SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS. [FOR the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports: 36 California; 12 Florida; 32 Georgia; 45 and 46 Illinois; 30 Indiana; 25 Iowa; 26 and 29 Maryland; 99 Massachusetts; 18 Michigan; 40 New York; 58 Pennsylvania State; 14 Richardson (South Carolina) Equity; 15 Richardson (South Carolina) Law; 41 Vermont.] ACCOMMODATION GUARANTY. See BILLS AND NOTES, 1. ACCOMPLICE. See EVIDENCE, 4; WITNESS, 2. ACTION. Plaintiffs brought assumpsit for money had and received, to recover from defendants an amount paid to them for freight in excess of the rates which the latter were, by law, entitled to exact. The payment was made after the goods had been carried and delivered, and without objection. Held, that the action did not lie. Kenneth v. South Carolina R.R. Co., 15 Rich. Law, 284. See ALIEN ENEMY; ASSESSMENT; ASSUMPSIT; BILLS AND NOTES, 5, 6; CARRIER, 1; CONFISCATION ACT; CONFLICT OF LAWS, 1; CORPORATION, 2; DAMAGES, 4, 6; FRAUDS, Statute of, 5–8; GUARANTY; HIGHWAY; LANDLORD AND TENANT, 1; LICENSE; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 1, 4; LUNACY, COMMITTEE oF; MASTER AND SERVANT, 2; NEGLIGENCE, 2; PRESUMPTION; PRINCIPAL AND SURETY, 2; PUBLIC POLICY; REPLEVIN; SALE, 2; SLAVE, 1; STAMP, 1; STOCK SUBSCRIPTION; TENANT IN COMMON OF CHATTELS, Town VOTE; TRESPASS; TRUSTEE PROCESS, 3; VENDOR'S LIEN. By an Illinois statute of 1857, provision is made for proceedings in rem for supplies furnished vessels navigating the rivers within the State limits. Held, that this law is not repugnant to the 9th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the District Courts of the United States in all admiralty and maritime causes. Williamson v. Hogan, 46 Ill. 504. - See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4. AFFIDAVIT OF MERITS. AGENT.-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. ALIEN.-See CONFISCATION ACT. ALIEN ENEMY. A citizen of Virginia, during the existence of the late war, could not maintain an action in the courts of Maryland. -Wheelan v. Cook, 29 Md. 1. ALTERNATIVE CONTRACT. See PLEADING. ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 2. APPROPRIATION OF PAYMENTS. See SPECIAL DEPOSIT. ASSESSMENT. Defendant assessed lands, and sold them for non-payment. The proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction, the assessment not having been made against the owner of the land. Held, that the owner might maintain an action to recover the proceeds of the sale. Chapman v. The City of Brooklyn, 40 N. Y. 372. ASSUMPSIT. Plaintiff pawned a watch to secure a debt, and defendant obtained possession in the right of the creditor; he then sold it before the proper time, and received in exchange a harness. Plaintiff brought assumpsit. Held, that the action would not lie. Kidney v. Parsons, 41 Vt. 386. See ACTION; ASSESSMENT, SPECIAL DEPOSIT. ATTACHMENT. See BAILMENT. ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. 1. A wife, after bringing suit for divorce, and retaining counsel, voluntarily abandoned the suit and returned to live with her husband. The counsel applied for an order against the husband for fees, offering to show that the allegations of the libel were true. Held, that the application came too late. - McCulloch v. Murphy, 45 Ill. 256. 2. Bill in equity to enforce a lien for compensation against real estate recovered in an action of ejectment prosecuted by complainants as attorneys-atlaw. Held, that complainants had no such lien. — Humphrey v. Browning, 46 Ill. 476. See MANDAMUS; PUBLIC POLICY. BAILMENT. Defendant attached a boat belonging to plaintiff, in which were articles not covered by the attachment. In tort, for the conversion of these articles, held, that the responsibility of the defendant was that of a gratuitous bailee. — Briggs v. Dearborn, 99 Mass. 50. See ASSUMPSIT; SPECIAL DEPOSIT; TRESPASS. BANK.-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6; SPECIAL DEPOSIT. 1. An accommodation guarantor of a note is liable to a bona fide holder to whom the note has been transferred for value, notwithstanding knowledge of the want of consideration of the guaranty.-Jones v. Berryhill, 25 Iowa, 289. 2. A note payable to K. and H. jointly, was by them jointly indorsed to the plaintiff; the maker failed to pay, and the plaintiff notified K. without notifying H. Held, that the engagement of K. and H. being joint, K. was discharged from liability as indorser. — People's Bank v. Keech, 26 Md. 521. 3. A note was made payable to the order of S., and indorsed by his administrator to the holder. Under this indorsement was written "Butler & Co." The holder brought suit against Butler, offering to show by parol that the indorsement of the payee's administrator was put on the back of the note after that of Butler & Co., and after delivery for value with the name of Butler & Co. upon it. Held, that the evidence was admissible. - Brown v. Butler, 99 Mass. 179. 