(E) Condition or Use of Public Buildings
and Other Property.

§ 847. A municipal corporation holding prop-
erty for its profit is liable for negligence in the
management thereof as an individual would be.
-Libby v. City of Portland (Me.) 805.

XIII. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUB-
LIC DEBT, SECURITIES, AND
TAXATION.

Of towns, see Towns, § 46.

(B) Administration in General, Appro-
priations, Warrants, and Payment.
Mandamus to compel signature to warrant by
mayor, see Mandamus, § 102.

I. RIGHTS OF PUBLIC.
Deprivation of property without due process
Floatage of logs and rafts in nonnavigable wa-
of law, see Constitutional Law, § 278.
ters, see Logs and Logging, § 14.

1. Where a body of water is sufficiently
large and deep to serve the public to any con-
siderable extent, held sufficient to give the pub-
lic an easement therein for the purpose of trans-
portation.-Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley
(Pa.) 648.

§ 1. A lake navigable in fact is to be so con-
sidered in law.-Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quig-
ley (Pa.) 648.

§ 9. In an action against a company incor-
porated under Priv. & Sp. Laws 1893, p. 740,

(D) Taxes and Other Revenue, and Ap-c. 481, to improve a river for navigation for

plication Thereof.

§ 957. Act March 30, 1886 (Gen. St. p.
3370, $$ 410-423), commonly called the "Mar-
tin Act," and Act April 8, 1903 (P. L. p. 394),
commonly called the general tax act, are not
repugnant, and the latter does not repeal by
implication the former, which provides only
for the collection of taxes, and does not apply
to water rates.-Title Guarantee Land Co. v.
City of Paterson (N. J. Ch.) 794.

$958. Supplement to Act March 30, 1896
§ 958. Supplement to Act March 30. 1896
(P. L. p. 190), does not repeal by implication
prior supplement of 1891 (Act April 16, 1891
[P. L. p. 450]), with reference to sale at pri-
vate sale by a municipality of tax certificate
under said first act.-Woglom v. City of Perth
Amboy (N. J. Sup.) 257.

§ 966. Farming land within the limits of an
incorporated village may be taxed for general
village purposes, though no benefit accrues to
the owner.-Atherton v. Village of Essex Junc-
tion (Vt.) 1118.

damage sustained by the company's failure to
sufficiently improve navigation, held, that cer-
tain evidence offered by the company should
have been admitted.-Songo Lake, S. R. & B.
of N. Steamboat Co. v. Sebago Improvement
Co. (Me.) 483.

§ 9. Priv. & Sp. Laws 1893, p. 740, c. 481,
incorporating a company to improve a river for
navigation and receive tolls, held not to require
that it expend for improvements a sum great-
er than its authorized capital stock and net
income.-Songo Lake, S. R. & B. of N. Steam-
boat Co. v. Sebago Improvement Co. (Me.) 483.

II. LANDS UNDER WATER.

§ 36. Lands under lakes held to belong to the
state in trust for the public as lands under nav-
igable waters at common law.-Conneaut Lake
Ice Co. v. Quigley (Pa.) 648.

$37. Riparian patentee upon lake, navigable
in fact, held to take only to the water's edge.-
Conneaut Lake Ice Co. v. Quigley (Pa.) 648.
NAVIGATION.

§ 980. A sale of land by the city of Pater-
son under the provisions of the Martin act
(Gen. St. p. 3370, §§ 410-423), as amended by
the supplement of June 2. 1905 (P. L. p. 497).
is valid. Title Guarantee Land Co. v. City See Ferries; Navigable Waters, §§ 1, 9.
of Paterson (N. J. Ch.) 794.

Substitution of names in affidavit for attach-
ment, see Attachment, § 122.

NATIONAL BANKS.

See Banks and Banking, § 262.

NAVIGABLE WATERS.

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.

Weight and conclusiveness, see Evidence, § 586.

NEGLIGENCE.

Causing death, see Death, §§ 77-103.

By particular classes of persons.

See Carriers, §§ 105, 117, 123, 155-163, 296-
305 Municipal Corporations. §§ 751-847;
Physicians and Surgeons, § 15; Railroads,
§§ 282, 305-350, 359-400, 454-485; Street
Railroads, §§ 74-118.

