premises; nor will a bill by A and his wife, and sworn to by A, against the defendant, in which the title of certain goods is said to be in them, prevent A alone from recovering the goods of the defendant; 10 nor will a bill by one partner against his copartner, to compel a dissolution, notwithstanding and ignoring an award, be evidence against complainant as to his attitude toward such award; 11 nor will a bill by A and B against C, to enjoin a judgment in ejectment obtained by C against B, alleging that the land belonged to A, and that B was only his tenant, conclude A in a subsequent action against him by C in reference to the premises; 12 nor will an allegation in a bill that "a great part" of the principal of a mortgage is due, conclude complainant's claim that it is all due.13

But in some instances a bill has been allowed to be read to prove such admissions.14 In Cory v. Gerteken,15 a cross-bill was read.

A bill is thus admissible if sworn to,16 although complainant is a feme covert, suing by her next friend; 17 or if the bill was authoritatively signed by counsel,18 but not unless so signed; 19 but not sworn statements therein made on information by others.20

And so of the averments in a declaration,21 or in a writ,22 or a libel brought by a trustee, and afterwards introduced for the benefit of his cestui que trust.23

It was held competent to prove that complainant's demand was stale,24 that such a bill had been filed by a tenant for life, in a subsequent suit against the remaindermen; 25 a sworn bill which admits that certain property in dispute was sold under execution, dispenses with defendants producing the fi. fd.,28 by an infant's guardian read against them, after they arrived at full age, without objection; 27 by defendant's recognizing plaintiff's title to lands under a conveyance from an attorney with limited authority; 28 a comOwen v. Bartholomew, 9 Pick. 519; Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 272, 287.

9 Werkheiser v. Werkheiser, 3 Rawle, 326.

10 Beatly v. Randall, 3 Allen, 441. See Derby v. Derby, 6 C. E. Gr. 51.

11 Doupe v. Stewart, 28 U. C. Q. B. 192.

12 Robbins v. Wolcott, 28 Conn. 396. 13 Hagan v. Ryan, 12 C. E. Gr. 236.

14 Wollett v. Roberts, 1 Ch. Cas. 64; Crawley v. Phillips, 2 Sid. 220; Mountford v. Ranie, 2 Keb. 499; Medcalf v. Medcalf, 1 Atk. 65; Riley v. Adams, 11 Mod. 276; Randall v. Parramore, 1 Fla. 409; Robbins v. Butler, 24 Ill. 387; Schwarz v. Sears, Walk. (Mich.) 19; Van Rensselaer v. Akin, 22 Wend. 553; Hammett v. Emerson, 27 Me. 308. 15 2 Madd. 40.

16 Adams v. McMillen, 7 Port. 73; Durden v. Cleveland, 4 Ala. 225; McRea v. Ins. Bank, 16 Ala. 755; Callan v. McDaniel, 62 Ala. 96; Stump v. Henry, 6 Md. 201; Elliott v. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180; Siebert v. Leonard, 21 Minn. 442; Hall v. Guthrie, 10 Mo. 621; Cooper v. Day, 1 Rich. Eq. 26.

17 McLemore v. Nuckolls, 37 Ala. 662. But see Savage v. Dowd, 54 Miss. 728.

18 Brown v. Jewett, 120 Mass. 215. See Dennie v. Williams, 135 Mass. 28; Dowyelot v. Rawlings, 58 Mo. 75.

19 Belden v. Davis, 2 Hall, 433. See Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C. 83; Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall, 60; Hurst v. Jones, 10 Lea, 8; Combes v. Hodge, 21 How. 397.

20 Hall v. Guthrie, 10 Mo. 621.

21 Bliss v. Nichols, 12 Allen, 443; Brown v. Littlefield, 7 Wend. 454. See Oppenheimer v. Edney, 9 Humph. 385. 22 Robison v. Swett, 3 Me. 316.

23 Church v. Shelton, 2 Curt. C. C. 271.

24 Handeside v. Brown, 1 Dick. 236.

25 Nangle v. Smith, 1 Irish Eq. 119.

26 Jones v. Thacker, 61 Ga. 329.

27 McConnell v. Bowdry, 4 Mon. (Ky.) 392. But see

Crump v. Gerock, 40 Miss. 765.

28 Ib.

plaint against a third person for damages; 29 a sworn bill is available against one claiming the same lands, under the complainant,30 and against complainant's heir; 31 children, to support their legitimacy, may introduce a bill for divorce filed by one parent against the other, charging their marriage, and also the answer of the other parent admitting it.

