MASTER AND SERVANT-CGNTRACT OF REMOVE CLOUD FROM TITLE.-Where a claim EMPLOYMENT FOR ONE YEAR-TEMPORARY for a mechanic's lien was filed and subseABSENCE OF EMPLOYE.-Where a foreman quently deciared null and void, the owner in a packing house was employed for one brings an action to compel the claimant to year on a contract, and he absented him- give a certificate discharging the claim for a self for one day, to attend to his personal lien. Held that the complaint was not sufbusiness, against the wishes of his employers, ficient, in that it did not allege that there it is held that the question as to whether ever was a lien, it did not set forth the charhe was guilty of such a breach of the acter of the account so that the court can contract as would warrant his employers say that they even had the appearance in discharging him and rescinding the of a a lien. Houlchan v. Keller. contract, was a question for the jury.- Filed January 11, 1886.—Minn. Shaver v Ingham-Filed Jan. 6, 1886.-Mich.

MASTER AND SERVANT-NEGLIGENCE OF NOMER IN PUBLISHED NOTICE.-In an FELLOW-SERVANT.-Where a man who is one action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, the of a gang of men employed on a con-notice published represented the name of struction, is injured by a fellow-laborer, who one defendant as P. T. B. Hopkins, negligently lets a stone fall upon him whilst it should have been T. P. B. Hopand injures him, the company is not liable kins. Held that the notice was sufficient, for damages for the injury.-Mation v. C. R. and that the court had jurisdiction in the I. & P. Ry. Co.-Filed Dec. 16, 1885.-Ia. case. Fanning v. Krapfell.-Filed December 21, 1886.-Iowa.

MARRIED WOMEN- -SEPARATE DEEDSTATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.-A deed executed MECHANIC'S LIEN-MORTGAGEES MUST be by a married woman in which her husband MADE DEFENDANTS.-In a contest between does not join is void, yet it has an effect to the holder of a mechanic's lien and a mortgive color of title. The statute of limita- gagee, as to priorality of lien, if shown that tions runs against persons under disability work was commenced before the recording from the time the right of action accrues. of the mortgage, the mechanic's lien will take The exception in favor of such parties, is precedence of the mortgage. The statute that the limitation is extended two years, in in such cases, provides that the mortgagee which they may have their action.-Wright must be made party defendant.---Cox, et al, v. Kleyla. Filed Dec. 11, 1885.—Ind. v. Flanigan et al.-Filed Dec. 30, '85.—N.J.

MECHANIC'S LIEN-WHEN THE LIMITATION BEGINS TO RUN.

but if after demanding separate trials and being refused, if he withdraws his answer as to one of the lienors, he waives his right to

MECHANIC'S LIEN-JOINDER OF ACTIONS -Where a material man-FORECLOSURE.—In an action by lienors furnishes material for a building as the to foreclose a mechanic,s lien, the defendant building progresses, and renders his account is entitled to separate trials as to each lien, in different items, the account is to be treated as a whole and the limitation iu which a lien may be filed, commences to run from the date of the last item furnished. Whether exception.—Curnow v. H. V. B. G. & H. a certain item belongs in the account as charged or not, is a question of fact for the jury to determine.-Frankovis v Ireland. -Filed January 11, 1886. Minn.

Miuing Co.-Filed Dec. 21, '85-Cal.

MONEY PAID INTO COURT-INTEREST ON. -Where money has been paid into court in satisfaction of Judgment, and lies there pend

MECHANIC'S LIEN-VOID-AN ACTION TO ing an appeal, if the party to whom the fund

belongs is allowed to use the fund, he is not chargable with interest on the amount which ultimately becomes his, but if he has been allowed to use more than his share, he is chargeable with interest on such excess.Withall v. Cressman.--Filed Jan. 6, '86.-Neb.

regulate all occupations bearing upon the good morals of the city and to establish and regulate of what materials buildings shall be constructed within certain limits, in the city of San Francisco. To deny the use of a frame building for laundry purposes is within the powers of the board. Such MORTGAGE PROMISSORY NOTE WITH AT-regulations however, must apply to all perTORNEY'S FEE.—Where a promissory note is sons indiscriminately.-In Re Yick Wo.given, including usurious interest, and is Filed December 28, 1885.—Cal.

