SET-OFF.

A. gave a note to B., who assigned it to C., and afterwards, the note being due and unpaid, brought an action on it against A., for C.'s benefit. At the time of the assignment B. was insolvent, and C. knew it, and B. soon after became bankrupt. Held, that A. could not, at law or in equity, set off a note made to him by B., and not yet due. — Spaulding v. Backus, 122 Mass. 553. SHERIFF. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (STATE), 2.

SHIP.

Upon the sale of a vessel, she must be registered or enrolled anew, or she ceases to be a vessel of the United States; and a subsequent mortgage of her acquires no validity by being recorded according to act of Congress. — Johnson v. Merrill, 122 Mass. 153.

See ADMIRALTY; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4; Negligence.

SIGNATURE. - See EVIDENCE, 1.

SPECIFIC PERformance.

A railroad company incorporated in Georgia made a contract to build its road in a particular manner over land conveyed to it in South Carolina. Held, that the contract could not be specifically enforced against the company in the courts of Georgia. — Port Royal R. R. Co. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE of.

STOCK. See DEVISE.

SURETY.-See ALTERATION; Amendment; BANKRUPTCY, 1, 2; GUARANTY; INSURANCE (Fire), 6.

1. A railroad company, exempted by its charter from taxation, mortgaged its lands, road, and franchises. The mortgage was foreclosed. Held, that the exemption from taxation did not pass to the mortgagee. (LUDELING, C. J., dissenting.)-State v. Morgan, 28 La. Ann. 482.

2. Covenant by the lessee, in a lease, to pay the taxes of every name and kind that should be assessed on the premises at any time during the term, held, not to cover an assessment for benefits by permanent street improvements. - Beals v. Providence Rubber Co., 11 R. I. 381.

3. Land was sold for non-payment of taxes, and conveyed to one who was in possession of it without color or claim of title. Held, that he was not bound to pay the taxes, and might, therefore, set up his title under the taxdeed against the former owner or his grantee. -Link v. Doerfer, 42 Wis. 391. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 4, 6, 7, 10; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (STATE), 5; CORPORATION, 4; INSURANCE (FIRE), 6.

TIME.

By statute, a prisoner cannot be tried until he has had one day's service of a list of the jurors summoned. Held, that both the day of service and the

day of trial were to be excluded in the reckoning. — Speer v. The State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 246.

TOLL. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6.

TRADE-MARK.

The name "Bethesda," applied to a mineral spring, and used as a mark on barrels in which water from the spring is sold, held, entitled to protection as a trade-mark. - Dunbar v. Glenn, 42 Wis. 118.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (STATE), 3; JURY; Time.

TRUST.

The court refused to appoint a husband trustee under a trust for the separate use of his wife. - Ely v. Burgess, 11 R. I. 115.

Indictment on a statute for keeping a disorderly house. The structure in question was proved to be a tent. Held, no variance. — Killman v. The State,

At an election the polls were closed an hour before the lawful time. Held, that if no fraud was shown, and it did not appear that any one offered to vote during that hour, or was prevented from voting by reason of such closing, the election was valid. — Cleland v. Porter, 74 Ill. 76.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 4.

WAIVER.

- See BILLS AND NOTES, 1; HOMESTEAD.

WAR.

A statute of Virginia, passed during the war, authorized county courts to buy salt, for distribution among the people. Held, that contracts made to buy salt under this act were not illegal as made in aid of the rebellion, and that the county was liable on them. — Dinwiddie County v. Stuart, 28 Gratt. 526; Pulaski County v. Stuart, ib. 872.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2; EXECUTOR; INSURANCE (FIRE), 4; MONEY.

Plaintiff bought a lot in a cemetery, according to a plan which showed the lot as bounded on a certain avenue. Held, that he had, as appurtenant to the

lot, a right of way over the avenue, and might have an injunction to restrain an obstruction of it, making his lot less accessible. - Burke v. Wall, 29 La. Ann. 38.

See ACTION, 1, 2.

See ADMIRALTY; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4; MUNICIPAL COR

"Disorderly House." See VARIANCE.

"Office of Trust." See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9.

