Administrators. 1. The administrator of an estate is not con-
cerned in claims against the estate of a minor intestate's
parent for support provided for in the parent's will. Plant v.
Weeks, 117.

2. When an administrator's appointment has been appealed from,
the probate court should, on application, appoint a special
administrator. Palms v. Wayne Probate Judge, 302.

3. Proceedings of commissioners on an estate are not affected
by an appeal from the order appointing the administrator,
though it may temporarily suspend the hearing and disposal
of claims, unless there is a special administrator, and if there
is, he should represent the estate. Lothrop v. Conely, 757.
4. An administrator cannot, as matter of law, recover from an
estate the amount he has paid the widow to release her right
of dower to lands sold by him under a probate license; the
purchaser can buy only the interest of the estate. Needham

v. Belote, 487.

5. An administrator can bring ejectment for land which he has
acquired by foreclosure of a mortgage left by his intestate.
Kunzie v. Wixom, 384.

6. Questions of administration have no bearing in an action of
ejectment for lands the right to which was in dispute before
the passage of the statute which subjected realty to adminis-
tration, and gave the administrator the right to hold land of
which his intestate died seized. Campau v. Dubois, 274.
Adultery. In a prosecution for adultery it is not enough to show
the prior marriage of the accused to a woman under the legal
age, without showing that she acquiesced in the marriage on
arriving at the age of consent and before the offense. People
v. Bennett, 208.

Adverse Possession. 1. An adverse holding must formerly
have been under claim of title to make void a deed given by
one out of possession; but no claim of title has been neces-
sary to perfect an adverse title under the statute of limita-
tions. Campau v. Dubois, 274.

2. Where one of several heirs had taken exclusive possession of
land to which all were entitled as tenants in common, and
had improved it without interference from the others, though
they lived in the immediate neighborhood, and no possessory
action was brought by them or by their heirs or representa-
tives for more than twenty-five years after their death, it was
held that no possession could properly be found that was not
adverse and exclusive within the statutory period of limita-
tion, and that there could be no recovery in the right of the
excluded parties. Id.

3. In Michigan since 1846, a conveyance by an excluded owner
of lands held adversely would carry what title he had. I.
4. The Michigan statute of limitations of 1829 barred recovery of
lands after a ten years' adverse undisturbed holding. Id.
5. Acquiescence for a long time in another's possession, with
knowledge of his claim of right and without asserting an ad-
verse claim does not, in an action of trover, give plaintiff a
right to damages that would not have been incurred if he had
asserted it. Rodgers v. Brittain, 477.

Affidavit. 1. An affidavit of the amount due when suit is brought
is of no force if made several days before suit is begun. Mc-
Hugh v. Butler, 185.

2. The affidavit of amount due on judgment must be filed with the
clerk of the circuit court before land can be sold on a tran-
script of a justice's judgment. Bigelow v. Booth, 622.

3. Affidavit for attachment is bad if it only states that the affiant believes the debtor is about to remove his property. Hunt v. Strew, 368.

4. Affidavit contradicting the evidence on which a bond for the restitution of a vessel seized for debt, was approved by the county clerk, is not ground for reviewing his action. Horn v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 15.

5. Absence of affidavit from writ of certiorari does not justify respondent in neglecting to return documents identified by the writ. Whistler v. Drain Commissioner, 303.

6. Where an affidavit for certiorari to review the action of a circuit court commissioner in a proceeding to dissolve an attachment is based on an erroneous finding and not a total want of testimony, and the record shows that it was not claimed before the commissioner that there was no testimony in favor of respondent, it presents no question of law. Brown v. Blanchard, 790.

7. Affidavit for warrant under the Non-imprisonment Act must state specific facts positively and not inferentially, on personal knowledge, and not on belief, and if complainant does not know the facts affidavits must be obtained from those who do. Badger v. Reade, 771.

8. A case must be reheard, if at all, on the record, and not on affidavits explaining the facts. Vanneter v. Crossman, 610. Agency. 1.

1. The knowledge of an agent who has sufficient authority to institute an action based upon it, charges his principal with notice of all the facts under which he acts. Campau v. Konan, 362.

2. The mere act of conferring an authority that may be properly delegated does not constitute such negligence as to make one innocent party who confers such power responsible for a loss caused to another by the agent's dishonesty; nor can he be responsible if the other party has been negligent. N. Y. Iron Mine v. Negaunee Bank, 644.

3. A general agent, without being specially empowered so to do, has no authority to make promissory notes in the name of his principal. Id.

