than he charged himself with. In other words, it shifted the burden to him. Dimond v. Henderson, 47 Wis. 172. And if a second will is destroyed, it was said: "It is far better to declare an intestacy, than that a spoliator should be rewarded for his dishonesty." Of course, this ruling should be deemed as the limit as against the spoliator in a particular case. Jones v. Murphy, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 275. But suppose one makes an engagement to do a certain thing and both know that failure of performance, in the very nature of the case, can leave behind it no competent evidence as to the injury that may thus arise, does this constitute a contract to do anything at all? It seems to me, that, if this were a casual contract and outside of the engagement, the contracting parties incurred no obligation, one to the other, it would have no binding force. But suppose this were a matter of default by, say an agent, would not the matter take on a different attitude? The case of Dimond v. Henderson, 47 Wis. 172, is illustrative of the distinction suggested, making the maxim above set up apply. The insurance company occupied a position in which it was the agent of the assured and to its default the maxim applied. But as an independent contract it seems to me there would be a nudum pactum. The agent should not be allowed to deprive the principal of a positive right, by his neglect of duty, upon any supposition that this right was of no real value. It had a possibility of value. As this case was merely a defense, the legal possibility was of the assured being entitled to a verdict in his favor. It would not cover a case where there was a counterclaim. ITEMS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST. C. BAR ASSOCIATION MEETINGS FOR 1920WHEN AND WHERE TO BE HELD. American-Statler Hotel, St. Louis, Mo., August 25, 26 and 27. Alabama-Birmingham, April 30 and May 1. Arkansas-Hot Springs, June 2 and 3. Georgia-Tybee Island, May 27, 28 and 29. Illinois-Hotel Sherman, May 28 and 29. Indiana-Indianapolis, July 7 and 8. Iowa-Cedar Rapids, June 24 and 25. Kentucky-Henderson, July 14 and 15. Louisiana-New Orleans, May 7 and 8. Maryland-Hotel Chelsea, Atlantic City, N. J., June 24, 25 and 26. Michigan Detroit, June 25 and 26. Minnesota-St. Paul, July 27, 28 and 29. Mississippi-Meridian, April 28 and 29. New Jersey-Atlantic City, June 11 and 12. North Carolina-Asheville, June 29, 30 and July 1. Ohio-Cedar Point, July 6, 7 and 8. Pennsylvania-Bedford Springs, June 22, 23 and 24. South Carolina-Columbia, April 23 and 24. Virginia-The Jefferson Hotel, Richmond, May 11, 12 and 13. Wyoming-Casper, May 7 and 8. HUMOR OF THE LAW. A Probate Judge who talks in verse Suggests a decorated hearse. A Probate Judge who outlives you Concerning various other things Patient he sits, while year by year He construes the obscure devise, Protects the weak and guards the right. ROBERT GRANT. "So you've got an accident to report, have you?" said the head clerk to the foreman of the works. "Yes, sir," said the foreman; then he paused a while, gnawing his pen reflectively, before handing over his report. The latter read as follows: "Date: March 31. Nature of accident: Toe badly crushed. How caused: Accidental blow from a fellow-workman's hammer. Remarks-" "Right," said the clerk. "But why no 'Remarks'?" "Well, sir,' replied the foreman, slowly, “seein' as 'ow you know what Bill is, and seein' as 'ow you know that it was 'is big toe what was hurt, I-well, I didn't like to put 'em down. -London Tit-Bits. Техая........ U. S. C. C. App.. Vermont Washington.. 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 19, 30, 40, 41, 44, 50, 51, 60, 63, 74, 78, 81 .......16, 21, 23, 33, 47 10 14, 88 1. Bailment-Burden of Proof.-The gist of a cause of action as bailor against bailee is negligence, and the burden rests on the bailor to plead and prove negligence as the cause of the loss or injury; a burden resting on him to the end of the case.-McKeever v. Kramer, Mo., 218 S. W. 403. 2. Banks and Banking-General Deposit.The making of a general deposit with a bank creates the relation of debtor and creditor between the bank and the party in whose name the deposit is made.-Meador v. Rudolph, Tex., 218 S. W. 520. 3. Joint and Several Liability.-The directors of a bank may be severally or jointly, or severally and jointly, liable to stockholders for a loss resulting from negligence on their part, dependent on varying degrees of fidelity to the trust imposed, and on the character of negligence, whether by them as individuals or as a board.-Tackett v. Green, Ky., 218 S. W. 468. 4.Ultra Vires.-An action may be maintained against a national bank for damages resulting from its malicious or negligent torts, and in such a case the doctrine of ultra vires has no application.-Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan., 187 Pac. 697. 