State v. Cantieny, 34 Minn
1, 24 N. W. 458. —Public passage. A right, subsisting in the public, to pass over a body of water, whether the land under it be public or owned by a private person.—Public place. <A place to which the general public ...
Terms beginning with "S" (870 total)
State v. Carpenter, 51 Ohio St
83, 37 N. E. 261, 46 Am. St. Rep. 556; Chicago & N. W. R.
State v. Chambers, 22 W. Va
786, 46 Am. 786, 46 Am. Rep. 050.—Grand larceny. In criminal law.
State v. Chambers, 93 N.-C
600—Public statute. A statute enacting a universal rule which regards the whole community, as distin-
State v. Clark, 4 Ind
315; Brahm v. Adkins, 77 Ill. 263; Marine Bank y. Fulton Bank, 2
State v. Cody, 18 Or
506, 23 Pac. 891; State v. Mairs, 1 N. J. Law, 453.
State v. Davis, 55 Ohio St
15, 44 N. BE. 511. A law, framed in general terms, restricted to no locality, and operating aoe upon all of a group of objects, which, having regard to the purpose. of the legislation, are distinguished y characteristics...
State v. Debenture Co., 51 La. Ann
1874, 26 South, —Stock-note. The term “stocknote” has no technical. meaning, and may as well apply to a note given on the sale of stock which the bank had purchased or taken in the payment of doubtful debts as to a...
State v. Dodge Co., 20 Neb
595, 31 N. W. 117. :
State v. Gilbert, 13 Vt
647; ale v. Vesper, Smith (N. H.) 283.
State v. Guinotte, 156 Mo
513, 57 8. W. 281, 50 L. R. A. 787.
State v. Harriman, 75 Me
562, 46 Am. Rep. 423; Hurley v. State, 30 Tex. App. 333, 17 g:
State v. Haworth, 122 Ind
462, 23 N. E. 946, 7 L. R. A. 240; Davenport v. Kleinschmidt, 6 Mont. 502, 18 Pac. 249; Ex parte Levy, 43
State v. Hays, 23 Mo
287.—Principal challenge. <A challenge of a juror for a cause which carries with it, prima facie, evident marks of suspicion either of malice or favor; as that a juror is of kin to either party within the ninth degree;...
State v. Hipp, 88 Ohio St
226; Youngbiood v. Sexton, 82 Mich. 406, 20 Am. Rep. 654;
State v. Hogan, 68 Ohio St
202, 58 N. E. 572, 52 L. R. A. 868, 81 Am. St. Rep. 626:
State v. Huegin
110 Wis. 189. 85 N. W. 1046, 62 L. R. A. 700; Wing v. Wing, 66 Me. 62, 22 Am. Rep. 548.— Malicious mischief. <A term applied to the willful destruction of personal property. from actual ill will or resentment towards i...
State v. Jones, 47 ‘La. Ann
1524, 18 South. 515; Bell v. State, 72 Miss. 507, 17 South. 232;
State v. Kotoveky, 74 Mo
249; State y. Lindgrind, 33 Wash. 440, 74 Pac. 565; State v.
State v. Laramie County, 8 Wyo
104, 55 Pac. 451; Gladding v. Church, 25 R. I. 628, 57 Atl. 860, 65 L. R. A. 225, 105 Am. St. Rep. 904.
State v. Lichtenberg, 4 Wash
407, 30 Pac. 716; Riggins v. Thompson, 96 Tex. 154, 71 8. W. 14. In English law, the term is specially app to an order restraining the Bank of England, or any public company, from allowin
State v. Lodge, 9 Houst
(Del.) 542, 33 AtL 312; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 303, 52
State v. Long, 117 N. C. 701
23 S. BE. 431.— Preconceived malice. Malice prepense or aforethought. See State v. Reidell, Houst. (Del 470, 14 Atl, 550.—Premeditated malee. An intention to kill unlawfully, deliberately formed in the mind as the re...
State v. Luce, 9 Houst
(Del.) 3096, 32 Atl. 1076; Wyatt v. Irrigation Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906.
State v. Main, Conn
123, 37 Atl. 80, 36 L
State v. Mead, 27 Vt
722; Leader Printing
State v. Moore, 50 Neb
88, 69 N. W. 373, 61
State v. Moores, 52 Neb
770, 73 N. W. 299; Osborn v. Rogers, 49 Hun, 245, 1 N. Y. Supp. 623; Mason v. Aldrich, 36 Minn. 283, 80 N.. W. 884.
State v. Phillips, 24 Mo
481; Travis v. Com.. 06 Ky. 17, 2 Ss. W. 863.
State v. Purcell, 181 Mo
312, 33 W. 13; od pte v. Ozbourne, 107 Tenn. Bro 64.8. W.
State v. Railroad Co
(C. (.) 37 Fed. 497. 3 L.
State v. Shelters, 51 Vt
104, 31 Am. Rep. 679.
State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo
205, 76 S. W. 79, 99 Am. St. Rep. 624; Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co. (C. C.) 75 Fed. 975; In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668, 5 Pac. 39, 49
State v. Smith, 157 Ind
241, 61 N. BE. 566; 87
State v. Smith, 5 Humph
(Tenn.) 395; U. 8. v. Wong Ab Gah (D. C.) 94 Fed. 832.
State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo
383, 24 S. W. 457, 41 Am. St. Rep. 668; State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 432, 38 Am.
State v. Walker, 9 Houst
(Del.) 464, 33 Atl. 227; Cotton v. State, 32 Tex. 614: Com. v.
State v. Williams, 1386 Mo
203, 38 S. W. 75; Grannis v. Branden, 5 Day (Conn.) 274, 5 Am,
State v.. Brin, 30 Minn
522,,16 N. W. 406; Millvale Borough v. Evergreen Ry. Co., 131
State vy. Carr, 28 Or
389, 42 Pac. 215.—Inmocent conveyances. A technical term of the English law of conveyancing, used to designate such conveyances as may be made by a leasehold tenant without working a forfeiture. These are said to be le...
State y. Flynn, 16 R. I. 10, 11 Atl
170. Elsewhere the word “common” in this connection is understood as being equivalent to “habitual,” (State v. Savage, 89 Ala. 1, 7 South. 183, 7
State, 1 Ind
184.—Suppletory oath. In the civil and ecclesiastical law. The testimony of a single witness to a fact is called ‘half-proof,” on which no sentence can be founded; in order to supply the other half of proof, the pa...
State, 1 Tex. App
248, 268, 28 Am. Rep. 409;
State, 10 Ind
144; Ardery v. State, 56 Ind. 828. This is scarcely a technical term of the law, and is not susceptible of exact definition or description in its juridical uses. The question whether or not a given act, publication, etc....
State, 100 Ga
272, 34S. E. 579; Durrah vy.
State, 102 Wis
364, 78 N..W. 590; Rather v.
State, 11 Ark
491; Atchison St. R. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.. 31 Kan. 661, 3 Pac. 284; Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 613.
State, 115 Ga
18, 41 8. BE. 259. See ALTERA- 18, 41 8. E. 259; Milford v.
State, 117 Ala
1,.23 South. 671, 67 Am. St.
State, 118 Ga
267, 38 S. BE. 842; People v.