transferred to a third party for value without notice, the endorsee takes it free from the MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- -PRIVATE defense of usury. Where a note includes RAILWAY COMPANIES- INJUNCTION. The an attorney's fee and where in entering city authorities have no right to grant the judgment on the same, the court fixes the use of a street for a private railway comamount of the attorney's fee, such order or pany. The statnte authorizing such grant of judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.— the use of a street, contemplates only its use Sedgwick v. Dixon. Filed Jan. 6, '86.-Neb. by a public or quasi public corporation, as a common carrier. Any such grant to a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-ABSENCE OF private corporation, may be enjoined by any SIDE-WALKS OR CROSS-WALKS--RIGHT OF property owner whose interest is affected CITY AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE WHERE thereby.--Mikesell v. Dunkee.- -Filed SUCH IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE MADE.-In January 9, 1886.—Kansas.

an action to recover for personal injury arising because of the absence of a cross

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION- -STREETS

walk at a certain place where there was a CROSSING RAILWAY TRACK-MEASURE OF crossing of streets, it is held that plaintiff DAMAGES.-Where a city opens up or ex.could not recover. There never had been a cross-walk made at the place named where the accident occurred, and the city had a right to determine where and when such improvements should be made.-Willioms v. City of Gr. Rapids.-Filed Jan. 13,'86.-Mich.

tends streets which cross a railway track within the city limits, the company is entitled lo damages. The measure of damages is not the value of the isolated land, but includes all the expense imposed upon the railway company by reason of the crossing, in making and keeping it safe to the public.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-INJURY CAUSED-In Rc opening First Street. -Filed BY DIVERSION OF SURFACE WATER.—Where, January 6, 1886.-Michiganr

by the improvement of streets, by the construction of gutters for conveying the surface

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-DEFECTIVE

water off, the gutters are so constructed as SIDEWALK-NOTICE.-Notice to a member to discharge the water upon land, and there- of the city council, of a defect in sidewalk, by cause injury to said land, the municipal- is sufficient to fix the liability of the city for ity is liable for all the damage thus caused injury suffered by reason of the defect, if to the land.- -Fields v. West Orange. the notice refer to that particular defect by Filed October 1885.-N. J. which the injury is caused.-Carter v. Monticello.-Filed Dec. 19, 1885.-Iowa.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-POWER ΤΟ REGULATE OCCUPATIONS AND TO ESTABLISH

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS DEFECTIVE

FIRE LIMITS.—The board of supervisors of SIDEWALKS-PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE.-The the county of San Francisco, has power to construction of a sidewalk in such a man

ner that an ordinary fall of snow renders it unsafe, is defective, but where a sidewalk is properly constructed and it is rendered unsafe by a sudden accumulation of ice, and an accident occurs thereby, the city is not liable for damages for an injury thus caused. -Grossenbach v. City of Milwaukee Filed Dec. 23, 1885.-Wisconsin.

KEEP STREETS IN REPAIR. -In an action for damages for personal injury, it is error for the court to charge that unless plaintiff was negligent in a material degree, he is entitled to recover. A municipal corporation is not bound to keep the streets in the outer limits and unsettled part of the city, in the same degree of repair, that is required in the cenItral or densely settled part. It is sufficient, if the central part of the roadway is in good condition.- -Monongahela City v. Fiiher. approximately-Filed Jan'y 4, 1886.—Penn.

Negligence-PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY LYING DOWN ON TRACK.-One who,

by his willful wrong,

contributes to an injury, cannot recover damages therefor. A person who, in a state of intoxication, lies down on a railway track, is guilty of gross negligence, and yet the company is bound to use reasonable care to avoid injuring him.-Williams v. S. P. Ry. Co.-Filed Dec. 58, 1885.-Cal.

Negligence-Blowing of THE WHISTLE UNNECESSARILY BY ENGINEER- -INJURY CAUSED TO TRAVELLER ON ADJACENT HIGHWAY.-Where the sounding of the whistle on a locomotive while crossing a bridge over a highway, caused a team of horses to run, causing injury, and where it was not shown that the blowing of the whistle was improper or unnecessary, no recovery can be had for the injury. The blowing of the whistle, although in close proximity to a highway, is not negligence per se.-C.L.St. L. & C.RyCo. v. Gaines.-Filed Dec. 29, 1885.-Ind.

