the payor must deposit the funds for the pur- revocation of the same by operation of law. pose of payment.-Adams, Adm'r v Ruther-Wallcae y. Townsend.-Filed Nov. 17, ford.--Filed Dec. 3, 1885.-Ore. 1885. Ohio.

delivery of the same. The facts must show clearly the intention of the assignor.-White v. Kilgore.-Filed Dec. 9, 1885.-Me.

ORAL ASSIGNMENT REQUISITES OF. A NOTE PAYABLE ON DEMAND-LIABILITY | debt due on account may be assigned orally OF ENDORSER-PAYMENT BY ONE OF THE if there is a valuable consideration passes. MAKERS-To fix the liability of an endorser, But there must be at least a constructive on a promissory note, payable on demand, it is necessary for the holder to show a demand made, of the makers of the note, and he must be able to deliver the note to the endorser, unimpaired, upon his payment of. the same. Payment by one of the makers of a joint note does not renew the note as to the other makers.-Shutts v. Fiugar.Filed Nov. 24, 1885.-N. Y.

CON

OFFICERS SALARIES-NOT HELD BY TRACT OR GRANT-LEGISLATURE MAY AT ANY TIME CHANGE OR IMPOSE NEW DUTIES-In enacting laws regulating or arranging the salary of public officers,

PARTNERSHIP-DISSOLUTION BY

THE

MASTER AND SERVANT-INJURY TO SERvANT THROUGH ACTION OF FELLOW SERVANT. It is the duty of a master to furnish suitable and safe appliances in the nature of machinery for the use of employees, and failing to do so he is liable for damages for injuries to an employe. The fact that an employe might use the imperfect appliance with safety, by using great care, does not relieve the master from the consequence of not furnishwhere the ing proper and suitable machiney.-Stringoffice is created by the state, the ham v Stewart.-Filed Nov. 24, 1885. N. Y. laws must be general. With the exception of this limitation, and such limitations. as але prescribed in the BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THE FIRM-INTER. constitution, the legislature has entire EST OF A RETIRING PARTNER IN AN UNcontrol of such offices and officers.-Miller COMPLETED CONTRACT.-Where a partnerv. Kister.-Filed Nov. 30, 1885.-Cal. ship is dissolved, by death, or by the bankruptcy of one of the partners, and the busOVERSEER OF THE POOR- -AUTHORITY OF iness is carried on, by the solvent or survivTO CALL A PHYSICIAN-Ordinarily, the town- ing partner, the deceased or retiring partship trustee has no authority to call a phy- ner, is entitled to share in the profits of unsician to attend a pauper, other than the one finished contracts, in hand at the time of employed by the county, but if the one reg- dissolution.-King, Jr. v. Leighton.-Filed ularly employed refuses to attend a sick per-, Nov, 24, 1885.—N. Y. son, or is absent, or unable to do so, the trustee may employ another physician.Washburn v Commissioners of Shelby Co.Filed Dec. 8, 1885.—Ind.

OFFER TO SUBSCRIBE FOR RAILROAD STOCK -REVOCATION-An offer to subscribe for railroad stock, although made in writting, conditioned that the road shall be constructed along a certain route, may be revoked, at the option of the subscriber, at any time prior to the acceptance of the same by the company. Death of the subscriber works a

PLEADINGS NEGLIGENCE A QUESTION OF FACT.-Points in the declaration, which might have been taken advantage of by demurrer, but were not, are cured by verdict, and judgment. It is the province of the jury to determine the question of negligence from the evidence. An instruction which points out the duty of one party, and wholly ignores the duty of the other, is one-sided, and should be refused.-L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. O'Connor.-Filed Nov. 14, 1885.

-Ill.

PROMISSORY NOTE-CONSIDERATION-OF

be shown by oral testimony.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-EMBEZZLEMENT JUDGMENT.-Whǝre one note is surrendered BY AGENT-REMEDY.-Where an agent has and new one taken, the consideration may embezzled funds of his principal and invested it in property, the principal may have recourse on the property thus purchased, if the purchaser has had notice, or if there has not been a good and valid consideration passed, and a recovery may be had on parol evidence, which might have been excluded by objection, if otherwise sufficient. Riehl v. Evansville Foundry Ass'n.-Filed Nov. 24, 1885.-Ind.