--

DIGEST OF CASES IN BANKRUPTCY.

[THIS includes the first seven numbers of the National Bankruptcy Register.] ACTION.

1. Joint wrong-doers may be sued separately, and the plaintiff may prosecute the same until the amount of the damages is ascertained by verdict; but the injured party can have only one satisfaction. Sessions v. Johnson, 17 N. B. R. (U. S. S. Ct.) 64.

2. Where the creditor has proved his claim in bankruptcy, as a secured claim, an action to foreclose the mortgage should be brought in the District Court, by leave of the court first obtained..

(W. D. Wis.) 167.

Schulze v. Bolting, 17 N. B. R.

3. No suit by an assignee for a sum exceeding $500 can be prosecuted in a State court. - Hallack v. Tritch, 17 N. B. R. (C. Ct. Col.) 293.

See ASSIGNEE, 1; TROVER.

ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.

The making of a voluntary general assignment by a debtor is an act of bankruptcy. In re Croft, 17 N. B. R. (N. D. Ill.) 324.

ADJUDICATION.

The adjudication of the bankruptcy of a "copartnership must be made in one proceeding and on one petition. In re Plumb, 17 N. B. R. (S. D. N. Y.) 76.

See JURISDICTION, 1, 8, 10; Petition.

AMENDMENT.

The only effect of the amendment of June 22, 1874, is to permit the Federal courts to decline to entertain actions brought to recover legal assets of the bankrupt not exceeding $500 in amount. Wente v. Young, 17 N. B. R. (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 90.

APPEAL.

1. Where one of several parties claiming separate liens appeals, the appeal brings so much of the case and such of the parties only as are necessary for the determination of the rights of the appellant. · Milner v. Meek, 17 N. B. R.

(U. S. S. Ct.) 82.

2. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court lies from the decrees and orders of the Circuit Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under the Bankrupt Law, if the proceeding in the District Court is to be treated as a suit in equity, and not a part of a suit in bankruptcy. — Ibid.

3. Sect. 5106, Rev. Stats., is applicable to courts of original jurisdiction, and not to appellate tribunals. — Serra é Hijo v. Hoffman, 17 N. B. R. (La. Sup. Ct.) 124.

ASSIGNEE.

1. If an assignee does not choose to become a party voluntarily to a suit pending in the name of the bankrupt, the court in which such suit is pending has no authority or power to make him a party, or to compel him to submit to its jurisdiction and control. Serra é Hijo v. Hoffman, 17 N. B. R. (La. Sup. Ct.) 124.

2. Where the assignee intervenes at a proper time to defend a suit pending against a bankrupt, he has no right to demand a stay of proceedings; nor can he plead the final discharge in bar: these are personal to the bankrupt. Ibid.

3. Where assignees for the benefit of all parties interested in the estate have, with the approval of the court in equity, removed an incumbrance from the property, by applying the general funds in their hands, the amount will be refunded out of the proceeds of the sale. - In re Longfellow, 17 N. B. R. (Me. Dist.) 27.

See FRAUDULENT PREFERENCES; JUDGMENT, 1; PROOF, 5; Redemp

Suit was brought in the State court against the bankrupt more than four months before the filing of the petition, and funds in the hands of a third party garnisheed. A bond was given to dissolve the attachment, and the suit remained a year before proceedings in bankruptcy were begun. Held, that the lien by attachment thus acquired was not lost by the giving of the bond. - In re Albrecht, 17 N. B. R. (E. D. Mich.) 287.

The Bankrupt Act does not forbid the creditor of an insolvent debtor to take a contract or covenant from any third party, in consideration of forbearance to proceed against his debtor, for the purpose of having him declared a bankrupt; and such a transaction is therefore not in violation of the act, or of public policy. Ecker v. McAllister, 17 N. B. R. (Ct. App. Md.) 42.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.

The Bankruptcy Court has no power to adjudge a person bankrupt who is shown to be not, in fact, a resident within the jurisdiction of the United States when the petition in bankruptcy is filed, although he may have carried on business within the district the prescribed period. — In re Benton, 17 N. B. R. (S. D. N. Y.) 212.