5. Bills and Notes-Equitable Owner.-Where plaintiff sold a saloon business to defendants and had the note for the price made payable to a liquor company, to which he expected to sell the note, he was the equitable owner, and could sue on the note in his own name.- -Wahl v. Ramsey, 218, Tex., S. W. 559. by them to aid in the further negotiation of the note to some other person did not, in absence of agreement that note should be discounted by payees and no other person, release accommodation maker from liability upon theory that it was never delivered to payees, and therefore never became a valid obligation against accommodation maker, where accommodation maker's credit was extended for the purpose of enabling the other makers to procure money.-Rabb v. Seidel, Tex., 218 S. W. 607. 7. Boundaries-Acquiescence.-Mere acquiescence in the existence of a fence between two lot owners and occupancy of land up to it does not necessarily amount to an agreement that it is on the accepted boundary line between the lots.-Hill v. Schumacher, Cal., 187 Pac. 437. 8.- Courses and Distances.-A call in a survey for corners on the ground is superior to calls for course and distance.-Brooks V. Slaughter, Tex., 218 S. W. 632. 9. Monuments.-Monuments will control courses and distances in construing a deed.Schiffmann v. Youmans, Ore., 187 Pac. 630. 10. Breach of Marriage Promise-Repetition of Promise.-When a man and woman once promised to marry each other, different and subsequent repetitions were mere ratifications and constituted no new contract.-Dyer v. Lalor, Vt., 109 Atl. 30. 11. Carriers of Live Stock-Proximate Cause. -Where an act of negligence on the part of a carrier of live stock concurs with an act of God in producing an injury, and the injury would not have happened without the negligent act, the carrier is responsible for the damages arising from its act.-Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Blackstone & Slaughter, Tex., 218 S. W. 552. 12. Carriers of Passengers-Collision.-The facts constituting the negligence resulting in collision being peculiarly within the knowledge of defendant railway company, plaintiff passenger was not bound to prove the particular acts of commission or omission upon the part of the employes of defendant which caused the accident, and was not therefore required to allege the same in his petition.-Arnett v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., lowa, 176 N. W. 322. 13. Charities-Forfeiture.-Where an instrument donating a fund to a university, provided for a forfeiture and a return of the fund for noncompliance with the conditions and trusts thereof, a suit to enforce such provision and for an accounting was properly brought in equity, as equity will grant relief for breach of a condition subsequent, though it will not enforce a forfeiture.-Curtis & Barker v. Central University of Iowa, Iowa, 176 N. W. 330. 14. Contracts-Adequate Consideration.-Ordinarily Courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration of a contract.-Mowbray Pearson Co. v. E. H. Stanton Co., Wash., 187 Pac. 370. 15. Breach.-Where plaintiff's contract to do carting for defendant for a year had been partially performed, and payment made for some months, even if it was unilateral in its inception, defendant cannot urge such objection, when sued for its breach.-Manhattan Carting Co. v. Keen's English Chop House, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 40. 16. Ejusdem Generis.-It is the ordinary rule in construction of contracts and written instruments that special terms will control general terms.-Southern Surety Co. v. Town of Greeneville, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 929. 17. Embargo.-Contract for sale of steel plates for export was not illegal, because thereafter a government embargo on such shipments was promulgated, where it is not shown that either party intended to make shipment without government permit.-Commons v. Pearson, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 482. 18. Impossibility of Performance.-Generally one contracting to do a thing possible in itself will be liable for a breach, notwithstanding the Occurrence of a contingency which, though not foreseen by him or within his control, might have been provided against, has put it out of his power to perform.-Western Drug Supply & Specialty Co. of Kansas City, Mo., v. Board of Administration of Kansas, Kan., 187 Pac. 701. 19. Place of. Arkansas Courts will, as Texas Courts would, in a like controversy, apply the laws of Texas in determining the validity of a contract made and to be performed in Texas.-Buchanan-Vaughan Auto Co. v. Woosley, Tex., 218 S. W. 554. 20. Corporations-Cumulative Voting.-Shareholders may cumulate and vote shares for one or more candidates for director.-State v. Du Brul, Ohio, 87. 21. Foreign Corporation.