-Maine.

BAILMENT OR SALE. WHEN PROPERTY action of foreclosure is brought by the adIS DELIYERED BY ONE TO ANOTHER, WHEN ministrator of the deceased hnsband for a A SALE AND WHEN A BAILMENT. Where breach of the bond. The court was asked grain is received by a dealer under an agree- to instruct the jury, that if a breach ocment to pay the market price upon demand, cured it was since the death of the husband and he mixes the grain with other grain in and that the plaintiff could not recover una bin, it becomes a contract of sale and not less a breach was shown during the lifetime a bailment. In such case, if the depositor of the deceased husband, which the court can compel a delivery of the grain, it is a declined to give. The court did instruct bailment; if the receiver has an option to the jury that it was necessary to recovery pay for the same in money or in grain it is that the plantiff should show a breach, but a sale. In this case held to be a sale. that it was not necessary that it should have Lyon v. Lenon.-Filed June 3, 1886.-Ind. | occurred during the lifetime of the husband. If it occurred any time before the commenceBIGAMY.-REGISTER OF MARRIAGES KEPT ment of the action it was sufficient, Held IN ANOTHER STATE AS EVIDENCE OF MAR- that these instructions were correct.--PlumRIAGE.—A man lawfully married and co-mer, admr. v. Doughty.-Filed Aug. 5, 1886 habiting with his wife in Illinois, goes to Minnesota and marries another woman and they return together and live in Illinois. In PRACTICALLY an action against the man for bigamy, the marriage-certificate and the record of the marriage in Minnesota is introduced in support of the indictment. Held that the admission of this record was error as the record was not kept in pursuance of a statute.Tucker v. People. — Filed May 15, 1886.- the probate to the district court an undertaking may be filed in lieu of are cognizance. BILL IN EQUITY.-VERIFICATION OF DE--In Re Will of Brown.-Filed Juni 25, MURRER. In a bill for discovery and to 1886.-Minn. compel a transfer of real estate, the court say: "It is the opinion of this court that under our practice a bill for an injunction is not demurrable for want of an affidavit". "Our practice is to issue an injunction ex parte". Further: "The bill is not demurrable for want of an affidavit", when it is a bill of discovery. The bill asks for discovery but waives an answer under oath. The answer therefore will have simply the force of a plea.-Harrington v. Harrington.— Filed July 10, 1886.-R. I.

Ill.

BOND AND MORTGAGE.-SECURITY FOR THE SUPPORT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE FOR LIFE. BREACH.-Where a bond secured by a mortgage was given as security for the support of a man and his wife during their natural life, after the death of husband an

BOND AND RECOGNIZANCE.-DISTINCTION ABOLISHED.-APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT.-The court say" In this state the difference between a recognizance and a common bond is now largely one of mere form". The one or the other term is often used without strict regard to the technical difference. In an appeal from

BURGLARY.-CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. -INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME. -Where one is found in a position which cannot be accounted for on any other hypotheses than that he intended to commit burglary, the jury is justified in finding that he intended to commit a crime, and a conviction for burglary will be sustained.-People v. Morton.Filed June 10, 1886.-Cal.

CEMETERY.-PUBLIC USE.-VARIATION IN PRICE OF LOTS.--The use of land for cemetery purposes is a public use, and land may be taken for the purpose by the right of eminent domain. The variation of the price of cemetery lots is not inconsistent with the public use of the land.-Evergreen Cemetery v. Beecher.-Filed Feb. 2, 1886.— Conn.

CARRIERS OF PASSENGERS.

INJURY

CAUSED BY SUDDEN STARTING OF TRAIN.

COMPLAINT.-DISMISSAL OF PART THEREOF.-INTERROGATORIES TO JURY.-A part of Where a railway train has been announced a complaint may be dismissed any time befor a certain station, and has been slowed fore submission to the jury, and if such disup until seemingly stopped, and passengers missal leaves the complaint indefinite the having arisen to leave the car, the train is defendant's remedy is by motion to have it suddenly lurched by a jerk, whereby passen- made more specific. Interrogatories subgers are injured, the company is guilty of mitted to a jury must ask for statement of negligence and liable for the injury. Bar- facts only.-L. N- A. & Co. v. Worley.— tholomew v. N. Y. C. H. Ry Co.-Filed Filed May 25, 1886.—Ind. June 1, 1886.-N. Y.

