leged ground of action, it is not error for the court to instruct the jury as though the ditch were constructed. After having clearly defined the issue in the instructions, it is not error for the court to add the remark, "You are referred to the pleadings for the issue." -Drake v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co.-Filed

Oct 27,

1886.-Iowa.

agent is attached by the agent's creditor, and an action of trover and conversian is brought by the owner of the property, it is competent to show all the facts as to the relation of the agent in whose hands the property was attached, to the plaintiff, at the time the property was seized.-Adams v. Kellogg.— Filed Oct. 14, 1886.-Mich.

TRIAL-SPECIAL FINDS OR GENERAL VERTRANSCRIPT OF RECORD-FILING OF AN DICT-PRESUMPTIONS-All reasonable pre- APPEAL THE TIME OF FILING-Short-hand sumptions will be indulged in favor of a gen- notes of the testimony in a case do not beeral verdict, and none in favor special find- come written evidence until transcribed. ings. In a case where special findings are Where the transcript of the record is requirnot inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment must be rendred thereon without regard to special findings.-McComas v. Haas.-Filed Oct. 5, 1886.-Ind.

ed to be filed, in an appeal, within a given time, and within the time allowed the record including the short-hand notes, was filed. Held, that this was not a compliance with the requirement as to filing a transcript of

Oct. 22, 1886.-Ia.

TRESPASS VI ET ARMIS-EVIDENCEREPUTATION OF PARTIES-In an action of trespass vi et armis, evidence as to the peac able character of the defendant is not admis

TRIAL-ATTACHMENT OF GOODS FRAUDU-the testimony.—Merrill v. Bowe.——Filed LENTLY TRANSFERRED-Where goods transferred by a debtor and are subsequently attached by a creditor, and the transferee brings an action against the attaching officer for the value of the goods, and he pleads by way of confession and avoidance, the burden of proof is on the sheriff to show that the goods were fraudulently transferred and that the plaintiff was a party to the fraud.-Bixby v. Carskaddon.-Filed Oct. 20, 1886.-Iowa.

TROVER AND CONVERSION-GOODS SEIZED WHILE IN TRANSIT-The carrier's duty is to carry the goods safely to their destination and deliver them to the proper party, and if goods in transit are seized by an officer, without authority of law, and delivered to another than the consignee, the carrier is liable for a wrongful conversion of the goods. Conversion is any tortuous act which de prives the owner of his goods, or any illegal use of the goods, or contrary to the intention in the bailment.-Gibbons v. Farwell. -Filed Oct. 28, 1886.--Mich.

sable.

One charged with trespass in building a fence on the land claimed by another, cannot defend by showing that the judgment

of the court in a former case awarded him the right to build a fence in the same place. -Fahey v. Crotty.-Filed Oct. 28, 1886.Mich.

USURY REMEDY FOR RECOVERY-FORECLOSURE OF CHATTEL MORTGAGE CONTAINING A POWER OF SALE- -By the terms of the statute a mortgagor of a chattel mortgage which contains a power of sale, may proceed to sell the mortgaged property upon default of payment, without any action of foreclosure. Held, that the statute is constitutional. It does not deprive the mortgagor of property without due process of law. Where one has paid usurious interest his remedy is to bring TROVER AND CONVERSION-PROPERTY IN an action against the creditor for the excess AGENT'S HANDS ATTACHED FOR DEBT OF of legal interest paid.—Robinson v. McKinAGENT-Where property in the hands of an ney.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Dak.

VALIDITY OF MORTGAGE-GIVEN TO SECURE FUTURE ADVANCES—A mortgage given to secure a present debt, and also any future advances, is valid to the extent of the debt intended to be secured by it, and a second mortgagee who took with notice of the prior mortgage in foreclosing his mortgage must pay the debt secured by the prior mortgage. -Taft, Admr. v. Stoddard.-Filed Oct. 4, 1886.-Mass.

ward off the husband's creditors, and subse-
quently the wife leaves the husband, he re-
maining in possession of the land, she sells
it to another. Held, that the possession of
the husband was notice of his interest in the
land, and the wife's grantee could not main-
*ain ejectment for the land.—Stevens v. Cas-
tle.-Filed Oct. 14, 1886.—Mich.

