'stay law," then lately enacted, which was afterwards adjudged unconstitutional and void. Held, that the judgment-creditor did not lose his right to sue out execution by failing to do so while the stay law was unrepealed, and had not been adjudged void. Cravans v. Wilson, 35 Tex. 52.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; EXECUTOR; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 2; PartNERSHIP; PREROGATIVE; TENANT IN COMMON.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

Injunction granted to restrain defendant from levying on goods of a testatrix, remaining in specie in the hands of plaintiff, as administrator cum test. annex.,. execution on a judgment obtained against plaintiff personally. - Burton v. Robinson, 3 Houst. 154.

See ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

EXEMPTION.

A statutory exemption from seizure, on execution, of wearing apparel of the debtor and his family, and household furniture, held, not to exempt a silver watch and chain worn by a debtor who was a householder with a family, and had no other time-piece in his house. Rothschild v. Boelter, 18 Minn. 361.

See PREROGATIVE.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

1. An arrest by an officer without a warrant cannot be justified on the ground that the person arrested was insane, if he was not dangerous. -Look v. Dean, 108 Mass. 116.

2. Plaintiff being drunk and disorderly, defendant arrested him without a warrant, by virtue of a statute authorizing arrest in such cases, and enacting that the offender should be taken before a magistrate. Defendant kept plaintiff in custody for an hour, and discharged him without taking him before a magistrate. Held, that he was liable for an assault and false imprisonment. - Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520.

1. Portable hot-air furnaces in the cellar of a dwelling-house, and used for warming it, set in pits prepared for them in the cellar, where they were held in place simply by their own weight, held, to be part of the realty. Stockwell v. Campbell, 39 Conn. 362.

2. A mortgage on machinery in a building was given in contemplation of the machinery being annexed to the realty; and after it was annexed, a mortgage was given on the land and building. Held, that the second mortgagee could hold the machinery against the first. ·Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78. See RAILROAD; RESERVATION.

1. B. sued A. in New York and recovered judgment, which was reversed on

appeal, and judgment rendered for A. for costs. The record showed that counsel was heard for B. on the appeal, but did not show service of any notice of appeal. In an action brought in Minnesota on A.'s judgment, held, that evidence was inadmissible to show that the proceedings subsequent to B.'s judgment were had without notice to or appearance by B. or his attorney. Cone v. Hooper, 18 Minn. 531.

2. Action brought in Missouri on a judgment recovered in Mississippi. The record of the original action showed that the defendant appeared and pleaded therein. Plea, that defendant was never served with process in the original action, did not know of the action, and did not authorize any one to appear for him. Held, good. (WAGNER, J., dissenting.) — Marx v. Fore, 51 Mo. 69.

See JUDGMENT, 2, 3.

FRAUD. See BANKRUPTCY, 8; BILLS AND NOTES, 2; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, STATE, 2; DECEIT; DIVORCE.

FRAUDS, STATute of.

1. Sale of a chose in action, held, not within the statute. 40 Ind. 593.

2. The parties to a verbal contract of sale deposited, with a third party, each a certain sum to be paid by him to either of them, as a forfeiture, if the other should fail to fulfil his part of the contract. Held, not a giving of earnest within the statute. Howe v. Hayward, 108 Mass. 54.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.

1. A gift by a father in insolvent circumstances to his minor son of his time and future earnings, held, valid against previous creditors of the father, in the absence of evidence of intent to defraud them. Atwood v. Holcomb, 39 Conn. 270.

2. Conveyance to a trustee in trust to hold as security for certain creditors of the grantors, who had taken the grantors' notes for their debts, and for such other creditors as should, within eight months, accept the same terms, with power to the trustee to sell or mortgage the property to pay the notes; the mesne rents and profits were not directed to be applied to pay the grantors' debts, and the grantors remained in possession. Held, (1) that this was an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and not a mortgage; and (2) that it was fraudulent as against creditors who did not accept the terms. Stewart v. Kerrison, 3 So. Car. 266.

See BANKRUPTCY, 7; EVIDENCE, 4; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 1.