If a bill has been amended, the original bill cannot be read against complainant as evidence to prove what he considered his right at the time of filing it; nor can complainant himself so use it.34

As to a bill of particulars, see Hartell v. Seyberl. But the original may be resorted to, in order to impeach his testimony at the hearing.36

As to an answer which has been superseded by another: 37 How far a complainant is bound by statements in a bill which was dismissed.38 J. H. STEWART.

29 Hammat v. Russ, 16 Me. 171.

30 Stump v. Henry, 6 Md. 201; Parkhurst v. McGraw, 24 Miss. 134.

31 Chipman v. Thompson, Walk. (Mich.) 405.

32 Henderson v. Cargill, 31 Miss. 367. See Cooley v. State, 55 Ala. 162.

33 Hales v. Pomfret, Dan. 141; Ponce v. McEvy, 51 Cal. 222; Kimball v. Bellows, 13 N. H. 58.

34 Pearsall v. McCartney, 28 Ala. 110; Fogg v. Edwards, 20 Hun, 90. See Mulligan v. Illinois, R. R. Co., 36 Iowa 181; Johnson v. McGrew, 42 Iowa 555; Iowa County v. Huston, 43 Iowa, 485.

35 1 T. & H. Pr. § 475.

36 Johnson v. Powers. 65 Cal. 179.

37 Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154; Daub v. Englebach, 109 Ill. 267; Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 408; Strong v. Dwight, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 319; Winchester v. Evans, 3 Hayw. 305; Adams v. Utley, 87 N. C. 356;1Guy v. Manuel, 89 N. C. 88; Hurst v. Jones, 10 Lea, 8; Kenah v. Steam Tug John Makee (U. S. C. C., E. D. Penn.), 14 Rep. 646.

38 Mulvey v. Gibbins, 87 Ill. 367; Winship v. Winship, 43 Ind. 291; Shepard v. Pratt, 32 Iowa, 296; Samuel v. Sayre, 5 Dana, 230; Bore v. Quirry, 4 Mart. (La.) 545; Brown v. Feeter, 7 Wend. 301; Carr v. Emory College, 32 Ga. 557; Smith v. Harrell, 16 La. Ann. 100; Isaac v. Clarke, 2 Gill. 1.

MISSOURI

.48, 145 NEBRASKA ........10, 39, 77, 116, 170, 181, 182, 187, 192, 247, 248 NEW HAMPSHIRE.

......59 NEW JERSEY 60, 62, 65, 86, 97, 103, 104, 105, 153, 206, 210, 213 214, 262, 265, 269, 276 NEW YORK .. ..26, 32, 83, 151, 219, 220, 256, 258, 263, 264 NORTH CAROLINA.....15, 93, 94, 122, 134, 176, 190, 205, 260, 274 PENNSYLVANIA 2, 9, 21, 55, 78, 88, 107, 113, 117, 130, 131, 146 148, 167, 169, 174, 175, 186, 198, 198, 204, 211, 215, 224, 226, 230 246, 271

An administrator

2. ADMINISTRATOR Sale by.. having sold the land of his intestate under authority of the proper court, and then objected to the confirmation on the ground that the price was inadequate, the court confirmed the sale. Held, that no error was committed as mere inadequacy of price will not authorize the setting aside of a judicial sale.-Frey's Appeal, S. C. Penn., Feb. 28, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 585.

3. ADOPTION-Fraud.- -One who has lived with and labored for another for a number of years, under the impression that he has been adopted by him, has no remedy in equity unless he can show that his belief was the result of the fraud of the other party.-Durkee v. Durkee, S. C. Vt., March 25, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 490.

4. ADVERSE POSSESSION-Period.- -In Kentucky, adverse possession for fifteen years vests title and takes away from others the right of entry. Such possession need not immediately precede the bringing of the action to recover the land. Actual occupation of part of the land designated by bounderies all being held adversely, constitutes such adverse possession.-Sanders v. Barbee, Ky. Ct. App., Feb. 26, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 528.

5. ADVERSE POSSESSION-Personal Property-Statute of Limitations.- Title to personal property may be gained by six years' adverse possession, and the statute begins to run in favor of a purchaser in good faith from one having the possession from the time of purchase.Merrill v. Bullard, S. C. Vt., March 1, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 157. 6. APPEAL- Bond Constitutional Law.-——An attorney of record cannot sign for his client an appeal bond without authority to do so under seal. Construction of Public Statutes of Rhode Island, ch. 582.— Andrews v. Beane, S. C. R. I., Feb. 5, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 540.

