of his duty.
-Id.
$130 (Me.) Rev. St. c. 83, § 94, relative to
commencement of action within six months after
abatement of the writ in prior action, held to
have no application to a case where the writ, See Insane Persons.
contrary to law, was not made returnable at
the first term after its issuance, in view of
Laws 1821, c. 62, §§ 8, 11.-Densmore v. Hall,
Rev. St. c. 83, § 94, permitting actions to be
'brought within six months after the abatement
of a writ in a former action on the same de-
mand, held not intended to afford a designing
creditor an opportunity to extend his causes of
action in violation of the statutory limitation.
-Id.
III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT, NEW
PROMISE, AND PART
PAYMENT.
§ 142 (Pa.) An acknowledgment or promise to
take a debt out of the statute of limitations
See Homicide, §§ 7, 11–13, 22, 23, 31, 43, 146;
Libel and Slander, §§ 45, 51, 101, 109; Rail-
roads, § 255.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
II. WANT OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
§ 16 (Conn.) Where a criminal action was
commenced without probable cause, in bad faith,
and with a malicious motive, the instigator is
liable to the accused in an action for malicious
prosecution.-Hammond v. Rowley, 84 A. 94.
MANDAMUS.
must be made to the creditor or his agent. See Equity, § 46; Municipal Corporations, 8
Bahny v. Levy, 84 A. 835.
$146 (Me.) Rev. St. c. 83, § 100, which pro-
vides that no acknowledgment or promise shall I. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GEN-
take an action out of the statute unless it is in
writing, signed by the party, etc., should be
strictly construed in favor of the bar.-Gray v.
Day, 84 A. 1073.
$149 (Me.) Whether a promise, acknowl-
edgment, or waiver, such as will take a cause
of action out of the statute of limitations, is
express or conditional is to be determined upon
the examination of the whole writing relied
upon to show such promise, acknowledgment,
or waiver.-Gray v. Day, 84 A. 1073.
A letter from the maker of a note to the
payee held to contain only a conditional prom-
ise to pay the debt, requiring the payee to
show performance of the condition before he
can invoke the promise to remove the bar of
limitations under Rev. St. c. 83, § 100.-Id.
(B) Acts and Proceedings of Public Offi-
cers and Boards and Municipalities.
$119 (N.J.Sup.) Where a sale of land for
taxes by a commissioner of taxes was void,
the court will not compel him, by mandamus,
to deliver a certificate of sale.-Drew v. Flynn,
Failure of the payee of a note to accept a
condition attached to promise made by the
maker to pay a note held to prevent the mak-
er's letter from operating as an express prom-84 A. 1061.
ise to pay or as an acknowledgment of the debt
such as would take it out of the statute of (C) Acts and Proceedings of Private Cor-
limitations.-Id.
See Appeal and Error, § 1064; Breach of
Marriage Promise; Divorce; Evidence, §
383; Husband and Wife; Perjury, § 12.
§ 2 (Del.Super.) The state assumes authority
to control the rights and obligations of those
who enter into the marriage relation.-Cohen
v. Cohen, 84 A. 122.
The state may recognize marriage as an in-
stitution within its control and regulate the
manner of its creation and dissolution.-Id.
MARSHALING ASSETS AND SE-
CURITIES.
See Corporations, § 566.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
See Damages, § 95; Evidence, § 471; Frauds,
Statute of, §§ 44, 45; Insurance, § 514; Lim-
itation of Actions, § 151; New Trial, § 29;
Nuisance, 67; Pleading, §§ 18, 64, 432;
Shipping, 82; Trial, §§ 125, 141; Witness-
es, § 159.
I. THE RELATION.
(A) Creation and Existence.
§3 (Md.) The action of the trial court, in
construing a contract of employment binding
defendant to support plaintiff after he had dis-
pensed with plaintiff's services, so as to re-
quire defendant to contribute to plaintiff's sup;
port after her earnings had been expended
therefor, was sufficiently favorable to plaintiff.
-Sherley v. Sherley, 84 A. 160.
$9 (N.J.Sup.) An employment contract for a
definite period may be continued for a like pe-
riod and from year to year by acts of the par-
ties indicative of an intent to that effect.-
Passino v. Brady Brass Co., 84 A. 615.
(B) Statutory Regulation.
fiable cause, and whether he assented thereto,
held for the jury.-Id.
II. SERVICES AND COMPENSATION.
(B) Wages and Other Remuneration.