OFFER TO CONFESS JUDGMENT-TENDER. -Where a case is pending in court, and the defendant files in the office of the clerk of the court, an offer in writing, to confess judgment for a certain amount, but snch offer was not made to the plaintiff, nor his attention called to it, will not amount to a tender, and does not bar judgment for the Costs which accrue after the filing of such offer, where the final judgment obtained did not exceed the amount which he offered to confess judgment for.—Rose v. Peek.Filed January 6, 1886.-Nebraska.

-STATE

a

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONSMENTS MADE TO AN ATTORNEY.-Where party goes to an attorney for the purpose of employing him in a certain case, any statements then made to the attorney by the party are not privileged, although the attorney may have been previously acting as the genWIT-eral counsel of the party.-Clay v. Tyson. witness-Filed Jan. 6, 2886.—Neb.

NEW TRIAL-ABSENCE OF MATERIAL NESSES. -Where a material arrives too late to testify, but is present when judgment is rendered and all the wit. PAYMENT SUPPORTED ONLY BY TESTIMOnesses and parties are then present, if the NY OF THE PLAINTIFF-CONFLICTING TESTIparty against whom judgment has been ren- MONY.-In an action on a promissory note, dered, fails to make a motion for a new tri- a plea of payment, inter allia,was set up, and al on the ground of the absence of a mate the plea sustained only by the testimony of rial witness, he cannot have his case reviewed plaintiff. There was evidence to show a partin the appellate court on that ground. The nership between the plaintiff and defendant, time to have the matter considered was when and circumstances connected with the case the parties and all witnesses were present. cast a doubt upon plaintiff's testimony. Ketchum v. Breed.-Filed Jan. 12, '86.--Wis. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and upon appeal it is reversed and remanded for a

NEGLIGENCE OBLIGATION OF A CITY TO new trial. VnB'skk v Ch'ndl'r. Jan. 6,'86. Neb.

The statute of limitations will run against a claim for damages for the loss of cattle killed on a railroad by reason of the failure to fence the track.-Seymour v. P. & St. L. Ry. Co.-Filed Jan. 26, 1886.-Ohio.

PARTNERSHIP-INSOLVENCY--PARTNER barred by the statute of limitations, a demurUSING FIRM FUNDS IN PAYMENT OF INDIVID-rer on the ground that the petition does not UAL DEBT.-Where one partner uses funds show a cause of action, will be sustained. of the firm, which is insolvent, in payment of his individual debts, it is no ground for an attachment. Where such attachment issues, on the ground that the firms goods are being disposed of in fraud of creditors, and the firm makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, after the assignment they may traverse the affidavit on FENSES.-The failure to state several dewhich the attachment issued. - Keith v. fences separately, in an answer, is not Armstrong.-Filed Feb. 2, 1886.---Wis. ground for demurrer. Where an answer is

PATENT TO MINING CLAIM-DISPUTED TI TLE.-A patent for a mining claim relates back to the date of location. Any one claiming land as against a patent, must show adverse possession before the issue of the patent. Talbott v. King.-Filed Jan. 7, 1886.-Cal.

PLEADING-ACTION TO QUIET TITLEWAIVER OF DEMURRER.-In an action to quiet title, one who holds the legal title should be made defendant, and may be brought in by an amendment of the complaint. A joinder of an action to recover real property, with an action against the defendant as trustee, is erroneous. Such misjoinder may be taken advantage of by demurrer.-Reynolds v. Lincoln.—Filed Dec. 28, 1885.-Cal.

PLEADING AMBIGUITY-SEPARATE DE

ambiguous, in that it may be taken as a plea of the statute of limitations, or an equitable defense, it may be taken advantage of by demurrer.-Casey v. Jordan.Filed Jan. 22, 1886.-California.

POSTHUMOUS DEED-DELIVERY IN ESCROW-CONDITION PRECEDENT.-A deed executed but not delivered until after the death of the grantor, is void. Such deed may be delivered in escrow but without any condition precedent to be performed after the death of the grantor. Where a deed was thus delivered, and the holder instructed to deliver the deed to the grantee after the grantor's death, upon the grantee signing a note for a given sum, which was written and deposited with the deed. Held that the deed was void.—Taft v. Taft.-Filed Jan.