-

7. APPEAL- Certificate of Judge-Amount Involves. Where after dismissal of two counts in his petition by the plaintiff, the amount in controversy is less than $100, the supreme court has no jurisdiction on appeal without a certificate of the trial judge.-Cooper v. Wilson, 8. C. Iowa, March 10, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 261.

his favor.-Shaffer v. Cambria Iron Co., S. C. Penn., Feb. 14, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 202. 10. APPEAL Jury Challenges. Objections to jurors will be unavailing on appeal, unless it appears that the party exhausted his peremptory challenges.Curran v. Percival, 8. C. Neb., March 16, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 213.

11. APPEAL Justice - Discretion of County Court. -Costs. -The discretion of a county court in granting an appeal from a justice of the peace is not reviewable on appeal; in such a case, costs are not allowable to the petitioner.-Munger v. Verder, S. C. Vt., March 1, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 154.

12. APPEAL-Statute.- -In Indiana, an appeal must be perfected within one year after the rendition of the judgment. Statutes of Indiana construed. - Lange v. Lammier, S. C. Ind., March 29, 1887; 11 N. E. Rep. 33. 13. APPEAL-Stipulation.- A judgment will not be disturbed which was rendered upon a stipulation of counsel that, in certain contingencies, final judgment should be rendered, unless indeed it appears to the ap. pellate court that the evidence fails utterly to support the ruling.-Miller v. Green, S. C. Ind., March 29, 1887; 11 N. E. Rep. 35.

14. APPEAL-Waiver of-Objections.A party who has failed to except to the ruling of the court directing a verdict, but only excepted to the judgment, cannot upon appeal object to the instruction directing a verdict.-Robinson v. County of Linn, S. C. Iowa, 32 N. W. Rep. 274.

15. APPEARANCE Executor Judicial Sale Statute. -Parties who appear to a statutory proceeding against an executor to sell land, and by their answer deny that the testator owned the land, cannot object to irregularities, having answered to the merits. What is necessary to be alleged in such a proceeding seeking a judicial sale under the Code of North Carolina, §§ 1448, 1474, 1475.-Brooks v. Brooks, S. C. N. Car., March 16, 1887; 1 S. E. Rep. 487.

16. ARBITRATION - Return of Award - Alteration of Agreement. -Under Massachusettes laws, the submission to arbitration must fix the time of the return of the award, and it must be returned to the court within that time to give the court jurisdiction. Any alteration of the agreement must be executed as was the original agreement.-Bent v. Erie, etc. Co., S. J. C. Mass., Feb. 26, 1887; 10 N. E. Rep. 778.

18. ASSAULT AND BATTERY Evidence-Instructions. -In a civil action for assault and battery, biting plaintiff's nose, it is competent to prove by a physician the condition of plaintiff's nose eight months after the injury. It is not competent to prove in mitigation of damages that several days before the assault complained of the plaintiff made an unprovoked assault on the defendant. It is not competent to prove that the grand jury refused to indict defendant for the assault in question. If no exception be taken to instructions given, a party cannot complain that instructions requested were not given, if it does not appear that they were not embodied in those that were given.-Bonino v. Caledonio, S. J. C. Mass., March 23, 1887; 1 N. E. Rep. 98.

19. ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS - Mortgages - Pref. erences.An insolvent firm may make at one time separate deeds and mortgages to some of their creditors, covering all the partnership and individual prop. erty, and such acts do not constitute a general assignment,under the Iowa law,so as to be void,as not being for the benefit of all their creditors.-Aulman v. Aulman, S. C. Iowa, March 7, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 240.

20. ASSOCIATIONS-Beneficiary-Revocation of Charter -Appeal.- -Members of a voluntary association cannot appeal to the courts to restore property taken from them by the superior body of the association till they have sought relief in the manner pointed out by the laws of the association.-Oliver v. Hopkins, S. J. C. Mass., Feb. 28, 1887; 10 N. E. Rep. 776.

21. ASSUMPSIT-Promise to Another-Lease Conditional Contract. Assumpsit cannot be maintained upon a lease to which plaintiff was neither party nor privy. A third person may maintain an action on a promise to another if there has been a breach of a contract according to its terms. An action cannot be maintained on a conditional contract, according to the terms of which the defendant is not liable at all.-Grim v. Thomas Iron Co., S. C. Penn., March 14, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 595.