Where judgment has been entered, upon a warrant to confess judgment, and it is sought to defend agsinst the judgment thus confessed, on the ground of fraud, the fraud must be affirmatively proved.-Hips v. Wordle.-Filed Oct. 26, 1885.-Pa.

PARTITION-CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGE

PUBLIC LANDS-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED TERMS OF ENTRY.-Where a party has complied with all the requirements which entitle him to a patent for a tract of MENT-TITLE ACQUIRED PENDING PARTITION land, he is held to be the equitable owner PROCEEDINGS-A judgment in partition is thereof, and a patent issued to another for conclusive only on the matter of severing the same is void, unless the claim of the for- the unity of possession; it does not modify mer be set aside.-Fowler v. Scott.-Filed or affect the title by which the land is held Dec. 1, 1885.-Wis. in common before partition. If a party acquires an indisputable title by deed during partition proceedings, he must disclose the same or he will be barred by the judgment. Cristy v. S. V. Waterworks.-Filed Nov. 25, 1885.-Cal.

PARTNERSHIP-NOVATION OF CONTRACT.

tract and subsequently becomes a member of a firm, and the firm becomes the beneficiary of, and adopts the contract as their own, it becomes thereby the contract of the

Principal and agent-RatificatION OF AN UNAUTHORIZED ACT.- Where a party has received funds of another, for deposit in bank, and deposits it, taking a certificate payable to himself, and the bank knowing who is the real owner of the funds, and -Where an individual enters into a conwhen objection is made by the owner, both to the bank and the agent, but no effort is made for two or three years to have the matter rectified, and the party holding the certificate becoming insolvent, presents the firm. Story on Part. Sec. 153, says "Incertificate and it is paid, it will be presumed that he had authority to receive payment of the same, and the owner cannot recover from the bank.-Dewer v. Bank of Montreal -Filed Nov. 14, 1885.-Ills.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-PERSONAL LIABILITY OF AGENT.-Where the jury find that a note and mortgage were given for borrowed money, by one purporting to act as agent, solely for, and on account of his principal, it is error to render personal judgment against the agent. An attorney in fact, cannot mortgage his principal's land to secure a debt of his own.-H. S. & L. Soc'y v. Moore.-Filed Nov, 30, 1885.-Cal.

deed it may be generally stated, that in all cases of this nature, the primary consideration is not so much to ascertain between what parties the original contract was actually made, as it is to ascertain whether there has subsequently been, with the consent of all parties, any change or extinguishment of that contract."-Lucas v. Coulter.-Filed Nov. 24, 1885.-Ind.

PLEADING NEGLIGENCE-MAINTAINING AN EXCAVATION BETWFEN THE STREET AND A BUILDING.-The effect of a demurrer to a complaint is an admission of all facts well pleaded in the complaint. One who maintains an unguarded excavation between his building and the street, is liable for injuries

50

arising therefrom.--Crogan v. Schiele.— Filed Oct. 26, 1885.-Conn

recovery might be had on the written contract, notwithstanding the verbal agreement, as the verbal agreement could not vary the terms of the written contract.-Little v. Rees.

POWER OF COURTS-POWER OF CODIFIER TO AMEND LAWS.-Where the legislature -Filed Nov. 21, 1885.—Minn. passes an act declaring certain acts an of fense against the laws, with no provisions.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-BOND OF AGENT

agent has been

imposing a penalty, the court caunot supply-SURETY.- Where an the omission and impose a penalty, neither guilty of dishonest practices, and he executes can the codifier or the code commissioners a bond for his future good conduct, with a amend the law. The legislature cannot del- surety, if the principal to whom the bond is egate the power to any one to amend an given, does not disclose the fact of the agents act.-State v. Gaunt.-Filed Dec. 14, 1885. former misconduct, to the surety, the surety is thereby released from liabilty on the bond. -Oregon. The mere fact of his silence is a fraud on the

PLEADING-ANSWER-FORM

OF ACTION

POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE-COUNTY surety which will vitiate the bond.-G. F. TAXES PAYABLE IN COUNTY WARRANTS.-The & L. Ius. Co. v. Thompson.-Filed Dec. 21, act of the legislature, making taxes payable 1885.-Cal. only in cash, is constitutional and valid, but it cannot deny the right to receive county warrants which issued prior to the enact--VARIANCE.-Where the defendant answers ment, in payment of county taxes. County that he is not indebted to the plaintiff as alwarrants are assignable and the holder may leged in the complaint, . "or otherwise" it maintain an action on them in his own name subject to any set-off which would have been available against the original payee.-People v. Hull.-Filed Dec. 24, 1885.—Col.