Under an act defining who shall be competent witnesses in suits by or against heirs founded on a contract with or demand against their ancestor, held, that the word" heirs" included devisees who would have taken under the Statute of Descents in case of intestacy, and hence (under the Indiana Statute of Descents) that a widow taking by devise was an heir. - Peacock v. Albin, 39 Ind. 25.

1. A woman on the day of her marriage conveyed her real estate without consideration. Held, that this was primâ facie in fraud of her husband, and that the burden was on the grantee to show his assent. Robinson v. Buck, 71 Penn. St.386.

2. A married woman defendant who has neglected to plead coverture in bar of the action cannot set it up to stay execution. McDaniel v. Ca ver, 40 Ind. 250.

3. Defendant's wife being drunk, he struck her, and she fell and was killed by striking against a chair. Held, that defendant was guilty of manslaughter. — Commonwealth v. McAfee, 108 Mass. 458.

See ADVANCEMENT; Divorce; Widow.

ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

A promissory note, the consideration of which is "to secure a responsible person to act as administrator on an estate," is void as against public policy.— Porter v. Jones, 52 Mo. 399.

See LORD'S DAY; PUBLIC POLICY; WAGER.

IMPOSSIBLE CONTRACT.-See CONTRACT, 1.

IMPRISONMENT. -See BAIL; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 2; FALSE IM

PRISONMENT.

INCUMBRANCE. See ASSUMPSIT, 2; COVENANT; STOCK.

INDICTMENT.

An indictment purporting to "accuse A. B. of the crime of burglary committed as follows," set out facts constituting the crime of larceny. Held, good as an indictment for larceny. — State v. Coon, 18 Minn. 518.

See ESTRAY.

INDORSER.

Assumpsit by indorsee against indorser of a promissory note. Plea, that the parties agreed that if the defendant would sell a certain machine to H., and take his note for it, plaintiff would purchase such note at an agreed discount on the credit of the maker alone, and that, in pursuance of such agreement, defendant made the sale and took the note, and indorsed it to plaintiff, omitting the words "without recourse on plaintiff's requesting him so to do, and promising to save him harmless. Held, good. — Dale v. Gear, 39 Conn. 89. (See s. c. 38 Conn. 15.) See BANKRUPTCY, 8; SURETY.

INFANT.

Plaintiff's infant son bought of defendant tobacco pipes and paid for them; afterwards plaintiff's wife, the child's mother, went with the child to defendant, tendered back the pipes, and demanded the money paid therefor, which defendant refused to pay back. Held, that plaintiff might recover it as money had and received. Sequin v. Peterson, 45 Vt. 255.

See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, 1.

INFORMATION.

Information in equity by one of the law officers of the state, in the name of the state, to restrain a public corporation from doing an act not authorized by law, sustained. (WAGNER, J., dissenting.) State v. Saline County Court, 51 Mo. 350.

-

- See ECCLESIASTICAL LAW; EXECUTOR. INNUENDO. See SLANDER.

INSANITY. See FALSE IMPRISONMENT, 1.

INSOLVENCY.

1. A debtor gave bond with sureties to apply for the benefit of the state insolvent law, and to surrender himself if he failed to obtain a discharge, and did apply accordingly. Pending the proceedings he was adjudged a bankrupt. Held, that the bond was discharged. — Barber v. Rogers, 71 Penn. St. 362.

2. G., a citizen of Massachusetts, owning a ship registered in that state, but then on the high seas bound for New York, took the benefit of the insolvent laws of Massachusetts, pursuant to which the judge of insolvency transferred to an assignee all the property of G., "which he could have lawfully sold, assigned, or conveyed," after which the ship arrived in New York, and was then attached at the suit of a resident of that city, in an action there commenced by him against G. The Court of Appeals of New York sustained the claim of the attaching creditor as against the assignee of G. On error, held, by the Supreme Court of the United States, (1) that it had jurisdiction of the case; (2) that the judgment below was wrong. (FIELD and BRADLEY, JJ., dissenting.) — Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. 610; reversing s. c. 45 N. Y. 86.

INSURANCE (FIRE).

