that "the validity of a contract of marriage must be tested and determined in precisely the same manner as that of any other contract." But this is a dictum merely, and it is out of harmony with several weighty decisions. The facts in Scott v. Sebright completely justified the decree in that case on the ground of absence of consent.

Although there is no decided English case in which the question raised by Moss v. Moss came up for decision, the precise point is dealt with in the canon law and is there decided in favor of the validity of the marriage. So far, therefore, as concerns the English marriage law and the ecclesiastical law on which it is mainly founded, there was no precedent for the contention of the petitioner in Moss v. Moss. In foreign courts there is considerable authority in his favor, and this is so even in America. Sir Francis Jeune discussed some of these foreign cases at length, and pointed out what seems to be a fatal defect in the logic of the learned judges who decided them-that while they treat actually concealed pregnancy at the date of the marriage as a ground for a decree of nullity, previous unchastity, whether coupled or not with previous pregnancy, and whether or not concealed from the husband, is not so treated. Surely the unchastity, and not its complement, the pregnancy, is the more serious matter.

At the close of his judgment the president gives some weighty reasons which we venture to think would have justified his decision quite apart from authority or the absence of authority. He points out the very grave consequences which would result from a contrary decision. Suppose the case of a man who, owing to absence from home soon after his marriage or for some other reason, only discovered years after his marriage that his wife had been pregnant by another man when he went through the ceremony of marriage with her. Is he then to be permitted to set aside the marriage and to bastardize the children born of it? Or is there to be a statute of limitations running from the date of the marriage and not from the date of the discovery? Is the illogical distinction of the American courts to be adhered to? Or if prior unchastity on the part of the woman is to be a ground for a decree of nullity, is the same to hold good in the case of the man? A thousand difficulties suggest themselves as likely to arise if the law were shaped to meet the hard case of the petitioner in Moss v. Moss. Such cases are, we hope, rare, and the effect of the recent decision ought to be to keep out of the courts any such that may arise.-The Soli citor's Journal.

BOOK REVIEWS.

BALLARD'S ANNUAL, VOL. 4.

This is volume four of a series of annual reports now well know to the profession containing a complete compendium of real estate law, embracing all current case law, carefully selected, thoroughly annotated, and accurately eptomized. It is in effect a digest of all real estate cases for the period of time it covers. But it is much more satisfactory than most digests, inasmuch as the statement of the cases is much larger and the cases cited by the court are also stated. To those interested especially in real estate law the series is of good value. Published by the Ballard Publishing Co., Crawfordsville, Ind.

1. ADMINISTRATION-Depreciation of Property-S of Land.-Where the personal assets of an estate con sisted principally of bank stock which was yielding a income, the sale of which was postponed by the ad ministrator, acting in good faith, and on the advice of counsel and of the residuary legatee, pending the lit gation of disputed claims, and in consequence of suc delay, and by reason of an unforseen change in fina cial conditions, it was ultimately sold at a loss, the administrator will not be held liable for such lossPEARSON V. GILLENWATERS, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 9.

2. APPEAL-Exceptions-Record.-Under Rev. Stat. 1894, § 638 (Rev. Stat. 1881, § 626), providing that a party objecting to a decision must except at the time it d made, a corporation that has allowed an order placing it in the hands of a receiver to be made, without cepting, cannot object to such appointment on appeal. -CHICAGO & S. E. RY. Co. v. MCBETH, Ind., 47 N. E ! Rep. 678.

3. ASSUMPSIT.-Assumpsit is the proper remedy f recovery of money paid under an agreement for a co sideration which has wholly failed.-NEWBERRY LAND Co. v. NEWBERRY, Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 897.

4. ATTACHMENT-Fraud of One Partner.-The act of the sole managing partner in withdrawing partnersh funds, and applying them to his own use, knowing that the firm is insolvent, is ground for attachme against the firm.-WINNER V. KUEHN, Wis., 72 N.W Rep. 227.

5. ATTORNEYS-Authority-Ratification.-Where sought to hold liable a party for attorney's fees earne in the foreclosure of a mortgage held by such party and the employment of the attorney is dependent whether or not one who had authorized the com mencement of such foreclosure proceedings did with authority from the mortgagee, the burden of proof is on the attorney to establish such authority and evidence which tends to negative the existence of such authority in the alleged agent is admissible unde

1

proper pleadings.-SAXTON V. HARRINGTON, Neb., 72 N W. Rep. 272.

