the road.-Lamb v. Henderson.-Filed Oct. payment for his individual note so given, 1886.-Mich. this does not discharge the lien against the corporate property.—Allis v. Distilling Co.

21,

MALICIOUS

PROSECUTION.-PROBABLE-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.—Wis.

CAUSE POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY— One found in possession of stolen property the day after it is stolen, in the absence of a reasonable explanation of how he came into possession of it, is presumed to be guilty of the theft. In an action for malicious prose cution the question of probable cause is a question for the jury.—Johnson v. Miller. Filed Oct. 15, 1886.—Ia.

MASTER AND SERVANT-AGREEMENT OF SERVICE FOR A SPECIFIC TERM-Where an employe is engaged for a specified term and it is stipulated that he cannot leave before the end of the term without giving certain notice, on penalty of forfeiting his wages earned, if his employer reduces his wages he may leave without notice and yet recover the wages earned. The reduction of wages by the employer is a breach of the contract. -Schietenger v. Bridgeport Knife Co.Filed July, 1886.-Conn.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO A TOWN-Where territory is legally annexed to a town the debts of the town attach to the territory annexed, and although subsequently another town be erected out of territory originally in the old town, this will not affect the liability of the territory so annexed respecting the debts of the old town.-Schriber v. Langlade.-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.-Wis.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.-LOCAL IM

MECHANICS LIEN-PREMATURELY BROUGHT NO BAR TO ANOTHER ACTION-Where an ac- PROVEMENTS-PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECtion is brought to foreclose a mechanics lien|TION OF COMMISSIONERS-Where a petition prematurely, and for that reason is dismiss- has been signed praying for the improveed, it is no bar to another action for the ment of a street, and subsequently commissame purpose brought within the specified sioners are chosen to carry out the improvetime allowed by statute. An action for such ments, a property owner who participates in purpose must be brought within one year the selection of commissioners will be prefrom the time the building is completed.-sumed to have assented to the improveSeaton et. al. v. Hixon.—Filed Oct. 8, 1886. menus although he may have signed a re--Kans.

monstrance against the same.-Columbus v. Slyh.-Filed Oct. 19, 1886.—Ohio.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-LIABILITY FOR PERMITTING OBSTRUCTION ΤΟ REMAIN IN

TWO OR MORE LIENS-CLAIMS PAID BY CORPORATE STOCK-When two or more persons have a mechanics lien against the same property, in an action to foreclose, the liens STREET-Where an obstruction, calculated may be consolidated in one action and the to frighten a gentle horse, is allowed to rerights of the parties adjudicated. Where main in the street, the city is liable for damthe lien is held against the property of a ages arising therefrom. In an action for corporation and the president of the corpor- damages where a horse has been thus ation gives his note for the debt, and the freightened, it is necessary for the plaintiff corporation issues stock to the president in to aver and prove that the horse was of or

dinary gentleness and that the obstruction action against the town for damages, and there is a question of the sufficiency of such notice, conversation had with selectmen may be shown as bearing upon the fact that the notice was understood, and such conversa

