I INSANITY. See DRUNKARDS. INSURANCE. 1. Where, in an action on a policy of 350 3. An agreement, between a purchaser and a vendor of real estate, where the 4. A landlord, to obtain possession of LETTERS PATENT. LEX DOMICILII. It seems, that where a plaintiff brings an LIEN. 1. The acts of the legislature of 1830 and 1. A guaranty for the payment of a note is not void on the ground of maintenance, although substituted for another guaranty for the express purpose of inducing the holder thereof to release NEW TRIALS. See CRIMINAL LAW, 4, 6. EJECTMENT, 1. LIEN, 1, 2, 3. PRACTICE, 13. NEW-YORK, CITY OF. the first guarantor, so that he may be See CRIMINAL LAW, 5. PRACTICE, 24, 25. called as a witness to maintain an action brought for the recovery of the debt, the payment whereof he had guaranteed. Small v. Mott, 403 1. An agreement by the baron, in contemplation of marriage, to give to the feme, his intended wife, a farm on his decease, stating that after the marriage he shall have no right to dispose of the farm except to her, will be construed into a covenant to stand seized to her use, although the technical terms of such an instrument, "I hereby covenant to stand seized," &c., are not used. The intent of the parties will be sought after and en140 forced. Roberts v. Roberts, 1. In case of the dissolution of a copartnership, actual notice of the dissolution must be brought home to all persons with whom the firm has had dealings, to protect, as to such persons, one partner from the acts of another in the use of the partnership name after the dissolution. Vernon v. 183 The Manhattan Company, 3. Proof that the bank took a newspaper in which notice of the dissolution was published, was held not to amount to actual notice. id 2. Where a note was made by a firm in liability of one of the defendants who the copartnership name, which was was returned not found, rested wholly discounted by a bank for the accom-upon general reputation, and the judge modation of the payee, and was re-at the trial, although requested, refused peatedly renewed, it was held, that to charge the jury that reputation alone the firm must be considered as hav- was not sufficient to establish the fact of ing a dealings with the bank within partnership as to him, the judgment of the meaning of the rule requiring ac- the court below which was rendered tual notice of the dissolution. id against all the defendants, was reversed, the supreme court holding that general reputation of a partnership standing alone and not offered in corroboration of facts and circumstances, is inadmissible in evidence to prove a partnership; and expressing a doubt whether it be 4. It seems, however, that the rule of even admissible as auxiliary proof. The actual notice would not be applied to Chancellor, in delivering his opinion in every person through whose hands, the court for the correction of errors, in the ordinary course of business, holds that the question did not necessathe paper of the firm had passed, but rily arise in the case, but had it arisen he would be limited to those who were expresses his full concurrence in the abin the habit of taking the paper understract question of law, upon which the circumstances where the knowledge decision of the supreme court was based. of the fact on the part of the firm might be legally presumed. id Senator Edwards, who also delivered an opinion in the court for the correction of errors, holds that evidence of general reputation of partnership is competent to be received, and when corroborated by facts and circumstances, proper to be submitted to the consideration of the jury. 5. It seems, also, that the acceptance of id 6. In an action against three defendants 7. A bill of exchange drawn in one of the states of the union, payable in another, is regarded as a foreign bill, 2. and a notarial protest is prima facie evidence of its contents.* * In this case the judgment of the su preme court is reversed. That court held, that the plaintiff was bound to establish a joint liability of all the defendants; and as the proof to show the AGENT, 5. PATENT. PRINCIPAL AND A description of an improvement of a machine already in use, in a conveyance by a patentee to a purchaser of the rights to vend the same within prescribed limits, as sufficient, if it set forth the nature of the invention and the manner in which it may be made available, with so much particularity as to enable persons of competent skill to construct and apply the improvement; it is not necessary to describe the original machine. Harmon v. Bird, 113 If at the time of sale of such improvement it was useful and valuable, the consideration of a note given by a purchaser for the right to vend, &c., is not impeached by showing that subsequent improvements of the original machine had rendered the improvement valueless. id 1, Leave will not be granted to turn a case into a bill of exceptions and enter it in the record, for the purpose of reviewing by writ of error a decision at the circuit, sustained in banco, where the plaintiff instead of having a bill duly signed and