6. BANKS -Insolvent Bank - Deposit of Check.-A customer who deposits a check to his credit in a bank, known by its officers to be hopelessly insolvent, may reclaim the proceeds thereof, if they can be identified and separated. - WILLIAMS v. Cox, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 3.

7. BANKS-Money Paid on Forged Indorsements on Checks. In an action against a bank to recover money paid by it on three checks drawn by complainant, pay. able to T's order, and delivered to W, who forged indorsements thereof by T, it appeared that his transac tions with W covered a period of 18 months, during which he turned over to W 35 checks, all payable to T's order, 32 of which were paid on indorsements like those on the three checks in question, and all of which complainant claimed were forgeries; that during such period his account was balanced three times, and he never examined it until after "this litigation" arose; and that he knew T's signature, and the signatures on all the checks were forgeries except possibly two: Held, that recovery was not prevented by complain. ant's negligence, it appearing that there had been no loss to complainant or the bank on account of the 32 checks, and hence no cause to challenge an inspection of the indorsements thereon.-POLLARD V. WELLFORD, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 23.

8. BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS-Subordinate LodgesOwnership of Funds.-Moneys received by the subordinate lodge of a beneficial order were held in trust, to be used for lodge expenses and dues, for sick bene. fits and for burial expenses of members. A majority of the members of a subordinate lodge disbanded and surrendered their lodge charter; first, however, mak. ing a present of the funds in the treasury to a sickbenefit society, which they had formed independently of the order: Held, that such a disposition constituted a wrongful diversion of the funds.-SCHUBERT LODGE, No. 118, K. OF P. OF NEW JERSEY, V. SCHUBERT KRANKEN UNTERSTUETZUNGS-VEREIN, N. J., 38 Atl. Rep. 347. 9. BENEVOLENT SOCIETY Insurance Payment of Dues. In an action on a mutual benefit certificate, the burden of proving a defense of non-payment of dues is on defendant.-PETHERICK V. ORDER OF THE AMARANTH, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 262.

10. BILLS AND NOTES-Joint and Several Liability.The makers of a joint note are liable individually for the full amount as the obligation is, by law, joint and several.-SULLY V. CAMPBELL, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 15. 11. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-After-acquired Property.To secure the payment of a debt, and also money and supplies to be advanced, a farmer executed a trust deed of crops to be raised, and "also all tools, gearing, and implements of whatever kind, used and to be used in making and gathering said crops, including wagons of whatever kind." Subsequently the creditor purchased a wagon and harness for the grantor, at his request, to be used in gathering the crops, and charged the price on the indebtedness secured by the deed: Held, that the deed covered such property.-JUDGE V. JONES, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 4.

12. CONTRACTS-Compensation-Claims Against Decedent's Estates.-The claim of an illegitimate child against her father's estate for services rendered, he having failed to will her his property in consideration thereof, as he had agreed, is not satisfied by certain of the heirs conveying to her their share of the estate for an expressed, nominal consideration, and a consideration of love and affection.-WADDELL V. WADDELL, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 46.

13. CONTRACT - Subscription - Delivery.-An agree. ment to pay sums set opposite subscribers' names, on erection of certain works in a certain portion of the city, is without effect unless delivered to a person to perform or secure the performance of the conditions therein imposed. - HELLER V. ELWOOD BOARD OF TRADE, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 649.

14. CORPORATIONS - Insolvency - Trust Funds.-On October 18th a certain corporation was hopelessly insolvent, and had no reasonable expectation of redeeming its fortunes, and it therefore suspended business, and refused to accept orders, or otherwise exercise its functions. On the morning of October 21st, its directors, by resolution, declared its insolvency and inability to further carry on its business, and instructed its president to cause to be filed in the chancery court a general creditors' bill for the administration of its affairs and distribution of its assets: Held, that from the time such resolution was passed, the company's assets were a trust fund for the benefit of all its creditors, and one creditor could not afterwards obtain priority of satisfaction of his claim by levy of an execution on personal property before such creditors' bill was filed.-MEMPHIS BARREL & HEADING CO. v. WARD, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 13.

15. CORPORATIONS-Officers-Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.-An insolvent corporation has the right to make a general assignment of its property for the benefit of its creditors, unless prohibited by its charter or some statute. The directors of an insolvent corporation may make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, without the assent of the stockholders.BOYNTON V. ROE, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 257.

