we will thank you to sign same, and return one of the copies to us." Held, that the plaintiffs' acceptance was only conditional; bill for specific performance refused. Crossley v. Maycock, L. R. 18 Eq. 180.

2. A leasehold was put up for auction with a condition that the abstract of title should begin with an indenture of underlease to B. from A., and that it should form no objection to the title that said indenture was an underlease, and that no requisition or inquiry should be made respecting the title of A. or his superior landlord, or A.'s right to grant such underlease. A. had mortgaged the premises previous to said underlease. Held, that the purchaser at the auction was not bound to complete the purchase. - Waddell v. Wolfe, L. R. 9 Q. B. 515.

WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.-See JUDGMENT, 2.

WASTE. See TIMBER.

WAY.-See EASEMENT; PRINCIPAL AND Agent, 2.

WILL.

1. A testatrix wrote her will on a sheet of paper which contained an attestation clause on cach page. The testatrix inserted her name in each attestation clause, and two witnesses signed at the end of the first page only. It appeared that the witnesses signed before the testatrix signed the second page, but after she signed the first page. Held, that the will was not properly executed. — In the Goods of Dilkes, L. R. 3 P. & D. 164.

2. A will was written upon ten sheets of paper, and nine sheets were signed by the initials of the testator and the names of three witnesses, but the tenth sheet was signed by the full name of the testator and of one witness only. Held, that the will was not properly executed. — Phipps v. Hale, L. R. 3 P. & D. 166.

3. A witness attempted to write his name opposite that of the testator in a will, but, after writing his Christian name, was unable to complete his signature through weakness. A second witness signed his name. Subsequently the testator again signed his name in presence of said second witness and of a third witness. The second witness traced his former signature with a dry pen, and the third witness signed his name. Held, that the will was not properly attested by two witnesses. In the Goods of Maddock, L. R. 3 P. & D. 169.

4. A testatrix signed her will in presence of a witness, and after her signature a second witness entered the room. A person who had brought said witnesses at the request of the deceased, then requested the second witness to sign his name under the signature of the testatrix. Thereupon both witnesses signed the will. Held, that the testatrix had acknowledged her signature in the presence of said witnesses. ·Inglesant v. Inglesant, L. R. 3 P. & D. 172.

5. The court has no jurisdiction to grant probate of a will relating wholly to real property. - In the Goods of Bootle, L. R. 3 P. & D. 177.

6. A married woman made a will under a power in her marriage settlement, whereby she appointed all her real and personal estate to her husband. She made a subsequent will whereby, after reciting said power, she devised a freehold to E., and bequeathed certain specific legacies. She then added, "I revoke all former wills by me heretofore made." The latter will left certain household

furniture undisposed of. Held, that the former will was revoked. — In the Goods of Eustace, L. R. 3 P. & D. 183.

SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS.

[FOR the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports: 46 and 47 California; 23 Grattan (Virginia); 61 and 62 Illinois; 43 Indiana; 35 Iowa; 27 Michigan; 55 New York; 70 North Carolina; 23 Ohio State; 73 Pennsylvania State; and 7 Vroom (New Jersey Law); also from 18 Wallace (Supreme Court of the United States).]

ACCIDENT.

A deed of conveyance duly executed was lost before it was recorded. Held, that the grantee might maintain a bill in equity against the grantor to compel the execution of a new deed. — Conlin v. Ryan, 47 Cal. 71.

A chattel mortgage was acknowledged before one of the mortgagees, who was the only justice of the peace in the township. Held, that the mortgage was void. Hammers v. Dole, 61 Ill. 307.

See WAR, 2.

ACT OF GOD.

A bond was given by the charterers of a vessel, conditioned to return her at a certain time in good order. The vessel was lost by the act of God. Held, that the obligors were liable on their bond. (SHELDON, J., dissenting.) — Steele v. Buck, 61 Ill. 343.

See PROXIMATE CAUSE.

ACTION.

1. Certain health officers of a city asked a passer-by to help them to remove a coffin from a house, which he did, not knowing that the coffin contained the body of a person who had died of small-pox. communicated it to his children, who died of it. action against the city. - Ogg v. Lansing, 35 Iowa, 495.

He caught the disease, and Held, that he had no cause of

2. Legal and equitable claims may be united in one action in a Territorial court, where the law of the Territory allows such a practice. (Overruling former decisions; CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and STRONG, JJ., dissenting.) — Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648.

See ASSUMPSIT; CHECK; CONFLICT OF LAWS; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, STATE, 2; EJECTMENT; ILLEGAL CONTRACT, 3, 4; LICENSE; MASTER AND SERVANT; PARTNERSHIP, 1, 3; WATERCOURse.