-Service of summons on a foreign corporation in a state where it is not shown to be doing business or to have property, and in which it has not appointed an agent under the state law on whom service may be made, is ineffective.-Pine Hill Coal Co. v. Gusicki, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 974. 22. Majority Stockholders.-Majority stockholders of an insolvent and failing company occupied a fiduciary relation to the minority stockholders, and were held to the highest good faith in the disposition of the corporate property; but the trust imposed upon them having been discharged, and it being shown that their actions were just and fair to the interests of all, minority stockholders will not be heard to invoke the well-grounded principles applied in cases involving fraud, imposition, or design to obtain corporate property by ulterior means.Carrier v. Dixon, Tenn., 218 S. W. 395. 23. Preference.-A creditor, who sold coal to an insolvent corporation, making delivery on the days on which bill for appointment of a receiver was filed, is not entitled to a preferred claim, unless the corporation was insolvent at the time of the purchase, and unless it concealed its insolvency and purchased the coal without intention of paying therefor.-Hyman v. Trow Directory Printing & Bookbinding Co., U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 991. 24. Promoter.-Promoters of a corporation stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation and its stockholders, and owe the utmost good faith, so where the promoter of a mining corporation obtained title to mining claims, and without disclosing the facts induced the corporation to issue stock in return for the con veyance of such claims, the corporation and stockholders have an option to have the stock SO issued annulled.-Frame v. Maloney, Ariz., 187 Pac. 584. 25.- Repurchase of Stock.-A corporation's agreement to repurchase stock sold an employe in case the employe quit or was discharged constituted only an option until the employe elected to sell.-Security Sav. Bank v. Workman, Iowa, 176 N. W. 307. 26. Res Judicata.-Where deficiency judgment was rendered against corporation in action on notes secured by chattel mortgage, questions as to the due execution of the note, the consideration therefor, and as to other matters relating to the validity thereof were res adjudicata in judgment creditor's action against stockholder on stockholder's liability.-Barnard v. McIntire, Cal., 187 Pac. 440. 7 27. Criminal Law Accomplice.-Corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice may be by proof of circumstances, as well as by direct testimony.-Bush v. People, Col., 187 Pac. 528. 28. Confession.-That a confession was made while defendant was in custody, and in answer to questions propounded, is not sufficient ground for the rejection of the confession, as being involuntary.-State V. Hayes, Kan., 187 Pac. 675. 29. Prosecuting Witness.-In a prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape, testimony as to declarations and complaint of the prosecuting witness, defendant's servant or housekeeper, made after she had removed to another person's house temporarily some time after the alleged offense, was inadmissible, and not part of the res gestae, as the declarations were not spontaneous.-State v. Johns, Iowa, 176 N. W. 280. 30. Res Gestae.-A statement of deceased that he was glad that the officers got the right man, made when an officer said that he had "arrested the right man," was not admissible as a dying declaration, nor as res Johnson v. State, Tex., 218 S. W. 496. gestae. 31. Death-Measure of Damages.-The measure of damages for death of child is the difference between the probable money value of the child's services and the probable expense of his education, support, and maintenance from the time of the accident until he becomes of age; but probable money value is not solely tested by what the child might earn if put to outside labor.-Linstroth v. Peper, Mo., 218 S. W. 431. 32. Deeds Delivery.-A deed is presumed to have been delivered on the day it bears date. -Tausk v. Siry, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 439. 33. Heirs of the Body.-Under the law of South Carolina, as settled by decision, the words "heirs," "heirs of the body," or "issue," must be construed to mean children, when the testator or grantor clearly indicates that he used the words in that sense.-Davenport v. Hickson, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 983. 34. Divorce Alimony.-An alimony decree is generally considered a debt of record as much as any other judgment for money.-Levine v. Levine, Ore., 187 Pac. 609. 35. Constructive Service.-Where a husband residing in Nevada obtained a divorce on service by publication from the wife, then a resi dent in Missouri, where a divorce on such service was valid, the decree of divorce will be recognized as valid and binding in the state of New York on collateral attack.