(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the law of taxation by local and special assessments, including assessments for streets, sidewalks, alleys, sewers, and all other city improvements, as well as assessments for all rural improvements, such as roads, ditches, drains, bridges, viaducts, water systems and irrigation"








if 

J 


1 











I 



LAW BOOKS 

257 So. Spring St., Room 210 
Mutual 4473 




THE LIBRARY 
, OF 
THE UNIVERSITY 
OF CALIFORNIA 

LOS ANGELES 

SCHOOL OF LAW 



tfj 



* 



V 



A TREATISE ON THE LAW 



OF 

Taxation by Local and 
Special Assessments 

INCLUDING 

Assessments for Streets, Sidewalks, Alleys, Sewers and all other City 
Improvements, as well as Assessments for all Rural Im- 
provements, such as Roads, Ditches, Drains, 
Bridges, Viaducts, Water Systems 
and Irrigation 

BY 

WM. HERBERT PAGE 

of the Columbus, Ohio, Bar, Author of Page on Wills and Page on Contracts 

AND 

PAUL JONES 

of the Columbus, Ohio, Bar, formerly Citij Solicitor, Columbus, Ohio 
IN TWO VOLUMES 

Vol. I 



CINCINNATI 

THE W. H. ANDERSON COMPANY 

1909 



/SOD 



Copyright 1909 

BY 

THE W. H. ANDERSON CO. 






^ 

^ 



PREFACE. 



In this work, the authors have attempted to do what has 
never been done before — to cover the whole field of what is 
properly the law of Taxation by Local and Special Assessment in 
a thorough and exhaustive manner. They have given an analysis 
of the substantive law of Assessments in a way never approached 
in any other work — and they have also discussed with especial 
care and detail the practical questions of the method by which 
the public corporations may enforce Assessments and the meth- 
ods whereby the property owner may seek relief. Great care 
and study has been given to the subject of Rights and Remedies, 
including Pleading, Parties, Evidence and Procedure. 

The subject of Taxation by Assessment has become a very 
important one, occupying the attention of Courts and Attorneys 
in a great number of cases. This work has been in preparation 
for a number of years, and every effort has been made to make 
it as valuable to the busy lawyer as possible. The Table of 
Contents is a minute analysis of the whole subject. It not only 
gives a comprehensive scope of the subject, but also enables the 
reader readily to turn to the particular section in which any 
given point is treated. The index is very full and complete. The 
citation of authorities is very exhaustive, and parallel references 
to other than the official reports are given. The date of the lead- 
ing case is always specified, and cases are cited down to final 
revision of page proof. 

The present treatise is the result of an attempt to gather to- 
gether and state in connected form, the principles of the law of 
Taxation by Local and Special Assessments, established by ad- 



66V633 



11 



PREFj4CE 



judications as they have been worked out in detail in the courts, 
for it is thus that the law grows and will continue to grow, not- 
withstanding all attempts at generalization and condensation. 
The arrangement and text are the work of Mr. Wm. Herbert 

Page. 

AVm. Herbert Page. 
Paul Jones. 

Columbus, Ohio, January 10, 1909. 



1 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER 1. 

Natuke of Assessment and Place in Law. 
SECTION. page. 

1. Derivation of assessment 1 

2. Technical meaning of assessment outside of taxation 1 

3. Technical meaning of assessment in general taxation 3 

4. Meaning of assessment as here discussed — Assessment based on 

benefits 4 

5. Asisessment for performance of legal duty 5 

6. Assessment for property furnished at request 7 

7. Definition of assessment 11 

8. Assessment for benefits a form of taxation 13 

9. Assessment for legal duty not taxation 15 

10. Assessment for goods furnished not taxation 16 

11. Theory underlying doctrine of assessment for benefits 16 

12. Divergent theories of assessments for benefits 22 

13. Theory underlying doctrine of assessment for legal duty 26 

14. Theory underlying doctrine of assessment for goods furnished at re- 

quest 28 

15. Asisessment for benefits not based on contract 29 

TO. Theory of contract invoked in assessment 31 

17. Special contract to pay assessment 33 

18. Assessment not based on quasi-contract 35 

19. Assessment for legal duty not based on contract 39 

20. Assessment for goods furnished based on contract 39 



CHAPTER 11. 

History of Local Assessments, 
section. . page. 

21. Early analogies to local assessment — Feudal exactions ■♦ 41 

22. Work on roads 42 

23. Origin of assessments in drainage 43 

24. Statute, 23 Hen, VIIL c. 5 43 

25. Efi'ect of statutory assessment on prescriptive duties 40 

26. Questions arising under early statute 47 

27. Assessment extended to street improvements 48 

28. Early colonial legislation — Pennsylvania 49 

iii 



iv CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

29. Xew York 51 

30. South Carolina 52 

31. Other colonial and state legislation 53 

32. Assessment not recognized by common law 54 

33. Statutory assessment held valid 54 

34. Development of constitutional restraints 56 

CHAPTER. III. 

Relation Between Assessment and General Taxation. 

SECTION. pagp:. 

35. General distinction between tax and assessment 59 

36. Exaction on political unit according to value held tax 6.*^ 

37. Exaction on assessment district according to benefits, frontage or 

area held assessment 63 

38. Exaction on assessment district according to valuation 64 

39. Term "tax" prima facie excludes local assessment 67 

40. Essential nature of charge controls , 68 

41. Term "tax" as including assessment 69 

42. Assessment not tax within provisions for exemption 70 

43. Assessment not tax within provisions for equality and uniformity. . 74 

44. Special views of certain states 76 

45. Assessment as tax within provisions for collection 78 

46. Assessment as tax within jurisdictional provisions 80 

47. Assessment as tax under restrictions on taxation 81 

48. Assessment as tax under other provisions 82 

49. Assessment as tax in conveyances 83 

50. Special tax 86 

51. Special taxation in Illinois 87 

CHAPTER IV. 

Form of Exaction in Assessment, 
section. page. 

52. Option to owner to construct improvement 91 

53. Power and duty to grant option 92 

54. Option to do work in assessment for benefits 95 

55. Option to do work in iierformance of legal duty 96 

56. Primary duty upon city 98 

57. Repairs 99 

58. Removal of ice and snow 100 

59. Lighting 103 

60. Liability of street railway company for paving between tracks 104 

61. Apportionment of expense between public corporations 106 

62. Deduction of benefits from damages an indirect form (ff assessment. . 107 

63. Combination of eminent domain and special assessment 108 



CONTENTS. V 

SECTIOX. PAGE. 

64. Deduction of benefits from compensation for land taken in eminent 

domain 110 

65. Distinction between general and special benefits Ill 

66. Eft'ect of distinction between general and special l)enefits 112 

67. Benefits chargeable but once 114 

68. Eight to deduct benefits not dependent on statute 116 

69. Doctrine that special benefits cannot be deducted from value of land 

taken 116 

70. Doctrine that special benefits can be deducted from value of land 

taken 118 

71. Special benefits deducted from damages to land not taken 120 

72. Deduction not allowed if tracts distinct 123 

73. Deduction of damages from special assessment for benefits 123 

74. Special contract for set-ofT 126 

75. Statutory provision for deduction of value of land donated 127 

76. Deduction of certain benefits and assessment for others 128 

77. Method of computation of benefits and damages 129 

CHAPTER V. 

COJfSTITUTIOXAL RESTBTCTIOXS APPLICABLE TO ASSf.SSMEXT. 
SECTIOX. PAGE. 

78. Justice and fairness of local assessments 131 

79. Rule for determining constitutionality of .statute 132 

80. Efi'ect of unconstitutional statute 133 

81. Efi'ect of partial unconstitutionality 134 

82. Constitutionality as aflfected by facts of specific case 136 

83. By whom question of constitvitionality can be raised 138 

84. Estoppel to attack constitutionality of statute 139 

85. Effect of change in constitutional provisions 139 

86. Assessment not prohibited by American constitutions 140 

87. Xature of power of assessment — in general 144 

88. Classes of assessments 144 

89. Assessments on basis of benefits referred to power of taxation 145 

90. Assessment referred to legislative power 148 

91. Assessment referred to judicial power 140 

92. Assessments based on benefits not referable to police power 1.50 

93. Assessments for legal duty referred to police power 151 

94. Classification of specific types of improvement 153 

95. Streets 153 

90. Sidewalks 154 

97. Sewers and drainage 156 

98. Other types of imjirovement 157 

99. Attempt to base assessments on power of eminent domain 158 

100. Assessment not based on power of eminent domain 160 

101. Theory that assessment is referable to power of eminent domain. . . 161 

102. Confusion of assessment with power of eminent domain 163 



VI CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

103. Specific grant of power of assessment . 164 

104. Grant held to imply restrictions 166 

105. Grant held not to imply restriction 169 

106. Provisions requiring legislature to restrict power of assessment. . . 173 

107. Provisions forbidding assessment 174 

108. Equal protection of law 175 

109. Provisions forbidding taking property without just compensation — 

Specific provisions 179 

110. Constitutional rule as to just compensation lield not to apply to 

assessments 181 

111. Constitutional rule as to just compensation held to api)ly to 

assessments 183 

112. Confusion as to true constitutional principle involved 185 

113. Special grounds for confusion 185 

114. Due process of law — Specific provisions 190 

115. Scope and meaning of "due process of law" 192 

116. Sale of property as taking without due process 195 

117. Due process of law requires taking for public use 195 

118. Due process of law requires apportionment according to benefits. . . 197 

119. Due process of law requires notice and hearing 203 

120. Theory that notice is not a constitutional right 207 

121. Legislative discretion as to nature and kind of notice 207 

122. Legislative discretion as to time of notice '. 209 

123. Notice not necessary as to matters which legislature may determine 210 

124. Notice not necessary if liability optional with owner 212 

125. Notice of preliminary steps not necessary 213 

126. Notice of preliminary steps not sufliicient 216 

127. Necessity of personal notice 217 

128. Notice after determination of amount insufficient 218 

129. Notice of proceeding to determine validity of assessment 218 

130. Notice of confirmation 219 

131. Notice for hearing objections 220 

132. Notice of proceedings to enforce assessment 220 

133. Right to court review 222 

134. Riglit of appeal as supplying want of notice 223 

135. Effect of notice in fact where none provided for 224 

136. Riglit of each land-owner to notice ' 226 

137. Effect of omission of notice 226 

138. Statute making certain steps prima facie evidence of validity. . . . 227 

139. Statute making certain steps conclusive evidence of validity 227 

140. Issuance of bonds 228 

141. Restriction upon time of making objection 229 

142. Appeal not essential to due process of law 231 

143. Right of appeal 232 

144. Right of protest not essential to due process of law 233 

145_. Con.stitutional provisions restricting taxation not applicable to 

local assessment 233 

146. Specific provisions for equality and uniformity of taxation 234 



CONTENTS. Vll 

SECTION. PAGE. 

147. Provisions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation not appli- 

cable to local assessments 246 

148. Theory that such provisions are entirely inapplicable 248 

149. Theory that such provisions are partially applicable 250 

150. Special Views of different jurisdictions — Alabama , . . . 250 

151. Arkansas 253 

152. Colorado 255 

153. Illinois 257 

154. Kentucky 25!) 

155. Louisiana 261 

156. Massachusetts 264 

157. jNIiehigan 265 

158. Minnesota 265 

159. South Carolina 266 

160. Tennessee , 267 

161. Virginia 268 

162. West Virginia 270 

163. Wisconsin 270 

164. Restriction of purposes of taxation 271 

165. Specific provisions protecting the obligation of contracts 272 

166. Assessment not a contract within such provisions 273 

167. Changes in procedure and remedies not prevented by such provis- 

ions 274 

168. Change relieving property owner at expense of public corporation. . 275 

169. Change increasing burden of property owner 277 

170. Other forms of statutory change 280 

171. Contracts concerning assessments protected by such provision 281 

172. Contract for exemption from assessment 282 

173. Change of law assumed to be prospective only 284 

174. Change of judicial decision as impairing obligation of contract. . . . 285 

175. Provisions forbidding retroactive legislation 289 

176. Provisions forbidding special legislation ]7(i 

177. Provisions for incorporating by general laws 177 

178. Provisions forbidding special legislation where general laws are 

applicable 291 

179. Provisions requiring notice of application for s])('eial legislation... 291 

180. Effect of specific constitutional provisions — California 292 

181. Illinois 294 

182. Iowa : 295 

183. Kentucky 296 

184. Louisiana 296 

185. Minnesota 296 

186. Missouri 298 

187. New Jersey 299 

188. New York 300 

189. Ohio 301 

190. Pennsylvania 306 

191. Wisconsin 308 



Viii CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

192. Specific provisions restricting statute to one subject expressed in 

title 310 

193. Purpose of sucli provisions 312 

194. Form of title 312 

195. Illustrations of titles expressing subject-matter 313 

196. Illustrations of titles not expressing subject-matter 316 

197. View that such provision is directory 317 

198. Statute may provide for means of accomplishing general purpose. . 318 

199. Combination of improvements in one general plan ,. 319 

200. Provisions concerning form of tax laws 320 

201. Specific provisions securing right of trial by jury 321 

202. Provisions not applicable to local assessments 323 

203. Provisions applicable to eminent domain combined with assessment 323 

204. Specific provisions for separation of governmental powers 324 

205. General efi'ect of such provisions 325 

206. Co-operation of courts in levy of assessment 325 

207. Action of administrative board as reviewing body 327 

208. Grant of taxing power to executive officer 330 

209. Restriction on power to incur debts 330 

210. Constitutional provisions for exemption from taxation 332 

211. Constitutional restrictions on amount of taxation — Specific pro- 

visions 333 

212. Application of such provisions to local assessments 334 

213. Constitutional provisions for exemption from sale 335 

214. Referendum and emergency provisions 335 

215. Home rule provisions 215 

216. Provisions concerning method of amending constitution 338 

217. Provisions concerning form of amending statute 339 

218. Constitutional provision regulating jurisdiction 340 

219. Law dependent for efl^ect on future action 342 

220. Provisions securing redress for injury to j^roperty 342 

221. Other constitutional provisions 343 



CHAPTER VI. 

Necessity of Statutoby Authority for Assessment. 
section. page. 

222. Assessment not inherent power 346 

223. Power to assess for benefits must be conferred by written law 346 

224. Consent of voters not sufficient 350 

225. Consent of voters necessary by specific provision 350 

226. What is statute 351 

227. Change of statute 351 

228. General principles of statutory construction 352 

229. Statutes conferring power construed strictly 356 

230. Construction of statutes authorizing assessments for performance 

of legal duty 357 



CONTENTS. IX 
SECTIOX. PAGE. 

231. Power to construct improvement does not confer power to assess. . 358 

232. Power to levy general tax does not confer power to assess 359 

233. Power to levy assessment does not confer power of general taxation 359 

234. Statute conferring power to be followed strictly 3G0 

235. Discretionary power as to assessment or taxation possessed by tlie 

legislature 364 

23(). Discretionary power as to assessment or taxation given to public 

corporation 3G4 

237. Power to tax does not abrogate power to assess 365 

238. Power to assess does not abrogate power to tax 367 

239. Discretionary power to combine assessment and general taxation.. 367 



CHAPTER VII. 

By What Authority Assessments may be Levied. 

section. page. 

240. Questions involved in discussion of power to levy assessments. . . . 369 

241. Power of legislature to levy assessments 369 

242. Specific provisions restricting power of legislature to levy assess- 

ments 371 

243. Power of congress to levy assessments 372 

244. Legislative delegation of power to levy local assessment 373 

245. Specific corporations to which power of levying local assessment 

may be given — Existing municipal corporations 375 

246. De facto municipal corporations 378 

247. Assessment districts 378 

248. Assessment district including parts of other political corporations. . 382 

249. Assessment districts formed on petition of property owners 383 

250. Power of assessment exercised by officers elected by district 384 

251. PoM'er of assessment not exercised by elective officers — Local self 

government 386 

252. Power of legislature to prescribe specific improvement 388 

253. Public character of assessment districts 390 

254. De facto districts 391 

255. Assessment by private corporations 393 

256. Effect of specific constitutional provisions — Arkansas 395 

257. Illinois — Restrictions on legislative power 396 

258. Upon what corporations power of local assessment may be conferred 397 

259. Who are corporate authorities 399 

260. Minnesota 402 

261. Nebraska 403 

262. Washington 404 

263. Statutory provisions conclusive as to officers by whom assessment 

may be levied 404 

2li4. Council 407 



X CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

265. Boards of revision or review 407 

266. Administrative boards 408 

267. Other officers 412 

268. Combined action of public officers 414 

269. Interest of public officers 415 

270. Exercise of aiithority by public officers 416 

271. Action of court in levying assessment 417 

272. Jury • 419 

273. Delegation of discretionary power 421 

274. Delegation of non-discretionary power 422 

275. Adoption or ratification of acts of subordinates 423 

276. Assessment by de facto officers 424 

277. Method of attacking authority of officers 425 

278. Necessity and authority of special commissioners ; . . . . 425 

279. Appointment and compensation of commissioners 427 

280. Qualifications of commissioners 430 

281. Oath of commissioners 436 

282. Exercise of power by commissioners 437 



CHAPTER Vlll. 
Impkovemexts for which Assessments may be Levied. 

A. 

General Nature of Improvement. * 

SECTION. PAGE. 

283. Nature of improvements in assessment for benefits — ]\Iust be for 

public use 439 

284. Improvement must confer special local benefit 441 

285. Permanency 442 

286. Meaning of "local improvement" 442 

287. Definition of local improvement 442 

288. Nature of improvement in assessment for legal duty 443 

289. Nature of improvement in assessment for goods sold 443 

B. 
Effect of Legislative Determination. 

290. Conclusiveness of legislative determination in assessments for 

benefits 444 

291. If improvement clearly improper, legislative determination inef- 

fectual 445 

292. Finality of legislative determination if improvement may be proper 446 

293. Delegation of discretion to public corporation as finality 447 

294. Delegation of discretion to specific officers 450 



CONTENTS. XI 

SECTION. PAGE. 

295. Unreasonable and oppressive ordinances 450 

296. Unreasonable sidewalk improvement ordinances 453 

297. Other unreasonable improvement ordinances 455 

298. Review of exercise of discretion 450 

290. Conclusiveness of legislative determination in assessments for legal 

duty 458 

300. Conclusiveness of legislative determination in assessments for goods 

sold .: 458 

C. 

Specific Examples of Original Improvements. 

301. Streets 459 

302. Doctrine in South Carolina 463 

303. Constitutional restriction in Virginia 464 

304. Thoroughfares 465 

305. Boulevards 468 

306. Street in wiiich street railway is located 471 

307. Streets, driveways and boulevards in parks 472 

308. Opening street 472 

309. Widening street 479 

310. Extension of street 481 

311. Appropriation of land in whicli ]niblic has easement 482 

312. Abandonment of easement 483 

313. Grading 484 

314. Paving 487 

315. Curbing and guttering 490 

316. Retaining walls 492 

317. Intersections 492 

318. Crossings 494 

319. Culverts 494 

320. Vacation of street 494 

321. Alleys 494 

322. Roads 495 

323. Sidewalks 497 

324. Sewers 501 

325. Storm and drainage sewers 505 

326. U.se of natural stream as sewer 500 

327. Main sewers 506 

328. Lateral sewers 507 

329. Assessment for outlet 507 

330. Pumping station 508 

331. Sewer without lateral connections 509 

332. Charge for privilege of making sewer connection 509 

333. Private sewer 510 

334. Drainage a special local benefit 510 

335. Theory of benefit to public health 511 



xii CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

33G. Theory of benefit to public highways 512 

337. Extent of special benefit does not constitute public benefit 513 

338. Theory of public interest in condition of land 515 

339. Drainage assessments held part of common law 517 

340. Drainage held proper purpose for assessment 518 

341. Purposes auxiliary to drainage 521 

342. Preventing accumulation of stagnant water 522 

343. Levees 524 

344. Illinois doctrine concerning levees 526 

345. Tennessee doctrine concerning levees 528 

346. Waterworks and water pipes 528 

347. Water pipes 529 

348. Connections, hydrants and valves 530 

349. Defective apportionment of assessment for water pipes 531 

350. Special views in certain jurisdictions 532 

351. Pumping station 534 

352. Wells and cisterns : 530 

353. Water rates as charges for water vised 537 

354. Other meaning of water rates 540 

355. Irrigation 541 

356. Public parks 542 

357. Public squares 545 

358. Public market place 546 

359. Bridges and viaducts 547 

360. River and harbor improvements 551 

361. Canals 554 

362. Docks 555 

363. Fences 556 

364. Union station 559 

365. Railroads 559 

.366. Location of public buildings and institutions 561 

667. Temporary improvements 561 

368. Lighting streets 563 

369. Lighting railway crossings 565 

370. Cleaning, sweeping and sprinkling streets 566 

371. Removal of ice and snow 569 

372. Removal of garbage „ 509 

D. 

Repairs. 

373. General principles involved in assessments for repairs 571 

374. Repair of streets, roads and sidewalks 573 

375. Repair of sewers, drains, ditches and levees 574 

376. Repair of waterworks system 574 

377. Doctrine of repairs in Illinois 575 

378. Doctrine of repairs in Pennsylvania 576 



CONTENTS. Xlll 



E. 

I{eco7istruction. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

379.. Reconstruction wiiere original ini])ruvement not subject for assess- 
ment 570 

.380. Reconstruction where original improvement is in had condition. . . . 577 

.381. Examples of reconstruction 578 

382. Penn.sylvania doctrine as to reconstruction 581 

383. Original construction of streets in Pennsylvania 582 

384. Reconstruction of sewers 585 

385. Reconstruction of sidewalks ... 585 

380. Illinois doctrine as to reconstruction 585 

387. Reconstruction where original construction is in good condition — 

Theory that court can review 580 

388. Theory that determination of city is final 58i) 

389. Nature of assessment involved 591 

Location of Improvements. 

390. Location of improvement — Land in which public has interest 591 

391. Interest acquired by eminent domain 592 

392. Interest acquired in other ways 593 

393. Improvement on land in which ])id)]ic has no interest 595 

394. Location of street — Land acquired by eminent domain 598 

395. Location of street on land acquired in other manner 602 

396. Location of street on land in which public has no interest 005 

397. Improvement of toll road 610 

398. Appropriation by mistake 611 

399. Location of sidewalks and roads 611 

400. Location of sewers 612 

401. Sewer without outlet 616 

402. Outlet in stream 618 

403. Location of drains and ditclies 618 

404. Location of other improvements 019 

405. Presumption of validity of public acts 620 

G. 

Time of Making Iviprovement icith Refereyice to Assessment. 

406. Asses.sments for pre-existing improvements — General nature 621 

407. Assessments for pre-existing improvements held valid 621 

408. Statutes authorizing assessments for improvements made when no 

statutory authority for as.ses.sments exists 022 

409. Such statutes held invalid 625 

410. Assessments for impi-ovement under invalid contract upheld 620 

411. Purcba.se of private improvement 628 

412. Conversion of toll road into public road 628 

413. Assessments without valid ordinance 630 



XIV CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

414. Re-assessments held valid 630 

415. Contract may precede assessment 03H 

410. Payment by city does not invalidate assessment 034 

417. Benefit dependent on future action ". 035 

418. Assessments for future improvements 030 

H. 

Classes of Improvements iritii lieference to Types of Assess»ienl. 

419. Classes of improvements for which assessments for honefits may 

be levied 03S 

420. Classes of improvements for which assessments for legal duty may 

be levied (i4() 

421. Classes of improvements fur which assessments for goods sold 

may be levied 043 



CHAPTER IX. 
Statutory Provisioxs Coxcerm.xg PriiLic Improvement. 

SECTION. PA(iE. 

422. Construction of legislative provisions with reference to public im- 

provements 645 

423. Cost of pre-existing improvements 040 

424. Improvement constructed without proper ordinance 648 

425. Expense of appropriation of projierty for public use 649 

420. Value of land approjjriated 650 

427. Value of building taken by appropriation G53 

428. Damage caused by appropriation 053 

429. Irregularities in appropriation proceedings 654 

430. Interest and costs in ap])ropriation proceedings. . ' 655 

431. Highways included in term "street" 657 

432. Other improvements included in "street" 059 

433. Location of street to be improved 662 

434. Opening and vacating street 002 

435. Widening street 004 

430. Power to grade street (i04 

437. Power to ];ave street 00() 

438. Distinction between grading and paving 608 

439. What is included in paving 009 

440. Intersections 670 

441. Curbing and guttering 073 

442. Alleys (ijf, 

443. Sidewalks Cur> 

444. Sewers (jys 

445. Public sewer (-,81 

440. Main and lateral sewers (;S2 

447. Outlet to sewer CS;} 



CONTENTS. XV 

SECTION. PAGE. 

448. House connections, niaii-lioles and catch-basins 684 

449. Drains 68G 

450! Bridges 687 

451. \A'ater pipes and mains 688 

45'2. Lighting 689 

453. Filling and grading hits 690 

454. JMarkct place 691 

455. Improvement on private land 691 

456. River and harbor improvements 691 

457. Removal of ice and snow 692 

458. Sprinkling streets 693 

459. Other types of improvement 694 

460. Temporai:y improvements 695 

4G1. Repairs 695 

462. What constitutes original construction 697 

463. Distinction between repairs and reconstruction 702 

464. Reconstruction 705 



CHAPTER X. 
Specific Itejis Included ix Assessment. 

SECTION. page. 

465. Necessity of statutory authority to include items in assessment . . . 708 

466. Assessment limited to cost of improvement and incidental items. . . 709 

467. Credit for material used by contractor 710 

468. Compensation of surveyor and engineer 711 

469. Expense of levying assessment 713 

470. Printing 715 

471. Advertisement and notice 716 

472. Cost of collection 717 

473. Penalties for delinquency 719 

474. Excess charges due to failure to pay cash 719 

475. Interest 721 

476. Damages 728 

477. Cost of defective prior assessment 728 

478. Contingent expenses 729 

479. Effect of including improper items 729 

480. Immaterial errors in including items 733 

CHAPTER XI. 
The lAtPROVEjiENT Contract. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

481. Power to lot contract 736 

482. Necessity of letting contract 737 

483. Necessity of valid contract 739 

484. Effect of fraud 74 1 



Xvi CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

485. Nature of fraud 743 

486. Constructive fraud 747 

487. Certificate of freedom from fraud 749 

488. Mistake 750 

489. Form of contract 751 

490. Incorporation of document in the contract 751 

491. Time within which contract must be entered into 753 

492. Execution of contract 754 

493. Vote necessary to validity of contract 755 

494. Parties to contract 757 

495. Letting contract on competitive bidding 759 

496. Advertising for bids 766 

497. Discretionary power to determine bidder 768 

498. Form and contents of bid 769 

499. Method of awarding contract 770 

500. Method of giving notice for bids 772 

501. Contents of notice for bids 776 

502. Proof of publication for bids 778 

503. Effect of failure to give notice for bids 778 

.504. Power to order or to dispense with advertisement for bids 780 

505. Statutes requiring appropriation or sufficient funds in treasury. . . . 781 

506. Necessity of collecting assessment in advance of contract 782 

507. Constitutional or statutory limit of indebtedness 783 

508. Other restrictions on indebtedness 785 

509. Necessity of contractor's giving bond or security 785 

510. Contract must conform to resolution or ordinance 787 

511. Substantial compliance sufficient 792 

512. Effect of invalid terms 796 

513. Terms fixed by law 797 

514. Provisions with reference to labor 797 

515. Patented or monopolized articles 801 

516. Covenant for maintenance of improvement^Effect of specific statu- 

tory provisions 804 

517. Covenant for maintenance construed as guaranty 805 

518. Illustrations of covenant for maintenance construed as guaranties. . 807 

519. Covenants for maintenance construed as covenants to repair 809 

520. Restrictions on contract price 812 

521. Option to property owner to do work or to select contractor or 

materials 813 

522. Time of performance 817 

523. Se])aration and combination of contracts 818 

524. Effect of provision for liquidated damages 819 

525. Necessity of completion of improvement 820 

526. Assessment upon basis of estimated cost 826 

527. Necessity and nature of substantial performance 830 

528. Excuses for failure to perform 836 

529. Amount of recovery in case of defective performance 838 

530. Quasi contractual rights in case of defective performance 839 



CONTENTS. XVU 

SECTION. PAGE, 

631. Acceptance by public corporation conclusive 840 

532. Efl'ect on rights of property owner of acceptance by public corpo- 

ration 842 

533. Acceptance by public corporation final unless diii'erent improve- 

ment constructed 843 

534. Acceptance induced by fraud or mistake ... 846 

535. Acceptance by public corporation not final 847 

536. Acceptance or rejection of work as affecting contractor 847 

537. Official certificate of performance 847 

538. Necessity of performance within time limited 852 

539. Remedies for defective performance if assessment held valid 860 

540. Effect of abandonment of prior contract 861 

541. Modification of contract , 863 

542. Extras 867 

543. Impossibility 869 

544. Assignment of improvement contract 869 



CHAPTER XII. 

Property Subject to Assessment. 
section. page, 

545. Corporeal real property 871 

546. Easements 873 

547. Interest of owner in land subject to jniblic easement 874 

548. Personal property 875 

549. Property benefited svibject to assessment in absence of statutory 

restrictions 879 

550. The assessment district 884 

551. Description of assessment district 888 

552. Legislative discretion in laying out assessment district 891 

553. Power of legislature to determine what lands are benefited 892 

554. Legislative determination conclusive as to subordinate officials.... 898 

555. Delegation of power to public corporation 902 

556. Grant of power to public officers or boards 905 

557. Crant of power to commissioners or jury 907 

558. ]\Iethod of reviewing determination as to land benefited 909 

559. By whom correctness of determination can be questioned 910 

560. Assessment district consisting of property benefited in fact 911 

561. Land benefited by street 913 

5'"2. Land benefited by sidewalk 916 

5C3. Land benefited by sewer 916 

564. Land benefited by ditch or drain 923 

5R5. Land benefited by water pipes 929 

566. Land benefited by levees 929 

567. Land benefited by other improvements 930 

568. land benefited by combination of improvements 931 

569. Combination of streets 932 



Xviii CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

570. Combination of parts of entire street improvement 935 

571. Sidewalks 938 

572. Sewers 930 

573. Other improvements 941 

574. Separation of improvement 942 

575. Lateral division of improvement 945 

570. Property on part of improvement for which assessment is not levied 048 

577. Improvement of varying width and cost 040 

578. Peculiar use of land as affecting benefits 051) 

570. Land belonging to United States 054 

580. Public property not belonging to United States 954 

581. Property belonging to state 957 

582. Property belonging to county 050 

583. Property belonging to townsliip 901 

584. Property belonging to city 901 

585. Assessment of city for benefit received as a whole 904 

580. Public school property 965 

587. Streets and roads 907 

588. Property owned by religious bodies 971 

589. Property owned by charitable organizations 974 

500. Property belonging to educational institutions 970 

591. Property used for fairs and exhibitions 977 

502. Cemetery property _ 077 

503. Property of public service corporations 070 

594. Railroad projjerty 980 

595. Effect of use to which railroad property is put — Piglit of way 983 

590. Property other than right of way 980 

507. Effect of interest held by railroad in land 990 

598. Sjwcific type of improvement as affecting assessment of right of 

way 901 

500. Exaction against street railway based on charter provisions 000 

000. Statutory duty of street railway to pave 098 

001. Assessment upon street railway based on benefits 999 

002. Contractual liability of street railway 1002 

003. Construction of liability of street railway 1003 

604. Liability of street railway enui'es to benefit of i)ro];erty owners. . . .1007 

605. Method of enforcing liability of street railway 1010 

000. Street railway property other than right of way 1010 

007. Homestead 1011 

008. Vacant land 1012 

009. Unplatted land 1013 

010. Agricultural property 1015 

Oil. Power of legislature to exempt from assessment 1017 

012. Necessity of express exemption 1019 

013. Effect of exemption from taxation 1020 

614. Construction of exemptions 1025 

615. Power of legislature to authorize contracts for exemption 1028 

010. Necessity of statutory authority for exemption contracts. 1020 



CONTENTS. XIX 

SECTIOX. PAGE. 

617. Construction of contracts for exemption 1031 

618. Construction of special statutes for exemption and commutation ... 1033 

619. Property not in pliysical contact with improvement 1034 

620. Abutting property 103<i 

621. Adjoining property 1046 

622. Adjacent property 1048 

623. Contiguous property 1050 

624. Property fronting on improvement 1053 

625. Effect of assessment according to frontage 1057 

626. Bordering, bounding and binding property, and property in neigh- 

borhood of improvement 1050 

627. Other methods of describing property 1062 

628. Assessment district consisting of blocks or parts of blocks 1004 

629. As.sessment district consisting of land within certain distance of 

improvement 107 1 

630. Meaning of lot ... 1075 

631. Effect of platted lines 1077 

632. Assessment of strips of land 1081 

633. Property benefited by future improvement 1083 

634. Land on which improvement is not located 1083 

635. Condition of property when proceedings are begun controls 1084 

636. Improvement outside of taxing district 1085 

637. Property outside of public corporation which levies assessment .... 1088 

638. Land in two or more assessment districts 1091 

639. Unauthorized omission of land benefited 1093 

640. Omission to impose proper charge on street railway 1096 

641. Omission of land not subject to asses.sment 1097 

642. Omission by legislative determination 1099 

643. Presumption of propriety of omission 1099 

644. Omission not operative if not prejudicial 1100 

645. Remedies for improper omission 1102 

646. Effect of construction of improvement by property owner 1104 

647. Property on which owner has paid invalid assessment 1106 

648. Land already assessed for similar improvement 1106 

649. Title not involved 1108 

650. Change of statute pending assessment proceedings. . 1109 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Apportionment. 
sectio^. page. 

651. Theory of apportionment 1111 

652. Nature of benefit 1113 

653. Increase in price as test of benefit 1113 

654. General and special benefits. 1117 

655. Special use as afl'ecting benefits 1119 

656. Benefits from combination of improvement or division thereof. . . . 1120 



XX CONTENTS. 

SECTION. P.^CE 

657. Benefits enuring from street improvement 1121 

658. Benefits enuring from sewer 1124 

659. Benefits enuring from drains 1125 

660. Benefits enuring from levee 1126 

661. Damages caused by public improvements 1126 

662. Option to assess or tax for local improvement 1129 

663. Apportionment between public corporation and property owners. . 1131 

664. Apportionment between different public corporations 1138 

665. Benefits as theoretical limit of assessment and basis of apportion- 

ment 1139 

666. Power of legislature to determine existence and amount of benefits 1144 

667. Legislative determination held ineffective 1153 

668. Legislative determination held final if no injustice results there- 

from 1 154 

669. Legislative determination made subject to review 1155 

670. Determination by public corporation of existence and amount of 

benefits 1 156 

671. Power of public boards to determine existence and amount of 

benefits 1160 

672. Determination by commissioners of existence and amount of benefits 1161 

673. Determination by court of existence and amount of benefits 1162 

674. Prima facie validity of apportionment 1162 

675. Power of court to review existence and amount of benefits 1164 

676. Jury trial as to existence and amoimt of benefits 1166 

677. Assessment limited to benefits in fact 1167 

678. Value of land as limit of assessment 1170 

679. Restrictions on amount of assessment 1171 

680. Restrictions based on actual value of property 1173 

681. Restrictions based on tax valuation 1175 

682. Combination and division of tracts with reference to restriction 

on assessment 1177 

683. Eff"ect of limiting lien to certain depth 1178 

684. Division of improvement or of payments 1178 

685. \Yaiver of statutory restrictions 1179 

686. Efi'ect of exceeding statutory limit 1180 

687. Change of statutory restriction 1182 

688. Xecessity of apportionment 1183 

689. Apportionment a mere approximation 1184 

690. Apportionment according to benefits in fact 1185 

691. Construction of statutes as to apportionment on basis of benefits. 1188 

692. Construction of assessment as to apportionment on basis of benefits 1192 

693. Compliance with statute requiring apportionment on basis of bene- 

fits — Assessment according to frontage 1103 

694. Assessments upon other bases of apportionment 1195 

695. Apportionment on a "proportionate" basis 1197 

696. Apportionment on a "just and equitable" basis 11 98 

697. Apportionment according to A'alue 1200 

698. Apportionment according to frontage held valid 1202 



CONTENTS. XXI 

SECTION. PAcr. 

G99. Apportionment according to frontage held valid if limited by 

statute to benefits 1206 

700. Apportionment according to frontage held invalid if not in excess 

of benefits in specific case 1210 

701. Apportionment according to frontage held invalid 1211 

702. Apportionment according to frontage as affected by Xorwood v. 

Baker 1212 

703. Frontage as affected by varying depth or value 1216 

704. Frontage in case of corner lots 1217 

705. Frontage as affected by irregular shape of ]ots 1218 

706. Use of land as affecting apportionment according to frontage 1219 

707. Construction and application of statutes requiring apportionment 

according to frontage 1220 

708. Assessment of fixed sum per front foot 1222 

709. Entire cost of improvement apportioned according to frontage. . . 1223 

710. Apportionment by squares or Idocks 1229 

711. Apportionment according to area 1230 

712. Apportionment by combination of frontage and area 1233 

713. Apportionment according to work done in front of eacli lot 1233 

714. Effect of 'Statutes requiring other forms of apportionment 1236 

715. Apportionment of special assessment or special taxation in Illinois 1237 

716. Apportionment of cost of street intersections 1241 

717. Apportionment of assessment for performance of legal duty 1241 

718. Apportionment of charges for voluntary use of public improve- 

ment or for goods furnished 1244 

719. Duplication of assessment 1246 

720. Credit for work done 1248 

721. Credit for land donated 1250 

722. Credit for payment of prior assessment 1250 

723. Who can complain of defective apportionment 1251 

724. Effect of statutory provisions for method of objecting to appor- 

tionment 1256 

725. Change of statute with reference to apportionment 1257 



CHAPTER XIV. 

NOTTCE. 
SECTION. PAGE. 

726. Constitutional necessity of notice 1259 

727. No constitutional right to notice of each step in levy of assessment 1261 

728. Notice and hearing in case of legislative determination 1261 

729. Notice and hearing if question not one of legislative determination 1265 

730. What constitutes sufficient notice 1266 

731. Necessity of hearing upon amount of assessment 1266 

732. Effect of giving notice in fact 1269 

733. Necessity of notice in case of charge for legal duty 1270 

734. Necessity of notice in case of charge for goods furnished 1271 



Xxii CONTENTS. 

SECTION. • PAGE. 

735. Effect of statutory provisions with reference to notice 1271 

736. Construction of statutory provisions concerning notice 1274 

737. Xotice of option to property owner to do work. 1274 

738. Sufficiency of notice of commencement of improvement proceeding. 127() 

739. Notice of improvement 1278 

740. Notice of resolution of intention 1280 

741. Notice of ordinance 1282 

742. Notice of contract 1283 

743. Notice of hearing to determine assessment district 1283 

744. Notice of otlier proceedings in assessment 1284 

745. Notice of hearing after levy of assessment 1285 

746. Notice of collection 1287 

747. Time for which notice must be given 1288 

748. To whom notice must be given 1292 

749. By whom notice must be ordered 1295 

750. Form and contents of notice 1295 

751. To whom notice to be addressed 1298 

752. By whom notice must be signed 1299 

753. Time and place of hearing in notice 1299 

754. Description of improvement in notice 1300 

755. Description in notice of land assessed 1302 

756. INIethod of service of notice 1303 

757. Personal service 1303 

758. Service by mailing notice 1304 

759. Service by jrosting notice or by leaving notice on premises 1305 

760. Service by publication 130G 

701. In what newspaper publication may be had 1308 

762. Official newspaper 1309 

763. Time and number of publications necessary 1312 

764. Proof of service of notice 1316 

765. Necessity that service of notice appear of record 1320 

766. Presumption of sufficiency of notice 1321 

767. Change of statute as affecting pending proceedings 1322 

768. Who can complaiii of want of notice 1323 

769. Effect of notice 1324 

770. Effect of want of proper notice 1324 

771. Waiver of insufficiency of notice 1325 

772. Determination of public official as to sufficiency of notice 1327 

773. Action, appeal and injunction as substitutes for notice 1329 

774. Knowledge as substitute for notice 1330 



CHAPTER XV. 

Method of Levyii^g Assessment. 
section. page. 

775. Necessity of statutory authority for power to levy assessment... 1331 

776. General rules of statutory construction 1333 



CONTENTS. XXlll 

SFXTIOX. PAGE. ■ 

777. Degree of compliance with statutes necessary 1338 

778. Assessment not resting on theory of (juasi contract 1342 

77!l. Consent of property owners not necessary in absence of statute. . . 1342 

7S0. Consent of j)roperty owners necessary l)y statute 1345 

781. Necessity of petition of property owners 1346 

7S2. Specific provisions as to efl'ect of omitting petition 1349 

783. Petition as alternative method 1349 

784. Necessity of petition in certain classes of improvements 1351 

785. Classes of persons eligible as petitioners. . 1353 

786. \Yho may sign petition — Owner 1356 

787. Agent 1358 

788. E.xecutor, administrator and guardian 1360 

789. Number of persons by whom petition must be signed 1361 

790. Combination of improvements 1362 

791. Methods of estimating majority 1363 

792. Signatures obtained by fraud or mistake 1365 

793. Form of signature 1366 

794. Withdrawal from petition 1366 

795. Determination of sufficiency of petition 1366 

796. Form of petition 1369 

797. Filing of petition 1370 

798. Contents of petition 1370 

799. Necessity that petition appear of record 1371 

800. Petition as restricting kind of improvement 1372 

801. Acting u])on petition 1375 

802. Bond 1376 

803. Remonstrance of property owners 1376 

804. By whom remonstrance may be signed 1378 

805. Number of remonstrants necessary 1379 

806. Withdrawal from remonstrance 1380 

807. Form of remonstrance 1381 

808. Filing remonstrance - 1381 

809. Time for presenting remonstrance 1382 

810. Effect of remonstrance 1383 

811. Determination of sufficiency of remonstrance 1385 

812. Effect of failure to remonstrate 1386 

813. Necessity of estimate 1386 

814. By whom estimate to be made 1390 

815. When estimate must be made 1391 

816. Contents of estimate 1392 

817. Estimate must refer to specific improvement 1394 

818. Presumption of suflSciency of estimate 1395 

819. Efl'ect of estimate 1390 

820. Estimate as part of record of resolution 1398 

821. Necessity of plans 1398 

822. Sufficiency and effect of plans 1400 

823. Specifications 1401 

824. Diagrams and plats 1403 



xxiv CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

825. Determination of amount of benefits 14()o 

826. Determination of cost of improvement 1400 

827. Necessity of ordinance or resolution 1407 

828. Recommendation of improvement by public official 1408 

829. Option to property owners to construct improvement 140!l 

830. Resolution of intention •- • • 1410 

831. Contents of resolution — Description of improvement 1412 

832. Declaration of necessity : 141(i 

833. Otber questions as to contents of resolution 1417 

834. Record of resolution 141!) 

835. Method of enacting resolution 1420 

836. Publication of resolution 1421 

837. Necessity of ordinance 1424 

838. Effect of resolution instead of ordinance 1427 

83!). Conformity of ordinance to preliminary resolution or to general 

ordinance 1 42S 

840. Improvement must conform to resolution or ordinance 1430 

841. At what session ordinance may be passed 1432 

842. Necessity of quorum 1434 

843. Vote necessary to passage of ordinance 1435 

844. Time of enacting ordinance 1437 

845. Effect of violation of rules of parliamentary law 1441 

846. Reconsideration 1442 

847. Approval of ordinance by mayor 1442 

848. Publication of ordinance 1443 

849. Incorporation in ordinance 1446 

850. Amendment of ordinance 1446 

851. Repeal of ordinance 1447 

852. Effect of repeal 144S 

853. Record of ordinance 144!) 

854. Caption and subject of ordinance ." 1450 

855. General plan of improvements 1451 

856. Description of improvement in ordinance 1452 

857. Ordinance must describe improvement with sufficient certainty. . . 1454 

858. Description in resolution 145!t 

859. Location of improvement 1460 

860. Construction of improvement where necessary 1463 

861. Construction of improvement where not in existence nci") 

862. Necessity of fixing grade 1405 

863. Ordinance fixing grade of street 1469 

864. Description of material 1470 

865. Dimensions of improvement 1480 

866. Waiver of objections 1482 

807. Delegation of authority to inferior agent 1483 

868. Ratification of act of inferior agent 1480 

869. Construction as to description of improvement 148!) 

870. Combination of improvements in ordinance ]4!)0 

871. Necessity of fixincr time ot ppil'urmaiice In- oidiiiimcc 1 4;:0 



CONTENTS. XXV 
SECTION. PAGE. 

872. Determination of necessity and benefits by ordinance 1490 

873. Determination to proceed on assessment plan 1492 

874. Determination of assessment district 1493 

875. Other matters as to which ordinance is necessary 1494 

876. Other questions which may be determined by ordinance 1495 

877. Assessment ordinance 1495 

878. Time within which assessment may be levied 1497 

879. Levy of assessment as dependent upon construction of improvement 1498 

880. Assessment to be in writing 1499 

881. Caption of assessment 1500 

882. Date of assessment 1500 

883. Statement in assessment of amount assessed 1500 

884. Report must show compliance with statute and ordinance 1501 

885. Contents of report as to benefits and land benefited 1503 

886. Description of land 1505 

887. Necessity of stating name of owner 1512 

888. Who is to be regarded as owner ... 1513 

889. Assessment to unknown owners ". 1515 

890. Assessment against deceased owner 151(5 

891. Error in name of owner 1516 

892. Necessity of finding as to value of property 1518 

893. Report must show principle on which assessment is made 1518 

894. Necessity of showing apportionment prescribed by law 1519 

895. Apportionment of assessment among different tracts 1521 

896. What constitutes entire tract 1524 

897. Objection to assessment as entire tract 1526 

898. Necessity of exercise of judgment by commissioners 1526 

899. Necessity of actual view of premises 1527 

900. Necessity of joint action of commissioners 1528 

901. Necessity of inianimous action of commissioners 1529 

902. Signature of report 1530 

903. Signature as indicating identity of commissioners 1531 

904. Certificate 1532 

905. Affidavit 1532 

906. Filing report ■ 1532 

907. Necessity of record 1534 

908. Loss or destruction of assessment roll or ordinance 1537 

909. Amendment of assessment 1537 

910. Nature and necessity of confirmation 1542 

911. By what body confirmation may be had 1543 

912. Parties and procedure in confirmation 1545 

913. Notice of confirmation 1549 

914. Proof of publication 1552 

915. Objections 1553 

916. Time of making objections 1555 

917. Form and contents of objections 1550 

918. Failure to object as waiver 1558 

919. To whom objections must be presented 1563 



Xxvi CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

920. Issue at confirmation 1564 

921. Hearing at confirmation 15(36 

922. Evidence at confirmation 1508 

923. Burden of proof 1572 

924. Charge, finding and verdict 1574 

925. Judgment or decree of confirmation 157(5 

920. Power to amend or set aside judgment 1579 

927. Effect of confirmation 1580 

928. Jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional defects 1585 

929. Defective ordinance 1585 

9.30. Defective notice 1587 

931. Defects in petition 1588 

932. Defects in estimate 1588 

933. Objections to amount of assessment 1589 

934. Objection to apportionment 1589 

935. Objections to commissioners 1590 

930. Objections to assessment roll 159(t 

937. Objecti'ons to nature of improvement 1591 

938. Errors in description of property 1591 

939. Eflfect of judgment in eminent domain 1592 

940. Defects in performance 1592 

941. Other defects prior to confirmation 1593 

942. Defects in confirmation proceedings 1594 

943. Judgment of confirmation conclusive against public corporation.. 1594 

944. Confirmation binding only upon parties 1595 

945. Confirmation not operative as to facts not before the court 1595 

940. Statutory provisions as to effect of confirmation 1597 

947. Effect of decree of confirmation as against direct attack 1597 

948. Conckisive effect of other steps in assessment 1599 

949. Bill of costs 1000 

950. Effect of change of statute 1001 

951. Presumption as to regularity of assessment proceedings 1005 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Supplemental and Proportional Assessments. 

section. page. 

952. Power to levy supplemental assessment dependent on statute. . . . 1608 

953. Supplemental assessment levied only in case of deficiency 1610 

954. Effect of original assessment 1611 

955. Method of levying supplemental assessment 1612 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Re-assessment. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

9,56. Power of legislature to provide for re-assessment 1615 

957. Re-assessment statute must itself be constitutional 1617 



CONTENTS. XXVU 

SECTION. PAGE. 

958. Power to re-assess dependent on statute 1618 

959. Retroactive effect of re-assessment statutes 1619 

960. Necessity of invalidity of original assessment 1621 

961. Original assessment unconstitutional 1622 

962. Original assessment in violation of statutory provisions 1623 

963. Change of statute pending re-assessment 1626 

964. By what body re-assessment may be levied 1627 

965. Necessity and eli'ect of judgment of invalidity 1628 

966. Effect of judgment in original proceeding 1631 

967. Effect of payment of original invalid assessment 1632 

968. Adjustment of arrears 1635 

969. Method of levying re-assessment 1636 

970. Re-assessment not limited to property originally assessed 1638 

971. Effect of conveyance to hona fide .grantee 1639 

972. Time at which re-assessment may be levied 1040 

973. Whether assessment is entire or severable 1641 

974. For whose benefit re-iassessment may be had 1642 

975. Items for which reassessment may be levied 1643 

976. Effect of re assessment ■ 1644 

977. Power of court to iix amount of assessment 1644 

978. Correction and reformation of defective proceedings 1647 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Curative Statutes. 

SECTION. page'. 

979. Power of legislature to i)rescribe effect of irregularities 1649 

980. Curative act must be constitutional 1050 

981. Construction and application of curative statute 1651 

982. Curative statutes not applicable in case of fraud 1654 

983. Retroactive effect of curative statutes 1655 

984. Curative ordinances and resolutions 1661 

CHAPTER XIX. 
Estoppel. 

A. 

Estopiirl hi/ Deed. 

SECTION. page. 

985. Estop])el by deed in assessment pioceedings 1662 

B. 

Estoppel of Ueeord. 

986. Adjudication of court as estoppel 1664 

987. Adjudication conclusive as to all facts wliich might have lu'eji 

submitted 1068 



XXviii CONTENTS. 



SECTION. 



PAGE. 



1608 



988. Adjudication not conclusive as to facts upon which court refused 

to pass 

989. Adjudication not conclusive as to facts upon which court could 

not pass 1669 

990. Adjudication in original assessment as affecting re-assessment.. 1071 

991. Adjudication in original assessment as affecting supplemental 

assessment liul 

992. Adjudication not conclusive if court has no jurisdiction 1672 

993. Estoppel to deny jurisdiction 1G73 

994. Effect of reversal 1674 

995. Parties as to whom adjudication is conclusive 1675 

996. Questions as to which adjudication is conclusive 1677 

997. Judgment in eminent domain as estoppel 1680 

998. Conclusive effect of judgment.in proceeding to enforce assessment 1081 

999. Election of remedies 1684 

1000. Distinction between direct and collateral attack 1684 

1001. Doctrine of stare decisis 1685 

1002. Conclusive effect of admissions of record 1680 

1003. Legislative determination not subject to collateral attack 1087 

1004. Conclusive effect of confirmation by administrative body 1088 

1005. Conclusive or prima facie effect of determination of administra- 

tive officers 1089 

1000. Necessity of jurisdiction to make finding of ])ublic officials oper- 
ative 1691 

1007. Illustratio7is of jurisdictional and non-juri.sdictional defects. . . . 1691 

1008. Collateral attack upon existence of public corporation 1693 

1009. Collateral attack upon right to public office 1695 

C. 

Estoppel in Pais. 

1010. Operation of doctrine of estoppel in pais 1695 

1011. Estoppel against owner who causes improvement on assessment 

plan 1697 

1012. Estoppel against petitioner .' 1698 

1013. Petitioner not estopped to set up subsequent irregularities 1701 

1014. Estoppel by acting in official capacity 1703 

1015. Estoppel by acquiescence 1703 

1010. Delay as laches 1707 

1017. Estoppel by acquiescence in case of want of jurisdiction or fraud 1708 

1018. Estoppel by acquiescence in case of irregularities 1709 

1019. Estoppel as to constitutionality of statute 1709 

1020. Estoppel to attack validity of ordinance 1710 

1021. Estoppel as to notice 1710 

1022. Estoppel as to validity of contract and performance 1711 

1023. Estoppel as to other defects 1712 

1024. Effect of protest or objection 1712 

1025. Estoppel at law and in equity 1713 



CONTENTS. XXIX 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1026. Failure to file objections 1714 

1027. Failure to object in manner jirescribed by statute as estoppel or 

waiver 1715 

1028. Circumstances under which failure to object is not waiver 1716 

1029. Objection on specified grounds as waiver of other grounds 1718 

1030. Failure to appeal as waiver 1720 

1031. Failure to appeal not waiver of jurisdictional defects 1722 

1032. Use of improvement as waiver 1723 

1033. Waiver or estoppel by express contract 1724 

1034. Waiver by entering into improvement contract 1726 

1035. Payment of installment as waiver 1726 

1036. Formal certificate as waiver or estoppel 1728 

1037. Estoppel against public corporation 1729 

1038. Necessity of pleading estoppel 1730 



CHAPTER XX. 

Nature of Liability Created by Assessment. 

SECTION. page. 

1039. Theory that personal liability cannot be imposed for benefits. . . 1731 

1040. Special theories as to validity of personal liability 1733 

1041. Theory that personal liability can be imposed 1734 

1042. Compromise theories of validity of personal liability 1735 

1043. Personal liability on special contract 1736 

1044. Personal liability for assessments under police power 1738 

1045. Personal liability for goods sold 1738 

1046. Personal liability as affected by federal constitution 1739 

1047. Personal liability non-existent in absence of statute 1739 

1048. Personal liability as affected by statutory construction 1740 

1049. Validity of statutes imposing lien 1741 

1050. Lien non-existent in absence of statute 1743 

1051. Liens of sub-contractors and material-men 1744 

1052. Invalid assessment not lien 1744 

1053. L'pon whose interest an assessment is a lien — Heir and executor. 1745 

1054. Interest of lessor and lessee 1746 

1055. Interest of particular tenant and remainder-man 1753 

1056. Interest of co-tenants 1757 

1057. Equitable interests 1758 

1058. Interest of vendee 1760 

1059. Assessment a lien upon separate lots 1760 

1060. Assessment both personal liability and lien 1762 

1061. Statute controls as to method of acquiring lien 1763 

1062. Certificate of engineer 1763 

1063. Filing claim 1704 

1064. Filing assessment 1767 

1005. Other methods of acquiring lien 1767 

1066. Statute controls as to time when lien attaches 1708 



XXX CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

10C7. When lien attaches — Specific provisions 1768 

1008. Priority between lien of assessment and liens of otlier classes.. 1770 

1069. Priority between assessment lien and tax lien 1773 

1070. Priority between different a.ssessment liens 1773 

1071. Priority between assessment and homestead 177.? 

1072. Priority as between assessment and subsequent grantee or vendee 1774 

1073. Liens upon special classes of property — Enforcement of assess- 

ment against United States property 1781 

1074. Enforcement of assessment against property of state 1782 

1075.. Property of public corporation 1783 

1076. Highways 1784 

1077. School property 1784 

1078. Railroads 1785 

1079. Homesteads 1786 

1080. Other 'special interests 1786 

1081. Change of statute as affecting liens and personal liability 1780 

1082. Loss of lien 1788 

1083. Invalid assessment not discharge 1788 

1084. Assignment for benefit of creditors 1788 



CHAPTER XXI. 

Payment and Delinquency of Assessment, 
section. page. 

1085. Payment in installments 1789 

1086. Medium of payment 1796 

1087. Payment as discharge 1797 

1088. Payment by third person 1797 

1089. Payment by city 1799 

1090. Payment by set-off 1799 

1091. To whom payment can be made 1799 

1092. Effect of satisfaction of record 1800 

1093. Payment of part of assessment 1800 

1094. Application of over-payments 1801 

1095. Application of proceeds of assessment 1801 

1096. Presumption of payment 1801 

1097. Commutation of payment 1802 

1098. Effect of payment as to right in improvement 1802 

1099. Payment as affecting property rights 1802 

1100. Payment as estoppel 1803 

1101. When assessment becomes due 1804 

1102. When assessment becomes delinquent 1805 

1103. Interest determined by statute 1806 

1104. Interest upon installments 1808 

1105. Interest on defective assessments 1808 

1 106. From what time interest runs IgOy 



CONTENTS. XXXI 

SECTION. PACK. 

1107. Interest on judgments 1810 

1108. Costs 1810 

1109. Penalties 1811 

1110. Attorney's fees 1812 

1111. Commissions 1813 



CHAPTER XXII. 

Collection and Enforcement of Assessment, 
section. page. 

1112. Power of legislature over metlind of collection 1814 

1113. Change of statute as to collection 1814 

1114. Construction of statutes with reference to collection 1816 

1115. Provisions concerning collection of taxes not applicable to assess- 

ments 1817 

111(5. Adoption of provisions concerning collection of taxes 1817 

1117. Necessity of uniform methods of collection 1819 

1118. Collection dependent on validity of assessment 1819 

1119. Who may collect assessments 1819 

1120. Diversity of statutory provisions concerning collection 1820 

1121. Public corporation must order collection 1820 

1122. Power of city to provide means of collection 1820 

1123. Power to collect assessments under the police power 1821 

1124. Provisions in franchise concerning collection . 1822 

1125. Putting assessment on tax duplicate 1822 

1126. Return and publication of delinquent assessments 1823 

1 127. Collection by execution 1825 

1128. Collection by warrant 1825 

1 129. Parties to warrant 1826 

1 130. Contents of warrant 1826 

1131. Return of warrant 1827 

1132. Certificate of assessment roll 1828 

1 133. Nature of tax bill 1828 

1134. Who may issue tax bill 1829 

1135. Prima facie validity of bill or certificate 1829 

1136. Tmie and method of i.ssuing tax bill 1830 

1137. Contents 1830 

1 138. Xew or amended tax bill 1832 

1139. Alteration of tax bill 1832 

1140. Collection of bill 1832 

1141. Collection of assessment by action or suit 1832 

1 142. Collection by action at law 1834 

1143. Distress 1834 

1144. Nature of proceedings in equity to collect assessment 1835 

1145. Collection by proceedings in equity 1835 

1 140. Suit foreclosing other lien 1836 

1 147. Venue of action 1837 



XXXil CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1148. Court in which action or suit may be brought 1838 

1140. Notice of proceeding to enforce assessment 1838 

1 1-50. Necessity of demand 1839 

1151. By whom demand may be made 1S40 

1152. Compensation for serving notices 1840 

1 153. Method of making demand 1840 

1154. Affidavit of demand 1842 

1155. Amount for which demand should be made 1842 

1156. Method of trial 1843 

1157. Endorsement by scire facias 1843 

1158. Defenses 1S44 

1 159. Affidavit of defense 1S45 

1 160. Service and return of writ 1846 

1161. Attachment and deduction from award 1847 

1162. Mandamus and mandatory injunction 1847 

1163. Period of limitations fixed by statute 1S4S 

1164. Period of limitations as fixed by implication 1849 

1165. Period of limitations as fixed by special statute 1851 

1166. Construction of statutes applicable to limitations 1851 

1167. Waiver of limitations 1852 

1168. When period of limitations begins to run 1852 

1169. Efl'ect of bringing suit on statute of limitations 1853 

1170. Special statutory provisions 1854 

1171. Efl'ect of lapse of period of limitations 1854 

1 172. Change of statutes of limitations 1854 

1173. Power to sell to satisfy lien of assessment 1855 

1174. Compliance with statutory provisions necessary 1856 

1175. Amount of land subject to sale 1856 

1176. By whom sale is to be made 1857 

1177. Time and place of sale 1857 

1 178. Notice of sale 1857 

1179. Public corporation as purchaser at sale '. 1858 

1 180. Amount for which land is to be sold 1859 

1181. Certificate of sale 1859 

1182. Form of judgment or decree of sale 1860 

1183. Application for judgment of sale 1862 

1184. Notice of application for judgment of sale 1864 

1185. Who may apply for judgment. 18G6 

11F6. Form of application 1867 

1187. Form of objections 18(:7 

1188. Term of court nv.'A 

1189. Rendition of judgment 18(i8 

1190. Summary sale 1870 

1191. Precept for sale 1870 

1 192. Affidavit for precept 1871 

1193. Notice of summary sale 1871 

1194. Sale as discharge of lien 1872 

1195. Effect of sale upon title to realty 1873 



CONTENTS. XXXIU 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1196. Effect of sale if assessment invalid 1874 

1197. Right of redemption 1875 

1198. Method of redeeming 1S7G 

1199. Amount payable on redemption 187G 

1200. Notice of expiration of redemption 1877 

1201. "Notice of application for deed 1878 

1202. Deed given on sale for assessment 1878 

1203. Property rights of vendee at judicial sale 1879 

1204. Property rights of vendee at summary sale 1881 

1205. Evidence in ejectment 1882 

1206. Right of vendee at void sale to recover payment from public 

corporation 1882 

1207. Right of purchaser at invalid sale as against owner of realty. . . 1885 



CHAPTER XXIV. 
P2VRTIES, Pleading and Procedure in Enforcement of Assessment. 

SECTION. • PAGE. 

1208. statutory provision conclusive as to plaintiff 1887 

1209. State as plaintiff 1887 

1210. City 1888 

1211. City to use of contractor 1888 

1212. County 1889 

1213. Assessment district 1889 

1214. Special officer 1S!)0 

1215. Contractor 1890 

1216. Assignee of contractor 1891 

1217. Bond-holders 1893 

1218. Holder of improvement certificate 1893 

1219. Owner of property as defendant 1893 

1220. Co-owners 1894 

1221. Representatives of deceased or insane owner 1894 

1222. Dower, homestead and community interests 1895 

1223. Mortgagees 1895 

1224. City as defendant 1895 

1225. Effect of proceedings upon one not party thereto 1896 

1226. Joinder of causes of action 1897 

1227. Necessity of formal pleadings 1898 

1228. Necessity of filing pleadings 1898 

1229. Contents of complaint 1898 

1230. Allegation of facts whicli are presumed 1899 

1231. Method of stating facts 1!)00 

1232. Averments as to plaintiff 1!)01 

1233. Averments as to defendant 1001 

1234. Averments as to improvement in02 

1235. Averments as to contract 1902 



XXXiv CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1236. Averments as to performance 1904 

1237. Averments as to notice 1904 

1238. Averments as to apportionment 1905 

1239. Averments as to property assessed 190G 

1240. Averments as to demand and notice of payment 1907 

1241. Averment of special contract to pay assessment ". 1908 

1242. Other averments 1908 

1243. Statutory provisions as to contents of complaint 1909 

1244. Exhibits 1909 

1245. Amendment 1910 

1246. Prayer 1911 

1247. Aveiments as to petition for improvement 1911 

1248. Averments as to order or resolution 1912 

1249. Averments as to ordinance 1912 

1250. Averments as to procedure 1913 

1251. Averments as to making assessment 1914 

1252. Necessity of answer 1915 

1253. Method of averring facts 1915 

1254. Answer not setting up valid defense 1916 

1255. General denial 1917 

1256. liul tiel record 1917 

1257. Special denials 1918 

1258. Admissions 1918 

1259. Plea of payment 1919 

1260. Verification 1919 

1261. Cross-petition 1919 

1262. Reply '. 1919 

1263. Demurrer 1920 

1264. Demurrer does not lie if pleading equivocal 1920 

1265. Demurrer lies if pleading clearly defective 1921 

1266. Demurrer as admission 1922 

1267. Effect of subsequent facts on right to demur 1922 

1268. Motions 1922 

1269. Motions for new trial, to set aside judgment and to set aside 

■stipulation 1923 

1270. Continuances 1924 



CHAPTER XXV. 

E^^DENCE IN Actions to Enforce Assessmeitt. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1271. Evidence must correspond to pleadings 1925 

1272. Evidence must be confined to issue 1926 

1273. Evidence must support issue on part of party offering it 1927 

1274. Necessity of offering evidence 1928 

1275. Who may offer evidence 1928 

1276. Competency and interest of witnesses 1928 



CONTENTS. XXXV 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1277. Burden of proof 1929 

1278. Failure of proof 1933 

1279. Presumption as to propriety of official action 1934 

1280. Presumption as to validity of ordinance 1935 

1281. Presumption as to validity of assessment 1936 

1282. What presumption as to validity of assessment includes 1938 

1283. Presumption as to validity of report 1939 

1284. Presumption as to validity of tax bill 1940 

1285. Presumption as to action of courts 1941 

1286. Presumption as to appointment of commissioners 1942 

1287. Presumption as to order of steps in assessment.' 1942 

1288. Presumption as to re-assessment 1942 

1289. Presumption as to action of board 1943 

1290. Presumption as to contract 1943 

1291. Presumption as to location of improvement 1944 

1292. Presumption as to notice and hearing 1944 

1293. Return of demand for payment as prima facie evidence 1945 

1294. Presumptions as to description and ownership of land 1946 

1295. Improvement certificate 1946 

1296. Delinquent tax list 1946 

1297. Tax deed or certificate of sale as presumptive evidence 1947 

1298. Presumption as to omission of land from assessment 1947 

1299. Admissibility of certificate 1948 

1300. Admissibility of affidavit 1950 

1301. Statutes as evidence of facts recited therein . . . . 1951 

1302. Ordinance as evidence of facts recited therein 1951 

1303. Admissibility of record to prove truth of statements contained 

therein 1951 

1304. Necessity of record 1953 

1305. Evidence explaining record 1955 

130G. Evidence contradicting record 1956 

1307. Admissibility of record of court 1957 

1308. Primary evidence 1958 

1309. Lost and destroyed records 1958 

1310. Evidence as to necessity of improvement 1954 

1311. Evidence as to existence of contract 1959 

1312. Evidence as to performance of contract 19G0 

1313. Evidence as to benefits 1960 

1314. Evidence as to apportionment 1962 

1315. Evidence as to execution of protest I!;,y2 

1316. Evidence as to interest of officials 1962 

1317 Judicial notice •. 1962 

1318. Opinions 1903 

1319. Admissions 1964 

1320. Declarations 19(55 

1321. Hearsay 1965 

1322. View of premises 1965 

1323. Order of introducing evidence and repetition 1966 



XXXvi CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1324. Sufficiency of evidence 19GG 

1325. Weight of evidence 1968 

1326. Cross-examination 1968 

1327. Rebuttal ^ 1968 

1328. Instructions 1969 

1329. Form of verdict 1970 



CHAPTER XXVI. 
Remedies of Property Owners in Resisting Assessment. 

A. 

Defenses. 

section. page. 

1330. Who may object to assessment 1971 

1331. Defenses to assessment 1972 

1332. Contract and performance 1973 

1333. Benefit to property and apportionment 1974 

1334. Notice 1975 

1335. Methods of ordering improvement and levying assessment 1976 

1336. Defenses precluded by statute 1977 

1337. Defenses not made at stage required by statute 1978 

1338. Defenses precluded by determination of public officers 1984 

1339. Defenses precluded by former adjudication 1985 

1340. Defenses precluded by decree of confirmation 1986 

1341. Efi'ect of want of jurisdiction to confirm 1987 

1342. Facts subsequent to jiulgment of confirmation 1988 

1343. Judgment for installment preckiding defenses 1989 

1344. Judgment in eminent domain as precluding defenses 1989 

1345. Defenses precluded by express waiver 1989 

1346. Set-off 1989 

B. 

Ajjpeal. 

1347. Appeal dependent on statutory provisions 1992 

1348. Parties to appeal 1994 

1349. Joint and several appeals 1995 

1350. Issue on appeal 1095 

1351. Trial de novo on appeal 1996 

1352. Hearing limited to certain issues 1997 

1353. Time of taking appeal 1098 

1354. To what body appeal to be taken 1098 

1355. Notice of appeal 1009 

1356. Method of taking appeal 2000 



CONTENTS. XXXVll 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1357. Dismissal of appeal 2001 

1358. Necessity of appeal 2002 

1359. Cases in which appeal not necessary to preserve rights 2003 

1360. Effect of appeal 2005 

1361. Power of appellate tribunal to modify assessment 2005 

1362. Evidence 2006 

1363. Method of trial 2007 

1364. Costs. 2007 

1365. Revision 2007 

1366. Judgment on appeal 2008 

C. 

Error. 

1367. Nature of error proceedings 2009 

1368. Right to prosecute error dependent on statute 2010 

1369. Jurisdiction in error with reference to assessments 2012 

1370. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of United States with reference to 

error 2014 

1371. Order to which error will lie 2016 

1372. Pre.sumption as to error 2018 

1373. Materiality of error 2019 

1374. Of what record consists .' 2022 

1375. Necessity of objections and exceptions 2022 

1376. Form of bill of exceptions 2025 

1377. Necessity of bill of exceptions 2026 

1378. Necessity and form of findings of fact 2027 

1379. Effect of findings of fact 2028 

1380. Conclusions of law 2030 

1381. Reversal not granted if evidence conflicting 2030 

1382. Reversible error 2031 

1383. Error in form of judgment 2032 

1384. Parties to error proceedings 2033 

1385. Pleadings in error 2034 

1386. Necessity of brief 2035 

1387. Notice of proceedings in error 2035 

1388. Time of bringing error proceedings .^ 2036 

1389. Nature of judgment of rever.sal 2036 

1300. Effect of reversal and afhrmance 2038 

1391. Several nature of error proceedings 2040 

1392. Waiver of right to prosecute error 2041 

D. 

Certiorari. 

1393. Nature of certiorari 2041 

1394. Certiorari as a remedy in assessment 2042 



Xxxviii CONTENTS. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1395. Scope of certiorari with reference to assessments 2043 

1396. Certiorari lies where jurisdiction is wanting 2044 

1397. Discretionary nature of writ 2045 

1398. Who may have writ . 2045 

1399. Against whom writ may issue 2046 

1400. Pleading 2047 

1401. Assignment of error 2047 

1402. Contents of record and return 2047 

1403. Certiorari granted only in cases of substantial injustice 2048 

1404. Defects for which proceedings will be quashed 2049 

1405. Defects for which proceedings can not be quashed 2050 

1406. Eflfect of record and return 2051 

1407. Incomplete record 2053 

1408. Effect of laches 2053 

1409. Statute of limitations 2055 

1410. Judgment 2056 

E. 

Equitable Relief. 

1411. Equitable relief given only if no adequate remedy at law 2057 

1412. Opportunity to defend as preventing equitable relief 2058 

1413. Eight to sue at law as preventing equitable relief 2059 

1414. Right of appeal as precluding equitable relief 2059 

1415. Right to bring certiorari as affecting equitable relief 2061 

1416. Right to bring error as affecting equitable relief 2062 

1417. Right to bring quo warranto as afl'ecting equitable relief 2062 

1418. Effect of payment and right to recover payment 2063 

1419. Discretionary nature of injunction 2063 

1420. Equitable relief generally available against invalid assessments.. 2064 

1421. Injunction as regular method of testing validity of tax 2064 

1422. Effect of statutory provisions 2064 

1423. Equitable relief refused except on special grounds 2065 

1424. Multiplicity of suits and irreparable injuries 2066 

1425. Assessment as cloud on title 2066 

1426. Equitable relief granted if cloud on title exists 2068 

1427. Nature of cloud on title 2069 

1428. Statutes affecting the right to sue to quiet title .■ 2071 

1429. Doctrine of collateral attack as precluding suit to quiet title. . . 2072 

1430. Exercise of discretion of public officers as affecting equitable relief 2073 

1431. Comparative effect of jurisdictional defects and technical irregu- 

larities 2074 

1432. Specific defects 2075 

1433. Defective performance of improvement contract 2081 

1434. Effect of curative statutes 2083 

1435. Necessity of tendering amount fairly due 2083 

1436. At what stage of improvement proceedings injunction can be 

had — Effect of delay till performance 208G 



CONTENTS. XXxix 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1437. Right to sue before assessment is levied 2088 

1438. Effect of confirmation 2090 

1439. Estoppel by decree 2090 

1440. Limitations 2091 

1441. Laches 2092 

1442. Parties plaintiff * 2092 

1443. Parties defendant 209.5 

1444. Pleadings— Bill 2097 

1445. Answer and other pleadings 2101 

1446. Jurisdiction and conditions precedent 2103 

1447. Decree 2103 

1448. Procedure 2104 

1449. Power to ennipel performance 2104 

1450. Evidence 2105 

F. 

Statutory Suits to Vacate assessment. 

1451. Nature and scope of statutory provisions for suits to vacate 

assessments 2107 

1-^52. Legal irregularity 2108 

1453. Substantial error 2109 

1454. Fraud 2110 

1455. Specific facts authorizing vacation 2111 

1450. Vacation of assessments for repaving 2112 

1457. Effect of confirmation upon proceedings to vacate 2113 

1458. Reduction of assessment 2113 

1459. In what court action to be brought 2114 

1400. Parties to suit to vacate 2115 

1461. Time within which suit is to be brought 2110 

1462. Effect of payment 2116 

1463. Pleadings 2117 

1464. Notice 2118 

1465. Procedure 2118 

1466. Evidence 2119 

1467. Nature and effect of decree 2120 

G. 

1468. Nature and scope of mandamus 2120 

1469. Cases in whicii mandamus is granted 2121 

1470. Necessity of judgment at law 2124 

1471. Cases in which mandamus is not granted 2124 

1472. Mandamus not means of controlling discretion 2126 

1473. Parties in mandamus 2126 

1474. Pleadings 2128 

1475. Statute of limitations 2128 

1476. Procedure 7 2129 



Xl CONTENTS. 



H. 
Quo Warranio. 

SECTION. PAGE. 

1477. Quo Warranto 2129 

I. 

■Recovery of Payment of Assessment. 

1478. General principles applicable to recovery of payment 2131 

1479. Recovery not allowed for technical irregularities 2132 

1480. Recovery not allowed where property owner has waived legal 

rights 2133 

1481. Statutory provisions limiting right to vacate assessment 2134 

1482. Effect of statutory provision for repayment 2134 

1483. Voluntary repayment of voluntary payment 2135 

1484. Recovery of payment inider duress — What constitutes duress. . . 2135 

1485. Doctrine of necessity of cloud on title 2138 

1486. Necessity of vacating assessment 2139 

1487. What constitutes vacation of assessment 2140 

1488. Payment under mistake 2141 

1489. Payment induced by fraud 2142 

1490. Recovery on theory of failure of consideration 2142 

1491. Recovery of deposit under special contract 2144 

1492. Statute of limitations 2144 

1493. Laches 2146 

1494. Who may recover payment 2146 

1495. Who is liable to refund 2147 

1496. Pleadings 2148 

1497. Evidence 2149 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

Liability of Pltblic Corporation or Officer Arising out of Assessment 

Proceedings, 
section. page. 

1498. Liability of public corporation upon contract in absence of con- 

tractual or statutory restriction 2151 

1499. Liability if contract invalid 2153 

1500. Liability for improvement not required by contract 2154 

1501. Liability in case of non-performance 2155 

1502. Liability upon bonds 2156 

1503. Liability of public corporation on warrants 2158 

1504. Restrictions on indebtedness of public corporation 2100 

1505. Statutory provisions against personal liability 2162 

1506. Contractual provisions against personal liability 2164 

1507. Effect of provisions for payment of contractor bv assessments. . . . 2167 



CONTENTS. • xli 

SECTION. PAfiE. 

1508. Liability for failure to exercise power to levy assessment 2168 

1509. Liability for levying invalid assessment 2170 

1510. Liability for delay in levying assessment 2171 

1511. Liability for failure to collect assessments 2172 

1512. Liability of city for assessments paid in 2173 

1513. Liability as affected by power to re-assess 2175 

1514. Cliange of statute as to liability of city. . ' 2175 

1515. Amount of recovery 217U 

1510. Assignment by contractor 2177 

1517. Liability to sub-contractors 2177 

1518. Mandamus as remedy for failure to levy assessment 2178 

1519. Liability of public corporation for property appropriated.... 2171) 

1520. Liability of city to public officers 2183 

1521. Liability for sale of property to pay void assessment 2184 

1522. Liability of public officers 2184 

1523. Liability of abstractor 2185 

1524. Parties 2185 

1525. Pleadings 2186 

1526. Limitations 2187 



TABLE OF CASES. 



f References are to sections.] 



Abascal v. Bouny ( .37 La. Ann. 538 

[1885]), 248, 270, 637, 665, 666. 
Abbott V. Inhabitants of Cottage 
City (143 Mass. 521, 58 Am. Rep. 
143, 10 N. E. 325 [1887]), 64, 65, 
70, 309, 575, 654. 
Abbott V. Ross (9 App. D. C. 289 
[1896]); 86, 119, 244, 308, 419, 
425, 553, 556, 557, 663, 672, 709, 
1066. 
Aberdeen, City of v. Lucas (37 Wash. 
190, 75 Pac. 632 [1905]), 301, 747, 
927, 930, 1004, 1012, 1145, 1337. 
Abernetliy v. Town of jMedical Lake 
(9 Wash. 112, 37 Pac. 306 [1894]), 
246, 301, 414, 983, 1501, 1518. 
Abney v. Texarkana, Slireveport & 
Natchez Railroad Company ( 105 
La. 446, 29 So. 890 [1901]'), 71. 
Abraham v. City of Louisville (Ky.) 
(23 Ky. LawR. 375, 62 S. W. 1041 
[1901]), 86, 352. 
Acklin V. Parker (29 Ohio C. C. 625 

[1907]), 451, 839. 
Aeord v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. 
Co. (113 Mo. App. 84, 87 S. W. 
537), 363. 
Adams, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (13 Hun (N. Y.) 355 
[1878]), 679. 
Adams v. City of Ashland ( — Ky. 

, 80 S. W. 1105, 20 Kv. Law 

Rep. 184 [1904]), 402. 
Adams v. Bay City, 78 :\Iich. 211, 44 
N. W. 138 [1889]), 690, 692,' 894. 
1484. 



x\dams V. City of Beloit (105 Wis. 

363, 47 L. R. A. 441, 81 X. W. 869 
[1900]), 191, 219, 373, 374, 380, 

381, 464. 
Adams v. Fisher (75 Tex. 657, 6 S. 

W. 772 [1890]), 113, 118. 293. 373, 

381, 670, 702. 
Adams v. Fisher (63 Tex. 651 
[1885]), 5, 18, 93, 95, 120, 147, 

314, 420, 713, 726, 728, 737, 746, 

779, 819, 1178. 
Adams v. Green (74 Mo. App. 125 

[1898]), 666, 698, 709, 714. 
Adams v. Joyner ( — N. C. , 60 

S. E. 725 '[1908]), 737, 894, 1149. 
Adams v. Lewellen (117 Mo. App. 

319, 93 S. W. 874 [1906]), 1092. 
Adams v. Lindell (72 Mo. 198 

[1880]), 43, 147, 148. 
Adams v. Lindell, (5 Mo. App. 197 

[1878]), 43, 147, 148, 263. 
Adams v. .County of Piscataquis ( 87 

Me. 503, 33 Atl. 12) 245. 
Adams v. City of Shelbyville ( 154 

Ind. 467, 77 Am. St. Rep. 484, 49 

L. R. A. 797, 57 N. E. 114 [1899]), 

3, 108, 113, 118, 247, 248, 250, 305. 

314, 315, 431, 553, 570, 620, 663, 

665, 669, 670, 677, 691, 699, 709, 

720, 731, 732. 
Adams v. St. Joimsbury & Lake 

Cliamplain R. R. Co. (57 Vt. 240, 

25 Am. & Eng. R. Cases 172 

[1884]), 70. 
Adams v. Wisher (75 Tex. 657. (i S. 

W. 772 [1890]). 374. 

xliii 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Adams v. City of Roanoke ( 102 Va. 

53, 45 S. E^ 881 [1003]), 115, 123, 

125. 
Adams, County of v. City of Quincy, 

( 130 111. 566, 6 L. R. A. 155, 22 N. 

E. 624 [1889]), 8, 35, 42, 51. 314, 

432, 568, 580, 582, 612, 613. 623, 

670, 715, 813, 856, 859. 865, 907. 
Adcock V. City of Chicago (172 111. 

24, 49 X: E. 1008 [1898]), 323, 

912, 956, 969, 1274. 
Adcock V. City of Chicago (160 111. 

611, 43 N. E. 589 [1896]), 900, 

912. 
Adden v. White Mt.s. X. H. Railroad 

(55 X. H. 413, 20 Am. Rep. 220 

[1875]), 66, 70. 
Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. City 

of Corry (197 Pa. St. 41, 80 Am. 

St. Rep" 812, 46 Atl. 1035 [1900]), 

415, 507, 1498, 1504. 
Adkins v. Case (81 Mo. App. 104 

[1899]), 1043, 1067, 1167. 
Adkins v. Quest (79 Mo. App. 36 

[1898]), 886, 1137, 122'). 
Adkins V. Toledo (27 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

R. 417 [1905]), 81, 423, 468, 471, 

775. 
Adler v. \Yhitbeck (44 O. S. 539, 564, 

9 X. E. 672 [1886]), 7. 
Adriance v. ]McCafferty ( 25 X. Y. 

Sup. Ct. Rep. (2 Robertson) 153 

[1864]), 750, 762, 777, 1174, 1204. 
Afield V. City of Detroit (112 Mich. 

560, 71 X. W. 151 [1897]), 1505. 
Ager V. State ex rel. Heaston (162 

Ind. 538, 70 X. E. 808 [1903]). 

340, 886, 909, 978, 1002,-1319. 
Agnew, In the Matter of (4 Hun. 435 

[1875]), 740, 770, 982, 1452. 
Ahern v. Board of Im])rovement Dis- 
trict Xo. 3 of Texarkana (69 Ark. 

68, 61 S. W. 575 [1901]), 103, 151, 

245, 249, 580, 588, 593, 596, 607, 

653, 691, 697, 786, 788, 791, 1337. 
Aherns v. City of Seattle (39 Wash. 

168, 81 Pac. 558 [1905]), 1347, 

1351, 1362. 
Akers v. Kolkemeyer & Co. (97 Mo. 

App. 520, 71 s". W. 536 [1902]). 

267, 276, 324, 401, 444, 445, 447. 

837, 867. 



Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Huff 

(57 Cal. 331 [1881]), 500, 763. 
Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Prin- 

gle ( 130 Cal. 226, 80 Am. St. ]^ep. 

124, 52 L. R. A. 264, 62 Pac. 394 

[1900]), 519. 
Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. Will- 
iams (70 Cal. 534, 12 Pac. 530 

[1886]), 437, 523, 568, 1153, 1303, 

1372. 
Alameda, City of v. Cohen (133 Cal. 

5, 65 Pac. 127 [1901]), 1330, 1519. 
Albany Street, In the Matter of (11 

Wend. 149, 25 Am. Dec. 618 

[1834]), 677, 885. 
Alberge^ v. Mayor and City Council 

of Baltimore (64 Md. 1, 20 Atl. 988 

[1885]), 380, 381, 501, 525, 568, 

063, 666, 098, 699, 709. 
Albertson v. Town of Cicero (21 X. E. 

815 [1890]), 280, 281, 329, 636, 

776. 
Albertson v. State ex rel. Wells (95 

Ind. 370 [1883]), 340, 916, 918, 

1237, 1250, 1281. 
Albrecht v. City of St. Paul (47 

Minn. 531, 50 X. W. 608 [1891]). 

1411, 1412, 1445. 
Albuquerque, Town of v. Zeiger ( 5 

X. M. 674, 27 Pac. 315 [1891]). 

301, 777, 1118, 1426. 
Alcorn v. Hamer (38 Miss. 652, 

[I860]), 37, 147, 225, 248, 343, 

407, 408, 711. 
Alcorn v. City of Philadelphia (112 

Pa. St. 494, 4 Atl. 185 [1880]), 

382, 383, 462. . 
Alden v. City of Springfield (121 

Mass. 27 [1876]), 656, 657, 1365. 
Aldis V. South Park Commissioners 
(171 HI. 424, 49 X. E. 565 
[1898]). 308, 405, 467, 525, 763, 

772, 918, 923, 1291. 
Aldridge v. Essex Public Road Board 

(46 X. J. L. (17 Vr.) 126 [1884]), 

1408. 
Alexander v. Baker (74 0. S. 258. 78 

X. E. 366 [1906]), 781, 785, 789. 
Alexander v. ]\Iayor and City Coimcil 

of .Baltimore "(5 Gill. (Md.) 383, 

46 Am. Dec. 630 [1847]), 86. 147. 
Alexander v. Dennison (2 !McArthur 

(D. C.) 562 [1876]), 223, 1426. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlv 



[Reforences are to sections.] 



Alexander v. City of Diiluth (77 

Minn. 445, SO N. \Y. 023), 185, 

237. 
Alexander v. City of Tacoma (35 

Wash. 360, 77 Pac. 080 [1904]), 

519, 600, 070, 090. 093, 099, 738, 

812, 911. 
Alexandria, Mayor and Commonalty 

of V. Hunter' (16 Va. (2 Munf.) 

228 [1811]), 314, 1178, 1193, 1278. 
Alfalfa Irrigation District, Directors 

of V. Collins (40 Xeb. 411, 04 X. 

W. 1086), 147, 355. 
Alkire v. Timmons Ditching Co. (51 

Ind. 71 [1875]), 1244, 1251. 
Allegheny, City of v. Black's Heirs 

(99 Pa. St.* 152 [1881]), 65, 70, 

653, 657. 
Allegheny City v. Blair (74 Pa. St. 

(24 P. F.' Smith) 225 [1873]), 

541, 570. 
Allegheny City v. West Penna. R. Co. 

(138 Pa. 375, 21 Atl. 703 [1S90]), 

578, 597, 598, 665, 1078. 
Allen V. City of Buffalo (39 X. Y. 

380 [1868]), 1425, 1427. 
Allen V. City of Charlestown (109 

Mass. 243 [1872]), 05, 70, 284. 
Allen V. City of Chicago (176 111 

113, 52 X\'e. 33 [1898]), 278,279, 

396, 557, 912, 923, 1283, 1379. 
Allen V. City of Chicago (57 111. 204 

[1870]), 745. 703, 704, 1299. 
Allen V. Davenport, City of (132 Fc-^]. 

209, 05 C. C. A. 04i [1904]). 1.-^. 

778, 981. 
Allen V. City of Davenport (107 la. 

90, 77 X. "w. 532 [1898]), 12, 18, 

118, 301, 610, 614, 438, 405. 475, 

479, 507, 517, 518, 677, 837, 847, 

853, 862, 1020. 1280, 1435. 1 130. 

1437, 1504, 1505, 1512. 
Allen V. Drew (44 Vt. 174 [1872]). 

8, 11, 78, 86, 89, 100, 110, 347, 353, 

354, 008, 000. 008. 070, 077, 689, 

700, 708, 709, 1041, 1143, 1282. 
Allen V. Galveston (51 Tex. 302 

[1879]), 43, 45, 147. 148, 223. 23+, 

713, 777, 1112, 1115, 11 H, 1173, 

1190. 
Allen V. City of Janesville ( 35 Wis. 

403 [1874]), 228, 238, 775. 



Allen V. Ivrenning (23 Mo. App. 501 
[1886]), 50, 561, 679, 684. 

Allen V. La Force (95 Mo. App. 32-1, 
60 S. W. 1057 [1902]), 522, 538. 

Allen v.'Labsap (188 Mo. 092. 87 S. 
W. 920 [1905]), 538. 

Allen V. McKay & Co. ( 120 Cal. 332, 
52 Pac. 828 [1898]),' 3 

Allen V. jNIayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(4 E. b. Smith (X. Y. C. P.) 404 
[1855]), 1488, 1497. 

Allen V. Rogers (20 Mo. App. 290 
[1880]), 495, 542, 841, 867. 

Allen V. City of Portland (35 Or. 420. 
58 Pac. 509 [1899]), 223, 234, 777. 

Allen Co., Board of Commissioners oi 
V. Silvers (22 Ind. 491 [1864]), 
324, 444, 837, 1350, 1352. 

Allentown, City of v. Adams (5 Sad- 
ler (Pa.) 253, 8 Atl. 430 [1887]), 
349, 610, 700. 

Allentown v. Henry (73 Pa. St. 404 
[1873]), 37, 255, 347, 549, 696. 

Allentown, City of v. Hower (93 Pn. 
St. (12 Xorris) 332 [1880]). 347. 
670, 708, 886, 1063, 1157. 

Allerton v. Monona County (111 In. 
500, 82 X. W. 922), 142. 

Alley V. City of Lebanon (140 Ind. 
125, 44 X'. E. 1003 [1890]), 203, 
324, 327, 444, 483, 825, 1414. 

Alley v. Lyon (14 D. C. (3 Mackey ) 
457 [1885]), 570, 880, 907, 10.37, 
1007. 

Allison Land Company, Pros. v. May- 
or and Council of Borough of Ten- 
afly (69 X. J. L, (40 Vr.) 587. 
55 "Atl. 39 [1902]), 019, 090, 1015. 

Allison Land Co. v. Borough of Tena- 
fly (08 X. J. L. (39 Vr.) 205. 52 
Atl. 231 [1902]), 019, 090; 1015. 

Allman v. District of Colum])ia 1 3 
App. D, C. 8 [1894]), 11, HI, 119. 
223, 234, 244, 323, 441, 549, 620. 
720, 729, 777, 780, 1390. 

Allum V. Dickinson (9 Q. B. D. 032 
[1882]), 1054. 

Alpers V. San Francisco (32 Fed. 
503), 372. 

Alpin V. Fisher (84 :Mich. 128, 47 
X. W. Rep. 574 [1890]), 786, 788, 



xlvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Alspaugh V. Ben Franklin Draining 

Association (51 Ind. 271 [1875]), 

1251. 
Alstad V. Sim (15 X. D. 629, 109 

N. W. 66 [1906]), 340,* 525, 556, 

670, 801, 1015, 1431. 
Alter V. Bader (56 0. S. 718, 47 N. 

E. 564 [1897]), 1418. 
Alter V. City of Cincinnati (56 O. S. 

47, 35 L. R. A. 737, 46 N. E. 69 

[1897]), 124, 353. 
Altheimer v. Plum Bayou Levee Dist. 

(79 Ark. 229, 95 S. W. 140 

[1906]), 343, 1502. 
Alton, City of v. Foster (207 111. 150, 

69 N. E. 783 [1904]). 1518. 
Alton V. Foster (106 111. App. 475 
. [1902]), 1518 
Alton, City of v. Foster (74 111. App. 

511 [1897]), 413, 424, 837, 873, 

962, 1506, 1513. 
Alton, City of v. Middleton's Heirs, 

(158 111.' 442, 41 N. E. 926 [1895]), 

837, 849, 856, 857, 866. 
Alvey V. City of Asheville ( — N. C. 

, 59 S. E. 999 [1907]), 301, 

569, 663. 
Alvord V. City of Syracuse ( 163 N. 

Y. 158, 57 N. E. 310 [1900]), 347, 

451, 717, 837, 1181. 1202, 1426, 

1427. 
Amberson Ave., Appeal of Chikls 

(179 Pa. St. 634, 35 Atl. 354 

[1897]), 323. 382, 404, 466, 770, 

983, 1271, 1272. 
American Brewing Co. v. St. Louis 

(— Mo. , 108 S. W. 1 [1907, 

1908]), 6, 353, 1491. 
American Brewing Co. v. St. Louis 

(187 Mo. 367, 86 S. W. 129), 1491. 
American Hide & Leather Co. v. City 

of Chicago (203 111. 451, 67 N. E. 

979 [1903]). 60, 604, 640, 723, 909, 

1390. 
American Steel Dredge Works v. 

Board of Commissioners of Putnam 

County (—Ind. , 85 N. E. 1 

[1908]), 1384. 
Amery v. City of Keokuk (72 la. 701, 

30 N. W. "780 [1887]), 119, 123, 

437, 620, 728. 
Amsterdam, In the Matter of the 

Common Council of ( 126 N. Y. 158, 



27 X. E. 272 [1891]), 121, 549, 
560, 730, 731. 

Amsterdam, In the Matter of the 
Common Council of the City of (55 
Hun 270, 8 X. Y. Supp. 234 
[1889]), 119, 136, 137, 619, 729, 
748. 

Anderson, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 
(109 X. Y. 554 [1888]), 16, 977. 

Anderson, In the Matter of (00 X. Y. 
457 [1875]), 740, 762, 1453. 

Anderson, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (47 Hun (X. Y.) 203 
[1888]), 495. 

Anderson, In the Matter of (60 Barb. 
(X. Y.) 375 [1871]), 467, 693, 714, 
895. 

Anderson, In the Matter of ( 48 How- 
ard, 279 [1874]), 702. 

Anderson, In the Matter of ( 39 How- 
ard (X. Y.) 184 [1870]), 467, 672, 
693, 895. 

Anderson v. Caldwell (91 Ind. 451, 
46 Am. Rep. 613), 202. 

Anderson v. Claman (123 Ind. 471, 
24 X. E. 175 [1889]), 266, 270, 
1030, 1360, 1430. 

Anderson v. Cortelyou ( — X. J. L. 

, 68 Atl. 118 "[1907]), 173. 322, 

026, 776, 950. 

Anderson v. De Urioste (96 Cal. 404, 
31 Pac. 266 [1892]), 324, 538, 747, 
703, 1216. ' 

Anderson v. Endicott (101 Ind. 539 
[1884]), 1008. 

Anderson v. Fuller (51 Fla. 380, 41 
So. 684 [1906]), 483, 495. 

Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation 
District, 35 Colo. 525, 85 Pac. 313 
[1906]), 194, 195, 355. 

Anderson v. Hill (54 Mich. 477, 20 
X. W. 549 [1884]), 80, 116, 224. 

Anderson v. Holland (40 INIo. 600 
[1867]), 1067. 

Anderson v. Hid)ble (93 Lid. 570, 47 
Am. Rep. 394 [1883]), 1015. 

Anderson v. Lower Merion Township 
(217 Pa. St. 309, 66 Atl. 1115 
[1907]), 147, 245, 279, 400, 706. 

Anderson v. INIessenger ( 158 Fed. 250 
[1907]), 119, 726. 



TABLE OF CAS.es. 



xlvii 



[References are to sections.] 



Anderson v. Tui-beville ( G Cold. ( 46 

Tenn.) 150 [1868]), 117. 
Anderson v. ^Yhal•ton County (27 

Tex. Civ. App. 115, 65 S. W. 643 

[1901]), 1318. 
Anderson, City of v. Bain ( 120 Ind. 

254, 22 N. E. 323 [1889]), 1519. 
Andrew v. Settle (5 Ohio N. P. 394 

[1897]), 1017. 
Andrews v. City of Chicago (57 III. 

239 [1870]), 860. 
Andrews v. Love (50 Kan. 701, 31 

Pac. 1094 [1893]), 1437. 
Andrews v. People ex rel. Kochers- 

perger (173 111. 123, 50 N. E. 335 

[1898]), 244, 775, 1085. 
Andrews v. People ex rel. Kochers- 

perger (164 111. 581, 45 N. E. 965 

[1897]), 1085. 
Andrews v. People ex rel. Miller (83 

111. 529 [1876]), 996. 
Andrews v. People ex rel. Rumsey 

(84 111. 28 [1876]), 70, 71, 308, 

426, 429, 520, 763, 952, 955. 
Andrews v. People ex rel. Rumsey, 

83 III. 529 [1876]), 219, 259, 305, 

308, 356, 429, 763, 927, 933, 986, 

1184. 
Angell V. Cortright (111 Mich. 223, 

69 X. W. 486 [1896]), 375, 461, 

527, 840. 
Angus V. City of Hartford ( 74 Conn. 

27, 49 Atl. 192 [1901]), 223, 234, 

244, 739, 754, 776. 
Ankeny v. Hennigsen (54 la. 29, 6 

N. W. 65 [1880]), 223, 229, 1109, 

1116. 
Ankeny v. Palmer (20 ]\Iinn. 477 

[1874]), 464, 466, 708, 1426. 
Anketell v. Hayward (119 IMicli. 525, 

78 X. W. 557 [1899]), 340, 477, 

978. 
Annapolis, ^layor. Recorder and Al- 
dermen of the City of v. Har- 

wood and Wife (32 Md. 471, 3 

Am. Rep. 151 [1870]), 231, 232. 

626, 1306, 1447. 
Annie Wright Seminary v. City of 

Tacoma (23 Wash. 109, 62 "p.a-3. 

444 [1900]), 408, 465, 473, 475, 

479, 670, 677, 724, 918, 927, 933, 

1004, 1026, 1141, 1145, 1337, 1435. 



Anselm v. Barnard (2 Keb. 675 

(Trin. 22 Car. II), 26, 564. 
Anthony Avenue, In re (95 X. Y. S. 

77, 46 Misc. Rep. 525 [1905]), 593, 

603. 
Appleby to Vacate an Assessment, In 

the Matter of (26 Hun. (X. Y.) 

427 [1882]), 604, 723. 
Appleton V. County Com.mipsioners 

(80 Me. 284, 14 Atl. 281 [1S8S]), 

844. 
Arbuckle-Ryan Co. v. Grand Ledge 

(122 Mich. 491, 81 X. W. 358). 

1015. 
Archbishop (Roman Catliolic) of 

San Francisco v. Shipman ( 79 Cal. 

288, 21 Pac. 830 [1889]), r^25. 

1432. 
Arctic Ditchers v. Coon (47 Ind. 201 

[1874]), 1252, 12.03. 
Ardrey v. City of Dallas (13 Tex. 

Civ. App. 442, 35 S. W. 726 
[1896]), 223, 234, 495, 725, 777, 813, 

815, 950, 1013, 1015, 1435. 
Arends v. City of Kansas City (57 

Kan. 350, 46 Pac. 702), 141. 
Argenti v. City of San Francisco ( 16 

Cal. 256 [1860]), 486. 
Argentine, City of v. Simmons (54 

Kan. 699, 38 Pac. 181), 141. 
Argo V. Barthand (80 Ind. 63 

[1881]), 1000, 1431. 
Armstrong v. Auger (21 Ont. 98 

[1891]), 1072. 
Armstrong v. City of Chicago (61 

111. 352 [1871]), 764, 1299. 
Armstrong v. Police Jury of Madison 

(6 La. Ann. 177 [1851]), 1508- 

1509. 
Armstrong v. Ogden City ( 12 L'tah, 

476, 43 Pac. 119 [189,5]), 314, 584, 

739, 750, 760, 805, 806, 811, 836, 

1006, 1007, 1415, 1418, 1432. 
Armstrong v. Ogden City (9 L'tah 

255, 34 Pac. 53 [1893]'), 1415. 
Armstrong v. City of St. Paul (30 

Minn. 299, 15 X. W. 174 [1883]), 

316, 432v 
Arndt v. City of Cullman (132 Ala. 

540, 90 Am. St. Rep. 922, 31 So. 

478), 419-420. 
Arnold, In the IMatter of (60 N. Y. 

26 [1875]), 570-1451. 



dviii 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Arnold v. City of Cambridge ( 106 

Mass. 352 [1871]), 571. 
Arnold v. Decatur (29 Mich. 77 

[1874]), 825. 
Arnold v. City of Fort Dodge, Iowa 

(111 La. 152, 82 N. W. 495 

[1900]), 121, 528, 570, 742, 754, 

763, 766, 1011, 1015, 1292. 
Arnold v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Knoxville (115 Tenn. 195, 220, 3 

L. E. A. (N. S.) 837, 90 S. W. 

469 [1905]), 44, 78, 86, 118, IGO, 

690, 698, 1425. 
Arnott V. City of Spokane (6 Wash. 

442, 33 Pac. 1063 [[1893]), 489. 
Asberry v. City of Roanoke (91 Va. 

562, 42 L. R. A. 636, 22 S. E. 

360 [1895]), 11, 118, 161, 701, 

1039, 1040. 
Asheville, City of v. Wachovia Loan 

& Trust Co. (143 N. C. 360, 55 S. 

E. 800 [1906]), 11, 63, 229, 232, 

245, 435, 406, 550, 555, 639, 665, 

666, 674, 709. 
Asheville, Commissioners of v. Jolm- 

ston (71 N. C. 398 [1874]), 66-70. 
Ashton V. Ellsworth (48 111. 299 

[1868]), 838. 
Ashton V. City of Rochester (60 Him. 

372, 14 K Y. Sup. 855 [1891]), 

846-1468. 
Asphalt & Granitoid Const. Co. v. 

Hauessler (201 Mo. 400, 100 S. W. 

14 [1907]), 301, 629, 683. 
Asphalt & Granitoid Const. Co. v. 

Hauessler ( — Mo. App. , 80 

S. W. 5 [1904]), 301, 629, 683. 
Assessment of School Property. (See 

School Property). 
Assesssor of Taxes of Town of Green- 
burg V. . (See Greenburg. ) 

Astor, In the Matter of (53 N. Y. 

617 [1873]), 381, 982-1456. 
Astor, In the Matter of (50 N. Y. 

363 [1872]), 194, 195, 762. 
Astor, Petition of (2 Sup. Ct. (T. & 

C.) 488 [1874]), 462, 1456. 
Astor V. Miller (2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 

68 [1830]), 1054. 
Astor V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(62 N. Y. 567 [1875]), 259-271- 

901. 



Astor V. The Mayor, Alderman and 
Commonalty of the City of New 
York (62 N. Y. 580 [1875]), 279. 
280. 308, 309, 570, 927, 935, 982, 
1451, 1455. 

Astor v. Mayor, etc. of New York 
(39 N. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. 120 
[1875]),' 759-1422. 

Astor v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(37 N. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. (5 J. & 
S.) 539 [1874]), 8, 89, 236, 279, 
394, 414, 553, 666, 744, 745, 770, 
900, 910, 911, 927, 983, 986, 1425, 
1427, 1429, 1432. 

Astoria Heights Land Company v. 
City of New York (179 N. Y."579, 
72 N. E. 1139 [1904]), 251, 525, 
539, 1433, 1498. 

Astoria Heights Land Co. v. City of 
New York (89 App. Div. 512^ 86 
N. Y. S. 651 [1903]), 251, 525, 
539, 1433, 1498. 

Atchison, City of v. Bartholow (4 
Kan. 124, 141 [1866]). 79, 1450. 

Atchison, City of v. Byrnes (22 Kan. 
65 [1879]), 1508, 1375. 

Atchison, City of v. Leu (48 Kan. 
138, 29 Pac. 467 [1892]), 416, 423, 
1498. 

Atchison, City of v. Price ( 45 Kan. 
296, 25 Pac. 605 [1891]), 387, 
416, 423, 468, 550, 551, 554, 555, 
563, 635, 803, 895, 896. 

Atchison Board of Education v. De 
Kay (148 U. S. 591, 37 L. 573, 13 
S. 706 [1893]), 838. 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail- 
road Co. v. Peterson (5 Kan. App. 
103, 48 Pac. 877 [1897]), 42, 553, 
557, 596, 013, 1041, 1078. 

Atkins V. City of Boston (188 Mass. 
77, 74 N. E. 292 [1905]). 324, 329, 
444, 500, 563. 

Atkinson v. City of Great Falls (16 
Mont. 372, 40 Pac. 877 [1895]), 
1504. 

Atlanta, Mayor and Council of the 
City of v. Central Railroad & 
Banking Company (53 Ga. 120 
[1874]), 69, 71. 

Atlanta, City of v. First Presbyter- 
ian Church (86 Ga. 730, 12 L. R. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



xlix 



[Il,':'('i-('iices are to sections.] 



A. 852, 13 S. E. 252 tl8i)()]), 42, 

570, 588, 613, 1478. 
Atlanta, City of v. Gabbett (93 Ga. 

266, 20 S. E. 306 [18!)3]), 632, 

848. 
Atlanta, City of v. Green (67 Ga. 380 

[1881]), 69. 
Atlanta, City of v. Hamlein (96 Ga. 

381, 23 S. E. 408 [1895]), 11, 118, 

632, 666, 668, 689, 705, 709. 
Atlanta, City of v. Hamlein (101 Ga. 

697, 29 S. E. 14 [1897]), 632, 651, 

653, 665, 666, 705, 709. 
Atlanta, City of v. Smith (99 Ga. 

462, 27 S. E. Rep. 696 [1896]), 

785, 786, 789. 
Atlanta Consolidated Street Railway 

Company v. City of Atlanta (111 

Ga. 255," 36 S. e'. 667 [1900]), 602. 
Atlanta First Methodist Episcopal 

Church V. Atlanta (76 Ga. 181), 

145. 
Attorney General on the Relation of 

Cook "v. City of Detroit (26 Mich. 

263 [1872]), 314, 495, 742, 864. 
Attorney General v. McClear ( 146 

Mich. 45, 109 N. W. 27 [1906]), 

251, 266, 340. 
Atwell V. Barnes (109 Mich. 10, 66 

N. W. 583 [1896]), 1015, 1436. 
Auburn, City of v. Paul (84 Me. 212, 

24 Atl. 8*17 [1892]), 11, 43, 147, 

324, 651, 653, 677, 747, 771. 
Auburn, City of v. State ex rel. First 

National Bank ( — Ind. , 83 

N. E. 997 [1908]), 530, 1471. 
Auclimuty, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition of (90 N. Y. 085 [1882]), 

479, 1458. 
Auchmuty, In the INIatter of (18 

Hun. 324 [1879]), 271, 465, 479, 

645, 646, 977, 1458. 
Auchmuty, In the IMatter of (11 

'Hun. '(X. Y.) 76 [1877]), 487, 

570, 646. 
Auditor General v. Chase (132 Mich. 

630, 94 N. W. 178 [1903]), 380, 

381, 784, 819, 833. 
Auditor General v. Crane ( — Mich. 

, 115 N. W. 1041), 1000, 1337. 

Auditor General v. Hoffman ( 132 

Mich. 198, 93 N. W. 2^0 [1903]), 



130, 135, 730, 732, 745, 835, 910, 

951, 1292. 
Auditor General v. Stoddard ( 147 

Mich. 329, 110 N. W. 944 [1907]), 

541, 840, 1024. 
Augusta, City of v. McKibben ( — 

Ky. ; 60 S. W. 291, 22 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1224), 443, 862. 
Augusta, City Council of v. Murphy 

79 Ga. loi, 3 S. E. 326 [1887])", 

40, 232. 
Aumann v. Black ( 15 W. Va. 773 

[1879]), 353, 1479. 
Aurora, Town of v. Cliicago, Burling- 
ton & Quincy Railroad (19 111. 

App. 360 [1885]), 1512. 
Austin V. City of Seattle (2 Wash. 

667, 27 Pac. 557 [1891]), 147, 148, 

301, 698, 1502. 
Averill v. City of Boston (193 Mass. 

488, 80 N." E. 583 [1907]), 73, 

1519. 
Ayars, Appeal of (122 Pa. St. 266, 

2 L. R. A. 577, 16 Atl. 356 

[1888]), 190, 961. 
Aver V. City of Chicago (149 111. 

262, 37 N. E. 57), 74, 394, 616. 

Ayer v. ]Mayor and Aldermen of 

"Somerville *( 143 Mass. 585, 10 N. 

E. 457 [1887]), 563, 620, 723. 
Ayers Asphalt Paving Co., In re (118 

La. 640, 43 So. 262 [1907]), 485. 
Ayers v. Adair Co. (61 la. 728), 
■ ^146. 
Ayers v. Schmohl (86 INIo. App. 349 

"[1900]), 522. 538, 871. 
Ayers v. Toledo (26 Ohio C. C. 767 
"[1904]), 680, 1304. 



B 



Babbitt v. Woolley (66 Ky. (3 Bush.) 
703 [1868]). 352, 1249, 1269. 

Babcock, In the Matter of (23 How- 
ard 118 [1862]), 1466. 

Bacas v. Adler (112 La. 806, 36 So. 
739 [1904]), 89, 314, 503, 540, 517, 
519. 780, 1012, 1015, 1022, 1033, 
1035. 1047, 1049, 1160, 1337. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Bacon v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Savannah ("l05 Ga. 62, 31 S. E. 

127 [1898]), 175, 475, 587, 654, 

723, 967, 978, 1103, 1104. 
Bacon v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Savannah (91 Ga. 500, 17 S. E. 

749 [1893]), 245, 620, 632, 663, 
.707, 713, 777, 1277, 1328, 1382. 
Bacon v. Mayor and Aldermoi of 

Savannah (86 Ga. 301, 12 S. E. 

580 [1890]), 118, 437, 552, 570, 

577, 856, 1127, 1193, 1331. 
Bacon v. City of Seattle (15 Wash- 
ington 701,"^ 47 Pac. 1102), 408. 
Badger v. Inlet Drainage District 

(141 111. 540, 31 X. E. 170 [1893]), 

223, 249, 258, 271, 424, 506, 665, 

666, 676, 677, 731, 739, 745, 813, 

995, 1032, 1271, 1273, 1347, 1351, 

1505. 
Baffnet v. Gough (36 Cal. 104 

[1868]), 1039. 
Bagg v. City of Detroit (5 Mich. 

336 [1858]), 306, 390, 397, 431, 

1442. 
Bailey v. ]\Iayor, etc., of City of New 

York (3 Hill (N. Y.) 531, 38 Am. 

Dec. 669 [1842]), 251. 
Bailey v. People of the State of Illi- 
nois (158 111. 52, 41 X. E. 784 

[1895]), 1086. 
Bailey v. Pinker (146 Ind. 129, 45 

N. E. 38), 1444. 
Bailey v. City of Zanesville (20 Ohio 

C. "C. 236 '[1900]), 106, 609, 683, 

700, 776, 956, 964. 
Baily v. City of Sioux City (133 

Iowa 276, ilO X. W. 839 [1907]), 

686. 
Baird v. Monroe (150 Cal. 560, 89 

Pac. 352 [1907]), 1174. 
Baisch v. City of Grand Rapids (84 

Mich. 666, 48 X. W. 176 [1891]), 

275, 494, 823, 1015. 
Baker v. Arctic Ditchers (54 Ind. 

310 [1876]), 1227, 1252. 
Baker v. French (18 Ohio C. C. 420 
[1899]), 473, 1049, 1080, 1084, 

1109. 
Baker v. Gartside (86 Pa. St. (5 

Xorris) 498), 347, 565, 620. 
Baker v. Meacham (18 Wash. 319, 

51 Pac. 404 [1897]), 1085, 1095. 



Baker v. Village of Xorwood (74 

Fed. 997 [1896]), 11, 112, 118, 

119, 308, 426, 430, 702. 
Baker v. Schott (10 Ohio C. C. 81 

[1894]), 561, 625, 685, 704, 783, 

1012, 1013. 
Baker v. City of Seattle {2 Wash. 

576, 27 Pac. 462 [1891]), 1504, 

1519. 
Baker v. Selvage ( 7 Ky. L. P. 838 ) , 

628, 710. 
Baker v. Tobin (40 Ind. 310 [1872]), 

783. 843. 
Baker v. City of Utica ( 19 X. Y. 326 

[1859]), i520. 
Bakman, Pros. v. Hackensack Im- 
provement Commission (70, X. J. 

L. (41 Vr.) 499, 57 Atl. 141 

[1904]), 271, 950. 
Baldwin v. City of Buffalo (29 Barb. 

(X. Y.) 396 [1859]), 1425, 1427. 
Baldwin v. City of Elizabeth (42 X. 

J. Eq. (15 Stew.) 11, 6' Atl. 275 

[1886]), 968, 1428. 
Baldwin v. City of Xewark (38 N^. .} 

L. (9 Vr.) 158 [1875]), 70, 73, 

166, 167, 1113. 
Baldwin v. City of Oswego (2 Keyes 

(X. Y. Ct. App.) 132 [1865]), 47, 

679, 1509. 
Balfe V. Bell (40 Ind. 337 [1872]), 

559, 644, 723. 
Balfe V. Johnson (40 Ind. 235 

[1872]), 631, 895. 
Balfe V. Lammers (109 Ind. 347, 10 

X. E. 92 [1886]), 526, 650, 818, 

843, 886, 927, 986, 996, 1015, 1017, 

1020, 1030, 1414, 1432. 
Ball V. Balfe (41 Ind. 221 [1872];, 

301, 649. 
Ball V. City of Yonkers (78 JTun. 

196, 28 X. Y. S. 947 [1894]), 751. 
Ballard v. City of Appleton (26 Wis. 

67 [1870]), 503, 1026, 1437. 
Ballard v. Hunter (204 U. S. 241, 

51 L. 461, 27 S. 261 [1907]), 121, 

747, 760, 773, 887, 1182, 1370. 
Ballard v. Hunter (74 Ark. 174, 85 

S. W. 252 [1905]), 119, 121, 747, 

760, 773, 887. 
Ballard, City of v. Ross (38 Wash. 

209, 80 Pac. 439 [1905]), 1069. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[K'.'fd'ci ees are to sections.] 



Ballard, City of v. Way (34 Wash. 
116, 101 Am. St. Rep.'nOS, 74 Pao. 
1067 [1904]), 1194. 

Ballard, City of v. West Coast Im- 
provement Co. (15 Wash. 572, 46 
Pac. 1055), 244, 246, 1002, 1164. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Boyd (64 Md. 10, 20 Atl. 
1028 [1885]), 786, 788. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Clunet (23 Md. 449 [1865]), 
219, 244, 867, 1354. 

Baltimore, ^layor and City Council 
of V. Eschbach (18 Md. 276 
[1861]), 781, 789, 1499. 

Baltimore, The Mayor of v. The 
Grand Lodge of INIaryland of the 
Independent Order of Odd Fellows 
(44 Md. 436 [1875]), 735, 754, 
770, 848, 1030, 1427, 1431. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Proprietors Green Mount 
Cemetery (7 Md. 517 [1855]), 110. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
<;f V. Hook "(62 Md. 371 [1884]), 
393, 396. 

Baltimore, Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of V. *Horn (26 Md. 194 
[1866]), 414, 965, 983. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Hughes' Adm'r. (1 Gill. & 
J. (Md.) 480, 19 Am. Dec. 243 
[1829]), 11, 18, 86. 314, 437, 553, 
652, 657, 670, 677, 1333. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Johns Hopkins Hospital (56 
Md. 1 [1880]), 8, 86, 89, 100, 244, 
245, 274, 292, 381, 553, 555, 626, 
663, 666, 675, 077. 698, 699, 726, 
13.33. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Johnson (62 Md. 225 [1884]), 
496, 500, 1420, 1432. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Little Sisters of tlie Poor (56 
Md. 400 [1881]), 308, 739, 747, 
754, 763, 844. 

Baltimore, ]\Iayor and City Council 
of V. Moore & Johnson ( 6 Harris 
& Johnson 375 (Md.) [1825]), 11, 
89, 223, 234, 314, 437, 553, 657. 

Baltimore, IMayor and City Council 
of V. Porter (18 :\Id. 284. 79 Am. 



Dec. 686 [1861]), 234, 426, 433, 
1420, 1431. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Raymo"^ (68 Md. 569, 13 Atl. 
383 [1888]), 437, 511, 527, 532, 
538. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Smith & Schwartz Brick Com- 
pany (80 Md. 458, 31 Atl. 423 
[1894]), 651, 653, 657, 1277, 1303, 
1313, 1318, 1350. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Stewart (92 Md. 535. 48 Atl. 
165 [1901]), 666, 698, 699, 709. 

Baltimore, Mayor and City Council 
of V. Ulman (79 Md. 469, 30 Atl. 
43 [1894]), 118, 119, 134, 244, 
414, 626, 641, 647, 648, 666, 690, 
767, 959, 962, 967, 1122. 

Baltimore County, County Commis- 
sioners of V. Board of Managers 
of the ^Maryland Hospital for the 
Insane (02 Md. 127 [1884]), 580, 
581, 612. 

Baltimore & Oliio Railroad Co. v. 
City of Bellaire (60 O. S. 301, 54 
N. E. 263 [1899]), 264, 629, 1156, 
1367. 

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. 
Daegling (30 Ind. App. 180, 65 
K E. 761 [1902]), 1244, 1386. 

Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitts- 
burgh, Wheeling & Kentucky R. R. 
Co. (17 W. Va. 812 [1881]), 119, 
135, 732. 

Baltimore & 0. and C. Ry. Co. v. Ke- 
tring ( 122 Ind. 5, 23 N. E. 527 ) , 202. 

Baltimore & 0. & C. R. R. Co. v. North 
(103 Ind. 486, 3 X. E. 144), 1444. 

Bambrick v. Campbell (37 Mo. App. 
400 [1889]), 504, 817, 875. 1216, 
1324. 

Banaz v. Smitli ( 133 Cal. 102. 65 
Pac. 309 [1901]), 16, 82, 207, 553, 
600, 824, 830, 831, 8.32, 867. 1215. 

Bancroft v. City of Boston (115 ^lass. 
377 [1874]), 76, 308, 309, 657, 719. 

Bank of Montreal v. Fox (6 Practice 
Rep. (Ont.) 217 [1875]). 1072. 

Bank of Commonwealtli v. Mayor, 
etc.. of the City of New York (43 
N. Y. 184 [1870]), 1486. 



Hi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Bank of Columbia v. Portland ( 41 

Or. 1, 67 Pac. 1112 [1902]), 750, 

763, 830, 833, 836, 918. 
Bank v. City of Spokane ( 17 Wash. 

315, 38 L."^R. A. 259, 47 Pac. 1103, 

49 Pac. 542 [1897]), 1468. 
Bank of Woodland v. Webber (52 

Cal. 73 [1877]), 1478. 
Bank v. . (See full 

name of bank.) 
r.annister v. Crassy Fork Ditcliiig 

Association (52 Ind. 178 [1875]), 

279, 340, 760, 768, 825, 900. 1229, 

1254, 1303. 
Banta, In re (60 N. Y. 165 [1875]), 

342, 781, 784. 
Barber v. City of Chicago (152 111. 

37, 38 N. 'e. 253 [1894]), 32 1, 

631, 651, 723, 864, 867, 884, 895, 

902, 922, 1283. 
Barber v. Board of Sup?rvisors of 

the City and Couuty of Sail I'ran- 

cisco (42 Cal. 631 [1872] >, 53, 521, 

617, 641, 917, 1354, 1356. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City 

of Denver (72 Fed. Rep. 336, 19 

C. C. A. 139, 36 U. S. App. 499 

[1896]), 1498, 1509. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Edgerton, 125 Ind. 455, 25 N. E. 

436 [1890]), 142, 293, 245, 437, 

673, 729, 731, 777, 832, 981, 1005,- 

1347. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Field 

(188 Mo. 182, 86 S. W. 860 

[1905]), 485, 515, 521. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Field (— Mo. App. , 111 S. 

W. 907 [1908]), 245. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

French, 158 Mo. 534, 58 S. W." 934 

[1901]), 86, 118, 123, 244, 245, 

293, 301, 314, 437, 517, 518, 553, 

666, 670, 702, 728, 746, 1040, 1049, 

1149. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Gaar (115 Ky. 334. 73 S. W. 1106, 

24 Ky. L. Rep. 2227 [1903]). 301, 

437, 610, 675, 723,1015, 1330. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Gogreve (41 La. Ann. 251, 5 So. 

848 [1889]), 100, 110, 1.55, 212, 



314, 475, 513, 515, 537, 663, 779, 

789, 791. 
Barber Asplialt Paving Company v. 

City of Harrisburg (64 Fed. 283, 

12 C. C. A. 100, 28 U. S. App. 

108 [1894]), 1498, 1508. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Companj' v. 

City of Harrisburg (62 Fed. 565 

[1894]), 1498. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Hezel (155 Mo. 391, 48 L. R. A. 

285, 56 S. W. 449 [1899]), 517, 

518. 
Barber Asplialt Paving Company v. 

Hezel (76 -Mo. App. 135 [1898]), 

517, 518. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Hunt (100 Mo. 22, 18 Am." St. 

Rep. 530, 8 L. R. A. 110, 13 S. 

W. 98 [1890]), 515. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Kiene (99 Mo. App. 528, 74 S. W. 

872 [1903]), 625, 998. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Muchenberger ( 105 Mo. App. 47, 

78 S. W. 280 [1903]), 380, 381, 

461, 463, 763, 848. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Munn ( 185 Mo. 552, 83 S. W. 1062 

[1904]), 118, 141, 538, 620, 714, 

916, 1337. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Peck ( 186 Mo. 506, 85 S. W." 387 

[1905]), 475, 890, 1109, 1225. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Ridge (169 Mo. 376, 68 S. W. 1043 

[1902]), 141, 538, 916, 1337, 1369. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

City of St. Joseph (183 Mo. 451, 

82 "S. W. 64 [1904]), 42, 50, 209, 

210, 314, 475, 584, 613, 614, 663, 

1075, 1107. 1498. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Ullman ( 137 Mo. 543, 38 S."^ W. 

458 [1896]), 437, 529, 864. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. 

Watt (51 La. Ann. 1345, 26* So. 

70 [1899]), 223, 234, 314, 517. 

519, 624, 629, 666, 707, 709, 710, 

777, 800, 1047, 1049, 1144. 
Barclay, In the INIatter of the Peti- 
tion of to Vacate an Assessment 

(91 N. Y. 430 [1883]), 320, 434. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



liii 



[References are to sections.] 



Barfield v. Gleason (111 Ky. 491, 
23 Ky. Law R. 128, 63 S. W. 964 
[1901]), 86, 113, 118, 123, 125, 
274, 293, 298, 394, 462, 494, 519, 
540, 553, 666, 668, 728, 1061, 1128, 
1234, 1281, 1346. 

Barker v. City of Omaha ( 16 Neb. 
269, 20 N. W. 382 [1884]), 726, 
1435, 1436. 

Barker v. Southern Construction Co. 

— Ky. , 47 S. W. 608, 20 Ky. 

L. R. 796), 1039. 

Barker v. State (18 Ohio 514 
[1849]), 548. 

Barker v. Commissioners of Wyan- 
dotte County (45 Kan. 681," 26 
Pac. 585 [1891]), 107, 393, 399, 
455, 1431. 

Barkley v. Levee Commissioners (93 
U. S. 258, 23 L. 893 [1876]), 1518. 

Barkley v. Oregon City (24 Ore. 515, 
33 Pac. 978 [1893]), 511, 740, 760, 
7C6, 781, 791. 

Barlow v. City of Tacoma ( 12 Wash. 
32, 40 Pac. 382 [1895]), 771, 918, 
1010, 1029. 

Barnert v. Board of Aldermen of the 
City of Paterson (69 N. J. L. (40 
Vr.') 122, 54 Atl. 227 [1903]), 393, 
396, 1469. 

Barnes v. City of Beloit (19 Wis. 
93 [1S65]), 971, 1442. 

Barnes v. Drainage Commissioners of 
Drainage District No. 7, etc. (221 
111. 627, 77 N. E. 1124 [1906]), 
84, 340, 1002, 1008, 1405, 1406. 

Barnes v. Dyer (56 Vt. 469 [1884]), 
11, 666, 696. 

Barnes v. City of Parsons ( — Kan. 

, 94 Pac. 151 [1908]), 862, 

1431, 1432. 

Barnett's Case (28 Pa. Super. Ct. 

. 361 [1905]), 428. 

Barnet v. Board of St. Louis Pub- 
lic Schools (01 Mo. App. 539 
[1895]), 896. 

Barney, Matter of (53 Hun. (N. Y.) 
480, 6 N. Y. Sup. 401), 1460. 

Barney v. City of Dayton ( 8 Ohio 
C. C. 480 [1894]), 561, 620, 625, 
626, 704. 

Barre Water Co., In re (72 Vt. 413, 
48 Atl. 653), 417. 



Barron v. Iviebs (41 Kan. 338, 21 

Pac. 235 [1885]), 838. 
Barron v. City of Lexington ( — Ky. 

, 105 S. W. 395 [1907]), 301, 

635, 1072, 1141, 1203. 
Barrow v. Helpler (34 La. Ann. 362 

[1882]), 9, 39, 47, 95, 212, 266, 

322, 374, 420, 717. 
Bartlett v. Adams (43 Ind. 447 

[1873]), 363. 
Bartlett v. City of Boston (182 

Mass. 460, 65 "n. E. 827 [1902]), 

1488. 
Bartnett's Executor v Board of. Pub- 
lic Schools (60 Mo. App. 539 

[1894]), 896, 1054. 
Barton v. Kansas City (110 Mo. App. 

31, 83 S. W. 1093 [1904]), 234, 

324, 331, 446, 448, 510. 
Bartram v. City of Bridgeport (55 

Conn. 122, 10 Atl. 470 [1887]), 

02, 245, 275. 
Bass V. City of Chicago (195 111. 

109, 62 N. E. 913 [1902]), 739, 

813, 817, 978. 
Bass V. People ex rel. Raymond (203 

111. 206, 67 N. E. 806 [1903]), 

308, 391, 394, 746, 771, 825, 920, 

927, 939, 986, 996, 1029,, 1183, 

1340. 
Bass V. South Park Commissioners 

171 111. 370, 49 X. E. 549 [1898]), 

51, 391, 396, 405, 020, 623, 670, 

715, 923, 1279. 
Bassett v. City of New Haven (76 

Conn. 70, 55 Atl. 579 [1903]). 62, 

245, 275, 324, 327, 446, 663, 665, 

666, 670, 677, 093, 699, 722, 867. 
Bassford, In the Matter of (63 Barb. 

161 [1872]), 740, 741, 763, 836, 

1406. 
Batchelor v. Borough of Avon-by-the- 

Sea (— N. J. L. , 68 Atl. 124 

[1907]), 280, 964. 
Bate V. Sheets (64 Ind. 209 [1878]), 

166, 170, 335, 337, 340, 549, 1217, 

1235. 
Bate V. Sheets (50 Ind. 329 [1875]), 

1239, 1309. 
Bates V. District of Columbia ( 7 

Mackey (D. C.) 76 [1889]), 1002, 

1012, 1056, 1442. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Bates V. People's Savings and Loan 

Association (42 0. S. 655 [1885]), 

1057. 
Bates V. Twist {138 Cal. 52, 70 Pac. 

1023 [1902]), 318, 440, 511, 523, 

568, 574, 754, 759, 831, 840. 
Batterman v. City of New York (65 

App. Div. (N. Y.) 576, 73 X. Y. 

Supp. 44 [1901]), 347, 376. 
Batty V. City of Hastings (63 Neb. 

26^ 88 N.'W. 139 [1901]), 985, 

1012, 1016, 1072, 'll95, 1442. 
Bauman v. Ross (167 U. S. 548, 42 

L. 270, 17 S. 966 [1897]), 11, 67, 

70, 86, 119, 140, 243, 244, 308, 419, 

425, 553, 556, 557, 663, 672, 709, 

1066. ■ 
Bauman v. Ross (9 App. D. C. 260 

[1896]), 67, 70, 86, 119, 244, 308, 

419, 425, 553, 556, 557, 663, 672, 

709, 1066., 
Bay Rock Company v. Bell (133 Cal. 

150, 65 Pac. 299 [1901]), 510, 831, 

857, 858. 
Bayha v. Taylor (36 INIo. App. 427 

[1889]), 401, 447, 1425, 1427. 
Baylis v. Jiggens (2 Q. B. 315 

[1898]), 1054. 
Bayonne, ]\layor and Council of the 

City of V.' Morris (61 X. J. L. 

(32 Vr.) 127, 38 Atl. 819 [1897]), 

380, 381, 563. 572, 722, 967, 1486. 
Bays V. Lapidge (52 Cal. 481 

[1877]), 1215. 
Beach v. City of Chicago (193 111. 

369, 61 N.* E. 1015 [1901]), 864. 
Beach v. City of Meriden (46 Conn. 

502 [1878]), 1354. 
Beach v. IVIayor and Aldermen of 

Jersey City' (71 N. .J. L. (42 Vr.) 

87, 51 Atl. 81 [1904]), 729, 731, 

744, 745, 913. 
Beach v. People ex rel. Kern (157 

111. 659, 41 N. E. 1117 [1895]), 

572, 636, 856, 925. 
Bealu Street, In the Matter of the 

proceedings to change the grade of 

in the City and County of San 

Francisco (39 Cal. 495* [1870]), 

63, 266, 425. 556, 862, 1338. 
Beals V. Inhabitants of Brookline 
(174 Mass. 1, 54 N. E. 339 [1899]), 



326, 340, 449, 564, 654, 920, 923. 
1002, 1277, 1281, 1347, 1365. 

Beals V. James (173 Mass. 591, 54 
N. E. 245 [1899]), 326, 340, 549. 
558, 564, 643, 659, 748, 751, 764. 
766, 1292, 1406. 

Beals V. Providence Rubber Com- 
pany (11 R. I. 381, 23 Am. Eep. 
472' [1876]), 49, 613, 1054. 

Beams, In the Matter of ( 17 How- 
ard Pr. (N. Y.) 459 [1859]), 167, 
170, 844, 1458. 

Beard v. City of Brooklyn (31 Barb. 
142 [I860]), 1508. 

Beaser v. City of Ashland (89 Wis. 
28, 61 N. 'W. 77 [1894]), 1415. 
1426, 1427. 

Beaser v. Barber Asphalt Paving 
Company (120 Wis. 599, 98 N. W. 
525 [1904]), 494, 507, 1431, 1436. 

Beatrice, City of v. Brethren Church 
of Beatrice (41 Neb. 358, 59 N. 
W. 932 [1894]), 42, 588, 613, 614. 

Beaudry v. Valdez (32 Cal. 269 
[1867]). 439, 441, 510, 831, 835, 
869, 1039, 1049, 1086, 1129. 

Beaumont v. Wilkes-Barre City ( 142 
Pa. St. 198, 21 Atl. 888 [1891]), 
147, 173, 370, 570, 666, 698, 709, 
738, 739, 747, 1029, 1450. 

Becher v. City of Columbus, Ohio 
(4 Ohio C.*C. 305 [1890]). 821. 
823, 977. 

Beck V. Holland (29 IMont. 234, 74 
Pac. 410 [1903]), 396, 554, 555, 
639. 693, 700, 723, 904, 1279, 1287, 
1444. 

Beck V. Obst (75 Ky. (12 Bush.) 
268 [1876]), 574, 617, 641, 646, 
666, 709, 710, 722. 

Beck V. Tolen (62 Ind. 469 [1878]), 
340. 884, 899, 907, 1041, 1268, 
1299. 

Ik-cker v. Baltimore & Ohio South- 
western Railway Company (17 
Ind. App. 324, 46 N. E. Rep. 685 
[1897]), 11, 549, 631, 886, 895, 
909, 1052, 1059. 

Becker v. City of Chicago (208 111. 
126, 69 N. *E. 748 [1904]), 820. 

Becker v. City of Henderson ( 100 
Ky. 450, 38 S. W. 857 [1897]), 
1216. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Iv 



[References are to sections.] 



Beckert v. City of Allegheny (85 
Pa. St. (4 Norris) 101 [1877]), 
80, 196, 1015. 

P.eckett V. City of Chicago (218 111. 
97, 75 N. E. 747 [1905]), 804, 
1308, 1390. 

IJeckett V. Morse (4 Cal. App. 228, 
b7 Pac. 408 [1906]). 501, 624, 
650, 1085, 1358. 
Heckman's Petition ( 19 Abb. Prac. 
244 [1865]). 525, 1452. 

l^edard v. Hall (44 111. 91 [1867]), 
43, 44, 101, 113. 153, 226, 690, 701. 

Bedford Commercial Insurance Com- 
pany V. Parker (2 Pick. 1, 13 
Am. Dec. 388 [1823]), 2. 
Bedford Union v. Commissioners of 

Bedford (7 Exch. 777). 614. 
Beebe v. Magoun (122 la. 94, 101 
Am. St. Rep. 259, 97 N. W. 
986 [1904]), 119, 122, 135. 136. 
137, 726, 729. 

Beecher v. City of Detroit (92 ilich. 
268, 52 N. W. 731 [1892]), 308, 
548, 555, 690, 691, 695, 1049. 

Beechwood Avenue Sewer ( 1 ) Pitts- 
burg'-s Appeal (1), (179 Pa. St. 
490, 36 Atl. 209 [1897), 549, 554, 
563, 020, 651, 658, 1333. 

Beechwood Avenue, //) re, Appeal of 
O'Mara (194 Pa. St. 86, 45 Atl. 
127 [1899]), 236, 237, 301, 307, 
356, 416, 443, 561, 603. 719, 795, 
800, 873, 1089, 1358. 

Beechwood Avenue Sewer, ( 2 ) Pitts- 
burg's Appeal, (2) (179 Pa. St. 
494, 36 Atl. 210 [1897]), 610. 
1347. 

Beeckman's Petition ( 19 Abb. Pr. 244 
[1865]), 279. 

Beekman's Case (11 Abb. Pr. (N. 
Y.) 164 [I860]), 206, 844. 

Beekman, In the ISIatter of (31 How- 
ard 16 [1865]), 279, 525, 526, 876, 
879, 901. 

Beekman, In the matter of (19 How- 
ard (N. Y.) 518 [1800]), 170, 206, 
844, 1451, 1459. 

Beekman, In the flatter of ( 18 How- 
ard (N. Y'.) 460 [1859]), 484, 
485, 534, 982. 1454. 

Beekman's Petition ( 1 Abb. Pr. 449 
[1865]), 279, 485, 525. 



Beers v. Dalles City (16 Or. 334, 18 

Pac. 835 [1888]"), 244, 293, 236, 

324, 662, 775. 
Beggs v. Paine (15 X. D. 436, 109 

X. W. 322 [1906]), 36. 
Bell V. Balfe (41 Ind. 221 [1872]), 

909. 
Bell V. Johnson (207 :\I(). 281, 105 

S. W. 1039 [1907]), 1239. 
Bell V. City of Newton (783 Mass. 

481, 67 X. E. 599 [1903]), 74, 305. 
Bell V. City of Norwood (28 Ohio 

C. C. 809 [1906]), 1168. 
Bell V. City of Yonkers (78 Hun 

196, 28 N. Y. S. 947 [1894]), 639, 

723, 745, 748, 874, 1373. 
Belleville. City of v. Perrin (225 111. 

437, 80 X. E. 270 [1907]), 295, 

917, 918. 
Bellevue Improvement Co. v. Village 

of Bellevue (39 Xeb. 876, 58 X\ W. 

446 [1894]), 223, 525. 
Bellevue, Town of v. Peacock (89 Ky. 

495, 25 Am. St. Rep. 552, 12 S. 

W. 1042 [1890]), 981. 
Bellingham Bay & British Columbia 

Railroad v. Xew Whatcom ( 172 U. 

S. 314, 43 L. 460, 19 S. 205 

[1899]), 119, 121, 122, 570, 747, 

760, 959. 
Bellingham Bay Improvement Co. v. 

City of Xew \Yhatcom (20 Wash. 

53,^54 Pac. 774 [1898]), 207, 927, 

1347. 
Bellows V. Weeks (41 Vt. 590 

[1868]), 117, 407, 408. 
Belleview, Ti iistees of v. Holm ( 82 

Ky. 1 [1884] ), 1499. 
Belmont, In the Matter of (12 Hun. 

(X 'Y.) 558 [1878]), 432, 437, 

770, 982. 
Belser v. Allman (134 Cal. 399, 66 

Pac. 492 [1901]), 301, 504, 742, 

749_, 1281, 1373. 
Belser v. Holl'schneider (104 Cal. 

455, 38 Pac. 312 [1894]), 915, 

1354, 1366. 
Beltzhoover Borough v. Heirs of 

Beltzhoover (173 Pa. St. 213, 33 

Atl. 1047 [1896]), 42. 592, 613. 

1063. 
Beltzhoover, Borough of v. Maple 

(130 Pa. St. 335, 18 Atl. 650 



Ivi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



[1889]), 323, 521, 608, 660, 698, 

709, 895, 1109. 
Benliam v. City of Cincinnati ( 26 

Ohio C. C. 17 [1904]), 1430. 
Beniteau v. City of Detroit (41 Mich. 

lie, 1 N. W. 899 [1879]), 314, 

440, 468, 471, 498. 501, 555, 663. 
Bennett's Case (12 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 

127 [1861]), 495, 844, 982, 1460. 
Bennett v. City of Butlalo (17 N. 

Y. 383 [1858]), 361, 729. 
Bennett v. City of Emmetsburg ( — 

la. , 115 N. W. 582 [1908]), 

409, 496, 510, 551, 563, 735, 857, 

1431. 
Bennett v. Hall (184 Mo. 407, 83 

S. W. 439 [1904]), 70. 
Bennett v. City of Marion [106 la. 

628, 76 N. W. 844 [1898]), 70.' 
Bennett v. New Bedford (110 Mass. 

433 [1870]), 855. 
Bennett v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of New York (3 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 485 [1848]), 1150, 1154, 1200, 

1206, 1293. 
Bennett v. Seibert ( 10 Ind. App. 369, 

35 N. E. 35, 37 N. E. 1071 [1894]), 

584, 663, 1075, 1215. 
Bennison y. City of Galveston ( 18 

Tex. Civ. App. 20, 44 S. W. 013 

[1898]), 301, 867, 873, 1041, 1060. 
Bensinger v. District of Columbia ( 6 

Mack. (D. C.) 285 [1888]), 119, 

347, 735, 883, 886, 902, 1278. 
Benson v. Bunting (141 Cal. 462, 

75 Pac. 59 [1903]), 549, 554. 
Bentley v. Toledo (7 Ohio N. P. 388 

[1900]), 625, 704. 
Benton v. Inhabitants of Brookliiie 

(151 Mass. 250, 23 X. 'E. 846 

[1890]), 64, 65, 67, 76, 308. 
Benton v. Hamilton (110 Ind. 294, 

11 N. E. 238 [1886]), 480. 
Benton Harbor, City of v. St. Joseph 

and Benton Harbor Street Railway 

Co. (102 Mich. 386, 26 L. R. A. 

245, 60 N. W. 758 [1894]), 60, 

599, 605, 1162, 1471. 
Benton Street, Opening of ( 9 La. 

Ann. 446 [1854]), 33, 113, 155, 

622, 674, 690. 
Berdel v. City of Chicago (217 111. 

429, 75 N. E. 386 [1905]), 309, 



358, 665, 666, 672, 675, 677, 709, 

1368. 
Bergen v. Anderson ( 62 Minn. 232. 

64 N. W. 561 [1895]), 746, 747, 

1200. 
Bergen, Town of, in County of Hvid- 

son V. State, Van Home, Pros. (32 

N. J. L. (3 Vr.) 490 [1865]), 720, 

973, 1410. 
Bergen County Savings Bank v. 

Township of Union (44 N. J. L. 

(15 Vr.) 599 [1882]), 229. 
Berger v. Multnomah County (45 Or. 

402, 78 Pac. 224 [1904]), 1053, 

1069, 1179, 1195, 1203. 
Bernheimer, In tlie Matter of (47 

Hun 567 [1888], 987, 1465. 
Bernstein v. Downs (112 Cal. 197, 

44 Pac. 557 [1896]), 17, 538, 1033, 

1216, 1324, 1345, 1381. 
Berry v. City of Cliicago (192 III. 

154, 61 N."^ E. 498 [1901]), 818. 

828, 1280. 
Berry v. City of Des Moines (115 

la. 44, 87 N. W. 747 [1901]), 604. 

1348, 1373, 1384. 
Berwind v. Galveston and Houston 

Investment Company (20 Tex. Civ. 

App. 426, 50 S. W. 413 [1899]), 

527, 535, 1218, 1331. 
Best V. Wohlford (144 Cal. 733, 78 

Pac. 293 [1904]), 355, 1202. 
Bettis V. Geddes (54 Mich. 60S; sub 

nomine Bettis v. Probate Judge 

(20 N. W. 608 [1884]), 744. 
Bettis V. Probate Judge. See Bettis 

v. Geddes. 
Betts V. City of Naperville (214 III. 

380, 73 N. E. 752 [1905]), 270. 

280, 347, 348, 469, 521, 526, 672, 

814, 1009, 1033, 1283, 1323. 
Betts V. City of Williamsburg i 15 

Barb. (N. Y.) 255 [1853]), 67, 

70, 113, 478, 811, 1415. 
Betz V. City of Canton (18 Ohio C. 

C. 676 [1893]), 561, 625, 704. 
Beveridge v. Lewis ( 137 Cal. 619, 

92 Am. St. Rep. 188, 59 L. R. A. 

581, 70 Pac. 1083 [1902]), 66. 
Beveridge v. Livingstone (54 Cal. 54 

[1879]), 174, 538. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ivii 



[References are to sections.] 



Bevier, City of v. Watson ( ] 13 ^^lo. 
App. 500, 87 8. W. G12 [lOOr,]), 
814, 1211. 

Beygeh v. City of Chicago (65 111. 
189 [1872]), 763, 764, 954, 1278, 
1281, 1299, 1304. 

Bibel V. The People for use of tlie 
City of Bloomingtnn (67 111. 172 
[1873]), 272, 279, 665, 666, 670. 

Bickerdike v. City of Chicago (203 
111. 636, 08 X". E. 161 [1903]), 
816, 820, 833. 

Bickerdike v. City of Cliicago ( 185 
111. 280, 56 N.' E. 1096 [1900]), 
143, 295, 297, 328, 401. 444, 563, 
609, 652, 675, 856, 895, 1347, 1367, 
1368. 

Bidwell V. Coleman (11 Minn. 78, 11 
Cil. 45 [1865]), 44, 158. 

Bidwell V. Huff (103 Fed. 362 
[1900]), 118, 314, 600, 677, 700 
728, 1057, 1432, 1444. 

Bidwell V. City of Pittsburg (85 Pa. 
St. (4 Norris) 412, 27 Am. Rep. 
662 [1877]), 610, 706, 1010, 1011, 
1014. 

Big Lake Special Drainage District, 
Commissioners of v. Commission- 
ers of Higliways of Sand Ridge 
(199 111. 132,' 64 X. E. 1094 
[1902]), 587, 1031, 1076, 1142, 
1224, 1271, 1273, 1333, 1359. 

Big Rapid.s, City of v. Board of Su- 
pervisors of Mecosta County i !' 
Mich. 351, 58 X. W. 358 [1894]). 
580, 582, 012. 

Bigelow V. City of Cliicago ( 90 111. 
49 [1878]), 153, 309, 553, 557, 574, 
576, 642, 070. 723, 920, 922, 1271, 
1273, 1313. 

Biggins' Estate v. People e>c rel. 
Tetherington (193 111. 601, 01 X. 
E. 1124 [1901]). 55, 803. 989, 
1131. 

Billings V. City of Chicago ( 107 111. 
337, 47 X. E. 731 [1897]), 259, 
526, 574, 604, 637, 638, 663, 672, 
675, 723, 912, 926, 1375. 

Bingaman v. City of Pittsburg (147 
Pa. St. 353, 23 Atl. 395 [1892]), 
18, 53, 737, 961, 969. 

Bingham, State for use of v. Turvey 
(99 Ind. 599 [1884]), 1251. 



Bingliampton, City of v. Binghamp- 

ton & Port Dickinson Railway 

Company (01 Hun 479, 10 X. Y. 

Supp. 225 [1891]), 003, 832. 
Bird ex rel. Hudson v. City of De- 
troit (— Mich. , 116 X. W. 

1065 [1908], 514. 
Birdseye v. Village of Clyde (01 

Ohio St. 27, 55 X. E. 109* [1899] ). 

679, 686, 1013, 1432. 
Birdseye v. Village of Clj'de ( 14 
•Ohio C. C. 510 [1897]), 679, 08i;, 

1013. 
Birket v. City of Peoria (185 111. 

3G9, 57 X'. E. 30 [1900]), 264, 271. 

070, 715, 748, 768, 875, 1056. 
Birmingliam, j\Iayor and Aldernuii 

of V. Klein (89 Ala. 401, 8 L. R. 

A. 369, 7 So. 380 [1889]), 11, 35. 

43, 111, 113, 150, 212, 323, 690, 

702. 
Bishop V. Peo]de of the State of Illi- 
nois (200 111. 33, 05 X. E. 421 

[1902]), 637, 038, 797. 
Bishop V. Tripp ( 15 R. I. 466, 8 Atl. 

692 [1887]), 8, 202, 324, 400, 419, 

610, 620, 631, 705, 706, 712, 1361. 
Bitzer v. O'Bryan (107 Ky. 590, 54 

S. W. 951 ' I 1900]), 1234, 1269, 

1281, 1309. 
Bi.Kby V. Goss (54 Mich.. 551, 20 X. 

w!^ 587 [1884]), 739, 748, 1396, 

1404. 
Bixler v. Board of Supervisors of the 

County of Sacramento (59 Cal. 

698, [1881]), 11, 35, 86, .340, 549, 

564, 909, 1394. 
Black V. Thomson (107 Ind. 162, 7 

X. E. 184), 1351. 
Blackie v. Hudson (117 :\Iass. 181 

[1875]), 309, 700, 1067, 1072. 
Blackwe.U E. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cxist 

(18 Okl. 516, 90 Pac. 889 [1907]), 

320. 
Blackwell v. Village of Coeur D'Alene 

(13 Idaho 357. 90 Pac. 353 

[1907]). 910, 1050, 1085, 1337. 
Blair v. City of Atchison (40 Kan. 

353, 19 Pac. 815 [1883]). 5.55, 570. 

028. 000, 709. 
Blair v. Luning (76 Cal. 134, 18 

Pac. 153 [1888]), 479, 542, 1337. 



Iviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Blake v. Baker (115 Mass. 188 

[1874]), 49, 1054. 
Blake v. City of Brooklyn (26 Barb. 

301 [1857]), 453, 1423, 1427. 
Blake v. People for use of Caldwell 

(109 111. 504 [1884]), 41, 80, 83, 

103, 104, 194, 198, 219, 247, 250, 

254, 271, 344, 375, 744, 745, 747, 

759, 781, 918, 927, 983, 987, 1000, 

1008, 1125, 1183. 
Blanchard v. City of Barre (77 Vt. 

420, 60 Atl. 970 [1905]), 223, 670, 

693, 1427, 1450. 
Blanchard v. Beideman (18 Cal. 261 

[1861]), 234, 374, 381, 464, 737, 

775, 777. 
Blanchard v. Ladd ( 135 Cal. 214, 

67 Pas. 131 [1901]), 301, 824, 

1305, 1379. 
Blanchett v. Municipality No. 2 ( 13 

La. 322 [1839]), 155, 236, 271, 

278, 308, 309, 657, 672, 675, 1283, 

1333. 
Blasingame v. City of Laurens ( — 

S. C. . 61 ' S. E. 96. 

[1908]), 488. 
Blatner v. Davis (32 Cal. 328 

[1867]), 887. 
Bleecker v. Ballou (3 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 263 [1829]), 1054. 
Blemel v. Shattuck (133 Ind. 498, 

33 N. E. 277 [1892]), 923, 951, 

1269. 
Bliss V. City of Chicago ( 156 111. 

584, 41 N. E. 160 [1895]), 636, 

925. 
Bliss V. Kraus (16 0. S. 54 [1864]). 

5, 19, 93, 97, 342, 453, 474, 481. 
Bloch V. C4odfrey (26 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

R. 781 [1904]), 711, 549, 643, 644 

896, 1015. 
Blochman v. Spreckles ( 135 Cal. 662, 

57 L. R. A. 213, 67 Pac. 1061), 

512, 1378. 
Blodgett, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (91 N. /. 117 [1883]), 

482. 
Bloomington, City of v. Blodgett (24 

111. App. 650 "[1886]), 819, 945, 

1411. 
Bloomington, City of v. Chicago & 

Alton Railroad Company ( 134 111. 

451, 26 N. E. 366 [1891]), 51, 293, 



295, 359, 420. 549, 920, 921, 937, 
1268. 

Bloomington, City of v. Latham ( 142 
111. 462, 18 L."r. a. 487, 32 N. E. 
506 [1892]), 8, 51, 70, 89, 111, 
308, 425, 426, 547, 651, 670, 715. 

Bloomington, City of v. Phelps ( 149 
Ind. 596, 49 N. E. 581 [1897]), 
495, 765, 1004, 1015, 1022, 1304. 

Bloomington, City of v. Pollock (141 
111. 346, 31 N. E. 146 [1893]), 71. 

Bloomington, City of v. Reeves ( 177 
111. 161, 52 N. E. 278 [1898]), 
•569, 781, 785, 790, 791, 795, 1347. 

Bloomington Cemetery Association v. 
People of the State (139 111. 16, 
28 N. E. 1076 [1893]), 592, 613, 
614, 636, 997, 1080, 1189, 1373. 

Blount V. City of Janesville (31 Wis. 
648 [1872]"), 8, 89, 380, 381, 438, 
440, 461, 463, 464, 475, 552, 576, 
641, 646, 663, 720, 781, 792, 795, 
950, 975, 977, 981, 983, 1083, 1183, 
1361. 

Blount V. People ex rel. Raymond 
(188 111. 538, 59 N. e". 241 
[1901]), 857, 866, 927, 986, 1340. 

Blue V. Wentz (54 O. S. 247, 43 N. 
E. 493 [1896]), 564. 

Blue Island, Village of v. Eames 
(155 111. 398, 40 N. E. 615), 351. 

Bluffton, City of v. Miller (33 Ind. 
App. 521, 70 N. E. 989 [1904]), 
223, 2.34. 

Board of Commissioners v. Gardiner 
Savings Institution (110 Fed. 36), 
1370. 

Board of Commissioners v. Vurpillot 
(22 Ind. App. 422, 53 N. E. 1049), 

nil. 

Board of Commissioners of 

County v. . (See name 

of County. ) 

Board of Directors v. Houston (71 
111. 318 [1874]), 259, 344. 

Board of Education v. Kanawha & 
M. R. Co. (44 W. Va. 71, 29 S. 
E. 503 [1897]), 70. 

Board of Education v. City of To- 
ledo (48 O. S. 87, 26 N. E. 404 
[1891]). 586. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



lix 



[References are to sections.] 



Board of Education of City of Clii- 
cago V. People ex rel. Commission- 
ers of Lincoln Park (219 111. 83, 
7G N. E. 75 [1905]), 58G, 612, 
613, 927, 986. 

Board of Health v. Gloria Dei (23 
Pa. St. (11 Harr.) 259 [1854]), 
546, 649, 888, 1157, 1158, 1333. 

Board of Improvement District. ( See 
Improvement District.) 

Board of Levee Commissioners v. Lo- 
rio Bros. (33 La. Ann. 276 
[1881]), 39, 46, 218. 

Board of Public Works of City of 

Niles V. Pinch ( — Mich. , 

116 N. W. 408 [1908]), 6, 353, 
1045, 1142. 

Board of Street Opening, In the Mat- 
ter of (74 Hun 561, 26 N. Y. 
Supp. 855 [1893]), 427, 468, 628. 

Board of Street Opening, In the Mat- 
ter of the (64 Hun 59, 18 N. Y. 
Supp. 727 [1892]) 427, 628. 

Boas V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of Xew York 
(85 Hun (X. Y.) 311, 32 N. Y. S. 
967 [1895]), 1488. 

Boatman v. Macy (82 Ind. 490 
[1882]), 1241. 

Bobb V. Wolff (54 Mo. App. 515 
[1893]), 1055. 

Bockoven v. Board of Supervisors of 
Lincoln Township, Clark County 
(13 S. Dak. 317, 83 N. W. 335 
1900]), 1328. 

Bode V. City of Cincinnati (9 Ohio 
C. C. 382 [1895]), 835, 977. 

Bodley v. Finley (111 Ky. 618, 64 
S. "w. 439, 23 Ky. L." Rep. 851 
[1901]), 73, 396, 1346. 

Bodman v. Lake Fork Special Drain- 
age District (132 111. 439, 24 N. 
E. 630 [1891]), 558. 564, 1008, 
1417, 1432, 1477. 

Boeres v. Stradev ( 1 Cin. Sup. Ct. 
Rep. 57 [1870]), 578. 

Boers v. Barrett (2 Cin. Sup. Ct. 
Rep. 67 [1870]), 1054. 

Boehm v. Mayor of Baltimore (61 
Md. 259), 372. 

Boehme v. City of :Monroe (106 
Mich. 401, 64 N. W. 204 [1895]), 



550, 551, 555, 595, 620, 655, 663, 
723, 874, 1442. 

Bogart v. City of Passaic (38 N. J. 
L. (9 Vr.) 57 [1875]), 1409. 

Bogert V. City of Elizabeth (27 N. 
J. Eq. (12 C. E. Green) 568 
[1876]), 11, 627, 665, 666, 667, 
696, 709, 1428. 

Bogert V. City of Elizabeth (25 N. 
J. Eq. (10 C. E. Green) 426 
[1874]), 627, 665, 666, 667, 696, 
709, 1428. 

Bohm, Matter of (4 Hun (N. Y.) 
558 [1875]), 1465. 

Bohm V. Metropolitan Elevated Rail- 
way Company (129 N. Y. 576, 14 
L. R. A. 344, 29 N. E. 802 [1892]). 
69. 

Boiling V. Stoloes (29 Va. (2 Leigh) 
178, 21 Am. Dec. 606 [1830]), 
1054. 

Bolton V. City of Cleveland (35 0. 
S. 319 [1880]). 740, 950, 1101, 
1444. 

Bolton v. Gilleran ( 105 Cal. 244, 45 
Am. St. Rep. 33, 38 Pac. 881 
[1894]), 273, 1425, 1426, 1427. 

Bond V. City of Kenosha (17 Wis. 
284 [1863]), 163, 360, 456. 

Bond V. INIayor and Common Coun- 
cil of Newark (19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. 
E. Green) 376 [1869]), 529. 

Bonfoy v. Goar (140 Ind. 292, 39 K. 
E. 56), 142. 

Bonnet v. City and County of San 
Francisco (65 Cal. 2,30, 3 Pac. 815 
[1884]), 301, 432, 461, 1500. 

Bonney v. Bridgewater (31 N. J. L. 
(2 Vr.) 133), 166, 167. 

Bonsall v. ]Mayor, Recorder and Trus 
tees of the Town of Lebanon (19 
Ohio, 418 [1850]), .53, 110, 147. 
323. 

Bookman v. Xew York Elevated Rail- 
road Company (137 X. Y. 302. 33 
X. E. 333 [1893]), 69. 

Boone v. Xevin ( — Ky. — ■ — , 15 Ky. 
L. Rep. 547, 23 S. W. 512 [1893]), 
628, 666, 709, 770. 

Boonville, City of, ex rel. Cosgrove v. 

Rogers ( — Mo. App. , 101 S. 

W. 1120 [1907]), 479. 



Ix 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Boonville, City of, ex rel. Cosgrove v. 

Stephens (— ]\Io. App. , 95 S. 

W. 314 [1906]), 510, 840. 
Boorman v. City of Santa Barbara 

(65 Cal. 313, 4 Pac. 31 [1884]), 

119, 726, 729, 790, 791. 
Booth V. Pittsburg ( 154 Pa. St. 482, 

25 Atl. 803 [1893]), 475, 1515. 
Bordages v. Higgins ( 1 Tex. Civ. App. 

43, 19 S. W. 446, 20 S. W. 184, 

726 [1892]), 986, 998, 1141, 1145. 
Borger v. Columbus (27 Ohio C. C. 

R. 812 [1905]), 653, 1013. 
Borgman v. City of Antigo (120 Wis. 

296, 97 N. W. 936 [1904]), 19], 

219, 370, 781. 
Borgman v. Spellmire (7 Ohio Dec. 

344), 1054. 
Boskowitz V. Thompson (144 Cal. 

724, 78 Pac. 290 [1904]). 271. 35.3, 

1225, 1261, 1430, 1445. 
Postman v". Macy, (82 Intl. 490 

[1882]), 886. 
Boston, Inhabitants of v. Brazer ( 1 1 

Mass. 447 [1814]), 17, 1033, 1043. 
Boston, City of v. Boston & Albany 

Railroad Company ( 170 Mass. 95, 

49 N. E. 95 [1898]), 11, 595. 613, 

620. 
Boston & A. Ry. Co. v. Hampden 

County Commissioners (116 ^lass. 

73), 359. 
Boston & L. Ry. v. Winchester !l56 

Mass. 217, 30 N. E. 1139), 359. 
Boston & Maine R. R. v. County of 

Middlesex (83 Mass, (1 All.) 324 

[1861]), 596. 
Boston, etc.. Railroad v. Folsom (46 

X. H. 64), 771. 
Boston Seamen's Friend Society v. 

Mayor of City of Boston (116 

Mass. 181, 17 Am. Rep. 153), 42, 

86, 308, 613, 614. 
Boston Water Power Co. v. City of 

Boston (194 Mass. 571, 80 N. F. 

598 [1907]), 74, 1519. 
Boswell V. City of Alarion i — Ind. 

, 79 N. "e. 1056 [1907]) 275, 

918, 1029. 
Bothwell V. Millikan (104 Ind. 162, 

2 N. E. 959, 3 N. E. 816 [1885]). 

1190. 



Boul V. The People ex lel. Baker 

(127 111. 240, 20 N. E. 1 [1890]), 

407, 692, 955. 
Boulat y. Municipality Nuniber One 

(5 Lt. Ann. 363 [1850]), 155. 
Bouldin v. ISIayor and City Council 

of Baltimore' (15 Md. 18 [1859]), 

780, 781, 789, 791, 1432. 
Boulton V. Blake (12 Ont. 532 

[1886]), 1054. 
Bountiful City v. Lee (27 Utah 183, 

75 Pac. 368 [1904]), 319, 717. 
Bouton V. City of Brooklyn ( 15 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 375 [1853]), 1424. 
Bow V. Smith (9 Mod. 94 [Easter, 

10 Geo. 1]), 26, 564, 887. 
Bowditch V. City of New Haven (40 

Conn. 503 [1873]), 604, 621, 644, 

723, 1330, 1356. 
Bowditch V. Superintendent of Streets 

of Boston (168 :Nrass. 239, 46 N. E. 

1046 [1897]), 490, 496, 509, 840. 
Bowen v. Atlantic & French Broad 

Valley R. R. Co. (17 S. C. 574, • 

14 Am. & Eng. R. Cases 332 

[1882]), 69. 
Bowen v. City of Chicago (61 111. 268 

[1871]), 954. 
Bowen v. Hester (143 Ind. 511, 41 

N. E. 330 [1895]), 322, 556, 629, 

642, 674, 1026, 1306, 1358. 
Bowersox v. Watson (20 0. S. 496 

[1870]), 142, 1347. 
Bowery, In the Matter of the Exten- 
sion of the (12 Howard (N. Y.) 

224 [1856]), 911, 1347, 1373. 
Bowery National Bank v. Maj'or, etc., 

of the City of New York (8 Hun 

(N. Y.) 224 [1876]), 1382, 1508. 
Bowler v. Biddinger Free Turnpike 

Co., 6 W. L. B. (Ohio) 404 [1881]), 

549, 553, 666. 
Bowles V. State of Ohio ( 37 0. S. 35 

[1881]), 38, 82, 248, 697. 
Bowlin V. Cochrane (161 Ind. 486. 

69 N. E. 153), 322. 
Bowling Green, Town of v. Hobson 

(42 Ky. (3 B. Mon.) 478 [1843]), 

574. 
Bowman v. Colfax (17 \^'ash. 344, 

49 Pac. 551 [lS!t7]). 1165. 116S. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixi 



[References are to sections.] 



Bowman v. The People ex rel. Baker, 

Collector (137 111. 436, 27 iV. E. 

598 [1892]), 74(5, 750, 1101. 1102. 

1126, 1178, 1184, 1283. 
Bowns V. May ( 120 X. Y. 357, 24 X. 

E. 947 [1890]), 968, 1006, 1007, 

1484. 
Boyce v. Tuliey ( 163 Iivl. .^02, 70 

N, E. 531 [i904]|, 324. 919. 927, 

1004. 
Boyd V. City of :Milwaukco (92 Wis. 

456, 66 N. W. 603 [189;)]), 191, 

244, 380. 381. 519, 575, 656, 783, 

832, 980. 
Boyd V. Borougli of Wilkins')ur;;, 1S3 

Pa. St. 198, 38 Atl. 592 [1S97]), 

II, 651, 656. 1271, 1272. 
Boyden and Herrick v. Village of 

Brattleboro (65 Vt. 50 1, 27 Atl. 

164 [1893]). 444, 549, 563, 658, 

1351. 
Boyer v. Beading City (151 Pa. St. 

isS, 24 Atl. 1075). '382. 
Boyle V. Hitclicock (66 Cal. 129. 4 

Pac. 1143 [1884]), 468, 470, 1337. 
Boyle V. Tibbey (82 Cal. 11, 22 Pac. 

il28 [1889]), .324. 549. 
Boylston Market Association v. City 

of Boston, 113 Mass. 528 [1873])", 

86. 
Boynton v. People ex rel. Kern ( 159 

in. 553, 42 X. E. 842 [1896]), 323, 

393. 394, 396, 399, 1183, 1346. 
P.iynton v. People ex rel. Kern (155 

III. 66, 39 X. E. 622 [1895]), 278, 
752, 770, 772, 913, 914, 927. 930, 
993, 1003, 1306. 1341. 

I'ozarth V. ^McGilliciiddy (19 Ind. App. 
26, 47 X. E. 397, 48 X. E. 1042 
[1897]), 301, 500, 574, 728, 1156, 
1192, 1236, 1207. 1373. 

lirackett v. People of Weinnett (115 
111. 29, 3 X. E. 723 [1886]), 965, 
988, 989, 1066, 1189, 1296, 1317. 

Bradford v. City of Chicago (25 111. 
349, 79 Am." Dec. 333 [1861]), 
1484, 1490. 

Bradford v. City of Pontiac ( 165 111. 
612, 46 X. E. 794 [1897]), 475, 
552, 574, 676, 771, 860, 865, 867, 
920, 921, 1033, 1085, 1106, 1367, 
1375, 1392. 



Bradley, In re ( 108 la. 476, 79 X. W. 

280)", 202. 
Bradley's Estate (3 Pa. Dist. Rep. 

359 "[1894]), 1055. 
Bradley v. Fallbrook Irrigation Dis- 
trict (68 Fed. 948 [1895]). 119, 

121, 249, 355, 670, 697, 718, 726, 

728, 760, 1370. 
Bradley v. " City of Frankfort ( 99 

Ind. 417 [1884]), 280, 918, 1027, 

1252. 
Bradley v. Jacques ( — Ky. , 110 

S. W. 836 [1908]) 486. 
Bradley v. IMcAtee ( 7 Bush. ( 70 Ky. ) 

667,'3 Am. Rep. 309 [1870])," 8, 

86, 89, 100, 172, 245, 301, 380, 

381, 462. 
Bradley v. Pittsburg (130 Pa. St. 

475," 18 Atl. 730), 194, 195, 1108. 
Bradley v. Village of West Duluth 

(45 "Minn. 4, 47 X\ W. 166 [1890] ), 

238, 416. 
Bradley-Ramsay Lumber Co. v. Per- 
kins' (109 La. 317, 33 So. 351), 

365. 
Brady, In the Matter of (85 X. Y. 

268 [1881]), 462, 1456, 1466. 
Brady v. Ball (14 Ind. 317 [I860]), 

363. 
Brady v. Bartlett (56 Cal. 350 

[1880]), 485, 495, 537, 1332. 
P>rady v. IMayor etc., of Brooklyn 
d' Barb. (X. Y.) 584 [1847]"), 

542, 1498. 
Brady v. Burke (90 Cal. 1, 27 Pac. 

52 [1891] ), 174, 538, 740, 770, 1046, 

r052. 1070, 1194, 1202. 1204, 1225, 

1370, 1378, 1390. 
Brady v. Feisel (53 Cal. 49 [1878]), 

501, 754. 
Brady v. Ilayward (114 :\lich. 326, 

72" X. W. 233 [1897]). 340, 666, 

690. 789. 
Brady v. Kelley (.52 Cal. 371 [1877]), 

895, 1175, 1182. 
Brady v. King (53 Cal. 44 [1878]), 

169, 242, 409, 414, 538, 665. 831, 

857, 980, 983. 
Brady v. IMayor of X'ew York (20 X. 

Y."312 [1859]). 495. 
Brady v. Tlie IMayor of tlie City of 

X>w York (35 Howard, 81 [1868]), 

241, 503, 1443. 



Ixii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Brady v. Mayor, etc., of the City of 
New York (18 Howard, 343 
[1859]), 234, 495, 944, 1499. 

Brady v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monaity of New York (16 How. 
Pr. (N. Y.) 432), 495, 944. 

Brady v. New York (7 Abb. Pr. (N. 
Y.) 234), 18, 495, 497. 

Brady v. Page (59 Cal. 52 [1881]), 
781, 786, 787, 788, 795, 824, 1317. 

Brady v. Pvogers (63 Mo. App. 222 
[1895]), 527, 800. 

Brainerd, Matter of (51 Hun, 380, 3 
N. Y. Sup. 889 [1889]), 401, 821, 
927, 1455. 

Brandenburg v. District of Columbia 
(26 App. D. C. 140 [1905]), 321, 
665, 666, 690, 691. 

Brandhuber v. City of Pierre ( — S. 

D. , 113 N. W. 569 [1907]), 

440, 709. 

Brands v. City of Louisville (111 Ky. 
50, 63 S. W. 2 [1901]), 223, 234, 
203, 268, 363, 586, 598, 776, 780, 
1478, 1488. 