§ 73 (Md.) The right of an employé to re-
cover the amount due at the time of his dis-
charge is unaffected by the question whether
there was cause for the discharge.-Sherley v.
Sherley, 84 A. 160.
III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR IN-
JURIES TO SERVANT.
(A) Nature and Extent in General.
$85 (Del.Super.) An employer is not an in-
surer of the safety of his employé.-Warren v
Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A.
215.
(B) Tools, Machinery, Appliances, and
Places for Work.
S$ 101, 102 (Del.Super.) An employé's right
to recover for injuries is based upon the negli
gence of his employer, or of one for whose con-
duct the employer is responsible.-Warren v.
Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A.
215.
§§ 101, 102 (Vt.) Unless a servant has vol-
untarily assumed the risk from an unsafe place
of work, the master is bound to exercise reason-
able care and prudence to provide a reasonably
safe place.-Dailey v. Swift & Co., 84 A. 603.
§ 118 (Vt.) Where decedent was killed by a
fall of rock in a slate quarry, and he and his
fellow workmen practically made their own
working place as an incident to the quarrying.
the rule requiring the master to furnish a
servant a safe place in which to work did not
apply.-Conroy's Adm'x v. Nelson, 84 A. 737.
§ 119 (Me.) The "safe place to work" doc-
trine is inapplicable to an action against an
electric company for injury to an employé while
insulating wire.-Dunbar v. Hollingsworth &
Whitney Co., 84 A. 992.
§ 121 (Pa.) Shafting 13 feet above the floor
and having a projecting set screw held not
L. 352), as to an employé working on a scaf-
properly guarded, within Act May 2, 1905 (P.
fold 9 feet above the floor.-McCoy v. Wolf Co.,
84 A. 581.
2, 1905 (P. L. 352), it may be that to protect
To be "properly guarded," within Act of May
an employé from injury by revolving shaft from
his proximity to it an artificial guard is neces-
sary.-Id.
§ 129 (Vt.) Where a master negligently failed
railroad cars, and a servant fell therefrom be-
to guard a platform from which servants iced
cause of the lack of a guard, the master's neg-
ligence is the proximate cause of the injury.
even though the honeycomb condition of a cake
of ice that was being handled caused the serv-
ant to slip.-Dailey v. Swift & Co., 84 A. 603.
§ 11 (Conn.) Acts 1911, c. 163, § 1, requiring
that information concerning employés kept by
any bureau or agency conducted for the pur-
pose of preserving and furnishing such infor-
mation should be open to the inspection of the
commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics,
held within the power of the Legislature as
an exercise of police power for the public wel-worth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
fare.-State v. Lay, 84 A. 522.
(C) Termination and Discharge.
§ 42 (N.J.Sup.) A servant, on being wrong-
fully discharged, need not seek employment un-
der another employer to reduce the damages;
it being sufficient that he makes a bona fide
effort to employ his time profitably in a rè-
munerative occupation.-Passino v. Brady Brass
Co.. 84 A. 615.
$43 (N.J.Sup.) In an action for wrongful
discharge, whether the parties had an intent to
continue a contract of employment after its
termination held a question for the jury.-Pas-
sino v. Brady Brass Co., 84 A. 615.
(C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders.
mulgate proper rules for his employés and busi-
§ 141 (Del.Super.) An employer should pro-
ness whenever his personal supervision is im-
practicable.-Warren v. Harlan & Hollings-
§ 142 (Del.Super.) That rules promulgated for
employés have been in force for a long time
and have accomplished the purpose intended is
evidence of their sufficiency.-Warren v. Harlan
& Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
(D) Warning and Instructing Servant.
150 (Del.Super.) The instruction or warn-
ing required to be given an employé depends
upon the circumstances of each case.-Warren
v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A.
215.
§ 154 (Me.) An employer's duty to warn
against dangers is limited to such as are not
to him by the use of ordinary care.-Dunbar v. | he is otherwise.-Warren v. Harlan & Hollings-
Hollingsworth & Whitney Co., 84 A. 992. worth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
156 (Pa.) Where it was no part of a serv-
ant's duty to search for lost merchandise un-
der a shaft table, defendant was not negligent
in_failing to warn her of danger from the shaft.
-Devine v. Simmons, 84 A. 397.