-Ball v. Cross, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 434. 36. Contempt.-Where husband was unable to pay prescribed alimony, and therefore has not willfully disobeyed order of court, he will not be held in contempt for nonpayment of alimony.-Kemp v. Kemp, La., 83 So. 652. 37. Custody of Child.-A decree fixing the custody of a child is final when conditions existing at the time of its rendition remain the same, and should be modified only when conditions have changed, and then only for the child's best interests. Griffin v. Griffin, Ore., 187 Pac. 598. 38. Domicile.-The question of acquiring a residence for purposes of suing for divorce is largely a question of intention on the part of the alleged resident, but such intention must be bona fide.-Messenger v. Messenger, Iowa, 176 N. W. 260. Acts 39. Eminent Domain-Encroachment. done in the proper exercise of governmental powers, and not directly encroaching upon private property, though their consequences may impair its use, do not constitute a taking of the property.-Higgins v. Board of Supervisors of Dickinson County, Iowa, 176 N. W. 268. 40. Frauds, Statute of-Executory Contract.Authority to make an executory contract for the sale of real estate need not be in writing.— Armstrong v. Palmer, Tex., 218 S. W. 627. 41. Incident to Debt.-A vendor's lien is but an incident to the debt, and follows the debt in whatever form it may be evidenced.-Ater v. Knight, Del., 218 S. W. 648. 42. Fraudulent Conveyances-Bulk Sales Law. -Where a merchant sold a stock of goods and fixtures when indebted over $4,000, though representing that he owed no debts, the sale was in violation of the Bulk Sales Law, and the seller's creditors might look to the property for their debts; the sale being void as to them.Winchester Packing Co. v. Moyer, Kan., 187 Pac. 680. 43. Gifts-Inter Vivos.-Donations inter vivos may be revoked or dissolved because of donee's ingratitude, nonfulfillment of eventual conditions, which suspend their consummation or the nonperformance of the conditions imposed on the donee, Civ. Code, art. 1559.-Hurley v. Hurley, La., 83 So. 643. 44. Homestead-Estoppel. Where owner of lots, who had become insolvent and made an assignment of his estate, recognized conveyance made by his assignee, which conveyance called for the strip in question as an alley boundary of the lot, held, that the owner and his wife, as well as those holding under them, were estopped to claim a homestead rigth in the alley.-Boynton v. Milmo, Tex.. 218 S. W. 510. 45. Homicide-Dying Declarations.-It is the province of the court to determine in the first instance the admissibility of declarations offered as dying declarations.-Palmer v. State, Okla., 187 Pac. 502. 46. Husband and Wife Separate Property.— Money borrowed by a married woman to invest in real estate is her separate property if credit was extended to her on the faith of her existing separate property; otherwise it is community property.-Moulton v. Moulton, Cal., 187 Pac. 421. 47. Insurance Ambiguity. In case of ambiguity in an application on which surety company issued a bond, the application is to be most strongly construed against the surety company, which drew the same.-Southern Surety Co. v. Town of Greenville, U. S. C. C. A., 261 Fed. 929. 48. Estoppel.-Where the general agent of a fire company knew that a policy holder had additional insurance in companies not authorized to do business in the state of Iowa, and with such knowledge added to the policy a rider, authorizing such insurance, the fire company is estopped to assert the invalidity of the policy because of additional insurance at the time the rider was added.-A. A. Cooper Wagon and Buggy Co. v. Nat'l Ben Franklin Ins. Co., Iowa, 176 N. W. 309. 49.- -Failure of Proof.-Failure to furnish proof of loss within the time stipulated in a fire policy is no ground for defeating recovery.-. Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Roth, Ky., 218 S. W. 471. 50.- Suicide.-Self-destruction, inflicted purposely, is not classed as an "accident" within the meaning of a supplemental life insurance policy, providing for double liability in case of accidental death.-Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkes, Tex., 218 S. W. 591. 51. Libel and Slander-Libel per se.-Printed 0: written language falsely and maliciously charging crime is libelous per se.-Express Pub. Co. v. Wilkins, Tex., 218 S. W. 614. 52. Landlord and Tenant-Re-entry.-While a provision in a lease for re-entry on a condition broken may be enforced by the lessor, yet equity may relieve against forfeiture on the ground of mistake, reliance on the conduct of lessor, or waiver of forfeiture.-Faringer v. Van De Hoef, Iowa, 176 N. W. 305. 53. Termination of Tenancy.