was calculated to frighten a horse of that character.--Rushville V. Adams.-Filed Sept. 23, 1886.—Ind.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.--LIABILITY tions may cure the defective notice.-Fortin FOR A TORT CAUSED BY AN AGENT-A city is v. Easthampton.-Filed Oct. 1886.-Mass. not liable for a tort committed by one of its public officers, but where one is appointed especially to superintend certain work, the city may be held to answer for a tort or injury caused by his negligence. Where it is clearly shown that a public work was not properly constructed, it is not error for the court to instruct that it was the duty of the city to construct the work suitable for the purpose intended.-Mulcairns, Admx. v. Janesville.-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.-Wis.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.-MISTAKE OF CITY ENGINEER-LIABILITY OF CITY-Where it is made the duty of a city engineer, by ordinance, to report to lot owners the grade of the street in front of the lot, and he makes a mistake to the damage of the owner, the city is not liable for the mistake. The benefit, if any, accrues to the lot owner and not the city. Waller v. City of Dubuque.Filed Oct. 14, 1886.-Ia.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-APPOINTMENT OF FIRE ENGINEER OF COLUMBUS-POWER OF THE MAYOR-The city ordinance provides for the appointment of a fire engineer by the mayor, by and with the advice and consent of the city council, and when an engineer has been appointed in accordance with the provisions and given bond and entered upon the duties of his office, the mayor has no power to declare the office vacant. He continues in office until his successor is pointed and qualifies.-State v. Bryson Filed Oct. 19, 1886.-Ohio.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY OF CITY WATER-Where a city is authorized by its charter to provide for a supply of water from year to year, and the city council enters into a contract for a term of years for a water supply, such contract is within its powers, although the charter provides that the council may provide for a supply from year to year.- Water Works Co. v. Atlantic City.-Filed Oct. 20, 1886.-N. J.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-LIABILITY FOR INJURIES FROM A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK— WALK CONSTRUCTED BY PROPERTY OWNER— The fact that a sidewalk in front of a lot was constructed by the lot owner without instruction or authority from the city does not relieve the city from liability for an injury caused by a defect therein. It is the duty of the city to see to it that the sidewalk is kept in proper repair.-Plattsmouth v Mitchell.-Filed Oct. 6, 1886.--Neb.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-INJURY CAUSED

BY DEFECTIVE CULVERT NEGLIGENCEWhere a plank covering a culvert was warped and permitted to remain in an imperfect condition for a period of three months, and a party living near by and having frequently seen the defective condition of the same, and in attempting to cross on the plank when it seemed to be in good condition, was inap-jured, held, that in an action for damages -the question of negligence was properly left to the jury.-Kingston v. Gibbons.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.—Pa.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- -INSUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF INJURY-Where one has suffered injury by reason of a defective roadway, and has given notice to the selectmen of the town of his intention to bring an

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.-POLICEMAN ABSENT FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF SICKNESS-An ordinance provided that a policeman should forfeit his pay if absent without

leave, "except in case of sickness when prop- recover, which the court refused to do. erly certified by a physician." A policeman Held, that the court erred in refusing this having been absent on account of sickness instructoin. Where the negligence of a child and failing to furnish the certificate of a phy- is the result of the parent's permission, such sician cannot recover his salary. The negligence is contributory.-O. C. & P. physician's certificate is a condition preced- Bridge Co. v. Jackson.-Filed Oct. 18, 1886. ent to recovery.-Wilkes Barre v. Meyers. -Pa. -Filed Oct. 4, 1886.---Pa.

MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS-A minor son of plaintiff sold a printing press in the plaintiff's absence and took the note and a chattel mortgage in payment for the same in his own name. He subsequently promised to assign the note and mortgage to plaintiff but failed to do so. The firm of which the son was a member made an assignment and the assignee foreclosed the mortgage. Held, in an action by plaintiff for a reformation of the mortgage, that he was entitled to have the same reformed and assigned to him.—Wait v. Oxford.-Filed Oct. 21, 1886.—Mich.

MORTGAGE-TRANSFER OF PART OF THE MORTGAGE NOTEs--Statute of lIMITATIONS A mortgagee having transfered a part of a series of notes secured by a mortgage, agreeing to hold the mortgage in trust for the security of the same, upon cancelling the balance of the notes remaining in his hands he does not thereby cancel the mortgage, and although the statute of limitations may have run as to the notes, an action may be maintained on the mortgage.-Norton v. Palmer.-Filed Oct. 21, 1886.—Mass.

