tract was made in the state or by express ATTORNEY-DEPOSITING FUNDS COLLECTterms was payable in the state. Where an ED FOR A CLIENT-LIABILITY WHEN THE attachment issued on a contract neither BANK FAILS-Where an attorney has collectmade in nor payable in the state, and a subed money for a client and deposited it in a sequent attachment was issued upon a con- bank and the bank fails, the attorney is liatract made in the state and levied upon the ble to the client for the funds. This is true, same goods as the former, the latter attach- although the fund was not mingled with his ment superseded the former, as it was valid. own funds, and although he was delayed in -Trabant v. Rummell.-Filed Oct. 11, remitting to his client by reason of garnishee 1886. Oregon. process being served upon him.—Naltner v.

BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE-APPEARANCE

ACTION ON BOOK ACCOUNT-PROMISSORY Dolan.-Filed Sept. 23. 1886.—Ind. NOTES NOT INCLUDED- -Where a party brought an action on a book account and at the same time holding promissory notes IN THE CRIMINAL COURT-CIRCUIT COURT made by the defendant, did not include them HAVING JURISDICTION-Where a defendant in the action, obtained judgment on the ac- enters into a recognizance to appear before count, and subsequently brought an action the Criminal Court of the county at a ceron the notes. Held, that the action was tain time, and there being no criminal court barred by the former suit on the account.— established in the county, the circuit court Buck v. Wilson.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Pa. having jurisdiction of criminal actions, the terms of the recognizance are sufficient notice as to the court before which he is bound to appear.-Petty v. People.-Filed Oct. 6, 1886.-Ill.

ATTACHMENT-SERVICE OF MANUAL SEIZURE NOT NECESSARY-Where a sheriff in serving an attachment on a bank read the attachment to the president and cashier, and BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE-DISCHARGE OF listed the property seized, leaving with the BOND BY VACATING the order of arrest— said officers a copy of the attachment and Where one arrested in a civil action gives inventory of property seized, and leaving bail for his appearance and subsequently the them in possession of the same, Held, that order of arrest is vacated by the district the attachment was valid. It is the duty of court and no stay of the order of vacation is the officer in serving the attachment to take granted, the vacation of the order of arrest manual possession of the property seized if discharges the bond. The bondsman has it is practical to do so, but failing in this duty no longer any right to surrender the prisoner. will not void the service.-Dreisbach, Assig--Baker Mfg. Co. v. Fisher.-Filed Oct. 7, nee, v. Mech. Nat. Bank.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Kans. 1886.-Pa.

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AN AGREEMENT TO TAKE PART OF PROPERTY RECOVER

ED AS FEES—Where an attorney agrees with his client to take a portion of the property to be recovered in the action as his fees and pending the action the client gets a settlement of the case, the attorney cannot intervene to continue the case. He has no lien on the property for his fees. He must as sert his rights under the contract against his client by an action commenced for the purpose.-Lavender v. Atkins.—Filed Oct. 6, 1886.-Neb.

BASTARDY EVIDENCE AS TO THE RELATIONS OF DEFENDANT WITH OTHER MEN-In an action for bastardy it is competent for the defendant to introduce testimony tending to show improper relations between the plaintiff and other men. The admission of such testimony is largely in the discretion of the trial court.-Odewald v. Woodsum.—Filed Oct. 22, 1886.-Mass.

BIGAMY-COHABITATION AS EVIDENCE OF MARRIAGE—In a prosecution for bigamy it is sufficient to establish the fact of marriage to

another woman at the time of the second

CHATTEL MORTGAGE-RIGHT OF THE marriage, and this fact may be established MORTGAGEE TO RETAIN AND SELL THE GOODS by the admissions of defendant of cohabita--The mortgagor of a chattel mortgage may tion.-State v. Hughes.-Filed Oct. 7,1886. retain possession of goods and sell the same under an agreement to that effect, and ap

-Kans.