-Tender of keys to the lessor by the lessee of a store from month to month was a mere offer to terminate tenancy and surrender possession, which, when promptly declined by the lessor, did not operate as the notice necessary to terminate.-Dorn v. Oppenheim, Cal., 187 Pac. 462. 54. Master and Servant-Assurance of Master. -Where a servant complains that the instrumentality or place appears to be dangerous, and the master commands him to proceed with the work and assures him that there is no danger, then, unless the danger is obvious and manifest, the law implies a quasi new agreement, whereby the master relieves the servant from his former assumption of risk.-Hodges v. Murkinson, Ga., 102 S. E. 134. son 55. Joint Liability.-Where a father and were joint owners of an automobile, in which they were riding for pleasure, both were liable for the negligent operation of the car by the son.-Seiden v. Reimer, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 345. 56. Ratification. An automobile owner's failure to imediately discharge its employe causing injury by negligent operation of the car at a time when he was not engaged in performance of his duties, and a suggestion that the employe retain employer's attorney, did not constitute evidence of ratification of the use of automobile for joy-riding against orders.-Kilroy v. Charles L. Crane Agency Co., Mo., 218 S. W. 425. 57. Warning.-An employer is guilty of regligent breach of duty to a servant in putting him to work at a place which is unsafe by reason of a protruding set screw on a revolving shaft, without warning of the danger, known to the employer, or discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care-Ossenberg v. Monsanto Chemical Works, Mo., 218 S. W. 421. 58. -Wrongful Discharge.-An employe may sue upon his unlawful discharge for the amount of wages he would have earned under the contract had he been permitted to fully perform it, and the damages are prima facie the amount provided for in the contract; the employer having the burden of showing what the employe earned or could have earned after his discharge. Osterman v. St. Louis Fish & Oyster Co., Mo., 218 S. W. 410. 61.-Express Grant.-A municipal corporation has no inherent power to enact police regulations, but such authority must be expressly granted or clearly implied.-Smith v. Hosford, Kan., 187 Pac. 685. 62. Negligence Proximate Cause. Negligence, to be the proximate cause of an injury, must be such that a person of ordinary caution or prudence would have foreseen that some injury would likely result therefrom, not that the specific injury would result.-Kroll v. Union Pac. R. Co., Kan., 187 Pac. 661. 63. Novation Substitution.-Novation is effected by the substitution of a new obligation, between the same parties, with the intention to extinguish the old one, or by the substitution of a new debtor with the intention to release the old one, or by the substitution of a new creditor with the intention to transfer the rights of the old one to him.-Meador v. Rudolph, Tex., 218 S. W. 520. 64. Nuisance-Abatement. — A nuisance may be abated, but inoffensive private property may not be arbitrarily destroyed.-In re Seven Barrels of Wine, Fla., 83 So. 627. 65. Partnership-Profits. As between the parties, participation in the profits of a business raises the presumption of the existence of a partnership.-Hindman v. Secoy, Mo., 218 S. W. 416. 66. -Profits. Where a contract between plaintiff and defendants for the purchase and sale of cattle provided for a division of profits, a check for the purchase price of the cattle sold, not paid, but placed in the hands of a lawyer for collection, does not constitute profits until payment.-Bower & Bower v. Collinsworth, Ky., 218 S. W. 455. 67. Payment-Check of Debtor.-Acceptance of buyer's check by sellers did not constitute payment, where no payment had been made on check, though sellers had previously accepted buyer's checks as payment when checks were paid; the only inference, if any, from such practice, being that tender of check would prevent sellers from successfully asserting a default by reason of nonpayment or nontender.-Bombar v. Fisher, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 449. 68. Principal and Agents Declaration by Agent.-The rule that agency may not be proven by the alleged agent's declarations does not preclude establishment of such agency by the agent's testimony.-Lyons V. Farm Property Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Iowa, Iowa, 176 N. W. 291. 69.- Personal Business.-A principal is not chargeable with notice of his agent's acts done in the apparent scope of his authority, but with a purpose to defraud the principal.-Mueller & Martin v. Liberty Ins. Bank, Ky., 218 S. W. 465. 70. Principal and Surety-Paid Surety.