§ 168 (Del.Super.) An employé cannot recover
from his employer for injuries caused by the
negligence of a fellow servant, in the selection
and retention of whom the employer has used
due and reasonable diligence.-Warren v. Har-
lan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
An employer is liable for the negligence of
a careless and incompetent fellow servant in
whose selection and retention he has not ex-
ercised reasonable diligence, if the injured co-
employé used ordinary care and prudence to
avoid the injury.-Id.
A competent servant is one reasonably safe
for the performance of the duties assigned to
him, considering the nature of the work and the
safety of his coemployés.-Id.
Incompetency in a servant may exist in the
disposition with which he performs his duties.
--Id.
§ 170 (Del.Super.) An employer owes to each
employé the duty to exercise a reasonable care,
in proportion to the particular business, to
select and retain coemployés reasonably com-
petent and careful.-Warren v. Harlan & Hol
lingsworth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
An employer is not an insurer against the
negligence of coemployés in whose selection and
retention he has exercised a care proportioned
to the hazards of the particular service.-Id.
$185 (Del. Super.) An employer is not liable
for injury to an employé from a mere temporary
lapse of a coemployé, who had previously per-
formed his duties in a reasonably safe and care-
ful manner.-Warren v. Harlan & Hollings-
worth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
Whether an employé is chargeable with knowl.
edge of the general reputation of his coemployé
for incompetency or carelessness depends upon
all the circumstances of the particular case.-
Id.
§ 217 (Me.) An employé assumes the risk of
such dangers as are known to him, or would be
known to him by the use of reasonable care for
his own safety.-Dunbar v. Hollingsworth &
Whitney Co., 84 A. 992.
$217 (Pa.) Before the maxim "volenti non
fit injuria" can be invoked, it must be shown
that the person killed, not only knew or had
full opportunity to know the circumstances,
but that he appreciated or should have ap-
preciated the extent of the danger.-Madden v.
Lehigh Valley R. Co., 84 A. 672.
§ 217 (Vt.) A servant who voluntarily under-
takes to work under dangerous conditions,
which he may see and understand, assumes the
risk of injury therefrom.-Dailey v. Swift &
Co., 84 A. 603.
(G) Contributory Negligence of Servant.
§ 229 (Del.Super.) An employé must use ordi-
nary care, prudence, and diligence, in propor-
tion to the dangers, to avoid accident.-Warren
v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A.
215.
§ 232 (Pa.) In an action for injuries to a
child working in a jewelry factory, by her hair
becoming entangled with a revolving shaft,
which was under a table where her employment
did not require her to go, plaintiff held negli-
gent as a matter of law.-Devine v. Simmons,
81 A. 397.
§ 234 (Conn.) Deceased employé held not
chargeable with contributory negligence, al-
though he knew that there was danger of a
pier, which he was helping to move, falling over,
but did not comprehend and appreciate the
risk of moving the pier in the manner directed
and with the appliances and instrumentalities
furnished.-Allen v. J. W. Bishop Co., 84 A.
87.
In a suit against an employer for injury to
an employé from a steam hammer operated by
a fellow servant, the plaintiff cannot recover,
unless the fellow servant was a careless and
$ 239 (R.I.) Facts held to show contributory
unfit person to operate a hammer, and the ac- negligence on part of plaintiff, whereby a sledge
cident was caused by the negligent and care-used by his helper glanced from a drill_held
less act of such fellow servant.-Id.
§ 185 (Pa.) A master cannot be released from
a positive duty to properly inspect by showing
that a servant employed for this purpose failed
in the performance of his duty.-Shoemaker v.
Lehigh Valley R. Co., 84 A. 763.
$ 190 (Vt.) Negligence of foreman in a rock
quarry in failing to warn decedent of the danger
of a fall of rock which caused his death held
that of a fellow servant.-Conroy's Adm'x v.
Nelson, 84 A. 737.
§ 196 (Del.Super.) A blacksmith's helper and
a hammer boy, engaged in a common employ-
ment in a blacksmith shop, were fellow serv-
ants.-Warren v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Cor.
by plaintiff and struck him in the back.-Davis
v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 84 A. 1011.
§ 245 (Pa.) That the foreman in a jewelry
factory indicated by a wave of the hand that
a button lost from plaintiff's tray might be un-
der a table was not an order for her to search
for it there.-Devine v. Simmons, 84 A. 397.