BIGAMY ILLEGAL MARRIAGE-Cohabita- ply the proceeds thus obtained to the paytion, after illegal marriage and cohabitation ment of the mortgage. The misappropriain another state, constitutes the crime of tion of the proceeds by the mortgagor does bigamy. In the trial of such action for big- not render the mortgage void.-Gibbs v. amy the testimony of the complaining wit- Parsons.—Filed July 30, 1886.—N H. ness cannot be rebutted by showing her character to be unchaste.-State v. Nadal.

Filed Oct. 11, 1886.-Ia.

CHARITABLE USES-BEQUEST FOR MASSES -WHEN PAYABLE FOR SAYING MASSES-A testator made the following bequest: “I also

BOND OBLIGORS ANNEXING TO THEIR give and bequeath the sum of $1,000, which

SIGNATURES THEIR PROPORTION ASSUMED.

Where ten parties unite in a bond of guaranty for the payment of money, and anyone or more of them annex to their signatures the fraction of 1-10 this will not have the effect of limiting his liability on the bond, as between the makers of the bond and the creditors. Fourth Nat. Bk. v. Olney et. al. -Eiled Oct. 14, 1886.-Mich.

my executor shall pay to the pastor at Newry, Blair county, for masses for the repose of my soul, and for the repose of the souls of relatives, and the repose of the souls of the faithful of my parish." Held a good charitable bequest.-Appeal of Seibert, Exr.— Filed Oct. 4, 1886.—Pa.

COMMON CARRIER-LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT BY ACT OF OWNER-The code proBOUNDARY OF HIGHWAY-ENJOINING THE vides that "no contract, receipt, rule, or regACTION OF SELECTMEN OF A TOWN-The fact | ulation shall exempt any corporation enthat a fence along the side of a roadway has gaged in transportation of persons or propstood for a long period in its present posi- erty by railway from liability of a common tion is not conclusive that it marks the boundary line between the roadway and the abutting land. Selectmen in entering upon private lands to grade the same for a highway as directed by a vote of the town are acting for the town, and the town may be enjoined from proceeding when cause exists. Wetherell v. Newington.-Filed July, 1886.-Conn.

carrier," yet where property in transit is lost by the act of the owner the corporation is not liable, although the contract with the owner was in violation of the statute.—Hart v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.-Filed Oct. 11, 1886.—Iowa.

CONTEMPT-DISCRETION OF THE SURROGATE-Where an executor is in default it is CARRIERS OF Passengers-STREET CARS largely in the discretion of the surrogate -REQUISITE CARE-Where there is room whether he impose a fine and imprisonment, inside a street car and the conductor permits or both, for contempt, and the court is not the platform to be crowded so that egress bound to receive the statements of the debecomes difficult and injury to a passenger faulter, as true, unless corroborated by other occurs thereby, the company is guilty of that testimony.-In Re. Snyder, Ex'r.-Filed degree of negligence which may entitle the Oct. 5, 1886.-N. Y. injured party to damages. The question of

negligence should go to the jury.-Neslie v. CONTRACT-MADE BY ONE INTOXICATED Passenger Ry. Co.-Filed Oct. 14, 1886.--VOIDABLE-One who enters into a con tract when he is intoxicated to that degree

Pa.

which renders him destitute of reason, so that he does not know the consequences of his act, may void the contract, although the intoxication was his voluntary act.-Bush v. Breing.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Pa.

defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff for a certain piece of land such price as should be placed upon it by arbitrators to be chosen for the purpose. Held, that the location of the boundary line as agreed was a sufficient consideration on which to base an action for the price of the said piece of land.-Finley v. Funk.-Filed Oct. 7, 1886.-Kans.

CORPORATION-TRANSFER OF SHARES OF

CONTRACT-ACTION FOR BREACH-ONE OUSTED OF POSSESSION-Where one was in possession of premises under a contract, the other party commenced proceedings before a justice and obtained judgment and posses- STOCK-BY-LAWS-Where the by-laws of a sion. The defendant appealed and the decision of the justice was reversed. Held, that defendant could not recover damages for a wrongful ouster. The judgment of the justice was evidence of probable cause.Graver v. Feher.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Pa.