AIDER BY VERDICT. See INDICTMENT; INDORSEMENT; LARCENY.

AMENDMENT.

Assumpsit on the common counts. After the action had depended nine years, the plaintiffs moved to amend by declaring on a special contract, the remedy on which was then barred by the Statute of Limitations, but was not so barred when the original action was bought. Held, that the amendment was not allowable. Gorman v. Judge of Newaygo Circuit, 27 Mich. 138.

APPEAL. See CONTEMPT.

ARBITRATION.

A. and B. submitted a dispute to arbitration. The award was in favor of A., who brought an action thereon, and recovered judgment against B., who thereupon filed his bill to enjoin the collection of the judgment, on the ground that no notice was given of the hearing before the arbitrator. Held, that as this objection must have been known to B., when the action at law was brought, he ought to have set it up then, and that equity would not relieve him. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 61 Ill. 228.

ASSIGNEE.- See BANKRUPTCY, 3; CONFLICT OF LAWS.

ASSUMPSIT.

Defendants, having bought bonds by direction of A., afterwards delivered the bonds to B., who claimed title thereto. Held, that they were not liable to A.'s administrator in an action for money had and received. Barnum v. Stone, 27 Mich. 332. ATTACHMENT.

See ESTOPPEL, 1, 2; FOREIGN ATTACHMENT; JURISDIC

TION, 2.

ATTORNEY AND COUNSEL.

An attorney employed to bring an action recovered judgment therein, and caused land to be taken on execution and sold in satisfaction of the judgment. The sheriff's deed was by his direction made out to his client, but was retained by himself as security for his fees, which the client refused to pay. Five years after the land was sold for taxes, and bought by the attorney. Held, that such purchase was lawful, and that the client could not bave it set aside, the relation of attorney and client being at an end. ·Baker v. Davis, 35 Iowa, 184. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, State, 4; MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

1. Goods were consigned to a commission merchant for sale, the proceeds, deducting commissions, to be remitted to the consignor. Held, that the amount

so due to the consignor was a debt created by the consignee while acting in a fiduciary character, within the meaning of the Bankrupt Act, and therefore that the consignee's discharge in bankruptcy was no bar to an action to recover it. - Treadwell v. Holloway, 46 Cal. 547.

2. A chattel mortgage was made by an insolvent, known to the mortgagee to be such, and who afterwards, within three months, became bankrupt. Held, that the mortgagee could hold the property, in the absence of further proof that he had reasonable cause to believe in the mortgagor's intent to defraud the Bankrupt Act. - Bentley v. Wells, 61 Ill. 59.

3. An action by a bankrupt's assignee, to recover property alleged to have been transferred by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act, is not a penal action, and is within the jurisdiction of a state court. Cook v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150.

4. A debtor imprisoned on civil process, was released, according to law, on giving a bond conditioned to surrender himself to the sheriff in case he should be refused his discharge under the state insolvent law. In debt on the bond, assigning as a breach a failure to surrender, held, that whether or not the state insolvent law was suspended by the United States Bankrupt Act, the bond remained in force. — Steelman v. Mattix, 7 Vroom, 344.

5. An insurance company which held the joint note of A. and B., received in the course of business, had insured B. and C. against loss by fire. The property insured being destroyed, and the company being bankrupt, held, that B. could not, even with C.'s assent, set off his claim on the insurers against his liability to them on the note. - Gray v. Rollo, 18 Wall. 629.

See CONFLICT OF LAWS; PARTIES.

BATTERY.

Beating a horse while driven by A., held, not indictable as an assault and battery on A.-Kirland v. The State, 43 Ind. 146.

A note was made in Michigan, payable in Canada, “in Canada currency." Held, that it was payable in money, and therefore negotiable. - Black v. Ward,

27 Mich. 191.

See BANKRUPTCY, 5; CONFLICT OF LAWS; DAMAGES, 2; FORBEARANCE; GUARANTY; ILLEGAL CONTRACT, 1, 2, 5; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 1; ParTIES; SURETY; USURY, 2; War, 1.

BONA FIDE PURCHASER.

Defendants bought and paid for goods which the seller did not at the time own, or have any evidence of owning. Three days after, he obtained from plaintiffs, by fraudulent representations, goods which he delivered to defendants in performance of his contract. Held, that defendants could not hold the goods against plaintiffs. - Barnard v. Campbell, 55 N. Y. 456.

-

BOND. See ACT OF GOD; BANKRUPTCY, 4; CONFEDERATE MONEY; DEED, 2, BREACH OF PROMISE. See EVIDENCE, 5.