-Upon

22. ATTACHMENT-Fraudulent Conveyance.an attachment of goods, alleged to have been fraudu. lently conveyed, it appeared that they, nominally worth $8,000, were sold to an expert in the business for $6,000 on credit; that they would not have been worth that much to an average purchaser, and that the person to whom they were conveyed had a reasonable prospect of paying for them: Held that the conveyance was not fraudulent.-Miami Powder Co. v. Hotchkiss, U. S. C. C. (Ill.), Jan. 17, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 767.

26. BANKS-Savings Bank-Bond to Secure DepositsGuaranty. -Under New York law, a savings bank depositing funds in a national bank, may require interest to be paid on such deposits, provided they are payable on demand. A bank may require in such a case a bond to secure the deposits, and if a new bond is given on demand the old one may be surrendered, and a guaranty indorsed on the new bond is obligatory, although the guarantor did not know that the old bond had been surrendered.-Erie, etc. Bank v. Coit, N. Y. Ct. App., March 1, 1887; 11 N. E. Rep. 54.

27. BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES-Records-Evidence-Life Insurance-Insanity.- The records of a voluntary society may be contradicted to show that they do not disclose all the proceedings of that body; the evidence impugning the record must be so clear as to leave no doubt. Insanity is no excuse for the non-payment of assessments in a benevolent life insurance society.Hawkshaw v. Supreme Lodge, etc., U. S. C. C. (Ill.), Jan 17, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 770.

28. BILLS OF EXCHANGE-Acceptance of CorporationBurden of Proof.- -A holder of a bill of exchange has the same rights whether the acceptance was before or after he acquired the bill. When a corporation denies the authority of its treasurer to accept a draft, because it is an accommodation acceptance and because the holder is not a bona fide holder for value, the burden of proving these allegations rests upon the corporation.Credit, etc. Co. v. Home, etc. Co., 8. C. Conn., Dec. 17, 1886; 8 Atl. Rep. 472.

29. BILLS AND NOTES-Guaranty in Blank-Action-Dismissal of Party. A guaranty in blank, if made by a party holding titleĵon a promissory note, passes good title to the indorsee. A joint action against the maker and the guarantor may be maintained against the

maker after a dismissal as to the guarantor.-Phelps v. Church, S. C. Mich., Feb. 15, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 30. 30. BONDS-State- - Funding - Excessive - Bona Fide Holder. -The holder of genuine State bonds is entitled to have them funded, though the auditor's books show that too many bonds have been already funded.Buckingham v. Bd. Liquidation, S. C. La., March 21, 1887; 1 South. Rep. 653.

31. BURGLARY-Indictment-Instruction

Servant.

It is not necessary in an indictment for burglary, with intent to commit larceny, that it shall describe the property to be stolen. It is error to instruct the jury on only one of three modes of burglarious entrance charged in the indictment. In case of a servant, there must be an actual breaking in; if he is associated with others and lets them in, they may be convicted, as in such case their entrance is a constructive breaking.Neiderluck v. State, Tex. Ct. App., Feb. 2, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 573.

32. BURGLARY - Instruction. When the evidence fully sustains an indictment for burglary, it is proper for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury, on the subject of lesser offense; a statutory misdemeanor.— Poople v. Meegan, N. Y. Ct. App., March 1, 1887; 11 N. E Rep. 48.

33. CARRIERS-Bill of Lading-Short Weight-Damage. -The stamping of the words "weight unknown" on a bill of lading, repels any presumption from the weight marked on the margin. Other proof o short welght must be must be made.-Ruling as to damage.-Matthiesen, etc. Co. v. Gusi, U. S. D. C. (N. Y.), Jan. 25, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 794.

34. CARRIERS-Female Passenger-"Indecorous" Conduct.A carrier of passengers is not liable to a female passenger for merely "indecorous" conduct to her by his employees. Their conduct, to make their principal liable for exemplary damages, must be obscene, immodest or wanton.-Louisville, etc. Co. v. Bulard, Ky. Ct. App., March 5, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 530.