CONSTRUCTION OF CATTLE GUARDS-DAM AGES TO PASTURE LANDS ADJOINING FOR WANT OF Where a railway company by neglect to construct cattle guards at a crossing as required by statute, and an adjoining land owner is thereby deprived of the use of adjacent pasture land, the company is liable for the loss sustained. In determining the measure of damages the jury should consider the cost of herding the cattle, if such herding was necessary.-Roridan v. Central Ia. Ry. Co.-Filed Oct 13, 1886.—Ia.

corporation prohibit the transfer of shares of stock without the consent of all the stockholders, it is against public policy and void; whether the number of stockholders are few or many does not change this rule. A secretary of a corporation is merely a ministerial officer, and has no right to inquire into the motives of parties to a transfer of stock. -In Re. Petition of Klaus.-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.-Wis.

COST-LIABILITY OF NOMINAL PARTY— SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT-Where a father insured his son's house, without the son's knowledge, and a loss occurred, the father ordered suit on the policy and was defeated. The defendant company then obtained judgment against the son for costs and sold his property to satisfy the same. Held, in an action to set aside the judgment, that the son was not liable as he never authorized the action.-Markham v. Burlington Ins. Co.-Filed Oct 13, 1886.-Ia.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.- -CONNECTING RAILROAD LINES-INTER-STATE COMMERCE— Transportation carried on by railroads in this state in connection with other roads in other COURTS-WANT OF JURISDICTION-WAIVstates, is not inter state commerce as inter-ER OF-Where the want of jurisdiction is preted by the constitution of the United manifest it may be taken advantage of at States. A corporation doing business in this state is liable for a license fee for the privilege of having an office in this state. N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-—Pa.

any stage of the proceedings, but if the question of jurisdiction is doubtful and the parties proceed without objection to a trial, the court will retain jurisdiction and determine the matter in dispute.-Appeal of Adams, Admr.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.—Pa.

CONTRACT-Disputed bounDARY-SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION-Where a contro- CRIMINAL LAW-JUDGMENT SUSPENDED versy existed as to the boundary line between | PENDING APPEAL— -VIOLATION OF CITY ORDItwo tracts of land, the owners finally entered NANCE-Where one was convicted of violainto a written agreement, fixing the boundary tion of a city ordinance and a fine imposed line. The basis of this agreement was that with an order of commitment until the fine

be paid, pending an appeal to the supreme to a town upon which he is dependent for court, the judgment of the lower court is support, for the purpose of reimbursing the suspended. Where the order of commit- town for expenses incurred in his support.— ment was to the county jail whilst the ordin- O'Donnell, Ex'r, v. Smith.-Filed Oct. 22, ance provided for such commitment to the 1886.-Minn. city jail, it is not error.-Miltonville v. Lanone.-Filed Oct. 7, 1886.-Kans.

DEED--SALE OF LAND WITH A RESERVATION OF TIMBER-A person having the right to cut and remove timber growing on the land of another may be compelled to remove it after reasonable time, or he will be presumed to have relinquished his claim to it. One having a lien on goods who sets up a claim hostile to the right of the owner, and wrongfully sells the property, he cannot set up the lien as a bar to the action against him for his illegal act.-Andrews v. Wade. -Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Pa.

CRIMINAL LAW-PROSECUTION FOR RAPE -DEFENDANT FORFEITING HIS BAIL-] ‚—In an DEED CONSTRUED AS A MORTGAGE-INaction for rape where the defendant ran TENTION Of parties—The intention of the away, he cannot rebut the inference of guilt parties to a deed may be shown, and wherarising from such act by showing that he was ever it is the purpose in the execution of the afraid of being lynched. Where the father deed that it is given merely as security for of the prosecuting witness has offered to set- the payment of a debt, it will be construed tle the case for a given sum, evidence of as a mortgage whatever may be the form of such offer cannot be introduced on the trial the deed. In Rockwell v. Humphrey, 57 unless it be shown to be in the nature of blackmail.-State v. McDivitt.-Filed Oct. 14, 1886.-Iowa.