$258 (Del.Super.) A declaration in an em-
ploye's action for injuries, alleging that the
employer furnished an unsafely loaded car and
an unsafe track on which to run it, held not
demurrable, as not showing that the track was
not safe for the purpose for which it was in-
tended.-Valerii v. Breakwater Co., 84 A. 222.
A complaint in an employé's action for in-
juries, alleging that employer furnished unsafe
tracks and unsafely loaded car, held not de-
murrable, as not showing on what failure of
the defendant it was based.-Id.
alleging that employer furnished unsafe tracks
Declaration in employé's action for injuries.
and an unsafely loaded car, held not demur-
rable, as not showing that, if the car had been
properly loaded by the employé's fellow serv-
ants, the tracks would not have been safe; the
complaint not alleging that the car was loaded
by fellow servants, but that it was furnished
loaded by the employer.-Id.
Declaration in employe's action for injuries,
alleging that employer furnished an unsafe car
and unsafe tracks on which to run it, held not
demurrable, as not showing that the car or
track was unsafe, or as failing to show the re-
lation between the unsafe car and track and the
accident.-Id.
$258 (Del.Super.) Declaration in employé's
personal action held demurrable for not alleg-
ing the facts constituting defendant's negli-
gence with sufficient certainty.-Clough v. Ben-
jamin F. Shaw Co., 84 A. 1034.
§ 264 (Del.Super.) In an employé's action for
injuries, plaintiff can recover only on proof by
a preponderance of the evidence that his injury
was caused from such negligence of the defend-
ant as is described in the declaration.-Warren
v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84 A.
215.
§ 265 (Del. Super.) In an action for injuries
to an employé, there is no presumption of neg-
ligence on the part of defendant or plaintiff
from the mere fact of injury, but the burden of
proving negligence is on him who charges it.
Warren v. Harlan & Hollingsworth, Corpora-
tion, 84 A. 215.
An employer is presumed to have known, con-
cerning his employe's reputation, that which is
generally known to those among whom his em-
ployés worked or lived, and is presumed to
have known what he might have known by the
exercise of due care and diligence.-Id.
§ 265 (N.H.) To enable an employé to recov-
er for injuries from the negligence of a co-
employé, plaintiff must show that his injury
was caused by the coemploye's negligence, and
that the coemployé was incompetent, which was
or should have been known to the employer.
-Parker v. Mudgett, 84 A. 939.
To enable an employé to recover for injuries
from the negligence of a coemployé, plaintiff
must show due care.-Id.
§ 270 (Vt.) In an action for injury from fall-
ing from a platform, evidence that after the
injury the master supplied a railing held inad-
missible.-Dailey v. Swift & Co., 84 A. 603.
§ 276 (Pa.) In an action for the death of an
employé caused by falling through a trapdoor
covering an elevator shaft, evidence held to
sustain judgment for plaintiff.-Hurst v. Read-
ing Abattoir Co., 84 A. 508.
§ 280 (Me.) In an action against an electric
company for injury to an employé through con-
tact with an electric wire, while he was wrap-
ping an uninsulated portion, evidence held to
sustain a finding that he appreciated the attend-
ing danger.-Dunbar v. Hollingsworth & Whit-
ney Co., 84 A. 992.
§ 285 (Conn.) Where the evidence showed the
derailment of a trolley car, that it could have
been caused by a flat wheel, and that the car
had a flat wheel, refusal to submit question
whether the accident was caused by the fiat
wheel held improper.-Donovan v. Connecticut
Co., 84 A. 288.
§ 285 (Pa.) In an action for injuries to a
brakeman in mounting a train after it had
started, caused by the unplanked condition of a
trestle, evidence held to present a case for the
jury.-Stewart v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey,
84 A. 38.
§ 285 (Vt.) In a personal injury action by a
servant, the question of the proximate cause of
the injury held one for the jury.-Dailey v.
Swift & Co., 84 A. 603.
§ 286 (Pa.) Evidence held to authorize a di-
rected verdict in an action by an employé for
injuries caused by the kick of a horse.-Keenan
v. William M. Lloyd & Co., 84 A. 694.
§ 286 (Pa.) In an action for injuries to a
brakeman from alleged defects in a brake, the
question of negligence of the defendant in fail-
ing to inspect and discover the defect, which
was not patent, was for the jury.-Shoemaker
v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 84 A. 763.
§ 286 (Pa.) In an action for injuries to a car
repairer by the fall of a car raised by a jack,
the question of defendant's negligence held for
the jury.-Smith v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 84 A.
