ASSIGNMENTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

Friday, January 25.

71. Harvey P. Platt et al. v. The Pennsylvania Co. Error to the District Court of Lucas County.

96. Owen Lynch v. The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. Error to the District Court of Lucas County.

Friday, February 1.

175. The Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. John Paramore. Error to the District Court of Richland County. 315. The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Charles E. McDonald by n. f. Error to the District Court of Franklin County. Friday, February 15.

349. Windisch, Muhlhauser & Co. v. Henry Hildebrant. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.

367. Jabez Jones v. William G. Jones. Error to the District Court of Williams County.

Friday, February 22.

371. The Little Miami R. R. Co. v. John Fitzpatrick. Error to the District Court of Franklin County.

389. The National Gas Manufacturing Co. v. Jacob Heatherington. Error to the District Court of Belmont County.

Friday, February 29.

439. Edward Martin v. John Alter et al. Error to the District Court of Muskingum County.

453. William Williams v. William F. Schatz and wife. Error to the District Court of Franklin County.

N. B.-Court moets for the hearing of oral arguments at nine o'clock A. M., local time.

This being published previous to the making up of the docket for the January term, 1884, the numbers of the cases are those of the January term, 1883.

352. Aetna Insurance Co. v. Uhriah W. Reed. Error to the Distric Court of Paulding County.

Wednesday, January 16.

493. Henry N. Raymond et al. v. Mattie D. Ross. Error to the District Court of Cuyahoga County.

498. Manhattan Life Insurance Co. v. Emeline T. Abraham. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.

Wednesday, January 23.

504. Samuel Fosdick v. Cornelius Van Horn. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.

542. Swing & Mellon, executors, etc. v. Chatfield & Woods. Error to the District Court of Clermont County.

Wednesday, January 30.

522. John H. Taphorn et al. v. Marietta & Cincinnati R. R. Co., as re-organized. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. 524. Jane Swanger v. Wm. H. Lantz et al. Error to the District Court of Franklin County.

Wednesday, February 6.

546. John W. Rutherford et al. v. Henry Brachman et al. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.

550. Jacob Harline, executor, etc. v. First National Bank of Xenia. Error to the District Court of Greene County.

Wednesday, February 20.

457. Chauncy Winchell v. Frank Frost. Error to the District Court of Portage County.

567. Joseph Rawson et al v. George Bogen et al. Error to the Dis

Wednesday, February 27.

576. Leopold Burckhardt v. Fourth National Bank of Cincinnati. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County.

584. Wadsworth Coal Co. v. Silver Creek Mining and Railway Co. Error to the District Court of Medina County.

Wednesday, March 5.

586. Adin G. Hibbs, administrator, etc. v. Union Central Life Insurance Co. Error to the District Court of Franklin County.

594. Ohio Valley Insurance Co. v. James S. Kirk et al. Error to the District Court of Hamilto County.

Wednesday, March 12.

596. Abraham Zimmerman v. Mary Zimmerman. Error to the District Court of Mahoning County.

N. B.-This being published previous to the making up of the docket for the January term, 1884, the numbers of the cases are those of the January term, 1883.

DIGEST OF CASES.

Abatement of Action—Pendency of Other Suit.—The pendency of one action is not a bar to another where the relief sought in the two is enurely different, although the same questions may be to some extent involved in both. Coles v. Yorks. Minn. Sup. Ct., Nov. 15, 1883. 17 N. W. Чер. 341.

Attachment-Affidavit.-An affidavit for attachment, before a justice of the peace, containing, as a statement of the plaintiff's cause of action, that the said claim in said action is for damages in not delivering goods purchased," does not show that the case is for a debt or demand arising upon contract, judgment or decree, and does not authorize the issuance of an attachment against a foreigu corporation or a non-resident of the state. Rouss v. Wright. Neb. Sup. Ct., Oct. 9, 1883. 2 Denv. L. J. 5.

Attachment-Fraud Representation as to

Indebtedness.-Where a

party states his indebtedness to be far less than it really is, and less than he must have known it to be, and obtains credit on such a statement. the transaction is a fraud upon the party dealing with him, and is a sufficient Casis for suing out a writ of attachment. Rosenthal v. Wehe. Wis. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 1883. 17 N. W. Rep. 318.

Bankruptcy-Partnership- Discharge.-In bankruptcy proceedings, the equitable rule is, that in case of a partnership, joiut property should go to pay joint debts, and the separate property to pay the separate debts; but where there are no copartnership assets to be administered, partnership creditors may prove their clalms against an individual bankrupt. The discharge, therefore, of the individual bankrupt, is a release from all debts, both joint and separate, provable against the estate. Curtis v. Woodward. Wis. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 1883. 17 N. W. Rep.

328.

Common Carrier-Negligence-Liability of Sleeping Car Company for Robbery of Passenger.—1. It is the duty of a sleeping car company to use reasonable and ordinary care to prevent intruding, picking pockets, and carrying off the clothes of passengers while asleep, and whether such care was exercised under the circumstances, is a question for the jury. 2. Where the regulations require a watchman to stay in the aisle of the car continuously until danger is over, and he go out of the aisle even for a few minutes, and during that time a robbery occurs, and the jury believe that if he had been in his place of observation it would not have occurred without detection, the company is liable. The watching must be continuous and active. Pullman Pal. Car Co. v. Gardner. Pa. Sup. Ot. Nov. 12, 1883. 14 Pitts L. J. (N. 8o) 182.