VEXATIOUS ACTION-PRESUMPTION-PAYMENT OF COSTS-Where a second action in VENDOR AND VENDEE-NON-RECORDING partition is brought for the same cause beOF A DEED- -INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE—One having had lands conveyed to him, did not record his deed, and subsequently conveyed the land to another, whose deed was duly recorded. Subsequently the original purchaser whose deed was not placed on record, conveyed the land to another and upon an action by the first grantee to quiet title to the land, it is held that the last purchaser of the land was entitled to protection. -Huber v. Bossart.-Filed Oct. 19, 1886. -Ia.

VENDOR AND VENDEE-TAX TITLE OBTAINED BY VENDEE IN POSSESSION-A vendee in possession of land cannot acquire a tax title to the land to the prejudice of his vendor. He stands in the relation of a mortgagor as to the unpaid purchase money. Such equitable owner of land may redeem from a tax sale.-Cowdry v. Cuthbert.Filed Oct. 26, 1886.—Ia.

tween the same parties, in the absence of showing to the contrary. it will be presumed the action is vexatious, and on a plea in abatement the action will be stayed until the cost of former action is paid. Where part of the pleadings is stricken out on motion, the part stricken out constitutes no part of the record on appeal unless made so by order of the court.-Carrothers v. Carrothers. Filed Oct. 6, 1886.—Ind.

WAYS-ASSESSMENT FOR-WHEN ASSESSMENT BECOMES A LIEN-As between grantor and grantee, the assessment of a tax for the construction of a gravel road becomes a lien when the county board confirms the report of the committee. Where the grantee has discharged such a lien, and brings an action against the grantor for recovery of the same, the burden is on him to show that it was a subsisting lien at the time of the transfer.Kirkpatrick v. Pearce.-Filed Oct. 25, 1886

WAYS-IMPLIED DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC-Where the owner of land removes a fence so as to leave a strip that would be suitable for a highway, a dedication to the public cannot he inferred therefrom. There must be some act of the owner showing his intention to dedicate it to the public, and an acceptance of the same by the public.—Rozell v. Andrews.-Filed Oct. 5, 1886.— N. Y.

VENDOR AND Vendee-DeED EXECUTED—Ind. BUT NOT DELIVERED, THE GRANTOR REMAINING IN POSSESSION-The delivery of a deed is essential to its validity, and without delivery, actual or constructive, no title passes. Where a deed is executed and acknowledged and handed to a third party, intending that it shall be delivered to the grantee, it has been held sufficient to pass title, 27 Mich. 264. Where a husband, being a debtor, executed a deed of land to another, and he in turn deeded the land to the wife of the former, and both deeds were held by the husband a long time before recording them, the intention of the conveyance being simply to

WAYS AND STREETS-RESERVATION BY GRANTOR IN THE PLAT-Where land was platted and the streets and alleys dedicated to the public on condition that the land for

the streets should revert to the grantor the order of probate of a will in the following "whenever the same should be discontinued form, it is held sufficient: "It is, therefore, by law," Held, that upon vacation of the ordered by me that said instrument be adstreets so platted, by a formal resolution of mitted to probate as and for the last will and the city council, the land reverts and vests testament, &c." One in whom a remainder in the original owner.-Plumer v. Johnson. over after a life estate is vested, in bringing -Filed Oct. 14, 1886.-Mich. ejectment to recover the estate, must show the termination of the life estate.-Kirk v. Bowling.-Filed Oct. 27, 1886.—Neb.

WAIVER OF NOTICE-CONDITIONS FOR

RENEWAL OF A LEASE-Where a lessee has an express option of a renewal of the lease at the expiration of the term, on express conditions, and at the end of the term he holds over and makes a payment of rent in accordance with the terms of renewal, he will be held to have waived a notice to renew.-Long, Admr. v. Stafford.-Filed Oct. 5, 1886.-N. Y.

WATERS AND WATER-COURSES--EASEMENT BECOMING APPURTENANT TO LANDSAn easement arising from water flowing from a spring situated upon land not owned by the grantor, will not pass with the estate unless it has become appurtenant to the estate by express or implied grant, or by prescription. There may be such an adverse and continuous use of water which flows through an aqueduct as will raise a presumption of a grant, and title thereto may be acquired by prescription.-Dority v. Dunning.-Filed Sept. 28, 1886.-Me.