:

CONTRACT.--NEGLIGENCE

IN SIGNING

CERTIFIED CHECKS.-PRIMARY LIABILITY WITHOUT READING.—LIABILITY.-Where one OF THE BANK CERtifying.—SendinG CHECK signs a contract or note without reading it, TO THE CERTIFYING BANK FOR COLLECTION. when he has an opportunity to read it or -If a bank certifies a check it is primarily have it read to him, he cannot avoid liabliable therefor, although the depositor has ility although the instrument is conditioned no funds on deposit to meet it. A bank re- different from what he supposed it was. He ceiving a certified check for collection, does is guilty of negligence in signing without not exercise due care, if it send the check to reading it.—Keller v. Orr.-Filed May 22, the certifying bank for collection, as it would 1886,-Ind. enable the certifying bank to destroy the evidence of its indebtedness.-Drover's Nat. Bk. vl A. M. P. & P. Co.—Filed May 15, 1886.-Ill.

CHARTERS OF CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.-POLICE POWER OF STATE.—

CONTEMPT.-ORDER OF IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF FINE.-REMEDY.— Where a witness is fined for contempt and committed pending to payment of the fine, he cannot have relief by habeas corpus.His remedy must be by writ of error with an

A charter granted to a corporation is in a order for a supersedeas.-In Re-Petition of Smith.-Filed May 24, 1886.—Ill.

certain sense a contract between the state and the corporation, yet the state reserves the right to modify or regulate the corporation in the exercise of the powers conferred. The legislature may compe) a railway company to construct private crossings.-I. C. Ry. Co. v. Willenborg. --Filed May 12,

1886.-Jll.

CO-TENANT.-ADVERSE POSESSION BY ONE co-TENANT AS AGAINST ANOTHER CO-TENANT. -Where the defendant, who was co-tenant with plaintiff, went into possession, occupicd and appropriated the rents of the lands to her own use, this alone would not render the possession adverse. There must be outward acts of exclusive ownership.-Todd v. Todd.-Filed May 14, 1886.—Ill.

CONVEYANCE FOR CEMETERY.-POWER OF

CONTRACT. WHEN BURDEN IS ON PARTY TO SHOW GOOD FAITH AND THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD. Where one standing in a confidential relation to another, who is in distress, makes a contract with the latter, if the ques- ALIENATION.-IMPLIED COVENANT IN CONtion of unfair dealing is raised, the circumstances cast suspicion of fraud, and the party occupying the confidential relation is bound to show the absence of fraud or any undue influence, and that the making of the contract was a free and voluntary act.Ikerd v. Beavers.-Filed May 25, 1886.Ind.

VEYANCE.-Where land is conveyed for cemetery purposes, although there be no express covenant to that effect, the land will revert when it ceases to be used for the purpose for which it was conveyed. Equity will not compel a man to accept a title which is not free from a reasonable doubt. University v. Dugan.-Filed June 23, 1886.—Md.

stockholders at the time an action on the debt is commenced, but not those who in the mean time may have held and disposed of stock.-Sayles v. Bates.-Filed July 10, 1886.-R. I.

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS. WHEN the liability attaches to all stockholders at PLAINTIFF MAY ABANDON PROCEEDINGS. the time the debt was coutracted, and all TITTLE. Where condemnation proceedings have been commenced by a railway company against certain lands, and the tittle in the defendant is found to be a qualified tittle, the plaintiff connot abandon the proceedings after verdict and still retain possession CORPORATION.-TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE of the land. Its remedy is by a seasonable TO AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE USED FOR PRIVATE application to amend its petition or after PURPOSES.—A street railway company havverdict by motion for a new trial,- Wilcox v. St. P & N· P. Ry. Co.-Filed July 15, 1886. Minn.

ing obtained the right and constructed a track on a certain street, subsequently abandoned the use of the track and transCONDITIONAL SALE. .—TITLE TO REMAIN fered its interest therein to an individual IN VENDOR.-A WRITING SHOWING AN AB- who used the track as a privat switch or rail.SOLUTE SALE.—Where one sold a horse un- way, connecting his factory with the railrood der the verbal agreement that the title should tracks. Held that the maintainance of the remain in the vendor until paid for, and the track for private purposes constituted a vendor gave the vendee a writing showing nuisance and his contract with the street an absolute sale of the horse. A creditor railway company constituted no defence.— of the vendee attached the horse, the paper Fanning v. D. M. Osborne & Co.--Filed showing an absolute sale having been show- June 1, 1886.-N. Y. ing him. Held that the paper thus showing an absolute sale could not be modified by parol testimony as to the conditional sale. Dixon v, Blondin.-Filed Aug. 23 1886. Vt.

CONTRACT.-Delivery of logs OF A CERTAIN QUALITV.—WARRANTY.—In a contract for the delivery of logs of a certain quality at a certain place, to be inspected upon delivery, the agreement as to the quality is held to be a condition and not a guaranty, and where the logs were received and used or manufactured, the purchaser is held to have waived the condition, althongh he complained of the quality during the delivery.— Thompson v. Libby.-Filed July 15, 1886. -Minn.