PRACTICE-PARTIES AS

WITNESSES- -IN

PLEADING -Ambiguity—-Surplusage— 20, 1886.-Mich. The fact that a complaint is in some degree ambiguous, by reason of its containing STRUCTIONS.-Where parties in an action. several counts, cannot be taken advantage of against a decedent's estate are permitted to by general demurrer. A special demurrer testify, and an appeal is taken, the appelmay be interposed to the particular ambig- late court will not review the ruling of the uous matter. The citing of the particular court in admitting the testimony, unless the statute under which the action is brought, whole testimony appears in the record. in an action for trespass on land, is sur- Where the record does not show a request plusage and may be stricken out.-Demartin to instruct in writing, the court will not conv. Albert.---Filed Dec. 28, 1885.-Cal. sider whether the instructions were in writing or not.-Clanser v. Buckman, Acm'r.

PLEADING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS--Filed Jan. 8, 1886.-Ind. INJURY TO CATTLE.-It is too late after final judgment on demurrer, to take exception to the filing of demurrer out of time. Where a petition shows on its face that the action is

--

PRACTICE-CHALLENGE TO THE ARRAY.Where the court orders additional jurors drawn, and in the order specifies the box.

from which said jurors shall be drawn, and heard from by them, although dilligent the drawing of said jurors is done in open search is made for him, in an action to recourt, a challenge to the array will not be form a deed, where the question is as to his sustained, although the other two boxes were not in court at the time.-People v. Kiernan.- -Filed Jan. 19, 1886.-N. Y.

PRACTICE-GENERAL AND SPECIAL VERDICT. When a jury is requested by either party to return a special verdict, they should

then being alive, five years after he had thus left his home, it is held that the circumstaaces surrounding his abandonment of his family justify the presumption of his death.-Cox v.. Ellsworth.-Filed Jan. 6, 1886.-Neb.

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION-SECONDARY

do so. In the absence of any request made EVIDENCE.-When an arrest is made and a they may return either a special or a general preliminary examination had before the verdict at their option. If after request for magistrate issuing the warrant, and the dea special verdict they return also a general verdict, it may be disregarded, and if so disregarded it will not materially affect the result.-L. N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Balch. -Filed Jan. 19, 1886.—Ind.

WIFE.

fendant is committed, and subsequently arraigned on an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, the papers which show that a preliminary examination was had being lost, it is competent to prove their contents by oral testimony. A challenge to the array, on the ground that no list of jurors was returned from one certain township before the drawing of the jury, wil not be sustained.---People v Coffman.--Filed Jan. 13,1886.—Mich.

PRESUMPTIONS OF FRAUD IN CONVEYANCE BY HUSBAND, TO WIFE-GRANTEE OF THE -Where lard has been conveyed by a husband to his wife, and the wife has conveyed it to another, the presumption of fraud does not rest upon the wife's grantee, but upon the party attacking the validity of the PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-ADMINISTRATOR transfer by the husband to the wife. Where-PoWER OF ATTORNEY TO CREDITOR.-An it is alleged that the wife's grantee had no- administratrix executed a power of attorney tice of the fraud, such allegations may be authorizing said attorney to collect rents supported by such circumstanres as would which decedent had pledged as security for a put a prudent man upon inquiry. The debt. The attorney so appointed being also question of fraud is one of fact for the jury the agent of a creditor of decedent, to determine.-Hoosier v. Hunt. - Filed Jan. 12, 1886.—Wis.

collected the rents and paid them to his principal. Held, that the administratrix could recover only the money in excess of PRESUMPTIONS OF DEATH BY ABSENCE- the debt due the creditor.-Adams, Adm'x MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN LESS THAN SEVEN V. Smith.—Filed Jan. 20, 1886.—Neb. YEARS.-The established rule that seven

years absence supports the presumption of PRIVATE ROADS--LAYING OUT-VARIANCE death, may be varied by circumstances so BETWEEN ORDER AND APPLICATION.-In as to warrant such presumption in a shorter laving out a private road, it is not necessary time. See Tisdale v. Conn. Mutual Life that the precise course be indicated in deIns. Co., 26 Ia. 170. Where a man left grees and minutes by use of the compass, his house in the morning to attend to his or- where the course can be ascertained by dinary business, and being a man of good other particulars in the application. Where moral character and habits of life, and no the order and the applidation vary from known cause or motive for him to abandon each other materially in the location of the his family, and from the moment of thus road, it is fatally defective.-Satterlee v. leaving his home he is never after seen or Winne.-Filed Jan. 19, 1886.-N. Y.