16. CRIMINAL LAW-Elections-Bribery.-Under Rev. Stat. 1894, § 2329, providing that "any person who shall give or offer to give any money, property, or other thing of value, to any elector to influence his vote, at any regular election," shall be guilty, etc., it is not necessary that the object for which the corrupting gift is given shall be attained before liability arises.-STATE v. DOWNS, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 670.

17. CRIMINAL LAW-Forgery-Indictment.-An instrument signed by S, and reciting "S hereby agrees to pay, on publication, $65 for the insertion of 1 page and 1 display heading," is not a promissory note or order for money, declared by How. Ann. St. § 9213, the subject of forgery. -PEOPLE V. PARKER, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 250.

18. CRIMINAL LAW-Homicide- Instructions. It is not error to add to a definition of manslaughter as the killing of a human being, without malice, in sudden heat and passion, and on sufficient legal provocation, that the heat and passion should amount to "an un controllable impulse," and that passion should so in flame that "he hardly knew what he was doing."STATE V. DAVIS, S. Car., 27 S. E. Rep. 905.

19. CRIMINAL PRACTICE Fornication-Indictment.An indictment charged that on September 10th, and at other times, Pinzen Smith, an unmarried man, and Rachel Branstetter, at the time being unmarried, did live and cohabit together as man and wife, contrary, etc.: Held, that the indictment sufficiently charged the offense of cohabiting in a state of fornication, although there was no direct allegation that Rachel Branstetter was a woman.-STATE V. SMITH, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 685.

20. CRIMINAL PRACTICE- Indictment-Duplicity.-A count in an indictment alleged that an assault and battery was made upon a female under 10 years of age, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her, and with intent to commit rape, and that forcibly, feloniously and violently the defendant did ravish and criminally know her: Held, that the count was not duplicitous, repugnant or ambiguous, as charging both assault and battery and rape.-DEBERRY V. STATE, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 31.

21. DEED-Covenant-Action for Breach.-Even if a deed inter partes, as well as a deed poll, can be sued on by a person not a party to it, under Code 1887, § 2415 (providing, if a covenant or promise be made for the sole benefit of a person with whom it is not made, or with whom it is made jointly with others, he may maintain any action thereon which he might maintain if it had been made with him only, and the consideration had moved from him to the party making such

covenant or promise), still one not a party thereto cannot sue thereon unless he is plainly designated by the instrument as the beneficiary, and the covenant or promise is made for his sole benefit.-NEWBERRY LAND Co. v. NEWBERRY, Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 899.

22. DEEDS Defective Authentication-Re-registra tion. Where the registration of a deed is ineffectual, because the judge of the court before whose clerk the acknowledgment was made did not certify to the offi. cial character of that clerk, as required by Mill. & V. Code, § 2859, a re registration, with the omitted certifi. cate, takes effect, as to the grantor's creditors, from the date the amended deed is noted for registration, and does not relate back to the noting and registration of the defective deed.-CITIZENS' BANK OF JELLICO V. MCCARTY, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 4.

23. DEEDS-Registration.-The notation of a deed for registration, as required by Code, §§ 2072, 2073 (Mill. & V. Code, §§ 2887, 2888; Shannon's Code, §§ 3749, 3750), in order to give such deed effect as against the creditors of the vendor from the date of such noting, was suffi cient, where the date of the receipt thereof was indicated in the register's note book, by "ditto marks" referring to words and figures in the preceding line.HUGHES V. POWERS, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 1.

24. EASEMENT -Implied Grant.-Where one who is the owner of a body of land, during his occupancy of it, constructs a private way over one part of it to another as a means of egress and ingress to the latter from his home, and also to the public highway, which way is apparent, continually used, and reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the land to which the way is constructed, and also adds materially to its value, conveys by deeds of the same date the part with the way to it to one of his children, and the part with the way over it to another one of them, each takes his part to be enjoyed with reference to the way as the same existed at the time of the division-the one with an implied grant of the way to it, and the other subject to such way as an easement therein.BAKER V. RICE, Ohio, 47 N. E. Rep. 653.