Brass v. Rathbone (153 N. Y. 435, 
47 N. E. 905), 124. 

Bravard v. Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. 
(115 Ind. 1, 17 N. E. 183), 1015. 

Breath, Guardian v. City of Glalves- 
ton (92 Tex. 454, 45 S. W. 575 
[1899]), 223, 278, 497, 777, 1235. 

Breed v. City of Alegheny (85 Pa. St. 
(4 Norris) 214 [1877]), 397, 437, 
927, 937, 958, 1026, 1157, 1337. 

Breen v. City of Troy (60 Barb. (N. 
Y.) 417 [1871]), 223, 233, 381, 
461, 464. 

Brehm v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(104 N. Y. 186, ^0 N. E. 158 
[1887]), 989, 1375. 1484. 1487, 
1492. 

Brehm v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(39 Hun (N. Y.)" 533 [1886]), 
1484, 1492. 

Brenchweh v. Drake (31 0. S. 652 
[1877]), 1164, 11G9. 

Brennan v. City of St. Paul, 44 Minn. 
464, 47 N. W. 55 [1890]), 631, 
635, 896. 



Brethold v. Village of Wilmette (168 
111. 162, 48 N. E. 38 [1897]), 278, 
1306. 

Breuer v. Gibson (29 Ohio C. C. 266 
[1906]), 1012. 

Breevoort v. Detroit (24 Mich. 322 
[1872]), 296, 314, 325, 437, 500, 
574, 628, 868, 958, 959, 962, 963, 
1448. 

Breevoort v. Randolph ( 7 How. Pr. 
398), 1057. 

Brewer v. Village of Bowling Green, 
Ohio (7 Ohio C. C. 489 [1893]), 
223, 263, 271, 570, 837, 877. 

Brewer v. Bridges (164 Ind. 358, 73 
N. E. 811 [1905]), 482. 

Brewer, Pros. v. City of Elizabeth 
(66 N. J. L. (37 Vr.) 547, 49 Atl. 
480 [1001]), 891, 909, 964, 1015, 
1361, 1403, 1408. 

Brewer v. City of Springfield (97 
Mass. 152 [1867]), 324, 649, 663, 
697, 763, 887, 1141, 1423. 

Brewster v. Mayor and Common 
Council of the City of Newark ( 1 1 
N. J. Eq. (3 Stockton) 114 
[1856]), 53, 55, 737, 760, 981. 
1450. 

Brewster v. City of Peru (180 111. 
124, 54 N. E. 233 [1899]), 862. 
1278. 

Brewster v. City of Syracuse ( 19 N. 
Y. 116 [1859]), 15* 89, 100, 166, 
169, 252, 410, 414, 424, 483. 

Brick &, Terra Cotta Co. v. Hull 
(49 Mo. App. 433 [1892]), 301, 
528, 544, 601, 621, 630, 650, 1011, 
1015. 

Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Com- 
pany (1 Wall. (U. S.) 116 [1863]), 
715. 

Bridgeport, City of v. Giddings (43 
Conn. 304 [1876]), 280, 738, 745, 
907, 1389. 

Bridgeport, City of v. New York and 
New Haven Railroad Company (36 
Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 63 [1869]), 
4, 8, 11, 35, 42, 89, 147, 284, 322. 
594, 613, 652, 657. 

Bridgford, Matter of (65 Hun, 227, 
20 N. Y. Sup. 281 [1892]), 527, 
918, 979, 1337, 1443. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixiii 



[References are to sections.] 



Brientnall v. City of Philadelphia 
103 Pa. St. 150 [1883]), 227, 293, 
483, 503, 555, 779, 1005, 1007, 1157, 
1158, 1338. 

Briggs V. Union Drainage District 
No. 1 (140 111. 53, 29 N. E. 721 
[1893]), 202, 340, 549, 564, 630, 
921, 952, 955, 1283, 1351, 1362. 

Briggs V. Whitney { 159 Mass. 97, 
34 N. E. 179 [1893]), 356, 573. 

Brighton Ry. Co. v. St. Giles ( 4 L. R. 
(Exch. Div.) 239), 597. 

Britten v. City of Philadelphia (32 
Pa. St. (8'Casey) 387 [1859]), 
347, 525, 1157, 1158, 1332. 

Broad Street, Sewickley Methodist 
Episcopal Church's Appeal (165 
Pa. St. 475, 30 Atl. 1007 [1895]), 
42, 588, 013, 1012. 

Broadway Widening, In the Matter of 
(63 Barb. (N. Y.) 572 [1872]), 
269, 549, 550, 744, 902. 

Broadway in the City of New York, 
In the Matter of Widening of ( 01 
Barb. (N. Y.) 483 [1872]), 130, 
170, 1368. 

Broadway in the City of New York, 
In the Matter of Widening (42 
Howard (N. Y.) 220 [1872]), 130, 
170, 950, 1347. 

Broadway Baptist Church v. McAtee 
(71 Ky. (8 Bush.) 508, 8 Am. 
Rep. 480 [1871]), 53, 118, 121, 223, 
234, 244, 292, 373, 374, 380, 381, 
462, 553, 501, 588, 013, 028, 005, 
606, 678, 709, 710, 829, 844, 979, 
981, 1026, 1112. 

Broadwell v. Banks (134 Fed. 470 
[1905]), 1054. 

Brock V. Luning (89 Cal. 310, 26 
' Pac. 972 [1891]), 15, 483, 510, 
522, 777, 1031, 1337, 1359. 

Brockschmidt v. Ca vender, 3 Mo. App. 
508 (50, 895, 1182, 13?3. 

Bromwell v. Flowers (217 111. 174, 
75 N. E. 400 [1905]), 200, 293, 
1472. 

Brookbank v. City of Jeffersonville 
(41 Ind. 400 [1872]), 475, 490, 
742, 808, 842, 1103, 1182, 1350. 

Brookfield v. City of Sterling (214 
111. 100, 73 N. E. 302 [1905]), 
781. 



Brooklyn, In the Matter of the City 

of V. Lott (2 Hun (N. Y.) 028 

[1874]), 037. 
Brooklyn Park Commissioners v. Arm- 
strong (45 N. Y. 234, Am. Rep. 

70 [1871]), 356. 
Brooks V. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (48 Md. 205) [1877]), 

86, 100, 110, 
Brooks V. City of Chicago (168 111. 

60, 48 N. E. 136 [1897]), 501, 023, 

909, 920, 921. 
Brooks V. Hyde (37 Cal. 376), 180. 
Brooks V. Village of Norwood ( 12 

Ohio C. C. 257 [1896]), 686, 1432. 
Brooks V. City of San Luis Obispo 

(109 Cal. 50, 41 Pac. 791 [1895]), 

309, 472. 
Brooks V. Satterlee (49 Cal. 289 

[1874]), 500, 759. 
Brophy v. Harding (137 111. 621, 27 

N. E. 523, 34 N. E. 253 [1892]), 

882, 909, 1200. 
Brophy v. Landman (28 0. S. 542, 

[1870]), 494, 828. 
Brosemer v. Kelsey (106 Ind. 504, 7 

N. E. 569 [1886]), 726, 735, 886, 

887. 
Brown to Vacate an Assessment, In 

the Matter of the Petiton of (14 

Daly (N. Y.) 103 [1886]), 1036. 
Brown v. Beatty (34 Miss. 227, 09 

Am. Dec. 389 '[1857]), 71. 
Brown v. Central Bermudez Co. ( 162 

Ind. 452, 09 N. E. 150 [1903]), 

108, 301, 472, 493, 099, 731, 749, 

919, 1003, 1004, 1030, 1110. 
Brown v. City of Chicago (117 111. 

21, 7 N. E. 108 [1887]), 703, 700, 

913, 925, 1026, 1292, 1439, 1444. 
Brown v. City of Chicago ( 62 111. 289 

[1871]), 745, 703, 704, 1185, 1299. 
Brown v. City of Denver (7 Colo. 

305, 3 Pac. '455 [1884]), 119, 152, 

720, 729. 
Brown v. Drain (112 Fed. 582 

[1901]), 118, 119, 134, 239, 301, 

1030, 1414. 
Brown v. Eagle Creek and Little 

White Lick Gravel Road Company 

(78 Ind. 421 [1881]), 80, 322. 



Ixi^ 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References iire to sections.] 



Brown v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Fitchburg (128 Mass. 282 [1880]), 

413, 444, 813, 1404. 
Brown v. Hammond ( 2 Chan. Cases, 

249 [1678]), 1015, 1054, 1426, 

1430. 
Brown v. Jenks (98 Cal. 10, 32 Pac. 

701 [1893]), 519. 
Brown v. City of Joliet (22 111. 123 

[1859]), 883, 909, 1039, 1350,1351. 
Brown v. Keener (74 N. C. 714 

[1876]), 5, 19, 54, 341, 711. 
Brown v. Milwaukee and Prairie du 

Chien Ry. Co. (21 Wis. 39, 91 Am. 

Dec. 456 [1866]), 363. 
Brown v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 

(63 N. Y. 239 [1875]), 487, 958, 

982. 
Brown v. Otis (90 N. Y. S. 250, 98 

App. Div. 554 [1904]), 890, 917, 

1026. 
Brown v. City of Saginaw (107 Mich. 

643, 65 N. W. 601), 555, 776, 911, 

927, 934, 935, 939. 
Brown v. Town of Union, 65 N. J. 

L. (36 Vr.) 601, 48 Atl. 562 

[1900]), 324, 408, 964, 1361. 
Browne v. Palmer (66 Neb. 287, 92 

N. W. 315 [1902]), 615, 617. 
Brownell v. Board of Supervisors of 

Gratiot County (49 Mich. 414, 13 

N. W. 798 [1882]), 340, 581, 956, 

1072, 1469, 1471, 1473, 1474. 
Browning v. City of Chicago (155 111. 

314, 40 N. E. Rep. 565 [1895]), 

909, 918, 921, 925, 926. 
Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester, 

(101 N, Y. 240, 4 N. E. 272 

[1886]), 1484, 1486. 
Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester 

(31 Hun (N. Y.) 550 [1884]), 

1484. 
Bruecher v. Village of Port Chester 

(17 Abb. N. C. 361 [1886]), 1484. 
Brnner v. Bay City (46 INIich. 236, 

9 N. W. 263 [1881]), 1442. 
Bruner v. Palmer (108 Ind. 397, 9 

N. E. 354 [1886]), 363. 
Bruning v. Chadwick (109 La. 1067, 

34 So. 90 [1903], 118, 492, 713, 

836, 1277. 



Brush V. City of Detroit (32 Mick 

43 [1875] i, 391, 394. 
Bryan v. City of Chicago (60 111. 

507 [1871]), 860, 861. 
Bryant's Appeal (104 Pa. St. 372), 

il08, 1146. 
Bryant v. Bobbins (70 Wis. 258, 35 

N. W. 545 [1887]), 93, 97, 191, 

278, 335, 340, 420, 550. 
Bryant v. Russell (127 Mo. 422, 30 

S. W. 107 [1894]), 308, 1197,1373. 
Buchan v. Broadwell (88 Mo. 31 

[1885]), 86, 779. 
Buchanan v. Kansas City (208 Mo. 

674, 106 S. W. 531), 1067. 
Buckley v. Commissioners of Lorain 

County (I Ohio C. C. 251 [1885]), 

564, 1421, 1452. 
Buckley v. City of Tacoma (9 Wash. 

253, 37 Pac. 441 [1894]), 229, 413, 

424, 754, 824, 830, 833, 837, 838, 

984. 
Buckley v. City of Tacoma ( 9 Wash. 

269, 37 Pac. 446 [1894]), .810, 

1280. 
Buckman v. Cuneo (103 Cal. 62, 36 

Pac. 1025 [1894]), 537, 538, 907, 

1061, 1002. 
Buckman v. Hatcli (139 Cal. 53, 72 

Pac. 445 [1903]), 831, 1229, 1248, 

1263, 1265. 
Buckman v. Landers (111 Cal. 347, 

43 Pac. 1125 [1896]), 301, 538, 645, 

723, 724, 1150, 1151, 1153, 1281, 

1290, 1358, 1379, 1385. 
Bucknall v. Story (46 Cal. 589, 13 

Am. Rep. 220 [1873]), 309, 887, 

986, 1030, 1052, 1347, 1426, 1427, 

1478, 1484, 1488. 
Bucknall v. Story (36 Cal. 67 

[1868]), 1109, 1202, 1205, 1297. 
Buckner v. Sugg (79 Ark. 442, 96 

S. W. 184 [1906]), 343, 609. 
Bucroft V. City of Council Bluffs (63 

la. 646, 19 N. W. 807), 438, 1498. 
Budd V. Reidelbach (128 Ind. 145, 

27 K E. 349 [1890]), 340, 1350. 
Buddeeke v. Ziegenheim ( 122 Mo. 

239, 26 S. W. 696 [1894]), 311, 

1411. 
Budge V. City of Grand Forks ( 1 N. 

D. 309, 10 L. R. A. 105, 47 X. W. 

390 [1890]), 974, 1206, 1207. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixv 



[References are to sections.] 



Buell V. Ball (20 la. 282 [ISGO]), 53, 
55, 323, 549, 555, 030. 

Buell V. Trustees of the Village of 
Lock-port (11 Barb. 002 [1852]), 
927, 998, 1142. 

Buess, Pros. v. Town of West Hobo- 
ken (51 N. J. L. (22 Vr.) 267, 17 
Atl. 110 [1889]), 894. 

Buffalo, Matter of the City of ( 78 X. 
K Y. 362 [1879]), 781. 

Buffalo Cemetery Association v. City 
of Buffalo (118 N. Y. 61, 22 X. E. 
962 [1889]), 313, 592, 614. 

Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buf- 
falo (46 X. Y. 506 [1871]), 11, 
42, 323, 420, 592, 613, 614, 888. 

Buffalo Union Iron Works v. City of 
Buffalo (13 Abb. Pr. (X. Y.)"l41 
[1870]), 360, 456, 717. 

Buhler, In the Matter of (32 Barb. 
(X. Y.) 79 [1859]), 438, 570, 780. 

Buhlcr, In the Matter of (19 How- 
ard, 317 [1859]), 1452. 

Bunce v. West (62 la. 80 [1883]), 
1146. 

Buras Levee District, Board of Com- 
missioners for V. Mialegvieh ( 52 
La. Ann. 1292, 27 So. 790 [1900]). 
548. 

Burck V. Davis ( 35 Ind. App. 048, 
73 X. E. 192 [1905]), 363. 

Burgdorf v. District of Columbia (7 
App. D. C. 405 [1896]), 347, 373, 
376. 

Burgess v. City of Jefferson (21 La. 
Ann. 143), 515. 

Burgett v. Xorris (25 0. S. 308 
[1874]), 781. 

Burggreve v. City of Cincinnati ( 1 
Ohio X. P. 80 [1894], 625, 704. 

Burguieres v. Sanders (111 La. 109, 
35 So. 478 [1903]), 38, 118, 340, 
697. 

Burhans v. Village of Xorwood Park 
(138 111. 147, 27 X. E. 1088 
[1892]), 393, 396, 401, 663, 670. 
715, 916, 921, 922, 923, 1375. 

Burk v. Altschul (66 Cal. 533, 6 Pac. 
393 [1885]), 441, 470, 570. 

Burk V. Ayers (19 Him (X. Y.) 17 
[1879]), 101. 

Burke, In the Matter of (62 X. Y. 



224 [1875]), 381, 432, 437, 462, 
762, 982, 1054, 1456, 1460, 1463. 

Burke v. Lukens ( 12 Ind. App. 648, 
54 Am. St. Rep. 539, 40 X. E. 641 
[1895]), 11. 1070. 

Burke v. Turney (54 Cal. 486 
[1880]), 521, 1332. 

Burke v. City of Water Valley (87 
Miss. 732, 112 Am. St. Rep. 468, 
40 So. 820 [1905]), 6, 20, 353, 
1054. 

Burlington, City of v. Gilbert (31 
la. 356, 7 Am. Rep. 143 [1871]), 
570, 800, 1012, 1013. 

Burlington, City of v. Quick (47 la. 
222 [1877])', 86, 274, 275, 301, 
308, 416, 423, 666, 098, 709, 777, 
977, 979, 9S1, 1049, 1000. 

Burlington, Independent School Dis- 
trict of V. Citv of Burlington ( CO 
la. 500, 15 " X. W. Rep. 295 
[1883]), 873. 

Burlington Sav. Bank v. City of 
Clinton, Iowa ( 106 Fed. " 269 
[1901]), 118, 301, 690, Oni, 995, 
1502, 1525. 

Burmeister, In the Matter of the 
Petition of to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (76 X. Y. 174 [1879]), 315, 
432, 437, 441, 462, 762, 836, 982, 
1456. 

Burmeister, In the ^Matter of the 
Petition of (56 Howard (X. Y.) 
416 [1879]), 381, 537, 740, 762, 
1456. 

Burmeister, In the Matter of (12 
Hun (X. Y.) 478 [1878]), 762, 861. 

Burmeister, In the ^Matter of (9 
Hun 613 [1877]), 432, 437, 441, 
462, 762, 836, 9o2, 1456. 

Burnes v. Mayor and City Council 
of Atchison (2 Kan. 454 (original 
edition) 2 Kan. 448 (second edi- 
tion) [1864]), 22. 38, 250, 666, 
697, 098. 

Burnes v. Ballinger (76 Mo. App. 
58 [1898]), 1085. 1105, 1168. 

Burnet v. Corporation of Cincinnati 
(3 Ohio 73, 17 Am. Dec. 582 
[1827]), 1420. 

Burnett, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., of 
Town of Boonton ( — X. J. L. 
, 70 Atl. 67 [1908]), 837, 840. 



Ixvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Burnett v. Town of Boonton (73 N. 

J. Law (44 Vr.) 102, 63 Atl. 995 

[1906]), 1407. 
Burnett v. Mayor and Common 

Council of the City of Sacramen- 
to (12 Cal. 76, 73 Am. Dec. 518 

[1859]), 43, 86, 110, 147, 148, 235, 

236, 549, 622, 666, 805, 809, 844. 
Burnham v. City of Milwaukee (98 

Wis. 128, 73 N. W. 1018 [1897]), 

191. 
Burnish Street, Widening of, Potts- 

ville Borough (140 Pa. St. 531. 

21 Atl. 500 [1891]), 223, 234, 776. 
Burns v. City of Duluth (96 Minn. 

104, 104 N. W. 714 [1905]), 245, 

416, 423, 468, 469, 719, 873. 
Burns v. Mayor of New York ( 3 

Hun 212 [1874]), 263, 266, 492. 
Burns v. Patterson (2 Handy 271 

[1855]), 18, 977, 1215, 1224. 
Burns v. Spratley (5 Kan. 551 

[1870]), 45, 1173. 
Burr V. Veeder (3 Wend. 412), 1057. 
Burris v. Baxter (25 Ind. App. 536, 

58 N. E. Rep. 733 [1900]), 7S3, 

843, 1248. 
Burt V. Hasselman (139 Ind. 190, 

38 N. E. 598 [1894]), 1191. 
Burton, v. City of Chicago (62 111. 

179 [1871]), 745, 913, 914, 978. 
Burton v. City of Chicago (53 III. 

87 [1869]), 731, 747, 913, 91G. 
Busbee v. Commissio?iers of Wake 

County (93 N. C. 143 [1885]), 11, 

35, 38, 39, 147, 567. 
Busenbark v. Clements (22 Ind. 

App. 557, 53 N. E. 665 [1899]), 

229, 735, 739, 777, 930, 1004, 1010, 

1015, 1019. 
Busenbark v. Etchison Ditching As- 
sociation (02 Ind. 314 [1878]), 

1244, 1251. 
Bush V. City of Cincinnati (18 0^'io 

C. C. 605 [1899]), 794, 797, 801. 
Bush V. City of Dubucue (69 la. 

233, 28 N. W. 542 [1886]), 342, 

737, 1404, 1408. 
Bush V. City of Peoria (215 111. 515, 

74 N". E. 797 [1905]), 381, 386, 

461, 463, 464. 
Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting 

Association v. Commonwealth 



(169 Mass. 103, 47 N. E. 599 

[1897]), 70, 578, 654. 
Butler V. City of Chicago (56 111. 

341 [1870]), 764, 772, 914, 1299. 
Butler V. Detroit (43 Mich. 552, 5 

N. W. 1078 [1880]), 194. 195, 

415, 483, 525, 538, 541, 813, 828, 

1432, 1447. 
Butler V. Board of Commissioners of 

the Town of Keyport ( 64 N. J. L. 

(35 Vr.) 181, 44 Atl. 849 [1899]), 

391, 394. 
Butler V. Nevin (88 111. 575 [1878]), 

51, 1044, 1060, 1112. 
Butler V. Board of Supervisors of 

Saginaw Co. (26 Mich. 22 

[1872]), 1469. 
Butler V. City of Toledo (5 0. S. 

225 [1855]), 313, 408, 414, 436, 

^54, 1072. 
Butler V. City of Worcester (112 

Mass. 541 [\873]), 80, 244, 272, 

324, 326, 444. 563, 627, 645, 695. 

697, 745, 771, 773, 1347, 1478, 

1480. 
Butte, City of v. School District No. 

1 (29 Mont. 336, 74 Pac. 869 

[1904]), 11, 50, 286, 291. 370, 586, 

653, 657. 
Button V. Kremer (114 Ky. 463, 

71 S. W. 332, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1193 

[1902]), 628. 
Butts V. Common Council of Roches- 
ter (5 Lansing 142 [1871]), 1406. 
Bye, Pros. v. Atlantic City (73 N, 
'j. L. 402, 64 Atl. 1056 [1906]), 

523, 1568. 
Byram v. City of Detroit (50 Mich. 

56, 14 N. W. 698, 12 N. W. 912 

[1883]), 959, 1012, 1016, 1411, 

1434, 1436. 
Byram v. Foley (17 Ind. App. 629, 

47 N. E. 351 [1897]), 328. 549, 

563, 620, 648, 658, 1004, 1005. 
Byrne v. Drain ( 127 Cal. 663, 60 
• Pac. 433 [1900]), 1425, 1427. 



Cabell V. City of Henderson ( — Ky. 

, 88 S. W. 1095, 28 Ky. L. R. 

89 [1905]), 301, 843, 844, 951, 
1141, 1145, 1244, 1249. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



Ixvii 



[References are to sections.] 



Cadmus v. Fagan (47 X. J. L. (18 

Vr.) 549, 4 Atl. 323 [1885]), 

1072. 
Cady V. City of San Bernardino ( — 

Cal. \ 94 Pac. 242 [1908]), 

495, 509. 
Cahn V. Metz (101 N. Y. S. 302 

[1906]), 510, 527. 
Cain V. Commissioners of Davie 

County (86 N. C. 8 [1882]), 38, 

43, 147, 148, 363. 567. 
Cain V. City of Elkins (57 W. Va. 

9, 49 S. E. 898 [1905]), 231, 444, 

446, 1420, 1432. 
Cain V. City of Omaha (42 Neb. 120, 

60 N. W. 368 [1894]), 11, 629, 

665, 666, 729. 
Cairo and St. Louis R. R. Co. v. 

Peoples (92 111. 97, 34 Am. Rep. 

112 [1879]), 363. 
Caldwell v. Village of Carthage (49 

O. S. 334, 31 N. E. 602 [1892]), 

90, 113, 119, 133, 308, 700, 728, 

736, 739. 
Caldwell v. Rupert (73 Ky. (10 

Bush.) 179 [1873]), 223, 234, 554, 

628, 775, 776, 777, 981, 1505. 
California v. ■ . (See 

People of State of California v. 

.) 

California Improvement Company v. 

Moran (128 Cal. 373, 60 Pac. 969 

[1900]), 301, 504, 761, 762, 1031, 

1292, 1337. 
California Improvement Company v. 

Quinchard (119 Cal. 87, 51 Pac. 

24 [1897]), 521. 
California Improvement Company v. 

Reynolds (123 Cal. 88, 58 Pac. 

802 [1F08]), 273, 759, 763, 867, 

1235, 1281. 
California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary 

Reduction Works of San Francis- 
co. (199 U. S. 306, 26 S. 100 

[1905]), 372. 
California Reduction Co. v. Sanitary 

Reduction Works of San Francis- 
co (126 Fed. 29, 61 C. C. A. 91 

[1903], 372. 
Calkins v. Spraker (26 111. App. 159 

[1877]), 731, 772, 927, 930. 
Calkins v. City of Toledo (12 Oliio 

C. C. 202 [1896]), 561, 625, 704. 



Call Publishing Co. v. Lincoln (29 
Neb. 149, 45 N. W. 245 [1890]), 
486. 

Callender v. Patterson (06 Cal. 356, 
5 Pac. 610 [1885]), 1034. 

Callister v. Kochersperger ( 168 111. 
334, 48 N. E. 156 [1897]), 531, 
533, 539. 

Callon v. City of Jacksonville ( 147 
111. 113. 35 N. E. 223 [1894]), 
329, 447, 663, 857, 911. 

Cambria Street (75 Pa. St. (25 P. 
F. Smith) 357), 281. 

Camden, City of v. Camden Village 
Corporation (77 Me. 530, 1 Atl. 
689), 580. 

Camden, Treasurer of the City of 
v. Mulford (26 N. J. L." (2 
Dutch.) 49 [1856]), 91, 927. 

Cameron, In the Matter of (50 N. 
Y. 502 [1872]), 826. 

Camp v. Township of Algansee (50 
Mich. 4, 14 N. \N. 072 [1883]), 
1495. 

Camp V. Neuscheler (67 X. J. L. 
(38 Vr.) 21, 50 Atl. 597 [1901]), 
475. 1103. 

Campau v. Charbenenu, Drain Com- 
missioner (105 Mich. 422, 63 N. 
W. 435 [1895]), 748, 751. 

Campbell v. Dwiggins (83 Ind. 473 
[1882]), 79, 115. • 

Campbell v. Board of County Com- 
missioners of Monroe County 
(118 Ind. 119, 20 N. E. 772 
[1888]), 677, 952, 954, 1347. 

Campbell v. Park (32 0. S. 544 
[1877]), 785, 786, 787,-788, 789, 
795, 796, 1282. 

Campion v. City of Elizabeth (41 
N. J. L. (12 Vr.) 355 [1879]), 
229, 909, 967, 1486, 1487. 

Canal and Walker Streets, In the 
Matter of Extending (12 N. Y. 
406 [1855), 910, 911, 1347. 

Canal Street, Matter of (11 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 154 [1834]), 206. 

Canal Street, In the Matter of Open- 
ing (8 Barb. N. Y.) 505 [1850]), 
909. 

Canaseraga, Village of v. Oreen (88 
X. Y. S. 539 [1903]). 354, 451. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References, are to sections.] 



Canriell v. Smith (34 Wis. 381 
[1874]), 781, 789, 1006, 1007, 
1432, 1445, 1450. 

Canton, Lity of v. Wagner (54 Ohio 
St. 329, 45 X. E. 953 [189G]), 
740, 754. 

Capitol National Bank of Lincoln 
V. First National Bank of Cadiz 
(172 U. S. 425, 19 S. 202), 715. 

Capron v. Hitchcock (98 Cal. 427, 
33 Pac. 431 [1893]), 244, 486, 
521, 776, 811, 985, 1006, 1007, 
1337, 1379. 

Carey v. City of East Saginaw ( 79 
Mich. 73, 44 N. W. 168), 1015. 

Carey v. Gundlefinger ( 12 Ind. App. 
645, 40 N. E. 1112 [1895]), 1058, 
1072. 

Carlin v. Cavender (56 Mo. 280 
[1874]), 522, 871, 1040. 

Carlisle v. City of Cincinnati (29 
Ohio C. C. 81 [1906]), 71, 308, 
1012. 

Carlisle v. Hetherington (47 O. S. 
235, 24 N. E. 488 [1890]), 38, 
147, 322, 629. 

Carlisle v. Yoder (69 Miss. 384, 12 
So. 255), 343. 

Carleton Street between ]\Iain and 
Jefl'erson Streets in the City of 
Buffalo, In the Matter of the Tak- 
ing of Lands, etc., for widening 
16 Hun 497 [1879]), 308. 

Carlyle, City of v. County of Clin- 
ton (140 111. 512, 30 N. E. 782 
[1893]), 223, 234, 413, 424, 775, 
777, 837, 873. 

Carpenter v. Cook (67 Vt. 102, 30 
Atl. 998 [1898]), 363. 

Carpenter v. Board of County 
Com'rs of Hennepin County, 5G 
Minn. 513, 45 Am. St. Rep". 494, 

58 N. W. 295 [1894]), 393. 
Carpenter v. Mayor and Council 

of the City of Hoboken (33 N. J. 

Eq. (6 Stew.) 27 [1880]), G, 353, 

1054, 1443. 
Carpenter v. City of St. Taul (23 

Minn. 232 [1876]), 391, 394, 500, 

555, 556, 670, 956, 959, 997. 
Carpenter v. Wilson (100 Md. 13. 

59 Atl. 186 [1904]), 1054. 



Carr v. Dooley (119 Mass. 294 
[1875]), 1067*. 

Carr v. Duhnie (167 Ind. 76, 78 
N. E. 322 [1906]). 269, 340, 1009. 

Carr v. People ex rei. Goedtner (224 
111. 160, 79 N. E. 648 [1906]), 
247, 258, 1030, 1348, 1366. 

Carroll v. City of Marshall (99 Mo. 
App. 464, 73 S. W. 1102 [1903]), 
67. 

Carroll v. City of St. Loui^s (4 Mo. 
App. 191 [1877]), 393, 396, 1509, 
1518. 

Carron v. Martin (26 N. J. L. (2 
Dutch.) 594, 69 Am. Dec. 584 
[1857]), 229, 394, 425, 777, 781. 
785, 789, 796, 1004, 1006, 1007, 
1060, 1196, 1204, 1335. 

Carry v. Gaynor (22 0. S. 584 
[1872]), 1216. 

Carson v. Brockton Sewerage Com- 
mission (182 U. S. 398, 45 L. 
1151, 21 S. 860 [1901]), 124, 292, 
332, 373, 375, 421. 666, 718, 734, 
1045. 

Car.son v. St. Francis Drainage Dis- 
trict (59 Ark. 513, 27 S. W. 590 
[1894]), 79, 97, 102, 103, 105, 131, 
132, 177, 178, 247, 251, 253, 256, 
343, 566, 660, 691. 

Carson v. Sewerage Commissioners 
of Brockton (175 Mass. 242, 48 
L. R. A. 277, 56 N. E. 1 [1900]), 
6, 20, 124, 292, 332, 373, 375, 421, 
666, 718, 734, 1045. 

Carter v. Cemansky (126 la. 506, 
102 N. W. 438 [1905]), 18, 778, 
918, 985, 1016, 1072, 1441. 

Carter v. City of Chicago ( 57 111. 
283 [1870]), 296, 323, 1430. 

Carter v. Wright (3 Dutch. 207), 
412. 

Cartersville Water Works Company 
V. Mayor and Aldermen of Car- 
tersville (89 Ga. 689, 16 S. E. 70 
[1892]), 73. 

Carthage, City of ex rel Carthage 
National Bank v. Badgley (73 Mo. 
App. 123 [1897]), 313. 436, 873, 
1135, 1284. 

Carthage, Village of v. Frederick 
(122 N. Y. 268, 19 Am. St. Rep. 



II 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixix 



[References are to sections.] 



490, 10 L. R. A. 178, 25 X. E. 

480 [1890]), 58, 457. 
Caseaden v. City of Waterloo ( 106 

la. 673, 77 X. W. 33-3 [1898]), 

827. 
Case V. Fowler (65 Ind. 29 [1878]). 

501. 
Case V. .Johnson (91 Ind. 477 

[1883]), 223, 234. 
Case V. City of Sullivan (222 111. 

56, 78 N. E. 37 [1906]), 536, 537, 

840. 
Case V. Inhabitants of City of Tren- 
ton (— X". J. , 68 Atl. 57 

[1907]), 497, 498. 
Casey v. City of Leavenworth (17 

Kan. 189 [1876]), 275, 313, 621, 

1326, 1506. 
Casey v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

gei- (165 111. 49, 46 X. E. 7 

[1P97]), 764, 772, 914, 930, 1372, 

1379. 
Casey v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (159 111. 267, 49 X. E. 882 

[1896]), 903, 1340. 
Caskey v. City of Greensburg ( 78 

Ind. 233 [1881]), 281, 738. 
Cason V. Harrison ( 135 Ind. 330, 

35 X". E. 268 [1893]), 1360. 
Cason V. City of Lebanon (153 Ind. 

567, 55 X\ E. 768), 60, 85, 245. 

293, 301, 306, 431, 486, 507, 783, 

843, 1000, 1030, 1031, 1430, 1431. 
Cass V. Dicks (14 Wash. 75, 53 Am. 

St. Rep. 859, 44 Pac. 113 [1896]), 

105. 
Cass V. Dillon (2 0. S. 607 [1853]), 

162. 
Cass V. People ex. rel. Kochersper- 

ger (166 111. 126, 46 X. E. 729 

[1897]), 763, 857, 864, 867. 929. 

986, 1019, 1033, 1183. 
Cass County, Board of Commission- 
ers of V. Plotner (149 Ind. 116, 

48 X^ E. 635 [1897]), 1015. 1019, 

1033. 
Ca>s Farm Company v. Detroit (181 

U. S. 396, 45 L.' 914, 21 S. 644, 

645 [1901]), 118. 314, 702. 
Cass Farm Co. v. City of Detroit 
(124 Mich. 433, 83* X^ W. 108 

[1900]), lis, 314, 524, G98, 702. 



Cassady v. Hammer (62 la. 359, 17 
X. W. 588), 1054. 

Cassitt Land Co. v. Xeuscheler ( — 

X. J. , 60 Atl. 1128 [1905]), 

314. 

Gathers v. Moores ( — Xeb. . 

110 X. W. 689, 113 X. W. 119 
[1907]), 1499. 

Catlettsburg, City of v. Self (115 
Ky. 6C9, 74 s! W. 1064, 25 Ky. 
Law. Rep. 161 [1903]), 462. 

Cattell V. Putnam (73 Ohio St. 147, 
76 X. E. 390 [1905]), 1067, 1072. 

Cauldwell v. Curry (93 Ind. 363 
[1883]), 1030, 1444. 

Cavanaugii v. Sanderson ( — Mich. 

• . 115 X. W. 955 [1908]), 270. 

1015, 1027, 1414, 1437. 

Cawker v. City of Milwaukee ( — 

Wis. , 113 X. W. 419 [1907]). 

962, 1442. 

Cedar Park, In re ( 1 How. Pr. X. S. 
257 [1885]), 557, 594, 598, 639, 
723. 

Cemansky v. Fitch ( 121 la. 186. 96 
X. W. 754 [1903]), 323, 1066, 
1067, 1072. 

Cemetery of 'Sit. Auburn, Proprie- 
tors of the v. Ma.vor and Alder- 
men of Cambridge ( 150 Mass. 12, 
4 L. R. A. 836, 22 X. E. 66 
[1889]), 86. 

Center & Warren Gravel Road Co. 
V. Black (32 Ind. 468 [1870]). 
322, 1125, 1431. 

Central Covington, Town of v. Bus- 

se (— Ky. , 80 S. W. 210, 

25 Ky. Law Rep. 2179 [1904]!, 
•656. 

Central Irrigation District v. De 
Lappe (79 Cal. 352. 21 Pac. 825), 
551. 

Central Oliio Railroad Comj)any v. 
City of Bellaire (67 Ohio St. 297, 
65 X. E. 1007 [1902]), 1125, 1210. 

Central Park, In the INIatter of the 
Application of the Commissioners 
of the, to Confirm the Rejiort of 
tlio Commissioners of Estimate 
and Assessment for Opening Riv- 
erside Park (63 Barb. (X. Y.) 
282 [1872]), 356, 459, 594, 598. 



Ixx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Central Park, In the Matter of the 
Oommissioners of (61 Barb. 40 
[1871]), 911, 1347, 1354. 

Central Park, In the Matter of the 
Application of the Commissioners 
of the, for and in Behalf of the 
City of New York, Relative to 
the Opening of Certain New Ave- 
nues, Roads and Public Squares 
or Places as Laid Out by the Com- 
missioners of Central Park (60 
Barb. (N. Y.) 132 [1870]), 356, 
909, 927. 

Central Savings Bank of Baltimore, 
The V. The ISIayor and City Coun- 
cil of Baltimore (71 Md. 515, 18 
Atl. 809, 20 Atl. 283 [1889]), 266, 
309, 310, 763, 1317. 

Central R. R. Company of Xew Jer- 
sey, Pros. V. Mayor, etc., of the 
City of Bayonne (51 N. J. L. (22 
Vr.) 428, 17 Atl. 971 [1889]), 
771. 

Central R. Co. of Xew Jersey v. 
State (32 N. J. L. 220), 359. 

Centre Street, In re. Vacation of 
(115 Pa. St. 247, 8 Atl. 56 
[1886]), 8, 86, 89, 100, 320, 1041. 
1049, 1210. 

Chadwick v. Kelly (187 U. S. 540, 
23 S. 175 [1903]), 46, 118, 314, 
514, 529, 544, 549, 620, 663, 666, 
689, 698, 702, 1015, 1047, 1144, 
1333, 1370. 

Chaffee v. City of Detroit (53 Mich. 
573, 19 X. *W. 191 [1884]), 1426, 
1427. 

Chaffee v. Granger (6 Mich. 51 
[1858), 1512. 

Challis V. Parker (11 Kan. 384 
[1873]), 323, 1176. 

Cliamberlain v. Cleveland (34 0. S. 
551 [1878]), 11, 111, 113, 118, 
308, 549. 956, 962, 1447. 

Chamberlain v. Cit.y of Evansville 
(77 Ind. 542 [1881]), 301, 776. 

Chamberlain v. Gleason (163 X. Y. 
214, 57 X. E. 487 [1900]), 49, 
1055. 

Chambers v. Chambers (20 R. 1.370, 
39 Atl. 243 [1898]), 1055. 

Chambers v. Satterlee (40 Cal. 497 
[1871]), 8. 11, 39, 43, 86, 100, 



110, 145, 147, 223, 234, 235, 283, 
549, 622, 747, 777, 836, 862, 1215, 
1306, 1337. 

Chambers v. South Chester Bor. 
(140 Pa. St. 510, 21 Atl. 409 
[1891]), 71. 

Chambliss v. Johnson (77 la. 611, 
42 X. W. 427 [1889]), 142, 343, 
549, 556, 558, 660, 670, 724, 1337. 

Champer v. City of Greencastle ( 138 
Ind. 339, 46 Am. St. Rep. 390, 
24 L. R. A. 768, 35 X. E. 14 
[1894]), 92. 

Chance v. City of Portland (26 Ore. 
286, 38 Pac. 68 [1894]), 531, 532, 

Chancellor of State v. City of Eliza- 
beth (66 X. J. L. (37 Vr.) 688, 
52 Atl. 1130 [1901]), 147, 545, 
581, 1074. 

Chancellor of State v. City of Eliza- 
beth (65 X. J. L. (36* Vr.) 479, 
47 Atl. 454 [1900]), 147, 545, 581, 
1074. 

Chandler v. Heisler ( — Mich. , 

116 X". W. 626 [1908]), 244. 

Chandler v. People ex rel. Kochsper- 
ger (161 111. 41, 43 X. E. 590 
[1896]), 745, 763, 764. 772, 913, 
993, 1183, 1341. 

Chaney v. State e.x i-el. Ely (118 
Ind. 494, 21 X\ E. Rep. 45 
[1888]), 909, 996, 1067, 1072, 
1254. 

Chapman v. Ames ( 135 Cal. 246, 67 
Pac. 1125 [1901]), 118, 301, 702. 

Chapman v. City of Brookljoi (40 
X\ Y. 372 [1869]), 1206. 

Chapman v. Sollars (38 0. S. 378 
[1882]), 1109, 1207. 

Chapin v. Osborn (29 Ind. 99 
[1867]), 1474. 

Chapin v. Worcester ( 124 Mass. 
464), 308. 

Chariton, City of v. Holliday (60 
la. 391, 14 X\ W. 775 [1882]), 
18, 760, 768, 777, 849, 851, 852, 856, 
857, 875, 977, 979, 981, 1006, 1007. 

Charles v. City of Marion (100 Fed. 
538 [1900]). 108, 111, 699, 702, 
731. 

Charles v. City of Marion (98 Fed. 
166 [1899]), 1432. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxi 



[References are to sections.] 



Charleston, City of v. Cadle ( 166 
111. 487, 46 X. E. 1120 [1897]), 
1085. 

Charleston, City Council of v. Wer- 
ner (46 S. C. 323, 24 S. E. 207 
[1895]), 342. 

Charleston v. Werner (38 S. C. 488, 
37 Am. St. Rep. 776, 17 S. E. 33 
[1892]), 5, 19, 93, 97, 245, 342, 
483, 679, 1015. 

Charnock v. Levee District (38 La. 
Ann. 323), 4, 16, 37, 38, 39, 47, 
147, 155, 343, 660, 665, 666, 711. 

Chase v. Arctic Ditchers (43 Ind. 
74 [1873]), 247, 340, 10()4, 1067. 

Chase v. Chase (95 X. Y. 373 
[1884]), 1001, 1072, 1451, 1467. 

Chase v. City of Evanston (172 111. 
403, 50 X. E. 241 [1898]), 280. 

Chase v. City of Portland (86 Me. 
362, 29 All. 1104 [1894]). 65. 68, 
71. 

Chase v. Scheerer ( 136 Cal. 248, 68 
Pae. 768 [1902]), 867, 1426, 1427. 

Chase v. City Treasurer of City of 
Los Angeles (122 Cal. 540, 55 
Pac. 414 [1898]), 761, 762, 867, 
1359, 1425, 1427, 1435. 

Chase v. Board of Aldermen of 
Springfield (119 Mass. 556 
[1876]), 367, 432, 443, 527, 695, 
840, 862, 894, 1304, 1400. 1401, 
1405, 1407. 

Chase v. Trout ( 146 Cal. 350, 80 
Pac. 81 [1905]), 131, 138, 141, 
301, 795, 857, 979, 987, 1005. 1007, 
1085, 1337. 

Chatliam County, Commissioners of 
V. Seaboard Air Line Railway 
Comi)any ( 133 X. C. 216, 45 S. 
E. 566 [1903]). 3S. 363, 548, 594, 
595, 598. 

Chattanooga, flavor and Aldermen 
of V. Geiler (81 Tenn. (13 Lea.) 
611, 7 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 534 
[1884]), 66, 71. 

Cheaney v. Hoover (48 Ky. (9 B. 
Mon.) 350 [1848]), 779/ 

Cheeseborougli, In tlie Matter of the 
Petition of to Vacate an A>:s('ss- 
ment (78 X. V. 232 [1879]), 393, 
396, 400, 403, 564, 1455- 



Cheeseborough, In the Matter of tlie 
Petition of to Vacate an Assessment 
for Underground Drains between 
One Hundred and Eighty-third 
Streets, the Kings Bridge Road 
and the Hudson River (56 How- 
ard 460 [1878]), 1016. 

Cheney v. City of Beverly ( 188 
Mass. 81, 74 X\ E. 306 [1905]), 
103, 324, 677, 689, 700, 1403. 

Cherry Creek, Town of v. Becker 
(123 X. Y. 161, 25 X^. E. 369 
[1890]), 795, 1006, 1007. 

Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Com- 
pany V. Mullins (94 Ky. 355, 22 
S. W. 558 [1893]), 119^ 121, 323, 
737, 760. 

Chester, City of v. Black (132 Pa. 
St. 568, 6 L. R. A. 802, 19 Atl. 
276 [1890]), 11. 147, 148, 166, 
414, 961, 983. 

Chester, City of v. Bullock ( 187 Pa. 
St. 544, 41 Atl. 452 [1898]). 918, 
1026, 1157, 1158, 1337. 

Chester, City of v. Evans (32 Pa. 
Super. Ct. 641 [1907]), 3S2. 

Chester, City of, to Use of Ro>;s v. 
Eyre ( 181 Pa. St. 642, 37 Atl. 
837 [1897]), 896. 

Chester, City of v. Pennell ( 169 Pa. 
St. 300, 32 Atl. 408 [1895]). 961. 

Chestnut Avenue ( 68 Pa. St. ( 18 
P. F. Smith) 81 [1871]), 308, 
576, 626, 627. 

Chew V. People ex rel. Ra.ymond 
(202 111. 380, 66 X. E." 1069 
[1903]), 927. 929, 986, 1183, 1340. 

Chicago, City of v. Adock (168 111. 
221, 48 X. E. 155 [1897]), 549, 
563, 651, 659, 665, 666. 

Cliicago, City of v. Adams (24 111. 
492), 680. 

Chicago, City of v. Ayers (212 Hi. 
59, 72 X. E. 32 [1904]), 533, 840. 

Chicago, City of v. Baer (41 111. 306 
[1866]), 44, 101, 104, 153, 257. 
314, 545, 5-IS, 601. 615. 639. 665, 
666, 720. 

( hica-o. City of v. P.aldwin (227 
111. r,?[. SI X. K. 542 [1907]), 
952, 955. 



Ixxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[Keferences are to sections.] 



Chicago, City of v. Baptist Theologi- 
cal Union (115 111. 245, 2 N. E. 

254 [1886]), 210, 611. 
Chicago, City of v. Blair {149 111. 

310724 L. R. A. 412, 36 N. E. 829 

[1894]), 4, 7, 11, 223, 236, 286, 

291, 370,-377, 458, 715. 
Chicago, City of v. Becker (233 111. 

189, 84 N. E. 242 [1908]), 750, 

913. 
Chicago, City of v. Borden (190 111. 

430, 60 K E. 915 [1901]), 1035. 
Chicago, City of v. Brede (218 111. 

528, 75 X. E. 1044 [1905]), 51, 

104, 245, 258. 
Chicago, City of v. Brown (205 111. 

568, 69 N. E. 65 [1903]), 387. 
Chicago, City of v. Burkhardt (223 

111. 297, 79 N. E. 82 [1906]), 53, 

521, 737, 754. 
Chicago, City of v. Biirtice (24 111, 

489 [I860]), 680, 946, 1004, 1283, 

1331, 1333. 
Chicago, City of v. Carpenter (201 

111. 402, 66 N. E. 362 [1903]), 

637, 638. 
Chicago, City of v. Town of Cicero 

(210 111.' 290, 71 X. E. 356 

[1904]), 66, 353, 637. 
Chicago, City of v. Clark (233 111. 

404, 84 X. E. 363 [1908]), 485. 

820, 969, 991. 
Chicago, City of v. Colby (20 111. 

614 [1858]"), 39, 45, 613, 1173. 
Chicago V. Cook (204 111. 373, 08 

X^. E. 538 [1903]), 430, 955. 
Chicago, City of v. Cook ( 105 111. 

App. 353 [1903]), 430, 955. 
Chicago, City of v. Corcoran (190 

111. 146, 63 X. E. 690 [1902]), 

297, 328, 448. 
Chicago, City of v. Crosby (111 111. 

538 [1885]), 57, 323, 377. 
Chicago, City of v. Cummings ( 144 

111. 446, 33 X. E. 34 [1893]), 604, 

816. 
Chicago, City of v. Farrell ( 100 111. 

App. 204 [1902]), 1506. 
Chicago, City of v. Fishburn (189 

111. 367, 59 X. E. 791 [1901]), 3. 
Chicago, City of v. Fisk (123 111. 

App. 404 [1905]), 526, 1490. 



Chicago, City of v. Gage (232 111. 

169, 83 X. E. 663 [1908]), 813, 

969, 979. 
Chicago, City of v. Gait (225 111. 

368, 80 X. E. 285 [1907]), 53, 

55, 737, 758, 986. 
Chicago, City of v. Goodwillie (208 

111. 252, 70 X. E. 228 [1904]), 

851, 986. 
Chicago, City of v. Habar (02 111. 

283 [1871]), 886. 
Chicago, City of v. Hay ward ( 176 

111. 130, 52 X. E. 26 [1898]), 

1039, 1519. 
Chicago, City of v. Hayward (60 

111. App. 582), 1039. 
Chicago. City of v. Holden (194 111. 

213, 62 X. E. 550 [1902]), 864, 

1305. 
Chicago, City of v. Hulbert ( — 111. 

, 85 X. E. 222 [1908]), 1376, 

1377. 
Chicago, City of v. Hulbert (234 111. 

321, 84 X. E. 922 [1908]), 862. 
Chicago, City of v. Hulbert (205 111. 

346, 68 X. E. 786 [1903]), 475, 

479, 514, 531, 533, 955, 956, 962, 

965, 969, 978, 987, 990, 1367, 1390. 
Chicago, City of v. Kerfoot and 

Company (208 111. 387. 70 X. E. 

349 [1904]), 813, 819. 
Chicago, City of v. Earned (34 111. 

203 [1864]), 44, 101, 104, 113, 

153, 257, 615, 666, 690, 701. 
Chicago, City of v. Law ( 144 111. 

569, 33 X. E. 855 [1893]), 223, 

231, 291, 360, 417, 456, 775. 
Chicago, City of v. Le Moyne (119 

Fed. 662, 56 C. C. A. 278'[1902]), 

66. 
Chicago, City of v. Lonergan ( 196 

111. 518, 63 X. E. 1018 [1902]), 

66. 
Chicago, City of v. McCormick (124 

111. App. 639 [1906]), 526, 1490. 
Chicago, City of v. McGovern (226 

111. 403, 80 X. E. 895 [1907]), 

1478, 1490. 
Chicago, City of v. McXichols (98 

111. App. 447 [1900]), 1512. 
Chicago, The City of v. Middle- 

brooke ( 143 111. 265, 32 X. E. 457 

[1893]), 1099. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxiii 



[References are to i^ections. ] 



C'liicago. Oty of v. Xodeck ( 202 
III. 257, 67 X. E. 39 [1903]). 273. 
598, 604, 813, 817. 927. 929. 941, 
965, 967, 992, 1273. 1341. 

Chicago, City of v. Xoonan (210 111. 
18, 17 X.'^E. 32 [1904]), 953. 

C liicago, City of v. Xorthwestern 
Mutual Life Insurance Co. (218 
111. 40, 1 L. R. A. (X. S.) 770, 

75 X. E. 803 [1905]), 6, 20, 353. 
1037, 1082, 1484. 

Chicago, City of v. O'Brien (HI 111. 
532, 53 Am. Rep. 640 [1884]), 58, 
457. 

Cliicago, City of v. Paulsen ( 125 
111. App. 595 [1906]), 1490. 

Chicago. City of v. Peo])le (215 111. 
235, 74 X". E. 137 [1905]). 475, 
1103. 

Chicago, Board of Education of City 
of V. People, ex rel. Commission- 
ers of Lincoln Park (219 111. 83, 

76 X. E. 75 [1905]). 586, 612, 
613,. 927, 986. 

Chicago, City of v. People ex rel. 

Union Trust Co. (215 111. 235, 74 

X. E. 137 [1905]). 475, 1085. 

1104. 
Chicago. City of v. People ex rel. 

Union Trust Co. (116 111. App. 

564 [1904]), 475, 1103. 
Chicago, City of v. People of the 

State of 'Illinois (56 111. 327 

[1870]), 570, 615, 952, 968, 1507, 

1508, 1511, 1518. 
Chicago, City of v. Richardson (213 

111. 96, 72 X. E. 791 [1904]), 525, 

953. 
Chicago. City of v. Rosenfold (24 

111. 495 [I860]). 410, 915, 13.30. 
Chicago V. Sheldon (76 U. S. (9 

Wall.) 50, 19 L. 594 [1869]). 602, 

603, 615, 617. 
Chicago, City of v. Shepard (8 111. 

App. 602 [1881]), 74. 
Chicago, City of v. Slierman (212 

111. 498, 72 X. E. 396 [1904]). 

314, 533, 956, 962, 965, 978, 990. 
Chicago, City of v. Sherman ( 192 

111. 576. 61 X. E. 850 [1001]), 

864, 1305. 
Chicago, City of v. Sherwood (104 



111. 549 [1882]), 495, 570, 646, 

861, 1281. 
Chicago, City of v. Silverman ( 156 

111. 601, 41 X. E. 162). 636, 856. 
Cliicago, City of v. Singer (202 111. 

75, 66 X'! E. 874 [1903]), 864, 

917, 1368. 
Chicago, City of v. Singer (116 111. 

App. 559 "[1TO4]), 525, 526, 1490. 
Chicago, City of v. Smythe (33 111. 

App. 28 [1888]). 1519. 
Chicago V. Union Building Associa- 
tion ( 102 111. 379, 40 Am. Rep. 

598 [1882]), 1098. 
Chicago, City of v. Walker (24 111. 

494 [I860]), 883, 884. 909, 1305. 
Chicago, City of v. Walsh (203 111. 

318, 67 X. E. 774 [1903]), 735, 

739, 819, 926, 992, 1035, 1100. 
Chicago, City of v. Ward (36 111. 9 

[1864]), 's, 153, 271, 310. 958. 

965, 968, 990. 
Chicago, City of v. Webb ( 102 III. 

App. 232 '[1902]), 71. 
Chicago, City of v. Weber (94 111. 

App. 561 [1900]), 245. 540, 1508. 
Chicago, City of v. Wheeler (25 111. 

396. 79 Am. Dec. 342 [1861]), 63, 
280, 680, 997, 1519. 

Chicago, City of v. Wilder ( 184 111. 

397, 56 X. E. 395 [1900]), 731, 
739, 819. 

Chicago, City of v. Wilson ( 195 111. 

19, 57 L. R. A. 127, 62 X. E. 843 

[1902]), 323, 381, 386, 388. 
Chicago, City of v. Wright (SO III. 

579 [1875]), 969. 
Chicago, City of v. Wright (32 111. 

192 [186.3]), 63. 234, 244, 777. 

825. 
Chicago. City of, in Trust for Use 

of Schools V. City of Chicago ( 207 

111. 37, 69 X'. E.' 580 [1904]), 42. 

586, 612, 613, 1077. 
Chicago Title and Trust Company 

V. Town of Lake View (187 111. 

622, 58 X. E. 597 [1900]), 86. 
Chicago Union Paving Company v. 

City of Chicago (202 111. 576*. 67 

X. E. 383 [1903]). 314. 
Chicago & Alton Railroad Company 

V. City of .loliet (153 111. 649. 39 

X. E. 1077 [1S94]). .")0. 51. 89. 



Ixxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



100, 103, 104, 118, 202, 272, 549, 
555, 578, 598. 653, 666, 670, 698, 
715, 921. 
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. 
V. City of Chicago ( 106 U. S. 226 

17 S.'581), 715. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Eail- 
road Company v. Nebraska ex rel. 
Omaha (170 U. S.'57, 42 L. 948, 

18 S. 513 [1898]), 359, 717. 
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail- 
road Co. V. State of Nebraska (47 
Neb. 549, 53 Am, St. Rep. 557, 41 
L. R. A. 481, 66 N. W. 624 
[1896]), 359, 717. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. 
Co. V. People (212 111. 103, 72 N. 
E. 219 [1904]), 334, 335, 449. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail- 
road Company, The v. City of 
Quincy (139 111. 355, 28 N. E. 
1069 [1893]), 293. 298. 306, 431. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail- 
road Company v. City of Quincy 
(136 111. 563, 29 Am. St. Rep. 334, 
27 N. E. 192 [1892]), 293, 314, 
431, 623, 865. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincj' Rail- 
road Company v. South Park 
Commissioners (11 Bradwell 
(111.) 502 [1882]), 595, 620. 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Rail- 
way Company v. Village of Wil- 
ber (63 Neb' 624, 88 N. W. 660 
[1902]), 3. 

Chicago City Railway Co. v. City of 
Chicago (90 111. 573, 32 Am. Rep. 
54 [1878]), 309, 601, 603. 

Chicago Consolidated Traction Co. 
V. Village of Oak Park (225 111. 
9, 80 N. E. 42 [1907]), 271, 480, 
862, 1291, 1367, 1368. 

Chicago, Danville & Vincennes R. R. 
Co. V. Smith (62 111. 268, 14 Am. 
Rep. 99), 365. 

Chicago & Erie Railroad Co. v. 
Keith (67 0. S. 279, 60 L. R. A. 
525, 65 N. E. 1020 [1902]), 55, 
101, 113, 115, 117, 119, 291, 337. 
549, 726, 729, 773. 

Chicago & Evanston Railroad Com- 
pany V. Blake '116 111. 163 
ri8861). 65. 



Chicago and Evanston Railroad 
Company v. Jacobs (110 111. 414), 
661. 

Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. 
Kansas City Northwestern Ry. Co. 
(75 Kan. 167, 88 Pac. " 1085 
[1907]), 1054. 

Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville 
Railway Company v. City of 
Crawfordsville (164 Ind. 70, 72 N. 
E. 1025 [1904]), 59, 93, 98, 369, 
420, 869. 

Chicago, Indianapolis & St. Louis 
Short Line Co. v. People ex rel. 
McCormick (225 111. 519, 80 N. E. 
336 [1907]), 322. 

Chicago & Michigan Lake Shore R. 
R. Co. v. Sanford (23 Mich. 418 
[1871]), 825. 

Chicago, ^Milwaukee and St. Paul R. 
R. Co. V. Dumser '109 111. 402 
[1884]), 363. 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail- 
way Company v. City of Milwau- 
kee (89 Wis. 500, 28 L. R. A. 249, 
62 N. W. 417 [1895]), 301, 596, 
598, 614, 620, 630, 1078. 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Rail- 
way Company v. Phillips (111 la. 
377, 82 N. W. 787 [1900]), 12, 
548, 549, 553, 595, 651, 606, 1414. 
1431, 1443, 1445. 

Chicago & Northern Pacific Rail- 
road Company v. City of Chicago 
(174 111. 439, 51 'n. E. 596 
[1898]), 862. 

Chicago & Northern Pacific Rail- 
road Company v. City of Chicago 
(172 111. 66, 49 N. E. 1006 
[1898]), 293, 374, 380, 381, 386, 
570, 574, 604, 723, 857, 859, 922, 
1373, 1382. 

Chicago & Northwestern Railroad 
Company v. Village of Elmhurst 
(165 111. 184, 46 N. E. . 1152 
[1897]), 50, 89, 100, 103, 104, 110, 
118, 314, 555, 594, 595, 596, 598, 
623, 670, 698, 715, 1078. 

Chicago & Northwestern Railwa.v 
Company v. Forest County (95 
Wis. 80* 70 N. W. 77 [1897]), 3. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxv 



[References are to sections.] 



Chicago and Northwestern Railway 
V. People ex rel. Seip ( 120 111. 
104, 11 X. E. 418 [1889]), 305, 
356, 594, 598, 927, 933, 986, 996. 

Chicago and Northwestern Railroad 
Company, The v. The People ex 
rel. Miller, Collector (83 111. 467), 
267, 472, 927, 986, 1126. 

Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. West 
Chicago Park Commissioners (151 
111. 204. 25 L. R. A. 300, 37 N. E. 
1079), 259. 

Chicago R. R. Co. v. Iowa (94 U. S. 
155, 24 L. 94), 180. 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail- 
way Company v. Buel, (56 Neb. 
20.5, 76 N. W. 571 [1898]). 66. 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. 
R. C, The V. Chicago (139 111. 
573, 28 N. E. 1108 [1893]), 301, 
549, 560, 595, 596, 623. 631, 643, 
723, 896, 1283, 1330, 1373. 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail- 
way Co. V. City of Moline ( 158 
111. 64, 41 N. E. 877 [1895]), 594, 
595, 598, 623, 670, 1117, 1144. 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rail- 
way Company v. City of Ottumwa 
(112 la. 300, 51 L. R. A. 763, 83 
N. W. 1074 [1900]), 100, 594, 
595, 597, 598, 630, 748, 751, 891, 
977, 979, 981, 1043, 1054, 1078, 
1375. 
Chicago, St. L. & New Orleans R. 

Co. V. Rottgering ( — Ky. , 

83 S. W. 584, 26 Ky. L. R. 1167), 
69. 

Chicago Street Railway Company v. 
City of Chicago (178 111. 339, 53 
N. E. 112 [1899]), 602. 

Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad 
Company v. City of Chicago (217 
111. 343, 75 N.' E. 499 [1905]), 
138, 308, 1283. 

Chicago Terminal Transfer Ry. Co. 
V. City of Chicago (184 Ili. 154, 
56 N. E. 410 [1900]), 817, 863, 
1291. 

Chicago Terminal Transfer Com- 
pany V. City of Chicago ( 178 111. 
429, 53 N. E. 361 [1899]), 596. 

Chicago Union Traction Company v. 



City of Chicago (215 111. 410, 74 
N. E. 449 [1905]), 578, 606, 1278. 

Chicago Union Traction Co., The v. 
City of Chicago (209 111. 444, 70 
N. E. 659 [1904]), 820. 

Chicago Union Traction Company v. 
City of Chicago (208 111. 187, 70 
N. E. 234 [1904]), 295, 317, 440, 
465, 479, 674, 715, 719. 

Chicago Union Traction Company v. 
City of Chicago (207 111. 544*, 69 
N. E. 849 [1904]), 314, 578, 606. 
053, 655, 896, 1281, 1282. 

Chicago Union Traction Co., The v. 
City of Chicago (204 111. 363, 68 
N. E. 519 [1903]), 549, 578, 606. 
1054. 

Chicago Union Traction Co. v. City 
of Chicago (202 111. 576, 67 N. 
E. 383 [1903]), 578, 606, 655. 

Chicago and W. I. R. Co. v. City of 
Chicago (230 111. 9, 82 N. E. 399 
[1907]), 816, 909, 966, 986. 

Chicago West Di\'ision Railway 
Company, The v. People ex rel. 
Kern (154 111. 256, 40 N. E. 342 
[1894]), 636, 748, 751, 758, 764, 
772, 927, 930, 993. 

Child V. Boston (4 All. 41), 73. 

Childers v. Holmes ( 95 Mo. App. 
154, 68 S. W. 1046 [1902]), 54, 
714, 723, 867. 

Childs V. New Haven & Northamp- 
ton Company ( 133 Mass. 253 
[1882]), 65, ^66. 

Christ's Church, Wardens and Ves- 
try of V. City of Burlington (39 
la. 224 [1874]), 223, 9.50. 

Church, In the Matter of the Appli- 
cation of, etc. (92 N. Y. 1 [1883]), 
188, 239, 245. 266, .308, 663, 671, 
1519. 

Church of the Holy Sepulclier, In the 
Matter of the Petition of the Rec- 
tor, Church Wardens and Vestry- 
men of the (61 Howard (N. Y.) 
315 [1880]). 403, 563, 613, 681, 
883. 

Church Street from Fulton Street 
to Morris Street, in the City of 
New York, Matter of the Exten- 
sion of (49 Barb. (N. Y.) 455 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



[1867]), 278, 293, 310, 557, 4, 

901, 920. 
Cliurch V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (179 111. 205, 53 N. E. 554 

[1899]), 324, 527, 572, 1277. 
Church V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (174 111. 366, 51 N. E. 747 

[1898]), 533, 837, 840, 945, 989, 

1183. 
Churchman v. City of Indianapolis 

(110 Ind. 259, 11 N. E. 301 

[1S86]), 8, 89, 223. 229, 587, 641, 

681, 723, 775, 776, 777, 1455, 1460, 

1478, 1483. 
Chytraus v. City of Chicago ( 160 

111. 18, 43 N. E. 335 [1896]), 

1283, 1322, 1323. 
Cicero, Town of v. Andren (224 111. 

■617, 79 N. E. 962 [1907]), 900, 

953. 
Cicero, Town of v. Green (211 111. 

241, 71 N. E. 884 [1904]), 347, 

432, 451, 475, 510, 542, 927, 952, 

954, 955, 991, 1513. 
Cicero, Town of v. Hill (193 111. 

226, 61 N. E. 1020 [1901]), 526, 

955. 
Cic&ro & Pix)viso Street Railway 

Company v. City of Chicago (176 

111. 501, 52 N. E. 866 [1898]), 

545, 601. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Anchor White 

Lead Co. (44 0. S. 243, 7 N. E. 

11), 495, 822, 867. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Batsche (52 

O. S. 324, 27 L. R. A. 536, 40 N. 

E. 21 [1895]), 90, 113, 309, 575, 

620, 626, 700, 1432. 
Cincinnati, City of, for use of Ash- 
man V. Bickett (26 0. S. 49 

[1875]), 324, 493, 563, 760, 761, 

835, 977. 
Cincinnati, City of, for Use of Wirth 

V. Cincinnati and Spring Grove 

Avenue Company (26 0. S. 345 

[1875]), 525, 527. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Connor (55 

0. S. 82, 44 N. E. 582 [1896]), 

324, 555, 666, 670, 679. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Coombs ( 16 

Ohio 181 [1847]), 234, 911. 
Cincinnati v. Davis (58 0. S. 225, 

50 X. E. 918 [1898]), 263, 321, 

471. 



Cincinnati, City of v. Diekmeier (31 

O. S. 242 [1877]), 686, 995, 998, 

1498, 1507. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Emerson (57 

0. S. 132, 48 N. E. 667 [1897]), 

987. 
Cincinnati, City of, for the Use of 

Wilson v. Fugman ( 5 Ohio N. P. 

14 [1897]), 432, 684. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Holmes ( 56 

Ohio St. 104, 46 N. E. 514 

[1897]), 505. 
Cincinnati, City of v. James (55 O. 

S. 180, 44 n". E. 925 [189G]), 561, 

635, 1035, 1094, 1109, 1432, 
Cincinnati, for Use, etc. v. Jung, (7 

Ohio N. P. 665 [1900]), 570, 684. 
Cincinnati, City of, for Use of Jonte 

V. Kasselmann (23 W. L. B. 

(Ohio) 392 [1890]), 563. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Lingo ( 13 

Ohio C. C. 334 [1897]), 987, 998, 

1146. 
Cincinnati, City of, for Use of De- 
ters V. McDuffie (1 Ohio N. P. 53 

[1894]), 1229. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Manss ( 54 0. 

S. 257, 43 N. E. 687 [1896]), 700, 

707, 1012, 1094, 1492. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Oliver (31 0. 

S. 371 [1877]), 680. 
Cincinnati v. Seasongood (46 0. S. 

296, 21 N. E. 630), 169, 650, 700, 

725. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Steadman (8 

Ohio C. C. 407 [1894]), 1515. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Steinkamp ( 54 

0. S. 284, 43 N. E. 490 [1896]), 

189. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Taf t ( 63 O. 

S. 141, 58 n". E. 63 [1900]). 189. 
Cincinnati, City of v. Wynne ( 19 

Ohio C. C. 747 [1900]), 635, 1059, 

1072. 
Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton 

Railroad v. Sullivan (32 0. S." 152 

[1877]), 59, 93, 98, 369, 717. 
Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern 

Railway Company v. City of Cin- 
cinnati (62 0. S. 465, 49 L. R. A. 

566, 57 N. E. 229 [1900]), 89, 90, 

113, 118, 308, 314, 426, 430. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



Ixxvi 



[Referpnces are to sections.] 



Cincinnati, Xew Orleans & Texas 

Pacific R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth 

(81 Ky. 492 [1883]), 750. 
Cist V. City of Cincinnati (S Ohio 

N. P. 559 [1901]), 571, 831. 
Citizens' Bank of Des Moines v. City 

of Spencer (126 la. 101, 101 N. 

W. 643 [1904]), 965, 1513, 1526. 
Citizens' Saving Bank & Trust Com- 
pany V. City of Cliicago (215 111. 

235," 74 X. 'e. 115 [1905]), 119, 

259, 267, 726, 926. 
Citizens' State Bank v. Jess (127 

la. 450, 103 X. W. 471 [1905]). 

1140, 114G. 
City of V. . 

(See name of City.) 
City to Use of Lancaster v. Arm- 
strong (56 Mo. 298 [1874]), 1101. 
City to the Use of Peters v. Arrott 

('s Phil. (Pa.) 41 [1870]), 541. 
City to Use of McGratli v. Clemens 

(49 Mo. 552 [1872]), 525, 527. 

539. 707. 
City V. Commonwealtli ( 1 Duv. 296, 

17 Ky. Law Rep. 445), 612. 
City V. Crump ( 1 Penn. Dis. Rep. 

698 [1890]), 748, 1063. 
City V. Ellis (67 Va. (26 Gratt.) 

224 [1875]), 120. 
City to Use of O'Rourke v. Hays 

('93 (12 Xorris) Pa. St. 72 

[1881]), 483, 511. 
City for U.-e of Wilson v. He-s ( 19 

Ohio C. C. 252 [1900]), 563. 
City to Use of Brooks v. Lea (9 

I'liila. (Pa.) 106 [1872]), 441. 

569. 
City V. Lea (5 Phila. 77). 234. 
City V. Lewis (4 Pliila. 13.-) [1S6()]). 

1194. 
City, Tlie v. Lukins (3 Phil. 333 

[1859]), 1197. 
City V. McCalmont (6 Pliil. 543 

[1868]), 347, 451. 
City Council v. Pinekncy ( 1 'I'read- 

way (S. C.) 42]), 159, 621, 726. 

7.35, 1432. 
City to Use of Fox v. Sclioencmann 

(52 Mo. 348 [1873]). 324, 414. 
City V. Wood (4 Pliil. 156 [I860]). 

1063. 



City V. Wood (3 Phil. 145 [1858]), 

1211. 
City Bank of Xew Orleans v. Huie 

(1 Rob (La.) 236 [1842]), 1049, 

1067. 
City Bond Com)>any v. Bruner ( 34 

Ind. App. 659, 73 X. E. 711 

[1904]), 1360. 
City Bond Co. v. Wells (34 Ind. 

App. 675, 73 X. E. 713 [1904]), 

1360. 
City Improvement Co. v. Broderick 

125 Cal. 139, 57 Pac. 77() [1899]), 

496. 
City Street Improvement Co. v. Bab- 
cock (139 Cal. 690, 73 Pac. 666 

[1903]). 15, 223, 229, 234, 244, 

482, 776, 803, 805, 807, 808, 810. 
City Street Improvement Co. v. Bab- 

o.jck (123 Cal. 205, 55 Pac. 762 

[1898]), 810. 830. 
City Street Improvement Company 

v. Emmons (138 Cal. 297, 71 Pac. 

332 [1902]), 958, 960, 1131, 1269. 
City Streot Improvement Co. v. 

Laird (138 Cal. 27, 70 Pac. 916 

[1902]). 301. 492. 499, 803, 810, 

811, 1290. 
City Street Imprnvomont Co. v. Ron- 

tiit (140 Cal. 55, 73 Pac. 729 

[1903]), 318, 803, 1129, 1257. 
City Street Improvement Company 

V. Ta.vlnr (138 Cal. 364, 71 Pac. 

446 [1903]). 315, 439. 479. 1359. 
Clallin V. City of Chicago (178 111. 

549, 53 X.'e. 339 [1899]), 570, 

862, 864. 
Claiborne Street, flatter of (4 La. 

Ann. 7 [1849]), 155. 
Clap]) V. City of Hartford ( .?5 Conn. 

66 [1868]), 119, 324, 444. 549, 

560, 563, 588, 608, 655, 666, 694, 

701, 709, 728, 1317, 1361. 
Clapp V. :\lacfarland (20 App. D. C. 

224 [1902]), 70, 1373, 1381. 
Clapp V. Minnesota Grass 'iwine 

Company (81 Minn. 511. 84 X. W. 

344 [1900]), 340, 1049. 1066, 

1072. 
Clapton V. Ta.vlor (49 :Mo. App. 117 

[18921). 5.3. 497, 500. 620. 622, 

631, 6:M. 737. 862. ^63. 1059. 



Ixxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Clark, In the Matter of (31 Hun 

(N. Y.) 198 [1883]), 1463. 
Clark V. City of Chicago (229 111. 

363, 82 N. E. 370 [1907]), 690, 

1279. 
Clark V. City of Chicago (214 111. 

318, 73 N. E. 358 [1905]), 418, 

549, 563, 690, 918, 1392. 
Clarke v. City of Chicago (185 111. 

354, 57 N. E. 15 [1900]), 119, 

731, 739, 817. 
Clark V. City of Chicago (166 111. 

84, 46 N. E. 730 [1897]), 578, 

610, 633, 670, 920. 
Clark V. City of Chicago (155 111. 

223, 40 N. E. 495 [1895]), 817, 

1373, 1375. 
Clark V. City of Cleveland ( 1 0. S. 

139 [1853]), 431, 620, 626, 819. 
Clark V. Colidge (8 Kan. 189 

[1871]), 1054. 
Clark V. Village of Dunkirk (75 N. 

Y. 612 [1878]), 545, 141.i, 1430. 
Clark V. Village of Dunkirk (12 

Hun 181 [1877]), 545, 1415, 1425, 

1427, 1430, 1444. 
Clark V. City of Elizabeth (61 N. 

J. L. (32 Vr.) 566, 40 Atl. 616, 

737 [1898]), 71, 313, 425, 1519. 
Clark V. Mead (102 Cal. 516, 36 

Pac. .862 [1894]). 228, 753, 1181, 

1201, 1297, 1450. 
Clark V. Nash (198 U. S. 361, 25 

S. 676 [1905]), 355. 
Clark V. The People ex rel. (146 

111. 348, 35 X. E. 60 [1893]), 772, 

930, 993, 1341. 
Clark V. Porter (53 Cal. 409 

[1879]), 1056, 1383. 
Clark V. City of Worcester (125 

Mass. 226 ["l878]), 66, 
Clay V. City of Grand Rapids (60 

Mich. 451, 27 X. W. 596 [1886]), 

247. 324, 326, 552, 555, 639, 658. 
Clay City, Town of v. Bryson ( 30 
Ind. App. 490, 66 N. E. 498 
[1902]), 223, 482, 1015, 1022. 
Cla.vburgh v. City of Chicago (25 
111. 535, 79 Am.' Dec. 346 [1861]), 
1519. 
Clayton, Sheriff v. Lafargue (23 
Ark. 137 [1861]), 343, 1415, 1430, 
1444. 



Clemens v. Mayor and City Council 
of Baltimore, use of Volkmar ( 16 
Md. 208 [I860]), 46, 314, 1042, 
1043, 1142, 1241, 1319. 

Clemens v. Lee (114 Ind. 397, 16 
N. E. 799 [1887]), 771, 772. 1192, 
1252, 1263, 1265, 1337. 

Clements v. Village of Norwood (2 
Ohio N. P. 274 [1895]), 561, 631, 
1435. 

Cleneay v. Norwood ( 137 Fed. 962 
[1905]), 402, 563, 642, 723, 1444. 

Clerk V. City of Chicago ( 155 111. 
223. 40 N."e. 495 [1895]), 813. 

Clerk V. The People ex rel. Kern 
(146 III. 348, 35 N. E. 60 [1893]), 
927. 

Cleveland v. Tripp (13 R. I. 50 
[1880]), 89, 118, 119, 123, 135, 
147, 324, 408, 424, 520, 010, 665, 
666, 706, 708, 712, 728. 

Cleveland, City of v. Wick (18 
0. S. 303 [1868]), 73, 90, 118, 
308, 426, 430, 700. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and 
St. Louis Ry. Co. v. City of Con- 
nersville (147 Ind. 277, 62 Am. 
St. Rep. 418, 37 L. R. A. 175, 46 
N. E. 57« [1896]), 369. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 
Louis Railway Co. v. The Edward 
Jones Co. (20 Ind. App. 87, 50 
N. E. 319 [1897]), 777, 1006, 
1061, 1229, 1331. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 
Louis Railway Co. v. O'Brien (24 
Ind. App. 547, 57 N. E. Rep. 47 
[1899]), 886, 1239. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 
Louis R. R. Co. V. People (212 111. 
638, 72 N. E. 725 [1904]), 208, 
267. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Cliicago & St. 
Louis Ry. Co. v. Porter (210 U. 
S. 177, '28 S. 647 [1908]), 119. 
121, 122, 629, 998. 

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 
Louis Railway Co. v. Porter (38 
Ind. App. 2"26, 74 N. E. 260 
[1905] : petition for rehearing over- 
ruled in 76 N. E. 179), 119, 121, 
472, 629, 989, 998, 1110, 1244. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxix 



[References are to sections.] 



Clifton Campbell County, District of 

V. Schneider (106 Ky. 605, 51 S. 

W. 13 [1899]), 1101. 
Cline V. People ex rel. Barlow (224 

111. 360, 79 N. E. 663 [1906]), 

324, 393, 400, 405, 1324. 
Cline V. City of Seattle (13 Wasli- 

ington 444, 43 Pac. 367 [1896]), 

408, 550, 725, 962, 963. 
Cline V. City of Tacoma (11 Wash. 

193. 39 Pac. 453 [1895]), 833. 
Clingnian v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(183 111. 339, 55 N. e". 727 

[1899]), 540, 1183, 1342. 
Clinton Avenue, In re, in City of 

New \ork (185 X. Y. 601, 7l5 X. 

E. 1101, 106 App. Div. 31 [1906]), 

309, 657. 
Clinton, City of, to Use of Thornton 

V. Henry County (115 Mo. 557, 

37 Am. St. Rep. 415, 22 S. W. 494 

[1893]), 42, 50, 212, 301, 580, 582, 

612, 613, 614, 1040, 1075, 1144, 

1505. 
Clinton v. City of Portland (26 Or. 

410, 38 Pac. 407 [1894]). 490, 

501, 735, 739, 761, 765, 810, 830, 

832, 836, 857, 951, 1005, 1015, 

1279, 1281. 
Clinton v. Shugart (126 Iowa 179, 

101 N. W. 785 [1904]), 1054, 

1072. 
Clinton, City of v. Walliker (98 la. 

655, 68 N. W. 431 [1896]), 507, 

983, 1504. 
Clinton Township v. Teachout (150 

Mich. 124, 111 X. W. 1052 

[1907]), 556, 558, 1347, 1348. 

1432. 
Close V. City of Chicago (217 111. 

216, 75 N. E. 479 [1905]), 324, 

330, 866, 917, 1375. 
Clover V. People ex rel. Raymond 

(188 111. 576, 59 X. E. 429 

[1901]), 927, 1000, 1332. 
Clowes V. flavor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xow 

York (47 Hun 539 [1888]), 1440. 
Cluggish v. Koons (15 Ind. App. 

599, 43 X. E. 158), 528. 
Coates V. Campbell (87 Minn. 498, 

35 N. W. 366), 396. 



Coates V. Village of Xorwood ( 16 

Ohio C. C. 196 [1898]), 309, 555, 

619, 629. 
Coates V. Xugent ( — Kan. , 92 

Pac. 597 [1907]), 293, 328, 553, 

563. 
Cobb V. Corporation of Elizabeth 

City (75 X. C. 1 [1876]), 548. 
Coburn v. Bossert ( 13 Ind. App. 

359, 40 X. E. 281 [1895]), 328, 

563, 666, 698, 719, 1222. 
Coburn v. Liiclnleld ( 132 ^lass. 440 

[1882]). 956, 1083. 
Cochran v. Collins (29 Cal. 130 

[1865]), 521, 537, 835, 1216. 
Cochran v. Village of Park Road^ 

(138 111. 295, 27 X. E. 939 

[1893]), 244, 329, 393, 401, 439, 

447, 804. 
Codman v. Johnson (104 Mass. 491 

[1870]), 49, 1054. 
Cody V. Town of Cicero (203 III. 

322, 67 X. E. 859 [1903]), 912, 

952, 954, 955, 991, 1324. 
Cogueshall v. City of Des Moines 

(78 la. 235, 41 'x. W. 617, 42 X. 

W. 650 [1889]), 314, 495, 496, 

508, 956, 902. 1017. 
Cohen v. City of Alameda (124 Cal. 

504, 57 Pac. 377 [1899]), 118, 

119, 130, 308, 310, 644, 891, 1330. 
Cohn V. Parcels (72 Cal. 367, 14 

Pac. 26 [1887]), 570, 1443. 
Coit V. City of Grand Rapids (115 

Mich. 493, 73 X. W. 811 [1898]), 

015, 1015, 1033. 
Colburn v. :McDonald (72 Xeb. 431, 

100 X. W. 961 [1904]), 365. 
Cole V. Hunter (5 Ohio X. P. 13 

[1897]), 684. 
Cole V. City of St. Louis (132 Mo. 

633, 34 S. W. 469 [1895]), 66, 

653. 
Cole V. Skrainka (105 Mo. 303, 16 

S. W. 491 [1891]), 234, 437, 511, 

766. 
Cole V. People (101 111. 16, 43 X. 

E. 607 [1890]), 517. 
Coleman v. Rathbun (40 Wash. 303, 

82 Pac. 5-10 [1905), 1435. 
Coleman v. Shattuck (68 X. Y. 349), 

480, 1373. 



Ixxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[Ueferences are to sections.] 



Colfax, Commissioners of Highwaj's 

of the Town of v. Commissioners 

of East Lake Fork Special Drain- 
age District (127 111. 581. 21 X. 

E. 206 [1890]), 104, 247, 248, 336, 

340, 549, 564, 587, 636, 692, 724, 

748, 927, 1030, 1076, 1229, 137.1, 

1469, 1470. 
College Street, In the Matter of (8 

R. I. 474 [1867]), 42, 301, 590, 

613. 
Collier v. Frierson (24 Ala. 100), 

216. 
Collier Estate v. Western Paving & 

Supply Company (180 Mo. 362, 

79 S. W. 947 [1904]), 234, 314, 

620, 621, 624, 628, 631, 663, 666, 

709, 711, 728, 1026. 
Collins V. Holyoke (146 Mass. 298, 

15 X. E. 908 [1888]), 125. 728. 
Columbia, Corporation of v. Hunt 

(5 Rich. (S. C.) 550 [1852]), 315. 
Columbia Bottom Levee Company v. 

Meier (39 Mo. 53 [1866]), 253, 

343, 532, 549. 
Columbus, City of v. Sclmeider ( 7 

Ohio N. P. 619 [1900]), 1179. 
Columbus, City of v. Sohl (44 O. S. 

479, 8 N. E. Rep. 299 [1886]), 

787, 1012. 
Columbus, City of v. Storey ( 35 Ind. 

97" [1871]). 5.50, 555, '560. 639, 

723. 
Combs v. Etter (49 Ind. 535 

[1875]), 280, 1250. 
Combs V. Smith (78 Mo. 32, 20 Am. 

& Eng. R. Cases 209 [1883]), 70. 
Commercial National Bank v. City 

of Portland (24 Ore. 188, 41 Am. 

St. Rep. 854, 33 Pac. 532 [1893]), 

1510, 1511. 
Commissioners of Public Parks, In 

the Matter of (47 Hun 302 

[1888]), 923. 
Commissioners v. Snyder (45 Kan. 

636, 23 Am. St. Rep. 742, 26 Pac. 

21 [1891]), 366. 
Commissioners v. Stall (50 O. S. 

653, 35 N. E. 887 [1893]), 189. 
Commissioners of Highways of 

Town of Dix v. Big Four Drainage 

District of Ford County (207 111. 

17. 69 N. E. 576 [1904]), 51, 61, 



585, 928, 993, 1075, 1162, 1469, 
1470, 1474, 1476. 

Commissioners of the Town of Colfax 
V. Commissioners of East Lake 
Fork Special Drainage District 
(127 111. 581, 21 N. E. 206 [1890J. 
( See Colfax,Commis'sioners of High- 
ways of the Town of v. . ) 

Commissioners of Sewers v. New- 
burg (3 Keb. 827 (29 Car. II.), 
672. 

Commissioners of Sinking Fund of 

Jersey City v. . (See 

Jersey City.) 

Commissioners of Sinking Fund of 

X^w Jersey v. . ( See New 

Jersey v. . ) 

Commissioners of Spoon River 
Drainage District in Champaign 
County v. Conner (121 111. App. 
450 [1905]), 340, 549, 564, 659. 

Commonwealth v. Justices of the 
Sessions for the County of Mid- 
dlesex (9 Mass. 388 [1812]), 70. 

Commonwealth v. Justices of the 
Court of Sessions for the County 
of Norfolk (5 Mass. 435 [1809]), 
68, 70. 

Commonwealth to use of Allegheny 
City V. Marshall (69 Pa. St. (19 
P. F. Smith) 328 [1871]), 228, 
414, 574, 853, 950, 9G3. 

Commonwealth v. Patton ( 85 Pa. 
St. 258), 190. 

Commonwealth v. Pittsburg (41 Pa. 
St. 278), 365. 

Commonwealth ex rel. Whelen v. Se- 
lect and Common Councils of the 
City of Pittsburg (88 Pa. St. (7 
Norris) 66 [1878]), 1502. 

Commonwealth v. Watson (97 Mass. 
562 [1867]), 58. 

Commonwealth v. Inhabitants of 
Williamstown ( 156 Mass. 70, 30 
N. E. 472), 365. 

Commonwealth for Use, etc. v. 
Woods (44 Pa. St. (8 Wright) 113 
[1862]), 308, 324, 555, 672. 

Commonwealth v. Eagle Grove City 
(133 Iowa 589, 111 N. W. 51 
[1907]), 324, 496, 500, 511, 742, 
833, 981, 1006, 1007, 1031, 1442. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxi 



[Refi'rt'uces ;ii-e to Keetious.] 



Comstock V. Incorporated Village of 

Xelsonville (61 Ohio St. 288, 50 

N. E. 15 [1899J), 505. 
Conde v. City of Schenectady ( 164 

N. Y. 258, 58 N. E. 130 [IflOO]), 

380, 381, 440, 464, 509, 698, 800, 

981, 1012, 1085, 1426, 1427. 
Conde v. Schenectady (29 App. Div. 

604, 51 N. Y. S. 854). 1085. 
Cone V. City of Hartford (28 Conn. 

363 [1859]), 324, 325, 400, 402, 

434, 651, 670, 1056, 1281, 1479. 
Conger v. Bergman ( — Ky. , 11 

S. W. 84, 10 Ky. L. R. 899 

[1889]), 322. 
Conger v. Graham ( — Ky. , 

11 S. W. 467, 11 Ky. L. R. 12 

[1889]), 322. 
Conley, In the Matter of (22 Hun 

(N. Y.) 603 [1880]), 985, 1460. 
Oonlin v. People ex rel. Lassig ( 190 

111. 400, 60 X. E. 55 [1901]), 

795, 927, 986, 996, 1183, 1340. 
Conlin v. Seamen (22 Cal. 546 

[1863]), 538, 887, 1153, 1240, 

1358. 1359. 
Connecticut v. . ( See 

State of Connecticut v. . ) 

Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance 

Company v. City of Chicago (217 

111. 352, 75 N. E. 365 [1905]), 

301, 324, 609, 816, 863, 864, 880, 

909. 
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance 

Company v. City of Chicago ( 185 

111. 148, 56 N. E. 1071 [1900]), 

413, 424, 837, 873. 
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance 

Co. V. People ex rel. Kocherspor- 

ger (172 111. 31, 49 N. E. 989 

[1898]), 520, 945, 1183. 
Connell v. Hill (30 La. Ann. 251 

[1878]), 323, 6G3. 
Conner v. City of Cincinnnti (11 

Oiiio C. C. 3*36 [1890]), 324, 555, 

666, 670, 679. 
Connersville, City of v. Merrill (It 

Ind. App. 303, 42 N. E. 1112 

[1895]), 53, 323. 500, 617, 641, 

720. 747, 812, 856, 864, 1026, 1112, 

1125, 1249. 
Connor v. City of Paris (87 Tex. 32, 



27 S. W. 88 [1894]), 86, 179, 223, 

234, 475, 720, 775, 777, 872, 1104. 
Connor v. Town of West Chicago 

(102 111. 287, 44 X. E. 1118 

[1896]), 1085. 
Consolidated Cannel Company v. 

Central Pacific Railroad Company, 

(51 Cal. 269 [1876]), 117. 
Constantine v. City of Alhion (148 

Mich. 403, 111 X. W. 1068 

[1907]), 983, 1434. 
Conway, In the Matter of (02 X. Y. 

504 '[1875]), 740, 702. 
Conway v. City of Chicago (219 111. 

295,^70 X. E. 384 [1905]), 924, 

954, 1104, 1325. 
Conway, In the INIatter of v. Mayor. 

etc., of the Town of Xew York (4 

Hun (X. Y.) 43 [1875]), 740, 762. 
Con well V. Tate (107 Ind. 171, 8 

X. E. 36 [1886]), 1277. 
Cook V. City of Ansnnia ( 66 Conn. 

413, 34 Atl. 183 [1895]), 71, 313. 
Cook V. Covert (71 ]\Iieh. 249, 39 

X\ \V. 47 [1888]), 745, 1012, 1018. 
Cook V. Gage County (65 Xeb. 611, 

91 X. W. 559 [1902]), 763. 
Cook V. City of Independence ( 133 

Iowa 582, 110 X". W. 1029 [1907]), 

1271, 1280. 
Cook V. Morea (33 Ind. 407 [1870]), 

303. 
Cook V. City of Portland (35 Or. 

3S3, 58 Pac. 353 [1899]), 374, 805, 

810. 
Cook V. Port of Portland (20 Or. 

580, 13 L. R. A. 533, 27 Pac. 263 

[1891]), 360. 
Conk V. City of Racine (49 Wis. 

243, 5 X. W. 352 [1880]), 479, 

4S4. 485, 1432, 1435, 1430. 
Cook V. Slocum (27- Minn. 509, 8 

X. W. 755 [1881]), 309, 057, 825, 

872, 885. 
Cook V. South Park Com. (61 111. 

115), 350. 
Cook V. Sudden (94 Cal. 443, 29 

Pac. 949 [1892]), 396, 1320. 
Cook V. State for Use of Whitten 

(101 Ind. 446 [1884]), 1065, 1067, 

1008. 



Ixxxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Cook County v. City of Chicago ( 103 

111. 646 [1882]), 6, 10, 353, 582, 

612. 
Cook Farm Co. v. City of Detroit 

(124 Mich. 426, 83 X. W. 130 

[1900]), 251, 347. 
Coombs V. MacDonald (43 Neb. G32, 

62 N. W. 41), 372. 
Coomes v. Burt (22 Pick. 422), 336. 
Cooper V. Arctic Ditchers (56 Ind. 

233 [1877]), 253, 341, 802, 1229. 
Cooper V. Nevin (90 Ky. 85, 13 S. 

W. 841 [1890]), 628, 710. 
Copcutt V. City of Yonkers ( S3 Hun 

(N. Y.) 178, 31 N. Y. S. 659 

[1894]), 557, 639, 723, 859, 1304, 

1432. 
Copcutt V. City of Yonkers (59 Hun 

(N. Y.) 212, 13 N. Y. Supp. 452 

[1891]), 394. 
Copeland v. Packard (33 Mass. (16 

Pick.) 217 [834]), 771. 
Copeland v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Springfield (166 Mass. 498, 44 N. 

E. 605 [1896]), 31 228, 663. 
Corbin v. Davenport, (9 la. 239 

[1859]), 1206. 
Corcoran v. Board of Aldermen of 

•Cambridge ( — Mass. , 85 N. 

E. 155 [1908]), 370, 608. 
Cordes v. Brooks ( 18 Ohio C. C. 

801 [1895]), 1085. 
Corey v. City of Ft. Dodge (133 

Iowa 666, 111 N. W. 6 [1907]). 

314, 440, 579, 679, 719, 1498. 
Corliss V. Village of Highland Park 

(146 Mich. 597, 110 N. W. 45 

[1906]), 684, 1085. 
Corliss V. Village of Highland Park 

(132 Mich. 152, 93 N. W. 254, 

93 N. W. 610 (Affirmed on rehear- 
ing, 95 N. W. 416 [1903), 269, 

324, 416, 423, 079, 686, 722, 723, 

950, 962, 1085. 
Cornell v. Commissioners of Frank- 
lin County (67 0. S. 335, 65 N. 

E. 998 [1902]), 629. 
Cornell v. People ex rel. ( 107 111. 

372 [1883]), 259. 
Corrigan v. Bell (73 Mo. 53 [1880]), 

1195, 1203, 1225. 
Corrigan v. Gage (68 Mo. 541 

[1878]), 293, 296, 549, 555. 



Corry v. Campbell (25 0. S. 134 

[1874]), 86, 529, 1007, 1312, 1370, 
Corry v. City of Cincinnati (6 Ohio 

N.' p. 325 [1899]), 787. 
Corry v. Foltz, O'Brien & Co. (29 

0. S. 320 [1876]), 681, 682, 895. 
Corry v. Gaynor (22 O. S. 584 

[1872]), 266, 468, 471, 781, 795, 

1006, 1033, 1113, 1215. 
Corry v. Gaynor (21 0. S. 277 

[1871]), 1041, 1048, 1445. 
Corsicana, City of v. Kerr, 89 Tex. 

461, 35 S. W. 794 [1896]), 824, 

910. 
Oortelyou v. Anderson (73 N. J. L. 

427, 63 Atl. 1095 [1906]), 173, 

322, 626, 775, 776, 950, 
Corwin, In the Matter of ( 14 Hun, 

34 [1878]), 740, 762, 763, 1279. 
Corwith V. Village of Hyde Park ( 14 

Brad. (111.) 635 [1844]), 308, 

1525. 
Cosner v. Board of Supervisors of 

Colusa County (58 Cal. 274 

[1881]), 1503. " 
Ooster V. Tide Water Company ( 18 

N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Green) 54 

[1886]), 13, 113, 117, 255, 338, 

665. 
Cossitt Land Co. v. Xeuscheler ( — 

X. J. L. , 60 Atl. 1128 

[1905]), 552, 561, 620, 665. 
Costello V. Wyoming (49 0. S. 202, 

30 X. E. 613 [1892]), 189. 
Cotton V. Watson (134 Cal. 422, 66 

Pac. 490 [1901]), 301, 907, 1353. 
Cotton V. Wiscasset, W'aterville & 

Farmington R. R. Co. (98 Me. 511, 

57 Atl. 785 [1904]), 363. 
C'oulin V. People ex rel. Lassig ( 190 

III. 400, 60 N. E. 55 [1901]), 931. 
Ooulter V. Phoenix Brick & Con- 
struction Co., ( — Mo. App. , 

110 S. W. 655 [1908]), 831. 
Council v. Moyamensing (2 Pa. St. 

(2 Barr.) 224 [1845]), 631, 1047, 

1164. 
Council Bluffs, City of v. Omaha & 

Council Bluffs Street Railway & 

Bridge Company (114 la. 141, 86 

X. W. 222 [1901]), 603, 620. 
Counterman v. Dublin Township (38 

0. S. 15), 1012. 



I 



TABLE OF CAgES. 



Ixxxiii 



[References are to sections.] 



Covington, City of v. Boyle (69 Ky. 

(0 Bush.) 204 [1869]), 842, 860, 

867, 887, 1072. 
Covington, City of v. Bullock ( — ■ 

Ky. , 103 S. W. 276 [1907]), 

463. 
Covington, City of v. Casey ( 66 Ky. 

(3 Bush.) 698 [1868]), 783, 843. 
Covington, City of v. Dressman ( 69 

Ky. (6 Bush.) 210 [1869]), 459, 

517, 518, 888, 1072. 
Covington, City of v. Matson ( — 

Ky. — , 34 S. W. 897, 17 Ky. L. 

R* 1323 [1896]), 620, 663, 666, 

709. 
Covington, City of v. W. T. Xoland 

(— Ky. , 89 S. W. 216, 28 

Ky. L."^ R. 314 [1905]), 324, 775. 
Covington v. Southgate (15 B. ]\lon. 

(Ky.) 491), 150. 
Covington, City of v. Worthington 

(88 Ky. 206, 27 Am. & Eng. Corp. 

Cases, 187, 11 S. W. 1038, 10 S. 

W. 790 [1889]), 73, 86, 110, 236, 

308, 662. 
Cowan v. Village of West Troy (43 

Barb. (X. YO 48 [1864]), 981. 
Coward V. Xorth Plainfield (63 X. 

J. L. (34 Vr.) 61, 42 Atl. 805 

[1899]), 667, 1410. 
Cowley V. City of Spokane (99 Fed. 

840 [1900]), 111, 112, 702. 1019. 
Cox V. Bird (88 Ind. 142 [1882]), 

986, 1182, 1443. 
Cox V. Mignery & Co. (126 ]Mo. App. 

669, 105 S. W. 675 [1907]), 1015. 
Coyne v. City of Memphis (118 Tenn. 

651, 102 S. W. 355 [1907]), 73, 

661. 
Craft V. Kocherspergor (173 III. 

617, 50 X. E. 1061 [1S9S]), 525, 

531, 533, 746, 773, 925, 927. 942, 

1426, 1427, 1433, 1439. 
Craig V. Board of Improvement of 

Busselville Water Works Improve- 
ment District v 84 Ark. 390, 105 

S. W. 867 [1907]), 103, 225, 779. 
Craig V. Ileis (30 0. S. 550 [1876]), 

322, 1067, 1072. 
Craig V. Peoj)le ex rel. Ciannaway 

(193 111. 199, 61 N. E. 1072 

[1901]), 525, 862, 1065, 1101, 

1102. 



Craig V. City of Philadelphia (89 

Pa. St. (8 X^orris) 265 [1879]), 

118, 304, 610, 665, 666, 706, 1157, 

1158, 1310. 
Ciaighill V. Van Riswick (8 App. 

D. C. 185 [1896]), 86, 243, 356, 

1420, 1425. 
Cram, In the Matter of the Petition 

of, to Vacate an Assessment ((iO 

X. Y. 452 [1877]), 479, 679, 686. 
Cram v. City of Chicago ( 139 111. 

265, 28 N.. E. 758 [1893]), 313, 

380, 386, 631, 920. 
Cram v. Munro (1 Ed. Ch. (X. Y.) 

123 [1831]), 1054. 
Cramer v. City of Charleston (176 

111. 507, 52 X. E. 73 [1898]), 314, 

070, 098, 715, 772, 862, 947, 1377. 
Crandell v. City of Taunton (110 

Mass. 421 [1S72]), 309, 918, 920, 

921, 1002, 1348, 1365. 

Crane v. Cummings (137 Cal. 201, 

09 Pac. 984 [1902]), 301, 99S, 

1141, 1145, 1105, 1171, 1170. 1429. 
Crane v. Forth (95 Cal. 88, 30 Pac. 

193 [1892]), 1258, 1372, 1377. 
Crane v. French (50 Mo. Ai)p. 307 

[1892]), 624. 
Crane v. Mallinckrodt [9 Mo. App. 

316), 1137, 1377. 
Crane v. Siloam Springs (67 Ark. 

30, 55 S. W. 955 [1899]), 86, 103, 

105, 244, 245, 247, 248, 250, 251, 

256, 351. 684. 
Crane v. West Chicago Park Com- 

missioners ( 153 111. 348, 26 L. R. 

A. 311, 38 X. E. 943 [1894]), 291 

377, 461. 
Cratty v. City of Chicago (217 111. 

453, 75 X." E. 343 [1905]), 475, 

922. 925, 963, 1002, 1103. 

Craw v. Village of Tolono (96 111. 

255, 36 Am. Rep. 143 [1880]), 

153, 295, 323, 1039, 1144, 1432. 
Crawford's Estate (14 Phila (Pa.) 

323), 347, 608. 
Crawford v. Hodrick ( 9 Ind. App. 

356, 36 X. E. 771 [1893]), 171, 

375, 1113. 
Crawford v. Mason (123 la. 301, 98 

X. W. 795 [1904]), 18, 51, 527, 

837, 974, 1501, 1518. 



Ixxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Crawford v. The People ex rel. Rum- 

sey (83 111. 557 [1876]), 263, 266, 

278, 556, 665, 666, 670, 677, 872. 
Crawford v. Taylor (27 Ohio C. C. 

245 11905]), 93, 119, 373, 375, 

860. 
Crawfordsville Music Hall Associa- 
tion V. Clements ( 12 Ind. App. 

464, 39 N. E. 540, 40 N. E. 742 

[1894]), 693. 
Creamer v. Allen (3 Mo. App. 545 

[1877]), 50, 147, 148, 324, 400, 

711, 1137. 
Creamer v. Bates (49 Mo. 523 

[1372]), 527, 529, 698, 714. 
Creamer v. McCune 7 Mo. App. 

91 [1879]), 546, 632, 645. 
Creed v. McCombs (146 Cal. 449, 80 

Pac. 679 [1905]), 531, 956, 1355, 

1356, 1361, 1366. 
Creighton v. Manson (27 Cal. 614 

[1865]), 43, 79, 101, 113, 223, 

234, 549, 654, 777, 835, 838, 1039, 

1049, 1050. 
Creighton v. Pragg (21 Cal. 115 

[?862]), 1113, 1215. 
Creighton v. Board of Supervisors 

of tne City and County of Snn 

Francisco (42 Cal. 446 [1871]), 

1514. 
Creighton v. Scott (14 0. S. 43S 

[1863]), 301, 313, 317, 440, 552, 

574, 576, 620. 
Creighton v. City of Toledo (18 0. 

S. 447 [1869]*), 1506, 1507, 1511. 
Creole v. City of Chicago (56 111. 

422 [1870]), 410, 424, 701, 939, 

1187, 1314, 1331, 1333. 
Crescent Hotel Co. v. Bradley (81 

Ark. 286, 98 S. W. 971 [1906]), 

248, 636, 813, 1324, 1495. 
Cribbs v. Benedict ( 64 Ark. 555, 44 

S. W. 707 [1897]), 39, 87, 97, 101, 

108, 111, 145, 164, 256, 340, 549, 

560, 564, 619, 651, 654, 666, 690, 

691. 
Crist V. State ex rel Whitmore ( 97 

Ind. 389 [1884]), 270, 278, 637, 

1244. 
Croft V. Chicago Great Western Ry. 

Co. (72 Minn. 47, 74 N. W. 898, 

80 N. W. '628 (1898]), 363. 



Crofut V. City of Danbury ( 65 Conn. 

294, 32 Atl. 365), 223." 229, 234. 
Cronan v. Municipality No. 1 (5 La. 

Ann. 537 [1850]), 1498. 
Cronin, Pros. v. Mayor and Alder- 
men of Jersey City (38 N. J. L. 

(9 Vr.) 410 [1876]), 860. 
Crosby v. Brattleboro (68 Vt. 484, 

35 Atl 430 [1896]), 1356. 
Cross V. County of Plymouth ( 125 

Mass. 557 [1878]), 64, 65, 66. 
Cross V. Zane (47 Cal. 602 [1874]), 

860, 867. 
Crossley v. City of Findlay ( 10 Ohio 

C. C. 286 [1895]), 681. 
Crowe V. Corporation of Charlestown 

(— W. Va. , 57 S. E. 330 

[1907]), 73, 661. 
Crowell V. Jaqua (114 Ind. 246. 15 

N. E. 242), 1112, 1113, 1191. 
Crowley v. Copley (2 La. Ann. 329 

[1847]), 38, 42, 54, 343, 612, 613. 
Cruger, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 

(84 N. Y. 619 [1881]), 557, 661, 

1453. 
Cruikshanks v. City Council ( 1 Mc- 

Cord (S. C.) 360 [1821]), 118, 

223, 275. 
Crume v. Wilson (104 Ind. 583, 4 

N. E. 169 [1885]), 794. 
Culbertson v. City of Cincinnati (16 

Ohio, 574 [1847]), 223, 234, 777, 

911, 1431. 
Culbertson v. Knight (152 Ind. 121, 

52 N. E. 700 [1898]), 549, 560, 

564, 619, 659. 
Cullen, Matter of (119 N. Y. 628, 

23 N. E. 1144), 407. 
Cullen, In the Matter of (53 Hun 

(X. Y.) 534, 6 N. Y. S. 625 

[1889]), 407. 
Cullen V. Strauz (124 Ind. 340, 24 

N. E. 883 [1890]), 1101, 1102, 

1203. 
Culver V. City of Chicago (171 111. 

399, 49 N. E. 573 1898]), 308, 

549, 569, 643, 723, 856, 872, 921. 
Culver V. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Jersey City (45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 

256 [1883]). 



1 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxv 



[References are to sections.] 



Culver V. People ex rel. Kocliersper- 
ger (IGl 111. 89, 43 X. E. Rep. 
812 (1896]), 305, 837, 927. 9 JO, 
959, 1085, 1113, 1341, 1381. 

Cumberland v. Keariis (18 t)nt. 151 
[1889]), 1072. 

Cuming v. Gleason ( 140 Mich. 195, 
103 N. W. 537 [1905]), 52, 53, 
55, 828. 

Cuming v. City of Grand Rapids (40 
Mich. 150, 9 N. W. 141 [1881]), 
266, 275, 301, 468, 470, 490, 569, 
816, 831, 1377, 1379, 1444, 1450. 

Cummings v. Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of Brooklyn (11 
Paiges' Chan. Rep. 596 [1845]), 
1508, 150!). 

Cummings v. City of Chicago ( 144 
111. 563, 33 N. E. 854 [1893]), 181, 
1085. 

Cummings v. Hyatt (54 Neb. 35, 74 
N. W. 411 [1898]), 355. 

Cummings v. Kearney ( 141 Cal. 156, 
74 Pac. 759 [1903]), 301, 1026, 
1414, 1436. 

Cummings v. People ex rel. Han- 
berg (213 HI. 443, 72 N. E. 1094 
[1904]), 1116, 1119, 1172, 1186, 
1189. 

Cummings v. West Chicago Park 
Commissioners (181 HI. 136, 54 
N. E. 941 [1899]), 51, 305, 314, 
407, 414, 431, 546, 569, 715, 795, 
800, 956, 959, 902, 1302, 1370. 

Cummings v. City of Williamsport 
84 Pa. St. 472 [1877]), 308, 1348, 
1360. 

Cunningham v. City of Peoria ( 157 
HI. 499, 41 X. E. 1014 [1895]), 
587, 630, 723. 

Curncn v. Mayor, Aldernien and 
Commonalty of the City of X^ew 
York (79 X. Y. 511 [1880]), 
1036, 1037. 

Curnen v. The Mayor, Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of 
New York (7 Daly (X. Y.) 544 
.[1878]), 1036. 

Currie v. School District ( 35 ^Slinn. 
163, 27 X. W. 922 [1861[), 486. 

Curtice v. Schmidt (202 Mo. 703, 
101 S. W. 61 [1907]), 324, 514, 
515. 



Curtis V. Pierce (115 Mass. 180 

[1874]), 49, 1054. 
Cushing V. City of Boston 144 

Mass. 317, 11 X\ E. 93 [1887]), 

661, 
Cushing V. Powell ( — ilo. App. 

, 109 S. W. 1054 [1908]), 

1255. 
Cushman v. Smith (34 Me. 247 

[1852]), 71. 
Cypress Pond Draining Company v. 

Hooper (2 Mete. (59 Ky.) 350 

[1859]), 89, 111, 255. 



D 



D, In re Avenue, in City of X"ew 

York (— X. Y. , 84 X. E. 

956 [1908]), 680. 
D, In re Avenue, in City of Xew 

York (106 X. Y. S. 889 [1907]), 

679, 680, 1372. 
Dahlman v. City of INLilwaukee ( 131 

Wis. 427, 110 XL W. 479, 111 X. 

W. 675 [1907]), 900, 1422, 1443, 

1503. 
Daiber v. Toledo (7 Ohio X. P. 389 

[1900]), 625, 704. 
Daily v. Swope (47 Miss. 367 

[1872]), 40, 43. 86, 147, 148, 343, 

549, 613, 665, 666, 097. 
Dallas, City of v. Brown ( 10 Tex. 

Civ. App. 612. 31 S. W. 298 

[1895]), 1512. 
Dallas, City of v. Ellison (10 Tex. 

Civ. App. 28, 30 S. W. 1128 

[-895]), 169, 223, 234. 725, 813, 

815, 950, 1013. 
Dallas, City of v. Kalm (9 Tex. Civ. 

App. 19," 29 S. W. 98 [1894]), 65, 

06, 651, 655. 
Dallas, City of v. Kruoeel (95 Tex. 

43, 04 S! W. 922 [1901]). 1492. 
Dalrymple v. City of Milwaukee (53 

Wis. 178, 10 X. W. 141 [1881]), 

41, 163, 1337. 
Dalton V. City of Poplar Bluff (173 

Mo. 39, 72 S. W. 1068 [1902]), 

1500. 
Daly V. Gubbins (— Ind. , 82 

X. E. 659 [1907]). 301, 983, 1234, 

1240, 1254, 1336, 1337, 1340. 



Ixxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Daly V. Gubbins (35 Ind. App. 86, 

73 N. E. 833 [1904]), 735. 745. 

772, 1229, 1334, 1375. 
Daly V. Morgan ( 69 Md. 400, 1 L. R. 

A. 757 [1888]), 7, 11. 
Daly V. City and County of San 

Francisco (72 Cal. 154, 13 Pac. 

321 [1887]), 777, 1499. 
Damkoehler v. City of Milwaukee 

(124 Wis. 144. 'lOl X. W. 706 

[1905]), 620, 624. 
Dampe v. Town of Dane (29 Wis. 

419 [1872]), 781. 
Dancer v. Town of ilannington ( 50 

W. Va. 322, 40 S. E. 475 [1901]), 

118, 314, 663, 781, 791. 
Dancy Drainage Dist., In re (129 

Wis. 129, 108 X. W. 202 [1900]), 

340, 449. 
Danenhower v. District of Columbia 

(7 Mackey (D. C.) 99 [1889]), 

952, 967. 
Danforth v. Villagg of Hinsdale (177 

111. 579, 52 X. E. 877 [1899]), 

526, 819, 1085. 
Daniels v. Keeler (10 0. S. 169 

[1859]). 86, 553. 
Daniels v. Smith, 38 Mich. 060 

[1878]), 735, 739, 1396. 1404. 
Daniels v. Tearney (102 U. S. 415, 

1012, 
Dann v. WoodrnfT (51 Conn. 203 

[1883]), 545, 555, 651, 654, 674, 

724, 872, 1055, 1067, 1163, 1358. 
Darlington v. Commonwealth to Use 

of City of Allegheny (41 Pa. St. 

(5 Wright) 68 [186*^1]), 395, 467, 

485, 748, 1304. 
Darnell v. Keller (18 Ind. App. 103, 

45 X. E. 676 [1897]), 73, 323, 

531, 532, 1005, 1019, 1047, 1230, 

1337, 1346. 
Darst V. Griffin (31 Xeb. 6G8, 48 X. 

W. 819 [1891]), 51, 103, 105, 245, 

261, 777, 781, 802, 1431, 1435, 

1436. 
Dasey v. Skinner (33 X. Y. State 

R.'l5, 11 X. Y. Supp. 821 [1890]), 

347, 354, 578, 608. 
Dashiell v. Mayor and City Council 

of Baltimore Use of Hax (45 IMd. 

615 [1876]), 244, 314, 394, 405, 

472, 511, 527, 532, 543, 649, 771, 



776, 795, 850, 1042, 1211, 1277, 
1358. 

Dassler, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, for a Writ of Habeas 
Corpus (35 Kan. 678, 12 Pac. 130 
[1880]), 40. 

Daugherty v. Brown (91 :Mo. 26, 3 
S. W. 210 [1886]), 70. 

Davenport, City of v. Allen (120 
Fed. 172 [1903]), 18, 314, 530, 
990. 

Davenport, City of v. Boyd (109 la. 
248, 77 Am. St. Rep. ^536, 80 X. 
W. 314 [1899]), 1037. 

Davidson v. City of Chicago ( 178 
111. 582, 53 X. E. 367 [1899]), 
864. 

Davidson v. Xew Orleans (96 U. S. 
97, 24 L. 616 [1877]), 108, 112, 
115, 119, 122, 127, 140, 142, 340, 
587, 719, 952, 1046, 1083. 

Davidson v. Wight (16 D. C. App. 
371 [1900]), 86, 243, 310, 663, 
666, 690, 702, 709, 760, 1010, 1011. 

Davie's Executors v. City of Gal- 
veston (16 Tex. Civ. App. 13, 41 
S. W. 145 [1897]), 818, 830, 1279, 
1287, 1478, 1484. 

Davies v. City of Grand Rapids ( 105 
Mich. 529,^63 X. W. 530 [1895]), 
822. 

Davies v. City of Los Angeles (86 
Cal. 37, 24 Pac. 771 [1890]), 118, 
119, 121, 134, 195, 207, 250, 308, 
525, 526, 553, 570, 639, 666, 674, 
723, 750. 

Davies v. City of Saginaw (87 Mich. 
439, 49 X.' W. 667 [1891]), 500, 
555, 831, 845, 857, 868, 927. 

Davis V. Cincinnati (36 0. S. 24 
[1880]), 1041, 1043, 1054. 

Davis V. City of Des Moines (71 la. 
500, 32 X.'W. 470), 1504. 

Davis V. Lake Shore & Michigan 
Southern Ry. Co. (114 Ind. 304, 
16 X. E. 639 [1887]), 735, 996, 
986, '1015, 1019, 1030, 1431, 1436. 
1443. 

Davis V. City of Litchfield (155 111. 
384, 40 X. E. Rep. 354 [1895]), 
259, 271, 279, 413, 424, 555, 670, 
676, 722, 723, 850, 967, 1085. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



lxxx\ii 



[References are to sections.] 



Davis V. City of Litclifield (145 III. 
313, 21 L. R. A. 5G3, 33 X. E. 
888 [1893]), 103, 105, 153, 173, 
179, 223, 234. 245, 247, 256, 258, 
266, 295, 323, 343, 466, 469, 472, 
555, 571, 577, 623, 639, 648, 666, 
714, 715, 776, 777. 

Davis V. City of Lynchburg (84 Va. 
861, 6 S. E. 230^ [1888]), 43. 86, 
119, 120, 135, 161, 301, 314, 698, 
728. 

Davis V. ilayor and Common Coun- 
cil of the City of Newark (54 N. 
J. L. (25 Vr.) 595, 25 Atl. 336 
[1892]), 61, 71, 313, 416, 425, 
465, 479, 554, 559. 

Davis V. City of Newark (54 N. J. 
L. (25 Vr.) 144, 23 Atl. 276 
[1891]), 313, 475, 547, 603, 644. 
723, 986, 996, 997, 1281, 1368. 

Davis V. Northwestern Elevated 
Railroad Company ( 170 111. 595, 
48 N. E. 1058 [1897]), 71. • 

Davis v. City and County of San 
Francisco (115 Cal. 67, 46 Pac. 
863 [1896]), 1482. 

Davis V. Siiverton (47 Ore. 171, 82 
Pac. 16 [1905]), 313, 398, 1432. 

Davison v. Campbell (28 Ind. App. 
688, 63 N. E. 779 [1901]), 57, 
375, 735, 829. 

Dawson v. City of Pittsburg ( L59 
Pa. St. 317, 27 Atl. 951 [1893]), 
653. 

Day v. Town of New Lots ( 107 N. 
Y. 148, 13 N. E. 915 [1887]), 
1072, 1088, 1146, 1494. 

Day V. Town of New Lots (36 Hun, 
263), 1494. 

Dayton, City of v. Bauman (66 O. 
S. 379, 64 N. E. 433 [1902]), 90, 
113. 118, 308, 314. 426, 430. 

Dayton v. Drainage Commissioners 
128 111. 271. 21 N. E. 198 [1890]), 
564. 

Dayton v. City of Lincoln (39 Neb. 
74, 57 N. W. 754 [1894]), 66. 

Dayton v. Quigley (29 N. J. Eq. (2 
Stewart) 77), 1072. 

Dayton, City of v. Taylor's Adminis- 
trators (62 0. S. 11, 56 N. E. 
480), 449, 038. 

Dawley v. City of Antigo ( 120 Wis. 



302, 97 N. W. 1119 [1904]). 191, 

370, 781. 
Dawson v. Pittsburg ( 159 Pa. St. 

317, 27 Atl. 951 [1893]), 654. 
De C'lercq v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Company (167 111. 215, 47 N. E. 

367 [1897]), 11, 35, 49, 665, 1054. 
De Clercq v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (66 111. App. 596 [1896]), 

35, 49, 1072. 
De Grilleau v. Frawley (48 La. Ann. 

184, 19 So. 151 [1896]), 393, 396, 

431. 
De Haven v. Berendes, 135 Cal. 178, 

67 Pac. 786 [1901]), 410, 413, 

424, 720, 1031, 1337, 1372, 1379, 

1380. 
De Koven v. Lake View (131 111. 

541, 23 N. E. 240 [1890]), 920, 

923, 1283. 
DeKoven v. City of Lake View ( 129 

111. 399, 21 'n. E. 813 [1890]), 

547, 587, 631, 674, 896. 
De Las Casas, Petitioner ( 178 Mass. 

213, 59 N. E. 664 [1901]), 350, 

664. 
I De ]\Iontcaulnin v. Mayor, Alder- 
men and Commonalty of the City 
I of New York (46 Hun, 188 
I [1887]), 1481. 

I DePeyster, In the Matter of (80 N. 
I y/565 [1880]), 121, 266, 324,760. 
I De Peyster v. Murphy (66 N. Y. 622 

[1876]), 1067, 1072. 
De Peyster v. Murphy (39 N. Y. 

Sup.' Ct. Rep. 255 [1875]), 912, 

1041, 1049, 1066. 1067. 1150. 
DePierris, In the Matter of (82 N. 

Y. 243 [1880]), 740, 8.36, 844. 
DePuy V. City of Wabash (133 Ind. 

336, 32 N. E. 1016 [1892]). 795. 

986. 1005, 1007. lOIo. iniO. 14,30, 

143G. 
De Soto, City of v. Showman ( 100 

Mo. App. ' 323. 73 S. W. 257 

[1903]), 367, 813, 819. 
Deady v. Townsend (57 Cal. 298 

[1881]), 437. 479. 831. 857. 1293, 

1337. 
Dean v. Borchsenius (30 Wis. 236 

[1872]), 103, 106, 223, 234, 314, 

437, 439, 465, 479, 483, 496, 515, 

679, 956, 961, 962, 964, 1196, 1426. 



Ixxxviii 



T^VBLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Dean v. Charlton 27 Wis. 522 
[1871]), 199, 414, 495, 515, 956, 
960. 

Dean v. Charlton (23 Wis. 590, 99 
Am. Dec. 205 [1869]), 408, 962. 

Dean v. City of Madison (9 Wis. 402 
[1859]), 781, 1426, 1427. 

Dean v. Mayor and Aldermen of the 
City of Paterson (68 X. J. L. (39 
Vr.') 664, 54 Atl. 836 [1902]), 
690, 1368, 1379, 1381. 

Dean v. Mayor and Aldermen of the 
City of Paterson (67 N. J. L. (38 
Vr.) 199, 50 Atl. 620 [1901]), 
601, 643, 883. 

Dean v. Treasurer of Clinton Coun- 
ty (146 Mich. 645, 109 N. W. 1131 
[1906]), 340, 414, 461, 550, 952, 
1503. 

Deane v. Indiana Macadam & Con- 
struction Company (161 Ind. 371, 
68 X. E. 686 [1903]), 118. 142, 
143, 276, 301, 620, 669, 670, 699. 
709, 731, 745, 1234. 1237, 1347, 
1368, 1375, 1377. 

Dear v. Varnum (SO Cal. 86, 22 
Pac. 76 [1889]), 1478. 

Dehlois v. Barker ( 4 R. I. 445 ) , 323, 
420, 713. 

Dederer v. Voorhies (81 X. Y. 154 
[1880]). 982, 1009, 1116, 1277, 
1426, 1427, 1429, 1432, 1438. 

Deegan V. State for use of Stoddard, 
108 Ind. 155, 9 X. E. 148 [1886]). 
340, 927, 1247, 1427. 

Deer v. Sheraden Borough ( — Pa. 
St. , 69 Atl. 814 [1908]), 862. 

Deerfield, Township oi v. Harper 
(115 Mich. 678, 74 X. W. 207 
[1898]), 1271. 

Deering, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 
(93 X. Y. 361 [1883]), 283, 313, 
436, 465, 479. 480, 1373. 

Deering, In the Matter of ( 85 X. Y. 
1 [1881]), 266, 433, 1467. 

Deering, In the Matter of ( 55 How. 
(X. Y.) 296 [1878]), 356, 475, 
853, 1067, 1106, 1455. 

Deering In the Matter of (14 Daly 
(X. Y.) 89 [1886]), 475, 878, 950, 
982. 



Deering v. Peterson (75 Minn. 118, 

77 X. W. 568), 410. 
Dehail v. Morford (95 Cal. 457, 30 

Pac. 593 [1892]), 551. 777, 833, 

1024, 1031. 1432. 
Deisner v. Simpson (72 Ind. 435 

[1880]), 1068, 1225. 
Delamater v. City of Chicago ( 158 

111. 575, 42 X. E. Rep. 444 [1895]), 

244, 775, 857, 925, 1375. 
Delaney, In the Matter of ( 52 X. 

Y. 80 [1873]), 1454, 1460, 1467. 
Delaney v. Gault (30 Pa. St. (6 

Casey) 63 [1858]), 995, 1063, 

loss, 1144. 1159, 1488. 
Delano v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (32 Hun (X. Y^) 144 

[1884]), 604, 723, 1486. 
Delaware and Hudson Canal Co., 

Matter of (129 X. Y\ 105, 29 X. 

E. 237 [1891]), 1458. 
Delaware and Hudson Canal Co., 

In the flatter of tlie (60 Hun 204, 

14 X. Y. Supp. 585 [1891]), 241, 

485, 495, 983. 
Dehiware and Hudson Canal Co., 

President, Managers and Company 

of the V. Atkins, Collector (121 

X. Y. 246. 24 X. E. 319), 276, 

724, 1411, 1413. 1415. 
Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. 

V. City of Buffalo (167 X. Y. 

589, 60 X. E. 1119 [1901]), 360. 
Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. v. 

City of Buffalo (39 App. Div. (X. 

Y.) 333. 56 X. Y. Sup. 976), 360. 
Delaware and Hudson Canal Co. v. 

Von Storch. 196 Pa. St. 102, 46 

Atl. 375 [1900]). 49. 1054. 
Delker v. Owensboro (Ky.) (98 S. 

W. 1031. 30 Ky. L. R. 440 

[1907]), 1055. 
Dempster v. City of Chicago (175 

111. 278. 51 X. E. 710 [1898]), 

393, 400, 417. 947, 1432. 
Dempster v. People ex rel. Kern ( 158 

HI. 36, 41 X. E. 1022 [1895]), 

1039, 1175, 1187, 1304. 
Denman v. Steinbach (29 Wash. 179 

69 Pac. 751 [1902]), 1207. 
Dennett, Petitioner (32 Me. 50S, 54 

Am. Dec. 602). 216. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Ixxxix 



[INferiMices nre to sections.] 



Dennis, In the Matter of ( 22 Hun 

(X. Y.) 607 [1880]), 14.52. 
Dennison v. City of Kansas ( 95 ^lo. 

416, 8 S. VV. 429 [1888]), 781, 

1005, 1432. 
Dennison v. City of New York ( 182 

N. Y. 24, 74' N. E. 486 [1905]), 

1492. 
Denny v. City of Spokane (79 Fed. 

719, 25 C. C. A. 164, 48 U. S. App. 

282 [1897]), 301, 1504, 1510. 
Denver, City of v. Bayer (7 Colo. 

113, 2 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 

465 [1883]), 65, 70. 
Denver, City of v. Campbell (33 

Colo. 162, 80 Pac. 142 [1905]), 

108, 118, 141, 245, 496, 666, 698, 

700, 1085, 1337. 
Denver, City of v. Diimars (33 Colo. 

94, 80 Pac. 114 [1904]), 135, 325. 

497, '6G6, 711, 772. 1005, 1007, 

1337. 
Denver, City of v. Dunning (33 Colo. 

487, 81 Pac. 259 [1905]), 1440. 
Denver, City and County of v. Hin- 

dry (— Colo. , 90 Pac. 1028 

[1907]), 530, 1505. 
Denver, City of v. Kennedy (33 

Colo. 80, 80 Pac. 122, 80 Pac. 467 

[1905]), 86. 131, 152, 359, 521), 

549, 555, 560, 651, 666, 692, 709. 

726, 1435. 
Denver, City of v. Knowles (17 Colo. 

204, 17 L. R. A. 135, 30 P;ic. 1041 

[1892]), 11, 44, 92, 118, 152, 315, 

am, 698, 703. 
Denver, City of v. Londoner ( 33 

Colo. 104, "^80 Pac. 117), 119, 130, 

245, 251, 266, 314, 620, 629, 632. 

666, 698, 705, 723. 731, 795, 828, 

1005, 1007, 1435, 1442. 
Department of Public Parks, In the 

Matter of the, to Acquire Lands 

85 X. Y. 459 [1881]), 9S9, 1375. 
Department of Public Works, In tlie 

Matter of (13 Hun (N. Y.) 483 

[1878]), 919. 
Derby v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (154 111. 215. 40 X. E. 

438 [1894]), 731, 739. 986. 1000, 

1372, 1439. 
Des Moines, City of v. Casady (21 

la. 570 [1866]), 735. 737. Ifl47. 



Des Moines Brick Manufacturing 
Co. V. Smith (108 la. 307, 79 X. 
W. 77 [1899]), 475, 1070, 1103, 
1109. 

Deslauries v. Soucie (222 111. 522, 
113 Am. St. Rep. 432, 78 X. E. 
799 [1906]), 1015, 1023, 1408. 

Detroit, City of v. Chapin. (See 
Detroit, City of v. Judge of Re- 
corder's Court.) 

Detroit, Board of Water Commis- 
sioners of City of v. Commission- 
ers of Parks and Boulevards ( 126 
Mich. 459, 85 X. W. 1132), 353. 

Detroit, City of v. Judge of Record- 
er's Court (112 Mich. 588, 71 X. 
^V. 149; sub nomine, Detroit, City 
of V. Chapin (42 L. R. A. 638 
[1897]), 11, 118, 308, 663, 665, 
666, 709. 

Detroit, City of v. Daly (68 Mich. 
503, 37 X. W. 11 [1888]), 11, 69, 
118, 247, 308, 668, 709. 

Detroit, City of v. Macier (117 'Slich. 
76, 75 X. W. Rep. 285 [1898]), 
891. 

Detroit v. Parker (181 U. S. 399. 45 
L. 917, 21 S. 624, 645 [1901]), 
118, 121, 702. 

Dewey v. Des :Moines (173 U. S. 
193, 43 L. 665, 19 S. 379 [1899]), 
12, 127, 304, 549, 666, 677, 715, 
1046, 1370. 

Dewey v. C ity of Des :M(>i!i('s ( 101 
la. 415, 70 X. W. 605 [1897]), 
12, 127, 298, 304, 549, 'mW, 677,' 
1041, 1046, 1182, 1370. 

Dewey v. Board of Supervisors of 
the County of Xiagara ( 2 Hun 
X. Y. 392 "^[1874]), 14SC, 1495. 

DeWitt, County of, v. City of Clin- 
ton (194 Ili. 521, 62 X. E. 780 
[1902]). 857. 859. 860, 867. 

DeWitt v. City of Elizabeth (56 X. 
J. L. (27 Vr.) 119, 27 Atl. 801 
[1893]). 324, 414. 446, 549, 560, 
563, 666, 977, 979. 

Dexter v. City of Boston (176 ^lass. 
247, 79 Am. St. Rep. 306. 57 >\ 
E. 379 [1900]). 82, 103, 563, 627, 
(i(i(). 700. 1484. 



xc 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections. ] 



Diamond Street, Pittsburg (196 Pa. 

St. 254, 46 Atl. 428 [1900]), 1393, 

1406. 
Diamond v. City of Mankato ( 89 

Minn. 48. 61 L. R. A. 448, 93 N. 

W. 911 [1903]), 314, 781, 783, 

784. 
Dick V. Philadelphia (197 Pa. St. 

467, 47 Atl. 750 [1901]), 383, 462. 
Dick V. City of Toledo (11 Ohio C. 

C. 349 [1896]), 440, 584, 587, 663, 

725. 
Dickenson v. Inhabitants of Fitch- 
burg (79 Mass. (13 Gray) 546 
[1859]), 65, 66. 
Dicker son v. Peters (71 Pa. St. (21 

P. F. Smith) 53 [1872]), 521, 

1471, 1472. 
Dickey v. City of Chicago (164 111. 

37," 45 X. 'e. 537 [1896]), 865. 

912, 917, 918, 1350. 
Dickey v. City of Cliicago ( 152 111. 

468", 38 X. E. 932 [1894]), 394, 

760. 
Dickey v. Holmes ( 109 Mo. App. 

72ll 83 S. W. 982 [1904]), 413. 

496, 821, 857, 864, 984. 
Dickey v. People ex rel. Kocher- 

sperger ( 160 111. 633, 43 X. E. 

606 [1896]), 747, 764. 772, 930, 

993, 1183. 
Dickey & Baker v. People ex rel. 

Hanberg (213 111. 51, 72 X. E. 

791 [1904]), 1029, 1184, 1189. 
Dickey v. Porter (203 Mo. 1, 101 
. S. W. 586 [1907]), 324, 495, 864, 

1137. 
Dickinson v. City of Detroit (111 

Mich. 480, 69 X. W. 728 [1807]), 

305, 387, 463, 464. 
Dickinson v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (92^ X. Y. 584 [1883]), 

1492. 
Dickinson v. City of Trenton ( 35 

X. J. Eq. (8 Stew.) 416 [1882]), 

1164. 
Dickinson v. Van Wormer ( 39 Mich. 

141 [1878]), 1278. 
Dickinson v. City Council of Wor- 
cester (138 Mass. 555 [1885]), 

323, 443, 693, 695, 813, 821, 1400. 



Dickson v. Omaha and St. L, R. Co. 

(124 Mo. 140, 46 Am. St. Rep. 

429, 25 L. R. A. 320, 27 S. \V. 

476), 363. 
Dickson v. City of Racine (65 Wis. 

306, 27 N. W. 58 [1880]). 359, 

418, 947, 1277. 
Dickson v. City of Racine (61 Wis. 

545, 21 X. W. 620 [1884]), 142, 

672, 674, 675, 1347, 1352. 
Dieckamann v. Sheboygan County 

(89 Wis. 570, 62 ' X. W. 410 

[1895]), 783, 843, 844. 
Diefenthaler v. Mayor, Aldermen 

and Commonalty of Xew York 

(111 X. Y. 331, 19 X. E. 48 

[1888]), 1418, 1462, 1486, 1492. 
Diefenthaler v. Mayor, Aldermen 

and Commonalty of the City of 

Xew York (47 Hun (X. Y.)' 627 

[1888]), 1451. 
Dietz V. City of Xeenah (91 Wis. 

422, 64 X. W. 299, 65 X. W. 500 

[1895]), 80, 119, 122, 231, 726. 

729, 775, 1196, 1425, 1426, 1427. 
Diggins V. Brown (76 Cal. 318, 18 

Pac. 373 [1888]), 323, 551, 554, 

555, 574, 617, 628, 639, 646, 714. 
723, 861, 1359. 

Diggins V. Hartshorne ( 108 Cal. 154, 
41 Pac. 283 [1895]). 301, 396, 
537, 698, 703, 824, 886, 1030, 1182, 
1216, 1239, 1317, 1337, 1381. 

Dikeman v. Dikeman (11 Paiges' 
Chan. Rep. 484 [1845]), 171, 1055. 

Dime Deposit and Discount Bank of 
Scranton v. Scranton (208 Pa. St. 
383, 57 Atl. 770 [1904]), 1511. 

District of Clifton, Campbell Coun- 
ty V. Schneider (106 Kj-. 605, 51 
S. W. 13 (1899]), 1085. 

District of Columbia v. Amies (8 
App. D. C. 393 [1896]), 67, 70, 
86, 119, 244, 308, 419, 425, 553, 

556, 557, 663, 672, 709, 1066. 
District of Columbia v. Burgdorf ( 7 

App. D. C. 405), 119. 
District of Columbia v. Burgdorf ( 6 

App. D. C. 465 [1895]),. 119, 125. 

234, 347, 666,- 711, 735, 777. 
District of Columbia v. Sisters of 

Visitation (15 App. D. C. 300), 

590, 611. 614. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCl 



[ri'f( ff iif "?; are to secti>>ns.] 



District of Columbia v. Weaver ( 6 
App. D. C. 482 [1895]), 223, 234, 
735. 

District of Columbia v. Wormley ( 15 
App. D. C. 58 L1899]), 119,"^ 244, 
323, 727, 729, 735, 956, 902. 

District No. 110 v. Feck (60 Cal. 
403 [1882]), 409, 423, 1226, 1264. 

Dittoe V. City of Davenport (74 la. 
06, 36 X. W. 895 [1887]). 18, 40, 
329, 679, 698, 711, 728, 777, 849, 
876, 977, 979, 981, 1122, 1334, 
1479. 

Diven v. Burlington Savings Bank 

(— Ind. App. , 82 X. E. 1020 

[1907]), 629, 760. 

Diver v. Keokuk Savings Bank ( 126 
la. 691, 102 X\ W. 542 [1905]), 
486, 918, 1004, 1431, 1432, 1436. 

Dix, Commissioners of Highways of 
Town of V. Big Four Drainage 
District of Ford County (207 111. 
17, 69 X. E. 576 [1904]). 51, 61, 
585, 928, 993, 1075. 1162. 1469, 
1470, 1474, 1476. 

Dixon V. City of Cincinnati (11 
Ohio C. C. 629, 5 Ohio C. D. 301 
[1894]), 308, 309, 396, 398, 428. 
700. 

Dixon V. City of Detroit (86 :\Iich. 
516, 49 X. W. 628 [1891]). 484, 
485, 531, 532, 1432. 

Dixon V. Labry ( — Ky. , 78 S. 

W. 430. 25 Ky. L. R. 1679, deny- 
ing rehearing of 24 Ky. L. Rep. 
697, 69 S. W. 791 [1902]). 340, 
637, 907. 1168, 1246, 1251. 

Doane v. Houghton (75 Cal. 360, 17 
Pac. 426 11888]). 440, 443, 865, 
1234, 1245. 

Dobler v. Village of \\arr('n ( 174 
111. 92, 50 X. E. 1048 [1898]), 
469, 1108. 

Dobsnii v. Duck Pond Ditcliing Asso- 
ciation (42 Ind. 312 [1873]). 254, 
1232. 

Dockrill v. Sclionk ( :?7 111. App. 44 
[1890]), 1054. 

Dodge V. City of ( hicago (2itl HI. 
68, 66 X. E. 367 Ll!»(t3]l. 82S, 
83.5. 

Dodge V. Van Burcn Circuit .Jud^iP 



(118 Mich. 189, 76 X. \V. 315), 

365. 
Dodge County v. Acorn (72 Xeb. 71, 

100 X. W. 136 [1904], 61 Xeb. 

376, 85 X. W. 292 [1901]), 142, 

340, 877, 1367. 
Dodsworth v. City of Cincinnati ( 18 

Ohio C. C. 288, 10 Ohio C. D. 

177 [1899]), 118, 308, 309, 426, 

702. 
Dolan v. The Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (62 X. Y. 472 [1875]), 740, 

927, 930, 986, 996, 1457. 
Dolan v. Mayor, etc., of New York 

(4 Abb. Pr. X. S. (X. Y.) 397 

[1868]), 515. 
Dolese v. McDougall ( 182 111. 486. 

55 X. E. 547 [1899]), 1516. 
Dolese v. McDougall (78 HI. App, 

629 [1897]), 424, 874, 1506, 1510. 
Dollar Savings Bank v. Ridge ( 183 

Mo. 506, 82 S. W. 56 [1904]), 

273, 841, 878, 951, 972, 1016, 1136, 

1279, 1280, 1281, 1284. 
Dollar Savings Bank v. Ridge (62 

Mo. App. 324 [1895]), 266, 273, 

837, 841. 
Dollar Savings Bank v. Ridge ( 79 

Mo. App. 26 [1898]), 847, 878, 

1136. 
Dollar Savings Bank v. United 

States (19 Wall. 227 [1873]). 3. 
Donley v. Pittsburg ( 147 Pa. St. 

348, 30 Am. St. Rep. 738, 23 Atl. 

394 [1902], 414, 961. 
Donnelly v. Decker (58 Wis. 461. 46 

Am. Rep. 637, 17 X. W. 389 

[1883]), 5, 19, 97, 334, 338, 340, 

717. 
Donnelly v. Howard (60 Crl. 291 

[1882]), 413. 465, 479. 510. 542. 

840, 1359. 
Donnelly v. Tillman (47 Cal. 40 

[1873]), 499, 742. 74!t. 
Doiiolinc v. P.rotlierton (7 Ohio X. 

P. 3(17 [1900]), 413. 424, 1057, 

lodS. 
Dniidvaii v. Coles (33 Mo. App. 161 

[ISSS] ), 358, 454. 
Donovan v. Citv of Oswet'o (39 

-Misc. 291, 79 X. Y. S. 562 [1902]), 

693, 699, 703, 780. 



XCll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[Be'erences are to sections.] 



Dooley v. Town of Sullivan (112 

Ind' 451, 2 Am. St. Rep. 209, 14 

X. E. 566), 323. 
Dooling, Pros. v. Ocean City ( 67 X. 

.J. L. (38 Vr.) 215, 50 'Atl. 621 

[1901]), 643, 690, 693, 699. 
Doppes V. City of Cincinnati ( 16 

Ohio C. C. 183 [1898]), 085, 1012. 
Doran v. Barnes (54 Kan. 238, 38 

Pac. 300 [1894), 141, 1337. 
Doran v. City of Murphysboro ( 225 

111. 514, 80 X. E. 323 [1907]), 

816. 
Dorathy v. City of Chicago (53 III. 

79 [1869]), ' 410, 424, 527, 720, 

837. 
Doremus v. City of Chicago (212 

III. 513. 72 X. E. 403 [1904), 972. 
Doremus v. People ex rel. Kochers- 

perger (173 111. 63, 50 X. E. 686 

[1898]), 228, 925, 1128, 1132. 
Doremus v. People ex rel. Kochers- 

perger (161 111. 26, 43 X. E. Rep. 

701 [1896]), 912, 927, 986, 1183, 

1340. 
Dorgan v. City of Boston ( 94 Mass. 

(12 All.) 223 [1866]), 8, 64. 6.5. 

70, 89, 103, 113, 308, 309. 570, 

590, 695. 
Dorland v. Bergson (78 Cal. 637. 21 

Pac. 537 [1889]), 479, 570, 1155, 

1299. 
Dorland v. Hanson (81 Cal. 202. 15 

Am. St. Rep. 44. 22 Pac. 552 

[1889]), 1165. 
Dorland v McGlynn (47 Cal. 47 

[1873]). 824, 1169, 1281, 1306, 

1337. 
Dorman v. City of Jacksonville (13 

Fla. 538. 7 Am. Rep. 253 [1870]), 

70. 
Dorrance Street, In the Matter of 

(4 R. I. 230 [1856]), 86, 100, 111, 

147, 148, 301, 323, 663, 666, 698, 

709. 
Dorsey's Appeal (72 Pa. St. (22 P. 

r. Smith) 192 [1872]), 1015. 
Dougherty v. Coffin (69 Cal. 454, 10 

Pac. 672 [1886]), 538, 1031, 1337, 

1373. 
Dougherty v. Foley (32 Cal. 403 

[1867])", 540, 830. 



Dougherty v. Harrison (54 Cal. 428 

[1880] I. 810, 1277. 
Dougherty v. Henarie (47 Cal. 9 

[1873])', 166, 169, 170. 475. 1070, 

1103, 1169, 1194. 1385. 
Dougherty v. Hitchcock (35 Cal. 

512 [1868]). 223, 234, 510, 527, 

574, 831, 902, 1332. 
Dougherty v. Miller (36 Cal. 83 

[1868]), 624, 632, 635. 896. 1059. 
Dougherty v. Xevada Bank (81 Cal. 

162, 22 Pac. 513 [1889]), 538, 

1366, 1378. 
Doughten v. City of Camden ( 72 X. 

J. L. (43 Vr.)' 451, 3 L. R. A. (X. 

S.") 817, 63 Atl. 170 [1905]), 5 

349, 420, 464, 708. 
Doughten v. City of Camden (71 X. 

J. L. (42 Vr.) 426, .59 Atl. 106 

[1904]), 5, 349, 464. 
Doughty v. Hope (3 Den. (X. Y.) 

249 [1846]), 407, 415, 525, 813, 

911. 
Douglas, In re (46 X. Y. 42 [1871]), 

740, 762, 836. 
Douglas, In the Matter of (58 Barb. 

174, 40 Howard, 201 [1870]), 

735, 747, 762, 763, 836. 
Douglas, In the Matter of (12 Abb. 

Pr. 161 [1871]), 762, 763. 
Douglass, Matter of (9 Abb. Pr. X. 

S. 84 [1870]), 223, 234, 740, 770. 
Douglass V. City of Cincinnati (29 

0. S. 165 [1876]), 620, 632, 635, 

1067, 1072. 
Douglass V. Craig (4 Kan. App. 99. 

46 Pac. 197 [1896]), 670. 
Douglass V. Town of Harrisville (9 

W. Va. 162, 27 Am. Rep. 548 

[1876]). 43, 85. '96. 162, 323, 

1423. 
Dousman v. City of St. Paul (23 

Minn. 394 [18*77]), 760, 916, 918, 

1436. 
Dowden v. State for use of Bull 

106 Ind. 157, 6 X. E. 136 [1885]). 

1147. 
Dowell V. City of Portland (13 Or. 

248, 10 Pac. 308 [1880]), 951. 958. 

1206, 1279. 
Dowell V. Talbot Paving Co. ( 138 

Ind. 675, 38 X. E. 389), 170. 1110. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XClll 



[References are to sections.] 



DoAvlan v. County of Sibley (36 

Minn. 430, 31 X. W. 517 [1887]), 

103, 245, 260. 
Dowling V. Conniflf (103 Cal. 75, 36 

Pac. 1034 [1894]), 180, 1030, 

1215, 1281, 1337, 1.347, 1366. 
Dowling V. Hibernia Loan and Sav- 
ings Society ( 143 Cal. 425, 77 

Pac. 141 [1904]), 570, 759, 764, 

834, 1281, 1305. 
Downey v. Mississippi River & B. 

T. Ry. Co. (94 Mo. App. 137, 67 

S. W. 945), 363. 
Downey v. People ex rel. Raymond 

205 ill, 230, 68 X. E. 807 [1903]). 

531, 533, 986, 998, 1035. 1985, 

1338. 
Downing v. City of Des ^Ir)in('s ( 124 

la. 289, 99 X. W. 10U6 11004] I, 

305. 437, 657. 
Downs V. Board of Commissioners of 

Wyandotte Co. (48 Kan. 640, 29 

Pac. 1077 [1892]), 1012, lOl."), 

1436. 
Dows V. Village of Irvington ( 6(i 

Howard (X. Y.) 93 [1883]), 269, 

276, 277, 645, 927, 1009, 1027. 
Doyle V. Austin (47 Cal. 353 

[1874]), 40, 474, 475, 653, 690, 

691, 723. 
Doyle V. Mayor and Common Council 

of City of Xewark (34 X. J. L. 

(5 Vr.) 236 [1870]), 959. 
Doyle & Co. v. Mayor and Common 

Council of the City of Xewark 

(30 X. J. L. (1 Vr.) 303 [1863]), 

1409. 
Drainage of Lands, In re ( 35 X. J. 

L. (6 Vr.) 497 [1872]), 336. 
Drain Commissioner v. Baxter (57 

Mich. 127; suh nomine, Robertson 

v. Baxter (23 X. W. 711 [1885]), 

226, 228, 270. 
Drainage of Great Meadows. ( See 

Great Meadows.) 
Drainage Commissioners of District 

Xo. 1 v. Village of Cerro Gordo, 

217 111. 488, 75 X. E. 516 [1905]), 

340, 585, 1031. 
Drainage Commissioners v. Hudson 

(109 111. 659 [1885]), 340, 1026, 

13.50, 1362. 13G4. 1372, 1377, 1385. 



Drainage Commissioners of District 
X'o. 3 V. Illinois Central Railroad 
Company (158 111. 3.53, 41 X. E. 
1073 [1895]), 557, 594, 595, 659, 
1328. 

Drainage Ctommissioners District 
Xumber Two v. Kinney (233 111. 
67, 84 X. E. 34 [1908]), 953, 
1424. 

Drainage Commissioners of Union 
Drainage District X'o. 1 of Mahn- 
aman and Montmorency Towti- 
ships of Whiteside County v. Mil- 
ligan (227 111. 303, 81 X\ E. 382 
[1907]), 1347. 

Drainage Commissioners of Drain- 
age District Xo. 2 v. Drainage 
Commissioners of Union Drainage 
District Xo. 3 (211 111. 328, 71 
X. E. 1007 [1904]), 340, 564, 659, 
665, 666, 1032, 1313 

Drainage Commissioners of Drainage 
District Xo. 2 v. Drainage Com- 
missioners of L^nion Drainage 
District Xo. 3 (113 HI. App. 114), 
340, 564, 659, 665, 666, 1032, 
1313. 

Drainage District X'o. 15 of Skagit 
County V. Armstrong (44 Wash. 
23, 87 Pac. 52 [1906]), 340, 1033. 

Drainage District, Commissioners of 
V. Griffin (134 HI. 330, 25 X. E. 
995 [1891]), 748, 768. 

Drainage District Xo. 3 v. People ex 
rel. Baron (147 111. 404, 35 X^. 
E. 238 [1894]), 245. 247, 340, 
.504, 771. 

Drainage Ditch Xo. 6, In re ( 1 09 X. 
W. 993 [1906]), 594, 614. 

Drake, In the Matter of the Applica- 
tion of (69 Hun (X. Y.) 95, 23 
X. Y^ S. 264 [1893]), 662, 786, 
800, 1503. 

Drake v. Cincinnati (25 Ohio Cir. 
Ct. 373 [1903]), 684. 

Drake v. Grout (21 Ind. Aiip. 534, 
52 X. E. 775 [1898]). 554, 575, 
639, 723, 1252. 1333. 

Drake v. Schoenstedt (149 Ind. 90, 
48 X. E. 629 [1897]), 564. 

Draper v. City of Atlanta ( 126 Ga. 
649, 55 S. E. 929 [1906]), 73, 293, 
298, 1015, 1346. 



XCIV 



TA3I.E OF CASeS. 



[F.cfpi-pucos are to sections.] 



Dreake v. Beasley (26 0. S. 315 

[1875]), 322, 1047, 1142. 
Drennen v. People (222 111. 592. 78 

X. E. 937 [1906]), 1126. 
Dressman v. Simonin ( 104 Ky. 693, 

47 S. W. 767, 20 Ky. L. R. 868 

[1898]), 324, 1068. 
Drew V. Town of Geneva ( 159 Ind. 

364, 65 N. E. 9 [1902]), 15, 489, 

1235. 
Drexel v. Town of Lake (127 111. 54, 

20 N. E. 38 [1890]), 324, 330, 

572. 
DriscoU V. Howard (63 C'al. 438 

[1883]), 1220. 
Driver v. Keokuk Savings Bank, 126 

la. 091, 102 X. W. 542 [1905]), 

486. 
Driver v. Moore (81 Ark. 80, 98 S. 

W. 734 [1906]), 665, 666, 672, 

766, 784, 799, 927, 1005, 1285. 
Diiane v. City of Chicago (198 111. 

471, 64 N. E. 1033 [1902]), 297, 

328, 448. 563, 642, 859. 
Dvibuque, City of v. Harrison ( 34 

la. 163 [1872]), 40, 50, 1122. 
Dubuque, City of v. Wooton (28 la. 

571 [1870]'), 747, 760, 836. 
Duffield V. City of Detroit ( 15 Mich. 

474 [1867]), 77. 
Duffy, In the Matter of (133 N. Y. 

512, 31 N. E. 517 [1892]), 1461. 
Duffy V. City of Saginaw ( 106 Mich. 

335, 64 N. W. 581 [1895]), 1015. 
Dugger V. Hicks (11 Ind. App. 374, 

36 N. E. 1085 [1894]), 301, 527. 

1249. 
Dugro, In re (50 X. Y. 513 [1872]), 

236. 
Duke V. O'Bryan (100 Ky. 710, 39 

S. W. 444, 824, 19 Ky! L. R. 81 

[1897]), 70, 101. 
Duker v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 

(Ky.) (25 Ky. Law Rep. 135, 74 

S. W. 744 [1903]), 301, 610, 678. 
Dukes V. Working (93 Ind. 501 

[1883]), 812. 
Dulaney v. Figg ( — Ky. , 29 

Ky. Law Rep. 678, 94^ S. W. 658 

[1906]), 396. 
Duluth, City of v. Davidson (97 

Minn. 378, 107 X. ^Y. 151 [1906]), 

324, 693, 714. 



Duluth, City of v. Dibblee ( 62 Minn. 

18, 63 N. W. 1117 [1895]), 130, 

324, 367, 726, 732, 770, 910, 911, 

914, 947. 
Duluth, City of v. Miles (73 Minn, 

509, 76 X. W. 259), 1126. 
Dumesnil v. Hexagon Tile Walk Co. 

(— Ky. , 58 S. W. 705. 23 

Ky. L. R. 144), 1249, 1317. 
Dumesnil v. Louisville Artificial 

Stone Co. (109 Ky. 1, 58 S. W. 

371 [1900]), 323, 464, 574, 617, 

641, 646, 723, 724, 1330, 1336. 
Dumesnil v. Shanks (97 Ky. 354, 

30 S. W. 654, 31 S. W. 864 

[1895]), 628. 
Duncan v. City of Elizabeth (25 X. 

J. Eq. (10 C. E. Green) 430 

[1874]), 895, 1197, 1199, 1426. 

1432. 
Duncan v. Lankford ( 145 Ind. 145, 

44 XL E. 12 [1896]), 927, 933, 

955, 986, 1432. 
Duncan v. Ramish (142 Cal. 686, 76 

Pac. 661 [1904]), 73. 301, 485, 

537, 550, 553, 555, 558, 561, 570, 

624, 668, 670, 723, 724, 812, 918, 

1026, 1027, 1337, 1414. 
Dunham v. City of Chicago (55 111. 

357 [1870]),' 173. 
Dunham v. People ex rel. McCrea, 

96 111. 331 [1880]), 103, 104, 247, 

249, 253, 259, 266, 356. 
Duniway v. Portland (47 Or. 103, 

81 Pac. 945 [1905]), 414, 424, 531, 

534, 738, 760, 956, 974. 
Dunker v. Stiefel (57 Mo. App. 379 

[1894]), 380, 381, 577, 648, 714. 
Dunkirk, City of v. Wallace (19 

Ind. App. " 298, 49 X. E. 463 

[1897]), 1508. 
Dunkirk Land Company v. Zehner 

(35 Ind. App. 694, 74 X. E. 1099 

[1905]), 17, 886, 1033. 
Dunkle v. Herron (115 Ind. 470, 18 

X. E. 12 [1888]), 223, 950, 1113. 
Dunlap V. Gosnell ( 18 Ky. Law R. 

8, 35 S. W. 108 [1896]), 86. 
Dunn V. McXeely (75 Mo. App. 217 

[1898]), 490, 511. 
Dunne v. AJtschul (57 Cal. 472 

[1881]), 515, 537, 1290. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCV 



[Kfcferences are to sections.] 



Dunning, In the Matter of { 60 Bail). 

(N. Y.) 377 [1871]), 919, 1452. 
Dunning v. Calkins (51 Mich. 556, 

17 N. W. 54 [1883]), 1125, 1373. 
Durkee v. City of Kenosha (59 Wis. 

123, 48 Am. Rep. 480, 17 X. W. 

677 [1883]), 1196, 1521. 
Durrell v. Dooner (119 Cal. 411, 51 

Pac. 628 [1897]), 223, 234, 637. 
Durrell v. City of Woodbury ( 74 N. 

J. L. (45 Vr.) 206. 65 Atl. 198 

ri906]), 245, 301, 549, 560, 1015. 

1020. 
Durrett v. Davidson ( — Ky. , 

(8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 546, 93 S. 

W. 25 [1906]), 168, 950. 
Durrett v. Kenton County ( — Ky. 

, 27 Ky. Law Rep*. 1173, 87 

S. W. 1070 '[1905]), 549, 650, 653. 
Dupont V. Highway Commrs. of 

Hamtranick (28 Mich. 362 

[1873]), 1278. 
Dusenbury v. Mayor and Common 

Council of the City of Newark (25 

N. J. Eq. (10 "C. E. Gr.) 295 

[1874]), 528, 1015. 1423, 1436. 
Dyar v. Farmington Village Corpo- 
ration (70 Me. 515 [1378]), 9, 

365, 677. 
Dyer v. Barstow (53 Cal. 81 

[1878]), 1113, 

Barstow (50 Cal. 652 
1226. 
Bro<jan 



Dyer v. 

[1875] 

Dyer v 

"[1881] 

Dyer v. 



234 



(57 Cal. 
I, 1293, 1382, 1389. 
Brogan (70 Cal. 136, 11 

Pac. 589 [1886]), 1306, 1378. 
Dyer v. Cliase (52 Cal. 440 

[1877]), 432, 465, 479, 510, 831, 

869, 1154, 1155. 
Dyer v. Harrison (63 Cal. 447 

[1883]), 574, 639, 723, 824, 886. 
Dyer v. Hudson (65 Cal. 374, 4 Pac. 

231 [1884]), 570. 574, 831, 862. 
Dyer v. Martinovicii (63 Cal 353 

[1883]), 624. 
Dyer v. Miller (58 Cal. 585 

[1881]), 784. 
Dyer v. City of Newport, Ky. (26 

Ky. L. 204, 80 S. W. 1127 [1904]), 

47, 212, 508. 
Dyer v. North (44 Cal. 157 [1872]), 



313, 749, 783, 784, 830, 836, 1215, 
1237. 

Dyer v. Parrott (60 Cal. 551 
[1882]), 1358. 

Dyer v. Pixley (44 Cal. 153 
"[1872]), 1210, 1215. 

Dyer v. Scalmanini (69 Cal. 637, U 
Pac. 327 [1886]), 479, 964, 9G5. 
1002. 

Dyer v. Woods (166 Ind. 44, 76 N. 
E. 624 [1906]), 119, 125, 323, 521, 
831, 859, 1439, 1444. 

Dyker Meadow Land & Improve- 
ment Co. V. Cook (159 N. Y. 6, 
53 N. E. 690), 557, 1072. 



Eager, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (46 N. Y. 100 [1871]), 

479, 515, 724, 867, 1451, 1452. 

1455, 1458. 
Eager, In the Matter of (41 How. 

107 [1870]), 472, 484, 485. 540, 

542, 1458. 
Eager, In the flatter of (58 Barb. 

557 [1871]), 167, 472, 525, 540, 

977, 983, 1455. 
Eager, In the Matter of (12 Abb. 

Pr. 151 [1871]), 472, 511, 515, 

867. 
Eager, In the Matter of (10 Abb. 

Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 229 [1871]), 

223, 234, 540, 542, 1452, 1455. 
Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Pell (2 Edw. 

Ch. 631), 1057. 
Eagle ^lanufacturing Company v. 

City of Davenport (101 la." 493, 

38 'l. R. a. 480, 70 N. W. 707 

[1897]), 314, 620, 632, 1050, 1067, 

1072. 
Fames v. f-^alem and Lowell R. R. Co. 

(98 Mass. 560, 96 Am. Dec. 676 

[1868]), 363. 
Earhart v. Farmers' Creamer.v ( 148 

Ind. 79, 47 N. E. 226 [1897]), 

886, 915, 1362. 
Early v. City of Ft. Dodge (— la. 

-^, 113 N. W. 766 [1907]), 695, 

1351, 1361. 
East 133rd Street, In re (95 N. Y. 
S. 76 [1904]). 603. 



XCVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



East Street, Evans' Appeal (210 Pa. 

St. 539, 60 Atl. 154 [1904]), 383, 

462. 
East Grand Forks, City of v. Luck 

(97 Minn. 373, 6 L. R. A. (X. S.) 

198, 107 N. W. 393 [1900]), 6, 20. 

353, 1045. 
East Jordan Lumber Company v. 

Village of East Jordan ( 100 Mich. 

201, 58 N. W. 1012), 1015. 
East Orange, City of v. Hussey ( 72 

N. J. L. (43 Vr.) 71, 59 Atl". 1060 

[1905]), 166, 168, 223, 340, 414. 
East Orange, City of v. Hussey (70 

N. J. L. (41 Vr.) 244, 57 Atl. 

1086 [1903]), 340, 1368. 
East Saginaw and St. Clair R. R. 

Co. V. Benham (28 Mich. 459 

[1874]), 771. 
East St. Louis, City of v. Albrecht 

(150 111. 506, 37 N. E. 934 

[1894]), 413, 424, 837. 
East St. Louis, City of v. Davis 

(233 111. 553, 84 N. E. 674 

[1908]), 297, 752, 770, 848. 
East St. Louis, City of v. Wittich 

(108 111. 449 [1884]), 911. 
Eastern Texas Railroad Company v, 

Eddings (30 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 

70 S. W. 98 [1902]), 66. • 
Ebensburg Borough v. Little (28 

Pa. Super. Ct. 4*69 [1905]), 1012. 
Eckert v. Town of Walnut (117 la. 

629, 91 X. W. 929 [1902]), 827. 
Eddy V. City of Omaha (72 Xeb. 

550, 101 X". W. 25 [1904] ) ; 102 

X^. W. 70, 103 X. W. 692 [1905]), 

505, 521, 739, 771, 985, 1445. 
Ede V. Cogswell (79 Cal. 278, 21 

Pac. 767 [1889]), 109, 244, 523, 

538, 574, 831, 840. 
Ede V. Cuneo (120 Cal. 107, 58 Pac. 

538 [1899]), 223, 234, 775, 777, 

958, 960, 1231, 1242. 
Ede V. Kni'^ht (93 Cal. 159, 28 Pac. 

860 [1892]), 169, 171, 538, 782, 

824, 886, 1153, 1155, 1281, 1375, 

1389. 
Edgerton v. Mayor and Aldermen 

of the Town of Green Cove Springs 

(19 Fla. 140 [1882]), 83, 86, 118, 

147, 308, 425 



Edgerton v. Huntington School 
Township (126 Ind. 201, 26 X. E, 
150 [1890]), 579, 580, 586, 012. 

Eclmands y. City of Boston ( 108 
Mass. 535 [1871]), 70. 

Edward C. Jones Co. v. Perry ( 20 
Ind. App. 554, 57 X\ E. 583 
[1900]), 1043, 1085. 

Edwards v. Berlin (123 Cal. 544, 
50 Pac. 432 [1899]), 415, 499, 
538, 831, 834, 861, 1281, 1304. 

Edwards v. Bruorton ( 184 ]\Iass. 
529, 09 X\ E. 328 [1904]), 81, 
103. 

Edwards v. City of Chicago ( 140 
111. 440, 30 X. E. 350 [1893]), 
417, 418, 549, 558, 563, 570, 920. 

Edwards v. City of Colun.bus ( 7 
Ohio X. P. 614 [1900]), 700, 707. 
1012. 

Edwards v. Cooper ( 168 Ind. 54, 79 
X. E. 1047 [1907]), 17, 550, 556, 
825, 872, 1024, 1149, 1240. 

Edwards v. Jersey City (40 X". J. 
L. 176), 958. 

Edwards v. Lesueur (132 Mo. 410, 
31 L. R. A. 815, 33 S. W. 1130), 
210. 

Edwards House Co. v. City of Jack- 
son ( — Miss. , 45 So. 14 

[1907]), 147, 301, 663, 809, 833, 
857, 1502. 

Edwards & Walsh Construction 
Company v. .Jasper County (117 
la. 365, 94 Am. St. Rep. 301, 90 
X. W. 1006 [1902]), 11, 16, 42, 89, 
475, 514, 580, 581, 582, 012, 613, 
620, 834, 849, 888, 918. 1015, 1022, 
1075, 1103, 1108, 1109, 1215, 1303, 
1309. 

Eel River Draining Association v. 
Carriger (30 Ind. 213 [1868]), 
247. 

Eel River Draining Association v. 
Topp (16 Ind. 242 [1861]), 340, 
525, 886, 923, 1232, 1236, 12S3, 
1317. 

Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin ( 27 
Mo. 495, 72 Am. Dec. 276 [1858]), 
43, 147, 148, 343, 711. 

Ehni V. City of Columbus (3 Ohio 
C. C. 494 [1889]), 441, 561, 775, 
950, 1435. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCVli 



[References are to sections.] 



East Eighteenth Street, in the Town 

of Flatbusli, In the Matter of tlie 

Assessment for Improving ( 75 

Hun (N. Y.) 603, 27 N. Y. Supp. 

591 [1894]), 53, 617, 641, 646. 

720, 1403. 
Eightieth Street, In the [Matter of 

(31 Howard (N. Y.) 99 [1865]), 

241, 441, 484, 982, 1454. 
Eightieth Street, Matter of (17 Abb. 

Pr. (N. Y.) 324 [1864]), 484, 485, 

495, 1397, 1451. 
Eilert v. Ciiy of Oshl<osh (14 Wis. 

586 [1861]'), 1506, 1511. 
Ek V. St. Paul ^'ermanent Loan Co. 

(84 Minn. 245, 87 N. W, 844 

[1901]), 194, 195. 
El Paso, Citj' of V. Mundy Brotliers 

85 Tex. 316, 20 S. W. 140 [1892]), 

663, 688, 775, 1050. 
Elder v. Fox (18 Colo. App. 263, 

71 Pac. 398 [1903]), 1036, 1072. 
Eidridge v. Trezevant (160 U. S. 

452, 40 L. 490, 16 S. 345), 343. 
Eleventh Avenue, ^Matter of Open- 
ing (49 How. Pr. (N. Y. ) 208 

[1875]). 919. 
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern l\aihv:'y 

Company v. Hohenshell (193 111. 

159, 6l" N. E. 1102 [1901]), 69, 

340, 739, 756, 758, 760, 1002, 1183, 

1184, 1272, 1319, 1346. 
Elizabeth, Report of Commissione: s 

of (49 X. J. L. (20 Vr.) 488, 10 

Atl. 363 [1887]), 187, 198, 271, 

414, 950, 956, 9(50, 968, 1066, 1072, 

1083, 1113. 
Elizabeth, City of v. Hill (39 N. 

J. L. (10 Vr.) 555 [1877]), 967, 

1486. 
Elizabeth, City of v. Shirley (35 N. 

J. Eq. (8 Stewart) 515* [1882]), 

971, 1036. 1037, 1072. 
Elizal)eth, City of v. State. Meker, 

Pros. (45 X. J. L. (16 Vr.) 157 

[1883] ), 408, 95t), 964, 1361. 
Elkhart, ( ity of v. Wickwire (121 

Ind. 331, 22 X. E. 342 [1889]), 

264, 279, 416, 423, 686. 741. 875, 

986. 1030, 1031, 1085, 10S9. 1210, 

1435, 1450. 
Ellinghouse v. Taylor (19 :\Iont. 

462, 48 Pac. 757 [1897]), 355. 



f Elliott V. Berry (41 0. S. 110 

[1884]), 38, 574. 
Elliott V. Cale (113 Ind. 383, 14 

X. E. 708 [1887]), 1053. 
Ii:iliott V. City of Chicago (48 111. 

293 [1868]), 556, 1005. 
Ellis V. Pontchartrain Levee Dis- 
trict (43 La. Ann. 33, 8 So. 914), 

155. 
Ellis V. Witmer (134 Cal. 249. GO 

Pac. 301 [1901]), 500, 504, 951, 

1103, 1106, 1184, 1279, 1290, 1435. 
Ellis V. Workman (144 Cal. 113, 77 

Pac. 822 [1904]), 1197, 1473, 

1474. 
Ellison V. Branstrator (34 Ind. 

App. 410, 73 X. E. 146 [1904]), 

340, 950, 1113, 1199, 1206. 
Ellwood V. City of Rochester (122 

X. Y. 229, 25 XT. E. 238 [1890]), 

554, 555, 723, 884, 885. 
Elma, Town of v. Carney (9 Wasli. 

466, 37 Pac. 707 [1894]), 313, 

531, 534, 693, 709, 713, 832, 839. 
Elma, Town of v. Carney (4 Wasli. 

418, 30 Pac. 732 [1892]), 313, 

887, 1219, 1230. 
Elmendorf v. City of Albanv (17 

Hun (X. Y.) 81 [1879]), 323. 
Elmore v. Drainage Commissioners 

135 111. 269, 25 Am. St. Rep. 363, 

25 X. E. 1010 [1890]), 8, 63, 89, 

253, 283, 291, 337, 1519. 
Elmore v. Overton (104 Ind. 548, 

54 Am. Rep. 343, 4 X. E. 197), 

207. 
Elsberry, City of v. Black (120 Mo. 

App. 20, 9()' S. W. 256 [1906] ) , 482, 

495. 
Elston V. City of Chicago (40 111. 

514, 89 Am. Dec. 361 [1866]), 360, 

450, 986, 1478, 1484, 1488. 
Elwood V. City of Rochester (43 

Hun, 102 [1887]), 308, 415, 416, 

525, 581, 593, 614, 630, 672, 675, 

693, 703, 719, 813, 825, 832. 894, 

950, 979, 981. 
Ely, Case of Isle of (10 Rep. 141a), 

387. 
Ely V. City of Grand Rapids (84 

Mich. 336, 47 X. W. 447 [1890]), 

541. 



