The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-06-24
NOTES FOR LAWYERS.

surgeon who had undertaken to per form an operation upon patients right ear Is held. In Mohr vs. Williams (Minn) 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, to be liable for in juries resulting from the performance or an operation ol her left ear, which he deemed to be In greater need of an oper- ation than the right ear, unless he had her express or implied consent; and whether she had impliedly consented was a question for the jury. A note to this case discusses the question of liabality of physician performing surgical operation without consent
 Naming defendant individually In the title and stating cause of action against him as trustee, are held in Leonard vs. Pierce (N. Y) l.. R. A. tN. S.) lol, to render the complaint demurrable.
 The right of an agent, in the absence of objection by the principal, to enforce contract made in his own name for an un- disclosed principal is upheld, In Shelby vs Burrow (Ark) L. R. A. (N. S.) 3o5' notwithstanding that the signature to the contract was actually affixed by sub agent.
 Probate fees based on the value of the estate are held in State ex rel. Nettleton ys Case (Wash) 1 l.. R. A. (N. S.) 1o2' unconstitutional
 The validity of legislative appropriation of money to pay the expense of attend- anee by the whole body of the Pennsyi- vania legislature on an excursion to New York to attend the dedication of the | aanf tc ttAh S. Com. CPa.) l l.. R. A. (N. S.) 4Os. An overhead bridge crossing of nigh way is held, in Johnson vs. Southern F.
 R. Co. (Cal) 1 l.. R. A. (N. S) 3O7 to be within a statute requiring signals to be given when a train approaches place where the railroad crosses high | way.
 | The state, and not the federal, court, is held, in Illinois c. R. Go. vs. Houchins C<yo L. R. A. (N. s.) 375, to be the proper tribunal to determine the question | of the right to remove to the latter an action begun in the former, against non resident railroad company and it's resident
 employee jointly.
 A nonresident joined as defendant in an
 action to recover damages for negligence l Co. SNiNS | CKy) l.. R. A. (N. S) S70, to have no
 right to a removal of the case to the | federal court by putting In issue the | fact of negligence on the part of his CO., | defendant.
 The right of a seller to maintain replev- | in against the purchaser on the ground of | special ownership and right of possession | is sustained in Baker vs. Mcdonald tNeb) q. ba fxr | has been set apart and identified. and the
 title vested In the purchaser, whose ten
 der of the balance due on the purchase | price is insufficient in amount owing to
 fraud or mistake in measurement; but the seller cannot maintain such action un-
 der the claim of absolute ownership. | without resembling the contract of sale.
 and rendering back the amount paid.
 Notice of the failure of machine to
 work is held, in First Nat. Bank vs. Out
 cher Uowa) L. R. A. (N. S.) 142, to be
 waived by the continued efforts of the | sellers agent to make the machine work I after the expiration of the time limited | for the notice.
 Value of real estate in other states,
 which it is necessary to sell, under au-
 thority vested in the executors to sell real | estate to pay peeunlary lesacles, IS held
 in Re Vanuxen Pa.) 1 L. R. A. (N. S.)
 400. to be subject to the collateral inheri-
 tanoe tax at the testator's domicil. | The Inability of an easement acquired | by laying pipes in street under fran chise is upheld in Consolidate Gas Go. vs. | Baltimore (Md) 1 l.. R. A. (N. SD 26S.
 on the ground that the easement is prop erty distinct from the franchise. | The word "noon," used to denote the
 beginning and termination of the risk un- der an insurance policy, is held, in Ro- chester German Ins. Go. vs. Peaslee- | Gauldert Co, O<y) 1 l.. R. A. (N. So 364
 to be properly interpreted to be stan | dard. and not sun time, where the use of 1 the former system of reckoning time has
 been the prevailing custom in the com- | munity for long period.
 | 1. Attestation of will in another room, | out of range of the testator's vision Is | held. in Calkins vs. Callxins Uil) l l.. R. | A. (N. S.) 393, not to be within statutory ] requirement. that 1t shall be in his pres { ence; and the defect is not cured by the