25. ESTOPPEL-Discharge of Notes.-Where one, after mortgaging property, sold it, the purchaser agreeing to pay the mortgage notes, the mortgagee who takes the notes of the purchaser in place of those of the mortgagor, and surrenders the mortgagor's notes to him, and by his conduct and actions with respect to the property leads the mortgagor to believe that his notes are discharged so far as he is concerned, whereby the mortgagor is induced to act on this theory in his relations and dealings with the property, is estopped to assert the notes and the lien of the mortgage therefor against the mortgagor.-HALE V. DYKES, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 64.

26. FEDERAL COURTS-Enjoining Suit in State CourtConcurrent Jurisdiction.-A circuit court of the United States will not, at the instance of a receiver ap. pointed by a State court in another State, enjoin creditors who have attached property in a State court in this State from prosecuting their suit in the State court; nor will it make any order requiring the sheriff to deliver property in his custody under attachment proceedings to the receiver of the circuit court. The general rule is that, where there are two or more tribunals competent to issue process to bind the goods of a party, the goods shall be considered as effectually bound by the authority of the process under which they were first seized, and the court which first obtains possession of the res must be allowed to dispose of it without interference or interruption from a coordinate court. Under the state of facts above set out, a circuit court of the United States will not look into the pleadings in the State court to see whether any cause of action is stated, for the reason that the pleadings, if defective, may be amended; and, if the facts are such as not to admit of an amendment, the State court is the proper tribunal to determine that question.-HALE v. BUGG, U. S. C. C., W. D. (Ark.), 82 Fed. Rep. 33.

27. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES-Existing and Subsequent Creditors.-Where a judgment was entered against a debtor after he had made a voluntary con veyance to his wife, on several Items of indebtedness, some of which accrued after the conveyance was made and recorded, such conveyance is void as to that part of the debt incurred before the conveyance, and valid as to the part incurred subsequently thereto.-COLS V. BROWN, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 247.

28. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES Rights of Subsequent Creditors.-At the time of a voluntary convey ance, the grantor owed complainant. The debt was afterwards paid, but at the time of payment a new in debtedness had arisen between the parties: Held, os a bill by complainant to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent, that he was a subsequent creditor, in whose favor no presumption of fraud arose.-NELSON V. VANDEN, Tenn., 42 8. W. Rep. 5.

29. HIGHWAYS-Abutting Owners-Obstructions.-The abutting owners on a street, called for in the respect ive deeds under which they claim, though not accepted or worked on behalf of the public, have each a prop erty interest therein and the right to invoke the interference of equity to prevent its obstruction.-PERKINS v. Ross, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 58.

30. HIGHWAYS Drains.-The legislature may lawfully authorize the laying of drains in highways, and the alteration thereof, by other officers than those having the highways in charge.-KILEY V. BOND, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 253.

31. HIGHWAYS - Increasing Width.-3 How. Ann. St. §§ 1365, 1366, providing that when any public highway "which passes along the bank" of any lake, river, or other water course, and which is not included in the limits of a city or village, shall, by the washing away of the banks, or from any other cause, become re duced to a width of less than 50 feet, the highway com missioners shall lay out such highway upon adjacent land to that width, does not refer to highways in which a ditch or other artificial water course may be laid, and which may be so reduced in width.-DE LAPP V. BECKWITH, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 237.

32. HUSBAND AND WIFE - Implied Trust.-The mere fact that one-half the price of land conveyed to a mar ried man is paid by his wife's father, as an advance. ment to her, creates no implied trust in her favor, where the father knows the land is to be conveyed to the husband alone, and the latter is guilty of no breach of trust in taking title in his own name.-LEWIS V. STANLEY, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 677.

33. INJUNCTION Interlocutory Injunction-Dissolu tion.-A bill alleged that defendants had conspired to injure plaintiff's business as dealer in gas burners, mantels, etc., by stating that one of defendants owned a valuable patent in gas burners, which plaintiff was infringing, and that those who purchased were liable to suit for infringement, and that it was not true that such defendants had such patent, but that it had ex pired: Held, that it was not error to dissolve an in terlocutory injunction on defendant's affidavits deny ing all the material averments in plaintiff's affidavits, and alleging in positive terms the ownership by such defendants of the alleged patent, and that the goods sold by plaintiff were an infringement.-WALKER V. BACKUS HEATING CO., Wis., 72 N. W. Rep. 230.

Damages.

