2. Statutory action by an administrator, for the benefit of the intestate's widow and children, to recover for negligence of defendant's causing the death of the intestate. Held, that evidence of the receipt of money by the widow and children on a policy of insurance on the intestate's life, was inadmissible in reduction of damages. Sherlock v. Alling, 44 Ind. 184. [Compare Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 1.]

3. Machinery was sold, with warranty, by a person not the manufacturer. Held, that the value of the use of it for a reasonable time to make repairs needed to cause it to comply with the warranty, was not an allowable item of damages in an action on the warranty, no fraud being charged. — Booher v. Goldsborough, 44 Ind. 490.

4. Trespass for digging and carrying away coal from the plaintiff's land. Held, that the measure of damages was the value of the coal after it was severed and before it was carried out of the mine. (ROBINSON, J., dissenting.) — Barton Coal Co. v. Cox, 39 Md. 1.

5. In a proceeding to assess damages for injuries caused by the construction of a railway to houses abutting on a street, there was evidence that the houses encroached on the street. The jury were instructed to estimate damages to the property, houses and lots, considering the houses to be on the proper line. Held, correct. Pittsburg, Virginia, & Charlestown R.R. Co. v. Rose, 74 Penn. St. 362. See' JUDGMENT, 3, 4, 5; NEW TRIAL.

DEADLY WEAPONS.

An act prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons, held, not to prevent a traveller in a carriage on the highway from carrying arms for his own defence. - Maxwell v. The State, 38 Tex. 170.

DEED.-See ACKNOWLEDGMENT; BOND; EASEMENT; ESTOPPEL, 2; EVIDENCE, 1; POWER; RECORD; SEAL; TAX, 1; Trust.

1. Testator bequeathed property to his wife for life, and at her death to his children living at the time of her death, and to the issue of those who might have deceased. One of the testator's children died in his lifetime, leaving a child who died after the death of the testator, and before that of his widow. Held, that that child had a vested interest under the will, to which his administrator was entitled after the death of the widow. - Austin v. Bristol, 40 Conn. 120.

2. Devise of the "west half of the north-east quarter of section 23." Held, (1) that extrinsic evidence was inadmissible to show that the testator owned the east half of the south-west quarter of section 23, and no other land; and therefore, (2) that nothing passed by the devise. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa, 674.

3. A testator bequeathed the residue of his estate to the Methodist mission at Bombay. There was no such mission. It appeared by extrinsic evidence that the testator could not read or write; that he was a member of the Methodist

church, and interested in the missions of that church in India, which were conducted by an incorporated society of the church, the missionaries sent out by which landed at Bombay. Held, that the legacy should go to the society, for the use of missions in India. - McAllister v. McAllister, 46 Vt. 272.

See CHARITY; ESTATE TAIL.

DIRECTOR.

See CORPORATION, 2; FALSE REPRESENTATIONS.

DISCHARGE. See BANKRUPTCY.

DIVORCE.

A decree of divorce, binding as between the husband and wife, cannot be impeached by her, as obtained by fraud, in a writ of dower against persons who purchased land from him during the coverture. - Hood v. Hood, 110 Mass. 463.

See DIVORCE; POWER.

EASEMENT.

A deed conveyed to the grantee, his heirs and assigns, the right to take water from a well on the grantor's land. Held, that this right was assignable by the grantee, even though not appurtenant to any of his land. — Poull v. Mockley, 33 Wis. 482.

ELECTION. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 2.

EMBLEMENTS.

A person in possession of land, claiming to own it, but against whom an action was pending to recover it, let it to a tenant who entered and sowed crops, having notice of the pendency of the action. Judgment was recovered against the landlord, who surrendered possession of the land. Held, that the tenant was not entitled to the crops. · Rowell v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290.

EQUITY. See ESTOPPEL, 1; EXEMPTION, 2; FRAUD, 1; INJUNCTION; JudgMENT, 6; MISTAKE; PARTNERSHIP; TRESPASS.

EQUITY PLEADING AND PRACTICE. See PARTIES, 2.