Employers, see Master and Servant, §§ 90-289.
Employés, liability for injuries to third per-
sons, see Master and Servant, §§ 301-322.
Fellow servants, see Master and Servant, §§
177-201.

Gas companies, see Gas, § 20.

Condition or use of particular species of prop-
erty, works, machinery, or other instru-
mentalities.

See Bridges, § 46: Explosives, §7; Gas, § 20;
Railroads, §§ 282, 305-350, 359-400, 454-
485; Street Railroads, §§ 74-118.
Automobiles, see Highways, §§ 172, 184.
Conveyances and other means for transportation
of passengers, see Carriers, § 296.

Public buildings or other public property, see
Municipal Corporations, § 847.

Streets and highways, see Highways, § 215;
Municipal Corporations, §§ 762-821.
Tools. machinery, appliances, and places for
work, see Master and Servant, §§ 101-125.
Nonnavigable waters, see Waters and Water Use of highway by traveler, see Highways, §§
Courses.

See Ferries.

172, 184.

Use of street by traveler, see Municipal Corpo- | ed the consequences of plaintiff's negligence.-
rations,

§ 134. Plaintiff must prove negligence to
the jury's satisfaction by preponderance of evi-
Injuries from fire on or near railroad right of dence.-Lenkewicz v. Wilmington City Ry.
way, see Railroads, § 465.
Co. (Del. Super.) 11.
Injuries to passengers, see Carriers, § 305.
Loss of or injury to goods shipped, see Carriers,
§ 123.

Opening or vacating judgment, see Judgment,
§ 370.
Review of proceedings on motion involving dis-
cretion of court, see Appeal and Error, §§
977, 979.

I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF REMEDY.
8. Where a verdict for false imprisonment
was rendered against the chief of police of a
town, and a patrolman under him, the court
held authorized to set aside the verdict as
against the patrolman and render judgment on
the verdict against the chief of police.-Sparrow
v. Bromage (Conn.) 1070.

§ 8. Where a verdict is rendered against sev-
eral for a joint tort, the court may set aside the
verdict as to some, and render judgment there-
on as against the others.-Sparrow v. Bromage
(Conn.) 1070.

II. GROUNDS.

there was a reasonable probability that a re-
trial would produce a different result requir-
ing a new trial.-Bristol Mfg. Co. v. Palmer
(Vt.) 76.

$ 159. Where there is no evidence from
which it can be concluded, as a matter of law,
that a verdict is clearly against the evidence,
the rule to show cause will be discharged.-
Goldman v. Central R. of New Jersey (N. J.
Sup.) 261.

§ 162. On appeal from verdict including dam-
ages to future earning capacity, where plaintiff
dies, the law court cannot reduce the verdict.
-Hubbard v. Marine Hardware & Equipment
Co. (Me.) 924.

§ 163. A notice of intent to prosecute a bill
of exceptions is not a sufficient exception to de-
nial of a motion for a new trial, within Court
and Practice Act 1905, § 483.-Vassar v. Lan-
caster (R. I.) 711.

§ 167. A party in an action at law, who ap-
plies therein for a new trial, and who is de-
feated, held not entitled to subsequently apply
in equity for a new trial on the same grounds.

(C) Rulings and Instructions at Trial.
$ 41. The error, if any, in admitting testimony
to establish a fact shown by the cross-examina-
tion of the party complaining, is not ground for-Stein v. Cuff (N. J.) 517.
a new trial.-Halper v. Wolff (Conn.) 890.

(F) Verdict or Findings Contrary to Law
or Evidence.

SGS. Where defendants urged two complete
defenses and corresponding counterclaims, the
court could not grant a new trial after a ver-
dict in their favor, unless the jury could not
have reasonably come to the conclusion that one
of the defenses was supported by proof.-Board
of Water Com'rs of City of New London v. Rob-
bins & Potter (Conn.) 938.

$76. Where, in an action for personal inju-
ries, motion is made for new trial on verdict
for plaintiff, and. pending the motion plaintiff
dies, the law court cannot order a new trial.
Hubbard v. Marine Hardware & Equipment Co.
(Me.) 924.

§ 76. Where a verdict is clearly excessive,
it should be set aside or reduced.-Hollinger
v. York Rys. Co. (Pa.) 344.

(G) Surprise, Accident, Inadvertence, or
Mistake.