sealed, makes up a case, and proceeds to the argument thereof, although the decision at the circuit was duly excepted to, and time obtained to draw up a bill. Steward v, Hawley, 561 2. It seems, however, that relief would have been granted had the party previous to the argument, applied to the court; and that even after the argument, the motion would have been granted under the circumstances of the case, had the circuit judge certified that he understood that the party intended the paper book presented as a bill of exceptions. id the fi. fa. is delivered, to levy on the property of all or either of the defendants; and, it seems, the court will not look into the equities as between the defendants to control such direction. Godfrey v. Gibbons impleaded, 569 6. Although, ordinarily, where a levy has been made on property by virtue of an execution to an amount sufficient to satisfy the debt the plaintiff is not permitted to withdraw the process, and make a levy upon other property; yet the court will not set aside a second execution, where one of several de. fendants has induced the sheriff to disregard the directions of the plaintiff's attorney and to make a levy under the first execution, threatening to involve the plaintiff in litigation. id 7. On an application to the court to set aside a judgment entered on a report of referees and for leave to move to set aside the report on the merits, where the defendant had omitted to obtain an order to stay proceedings, the court will look into the whole case, and grant or refuse the motion as justice may require. Clark v. Fairchild, 576 the venue, so as to give the plaintiff | an opportunity to consent to the proposed change and to require the acceptance of short notice of trial; but if, in consequence of the omission of the defendant to give notice where there is time to give regular notice of trial, the circuit will be lost both in the county where the venue is laid and in the county to which it is proposed to be changed, the motion will not be granted. id 12. The retainer of an attorney at a distance from the residence of the defendant and of the plaintiff's attorney to put in a plea, when it is manifestly done for the purpose of disabling the plaintiff's attorney from noticing the cause for trial at the circuit immediately after the joining of the issue, is a fraud upon the practice of the court, and a default entered as for not pleading, will be sustained as regular, notwithstanding a plea is served previous to the expiration of the time to plead. Anon. 619 13. On serving replications, the plaintiff may deliver a notice of trial, but the proceeding is subject to be defeated or modified by the subsequent delivery of a bona fide demurrer and the decision thereon. If after the notice and before the trial, the defendant demur to some of the replications and issues of fact be joined on others of the pleas, the plaintiff may proceed and take a verdict, notwithstanding he has not joined in demurrer; but he holds the verdict dependent upon the event of the demurrer. Miller v. Stocking, 623 the venue is laid which he might have done but for such management, the retainer and plea may both be treated as nullities, and the default of the defendants entered as for not pleading. Bank of Buffalo v. Lowry, 630 17. It seems that a frivolous demurrer put in to prevent the trial of a cause may be disregarded, and the frivolousness of the pleading will be deemed a sufficient answer to a motion to set aside an inquest as irregularly taken. id 18. An order to stay proceedings granted to enable a defendant to move for change of venue cannot be disregarded by the plaintiff, although its effect be to throw the cause over both circuits the circuit in the county where the venue is laid, and in the county to which it is proposed to be changed. The remedy of the plaintiff in such case is to obtain a revocatur of the order. Starr v. Francis, 633 19. An affidavit of merits in which the defendant deposes that he has fully and fairly stated this case, or his case to counsel, is a sufficient compliance with the 61st rule of this court; an affidavit that he has stated his defence is not enough. Brownell v. Marsh, 636 20. A discovery of books of account will not be ordered after the cause has proceeded to a hearing before referees, and evidence given on both sides, unless under very special circumstances, and the delay in asking for the discovery is fully explained. Jackson v. Ives, 637 21. Referees have not the power to grant an adjournment beyond a general term of this court; and it seems that adjournments granted by two referees when the third referee does not attend, are irregular. id 22. A copy of a promissory note attached to a declaration containing the common counts, with a notice to the defendant that the suit is brought against him as a party to the note, is not enough to authorize the plaintiff to disregard an order for a bill of particulars; to justify such a course the note must be stated to be the only demand on which the plaintiff claims to recover. Reynolds v. Woods, 642. |