WILL-Dower rights-Devise OF LIFE ESTATE-By statute, dower at common law is abolished, but instead of dower at common law, the statute gives the wife an interest in the husband's estate. Technically this interest is not called dower, yet if in pleading it be called dower it is thereby sufficiently described. The widow may take dower in addition to a devise to her, unless in the will it is specially provided against. A devise to the wife of a life-estate will not defeat her right of dower.-Daugherty v. Daugherty. -Filed Oct. 23, 1886.—Ia.

WILL-PROBATE OF EJECTMENT BY REMAINDER-MAN-A probate court entering

WILL-CHARGES ON LAND-Specific LEGACY-Words which charge debts upon realty will have the same effect when used in a legacy. See Ogle v. Taylor, 49 Md. 175. By the common law the real estate of deceased person was not liable for his simple contract debts, nor even for his specialty obligations, except where the heir was expressly bound. But in this state the act of 1785 makes real estate of a deceased liable for the payment of all his debts on failure of the personalty. Whether he leaves a will or dies intestate it makes no difference.— White, Exr. v. Kauffman.-Filed Oct. 9, 1886.-Md..

WILL-RIGHTS OF A WIFE DIVORCED FROM HER HUSBAND-Where a woman is divorced from her husband on the ground of his adultery, she is in no sense his widow. She has no right to share in his personal estate or to letters of administration, nor is it necessary to make her a party to, or give her notice of the probate of his will-In Re. Ensign.— Filed Oct. 5, 1886.-N. Y.

WILLS-CONSTRUCTION-Vested or CONTINGENT REMAINDER-The intention of a testator can often be more clearly obtained from the will as a whole than from technical words or phrases. Where under a will the question arises whether a beneficiary takes a vested or a contingent remainder, this must be determined by the testator's intention. Whether a remainder is vested or contingent depends not upon the uncertainty of enjoyment in the future, but upon the uncertainty of the right of enjoyment.—Wiggin, Trustee v. Perkins.-Filed July Jo, 1886.-N. H.

WITNESS-WHAT A GRAND JUROR MAY BE and the grantor dies, the executor, and not CALLED UPON TO TELL-Where the question a creditor, may bring an action to set the is upon setting aside an indictment on the conveyance aside. If an executor is the ground that the names of the witnesses ex- fraudulent grantee, then he may be removed amined by the grand jury were not all in- and an action by other executors to set dorsed on the indictment, a member or mem- aside the conveyance.) bers of the grand jury may be called as witnesses to testify as to what witnesses were examined by the jury.-Ex. Parte Schmidt. -Filed Oct. 27, 1886.---Cal.

Bajus v. S. B. & N. Y. Ry. Co. Filed Oct. 12, 1886.—N. Y. (Plaintiff brought his action to recover for an injury received while coupling cars. When he observed his danger he signalled the engineer to stop, but before the engine could be stopped he was injured. The action is based on the fact that the engine was not in good repair and could not be stopped as quickly as if perfect. Held, that the defect in the engine was not the proximate cause and that he could not recover.)

Lichtenberg v. Herdtfelder. Filed Oct. 5, 1886.-N. Y. (Where property is conveyed fraudulently

Lerian v. Rohr.
Filed Oct. 1886.-Md.

(In the trial of an issue of nul tiel record in the same court where the record is alleged to be, it is not necessary to produce a formal record, but only to produce the books for the inspection of the court.)

Williams v. Bunker.

Filed Sept. 23, 1886.-Me (Trespass will not lie against an officer serving a replevin writ, if he acts within the scope of his duties, but if the plaintiff in the action is present with the officer, trespass may lie against him when it would not against the officer.)

Dexter v. McCready.

Filed July 20, 1886.-Conn. (In an action of damages from a collission of teams on the highway, it is not the duty of the court to state particular facts which constitute negligence, but such questions are for the jury to determine.)

Brown v. Commonwealth. Filed Oct. 18, 1886.-Pa. (Where one obtained a license to sell intoxicating liquor, and according to statute executed a bond, and was subsequently con victed of selling liquor illegally, the penalty being a fine or imprisonment, and defendant served the time in prison, this does not discharge the obligation of the bond.)

Bever v. North.

Filed Oct. 5, 1886.-Ind. (In an action for breach of warranty it is sufficient if it shows a judgment and eviction under it. In this state the interest of the wife in her husband's lands is an estate of itself.)