$95. A new trial will not be awarded de-
fendant not represented at the trial, where
notice of trial was duly served on his attorney.
-Morris & Cummings Dredging Co. v. Wil-
liams (N. J. Sup.) 271.

(H) Newly Discovered Evidence.

§ 100. A party held not entitled to a new
trial for newly discovered evidence.-Lawson v.
Crane & Hall (Vt.) 641.

$ 102. Where affidavits of newly discovered
cumulative evidence fail to disclose due dili-
gence, a new trial is properly refused.-Mona-
han Vehicle Co. v. Seymour (R. I.) 1096.

$108. A new trial will not be granted for
newly discovered evidence which would not be
likely to change the result.-Reagan v. Tink-
ham (R. I.) 1096.

III. PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE
NEW TRIAL.

Necessity and sufficiency of statement of grounds
for purpose of review, see Appeal and Error,
§ 301.

§ 140. On a petition for a new trial, affi-
davits held insufficient.-IIolman v. Flint (Vt.)
232.

$150. The showing in support of a motion
for a new trial in a suit involving the loca-
tion of a disputed boundary on the ground of
newly discovered evidence held to show that

§ 167. Equity will entertain a bill for an
injunction and for a new trial in an action at
law only when the grounds on which the new
trial is sought are not cognizable by the court
at law.-Stein v. Cuff (N. J.) 517.

of counsel is such as can be cured is to be de-
$ 168. Whether impropriety in the argument
termined by the court considering the excep-
tions, or motion for new trial.-Stone v. Forest
City Express Co. (Me.) 23.

§ 168. Failure to object at the time to im-
propriety in the argument of counsel which may
be cured by retraction or instructions held fatal
on either exceptions or motion for new trial.-
Stone v. Forest City Express Co. (Me.) 23.

§ 168. A petition for new trial, under Court
and Practice Act 1905. §§ 2. 472. 473, held in-

sufficient, where the mistake relied on is one of
tice requires a revision.-Pezzucco v. Gautieri
law, and where it does not appear that jus-
(R. I.) 626.

NEXT OF KIN.

See Descent and Distribution.

NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO.
Judgment in general, see Judgment, § 199.

NONRESIDENCE.

Affecting limitation of actions, see Limitation of
Actions, § 87.

19.

Appearance by nonresident, see Appearance, §
NONSUIT.

At trial, see Trial, § 165.
Involuntary nonsuit before trial, see Dismissal
and Nonsuit, § 67.

NONUSER.

Of easement, see Easements, § 30.
NOTES.

Promissory notes, see Bills and Notes.
NOTICE.

See Process.

Judicial notice, see Evidence, $$ 5-23.
Laws relating to notice of civil proceedings as
depriving of property without due process of
law, see Constitutional Law, § 309.

As affecting particular classes of persons.
See Building and Loan Associations, § 23; Car-
riers, 180; Landlord and Tenant, § 297;
Municipal Corporations, §§ 353, 788.
Assignees, see Assignments. § 102.
Connecting carriers, see Carriers, § 180.
Purchasers of bills or notes, see Bills and
Notes, § 339.

Purchasers of land, see Vendor and Purchaser,
§§ 228-232.

As affecting particular rights, duties, and liabili-
ties.

Damages for breach of transportation contract
by connecting carriers, see Carriers, § 180.
Liability for injuries from defects or obstruc-
tions in street, see Municipal Corporations, §

788.

§ 33. Evidence held to show that a render-
ing plant operated by defendant was a private
nuisance, entitling plaintiff to have the same
abated.-Rausch v. Glazer (N. J. Ch.) 39.

(D) Actions for Damages.

§ 43. If a nuisance is maintained, a person
suing for damages therefrom must have done
what he could to save himself from the conse-
quences of the wrong, and all damages which
result from the failure to discharge that duty
must be borne by him, but such damages can-
not defeat his right to sue.-Carroll Springs
Distilling Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe
(Md.) 828.

$ 50. In an action for damages from a nui-
sance, a charge held erroneous as failing to
time of the institution of the suit, and for ig-
confine recovery to damages accruing to the
mize such damages.-Carroll Springs Distilling
improve-noring the question of plaintiff's duty to mini-
Co. of Baltimore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.

Liability on bill or note, see Bills and Notes, §§
339, 416.