XCVIU 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Elyton Land Co. v. Mayor, etc., of 
City of Birmingham (89 Ala. 477, 
7 So. 901), 150. 

Emery v. Bradford (29 Cal. 75 
[1865]), 15, 532, 537, 1005, 1007, 
1039, 1049, 1337, 1338. 

Emery v. San Francisco Gas Com- 
pany (28 Cal. 346 [1865]), 8, 86, 
88, 89, 100, 110, 147, 148, 313, 
436, 437, 541, 570, 624, 666, 831, 
840, 857, 862. 

Eniiorant Industrial Savings Bank, 
Mattpr of Petition of (75 N. Y. 
388 [1878]), 273, 433, 482, 495, 
496, 867. 

Emmert v. City of Elyria (74 O. S. 
185, 78 N. E. 269 [1906]), 864. 

Emmert v. Elyria (27 Ohio C. C. 
R. 353 [1905]), 864, 866. 

Emporia, City of v. Bates ( 16 Kan. 
495 [1876]), 414, 958, 959, 962, 
965, 990. 

Emporia, City of v. Norton (13 Kan. 
569 [1874]), 106, 414, 570, 813. 
956, 965, 983. 

Englebret v. McElwee (122 Cal. 284, 
54 Pac. 900 [1898]), 889, 1153, 
1240, 1265. 

English V. City of Danville (150 111. 
92, 36 N. E. 994 [1894]), 293, 
298, 1085. 

English V. Territory ( — Ariz. , 

89 Pac. 501, 90 iPac. 601 [1907]), 
301, 555, 724, 1030, 1109, 1110, 
1209, 1252, 1337, 1358. 

English V. Mayor and Common 
Council of Wilmington ( 2 Marv. 
(Del.) 63, 37 Atl. 158 [1896]), 
86, 118, 123, 134, 324, 553, 666, 
708, 709, 712, 745. 

Eno V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(68 N. Y. 214 [1877]), 167, 466, 
484, 485, 540, 1451, 1452, 1454, 
1490. 

Eno V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(7 Hun (N. Y.) 320 [1876]), 167, 
540. 

Eno V. Mayor, etc. (53 Howard 382 
[1877]), 167, 740, 762, 836. 

Enos V. City of Springfield (113 111. 



65 [1886]), 51, 153, 295, 323, 670. 
715, 776. 

Equitable Trust Co. v. O'Brien ( 55 
Neb. 735, 76 N. W. 417 [1898]). 
825, 1277. 

Erie v. Bootz (72 Pa. St. (22 P. 
F. Smith) 196 [1872]), 762, 795, 
1159. 

Erie to Use v. Brady (150 Pa. St. 
462, 24 Atl. 641 [1892]), 816, 981. 

Erie, City of for Use v. Brady (127 
Pa. St. 169, 17 Atl. Rep. 885 
[1889]), 813, 981, 1253. 

Erie, City for Use v. Butler (120 
Pa. St. 374, 14 Atl. 153 [1888]), 
527, 1159, 1211, 1253. 

Erie, City of v. First Universalist 
Church (105 Pa. St. 278 [1884]), 
42, 588, 613. 

Erie, City of v. Griswold (184 Pa. 
St. 435. 39 Atl. 231 [1898]), 147, 
148, 611, 641, 648, 720. 

Erie, City of for Use Erie Paving 
Co. v. Moody (171 Pa. St. 610, 
33 Atl. 378 [1895]), 437, 527, 
604. 

Erie, City of v. Piece of Land Front- 
ing on State Street (175 Pa. St. 
523, 34 Atl. 808 [1896]), 596, 
598, 1078, 1159, 1333. 

Erie City v. Reed (113 Pa. St. 468, 
6 Atl. 679), 414, 983. 

Erie, City of v. Russell (148 Pa. 
St. 384, 23 Atl. 1102 [1892]), 11, 
382, 384, 665, 666, 677. 

Erie City v. Willis (26 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 459 [1903]), 53, 55, 737, 1063. 

Erie R. Co. v. City of Paterson (72 
N. J. L. (43 Vr.) 83, 59 Atl. 1031 
[1905]), 594, 595, 613. 

Ericks'on v. Cass County (11 N. D. 
494, 92 N. W. 841 [1902]), 118, 
119, 125, 140, 196, 244, 340, 403, 
475, 549, 564, 586, 651, 652, 659, 
729, 735, 1011, 1012, 1034, 1085, 
1104, 1411, 1436. 

Erisman v. Board of Chosen Free- 
holders of the County of Burling- 
ton (64 N. J. L. (35 Vr.) 516, 
45 Atl. 998 [1900]), 322, 624, 626, 
1394, 1396. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



XCIX 



[References are to sections.] 



Ernst V. Kiinkie (5 0. S. 521 

[18.56]), 86, 89. 544, 700. 1216, 

1346. 
Eschbach v. Pitts (6 Md. 71 

[1854]), 1042, 1049, 1060. 
Espert V. City of Chicago (201 111. 

264, 66 N. E. 212 [1903]). 75, 

721, 
Espy Estate Company v. Pacific 

County (40 Wash. 67, 82 Pac. 129 

[1905]), 340, 525, 1468, 1469. 
Ess V. Bouton (64 Mo. 105 [1876]), 

1284. 
Essex Public Road Board, Pros. v. 

Skinkle (49 N. J. L. (20 Vr,) 641, 

10 Atl. 379 [1887]), 15, 166, 167, 

253, 9G8, 1113, 1179. 

Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle 

(49 N. J. L. (20 Vr.) 65, Ati. 

435 [1886]), 166, 167, 253, 968, 

1113, 1179, 
Essroger v. City of Chicago (1S5 111. 

420, 56 X. E. 1086 [1900]), 864, 

1392. 
Esterbrook v. O'Brien (98 Cal. 671, 

33 Pac. 765 [1893]), 1431, 1435. 
Estes V. Owen (90 Mo. 113, 2 S. W. 

133 [1886]), 314, 373, 374, 461. 
Etchison Ditching Association v. 

Busenback (39 Ind. 362 [1872]), 

254, 1232, 1264. 

Eltchison Ditch'ing Association v. 

Hillis (40 Ind. 408 [1872]), 254, 

340, 719. 777, 883, 891, 956, 981, 

1229, 1232, 1242, 1264, 1277, 1279, 

1288, 1369. 
Etchi'^on Ditching Association v. 

Jarrell (33 Ind. 131 [1870]), 340, 

883, 886, 1238, 1239. 
Euphrosine Street, Opening of ( 7 

La. Ann. 72 [1852]), 63, 113, 155. 
Eustace v. People ex rel.. Hanberg 

(213 111. 424, 72 N. E. 1089 

[1905]), 533. 
Eutaw, Town of v. Botnick ( — Ala. 

. 43 So. 739 [1907]), 73, 661. 

Evans v. City of Denver ( 26 Colo. 

193, 57 Pac. 606 [1899]), 959, 

965. 
Evans v. Lewis (121 111. 478, 13 N. 

E. 246 [1889]), 254, 558, 564, 

1008, 1417, 1432, 1477. 



Evans v. Tlie People ex rel. Kern 

(139 111. 552, 28 N. E. 1111 

[1893]). 763, 764, 913, 914, 1299. 
Evans v. Sharp (29 Wis. 564 

[1872]), 199, 896, 970, 1041, 1059. 
Evansville, City of v. Pfisterer (34 

Ind. 36, 7 Am. Rep. 214 [1870]). 

301, 528, 1015, 1022, 1435. 1436. 
Evart v. Village of Western Springs 

(180 111. 318, 54 X. E. 478 

[1899]), 900, 902, 922. 
Everett v. Deal (148 Ind. 90, 47 X. 

E. 219 [1897]), 483, 1347, 1352. 

1358. 
Everett v. Marston (186 Mo. f^'^7, 

85 S. W. 540), 1072. 
Ewart V. Village of Western Springs 

(180 111. 318, 54 X. E. 478 

[1899]), 279, 368, 452, 978. 
Ewing V. McXairy (20 O. S. 315 

[1871]), 998. 
Excelsior Springs, City of, to Use 

of McCormick v. Ettepson ( 120 

Mo. App. 215, 96 S. W. 701 

[1906]), 138, 245, 301, 468, 538, 

777, 1284. 
Excelsior Draining Co. v. Brown (38 

Ind. 384 [1871]), 254, 1232, 1264. 
Excelsior Paving Co. '<' Ueach (Cal.) 

34 Pac. 116), 519. 
Excelsior Planting & Manufacturing 

Company v. Green ( 39 La. Ann. 

455, 1 So. 873 [1887]), 4, 11, 37, 

39, 43, 100, 103, 110, 113, 117, 147, 

155, 184, 194, 198, 209, 237, 245, 

343, 545, 548, 711. 
Exchange Alley, flatter of (4 La. 

Ann. 4 [18491), 155. 
Exchanjte Bank v. Ault ( 102 Ind. 

322, 1 X. E. .'^62), 1444. 
Eyerman v. Blaksley (78 Mo. 145 

[1883]), 118, 186, 244, 324, 401, 

447, 473, 475, 550, 923, 1109, 1284. 
Eyermann v. Blakesley (13 Mo. App. 

"407 [188-'*]), 523. 574, 1138. 
Eyermann v. Blakesley (9 Mo. App. 
"231 [1880]), 293, 401, 447, 475, 

523, 872, 1282, 1284. 
Eyerman v. Hardy (8 Mo. App. 311 
"[1880]), 511, 574, 666, 698, 707, 

709. 714, 894, 1052, 1137. 
Eyerman v. Payne ( 28 Mo. App. 72 

[1887]), 1134, 1249, 1284, 1317. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Hyermann v. Provenchere ( 15 Mo. 

App. 256 [1884]), 324, 475, 511, 

527, 531, 537, 781, 840, 1103, 1150. 
Eyermann v. Scollay ( 16 Mo. App. 

"498 [1885]), 887, 998, 1137, 1138, 

1169, 1221, 1245. 



Fagan v. City of Chicago (84 111. 
227 [1876]), 104, 153, 236, 396, 
426, 428, 455, 570, 578, 579, 643, 
661, 662, G70, 676, 723, 920, 921, 
923, 92.5, 1273, 1277, 1283, 1313, 
1318. 

Fahnestock v. City of Peoria (171 
111. 454. 49 N. E. 496 [1898]), 65, 
308, 653, 922, 1313, 1379. 

Fair Haven and Westville Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
203 U. S. 379 [1906]), 172, 599, 
603. 

Fair Haven -t Westville Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
(77 Conn. 667, 60 Atl. 651 
[1905]), 172, 479, 519, 599, 603. 

Fair Haven & Westville Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
(77 Conn. 494, 59 Atl. 737 
[1905]), 7, 8, 223, 229, 234, 263, 
601, 776. 

Fair Haven & Westville Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
(77 Conn. 219, 58 Atl. 703 
[1904]), 60, 519, 603. 

Fair Haven & Westville Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
(75 Conn. 442, 53 Atl. 960 
[1903]), 60, 86, 172, 244, 245, 314, 
599, 600, 691, 699, 738. 

Fairbanks v. Mayor and Aldermen 
of Fitchburg (132 Mass. 42 
[1882]), 444, 563, 568, 847, 848, 
1400. 

Fairchild v. City of St. Paul (40 
Minn. 540, 49 N. W. 325 [1891]), 
308, 747. 

Fai^-field's Appeal (57 Conn. 167), 
359. 

Fairfield, City of v. Ratcliff (20 la. 
396 [1866]), 35, 231, 232, 443, 
775. 



Fajder v. Village of Aitkin (87 
Minn. 445, 92 N. W. 332, 934 
[1902]), 1116, 1411, 1412. 

Falch V. The People ex rel. John- 
son (99 111. 137 [1881]), 51, 86, 
236, 245, 258, 670, 715, 1379. 

Falch V. People ex rel. ( 8 Bradwell 
(111.) 351 [1880]), 764, 1299. 

Fall Creek and Warren Township 
Gravel Road Co. v. Wallace (39 
Ind. 435 [1872]), 322, 459, 1094. 

Fallbi"ook Irrigation District v. 
Bradley ( 164 U. S. 112, 41 L. 369, 
17 S. "56 [1896]), 115, 117, 119, 
121, 122, 131, 140, 249, 355, 556, 
670, 697, 718, 726, 728, 730, 760, 
1370. 

Falloon v. City of Hiawatha (66 Kan. 
769. 71 Pa'c. 1127 [1903]), 1381, 
1436. 

Fanning v. Bohme (76 Cal. 149, 18 
Pac. 158 [1888]), 313, 784, 1279. 

Fanning v. Foley (99 Cal. 336), 
33 Pac. 1098 [is93]), 1149, 1225. 

Fanning v. Leviston (93 Cal. 186, 
28 Pac. 943 [1892]), 1030, 1109, 
1281, 1337, 1381. 

Fanning v. Schammel (68 Cal. 428, 
9 Pac. 427 [1886]), 169, 171, 538, 
983. 

Farlin v. Hill (27 Mont. 27, G9 Pac. 
237 [1902]), 637. 

Farmers' Bank v. Orr (25 Ind. App. 
71, 55 N. E. 35 [1900]), 1033, 
1035, 1091, 1259. 

Farmers' Loan & Trust Company v. 
Borough of Ansonia (61 Conn. 76, 
23 Atl. 705 [1891]), 60, 601, 605. 

Farmers' Loan & Trust Company v. 
Hastings (2 Neb. LTnofficial, 337, 
96 N. W. Rep. 104 [1902]), 223, 
234, 777, 1386. 

Farniss, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 
(4 Hun 624 [1875]), 308, 1453. 

Farraher v. City of Keokuk (111 
la. 310, 82 N. W. 773 [1900]), 
463, 464, 784. 

Farr v. City of Detroit (136 Mich. 
200, 99 N. W. 19 [1904]), 1023. 
1436. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



CI 



[References are to sections.] 



Farr v. West Chicago Park Commis- 
sioners (167 111. 355, 46 N. E. 893 
[1897]), 465, 477, 479, 623, 965, 
975, 990. 

Farrar v. City of St. Louis (SO Mo. 
379 [1883], 47, 147, 148, 212, 374, 
380, 381, 665, 666. 

Farrell v. City of Cliicago (198 III. 
558, 65 N. E. 103 [1902]), 1469, 
1473, 1506, 1518. 

Farrell v. Eeminelkamp ( 64 Mo. 
App. 425 [1895]), 463, 1135, 1284. 

Farrell v. City of St. Paul ( 62 Minn. 
271, 54 Ain. St. Rep. 641, 29 L. 
R. A. 778, 64 X. W. 809 [1895]), 
989. 995, 1047, 1144. 

Farrell v. Town of West Chicago 
(162 111. 280, 44 X. E. 527), 1085, 
1113. 

Farrell v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (181 U. S. 404. 45 L. 
924, 21 S. 609, 645 [1901]), 314, 
702. 

Farrell v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (182 111. 250, 55 X. E. 
325 [1899]), 314, 559, 560, 650. 
670, 714, 715, 723, 965, 1269, 1271, 
1272, 1308. 

Farrington v. City of 'Sit. Vernon 
(166 X. Y. 233, 59 X. E. 826 
[1901]), 244, 438, 551, 620, 777. 

Farson v. City of Sioux City ( 106 
Fed. 278 [1901]), 301, 1508, 1512. 

Farwell v. Cambridge (77 Mass. (11 
Gray) 413 [1858]), 284. 

Farwell v. Des Moines Brick Manu- 
facturing Company (97 la. 286, 
35 L. R. A. 63, 66 X. W. 176 
[1896]), 42, 315, 610, 614, 985, 
1041, 1043, 1048, 1060. 

Fass V. Seehawer (CO Wis. 525, 19 
X. W. 533 [1884]), 53, 55, 121, 
538, 620, 632, 737, 747, 760, 781, 
785, 1006, 1338. 

Faure v. Winans, Hopk. Cli. (283), 
1057. 

Fay, In the IMatter of (12 Hun 490 
[1878]), 982. 

Fay V. City of Chicago (194 111. 136, 
62 N. E. 530 [1902]). 864. 

Fay V. Reed (128 Cal. 357, 60 Pac. 
927 [1900]), 510, 831, 857, 858, 
864, 1229. 



Fay V. City of Springfield ( 94 Fed. 

409 [1899]). 11, 118, 119, 132, 

666, 702, 709. 715, 728. 
Fayette, City of, ex rel. Crews V. 

Rich ( 122 Mo. App. 145, 9a S. W. 

8 [1907]), 850, 909, 956, 962. 
Fayssoux v. Denis (48 La. Ann. 850, 

19 So. 760 [1896]), 15, 155, 218, 

323, 1369. 
Feliler v. Gosnell (99 Ky. 380, 35 

5. W. 1125 [1896]), 479, 519, 844, 
1039. 

Fehringer v. City of Chicago ( 187 

111. 416, 58 X_ E. 303 [1900]), 

859, 864. 
Felker v. City of Xew Whatcom (16 

Wash. 178,' 47 Pac. 505 [1896]), 

525, 526, 739, 747, 754, 887, 1182, 

1202. 
Fell V. Philadelphia, to the use of 

Cunningham (81 Pa. St. (31 P. 

F. Smith) 58 [1876]), 234, 314, 

521, 527, 528, 537, 543, 777. 
Fellows V. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (17 Hun (X. Y.) 249 

[1879]), 1515. 
Felt V. City of Ballard (38 Wash. 

300, 80 Pac. 532 [1905]), 624, 

628. 
Felthousen v. City of Amsterdam 

(69 Hun 505, 23 X. Y. Supp. 424 

[1893]), 223, 234, 777, 887. 
Fenelon'a Petition (7 Pa. St. (7 

Barr.) 173 [1847]), 63, 113, 308, 

950, 1049. 
Fenwick Hall Company v. Town of 

Old Saybrooke (69 Conn. 32, 36 

Atl. 10(58 [1897]), 308, 907, 1433. 
Fergus Falls, City of v. Boen (78 

Minn. 186, 80 X. W. 961 [1899]), 

6, 20, 1032. 

Ferguson v. Cit.v of CoflVvvillo ( — 

Kan. , 94 Pac. 1010 [1908]), 

531. 
Ferguson v. Quinn (123 Pa. St. 337, 

16 Atl. 844 [1889]), 992, 1157, 

1160. 
Ferguson v. Borough of Stamford 

(60 Conn. 432, 22 Atl. 782 

[1891]). 11. 66, 118, 147,' 284, 324, 

651, 654, 1358. 



Cll 



TABLE OF CxVSES. 



[References are to sections. J 



Ferry v. Ridge (56 Mo. App. 615 
[1893]), 841. 

Ferris v. City of Chicago ( 162 111. 
Ill, 44 N, E. 436 [1896]), 533, 
884, 912. 

Ferry v. City of Tacoma (34 Wasli. 
652, 76 Pac. 277 [1904]), 679, 681, 
682, 918, 1027. 

Ferson's Appeal (96 Pa. St. (15 
Norris) 140 [1880]), 610, 665, 
666, 706, 1012, 1014. 

Feiist, In the Matter of (121 X. Y. 
299, 24 N. E. 479 [1890]), 1458. 

Fidelity Trust and Safety Vault 
Company v. Voris, Exrs. (110 
Ky. 315, 61 S. W. 474 [1901]), 
629. 

Field V. Barber Asphalt Paving 
Co. (194 U. S. 618, 24 S. 784, 
48 L. 1142 [1904]), 108, 144, 388, 
464, 485, 515, 779, 1370. 

Field V. Barber Asphalt Paving 
Co. (117 Fed. 925 [1902]), 108, 
144, 313, 314, 387, 388, 436, 438. 
464, 480, 485, 515, 698, 779, 1026, 
1130, 1324, 1370, 1414. 

Field V. City of Chicago (198 111. 
224, 64 N. E. 840 [1902]), 166, 
386, 463, 511, 551, 555, 570, 739, 
747, 762, 828, 874, 913, 950. 

Field V. Inhabitants of the Town- 
ship of West Orange (39 N. J. 
Eq. (12 Stew.) 60 [1884]), 968, 
1171, 1447. 

Fields V. The Commissioners of 
Highland County (36 O. S. 476 
[1881]), 11, 38, 147, 1421. 

Fifth Avenue Sewer, In the Matter 
of the Contract for the, in the 
City of Pittsburg (4 Brewster 
(Pa.) *364 [1870]), 388, 444, 468, 
549, 558, 563, 867. 

Fifty-fourth St., Pittsburg's Appeal 
(165 Pa. St. 8, 30 Atl. 503 
[1894]), 554, 620, 626, 627. 

Figg V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 
(116 Ky. 135, 75 S. W. 269, 25 
Ky. L. R. 350 [1903]), 594, 595, 
597, 598, 630. 

Findlay, City of v. Frey (51 0. S. 
390, 38 N. E. 114 [1894]), 561, 
577, 625, 681, 689, 700, 704. 



Findley v. Hull (13 Wash. 236, 43 

Pac. 28 [1895]), 313, 1505. 
Findley v. City of Pittsburg (82 Pa. 

St. (1 Xorris) 351 [1876]), 497. 
Findley v. City of Pittsburg (Pa.) 

11 Atl. 678), 53, 55, 323, 527. 
Finlayson v. Vaugh (54 Minn. 331, 

56 N. W. 49), 365. 
Finnegan v. City of Fernandina ( 15 

Fla. 379, 2^1 Am. Rep. 292 

[1875]), 73. 
Finnell v. Howells (2 Cin. Sup. Ct. 

(Ohio) 1.50 [1872]), 171, 687. 
Finnell v. Kates (19 0. S. 405 

[1869]), 120, 728, 740. 
Finney v. City of Oshkosh (18 Wis. 

209 [1864]), 1512. 
First Division of the St. Paul and 

Pacific Railroad Company v. City 

of St. Paul (21 Minn. 52*6 

[1875]), 172, 594, 614. 
First Draining District, In the Mat- 
ter of the Commissioners of the 

(27 La. Ann. 20 [1875]), 119, 127, 

340. 952. 
First Methodist Episcopal Church 

South. V. City of Atlanta (76 Ga. 

181 [1886]), 613. 
First National Bank of Kansas 

City V. Arnoldia (63 Mo. 229), 

1335. 
First National Bank of Sterling v. 

Drew (93 111. App. 630 [1900]), 

409. 
First National Bank of Kansas 

City V. Nelson (64 Mo. 418 

[1877]), 570, 575, 656, 1335. 
First Presbyterian Church of Fort 

Wayne v. City of Fort Wayne (36 

Ind. 338, 10 Am. Rep. 35 [1871]), 

588, 613. 
First Presbyterian Church v. City 

of Lafayette (42 Ind. 115 [1873]), 

1191, 1215, 1245, 1356, 1373. 
Firth V. Broadhead (7 Mo. App. 563 

[1879]), 171, 1081. 
Fischback v. People ex rel. Tether- 

ington (191 111. 171, 60 N. E. 887 

[1901]), 296, 927, 937, 986, 996. 

1183, 1340. 
Fishburn v. City of Chicago (171 

111. 338, 63 Am. St. Rep. 236, 39 

L. R. A. 482, 49 N. E. 532), 515. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cm 



[Reference.> are to sections.] 



Fisher v. City of Chicago (213 111. 

268, 72 N. E. 680 [1904|), 324, 

330, 917, 918, 1375. 
Fisher v. Georgia Vitrified Brick and 

Clay Company (121 Ga. 621, 49 

S. E. 679 [1905]), 519, 1432. 
Fisher v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of New York ( 67 N. 

Y. 73 [1876]), 73, 910, 925, 1067, 

1096, 1309. 
Fisher v. Mayor, etc., of tlie City of 

New York' (6 Hun (X. Y.) 64 

[1875]), 1009, 1286. 
Fisher v. Mayor, etc., of City of New 

York (3 Hun (X. Y.) 648 [1875]), 

73, 1090, 1096, 1161, 1259. 
Fisher v. City of Rochester ( 6 Lan- 
sing 225 [1872]), 280, 467, 526. 
Usher V. ^Mayor, etc., of Xew Y'ork 

(4 Lansing 451 [1871]), 64, 1469. 
Fisher v. People ex rel. Kern ( 157 

111. 85, 41 X. E. 615 [1895]), 531. 

986, 996. 
Fisher v. City of St. Louis (44 Mo. 

482 [1869]"), 1309. 
Fiske V. People ex rel. Raymond 

(188 III. 206, 52 L. R. A. 291, 58 

X. E. 985 [1900]). 514, 927, 986, 

992, 1183, 1375. 
Fitch V. Keeler (10 0. S. 169 

[1859] ), 86, 553. 
Fitzgerald v. City of Sioux City 

(125 la. 396, 'lOl X. \V. 268 

[1904]), 670, 707, 1035, 1082, 

1165, 1194. 
Fitzgerald v. Walker (55 Ark. 148, 

17 S. W. 702 [1891]), 16, 151, 

209, 249, 266, 314, 475, 531. 540, 

686, 1015, 1022, 1035. 
Fitzlnigh V. Ashwortli (119 Cal. 

393, 51 Pac. 635 [1897]), 324, 

468, 541, 821, 833, 840. 
Fitzhugh V. City of Bay City ( 109 

Mich. 581, 67 X. ^V. 904 [1896]), 

1015, 1436. 
Filzhugli V. City of Dulutli ( 5S 

Minn. 427. 59 X. \\. 1041). 367. 

914. 
Fitzhugh V. Levee District (54 Ark. 

224, 15 S. W. 455 [1891]), 73. 

.343, 1.346. 
Flanagan v. City of St. Paul (65 



Minn. 347, 68 X. W. 47 [1896]), 

746, 747, 1200. 
Flatbush, In the Matter of the As- 
sessments of Lands in the Town of, 

for the Extension of Prospect Park 

in the City of Brooklyn (60 N. Y. 

398 [1875"]), 409, 425, 637. 
Flatbush Avenue in City of Brook- 
lyn, In the Matter of ( 1 Barb. 
(X. Y.) 286 [1847]), 661, 889, 

890, 922, 1276. 
Fleener v. Claman ( 126 Ind. 166, 25 

X". E. 900), 266, 270. 
Fleet V. Borland (11 Howard (X. 

Y.) 489 [1854]), 1055. 
Fleetwood v. City of New York ( 4 

X. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. 475 [1849]), 

1174, 1484, 1485. 
Fleming v. Hull (73 la. 598, 35 X. 

W 673), 337. 
Fleniniing v. :Mayor and Council of 

the City of Holjoken (40 X". ,1. L. 

(11 Vr.) 270 [1878]), 1510. 
Fletcher v. Oliver (25 Ark 281), 

639. 
Fletcher v. City of Oshkosh (18 

Wis. 228 [1864]). 974, 1069, 1469, 

1505, 1518. 
Fletcher v. Pratlier (102 Cal. 413, 

36 Pac. 658 [1894]), 324, ,509. 
Flewellin v. Proetzel (80 Tex. 191, 

15 S. W. Rep. 1043 [1891]), 171, 

223, 234, 775, 777, 878, 879, 910. 
Flickinger v. Fay (119 Cal. 590. 51 

Pac. 855 [1893]), 495, 500, 1437. 
Flinn v. Gouley (139 Cal. ()23, 73 

Pac. 542 [1903] ), 1233. 
Flinn v. Peters (3 Cal. App. 235, 84 

Pac. 995 [1906]), 514. 
Flinn v. Strauss (4 Cal. App. 245, 

87 Pac. 414 [1906]), 498. 
Flint V. Webb (25 Minn. 93 [1878]), 

420, 735, 745, 910, 913, 1067, 1202. 
Flora V. Cline (89 Ind. 208 [1883]), 

1015. 1033, 1043, 1242. ' 
Florer v. Mc.^fl'ee (135 Ind. 540, 35 

X. E. 277 [1893]). 1085, 1101. 
Florida v. . (See State 

of Florida v. — ) 



Fh.urnoy v. ( ity of .TcflVrsonvillp 
(17 Ind. Iti9. <!) Am. Dec. 468), 
15. 86, 134, 570, 1112, 1113, 1211, 
1.346. 



CIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[•suojpas o; eao saonajajdy] 



Floyd V. Atlanta Banking Co. (109 
Ga. 778, 35 S. E. 172 [1899]), 
17, 1033, 1436. 

Flushing Avenue, In the Matter of 
(98 N. Y. 445 [1885]), 918, 989. 

Flynn v. Canton Company of Balti- 
more (40 Md. 312, 17 Am. Rep. 
603 [1874]), 56, 58. 

Flynn Township v. Woolman (133 
Mich. 508, 95 N. W. 567 [1903]), 
340, 1431. 

Fogg V. Hoquiam (23 Wash. 340, 63 
Pac. 234 [1900]), 1165. 

Foley V. Bullard (97 Cal. 516, 32 
Pac. 574 [1893]), 1384. 

Folmsbee v. City of Amsterdam 
(142 N. Y. 118, 36 N. E. 821 
[1894]), 510, 781, 829, 837. 

Folsom, In the Matter of (56 N. Y. 
. 60 [1874]), 762. 

Folsom, Petition of (2 S. (T. & C.) 
55 [1873]), 745. 

Folz V. City of Cincinnati (2 Handy 
(Ohio) 261 [1855]), 413, 424, 
1509. 

Foote V. City of Milwaukee (18 Wis. 
270 [1864]), 484, 485, 521, 538, 
737, 747, 1006, 1335, 1338, 1450. 

Forbes Street (70 Pa. St. (20 P. 
F. Smith) 125 [1871]), 113, 427. 

Forbis v. Bardbury (58 Mo. App. 
506 [1894]), 804, 810, 1024. 

Ford, In the Matter of ( 6 • Lansing 
(N. Y.) 92 [1872]), 47, 200, 495, 
550, 745, 770, 864, 874, 981. 

Ford V. Delta and Pine Land Com- 
pany (164 U. S. 662, 41 L. 590, 
17 S. 230 [1897]), 42, 343, 612, 
613, 617, 1092. 

Ford V. Delta & Pine Land Co. (43 
Fed. 181 [1890]), 42, 343, 613. 

Ford V. Town of North Des Moines 
(80 la. 626, 45 N. W. 1031 
[1890]),' 119, 135, 728, 729, 732, 
1026. 

Ford V. City of Toledo (64 O. S. 92, 
59 N. E. 779 [1901]), 324, 327, 
446, 549, 563, 578, 608, 641, 663. 

Forgey v. Northern Gravel Co. (37 
Ind. 118 [1871]). 639, 723, 1432, 
1444. 



Forry v. Ridge (56 Mo. App. 615 

[1893]), 621, 631, 698, 709. 
Forsyth v. Wilcox (143 Ind. 144, 41 

N."^ E. 371 [1895]), 70, 86, 113. 
Fort Chartres & Ivy Landing Drain- 
age & Levee Dist. No. 5 v. Smalk- 

and (70 111. App. 449 [1897]), 

223, 234, 739, 776, 813, 815. 
Ft. Dodge Electric Light & Power 

Co. V. City of Ft. Dodge (115 la. 

568, 89 n! W. 7 [1902]), 12, 118, 

301, 507, 603, 640, G66, 698, 709, 

1414, 1504, 1508, 1509. 
Fort Scott, City of v. Kaufman (44 

Kan. 137, 24 Pac. 64 [1890]), 

447, 636. 
Fort Smith, School District of v. 

Board of Improvement ( 65 Ark. 

343, 46 S. W. 418 [1898]), 586, 

1077. 
Fort Street & Elmwood R. R. Co. 

V. Schneider ( 15 Mich. 74 

[1866]), 438. 
Fort Wayne, City of v. Cody (43 

Ind. 197 [1873]), 555. 
Fort Wayne, City of v. Shoaff ( 106 

Ind. 66, 5 N. E. 403 [1885]), 358, 

454. 
Foss v. City of Chicago (184 111. 

436, 56 N. E. 1133 [1900]). 912. 

1183. 
Foss V. City of Chicago (56 111. 354 

[1870]), 860, 1337. 
Foster v. City of Alton (173 IH. 

587, 51 N. E. 76 [1898]), 956, 

962, 1513. 
Foster v. Cape May (60 N. J. L.. 

(31 Vr.) 78), 280. 
Foster v. Park Commissioners of 

Boston (133 Mass. 321), 356, 525. 
Foster v. Park Commissioners ol 

Boston (131 Mass. 225), 356. 
Foster v. Paxton (90 Ind. 122 

[1883]), 1030, 1414, 1431. 
Foster v. Commissioners of Wood 

County (9 0. S. 540 [1859]), 89, 

189, 255, 322, 538, 711. 
Foimtain v. Mayor and Common 

Covmcil of the City of Newark (57 

N. J. E(i. (12 Dick.) 76, 40 Atl. 

212 [1898]). 958, 959, 968, 1066, 

1083. 1447. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Fountain Head Drainage District 
Commissioners of v. Wright (228 
111. 208, 81 X. E. 849 [1907]), 
822, 952, 1382. 

Fowler, Matter of (53 X. Y. GO), 
142. 

Fowler v. City of St. Joseph ( 37 
Mo. 228 [186(5]). 423, 525, 527, 
707, 714, 1059, 1113, 1427, 1432. 
1442, 1502. 

Fox V. Middlesborough Town Co. 
(96 Ky. 262, 20 S. W. 776 
[1894])". 439, 527, 561, 574, 628, 
666, 709, 710, 735, 741, 848, 1015. 

Fralicli v. Barlow (25 Ind. App. 
383. 58 XL E. 271 [1900]), 301. 
526, '843, 1235, 1236, 1272, 1303, 
1324, 1375. 

Frank v. City of Chicago (216 111. 
587, 15 X. E. 213 [1905]), 1375. 
1376, 1377. 

Fi*ankfort, Board of Councilmen of 

City of V. Brislin ( — Ky. , 

104 S. W. 311, 31 Ky. L. R. 867 
[1907]), 1346. 

Frankfort, Board of Councilmen of 
V. Mason & Foard Company (100 
Ky. 48, 37 S. W. 290 [1896]), 
52, 55, 227, 956, 963. 

Frankfort, Board of Councilmen of 
City of V. Murray (99 Ky. 422, 
36 "S. W. 180 [1896]), 53, '55. 

Frankfort, City of v. State ex rel. 
Ross (128 Ind. 438. 27 X. E. 1115 
[1891]), 578, 587, 629. 

Franklin v. Hancock (204 Pa. St. 
110. 53 Atl. 044 [1902]), 147, 148, 
314, 437, 622, 624, 698. 709, 1041, 
1094. 

Franklin. Mayor of v. Mabery (6 
Ilumpli. (Tenn.) 368, 44 Am. Dec. 
315), 1123. 

Franklin County, Board of Commis- 
sionoi-s of V. Gardiner Savings In- 
stitution (119 Fed. 36 [1902]), 
1498. 

Franklin County, Board of Commis- 
sioners of V. City of Ottawa ( 49 
Kan. 747, 33 Am." St. Rep. 390, 31 
Pac. 788 [1892]). 301. 580. 582, 
1075. 

Franklin Park. Villaoe of v. Frank- 



lin (231 111. 380, 83 X. E. 214 
[1907]), 921, 1270. 

Franklin Park, Village of v. Frank- 
lin (228 111. 591, 81 X. E. 1132 
[1907]), 1376. 

Frantz, Jr. v. Jacob (88 Ky. 525, 
11 S. \A\ 654 [1S89]), 3o"4, 662. 
1103. 1437. 

Fraser v. Mulany (129 Wis. 377, 
109 X. W. 139' [1906]), 340, 554, 
556, 564, 639, 723, 907. 

Frazer v. State for Use of Inger- 
man (106 Ind. 471, 7 X. E. 203 
[1886]), 340, 1147, 1232. 

P^rederick Street, Hanover Bur- 
rough's Appeal (150 Pa. St. 202, 
24 Atl. Rep. 669 [1892]), 244, 776. 

Frederick v. City of Seattle (19 
Wash. 428, 43 Vac. 364 [1896]), 
408, 782, 956, 962, 965, 990, 1399. 

Freeport Borough v. Robert Mil- 
ler's Estate (34 Pa. Super. Ct. 
395 [1907]), 1063. 

Freeport Street Railway Company v. 
City of Freeport (151 111. 451," 38 
X. E. 137 [1894]), 413, 623, 837, 
879, 956, 962, 967, 991, 1100. 

Fremont, City of v. Hayes (4 Ohio 
X. P. 379)," 1125. 

French v. Barber Asplialt Co. (181 
U. S. 324, 45 L. 879, 21 S. 625 
[1901]), 86, 118, 123, 244, 245. 
293, 301, 314, 516. 553, 666, 702. 
728, 1049, 1370. 

French v. Kirkland (1 Paige (X. 
Y.) 117), 336. 

French v. Cit.v of Lowell (117 Mass. 
363 [1875] ), 76, 312, 654. 

Frenna v. Sunnyside Land Company 
(124 Cal. 437, 57 Pac. 302 
[1899]), 537, 1052, 1062. 

Frevert, Pros. v. Mayor and Council 
of the City of Ba.vonne (63 X. J. 
L. (34 Vr.) 202, 42 Atl. 773 
[1899]). 667, 1404. 1408. 

Frey v. City of Findlay (7 Ohio C. 
C. 311 [1893]), 561, "577, 681, 704. 

Frick V. Morford (87 Cal. 576, 25 
Pac. 764 [1891]), 465. 479. 510. 
537, 631, 831. 960. 965. 1030. 1358, 
1359. 1471. 



CVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Fricke v. City of Cincinnati ( 1 Ohio 
N. P. 98 \l894]), 475, 975, 977, 
1105. 

Friedenwald v. Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore (74 Md. 116, 
21 Atl. 555, 24 Atl. 156 [1891]), 
309, 432, 654, 816, 1349, 1363, 
1414, 1432. 

Friedrich v. City of Milwaukee (118 
Wis. 254, 95 X. W. 126 [1903]), 
674, 923, 1005, 1283. 

Friedrich v. City of Milwaukee (114 
Wis. 304. 90 X. W. 174 [1902]), 
71, 639, 661, 1519. 

Fresh V. City of Galveston (73 Tex. 
401, 11 S. W. 402 [1889]), 223, 
234, 777, 813, 815, 830. 

Frost V. Leatherman (55 Mich. 33, 
20 X. W. 705 [1884]), 781, 859, 
867, 1049, 1052, 1426, 1427, 1443. 

Fruin-Bambrick Construction Com- 
pany V. Geist (37 Mo. App. 509 
[1889]), 223, 234, 628, 777, 804, 
811, 1303. 

Frush V. City of East Portland ( 6 
Or. 281 [1877]), 1512. 

Frye v. Town of Mount Vernon (42 
Wash. 268, 84 Pac. 864 [1006]), 
301, 972, 1475. 

Fuchs V. St. Louis (167 Mo. 620, 
57 L. P. A. 130, 67 S. W. 610), 
324. 

Fuess V. Kansas City and the Brook- 
lyn Avenue Railway Co. (191 Mo. 
692, 90 S. W. 1029 [1905]), 66, 
6.54, 1373. 

Fulkerson v. City of Bristol ( 105 
Va. 555, 54 S. E. 468 [1906]), 
107, 161, 168, 639, 645, 688. 

Fuller V. City of Elizabeth (42 N. 
J. L. (13 Vroom) 427 [1880]). 
927, 1003, 1486. 

Fuller V. City of Grand Eapids ( 105 
Mich. 529,"^ 63 X. W. 5.30 [1895]), 
526, 839, 859, 865, 1057. 

Fulton Street, In the Matter of (29 
Howard Pr. 429 [1865]), 461, 403, 
464. 

Fulton V. Town of Dover (8 Houst. 
(Del.) 78, 6 Atl. 633, 12 Atl. 394, 
31 Atl. 974 [1888]), 70. 

Fulton County, Board of Commis- 
sioners of V. Board of Commis- 



sioners of Henry County (64 Ohio 
St. 160, 59 X. E. 883 [1901]), 
1371. 

Furman Street, Matter of (17 
Wend. (N. Y.) 649), 653. 

F. V. Smith Contracting Co. v. City 
of Xew York (100 N. Y. S. 756, 
115 App. Div. 180 [1906]), 538. 



Gable v. Altoona (200 Pa. St. 15, 

49 Atl. 367 [1901]), 844, 1502, 

1511. 
Gaertner v. Louisville Artificial 

Stone Co. (114 Ky. 160, 70 S. W. 

293 [1902]), 443, 862, 1249. 
G'affney v. Gough (36 Cal. 104 

[1868]), 1049, 1151. 
Gafney v. City and County of San 

Francisco (72 Cal. 146, 13 Pac. 

467 [1887]), 856, 862, 865, 1509, 

1515. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (225 111. 

218, 80 X. E. 127 [1907]), 121, 

266, 748, 758, 1039, 1279. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (225 111. 

135, 80 X."^E. 86 [1907]), 726. 
Gage V. City of Chicago. (223 111. 

602, 79 X. E. 294 [1906]), 758, 

764. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (216 111. 

107, 74 X. E. 726 [1905]), 886, 

909, 1085, 1104, 1391. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (211 111. 

109, 71 X. E. 877 [1904]), 918. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (207 111. 

56, 69 X. E. 588 [1904]), 266, 

831, 857, 858, 864, 1279, 1289. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (203 111. 

2^6. 67 X. E. 477 [1903]), 317, 440, 

1377. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (201 111. 

93, 66 X." E. 374 [1903]), 511, 

570, 750, 831, 839, 864, 866, 918, 

987, 1000, 1377. 
Gage V. City of Chicago ( 196 111. 

512. 63 X. E. 1031 [1902]), 323. 

469, 739, 747, 835, 864. 
Gage V. City of Chicago ( 195 111. 

490, 63 X. E. 184 [1902]), 328, 

448, 469, 835, 950, 1373. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cvn 



[Kefereuces are to sections.] 



Gage V. City of Chicago (193 111. 

108, 61 X. E. 850 [1001]), 852, 

978, 994, 1390. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (192 111. 

586, 61 X. E. 849 [1901]), 317, 

323, 440, 835. 
Gage V. City of Chicago ( 191 111. 

210, 60 X"^. E. 890 [1901]), 295. 

297, 328, 401, 417, 418, 859. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (179 111. 

392, 53 X. E. 742 [1899]), 864. 
Gage V. City of Chicago (162 111. 

313. 44 X. E. 729 [1896]), 912, 

947, 1281, 1372, 1377. 
(iage V. City of Chicago ( 146 111. 

499, 34 X. E. 1034 [1893]), 308. 

311, 391, 394, 426, 920. 
Gage V. City of Chicago ( 143 111. 

157, 32 X. E. 264 [1893]), 857. 
Gage V. Dupuy (137 111. 652, 24 X. 

E. 541, 26 X. E. 386 [1892]), 746, 

750, 1184, 1196, 1448. 
Gage V. Graham (57 111. 144 

[1870]), 105, 259, 344. 
Gage V. Parker ( 103 111. 523 

[1882]), 927, 986, 1199, 1429. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanherg (225 

111. 144, 80 X. E. 90 [1907]). 471, 

472, 950, 1108, 1113. 
Gage V. People (221 111. 527, 77 X. 

E. 927 [1906]), 1132. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (219 

111 219, 76 X". E. 834 [1906]), 526, 

826, 1103, 1189, 1330. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (219 

111. 369, 76 X. E. 498 [1906]), 

471, 925, 950, 1113, 1183. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (219 

HI. 20, 76 X. E. 56 [1905]), 883, 

1183. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (213 

111. 468, 72 X. E. 1108 [1905]), 

491, 986, 996, 1183, 1290, 1372. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (213 

111. 457, 72 X. E. 1099 [1905]), 

301, 1189, 1389. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (213 

111. 410, 72 X. E. 1084 [1904]), 

986, 998, 1184, 1343. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (213 

111. 347, 72 X. E. 1062 [1904]). 

491, 1324. 



Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg (207 

111. 377, 69 X. E. 840 [1904]), 

469, 723, 820, 909, 921, 927, 932, 

996, 1183, 1340, 1389, 1390. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Hanberg ( 207 

111. 61, 69 X. E. 635 [1904]). 

514, 818, 927, 986, 996, 1183, 1189. 

1332. 
Gage V. People ex rel. (205 111. 547, 

69 X. E. 80 [1903]), 746. 1101, 

1108, 1178, 1299. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Raymond ( 200 

HI. 432, 65 X. E. 1084 [1903]), 

531, 533. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Raymond 

(193 111. 316, 56 L. R. A. 916, 61 

X. E. 1045 [1901]), 533, 989, 

1342. 
Gage V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (163 111. 39, 44 X. E. 819 

[1896]), 311, 986, 996, 1183, 1340. 

1379. 
Gage V. Springer (211 III. 200, 103 

Am. St. Rep. 191, 71 X. E. 860 

[1904]), 484, 539. 
Gage V. Springer (112 111. App. 103 

[1904]), 484, 539. 
Gage V. \Yaterman (121 111. 11.5. 13 

X. E. 543 [1889]), 51, 746. 748, 

764, 1178, 1207, 1448. 
Gage V. \Yebb (141 111. 533, 31 X. 

E. 130 [1893]), 746, 748. 760, 764, 

888, 1184, 1444. 
Gage V. Village of Wilmette ( 230 

111. 428, 82 X. E. 656 [1907]), 

324, 469. 472. 
Galbreath v. Xewton (30 Mo. App. 

381 [1888]), 18. 496, 5.30, 541, 

856, 1028, 1137, 1138. 
Galesburg, City of v. Searles (114 

111. 217, 29* X. E. 686 [1886]), 

51. 153, 271, 279. 295, 324, 670. 

715. 
Gallagher v. Bartlett (64 Mo. App. 

258 [1896]), 1135, 1137, 1243, 

1284. 
GalJaher v. Garland ( 126 la. 206, 

101 X. \V. 867 [1904]), 479. 740, 

777, 962, 1028, 1196. 
Gallaher v. City of Jefferson ( 125 

la. 324. 101 "x. \V. 124 [1904]), 

313, 432. 



CVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Gait V. City of Chicago (174 111. 
605, 51 N. E. 653 [1898]), 314, 
388, 527, 663, 672, 675, 850, 912. 

Galveston, City of v. Guaranty 
Trust Co. of New York ( 107 Fed. 
325, 46 C. C. A. 319 [1901]), 45. 
301, 1080, 1101, 1164, 1165. 

Galveston, City of v. Heard (54 Tex. 
420 [1881]), 119, 120, 123, 132, 
323, 474, 475, 485, 507, 521, 728, 
737, 760, 763, 773, 779, 815, 1047, 
1049, 1163. 

Galveston v. Loonie, 54 Tex. 517 
[1881]), 1504. 

Gans V. City of Philadelphia (102 
Pa. St. 97 [1883]), 1063. 

Gantz, In re, to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (85 N. Y. 536 [1881]), 
1072, 1460, 1463. 

Gantz, In the Matter of (23 Hun 
(N. Y.) 350 [1880]), 1460. 

Garden City, City of v. TijiiTg (57 
Kan. 632, 47 Pac. 524 [1897]), 
1498. 

Gardiner v. Street Commissioners 
of the City of Boston ( 188 Mass. 
223, 74 N. E. .341 [1905]), 425, 
426, 480, 514, 723, 979, 981. 

Gardner, In the Matter of (41 How- 
ard, 255 [1871]), 313, 693, 699, 
714, 900. 

Gardner, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition of (6 Hun. (X. Y.) 67 
[1875]), 500. 

Garrett v. City of St. Louis (25 Mo. 
505, 69 Am. Dec. 475 [1857]), 8, 
70, 86, 89, 110, 308, 690, 697. 

Garrick v. Chamberlain (97 111. 620 
[1881]), 173, 1049, 1185. 

Garrison v. City of New York ( 88 
U. S. (21 Wall.) 196, 22 L. 612 
[1874]), 166, 170, 1337. 

Gartside Coal Company v. Turk (1-17 
111. 120, 35 N. e' 467 [1894]), 
927, 1145. 

Garvey, In the Matter of (77 N. Y. 
523 [1879]), 464, 781. 

Garvey v. Inhabitants of Revere ( 187 
Mass. o45, 73 N. E. 664 [1905]), 
67, 76. 

Garvin v. Dussman (114 Ind. 429, 
5 Am. St. Rep. 637. 16 N. E. 826 
[1887]). 119. 1:52. 301. 726, 731, 



773, 777, 979, 981, 1122, 1141, 
1145, 1337. 

Gas Light & Coke Co. v. City of New 
Albany (158 Ind. 268, 63 N. E. 
458 [1901]), 11, 63, 70, 71, 102, 
324, 887, 997. 

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 
22 N. W. 614 [1885]), 1200. 

Gaston v. City of Portland (48 Or. 
82, 84 Pac. 1040 [1906]), 967, 974, 
1088, 1207. 

Gaston v. Portland (41 Or. 373, 69 
Pac. 34, 445 [1902]), 62. 63, 70, 
308, 1010. 

Gatch V. City of Des Moines (63 la. 
718, 18 N. W. 310 [1886]), 12, 
119, 135, 666, 677, 717, 726, 729, 
732. 

Gately v. Leviston (63 Cal. 365 
[1883]), 781, 783, 828. 

Gates V. City of Grand Rapids ( 134 
Mich. 96, "95 N. W. 998 [1903]), 
293, 324, 325, 432, 441, 1015, 1436. 

Gates V. City of Toledo (57 O. S. 
105, 48 N. E. 500 [1897]), 1515. 

Gates V. City of Toledo (10 Ohio C. 
C. 160 [1895]), 1515. 

Gates V. Toledo (7 Ohio N. P. 389 
[1900]), 1515. 

Gatling v. Commissioners of Cart- 
eret County (92 N. C. 536, 53 Am. 
Rep. 432 [1885]), 73. 

Gauen v. Moredock and Ivy Land- 
ing Drainage District No. 1 (131 
HI. 446, 23 N. E. 633 [1890]), 41, 
223. 247, 284, 549, 550, 554, 556, 
557, 564, 641, 642, 915, 920, 927, 
1008, 1049, 1112, 1114, 1116, 1141, 
1145, 1213, 1337. 

Gault's Appeal (33 Pa. St. (9 Ca- 
sey) 94 [1859]), 8, 89, 171. 1197. 

Gedge v. City of Covington ( — Ky. 

, 80 S*. W. 1160, 26 Ky. Law 

Rep. 273 [1904]), 423, 1502. 

Geiger v. Bradley (117 Ind. 120, 19 
N. E. 760 [1880]), 423, 878, 1113. 

Geiszler v. DeGraaf (166 N. Y. 339. 
82 Am. St. Rep. 659, 59 N. E. 993 
[1901]), 1072. 

Genet v. City of Brooklyn (99 N. Y. 
296, 1 N. E. 777 [1885]), 70, 89, 
111, 308, 309, 381, 555, 556, 666, 
709, 884. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CIX 



[References are to sections.] 



Genet v. City of Brooklyn (94 X. Y. 

645 [1884]), 73. 
Gens V. City of Philadelpliia (102 

Pa. St. 97 [1883]). 1()()3. 
George v. Yoiinii; (45 La. Ann. 1232, 

14 So. 137 [1893 1). 37, 147, 212. 

343, 548, 553, 660, 689, 711. 
German Bank v. Brose (32 Ind. Ap]). 

77, 69 N. E. 300 [1903]), 997, 

1099. 
German Protestant Orphan Asylum 

V. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (26 

Ky. Law Rep. 805, 82 S. VV. 632 

[1904]), 709, 710. 
German Savings & Loan Society v. 

Ramish (138 Cal. 120, 69 Pac. 89, 

70 Pac. 1067 [1902]), 73, 485, 521, 

550, 551, 555, 570, 619, 781, 795, 

801, 874, 1346. 
German-American Savings Bank v. 

City of Spokane (17 Wash. 315, 

38 L. R. A. 259, 47 Pac. 1103, 

49 Pac. 542 [1897]), 1468. 14(i9, 

1473, 1504, 1510, 1518. 
Germania Bank v. City of St. Paul 

(79 Minn. 29, 81* N. W. 542 

[1900]), 525, 526, 527, 1490. 
Germond v. City of Tacoma (6 

Wash. 365, 33 ' Pac. 961 [1893]), 

140, 141, 475, 1103, 1337. 
Gest V. City of Cincinnati (26 0. 

S. 275 [1875]). 86, 475. 544, 975, 

977, 1041, 1210. 1216. 
Gibbons v. District of Colunibiii (116 

U. S. 404, 6 S. 427), 243. 
Gibbs V. Pt'o])]e's National Bank 

(198 111. 307, 64 X. E. 1060 

[1902]), 49. 
Gibler .V. City of :\rntt. )nn (167 111. 

18, 47 X.' E. 319 [1S971 ), 925, 

1384, 1391. 
Gibson V. City of Cliiciigo (22 111. 

567 [1859])', 468, 472. 883, 1270. 
Gibson V. City of Cincinnati (9 Ohio 

C. C. 243 "[1894]), 561, 625, 704, 

1013. 
Gibson v. Farrcll ( 106 :\ro. 437, 17 

S. \v. 497 11891]), 89. 
Ciibson v. Ka.\scr"3 Executor (16 Mo. 

App. 404 [1885]), 315, 317. 381, 

438, 440. 714. . 
Gibson v. Owens (115 Mo. 258. 21 

S. W. 1107 [1S92]), 499. 



Gibson v. Zimmerman (27 Mo. App. 

90 [1887]), 437, 862, 1140, 1278, 

1284, 1382. 
Gifford V. Rei)ublican Valley & Kan- 
sas Railroad Company (20 Neb. 

538, 31 N. W. 11 [1886]), 2. 
Gifford Drainage District v. Shroer 

(145 Ind. 572, 44 X. E. 636), 291, 

337. 
Gilbert v. Hall (115 Ind. 549, 18 X^. 

E. 28 [1888]), 916, 1337. 
Gilbert v. Havemeyer (4 N. Y. Sup. 

Ct. 506 [1849]), 244, .278, 1041. 

1053, 1054, 1130. 
Gilbert v. City of New Haven (40 

Conn. 102 [1873]), 616, 1304. 
CJilbert v. City of New Haven (39 

Conn. 467 [1872] ) . 293, 644, 723. 

7.38. 1352. 
Gilchrist's Appeal (109 Pa. St. 600), 

637. 
Gilcrest v. McCartney (97 la. 138, 

66 X. W. 103 [1896]), 552, 574, 

620. 
Gilfeather v. Grout (91 X. Y. S. 533. 

101 App. Div. l.iO [190.5]), 475, 

1035, 1097. 
Gilfillan v. Eddy (123 :\Io. 546, 27 

S. W. 471). 174. 595. 
Gilfillau V. :\Iorris (43 Mo. App. 

590), 174. 
Gilkerson v. Scott (76 i:i. 509 

[1875]). 272, 639. 688, 771, 9;)9, 

1351. 
Gilkeson v. Frederick Justices (13 

Gratt. (Va.) 577), 43, 162. 
Gill V. City of Oakland (124 Cal. 

335, 57 Pac. 150 [1899]), 310, 

731. 744. 9.V2. 1444, 1481. 1482, 

1484, 1485. 
(iill V. I'attou (lis Iowa, SS, !)l X. 

W. 904 [1902]). 895, 956, 959, 

962. 
Gilles])io V. Police .Jury of Concor- 
dia (5 Lc. Ann. 4O3'[1850]), 37. 

343. 711. 9S:',. 
Gillett V. McLaughlin (69 Mich. 

547. 37 X. W. 551), 142, 1012. 
Gillette V. Denver (21 Fed. 822), 

123. 
(;illis V. ( leveland (87 C:;l. 214, 25 

Pac. .^51 [1890]). !t98. 1039, 1049. 

1059. 1062. 1131. 



ex 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Gilman v. City of Milwaukee (61 
Wis. 588, 21 X. W. 640 [1884]), 
367, 800, 835, U44. 

Gilman v. City of Milwaukee ( 55 
Wis. 328, 13 X. W. 266 [1882]), 
356, 357, 549, 555, 636, 1098. 

Gilman v. City of Sheboygan ( 2 
Black (67 U. S.) 510, 17 L. 305 
[1862]), 548. 

Gilmore v. Fox (10 Kan. 509 
[1872]), 1028, 1442, 1443. 

Gilmore v. Hentig (33 Kan. 156, 5 
Pac. 781 [1885]),- 11, 119, 134, 
135, 324, 415, 526, 563, 670, 677, 
690, 697, 731, 732, 750, 760, 819, 
1420, 1432. 

Gilmore v. Norton (10 Kan. 491 
[1872]), 81, 177, 409, 410, 414, 
649, 815, 816, 980, 1231, 1268, 
1294, 1450. 

Gilmore v. City of Utica (131 X. Y. 
26, 29 N. E. 841 [1892]), 237, 
373, 374, 501, 604, 770, 822, 918, 
1290, 1375. 

Gilpin V. City of Ansonia ( 68 Conn. 
72, 35 Atl. 777 [1896]), 223, 245, 
950, 1525. 

Gilson V. Munson (114 Mich. 071, 
72 X. W. 994 [1897]), 363. 

Gilsonite Construction Co. v. Arkan- 
sas M'Alester Coal Co. (205 Mo. 
49, 103 S. W. 93 [1907]), 509, 
797, 821, 828, 867, 1085, 1168. 

Ginn v. Moultrie, Coles and Douglas 
Drainage District (188 111. 305, 
58 X. E. 988 [1900]), 66. 

Girvin v. Simon (127 Cal. 491, 59 
Pac. 945 [1900]), 531, 1355, 1356, 
1357, 1360. 

Girvin v. Simon (116 Cal. 604, 48 
Pac. 720 [1897]), 301, 497, 1030, 
1235, 1258, 1267, 1337, 1372. 

Givins v. City of Chicago (188 111. 
348, 58 X. E. 912 [1900]), 103, 
104, 257, 259, 293, 801, 857, 920. 

Givins v. City of Chicago (186 111. 
399, 57 X."e. 1045 [1000]), 781, 
789, 815, 833, 863, 864, 895. 

Givins v. People ex rel. Raymond 
(194 111. 150, 88 Am. St." Rep. 
143, 62 X. E. 534 [1902]), 495, 
497, 514, 515, 1015, 1022, 1332. 

Gladstone, City of v. Throop (71 



Fed. 341, 18 C. C. A. 61, 37 U. S. 

App. 481 [1895]), 570, 1502. 
Glass V. Gilbert (58 Pa. St. (8 P. 

F. Smith) 266 [1868]), 886. 
Glassell v. O'Dea (— Cal. App. — , 

95 Pac. 44 [1908]), 512. 
Gleason v. Barnett (115 Ky. 890, 61 

S. W. 20 [1903]), 462,^787, 835, 

838, 844. 
Gleason v. Barnett (106 Ky. 125, 

50 S. W. 67 [1899]), 314, 437. 

555, 561, 570, 628, 629, 666, 709. 

710, 844, 1249. 
Gleason v. Waukesha County ( 103 

Wis. 225, 79 X. W. 249 [1899]). 

283, 347, 348, 451, 1431. 
Glenn v. Mayor and City Council 

of Baltimore (67 Md. 390, 10 Atl. 

70 [1887]), 1054. 
Glenn v. Waddel (23 0. S. 605 

[1873]), 944, 1004, 1431, 1442. 
Glos V. Cannata (121 111. App. 215 

[1905]), 927, 929, 992, 1207. 
Glos V. Collins (110 111. App. 121 

[1903]), 837, 1183, 1390. 
Glos V. Gleason (209 111. 517, 70 X. 

E. 1045 [1904]), 1126. 
Glos V. Hanford (212 111. 261, 72 X. 

E. 439 [1904]), 1126, 1443, 1444. 
Glos V. Woodward (202 111. 484, 67 

X. E. 3 [1903]), 1126. 
Glover v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(201 111. 545, 06 X. E. 820 

[1903]), 514, 1263. 
Glover v. People ex rel. Raymond 

194 111. 22, 61 X. E. 1047 [1901]), 

1085. 
Glover v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(188 111. 576, 59 X. E. 429 

[1901]), 764, 772, 914, 930, 986, 

993, 1183, 1340. 
Godbey v. City of Bluefield (— W. 

Va. , 57 S. E. 45 [1907]), 73, 

661. 
Godbold V. City of Chelsea (111 

Mass. 294 [1873]), 76, 244, 1372. 
Goddard, Petitioner (33 Mass. (16 

Pick.) 504, 28 Am. Dec. 259 

[1835]), 58, 96, 323, 457. 
Godkin v. Rutterbush (147 Mich. 

116, 110 X. W. 505 [1907]), 1495. 
Goff v. McGee (128 Ind. 394, 27 X. 

E. 754 [1891]). 375, 1414. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXI 



[References are to sections.] 



Goldstein v. Village of Milford (214 
111. 528, 73 X. E. 758 [1005]), 
1391. 

Goodale v. Fennell (27 0. S. 420. 22 
Am. Rep. 321 [1875]), 171, 687, 
150G, 1514. 

Goodrich v. City of Chicago (218 111. 
18, 75 N. E. 805 [1905]), 956, 
905. 

Goodrich v. Detroit (184 U. S. 432, 
46 L. 627, 22 S. 397 [1902]), 118, 
125, 308, 669, 670, 690, 709, 728, 
729, 833, 1370. 

Goodrich v. City of Detroit ( 123 
Mich. 559, 82 N. W. 255 [1900]), 
118, 125, 308, 549, 550, 555, 500, 
619, 626, 669, 670. 690, 091, 095, 
709, 728, 729, 833, 1370. 

Goodrich v. City of Minonk (62 111. 
121 [1871]), 341, 550, 564, 619, 
643, 735, 764, 771, 1271, 1272, 
1299, 1323, 1374, 1377. 

Goodricli v. City of Omaha (10 Xeb. 
98, 4 X. W. 424 [1880]), 231. 313, 
428. 

Goodwillie v. City of Detroit ( 103 
Mich. 283, 61 N. W. 526 [1894]), 
260, 314, 494, 816, 1015, 1029, 
1430, 1436. 

Goodwillie v. City of Lake View 
(137 111. 51, 27 N. E. 15 [1892]), 
223, 308, 393, 394, 396, 426, 429, 
472, 603, 665, 666, 676, 677, 744, 
745, 764, 813, 909, 913, 914, 916, 
917, 920, 922, 954, 991, 1328, 1372, 
1377, 1379, 1433. 

Goodwine v. Leak (127 Iml. 509 (27 
X. E. 161 [1890]), 277, 340, 723, 
1002, 1375. 

Goodwine v. Leak (114 Ind. 499, 10 
X. E. 816 [1887]), 739, 748, 809, 
916. 

Ciordon v. City of ChicaL-'o (201-111. 
023, 60 X. "e. 823 [1903]). 347, 
1310. 

Gordon v. Commissioners of Iligli- 
ways of Road District Xo. 3 (109 
111." 510, 48 X. E. 451 [1S97|), 
69, 71. 

Gorman v. State ex rel. Koester (157 
Ind. 205, 60 X. E. 1083 [1901]), 
738, 916, 918. 927, 1005, 1026. 



Gormley's Appeal (27 Pa. St. (3 

Casey) 49 [1858]), 1068. 
Gorton v. City of Chicago (201 111. 

534, 66 X.'e. 541 [1903]), 917, 

956, 902, 905, 1385, 1390. 
Gosnell v. City of Louisville ( 104 

Ky. 201, 46 S. W. 722, 20 Ky. L. 

R. 519 [1898]), 43, 147, 154, 475, 

519, 613, 1105, 1108, 1104, 1520. 
Gotthelf V. Stranahan (138 X. Y. 

345, 20 L. R. A. 455, 34 X^. E. 280 

[1893]), 11, 49, 1058, 1072. 
Gotthelf V. Stranahan (19 X. Y. 

Supp. J61), 1058. 
Gould V. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (59 Md. 378 [1882]), 

8, 45, 314, 1042, 1053, 1115, 1140, 

1164. 
Gould V. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (58 Md. 46 [1881]), 

1042, 1043, 1057, 1169. 
Graden v. City of Parkville, 114 

Mo. App. 527, 90 S. \V. 115 

[1905]), 838, 1432. 
Grafius Run, In re (218 Pa. St. 

632, 67 Atl. 982 [1907]), 627. 
Grafius' Run (31 Pa. Super. Ct. 638 

[1906]), 560. 
Graham v. City of Chicago (187 111. 

411, 58 X. E. 393 [1900]), 517, 

518, 670, 675, 709, 872, 1308. 
Graham v. Conger (85 Ky. 582, 4 S. 

W. 327, 9 Ky. L. R. 133 [1887]), 

111, 322. 
Graham v. ]\layor, etc., of City of 

Pater son (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 

380 [1875]), 1408. 
Grams v. Murphy ( — Minn. , 

114 X. W. 753* [1908]), 509. 
Grand Island Gas Co. v. West (28 

Xeb. 852, 45 X. W. 242 [1890]), 

480. 
(irand Rapids v. De Vries ( 123 

.Midi. 570. 82 X. W. 209), 372. 
Grand Rapids. City of v. Lake Shore 

and M. S. Ry. Co. (130 Mich. 238. 

97 Am. St. Rep. 473, 89 X. W. 

932), 1081. 
Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad 

Company v. Horn (41 Ind. 479 

[1873] )i 69. 



CXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Grand Rapids School Furniture Co. 
V. City of Grand Rapids (92 Mich. 
564, 52 N. W. 1028 [1892]), 86, 

110, 135, 245, 301, 555, 556, 653, 
670, '690, 709, 736, 886, 1299. 

Granger v. City of Buffalo (6 Abb. 

N. C. (X. Y.) 238 [1879]), 252, 

410, 483, 808, 982, 1280. 
Grant Avenue, In tlie Matter of Op- 
ening (175 X. Y. 509, 67 N. E. 

1083 [1903]), 672, 693, 1351. 
Grant v. Barber (135 Cal. 188, 67 

Pac. 127 [1901]), 823, 831, 864, 

867, 1248. 
Grant v. Bartholomew ( 58 Neb. 839, 

80 N. W. 45 [1899]), 1013, 1277. 
Grant Park. Village of v. Trah (219 

111. 516, 75 X. E. 1040 [1905]), 
67. 

Grant Park, Village of v. Trah (115 

111. App. 291 [1904]), 67. 
Graves v. Otis (2 Hill (X. Y.) 466 

[1842]), 781. 
Gray, Appeal of ( — Conn. , 67 

Atl. 891 [1907]). 1350, 1352, 

1362. 
Gray v. Board of Aldermen of Bos- 
ton (139 Mass. 328, 31 X. E. 734). 

420. 
Gray v. Boveles (74 Mo. 419 [1881]), 

679, 895, 897. 997. 998. 1059, 

1203. 
Gray v. Burr (138 Cal. 109, 70 Pac. 

1068 [1902]), 803, 810. 
Gray v. Town of Cicero (177 111. 

459, 53 X. E. 91 [1899]), 15, 223, 

234, 329, 448, 555, 775, 950. 
Gray v. City of Detroit (113 Mich. 

657, 71 X. W. 1107), 1179, 1194. 
Gray v. Lucas (115 Cal. 430, 47 Pac. 

354 [1896]). 537, 965. 
Grey v. People ex rel. Raymond ( 194 

111. 486, 62 X. E. 894 [1902]), 

514, 1290. 
Gray v. City of Pittsburgh ( 147 Pa. 

St. 354, 23 Atl. 395 [1892]). 981. 
Gray v. Richardson (124 Cal. 460, 

57 Pac. 385 [1899]). 483, 823, 

1471. 
Gray v. Stiles (6 Okl. 455. 49 Pac. 

1083 [1897]), 3. 
Graydon and Hammill, In re (20 

Oiit. 199 [1890]), 1072. 



Great Falls Ice Co. v. District of 

Columbia (19 D. C. 327 [1890]), 

542, 726, 902, 983. 
Great Meadows on Pequest River, In 

Matter of Drainage of (42 X. J. 

L. (13 Vr.) 553 [1880]), 12, 101, 

108, 119, 338, 339, 341, 449, 677, 

717, 956, 962, 1370. 
Great Meadows on Pequest River, In 

Matter of Commissioners to drain 

the (39 X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 433 

[1877]), 32, 101, 339, 525, 958, 

962. 
Greeley v. Town of Cicero (148 Hi. 

632,' 36 X. E. 603 [1894]), 665, 

666. 677, 922, 943, 9.54, 955, 991. 

1307. 
Greeley v. People of the State of 

Illinois (60 111. 19 [1871]), 181, 

245, 674, 677, 715. 
Green v. City of Fall River (113 

Mass. 262 [1873]), 70, 76. 
Green v. City of Springfield (130 

111. 515, 22 X. E. 602 [1890]), 86 

620. 663. 672, 698, 715. 877, 920, 

1005, 1271, 1272, 1373. 
Green v. Tidball (26 Wash. 338, 55 

L. R. A. 879. 67 Pac. 84 [1901]), 

313, 1066, 1072, 1149. 
Green v. Ward (82 Va. 324 [1886]), 

161, 223, 234, 264, 268, 438, 570, 

663, 713, 1040, 1143. 
Green County, Commissioners of v. 

Commissioners of Lenoir County 

(92 X. C. 180 [1885]), 11, 363, 

665, 666. 
Green Bay and Mississippi Canal 

Co. V. Patten Paper Co. (172 U. 

S. 58. 19 S. 97), 715. 
Green River Asphalt Company v. 

City of St. Louis (188 Mo. * 576, 

87 'S. W. 985 [1905]), 517, 1500. 
Greencastle, City of v. Allen ( 43 

Ind. 347 [1873]), 974, 1518. 
Greencastle & Bowling Green Turn- 
pike Company v. Albin (34 Ind. 

554 [1870]), 554, 629, 639, 1432. 
Greendale, Town of v. Suit ( 163 Ind. 

282, 71 X. E. 658 [1904]). 55, 229. 

323, 420, 609, 630, 717, 1038, 1242. 
Greene County, Commissioners of v. 

Harbine (74 0. S. 318, 78 X. E. 
521 [1906]), 341, 449. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXlll 



[References are to sections.] 



Greenfield Avenue, In re, Appeal of 

the City of Pittsburg, 191 Pa. St. 

290, 43 Atl. 225 [1899]), 217, 779. 
Greenfield, City of v. State ex rel. 

Moore (113 Ind. 597, 15 N. E. 241 

[1887]), 483, 826, 1471. 
Greenhood v. MacDonald ( 183 Mass. 

342, 67 ISr. E. 330 [1903]), 1415, 

1421, 1425. 
Greenlawn, City of v. Levers (200 

Pa. St. 56, 49 Atl. 980 [1901]), 

1159. 
Greensboro, City of v. McAdoo (112 

X. C. 359, 17 S. E. 178 [1893]), 

223, 231, 234, 244, 323, 777, 950. 
Greensburg Borough of v; Laird 

(138 Pa. St. 533, 21 Atl. 9b* 

[1890]), 223, 234, 382, 1157, 1159. 
Greensburg, Borough of v. Young ( 53 

Pa. St. 280 [1866]), 230, 237, 295, 

662, 670, 713, 1346. 
Greensburg City of v. Zoller (28 

Ind. App. 126, 00 X. E. 1007 

[1901]), 301, 833, 918, 1000. 
Greentree Avenue, In re (21 Pa. 

Super. Ct. 177 [1902]), 98S. 
Greenville, City of v. Harvie ( 79 

Miss. 754, 31 So. 425 [1901]), 

236, 831, 873. 
Greenville & Columbia R. R. Com- 
pany V. Partlow (5 Rich. L. (S. 

Car') 428 [1852]), 70. 
Greenwood v. Chandon (130 Cal. 

467, 62 Pac. 736 [1900]), 301, 

537, 907. 
Greenwood v. Morrison ( 128 Cal. 

350, 60 Pac. 971 [1900]), 267, 

499, 509, 070, 867, 1337. 
Greenwood, Town of v. State ex rel. 

Lawson (159 Ind. 267, 64 X. E. 

849 [1902]), 266, 531, 840,' 909. 
Gregory v. City of Ann Arbor (127 

i'ich. 454, 86 X. W. 1013 [1901]), 

719, 886. 
Gregory v. City of Bridgeport (52 

Conn. 40 [1884]), 2^5, 264, 739. 
Grideley v. City of Bloomington (88 

111. 554, 30 Am. Rop. 566 [1878]), 

5^, 457. 
Griffin v. City of Chicago (57 111. 

317 [1870])', 764, 914, 1299, 1326. 
Griffin v. Dogan (48 Miss. 11 

[1873]), 110. 



Griffith V. Pence (9 Kan. App. 253, 

59 Pac. 677), 142. 
Griggs V. City of St. Paul (11 Minn. 

308, [1866]), 323, 813, 829. 
Griggsry Construction Company v. 

Freeman, 108 La. 435, 58 L. R. A. 

349, 32 So. 399 [1902]), 36. 
Grimes v. Coe (102 Ind. 400, 1 X. 

E. 735 [1885]), 559, 586, 723, 748, 

768, 825. 
Grimm v. Shickle (4 Mo. App. 585 

[1877]), 395, 905. 
Grimmell v. Cit.v of Des Moines (57 

la. 144, 10 X. W. 330 [1881]), 

248, 324, 550, 555, 572, 831, 838, 

843, 1435. 
Groesbeck v. City of Cincinnati (51 

Ohio St. 305, 37 X. E. 707 

[1894]), 400, 520, 1492. 
Groff V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
mon Council of Frederick City (44 

Md. 07 [1875]), 100, 110. 
Gross V. Village of Grossdale ( 176 

111. 572, 52 X. E. 370 [1898]), 

281, 998, 1085, 1377. 
Gross V. People ex rel. Raymond 

193 111. 200, 80 Am. St. Rep. 322, 

01 X. E. 1012 [1901]), 406, 918, 

986, 987, 998, 1000, 1029, 1085, 

1183, 1343. 
Gross V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (172 111. 571, 50 X. E. 334 

[1898]), 313, 856, 803, 866. 998, 

1183. 
Gross V. People ( 109 111. 635, 48 X. 

E. 1108), 998. 
Grover v. Cornet (135 Mo. 21. 35 S. 

W. 1143 [1896]), 71. 
Groves v. Slaughter (15 Pet. (40 U. 

S.) 449, 10 L. 800 [1841]), 162. 
Grunewald v. City of Cedar Rapids 

(118 Iowa, 222, 91 X. W. 1059 

[1902]), 50, 324, 507, 563, 689, 

697, 719, 1504. 
Guckien v. Rothrook ( 137 Ind. 355, 

37 X. E. 17 [1893]). 118. 119, 

120, 729, 885, 905, 1431. 
Guerin v. Reese (33 Cal. 292 

[1807]), 1039, 1061, 1002, 1153. 
Guest v. City of Brooklyn (09 N. 

Y. 500 [1877]). 709, "761, 1085, 

1415, 1423, 1424, 1425, 1427. 



CXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Guest V. City of Brooklyn (8 Hun 

(N. Y.) 97 [1876]), 200. 
Guild V. City of Chicago (82 111. 472 

[1876]), 11, 51, 108, 131, 194, 219, 

223, 619, 623, 715, 776, 925. 
Guilder v. Town of Otsego (20 Minn. 

74, 20 Gil. 59 [1873]), 61, 359. 
Guinotte v. Ridge (46 Mo. App. 254 

[1891]), 15, 229, 500, 527, 779, 

1028, 1236. 
Gulick V. Connely (42 Ind. 134 

[1873]), 524, 535, 541, 1277, 1290, 

1352. 
Gurnee v. City of Chicago (40 111. 

165), 281, 381, 386, 464, 476, 478, 

765, 825, 886, 962, 1129. 
Guthrie & Western Railway Co. v. 

Faulkner (12 Old. 532, 73 Pac. 

290 [1903]), 66, 69. 
Guy V. District of Columbia (25 

App. D. C. 117 [1905]), 1408. 
Guyer v. City of Rock Island (215 

111. 144, 74 N. E. 105 [1905]), 

849, 856, 862, 863, 864, 867, 923, 

1279, 1282. 
Gwynn v. Dierssen ( 101 Cal. 563, 

36 Pac. 103 [1894]), 1195. 



H 

Haag V. Ward ( 186 Mo. 325, 85 S. 
W. 391 [1904]), 186, 215. 323, 
479, 860, 865, 867, 1149, 1284. 

Hacker v. Howe (72 Neb. 385, 101 
N. W. 255 [1904]), 3. 

Hackett v. State for use of Martin- 
dale (113 Ind. 532, 15 N. E. 799 
[1887]), 340, 539, 739, 768, 1085. 
1237, 1332, 1449. 

Hackworth v. Louisville Artificial 
Stone Co. (106 Ky. 234, 50 S. W. 
33 [1899]), 380, 381, 864, 1055. 

Hackwortli v. City of Ottumwa (114 
la. 467, 87 K W. 424 [1901]), 
100, 118, 314, 620, 698, 709. 

Haddington Methodist Episcopal 
Church V. City of Philadelphia to 
Use, etc. (108 Pa. St. 466 [1885]), 
1047, 1165. 

Hadley v. Dague (130 Cal. 207, 62 
Pac. 500 [1900]), 82, 118, 301, 



537, 553, 666, 668, 698, 709, 824, 

833, 1216, 1282, 1366, 1502. 
Haegele v. Mallinckrodt (46 Mo. 

577 [1870]), 864, 1135, 1284. 
Haegele v. Mallinckrodt (3 Mo. App. 

329 [1877]), 570, 675, 857, 1137, 

1389. 
Hagaman v. Moore (84 Ind. 496 

[1882]), 70. 
Hagar v. Gast (119 Ky. 502, 84 S. 

W. 556, 27 Ky. L. R. 129 [1905]), 

210, 581, 613. 
Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 

108 (111 U. S. 701, 28 L. 469, 4 

S. 663 [1884]), 108, 115, 118, 119, 

121, 122, 131, 132, 135, 142, 147, 

172, 251, 334, 335, 338, 340, 618, 

665, 666, 728, 732, 760, 773, 1086, 

1370. 
Hagar v. Board of Supervisors of 

Yolo County (51 Cal. 474 [1876]), 

223, 234, 952. 
Hagar v. Board of Supervisors of 

Yolo County (47 Cal. 222 [1874]), 

43, 79, 86, 97, 101, 147, 148, 228, 

252, 335, 338, 340, 343, 355, 549, 

564, 618, 1002, 1294, 1403, 1405, 

1408. 
Hageman v. City of Passaic (51 N. 

J. L. (22 Vr.) 544, 18 Atl. 776 

[1889]), 745. 
Hageman's Appeal (88 Pa. St. (7 

Norris) 21 [1878]), 1047, 1068, 

1144, 1216. 
Hagemeyer, In re (99 N. Y. S. 369, 

13 App. Div. 472 [1906]), 1085, 

1104, 1451. 
Hager v. City of Burlington (42 la. 

661 [1876]), 783, 795, 843, 1028, 

1432. 
Hagerstown, Mayor and Council of 

v. Startzman (93 Md. 606, 49 Atl. 

838 [1901]), 45, 314, 1111, 1116. 
Haggard v. Independent School Dis- 
trict of Algona (113 la. 486, 85 

N. W. 777 [1901]), 69. 
Haines v. Board of Chosen Freehold- 
ers of Burlington County ( 73 N. 

J. L. (44 Vr.) 82, 62 ' Atl. 186 

[1905]), 173. 
Haines v. Kent (11 Ind. 126 

[1858]), 363. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxv 



[References are to sections.] 



Haisch v. City of Seattle ( 10 Wash. 

435, 38 Pac. 1131 [1894]), 510, 

534, 535, 554, 555, 1024. 
Hale V. City of Kenosha (29 Wis. 

^99 [1872]), 35, 163, 322, 3G0, 

365, 456. 
Hale V. Moore (82 Ark. 75, 100 S. 
' W. 742 [1907]), 340, 927, 986, 

996, 1358. 
Haley v. City of Alton (152 111. 113, 

38 X. E. 750 [1894]), 223, 314, 

531, 568, 840, 911, 912, 922, 1002, 

1312, 1338. 
Hall V. Street Commissioners of 

Boston (177 Mass. 434 [1901]), 
■ 86, 103, 117, 380, 381, 407, 408, 

414, 666, 725. 
Hall V. City of Chippewa Falls (47 

Wis. 267, 2 N. W. 279 [1879]), 

740, 813, 844, 1505. 
Hall V. City of Meriden (48 Conn. 

416 [1880]), 416, 1361. 
Hall V. Moore (3 Xeb. UnofY. 574, 

92 X. W. 294 [1902]), 875, 877, 

1006, 1007, 1011. 
Hall V. Slavbaugh (69 Mich. 484, 37 

X. W. 545), 1012. 
Hallett V. United States Security 

and Bond Co. (— Colo. , 90 

Pac. 683 [1907]), 135, 555, 751, 

1435. 
Hallock V. City of Lebanon (215 Pa. 

St. 1, 64 Atl. 302 [1906]), 509. 
Halspy V. Town of Lake View (188 

111. 540, 59 X. E. 234 [1901]), 

07, 153, 368, 452, 475, 517, 518, 

719, 837, 866, 927, 952, 955, 1106, 

1373. 
Halstead v. City of Attica (28 Ind. 

378 [1867]), "l353. 
Halton V. City of Milwaukee (31 

Wis. 27 [1872]), 322. 
Hamar v. Leiliy (124 Wis. 205, 102 

X. W. 568 [1905]), 596, 598, 895, 

1337. 
Hamilton, Town of v. Chopard (9 

Wash. 352, 37 Pac. 472 [1894]), 

483, 837, 951, 1281. 
Hamilton v. Cit.v of Fond du Lac (25 

Wis. 490 [1870]), 456, 631, 895. 
Hamilton v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(194 HI. 133, 62 X. E. 533 

[1902]), 514. 



Hamilton v. Valiant (30 Md. 139), 

1206. 
Hamilton Avenue, Matter of ( 14 

Barb. (X. Y.) 405 [1852]), 918. 
Hamilton Company v. ^lassachusetts 

(6 Wall. (U. "s.) 632 [1867]), 

715. 
Hammett v. Philadelphia {ii^ Pa. 

St. (15 P. F. Smith) 146, 3 Am. 

Pvep. 615 [1869, 1870]), 28, 34, 

291, 304, 378, 382, 384, 387, 462, 

549. 
Hammond v. Carter (161 III. 621. 44 

X. E. 274 [1896]), 377, 909, 945. 

1196. 
Hammond, Village of v. Leavitt (181 

III. 416, 54 X. E. 982 [1899]), 

781, 782, 918, 992, 1002, 1208. 
Hammond v. People for Use (178 

111. 254. 52 X. E. 1030), 340, 1108, 

1141, 1145, 1182. 
Hammond v. People for Use, etc (109 

HI. 545, 48 X. E. 573 [1897]), 

340, 525, 819. 927, 932, 986. 996, 

1089, 1141, 1145, 1183. 1340. 
Hancock Street, Extension of (18 

Pa. St. (6 Harr.) 26 [1851]), 267, 

278, 310, 557, 560, 626, 653, 690, 

692. 
Hancock v. Whittemore (50 Cal. 522 

[1875]), 8, 40, 1039, 1042, 1053, 

1067. 
Hand v. Fellows (148 Pa. St. 456, 

25 Atl. 1126 [1892]), 244, 706, 

776, 784. 
Handy v. Collins (60 Ind. 229 
. [1883]), 1042. 
Hannewinkle v. Georgetown (15 

Wall. (82 U. S.) 547. 21 L. 231 

[1872]), 308, 1423, 1426, 1427. 
Hannibal, City of v. Pvichards (82 

Mo. 330 [1884]), 342. 
Hanscom v. City of Omaha ( 1 1 Xeb. 

37, 7 X. W. "739 [1881]), 11, 35, 

324, 326, 327, 418, 549, 555, 563, 

729. 
Hansen v. Hammer ( 15 Wash. 315, 

46 P-c. 332 [1896] ),~ 103, 105, 

121. U7. 247, 249, 262, 665, 666, 

760. 
Harbach v. City of Omaha (54 Xeb. 

83, 74 X. W". 434 [1898]), 93. 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Hardin v. City of Chicago (186 111. 

424, 57 N. E. 1048 [1900]), 803, 

917. 
Hardwick v. Danville and North Sa- 
lem Gravel Road Company (33 

Ind. 321 [1870]), 554, 629, 639, 

723, 884, 885, 899. 
Hardwick v. City of Independence 

(— la. — , Iu'n. W. 14 [1907]). 

324, 799, 833, 837. 
Hardy v. McKinney (107 Ind. 364, 

8 N. E. 232), 1351. 
Hare v. Kennerley (83 Ala. 608, 3 

So. 683), 150. 
Harkness v. Board of Public Works 

(1 McArthur (D. C.) 121 [1873]), 

1411, 1423. 
Harkness v. Schiely (13 Ohio C. C. 

177 [1896]), 1054. 
Harman v. People ex rel. Munster- 

man (214 111. 454, 73 N. E. 760 

[1905]), 927, 931, 935, 986, 996, 

1085, 1183, 1340, 1391. 
Harmon v. Dallas (165 Ind. 710. 75 

N. E. 823 [1905]), 276. 
Harmon v. City of Omaha (53 Neb. 

164, 73 N. W. 671 [1897]), 223, 

234, 778, 1104, 1420. 
Harney v. Applegate (57 Cal. 205 

[1881]), 1245. 
Harney v. Benson (113 Cal. 314, 45 

Pac. 687 [1896]), 324, 401, 670, 

674, 724, 812, 1005, 1007, 1358. 
Harney v. Heller (47 Cal. 15 

[1873]), 301, 811, '812, 821, 823, 

833, 858. 
Harper, Appeal of (109 Pa. St. 9, 1 

Atl. 791 [1S?5]). 413, 424, 496, 

777, 1359. 
Harper v. Dowdney (113 N. Y. 644, 

21 N. E. 63 [1889]), 1072. 
Harper v. City of Grand Rapids 

105 Mich. ,551, 63 N. W. 517 

[1S95]), 531. 
Harper v. Commissioners of New 

Hanover County (133 N. C. 106, 

45 S. E. 526 [1903]), 38, 147, 363, 

549, 567, 665, 666. 
Harriman v. City of Yonkers (181 

N. Y. 24, 73 N. E. 493), 308, 550, 

555, 1375. 
Harriman v. City of Yonkers ( 95 N. 



Y. S. 816, 109 App. Div. 246 

[1905]), 624, 1463. 
Harriman v. City of Yonkers (81 N. 

Y. S. 823, 82 App. Div. 408 

[1903]), 308, 550, 555, 1375. * 
Harris v. City of Ansonia (73 Conn. 

359, 47 Atl. 672 [1900]), 223, 234, 

204, 777, 841, 983. 
Harris v.' City of Chicago 162 111. 

288, 44 N. E. 437 [1896]), 633, 

057, 989, 1183, 1313. 1342. 
Harris v. City of :Macomb (213 111. 

47, 72 N. E. 762 [1904]), 602, 

603, 604. 
Harris v. People ex rel. Knight (218 

111. 439, 75 N. E. 1012 [1905]), 

51, 202, 323, 921, 1120. 
Harris v. Ross (112 Ind. 314, 13 N. 

E. 873 [1887]), 340, 375, 1444. 
Harris v. City of Tacoma (39 Wash. 

185, 81 Pac. 691 [1905]), 1355, 

1356. 
Harris, County of v. Boyd (70 Tex. 

237, 7 S. W. 713 [1888]), 39, 40, 

50, 145, 301, 582. 
Harriott Avenue (24 Pa. Super. Ct. 

597 [1904]), 560, 601, 620, 1047. 
Harrisburg v. Baptist ( 156 Pa. St. 

526, 27 Atl. 8 [1893]), 485, 527, 

803, 1012, 1159. 
Harrisburg v. Funk (200 Pa. St. 

348, 49 Atl. 992 [1901]), 291, 382, 

383, 402. 
Harrisburg, City of v. M'Cormick 

(129 Pa. St. 213, 18 Atl. 126), 

632. 
Harrisburg v. ]\IcPherran (200 Pa. 

St. 343, 49 Atl. 988 [1901]), 118, 

660, 698, 709. 
Harrisburg, City of v. Segelbaum 

151 Pa. St. 172, 20 L. R. A. 834, 

24 Atl. 1070 [1892]), 86, 382, 383, 

462. 
Harrisburg, City of v. Shepler ( 190 

Pa. St. 374, 42 Atl. 893 [1899]), 

274, 314, 505, 867. 
Harrison Brothers v. City of Chi- 
cago (163 111. 129, 44 N. E. 395 

[1896]), 314, 857, 865. 902, 903. 
Harrison v. City of Chicago (61 III. 

459 [1871]), 770, 908. 
Harrison Brothers v. City of Chica- 
go (60 111. 360 [1871]), 1185. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxvu 



[References are to sections.] 



Harrison v. City of Milwaukee (49 

Wis. 247, 5 N. W. 320 [1880]), 

1414, 1480, 1484, 1489. 
Hart V. Levee Commissioners ( 54 

Fed. 559), 343. 
Hart V. City of Omaha ( 74 Neb. 836, 

105 N. VV. 546 [1905]), 305, 549, 

558, 560, 619. 
Hart Bros. v. West Chicago Park 

Commissioners ( 186 111. 464, 57 

N. E. 1036 [1900]), 143, 774. 913, 

1368. 
Hartford, City of v. Mechanics' Sav- 
ings Bank (79 Conn. 38. 63 Atl. 

658 [1906]), 1049, 1050, 1064, 

1163, 1164. 
Hartford, City of v. Taleott (48 

Conn. 525, 40 Am. Rep. 189 

[1881]), 56. 
Hartford, City of v. West Middle 

District (45 Conn. 462, 29 Am. 

Rep. 087 [1878]), 549, 580, 586, 

652. 
Hartig v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (159 111. 237, 50 Am. St. Rep. 
. 102, 42 N. E. 879 [1896]), 1285. 
Hartman v. Hunter (56 0. S. 175, 

46 N. E. 577 [1897]), 1164. 
Harton v. Town of Avondale ( 147 

Ala. 458, 41 So. 934 [1906]), 82, 

118, 301, 441, 663, 665, 606, 668, 

700, 714, 864, 1406. 
Harts V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (171 111. 458, 49 N. E. 539 

[1898]), 291, 347, 348, 351, 451, 

886, 985. 
Hartsuir v. Hall (58 Xeb. 417, 78 

N. W. 716 [1899]), 1277. 
Hartwell v. Armstrong ( 19 Barb. 

(N. Y.) 166 [1854]), 101, 113, 

324, 444, 855. 
Harvard Avenue, North In re ( — 

Wash. , 92 Pac. 410 [1907]), 

657, 1282, 1338. 
Harvard College, President and Fel- 
lows of V. Board of Aldermen of 

the City of Boston (104 Mass. 

470 [1870]), 8, 64, 80, 590, 614, 

1054. 
Harward v. St. Clair & Monroe 

Levee Drainage Company (51 111. 

130 [1869]), 105, 259, 344. 
Harwood v. Street Commissioners of 



the City of Boston (183 Mass 348, 

67 N. E. 362 [1903]), 103, 234, 

667, 709. 
Harwood v. Donovan ( 188 Mass. 487, 

74 N. E. 914 [1905]), 82, 103, 665, 

066, 695, 1403. 
Harwood v. Drain Commissioners 

51 Mich. 639, 17 N. W. 216 

[1883]), 1436. 
Harwood v. Huntoon (51 Mich. 039, 

17 N. W. 210 [1883]), 1012, 1034. 
Haskel v. City of Burlington (30 

la. 232), 182. 
Haskell v. Bartlett (34 Cal. 281 

[1807]), 15, 50, 223, 234, 475, 

701, 763, 836, 1052. 
Hassan v. City of Rochester (67 N. 

Y. 528 [1876]), 42, 86, 555, 580, 

581, 612, 613, 614, 639, 644, 723, 

884, 941, 1004, 1282, 14.35, 1438. 
Hassan v. City of Rochester ( 6 Lan- 
sing, 185 [^1871]), 979, 981. 
Hassen v. City of Rochester (65 N. 

Y. 516 [1875]), 554, 555, 581, wl2, 

613, 639, 723. 
Hastings v. Columbus (42 O. S. 585 

[1885]). 380, 381, 407, 500, 515, 

517, 518, 527, 529, 542, 760, 763, 

977, 1215, 1224. 
Hatch V. City of Buffalo (38 N. Y. 

276 [1868]'), 1425. 
Hatch V. Nevills ( — Cal. , 95 

Pac. 43 [1907]), 512. 
Hatch V. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of New York (45 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 599 [1879]), 1495. 
Hathaway v. Detroit, T. & M. Ry. 

Co. (124 Mich. 610, 83 N. W. 598 

[1900]), 363. 
Hatzung v. City of Syracuse (92 

Hun, 203, 36 N. Y. S. 521 [1895]), 

414, 983. 
Haubner v. City of Milwaukee ( 124 

Wis. 153, loi N. W. 930. r^-hear- 

ing denied, 102 N. W. 578 [1905]), 

110, 220, 417, 700, 899, 959. 
Haughawout v. Hubbard (131 Cal. 

675, 63 Pac. 1078 [1901]), 324, 

831, 857, 867. 
Haughawout v. Raymond ( 148 Cal. 

311, 83 Pac. 53 [1905]), 558, 838, 

1026, 1337. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Hause v. City nf St. Paul (04 Minn. 

115, 102 N. W. 221 [1905]), 927, 

1003. 
Haven v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of tlie City of New York 

(173 N. Y. 611, 66 N. E. 1110 

[1903]), 531, 537, 1319, 1487. 
Havens v. City of New Yorlc (73 N. 

Y. S. 678, 07 App. Div. 90 [1901]), 

537, 1319. 
Havens v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (()7 App. Div. 90, 73 N. Y. 

S. 678 [1901]), 531, 1487. 
Haviland v. City of Columbus (50 

0. S. 471, 34 N. E. 679 [1893]), 

561, 020, 625, 704, 1028. 
Hawes v. City of Chicago ( 158 111. 

653, 30 L. Pv. A. 225, 42 N. E. 

373 [1895]), 387. 
Hawes v. Fliegler (87 Minn. 319, 

92 N. W. 22^3 [1902]), 370, 746, 

763, 1184, 1204. 
Hawkins v. Horton (91 Minn. 285, 

97 N. W. 1053 [1904]), 783, 789, 

927, 931, 992. 
Hayden v. City of Atlanta (70 Ga, 

817 [1883])! 73. 
Hawley v. Mayor and City Council 

of Baltimore' (33 Md. 270 [1870]), 

308, 709, 723, 1384. 
Hawthorne v. City of East Portland 

(13 Or. 271, lo" Pac. 342 [1880]), 

223, 234, 754, 777, 860, 887, 889, 

890, 1011, 1047, 1049, 1064. 
Hawver v. City of Omaha ( 52 Neb. 

734, 73 N. W. 217 [1897]), 392, 

395, <)97. 
Hay V. City of Baraboo (127 Wis. 1, 

3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 84, 105 N. W. 

654 [1906]), 56. 
Hay V. McDaniel (26 Ind. App. 683, 

60 N. E. Rep. 729 [1901]), 1055. 
Ha.vday, Pros. v. Borough of Ocean 

City' (69 N. J. L. (40 Vr.) 22, 

54 Atl. 813 [1903]), 314, 968. 
Hayden v. City of Atlanta (70 Ga. 

817 [1883]),' 35, 43, 100, 110, 147, 

148, 570, 663, OOfl, 098, 709. 
Hayden, Pros v. Ocean City ( 67 N. 

i. L. (38 Vr.), 155. 50 ' Atl. 584 

[1901]), 897, 908, 986. 
Hayes v. Douglas County (92 Wis. 



429, 53 Am. St. Rep. 926, 31 L. 

R. A. 213, 65 N. W. 482 [1896]), 

134, 141, 693, 699, 700, 979, 1337, 

1414, 1432, 1435. 
Hayes v. Missouri ( 120 U. S. 68, 30 

L. 578 [1877]), 108. 
Hayes v. State ex rel. Murray (96 

Ind. 284 [1884]), 758, 763,' 1292, 

1324. 
Haj'ford v. City of Belfast (69 :Me. 

63 [1879]), 735, 737, 1479. 
Hays V. City of Cincinnati (62 Ohio 

St. 116, 56 N. E. 658 [1900]), 

685, 783, 950. 
Ha.vs V. Jones (27 0. S. 218 [1875]), 

781, 1502. 
Hays V. Tippy (91 Ind. 102 [1883]), 

141, 809, 9i6. 
Hays V. City of Vincennes ( 82 Ind. 

178 [1882]), 309, 859, 1252, 1203. 
Haywood v. City of Buflfalo (14 N. 

Y. 534 [1856]), 1426, 1427, 1444. 
Hazleton, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition of (58 Hun, 112, 11 N. Y. 

S. 557 [1890]), 681, 1026, 1461. 

1462. 
Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturin'^ 

Company (113 U. S. 9, 5 S. 441, 28 

L. 889), 336, 338. 
Heard v. Walton (39 Miss. 388 

[I860]), 1197. 
Hearn, In the Matter of (96 N. Y. 

378 [1884]), 266, 273, 983. 
Heath v. McCrea (20 Wash. 342, 55 

Pac. 432 [1898]), 207, 244, 265, 

416, 423, 475, 545, 670, 677, 719, 

724, 927, 933, 964, 975, 1004, 1066, 

1083, 1085, 1141, 1145, 1337, 1435. 
Heath v. Manson (147 Cal.' 694, 82 

Pac. 331 [1905]), 57, 266, 292, 

373, 374, 381, 461, 463, 481, 521. 
Hebrew Benevolent Orphan Asj'lum, 

In the Matter of (70 N. y" 476 

[1877]), 475, 589, 681, 1466. 
Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asy- 
lum, Matter of (10 Hun, 112 

[1877]), 681, 686, 1466. 
Heckman v. Mayor, etc., of New 

York (22 Hun, (N. Y.) 590 

[1880]), 1422. 
Hedges v. Roeike (— Ky. . 100 

S. W. 267, 30 Ky. L. R. 1092), 

844. 



I 



TABLE OP CASES. 



CXIX 



[References are to sections.] 



Heerman's Heirs v. Municipality Xo. 

2 (15 Curry (La.) 597 [1840]), 

280, 1333. 
Heil'ner v. Cass and Morgan Coun- 
ties (193 111. 439, 58 L. R. A. 353, 

62 K E. 201 [1901]), 335, 449. 
Hefl'ner v. City of Toledo (75 0. 

S. 413, 80 ]S\ E. 8), 854, 1502. 
Heft V. Payne (97 Cal. 108 (31 Pac. 

844 [1892]), 538, 1029, 1033, 

1043. 
Hegeman v. City of Passaic (51 N. 

J. L. (22 Vr.) 544, 18 Atl. 770 

[1889]), 744, 913. 
Hegeman, Pros. v. Mayor and t ity 

Council of the City of Passaic (51 

N. J. L. (22 Vr.) 109, 16 Atl. 62 

[1888]), 909. 
Heick V. Voight (110 Ind. 279, 11 

N. E 306 [1886]), 11, 336. 549, 

673, 677. 1005. 
Heim v. Figg ( — Ky. , 89 S. 

W. 301, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 396 

[1905]), 462. 
Heine v. Levee Commissioners (86 

U. S. (19 Wall.) 655, 22 L. 223 

[1873]), 343, 1518. 
Heine v. Levee Commissioners ( 1 1 

Fed. Cas. 1033, 1 Woods 246), 343, 

1518. 
Heinroth v. Kocliersperger ( 173 111. 

205, 50 N. E. 171 [1898]), 324, 

-148, 484, 533, 539, 541, 550, 563, 

645, 723, 1420, 1432, 1433, 1443, 

1468. 
lleinz V. Buckliam ( — Mich. , 

116 N. W. 736 [1908]), 119. 731, 

1404. 
Heiple v. City of Washington (219 

111. 604, 76 N. E. 854 [1906]), 

520, 750, 814, 912, 920. 
Hoiser v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (104"X. Y. 68, 9 N. E. 866 

[1887]), 266, 1411. 1423. 1432. 
Helena, City of v. Kent (32 Mont. 

279, 80 Pac. 258 [1905]), 58, 92, 

457. 
Hellenkamp v. City of Lafayette (30 

Ind. 192 [1868]). 541, 1015, 1350, 

1352, 1430. 



Heller v. City of Garden City (58 

Kan. 203, 48 Pac. 841 [1898]), 

305, 1115, 1200, 1508. 
Hellman v. Shoulters (114 Cal. 136, 

44 Pac. 915, 45 Pac. 1057 [1896]), 

79, 86, 118, 140, 245, 475, 1085, 

1103, 1170, 1281, 1304. 
Helm v. Witz (35 Ind. App. 131, 

73 X. E. 846 [1904]), 414, 561, 

575, 620, 626, 639, 650, 956, 962, 

1239, 1244. 
Heman v. Allen (156 Mo. 534, 57 

S. W. 559 [1900]), 86, 118, 120, 

123, 244, 245, 283, 324, 445, 077, 

702, 741, 728, 1238. 
Heman v. Parish (97 Mo. App. 393, 

71 S. W. 382 [1902]), 1134, 1135, 

1284. 
Heman v. Gerardi (90 Mo. App. 231. 

09 S. W. 1009 [1902]), 527, 538, 

1338. 
Heman v. Gilliam (171 Mo. 258, 71 

S. W. 103 [1902]), 118, 321, 442, 

524, 538, 549, 620, 666, 698, 709, 
1139, 1284. 

Heman v. Handlan (59 Mo. App. 

490 [1894]), 327. 444. 446, 662. 
Heman v. Larkin ( 108 Mo. App. 392, 

83 S. W. 1019 [1904]), 18, 530. 
Heman v. Payne (27 Mo. App. 481 

[1887]), 401, 447, 1249, 1284. 
Heman v. Ring (95 Mo. App. 231 

[1900]), 293, 388, 464. 
Heman v. Schulte ( 100 Mo. 409, 06 

S. W. 103 [1901]), 8, 100, 110, 

293, 298. 400, 549, 555, 503, 1003. 
Heman v. St. Louis ilerchants Land 

Improvement Company ( 75 ^lo. 

App. 372 [1898]), 57. 374, 521, 

829. 
Heman v. Wolff (33 Mo. App. 200 

[1888]), 324, 555, 079, 1284. 
Heman's Heirs v. ^Iiniicipalit.v Xo. 

2, 15 La. 597 [18-10]), 923. 
Heman Construction Co. v. Loevy 

(179 Mo. 544, 78 S. W. 013 

1903]), 274, 275, 511. 524, 838, 

807, 1040, 1007, 1182. 
Heman Construction Co. v. Loevy 

(04 Mo. App. 430 [1895]), 511, 

525, 031, 865, 867, 1284. 



cxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Heman Construction Company v. 

McManus (102 Mo. App. 649, 77 

S. W. 310 [1903]), 53, 55, 317, 

443, 620, 717. 
Heman Construction Co. v. Wabash 

Ey. Co. (206 Mo. 172, 104 S. W. 

67 [1907]), 7, 8, 11, 43, 89, 147, 

595, 1040, 1049. 
Heman v. City of Ballard (40 Wash. 

81, 82 Pac. 277 [1905]), 245, 663, 

1503. 
Heming v. Stengel (112 Ky. 906, 66 

S. W. 41, 67 S. W. 64, 23 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1793 [1902]), 651, 1381. 
Hemingway v. Chicago ( 60 111. 324 

[1871]), 308, 321, 42G, 675, 735, 

745, 754, 764. 
Hempfield Township Road (122 Pa. 

St. 439), 909. 
Henderson v. Mayor and City Coun- 
cil of Baltimore, Use of Eschbach 

(8 Md. 352 [1855]), 15, 80, 223, 

234, 314, 323, 525, 781, 786, 1067, 

1282, 1335. 
Henderson, City of v. Lambert ( 77 

Ky. (14 W. P. D. Bush.) 24 

[1878]), 223, 234, 52.i, 527. 531, 

541, 775, 776. 
Henderson v. City of South Omaha 

(00 Xeb. 125, 82 X. W. 315 

[1900]), 781, 789, 791, 931. 
Hendersonville, Commissioners of 

Town of V. Webb (— X. C. . 

61 S. E. 670 [1908]). 1504. 
Hendrick v. Crowley (31 Cal. 471 

[1866]), 835, 1215, 1210. 
Hendricks v. Gilchrist (76 Ind. 369 

[1881]), 323, 644, 723, 887, 1283. 
Hendrickson v. Borough of Point 

Pleasant (65 X". J. L. 535, 47 Atl. 

465 [1900]), 280, 281, 309, 847, 

894. 
Hendrickson v. City of Toledo (23 

Ohio C. C. 256 [1901]). 17, 795. 

1012, 1033, 1450. 
Hendrie v. City of Boston (179 

Mass. 59, GO X. E. 386 [1901]), 

616, 1033. 
Henkel v. City of Cincinnati (58 0. 

S. 726, 51 "x. E. 1098), 90, 308. 
Henning v. Stengel (112 Ky. 906, 

66 S. W. 41, 67 S. W. 64. 23 Ky. 

L. R. 1796). 666. 679. inll. 



Henningsen v. City of Stillwater (81 

Minn. 215, 83 X. W. 983 [1900]), 

1195, 1337. 
Hennepin County v. Bartleson ( 37 

Minn. 343, 34 X. W. 222), 121. 

733. 
Hennessy v. Douglas County (99 

Wis. 129, 74 X. W. 983 [1898]), 

119, 140, 301, 323, 324, 553, 620. 

621, 622, 693, 694, 723, 733, 737. 

751. 
Hennessy v. City of St. Paul (44 

Minn." 306, 46 "x. W. 353 [1890]), 

391, 394. 
Hensley v. City of Butte (33 Mont. 

206, 83 Pac. 481 [1905]), 805, 807. 

808, 810, 1432. 
Hensley v. Reclamation District Xo. 

556 (121 Cal. 96, 53 Pac. 401 

[1898]), 247, 775, 1505. 
Hentig v. Gilmore (33 Kan. 234, 6 

Pac. 304* [1885]), 11, 50, 223, 232, 

281, 436, 438, 505, 677, 814, 816, 

817, 840. 
Herhold v. City of Chicago ( 100 111. 

547 [1883])", 1369. 
Hering v. Chambers ( 103 Pa. St. 

172 [1883]), 980, 1157, 1160. 
Herman v. City of Oconto ( 100 Wis. 

391, 76 X. W. 364 [1898]), 1503. 
Hermann v. State ex rel. (54 0. S. 

506, 32 L. R. A. 734, 43. X. E. 99i^ 

[1896]), 421, 1032. 
Hershberger v. City of Pittsburg; 

(115 Pa. St. 78, 8 Atl. 381 

[1886]), 119, 726, 735, 979, 981. 
Her.see v. City of Buffalo (1 Shel- 
don (X. Y.) 445 [1874]), 22:^ 

234, 410, 568, 790. 843. 
Herter v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 

Paul Railway Company (114 la. 

3.30, 86 X. W. 206 [1901]), 596. 
Hertig v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (159 111. 237, 50 Am. St. Re]\ 

162, 42 X. E. 879 [1896]), 772, 

927, 930, 986. 993. 
Hess V. Potts (32 Pa. St. (8 Casey 

407 [1859]), 1197. 1198. 
Hessler v. Drainage Commissioners 

(53 111. 105). 105. 259. 344. 
Heth V. City of Radford (96 Va. 

272, 31 S.'e. 8 [1898]), 115. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXl 



[References are to sections.] 



Heubner v. City of Milwaukee (124 

Wis. 153, 101 X. W. 930 [1904]). 

899. 
Hewes v. Glos (170 III. 436, 48 N. 

E 922), 313, 347, 348, 351. 
Hewes v. Village of Winnetka ( 60 

111. App. 654 [1895]), 223, 234, 

500, 742, 759, 774, 777, 824, 88G, 

889, 998, 1184, 1444. 
Hewetson v. City of Chicago ( 172 

111. 112, 49 X. E. 992 [1898]), 

917. 
Hewitt's Appeal (88 Pa. St. 55), 

414, 983. 
Heywood v. City of Buffalo (14 X. 

Y. 534 [1856]), 1423. 
Hibben v. Smith (191 U. S. 310, 24 

S. 88 [1903]), 108, 115, 132, 133, 

142, 280, 301, 670, 675, 699, 730, 

731, 927, 956, 1005, 1067, 1083, 

1370. 
Hibben v. Smith (158 Ind. 206, 62 

X. E. 447 [1901]), 86, 108, 115, 

132, 133, 280, 301, 670, 675, 699, 

730, 731, 927, 956, 1004, 1005, 

1066, 1067, 1083, 1370. 
Hicks V. City of Bristol ( 102 Va. 

861, 47 S.'e. 1001 [1904] I. 107, 

303. 
Higgins V. Bordages (88 Tex. 458, 

53 Am. St. Rep. 770, 31 S. W. 52, 

803 [1895]). 42. 174, 213, 607, 

998, 1141, 1145. 
Higgins V. City of Chicago ( 18 III. 

276 [1857])', 39, 308, 545, 581, 

584, 613, 995, 1041, 1067, 1162, 

1469, 1518. 
Highland v. City of Galveston (54 

Tex. 527 [1881]), 323, 1049, 1053, 

1521. 
Highlands v. Dallas (165 Ind. 710, 

75 X. E. 824 [1905]), 1085. 
Highlands, City of v. .Johnson (24 

Colo. 371. 51 Pac. 1004 [1897]), 

45, 324, 1115, 1119, 1128. 1141, 

1142, 1145, 1423. 
Higman v. City of Sioux City ( 129 

la. 291, 105 X. W. 524 [1906]), 

301, 472, 849, 886, 887. 1026, 1304. 
Hilbourne v. County of Suffolk ( 120 

Mass. 393, 21 ' Am. Rep. 522 

[1876]), 64, 65. 
Hildebrand v. Toledo (27 Ohio C 



C. R. 427 [1905]), 549, 563, 1012, 

1015. 
Hilgert v. Barber Asuhalt Paving 

Company (173 Mo. 319, 72 S. W. 

1020), 1369. 
Hilgert v. Barber Asplialt Paving 

Company (107 Mo. App. 385, 81 

S. W. 496 [1904]), 538. 
Hill V. Fontenot (46 La. Ann. 1563, 

16 So. 475 [1894]), 37, 47, 111, 

147, 155, 343. 553, 566, 666, 689, 

711. 
Hill V. Higdon (5 0. S. 243, 67 

Am. Dec. 289 [1855] ), 7, 35, 79, 8G, 

89, 90, 105, 106, 110, 113, 147, 690, 

1041. 
Hill V. Swingley (159 Mo. 45, 60 

S. W. 114 [1900]), 324, 505. 520, 

1282. 
Hill V. Tohill (225 III. 384, 80 X. E. 

253 [1907]), 363. 
Hill-0'Meara Construction Company 

V. Hutchinson (100 Mo. App. 294, 

73 S. W. 318 [1903]), 538. 
Hill-0'Meara Construction Co. v. 

Sessinghaus ( 106 Mo. App. 163, 

80 S. W. 747 [1904]), 896, 1040, 

1137, 1377. 
Hille V. Xeale (32 Ind. App. 341, 

69 X. E. 713 [1904]), 57, 119, 

128, 983, 1017, 1072. 
Hillhouse v. City of Xew Haven ( 62 

Conn. 344, 26 Atl. 393 [1892]), 

234, 443. 
Hilliard v. City of Asheville (US 

X. C. 845, 24 S. E. 738 [1896]), 

8, 100, 118, 119, 147, 148, 247, 248, 

250, 301, 363, 620, 663, 732, 1418. 
Hills V. City of Chicago (60 III. 86 

[1871]). 173, 1185. 
Hilton V. Dumphey (113 Midi. 241, 

71 X. W. 527 [1897]), 340, 1116, 

1179. 
Hilltown Road (18 Pa. St. 233), 

909. 
Himmelmann v. Bateman (50 Cal. 

11 [1875]), 824, 880. 
Himmelmann v. Booth (53 Cal. 50 

[1878]), 1153, 1381. 
Himmelmann v. Byrne (41 Cal. 500 

[1871]), 504. 
Himmelmann v. Calm (49 Cal. 285 

[1874]), 500. 742. 759. 824, 886. 



cxxn 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Himmelmann v. Carpentier (47 Cal. 

42 [1873]), 502, 742, 770, 11G9, 

1281, 1292. 
Himmelmann v. Cofran (36 Cal. 411 

[18(J8]), 958, 964, 1469. 
Hinmielmann v. Danos (35 Cal. 441 

[1868]), 223, 234, 777, 824, 907, 

1061, 1062, 1153, 1229, 1230, 1281. 
Himmelmann v. Hoadley (44 Cal. 

213 [1872]), 301, 436, 479, 485, 

510, 889, 904, 982, 1062, 1151, 

1293, 1317, 1337, 1375. 
Himmelmann v. Oliver ( 34 L al. 246 

[1867]), 475, 540, 1107. 
Himmelmann v. Reay (38 Cal. 163 

[1869]), 1154, 1216, 1346, 1379. 
Himmelmann v. Satterlee (50 Cal. 

68 [1875]), 432, 439, 499, 510, 

742, 749, 831, 869. 
Himmelmann v. Spanagel ( 39 Cal. 

389 [1870]), 48, 73, 1253, 1346, 

1379. 
Himmelmann v. Steiner (38 Cal. 175 

[1869]), 649, 889. 
Himmelmann v. Townsend (49 Cal. 

150 [1874]), 1153, 1235. 
Himmelmann v. Woolrich (45 Cal. 

249 [1873]), 301, 1151, 1251. 
Hinchman v. City of Detroit (9 

Mich. 103 [I860]), 830. 
Hinckley v. City of Seattle (37 

Wash. 269, 79 Pac. 779 [1905]), 

1164. 
Hines v. City of Leavenworth ( 3 

Kan. 186 (original edition), 180 

(second edition [1865]), 3, 7, 103, 

106, 147, 437, 711, 959, 1507. 
Hinkley v. Bishop ( — Mich. , 

114 N. W. 676 [1908]), 659, 728, 

748, 786, 792, 798, 1432. 
Hinsdale, Village of v. Shannon 
(182 HI. 312, 52 N. E. 327 

[1899]), 324, 572. 854. 859, 864, 

1085. 
Hintze v. City of Elgin (186 HI. 

251, 57 N. E. 856 [1900]), 771, 

864, 1029. 
Hitchcock v. Galveston (96 U. S. 

341, 24 L. 659 [1877]), 780, 1012, 

1504, 1508. 
Hitclicock V. Galveston ( 12 Fed. 

Cag. 218, 2 Woods 272). 780. 
Hitchcock V. Board of Aldermen of 



Springfield (121 Mass. 382 
[1876]), 878. 

Hitner v. Ege (23 Pa. St. (11 Har- 
ris) 305 [1854]), 1054, 1055. 

Hixon V. Oneida County ( 82 Wis. 
515, 52 N. W. 445 [1892]), 80, 
1425, 1436. 

Hixson V. Burson (54 0. S. 470, 
43 N. E. 1000 [1896]), 174, 189, 
224, 252. 

Hoagland v. State, Simonton, Pros. 
(43 N. J. L. (14 Vr.) 456 
[1881]), 12, 101, 108, 119, 338, 
339, 341, 449, 677, 717, 956, 962, 
1370. 

Hoagland v. Wurts (41 N. J. L. (12 
Vr.) 175 [1879]), 32, 101, .339, 
525, 659, 956, 902. 

Hobart v. City of Detroit (17 Mich. 
246, 97 Am. Dec. 185), 437, 515. 

Hobbs v. Board of Commissioners 
of Tipton County (116 Ind. 376, 
19 X. E. 186 [1888]), 322, 781, 
795, 951, 1450. 

Hobbs V. Board, etc.. County of Tip- 
ton (103 Ind. 575, 3 N.E. 263), 
726. 

Hoboken Manufacturers R. Co. v. 
Mayor, etc., of City of Hoboken 

(— N. J. L. , 68 Atl. 1098 

[1908]), 6, 20, 353, 986, 1050, 
1469, 

Hoefgen v. State ex rei. Brown (17 
Ind. App. 537, 47 N. E. 28 
[1896]), 340, 907, 1236, 1237, 
1238, 1251, 1252. 

Hoertz v. Jefferson Southern Pond 
Draining Company (119 Ky. 824, 
84 S. W. 1141, 27 Ky. L. R. 278 
[1905]), 121, 166, 255, 340, 760, 
910, 950. 

Hoff'eld V. City of Buffalo (130 N. 
Y. 387, 29 N. e. 747 [1892]), 545, 
557, 651, 672, 675, 697, 1415. 

Hoffman v. Shell (— Mich. . 

115 X. W. 979 [1908]), 770, 1432. 

Hoke V. City of Atlanta (107 Ga. 
416, 33 S." E. 412 [1899]), 1484. 

Hoke V. Perdue (62 Cal. 545 
[1881]). 554, 645. 1432. 

Holbrook V. Dickinson (146 111. 285 
[1867]), 44, 153, 701, 1121, 1174, 
1297. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXIU 



[References are to sections.] 



Holden v. City of Chicago (212 111. 

289, 72 N. E. 435 [1904]), 864, 

13U5, 1390. 
Holden v. City of Chicago (172 III. 

263, 50 N. E. 181 [1898]), 857, 

864. 
Holden v. City of Crawfordsville 

(143 Ind. 558, 41 N. E. 370 

[1898]), 293, 308, 1352, 1519. 
Holdom V. City of Chicago (169 111. 

109, 48 N. E. 164 [1897]). 418, 

511, 560, 561, 623, 643, 652, 657, 

676, 723. 
Holland v. People ex rel Miller ( 189 

111. 348, 59 N. E. 753 [1901]), 

906, 949, 981, 1005. 
Holland v. Spell (144 Ind. 561, 42 

N. E. 1014 [1895]), 906. 
Holley V. County or Orange (106 

Cal. 420, 39 Pac. 790 [1895]), 35, 

38, 47, 548, 779, 780. 
Holliday v. City of Atlanta (96 fta. 

377, 23 S. E. 406 [1895]), 234, 

393, 400, 409, 423, 777, 778, 959, 

965. 
Hollingsworth v. Thompson, Tax 

Collector (45 La. Ann. 222, 40 

Am. St. Eep. 220, 12 So. 116 

[1893]), 37, 549, 566, 711. 
Hollister, In the Matter of (180 N. 

Y. 518, 72 N. E. 1143), 407, 637, 

956, 970. 
Hollister, In re (98 App. Div. 501, 

89 N. Y. Supp. 518 [1904]), 407, 

637, 956, 970. 
Ilolloran v. Mornian ( 27 Ind. App. 

.309, 59 X. E. 869 [1901]), 531, 

532, 646, 720. 
Holmes v. Village of Hyde Park 

121 111. 128, 13 X. E. 540 [1889]), 

113, 393, 396, 400, 455, 527, 570, 

920. 
Holmes v. Jersey City (12 X. J. 

Eq. (1 Beas.) 299),' 395, 1406. 
Holmquist v. Anderson (67 Kan. 

861, 74 Pae. 227 [1903]). 1437, 

1440. 
Holt V. City of East St. Ix)uis ( 150 

111. 530, 37 X. E. 927 [1894]), 

440, 570, 587, 630, 643, 670. 714, 

715, 723. 
Holt V. Figg (— Ky. , 94 S. 



W. 34, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 613 
[1906]), 321, 628, 1059, 1141, 
1145, 1246. 

Holt V. City Council of Somerville 
(127 Mass. 408 [1879]), 86, 356. 
549, 560, 618. 620, 651, 654, 694, 
695, 844, 1406. 

Hoi ton V. City of Milwaukee (31 
Wis. 27 [1872]), 8, 11, 62, 70, 360, 
719. 

Holzhauer v. City of Xewport (94 
Ky. 396, 22 S. W. 752 [1893]), 
147, 154, 155, 209, 324, 508, 613, 
1504. 

Holtzman v. United States ( 14 App. 
D. C. 454 [1899]), 58. 

Homan v. ^McLaren (28 Mo. App. 
654 [1888]), 1134. 

Home for Aged Protestant Women 
V. Borough of Wilkinsburg (6 L. 
R. A. 531); see Wilkinsburg Bor- 
ough Home for Aged Women (131 
Pa. St. 109, 18 Atl. 937 [1890] ) , 96. 

Hook V. Chicago and Alton Rail- 
road Company ( 133 Mo. 313, 34 
S. W. 549 [1895]), 308, 596, 598, 
651, 657, 1318. 

Hood V. Finch (8 Wis. 381 [1859]), 
737. 

Hood V. Trustees of the Town of 
Lebanon (15 S. W. (Ky.) 516, 12 
Ky. L. R. 813 [1891])', 323, 528, 
610. 

Hoover v. People ex rel. Peabody 
(171 111. 182, 49 X. K. 367 
[1898]), 663, 670, 737, 747, 849, 
886, 895, 1039, 1052, 1126, 1144, 
1175, 1182, 1278, 1281, 1334. 

Hopkins v. Citj^ of Butte (16 Mont. 
103, 40 Pac'. 171 [1895]), 1478, 
1484. 

Hopkins v. ]\Iason (61 Barb. 469 
[1871]), 196, 223, 234, 280, 731. 

750, 980, 983, 1026, 1113, 1196. 
1205. 

Hopkins v. ilason (42 Howard 115 
[1871]), 223. 234, 280, 414, 735, 

751, 777, 927, 983. 1000. 1174, 
1196. 

llorbach v. City of Omalia (54 Xeb. 
83, 74 X. W. 434 |1S9S]). 5. 19, 
97, 342. 735, 737, 1426, 1427, 1432. 



CXXIV 



TABLE OF CxVSES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Horiston v. City Council of Charles- 
ton (1 McCord (S. C.) 345 

[1821]), 118, 223, 263, 776. 
Horn's Case (12 Abb. Pr. (X. Y.) 

124 [1861]), 485, 495, 995, 1452, 

1463. 
Horn V. City of Columbus ( 1 Ohio 

C. C. 337 [1886]); 1125, 1211. 
Horn V. Board of Supervisors of 

Livingston County ( 135 Mich. 

553, 98 N. W. 256 [1904]), 1394, 

1409. 
Horn V. Town of New Lots (83 X. 

Y. 100, 38 Am. Rep. 402 [1880]), 

81, 1088, 1484, 1486, 1493, 1494. 
Hornsey Urban District Court v. 

Hennell (2 K. B. 73, 71 L. J. ( K. 

B.) 479, 80 L. T. 423, 50 Weekly 

Rep. 521, 66 J P. 613 [1902]), 

1048. 
Hornung v. McCarthy (126 Cal. 17, 

58 Pac. 303 [1899]), 73, 89, 100, 

269, 965', 974, 1062, 1346. 
Hosnier v. Hunt Drainage District 

(134 111. 360, 26 X. E. 584 

[1891]), 271, 377, 566, 738, 912, 

925, 1376, 1388. 
Houghton, Appeal of (42 Cal. 35 

[1871]), 8, 89, 1368. 
Hougliton v. Burnham (22 Wis. 289 

[1867]), 864. 
Houk V. Barthold •;73 Ind. 2L 

[1880]), 1375. 
House V. City of Dallas (96 Tex. 

594, 74 S. W. 901 [1903]), 1214. 
House Resolutions concerning Street 

Improvements, In re ( 15 Colo. 

598, 26 Pac. 323 [1890]), 44, 152, 

666. 
Houseman v. Kent (58 Mich. 364, 

25 X. W. 369 [1885]), 977. 
Houstania, Inhabitants of the Vil- 
lage of v. Grubbs (80 Mo. App. 

433 [1899]), 53, 55, 1044, 1050. 
Houston, City of v. Bartels (36 Tex. 

Civ. App. 498. 82 S. W. 323 

[1904]), 65, 651, 654. 
Houston v. City of Chicago (191 

111. 559, 61 X. E. 396 [1901]), 

293, 859, 864, 865, 912, 920, 922, 

1271, 1282, 1310, 1381. 
Houston V. McKenna (22 Cal. 550 



[1863]), 169, 266, 433, 538, 697, 
698, 725. 

Howard Avenue, In re, Xorth, in 
City of Seattle (44 Wash. 62, 86 
Pac. 1117 [1906]), 210, 308, 586, 
612, 613, 614, 626. 

Howard v. Brown (197 Mo. 36, 95 
S. W. 191 [1906]), 1202, 1203. 

Howard v. The First Independent 
Church of Baltimore (18 Md. 451 
[1862]), 86, 780, 792. 

Howard Savings Institution v. May- 
or and Common Council of City 
of Xewark (52 X. J. L. (23 Vr.) 

I, 18 Atl. 672 [1^89]), 407, 959, 
965, 990. 

Howard St., Vacation of, Philadel- 
phia (142 Pa. St. 601, 21 Atl. 

974 [1891]), 11, 28, 86, 89, 111, 

113, 278, 320, 434, 580, 665, 666, 

1041. 
Howe V. City of Cambridge (114 

Mass. 388 "[1874]), 86, 118, 202, 

315, 323, 441, 549, 670, 695, 714. 
Howe V. City of Chicago (224 111. 

95, 79 X.' E. 421 [1906]), 387, 

839, 861, 912, 922. 
Howe V. Ray (113 Mass. 88 [1873]), 

70. 
Howell V. Bristol (8 Bush. (71 Ky.) 

493 [1871]), 100, 154, 304, 437, 

662, 665, 678, 784. 
Howell V. City of Buffalo (37 X. Y. 

267), 100, 408. 
Howell V. City of Buffalo (15 X. Y. 

512 [1857),' 952, 1481. 
Howell V. Philadelphia (38 Pa. (2 

Wright) 471 [1861]), 584, 570, 

1498. 
Howell V. Tacoma (3 Wash. 711, 28 

Am. St. Rep. 83, 29 Pac. 447 

[1892]), 141, 666, 688, 697, 812, 

1026, 1414, 1435. 
Howes V. City of Racine (21 Wis. 

514 [1867]), 1166, 1435. 
Hoyt V. City of East Saginaw ( 19 

Mich. 39, 2 Am. Rep. 76 [1809]), 

II. 86, 245, 549, 555. 556, 690, 692, 
830. 

Hubbard v. Garfield (102 Mass. 72 

[1869]), 958. 
Hubbard v. X'orton (28 O. S. 110 

[1875]), 301. 538. 662, 828. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXV 



[References are to sections.] 



Hubbell V. Campbell (56 Cal. 527 

[1880]), 1202. 
Hiiddleston v. City of Eugene ( 34 

Or. 343, 43 L. R. A. 444, 55 Pac. 

8G8 [1899]), 11, 601. 
Hudson V. Bunch (116 Ind. 63, 18 

X. E. 390 [1888]), 270. 637, 917. 
Hudson V. People ex rel. McKee 

( 188 III. 103, 80 Am. St. Rep. 166, 

58 X. E. 964 [1900]), 1049, 1088. 
Hudson County Catholic Protectory 

V. Board of Township Committee 

of the Township of Kearney (56 

N. J. L. (27 Vr.) 385, -28 Atl. 

1043 ([1894]), 589, Oil, 014, 950. 
Hudson Trust and Savings Institu- 
tion V. Carr-Curran Paper Mills 

Co. (58 X. J. Eq. (13 Dick.) 59, 

43 Atl. 418 [1899]), 986, 10.50. 
Huelefeld v. City of Covington ( — 

Ky. , 60 S. W. 296, 22 Ky. 

L.' Rep. 1188 [1901]), 390, 397, 

431. 
Huesman v. Dersch ( — Kv. , 

109 S. \Y. 319 [1908]), 723, 844, 

1330, 1369. 
Hull' V. City of .Jacksonville (39 

Fla. 1, 2l' So. 776 [1897]), 323, 

737, 741, 829, 1049, 1145. 
Hughes, In the Matter of (93 X. Y. 

512 [1883]), 1462. 
Hughes V. Alsip (112 Cal. 587, 44 

Pac. 1027 [1896]), 472, 1110. 
Hughes V. Board of Commissioners 

of the Caddo Levee District ( 108 

La. 146, 32 So. 218, [1901, 1902]). 

.')08. 548, 553. 
Hughes V. City of Momence (164 111. 

10. 45 X. E. 302 [1896]), 351. 
Hughes V. City of Momence ( 163 111. 

535, 45 X.'e. .300 [1896]), 347, 

348, 351, 451. 
Iltighes V. Parker (148 Ind. 692, 48 

X. E. 243 [1897]), 507, 1330. 
Hulbert v. City of Chicago (202 U. 

S. 275, 26 S. 617 [1906]), 117. 

1085, 1104, 1370, 1375. 
Hulbert v. City of Chicago (217 111. 

286, 75 X. 'e. 486 [1905]), 140. 

1085, 1104, 1375. 
Hulbert v. City of Chicago (213 111. 

452, 72 X. E. 1097 [1905]), 140, 

475, 1085. 1104. 



Hull V. Baird (73 la. 528. 35 X. W. 

613), 337. 
Hull V. Brearley Run Draining As- 
sociation (58 Ind> 520 [1877]), 

1043. 
Hull V. City of Chicago (156 III. 

381, 40 X. E. Rep. 937 [1895]), 

864, 912. 
Hull V. People (170 111. 246, 48 X. 

E. 984), 715. 
Hull V. Sangamon River Drainage 

District 219 III. 454, 76 X. E. 701 

[1906]), 203. 
Hume V. The Little Flat Rock 

Draining Association ( 72 Ind. 499 

[1880]), 795, 1005, 1007, 1350, 

1430, 1432. 
Hull V. West Chicago .Park Com- 
missioners ( 185 111. 150, 57 X. 

E. 1 [1900]), 816, 856, 1390. 
Hun, In the Matter of the Petition 

of (144 X. Y. 472, 39 X. E. 376 

[1895]), 1043, 1047, 1049, 1053, 

1144. 
Hundley & Rees v. Commissioners, 

etc., of Lincoln Park (67 111. 559 

[1873]), 153, 217, 218, 356, 549, 

636, 637, 664, 666, 690, 884. 
Hunerberg v. Yillage of Hyde Park 

( 130 111. 156, 22 X. ' E. 486 

[1890]), 396, 918, 1375. 
Hungerford v. Hartford (39 Conn. 

279 [1872]), 324, 326, 444, 549, 

560, 563, 658, 709. 
Hunsaker v. Wright (30 III. 146), 

615. 
Hunt v. City ot Cliicago (60 III. 

183 [1871] K 269. 
Hunt V. Hunter ( 14 Ohio C. C. 503 

[1897]), 679. 
Hunt V. Hunter (11 Ohio C. C. 69 

[1895]), 55, 684. 
Hvmt V. State for Use of Downey 

(26 Ind. App. 518, 58 X. E. Rep. 

557 [1900]), 895, 1028. 
Hunter v. Earl (51 O. S. 573 

[1894]), 726, 873. 
Hunter v. Freeman (51 O. .S. 574 

[1894]), 873. 
Hunter v. Kansas City Safe Deposit 

and Savings Bank ( 158 Mo. 262, 

58 S. W. 1053 [1900]), 1221, 1432. 



CXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Huntington v. City of Cincinnati (2 

Ohio N. P. 35 [1895]), 309, 575, 

639. 
Huntington, City of v. Force ( 152 

Ind. 368, 53 X. E. 443 [1898]), 

1500, 1506. 
Huntington v. Worthen (120 U. S. 

97, 7 S. 469 [1887]), 3. 
Hurford v. City of Omaha (4 Neb. 

336 [1876]). 3, 103, 105, 106, 147, 

239, 570, 666. 
Hurt V. City of Atlanta (100 Ga. 

274, 28 S. E. 65 [1896]), 71, 359, 

653. 
Huston V. Clark (112 111. 344 

[1885]), 77, 104, 206, 245, 249, 

258, 259, 272, 344, 825, 909, 918, 

1359, 1377. 
Huston V. Tribbetts (171 111. 547, 

63 Am. St. Rep. 275, 49 N. E. 711 

[1898]), 7, 8, 51, 89, 653, 1055. 
Hutchins v. Vandalia Levee and 

Drainage District (217 111. 561, 

75 N. E. 354 [1905]), 2, 203. 
Hutchinson v. City of Omaha (52 

Xeb. 345, 72 N. W. 218 [1897]), 

143, 229, 568, 569, 620, 775, 790, 

800, 884, 1028, 1414, 1435. 
Huteninson v. Pittsburg (72 Pa. St. 

(22 P. F. Smith) 320 [1872]), 

511, 631, 646, 745, 895, 918, 1095, 

1211. 
Hutchinson v. City of Rochester (92 

Hun (N. Y.) 393, 36 X. Y. S. 766 

[1895]), 1041, 1087. 
Hutchinson v. Storrie (92 Tex. 685, 

71 Am. St. Rep. 884, 45 L. R. A. 

289, 51 S. W. 848 [1899]), 113, 

118, 119, 122, 137, 141, 667, 728, 
670, 677, 691, 702, 713. 

Hutson V. Woodbridge Protection 
District Xo. 1 (79 Cal. 90, 21 
Pac. 435, 16 Pac. 549 [1889]), 

119, 132, 340, 726, 729, 773. 
Hutt V. City of Chicago (132 111. 

352, 23 X. E. 1010 [1891]), 417, 

418, 490, 633, 849. 
Hyde Park, Village of v. Borden (94 

III. 26 [1879])^ 324, 392, 393, 396. 

400, 857, 859. 
Hyde Park, Village of v. Carton 

^132 111. 100, 23 X. E. 590 

[1891]), 446, 857. 



Hyde Park, Village of v. Corwith 

(122 111. 441, 12 X. E. 238 

[1889]), 308, 986, 996, 1519. 
Hyde Park, Village of v. Speiicor 

(118 111. 446, 8 X. E. 846 [1888] ). 

104, 244, 247, 248, 259, 330, 341. 

373, 375, 377, 461, 857, 859, 864. 
Hyde Park, Village of v. Waite (2 

'ill. App. 443 [1878]), 347, 965, 

990. 
Hyde Park, Village of v. Washing- 
ton Ice Company (117 HI. 233 

[1886]), 66, 69. 
Hydes v. Joyes (67 Ky. (4 Bush.) 

464, 96 Am. Dec. 311 [1868]), 264, 

273, 293, 323, 420, 857, 867. 
Hyland v. President and Trustees 

of Village of Ossining (107 X. Y. 

S. 225 [1907]), 748. 
Hyman v. City of Chicago (188 III. 

462, 59 X. E. 10 [1900]), 130, 

323, 381, 387, 399, 443, 511, 571, 

864, 1330, 1368. 
Hymes v. Aydelott (26 Ind. 431). 

180. 
Hynes v. City of Chicago (175 111. 

"^56, 51 X. E. 705 [1898]), 324, 857. 

864. 



Her V. Ross (64 Xeb. 710, 97 Am. 

St. Rep. 676, 57 L. R. A. 895, 90 

X. W. 869 [1902]), 372. 
Illinois Central Railroad Company 

V. City of Chicago (141 111. 509, 

30 X. E. 1036 [1893]), 578, 597, 

643, 655, 920, 924. 
Illinois Central Railroad Company 

V. Decatur (147 U. S. 190, 37 L. 

132, 13 S. 293 [1891]), 7, 11, 35, 

553, 594, 597, 613, 614, 670, 715. 
Illinois Central Railroad Company 

V. City of Decatur (154 111. 173. 

38 X. E. 626 [1894]), 11, 283, 284, 

286, 293, 298, 594, 613. 
Illinois Central Railroad Company 

V. City of Decatur (126 111. 92, 

1 L. R. A. 613, 18 X. E. 315 

[1890]), 11, 35, 42, 594, 597, 613, 

614. 



i 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXVU 



[References are to sections.] 



Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. Commissioners of East Lake 
Fork Special Drainage District 
129 111. 417, 21 N. E. 925 [1890]), 
340, 587, 594, 598, 659, 665, 666, 
690, 1352, 1364. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. City of Effingham (172 111. 607, 
50 X. E. 103 [1898]), 859, 864. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. City of Kankakee ( 164 111. 608, 
45 N. E. 971 [1897]), 594, 598, 
623, 923, 947, 1283, 1387. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. County of McLean (17 111. 291), 
615. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. City of Matt m (141 111. 32, 
30 N. E. 773 [1893]), 594, 613. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. People ex rel. Alexander ( 161 
111. 244, 43 X. E. 1107 [1896]), 
1039, 1183, 1189, 1281. 

Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. People 
ex rel. Seaton (189 111. 119, 59 
N. E 609 [1901]), 594, 595, 598, 
747, 763, 772, 914, 927, 930, 986, 
996, 1059, 1183, 1184, 1188, 1285, 
1373. 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
V. City of Wenona (163 111. 288, 
45 N. E. 265 [1896]), 950. 

Illinois and Michigan Canal, Trus- 
tees of the V. City of Chicago ( 12 
111. 403 [1851]), 11, 35, 39, 153, 
308, 430, -549, 581, 582, 584, 613. 

Improvement, Board of, District No. 
60 V. Cotter (71 Ark. 536, 76 S. 
W. 552 [1903]), 249, 251, 785, 
1337. 

Improvement, Board of, District No. 
5 of Texarkana v. OfTenhauser (84 
Ark. 257, 105 S. W. 265), 329, 
549, 555, 626, 720, 744, 1229, 1277, 
1337, 1346. 

Improvement, Board of v. School 
District (56 Ark. 354, 35 Am. St. 
Rep. 108, 16 L. R. A. 418, 19 S. 
W. 969 [1892]), 580, 586. 

Improvement, Board of, Paving Dis- 
trict No. 5 V. Sisters of Mercv of 
Female Academy of Ft. Smith, 



(— Ark. , 109 S. W. 1165 

[1908]), 39, 42, 613, 614. 

Independence, City of, to the Use 
of Smith V. Briggs (58 Mo. App. 
241 [1894]), 432, 816, 819. 

Independent School District of Bur- 
lington V. City of Burlington (60 
la. 500, 15 N. W. 295 [1883]), 
223, 232, 234, 980. 

Indiana Bond Co. v. Bruce (13 Ind, 
App. 550, 41 N. E. 95S [1895]), 
1086, 1317. 

Indiana Bond Company v. Shearer 
(24 Ind. App. 622, 57 N. E. Rep. 
276 [1900]), 907, 910. 

Indianapolis, City of v. Gilmore (30 
Ind. 414 [1868]), 394, 399, 1072, 
1432. 

Indianapolis, City of v. Holt ( 155 
Ind. 222, 57 N. E. 966, 998, 1100 
[1900]), 132, 699, 732, 773, 1444. 

Indianapolis, City of v. Imberry (17 
Ind. 175 [186\]), 489, 496,"^ 526, 
662, 783, 826, 877, 1050, 1121, 
1350, 1352. 

Indianapolis, City of v. Patterson 
(33 Ind. 157 [1870]), 526, 1192, 
1472, 1474. 

Indianapolis and Cincinnati R. R. 
Co. V. Parker (29 Ind. 471 
[1868]), 363. 

Indianapolis and Cumberland Grav- 
el Road Co. V. Christian (93 Ind. 
360), 202. 

Indianapolis and Cumberland Grav- 
el Road Co. V. State ex rel. Flack 
(105 Ind. 37, 4 N. E. 316 [1885]), 
340, 539, 587, 739, 748, 759, 986, 
996, 1254, 1332. 

Indianapolis, Peru and Chicago 
Railroad Company v. Rnss (47 
Ind. 25 [1874])," 30-1, 594. 598, 
623. 

Indianapolis & Vincennes Railway 
Company v. Capitol Paving & 
Construction Company (24 Ind. 
App. 114, 54 N. E. 1076 [1899]), 
575, 601, 626, 630. 

Inge V. Board of Pulilic Works of 
Mobile (135 Ala. 187, 93 Am. St. 
Rep. 20. 33 So. 678 [1902]), 118, 
314, 483, 497, 514, 653, 665, 691, 
1437. 



CXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Ingersoll v. Buchanan (1 W. Va. 

181 [1865]), 1212. 
Ingraliam, In the Matter of ( 64 !^'. 

Y. 310 [1876]), 400, 405, 572, 

1455, 1466. 
Ingraham, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition to Vacate an Assessmerit 

on Eighty-eightli and Ninety-first 

Streets '(4 Hun (X. Y.)' 495 

[1875]), 400, 405, 572. 
Ingram v. Colgan (106 Cal. 113. 

46 Am. St. Rep. 221, 28 L. R. A. 

187, 38 Pac. 315, 39 Pac. 437 

[1895]), 92. 
Inhabitants of . ( See 

name of town or city.) 
Tola Electric R. Co. v. Jackson ( 70 

Kan. 791, 79 Pac. 662), 363. 
Iowa Pipe & Tile Company v. CaHa- 

han (125 Iowa 358, 106 Am. St. 

Rep. 311, 67 L. R. A. 408, 101 X. 

W. 141 [1904]), 677, 705, 754, 

1435, 1509. 
Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Soper 

(39 la. 112), 182. 
Ireland v. City of Rochester (51 

Barb. 414 [1868]), 8, 79, 86, 89, 

119, 136, 520, 726, 729, 748, 819, 

833, 955, 966, 989, 1005, 1279. 

1426, 1427, 1442, 1445. 
Iroquois and Crescent Drainage 

District Xo. 1 v. Harroun (222 

111. 489, 78 X\ E. 780 [1906]), 

340. 403, 821, 923, 1330. 
Irvin v. Devors (65 Mo. 625 

[1877]), 837, 1249. 
Irwin, Succession of ( 33 La. Ann. 

63 [1881]), 1041, 1149. 
Irwin V. Mayor, etc., of Mobile (57 

Ala. 6 [1876]), 150, 301, 794, 950, 

1372. 
Isle of Ely, Case of (10 Rep. 141), 

26, 549, 659. 
Isom V. Mississippi Central Rail- 
road Co. (36 Miss. 306 [1858]), 

71. 
Ittner v. Robinson (35 Xeb. 133. 52 

N. W. 846 [1892]), 1054. 
Ivanhoe v. City of Enterprise (29 

Ore. 245, 35 L. R. A. 58, 45 Pac. 

771 [1896]), 1048, 1049. 



Ives V. Irey (51 Xeb. 136, 70 N. 
W. 961 [1897]), 737, 747, 1426, 
1427. 



J. & A. ]McKechnie Brewing Com- 
pany V. Trustees of Village of 
Canandaigua (162 X. Y. 631, 57 
X\ E. 1113 [1900]), 100. 

J. & A. McKechnie Brewing Com- 
pany V. Trustees of the Village 
of Canandaigua ( 15 App. Div. 
139. 44 X. Y. Supp. 317 [1897]), 
100. 

Jackson v. City of Denver ( — Colo. 
, 92 Pac. 690), 1337. 

Jackson v. City of Detroit ( 10 Mich. 
248 [1862]), 1033, 1436. 

Jackson v. Healy (20 Johns. (X. Y.) 
495 [1823]), 755, 886. 

Jackson v. McHargue ( — Ky. , 

106 S. W. 871 [1908]), 1039. 

Jackson v. Smith (120 Ind. 520, 22 
X. E. 431 [1889]), 264, 324, 390, 
394, 405, 444, 549. 1005, 1000, 
1015, 1324, 1429, 1435. 

Jackson v. State for Use of Dyar 
(104 Ind. 516, 3 N. E. 863 
[1885]), 772, 1008. 

Jackson v. State for Use of Lindley 
(103 Ind. 250, 2 X. E. 742 
[1885]), 735, 1237, 1244. 

Jackson County v. Waldo (85 Mo. 
637 [1885]), 70, 308. 

Jackson Fire Clay Sewer Pipe & 
Tile Company v. Snyder (93 Mich. 
325, 53 X. W. 359 [1892]), 475. 

Jacksonville, City of v. Hamill (178 
111. 235, 52 X. E. 949 [1899]), 
271, 663, 672, 675, 909, 953, 1368. 

Jacksonville Railway Company, The 
V. City of Jacksonville {lU 111. 
502, 2 X. E. 478 [1886]). 381, 
386, 507, 623, 837, 856, 864, 807, 
927, 929, 1054. 

Jacobs V. City of Chicago (178 111. 
500, 53 X.' E. 363 [1899]), 864, 
1373, 1384. 

Jaeger v. Burr (30 0. S. 164 
[1880]), 479, 688, 977. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXIX 



[References are to tiections.] 



Jaicks V. Merrill (201 :\r<i. 91, 98 
S. W. 753 [1900]), 1015, 1018, 
1085, 1135, 1242, 1284. 
Jaicks V. Middlesex Inv. Co. (201 
Mo. Ill, 98 S. W. 759 [190()]), 
491. 

Sullivan (128 Mo. 177, 30 
890 [1895]), 1137, 1144, 



Jaicks 

S. W. 

1225. 
James v. 

W. 912 
James v. 

4 S. ^^ 



Louisville (Ky.) (40 S. 

19 Ky. L. R. 447), 678. 

Pine Blufi" (49 Ark. 199, 

760 [1887]), 55, 86, 93, 

96, 151, 230, 293, 296, 298, 639. 
James v. City of Seattle ( — Wash. 

, 95 Pac. 273 [1908]), 085. 

Jamison v. City of New Orleans (12 

La. Ann. 346 [1857]), 927, 934, 

986, 1487. 
Janvrin v. Poole (181 Mass. 403, 03 

X. E. 1006 [1902]), 322. 
Jardine v. Ma.vor, Aldermen and 

Commonaltv of the City of New 

York (11 Daly 116 [1882]), 740, 

836, 1499. 
Jarrett v. City of Chicago (181 111. 

242, 54 N. E. 946 [1899]), 864. 
Jassen v. Pierce (25 Ind. App. 222, 

57 N. E. 941 [1900]), 1091. 
Jatunn v. O'Brien (89 Cal. 57, 26 

Pac. 635 [1891]), 1205. 
Jebb V. Sexton (84 111. Ai)p. 45 

[1899]), 985, 980. 
JeflVrson, City of v. Jennings Bank- 
ing and Trust 

App. 74, 79 S. 

305. 
Jefferson, Count.v 

Vernon ( 145 111. 

[1893]), 203. 2 

884, 917, 1375. 
Jeffersonville, City of v. Patterson 

(32 Ind. 140 [1869]), 1191, 1432. 
Joliff V. Newark (49 N. J. L. (20 

Vr.) 2.39, 12 Atl. 770), 381. 
Jelly v. Dils (27 W. Va. 207 

[1885]), 114. 
Jenal v. Green Island Draining Co. 

(12 Xeb. 103, 10 X. W. 547 

[1881]), 337. 343, 449. 
Jenkins v. Board of Rui)ervisors of 

Rock County (15 Wis. 11 [1802]), 

021, 895, li75, 1426, 1427. 



Co. 


(35 Tex. Civ. 


w 


. 870 [1904]), 


of 


V. City of :\It. 


80, 


33X.'e. 1091 


64, 


437, 850, 81)5. 



Jenkins v. Stetler (118 Ind. 275, 20 
X. E. 788 [1888]), 407, 537, 538, 
541, 820, 1015, 1018, 1192, 1252, 
1272, 1337. 

Jenkintown Borough v. Firmstone 
(2 Penn. Dist. Rep. 124 [1892]), 
880, 1063. 

Icnks V. City of Chicago (56 111. 
397 [1870]), 860, 867. 

Jenks V. City of Chicago (48 111. 
290 [1868]), 672, 693, 724, 703, 
764, 918, 1005, 1184, 1292; 1299. 

Jennings v. Le Breton ( 80 Cal. 8, 
21 Pac. 1127 [1889]), 537, 698, 
1281, 1290, 1358. 

Jennings v. LeRoy ( 03 Cal . 397 
[1883]). 700, 1281. 

Jennings Banking and Trust Co. v. 
City of Jefferson (30 Tex. Civ. 
App. 534, 70 S. W. 1005 [1902]), 
365. 

Jerome v. City of Chicago ( 62 111. 
285 [1871])", 771, 918, 947, 1187, 
1272. 

Jerrell v. Etchison Ditching Associa- 
tion (62 Ind. 200 [1878]), 1251, 
1263, 1265. 

Jersey City. Mayor, etc.. of v. Car- 
son (43 X. i. L. (14 Vr.) 004 
[1881]), 909. 

Jersey City, Mayor, etc., of v. Green 
(42 X. J. "l. (13 Vr.) 027 
[1880]). 907, 1319. 1480, 1492. 

Jersey City, ^layor and Aldermen 
of V. O'Callaghan (41 X. J. L. (12 
Vr.) 349 [1879]), 907, 1478, 1486. 

Jersey City, Mayor and Aldermen 
of V. Riker (38 X. J. L. (9 Vr.) 
225, 20 Am. Rep. 380 11870]), 
1478. 1486. 

Jersey City. !Mayor and Common 
Council of V. State, Howeth, Pros. 
(30 X. J. L. (1 Vr.) 521 [18o;>]), 
395, 754, 840, 1400. 

Jersey City, Mayor and Aldermen 
of V. State, Vreeland, Pros. (43 
X. J. L. (14 Vr.) 638 [1881]), 
6, 20, 349, 608, 660. 

Jersey City. Commissioners of Sink- 
ing Fund of V. Inhabitants of the 
Township of Linden in the Coun- 
ty of Union (40 X. J. Eq. (13 
Stewart) 27 [1885]), 1008. 



cxxx 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Jersey City and Bergen Railway 
Company, In the Matter of tlie, 
for a Summary Determination as 
to Certain Property Assessed by 
Jersey City and also by the State 
Board of Assessors (G6 N. J. L. 
37 Vr.) 501, 49 Atl. 437 [1901]), 
596. 

Jessing v. City of Columbus ( 1 Ohio 
C. C. 90 [1885]), 313, 314, 431, 
570, 783, 843, 1249. 

Jetter, In the Matter of (14 Hun 
(N. Y.) 93 [1878]), 1451, 1465. 

•Jex. V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(111 N. Y. 339, 19 K E. 52 
[1888]), 1486, 1492. 

•Jex V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
103 N. Y. 536, 9 N. E. 39 [1886]), 
781, 1481, 1486. 

Job V. City of Alton (189 III. 256, 
82 Am. St. Rep. 448, 59 N. E. 622 
[1901]), 51, 118, 130, 295, 323, 
• 670, 698, 715, 745, 1183. 

•Job V. People ex rel. Tetherington 
(193 111. 609, 61 N. E. 1079 
[1901]), 441. 

John V. Connell (64 Neb. 233, 89 
N. W. 806 [1902]), 677, 693, 699, 
731, 911. 

John V. Connell (61 Neb. 267, 85 
N. W. 82), 677, 693, 699, 731, 911. 

John Kelso Co. v. Gillette ( 136 Cal. 
603, 69 Pac. 296 [1902]), 538, 952. 

Johnson, In the Matter of (103 N. 
Y. 260, 8 N. E. 399 [1886]), 283, 
444, 468, 487, 495, 948, 1279, 1372. 

Johnson v. Village of Avondale (1 
Ohio C. C. 229 [1885]), 324, 563, 
572. 

Johnson v. District of Columbia (6 
Mackey (D. C.) 21 [1887]), 223, 
234, 621, 1050. 

Johnson v. Duer (115 Mo. 366, 21 
S. W. 800 [1892]), 324, 393, 400, 
401, 447, 495, 555, 659, 563, 711, 
723, 777, 1005, 1007, 1435. 

Johnson v. Lewis (115 Ind. 490, 18 
N. E. 7 [1888]), 726, 756. 

Johnson v. City of Milwaukee (88 
Wis. 383, 60 N. W. 270 [1894]), 
79, 191, 244, 432, 444. 



Johnson v. City of Milwaukee (40 
Wis. 315 [1876]), 86, 163, 322, 
360, 620, 693, 1420, 1432. 

Johnson v. Oregon Short Line Co. 
(7 Ida. 355, 53 L. R. A. 744, 63 
Pac. 112 [1900]), 363. 

Johnson v. City of Oshkosh (21 Wis. 
184 [1866]), 53, 737, 981, 1432, 
1434, 1444. 

Johnson v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 
ger (177 111. 64, 52 N. E. 308 
[1898]), 549, 927, 934, 986, 1183, 
1340, 1367. 

Johnson v. People ex rel. Ra.vmond 
(189 111. 83, 59 N. E. 515 [1901]), 
857, 864, 866, 927, 929, 986, 996, 
1183, 1340. 

Johnson v. People ex rel. Reed (202 
111. 306, 66 N. E. 1081 [1903]), 
723, 927, 987, 1000, 1183, 1340. 

Johnson v. State for Use of David- 
son (116 Ind. 374, 19 N. E. 298 
[1888]), 340, 795, 1008, 1247. 

Johnson v. City of Tacoma (41 
Wash. 51, 82 Pac. 1092 [1905]), 
301, 316, 549, 560, 561, 646, 720. 

Johnston v. Louisville (74 Ky. (11 
Bush.) 527 [1875]), 39. 

•Joliet, City of v. Spring Creek 
Drainage Dist. (222 111. 441, 78 N. 
E. 836 [1906]), 62, 203, 270, 340, 
547, 556, 587. 

Jonas v. City of Cincinnati (18 Ohio 
318 [1849]), 368, 508. 

Jones, In tlie Matter of (18 Hun 
(N. Y.) 327 [1879]), 1460. 

Jones V. Board of Aldermen of the 
City of Boston (104 Mass. 461 
[1870]), 64, 65, 86, 100, 103, 244, 
308, 415, 466, 515, 555, 650, 696, 
775, 879, 885, 920, 921, 950, 1279, 
1404, 1406, 1407. 

Jones V. Cardwell (98 Ind. 331 
[1884]), 1442. 

Jones v. City of Chicago (213 111. 
92, 72 N. E. 798 [1904]), 321, 
828, 831, 856, 864. 

Jones V. City of Chicao:o (206 111. 
374, 69 N. E. 64 [1903]), 1275, 
1318, 1327, 1382. 

Jones V. District oi Columbia (3 
App. D. C. 26 [1894]), 321, 663, 
709, 731. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXl 



[References are to sections.] 



Jones V. Gable (150 Mich. 30, 113 
N. W. 577 [1!)07]), 90(5, 1411, 
1414, 1415, 143G. 

Jones V. Holzapfel (11 Okl. 405, 68 
Pac. 511 [1902]), 43, 89, 145, 147, 
244, 324, 481, 707, 713, 776, 1435. 

Jones V. Town of Lake View (151 
111, 663, 38 N. E. 688 [1894]), 
73, 103, 194, 198, 245, 258, 259, 
307, 308, 396. 556, 557, 672, 675, 
690, 813, 814, 828, 909. 920, 922, 
925, 1317, 1391. 

Jones V. Landis Township (50 N. J. 
L. (21 Vr.) 374, 13 Atl. 251), 
166, 167, 1113. 

Jones V. Metropolitan Park Commis- 
sioners (181 Mass. 494, 64 N. E. 
76 [1902]), 305, 508, 525. 

Jones V. Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of the City of Newark (UN. 
J. Eq. (3 Stock.) 452 [1857]), 
324, 1431. 

Jones V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
37 Hun 513 [1885]), 1462, 1486. 

Jones V. Scluilmeyer (39 Ind. 119 
[1872]), 526, 1057, 1067, 1072. 

Jones V. City of Seattle (23 Wasli. 
753, 63 Pac. 553 [1901]), 70. 

Jones V. lown of Tonawanda (158 
N. Y. 438, 53 N. E. 280 [1899]), 
322, 381, 726, 731, 779, 780, 956, 
962, 9C9, 976, 1050. 

Jones V. Town of Tonawanda ( 35 
App. Div. 151), 779. 

Jones V. Board of Water Commis- 
sioners of Detroit (34 Mich. 273 
[1876]), 347, 353, 608. 

Jonesboro L. C. & E. P. Co. v. Board 
of Directors of St. Francis Levee 
District (80 Ark. 316, 97 S. W. 
281 [1906]), 247, 343, 1231, 1251. 

Joplin, City of, ex rel. v. Freeman 
(125 Mo. App. 717, 103 S. W. 130 
[1907]), 479, 620, 832, 909, 1249. 

Joplin, City of, ex rel. Carthage Di- 
mension & Flag Stone Co. v. IIol- 
lingshead (123 Mo. App. 602, 100 
S. W. 506 [1907]), 323, 662, 836, 
864. 873, 1133, 1135, 1216, 1230, 
1284. 

Joplin Consolidated Mining Co. v. 



Joplin ( 124 Mo. 129, 27 S. W. 

406), 142. 
Jordan v. Hyatt (3 Barb. 275 

[1848]), 117, 726, 735, 1056, 1175. 
Jordan Ditching and Draining As- 
sociation V. Wagoner (33 Ind. 50 

[1870]), 340, 886, 1232. 
Joyce V. Barron (67 0. S. 264, 65 

N. E. 1001 [1902]), 735, 740. 
Joyes V. Shadburn ( — Ky. . 

13 S. W. 361, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 892 
. [1890]), 411, 707, 709, 710. 802, 

1335. 
Judson V. City of Bridgeport (25 

Conn. 426 [1857]), 280, 425, 429, 

1484. 
Junction R. R. Co. v. City of Phila- 
delphia (88 Pa. St. 424, 32 Am. 

Rep. 417 [1879]), 598. 
Justice V. Robinson ( 142 Cal. 199. 

75 Pac. 776 [1904]), 1478, 1482. 

1484. 
Juvinall v. Jamesburg Drainage 

District (204 111. 106, 68 N. E. 

440 [1903]), 71. 



K 



Kadderly v. Portland (44 Ore. 118, 

74 Pac. 710, 75 Pac. 222 [1903]), 

43, 106, 147, 148, 214, 216, 665, 

666, 1425, 1431. 
Kafl'erstein v. Knox (56 Mo. 186 

[1874]), 1055, 1139, 1284. 
Kahl V. Love (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 

5 [1874]), 1036. 
Kaiser v. Weise (85 Pa. St. (4 Xor- 

ris) 366 [1877]), 118, 610, 665, 

666, 706, 1072, 1163. 
Kalamazoo, City of v. Franeoi^e (115 

.Mich. 554, 73 X. W. 801 [1898]), 

118, 551, 698, 874. 
Kalbrier v. Leonard (34 Ind. 497 

[1870]), 323, 610, 614. 
Kammann v. City of Chicago ( 222 

111. 63, 78 X. E. 16 [1906]), 1406. 
Kankakee, City of v. Potter (119 

111. 324, lo' X. E. 212 [1888]), 

862. 



Cxxxu 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Kankakee Drainage District v. Com- 
missioners of Lake Fork Special 
Drainage District (130 111. 201, 
22 N. E. 607 [1890]), 564. 
Kankakee Stone and Lime Company 
V. City of Kankakee ( 128 111. 173. 
20 X." E. 670 [1890]), 661, 924, 
1328. 
Kansas City to the Use, etc. v. 
American Surety Co. (71 Mo. App. 
315 [1897]), 1172, 1249. 
Kansas City ex rel. Xeill v. Askew 
(105 Mo. App. 84, 79 S. W. 483 
[1904]), 527. 
Kansas City v. Bacon ( 157 Mo. 450, 
57 S. W. 1045 [1900]), 71, 284. 
356, 557, 586, 588, 589, 594, 652, 
663, 675, 676, 690, 1328, 1381. 
Kansas City v. Bacon (147 Mo. 259, 
• 48 S. W. 860 [1898]), 47, 212, 
215, 264, 272, 356, 508, 554, 557, 
613, 642, 665, 666, 676, 679, 885. 
12G9, 1282, 1333, 1375, 1381. 
Kansas City v. Baird (98 Mo. 215 

[1889]), 1333. 
Kansas City v. Block (175 Mo. 433, 
74 S. W." 993 [1903]), 636, 1252, 
1291. 
Kansas City, City of v. Breyfogle 
(8 Kans.' App. 270, 55 Pac. 508 
[1898]), 781, 1006, 1007, 1440. 
Kansas City, City of v. Cullinan 
65 Kan. 68, 69 Pac. 1099 [1902]), 
787, 815. 
Kansas City, City of v. Gibson (66 
Kan. 501, 72 " Pac. 222 [1903]), 
86, 118, 141, 247, 248, 250, 324, 
549, 553, 555, 627, 642, 689, 702. 
' Kansas City, City of v. Gray (62 
Kan. 198^, 61 Pac. 746 [1900]), 
141, 787, 818, 1337. 
Kansas City, City of v. Hanson ( 60 
Kan. 833, 58 Pac. 474 [1899]), 
517. 
Kansas City, City of v. Hanson (8 
Kans. App. 290, 55 Pac. 513 
[1898]). 517, 1384, 1443. 
Kansas, City of v. Hill (80 Mo. 523 
[1883]), 62, 272, 308, 1322, 1328, 
1382. 
Kansas, City of v. Johnson (78 Mo. 
661 [1883]), 86. 



Kansas City v. Kansas City Belt 
Railway Company ( 187 Mo. 146 
86 S. W. 190 [1905]), 598, 661. 
Kansas City v. Kansas City, Fort 
Scott & Memphis Railroad Com- 
pany (189 Mo. 245, 88 S. W. 45 
[1905]), 1330. 
Kansas City, City <ii v. Kimball ( 60 
Kan. 224, 56 Pac. 78 [1899]), 141, 
1337. 
Kansas City v. McGrew ( — Kan. 

, 96 Pac. 484 [1908]), 141. 

Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co. ( 140 

Mo. 458, 41 S. W. "43), 215. 
Kansas City v. Mulkey (176 Mo. 229, 
75 S. W. 973 [1903] ), 851, 966. 
986. 
Kansas City v. Xapiecek ( — Kan. 

, 92* Pac. 827 [1907]), 2'->8, 

551, 619, 661, 886. 
Kansas City v. O'Connor (82 Mo. 
App. 655* [1899]), 291, 370, 45^, 
465, 479, 657. 
Kansas City v. Ratekin (30 Mo. 

App. 416), 401, 447. 
Kansas City, The City of, to the 
Use of Enright v. City of Rice 
(89 Mo. 685, 1 S. W. 749 [1886]), 
1211. 
Kansas City, City of, to the Use 
of Adkins v. Richards (34 Mo. 
App. 521 [1889]), 236, 293, 295, 
297, 324, 327, 670. 
Kansas City v. Silver (74 Kan. 851, 
85 Pac. 805 [1906]), 414, 956, 962. 
Kansas City v. Smart ( 128 Mo. 272, 
30 S. W. 773 [1895]), 263, 308, 
824. 
Kansas Citv, City of v. Smiley (62 
Kan. 718, 04 Pac. 613 [1900]), 
1437. 
Kansas City, City of, to the Use of 
the Frear Stone & Pipe Manufac- 
turing Company v. Swope (79 Mo. 
446 [1883]), 401, 447, 777. 
Kansas City, City of v. Trotter (9 
Kans. App. 222, 59 Pac. 679 
1900] ), 1440. 
Kansas City v. Ward (134 Mo. 172, 
35 S. W. 600 [1896]), 38, 100. 
111. 121, 215, 350, 507, 549, 619. 
634, 697, 760. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXlll 



[ Uefei-ences are to sections.] 



Kansas City Exposition Driving 

Park V. Kansas City (174 Mo. 

425, 74 S. W. 979 "^[1903]), 42, 

210, 591, 613, 614. 
Kansas City Grading Company v. 

Holden (107 Mo. 305. 17 S.' W. 

798 [1891]), 553, 554. 555, 670, 

724, 1338. 
Kansas City Grading Company v. 

Holden (32 Mo. App. 490 [1888]), 

523, 569, 675. 
Kansas City Transfer Company v. 

Ruling (22 Mo. App. 654 [188G]), 

495, 515. 
Kansas, State of v. . 

( See State of Kansas v. . ) 



Kansas Town Co. v. City of Argen- 
tine (5 Kans. App. 50, 47 Pae. 
542 [1896]), 816, 819, 839, 844, 
1015, 1020, 1411, 1432, 143tt. 

Karsten v. City of Milwaukee ( 106 
Wis. 200, 48 L. R. A. 851, 81 N. 
W. 1103, 948 [1900]), 699. 

Kaufman v. Tacoma, Olympia & 
Gray's Harbor Railroad Company 
(11 Wasli. 632, 40 Pac. 137 
[1895]), 71. 

Kean v. Asch (27 X. J. Eq. (12 C. 
E. Greene) 57 [1875]), 735, 1432, 
1435. 

Keane v. Cushing (15 ^lo. App. 96 
[1884]), 496, 504, 742, 838, 848. 

Keane v. Klausman (21 ^Mo. App. 
485 [1886]), 410, 424, 837, 1015, 
1249. 

Kearney v. City of Chicago (163 111. 
293, 45 X. E. 224 [1896]), 745, 
765, 772, 914, 1379. 

Kearney v. City of Covington (58 
Ky. (1 Metcalf) 339 [1858]), 
998, 1508, 1.509, 1525. 

Kearney v. Post (3 X. Y. Sup. Ct. 
Rep. 105 [1847]), 1054. 

Kearney Street (See Xorth Beach 
and Mission R. R. Co., Appeal of; 
Reese's Appeal.) 

Kodzie v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (114 111. 280, 2 X. E. 
182 [1886]), 244, 248, 253, 259, 
266. 305, 356, 735, 776, 986, 987, 
1439. 1444. 

Keehn v. [McGillicuddv (19 Ind. 



App. 427, 49 X. E. 609 [1898]), 
1486. 
Keeler v. People e.x rel. Kern ( 160 

111. 179, 43 X. E. 342 [1896]), 
745, 926, 927, 942, 986, 1196. 

Keene v. City of Seattle (31 Wash. 

202, 71 Pac. 769 [1903]), 1069. 
Keese v. City of Denver ( 10 Colo. 