ESTATE TAIL.

Devise to S., but if she should die "leaving no issue or child," then over. Held, that S. did not take an estate tail. — Hill v. Hill, 74 Penn. St. 173.

ESTOPPEL.

1. A. bought land, relying on the representations of a sheriff that there were no liens on it. The sheriff knew that the land was in fact bound by an execution; under which it was afterwards sold, and bought by himself. Held, that he was estopped from setting up the title so acquired against A., and should be decreed to convey to him. — Gill v. Denton, 71 N. C. 341.

2. A. having taken proceedings which were voidable, to acquire title to public land of the United States, conveyed the land to B., who conveyed it to C., both conveyances being with covenants of warranty. C. quitclaimed to D. all his right, title, and interest in the land, in possession or expectancy. A.'s original proceedings to acquire title having been avoided by the action of the proper

66

authorities, he procured an act of Congress vesting the title in him as of the date of his proceedings, so that the title may enure to the benefit of his grantees so far as he may have conveyed the same." Held, that D. thereby acquired a good title by estoppel, and that a subsequent conveyance by C. passed nothing. — McCarthy v. Mann, 19 Wall. 20.

See DIVORCE.

ESTRAY.

Action for taking plaintiff's horses. Plea, that the horses were running at large in a town, contrary to ordinance of the town, wherefore defendant impounded them. Replication, that the horses escaped from plaintiff's enclosure without his fault, and that he made diligent search for them, and that while he was so seeking them they were taken. Held, good. — Kinder v. Gillespie, 63 Ill. 88.

1. An administrator's deed, more than thirty years old, was offered in evidence. Held, that it was inadmissible without proof of the administrator's authority to make it. ·Fell v. Young, 63 Ill. 106.

2. A witness was permitted to write his name in presence of the jury, for the purpose of being compared with a signature purporting to be his, the genuineness of which he denied.. Held, error. King v. Donahue, 110 Mass. 155.

3. At the coroner's inquest on the body of a person found dead, it appeared that A. had said that the deceased was accidentally burned to death, and that she, A., had burnt her hand in trying to put the fire out. A. being then in custody on suspicion of the murder of the deceased, was compelled by the coroner, against her objection, to show her hand, which appeared to be uninjured. Held, that evidence of this was admissible on the trial of A. for the murder. · State v. Garrett, 71 N. C. 85.

4. A contract within the Statute of Frauds was proved at the trial of an action brought on it, by parol evidence. The defendant made no objection to such evidence, until after the testimony on both sides was all in. Held, that it was then too late to take the objection, and that it must be considered as waived. Montgomery v. Edwards, 46 Vt. 151.

See ADMISSION; DEVISE, 2, 3; NEGLIGENCE; SEAL; STAMP, 1; USAGE; WILL, 2.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

See DAMAGES, 2; EVIDENCE, 1; Judge. EXEMPTION.

1. An exemption from seizure on execution of "tools of a debtor's trade," held, not to apply to machinery. — Seeley v. Gwillim, 40 Conn. 106.

2. Bill for an injunction to restrain the levy of an execution on personal property exempt by statute, held, not maintainable, the remedy being at law. Bryan v. Long, 14 Fla. 366.

FALSE REPRESENTATIONS.

--

Subscriptions were made to stock of a railroad company, and a mortgage given to secure them, by persons who relied on representations made by agents

of the road and others, that the investment would be profitable. Held, that such representations were no defence to a bill to foreclose, filed by a director of the company, to whom the mortgage had been assigned for value. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146.

Sawyer v.

Goods which had been destroyed by fire were insured by a policy giving the insurers the right of election either to pay for the goods or replace them. Held, that, before the insurers had made such election, they were under no such absolute liability to pay money to the insured as to make them chargeable as garnishees in a suit against him. - Martz v. Detroit F. & M. Ins. Co., 28 Mich. 201. FOREIGN JUDGMENT. See JUDGMENT, 2.

