FLETCHER V. LEE,

Replevin-Judgment of discontinuance and for return of property, on failure of sureties to justify and of plaintiff to file new bond-On return of execution for return of property, unsatisfied, defendant may at once bring suit against principal and sureties on bond of officer who executed writ -Whose duty it was to furnish a bond with sureties of undoubted sufficiency-After exception to sureties, he accepts them at his peril, unless under direction of court or defendant.

FONDA, FARMERS' NATIONAL BANK V.,

FREEMAN V. DETROIT, M. & M. R. R. Co.,

Penalty under How. Stat. sec. 3324-Recoverable of railroad company where train-men willfully disregard signal given at flag-station-And leave passenger in waiting, who has ticket entitling him to return trip to regular station. FUNKE V. CONE,

Bill filed by creditors, without leave of court, to enforce trust under assignment, and set aside as fraudulent certain chattel mortgages executed by assignor-To which assignee and mortgagees answered fully-And case was heard on pleadings and proofs without objection by demurrer or otherwise-Held a waiver of failure to obtain such leaveCalling assignor as a witness to prove facts he should voluntarily disclose-Will not prevent complainants contradicting him when necessary to ascertain truth of facts queried after.

PAGE

557

533

241

577

581

Highway-Action for encroachment upon-Mistake in
description of land in declaration-Cannot be amended
on appeal in circuit court, How. Stat. sec. 1375, requiring
trial to be had on issue joined in justice's court.

215

68

592

45

Deed of land by wife to husband in trust for minor children
-With power to control it after her death as if owner in
fee-Who sells land after her death, and uses part of pro-
ceeds in purchase of other land, not exceeding in value
the entire trust fund-Mortgage for balance of purchase
price held valid-Second mortgage by trustee, to secure
loan used in his own business, held void-Deed, being
recorded, was notice to mortgagee of rights of children
thereunder.

.

564

HART MAN'FG Co. v. MANN's Boudoir Car COMPANY, Argument to jury-Counsel may state such inferences of fact as they in good faith draw from circumstances of case -And results likely to follow if such inferences prove correct-Exceptions to statements of counsel to jury-Cannot be taken for first time in appellate court-Special questions involving fraud and deception-Properly refused to be given to jury where nothing in testimony to base them on-As also requests to charge as to weight to be given to testimony.

Decree of probate court settling exector's final account-Can-
not be attacked in suit on executor's bond, if probate court
had jurisdiction to make decree-Clark v. Fredenburg, 43
Mich. 263, held not to decide that failure to resist applica-
tion for leave to sue such bond precludes defendant from
resorting to any legal defense against such decree of set-
tlement.

HUBBELL V. ROBERTSON,

Township drain commissioners-Joint action by illegal.

HUDSON, MURRAY V.,

HUGHES V. DETROIT, GRAND HAVEN & MILWAUKEE RY. Co., Negligence of railway company's employés-By which a child was injured by being thrown from moving engineConflict in testimony as to his being on engine, or, if so, whether engineer saw him, or, if seen, whether before or after train started-Duty to keep him off engine not quite the same as arises after seeing him on moving trainError for court to treat controverted facts as undisputed in charge-Also, in such a case, in instructing jury that if engineer saw plaintiff he could recover, without reference to the time and circumstances of seeing him-Competency of children of tender years as witnesses-Duty of court as to their examination fully stated-Act No. 82, Laws of 1887, provides for taking statement of children under ten years of age without oath, etc.

I

PAGE

538

670

10

IRVING V. FORD,

Dedication of land for a highway-Involves a grant or relin-
quishment of the land to the use of the public, and its
acceptance by the proper public authorities-On the facts
in this case, neither element is found to exist-Sidewalks
in front of premises of land-owner, in public street, his
property, subject to public use, and cannot be removed
without his consent-Discretion of municipal authorities,
as to when and where such walks shall be laid, cannot be
controlled by a court of equity.

J

241

JACKSON, LANSING & SAGINAW R. R. COMPANY V. DAVISON, 416, 437 Legislative grant-Both a grant and a law-Intent of law to be kept in view, and its purpose effectuated, in controversies affecting subject-matter of grant-Must be so construed as to preserve and carry out object of legislation, though such construction conflicts with principles of common law, or ignores equities which would spring from

Jackson, Lansing & Saginaw R. R. Co. v. Davison.-Continued.

transactions between private persons-Proposed purchaser
of land with knowledge of distinct facts affecting title-
Cannot close his eyes, and screen himself under plea of
ignorance of facts connected with known ones-Will be
presumed to have made reasonable inquiry-And will be
affected with notice of facts which he might have thus
learned.

PAGE

K

KELLY V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. R. COMPANY,

Trespasser-On facts stated in head-note 1, plaintiff held to
be, and not entitled to recover-)
-Negligence defined-
"Staking cars "-No law forbidding-Use of tracks at
highway crossing-Railroad company has right of passage
and use in ordinary manner-Public has right of way
across such tracks in ordinary manner-Rights reciprocal
-Right of public simply a right of passage across railroad
-Any other use unwarranted-Right of way, when not so
used, belongs to railroad company-May be used as if no
street crossing was there.

186

217

59

405

Sale of corporate stock-Fraud-Evidence-Submission to
jury.

LEWLESS V. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. Co.,

Railway crossing-Encroachment upon planked portion by standing car-Question of negligent obstruction for the jury-Written agreement for settlement of suit-Must stand until set aside by vitiating fraud, upon a rescission attempted as soon as practicable after its discovery-Par

237

45

652

557

292

PAGE

Lewless v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co.-Continued.

ties held to some diligence in protecting their interests, and when once put upon their guard are bound to prosecute inquiries diligently-Where such settlement is assailed as fraudulently secured, duty of court to instruct jury what they can consider in determining the issue-And what would constitute such fraud as authorizes a rescission -And explain what diligence is required in investigations and in action if fraud is believed to exist-On the trial, party rescinding must prove falsehood of facts relied on, and satisfy jury that he had reason for such reliance-If agreement is claimed by defendant to be only the completion of arrangements already made, not claimed to be tainted with fraud, error for court to confine jury to what took place when agreement was signed-Plaintiff has no right to expect advice from opposing counsel during negotiations for settlement-May expect statements of fact to be truthfully made.

LINDSTRAND V. DELTA LUMBER COMPANY,

Negligence-Charge held objectionable in not pointing out the specific negligence chargeable to defendant--Millowner must exercise reasonable care in providing safeguards against accidents-Methods used must be shown to be unreasonable and plainly unsafe-Workmen familiar with a machine and its position do not, as a rule, need extreme precautions-If required by their duty to go into a dangerous place, where danger is not visible or obvious, duty may arise to give them special information-This would be necessary whetner usual precautions had been taken or not, if persons not reasonably presumed to understand the peril -No such duty required where persons go, without authority, where dangerous machinery is in operation, as plaintiff is held to have done.

LOSCH V. VILLAGE OF ST. CHARLES,

Act No. 214, Laws of 1885-Sections 6 and 7 held unconstitutional, and to render entire act void-See Church v. City

of Detroit, 64 Mich. 571.

LUMBERMAN'S MINING COMPANY, NELSON V.,

105

254

555

288