Wis. 410, it is held that "the want of a personal agreement by the borrower to repay the money is not conclusive that the conveyance was not intended as a mortgage, but merely a circumstance to be considered with other evidence in the case."-Scheiber v. Le Claire.-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.-Wis.

DEED-CONSIDERATION MAY BE SHOWN BY PAROL EVIDENCE-The consideration in a deed may be shown by parol evidence. Where the grantee verbally agreed to pay an incumbrance, and the agreement not recited in the deed, parol evidence may be admitted to show that the payment of such incumbrance was a part of the consideration recited in the deed. The agreement as to the consideration necessarily precedes the execution of the deed, and the fact that the consideration was agreed upon some time prior to the execution or delivery of the deed does not deny the right to show the true conside

ration. Hays v. Peck.-Filed Sept. 17, panying and giving character to the act is 1886. Ind.

DOWER-LAND SOLD AT JUDICIAL SALEINCOHATE RIGHT of dower—A judicial sale of property in which a married woman has an incohate right of dower, vests an absolute one-third of the property in the wife in fee. She becomes a tenant in common with the purchaser and has no right to redeem the same as against a mechanic's lien on the property prior to the sale, the lien takes precedence of the dower interest.-Buser v. Shepard.-Filed Sept. 21, 1886.—Ind.

competent." Such declarations are only admissible when the acts of which they are a part are competent.-Miles v. Stevens.Filed Oct. 23, 1886.-Mass.

EVIDENCE-PROOF OF SIGNATURE- -INSTRUCTIONS-Where the signature of the defendant to a writing which is the basis of an action, is proved by a witness other than the defendant, the paper is admissible as evidence. An instruction that the testimony of one witness as to the bad character of an opposing witness should be considered in determining the weight of the testimony is error.-Bulen v. Granger.-Filed Oct. 21, 1886.-Mich.

ELECTIONS CONTEST-INTENT OF THE VOTERS-Where the title of one elected to an office is contested by proceedings in the nature of a quo warranto, the ballots as cast EXEMPTION-FARMING UTENSILS-Where by the voters must be held to express the a threshing machine is owned by two or more intention of the voters, and a contrary inten- farmers used in threshing their own grain, tion cannot be shown by oral testimony. It and also used in doing threshing for others is competent to show by oral testimony for hire, it cannot be included under the that a paster had been used on a certain bal-head of farming implements which are exlot, but had fallen off or been removed.—empt from levy and execution as implements Tobey v. McNeal.-Filed Oct. 21, 1886.- of husbandry.-In Re. Baldwin.-Filed Mich. Sept. 23, 1886.—Cal.

NOT

EVIDENCE-INCOMPETENT THOUGH OBJECTED TO-EFFECT OF-Where evidence is admitted without objection, which if objected to would have been excluded, a verdict and judgment may be sustained thereby. Where an amendment of the complaint was admitted after the court had partly announced its findings, if the amendment in no way prejudiced the defendant, the supreme court will not on that ground disturb the judgment -Judd v. Small.-Filed Sept. 18, 1886.Ind.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT PAYING OVER MONEY BELONGING TO THE ESTATE-An administrator who has been found indebted to the estate and is imprisoned under the provisions of the statute in such cases made and provided, cannot be released on habeas corpus.—In Re. Leahey.-Filed August, 1886.—Vt.

FIRE INSURANCE-LIABILITY OF AN AGENT FOR WANT OF DILLIGENCE IN CANCELLING A

EVIDENCE-ACTION UPON A LEASE DE-POLICY.-Where an insurance agent is direcLIVERED BUT NOT SIGNED-In an action upon ted by the company to cancel a policy, and a lease which was delivered to defendant he neglects to do so, he may be held to and kept by him, but not signed, his expres- answer for the loss occuring through his negsion as to acceptance or refusal of the lease | ligence. The question of his negligence is when delivered to him are part of the res gesta and admissible as evidence. In Wright v. Boston, 126 Mass. 161, it is laid down as a rule that "when an act of the party is admissible in evidence, any declaration accom

one of law and fact. Where it appears that the agent could have given notice to the insured in half an hour, and did not do so for several days, the court did not err in finding that the agent did not exercise due dilli