1. A. represented to B., who was the holder of an unrecorded deed of land on which an execution had been levied, that if she would allow him to buy the land at the sheriff's sale, he would execute a writing before the land was bid off, declaring that he bought it for her; B. accordingly suffered A. to buy the land, which he did, but refused to execute the writing. Held, that in equity he held the land in trust for B. — Wolford v. Herrington, 74 Penn. St. 311.

2. A wife falsely represented to a tradesman, whom her husband had forbidden to sell goods to her on credit, that she required the goods as necessaries, and that her husband refused to provide them; and she thereby induced the tradesman to sell to her. Held, that he could not maintain an action on the case against the husband and wife, to recover damages for the fraud. Woodward v. Barnes,

46 Vt. 332.

See BILLS AND NOTES, 2; CORPORATION, 2, 3; FALSE REPRESENTATIONS; SURETY, 1.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.

66

1. Plaintiff, who had been negotiating with defendant for a lease of land to be used for a strawberry garden, wrote to defendant inquiring whether he could have the land on the terms proposed. Defendant wrote in reply, Set your strawberries," and signed his name. Held, a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute. - Linsley v. Tibbals, 40 Conn. 522.

2. A sale of land made under the order, and by an officer of a court of equity, is not within the statute. Warfield v. Dorsey, 39 Md. 299.

3. Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Defence, the Statute of Frauds. The defendants prayed the court to instruct the jury that in order to take the case out of the statute, there must have been an acceptance of the goods by the defendants, with the intent of taking possession as owners; but the court refused so to rule, and ruled that the acceptance need not be absolute, but might be such as would not preclude the defendants from objecting to the quality of the goods as not corresponding to samples. Held, error. - Hewes v. Jordan, 39 Md. 472.

See EVIDENCE, 4.

A widow having a considerable property and no children, deposited in a savings-bank $250 in her own name as trustee for W., who was the child of a neighbor, and with whom she was well acquainted. Soon after she told his parents that she had made a deposit for their son, and afterwards spoke of it as belonging to him. At different times thereafter she drew out the money and applied it to her own use; and died leaving a will in which no mention was made of the deposit or of W. Held, that the deposit was a complete gift, that the depositor could not revoke it, and that her executor was liable to W. for the amount deposited. (CARPENTER and PHELPS, JJ., dissenting.) — Minor v. Rogers, 40 Conn. 512.

GOVERNOR.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, State, 1.
GUARANTY.

See CONSIDERATION.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

1. A married woman, without authority or assent of her husband, hired and occupied a pew in a ehurch. Held, that the husband was not liable for the rent St. John's Parish v. Bronson, 40 Conn. 75.

of the pew.

2. By statute of Iowa, neither husband nor wife is liable for the debts or liabilities of the other incurred before marriage, nor are they liable for the separate debts of each other. Held, that a husband was liable, as at common law, for the wife's torts committed after marriage. — McElfresh v. Kirkendall, 36 Iowa, 224.

3. A part-payment made by a woman on her husband's note will not take it out of the Statute of Limitations, in the absence of evidence that he authorized her to make the payment. - Butler v. Price, 110 Mass. 97.

See ALIMONY; CONFLICT OF LAWS; DIVORCE; FRAUD, 2; MARRIED WOMAN.

ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

Plaintiff and defendant agreed not to bid against each other for a government contract to be given to the lowest bidder, and to share the profits of the contract when given to one of them. The contract having been performed, held, that plaintiff could not sue defendant for a partnership accounting. (RODMAN, J., dissenting.) King v. Winants, 71 N. C. 469.

See CARRIER, 1; LORD'S DAY.

IMPEACHMENT.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 1.

INDICTMENT.

1. Indictment charging that the defendant with force and arms, &c., in and upon one in the peace of the state then and there being, did make an assault, and him the said J. D. did then and there beat, &c. Held, that the indictment sufficiently charged an assault on J. D.— Harn v. The State, 39 Md. 552.

66

2. An indictment averring that the defendant kept a disorderly tenement," charges no offence known to the law. - Commonwealth v. Wise, 110 Mass. 181.