35. CARRIERS-Negligence-Free Pass.A carrier is bound to exercise a high degree of care for a passenger, even traveling on a free pass. To make the carrier liable, however, there must be proof of negligence. The fact that a door was slammed against his person, causing the injury, is not, without more, proof of such negligence.-Hospes v. Chicago, etc. Co., U. S. C. C. (Minn.), February, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 763.

the mortgage provides for a sale in another county than the one in which the mortgagor resides, still the mortgage must be recorded in the county where the sale takes place.—Loeb v. Milner, S. C. Neb., March 9, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 205.

40. COLLISION - Negligence. It is negligence for old and weak boats to expose themselves without no. tice at wharves to contact with stouter vessels, and in case of injury from such contact cannot by reason of such negligence recover more than half damages.Hartt v. The N. B. Starbuck, U. S. D. C. (N. Y.), Jan. 31, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 797.

41. CONSTITUTIONAL SALE-Evidence.-If an agree. ment shows clearly on its face that it is a mortgage or a conditional sale, its character cannot be changed by parol proof. If, however, it is so far ambiguous that the intention of the parties does not appear, parol evidence may be received to show what they did mean.— Hubley v. Harris, S. C. Tex., Feb. 15, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 558.

Notice.

42. CONDITIONAL SALE-Purchasers -Under Iowa law, a conditional sale of personal property not recorded is void against a purchaser from the vendee in possession, unless each purchaser had actnal notice thereof that by diligence he might have known of it is immaterial.-Moline Plow Co. v. Braden, S. C. Iowa, March 8. 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 247.

43. CONFLICT OF LAWS-Bills of Exchange-Corporation -Acceptance-Holder for Value - - Pre-existing DebtAccommodation -Acceptance.If a bill is drawn on a corporation doing business in New York and is pay. able there, the law of New York governs. A business corporation cannot accept drafts for accommodation, nor can it be authorized to do so by the consent of directors or stockholders. A holder of a bill which he takes for a pre-existing debt is not, under New York law, a holder for value, and therefore cannot recover upon an acceptance of an accommodation bill by a corporation. An indorser, not originally a bona fide holder for value, does not become such because he has taken up the draft at maturity.-Webster v. Home, etc. Co., S. C. Conn., Dec. 18, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 482.

45. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Municipal Corporation Taxation.- A mandamus will be awarded to compel the levy and collection of an adequate tax to pay interest on a debt incurred by a municipal corporation, under a constitutional provision requiring the levy and collection of such a tax, and its application to the interest and principal, when due, of such corporation indebtedness is superior to that of the charter which limits the rate of taxation for municipal purposes to a certain percentage.-City of East St. Louis v. United States, ex rel., U. S. S. C. March 14, 1887; 7 S. C. Rep. 739.

-The

46. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Obligation of Contracts Taxing Districts - Mandamus Limitations.taxing district is the successor of the town or city whose charter has been repealed, and is obliged to provide for the liabilities of the latter. It must levy taxes to provide for such liabilities, and may be compelled to do so by mandamus. The statute of limitations, as against the creditor of a town or city, is suspended by a repeal of its charter which extinguishes the body liable to be sued for such debts. The rights of the creditors of such town or city are not affected by legislative action abolishing their remedy, as such action is repug. nant to the clause of the constitution of the United States forbidding States to impair the obligation of contracts.-Devereaux v. City of Rrownsville, U. S. C. C. (Tenn.), Jan. 25, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 742.

47. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Statute.- -A statute providing that, in action pending when a statute relating to or apparently controlling it shall be effected by such last mentioned statute, but shall proceed as if such statute had not been passed, is unconstitutional, because a legislature cannot preclude itself by legislative action from future legislative action.-State to use, etc. v. Hicks, S. C. Ark., March 11, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 524,

48. CONTRACT-Agent.- -A contract for carriage of cattle is fully made and binding on both parties when the shipper says he wants a certain number of cars on a named day at a named station, and that he would have the cattle at that time ready at that station, and the freight agent of the aailroad said that the cars should then and there be ready. A railroad is bound for the acts of a person whom it permits for a year or more to hold himself out as the general freight agent of the company.-Baker v. Kansas City, etc. Co., S. C. Mo., Feb. 28, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 486.

49. CONTRACT-Consideration-Time of Essence- New Obligation.If a creditor, in consideration of receiving part payment of his debt before maturity, may release a lien which secures the remainder, such prepayment is a sufficient consideration for the release. One who wishes to make time of the essence of a contract must have it so expressed as to leave no doubt.Kirchoff v Voss, S. C. Tex., Feb. 4, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 548. 50. CONTRACT Construction.A contract was made to build a steamboat and the speed to be attained by the boat was stipulated to be fifteen miles an hour and the trial trip to be made "at sea." It was held that the miles mentioned in the contract were marine miles. -Rockland, etc. Co. v. Fessenden, S. J. C. Me., Feb. 25, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 550.