4. It is competent for a corporation to show, in making defense to paper issued in its name but alleged to be unauthorized, that immediately on its existence becoming known, its validity was formally repudiated. Id.

5. The "general or special agent" of a corporation upon whom a summons in garnishment may be served (Comp. L., § 6463) is an agent having a general or special controlling authority, either generally or in respect to some particular department of corporate business. Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. v. Hunt, 469. 6. Where an alleged liability is based on papers, and there is no attempt to show that they were executed by the person against whom it is asserted, there can be no recovery against him on a theory of agency, the dealings having all been had with another and on the latter's credit. Sullivan v. Ross, 511. 7. Payees of a note given to a person as their agent and by him transmitted to them cannot claim to hold it as only bona fide purchasers. Rickle v. Dow, 91.

8. Where a bond required that demand on the surety be made within a given time, a demand by the obligee's husband was held sufficient, in the absence of any objection, though he did not expressly state that he made it in his wife's behalf. v. Briggs, 592.

Agreements. See CONTRActs.

Lee

Alimony. 1. An order opening for review a decree for permanent alimony is not final. Maxfield v. Freeman, 64.

2. The sufficiency of the alimony allowed in chancery cannot be reviewed by a jury in a proceeding at law against the husband's estate to recover for the wife's support. Crittenden v. Schermerhorn, 661.

Alterations. Interlineations in the public record of a deed are presumed to have been made by authority. Hommel v. Devinney, 522.

Amendments (1) of statutes may be sustained if their purpose is plain, even though there is confusion between the section numbers of the original act and of the amendment. Comstock

v. Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 195.

2. The amendment of an information for burglary is not permitted after judgment, to show that the premises adjoined a dwelling. Bickford v. People, 209.

See STATUTE OF JEOFAILS.

Animals. 1. A statute allowing animals running at large in a public highway to be taken by any person and publicly sold by a public officer, and providing that after the expenses of the proceedings and of keeping the animals were paid, the remainder should be paid over to their owner, who should be allowed a certain time within which to redeem them, is to remedy a public grievance and is not unconstitutional as divesting property rights without due process of law. Campau v. Langley, 451.

2. Replevin lies under Comp. L., ch. 214, to test the validity of a distress of cattle taken damage feasant, but an unfounded claim that they had been so distrained in good faith will not defeat a general action of replevin. Campau v. Konan, 362. Appeal (1) lies from dismissal of petition made before mortgage sale for leave to file an answer nunc pro tunc. Scriven v. Hursh, 98.

2. Appeal lies from commissioners on a decedent's estate to the circuit court. Lothrop v. Conely, 757.

3. Appeal lies from disallowance by commissioners of a claim against an estate for money due on decedent's written agreement. Patton v. Bostwick, 218.

4. Appeal does not lie from an order confirming the report of a special commissioner on a reference to ascertain the amount due between parties. Bewick v. Alpena Harbor Co., 700. 5. Appeal does not lie from order granting leave to file bill of review, where no steps have been taken in execution of the decree. Maxfield v. Freeman, 64.

6. Orders that are and are not appealable. Id.

7. Appeals that are not permitted by the statute are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Id.

8. Appeals from decree entered in vacation run from date of notice given to the opposite party. McClung v. McClung, 55. 9. The revivor of an injunction proceeding against the representatives of a defendant cannot be objected to by a co-defendant if they do not appeal. Pratt v. Lewis, 7.

10. Dismissal of appeal for want of jurisdiction does not give costs where the objection was not raised. Maxfield v. Freeman, 64. 11. Appeal from a justice was dismissed for being taken too late, but as it appeared that the judgment had been fraudulently ante-dated, a perpetual stay of proceedings was granted. Hall v. Howard, 219.

12. Appeal from the probate of a will can be brought only by an

executor or other person interested in it. Besançon v. Brownson, 388.

13. Appeal in probate: notice of appeal will serve as notice of trial for the first term after appeal is taken. Good v. Wayne

Circuit Judge, 1. 14. Appeals from the probate of the same will belong together and are to the sole issue of its validity, and appellants are bound alike by the probate rulings. Frazer v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 198. Appearance. A justice's docket should show whether a party appeared in person or otherwise; and an attorney's authority to appear should be shown on oath if doubted. Morton v. Crane, 526. Arbitration and Award. 1. A bond for arbitration was conditioned on the performance of an award to be made on or before a certain date at an hour named, and the submission and hearing were begun after that hour, and the award was not made until afternoon. Held, that there could be no recovery on the bond for the non-performance of the award. Elliot v. Hanson, 157.

