denying specific performance against her; Loupe v. Smith, 123 Cal. 493, denying any right of action on such contract. Distinguished under facts in Simons v. Bedell, 122 Cal. 349, granting specific performance of married woman's contract (but see dissenting opinion, p. 351).

Wife's Separate Property includes gift to her by husband of property bought with community funds, p. 529.

Cited in Hamilton v. Hubbard, 134 Cal. 607, noted under Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 444.

Vendor and Vendee.-Husband cannot be compelled to transfer his undivided interest, under contract by himself and wife jointly to transfer their respective interests, when she refuses to convey, p. 538.

To same effect in Olson v. Lovell, 91 Cal. 507, 508 (but see 509), applying rule to like action against one cotenant when other is not bound and repudiate contract.

83 Cal. 539-547. HOWELL v. SLAUSON.

School Land.-List of indemnity lands is "filed" when found among official files, p. 545.

To same effect in In re Dewar's Estate, 10 Mont. 437, holding indorsement of filing mark unnecessary therefor.

Listing of Indemnity School Lands conveys legal title relating back to date of selection thereof, p. 545.

To same effect in Shenandoah etc. Co. v. Morgan, 106 Cal. 416, holding springs on such land not subject to appropriation as being on government land; Olive etc. Co. v. Olmstead, 103 Fed. 576, on point that rights of lieu land claimants are to be determined by facts as known to exist at date of selection; Jones v. Madison Co., 72 Miss. 803, discussing grant to Georgia under act of 1803.

83 Cal. 547-553. STONE v. HAMMELL; 17 Am. St. Rep. 272.

Payment by Surety.-Right of action against principal runs from time of, p. 550.

Cited in Yule v. Bishop, 133 Cal. 579, and Bank v. Opera House, 23 Mont. 7, noted under Chipman v. Morrill, 20 Cal. 130; Zuellig v. Hemerlie, 60 Ohio St. 35, 71 Am. St. Rep. 713, discussing surety's rights to subrogation; Barth v. Graf, 101 Wis. 38, noted under Estate of Hill, 67 Cal. 238.

Statute of Limitations.-Absence from State of creditor does not extend statute in his favor, p. 552.

See notes to Stanley v. Stanley, 21 Am. St. Rep. 809, Grist v. Williams, 32 Id. 784, and Jenks v. Shaw, 61 Id. 264, on general subject; see, also, note to Leeds etc. Co. v. Haworth, 60 Id. 209, criticizing main case as to bar between cosureties.

83 Cal. 553-557. TROPE v. KERNS.

Purchaser on Foreclosure may bring ejectment despite refusal to him of writ of assistance, p. 554.

To same effect in Dickey v. Gibson, 121 Cal. 279, holding, as in main case, such denial not res adjudicata.

83 Cal. 558. EX PARTE MCCONNELL.

Objection for want of preliminary examination is waived by failure to move to set aside information therefor, and cannot be raised on habeas corpus, p. 558.

To same effect in People v. Bawden, 90 Cal. 200, holding objection not reviewable under motion for new trial, arrest of judgment, or motion to set aside verdict; State v. Clark, 4 Idaho, 10, motion to quash information for want of jurisdiction on ground of noncompliance with law relating to preliminary examination is waived where not made before plea or trial; State v. Brantly, 20 Mont. 180, applying rule to irregularity of warrant for arrest; In re Betts, 36 Neb. 286, on point that legality of indicting grand jury is not reviewable by habeas corpus.

83 Cal. 566-571. SAN JOSE ETC. CO. v. MAYNE.

Eminent Domain.-Benefits to remaining land may be deducted in condemnation by municipal corporation, p. 569.

To same effect in Lewis v. Seattle, 5 Wash. 750, as to opening of street. construing similar local statutes.

Eminent Domain.-Value of land cannot be proved by statements made by deputy assessor, p. 569.

To same effect in Woolridge v. Boardman, 115 Cal. 78, but admitting statement by owner to assessor as evidence of property claimed by him; Concord etc. Co. v. Clough, 69 N. H. 609, holding assessment records inadmissible as to values in action for damage to the property.

83 Cal. 571-574. McCALLION v. HIBERNIA ETC. SOCIETY.

Appeal. Stay may be effected by bond on appeal from new trial order, p. 572.

Cited in Holland v. McDade, 125 Cal. 355, noted under Fulton v. Hanna, 40 Cal. 278.

Sureties on Appeal Bond are liable only upon contingencies therein expressed, p. 573.

See note to Howell v. Alma etc. Co., 38 Am. St. Rep. 707, on general subject.

83 Cal. 579-583. MOYLE v. LANDERS' ADMINISTRATORS.

Corporate Stockholders need not make demand on directors to commence suit on its behalf when such demand would be useless, p. 582. Notes Cal. Rep.- 248.

To same effect in Wickersham v. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 33, holding demand unnecessary under facts stated; Smith v. Dorn, 96 Cal. 79, and Loftus v. Association, 8 S. Dak. 205, ruling similarly; Mock v. City, 126 Cal. 342, applying rule to similar demand on city officials. Note citations: Wallace v. Bank, 24 Am. St. Rep. 644, on general subject.

83 Cal. 589-613. BULWER ETC. MG. CO. v. STANDARD ETC. MG. CO. S. C. 83 Cal. 613, 617.

Findings are Immaterial when outside of issues, p. 609.

To same effect in Nuttall v. Lovejoy, 90 Cal. 165, so holding under facts.

Action to Quiet Title.—Allegation of adverse claim by defendant is immaterial, p. 608.

Cited in Cal. etc. Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 19, noted under Castro v. Barry, 79 Cal. 443; Peterson v. Gibbs, arguendo.