34. INJUNCTION Liability on Bond Where a bill for an injunction against the constrac tion of a building alleged that the construction w actually taking place, and that complainant would suffer irreparable damage thereby, complainant would not afterwards be heard to say, in mitigation of dan ages caused by the temporary injunction, that the erection of the building was a matter of uncertaintySPEARS V. ARMSTRONG, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 37.

35. INJUNCTION-Marching on Highway-Intimidsi ing Employees. An injunction was granted and served on defendants, restraining them and all others from in any way interfering with the management, opera

tion, or conducting of the mines named in the bill. either by menaces, threats, or intimidation of any character used to prevent the employees of said mines from going to or from the same, or from engaging in their usual business or mining. Defendants joined a body of over 200 striking miners in marching, with music and banners, past one of said mines and the homes of the miners working therein, marching and countermarching for three days along the public highway between the mine and the homes of the miners, halting in front of the mine, and taking positions on each side of the road which the miners must cross in going to and from the mine, before daylight and late at night, at the time when such miners were going to and from their work. The avowed object of the strikers was to Influence the miners to join in the strike, and this marching and halting in front of the mine were with the evident intent to accomplish this object by intimidation, and some of the miners were thereby intimidated and kept away from their work: Held, that defendants were guilty of contempt.-MACKALL V. RATCHFORD, U. S. C. C., D. (W. Va.), 82 Fed. Rep. 41. 36. INJUNCTION - Pleading.-A right dependent upon present ownership of a fee is not pleaded by alleging an ownership at a time past.-ERWIN V. CENTRAL UNION TEL. Co., Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 663.

37. INSOLVENCY-Collateral Security.-One to whom a claim is assigned as collateral security is, on the claim being paid, entitled to receive the money, the debt for which the collateral was given not having been paid, even if it was not due.-TODD V. MEDING, N. J., 38 Atl. Rep. 349.

39. JUDGMENT Default Unliquidated Money Demand.-Default judgment on an unliquidated money demand being authorized by Code, § 267, without verdict, only where an itemized account duly verified is served with the summons and complaint, should be vacated on motion, the record showing that the itemized account annexed to the complaint, and in terms made a part thereof, which was served on defendant, was unverified; and it is immaterial that there was found unexplained in the judgment roll a separate unattached paper, purporting to be an itemized account, duly verified.-ROBERTS V. PAWLEY, S. Car., 27 8. E. Rep. 913.

40. LIMITATIONS-Application to State.-The exemp tion furnished the State by Rev. St. 1894, § 305 (Rev. St. 1881, § 304), providing that "limitation of action shall not bar the State," etc., applies only when the action 18 by the State in its own interest. An action by the State to recover a penalty for false returns in tax lists, as provided by Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 8465, is an action in the interest of the State, although it is commenced on relation of the prosecuting attorney, and the proceeds of the suit are payable into the county treasury. -STATE V. HALTER, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 665.

Man

41. MANDAMUS Allowance of Amendment. damus will not lie to review the action of a court below in permitting an amendment which changes the issue In the cause, when such action may be reviewed on error. ST. CLAIR TUNNEL Co. v. ST. CLAIR CIRCUIT JUDGE, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 249.

42. MARRIAGE-Breach of Marriage Promise-Aggra. vation.-If a man forms a marriage engagement merely as a cloak to accomplish the woman's seduction, this may be considered in aggravation of damages for the subsequent unjustifiable breach of the contract by him, although the seduction be not accomplished.KAUFMAN V. FYE, Tenn., 42 S. W. Rep. 25.

43. MASTER AND SERVANT — Death of Employee-Evidence. In an action against a mining company for the death of a miner killed by falling walls, it was error to admit in evidence the statements of the "underground captain" of the mine, who had charge of the men, made as a witness at the coroner's inquest on the body of deceased, tending to prove the substantive fact that such captain knew the mine was in a dangerous con. dition when he ordered the men in, and not offered for the purpose of impeaching him. - ANDREWS V. TAMARACK MIN. CO., Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 242.

1

44. MASTER AND SERVANT — Injury-Aider by Verdict. -A complaint in an action for personal injuries, allegIng that plaintiff, acting under orders of defendant, was injured by an incompetent follow-servant, whose Incompetency was known to defendant, but not known to plaintiff, is cured by verdict, though the material averments were defectively made, and it was not stated in what manner the incompetency of the fellow. servant appeared. — INDIANAPOLIS FROG & SWITCH Co. v. BOYLE, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 690.

47. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Defective SidewalksNotice. A plank in a sidewalk was split diagonally from one end, the shorter piece running to a point, making it too short to reach both stringers, which were nearly a foot from the edge of the walk. Plaintiff's companion stepped on the projecting end of the plank, which flew up, causing plaintiff to trip and fall. It was shown that the plank had been loose for a month prior to the accident, and had tripped one of the witnesses before, and several testified that the split was plainly visible: Held, that the question whether the city had notice of the defect should have been left to the jury. MENARD V. CITY OF BAY CITY, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 231.

48. NEGLIGENCE-Presumption - Contributory Negligence. Where the nature of an accident discloses that an injury to a passenger might as well have happened through his own negligence as that of the common carrier, the fact of the injury raises no presumption that the carrier was negligent.-DRESSLAR V. CITIZENS' ST. R. Co., Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 651. 49. PARTNERSHIP — Assignments. - A firm dissolved partnership, and one of the partners retired, severing all connection with the firm, although allowing the firm name to remain unchanged. He also relinquished all claim on his share of the capital, which was to remain in the business until a certain date, in favor of a third person. The firm made an assignment before that time: Held, that the third person, claiming through the retired partner, could not prove her claim in competition with firm creditors. GARLICK V. KARGER, Wis., 72 N. W. Rep. 223.

50. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - Personal Liability.-One who, as agent, assumes to represent a principal who has no legal existence or status, is himself liable.— LEARN V. UPSTILL, Neb., 72 N. W. Rep. 213.

the other surety were insolvent, and asking that the estate of decedent contribute one-half of the amount so paid, set up a valid cause of action. - WINDLE V. WILLIAMS, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 680.

52. RAILROAD COMPANY-Contributory Negligence.In case of collision at a crossing between an engine and a bicycle, resulting in death of the rider of the latter, the question of his contributory negligence is for the jury, though it appears that he was riding about as fast as an ordinary horse trots, and that he did not stop as he approached the crossing; no one having testified whether he did or did not look or listen, the approach along the highway for a distance of 300 feet from the crossing being through a cut with sides 10 to 15 feet high, so that one had to be within 25 feet of the crossing to see an engine 21 feet from the crossing, no notice having been given of the approach. ing engine, though an electric gong was fixed on the track to ring while a train was within 300 yards of the crossing, and persons who were within a few feet of the crossing having testified that they did not hear the engine till just as it struck deceased. — KIMBALL V. FRIEND'S ADMX., Va., 27 S. E. Rep. 901.

58. RAILROAD COMPANY-Contributory Negligence.Where a railroad company temporarily obstructs the view of its tracks by leaving freight cars on side tracks, and a train strikes one attempting to go over a crossing in a populous part of a city, the question as to whether the company was negligent in not providing some method for giving notice of the approach of the trains should be submitted to the jury.-WILLET V. MICHIGAN CENT. R. Co., Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 260.

54. RECEIVERS-Contracts-Liability of Trust Prop erty. The receiver of a manufacturing corporation, who was authorized to continue the business, contracted for a period of 10 months in advance, without the sanction of the court, for materials for use in carrying on such business, to be delivered on notice by him, a part of which he received and paid for. He refused to accept the balance, and was discharged from his trust without having reported such contract to the court. In an action against the corporation for damages, there was evidence that the quantity of materials contracted for was greater than could be used within the time named, and that it could have been purchased at a price less than that contracted for if it had been ordered as used: Held, that the trial court was in vested with the discretion to allow or disallow such claim for damages.-BRUNNER, MONDS & Co. v. CENTRAL GLASS Co., Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 686.

55. REPLEVIN-Sufficiency of Complaint.-A petition in replevin by a mortgagee of chattels, alleging that the plaintiff has a special interest in the property by virtue of a chattel mortgage, and that he is entitled to the immediate possession of such property, without alleging the facts in reference to his special owner. ship, and the facts showing his right to the possession of the mortgaged property, does not state a cause of action.-J. THOMPSON & SONS' MANUFG. Co. v. NICH. OLLS, Neb., 72 N. W. Rep. 217.