51. CONTRACT-Construction- Equity-A Contract to Cut the Timber off Certain Lands Construed-Ruling as to Interest.-A hard and intricate contract, if there is no fraud, will not be set aside by a court of equity.Goodridge v. Forsman, S. J. C. Me., Feb. 23, 1887; 8 Atl. Bep. 547.

52. CONTRACT-Deed-Parol Agreement-Merger- Collateral Agreement Pleading Presumption.- A deed and a written contract executed together will be construed as one contract. Parol stipulations will be regarded as merged therein. What is and what is not a collateral agreement. If a contract declared upon is not averred to be in writing it will be presumed to be parol. A judgment will be reversed if demurrers to several paragraphs are erroneously overruled, unless it appears that the finding was exclusively upon a good paragraph.-Carr v. Hayes, S. C. Ind., March 19, 1887; 11 N. E. Rep. 25.

53. CONTRACT-Illegal-Intoxicating Liquors - Agent. -One who, as agent, sells "bitters" (chiefly whisky) without license, in violation of the law, such sale being an indictable offense, cannot be held liable to his principal for the proceeds of such sale as for goods sold and delivered, both parties being equally guilty and the contract being illegal. Potior est conditio defendentis.— O'Bryan v. Fitzpatrick, S. C. Ark., March 19, 1887; 3 S. W. Rep. 527.

If one party

54. CONTRACT-Rescission-Waiver.wrongfully terminates a contract, the other need not show, in order to recover, that he continued ready to perform on his part. It is not a waiver of the right to rescind to make a payment after the breach of a contract for work done under it. Bond v. Carpenter, S. C. R. I., Jan. 29, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 539.

55. CORPORATIONS-Insolvency-Creditor's Bill-Liability of Subscriber-Transfer. -On a bill filed by a creditor of an insolvent corporation against some stockholders to compel the unpaid portion of the capital stock thereof in satisfaction of its debts, an account should be taken of all the debts, assets and unpaid capital, and a decree should be made for an assessment of the amount due by each stockholder. A subscription

to the capital stock of a corporation to be formed, fol. lowed by action thereunder after the incorporation, cannot be repudiated by the subscriber in such a suit. A subscriber is not released from his liability by a tranfer of his stock not entered on the books of the corporation. It was not decided, that the transferee of stock is not liable for the unpaid portion of the shares held by him, when the unpaid capital is required to pay debts.-Bell's Appeal, S. C. Penn., Jan. 3, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep.

58. CORPORATIONS-Purchase of Stock Broker-Assessments. A bank which purchases stock in a corporation as a broker, but has it transferred to itself, becomes a stockholder therein, and continues liable for unpaid installments thereof, under Virginia laws, though it immediately transfers the stock.-McKim v. Glenn, Md., Ct. Ap., Jan. 21, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 130.

59. COSTS-Amendment of Plea.If a defendant is ordered by the court to make his plea more certain, and in doing so he incurs expenses for surveying, etc., such expenses are not taxable costs.-New Hampshire, etc. Co. v. Tilton, U. S. C. C. (N. H.), Feb. 3, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 764. 60. COSTS-Chancery.- -Various costs allowed and others disallowed.-Pearman v. Gould, N. J. Ct. Ch., Feb. 28, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 285.

61. COUNTY-Commissioners.- -In Indiana, the term of office of one commissioner ends, and that of another begins, each year.-Parcel v. State ex rel., 8. C. Ind., March 16, 1887; 11 N. E. Rep. 4.

Under

62. COUNTY-Criminal Law - Mandamus. the law of New Jersey, a bill for the expenses of detecting criminals must be verified by affidavit, approved by the prosecuting attorney, certified by the presiding judge, and presented for payment to the board of chosen freeholders of the county. In proper cases, if necessary, a mandamus will issue directing the board to pay the bill, but that writ will not lie against the county auditor.-State ex rel. v. Applegate, County Auditor, S. C. N. J., March 4, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 505.

