DEVISE.

1. Counties being empowered by statute to hold land for certain purposes, held, that a devise to the use of a county, without specifying any particular purpose, was valid. — Hayward v. Davidson, 41 Ind. 212.

2. A testator devised to his wife all his estate " to her use and disposal during her natural life, and what is remaining at her decease, undisposed of by her," to D. The wife, having other property in her own right, by the residuary clause of her will gave to B. all the rest and residue of her estate, real, personal, and mixed, wherever found, and however situated. Held, (1) that she had a lifeestate in her husband's property, with power to appoint the fee; (2) that the power was not exercised by her will. - Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267. See PRECATORY TRUST; RULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE.

1. A feme covert infant joined in her husband's deed to release dower, and, after coming of age, and her husband's death, brought a suit to avoid the deed and have her dower assigned. Held, (1) that her release was not void; (2) that she must do some act to avoid it previous to, and other than, bringing suit. Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 586.

2. A man was induced by fraudulent representations to convey land, his wife joining in the conveyance to release dower. Held, that she had a right of action for deceit in respect of her inchoate right of dower. Simar v. Canaday, 53

N. Y. 298.

See MARRIAGE.

A statute authorizing railroads to take " any real estate required for the purposes of their incorporation," held, not to authorize the taking of land used as a public park. — In re Boston & Albany R.R. Co., 53 N. Y. 574.

EQUITY.

Bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage containing a power of sale. Demurrer, on the ground that plaintiff's remedy was complete at law, overruled. — Thompson v. Houze, 48 Miss. 444.

See JUDGMENT, 2; MORTGAGE; NOTICE.

EVIDENCE.

1. In an action for a libel which did not mention the plaintiff by name, evidence (1) that persons reading the libel understood it to apply to the plaintiff, (2) of a subsequent publication by defendant referring to the plaintiff by name, held, admissible to show the plaintiff to be the person referred to by the libel. — Russell v. Kelly, 44 Cal. 641.

2. At the trial of a cause the plaintiff offered in evidence the copy of a record of a judgment rendered in another state. The copy was not duly attested, but the court admitted it, and the plaintiff had a verdict. Held, that the verdict might stand, and judgment be given thereon, on the plaintiff's producing a duly certified copy of the record. - Hutchins v. Gerrish, 52 N. H. 205.

3. Action against a town for injuries suffered from a defect in the highway, consisting of a pile of lumber which frightened plaintiff's horse. Held, that evidence that other horses had been frightened by the lumber was admissible to prove it a defect. - Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401.

4. A demurrer to evidence cannot be in a criminal case. State, 47 Miss. 621.

- Nelson v. The

See ATTORNEY, 1; FRAUDS, Statute of, 5; RETURN; Statute; WIT

NESS.

EXCEPTION.

Grant by deed of land, "saving and excepting from the premises hereby conveyed all and so much and such part and parts thereof as has been lawfully taken for a public road." Held, that the fee in the soil of the road, and not merely an easement, was reserved to the grantor. — Munn v. Worrall, 53 N. Y. 44.

EXECUTION.

See EXEMPTION; MONEY; SHERIFF, 2.

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

1. Money spent by a widow executrix during the war, when no civil authority was in force, in causing the arrest and prosecution, before a military tribunal, of a supposed murderer of her husband, the testator, held, a proper charge against the estate. —Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk. 546.

2. Under a statute authorizing actions by administrators for wrongfully causing the death of their intestates, and providing that "the damages must enure to the exclusive benefit of the widow and children, if any, or next of kin, to be distributed in the same manner as personal property of the deceased," held, that a foreign administrator might sue. (OSBORN, J., dissenting.) — Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis R.R. Co. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 49.

3. An administrator who employs an attorney to transact business for the estate he represents is personally liable to the attorney for his services. - Andrus v. Pettus, 36 Tex. 108.

See ATTORNEY, 1, 2; PARTIES, 2.

EXEMPTION.

A statute exempting a certain amount of tools and stock in trade from seizure on execution, held, not to apply to property of a partnership. — Guptil v. McFee, 9 Kans. 30.

FELONY. See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE of, 1.

FORECLOSURE.

1. A person who, after the beginning of the war, voluntarily left the State of Kansas and joined the Confederate army brought suit after the war to open a foreclosure effected against him in his absence on the ground of his inability to return and appear in the foreclosure suit. Held, that he was not entitled to relief. Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kans. 674.

2. In the foreclosure of a mortgage containing a power of sale, the conditions prescribed by statute for such foreclosures were performed, but other conditions prescribed by the power itself were not performed. Held, that the foreclosure was sufficient. - Butterfield v. Farnham, 19 Minn. 85.

See EQUITY.

FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.

By the by-laws of a savings bank the pass-books of depositors containing their accounts were transferable by order indorsed on the book. Held, that the bank was chargeable as garnishee of a depositor whether or not he had transferred his book. - Witte v. Vincenot, 43 Cal. 325.

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

FORGERY.

Indictment for forging an accountable receipt for personal property; to wit, an elevator ticket for wheat. The ticket, set out in full, had the name of an elevator company at the top, purported to be a receipt for a certain amount of wheat, and was signed "G., Inspector." Held, that the indictment was bad for not showing that G. was an agent of the company. State v. Wheeler, 19 Minn.

1. A contract to deliver, at a saw mill, logs enough to keep the mill running for two years from the date of the contract, held, within the Statute as a contract not to be performed within a year. Patten v. Hicks, 43 Cal. 509.

