Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Presumptions--Burden Of Proof, Victor H. Lane Jan 1919

Presumptions--Burden Of Proof, Victor H. Lane

Articles

The case of Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co. (Michigan, April 3rd, 1919), 171 N. W. 536, arose out of the following facts: Plaintiff, driving a Ford car with the curtains down, turned from the curb at the side of the street where he had stopped, to cross the interurban car tracks which ran through the center of the street in the city of Marshall, and as he drove his machine upon the track was struck by an interurban car and seriously injured. The evidence established beyond question, negligence of the defendant, by showing that the car was, at the ...


Burden Of Proof, Victor H. Lane Jan 1919

Burden Of Proof, Victor H. Lane

Articles

The case of Rowe, Adin.. v. Colorado and Southern R. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App. 1918), 205 S. W. 731, is typical of the confusion all too common in the use of this term "burden of proof"


Liability Of Manufacturer To Remote Vender For Defective Automobile Wheel, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1919

Liability Of Manufacturer To Remote Vender For Defective Automobile Wheel, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

Plaintiff. in February, 19O9. purchased from the Utica Motor Car Company, a Cadillac six-passenger touring car, manufactured by the Cadillac Motor Car Company, of Michigan. The Utica company was a dealer in motor cars, and purchased to resell; it was the original vendee, and the plaintiff was the sub-vendee. The car was used very little until July 31, 1909, when the plaintiff, an experienced driver, while driving the car on a main public road in good condition, at a speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour, was severely and permanently injured by the right front wheel suddenly breaking down ...


Boycott - Medical Association, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1919

Boycott - Medical Association, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

The opinion of McCardie, J., (without a jury), in Pratt v. British Medical Association (1919), I K. B. 244, (noted in the MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, June, 1919, p. 704), brilliantly reviewing the English cases, merits a fuller statement of the facts and principles involved than was possible in a short note. The action was by Doctors Burke, Pratt, and Holmes, against the British Medical Association and four of its officers, for damages for conspiracy, slander and libel.


The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1919

The Scintilla Rule Of Evidence, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

In analyzing the reasons why "trial by jury has declined to such an extent that it has come in many cases to be an avowed maxim of professional action,--a good case is for the court; a bad case is for the jury,"-JUDGE DILLON, in his LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE, pp. 130-2, credits "the false principle known as the scintilla doctrine" with a large degree of responsibility.


Corporations, Shareholders' Right To Have A Dividend Declared And Paid Out Of Surplus, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1919

Corporations, Shareholders' Right To Have A Dividend Declared And Paid Out Of Surplus, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

In Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (Mich. 1919), 170, N. W. 668, the questions were not new, and with one exception, the decision was not unusual, but the sums involved were enormos. The Motor Company was incorporated in 1903, under the general manufacturing incorporating act of Michigan (P. A. 232, 1903), for the manufacture and sale of automobiles, motors and devices incident to their construction and operation, with an authorized Capital Stock of $150,000-$100,000 then paid up, $49,000 in cash, $40,000 in letters patent issued and applied for, and $11,000 in machinery and contracts ...


Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1919

Should A Correct Verdict Be Set Aside Because The Jury Failed To Follow Erroneous Instructions?, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

One of the common grounds of a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to law. What law is meant,--the law as it really is, or the law that was given to the jury by the court's instruction? Most cases hold to the latter view. It is the duty of the jury to take the law from the court, whether the court in so giving it is right or wrong. Hence, the jury violate their duty if they fail to follow instructions, even if the instructions are wrong, and a verdict based on a breach of the ...