112, 15 Pac. 825 [1887]), 44, 93, 
97, 152, 223. 2.34. 274, 666, 711, 
717, 867. 

Kefferstein v. Holliday ( 3 Mo. App. 

569), 50, 895. 
Keifer v. Bridgeport (68 Conn. 401, 

36 Atl. 801 [1896]), 223, 777, 

1006, 1035, 1100. 
Keigher v. City of St. Paul (69 

Minn. 78, 72* X. W. 54 [1897]), 

370, 415, 525, 1510. 
Keighley's Case ( 10 Rep. 139a 

(Mich. 7 Jac. 1), 21, 24, 25, 26, 

549, 557, 696. 
Keigwin v. Drainage Commissioners 

of Hamilton Township (115 111. 

347, 5 X. E. 575 [1886]), 254, 

340, 1008, 1,358, 1417, 1432, 1477. 
Keiser v. :\Iills (162 Ind. 366. 69 

X. E. 142 [1903]), 888, 950, 1362, 

1372. 
Keith V. Bingham (100 Mo. 300, 13 

S. W. 683 "[1889]), 8, 50, 73, 86. 

100, 110, 555, 1135, 1136, 1137. 

1284, 1346. 
Keith V. City of Philadelphia (126 

Pa. St. 575, 17 Atl. 883 [1889]), 

610, 635, 706. 989, 995, 1307. 
Keithsburg & Eastern Railroad 

Company v. Henry (79 111. 290 

[1875])* 71. 
Kellenkamp v. City of Lafayette (30 

Ind. 192 [1868]"), 1253. 
Kellogg V. Ely (15 0. S. 64 [1864]), 

340, 1015, 1436. 
Kellogg V. Village of Janesville (34 

:Minn. 132. 24 X. W. 359 [1885]), 

244. 775. 
Kellogg V. Price (42 Ind. 360 

[1873]), 280. 
Kelly V. Chadwick (104 La. 719. 29 

So. 295 [1901]), 46, 118, 314, 514, 

529, 544, 549, 620, 651, 663, 666, 

6F9, 698. 702. 1047, 1144, 1333, 

1369, 1370, 1373. 



CXXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Kelly V. City of Chicago (193 111. 

324, 61 N. E. 1009 [1901]), 1305, 

1379. 
Kelly V. City of Chicago (148 111. 

90, 35 N. E. 752 [1894]), 324, 557, 

563, 864, 918, 920, 922, 925, 1372, 

1377, 1391. 
Kelly V. The City of Cleveland (34 

O. S. 468 [1878]), 228, 550, 553, 

554, 560, 619, 620, 626, 670, 692, 

977. 
Kelly V. Luning (76 Cal. 309, 18 

Pac. 335 [1888]), 409, 423. 
Kelly V. Mendlesohn (105 La. 490, 

29 So. 894 [1901]), 1144, 1195, 

1219, 1432. 
Kelly V. Minneapolis City ' ( 57 

Minn. 294, 47 Am. St. Rep. 605, 

26 L. R. A. 92, 59 N. W. 304 

[1894]), 125, 278. 359, 727, 1347, 

1411, 1412. 
Kelly V. Pittsbnrg (104 U. S. 78, 

20 L. 658), 610. 
Kelly V. City of Pittsburg (85 Pa. 

St. 170, 27 Am. Rep. 633 [1877]), 

414, 610, 983. 
Kelly V. City of St. Joseph (67 

Mo. 491 [1878]), 1505. 
Kelsey v. King (11 Abb. Prac. (X. 

Y.) 180 [I860]), 1431. 
Kelso V. Cole (121 Cal. 121, 53 Pac. 

353 [1898]), 223. 234, 538, 775, 

777, 952. 
Kemper v. King {11 Mo. App. 116 

[1881]), 420, 443, 540. 574, 631, 

895. 
Kemper v. Village of St. Bernard 

(14 Ohio C. C. 134 [1897]), 685, 

786, 1054. 
Kendall, In the Matter of (85 X. 

Y. 302 [1881]), 276, 281, 487, 495, 

982. 
Kendig v. Knight (60 la. 29, 14 N. 

W. 78 [1882]), 315, 552, 573, 574, 

620, 649, 698, 831. 848, 849, 891, 

1049, 1445. 
Kennedy v. Board of Health (2 Pa. 

St. (2 Barr.) 366 [1845]), 342, 

372, 420, 1063, 1157. 
Kennedy v. Indianapolis ( 103 U. S. 

599, 26 L. 5.50 [1880]), 70, 86, 

361. 
Kennedy v. Indianapolis ( 14 Fed. 



Cases 314, 11 Biss. 13 [1878]), 

70, 361. 
Kennedy v. Newman (3 N. Y. Sup. 

Ct. 187 [1848]), 368, 837, 853, 

1072, 1174, 1196, 1303. 
Kennedy v. State ex rel. Dorsett ( 124 

Ind. 239, 24 N. E. 748 [1890]), 

271, 739, 1067, 1247. 
Kennedy v. State for Use of Dor- 
sett (109 Ind. 236, 9 N. E. 778 

[1886]), 735, 1237. 
Kennedy v. City of Troy (77 N. Y. 

493 [1879]), 545, 549, 639, 1415. 
Kenny v. Kelly (113 Cal. 364, 45 

Pac. 699 [1896]), 719, 1031, 1337. 
Kensington, Commissioners of the 

District of v. Keith (2 Pa. St. (2 

Barr. 218 [1845] ), 686. 
Kent V. Common Council of City of 

Binghampton ( 94 App. Div. 522, 

88 N. Y. S. 34 [1904]), 602. 
Kent V. City of St. Joseph (72 Mo. 

App. 42 [1897]), 71. 
Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases (115 

U. S." 321, 29 L. 414, 6 S. 57 

[1885]), 108. 
Kenyon v. Board of Supervisors of 

Ionia County (138 Mich. 544, 101 

N. W. 851 [1904]), 1406, 1409. 
Keokuk, City of v. Independent Dis- 
trict of Keokuk (53 la. 352, 36 

Am. Rep. 226, 5 N. W. 503 

[1880]), 52, 55, 56, 96. 
Kepley v. Fouke (187 111. 162, 58 

X. E. 303 [1900]), 1126. 
Kepley v. Scully (185 111. 52, 57 N. 

E. 187 [1900]), 1126. 
Kepple V. City of Keokuk (61 la. 

653, 17 N. W. 140 [1882]), 838. 
Kerfoot v. City of Chicago ( 195 111. 

229, 63 N. E. 101 [1902]), 298, 

469, 523, 741, 848, 922, 1276, 1306, 

1326, 1382. 
Kerker v. Bocher ( — Okla. , 95 

Pac. 981 [1908]), 1015, 1020. 
Kerr v. Butz (34 111. App. 220 

[1889]), 321, 677, 699, 709, 781, 

783, 964, 967, 1087, 1414, 1490. 
Keszler v. City of Cincinnati (3 

Ohio C. C. 223 [1888]), 686, 1507. 
Keteltas, In the Matter of (48 How- 
ard (N. Y.) 116 [1874]), 762, 

1466. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxxxv 



[References :ire ti) sections.] 



Kettle V. City of Dallas (35 Tex. 

Civ. App. "632, 80 S. W. 874 

[1904]), 11, 119, 213, 549, 607, 

665, 666, 1079. 
Keys V. City of Xeodesha ( 64 Kans. 

681, 68 Pac. 625 [1902]), 38, 313. 

436, 1024, 1436. 
Keyser, Matter of (10 Abb. Prae. 

481 [I860]), 484, 485, 837, 1402, 

1463. 
Kidson v. City of Bangor ( 99 ^le. 

139, 58 Atl. 900 [1904]). 1099. 
Kiernan, In the Matter of (62 N. Y. 

457 [1875]). 795. 1005, 1007, 1457. 
Kiley v. Cranor (51 Mo. 541 

[1*873]). 424, 437. 525, 837. 864, 

984, 1134, 1136, 1138. 
Kiley v. Forsee (57 Mo. ,391 [1874]), 

213, 264, 872, 1040, 1134, 1381. 
Kiley v. City of St. Josepli (67 Mo. 

491 [1878]). 1498, 1518. 
Kilgallen v. City of Cliicairo (206 

111. 557. 69 X. E. 586 [1904]). 

820. 
Kilgour V. Drainage Commissioners 

(HI 111. 342 [1885]), 39, 104, 130, 

145, 207, 247, 250. 259, 340, 771, 

998, 1029. 1043. 1049, 1142. 1254. 

1255, 1334. 1356. 
Kilgus V. Trustees of Orphanage of 

Good Sheplierd (94 Ky. 439, 22 

S. W. 750 [1893]), 589", 613. 
Kimball v. Mobile (14 Fed. Cas. 489, 

3 Woods, 555), 36. 360. 
Kimble v. City of Peoria ( 140 111. 

157. 29 X. E. 723 [1893]). 279, 

469, 570. 663. 848, 857. 860, 876. 
Kinealy v. (Jay (7 'Slo. App. 203 

[1879] ), 569,'817. 
King V. Commissioners of Sewers for 

Essex (1 Barn. &■ Cress. 477. 2 

How. & Byl. 700 [1823]). 25. 26. 
King V. ( ity (if Frankfort (2 Kans. 

Ap]). 531), 43 I'ac. 983 [1895]), 

1503. 1526. 
King V. Lamb (117 C:i1. 401. 49 Pac. 

561 [1897]). 315. 740. 749. 761, 

864, 1311. 
King V. City of Portland (184 U. S. 

61, 46 L. 431. 22 S. 290 [1902]), 

118, 125. 134. 147. 301. 670. 713. 

728, 1379. 



King V. City of Portland (38 Or. 
402, 55 L." R. A. 812, 63 Pac. 2 
[1900]), 11, 43, 89, 111, 118, 119, 
121, 122, 125, 134, 135, 147, 148. 
241, 301.-317. 359, 666, 668, 670, 
677, 695, 699, 700, 713, 728, 729, 
732, 740, 747, 756, 836, 1337, 1379. 

King V. Portland (2 Or. 146 [1865]), 
43, 86, 100. 125. 147. 148, 301, 666. 
668. 690. 700. 

King Hill Brick Co. v. Hamilton (51 
Mo. App. 120 [1892]). 273, 527. 
840, 867. 

Kingman, Petition of ( 153 Mass. 
566, 12 L. R. A. 417, 27 N. E. 778 
[1891]), 61, 356, 525, 664, 696. 

Kingsbiiry v. ^Missouri, Kansas & 
Texas Ry. Co. (156 Mo. 379, 57 S. 
W. 547 "[V900]). 363. 

Kinnie v. Bare (68 Mich. 625, 36 X\ 
W. 672), 291. 337. 

Kiphart v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, 
Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (7 
Ind. App. 122, 34 X\ E. 375 
[1893]), 772, 735, 1006. 

Kipley v. People of State of Illinois 
(170 U. S. 182, 18 S. 550), 715. 

Kirby v. Boylston Market As-ocia- 
tion (80 Mass. (14 Cray) 249. 74 
Am. Dec. 682 [1859] l. 58. 

Kirby v. Citizens Railway Compan.v 
(48 Md. 168, 30 Am, Rep, 455). 
483. 

Kirby v. Village of Winton Place (7 
Ohio X\ P. 169 [1899]), 740. 

Kirchman v. Peojde ex rel. Kocher- 
sperger (159 111. 321. 42 X. E. 883 
[1896]!. 772. 927, 930. 9S6. 993. 
1341. 

Kirkendall v, (ity of Omaha (39 
Xeb. 1. 57 X, W, 752 [1894]), 65, 
651, 654, 

Kirkland v. Board of Public Work-; 
of the 'City of Indianapolis (142 
Ind. 123, 41 X. E. 374 [1895]). 
325, 432. 805. 

Kirkpatrick v. Taylor (118 Ind, 329. 
21 X. E. 20 [1888]). 267. 293. 
294. 375, 558. 1351. 1408. 1409, 

Kirksville, City of, ex rel, Fleming 
^faiiufacturing ('om])an.v v. Cole- 
man (103 :\lo. App. 215. 77 S. W. 
120). 777. 813. S17, 831, 



CXXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Kirst V. street Improvement Dis- 
trict Xo. 120 (— Ark. , 109 

S. W. 526 [1908] ), 697, 909. 

Kirtland v. Parker ( — X. J. , 

68 Aitl. 913 [1908]), 693, 9.51, 
1405. . 
Kirwan v. Fislier ( 4 Mo. App. 574 

[1877]), 725, 950. 
Kirwin v. Xevin (111 Ky. 682, 64 S. 
W. 647, 23 Ky. L. R. 947 [1901]). 
18, 1164, 1194, 1207, 1526. 
Kittinger v. City of Buffalo (148 
X. Y. 332, 42 *X. E. 803 [1896]). 
266, 356, 459, 636. 
Kizer v. Town of Winchester (141 
Ind. 694, 40 X. E. 265 [1895]), 
119, 324, 1005, 1282. 
Klein v. City of Cincinnati ( 7 Ohio 

C. C. 266 [1893]), 1-18. 
Klein v. Xugent Gravel Company 
(162 Ind. 509, 70 X. E. 801 
[1903]), 575, 620, 626, 656. 929. 
1004. 
Klein v. Xugent Gravel Company 

(— Ind. App. , 66 X. E. 486 

[1903]), 118, 575, 626, 929, 1004. 
Klein v. Tuhey (13 Ind. App. 74, 40 
X. E. 144 [1895]), 555, 750, 751, 
763. 

Kline v. Hagey ( — Ind. , 81 X. 

E. 209 [1907]), 950. 
Kline v. City of Tacoma (11 Wash. 
193, 39 Pac. 453 [1895]), 229, 
1006, 1007. 
Klinger v. The People ex rel. Con- 
kle (130 111. 509, 22 X. E. 600 
[1890]), 247, 564. 573, 692. 
Knapp V. City of Brookl.yn (97 X. 
Y. 520 [1884]), 1422, 1451, 1463, 
1486, 1489. 
Knapp V. City of Brooklyn (28 Hun, 

500 [1882]"), 1422, 1451. 
Knapp V. Heller (32 Wis. 467 

[1873]), 1436. 
Knapp V. Mayor and Council of City 
of Hoboken (38 X. J. L. (9 Vr.) 
371 [1876]), 1218. 1508. 1511. 
1518, 1525. 
Knaiist, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (101 X. Y. 188, 4 X. E. 
338 [1886]). 266, 495, 837. 
Kneeland v. Furlong (20 Wis. 437 
[1866]), 1432 



Kneeland v. City of Milwaukee (18 
Wis. 411 [1864]). 53, 223, 234, 
821, 823, 1432. 
Knell V. City of Buffalo ( 54 Hun 
(X. Y.) 80, 7 X. Y. Sup. 233 
[1889]), 1442. 
Knickerbocker v. People (102 111. 

218), 180. 
Knoppi V. Gilsonite Roofing & Pav- 
ing Company ( 92 Mo. App. 279, 
[1901]), 806, 811. 
Knowles v. Scale (64 Cal. 377. 1 
Pac. 159 [1883]), 367, 437, 574. 
862. 

Knowles v. Temple ( — Wash. . 

96 Pac. 1 [1908]). 1066, 1067, 
1072. 
Knowlton v. Board of Supervisors of 
Rock County (9 Wis. 410 [1859]), 
35. 
Knox V. Police Jury of West Baton 
Rouge (4 La. Ann. 62 [1849]), 
1511. 
Knox County v. Xichols ( 14 0. S. 

260), 365. 
Kodderly v. Portland (44 Or. 118, 
74 Pac. 710, 75 Pac. 222 [1903]), 
956. 
Koehler v. Hill (60 la. 543, 14 X. 

W. 738, 15 X. W. 609), 216. 
Koestenbader v. Peirce (41 la. 204 

[1875]), 72. 
Kohler Brick Co. v City of Toledo 
(29 Ohio C. C. 5.99 [1907]), 609, 
629, 741, 848. 
Kokomo, City of v. Mahan ( 100 Ind. 

242 [1884]), 388. 
Koller V. City of La Crosse ( 106 
Wis. 369, 82 X. W. 341 [1900]), 
67, 70, 77, 308, 1521. 
Koons V. Lucas (52 la. 177, 3 X. 
W. 84 [1879]), 380, 381, 463, 601. 
Kootenai County v. Hope Lumber 
Co. (13 Idaho, 262. 89 Pac. 1054 
[1907]), 22. 
Kotheimer v. Louisville Interurban 
R. R. Co. (Ky.) 89 S. W. 104, 
28 Ky. L. R. 298 [1905]), 2. 
Kramer v. City of Los Angeles ( 147 
Cal. 668, 82 Pac. 334 [1905]). 324. 
326, 400. 426. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXVll 



[References are to sections.] 



Kraut V. City of Dayton ( — Ky. 

. 97 S. W. 1101 '[190a]), 1168, 

1195, 1203. 
Kreling v. Miiller (SO L'al. 46.5, 25 

Pac. 10 [1890] I, 684. 



Kretsch 

[18741). 

1.352. 
Kretsch 

[1871]), 



Helm (45 Intl. 
500. 948. 1337, 



438 
1350. 



101 



. Helm, 38 Ind. 
496, 1350, 1352. 
Krumberg v. City of Cincinnati (29 

0. S. 69 [1875]), 90, 113, 422, 

425, 426, 548, 574, 828. 832. 
Krutz V. Gardner (25 Wash. 396, 65 

Pac. 771 [1901]). 1068, 1195, 1225. 
Krutz V. Gardner (18 Wash. 332, 

51 Pac. 397 [1897]), 995. 1179, 

1204, 1223, 1225, 1243. 
Kuehner v. City of Freeport ( 143 111. 

92, 17 L. R.' A. 774, 32 X. E. 372 

[1893]), 103, 104, 236, 601, 623, 

665, 666, 670, 688, 715, 876. 
Kuester v. City of Chicago (187 111. 

21, 58 X. E. 307 [1900]). 864, 

1305, 1379. 
Kuhna v. 'City of Omaha (55 Xeb. 

183, 75 X. W. 562 [1898] I, 308. 

430. 570. 620, 622, 653, 1381. 
Kumnier v. Cincinnati (27 Ohio C. 

C. R. 683 [1905]). 051. 654, 690. 

693, 699. 
Kunst V. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (173 HI. 79, 50 X. E. 168 

[1898]), 927, 928, 987, 1000, 1183. 
Kutchin v. Engolln-et ( 129 Cal. 035. 

62 Pac. 214 [1900]). 510, 639. 641. 

840. 



L, In re Avenue, in City of Xew 

York (95 X. Y. S. 245." 107 Apj). 

Div. 581 [1905]). 427, 018. 
L'Hote V. Village of Milford (212 

HI. 418, 103 Am. St. Rep. 234, 72 

X. E. ,399 [1904]), 181, 784. 
La Veine v. Cit.v of Kansas City ( 07 

Kan. 239. 72 Pac. 774 [1903]). 

516. 570. 
Laakman v. Pritchard (100 Ind. 24. 

66 X. E. 153 [1902] I. 877. 1007. 



Labs V. Cooper (107 Cal. 656, 40 

Pac. Rep. 1042 [1895]), 824, 886. 
Lacey v. City of Marslialltown (99 

la. 367, 68 X. W. 726), 603, 604, 

640. 
Lacey Levee & Drainage District. 

Commissioners of v. Langellier 

(215 HI. 271, 74 X. E. 148 

[1905]), 340, 1371. 
Lackland v. Walker (151 Mo. 210. 

52 S. W. 414 [1899]), 1053. 1057. 
Lacoste v. City of Xew Orleans (119 

La. 469, 44" So. 267 [1907]), 515. 
Ladd V. Gambell (35 Ore. 393, 59 

Pac. 113), 147. 
Ladd V. City of Portland (32 Or. 

271, 67 Ani. St. Rep. 526, 51 Pac. 

654 [1898]), 166, 172, 373. 374, 

380, 381, 617, 648. 
Ladd V. Spencer (23 Ore. 123, 31 

Pac. Rep. 474), 223, 234, 501, 735, 

749, 754, 777, 848, 864. 
Lafayette, City of v. Fowkr ( 34 

Ind. 140 [1870]!. 204, 388, 416. 

464, 783. 
Lafayette, City of v. The ilale Or- 
phans' Asylum (4 La. Ann. 1 

[1849]), 42, 155, 589, 613. 
Lafayette. City of v. Shultz (44 Ind. 

97 [1873]),' 1519. 
Laflin v. City of Chicago (48 HI. 

449 [1868]"), 475. 477, 950. 902. 

908, 975. 
Laguna Drainage District v. Charles 

Martin ( 144 Cal. 209. 77 Pac. 933 

[1904]), 83, 292, 335, 030. 059. 

670, 708. 
Laimbeer v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonaltv of the City of Xew 

York (0 X. \^ Sup. Ct." Rep. 109 

[1850]), 279, 281, 813, 886, 1375. 
Lake v. City of Decatur (91 111. 

596 [1879]), 51, 103, 104. 550. 

553, 553, 623, 642. 723, 862, 867. 
LaKe V. Trustees of the Village of 

Williamsburg (4 Denio. 520 

[1847]), 1506. 
Lake Erie «& Western Railway Com- 
pany V. Bowkcr (9 Ind. App. 428. 

36 X. E. Rep. 864 [1893]). 324, 

594. 590. 598. 886. 891. 918. 1026. 

107s. 1224. 1305 



CXXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co. 
V. Cluggish (143 Ind. 347, 42 N. 
E. 743 [1895]), 661. 

Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. v. 
Walters (13 Ind. App. 275, 41 N. 
E. 465 [1895]), 543. 

Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Watkins 
(157 Ind. 600, 62 X. E. 443), 142, 
1347. 

Lake Fork Special Drainage Dis- 
trict, Commissioners of v. The 
People ex rel. Bodman ( 138 111. 
87, 27 N. E. 857 [1892]), 340, 564, 
1477. 

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 
Railway Company v. City of Chi- 
cago (148 111. 509, 37 "x. E. 88 
[1894]), 228, 229, 426. 

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 
Railway Company v. City of Chi- 
cago (144 111. 391, 33 X< E. 602 
[1893]), 495, 497, 804. 

Lake Shore & ^Michigan Southern 
Railway Co. v. City of Grand Rap- 
ids, 102 Mich. 374, 29 L. R. A. 
195, 60 X. VV. 767 [1894]), 42. 

314, 594, 595, 598, 614, 1078. 
Lake Street Elevated Railroad Com- 
pany V. City of Chicago (183 111. 
75, 47 L. R. A. 624, 55 X. E. 721 
[1899]), 601, 617. 

Lake Washington Waterway Co. v. 
Seattle Dock Co., (35 Wash. 503, 
77 Pac. 845 [1904]), 124. 

Lakeview Avenue, In re, in City of 

S.eattle (— Wash. , 89 Pac. 

156 [1907]), 697. 

Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. v. 
City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 32 
L. R. A. 157, 26 S. W. 1025. 31 
S. \N. 756 [1895]), 8. 39, 47, 50. 
145, 212. 

Lamb v. City of Chicago (219 111. 
229, 76 X. E. 343 [1906]), 295, 

315, 387, 464, 670, 715, 920, 1375. 
Lamb v. Elizabeth City (131 X. C. 

241, 42 S. E. 603 [1902]), 67. 
Lambert v. Bates (148 Cal. 146. 82 

Pac. 767 [1905]), 301, 531, 1366. 
Lambert v. Bates (137 Cal. 676, 70 

Pac. 777), 531, 537, 1005, 1007, 

1030, 1337. 



Lambert v. Marcuse ( 137 Cal. 44, 

69 Pac. 620 [1902]), 315, 831, 864. 
Lambert v. Mills County (58 la. 

666, 12 X. W. 715), 142. 
Lambertville, Inhabitants of the 

Town of V. Clevinger ( 30 X. J. 

L. (1 Vr.) 53 [1862]), 71. 
Lammers v. Balfe (41 Ind. 218 

[1872]), 526, 964, 983, 1118, 1191, 

1377, 1392. 
Landes v. State ex rel. ^latson ( KiO 

Ind. 479, 07 X. E. 189 [1903]). 

845. 
Lands, Owners of v. People ex rel. 

Stookey (113 111. 290 [1880]), 

119, 249. 
Lane v. Burnap ( iO Midi. 730 

[1878]), 747. 764, 1003, 1278. 

1402. 
Lane v. ]\Iorrel (3 Edward's Chan. 

Rep. 185 [1838]), 887, 1059, 1008. 
Lanfersiek v. City of Cincinnati (28 

Ohio C. C. 822'[1904]), 657, 1432. 
Lang V. Kiendl (27 Hun 66 [1882]), 

961. 
Langan v. Bitzer ( — Ky. . 82 

S. W. 280, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 579 

[1904]), 323. 420,"^ 475, 575, 891, 

977, 979, 981, 1330. 
Lange, In the Matter of the Ap- 
plication of to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (85 X. Y. 307 [1881]), 265, 

482, 495, 496, 989, 1455. 
Langhor v. Smith (81 Ind. 495 

[1882]), 1191, 1297, 1450. 
Langlois v. Cameron (201 111. 301, 

66 X. E. 332 [1903]), 136, 263, 

620, 623, 631, 751. 895, 1196. 
Langmead v. City of Cincinnati ( 29 

Ohio C. C. 64*^ [1906]), 417, 658. 
Langsdale v. Xicklans (38 Ind. 289 

[1871]), 526, 1067. 
Lanning v. Palmer (117 Mich. 529. 

76 X. W. 2 [1898]), 373, 375, 738. 
Lanphere v. City of Chicago (212 

111. 440, 72 X. E. 426 [1904]), 

570. 804. 
Lansing v. Cit.v of Lincoln ( 32 Xeb. 

457, 49 X. W. 650 [1891]). 321, 

619, 713. 
Lansing, City of v. Van Gorder ( 24 

Midi. 456 [1872]), 1512. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXXXIX 



[References are to sections.] 



Lanster v. Meyers ( — Ind. , 84 

X. E. 1087 [1908]), 1384. 
Lantz V. Fishburn ( — C'al. App. 

, 91 Pac. 81G [1900]), 1112, 

1174, 1177, 1181, 1200. 
Laporte County, Board of Commis- 
sioners of V. Wolff ( — Ind. , 

72 N. E. 860 [1904]), .534. 1449. 
Large v. Kien's Creek Draining Co. 

(30 Ind. 263, 95 Am. Dec. 696 

[1868] ), 340, 905, 1231. 
Larned v. Maloney (19 Ind. App. 

199. 49 X. E. 278 [1898]), 509. 
Larson v. City of Chicago (172 111. 

298, 50 X.'e. 179 [1898]). 772, 

900, 927, 935, 936, 947. 986. 996. 

1183, 1340. 1379. 
Larson v. People ex rel. Kochcrsper- 

ger (170 111. 93. 48 X. E. 443 

[1897]), 745. 765, 902, 927, 930, 

936. 986, 993, 996, 1183, 1340, 

1379. 
Lasbury v. McCague ( 56 Xeb. 220, 

76 X. W. 862 [1898]), 342, 1072, 

1431, 1450. 
Latham v. Village of Wilmette (168 

111. 153, 48 X. E. 311 [1897]), 

517, 518. 557, 657. 672, 923, 1085, 

130f), 1333. 
I.<athrop V. Citj'^ of Buffalo ( 3 Abb. 

Ct. App. (X. Y.) 30 [1861]), 223, 

234, 569, 785. 
Lathrop v. City of Racine (119 Wis. 

461, 97 X. W. 192 [1903]), 92, 

98, 3()2, 713, 717. 
Lathrop Township, /» re, Road in 

(84 Pa. St. (3 Xorris) 126 

[1877]), 925. 
Laverty v. State ex rel. Hill (109 

Ind. 217, 9 X. E. 774 [1886]), 73, 

340. 403. 1156. 1251, 1346. 
Laubach v. O'Meara (107 Mich. 29. 

()4 X. W. 865 [1895]), 403. 
Laughlin v. Avers (66 Ind. 445 

[1879]), 280, "l250. 
Law V. Johnston (118 Ind. 261. 20 

X. E. 745 [1888]), 119. 301. 773, 

1141. 
Law V. ]\Iadison. Smyrna & Graham 

Turnpike Company (30 Ind. 77 

[1868]), 11, 43, 89. 145. 284. 322. 

639. 651, 654. 665. 666. 688. 
Lawrpjic(>, ( itv of v. Killam (11 



Kan. 499 [1873]) 323, 440, 474. 

486, 562, 620, 663, 1431, 1432, 

1435. 
Lawrence v. People ex rel. Foote 

(188 111. 407, 58 X. E. 991 

[1900]), 525, 1183, 1469. 
Lawrence, City of v. Webster (167 

Mass. 513, 46 X. E. 123), 756. 
Le Breton v. Morgan ( 4 Mart. ( La. ) 

X. S. 138, 142 [1826]), 155. 
Le Moyne v. City of Chicago (175 

111. 356, 51 X. E. 718 [1898]), 

381, 386, 943, 966, 995. 
Le !Moyne v. West Chicago Park 

Commissioners (116 111. 41, 4 X. 

E. 498. 6 X. E. 48 [1886]), 745, 

763, 913, 918, 986, 1340, 
LeRoy v. ]\Iayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (20 John Sup. Ct. 430, 11 

Am. Dec. 289 [1823]), 557, 558, 

1394. 
Lea V. City of Memphis (68 Tenn. 

(9 Baxter) 103 [1877]), 1439, 

1483. 
Leake v. City of Philadelphia (171 

Pa. St. 125, 32 Atl. 1110 [1895]), 

291, 382, 383. 1431. 
Leake v. Philadelphia (1.50 Pa. St. 

643, 24 Atl. 351 [1892]), 383, 1411. 
Leake and Watts Orphan Home, In 

the Matter of the Petition of the 

Trustees of the, in the City of 

Xew York to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (92 X. Y. 116 [1883]), 194. 

195. 324. 432, 479, 482, 484, 485, 

1454. 
Leakman v. Pritchard (160 Ind. 24, 

66 X. E, 153 [1902]), 531. 
Lear v. Halstead (41 0. S. 566 

[1885]), 629, 781, 1028, 
Leary v, Gardnei (63 X, Y. 624), 

1460, 
Leavenworth, Cit.v of v. .lones (69 

Kan. 857, 77 "Pao. 273 [1904]), 

1440, 
Leavenworth, City of v. Laing (6 

Kan. 274 [1870]), 580. 
Leavenworth. City of v. Mills (6 

Kan. 288 [1870]), 538. 950, 1375, 

1508. 
Leavenworth, City of v. Stille (13 

Kan. 539 [1874]) 1.5(18. 



cxl 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Leavenworth County v. Miller ( 7 
Kan. 479, 12 Am.' Rep. 425), 365. 

Leavitt v. Bell (55 Xeb. 57, 75 N. 
W. 524 [1898]), 745, 763, 775, 
781, 884, 911, 1057, 1304. 

Lebanon & Northern Ry. Co. v. Cin- 
cinnati (02 0. S. 465. 49 L. R. A. 
566, 57 N. E. 229 [1900]). 700. 

Leeds v. Defrees (157 Ind. 392, 61 
K E. 930 [1901]), 86, 119, 301, 
620, 690, 699, 745, 781, 1060, 1244, 
1375. 

Leeds v. City of Richmond ( 102 Ind. 
372, 1 N. E. 711 [1885]), 245, 293, 

392, 400, 476, 1005, 1007. 
Lefevre v. Mayor, etc., of Detroit 

(2 Mich. 586 [1853]), 42, 314, 

415, 525, 588, 613, 614, 886, 887. 
Legsett V. City of Detroit (137 

Mich. 247, 100 X. W. 566 [1904]), 

616. 
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. City of 

Chicago (26 Fed. 413 [1880])", 71. 
Lehmaier v. Jones (91 N. Y. S. 687, 

100 App. Div. 495 [1905]), 1054. 
Lehman v. McBride ( 15 0. S. 573 

[1864]), 189. 
Lehmer v. People ex rel. Miller (80 

111. 601 [1875]), 393, 396. 455, 

927, 937, 986, 1340. 
Lehmers v. City of Chicago (178 111. 

530, 53 X. E. 394 [1899]). 570, 

862, 865. 
Leighton v. Ricker I 173 Mass. 564, 

54 X. E. 254). 1072. 
Leindecker v. The People ex rel. 

Johnson (98 111. 21), 45, 1126, 

1176, 1188. 
Leinen v. Elter (43 Hun (X. Y.) 

249 [1887]), 1056. 
Leitch V. Village of La Grange (138 

lU. 291, 27 X. E. 917 [1892]). 

324, 610, 653, 6.55, 658, 603, 670. 
Leitch V. People ex rel. Gannaway 

(183 111. 569, 56 X. E. 127 

[1900]), 745, 769, 772, 927, 928. 
Leman v. City of Lake View (131 

111. 388, 23 X\ E. 346 [1890]). 

393, 390, 547, 587, 775, 909. 
Lembeck v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Jersey City " ( 30 X\ J. Eq. ( 3 
Stew.) 554 [1879]). 141.5. 



Lemont, Village of v. .Jenks ( 197 
111. 303, 90 Am. St. Rep. 172, 64 
X. E. 362 [1902]), 6, 98, 354, 708, 
717, 1039. 

Lennon v. Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the City of Xew 
York (55 X. Y. 361 [1874]), 166, 
167, 983, 1337, 1451. 

Lennon v. Mayor, etc., of City of 
Xew l^ork (o Daly (X. Y.)"^ 347 
[1874]). 983, 1113, 1196, 1426, 
1427. 

Lenon v. Brodie (81 Ark. 208, 98 
S. W. 979 [1906]), 553, 5.55, 795, 
801, 1277. 

Lent V. Tillson ( 140 U. S. 316, 35 
L. 419, 11 S. 825 [1891]). 119, 
121, 133, 250, 251, 252, 266, 292, 
309, 553, 728, 760, 761, 1370. 

Lent V. Tillson (72 Cal. 404, 14 Pac. 

71 [1887]), 86, 119, 125, 244, 247, 
250, 251, 252, 266, 292, 293, -298, 
309, 553, 726, 728, 745, 751, 760, 
761, 918, 1015, 1026, 1333, 1337, 
1370, 1414, 1431. 

Lentz V. City of Dallas ( 96 Tex. 258, 

72 S. W.59 [1903]), 93, 96, 323, 
419, 420, 702, 717. 

Leominster, Inhabitants of v. Con- 
ant (139 Mass. 384, 2 X. E. 690 

[1885]), 324, 367, 527, 625, 6.58. 

707, 8.34, 855, 1067, 1130. 
Leonard v. City of Brooklyn (71 X. 

Y. 498, 27 Am. Rep. 80 h 580. 
Leonard v. Sparks (63 Mo. App. 585 

[1895]). 735, 747, 770. 
Leslie v. City of St. Louis (47 Mo. 

474 [1871]). .308, 391, 394. 426, 

1426, 1430. 
Lester, In the ]Matter of (21 Hun 

(X. Y.) 130 [1880]), 205, 1455. 
Lester v. City of Seattle (42 Wash. 

539, 85 Pac. 14 [1900]), 301. 965, 

990, 1447. 
Levee Commissioners, Board of v. 

Lario Bros. (33 La. Ann. 276 

[1881]), 343. 
Lever. In re (1 Ch. 32 [1897]), 

1055. 
Levi V. Louisville (97 Ky. 394, 28 

L. R. A. 480, 30 S. W. 973). 613. 
Levy. In the Matter of (4 Hun 501 

[1875]), 740. 747. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxli 



[References are to sections.] 



Levy V. City of Chicago iW.i 111. 

050 [1886]), 313, 804. 
Levy V. Superior Court of San Fran- 
oisco (lt)7 U. S. 175. 17 S. 769). 
715. 
Levy V. Wilcox (96 Wis. 127. 70 

N. W. 1109 [1897]). 3. 
Lewis, In the Matter of (51 Barb. 
(N. Y.) 82 [1868]), 469, 505. 
1455. 
Lewis, In the matter of ( 35 Howard 
162 [1868]), 266, 469. 485. 505, 
532, 537. 740, 843, 844, 848, 1452. 
Lewis V. Albertson (23 Ind. App. 
147, 53 X. E. 1071 [1899]). 301, 
405, 568, 728. 831, 1150, 1;229, 
1234, 1235.- 1240, 1242, 1249, 1262, 
1275. 
Lewis V. City of Elizabeth (25 N. 
J. Eq. (IOC. E. Gr.) 298 [1874]), 
515, 570, 1432. 
Lewis V. Laylin (46 O. S. 663, 23 
N. E. 288 [189911, 322. 672, 690, 
1416. 
Lewis V. City of Xew Britain (52 

Conn. 568 [1885]), 323. 
Lewis, In the Matter o-f the Petition 
of V. Mayor, etc., of the City of 
New xork (35 How. (X. Y.) 162 
[1868]), 374. 381. 

Lewis V. Schmidt ( — Ky. , 43 

S. W. 433, 19 Ky. L. kep. 1315), 
431. 
Lewis V. City of Seattle (28 W3sh. 
639. 69 Pac. 393 [1902]), 166. 
263. 268, 414. 440, 569. 666. 670. 
690, 725. 961. 969, 1169. 
Lewis V. Symnies (61 0. S. 471.' 76 
Am. St. Pep. 428, 56 X. E. 194 
[1899]). 174. 189, 252. 
Lewis County v. Gordon (20 Wash. 

80. 54 Pac. 779 [1898] ). 338. 
Lexington, City of, on A])peal (96 
Ky. 258. 28 S. W. 665 [1894]), 
209. 508. 1502. 
Lexington, City of v. Bowman (119 
Ky. 840. 84 S. W. 1161. 27 Ky. 
Law Rep. 286 [1905]); (petition 
for rehearing overruled in 85 S. 
W. 1191, 27 Ky. Law Pep. 651), 
1021. 1167. 
Lexington, Citv of, ex rel. ^Menefee 



V. Commercial Bank ( — Mo. App. 

, 108 S. W. 1095 [1908]), 499. 

830. 
Lexington, City of v. Headley (68 

Ky. (5 Bush.) 508 [1869])"^. 843. 

951, 1279, 1280, 1304. 
Lexington, The Mayor, etc., of City 

of V. Long (31 Mo. 369 [1861]). 

309. 698, 716, 1366. 
Lexington, City of v. McC^uillan's 

Heirs (39 Ky. (9 Dana) 513. 35 

Am. Dec. 159 [1839]), 12, 22, 34. 

86, 100, 111, 147, 154, 245, 301. 

308, 628. 662, 688, 710, 779, 781, 

791, 843. 
Lexington, City of v. Walby ( — Ky. 

, 109 S. VV. 299 [1908]), 527. 

Lexington Avenue. Matter of (92 X. 

Y. 629 [1883]), 188. 
Lexington Avenue, Matter of (29 

Hun 303 [1883]), 188. 
Lexington Avfenue, In the MattiM- .>f 

Opening (50 Howard (X. Y.) 114 

[1874]). 855, 1016. 
Libbey v. Elsworth (97 Cal. 316, 3Z 

Pac'. 228 [1893]), 491, 522, 1235. 
Ljijeity Township Draining Associa- 
tion V. Watkins (72 Ind. !59 

[1880]), 564, 1273, 1337. 
Liebermann v. City of Mihvaukea 

(89 Wis. 33(), 61 X. W. 1112 

[1895]), 62, 266. 428, 777, 862, 

981, 1196, 1426, 1427. 
Liebstein v. Mayor and Common 

Council of the City of Xewark (24 

X. .1. Eq. (9 C\ E. Gr.) 200 

[1873]), 16, 531, 534, 536, 1015, 

1423, 1424, 1436. 
Lien v. Board of County Commis- 
sioners of X'orman Count.v (80 

:\Iinn. 58, 82 X. W. 1094 [1900]). 
86, 97, 194, 335, 340, 449. 
Lienen v. Elter (43 Hun (X. Y. ) 

249 [1887]), 1443. 
Ligare v. City of Chicago ( i;j9 111. 
46, 32 Am. St. Rep. 179, 28 X. 
E. 934), 298. 
Lightner v. City of Peoria (150 ill. 
80, 37 X. E. 69 [1894]), 51, 245, 
250, 258, 555, 574, 587. 601, 603, 
604. 623. 643. 651. CA\V>, 670, 677, 
68S. 715. 72.'!. 872. 1()^'5. 1333. 



cxlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Lill V. The City of Chicago (29 111. 

31 [1862]), 223, 234, 554, 620, 

670, 707, 941, 1341. 
Lima v. Cemetery Association (42 

0. S. 128, 51 Am. Rep. 809 

[1884]), 11, 35, 42, 301, 592, 613, 

614, 1277. 
Linck V. City of Litchfield (141 111. 

469, 31 N. E. 123 [1893]), 181, 

245, 258, 281, 764, 883, 1183, 1299. 

1303, 1305, 1317, 1372. 
Lincoln v. Board of Street Commis- 
sioners of the City of Boston ( 176 

Mass. 210, 57 N. E. 356 [1900]), 

64, 65, 66, 103, 118, 156, 350, 549, 

556, 572, 642, 645, 651, 654. 656, 

666, 695, 702, 724, 893. 
Lincoln, City of v. Janesch (63 Neb. 

707, 93 Am. St. Rep. 478, 56 L. R. 

A. 762, 89 N. W. 280 [1902]), 90, 

420. 
Lincoln Avenue, In re, Jenkinson's 

Appeal (193 Pa. St. 435, 44 Atl. 

1102 [1899]), 383. 
Lincoln Ave., In re Rodger's Appeal 

(193 Pa. St. 432, 44 Atl. 1102 

[1899]), 462. 
Lindenberger Land Co. v. R. B. Park 

& Co. (— Ky. , 85 S. W. 213, 

27 Ky. L. Rep. 437 [1905]). 301, 

541, 575, 656, 822. 
Lindsay v. City of Chicago (115 111. 

120, 3 N. E. 443 [1886]), 837, 843, 

923, 951, 1280. 1281, 1299, 1304. 
Lindsay v. Commissioners (2 Bay 

(S. C.) 38 [1796]), 359. 
Lindsey v. Brawner ( — Ky. , 

97 S. W. 1, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1236 

[1906]), 301, 462," 524. 
Lingenfelter v. Danville and Xorth 

Salem Gravel Road Co. (33 Ind. 

133 [1870]), 723. 
Lingle v. City of Chicago (172 111. 

170, 50 N." E. 192 [1898]), 223, 

234, 266, 765, 914, 1304. 
Lingle v. City of Chicago (212 111. 

512, 72 N.' E. 677 [1904]), 913, 

914, 1368. 
Lingle v. City of Chicago (210 111. 

600, 71 N. E. 590 [1904]). 1348, 

1356. 
Lingle v. West Chicago Park Com- 



missioners (222 111. 384, 78 N. E. 

794 [1906]), 293, 348, 356, 368, 

418, 451, 653, 920. 
Linne v. Bredes ( 43 Wash. 540, 6 

L. R. A. (X. S.) 707, 86 Pac. 858 

[1906]), 1050. 1072. 
Linneus, City of v. Locke (25 Mo. 

App. 407 [1887]), 1135, 1137. 
Linville v. State ex rel. (130 Ind. 

210, 29 X. E. 1129), 267, 814. 
Lipes V. Hand (104 Ind. 503, 1 X. 

E. 871, 4 X. E. 160 [1885]), 202, 

284, 287, 340, 341, 549, 564, 654. 
Lippert v. Parker (76 0. S. 568, 81 

N. E. 1189 [1907]), 839. 
Lippert v. City of Toledo (29 Ohio 

C. C. 345 [1906]), 839. 
Lisbon Avenue Land Co. v. Town of 

Lake (— Wis. . 113 X. W, 

1099 [1907]), 93, 96, 374, 717. 

867. 
Lister v. City of Tacoma ( 44 Wash. 

222, 87 Pac. 126 [1906]), 301. 

541, 1085. 
Litchfield v. McComber (42 Barb. 

288 [1864]), 8, 89, 1214. 
Litchfield v. Vernon (41 X^. Y. 123 

[1869]), 11, 100, 110, 781. 
Litchfield & Madison Railway Com- 
pany V. People, ex rel. McCormick 

(225 111. 301, 80 X. E. 335 

[1907]), 322. 
Little, In the Matter of (60 X. Y. 

343 [1875]), 740, 762, 836, 1466. 
Little, In the Matter of (3 Hun (X. 

Y.) 215 [1874]), 740, 836, 1466. 
Little V. City of Chicago (46 111. 

App. 534 [i892]), 601, 1080, 1277, 

1469, 1506, 1518. 
Little V. City of Portland (26 Ore. 

235, 37 Pac. 911 [1894]), 507. 

1504, 1508, 1510, 1511. 
Little V. City of Rochester (87 Hun 

493, 34 X. Y. S. 1010 [1895]), 
721, 1037, 1090. 

Little Rock, City of v. Board of Im- 
provements, etc. (42 Ark. 152 
[18S3]), 89, 103, 105, 151, 247, 
249. 256, 266, 268, 1469. 

Little Rock v. Fitzgerald (59 Ark. 

494, 28 L. R. A. 496, 28 S. W. 32 
[1894]). 55, 313, 443, 713. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxliii 



[References are to sections.] 



Little Rock v. Katzenstein ( 52 Ark. 
107, 12 S. W. 19S [18S9]), 103, 
151, 548, 549, G19, 621, 626, 651, 
653. 

Little Eock & Ft. Smitli Railway 
Company v. Allister (68 Ark. 600, 
60 S. W. 953 [1901]), 66. 

Livingston, In the Matter of tlie Pe- 
tition of to Vacate an Assessment 
(121 N. Y. 94, 24 X. E. 290 
[1890]), 16, 263, 271, 484, 485, 
584, 670, 981, 1451, 1454, 1463. 

Livingston v. Xew York (8 Wend. 
(N. Y.) 85, 22 Am. Dec. 622), 
73, 110, 147. 

Loan Association v. Topeka ( 87 U. 
S. (20 Wall.) 655, 22 L. 455), 
283. 

i^oekwood v. Gehlert (53 Hun (N. 
Y.) 15, 6 N. Y. Supp. 20 [1889]), 
1181, 1197. 

Lockwood V. City of St. Louis (24 
Mo. 20 [1856]'), 11, 78, 147, 324, 
588, 612, 613, 1420, 1426. 

Locust Avenue, In the Matter of 
Opening, in Village of Port Ches- 
ter (185 X. Y. 115, 77 X. E. 1012 
[1906]), 477, 663, 776, 783. 

Locust Avenue, Matter of (97 X. Y. 
S. 508, 110 App. Div. 774 [1906]). 
477, 783. 

Locust Avenue, In re (87 X. Y. S. 
798, 93 App. Div. 416 [1904]), 
263, 775. 

Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees 
(179 U. S. 472, 45 L. 280, 21 S. 
174 [1901]), 189, 698, 702, 1374, 
1502. 

Loeb v. Trustees of Columbia Town- 
ship, Hamilton County, 0. (91 
Fed. 37 [1899]), 81, 118, 189, 666, 
698, 702, 709, 1374, 1502. 

Loeser v. Redd & Bro. (77 Ky. (14 
Bush.) 18 [1878]), 629, 977. 

Loesnitz v. Seelinger (127 Ind. 422, 
25 X. E. 1037, 26 X. E. 887 
[1890]), 266, 268, 270, 322, 416, 
423, 432, 465, 479, 540, 739, 951, 
1004, 1337, 1366, 1435. 

Loew, In the Matter of (90 X. Y. 
666 [1882]), 1373. 

Logansport, City of v. Humphrey 
(84 Ind. 467), 1206. 



Logansport, City of v. Legg (20 Ind. 

315 [1863]), 843. 
Logansport, City of v. Shirk (129 

Ind. 352, 28 X. E. 538 [1891]), 
101, 119, 126, 729, 748. 
Logansport, City of v. Uhl (99 Ind. 

531, 50 Am." Rep. lOJ [1884]), 

1015. 
Lohrum v. Eyermann (5 Mo. App. 

481 [1878]), 11, 1346. 
Lombard v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (181 U. S. 33, 45 L. 

731, 21 S. 507 [1901]), 51, 314. 

356, 407, 414, 715, 959, 962, 1370. 
London and Xorthwest American 

Mortgage Company v. Gibson (77 

Minn. 394, 80 X. W. 205, 777 
[1899]), 986, 998, 1149, 1180, 

1440. 
Londoner v. City and County of 

Denver (210 U. S. 373, 28 sl 708 

[1908]), 119, 251, 629, 731. 
Long V. lona Probate Judge ( 130 

Mich. 338, 89 X. W. 938), 1348. 
Long V. O'Rourke (10 Phil. 129), 

521. 
Long V. Ruch ( 148 Ind. 74, 47 X. 

E. 156), 1444. 
Long Branch Police, Sanitary and 

Improvement Commission v. Dob- 
bins (61 X. J. L. (32 Vr.) 659, 

40 Atl. 599 [1898]), 699, 925, 

956, 973, 1282, 1366. 
Lougwell V. Kansas City (69 Mo. 

App. 177 [1896]), 394," 757. 
Longworth v. Cit.y of Cincinnati (34 

O. S. 101 [1877]), 316, 432, 468, 

511, 542, 822. 
Long;s-ear v. Toolan (209 IT. S. 414, 

28 S. 506 [1908]), 119. 
Loomis v. City of Little Falls (176 

X. Y. 31, 68 X. E. 105 [1903]). 

141, 1337. 
Loomis V. City of Little Falls (72 

X. Y. S. 774, 66 App. Div. 299 

[1901]), 141. 1337. 
Lord, In the Matter of (78 X. Y. 

109 [1879]), 381, 479, 1016, 1461. 
Lord, In the Matter of (21 Hun 555 

[1880]), 1016, 1461. 
Lord v. Mayor and Council of City 

of Bayonne (65 X. J. L. (36 Vr.) 

127, 46 Atl. 701 [1900]), 956, 959. 



cxHv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Lorden v. Coffey (178 Mass. 489, 60 

N. E. 124 [i901]), 82, 103, 623, 

667, 677, 695, 709, 1067. 
Lorenz v. Armstrong ( 3 Mo. App. 

574), 393, 396. 
Los Angeles, City of v. Amidor (140 

Cal. 400, 73 Pac. 1049 [1903]), 

1490, 1496. 
Los Angeles Lighting Company v. 

City of Los Angeles ( 106 Cal. 156, 

39 Pac. Rep. 535 [1895]), 804, 

805, 810, 831. 
Louchheim v. Citj' of Philadelphia 

(218 Pa. 100, 66 Atl. 1121 

[1907]), 495. 
Louisiana, City of v. ilcAllister 

(104 Mo. App. 152. 78 S. W. 314 

[1903]), 748, 768. 
Louisiana v. Miller (06 Mo. 467 

[1877]), 323, 837, 1040. 
Louisiana v. Pillsburj' ( 105 U. S. 

278, 26 L. 1090 [1881]), 1469. 
Louisiana, City of v. Shaffner ( 104 

Mo. App. 101, 78 S. W. 287 

[1903]), 53. 55, 501, 510, 840. 
Louisiana Improvement Company v. 

Baton Rouge Electric & Gas Com- 

pany (114 La. 534, 38 So. 444 

[1905]), 599, 663, 725, 1028, 1215, 

1216, 1224, 1503. 
Louisville, City of v. American 

Standard Asphalt Co. ( — Ky. 

, 102 S. W. 806, 31 Ky. L. 

R. 133 [1907]), 628, 666, 709,^^710, 

977, 979, 1505. 
Louisville, City of v. Bitzer (115 

Ky. 359, 61 L. R. A. 434, 73 S. 

W. 1115, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2263 

[1903]), 651, 674, 678. 
Louisville, City of v. Henderson (5 

Bush. (68 Ky.) 515 [1869]), 517, 

518, 1224. 
Louisville, City of v. Hyatt (41 Ky. 

(2 B. :Monroe) 177, 36 Am. Dec. 

594 [1841]), 86, 147, 245, 301, 

488, 783, 789, '843, 1509. 
Louisville, City of v. Leatherman 

(99 Ky. 213, 35 S. W. 625 

ri896[)', 586, 612. 1077, 1498, 

1508. 
Loiiisville, Cit.y of v. Louisville Roll- 
ing Mill Company (66 Ky. (3 



Bush.) 416, 96 Am. Dec. 243 

[1867]), 71, 111, 678. 
Louisville, City of v. MeXaughton 
(114 Ky. 333, 70 S. W. 841 

[1902]),' 1164, 1526. 
Louisville v. Xevin (73 Ky. (10 

Bush.) 549, 19 Am. Rep. 78 

[1874]), 42. 
Louisville, City of v. Osborne (73 

Ky. (10 Bush.) 226 [1874]), 352, 

628. 
Louisville, City of v. Selvage ( 106 

Ky. 730. ol's. W. 447, 52 S. W. 

809 [1899]), 465, 479, 519, 628, 

629, 675, 909, 710, 84^, 1108. 
Louisville, City of v. Tyler (111 Ky. 

588, 64 S. W. 415, 65 S. W. 125 

[1901]), 462. 
Louisville, City of v, Wible ( 84 Ky. 

290, 1 S. W. 605), 372. 
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. 

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. ( 197 

U. S. 430, 25 S. 466 [1905]), 115, 

118, 570, 594, 595, 598, 628, 702, 

1370. 
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. 

Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (116 

Ky. 856, 76 S. W. 1097, 25 Ky. 

L. R. 1024 [1903]), 118', 570, 594, 
• 595, 597, 598, 628, 630, 702, 1370. 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad 

Company v. County Court of 

Davidson County ( 33 Tenn. ( 1 

Sneed.) 637, 62 Am. Dec. 424 

[1854]), 365. 
Louisville and Nashville Railroad 

Company v. City of East St. Louis 

134 111. *656, 25 "n. E. 962 [1891]), 

223, 234, 293, 298, 359, 490, 561, 

597, 619, 776, 816, 849, 857, 895. 
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. 

V. Thompson (57 Ky. (18 B. 

Mon.) 735 [1857]), 69, 71. 
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago 

Ry. Co. V. State for Use of Beek- 

man (122 Ind. 443, 24 N. E. 350 

[1889]), 340, 598, 1065, 1078, 

1145, 1380. 
Louisville Ry. Co. v. Southwestern 

Alcatraz Asphalt & Construction 

Co. (— Ky. , 74 S. W. 237. 

24 Ky. Law Rep. 2380 [1903]), 

628, 629, 709, 710. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlv 



[References are to sections.] 



Louisville Steam Forge Co. v. An- 
derson {— (Ky.) , 57 8. W. 

617, 22 Ky. L.' Rep. 397). 352. 

Louisville Steam Forge Co. v. Meh- 
ler (112 Ky. 438, 64 S. W. 390, 64 
S. W. 652," 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1335 
[1901]), 73, 313, 314. 394, 431, 
436, 438, 1346. 

Lounsbury v. Potter {37 X. Y. Sup. 
Ct. 57 *[L'*''41), 1072. 

Love v. Howard (6 R. I. 110 
[1859] ). 49. 

Lovell V. City of St. Paul ( 10 Minn. 
290 [1805]), 746, 763, 1103, 1104. 
1177, 1178, 1512. 

Lovenberg v. City of Galveston (1? 
Tex. Civ. App."l62, 42 S. W. 1024 
[1897]). 42, 108, 118. 147. 245, 
301, 607. 1041. 1079. 

Low v. Dallas (165 Ind. 392, 75 X. 
E. 822 [1905]), 301. 740. 1229. 
1240. 1242. 1279. 

Low V. Madison. Smyrna & Graham 
Turnpike Company (30 Ind. 77 
[1808] I. 35. 

Lowden, In tlie flatter of the Peti- 
tion of to Vacate an Assessment ( 89 
X. Y. 548 [1882]). 119, 121, 324. 
468, 480, 663, 727, 729. 732. 750. 
915. 1455. 

Lowden, In the flatter of to Vacate 
an Assessment (25 Hun (X. Y. ) 
434 [1881]), 468. 

Lowden v. City of Cincinnati (2 Dis- 
ney (Ohio) "203 [1858]), 50, 849, 
1122, 1508. 

Lowe V. Board of Commissioners of 
Howard County (94 Ind. 553 
[1883]), 35, 580, 582, 1075. 

Lowell v. City of Boston (111 Masft. 
454, 15 Am. Rep. 39), 336. 410. 

Lowell, City of v. Hadley (49 Mass. 
(8 Met.)' 180 [1844])", 323, 420. 

Lowell, City of v. Wentworth (6!) 
Mass. (OCush.) 221 [1850]). 745, 
748, 981. 

Lower Chatliam and Little Falls, In 
the Matter of tlie Application for 
Drainage of Lands between, in 
the Counties of Passaic, Essex and 
Morris (35 X. J. L. (6 Vr.) 497 
[1872]), 101, 340, 677, 090, 691, 
887. 



Lower Kings River Reclamation Dis- 
trict Xo. 531 V. McCullah (124 
Cal, 175, 56 Pac. 887 [1899]), 129, 
269, 426, 486, 556, 773, 886, 895, 
1387. 

Lower Kings River Reclamation Dis- 
trict Xo. 531 V. Phillips (108 Cal 
306, 39 Pac. 630, 41 Pac. 335, 
[1895]), 118, 119, 123, 254, 280, 
340, 677, 770, 886, 923, 951, 1004. 
1005. 1006, 1008, 1277, 1313. 1331. 
1339. 

Lowerre v. Mayor Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the City of Xew 
York (46 Hun (X. Y.) 253 
[1887]), 70, 308, 030. 

Loweree v. City of Xewark ( 38 X. 
J. L. (9 Vr.) 151 [1875]), 70, 86. 
113, 308, 651, 1372. 

Lucas v. McCann (50 Mo. App. 638 
[1892]), 49. 

Lucas County v. Hunt (5 0. S. 488. 
67 Am. Dec. 303 [1856]), 486. 

Lucas, Turner & Co. v. San Fran- 
cisco (7 Cal. 403 [1857]). 16, 301, 
812, 830, 984, 1049, 1498, 1504. 
1512. 

Ludlow, City of v. Cincinnati South- 
ern Railway Company ( 78 Ky. 357 
[1880]), 301, 594, 598, 612." 

Ludlow v. Union Township Gravel 
Road Co. (77 Ind. 409 [1881]), 
1125, 1350. 

Lufkin V. City of Galveston (58 Tex. 
545 [1883]), 42, 174, 213. 323, 
607, 1049, 1272. 1277. 

Lumsden v. Cross (10 Wis. 282), 
163, 370. 

Lumsden v. Milwaukee ( 8 Wis. 485 
[1859]), 737. 

Limdberg v. City of Chicago ( 183 
111. 572, 50 X. E. 415 [1900]), 
804. 

Lundbom v. City of Manistee (93 
Mich. 170, 53" X. W. 161), 956, 
1015. 

Lusk V. City of Chicago (176 111. 
207. 52 X. E. 54 [1898]), 857, 
864. 

Lusk V. City of Chicago (211 111. 
183, 71 X. E. 878 [1904]), 947, 
952. 955, 988, 1002, 1390. 



cxlvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Lutes V. Briggs (5 Hun (X. Y. ) 67 

[1875]), 492, 510, 840, 1423, 1443. 
Luther v. Borden (48 U. S. (7 

How.) 1, 12 L. 581), 216. 
Lutman v. Lake Shore & ^lichigan 

Southern R. R. Co. (56 Ohio St. 

433, 47 N. E. 248 [1897] ), 1437. 
Lux and Talbott Stone Co. v. Donald- 
son (162 Ind. 481, 68 X. E. 1014 

[1903]), 73, 373, 374, 380, 381, 

387, 413, 464, 528, 531, 534, 646, 

720, 837, 927, 1005, 1011. 1012, 

1015, 1022, 1249, 1258, 1267, 1335. 

1346, 1385. 1386. 
Luzadder v. State for Use of Rhine 

(131 Ind. 598, 31 X. E. Rep. 453 

[1891]), 886, 978. 
Lyman v. City of Chicago (211 111. 
^209. 71 X.'e. 832 [1904]), 927, 

986. 1411. 1414, 1416, 1432, 1439, 

1450. 
Lyman v. Howe (64 Ark. 436. 42 

S. W. 830 [1897]), 3. 
Lyman v. Plummer (75 la. 353, 39 

X. W. 527 [1888]), 119, 121, 760. 
Lynch v. City of Kansas City (44 
■ Kan. 452, 24 Pac. 973 [1890]), 3, 

433, 511, 569, 870, 1337. 
Lynde v. Inhabitants of Melrose (10 

"aU. (Mass.) 49), 1206. 
Lvon V. Allev (130 U. S. 177, 32 

'l. 899, 9 S. 480 [1889]), 570, 880, 

907, 1037. 1067. 
Lyon V. City of Brooklyn (28 Barb. 
(N. Y.) 609 [1858]), 672, 675, 

689, 690. 
Lyon V. District of Columbia (20 D. 

C. 484 [1892]), 1511. 
Lyon V. Town of Tonawanda (98 

*Fed. 361 [1899]), 118, 570, 702. 
Lyth V. City of Buffalo (48 Hun 
(X. Y.) 175 [1888]), 747, 770, 

776, 927, 930, 1026, 1431, 1450. 



M' 

M'Causland v. Leuffer (4 \Yharton 
(Pa.) 175 [1839]), 1050. 

M'Comb V. Bell (2 Minn. 295 
[1858]), 234, 665, 777, 1277. 



M'Gonigle v. City of Allegheny (44 

Pa. St. 118 [1862]). 570. 
M'Kusick V. City qf Stillwater (44 

Minn. 372, 46 X. W. 769 [1890]). 

762, 818, 918. 927, 932. 981. 
M'Maken v. Hayes (29 Ohio C. C. 

535 [1907]), 631. 
!M'Masters v. Commonwealth ( 3 

Watts (Pa.) 292 [1834]). 111. 

308. 

Mac 

]\Iacfarland v. Byrnes ( 19 App. D. 
C. 531 [1902])", 961, 1354. 



Mc 

McAboy V. Gosnell (— Ky. , 63 

S. W. 961, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1187 

[1901]), 1235. 
McAllister v. City of Tacoma (» 

\Yash. 272, 37 Pac. 447, 658 

[1894]), 465, 479, 510, 519. 
:\IcAuley v. City of Chicago (22 111- 

563 [1859]), 738, 766, 947, 1281. 
McAunich v. ^lississippi, etc., R. R- 

Co. (20 la. 338), 180. 
McBean v. Chandler (24 Am. Rep. 

308 [1872]), 35, 44, 89, 96, 420, 

700. 

(See also Taylor McBean & Co. v. 

Chandler. ) 
McBean v. Martin (96 Cal. 188, 31 

Pac. 5 [1892]), 1153, 1240. 
McBrian v. City of Grand Rapids 

(56 Mich. 95, 22 X. ^Y. 206), 495. 
!McBride v. State for Use of Clandy 

(130 Ind. 525,' 30 X. E. 699 

[1891]), 247, 340, 1008. 
MoCague v.. City of Omaha (58 Xeb. 

37, 78 X. W". 463 [1899]), 1206. 
McCain v. City of Des Moines (128 

Iowa 331, 103 X'. W. 979 [1905]), 

534, 1433. 
McCaleb v. Cool Run Drainage and 

Levee District (190 111. 549, 60 

X. E. 898 [1901]), 909. 
McCall V. City of Rochester (89 X. 

Y. S. 766, 44 Misc. Rep. 129 

[1904]), 1484, 1486. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlvii 



[References are to sections.] 



MoCann v. City of Albany (158 X. 

Y. 634, 53 X. E. 673 [1899]), 

1375. 
McC'ann v. Albany (11 App. Div. 

378), 1375. 
McCarty v. Brick (11 X. J. L. (6 

Halst.) 27 [1829]). 249, 340, 711, 

777, 824, 884, 1330. 1478. 
McCauley v. The People ex rel. Huek 

(87 111. 123 [1877]), 1184. 
McCausland v. Leuli'er (4 Wliart. 

(Pa.) 175 [1839]). 15. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago (226 

111. 238, 80 X. E. 770 [1907]), 

347, 864, 926. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago (213 

111. 592. 73 X. E. 368 [1905]), 

347, 475, 505, 603, 864, 1104. 
AlcChesney v. City of Chicago (205 

111. OIL 69 X. E. 82 [1903]), 570, 

739, 811, 819, 828, 864, 1289. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago ( 205 

111. 528* 09 X. E. 38 [1903]), 469. 

909, 978, 1390. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago (201 

111. 344. 66 X. E. 217 [1903]), 

469. 472, 570, 739, 747, 800. 810, 

820, 828, 832, 835, 839, 859, 802, 

865. 
McChesney v. City of Cliicago ( 188 

111. 423, 58 X^ E. 982 [1900]), 

819, 852, 943, 966, 986. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago ( 173 

111. 75, '50 X. E. 191 [1898]), 857, 

862. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago (171 

111. 25.3, 49 X. E. 548 [1898]), 

298, 857, 859, 862. 
McChesney v. City of Chicago (161 

111. 110, 43 X. E. Rep. 702 

[1896]), 852, 926, 942, 966, 986. 
McChesne.v v. City of Chicago (159 

III. 22.3. 42 X. E. 894 [1896]), 

194. 195. 281. 923. 1281. 1299, 
1376. 

McChesney v. City of Chicago (159 
111. 22.3, 42 X. E. 894 [1896]), 

195, 281. 

McChesne.v v. City of Chicago (152 
III. 543, 38 X". E. 707 [1894]). 
236. 347, 451, 816, 867, 1274. 

McChesney v. Chicago (151 111. 307. 



37 X. E. Rep. 872 [1894]). 920, 

1377. 
McChesney v. Village of Hyde Park 

(151 ill. 634. 37 X." E. 858 

[1894]), 103. 104, 271, 330, 377, 

920, 922. 
McChesney v. People ex rel. Johnson 

(99 Ili. 210 [1881]), 181, 356, 

540, 1085, 1323. 
McChesney v. People ex rel. Kern 

(148 ill. 221, 35 X. E. 739 

[1894]), '223, 234, 704, 913. 770. 

772, 776, 777, 914, 993. 
McChesney v. People ex rel. Kern 

(145 ill. 014. 34 X. E. 431 

[1893]), 758, 759, 763, 704, 705. 

766, 772. 883, 880. 887. 913. 914, 

993, 1299. 
^IcChesney v. Peoi)le ex rel. Koclier- 

sperger' (174 111. 46, 50 X. E. 

1110 [1898]). 1126. 
^leChesney v. People ex rel. Koclier- 

sperger (171 111. 267, 49 X. E. 491 

[1898]), 912, 1108, 1132. 
^IcChesney v. People ex rel. Ray- 
mond ("200 111. 146, 65 X. E. 626 

[1902]), 514, 994, 1183, 1390. 
:\IcChesney v. People (99 111. 216), 

1103. 
McClave v. Mayor and Common 

Council of Cit.y of X'ewark (31 X. 

J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 472 [1879]), 

1196. 1428. 
McClellan v. District of Columbia 

(7 Mackey (D. C.) 94 [1889]), 

405, 479, 880. 
McCollum V. Uhl (128 Ind. 304, 27 

X. E. 152, 725 [1890]), 748, 768, 

992, 1031, 1067, 1009, 1225. 1444. 
McComb V. Bell (2 Minn. 295 

[1858]), 8, 89, 100, 223, 313. 1117. 
IMcConville v. Citj' of St. Paul (75 

Minn. 383, 74 Am. St. Rep. 508, 

43 L. R. A. 584. 77 X. W. 993 

[1899]), 525, 562, 1490. 
McCormack, In the Matter of (60 

Barb. 128 [1870]), 472, 479. 503. 

515. 527. 977, 982, 1452, 1458. 
McCormack, Matter of (10 Abb. Pr. 

X. S. (X. Y.) 234 [1870]). 437, 

472, 479, 503, 515, 604, 1452, 

1454. 



cxlviii 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



McCormack v. Patchin (53 Mo. 33, 

14 Am. Rep. 440 [1873]), 11, 293, 

373, 380, 381, 388, 461, 666. 
McCormick v. City of Omaha ( 37 

Neb. 829, 56 N. W. 626 [1893]), 

308, 549, 576, 620, '622, 
McCormick v. Tate (20 111. 334 

[1858]), 363. 
McCrea v. Leavenworth (46 Kan. 

767, 27 Pac. 129 [1891]), 1445. 
McCrowell v. City of Bristol (89 

Va. 652, 20 L. R. A. 653, 16 S. E. 

867 [1893]), 161, 223, 234, 314, 

432, 865, 867, 1047, 1049. 
McCullough V. Village of Campbells- 
port (123 Wis. 334, 101 N. W. 709 

[1904] ), 236, 238. 
MoCutclieon v. Pacific Railroad Co. 

(72 Mo. App. 271 [1897]), 45, 

594, 598, 1078, 1115. 
McDermott v. Mathis (21 Ark. 60 

[I860]), 343, 556, 566. 
McDonald v. Connitl" (99 Cal. 386, 

34 Pac. 71 [1893]), 138, 180, 552, 

617, 624, 645, 646, 720, 824, 1030, 

1281, 1337, 1358. 
McDonald v. Dodge (97 Cal. 112, 31 

Pac. Rep. 909 [1893]), 803, 843, 

847, 1372. 
McDonald v. Littlefield (5 Mackey 

(D. C.) 574 [1887]), 735, 745, 

747. 
McDonald v. Mazes (107 Cal. 492. 

40 Pac. 808 [1895]), 479, 510, 

512, 527, 542, 831, 840. 950, 1522, 
McDonald v. Patterson (54 Cal. 245 

[1880] ), 221, 506, 813. 
McDonald v. Peojjle ex rel. Hanberg 

(206 111. 624, 69 N. E. 509 

[1904]), 1035, 1183, 1343. 
McDonnell v. City of Chicago (60 

111. 350 [1871])", 860. 
McDonnell v. Gillon (134 Cal. 329, 

66 Pac. 314 [1901]), 864. 
McDowell V. City of Asheville (112 

N. C. 747, 17 S. E. 537 [1893]), 

62, 988, 989, 1469. 
McElroy v. Kansas City & Independ- 
ence Air Line (172 Mo. 546; 72 

S. W. 913 [1903]), 70. 
McEneney v. Town of Sullivan (125 

Ind. 407, 25 N. E. 540 [1890]), 



142, 726, 781, 795, 843, 986, 996, 

1005, 1007, 1030, 1031, 1347, 1431. 
McEwan v. City of Spokane (16 

Wash. 212, 47 Pac. 433 [1896]), 

1510. 
McEwen v. Gilker (38 Ind. 233 

[1871]), 496, 948, 1235, 1337, 

1350, 1352. 
McFarlane v. City of Chicago ( 185 

111. 242, 57 N. E. 12 [1900]), 387, 

561, 604, 640. 
McGee v. Board of County Commis- 
sioners of Hennepin County ( 84 

Minn. 472, 88 N. W. 6 [1*901]), 

103, 104, 698. 
McGee v. Mathis (71 U. S. (4 

Wall.) 143, 18 L. 314 [1866]),. 15, 

151, 172, 207, 256, 618, '711. 
McGehee v. Mathis (21 Ark. 40 

[I860]), 15, 39, 145, 151, 172, 

207, 256, 266, 343, 618, 711, 1338. 
McGill V. Bruner (65 Ind. 421 

[1879]), 324, 390, 393, 649, 1242, 

1268, 1352. 
McGilvery v. City of Lewiston ( 13 

Idaho 338, 90 Pac. 348 [1907]), 

468, 550, 619, 690, 763, 836, 1085. 
McGlynn v. City of Toledo (22 Ohio 

C. C. 34 [1901]), 313, 428, 467, 

471, 479, 480, 517, 518, 532, 1013. 
McGonigle v. City of Allegheny (44 

Pa. St. (8 Wright) 118 [1862]), 

713. 
McGown, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition of, to Vacate an Assessment 
. (18 Hun (N. Y.) 434 [1879]), 

392, 400, 1019. 
McGrew v. City of Kansas City (64 

Kan. 61, 67 Pac. 438 [1902]), 293, 

314, 437, 575, 609, 620, 628, 629, 

631. 
McGrew v. Stewart (51 Kan. 185, 

32 Pac. 896 [1893]), 323. 
McGuinn v. Peri (16 La. Ann. 326 

[1861]), 789. 
McGuire v. Brockman (58 Mo. App. 

307 [1894]), 35. 
McGuire v. District of Columbia (24 

App. D. C. 22 [1904]), 58. 
McHenry v. Selvage (99 Ky. 232, 35 

S. W.' 645 [1896]), 138," 397, 462, 

628, 723, 1281. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cxlix 



[References are to sections.] 



Mclnery v. Reed (2.3 la. 410 

[1867]), 1141, 1145, 1173, 1190. 
Melntire v. Staie (5 Blackf. (Ind.) 

384 [1840]), 86, 70, 113. 
McKee v. Town of Pendleton (162 

Ind. 667, 69 X. E. 997 [1904]), 

301, 699, 809, 1411, 1412, 1432. 
McKee v. Town of Pendleton ( 1.54 

Ind. 652, 57 X. E. 532 [1900]), 

699, 1431. 
McKeesport Borough, to Use of Mc- 

Keesport City v. Busch (166 Pa. 

St. 46, 31 Atl. 49 [1895]), 313, 

396, 455, 795, ll58. 
McKeesport v. Fiddler (147 Pa. St. 

532, 23 Atl. 799). 45. 1112. 1142. 
McKeesport, City of v. Soles ( 178 

Pa. St. 363, 35 Atl. 927 [1896]), 

610. 
McKeesport v. Soles ( 165 Pa. St. 

628, 30 Atl. 1019 [1895]), 610, 

706. 
McKeever v. Jenks (59 la. 300, 13 

X. W. 295 [1882]), 363. 
McKinney v. State for Use of Xixon 

101 Ind. 355 [1884]), 340. 986, 

1027, 1209, 12.52, 1254, 1337. 
McKnijrht v. City of Pittsburor (91 

Pa. St. (10 Xorris) 273 [1879]), 

531, 862. 
McKusick V. City of Stillwater (44 

Minn. 372, 46 "x. W. 769 [1890]), 

63, 81, 113, 280, 308, 1027. 
McLaufihlin v. City of Chicago (198 

111. 518, 64 XL E. 1036 [1902]), 

878. 
MeLaiv'hlin v. Miller (124 X. Y. 

510, 26' K. E. 1104 [1891]), 86, 

119, 123, 244, 245, 301, 309, 726. 

728, 729, 1035, 1072. 
McLaiiren v. City of Grand Forks 

(6 Dak. 397," 43 X. W. 710 

[1889]), 223, 234, 735, 777, 803, 

830, 1013. 
McLean, County of v. City of 

Bloomington (106 111. 209 

[1883]), 580, 582, 584, 612, 613, 

1075, 1469, 1470. 
McLennan v. City of Cliicago (218 

111. 62, 75 X\ E. 762 [1905]), 831, 

857, 858, 912, 924, 1385. 
McLoon's Administrator v. Cuni- 

mings (73 Pa. St. 98 [1873]), 2. 



MeMaken v. Hayes (29 Ohio C. C. 

535 [1907]), (525, 653. 
McMakin v. City of Cincinnati (7 

Ohio X. P. 203 [1900]), 432, 653. 
McManus v. Hornaday (124 la. 267, 

100 X. W. 33 [1904]), 18, 965, 

983, 984. 
McManus v. Hornaday (99 la. 507, 

68 X. W. 812 [1890]), 367, 838, 

862. 
McManus v. People ex rel. Ray- 
mond (183 III. 391, 55 X. E. 886 

[1899]), 533, 782, 795, 927, 931, 

940, 986, 996, 1183, 1340. 
McMasters v. Commonwealth ( 3 

Watts (Pa.) 292 [1834]), 89. 
McMillan v. City of Butte (30 Mont. 

220, 70 Pac." 203 [1904]), 118, 

301, 553, 666, 709, 711. 
McMillan v. Fond du Lac County 

(— Wis. , 114 X. W. 11 lb 

[1908]), 463, 979. 
McMillan v. Board of County Com- 
missioners of Freeborn County 

(93 Minn. 16, 100 X. W. 384, 

1125 [1904]), 118, 373, 375, 414, 

955. 
McMillan v. Richards (9 Cal. 365, 

70 Am. Dec. 655), 1478. 
McMillan v. City of Tacoma (26 

Wash. 358, 67 Pac. 68), 1069. 
McMillen v. Anderson (95 U. S. 37, 

24 L. 335 [1877]), 115, 119, 133. 

773. 
McXair v. Ingebrigsten (36 Wash. 

186, 78 Pac. 789 [1904]), 1141, 

1145, 1222. 
McXair v. Ostrander (1 Wash. 110, 

23 Pac. 414 [1890]), 244, 313, 

314, 436. 
McXamee v. Cit.v of Tacoma ( 24 

Wash. .591, 64 Pac. 791 [1901]), 

86, 111, 301, 408, 414, 670, 690. 

744, 918. 956, 1026. 1020, 1141. 

1145. 
McXutt V. Brooks (42 III. App. 554 

[1891]), 1072. 
McPike V. City of Alton (187 111. 62, 

58 XL E. 301 [1900]), 510, 840. 
McQuiddy V. Brannock (70 Mo. 

App. 535 [1897]), 18, 530, 538, 

867. 



cl 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



McQuillen v. Hatton (42 0. S. 202. 

[1884]). 117, 337. 
McQuiddv v. Smith (67 Mo. App. 

205 [18901), 73, 394, 744, 825. 
McQuiddy v. Vineyard (60 Mo. App. 

6.10 [1894]), 273, 784, 841. 
McQuinn v. Peri (16 La. Ann. 320 

[1801]), 781. 
McRae, McMillanet, In re v. Board 
of Commissioners of Freeborn 
County (100 N. W. 384, 1125 
[1904]). 
(See McMillan v. Board of Com- 
missioners of Freeborn County.) 
McSherry v. Wood (102 Cal. 647, 
36 Pac. 1010 [1894]), 381, 552. 
646, 720, 895, 1030, 1093, 1298, 
1337. 
McVerrv v. Boyd (89 Cal. 304. 26 
Pac. "^885 [1891]), 380, 381, 464, 
492, 538, 602, 004, 640, 723, 1030. 
1281, 1298, 1337. 
McVerry v. Kidwell (03 Cal. 246 

[1883]), 527, 537. 
McVey v. City of Danville (188 111- 
428, 58 N. E. 955 [1900]), 314. 
787, 789, 923, 1282. 
McVey v. Lanier (50 Ark. 384, 8 
S. W. 141 [1887]), 73. 



M 

Mabee v. Drain Commissioner (45 

Mich. 508, 8 N. W. 578), 1012. 
Mace V. Trustees of the Village of 
Xewburg (15 Howard (X. Y.) 161 
[18.57]), 1423. 
Mack V. City for Use of Moore (1 

W. L. B. 'S4 [1876]), 1346. 
Mack V. Polecat Drainage District 
(216 111. 56, 74 N. E. 691 [1905]), 
254, 1008, 1375. 
Mackay v. Hancock County ( — la. 

, 114 N. W. 552 [1908]), 

1015! 1019, 1029. 
Mackin V. Wilson (45 S. W. 003, 

20 Ky. L. R. 218). 462. 
Macklot V. City of Davenport (17 

la. 379 [1864]), 1026. • 

Macomber v. Hunter (7 Ohio X. P- 
385 [1900]), 679. 



Macon, Town of v. Patty (57 Miss. 
378, 34 Am. Rep. 451 [1879]), 11, 
12, 13, 33, 34, 35, 43, 55, 92, 93, 
95, 96, 118, 147, 148, 323, 420, 
548, 665, 698, 717, 779. 1039, 1049. 
Madderom v. City of Chicago ( 194 
111. 572, 62 X. E. 840 [1902]), 
244, 818, 1287, 1289. 
Madera Irrigation District, In the 
Matter of the Bonds of the (92 
Cal. 296, 27 Am. St. Rep. 106, 14 
L. R. A. 755, 28 Pac. 272, 675 
[1891]), 11, 12, 79, 86, 105, 119, 
125, 134. 147, 209, 212, 249, 254, 
355, 551, .553. 642, 666, 784, 927, 
1008, 1085, 1303, 1333. 1337, 1502. 
Magee v. Commonwealth, for the 
Use of the City of Pittsburg (46 
Pa. St. (10 Wright) 358 [1863]), 
414, 574, 620, 666, 698, 709, 983. 
Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings 
Bank (170 U. S. 283, 42 L. 1037 
[1898]), 108. 
Maguire v. Smock (42 Ind. 1, 13 

Am. Rep. 353 [1873]). 792. 
Mahaffey v. Beech Creek R. R. (163 
Pa. St. 158, 29 Atl. 881 [1894]), 
66. 
Maher v. City of Chicago (38 111. 

266 [1865]), 360, 1498, 1509. 
Mahlstadt v. Blanc (34 Cal. 577 

[1808]), 1228, 1372. 
Malioney v. Brauerman (54 Cal. 

505),' 147. 
Main v. Ft. Smith (49 Ark. 480, 5 
S. W. 801 [1887]), 275, 301, 494, 
857, 807, 868. 
Main Street, Big Run Borough ( 137 
Pa. St. 590. 20 Atl. 711 [1890]), 
280, 576, 620. 
Main St., In re, in Borough of Xich- 
olson (27 Pa. Super. Ct. . 570 
[1905]), 271. 
Makemson v. Kauffman (35 0. S. 

444), 248, 029, 792, 790, 785. 
Maklev v. Whitmore (61 0. S. 587, 
50 X. E. 401 [1899]), 1085, 1101, 
1140. 
Malchus V. District of Highlands (67 
Ky. (4 Bush.) 547 [1809]), 322, 
711. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cli 



[References are to sections.] 



Maley v. Clark (.33 Ind. App. 149. 

70'x. E. 1005 L1903]), 805. 
Mall V. City of Portland (35 Or. 

89, 56 Pac. 654 [1899] ). 475, 1085, 

1104. 
Malone v. Water Commissioners oi 

Jersey City (30 X. J. L. (1 Vr.) 

247 [1863]), 1408. 
Maloy V. City of Marietta (11 0. 8. 

636 [I860]), 100, 106, 301, 549, 

620, 1041. 
Maltby v. Tautges (50 ^ilinn. 248, 

52 "x. W. 858 [1892]), 61, 158. 

359. 
Manhattan Savings Institution, In 

the Matter of the Petition of the, 

to Vacate an Assessment ( 82 X. 

Y. 142 [1880]), 495, 1454, 1461. 
Manice v. City of Xew York (8 X. 

Y. 120 [1853]), 1509. 
Manistee, City of v. Harley ( 79 

Mich. 238, 44 X. W. 603 [1S90]), 

18, 234, 688, 777, 778. 
Manley v. p]mlen (46 Kan. 655, 27 

Pac." 844 [1891]!. 315, 323, 805, 

956, 962. 
Mann v. Board of Education of Un- 
ion Free District Xo. 2, of the 

Town of Onondaga (53 Howard 

(X. Y.) 289 [1877]), 1442. 
Mann v. District of Columbia ( 22 

App. D. C. US [1903]), 372. 
Manning v. Den (90 Cal. 610, 27 

Pac. 435 [1891]), 492, 509, 521, 

742, 1031, 1039, 1141, 1145, 1182, 

1311, 1337. 
Manning v. City of Devil's Lake (13 

X. D. 47, 112 Am. St. Rep. 652, 

99 X. W. 51 [1904]), 404. 
Manns v. City of Cincinnati (10 

Ohio C. C. 549 [1895]), 561, 625, 

704, 988, 1013, 1094, 1492. 
Ma^- Nr V. Board of Commissioners 

of Jay Co. (137 Ind. 367, 34 X. E. 

959, 36 X. E. 1101 [1893]), 322, 

466, 469. 471, 732, 738, 781, 951, 

952. 955. 904. 1209. 1303, 1351, 

1360. 1373. 
Mansfield v. People ex rel. Wells 

(164 111. 611, 45 X. E. 976 

[1897]). 864. 865, 1382. 
Mansur v. Countv Commissioners of 



Aroostook County (83 Me. 514, 

22 Atl. 358 [1891]), 434, 844. 
]Maple V. Borough of Beltzhoover 

(18 Atl. 650 [1899]), 666. 698, 

709, 895. 
^lappa V. City Council of the City 

of Los Angeles (61 Cal. 309 

[1882]), 538. 
Marengo v. Great Xorthern Ry. Co. 
• (84 Minn. 397, 87 Am. St. Rep. 

369, 87 X: W. 1117 [1901]), 363. 
^larietta. City of v. Slocomb (6 O. 

S. 471 [1856]), 1478, 1484. 
[Marion v. ^Moody's Executors ( 25 la. 

163), 1122. 
:\Iarion Bond Co. v. Blakely (30 

Ind. App. 374, 65 X. E. 291, 66 

X. E. 71 [1902]), 1085, 1092. 
Marion Bond Co. v. Johnson (29 

Ind. App. 294, 64 X. E. 626 

[1902]), 11, 653, 669, 670, 677, 

699, 709, 1000, 1141, 1145, 1333. 
Marion County v. Louisville and 

Xashville R. Co. ( — Ky. , 78 

S. W. 437, 25 Ky. L. R. 1600 

[1904]), 365. 
Marion Road Co. v. McClure (66 

Ind. 468), 1113. 
Marion Township Gravel Road Co. 

V. Sleeth (53 Ind. 35). 169. 
IMarion Township Union Draining 

Co. V. Xorris (37 Ind. 424 

[1871]), 1500. 
Marion Trust Co. v. City of Indian- 
apolis (37 Ind. App. 672, 706, 75 

X. E. 834, 836 [1905]). 622, 656, 

775, 776. 
Marion Water Company v. City of 

Marion (121 la. 306. 96 X.' W. 

883 [1903]). 50. 
Marion & ^Monroe Gravel Road Co. 

V. McClure (66 Ind. 468 [1879]), 

166, 169, 983. 102S. 1445. 
Marionville, City of. to the Use of 

Grubaugh v. Henson (65 Mo. App. 

397 [1895] I. 293, 296, 374, 571, 

714, 723, 784. 
Market Street. In tiie Matter of 

Opening and Grading (49 Cal. 546 

[1875]), 8, 11, 283. 409. 410. 423, 

1498. 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Markley v. City of Chicago (190 111. 
276, 60 X. E. 512 [1901]). 263, 
864, 866, 956, 962, 963, 965, 978, 
1002. 

Markley v. City of Chicago ( 167 111. 
626, 48 X. E. 1056 [1897]). 1384. 
1392. 

Markley v. People ex rel. Kocher- 
sperger (171 111. 260, 63 Am. St. 
Rep. 234, 49 X. E. 502 [1898]), 
986, 998. 

Markley v. Rudy (115 Ind. 533, 18 
X. e". 50 [1888]), 269, 1351. 

Marsh v. The City of Brooklyn 1 50 
X. Y. 280 [1874]), 891, 951. 142.-), 
1426, 1427. 

Marsh v. City of Chicago (62 IM. 
115 [1871])', 763, 764, 1185, 1299. 

Marsh, to Vacate an Assessment, In 
the Maitter of the Petition of (83 
X. Y. 431 [1881]), 495, 816, 1453. 

Marsh. In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (21 Hun (X. Y.) 582 
[1880]), 487. 495, 948. 

Marshall v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (— Ky. , 66 S. W. 734, 

23 Ky. L."r. 1971 [1902]), sub- 
stitute for opinion in 66 S. W. 
182, which modified 52 S. \Y. 1117. 
21 K}-. L. R. 712). 441, 628, 707. 

Marshall v. Commonwealth to the 
Use of Mayor, etc., of Allegheny 
City (59 Pa. St. (9 P. F. Smith) 
455 [1868]), 540, 541, 570, 834. 

Marshall v. Davies (78 X. Y. 414. 
Robinson v. Ryan. 25 X. Y. 320). 
1057. 

Marshall v. City of Leavenworth (44 
Kan. 459, 24 Pac. 975 [1890]), 
805, 1337. 

Marshall v. People ex rel. Smit!i 
219 111. 99, 76 X. E. 70 [1905]), 
323, 533, 918, 986, 987, 1000, 1126. 

Marshall, City of, to Use of Jacoby 
V. Rainey (78 Mo. App. 416 
[1898]), 502, 800, 818, 1290. 

Marshall town Light, Power & Rail- 
way Company v. City of Marshall- 
town (127 la. 637, 103 X. \Y. 1005 
[1905]), 602, 603, 917. 1026. 1350. 

Martin v. Carron (26 X. J. L. 2 
Dutch.) 228 [1857]). 3'-'4. 781, 
789. 997, 1004. lOr.O. 119,;. 1204. 



Martin v. District of Columbia (205 
U. S. 135, 51 L. 743, 27 S. 440 
[1907]), 321, 665, 666, 690, 691. 

Martin v. District of Columbia (26 
App. D. C. 146 [1905]), 321, 665, 
666, 690, 691. 

Martin v. Greenwood ( 27 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 245 [1905]), 1068. 

Martin v. MoCormick (8 X. Y. 331 
[1854]), 1200. 

;\Iartin v. City of Oskaloosa ( 126 la. 
680, 102 x'. W. 529 [1905], origi- 
nal opinion in 99 X. W. 557 
[1904], withdrawn on rehearing, 
223. 725, 766, 777, 827, 837, 838, 
962, 965. 

Martin v. Roney (41 O. S. 141 
[1884]). 986, 996. 

Martin v. Tyler (4 X. D. 278, 25 
L. R. A. 838, 60 X. E. 392), 140. 

Martin v. Wagner (120 Cal. 623, 53 
Pac. 167 [1898]), 549. 

Martin v. Wills (157 Ind. 153, 60 
X. E. 1021 [1901]), 110, 118, 620, 
699, 1122, 1141, 1145, 1191. 

^lartindale v. Palmer (52 Ind. 411 
[1875]), 301, 437, 511, 840, 847, 
856, 895. 897. 1191, 1256, 1350, 
1352. 

Marysville, Village of v. Schoonover 
(78 111. App. 189 [1898]), 1503, 

[Mascall V. Commissioners Drainage 
District (122 111. 620, 14 X. E. 47 
[1889]), 549, 676, 920, 921, 1351, 
1363. 

:\lasnn V. Austin (46 Cal. 385 
[1873]), 618, 1269, 137'd. 1381. 

]\Iason V. City of Chicfigo (178 111. 
J99, 53 X.' E. 354 [1899]), 324, 
01)3, 619. 10S5, 1088. 

Mason V. City of Chicago (48 111. 
420 [1868])', 1088. 

Mason v. City of Des Moines ( 108 
la. 658, 79 X. W. 389 [1899]), 
484, 485, 527, 748. 768, 974, 1355, 
1375, 1391. 1501. 

Mason v. t ity of Independence (61 
Kan. 188. "59 Pac. 272 [1899]), 
1437. 

Mason v. City of Sioux Falls (2 
S. D. 640, 39 Am. St. Rep. 802, 
51 X. W. 770 [1892]), 223, 234, 
313, 395, 436. 479. 510. 831, 856. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



cliii 



[References are to sections.] 



Mason v. Spencer (35 Kan. 512, 11 

Pac. 402 [1886]), 40, 414, 689, 

697, 983. 
Mason v. Police Jury of Parish of 

Tensas (9 La. Ann. 368 [1854]), 

38, 697. 
Mason and Tazewell Special Drain- 
age District, Commissioners of v. 

Griffin (134 111. 330, 25 X. E. 995 

[1891]), 249, 266, 564, 1396, 1399, 

1404, 1406. 
Masonic Building Association v. 

Brownell (164 Mass. 306, 41 X. 

E. 306 [1895]), 86, 266, 309. 434. 

525, 649, 886, 887, 890, 1406. 
Massing v. Ames ( 37 Wis. 645 

[1875]), 191, 194, 198, 324, 813, 

815, 887. 
Masters v. City of Portland (24 Or. 

161, 33 Pac' 540 [1893]), 43, 86, 

147, 148, 555, 644, 666, 690, 723. 
Mathews v. Wagner ( — Wash. , 

94 Pac. 759 [1908]), 950, 1113. 

1207. 
Mattes V. Great Northern Ry. Co. 

(95 Minn. 386, 104 X. W. 234 

[1905]), 363. 
Mattliews v. Kimball (70 Ark. 451, 

66 S. W. 651, 69 S. W. 547). 356. 
Mattingly v. District of Columbia 

(97 U. S. 687, 24 L. 1098 [1878] ). 

243, 245, 301. 324, 663, 666, 707. 

709, 725, 964, 983. 
Mauch Chunk, Borough of v. Shortz 

(01 Pa. St. (11 P. F. Smith) 399 

[1869]), 223, 231, 234, 444, 775, 

1050. 
Mauldin v. Hanscombe (12 Colo. 

204, 20 Pac. 619;, 363. 
Mauldin v. City Council of Green- 
ville (53 S. C. 285, 69 Am. St. 

Rep. 855, 43 L. R. A. 101, 31 S. 

E. 252 [1898] (overruling. 42 S. 

C. 293, 46 Am. St. Rep. 723, 27 

L. R. A. 284, 20 S. E. 842 [1893]). 

44, 86, 118, 159, 250, 302, 323, 

379. 
Mauldin v. City Council of Green- 
ville (42 «. C. 293, 46 Am. St. 

Rep. 723, 27 L. R. A. 284, 20 S. E. 

842 [1893]), 30, 44, 95, 96. 118, 

159, 302, 323, 324, 420. 
Mawell v. Auditor General ( 125 



Mich. 621, 84 X. W. 1112 [1901]). 

995, 1443. 
Maxwell v. City of Chicago (185 1.1. 

18, 56 X, E. 1101 [1900]), 745. 

747, 758, 764, 856, 912, 913, 1374. 
May V. Holdridge (23 Wis. 93 

[1868]), 959. 
Mayall v. City of St. Paul (30 

Minn. 294, 15 X. W. 170 [1883]), 

509, 854, 1006, 1412. 
Maybin v. City of Biloxi (77 Miss. 

6^73, 28 So. 560 [1900]), 236. 304. 

662. 
ilaydwell v. City of Louisville (116 

Ky. 885, 105* Am. St. Rep. 245. 

63 L. R. A. 655, 76 S. W. 1091 

[1903]), 370, 458. 
flayer v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of Xew York 

(101 X. Y. 284, ' 4 N. E. 33<) 

[1886]), 308, 469, 475, 927, 986. 

1003, 1438, 1490. 
ilayer v. ^laj^or. Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of Xew York 

(28 Hun 587 [1883]), 309, 475, 

1490. 
Mayo V. Ah Loy (32 Cal. 477, 91 

Am. Dec. 595^ [1867]), 223, 234, 

775, 887, 889, 998, 1112, 1149, 

1182. 
Mayor, In the Matter of (50 X. 1'. 

504 [1872]), 194, 821. 
Mayor, Matter of (11 Johns. (X. 

Y.) 77), 594. 
:\Iayor v. Huff (00 Ga. 221), 486. 
Mayor v. Board of Commissioners ol 

Jay County (137 Ind. 367, 36 X. 

E. 1101, 34 X. E. 959 [1893]). 

200. 
Mayor and Aldermen v. ilaberrv 

(25 Tenn. (6 Humpli.) 368, 44 

Am. Dec. 315 [1845]), 5. 19, 44. 

53. 55. 93. 96. iOO. 323. 420, 713. 

717. 
Maypother v. da-t i — Ky. . 

110 S. W. 308 1190SI), 1145. 1146, 

1392. 
Maysville, City of v. Maysville St. 

R. and Transfer Co. ( — Ky. 

, 108 S. W. 960 [190«]), 601, 

630. 



cliv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood 

(140 111. 21G, 29 N. E. 704 

[1893]), 329, 393, 400, 636, 857, 

920, 921, 924. 
Meachem v. Fitchburg Railroad 

Company (58 Mass. (4 Cush.) 291 

[1849]), 64, 65, 66, 71. 
Mead v. City of Chicago (186 111. 

54, 57 N". E. 824 [1900]), 570, 

663, 670, 675, 817, 863, 864, 917. 

I3C7, 1368, 1385. 
Mead, In the Matter of (13 Hun 

N. Y. 394 [1878]), 166, 194, 

479, 484, 485. 982, 1337, 1453, 

1458. 
Meade, In the Matter of (74 N. Y. 

216 [1878]), 106, 479, 679, 1389, 

1458, 1463. 
Meadville, City of v. Dickson (129 

Pa. St. 1, 18 Atl. 513 [1889]), 

190, 223, 234, 775, 1050. 
Meanor v. Goldsmith (216 Pa. 489, 

10 L. R. A. (X. S.) 342, 65 Atl. 

1084 [1907] ), 93, 96, 323, 737, 

1055, 1203. 
Mecartney v. People ex rel. Ray- 
mond '(202 Hi. 51, 66 X. E. 873 

[1903]). 1172. 
Mechlem v. City of Cincinnati, 28 

Ohio C. C. 211 [1905]), 1430. 
Medical Lake, Town of v. Smith ( 7 

Wash. 195, 34 Pac. 835 [1893]), 

244, 246, 1010. 
Medland v. Connell (57 Xeb. 10, 77 

X. W. 437 [1898]), 745, 762, 763, 

825. 
Medland v. Linton (60 Xeb. 249, 82 

X. W. 866 [1900]), 11, 245, 549, 

570, 609, 745, 750, 762, 775, 884, 

1304. 
Meeeli v. City of Bufl'alo (23 X. Y. 

198 [1864]), 324, 952. 
Meggett V. City of Eau Claire (81 

Wis. 326, 5l' X. W. 566 [1892]), 

118, 119, 123, 132, 163, 314, 324, 

549, 555, 570, 624, 666, 670, 698, 

709, 747, 773, 1149, 1435, 1444. 
Mehrbach, In the :Matter of (97 X. 

Y. 601 [1885]). 1462. 
Mehrbach. In the Matter of (33 

Hun (X. Y.) 136 [1884]). 1462. 
Meier v. Citv of St. Louis (180 Mo. 

391, 79 S." W. 955 [1903]), 8, 43. 



89, 123, 125. 147, 148, 212. 215, 

224, 247, 248, 250, 301, 553. 555, 

620, 621, 624, 628, 631, 666. 698, 

728, 729, 776, 1333. 
Meissner v. City of Toledo (31 0. S. 

387 [1877]),' 310, 620. 622, 623. 

672, 692. 
Melrose Park, Village of v. Dunnel- 

beeke (210 111. 422, 71 X. E. 431 

[1904]). 279, 775. 
Memphis, City of v. Bolton (9 

Heisk. (oe'Tenn.) 508 [1872]), 

69, 655. 
Memphis, City of v. Hastings (113 

Tenn. 142, 69 L. R. A. 750, 86 S. 

W. 609 [1904]), 356. 
Memphis Land & Timber Company 

V. St. Francis Levee District ( 64 

Ark. 258, 42 S. W. 763 [1897]). 

343, 566, 578, 694, 750, 1277, 1281. 
Mendenhall v. Clugish (84 Ind. 94 

[1882]), 435, 573, 1238. 
Menefee v. Bell (62 Mo. App. 659 

[1895]), 537, 855, 1134, 1255. 
Menzie v. City of Greensburg ( — - 

Ind. App. , 85 X. E. 484 

[1908]), 499, 742. 
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Xigoreman 

(119 Mo. App. 56, 96 S. W. 293 

[1906]), 1067, 1136. 
Merchants' Xational Bank of San 

Diego V. Escondido Irrigation Dis- 
trict (144 Cal. 329, 77 Pac. 937 

[1904]), 15, 169, 171, 355, 548, 

1081. 
Merchants' Realty Company v. City 

of St. Paul (77 Minn. .3*43, 79 X. 

W. 1040 [1899]), 1200, 1206. 
Mercy Hospital v. City of Chicago 

(187 111. 400, 58 ' X. E. 353 

[1900]), 675, 1368. 
Meredith v. City of Pertli Amboy 

(63 X. J. L. (34 Vr.) 523, 44 Atl. 

1101 [1899]), 391,. 394. 
Meriden, City of v. Camp (46 Conn. 

284 [1878]), 392, 395, 423, 526, 

1030, 1031, 1163, 1168, 1387. 
IMerine v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (125 Mo. App. 623, 103 iS. W. 

508 [1907]), 538. 
Meriwether v. Garrett (102 U. S. 

472, 26 L. 197 [1880]), 1518. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clv 



rRefprenccs are to sections.] 



Meniam, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 

(84 N. Y. 596 [1881]), 324, 465, 

468, 479, 485, 495, 541, 663, 674, 

752, 901, 913, 917, 1324, 1^54, 

1455, 1458. 
Merriam v. Moody's Executors ( 25 

la. 163 [1868]) 40, 223, 229, 

1122. 
Merriam v. People ex rel. Kocher- 

sperger (160 111. 555, 43 N. E. 

705 [1896]), 772, 930, 1085, 1113, 

1372. 
Merrick v. Amherst (12 All. (94 

Mass.) 504), 150. 
Merrill v. Abbott (62 Ind. 549 

[1878]), 223. 
Merrill v. Schibel (185 Mo. 551, 83 

S. W. 1133 [1904]), 538. 
Merrill v. Shields (57 Xeb. 78, 77 

N. W. 368 [1898]), 825, 1277, 

1303. 
Merritt v. City of Duluth ( — ]klinn. 

, 114 X. W. 758 [1908]), 

1437. 
Merritt v. Village of Port Chester 

(71 X. Y. 309, 27 Am. 47 [1877]). 

223, 234, 281, 735, 744, 745, 75), 

770, 771, 777, 1029. 
Merritt v. Village of Port Clliester 

29 Hun (N. Y.) 619 [1883]), 26G, 

273, 275, 391, 394. 
Meserole v. Mayor and Common 

Council of Brooklyn (8 Paige's 

Chan. 198 [1840])." 672, 927, 986, 

996, 1430, 1519. 
Metcalf V. Carter (19 Ohio C. C. 

196 [1900]), 561, 625, 635, 783, 

843, 1035, 1432, 1436. 
Methodist Episcopal Church, In re 

(66 X. Y. 395 [1876]), 42. 
Methodist Episcopal Church of Har- 
lem V. Mayor, etc., of the City of 

Xew York' (55 Howard (X. Y.) 

67 [1877]), 679, 686, 927. 934. 

1432, 1438. 
Metropolitan Gas Light Ciiiii));uiy, 

In the Matter of the (23 Hun, 

327 [1880]), 948, 975. 
Metropolitan Railroad Company v. 

Macfarland (20 App. D. c' 421 

[1902]). 601. 1372. 
Metropolitan West Side Elevated 



Railway Company v. Stickney ( 150 

111. 362, 26 L. R. A. 773, 37 X. E. 

1098 [1894]), 65, 66, 71. 
Meuser v. Risdon (36 Cal. 239 

[1868]), 500, 504, 540, 867, 958, 

984. 
Meyer v. Wright (19 Mo. App. 283 

fl885]), 527, 529. 
Mexico, City of v. Lakeman ( — Mo. 

App. — — , 108 S. W. 141 [1908]), 

747, 1140, 1226, 1230. 
Mej'er v. Covington ( 103 Ky. 546 

45 S. W. 769, 20 Ky. L. R." 239), 

1039. 
Meyer v. Wright ( 18 Mo. App. 283 

[1885]), 1236. 
Michael v. City of Mattoon (172 111. 

394, 50 X. E. 155 [1898]), 471, 

472, 750, 764, 947, 1085, 1372, 

1373, 1379. 
Michael "v. City of St. Louis (112 

Mo. 610, 20 "S. W. 666 [1892]). 

293, 311, 394, 557, 927, 997, 1424, 

1442. 
Michaels v. Keane (8 Wash. 648, 

36 Pac. 681 [1894]), 1059, 1072. 
Michener v. City of Philadelphia 

(118 Pa. St. '535, 12 Atl. 174 

[1888]), 55, 86, 293, 384, 555. 
Michigan Central Railroad Company 

V. Spring Creek Drainage District 

(215 111. 501, 74 X. E.^696), 203. 
Michigan City, Mayor and Common 

Council of V. Roberts (34 Ind. 471 

[1870]), 293. 
Middaugh v. City of Chicago ( 187 

111. 230, 58 X. k. 4.")9 [19()()|), 675. 

709, 872. 
Middle Kittitas Irrigation District, 

Board of Directors of v. Peterson 

(4 Wash. 147, 29 Pac. 995 [1892] I, 

105. 
Miles v. r.iadford (22 Md. 170, 85 

Am. Dec. 643), 216. 
Miles V. McDermott (31 Cal. 271 

[1866]), 763, 836, 1231. 
Milford v. Cincinnati. Milfonl & 

Loveland Trac. Co. (26 Ohio C C. 

271 [1904]), 463. 
:Mill Creek Sewer, In re (196 Pa. 

St. 183, 46 Atl. 312 [1900]), 324, 

426. 444. 46(). 



clvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Miller, In the Matter of (24 Hun 

(N. Y.) 637, [1881]), 475. 
Miller's Case (12 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 

121 [1861]), 482, 484, 485, 541, 

1444, 1454, 1463. 
Miller's Estate (Tucker (N. Y.) 346 

[1867]), 1055. 
Miller v. City of Amsterdam ( 149 

N. Y. 288, 43 N. E. 632 [1896]), 

7'81, 795, 927, 945, 1007. 
Miller v. Anheuser (2 Mo. App. 168 

[1876]), 324, 393, 400, 872. 
Miller v. City of Asheville (112 N. 

C. 769, 16 'S. E. 765 [1893]), 77. 
Miller v. Atlantic City (— X. J. 

— , 68 Atl. 64 [1907]), 538. 
Miller v. City of Cincinnati ( IS 

Ohio C. C. 869 [1898]). 563. 
Milkr V. Goodwin (70 111. 659 

[1873]), 1512. 
Miller v. Graham (17 O. 8. 1 

[1866]), 337, 414, 832, 977, 983. 
Miller v. Hixson (64 0. S. 39, 59 X. 

E. 749 [1901]), 38, 697. 
Miller v. Mayo (88 Cal. 568, 26 Pac. 

364 [1891]), 509, 554, 624, 707, 

759, 1237, 1239, 1337. 
Miller v. City of Toledo (12 Ohio C. 

C. 706 [1894] I. 563, 619. 
Miller v. Toledo (7 Ohio X. P. 477 

[1900]), 387, 563. 
Miller v. Wisener (45 W. Va. 59, 

30 S. E. 237 [?-898]), 73. 
Milligan v. City of Lexington ( — 

Mo. App. — —, 105 S. W. 1104 

[1907]), '837. 
Millikan v. Wall (133 Ind. 51, 32 

X. E. 828 [1892]), 375, 461, 1030, 

1414, 1433. 
Million V. Board of Commissioners 

of Carroll County (89 Ind. 5 

[1883]), 927, 1004. 
Millisor v. Wagner ( 133 Ind. 400. 

32 X. E. 927 [1892]), 781, 801, 

909. 
Mills V. Charleton (29 Wis. 400, 9 

Am. Rep. 578 [1872]), 117, 199, 

407, 408, 414, 437, 515, 958, 963, 

965, 983, 1435. 
Mills V. City of Detroit (95 Mich. 

422, 54 X. W. 897 [1893]), 813. 
^Mills V. Village of Xorwood (6 Ohio 



C. C. 305 [1892]), 296, 575, 1430, 
1446. 

Milton V. Stell (— X. J. , 65 

Atl. 1118 [1907]), 988, 990, 1410. 

Milton V. Stell (73 X. .1. Law (44 
Vr.) 261, 62 Atl. 1133 [1906]), 
989, 990, 1410. 

Milwaukee Electric Railway & Elec- 
tric Light Company v. City of Mil- 
waukee (95 Wis. 42, 69 X. W. 796 
[1897]), 50, 103, 106, 601, 611. 

Milwaukee, etc., R. R. C. v. Eble (3 
Pinney (Wis.) 334 [1851]), 284. 

Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Beck- 
with (129 U. S. 26, 32 L. 585, 9 
S. 207), 363. 

Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Em- 
mons (149 U. S. 364, 37 L. 769, 
13 S. 870]), 363. 

^Minneapolis & 'St. Louis Railroad 
Co. V. Lindquist (119 la. 144, 93 
X. W. 103 [1903]), 118, 324, 325, 
555, 596, 598, 612, 620, 666, 694, 
699, 711, 812, 1078, 1358, 1414, 
1444. 

Minnesota and 'SI. Land and Im- 
provement Co. V. City of Billings 
(111 Fed. 972, 50 C. C. A. 70 
[1901]), 119, 247, 248, 250, 324, 
550, 555, 609, 630, 636, 645, 670, 
709, 729. 

Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Palmer 
(20 Minn. 468, 20 Gil. 424 
[1874]), 104, 350, 464, 460, 639. 
708, 1417, 1425, 1426. 

Minnetonka Lake Improvement, Car- 
penter, In re v. Board of County 
Commissioners of Hennepin Coun- 
ty (56 Minn. 513, 45 Am. St. Rep. 
494, 58 X. W. 295 [1894]), 360, 
404. 

Minor v. Daspit, Sheriff (43 La. 
Ann. 337, 9 So. 49 [1891]), 4, 7, 
37, 147, 668, 689, 711. 

Minor v. Board of Control of the 
City of Hamilton (20 Ohio C. C. 
4 [1899]), 787, 800. 

Miservey v. People ex rel. Raymond 
(208* 111. 656. 70 X. E. 678 
[1904]). 51. 949. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clvii 



[References are to sections.] 



Missouri, Kansas &. Texas Railway 

Company v. Cambern (G6 Kan. 

3G5, 71 "Pac. 800 [1903]). 26(5, 343, 

1078. 
Missouri, K-ansas & Texas Ry. Co. 

of Texas v. Wetz (97 Tex. »81, 80 

S. W. 988 [1904]). 363. 
^Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Ilarrelson 

(44 Kan. 253, 24 Pac. 46.5), 363. 
Mitchell V. Lane (62 Hun (X. Y.) 

253, 16 X. Y. Supp. 707 [ISfll]). 

449. 4G5, 479, 986. 1204. 
Mitchell V. City of Xegaunce (113 

Mich. 359, 67 Am. St. Rep. 468, 

38 L. R. A. 157. 71 X. W. 646 

[1897]), 368, 608. 
MitclicU V. Tliornton (21 Gratt. 164 

[1871]), 69. 
Mittel V. lity of /'liicago (9 P,rad- 

well ;ill.) "534 [1881]), 549. 653, 

6.74. 
Mix V. Peo^ile ex rol. Sliaw { 106 HI. 

425 [1883]), 525. 
Mix V. Ross (57 111. 121 [1870]), 

11, 35, 45, 613, 1039, 1048, 1115. 
Moale V. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore ' (61 Md. 224 [1883]). 

440, 475, 521, 570. 626, 631, 632, 

696, 698, 705, 739, 867, 890, 1042, 

1049, 1060, 1444. 
Moale V. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (5 Md. 314, 61 Am. 

Dec. 276 [1854]), 86, 100, 110. 
Moherly v. Hogan (131 Mo. 19, 32 

S. W. 1014 [1895]), 8, 50, 89, 562, 

620, 625, 674, 698, 704, 1040, 1049, 

1135, 1182, 1249, 1284, 1383. 
Moherry v. City of Jefi'ersonville (38 

Ind. 198 [1871]). 223. 234, 264. 

396, 433, 496. 7(>0. 948. 1337, 1350, 

1352, 1356. 
Mobile. Mayor, Aldermen, etc., of v. 

Dargan (45 Ala. 310 [1871]). 113, 

150. 323, 690, 701. 
Mobile. County of v. Kimball (102 

U. S. 691, 26 L. 238 [1880]). 36. 

360. 
Mobile, City of v. Mobile Light & 

Railroad Company ( 141 Ala. 442. 

38 So. 127 [1904]). 739, 748, 758. 

Mobile, Mayor, Aldermen, etc., of v. 

Royal Street Railroad Company 



(45 Ala. 322 [1871]), 111,- 113, 

150, 323, 690, 701. 
Mock V. City of Muncie ( 9 Ind App. 

536, 37 X. E. 281 [1893]), 301, 

549, 553, 619, 626, 642. 654. 723. 
Mocker v. Cincinnati (7 Ohio X. P. 

279 [1900]), 956. 764. 
Modesto Irrigation District, Board 

of Directors of v. Tregea (88 Cal. 

33*4, 26 Pac. 237 [1891]), 129, 

1370, 1477. 
^loerlein Brewing Co. v. ^Yestmeier 

(4 Ohio C. C. 296 [1890]). 1067, 

1068, 1085, 1146, 1224. 
Moffitt V. Jordan (127 Cal. 622, 60 

Pac. 173 [1000]), 301, 537. 726. 

907, 1062, 1150. 1153, 1154. 1269, 

1281, 1334. 
Mogg V. Hall (83 Mich. 576. 47 X. 

\Y. 553), 340, 1041, 1047, lOSl. 
Mohr V. City of Chicago (114 111. 

App. 283 [1904]), 495, 541. 1437. 

1442. 
Moll V. City of Chicago (194 111. 28. 

61 X'. e" 1012 [1901]). 759, 764, 

864. 
.Molt V. Baumann (65 X"^. Y. App. 

Div. 445 [1901]), 1072. 
Monaghan v. City of Indianapolis 

(37 Ind. App. 280, 76 X. E. 424, 

reversing on rehearing 75 X. E. 33 

[1905]), 515. 
Monroe v. City of Cleveland (29 

Ohio C. C. 6.33 [1907]). 685, 687, 

1015. 
Monroe Countv. Board of Commis- 
sioners of V. Fullen (118 Ind. 158. 

20 X. E. 771 [1888] ). 1350. 
Monroe, Board of Commis<ioners of 

County of v. Ilarrell ( 147 Ind. 

500, 46 X. E. 124 [1876]). 8. 11. 

40, 50, 147. 247, 248, 253, 550. 

553, 665, 666, 672. 677, 697, 1505. 
^lonroe. County of v. City of Roch- 
ester (88 Hun. 164, 34 X. Y. S. 

533 [1895]), 1361. 
Moore v. Citv of Paola (63 Kan. 

867. 66 Pac. 1040 |19()1]). 86. 314. 

697. 
^loore V. People ex rel. Lewis ( 106 

111. 376 [1883]), 104, 153, 340, 

896, 918, 927, 955. 



clviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Moore v. Simonson (27 Or. 117, 39 
Pac. 1105 [1805]), 1055. 

Moorewood v. Corporation of N'ew 
York (6 Howa'rd, 386 [1851]), 
728. 

Moran v. Mayor and Aldermen of 
Jersey City (58 N. J. L. (29 Vr.) 
653, 35 Atl. 950 [1896]), 1368. 

Moran v. Thompson (20 Wash. 525, 
56 Pac. 29 [1899]), 347, 495. 

Moran v. City of Troy (9 Hun (N. 
Y.) 540 [1877]), 89, 110, 381, 414, 
464. 

Morange v. Mix (44 N^. Y. 315 
[1871]), 888, 1523. 

Morewood Avenue, Chamber's Ap- 
peal (159 Pa. St. 20, 28 Atl. 123 
[1893]), 8, 11, 284, 382, 554, 620, 
626, 627, 666, 672, 709. 

Morewood Avenue, Ferguson's Ap- 
peal (159 Pa. St. 39, 28 Atl. 130 
[1893]), 223, 234, 744, 906. 

Morey v. City of Duluth (75 Minn. 
221, 77 N.- W. 829 [1899]), 301, 
394, 915, 927, 939, 986, 996, 1057, 
1183, 1348, 1358. 

Morford v. Unger (8 la. 82). 150. 

Morgan v. Pueblo & Arkansas Val- 
ley Railroad Company (6 Colo. 
478 [1883]), 73. 

Morgan Civil Township v. Hunt ( 104 
Ind. 590, 4 X. E. 299 [1885]), 744, 
807, 1384. 

Morgan Park, Village of v. Galian 
(35 ni. App. 646 [1890]), 496. 
738, 1499. 

Morgan Park, Village of v. Wiswall, 
(155 111. 262, 40 X. E. 611 
[1895]), 284, 291, 351, 451. 

Morley v. Carpenter (22 Mo. App. 
640 [1886]), 380, 381, 464. 

Morley v. Weakley (86 Mo. 451), 
314.*^ 

Morning Park Side Case ( 10 Abb. 
Pr. (X. S.) 338 [1870]), 909. 927. 
986. 

Monroe, County of v. City of Roch- 
ester (154 X. Y. 570," 49 X. E. 
139 [1898]), 672, 724, 1415, 1423. 
1427, 1431. 

Monroe Avenue, Chamber's Ap 
peal (159 Pa. St. 20, 28 Atl. 123 
[1893]), 898. 



Monroe Avenue, Ferguson's Ap- 
peal (159 Pa. St. 39. 28 Atl. 130 
[1893]), 916. 

^lonticello. Town of v. Banks (48 
Ark. 251, 2 S. W. 852 [1886]), 
151, 608, 639, 697, 701. 

Montgomery, City Council of v. Bar- 

nett (— Ala. , 43 So. 92 

[1907]), 519, 1432, 1437. 

Montgomery, City Council of v. Bird- 
song (126 Ala. 632, 28 So. 522 
[1699]), 111, 118, 132, 150, 653, 
690, 702, 1183, 1395, 1432, 1444. 

Montgomery City Council of v. Fos- 
ter (133 Ala. 587, 32 So. 610 
[1901]), 323, 432, 653, 677, 702. 

Montgomery, Citj^ Council of v. 
Moore (140 Ala. 638, 37 So. 291 
[1903]), 118, 194, 195, 314, 665, 
666, 698, 702, 709. 

Montgomery v. Wasem (116 Ind. 
343, 19 X. E. 184, 15 X. E. 795 
[1888]), 531, 770, 772, 1008, 1015, 
1018, 1292, 1431, 1435, 1436. 

Montgomery County, Board of Com- 
missioners of V. Fullen (118 Ind. 
158, 20 X. E. 771 [1888]), 465, 
468, 469, 477, 479, 1350, 1371. 

Montgomery County, Board of Com- 
missioners of V. Fullen (111 Ind. 
410, 12 X. E. 298 [1887]), 16, 263, 
266, 278, 322, 477, 549, 561, 666, 
709, 738, 776, 7'81, 952, 955, 1513. 

Moody & Co. V. Chadwick (52 La. 
Ann. 1888, 28 So. 361 [1900]), 
525, 707, 714, 1047, 1371. 

Moore v. City of Albany (98 X. Y. 
396 [1885]), 393, 396, 398, 403, 
995, 1001. 

Moore v. Barry (30 S. C. 530, 4 L. 
R. A. 294. 9 S. E. 589 [1889]), 
16, 1012, 1033, 1043. 

Moore v. City of Chicago (60 111. 
243 [1871]), 8t)0. 

Moore v. Melntyre (110 Mich. 237, 
68 X. W. 130"[1896]), 1015. 1394, 
1436. 

Moore v. City of Mattoon (163 111. 
622, 45 X." E. 567 [1896]), 900. 
902. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



clix 



[References are to sections.] 



Moore v. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(73 N."^ Y. 238, 29 Am. Rep. 134 
[1878]), 7G8, 789, 848, 1028, 1444, 
1498. 

Morewood v. Corporation of New 
York (6 Howard (N. Y.) 38G 
[1851]), 927, 935, 1004, 1005. 

Morewood Avenue, Chamber's Ap- 
peal (159 Pa. St. 20, 28 Atl. 123 
[1893]), 287. 

Morrell v. Union Drainage District 
No. 1, (118 111. 139, 8 N. E. 675 
[1887]), 254, 340, 670, 709, 952, 
955, 1008, 1030, 1414, 1438, 1444. 

Morrilton Waterworks Improvement 
District v. Earl (71 Ark. 4, 69 S. 
W. 577, 71 S. W. 666 [1903]), 
16, 266, 268, 351. 

Morris v. Mayor and Council of the 
City of Bayonne (62 N. J. L. (33 
Yt[) 385,^41 Atl. 924 [1898]), 
1368, 1379. 

Morris v. Mayor and Council of Ba- 
yonne (2o'n. J. Eq. (10 C. E. 
Green), 345 [1874]), 55, 829, 1437. 

Morris v. City of Chicago (11 111. 
650 [1850])"^, 430, 465, 480, 1369. 

Morris v. Lalaurie (39 La. Ann. 47 
[1887]), 73. 

Morris v. Merrill (44 Neb. 423, 62 
N. W. 865 [1895]), 266. 270. 1420. 

Morrison v. Austin State Bank (213 
111. 472, 104 Am. St. Rep. 225, 72 
N. E. 1109 [1905]), 1503. 

Morrison v. City of Chicago ' ( 142 
111. 660, 32 N. E. 172 [1893]), 223. 
234, 271, 699, 777, 880, 906, 908, 
910, 922, 925, 927, 930, 1309. 

Morrison v. Hershire (32 la. 271 
[1871]), 301, 561, 562, 575, 620. 
677, 838, 1116, 1173, 1435. 

Morrison v. Morey (146 Mo. 543, 
48 S. W. 629* [1898]), 38, 47, 
97, 111, 147, 343, 507, 679, 717, 
1085. 

Morrison v. City of St. Paul (5 
Minn. 108 (Gif. 83) [1861]), 813. 

Morrow v. Geeting (23 Ind. App. 
494, 55 N. E. 787 [1899]), 475. 

Morrow v. Geeting (15 Ind. App. 
358, 41 N. E. 848. 44 N. E. 59 
[1896]), 375, 550. 674, 690, 1282. 



Morse v. City of Buffalo (35 Hun 
(N. Y.) 613 [1'885]), 707, 723, 
886, 1432. 

Morse v. Charles ( — ^lass. , 83 

N. E. 891 [1908]), 480, 663, 950. 
Morse v. City of Omaha (67 Xeb. 
426, 93 N. W. 734 [1903]), 223, 
234, 670, 699, 781, 795, 951, 1004, 
1432. 
Morse v. .Stocker (83 ]Mass. (1 All.) 

150 [1861]), -396. 
Morse v. City of West Port (110 Mo. 
502, 19 S. W. 831 [1892]), 314, 
517, 518. 

Morton v. Sullivan ( — Ky. , 29 

Ky. L. Rep. 943, 96 S. W. 807 
[1906]), 236, 301, 313, 549, 620, 
686, 1215, 1224, 1298, 1524. 
Moseley v. Boush (25 Va. (4 Ran- 
dolph) 392 [1826]), 1040, 1050, 
1055. 
Moss V. City of Fairbury (66 Neb. 

671, 92 N. W. 721 [1902]), 313. 
Mott v. Hubbard (59 0. S. 199, 53 
N. E. 47 [1898]), 189, 1011, 1012, 
1013. 
Mott V. City of Detroit (18 Mich. 
494 [1869]), 43, 89, 92, 95, 118, 
157, 317, 419, 437, 515, 531, 532, 
570, 665, 666, 688, 698, 709, 713, 
1012, 1015, 1020, 1060. 
Mound City Construction Company 
V. Macgurn (97 Mo. App. 403, 71 
S. W. 460 [1902]), 545, 622, 681. 
Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. 
Miller (170 Mo. 240, 94 Am. St. 
Rep. 727, 60 L. R. A. 190, 70 S. 
W. 721 [1902]). 15, 202, 229, 247, 
253, 335, 340, 666, 711. 
Mt. Auburn, Proprietors of the Cem- 
etery of V. City of Cambridge ( 150 
Mass. 12, 4 L. R. A. 836, 22 N. E. 
66 [1889]), 8, 11. 
Mt. Carniol. City of v. Friodrich (141 
111. 3(i9, 31 N. E. 21 [1893]), 911. 
918. 
:\Ioujit Morris Square. Matter of (2 

Hill (N. Y.) 14 [1842]), 206. 
Mount Pleasant Avenue, In re (171 
Pa. St. 38, 32 Atl. 1122 [1895]), 
1347, 1354, 1363. 



clx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



]\It. Pleasant Boroiigli v. Baltimore 
& Ohio Railroad Company (138 
Pa. St. 365, 11 L. R. A. 520, 20 
Atl. 1052 [1890]), 52, 53, 55, 231, 
596, 598, 737, 829. 

Mt. Vernon, In re Petition City of, 
to Assess Cost of Local Improve- 
ments, etc. (147 111. 359, 23 L. R. 
A. 807, 35 K E. 533 [1894]), 35, 
581, 910, 1074, 1219. 

Mt. Vernon, City of v. State of Ohio 
ex rel. Berry (71 0. S. 428, 104 
Am. St. Rep. 783, 73 N. • E. 515 
[1904] , 1012, 1015, 1019, 1472. 

Moxley v. Lawler ( — Ky. , 97 

S. W. 365 [1906] , 301, 1049, 1072. 

Moyamensing, Commissioners and 
Inhabitants of the District of, to 
the use of the City of Philadel- 
phia V. Flanigan (3 Phil. 458 
[1859]), 1063. 

Mudge V. Walker (— Ky. , 90 

S. W. 1046, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 
996 [1906]), 432, 462, 528. 

Muire v. Falconer (51 Va. (10 
Gratt.) 12 [1853]), 771. 

Mullane v. City of Newark ( — N. 
J. , 68 Atl. 412 [1905]), 495. 

Mulligan v. Smith (59 Cal. 206 
[1881]), 781, 786, 787, 788, 791, 
795, 1006, 1204. 

Mullikin v. City of Bloomingtoh ( 72 
Ind. 161 , 246. 

Mullins V. Shaw (77 Miss. 900, 28 
So. 958 [1900] , 906. 

Municipal Securities Corporation v. 

Gates (— Mo. App. , 109 S. 

W. 85 [1908]), 865. 

Municipal Securities Corporation v. 

Gates (— Mo. App. , 105 S. 

W. 85 [1908]), 18. 

Municipality Number Two, Praying 
for the Opening of Benton Street 
V. White (9 La. Ann. 446 [1854]), 
33, 113, 155, 622, 624, 690. 

Municipality No. 2, for Opening Eu- 
phrosine Street (7 La. Ann. 72 
[1852]), 63, 113, 155. 

]\Itinicipality No. 1, Praying for the 
Opening of Orleans Avenue (8 La. 
Ann. 377 [1853]), 745, 765, 1299. 

Municipality Number Two, for the 



Opening of Roffignac Street (7 La. 

Ann. 76 [1852]), 155, 308, 311, 

426. 
Municipality Number One v. Young 

(5 La. Ann. 362 [1850]), 155. 
Municipality Number Two v. Cur- 

rell (13 La. 318 [1839]), 1054. 
Municipality Number Two v. Dunn 

(10 La. Ann. 57 [1855]), 155. 
jNIunicipality Number Two v. Mc- 

Donough" (10 La. Ann. 533 

[1840]), 434. 
Munn, In the Matter qf (165 N. Y. 

149, 58 N. E. 881 [1900]), 672, 

675, 888, 927, 979, 1337, 1369, 

1371, 1455. 
Munn, In the Matter of (49 App. 

Div. 232), 927, 979, 1337, 1369, 

1371, 1455. 
Munson v. Board of Commissioners 

of The Atchafalaya Basin Levee 

District (43 La. Ann. 15, 8 So. 

906 [1891]), 35, 37, 89, 145, 147, 

155, 343, 549, 651, 711, 779, 780. 
Murdock v. City of Cincinnati (44 

Fed. 726 [1891]), 771, 1012, 1033, 

1046, 1141, 1370. 
Murdock v. City of Cincinnati (39 

Fed. 891 [1889]), 119, 132, 726. 

773. 
Murnane v. City of St. Louis (123 

Mo. 479, 27 "S. W. 711 [1894]), 

186. 
Murphey v. Mayor and Council of 

\\'ilmington "(5 Del. Ch. 281 

[1879]), 649, 890, 1430. 
Murphy, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate or Reduce As- 
sessments (20 Hun (N. Y.) 346 

[1880]), 317, 440, 831, 1455. 
Murphy v. City of Albina (20 Or. 

379, 26 Pac. 234 [1891]), 1500. 
Murphy v. Beard (138 Ind. 560, 38 

N. E. 33 [1894]), 766, 1068. 
Murphy v. City of Chicago (186 111. 

59. 57 N. E. 847 [1900]), 279, 282. 
iMurpliy v. Inhabitants of Clinton 

(182 Mass. 198, 65 N. E. 34 

[1902]), 324, 1116. 1119, 1152. 
Murphy V. Dobben (137 Mich. 565, 

100 N. W. 891 [1904]), 226, 340. 

776, 1497. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxi 



[References are to sections.] 



( — 
593 

(72 
494, 

Neb. 
680 

I. 11 



(119 111. 
244, 271, 
43-2, 444, 
775, 911, 

Ct. 



^Murphy v. City of Long Brand 

X. J. Sup." , 61 Atl. 

[1905]), 305, 433, 570. 
Murphy v. City of Louisville 

Ky. '(9 Bush.) 189 [1872]). 

1499. 
Murj)hy V. City of Omaha ( 1 

(UnolV. ) 488, 95 X. W. 

[1901] ), 14'o2, 1490. 
Murphy v. People (120 111. 23 

X. E. 202), 153, 347. 
Murphy v. People ex rel. Raymond 

183 ill. 185, 55 X. E. 078 [1899]), 

1183. 
Murphy v. City of Peoria 

509, "9 X. E. 895 [1888]) 

270, 293, 295, 305,, 431, 

549, 560, 570, 748, 771, 

918. 
Murphy v. Sims (27 Olrio Cii 

R. 825 [1905]), 1012. 
Murpliy V. ^layor and Council of the 

City of Wilmington ( Houst. 

(Del.) 108, 22 .Am. St. Rep. 

345 [1880]), 80, 230, 245, 1423, 

1425. 
ilurr V. City of Xaperville (210 III. 

371, 71 X. E. 380 [1904]), 280, 

348, 451, 922, 1316. 
^Murray v. C'ity of Chicago ( 175 111. 

340/51 X. E. 054 [1898]), 905, 

972, 990. 
^lurraj^ v. Graham (0 Paige Ch. ( X. 

Y.) 622 [1837]), 557, 927, 941, 

986, 996, 1414. 
Murray v. Tucker (73 Ky. (10 

Bush.) 240 [1874]),' 223, 229, 2*34, 

273, 527, 531, 541, 775, 770, 807. 
Murtland v. City of Pittsburg ( 189 

Pa. St. 371, 41 Atl. 1113 [1899-]), 

1035, 1491. 
Mu-c'tino. ( ity of v. Chicago, Rock 

Island & Pacific Ry. Co. (88 la. 

291, 55 X. W. 100)' 575, 594, 59.1, 

597. 598, 630, 077, 1028, 1105, 

1100, 1303. 
Muscatine City of v. The Chicago, 

Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. ^79 

la. 645, 44 X. W. 909 [1890]), 

1000. 
Muscatine, Cit.y of v. Keokuk Xorth 

ern Line Packet Cb. (45 la. 185 

[1876]), 827. 



Muskego, Town of v. Drainage Com- 
missioners (YS ^Yis. 40, 47 X. W. 
11 [1890]), 93, 97, 239, 340, 420, 
585, 004, 739, 750, 798, 909, 1299. 

^Nkitual Life Insurance Company of 
Xew Yoi k to Vacate an Assess- 
ment, In the flatter of the Peti- 
tion of the (89 X. Y. 530 [1882] ). 
323, 436, 443, 480, 805, 1453. 

Mutual Life Insurance Company of 
Xew York v. ^layor. Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the City of X'ew 
York ( 144 X. Y. 494, 39 X. E. 386 
[1895]), 495, 1486, 1488. 

^Mutual Life Insurance Company of 
Xew York v. Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalt.v of the City of Xew 
York (79 Hun (X. Y.) 482, 29 X. 
Y. S. 980 [1894]), 496, 1488. 

Myer v. Burns (4 Phil. 314 [1801]), 
1146, 1194. 

Myers v. City of Chicago (196 111. 
591, 03 X. E. 1037 [1902]), 295, 
297, 298, 347, 348, 005, 006, 670. 

M.vers V. Dodd (9 Ind. 290, 68 Am. 
Dec. 624), 363. 

^il.vrick V. City of La G^rosse (17 
Wis. 442 [186-3]), 53, 54, 737, 813, 
981, 1420, 1432. 



N 

X'. p. Perine Contracting & Paving 
Company v. City of Pasadena (110 
Cal. 0. '17 Pac." 777 [1897]), 777. 

X'. P. Perine Contracting Co. v. 
Quackenbush (104 Cal. 084. 38 
Pac. 533 [I894]f? 314, 4>'?7, 499, 
515, 867, 1086, 1141, 1145. 1235, 
1205. 

Xaegely v. Cit.v of Saginaw ( 101 
Mich*. 532, 00 X. W. M> [1894]), 
843, 844, 851, 861. 

Xagle V. :MeMurray (84 Cal. 539. 24 
Pac. 107 [1890]), 1024, 1020, 
1033. 

Xalle V. Cit.v of Austin ( — Tex. 

Civ. Ap]). , 103 S. \V. 825 

[1907]), 43, 986. 



clxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Naltner v. Blake (56 Ind. •127), 

[1877]), 432, 465, 479, 1181, 1196, 

1207. 
Napa, City of v. Easterby ( 76 Cal. 

222, 18 Pac. 253 [18S8]), 741, 838, 

849, 854, 862. 
Napa, City of v. Easterby (61 Cal. 

509 [1882]), 367, 436, 627, 741, 

749, 837, 848, 854, 862, 1281, 1292. 
Nash V. Clark (27 Utah, 158, 101 

Am. St. Rep. 953, 1 L. R. A. (N. 

S.) 208, 75 Pac. 371 [1904]), 355. 
Nash V. Kenyon (Mich. , 115 

N. W. 45 [1908]), 482. 
Nash V. Mayor, etc., of the City of 

New York (9 Hun (N. Y.) 218 

[1876]), 1478, 1484. 
Nash .-. City of St. Paul (8 Minn. 

172 [1863]), 313. 
Nashville, Mayor and City Council 

of V. Berry (2 Shan. Cas. (Tenn.) 

561), 55, 86, 96, 160, 245, 323, 420, 

717. 
National Bond & Security Co. v. City 

of St. Paul (91 Minn. 223, 97 N. 

W. 878 [1904]), 1195, 1206. 
National Fertilizer Co. v. Lambert 

(48 Fed. 458), 372. 
National Life Insurance Co. v. But- 
ler (61 Neb. 449, 87 Am. St. Rep. 

462, 85 N. W. 437 [1901]), 49, 

1057. 
National Tubeworks Co. v. Cham- 
berlain (5 Dak. 54, 37 N. VV. 761 

[1889]), 838. 
National Water Works Co. v. City 

of Kansas (28 Fed. 921]), 483. 
Naugatuck Railroad Co. v. City of 

Waterbury (78 Conn. 193, 61 Atl. 

474 [1905]), 594, 596, 598. 
Neal V. Vansickel (72 Neb. 200, 100 

N. W. 200 [1904]), 677, 729. 
Neenan v. Donoghue (50 Mo. 493 

[1872]), 437, 537. 
Neenan v. Smith (60 Mo. 292 

[1875]), 465, 479, 707, 1284, 1335. 
Neenan v. Smith (50 Mo. 525 

[1872]), 79, 314, 698, 707, 714, 

1040, 1182. 
Neenan v. Smith (30 Mo. 525 

[1872]), 707. 
Neff V. Bates (25 O. S. 109 [1874]), 

245, 395, 1015. 



Neff V. Covington Stone and Sand 
Co. (108 Ky. 457, 55 S. W. 
697, 56 S. W. 723 [1900]), 492, 
574, 679, 684, 1141, 1145, 1182. 

Nehasane Park Association v. Lloyd 
(167 N. Y. 431, 60 N. E. 741 
[1901]), 223, 234, 1190. 

Neill V. Trans-Atlantic Mortgage 
Trust Company (89 Mo. App. 644 
[1901]), 18, 530. 

Neilson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & 
Northwestern Railway Company 
(58 Wis. 516, 14 Ami! & Eng. R. 
Cases, 239, 17 N. W. 310 [1883]), 
71. 

Neiman v. State ex rel. Dickey (98 
Ind. 58 [1884]), 1250, 1251." 

Nell V. Power (— Ky. , 107 S. 

W. 694 [1908]), 527. 

Nelson v. City of Chicago (196 111. 
390, 63 N." E. 738 [1902]), 301, 
523, 741, 844. 

Nelson v. City of Saginaw (106 
Mich. 659, 64 N. W. 499 [1895]), 
690, 692, 927. 

Neltner v. Blake (56 Ind. 127 
[1877]), 1204. 

Neptune v. Taylor (108 Ind. 459, 8 
N. E. 566 [1886]), 322, 1371. 

Nesbit V. People (19 Colo. 441, 36 
Pac. 221), 216. 

Neustadt v. Illinois Central Rail- 
road (31 111. 484), 615. 

Nevada, City of, to use of Gilfillan 
v. Eddy (123 Mo. 546, 27 S. W. 
471), 234, 264, 273, 596, 838, 867, 
877, 1134. 

Nevada, City of, to the use of Gil- 
fillan V. Morris (43 Mo. App. 586 
[1891]), 273, 502, 570, 698, 1284, 
1304. 

Nevada National Bank of San Fran- 
cisco v. Poso Irrigation District 
(140 Cal. 344, 73 Pac. 1056 
[1903]), 579, 1072, 1073, 1261, 
1380, 1426, 1427. 

Nevada National Bank v. Board of 
Supervisors of Kern County (5 
Cal. App. 638, 91 Pac. 122 
[1907]), 242, 259, 469, 1085. 

Neversorry v. Duluth South Shore 
and Atlantic R. Co. (115 Mich. 
146, 73 N. W. 125), 363. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxiii 



[References are to -sections.] 



Nevin v. Allen ( — Ky. , 26 S. 

W. 180, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 830 
[1894]), 569, 607, 622, 1197. 

Nevin v. City of Dayton (4 Ohio X. 
P. 203 [1897]), 1012. 

JSTevin v. Gaertner ( — Ky. , 48 

S. W. 153, 20 Ky. L." R. 1022), 
1249, 1317. 

Nevin v. Roach (86 Ky. 492, 5 S. 
W. 546 [1887]), 119, 132, 134, 
275, 296, 301, 553, 628, 666, 709, 
710, 773, 844, 867, 1356, 1370. 

Nevins & Otter Creek Township 
Draining Company v. Alkire ( 36 
Ind. 189 [1871])'. 340, 554, 560, 
639, 723, 745, 956, 960, 1011, 1254, 
1262. 

New V. Village of New Rochelle (91 
H-n (N. Y.) 214, 36 N. Y. S. 211 
[1895]), 1484, 1485, 1488. 

New Albany, City of v. Conger (18 
Ind. App. 230, 47 N. E. 852 
[1897] ), 626, 1505. 

New Albany, City of v. Cook (29 
Ind. 220 [1867]"), 11, 78, 549, 624, 
631, 651, 657. 

New Albany, City of v. Sweeney ( 13 
Ind. 245 [1859]), 1511. 

New Albany Gas Light & Coke Co. 
V. Crunibo (10 Ind. App. 360, 37 
N. E. 1062 [1894]), 1015, 1018. 

New Castle City v. Jackson (172 Pa. 
St. 86, 33 Atl. 236 [1895]), 42, 
592, 613. 

New Castle & Richmond Railroad 
Co. V. Brumback (5 Ind. 543 
[1854]), 69. 

New Eel River Draining Association 
V. Durbin (30 Ind. 173 [1868]), 
253, 254, 479, 1338. 

New En'rland Hospital for Women 
and Children v. Street Commis- 
sioners of the City of Boston ( 188 
Mass. 88, 74 N. E. 294 [1905]), 
307, 309, 310, 358, 424, 525, 570. 

New England Safe Deposit & Trust 
Company of ^Missouri v. James (77 
Mo. App. 616 [1898]), 538. 

New Haven, City of v. Fair Haven 
& Westville Railroad Company 
(38 Conn. 422, 9 Am. Rep. 399 
[1871]), 11, 600, 601, 602, 1359. 

New Haven, City of v. Whitney (36 



Conn. 373 [1870]). 228. 229, 464, 
776. 

New Haven & Ft. Wayne Turnpike 
Co. v. Bird (33 Ind. '325 [1870]), 
255, 5,54, 629, 639, 723, 886, 1432. 

New Iberia, ]\Iayor and Board of 
Trustees of the Town of v. Fon- 
telieu (108 La. 460, 32 So. 369 
[1901]), 5, 19, 52, 53, 55, 57, 93, 
96, 230, 443, 570. 

New Jersey, State of v. (See 

State). Chancellor of (See Chan- 
cellor) . 

New Jersey, Commissioners of the 
Sinking Fund of v. Inhabitants of 
the Township of Linden ( 40 N. J. 
Eq. (13 Stewart) 27 [1885]), 959, 
1057. 

New London, City of v. ^Miller (60 
Conn. 112, 22 " Atl. 499 [1891]), 
8, 35, 89, 1056. 

New Orleans, City of. Praying for 
Opening of Casacaloo and Moreau 
Streets (20 La. Ann. 497 [1868]), 
43, 155, 308, 560, 634, 698. 

New Orleans, City of. Praying for 
the Opening of Dryades Street (11 
La. Ann. 458 [1856]), 731, 745. 

New Orleans, City of. Praying for 
the Opening of Piiillip and Other 
Streets (10 La. Ann. 313 [1855]), 
308, 430. 

New Orleans, Application of Mayor 
and First Municipality of, for Ex- 
tension of Barrack Street (2 Rob- 
inson (La.) 491 [1842]), 1519. 

New Orleans, Second Municipality of 
v. Botts (8 Robinson (La.) 198 
[1844]), 263, 413, 837, 873. 

New Orleans, City of v. Estate of 
Burthe (26 La. Ann. 497), 155. 

New Orleans, City of v. Elliott (10 
La. Ann. 59 [1855]), 155, 625. 
663, 666, 089. 698, 713. 

New Orleans, Second Municipality of 
V. McDonogli (9 Robinson (La.) 
408 [1845]), 234. 

New Orleans, City of v. New Orleans 
Water Works Company ( 36 La. 
Ann. 432 [1884]), 73. 

New Orleans, City of, for the Use 
of Nicholson & Co. v. Stewart (18 
La. Ann. 710 [1806]), 314, 806 



clxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



New Orleans v. Warner (180 U. S. 
199, 45 L. 597, 21 S. 353 [1901], 
modified on rehearing, 176 U. S. 
92, 44 L. 385, 20 S. 280), 1508. 

New Orleans v. Warner (175 U. S. 
120, 44 L. 96, 20 S. 44 [1899J, 
modified on rehearing, 176 U. S. 
92, 44 U 385, 20 S. 280), 16, 580, 
587, 1010, 1075, 1508. 

Xew Orleans City and Lake Rail- 
road Company v. Louisiana ex rel. 
City of Xew^ Orleans ( 157 U. S. 
219, 39 L. 679, 15 S. 581 [1895]), 
60, 166, 167, 599, 605, 1162. 

New Orleans Drainage Co. praying 
for the confirmation of a tableau, 
(11 Lf, Ann. 338 [1856]), 8, 43, 
111, 155, 255, 653. 

New Orleans Gas Co. v. Drainage 
Commission of New Orleans (197 
U. S. 453, 49 L. 831, 25 S. 471 
[1905]), 483. 

New Orleans, Jackson & Great 
Northern Railroad Co. v. iloye 
(39 Miss. 374 [I860]), 71. 

New Whatcom, City of v. Belling- 
ham Bay Improvement Co. ( 18 
Wash. 181, 51 Pac. 360 [1897]), 
301, 670, 918, 927, 1004, 1141, 
1145. 

New Whatcom, City of v. Belling- 
ham Bay Improvement Company 
(16 Wash. 131, 47 Pac. 236 
[1896]), 119, 121, 122, 301, 570, 
670, 693, 699, 747, 760, 962, 965, 
969, 1026, 1141, 1145, 1179, 1299, 
1303, 1307, 1337, 1346. 

New Whatcom, City of v. Belling- 
ham Bay Improvement Company 
(10 Wash. 378, 38 Pac. 1024 
[1894]), 1017. 

New Whatcom, City of v. Belling- 
ham Bay Improvement Company 
(9 Wash. 639, 38 Pac. 113 
[1894]), 223, 234, 713, 714, 777, 
951, 1304, 1450. 

New York, In the Matter of the City 
of (190 N. Y. 350) ; sub nomine, In 
re Water Front in City of 'New 
York (83 N E. 299 [1907]), 86, 
241, 245, 622. 

New York, Mayor, Aldermen and 



Commonalty of. Matter of the ( 180 
N. Y. 237, 78 N. E. 952 [1906]). 
426. 

New York, In the Matter of the Ap- 
plication of the Mayor, Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of 
(178 X. Y. 421, 70 N. E.' 924 
[1904]), 680, 892. 

New York, In the Matter of the Pe- 
tition of the Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the City of, for 
Enlarging, Extending and Improv- 
ing Beckman Street in Said City 
(20 Johns. (X. Y.) 209 [1822])', 
206, 271, 358. 

New York, Case of ^layor. Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of, 
in the flatter of Enlarging and 
Extending Harman Street in the 
City of New York ( 18 John. Sup. 
Ct.' 231 [1819]), 271. 304, 919. 
1300. 

New York, In the Matter of the Ap- 
plication of the Mavor and Alder- 
men and Commonalty of the City 
of, for tlie Enlarging and Improv- 
ing a Part of Nassau Street in the 
Said City (11 Johns. 77 [1814] K 
35, 42, 147, 578, 588, 612, 613, 
G14. 

New York, In the flatter of the Cit.v 
of, for Opening Avenue D ( 106 
N. Y. S. 889, 122 App. Div. 410 
[1907]), 680. 

New York, In the Matter of the Citv 
of. North River Water Front ( 105 
N. Y. S. 750, 120 App. Div. 849), 
86, 622. 

New York, In re City of ( 100 N. Y. 
S. 140 [1906]), 1480. 

New York, In the Matter of the Ap- 
plication of the Mayor, Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of 
(99 N. \. 569 [1885]), 356. 

New York, In the Matter of the City 
of (106 App. Div. 31, 94 N. Y. S. 
146 [1905]), 657. 

New York, In re City of ( 94 N. Y. 
S. 146 [1905]), 309. 

New York, In re City of (93 N. Y. 
S. 84, 103 App. Div. 496 [1905]), 
680, 721. 



TxVBLE OF CASES. 



clxv 



[References are to sections.] 



New York, In re Mayor, etc., of 
(89 X. Y. S. 6, 95 App. Div. 552 
[1904]). 119, 320, 356, 430, 475, 
618, 680, 729, 892, 947. 050. 1452, 
1457. 

New \oik. In the Matter of the Citj' 
of. Grant Avenue (78 N. Y. S. 
737, 76 App. Div. 87 [1902]), 672, 
(593, 1351. 

New York, In re City of (78 X. Y. 
S. 51, 38 Misc. Rep. 600 [1902]), 
584, 684, 693. 

Xew York, Matter of (28 X. Y. App. 
D. 143), 320. 

Xew York, In the flatter of the Ap- 
plication of the Board of Street 
Opf^ning and Improvement of the 
City of, Relative to Acquiring Ti- 
tle to Forest Avenue in the Twen- 
ty-third \Yard of the City of Xew 
YorK (74 Hun, 561, 26 X. Y. Supp. 
855 [1893]), 639, 723. 

Xew York, In the Matter of \VideTi- 
ing Broadway in the City of (42 
Howard (X\ Y.) 220 "^[1872]), 
1347. 

Xew York, In the ^Matter of the Ap- 
plication of the' Board of Street 
0|)ening and Improvement of the 
City of, to Acquire Title to Forest 
Avenue (64 Hun (X. Y.) 59, 18 
X. Y. Supp. 727 [1892]), 308, 627. 

Xew York, Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the ( ity of v. 
(ashman (10 Johns. (X.' Y.) 96 
[1813]), 1054. 

Xew York, ^layor, Aldormm, etc., 
of V. Colgate (12 X. Y. 140 
[1854]), 1049, 1088, 1164, 1206. 

X>w York, Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of v. Colgate (9 X. 
Y. Sup. Ct Rep. 1 [1853]), lt)49, 
1068, 1164. 

Xew York, ilayor, etc., of the C'itv 
of V. Corneir(9 Hun (X. \.) 215 
[187(5]), 472, 1108. 

Xew York, Mayor, Al 'ermen and 
Commonalty of the City of v. Tif- 
fany (68 liun (X. \.)' 158. 22 X. 
Y. S. 604 [1893] ). 663. 

Xew York, ilayor, etc., of v. Wliit- 
ney (7 Barb."(X. Y.) 485 [1849]), 
360, 453, 549. 



Xew York Institution, In the !Mat- 
ter of the Petition of the, for In- 
struction of the Deaf and Dumb 
to Vacate Assessments (121 X. Y. 
234, 24 X. E. Rep. 378 [1890]), 
228, 244, 663. . 

X'ew Y'ork & X. E. R. Co. Appeal 
(62 €onn. 527). 359. 

X^ew York & X'. E. R. Co.'s Appeal 
(58 Conn. 532), 359. 

Xew York Protestant Episcopal 
School, In the flatter of tlie (75 
X. Y. 324), 479, 485. 492, 645, 
1371, 1458. 

Xew York Protestant Episcopal 
School, ^Matter of Trustees of (31 
XL Y. 574 [1864]), 910. 

New York, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. 
Co. v. City of Hammond ( — Ind. 

, 83 X. E. 244 [1908]), 7. 8. 

100, 119, 131, 301, 1352. 

Xew York & Harlem R. R. Co. v. 
Board of Trustees of the Town of 
Morrisania (7 Hun 652 [1876]), 
594, 598, 1078, 1426, 1444. 

Xew York Life Insurance Co. v. 
Brest (71 Fed. 815 [1896]), 291, 
370, 458, 657. 

New \ork & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol 
(151 U. S. 556, 38 L. 269), 359. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company' v. City of New 
Britain (49 Conn. 40 [1881]), 324. 
596, 597. 

New York & New Haven Railroad 
Company v. City of New Haven 
(42 Conn. 279, 19 Am. Rep. 534 
[1875]), 59(3. 

New York Security & Trust Co. v. 
City of Tacoma "(30 ^Vash. 6!;i. 71 
Pac. 194 [1903]), 1512, 1526. 

X'^ewark v. Delaware, L. & ^V. R. Co. 
(42 X. J. Eq. 196), 359. 

Xewark v. Schuli (34 X. J. Eq. (7 
Stew.) 262 [1881]), 956, M2S. 

X'^ewark, Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of V. State, Batten. P'-os. (32 
X. J. L. (3 Vr.^ -153 [1865]), 392. 
395. 979. 981. 1291. 

Xewark, ( ity of v. State. Edwards. 
Pros. (34 X. .7. L. (5 Vr.) 523 
[1870]), 1055. 



clxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Newark, IMayor and Common Coun- 
cil of V. Weeks (70 N. J. L. (41 

Vr.) 166, 56 Atl. 118 [1903]), 2. 
Newby v. Platt« County (25 Mo. 

258 [1857]), 31, 33, 62, 70. 
Newcomb v. City of Davenport (86 

la. 291, 53 X. W. 232 [1892]), 

1479. 
Newell V. Wheeler (48 X. Y. 486 

[1872]), 223, 234, 777, 891, 951, 

1196, 1426. 
Newman v. City of Chicago ( 153 111. 

469, 38 N. E. 1053 [1894]), 311, 

663, 677, 857, 886, 997, 1374. 
Newman v. City of Emporia (41 

Kan. 583, 2r Pac. 593 [1889]), 

147, 414, 475, 727, 729, 959, 962, 

969. 
Newman v. City of Emporia (32 

Kan. 456, 4 ' Pac. 815 [1884]), 

413, 424, 832, 837, 838, 989, 1432. 
Newman v. Supervisors of Living- 
ston County (45 N. Y. 676 

[1871]), I486. 
Newport & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. 

Douglass (75 Ky. (12 Bush.) 673 

[1877]), 73. 
Newton County Draining Company 

V. Nofsinger (43 Ind. 566 [1873]), 

254, 1008. 
Nichol V. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Nashville (28 Tenn. (9 Hump.) 

252), 365. 
Nicholes v. City of Chicago ( 184 111. 

43, 56 N. E.'351 [1900]), 926. 
Nicholes v. People ex rel. Kocher- 

sperger (171 111. 376, 49 N. E. 574 

[1898]), 849, 856, 857, 927, 929. 

1029, 1187. 
Nicholes v. People ex rel. Kocher- 

sperger (165 111. 502, 46 N. E. 

237 [1897]), 746, 771, 1183. 
Nicholes v. Bridgeport (23 Conn. 

189, 60 Am. Dec. 636 [1854]), 8, 

70, 86, 89, 100, 110, 119, 147, 245, 

308. 
Nichols v. City of Chicago (192 111. 

290, 61 N. E. 435 [1901]), 804. 
Nichols V. Dallas (165 Ind. 710, 75 

N. E. 824 [1905]), 1149. 
Nichols V. New England Furniture 

Co. (100 Mich. 230, 59 N. W. 155 

[1894]), 1099. 



Nichols V. Voorhis (74 X. Y. 28 

[1878]), 1049, 1369, 1459. 
Xichols V. Voorhis (18 Hun (X. Y. 

33 [1879]), 1176, 1202, 1297. 
Xichols V. Voorhis (9 Hun (X. Y.) 

171 [1876]), 1425. 
Nicholson v. Xew York & Xew Ha- 
ven Railroad Company (22 Conn. 

74 [1852]), 70. 
Xieholson Borough, Main Street (27 

Pa. Super. Ct. 570 [1905]), 72. 

895. 
Xieholson Pavement Co. v. Painter 

(35 Cal. 699 [1868]), 223, 234, 

437, 483, 515, 777, 781, 1086. 
Xicodemus v. City of East Saginaw 

(25 Mich. 456 [1872]). 1012, 1484. 
Xiklaus V. Conkling (118 Ind. 289, 

20 X. E. Rep. 797 [1888]), 229, 

629, 776. 
Xiles, Board of Public Works of 

City of V. Pinch (— Midi. , 

116 X. W. 408 [1908]), 6, 1045, 

1142. 
Xinth Avenue and Fifteenth Street, 

In the Matter of (45 X. Y. 729 

[1871]), 426, 661. 
X'^ixon V. City of Burlington ( — la. 

, 115 X. W. 239 [1908]), 499, 

843, 858, 1027, 1414, 1432. 
Noland v. Mildenberger ( — Ky. — , 

97 S. W. 24 [1906]), 324, 867, 

981. 
Noonan v. People ex rel. Hanberg 

(221 111. 567, 77 N. E. 930 

[1906]), 89, 301, 314, 552, 553. 

594, 595, 597, 598, 620, ()30. 666, 

688, 700, 818, 927, 932, 986, 996, 

1008, 1078, 1130, 1183, 1215, 1340. 
Noonan v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(183 111. 52, 55 N. E. 679 [1899]), 

295, 317, 440, 715, 719, 947, 1372. 
Noonan v. City of Stillwater (33 

Minn. 198, 53 Am. Rep. 23, 22 N. 

W. 444), 158, 350. 
Norfolk, City of v. Chamberlain (89 

Va. 196, 16 S. E. 730 [1892]), 

12, 33, 67, 161, 308, 309,, 435, 

719. 
Norfolk V. Ellis (67 Va. (26 Grat- 

tan) 224 [1875]), 86, 96, 118, 161, 

244, 314, 666, 698, 709. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxvii 



[References ai-e to sections.] 



Norfolk, City of v. Young ( 97 Va. 
728, 47 L. R. A. 574. 34 S. E. 
880 [1900]), 89, 115, 119, 122,126, 
726, 729, 731. 

Norsworthy v. Beryli ( 1 6 Howard 
(N. Y.) 315 [1858J). 1055. 

North Alton, Village of v. Dorsett 
(59 111. App. 612 [1895]), 62, 661. 

North Beach & Mission R. R. Co., 
Appeal of, in the Matter of Wid- 
ening Kearney Street { 32 Cal. 
500 [1867]), 118, 228, 304, 309, 
595, 597, 598, 601, 603, 690, 1372. 

North Jersey Street Railway Com- 
pany V. Mayor and Aldermen of 
Jersey City ^68 N. J. L. (39 Vr.) 
140, 52 Atl. 300 [1902]). 560, 601. 
630. 

North Kiver Bank v.. State for Use 
of Busenberg (91 Ind. 476 
[1883]), 1067. 

North River Meadow Co. v. Christ's 
Ciiureh at Siirewsbnry ( 22 N. J. 
L. (2 Zab.) 424. 53 Am. Dec. 258 
[1850]), 902. 

Nortlianipton's Petition ( 158 Mass. 
209, 33 N. E. 5()8), 359. 

Northern Indiana Land Co. v. Ty- 
ler (— Ind. , 84 N. E. 828 

[1908]). 917. 

Northern Liberties v. Coates' Heirs 
(15 Pa. St. (3 Harr.) 245 
[1850]), 347, 890. 1003. 

Nortliern Liberties v. St. John's 
Cluirch (15 Pa. St. 104), 347. 588, 
013. 1108. 

Nortliern Liberties v. S't. Jolin's 
Church (13 Pa. St. 107), 28. 451, 
472, 588, 012, 1109. 

Nortliern Pacific Lumbering & Man- 
ufacturing Co. V. p]ast Portland 
(14 Ore. 3, 12 Pac. 4 [1880]), 10, 
223, 234, 1372, 1377, 1509. 

Northern Pacific Railway v. Du- 
luth (208 U. S. 583 [1908]), 52, 
93. 98, 359, 420, 717, 1162. 

Nortliern Pacific Ry. Co. v. City of 

Seattle (— Wash. . 91 Pac. 

244 [1907]), 301, 555, 595, 598. 

Northern Railroad Co. of New Jer- 
sej% Pros. V. Mayor and City 
Council of Englewood (02 N. J. 



L. 188, 40 Atl. Rep. 053 (1898]). 

783. 
Xorthport, City of v. Northport 

Townsite Co. (27 Wash. 543, 08 

Pac. 204 [1902]), 486, 1017. 
Northwestern Lumber Co. v. City 

of Aberdeen (20 Wash. 102, 54 

Pac. 935 [1898]), 1510. 
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 

Co. V. Butler (57 Neb. 198, 77 

N. W. 667 [1898]), 49, 1057. 
Northwestern & Pacific Hypofflieek 

Bank v. City of Spokane ( 18 

Wash. 456, 51 Pac. 1070 [1898]), 

697, 724, 927. 934. 1004, 1141, 

1145, 1337. 
Northwestern L^niversity v. Village 

of Wilmette (230 111. 80, 82 N. 

E. 615 [1907]), 284, 325, 920. 
Norton v. City of Boston (119 Mass. 

194 [1875]"), 1411, 1423. 
Nortfui V. Courtney (53 Cal. 691 

[1879]), 824, 907. 
Norton v. Fisher (33 Ind. App. 132. 

71 N. E. 51 [1903]), 324, 670, 

679, 690. 
Norwich Savings Society, The v. 

City of Hartford (48 Conn. 570 

[1881]), 245, 904, 906, 1064, 1163. 
Norwood V. Baker (172 U. S. 269, 

19 S. 187 [1898]), 11. 104, 111. 

112, 118, 119. 308. 350. 408, 426. 

430, 666, 702, 709, 713. 715. 
Norwood, Selectmen of v. New York 

& New England Railroad Com- 

])any (161 Mass. 259, 37 N. E. 

199" [1894]), 11. 
Norwood, Villa<j;e of v. Ogilen ( 15 

Ohio C. C. 539, 18 Oliio C. C. 869, 

8 Ohio C. D. 383 [1898]), 118, 

308, 426, 430. 
Nottage v. City of Portland (35 Or. 

539, 76 Am. St. Rep. 513, 58 Pac. 

883), 983. 
Nowlen v. 'Cit>' cf Benton Harbor 

(134 Midi. 401, 96 N. W. 4.i0 

[1903]), ti81, 1015, 1435, 1436. 
Nowlin V. People (216 111. 543, 75 

N. E. 209 [1905]), 1126. 
Noyes v. City of Cliicago (218 I'd. 

45. 75 N. K. 81)7 [19051 ). 990. 



clxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Nugent V. City of Jackson (72 Miss. 
1040, 18 So. 493 [1895]), 5. 19, 
33, 43, 93, 95, 96, 147, 148, 230, 
293, 323, 420. 732, 737, 740, 803, 
805, 836. 

Null V. Zierle (52 Mich. 540. 18 N. 
W. 348 [1884]), 1396. 

Nulsen v. City of Cincinnati (27 
Ohio Cir. Ct. 383 [1905]). 693. 
699. 

Nunnemachcr v. City of. LouisvlUe 
(98 Ky. 334, 32 S. W. 1091), 486. 

Nutwood Drainage and Levee Dis- 
trict V. Eeddish (234 111. 130, 84 
N E. 750 [1908]). 280, 935, 1375. 



O' 

O'Brien v. Bradley (28 Ind. App. 

487, 61 N. E. 942 [1901]). 324, 

1068, 1203. 
O'Brien v. Marldand (9 Ky. L. Rep. 

773, 6 S. W. 713 [1888]), 575. 
O'Brien v. Wheelock ( 184 U. S. 450, 

46 L. 636, 22 S. 354 [1902]). 18. 

149, -344, 665, 666, 1019, 1163. 
O'Brien v. \Ylieelock (95 Fed. 883, 

37 C. C. A. 309 [1899]). 18, 149. 

344, 665, 666, 1019, 1163. 
O'Brien v. Wlieelock (78 Fed. 673), 

18, 344, 665, 666, 1020, 1163. 
O'Bryne v. City of Philadelphia, to 

Use of Adams (93 Pa. St. (12 

Norris) 225 [1880]), 746. 759, 

764, 1149, 1157, 1160, 1174. 
O'Dea V. Mitchell (144 Cal. 374, 77 

Pac. 1020 [1904]), 313, 624, 642, 

723, 1062, 1299. 
O'Hara v. Scranton City (205 Pa, 

St. 142, 54 Atl. 713 [1903]), 1511. 
O'Hare, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (5 Hun (N. Y.) 287 

[1875]), 686, 826, 979, 981. 
O'Leary v. Sloo ( 7 La. Ann. 25 

[1852]), 155, 244, 323, 420, 441, 

443, 627, 663. 
O'Mahoney v. Bullock (97 Ky. 774. 

31 S. W. 878). 147. 
O'Mallev V. Olyphant Borough (198 

Pa. St. 525, '48 Atl. 483 [1901]), 

507, 1028, 1441. 



O'ileara v. Grreen (25 Mo. App. 198 
[1887]). 380, 381, 461, 463. 

O'Meara v. Green (16 Mo. App. 118 
[1884]), 380, 381, 461, 463. 1382. 

O'Neil -V. People ex rel. Kocher.sper- 
ger (166 111. 561, 46 N. E. 1096 
[1897]), 291, 347, 348, 351, 451, 
857, 864, 927. 929. 940, 992, 1183. 
1341. 

O'Neill V. City of Hoboken (73 N. 
J. L. (44 Vr.) 189, 63 Atl. 986 
[1906]), 235. 

O'Neill V. City of Hoboken (72 N. 
J. L. (43 Vr.) 67, 60 Atl. 50 
[1905]), 166, 168, 235, 335, 408, 
983, 1081, 1505. 

O'Reiley v. Kankakee Co. (32 Ind. 
169),' 97, 336, 859. 

O'Reillcy v. City of Kingston (114 
N. Y." 439, 2rN. E. 1004 [1889]), 
280, 314, 438, 601, 621, 626, 630, 
670. 675, 1271. 1444. 

O'Reilly v. City of Kingston (39 
Hun' (N. Y.)' 285 [1886]), 
604, 690, 693, 703, 723, 1430. 



o 



Oak Park, Village of v. Gait (231 

111. 482, 83 N. E. 212 [1907]), 

816, 864. 
Oakey v. Mayor (I La. 1 [1830]), 

43,' 89, 155, 232, 323, 713. 
Oakland Cemetery v. City of Y'on- 

kers (182 N. \\ 564, " 75 N. E. 

1432 [1905]), 592, 614. 
Oakland Cemetery v. City of Yon- 

kers (71 N. Y^ S. 783, 63 App. 

Div. 448), 592, 614. 
Oakland Paving Co. v. Bagge (79 

Cal. 439, 21 Pac. 855 [1889]), 

1380. 
Oakland Paving Company v. Bar- 
stow (79 Cal. 45, 21 " Pac. 544 

[1889]), 229, 538. 
Oakland Paving Company v. Hilton 

(69 Cal. 479, 11 Pac' 3 [1886]), 

216, 506, 570. 
Oakland Paving Company v. Rier 

(52 Cal. 270 [1877])," 252. 292. 

381, 431, 439, 483, 492, 511, 537. 

665. 698, 830. 831, 836, 867, 1358. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxix 



[References are to seetioiis. ] 



Oakland Paving Co. v. Tompkins 
(72 Cal. 5, 1 Am. St. Rep. 17, 12 
Pac. 801), 216, 221, 50G. 

Obermeyer v. Patterson ( 130 Cal. 
.331, 62 Pac. 020 [1900]), 537, 
1203. 

Odell V. Xgw York Elevated Rail- 
road Company (130 X. Y. 690. 29 
X. E. 998 [1892] i, 71. 

Odenwelder v. Frankenfield (153 Pa. 
St. 526, 26 Atl. 97), 363. 

Ogden V. Town of Lake View (121 
111. 422, 13 X. E. 159 [1887]). 
864, 912. 