PENAL CODE-ABDUCTION

EVIDENCE.—

is equivalent to saying that he is not in any manner indebted to the plaintiff. Such answer, after judgment, will be construed in aid of the judgment.-Kiug v. DeCoursey. -Filed Dec. 18, 1885.-Cal.

PLEADING-DECLARATION GUARDIAN'S A conviction for abduction cannot be had, unless a "taking" is shown, and the purpose BOND.—In an action on a guardian's bond was for prostitution. Where a female vol- the declaration should allege that the amount untarily entered a disreputable place and has been specifically declared by decree of A guardian's bond is the keeper subsequently concealed the fact of the probate court. her being there, no conviction for abduction not changed from a statutory bond to a could be had.—Piople v. Platte.-Filed Dec. common law bond, because it contains conditions not required by statute.-McFaddeu 8, 1885.—N. Y. v. Hewitt.-Filed Dec. 16, 1885.-Maine.

PROMISE-NUNDUM PACTUM-WRITTEN CONTRACT.-Where a real estate agent contrected for a given sum, to furnish a customer who would buy or exchange certain property, and did find a customer who entered into a contract for an exchange, the written contract being thereby executed, on the part of the agent, he subsequently agreed, verbally, that he would not insist on payment of the agreed commission if the contract of exchaɛge was not carried into effect. Held that

PRACTICE -The simple taking of an OF EXECUTION. appeal, when there is no stay of execution, does not call into exercise any judicial act of the court, and the trial judge cannot declare an order or judgment non-appealable. When the appellant complies with the requirements for a stay of execution, his right to a stay is absolute.-Daniels v. Miller.— Filed Dec. 18, 1885.—Col.

QUESTION OF APPEAL. -STAY

PRACTICE - RE-HEARING— FRAUDULENT may have his portion set off by partition, CONVEYANCE.—An application for a rehear- although it may not be to the interest of all ing, is a matter in the discretion of the the tenants to have their own portion set off. court, and is not appealable. A deed, made Bird J. in the opinion says "It is plain that I think to delay, hinder or defraud creditors, is fraud part can be divided and part sold. ulent and will be set aside, but the burden that the interest of one tenant in common of proving fraud, rests on the party alleging may be set sff to him in land, even though Filed Nov. 20, the balance of the land is held by so many as it.- Zimmer v. Miller. tenants in common, that it will be to their 1885.-Md. PROMISSORY NOTE-RELEASE OF SURETY interest to order a sale of their shares.' BY EXTENSION OF TIME. Where the holder Jacksonv.Beach.-Filed Oct. 28, 1885.---N.J. of a note agrees to extend the time of payment, without any consideration, such agreement will not release the surety on the note. -Byers v. Harris.-Filed Dec. 15,1885.

PETITION TO CANCEL A JUDGMENT-INSANE PERSONS.—In a proceeding to annul a Judgment on the ground of insanity, it is proper for the court to instruct the jury that the only question they are called upon to decide, is that of the sanity of the person whose mental condition is under investigation. One who brings an action for the dismissal of a guardian, if unsuccessful in the Cochran v. action. is liable for the costs. Amsden.-Filed Dec., 18, 1885.-Ind.

PLEADING-DAMAGES

PROCEDURE--ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO A CITY-LAND NOT PLATTED.—Where PROSECUTION-PROMISSORY

FOR MALICIOUS

NOTE. Where

territory contiguous to a city, is laid off in a copy of a note sued on, is filed with the

lots, it may be annexed to the city by resolution of council, but where the land, sought to be annexed, is not platted, an order must be obtained from the county comissioners authorizing the annexation.-City of Delhi v. Startzman.-Filed Dec. 29, 1885.-Ind.

declaration or complaint, it is not essential to aver in the complaint that the note is due. Damages for malicous prosecution cannot be set-off against a promissory note.-West v. Hayes.—Filed Dec. 19, 1885.—Ind.