་

Constitutional Law-Appropriation of Street for Private Use.-A taxpayer has no ground of complaint because one of the streets of his city has been vacated and given to a corporation upon which to erect a building for its private purposes, especially when he has suffered no greater injury than the public generally. Hessing v. Scott. Ill. Sup. Ct., Nov. 20, 1883. 17 Cent. L. J. 497.

Costs Junior Judgment—Distribution.—1. When two or more pieces of real estate are sold on a junior judgment, not entitled to participate in the fund realized, the costs of effecting the sale should be divided into as many equal parts as there are separate pieces sold, and one portion thereof charged to the fund realized from each. 2. By costs of effecting the sale are meant the costs incurred on the execution process alone, including advertising, and excluding the costs of the judgment proper. Bryant's App. Pa. Sup. Ct., Nov. 5, 1883. 14 Pitts. L. J. (N. 8.)

177.

Criminal Law-Plea in Abatement.-The pendency of an indictment is not good ground for a plea in abatement to another indictment in the same court for the same cause, though there had been a verdict of guilty in the former indictment, and a new trial granted. Smith v. Commonwealth. Pa. Sup. Ct., Nov. 5, 1883. 14 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 158.

Evidence-Cross-Examination of Plaintiff's Witness as to Matter of Defense.-Where the defendant is improperly allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, and educe matter of defense, the jury should consider the testimony so drawn out as if the witness had been called and examined in chief on part of the defendant. Under such circumstances, it is error for the court to order a non-suit on the ground that the plaintiff's own witness had testified to matter constituting a good defense. Hughes v. The Westmoreland Coal Co. Pa. Sup. Ct., Nov. 12, 1883. 14 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 151.

Gift-Causa Mortis.-To constitute a donatio causa mortis, the gift must be made in contemplation of the near approach of death by the donor, to take effect absolutely only upon the death of the donor. There must be a delivery of the property, either to the donee or to some person for his use or benefit, and the donor must part with all dominion over the property, and the title must vest in the donee, subject to the right of the donor at any time during his life to revoke the gift. Daniel v. Smith. Cal. Sup. Ct., Nov. 28, 1883. 12 Pac. Coast L. J. 326.

Gift-Chose in Action-Causa Mortis.—Where a decedent owned certain choses in action which were not in her possession, but were held by her agent for her, and the only evidence of ownership that she had, was a letter from the agent acknowledging that he held such choses for her, and she delivered the letter to her mother, intending the choses as a gift causa mortis, it is held, that this delivery was sufficient to constitute a valid donatio causa mortis. Stephenson v. King. Ky. Ct. of App., Nov. 10, 1883. 5 Ky. L. Rep. 374.

Insurance-Representation of Agent—Forfeiture.—A policy of insurance contained a provision that the policy should become void if the premium was not promptly paid. When the policy was issued, the agent represented that it was non-forfeitable, and the insured relied on his representations, and failed to apply for a paid up policy as was provided for in the policy. Held, that the insured had no right to rely on the representation of the agent, and equity would not relieve against an absolute forfeiture. Att'y Gen'l v. Continental Life Ins. Co. N. Y. Ct. of App., 1833. 4° Leg. Adv. 388.

Lien-Street Assessment-Effect of Judicial Sale.-An act authorizing the improvement of streets, and creating liens for assessments of the costs thereof, contained a provision that the liens should "not be divested by any judicial sale." Held, that an assessment under it was not payable out of the proceeds of a sheriff's sale on a judgment, though ample for the purpose. Bryant's App. Pa. Sup. Ct., Nov. 5, 1883. 14 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 177.

Life Insurance-—Suicide-Insanity.—A self-killing, by an insane person, understanding the physical nature and consequences of his act, but not its moral aspect, is not a death by suicide, within the meaning of a condition in a policy of insurance upon his life, that the policy shall be void in case he shall die by suicide, or by the hands of justice, or in consequence of a duel, or of the violation of any law. Man. Life Ins. Co. v. Broughton. U. S. Sup. Ct., Nov. 5, 1883. 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 99.

Married Woman-Separate Estate-Husband's Creditors.-A married woman who buys property on credit must not only show that she has a separate estate, but that the purchase was made on the credit of her separate estate in order to hold the property against her husband's creditors. Lochman v. Brobst. Pa. Sup. Ct., April 2, 1883. 14- Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 160.

Nuisance-Injunction—Special Injury.—1. A owned a slaughter house which he had been working as such for twenty years, when plaintiffs brought an action against him for a nuisance, and alleged that he left the entrails and other parts of slaughtered animals exposed on his premises, producing a foul stench, poisoning the air all around, and endan gering the health of plaintiffs. They asked an injunction. Held, that an indictment is the proper remedy for a common nuisance, and an individual is entitled to an injunction, only when he shows special injury, yet the fact that the injury complained of was common to the five plaintiffs, does not make it a public nuisance. 2. Where the nuisance endangers the health of complainant, or renders him uncomfortable, not from the annoyance caused by running the machinery, but from the pollution of the air, he is entitled to relief. 3. The fact that, the nuisance was originally built remote from human habitations, and plaintiffs have since put up their dwellings, is no defense in an action seeking to enjoin the further continuance of the nuisance. Seifried v. Hays. Ky. Ct. of App., Nov 1, 1883. 5 Ky. L. Rep. 369.