83 Cal. 613-617. BULWER ETC. MG. CO. v. STANDARD ETC. MG. CO.

Action to Quiet Title.-Complaint may be amended to include new property, when defendant disclaims, p. 615.

Cited in Nellis v. Bank, 127 Cal. 170, stating general rule as to power of amendment where cause of action is not changed.

Change of Venue cannot be granted for bias of judge, p. 617.

To same effect in In re Davis' Estate, 11 Mont. 19, construing local statute not including such grounds.

83 Cal. 618. LANGAN v. LANGAN. S. C. 86 Cal. 132, 133.

Appeal will not Lie from order after divorce decree allowing one hundred and fifty dollars as counsel fees, p. 618.

To same effect in Sellick v. Carlow, 95 Cal. 645, and Fairbanks v. Lampkin, 99 Cal. 430. Cited under Ouliahan v. Morrisey, 73 Cal. 297. Overruled in Harron v. Harron, 123 Cal. 510, 511, noted under Dashiell v. Slingerland, 60 Cal. 653; and cf. So. Cal. Ry. Co. v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. 419, 420, noted under Oullahan v. Morrissey, 73 Cal. 297.

83 Cal. 619-620. IN RE WIARD.

Probate Appeal must be taken within sixty days from entry of order appealed from, p. 619.

To same effect in In re Backus, 95 Cal. 672, and In re Heldt, 98 Cal. 553; cited under Estate of Harland, 64 Cal. 379; Estate of Campbell, 141 Cal. 74, as to decree of distribution and discharge of administrator, Dissenting opinion Blyth v. Swenson, 15 Utah, 365, construing local statute as to appeal from judgment.

Probate Appeal will not lie from order refusing to vacate decree of distribution, p. 620.

To same effect in In re Bauquier, 88 Cal. 313, but sustaining appeal from order denying new trial of contest of application for letters testamentary; In re Walkerly, 94 Cal. 353 (cited in In re Smith, 98 Cal. 639), as to order refusing to vacate order denying additional compensation to executor; Estate of Murphy, 128 Cal. 340, and Estate of Tuohy, 23 Mont. 307, noted under Estate of Calahan, 60 Cal. 232; Estate of Cahill, 142 Cal. 629, quoting Estate of Witmeier, 118 Cal. 255. 83 Cal. 620-621. EX PARTE AH SAM.

Habeas Corpus will not lie to review mere errors in trial court, p. 621.

To same effect in In re Chapman, 4 Kan. App. 55, as to irregular issuance of process; State v. Barnes, 3 N. Dak. 137, as to errors in procedure generally.

83 Cal. 621-622. SOMERS v. SOMERS.

Appeal.-Statement prepared for new trial motion may also be used on appeal, p. 622.

Cited in Kelly v. Ning Yung etc. Assn., 138 Cal. 606, granting appellant forty days for filing transcript after settlement of new trial statement; Wall v. Mines, 128 Cal. 137.

83 Cal. 623-626. CITY OF EUREKA v. ARMSTRONG.

Dedication.-Ejectment was brought by city for land claimed dedicated as public street, p. 624.

Cited in support of general rule in San Francisco v. Grote, 120 Cal. 60, 65 Am. St. Rep. 156 (but see concurring opinion, 120 Cal. 63). Offer of Dedication is not revocable when accepted within reasonable time, p. 625.

To same effect in Logan v. Rose, 88 Cal. 267, Archer v. Salinas, 93 Cal. 54; cited under People v. Reed, 81 Cal. 70.

Acceptance of Offer of Dedication can be made formally by common council, p. 625.

To same effect in Mills v. Los Angeles, 90 Cal. 531, holding acceptance by public user then unnecessary; Eureka v. Gates, 137 Cal. 93, 94, construing extent of dedication, and citing main case also on point that street was not abandoned by adoption of map which omitted to designate it; London and San Francisco Bank v. Oakland, 90 Fed. 700.

83 Cal. 626-629. PHELPS v. PRUSCH.

Real Estate Broker is entitled to commissions upon production of purchaser willing to buy on terms fixed, p. 628.

To same effect in Smith v. Schiele, 93 Cal. 149, 150, and Martin v. Ede, 103 Cal. 161, sustaining claim although consummation of sale defeated by defective title; and on same point Kyle v. Rippey, 20 Oreg. 453; but see Gunn v. Bank, 99 Cal. 352, 354, ruling aliter where broker had not produced intending purchaser; Maxon v. Jones, 128 Cal. 81, noted under Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306; Berg v. San Antonio etc. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 301, sustaining right to commissions under facts stated; Tousey v. Etzel, 9 Utah, 334, also rejecting claim; dissenting, Oullahan v. Baldwin, 100 Cal. 660, main opinion sustaining claim under facts.

83 Cal. 633-635. KIRSCH v. KIRSCH. S. C. 113 Cal. 56, 60.

Divorce.-Cross-complaint will not be reviewed on appeal when not objected to and treated as such at trial, p. 635.

To saine effect in Blakely v. Blakely, 89 Cal. 326, on point that affirmative relief may be granted on cross-complaint in such action.

Dedication is Irrevocable after acceptance and user, p. 642.

To same effect in Heitz v. St. Louis, 110 Mo. 626, holding dedication permanent.

83 Cal. 643-645. GIBSON v. SUPERIOR COURT.

Certiorari will lie to annul orders extending time, when beyond court's jurisdiction, p. 644.

Cited in Kennedy v. Mulligan, 136 Cal. 557, noted under Baker v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. 583, on point that such order was void. See note 23 Am. St. Rep. 108.

83 Cal. 645-648. KNEEBONE v. KNEEBONE.

Continuance is within discretion of court, p. 647.

To same effect in Barnes v. Barnes, 95 Cal. 177, sustaining denial thereof under facts.