4. Action on a note, payable one day after date, and transferred to plaintiff; defendant pleaded total and partial failure of consideration. Held, that the burden was on plaintiff to show that he took the note before maturity. — Beall v. Leverett, 32 Ga. 105. 5. The promisee of a non-negotiable note, indorsed it to plaintiff for value, and plaintiff sued without showing presentation for payment, or notice of nonpayment. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to recover. Cromwell v. Hewitt, 40 N. Y. 491. 6. The holder of a note sued the maker and obtained judgment, upon which execution was issued, and goods levied on. Sale was prevented by an interpleader on the part of C., who claimed the goods. Held, that the levy was not a satisfaction of the judgment, and no defence to an action against the indorser. Rice v. Goff, 58 Penn. St. 116. See CONFLICT OF LAWS, 1; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, SURETY, 2; STAMP, 1. 2-4; BILL TO QUIET TITLE.-See EQUITY. PRINCIPAL AND BOUNTY.-See TOWN VOTE. BROKER. The right of a broker to sell does not include the right to rescind. — Saladin v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 79. BURDEN OF PROOF. - See BILLS AND NOTES, 4; WILL, 2. BY-LAW. See CORPORATION, 1, 2. CAPITAL AND INCOME. See TRUST, 3. CARGO. See GENERAL AVERAGE. CARRIER. 1. Receivers running a railroad under appointment of a Court of Chancery in Vermont, were by the Supreme Court of that State held liable as common carriers. Held, that they might be sued as common carriers in Massachusetts for an accident which occurred in Vermont. Paige v. Smith, 99 Mass. 395. 2. In the absence of special circumstances, the liability of railroad companies for goods in warehouse awaiting delivery, is that of common carriers (CAMPBELL, J., dissenting). - Buckley v. Great Western Railway Co., 18 Mich. 121. 3. The defendants, who were common carriers, received and undertook to carry for F. certain goods from C. to A., the place where F. resided. The goods arrived at A. at the proper time, but F. was not notified of their arrival, nor was he there to receive them; they were accordingly stored in the defendants' warehouse. During the night the warehouse and goods were destroyed by fire. Held, that the company was not liable.- Francis v. The Dubuque and Sioux City R.R. Co., 25 Iowa, 60. CHARTER. See CORPORATION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, State, 2. CHECK. See SPECIAL DEPOSIT. CHOSE IN ACTION. - See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 2. CONDITION. - -See STOCK SUBSCRIPTION. CONFEDERATE MONEY. A Master in Chancery sold an estate under an order of court, and in 1864 took in part payment Confederate treasury notes. There was no evidence of bad faith. Held, that neither the purchaser nor the master was liable to those interested in the fund. McPherson v. Lynah, 14 Rich. Eq. 121. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3. CONFISCATION ACT. Suit for rent, commenced Oct. 12, 1863. Answer, 1st. That from Jan. 1, 1862, till suit brought, plaintiff had been a citizen of Tennessee, and had been during said period, and still was, engaged in levying war against the United States, and in aiding, abetting, and upholding the Rebellion, and during said time had been a colonel in the Confederate service, and had not obeyed the Proclamation of the President, made in pursuance of the Confiscation Act of July 17, 1862 (12 St. at Large, 589); 2d. That the premises had been seized and sold on a proceeding under said Act, and purchased by defendant. This sale was in November, 1863. Held, that the first part of the answer was good as a plea in bar under the Act of July 17; that the act was constitutional, and binding on the State as well as the Federal courts; and that errors in the confiscation judgment could not be inquired into in this suit. Knoefel v. Williams, 30 Ind. 1. CONFLICT OF LAWS. 1. Plaintiff declared upon a note negotiated in the State of Wisconsin. The transfer was valid according to the lex loci, as declared by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, but not according to the general law merchant. Held, that the transfer was bad. Franklin v. Twogood, 25 Iowa, 520. 2. Assumpsit for a balance due and payable in England. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for an amount in legal tender notes equivalent in value to the amount of the balance in gold. — Benners v. Clemens, 58 Penn. St. 24. 3. Plaintiff brought suit in Maryland to recover an amount payable in florins at Frankfort-on-the-Main. Held, that conceding the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Acts, he was entitled to recover in legal tender notes an amount |