Ogden Cit.v v. Armstrong ( 168 V. 
S. 224, 42 L. 444, 18 S. 98 
[1897]), 314, 760, 811, 1415, 1418. 

Oliio V. Commissioners (41 0. S. 
423), 336. 

Oil City V. Lay (164 Pa. St. 370, 
30 Atl. 289 "[1894]), 739, 785. 

Oil ( ity V. Oil ( ity Boiler Works 
(152 " Pa. St. 348. 25 Atl. 549 
[1893]), 86. 

Oil City Building & Loan Associa- 
tion V. Shanfelter (29 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 251 [1905]), 1072. 

Olcott V. Fond du Lac County (83 
U. S. (16 WaU.) 678, 21 L. 382), 
365. 

Old Colony and Fall River Railroad 
Company v. Inhabitants of the 
County of Plymouth (80 Mass. 
(14 Gray) 155 [1859]). 60. 596, 
C57. 

Olds v. Erie City (79 Pa. St. (29 
P. F. Smith) 380 [1875]), 747, 
752, 763, 795, 848, 1006, 1157, 
1158. 

Olive Cemetery Co. v. City of Phila- 
delphia (93 Pa. St. (12 Xorrig) 
129, 39 Am. Rep. 732). 42. 589. 
613. 

Oliver v. Monona County (117 Iowa 
43, 90 X. W. 510 [1902]), 12, 115, 
119, 126. 142, 291, 335, 337, 340, 
549, 550. 553, .558, 5(i4. 651, 653, 
666, 726, 727, 730, 950. 1008, 1347, 
1350, 1352. 

Oliver v. City of Xewberg ( — Or. 

, 91 Pac. 470 [1907]), 301, 

620. 698. 707. 



Olmsted v. Dennis (77 X\ Y. 378 

[1879]), 278, 393, 403, 1522. 
Olmstead v. Tarsney (69 Mo. 396 

[1879] ), 1195, 1225. 
Olsson V. City of Topeka (42 Kan. 

709, 21 Pac' 219 [1889]), 553, 570, 

619, 628, 697, 709, 814, 816. 1450. 
Olympia, City of v. Knox ( — Wash. 

^ , 95 Pac. 1090 [1908]), 972. 

Olyphant Borough to Use v. Egre- 

ski (29 Pa. Super. Ct. 116 

[1905]), 89, 1194. 
Omaha, City of v. Cochran (30 Xeb. 

637. 46 X. W. 920 [1890]), 69. 
Omaha. City of v. Gsanter (4 Xeb. 

Unoff. 52, 93 X. W. 407 [1903]). 

315, 439. 441. 570. 620. 
Omaha, Cit.v of v. Howell Lumber 

Co. (30 Xeb. 633, 46 X. W. 919 

[1890]), 69, 71. 
Omaha, City of v. Megeath (46 Xeb. 

502, 64 X. W. 1091 [1895]). 615, 

617, 1432. 
Omaha, City of v. Schaller (26 Xeb. 

522, 42 X. W. 721 [1889]), 65, 

66, 313, 651, 654. 
Omaha, City of v. State of Xebraska 

ex rel. Metzger (69 Xeb. 29. 94 

X. W. 979 [1903]), 1519. 
Omega Street, Travers' Appeal ( 152 

Pa. St. 129, 25 Atl. 528 [1893]), 

969, 1026. 
One Hundicd and Fiity-eighth 

Street, East, In re (SO X. Y. S. 

594, 39 Misc. 598 [1903]), 475. 
Opening of East 176th Street, In re 

(83 X. Y. S. 433, 85 App. Div. 347 

[1903]). 588, 672, 920, 922. 1324. 
Opening of 178th Street, City of 

Xew York, In re (94 X. Y. S.' 838. 

107 App. Div. 22 [1905]). 426. 

429. 
One Hundred and Thirty-eighth 

Street. In the Matter of Opening 

(61 Howard (X. Y.) 284 [1881]). 

923. 1463. 
One Hundied Twent.\-sevcnth Street, 

In the Matter of (56 How. (X. 

Y.) 60 [1878]). 97. 113. 393. 400, 

427, 455, 661, 1453. 
Orange Street, In the Ma.tter of 

Opening (50 How. (X. Y. ) 244 

[1875]), 754. 8.39. 



clxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[Reffi'ences are to sections.] 



Oregon & California R. R. Co. v. 

City of Portland (25 Or. 229, 22 

L. R. A. 713, 35 Pac. 452 [1894]), 

118, 549, 555, 674, 690, 692. 
Oregon Central R. R. Vo. v. Wait 

(3 Ore. 91 [1869]), 69. 
Oregon Real Estate Co. v. Gambell 

(41 Or. 61, 66 Pac. 441 [1901]), 

805, 983. 
Oregon Real Estate Company v. 

Portland (40 Or. 56, 66 Pac. 442 

[1901]), 803, 805, 810, 981, 983. 
Oregon Transfer Co. v. Portland (47 

Ore. 1, 81 Pac. 575, 82 Pac. 16 

[1905]), 574. 
Orkney Stret, In the :Matter of the 

Opening of, Appeal of the City of 

Philadelphia (194 Pa. St. 425, 48 

L. R. A. 274, 45 Atl. 314 [1900]), 

576, 620. 
Orleans Avenue, Municiiiality No. 1 

praying for opening of ( 8 La. 

Ann. 377 [1853]), 745, 765, 1299. 
Ormsby v. Jamison (Ky.) (9 Ky. L. 

R. 325), 462. 
Orr V. City of Omaha (2 Neb. Unoff. 

771, 90 N. W. 301), 781. 
Orth V. Park & Co. (117 Ky. 779, 

80 S. W. 1108, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 

184 [1904]), denying rehearing of 

79 S. W. 206 (decree modified 26 

Ky. L. R. 342, 81 S. W. 251), 

301, 1039, 1144, 1372. 
Osborn v. Maxinknckee Lake Ice 

Co. (154 Ind. 101, 56 N. E. 33 

[1899]), 340, 564, 747, 952, 955, 

1371. 
Osborn v. People (103 111. 224 

[1882]), 558, 564. 1008, 1477. 
Osborn v. Sutton (108 Ind. 443, 9 

N. E. 410 [1886]), 279, 280, 507, 

795, 906, 927, 1004. 
Oskaloosa Street Railway & Land 

Company v. City of Oskaloosa (99 

la. 496, 68 N. W. 808 [1896]), 

603. 
Oshkosh City Railway Company v. 

Winnebago County "(89 Wis. 435. 

61 N. W. 1107 [i895]), 223, 234, 

601, 605, 656. 
Oster V. City of Jefferson (57 Mo. 

App. 485 [1894]), 231, 233, 437, 

1498, 1508. 



Oswald V. Gilfert (11 Johns (N. Y.) 

443 [1814]), 49, 1054. 
Otis V. City of Chicago ( 161 111. 199, 

43 N. E. 715 [1896]), 368, 864. 
Otis V. De Boer (116 Ind. 531, 19 

N. E. 317 [1888]), 340, 772, 1008. 

1047, 1144, 1219, 1233. 
Otis V. City of St. Paul (94 Minn. 

57, 101 N. W. 1066 [1904]), 1206. 
Otis V. W^eide (98 Minn. 227, 107 

N. W. 540 [1906]), 998, 1196. 
Ottawa, City of v. Barney ( 10 Kan. 

270 [1872]), 147, 554, 619, 628, 

639, 723, 1432, 1435. 
Ottawa, City of v. Chicago Rock 

Island Railroad Co. (25 111. 29 

[I860]), 1026, 1414. 
Ottawa, City of v. Fisher (20 111. 

422 [1858]), 925. 
Ottawa, City of v. Macy (20 111. 413 

[1858]), "248, 553, 554, 690, 751. 

1126. 
Ottawa, The City of v. Spencer (40 

111. 211 [186(5]), 42, 44, 92, 96. 

101, 104, 113, 153, 257, 690, 701. 
Ottawa, City of v. Trustees of the 

Free Church (20 111. 424 [1858]), 

588, 613. 
Ottawa County v. Nelson ( 19 Kan. 

234, 27 Am. Rep. 101), 147. 
Otter V. Barber Asphalt Co. ( — Ky. 

, 96 S. W. 862 [1906]), 12. 

292, 301, 678. 
Ottis V. Sullivan (219 111. 365, 76 

N. E. 487 [1906]), 895, 978, 1002, 

1059, 1279, 1386. 
Ottumwa Brick & Construction Co. 

V. Ainley (109 la. 386, SO N. W. 

510 [18*99]), 18, 495, 554, 574, 

581, 620, 631, 662, 663, 977, 979. 

981. 
Ouray, City of v. Corson ( 14 Colo. 

App. 345, 59 Pac. 876), 372. 
Overmann v. City of St. Paul (39 

Minn. 120, 39 N. W. 66 [1888]), 

119. 
Overshiner v. Jones (66 Ind. 452 

[1879]), 229, 489, 670, 1229, 1235. 

1238. 
Overstreet v. Levee Dist. No. 1 of 

Conway County (80 Ark. 462, 97 

8. W.'qIQ [1906]), 271, 343, 485, 

672, 819, 1109, 1141, 1145. 



T^VBLE OF CASES. 



clxxf 



[Ueferences are to sections.] 



Owen V. City of Chicago ( 53 111. 95 

[1809]), 769, 913. 
Owen V. City of Sioux City (91 la. 

190, 59 N. W. 3 [1894]), 108, 

182. 
Owens V. City of Marion (127 la. 

409, 103 N. W. 381 [1905]), 314, 

315, 439, 490, 501, 080, 090, 742, 

747, 754, 763, 765, 766, 831, 836, 

809, 927, 1337, 1431, 1450. 
Owens V. City of Milwaukee (47 

Wis. 461, 3 X. W. 3 [1879]), 437, 

663, 723, 1444, 1519. 
(^)wens V. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley 

Railroad Co. (74 Miss. 821, 21 So. 

244 [1897]), 566. 
Owensboro, City of v. Hope ( — Ky. 

, 110 S. W. 272 [1908]), 18, 

32, 1044, 1047, 1102. 
Owensboro & X. R. Co. v. Todd (91 

Ky. 175, 11 L. R. A. 285, 15 S. 

W. 56, 45 Am. & Eng. Railroad 

Cases, 461), 363. 
Owensboro & X. R. Co. v. Townsend 

(107 Ky. 291, 53 S. W. 662), 363. 
Owners of Groiind v. Albany (15 

Wend. (X. Y.) 374), 357^^ 578, 

593. 
Owners of Land v. People ex rel. 

Stookey (113 111. 296 [1886]), 

177, 178, 181, 207, 258, 259, 266, 

344, 989, 998, 1350. 
Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County 

(166 U. S. 648, 17 S. 709), 715. ' 



Pabst Brewing Co. v. City of Mil- 
waukee, 126 Wis. 110, 105 N. W. 
503 [1905]), 62, 956, 1015, 1025. 
1493. 

Pacific Bridge Co. v. Kirkhani (54 
Cal. 558 [1880]), .396, 404. 

Pacific Paving Co. v. Bolton (97 
Cal. 8, 31 Pac. 625 [1S92]), 1248, 
1374, 1384. 

Pacific Paving Co. v. (iallott ( 137 
Cal. 174, 69 Pac. 985 [1902]), 
805. 808, 809, 1305. 

Pacific; Paving Co. v. Geary (136 



Cal. 373, 68 Pac. 1028 [1902]), 

777, 805, 810, 811. 
Pacific Paving Co. v. Mowbray ( 127 

Cal. 1, 59 Pac. 205 [1899]), 301, 

805, 811, 1281, 1372, 1379. 
Pacific Paving Co. v. Sullivan Es- 
tate Company (137 Cal. 261, 70 

Pac. 86 [1902]), 301, 803, 810, 

830. 
Packard v. Xew Limerick (34 Me. 

206), 1206. 
Packwood v. Briggs (25 Wasli. 530, 

Ho Pac. 846), 1207. 
Paducah, City of. Petition ex parte 

(28 Ky. Law Rep. 412, 89 S. W. 

302 [1905]), 495, 804. 
Paducah & Memphis Railroad Com- 
pany v. Stovall (59 Tenn. (12 

Heisk.) 1 [1879]), 71. 
Page V. :Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (34 Md. 558 [1871]), 

281, 311, 425, 745, 747, 766, 1292, 

1347, 1354, 1358. 
Page V. City of Chicago (60 111. 441 

[1871]), 604, 639, 640, 723, 861, 

1298. 
Page V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 

Paul Railway Co. (70 III. 324), 

203. 
Page V. City of St. Louis (20 Mo. 

136 [1854]), 38, 324, 697, 1442. 
Page V. W. W. Chase Co. (145 Cal. 

578. 79 Pac. 278 [1904]), 1169, 

1225. 
Paillet V. Youngs (0 X". Y. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 50 [1850]). 3t)3. 8S7. 1150. 

1190, 1200, 1283. 
Paine v. Spratley (5 Kan. 525 

[1870]). 42, 45, 613, 1173, 1174. 
Palmer's Petition (1 Abb. Pr. (X. 

S.) 30 [181!.-)]), 680. 686, 1026. 
Palmer, In tlie Matter of, to Have 

Assessment for Building Sewer in 

34th St. Vacated (31 Howard (X. 

Y.) 42 [1865]), 265, 680, 911, 946. 

Palmer v. City of Danville (166 Til. 

42, 46 X. E." 629 [1897] ). 347. 485. 

520, 594, 598, 623, 698, 725, 921, 

950, 903, 964. 1113. 
Palmer v. City of Danville (154 III. 

156, 38 X. E. 1007 [1894]), 8, 11, 

283, 295. 328, 347, 348, 713. 



clxxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Palmer v. McMahon (133 U. S. 660, 

33 L. 772, 10 8. 324 [1890]), 119, 

122. 
Palmer v. Xolting { 13 Iml. App. 

581, 41 N. E. 1045), 370, 458, 475, 

1103, 1110. 
Palmer v. City of Port Huron ( 139 

Mich. 471. 102 X. W. 996 [1905] I, 

748, 751. 
Palmer v. Stumpli (29 Ind. 329 

[18083),- 86, 111, 147, 223, 698, 

950, 1081, 1350, 1352. 
Palmer v. Way (6 Colo. 106 

[1881]), 44. so' 145. 152, 323, 420, 

472, 666. 
Palmyra, Inhabitants of Town of 

V. Morton (25 Mo. 593 [1857]), 

55, 96, 100, 110, 314, 713, 1210. 
Panton v. Duluth Gas & Water Co. 

(50 Minn. 175, 36 Am. St. Rep. 

635, 52 N. W. 527 [1892]), 1484. 
Paola, City of v. Russell (75 Kan 

826, SOPac. 651 [1907)], 324, 

1435. 
Pardee Works v. City of Perth Am- 

boy (59 N. J. L. 335, 36 Atl. 666 

[1896]), 973. 
Pardridge v. Village of Hyde Park 

(131 HI. 537, 23 X. E. 345 

[1890]), 972, 1191, 1202, 1297. 
Paret v. City of Bayonne (39 X. J. 

L. (10 Vr.) 559 [1877]), 894. 
Parham v. Justices of the Inferior 

Court of Decatur County (9 Ga. 

341 [1851]), 117. 
Parish v. Louisville & X. R. Co. ( — 

Ky. , 78 S. W. 186, 25 Ky. 

L."^R. 1524 [1904]), 363. 
Park V. City of Chicago (22 HI. 578 

[1859]), "720. 
Park Avenue, Opening of, Aj^peal of 

Luce Bros (83 Pa. ^St. (2 Xorris) 

175 [1876]), 4, 11, 675, 677, 927. 
Park Avenue, In re Opening of, Hui- 

dekoper's Appeal (S3 Pa. St. (2 

Xorris) 167 [1876]), 8. 03. 101. 

627, 1361. 
Park Avenue Sewer, In re ( 169 Pa. 

St. 433, 32 Atl. 574 [1895]), 327, 

446, 554, 560, 563, 620, 633, 658, 

665, 666, 709. 
Park Avenue Viaduct Assessment, 



hi re (78 X. Y. Supp. 1030, 77 

App. Div. 136 [1902]), 359. 
Park Ecclesiastical Society, The v. 

City of Hartford (47 Conn. 89 

[1879]), 324, 388, 444, 493, 563. 

648, 658, 709, 779. 
Parke County Coal Co. v. Campbell 

(140 Ind. 28, 30 X. E. 149 [1894]), 

549, 550, 564. 
Parker v. City of Atchison ( 48 Kan. 

574, 30 Pac. 20), 306. 
Parker v. Burget-t (29 0. S. 513), 

785. 
Parker v. Challiss (9 Kan. 155 

[1872]), 323, 571, 624, 1431. 
Parker v. City of Detroit (103 Fed. 

357 [1900]), 118, 121, 702. 
Parker v. Village of LaGrange (171 

111. 344, 49 X. E. 550 [1898]), 

314, 912, 1085, 1377. 
Parker v. City of Philadelphia ( — • 

Pa. St. . 69 Atl. 670 [1908]). 

495. 
Parker v. Reay (76 Cal. 103, 18 Pac. 

124 [1888]), 318, 549, 628, 716, 

1335. 
Parkersburg, City of v. Tavenner 

(42 W. Va. 486, 26 S. E. 179), 

86, 118, 162, 324. 
Parkinson v. INIeredith ( 158 Mo. 457, 

59 S. \N. 1099 [1900]), 1221. 
Parkland, Town of v. Gains (88 Ky. 

561, 11 S. W. 649 [1889]), 36,194. 

195, 610. 
Parmalee v. City of Chicago (60 III. 

267 [1871]), 309, 602, 603, 615. 
Parmalee v. Youngstown ( 43 0. S. 

162, 1 X. E. 319 [1885]), 675,680, 

683. 
Partridge v. Lucas (99 Cal. 519. 33 

Pac. 1082 [1S93]), 413, 437, 439, 

465. 479, 510, 740, 531, 1216, 1220. 

1252, 1300, 1359. 
Parks v. County of Hampden (120 

Mass. 395 [1876]), 64, 65, 70. 
Parsons v. City of Columbus (50 0. 

S. 460, 34 X. E. 677 [1893]), 53, 

106, 189, 314, 387, 646. 
Parsons v. District of Columbia 

(170 U. S. 45, 42 L. 943, 8 S. 521 

[1898]), 119, 123, 241, 243, 252. 

292, 347, 373, 376. 466, 553, 666, 

69S, 70s, 728, 1369. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Cb 



[ Uelereiices are to seclious. ] 



Parsons v. District of C'oliinil)ia ( 8 

App. D. C. 391 [181)6]), 119, 347, 

373, 376, 698, 708, 1369. 
Parsons v. City of Grand Rapids 
(141 Mich. 467, 104 N. W. 730 

[1905]), 293, 324, 325, 432, 728, 

729, 735, 896. 
Parsons v. City of Rochester (43 

Hun 258 [1887]), 620, 639, 1492. 
Passaic, Village of v. State, Dela- 
ware, Lackawanna & Western 

Railroad Company, Pros. (37 N. 

J. L. (8 Vr.) 538 [1875]), 79, 

313, 666, 677, 690, 691, 699, 894. 
Paterson, President and Council of 

the City of v. Society for Estab- 
lishing Useful Manufactures (24 

Jf. J. L. (4 Zabriskie) 385 

[1854]), 42, 590. 614. 
Patrie v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. 

( 6 Ida. 448, 56 Pac. 82 ) , 363. 
Patterson v. Baumer (43 la. 477 

[1876]), 337, 416, 423, 495. 531. 

532, 781. 1003. 1015, 1018, 1431. 
Patterson v. Calhoun Circuit Judge 

(144 Mich. 416, lOS X. W. 351 

[1906]), 1108. 
Patterson v. Chicago. R. I. & P. R. 

Co. (99 Minn. 454), 594, 614. 
Patten V. City of Springfield (09 

Mass. 627 [1868]), 658, 663, 1313, 

1365, 1367, 1389. 
Paul V. Conqueror Trust Co. (125 

Mo. App. 483, 102 S. VV. 1070 

[1907]), 538. 
Paul V. City of Detroit (32 Mich. 

108 [1875] I. 63, 125, 308, 321, 

728. 
Paulsen v. Portland ( 149 U. S. 30, 

37 L. 637, 13 S. 750 [1803]), 97, 

115, 121, 125, 131, 135, 278, 324, 

549, 555, 670, 674. 695, 732, 760, 

1442. 
Paulson V. City of Portland ( 16 

Ore. 450, 1 l" R. A. (i7:i, 19 Pac. 

450 [1888]). !)7, 115. 11!). 121. 

135, 278. 324, 549. 555, 670, 674, 

695, 732, 1442. 
Paving District v. = . ( See 

Board of Improvement v. . ) 

Paxson v. Sweet ( 13 N. .J. L. 196 

[1832]), 53, 86. 



Paxton, City of v. Bogardus (201 

111. 628, 66 X. E. 853 [1903]). 

413, 424, 837, 840, 856, 857. 
Pajme v. City of Brooklyn (52 Hun 
(X. Y.) 390, 5 X. Y. Supp. 281 

[1889]), 1520. 
Payne v. Village of South Spring- 
field (161 111. 285, 44 X. E. 105 

[1896]), 51, 328, 393. 401, 572. 

594, 598, 643, 670, 698, 715. 
Payson v. People ex rel. Parsons 

(175 111. 267, 51 X. E. 588 

[1898]), 69, 271, 748, 772, 927, 

928, 930, 992, 993. 
Pay ton v. Village of ]\Iorgan Paik 

(172 111. 102, 49 X. E. lOO:] 

[1898]), 555. 
Peake v. Xew Orleans (139 U. S. 

342, 35 L. 131, 11 S. 541 [1891]). 

587. 1010, 1508. 
Peake v. City of Xew Orleans (38 

Fed. 779 [1889]). 587. 1508. 
Pearce v. Village of Hyde Park ( 126 

ill. 287, 18 X. E.' 824 [1890]). 

280. 330, 864. 
Pearsall, Matter of (9 Abb. Pr. (X. 

S.) 203 [1870]). 911. 
Pearson v. City of Chicago (l(i2 ill. 

383. 44 X. E. 739 [1896]), 3U). 

417, 456, 862, 864, 912, 922, 965. 

1282. 1327. 1390. 
Pease v. City of Chicago (21 III. 

500), 410, 720, 1337. 
Peay v. City of Little Rock (32 

Ark. 31 [1877]). 151. 314, 639, 

701. 
Peck v. City of Bridgeport (75 

Conn. 417. 53 Atl. S93 [1903]), 

748, 890, 1358. 
Peck V. City of Chicago (22 111. 

578), 410. 
Peck V. City of Orand Rapids (125 

Mich. 416, 84 X. W. 614 [1900 1), 

432, 436, 510, S31. 
Peck V. Sherwood ( 5(! X. Y. 615 

I 1S74 1 ). 1055. 
Peebles v. City of Pittsburg ( KM 

Pa. St. 304. 4 7 Am. Hep. 714 

[1882]). 1478, 1484. 
JVlls V. City of Paxtini (176 111. 

318. 52 X. E. 64 [1898]). 413, 

424. S37, 873. 



clxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Pells V. People ex rel. Holmgrain 

(159 111. 580, 42 N. E. 784 

[1896]), 510, 633, 817, 840, 852, 

945, 989. 
Pelton, In the Matter of (85 X. Y. 

651 [1881]), 475, 495, 1454, 1458. 
Pelton V. Bemis (44 0. S. 51, 4 N. 

E. 714 [1886]), 1168, 1496. ' 
Pennel's App. (2 Pa. St. (2 Barr.) 

216 [1845]), 713, 895. 
Pennie, In the Matter of the Petition 

of, to Vacate an Assessment 

(108 N. Y. 364, 15 X. E. 611 

[1888]), 223, 234, 496, 777, 985, 

1072, 1453, 1460. 
Pennie, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion (45 Hun 391 [1887]), 496, 

500, 985, 1453. 
Pennie, In the Matter of (19 Abb. 

N. C. 117), 500, 735, 742, 747, 

770, 985, 1453. 
Pennington v. Woolfolk (79 Ky. 13 

[1880]), 3. 
Pennock v. County of Douglas (39 

Neb. 293, 27 L. R. A. 121, 42 Am. 

St. Rep. 579, 58 X. W. 117 

[1894]), 1206. 
Pennock v. Hoover ( 5 Rawle ( Pa. ) 

291 [1835]), 886, 895, 1068. 
Pennsylvania Co. v. Cole ( 132 Fed. 

668 [1904]), 227, 415, 423, 725, 

879, 886, 891, 983, 984, 1017, 1028. 
Pennsylvania Company v. City of 

Tacoma (36 Wash. 656, 79 Pac. 

306 [1905]), 1069, 1194, 1225. 
Penrose Ferry Avenue (27 Pa. 

Super. Ct. 341 [1905]), 62. 
People V. or People ex 

rel. V. 



(See also State v. 

or State ex rel. v. 

.) 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Western XevF York and Penn- 
sylvania Railroad Company v. 
Adams (88 Hun 122, 34 X. Y. S. 
579 [1895]), 359, 594, 598. 

People ex rel. Hallett v. Board of 
County Commissioners of Arapa- 
hoe County (27 Colo. 86, 59 Pac. 
733 [1899]), 3. 

People ex rel. Ward v. Asten (6 
Daly 18 [1875]), 263, 266. 



People ex rel. McCrea v. Atchison 

(95 111. 452 [1880]), 305, 878, 

1049, 1164. 
People ex rel. Do.vle v. Austin (47 

Cal. 353 [1874]), 40, 578, 579, 

581, 584, 641. 
People ex rel. Day \. Bergen ( 6 Hun 

(X. Y.) 267 [1875]), 1085, 1101, 

1146. 
People v. Boston & A. R. Co. (70 

X. Y. 569), 359. 
People ex rel. Price v. Bridgeman 

(218 111. 568, 75 X. E. 1057 

[1905]), 314, 510, 533. 
People ex rel. Miller v. Brislin (80 

ni. 423 [1875]), 103, 104, 194, 

227, 247, 253, 259, 269, 356, 986, 

996, 1183, 1185, 1340, 1385. 
People ex rel. Hayes v. City of 

Brooklyn (71 X. Y. 495 [1877]), 

781, 98*^1. 
People ex rel. Markey v. City of 

Brooklyn (65 X. Y. 349 [1875]), 

374, 381, 603, 604, 781. 
People ex rel. Griffin v. Mayor, etc., 

of Brooklyn (4 X. Y. 419*, 55 Am. 

Dec. 266 [1851]), 8, 11, 29, 31, 

73, 86, 89, 99, 110, 118, 125, 147, 

161, 248, 250, 301, 308, 553. 555, 

570, 613, 651, 690. 
People on the Relation of Dikeman 

V. President and Trustees of the 

Village of Brooklyn (1 Wend. (X. 

Y.) 318, 19 Am. Dee. 502 [1828]), 

1519. 
People ex rel. Reynolds v. City of 

Brooklyn (49 Barb. (X. Y.) 136 

[1867]), 282, 969, 1393, 1399. 
People ex rel. .Tohnson v. City of 

Brooklyn (23 Barb. 180 [1856]), 

223, 234, 443, 950, 1113. 
People ex rel. Marvin v. City of 

Brooklyn (23 Barb. (X. Y.) 166 

[1856]"), 418, 563. 
People ex rel. Grilfing v. Mayor and 

Common Council of the City of 

Brooklyn (9 Barb. (X. Y.) 535 

[1850]"), 86, 690, 910, 1394. 
People ex r-el. Post v. Mayor, etc.. 

of Brooklyn (6 Barb. (X." Y.) 209 

[1849]), 86, 99, 110, 250, 553, 

690. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxv 



[References are to Keetions.] 



People ex rel. Ackerly v. City of 
Brooklyn (8 Hun 56 [1876]), 
570, 1394, 1408. 

People ex rel. Brooklyn Park Com- 
missioners V. City of Brooklyn (3 
Hun (N. Y.) 590 [1875]), 911, 
1037, 1279, 1285, 1338, 1469. 

People ex rel. Russell v. Brown (218 
111. 375, 75 X. E. 989 [1905]), 
301, 866, 911, 927, 937, 986, 996, 
1183, 1340. 

People ex rel. Bull v. City of Buf- 
falo (166 N. Y. 004, 59 N. E. 1128 
[1901]), 378. 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Lehigh Valley Railway Com- 
pany V. City of Buffalo (147 X. 
Y. 675, 42 X. E. 344 [1895]), 360, 
560, 576, 690, 692, 1410. 

People V. City of Buffalo (107 X. 
Y. S. 689 [1907]), 507. 

People V. City of Buffalo (107 X. 
Y. S. 281 [1907]), 700. 

People ex rel. Bull v. City of Buffalo 
(52 App. Div. (X. Y.) 157, 65 
X. Y. Supp. 103 [1900]), 373. 

People ex rel. Herman v. Bug River 
Special Drainage District (189 
111. 55, 59 X. E, 605), 340, 551, 
564, 1330. 

People ex rel. Livermore v. Burnap 
(38 Mich. 350 [1878]), 704, 1278, 
1402. 

People ex rel. Becker v. Burton (65 
X. Y. 452 [1875]), 771. 

People V. Carr (231 111. 502. 83 X. 
E. 269 [1907]), 841, 842, 853, 
089. 

People V. Carroll (— ]\Iicli. , 

115 X. W. 442 [1908]), 509. 

People ex rel. Fisher v. Carter (210 
111. 122, 71 X. E. 309 [1904]), 
921, 1376. 

People ex rel. Barber v. Chapman 
(128 HI. 496, 21 X. E. 507 
[1890]). 646, 720, 000, 1026. 

People ex rel. Barber v. Ciiapman 
(127 111. 387, 19 X. E. 872 
[1890]), 123, 340, 558, 645, 692, 
724, 738, 921, 923, 1187, 1337. 

People ex rel. v. Chicago & Alton 
Railway Co. (228 111. 102, 81 X. 
E. 813 [1907]), 22. 



People ex rel. v. Chicago, Burling- 
ton & Quincy R. Co. (231 111. 112, 
83 X. E. 120 [1907]), 1156. 

People ex rel. Keeney v. City of 
Chicago (152 111. 546, 38 X. E. 
744 [1894]), 228, 229, 526, 1490. 

People ex rel. Raymond v. Church 
(192 111. 302, ' 61 X. E. 496 
[1901]), 324, 527, 533, 840. 

People of the City and County of 
San Francisco v. Clark (47 Cal. 
456 [1874]), 860, 867. 

People ex rel. Little v. Clayton (ll-l 
111. 150, 4 X. E. 193 [1880]), 340, 

747, 1085, 1101, 1184. 

People ex rel. Kochersperger v. Clif- 
ford (160 111. 165, 46 X. E. 770 
[1897]), 886, 927. 938, 1183, 
1341. 

People ex rel. Troy and Lansingburg 
R. R. Co. V. Coffey (66 Hun 100, 
21 X. Y. Supp. 34 [1892]), 00, 
602, 603, 666, 751, 1028. 

People V. Coghiil (47 Cal. 361 
[1874]), 278, 899, 900. 

People ex rel. Hanberg v. Cohen 
(219 111. 200, 76 X. E. 388 
[1900]), 119, 130, 142, 143, 810, 
927, 941, 1347. 

People ex rel. Davidson v. Cole ( 128 
III. 158, 21 X. E. 6 [1890]), 564, 
039, 041, 092, 711, 735. 

People ex rel. Rodgers v. Color (166 
X. Y. 1, 82 Am. St. Rep. 605, 52 
L. R. A. 814, 59 X. E. 710), 514. 

People ex rel. Russell v. Cidegrove 
(218 III. 5-15. 75 X. E. 991 
[1905] ), 866, 1180. 

People ex rel. Kocliersperger v. C'ol- 
vin (105 111. 67, 46 X. E. Rep. 
14 [1S07]), 815, 926, 927, 932, 
986, 996. 

Peo])le ex rel. Kochersperger v. 
Cook (ISO 111. 341, 54 X. E. 173 
[1899]), 609, 631, 895. 

People ex rel. Samuel, Sr. v. Cooper 
(139 111. 461, 29 X. E. 872 
[1893]), 269, 340, 557, 564, 739, 

748, 759, 764, 844, 1005, 1299, 
1477. 

People ex rel. Besse v. Village of 
Crotty (93 HI. 180 [1879]), 827. 



clxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



People of the State of New York e.v 
rel. Cayadii'tta Plank Road Com- 
pany V. Cummings (166 X. Y. 110, 
59 N. E. 703 [1901]), 397, 431, 
587. 

People ex rel. Keim v. Desmond 
(186 N. Y. 232, 78 X. E. 857 
[1906]), 549, 563, 575. 1402. 

People ex rel. Keim v. Desmond ( 97 
X. Y. S. 79o, 111 App. Div. 757 
[1906]), 549, 563, 575, 1402. 

People ex rel. Board of Park Com- 
missioners V. Common Council of 
Detroit (28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 
202 [1873]), 251. 

People of the City and County of 
San Francisco v. Doe (48 Cal. 
560 [1874]), 1219. 1239. 

People ex i-el. Rnediger v. Drain 
Commissioner of Wayne County 
(40 :\Iich. 745 [1879J). 1015, 
1034. 

People ex rel. etc., v. Drainage 
Commissioners, District Xo. 1 of 
Town of Young America (143 111. 
417, 32 X". E. 688 [1893]). 247. 
249, 258, 259, 266, 340, 564. 

People ex rel. Phillips v. Drainage 
District, Xo. 5 (191 111. 023, 61 
X. E. 381 [1901]), 564. 

People ex rel. Baron v. Drainage 
District, Xo. 3, of Martinton 
Township (155 III. 45, 39 X. E. 
613 [1894]), 564. 

People ex rel. Selby v. Dyer ( 205 
111. 575, 69 X. E. 70 [1903]), 254, 
558, 1183, 1337, 1477. 

People ex rel. Kocliersperger v. Eg- 
gers (164 111. 515, 45 N. E. 1074 
[1897]), 886, 927, 938, 986, 992, 
1183, 1186, 1189, 1340, 1341. 

People ex rel. Raymond v. Field ( 197 
111. 508, 64 X. E. 544 [1902]), 
229, 305, 422. 

People of the ' State of Xew York 
ex rel. Rector, etc., of St. Ann's 
Church of Morrisania v. Fitch (87 
Hun (N. Y.) 391, 34 X. Y. S. 
368 [1895]), 588, 592, 711. 

People ex rel. Raymond v. Fuller 
(204 111. 290, 68 X. E. 371 
[1903]), 851, 927, 986, 996, 1183, 
1340. 



People ex rel. v. Ci^ge (83 111. 486), 

259, 267, 356, 636. 
People ex rel. Carroll v. Gary ( 105 

111. 332 [1883]), 308, 915. 
People ex rel. Davidson v. Gilon 
(126 X. Y. 147, 27 X. E. 282 
[1891]), 603, 1406. 
People ex rel. Davidson v. Gilon 
(58 Hun (X. Y.) 76, 11 X. Y. 

Supp. 439 [1890]), 603, 140B. 
People ex rel. GanaAvay v. Glasco 
(203 111. 353. 67 X. E. 499 

[1903]), 1347. 
People V. Glenn (207 111. 50. 69 N. 

E. 568 [1903]). 883, 981. 1304. 
People V. Gordon (81 Mich. 306, 21 

Am. St. Rep. 524, 45 X. W. 658). 

372. 
People ex rel. Doyle v. Green (3 

Hun 7'55 [1875]), 428. 438, 439. 

925. 
People ex rel. Mannen v. Green ( 158 

111. 594. 42 X. E. 163 [1895]), 

314, 507, 531, 532, 533, 539, 663. 

886, 927, 929, 938, 987, 986, 996. 

1000, 1183, 1330, 1342, 1469. 
People ex rel. McKown v. Green (50 

How. Pr. (X. Y.) 500 [1875]). 

1472. 
People ex rel. Church of the Holy 

Communion v. The Assessors of 

Taxes of Town of Greenberg ( 106 

X. Y. 671, 12 X^. E. 794 [1887]). 

1395. 
People ex rel. Raymond v. Grover 

(203 III. 24, 67 X. E. 165 [1903]), 

525, 707, 714. 
People v. Hagar (66 Cal. 59. 4 Pac. 

951), 142. 
People of the State of California v. 

Hagar (52 Cal. 171 [1877]), 253, 

340, 475, 618, 690, 724, 786, 899, 

951, 1049, 1086, 1103, 1110, 1116, 

1255, 1299, 1306, 1373, 1378. 
People v. Hagar (49 Cal. 229 

[1874]). 278. 899, 900, 1331. 

1335. 
People ex rel. Williams v. Haines 

(49 X. Y. 587 [1872]), 393, 403, 

958, 1486, 1495. 
People of the State of California v. 

Hastings (34 Cal. 571 [1868]), 

883, 909, 983, 1304. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



Cb 



[References are to sections.] 



People V. Houston (54 C'al. 530 

[1880]), 242. 
People V. Hiilbert (71 ( al. 72, 12 

Pae. 43 [1886]), 15, 340. 
People ex rel. Kochersperger v. Hur- 

iord (167 111. 220, 47 X. E. 308 

[1897]), 857, 867, 880. 927. 929. 

991, 1183. 
People ex rel. Thatcher v. Village of 

Hyde Park (117 111. 402. 6 N. E. 

33 [1887]), 236. 293. 425. 555, 

662, 1472, 1476. 
People ex rel. Merrinian v. Illinois 

Central Railroad Co. (213 111. 

367, 72 N. E. 1069 [1904]). 324, 

927, 928, 986, 993, 1341. 
People ex rel. Parker v. County 

Couvt of Jeil'erson (55 X. Y. 604 

[1874]), 692, 694, 711, 923, 1351. 
People ex rel. Wood v. Jones (137 

111. 35, 27 X. E. 294 [1892]), 254, 

416, 423. 558, 504, 784, 1008, 1417, 

1432, 1477. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Judsoii 

(233 111. 280, 84 X. E. 233 

[1908]), 933, 952, 953, 986. 
People ex rel. Walkhill Valley Rail- 
road Company v. Keator (101 X"^. 

Y. 610, 3 X. E. 903 [1885]), 1371, 

1388. 
People ex rel. Funk v. Keener ( 194 

111. 16, 61 X. E. 1069 [1901]), 

1183, 1187, 1277, 1279. 
People of the State of Xew York 

ex rel. Jessup v. Kelley (33 Hun 

389 [1884]), 283, 444, 480, 1403. 
People V. Common Council of City 

of Kingston (189 X. Y. 66, 81 

X. E. 557 [1907]), 495, 569. 
People V. Common Council of City 

of Kino-ston (99 X. Y. S. 657, 114 

App. Div. 326 [1906]), 495, 569, 

624. 696, 1337. 
People of tlie City and County of 

San Francisco v. Kinsman (51 

Cal. 92 [1875]). 983, 1113. 
People ex rel. Whitlock v. Lamon 

(232 111. 587, 33 X. E. 1070 

[190S]), 523. 
People ex rel. Ravmond v. Latham 

(203 111. 9. 67 X. E. 403 [1903]). 

525, 098, 715. 



People ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence 

(41 X. Y. 137 [1869]), 100, 110. 
People ex rel. Crowell v. Lawrence 

(36 Barb. (X. Y. i 178 [1862]), 

111, 118, 194, 312. 459. 553, 690, 

699, 795, 1216, 1406, 1511. 
People ex rel. Kochersperger v. Lin- 

gle (165 111. 65, 46 X. E. 10 

[1897]), 857, 866, 902, 903, 927, 

980, 987. 992, 996, 1183, 1340. 
People of the State of X'^ew Y^ork ex 

rel. Gage v. Lohnas (54 Hun 604, 

8 X. Y. Supp. 104 [1889]). 188. 

206, 309, 556, 1406. 
People of the State of California 

V. Lynch (51 Cal. 15 [1875]), 

169, 242, 244, 245, 409. 414. 538, 

554, 639, 670, 698, 980, 983. 
People ex rel. Price v. Lyon (218 

111. 577, 75 X. E. 1017" [1905]), 

510, 922, 1379. 
People of the City and Coimty of 

San Francisco v. ^IcCain (50 Cal. 

210 [1875]). 763, 836. 
People of the State of Xew York ex 

rel. Decker v. McCue (173 X. Y. 

347, 66 X. E. 15 [1903]), 911. 
People ex rel. Decker v. McCue (74 

App. Div. 40), 911. 
People V. McCune (57 Cal. 153 

[ISbO]), 169, 665, 983. 
People e.x rel. Kilmer v. ^IcDonald 

(69 X. Y. 302 [1877]), 278, 279. 

309, 414, 880. 983, 1304, 1405. 
People ex rel. Hanberg v. Mc^Iahon 

224 111. 284. 79 X. E. G45 [1900]). 

526, 744. 
People e.x rel. ^IcCormack v. Mc- 

Wethy ( 177 111. 334. 52 X. E. 479 

[1898]), 466, 510, 526, 527, 857, 

1183, 1186. 
People ex rel. McCormack v. Mc- 

Wethy (165 111. 222, 46 X. E. 187 

[1897]), 400. 520, 540, 852, 926, 

927. 945. 1183. 
People ex rel. Kochersjierger v. 

Markley (100 111. 48, 40 X. E. 

742 [1897]). 570. 752. 857. 859. 

8()5. 900. 927. 936. 986. 996, 1183. 

1340. 
People ex rel. Ijams v. Me^e's (124 

111. 95. 16 X.E. 89 [1889]), 692, 

994. 1183. 



clxxviii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



People ex rel. Trustees of Amity 
Baptist Church v. Monroe (81 X. 
Y. S. 972, 40 Misc. Rep. 286 
[1903]), 589, 613. 

People ex rel. Martin v. IMyers ( 13.5 
N. Y. 465, 32 N. E. 241 [1892]), 
1395. 

People ex rel. Cook v. Xearing (27 
X. Y. 806 [1863]), 958. 

People of the State of X'ew York ex 
rel. Spencer v. Village of Xew 
Rochelle (83 Hun (X. Y.) 185, 31 
X. Y. S. 592 [1894]), 726, 746, 
1178, 1394. 

People ex rel. Smith v. The Com- 
missioners of Taxes of Xew York 
(101 X. Y. 651, 4 X. E. 752), 
1108 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Dean v. Board of Assessors of 
the City of Xew York (59 Hun 
407, 13 X. Y. Supp. 404 [1891]), 
73. 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Bobbins v. Mayor, Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of 
Xew York (20 Hun (X. Y.) 73 
[1880]), 1399. 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Law v. Commissioners of Tax- 
es and Assessments of County of 
Xew York (9 Hun (X. Y.) 609 
[1877]), 1399. 

People ex rel. Monroe v. The Mayor, 
etc., of City of Xew York (5 
Barb. (X. Y.) 43 [1848]), 279, 
813, 815, 910, 1394, 1397. 

People ex rel. v. Xortrup (232 111. 
303, 83 X. E. 843 [1908]), 663. 

People ex rel. v. O'Xeil (51 Cal. 91 

[1875]), 983, 1113, 1357. 
People V. Owens (231 111. 311, 83 
X. E. 198 [1907]), 886. 

People ex rel. McCrea v. Palmer (2 
Bradwell (111.) 295 [1878]), 1092. 

People ex rel. President, Mana- 
gers and Company of the Dela- 
ware & Hudson Canal Company 
-v. Parker (117 X. Y. 86. 22 X. 
E. 752 [1889]), 279, 900, 1399. 
People ex rel. Hanberg v. Patton 
(223 111. 379, 79 X. E. 51 [1906]), 
53, 263, 443, 1065. 



People ex rel. Hanberg v. Peyton 
(214 111. 376, 73 X. E. 768 
[1905]), 51, 52, 53, 55, 223, 234, 
949. 

People V. Phinney (231 111. 180, 83 
X. E. 143 [1907]), 745, 770, 1187, 
1189. 

People ex rel. Huck v. Pierce ( 90 
111. 85), 223, 1126, 1166. 

People ex rel. Scott v. Pitt (169 X. 
Y. 521, 58 L. B. A. 372, 62 J^. E. 
662 [1902]), 118, 123, 125, 241, 
324, 666, 698, 099, 708, 709, 714, 
728. 

People ex rel. Talbot Paving Co. v. 
City of Pontiac (186 111. 437, 56 
X. E. 1114 [1900]), 867, 956, 962, 
963, 905, 990, Um. 

People of the Stale of Xew York ex 
rel. The Xew York Central & Hud- 
son River Bailroad Company v. 
Priest (169 X. Y. 432, 62 X. E. 
567 [1902]), 3. 

People ex rel. Young v. Prust (219 
111. 116, 70 X. E. 68 [1905]), 340, 
1126. 

People of the City and County of 
San Francisco v. Quackenbush (53 
Cal. 52 [1878]), 824, 886. 

People of the City and County of 
San Francisco v. Reay (52 Cal. 
423 [1877]), 746, 1149. . 

People ex rel. Jeffries v. Record 
(212 111. 62, 72 X. E. 7 [1904]). 
880, 909, 949, 1183, 1278. 

People ex rel. Connelly v. Reis (96 
X. Y. S. 597, 109 App. Div. 748 
[1005]), 554, 557, 584, 039, 093, 
758, 1400. 

People ex rel. Tietjen v. Reis (96 N. 
Y. S. 601, 100 App. Div. 919 
[1905]), 554, 557, 584, 603. 

People, etc., ex rel. Butts v. Com- 
mon Council of the City of Roches- 
ter (5 Lansing 142 [1871]), 404, 
674, 731, 841, 981. 

People ex rel. Locke v. Common 
Council of the City of Rochester 
(5 Lans. (X. Y.) 11 [1871]), 393, 
563, 745, 754, 836, 841, 845, 846, 
1280. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxix 



[References are to sections.] 



People ex rel. Kern v. Ryan ( 156 

111. 620, 41 X. E. ISo" [1895]). 

772, 986, 996, 1340. 
People on the Relation of Butler v. 

Board of Supervisors of Saginaw 

County (26 Mich. 22 [1872]), 

8, 89,119, 283, 291, 337, 396, 403, 

729, 983, 1469, 1471, 1474. 
People ex rel. Wilson v. Salomon 

(51 111. 37), 227, 259, 344. 
People of the State of California ex 

rel. Macpherson v. Board of Su- 
pervisors of City and County of 

San Francisco (43 Cal. 91 

[1872]), 03, 909, 1301. 
People V. San Francisco ( 27 Cal. 

655), 365. 
People ex rel. Kochersperger v. Sass 

(171 111. 357, 49 X. E. 501 

[1898]), 393, 396. 
People ex rel. Miller v. Scott (132 

111. 427, 23 X. E. 1119), 247, 248. 

550, 564, 638. 
People ex rel. Hanberg v. Second 

Ward Savings Bank (224 111. 191, 

79 X. E. 6(28 [1906]), 927, 928. 

986, 993. 
People ex rel. Miller v. Sherman (83 

111. 105 [1870]), 51, 103, 104, 230, 

237, 239, 245, 258, 323, 573, 740, 

771, 1184. 
People ex rel. Green v. Smith (55 

X. Y. 135 [1873]), 781. 
People ex rel Thompson v. Smytlie 

(232 111. 629, 83 X. E. 1080 

[1908]), 1182. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 

(232 111. 621, 83 X. E. 1083 

[1908]), 1182. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 

(232 111. 576, 83 X. E. ioO() 

[1908]), 1182. 
People ex rol. Thompson v. Smythe 

(232 111. 575, 83 X. E. 1000 

[1908]), 1182. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 

(232 111. 507. 83 X. E. 1003 

[1908]), 1182. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 

(232 111. 259, 83 X. E. 828 [1908]), 

1182. 
People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 



(2.32 111. 348, 83 X. E. 858 
[1908]), 1182, 1184, 1389. 

People ex rel. Thompson v. Smythe 
(232 111. 242, 83 X. E. 821 
[1908] ), 1182, 1184, 1389. 

People ex rel. Rogers v. Spencer (53 
X. Y. 1), 781. 

People ex rel. Johnson v. S[)ringer 
106 111. 542 fl883]), 41, 356, 
1165, 1270, 1809. 

People of the State of Xew York v. 
Starkweather (42 X, Y. Sup. Ct. 
Rep. 325 [1877]), 472, 989, 995, 
1111, 1520. 

People ex rel. Hanberg v. Stearns 
(213 111. 184, 72 X. E. 728 
[1904]), 671, 707. 

People ex rel. Vj,nderbilt v. Still- 
well (19 X. Y. 531 (1859]), 1397, 
1410. 

People ex rel. Hughes v. Stone ( 141 
111. 281, 31 X. E. 502 [1893]), 
1390. 

People ex rel Pollard v. Swi ert 
(130 111. 608, 22 X. E. 787 
[1890]), 140, 234, 5G4, 692, 1502. 

People ex rel. Ready v. Mayor and 
Common Council of Syracuse (144 
X. Y. 63, 38 X. E. 1000 [1894]), 
974. 

People ex rel. Howlett v. Mayor and 
Common Council of City of Syra- 
cuse (63 X. Y. 291 [1875]), 279, 
280, 588, 651, 653, 657, 663, 696. 

People of the State of Xew York ex 
rel. Ready v. Ma^'or and Common 
Council of the City of Syracuse 
(05 Hun (X. Y.) 321. 20* X. Y. 
Supp. 230 [1892]), 537, 974, 1409, 
1473, 1518. 

reo])le ex rel. Thompson v. Mayor, 
etc., of tlie City of Syracuse (6 
Hun 05*2 [1870]), 314! 523. 909, 
950. 1405, 1400. 

People v. Mayor of Syracuse ( 2 Hun 
(X. Y.) 433), 594,' 663. 

P(M)p]e ex 'rel. Raymond v. Talmadge 
(194 111. 67. 01 X. E. 1049 
[1901]), 393. ,394, 455. 980. 996. 

People ex rel. Little v. Trustees of 
Schools (118 III. 52, 7 X. E. 262), 
586, 612. 



clxxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



People of the State of New York v. 

Turner (117 N. Y. 227, 15 Am. 

St. Rep. 'OS, 22 N. E. 1022 

[1889]), 744. 
People ex rel. Kerber v. City of 

Utica (7 Abb. N. C. 414 [1879]), 

223, 234, 776, 777, 1304. 
People ex; rel. Trundy v. Van Nort 

(05 Barb. (X. Y.) 331 [1873]), 

487, 510, 515. 
People ex rel. Kocliersperger v. 

Wadlow (166 111. 119, 46 N. E. 

775 [1897]), 1390. 
People V. Walsh (96 111. 232, 36 Am. 

Rep. 135), 259. 
People ex rel. Kocliersperger v. War- 

neke (173 111. 40, 50 N. E. 221 

[1898]), 857, 806, 807, 927, 929, 

992, 1183. 
People ex rel. v. Warren (231 111. 

518, 83 N. E. 271 [1907]), 771, 

853. 
People ex rel. Roediger v. Commis- 
sioner of Wayne County (40 

Mich. 745 [1879]), 1012,"^ 1403, 

1408. 
People V. Weaver, (100 U. S. 539 

[1879]), 3. 
People V. Weber (164 111. 412, 45 

N. E. 723 [1897]), 345, 475, 986, 

996, 1033, 1071, 1085, 1103, 1183, 

1222, 1223, 1340. 
People V. Western Society (87 111. 

246 [1871]), 42. 
People ex rel. Raymond v. Whid- 

den (191 111. 374," 50 L. R. A. 905, 

01 N. E. 133 [1901]), 531, 532, 

533, 539, 927, 945, 989, 1182, 1342, 

1449. 
People V. Whyler (41 Cal. 351), 38. 
People ex rel. Price v. Wi^mers ( 225 

111. 17, 80 X. E. 45 [1907]), 850, 

866, 927, 929. 940. 
People V. Williams (51 Til. 63), 356. 
People ex rel. Nostra nd v. Wilso'\ 

(119 N. Y. 515, 23 N. E. 1064 

[1890]), 554, 927, 989, 1004, 1408, 

1409, 1473. 
People ex rel. Gleason v. Yancey 

(167 111. 255. 47 N. E. 521 

[1897]), 244, 323, 698, 770. 
People ex rel. Knox v. Village of 



Yonkers (39 Barb. 266 [1863]), 

359, 465, 478, 499, 538, 572. 
People's National Bank of Brattle- 

boro, Vermont, v. Ayer (24 Ind. 

App. 212, 56 N. E. 267 [1899]), 

328, 1085. 
Peoria v. Kidder (20 111. 351), 101, 

013. 
Peoria, City of v. Ohl (209 III. 52, 

70 N. E." 632 [1904]), 816. 
Peoria, City of v. Smith (232 III. 

561, 83 N. E. 1061 [1908]), 663, 

1368. 
Pepper v. City of Philadelphia to 

Use of Horter (114 Pa. St. 96, 6 

Atl. 899 [1886]), 483, 527, 529, 

535, 610, 1029. 
Request River (Matter of Drainage 

of the Great Meadows on (42 N. 

J. L. (13 Vr.) 553 [1880]). (See 

Great Meadows.) 
Perdue v. Big Four Draina'i;e Dis- 
trict of Ford County (117 111. 

App. 000 [1905]), 1328. 
Perdue v. Mayor, etc., of New York 

(12 Abb. Prac. 31 [1861]), 1490. 
Ferine v. Erzgraber ( 102 C al. 234, 

30 Pac. 585 [1894]), 575, 754, 

1281. 
Ferine v. Forbush (97 Cal. 305, 32 

Pac. 220 [1893]), 431, 485, 491, 

513, 537, 574, 575, 602, 604, 607, 

723, 1030, 1031, 1079, 1229, 1235, 

1337. 
Ferine v. Lewis (128 Cal. 236, 60 

Pac. 422, 772 [1900]), 7e3, 907, 

1001, 1062, 1229, 1239, 1359, 1389. 
Perisho v. People ex rel. Gannaway 

(185 111. 334, 56 N. E. 1134 

[1900]), 927, 931, 980, 990, 1183, 

1340. 
Perkinson v. Hoolan (182 :Mo. 189, 

81 S. W. 407 [1904]), 798, 1013, 

1019. 
Perkinson v. Partridge ( 7 Mo. App. 

584 [1879]), 821, '^823. 
Perkinson v. Partrids-e (3 Mo. App. 

60 [1870]), 813, 821. 
Perkinson v. Schnaake ( 108 Mo. 

App. 255, 83 S. W. 301 [1904]), 

461, 463, 1104, 1284. 
Fe'kinsnn v. McGrath (9 Mo. App. 

26 [1880]), 813, 1028, 1133. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxxi 



[References are to sections.] 



Perry Avenue, In re, in City of Xew 

York (103 N. Y. S. 1009^ [1907] ) , 

592, 661. 
Perry, City of v. Davis & Younger 

(18 Okla. 427, 90 Pac. 80.5 

[1907]), 781. 
Perry v. Otay Irrigatio'.i Tii'iiet 

(127 C'al. oOij, 60 Pac. 40 [19001). 

355, 1520. 
Perry v. People ex rel. Hanberg (206 

111. 334, 69 X. E. 63 [1903]), 866, 

986, 996, 1183. 
Perry v. People ex rel. Kern (155 

111. 307, 40 X. E. 408 [1895]), 

763, 764, 772, 913, 947, 1299. 
Perrysville Avenue. Marshall's Ap- 
peal (210 Pa. St. 537, 60 Atl. l60 

[1904]), 310, 1011, 1015. 
Persson v. City of Bangor ( 102 Me. 

397, 06 Atl. 1019 [1907]), 1347. 
Peru, City of v. Bartcls (214 111. 

515, 73" X. E. 755 [1905]), 670, 

677, 715. 
Peru and Indianapolis Railroad Co. 

v. Hanna (68 Ind. 502 [1879]), 

301, 594, 597, 598, 886, 1052. 
Pctaluma Paving Company v. Sing- 
ley ( 136 Cal. 010, 69 Pac. 420 

[1902]), 301, 528, 818, 822, 1030, 

1277, 1380. 
Peters v. City of Chicago (192 111. 

437, 01 X. E. 438 [1901]), 324, 

857, 804. 
Peters v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of Xew York (8 Hun (X. Y.) 405 

[1876]), 1519. 
Peterson v. City of Ionia ( — ilich. 

, 116 X. *W. 502 [1908]), 742, 

1015. 
Pettlgrevv v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of Xew York' (17 How. (X. Y.) 

492 [1859]), 223, 234, 488. 
Pettit V. Duke (10 Utah 311, 37 

Pac. 568 [1894]), 7, 291, 370, 458. 
Peugnet, In the Matter of (67 X. 

Y. 441 [1876]), 374, 381, 487, 740, 

762, 948, 982, 983, 1372. 
Pe.vser v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (70 X. Y. 497, 26* Am. Rep. 

624 [1877]), 1486. 
Peyser v. Mayor, etc., of the City 



of Xew York (8 Hun (X. Y.) 413 

[1870]), 1478. 
Peyser v. Xew York Elevated Rail- 
road Co. (12 Abb. X. C. 270 

[1883]), 1098. 
Peyton v. Village of Morgan Park 

"(172 111. 102, 49 X. E. 1003 

[1898]), 293, 295, 314, 923, 1282. 
Pfafiinger v. Kremer (115 Ky. 498, 

74 S. W. 238, 24 Ky. L. R. 2368 

[1903]), 619, 628, 678, 711, 715, 

1039. 
Phelan v. Dunne (72 Cal. 229. 13 

Pac. 602 [1887]), 1049, 1141. 

1145, 1221. 
Phelps, In re (96 X. Y. S. 862, 110 

App. Div. 69 [1905]), 575, 700, 

1406. 
Phelps V. ]\Iayor, Aldermen an<l 

Commonalt.v of the City of Xew 

York (112'x. Y. 216, 2 L. R. A. 

620, 19 X. E. 408 [1889]), 504, 

807, 1478, 1485, 1488. 
Philadelphia, ( ity of to Use of Pe- 
ters V. Arnott (8 Phil. (Pa.) 41 

[1870]), 541. 
Philadelphia to Use v. Baker (140 

Pa. St. 11, 21 Atl. 238 [1891]). 

383, 387, 640, 1159. 
Philadelphia, City of, to Use v. Ball 

(147 Pa. St. 243, 23 Atl. 504 

[1892]), 393, 396, 431, 433, 527. 
Pliiladelpliia, City of, to Use of 

O'Rourke v. Bowman ( 175 Pa. St. 

91, 34 Atl. 353 [1890]), 004. 
Philadelphia to Use of O'Rourke v. 

Bowman (100 Pa. St. 393, 31 Atl. 

142 [1895]), 604, 1333. 
Philadelphia to the Use of Dyer v. 

P.rooke (81 Pa. St. (31 P. V. 

Smith) 23 [1876]), 527, 538. 

1158. 
Philadelphia, C ity of v. Burgin (50 

Pa. St. (14 Wright) 539 [1805]). 

482. 
Philadelphia v. Church of St. James 

(134 Pa. St. 207, 19 Atl. 497 

[1890]), 588, 613. 
Pliiladelphia, City of v. Cooke (30 

Pa. St. (0 Casey) 56 [1858]), 

347, 1068, 1146, 1194, 1484. 



clxxxii 



TABLE OF CASES. 
[References are to sections.] 



Philadelirhia to Use v. Cooper (212 

Pa. 30G, 61 Atl. 926 [1905]), 1157. 

1160. 
Pbiladelpliia to Use v. Cooper (27 

Pa. Super. Ct. 552 [1905]), 1160. 
Philadelphia v. Ooulson (118 Pa. 

St. 541, 12 Atl. 604 [1888]), 1182. 
Philadelphia v. Cox ( 1 Penna. Dis. 

Eep. 280 [1892]), 1194. 
Philadelphia to Use v. Dibeler ( 147 

Pa. St. 261, 23 Atl. 567 [1892]), 

383, 462. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Eastwick 

(.3'5 Pa. St. 75 [I860]), 624. 
Philadelphia to Use of Mack v. Ed- 

dleman (169 Pa. St. 452, 32 Atl. 

639 [1895]), 437, 1159. 
Philadelphia, City of, to Use of 

Winmill v. Edwards (78 Pa. St. 

(28 P. F. Smith) 62 [1875]), 53, 

55, 737, 759. 
Philadelphia to Use v. Evans (139 

Pa. St. 483, 21 Atl. 200 [1891]), 

383, 437, 462, 520, 599. 
Philadelphia. City of, to Use of 

Mack V. Gorges (180 Pa. St. 296, 

36 Atl. 868 [1897]), 314, 383, 

462, 531, 532, 610, 635, 706. 
Philadelphia to Use v. Gowen (202 

Pa. St. 453, 52 Atl. 3 [1902]), 

397, 431, 610, 706, 1320. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Gratz Land 

Co. (38 Pa. St. 359 [1861]), 342, 

1063. 
Philadelphia, City of, to Use v. H. 

C. Nichols Company (214 Pa. St. 

265, 63 Atl. 886 "[1906]), 509. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Hay (20 Pa. 

Super. Ct. 480 [1902]), 1113, 

1172. 
Philadelphia to Use of Parker v. 

Henry (161 Pa. St. 38, 28 Atl. 

946 [1894]), 387. 
Philadelphia, City of, to Use v. 

Hood (211 Pa.' 189, 60 Atl. 721 

[1905]), 491. 
Philadelphia v. Jenkins (162 Pa. St. 

451, 29 Atl. 794), 121. 
Philadelphia to use v. Jewell (140 

Pa. St. 9, 21 Atl. 239 [1891]), 483, 

527, 531. 
Philadelphia to use v. .Jewell (135 

Pa. St. 329, 19 Atl. 947 [1890]), 



292, 293, 483, 520. 522, 527, 538. 

839, 1335. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Keith ( Pa. ) . 

(2 Atl. Rep. 207), 610, 706. 
Philadelphia, City of, to use v. Kel- 
ly (2 Penn.' Dist. Rep. 143 

[1892]), 1063. 
Philadelphia to use v. Ladies' United 

Aid Society (1 Penna. Dist. Ct. 

249 [1892]'), 589. 
Philadelphia to use v. MacPherson 

(140 Pa. St. 5, 21 Atl. 227 [1891]). 

1063, 1277, 1281. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Manderfield 

(32 Pa. Super. Ct. 373 [1907]), 

706. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Matchett 

(116 Pa. St. 103, 8 Atl. 854 

[1887]), 1036, 1037, 1072, 1092. 
Philadelphia to use of Holgate v. 

Meager (67 Pa. St. (17 P. F. 

Smith) 345 [1871]), 1068, 1070, 

1146, 1194. 
Philadelphia to use v. Meighan ( 159 

Pa. St. 495, 28 Atl. 304 [1894]), 

323, 713, 737. 
Philadelphia v. Meighan ( 27 Pa. 

Super. Ct. 160 [1905]), 384, 563. 
Philadelphia v. Merz (28 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 227 [1905]), 1091, 1160. 
Philadelphia to use v. Monument 

Cemetery Co. (147 Pa. St. 170, 23 

Atl. 400 [1892]), 298, 378, 1325, 

1333, 1382. 
Philadelphia to use v. Xell (31 

Super. Ct. 78 [1906]), 1, 1063, 

11 GO. 
Philadelphia, City of v. Xell ( 25 Pa. 

Super, tt. 347 [1904]), 451, 1157. 
Philadelphia to use of Yost v. Odd 

Fellows' Hall Association (168 Pa. 

St. 105, 31 Atl. 917 [1895]), 324, 

563. 
Philadelphia to use v. Pemberton 

208 Pa. St. 214. 57 Atl. 516 

[1904]), 314, 431, 517, 518, 651. 
Philadelphia to use t. Pemberton 

(25 Pa. Super. Ct. 323 [1904]), 

314, 517, 518. 
Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hospi- 
tal for the Insane (154 Pa. St. 9, 

25 Atl. 1076), 613. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxxiii 



[References are to sections.] 



Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hospi- 
tal (143 Pa. St. 367, 22 All. 744 
[1891]), 42, 93, 96, 323, 420, 589, 
G13. 

Philadelphia v. Peyton (25 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 350 [1904])", 1219. 

Philadelphia, City of. to use of Mc- 
Cann v. Philadelpliia i!t Reading 
Railroad Company (177 Pa. 292, 
34 L. R. A. 564, 35 Atl. 610 
[1896]). 40, 324. 595. 596, 598. 
612, 1182. 1203. 

Philadelphia, Citj^ of to use of 
O'Rourke v. Philadelphia & Read- 
ing Railroad Company (88 Pa. St. 
(7 Xorris) 314 [1879]), 521, 603. 
723. 

Philadelphia, City of, v. Philadel- 
phia, Wilmington & Baltimore R. 
R. Co. (33 Pa. St. (9 Casey) 41 
[1859]), 594, 595, 598. 

Philadelphia v. Provident, etc.. Trust 
Co. (132 Pa. St. 224, 18 At!. 1114 
[1890]), 372. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Richards 
(124 Pa. St. '303, 16 Atl. 802 
[1889]), 223. 234, 737, 775, 777. 
1063, 1372. 

Philadelphia v. Ridge Avenue Pas- 
senger Ry. Co. (143 Pa. St. 444, 
22 ^tl. 695 [1891]), 602, 603. 

Philadelphia, City of to use of John- 
son V. Rule (93 Pa. St. (12 Nor- 
ris) 15 [1880]), 527, 610, 665, 
666, 706, 1312. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Sciple (31 
Pa. Super. Ct.' 64 [1906]), 1063, 
1165. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Scott (93 
Pa. St. (12 Xorris) 25 [1880]), 
1160, 1165, 1170. 

Philadelphia to use, etc., v. Sheri- 
dan (148 Pa. .^t. 532, 24 Atl. 80 
[1892]), 610, 706. 

Philadelphia to use of Xestor v. 
Spring Garden Farmers' Market 
Company (161 Pa. St. 522. 29 Atl, 
286 [1894]), 223, 549, 598, 611, 
640, 723, 775. 

Philadelpliia to use v. Spring Gar- 
den Farmers' Market Company 



(154 Pa. St. 93, 25 Atl. 1077 
[1893]), 604, 1157, 1159, 1333. 

Philadelphia v. Stevenson ( 132 Pa. 
St. 103, 19 Atl. 70 [1890]). 55, 
596, 1063. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Steward (31 
Pa. Super. Ct. 72 [1906]), 1063. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Sutter (30 

- Pa. St. (6 Casey) 53 [1858]), 
1063, 1157. 

Philadelphia, -City of v. Union Buri- 
al Ground Society of the City and 
County of Philadelphia ( 178 Pa. 
St. 533. 36 L. R. A. 263, 36 Atl. 
172 [1896]), 42, 347, 592, 613. 

Philadelphia, City of to use of Mc- 
^lanus V. Unknown Owner ( 149 
Pa. St. 22. 24 Atl. 65 [1892]), 
1033, 1063. 

Philadelphia v. Wistar (92 Pa. St. 
(11 Norris) 404), 382, 383. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Wistar (35 
Pa. St. 427 '[I860]). 481, 531, 
1158, 1210. 

Philadelphia, City of v. Yewdall 
(190 Pa. St. 412, 42 Atl. 956 
[1899]), 382. 383, 1052. 

Philadelpliia Company's Petition 
(210 Pa. St. 490. " 60 Atl. 93 
[1904]). 190. 

Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. 
V. City of New Whatcom ( 19 
Wash. 225, 52 Pac. 1063 [1898]), 
475, 975, 1047, 1092, 1411. 1469, 
1508. 

Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron 
Co. V. City of Chicago (1.58 111. 
9, 41 X. E.'ll02 [1895]), 280, 308, 
636, 652, 656. 856, 921. 925, 965, 
967, 1279. 1286, 1348, 1349. 

Philadelpliia, Wilmington & Balti- 
more Railroad Com])any v. Ship- 
ley (72 Md. 88, 19 Atll [1890]), 
266. 308, 763, 918, 1142, 11.50, 
1231. 1240, 1266, 13.50, 1356. 1469. 

Pliilbrook v. Inhabitants of the 
County of Kennehec (17 Me. 196 
[1840]). 396, 399, 1-199. 

Phillips, Matter of (60 X. V. 16 
[1875]), 373, 380, 381, 432, 437, 
462, 762, 982, 1456. 



clxxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Phillips, In the ^Matter of v. Mayor, 
Aldermen and Commonalty of New 
York (2 Hun (N. Y.) 212 
[1874]), 762, 951, 1279, 1442, 
1450. 

Phillips V. City of Hudson (31 N. J. 
L. (2 Vr.) 143 [1864]), 1200. 
1206. 

Phillips V. JoUisaint (7 Ind. App. 
458, 34 X. E. 653), 1113, 1373. 

Phillips V. Lewis (109 Ind. 62, 9 N. 
E. 395 [1886]), 223, 950, 1262. 

Phillips V. City of Olympia (21 
Wash. 153, 57 Pac. 347 [1899] i. 
972, 974, 976, 1037, 1469. 

Phillips V. People ex rel. Goedtner 
(218 111. 450, 75 N. E. 1016 
[1905]), 533, 745, 930, 986, 996, 
1183. 

Phillips Academy, Trustees of v. In- 
habitants of Andover ( 175 Muss. 
118, 48 L. R. A. 550, 55 N. E. 841 
]1900]), 89, 570, 666, 700, 709. 

Phoenixville Borough v. Miller ( 34 
Pa. Super Ct. 16 [1907]), 441. 

Pickering v. State for use of Dyar 
(106 Ind. 228, 6 N. E. 611), 726, 
735, 770, 1237, 1244, 1251, 1444. 

Pickett V. School District (25 Wis. 
551, 3 Am. Rep. 105 [1870]), 48G. 

Pickton V. City of Fargo (10 X. D. 
469, 88 X. W. 90 [1901]), 119. 

Piedmont Paving Company v. All- 
man, 130 Cal. 88, 68 Pac. 493 
[1902]), 495. 510, 542, 840, S56, 
857, 864. 

Pier V. Fond du Lac County (53 \\'is. 
421, 10 N. W. 686 [1881]), 956, 
1066, 1072, 10S3. 1442. 

Pierce v. Aetna Life Insurance Com- 
pany (131 Ind. 284, 31 X. E. 68 
[1891]), 1068. 

Pierce v. Bronnenberg's Estate ( — • 
Ind. App. , 81 X. E. 739, re- 
hearing denied, 82 X. E. 126 
[1907]), 1067. 

Pierce v. Bronnenberg's Estate ( — 
Ind. App. , 82 X. E. 126; de- 
nying rehearing of 81 X. E. 739), 
756. 

Pierce v. iCounty Commissioners of 
Franklin County (63 Me. 252 



[1872]), 52, 53, 54, 234, 399, 525, 

729, 1404. 
Pierson v. People ex rel. Walter (204 

111. 456, 68 X. E. 383 [1903]), 

51. 
Pike V. City of Chicago ( 155 111. 656. 

40 X. E. 567 [1895]), 278, 293, 

381, 386, 672, 715, 920, 922, 1313, 

1318, 1322. 
Pike V. Cummings. 36 0. S. 213 

[1880]), 686, 1085. 
Pike Street, Matter of, Seattle (42 

Wash. 551 ; suh nomine In re C!ity 

of Seattle, 85 Pac. 45 [1900]), f3. 

271, 309, 601, 663, 675, 997. 
Pim V. Xicholson (6 0. S. 176 

[1856]), 197. 
Pinchbeck v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of Xew York (12 Hun (N. Y.) 55*6 

[1878]), 1488, 1494. 
Pinckney, In the Matter of (22 Hun, 

474 [1880]), 485, 511, 840, 1026, 

1454. 
Pine Tree Lumber Co. v. City of Far- 
go (12 X. D. 360, 96 X. W. 357 

[1903]), 238, 1512. 
Pinkstafl' v. Allison Ditch District 

Xo. 2 of Lawrence County (213 111. 

186, 72 X. E. 715 [1904]), 340, 

661, 923, 924, 1274, 1277, 1282. 
Pioneer Irrigation District v. Brad- 
ley (8 Ida. 310, 101 Am. St. Rep. 

201, 68 Pac. 295), 118, 355. 
Piper's Appeal in the Matter of Wid- 
ening Kearney Street (32 Cal. 530 

[1867]), 110, 292, 309, 345, 549, 

556, 559, 560, 657. 670, 690, 694. 

697, 947, 1381. 
Pipher v. People ex rel. Gannawa.\ 

(183 111. 426, 56 X. E. 84 [1900])'. 

927, 931, 986, 996, 1183, 1340. 
Pittelkow V. City of Milwaukee ( 94 

Wis. 651, 69 x'. E. 803 [1897]), 62. 

266, 661, 690, 783, 844, 899, 979. 
Pittman v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of Xew York ^ 3 Hun, 370 [1875]), 

279, 1026. 
Pittsburg V. Brace Bros (158 Pa. St. 

174, 27 Atl. 854 [1893]), 353, 037. 

1049, 1050. 
Pittsburg V. Cluloy (74 Pa. St. (24 

P. F. Smith) 262 [1873]), 280, 

856, 927. 935, 1009. 1337. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxxv 



[References are to sections.] 



Pittsburg V. Chiley (G6 Pa. St. (16 

P. F. Smith) 449 [1870]), 441, 

10G3. 
Pittsburg v.- Coursin ( 74 Pa. St. ( 24 

P. F. Smith) 400 [1873]), 735. 
Pittsburg, City of v. Harrison (91 

Pa. St. (10 Norris) 206 [1879]), 

1210, 1211, 1346. 
Pittsburg, City of v. Irwin's Exec- 
utors (85 Pa. St. 420 [1877]), 

1519. 
Pittsburg, City of v. Knowlson (92 

Pa. St. (11 Norris) 116 [1879]), 

1163, 1168. 
Pittsburg V. Logan (165 Pa. St. 516, 

30 Atl. 1017 [1S95]), 967, 1035, 

1100. 
Pittsburg, 'City of v. MacC'onnell 

(130 Pa. St. 463, 18 Atl. 645 

ri889]), 527, 1159. 
Pittsburg, City of v. [NleKnight (91 

Pa. St. (10 Xorris) 202, 1157, 

1158, 1373, 1384. 
Pittsburg, City of v. Maxwell (179 

Pa. St. 553, 36 Atl. 158 [1897]), 

1391. 
Pittsburg V. Shaffer (66 Pa. St. (10 

P. F. Smith) 454 [1870]), 387. 
Pittsburg V. Sterrett Subdistrict 

School (204 Pa. St. 635, 61 L. R. 

A. 183, 54 Atl. 463 [1903]), 8, 89, 

586. 
Pittsburg V. ^Yalter (69 Pa. St. (19 

P. F. Smith) 365 [1871]), 234, 

781, 951, 1150, 1281. 
Pittsburg, Appeal of tlie City of (118 

■Pa. St. 458, 12 Atl. 366* [1888] i, 

1435. 
Pittsburg, Appeal of the City of (40 

Pa. St. (4 Wright) 455 '[1861]), 

106-S, 1146. 
Pittsburg's Appeal (70 Pa. St. (20 

P. F. Smith) 142 [1871]), 1068, 

1146, 1194. 
Pittsburg City District (2 Watts & 

€. 320 [1841]), 427. 
Pittsburg's Petition for Board of 

Viewers (138 Pa. St. 401, 21 Atl. 

757, 759, 761 [1890]), 81, 19(1, 

278, 961, 1505. 
Pittsburg, Bradford & BuiValo Rail- 
way Company v. ^IcCloskey (110 

Pa. St. 436. 1 Atl. 555 [188.5]), 70. ^ 



Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. v. Town of Crown 

Point (150 Ind. 536, 50 N. E. 741 

[1897]), 783, 843. 951, 1000, 1030, 

1031, 1431. 
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. V. Fish (158 Ind. 

525, 63 N. E. 454 [1901]), 86, 108, 

301, 598, 832, 1078, 1110, 1277. 
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. v. Hays (17 Ind. 

App. 261, 44 X. E. .375 [1896]), 

82, 594, 598, 1078, 13tJ9. 
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. v. Machler ( 158 Ind. 

159, 63 N. E. 210 [1901]), 598, 

659, 918, 987, 1313. 
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Cliicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. v. Oglesby (165 Ind. 

542, 76 N. E. 165 [1905]), 245, 

263, 616, 895. 
Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. 

Taber (168 Ind. 419, 77 N. E. 741 

[1906]), 108, 301, 594, 595, 598, 

620, 669, 670, 699, 709, 731, 745, 

956, 978, 983, 1078, 1085, 1110. 
Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. 

Louis Ry. Co. v. Town of Wolcott 

(162 Ind. 399, 69 X. E. 451 

[1903]), 70, 832. 
Pittsburg, Ft. Wayne & Chicago R. 

R. Co. V. City of Chicago (53 111. 

80 [1869]). 1183. 
Pittsburg R. Co. v. Harden (137 Ind. 

486, 37 X. E. 324), 365. 
Piatt V. Stewart (S Bnr!>. 493 

[1850]), 890, 902. 
Pleasant Hill, Village of v. Commis- 
sioners (71 O. S. 133, 72 X. E. 896 

[1904]), 223, 234, 270, 449, 638, 

775. 
Pleasant Hill. City of v. Dasher (120 

Mo. 675, 25 S". W. 566 [1893]), 

323, 1040. 1049. 
Pleasant Township v. Cook (160 Ind. 

533, 67 X. E. 262 [1902]), 583, 

587, 664, 727, 729, 738, 886, 1076. 
Pleasants v. City of Shreveport (110 

La. 1046, 35 So. 283 [1903]), 8, 

46, 484. 531, 5.53, 1299, 1369. 
Plympton v. Boston l^isjieiisary ( lOG 

Mass. 544 [1871]), 1055. 



clxxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Pochila V. Calvert, Waco & Brazos 

Valley Railway Co. (31 Tex. Civ. 

App. 398, 72 S. W. 255 [1903]), 

60. 
Poillon, Pros. v. Brunner (66 N. J. 

L. 116, 48 Atl. 541 [1901]), 986. 

1085, 1168. 
Poillon V. Mayor and Council of the 

Borough of Rutherford (05 N. J. 

L. (36 Vr.) 538, 47 Atl. 439 

[1900]), 119, 667, 699, 735, 766, 

894. 
Police Jury v. Mitchell (37 La. Ann. 

44), 218. 
Polk County Savings Bank v. State 

of Iowa ((]9 la. 24, 28 N. W. 416 

ri886]), 501, 1074, 1509. 
Pollock V. Sowers (137 Mich. 368, 

100 N. W. 596 [1904]), 340, 965, 

990. 
Pomeroy Coal Co. v. Emlen ( 44 Kan. 

117, 24 Pac. 340 [1890]), 3. 
Pontiac, City of v. Talbot Paving Co. 

(94 Fed. 65, 36 C. C. A. 88, 48 L. 

R. A. 326 [1899]), 1518. 
Pooley V. City of Buffalo (124 X. Y. 

206, 26 N. E. 624 [1891]), 919, 

1478, 1485, 1497. 
Pooley V. City of Buffalo ( 122 N. Y. 

592, 26 N. E. 16 [1890] ), 744, 745, 

747, 915, 1484, 1485, 1488. 
Poplar Bluff, City of, to use of 

Wheeler v. Hoag (62 Mo. App. 672 

[1895]), 438, 873. 
Porphyry Paving Co. v. Ancker ( 104 

Cal. 340, 37 Pac. 1050 [1894]), 

747, 1264. 
Port Angeles, City of v. Lauridsen 

(26 Wash. 153, 66 Pac. 403 

[1901]), 416, 956, 965, 974. 
Porter v. City of Chicago (176 111. 

605, 52 N. E. 318 [1898]), 923, 

1029, 1277. 
Porter v. Midland Ry. Co. ( 125 Ind. 

476, 25 N. E. 556), 1015. 
Porter v. Purdy (29 N. Y. 106, 86 

Am. Dec. 283 [1864]), 280, 1009, 

1521. 
Porter v. City of Tipton (141 Ind. 

347, 40 N. "e. 802 [1895]), 1506. 

Portland v. Bituminous Paving Co. 

(33 Ore. 307, 72 Am. St. Rep. 713. 



44 L. R. A. 527, 52 Pac. 28 
[1898]), 373, 483, 519. 

Portland, City of v. Kamm (5 Ore. 
302 [1874]), 77, 1349-, 1351. 

Portland v. Oregon Real Estate Co. 
(43 Or. 423, 72 Pac. 322 [1903]), 
805, 810, 981. 

Portland Lumbering & Manufactur- 
ing Co. V. City of East Portland 
(18 Or. 21, L. R. A. 290, 22 
Pac. 536 [1889]), 245, 1498. 

Portsmouth iSav. Bank v. City of 
Omaha (67 Neb. 50, 93 N. W. 231 
[1903]), 763, 911, 1004. 

Post v. Kearney (2 N. Y. 394, 51 
Am. Dec. 303 [1849]), 1054. 

Post V. City of Passaic (56 N. J. L. 
(27 Vr.) 421, 28 Atl. 553 [1894]), 
1408. 

Post V. Supervisors ( 105 U. S. 667 
[1881]), 1512. 

Poth V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(77 Hun (N. Y.) 225, 28 N. Y. 
S. 365 [1894]), 1481. 

Poth V. Ma.yor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
(151 N. Y. 16, 45 N. E. 372 
[1896]), 465, 479, 496, 1481, 1484. 

Pott's Appeal (15 Pa. St. 414), 909. 

Potter V. Village of Norwood' (21 
Ohio C. C. 461 [1901]), 387, 563, 
1437, 1444. 

Potter V. City of Whatcom (25 
Wash. 207, 65 Pac. 197 [1901]), 
670, 927, 933, 1004, 1030, 1337, 
1511. 

Potwin V. Johnson (108 111. 70 
[1883]), 194, 195, 245, 258, 736, 
1112, 1317. 

Potwin V. Johnson ( 106 111. 532 
[1883]), 41, 1369. 

Poundstone v. Baldwin ( 145 Ind. 
139, 44 N. E. 191 [1896]), 373, 
375, 781, 784. 

Powell V. Brunswick County ( 150 
U. S. 433, 14 S. 166), 715*. 

Powell V. Clelland (82 Ind. 24 
[1882]), 1030, 1519. 

Powell V. City of Duluth (91 Minn. 
53, 97 N. W. 450 [1903]), 353. 

Powell V. City of St. Joseph (31 Mo. 
347 [1861]"), 437. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxxvii 



[References are to sections.] 



Power V. City of Detroit ( 139 Mich. 

30, 102 N. W. 288 [1905]), 308, 

465, 479, 549, 552, 555, 578, 629, 

663, 670, 1085, 1103. 
Powers, In the Matter of the Appeal 

of (29 Mich. 504 [1874]), 63, 229, 

272, 550, 747, 777, 825. 
Powers V. Barr (24 Barb. (N. Y.) 

142 [1857]), 1108, 1175. 
Powers V. City of Grand Rapids (98 

Mich. 393, 57 N. W. 250 [1894]), 

314, 561, 578, 651, 655. 
Powers V. Town of Xevv Haven ( 120 

Ind. 185, 21 X. E. 1083 [1889]), 

489 
Praigg V. Western Paving and Sup« 

ply Company (143 Ind. 358, 42 

N. E. 750 [1895]), 79, 628. 
Pratt V. City of Milwaul^ee ( 93 Wis. 

658, 68 N. W. 392 [1896]), 41, 

425, 429, 1116, 1173, 1181, 1195, 

1196, 1337. 
Pray v. Northern Liberties (31 Pa. 

St. 69), 45, 166, 1063, 1113. 
Prendergast V. Richards (2 Mo. App. 

187 [1876]), 324, 542, 636, 990, 

1138, 1221. 
Presbytery of New York, In the 

Matter of the Trustees of the (54 

Howard (N. Y.) 226 [1877]), 504, 

867, 1453, 1459. 
Prescott V. City of Cliicago (60 111. 

121 [1871]),' 194, 195, 355, 390, 

394, 405, 997, 1291 
President, etc., of v. 

. ( See name of Cori>ora- 



tion or Institution.) 

Preston v. Board of Water Commis- 
sioners of Detroit (117 Midi. 589, 
76 N. W. 92), 353. 

Preston v. Rolierts ( 7.") Ky. ( 12 
Busii.) 570 [1877]), 301, 527, 628, 
629, 635, 710, 777, 1015, 1255, 
1375. 

Preston v. Rudd (84 Ky. 156, 7 Ky. 
L. R. 806 [1886]), 301, 555, 065, 
770, 678. 

Prezinger v. Harness (114 Ind. 491, 
16 N. E. 495 [1887]), 340, 528, 
679, 684, 772. lOOS. 1015, 1018, 
1427, 1435. 

Price v. City of Toledo (25 Ohio Cir. 



Ct. R. 017 [1903]), 189, 651, 653, 
918, 1436. 

Prince v. City of Boston (111 Mass. 
226 [1872]), 76, 86, 244, 309, 415, 
525, 738, 879, 1334. 

Prindiville v. Jackson (79 III. 337 
[1875]), 8, 11, 348, 421. 

Prindle v. Campbell (9 :Minn. 212 
[1864]), 735, 770, 981, 1178. 

Prior v. Buehler & Coney Construc- 
tion Company (170 Mo. 439, 71 
S. W. 205 [1902]), 118, 324, 329, 
553, 555, 666, 698, 709, 711. 

Proprietors of Locks and Canals v. 
Nashua & Lowell Railroad Corpo- 
ration (64 Mass. (10 Cush.) 385 
[1852]), 66. 

Protestant Episcopal Public School, 
In the Matter of the (86 N. Y. 
396 [1881]), 821, 1451. 1405. 

Protestant Episcopal Public School, 
In the Matter of the Application 
of the (40 Howard (N. Y.) 198 
[1870]), 541. 550. 821, 824, 840, 
855. 

Protestant Orphan Asylum of Pitts- 
burg and Alleghen}% Appeal of the 
(111 Pa. St. 135, 3 Atl. 217 
[1885]), 382, 462. 

Prout V. People ex rel. Miller (83 
III. 154 [1876]), 508, 772, 927, 
942, 1183, 1184, 1372. 

Provident Institution for Savings v. 
Allen (37 N. J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 
627 [1883]), 349, 353, 1049, 1068, 

Provident Institution for Savings v. 
Allen (37 N. .J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 
36 [1883]), 6. 20, 349. 353. 354, 
608, 665, 666, 690, 717, 1031. 

Provident Institution for Savings v. 
Mayor, etc., of Jersey City (113 
U. S. 506. 28 L. 11()2, 5 S. 612 
[1885]), 6. 20, 124, 353, 1049. 
1068. 

Public Park-i, In the Matter of the 
Department of (85 N. Y. 459 
[1881]), 945. 

Pueblo, City of v. Rubiiison (12 
Colo. 593! 21 Pac. 899 [1899]), 
44, 152, 324, 420, 674. 

Pugh V. Miller (126 Ind. 1S9. 25 
N, E. 1040 [1890]), 1522. 



clxxxviii 



T^VBLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Pulaski County, Board of Commis- 

sionei'S of v. Vurpillat (22 Ind. 

App. 422, 53 X. E. 1049 [1899]), 

472. 
Purdy V. Drake (Ky.) (32 S. \Y. 

939, 17 Ky. L. R. 819 [1896]), 

73, 1346. 
Pursell V. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

/ork (85 X. Y. 330 [1881]), 1054, 

1467, 1487. 
Pusey's Appeal, In the Matter of 

Charles Street (83 Pa. St. (2 Xor- 

ris) 67 [1876]), 70, 1437. 
Putnam v. Grand Rapids (58 Mich. 

416, 25 X. W. 330 [1SS5]). 368, 

1437, 1442. 
Putnam County, Commissioners of 

V. Krauss (53 0. S. 628, 42 X. E. 

831 [1895]), 1026, 1433. 
Putnam County, Commissioners of 

V. Young (36 0. S. 288 [1880]). 

248, 322, 539, 564, 569, 629, 785, 

790, 796. 



Quarles v. Town of Sparta ( 2 Tenn. 

Ch. App. 714 [1902]), 263, 827. 
Quarry Road, In re, Opening of ( 82 

N. Y. S. 965, 84 App. Div. 418 

[1903]), 263. 
Queen City Foundry Co. v. City of 

Cincinnati (8 Ohio X\ P. " 167 

[1901]), 677, 693, 700 
Quest V. Johnson ( 58 Mo. 54 

[1894]), 18, 530. 
Quick V. Parrott (167 Ind. 31, 78 

X. E. 232 [1906]), 340, 1506. 
Quick V. Village of River Forest 

(130 111. 323, 22 X. E. 816 

[1890]), 771, 918. 1306. 
Quick V. Templin (— Ind. , 85 

X. E. 121 [1908]), 1442. 
Quill V. City of Indianapolis ( 124 

Ind. 292, V L. R. A. 681, 23 X. 

E. 788 [1890]), 11, 139, 209, 301, 

507, 651, 663, 665, 666, 731, 739, 

1033, 1085, 1504, 1506. 
Quinlan v. Myers (29 0. S. 500 

[1876]), 1007, 1432. 



Quinn v. City of Buffalo (26 Hun 

(X. Y'.) 234 [1882]), 1508, 1516. 
Quinn v. City of Cambridge ( 187 

Mass. 507, 73 X. E. 661 [1905]), 

878. 
Quinn v. James (174 Mass. 23, 54 

X. E. 343 [1899]), 326, 654, 750. 
Quint V. Hoffman (103 Cal. 506, 37 

Pac. 514 [1894]), 253. 254, 355, 

1432, 1435. 
Quint V. McMullen (103 Cal. 381, 

37 Pac. 381 [1894]), 355, 1389. 

1426. 
Quirk V. City of Seattle (38 Was''. 

25, 80 Pac. 207 [1905]), 69, 7". 

308, 611, 613. 



R 



R. B. Park & Co. v. Cane (— Ky. 

, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2294, 73 

S. W. 1121 '[1903]), 628, 666, 709, 
710. 

Rabel v. City of Seattle (-14 Wash. 
482, 87 Pac. 520 [1906]), 549, 
1054. 

Racer v. State for Use of Rhine (131 
Ind. 393, 31 X. E. 81 [1891]), 
340, 525, 532, 1254. 

Rackliffe v. Duncan ( — Mo. App. 

, 108 S. W. 1110 [1908]), 

463, 616, 841. 

Rader v. Township of Union (44 X. 
.1. L. (15 Vr.) 259), 166, 167. 

Rader v. Township Committee of 
Union (39 X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 509), 
168, 1081. 

Rae V. Mayor, etc., of the City of 
Xew York ( 39 X. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. 
192 [1875]). 1422. 

Railroad Avenue, East, In the Mat- 
ter of the Application of the 
Commissioners of Public Parks, 
etc., relative to opening (47 Hun 
(X. Y.) 302 [18S8]), 308, 601. 

Railway Company of Illinois v. Com- 
missioners of East Lake Fork Spe- 
cial Drainage District (134 111. 
384, 10 L. R. A. 285, 25 X. E. 781 
[1891]), 1477. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



clxxxix 



[References are to sections.^ 



Railroad Company v. Foreman (24 

W. Va. 662 [1884]), 65. 
Railroad Companj' v. flavor, Alder- 
men and Commonalty of tlie City 

of New York (63 Hun 271, 17 X. 

Y. Supp. 903 [1892]), 1422. 
Railway Co. v. Porter (38 Ind. App. 

226, 76 X. E. 179 [1905]). (over- 
ruling petition for rehearing in 74 

N. E. 260), 1110. 
Railroad Company v. Wagner (43 

0. S. 75. 1 X. E. 91 [1885]), 72 \ 

735, 977. 
Ivaisch V. Hildebrandt ( 146 Cal. 

721, 81 Pac. 21 [1905]), 1277, 

1281. 
Raleigh, City of v. Peace (110 X. 

C. 32, 17 L. R. A. 330. 14 S. E. 

521 [1892]), 7, 11, 39, 79, 82, 100. 

1.06, 145, 147, 148, 231, 241, 244, 

245, 363, 665, 666, 668, 1039. 
Ramish v. Hartwell (126 Cal. 443, 

58 Pac. 920 [1899]), 139, 522, 

670, 871, 948. 1116, 1173, 1179, 

1337, 1469. 
Ramsey County v. Robert P. Lewis 

Co. '(53 L. R^. A. 421 [1901]), 104, 

118, 350, 630, 702, 708. 
Ramsey County v. Robert P. Lewis 

Co. (42 L. R. A. 639 [1898]). 104, 

118, 350, 549, 609, 630, 702. 
Randolph v. Bayue (44 Cal. 366 

[1872]), 1039, ' 1169. 
Randolph v. Gawley (47 Cal. 458 

[1874[), 860, 867' 
Raritan Township v. Port Reading 

R. Co. (49 X. J. Eq. 11), 359. 
Rasmussen v. People ex rel. Kern 

(156 111. 574, 42 X. E. Rep. 161 

[1895]), 925. 
Rasmussen v. People ex rel. Kern 

(155 111. 70, 39 X^. E. 606 [1895]), 

763, 913. 
Rauer v. Lowe (107 Cal. 229. 40 

Pac. 337 [1895]), 273, 324, 512. 

537, 740. 747, 907, 1052, 1062, 

1281, 1293, 1522. 
Rawlins v. Britr-^rs L. R. (3 C. P. 

Div. 368 [1878]), 1054. 
Rawson v. City of Chicago (185 111. 

87, 57 X. E." 35 [1900]), 620, 029, 

683, 781, 800, 857. 



Rawson v. City of Des Moines (133 

la. 514, 110 X. W. 918 [1907]), 

629. 
Ray V. City of Jeflfersonville (90 Ind. 

567 [1883]), 111, 217, 267, 301, 

549, 619, 627, 650, 728, 781, 783, 

814, 843, 1192, 13-47. 
Raym.ond, In the Matter of (21 Hun 

229 [1880]), 484, 485. 
Raymond v. Cleveland (42 O. S. 522 

[1885]), 7, 11, 86, 106, 308. 5-50, 

551, 622, 623, 956, 962, 963, 970, 

1447. 
Rayne, Town of v. Harrel (119 La. 

652. 44 So. 330«[1907]), 777. 1050, 

1114. 
Reading, City of v. O'Reilly (169 

Pa. St. 366, 32 Atl. 420 [1895]), 

610. 620, 817, 824. 1056. 
Reading, City of v. Savage ( 124 Pa. 

St. 328, 16 Atl. 788 [1889]), 190, 

244, 961. 
Reading, City of v. Savage (120 Pa. 

St. 198, 13 Atl. 919 [1888]), 190, 

776, 961. 
Real Estate Corporation of Xew 

York City v. Harper ( 174 X\ Y. 

123. 60 X. E. 660 [1903]), 1067, 

1072. 
Reamer v. Hogg (142 Ind. 138, 41 

X. E. 353 [1895]), 340, 526. 
Reasoner v. Creek (101 Ind. 482 

[1884]), 804. 
Reclamation District No. 537 of 

Yolo County v. Burger ( 122 Cal. 

442, 55 Pac. 156 [1898]), 253, 
'254, 343, 670, 694, 713, 788, 795, 

951, 1008, 1318. 
Reclamation District Xo. 124 v. 

Coghill (56 Cal. 607 [1880]), 

1269. 
Reclamation District X"o. 108 v. 

Evans (61 Cal. 104 [1882]). 132, 

340, 773. 
Reclamation District X'o. 3 v. God- 
man (61 Cal. 2(t5 [1882]), 48, 

244. 776. 
Reclamation District Xo. 3 v. Gobi- 
man (65 Cal. 635, 4 Pac. 676 

[1884]). 132. 247, 266. 527. 541, 

554. 557. 042. 773. 980, 998. 1213, 

1390. 



cxc 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[^leferences are to sections.] 



Reclamation District Xo. 124 v. 

Gray (95 Cal. (501 30 Pac. 779 

[1892]), 247, 249, 253, 254, 340, 

983, 1008, 1301. 
Reclamation District No. 108 v. 

Hagar (66 Cal. 54, 4 Pac. 945 

[1884]),- 86, 132, 172, 244, 247, 

248, 270j 340, 472, 549, 564, 618, 

637, 666, 952, 1086, 1213, 1330. 
Reclamation District No. 108 v, 

Hagar (4 Fed. 366 [1880]), 118, 

132, 147, 172, 334, 335, 340, 618, 

665, 666, 773, 1086, 1370. 
Reclamation District No. 536 v. 

Hall (131 Cal. 662, 63 Pac. 1000 

[1901]), 340, 1085. 
Reclamation District No. 3 v. Ken- 
nedy (58 Cal. 124 [1881]), 223, 

234, 254, 409. 
Reclamation District No. 3 v. Par- 

vin (67 Cal. 501, 8 Pac. 43 

[1885];, 340, 899, 900, 1213. 
Reclamati"on District No. 551 v. 

Rmiyan (117 Cal. 164, 49 Pac. 131 

[1897]), 340, 951, 1477. 
Rector v. Board of Improvement ( 50 

Ark. 116, 6 S. W. 519 [1887]), 

245, '636, 781, 786, 788, 1017. 
Rector of Trinity Church v. Higgins 

(27 N. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. 1 [1866]), 

279, 832. 
Redden v. Town of Covington (29 

Ind. 118), 246. 
Redding v. Esplen Borough (207 Pa. 

St. 248, 56 Atl. 431 [1903]), 50Z 

1278. 
Red fork Levee District v. St. Louis 

Railway Co. (80 Ark. 98, 96 S. 

W. 117 [1906]), 886. 
Redick v. City of Omaha (35 Neb. 

125, 52 N. "W. 847 [1892]), 1431, 

1435, 1436. 
Redmond v. Maj'or, etc., of the City 

of New York (58 N. Y. iSup. Ct. 

Rep. 348, 11 N. Y. S. 782 [1890]), 

762, 1484, 1485, 1488. 
Redmond v. Mayor, etc., of New 

York (26 Abb. N. C. 341 [1891]), 

1478, 1484, 1488. 
Red River Furnace Co. v. Tennessee 

Central Railway Co. (113 Tenn. 

697, 87 S. W. 1016), 365. 
Reed v. Bates (115 Kv. ^.'!7. 74 S. 



W. 234, 24 Ky. L. R. 2312 [1903] ), 
725. 

Reed v. City of Cedar Rapids ( — 

Iowa , 111 N. W. 1013 

[1907]), 418, 652, 658, 754, 821. 

Reed v. City of Cincinnati ( 8 Ohio 
C. C. 393 [1894]), 950, 983, 1373. 

Reed v. Erie (79 Pa. St. (9 P. F. 
Smith) 346 [1875]), 78, 362, 431. 

Reed v. City of Toledo (18 Ohio 161, 
[1849]), 232, 434. 

Reelfoot Lake Levee District v. Daw- 
son (97 Tenn. 151, 34 L. R. A. 
725, 731, 36 S. W. 1041 [1896]), 
8, 44, 89, 97, 160, 345. 

Rees v. Watertown (86 U. S. (19 
Wall.) 107, 22 L. 72 [1873]), 1518. 

Reese's Appeal in the Matter of Wid- 
ening Kearney Street ( 32 Cal. 568 
[1867]), 309," 1054. 

Reeves v. Grottendick (131 Ind. 107, 
30 N. E. 889 [1891]), 142, 267, 
631, 722, 723, 814, 887, 948, 962, 
1192, 1227, 1330, 1337, 1347, 1350, 
1352. 

Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County 
(8 0. S. 333 [1858]), 35, 90, loi, 
117, 147, 245, 291, 294, 335, 337, 
613. 

Regan Land Co. v. City of Carthage 

(— Mo. App. , 108 S. W. 589 

[1908]), 6, 353, 1443, 1444. 

Regenstein v. Atlanta (98 Ga. 167, 
25 S. E. 428 [1896]), 388, 1411, 
1412, 1430. 

Reid v. Clay (134 Cal. 207, 66 Pac. 
262 [1901]), 301, 472, 492, 537, 
570, 861, 907, 969, 1062, 1110, 
1216, 1281, 1279, 1282, 1288, 1.303, 
1324. 

Reilley v. City of Philadelphia (60 
Pa. St. (lb P. F. Smitli) 467 
[1869]), 18, 234, 410, 413, 521, 
778. 

Reilly v. City of Albany (40 Hun 
405 [1886]"), 537, 10o'5, 1508. 

Reinken v. Fuehring (130 Ind. 382, 
30 Am. St. Rep. 247, 15 L. R. A. 
624, 37 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 354, 
30 N. E. 414 [1891]), 43, 111, 
113, 118, 119, 1-13, 147, 370. 

Reis V. GraflF (51 Cal. 86 [1875]), 
499. 742, 749, 9S3, 1081. 



Il 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXCl • 



[References are to sections.] 



Remish v. Hartwell (126 Cal. 443, 

58 Pac. 920 [1899]), 301. 
Remsen, Matter of (59 Barb. (X. 

Y.) 317 [1871]), 167. 
Remsen v. Wheeler (121 N. Y. 685, 

24 N. E. 704 [1890]), 888. 1478, 

1497. 
Remsen v. Wheeler (105 X. Y. 573, 

12 N. E. 5G4 [1887]), 119, 121, 

351, 354, 726. 729, 734, 1491. 
Renard v. City of Spokane ( — 

Wash. , 93 Pac. 517 [1908]), 

807, 809, 1027, 1347, 1348. 
Reock V. Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of Xewark (33 N. J. L. (4 

Vr.) 129 [1868] I, 974. 
Rettinger v. City of Passaic (45 X. 

J. L. (16 Vr.) 146 [1883]), 1409. 
Reuting v. City of Titusville (175 

Pa. «t. 512, 34 Atl. 916 [1896]), 

723. 
Reyburn v. Wallace (93 Mo. 326, 3 

vS. W. 482 [1887]), 1055. 
Reynolds v. Green (27 0. S. 41G 

[1875]), 1168. 
Reynolds v. Milks Grove Special 

Drainage Di.strict (34 III. App. 

302 [1889]), 1430. 
Reynolds v. X^ewton ( 14 Ohio C. C. 

433 [1893]), 985, 995, 1037, 1099. 
Reynolds v. Schweinefus (27 0. S. 

311 [1875]), 828, 1279, 1289. 
Reynolds Street Sewer, In re ( 34 

Super. Ct. 209 [1907]), 272, 426. 
Rhinelander, In the Matter of the 

Petition of, to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (68 N. Y. 105 [1877]), 393, 

396, 400. 
Rhinelander v. Ma.vor, etc., of X>\v 

York (24 Howard (X. Y.) 304 

[1862]), 233, 431. 
Rhodes v. Board of Public Works of 

the City of Denver ( 10 Colo. App. 

99, 49 Pac. 430 [1897]), 521, 781, 

800. 
Rhoades v. City of Toledo (6 Ohio 

C. C. 9 [1890]), 111, 118, 308, 310. 

426, 430. 
Rhodes v. Mummery (48 Ind. 216 

[1874]), 363. 
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. 

Babbitt (22 R. 1. 113, 46 Atl. 403 

[1900]), 49, 1055. 



Rice V. Mayor and Council of Ma- 
con (117 Ga. 401, 43 S. E. 773 

[1903]), 144, 1412. 
Rich's Case (12 Abb. Yr:Q. 118 

[1861]), 485, 663. 800, 1452, 1463. 
Rich V. Braxton (158 U. S. 375, 39 

L. 1022, 15 S. 1006 [1895]), 1425. 
Rich V. City of Cb'cago (187 111. 

396, 58 X. E. 306 [1900]), 864, 

866, 927, 929, 943, 986, 132-i. 
Rich V. City of Chicago (152 111. 

18, 38 X. E. 255 [1894]), 228, 

244, 263, 292, 324, 402, 444, 545, 

547, 548, 549, 561, 587, 594, 597, 

598, 619, 630, 641, 643, 653, 676. 

690, 694, 696, 771, 864, 867, 924, 

1029, 1328, 1348. 
Rich V. City of Chicago (59 111. 286 

[1871]), ^32, 174, 202, 281, 762, 

764, 783, 843, 910, 939, 1304, 1374. 
Rich V. Woods (118 Ky. 865, 26 

Ky. Law Rep. 799, 82 S. W. 578 

[1904]), 563. 
Richard v. Cypremort Drainage Dis- 
trict (107* La. 657, 32 So. 27 

[1901-1902]), 551. 564. 
Richards v. City of Cincinnati (31 

0. S. 506 [1877]), 306, 311, 431, 

467, 527, 616, 620. 
Richards v. City of JerseyWlle (214 

111. 67, 73 X. E. 370 [1905]), 828 

912, 1281. 
Richards v. Low (77 X^ Y. S. 1102, 

38 Misc. Rep. 500 [1902]), 265, 

671. 
Richardson v. City of Brooklyn ( 34 

Barb. 569 [1861]), 1511. 
Richardson v. City of Denver (17 

Colo. 398, 30 Pac. 333 [1892]), 

1206. 
Richardson v. Hydenfeldt (46 Cal. 

68 [1873]), 867. 
Richardson v. Mehler (111 Ky. 408, 

63 S. W. 957, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 

917 [1901]), 183, 490, 494. 501. 

522, 537, 570, 765, 837, 857, 981, 

1281, 1312. 
Richardson v. ^lorgan (16 La. Ann. 

429 [1862]). 38, 39, 43, 147, 239, 

343, 663, 697. 
Richardson v. City of Omaha (— > 

Xeb. , 110 X. W. 648 [1907]), 

748, 911, 1430. 



CXCll 



TABLE OP CASES. 



(References are to sections.] 



Richcieek v. Moorman { 14 Intl. App. 

370, 42 X. E. 943 [1895]), 886, 

1033, 1101. 
Rich Hill, City of v. Donnan (82 

Mo. App. 38^6 [1900]), 813, 814, 

864. 
Richman v. Supervisors of Musca- 
tine County (77 la. 513, 14 Am. 

St. Rep. 308, 4 L. R. A. 445, 42 

X. W. 422 [1889]), 194, 343, 956, 

983. 
Richmond, City of v. Williams (102 

Va. 733, 47 S. E. 844 [1904]), 131, 

728, 748. 
Richmond & Allegheny R. R. Ck). v. 

City of Lynchburg (81 Va. 473 

[lS'i6]), 43, 161, 347, 611, 641. 
Richter v. Merrill (84 Mo. App. 151 

[1900]), 141, 533, 916, 1017, 1026, 

1133, 1337, 1369. 
Ricketts v. Village of Hyde Park ( S5 

111. 110 [1877]), 10*3, 121, 236, 

347, 410, 531, 539, 541, 573, 662, 

763. 
Ricketts v. Spraker (77 Ind. 371 

[1881]), 474, 642, 672, 1010, 1283, 

1298, 1430, 1435. 
Ridenour v. Saffin (1 Hand. (Ohio) 

464 [1855]), 35, 106, 110, 147, 

148, 317, 436, 531, 537, 576, 700, 

776, 1330. 
Riebling v. The People for the Use 

of the Columbian Levee and Drain- 

age District (147 111. 120, 35 X. 

E. 467 [1894]), 344, 941, 986. 
Righter, In the Matter of (92 X. Y. 

Ill [1883]), 484, 485, 1454, 1466. 
Rigney, Trustees v. Fischer (113 Ind. 

31*3, 15 X. E. 594 [1887]), 449, 

1471. 
Riker v. IMayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of Xew York 

(3 Dafy (X. Y.) 174 [1869]), 68, 

825, 927, 998. 
Riley v. Stewardt (50 Mo. App. 594 

[1892]), 1133, 1138, 1245, 1375. 
Risdon v. Shank (37 la. 82 [1873]), 

323, 1041, 1048, 1215. 
Risley v. City of St. Louis (34 Mo. 

404 [1864]"). 527, 505, 725, 950. 
Ritter V. Draina<ie District X'^o. 1, 

Poinsett County (78 Ark. 580, 94 

S. W. 711 [1906]), 105, 111, 121, 



256, 340, 618, 651, 665, 666, 690, 

691, 1381. 
Ritterskamp v. Stifel ( 59 Mo. App. 

510 [1894]), 463. 
River Forest, Village of v. Chicago 

and Xorthwestern Railroad Com- 
pany (197 111. 344, 64 X. E. 364 

[1902J), 594, 595, 598, 1318. 
River Rendering Co. v. Behr ( 77 

Mo. 91, 46 Am. Rep. 6 [1882]), 

372. 
River Rendering Co. v. Behr ( 7 ^lo. 

App. 345 [1879]), 372. 
Roach V. City of Eugene (23 Or. 

376, 31 Pac. 825 [1893]), 501. 
Robbins to Vacate an Assessment, 

In the Matter of the Petition of 

(82 X. Y. 131 [1880]), 305, 482. 
Robbins v. Sand Creek Turnpike 

Company (34 Ind. 461 [1870]). 

554, 629, 639, 723, 1472. 
Roberts, In the Matter of (81 X'. Y. 

62 [1880]), 264, 265, 407, 415, 

423, 813, 873, 877, 911. 
Roberts, In the Matter of (53 Hun 

338, 6. X. Y. Supp. 195 [1889]), 

1016, 1460, 1461. 
Roberts v. Board of County Commis- 
sioners of Brown County (21 Kan. 

247 [1878]), 65, 66. 
Roberts v. City of Evanston (218 

111. 296, 75 X. E. 923 [1905]), 

619, 748, 824, 912. 
Roberts v. First Xational Bank of 

Fargo (8 X". D. 504, 79 X\ W. 1049 

[1899]), 86, 118, 649, 666, 698, 

709, 888. 
Roberts v. Gierss (101 Ind. 408 

[1884]), 825, 1375. 
Roberts v. Smith (115 Mich. 5, 72 

X. W. 1091 [1897]), 100, 118, 125, 

280, 293, 449, 7.28, 1385, 1394, 

1406. 
Robertson v. Baxter ( 57 Mich. 127, 

23 X. W. 711 [1885]), 226, 228, 

270, 1395. 
Robertson v. City of Omaha ( 55 

Xeb. 718, 44 L.' R. A. 534, 76 X. 

W. 442 [1898]), 461, 463, 
Robeson v. People ex rel. Curry (161 

111. 176, 43 X\ E. 619 [1896] i, 

223, 234, 271, 272, 344, 735, 921. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXCIU 



[References are to sections.] 



Robinson v. City of Burlington (.50 

la. 240 [1878]), 8, 1U2S, 10.3.5, 

1483. 
Robinson v. Logan (31 0. S. 4(JG 

[1877]), 800. 
Robinson v. Merrill (87 Cal. 11, 25 

Pac. 162 [1890]), 1220, 1257, 1277, 

1141, 1145. 
Robinson v. City of Milwaukee (01 

Wis. 585, 21 X. W. (510 [1S84J), 

324, 549, 503, 1452. 
Robinson v. Rippey (HI Inil. 112. 12 

X. E. 141), lli3. 
Robinson v. City of S't. Paul (10 

Minn. 228, 41 X. W. 950 [1889J), 

1308. 
Rollnscn v. City of Valparaiso ( 130 

Ind. 616, 36 X. E. 644 [1893]), 

1030, 1430, 1433, 1506. 
Roby V. Colehour (140 U. S. 153, 

13 S. 47), 715. 
Roche V. The City of Dubuque ( 42 

la. 250 [1875]), 747, 700. 
Roche V. Waters (72 Md. 264, 7 L. 

R. A. 533, 19 Atl. 535 [1890]), 

1055. 
Rochester, City of v. Campbell (123 

X. Y. 405, 20 Am. St. Rep. 760, 

10 L. R. A. 393, 25 X. W. 937 

[1890]), 56. 
Rochester, City of v. Rochester Rail- 
way Company (182 X. Y. 99, 70 

L. R. A. 773, 74 X. E. 953 [19l)5]), 

GO, 89, 95, 599, 600, 617. 
Rochester, City of v. Rochester Rail- 
way Co. (96 X. Y. S. 152, 109 App. 

Div. 638 [1905]), 1085. 
Rochester Railway Co. v. City of 

Rochester (205 V. S. 236, 182 X. 

Y. 99), 617. 
Rock Creek Township v. Strong (96 

U. S. 271, 24 L. 815), 365. 
Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. v. Vil- 
lage of Port Chester (185 X. Y. 

5C9, 78 X. E. 1111 [19001), 1051. 
Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. v. \il- 

lage of Port Chester (92 X. V. S. 

G."l, 102 App. Div. 300 [1905]), 

1051. 
Roemheld v. Cit.v of Cliicago (231 

111. 407, 83 X. E. 291 [1907]), 

5-12. 
Roffignac Street, ilunicipality Xo. 2, 



for Opening of ( 7 La. Ann. 76 

[1852]), 155, 308, 311, 426. 
Rogers v. Hej-de/tstaedt (65 Minn. 

229, 68 X. 'W. 8 [1896]), 1183, 

1186. 
Rogers v. City of Keokuk ( 154 U. 

S. 546, 18 L. 74, 14 S. 1162), 365. 
Rogers v. Milwaukee (13 Wis. 610 

[1861]), 53, 737, 1444. 
Rogers v. St. Charles (54 Mo. 229 

-[1873]), 308. 
Rogers v. City of St. Paul (22 Minn. 

494 [1876]), 11, 103, 104, 125, 142, 

158, 260, 268, 284, 286, 298, 304, 

437, 520, 553, 555, 556, 670, 822, 

823, 864, 1490. 
Rogers v. Venis (137 Ind. 221, 36 

X. E. 841 [1893]), 923, 1277. 
Rogers v. Voorhees (124 Ind. 409, 

24 X. E. 374 [1890]), 340. 
Rogge V. City of Elizabei ii (64 X. 

J. L. 491. 40 Atl.- 164 [1900]), 313, 

1408. 
Rogue V. People ex rel. GUiedtner 

(224 111. 449, 79 X. E. 662 

[1906]), 247, 258, 496, 1008, 1183, 

1332, 1339. 
Rollo V. City of Chicago (187 111. 

417, 58 X. E. 455 [1900]), 817. 
Rolph V. City of Fargo (7 X"^. D. 

640, 42 L.'r. A. 646, 76 X. W. 

242 [1898]), 118, 147, 314, 653, 

666, 677, 098, 709, 1333. 
Roly V. Shunganunga Drnina'jc Dis- 
trict (— Kan. -^ . 95 Pac. 399 

[inOS]), 504, 659. 
Romig V. City of Lafayette (33 Ind. 

30 [1870])', 621, 631, 895, 1351, 

1356. 
Ronan v. People ex rel. Shafter 

(193 111. 631. 01 X. E. 1042 

[1901]). 51, 323, 443. 551, 698, 

715. 785, 789, 815, 857, 870. 949, 

1005. 
Roman Catholic Archbishop of San 

Francisco v. Shi])nian (79 Cal.. 

288. 21 Pac. 830 [1889]), 1225, 

1432. 
Rood V. Board of Supervisors of 

Mitchell. Co. (39 la. 444 [1874]), 

3. 
Rooke's Case (5 Rep. 99 b. ( Hil. 

40 Eliz.), 21, 25, 619, 639. 



CXCIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Rooney v. Brown (21 La. Ann. 51 
[1&69]), 46, 218, 570, 613, 1369. 

Rooney v. City of Toledo (9 Ohio 
C. C. 267 [1894]), 561, 625, 704, 
1028. 

Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, Alder- 
men and Commonalty of the City 
of New York (84 N. Y. 108 
[1881]), 42, 324, 589, 613, 681, 
821, 855. 

Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor, Alder- 
men and Commonalty of the City 
of New York (18 Hun 582 
[1879]), 589, 613. 

Roper V. City of New Britain (70 
Conn. 459,^39 Atl. 850 [1898]), 
63, 1348. 

Ropes V. Essex Public Road Board 
(37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 335 [1875]), 
909, 1408. 

Rork V. Smith (55 Wis. 67, 12 N. 
W. 408 [1882]), 521, 737, 958, 962, 
995. 

Rose V. Trestrail (62 Mo. App. 352 
[1895]), 15, 229, 234, 538, 771, 
777, 813, 871, 1433. 

Rosell, Pros. v. Mayor and Coun- 
cil of Neptune City (68 N. J. L. 
(39 Vr.) 509, 53 Atl. 199 [1902]), 
665, 677, 1015, 1020, 1402. 

Rosenbaum, In the Matter of (119 
N. Y. 24, 23 N. E. 172 [1890]), 
479, 496, 503, 977, 979, 995, 1401, 
1467. 

Rosenbaum, In tne Matter of (53 
Hun 478, 6 N. Y. Supp. 184), 496, 
1467. 

Rosetta Gravel, Paving & Improve- 
ment Co. v. Jollisaint (51 La. Ann. 
804, 25 So. 477), 155, 698, 1047, 
1144. 

Rosetta Gravel, Paving & Improve- 
ment Co. v. Kennedy (51 La. Ann. 
804, 26 So. 477 [.1899]), 314, 1166, 
1377. 

Ross v. Davis (97 Ind. 79), 202. 
Ross v. Gates (183 Mo. 338, 81 S. 
W. 1107 [1904]), 70, 108, 113, 
118, 314, 451, 521, 649, 606, 69^, 
709, 1085, 1163, 1165, 1168, 1169, 
1369. 
Ross V. Gates (117 Mo. App. 237, 



93 S. W. 856 [1906]), 631, 1059, 

1165, 1168. 
Ross V. Mayor of New York (3 

Wend. (N. Y.) 333), 360. 
Ross V. City of Portland (105 Fed. 

682 [1901]), 10i6, 1436. 
Ross V. Prante ( — N. D. , 115 

N. W. 833 [1908]), 272, 989. 
Ross V. Stackhouse (114 Ind. 200, 

16 N. E. 501 [1887]), 11, 500, 

528, 549, 1015, 1018. 
Ross V. S'tate for Use of Zenor (119 

Ind. 90, 21 N. E. Rep. 345 [1888]), 

886, 1244. 
Ross V. Van Natta (164 Ind. 557, 

74 N. E. 10 [1905]), 465, 479, 

746, 1335. 
Ross V. Board of Supervisors oi 

Wright County (128 la. 427, 1 L. 

R. A. (N. S.) 431, 104 N. W. 506 

[1905]), 119, 125, 126, 142, 414, 

525, 727, 729, 748, 767, 774, 983, 

1285. 
Rossiter v. City of Lake Forest (151 

111. 489, 38' N. E. 359 [1894]), 

324, 527. 
Roswell, Town of v. Dominice (9 N. 

M. 624, 58 Pac. 342), 781. 
Roter V. City of Superior (115 Wis. 

243, 91 N. W. 651 [1902]), 1509. 
Roth V. Forsee (107 Mo. App. 471, 

81 S. W. 913 [1904]), 550, 739, 

772, 781, 795. 
Roth V. Hax (68 Mo. App. 283 

[1896]), 490, 500, 821, 849. 
Rothschild v. Begole (105 Mich. 388, 

63 N. W. 309 [U95]), 3. 
Roudenbush v. Mitchell ( 154 Ind. 

616, 57 N. E. 510 [1900]), 57, 
111, 113, 118, 119, 134, 375, 550, 

564, 731, 773, 989. 
Rounds V. Mumford (2 R. I. 154 

[1852]), 238, 244, 323. 
Rounds V. Whatcom County (22 

Wash. 106, 60 Pac. 139 [1900]), 
322, 1517. 
Roundtree v. City of Galveston (42 

Tex. 612 [1875]'), 43, 100, 110, 147, 
148, 713. 
Rousseau, Succession of ( 23 La. Ann. 
1 [1871]), 1049, 1163. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CXCV 



[References are to sections.] 



Rowe, Pros. v. Commissioners of As- 
sessments, East Orange ( 69 N. 
J. L. (40 Vr.) GOO, 55 Atl. 649 
[19031), 280, 771. 798, 1012, 1409. 

Roxbury v. Boston & P. R. Corp. 
(6 Cush. 424), 359. 

Roxbury, City of v. Nickerson (114 
Mass. 544 [1874]), 1047, 1049. 

Royal Insurance Company v. South 
Park Commissioners (175 111. 491, 
51 N. E. 558 [1898]), 391, 396, 
405, 745, 763, 913, 923, 1279. 

Royce v. Town of Aplington (90 la. 
352, 57 N. W. 868), 323. 

Royse v. Evansville & Terre Haute 
■Railroad Company ( 160 Ind. 592, 
67 X. E. 446 [1903]), 449. 

Rubright v. City of Pittsburg (147 
Pa. St. 355, 23 Atl. 579 [1892]), 
961. 

Rude V. Town of St. Marie (121 
Wis. 634, 99 N. W. 460 [1904]), 
5. 19, 97, 100. 335, 338, 373, 420, 
717. 

Rue V. City of Cliicago (06 III. 256 
[1872]), "715, 763, 764, 914, 1299, 
1304, 1321, 1406. 

Rumsey v. City of Buffalo (97 N. 
Y. 114 [1884]), 951, 1200, 1281, 
1426. 

Ruscomb Street. In re (33 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 148 [1907] K 320. 

Rusk V. Berlin (173 111. 634, 50 
..V. E. 1071 [1898]), 311. 

Russell V. Adkins (24 Mo. App. 605 
[1887]), 367, 375, 460, 1379. 

Russell V. Stansell (105 U. S. 303, 
26 L. 989 [1881]), 1369. 

Russell and Allison Drainage Dis- 
trict V. Benson (125 111. 490, 17 
N. E. 814 [18891), 776, 1388. 

Rust, In the Matter of, to Reduce 
an Assessment (24 Hun (X. Y.) 
229 [1881]), 1085, 1094. 

Rutherford v. :Maynes (97 Pa. St. 
78), 340. 

Ryan v. Altsc^nil (103 Cal. 174. 37 
Pac. 339 [1894]), 479. 570, 575, 
639. 656, 725, 1030, 1031, 1337, 
1359. 

Ryan & Company v. City of Cincin- 
nati (1 Cin. Su,). Ct. 245 [1871]), 
686, 1506. 



Ryan v. Lynch ( C8 111. 160 [1873]), 

1512. 
Ryan v. Sumner (17 Wash. 228, 49 

Pac. 487 [1897]), 576, 610, 620. 

024, 705, 956, 965, 990. 
Ryder's Estate v. City of Alton ( 175 
'ill. 94, 51 N. E. 821 [1898]), 278, 

401, 444, 663, 670, 698, 715, 907, 

920, 1306. 
Ryers, Matter of (72 X. Y. 1, 28 

Am. Rep. 88), 101, 119, 335. 
Ryerson, Pros. v. City of Passaic 

(38 X. J. L. (9 Vr.)' 171 [1875]), 

1408. 
Ryerson v. I'tley (16 Mich. 269 

[18681), 150. 



S. D. Mercer Co. v. City of Omaha 

(— Xeb. , 112 "x. W. 617 

[1907]). 786. 791. 

S. D. Mercer Co. v. City of Omaha 
(— Xeb. -^-, 107 X. W. 565 
]1906]), 414, 956, 959. 

S. D. Moody & Co. v. Chadwick ( 108 
La. 66. 32 So. 181 [1901-1902]), 
1369. 

S. D. ]\Iood_v & Co. V. Sewerage and 
Water Board (117 La. 360, 41 So. 
649 [1906]), 479, 537, 1069. 

S. D. Moody & Co. v. Spotorno (112 
La. 1108," 36 So. 836 [1904]), 324, 
666, 698. 707, 709. 

Sackett. Douglass and De Graw 
Street. In the Matter of (74 N. 
Y. 95 [1878]). 194. 199. 252, 309, 
407, 408, 424, 678. 950, 956. 

Sackett Street 'n the City of Brook- 
lyn. In the flatter of the Report 
of the Commissioners of Assess- 
ment for Orading. Pavins. etc. (4 
Hun 92 [1875]), 8. 89. 248. 

Sago V. ( ity of Brooklvn (89 X. Y. 
189 [1882]), 62, 79, .309, loio] 

Sage V. City of Brooklyn (8 Abb. 
279 [1880]). 1519. 

St. Benedict's Abbey v. Marion Coun- 
ty ( — Or. , 93 Pac. 231 

[1908]), 431, 553, 555, 560, 622, 
629. 677, 690, 1411, 1414. 



CXCVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References nve to sections.] 



St. Bernard, Village of v. Kemper 
(60 0. S. 244, 45 L. K. A. 662, 54 
N. E. 267 [1899]), 649, 685, 786, 
1054. 

St. Charles, City of, ex rel. Budcl 
V. Deemar ( 174 Mo. 122, 73 S. W. 
469 [1902]), lis, 301, 666, 698, 
709. 

St. John V. The City of East St. 
Lonis (136 111. 207*, 27 X. E. 543 
[1892]), 527, 837, 840. 

St. John V. City of East St. Louis 
(50 111. 92 [1869]), 153. 239. 666, 
677, 701, 715, 1183, 1351. 

St. Joseph's Asylum in the City of 
New York, In the Matter of the 
Petition of, to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (69 X. Y. 353 [1877]), 475, 
589, 613, 681. 

St. Joseph, City of v. Anthony (30 
Mo. 537 [1860]). 147, 245, 437, 
527, 535, 777. 

St. Joseph, City of, ex rel. Forseo 
V. Baker (113 Mo. App. 691, 83 
S. W. 1122 [1905]), 1138, 1169. 

St. Joseph, City of, ex rel. Forsee 
V. Baker (86 Mo. App. 310 
[1900]), 1219. 

St. Joseph, Citv of v. Crowther (142 
Mo. 155, 43^ S. W. 786 [1897]), 
118, 308, 426, 557, 675, 721. 

St. Joseph, City of, ex rel. Danaher 
V. Dillon (61 Mo. App. 317 
[1895]), 401, 447, 4Q5, 479, 563, 
1028. 

St. Joseph, The City of, to Use of 
Gibson v. Farrell (106 Mo. 437, 
17 S. W. 497 [1891]), 8, 50, 324, 
444, 446, 550, 098, 709, 711, 893, 
1284. 

St. Joseph, 'City of, e\ rel. Gibson 
V. Forsee (lio Mo. App. 237, 84 
S. W. 1138 [1905]), 475, 1105, 
1109, 1137, 1284. 

St. Joseph, City of, to Use of Swen- 
son V. Forsee (110 Mo. App. 127, 
84 S. W. 98 [1904]), 1135, 1137, 
1195, 1203, 1219, 1284. 

St. Joseph, City of, to Use of the 
Saxton National Bank v. Lan'Ms 
(54 Mo. App. 315 [1893]), 223, 
234, 324, 392, 400, 500, 776, 777, 
840, 849, 856. 



St. .Joseph, City of, ex rel. King Hill 
Brick Manufacturing Company v. 
McCabe (58 Mo. App. 542 [1894]), 
539. 

St. Joseph, City of v. O'Donoghu.' 
(31 Mo. 345 [1861]), 110. 

St. Joseph, City of v. Owen (110 
Mo. 445, 19 S. W. 713 [1892]), 
43, 47, 147, 148, 212, 324, 387, 563, 
658, 840, 857, 864. 

St. Joseph, City of v. Truckenmiller 
(183 Mo. 9, 81 S. W. 1116 [1904] ), 
121, 743, 760. 

St. Joseph, City of v. Wilshire (47 
Mo. App. 125), 401, 447, 479, 483, 
777, 838, 864, 867, 984. 

St. Louis, City of, to Use of Seilx^rt 
V. Allen (53 Mo. 44 [1873]), 473, 
475, 1040, 1107. 

St. Louis, City of v. Annex Realty 
Company (175 Mo. 63, 74 S. W. 
961 [1903]), 308, 391, 394, 663. 
724, 997, 1164, 1344. 

St. Louis, City of, to Use of Cor- 
nelli V. Armstrong (38 Mo. 167 
[1866]), 138, 475, 1103. 1106, 
1284. 

St. Louis to Use of Stadler v. Arm- 
strong (.38 Mo. 29 [1866]), 1135, 
1211, 1284. 

St. Louis, City of, to Use of Cream- 
er V. Bernoudy (43 Mo. 552), 1049, 
1135, 1137, 1284. 

St. -bouis, 'City of v. Brinckwirth 
(204 Mo. 280, 102 S. W. 1091 
[1907]), 620, 754, 910, 911, 946, 
997, 1140, 1255, 1278, 1344. 

St. Louis, City of v. Brown (155 
Mo. 545, 56 S. W. 298 [1899]), 
557, 580, 582, 584, 909. 

St. Louis, City of v. Clemens (.49 
Mo. 552 [1872]), 301, 698, 1040, 
1211. 

St. Louis, City of, to Use of Mc- 
Grath v. Clemens (36 Mo. 467 
[1865]), 86, 475, 525, 570, 1040, 
1211, 12G2, 1346. 

St. Louis, City of v. Connecticut Mu- 
tual Life Insurance Company (107 
Mo. 92, 28 Am. St. Rep. 402, 17 
S. W. 637), 56. 



TA3LE OP CASES. 



CXCVll 



[References are to sections.] 



St. Louis, City of, to tlie Use of 

Lal<rum v. Coons ( 37 Mo. 44 

[1865]), 138, 437, 1135, 1211, 

1284. 

St. Louis, City of v. Cruikshank (16 

Mo. App. 495 [1885]), 394, 837. 
St. Louis, City of, to Use of Rotch- 
ford V. De Noue (44 Mo. 136), 
525, 1040, 1137, 1379. 
St. Louis, City of v. Excelsior Brew- 
ing Co. (96 Mo. 677, 10 S. W. 
477 [1888]), 309, 553, 557, 951, 
995, 1135, 1283, 1375, 1382. 
St. Louis, City of, to Use of Carroll 
V. Hardy (35 Mo. 261 [1864]), 
437, 1211, 1235. 
St. Louis, City of v. Koch ( 169 Mo. 
587, 70 S. W. 143 [1902]), 223, 
234, 322, 743, 755. 
St. Louis, City of v. Lang (131 Mo. 
412, 33 S. W. 54 [1895]), 85, 173, 
781, 825, 837, 912, 916, 918, 950, 
1231, 1249. 
St. Louis, City of v. Lawton (189 
Mo. 474, 88 S. W. 80 [1905]), 63, 
909, 1361. 
St. Louis, City of v. Xelson ( 169 
Mo. 461, 69 S. W. 466 [1902]), 
63, 925, 1391. 
St. Louis to use of Deppellieuer v. 
Newman (45 Mo. 138 [1869]), 73, 
1040, 1049, 1164, 1211, 1524. 
St. Louis, City of, to Use of Cream- 
er V. Oeters (36 Mo. 456 [1865]), 
186, 324, 475, 781, 923, 950, 951, 
1135, 12S4. 
St. Louis. City of v. Provencliere (92 
Mo. 66, 4 8. W. 410 [1887]), 895. 
St. Louis V. Ranken (96 Mo. 497. 9 
S. W. 910 [1888]), 119, 123, 125, 
247, 248, 250, 553, 726, 728, 7--9, 
1229, 1333. 
St. Louis, City of v. Ranken (95 :Mo. 
189, 8 S. "W. 249 [1888]). 31)9, 
1318, 1328. 
St. Louis, City of v. Riclicson (76 

Mo. 470 [1882]), 308, 773. 
St. Louis. City of v. Speck (67 Mo. 
403 [1878]). 8, 89, 308. 022, OCs" 
666, 1338. 
St. Louis, City of v. Stoddard (15 



Mo. App. 173 [1884]), 244, 246, 
1113, 1249. 
St. Louis, City of v. Weber (44 Mo 

547). 293. 
St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute R. 
Co. V. People (224 111. 155. 79 N. 
E. 664 [1906]), 22. 
St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Rail- 
road V. Anderson (39 Ark. 167 
[1882]), 66. 
St. Louis County Court v. Uriswold 

(58, Mo. 175),' 356. 
St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern 
Railroad Company v. Knapp-Stout 
& Company (160^ Mo. 396, 61 S. 
W. 300 [1900]), 71. 
St. Louis, Oak Hill and Carondeht 
Railway Comjjany v. Fowler ( 142 
Mo. 670, 10 Am. & Eng. R Cases 
X. S. 405, 44 S. W. 771 [1890]), 
71. 
St. Louis Quarry and Construction 
Company v. Frost (90 Mo. App. 
(ill [1901]), 514, 517, 518. 
St. Louis Quarry and Construction 
Company v. Von Versen (81 Mo. 
App. 519 [1899]), 514. 
St. Louis Public Schools v. City of 
St. Louis (26 Mo. 468 [1858]), 
42, 580, 586. 
St. Mark's Church, Wardens, etc., of 
V. Mayor, etc., of Brunswick (78 
Ga. 541, 3 S. E. 561 [1887]), 314, 
5S8. 
St. Marys, Village of v. Lake Erie & 
Western R. R. Co. (60 O. S. 136, 
53 X. E. 705 [1899]), 59, 93, 98, 
360, 717, 737, 1302. 
St. Paul, City of v. :\riillen (27 :\linii. 
78, 6 X. W. 424 [1880]), 103, 104* 
158, 4fiS, 471, 962, 965. 
St. Paul, City of v. Xickl (42 Mhm. 
262, 44 X. W. 59 [1890]), 63, 119, 
125, 728, 739, 1347, 1361. 
St. Paul, City of v. Rogers (22 

Minn. 492 [1876]), 1269'. 
St. Paul, City of v. St. Paul & Simx 
City Raihoad Company (23 Minn 
469 [18771), 147. 172.' 594, 614. 
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. 

(First Division of) v. 

See First Division. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba 

Railway Company v. City of 

Minneapolis (35 Minn. 141, 27 N. 

W. 500 [1886]), 73. 
Salem, Town of v. Henderson (13 

Ind. App. 63, 41 N. E. 1062 

[1895]), 620, 707. 
Salem, City of v. Mulford (22 Ohi > 

€. C. 397 [1899]), 679, 686, 1085. 
Salter v. Reed (15 Pa. St. (3 Hair.) 

260 [1850]), 1146, 1195, 1219. 

1225. 
Sample v. Carroll (132 Ind. 496, 32 

N. E. 220 [1892]), 293. .340. 793. 

886, 918, 1294, 1377. 
Samuels v. Drainage Commis-ioners 

( 125 111. 536, 17 N. E. 829 [1889] ) , 

4:, 104, 276, 340, 1112, 1119, 1141, 

1145, 1176. 
San Antonio, City of v. Sullivan (23 

Tex. Civ. App. 658, 57 S. \V. 45 

[1900]), 62, 308, 825, 1432. 
San Diego, City of v. Linda Vista Ir- 
rigation District (108 Cal. 189, 35 

L. R. A. 33, 41 Pac. 291 [1895]), 

35, 42, 147, 610, 613. 
San Diego Investment Co. v. Sliaw 

(129 Cal. 273, 61 Pac. 1082 

[1900]), 15, 223, 234, 575, 624, 

656, 775, 777. 
San Francisco, City and County of 

V. Buckman (111 Cal. 25, 43 Pac. 

Rep. 369 [1896]), 740, 829, 836. 
San Francisco, City and County of 

V. Certain Real Estate (42 Cal. 

513 [1872]), 983, 1347, 1357. 
San Francisco, People of the City 

and County of v. Clark (47 Cal. 

456 [1874]), 860, 867. 
San Francisco, People of the City 

and County of v. Doe (48 Cal. 

560 [1874]'), 1219, 1239. 
San Francisco, City and County of 

V. Kiernan (98 Cal. 614, 33 Pac. 

720 [1893]), 1373, 1384. 
San Francisco, People of the City of 

v. Kinsman (51 Cal. 92 [187*5]), 

983, 1113. 
San Francisco, City and County of 

V. McCain (50 C'al. 210 [1875]), 

763, 836. 
San Francisco, City and County of 



v. Quackenbusli (53 Cal. 32 

[1878]), 824, 886. 
San Francisco, City and County of 

V. Reay (52 Cal. "423 [1877]), 746. 

1149. 
San Francisco, Alameda & Stockton 

Railroad Company v. Caldwell ( 31 

Cal. 367 [1866] )i 70. 
San Francisco Gas Co. v. City of San 

Francisco (6 Cal. 190 '[1856]). 

838. 
San Francisco Paving Co. v. Bates 

(134 Cal. 39, 66 Pac. 2 [1901]), 

118, 301, 492, 702, 1281, 1290. 
San Francisco Paving Co. v. Dubois 

(2 Cal. App. 42, 83 Pac. 72 

[1905]), 301, 574, 624, 646, 1272. 
San Francisco Paving Co. v. Egan 

(146 Cal. 635, 80 Pac. 1076 

[1905]), 1131, 1151, 1375. 
San Jose Improvement Co. v. Auze- 

rais (106 Cal. 498, 39 Pac. 859 

[1895]), 831, 864. 
San Luis Obispo, City of v. Pettit 

(87 Cal. 499, 25 Pac. 694 [1891]), 

7, 777, 837, 849, 962. 
San Luis Obispo, County of v. White 

(91 Cal. 432, 27 Pac. 756, 24 Pa-. 

864 [1891]), 50, 1212. 
Sanborn v. City of Mason City (114 

la. 189, 86 X. W. 286 [1901]'), 525, 

1432. 
Sand Creek Turnpike Company v. 

Robbins (41 Ind. 79 [1872]), 723, 

909, 950. 
Sanders v. Brown (65 Ark. 498, 47 

S. W. 401 [1898]), 49, 1049, 1067, 

1072, 1085. 
Sanderson v. Herman (108 Wis. 662, 

84 N. W. 890, 85 N. W. 141 

[1901]), 86. 
Sandrock v. Columbus (51 0. S. 317, 

42 N. E. 225 [1894] ) , 561, 620, 625, 

635, 704. 
Sandrock v. City of 'Columbus (8 

Ohio C. C. 79 [1894]), 625. 
Sanford v. Mayor, etc., of tlie City 

of New York (20 Howard, 298 

[I860]), 1478. 
Sandford v. Mayor, etc., of the City 

of New York" (33 Barb. (N. Y.) 

147 [I860]), 495, 528, 927, 1026. 

1479, 1480. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



CXCIX 



[ Ilel'f rence.s aie to nections. ] 



120 



Va. 



Sanford v. Mayor, etc., of New York 

(12 Abb. Pr. 23 [1800]), 485, 777, 

1026, 1478, 1479, 1480. 
Sanford v. Village of Warwick (181 

N. Y. 20, 73 X. E. 490 [1905] ). 52. 

55, 720. 
Sanford v. Village of Warwick 

X. Y. S. 466, 83 App. Div. 

[1903]), 52, 55, 720. 
Sands v. City of Richmond ( 72 

(31 Grattan) 571, 31 Am. Rep, 

742 [1879]), 55, 86, 161, 244, 314, 

323, 562, 843. 850. 
Sanger v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Ci>. 

(102 Va. 86, 45 S. E. 750 [1903]), 

363. 
Sanger v. City of Chicago (169 111. 

286, 48 X."e. 309 [1897]), 857, 

805. 
Sanger v. Rice ( 43 Kan. 580, 23 Pac. 

633 [1890]), 40, 41, 437, 1116. 

1173, 1202. 
Sanitary District of Chicago v. C ity 

of Joliet (189 111. 270, 59 X. E. 

566 [1901]), 549, 578, 055, G93, 

699. 
Sanitary Reduction Works v. Califor- 

nia Reduction Co. (94 Fed. 093 

[1899]), 372. 
Santa Cruz Fair Building Associa- 
tion V. entrant (104 Cal. 306, 37 

Pac. 1034 [1894]), 1419. 
Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. 

Bowie (104 Cal. 280, 37 Pac. 934 

[1894]), 527, 1039, 1049, 1141. 

1145, 1150. 1252, 1209, 1278. 1375, 

1376. 
Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Company 

V. Broderick (113 Cal. 028. 45 Pac. 

803 [1S90]), 403. 
Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Company 

V. Heaton (105 Cal. 102, 38 Pac. 

093 [1894]). 314. 821, 837, 8.38, 

807. 
Santiago Lima. In tlie flatter of ( 77 

X. Y. 170 [1879]), 1451, 1402. 
Sarber v. Rankin (154 Ind. 236. 56 

X". E. 225 [1899]). 270. 340. 527, 

532. 700, 777. 1005, 1007, 1431. 

1433, 1444. 
Sargent v. City of Evanston ( 154 



ill. 208, 40 X. E. Rep. 440 [1894] (. 

271, 279, 036, 856. 912, 925, 1279, 

1285, 1305, 1372, 1373. 
Sargent & Company v. City of New 

Haven (62 Conn. 510, 26 At'. 

1057 [1893] ), 324, 563. 
■Sargent & Comjjany v. Tuttle (O; 

Conn. 162, 32 L. R. A. 822, 34 A:l. 

Rep. 1028 [1895]), 1; 8. 15. 4.->. 

223, 229, 234, 475, 525, 770, lio:;. 

1109. 
Satterlee v. Matthewson ( 16 Serj.'. & 

Raw. 169 [1827]), 71. 
Saunders, In the flatter of (21 IIiiii 

(X. Y.) 579 [1880]), 1460. 
Saunderson v. Herman (95 Wis. 48. 

69 X. W. 977 [1897]). 428, 862, 

880, 1304. 
Savage v. City of Buffalo ( 59 Hun 

000, 14 X. Y. S. 101 r 18911), 3S5, 

554, 039, 003, 874. 
Savanna. City of v. Loop (47 III. 

App. 214 [i892J ). 02. 
Savannah, Mayor and Aldermen of 

V, Weed (96 Ga. 070, 23 S. E. 900 

[1895]), 314. 437. 508, 003, 060. 

707, 709. 
'Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co. v. C ity 

of Savauniih ( OO (Ja". OSO. 23 S. ¥.. 

847), 119. 
Saw !Mill Hum I.ridgc. Ballentine's 

Appeal, //( re ( S5 Pa. St. 103, 

[1877] I, 359. 
Sawj-er v. City of C liicap) ( 183 111. 

57, 55 X. E.645 [1899]). 439. 570, 

004, 040, 723. 
Saxton V. Beacli (50 Mo. 48S 

[1872] I, 847. 
Saxton V. City of St. Josej)!! (00 Mo. 

153 [1875]"), 437, 847, 1499. 
Saxton Xational Bank v. Haywood 

(62 Mo. App. 550 [1895]). 431, 

527, 576, 594, 598. 
Sayward v. Denny (158 U. S. 18t, 

15 S. 777), 715. 
Scammon v. (ity of Chicago (42 111. 

192), 278, 377, 584, 013. 094, 7111, 

723, 892, 1129. 
S<ainnion v. City of Chicago (40 111. 

140 [1806])," 223, 23(4, 735, 703, 

777. 1174. 1178. 



cc 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Schaefer v. Werling (188 U. S. 516, 

47 L. 570, 23 S. 449 [1903]), 108, 

118, 570, G69, 670. 677, 691, 699, 

709, 1010, 1370. 
Schaefer v. Werling (156 Ind. 704, 

60 N. E. 149 [1900]), 108, 118, 

570, 669, 670, 677, 691, 699, 709, 

1010, 1370. 
Schafer v. Gerl)ers (234 IH. 468, 84 

N. E. 1064 [1908]), 1377. 
Sclieer v. Cincinnati ( 15 W. L. B. 

(Ohio) 66 [1886]), 174, 189. 
Schell, In the Matter of the Petition 

of (76 N. Y. 432 [1879]), 479, 

681. 
Schell, In the :\latter of (16 Hun, 

283 [1878]), 681. 
Schemiclc v. Chicago (151 111. 336, 

37 N. E. Rep. 888 [1894]), 281, 

764, 766, 909, 913, 956. 969, 1299, 

1372, 1384. 
Scliencl< V. City of .JefTersorville 

(152 Ind. 204," 52 X. E. 212), 366. 
Schenectady, City of v. Trustees of 

Union College "( 144 N. Y. 241. 2(i 

L. R. A. 614, 39 N. E. 67 [1894]), 

440, 587. 627, 630. 
Sclienectady. City of v. Trustees of 

Union College" (66 Hun (X. Y.) 

179, 21 N. Y. Supp. .147 [1892]), 

138, 437, 440, 517. 518, 587, 773. 
Schenley v. Commonwealth for tiss 

of the City of Allegheny (36 Pa. 

St. (12 Casey) 64 [1859]), 267, 

414, 467, 485, 532, 569, 666, 709, 

886, 983, 1063, 1157, 1312. 
Schenley v. Commonwealth for use of 

the (i'ity of Allegheny (36 Pa. St. 

(12 Casey) 62 [1859]), 1158. 
Schenley v. Commonwealth for viS3 

of the City of Allegheny (36 Pa. 

St. 29, 78 Am. Dec. 359 [1859]), 

11, 315, 392, 395, 486, 541, 867, 

895, 956, 958, 1063, 1163. 
Schenley v. City of Allegheny (25 

Pa. iSt. (1 Casey) 128 [1854]), 

308. 
Scherm v. Garrett's Administrator 

(118 Ky. 296. 80 S. W. 1103, 26 

Ky. Law Rep. 186 [1904]), 52, 55, 

1067, 1072. 
Scherm v. Short (Ky.) (77 S. W. 



357, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1108 

[1903]), 537, 1039, 1144. 
Schertz v. The People ex rel. Taylor 

(105 Hi. 27 [1882] ), 927, 965, 986. 

988. 
Schibel v. Merrill (185 Mo. 534, S3 

S. W. 1069 [1904]), 141, 538, 1337. 
Schintgen v. City of LaCrosse (117 

Wis. 158, 94 'x. W. 84 [1903]), 

301, 414, 620, 621, 648. 962, 974, 

1217. 
Scliirmer v. Hoyt (54 Cal. 280 

[1880]), 479, 895, 1154, 1155. 
Schmelz v. Giles (75 Ky. (12 Bush.) 

491 [1877]), 628. 
Schmidt v. City of Cincinnati ( 1 

Ohio X. P. 48 [1894]), 625, 704. 
Schmidt v. Village of Elmwood Place 

(15 Ohio C. C. 351 [1897]), 53, 55, 

737, 740, 977. 
Schmidt v. Market Street & Willow 

Glenn R. R. Co. (90 Cal. 37, 27 

Pac. 61 [1891]), 599, 602, 754, 

1124, 1215, 1231, 1264, 1375. 
Schmitt V. City of Xew Orleans (4ft 

La. Ann. 1440, 21 So. 24 [1896]), 

380, 381, 464. 
Schneider v. City of Detroit (135 

Mich. 570, 98 X. V7. 258 [1904]), 

359, 1179, 1194, 1195. 
Schneider v. District of Columbia (7 

Mackey (D. C.) 252 [1889]), 527, 

541. 
Schneider Granite Company v. Tay- 
lor (64 Mo. App. 37' [1895]), 

1056. 
Schoenberg v. Field ( 95 AIo. App'. 

241 [1902]), 515, 864. 
Scholle, In the Matter of (14 Hun 

(X. Y.) 14 [1878]), 681. 
Scholtz V. Smith (119 Mich. 634, 

78 X. W. 668 [1899]), 263, 266. 
School District of Fort Smith v. 

Board of Improvement ( 65 Ark. 

343, 46 S. W. 418 [1898]), 586. 
School Property, Assessment of (7 

Ohio X. P. 568 [1900]), 586. 
Schott V. City of Cincinnati (3 Ohio 

X. P. 311 [1895]), 707. 
Schreiber, In the Matter of (3 Abl). 

X. C. 68 [1877]), 830. 834, 1357. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCl 



[References are fo sections.] 



Schroder v. Overman (01 0. S. 1, 47 

L. R. A. 156, 55 X. E, 158 [1899]), 

111, 113, 118, 314, G))8. 082. 700, 

702, 709, 894. 895. 
Schroeder v. City of Jolict (1S9 111. 

48, 52 L. R. A. (534, 5!) X. E. 550 

[19011). 71. 
Schroeder v. Overman (18 Ohio C. 

C. 385 [1899]), 111. 118, 631, 682, 

702, 895. 
Scliruni V. Town of Salem ( 13 Ind. 

App. 115. 39 X. E. 1050 [1895]), 

323. 
Schiiltze V. De^Menil (4 ilo. App. 

595 [18771 ). 1135. 1284. 
Schultze v.- [Mayor, Ahlermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (103 X. Y. 307, 8 X. E. 528 

[188bj), 995, 1486, 1494. 
Schumacker v. Toberman ( 56 Cal 

508 [1880]), 242, 394, 414, 549, 

624, 983, 1411, 1437. 1442. 
Schumm v. Seymour ( 24 X^. J. Eq. 

(9 C. E. Gr.) 143 [1873]), 16, 

534, 536, 1017. 1433. 
Schwiesau v. Mahon (128 Cal. 114. 

60 Pac. 683 [1900]), 831, 857, 

864. 
Schwiesau v. ]\Iahon (110 Cal. 543, 

42 Pac. Rep. 1065 [1895]). 223, 

234, 483, 495, 777, 1050. 
Scohey v. Decatur County ( 72 Ind. 

55 1' [1880]), 73. 
Scofiehi & Cavir v. City of Council 

Bluffs (68 la. 695. 28 X. W. 20 

[1886]), 436, 438, 1500. 1515. 
Scofield v. City of Lansing (17 ^lieli. 

437 [1868])*, 273, 663. 1426, 1427. 
Scott V. Rrackett (89 Ind. 413), 403. 
Scott V. Hayes (162 Ind. 548, 70 N. 

E, 879 [1903]), 301, 472, 475, 

1033, 1085, 1121, 1141, 1145, 1217, 

1242, 1274, 1502. 
Scott V. Onderdonk (14 X. Y. 9 

[1856]), 1425, 1427. 
Scott V. People ex rcl. l>ewis ( 120 

111, 129, 11 X. E. 408 [1889]), 

247, 340, 1309. 
Scott V. Society ff Ivus^inn Israel- 
ites (59 Xeb! 571, 81 X. W. 624 

[1900]), 1054. 
Scott V. State for use of Buseiilmrc' 



(89 Ind. 368 [1883]). 765, 907, 

1067, 1250, 1265. 
Scott V. Stringley (132 Ind. 378, 31 

X. E, 953 [1892]), 375, 461, 466, 

479, 482, 495, 550, 1281, 1362. 
Scott V. City of Toledo (36 Fed. 385, 

1 L, R, A. 6s8 [1888]), 118, 119, 

122, 125, 126, 132, 308, 426, 430, 

702, 728, 738. 
Scott County v. Hinds (50 Minn. 

204, 52 X. 'W. 523 [1892]), 103, 

323, 621, 624, 631, 895, 1125, 
Scovill v. City of Cleveland (1 0. 

S. 126 [1853]), 89, 100, 110, 147, 

279, 431, 620, 626, 750. 
Scranton City v. Ansley ( 34 Pa. 

Super. Ct. "l33 [1907]'), 190. 
Scranton v. Arndt (148 Pa. St. 210, 

23 Atl. 1121 [1892]), 324, 1063, 

1113. 
Scranton City v. Clarke (34 Pa. 

Super. Ct. i28 [1907]), 1063. 
Scranton City v. Bush (160 Pa. St. 

499, 28 Atl. 926 [1894]), 313, 670. 

690, 706, 862. 
iScranton v. Jermyn (156 Pa. St. 

107, 27 Atl. 66 [1893]). 8, 89, 120, 

483, 795, 1007, 1337, 1338. 
Scranton v. Koehler ( 200 Pa. St. 

126, 49 Atl. 792 [1901]), 118, 604, 

698, 714. 
Scranton, City of v. Levers (200 Pa. 

St. 56, 49 "Atl. 980 [1901]), 554, 

627, 639, 723, 1157. 
Scranton, City of v. Pennsylvania 

Coal Co. (105 Pa. St. 445 [1884]), 

322, 610. 706. 
Scranton, City of v. Robertson ( 28 

Super. Ct. 55 [1905]), 1063. 1142 
Scranton, City of v, Stokes (28 Pa 

Super. Ct. 434 [1905]), 1113.1169 
Scranton v. Citv of Sturges ( 202 Pa 

St. 182, 51 Atl, 764 [1902]), 291 

382, 462, 1047, 1142. 
Scranton v. Wliite (148 Pa. St. 419) 

120. 
Scranton Sewer. In re (213 Pa. 4 

62 Atl. 173 [1905]), 324, 510, 822 

1388. 
Scranton School District's Appeal 

City of (113 Pa. St. 176. 6 Atl 

158 [1886]), 190. 



ceil 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Scudder v. Jones (134 Ind. .547, 32 

N. E. 221 [1893]). 119, 771, 774, 

1015, 1021, 1038. 1242. 
Scudder v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York ( 146 N. Y. 245, 40 N. E. 734 

[1895]), 1428. 
Scully V. Ackmeyer (2 Cin. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 296 [1872]), 1211. 
Scully V. City of Cincinnati ( 1 Cin. 

Sup. Ct. Rep. (Ohio) 183 [1871]), 

75, 656. 
Seaboard National Bank v. Woesten 

(176 Mo. 49, 75 S. W. 464 [1903] ), 

8, 22, 301, 1109. 
Seaboard National Bank of New 

York V. Woesten ( 147 Mo. 467, 

48 L. R. A. 279. 48 S. W. 939 

[1898]), 484, 485, 495, 517, 518. 
Seaman v. City of Camden (66 N. 

J. L. (37 Vr.) 516, 49 Atl. 977 

[1901]), 633. 
Seaman v.. Hicks (8 Paiges' Clian. 

Rep. 655 [1841]), 1037. 
Seanor v. Board of County Commis- 
sioners ( 13 Wash. 48, 42 Pac. 552 

[1895]), 11, 105, 206, 245, 262, 

322, 723. 
Searcy v. Patriot and Barkworks 

Turnpike Company ( 79 Ind. 274 

[1881]), 414, 965,^983, 1447. 
Sears v. Street Commissioners of the 

•City of Boston (180 Mass. 274, 

62 L. R. A. 144, 62 N. E. 397 

[1902]), 103, 283, 284, 287, 309, 

364, 392, 395, 573, 656. 
Sears v. Street Commissioners of 

Boston (173 Mass. 350, 53 N. E. 

876 [1899]), 103, 119, 122, 134, 

726, 729. 
Sears v. Board of Aldermen of City 

of Boston (173 Mass. 71, 43 L. R. 

A. 834, 53 N. r.. 138, 1 Mun. Corp. 

Cas. 497 [1899]), 04, 89. 275. 370, 

700, 868. 
Seattle, In re City of ( — • Wash. — . 

94 Pac. 1075 [i908]), 60. 74. 001. 

616, 630, 837. 
Seattle, In re City of ( — Wash. — , 

91 Pac. 548 [1907]), 301, 651. 672. 

692, 694, 894. 
Seattle, hi re City of (42 Wasli. 551, 



So Pac. 45 [1906]. (See Pike 

Street, In the Matter of.) 
Seattle, City of v. Board of Home 

Missions of Methodist Protestant 

Church ( 138 Fed. 307, 70 C. C. A. 

597 [1905]), 62, 66, 71, 313, 545, 

653, 1313. 
Seattle, City of v. De Wolfe ( 17 

Wash. 349, 49 Pac. 553 [1897]), 

1164. 
Seattle. City of v. Doran (5 Wash. 

482, 32 Pac. 105, 1002 [1893]), 

747, 765, 766. 841, 847, 908, 1299, 

1304, 1309. 
Seattle, City of v. Hill (23 Wash. 

92, 62 Pac. 446 [1900]), 475,1012. 

1072, 1105. 
Seattle, City of v. Hill (14 Wasli. 

487, 35 L. R. A. 372, 45 Pac. 17 

[1896]), 1068. 
Seattle, City of v. Kelleher (195 U. 

S. 351, 49 L. 232, 25 S. 44 [1904]), 

117, 392, 395, 407, 408, 414, 424, 

437, 542, 576, 619, 620, C9S, 956, 

962, 971, 1072. 1370. 
Seattle, City of v. O'Connell ( 16 

Wash. 625, 48 Pac. 412 [1897]), 

1168. 
Seattle v. Seattle Electric Co. ( — 

Wash. , 94 Pac. 194 [1908]), 

601, 630. 
Seattle, City of v. Smith (8 Wash. 

387, 36 Pac. 280 [1894]), 766, 9.30, 

1230, 1281, 1292. 
Seattle, City of v. Whittlesey (17 

Wash. 292, 49 Pac. 489 [1897]), 

45, 475, 1103. 
Seattle, City of v. Yesler ( 1 Wash. 

Terr. 577 [1878]), 86, 244, 245, 

666. 697, 709, 1047, 1049. 
Seattle Dock Co. v. Seattle & Lake 

Washinjiton Waterway Co. (195 

U. S. 624, 25 S. 789 [1904]), 124, 

360, 421, 1049, 1072, 1074. 
Seattle & Lake Washington Water- 
way Co. V. Seattle Dock Co. ( 35 

Wash. 503, 77 Pac. 845 [1904]), 

124, 360, 421, 1049, 1072, 1074. 
Seavey v. City of Seattle (17 Wash. 

36l", 49 Pac. 517 [1897]). 1519. 
Secombe v. Kittleson (29 Minn. 555, 

12 N. W. 519). 216. 



TABl.E oy CASES. 



CClll 



[References ;ire to sections.] 



w 



Don- 
. 950 



Second Avenue Methodist Episcopal 
Church, In re (06 X. Y. 395 
[1876]), 223, 234, 588. 589. 613, 
679, 681, 775, 777, 1452. 

Second Municipality v. Duncan (2 
La. Ann. 182 [1847]). 37, 155. 

Second Municipality of the C ity of 
New Orleans v. McFarlane ( 3 Rob- 
inson (La.) 406 [1843]), 475. 

Second Municipality of New Orleans 
V. Botts (8 Robinson (La.) 19S 
[18441 I. 275, 424, 735. 

Second Municipality of New Orleans 
V. McDonogh (9 Rob. (La.) 408 
[1845]), 223, 434. 

The Second National Bank of Lan- 
sing V. Lansing (25 ^lich. 207 
[1872]), 1505, 1518. 

Second Universalist Society in Prov- 
idence V. City of Providence (6 
R. I. 235 [1859]), 42. 308, 588, 
013, 891, 1011, 1099. 1479. 

Security Savings Trust Co. 
nell (145 Mo. 431, 46 S. 
[1898]), 1172, 1369. 

Security Savings Trust Co. 
nell (81 Mo. App. 14^ 
1172, 1369. 

Security Trust Co. v. Heyderstaedt, 
(64 Minn. 409, 67 N. W. 219 
[1896]), 1174, 1180, 1189. 

Security Trust & Safety Vault Co. 
V. city of Lexington (203 U. S. 
323 [1900]), 133, 1277, 1361. 

Sedalia, City of, to use of Taylor v. 
Abell (103 Mo. App. 431, 76 S. 
W. 497 [1903]). 313, 436, 873. 

Sedalia, City of v. Coleman (82 Mo. 
App. 560" [1899]). 317. 624. 709, 
716, 952, 955. 

Sedalia. ( ity of, to use of Sedalia 
Xatiiinal Bank v. Donohue (191) 
Mo. App. 407, 89 S. W. 386 
[1905]), 174, 229, 245. 264. 
525, 837, 807, 877. 

Sedalia, City of v. Gallie (49 
App. 392 [1892]). 756, 760, 

Sedalia, City of ex rel. Gilsonite Con- 
struction Co. V. Jlontgomery ( 109 
Mo. App. 197, 88 S. W." 1014 
[1904]), 301. 804, 806. 811. 845, 
1315. 1331. 1335. 



Don- 

[1899]), 



273. 



Mo, 
887. 



Sedalia, City of, ex rel. Gilsonite 

Construction Co. v. Scott ( 104 

Mo. App. 595, 78 S. W. 27 u 

[1903]), 804. 806, 811, 845, 1306. 
Sedalia. City of. ex rel. Taylor v. 

Smith (206 Mo. 346, 104 S." W. 15 

[1907]). 147, 538, 873. 
Sedgley Avenue, In re (217 Pa. 313, 

66 Atl. 546 [1907] ), 73, 661. 
Seeds, In tlie :Matter of (53 X. Y. 

400 [1873]). 500; 1454. 
Seeley v. Thomas (31 O. S. 301 

[1877]), 197. 
Seely v. City of Pittsburg (82 Pa. 

St. (1 XoVrisl 300. 22 Am. Rep. 

760 [1876]). 118, 322. 610, 605, 

666, 700. 
Seely v. Sebastian (4 Or. 25), 340. 
Sefton V. Board of Commissioners 

of Howard County ( 160 Ind. 357, 

66 X. E. 891 [1903]). 234, 237, 

322. 062. 776. 
Seibert v. Allen (61 Mo. 482), 

[1876] I. 395. 1284, 1323, 1329. 
Seibert v. Cavender (3 Mo. App. 

421 [1877]). 813, 837. 
Sei]:ert v. Copp (62 Mo. 182 [1876]), 

1040. 1113. 1172. 
Seibert v. Tiflf'any (8 Mo. App. 33 

[1879]), 73. 293, 657, 666, 670, 

698. 707, 709, 821, 823, 1284, 1346. 
Seifert v. Brooks (34 Wis. 443 

[1874]), 737. 
Seits v. Sine! {&2 Ind. 253 [1878]), 

280, 1250. 
Sennott v. ^loredock and Ivy Land- 
ing Drainage District Xo. I ( 155 

111. 96. 39 X. E. 567 [1895] ). 1141. 

1145, 1209. 1213. 
Serrill, In the Matter of (9 Hun, 

233 [1876]). 381, 462, 1456. 
Sessions v. Crunkilton (20 0. S. 349 

[1870]), 5, 19, 90, 93, 97, 113, 

245. 340, 665, 666. 760. 802. 977. 

1361. 
Setzler v. Pennsylvania Scliuylkill 

Valley Railroad Compan.v (112 Pa. 

St. 56, 24 Am. & Eng." R. Cases 

280. 4 Atl. 370 [1886]). 70. 
Sewall V. St. Paul (20 Minn. 511 

[1874]). 735. 763. 770, 981. 1425, 

1432. 



CCIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Seward v. Rheiner (2 Kan. App. 95, 

43 Pac. Rep. 433 [1S9.5]), 293. 290. 

388, 775, 1431. 
Sexton V. Beach (50 :Mo. 48S 

[1872]), 1134. 
Seyberger v. Calumet Drainage Com- 
pany (33 Ind. 330 [1870]). 247, 

340,"^ 859. 
Shady Avenue, In re ( 34 Pa. Super. 

Ct.' 327 [1907). 569. 
Shafer v. Moriarty (40 Ind. 9 

[1874]), 1500. 
Shaffner v. City of St. Louis (31 

Mo. 204 [1860^]), 1519. 
Shinier V. McAleese ( — • X. J. Eq. — , 

08 Atl. 416 [1907]), 7, 8. 89. 228. 

301, 419, 1008. 
Shank v. Smith (157 Ind. 401, 55 

L. R. A. 564, 61 X. E. 932 [1901] ), 

314, 517, 518, 528, 670, 731, 910, 

927, 1004. 
Shanley v. People ex rel. Goedtner 

(225 111. 579. 80 X. E. 277 

[1907]), 558, 504, 1008, 1337, 

1477. 
Shannon v. Village of Hinsdale ( 180 

111. 202, 54- X. E. 181 [1899]), 

319, 388, 459, 479, 527, 531. 539, 

865, 1333, 1361, 1409. 
Shannon v. City of Omaha ( 73 Xeb. 

507, 103 X. W. 53, 100 X. W. 592 

[1905]), 324, 381, 444, 550, 555, 

693, 699, 771, 955, 1029. 
Shannon v. City of Omaha (72 Xeb. 

281, 100 X. \V. 298 [1904]), 745, 

747, 763, 768. 
Shannon v. Portland (38 Ore. 382, 

02 Pac. 50 [1900]), 732, 1444. 
Sharp. In the flatter of the Peti- 
tion of, to Vacate an Assessment 
(56 X. Y. 257, 15 Am. Rep. 415 

[1874]), 381, 1013. 
Sharp V. Curtiss (15 Conn. 520 

[1843]), 363. 
Sharp V. Johnson (4 Hill (X. Y.) 

92, 40 Am. Dec. 259 [1843]). 031. 

735, 895, 1041, 1154. 
Sharp V. Spier (4 Hill 70 [1843]), 

42, 352, 781, 1047. 1173. 
Sharp V. United States (191 U. S. 
341, 48 L. 211, 24 S. 114 [1903]), 
72. 



Sharpe v. United States (112 Fed. 
893, 57 L. R. A. 932, 50 C. C. A, 

597 [1902]), 72. 

Sliarpless v. Philadelphia (21 Pa. 

St. 147, 59 Am. Dec. 759), 305. 
Shattuck V. City of Cincinnati ( 1 

Ohio X. P. 394 [1895]), 625, 704. 
Shaver v. Starrett (4 0. S. 494 

[1855]), 117. 
Shaw V. Des Moines County ( 74 la. 

079, 39 X. W. 101), 1122, 1125. 
Shaw V. State of Indiana for use of 

Whitmore (97 Ind. 23 [1884]), 

234, 1147, 1229. 
Shaw V. City of Ypsilanti ( 140 Midi. 

712, 110 X. W. 40 [1906]), 1015. 
Sheafe v. City of Seattle (18 Wash. 

298, 51 Pac. 385 [1897]), 1511. 
Sheboygan County v. City of She- 
boygan (54 Wis. 415. 11 X. W. 

598 [1882]). 41. 1116. 

Sheehan v. Fitchburg (131 ^Ia>s. 

523 [1881]), 855. 
Sheehan v. Gleason (40 Mo. 100 

[1870]), 804. 
Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hos- 
pital (50 Mo. 155, 11 Am. Rep. 

412 [1872]), 42, 589, 013, 014. 
Sheehan v. Martin ( 10 Mo. App. 285 

[1881]), 324, 783, 813, 828, 832. 
Sheets v. Paine (10 X. D. 103. 86 

N. W. 117 [1901]), 3. 
Sheffield Water Works v. \Mlkinsoii 

(4 C. P. D. 410]), 1072. 
Shelby v. City of Burlington ( 125 

Iowa, 343, 101 N. W. 101 [1904]). 