§ 286 (Pa.) In an action against a telephone
company for injuries to a lineman, caused by
defective appliances, the question of defendant's
negligence held for the jury.-Van Duzer v.
Commonwealth Telephone Co., 84 A. 965.
§ 286 (Pa.) In an action against a railroad
company by a fireman for personal injuries, the
§ 276 (Pa.) In an action against a railroad question of defendant's negligence hold, under
company for causing the death of a brakeman, the evidence, for the jury-McDonald' v. Le
evidence held to sustain a verdict and judg-high Valley R. Co., 84 A. 1013.
ment against the railroad.-Madden v. Lehigh
Valley R. Co., 84 A. 672.
§ 278 (Conn.) In an action for the death of
employé, evidence held to justify the jury in
finding that the employer was negligent, under
Gen. St. 1902, § 4702, in directing the doing of
the work in a dangerous manner and failing to
provide proper appliances and instrumentali-
ties, a competent person to direct the work, and
competent colaborers.-Allen v. J. W. Bishop
Co., 84 A. 87.
$278 (Del.Super.) Evidence held not to show
that the death of plaintiff's intestate was due
to any act or negligence of his employer. Di
Nardi v. Standard Lime & Stone Co., 84 A. 124.
§ 279 (Del. Super.) To charge an
employer
with knowledge of coemploye's general reputa-
tion for carelessness and incompetency, the
proof must show such reputation to be based
upon material facts.-Warren v. Harlan & Hol-
lingsworth Corporation, 84 A. 215.
In an employé's action for injuries through
the act of a coemployé, evidence of reputation
and carelessness of the coemployé, not connect-
ed with the duties assigned to him and uncon-
nected with any specific acts of prior negli-
gence with respect to such duties, is not suffi-
cient to show that he was careless or unfit for
such duties, and that the employer should have
known it.-Id.
§ 279 (N.H.) In a mill employé's action for
personal injuries by the negligence of a sawyer,
plaintiff's coemployé, evidence held to sustain a
finding that defendant knew, or should have
known, of the incompetency of such coemployé.—
§ 286 (Vt.) In a personal injury action by a
servant, the question of whether the platform
from which he fell was a reasonably safe place
of work, and whether the master's negligence
caused the danger, held questions for the jury.
-Dailey v. Swift & Co., 84 A. 603.
§ 288 (Pa.) In an action for injuries to a
brakeman, the trial judge could not rule that
the unplanked condition of a trestle was an as-
sumed risk of the brakeman's employment.-
Stewart v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 84 A.
38.
§ 288 (Pa.) Where evidence on the issue of
assumption of risk by a servant was conflict-
ing, the question as to such assumption was for
the jury.-Robson v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 84
A. 585.
In an action for injuries to a brakeman kill-
ed by his head coming in contact with an over-
head bridge while riding on the top of a freight
car, the question of his assumption of risk held
under the evidence, one for the jury.-Id.
§ 288 (Pa.) Where any doubt exists whether
an employé was acquainted with the risk, the
question is for the jury.-Madden v. Lehigh
Valley R. Co., 84 A. 672.
§ 288 (Vt.) A servant who worked in a dan-
gerous place held not to have assumed the risk
of injury as a matter of law.-Dailey v. Swift
& Co., 84 A. 603.
The question whether an assurance to a serv-
ant extended to the doing of certain work held
one for the jury.-Id.
§ 289 (N.H.) On evidence in a servant's ac
contributory negligence was for the jury.-Hurl--Cantera v. Trustees of Eighth St. Baptist
burt v. Nashua Mfg. Co., 84 A. 41.
Church of Wilmington, 84 A. 1035.
§ 289 (Pa.) Whether a servant, who was kill-
ed by his clothes catching in a revolving shaft
while working near it at a place where he was
directed to work by his foreman, was guilty of
contributory negligence is for the jury.-McCoy
v. Wolf Co., 84 A. 581.
§ 289 (Pa.) In an action by a fireman for per-
sonal injuries, the question of plaintiff's contrib-
utory negligence held for the jury.-McDonald
v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 84 A. 1013.
$295 (Conn.) Instruction that recovery could
not be had for trolley car conductor's death if
the risk causing the death was an ordinary one,
without explaining what risks were ordinary
and what extraordinary, held improper.-Dono-
van v. Connecticut Co., 84 A. 288.