Lien of subcontractor for cost of public improve-
ment, see Municipal Corporations, $ 373.
Rights and liabilities of bona fide purchasers of
real property, see Vendor and Purchaser, §§
228-232.

Right to redeem from tax sale, see Taxation, §
704.

Of particular facts, acts, or proceedings not
judicial,

Application for liquor license, see Intoxicating
Liquors, $ 65.

Assignment of money due under contract for
public improvement, see Municipal Corpora-
tions, $$ 353, 373.

Defects in title of vendor of land, see Vendor
and Purchaser, $§ 228-232.
Defects or obstructions in streets, see Municipal
Corporations. § 7S8.

Defenses to bill or note, see Bills and Notes, 8

339.

Expiration of period of redemption, see Taxa-
tion, 704.

Nonpayment or protest of bill or note, see Bills
and Notes, § 416.

Of injury as condition precedent to action, see
Negligence, § 104.

Transfer of shares of stock in building and loan
association, see Building and Loan Associa-
tions, § 23.

Of particular judicial proceedings.
See Divorce, § 76; Trial, § 6.

Summary proceedings by landlord to recover pos-
session of demised premises, see Landlord and
Tenant, § 297.

NOVATION.

Modification of contracts in general, see Con-
tracts, §§ 238, 244.

§ 5. Evidence held insufficient to show a no-
vation.-Staples & Bell v. Davis (N. H.) S72.

NUISANCE.

I. PRIVATE NUISANCES.

(A) Nature of Injury, and Liability There-
for.

§ 3. A rendering plant is not a nuisance per
se.-Rausch v. Glazer (N. J. Ch.) 39.

§ 5. Considerable hesitation in respect to the
process of injunction is shown when it is sought
to forbid a person the use of his own property
in the prosecution of a lawful industry in a
careful manner, on the ground that such use is
nevertheless a nuisance to another.-Town of
Bristol v. Palmer (Vt.) 332.

(C) Abatement and Injunction.
Weight and sufficiency of positive and negative
testimony as to annoyance, see Evidence, §
586.

§ 54. In an action for damages from nui-
sance, a prayer held properly refused as mis-
leading.-Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Bal-
timore City v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.

§ 54. In an action for damages from a nui-
sance, a prayer held properly refused as fail-
ing to define the duty imposed by law upon
plaintiff to minimize the damages and the con-
sequences resulting from his breach thereof.-
Carroll Springs Distilling Co. of Baltimore City
v. Schnepfe (Md.) 828.

§ 54. In an action for damages from a nui-
sance, held that the jury should be explicitly
instructed as to the rules by which they are to
be governed in estimating damages.-Carroll
Springs Distilling Co. of Baltimore City v.
Schnepfe (Md.) 828.

OBJECTIONS.

Necessity and sufficiency for purpose of review
In judicial proceedings.
in civil actions, see Appeal and Error, §§
185-231.

Necessity and sufficiency for purpose of review
in criminal prosecutions, see Criminal Law, §
1036.

To assignment of errors, see Appeal and Error,
§ 748.

To competency of witness, see Witnesses, § 75.
To evidence at trial, see Trial, §§ 85, 105.
To instructions, see Trial, § 281.

To parties, see Parties, § 92.

To record on appeal or writ of error, see Ap-
To report on reference, see Equity, § 410.
peal and Error, §§ 635-648.

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.

Laws impairing, see Constitutional Law, § 145.

OBSTRUCTIONS.

Of streets, see Municipal Corporations, §§ 671,
762-821.
Of waters, see Waters and Water Courses, §§
53, 63.

OCCUPATION.

License tax on occupations in general, see Li-
censes, § 1, 7.

Of real property, see Use and Occupation.
Subjects and titles of acts relating to occupa-
tions and employments, see Statutes, § 114.

OFFENSES.

See Criminal Law.

School officers, see Schools and School Dis- 430.
tricts, § 63.

State officers, see States, §§ 57. 64.
Tax assessors, see Taxation, § 319.
Town officers, see Towns, § 31.
Trustees, see Trusts.

$ 100. Real estate assessor held a public offi-
cer, within Const. art. 3, § 13, forbidding an
increase in salary during term of office.-Richie
v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 430.

$103. The acts of an officer intrusted with
QUALIFICATION, a duty requiring the exercise of discretion held
not reviewable.-State v. Howard (Vt.) 392.