56. SALE-Action for Price.-In an action to recover the price of a motor, an answer alleging that the machine was sold to defendant for the special purpose of operating a feed cutter, but that, after it was erected, and after a fair and thorough trial, it wholly failed to fulfill such purpose; that plaintiff's agent was unable to make it perform the expected work, and was in. formed that it was not accepted; and that said motor was of no value whatever, etc., without specifying any defect therein, or averring in what manner it failed to work, is insufficient.-AERMOTOR CO. V. EARL, Ind., N. E. Rep. 685.

47

57. SALES-Fraud.-The mere fact that an insolvent debtor sells his entire stock of goods for an appreci able amount less than their real value does not necessarily prove fraud, but may be considered by the jury as evidence of fraud on the part of the purchaser, on behalf of those who sold said goods to said debtor on credit. SCHLOSS V. ESTEY, Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 264.

58. TAXATION-Wrongful Sale - Parties.-An action against a county treasurer and his sureties for the wrongful sale of property for taxes is properly brought In the name of the person to whom the certificates of tax sale and treasurer's deed were issued and the money invested belonged.-ALEXANDER V. OVERTON, Neb., 72 N. W. Rep. 212.

59. TAX DEED - Validity.-A tax deed based on an assessment not containing a description of the prop erty conveyed no title.-PETIT V. FLINT & P. M. B. Co. Mich., 72 N. W. Rep. 238.

60. TRADE-NAMES-Use of Similar Name-Injunction -A corporation is not entitled to an injunction restraining another corporation from using the same corporate name, or from publishing a periodical hay ing a name similar to one published by complainant, where defendant is incorporated, and its paper pub lished in a State distant from complainant, and the names are used with distinguishing characteristics which render injury to complainant therefrom im probable, in the absence of proof that such injury bas actually resulted.-INVESTOR PUB. Co. OF MASSACHU SETTS V. ¡DOBINSON, U. S. C. C., 8. D. (Cal.), 83 Fet. Rep. 57.

61. TRIAL-Competency of Juror.-That a person who is tendered as a petit juror states that he has formed or expressed an opinion with regard to, the guilt or innocence of an accused, from a conversation held with his brother, who was a member of the jury who previously tried and convicted him on the same is dictment, is not disqualifying, as the information the imparted was hearsay merely.-STATE V. WILLIANA, La., 22 South. Rep. 759.

62. TRIAL-Right to Jury Trial.-Whether or not i right to trial by jury exists must be determined from the object of the action as determined by the aver ments of the petition, and, in case of ambiguity, by resort to the prayer.-YAGER V. EXCHANGE NAT. BASE OF HASTINGS, Neb., 72 N. W. Rep. 211.

63. TRUSTS-Control of Trust Fund.-That a trustee. after the creation of the trust, has removed from the State, is sufficient to deprive her of the custody of the trust fund; unless she executes a sufficient bond, to bi approved by one of the masters, with sureties amen able to the jurisdiction of the court, conditioned for the discharge of her duties, and that she will not re move the trust fund beyond the jurisdiction, and wil. account regularly for the same.-CARE V. BREDEN BERG, S. Car., 27 S. E. Rep. 925.

64. TRUST-Resulting Trusts-Evidence.-Where ! holding trust funds purchased real estate with a por tion thereof, for the beneficiaries, and placed them it possession, but took the title in his own name, with out their knowledge, merely as a matter of conven ence, a trust resulted.-WOLFE V. CITIZENS' BANK OF ROGERSVILLE, Tenn., 42 8. W. Rep. 39.

65. WATER COURSES-Pollution.-One who sinks an artesian well on his own land, and uses the water to bathe the patients in a sanitarium erected by him o said premises, is not liable to injunction and damage for allowing the water, after such use, to flow into stream which crosses the land of an adjoining owner and is the only natural and available outlet.-BARNARD V. SHIRLEY, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 671.

66. WATERS-Drains.-When the line of a ditch 66 tablished under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, §§ 5655, 5689 (Ref. St. 1881, §§ 4285, 4817), is changed on the lands of one or more persons by agreement with the cott surveyor, those owning land on the line of the ditel above the point where the change is made cannot co plain, if their lands receive as good drainage as the ditch completed on the established line would giveCOOPER V. SHAW, Ind., 47 N. E. Rep. 679.

67. WITNESSES - Impeachment.-When a party be comes a witness in his own behalf, the cross-exam may question him as to antecedents and character, u affecting his credibility.-GEORGIA V. BOND, Mich, N. W. Rep. 232.