NEGLIGENCE INJURY WHILST CROSSING A BRIDGE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-A company owning a toll bridge is charged with negligence resulting in the death of a child. It appeared that the bridge was in a safe condition for ordinary travel. A child accompanied by its brother was crossing the bridge and attempted to walk on a gas pipe instead of in the roadway, and fell and was killed. In an action for damages the de fendant asked the court to charge that under all the evidence the plaintiff ought not to

NEGLIGENCE- -A BY-STANDER INJURED BY THE FALLING OF A DOOR FROM A FREIGHT

CAR-Where the door of a passing freight car falls from its place and injures a person near by it does not raise a presumption of negligence on the part of the company unless it be shown that the door had been in a defective condition so long as to raise a presumption that the company knew of its condition. -Case v. G. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.--Filed Oct. 8, 1886.--Iowa.

NEGLIGENCE-INJURY WHILE DRIVING ON A HIGHWAY-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE— In an action against a town for injury received while driving along a highway where the town had excavated a ditch at one side of the highway, it was shown that the father and son were on the wagon, the father being intoxicated he drove the team into the ditch and the son was killed. Held, that the question of contributory negligence was a question for the jury.-Seymer, Admr. v. Town of Lake.-Filed Oct. 12, 1886.-Wis.

NEGLIGENCE-SOUNDING THE WHISTLE OF THE ENGINE IN APPROACHING A HIGHWAY CROSSING-It is the duty of a railroad engineer to sound the whistle in approaching a crossing of a highway, and failure to do so is negligence of the company, which makes it liable for injury occurring at the crossing. The fact that the engine was seen at a distance does not releive the company of its duty.-M. P. Ry. Co. v. Stevens.--Filed Oct. 7, 1886.-Kans.

NEGLIGENCE-INJURY TO AN EMPLOYE IN GAS WORKS BY REASON OF DEFECT IN THE WORKS-An employe in gas works being ordered to do certain work was required to go where he inhaled poisonous gas, and in con

sequence fell to the ground and was killed. injunction restraining the same, as the injury, Held, that the company was liable on ac- if any, which he sustains, is the same as the count of negligence in not having their works public in general.—-Billiard v. Erhardt.— in proper repair.-Citizens G. & H. Co. v. Filed Oct. 7, 1886.-Kans. O'Brien, Admr.-Filed Oct. 6, 1886.—Ill.

NEGLIGENCE-INJURY TO AN EMPLOYE DEFECTIVE MACHINERY-Where an employe engaged in making sizing was injured, causing his death, by the escape of steam from a boiler with which he was working in his employment, it is held that his administrator could not maintain an action for damages against the employer in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant, or showing that he knew the boiler to be defective. Blanchette, Admr. v. B. C. Mfg Co. -Filed Oct. 29, 1886.—Mass.

NEW TRIAL-WEight of evidencE-REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT-In a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, where the testimony of witnesses in support of and against the motion is conflicting, the supreme court will not grant a new trial. Where the evidence touching a certain question is conflicting, it is addressed exclusively to the court considering the question.-De Hart v. Aper.Filed Sept. 23, 1886.-Ind

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-CONTRACT OF AGENT WITHOUT AUTHORITY-Where one made a contract with the chief engineer of a railway company for the construction of all the depots on the line, and in an action it was shown that the company had entrusted all that line of work to another party, and not the engineer, the case was properly withdrawn from the jury, as the plaintiff had no standing in court.-Bond v. P. 0. & P.

NOTE MADE BY AN OFFICER OF A CORPORATION ANNEXING TO HIS SIGNATURE THE TITLE OF HIS OFFICE-Where a promissory note which reads "we" promise to pay and is signed by the treasurer of a corporation, to which he annexes his title as treasurer, does not make it the note of the cor- A. Ry. Co.-Filed Oct. 7, 1886.—Mich. poration. It is the signer's individual note. An action brought on the note against the corporation does not bar a subsequent action against the individual.—McClure v. Livermore.-Filed Oct. 1, 1886.—Maine.