-In a petition

64. CREDITOR'S BILL-When it Lies. to reach money in the court, apparently belonging to another creditor, the petitioner must show he has exhausted his remedy at law against the common debtor/ or that he has a specific lien upon the particular property or money sought to be reached, under Wisconsin law. Meissner v. Meissner, S. C. Wis., March 1, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 51.

65. CRIMINAL LAW-Accused-Cross-examination.When the accused becomes a witness in his own behalf, it is discretionary with the court to allow him to be cross-examined on the whole case.-Disque v. State, S. C. N. J., Feb. 17, 1887; 8 Atl. Rep. 281.

66. CRIMINAL LAW-Ambiguous Sentence-Jurisdiction Habeas Corpus. -Where, on three indictments, a defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for five years upon each indictment, "said terms not to run concur.

rently," these words are ambiguous, uncertain, and incapable of application. The decision of United States district and circuit courts in criminal cases is final, but if, upon habeas corpus, it appears that a judgment of such a court is void because it is senseless, it may be set aside and the proper relief afforded.-United States v. Patterson, keeper, etc., U. S. C. C. (N. J.) Jan. 31, 1887; 29 Fed. Rep. 775.

67. CRIMINAL LAW-Appeal - Instructions - No Evidence. Where the instructions are set out, but not the evidence, the judgment will be affirmed, if the instructions contain no error in law.-State v. Koll, S. C. Iowa, March 9, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 259.

68. CRIMINAL LAW-Arson-Owner.- -A person who burns a gin-house at the request of the owner to procure the insurance, is guilty, under section 4349, but not under section 4347, of Alabama laws.-Heard v. State, S. C. Ala., Feb, 28, 1887; 1 South. Rep. 640.

-An in

69. CRIMINAL LAW-Burglary-Indictment.formation, charging that the breaking and entering were done wilfully, maliciously and feloniously, is sufficient.-State v. Jordan, S. C. La., March 21, 1887; 1 South. Rep. 655.

70. CRIMINAL LAW-Confession-Joint Defendant-Instruction.- -An instruction that the confession of both defendants, in order to have weight, must be freely and voluntarily made, and will not warrant a conviction, unless made in open court, without other proof that the offense was committed, was held not to have prejudiced the appellant.-State v. Kreiger, S. C. Iowa, March 4, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 13.

71. CRIMINAL LAW-Two Defendants-Statement by One.- Where two defendants are jointly tried, the declaration of one of them should not be admitted without excluding the part of it relating to the other, or instructing the jury not to consider it in relation to the other.-State v. Kreiger, S. C. Iowa, March 4, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 17.

72. CRIMINAL LAW-Disorderly Conduct - Indictment. -An indictment for disturbing a family by offensive conduct, must allege the acts constituting such conduct. -Fiuch v. State, S. C. Miss, March 7, 1887; 1 South. Rep. 630.

73. CRIMINAL LAW-Grand Jury-Change of TermWaiver.After verdict, but before sentence, it is too late to object that the grand jury was summoned to a certain time, which, by law, was altered to a week later before the jury assembled, which, however, did not make the grand jury illegal.-State v. Jeffcoat, S. C. S. Car., Feb. 16, 1887; 1 S. E. Rep. 440.

74. CRIMINAL LAW-Instructions.- A case will not be reversed when the instructions, taken together, explain the law of the case.-Johnson v. State, S. C. Ala., Dec. Term, 1886; 1 South. Rep. 573.

75. CRIMINAL LAW-Intoxicating Liquors-Condemnation-Justice of the Peace. Under the Iowa code, proceedings before a justice of the peace to destroy intoxicating liquors are criminal, and the jurisdiction is not affected by the value of the liquors.-State v. Arlen, S. C. Iowa, March 10, 1887; 32 N. W. Rep. 267.

76. CRIMINAL LAW-Mandamus -Appeal-Legality of Ordinance.- --A mandamus will not lie to a recorder for not allowing an appeal from a judgment inflicting a fine for the violation of a city ordinance, when the validity of the ordinance was not contested before the judgment.-State v. Barthe, S. C. La., March 21, 1887; 1 South. Rep. 656.

77. CRIMINAL LAW-New Trial-Motion, when MadeRelease of Prisoner.A motion for a new trial, made at a subsequent time and six months after the prisoner was sent to the penitentiary, is void, and the warden of the penitentiary should not surrender the prisoner to the sheriff for trial after the motion is improperly sustained.-Ex parte, Holmes, S. C. Neb., March 1, 1887; 82 N. W. Rep. 69.