74, 236, 015, 721. 
Shelby ville. City of v. Cleveland, Chi- 
cago & St. Louis Ry. Co. (140 Ind. 

06, 44 X. E. 929 [1896]), 369, 

804. 
Sheley v. City of Detroit (45 Mich. 

43L 8 X. W. 52 [1881]). 118. 000. 

698. 
Shepard v. Barron ( 194 U. S. 553, 

48 L. 1115, 24 S. 737 [1904]), 

118, 189. 541, 1019, 1033, 1345. 
Shepard v. Colton (44 Cal. 628 

[1872]), 504, 742, 748. 1278, 1292. 
Shepard v. McXeill (38 Cal. 73 

[1869]), 537. 964, 1337. 



TAB'^E or CASES. 



ccv 



[References are to sections.] 



Shepard v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(200 111. 508, 65 N. E. 1068 

[1903]), 862, 866, 986, 996, 1164, 

1183. 
Sheridan Street, Opening, Bellevue 

Borough (138 Pa. St. 264, 22 Atl. 

22 [1890]), 927, 997, 1365. 
Sheridan v. City of Chicagj (175 

111. 421, 51 N. E. 898 [1898] ), 764. 

914. 
Sheridan v. Empire City (45 Ore. 

296, 77 Pac. 393 [1904]), 1035. 
Sheridan v. Fleming (93 Mo. 321, 

5 S. W. 813 [1887]), 340. 819, 

1469, 1473. 
Sheriff' v. Lafargiie (23 Ark. 137 

[1861]), 1415. 
Sheriff.- v. City of Chicago (213 111. 

620, 73 X. E. 367 [1905]), 525, 

943, 954, 991. 
Sherwood v. City of Duluth (40 

Minn. 22, 41 N. W. 234 [1889]), 

444, 1394. 
Sherwood v. Rynearson (141 Mich. 

92, 104 X. W. 392 [1905 |), 525, 

1468. 
Shiloh Street, Appeal of McCormick 

(165 Pa. St. 386, 44 Am. St. Rep. 

671, 30 Atl. 986 [1895]), 837, 863. 
Shiloh Street, Wilson's Appeal ( 152 

Pa. St. 136, 25 Atl. 530 [1893]). 

959, 962, 969, 1375. 
Shimer v. Easton Railway Company 

(205 Pa. St. 648, 55 Atl. 769 

[19031), 66. 
Shimmons v. Sity of Saginaw ( 104 

Mich. 511, 62 X. W. 725 [1895]). 
• 267, 275, 293, 298, 373, 374, 381, 

555, 765, 950, 978, 1279, 1282. 
Shiner v. Village of Xorwood (17 

Oliio C. C. 631 [1898]), 635. 
Shipley v. P>allini()ro & Potomac 

Railroad Coin])any (34 ^Nld. 336 

[1871]), 69, 71. 
Shipman v. Forbes (97 Cal. 572, 32 

Pac. Rep. 599 [1893]). 223, 234, 

777, 882. 11.30. 
Shirk V. Ihipji (167 Ind. 509. 78 X. 

E. 242, 79 X. E. 490 [1900]), 108, 

313, 500, 501. 560, 575. 742. 763, 

1049, 1215, 1217, 1502. 
Shirk V. Whitton (131 Ind. 455, 31 

N, E. 87 [1891] ). l(li;S. 



Shirley v. City of Waukesha ( 124 

Wis. 239, 102 X. W. 576 [1905]), 

1462. 
Shoemaker v. City of Cincinnati (68 

0. S. 603, 68 X"; E. 1 [1903]), 174, 

189, 314. ()77. 693. 700, 702. 1001, 

1425. 
Shoemaker v. Harrisburg ( 122 Pa. 

St. 285, 16 Atl. 366 [1888]), 147. 

190. 
Shoemaker v. Ignited States ( 147 U. 

S. 282, 37 L. 170, 13 S. 361 

[1893]), 207. 243. 356, 549, 556, 

665. 666. 
Shoenberg v. Heyer (91 Mo. Apj). 

389 [1902]), 527, 538. 
Shoolbred v. Corporation of the City 

of Charleston (2 Bay (S. C.) (53 

[1796]), 118. 
Shreve v. Town of Cicero (129 111. 

226, 21 X. E. 815 [1890]). 280, 

281, 329, 636, 776, 1308. 
S'hreveport, City of v. Prescott (51 

La. Ann. 1895, 46 L. R. A. 193, 

26 So. 664 [1899] ), 15, 35, 46. 155. 

314. 603, 723. 1369. 
Slireveport, City of v. Shreveport 

Belt Railway Company ( 107 La, 

785. 32 So". 189 [1901, 1902]), 

600. 
Shriner v. Village of Xorwood ( 17 

Ohio C. C. 631 [1898]). 1059. 
Shrum v. Town of Salem ( 13 Ind. 

App. 115. 39 X. E.- 1050 [1895]), 

53. 55, 521. 750. 
Shuford V. Commissioners of CJaston 

County (86 X. C. 552 [1882]). 43. 

147, 148, 225, 363, 779. 
Shultes V. Eberly, 82 Ala. 242. 2 So. 

345), 150. 
Shumate v. Heman (181 U. S. 402, 

45 L. 922, 21 S. 645 [1901]), 118,' 

324, 702, 708. 
Shurtleft" v. City of Chicago (190 III. 

473, 60 X. E. 870 [1901]), 65, 75, 

308, 549, 561, 617, 619, 657, 920, 

1098. 
Sidenberg v. Ely ( 90 X. V. 257, 43 

Am. Rep. 163 [1882]), 1055, 1057. 
Siegel V. City of Chicago (223 III. 

428, 79 X'. E. 280 [1906]), 495, 

496. 515, 843. 



CCVl 



TABLE OF C4SES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Silkman v. City of Milwaukee (31 

Wis. 555 [1872]), 1512. 
Silkman v. Board of Water Commis- 
sioners of City of Yonkers ( 152 N. 

Y. 327, 37 L. R. A. 827, 46 X. E. 

612 [1897]), 124, 353, 734. 
Silva V. City of Newport ( — Ky. 

— . 104 S. W. 314, ,31 Ky. L, R. 

314 [1907]), 776. 
Simmons v. City of Gardner ( 6 R. 

I. 255 [1859]), 754, 757. 
Simmons v. City of Millville ( — X. 

J. L. , 66 Atl. 895 [1907]), 

553, 639, 688. 
Simonds v. Turner ( 120 Mass. 328 

[1876]), 1054. 
Simons v. Drake (179 111. 62, 53 X. 

E. 574 [1899]), 1435. 
Simonton v. Hayes (88 Ind. 70 

[1882]), 294, 531, 539, 1005, 1204. 
Simpson v. Commissioners ( 84 X. C. 

158), 363. 
Simpson v. City of Kansas City ( 52 

Kan. 88, 34 Pac. 406 [1893])", 141, 

1015, 1475. 
Simpson v. City of Kansas City ( 46 

Kan. 438, 26"Pac. 721 [1891]), 11. 
Sims V. Hines (121 Ind. 534, 23 X. 

E. 515 [1889]), 73, 541, 1330, 

1337, 1346, 1350, 1352, 1356. 
Sinclair v. Brightman ( — Mass. — , 

84 N. E. 453 [1908]), 1512. 
Sioux City, City of v. Independent 

School District (55 la. 150, 7 X. 

W. 488 [1880]), 580, 586, 1077. 
SioiLX City St. Ry. Co. v. Sioux City 

(138 U. S. 98, 34 L. 898. 11 S. 

226 [1891]), 89, 95, 599, 600. 
Sirgi V. Matthews (24 La. Ann. 613 

[1872]). 223, 234. 
Sisson V. Board of Supervisors of 

Buena Vista County (128 la. 442, 

70 L. R. A. 440, 104 X. W. 454 

[1905]), 108. 340, 666. 690. 691, 

1033, 1085. 
Sixth Avenue Railway Company, 

The V. The ^layor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (63 Hun. 271, 17 X\ Y. Supp. 

903 [1892]). 601, 1422. 
Sixty-fifth Street, In the Matter of 

the Proceedings to Open (23 How- 



ard (X. Y.) 256 [1862]), 927, 

1353. 
Skelton v. Sharp (161 Ind. 383, 67 

X. E. 535 [1903]), 340, 1000,1050, 

1116, 1196, 1202, 1207, 1297, 1426, 

1427, 1450. 
Skinker v. Heman (148 Mo. 349, 49 

S. W. 1026 [1898]). 293. 296, 388, 

464, 717, 1333, 1412. 
Skinker v. Heman, 64 Mo. App. 441 

[1895]), 293, 296, 388, 464, 717, 

1333. 
Skinner v. Chicago (42 111. 52), 223, 

234, 244, 1129. 
Skrainka v. Allen (2 Mo. App. 387 

[1876]), 392, 395. 
Slack V. Maysville & Lexington R. 

R. Co. (52 Ky. (13 B. Mon.) 1 

[1852]), 85, 162, 779. 
Sleeper v. Bullen (6 Kan. 300 

U870]), 223, 234, 781, 1006, 1007, 

1015, 1033, 1037, 1043, 1375, 1436, 

1498, 1509. 
Sleight V. Roe (125 Mich. 585, 85 

X. W. Rep. 10 [1901]), 886. 
Sligh V. City of Grand Rapids (84 

Mich. 497. 47 X. W. 1093), 119. 
Sloan V. Beebe (24 Kan. 343 [1880]), 

420, 817. 
Sloan V. Faurot (11 Ind. App. 689, 

39 X. E. 539 [1894]), 1244. 
Slocum V. Selectmen of Brookline 

(163 Mass. 23, 39 X. E. 351 

[1895]), 408, 411, 424, 445, 620. 
Slocum V. Dallas (165 Ind. 710, 75 

X. E. S23 [1905]), 269. 
Slusser v. Ransom ( 39 Ind. 506 

[1872]), 815, 1235. 
Smadbeck v. City of Mt. Vernon ( 109 

X. i'. S. 70 ["l908]), 278. 
Small V. Chicago. R. I. & P. R. Co. 

(50 la. 338 [1879]), 363. 
Smiley v. McDonald (42 Xeb. 5, 47 

Am. St. Rep. 684, 27 L. R. A. 540, 

60 X. W. 355), 372. 
Smith, In the Matter of (99 X. Y. 

424, 2 X. E. 52 [1885]). 781, 784. 

1456, 
Smith, In the Matter of (52 X. Y. 

526 [1873]), 740, 762. 
Smith, In the Matter of (65 Barb. 

283 [1893]), 741, 762. 



I 



TABLE :JF CASES. 



CCVll 



[References are to sections.] 



Smith, In the Matter of ( 67 How- 
ard (N. Y.) 501 [1884]), 14.35, 

1466. 
Smith V. Corporation of Aberd^n 

(25 Miss. 458 [1853]), 86. 
Smith V. Abington f^avings Bank 
(171 Mass. 178, 50 X. E. 545 

[1898]), 324, 490, 745, 773, 859, 

956, 1067, 1072, 1083, 1305, 1309. 
Smith V. Abington Savings B.mk 

(165 Mass. 285, 42 X. E. 1133 

[1896]), 49, 1072. 
Smith V. City of Allegheny (92 Pa. 

St. (11 Norris) 110 [1879]), 73, 

1287, 1346. 
Smith V Atlantic & Great Western 

R. R. Co. (25 0. S. 91), 81, 113, 

343. 
Smith V. Boese (39 Mo. App. 15 

[1889]), 1169. 
Smith V. City of Boston (194 Mass. 

31, 79 X. E. 786 [1907]), 1484. 
Smith V. City of Boston (61 Mass. 

(7 Cush.) 254 [1851]), 64, 65. 
Smith V. City of Buflalo ( 159 X". Y. 

427, 54 X. E. 62 [1899]), 266, 587, 

641, 983, 1379. 
Smith V. City of Buffalo (90 Hun, 

118, 35 X. Y. S. 635 [1895]), 275, 

587, 641, 1298. 
Smith V. City of Buffalo (44 Hun 

(X. Y.) 156 [1887]), 1508, 1510. 
Smith V. Carlovv (114 Mich. 67, 72 

N. W. 22 [1897]), 558, 649, 887, 

1005, 1007, .1015, 1478. 
Smith V. City of Chicago (57 111. 

497 [1870]'), 368, 452^, 764, 837, 

839, 914, 1187, 1189. 
Smith V. C ity of Cincinnati ( 6 Ohio 

X. P. 175 V898]), 552, 577. 
Smith V. Clifford (99 Tnd. 113 

[1884] ), 1000, 1248. 
Smith V. Cofran (34 Cal. 310 

[1867]). 223, 234, 777, 887, 1358, 

1359, 1509. 
Smith V. Davis (30 Cal.'537 [1866]), 

234, 777, 887, 889. 
Smitli V. ity of Des :Moines (10>- la. 

590, 76 X. W. 836 [1898]), 301, 

620, 626, 631, 1047. 1049, 1072, 

ir9, 11-72, 1141, 1445. 
Smith V. City of D.-t'-nit C>?0 M\ch. 

572, 79 X. \V. SOS [1899]), 308, 



394, 956, 962, 965, 990, 997, 1057. 
Smith V. Duck Road Ditching Asso- 
ciation (54 Ind. 235 [1876]), 247, 

415, 525, 677, 813, 886, 1238. 
Smith V. Duncan (77 Ind. 92 

[1881]), 862, 864, 867. 
Smith V. City of Frankfort (2 Kan. 

App. 411, 42 Pac. 1003 [1895]), 

1179. 
Smith V. Hazard (110 Cal. 145, 42 

Pac. 465 [1895]), 313, 763, 803, 

1030, 1337. 
Smith V. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Jersey City '(52 X. J. L. (23 Vr.) 

784, 18 Atl. 1050 [1889]). 1482, 

1492. 
Smith V. Kingston Borough (120 Pa, 

St. 357, 14 Atl. 170 [TsSS]), 323, 

378, 385, 420, 462, 717. 
Smith V. Kochersperger (173 In. 201, 

50 X'. E. 187 [189S] ), 1443. 
Smith V. City of Milwaukee (18 

Wis. 63 [1804]), 342, 420, 453, 

999, 1436. 
Smith V. City of ^Minneapolis (95 

Minn. 431, 104 X\ W. 227 [1905]), 

1494. 
Smith V. Minto (30 Or. 351, 48 Pac. 

106 [1897]), 223, 2.34, 292, 464, 

777, 832, 1017. 
Smith V. ^layor. Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of Xew York 

(82 Hun (X. Y.) 570, 31 X. Y. 

Supp. 783 [1894]), 482. ■ 
Smith V. !Mayor and Common Council 

of the City of X'ewark (32 X. J. 

Eq. (5 Stew.) 1 [1880]), 239, 663, 

666, 696, 1428. 
Smith V. City of Omaha (49 Xeb. 

883, 09 X. W. 402 [1896]), 11, 71, 

6C5, 666, 697, 729, 775, 884, 1277, 

1304. 
Smith V. City of Portland (25 Or. 

297, 35 Pac". 665 [1894]), 468, 541, 

542. 
Smith V. The Peojde ox rel. D;'trick 

(140 111. 355, 29 X. E. 676 [1S93]), 

103, 166, 168, 247, 253, 271, 276, 

279, 1477. 
Smith V. People ex rel. lluck (87 111. 

74 [1877]), 356, 1126. 
Smith V. The People ex rel. IJuTusey 

(75 111. 30 [1S74]). 1126. 1183. 



ccvin 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Smith V. Petree (— Ky. 71> 

S. W. 251, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2014 

[1904]), 890, llie, 1196, 1207. 
Smith V. City of St. Paul (69 Minn. 

2/6, 72 N. W. 104, 210 [1897] i, 

391, 394. 
Smith V. City of Seattle (25 Wash. 

300, 65 Pac. 612 [1901]), 347,. 451, 

507, 1504. 
Smith V. Sherry (54 Wis. 114, 11 

N. W. 465), 611, 1196. 
Smith V. Small (50 Mo. App. 401 

[1892]), 413, 551, 840. 
Smith V. Tobener (32 Mo. App. 601 

[1888]), 244, 381, 464, 782, 841, 

979, 981, 1448. 
Smith V. City of Toledo (24 O. S. 

126 [1873]), 223, 234, 552, 576, 

620, 830. 
Smith V. City of We-^tport (105 M3. 

App. 221,^75 S. W. 725 [1904]), 

538, 541, 831. 
Smith V. Willis (78 Miss. i43, 28 So. 

878 [1900]), 343, 549, 553, 566, 

660. 
Smith V. Worcester (182 :\Iass. 232, 

59 L. R. A. 728, 65 N. E. 40 

[1902]), 103, 324, 375, 444, 461, 

553, 627, 666, 695, 702. 
Smyth V. State ex rel. Brauu ( 158 

Ind. 332, 62 X. E. 449 [1901]), 

322, 1125, 1366. 
Smythe v. City of Chicago (197 111. 

311, 64 X. E. 361 [1902]), 324, 

328, 448, 859, 864. 
Smythe v. People ex rel. Hanberg 

(219 111. 76, 76 X. E. 82 [1905]), 

1126, 1184, 1186. 
Snell V. City of Chicago (133 111. 

413, 8. L. R. A. 858, 24 X. E. 532), 

259. 
Snouffer v. Grove ( — la. , 116 

X. W. 1056 [1908]), 18. 
Snow V. City of Fitchburg (136 Mass. 

83 [1883]), 324, 667, 697. 
Snydacker v. Village of West Ham- 
mond (225 111. 154, 80 X. E. 93 

[1907]), 446, 563, 641, 1314. 
Snyder v. Foster (77 la. 638, 42 X. 

W. 506), 396. 
Society v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Boston (116 Mass. 181, 17 Am. 

Rep. 153 [1874]), 76. 



Society v. City of Hartford (48 

Conn. 570 [1881]), 1064. 
Society for Savings v. Xew London 

(29* Conn. 174), 365. 
Soens V. City of Racine (10 Wis. 

271 [I860]), 35, 89, 322, 360, 901. 
Soran v. Commissioners of LTnioii 

Drainage District Xo. 1 (215 111. 

212, 74 X. E. 129 [1905]), 803. 
Sorchan v. City of Brooklyn ( 62 X. 

Y. 339 [1875]), 679, 813*, 814, 818, 

1279, 1289. 
Sorchan v. City of Brooklyn ( 3 Hun 

(X. Y.) 562 [1875]), 826, 1347, 

1353. 
Soule V. Town of Ocosta ( — Wasli. 

— — , 95 Pac. 1083 [1908] i, 1503, 

1505. 
Soule V. City of Seattle (6 Wash. 

315, 33 Pac. 384, 1080 [1893]), 

238, 1504, 1508, 1510, 1514, 1515. 
Soullier v. Kern (69 Pa. St. (19 P. 

F. Smith) 16 [1871]), 314, 735, 

772, 889, 908, 1056, 1203. 
South Bethlehem Borough v. Laufer 

(1 Penn. Dist. Ct. 756 [1892]), 

1157, 1272. 
South Chicago City Ry. Co. v. City 

of Chicago (196 111.' 490, 63 X. E. 

1046 [1902]), 309, 311, 391, C94, 

426, 429, 912, 952, 955. 
South Highland Land Improvement 

Company v. Kansas City (172 Mo. 

523, 7 S. W. 944 [1902]), 324, 327, 

401, 444, 447, 549, 550. 
South Omalia, City of v. McGavock 

(72 Xeb. 382, 100 X. W. 805 

[1904]), 1482. 
South Omaha, City of v. Ruthjen (71 

Xeb. 545, 99 X. \Y. 240 [1904]), 

05, 66, 654. 
South Omaha, City of v. Tighe (67 

Xeb. 572, 93 X.' W. 946 [1903]), 

223, 781. 
South Ottawa, Town of v. Perkins 

(94 U. S. 200 [1876]), 1512. 
South Park Commissioners v. The 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. 

R. Co. (107 111. 105 [1883]), 620, 

623. 
South Park Commissioners v. Dun- 
levy (91 HI. 49 [1878]), 259. 



T.VBr.E OF CASES. 



CCIX 



[Refprences .ire to spctions. ] 



Southeim v. City of Chicago (56 111. 

429 [1870]), 665, 666. 670. 1331, 

1333. 
Southern California IJailway Co. v. 

Workman (146 Cal. 80. 79 Pac. 

586, 82 Pac. 79 [1905]), 594, 595, 

598. 
Southern Ry. Co. v. Cherokee Coun- 
ty (144 Ala. 579, 42 So. 60 

[1905]), 36. 
Southern Railway Co. v. Ka.y (62 S. 

C. 28, 39 S. E. 785 [1901]), 3. 
Southport, Wilmington & Durham 

Railroad Company v. Owners of 

the Piatt Land ( ^33 N. C. 266, 45 

S. E. 589 [1903]), 66, 70. 
Sower V. City of Philadelphia (35 

Pa. St. (11 Casey) 231 [I860]), 

S38. 
Spades v. Phillips (9 Ind. App. 487, 

37 N. E. 297 [1893]), 324, 720, 

736, 1229, 1234, 1239. 
Spalding v. City of Denver (33 Colo. 

172, 80 Pac. 126 [1905]), 405, 475, 

479, 555, 558, 711, 723, 781, 874, 

1015, 1023, 1027, 1414, 1435, 1436. 

Spalding v. Forsee ( 109 Mo. App. 

■675, S3 S. W. 540 [1904]), 538, 

541. 
Spangler v. The City of Cleveland 

(35 0. S. 469 [1880]), 308, 472, 

547, 631, 707, 896. 
Sparks v. Villa Rosa Land Co. (99 

Mo. App. 489, 74 S. W. 12.t 

[1903]), 538, 867. 
Spaulding v. Baxter (25 Ind. App. 

485, 58 N. E. 551 [1900]), 324, 

413, 423, 502, 745, 832, 836, 1028, 

1235. 
Spaulding v. Bradley (79 Cal. 449, 

22 Pac. 47 [1889])*, 396. 
Spaulding v. Mott (167 Ind. 58, 76 

X. E. 620 [1906]), 322, 629, 637. 
Spaulding v. North San Francisco 

Homestead & Railroad Associaiio;i 
(87 Cal. 40, 25 Pac. 249, 24 Pac. 

600 [1890]), 313, 483, 540, 541, 

795, 812, 1026, 1358, 1478, 1480. 
Spaulding v. Wesson (115 Cal. 441, 

47 Pac. 249 [1890]), 395, 396, 476. 
Spaulding v. Wesson (84 Cal. 141, 24 
Pac. 377 [1890]), 313, 783, 1182, 
1253, 1378. 



Speakman v. Speakman ( 1 Washing- 
ton Law Reporter (D. C. ) 214), 
1281. 

Spear v. Drainage Commissioners 
(113 111. 632 [1886]), 344, 659, 
1313, 1318, 1364. 

Specht V. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. 

(— Ky. , 80 S. W. 1106, 26 

Ky. Law Rep. 193 [1904]), 628, 
709, 710, 1246. 

Speer v. Mayor and Council of Alli- 
ens (So Ga. 49, 9 L. R. A. 402, 11 
S. E. 802 [1890]), 43, 96, 100, 110. 
118, 147, 148, 179, 323, 420, 553. 
620, 632, 726, 765, 1304. 

Speir V. Town of Xew Utrecht (121 
X. Y. 420, 24 X. E. 692 [1890] i, 
392, 395, 396, 1017, 1019, 1035. 

Speir V. Town of Xew Utrecht (49 
Hun (X. Y.) 294, 2 X. Y. S. 426 
[1888]), 392, 395, 396. 

Spence v. City of ^Milwaukee ( — 

Wis. , 113 X. W. 38 [1907]), 

653, 1414. 

Spencer v. Merchant ( 125 V. S. 345. 
31 L. 763, 8 S. 921 [1888]), 86, 
115, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 
130, 142. 241, 414, 553, 570, 648, 
666, 725, 728, 738, 959, 961, 962. 
964, 969. 

Spencer v. Merchant ( 100 X. Y. 585. 
3 X. E. 682 [1885]), 86, 118, 119, 
121, 123, 125, 131, 241, 380, 381, 
414, 553, 570, 648, 666, 725, 728. 
738, 959, 961, 962, 964, 969. 

Sperry v. Flygare (80 Minn. 325, 81 
Am. St. Rep. 261, 49 L. R. A. 757, 
S3 X. W. 177 [1900]), 322. 

Spier v. Kalamazoo (138 Mich. G52, 
101 X. W. 846), 1015. 

Spokane, City of v. Browne (S Wasli. 
317, 36 Pac. 26 [1894]), 166, 168, 
227, 313, 436, 511, 725, 856, 869. 

Spokane, City of v. Preston ( — 

Wash. \ 89 Pac. 406 [1907]). 

324, 783, 830, 835. 

Spokane, f ity of v. Security Savings 

Society ( — Wash. . 89 Pac. 

466 [1907]), 301, 580, 586, 628, 
956, 958, 9(!0. 

Spokane, City of v. Stephens (12 
Wash. 667, 22 Pac. 123 [1895]), 
1164. 



^ 



ccx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Spokane Falls, City of v. Browne (.3 

Wash. 84, 27 Pac. 1077 [1891] i, 

43, 147, 148, 223, 229, 234, 545, 

548, 553, 642, 777, 883. 
Spoon River Drainage District, Com- 
missioners of, in Champaign Coun- 
ty V. Conner (121 111. App. 450 

fl905]), 340, 549, 564, 659. 
Spring Garden v. Wistar { 18 Pa. St. 

(6 Harr.) 195 [1852]), 314, 666, 

698, 709, 779, 781. 
Spring Steel Fence & Wire *Co. v. 

City of Anderson. (32 Ind. App. 

138, 69 X. E. 404 [1903]), 735, 

738, 751, 1432. 
Spring Valley Park in Kansas City, 

In re (— Mo. , 106 S. W. 531 

[1907]), 70, 305, 1067. 
Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schott- 

ler (110 U. 6. 347, 28 L. 173. 4 S. 

48), 142. 
Springbrook Pvoad, (64 Pa. St. 451), 

909. 
Springdale Township Road (91 Pa. 

St. 260), 909. 
Springer v. Avondale (35 0. S. 620 

[1880]), 683, 977, 1378. 
Springer v. Walters ( 139 111. 419, 

28 X. E. 761 [1891]), 8, 89, 103, 

247, 248, 253, 564, 1432. 
Springfield, City of, to the use of 

Tuttle V. Baker (56 Mo. App. 637 

[1894]), 50, 100, 110, 394, 1284, 

1346. 
Springfield, City of v. Green (120 

111. 269, 11 X. E. 261), 153, 295, 

620. 
Springfield, City of v. Harris (107 

Mass. 532 [1871]), 17, 1033. 
'Springfield, City of, to the use of 

MoEvilly V. Knott (49 Mo. App. 

612 [1892]), 818, 838. 
Springfield v. Mathus (124 111. 88. 

10 \. E. 92), 324, 864, 867. 
Springfield, City of, ex rel. Upde- 

graft" V. Mills" (99 Mo. App. 141, 

72 S. W. 462 [1903]), 53, 55. 491. 
Springfield, City of v. Sale (127 111. 

359, 20 N. E. 86), 51, 324, 663, 

665, 675, 677, 699, 882, 894. 
Springfield, City of, ex rel. Gilsonite 

Construction Co. v. Schmook ( 120 



Mo. App. 41. 96 S. W. 257 [1906] ), 

538, 1052. 
Springfield v. Springfield Street Ry. 

Co. (182 Mass. 41, 64 N. E. 577 

[1901, 1902]), 60, 166, 168, 599. 
Springfield, City of, to use of Central 

National Bank v. Weaver ( 137 

Mo. 650, 37 S. W. 509, 39 S. W. 

276 [1896]), 118, -244, 439, 496, 

504, 604, 620, 723, 775, 776, 830, 

838, 1338. 
Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance 

Co. V. Village of Keeseville ( 148 X. 

Y. 46, 51 Am. St. Rep. 667, 30 L. 

R. A. 660, 42 X. E. 405 [1895]), 

353. 
Spuyten Duyvil Park Way, In the 

Matter of the Opening of ( 67 How- 
ard (X. Y.) 341 [1884]), 1026. 
Squier v. City of Cincinnati (5 Ohin 

C. C. 400 [1891]), 561. 685. 
Stack V. People ex Tel. Talbott (217 

111, 220, 75 X. E. 347 [1905] ), 202, 

203, 271. 340, 344, 736, 776, 921, 

993. 
Stadler v. Roth (59 ]^Io. 400 [1S75] ), 

1134, 1137, 1139. 
Stadler v. Strong (3 Mo. App. 5;i8 

(appendix) [1877]), 50 , 1113, 

1172. 
Stafl"ord v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Albany 

(7 John. Sup. Ct. (X. Y.) 541 

[1811]), 206. 
Stallcup V. Bradley (43 Tenn. (3 

Coldw.) 406 [1866]), 363. 
Stanbrough v. Daniels (77 la. 561, 

42 X. W. 443), 1146. 
Stansbury v. White (121 Cal. 433, 

53 Pac. 940 [1898]), 867, 1068, 

1195. 
Stanton v. City of City of Chicago 

(154 111. 23, 39 X. E.'987), 636. 
Stanwood v. City of ^lalden ( 157 

:\lass. 17, 16 L^ R. A. 591, 31 X. 

E. 702 [1P92]), 64, 65. 
Stark V. City of Boston (180 Mass. 

293, 62 X.E. 375 [1902]), 86, 370, 

665, 666, 695, 696, 724. 
Starr v. City of Burlin'jton (45 la. 

87 [1876]*), 740, 747, 760, 777, 

830, 831, 836, 950, 983. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXl 



[References are to sections.] 



State V. 



, or State ex rel. v. 

{ See also People v. 
-, or People ex rel. v. 



State of Louisiana v. . ( See 

also Louisiana v. . ) 

State of Ohio v. . ( See als3 

Ohio V. .) 

State ex rel. Ely v. Aetna Life In- 
surance Co. (117 Ind. 251, 20 X. 
E. 144 [1888]), 1047, 1049, 10l]8. 

State ex rel. Minnesota Loan & Trust 
Company v. Ames (87 Minn. 23, 
91 X. W. 18 [1902] I, 117, 185, 
237. 

The State ex rel. Mispagel v. Angert 
(127 Mo. 456, 30 S. W. 118 
[1894]), 340, 1040, 1049. 

State of Minnesota v. Armstrong (54 
Minn. 457, 56 X''. W. 97 [1893]), 
323, 832, 843. 

State ex rel. ^loore v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Ashland (88 \Yis.*599, 60 x' W. 
1001 [1894]), 665, 666, 674. 709, 
872. 

State ex rel. Vaugh v. Mayor ot 
Ashland (71 Wis. 502, 37 "x. W. 
809), 359. 

State, Felix, Pros. v. City Council 
of Atlantic City (34 X. J. L. (5 
Vr.) 99 [1869]), 306. 392, 395. 

State ex rel. Lavin v. Bacon ( 14 S. 
D. 284, 85 X. W. 225), 214. 

State on Application of Alter v. 
Bader (56 0. S. 718, 47 X. E. 564 
[i897]), 1418. 

State ex rel. v. Baker (55 O. S. 1,44 
X". E. 516 [1896]), 189. 

Sta/te of Washington on the Relation 
of Ileman ex rel. v. City of Bal- 
lard (16 Wash. 418. 47*Pac. 970 
[1897]), 244, 246, 965, 1165, 1168. 
1172. 

State, Frevert, Pros. v. flavor and 
Council of the ( ity of Bnyonne 
(63 X. J. L. (34 Vr. ) 202. 42 At). 
773 [1899]), 665, 677, 699. 709. 
956, 1408. 

State, Humphreys, Pros. • v. Mayor 
and Council of the City of Ba- - 
onne (60 X. J. L. 406, 38 Atl. 761 
[1897), 554. 559, 644, 723. 



State, Central X'ew Jersey Land & 
Improvement Co. v. Mayor and 
Council of the City of Bayonne 
56 X. J. L. (27 Vr.) 297, 28 Atl. 
713 [1893]), 187. 324, 553, 642, 
699. 

State, Muller, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Council of the City of Bayonne 
(55 X". J. L. (26 Vn) 102. 25 Atl. 
267 [1892]), 560, 631, 895. 

State, Morris, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Bayonne (53 X. J. L. (24 Vr.) 
299, 1 Mun. Corp. Cas. 299, 21 Atl. 
453 [1891]), 633, 651. 

State, Central Railroad Company of 
X'^ew Jersey, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
of Bayonne (51 X'. J. L. (22 Vr.) 
428, 17 Atl. 971 [1889]), 63, 661, 
755, 906, 1029. 

State, White, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Council of the City of Bayonne 
(49 X. J. L. (20 Vr.) 311. f- Atl. 
295 [1887]), 263, 308, 426. 744. 
763, 777, 824. 

State, Bramhall, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
of the City of Bayonne ( 35 X^. J. 
L. (6 Vr.)" 476 [1872]), 280, 527, 
840. 

State ex rel. v. Beacom (66 0. S. 
491, 90 Am. St. Rep. 599, 64 X. 
E. 427 [1902]), 174, 189, 1001. 

State, Conklin, Pros. v. Bergen Coun- 
ty Circuit Court (64 X". J. L. (35 
Vr.) 536, 45 Atl. 981 [1900]), 
280. 

State, Vreeland, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
of Town of Bergen (34 X. J. L. 
(5 Vr.) 438 [1871]), 973. 

State, Gleason, Pros. v. Town of Ber- 
gen (33 X. J. L. (4 Vr.) 72 
[1868]), 279, 837, 838, 884, 894. 
906. 

State, Ackerman. Pros. v. Town ot 
Bergen, County of Hudson (33 X. 
J. L. (4 Vr.) 39 [1868]), 279, 
837, 844. 878. 

State, 'S'an Horno, Pros. v. Town of 
Bergen (30 *X. J. L. (1 Vroom) 
307 [1863]), 483, 494, 560, 639. 
672, 675, 690, 692, 723, 885, 967. 



CCXll 



TABI.E OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



State, Culver, Pros. v. Town of Ber- 
gen, in the County of Hudson ( 29 
N. J. L. (5 Dutcii.) 266 [1861]), 
544, 560, 639, 672, 690, 693, 723, 
885. 

State, Wain, Pros. v. Common Coun- 
cil of Beverly (53 N. J. L. (24 
Vr.) 560, 22 Atl. 340 [1891]), 
1050, 1081, 1113, 1408. 

State of Nebraska ex rel. City of 
Omaha v. Birkhauser (37 Xtb. 
521, 56 K w. 303 [1893]), 314, 
78L 789, 800. 

State, Brittin, Pros. v. Blake (36 X. 
J. L. (7 Vr.) 442 [1872]), 93, 97, 
110, 142, 227, 339, 340, 420, 1347, 
1356. 

State, Brittin, Pros. v. Blake (35 X. 
J. L. (6 Vr.) 208 [1871]). 143, 
340, 549, 665, 667, 674, 1347. 

State V. Board of Trustees (121 
Wis. 44, 98 N. W. 954 [1904]), 
191. 

State V. Brewster (39 0. S. 653 
[1883]), 189. 

State ex rel. Scotter v. Brill (5S 
Minn. 152, 59 N. W. CS9 [1894]), 
694. 

State of Washington on the Relation 
of Witherop v. Brown ( 19 Wash. 
3:^3, 53 Pac. 548 [1898]), 355, 
1469, 1473. 

State, Ilirkpatrick, Pros. v. Commis- 
sioners of Streets and Sewers in 
City cf Brunswick (42 N. J. L. 
(13 Vr.) 510 [1880]), 5. 

State V. Bury (101 Minn. 424, 112 
N. W. 534 [1907]), 781, 785. 

State V. Butler (79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 
418 [1883]), 44, 1483. 

State, Aprey, Pros. v. Cannon (33 
N. J. L. (4 Vr.) 218 [1868]), 664, 
690, 8"6, 894. 

State of Washin-rton ex rel. Bock v. 
Cass (42 Wash. 658, 85 Pac. 423 
[1906]), 308, 915. 

State, M'Clcskey, Pros. v. fhamber- 
lin (37 N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 358 
[1875]), 89, 250, 330, 666, 667, 
711. 

State, City of Elizabeth v. The Chan- 
cellor ("si N. J. L. (22 Vr.) 414, 
17 Atl. 942 [1889]), 1068. 



State ex rel. Horlbeck v. City Coun- 
cil of Charleston (12 Rich. (S. C.) 
702 [I860]), 44, 118, 302, 309. 
State ex rel. v. C-incinnati ( 52 0. S. 

419, 40 N. E. 508 [1895]), 189. 
State V. City of Cincinnati ( 23 0. S. 

445 [1873]), 189. 
State ex rel. Attorney-General v. City 
of Cincinnati (20 O. S. 18 [1870]), 

189. 
State, Skinkle, Pros. v. Inhabitants 

of rownship of Clinton, in Countv 

of Essex (39 N. J. L. (10 Vr.) 

656 [1877]), 280, 291, 335, 475, 

549, 504, 654, 775, 923, 1282, 1405, 
549, 564, 654, 755, 923, 1277, 1282, 

1405. 
State ex rel. v. Commissioners (54 

0. S. 333, 43 N. E. 587 [1896]), 

189, 252, 779. 
State V. Commissioners (37 0. S. 526 

[1882]), 322, 1469, 1502. 
State, Ward, Pros. v. Commissioners 

of Streets and Sewers (49 X. J. L. 

(20 Vr.) 552, 10 Atl. 109 [1887]), 

690. 
State ex rel. Childs v. Copeland (66 

Minn. 315, 61 Am. St. Rep. 410, 

34 L. R. A. 77/, 69 X. W. 27 

[1896]), 81, 185, 215. 
State ex rel. City of Kansas v. Cor- 

rigan Consolidated Street Railway 

Co. (85 Mo. 263), 603. 
State ex rel. Attorney-General v. 

Covington (29 0. S. 102 [1876]), 

197. 
State ex rel. v. Cowles (64 0. S. 162, 

59 xs. E. 895 [1901]), 189. 
State, Winans, Pros. v. Crane (36 

X. J. L. (7 Vr.) 394 [1873]), 280, 
State ex rel. Witte v. Curtis (86 

Wis. 140, 56 X. W. 475), 335. 
State on the Relation of Lingenfel- 

ter v. Danville & Xorth Salem 

Gravel Road Company (33 Ind. 

133 [1870]), 322, 466, 554, 629, 

645, 1477. 
State V. Dean (23 X. J. L. (3 Zab.) 

335 [1852]), 392, 395, 615, 721. 
State v. Digby (5 Blackf. (Ind.) 

543 [1841]), 72. 



TABLE OF CAKES 



CCXlll 



[References are to sections.] 



State V. District Court of Blue Earth 
■County (102 Minn. 482. 113 X. W. 
697, 114 X. W. 654 [1907]), 301. 
483, 507, 878, 905, 990. 

State of Minnesota ex rel. Shannon 
V. Judges of District Court of 
Eleventh Judicial District (51 
Minn. 539, 53 X. W. 800, 55 X. 
W. 122 [1892]), 367, 862, 863. 

State ex rel. City of ^Minneapolis v. 
District Court of Fourth Judicial 
District (83 Minn. 170, 86 X. W. 
15 [1901]), 615, 617. 

State of Minnesota ex rel. ]\Ierrick 
V. District Cotirt of Hennepin 
County (33 Minn. 235, 22 X. W. 
625 [1885]), 79, 158, 225, 245, 
260, 263, 273, 615, 666, 668, 689, 
755, 761, 763, 920. 927, 1393, 1394. 

State V. District Court of Ramsey 
County, 98 Minn. 63, 107 X. W. 
726 [i906]), 414, 666, 674, 956. 

State ex rel. Eaton v. District Court 
of Ramsey County ( 95 Minn. 503, 
104 X. W. 553 [1905]), 549, 550, 
648, 671, 693, 699, 735, 743, 744, 
967, 969, 970. 

State ex rel. St. Anthony Park Xorth 
Trust Co. V. District Court of 
Ramsey County (95 Minn. 183, 
103 X. W. 88l" [1905]), 952, 956, 
962. 

State ex rel. Hughes v. District 
Court of Ramsey County ( 95 
Minn. 70, 103 X. W. 744 [1905]), 
142, 206, 549, 555, 556, 561, 619, 
743, 745, 969, 970, 1333. 

State ex rel McKune v. District 
Court of Ramsey County (90 
Minn. 540, 97 X. W. 425 [1903]), 
393, 400, 563. 

State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Dis- 
trict Court of Ramsey County ( 90 
Minn. 294, 96 X. W. 737 [1903]), 
735, 743, 747. 
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Dis- 
trict Court of Ramsey County (89 
Minn. 292. 94 X. W. 870 [1903]). 
323, 381, 781, 784. 

State ex rel. Ryan v. District Court 
of Ramsey County (87 Minn. 146, 
91 X. W. 300 [1902]), 86, 215, 
223, 359, 776, 1394. 



State ex rel. Wheeler v. District 
Court of Ramsey County (80 
Minn. 293, 83 X. W. 183 [1900]), 
314, 317, 373, 374, 380, 381, 464, 
519, 604, 640, 671, 693. 
State ex rel. Gotzian v. District 
Court of Ramsey County ( 77 
Minn. 248, 79 X. iv. 971 [1899]), 
311, 414, 956, 967, 973. 
State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Dis- 
trict Court of Ramsey County ( 75 
Minn. 292, 77 X. W." 968 [1899]), 
11, 67, 356, 665, 666, 925. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. City of 
St. Paul V. District Court ot 
Ramsey County (72 Minn. 226, 71 
Am. St. Rep. 480, 75 X. W. 224 
[1898]), 81, 185, 215, 483. 
State ex rel. Minnesota Transfer Co. 
V. District Court of Ramsey Coun- 
ty (68 Minn. 242, 71 X. W. 27), 
596, 614, 693, 886, 956, 972. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Thomp- 
son V. District Court of Ramsey 
County (51 Minn. 401, 53 X. W. 
714 [1892]), 771, 1029, 1183. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Powell v. 
District Court of Ramsey County 
(47 Minn. 406, 50 X. ' W. 476 
[1891]), 488, 555. 568, 600, 709, 
1271. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Chapin 
V. District Court of Ramsey 
County (40 Minn. 5, 41 X. W. 235 
[1889]), 313, 428, 771, 1035. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Burger 
V. District Court of Ramsey Coun- 
ty (33 Minn. 295, 23 X. "w. 222 
[1885]), 158, 2-14, 359. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Lewis v. 
District Court of Ramsey County 
(33 Minn. 164, 22 X^ W. 295 
[1885]), 266, 436, 490, 550. 670, 
822, 880. 907. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Benz v. 
District Court of Ramsey County 
(32 Minn. 181. 19 X. W. 732 
[1884]), 192, 574, 603, 604. 
State of ^Minnesota ex rel. St. Paul 
City Railway Company v. District 
Court of Ramsey County (31 
Minn. 354, 17 X^. W. 954 [1884]), 
601. 630. 



TAB1.E GP C.VSi^S. 



[References are to sections.] 



State of Minnesota ex rel. Cunning- 
ham V. District Court of Ramsey 
County (29 Minn. 62, 11 X. \V. 
133 [1882]), 11, 549, 556, 670, 
671, 690, 693, 699, 1306. 

State of Minnesota ex rel. Merchant 
V. District Court for St. Louis 
County (66 Minn. 161, 68 X. W. 
860 [i896]), 67, 70, 158, 356, 622, 
665, 719. 

State of ^Minnesota ex rel. City of 
Duluth V. District Court of St. 
Louis County (61 Minn. 542, 64 
X. W. 190 [1895]), 86, 158, 185, 
526, 624, 666, 927, 941, 954, 1015, 
1035. 

State of Xebraska ex rel. Abbott v. 
Board ^f County Commissioners of 
Dodge County ' ( 8 Xeb. 124, 30 
Am. Eep. 819 [1879]), 103, 105, 
147, 245, 261. 

State, Kean, Pros. v. Driggs Drain- 
age Company ( 45 X. J. L. ( 16 
Vr.) 91 [1883]), 113, 149, 255, 
340, 666, 667, 690, 709, 779. 

State, Penwarden, Pros. v. Board of 
Commissioners of the Borough of 
Dunellen (50 X. J. L. (21 Vroom) 
565, 15 Atl. Rep. 529 [1888]), 
838. 

State, King, Pros. v. Duryea (45 N. 
J. L. (16 Vr.) 258 [1883]), 279, 
548, 617, 664. 

State, Hoeltzel, Pros. v. Inhabitants 
of East Orange (50 X. J. L. (21 
Vr.) 354, 12 Atl. 911 [1888]), 231, 
279, 776. 

State ex rel. Putnam v. Egan (64 
Minn. 331, 67 X. W. 77 [1896]), 
9, 965, 967, 1033. 

State, Xorris, Pros. v. City of Eliza- 
beth (51 X. J. L. (22'Vr.) 485, 
18 Atl. 302 [1889]), 80, 648, 775, 
967, 968, 1483. 

State ex rel. Benedictine Sisters of 
Elizabeth v. City of Elizabeth (50 
X. J. L. (21 Vr.) 347, 13 Atl. 5 
[1888]), 589, 1409. 

State, Watson, Pros. v. City of Eliz- 
abeth (42 X. J. L. (13 Vr.) 508 
[1880]), 475, 529, 973. 

State, Forbes, Pros. v. City of Eliza- 



beth (42 X. J. L. (13 Vr.) 56 
[1880]), 758, 760, 771, 1029. 

State, Wetmore, Pros, v, City of 
Elizabeth (41 X. J. L. (12 Vr.) 
152 [1879]), 666, 690, 691, 748, 
918, 1408, 1409. 

State, Watson, Pros. v. .City of Eliz- 
abeth (40 X. J. L. (11 Vr.) 278 
[1878]), 81, 119, 666, 667, 709. 

State, Kellogg, Pros. v. City of Eliz- 
abeth (40 X. J. L. (11 Vroom) 
274 [1878]), 633. 

State, Parker, Pros. v. City of Eliza- 
beth (39 X. J. L. (10 Vroom) 
689 [1877]), 886. 

iState, Kellogg, Pros. v. City of Eliz- 
abeth (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 353 
[1875]), 745, 755, 913. 

State, Xew Jersey Railroad & Trans- 
portation Company, Pros. v. City 
of Elizabeth (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.') 
330 [1875]), 418, 549, 563, 594, 
598, 614. 

State, Baker, Pros. v. City of Eliza- 
beth (37 X. J. L. (8 Vroom) 142 
[1874]), 42, 474, 475, 563. 
i State, Clark, Pros. v. City of Eliza- 
beth (32 X. J. L. (3 Vr.) 357 
[1867]), 280, 739, 754. 

State, Hand, Pros. v. City Council 
of the City of Elizabeth (31 X. J. 
L. (2 Vr.) 547 [1864]), 416, 423, 
753, 771, 906, 1319. 

State V. Council of City of Eliz- 
abeth (30 X. J. L. (i Vr.) 365 
[1863]), 468. 

State for use of Cram v. Elliott (32 
Ind. App. 605, 70 X. E. 397 
[1903]), 340, 637, 1147. 

State, Xorthern Railroad Company 
of Xew Jersey, Pros. v. Englewood 
(62 X. J. L. (33 Vr.) 188, 40 Atl. 
Rep. 653 [1898]), 872. 

State, Lydecker, Pros. v. Drainage 
and Water Commissioners of the 
Township of Englewood (41 X. J. 
L. (12 Vr.) 154 [1879]), 248. 

State ex rel. Spencer v. Ensign ( 55 
Minn. 278, 56 X. W. 1006 [1893]), 
356, 359, 909. 

State V. Ensign ( 54 Minn. 372, 56 N. 
W. 41 ) , 359. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXV 



[References iire to sections.] 



State, Aldridge, Pros. v. Essex Pub- 
lic Road Board ( 4S X. J. L. (19 
Vr.) 366, 5 At!. 7S4 [1686]), 412, 
666. 
State, Speer, Pros. v. Essex Public 
Road Board (47 X. J. L. (18 Vr.) 
101 [1885] ), 412, 666. 
State, Aldridge, Pros. v. Essex Pub- 
lic Road Board (46 X. J. L. (17 
Vr.) 126 [1884]), 313, 425, 426, 
557, 631, 066. !)50, 958, 1408. 
State, Ropes, Pros. v. Essex Public 
Road Board (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 
335 [1875]). 428, 661, 91)9, 1015, 
1019, 1408. 
State, Kilbuni. Pros. v. Essex Pub- 
lic Road Board (37 X. J. L. (8 
V"r.) 273 [1874]), 639. 723. 885. 
State, Day, Pros. v. Mayor and Al- 
dermen of the Borough of Fair- 
view in tlie County of Bergen (62 
X. J. L. 621. 43 Atl. Rep. 578 
[1898]), 787, 1282. 
State of Texas v. Farmer ( 94 Tex. 

232, 59 S. W. 541 [1900]), 3. 

State ex rel. Kansas City v. Field 

(107 Mo. 445. 17 S." W. 896 

[1891]), 1471, 1472. 

State ex rel. Kansas City v. Field 

(99 Mo. 352, 12 S. W. ^802), 215. 

State V. Fisk (15 X. D. 219, 107 X. 

W. 191 [1906]), 340, 1430. 
State ex rel. Stifel v. Flad (26 Mo. 

App. 500 [1887]), 1435, 1518. 
State ex rel. Flint v. City of Fond 
du Lac (42 Wis. 287 [1877]), 125. 
728, 737. 
State V. Foster (94 Minn. 412, 103 
X. W. 14 [1905]), 53, 223, 234, 
555, 737, 829. 
State ex rel. v. Board of Commi3> 
. sioners of Franklin County (35 0. 
S. 458 [1880]). 174, 189, 252, 293. 
State, Sigler, Pros. v. Fuller (34 X. 
J. L. (5 Vr.) 227 [1870]), 5, 8, 9, 
13. 35, 89, 95, 96, 111, 420, 540, 
553, 6.34, 667, 1404. 
State, Becker, Pros. v. Gardner (34 
X. J. L. (5 Vr.) 327 [1870]), 696. 
699, 956, 962. 
State ex rel. Ilolden v. Gill (84 Mo. 
248 [1884]), 308, 1366. 



State ex rel. Hallauer v. Gosnell 
(116 Wis. 606, 61 L. R. A. 33, 93 
X'. W. 542 [1903]), 353. 1436. 

State of Maryland on Relation of 
McClellan v. Graves (19 Md. 351, 
81 Am. Dec. 639 [1862] i, 1519. 

State of Ohio ex rel. Durner v. Gray- 
don (6 Ohio C. C. 034 [1892]), 
332. 

State, Herrman, Pros. v. Town of 
Guttenberg (02 X'^. J. L. (33 Vr.) 
605, 43 Atl. 703 [1898]), 7. 

State, Kohler, Pros. v. Town of Gut- 
tenberg (38 X. .J. L. (9 Vr.) 419 
[1876]), 468, 470, 472, 475, 524, 
526, 677, 690, 691, 693, 699, 735, 
819, 894. 

State, Van Solinger, Pros. v. Town 
of Harrison (39 X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 
51 [1870]), 693, 699. 745, 894, 906, 
1407. 

State of Connecticut v. City of 
Hartford (50 Conn. 89, 47 Am. 
Rep. 622 [1882]), 580, 581. 

State ex rel. Latimer v. Henry (28 
Wash. 38, 68 Pac. 368), 202* 

State ex rel. Donnelly v. Hobe (106 
Wis. 411, 82 X, W. 336), 1095, 
1114. 

State, Stewart, Pros. v. Mayor, .etc., 
of Hoboken (58 X. ,T. L. "(29 Vr.) 
696, 36 Atl. 1129 [1896]), 2. 

State, Stewart, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the Cit.v of 
Hoboken (57 X\ J. L. (28 Vr.) 
330, 31 Atl. 278 [1894] i. 2. 63, 
313, 735, 744, 1394. 140.i. 1408. 

State, Board, Pros. v. City of IT )bo- 
ken (36 X. J. L. (7 \ r. ) 378 
[1873]), 542, 731. 900, 907, 909. 

State, Hoboken Land & Improvement 
Company, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
Hoboken ( 36 X. .T. L. (7 Vr. ) 
291). 34, 280, 005. 606. 677, 690, 
692, 894. 
State ex rel. v. Hoffman (35 0. S. 
435 [1880]). 108. 189, 029. 1469. 
State, Green, Pros. v. Hotnling (44 
(X'. J. L. (15 Vr.) 347 [1882]; 
anirmed 46 X. ,L L. (17 Vr.) 207 
[1884]), 187. 381, 563. 580, 1015. 



CCXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



State, Freeholders of County of Hud- 
son, Pros. V. Inferior Court of 
Common Pleas of County of Hud- 
son (42 X. J. L. (13 Vr.) 608 
[1880]), 248, 278, 663. 

State V. Hudson County Avenue Com- 
missioners (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 
12 [1874]), 263, 434, 666, 696. 

State, Moran, Pros. v. City of Hud- 
son (34 X. J. L. (5 Vr.) 25 
[18C9]), 392, 395, 615. 

State, Wilson, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Hudson (32 X. J. L. (3 Vr.) 3G5 
[1867]), 323, 531, 1406. 

State, Ogden, Pros. v. Town and Com- 
mon Council of City of Hudson 
( 29 X. J. L. (5 Dutcher ) 475 
[1861]), 735, 739, 981, 1026. 

State, Zabriskie, Pros. v. Mayor and 
•Common Council of Hudson City 
(29 X. J. L. (5 Dutch.) 115 
[I860]), 670, 690, 693, 099. 

State, Ogden, Pros. v. flavor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Hudson (29 X. J. L. (5 Dutcher) 
104 [I860]), 266, 501. 690, 693. 
699, 781, 800. 

State, Water Commission's of Jer- 
sey City, Pros. v. Mayor and Com- 
mon Council of the City of Hud- 
son (27 X. J. L. (3 Dutcher) 214 
[1858]), 639, 690, 693, 699, 884. 

State V. Hudson (44 O. S. 137, 5 X. 
E. 225), 174. 189, 1001. 

State of Washington on the Rela- 
tion of Donofrio v. Humes ( 34 
Wash. 347, 75 Pac. 348 [1904]). 
1519. 

State ex rel. Ransom v. Irey ( 42 
Xeb. 186, 60 X. W. 001). 45. 1048, 
1115, 1173. 

State V. Jackman (69 X. H. 318, 42 
L. R. A. 438, 41 Atl. 347 [1898]), 
58, 457. 

State ex rel. Wilcox v. Jackson (IIS 
Ind. 553, 21 X. E. 321 [1888]), 
271, 928, 1008. 

State of Florida ex rel. City of Jack- 
sonville V. Jacksonville Street Ry. 
Company (29 Fla. 590, 10 So. 590 
[1892]), 437. 



State, Moran, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City (58 X. J. 
L. (29 Vr.) 653, 35 Atl. 950 
[1896]), 1379. 

State, !Moran, Pros. v. Mavor and 
Aldermen of .Jersey C ity ( 58 X. J. 
L. (29 Vr.) 144, 35 Atl. 284 
[1895]), 570, 819, 923, 1281. 

State, Walls, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City (55 X. 
J. L. (26 Vroom) 511, 26 Atl. Rep. 
828 [1893]), 921, 1395 

State, Provident Institution for Sav- 
ings in Jersey City, Pros. v. May- 
or, etc., of Jersey City (52 X. J. 
L. (23 Vr.) 490, 19 Atl. 1096 
[1890]). 523, 570, 779. £01, 1015. 
1023. 

State, Culver, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey C ity ( 45 X. J. 
L. (16 Vr.) 256 [1883]), 6, 20, 
349, 608, 666, 708, 717, 718, 1394, 
1408. 

State, McCarty, Pros. v. ^Mayor, etL-.. 
of Jersey City (44 X. J. L. (15 
Vroom) "l36 [1882]), 880, 1196. 

State, Vreeland, Pros. v. Ma.yor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City (43 X. J. 
L. (14 Vr.) 135" [1881] ). 6. 20, 
349, 354, 608, 666. 

State, Xew Jersey Midland Railroad 
Co., Pros. V. Mayor and Aldermen 
of Jersey City "(42 X. J. L. (13 
Vr.) 97 '[1880]), 42, 594, 596. 612, 
614, 1282. 

State, Henderson, Pros. v. Mayor, 
etc., of Jersey City (41 X. J. L. 
(12 Vr.) 489 [1879]), 324. 560, 
563, 619. 771. 1029. 

State, United Xew Jersey Railroad 
& Canal Company v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City (41 X. 
J. L. (12 Vr.) 471), 6, 349. 608, 
666. 

State, Cronin. Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City ( 38 X. 
J. L. (9 Vr.) 410 [1876]). 420, 
443, 463, 699, 717, 860. 

State, Harris, Pros. v. Mayor. Alder- 
men, etc., of Jersey City 1 38 X. 
J. L. (9 Vr.) 85 [1875]). 223, 
280. 9.50. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CGXVll 



[Refpreiiees are to sections.] 



State, Van Tassel, Pros. v. flavor 
and Aldermen of Jersey City (37 
N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 128 [IS?/]), 5. 
34, 323, 420, 443, 605, U!)9, 713, 
717. 

State, Baxter, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City ( 3(> X. J. 
L. (7 Vr.) 188 .[1873]'), 090, ti!)4, 
714, 1004, 1196. 

State, Morris and Essex Railroad 
Company, Pros. v. .Jersey City ( 3o 
N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 5(5 fl872]), 4, 
549, 578, 596, 665, ijm, mi. 

State, Wakeman, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City (35 X. .L 
L. (6 Vr.) 455 [1872]), 1408, 
1410. 

Stat?, Evans, Pros. v. ^layor and 
Common Council of Jersey City 
(35 X. J. L. (6 Vr.) 381 [1872]), 
G90, 692, 894, 985, 986, 1174, 1196. 
1204, 1408. 

State, Gregory, Pros. v. flavor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City ( 34 X. 
J. L. (o Vr.) 390 [1871]), 308, 
313. 549, 616, 721. 

State, Fiacre, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of .Jersey City 
(34 X. J. L. (5 Vr.) 277 [1870]), 
381, 464, 563. 

State V. Jersey City (31 X. J. L. {i 
Vr.) 575 [1865]"), 263, 266, 294, 
835. 

State, Malone, Pros. v. Water Com- 
missioners of .Jersey City ( 30 X. 
J. L. (1 Vr.) 247 [1863] ). 1015, 
1408. 

State, Vanderbec-k. Pros. v. Mayor 
and Common Council of Jersey 
City (29 X. J. L. (5 Dutch.) 441 
[1861]), 381, 393, 400, 444. 532. 
542, 563. 639, 723. 909. 

State, .\Ialone. Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of .Jersey City 
(28 X. J. L. (4 Dutcher) 500 
[1S60]), 280. 432. 570, 670. 690. 
092, 699, 740. 7-50. 7.52, 768, 779. 
784, 800. 894. 

State ex rel. v. ^Mayor and Common 
Council of .Jersey City (27 X. J. 
T.. (3 Dutclier) 536 [1859]), 754. 
875, 913. 



!" tate, Townsend, Pros. v. ilayor and 
Common Council of .Jersey City 
(26 X. -J. L. (2 Dutch.) 444 
[1857]), 229, 397. 431. 753, 771, 
775, 884, 1015, 1021. 1029. 

State, Mann, Pros. v. flavor and 
Common Council of Jersey City 
(24 X. J. L. (4 Zab.) 662 [1855] ), 
53. 119. 130, 147, 273, 278, 313, 
549, 631, 646, 699, 720, 726, 729, 
732, 745, 862. 

State ex rel. French v. Johnson ( 105 
Ind. 463, 5 X. E. 553 [1885]), 
108, 134, 207, 221, 267, 375, 461, 
773, 1347, 1356. 

State ex rel. City of Putte v. John- 
son (16 Mont. 570. 41 Pac. 706 
[1895]), 3. 

State ex rel. Knisely v. .Jones (66 0. 
S. 453, 90 Am. St. Rep. 592, 64 
X. E. 424 [1902]), 174, 189, 1001. 

State ex rel. Hill v. Judges of Court 
of Appeals (46 La. Ann. 1292. 16 
So. 219), 8, 43, 46, 47. 1.55. 212, 
218, 343, 711, 1369. 

State -of Minnesota ex rel. Sliannon 
V. Judges of District Court of 
11th Judicial District (51 ^Minn. 
539, 53 X. W. 800, 55 X. W. 122 
[1892]), 694. 

State ex rel. Chicago. Burlington & 
Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of 
Kansas City (89 Mo. 34, 14 S. \V. 
515 [1886]), 70, 113, 308, 425. 613, 
614. 

State of Ivansas ex rel. Miller v. City 
of Kansas City (60 Kan. 518, 57 
Pac. 118 [1899]), 780. 781. 

State ex rel. Allen v. Kansas City. 
St. Joseph & Council Blufl's Rail- 
road Company (116 Mo. 15. 22 S. 
W. 611 [189.3]). 3. 

State, Xew York & Creenwood Lake 
Railway Co., Pros. v. Board of 
Townshij) Connrittee of Township 
of Kearney (55 X. J. L. (26 Vr. ) 
463. 26 Atl. 800 [1893]). 80. 82. 
696. 

Stite. Sanford. Pros. v. The Board 
nf Townsliip Committee of the 
I'ownship of I^earney (51 X .J. L. 
'•22 Vr.) 473. 18 Atl. 349 [18S9]), 
".") •. 0''7. 



CCXVlll 



TABLE OF C.VSES 



[References are to sections.] 



State, Sanford, Pros. v. Township of 
Kearny (48 N. J. L. (19 Vr.) 125, 
4 Atl. 442 [1886]), 958, 964, 1406. 

Sitate ex rel. Magnet v. Kemp ( 141 
Ind. 125, 40 X. E. 661 [1894]), 
363. 

State V. Kilburn ( — Conn. , 69 

Atl. 1028 [1908]), 581, 1068. 

State ex rel. Boycott v. Mayor and 
Common Council of La Crosse ( 107 
Wis. 654, 84 X. W. 242 [1900]), 
191, 862. 

State ex rel. Schintgen v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of La 
Crosse (101 Wis. 208, 77 N. W. 
167 [1898]), 324, 1015, 1348, 1403. 
1436, 1443, 1506. 

State V. Laverack ( 34 N. J. L. ( 5 
V-.) 207), 412. 

State ex rel. Chouteau v. Leffingwell 
(54 Mo. 458 [1873]), 634. 

State, Dobbins, Pros. v. Board ol 
Commissioners of the Long Brancli 
Police Sanitary and Improvement 
Commission (59 X. J. L. (30 Vr.) 
146, 36 Atl. 482 [1896]), 187. 

State ex rel. Wilson v. Longstreet 
(38 X. J. L. (9 Vr.) 312 [1876]). 
639, 644, 645, 723, 909, 1471. 

State ex rel. Miller v. Love (37 X. 
J. L. (8 Vr.) 261 [1874]), 475, 
968. 

State of Washington on the Relation 
of Craver v. McConnaughey (31 
Wash. 207, 71 Pac. 770 [1903]), 
1069. 

State V. McCrillis (— R. I. . 66 

Atl. 301 [1907]), 58. 

State V. McMahon (76 Conn. 97, 55 
Atl. 591 [1903]), 58, 371, 457. 

State V. Trustees of Macalester Col- 
lege (87 Minn. 165, 91 X. W. 484 
[1902]), 86, 118, 350, 565, 590, 
613. 

State ex rel. Keith v. Common Coun- 
cil of the City of Michigan City 
(138 Ind. 455, 37 X. E. 1041 
[1894]). 264, J90, 554, 555, 602, 
603, 604. 640, 837. 874. 

State V. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. 
(39 Minn. 219), 359. 

State ex rel. City of Columbus v. 



Mitchell (31 0. S. 592 [1877]), 

189, 440, 587, 775, 777, 1012. 
State ex rel. Monroe Gravel Road 

Co. V. Stout (61 Ind. 143 [1878]), 
86, 1113. 

State V. Morris (47 La. Ann 1660, IS 
So. 710), 372. 

State V. Moss (44 Wash. 91, 86 
Pac. 1129 [1906]), 223, 250, 313, 
550, 555, 622. 

State ex rel. Mayfield v. Myers ( 100 
Ind. 487 [1884]), 1244, 1251. 

State ex rel. Young v. City of Xeo- 
desha (3 Kan. App. 319, 45 Pac. 
122 [1896]), 293, 415, 506, 507, 
525, 1430. 

Sta4;e, Ward, Pros. v. Commissioners 
of Streets and Sevpers of Xevv 
Brunswick (49 X. J. L. (20 Vr. I 
552, 10 Atl. 109 [1887]), 570, 894, 
1405. 

State, Robins, Pros. v. Commission- 
ers of Streets and Sewers in the 
City of Xew Brunswick (44 X. .1. 
L. (15 Vr.) 116 [1882]), 420, 441. 

State, Kirkpatrick, Pros. v. Coram i>- 
sioners of Streets and Sewers in 
City of Xew Brunswick (42 X. 
J. L. (13 Vr.) 510 [1880]), 9, IS, 
92, 95, 96, 118, 323, 420, 441, 6(>3. 
1408, 1409. 

Sitate, ex rel. Van Cleef, Pros. v. 
Commissioners of Streets and Sew 
ers of Xew Brunswick (38 X. J. 
L, (9 Vr.) 320 [1876]), 1409. 
1410. 

State, Xew Brunswick Rubber Co., 
Pros. V. Commissioners of Streets 
and Sewers in the City of Xew 
Brunswick (38 X. J. L. (9 Vr.) 

190, 20 Am. Rep. 380 [1876]), 665, 
696, 699, 1032. 

State V. Xew Brunswick ( 34 X. J. 
L. (5 Vr.) 395), 306. 

State, Parker, Pros, v. City of Xew 
Brunswick (32 X. J. L.' (3 Vr.) 
548 [1867]), 397, 431, 438. 

State. Parker, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
of the City of Xew Brunswick (30 
X. J. L. (1 Vr.) 395 [1863]), 390, 
397, 431, 862. 867. 1398. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXIX 



[References are to sections.] 



State ex rel. City of Xew Orleans 
V. New Orleans City & Lake Rail- 
road Company (42 La. Ann. 550, 
7 So. 606 [1890]), 60, 166, 167, 
599, 605, 1162. 

State of Connecticut v. New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company (60 Conn. 326, 22 Atl. 
765 [1891]), 3. 

State, Protestant Foster Home of 
City of Newark, Pros. v. Mayor, 
Aldermen and Common Council of 
■City of Newark (52 N. J. L. (23 
Vr.') 138, 18 Atl. 572 [1889]), 
968. 

State, Moimt Pleasant Cemetery Co., 
Pros. V. Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of Newark (.50 N. J. L. (21 
Vr.) 66, 11 Atl. 147 [1887]), 166. 
172, 592, 617. 

State, Jelliff, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Newark (48 N. J. L. (19 Vr.) 101, 
2 Atl. 627 [1886]), 187, 381, 416, 
423, 464, 719, 779, 856, 813. 923, 
1277, 1282. 

State, Righter, Pros. v. ilayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Newark (45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.)"^ 104 
[1883]), 559. 644, 663, 723, 961. 

State, Peckham, Pros. v. Ma.yor and 
Common Council of the Cit.v of 
Newark (43 N. J. L. (14 Vr.) 
576 [1881]!, 143, 229, 414, 777, 
983, 1337. 

State, Agens. Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Newark (37 N. J. L. (8 Vr. )"415, 
18 Am. Rep. 729 [1874]). 11, 13, 
92, 95, 172, 323, 420, 443, 549, 663. 
665, 667, 690, 709, 717. 

State, Protestant Foster Home So- 
ciety, Pros. V. Mayor and Common 
Council of the City of Newark (36 
N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 478, 13 Am. Rep. 
464 [1873] ). 42. 589, 614. 

State ex rel. Little. Pros. v. flavor 
and Common Council of Newark 
(36 N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 170 [1873]). 
280, 670. 

State, Agens, Pros. v. ^layor and 
Common Council of the City of 



Newark (35 N. J. L. (6 Vr.) 
168 [1871]), 8, 89, 172, 480. 614, 
663, 665. 

State, Protestant Foster Home So- 
ciety, Pros. V. Mayor and Common 
Council of the City of Newark (35 
N. J. L. (6 Vr.) 157, 10 Am. Rep. 
223 [1871]), 578, 589. 

State ex rel. Doyle v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Newark (34 N. J. L. (5 Vr.) 236 
[1870]), 194, 195, 956, 958, 959, 
980, 983, 1072. 

State ex rel. Peters v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of 
Newark (31 N. J. L. (2 Vr.)' 360 
[1865]), 264, 278, 308, 551, 530. 

State, Doyle & Co., Pros. v. Mayor 
and Common Council of Newark 
(30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.) 303 [1863]), 
739, 741, 1394, 1409. 

State, Grant, Pros. v. ilayor and 
Common Council of Newark (28 
N. J. L. (4 Dutch.) 491 [I860]), 
394, 395, 396. 

State, The New Jersey Railroad and 
Transportation Company, Pro?, v. 
Mayor and Common Council of the 
City of Newark (27 N. J. L. (3 
Dutch.) 185 [1858]), 11, 34, 42, 
113, 166, 167. 279, 594, 653, 983, 
1113. 

State, Tims, Pros. v. 'Mayor and 
Common Council of Newark ( 25 
N. J. L. (1 Dutch.) 399 [1856]), 
229, 280, 690. 691. ()92, 7.35, 847, 
893, 894, 1394. 

State, Ackerson, Pros. v. Inliabitant-* 
of North Bergen in the County of 
Hudson (39 N. J. L. (10 Vroom ) 
694 [1877]). 885, 886. 887. 981. 

State, Gohisch, Pros. v. Inliabitanls 
of the Township of North Bergen 
in the Couiit.v of Hudson (37 N. 
J. L. (S Vr.) -102 [1875] K 624, 
632, 635. 

State. Coward, Pros. v. Mayor, etc.. 
of North Plainfield (63 N. J. L. 
(34 Vr. ) (il. 42 Atl. 805 [1899]), 
2S0, 631, 672, 675. 690. 895. 1283. 
1398, 1410. 



ccxx 



TABLE or C.\SE:^ 



[References ure to sections.] 



State ex rel. City of Dulutli v. North, 
ern Pacific Ry. Co. (98 Minn. 420, 
108 X. W. 269). 52, 93, 97, 359, 
420, 717, 1162. 

State V. Norton (63 Minn. 497, 58 
Am St. Rep. 549, 63 N. W. 935 
[1896]), 416, 927, 986, 1109, 1337, 

State V. Orr (68 Conn. 101, 34 L. R. 
A. 279, 35 Atl. 770), 372. 

State V. Osawkee (14 Kan. 418, 19 
Am. Rep. 99), 410. 

State ex rel. Stees v. Otis (53 Minn. 
318, 55 N. W. 143 [1893]), 308, 
743. 

State V. Board of Commissioners of 

Pacific County (— Wasli. , 93 

Pac. 326 [1908]), 961, 969. 

State, Simmons, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (58 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 60 
ri875]), 1402. 

State, Post, Pros. v. City of Passaic 
(56 N. J. L. (27 Vr.) 421, 28 Atl. 
553 [1894]), 1015, 1020, 1408. 

State, Simmons, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (55 N. J. L. (26 Vr.) 485, 
27 Atl. 909 [1893]), 1401, 1403. 

State, Paterson and Hudson River 
Railroad Company, Pros. v. City of 
Passaic (54 N. j' L. (25 Vr.) 340, 
23 Atl. 945 [1892]), 324, 594, 595, 
598, 613. 

State, Hageman, Pros. v. Mayor and 
City Council of Passaic (51 N. J. 
L. (22 Vr.) 109 [1888]), 1306. 

State, Hegeman, Pros. v. Mayor and 
City Council of the City of Pas- 
saic (51 N. J. L. (22 Vr.) 109, 
16 Atl. 62 [1888] I. 909. 

State, Schulting, Pros. v. City of 
Passaic (47 N. J. L. (18 Vr.) 273 
[1885]), 166, 172, 560, 576, 1409. 

State, Rettinger, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 146 
[1883]), 67, 308, 997, 1015, 1405, 
1409. 
State ex rel. Butler v. City of Pas- 
saic (44 N. J. L. (15 "Vr.) 171 
[1882]), 951, 1283. 
State, Society for Establishing Use- 
ful Manufactures, Pros. v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of City of Paterson 
(42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 615 [1880]), 
12, 32, 553, 624, 642. 



State. Simmons. Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 524 
[1880] i. 279, 699, 1406. 

State, Terhune, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (41 N. J. L. (12 Vr.) 90 
[1879]), 229. 279. 777. 

State, Ryerson, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 171 
[1875]), 1015, 1408. 

State ex rel. Speer, Pros. v. City of 
Passaic (38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.)"l68 
[1875] I, 280. 670. 894. 1402. 1404. 

State. Simmons. Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (38 N. J. L. (9 'Vr.) 60 
[1875]). 63, 278, 308, 666, 677, 
690, 691, 894, 900. 

State, Bogart, Pros. v. City of Pas- 
saic (38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 57 
[1875]), 665, 699, 894. 983. 14(19. 

State, Delaware. Lackawanna and 
Western Railroad Company v. Vil- 
lage of Passaic (37 N. J. L. (8 
Vr.) 137 [1874]), 665, 666, 667, 
677, 690, 709. 894, 983, 1277. 

State, Pudney, Pros. v. Village of 
Passaic (37 N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 65 
[1874]). 301, 690, 693, 699, 909, 
979, 981, 983, 1283. 

State, Copeland, Pros. v. Village of 
Passaic (36 N. J. L. (7 Vr. ) 382 
[1873]). 279, 950, 95P, 959, 969, 
983. 

State, Van Wagoner, Pros. v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of the City of Pat- 
erson (67 N. J. L. (38 Vr.) 455, 
51 Atl. 922 [1902]), 420. 

State, Reynolds, Pros. v. Maj'or and 
Aldermen of the City of Paterson 
(48 N. J. L. (19 Vr.) 435, 5 Atl. 
896 [1886]), 147, 665, 667, 709. 

State, Beam, Pros. v. Mayor and Al- 
dermen of the City of Paterson ( 47 
N. J. L. (18 Vr.) 15 [1885]). 735. 
770, 1010, 1404. 
State, Society for Establisliiii'^ Use- 
ful Manufactures, Pros. v. City of 
Paterson (40 N. J. L. (11 Vr.) 
250 [1878]). 405, 968, 1026, 1291. 
State. Youngster. Pros. v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of Paterson ( 40 N. 
J. L. (11 Vr.) 244 [1878]). 239, 
003. 666. 690, 722. 1281. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxxi 



[References are to sections.] 



State V. Mayor and Aldermen of 
City of Paterson (37 X. J. L. (8 
Vr.) 412 [1875]). (i!)G, 885, 894, 
1026. 

State ex rel. Hnslcy. '/n.s. v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of the City of Pat- 
erson (37 N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 409 
[1875]), 279, 280, 281. 

State, Graham, Pros. v. Mayor, etc., 
of Paterson (37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 
380 [1875]), 110, 281, 313, 553, 
624, 665. 667, 677. 690, 691, 699, 
709, 956, 1408. 

State, Hampton, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of the City of Paterson 
36 X\ J. L. (7 Vr. 159 [1873]), 
280, 495, 665, 666, 696, 771, 1015, 
1021, 1029. 

State V. Payssan (47 La. Ann. 1029, 
49 Am. St. Rep. 390, 17 So. 481), 
372. 

State, Spear, Pros. v. City of Perth 
Amboy (38 X. J. L. (9 Vr. ) 425 
[1876]). 281, 884. 

State, Brinley, Pros. v. Inhabitants 
of the City of Perth Amboy (29 
^ X. J. L. (5 Duteher). 259 [1861]), 

739, 771, 981, 1029. 

State, Pardee Works, Pros. v. City 
of Perth Amboy (59 X. J. L. (30 
Vr.) 335, 36 All. 666 [1896]), 313, 
956. 

State V. Pillslnuy 1 82 :\Iinn. 3.39, 
85 X. W. 175 '[1901]), 111, 121, 
158, 549, 563, 572. 707, 708, 739, 
813. 

State ex -rel. Southern I'.aiik v. Pills- 
bury (31 La. Ann. 1 [1879]), 
1409. 

State, Van Riper. Pro-;, v. Township 
of Plainfield (43 X. .T. (14 Vr.) 
349 [1881]), 911, 13(il. 

State, Boice, Pros. v. City of Plain- 
field (41 X. .T. L. (12 \'r.) 138 
[1879]). 309. 

State, Boice, Pro*, v. Inhabitants of 
tlie City of PlainfTeld (38 X. J. L. 
(9 Vr.) 95 [1875]), 309, 739, 760, 
857, 865, 983. 

State, Randolph. Pros. v. Inhabit, 
ants of the City of Plainfield (38 
X. J. L. (9 Vv.) 93 [1875]), 465, 
479, 956. 



State ex rel. Utick v. Board of 

County Commissioners of Polk 

County (87 Minn. 325, 60 L. R. A. 

161, 87 X. W. 216 [1902]). 291, 

335, 336, 337, 340, 449, 781, 798, 

1317. 
State ex rel. Christopher v. (_ ity of 

Portage (14 Wis. 550 [1861]), 

646, 720. 
State ex rel. Christopher v. City of 

Portage (12 Wis. 562 [I860]), 

163, 323, 443, 714, 1471. 
State ex rel. McClurg v. Powell (77 

Miss. 543, 48 L. R. A. 652, 27 So. 

927), 216. 
State, Hunt, Pros. v. ^Nlayor and 

Common Council of Rahway ( 39 

X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 646 [1877]), 

549, 557, 560, 642, 653, 693, 697, 

699. 894, 899, 923, 1277, 1282, 

1398. 
State ex rel. Embrce v. Rathbnn ( 22 

Wash. 651, 62 Pac. 85). 1199. 
State V. Rau (93 Mo. 126, 5 S. W. 

697), 125.3. 
State, Bonney, Pros. v. Reed (31 X. 

J. L. (2 Vr.) 133), 278, 322. 324, 

549, 563, 5(34, 585, 664, 1113. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Chapin 

V. Reis (38 Minn. 371, 38 X. W. 

97 [1888]), 698. 
State of ^linnesota ex rel. Stateler 

V. Reis (38 Minn. 371. 38 X. W. 

97 [1888] 1, 103, 104. 287. 370. 

666, 698. 709. 
State, Board of Cho~cn Freeholders 

of County of Hudson. Pros. v. 

Road Commissioners (41 X. J. L. 

(12 Vr.) 83 [1879]), 130. 248, 

537, 5.53, 066, 690, 691. 723. 726, 

735, 745, 983. 
State V. R(3bert P. Lewis Company 

(82 :Minn. 390. S.l X. W. 207. 86 

X. W. (ill), lot. 118. 350. 702. 

708. 
State V. Robert P. Lewis Company 

(72 Minn. 87, 42 L. R. A. 639, 75 

X. W. 108 [1898]), 104. 118, 350, 

549, 609. 630, 702, 708. 
State ex rel. v. Rogers (56 X. -J. L. 

(27 Vr.) 480. 23 L. R. A. 3.-)4. 28 

Atl. 726, 29 Atl. 173). 216. 



CCXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References ;ire to sectioii.s.] 



State, Raymond, Pros. v. Mayor and 

Council of Borough of Rutherford 

(55 N. J. L. (26 Vr.) 441, 27 Atl. 

172 [1893]), 118, 430, 476, 4S0, 

666, 699. 
State ex rel. Skrainka Construction 

Co. V. City of St. Louis ( — Mo. 

, Ill's. W. 89 [1908]), 553, 

631. 
State ex rel. Barber v. City of St. 

Louis (183 Mo. 230, 81 S. W. 

1104), 314, 624, 628, 631, 896, 962, 

956, 978, 1138. 
State of Missouri ex rel. Cavender v. 

City of St. Louis (56 Mo. 277 

[1874]). 324, 813, 859. 
State of Missouri ex rel. Cavender v. 

City of St. Louis (52 Mo. 574 

[1873]), 86, 118. 272. 
State ex rel. Greeley v. City of St. 

Louis (1 Mo. App. 503 [1876]), 

15, 557, 558, 748, 764, 766, 867, 

1353. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Oakland 

Cemetery Association v. City of 

St. Paul (36 Minn. 529, 32 X. W. 

781 [1887]), 592, 614. 
State of Minnesota ex rel. Cunning- 
ham V. Board of Public Works of 

the City of St. Paul (27 Minn. 

442, 8 X. W. 161 [1881]), 313, 

556, 670, 1405. 
State ex rel. Woulfe v. St. Paul ( 107 

La. 777, 32 So. 88 [1901-1902]), 

373, 374, 461, 508, 519. 540, 722, 

1469. 
State V. St. Paul 'M. & M. R. Co. 

(38 Minn. 246), 359. 
State V. St. Paul M. & M. R. Co. 

(35 Minn. 131, 59 Am. Rep. 313), 

359. 
State ex rel. Guye v. City of Seat- 
tle (— Wash.' , 95 Pac. 656 

[1908]), 73, 1346. 
State of Washington on Relation of 

Barber Asphalt Paving Company 

V. City of Seattle (42 Wash. 370, 

85 Pac. 11 [1906]), 301, 645. 75'), 

944, 956, 962. 1026. 
State V. Several Parcels of Land ( — 

Xeb. , 110 X. W. 753 [1907]), 

426. 556. 1005, 1033. 



State V. Several Parcels of Land ( — 

Xeb. , 113 X. W. 248 [1907]), 

549, 584, 619. 
State V. Several Parcels of Land ( — ■ 

Xeb. , 107 X. W. 566 [1906]), 

55, 323, 737, 765, 1299. 
State V. Shuflford (— Kan. . 94 

Pac. 137 [1908]), 1442. 
State, Essex Public Road Board, 

Pros. V. Skinkle (49 X. J. L. (20 

Vr.) 641, 10 Atl. 379 [1887]), 15. 
State V. Smith (99 Minn. 59, 108 

X. "W. 822 [1906]), 231, 359, 450. 
State ex rel. Smith (48 0. S. 211, 26 

X. E. 1069 [1891]), 189. 
State ex rel. Ely v. Smith ( 124 Ind. 

302, 24 X. E. Rep. 331 [1890]). 

886, 909. 978. 
State ex rel. Curtice v. Smith ( 177 

Mo. 69, 75 S. W. 625 [1903]), 

916, 1369. 
State ex rel. Lewis v. Smith ( 158 

Ind. 543, 63 L. R. A. 116, 63 X. 

E. 25, 214, 64 X. E. 18 [1901]), 3. 
State, Brown, Pros. v. Village of 

South Orange (49 X. J. L. (20 

Vr.) 104, 6 Atl. 312 [1886]), SOS. 

973. 
State, Souther, Pros. v. Village of 

'South Orange (46 X. J. L. (17 

Vr.) 317 [1884]), 266, 692, 894, 

956. 
State ex rel. Baltzell v. Stewart (74 

Wis. 620. 6 L. R. A. 394, 43 N. 

W. 947 [1889]), 5, 19, 93, 97, 134, 

191, 252, 294, 335, 420, 556, 557. 
State, App. Pros. v. Town of Stock- 
ton, in the County of Camden (61 

X. J. L. (32 Vr.)" 520, 39 A+l. 921 

[1898]), 781, 789, 800, 956, 8S1, 

1015. 
State ex rel. Monroe Gravel Road Co. 

v. Stout (61 Ind. 143 [1878]), 166, 

169, 322, 1469. 
State ex rel. City of Columbus v. 

Strader (25 O.' S. 527 [1874]), 

238, 431, 662. 
State ex rel. Burbank v. City of Su- 
perior (81 Wis. 649, 51 X. W. 

1014 [1892]), 245, 271, 663, 1469, 

1518. 



TABLE ''F CASES. 



CCXXlll 



[References are to sections, j 



State of Washington on the Relation 
of Matson v. Superior Court for 
Skagit County (42 Wash. 491. 85 
Pac. 264 [190b]), 63, 105, 196, 206. 
271, 340. 

State of Washington on the Relation 
of Nelson v. Superior Court of 
King County (31 Wash. 32, 71 
Pac. 601 [1903]), 1395. 

State of New York ex rel. Ready v. 
Mayor and Common Council of the 
City of Syracuse (65 Hun. 321, 29 
N. Y. Sup. 236 [1892]), 1469, 
1473. 

State of Maryland ex rel. Hender- 
son V. Taylor (59 Md. 338 [1882]), 
1088, 1163, 1211, 1471. 

State ex rel. Horrall v. Thompson 
(109 Ind. 533, 10 N. E. 305 
[1886]), 239, 583, 587, 1076. 

State ex rel. Ashby v. Three States 
Lumber Co. (19*8 Mo. 430, 95 S. 
W. 333 [1906]), 249, 265, 343, 556. 
566, 642, 910. 911. 1004. 

State ex rel. Hudd v. Tinime (4 Wis. 
318, 11 N. W. 785 [1882]), 216. 

State V. Toledo (48 0. S. 112, 26 N. 
E. 1061 [1891]), 189. 

State ex rel. Woods v. Tooker ( 15 
Mont. 8, 25 L. R. A. 560, 37 Pac. 
840), 216. 

State, Wilson, Pros. v. Trenton (53 
N. J. L. (24 Vr.) 178, 20 Atl. 738 
[1890]), 757. 

State, Semon, Pros. v. Inhabitants 
of the City of Trenton (47 N. J. 
L. (28 Vroom) 489, 4 Atl. Rep. 
312 [1885]), 806, 810, 884, 906. 

State, Johnson, Pros. v. Inhabitants 
of City of Trenton (43 N. J. L. 
(14 Vr.) 166 [1881]), 278, 314, 
475, 557, 690, 693, 894, 956, 975, 
1283. 

State, Wilkinson, Pros. v. Inhabit- 
ants of the City of Trenton (36 
N. J. L. (7 Vr.) 499 [1873]), 
1.30, 229, 726, 745, 894, 923, 1015, 
1277, 1282, 1396, 1401. 1407, 1408. 

State, Wilkinson, Pros. City of Tren- 
ton (35 N. J. L. (6 Vr.) 485 
[1872]), 77, 281, 885. 

State ex rel. v. Tufly (19 Nev. 391, 



3 Am. St. Rep. 895, 12 Pac. 835), 
216. 

State for use of Bringham v. Turvey, 
99 Ind. 599 [1884]), 1244. 

State, Estate of Brown, Pros. v. 
Town of Union (62 N. J. L. 142, 
40 Atl. 632 [1898] I. 79. 166, 167, 
172, 187, 617, 950. 

State, Schlapfer, Pros. v. Town of 
Union, in the County of Hudson 
(53 N. J. L. (24 Vr.) 67, 20 Atl. 
894 [1890]), 563, 658. 

State, Walter, Pros. v. Town of Un- 
ion, in County of Hudi^on (33 
N. J. L. (4 Vr.) 350 [18(59]), 166, 
195, 414, 677, 781, 799, 980, 983. 

State ex rel. Pope v. Town of 
Union (32 N. J. L. (3 Vr.) 
343 [1867]), 280, 765, 1402. 

State, Bergen County Savings Bank, 
Pros. V. Inhabitants of tlie Town- 
ship of Union (44 N. J. L. (15 
Vr.) 599 [1882]). 199. 332, 414, 
690, 956. 

State ex rel. Rader v. Townsliip of 
Union (44 N. J. L. (15 Vr. ) 259),' 
1113. 

State, Kingsland, Pros. v. Inhabi- 
tants of the Township of Union 
in the County of Bergen (37 N. 
J. L. (8 Vr.') 268 [1874]), 280, 
690, 894. 

State, Randolph, v. Union County 
Freeholders (63 N. J. (34 Vr.) 
155, 41 Atl. 960), 70. 

State, Mayor and Common Council 
of City of Newark, Pros. v. In- 
habitants of Verona Township (58 
N. J. L. (29 Vr.) 595, 33 Atl. 9.59 
[1896]), 80, 82, 696. 

State ex rel. Stotts v. Wall ( 153 
Mo. 216, 54 S. W. 465 [1899]). 
189, 343, 557, 673, 748, 885, 973. 
1008. 

State V. Wapello County (13 la. 
388), 365. 

State, Leuly, Pro.s, v. Town of West 
Hoboken (.53 N. J. L. (24 Vr.) 
64. 20 Atl. 737 [1890]), 747, 753, 
770, 983. 



CCXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sectious. ] 



State, Bue.-is, Pros. v. Town of West 

Hoboken (51 X. J. L. (22 Vr.) 

267, 17 Atl. 110 [1889]), 308, 690, 

092, 699, 723, 894. 
State, Winkler, Pros. v. Inhabitants 

of West Hoboken (37 N. J. L. (8 

Vr.) 406 [1875]), 956. 
State, Kerrigan^ Pros. v. Township 

of West Hoboken (37 N. J. L. (8 

Vr.) 77 [1874]), 391, 393, 394, 

396, 425, 569, 884, 893, 1409. 
State, Hutton, Pros. v. Inhabitants 

of the Township of West Orange 

(39 X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 453 [1877]), 

667, 691, 696, 709, 894. 
State V. Williams (68 Conn. 131, 4S 

L. R. A. 465, 35 Atl. 24, 421 

[1896]), 61, 292, 553, 664, 730, 

1473. 
State, Bowlcer, Pros. v. Weight ( 54 

N. J. L. (25 Vr.) 130, 23 Atl. 116 

[1891]), 280. 
State ex rel. v. Wurts (63 X. J. L. 

(34 Vr.) 289, 45 L. R. A. 251, 43 

Atl. 744), 216. 
State of Kansas ex rel. Shaw y 

Mayor and Aldermen of the City 

of Wyandotte (4 Kan. 430 

[1868]), 1471. 
State V. Young (29 Minn. 474, 9 X. 

W. 737), 216. 
Stebbins v. Kay (123 X". Y. 31, £5 

X. E. Rep. 207 [1890]), 223, 234, 

777, 904, 1190. 
Steckert v. City of East Saginaw 

(22 Mich. 104 [1870]), 264,^278, 

439, 570, 843. 864. 892, 1013. 
Steele v. Village of River Forest (141 

HI. 302, 30 N. E. 1034 [1893]), 

244, 403, 448, 572, 775, 776, 857, 

862. 
Steenberg v. People, Kochersperger 

(164 HI. 478, 45 X. E. Rep. 970 

[1897]), 856, 927, 929, 986, 996, 

1183, 1340. 
Steese v. Oviatt (24 0. S. 248 

[1873]), 133, 475, 496, 500, 503, 

821, 1085, 1421. 
SteflTen v. Fox (56 Mo. App. 9 

[1893]), 528. 
Steffen v. St. Louis (135 Mo. 44, 30 

S. W. 31), 1505. 
Steffins V. Stewart (53 Kan. 92, 30 



Pac. 55 [1894]), 541, 840, 862, 

1442. 
Stehmeyer v. City Council of 

Charleston (53 S. C. 259, 31 S. E. 

322 [1898]), 44, 86, 118, 159, 350. 
Steidl V. People ex rel. Alexander 

(173 111. 29, 50 X. E. 129 [1898]), 

1126, 1183, 1189, 1274, 1375. 
Steinacker v. Gest ( — Ky. , 89 

S. W. 481, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 573 

[1905]), 431, 628'. 
SteinmuUer v. City of Kansas City 

(3 Kan. App. 45, 44 Pac. 600 

[1896]), 781, 1440. 
Stephan v. Daniels (27 0. S. 527 

[1875]), 133, 977, 1484, 1496. 
Stephani v. Catholic Bishop of Chi' 

cago (2 Bradwell (111. 249 

[1878]), 3, 49, 1054. 
Stephens v. Guthrie (67 Ky. (4 

Bush.) 462 [1868]), 352, 1249. 
Stephens v. City of Spokane ( 14 

Wash. 298, 44 Pac. 541. 45 Pac. 

31 [1896]), 1511, 1513. 
Stephens v. City of Spokane (11 

Wash. 41, 39 Pac. 266 [1895]), 

238, 489, 1242, 1510, 1525. 
Stephenson v. Town of Salem ( 14 
' Ind. App. 386, 42 X. E. 44, 943 

[1895]), 735, 918, 1029. 
Sterling, City of v. Gait (117 111. 11, 

7 X. E. 471 [1887]), 11, 51, 153, 

295, 670, 715, 876, 1333. 
Sterrett School Sub-District v. City 

of Pittsburg (183 Pa. St. 225, 38 

Atl. 1103 [1897]), 1271. 
Stetler v. Mayor and Council of the 

Borough of East Rutherford ( 65 

X. J. L. (36 Vr.) 528, 47 Atl. 489 

[1900]), 1408. 
Stevens v. City of Port Huron ( 149 

Mich. 536, 113 X. W. 291 [1907]), 

370, 699. 
Stevens v. Templeton ( — Ind. , 

84 X. E. 148 [1908]), 87, 1348, 

1353. 
Steward v. City of Philadelphia to 

Use (Pa.) ('7 Atl. 192 [1880]), 

700. 
Stewart v. City of Detroit (137 

Mich. 381, 100 X. W. 613 [1904]), 

788, 812. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXV 



[References are to !<ections.] 



Stewart, Pros. v. Mayor and Com- 
mon Council of the City of Ho- 

boken (57 X. J. L. (28 Vr.) 330, 

31 Atl. 276 [1894]), 263, 1408. 
Stewart v. Board of Commissioners 

of Wyandotte Co. ( 45 Kan. 708, 

23 Am. St. Rep. 746, 26 Pac. 683 

[1891]), 1012, 1015, 1029, 1436. 
Stiewel v. Fencing District Xo. 6 of 

Johnson County (71 Ark. 17, 70 

S. W. 308, 71 S. W. 247 11903]), 

249, 363, 474, 475, 482, 495, 557, 

578, 582, 596, 598, 691, 697, 747, 

795, 800, 1285, 1337, 1372. 
S-tifel V. Brown (24 Mo. App. 102 

[1887]), 620, 629, 632, 683. 
Stifel V. Dougherty (6 Mo. App. 441 

[1879]), 837, 1284. 
Stifel V. MacManus (74 Mo. App. 

558 [1898]), 525, 604, 1153. 
Stifel V. Southern Cooperage Co. ( 38 

Mo. App. 340 [1889]). 1134. 
Stimson v. Hanley (151 Cal. 379. 90 

Pac. 9-15 [1907] ), 498. 
Stinson v. Smith (8 Minn. 36G 

[1863]), 8, 44, 86, 100, 104, 158, 

313, 690, 697. 
Stipp V. Claman (123 Ind. 532. 24 

X. E. 131), 266, 270. 
Stockton, City of v. Creanor (45 Cal. 

043 [1873]), 494, 498, 510, 84:), 

1290, 1331. 
Stockton, City of v. Dalil ( 06 Cal. 

377, 5 Pac. 682 [1885]), 1260, 

1272. 
Stockton. City of v. Dunham (59 

Cal. 608 [1881]), 887, 1382. 
Stockton V. Mayor and Common 

Council of Xewark (58 X. J. L. 

(29 Vr.) 116, 32 Atl. Rep. 67 

[1895]), 986, 1405, 1409. 
Stockton, City of v. Skinner (53 Cal. 

85 [1878])', 490, 821. 
Stockton, Cit.v of v. Whitmore (50 

Cal. 554 [1875]), 223, 234, 510, 

840. 
Stoddard v. Johnson 1 75 Tnd. 20 

[1881]), 568, 790, 798, 1442. 
Stone V. Street C'ommissiiinors of 

Boston (192 Mass. 297, 78 X. E. 

478 [1906]), 166, 168. 
Stone V. City of Chicatro (218 111. 

348, 75 X.' E. 980 [1905]), 1369. 



Stone V. Little Yellow Drainage Dis- 
trict (118 Wis. 388, 95 X. W. 405 

[1903]), 119, 123, 126, 134, 340, 

732, 738, 952, 955. 
Stone V. Mississippi (101 U. S. 814, 

25 L. 1079 [1879]), 92. 
Stone V. Viele (38 O. S. 314 

[1882]), 527, 1196, 1433, 1446. 
Storer v. City of Cincinnati (4 Ohio 

C. C. 279 "[1889]), 685, 769, 783, 

1013, 1015. 
Storms V. Stevens (104 Ind. 46, 3 

X, E. 401 [1885]), 475, 1103, 1125. 
Storrie v. Cortes (90 Tex. 283, 35 

L. R. A. 668, 38 S. W. 154 

[1896]), 42, 174, 213, 007, 1041, 

1079. 
Storrie v. Houston City Street Rail- 

Avay Co. (92 Tex. 129, 44 L. R. A. 

716, 46 S. W. 796 [1898] ), GO, 145, 

164, 166, 172, 223, 234. 314, 475, 

599, 775, 886, 1068, 1103. 
Storrs V. City of Chicago (208 III. 

364, 70 X. E. 347 [1904]), 267, 

555, 571. 
Stout V. Xoblesville and Eagletown 

Gravel Road Co. (83 Ind. 466 

[1882]), 1098. 
Stowell V. Milwaukee (31 Wis. 523 

[1872]), 11, 65, 73, 313, 420, 428, 

657, 661. 
Strachan v. Brown (39 :\Iich. 168 

[1878]), 278. 
Strafford v. Sharon (61 Vt. 126, 4 

L. R. A. 499, 17 Atl. 793, IS All, 

308), 170. 
Strassheim v. Jerman (56 Mo. 104 

[1874]), 522, 541, 570. 867, 871, 

1040, 1373, 1383. 
Strauss v. City (23 W. L. B. 359 

[1890]), 1346. 
Street Opening, -Board of. (Sea 

Board of Street Opening.) 
Streuter v. Willow Creek Drainage 

District (72 111. App. 561 [1897]), 

247, 340, 564, 566, 1008. 
Strickland v. City of Stillwater (63 

Minn. 43, 65 X. W. 131 [1895]), 

525, 526, 1490. 
Strieb v. Cox (111 Ind. 299, 12 X. 

E. 481 [1887]). 986. 1030. 1031. 
Striker, In the :\latter of (23 Ilun 

(X. Y.) 647 [1880]), 1461. 



CCXXVl 



T^VBLE OF CASES. 



[Refereucess are to sections.] 



Striker's Petition to Have State As- 
sessment Vacated, In the Matter 
of (10 Hun (N. Y.) 308 [1877]), 
,1090. 

Striker v. Kelley (7 Hill (N. Y.) 
9 [1844]), 100, 206, 1150, 1297. 

Striker v. Kelly (2 Denio (N. Y.) 
323 [Court of Errors, 1845]), 206, 
271, 1150, 1202, 1297. 

Strosser v. City of Fort Wayne (100 
Ind. 443 [1884]), 726, 735, 770, 
1015. 

Stroud V. City of Philadelphia (61 
Pa. St. 255 [1869]), 100, 308. 

Strout V. City of Portland (26 Ore. 
294, 38 Pac. Rep. 126 [1894]), 
1013, 1017. 

Strowbridge v. City of Portland (8 
Or. 67 [1879]), 135, 324, 415, 550, 
555, 732, 872. 

Strusburgh v. Mayor, Aldermen and 
Commonalty of the City of New- 
York (87 N. Y. 452 [1882]), 1488. 

Strusburgh v. Mayor, Aldermen and 
'Commonalty of" the City of New 
York (45 N. Y. Sup. Ct. Eep. 508 
[1879]), 1486. 

Stuart V. Palmer (74 N. Y. 183, 30 
Am. Rep. 289 [1878]), 11, 115, 
119, 121, 122, 125, 135, 549, 726, 
728, 729, 732, 961, 964, 1425. 

Stuart V. Palmer (10 Hun 23 
[1877]), 726. 

Studebaker v. Studebaker (152 Ind. 
89, 51 N. E. 933 [1898]), 531, 532, 
1433, 1444. 

Stutsman v. City of Burlington, 
Iowa (127 la. 563, 103 N. W. 800 
[1905]), 651, 653, 666, 680, 682, 
895. 

Succession of Irwin ( 33 La. Ann. 63 
[1881]). (See Irwin, Succession 
of.) 

Sullivan v. Haug (82 Mich. 548, 10 
L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 795), 142, 
1347. • 

Sullivan v. Mier (67 Cal. 264, 7 Pac. 

691 [1885]), 207, 1208, 1209. 
Sullivan v. North Hudson County 
Railroad Company (51 N. J. L. 
518, 18 Atl. 689 [1889]). 65, 66. 
Sullivan v. O'-eeon Ry. aur) Nav. Co. 
(19 Or. 319, 24 Pac. 408), 363. 



Sumner v. Village of Milford (214 

111. 388, 73 N. E. 742 [1905J ), 278, 

279, 801, 927, 931, 1085, 1391. 
Sunier v. Miller (105 Ind. 393, 4 N. 

E. 867 [1885]), 726, 735, 770, 771, 

772, 1029, 1030, 1414, 1431, 1432. 
Surget v. Chase (33 La. Ann. 833 

[1881]), 86, 196, 212, 223, 244, 

245. 
Surgi v. Snetchman (11 La. Ann. 

387 [1856]), 155, 314, 624. 
Sutphin v. Inhabitants of the City 

of Trenton (31 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew- 
art) 468 [1879]), 884, 894, 1179. 
Sutton's Heirs v. Louisville (35 Ky. 

(5 Dana) 28 [1837]), 69, 100, 

154, 701, 710, 1039, 1056. 
Sutton v. School City of Montpelier 

(28 Ind. App. 315, 62 N. E. 710 

[1902].), 586. 
Swain v. Fulmer (135 Ind. 8, 34 N. 

E. 039 [1893]), 119, 121, 324, 727, 

72C. 
Swamp Land District No. 207 v. 

Glide (112 Cal. 85, 44 Pac. 451 

[1896]), 340, 724, 886, 918, 1085, 

1113, 1375. 
Swamp Land District No. 307 v. 

Gwynn (70 Cal. 566, 12 Pac. 462 

[1886]), 278, 340, 899, 901, 951, 

1086. 
Swamp Land District No. 150 v. 

Silver (98 Cal. 51, 32 Pac. 866 

[1893]), 180, 246, 247, 254, 340, 

341, 449, 1301. 
Swan Creek, Township of v. Brown 

(130 Mich. 382, 90 N. W. 38), 

1394. 
Swan Point Cemetery v. Tripp (14 

R. I. 199 [1883]), 614. 
Swanson v. City of Ottumwa (118 

Iowa 161, 59 L. R. A. 620, 91 N. 

W. 1048 [1902]), 36, 50, 507. 
Sweet V. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (177 111. 492. 53- N. E. 

74 [1899]), 416, 423, 873, 920, 

922, 1328, 1390. 
Sweeten v. City of Millville (— N. 

J. , 66 Atl. 923 [1907]), 509, 

1500. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXVll 



{References are to sections.] 



Swenson v. Board of Supervisors of 

Town of Hallock (95 Minn. 161, 

103 X. W. 895 [1905]), 417, 418, 

652, 657. 
Swift V. City of St. Louis {180 Mo. 

80, 79 S. \\. 172 [1904]), 515, 807. 
Swindler v. Monrovia & Belleville 

Gravel Road Co. (33 Ind. 160 

[1870]), 1384. 
Syenite Granite Co. v. Bobb (37 Mo. 

App. 483 [1889]), 1161, 1369. 



Taber v. Ferguson (109 Ind 227, 9 
X. E. 723 [1886]), 301, 500, 831, 
843, 858, 868, 877, 1015, 1019, 
1227, 1237, 1303, 1337. 

Taber v. Grafmiller (109 Ind. 206, 
9 X\ E. 721 [1886]), 267, 323, 432, 
610, 814, 821, 831, 843. 

Tacoma Land Co. v. City of Tacoma 
(15 Wash. 133, 45 Pac. 733 
[1896]), 670, 771, 1010, 1011, 
1012, 1471. 

Talbot V. Blacklege (22 la. 572 
[1867]), 363. 

Talbott V. Town of Xew 

Ind. , 81 X''. 

542. 

Talcott Brothers v 

470, 78 X\ W. 39 [1899]), 314, 
1043, 1065, 1085, 1164. 1503. 

Tallant v. City of Burlington (39 la. 
543 [1874])', 40, 50, 783, 843, 1015, 
1035, 1436, 1483, 1484. 

Tallman v. City of .Tanesville (17 
Wis. 71 [1863]), 971. 

Tappan to Vacate Certain Assess- 
ments, In tlie Matter of the Ap- 
plication of (54 Barb (X'. Y.) 225 
[18(19]), 194, 195, 233, 244, 342, 
469, 663, 888, 775, 911. 

Tappan, to Vacate Certain Assess- 
ments, In the Matter of ( 36 How. 
(X. Y.) 390 [1869]), 233, 453, 
468, 469, 911. 

Tappan v. Board of Street Commis- 
sioners of Boston (193 Mass. 498, 
79 X. E. 796 [1907]), 950. 

Tappan v. Young (9 Daly (X". Y.) 
357 [1880]), 741, 766, 860. 



Castle ( — 
E. 724 [1907]), 

Xoel (107 la. 



Tarentum Borough v. Moorhead (26 

Pa. Super. Ct. 273 [1904]), 495, 

1063. 
Tarman v. City of Atchison (69 

Kan. 483, 77 Pac. Ill [1904]), 

781. 
Taylor v. City of Bloomington ( 186 

111. 497, 58 X. E. 216 [1900]), 

781, 791. 
Taylor v. Boyd (63 Tex. 533 

[1885]), 39, 43, 118, 145, 147, 148, 

244, 245, 301, 620, 678, 713, 738, 

895, 951, 1135, 1141, 1215, 1218. 

1295, 1299. 
Taylor v. Brown ( 127 Ind. 293, 26 

X. E. 822 [1890]), 840, 1312. 
Taylor v. Burnap (39 Mich. 739 

'[1878]), 271, 272, 278, 340, 735, 

747, 1013, 1402, 1408. 
Taylor, McBean & Co. v. Chandler 

(9 Heisk. (56 Tenn.) 349, 24 Am. 

Rep. 308 [1872]), 32, 35, 44, 56, 

96, 113, 145, 160, 420. 
Taylor v. Conner (31 Cal. 481 

[1866]), 223, 234, 887, 888, 889. 
Ta.vlor V. Crawford (72 0. -S. 5i;0, 

09 L. R. A. 805, 74 X. E. I()(i5 

[1905]), 93, 97, 119, 142, 373, 375, 

860. 
Taylor v. Cit.v of Crawfordsville 

(155 Ind. 403. 58 X;. E. 490), 620. 
Taylor v. City of Haverhill (192 

Mass. 287, 78 X. E. 475 [1906]), 

324, 563, 1347. 
Taylor v. Lake Shore & ^Michiga:! 

Southern Railroad Co. (45 Mich. 

74, 40 Am. Rep. 457, 7 X^ W. 728 

[1881]), 58. 
Taylor v. Palmer (31 Cal. 240 

il8()6]). 11, 35. 147, 148, 174, 

228, 242. 414. 490, 538, 763, 835, 

836. 807, 1042. 1049, 1151. 1215. 

1216, 1358, 1378. 
Taylor v. Patton (100 Ind. 4, (iC X. 

E. 91 [1902]), 1015, 1019, 1038, 

1242. 
Taylor v. People ex rel. Reed ( 66 

ill. 322 [1872]). 223, 234, 584, 

1017, 1075, 1206. 
Taylor v. Schroeder ( — ^lo. App. 

^ . 110 S. W. 26 [1908]), 515, 

1332, 1337. 



CCXXVUl 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Tylor V. Strayer (167 Ind. 2.3, 78 
N. E. 236 [1906]), 206, 340, 449, 
950. 

Taylor v. Village of Wapakoneta 
(26 Ohio C. C. 285 [1904]), 324, 
432, 503, 525, 527, 571, 674, 700, 
821, 1431, 1432. 

Tebault v. City of New Orleans ( 108 
La. 686, 32 So. 983, 46 La. Ann. 
1292, 16 So. 219), 3, 46, 1369. 

Teegarden v. Davis (36 0. S. 601 
[1881]), 1028, 1420, 1436. 

Teegarden v. City of Racine (56 
Wis. 545, 14 x! W. 614 [1883]), 
142, 163, 360, 555, 670, 674, 1352. 

Temple v. Hamilton County ( 134 la. 
706, 112 N. W. 174 [1907]). 690. 
909. 

Ten Eyck v. Rector and Inhabitants 
of the City of Albany in Commun- 
ion with the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the State of New York 
(65 Hun 194, 20 N. Y. Supp. 757 
[1892]), 381, 1054. 

Terre Haute, City of v. Blake (9 
Ind. App. 403, 36 N. E. 932 
[1893]), 239, 1519. 

Terre Haute & L. Ry. Co. v. Ear- 
hart (35 Ind. App. 56, 73 N. E. 
711 [1905]), 363. 

Terre Haute & Logansport Ry. Co. 
V. Erdell (163 Ind. 348, 71 N. E. 
960 [1904]), 363. 

Terre Haute & Logansport Ry. Co. 
V. Town of Flora (29 Ind. App. 
442, 64 N. E. 648 [1902]), 1519. 

Terre Haute, City of v. Mack (139 
Ind. 99, 38 N. E. 468), 626, 629. 
630, 1432. 

Terre Haute & Logansport Ry. Co. 
V. Salmon (161 Ind. 131, 67 N. E. 
918 [1903]), 363. 

Terre Haute and Logansport Rail- 
road Company v. Soice ( 128 Ind. 
105, 27 N. E. 429 [1890] ^ 375, 
1030, 1047, 1414, 1431, 1444. 

Terrell v. Hart (— Ky. , 90 S. 

W. 953, 28 Ky. L. R^ 901 [1906]), 
392, 395, 615' 

Terrell v. City of Paducah (— Ky. 

, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 289, 92 

S. \V. 310, 28 Ky. L. R. 1237 
[1906]), 362, 431, 1498. 



Terry v. City of Hartford (39 Conn. 
286 [1872]), 70, 308, 632. 

Texarkana, Board of Improvement 
District Number Five of v. Offen- 
hauser (84 Ark. 257, 105 S. W. 
205 [1907]), 1220. See Improve- 
ment Board v. . ) 

Texas v. . ( See Statj 



of Texas v. 



Texas Central R. Co. v. Childress 
(64 Tex. 346), 363. 

Texas & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Mat- 
thews (60 Tex. 215 [1883]), 70. 

Texas Transportation Co. v. Boyfl 
<67 Tex. 153, 2 S. W. 364), 147. 

Thaler v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (174 111. 211, 52 N. E. 
116 [1898]), 424, 526, 837. 

Thayer v. City of Grand Rapids (82 
Mich. 298, 46 N. W. 228 [1890]), 
223, 469, 470. 526. 569, 952, 955. 
1490. 

Thayer Lumber Co. v. City of Mus- 
kegon (— Mich. , 115 N. W. 

957 [1908]), 270, 750, 1414, 1432, 
1437. 

Theobald v. Sylvester (27 Pa. Super. 
Ct. 362), 353, 1047. 

Theresa Drainage District, In re (90 
Wis. 301, 63 N. W. 288), 291, 337. 

Third Street, Matter of (6 Cowen 
(N. Y.) 571 [1827]), 206. 

Thomas v. City of Chicago (204 111. 
611, 68 N. E. 653 [1903]), 393, 
825, 920. 

Thomas v. City of Chicago ( 152 111. 
292, 38 N. E. 923 [1894]), 653, 
655, 908, 922, 1309, 1323, 1328, 
1375, 1382. 

Thomas v. Evans (105 N. Y. 601, 
59 Am. Rep. 519, 12 N. E. 571), 
1055. 

Thomas v. Gain (35 Mich. 155, 24 
Am. Rep. 535 [1876]), 11, 118, 
119. C53, 666, 674, 711, 726, 735, 
1426, 1427, 1443. 

Thomas v. Hooker-Colville Steam 
Pump Company (22 Mo. App. 8 
[1886]), 49, 50, 1054. 

Thomas v. Leland (24 Wend. (N. 
Y.) 65 [1840]), 36, 252, 361, 548. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxxix 



[References are to sections.] 



Thomas v. City of Olympia ( 12 

W^-sh. 465, 41 Pac. 191 [1895]), 

1510, 1513. 
Thomas v. Portland (40 Or. 50, G6 

Pac. 439 [1901]), 414, 905, 971, 

983. 
Tliomas v. \^ alker Township Board 

(116 Mich. 597, 74 X. W. Rep. 

1048 [1898]), 1348, 1390. 
Thomas v. Woods (— Ky. , 108 

S. W. 878 [1898]), 287, 462, 844. 
Thomason v. Ashworth ( 73 C'al. 73, 

14 Pac. 615 [1887]), 180, 215, 

216, 221, 227, 245, 500. 
Thomason v. Carroll (132 Cal. 148, 

64 Pac. 262 [1901]), 735, 740, 

805, 808, 809, 810. 
Thomason v. Ciineo (119 Cal. 25, 50 

Pac. 846 [1897] ), 551, 555. 
Thomason v. Ruggles { 69 Cal. 465, 

11 Pac. 20 [1886]), 216, 223, 506, 

950. 
Thompi^on v. City of Chicago ( 197 

III. 599, 64 X. E. 392 [1902]), 

469, 909, 1389. 
Thompson v. City of Detroit (114 

Mich. 502, 72 X. W. 320 [1897]), 

902, 936, 1482, 1485. 
Thompson v. Goldthwait ( 132 Ind. 

20, 31 X. E. 451 [1892]), 269, 322. 
Thompson v. Harlow ( 150 Ind. 450, 

50 X. E. 474), 1444. 
Thompson v. City of Highland Park 

(187 111. 265, 58 N. E. 328 

[1900]), 305, 314, 431, 909. 
Thompson v. Hode (30 Cal. 180 

[1866]), 835. 
Thompson v. Honey Creek Draining 

Company (33 Ind. 2G8 [1870]), 

884, 902, 905, 1244. 
Thompson v. Lapworth ( L. R. 3 C. 

P. 149), 1054. 
Thompson v. Love (42 0. S. 61 

[1884]). 2C9. 322, 588, 739, 754, 

785, 786, 788. 
Thompson v. Mitcliell (133 Iowa 

527. 110 X. W. 901 [1907]), 9G1, 

1035, 1431, 1434, 1436. 
Thompson v. People ex rel. Ilanberg 

(207 111. 334, 69 N. E. 842 

[1904]), 469, 820, 909, 927, 928, 

932, 986, 993, 996, 1390. 



Thompson v. Schermerhorn ( 6 X. Y. 

92, 55 Am. Dec. 385 [1851]), 53, 

55, 864, 867. 
Thompson v. Schermerliorn ( 9 Barb. 

(X. Y.) 152 [1850]), 864. 
Thompson v. Treasurer of Wood 

County (11 0. S. 678 [I860]), 86, 

147, 335, 340. 
Thomson v. City of Detroit (114 

Mich. 502, 72 X. W. 320 [1897]), 

927. 
Thomson v. People ex rel. Foote ( 184 

111. 17, 56 X. E. 383 [1900]), 301, 

527, 604, 640, 897, 927, 938, 987. 

1000. 
Thorn v. West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners (130 111. ,594, 22 X. E. 

520 [1890]), 234, 266, 305, 620. 

780, 787, 911, 916, 923, 1279. 
Thornton v. Cincinnati (26 Ohio C. 

C. 33 [1904]), 666. 1012, 1033. 
Thornton v. City of Clinton (148 

Mo. 648, 50 S. W. 295), 575, 582, 

665, 666, 709, 714, 1113, 1211, 

1498, 1505, 1506, 1508. 
Thome v. Rutland R. Co. (27 Vt. 

140, 62 Am. Dec. 625), 363. 
Thurston v. City of Elmira ( 10 Aiih. 

Pr. (X. S.) 119 [1868]), 280, .509. 

1411, 1423, 1432, 1442. 
Tidewater Co. v. Coster ( 18 X. J. 

E. (3 C. E. Green) 518, 90 Am. 

Dec. 634), 34, 113, 255, 665. 
Tifft V. City of BulValo (82 X. Y. 

204 [1880]), 100, 956, 980, 983. 
Tilestone v. Street Commissioners of 

City of Boston (182 Mass. 325, 65 

X. E. 380 [1902]), 1406, 1407. 
Tilden v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (56* Barb. (N. Y.) 340 

' [1870]), 166, 172, 381, 1425. 1427. 

Tillie V. Mitchell (— Ky. , 102 

S. W. 263 [1907]), 1371. 
Tillman v. Kircher (64 Ind. 104 

[1878]), 335, 337, 549, 564, 1278. 
Tinnio v. Village of Port Chester 

(101 X. Y. 294, 4 X. E. 625 

[1S8G]), 196, 755, 801, 823, 957, 

958, 986, 1450. 
Tipton, ""own of v. Jones (77 Ind. 

307 [18-111, 1518. 



ccxxx 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. 

City of Chicago (162 111. 505, 44 

N, E. 832 [1896]), 417, 418, 444, 

563, 633, 652, 857, 864, 920, 921. 
Titus V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. 

Paul Ry. Co. ( 128 la. 194, 103 N. 

W. 343), 363. 
Tober v. City of Chicago (164 111. 

572, 45 N.' E. 1010 [1897]). 720, 

763, 764, 772, 913, 927, 933, 986, 

996, 1379. 
Todd V. City of Atchison (9 Kan. 

App. 251),' 59 Pac. 676 [1900]), 8, 

89. 
Todd V. Kankakee & Illinois River 

Railroad Company (78 111. 530 

[1875]), 72. 
Todd V. McFarland (20 App. D. C. 

170 [1902]), 244, 983, 1112, 1382. 
Toledo V. Aiasworth (7 Ohio X. P. 

391 [1900]), 704. 
Toledo, City of, for Use v. Beaumont 

(3 Ohio X. P. 287 [1895]), 549, 

565, 575, 674. 
Toledo, City of v. Board of Educa- 
tion (48 0. S. 83, 26 X. E. 403 

[1891]), 580, 586, 1077. 
Toledo, City of, for the Use of Gates • 

V. Brown (2 Ohio X. P. 45 

[1895]), 563. 
Toledo, City of, for Use of Iloran v, 

Barnes (1 Ohio X. P. 187 [1894]), 

392, 395, 396, 1330. 
Toledo, City of v. Ford (20 Ohio C. 

C. 290 [1900]), 324, 327, 440, 555, 

563, 670, 1005. 
Toledo, City of v. Goulden ( 10 Ohio 

C. C. 161 [1895]), 1515. 
Toledo for Use v. Grasser ( 7 Ohio 

X. P. 396 [1883]), 535. 
Toledo, Cit.y of, for the Use of Gates 

V. Kohn "(2 Ohio X. P. 47 [1895]"), 

563. 
Toledo, City of, for the Use of Gates 

V. Lake Shore & Michigan South- 
ern Railwa.y Company (4 Ohio C. 

C. 113 [1889]), 38, 86, 264, 268, 

563, 663, 679, 686, 700, 747, 813, 

821, 823, 844. 
Toledo V. McGlynn (67 O. S. 498, 67 

X. E. 1103), 313. 
Toledo, City of v. McMahon (9 Ohio 

C. C. 194 [1894]), 740. 



Toledo, City of v. ^larlow (75 0. S. 

574, 80 X. E. 1124 [1906]), 680, 

687, 950. 
Toledo, City of v. Piatt (2 Ohio X. 

P. 304), 1109. 
Toledo V. Potter ( 19 Ohio C. C. 661 

[1893]), 563, 648, 723. 
Toledo, City of v. Sheill (53 0. S. 

447, 30 L. R. A. 598^ 42 X. E. 323 

[1895]), 561, 625. 
Toledo, St. Louis & Western Rail- 
road Co. V. People ex rel. (226 111. 

557, SO X. E. 1059 [1907]), 22. 
Toledo, St. Louis and Western Rail- 
road V. People ex rel. Brown ( 225 

111. 425, 80 X. E. 283 [1907]), 

322. 
Tomlinson v. Bainaka (163 Ind. 112, 

70 X. E. 155 [1904]), 111, 363. 
Tompkins v. Village of Xorwood ( 18 

Ohio C. C. 883 [1897]), 561, 625, 

704. 
Ton V. City of Chicago (216 111. 331, 

74 X. E. 1044 [1905]), 86, 295, 

298, 523, 741. 
Tonawanda v. Lyon (181 U. S. 389, 

45 L. 908, 21 "S. 609 [1901]), 118, 

570, 702. 
Tone V. Columbus (39 0. S. 281, 48 

Am. Rep. 438 [1883]), 33, 1012, 

1013. 
Tone V. The Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of Xew York (6 Daly 

(X. Y.) 343 [1876]), 910. 1518. " 
Toolan v. Longyear ( 144 Mich. 55, 

107 X. W. 699 [1906]), 119. 
Topeka, City of v. Gage ( 44 Kan. 

87, 24 Pac. 82 [1890]), 141, 570, 

1337. 
Topliff V. City of Chicago (196 111. 

215, 63 X. E. 692 [1902]), 293, 

295, 437, 672, 690, 865, 1381. 
Torrey v. Wallis (57 Mass. (3 

Cush.) 442 [1849]), 1054. 
Tournier v. ^Municipality Xo. 1 (5 

La. Ann. 298 [1850]"), 323, 663, 

1509. 
Towne v. Salentine (92 Wis. 404, 66 

X. W\ 395 [1896]), 895, 1175, 

1196, 1201. 
Townsend v. Citv of Manistee (8S 

Mich. 408, 50 X. W. 321 [1891]),, 

663, 738, 851, 902, 1434. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXXl 



[References are to sections.] 



Traction Co. v. Board of Public 

Works (50 X. J. L. (27 Vr.) 431, 

29 Atl. 1G3), 280. 
Traders' Bank v. Payne (31 ^Mo. App. 

512), 530. 
Trail V. Village of Grant Park (192 

III. 351, 61 X. E. 442 [1901]), 

785, 789. 
Traphagen v. Township of West Ilo- 

boken (39 X. J. L. (10 Vr.) 232, 

[1877]), 141. 
Treacy to Vacate an Assessment, In 

the Matter of the Petition of (59 

Barb. (X. Y. ) 525 [1871]), IGti. 

1G7. 
Treanor v. Houton ( 103 Cal. 53, 3G 

Pac. 1081 [1894]), 301. 522, 574, 

666, 698, 1030, 1236, 1238, 1337. 
Treasurer of City of Camden v. Mul- 

ford (26 X. J. L. (2 Dutcher) 49 

[1856]), 1003, 1394. 
Treat v. City of Chicago ( 130 Fed. 

443, 64 C. C. A. 645 [1904]). 818, 

998, 1015, 1022, 1035, 1183, 1435, 

1436. 
Treat v. City of Chicago (125 Fed. 

644), 818, 998, 1035, 1183^ 1435, 

1436. 
Treat v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(195 111. 196, 62 X. E. 891 

[1902]), 514. 
Trcgea v. Modesto Irrigation Dis- 
trict (164 U. S. 179, 41 L. 395, 

17 S. 52 [1896]). 129, 1370, 1477. 
Tregea v. Owens (94 Cal. 317, 29 

Pac. 643 [1892]), 48, 221, 355, 

697, 780, 1496. 
Trenton, The Town of v. Coyle ( 107 

Mo. 193, 17 S. W. 643 [1891]). 

234, 837, 838, 875. 
Trenton, City of, ex rel. Gardner v. 

Collii^r (68 Mo. App. 483 [189(1]), 

510, 747, 763, 813, 817, 859, 804. 
Trephagen v. City of South Omaha 

(09 Xeb. 577, 90 X. W. 248 

[1903]), 223, 372, 459. 717. 775. 
Trigger v. Drainage District Xo. 1. 

etc. (193 111. 230, 61 X. E. 1114 

[1901]), 202, 271, 272, 278, 281, 

340. 557, 558, 564, 918, 921. 947, 

1008, 1027, 1281, 1283. 1325. 1337. 
Trimble v. McGee (112 Ind. 307. 14 

X. E. S3 [1887]). 375. 10S5, 1414. 

1431. 



Trimmer v. City of Rochester ( 130 

X. Y. 401, 29 X. E. 746 [1892]), 

995, 1456, 1487, 1488, 1492. 
Trinity Church v. Cook (11 Abb. 

Prac. 371 [1800]), 1054. 
Trinity Church. Rector of v. Hig- 

gins (27 X. Y. Su]). C t. Rep. 1 

[1800] 1, 279, 832, 1054. 
Trinity College v. City <jf Hartford 

(32 Conn. 452 [1805]), 70, 308. 
Tripler v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (139*X. Y. 1, .34 X. E. 729 
Tripler v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (125 X. Y. 617, *26 X. E. 

721), 482, 826, 1478, 1484, 1497. 
Tripler v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of Xew 

York (53 Hun (X. Y.)* 36, 6 N. 

Y. Supp. 48 [1889]), 1478. 1497. 
Tripler v. Mayor, etc., of Xew York 

(20 Abb. (X. C.) 325 [1891]), 

1484. 
Tripp V. City of Yankton ( 10 S. D. 

510, 74 X. W. 447 [1898]), 96. 

118, 135, 147, 323, 355, 420, 562, 

032, 660, 698, 703, 709, 732. 
Trowbridge v. City of Detroit (99 

Mich. 443, 58 X." W. 308 [1894]), 

200, 308. 
Troy & Lansingburgh Railroad Com- 
pany V. Kane (9 Hun (X. Y.) 506 

[1877]). 603. 
Troyer v. Dyar (102 Ind. 390, 1 X. 

E. 728 [1885]), 887. 1028, 1445. 
Trustees v. Atlanta (70 Ga. 181), 

588. 
Trustees of Belleview v. Hohn (82 

Ky. 1 [1884]), 1499. 
Trustees v. McConnel (12 111. 138 

[1S50]), 42. 
Trustees of v. 

— . ( See name 



of organization.) 
Tucker v. People ex rel. Wall ( 150 

111. 108. 40 X. E. 4.)1 [1895]). 

244. 254, 340, 777. 1008, 1183, 

1337, 1477. 
Tucker v. Sellers (130 Ind. 514. 30 

X. E. 531 [1891]). 7:]5, 745. 747, 

795. 873, 910, 952. 955. 969. 1502. 



CCXXXll 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[lieferenees are to sections.] 



Tulare Irrigation District v. Shep- 

ard (185 U. S. 1, 46 L. 773, 22 

S. 531 [1902]), 234, 1502. 
Tull V. Royston (30 Kan. 617, 2 

Pac. 866 [1883]), 1022, 1067, 

1272. 
Tuller V. City of Detroit (126 Mich. 

605, 85 N. W. 1080 [1901]), 1015. 
Tunuvater, Town of v. Pix (IS 

Wash. 153, 51 Pac. 353 [1897]), 

416, 482, 551, 714, 724, 933, 965, 

969, 1026, 1237, 1337. 
Tunbridge v. Pvoyalton (58 Vt. 212 

[1885]), Gl, 359, 450, 636, 
Turfler's Case (19 Abb. Prac. IJO 

[1865]), 584, 663, 884, 941. 
Turfler, In the Matter of (44 Baib. 

46 [1865]), 584, 663, 884, 941, 

984. 
Turley v. The People ex rel. IMay- 

fiekl (116 111. 433, 6 X. E. 52 

[1887]), 897, 918, 1358, 1360. 
Turner v. Lay (163 Ind. 103, 71 X. 

E. 217 [1904]), 909. 
Turner v. Pievere Water Co. (171 

Mass. 329, 68 Am. St. Rep. 432, 40 

L. Pv. A. 657, 50 X. E. 634), 1072. 
Turner v. Snyder (101 Minn. 481, 

112 X. W. 868 [1907]), 215, 776. 
Turner v. City of Springfield (117 

Mo. App. 418, 93 S. W. 867 

[1906]), 510. 
Turner v. Thorntown and ^lechanics- 

burg Gravel Road Co. (33 Ind. 

317 [1870]), 255, 332, 551, 629, 

859, 1432. 
Turnquist v. Cai?s County Drain 

■Commissioners (11 X. D. 514, 92 

X. W. 852 [1902]). 196, 266, 340, 

472, 556, 674, 1005, 1007, 1012, 

1015, 1430, 1436. 
Turpin v. Eagle Creek Gravel Road 

Co. (48 Ind. 45), 86, 322. 
Turpin v. Lemon (187 U. S. 51, 23 

0. S. 20 [1902]), 115, 119. 726. 

768. 
Turrill v. Grattan (52 Cal. 97 

[1877]), 781, 798. 
Tusting V. City of Asbury Park ( — 

N. J. , 62 Atl. 183 [1905]), 

690, 1015, 1403, 1408, 1409. 
Tuthill for the Appointment of Com- 
missioners to Drain Certain Wet 



and Low Lands in the Towns of 
Chester and Blooming Grove in 
Orange County, In the Matter of 
the Petition of ( 163 X. Y. 133, 79 
Am. St. Rep. 574, 49 L. R. A. 781, 
57 X. E. 303 [1900]), 117, 337. 

Tuttle V. Polk and Hubbel (92 la. 
433, 60 X. W. 733 [1894]), 182, 
209, 314, 507, 525, 927, 1026, 1105. 
1106, 1295, 1504. 

Tuttle V. Polk and Hubble (84 la. 
12, 50 X. W. 38), 868, 956, 962, 
975, 1026, 1105, 1108. 

Tweed v. Metealf (4 Mich. 590 
[1854]), 958. 

Twenty-fourth Street, In the Matter 
of the Sewer in (31 Howard (X. 
Y.) 42 [1863]), 1457. 

Tyler v. Beacher (44 Vt. 648, 8 Am. 
^Rep. 398 [1871]), 117. 

Tyler v. City of Columbus (6 Ohio 
C. C. 224 [1892]), 1444. 

Tyler v. City of St. Louis (50 Mo. 
'go [1874]), 118, 676, 677, 709. 

Tyler v. Shea (4 X. D. 278, 50 Am. 
St. Rep. 660, 61 X. W. 468), 272. 

Tyson v. City of ^Milwaukee ( 50 Wis. 
78, 5 X. W. 914 [1880]), 1524. 



u 



LHirig V. City of St. Louis (44 Mo. 

458 [1869]), 86, 118. 
Ulm V. Cincinnati (7 Ohio X. P. 278 

[1900]), 1015, 1346. 
Ulman v. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (165 U. S." 719. 41 L. 

1184, 17 S. 1001 [1897]). 950. 962, 

967. 
Llman v. Mayor and City Council of 

Baltimore (72 Md. 587, 11 L. R. 

A. 224. 32 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 

228, 20 Atl. 141, 21 Atl. 709 

[1890]), 119, 122, 123, 137, 570, 

626, 641, 647, 726. 729, 959, 962. 
Umbria Street (32 Pa. Super Ct. 333 

[1907] ), 909, 1055. 
Uncas Xational Bank v. City of Su- 
perior (115 Wis. 340, 91 X. W. 

1004 [1902]), 1505. 
Underbill, To^vn of v. Town of Essex 

(64 Vt. 28, 23 Atl. 617 [1891]). 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXXIU 



[References are to sections.] 



61, 101, 16G, 170, 35!). 450, G3(i, 
989. 
Underwood v. Green (42 N. V. 140 

[1870]), 372. 
Union Building Association v. City 
of Chicago (61 111. 439 [1871]), 
113, 134, 143, 278, 466, 485. 954, 
979, 1337, 1486. 
Union Cemetery Association v. Mc- 
Connel ( 124 X. Y. 88, 26 X. E. 330 
[1891]), 437, 1378. 
Union College, for an Order Direct- 
ing the Treasurer of Long Island 
City to cancel certain water rates 
and rents, In the ]\Iatter of the 
Application of the Trustees of 
(129 N. Y. 308, 29 X. E. 460 
[1891]), 119. 122. 124, 351, 354, 
414, 718, 726, 729, 734, 957. 
Union County, Commissioners of v. 
Greene (40"o. S. 318 [1883]), 322, 
725. 
Union, Township of v. Rader (41 X'. 

J. L. (12 Vr.) 617), 1081. 
Union Drainage District Xo. 1, Com- 
[1893]), 1488. 

missioners of v. Smith (233 III. 
417, 84 X. E. 376 [1908]). 119, 
280, 935. 
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Kansas City 
(73 Kan. 571, 85 Pae. 603 
[1906]), 141, 301, 795. 1337. 
Union Paving and Contracting Com- 
pany V. .McGovern ( 127 Cal. 638, 
60 Pac. 169 [1900]). 810, 830. 
1010, 1034. 
Union Railway Company v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of the City of Cam- 
bridge (93 Mass. (11 AH.) 287 
[1865]), 58, 457. 
United Brethren in Christ Church, 
Trustees of the v. Rausch ( 122 
Ind. 167. 23 X. E. 717 [1889]), 
1005, 1015, 1018. 1337, 1445. 
United Xew Jersey R. & Canal Co, 
V. Gummere (69 X. J. L. (40 Vr.) 
Ill, 54 Atl. 520 [1903]), 1409. 
United States e.\ rel. Kilpatrick v. 
Capdeviellc (118 Fed. 809. 55 C. 
C. A. 421 [1002]), 340. 1518. 
United States on Petition of Com- 
missioners V. Cooper (21 App. D. 
C. 491 [1893]). tiOo. 660. 



United States ex rel. Thompson v. 
Dent (1 Mackey (D. C.) 463 
[1882]), 475, 1103. 
United States ex. rel. Henderson v. 
Edmunds (3 Mackey (D. C.) 142 
[1884]), 553, 621, 707. 
United States v. Ft. Scott (99 U. S. 
152, 25 L. 348 [1878]), 1502, 1505. 
United States v. :Memphis (97 U. S. 
284, 24 L. 937 [1877]), 1469, 1473. 
1518. 
United 'States Fidelity & Guaranty 
Co. V. City of Xewark ( — X. J. 

Eq. , 66 At!. 904 [1907]), 

1261, 1517. 
United States Security and Bond Co. 
V. Wolfe (27 Colo. 218, 60 Pac. 
637 [1900]), 1202, 1297. 
University v. People (80 III. 333, 

22 Am. Rep. 187). 42. 
Updike V. Wright (81 111. 49 
[1876]), 18. 104, 105, 149. 153, 
242, 257, 258. 2.59. 344, 574, 651, 
654, 1163. 
Upham V. City of Worcester I 113 

Mass. 97 [1873] ), 76. 
Upington v. Oviatt (24 0. S. 232 
[1873]), 496, 503, 639, 645, 686, 
700, 723, 740, 834, 835, 853, 956. 
962, 977, 990, 1431, 1434, 1442. 
Upson, In the Matter of (89 X. Y. 
67 [1882]). 313. 405. 479. 540. 
821. 
Upson, In the Matter (if (24 Ilun 

(X. Y.) 650 [1881] ). 821. 
Upton V. Peoi)le ex rel. :Murri<' (176 
111. 632, 52 X. E. 35S [1S9S]). 
886, 1035, 1183. 
Upton V. Soutli Reading Branch 
Railroad Company (62 Mass. (8 
Cush.) 600 [1851]!, 60. 



V 

Valparaiso. C ity of v. Parker ( 148 
Ind. 379. 47 X. E. 330 [1897]), 
271, 280. 324. 444. 918, 1352, 1358. 

Van Antwerp to \'acate an A?sess- 
ment, In the Matter <if the Appli- 
cation of (56 X. Y. 261 [1874] I, 
8. 89. 196, 199, 241, 414, 550, G98, 
956. 958. 964. 



CCXXXIV 



T^VBLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Van Antwerp, Matter of (1 N. Y, 
Super. Ct. 423), 408. 

Van Buren, In the Matter of the 
Petition of, to Vacate an Assess- 
ment (79 N. Y. 384 [1880]), 342, 
449, 461, 564, 572, 628. 

Van Buren, In the Matter of the 
Petition of (55 How (N. Y.) 513 
[1878]), 229, 342, 461, 1453. 

Van Buren, In the Matter of thfe 
Petition to Vacate an Assessment 
(17 Hun 527 [1879]), 223, 234, 
444, 777. 

Van Cleef v. Commissioners of 
Streets and Sewers of New Bruns- 
wick (38 N. J. L. (9 Vr.) 320 
[1876]), 1410. 

Van Cleve v. Passaic Valley Sew- 
erage Commissioners (71 N. J. L. 
(42 Vr.) 183, 58 Atl. 571 [1904]), 
81, 178, 324. 

Van Deventer v. Long Island City 
(139 N. Y. 133, 34 X. E. 774 
[1893]), 11. 554. 639. 

Van Dusen's Estate ( 1 Penn. Dis- 
trict Rep. 156 [1892]), 1055. 

Van Loenen v. Gillespie ( — Cal. 
, 96 Pac. 87 [1908]), 512. 

Van Rensselear v. Kidd (4 Barb. ( X. 
Y.) 17 [1847]), 1425, 1427. 

Van Sant v. City of i'ortland ( 6 Or. 
395 [1877]), 760. 1292, 1304. 

Van Sickle v. Belknap ( 129 Ind. 558, 
28 N. E. 305 [1891]), 267, 301, 
814, 1229, 1244. 

Van Wagoner v. Mayor and Alder- 
men of City of Paterson (67 X. 
J. L. (38 Vr.) 455 [1902]). 5, 9, 
11, 93, 97, 295, 297, 324, 328, 420, 
448, 609, 690, 717, 895, 1409. 

Vance v. Corrigan ( 78 Mo. 94 
[1883]) 1195, 1219. 

Vandalia Levee and Drainage Dis- 
trict V. Hutchins (234 111. 31, 84 
N. E. 715 [1908]). 280, 468, 469, 
952, 953. 

Vane v. City of Evanston (150 111. 
616, 37 X. E. 901 [1894]). 293, 
298, 448, 857. 

Vanderbeck v. City of Rochester (122 
X. Y. 285, 10 L. R. A. 178, 25 X. 
E. 408 [1890]), 1053, 1055. 1346, 
1478, 1484, 1488. 



Vanderbeck v. City of Rochester (46 

Hun 87 [1887] [, 308, 1055. 
Vandersyde v. People ex rel. Ray- 
mond (195 111. 200, 62 X. E. 806 
[1902]), 297, 324, 328, 448, 609, 
620, 895, 927, 987, 1183, 1340. 
Vandine, Petitioner ( 23 Mass. ( 6 
Pick.) 187, 17 Am. Dec. 351), 372. 
Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance ( 2 

Dall. 304, 315 [1795] ), 71. 
Vantilburg v. Shann (24 X. J. L. 

(4 Zab.) 740), 130, 745. 
Vasser v. George (47 Miss. 713 
[1873]), 43, 147. 148, 666, 1174, 
1175, 1177. 
Vaughn v. Village of Port Chester 
(135 X. Y. 460, 32 X. E. 137 
[1892]), 1484. 
Vaughn v. Village of Port Chester 
(43 Hun (X. Y.) 427 [1887]), 
1484. 
Vennum v. People ex rel. Galloway 
(188 111. 158, 58 X. E. 979 
[1900]), 282, 886, 900, 992, 1183, 
1189, 1341. 
Verdin v. City of St. Louis (131 Mo. 
26, 33 S. "W. 480, 36 S. W. 52 
[1895]), 228, 479, 483, 494, 515, 
519. 
Vernon Park (163 Pa. St. 70, 29 

Atl. 972), 356. 
Vickrey v. City of Sioux City (115 

Fed. 437 [1902]), 1502. 
Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Good- 
enough (108 La. 442, 66 L. R. A. 
314, 32 So. 404 [1902]), 365. 
V'icksburg, Shrevej^ort & Pacific 
Railroad Co. v. Scott (47 La. Ann. 
706, 17 So. 249 [1895]), 46, 1369. 
Vieths V. Planet Property & Finan- 
cial Co. (64 Mo. App. 207 
[1895]), 1138, 1243, 1255. 
Violet V. City Council of Alexandria 
(92 Va. 561, 53 Am. St. Rep. 825, 
31 L. R. A. 382, 23 S. E. 909 
[1896]), 115, 122, 135, 139, 161, 
223, 234, 301, 549, 624, 665, 666, 
690, 693, 699, 726, 732, 777. 
Voght V. City of Buflalo ( 133 N. Y. 
463, 31 X. E. 340 [1892]), 314. 
381, 511, 527, 549, 604, 672, 675, 
690, 693, 761, 823, 913. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXXV 



[References ure to sections.] 



yoigt V. Detroit City (184 U. S. 

115, 46 L. 459, 22 S. 337 [1902]), 

118, 125, 126, 308, 669, 670, 690, 

691, 728, 738. 
Voigt V. City of Detroit ( 123 Mich. 

547, 82 X. W. 253 [1900]), 118, 

125, 248, 308, 663, 669, 670, 690, 

691, 709, 728, 738. 
Von Steen v. Beatrice (36 Neb. 421, 

54 N. W. 677 [1893]), 581, 582, 

586, 781, 791, 793. 
Voorliees v. Borougli of North Wild- 
wood (— N. J. L. , 68 Atl. 

175 [1907]), 1168. 
Voorhis, In the :\ratter of (90 N. 

Y. 668 [1882]), 1466. 
Voris' Ex'rs v. Gallaher (27 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1001, 87 S. W. 775 

[1905]), 1067, 1072, 1130, 1164. 
Voris V. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. 

(163 Ind. 599, 70 N. E. 249), 119, 

121, 139, 626, G29, 699, 731, 1043. 
Vrana v. City of St. Louis (164 ^lo. 

146, 64 S.' W. 180 [1901]), 310, 

616. 
Vreeland v. Mayor, etc., of Bayonne 

(58 N. J. L. "(29 Vr.) 126, 32 Atl. 

68 [1895]), 444, 549, 563, 652, 

665. 
Vreeland v. Mayor and Council of 

the City of Bayonne (54 N. J. L. 

(25 Vr.") 488, 24 Atl. 486 [1892]), 

280. 
Vreeland v. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Jersey City (37 N. .J. Eq. (10 

Stew.) 574 [1883]). 353, 1049. 
Vreeland v. O'Neil (36 N. J. Eq. (9 

Stew.) 399, (aOirnied 37 N. J. Eq. 

(10 Stew.) 574). 124. 353, 1049. 
Vreeland v. City of Taconia ( — 

Wash. , 94 Pac. 192 [1908]), 

347, 1004, 1431. 

w 

W. F. Stewart Co. v. City of Flint 
(147 Mich. 697, 111 N. W. 352 
[1907]), 284, 329, 1015. 

Wabash Avenue (26 Pa. Super. Ct. 
305 [1904]), 503, 574, 620. 

Wabash Eastern Railway Co. of Illi- 
nois V. Commissioners of East 
Lake Fork Drainage District (134 



111. 384, 10 L. R. A. 285, 25 N. E. 

781 [1890]), 8, 89, 254, 340. 739, 

745, 758, 760, 1008, 1026, 1053, 

1068, 1078, 1258, 1337, 1477. 
Wabash River, Board of Directors 

for Leveeing v. Houston (71 111. 

318 [1874]), 105. 
Waco, City of, v. Prather (90 Tex. 

80, 37 S". W. Rep. 312 [1896]), 830. 

837, 838. 
Wadlow V. City of Chicago (.159 111. 

176, 42 N. "e. 866 [1896]), 912. 

1287, 1379. 
Wagg V. People ex rel. Hanberg (218 

III. 337, 75 N. E. 977 [1905]), 

986, 996, 1183. 
Waggcman v. \'illage of North 

Peoria (155 111. 545, 40 N. E. 

485 [1895]), 64, 70, 111, 308, 425. 

426, 547, 587. 631. 070, 674, 896. 

1279. 
Wagner v. Gast ( — Ky. , 71 

S. W. 533, 24 Ky. L. R. 1401 

[1903]). 628, 666, 709. 710, 
Wagner v. Milwaukee County (112 

Wis. 601, 88 N. W. 577 [1901]), 

191. 
Wagner v. City of Rock Island ( 146 

111. 139, 21 L. R. A. 519, 34 N. E. 

545 [1893]), 6, 124, 353, 1049. 
Wahlgren v. Cit.y of Kansas City 

(42 Kan. 243, 21 Pac. 1068 

[1889]), 141, 800, 1337. 
Waite V. People (228 111. 173, 81 N. 

E. 837 [1907]), 771. 774. 1029, 

1150. 
Waite v. Worcester Brewing Co. 

(176 Mass. 283. 57 N. E. 460), 

353. 
Wakefield Local Board of Health v, 

Lee (1 Ex. Div. 336). 620. 
Wakeley v. City of Omaha (58 Neb. 

245. 78 N. W. 511 [1S99]). 745. 

763, 1013. 1035. 11. )0. 
Wakeman, Pros. v. flavor and Al- 
derman of Jersey ( ity (35 N. J. 
) 455 [1872]). 1408. 



Vr, 



L. ( 6 

1410. 
Waldschmidt 

Cir. Ct. R 
Wales v. Warren (66 

N. W. 590 [1902]), 



V. Bowland ( 27 Ohio 
782 [1905] I. 985. 

Neb. 455, 92 
60, 265, 604, 



640. 911, 1181. 120T. 



CCXXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[Ilcferences are to sections.] 



Walker v. City of Ann Arbor (118 

Mich. 251, 76 N. W. 394 [1898]), 

622, 097. 
Walker v. City of Aurora (140 111. 

402, 29 X. E. 741 [1893]), 51, 

271, 324, 340, 402, 447, 563, 058, 

764, 771, 772, 912, 918, 1029, 1379. 
Walker v. City of Chicago (202 111. 

531, 07 N. E. 369 [1903]), 297, 

298, 324, 563, 619, 922, 1324. 
Walker v. City of Chicago (62 111. 

286 [1871]), 867. 
Walker v. Cincinnati (21 0. S. 14, 

8 Am. Rep. 24), 189. 
Walker v. City of Detroit ( 136 Mich. 

6, 98 N. W. 744 [1904]), 324, 732, 

1299, 1324. 
Walker v. District of Columbia (ft 

Mackey (D. C.) 352 [1888]). 3, 

263, 274, 342, 883. 
Walker v. Jameson (140 Ind. 591, 

49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 L. R. A. 

679, 37 N. E. 402, 39 N. E. 869 

[1894]), 6, 7, 11, 15, 20, 372. 
Walker v. Village of Morgan Park 

(175 111. 570, 51 N. E. 630), 323. 
Walker v. People ex rel. Raymond 

(202 111. 34, 66 N. E. 827 [19031), 

927, 937, 986, 996, 1172. 
Walker v. People (170 III. 410, 48 

N. E. 1010), 998. 
Walker v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (169 111. 473, 48 N. E. 694 

[1897]), 281, 857, 866, 927, 929, 

935, 986, 996, 998, 1009, 1183, 1340. 
Walker v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (166 111. 96, 46 N. E. 761 

[1897]), 324, 864, 1126, 1324. 
Walker v. Wliittemore (112 Mass. 

187 [1873]), 49, 1054.. 
Walker Township v. Thomas ( 123 

Mich. 290, 82 N. W. 48), 1015. 
Wallace v. Mayor, Aldermen and 

Commonalty of the City of New 

York (52 Hun (N. Y.) 587, 5 X. 

Y. Sup. 705 [1889]), 1495. 
Wallace v. Shelton ( 14 La. Ann. 498 

[1859]), 39, 43, 155, 343, 689. 
Wallace v. Sortor (52 Mich. 159, 17 

X. W. 798 [1883]), 1446, 1495. 
Waller v. City of Chicago (53 111. 

88 [1869]), 735, 754, 769, 1184. 



Wain V. Common Council of Beverly 

(53 N. J. L. (24 Vr.) 560, 22 Atl. 

340 [1891]), 1408. 
Wain's Heirs v. City of Philadelphia 

to Use of Armstrong (99 Pa. St. 

330 [1882]), 324, 740, 832, 834, 

835, 836, 1303, 1304. 
Walsh V. Barron (61 0. S. 15, 70 

Am. St. Rep. 354, 55 X. E. 164 

[1899]), 11, 79, 111, 113, 651, 677, 

700, 956, 902. 
Walsh V. Mathews (29 Cal. 123 

[1865]), 1039, 1049. 
Walsh V. Sims (65 0. S. 211, 62 X. 

E. 120 [1901]), 674, 675, 077, 700, 

985, 1361. 
Walston V. Xevin ( 128 U. S. 578. 32 

L. 544, 9 S. 192 [1888]), 108, 119, 

121, 131, 134, 301, 553, 666, 709, 

710, 728, 1356, 1370. 
Walter, In the Matter of the Peti- 
tion of (75 X. Y. 354 [1878]), 

479, 574, 684, 1057, 1066, 1068, 

1460. 
Walter, In the Matter of (14 Htm 

148 [1878]), 684. 
Walter v. Town of Union (33 X. .7. 

L. (4 Vr.) 350), 167, 1113. 
Walters, In the Matter of (83 X. 

Y. 538 [1881]), 784. 
Walters v. Town of Lake (129 111. 

23, 21 X. E. 556 [1890]!, 440. 

663, 665, 666, 672, 677, 771, 885, 

918, 924, 1005, 1007, 1283, 1328, 

1382. 
Ward, to Vacate Certain Assessments, 

In the ^Matter of tlie Petition of 

(52 X. Y. 395 [1873]), 309, 621, 

622. 
Ward V. Ward (9 Ohio C. C. 454 

[1895]), 1056. 
Warder v. Commissioners ( 38 0: S. 

639 [1883]), 36, 412, 1483. 
Wardsboro, Town of v. Town of Ja- 
maica (59 Vt. .514, 9 Atl. 11 

[1887]), 61, 359, 450, 636. 
Ware v. City of Jerseyville (158 111. 

234, 41 N. E, 736 [1895]), 469, 

472, 670, 698, 715, 813, 
Ware v. Willis (45 Ala. 120 

[1871 I. (ion. 
Warner v. Knox (50 Wis. 429, 7 X. 

W. 372 [1880J), 163, 191, 194, 



TABLE OF CASES. 



CCXXXVll 



[References are to sections.] 



198, 242, 380, 381, 464, 821. 823. 

1432, 1442. 
Warner v. New Orleans ( 167 U. S. 

467, 42 L. 239, 17 S. 892 [1897]), 

587, 1010, 1508. 
Warner v. City of New Orleans (87 

Fed. Rep. 829, 31 C. C. A. 238, 59 

U. S. App. 131 [1898]), 1037, 

1508. 
Warner v. City of New Orleans (SI 

Fed. 645, 26 C. C. A. 508, 52 U. 

S. App. 348 [1897]), 1508. 
Warren, In the Matter of (85 N. Y. 

268 [1881]), 736, 762. 
Warren v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (115 Mo. 572, 22 S. W. 490), 

515. 
Warren v. Street Commissioners of 

the City of Boston (187 Mass. 

290, 72'n. E. 1022 [1905]), 156, 

407, 414, 641, 643, 648, 961, 967. 
Warren v. Street Commissioners of 

the City of Boston (181 Mass. 6, 

62 N. E. 951 [1902]), 480, 490. 

504. 
Warren v. City of Chicago (118 111. 

329, 11 N. E. 218 [1888]), 347, 

451, 631, 713. 
Warren v. Ferguson (108 Cal. 535, 

41 Pac. 417 [1895]), 273. 1052. 
1293, 1384, 1387. 

Warren v. City of Crand Hav(>n (30 
Mich. 24 [1874]), 247, 248, 250, 
278, 324, 392, 400, 444, 472, 549, 
555, 560, 563. 619, 653, 672, 690, 
692, 699, 893, 1014. 

Warren v. Henly (31 la. 31 [1870]), 
12, 110, 147," 323, 437, 438, 439, 
443, 474, 570. 620, 666, 677. 

Warren v. Hopkins (110 Cal. 506, 

42 Pac. 986 [1895]). 313. 630. 6.31. 
1057, 1067, 1008. 

Warren v. Postol (99 Cal. 294, 33 

Pac. 930 [1893]), 301, 084. 
Warren v. Riddel] ( 106 Cal. 352. 39 

Pac. 781 [1895]). 313, 537. 840, 

1358. 
Warren and Mallev v. llusscll (129 

■Cal. 381, 62 Pac. 75 [1900]), 301, 

314, 750, 784, 809, 1216. 1281, 

1375. 1377. 
Warren v. Warren (148 111. 641. 30 

N. E. 611 [1894]), 49. 1053. 1055. 



Warren Brothers Co. v. City of New 

York (190 X. Y. 297, 83 N. E. 59 

[1907]), 495, 515. 
Warren Bros. Co. v. Taylor ( — R. 

I. — , 69 Atl. 303 [1908]), 604, 

1498. 
Waples V. Citj' of Dubuque (110 la. 

107, 89 N. W. 194 [1902]), 1440. 
Washburn v. City of Chicago ( 198 

111. 506, 64 N. E. 1064 [1902]), 

549, 608, 609, 610, 819. 
Washburn v. Lyons (97 Cal. 314, 32 

Pac. 310 [1893]), 522, 736, 759, 

760, 1230, 1237. 
Washburn Memorial Orphan Asylum 

V. State (73 Minn. 343, 76 N. W. 

204 [1898]), 42, 589. 613, 614. 
Washle v. Nehan (97 Ky. 351, 41 

S. W. 1040 [1895]), 628. 
Washington v. Mayor and Aldermen 

of Nashville (31 Tenn. (1 Swan) 

177 [1851]). 5, 19, 44, 53, 55, 80. 

93, 96, 160. 323, 370, 420, 717, 

737, 747, 829, 1044, 1048. 
Washington v. State (13 Ark. 732 

[1853]), 151. 
Washington & Georgetown Railroad 

Company v. District of Columbia 

(108 V. S. 522, 27 L. 807, 2 S. 

865 [1883]), 437, 602, 603. 
Wa.shington Avenue (69 Pa. St. 352, 

8 Am. Rep. 255 [1871]), 28, 34, 

35, 100, 110, 291, 322, 384, 378, 

665, 698, 706, 1333. 
Washington Ice Company v. (_ ity of 

Chicago (147 Hi. 327, 37 Am. St. 

Rep. 222, 35 N. E. 378 [1894]), 

69, 71, 293, 295, 651, 850, 857, 862, 

864. 
Washington, State of v. . 



State of Wasjiington v. 



Washington Park Club v. 1 itv of 

Chicago (219 111. 323, 76 X. E. 

.383 [1906]). 295. 297. 324, 609. 

717. 912. 
Water Front. In tlie .Matter of. (Sec 

New York.) 
Waterbury, City nf v. Schmitz (58 

Conn. .522. 20 Atl. 606 [1890]), 

1041. 1-144. 1145. 1231. 
Waterloo Woolen Manufacturing Co. 

v. Shannahan I 128 N. Y. 3-15, 14 



ccxxxvin 



TiVBLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



L. R. A. 481, 28 X. E. 358 [1891] ), 

361. 
Watertown, City of v. Fairbanks (65 

N. Y. 588 [1875]), 196, 231, 232, 

324, 444, 980, 1032. 
Walthen v. Allison Ditch District 

No. 2 (213 111. 138, 72 N. E. 781 

[1904]), 651, 672, 675, 677, 1281. 
Watkins v. Griffith (59 Ark. 344, 27 

S. W. 234 [1894]), 223, 234, 245, 

780, 781, 791, 800, 1024. 
Watkins v. City of Milwaukee (55 

Wis. 335, 13 N. W. 222), 342, 420. 
Watkins v. City of Milwaukee (52 

Wis. 98, 8 X. W. 823 [1881]). 677, 

899, 1414, 1432, 1443. 
Watkins v. State ex rel. Van Auken 

(151 Ind. 123, 49 X. E. 169, 51 

X. E. 79 [1898]), 270, 471, 637, 

1216, 1473. 
Watkins v. Zwietusch (47 Wis. 513, 

3 X. W. 35 [1879]), 80, 665, 666, 

693, 694, 714. 
Watson V. City of Cliicago (115 111. 

78, 3 X^. E. 430 [1886]), 323, 571, 

663, 670, 676, 677, 709, 723, 870, 

920, 1271, 1273, 1313. 
Watson V. Crowsore (93 Ind. 220 

[1883]), 70, 661, 922. 
Watson V. City of Elizabeth (35 X. 

J. Eq. (8 'stew.) 345 [1882]), 

1411, 1418, 1444. 
Watson V. Xevin (86 Ky. 492, 9 Ky. 

Law Rep. 819, 5 S. W. 546 

[1887]), 108, 628. 
Watson V. City of Philadelphia, to 

Use of Adams (93 Pa. St. (12 

Xorris) 111 [1880]), 527, 766, 

1281. 
Watson V. Borough of 'Sewickley (91 

Pa. St. (10 Xorris) 330 [1879]), 

745, 748, 930. 
Watt V. Mayor, etc., of the €ity of 

Xew York (3 X. Y. Sup. Ct. Rep. 

23 [1847]), 73, 1346. 
Watts V. Village of River Forrest 

(227 111. 31, 81 X. E. 12 [1907]), 

631, 896. 
Waud V. Green (7 Mo. Apj). 82 

[1879]), 263, 267, 1134, 1135. 

1284. 
Waukegan, City of v. Burnett (234 



111. 460, 84 X. E. 1061 [1908]), 

417, 418. 
Wayne County Savings Bank v. Gas 

City Land Company ( 15(i Ind. 

662, 59 X. E. 1048 [1900]). 1043, 

1085. 
Weatherhead v. Cody ( — Ky. , 

85 S. W. 1099, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 

631 [1905]), 844. 
Weaver v. Canon Sewer Co. ( 18 

Colo. App. 242, 70 Pac. 953 

[1902]), 283, 333, 445, 1252. 
Weaver v. Templin (113 Ind. 298, 
• 14 X. E. 600 [1887]), 125. 142, 

207, 267, 375, 461, 728, 756. 840, 
1351. 

Webb v. Southern Missouri & A. Ry. 

Co. (92 Mo. App. 53 [1902]), 363. 
Webber v. Gottschalk ( 15 La. Ann. 

376 [I860]), 323, 795, 1282. 
Webber v. Common Council of the 

City of Lockport (43 Howard (X. 

Y.) 368 [1872]), 415, 482, 511, 

525, 581, 586, 588, 639, 723, 884, 

885, 886. 
Weber v. San Francisco (1 Cal. 455 

[1851]), 475, 1015, 1109, 1427, 

1431, 1436. 
Weber v. Schergens (59 ^ilo. 389 

[1875]), 323, 525, 707. 1061. 1136. 
Webster v. City of Chicago (62 111. 

302), 173. 
Webster v. City of Fargo (181 U. S, 

394, 45 L. 912, 21 S. 623 [1901]), 

118, 147, 314, 5.53, 570, 666, 677, 

698, 702, 1333. 
Webster v. City of Fargo (9 X. D. 

208, 56 L. R. A. 156, 82 X. W. 732 
[1900]), 118, 147. 314, .553, 570, 
653, 606, 677, 098, 702, 709. 1333. 

Weckler v. City of Chicago (61 111. 

142 [1871]),' 573, 1519. 
Weed V. Ma.yor and Aldermen of 

Boston (172 Mass. 28, 42 L. R. A. 

642, 51 X. E. 204 [1898]). 103, 

110, 134. 156. 324. 666. 700. 1396, 

1400. 
Weeks v. City of Middletown (95 N. 

Y. S. 352. 107 App. Div. 587 

[1905]!, 739. 
Weeks v. City of Milwaukee (10 

Wis. 242 [1860]), 12. 33. 44, 89, 

104, 145, 163. 323, 342, 698. 



TABLE OP CASES. 



CCXXXIX 



[References are to sections.] 



Weeks v. Milwaukee (10 Wis. 258), 

150. 
Wehage v. City of Cincinnati ( 1 

Ohio N. P. 82 [1894]), tJ-25, 701. 
Weidman v. Wilson ( — Mich. , 

116 N. W. 593 [1908]), 6, 353. 
Weinrich v. Hensley (121 Cal. 047, 

54. Pac. 254 [1898]). 340, 887, 

986, 995, 1057, 1068, 1225. 
Weise v. City of Chicago (200 111. 

339, 65 N. E. 648 [1902]), 1384. 
Welch V. Town of Roanoke ( 157 Ind. 

398, 61 X. E. Rep. 791 [1901]), 

907, 951, 1230, 1282. 
Weld V. People ex rel. Kern (149 

111. 257, 36 X. E. 1006 [1894]), 

413, 424, 735, 741, 837, 848, 873, 

958 1506. 
Welker v. Potter ( 18 O. S. 85 

[1868]), 189, 740, 830, 836, 977. 
Welker v. City of Toledo (18 0. S. 

452 [1869]), 1506. 
Weller v. City of St. Paul (5 :\linn. 

95, 5 Gilf. 70 [1861]). 220, (;24, 

813, 815, 979, 1337, 1425, 1427, 

1428. 
Wells V. Street Commissioners of 

City of Boston (187 Mass. 451, 73 

N. E. 554 [1905]), 364, 465, 480, 

573, 656. 
Wells V. City of Buffalo (80 X. Y. 

253 [1880]), 1425. 
Wells V. Burnham (20 Wis. 112 

[1865]), 495, 822, 862, 867, 1432. 
Wells V. 'City of Chicago (202 111.. 

448, 66 X. E. 1050 [1903]), 604, 

920, 922, 923, 947, 1271, 1272, 

1336. 
Wells V. City of Cliica.L'o (06 111. 280 

[1872]), 967, 1196, 1200. 
Wells V. People ex rel. Raymond 

(201 111. 4,"5, 60 X. E. 210 

[1903]), 514, 533, 1332. 
Wells V. Savannah (181 U. S. 531, 

45 L. 980, 2; 8. 697 [1901]), 31, 

40, 614. 
Wells V. Wostern Paviii',^ & Snp])ly 

Company (96 Wis. 116, 7 X. W. 

1071 [1897]), 301, 4i;5, 479, KH.-). 

1022, 1435, 1436, 1445. 
Wells V. Weston (22 Mo. 385), 150. 
Wells V. Wood (114 Cal. 255, 46 



Pac. 96 [1896]), 380, 381, 724, 
831, 1358. 

Wells County, Board of Commission- 
ers of V. Fahlor ( 132 Ind. 426, 
31 X. E. 1112), 125, 728. 

Wells County, Board of Commission- 
ers of V. Fahlor (114 Ind. 176, 15 
X. E. 830 [1887]), 738, 955. 

Wells County, Board of Commission- 
ers of V. Gruver (115 Ind. 224, 17 
X. E. 290 [1888]), 738, 955, 1431, 
1444. 

Welsh, In the Matter of (30 Hun 
(X. Y.) 372 [1883]), 381, 462, 
1456. 

West V. Bullskin Prairie Ditcliing 
Company (32 Ind. 138 [1869]), 
247, 798, 859. 

West V. Bullskin Prairie Ditching 
Co. (19 Ind. 458 [1862]), 1244. 

West V. Porter (89 Mo. Ap]). 150 
[1901]), 223, 234, 777, 11 J9. 

West Chicago ^Masonic Association 
V. City of Chicago (215 TU. 278, 74 
X. E. 159 [1905]), 71. 

West Chicago Park Ci)mmissioners 
V. Baldwin (102 111. 87, 44 X. E. 
404), 234. 

West Chicago Park Comnii-sioners 
V. City of Chicago (152 111. 392, 
38 XL E. 697 [1894]), 259, 368, 
580, 584, 637, 638, 604. 

West Chicago Park Comrs. v. Chi- 
cago Terminal Transfer Railroad 
Company (183 III. 08, 50 X. E. 
1134 [1899]), 549, 1381. 

West Chicago Park Commissioners v. 
Farber (171 111. 140, 49 X. E. 427 
[1S98J), 51, SO, 259, 206, 305, 307, 
356, 431. 553, 023, 927, 929, 956, 
962, 965, 900, 970, 990, 992. 

West Cliieago Park Commissioners v. 
^letropolitan West Side Elevated 
Railroad Co. (182 111. 240, 55 X. 
E. 344 [1899]), 305, 954, 13S0. 

West Cliieago Park Commissioners v. 
Xovnk (121 III. App. 287 [1905]), 
993, 1200, 1207. 

West Cliieago Park Commissioners v. 
Sweet (107 111. 326, 47 X. E. 728 
[1897]), 259, 266, 356, 359, 037, 
1279. 



ccxl 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[Rpferences are to sections.] 



West Chicago Park Commissioners v. 
Western Union Telegraph Co. ( 103 
111. 33 [1882]), 259, 356. 

West Chicago Street Railway Com- 
pany V. City of Chicago (178 111, 
339, 53 N. E. 112 [1899]), 602, 
603, 617. 

West Chicago Street Railway Com- 
pany V. People ex rel. Kern ( 156 
111. 18, 40 N. E. 605 [1895]), 036, 
748, 751, 764, 772, 856, 887, 891, 
927, 930, 993, 1291, 1341, 1373. 

West Chicago Street Railway Com- 
pany V. People ex rel. Kern ( 155 
m. 299, 40 N. E. 599 [1895]), 
636, 764, 772, 856, 891, 913, 993. 

West Farms Road in City of New 
York, In re (95 N. Y. S. 894, 47 
Misc. Rep. 216 [1905]), 593. 

West Third Street Sewer, Appeal of 
the City of Williamsport (187 P.t. 
St. 565, 41 Atl. 476 [1898]), 382, 
384, 4G2. 

Westall V. Altschul (126 Cal. 164, 
53 Pac. 458 [1899]), 972, 1253. 

Westenhaver v. Village of Hoytsville 
(28 Ohio C. C. 357 [1905]), 9, 
717, 1450. 