In action for trolley car conductor's death,
instruction that a recovery could not be had if
the risk was an extraordinary one known to the
conductor held improper.-Id.
§ 136 (Pa.) Where mechanic's lien is filed
against several structures forming a single
plant, failure to aver such fact in the claim is
not essential, and the omission does not invali-
date the claim.-Union Savings & Building
Ass'n of West Philadelphia v. Vahle, 84 A. 407.
IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT.
(A) Amount and Extent of Lien.
§ 161 (Del.Super.) Where a considerable por-
tion, but not all, of the materials furnished un-
der a building contract are of the quality and
kind specified, the claimant, in an action to en-
force a mechanic's lien, may recover the rea-
sonable worth of such material.-Hawthorne v.
Murray, 84 A. 5.
VII. ENFORCEMENT.
§ 245 (Dei.Super.) An action to enforce a
mechanic's lien is in the nature of an action of
bor, and material furnished by the claimant.-
Hawthorne v. Murray, 84 A. 5.
IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO assumpsit for the price and value of work, la-
THIRD PERSONS.
(A) Acts or Omissions of Servant.
$296 (Del.Super.) An advertisement of a
sheriff's sale on the foreclosure of a mechan-
ic's lien, notifying of the sale of a house as
situated on certain land, held insufficient public
notice to warrant the sale. In re Long, 84 A.
1030.
MEETINGS.
§ 302 (Pa.) Proprietors of a store running
an automobile repair department are not liable
to plaintiff, who applied to an employé in an-
other department to send out a man to bring
her in in her injured automobile, for injuries
received by his upsetting the same, where such
employé had no authority in connection with
the automobile department, and the manager See Corporations, § 198; Towns, § 19.
of that department was not requested to bring
plaintiff back.-Gresh v. Wanamaker, 84 A.
1108.
MASTERS IN CHANCERY.
See Equity, §§ 407, 410.
See Frauds, Statute of, § 118.
MESNE PROCESS.
See Garnishment, §§ 93, 95.
MECHANICS' LIENS.
See Mortgages, §§ 151-183; Principal and
Agent, § 24.
II. RIGHT TO LIEN.
(A) Nature of Improvement.
§ 25 (Pa.) A mechanic's lien is not invali-
dated because including a claim for repairs and
for construction, under Act June 4, 1901 (P.
L. 431), authorizing lien for both, where the
contract was substantially for new construction
after a fire, though some small repairs were
made.-Union Savings & Building Ass'n of West
Philadelphia v. Vahle, 84 A. 407.
III. PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT.
§ 120 (Pa.) Possession, as used in Act June
4, 1901 (P. L. 431) § 8, relating to service of
notice of intent to file a lien on the party in
possession, means occupancy.-Merritt & Co. v.
Poli, 84 A. 683.
MINES AND MINERALS.
See Appeal and Error, § 1176; Equity, § 17.
II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND
CONTRACTS.
(B) Conveyances in General.
§ 55 (Pa.) Grantee of coal under land, with
free right to use surface as far as necessary
for mining, has the right to dump refuse at
the mine entrance, using as much of the sur-
face as is strictly necessary and reasonable.-
Dewey v. Great Lakes Coal Co., 84 A. 913.
III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUAR-
RIES, AND WELLS.
(C) Rights and Liabilities Incident to
Working.
$118 (Pa.) Where a boy went from the
highway to a well defendant was employed to
torpedo, and was injured when the gas ignited,
he cannot recover therefor.-Beatty v. E. I.
Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co., 84 A. 1098.
MISREPRESENTATION.
Under Act June 4, 1901 (P. L. 431) § 8, per- See Insurance, § 378.
mitting service of a filing notice to be made on
the party in possession, the claimants need not
prove that the party upon whom the paper
was served was the agent of the owner.-Id.
$132 (Del. Super.) Under Rev. Code 1852,
amended to 1893, p. 818, c. 110 (16 Del. Laws,
c. 145), one performing labor and furnishing
materials under contract with a contractor,
having failed to file his lien until more than 90
days from completion of the labor and the last
delivery of materials, was not entitled to a lien.
See Equity, § 430; Municipal Corporations, §
977; Payment, § 89; Reformation of In-
struments, $$ 19, 32, 45; Trespass, § 27;
Trusts, § 282.
See Landlord and Tenant, § 33; Trusts, § 58;
Vendor and Purchaser, § 86.
|