PRINCIPAL AND Surety-Request to sue PRINCIPAL-Where a surity requests principal to proceed to the collection of the debt, the neglect or refusal of the principal to do so will not discharge the surety unless the NUISANCE-OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK request was accompanied by a specific notice WHO MAY RESTRAIN-Where an obstruction that the surety would insist upon a release is about to be placed in the street or on side- if he did not proceed at once against the walk, a lot owner whose lot is not opposite to debtor.-Kennedy v. Falde.-Filed Oct. 6, the proposed obstruction cannot have an 1886.-Dak.

PLEADING WHEN DEFENDANT MAY AN-VATE FUNDS FOR BUBLIC USE MUST BE REIMSWER OR FILE A CROSS-BILL-A bill filed, BURSED-The necessary and reasonable exwhich in form is in violation of a rule of penditures in the discharge of his duty by a court, will be reformed and made to conform public officer, is ground for an action for a to the rule. Where a defendant seeks affir-recovery of the same by the officer. See 37 mative relief he should file a cross-bill, but N. J. Law, 254; and 38 N. J. Law, 434. where the defense is negative he must an- His claim for recovery of money expended swer. Where the defense is payment, an- cannot be based on his success in resisting swer is the proper method.—Raelble v. Goeb- an encroachment on the rights of the city of bel.-Filed Oct. 14, 1886.-N. J. which he is an officer, but must be based on his relations to the public for whom he acts.

and referred to the finance department, and by that department approved, raises a presumption of an express promise to pay the same.-Barnett v. Mayor of Patterson.Filed Oct. 13, 1886.—N. J.

PLEDGE OF COLLATERAL-MORTGAGE- A claim presented to the board of aldermen JUDGMENTS OF RECORD-Where one took assignment of a mortgage for a valuable consideration, and subsequently in like manner took an assignment of judgments against the owner and mortgagor, and after the death of the mortgagor, his administrator, by order of court, sells the real estate and pays or tenders the mortgagee the amount due under the mortgage and the judgments, Held that the payment of the debt extinguished the claim of the mortgagee.-Burd v. Keyser. Filed Oct. 13, 1886.—N. J.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SERVICES OF A NURSE EMPLOYED BY A PHYSICIAN-Where an employe of a railway company was injured, and a physician is called by the company to attend the injured employe, and the physician employs a nurse to take care of the injured man. Held that the company is not liable for the services of the nurse unless the physician was specially authorized to employ hlm.-Bushnell v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.-Filed Oct. 21, 1886.-Ia.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL LIABLE-Where an agent enters into a written contract with another in his own name, if in fact he made the contract as the agent of another, such agency may be shown by parol, and the contract may be enforced against the principal the same as though the agent had disclosed his principal in the contract -Kirschbon v. Bonzel.Filed Nov. 3, 1886.--Wis.

PUBLIC OFFICER-EXPENDING HIS

RAILWAY COMPANY-TAKING OF LAND UNDER THE CODE-In taking of land by a railway company under the code, either party has a right to appeal within thirty days. The thirty days limit begins to run from the time the notice of the assessment is given to the parties, or made public. The time when an assessment of damages was made may be shown by one or more of the commissioners who made the assessment.-Jamison v. B. W. Ry. Co.-Filed Oct. 23, 1886.—Ia.

RAILWAY COMPANY-PASSENGER THROWN FROM A CAR BY OTHER PASSENGERS-LIABILITY OF COMPANY-Where a railway company furnished open platform cars for the transportation of an excursion party, and some drunken and quarrelsome men on one of the cars quarreled with a fellow passenger, and finally threw him off the car, killing him instantly. Held, that the company was not liable in the absence of knowledge that by furnishing such cars would lead to such results.-Felton, Admr. v. C. R. I & P. Ry. Co.--Filed Oct. 14, 1886.—Ia.

RAILWAY COMPANIES-OCCUPYING STREETS OR ALLEYS IN A BOROUGH-Under the statute enacted in 1849 and 1868, a railway company may occupy a street or an alley in a borough for the right of way, but it may