CORPORATION.-MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION.-RIGHTS OF PARTIES.-Where parties take the preliminary steps to form a corporation, and subsequently, without having perfected the corporation, issue a certificate to one as a member of the association, entitling him to benefits in case of disability. Held that a corporation de facto exists and an action may be maintained by the member for his benefits, against the corporation, but not against the individual members thereof. Foster v. Pray at al-Filed July 17, 1886.—Minn.

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.-PURCHASE OF TOLL-BRIDGES OVER STREAM FORMING A COUNTY LINE.-The power conferred upon Commissioners to purchase toll-bridges is limited to such bridges as the people of the community are manifestly interested in, and

CORPORATIONS.-LIABILITY OF STOCKholders.-PenDING THE FULI. PAYMENT OF STOCK. The statute imposing liability on stockholders, pending the full payment of county commissioners have no official interthe stock, was substiantially copied from the statnte of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts decisions constructing the statue are here followed. Where a corporation is organized and commence business and conacts a debt the stock not being paid in full,

est in or control of affairs outside of their own county. A toll-bridge over a stream forming a county line is one in which the people of the adjoining county are interested and the commissioners of one of the counties have no right to purchase such bridge with

out the concurrence of the adjoining county. certain time. Held that the transaction sim-Board of Comrs. v. Thombson.-Filed ply amounted to a mortgage as security for June 1. 1886.—Ind⚫

DEED AND LEASE FOR A LOAN.-MORT- DOWER.-BARRED BY AN ANTENUPTIAL - USURIOUS INTEREST. Where a AGREEMENT.-Where a man and woman, party executed a deed of certain lands and each owing property, are about to marry, the grantee, on the same day leased the premises back to the grantor with the privilege of buying the land back within a

property of the other, such agreement is DRIVING LOGS.-RIGHT OF ONE TO DRIVE valid and will bar the woman of the right of THE LOGS OF ANOTHER WHERE THEY FORM dower, although the agreement may be in AN OBSTRUCTION IN THE STREAM.-Where some respects informal.—Barth v. Lines.- one engaged in rafting, finds the logs of Filed June 12, 1886.—Ill. another in the stream forming an obstruction, he may drive the logs together with his own and recover compensation for the same. Where two parties, whose logs were intermingled, agree to drive their logs together, and, before arriving at a point where the logs can be seperated, one of the parties abandons the drive, the other may cause the drive to be continued and charge the owner with his portion of the expenses incurred.-Beard v. Clauke.--Filed June 28, 1886.—Minë.

DISCONTINUANCE BY ONE PARTNER.-COLLUSION AND FRAUD.- --As a general rule where an action brought by a firm is pending, one partner may discontinue the case, but where one partner, in collusion with defendant, fraudulently attempts to discontinue the case to the injury of his co-partner, it will not be permitted. A partner thus desiring to discontinue a case, may have indemnity from his co-partner as against damage from prosecution of the action.-Arnold v. Greene.-Filed July 10, 1886. —R. I.

EJECTMENT.-NEW TRIAL AFTER JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.-Where defendant has failed to answer there is no issue to try and DRAINEGE.ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAINS.— the court is justified in directing a verdict BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ACTION TO QUIET for plaintiff. This does not interfere with TITLE.—An assessment for the construction the discretion given to the jury to render a of a ditch becomes a lien on the land. In general or special verdict in such cases. A an action to quiet title, the burden of proof special verdict is one by which the jury find is on the party asserting the lien to show the facts only, and there being no issue that the assessment was made in compliance raised there is no necessity for a special with the statute.-Brosewer v. Kelsey.- verdict.-Hillam v. Doyle.-Filed June 28, Filed May 25, 1886.—Ind.

1886. Minn.

EMINENT DOMAIN. THE STATE CANNOT BE DIVESTED OF THE RIGHT of. The legislature of a state cannot grant a corporation exemption from the effect of the inherent right of eminent domain. The right of eminent domain is an element of sovereignty, and a contract in restraint of its exercise is not obligatory on the state.-Hyde Park v. Oak Woods Cemetery.-Filed May 14, 1886. —Ill.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.-JURISDICTION OF COMMON PLEAS IN AN ACTION ON ADMINISTRATOR'S BOND.---In an action in the common pleas to recover a sum decreed by the orphan's court, the court will not go behind the decree. An administrator misapplying the trust funds in payment of his own debts, and the party receiving such payment are jointly liable for the misappropriation of the funds.-Miller v. Commonwealth.-Filed April 5, 1886.—Pa.