2. An award signed by two of the arbitrators in each other's presence but not in that of the third, and by the third at a different time and place in the presence of only one of the others, is invalid, will not sustain a judgment, and should be vacated. French v. Butler, 79.

Arrest. Evidence of the resistance of the accused when arrested is admissible. Hall v. People, 717.

Arrest of fraudulent debtors must be based on an affidavit stating specific facts positively and not on mere belief, and where the claim is alleged to be in judgment, it must set forth such a judgment as will authorize the proceeding and give its date and the form of action in which it was rendered. Badger v. Reade, 771. Assault. When a plaintiff complains of personal violence as the cause of a physical disability, and no evidence is given in support of any other theory, it is error to give the jury to understand that they may find that the violence aggravated a pre-existing disability. Campau v. North, 606.

Assignments. 1. An assignment for the benefit of creditors, if in terms that would clearly transfer the title to all the debtor's property, is not invalid for want of a schedule. Coots v. Chamberlain, 565.

2. A conveyance of real estate does not invalidate an assignment made the next day, if it was a complete and independent transaction, done without contemplating an assignment; and it is for the jury to determine whether it was or not. Id. 3. A conveyance in satisfaction of a bona fide debt to some relation of the debtor does not invalidate a subsequent assignment by him for benefit of creditors, even though there had been long delay in meeting the debt; the question whether there is a debt based upon an actual consideration and recognized by the parties, is one of fact. Id.

4. The validity of a debtor's assignment cannot be made to depend on the assignee's subsequent testimony as to whether he would have taken it or not if he had known when he took it that the assignor had conveyed a tract of land the day before he made it. Id.

5. Offer of partial payment can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance, and is withdrawn and annulled by a general assignment. Coots v. McConnell, 742.

39 MICH.-101

6. Money laid aside by a banking firm to be returned to a general depositor, but not amounting to the latter's full credit, is covered by a subsequent general assignment, if not tendered and accepted before the assignment is made; and it is not freed from the assignment by afterwards charging the amount to the depositors and dating the charge as if made before the assignment. Id.

7. An assignee of goods, bringing replevin against a constable who had levied on them under an execution against the assignor, may be cross-examined as to whether he was not wholly irresponsible at the time of the assignment, if the purpose is to show that it was a fraud on creditors. Jennings v. Prentice, 421.

8. Where an assignee brings trover for the value of goods seized by anybody but an attaching or judgment creditor, the defendant cannot question the validity of the assignment. Fry v. Soper, 727.

9. An unaccepted order on a debtor does not create any liability of itself, nor does it change the original liability, and it is a proper auxiliary to aid in an assignment of the debt. Tabor v. Van Vranken, 793.

10. An assignee's rights cannot be forfeited by a garnishee's action in the assignee's wrong. Id.

11. A garnishee is not liable on a debt which the creditor had assigned before suit, if notified before his disclosure, and if he admits indebtedness without disclosing his knowledge of the assignment, and pays over the money, he cannot defend on ground of former recovery if sued therefor by the assignee. Id. 12. The assignment of a note and mortgage after beginning foreclosure, cannot affect the proceedings on the decree if it neither appears of record nor is brought to the knowledge of the court. Bigelow v. Booth, 622.

13. In proceeding against an estate to recover money realized from a judgment which had been assigned by plaintiffs to decedent, parol evidence is admissible to show that it was actually collected for the benefit of the assignors. Elder's Appeal, 474.

14. In an action to recover money collected on a mortgage that had been assigned by plaintiff to defendant, evidence is admissible tending to show whether the assignment was absolute or not, and on what consideration it rested. Hill v. Goodrich,

439.

15. An instrument securing a single creditor out of several, on property which by its terms can be disposed of only to pay the secured debt, is an equitable mortgage and not an assignment for the benefit of creditors and can be avoided only for actual fraud. Parsell v. Thayer, 467.

16. Assignment of a land certificate when meant as security is substantially a mortgage. Gunderman v. Gunnison, 313.

17. A contract that contemplates personal association is not assignable. Litka v. Wilcox, 94.

18. A vendee can transfer his right to goods before the time of delivery, and the transferee is entitled to possession at such time. Gregory v. Wendell. 337.

19. Where it is understood between the parties to a transfer of partnership interest that rights of action are transferred, and they act accordingly without objection, a third party can hardly dispute the completeness of the assignment when there is no evidence of a hostile title. Woods v. Ayres, 345.