-The rule of law that a surety is a favorite of the law and that a claim against him is strictissimi juris has no application where a bond is executed by a surety for a compensation and where surety is organized for the purpose of executing such bonds for hire and for a profit, such undertakings being construed strongly in favor of the obligee, notwithstanding Rev. St. 1099, & 1209.Dorr v. Bankers' Surety Co., Mo., 318 S. W. 398. 71. Railroads-Vigilance.-The duty of vigilance to avoid accident is upon a traveler continuously until he has crossed the track.-Olds v. Hines, Ore., 187 Pac. 586. 72. Rape-Corroboration.-In New Mexico no corroboration of a prosecutrix for rape, by way of testimony of an independent character emanating from an outside source, is required in order to sustain a conviction.-State v. Armijo, N. M., 187 Pac. 553. 73. Sales-Consideration.-The seller of goods being under obligation to deliver at the contract price, the buyer's agreement to pay an increased price is without consideration.-Porter v. Orensein, N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 418. 74. Delivery.-The purchaser of goods is not required to accept delivery of them at a place other than provided in the contract, and limit damages to the difference in cost of shipping from the two places, but may stand on his contract, and recover as though the seller had refused to make any delivery.-Dallas Waste Mills v. Early-Foster Co., Tex., 218 S. W. 515. 75.-Implied Warranty.-Where the inside of stacks of hay purchased by defendant could not well be examined until the hay was used, and part of it was unmerchantable because it had spoiled, defendant was entitled, under Comp. Laws 1913, § 5981, to recover upon an implied warranty of merchantability.-Gussner v. R. Miller & H. Shuper, N. D., 176 N. W. 359. 76. Rescission.-A rescission of a contract of sale, accepted by the seller, entitles the parties to be put in statu quo in respect to the contract, and entitles the buyer to recover all money paid thereon.-H. Muller & Co. v. Effangee Tobacco Co., N. Y., 180 N. Y. State 344. 77. Warranty.-The positive representation by a seller that the article sold possesses a certain value and certain qualities amounts to a warranty.-Swift & Co. v. Meekins, N. C., 102 S. E. 138. 79. Trover and Conversion-Demand and Refusal. Where a conversion has actually occurred, there is no necessity of alleging and proving a demand and refusal to maintain an action of trover.-Daniels v. Foster & Kleiser, Ore., 187 Pac. 627. 80.- Punitive Damages.-A finding of actual damages to the amount of the usable value of personal property wrongfully taken will support a recovery for punitive damages.-Sansone v. Studebaker Corporation of America, Kan., 187 Pac. 673. 81. Vendor and Purchaser - Tender. Purchaser's repudiation of contract before time for delivery of deeds made formal tender of deeds by vendor unnecessary.-Armstrong v. Palmer, Tex., 218 S. W. 627. 82. Water and Water Courses-Prior Appropriation.-Where waters from an artificial stream created by an owner thereof are deposited into a natural stream, so that the creator of the flow has lost his dominion over it, the appropriator of the water can acquire no right as against the creator of the flow to require him to continue supplying such waters to the stream.-Hagerman Irr. Co. v. East Grand Plains Drainage Dist., N. M., 187 Pac. 555. 83.- -Prior Location.-The first locator on mining ground has no right, by custom or otherwise, to allow "tailings" to run free in gulch through which stream runs, and render valueless the mining claims of subsequent locatois below him.-Dripps v. Allison's Mines Co., Cal., 187 Pac. 448. 84. Wills-Charitable Use.-One of the essential features of a "charitable use" within such statute is that it shall be for the public benefit, either for the entire public or for some particular class of persons indefinite in number who constitute a part of the public. In re Dol's Estate, Cal., 187 Pac. 428. 85. -Conflicting Provisions.-The first provision of a will prevails over the last.-Newell v. Kern, Mo., 218 S. W. 443. 86. Testamentary Capacity.-Testamentary capacity as to personalty is governed by the law of the testator's domicile, and personalty should distributed accordingly.-Shaw v. Grimes, Ky., 218 S. W. 447. be 87. Work and Labor Gratuitous Service.Where one is employed in the service of another for any period of time, the law implies a promise to pay what such services are reasonably worth, unless it is understood that the services were rendered gratuitously, or unless they were rendered under circumstances repelling the presumption.-Dev v. Quinn, Ariz., 187 Pac. 578. 88. Quantum Meruit.-Where one renders services as a member of the family of the per son served, receiving support therein, a presump tion arises that such services are gratuitous, and to authorize recovery therefore it must appear that the services were rendered in the expectation by the one of receiving, and by the other of making, compensation therefor.-Hendryx V. Turner, Wash., 187 Pac. 372. |