1. In an action to recover an assessment by a mutual insurance company, the plaintiffs must aver in the declaration, and prove, that the defendant was a member of the company at the time of the losses to pay for which the assessment is levied. (PETTIT, J., dissenting.) — Manlove v. Bender, 39 Ind. 371.

2. A policy was conditioned to be void if there should be any other insurance on the property without the assent of the company indorsed on the policy. Held, that this condition might be waived by acts of the company's agent (overruling former decisions). — Hayward v. National Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 181.

3. A building was insured by a policy conditioned to be void "if the property be sold or transferred, or any change takes place in title or possession." The assured sold the property, taking at the same time a mortgage for the purchasemoney. Held, that the policy was avoided. (PECKHAM, J., dissenting.) — Savage v. Howard Ins. Co., 52 N. Y. 502.

4. A broker employed by plaintiff to effect insurance obtained from defendants a policy containing a condition that no insurance proposed should be considered in force till the premium was actually paid. The broker showed the policy to plaintiff, who said it was not convenient to pay then; the broker told him he would be safe for thirty days, and at his request retained the policy. A loss happened, the policy not having been delivered or the premium paid. Held, that defendants were not liable. - Marland v. Royal Ins. Co., 71 Penn. St. 393.

5. A policy in a mutual insurance company was assignable by its terms, but the company's charter provided that an alienation of the property insured the policy should be void. Held, that a purchaser of the property and assignee of the policy could not recover for a loss on the ground of want of notice of the charter. — Burger v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 71 Penn. St. 422.

6. In an action on a policy of fire insurance, the defence was a violation of a condition in the policy that the building should not be used for certain hazardous purposes. Held, that evidence was inadmissible to show that the insurers' agent had notice that the building was so used when the policy was taken out. · Dewees v. Manhattan Ins. Co., 6 Vroom, 366.

life.

See ACTION, 3; ESTOPPEL, 3.

INSURANCE (Life).

1. A woman engaged to be married to a man has an insurable interest in his - Chisholm v. National Capitol Life Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 213.

2. Declaration, that defendants insured the life of H. for plaintiff's benefit, by policy containing a condition of avoidance for non-payment of annual premiums; that plaintiffs paid the premiums until Dec. 26; 1861; that, for a long time before and after that date, plaintiffs were inhabitants of Virginia, and defendants of New Jersey; that, after that date, the further payment of premiums was made impossible by the war; and that, after the war was ended, the premiums were tendered. Held, good on demurrer. — Hillyard v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 6 Vroom, 415.

3. A person, whose life was insured against accidents while " travelling by public or private conveyance," travelled by steamboat to a certain place, and thence walked eight miles to his home, during which walk he received injuries by violence, of which he died. Held, that the insurers were not liable. — Ripley v. [Railway Passengers'] Ins. Co., 16 Wall. 336; affirming s. c. 2 Bigelow Life & Accid. Ins. Rep. 738.

JUDGMENT.

1. A declaration on a statute of forcible entry to recover treble damages, will not support a judgment for single damages for a trespass at common law. - Shaw v. Hoffman, 25 Mich. 162.

2. Indictment for bigamy. Defendant relied on a divorce obtained by his first wife in Indiana. The record of that case recited that the parties were residents of Indiana. Held, that evidence was admissible to show that they were not such in fact, and so that the divorce was void. (CAMPBELL, J., dissenting.) People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247.

3. Libel for divorce on the ground of cruelty, brought in Vermont. Defence, a judgment rendered in New Hampshire dismissing a libel between the same parties for the same cause. The acts of cruelty relied on did not take place in either state. Held, (1) that the record of proceedings in New Hampshire was admissible in evidence, though not specially pleaded; but (2) that, in the absence of proof that the cause of action was within the jurisdiction of the court in New Hampshire, and that the libel was not dismissed for want of jurisdiction only, dismissal was no bar. - Blain v. Blain, 45 Vt. 538.

the

See BANKRUPTCY, 8; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 3; DIVORCE; EVIDENCE, 3; FOREIGN JUDGMENT; REPLEVIN.