Western Paving and Supply Com- 
pany V. Citizens' Street Railroad 
■Company (128 Ind. 5£5, 25 Am. St. 
Rep. 462, 10 L. R. A. 770, 26 N. 
E. 188, 28 N. E. 88 [1891]), 00, 
601, 603, 617, 1028. 

Western Pennsylvania Railway Com- 
pany V. City of Allegheny ( 92 Pa. 
St. 100 [1879]), 15, 223, 234, 776. 

Western Pennsylvania Railway Com- 
pany V. City of Allegheny (92 Pa. 
St. (11 Norris) 100 [1879]), 15, 
223, 3f)6, 775. 

Western Spring-s. Vi'.lpge of v. Hill 
(177 111. 034, 52 N. E. 959 [1S99]), 
475, 737, 777, 829, 1085, 1106. 

Western Union Tele-rraph Company 
V. Modesto Irrigation Co. (\A^ Cal. 
662, 87 Pac. 190 [1906]), 548. 

Westlake Avenue, Seattle, In the 
Matter of (40 Wash. 144, 82 Pac. 
279 [1905]), 105, 169, 206, 2"8, 
279, 301, 308, 554, 557, 578, 61!), 
623, 650, 672, 675, 690, 896, 964, 



969, 970, 973, 1345, 1361, 1366, 
1391. 

Westminster Heights Company, In 
the Matter of the Application of 
the, for a Peremptory Writ of 
Mandamus Against Delany as Cor- 
poration Counsel of the City of 
New York (185 N. Y. 539, 77 N. 
E. 1198 [1906]), 618. 

Westminster Heights Co. v. Delany 
(95 N. Y. S. 247, 107 App. Div. 
577 [1905]), 618. 

Weston V. Commissioners of Hamil- 
ton County (6 Ohio C. C. 641 
[1892]), HI, 552, 553, 042, 077, 
090, 091. 

Weston V. City of Syracuse ( 158 N. 
Y. 274, 70 Am. St. Rep. 472, 43 
L. R. A. 078, 53 N. E. 12 [1899]), 
324, 484, 485, 531, 537, 541, 1469, 
1501, 1508, 1518. 

Weston V. City of Syracuse ( 82 Hun, 
(N. Y.) 67, 31 N. Y. S. 186), 485. 

Westport, City of, to use of Hoelzel 
V. Smith (08 Mo. App. 03 [1890]), 
53, 234, 737. 

Westport, City of v. Whiting (62 
Mo. App. 047 [1895]), 273, 838, 
877, 1134. 

Wetherell v. Devine (110 111. 031, 6 
N. E. 24), 259. 

Wetmore v. Campbell (4 N. Y. Sup. 
Ct. Rep. 341 [1849]), 407, 415, 
525, 873, 887, 1047, 1053, 1143, 
1484. 

Wetmore v. City of Chicago (206 111. 
3:7, 09 N. E. 234 [1903]), 328, 
859. 

Wewell V. City of Cincinnati (45 0. 
S. 407, 15 N. E. 1C6 [1887]), 

II, 111, 324, 527, 5G3, 677, 816, 
•840, 977. 

Weyerhaueser v. State of Minnesota 
('l76 U. S. 550, 44 L. 583, 20 S. 
485), 126. 

Whalen v. City of La Cro'-se ( 16 
Wis. 271 [1862]), 1469, 1518. 

Whaples v. C it.y of Waukegan (179 

III. 310, 53 *N. E. 618 [1899]), 
781, 800. 

Wheeler, Appeal of ( 80 N. Y. S. 204, 
39 Misc. Rep. 484 [1902]), 563, 
008, 093, 099, 703. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxli 



[References are to sections.] 



Wheeler v. City of Chicago (57 III. 

415 [1870]), 281, 731, 1331, 1335. 
Wheeler v. City of Chicago (24 111. 

105, 7G Am. Dec. 736 [I860]), 

1519. 
Wheeler v. People ex rel. Kern ( 153 

111. 480, 39 X. E. 123 [1894]), 

636, 754, 1291. 
Wheeler v. Philadelphia (77 Pa. St. 

(27 P. F. Smith) 338 [1875]), 

180, 190. 
Wheeler v. City of Plattsmouth (7 

Neb. 270 [1878]), 86. 
Wheeler v. City of Poplar Bluff (149 

Mo. 36, 49 S. W. 1088 [1898]), 

313, 436, 662. 813, 815, 837, 838, 

873, 1506. 
Wheeler v. Treasurer of Muskingum 

County (3 Ohio C. C. 596 [1889]), 

351, 354, 554. 
Whipple V. City of Toledo (29 Ohio 

C. C. 42 [1905]), 801, 1067. 
Whisler v. Drain Commissioners of 

Lenawee County (40 Mich. 591 

[1879]), 825, 1404. 
Wliitaker v. Phoenixville Bor. (141 

Pa. St. 327, 21 Atl. 604 [1891]), 

72. 
Whitcomb v. City of Boston (192 

Mass. 211, 78 N. E. 407 [1906]), 

616, 618. 
White, Estate of (19 Phil. 106 

[1888]), 748, 1063, 1221. 
White V. City of Alton ( 149 111. 626, 

37 N. E. 96 [1894]), 73, 280, 486, 

559, 5(59, 604, 723, 771, 840, 857, 

889, 912, 922, 1324, 1330. 
White V. City of Chicago (188 111. 

392, 58 N. E. 917 [1900]), 759, 

764, 772, 859, 8G4, 914, 947, 1373, 

1379. 
White V. Fleming (114 Ind. 560, 16 

N. E. 487 [1887]), 266, 270, .322, 

927, 986, 1004, 1030, 1031, 1292, 

1444, 1450. 
White V. Gove (183 Mass. 333, 67 

X. E. 359 [1903]), 7, 8, 79, 82, 89, 

92, 97, 103, 118, 156, 667, 668, 695, 

702, 709, 1425, 1427. 
White V. Harris (116 Cal. 470, 48 

Pac. 382 [1897] ), 754, 759. 
White V. Harris (103 Cal. 528, 37 



Pac. 502 [1894]), 522. 551, 553, 
624, 698, 1239. 

White V. Knowlton (84 :\Iinn. 141, 
86 N. W. 755 [1901]), 1069. 

White V. McCJrew ( 129 Ind. 83, 28 
X. E. 322 [1891] ). 340, 1011," 1101, 
1102. 

White V. Municipality X'umber Two 
(9 La. Ann. 446), 934. 

White V. People ex rel. City of Bloom- 
ington (94 III. 604 [1880]), 8, 44, 
51, 100, 103, 104, 110, 153, 202, 
323, 420, 670, 698, 715, 717. 

White V. City of Tacoma ( 109 Fed. 
32 [1901]), 111, 118, 301, 677, 
700, 1005. 

White V. Thomas (91 Minn. 395, 98 
X. W. 101 [1904] ), 1069. 

White V. Town of West Chicago 
(164 111. 196, 45 X. E. 495 [1896]), 
1085. 

White Plains Road in City of Xew 
York, In re (94 X. Y. sl 110, 106 
App. Div. 133 [1905]), 63, 909. 

White Water Valley Railroad Com- 
pany V. McClure (29 Ind. 536 
[1868]), 72. 

Whitefield v. Hippie (12 S. W. Rep. 
(Ky.) 150, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 386 
[1889] ), 53, 54, 531, 532, 534. 

Wliitcford, Township of v. Phinney 
(53 Mich. 130, 18 X. W. Rep. 593 
[1884]), 279, 744, 798, 1396. 

Whiteley v. Common Council of the 
City of Lansing (27 Mich. 131 
[1873]), 963. 

Whiteley v. Mississippi Water Power 
& Boom Company (38 iNIinn. 523, 
36 Am. & Eng. R. Cases 624, 38 
X. W. 753 [1888]), 70. 

Whitemann's Ex'x. v. Wilmington 
and Susquehanna Railroad Com- 
pany (2 Harr. (Del.) 514, 33 Am. 
Dec. 411 [1839]), 70. 

Whiting v. Mayor and Aldermen of 
the City of Boston ( 106 Mass. 89 
[1870])', 73, 244, 309. 415, 435, 
525, 532, 546, 587, 643, 663, 723, 
776, 879, 1337, 1346. 1411. 1413, 
1423. 

Whiting V. Quackenbush (54 Cal. 
306 [1880]), 8, 43, 632, 698, 824, 
883, 886, 1317. 



ccxlii 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Whiting V. Slieboygan R. Co. ('25 

Wis. 167, 3 Am. Rep. 30), 365. 
Whiting V. Townsend (57 Cal. 515 
[1881]), 549, 831, 861, 1153, 1220. 

1238, 1239, 1293. 
Whitley v. Fawsett (Styles 12 (23 

Car. 1), 581, 639. 
Whitlock Avenue, In re Opening of 
(85 N. Y. S. 650 [1904]), 680, 

892. 
Whitney v. City of Boston (98 ^Mass. 

312 [1867]), 70, 284. 
Whitney v. Common Council of tlie 

Village of Hudson (69 Mich. 189, 

37 N. W. 184 [1888]), 229, 264, 

273, 495, 498, 555, 776, 777, 785, 

843, 845, 851, 874, 1304. 
Whitney v. City of Pittsburg (147 

Pa. St. 351, 30 Am. St. Rep. 740, 

23 Atl. 395 [1892]), 194, 195, 323, 

414, 961, 983. 
Whittaker v. City of Dead wood (12 

>S. Dak. 608, 82 X. W. 202 [1900]), 

1392. 
Whittaker v. City of Janesville (33 

Wis. 76 [1872]), 958. 
Whittemore v. Sills (76 Mo. App. 

248 [1898]), 490, 538. 
Whitworth v. Webb City (204 Mo. 

579, 103 S. W. 86 [i907]), 536, 

837, 856, 867, 868. 
Whyte V. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Nashville ("2 Swan (32 Tenn.) 

364 [1852]), 44, 93, 96, 160,' 223. 

234, 243, 273, 323, 420, 717, 749, 

777, 867, 1055. 
Wick Street, In re Grading, Paving 

and Curbing, Appeal of the City 

of Pittsburg (184 Pa. St. 93, 39 

Atl. 3 [1898]), 316, 432. 
Wickett V. Town of Cicero (152 111. 

575, 38 N. E. 909 [1894]), 922, 

943, 955, 991, 1307. 
Widman Investment Co. v. City of 

St. Joseph (191 Mo. 459, 90 s'l W. 

763 [1905] 1, 71. 
Wiedman v. Wilson ( — Mich. , 

116 N. W. 593 [1908]), 1054. 
Wiemers v. People ex rel. Price (225 

111. 82, 80 N. E. 68 [1907]), 886, 

994, 1126, 1183, 1281, 1390. 
Wight V. Davidson (181 U. S. 371, 

45 L. 900, 21 S. 616 [1901]), 86, 



121, 127, 130, 243, 310, 663, 666, 

690, 702, 709, 760, 1010, 1011. 
Wilbur V. City of Springfield (123 

111. 395, 14 N. E. 871 [1889]), 

103, 104, 153, 562, 5i;8, 570, 625, 

627, 686, 670, 698, 715, 776, 837, 

870. 
Wilcox V. City of Meriden (57 Conn. 

120, 17 Atl. 366 [1889]), 78, 322. 
Wilcox V. Mayor, etc., of New York 

City (53 N. Y. iSup. Ct. Rep. 436 

[1886]), 837, 1478, 1484, 1485. 
Wilcox V. People (90 111. 186 

[1878]), 259. 
W^ilcoxon V. City of San Luis Obispo 

(101 Cal. 508," 35 Pac. 988 [1894]), 

231, 232, 434, 1196. 
Wilcox Lurj.-ber Co. v. School Dis- 
trict Number 268 of Otter Tail 

County ( — Minn. , 114 N. W. 

262 [1907]), 1517. 
Wilder v. City of Cincinnati (26 0. 

S. 284 [1875]), 500, 569, 742, 761, 

977. 
Wilder v. Maine Central R. R. Co. 

(65 Me. 332, 20 Am. Rep. 698 

[1876]), 363. 
Wilhelm v. City of Defiance (58 0. 

S. 56, 65 Am". St. Rep. 745, 40 L. 

R. A. 294, 50 N. E. 18 [1898]), 

55, 56, 96, 323, 420. 
Wilkes V. Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the 'City of New York 

(8 Daly (N. Y.) 407 [1878]), 995, 

1454, i487. 
Wilkes Barre, City of v. Felts (134 

Pa. St. 529, 19" Atl. 676 [1890]), 

1157, 1159. 
Wilkin v. Houston (48 Kan. 584, 30 

Pac. 23 [1892]), 293, 381, 388, 

781. 
Wilkins v. City of Detroit (46 Mich. 

120, 8 N. W. 701, 9 N. W. 427 

[1881]), 293, 381, 388, 501, 823, 

1308, 1443. 
Wilkinsburg Bor. v. Home for Aged 

Women (131 Pa. St. 109, 6 L. R. 

A. 531, 18 Atl. 937 [1890]), 42, 

93, 96, 155, 323, 385, 443, 589, 

592, 613, 648. 
Wilkinson v. Collyer (13 Q. B. D. 1 

[1884]), 1054. 



fl 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxliii 



[References are to sections.] 



Wilkinson v. District of Columbia 

(22 App. D. C. 289 [1903]), G3, 

310, 896, 1439. 
Wilkinson v. Lemasters ( 122 Ind, 

82, 23 X. E. Rep. 088 [1889]), 

1384. 
Wilkinson, Pros. v. City of Trenton 

(36 X. J. L. (7 Vr.) 499 [1873]), 

777, 1408. 
Willard v. Albertson (23 Ind. App. 

164, 53 N. E. 1077, 54 N. E. 403 

[1899]), 246, 569, 620, 832, 1008, 

1253. 
Willard v. Albertson (23 Ind. App. 

162, 53 X. E. 1076, 54 X. E. 446 

[1899]), 1015, 1018, 1262. 
Willard V. Hodapp (98 Minn. 269, 

107 X. W. 954 [1906]), 986, 1181, 

1200. 
Willard v. Presbury (14 Wail. (81 

U. S.) 676, 20 L. 719 [1869]), 40, 

89, 243, 245, 374, 381, 1054. 
Willard V. Willard (154 U. S. 568, 

38 L. 1088, 14 S. 1215 [1870]), 

373, 380, 381. 
Willet, In the Matter of (70 X. Y. 

490 [1877]), 381, 462, 1466. 
Williams v. iSupervisors of Albany 

(122 U. S. 154, 30 L. 1088, 7 S. 

1244), 408. 
Williams v. Bergin (129 Cal. 461, 62 

Pac. 59 [1900]), 490, 498. 1281, 

1359. 
Williams v. Bergin (127 Cal. 578, 60 

Pac. 164 [1900]), 301, 522, 871, 

1059, 1093, 1150, 1151, 1153, 1240, 

1248. 
Williams v. Bergin (116 Cal. 56, 47 

Pac. 877 [1897]), 267, 537, 570, 

861, 878, 1163, 1168, 1242, 1264, 

1351, 1358, 1359. 
Williams v. Bergin (108 Cal. 166. 

41 Pac. 287 [1895]), 744, 751, 774. 

958, 969, 1101, 1355. 
Williams v. Brace (5 Conn. 190 

[1824]), 323, 420, 443, 1055, 1522. 
Williams v. Cammack (27 Miss. 209, 

61 Am. Dee. 508 [1854]), 37, 39, 

145, 147, 308, 343. 407, 408. 
Williams v. Corcoran (46 Cal. 553 

[1873]), 38, 279, 1425. 
Williams v. Craig (2 Edward's Ch. 

(X. Y.) 297 [1834]), 1054. 



Williams v. Mayor, etc., of Detroit 
(2 Mich. 560 [1853]), 85, 86, 100, 
110, 135, 157, 162, 380, 388, 432, 
439, 472, 648, 713, 725, 732, 747, 
760, 829, 838, 868, 872, 889, 950, 
984, 1049, 1411, 1444, 1445. 

Williams, Treasurer v. Eggleston 
(170 U. S. 304, 42 L. 1047, 18 S. 
617 [1808]), 61, 123, 125, 292, 359, 
553, 730, 1473. 

Williams v. Little White Lick Grav- 
el Road Company (Wilson's Sup. 
Ct. (Ind.) 7 [1871]), 279, 322, 
581, 1015, 1025, 1074. 

Williams v. McDonald (58 Cal. 527 
[1881]), 824, 1375. 

Williams v. Merritt ( — Mich. , 

116 X. W. 386 [1908]), 1482. 

Williams v. Monk (179 Mass. 22, 60 
X. E. 394 [1901]), 1072. 

Williams v. Monroe ( 125 Mo. 574, 
28 S. W. 853 [1894]), 278, 735. 

Williams v. Payne (80 Mo. 409 
[1883]), 1148. 

Williams v. Savings and I^an So- 
ciety (97 Cal. 122, 31 Pac. 908 
[1893]), 514, 1281, 1317, 1379. 

Williams v. Townsend (31 X. Y. 
411), 1057. 

Williams v. Viselich (121 Cal. 314, 
53 Pac. 807 [1898]), 748, 751, 
1355. 

Williamson v. Joyce ( 140 Cal. 069, 
74 Pac. 290 [1903]), 301, 864, 
1141, 1145, 1242, 1248, 1263, 1265. 

Williamson v. -Joyce (137 Cal. 107, 
69 Pac. 854 [1902] ),. 831, 831, 
1165, 1182, 1194. 

Williamson, In tlie Matter of tlie Pe- 
tition of V. flavor, etc., of Xevv 
York City (3 ilun (X. Y.) 65 
[1874]), 324, 821, 855, 1464. 

Williamsport, City of v. Beck (128 
Pa. St. 147. 18 Atl. 329 [1889]), 
293. 382, 632, 981. 

Williamsport v. Huglies (21 Pa. 
Super. Ct. 443 [1902), 479, 519. 

Willis, In the Matter of (.30 Hun 
(X. Y.) 13 [18831), 475, 4^^). 
1455. 

Willis V. City of Chicago (189 111. 
103, 59 X." E. 543 [1901]), 864, 
992, 1341. 



ccxHv 



TABLE OF CxVSES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Willius V. City of St. Paul ( 82 Minn. 

273, 84 N. W. 1009 [1901]), 1497. 

Wills V. Austin (53 Cal. 152 [1878] ), 

1478. 
Wills V. Waters (5 Bush. ( ti8 Ky.) 

351), 363. 
Wilmette, Village of v. People ex rel. 
Farm Land Mortgage Co. (214 111. 
107, 73 N. E. 327 [1905]), 953, 
1085. 
Wilmington Avenue (213 Pa. St. 
238, 62 Atl. 848 [1906]), 308, 309, 
523, 570. 
Wilmington, City of v. Yopp (71 N. 
C. 76 [1874])', 55, 86. 89, 93, 96. 
118, 651, 698, 717. 
Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Co. 
V. Smith (99 N. C. 131, 5 S. E. 
237 [1888]), 70. 
Wilson V. Allegheny City (79 Pa. 
St. (29 P. F. Smith) 272 [1875]), 
397. 
Wilson V. City of Auburn (27 Neb. 
435, 43 N. W. 257 [1889]), 7, 8, 
89, 236. 
Wilson V. Board of Trustees of the 
Sanitary District of Chicago ( 133 
111. 443, 27 N. E. 203 [1890], 7, 
11, 79, 103, 247, 248, 253, 258. 
259. 
Wilson V. California Bank (121 Cal. 
630, 54 Pac. 119 [1898]) , 301, 
1068, 1195, 1219. 
Wilson V. Chilcott (12 Colo. 600, 21 
Pac. 901 [1889]), 44, 92, 95, 96, 
152, 315, 420, 441, 666, 717. 
Wilson V. Cincinnati ( 7 Ohio Dec. 

242), 381. 
Wilson V. City of Cincinnati (5 
Ohio N. P. 68, 9 Low. Dec. ( Ohio ) 
242 [1897]), 324, 392, 400, 401, 
550, 563, 587, 629, 683, 723, 874, 
1019, 1346, 1442. 
Wilson V. Hall (6 Ohio C. C. 570 

[1892]), 609, 1047, 1053, 1067. 
Wilson V. Lambert (168 U. S. 611, 
42 L. 599, 18 S. 217 [1898]), 86, 
243, 356, 1420, 1425. 
Wilson V. Town of Philippi (39 W. 
Va. 75, 19 S. E. 553 [1894]), 52, 
53, 55, 86, 162, 323, 420, 1423, 
1426, 1427. 



Wilson V. Poole (33 Ind. 443 

[1870] ), 223, 479, 480, 1359. 
Wilson V. City of St. Joseph ( 125 

Mo. App. 460, 102 S. W. 600 

[1907]), 542, 1500. 
Wilson V. City of Salem (24 Or. 

504. 34 Pac. 9, 691 [1893]), 86, 

135, 301, 666, 700, 732, 918, 1015, 

1027, 1414. 
Wilson V. City of Seattle (2 Wasli. 

543, 27 Pac. 474 [1891]), 141, 168. 

215, 227, 725, 747, 766, 1394. 

1395, 1446. 
Wilson V. State, Karle, Pros. (42 N. 

J. L. (13 Vr.) 612 [1880]), 727, 

735, 738, 756. 
Wilson V. Talley ( 144 Ind. 74, 42 N. 

E. 362, 1009 [1895]), 70, 674, 

1277, 1382. 
Wilson V. Inhabitants of tlie City of 

Trenton (61 N. J. L. (32 Vr.) 599, 

68 Am. St. Rep. 714, 44 L. R. A. 

540, 40 Atl. 575 [1898]), 11, 517, 
518. 

Wilson V. Inhabitants of the Citj' 
of Trenton (53 N. J. L. (24 Vr.) 
645, 16 L. R. A. 200, 23 Atl. 278 
[1891]), 748, 756, 757, 758. 

Wilson V. Woolman (133 Mich. 350, 
94 N. W. 1076 [1903]), 1015,1436. 

Wilvert v. Sunbury Borough (811/4 
Pa. St. (32 P. F. Smith) 57 
[1871]), 420, 441, 1063, 1103,1377. 

Wilzinski v. City of Greenville (85 
Miss. 393, 37 So. 807 [1905]), 111, 
244, 323, 666, 698, 709. 

Winchester, Town of v. Hinsdale ( 12 
Conn. 85 [1837]), 70. 

Windsor v. City of Des Moines (110 
la. 175, 80 Am. St. Rep. 280, 81 
N. W. 476 [1900]), 368. 

Windsor v. District of Columbia (7 
Mackey (D. C.) 96 [1889]), 527, 

541, 983. 

Windsor, Inhabitants of the Town of 

V. Field (1 Conn. 279 [1814]), 70. 
Winfrey v. Linger (89 Mo. App. 159 

[190i]), 538, 916, 1026, 1337. 
Wingate v. City of Tacoma (13 

Wash. 603, 43 Pac. 874 [1896]), 

1012, 1015. 
Wingert v. Snouffer & Ford ( 134 la. 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxlv 



[References are tn sections.] 



97, 108 X. \V. 10.35 L190ti]|. 527. 

528, 1015, 1022, l()2(i. 
Wingert v. Tipton (134 la. 97, lOS 

N. W. 1035), IS. 
Winkelman v. Moredock and Ivy 

Landing Drainage District ( 170 

111. 37, 48 N. E. 715 [1897]), 424, 

1278. 
Winkler v. Halstead' ( 36 Mo. App. 

25 [1889]), 1444. 
Winnebago Furniture Manufacturing 

Company v. Fond du Lac County 

(113 Wis. 72, 88 N. W. 1018 

[1902]), 464, 1033. 
Winona & St. Paul Land Co. v. Min- 
nesota (159 U. S. 526, 40 L. 247, 

16 S. 83), 126. 
Winona & St. Peter R. R. Co. v. 

Waldron (11 Minn. 515, 11 Gil. 

392, 88 Am. Dec. 100 [1866]), 

65, 70, 363. 
Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. t ity of 

Watertown (1 S. D. 46, 44 N. W. 

1072 [1890]), 35, 42, 43, 147. 210, 

301, 594, 613, 614, 698. 
Winslow V. City of Cincinnati (53 

O. S. 665. 44'X. E. 1150 [1S95J), 

412. 
Winslow V. City of Cincinnati ( 10 

Ohio C. C. 191, 6 Ohio C. D. 150 

[1894]), 412. 
Winslow V. City of Cincinnati (2 

Ohio Dec. 291), 412. 
Winter v. City Council of ^lontgom- 

ery (83 Ala. 5S9, 3 So. ' 235 

[1887]), 55, 295, 296, 323, 420. 
VVisner v. People ex rel. Kern ( 156 

III. 180, 40 N. E. Hep. 574 [1895]), 

636, 852, 856. 
Wistar v. City of Phila(hdphia (111 

Pa. St. 604. 4 Atl. 511 [1S86]). 

382, 383. 
Wistar v. Philadel])hia (80 Pa. St. 

(30 P. F. Smith) 505, 21 Am. Rep. 

112 [1876]), 55, 382, 383, 384, 387, 

462. 
Witman v. City of Reading (169 Pa. 

St. ;-;75 32 Atl. 576). 327. 5(i(). 572. 

706, 709, 714. 
Witter V. Bachman (117 Cal. 31S. 

49 Pac. 202 [1S97]). 1131. 1281. 
Witter V. Mission Sclioul District 

(121 Cal. 350. Cd Am. St. Pvci). 33. 



53 Pac. 905 [1898]), 370, 580, 

586, 657. 
U'olf V. City of Keokuk (48 la. 129 

[1878]), 317, 440, 561, 666, 709, 

716. 
\\n\i V. City of Philadelphia ( 105 

Pa. St. 25 [1884]), 8, 89, 324, 419, 

1047, 1049, 1063. 
Wolfe V. Village of Avondale ( 14 

Ohio C. C. 375 [1897]), 625, 704. 
Wolfe V. McHargue (88 Ky. 251, 10 

S. W. 809), 147. 
Wolfe V. City of Moorehead (98 

Minn. 113, 107 X. W. 728 [1906] i, 

781. 
Wolff V. City oi Denver (20 Colo. 

App. 135, 77 Pac. 364 [1904]). 89, 

90, 92, 244, 245. 324, 555, 670. 
Wolfort V. City of St. Louis (115 

Mo. 139, 21' S. W. 912 [1892] ), 

621, 629, 631, 679, 683, 896, 1284. 
Wollacott V. Meekin (151 Cal. 701, 

91 Pac. 612 [1907]), 509. 
Wood, In the Matter of (33 Hun ( X. 

Y.) 4 [1884] ). 1460. 
Wood, In tiie Matter of the Petition 

of (51 Barb. (X. Y.) 275 [1S68]). 

469, 525, 537, 541, 542. 
Wood V. Mayor and Aldermen of 

Boston (172 Mass. 28, 42 L. R. A. 

642, 51 X. E. 204 [1898]), 1406. 
Wood V. Brady ( 150 U. S. 18, 37 

L. 981, 14 S.' 6 [1893]), 174. 538, 

1046, 1370. 
Wood V. Brady (68 Cal. 78. 5 Pac. 

623, 8 Pac. 599 [1885] 1, 35, 1194, 

1225. 
Wood V. Cuiian (99 ( al. 137. 33 

Pac. 774 |1S9:?J). 1IH2. 11-44. 

1225. 
Wood V. City of Galveston (76 Tex. 

126, 13 S. W. 227 [1890]), 223, 

234. 777, 1049, 1141, 1145, 1229. 
Wood V. Hall (— la. . 110 X. 

W. 27i» [1907]). 918. 1015, 1022. 

1029. 1436, 1502. 
Wood V. Inhabitants of Hudson I 114 

Mass. 513 [1874] >. 70. 
Wood V. .Jordan ( 125 Cal. 261, 57 

Pac. 997 [1899] ). 986, 1429. 
Wood V. Village of Pleasant Ridge 

( 12 Ohio C. C. 177 [1896]). 1437. 



ccxh 



TABLE OF CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Wood V. Squires (1 Hun (X. Y.) 
481 [1874]), 1072. 

Wood V. Strotlier (70 Cal. 545, 9 
Am. St. Rep. 249, 18 Pac. 766 
[1888]), 965, 967, 972, 1129, 1432, 
1468, 1469. 

Woodall V. City (5 Ohio N. P. 428 
[1898]), 1013. 

Woodbridge v. City of Detroit ( 8 
Mich. 274 [I860]'), 3, 8, 100, 157, 
323, 713. 

Woodhouse v. City of Burlington (47 
Vt. 300 [1875]), 11, 78, 86, 735, 
747, 928, 956, 962. 

Woodman v. Xorthwood ( 67 N. H.' 
307, 36 Atl. 255 [1892]), 66. 

Woodruff V. Catlin (54 Conn. 277), 
359. 

Woodruflf V. State of Mississippi (77 
Miss. 68, 25 So. 483 [1899]), 1468, 
1475. 

Woodruff V. Perry (103 Cal. 611. 37 
Pac. 526 [1894]), 780. 

Woodruff Place, Town of v. Raschig 
(147 Ind. 517, 46 X. E. 990 
[1896]), 546, 622, 632, 1075. 

Woods V, City of Chicago (135 111. 
582, 26 X.' E. 608 [1892]), 570, 
859, 865. 

Woodwine v. Leak ( 127 Ind. 509, 27 
N. E. 161 [1890]), 1373, 1384. 

Woollacott V. Meekin (151 Cal. 701, 
91 Pac. 612 [1907]), 18, 512, 1435, 
1442. 

Woolsey, In the Matter of the Ap- 
plication of (95 X. Y. 135 [1884]), 
188, 278, 309. 

Woolsey, Matter of (29 Hun. 626 
[1883]), 188. 

Worcester, City of v. Worcester Con- 
solidated Street Railwa.y Company 
(196 U. S. 539, 25 S. 327 [1905]), 
15, 60, 95, 166, 168, 599, 600. 

Worcester, City of v. Worcester Con- 
solidated Street Railway Company 
(182 Mass. 49, 64 X. E. 581 
[1902]), 15, 60, 106, 168, 599. 

Worcester AsricuUural Society v. 
Mayor of City of Worcester (116 
Mass. 193, 17 Am. Rep. 159), 580. 

Worcester County v. Worcester (116 
Mass. 193. 17 Am. Rep. 159 
[1874]), 582. 



Wordin's Appeal (71 Conn. 531, 71 

Am. St. Rep. 219. 42 Atl. 659). 

1055. 
Workman v. City of Chicago (61 111. 

463 [1871]), '223, 234, 709, 777, 

813, 817, 867, 954, 978. 
Workman v. City of Worcester (118 

Mass, 168 [1875]). 244, 480. 058, 

780. 
Works V. City of Lockport ( 28 Huu 

(X. Y. 9 [1882]), 728, 743, 800. 
Worman v. Hagan (78 Md. 152, 21 

L. R. A. 716, 27 Atl. 616), 216. 
Wormley v. District of Columbia 

(181 "U. S. 402, 45 L. 921, 21 S. 

609 [1901]), 118, 702. 
Wormley v. Board of Supervisors of 

Wright County, Iowa (108 la. 

232, 78 X. W'. 824 [1899]), 340, 

622, 785. 
Worthington v. Cit.v of Covington 
(82 Ky. 265 [1884]), 223, 234, 

494, 777. 
Wray v. Fry (158 Ind. 92, 62 X. E. 

1004 [1901]), 86, 118, 324, 555, 

606, 674, 677, 691, 699, 724, 735, 

927, 1005, 1007, 1026. 
Wray v. Mayor etc., of Pittsburg 

for use, etc. (46 Pa. St. (10 

Wright) 365 [1863]), 86, 118, 313, 

555, 666, 670, 698, 709. 
Wreford v. City of Detroit (132 

Mich. 348, 93 X. W. 870 [1903]), 

284, 387, 435, 463, 777. 
Wright V. City (9 Cush. 233), 336. 
Wright V. City of Chicago (60 111. 

312 [1871]), 860, 861. 
Wright v. City of Chicago (48 111. 

285 [1808])", 278, 557, 576. 642, 
■ 652, 723, 884, 898, 899, 1283, 1298, 

1300. 
Wright v. City of Chicago (46 111. 

44 [1867]), 86, 101, 113, 118. 153, 

549, 013, 666, 677. 709. 
Wright v. City of Chicago (20 111, 

252 [1858]), 223, 229, 300, 456, 

775, 1341. 
Wright V. Jessup (44 Wash. 618, 87 

Pac. 930 [1906]), 1195. 1203. 
Wright v. Rowley (44 Mich. 557, 7 

X. W. 235 [1880]), 1028. 
Wright V. City of Taconia (3 Wash. 



I 



TABLE OF CASES. 



ccxlvii 



[References are to sections.] 



Ter. 410, 19 Pac. 42 [1888]!, 785, 
789, 809, 818, 1026, 1430. 

\Yright V. Thomas (26 0. S. 346 
[1875]), 81, 113, 343, 1017, 1425. 

Wright V. Township Drain Commis- 
sioners (44 Mich. 557, 7 X. W. 
235 [1880]), 735. 739, 824, 1402. 

Wright V. Wilson (95 Ind. 408 
[1883]), 726. 

Wulzen V. Board of Supervisors of 
the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco ( 101 Cal. 15, 40 Am. St. Rep. 
17, 35 Pac. 353 [1894]), 121, 760. 

Wurts V. Hoagland (114 U. S. 606, 
29 L. 229, 5 S. 1086 [1885]), 12, 
101, 108, 119, 130, 336, 338, 339, 
341, 449, 677, 717, 732, 956, 962, 
1370 

Wyandotte City of v. Zeitz (21 Kan. 
649 [1879])," 1502. 

Wyandotte County. The Board of 
Commissioners of v. Arnold (49 
Kan. 279, 30 Pac. 486 [1892] ), 781, 
1012, 1375, 1380, 1389, 1436. 

Wyandotte County, Board of Com- 
missioners of V. Barker ( 45 Kan. 
699, 26 Pac. 591 [1891]), 781, 
1007, 1028, 1432. 

Wyandotte County, Board of Com- 
missioners of V. Browne (49 Kan. 
291, 30 Pac. 483 [1892]). 1028. 

Wyandotte County, Board of Com- 
missioners of V. Hoag (48 Kan. 
413, 29 Pac. 758 [1892]), 781, 
1012, 1436. 

Wyandotte, Kansas City & North- 
western Railway Company v. Wal- 
do (70 Mo. 629 [1879] ) ,' 65. 

\Vyoming Street, Paving, etc., of 
"(137 Pa. St. 494, 21 Atl. 74 
[1891]), 81, 190, 9G1. 



Vaggj' V. City of Chicago (194 111. 

88," 62 X. 'e. 316 [1901]). .551. 

762, 767, 874, 913, 9.50. 
Vaggv' V. City of Chicago ( 192 111. 

104, 61 X. E. 494 [1901]), 818, 

828. 1287. 1289. 



Yale College, President and Fellows 

of V. City of Xew Haven ( 57 Conn. 

1, 17 Atl. 139 [1889]), 323, 443, 

1414, 1430, 1432. 
Yarnold v. City of Lawrence ( 15 

Kan. 126 [1875]), 474, 496, 515, 

813, 1502. 
Y'ates v. Borough of ]\Ieadville ( 50 

Pa. 'St. (6 P. F. Smith) 21 

[1867]), 473, 1159. 
Y'ates V. City of Milwaukee ( 92 Wis. 

352, 66 X' W. 248 [1896]). 41, 42, 

591, 613, 614, 1116, 1173, 1435. 
Y'eakel v. City of Lafayette ( 48 Ind. 

116 [1874]'), 293, 380, 381, 388, 

501, 742, 763. 
Y'eatman v. Crandall ( 1 1 La. Ann. 

220 [1856]), 8, 38, 40, 43, 155, 

343, 549, 566, 688, 689, 697, 934. 
Y'eomans v. Riddle (84 la. 147, 50 

N. W. 886 [1891]), 39, 119, 126, 

145, 373, 375, 495, 726, 738, 773, 

781. 
Y'oder v. Turner (8 Ohio X. P. 387 

[1901]), 49, 1067, 1072. 
Y'oung V. Borzone (26 Wash. 4, 66 

Pac. 135, 421 [1901]), 1088, 1494. 
Young V. Boston (104 Mass. 95), 

353. 
Y'oung V. Gentis (7 Ind. App. 199, 

32 X'. E. 796 [1893]), 564. 
Y'oung V. People ex rel. Kern ( 155 

111. 247, 40 X. E. Rep. 604 [1895]), 

772, 856, 1130. 1375. 
Young V. People ex rel. Kocher- 

sperger (171 111. 299. 49 X. E. .503 

[1898]), 745, 772, 927. 930, 986, 

993, 996, 998. 1000, 1183, 1343. 
Y'oung V. People ex rel. Raymond 

(196 111. 603, 63 X. E." 1075 

[1902]), 266, 314, 510, 533, 541, 

840, 927, 945, 989, 1183, 1342. 
Young V. City of St. Louis (47 Mo. 

492 [1871]'), 347, 843, 851, 872. 
Young V. City of Tacoma (31 Wash. 

153, 71 Pac. 742 [1903]). 314. 440. 

479, 516, 519. 918. 965. 1035. 1324. 
Young V. ^'illage of Waterville (39 

Minn. 196. 39 X. W. 97 [1888]). 

55. 323. 461. 
Y'ounglove v. Ilackman (43 0. S. 69, 

1 X. E. 230 [1885]), 631, 896. 



ccxlviii 



TABLE OP CASES. 



[References are to sections.] 



Zabel V. Harshman Drain Commis 

sioners (68 Mich. 273, 42 N. W 

44 [1888]), 1099. 
Zabel V. Louisville Baptist Orphans 

Home (92 Ky. 89, 13 L. R. A 

668, 17 S. W. 212, 13 Ky. L. R 

385 [1891]), 42, 138, 589, 611, 613 

862, 867, 1234, 1253, 1371. 
Zahn V. Borougli of Rutherford (72 

N. J. L. (43 Vr.) 446, 60 Atl. 

1123 [1905]), 271, 408, 677, 977, 

1398, 1410. 
Zaiesky v. City of Cedar Rapids ( 118 

la. 714, 92 X. W. 657 [1902]), 

413, 739, 747, 830, 836, 981, 984. 
Zeigler v. Flack (54 X. Y. Sup. Ct. 

Rep. 69), 762, 983, 1113, 1196. 
Zeigler v. Hopkins (117 U. S. 683, 

29 L. 1019, 6 S. 919 [1886]), 781, 

795, 946, 1190, 1196, 1204, 1415. 
Zeigler v. People ex rel. Kern ( 156 

HI. 133, 40 X. E. 607 [1895]), 636, 

856, 925, 1132. 
Zeigler v. People ex rel. Kochersper- 

ger (164 111. 531, 45 X. E. 965 

[1897]), 771, 1183, 1184. 
Zehnder v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (108 Fed. 570 [1901]), 118, 

301, 709, 710, 723. 
Zehnder v. Barber Asphalt Paving 

Co. (24 Ky. Law Rep. 2279, 74 S. 

W. 201 [1903]), 628. 709, 1348. 
Zelie v. City of Webster City (94 la. 

393, 62 X. W. 796 [1895]), 838, 

839. 



Zeliff v. Bog & Fly Meadow Com- 
pany (68 X. J. L. (39 Vr.) 200, 
56 Atl. 302 [1902]). 83, 340, 1015, 
1018, 1398, 1408. 

Ziegler v. City of Chicago (213 111. 
61, 72 X. E." 719 [1904] ), 814, 828. 
831, 917, 979, 981, 1375. 

Zigler V. Menges (121 Ind. 99, 16 
Am. St. Rep. 357, 22 X. E. 782 
[1889]), 291, 334, 335, 337, 338, 
340, 477, 549, 564, 717, 886, 1108. 

Zink V. City of Buffalo (6 Hun, 611 
[1876]), "995. 

Zinser v. Board of Supervisors of 

Buena Vista County ( — la. , 

114 X. W. 51 [1907]), 340, 564, 
659, 899. 

Zion Church of the City of Balti- 
more V. Mayor and City 'Council of 
Baltimore "(71 Md. 524, 18 Atl. 
895 [1889]), 308, 649, 1055. 

Zoeller v. Kellogg (4 Mo. App. 163 
[1877]), 11, 89, 111, 651, 653, 678. 

Zorn v. Warren-Schaaf Asphalt Pav- 
ing Co. (— Ind. App. , 84 X. 

E. 509 [1908]), 499, 1332. 

Zorn V. Warren-.Schaaf Asphalt Pav- 
ing Co. (— Ind. App. , 81 X. 

E. 672 [1907]), 495, 1024, 1332. 

Zumbro v. Parnin (141 Ind. 430, 40 
X. E. 1085 [1895]), 239, 557, 583, 
804, 1075. 

Zwietusch v. City of Milwaukee (55 
Wis. 369, 13 X. W. 227 [1882]), 
1505. 



Taxation by Assessment 

CHAPTER I. 

NATURE OF ASSESSMEIH' AND PLACE IN LAW. 

§1. Derivation of "assessment." 

Assessment is a word wliich like so many other law terms has 
come into our language from old French. The Latin \7ord assidere 
meant "to sit by" and was used especially of judges in court. It 
thus acquired the idea of deciding or passing upon. From it was 
derived the low Latin assessare meaning "to value for taxation." 
From this latter term we find the old French assessc7% meaning 
to regulate or to settle. From this term we get the English word 
"assess" and the noun "assessment." It is thus in derivation akin 
to the word "assize." A relic of its original Latin meaning is 
found in the word "assessor" which is used of assistants as "as- 
sessor judges" in consular courts — a meaning well recognized 
though not common. Assessment then by derivation is the act or 
sometimes the result of deliberating and deciding. 

§ 2. Technical meanings of "assessment ' ' outside of taxation. 

Again, like too many of our law terms, "assessment" has 
acquired several technical meanings in law, all having the general 
idea of the act or result of deliberation and deciding in a judicial 
or quasi-judicial capacity. ^ While we have to deal here with but 
one of these meanings, the others must be noted for the purpose 
of indicating forms of as.sessment which have nothing but the name 
in connnon with the subject here discussed. Assessment in the law 
of damages means the ascertaining of the amount of damages, by 
proceedings cf a judicial character.- While in our law this is 

* "To flix'ido tlie dofrroe of; to do- - "I'ixini the amount of damages 

termiTio the extent of; as, to assess to wliieli tlie prevailing party in a 

a punishment." Anderson's Law Die- suit is entitled." Bouvier's Law Diet., 

tionary, Title "Assessment." "The act Title "Assessments;" CifTord v. Re- 

or proceeding by wliieh a sum due publican Valley & Kansas Railroad 

or payable is determined; al«o the Company. 20 Neb. 5.38, .*?! N. W. 11 

sum itself as a payment or obliga- [1886]. 
tion." Anderson's Law DietiDiiary. 

Title "Assessment." 1 



§ 2 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 2 

usually effected by means of the deliberations of a jury, the word 
in this sense has nearly the same meaning as the original Latin 
term. In the law of eminent domain it has a meaning which is 
the converse of that discussed in this work — that is, it denotes the 
act of fixing the damages to be paid to the owners of property 
taken in eminent domain or injured by such taking, and often the 
distribution of such damages among the several land owners ia du^ 
proportion.^ A similar general significance is found when the 
word is used in connection with the doctrine of contribution. In 
this sense it means the judicial determination of the shares to be 
paid by those liable to make contribution.^ The term is also used 
of adjustment or apportionment of loss under the doctrine of gen- 
eral average.^ Other forms of this general meaning are found 
when the word is used of the determination (in the first instance 
extra-judicial) of the amount to be paid at a given installment by 
those who have subscribed to a common purpose, in amounts pay- 
able in installments. A common example of this use of the term 
is the determination of the amount to be paid in by subscribers to 
stock in a corporation." A similar meaning is that of liability on 
premium notes given by members of mutual fire insurance com- 
panies."^ Apportionment of liabilities among stock-holders of an 
insolvent corporation, in jurisdictions where stock-holders are liable 

^ Hutchins v. Vandalia Levee and cles and interests at risk according 

Drainage District, 217 111. 5151, 75 to their value at the time and place 

N. E. 354 [1905J; Kotheimer v. of being in safety, for contribution 

Louisville Interurban R. E. Co. (Ky.) for damage and sacrifices purposely 

89 S. W. 104, 28 Ky. L. R. made and expenses incurred for es- 

298 [1905]; Mayor and Common cape from impending peril." Bou- 

Council of Newark v. Weeks, 70 vier's Law Diet., Title "Assessments." 

N. J. L. {41 Vr.) 166, 56 Atl. Bedford Commercial Insurance Com- 

118 [1903]; State, Stewart, Pros. pany v. Parker, 2 Pick. 1, 11, 13 Am. 

V. Mayor, etc., of Hoboken, 58 N. J. Dec. 388 [1823]; McLoon's Adminis- 

L. (29 Vr.) 696, 36 Atl. 1129 [1896]: trator v. Cummings, 73 Pa. St. 98 

affirming State, Stewart Pros. v. [1873]. 

Mayor and Common Council of the " "Used of a business corporation, a 

City of Hoboken, 57 N. J. L. (28 rating or fixing by the board of di- 

Vr.) 330, 31 Atl. 278 [1894]. rectors of the proportion of his sub- 

* "Adjusting the shares of a con- scription which every subscriber is 

tribution by several towards a com- to pay when notified of it and when 

iron beneficial object according to the called on." Anderson's Law Diet., 

benefit received." Bouvier's Law Title "Assessment." 

Diet., Title "Assessments." 'Bouvier's Law Diet., Title "As- 

" "An apportionment made in gen- eessments." 
eral average upon the various arti- 



3 



ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. 



§3 



for the debts of the corporation in an amount over and above tb ■ 
amount of their subscriptions, is another example of the use of the 
term with a similar meaningr. 

§3. Technical meaning's of "assessment" in general taxation. 

"Assessment" is used in the law of taxation with a meaning, 
like that of the low Latin verb from which it is derived, of valuing 
property for the purpose of taxation.^ Involved with this mean- 
ing is often that of listing and valuing property for the purpose 
of taxation,- and, indeed, the term is often used to include the 
valuation of property for taxation and the determination of the 
amount that each is to pay,^ or to include all the steps necessary 
to impose the tax,'* or the means employed to enforce i)ayment of 



' People ex rel. Hallett v. Board of 
County Commissioners of Arapahoe 
County, 27 Colo. 86, 59 Pac. 733 
1 18!)9] ; State ex rel. Lewis v. Smith, 
158 Ind. 543, 63 L. R. A. 116, 63 N. 
E. 214, 25, 64 N. E. 18 [1901] ; Wood- 
bridge V. City of Detroit, 8 Mich. 
274 [I860]; People of the State of 
New York ex rel. The New York Cen- 
tral & Hudson River Railroad Com- 
pany V. Priest, 169 N. Y. 432. 62 N. 
E. 567 [1902] ; Gray v. Stiles, 6 Okl. 
455, 49 Pac. 1083 [1897]; "Deter- 
mining the value oi a man's prop- 
erty or occupation for the purpose 
of levj'ing a tax." Bouvier's Law 
Diet., Title "Assessment." 

^Huntington v. ^\'nrthon. 120 U. 
S. 97. 7 S. 469 [1887]; Lyman v. 
Howe. (i4 Ark 436, 42 S. * ^^■. 830 
[18971: Allen v. McKay & Co.. 120 
Cal. 332, 52 Pac. 828 [1898]; City 
of Chicago v. Fishburn. 189 111. 367, 
59 N. E. 791 [1901]; Adams v. City 
of Shelbyville, 154 Ind. 467. 77 Am. 
St. Rep. 484, 49 L. R. A. 797, 57 N. 
E. 114 [19001: Pomeroy Coal Co. v. 
Emlon. 44 Kan. 117. 24 Pnc. 340 
[18901; Hincs v. Citv of Leaven- 
worth. 3 Kan. ISO [1865]; State e\ 
rel. Allen v. Kansas Citv. St. Joseph 
& Council Bluffs Railroad Company, 
116 Mo. 15, 22 S. W. 611 [1893]; 



State ex rel. City of Butte v. John- 
son. 16 Mont. 570, 41 Pac. 706 
[1895]; Hacker v. Howe, 72 Neb. 
385, 101 N. W. 255 [1904]; Sheets 
V. Paine, 10 N. D. 103, 86 N. W. 
117 [1.901]; Southern Railway Co. 
V. Kay, 62 S. C. 28, 39 S. E. 785 
[1901]. 

'People V. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539 
[1879]; Dollar Savings Bank v. 
United States. 19 Wall. 227 [1873]; 
State of Connecticut v. New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Raih-oad 
Company, 60 Conn. 326, 22 Atl. 765 
[1891]; Rood V. Board of Supervis- 
ors of Mitchell Co.. ,39 la. 444 [1874] ; 
"Determining the share of tax to be 
paid by each individual." Bouvier's 
Law Diet., Title "Assessment." "The 
assessment is the otricial ascertain- 
ment of the amount of the tax to 
be charged upon the property." 
Walker v. District of Columbia. 6 
Mackey (D. C.) 352, 355 [1888]. 

* Stcphani v. Catholic Bishop of 
Chicago, 2 111. App. 249 [1878] : Pen- 
ninston v. Wool folk. 79 Ky. 13 
[1880]: Rothschild v. • Begole, 105 
Vuh. 388. 63 N. W. 309 [18951; 
( hicaeo. Burlington & Quincy Rail- 
wav Company v. Villaare of Wilber. 
63 Neb. 624: 88 N. W. 660 [19021; 
Hurford v. City of Omaha, 4 Neb. 336 



§ 4 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. * 

the tax."' The exact shade of meaning depends in most cases upon 
the context of the constitutional or statutory provision in which 
the term is used. "The word 'assessment' means the specific 
amount charged on the property and not the meri- act of valua- 
tion.'"^ 

§4. Meaning of "assessments" as here discussed — Assessment 
based on benefits. 
With none of the foregoing meanings of the term "assessment" 
are we here concerned. The form of assessment discussed in this 
work is what is variously termed the local assessment, the special 
assessment, the "assessment for benefits,"^ or often merely the 
assessment. Without attempting an accurate definition here it 
may be said that it is generall}^ a charge upon property, imposed 
by proper authority, usually in return for special beiiefits conferred 
upon such property by an improvement of a jiublic character for 
the expense of making which the assessment is levied.- It is worth 
noting that the latest edition of one of the standard law diction- 
aries gives the meaning of the term as a meaning which attaches 
to it in New York only.'' It is, nevertheless, the meaning in which 
the term is most often used outside of a context showing that it is 
employed with reference to general taxation. It is in this sense 
that the term is used in this work, unless its meaning is in some 
way qualified. Ihider this general name are grouped a number of 
different forms of charges or exactions upon the property or upon 
the owner thereof, which in their extreme and typical forms are 

[1876]; State of Texas v. Farniei are specially beneficial to individuals 
94 Tex. 232, 59 S. W. 541 [1900]; or property and which are imposed in 
Levy V. Wilcox, 96 Wis. 127, 70 N. proportion to the particular benefits 
W. 1109 [1897]; Chicago & North- supposed to be conferred. They are 
western Railway Company v. Forest justified when the improvements con- 
County, 95 Wis, 80, 70 X. W. 77 fer special benefits and are equitable 
[1897]. "Laying a ta.x." Bouvier's only when divided in proportion ti 
Law Diet., Title "Assessment." .-uch benefits." Anderson's Law Diet. 

° Tebault v. City of New Orleans, Title "Assessments." 
108 La. 686; 32 So. 983 [1902]. ''"The term is used in this latter 

° Lynch v. City of Kansas City, sense in New York distinguishing 

44 Kan. 452, 458, 24 Pac. 973 [1890]. some kinds of local taxation whereby 

^ City of Bridgeport v. New York a peculiar benefit arises to the par- 

& New Haven Railroad Company, 36 ties from general taxation." Bou- 

Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 03 [1869]. vier's Law Diet. (Rawle's Revision) 

-"Assessments have reference t) [1897], Title, "Assessment." 
impositions for imjirovcments which 



I 



5 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. 8 O 

sharply distinct from one p.nother, but which in their intermediate 
types are often so merged together as to he practically indistin- 
guishable. The most common form which is usually the one dis- 
cussed to the exclusioii of the others, is the charge or exaction in 
some form, either in money or in work, which is levied upon prop- 
erty, generally upon realty, in return for and as an equivalent for 
the special and peculiar benefit conferred upon sucli property by 
the improvement to defray the cost of which the assessment in 
question is levied.^ Such a charge is rather optimistically referred 
to as a "contribution."'^ 

§ 5. Assessment for performance of legal duty. 

Another form of assessment, which is usually regarded as a true 
assessment also, is one which does not necessarily depend upon th" 
theory of benefits.^ It is found where the owner of realty is bound 
by law to do some act with reference to such realty,- which act 
is often the abatement of a nuisance existing thereon or caused by 
the use thereof, and such owner refuses or omits to do such act ; and 
thereupon the public corporation in which such realty is situated, 
or some other branch of the government performs such act and 
charges such owner, or his property, or both, with the cost there- 



*City of Chicago v. Blair, 149 111. 
310, 24 L. R. A. 412, 36 N. E. 829 
[1894]; Excelsior Planting & Man- 
ufacturing Company v. Green, 39 La. 
Ann. 455,^1 So. 873' 1 1887] ; Charnock 
V. Fordoche & (irosse Tete Special 
Levee District Company, 38 La. Ann. 
323 11880]; State, Morris & Essex 
Railroad Company, Pros. v. Jersey 
City, 36 X. J. L. (7 Vr.), 50 [1872]. 

"For the validity of such assess- 
ments three elements must concur: 

1. The work must be public and 
of a character to confer special local 
benefits on the district within wliich 
the assessment is levied. 

2. The assessment must bo sup- 
ported by benefits actually or pre^ 
sumptively received by ' tlic persons 
or property subjected to it. 

3. The contribution miist not man- 
ifestly exceed the benefit conferred."' 



Mino.- V. Daspit, 43 La. Ann. 337, 
338, 339, 9 So. 49 [1891]. 

° Opening of Park Avenue, Appeal 
of Luce Brothers, (83 Pa. St. 175 
[1S70]. 

' Such a charge, wliicli was lield 
invalid because the purpose for which 
it was laid was held not to be a pub- 
lic duty, was said to be "an imposition 
upon lands . . . for which no better 
luime was found in tlie court below, 
or has been discovered by me. than 
'assessement.' " T^oughten v. City of 
Camden, 72 X. .1. L. (43 Vr.) 451, 
4r,-2. 3 L. R. A. (X. S.) 817, 03 Atl. 
170 [1905]. reversing Doughten v. 
City of Camden. 71 X. J. L. (42 Vr.) 
420. 59 Atl. 10 [1904]. 

■ The purposes for which assessment 
of this sort may be levied are dis- 
cussed elsewhere. See § 420. 



§ 5 TAX^VTION BY ASSESSMENT. b 

of.^ Such charge or exaction is often called "^n assessment,* and 
is generally discussed under that heading. Such identity of name 
does not, however, impart an identity of ideas; and an assessment 
of this type, which we may call an assessment for want of a better 
name, is sharply distinguished from the true assessment whenever 
the distinction in the theories underlying the two would lead to 
different results."' Assessments of this sort differ from assess- 
ments for benefits in several important wa3^s. Assessment for 
benefits is a form of a tax'' and is referred to the power of taxa- 
tion.'^ Assessment of the type under discussion is an exercise of 
the police power** and does not have anything to do with taxation 
necessarily. Assessments for benefits must be apportioned in sub- 
stantial proportion to benefits.'' Assessments of this type do not 
dejiend on benefits and therefore need not be apportioned with any 
reference to benefits unless the legislature so provides;^" in which 



^ INIayor and Board of Trustees of 
tlie Town of New Iberia v. Fontelien, 
108 La. 460, 32 So. 3()0 [19021: Xu- 
pent V. City of Jackson. 72 ]Miss. 
1040. 18 So." 493 [1895]; Horbach v. 
City of Omaha. 54 Xeb. 83. 74 X^. W. 
434 [1898]; Van Wajjoner v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of City of Pater son. 
67 X. J. L. (38 Vr.') 455 [1902]; 
State, Kirkpatrick, Pros. v. Commis- 
sioners of Streets and Sewers in City 
of Brunswick, 42 X. J. L. (13 Vr.) 
510 [1880]; State, Van Tas-sel. Pros. 
V. Mayor and Aldermen of .Jersey 
City, 3*7 N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 128 [1874]': 
State, Sigler, Pros. v. Fuller, 34 X. 
J. L. (5 Vr.) 227 [1870]; Brown v. 
Keener. 74 N. C. 714 [1876]; Ses- 
sions V. Crunkilton, 20 0. S. 349 
[1870]; Bliss V. Kraus. 16 O. S. 54 
[1864]; Charleston V. Werner, 38 S. 
C. 488; 37 Am. St. Rep. 776; 17 S. 
E. 33 [1892]; Mayor and Aldermen 
V. Maberry 25 Tenn. (6 Humph.) 
368, 44 Am. Dec. 315 [1845]; Wash- 
ington V. Mayor and Aldermen of 
Xashville, 31 Tenn. (1 Swan.) 177 
[1851]; Adams v. Fisher. 63 Tex. 
651 [1885]; Rude v. Town of St, 
IMarie. 121 Wis. 634; 99 X. W. 460 
[1904]; State, ex rel. Baltzell. v. 
Stewart, 74 Wis. 620. 6 L. R. A. 



394. 43 X. W. 947 [1889]; Donnelly 
V. Decker. 58 Wis. 461. 46 Am. Rep. 
637, 17 X. W. 389 [1883]. 

* Xugent V. City f)f Jackson. 72 
Miss. 1040. 18 So." 493 [1895]; Hor- 
bach V. City of Omaha. 54 X"eb. 83; 
74 N. W. 434 [1898] ; Bliss v. Kraus. 

16 0. S. 54 [1864]; Adams v. Fisher. 
63 Tex. 651 [1885] : Rude v. Town of 
St. Marie, 121 Wis. 634. 99 X. W. 
460 [1904]; Donnelly v. Decker, 58 
Wis. 461. 46 Am. Rep. 637. 17 X. W. 
.'^89 [1SF31. 

^^TpAor ;'n<l Board of' Trustees of 
th.e 'Jcwn cf Xew Iberia v. Fontelieu. 
108 La. 460. 32 So. 369 [1902]; 
Charle.ston v. Werner, 38 S. C. 488, 

37 Am. St. Rep. 776, 17 S. E. 33 
[1892]. 

' See § 8. 

■'See § 89. 

«See §93. 

Tims the court said that a ques- 
tion as to such exactions "is not gov- 
erned by the principles of law ap- 
plicable to a local tax for improve- 
ments," but that is referable to the 
police power. Charleston v. Werner. 

38 S. C. 488. 37 Am. St. Rep. 776: 

17 S. E. 33 [18921. 
"See Chapter XIIL 
'"See § 717. 



7 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 6 

latter case the legislature usually exacts less from the property 
owner than it might. This power to levy assessments for benefits 
exists only when granted by the legislature.^^ and cannot be im- 
plied from a grant of power to make the improvement for which 
it is sought to levy the assessment.^- Assessment of this type is a 
power existing as a p«rt of and incidental to the police power, and 
may be granted in very general terms. ^'^ A source of much confu- 
sion, however, is found in the fact that courts have disagreed as to 
which type of assessment, assessments for certain kinds of improve- 
ment were; and that the same court has at different times placed 
the same kind of improvement now under one and now under the 
other of these types.^* 

§ 6. Assessment for property or service furnished at request. 

A number of cases exist which present facts very much like 
those of the regular local assessment, but which differ from the 
local assessment in one essential fact. This essential difference 
is that in these cases it is optional with the party so charged 
to incur the ]i;i])ility by acceptance of the benefit for which 
the charge is made, or to abstain from such benefit and thus 
to be free from liability. Common examples of this are ordi- 
nances providing for furnishing water in part or all of the city 
to those who wish to take it. at a price fixed by the ordinance, 
where the persons who make use of the water are charged an 
amount, sometimes estimated at a lump sum, and sometimes based 
upon the amount consumed. Whichever form the charge may 
assume, the ]>erson who makes use of such commodity is under 
no legal obligation to do so, and does so voluntarily.^ Such a 
statute does not impose an assessment in the proper sense of 
the term, thongh the charge is often spoken of as a "tax."- 
The transaction really amounts to an offer by the municipal 

"See Chapter VT. Stow.] 027 [188.31. which amnns with- 

'-See § 231. out opinion 37 X. J. Eq. [10 Stew.] 

'^-See § 230. 36 [1883]; City of Ea^t Grand Forks 

" For illustrations of the classes of v. Luck, 97 ^linn. 373: 107 X. W. 393 

assessments referred to these two dif- [190(5]; Burke v. City of Water Val- 

ferent types, see §§ 419-421. ley, 87 Miss. 732. 112 Am. St. Rep. 

'Provident Institution for Savings 408, 40 So. 820 [190.5]. 

V. Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, 113 -Village of Lemont v. .Tenks. 107 

U. S. 50r>, 28 L. 1102. 5 S.'fil2 [188.5]. III. 363: 90 Am. St. Rep. 172. 64 N. 

(aflirmin.!? Provident Institution for E. 362 [1902]: Cook County v. City 

Savings v. Allen 37 X^. J. Eq. [10 of Clncago. 103 111. (146 [1882]. 



§6 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



corporation and an acceptance by the party who takes the water, 
thus forming a contract.^ The transaction then is substantially 
a contract of sale.* Accordingly so-called assessments of this 
sort cannot be levied on vacant property where water might be 
used but is not in fact used.'' Such an assessment cannot be 
levied by a city under a contract with a water company which 
the city has cancelled as being invalid.*^ It is confused with 
assessments proper, in part because such charge is made by a 
public corporation, although the transaction is the same when 
the commodity furnished is supplied by a private corporation 
or an individual. Another source of confusion is the fact that 
the city is often given a lien upon the property upon which 
such commodity is used for the price thereof. The city may 
by ordinance make the owner of realty liable for light and water 
furnished to his lessee and used upon the realty so leased." An 
ordinance provided for a lien upon realty for the price of water 
furnished for use thereon, the lien to be lost if the water was 
not turned off thirty days prior to the expiration of a collection 



^Village of Lemont v. Jenks, 197 
III. 363, 90 Am. St. Rep. 172; 64 N. 
E. 362 [1902]. The liability of a 
guarantor of such a bill is considered 
in Board of Public Works of City of 

Xiles V. Pinch, — Mich. , 116 N. 

W. 408 [1908]. The question of the 
liability of A. to B. for making 
wrongful use of water which comes 
through B.'s meter and for which B. 
is liable to the cjty is considered in 

Weidman v. Wilson, — Mich. . 

116 N. W. 593 [1908]. Recovery of 
the difference be^veen the advance 
payment and the rate for the water 
which was actually iised is consid- 
ered in American Brewing Co. v. City 

of St. Louis, — Mo. , 108 S. W. 

1 [1907, 1908]. 

* "The water rates are imposed and 
collected not as a tax but as a com- 
pensation to be paid by those who 
choose to receive and use the water." 
City of Chicago v. Northwestern Mu- 
tual Life Insurance Co., 21-8 111. 40, 
1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 770, 75 X. E. 803 
[1905]. 

^ Hoboken Manufacturers R. Co. v. 



j\Iayor, etc.. of City of Hoboken, — N. 
J. L. — , 68 Atl. 1098 [1908]; State, 
Culver, Pros. v. Mayor and Aldermen 
of Jersey City, 45 N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 
256 [1883]; State, Vreeland, Pros, 
v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey 
City, 43 X. J. L. (14 Vr.) 135 
[1881], (affirmed Mayor, etc., of Jer- 
sey City V. State, Vreeland, Pros., 
43 X. J. L. (14 Vr.) 638 [1881]); 
State, United New Jersey Railroad 
& Canal Company, Pros. v. Mayor 
and Aldermen of Jersey City, 41 N. 
J. L. (12 Vr.) 471 [1879]; Provident 
Institution for Savings v. Allen, 37 
X. J. Eq. (10 Stew.) 36 [1883]. 

" Regan Land Co. v. City of Car- 
thage, — Mo. App. , i08 S. W. 

589 [1908]. 

' Citv of East Grand Forks v. Luck, 
97 Minn. 373, 107 X. W. 393 [1906]. 
Contra; that a charge for water fur- 
nished to a tenant for years under 
a contract with him cannot be a lien 
upon the estate of the landlord ; Car- 
penter V. IMayor and Council of the 
City of Hoboken, 33 N. J. Eq. (6 
Stew.) 27 [1880]. 



9 . ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § O 

period. Under such ordinance the vendee of realty upon which 
the lien has been lost cannot be held for arrearages which ac- 
crued prior to his purchase of such realty. ** A rule requiring 
water to be turned off upon default in payment and not to be 
turned on again until the arrears are paid has been held to be 
unreasonable where it operates to prevent a lessee of realty who 
tenders the charges for his use of water, from being permitted 
to use water until the arrears due from a former tenant are also 
paid.^ This, however, is merely special remedy given for a charge 
which is essentially contractual in its nature.^" Another source 
of confusion between a transaction of this sort and a true as- 
sessment is found in the fact that the city has ordinarily no 
option to sell or to decline to sell, but as long as all reasonable 
regulations have been complied with, the city is bound to sup- 
ply water impartially to all wJio apply for the use thereof upon 
land which can be supplied from the city's pipes." A similar 
case is presented under a statute providing that in the organi- 
zation of a sanitary district, a city owning a system of water- 
works which is supplied from a source Avhich is preserved from 
pollution by the construction of the drain provided for, must 
furnish water to other cities incorporated towns or villages in 
such district not having any system of waterworks of its own, 
at the table of rates fixed the city owning such system of water- 
works.^- To be distinguished from such cases are those in which 
the charge is imposed on the owner of the land which may be 
supplied with water from the water-works system, irrespective 
of whether or not he accepts and makes use of such water. These 
are not eases of contract.^-* Whether such charges can be classed 
as assessments or not, and whether they are valid or invalid are 
questions discussed in another connection." Another form of a 
charge which is in substance a contract is to be found wliere a 
municipality, under authority conferred l)y statute, imposes a 

"City of Chirajio v. Xorthwostprn 40. 1 L. R. A. (X. S.) 770. 75 X. E. 

Mutual Life Tn'^urance Co.. 218 111. S0.3 [1905]; \Va<Tnpr v. City of Rock 

40; 1 L. R. A. (X. S.) 770. 75 X. E. Island, 146 111. 1.30. 21 L. Jl. A. 519. 

R03 [19051. 34 X. E. 545 [1893]. 

° Ruikc V. Cit\ of Water Valley. '"City of Cliicaffo v. Town of Cice- 

87 :\Iiss. 732. 112 Am. St. Rep. 408. ro. 210 111. 290. 71 X. E. 356 [1904]. 

40 So. 820 [1905]. '^Viliaore of Lemont v. Jenks. 197 

"•See 8 20. III. 363; 90 Am. St. Rep. 172. 64 X. 

"City of Chicago v. Xorthwestern E. 362 [1902]. 

:\rutuaf Life Insurance Co.. 218 111. " See § 353. 



§ 6 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 10 

charge upon property owners who connect their land with a sewer 
system constructed bj^ the city/" the owner being free to avoid 
liability by refraining from making such connection. Such charge 
may be a fixed sum for the privilege of making the connection,"' 
or it may be a charge based upon the amount of sewage dis- 
charged from the premises into the sewer.^' Such a charge is 
not ordinarily regarded as a local assessment.^ ^ Another form 
charge which is in substance a contract is to be found where a 
municipality under authority of statute imposes a charge for the 
removal of garbage, but leaves the owner free to avoid liability 
either by making such use of his property that no garbage is 
produced thereon, or by destroying it upon the premises. Such 
a charge even if valid is not an assessment.^" Such a charge is 
said not to be a local assessment for three reasons: (1) It is 
not a forced charge but is incurred by the voluntary act of the 
owner of the premises; (2) the amount of such charge is not 
determined in advance and (3) no lien therefor is created upon 
the .realty.^'' Not all these reasons would hold good under all 
statutes. The third, especially, would not be a satisfactory reason 
in some jurisdictions.-^ The first reason given is, in this con- 
nection, the one to be noted. The fact that a transaction of 
this sort is a contract and not a true assessment produces several 
specific differences between such a charge and a true assessment. 
(1) The power of the city to charge for such commodities may be 
given in very broad and general terms and is not restricted to 
an express grant of powder by the legislature, as is the case in 
assessments for benefits.-- (2) Since the relation between the 
parties is a contractual one, the notice and hearing which are 

'^ Carson v. Sewerage Commission- a charge seems to be treated as an 
ers of Brockton. 175 Mass. 242 ; 48 assessment based on benefits as de- 
L. R. A. 277; 5G N. K. -1 [1900]; termined by the amount of sewage 
City of Fergus Falls v. Boen, 78 discharged, and levied for the pur- 
Minn. 186; 80 X. W. 961 [1899]. pose of keeping the sewer in repair. 

'"City of Fergus Falls v. Boen, 78 " Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 

Minn. 186, 80 X. W. 961 [1899], 49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 L. R. A. 

" Carson v. Sewerage Commission- 670, 37 X. E. 402, 39 X. E. 869 

ers of Brockton, 175 Mass. 242, 48 [1894]. 

L. R. A. 277, 56 X. E. 1 [1900]. =" Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 

^Hity of Fergus Falls v. Boen. 49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 L. R. A. 

78 Minn. 180. 80 X. W. 961 [1899]; 679, 37 X. E. 402. 39 X. E. 869 

In Carson v. Sewerage Commission- [1894]. 

ers of Brockton, 175 :\Iass. 242, 48 L. ^' See § 1049. 

R. A. 277, 56 X. E. 1 [1900], such "See § 229. 



11 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. §7 

essential in assessments for benefits are not required in the so- 
called assessments of this type."'' (3) The question of benefits 
does not enter into the determination of the amount to be paid 
for the property or services thus furnished by the person who 
has received them.-^ 

§ 7. Definition of assessment. 

A local assessment levied on the theory of benefits may then 
be defined as an enforced involuntary charge, generally in money 
though sometimes in the alternative in work and materials, im- 
posed by competent political authority in order to raise funds 
to pay for part or all of an improvement of a public character 
whereby an especial local benefit has in the contemplation of 
the law been conferred upon certain property, in most cases, 
realty, l)ut in some rare cases, personalty ; imposed generally 
upon the property, but in some eases upon the owner thereof; 
and imposed in the contemplation of the law in return for such 
especial benefits, and in an amount not exceeding such special 
benefits and apportioned according to the amount of such special 
benefits.^ This definition is more elaborate than is desirable, 
but the attempt to simplify seems to result in eliminating es- 
sential elements of the assessment, or else in i^rodueinu- a defini- 
tion which does not agree with the result of carefully considered 
cases which must be recognized as authoritative in the law of 
assessments Naturally the courts have not had occasion to eon- 

^'Sce § 734. 140 Ind. 591. 49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 

"See § 718. L. R. A. 670. 37 X. E. 402. 39 n' E. 

'For cases in which tlie cloinents ,9fin [18941; :Min()r v. Daspit, 43 La. 

of tlio definition here suirgested are .\n!i. 337. 9 So. 49 [1891] ; Daly v. 

recocrnized, sec Illinois Central Rail- Morpan, (i9 ^Fd. 4(iO, 1 L. R. A. 757. 

road Co. v. Decatur, 147 U. S. 190, IC Atl. 287 118881; Wliite v. Gove. 

37 L. 132, 13 R. 293 [18931; Fair 1S3 Mass. 333. fi7 X. E. 359 [19031; 

Haven & Westville Railroad Co. v. ITrman Construction Co. v. Wabash 

City of Xew TTaven. 77 Conn. 494. Ky. Co.. — :\ro. . 104 S. W. 07 

59 Atl. 737 [19051; Rarjrentv. Tuttle, [19071; Wilson v. Citv of Auburn. 

07 Conn. Ifl2. 32 L. R. A. 822. 34 27 Xeb. 435. 43 X. w! 257 [18891; 

Atl. 1028 [18951; Huston v. Trib- Slialer v. ^FcAIees-. — X. J. Eq. — . 

betts. 171 111. 547. 03 Am. St. Rep. (;S Atl. 410 [19071; State. Herrman. 

275. 49 X. E. 711 [18981; City of Pros. v. Town „f Outtenberir. 02 X. 

Chicago v. Blair. 149 Til. 310. 24 L. T. T. ( r!3 Vr.^ 005. 43 Atl. 703 

R. A. 412. 30 X'. E. 829 [18941; [18981: Citv f Raleifrh v. Peace. 

New York. Chicajro & St. Louis Rv. v. 110 X'. C. 32. 17 L. R. A. 330, 14 S. 

City of Hammond. — Ind. — . 83 X. E. .521 [18921: Petfit v. Duke. 10 

E. 244 [19081: Walker v. .Jameson. T^tah 311. 37 Vac. .508 [18941. 



§ 7 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 12 

sider all these elements in any one case, and the definitions 
framed by them are applicable to the facts of the case in which 
the definition is to be found. A local assessment has been said 
to signify "charges upon adjacent property for improve- 
ments."- This definition in its context is a perfectly proper 
one, as the court was pointing out that "assessment" in the 
eleventh article of the constitution of Kansas referred to general 
taxation and meaning listing and valuing property for taxa- 
tion,^ while in the twelfth section it referred to local assess- 
ments. As a general definition it is inadequate, since it restricts 
the assessment to adjacent property, and ignores the fact that in 
many jurisdictions it is a personal charge as well as a charge 
on property, and that in some jurisdictions it is merely a per- 
sonal charge on the owner;* it omits all mention of the class 
of improvements for which it may be levied ; and omits all ref- 
erence to the theory of benefits. An assessment of this sort has 
also been said to be an assessment to pay for an improvement 
for public purposes upon real property which is by reason of 
the locality of the improvement, specially benefited beyond the 
benefits conferred l\v the improvement upon the real property 
generally throughout the municipality.^ This definition ignores 
the fact that in some jurisdictions the assessment may be a 
personal charge, lays down the principle that a benefit to all 
the realty in the municipality cannot be a local benefit, a prin- 
ciple that is sharpl.y controverted in some jurisdictions at least/' 
and omits all reference to apportionment. An assessment is said 
to be "a tax on property levied according to benefits conferred 
on the property."' Other definitions of assessments found in 
adjudicated cases are even more limited. Assessments for street 
purposes are said to be "those special and loealimpositions upon 
property in the immediate vicinity of an improved street which 
were necessary to pay for the improvement and laid with ref- 
erence to the special benefit which such property derived from 
such expenditure of money. ""^ If used without any qualifica- 

" Hines v. City of Lpavenworth, 3 " See § 054. 

Kan. 180 [18G5]. ' Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 O. S. ,530, 

^See § 103. 564, 9 N. E. 672 [1886]. 

* See Chapter XX. " Raymond v. Cleveland, 42 O. S. 

= Wilson V. Board of Trustees of 522,527 [18851; quoting Hill v. Hi;?- 

the Sanitary District of Chicago, 133 don. 5 O. S. 243, 247, G7 Am. Dec. 

111. 443, 27" N. E. 203 [1890]. 289 [1855]. 



13 



ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. 



§8 



tion in a statute and with this g-eneral meaning the word as- 
sessment means a valid assessment.'^ 

§ 8. Assessment for benefits a form of taxation. 

The nature of the power of the legislature to provide for 
levying local assessment is a question which is discussed in de- 
tail hereafter.^ It is sufficient, in this connection to point out 
that by the great weight of authority a local assessment, levied 
in return for the benefits conferred upon the property assessed 
by the improvement for which the assessment is levied is a kind 
of tax.- The power to levy local assessments is said to be 



" ( ity of San Luis Obispo v. Pettit, 
87 Cal. 499, 25 Pac. G94 [1891]. 

' See C liapter V. 

- \A liiting V. Quackenbush, 54 Cal. 
30G [1880]; Hancock v. Whittoniore, 
50 Cal. 522 [1875]. In the matter of 
opening and grading Market street, 
49 Cal. 54G [1875] ; Appeal of Hough- 
ton, 42 Cal. 35 [1871]; Chambers 
V. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 [1871]; 
Emery v. The San Francisco Gas 
Company, 28 Cal. 34G [18G5]; Fair 
Haven & Westville Railroad Com- 
pany V. City of Xew Haven, 77 Conn. 
494, 59 Ati. 737 [1905]; Sargent & 
Company v. Tuttle, G7 Conn. IG2, 32 
L. K. A. 822; 34 Ati. 1028 [1895]; 
City cf Xew London v. Miller, GO 
Conn. 112, 22 Ati. 499 [1891]; City 
of Bridgeport v. Xew York &, Xew 
Haven Railroad Company, 3G Conn. 
255, 4 Am. Rep. G3 [1809]; Xieliols 
V. City of Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 1S9, 
GO Am. Dec. 636 [1854;] Elmore v. 
Drainage Commissioners, 135 111. 2()9, 
25 Am. St. Rep. 303, 25 X. E. 1010. 
[1890]; White v. People, ex rel. City 
of Bloomington, 94 111. G04 [1880]; 
City of Chicago v. AVard, 3(5 111. 9 
[18G4 1; Xew York. Cliieago & St. 
Louis Ivy. v. City of llammniKl. 

— Ind. . 83 X. E. 24) |1!I0S|; 

Board of Commissioners df ('nunty 
of :\I()nroe v. l!;n-rcll. 1 17 ind. oOO. 
4G X. K. 124 IISOC,]; (Imrchnian v. 
(ity of Indianapolis. 110 In, I. 2:)9. 
n X. E. 301 [1886]; Huston v. 



Tribbetts, 171 111. 547, 63 Am. St. 
Rep. 275. 49 X. E. 711 [1898]; Pal- 
mer v. City of Danville, 154 HI. 156, 
38 X. E. 1067 [1894] ; City of Bloom- 
ington V. Latham, 142 111. 462, 18 L. 
R. A. 487. 32 X. E. 506 [1892]; 
Springer v. Walters, 139 III. 419, 28 
X. E. 761 [1891]; Wabash Eastern 
Railway Company of Illinois v. Com- 
missioners of East Lake Fork Special 
Drainage District, 134 111. 384; 10 
L. R. A. 285, 25 X. E. 781 [1890]; 
County of Adams v. City of Quincy, 
130 111. 566, 6 L. R. A. 155, 22 X. E. 
624 [1889]; Prindiville v. Jackson, 
79 III. 337 [1875]; Robinson v. City 
of Burlington, 50 la. 240 [1878]; 
Todd V. City of Atchison, 9 Kan. App. 
251, 59 Pac. 676 [1900]; Bradley v. 
McAtee, 7 Bush. 667; 3 Am. Rep. 
309 [1870]; Pleasants v. City of 
Shreveport, 110 La. 1046, 35 So. 283; 
State ex rel. Hill v. Judges of the 
Court of Appeals for the Third Cir- 
cuit of the State of Louisiana, 46 
La. Ann. 1292, 16 So. 219 [1894]; 
Yeatnian v. Crandall, 11 La. Ann. 
220 fl85G]; Xew Orleans Drainage 
Comjiany praying for the confirma- 
tion of a Tableau. 11 La. Ann. 338 
MS.-)6]: Could v. :Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore. 59 :Md. 378 
|IS^21; A'ayor and City Council of 
P.altiinore v. Johns Hopkins Hospital. 
5G :\I(i. 1 [1880]: Wliite v. Gove. 183 
:\rass. 333. 67 X. E. 359 [1903]: Pro- 
prietors of the Cemetery of Mt. Au- 



§8 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



14 



"essentially a power to tax."^ The power of levying a local 
assessment is "distingnishable from our general idea of a tax. 
but owes its origin to the same source or power."* This propo- 
sition means, primarily, that an assessment is an enforced con- 
tribution for a public object. "It is a public tax in the sense 
that it is levied for a public object; it is a local tax in the 
sense in which most public taxes are local — that it is limited to 



burn V. Mayor and Aldermon of Cam- 
bridge, 150 Mass. 12; 4 L. R. A. 836. 
22 X. E. 66 [1889]; President and 
Fellows of Harvard College v. Board 
of Aldermen of the City of Boston, 
104 Mass. 470 [1870]; Dorgan v. 
City of Boston, 12 All. 223 [1866]; 
People on the relation of Butler v. 
Board of Supervisors of Saginaw 
County, 26 Mich. 22 [1872]; Wood- 
bridge V. City of Detroit, 8 Mich. 274 
[ISfiO], (decided by a divided court). 
Williams v. Mayor, etc., of Detroit, 
2 :^.Iich. 560 [1853] ; Stinson v. Smith, 
8 Minn. 366 [1863]; McComb v. Bell, 
2 Minn. 295 [1858]; Heman Con- 
struction Co. V. Wabash R. Co., 206 
Mo. 172; 104 S. W. 67 [1907]; Meier 
V. City of St. Louis. 180 Mo. .391; 79 
S. W. 955 [1903] ; Seaboard National 
Bank of New York v. Woesten, 176 
Mo. 49, 75 S. W. 464 [1903] ; Hemdn 
V. Schulte, 166 Mo. 409, 66 S. W. 163 
[1902]; Moberly v. Hogan, 131 Mo. 
19, 32 S. W. 1014 [1895]; Lamar 
Water & Electric Light Company v. 
City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188: 32 L. 
R. A. 157, 31 S. W. .756 [1895]; City 
of St. Joseph to use of Gibson v. Far- 
rell, 106 Mo. 437, 17 S. W. 497 
[1891]; Keith v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 
300, 13 S. W. 683 [1889]: City of 
St. Louis V. Speck, 07 :\Io. 403 
[1878]; Garrett v. City of St. Louis. 
25 Mo. 505, 69 Am. Dec. 475 [1857]: 
Wilson V. City of Auburn. 27 Neb. 
435. 45 N. W.'257 [1889]: Shaler v. 
McAleese, — N. J. Eq. — . 68 Atl. 416 
[19071; State, Agens. Pros. v. Mayor 
and Common Council of the City of 
Newark, 35 N. J. L. (6 Vr.) 168 
[1871]: State, Sigler. Pros. v. Fuller, 



34 X. J. L. (5 Vr.) 227 [1870]; In 
the matter of Van Antwerp, 56 N. Y. 
261 [1874]: People ex rel. Griffin 
V. Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 
419; 55 Am. Dec. 266 [1851]; Ireland 
V. City of Rochester, 51 Barb. 414 
[1868i; Litchfield v. Mc( omber, 42 
Barb. 288 [1864]: In the matter of 
the Report of the Commissioners of 
Assessment for Grading, Paving, etc.. 
Sackett Street in the City of Brook- 
lyn, 4 Hun. 92 [1875] ; Astor v. May- 
or, Aldermen and Commonalty of the 
City of New York, 37 N. Y. Superior 
Ct.^5 J. & S.) 539 [1874]; Hilliard 
V. City of Asheville, 118 N. C. 845. 
24 S. E. 738 [1896]; Pittsburgh v. 
Storrett Sub-district School, 204 Pa. 
St. 635, 61 L. R. A. 183, 54 Atl. 463 
[1903]; Morewood Avenue, Cham- 
ber's Appeal, 159 Pa. St. 20; 28 Atl. 
123 [1893]; Scranton v. Jermyn, 156 
Pa. St. 107. 27 Atl. 66 [1893]; In 
le Vacation of Center Street, 115 Pa. 
St. 247, 8 Atl. 56 [1886]; Wolf v. 
City of Philadelphia, 105 Pa. St. 25 
[1884]; In re opening of Park Ave- 
nue, 83 Pa. St. 167 [1876]; Gault's 
Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 94 T1859] ; Bishop 
V. Tripp, 15 R. I. 466, 8 Atl. 692 
[1887] ; Reelfoot Lake Levee District, 
v. Dawson, 97 Tenn. 151, 34 L. R. A. 
725, 36 S. W. 1041 [1896]; Allen v. 
Drew. 44 Vt. 174 [1872]; Blount v. 
City of Janesville, 31 Wis. 648 
[1872] ; Holton v. City of Milwaukee. 
31 Wis. 27 [1872]. 

' Sargent & Company v. Tuttle, 67 
Conn. 162, 32 L. R. A. 822, 34 Atl. 
1028 [1895]. 

* State. Sigler, Pros. v. Fuller. 3-! 
N. J. L. (5 Vr.^ 227. 230 [1870]. 



15 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. ^ 9 

a certain locality. It differs from ordinary public taxes in that 
it is not levied upon the polls and estates within a municipality 
or a district in respect of public or common benefits, but upon 
particular lands in respect of a particular benefit received by 
them from the execution of a public object."-' Whether the 
right to levy assessments of this type in some cases may not 
be referred to and justified by some power of government other 
than the power of taxation, such as the police power or the power 
of eminent domain is a question which is discussed in detail 
elsewhere." Here it must be noted, first, that an assessment is 
very generally recognized as a manifestation of the taxing power; 
second, that as might be expected, such a proposition is so broad 
that it is used to support conclusions which are utterly incon- 
sistent with each other; and third, that the question whether 
the term "tax" is so broad as to include "assessment" depends 
on the circumstances of each particular case.'^ 

§9. Assessment for legal duty not taxation. 

Assessments of the second type, that is, assessments levied to 
reimburse the public corporation for the cost of performing some 
act which the owner of the realty assessed, is bound by law 
to perform, but which he omits or refuses to do, do not, as we 
have seen, rest upon any theory of benefits conferred. Accord- 
ingly, such an assessment is not necessarily a form of taxation.^ 
If the improvement confers benefit upon the property which it 
is sought to assess, and if the legislature provides that the 
amount assessed shall be limited to the benefits, and apportioned 
thereto, we have a form of taxation. This, however, is a case 
where the legislature, though having the right to levy the as- 
sessment of the second type irrespective of benefits, foregoes the 
extreme exercise of its power, exacts less from a property owner 
ordinarily than it would otherwise have a right to exact and 
levies an assessment of the first type. If the legislature sees 

■* Proprietors of tlip Comotory of ?>rt. patriclc. Pros. v. Commissionprs of 

Auburn v. City of f'anibridcrc. 150 Streets and Sewers in City of New 

Mass. 12; 4 L. R. A. 830; 22 N. E. IJrunswiek, 42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 510 

66 riS891. 11880]: State. Sitjler, Pros. v. Fuller. 

"See §S 02. 00-102. 34 N. J. L. (5 Vr.) 227 [1870], To 

'See Chapter ITT. Hie same efTeet see obiter in Dyar v. 

' Van Watroner V. Mayor ami Alder- l-"arniin.<iton Village Corporation. 70 

men of City of Paterson. 67 X. J. L. Me. 515 [18781. 
(38 Vr.) 455 [15)021; State, Kirk- 



§§ 10, 11 TxVXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 16 

fit to exercise the full extent of its power, and to assess for the 
cost of the work done irrespective of the benefits, we have what 
is ordinarily regarded as an exercise, not of the power of taxa- 
tion, but of the police power.^ 

§ 10. Assessment for goods furnished not taxation. 

The so-called assessment of the third type, that is, assessments 
for the price of commodities furnished for use on certain realty 
at the request of the person consuming them, is evidently not 
an exercise of the taxing power, nor is it a form of a tax. The 
relation between the public corporation, which furnishes the com- 
modity, and the person consuming it, is a relation purely con- 
tractual in its nature. As said before, the relation between the 
parties is substantially what it would have been had the com- 
modity been furnished by a private corporation or a natural 
person. The transaction is substantially a contract of sale, in 
some cases with additional remedies given to the public for the 
enforcement and collection of the purchase price over and above 
those granted in ordinary contracts of sale.^ Such a charge is, 
however, not infrequently referred to as a tax or an assessment. - 
Thus a charge for water furnished is referred to as a "water 
tax or rates," and as "water rates or assessments."^ 

§ 11. Theory underlying the doctrine of assessment for benefits. 

The theory underlying the doctrine of local assessments of the 
first type, which is held by the great majority of the courts is 
that is that the value of certain property is enhanced by an 
improvement of a publi^ character, the property thus receiving 
an especial and peculiar benefit ; and that upon such property 
a part or the whole of the cost of such public improvement is 
assessed to an amount not exceeding the amount of such bene- 
fits. The owner of the property is therefore under this theory no 

- Westenliaver v. Village of Hoyts- dereliction of duty is no more a tax 
ville, 28 Ohio C. C. 357 [1905]. "The than an imprisonment for the viola- 
taxing power of a municipal corpora- tion of a police regulation." Barrow 
tion is as distinct from its power v. Hepler, 34 La. Ann. 3C2, 365 
to regulate the manner of making and [1882]. 
repairing public roads and to enforce ^ See 8 6. 
its ordinances hy fine or imprison- - See § 6. 

ment as it is distinct from the power ^ Cook County v. City of Chicago, 

of such corporations to enforce any 103 III. 040 [1882]. 
police regulations. A fine for the 



17 



ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. 



§11 



poorer by reason of the entire transaction, as the assessment 
only takes from him the equivalent of part or all of the special 
benefit which the public improvement has conferred upon him; 
or to state it in another way, the special benefits conferred on 
him by the public improvement compensate him or more than 
compensate him for the amount of the assessment which he is 
obliged to pay.^ This general theory has been stated by the 



' Village of Norwood v. Baker, 
172 U. S. 269, 43 L. 443, 19 
S. 187 [1898], (affirming Baker v. 
Village of Norwood, 74 Fed. 997; 
Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 42 
L. 270, 17 S. 966 [1897]; Illinois 
Central Railroad Company v. Deca- 
tur, 147 U. S. 190, 37 L. 132, 13 S. 
293 [1803]; (affirming Illinois Cen- 
tral Railroad Company v. Decatur, 
126 111. 92, 1 L. R. A. 613, 18 N. E. 
315 [1888]; Fay v. City of Spring- 
field. 94 Fed. 409 [1899]; Mayor and 
Aldermen of Birmingham v. Klein, 
89 Ala. 461, 8 L. R. A. 369, 7 So. 
386 [1889]; In the matter of the 
Bonds of Madera Irrigation District, 
92 Cal. 296, 27 Am. St. Rep. 106, 
14 L. R. A. 755, 28 Pac. 272, 675 
[1891]; Bixler v. Board of Supervis- 
ors of the County of Sacramento, 59 
Cal. 698 [1881]; In the matter of 
Opening and Grading of Market 
Street, 49 Cal. 546 [1875]; Cham- 
bers V. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 [1871] ; 
Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240 [1866] ; 
City of Denver v. Knowles. 17 Colo. 
204. 17 L. R. A. 135, 30 Pac. 1041 
[1892]; Ferguson v. Borough of 
Stamford, 60 Conn. 432, 22 Atl. 782 
[1891]; City of New Haven v. Fair 
Haven & Westerville Railroad Com- 
pany. 38 Conn. 422. 9 Am. Rep. 399 
[1871]; City of Bridgeport v. New 
York & New Haven Railroad Com- 
pany. 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am. Rep. 63 
]18i;9]; Allman v. District of Co- 
lumbia, 3 App. D. C. 8 [1894]: City 
of Atlanta v. Hamlein. 96 Oa. 381. 23 
S. E. 408 (1895]; De Clercq v. Bar- 
ber Asphalt Paving Company. 167 111. 
215, 47 N. E. 367 [1897]; Illinois 
Central Railroad Comjiany v. City of 



Decatur, 154 111. 173, 38 N. E. 026 
[1894]; Palmer v. City of Danville, 
154 111. 156, 38 N. E. 1067 [1894]; 
City of Chicago v. Blair, 149 111. 310, 
24 L. R. A. 412, 36 N. E. 829 [1894] ; 
Prindiville v. Jackson, 79 111. 337, 
[1875]; Mix V. Ross, 57 111. 121 
[1870]; Trustees of the Illinois and 
Michigan Canal v. City of Chicago, 
12 III. 403 [1851]; Gas'Light & Coke 
Company v. City of New Albany, 158 
Ind. 268, 63 N. E. 458 [1902] ; Board 
of Commissioners of the County of 
Monroe v. Harrell, 147 Ind. 500, 46 
N. E. 124 [1896]; Quill v. City of 
Indianapolis, 124 Ind. 292, 7 L. R. 
A. 681, 23 N. E. 788 [1890]; Law 
V. Madison, Smyrna & Graham Turn- 
pike Company, 30 Ind. 77 [1868]; 
City of New Albany v. Cook, 29 
Ind. 220; ]1867]; Marion Bond 
Company v. Johnson, 29 Ind. App. 
294. 64 N. E. 626 [1902]; Beck- 
er V. Baltimore & Ohio South West- 
ern Railway Company, 17 Ind. App. 
324, 46 N. E. 685 [1897]; Burke v. 
Lukens, 12 Ind. App. 648, 54 Am. 
St. Rep. 539, 40 N. E. 641 [1895]; 
Simpson v. City of Kansas City, 46 
Kan. 438 [1891]; Henting v. Gil- 
more, 33 Kan. 234. 6 Pac. 304 [1885] ; 
Gilmore v. Ilcntig, 33 Kan. 156, 5 
Pac. 781 [1885]: Excelsior Plantini 
& Manufacturing Company v. Green. 
39 La. Ann. 455, 1 So. 873 [1887]; 
City of Auburn v. Paul, 84 Me. 212, 
24 Atl. 817 [1892]; Daly v. Morgan. 
69 Md. 460, 1 T-. Pv. A."757 [1888]; 
Mayor, etc.. of Baltimore v. Moore. 
6 Harris & J. 375 [1825] ; Mayor and 
City Council of Baltimore v. Hughes' 
Adni'r. 1 Gill. & J. 480; 19 Am. Dec. 
243 [1829]; City of Boston v. Boston 



11 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



18 



courts in many different forms, varying according to the point 
of view taken by the specific court and according to the particu- 
lar application of the general theory of assessments which it is 
sought to make in each specific case. Thus it has been said to be 



& Albany Railroad Company, 170 
Mass. 95,"^ 49 N. E. 95 [1898]; Select- 
men of Norwood v. New York & New 
England Railroad Company, 161 
Mass. 259, 37 N. E. 199 [1894]; 
Proprietors of tlie Cemetery of Mt. 
Auburn v. IMayor and Aldermen of 
Cambridge, 150 Mass. 12; 4 L. R. A. 
836, 22 N. E. 66 [1889] ; City of De- 
troit V. Judge of Recorder's Court, 
112 Mich. 588, 71 N. W. 149 [1897]; 
Siih nomine City of Detroit v. Chapin, 
42 L. R. A. 638 [1897]; City of De- 
troit V. Daly, 68 Mich, 503, 37 N. W. 
11 [1888]; Thomas v. Gain, 35 Mich. 
155, 24 Am. Rep. 535 [1876]; Hoyt 
V. City of East Saginaw, 19 Mich. 39, 
2 Am*. Rep. 76 [1869]; State ex rel. 
City of St. Paul v. District Court of 
Ramsey County, 75 Minn. 292, 77 N. 
W. 968 [1899]; State of Minnesota 
ex rel. Cunningham v. District Court 
of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 62, 11 
N. W. 133 [1882]; Rogers v. City of 
St. Paul, 22 Minn. 494 [1876]; Town 
of Macon v. Patty, -57 Miss. 378, 34 
Am. Rep. 451 [1879]; Heman Con- 
struction V. Wabash R. Co., — Mo. 

, 104 S. W. 67 [1907]; McGor- 

mack V. Patchin, 53 Mo. 33, 14 Am. 
Rep. 440 [1873]; Lockwood v. City of 
St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20 [1856]; Lohrum 
V. Eyermann, 5 Mo. App. 481 [1878] ; 
Zoeller v. Kellog?, 4 Mo. ApD. IIS 
[1877]; City of Butte v. School Dis- 
trict No. 1, 29 Mont. 336. 74 Pac. 
869 [1904]; Medland v. Linton, 60 
Neb. 149. 82 N. W. 866 [1900]-, 
Smith V. City of Omaha, 49 Neb. 883, 
69 N. W. 402 [18961; Cain v. City 
of Omaha. 42 Neb. 120. 60 N. W. 368 
[1894]: Hanscom v. City of Omnlia, 
11 Neb. 37, 7 N. W. 739 [1881]: 
Van Wagoner, Pros. v. Mpvor and 
Aldermen of the Citv of Pater.son. 
67 N. J. L. (38 Vr.) 455, 51 Atl. 922 



[1902] ; Wilson v. Inhabitants of the 
City of Trenton, 61 N. J. L. 599, 68 
Am. St. Rep. 714, 44 L. R. A. 540, 
40 Atl. 575 [1898]; State, Agens, 
Pros. V. Mayor and Common Council 
of Newark, 37 N. J. L. 415, 18 Am. 
Rep. 729 [1874]; Bogert v. City 
of Elizabeth, 27 N. J. Eq. 568 [1876] ; 
Gotthelf V. Stranahan, 138 N. Y. 345, 
20 L. R. A. 455, 34 N. E. 286 [1893] ; 
Stuart V. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 30 
Am. Rep. 289 [1878]; Buffalo City 
Cemetery v. City of Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 
506 [1871]; People, ex rel. Griffin v. 
Mayor, etc., of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419,, 
55 Am. Dec. 266 [1851]; City of 
Asheville v. Wachovia Loan & Trust 
Co., 143 N. C. 360, 55 S. E. 800 
[1908]; City of Raleigh v. Peace, 110 
N. C. 32, 17 L. R. A. 330, 14 S. E. 
521 [1892]; Busbee v. Commis-ioners 
of Wake County, 93 N. C. 143 [1885] ; 
Commissioners of Green County v. 
Commissioners of Lenoir County, 92 
N. C. 180 [1885]; Walsh v. Barron, 
61 0. S. 15, 76 Am. St. Rep. 354; 
55 N. E. 164 [1899]; Wewell v. City 
of Cincinnati, 45 O. S. 407, 15 N. E. 
196 [1887]; Raymond v. Cleveland, 
42 0. S. 522 [1885]; Lima v. Ceme- 
tery Association, 42 0. S. 128, 51 
Am. Rep. 809 [1884]; Fields v. Com- 
missioncT-s of Highland County, 36 0. 
S. -^76 [1881]; Chnmberlain v. Cleve- 
land, 34 0. S. 551, [1878]; King 
v. Portland, 38 Ore. 402. 52 L. 
R. A. 812, 63 Pac. 2 [19001: Hud- 
dleston v. City of Eugene, 34 Ore. 
343, 43 L. R. A. 444, 55 Pac. 
868 [18901: Boyd v. Borou-rh 
of Wilkinsbursr, 183 Pa. St. 198, 38 
Atl. 592 [1897]; Morewood Avenue, 
Chan-bers's Anneal, 159 Pa. St. 20, 
28 Atl. 123 [1893]; City of Erie v. 
Ru^soll, 148 Pa. St. 384, 23 Atl. 1102 
[1892]; City of Chester v. Black, 132 



19 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 11 

"the fundamental principle of sneh special taxation, that it shall 
be measured by the special benefit."- Other forms of stating 
this general theory are as follows: "The assessment is made 
solely on the ground of benefits conferred."^ "It is a local 
assessment imposed occasionally, as required, upon a limited class 
of persons interested in a local improvement who are assumed 
to be benefited by the improvement to the extent of the assess- 
ment, and it is imposed and collected as an equivalent for that 
benefit and to pay for the improvement."* "The foundation 
of special benefits for public improvements is the special benefit 
derived by the owners of property over and above the rest of 
the community.""' "The only basis on which special taxation 
or special assessments can be sustained is that the property 
subject to the assessments or taxation will be enhanced in value 
by such improvements to the extent of the benefit imposed."^ 
"Assessments for local improvements can be justified only upon 
the theory that the lands upon which they are laid are specially 
benefited by the improvements for which they are laid, and 
hence ought to bear the burden rather than property generally ; 
and if a law should authorize such assessments to be laid with- 
out reference to benefits it would either take property for pub- 
lic good without compensation or it would take property from 
one person for the 'benefit of another."^ An assessment is said 
to be "in the nature of compensation for a benefit."** "The 
principle on which they are levied is 'that the terjntory sub- 



Pa. St. 508. G L. R. A. 802 [18001; Company v. Jaspor County. 117 la. 

Opening of Park Avenue, 83 Pa. St. 3G5, 381. !)4 .\m. St. JW\^. 301. 90 X. 

175 [188G] ; Kettle V. City of Dallas, W. inOG [1902]. 

35 Tex. Civ. App. 632, 80 S. W. 874 ' City of Kridsjeport v. New York 

[19041: Barnes v. Dyer, 5G Vt. 4G9 & Xcw Haven Railroad Company. 3G 

[18841; Woodhouse v. City of Bur- Conn. 255, 262, 263. 4 Am. Rep. 63 

linpton, 47 Vt. 300 [1875]"; Allen v. |isr9]. 

Drew, 44 Vt. 174 [1872]; Asberry v. " Wewoll v. City of Cincinnati, 45 

City of Roanoke, 91 Va. 562, 42 L. R. O. S. 407, -124, 15 X. E. 196 [1887]. 

A. 636, 22 S. E. 380 [1895]; Seanor "City of liutto v. School District 

v. Board of County Commissioners. Xo. 1, 29 ^font. 336. 339, 74 Pac. 86!) 

13 Wasii. 48, 42 Pac. 552 [18951; 11904]. 

Stowell V. Milwauls-eo, 31 Wis. 5::i 'Stuart v. Palmer. 74 X. V. 183. 

[1872]; TTolton V. City of Mil\vnuke:\ 30 .Am. Rep. 289 [1878]. 

31 Wis. 27 [1872]. 'Mayor and .Aldermen of Birrnin;!- 

" Vacation ( f Howard Street. 1 !2 liam v. Klein. 89 Ala. 461, 8 L. R. A. 

Pa. St., 601. 606. 21 Atl. 974 [1<'91]. 369. 7 So. 386 [1889]. 

' Edwards & Wal.sh Construction 



§ 11 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 20 

jected thereto will be benefited by the work.' " '^ "Assessments 
for street improvements are npheld on the ground that the ad- 
adjacent property, upon which the cost of the improvement is 
assessed, is enhanced in value to an amount equal to the sum 
assessed against it, and that the owner has received peculiar 
benefit which the citizens do not share in common."^" "The 
making of such assessments is a form of taxation which rests 
upon the ground that the property in the neighborhood of a 
public improvement may receive special and peculiar benefits 
from the improvement that make it equitable as against the 
owner to charge it with the payment of a greater proportional 
part of the cost of the work than is paid by property owners 
generally."" "Assessments for street improvements are up- 
held on the ground that the adjacent property upon which the 
cost of the improvement is assessed is enhanced in value to an 
amount equal to the sum assessed against it, and that the owners 
have received peculiar benefits which the citizens do not share 
in common."^- "A tax or assessment for local improvement is 
based upon the theory that it is a return for the benefit received 
by the person who pays the tax or by the property assessed."" 
"These local assessments are authorized on the principle of the 
direct benefits resulting to those upon whom they are made, 
from the improvements."" "An assessment is a charge laid 
upon individual property because the property upon which the 
burden is imposed receives a special benefit which is different 
from the general one which the owner enjoys in common with 
others as a citizen. . . . An assessment is levied only upon 
the property benefited. It is uniformly restricted to the means 
for paying those local burdens arising by reason of the Avants of 

° Bixler v. Board of Supervisors of " City of Boston v. Boston & Al- 

the County of Sacramento, 59 Cal. bany Railroad Company, 170 Mass. 

698, 702 [1881]; quoting Litchfield 9.5, 08, 49 N. E. 95 [1898]. 

V. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 123 [1869]. ^- Quill v. City of Indianapolis, 124 

'"Marion Bond Company v. John- Ind. 292, 299, 300, 7 L. R. A. 681. 

son, 29 Ind. App. £94, 297, 64 N. E. 23 N. E. 788 [1890]. 

626 [1902]; (citing Quill v. City of ^^ Board cf Commissioners of the 

Indianapolis, 124 Ind. 292, 7 L. R. A. County of Monroe v. Harrell, 147 Ind. 

681. 23 N. E. 788 [1890]; Ross v. 500, 505; 46 N. E. 124 [1896]. 

Stackhouse, 114 Ind. 200. 16 N. E. "City of New Albany v. Cook, 29 

501 [1887]; Heick v. Voight, 110 Ind. 220, 223 [1867]. 
Ind. 279, 11 N. E. 306 [1886]). 



21 



ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. 



§11 



small communities."''' So the theory of assessments is said to 
be "that the value of the lots is enhanced by the public ex- 
penditure."^' Such an assessment is said to be "an assessment 
to pay for an improvement for pul)lic purposes upon real prop- 
erty, which is, by reason of the locality of the improvement, 
specially benefited beyond the benefits by the improvement to 
real property generally throughout the municipality, proportioned 
by such benefits. "'" "The theory upon which such assessments 
are sustained as a legitimate exercise of the taxing power 
is that the party assessed is locally and peculiarly bene- 
fited over and above the ordinary benefit, which as one 
of the community, he receives in all public improvements 
to the precise extent of the assessment." ^'^ Hence, one 
who agrees to buy a property free from incumbrances is 
not prejudiced by the construction of improvements and the levy 
of assessments therefor, after the time fixed for performance of 
the contract to convey, since under the theory of assessments, 
the property is benefited to the amount of assessment. ^'^ The im- 
provement must be regarded as an entirety as far as it affects 
the (juestion of special benefits. An assessment may be levied 
upon the theory of benefits where the improvement as n whole 
l)enefits the property assessed, even though a particular part of 
tlie improvement might have been omitted without aff'e-ting the 
benefit to the property."" To levy such an assessment is said to 
be "to assess for contributions."-' Indeed some courts occa- 
sionally put so much emi)liasis upon the special benefit to the 
immediate loealitv that the\- minimize or ignore the ueneral l)enefit 



'^WalkiT V. Janipson, 1-10 In.l. 591. 
59 1. 5i)r). 40 A. S. R. 222, 28 L. R. A. 
(179. :?7 X. E. 402. 39 X. E. Sflfi 
[1S941. 

'" Sclienloy v. The C'oninioiiwoaUIi 
for till' use of tlie City of Al!ou;lieny, 
•M\ Vi\. St. 29, 57. 78 Am. Doc. 359 
I1S.591. 

" Wilson V. Board of Trustees of 
tlie Sanitary District of Chicago. 133 
111. 443, 4{19. 27 X. E. 203 [1890]; 
(citing (iuild v. City of C'liica'jro, 82 
111. 472 [18701; City of Sterling v. 
(ialt. 117 111. n, 7 X. E. 471 [1880]. 

'" State, The Xew -lersev Railroad 



& 'i'ransportation Company. Pros. v. 
Mayor and Common ('nuucil of the 
City of Xewark. 27 X. .1. L. (3 
Dutch.) 185. 190 I1S58]. quoted 
City of Detroit v. Judge of Record- 
er's Court. 112 Mich. 588. 589, 71 N. 
W. 149; fiiih nomine City of Detroit 
V. ( liapin, 42 L. R. A. 038 [1897]. 

"(iutthelf V. Stranahan. 138 X. Y. 
345. 20 L. R. A. 45."). 3t X. E. 280 
[18931. 

=" Boyd V. Borough of Wilkinsbrrjr, 
183 Pa. St. 198. 38 Atl. 592 [1897]; 

-' Opening of Park Avenue, 83 Pa. 
St. 175 11880]. 



§ 12 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 22 

to the public at large."' However it is, under most theories of 
local assessment, necessary that there should be also a general 
benefit to the public as well as a special local benefit, since 
without the general public benefit, the state would have no au- 
thority to enforce contribution for an improvement, however 
beneficial it might prove to the individual property owners.^^ 
While the great majority of the courts are found to adopt the 
general theory here given, and to state it and restate it in many 
forms, differing somewhat in expression, but essentially the same, 
it must here be observed that the statement of the theory here 
given is so broad and general in its terms that it leaves open for 
future decision many questions which might at first glance seem 
to be precluded by the form in which the theory is stated. Who 
determines the question of the existence and amount of special 
benefits conferred by the public improvement in question — 
v/hether the legislature can directly or through grant of power 
to municipalities or public quasi corporations, make the decision 
of the officers of such corporations or of the legislature a finality, 
or whether the courts will review the question of benefits de 
novo, are all problems, the answer to which determines the very 
nature of the local assessment, but nevertheless problems left 
open for consideration. Courts which agree in- their general 
theory of assessments differ sharply in the answers which they 
give to these questions. This branch of the subject is discussed 
elsewhere in detail.-'' 

§ 12. Divergent theories of assessment for benefits. 

Another theory is advanced by the Supreme Court of Iowa. 
It is that the local assessment is without any justification as long 
as each improvement is considered separately. It is. only when 
the fact is considered that ultimately all the public improvements 
will be constructed and property assessed to pay therefor, that 
a justification of local assessments can be found. "When we 
contemplate the case of a single street or a single block, the 
manner of specific taxation upon abutting lots may appear to 

" "Local improvements for which to be paid by the property specially 

assessments are made are not sup- benefited." Van Deventer v. Long 

posed to be beneficial to the general Island City, 139 N. Y. 133, 34 N. E. 

public. They are usually beneficial 774 [1893]. 

wholy or mostly to the locality in -" See § '2S3. 

which they are made, and tliey are to =* See § 290 et seq.; § 6(56 et seq. 



23 ASSESSMENT AND PL.VCE IN LAW. ^i 12 

impose more unequally the burden in relation to the benefits, but 
when we take in view the fact that all the streets of the city, 
so far as the public jj^ood demands, are to be paved in the same 
way, we see at once that the burdens are more equally distributed. 
The lots on one street nuiy not be taxed this year, but they 
will be next, or when the public good requires it. In due time 
they must bear their own burden. If the public good never 
requires it, all that can be said is that the taxpayer is relieved 
because the public interest does not demand the expenditure 
of revenue realized from such tax. In this view the system is 
equitable and .just. I do not claim that this is so perfectly; I 
know that it is not. But. as I have before pointed out. no system 
in my opinion is or can be. But it approximates a just distribution 
of the burden and is as near thereto as the system of general taxa- 
tion for such improvements can attain."^ There are two weak 
points in this theory. First, there is no assurance that subsequent 
improvements will l)e needed and constructed; nor, if they are 
constructed, is there any assurance, under many statutes, that 
the municipality may not elect to pay therefor by general taxa- 
tion. If. however, the remaining improvements are paid for by 
general taxation, there is nothing left of the theory of equality 
in the long run. Second, even if a foriu of equality in the 
long run is thus obtained, it is an equality as to realty only. 
Personal property is, uiuler most systems of assessment, omitted 
entirely — an omission hard to justify on the ground of equality 
or uniformity if the theory of benefits is repudiated. A some- 
what similar theory has been suggested in a Mississippi case in 
which it has been said that if all the streets in a mtmieipality 
were improved at once, the burdin of the cost of such improve- 
ment would be e(|uali/e(l if assessed upon tlu^ benefited prop- 
erty.- The same theory as that adopted by the Iowa court had 
some time before been considered by tlu' Sui)reme Court of 
Kentucky and held to be unsound, ou the grouiul that an as- 
sessment upon one person cnuld not be upheld or justified by 
the remote, contingent and uncertain possibility that a similar 
burden for a similar pur])ose might eventually aiul iu process 
of time lie imjiosed uix-.n every other j^-operty owner.' The Su- 

' Warri'ii v. Ilciily. .''.1 in. 31. 41 ' C\ty of T.pxinsrtoii v. McQuillan's 

[1870]. ITciis. n Diuia 513, .3.5 Am. Doc. 150 

= Town of :\Iacon v. Pattv. 57 Miss. [18391. 
378. 34 Am. V.vy.. 451 [18701. 



§ 12 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 24 

preme Court of Iowa has continued to adhere to the view that 
the justification of local assessments does not depend upon the 
theory of benefits.* Thus the court has said: "We do not 
understand that it has ever been held by any court that a prop- 
erty owner, called on to pay assessments for the general public 
benefit is allowed to show that the specific personal benefit which 
he derives from the subject-matter for which the tax is levied 
is not equal to the amount of the tax imposed on him for that 
object."^ Again it has said that a street improvement "is a 
public object which will support such an assessment regardless 
of the fact of whether or not it is a benefit to the abutting 
property."® This last case was taken on error to the Supreme 
Court of the United States and in that court it was urged that 
the assessment was invalid, since the Iowa theory of assessments 
was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; but the Supreme 
Court of the United States refused to consider or to pass upon 
this question on the ground that the Federal question, which 
it was thus sought to raise, had not been presented to the Iowa 
courts or passed upon by them." In California the courts seem 
disposed to ignore the theory of benefits and to insist that the 
power of the legislature to select such basis of apportionment 
as it may see fit does not depend on the fact of benefit to the 
property upon which the assessment is levied.'^ In Kentucky 
it has been suggested that local assessments are to be justified 
on the same theory as that on which the citizens of a county have 
been required to make county roads and keep them in repair.** 
The theory has been advanced that the property owner may be 
liable for an assessment, even though his property receives no 
particular benefit from the improvement for which the assess- 



*Ft. Dodge Electric Light & Power ° Dewey v. City of Des Moines, 101 

Company v. City of Ft. Dodge, 115 la. 416, 423, 70 N. W. 605 [1897]. 

la. 568, 89 X. W. 7 [1902]; Chicago, 'Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 

Milwaukee & St. Paul Raihvay Com- 103, 43 L. 665, 19 S. 379 [1899]. 

pany v. Phillips, 111 la. 377, 82 X. * In the matter of the Bonds of the 

W. 787 [1900]; Allen v. City of Dav- Madera Irrigation District, 92 Cal. 

enport, 107 la. 90, 77 X.' W. 532 296, 27 Am. St. Rep. 106, 14 L. R. A. 

[1898]; Gatch v. City of Des Moines, 755, 28 Pac. 272, 675 [1891]. 

03 la. 718, 18 X. V\'. 310. « City of Lexington v. McQuillan's 

= Oliver v. Monona County, 117 la. Heirs, 9 Dana. 513, 35 Am. Dec. 159 

43, 58, 90 X. W. 510 [1902]'. [1840]. 



25 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 12 

ment is levied. ^'^ In Virginia, at a time when the constitution 
did not expressly restrict assessments as it now does,^^ the whole 
theory of assessments was considered, discussed at length, and 
sharply criticised.'- The court said: "It is grossly un.just as 
well as destructive of the principles of free government to hold 
that the expense of opening, widening, extending, or otherwise 
improving a public street in a city or incorporated town should 
be borne by the few who live nearest to it when such improve- 
ment, if made, is founded in public necessity, and is not only 
open to the public at large, but is used by the public, perhaps, 
hundreds of times where it is used bu.t once by any one of the 
abutting owners who are made to bear the burden of its erec- 
tion. Any such imposition is necessarily repulsive to the sense 
of justice of ever}^ fair-minded man and it would seem impossible 
for any free government to long survive the practice of such 
inequality, extortion and oppression. There is no just ground 
upon Avhich to place any such arbitrary system of taxation, and 
any such .system is opposed to the very letter and spirit of our 
Constitution."'^ At the same time the court refrained from 
deciding the case on the view of assessments here expressed, but 
rested its holding on the ground tliat the municipality in levy- 
ing the assessment had not complied with the statute from which 
it derived its authority. While in some of these cases assess- 
ments of the second type are presented for consideration, in 
which the assessment is levied for the cost of doing somethirg 
which the owner of the land assessed was legally bound to do 
and which he has neglected or refused to do. and accordingly 
the question of benefits is not necessarily involved,'* yet in 
many of the cases assessments' of the first type are presented 
which in theory at least are based upon and limited by the bene- 
fits conferred liy the improvement for whidi the assessment is 
levied. In other cases assessments have been said to be inde- 
fensible in theory.'" The New Jersey courts are disposed to 
justify assessments on the ground of ancient usage and h^m' 



'"Otter V. Barber Asphalt Pavinj; '-^ City of Norfolk v. Chamhorlain, 

Co., — Ky. , 96 S. W. 802 SO Va. 19(5. 229. 16 S. E. 730 [ 1S021. 

I190(>1. * "See § 13; § 717. 

"See § 161: § .lO.S. '= Weeks v. City of Milwaukee, 10 

'-(ity of Norfolk v. Chamberlain, Wis. 242 [I860]. 
89 Va. 196, 229, 16 S. E. 730 [1892]. 



§ 13 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 26 

continued custom as much as on the theory of benefits.^" While 
it is true that this reason has been advanced in cases involvinpf 
assessments which may be classed as assessments for the cost 
of performing what it is the legal duty of the land-owner to do, 
such as drainage assessments;^' it has also been advanced in cases 
involving a.ssessments of classes which are usually justified only 
on the theory of benefits such as streets/^ With reference to 
some classes of improvement^** the theory has been advanced 
that the power to compel public improvements of such types 
and to levy local assessments therefor is a branch of the power 
to provide for the regulation and management of interests com- 
mon to a number of land-owners, which cannot be cared for 
efficiently except by a common control exercised alike over the 
willing and the unwilling.-" In some jurisdictions we find that 
the theory upon which the doctrine of local assessments is based 
is a combination of the theory that the state may provide for 
the regulation and management of interests common to a num- 
ber of land-owners as well as to the general public, and of the 
theory that the owners of land especially benefited by a public 
improvement, must bear the burden of its cost.-^ 

§ 13. Theory underlying doctrine of assessment for legal duty. 

The theory underlying the doctrine of assessment for the cost 
of performing a legal duty which the owner of the property is 
bound to perform, but which he has neglected or refused to 
perform, and which the public corporation has performed at 
his cost, has nothing to do with the doctrine of compensation 

"In matter of Drainage of the L. (13 Vr.) 553 [1880]; (affirmed 

Great Meadows on Pequest River, 42 without opinion as Hoagland v. State, 

N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 553 [1880] (af- Simonton, Pros., 43 N. J. L. (14 Vr.) 

firmed without opinion as Hoagland 456 [1881] ; and affirmed by the Su- 

V. State, Simonton, Pros., 43 N. J. preme Court of the United States as 

L. (14 Vr.) 456 [1881], and affirmed Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U. S. 606, 

on error by the Supreme Court of 29 L. 229, 5 S. 1086 [1885]). 

the United States as Wurts v. Hoag- " State, Society for Establishing 

land, 114 U. S. 606, 29 L. 229, 5 S. Useful Manufactures, Pros. v. Mayor 

1086 [1885]: State, Society for and Aldermen of City of Paterson, 

Establishing Useful Manufactures, 42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 615 [1880]. 

Pros. V. ]\rayor and Aldermen of "See §§ 13, 334 et seq ; § 363. 

City of Paterson, 42 X. J. L. (13 =» See §§ 13, 334 et seq.; § 363. 

Vr.) 615 [1880]. =^ Town of Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 

I'ln matter of Drainage of Great 378; 34 Am. Rep. 451 [1879]. 
Meadows on PeouFst River. 42 X. J. 



27 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 13 

for benefits conferred by such improvement. The true theory 
in such cases is that the law compels the property owner to 
do certain things with reference to his property for the pro- 
tection of the public, irrespective of the question whether the 
performance of such legal duty will benefit the property with 
reference to which such ^ct is required or not.^ In many cases 
such benefit is in fact conferred, a circumstance which often 
leads to confusion between assessments of this type and assess- 
ments based on the theory of benefits, and which often makes 
it impossible to determine whether a given assessment is based 
upon the one theory or the other. In other cases it may happen 
that no benefit is conferred, or that if a benefit is conferred, it 
is less in amount than the cost of doing such work. In these 
later cases the right of the legislature to authorize assessments 
for the cost of doing such work is established by the great weight 
of authority,- and clearly has no connection Avith the doctrine 
of benefits, and is not dependent thereon. Assessments which 
might be explained upon this theory are not infrequently re- 
ferred to theories, different in expression, though not neces- 
sarily inconsistent with such tlieory. Thus it has been suggested 
that in some forms of public improvements, at least, assess- 
ments are to be justified on the theory of the power and duty 
of the state to make regulations for the management of prop- 
erty which for any reason can be managed efficiently only by 
concerted action.^ This theory does not attempt to demonstrate 
the propriety of placing the burden of the public improvement 
upon the individual owners instead of on the public treasury, 
and it seems to assume the duty of the property owner to make 
the improvement at his own expense — the very point which most 



' State, Kirkpatrick. Pros. v. Com- management of property of persons, 

missioncrs of Streets and Sewers in whose property adjoins, or which. 

City of Xew Brnnswick, 42 X. J. L. from some oilier reason, can be better 

(13 Vr.) 510 [1880]: State, Agens, managed and improved by some joint 

Pros. V. Mayor and Common Council operation, sncli as the power of regii- 

of Newark, 37 X. J. L. (8 Vr.) 415. biting the bnibling of party wall-. 

IS Am. Rep. 729 [18741: State. Sig- making and maintaining partition 

ler, l^ros. v. Fuller. 34 X. J. L. (5 fences and ditches, constructing ditch 

Vr. 227) flSTO]. es and sewers for the draining ot 

-See § 93. uplands or marshes, which can be 

'"It is the power of the govern- more advantageously drained by a 

ment to prescribe public regulations common sewer or ditch. This is a 

for tlie better and more economical well known legislative power. ri-c:)jf- 



n4 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



28 



needs explanation and justification. A theory for justifying 
the power of local assessment, as distinguished from the motive 
of the legislature in exercising a clearly recognized power, it 
seems superfluous if other justification can be found and defi- 
cient if no other justification can be found. If the assessment 
is one which can be upheld on the theory of benefits, as an 
assessment for an improvement public in its nature, which con- 
fers an especial private benefit upon the property assessed there- 
for, or if it can be upheld on the theory of an assessment for 
the performance of a legal duty which rests primarily upon 
the owner of certain realty and which the public may perform 
at his expense if he refuses or omits to perform it, we have 
in either case an assessment which can be justified without re- 
sorting to the theory of the propriety of community of manage- 
ment. If, on the other hand, the assessment is one which cannot 
l)e upheld on either of these grounds, it is difficult to see, under 
constitutional restrictions, what power the legislature has, on 
the theory of a common management, to levy forced contribu- 
tions for purposes not falling within either of these classes. 

§ 14. Theory underlying- doctrine of assessment for goods fur- 
nished at request. 

The theory underlving the doctrine of the so-called assess- 



iiized and treated hy all jurisconsults 
and writers upon law throuiih the 
civilized world ; a branch of legisla- 
tive power exercised by this state be- 
fore and since the Revolution, and 
before and since the adoption of the 
present constitution, and repeatedly 
recognized by our courts. The legis- 
lature has power to regulate these 
subjects, either by general law, or 
by particular laws for certain locali- 
ties or particular and defined tracts 
of land. When the constitution vest- 
ed the legislative power in the Sen 
ate and General Assembly, it con- 
ferred the power to make these pid)- 
lic regulations as a well understood 
part of that legislative power." Cos- 
ter V. Tide Water Company, 18 N. J. 
Eq. [3 C. E. Green] 54, 68, 69 
[1866]. "There are essential im- 



))rovenients which cannot be made 
on one tract without affecting an- 
other. These relate especially ti 
drainage, protection from inundation 
and free passage and intercourse. 
These improvements sometimes be- 
come of public importance as well 
as indispensable to the proper enjoy- 
ment of each separate tract. In such 
cases society has arranged for the 
management of these common public 
and private interests as would be 
just and equitable; and to prevent 
the burden of such improvement-* 
from falling only on the liberal and 
public spirited, has provided for it-i 
equitable division among those inter- 
ested. Such a regulation is a local 
assessment." Town of Macon v. Pat- 
ty, 57 Miss. 378, 400, 401, 34 Am. 
Rep. 451 [1879]. 



29 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. ^15 

ment for the value of ,u'ood.s furnished for use on certain realty 
at the refjuest of the owner or occupant thereof, has nothing' to 
do with the doctrine of compensation for benefits conferred. 
As has been said before.^ the transaction amounts to a contract 
between the cit.\' whicli fui'uislics the commodity and the per- 
son at whose request the commodity is furnished, and the trans- 
action is in effect a contract of sale, rather than an assessment. 
An assessment of this type beiiiff essentially a contract has 
notliin<i' to do with taxation. It is entered into voluntarily, 
while taxation is essentially an involuntary imposition. - 

§ 15. Assessment for benefits not based on contract. 

An assessment for benefits is a forced charue. levied upon 
the property benefited by the improvement for wliich the as- 
sessment is levied, in some eases upon the owner of such prop- 
erty, imposed by the sovereig'n power of the state, or by some 
public corporation or quasi corporatioiL <»r in some cases by a 
private corporation, under authorit.v conferred by the state. This 
follows from the fact that the assessment for benefits is a 
branch of the taxinc: power, and a special manifestation of such 
power. In turn, it is tliis characteristic of assessment for Ix-ne- 
fits that causes it to l)e classed as a branch of tlic power of 
taxation. The validity of a special as^-.essment does not. there- 
fore, rest upon any tlieory of the assent of the pi'operty owner 
to such char<ie levied, eitlier upon his propei-ts' or ui)on him- 
self, nor does it rest upon any theory of contract between the 
property owner and the i)ul)lic.^ The local assessment is es- 

'See§G. [If^STD: People, v. IIull)ert, 71 Cal. 

-See S§ 15,20. 72. 14 l':u-. 4.S | ISSti] ; Haskell v. 

'City of Worcester v. Worcester liartiett, .'U Cal. 2S1 118G7I; Emery 

Consolidated Street Unihvav Com- v. P.radford. 29 Cal. 75 f 18(i.T] ; (Jray 

l)aiiy. 1!M; V. S. ry.V.). 2.") S. V. 'i'owii of ( ieero. 177 111. AM. .">:! 

:?27 |1!I0.")1: (allirniiiipj ( ity of Wor- X. K. Dl 11S!)!)|: Walker v. .Iniiieson. 

cester v. Worcester Coiisoiidatetl UO Ind. oOl, 4!) Am, St. Rep. 222. 

49. 64 X. E. 581 [1902] ) -, Essex Piih- 28 L. R. A. G79, :^7 X, E. 402. .'?9 X. 

lie Road Board v. Skiiikle, 140 V. E. 8(19 | 1894] : Elourii .y v. (ity of 

S. 3.'^4, .35 L, 44(), 11 S. 790 | 18«)1 |. .TellVrsonville. 17 lixl. i(;9. 79 Am. 

(anirmin<i State, Essex Piililic PxkkI Dec. 4(i8 |18()11: ( itv of S]irevei)orl 

Board, Pros. v. Skinkh". 49 X. .1. L. v. Prescott. 51 La. Ann. 1895, 4(') L. 

(20 Vr.) 05, (5 Atl, 4.35 ] 188(5], whicli R. A. 193. 2(5 So. ()(i4 | 18991 : Hender- 

was afliiTiied in State, Essex Piihlip son v. Mayor and ( ity Council of 

Road Hoard. Pros. v. Skinkle. 49 X. Baltimore, use of Escliback, 8 Md. 

J. L. (20 Vr,) 041, 10 Atl. 379 3.V2 | 1855] ; Rose v. Trestrail, 02 Mo. 



§15 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



30 



sentially a forced contribution, levied in iuvifuin, by virtue of 
the sovereign power of the state.- "Such assessments are en- 
forced proportional contributions of a somewhat special kind, 
made in i)rvitum, by virtue of legislative authority conferred 
upon the municipality for that purpose, upon such terms and 
conditions as the legislature within constitutional limits may 
see fit to impose."'* Accordingly a statute modifying the rights 
and liabilities of the property owner is not a statute impairing 
the obligation of a contract,* whatever other objection may be 
made thereto.'^ So a local assessment is not a contract with 
reference to the right to interest thereon''' or with reference ta 
the limitation of actions thereon.' The contract entered into 
between the city and the contractor, providing for the construc- 
tion of the improvement for which the assessment is levied, is 
not the basis of the action to collect such assessment.® So ii 
an improvement is constructed by the contractor under special 
contract with the land owner, no liability to the public cor- 
poration in the nature of an assessment lien exists therefor.'' 
In Louisiana it has been said that if the statute requires the 
consent of a ma.jority of the property owners as a condition 
precedent to making the improvement, the local assessment lev- 



App. 352 [18051; Brewster v. City of 
Syracuse, 19 X. Y. 116 [1859]. "As 
the lien does not rest upon any agree- 
ment or specific assent of the owner 
of the land charged with this burden, 
and the improvement is often against 
his w'ish, a clear right should be 
shown by tlie municipality to justify 
such an act of s')vereign power." 
Western Peimsylvania Railway Com- 
pany V. City of Allegheny, 92 Pa. St. 
lOo! 103 [1879]. 

- City Street Improvement Com-^ 
pany v. Babcock, 139 Cal. 690, 73 
Pac. G66 [1903]; San Diego Invest- 
ment Company v. Shaw, 129 Cal. 
273, 61 Pac. io82 [1900]; Brock v. 
Luning, 89 Cal. 316, 26 Pac. 972 
[1891]; Mound City Land & Stock 
Company v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 94 
Am. St. Rep. 727, 60 L. R. A. 190, 70 
S. W. 721 [1902]; State ex rel. Gree- 
ly V. City of St. Louis, 67 Mo. 113 
[1877]; Guinotte v. Egelhoflf, 64 ^Mo. 



App. 356 [1895]; Rose v. Trestrail, 
62 Mo. App. 352 [1895]. 

^Sargent & Company v. Tuttle, 67 
Conn. 162, 166, 32 L. R. A. 822, 823, 
34 Atl. 1028 [1895]. 

* Essex Public Road Board v. Skin- 
kle, 140 U. S. 334, 35 L. 446, 11 S. 
790 [1891], (affirming State, Essex 
Public Road Board, Pros. v. Skinkle, 
49 N. J. L. (20 Vr.) 65, 6 Atl. 435 
[1886], affirmed in State, Essex Pub- 
lic Road Board, Pros. v. Skinkle, 49 
N. J. L. (20 Vr.) 641. 10 Atl. 379 
[1887]). Brewster v. City of Syra- 
cuse, 19 X. Y. 116 [1859]. 

^See Chapter XVII. 

« Haskell v. Bartlett, 34 Cal. 281 
[1867]. 

'People v. Hulbert, 71 Cal. 72, 14 
Pac. 43 [1886]. 

^ Drew V. Town of Geneva, 159 Ind. 
364, 65 X. E. 9 [1902]. 

»McCausIand v. Leuflfer, 4 Whart. 
(Pa.) 175 [1839]. 



31 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 16 

ied for such improvement is not a forced contribution, but is 
based on the consent of the property owners/" This pi'incijile 
has been suggested in determining whether an assessment is a 
tax within the meaning of a provision giving the Supreme Court 
jurisdiction in eases involving the validity of a tax, regardless 
of the amount involved. ^^ The distinction is one which is not 
made by the courts of most other jurisdictions.^- However, it 
has been held that a statute authorizing the organization of an ir- 
rigation district on the affirmative vote of a majority of the electors 
thereof, and providing that the bonds of the district and the inter- 
est thereon shall be paid from annual assessments on the realty in 
such district is so far a contract that a subsequent statute au- 
thorizing the board of directors of such district, without the con- 
sent of the owners of realty to pledge the realty itself for the 
bonds is held to l)e invalid as impairing the obligation of con- 
tracts.^-' However, an assessment or the right to levy one may 
be the subject matter of a contract.^* Such a contract will be 
protected against state legislation impairing its obligation. ^^ 

§ 16. Theory of contract invoked in assessment. 

In some cases, however, the theory of contract has been in- 
voked in assessments levied upon the theory of benefits as a 
means of explaining in part the operation of such assessments. 
It is stated in some cases that in making an improvement to l)e 
paid for l)y local assessment, the municipality acts as the agent 
of the property owners upon whom the assessment is to be 
levied.^ In making the improvement for which a local assess- 

"Fayssoux v. Denis. 4S La. Ann. .38,5, 20 S. 280; Lucas, Turner & Co. 

850, 19 So. 760 [LS9(>1. v. City of San Francisco. 7 Cal. 40.3 

"See § 1309. ri?57i; Charnnck v. Levee District, 

»=See 8 779 et seq. .38 La. Ann. 323: Liebstein v. Mayoi 

"Merchants' National Rank of San atid Common Council of the City of 

Diogo V. Escnndido Irrigation Dis- Xmvark. 24 N. ,T. £(). (9 C. E. Or.) 

trict. 144 Cal. 329. 77 Pac 937 200 1 18731 : Schumni v. Sevmour. 24 

[19041. . X. .]. Eq. (9 C. E. Cr.) 143 [18731: 

" :\IcC,po T. ]\Iathis. 71 I'. S. (4 In the matter of the Petition of Liv- 

Wall.) 143. 18 L. 314 flStiOl. re- i'lrston to Vacate an Assessment. 121 

versing McGee v. Matins, 21 Ark. X. V. 9-!. 24 X. E. 290 [18901: In 

40 [18001. llio matter of the Petition of Ander- 

" See § 171 et seq. s m to Vacate an Asessment. 109 N. 

'New Orleans v. Warner. 17.5 I'. S. V. .5.")4. .559 [18881. "The city in di- 

120, 44 L. 90, 20 S. 44 [18991; modi- rccting and making the improvement 

fied on rehearing, 176 I^. S. 92. 44 L. was in some sense at least the a'jent 



§ 16 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 32 

ment is to be levied the city is said to be "more of an agent 
than a principal."- "While it is true the city exercises but a 
delegated power in making these assessments and in so doing 
is acting as one of the instrumentalities of government, it is 
nevertheless true that in levying and collecting the same it acts 
merely as an agent of the parties and derives no direct benefit 
therefrom distinct from that of the property owners."^ A stat- 
ute allowing the contractor to sue on the assessment is said to 
2nake him the agent of the municipality for the purpose of col- 
lecting such assessment.* An improvement district embracing 
the territory of a city is said to act as agent of the property 
owners and not as agent of the city.^ These statements are, 
however, mere dicta, representing an analogy but not a prin- 
ciple. The municipality is the superior imposing a tax, not an 
agent binding a principal by contract. Wherever the question 
becomes a practical one, it is held that the public corporation 
or quasi corporation is not the agent.*"' The liability of the 
parties to the agreement is sometimes based solely on the theory 
of an implied promise. Thus under a statute providing that 
on petition of one-third of the owners of land affected, the 
county commissioners should make a contract for drainage and 
assess the properties benefited, the proper number of land own- 
ers petitioned, the contract was let and the work done ; but it 
proved to be of no benefit. It was held that the county commis- 
sioners and the land owners who did not petition were not liable, 
but that the owners who signed the petition hatl requested that 
the work be done, that it was done at their request, and that 
there was, accordingly, an implied promise on their part to pay 



of the property owners, and if it per- Company v. Jasper County. 117 la. 

mitted grossly extravagant or ticti- 365, 381, 94 Am. St. Rep. 301, 90 

tious items to be included in the X. W. 1006 [1902]. 

sum to collect which the assessment ^ Banaz v. Smith, 133 Cal. 102, 65 

was levied, that operated as a fraud Pac. 309 [1901]. 

upon him and entitled him to relief ^ Morrilton Waterworks Improve- 
in this proceeding." In the matter ment District v. 'Earl, 71 Ark. 4, 
of the Petition of Livingston to Va- 69 S. W. 577, 71 S. W. 666 [1903]; 
cate an Assessment. 121 X. Y. 94. Fitgerald v. Walker, 55 Ark. 148, 
105, 24 X. E. 290 [1890]. 17 S. W. 702 [1891]. 

^ Xorth Pacific Lumbering & ^lan- " Board of Commissioners of Mont- 

ufacturing Company v. East Port- gomery County v. Fullen, 111 Ind. 

land, 14 Or. 3, 12 Pac. 4 [1886]. 410, 12 N. E. 298 [1887]. 

^Edwards & Walsh Construction 



33 ASSESSMENT xVND PLACE IN LAW. § 17 

tlierefor.' The fallacy of this theory lies in the fact that the 
request to do the work was a request to do it for a payment to 
be made in a certain way; while the theory imposes a general 
liability upon the owners who petition for the improvement. 
Cases of this sort are usually explained upon the theory of 
estoppel.^ 

^n. Special contract to pay assessment. 

In some cases, however, improvements are made under con- 
tracts between the municipal corporation and the owners of 
property benefited thereby, who agree to pay for such improve- 
ments. As long as such contract does not tend to place an undue 
share of the burden of the improvement upon the property own- 
ers who are not parties thereto, it is upheld, if possessing the 
elements of contracts in general.^ Such charges, however, are 
not properly regarded as true assessments, but as liabilities aris- 
ing out of contract. Under such contracts the cost of an im- 
provement may be charged upon property which by statute 
would be exempt except for such contract,- such as a cemetery.^ 
So by virtue of such contracts assessments may be enforced 
under circumstances which would make such assessment invalid 
except for such contract. Thus a contract was enforced whereby 
the property owners agreed that if the city would leave stand- 
ing a row of trees in the centre of a street which the city was 
al)out to pave, and Avould i)lace curbstones around such trees 
for the purpose of protecting tliem, the said owners would pay 
Ihe cost of the eur])stones so placed opposite their land on 
their side of the street.* So under such a contract an assess- 
ment may be enforced, although no order was made extending 
the time for performance, and under the statute in force such 
fact would invalidate the assessment.'"' Such a contract, like 
any other, requires a valuable consideration to support it. Such 

'Moore v. Barry. 30 S. C. 530. 4 Boston v. Brazor, 11 Mass. 447 

L. R. A. 294, 9 S." E. 589 [1889]. [18141. 

'See § 1011 et ficq. = Edwards v. Cooper, 168 Ind. 54. 

'Bernstein v. Downs. 112 Cal. 197. 79 X. E. 1047 [19071. 

44 Pac. 557 [18901; Floyd v. Atlanta Edwards v. Cooper, 1(58 Ind. 54. 

Banking Company. 109* C.a. 778, 35 79 X. E. 1047 [19071. 

S. E. 172 [18991; Edwards v. Cooper, ''City of Springtiidd v. Harris. 107 

168 Ind. 54. 79 X. E. 1047 [1907]; :\Inss. 532 [18711. 

City of Sprin-rfiold v. Harris, 107 MVrnsteiii v. Downs. 112 Cal. 197, 

Mass. 532 [1871]; Inhabitants of 44 Pac. 557 [1890]. 



§ 17 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 34 

consideration is sometimes found in the doing of additional work 
by the contractor in reliance on such promise/' Another form 
of valuable consideration is the construction of the improve- 
ment in question after the promise is made and in reliance 
thereon.'^ Another form of valuable consideration is an exten- 
sion of time for payment of the assessment.^ If the improve- 
ment is made before the promise to pay the assessment is entered 
into, the question is then presented whether the benefits con- 
ferred upon the property by such improvement form a consid- 
eration for a promise to pay or not. It seems to be assumed 
in some jurisdictions that the existence of such benefits consti- 
tuted a consideration.'' This view, however, is out of harmony 
with the general theories of cgnsideration. The making of the 
improvement is a past transaction, imposing no liability upon 
the property or the owner thereof except in case of compliance 
with the terms of the statute.^" Such a transaction, leaving no 
liability of any kind cannot, properly speaking, form a consid- 
eration for a subsequent promise. If there is a genuine dispute 
as to the validity of the assessment, the compromise of such 
dispute and forbearance on the part of the city to enforce such 
assessment might furnish a consideration. In the absence of 
such compromise and forbearance the effect of such a promise 
made after the improvement: is constructed can be explained 
only on the theory of estoppel or waiver. A special contract 
between the municipal corporation and the owners of property 
to be assessed may operate to prevent the owner from inter- 
posing defenses which he w^ould otherwise be entitled to make. 
Thus an agreement that the cost of the improvement should be 
assessed against certain property will prevent the owners of 
such property who entered into such agreement from raising the 
question that the citv, Avhile it had authority to construct such 
improvement, had no authority to lew assessments therefor.^^ 
An agreement bv which the owners of the land assessed agree 
that in consideration of permission to pay the assessment in 
installments the owners will not make any objection to the 

« Bernstein v. "Downs. 112 Cal. 197, pany, 109 Ga. 778. 3.5 S. E. 172 

44 Pac. 5ri7 [189^1. [1899]. 

'Efhvards v. Cooper, 168 Ind. 54, "See §§ 18, 777, Chapter VI. 

79 N. E. 1047 [1907T. " Hendriekson v. Toledo, 23 Oliio 

*See § 1033. C C. 256 [19011, 

• Floyd V. Atlanta Bankinjr Com- 



35 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 18 

legality or regularity of the assessments prevents them from 
making defenses otherwise avaihible, such as the defense that 
the report of the engineer on which the assessment was based 
did not contain a full description of each lot or parcel of ground 
bordering on the improved street, together with the name of 
the owner thereof.^- Promises like this are often regarded not 
as valid contracts, enforceable in themselves, but as operating 
to estop the promisor from denying the validity of the assess- 
ment, or as operating as a waiver of defenses which might other- 
wise have been interposed. 

§ 18. Assessment not based on quasi contract. 

While the general theory of assessments for benefits presents 
some points of resemblance to quasi contract ^ assessment is not 
a form of quasi-contract other than as taxes generally are. The 
attempt to identify assessment with quasi-contract is made most 
often where by reason of failure to comply with the statutory 
requirements, or by reason of the statute's failure to comply 
with constitutional requirements, the assessment itself is invalid, 
and the attempt is then made to compel the owner to pay for 
the benefits conferred upon him by an action in quantum meruit, 
irrespective of the validity of the assessment. It is a funda- 
mental rule of assessments that constitutional and statutory re- 
quirements must be complied with, in a substantial manner at 
least.- It is evident that if assessment can be identified with 
quasi-contract in the manner here suggested, all the restrictions 
upon the power of a public corporation to levy assessments are 
swept away,'' except the limitation that assessments must not 
exceed the amount of the benefits. There would be small use 
in framing rules, the violation of which would produce no legal 
consequences, and llie law of assessments would, in a manner, 
cease here. Accordingly, where this attempt to identify assess- 
ment with quasi-contract has been made, it has failed in the 
absence of some specific statute authorizing recovery, and if the 
irregularities and defects are so marked as to avoid the assess- 



'- Dunkirk Land Company v. Zoh- ^ Allon v. City of Davonport. 132 

ner. 35 Iiul. App. 694, 74 X. E. 1099 Fed. 209. G5 C. C. A. (541 [1904]. ( ro 
[1905]. versinj^ City of Davenport v. Allen. 

'See § 11. 120 Fed. 172 [19031^ 

''See § 777, Chapter VI. 



§18 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



36 



ment, no recovery can be had on the theory of quasi-contract.* 
Of an action upon the common courts, ignoring the assessment, 
it is said that "it does not conform to any known rule of law." ' 
At a sale under an apportionment warrant issued against one 
who was not the true owner of the property, the owner of the 
warrant bid the property in. This was held to extinguish the 
assessment. Accordingly, if the assessment itself could not be 
enforced it was said that the owner was "under no common 
law or moral obligation to pay the debt in question.'"' So the 
city cannot, after paying for the cost of the improvement, main- 
tain an action against the property owner for money laid out 
and expended." If any cause of action exists it must be one 
on the assessment. The original proceeding leading up to the 
attempted assessment is a statutory proceeding in invitum,^ and 
recovery, if permitted at all, must be on the assessment and 
not for reasonable compensation." In some of these cases it 
does not appear that a benefit was, in fact, received by the 
property owner. ^'^ Thus a levee was constructed at a time when 
such improvement could not be paid for by assessment." The 



* O'Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U. S. 
450, 22 S. 354 [1902], (affirming 
O'Brien v. Wheelock, 95 Fed. 883, 37 
C. C. A. 309 [1899], wliich affirmed 

78 Fed. 673 [1897]); Woollacott v. 

Meekin, — Cal. , 91 Pac. 612 

[1907]; McManus v. Hornaday, 124 
la. 267, 100 N. W. 33 [1904]; Craw, 
ford V. Mason, 123 la. 301, 98 N. 
\Y. 795 [1904]; City of Owensboro 

V. Hope, — Ky. \ 110 S. W. 272 

[1908]; City of Manistee v. Harley, 

79 Mich. 238, 44 N. W. 603 [1890]; 
Heman v. Larkin, 108 Mo. App. 392, 
83 S. W. 1019 [1904] ; Neill v. Trans- 
Atlantic Mortgage Trust Company, 
89 Mo. App. 644 [1901]; McQuiddy 
V. Brannock, 70 Mo. App. 535 [1897] ; 
Galgreath v. Newton, 30 Mo. App. 
380 [1887]; Brady v. Mayor, etc., 
of New York, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 
234 [1858]; Burns v. Patterson, 2 
Handy (Ohio) 270 [1855]; Reilly v. 
City of Philadelphia, 60 Pa. St. 467 
[1869]. "It will not do to say, be- 
cause the property owner has been 
benefited by the improvement, that 



he should pay for it whether the law 
has been complied with or not. This 
would be to invoke the spirit of ex- 
pediency to which a court of justice 
should never resort." Municipal Se- 
curities Corporation v. Gates. — 

Mo. App. , 105 S. W. 85, 8(> 

[1908]. 

^ City of IVIanistee v. Harley, 79 
Mich. 238, 240, 44 N. W. 603 [1890]. 
*Kirwin v. Nevin, 111 Ky. 682, 
64 S. W. 647, 687 [1901]. 

''Mayor and City Council of Bal- 
timore V. Hughes' Adm'r, 1 Gill & 
J. 480, 19 Am. Dec. 243 [1829]. 

" Galbreath v. Newton, 30 Mo. App. 
380 [1887]. See §§ 15, 778. 

"Heman v. Larkin, 108 Mo. App. 
392, 83 S. W. 1019 [1904]. 

i" O'Brien v. Wheelock, 184 U. S. 
450, 22 S. 354 [1902], (affirmi'i- 
O'Brien v. Wheelock, 95 Fed. ShTJ. 
37 C. C. A. 309 [1899], which af- 
firmed 78 Fed. 673 [1897]). 

"Updike v. Wright, 81 111. 49 
[1876]. 



87 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. § 18 

levee was not kept up and proved to be of no actual benefit 
to the land owners, it amounting to a partial failure of an in- 
divisible consideration. No recovery was allowed against the 
land owners.^- In some of the cases, however, th(^ existence of 
a benefit was elear.^'' Thus if an assessment is invalid, the fact 
that the construction of a sewer, connected with the property 
assessed and thus used,^^ or the gjradino- of a street,^'' or the 
construction of a sidewalk^'' conferred a benefit upon the prop- 
erty of the land-owner does not make him liable therefor in 
quasi-contract. The theory that assessment may be regarded as 
a form of quasi-contract has possibly been invoked through a 
misapprehension of other principles applicable to the law of as- 
sessments, but not involving the doctrine of quasi-contract. Thus 
in many cases, certain forms of acquiescence in an improvement 
which result in special l)enefit are held to estop the property 
owner from attacking the validity of assessment therefor, and 
from setting up defects which, but for such circumstances so 
operating as an estoppel, would have defeated the assessment." 
While occasionally confused with quasi-contract the doctrine of 
estoppel is of a radically different nature, since its operation 
renders the assessment itself enforceable, and does not leave the 
right of recovery one for benefits without support for the as- 
sessment. Certain principles for ascertaining the amount of the 
benefits received are also occasionally confused with (|uasi-con- 
tract. Under some statutes the rule applicable to contracts is 
also applicable to assessments, and no recovery is allowed in 
case of material aiul substantial failure to construct the im- 
provement as stipulated. Tn other jurisdictions and uiuler other 
statutes this rule is relaxed so far that the contract price less 
the proper amount of abatement for defects in construction is 
the basis for th(^ amount of the assessnuMit.'** These statutory 
provisions take the contract pi'icc as tlie basis for dt't(M-iuininL; 

•=0'Ilrion v. \Yh('(>l..ck. 184 U. S. Midi. 238. 44 X. \V. (103 1 18901: 

450, 22 S. 354 [1902]. (nninniii; Xi-ill v. Trans-At Iniitic M()rt<ia,<,'o 

0'Bri(-ii V. Wlieolofk. 95 ¥>-<]. SS3. Trust ('()Tii])an.v. 89 Mo. Ap]). 044 

37 V. C. A. 309 [18991. wliicli af- | 19011. 

finiiod 78 Fofl 673 [18971. '■' ^MeQuiddy v. l^iaiiiiofk. 70 Mo. 

'■'City of ATanistpo v. Tlnrlcv. 79 Api). 535 [18971. 

Aficli. 238, 44 N. W. 003 [1890]; "•TToniaii v. Larkin. 108 Mo. App. 

llonian v. Larkin. 108 ^\n. App. 392, 392. 83 S. W. 1(I19 [19041. 

83 8. W. 1019 [1904]. ''See § 1011 rt srq. 

^Hitv of :\ranistoe v. Ilarlev. 79 "'See §§ 529. 530. 



§ 18 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 38 

the amount of the assessment and therefore do not, properly 
speaking, involve the theory of quasi-contract. More closely re- 
lated to quasi-contract is the statutory rule which is in force 
in a few jurisdictions allowing recovery in case of certain de- 
fects for the reasonable value of the work done, not to exceed 
the contract price." This, however, is a statutory method for 
estimating the amount of the assessment and resembles quasi- 
contract only in that quasi-contractual principles have been to 
a limited extent enacted into statutory form. Under a statute 
which provided : "In any such proceeding where the court try- 
ing the same shall be satisfied that the work has been done or 
material furnished which, according to the true intent of the 
act, would be properly chargeable upon the lot or land through 
or by which the street, alley or highway improved, repaired 
or lighted, may pass, a recovery shall be permitted or a charge 
enforced, to the extent of the proper proportion of the value 
of the work or materials which would be chargeable on such 
lot or land, notwithstanding any informality, irregularity or de- 
fect in any such municipal corporation or its officers. * * * " ^o 
Under this statute it was held by the United States Circuit 
Court that recovery in quantum meruit could be had even if 
the assessment and contract were both invalid and the city had 
no right to pay the contractor.-^ The Circuit Court of Appeals, 
however, held by a majority vote that such assessment could 
not be enforced in quantum meruit^-- where the contract was 
one which the State Supreme Court had held to be void and 
without the power of the city to make.-'' The Supreme Court 
of Iowa has taken the same view of such statute, holding that 
no recovery in quantum meruit could be allowed where the as- 
sessment was void,-* although such statute prevents the owners 
of property from invoking defects which are not jurisdictional 



1" Quest V. Johnson. 58 Mo. App. la. 90, 77 N. W. 532 [1898]. 

54 [1894]. See also Bingaman v. -* Snouffer v. Grove, — la. , 

City of Pittsburg, 147 Pa. St. 353, 116 N. W. 1056 [1908], (involving 

23 Ail. 395 [1892]. the assessment the levy of which 

^^ § 479, Code of Iowa [1873]. was enjoined in Wingert v. Tipton. 

=iCity of Davenport v. Allen, 120 134 la. 97, 108 N. W. 1035); 

Fed. 172 [1903]. Carter v. Cemansky, 126 la. 506. 

'^ Allen V. City of Davenport. 132 102 N. W. 438 [1905]; Crawford v. 

Fed. 209, 65 C. C. A. 641 [1904]. Mason. 123 la. 301, 98 N. W. 795 

^ Allen v. City of Davenport, 107 [1904]. 



39 ASSESSMENT AND PLACE IN LAW. §§ 19,20 

to defeat the assessment, though the amount of recovery in some 
cases be reduced by such defects.-^' 

§ 19. Assessment for legal duty not based on contract. 

From the nature of the assessment for the performance of a 
legal duty, and from the theory underlying such assessment,^ 
it follows that the assessment for the performance of a legal 
duty is a forced charge upon the owner of the property from 
whom such legal duty may lawfully be exacted. While such 
assessment is not based upon any theorj' of the assent of the 
property owner to such charge, nor upon any theory of a con- 
tract between the property owner and the public. An assess- 
ment of this type is essentially a forced contribution made in 
invitum by the authority of the sovereign power of the state, 
and is not in any way dependent on the assent of the property 
owner.- 

§ 20. Assessment for goods furnished based on contract. 

From the nature of the assessment for goods furnished or 
services rendered, and from the theory underlying such so-called 
assessment,^ it follows that the assessment of this type depends 
upon the assent of the owner of the property upon which, or 
with reference to which, use is made of the property for the 
use of which the assessment is levied. While such property 
owner is not consulted in most cases with reference to the origi- 
nal statute or ordinance which provides for such charge, he has 
the option of making use of such property and thus rendering 

=^Ottiimwa Brick & Construction Kraus, 16 0. S.' 54 [1864]; Charles- 
Company V. Ainley, 109 la. 386, 80 ton v. Werner, 38 S. C. 488, 37 Am. 
N. W. 510 [189!)]; Dittoe v. City of St. Rop. 776, 17 S. E. 33 [1892]: 
Davenport, 74 la. 66, 36 N. W. 895 Mayor and Aldermen v. Maberry, 6 
[1887]; City of Chariton v. Holli- Humph. (Tenn.) 368, 44 Am. Dec' 315 
day, 60 la. 391, 14 N. W. 775 [1882]. [1845]; Washington v. Mayor and 
^ See § 13. Aldermen of Nashville, 1 Swan 
2 Mayor and Board of Trustees of (Tenn.) 177 [1851]; Adams v. Fish- 
the Town of Xow Iberia v. Fonte- er, 03 Tex. 051 [1885] ; Rude v. Town 
lieu, 108 La. 460. .32 So. 369 [1901]; of St. Marie, 121 Wis. 034. 99 N. W. 
Nugent V. City of .Tackson. 72 Miss. 460 [1904]; State ex rel. Baltzell v. 
1040. 18 So. 493 [1895]; TTorbaoh Stewart, 74 Wis. 620. 6 L. R. A. 394, 
V. City of Omaha. 54 Neb. 83, 74 N. 43 N. W. 947 [1889]; Donnelly v. 
W. 434 [1898]: Brown v. Keener. 74 Decker, 58 Wis. 461. 46 Am. Rep. 
N. C. 714 [18761: Sessions v. Crun- 637. 17 N. W. 389 [1883]. 
kilton, 20 0. S. 349 [1870]; Bliss v. ^ See § 14. 



§20 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



40 



himself liable to such charge, or, on the other hand, of refrain- 
ing from the use of such property, and thereby incnrring no 
liability for such charge. While a charge of this type is not 
properly termed an assessment, it is a charge which rests upon 
the assent of the property owner.- That the so-called assess- 
ment of this type does in fact rest upon the assent of the prop- 
erty owner is manifest in cases in which the attempt is made 
to levy an assessment of this sort without the consent of the 
property owner. Such assessments cannot be sustained as as- 
sessments of this type ; and if not apportioned substantially in 
accordance with benefit and thus sustained as assessments based 
upon the theory of benefits, they fail altogether.^ The fact that 
such charge is based upon the assent of the property owner is 
said to be conclusive of the fact that it is not a true assessment.* 



^ Provident Institution for Savings 
V. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey 
City, 113 U. S. 506, 28 L. 1102, 5 S. 
612 [1885], affirming Provident In- 
stitution for Savings v. Allen, 37 N. 
J. Eq (10 Stew.) 627 [1883], which 
affirmed without opinion 37 N. J. 
Eq. (10 Stew.) 36 [1883]); City of 
Chicago V. Northwestern Mutual Life 
Insurance Co., 218 111. 40, 1 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 770, 75 N. E. 803 [1905]; 
Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 
49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 L. R. A. 
679, 37 N. E. 402, 39 N. E. 869 
[1894]; Carson v. Sewerage Com- 
missioners of Brockton, 175 Mass. 
242, 48 L. R. A. 277, 56 N. E. 1 
[1900]; City of East Grand Forks 
v. Luck, 97 Minn. 373, 107 N. W. 
393 [1906]; City of Fergus Falls v. 
Boen, 78 Minn.' 186, 80 N. W. 961 



[1899]; Burke v. City of Water Val- 
ley, 87 Miss. 732, 112 Am. St. Rep. 
468, 40 So. 820 [1905]. 

^ Hoboken Manufactures Co. v. 
Mayor, etc., of City of Hoboken, — 

N. J. L. , 68 Atl. 1098 [1908]; 

State, Culver, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Jersey City, 45 N. J. L. 
(16 Vr.) 256 [1883]; State, Vree- 
land. Pros. v. Mayor and Aldermen 
of Jersey City, 43 N. J. L. (14 Vr.) 
135 [1881], (affirmed Mayor, etc.. 
of Jersey City v. State, Vreeland, 
Pros., 43 N. J. L. (14 Vr.) 638 
[[1881]); Provident Institution for 
Savings v. Allen, 37 X. J. Eq. (10 
Stpw.f 36 [1883]. 

* Walker v. Jameson, 140 Ind. 591, 
49 Am. St. Rep. 222, 28 L. R. A. 
(579. 37 K E. 402, 39 N. E. 869 
[1894]. 



CHAPTER II. 
HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. 

§ 21. Early analogies to local assessments — Feudal exactions. 

In mediaeval times the construction of public impri)vements 
which could confer special benefits on private property was a 
rare occurrence. Castles, palaces and cathedrals absorbed a 
much larger amount of the wealth of the people than paved 
streets, sidewalks and sewers. When public improvements of 
this sort were constructed, they were paid for in part by gen- 
eral taxation or its equivalent. The charge of such improve- 
ments in part rested upon the owners of certain land, in ac- 
cordance with the general theory of the feudal system. Such 
a charge, however, was not a local assessment as we know it. 
nor did it possess the essential elements thereof. It was not 
l)ased upon the theory of benefits, it was not apportioned 
according to benefits, and it was not imposed necessarily 
upon land benefited in the least by the improvement. A 
land-owner might be charged with the duty of constructing or 
maintaining a given public improvement ; but if he w^as so 
charged, it was by virtue of an arrangement between himself 
and the lord of whom he held his land, and was in efifect a part 
of the return made by him for such land. It stood on the same 
footing with the duty resting upon some tenants to furnish fully 
equipped men-at-arms in time of war, and with the duty resting 
upon other tenants to pay money, or grain, or other produce, 
for their land. These feudal charges and exactions undoubt- 
edly familiarized people with the idea tliat a part or all of the 
cost of put)li(' iin])rovements iniuiit he imposed upon certain 
private individuals. They cannot be regarded, however, as any- 
thing more than analogies to the local assessment as it ulti- 
mately appeared. The feudal charge dici not develop into the 
local assessment, but rather, tended to be crowded out and ex- 
tinguished by the local assessment as it developed under sub- 
n 



§22 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



42 



sequent legislation.^ The later cases, however, showed a tend- 
ency to regard the feudal charge is persisting and as existing 
side by side with the statutory assessment.^ 

§ 22. Work on roads. 

Another analogy to the local assessment has been sought in 
the duty imposed by law upon the residents of certain districts 
to work upon the roads for a certain time each year, or to pay 
a fixed sum of money in lieu thereof.^ A charge of this sort is 
undoubtedly a tax. However, it lacks the essential elements of 
a local assessment. It is not imposed upon land-owners as such, 
is not apportioned according to benefits, and is not restricted 
to the lands benefited by the improvement. It is merely a spe- 
cial form of general taxation charged upon individuals, without 
reference to the property owned by them, resembling the local 
assessment chiefly in being a tax for the purpose of a public 
improvement which confers a special benefit, and differing from 
the ordinary form of general taxation solely in the fact that it 
is not apportioned in accordance to the value of the property 
owned by the taxpayer. 



^Rooke's Case, 5 Rep. 996 (Hil. 
40 Eliz.). 

^Keighley's Case, 10 Rep. 139a 
(Mich. 7 Jac. 1). See § 25. 

^ Kootenai County v. Hope Lumber 
Co., 13 Ida. 262, 89 Pae. 1054 [1907] ; 
People ex rel. v. Chicago & Alton 
Railway Co., 228 111. 102; 81 N. E. 
813 [1907]; Toledo, St. Louis & 
Western Railroad Co. v. People, ex 
rel., 226 111. 557, 80 N. E. 1059 
[1907]; St. Louis, Alton & Terre 
Haute R. Co. v. People, 224 111. 155, 
79 N. E. 664 [1906] ; Burnes v. May- 
or and City Council of Atchison, 2 
Kan. 454 (original edition) [1864]; 
City of Lexington v. McQuillan's 
Heirs, 9 Dana (Ky.) 513, 35 Am. 
Dec. 159 [1839]; Seaboard National 
Bank of New York v. Woesten, 176 
Mo. 49, 75 S. W. 464 [1903]. "At 
first every man was subject to the 
duty of working so many days every 



year upon the public roads, and pen- 
alties were prescribed for those who 
failed to respond to an order to do 
such work. Then, as the natural and 
inevitable development of the system 
of improving roads the public was 
given authority to have the work 
done and to charge the cost thereof 
to the owners of the abutting prop- 
erty that was specially benefited by 
tlie improvement. And to insure the 
prompt payment of that cost a pen- 
alty for delay in payment was im- 
posed. In both cases the penalty 
is imposed for failure to discharge 
a public duty. In the former in- 
stance it was a penalty for not work- 
ing in person ; and in the latter in- 
stance it is a penalty for not paying 
for the work done by another." Sea- 
board National Bank of New York 
V. Woesten, 176 Mo. 49, 61, 75 S. W. 
464 [1903]. 



43 HISTORY OP LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. §§23,24 

§ 23. Origin of assessments in drainage. 

The necessity of draining marshes- seems to have forced the 
adoption of a system of rules and regulations intended to equal- 
ize the burden of such drainage. The improvement and reclam- 
ation of Rumney Marsh seems to have been the occasion for the 
original adoption of provisions upon this subject. Coke tells 
us that "Rumney Marsh, in the County of Kent, containing 
24,000 acres, is, at this day and long time hath been governed 
by certain ancient and equal laws of sewers made t)y a venerable 
justice, Henry de Bathe, in the reign of H. III., from which 
laws, not only other parts in Kent, but all England receive 
light and direction — for example: The said general act of 23 
H. 8 Ca. 5, in the clause which giveth power to the com- 
missioners to make statutes, ordinances and provisions, etc., nec- 
essary and behooveful after the laws and customs of Rumney 
Marsh, in the County of Kent, or otherwise by any ways or 
means, etc."^ "Both the town and marsh of Rumney took their 
name of one Robert Rumney. This Robert (as appeareth by 
the book of Domesday) held this town of Odo, Bishop of Bai- 
eux, wherein he had 13 burgesses who, for their service at the 
sea, were discharged of all actions and customs of charge, ex- 
cept felony, breach of the peace and forestalling."- 

§ 24. Statute 23, Hen. VIII., C. 5. 

In the reign of Henry VIII., in 1531, a statute was passed 
providing for the construction of sewers, drains and other im- 
provements, designed to reclaim tracts of land. A part of this 
statute is as follows: "The bill of sewers with a new proviso, 
etc. Our sovereign lord the King, like a virtuous and most 
gracious prince, nothing earthly so highly weighing as the ad- 
vancing of the common profit, Avealth and commodity of this, 
his realm, considering the daily great damages and losses which 
have happened in many and divers parts of this, his said realm, as 
well by the reason of the outragious flowing surges and course 
of the sea in and upon marsh-grounds and other low places here- 
tofore through politick wisdom won and made profitable for the 
great common wealth of this realm as also by occasion of land, 
waters and other outragious springs in and upon meadows, pa.s- 

■4 Inst. (Coke) 276, 277. '4 Inst. (Coke) 277. 



§ 24 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. i4 

tures and other low grounds adjoining to rivers, floods and other 
water courses; and over that, b.y and through mills, mill-dams, 
wears, fishgarths, kedels, gores, gates, flood-gates, locks and 
other impediments in and upon the same rivers and other water- 
courses, to the inestimable damages of the commonwealths of 
this realm, which daily is likely more and more to increase un- 
less speedy redress and remedy be in this behalf shortly pro- 
vided ; wherein albeit that divers and many provisions have been 
before this time made and ordained, yet none of them are suffi- 
cient remedy for the reformation of the premises, hath there- 
fore by deliberate advice and assent of his lords, spiritual and 
temporal, and also his loving commons in this present parlia- 
ment assembled, ordained, established and enacted. That com- 
missions of sewers and other premises shall be directed in all 
parts within this realm from time to time, where and when need 
shall require, according to the manner, form, tenor and effect 
hereafter ensuing, to such substantial and indifferent persons 
as shall be named by the lord chancellor and lord treasurer of 
England and the two chief justices for the time being, or by 
three of them, whereof the lord chancellor be one."^ The form 
of commission to be issued under such statute was as follows : 
"We, therefore, for that by reason of our dignity and preroga- 
tive royal, we be bounden to provide for the safety and preser- 
vation of our realm of England, willing that speedy remedy be 
had in the premises have assigned you and six of you of the 
which we will that A., B. and C. shall be three to be our jus- 
tices, to survey the said walls, streams, ditches, banks, gutters, 
sewers, gates, calcies, bridges, trenches, mills, mill-dams, flood- 
gates, ponds, locks, hebbing-wears, and other impediments, lets 
and annoyances aforesaid, and the same cause to be made, 
corrected, repaired, amended, put down, or reformed as the case 
shall require, after your wisdoms and discretions ; and therein 
as well to ordain and do after the form, tenor and effect of all 
and singular the statutes and ordinances made before the first 
day of March, in the three and twentieth year of our reign, 
touching the premises or any of them as also to enquire by the 
oaths of the honest and lawful men of said shire or shires, place 
or places, where such defaults or annoyances be, as well within 

^23 Hen. VIII., C. 5, par. 1 [1531]. 