PETROLEUM LANDS-LEASHOLD MAY BE

called mining lands, and as such, lessees may mortgage their terms. Property embraced in the leashold may be followed by the mortgages, and seized wherever it may be found, and an action may be maintained for taking the same.-Gill v. Weston. --Filed Oct. 5, 1885.-Pa.

PRACTICE EJECTMENT- PUBLIC LAND MORTGAGED.—Petroleum lands may be GRANT. The essential points in a complaint in ejectment, are that it aver seizure of the plaintiff's possession of defendant at the time of commencing the action, and a with holding of possession. A grant of land by congress, is a conveyance of the highest character, and the transfer of title takes effect when the conditions of the grant are complied with by grantee.-N. P. Ry. Co. v. Lilly.-Filed Jan'y 7, 1886.-Mon.

PARTITION OF LAND HELD BY TENANTS IN COMMON-WHAT BILL FOR PARTITION MUST NCLUDE.—One tenaut in common of lands,

RAILROADS

OBSTRUCTING AN ALLEY-WAY BY LAYING A DOUBLE TRACK.-Where a railroad company has obtained the right of way through an alley, to lay a track, and have paid the damages assessed for the same, and snbsequently lays a second track which ob

structs the alley-way, an owner of property general control, although it may not interfere suffering damages thereby, may have an with the management, as exercised by the action for damages for the same.— Wilson v. receiver.-O. & M. Ry. Co. v. Russell.D. M. & O. Ry. Co.-Filed Dec. 12, Filed Nov. 14, 1885.—Ills. 1885.-Iowa.

RELINQUISHMENT OF DEBT-DURESS BY

RELEASE OF CLAIM-FAILURE TO READ-MENACE.-Where a debtor finds his creditor ESTOPPED.-A party who has a claim for in a disturbed condition of mind, and takes damages for personal injury, and signs a re- advantage of the circumstances to secure lease of the same, without reading it, relying a relinquishment of the debt by menace, it upon statements orally made at the time as amounts to duress, and the debtor cannot to its contents, in the absence of fraud, he plead such a relinquishment as a defense.— is subsequently estopped from claiming that Parmentor v. Pater.-Filed Dec. 14, 1885. the release is not binding upon him.--Oregon. Wallace v. C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co.- RAILROAD COMPANY--NEGLIGENCEFiled Dec. 12, 1885.-[owa. STARTING TRAIN BEFORE PASSENGERS GOT OFF. -Where a husband, expecting the arri

ROADWAYS-APPEAL FROM COMMISSION-val of his wife at the depot, got aboard the

ERS TO SUPERVISORS.-An appeal may be taken from the commissioners of highways, concerning the laying out of a road, to the supervisors, on the grounds of jurisdiction, or on grounds affecting individuals, and when such an appeal is taken, it vacates the decision of the commissioners, aud is in effect a new trial of the issues.-Poole v. Breeze.-Filed Nov. 14, 1885.-Ills.

train to assist her off, and being delayed in finding her a few moments, before he got off, the train started and in getting off he was injured, Held, that as the conductor and employes of the train did not know of his presence, and as all passengers intending to get off had done so, the company was not liable for damages on the ground of negligence.-Griswold v. C. & N. W Ry. Co. -Filed Dec. 25, 1885.-Wis.

READING COPY FURNISHED FURNISHING LIST OF JURORS AND WITNESSES.-Where a copy of the indictment is furnished to the defendant, it is not necessary that the indictment should be read to him upon arraignment. The copy of indictment should include the names of the witnesses on whose testimoy the indictment was found. The list of petit jurors, should be furnished to the prisoner before trial, but need not be furnised before arraignment.-Minich v. People.-Filed Dec. 4, 1885.—Colo.

INDICTMENT ΤΟ PRISONER

ROADWAYS DAMAGES FOR INJURIES RECEIVED BY DEFECT IN ROADWAY.-The town is liable for damages for injury caused by defect in a highway and, where a horse is injured, damages for the loss of the use of the horse for a time, may be included. If the character of the damage and the place where