2. Plaintiff owned an undivided share in land of which another share was to be sold by an administrator at public auction. Defendant wishing to bid at the sale, plaintiff agreed not to bid against him if he would also buy plaintiff's share, which he agreed to do. Defendant bought at the auction, plaintiff not bidding, but refused to complete his purchase of plaintiff's share. Held, that the contract between plaintiff and defendant was within the Statute, and that there was no part performance. - Graham v. Theis, 47 Ga. 479.

3. Equitable mortgage by parol and deposit of title-deeds, held, void by force of the Statute. - Meador v. Meador, 3 Heisk. 562.

4. Plaintiff verbally agreed to purchase land of defendant, and paid money with a stipulation that defendant might retain it as a forfeiture if plaintiff failed to complete the contract. Held, (1) that the whole agreement was one entire contract; (2) that it was void by the Statute; (3) that plaintiff might recover his deposit as money had and received. - Scott v. Bush, 26 Mich. 418.

5. Bill for specific performance of a contract to sell land. The only written evidence of the contract was in this form: "Received of (plaintiff) $100 as part

payment on a piece of property on the corner of A. and B. streets, city of C., county of D., state of E." [Signed by defendant.] Held, insufficient to satisfy the Statute. Holmes v. Evans, 48 Miss. 247.

GAMING.

The sale of prize-candy packages is indictable as gaming. - Eubanks v. The State, 3 Heisk. 488.

GARNISHMENT.

- See BANKRUPTCY, 1; FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.

GUARDIAN.

A statute providing that probate courts“ may authorize” guardians to sell their wards' property, does not preclude a guardian from making such sale without leave of court. Humphrey v. Buisson, 19 Minn. 221.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

A woman gave a promissory note in payment of her husband's debt. Held, that it was enforceable against her separate estate. - Deering v. Boyle, 8 Kans. 525; and see Wicks v. Mitchell, 9 Kans. 80.

See CONTEMPT; DOWER, 1, 2; INFANT, 1; MARRIAGE; MISJOINDER; POWER.

ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

A contract was made in Texas in 1864 to export cotton to Mexico. By the laws of the United States, such a contract was unlawful, unless the tax on the cotton were first paid to the United States, which was impossible by reason of the war. Held, that the contract was illegal and void. Whitis v. Polk, 36

Tex. 602.

See PUBLIC POLICY; WAGER.

INDICTMENT.

1. Indictment for unlawfully carrying "a belt or pocket pistol, or revolver,” held, bad for uncertainty. - State v. Green, 3 Heisk. 131.

2. Indictment for assuming to be a justice of the peace, "not being a legal, qualified justice," without showing how disqualified, held, bad. - Daniel v. The State, 3 Heisk. 257.

3. Indictment for larceny of "three head of neat stock or beeves,” held, bad for uncertainty. - Castello v. The State, 36 Tex. 324.

4. An indictment for murder charged the defendant with having shot the deceased in the head, breast, and side, giving to him one mortal wound, of which wound he died. Held, that if either of the wounds described proved mortal, the indictment was sustainable. Hamby v. The State, 36 Tex. 523.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE, 3; FORGERY; LARCENY; PERJURY.

INDORSEMENT.

A note for $500 was indorsed by the payee, "Pay to L., or order, $400 out of this note." Held, that the indorsement was void..

Frank v. Kaigler, 36

Tex. 305.

INFANT.

1. Conveyance by husband and wife of the wife's land, the husband being

an infant and the wife of full age, held, voidable at the election of the husband. - Barker v. Wilson, 4 Heisk. 268.

-

2. Plaintiff sued as an infant by prochein ami. Plea, the Statute of Limitations. Demurrer. Held, that the plea admitted plaintiff's infancy, and that he was therefore not bound to reply it. Demurrer sustained. -Johnson v. Pinegar, 41 Ind. 168.

See DOWER, 1.

INJUNCTION.

It is no objection to an affidavit to a bill for an injunction, if otherwise sufficient, that it is not made by the plaintiff. — Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Huse, 5 W. Va. 579.

See PATENT.

INSURANCE (FIRE).

1. A policy of fire insurance provided for the payment of a loss sixty days after notice and proof thereof. In an action on the policy, the declaration averred that plaintiff had performed all conditions on his part to be performed, and gave due notice and proof of loss, and demanded payment. Held, bad, for not showing that sixty days had elapsed since the loss. — Doyle v. Phœnix Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 264.

2. Goods in a store were insured against fire, by policy forbidding the use of burning fluids or chemical oils, except kerosene for lights in dwellings. The owner of the goods slept in a room adjoining the store, leaving a kerosene lamp burning all night in the store. A loss happening, held, that the insurers were not liable. Cerf v. Home Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 320.

INSURANCE (LIFE).

A man sold and assigned a policy whereby his life was insured, to one who had no insurable interest in the life of the assignor. Held, that the assignee could not recover on the policy. - Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116.

INTEREST.

When a promissory note bears interest, payable semi-annually, interest is to be allowed on unpaid instalments of interest. - Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 89.

JUDGE. - See ATTORNEY, 3.

JUDGMENT.

1. An action of ejectment was brought against several persons, some of whom were real and some fictitious. Defendants, who were not named in the complaint, were served with process, and appeared and pleaded to the merits. Held, that no judgment could be had against them, without an amendment of the complaint, inserting their names. — McKinlay v. Tuttle, 42 Cal. 570.

2. Plaintiff's bill in equity to recover possession of certain lands was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Missouri. On error, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that plaintiff had a legal title, reversed the decree, and remanded the case for further proceedings in conformity with their opinion; and pursuant to the mandate, the state court reversed their former decree, and then dismissed plaintiff's bill, on the ground that his remedy was at law. On error,