45 HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 24 

the liberties as without (by whom the truth may tlie rather be 
known), through whose default the said hurts and damages have 
happened and who hath or holdeth any lands or tenements, or 
common of pasture or profit of fishing or hath or may have 
any hurt, loss or disadvantage by any manner of means in the 
said places as well near to the said dangers, lets and impedi- 
ments as inhabiting or dwelling thereabouts by the said walls, 
ditches, banks, gutters, gates, sewers, trenches and the other 
said impediments and annoyances; and all those persons and 
every one of them to tax, assess, charge, distrain and punish 
as well within the metes, limits and bounds of old time, accus- 
tomed or otherwise, or elsewhere within our realm of England 
after the quantity of their lands, tenements and rents, by the 
number of acres and perches, after the rate of every person's 
portion, tenure or profit or after the quantity of their common 
of pasture or profit of fishing or other commodities there, by 
such ways and means and in such manner and form as to you 
or six of you whereof the said A., B. and C. to be three, shall 
seem most convenient to be ordained and done for redress and 
reformation to be had in the premises.- . . . " By the ex- 
press provisions of this statute the laws and customs of Rum- 
ney IMarsh were extended at the discretion of the commissioners, 
over England. The commissioners were authorized "to make 
and ordain statutes, ordinances and provisions from time to 
time, as the case shall require, for the safeguard, conservation, 
redress, correction and reformation of the premises and of every 
of them and the parts lying to the same, necessary and be- 
hooful after the laws aiul customs of Rumney IMarsh. in the 
County of Kent or otherwise by any ways or means after youi' 
own wisdoms and discretions."'' This provision, it was held sub- 
sequently, did not compel the commissioners to follow the cus- 
toms of Rumney ]\Iarsh if they did not deem it advisable so to 
do.* Section 8 of this statute provides that if the tax or as- 
sessment levied as therefore provided for. was not paid, the 
lands of the delinquent taxpayer, held by him in fee simple, 
fee tail, for life or for years, might be sold. This provision 
was subsequently extended to provide for a sale of lands held 



'23 Hen. VIII., C. 5. par. III. ' Keighley's Casp, 10 Rep. 139a 

•23 Hen. VIII., C. 5. par. III. (Mich., 7 Jac. 1). 



§ ^5 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 46 

in copyhold in case of default.^ Section 9 of the statute, 23 
Hen. VIII., C. 5, provides that the decrees of the commissioners 
therein provided for shall bind the lands of the king. Section 
13 of the same statute provides for the payment of the expenses 
of the improvements including the compensation of the commis- 
sioners, their clerk, and the like, out of the taxes, levies and the 
like, therein provided for. Coke explains this statute as fol- 
lows : * ' Quando aqua profuit, that is, when water doth issue, 
ATilgarly sue : hereupon cometh the word suera for a sewer, 
passage, channel or gutter of water. At the complaint of 
Henry de Lacye, Earle of Lincolne, a commission of sewers was 
granted to Roger de Brabason, Mayor, and the sheriffs of Lon- 
don. Their authority is by 'commission under the great seal in 
haec verba, at this day grounded and warranted by the act of 
parliament of 23 Hen. VIII. "« 



§ 25. Effect of statutory assessment on prescriptive duties. 

The effect of a statutory right of local assessment for such 
improvements upon the special duties resting upon certain land- 
owners to keep such improvements in repair — duties originat- 
ing in many cases under the feudal system as returns for the 
land granted to the tenant, ultimately justified in many cases 
on the doctrine of prescription — was presented for judicial con- 
sideration. It was held at first that the tax ought to be levied 
upon all the owners of land benefited, and not upon the owners 
immediately adjoining to the exclusion of others, even if the 
owners immediately adjoining always used to repair such im- 
provement, or were bound to repair such improvement, by pre- 
scription.^ This holding was subsequently explained and modi- 
fied ; and the rule was laid down that if A. was bound by pre- 
scription to repair a wall as against the sea (contra Fluxum 
Maris), and A. was at fault in not repairing such wall against 
ordinary damage and deterioration, the commissioners might tax 
A. only, while if the wall was wrecked by a sudden and unusual 
flood the commissioners might tax all who would be damaged by 



"7 Ann. c. 10. * Rooke's Case, 5 Rep. 996 (Hil. 

•IV Coke's Institutes, 275. 40 Eliz.) 



47 HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 26 

such injury to the wall, without waiting to compel A. to make 
such repairs. - 

§ 26. Questions arising under early statute. 

The questions which arose under the statute foreshadowed 
many of the questions which have constantly been presented 
to the courts of this country under our statutes providing for 
local assessments. The provision of the statute entrusting the 
matter of repairs and assessments to the commissioners "ac- 
cording to your wisdom and discretion" was held not to give 
them an unlimited and arbitrary discretion, but to require them 
to act in substantial accordance with law and justice.^ An 
assessment for these purposes could be laid only on those who 
would be damaged by failure to make the improvement and 
keep it in repair, or who would be benefited by the reforma- 
tion thereof.- Accordingly, where A. owned land on higher 
ground than that drained by the ditch in question, which ground 
drained into another stream, and was in no way benefited by 
the construction of a ditch, it was held that no assessment could 
be levied upon A.^ In the absence of specific statutory au- 
thority it was held that the commissioners of sewers could not 
make a new river.* If an old wall could be repaired so as to 
perform the necessary service, it was held that the commission- 
ers ought not to destroy it and construct a new wall.^ A tax 
assessment and charge authorized by the statute should be in 
proportion to the quantity of land owned by each tenant, ac- 
cording to the acreage, or should be according to the rate of 
portion, tenure or profits held by him. Accordingl.v, an assess- 
ment upon a vill in gross, was held to be unauthorized." The 



^Keighley's Case, 10 Rep. 139a .Sewers for Essex, 1 Barn. & Cress. 

(Mich., 7 Jac. 1). See to the same 477, 2 How. & Ryl. 700 [182.3]. 

effect the King v. Commissioners of 'Case of Isle of Ely, 10 Rep. 141a 

Sewers for Essex, 1 Barn. & Cress. (7 Mich., Jac. 1). 

477, 2 How. & Ryl. 700 [1823], where ' Anselm v. Barnard, 2 Keb. 675 

contribution for rebuihling a wall cast (Trin. 22 Car. II). 

down by an unusual storm is not * Case of Isle of Ely. 10 Rep. 141a 

allowed unless the party who repairs (7 Mich., Jac, I), 

the sea-wall has not been in default "Case of I.sle of Ely. 10 Rep. 141a 

in his duty to make repairs. (7 Mich. Jac. I). 

»Keighley's Case, 10 Rep. 139a "Case of Isle of Ely, 10 Rep. 141a 

(Mich., 7 Jac. 1). To the same effect (7 Mich., Jac. I). 
see the King v. Commissioners of 



§ 27 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 48 

king owned eight hundred acres in a tract drained by a ditch. 
This land was omitted from the assessment. The assessment 
was held, for that reason, to be invalid on the ground that "a 
tax is unjust because by the not taxing of them a greater por- 
tion was laid upon the rest of the land than of right ought to 
be. "^ Under the statute it was held that notice was neces- 
sary, and should be given to the owners of the property to be 
assessed.* If an old ditch existed, draining certain land so 
that it was not benefited by the construction of a new ditch, 
the commissioners ought to refund the assessment levied and 
make new assessments, on the theory of benefits.'' The com- 
missioners ought to describe the lands assessed. It was not 
necessary for them to name the owners thereof, since the im- 
position of such a requirement would make, in effect, an end 
of all assessments. On the other hand, it was not sufficient to 
describe the area taxed as all the land from such a place to 
such a place. ^"^ 

§ 27. Assessment extended to street improvements. 

I\Iore than eighty years before the American Revolution, the 
idea of local assessments was extended in England to streets, 
lanes and alleys. A statute of William & Mary provided: "VI., 
and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all 
open streets, lanes and alleys, which are now paved within any 
of the parishes or places aforesaid, shall be from time to time 
repaired, amended and paved at the costs and charges of the 
householders, inhabitants in any such streets and lanes respec- 
tively; and where any houses shall be empty and unoccupied in 
any such streets and lanes, then to be paved and repaired at the 
charge of the owners or proprietors thereof in the manner fol- 
lowing (that is to say) : every of the said householders, owners 
or proprietors of houses, to repair, pave, and keep repaired, 
amended and paved, the streets, lanes or alleys before his house, 
stables or out-houses, so far as his housing, walls or buildings 
extend unto the center-stone, channel or middle of the same 



'Whitley V. Fawsett, Styles 12. 1.3 » Bow v. Smith, 9 Mod. 94 (Easter. 

(23 Car. I). 10 Geo. I). 

nVhitley v. Fawsett, Styles 12, 13 "Bow v. Smith, 9 Mod. 94 (Easter, 

(23 Car. I). 10 Geo. I). 



49 HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 28 

street, lane or alley; upon pain to forfeit twenty shillings for 
every perch, or rod, and after that rate for a greater or less 
quantity- for every default of twenty shillings a week, for every 
week after, until the same sliall be sufficiently paved and 
amended."^ Sections 9 and 10 of this statute provided for 
cleaning streets by a general tax. Section 13 of this statute 
provided for repairing streets by a general tax. Section 15 of 
this statute required householders to set out lights in front of 
houses at their own expense. It will be noticed that this statute 
requires each householder or land-owner, as the case might be, 
to repair the street in front of his house. The exaction im- 
posed was in the form of work and labor, the penalty in money 
being for the purpose of coercing performance. 

§ 28. Early colonial legislation — Pennsylvania. 

The idea of local assessment was therefore one with which the 
English immigrants to this country at the date of its original 
settlement, were, to a greater or less degree, familiar. We find 
accordingly that early colonial statutes provided for local 
improvements to be paid, for by local assessments, appear- 
ing within a few years after the statute of 2 William 
& Mary.^ Such provisions existed in Pennsylvania from 
the year 1700. "By a province law of 1700 commissioners or 
assessors were to be appointed by the governor, with four of 
his council, for regulating the streets and water courses, the 
pitching, paving and graveling thereof; the clearing of docks, 
and repairing landing-places and bridges in the towns (the 
water-courses under ground to be arched and laid with brick or 
stone), and to defray the charge of pitching, paving, graveling 
and regulation of the said streets, and scouring and cleaning 
said docks each inhabitant concerned was to pay towards the 
same, in proportion to the number of feet of his lots or land- 
ings adjoining, on ench or either side of tlu- said streets or 
docks. And for defraying Ihe charge of repairing landing- 
places, bridges, making common sewers, and paving, pitching, 
graveling or regulating any part of the streets; scouring and 
cleansing any part of the docks l)elonging to tlie public, each 
inhabitant in the said respective town or place was to pay his 

'2 William & Mary. Second Ses- 'See § 28. 

sion, Ch. 8, Section VII [1690]. 



§ 28 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 50 

proportional rate according to his estate in each town. The com- 
missioners were empowered to agree with and employ workmen 
for performing the same from time to time, and having made 
the assessments were to appoint collectors and receivers thereof, 
and in case of non-payment each collector, by a warrant from 
the proper justice, was to levy the same by distress and sale of 
the delinquent's goods. A similar law had been passed in 
1698. "1 "The districts [i. e., in the neighborhood of Phila- 
delphia] being sparsely settled, with large vacant spaces, and 
inhabited by persons unable to bear heavy taxation, resorted 
to the old method of 1700, which applied to the whole province, 
of localizing the taxes and imposing the cost of the improve- 
ments upon those who were immediately benefited by them. 
The district of the Northern Liberties comprised all of that part 
of the township of that name lying between the west side of 
Sixth street and the River Delaware, and between Vine street 
and Cohocksink Creek ; and by the act of 1803 its commissioners 
were given full power to pave the footways and gutters within 
said district, to plant curbstones, and assess the freeholders in 
front of whose ground such footways shall be paved, in order 
to defray the expense of paving and keeping them in repair, 
in proportion to their respective extents of front; and upon the 
application of two-thirds of the freeholders on any street, lane 
or alley, to establish lamps and a nightly watch in such street, 
lane or alley, the expense to be defrayed by an assessment agree- 
ably to the county rates and levies within the district so lighted 
and watched, and upon like application to pitch and pave any 
street, lane or alley, provided said street, lane or alley, so re- 
quired to be paved, be not less in length than one nor exceed- 
ing two squares at any one time, and the owners of land in 
front of which such street is pitched and paved, shall be taxed 
in proportion to the respective fronts of their property within 
the streets so pitched and paved. "^ Similar acts were passed 
in 1813, 1826, 1837 and in 181-4.^ An interesting and detailed 
account of assessment legislation in Pennsylvania is to be found 

^Dissenting opinion of Read, J., Pa. St. (15 P. F. Smith) 146, 160, 

in Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 3 Am. Rep. 615 [1869, 1870]. 

St. (15 P. F. Smith) 146, 157, 158, 'Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 

3 Am. Rep. 615 [1869. 1870]. St. (15 P. F. Smith) 146. 160, 161, 

^ l<'rom dissenting opinion of Read, 3 Am. Rep. 615 [1869, 1870]. 
J., in Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 



51 HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 29 

in some of the opinions of the Supreme Court.* A history of 
the legislation in Pennsylvania for the recovery of municipal 
claims is found in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
vania.^ 

§29. New York. 

The existence of the local assessment in New York slightly 
antedates its existence in Pennsylvania. "In the colony and 
state of New York, the system of taxation for local purposes 
by assessing the burden according to the benefit has been in 
force for more than one hundred and fifty years. It was ap- 
plied to highways in the county of Ulster in 1691: Bradf. 
Laws, 45. The power was given to the corporation of New 
York in the same year: Id.. 9. This statute remained in force 
in 1773. when Van Schaack's edition of the statutes was pub- 
lished, and no evidence of its repeal is found until 1787, when it 
seems to have been revised and its provisions re-enacted under 
the state constitution: Van Schaack's Laws, 8, 9; 2 Jones & 
Var. 152; 1 Greenl. 443. The colonial statute was doubtless in 
force when the state constitution was adopted. It is not unworthy 
of remark, that in April, 1691. a bill of rights was passed for the. 
security and protection of the people of the province. The stat- 
ute authorizing the assessments first mentioned was passed after- 
wards during the same year. In elanuary. 1787. an act was passed 
declaring the rights of the citizens of this state, and prohibiting 
among other things that any person should be deprived of his 
property except by due course of law. The statute of 1787, au- 
thorizing street assessments in the city of New York, was passed 
by the same legislature, and sanctioned by the same council of 
revision, which had assented to the bill of rights. Street assess- 
ments upon the same principle were authorized in the city of New 
York in 1703: 3 Oreenl. 58; and in 1795: Id. 244. 245; and in 
1796: Id. 333. 334; and in 1801 : 2 K. & R. 130; and in 1813: 2 R. 
L. 407. The corporation of New York has had and exercised 

* A detailed history of special as- Washington Avenue, 69 Pa. St. 352, 

sessment legislation in Philadelphia .3.58-360, 8 Am. Rep. 255 [1871]; 

is given in the dissontinji opinion of Vacation of Howard Street, Phila- 

Read. J., in Hammott v. Philadel- delphia. U2 Pa. St. 601, 21 Atl. 974 

phia, 65 Pa. St. (15 P. F. Smith) [1891]. 

146, 157-177, 3 Am. Rep. 615 [1S60. 'Northern Liberties v. St. John's 

1870]. For further account of as- Church, 13 Pa. St. 104 [1850]. 
sessment statutes in Pennsylvania see 



§ 30 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 52 

authority to make street assessments from the infancy- of that 
city. Similar powers have been conferred on nearly every city, 
and on many of the villages of this state. It has also been ap- 
plied to highways, to turnpike roads, and to the draining of 
marshes." ^ 

§ 30. South Carolina. 

Local assessments in South Carolina, too, slightly antedate 
those in Pennsylvania. "An examination of our statutes prior to 
1790 relating to the improvement of streets and sidewalks will 
show that the provisions therein related to the city of Charleston 
and that such statutes were confined— that of 1698 (7 Stat. 12) 
to requiring every inhabitant of Charleston to amend and raise 
the sidewalk in front of his house in the manner and to the di- 
mensions therein prescribed on penalty of forfeiting for each 
house a penalty to be collected under the warrant of a justice of 
the peace and that of 176-t to requiring the construction of sew- 
ers or drains and sidewalks. These statutes were considered and 
upheld with reluctance in the two eases of Cruikshanks v. City 
Council, 1 M'Cord 860 decided in 1821. and Yeadon v. City Coun- 
'cil, decided in 1828 (cited 12 Rich. 733) and when the act of 
1850 (12 Stat. 59. 60) was considered by the court in the case of 
State V. City Council 12 Rich. 702 the court of errors distinctly 
repudiated as foreign to our laws any mode of taxation for the 
improvement of streets in the city of Charleston which looked to 
the assessment of property abutting. on George street in that city 
according to the benefits to be derived from such improvement to 
such land-owners under the said act of 1850. saying: "As has 
been said, the general rule knows nothing about partial assess- 
ments for benefits or the selection of a portion for a class. Exist- 
ence of persons, or the possession of property, not the supposed 
benefits, are the guide. When each is taxed according to the value 
of his property, both equality and certainty may be attained to a 
reasonable extent; but what may be beneficial, or otherwise, is a 
matter of opinion or fancy or vague conjecture."^ This is the 
more interesting since South Carolina to-day is the only state 

^People ex rel. Griffin v. Mayor, ^ Mauldin v. City Council of Green- 

etc, of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419. 55 ville, 42 S. C. 293, 302, 303; 46 Am. 
Am. Dec. 266, 282, 283 [1851]. St. Rep. 723. 27 L. R. A. 284, 20 

S. E. 842 [1893]. 



53 HISTORY OF LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 31 

which has totally repudiated the local assessment and all its 
works. 

§ 31. Other colonial and state legislation. 

The colonies already mentioned have been selected only as ex- 
amples, showing the geographical extent of the local assessment 
statutes that appeared within a few years of the enactment of 
the English statute of 2 William and Mary. The local assess- 
ment also appeared in many other of the American colonies. "In 
Massachusetts, meadows, swamps and lanes may be assessed 
among the proprietors for the expense of draining the same, with- 
out reference to any political district,' and in proportion to the 
benefit each proprietor derives from the work: R. S. of Massa- 
chusetts, 673. In Connecticut, the same power is given by statute 
to commissioners for draining marshy lands: Stat, of Connecticut, 
Ed. of 1839. p. 544." ^ A review of sidewalk legislation in Massa- 
chusetts from the statutes of 1799 C..31 down to the present time 
is found in the opinion of the court in a recent case.- It will there 
be noted that the early assessment statutes are all special acts. 
An account of the developement of assessments is also to be found 
in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri.-'' The Supreme 
Court of the United States has pointed out, in a case arising in 
Georgia, that local assesment was so uncommon in the early part 
of the nineteenth century that the word assessment must be re- 
garded as then used in the sense of general taxation.* No attempt 
is made here to do more than refer to some of the early statutes 
and comments thereon, for the purpose of showing the relation 
in point of time between the system of assessments and the speci- 
fic constitutional provisions which restrict them.^ A tabulated 
statement of assessment statutes would possess but little value 
and is not here attempted. 



' People ex rel. r.riffin v. Mayor. * "The faet is notorious that a cen- 

etc. of Brooklyn. 4 X. Y. 419. 5.5 tnry a<ro special assessments were not 

Am. Dee. 200 [18511. nsnal in this country and at that 

-Copeland v. ^Mayor and .Mdcnncn time tiie word was used as synony- 

of S])rin<ifield. inn ^lass. 408. 44 N. nions with 'rates or taxes' generally. " 

K. ()05 1189()1. ^Vells v. Savannah, 181 U. S. 531, 

'Newby V. Platte County, 25 Mo. 54.3 [inoil. 

258. 269, 270 [1857]. ° See Chapter V. 



§§32,33 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 54 

§ 32. Assessment not recognized by common law. 

The local assessment, therefore, has no existence at the com- 
mon law, but exists both in England and this country solely by 
virtue of statute.^ Upon the enactment of the legislature de- 
pends the existence of the right of levying such assessments. In 
New Jersey it has been said that the system of local assessments 
was general in 1788, and that while not justifiable on theories 
either of taxation or of eminent domain, the system is "part of 
the local common law" and it is "quite too late to revert to first 
principles in order to overthrow a system of procedure which is 
possessed of such antiquity and has to its credit so many recogni- 
tions,"- and that assessments depend for their justification upoii 
ancient usage/' If really a part of the common law of New Jer- 
sey, the assessment is so by virtue of the adoption in New Jer- 
sey of the English assessment statutes as a part of their common 
law. On the other hand it has been said that there is no custom- 
ary law of taxation in Tennessee.* 

§ 33. Statutory assessment held valid. 

The system of local assessment, therefore, is one of considerable 
antiquity in this country. It antedates specific constitutional pro- 
visions, which to a greater or less extent restrict or limit its oper- 
ation. Its recognition as an established and existing system of 
taxation which must have been known to the framers of the state 
constitution, and which it cannot be supposed that they intended 
to destroy or subvert, has been insisted upon in many cases. 
"We may remark, too, that taxation of this character has pre- 
vailed too long and too extensively to be treated as illegitimate 
or denounced as legislative spoliation under the guise of the tax- 
ing power. It prevailed in England several centuries ago ; and 
the assessments made there by the commissioners of sewers on 
the lands affected by their operations was taxation of this char- 



^ City of Owensboro v. Hope, — ^ State, Society for Establishing 
Ky. , 110 S. W. 272 [1908]. See Useful Manufacturies, Pros. v. May- 
Chapter VI., § 775. or and Aldermen of the City of Pat- 

^ Drainage Assessments. Hoagland erson, 42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 615 

V. Wurts, 41 N. J. L. (12 Vr.) 175, [1880]. 

180 [1879], (affirming; In matter of * Taylor, McBean & Co. v. Chand- 

Commissioners to drain the Great ler, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 349, 24 Am. 

Meadows on Pequest River, 39 N. J. Rep. 308 [1872]. 
L. (10 Vr.) 433 [1877]. 



55 HISTORY OP LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. § 33 

acter. (28 Hen. VIII Chap. 5, Sec. 5.) In Massachusetts, from an 
early period, meadows, swamps and lowlands were required to be 
assessed among the proprietors to pay the expense of draining 
them (Rev. Stat, of Mass. p. 673), and in Connecticut the same 
power was given to commissioners for draining marshy lands. 
(Conn. Stat. Ed. 1839, p. 544). It is said by- the judge, who de- 
livered the opinion of the court of appeals in the Brooklyn case be- 
fore referred to, (People ex rel Griffin v. ]\Iayor, etc., of Brooklyn, 
4, N.Y. 428), that the system of local taxation for local improve- 
ments by assessing the burden according to the benefit, had pre- 
vailed for more than one hundred and fifty years, and that this 
power was given to the corporation of New York in 1691, and 
had since been conferred on nearly every city and on many of 
the villages of the state. "^ "It is far too late to question now 
the validity of legislation like this imposing local assessments, in- 
vesting the local authorities with the discretion of judging as to 
the necessity for the improvements, and with power to levy and 
apportion the charge."- "We believe the power exi.sts; it has 
been recognized as an existing power in the state by the public, 
the legislature and by at least three decisions of this court. It 
may be difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace it to its proper 
source, and square its operation by logical rnles, derived from a 
consideration of it as one of the precisely defined powers of the 
constitution. It had its origin and development in the principle 
of local self-government, characteristic of free institutions, 
founded by the Anglo-Saxon race — the leaving to each local com- 
munity the due administration of the affairs in which it had an 
exceptive, peculiar and local interest, and in the nature of real 
property to which it is alone applicable. It is not the creation of 
a philosophical brain drafting constitutions and forms of gov- 
ernment, but the outgrowth of the neees.sities and varying exigen- 
cies of local commnnities. and hence like all institutions of sim- 
ilar origin and development, has inconsistencies and incongrui- 
ties. Its practical operation, so as to prevent injustice, depends 
largely upon the good sense and the capacities of the Anglo- 
Saxon race for the .successful working of free government and 



^Kewbv V. Platte County. 25 Mo. = Xufient v. City of Jackson. 72 

258, 2G9. 270 [18571. Miss. 1040, 1056. 18 So. 493 [1895]. 



§ 34 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 56 

the management of their private affairs."^ It is probably this 
recognition as an existing system of taxation which has saved 
it under the provisions of modern constitutions. The courts have, 
with the exception of one state,* taken the attitude that the sys- 
tem of local assessment must be reconciled with the constitutional 
provisions rather than be destroyed by them. Hampered and lim- 
ited by constitutional provisions as it has been, it has, neverthe- 
less, prevailed where a new and unheard of system of taxation 
would probably have been overthrown by the courts as being in 
violation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution to the 
property owners. Even the courts which have criticised the sys- 
tem of local assessments as a system of taxation which cannot be 
sustained on principle have nevertheless upheld it."' 

§ 34. Development of constitutional restraints. 

The force and effect of constitutional provisions affecting taxa- 
tion and local assessment were not at first understood very accur- 
ately by the courts. When such constitutional provisions as 
those requiring uniformity of taxation and forbidding the taking 
of property without due process of law were seen to have some* 
application to the local assessment, the very existence of the 
power of local assessment was sharply challenged. At one time 
it seemed as though the constitutional provision requiring uni- 
formity of taxation would be applied by the 'court to the local as- 
sessment with the result that the existence of that power would 
be denied. The system of local assessments, however, had be- 
come too firmly entrenched in the svstem of American taxation 
thus to be overthrown. The final resnlt of this discussion Avas th( 
view that while the local assessment is a form of tax. it is not a 
tax within the constitutional provision requiring uniformity of 
taxation except in the very special and peculiar sense that the 
amount of the assessment miist not exceed the amount of the bene- 
fits conferred for the improvement for which the assessment is 
levied, and that the assessment must be apportioned according to 
such benefits. When this view became thoroughly established, it 

^Town of Macon v. Patty, 57 Miss. Wis. 242 [18G01 ; Municipality Num- 

378, 379. 400, 34 Am. " Rep. 451 ber Two Praying for Opening "of Ben- 

[1879]. ton Street v'. White, 9 La. Ann. 44r> 

^ For the view fif tlie courts of [18541; City of Norfolk v. Cham- 
South Carolina see §§ 30, 118. herlain, 89 Va. 196; 16 S. E. 730 

"Weeks v. Citv of Milwaukee, 10 [1S92]. 



57 



HISTORY OP LOCAL ASSESSMENTS. 



§34 



seemed for awhile viiuler the decision oi the courts as though a 
power of taxation had been discovered which was subject to no 
practical restraint. It was assumed that the legislative determin- 
ation as to the existence and amounts of special benefits was final 
and conclusive. The application of this doctrine together with 
that of the freedom of the local assessment from the constitu- 
tional restrictions of uniformity left the legislature practically 
free to assess as it chose, as long as the purpose was one which 
might combine the elements of a public use and an especial local 
benefit. From that time on there has been a constant struggle 
to restrain the power of local assessment by the application of 
other constitutional provisions such as that forbidding the tak- 
ing of property without due process of law and by the application 
of limitations deduced from the very nature of the local assess- 
ment itself.^ This attempt to restrict and regulate the power of 



■ An pxcellont discussion of the 
early history of tliis attempt to re- 
strain the power of local assessment 
is found in Town of ]\Iacon v. Patty, 
57 Miss. 378, 390, 34 Am. Rep. 451 
[1879]. 

The conrt said: 

"As the dangerous nature of the 
power began to be more and more 
recognized, wlien considered as a tax- 
ing power only and therefore virtual- 
ly without restriction, unless im- 
posed by the Constitution, and as the 
courts had held tliflt it was not 
within the constitutional restriction 
in reference to the taxing power, tlie 
judicial mind, giving more import- 
anci' to tliosc ])oculiarities which dis- 
tinguished it from the taxing power 
pure and siii;|)](". licgan to discover 
lestrictions and limitations arising 
from its nature and characteristics, 
as well as from the nature and char- 
acteristics of the taxing power in 
general.'' 

The court thou discussed certain 
cases in which lestrictions have been 
imposed ujjon the ])ower of local as- 
sessment; among them City of Lex- 
ington V. McQuillan's Heirs. 39 Ky. 
(9 Dana) 513; in which it was held 
improper to apportion the cost by 



requiring each owner to pay the ex- 
pense in that i)art of the improve- 
ment in front of his own land; the 
New Jersey cases, such as Tidewater 
Co. V. Coster, 18 N. J. E. (3 C. E. 
Green) 518, 90 Am. Dec. 634; State, 
Xew Jersey Railroad & Transporta- 
tion Company, Pros. v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of New- 
ark, 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) 185; 
State, Van Tassel, Pros. v. flavor 
and Aldermen of Jersey City, 37 N. 
J. L. (8 Vr.) 128; State, Hoboken 
Land & Improvement Cnnipaiiy. Pros. 
V. Mayor, etc.. Hoboken. 30 X. J. L. 
(7 Vr.) 291, in which tlie court came 
to the conclusion that the dctcrjiiina- 
tion of the legislature a< In tlic 
amoimt of benefits conferred by tlie 
improvement u])on the projierty in 
question was not conclusive, but that 
the amount of benefits could be in- 
quired into in each case as a fact; 
and the Pennsylvania cases, such as 
Washington Avenue, (19 Pa. St. ( 19 
P. F. Smith) 352, 8 Am. Rep. 255, 
and Hanimett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 
St. (15 P. F. Smith) 146, 3 Am. 
Rep. 615, in which it was held that 
asses.sments must be limited to spe- 
cial benefits, and that the front-foot 
lule could not be applied in all cases 



34 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



58 



local assessment is discussed in detail in the following 
chapters. 



indiscriminately, and that it was in- 
applicable to rural property. 

The court then said, "In tracing 
thus far tlie decisions in some of the 
most important states of the Union 
on the subject of local assessments, 
we have seen the gradual rise of the 
revisory power of the courts over 



this public imposition, which has not 
been extended to taxation pure and 
simple, and we have also seen the 
recognition of the wide diflferences be- 
tween the practical operation of the 
two powers." Town of Macon v. Pat- 
ty, 57 Miss. 378, 395, 34 Am. Rep. 
451 [1879]. 



CHAPTER III. 

RELATION BETWEEN ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAX- 
ATION. 

§ 35. General distinction between tax and assessment. 

While an assessment is in one sense a tax, it is a tax of a pecu- 
liar nature,^ differing from a general tax in important character- 
istics.- It is said that an assessment is "distinguishable from our 
general idea of a tax but owes its origin to the same source or 
power. "^ The chief and most important distinction between a 
tax and a local assessment is that a tax is levied for the purpose 
of raising revenue for paying the expenses of the government. 
The only benefits which the tax-payers receive, they receive as 
members of organized society. Many of the most valuable of 
these benefits would enure to them if they were not possessed of 
an.y property to be taxed. If, possessing property, some of them 
were able to evade the payment of the tax, they would receive the 
same benefits as they receive in case of payment. The individual 
tax-payer is, therefore, poorer in a sense by reason of the payment 
of the tax. The local assessment, on the other hand, does not, in 
theory at least, leave the property owner who pays his assessment 
any the poorer by reason of the entire transaction since he is 

' City of Bridgeport v. New York poses and governed by principles 

& New Haven Railroad Company, 36 that do not apply generally." Cooley 

Conn. 25.5; 4 Am. Rep. G3 [1869]; on Taxation, 416, 417, quoted Rixler 

Munson v. Board of Commissioners v. Board of Supervisors of the Countv 

of the Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dis- of Sacramento, 59 Cal. 698, 702 

trict, 43 La. Ann. 15, 8 So. 90C [1881]. 

[1891]. 'State, Sigler, Pros. v. Fuller. 34 

^"Special assessments are a pecu- N. .T. L. (5 Vr. ) 227 [1870]. 

liar species of taxation, standing * "Between taxes, or general taxes, 

apart from the general burdens ini- as they are sometimes called by way 

posed for state and municipal pur- of distinction, which are the exac- 
59 



§35 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



60 



fully compensated by the special benefits conferred upon him by 
the improvement for the amount of the assessment thus paid/ 



tions placed upon the citizen for the 
support of the government paid to 
the state as a state, the considera- 
tion of which is protection by the 
state, and special taxes or special 
assessments which are imposed upon 
property within a limited area for 
the payment for a local improvement 
supposed to enhance the value of all 
property within that area there is a 
broad and clear line of distinction, 
although both of them are properly 
called taxes, and the proceedings for 
their collection are by the same offi- 
cers and by substantially similar 
methods. Taxes proper, or general 
taxes, proceed upon the theory that 
the existence of government is a ne- 
cessity; that it cannot continue with- 
out means to pay its expenses; that 
for those means it has the right to 
compel all citizens and property with- 
in its limit to contribute; and that 
for such contribution it renders no 
return of special benefit to any prop- 
erty, but onl}'^ secures to the citizen 
that general benefit which results 
from protection to his person and 
property and the promotion of those 
variovis schemes which have for their 
object the welfare of all.* * * On 
the other hand, special assessments 
or special taxes proceed on the theory 
that when a local improvement en- 
hances the value of neighboring prop- 
erty, that property should pay for 
the improvement." Illinois Central 
Railroad Company v. Decatur. 147 
U. S. 190, 197, 198, 37 L. 132. 13 
S. 293 [1893], (affirming Illinois 
Central Railroad Company v. City of 
Decatur, 126 111. 92, 1 L.' R. A. 613, 
18 N. E. 315 [1890]. 

"We have spoken of the assessment 
for benefits as a kind of taxation. 
The statement is correct to this ex- 
tent, that the authority to ?ay spe- 
cial assessments for benefits is found 
in the taxing power of the legisla- 



ture. It would, however, be im- 
proper to say that an assessment 
for benefits is ordinarily included 
in the term 'taxes' or 'taxation' 
It is not. 'It is never so spoken 
of in the charters of cities or 
boroughs or in the general law or 
in popular speech.' Taxes are the 
regular uniform and equal contribu- 
tions which all citizens are refjuired 
to make for the support of the gov- 
ernment. An assessment for benefits 
may lack each of these qualities and 
yet be valid. 'It is a local assess- 
ment, imposed occasionally and upon 
a limited class of persons interested 
in a local improvement and is uni- 
form only in that it is supposed to 
give an added value to the property 
of each person assessed to the full 
amount of the assessment." City of 
New London v. ]\Iiller, 60 Conn. 112. 
116, 117, 22 Atl. 499 [1891]. 

Speaking of the term "assessment." 
the court said : "It was employed 
therefore to represent those local bur- 
dens imposed by municipal corpora- 
tions upon property bordering on 
an improved street or situated so 
near it as to be benefited by the im- 
provement, for the purpose of pay- 
ing the cost of the improvement, and 
laid with reference to the benefit 
wliich such property is supposed to 
derive from the expenditure of the 
money. This definition ex vi termini 
describes the power and defines with 
precision its limits. It is not a 
power to tax all the property within 
the corporation for general purposes 
but a power to tax specific property 
for a specific purpose. It is not a 
])ower to tax property generally 
founded upon the benefits supposed 
to be derived from the organization 
of a government for the protection of 
life, liberty and property, but a pow- 
er to tax specific property founded 
upon the benefit supposed to be de- 



61 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. 



§35 



This distinction between a tax and a local assessment is very gen- 
erally recognized by the courts.'"' Furthermore a tax is a 



rived by tlie property itself from the 
expenditure of the tax in its imme- 
diate vicinity. Hence property not 
benefited by the improvement cannot 
be subjected to the burden imposed 
for that purpose." Taylor v. Palmer, 
31 Cal. 240. 254 [1800]. See § 665. 
'^ Illinois Central Railroad Com- 
pany V. Decatur, 147 U. S. 190, 37 
L. 132, 13 S. 293 [1893], affirming 
Illinois Lentral Railroad Company 
V. City of Decatur, 126 111. 92, 1 L. 
R. A. 613, 18 X. E. 315 [1890]; 
Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham 
V. Klein, 89 Ala. 461,' 8 L. R. A. 369, 
7 So. 386 [1889]; City of San Diego 
V. Linda Vista Irrigation District, 
108 Cal. 189, 35 L. R. A. 33, 41 Pac. 
291 [1895]; Wood v. Brady,' 68 Cal. 
78, 5 Pac. 623, 8 Pac. 599 [1885]; 
Taylor v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 240 
[1866]; Hayden v. City of Atlanta, 
70 Ga. 817 [1883]; De Clercq v. 
Barber Asphalt Paving Company, 167 
111. 215, 47 N. E. 367 [1897], (af- 
firming De Clercq v. Barber Asphalt 
Paving Company, 66 111. App. 590 
[1896]; City of Mt. Vernon v. Peo- 
ple. 147 111! 359, 23 L. R. A. 807; 
Adams County v. City of Quincy, 
130 111. 566, 6 L. R. A. 155 [1889]; 
Mix V. Ross, 57 111 121 [1870]; Trus- 
tees of the Illinois and ^Michigan Ca- 
nal V. City of Chicago. 12 111. 403 
[1851]; Lowe v. Board of Commis- 
sioners of Howard County, 94 Ind. 
553 1 1883] ; Low v. Madison, Smyrna 
& Craham Turnpike Company, 30 
Ind. 77 |18()8]; City of Shreveport 
v. Prescott. 51 La. Ann. 1895. 46 L. 
R. A. 193. 26 So. 064 [18991; Mnn- 
son V. Board of Commissioners of 
The Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dis- 
trict, 43 La. Ann. 15. 8 So. 906 
[1891]; Town of Macon v. Pattv, 57 
Miss. 378. 34 Am. Rep. 451 [1879]; 
McHuire v. Brf)ckman. 58 Mo. App. 
307 [1894] ; Hanscom v. City of Oma- 
ha. 11 Neb. 37. 7 N. W. 739 [1881]; 



Matter of New York, 11 Johns. (N. 
Y. ) 77 ; Busbee v. Commissioners of 
Wake County, 93 X. C. 143 [1883]; 
Lima v.. Cemetery Association, 42 0. 
S. 128, 51 Am. Rep. 809 [1884]; 
Reeves v. Treasurer of Wood County, 
8 O. S. 333 [1858]; Hill v. Higdon, 
5 O. S. 243, 67 Am. Dec. 289 [1855] ; 
Ridenour v. Saffin, 1 Hand. (Ohio) 
4()4 [1855]; Washington Avenue, 69 
Pa. St. 352, 8 Am. Rep. 255 [1871]; 
^^■inona & St. P. R. Co. v. City of 
Watertown, 1 S. D. 46, 44 X." W. 
1072 [1890]; Taylor, McBean & Co. 
V. Chandler, 56 Tenn. (9 Heisk.) 349. 
sub nomine McBean v. Chandler, 24 
Am. Rep. 308 [1872]; Hale v. City 
of Kenosha, 29 Wis. 599 [1872]; 
Soens v. City of Racine. 10 Wis. 271 
[I860]; Knowlton v. Board of Su- 
pervisors of Rock County, 9 Wis. 410 
1859]. 

"The general distinction that is 
taken between taxes and local assess- 
ments by courts and authors is that 
the former are forced contributions 
levied by the government alike on 
all property for the purpose of rais- 
ing revenue for the support of the 
government without reference to the 
benefit that the taxpayers may derive 
therefrom, while the latter are. also, 
forced contributions which are levied 
by tlie government, but upon certain 
particular property and with a view 
of raising revenue for certain desig- 
nated purposes, having direct refer- 
ence to the special benefits which will 
enure to the property thus taxed." 
( ity of Shreveport v. Prescott, 51 
La." Ann. 1895. 1904. 40 L. R. A. 193. 
20 So. 064 [1899]. 

"Between this right to make spe- 
cial a^se^isments for sidewalks and 
tliat of taxation for general corpo- 
ration purposes there is in the judg- 
ment of courts a clear distinction 
involving in their exercise essentially 
dilTerent powers and princii)les. the 



§35 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



62 



recurring charge upon which an assessment is levied occasionally 
only." 



one being an ordinary tax for de- 
fraj'ing the expenses of the munici- 
pal government and the general im- 
provement thereof; whilst the other 
is a special impositon or liability 
arising out of the benefit conferred 
upon the property assessed." City 
of Fairfield v. Ratcliff, 20 la. 396, 
398 [1866]. 

"An assessment as distinguished 
from a tax is a special and local 
charge or imposition upon property 
in the immediate vicinity of munici- 
pal improvements, predicated upon 
the theory of benefits from such im- 
provements, and levied as a charge 
upon land, or property specially ben- 
efited thereby, while a charge im- 
posed by law upon the assessed value 
of all property, real and personal, 
in a district, is a tax, and not an 
assessment, although the purpose be 
to make a local improvement." Hol- 
ley V. County of Orange, 106 Cal. 
420, 39 Pac. Rep. 790 [1895]. 

"The distinction between a tax and 
a special assessment is, that a tax 
is imposed for some general or pub- 
lic object; an exaction made for the 
purpose of carrying on the govern- 
ment directly; a charge on property 
that lessens its value, and in the pro- 
portion in which the owner is re- 
quired to pay, his pecuniary ability 
is diminished; whereas, a special as- 
sessment has none of those distinct- 
ive features; it is levied for a special 
purpose, and not for a general or 
public object; the property is spe- 
cially assessed in the proportion in 
which it is benefited ; the assessment 
is but an equivalent for the increased 
value given to the property." De 
Clercq v. Barber Asphalt Paving 
Co., 66 111. App. 596. 597 [1896], 
(affirmed De Clercq v. Barber As- 
phalt Paving Company, 167 111. 215, 
47 N. E. 367 [1897].^ 

° "A local assessment can only be 
levied on land. It cannot, as a tax. 



can, be made a personal liability ol 
the taxpayer; it is an assessment on 
the thing supposed to be benefited. 
A tax is levied on the whole state, 
or a known political subdivision, as 
a county or town. A local assess- 
ment is levied on property situated 
in a district created for the express 
purpose of the levy, and possessing 
no other function, or even existence, 
than to be the thing on which the 
le\y is made. A tax is a continuing 
burden, and mvist be collected at 
state'd short intervals for all time, 
and without it government cannot 
exist; a local assessment is excep- 
tional both as to time and locality — 
it is brought into being for a partic- 
ular occasion, and to accomplish a 
particular purpose, and dies with the 
passing of the occasion and the ac- 
complishment of the purpose. A tax 
is levied, collected and administered 
by a public agency, elected by and 
responsible to the community upon 
which it is imposed; a local assess- 
ment is made by an authority ab ex- 
tra. Yet it is like a tax, in that it 
is imposed under an authority de- 
rived from the legislature, and is 
an enforced contribution to the pub- 
lic welfare, and its payment may be 
enforced by the summary method al- 
lowed for the collection of taxes. It 
is like a tax, in that it must be 
levied for a public purpose, and must 
be apportioned by some reasonable 
rule among those upon whose prop- 
erty it is levied. It is unlike a tax, 
in that the proceeds of the assess- 
ment must be expended in an im- 
provement from which a benefit clear- 
ly exceptive and plainly perceived 
must enure to the property upon 
which it is imposed, or else the courts 
will interfere to prevent its enforce- 
ment." Town of Macon v. Patty, 57i 
Miss. 378, 386, 34 Am. Rep. 451 
[1879]. 



63 ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. §§ 36, 37 

§ 36. Exaction on political unit according to value held tax. 

If the charge or exaction is levied upon all the property within 
the limits of some political unit, such as a city, county, and the 
like, and if the levy is made in proportion to the valuation of the 
property upon which it is levied, such a charge or exaction is held 
to be a tax, and not an assessment, even if it is levied for a pur- 
pose for which the local assessment might have been levied.^ If 
the charge or exaction is levied upon all of the property in some 
pre-existing political subdivision of the given political unit, and 
is levied in proportion to the valuation of such property, such 
charge or exaction is ordinarily held to be a tax, and not a local 
assessment. The method of selecting the property which is to 
bear the burden in connection with the method of apportioning 
the burden among the property thus selected, shows that the 
charge was not based upon any theory of special benefits to the 
property upon which the tax is levied.- Thus a tax levied upon 
all the property in a given ward, for the construction of a bridge, 
has been held not to be a local assessment, but to be properly 
classed as a tax in the more limited sense of the term.^ 

§ 37. Exaction on assessment district according to benefits, front- 
age or area held assessment. 

If a district is created which contains, or is supposed to contain, 
the property specially benefited by the improvement for which 
the assessment is levied, and if the exaction is levied upon the 
property in such district in proportion to the benefits conferred 
by such improvement, such form of exaction is regularly recog- 
nized as a local assessment and not a form of general taxation. 



1 County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 v. Commissioners, 38 0. S. 639 

U. S. 69l', 26 L. 2.38 [1880], (affirm- 118831. 

ing Kimball v. Mobile, 14 Fed. - In speaking of an exaction the 

Cas. 489, 3 Woods 555 [1877]; court .said: "As this tax, though 

Southern Ry. Co. v. Cherokee County, local, is levied on property, generally 

144 Ala. 579, 42 So. 66 [1905]; Swan- and irrespective of local benefit, we 

son V. City of Ottumwa, 118 la. 161, conclude that it is not a local as- 

59 L. R. A. 620. 91 N. W. 1048 spssnient." • Griggsry Construction 

[1902]; Town of Parkland v. Caines, Company v. Freeman, 108 La. 435, 

88 Ky. 562, 11 S. W. 649 [1889]; 438. .58 L. R. A. 349. 351, 32 So. 399 

Thom'as v. Leland, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) [1902]. 

65 [1840]; Beggs v. Paine, 15 N. D. ^ driggsry Construction Company 

436, 109 N. W. 322 [1906]-. Warder v. Freeman. 108 La. 435, 58 L. R. A. 

349, 32 So. 399 [1902]. 



§ 38 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 64 

A like result is reached if the property which is supposed to be 
benefited is marked off into an assessment district, and the ex- 
action for the improvement is levied upon such property, in ac- 
cordance with the frontage. Such an exaction is regularly held 
to be a local assessment, and not a form of general taxation.^ If 
the land which is supposed to be benefited by the improvement 
for which the assessment is levied is made into an assessment dis- 
trict, and the exaction is apportioned among such property ac- 
cording to the area thereof, such a form of exaction is regularly 
held to be a local assessment, as distinct from a form of general 
taxation.- A common example of such form of assessment is 
found in levee districts, in which the property which is supposed 
to be benefited by the levee is often assessed at a certain rate 
per acre for the purpose of constructing the levee. Charges of 
this sort are regarded as local assessments.^ 

§ 38. Exaction on assessment district according to valuation. 

If the propert.y, which is supposed to be benefited, is made into 
a special district for taxation purposes, and the exaction is appor- 
tioned among such property in proportion to the value thereof, 
we have a case in which there is a conflict of authority on the 
question of whether such exaction is a local assessment or a form 
of general taxation. In a number of cases in which the question 
has been considered, it has been held that such an exaction is a 

'Allentown v. Henry, 73 Pa. St. La. Ann. 182; Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 

404 [1873]. Miss. 652 [I860]; Williams v. Cam- 

''Hill V. Fontenot, 46 La. Ann. mack, 27 Miss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508 

1563, 16 So. 475 [1894]; George v. [1854]. 

Young, 45 La. Ann. 1232, 14 So. 137 ^Hill v. Fontenot, 46 La. Ann. 

[1893]; Hollingsworth v. Thompson, 1563, 16 So. 475 [1894]; George v. 

45 La. Ann. 222, 40 Am. St. Rep. Yoimg, 45 La. Ann. 1232, 14 So. 137 

220, 12 So. 1 [1893]; Minor v. Das- [1893]; Minor v. Daspit, 43 La. Ann. 

pit, 43 La. Ann. 337, 9 So. 49 [1891]; 337, 9 So. 49 [1891]; Munson v. 

Munson v. Board of Commissioners Board of Commissioners of The 

of The Atchafalaya Basin Levee Atchafalaya Basin Levee District, 

District, 43 La. Ann. 15, 8 So. 906 43 La. Ann. 15, 8 So. 906 [1891]; 

[1891]; Excelsior Planting & Mann- Excelsior Planting & Manufacturing 

facturing Co. v. Green, 39 La. Ann. Co. v. Green, 39 La. Ann. 455, 1 So. 

455, 1 So. 873 [1887]; Charnock 873 [1887]; Charnock v. Fordoche 

V. Fordoche & Grosse Tete Special & Grosse Tete Special Levee Dis- 

Levee District Co., 38 La. Ann. 323 trict Co., 38 La. Ann. 323 [1886]; 

[1886]; Gillespie v. Police Jiiry of Alcorn v. Hamer, 38 Miss. 652 

Concordia, 5 La. Ann. 403 [1850]; [1860]; Williams v. Cammack, 27 

Second Municipality v. Duncan, 2 I\riss. 209, 61 Am. Dec. 508 [1854]. 



(i.l 



ASSESSMENT AN J GENERAL TAXATION. 



§38 



local assessment and not a g-eneral tax.' The theory upon which 
this result is reached is that the exaction is levied solely upon 
the property benefited by the improvement, and that apportion- 
ment according to the value of such property is in these cases a 
fair method of approximating the apportionment according to 
benefits. Thus where the property benefited by a levee is made 
into a special levee district, and an exaction made upon the prop- 
erty in such district in proportion to its value, we have a charge 
which is. in these eases, regarded as a local assessment.- Like 
results have been reached where similar charges have been made 
for the expense of constructing sewers,'^ or fences, under the stock 
law acts.* In other eases a charge upon the property which is 
supposed to be specially benefi.ted by the improvement appor- 
tioned among such property in proportion to the value thereof, 
is held to be a general tax. and not a local assessment.^ '']\Iuch 
has been said in the argument against the validity of. the statute 
0)1 the assumption that it was intended as an exercise of the power 
of local assessment, but inasmuch as the burden does not purport 



Cliarnock v. Fordoche & Grosse 
'J ete Special Levee District Co., 
,38 La. Ann. 323 [1886]; Richardson 
V. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 429 [18G2]; 
Yeatnian v. Crandell, 11 La. Ann. 220 
IlHoGl: Masoii v. Police Jury of 
Parisli of Tonsas, 9 La. Ann. 368 
|1S.54|: Crowley v. Copley, 2 La. 
Ann. 329 [ 1847 1 ; Morrison v. ^Morey, 
146 Mo. 543, 48 R. W. 629 n898] ; 
Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172, 35 
S.' W. 600 [1896]; Pajio v. City of 
St. Louis, 20 Mo. 136 [1854]; Com- 
missioners of Chatham County v. 
Seaboard Air Line Kailway Co.. 133 
X. C. 216, 45 S. E. 56(i 11903]. 

- Charnock v. Fordoche & Grosse 
lete Special Levee District Co., 38 
La. Ann. 323 [1886]; Richardson v. 
-Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 429 [1862]; 
^'eatnian v. Cnuidcll. 11 La. Ann. 
220 [1S56]: Mason v. Police .hiry of 
Parish of Tensas. 9 La. Ann. 368 
11854]: Crowley v. Copley. 2 La. 
Ann. 329 [1847]; :\Iorrison v. :\Iorey. 
146 Mo. 5-13, 48 S. \V. 629 [1898]: 
]\ansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172, 
35 S. W. 000 [1896]. 



' Page V. City of St. Louis. 20 Mo. 
136 [1854]. 

* Commissioners of Chatham Coun- 
ty V. Seaboard Air Line Railwav Co.. 
133 X. C. 216, 45 S. E. 566 [1903]; 
Harper v. Commissioners of Xew 
Hanover County, 133 X". C. 106. 45 
S. E. 526 [1903]; Busbee v. Onnmis- 
sioners of Wake Countv, 93 X. C. 
143 [1883]; Cain v. Commissioners 
of Davie County, 86 X'. C. 8 [1882], 

^Holley V. County of Orange, 106 
Cal. 420 [1895]; Williams v. Cor- 
coran. 46 Cal. 553 [1873]; People 
V. ^^■hylf■r, 41 Cal. 351; Burguieres 
v. Sanders. Ill La. 109, 35 So. 478 
[1903]: Jliller v. Tlixson, 64 0. S. 
39. 59 X. E. 749 [190]]; Carlisle v. 
Hetherington. 47 0. S. 235, 24 X'. E. 
488 [1890]; Elliott v. Berry. 41 0. 
S. 110 [1884]; Bowles v. State of 
Ohio. 37 O. S. 35 [1881]; Fields v. 
Commissioners of HiLrhland County. 
3i; O. S. 476 [1881]: City of Toledo 
for use of Gates v. Lake Shore & 
Michigan Southern Railway Co.. 4 
Ohio C. C. 113 [18S9]. 



§ 38 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. G6 

to have been apportioned to property benefited according to 
benefits, it was not a rightful exercise of such power. We do not 
think the legislature intended to exercise the power of local as- 
sessment according to benefits. Except as to property within a 
mile of the crossing of free turnpikes, there is no indication that 
special benefits were either the rule or the limit of the burden 
imposed. The intent of the legislature, we think, was to establish 
special taxing districts for the purpose of defraying the expenses 
of the construction of free turnpikes therein and to impose the 
burden thereof by taxation upon all the property within the 
district by a uniform rate according to its true value in money." " 
Thus where a district is created for the purpose of constructing 
a road/ or a free turnpike,^ or a levee,'' and the expense of such 
improvement is raised by a charge upon such property according 
to the valuation thereof, such charge is regarded in these cases 
as a general tax. An exaction of this sort, not to exceed ten mills 
on the dollar, upon all taxable real estate for the purpose of open- 
ing, widening, and grading streets, has been held to be a tax, even 
though called "assessment" in the statute by which such exaction 
was imposed.^'' Under a statute authorizing the levy of a "special 
tax" to be levied "by the front foot or the assessed value there- 
of" a "special tax" of one per cent was levied on land in a street 
improvement district. This charge was upheld by the court as a 
form of general taxation, though referred to in the opinion as an 
"assessment." "Whether a legi.slature could authorize a munici- 
pal corporation to assess property for street improvements, not 
according to value, but according to the supposed benefit to ac- 
crue from the improvement to the property taxed, has sometimes 
been questioned, though generally, if not uniformly, such legisla- 
tion has been sustained. But the tax under consideration in- 
volves no such question. It was assessed according to value upon 
the property abutting the street to be improved, and differs from 
ordinary taxation only in being levied upon streets instead of 

''Bowles V. State of Ohio, 37 O. S. 0. S. 35 [1881]; Fields v. Commis- 

35, 44, 45 [1881]. sioners of Highland County, 36 O. 

MVilliams v. Corcoran. 40 Cal. 553 S. 476 [1881]. 
[1873]. "People v. Whyler, 41 Cal. 351; 

« Miller v. Hixson, 64 0. S. 39, 59 Burguieres v. Sanders, 111 La. 109, 

X. E. 749 [1901]; Carlisle v. Heth- 35 So. 478 [1903]. 
erington, 47 O. S. 235, 24 X. E. 488 "Keys v. City of Xeodesha. 64 

[1890]; Bowles v. State of Ohio, 37 Kan. 681, 68 Pac. 625 [1902]. 



67 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION'. 



§39 



larger districts. It is quite analogous in principle to the raetho.i 
of assessment of highway labor by districts in use in this and 
many other states. It is not taking private property for use with- 
out just compensation, but a method of distributing among the 
citizens the public burden of improving the streets. We think the 
assessment for improving the streets was valid. "^^ A charge ac- 
cording to valuation upon all the property in a sewer district for 
the purpose of building a sewer has been called a "general tax." ^- 

§39. Term "tax" prima facie excludes local assessment. 

Since there is this important and fundamental distinction be- 
tween the tax in the more limited sense and the local assessment, 
the question often arises whether provisions in constitutions and 
statutes which refer by name to taxes, include also local assess- 
ments. This is primarily a question of legislative intention. In 
the absence of anything to show the specific intention of the leg- 
islature, the general rule is that the local assessment possesses 
such marked peculiarities differentiating it from the tax in the 
more limited sense of the term, that the use of the term "tax" 
does not prima facie show an intention to include local assess- 
ments.^ 



" Burnes v. Mayor and City Coun- 
cil of Atchison, 2 Kan. 448. 479 
[18041. 

'■- C ity of Toledo for nso of Gates 
V. Lake Shore & Micliigan Sovithern 
Railway Co.. 4 Ohio C. C. li:^ 

Fi8sni.' 

M5();\rd of Improvement I'aviiiu' 
District Xo. 5 v. Sisters of Mercy of 
Female Academy of Ft. Smitl:. — 

Ark. , 109 S. \Y. 11G5 [19081: 

Crihljs V. Benedict, 64 Ark. 555. 44 
S. W. 707 [18971; ^McCehee v. Ma- 
this. 21 Ark. 40 [18001: Chambers 
V. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 [18711; Kil- 
gour V. Drainage Commissioners, 111 
111. 342 [18851; City of Chicago v. 
Colby, 20 111. 614 [18581: Iliggins 
V. City of Chicago. 18 111. 270 [18571 ; 
Trustees of the Illinois and ^licliigan 
Canal v. City of Chicago. 12 111. 40.3 
[18511; Yeomans v. Riddle. 84 Ta! 
147, 50 X. W. 880 [18911: .T..hn<tMn 
V. Louisville. 74 Kv. (11 Busli.) 527 



[18751; Excelsior Planting & Manu- 
facturing Company v. Green, 39 La. 
Ann. 455. 1 So. 873 [18871; Char- 
nock V. Fordoche & Grosse Tete 
Sjiecial Levee District Company, 38 
La. .\nn. 323 [18801; Barrow v. 
Ilepler. 34 La. Ann. 302 [18821; 
i'xiard (if Levee Commissioners v. Lo- 
rio Bros., 33 La. Ann. 276 [1881]; 
Richardson v. Morgan, 10 La. Ann. 
429 11802]: Wallace v. Shelton. 14 
La. Ann. -498 [1859]: Williams v. 
Cammack. 27 Miss. 209, 01 Am. Dec. 
508 [18541: Lamar Water & Electric 
Light Company v. City of Lamar, 
128 Mo. 188. '.32 L. R. A. 157, 26 
S. W. 1025, 31 S. W. 756 [1895]; 
(ity cf Raleigh v. Reace, 110 N. C. 
32: U L. R. A. 330, 14 S. E. 521 
[189?]: Busliee v. Commissioners ot 
Wake County. 93 X. C. 143 [1883]; 
County of Harris v. Boyd, 70 Tex. 
237, 7 S. W. 713 [1888]"; Taylor v. 
Boyd. 63 Tex. 533 [1885]. 



§ 40 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 68 

§ 40. Essential nature of charge controls. 

The use of the terms "tax" and "assessment" in statutory or 
constitutional provisions is by no means conclusive of the nature of 
the charge. This depends rather upon its own elements than 
upon the name by which it is called.^ On the one hand the term 
"assessment" is sometimes used where the context shows that a 
general tax is intended.- It has been said by the Supreme Court 
of the United States that local assessments were so rare a century 
ago that the w^ord 'assessment' then employed in a statute must 
be taken as referring to rates or to general taxes.^ More often a 
charge which is essentiallj^ a local assessment is referred to in the 
statute as a tax.* Thus a charge which is in its essential nature 
a local assessment is referred as a "tax"" a "special tax"" a 
"macadam tax"" a "sewer tax""'' or a "levee tax. "*• So a stat- 
ute making certain property of railroad corporations "subject to 
taxation by ordinance for city purposes" has been held to confer 
the power to levy local assessments as well as to impose general 
taxes.^'- In speaking of an exaction called in the statute a 'tax' 
but apportioned according to benefits, the court said: "designat- 
ing as a tax that which in its elements is an assessment can have 



1 Doyle V. Austin, 47 C'al. 353 07(5. 20 L. 719 [1869]; Tallant v. 

[1874]. City of Burlington, 39 la. 543 

"City Council of Augusta v. Mur- [1874]; County of Harris v. Boyd, 

phy, 79 Ga. 101, 3 S. E. 326 [1887]; 70 Tex. 237, 7 S. W. 713 [1888]. 

In the Matter of the Petition of For free gravel roads: Board of 

Dassler for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Commissioners of County of Monroe 

35 Kan. 678, 12 Pac. 130 [1886]. v. Harrell, 147 Iml. 500, 46 N. E. 

••Wells V. Savannah, 181 U. S. 531, 124 [1896]. 

45 L. 986, 21 S. 697 [1901]. For side walks: City of Dubuque 

* Hancock v. Whittemore, 50 Cal. v. Harrison, 34 la. 163 [1872]; Mer- 

522 [1875]; People ex rel. Doyle v. riam v. Moody's Executors, 25 la. 

Austin, 47 Cal. 353 [1874]; Daily 163 [1872]. 

v. Swope, 47 Miss. 367 [1872] 'Sanger v. Rice, 43 Kan. 580, 23 

"An assessment for levee purposes Pac. 633 [1890]. 

is not a tax in the strict legal sense " Dittoe v. C ity of Davenport, 74 

of the term, although it is true the la. 66. 3t) X. W. 895 [1887]; Mason 

Legislature has called it so in the v. Spencer. 35 Kan. 512, 11 Pac. 402 

act whose constitutionnlity is at- [1880]. 

tacked." Yeatman v. Crandell. 11 " Yeatman v. Crandell, 11 La. Ann. 

La. Ann. 220, 221 [1856]. 220 [1850]. 

•■Willard v. Presbury, 81 U. S. (14 '"City of Pliiladelphia for use of 

Wall.) 676. 20 L. 719 [1869], (an ]\IcCann v. Philadelphia & Reading 

assessment for re-paving a street). Railroad Company, 177 Pa. St. 292. 

«As in street improvements: Wil- 34 L. R. A. 564, 35 Atl. 010 [1S90]. 
lard V. Preshurv. 81 V. S. (14 Wall.) 



69 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. 



41 



no effect in deterniiniiiu' whether it is one or the other." ^^ In the 
same opinion the same charge is often referred to indiscrimin- 
ately as a 'tax" and 'assessment.' ^- 

§41. Term 'tax' as including assessment. 

If the statute specifically provides that the word 'tax' means 
any tax or special assessment, there is, of course, no ciuestion but 
that under such statute the word 'tax' includes assessments.^ 
Under such statute an assessment is regarded as a tax within 
the meaning of a statute providing for foreclosure in equity of 
the lien given by statute for such assessments.- or within the 
meaning of a statute providing for appeals to a certain court.'' 
Under some statutes the provisions concerning taxes are so 
worded as to show the intention of the legislature to include 
assessments in such provisions. Full effect is, of course, given to 
such intention, and an assessment is a tax within the meaning of 
such statutes.* Thus, under such statutes, an assessment is a tax 
with reference to the sale and conveyance of land for non-pay- 
ment of taxes,"' and with reference to the .settlement of unpaid 
taxes between the town treasurer and the county treasurer." So 
a certificate issued upon a sale of land for the non-payment of an 
assessment is a 'tax certificate' ' and a statute limiting the bring- 
ing of an action "to set aside any sale of lands for the non-pay- 



" People ex rel. Doyle v. Austin. 
47 C al. 353. 358 [1874]. 

i-Willard v. Presbuiy. 81 U. S. (14 
Wall.) 670, 20 L. 719 [1809]; City 
of Dubuque v. Harrison. 34 Ja. 103 
[1872]. 

' Blake v. People for use of Cald- 
well, 109 111. 504 [1884]. 

-Gauen v. Moredock and Ivy Land- 
ing Drainage District Xo. 1. 131 111. 
440. 23 X. E. 033 [1890]. 

'■' Peo]>le ex rel. Johnson v. Spriiii^- 
er. 100 111. 542 [1883]: Potwin v. 
Johnson. lOt) 111. 532 [1883]. 

*San<rer v. Rice, 43 Kan. 580. 23 
Pac. 633 [1890]; Pratt v. City of 
Milwaukee. 93 Wis. 658. OS X. W. 
392 [18901: Yates v. City of Mil- 
waukee. 92 Wis. 352. (iO X. W. 
248 [1890]: ShehovL^an County v. 
Citv of Shebovixan. 54 Wis. 415. 11 



X. W. 598 [1882]: Dalryniple v. City 
of Milwaukee. 53 Wis. 178, 10 X. W. 
141 [1881]. 

"We have used the terms •assess- 
ment' and 'tax' interchangeably, for 
tiiey are so employed in the statute 
wmch rules this case. Within the 
meaning of those statutes a special 
assessment for the cost of {^radin^; 
is a tax." Sheboy<ran County v. City 
of Shebovfran. 54 Wis. 415." 421, 11 
X. W. 598 [1882]. 

^'^anjier v. Rice. 43 Kan. 580. 23 
Pac. 033 [18901; Yates v. City of 
Milwaukee. <)2 Wis. .352, 06 N.' W. 
2^8 11890]. 

"Sheboygan County v. City of She- 
hovfran, 54 Wis. M5. 11 X. W. 598 
[1882]. 

• Pratt V. City of Milwaukee, 93 
Wis. 058. OS X. W. 392 [1896]. 



s 42 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



70 



i;ient of taxes, or to cancel any tax certificate, or to restrain or 
prevent the issuing of any tax deed or any tax certificate or to 
set aside and cancel any tax deed" to "nine months after the 
making of such sale, date of such certificate or recording of such 
tax deed, as the case may be, and not thereafter" applies to a 
sale for the non-payment of a local assessment.^ 

§ 42. Assessment not tax within provisions for exemption. 

]\Iany constitutional and statutory provisions are found ex- 
empting property from taxation or from taxation for certain pur- 
poses. The validity and effect of these provisions are discussed 
in detail elsewhere.^ In this connection it is sufficient to say that 
it is generally held that a local assessment is not a tax within the 
meaning of provisions of this sort.- This principle has been ap- 



" Dalrymple v. L ity of Milwaukee, 
r>3 Wis.* 178, in X. Vv. 141 11881]. 

^See § G18. 

- Ford V. Delta & Pine Land Co., 
104 U. S. 662, 41 L. 500, 17 S. 230 
[1897], {affirming Ford v. Delta & 
Pine Land Co., 43 Fed. 181 [1890]) ; 
Board of Improvement Paving Dis- 
trict No. 5 V. Sisters of Mercy of 
Female Academy of Ft. Smith, — 

Ark. , 109 S. W. 1165 [190SJ; 

City of San Diego v. Linda Vista 
Irrigation District, 108 Cal. 189; 35 
L. R. A. 33; 41 Pac. 291 [1905]; 
City of Bridgeport v. New York & 
New Haven Railroad Co., 36 Conn. 
255, 4 Am. Rep. 63 [1869]; City of 
Chicago in Trust for Use of Schools 
V. City of Chicago, 207 111. 37, 69 N. 
E. 580 [1904]; County of Adams v. 
City of Quincy. 130 Il"l. 566. 6 L. R. 
A. 155, 22 N. E. 624 [1890]; Illinois 
Central Railroad Co. v. City of Deca- 
tur, 126 in. 92, 1 L. R. A. 613, 
18 N. E. 315 [1890]; LTniversity 
V. People, 80 111. 333, 22 Am. 
Rep. 187; People v. Western Society, 
87 111. 246 [1871]; City of Ottawa 
V. Spencer, 40 111. 211 [1866]; Trus- 
tees V. McConnel, 12 111. 138 [1850]; 
Edwards & Walsh Construction Co. 
V. Jasper County, 117 la. 305, 94 
Am. St. Rep. 301, 90 N. W. 1006 



[1902]; Farwell v. Des IMoines Brick 
^Manufacturing Co., 97 la. 280, 35 
L. R. A. 03, 66 N. W. 176 [1896]; 
Paine v. Spratley, 5 Kan. 317 [1870] ; 
Atfhison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail- 
road Co. V. Peterson, 5 Kan. App. 
103, 48 Pac. 877 [1897]; Zable v. 
Louisville Baptist Orphans' Home, 
92 Ky. 89, 13 L. R. A. 668, 17 S. W. 
212, 13 Ky. L. R. 385 [1891]; City 
of Lafayette v. ilale Orphans' Asy- 
lum, 4 La. Ann. 1 [1849]; Crowley 
V. Copley, 2 La. Ann. 329 [1847]; 
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 
Railway Co. v. City of Grand Rap- 
ids, 102 Mich. 374, 29 L. R. A. 195. 
60 N. W. 767 [1894]; Lefevre v. 
]Mayor, etc., of Detroit, 2 :Mich. 586 
[1853]; Washburn IMemorial Orphan 
Asylum v. State, 73 Minn. 343, 76 
N. \V. 204 [1898]; Barber Asphalt 
Paving Co. v. City of St. Joseph, 183 
Mo. 451, 82 S. W. 64 [1904]; Kan- 
sas City Exposition Driving Park v. 
Kauj^as' City, 174 Mo. 425, 74 S. W. 
979 [1903]; City of Clinton to use 
of Thornton v. Henry County, 115 
Mo. 557, 37 Am. St. Rep. 415," 22 S. 
W. 494 [1893]; Sheehan v. Good Sa- 
maritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 155; City 
of Beatrice v. Brethren Church of 
Beatrice, 41 Neb. 358; 59 N. W. 932 
[1894]; State, New Jer.sey :\ridlaiid 



71 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. 



§42 



plied to constitutional and statutory provisions exempting from 
taxation churches,-^ cemeteries,* charitable institutions,"' educa- 
tional institutions," and public school property.' So it has been 



Railroad Co., Pros. v. Mayor and Al- 
dermen of Jersey City, 42 X. J. L. 
(13 Vr.) 97 [1880]; State, New Jer- 
sey Railroad & Transportation Com- 
pany, Pros. V. City of Elizabeth, 37 
N. J. L. (8 Vr.) 330 [1875]; State, 
Protestant Foster Home Society, 
Pros. V. Mayor and Common Council 
of the City of Newark, 3G N. J. L. 
(7 Vr.) 478, 13 Am. Rep. 464 
1 1873] ; State, New Jersey Railroad 
& Transportation Co., Pros. v. Mayor 
and Common Council of the City of 
Newark, 27 N. J. L. (3 Dutch.) "^185 
[1858]; President and Council of the 
( ity of Paterson v. Society for Es- 
tablishing Useful Manufactures, 24 
N. J. L. (4 Zab.) 385 [1854]; Roose- 
velt Hospital V. Mayor, Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the City of New 
York, 84 N. Y. 108 [1881]'; Hassan 
V. City of Rochester, 67 N. Y. 528 
[1876]; In re M. E. Church, 66 N. 
Y. 395 [1876]; Buffalo City Ceme- 
tery V. Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 503"^[1871] ; 
Sharp V. Speir, 4 Hill 76 [1843]; 
In the matter of the Application of 
the Mayor and Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York 
for the Enlarging and lni])roving a 
Part of Nassau Street in the said 
City, 11 Johns. 77 [1814]; City of 
Philadelphia v. Union Burial Ground 
Society of the City and County of 
Philadelphia 178 Pa. St. 533, 36 L. 
R. A. 263,*36 Atl. 172 [1896]; Beltz- 
hoover Borough v. Heirs of Beltz- 
hoover, 173 Pa. St. 213, 33 Atl. 1047 
[1896]; New Castle City v. Jackson, 
172 Pa. St. 86, 33 Atl. '236 [18951; 
Philadelpjiia v. Pennsylvania Hospi- 
tal, 143 Pa. St. 367, 22 Atl. 744 
[1891]; Second Universal ist Society 
V. City of Providence. 6 R. I. 235; 
Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. City of 
Watertown. 1 S. 1). 46. 44 N.' W. 



1072 [1890]; Yates v. City of Mil- 
waukee, 92 Wis. 352, 66 N. W. 248 
II896J. 

"City of Atlanta v. First Presby- 
terian Church, 86 Ga. 730, 12 L. R. 
A. 852, 13 S. E. 252 [1890]; Lefevre 
v. Maj^or, etc., of Detroit, 2 Mic'i. 
586 [1853]; City of Beatrice v. 
Brethren Church of Beatrice, 41 Neb. 
358, 59 N. W. 932 [1894]; In the 
matter of the Application of the 
Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty 
of the City of New York for the 
Enlarging and Improving a Part of 
Nassau Street in the said City, 11 
Johns. 77 [1814]. 

* Louisville, v. Nevin, 73 Ky. ( 10 
Bush.) 549, 19 Am. Rep. 78 [1874]; 
Buffalo City Cemetery v. City of Buf- 
falo, 46 N.' Y. 506 [1871]; Lima v. 
Cemetery Association, 42 O. S. 128, 
51 Am. Rep. 809 [1884]. 

^ Zahel v. Louisville Baptist Or- 
phans' Home, 92 Ky. 89, 13 L. R. A. 
668, 17 S. W. 212, 13 Ky. L. R. 385 
[1891]; City of Lafayette v. Male 
Orphans' Asylum, 4 La. Ann. 1 
[1849]; Crowley v. Copley, 2 La. 
Ann. 329 [1847]; Washburn Memo- 
rial Orphan Asylum v. State, 73 
Minn. 343, 76 N. W. 204 [1898]; 
Boston Seamen's Friend Society v. 
Mayor of City of Boston. 116 Mass. 
181, 17 Am". Rep. 153; Sheehan 
V. Good Samaritan Hospital, 50 Mo. 
155, 11 Am. Rep. 412 [1872]; Roose- 
velt Hospital V. flavor. Aldermen 
and Commonalty of the Ci<y of New 
York, 84 N. Y." 108 [1881]*. 

° In the matter of College Street. 
8 R. I. 474 [18671. 

^ City of Chicago in Trust for Use 
of Schools v. City of Chicago, 207 111. 
37, 69 N. E. 580 [1904]; St. Loui-; 
Public Schools v. City of St. Loui^. 
26 Mo. 468 [1857]. 



§42 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



72 



applied to constitutional^ and statutory" provisions exempting 
from taxation land belonging to the state, to municipalities and 
the like. It has been applied to statutes exempting land from 
"taxation" as long as it is leased, used and occupied by a State 
Agricultural Society^' and to a statute exempting from 'taxes 
charges or impositions' property of a society for the establish- 
ment of useful manufactures." Under the constitution of Texas 
a homestead is exempt from forced sales, but by another provi- 
sion this exemption does not apply to sales for taxes due thereon. 
The original view of the Supreme Court of Texas was that an as- 
sessment w^as a tax within the meaning of this latter provision 
and that accordingly a homestead was not exempt from a forced 
sale for non-payment of an assessment due thereon.^- Subse- 
quently, however, this view of the meaning of the word 'tax' was 
abandoned, the earlier decision was overruled, and it was held 
that an assessment is not a tax within the meaning of .such provi- 
sion, and that accordingly a homestead is exempt from forced 
sale for non-payment of an assessment.^'' So an assessment is not 
a tax within the meaning of a statute providing for a certain 
form of taxation for railroads and exempting them from all other 
taxation;^* or within a statute exempting from taxation for fiv3 
years from the sale thereof, any lands sold by the United States ^^ 
or within a statute exempting from 'all taxation' lands granted 



* Barber Asjjhalt Paving Co. v. 
City of St. Joseph, 183 Mo. 451, 82 S. 
W. 64 [1904]; City of Clinton to 
use of Thornton v. Henry County, 
115 Mo. 557, 37 Am. St. Rep. 415, 
22 S. W. 494 [1893]. 

° Hassan v. City of Rochester. 67 
N. Y. 528 [1876]! 

1" Yates V. City of Milwaukee, 92 
Wis. 352, 66 N. "w. 248 [1896]. 

" President and Council of the City 
of Paterson v. Society for Establish- 
ing Useful ^Manufactures, 24 N. J. 
L. (4 Zab.) 385 [1854]. 

■^ Lufkin V. City of Galveston, 58 
Tex. 545 [1883]. 

13 Higgins V. Bordages. 88 Tex. 458, 
53 Am. St. Rep. 770, 31 S. W. 52, 
803 [1895]. To the same effect are 
Storrie v. Cortes, 90 Tex. 283, 35 L. 
R. A. 666, 38 S. W. 154 [1896]; 



Lovenberg v. City of Galveston, 17 
Tex. Civ. App. 162, 42 S. W. 1024 
[1897]. 

" C ity of Bridgeport v. New York 
& New Haven Railroad Co., 36 Conn. 
255. 4 Am. Rep. 63 [1869]; Illinois 
Central Railroad Co. v. City of Deca- 
tur. 126 111. 92, 1 L. R. A. 613, 18 
N. E. 315 [1890]; Luke Shore & 
Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. 
City of Grand Rapids, 102 Mich. 374. 
29 L. R. A. 195, 60 N. W. 767 [1894] ; 
State, New Jersey Midland Railroad 
Co., Pros. v. Mayor and Aldermen of 
Jersey City, 42 N. J. L. (13 Vr.) 97 
[1880]; State, New Jersey Railroad 
& Transportation Co., Pros. v. City 
of Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. (8 Vr.") 
330 [1875]. 

^^ Crowley v. Copley, 2 La. Ann. 
329 [1847]. 



73 assess:ment and general taxation. § 4-2 

to a certain railroad^-' or exempting from taxation for any city 
purposes lands within the city limits used for agricultural pur- 
poses.i' jj^ ^11 these cases it is generally held that a local assess- 
ment is not a tax within the meaning of such provisions for ex- 
emption, and that it may, therefore, be levied notwithstanding 
such provisions. In Pennsylvania a local assessment was origin- 
ally held to be a tax within the meaning of provisions in the 
constitution and statutes exempting certain property from taxa- 
tion,^* except such assessments as were referred by the courts to 
the police power, such as assessments for curbing," or for side- 
walks.-' Subsequently, however, the earlier decisions were not 
followed, and it was held that within the meaning of such provi- 
sions for exemption an assessment is not a tax.-^ on the ground 
that "the constitutional exemption relates to taxes proper, or 
general public contributions levied and collected by the state, or 
by its authorized municipal agencies for general governmental 
purposes, as distinguished from peculiar forms of taxation or 
special assessments imposed on property within the limited areas 
by which the property assessed is specially and peculiarly bene- 
fited and enhanced in value to an amount at least equal to the 
as.sessment. " -- This later view has been taken in several cases 
decided subsequently,-'' and the Pennsylvania courts now seem to 
he committed to the rule accepted by the great weight of au- 
thoritv. 



'"Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. City Pa. St. 475, 30 Atl. 1007 [1895J. 

<f Watertown, 1 S. D. 4(>. 44 X. W. -'"Broad Street: Sewickley Metho. 

1072 [1890]. (list Episcopal Church's Appeal, 1G5 

■' Farwoll v. Des Moinos P.rick Pa. St. 475; 30 Atl. 1007 [1895]. 

^Manufacturing Co., 97 la. 28(). 35 L. ([uoted in City of Philadelphia v. 

R. A. 03. G6 X. W. 170 [1890]. Cnion Burial Ground Society of the 

'Hity of Erie v. First Univcrsalisl ( ity and County of Philadelphia. 178 

( hurcl/. 105 Pa. St. 278 [1SS4|: Oliv.- i'a.' St. 533. 538. 36 L. R. A. 263, 

Cemetery Co. v. Philadelphia. 93 Pa. 36 Atl. 172 [1896]. 

St. 129. 39 Am. Rep. 732. -H'ity of Philadelphia v. Union 

'" Philadolphin v. Pennsylvania Burial Ground Society of the City 

Hospital. 143 Pa. St. 3(i7. 22 Atl. and ('(Hinty of Philadelphia, 178 Pa. 

744 11891]. St. 5:13. 30 L. R. A. 263, 36 Atl. 172 

= 'Wilkins1mrg Borough V. llouK- for IISOOJ: Bcit/.hoover Borough v. 

Aged Women. 131 Pa. St. lOO: (i L. Ih'irs of Beltzhoover, 173 Pa. St. 213. 

R. A. 531, 18 Atl. 937 11890]. :!3 Atl. 1047 [1896]; Xew Castle City 

-'Broad Street; Sewickley :\I(>tli(.- v. Jackson, 172 Pa. St. 86. 33 Atl. 

di-t Episcopal Church's Appeal, 165 236 [1895]. 



§43 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT 



74 



§ 43. Assessment not tax within provision for equality and uni- 
formity. 

In the constitutions of the several states of the union are often 
found provisions that taxation must be uniform, or uniform and 
equal, throughout the state. Whether an assessment is a tax 
within the meaning of these provisions is a question which has 
often been presented to the courts for decision, and it is held by 
the great weight of authority that a local assessment is not a 
tax within the meaning of such constitutional provisions.^ In 
some opinions this view is somewhat qualitied by the expression 



' Hagar v. Board of Supervisors 
of Yolo County, 47 Cal. 222 [1874]; 
Chambers v. Satterlee, 40 Cal. 497 
[1871]; Creighton v. Mauson, 27 Cal. 
614 [1865]; Burnett v. Mayor and 
Common Council of the City of Sar- 
ramento, 12 Cal. 76, 73 Am. Dec. 
518 [1859]; Speer v. Mayor and 
Council of Athens, 85 Ga. 49; 9 L. 
R. A. 402, 11 S. E. 802 [1890|; 
Hayden v. City of Atlanta. 70 Ca. 
817 [1883]; Bedard v. Hall. 44 111. 
91 [1867]; Reinkeu v. Fuehring 130 
Ind. 382 30 Am. St. llcp. 247, 15 L. 
R. A. 624, 37 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 
354, 30 N. E. 414 [1891]; Gosnell 
V. City of Louisville, 104 Ky. 201, 46 
S. W. 722, 20 Ky. L. R. 519 [1898]; 
State ex rel. Hill v. Judges of Court 
of Appeals, 46 La. Ann. 1292, 16 So. 
219; Excelsior Planting & ilanufiic- 
turing Co. v. Green. 39 La. Ann. -155. 
1 So. 873 [1887]; City of New Or- 
leans praying for Opening of Casaca- 
loo and Moreau Streets, 20 La. Ann. 
497 [1868]; Richardson v. Morgan, 
16 La. Ann. 429 [1862]; Yeatman 
V. Crandall, 11 La. Ann. 220 [1856]; 
Wnllace v. Shelton, 14 La. Ann. 498 
[1859]; New Orleans Drainage Com- 
pany praying for the confirmation 
of a tableau, 11 La. Ann. 338 [1856 | ; 
(see opinion on rehearing, 351); 
Oakey v. Mayor. 1 La. 1 [1830]; 
Motz v. City of Detroit, 18 ]Mich. 494 
[1869]; Nugent v. City of Jackson, 
72 Miss. 1040, 18 So." 493 [1895]; 
Town of Ylacon v. Patty, 57 Miss. 



378, 34 Am. Rep. 451 [1879]; Yasser 
V. George, 47 Miss. 713 [1873]; Daily 
V. Swope, 47 Miss. 367 [1872]; He- 
man Construction Co. v. Wabash R. 
Co., 206 Mo. 172, 104 S. VV. 67 
[1907']; Meier V. City of St. Louis. 
180 Mo. 391, 79 S. Vv. 955 [1903]: 
City of St. Joseph v. Owen, 110 Mo. 
445, 19 S. W. 713 [1892]; Adams 
V. Lindell, 72 Mo. 198 [1880]. (So 
Adams v. Lindell, 5 Mo. App. 197 
I 1878] ) ; Shuford v. Commissioners 
of (Gaston County, 86 N. C. 552 
[18S2]; Cain v. Commissioners ot 
Davie County, 86 N. C. 8 [1882]: 
Kadderly v. Portland, 44 Ore. 118, 
74 Pac' 710, 75 Pac. 222 [1903 1; 
King V. Portland, 38 Ore. 402, 52 
L. R. A. 812, 63 Pac. 2 [1900] ; Mas- 
ters V. ' City of Portland, 24 Ore. 
161, 33 Pac. 540 [1893]; King v. 
City of Portland, 2 Ore. 146 
[1865]; Taylor v. Boyd, 63 Tex. 533 
[1885]; Alien v. Galveston, 51 Tex. 
302 [1879]; Roundtree v. Galveston, 
42 Tex. 012 [1875]; Nalle v. City 
of Austin, — Tex. Civ. App. — , 103 
S. W. 825 [1907]; Davis v. City of 
Lynchburg, 84 Va. 861, 6 S. E. 230 
[i888]; Richmond & Allegheny R. R. 
Co. v. City of Lynchburg, 81 Va. 473 
[1866]; Gilkeson v. Frederick Jus- 
tices 13 Gratt. (Va.) 577; City of 
Spokane Falls v. Browne, 3 Wash. 84, 
27 Pac. 1077 [1891]; Douglass v. 
Town of Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 162. 
27 Am. Rep. 548 [1876]. 



75 ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. § 43 

of the opinion that if such provision does ai)ply, the assessment 
may nevertheless be so api)ortioned that it will conform to the 
requirement of uniformity as nearly as such a form of tax can.- 
It "is as uniform as any taxation in relation to the subject could 
be."'^ This view has been expressed both in cases in which it has 
been said that the constitutional requirement of uniformity ap- 
plies,* and those in which it is said not to apply."' Analogous pro- 
visions are found in some constitutions to the effect that taxes 
levied upon property must be assessed in proportion to the value 
of such property. Under provisions of this sort it is ordinarily 
held that a local assessment is not a tax within the meaning of 
the term as used in such provision.''' This result has been reached 
under very stringent constitutional provisions, as that "all taxes 
levied on property shall be assessed in exact proportion to the 
value of such property" ' or that "all property subject to taxation 
.shall be taxed in proportion to its value," ** or that taxes on prop- 
erty shall be "assessed equally, according to the just value there- 
of."^ No matter how clear the constitutional requirement of 
uniformity may be, the theory, as held by these courts, is that 
.such provisions are intended to apply only to general taxation im- 
posed for the purpose of raising revenue to carry on the govern- 
ment, and not to local assessments for which, in the theory of the 
law, at least, full compensation is made to the owner of the prop- 
erty assessed, in the form of benefits conferred by the improve- 
ment for which the assessment is levied. ^'^ 



"Wliitiii'j; V. Qiiackonbusli. r)4 Cal. Dec .70 [ISnSh -Tout's v. Holzapfel, 

300 fl880]; Law v. Madison. Stiivi- 11 Okl. 40.1. (iS I'up. 511 [10021: 

Jia & Graham Turnpike Co.. :50 Tnd. Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. City of 

77 [1808]; Oakey v. ]\Iayor, 1 La. Watcrtown, 1 S. D. 40, 44 X." W. 

1 [1830L 1072 [1890L 

'Oakey v. Mayor, 1 La. 1 [1S:?01. ' ^Mayor and Aldormon of Birminu;- 

MMiitintr v. Qnackenbusli, .") I Cal. liam v. Klein. SO Ala. 401, 8 L. E. A. 

306 [1880]. 3ti0. 7 So. 380 [ISSOj. 

"Oakey v. flavor. 1 La. 1 |1S;1()1. ''.Tones v. Tlol/apfel. 11 Okl. 40;"). 

•^ Mayor and Aldermen of P.irmin;!;- (iS I'ae. .Ill [1002]. 

ham V. Klein. SO Ala. 401. 8 L. IL A. "City of Aulairn v. Panl. 84 Me. 

300, 7 So. 380 [18.^0]; Kiehardsoii 212. 2! All. 817 [1802]. 

V. Morcran. 10 La. Ann. 420 [1802]; '" 'l'he-;e questions are considered in 

City of Aiiliurn v. l^anl, 84 ^fe. 212. connection with specific constitution- 

24 Atl. 817 [1802]: Egyptian Levee al provisions. See §140 et seq. 
Co. V. Hardin, 27 Mo." 495. 72 Am. 



§ 44 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 76 

;; 44, Special views of certain states. 

In some jurisdictions a different view was taken originally, the 
courts in these states holding that an assessment was a tax with- 
in the meaning of the constitutional provision requiring uniform- 
ity; but either by change in judicial decision or by constitutional 
amendment this view has been abandoned. Thus in Colorado it 
was held originally that an assessment was a tax and therefore 
invalid as in violation of the constitutional requirement of uni- 
formity.^ This theory was subsequently abandoned and the view 
entertained by the weight of authority, that an assessment was 
not a tax within the meaning of such constitutional requirement 
was adopted.- It may be here noted that when the original Colo- 
rado rule on this point was in force it was applied to improve- 
ments which the court referred to the taxing power such as curb- 
stones and gutters,^ or grading and paving streets,* but not to 
improvements referred by the court to the doctrine of the police 
power, such as sewers,"' in which case assessments were held to be 
valid though not uniform. In Illinois a local assessment was held 
to be a tax within the meaning of the constitutional requirement 
of uniformity." This principle, however, was applied so as to in- 
validate assessments apportioned according to the frontage of the 
land assessed,^ and was not so applied as to invalidate assess- 
ments entirely. If apportioned according, to actual benefits, an 
assessment might be valid. '^ Subsequently on the adoption of the 

^ In re House Resolutions Concern-, [18G7]; Bedard v. Hall, 44 111. 91 

i:iir Street Improvements, 15 Colo. [1867]; City of Chicago v. Baer, 41 

598, 26 Pac. 323 [1890]; Wilson v. 111. 306 [1866]; City of Ottawa v. 

Chilcott, 12 Colo. 600, 21 Pac. 901 Spencer, 40 111. 211 [1866]; City of 

[1889]; Palmer v. \Yay, 6 Colo. 106 Chicago v. Larned, 34 111. 203 18!]4]. 

[1881]. '"In that ca-e (i. c.. City of Chi- 

-City of Denver v. Knowles. 17 cago v. Larned, 34 111. 203 [1864]) 

Colo. 204, 17 L. R. A. 135. 30 Pac. it was lield that in taxation, equal- 

1041 11892], (overruling Palmer v. ity and uniformity were indispensa- 

Way, 6 Colo. 106 [1881], and the ble to its constitutionality, and that 

cases which followed it). the same principle applied to assess- 

' Wilson V. Chilcott, 12 Colo. 600, ments for public improvements, and 

21 Pac. 901 [1889]. tliat an assessment upon the size or 

*/« re House Resolutions Concern- wiilth of the front of a lot without 

ing Street Improvements, 15 Colo. reference to its value was invalid, as 

598. 26 Pac. 323 [1890]. being in violation of the principle 

^ City of Pueblo v. Robinson, 12 of equality and uniformity." Hol- 

Colo. 593, 21 Pac. 899 [1889]; Keese brook v. Dickinson, 46 111. 285, 287, 

v. Citv of Denver, 10 Colo. 112, 15 288 [1867]. 

Pac. 825 [1887]. "Bedard v. Hall, 44 111. 91 [1867]. 

« Holbrook v. Dickinson, 46 111. 285 



7/ ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. §41- 

constitution of 1870 a provision inserted therein '•' anthorized thr 
legislature to "vest the corporate authorities of cities, towns and 
villages with power to make local improvements by special as- 
sessment or by special taxation of contiguous property or other- 
wise." Under this provision it has been held that a local assess- 
ment is not within the provision of the constitution requiring uni- 
formity of taxation.^' This question in Illinois, then, resolves 
itself into a question of the rule of apportionment, and is dis- 
cussed in detail under that topic. ^' In IMinnesota it was held ori- 
ginally that a local assessment is a tax wnthin the provision re- 
quiring a tax to be levied according to the valuation of the prop- 
erty assessed.^- Su])sequently a provision was inserted in the 
new constitution of IMinnesota allowing local assessments to be 
levied according to the benefits conferred by the improvement up- 
on the property assessed, and in some cases, according to the 
frontage of the property benefited, upon the improvement." Un- 
der such a provision an assessment is not held to be a tax within 
the meaning of the provision requiring uniformity. In South 
Carolina the view is now maintained that an assessment is a tax 
Avithin the meaning of the provision requiring uniformity as far 
as such assessment is of a kind referrable to the taxing power.^* 
Whether an assessment, as for a sidewalk, can be referred to the 
police power, and hence held not to be a tax within the meaning 
of the provision reciuiring uniformity is a (piestion upon which 
there is a conflict of opinion in these jurisdictions, Tennessee 
holding that such an improvement as a sidewalk is to be referred 
to the police power and is, therefore, not a tnx within the mean- 
ing of the provision requiring uniformity.^'' while in South Caro- 
lina it has finally been held that such improveinents are not so 

» Constitution of Illinois 1870, Art. 322 [1898] ; :M!vnl(lin v. City Council 

IX.. 8 !). of Cieenviilo. 42 S. C. 293, 4G Am. 

'"White V. People ex rel. City of St. Rep. 723. 27 L. R. A. 284, 20 S. 

Blooninjiton, 94 III. 604 [1880]. E. 842 [18931: State ex rel. Hool- 

" See ( liapter XIIT. beck v. City Council of Charlestown, 

'=IM(Iwell V. Coleman, 11 Minn. 45; 12 Rich. 702 flSfiOl. 

Stinson V. Smith, 8 ]\rinn. 306 [1863]. '^Mayor and Aldcrjucn v. Mahcr- 

'•■' Con.stitution of ^Minnesota, Art. ry. 25 Town. (0 Humph.) 3(58, 44 

IX., § 9. Am. Dec. 315 [1845] ; Whyte v. May- 

" Mauldin V. (ity Council of Green- or and Aldermen of Nashville, 32 

ville, 53 S. C. 285, 09 Am. St. Rep. Tenn. (2 Swan.) 364 [1852]; Wa.sh- 

855, 43 L. R. A. 101. 31 S. E. 252 infirton v. IMayor and Aldermen of 

[1898];' Stehm-yer v. City C"uncil Nashville, 31 Tenn (1 Swan.) 177 

of Chnrleslnn. 5:5 S. C. 2.-)n. ?A S. F.. llKoll. 



§45 



TAXxVTION BY ASSESSMENT. 



78 



vrithin the police x)Ower that assessments therefor are not taxes. 
Accordingly such assessments are held to be taxes within the 
meaning of the provision requiring uniformity.^'' In Tennessee 
assessments other than those, there referred to the police power, 
were for a long time held to be taxes within the rule requiring 
uniformity of taxation.^' This view has, however, been aban- 
doned, and in that state a local assessment is held not to be a 
tax within the meaning of such constitutional provisions.''^ In 
Wisconsin the provision requiring uniformity in taxation was 
held of itself to apply to a local assessment on the ground that 
an assessment is to be regarded as a tax, but under another clause 
of the constitution of Wisconsin ^•' providing that the legislature 
might "provide for the organization of cities and incorporated 
villages and (to) restrict their power of taxation, assessment" 
and the like, it was held that an assessment could be upheld 
though not complying with the requirement of uniformity.-'' 

§ 45. Assessment as tax within provisions for collection. 

Statutes and ordinances often contain provisions of various 
kinds for the collection of taxes. Whether an assessment is or is 
not a tax within the meaning of such provisions depends largely 
on the context and on the way in which the words -are employed. 
No absolute rule can be laid down. In general, however, in the 
alisence of anything to show a contrary intention, an assessment 
is not a tax within the meaning of these provisions.^ Thus under 



'" Mauldin v. City Council of Green- 
ville. 53 S. C. 285, G9 Am. St. Rep. 
835. 4.-? L. R. A. 101, 31 S. E. 252 
[18981, (overrviling dictum in Maul- 
din V. Citv County of Greenville, 42 
8. C. 293.' 46 Am'. St. Rep. 723, 27 
L. R. A. 284, 20 S. E. 842 [1893]). 

'■ Reelfast Lake Levee District v. 
Dawson, 97 Tenn. 151. 34 L. R. A. 
725, 36 S. W. 1041 [1896]; Taylor 
IMcBean & Co. v. Chandler, 50 Tenn. 
(9 Heisk.) 349, suh nomine McBean 
V. Chandler, 24 Am. Rep. 308 [1872] -. 
State V. Rntler. 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 
418 [1883]. 

1^ Arnold v. ?»Iayor and Aldermen 
of Knoxville, 115 Tenn. 195, 3 L. R. 
A. (N. S.) 837, 90 S. W. 469 [1905]. 

>' Art. XL, § 3. 



=" Weeks v. City of Milwaukee, 10 
Wis. 242 [I860]. 

^ City of Galveston v. Guaranty 
Trust Co. of New York, 107 Fed. 325, 
46 C. C. A. 319 [1901] ; City of High- 
lands v. Johnson, 24 Colo. 371, 51 
Pac. 1004 [1897]; Sargent & Com- 
pany V. Tuttle, 67 Conn. 162, 32 L. R. 
A. 822, 34 Atl. 1028 [1895]; Sam- 
uels V. Drainage Commissioners, 125 
Til. 536, 17 N.E. 829 [1889]; Lein- 
decker v. People ex rel. Johnson, 98 
111. 21 [1881]; Mix v. Ross, 57 111. 
121 [1870] ; City of Chicago v. Colby, 
20 111. 614 [1858]; Gould v. Mayor 
and City Council of P>altimore, 59 
Md. 378 [1882]; McCutcheon v. Pa- 
cific Railroad Co., 72 Mo. App. 271 



79 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. 



45 



statutes re({uiriiig a cJaiiii for taxes to l;e re<iistered.- or requiring 
warrants to be issued for the collection thereof,'' or authorizing 
the collection of interest on unpaid taxes,* or providing for the 
remission of part of the interest and penalties due on unpaid 
taxes if paid within a certain time.'' or providing a special proced- 
ure for foreclosing the liens of taxes," or providing at w^hat term 
of court application for judgment for delinquent taxes must be 
made,'^ or authorizing a sale of real property'' as the right of way 
of a railway company ° in payment of delinquent taxes; or au- 
thorizing the sale of personal property for delinquent taxes,^'' or 
fixing a period of limitations within which the collection of taxes 
must be enforced,^^ or providing specifically that a period of lim- 
itations, otherwise applicalde, should not apply to the collec- 
tion of taxes,^- it is held that assessments are not taxes within 
the meaning of such provisions. In most of these cases it may be 
observed, there are other provisions governing assessments as 
such, or else there have l)een other provisions, since repealed gov- 
erning assessments. Thus where separate statutes provided for 
sales for taxes and sales for assessments, it was held that the re- 
peal of the statute providing for sales for assessments did not 
authorize a sale for assessments under and by virtue of the provi- 
sions authorizing a sale for taxes.^*'' Power to sell "for the non-pay- 
ment of any taxes" does not confer power to sell for the non-pay- 
ment of local assessments.^^ A statute providing that assessments 



[ISOT]; Stato of Xol)raska o\ rel. 
Ransom v. Irev. 42 Neb. 1S(). 60 X. 
W. COl [1894]: I'ray v. Xoitliern 
Liberties. .31 Pa. St. 00 ILS.IOI: Al- 
len V. City of (ialvostmi. ol 'Vex. 302 
[1870]; (ity of Seattle v. \Miittel- 
sey, 17 Wash. '292. 40 Pnc. 480 
118971. 

-Pray v. Xorllinn Liberties. 31 
Pa. St.'G9 [18501. 

'City of Hifjhlands v. .Tobnson. 24 
Colo. 371, 51 Pae. 1004 | 1807]. 

* Sarsrent & Coni|)any v. Tiittle. 07 
Conn. 102. 32 L. P. A. 822. 3( Atl. 
1028 [1805]. 

«City of Seattle v. Wliittelsey. 17 
Wa«li. 202. 40 Pae. 489 [18071. 

" Santuels V. Dvnina^'o Commission 
ors. 125 Til. 530. 17 X. E. 820 [18801. 

'Leindeeker v. Pe-nib' ex rel. John- 
son, OS Til. 21 [1881]. 



'City of Chicao-o v. Coll)y. 20 Til. 
014 [1858]: Alieii v. City of Calves- 
ton. 51 Tex. 302 [1870]. 

" McCutcheon v. Paeilie Pailroad 
Co.. 72 Mo. App. 271 [1897]. 

'"Mix V. Ross, 57 111. 121 [18701; 
State of X'^ebraska ex rel. Ran.som 
V. Trey. 42 Xeb. 186, 60 X. W. 601 
I1S04I. 

"(Jonld V. Mayor and City Coun- 
cil of Paltimore. 50 :\rd. 378 [1882]. 

'-(ity of Calveston v. Cuaranty 
Trust Co. (pf Xew York. 107 Fed. 325. 
40 C. C. A. 310 [1001]. 

"Cilv of Chiea.L'o V. Colby. 20 III. 
(■,14 |1S5S|. 

" Piiine V. Si)ratley. 5 T\an. 525 
11870]: T^>urns v. Spratley, 5 Kan. 
.■)51 I 18701. (memorandum o]>inion). 



§ 46 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 80 

shall be collected as other taxes are collected does not in all re- 
spect abrogate the distinction between taxes and assessments. Such 
a statute entitles the collector to the same commission on assess- 
ments collected by him as on taxes/'^ but it does not render assess- 
ments subject to the statutory period of limitation which is pro- 
vided for in case of taxes,/" nor does it empower the collector to 
sell personal property in satisfaction of an assessment under and 
by virtue of provisions applicable to the case of taxes. ^" Even with- 
out any words showing specific legislative intent to include an as- 
sessment under the term 'tax' an assessment is so far a tax that 
without clear authority from the legislature it cannot be recovered 
in assumpsit in jurisdictions where common law forms of action 
exist. ^* 

§ 46. Assessment as tax within jurisdictional provisions. 

Provisions are found limiting the jurisdiction of certain courts 
to actions involving a certain specified sum, but providing that 
they shall have jurisdiction of actions involving the validity of a 
tax, irrespective of the amount in question. Such a provision is 
found in the constitution of Louisiana.^ Whether an assessment 
is a tax within the meaning of such provision is a question upon 
which there has been some confusion. In the earlier cases it was 
held that an assessment was not a tax within the meaning of such 
provision.- Subsequently in a case involving the validity of an 
assessment to build a levee, it was held that such assessment was 
a tax within the meaning of this provision,^ the court saying of 
the earlier cases that they "must in these particular cases yield 
to the conclusions reached by us if as contended by counsel they 

" Mayor and Council of Hatrers- of the bills less about twenty-five dol- 

town V. Startzman, 93 Md. 006, 49 lars; and the declaration contained 

Atl. 838 [1901]. a count of insimul computassent. 

'" Gould V. Mayor and City Council ^ Art. 74, Constitution of Louisi- 

of Baltimore, 59 Md. 378 [1882]. ana; Art. 85, Constitution of Louis- 

I'Mix V. Ross. 57 111. 121 [1870]. iana, 1898: Art. 81, Constitution of 

" McKeesport Borough v. Fidler, Louisiana. 1879. 

147 Pa. St. 532, 23 Atl. 799 [1892]. = Board of Levee Commissioners v. 

In Clemens v. Mayor and City Lorio Brothers, 33 La. Ann. 276 

Council of Baltimore, use of Volk- [1881]; Rooney v. Brown, 21 La. 

mar, 16 Md. 208 [1860], it was held Ann. 51 [1869], (an assessment for 

that a local assessment might be re- curbing and guttering), 

covered in assumpsit. There was, ^ State ex rel. Plill v. Judges of 

however, an express promise by the Court of Appeals. 46 La. Ann. 1292, 

property owner to pay the amount 16 So. 219. 



81 ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. § 47 

would be in contiict with it."* Subse(|uently in a case involving 
the validity of an assessment for a sidewalk it was held that 
such an assessment was not a tax within the meaning of this pro- 
vision, on the ground that since the statute required the consent 
of a ma.jority of the property owners to be affected, the charge 
was not an involuntary imposition and therefore not a tax.-"' In a 
later case, involving the validity of an assessment for the im- 
provement of a street, the assessment was levied under a statute 
which did not require the assent of the owners of the property 
to be assessed. The court held that such an assessment was a tax 
within the meaning of the constitutional provision.*"' In this case 
Fa3'Ssoux v. Denis,^ was distinguished from the case at bar on the 
ground that the earlier case involved an assessment "predicated 
upon the assent of the property holders" and therefore not a 
tax, while the later case involved an assessment not so predicated 
and therefore a tax. In later cases- on this point, State ex rel 
Hill V. Judges of Court of Appeals '•* has been followed consistent- 
ly and an assessment has been held to be a tax within the mean- 
ing of this provision. 

§ 47. Assessment as tax under restrictions upon taxation. 

Constitutional provisions are found restricting the rate of taxa- 
tion which may be levied by municipal corporations. An assess- 
ment is not a tax within the meaning of such restrictions, and ac- 
cordingly an assessment may be valid, although such assessment, 
together with the general taxes levied exceeds the rate of taxa- 
tion thus fixed. ^ So an assessment is not a tax within a statutory 

* State ex rel. Kill v. .Tiulges of So. 295 [10031. (amrmed. though not 

Court of Appeals, 4G La. Ann. 1292, on this point in ChadwicU v. Kelly, 

16 So. 219. A similar view was 187 U. S. 540, 23 S. 175 [1903]; ap- 

taken in Vicksbvirjr, Shreveport &. jiarently contra, Tebault v. City of 

Pacilic Railroad Co. v. Scott, 47 La. New Orleans, 108 La. (iSO, 32 So. 983. 

Ann. 700, 17 So. 249 [18951. » 40 La. Ann. 1292. 10 So. 219. 

" Fayssoux v. Denis, 48 La. Ann. ' Dyer v. City of Newport, — (Ky.) 

8,50, 19 So. 700 [18901. — , 80 S. W. 1127, 20 Ky. L. R. 204 

"City of Slireveport v. Preseott. 51 [19041; Hill v. Fontenot, 46 La. Ann. 

La. Ann. 1895. 40 L. R. A. 193. 20 15()3. 10 So. 475 [18941; State ex 

So. 664 [18991. rcl. llill v. .Fudjcs <,f Court of Ap- 

'48 La. Ann. 850. 19 So. 700 iienis for tin- Tliinl Circuit of tlie 

[18901. Slate of Louisiana. 40 La. Ann. 1292. 

'Pleasants v. City of Shreveport. Ki So. 219 [18941; Charnock v. For-. 

110 La. 1040. 35 Sn. 283 [19031; do.elie & Grosse Tete Special Levee 

Kelly V. Chadwick, 104 La. 719, 29 District Company. 38 La. Ann. 323 



§ 48 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 82 

provision restricting the power of the council to levy taxes to pay 
liabilities incurred by the city." The effect upon the validity of 
local assessments of restrictions on the power of a city to incur 
debts, in cases when the city incurs a primary liability for the 
pulbic improvement for which it expects to be reimbursed by lo- 
cal assessments is a question discussed elsewhere.^ Constitutional 
provisions are found providing that a law imposing an assess- 
ment shall state the tax and its object. Such provisions do not 
apply to local assessments, as the intent is clearly to regulate gen- 
eral taxation.* An assessment is not a tax within the meaning of 
a statutory provision that no tax shall be levied upon any district 
unless the proposition to levy the same has been submitted to the 
qualified electors thereof.*'' 

§ 48. Assessment as tax under other provisions. 

Under a provision requiring the value of any mortgages exist- 
ing on real estate to be deducted from the value thereof in asses- 
sing its value for taxation, it is held that a local assessment is not 
a tax within the meaning of such provision, since the benefits con- 
ferred upon the property assessed by the improvement for which 
the assessment is levied are in no way affected by the existence 
of mortgages upon such realty.^ An assessment is a 'tax for lo- 
cal purposes' within the meaning of a statute saving from repeal 
provisions 'in relation to taxation for local purposes.'- So an as- 
sessment is. Avithout any special words showing legislative intent, 
regarded as a tax in so far that no set-off can be made against it 
unless the statute expressly authorizes such set-off to be made." 



[1886]; Barrow v. Helpler, 34 La. 'See § 507. 

Ann. 362 [1882]; Kansas City v. Ba- * In the matter of the Petition of 

con, 147 Mo. 259, 48 S. W. 860 Ford to Vacate an Assessment for 

[1898]; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. the Regrading of Union Street, etc., 

543, 48 S. W. 629 [1898]; Lamar in the City of Broklyn, 6 Lans. (N. 

Water & Electric Light Co. v. City Y.) 92 [1872]. 

of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 32 L. R. A. ^Holley v. County of Orange, 106 

157, 26 S. W. 1025, 31 S. W. 750 Cal. 420, 39 Pac. 790 [1895]. 

[1895]: City of St. Joseph to use ^ Tregea v. Owens, 94 Cal. 317, 29 

of Gibson V. Owen, 110 Mo. 445, 19 Pac. 643 [1892]. 

S. W. 713 [1892]; Farrar v. City of -Reclamation District Xo. 3 v. 

St. Louis, 80 Mo. 379 [1883]. ' Goldman, 61 Cal. 205 [1882]. 

- Baldwin v. City of Oswc'TO, 2 ' Himmelmann v. Spanagel. 39 Cal. 

Keyes (N. Y. Ct. App.) 132 [1805]. 389 [1870]. See § 1346. 



83 ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. § 49 

?! 49. Assessment as tax in conveyances. 

Whether a local assessment is a tax within the meaning of a 
covenant concerning taxes or a provision for the payment thereof 
in a deed lease, will, or other similar instrument depends upon the 
intention of the parties as evidenced by the words employed and 
the context of the instrument. The general rule is that if the 
covenant or other provision refers only to a 'tax' it does not in- 
clude local assessments.' Thus where the deed contains a cove- 
nant of warranty except as to 'taxes,' it is held that a local assess- 
ment is not a tax within the meaning of the exception, and the 
grantor is accordingly liable therefor on his covenant.- Thus a 
covenant against incumbrances "except taxes assessed for the 
year 1893" refers only to "general annual taxes, "'^ and does not 
include local assessments. So in a covenant whereby the lessee 
agrees to pay part or all of the 'taxes' levied on the realty leased 
to him, the term 'taxes' does not include local assessments and 
the lessee is not liable therefor.* So in a will a direction to an 
executor to j)ay 'aninud taxes' on certain realty.'^ or a direction 
that the wife of testator shall pay 'all taxes' assessed against 
realty in which she is devised an estate for life '' does not. in 
either case, include local assessments in the term 'taxes.' In jur- 
isdictions in which the term 'special tax' is used to denote a local 
assessment, a covenant with reference to 'special taxes' is con- 
strued as including local assessments.' Thus a covenant hy a 

'Sanders v. Brown, Go Ark. 49S, n.>r. S Ohio X. P. 387 [1901 ]. ( af • 

47 S. W. 4G1 [1898]; De Clercq v. lirmcd by Oliio ( ircnit Court). 

Barber Asphalt Paving Company, 107 = Smith v. Abington Savings Bank, 

111. 215, 47 X. E. 367 [1897]' (af- 105 Mass. 285, 286, 42 X. E. 1133 

firming De Clcreci v. Barber Asphalt [189(5]. 

Paving Company, (iti ill. App. 596 * De Clcrc'(| v. Barber Asplialt Pav- 

[1S96]; Warren v. Warren. 148 111. ing (oiiipany. I(i7 111. 215. 47 X. E. 

641, 36 X. E. Oil [1894]; Chaiiibrr ;!(',7 |lS!t71. (alHrniing De ( Icrc.i v, 

liii V. Cleason. 1()3 X. 'S'. 21 1. 57 X. r.arlicr As])lialt Paving Coni])any. 66 

E. 18/ 1190(11: ^■(Hl(.!■ V. ■I'lirner. S III. App. 596 [1896]; Beals v. Provi- 

Ohio X. P. :!S7 11901], (anrirmed by .'ciicc Biibijor Company. 11 1!. I. 381. 

Ohio (ircnit Court); Beals v. Provi •:3 Vni. P>ep. 472 [187ti]. 

dence Ilubber Company. 11 11.1.381. 'Warr.'n v. Warren. 148 111. (Ul. 

23 Am. Rep. 472 [1876] : Love v. :;(i \. K. (Ill [lS9tl. 

Howard, 6 R. 1. IK! I18.")91. ■■• ( Icunbcrlin v. (Ileason. Ki:'. X. Y. 

= Sanders v. P.rown. (;5 Ark. 198. 214. 57 X. E. 487 [1900]. 

47 S. W. 461 [1898]: Smith v. Ab- ' I.nens v. :\rcCann. 50 :Mo. App. 

ington Savings Baid<. 165 Mass. 285. ()38 [1892]: Thomas v. Hooker-Col- 

42 X. E. 11:53 [189(5] : Voder v. Tur ville Steam Pnmp Company, 22 Mo. 

App. 8 [1886]. 



§ 49 TAXxVTION BY ASSESSMENT. 84 

lessee to pa.y 'special taxes'"* or to pay 'all taxes general and 
special''' prima facie includes local assessments. If the term 'as- 
sessment' is used in the instrument in addition to the term 'tax,' 
the prima facie inference is that 'assessment' in this connection 
means a local assessment.^" Thus a covenant in a lease whereby 
the lessee Avas to pay "all taxes and assessments of every kind 
whatever which should be laid or imposed on the premises dur- 
ing said term" imposes on the lessee the duty of paying local as- 
sessments.^^ So a clause in a mortgage whereby the mortgagee 
covenants to pay "taxes and assessments" promptly, includes 
local assessments.^- So covenants whereby lessee agrees to pay 
"all taxes and assessments whether in the nature of taxes now is 
being or not which may be payable or assessed in respect of the 
premises or any part thereof during said term." ^■' and to pay "all 
and singular the taxes, rates, charges and assessments which shall 
or may from time to time and at any time during said term be 
levied, assessed or made on the demised premises or in respect of 
the same for or on account of any matter or cause whatever"^* 
include local assessments for benefits. Conversely a covenant in 
a lease whereby the lessee agrees to "pay all assessments what- 
soever levied" docs not include general taxes. ^■'' HoAvever, in a 
long lease, for ninety-five years, containing a covenant whereby 
the lessee covenanted to "pay or cause to be paid all taxes and 
assessments that might at any time during the term be assessed 
upon said lot" it was held that the covenant did not include so 
much of an assessment for laying out a new street as was assessed 
against the interest of the reversioner.^'^ The theory on which 
such holding was made was that such a form of assessment was 
unknown when the lease was executed and not within the contem- 

* Lucas V. McCann, 50 Mo. App. '- National Lifo Insurance Com- 

638 [1802]. pany v. Butler, 61 Xeb. 449, 87 Am. 

^Thomas v. Ilooker-Colville Steam St. Rep. 462, 85 N. W. 437 [1901]; 

Pump Company, 22 ]\Io. App. 8 Northwestern ]\Iutual Life Insurance 

[1886]. Company v. Butler, 57 Neb. 198, 77 

"National Life Insurance Co. v. N. W. 667 [1898]. 

Butler, 61 Neb. 449, 87 Am. St. Rep. " Codman v. Johnson, 104 Mas-. 

462, 85 N. W. 437 [1901]; North- 491 [1870]. 

western ISIutual Life Insurance Com- i' Walker v. Whittemore, 112 .Mass. 

pany v. Butler. 57 Neb. 198. 77 N. 187 [1873]. 

W. 667 [1898]; Oswald v. Gilfert, '^ Stephani v. Catliolic Bislu.p of 
II Johns. (N. Y.) 443 [1814]. ■ Chicago, 2 Brad. (111.) 249 |1878]. 

"Oswald V. Oilfert, 11 Johns. (N. ^« I ove v. Howard, 6 R. T. IH) 

Y.) 443. [1ST4]. [lS.i9]. 



85 ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. § 49 

plation of the parties. Words in connection with the word 'tax' 
may show an intention to include local assessments in such 
terms.^' Under a covenant in a coal lease whereby the lessee 
agreed to pay a certain rent "clear of and over and above all 
taxes and reprises" it was held that as between the lessor and 
lessee the lessee was bound to pay local assessments levied for 
the cost of constructing a sewer.^^ Covenants whereby a lessee 
agrees to pay, "all taxes and duties levied or to be levied thereon 
during the term,"^® or to pay "such sum or sums of money as 
shall be equal to the amount of the rates, taxes, and duties of 
every kind that shall be levied or assessed on the demised prem- 
ises or on the lessors of the same as well as those assessed or 
levied by the authority of the United States, or those assessed or 
levied l)y the authority of the State of Massachusetts, or of the 
city of Boston, for each" year and part of a year, "^^ have been 
held to include local assessments. A direction to pay "the an- 
nual taxes and insurance and also all reasonable repairs and im- 
provements" out of rents has been held to include local assess- 
ments on the theory- that it is payment for an 'improvement.'-^ 
An assessment for benefits has been held not to be an incumbrance 
within the meaning of a contract for the sale of land, where the 
improvement was made and the assessment levied after the time 
fixed for performance of such contract, on the theory that the 
amount of the assessment did not exceed the benefits conferred by 
such improvement and that the vendee was therefore paying only 
for what he received." In a letter from a business man, not a 
lawyer, who v/as a non-resident and was writing with reference 
to his land the term 'taxes' includes local assessments.^^ 



'"Blake V. BaktM'. 115 ^las.s. 188 quiring the tnistoe to pay '"all taxes. 

[1874]: Delaware & Hudson Canal rates, assessments ami expenses for 

Company v. Von Storeli. 106 Pa. St. insurance and repairs and other ex- 

102. 40 Atl. 375 flOOni. penses and outgoings of every na 

'"Delaware & Hudson Canal Com- lure" is held not to require the trus- 

pany v. Von Storcli, 19G Pa. St. 102, tec to pay assessments for street^ 

4(1 Atl. .375 [19001. and sewers: Rhode Island Hospital 

" P.lake V. Baker. 11.') Mass. 188 Trust Co. v. Babbitt. 22 R. T. 11.3. 

I1S741. 40 Atl. 403 [19001. 

-"^Curtis V. Pierce. 115 Mass. 180 '-Oottlielf v. Stranalian. 138 X. 

[18741. V. 345. 20 L. R. A. 455. 34 \. E. 

-'Warren v. Wairen. 148 Til. 041. 280 [18931. 

.30 N. E. 611 [18941. -Mlibbs v. People's National Bank, 

However, a provision in a will re- 198 HI. 307. 64 X. E. 1000 [19021. 



§50 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



86 



§ 50. Special tax. 

The term "special tax" is one which is used with several differ- 
ent meanings. In many cases it is used as a synonym of the local 
assessment.^ Where this meaning attaches to the term, the 
charge is often referred to indiscriminately as a "special tax'" 
and as an "assessment." - It is occasionally called by both names 
at once.^ Another meaning which attaches to the term "special 
tax" is that of a tax analogous to the general tax, but devoted to 
a specific purpose and not to be lised for the general expenses of 
the public corporation which levies it.* Thus a local assessment 
was held not to be a special tax within the meaning of a constitu- 
tional provision which imposed a limitation upon the rate of tax- 
ation "general or special." ^ Such a special tax is a branch of the 
taxing power and not an exercise of eminent domain." 



iTallant v. City of Burlington, 39 
la. 543 [1874]; City of Dubuque v. 
Harrison, 34 la. 1C3 [1872]; Board 
of Commissioners of County of Mon- 
roe V. Harrell. 147 Tnd. 500, 40 N. E. 
124 [1890]: TTentij;- v. Gilmore, 33 
Kan. 234, 6 Pac. 304 [1885]; Bar- 
ber Asphalt Pavinj,' Company v. City 
of St. Joseph, 183 Mo. 451, 82 S. W. 
64 [1904]; Moberly v. Hogan, 131 
Mo. 19, 32 S. W. 1014 [1895]; City 
of Clinton to use of Thornton v. Hen- 
ry County, 115 Mo. 557. 37 Am. St. 
Rep. 415," 22 S. W. 494 [1893]; City 
of St. Joseph to use of Gibson v. Far- 
rell, 106 Mo. 437, 17 S. W. 497 
[1891] ; Keith v. Bingham. 100 Mo. 
300, 13 S. W. 083 [1889]; City of 
Springfield to the use of Tuttle v. 
Baker, 50 Mo. App. 637 [1894]; Al- 
len V. Krenning, 23 Mo. App. 561 
[1886]; Thomas v. Hooker-Colville 
Steam Pump Company, 22 jVlo. App. 
8 [1886]; Kefferstein v. Holliday, 
3 Mo. App. 570 (appendix) [1877]; 
Brockschmidt v. Cavender, 3 Mo. 
App. 568 (appendix) [1877]; Stad- 
ler V. Strong, 3 Mo. App. 568 (ap- 
pendix) [1877]; Creamer v. Allen, 
3 Mo. App. 545 [1877]; City of 
Butte V. School District No. 1. 29 
Mont. 336, 74 Pac. 869 [1904]; Low- 
den V. City of Cincinnati, 2 Disney 
(Ohio) 203 [1858]: County of Har- 



ris V. Boyd, 70 Tex. 237, 7 S. W. 713 
[1888]. 

-Tallant v. City of Burlington, 39 
la. 543 [1874]; City of Dubuque v. 
Harrison, 34 la. 163 [1872]; City of 
Butte V. School District No. 1, 29 
Mont. 336, 74 Pac. 869 [1904]. 

^ Such charges are referred to as 
"assessments or special taxes." Mil- 
waukee Electric Railway & Electric 
Light Com])any v. City of Milwaukee, 

95 Wis. 42, 69 N. W.' 796 [1897]. 

* County of San Luis Obispo v. 
White, 91 Cal. 432, 24 Pac. 864, 27 
Pae. 756 [1891] ; Marion Water Com- 
pany V. City of Marion, 121 la. 306, 

96 N. W. 883 [1903]; Grunewald v. 
City of Cedar Rapids, 118 la. 222, 
91 N. W. 1059 [1902]; Swanson v. 
City of Ottumwa. 118 la. 161, 59 L. 
R. A. 620, 91 N. W. 1048 [1902]; 
Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. 
V. City of Lamar. 128 Mo. 188, 32 L. 
R. A.' 157, 20 S. W. 1025, 31 S. W. 
756 [1895]. 

'^ Lamar Water & Electric Light 
Co. V. City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188, 
32 L. R. A. 157, 26 S. W. 1025, 31 S. 
W. 750 ]1895]. 

® Chicago & Northwestern Railway 
Company v. Village of Elmhurst, 165 
HI. 148,' 40 N. E. 437 [1897]; Chi- 
cago & Alton Railroad Company v. 
City of Jolief. I.i3 HI. 049. 39 N. 
E. 1077 [18941. 



87 



ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL TAXATION. 



51 



§ 51. Special taxation in Illinois. 

The term "special tax" has a distinct and peculiar meaning in 
Illinois. In this state it was once held that local assessments 
were within the constitutional re(iuirement of uniformity and that 
accordingly such assessments could not be apportioned by front- 
age or by any similar method of apportionment.^ Sul)se(iuently 
the constitution was so modified as to permit certain public cor- 
porations to make local improvements "by special assessment, 
speeail taxation or otherwise."- The legislature thereupon con- 
ferred upon cities and villages the "power to make local im- 
provements by special assessments, or by special taxation, or 
both, of contiguous property or general taxation or other- 
wise as they shall by ordinance, prescribe." This language 
is substantially that of the constitution and is not regarded 
as any broader in its effect and meaning,'' and confers the 
power of making local improvements by special assessment, 
special taxation or general taxation.* Under this provision 
the special tax has been held to be distinct from lioth the 
general tax and the local assessment.'' Under this constitutional 
provision a special tax must be limited to "contiguous prop- 
erty,"" while a special assessment need not be so limited but may 
be assessed upon any property benefited. On the other hand a 
special assessment apportioned according to benefits may be re- 
stricted to contiguous or abutting property." The mere fact that 
the charge is limited to abutting property is not conclusive that it 



'See §§ 44. 1.53. 

= Constitution of Illinois. Art. IX., 
§ 9. 

^ Falc'h V. Ppoplo <'.\ rcl. .Tohnson, 
09 111. 137 [18S1]. 

*City of Chica.^o v. r.rede. 218 111. 
.528, 75 X. E. 1044 [1905]; Misprvey 
V. People ex rel. Raymond. 208 111. 
646, 70 N. E. 678 [19041: Ronan v. 
People ex rel. Shafter, 193 111. 631, 
61 N. E. 1042; People ex rel. Miller 
V. Sherman, 83 111. 165 [18761. 

"Gage V. Waterman. 121 111. 115, 
13 X. E. 5-13 [18891; P,utler v. Xo- 
vin, 88 111. 575 [18781: HniM. .Tr.. 
V. City of Chicairo. 82 111. 472 [187(11. 

The notice of the tax snle nni-t 
show whether it is for a speeial tax 
or a special assessment. Gage v. 



\Vaternian. 121 111. 115, 13 X. E. 543 
I1S891. 

The oflicer making the sale for a 
special tax must show his authority 
s) to sell, and merely showing au- 
tliority to sell for special assessments 
is not sufTK'ietit. F.utler v. X^evin, 88 
III. 575 [1878]. 

"(luild. .Tr.. V. ( ity of Chicago, 82 
111. 472 [lS7(il. 

' Bass V. South Park Commission- 
ers, 171 111, 370, 49 X. E. 5-19 [18981 : 
^Vest Chicago Park Commissioners v. 
Farher. 171 111. 146. 49 X. E. 427 
[18981: Walker v. City of Aurora. 
110 111. 402, 29 X. E. 741 [18931: 
City of Springfield v. Sale, 127 111. 
3.-)9. 20 X. F. 81) [18901; Lake v. 
Citv of Decatur, 91 111. 596 [18791. 



51 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



88 



is a special tax as distinguished from. an assessment.* The special 
tax is in most respects like the special assessment. They are both 
based on the theory of presumed equivalents for the charge or 
exaction in the form of benefits, ** differing in this respect from 
general taxation. The chief difference between the special tax 
and the special assessment is in the manner of ascertaining bene- 
fits.^° In special taxation the imposition of the tax is a conclu- 
sive determination of the fact of benefit and the apportionment 
of the expense of the improvement, while in a special assess- 
ment the cost must not exceed the actual benefit and must be 
apportioned in proportion thereto. ^^ The determination to con- 
struct a sidewalk by special taxation has been said to be, "a de- 
termination that the property so specially taxed is benefited to 



*"lt does not follow that oecause 
the ordinance confined the assessment 
to abutting property it was a spe- 
cial tax instead of a special assess- 
ment (Lake v. City of Decatur, 91 
111. 59G [1879]; West Chicago Park 
Commissioners v. Farber, 171 111. 14G, 
49 K. E. 427 [1898]). In the case 
at bar the assessment was made ac- 
cording to benefits, and though con- 
fined to contiguous property, was a 
special assessment and not a special 
tax." Bass v. South Park Commis- 
sioners, 171 111. 370, 372, 373, 49 N. 
E. 549 [1898]. 

"Davis V. City of Litchfield, 145 
111. 313, 21 L. k A. 5G3, 33 X. E. 
888 [1893]. 

'" Lightner v. City of Peoria, 150 
111. 80, 37 N. E. C9 [1894]. 

'1 Davis V. City of Litchfield, 145 
111. 313, 21 L. R. A. 563. 33 N. E. 
888 [1893]. 

' ihe difl'erence between special as- 
sessments and special taxation has 
been repeatedly pointed out by thii. 
court. It lies mainly in the manner 
of determining the benefits. In spe- 
cial taxation the body enacting the 
ordinance determines that the bene- 
fits are equal to the cost, and before 
the passage of the amendment to Sec- 
tion 17, Article 9, Chapter 24 of tlia 
Revised Statutes in 1895 that deter- 
mination was conclusive and could 



not be reviewed by court or jury, 
while in special assessments the ben- 
efits are assessed by the commission- 
ers and were always reviewable by 
a jury." West Chicago Park Com- 
missioners v. Farber, 171 111. 146, 
159, 49 X. E. 427 [1898]. 

"Special taxation, as spoken of in 
our Constitution, is based upon the 
supposed benefit to the contiguous 
property and difl'ers from special as- 
sessments only in the mode of ascer- 
taining tlie benefits. In the case of 
special taxation, the imposition of 
the tax by the corporate authorities 
is of itself a determination that the 
benefits to the contiguovis property 
will be as great a^ the burden of the 
expense of the improvement and that 
such benefits will be so nearly lim- 
ited or confined in their effect to 
contiguous property tliat no serious 
injustice will be done by imposing 
the whole expense upon such prop- 
erty. In the case of special assess- 
ments the property to be benefited 
must be ascertained by careful inves- 
tigation and the burden must be dis- 
tributed according to the carefully 
ascertained proportion in which each 
part thereof will be beneficially af- 
fected." Craw V. Village of Tolono, 
96 111. 255. 262, 36 Am. Rep. 143 
[1880], quoted in Enos v. City of 
Springfield, 113 III. 65. 71 [1886]. 



89 



ASSESSMENT AND GENEKAL TAXATION. 



§51 



the extent of the special tax."^- Accordingly in the special tax 
it has been said to be no objection thereto that the amount of the 
tax exceeds the amount of the benefits/^ This theory of the spec- 
ial tax has been stated in a number of eases.^* Thus it has been 
said that the power of levying a special tax is an unqualified one. 
without restriction as to the benefiting of the contiguous property 
thus taxed.'''' While the validity of the special tax is regularly 
recognized.^" the courts are now inclined to insist that the spec- 
ial tax must be reasonable. "The only difference in special assess- 
ments and special taxation as to benefits is that in the latter case 



'-Harris v. People ex rcl. Kniirht. 
218 111. 439, 443. 75 X. E. 1012 
[19051; Pierson v. People ex rel. 
Walter. 204 III. 456, 68 X. E. 383 
[19031; Payne v. Village of South 
Sprinstield. 'l(;i 111. 285, 44 X. E. 105 
[189G1; ( hieaofo & Alton Railroad 
Company v. City of Joliet. 153 III. 
649. 39 "X. E. 1077 [1894]: City of 
Sterling v. Calt. 117 111. 11. 7 X 
E. 471 [1887]; Craw v. Village of 
Toiono, 96 111. 255. 36 Am. Rep. 143 
[1880]; White v. People ex rel. City 
of Bloomington. 94 111. 604 [1880]. 

'^ ''The obiection that the special 
tax here exceeds the benefits to the 
lot im]ilies that the only mode of 
making the improvement is by spe- 
cial a.ssessment. whereas the broad 
power is given under the constitu- 
tion to make it either by special as- 
sessment or by special taxation of 
contiguous j)roperty or otherwise. 
* ''"' * This proceeding is in the 
special taxation of contiguous prop- 
erty, and in the adoption of that 
mode tliere is no requirement of ben- 
efits received and no respect thereto 
further than may be had by the city 
council in determining upon which 
particular one of the several modes 
of sj.ecial taxation of contiguous 
property open to tliem sliall be re- 
sorted In." l''!iins v. Citv of Sp'in ■■- 
field, ll:! 111. (;.-). 71. 72 [1886]. fiU"t- 
ing White v. Peaple ex rel. Citv ot 
Bloom in'/ton. 94 111. 604. 016 [1880]. 

"Whether or not the special t:ix 
exceeds the actual benefit to the lot 



is not material. It may be supposed 
to be based on a presumed equiva- 
lent. The city council have deter- 
mined the frontage te be the proper 
measure of probable benefits. That 
is generally cohsidered as a very 
reasonable measure of benefits in ease 
of sucli an im])r()vement, and if it 
does not in fact in the present case 
represent the actual benefits it is 
enough that the city council have 
deemed it the proper rule to apply." 
Enos V. City of Springfield. 113 111. 
65. 73 [1886], quoting White v. Peo- 
ple ex rel. City of Bloomington. 94 
111. 604, 613 [1880]. 

" C ity of Bloomington v. Latham, 
142 111! 462. 18 L. R. A. 487, 32 X. 
E. 506 [1S9.",1: County of Adams v. 
City of Quincy. 130 III. 566. 6 L. R. 
A. 155, 22 X. E. 624 [1890]; City 
of Sterling v. Halt. 117 III. 11, 7 X. 

E. 471 [1SS7I: City of Galesburg v. 
Searlos, 114 111. 217. 29 X. E. 686 
[1886]; Enos v. City of Springfield, 
113 III. 65 [1886];* People ex rel. 
:\:iller V. Sherman. 83 111. 165 [1876]. 

'^ City of Calesburg v. Searles, 114 
111. 217, 29 X. E. 686 [1886]. 

'* City ex rel. Ilanberg v. Peyton. 
214 111. 376. 73 X. E. 768 [1905]; 
Comnissionors of Highways of Town 
of |)ix V. Big Four Drainage District 
if Ford County. 207 111. 17. 69 X. 

F. 576 [1904]; T.i'/htnrv v. ( itv of 
Pc- ria, 150 III. 80. 37 X. E. 69 
II '■9J]: Davis v. City of Litchfield, 
1-15 III. 313. 21 L. R. A. 563, 33 X. 
K. 888 [1893]. 



51 



TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 



90 



the determination of the city council is final — not an arbitrary 
unreasonable determination, but one which can be seen to be fair- 
ly and reasonably made,"^' and that even a special tax is to be 
regarded as based upon the theory of an equivalent for benefits 
in the increased value of the property taxed.^^ Under the doc- 
trine that the special tax must be reasonable, special taxes clearly 
in excess of the benefits conferred have been held invalid.'"' 
Whether a special tax is a taking of property without due process 
of law has been presented for adjudication. In Illinois it has 
been held that under a statute imposing a special tax, but pro- 
viding that the propertj^ owner may have the question of whether 
the special tax is in excess of the benefits or not, determined reg- 
ularly, such a tax is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment to the 4!onstitution of the United States.-" The same ques- 
tion has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United 
States,-^ but in this case the court refused to pass upon the ques- 
tion on the ground that the Federal question had not been pre- 
sented to the State Court, to whose decision error was prosecuted. 
It will thus be seen that the tendency of statutes and recent deci- 
sions in Illinois is to bring the special tax more nearly to the local 
assessment than the original holdings of the Supreme Court 
seemed to indicate. Similar constitutional provisions are found 
in a few other states. -- 



'' City of Bloomington v. Chicago 
& Alton Railroad Company. 134 111. 
451, 459, 26 N. E. 36fi [1891 J. 

'"Huston V. Tribbetts, 171 111. 547, 
03 Am. St. Rep. 275, 49 N. e. 711 
[1898]; Chicago & Alton Railroad 
Company- v. City of Joliet, 153 111. 
649, 39 N. E. 1077 [1894]; Lightner 
V. City of Reoria, 150 111. 80. 37 X. 
E. 69 [18941 ; Davis v. City of Litch- 
field, 145 111. .313. 21 L. R. A. 563. 
33 N. E. 888 [18931. 

" City of Bloomington v. Chicago 
& Alton Railroad Company, 134 111. 



451, 26 X. E. 366 [1891]. See § 295 
et seq. 

=" Job V. City of Alton. 189 111. 256, 
82 Am. St. Rep. 448, 59 X. E. 622 
[1901]. 

^ Lombard v. West Chicago Park 
Commissioners, 181 U. S. 33, 45 L. 
731, 21 S. 507 [1901], (affirming 
Cnmmings v. West Chicago Park 
Commissioners, 181 111. 136. 54 X. E. 
941 [1899]). 

^ Sec. 6, Article IX., Constitution 
of Xebraska: Darst v. Criffin, 31 
Xeb. 608, 48 X. W. 819 [1891]. See 
§ 103. 



CHAPTER IV. 
FORM OF EXACTION IN ASSESSMENT. 

§ 52. Option to owner to construct improvement. 

An assessment usually takes the form of a charge or exaction in 
money.^ At the same time there is no reason why the charge 
might not be in the form of requiring the actual construction of 
the improvement by the party to be charged therewith instead of 
imposing upon him a charge in money to pay the cost thereof. 
However, if the party refuses to perform the work thus assigned 
to liim, there is usually no method available of compelling specific 
performance. He may be coerced into performance by the impo- 
sition of a penalty, or in case of his refusal, the work may be done 
by others and he may be charged with his proportionate share of 
the expense thereof. The latter of these methods is usually 
treated as a form of assessment.- It will be noted that, although 
the charge is by this means originally imposed as a form of work 
and labor, it is ultimately enforceable as a charge in money. Ac- 
cordingly, under such statutes the proceedings must provide 
some means for compelling payment in money. If a road is or- 
dered to be built by the adjoining land owners, but no assessment 
is levied in proportion to the benefits conferred, so that the i"')i 

' See Chapter XX. For the ques- 200 | l.«n()l ; Mayor and Board of 

tion of the power to require payment 'Iriistees of Town of New Iberia v. 

in certain limited kinds of money Fontelieu, 108 La. 460, .32 So. .3Git 

or legal tender to the e.\clusion of [1901]; Cuming v. Cleason. 140 

others, see § 1080. :\Iich. 19.5. 10:5 X. \V. ,-)37 [190.5]; 

= People ex rel. Hanberg v. Pey- Sanford v. \illage of Warwick, 181 

ton, 214 111. 370, 73 X. E. 708 X. Y. 20. 73 X. E. 490 [1905] : ( re- 

[19051; City of Keokuk v. Inde- versing 82 X. Y. S. 466. S3 App. 

pendent District of Keokuk. 53 la. Div. 120 [1903]; City of NVilmins- 

352, 30 Am. Rep. 22G, 5 X. ^V. 503 ton v. Yopp, 71 X'. C. 76 [1874] -. 

[1880]; Scherm v. Garrett's Adm'r, Mt. Pleasant P.or. v. Bait. & O. Ry. 

(Ky.) 80 8. AV. 1101. 26 Ky. Law Co.. 138 Pa. St.. 365. 11 L. R. A. 

Rep. 180 [1904]: Board of Coun- 520. 20 Atl. 1052 [1890] : . Wils.n 

oilmen of Frankfort v. :\Iason & v. Town of Philippi. 39 W. \'n. 75. 

Foard Co., 100 Kv. 48. 37 S. W. 19 S. E. 553 [1894]. 

91 



§ 53 TAXATIOX BY ASSESSMENT. 92 

may be built by assessment if the work is not done, it has been 
held that the proceedings should be quashed upon certiorari.^ If 
the obligation to construct an improve nient is imposed bv law 
upon a public corporation or a quasi public corporation such as a 
railroad company, such corporation may be compelled to con- 
struct such improvement by proceedings in mandamus.* 

§ 53. Power and duty to grant option. 

A municipal corporation may hy ordinance give to the property 
owner the option to do the work in front of his property or pay 
an assessment therefor even if the statute does not provide for 
such option. Thus a municipal corporation may give to the abut- 
ting owner such option to do the work himself under a statute 
authorizing the council to pass ordinances to require the improve- 
ment of the street at the cost of the al)utting owner, ^ or even, it 
has been held, under a statute authorizing the board of trustees 
to make and pass such resolutions, ordinances and by-Jaws as may 
be deemed necessary and proper and to regulate and make im- 
provements to the streets, alleys, sidewalks, public squares, 
wharves, and other public property and places.- Such option is 
frequently given to the property owner by statute.^ If the stat- 
ute provides for an option to the owner to do the work himself or 
pay an assessment therefor, the municipal corporation must give 
such option as a condition precedent to levying such assessment.* 
Other property owners cannot complain because such option is 
given and advantage is taken of it by some property owners, and 
because upon assessment, allowance is made to the owners who 

=■ Pierce V. County Commissioners ton, 223 111. 379, 79 N. E. 51 [1906]; 

of Franklin County, (i3 :Me. 252 City of Chicago v. Burkhardt, 223 

[18721. " 111.' 297, 79 K E. 82 [1906]. 

* Northern Pacific Ry. v. Duluth, * City of Chicago v. Burkhardt, 

208 U. S. -583 [1908], (affirming 223 ni. 297, 79 N. E. 82 [1906]: 

State ex rel. City of Duluth v. North- Pierce v. County Commissioners of 

ern Pacific Ry. Co., 98 Minn. 429. Franklin County, 63 Me. 252 [1872]: 

108 N. W. 261). See § 1162. Brewster v. Mayor and Common 

^ Board of Councilmen of City oi Council of the City of Newark. 1 1 

Frankfort v. :\Iurray, 99 Ky. 422, N. J. Eq. (3 Stockt.) 114 [1856]: 

36 S. W. 180 [1896]. Mt. Pleasant Bor. v. Bait. & O. R. 

nUyor and Board of Trustees of Co., 138 Pa. St. 365, 11 L. R. A. 

the Town of New Theria v. Fonte- 520, 20 Atl. 1052 [1891]; Rosrers 

lieu, 108 La. 460, 32 So. 369 [1901], v. City of Milwaukee, 13 Wis. 610 

^People ex rel. Hanberg v. Pat- [1861], 



93 



FORM OF EXACTION IN ASSESSMENT. 



§53 



did the work tlu'iiiselves.' Furthermore, if a property owner 
takes advantage of such oi)tion and i)erfornis the work in a proper 
manner, the city cannot levy an assessment without crediting 
him for such work so done." If the owner is not given the oppor- 
tunity to construx't such ini[)rovement under a statute which pro- 
vides therefor,' as where a defective notice not giving specifica- 
tions which would enable him to ascertain what work was to be 
done, is served on him,'' or where the ordinance providing for the 
improvement does not give the specifications or prescribe the 
manner of doing the work, but delegates to the city engineer the 
power to direct the method of doing the work,^ or where the 
statute gives the property owner the option to construct the 
whole of a sidewalk improvement and thus relieve himself from 
liability for assessment, and the notice served npon the owner 
gives him the option to constrnct the sidewalk except the inter- 
sections/' the public corporation cannot constrnct the improve- 
ment at the- cost of the property owners. Tlius under a statnte 
providing for such an option, the municipal corporation cannot 
constrnct the sidewalk and assess the cost ther(M)f upon the abut- 
ting property owners nnless they have been notified in accordance 
with the terms of the statute and have been given an ojiportun- 



^ ( ity of C'onnersville v. ]\Ierrill, 
U hiil. App. 303, 42 X. E. 1112 
[18!).-y|. 

" ]?iiiV)er V. lloaid i>f Supervisors 
of the City and County of San Fran- 
cisco, 42" Cal. C.-M) 11872]; State. 
Mann, Pros. v. Mayor and Common 
Council of Jersey City, 24 N. J. L. 
(4 Zab.) 662 [isoof; In tlie mat- 
ter of the Assessment for Improv- 
ing East Eighteenth Strei't in tlie 
Town of Flatbusli. 75 Ilun. (X .Y.) 
603, 27 X. Y. Sup]). fiOl I1S!)4]. 

^ State V. Foster. 94 Miiui. 412, 
103 X. W. 14 rmool; City of \Yest- 
port to use of Iloelzel v. Smith, G8 
Mo. App. 63 flSDO]: Erie City v. 
WUVk. 26 Pa. Super. Ct. 459 [19031 ; 
Johnson v. City of Oslikosli. 21 Wi-s. 
184 [1866]; Kneeland v. City of 
:^niwaukee, 18 Wis. 411 flS64]. 

"^Myrick v. City of La Cro-so. 17 
Wis. ^42 [1803]. 

" Thompson v. Schermerliorn, 6 X. 



V. 92, 55 Am. Dec. 3S5 [1851]; a 
ease where the ordinance directed 
that tlie owners or occupants of lots 
fronting on a certain described por- 
tion of a given street sliould cause 
tlie street in front of tlicir respec- 
tive lots to he pitclied, leveled and 
llagged at their own expense in such 
manner as tlie city superintendent, 
under the direction of tiie commit- 
tee on roads a])])ointed by the com- 
mon council, siiould direct and re- 
(luire: while the statute by virtue 
of llie ordinance was passed, em- 
])o\veied tlie common council to make 
by-laws and ordinances directing any 
stri'ct or lane in the city to be 
])itclie(l, hn(>!ed. paved or llagged 
within such time and in sucli man- 
ner as they might ])'escribe under 
the superintendence and direction of 
t^e city supevinte-ident. 

'" ( ity of ( hicai'o v. l?urkliardt, 
223 111. 297, 79 X. E. 82 [1906]. 



§ 5^ TAXxVTION BY ASSESSxMENT. 94 

ity to construct the improvement themselves." An insufficient 
notice such as one served by placing it upon the premises under 
a stone which covered it entirely/- or one requiring the work to 
be done in seventeen days when the ordinance under which it is 
given provides that the owner shall be given thirty days in which 
to do the work,^'' gives the city no right to construct the improve- 
ment and assess the cost thereof upon the abutting property 
owners. At the same time the right of the owner to do the work 
is not one which is secured to him by constitutional provisions.'* 
It is a mere favor conferred upon him by statute, and according- 
ly any notice which the statute provides for, is sufficient, such as 
notice by publication/^ If the notice is mailed properly the fact 
that the property owner has not received it. and so has had, in 
fact, no opportunity to do the work, does not relieve him from 
liability.'" In this respect notice to the owner to do the work 
is to be distinguished from notice of the assessment itself.'^ Ac- 
cordingly he cannot insist upon an opportunity to do the work 
himself if the statute makes no provision therefor.^^ If after due 
notice and oportunity, the owner neglects or refuses to do the 
work, subsequent proceedings are in the nature of ordinary local 
assessments. By failing to act in due season the property owner 
waives his right to do the work himself.'" Thus, under such a 
statute, if the owner neglects or refuses to construct a sidewalk in 
front of his property, the municipal corporation may proceed to 
do the work or to cause it to be done at the expense of such 
owner.-" If the abutting owners do not do the work, the city 

'1 Schmidt v. Village of Elmwood 19 N. W. 533 [1884]. Queried in 

Place, 15 Ohio C. C. 351 [1897]; Brewster v. Mayor and Common 

Mt. Pleasant Bor. v. Bait. & 0. R. Council of the City of Newark, 11 

Co., 138 Pa. St. 3C5, 11 L. R. A. X. J. Eq. (3 Stockt.) 114 [1856]. 

520, 20 Atl. 1052 [1890]. i" City of Chicago v. Gait, 225 111. 

'-City of Philadelphia to use of 368, 80 N. E. 285 [1907]. 

Winmill v. Edwards, 78 Pa. St. (28 "See Chapter XIV. 

P. F. Smith) 62 [1875]. '» Clapton v. Taylor, 49 Mo. App. 

"Washington v. Mayor and Al- 117 [1892]; Bingaman v. City of 

dermen of Nashville, 31 Tenn. (1 Pittsburgh, 147 Pa. St. 353, 23* Atl. 

Swan.) 177 [1851]. (In such case 395 [1892]. 

the fact that the city delays thirty ^^ Broadway Baptist Church v. 

days before commencing to do the McAtee, 71 Ky. (8 Bush.) 508, 8 

work does not cure the defect in the Am. Rep. 480 [1871]. 

notice.) -'" Buell v. Ball, 20 la. 282 [1866]; 

"Fass V. Seehawer, 60 Wis. 525, Cuming v. Gleason, 140 Mich. 195, 

19 N. W. 533 [1884]. 103 N. W. 537 [1905]; City of 

" Fass V. Seehawer, 60 Wis. 525, Louisiana v. Shaffner, 104 Mo. App. 



95 P^ORM OF EXACTION IN ASSESSMENT. § 54 

may let the contract therefor as well as do the work itself.-^ 
Mere election on the part of the abutting owner to do the work 
and attempted performance on his part will not be sufficient to 
discharge his liability for such improvement. He must further- 
more comply substantially with the re([uirements of the ordi- 
nance.-- On the other hand, if the owner does the work and it is 
accepted by competent public authority, the other owners cannot 
resist payment of their assessmen-ts on the ground that such work 
so done by the owner was defective.-" If the statute does not give 
the property oAvner the option to do the work, the fact that he 
voluntarily constructs an improvement in front of his land does 
not prevent the city from making an improvement of the same 
general character, but of a different material, and levying an as- 
sessment therefor.-* Thus where a property owner voluntarily 
constructed a street surfaced with round cobble stones, the city 
had power to provide for surfacing such street with asphalt and 
levying an assessment therefor upon the land owned by such 
property owner.-"' Hence, if the city permits an owner to con- 
struct a sidewalk "in front of his property" and is silent as to 
permitting him to construct intersections, but provides tliat a 
pro rata charge for intersections shall be made upon lots in front 
of which the owner has constructed the sidewalk, the owner can- 
not relieve himself from liability for assessment for intersections 
by constructing an intersection at the corner of his lot.-" 

§ 54. Option to do work in assessment for benefits. 

In the case of im])rovements. the cost of which is made a charge 

101, 78 S. W. 287 [ino;?l: Ciiy of -' Pcoiilc ox rcl. Ilanberg v. Poy- 

Sprinjrfield ex rcl. rpdorgraff v. ton. 214 III. 'M(>, 73 N. E. 708 

Mills, 99 Mo. App. 141, 72 S. W. [1905|. 

462 [190.31; Inhabitants of the Vil- - Shnini v. Town of Salem, 13 Ind. 

lage of Ilonstania v. (hnibhs, 80 :\I(). App. 115. 30 X. E. 1050 [18951. 
App. 433 [18991: Paxson v. Sweet. =' Whitefield v. Hippie, — (Ky.) 

13 1\. J. L. 1911 118321; Ronsall v. — . 12 S. W. 150. 11 Ky. L. K. 3Sfi". 
^layor. Reeoi-der and Trustees of the -■* Parsons \-. ( iiy of Cdlnnibns. 50 

Town of Lebanon, 19 Oliio 418 O. S. 41)0, 34 X. E. (577 [1893]. 
[1850]; Findley v. City of Pitts- -'' Parsons v. City of Columbus. 50 

burjr (Pa.), 11 Atl. (178 [1887]; O. S. 4(50, 34 X. E. 077 [1893]. 
Mavor and Aldermen v. "Maberry, -" Ilenian Construction Com])any 

25 Tenn. (0 Humph.) 3G8, 44 Am, v. McManus, 102 :Mo. App. 049, 77 

Dee. 315 [1845]; Wilson v. Town of X\ W. 310 [1903]. 
rhiliT>pi. 39 \V. Va. 75, 19 S. E. 553 
[1894]. 



§ 55 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 9G 

upon the property owner on the theory of benefits, provisions 
giving to the property owner the option to do the work himself, 
are not as common as in improvements which it is the legal duty 
of the land-owner to construct, but such provisions are occasion- 
ally found. Similar views are entertained where the statute pro- 
vides that the owner shall be allowed to do the grading,^ curbing,- 
or guttering, •'' in the construction of a street ; or shall be allowed 
to construct a road.^ or to construct a levee,^ or to clean out the 
bed of a creek.*' Charges of this sort are treated as ordinary as- 
sessments, subject to the option of the owner of the property' to 
do the work himself. The question of the power of the legisla- 
ture to apportion the assessment by recjuiring each owner to pay 
for the Avork done in front of his property is not here considered, 
and is discussed elsewhere.'^ 

§ 55. Option to do work in performance of legal duty. 

Assessments of this kind are most commonly found in cases in- 
volving assessments of the second type, that is assessment for the 
cost of performing a legal duty which the ov>-ner of the realty 
assessed has omitted or refused to perform. A common example 
of such a form of assessmeut exists where the owner of realty is 
required to construct a sidewalk in front of his property, or con- 
tinguous thereto, and in event of his failure so to do, the municipal 
corporation is authorized, by statute, to do the work or to have 
it done and to charge such property owner with the expense 
thereof. This is treated as a form of assessment.^ Such form of 



^Myrick v. City of La Crosse, 17 59 Ark. 494, 28 L. R. A. 49G, 28 

Wis. "^442 [1863]." S. W. 32 [1894]; James v. Pine 

-Childers v. Holmes, 95 Mo. App. Bluff, 49 Ark. 199, 4 S. W. 700 

154, 68 S. W. 1046 [1902]. [1887]; City of Chicago v. Gait, 225 

MVhitefield v. Hippie, — (Ky.) 111. 368, 80 X. E. 285 [1907]; People 
. 12 b. ^Y. 150, 11 Ky. L. Pv. 386. ex rel. Hanberg \. Peyton, 214 111. 

'Pierce v. County Commissioners 376, 73 N. E. 768 [1905]; Biggin's 

of Franklin County, 63 Me. 252 Estate v. People ex rel. Tethering- 

[1872]. ton, 193 111. 601, 61 X. E. 1124; 

5 Crowley v. Copley, 2 La. Ann. 329 Town of Greendale v. Suit, 163 Ind. 

[1847]. ' ' 282, 71 X. E. 658 [1904]; Shrum 

"Brown v. Keener, 74 X. C. 714 v. Town of Salem, 13 Ind. App. 115. 

[1876], 39 X. E. 1050 [18951: City of Keo- 

'See § 713. kuk v. Independent District of Keo- 

1 Winter v. City Council of Mont- kuk, 53 la. 352, 36 Am. Rep. 226. 

gomery. 83 Ala! 589, 3 So. 235 5 X. W. 503 [1880]: Buell v. Ball. 

[1887]; Little Rock v. Fitzgerald, 20 la. 282 [1866]: Board of Coun- 



97 



FORM OF EXACTION IX ASSESSMENT. 



§ ')o 



assessment for sidewalks has been upheld where ordinary assess- 
ments for benefits are held to be unconstitutional.- Other ex- 
amples of assessments of this type where the owner is required 
to do the work are found in cases of the construction of sewers." 
or of house connections therefor,* or the construction of drains/' 
under the alternative provision, in the event that he refuses or 
neglects to construct such improvement of having the same con- 



cilmen of Frankfort v. Mason & 
Foard Co., 100 Ky. 48, 37 S. W. 290 
1 18!)6] ; Board of Councilmen of City 
of Frankfort v. Murray, 99 Ky. 422, 
30 S. W. 180; Mayor and Board of 
Trustees of Town of New Iberia v. 
Fontelieu, 108 La. 460, 32 So. 309 
[1901]; Cuming v. Gleason, 140 
:^licli. 195. 103 X. W. 537 [1905] : 
^■(iun<r V. \'illage of Waterville, 39 
Minn. 190, 39 N. W. 97 [1888]; In- 
l;al)itants of Town of Palmyra v. 
Morton, 25 Mo. 593 [1857]; City of 
Louisiana v. Shaffner, 104 ^lo. App, 
101, 78 S. W. 287 [1904]; Heman 
Construction Company v. McManus, 
102 Mo. App. 049, 77 S. W. 310 
11903]; City of Springfield ex rel. 
UpdegrafT v. Mills, 99 Mo. App. 141, 
72 S. W. 462 [1903]; Inhabitants 
of tlie Village of Iloustania v. 
Grubbs. 80 Mo. App. 433 [1899]; 
State V. Several Pareels of Land, 
— Neb. — , 107 X. W. 500 [1900]; 
^lorris V. Mayor and Common Coun- 
cil of the City of Bayonne. 25 N. J. 
Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) .345 [1874]; 
Brewster v. !Mayor and Common 
Council of the City of Xewark, 11 X. 
.7. Eq. (3 Stookt.) 114 [1856]; San- 
ford V. Village of Warwick, 181 X. 
v. 20, 73 X. E. 490 [1905] (revers- 
ing 82 X. Y. S. 406, 83 App. Div. 
120.) Thompson v. Sohermerhorn, 6 
X. V. 92. 55 Am. Dec. 385 [1851]; 
City iif Wihiiington v. ^'opp. 71 X. 
C. 70 I1S7I1: Wilhelm v. City of 
Defuuice, 58 0. S. 5ti. 05 Am. St. 
Bep. 745. 40 L. B. A. 294. 50 X. E. 
18 [1898]; Schmidt v. Village of 
Elmwood Place, 15 Ohio C. C. 351 
[1897]; Hunt v. Hunter, 11 Ohio C. 



C. (59 [1895]: Mt. Pleasant Bor. v. 
Bait. & 0. R. Co., 138 Pa. St. 305, 
11 L. R. A. 520, 20 Atl. 1052 [1891] ; 
Philadelphia v. Stevenson, 132 Pa. 
St. 103. 19 Atl. 70 [1890]; Wilkins- 
burg Bor. v. Home for Aged Women, 
131 Pa. St. 109, 6 L. R. A. 531, 18 
Atl. 937 [1890]; City of Philadel- 
pliia to use of Winmill v. Edwards, 
78 Pa. St. (28 P. F. Smith I 62 
[ 1S75I ; Findlay v. ( ity of Pittsburg 
(Pa.) 11 Atl.' 678 [1887]; Mayor 
anil Aldermen v. jSIaberry, 25 Tenn. 
(6 Humph.) 368, 44 Am. Dec. 315 
[1845]; Washington v. Mayor and 
Aldermen of Nashville, 31 Tenn. ( 1 
Swan) 177 [1851]; i\layor and City 
Council of Xashville v. Berry, 2 
Shan. Cas. (Tenn.) 501 [1877); 
Sands v. City of Richmond, 31 
Graft. 571, 31 Am. Rep. 742 [1879]; 
W'ilscm V. Town of Philippi, 39 W. 
Va. 75. 19 S. E. 553 [1894]: Fass 
V. Scchawer, 60 Wis. 525, 19 X. W. 
533 [18841. 

-Town of Macon v. Patty. 57 Miss. 
378. 34 Am. Rep. 45 [1879]; Mayor 
and Aldermen v. Maberry, 25 Tenn. 
(0 Humph.) 368, 44 Am. Dec. 315 
[1845]; Washington v. flavor and 
Aldermen of Xashville. 31 Tenn. (1 
Swan.) 177 11851]; Xashville v. 
Berry. 2 Shan. Cas. (Tenn.) 561 
[1877]. 

^ State V. Foster. 94 Minn. 412. 103 
X. W. 14 [1905]. 

* Erie City v. Willis. 20 Pa. Super. 
( t. 4,59 [1904]. 

' Scherm v. (larrett's Adm.. 118 
Ky. 290. 80 S. W. 1103. 20 Ky. L. 
R. 180 [1904]. 



§ 56 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 98 

structed by the proper public authorities at the cost of such 
owner. If the improvement is one the cost of which the land- 
owner cannot be compelled to pay, either on the theory of bene- 
fits or on the theory of the performance of a legal duty, no ad- 
ditional validity can be given to such exaction by requiring the 
owner to construct the improvement himself." Thus if a ditch in 
not necessary to protect the public health or to protect the con- 
tiguous land from nuisance it cannot be made the duty of the 
land-owner to construct it by giving him notice so to do.'' So, in 
Pennsylvania, where no assessment can be levied for a new im- 
provement if the old is in good condition,^ the owner cannot be 
required to take up a curb which is in good condition and re- 
place it with a new and expensive curb as a part of the general 
plan of turning a street into a boulevard.® 

§ 56. Primary duty upon city. 

Under statutes which permit a city to require property owners 
to construct improvements in front of their respective lands, the 
city remains liable to third persons for any damages which may 
be caused by failure to make such improvement or for defects in 
its construction. The effect of statutes of this sort is not to trans- 
fer liability by reason of such improvement froni the city to abut- 
ting property owners.,^ Hence the owner" is not primarily liable 
to a traveler for an injury occasioned by the fact that the side- 
walk was out of repair.- So, if the owner is required to con- 
struct a sidewalk and he constructs it in a negligent manner, the 
city cannot recover indemnity from such owner by reason of a 
judgment which a third person, injured by such negligence, has 

'Chicago & Erie Railroad Co. v. Philadelphia, US Pa. St. 535, 12 Atl. 

Keith, 67 0. S. 279, 60 L. R. A. 525, 174] [1888]. 
65 K E. 1020 [1902]. ^ City of Keokuk v. Independent 

'Chicago & Erie Railroad Co. v. District of Keokuk, 53 la. 352, 36 

Keith, 67 O. S. 279. 60 L. R. A. 525, Am. Rep. 226, 5 N. W. 503 [1880]; 

65 N.'E. 1020 [1902]. Haskell v. Village of Penn. Yan., 5 

«See §§ 378, 382, 383. In assess- Lans. (X. Y.) 43 [1871]; Wilhelra 

ments on the theory of benefits, all v. City of Defiance, 58 O. S. 56, 65 

reconstruction must be at the ex- Am. St. Rep. 745. 40 L. R. A. 294, 

pense of the city and not at the ex- 50 N. E. IS [1898]; Hay v. City of 

pense of the property owners. Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1. 3 L. R. A. (N. 

nVistar v. Philadelphia. 80 Pa. St. S.) 84, 105 TsT. W. 654 [1906]. 
505, 21 Am. Rep. 112 [1876]: [dis- -Hay v. City of Baraboo. 127 Wis. 

tinguished in Michener v. City of 1. 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 84, 105 N. W. 

654 [1906]. 



I 



99 FORM OF EXACTION IN ASSESSMENT. § 5 1 

recovered against the city, although the city could have con- 
structed such sidewalk in a proper manner at the expense of such 
owner.' So under a statute which provides that the city may re- 
({uire a land-owner to repair a sidewalk in front of his land, if 
the city allows the sidewalk to get into defective condition so that 
the city is held liable for damage caused thereby, it cannot re- 
cover indemnity therefor from such land-owner, although it could 
have recovered from him the cost of putting such sidewalk in 
good condition.* 

§ 57. Repairs. 

Statutes are found which in case of repairs, give the owner 
the option to do the work himself, or to permit it to be done 
at his expense by competent public authority. Thus provisions 
of this sort are found in the case of the repair of sidewalks.' 
Power to assess if the owner does not perform the work has 
been found under a statute providing that where any portion 
of the roadway of any street or alley or any portion of any 
sidewalk shall be out of repair the board of public works shall 
require the owners or occupants of the property adjoining to 
repair such portion. This provision was held to authorize the 
board, in case of neglect or omission of the owner to make such 
repairs, to award a contract for the repair of such sidewalk or 
to take charge of such repairs itself.'- The same general prin- 
ciples applicable in eases of original construction are in force in 
case of repairs. Thus if the owner complies with the notice, 
commences work within the prescribed time and proceeds in 
its performance with reasoiial)le diligence, the municipal cor- 
poration cannot charge him with the cost of work done by the 

'Willu'hn V. City of Dofiancc. ")« H ity of Kookuk v. Independent 

0. S. 50. C).) Am. St. Rep. 745. 40 L. District of Keokuk, 53 la. 352, 36 

R. A. 294, 50 X. E. 18 [ISflS]; See Am. Hep. 22(), 5 X. \V. 503 [18S01. 
to the same effect City of Hartford ' Heath v. Maiison, 147 Cal. 094, 

V. Talcott. 48 Conn. 525, 40 Am. Rep. S2 Pac. 331 [1905]; :Mayor and 

189 [18811; Flynn v. Canton Com- I'.oard of Trustes of the Town of Xew 

pany of Baltimore. 40 :\Id. 312. 17 Theria v. Fontelien, 108 La. 460, 32 

Am. Rep. 003 [18741: Citv of Rt. So. .309 [19011: Heman v. St. Louis 

Louis V. Connecticut Alutunl life In- ^Tereliant*' I^aml Iniprovement Com- 

surance Company. 107 ^\n. 02. 28 panv. 75 Mo. App. 372 [18981. 
Am. St. Rep. 402! 17 S. W. 037: Citv = llc;'tli v. Manson. 147 Cal. 094, 

of Rochester v. Cnmiihell. 123 X. Y. 82 Pac. .'531 [10051. 
405. 20 Am. St. Rep. 700. 10 L. R. 
A. 393. 25 X. W. 937 [1S901. 



§ 58 TAXATION BY ASSESSMENT. 100 

corporation after the expiration of the time limit.^ In Illinois 
a city ordinance reqnirecl the owners or occupants to repair the 
sidewalk in front of their respective lots, and provided for a 
fine or penalty in case of failure so to do. It was held that 
the ordinance was invalid, on the theory that neither original 
construction nor repairs can be demanded of the abutting owner 
or occupant at his own expense.^ This view of such an ordi- 
nance turns chiefly on the Illinois theory of local improvements.^ 
and not solely on the ground that the duty to repair was en- 
forceable only by fine or penalty. Under the general principles 
in force in most states it is held that, a statute providing for the 
allotment of the work of maintaining, cleaning and repairing a 
public ditch after notice and a hearing, and for an assessment 
if the work is not done as allotted, neither allotment nor assess- 
ment to exceed the benefits, is constitutional ;" though under 
such statute an allotment without notice is invalid.^ If due no- 
tice is given and the trustee of the township personally promises 
the land-owner that the latter will be permitted to make such 
repairs after the expiration of the time fixed by the notice, such 
promise is invalid, and if repairs are made by the township 
trustee after the expiration of such time so limited, the owner 
cannot resist such assessment.*^ 

§ 58. Removal of ice and snow. 

Statutes or ordinances provide in some cases that the owner 
or occupant of land shall remove ice. snow and the like from 
the sidewalk in front of his land within a certain period of 
time after it is formed or deposited there. The question of the 
power of the legislature to impose such charges is one upon 



' Heman v. St. LonLs Merchants' liis work having been done according 

Land Improvement Company, 75 Mo. to tlie requirements of the ordi- 

App. 372 [1898]. Tlie owner was to nance. 

do the work within five days. No- * City of Chicago v. Crosby, 111 

tice was sent on the thirteenth of the 111. 538 [1885]. 

month; received on the fourteenth; ^ See § 377. 

work was begun on the sixteenth; and " Roundenbusli v. Mitchell, 154 Ind. 

completed on the eighteenth. Subse- (116, 57 N. E. 510 [1900]. 

quently the work was torn up and '^ Hille v. Neale. :3'2 Ind. App. 341, 

done again by the contractor to fiO N. E. 713 [1004]. 

whom the city had let the contract. "Davison v. Campbell. 28 Ind. 

It was held tbat the owner was not App. 088. (53 X. E. 779 [1901]. 
liable for .such second improvement, 



I 



101 FORM OF EXACTION IN ASSESSMENT. § 58 

which there is a sharp conflict of authority. Exactions of this 
sort are rarely liasetl upon any theory of benefits, the owner 
beinjUT required to remove the ice or snow upon the assumption 
that a legal duty rests upon him so to do. Some of the eases 
holding such statutes and ordinances invalid proceed upon the 
assumption that the charges thu.s imposed are assessments of 
the first class, based upon the theory of benefits. If it is as- 
sumed or granted that these charges are to be upheld, if at 
all. on the theory of benefits it is usually easy to show that 
the statute or ordinance is invalid as it rarely purports either 
to limit the exaction to the benefit or to apportion it with ref- 
erence thereto. Thus an act of Congress applicable to the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, imposing a fine of five dollars for the first 
day's default and a further fine of five dollars thereafter for 
each day not exceeding five days.^ or a citv ordinance imposing a 
similar fine in case of default in removing snow Avithin six hours 
after it ceases falling, or within six hours after sunrise if it falls 
durng the nii