42; Schroeder v. Wilcox, 39 Neb. 136. The language of Chief Justice COOLEY in Vernor v. Coville, 54 Mich. 281, appears to cover this case. It follows that the court was in error in holding that this was a trust personal to the executor named. 2. Had the plaintiff the right to refuse to carry out the sale for the reason that the title was not satisfactory to him? This cannot now be determined against him upon the ground that this Court has decided in this case that the defendant possessed the power to convey. He acted reasonably, and not captiously. A large amount of money and valuable property were involved. The question had not been expressly decided by this Court. In Bennett v. Chapin, 77 Mich. 526, two Justices of this Court had held that the trust involved in that case was a personal one. It is true that the provisions of that will were different from those of this. But that decision, as well as others, was sufficient to justify him in refusing to be satisfied with the title. He was not obliged to incur the expense or run the risk of a lawsuit to determine the validity of the title to be conveyed. His conduct does not come within that maxim of the law which holds a man to be satisfied with that which he ought to be satisfied. He acted as any prudent and cautious man would act. He was therefore entitled to rescind the sale, and bring suit to recover his money. Lord v. Stephens, 1 Younge & C. Exch. 222. It is unnecessary to determine the effect of an arbitrary refusal where no doubt exists as to the title. As to this question, we express no opinion. The judgment is affirmed. The other Justices concurred. INDEX TO NOTES. [For general index see page 645.] CONDITIONAL SALE-See SALE. DIRECTING VERDICT-See VERDICT. NEGLIGENCE. Duty of looking and listening, or stopping and listening, be- RAILROAD CROSSING-See NEGLIGENCE. SALE. Retention of title by the vendor until the conditions of the VERDICT. Directing on motion of the defendant. Totten v. Burhans, 7. 643 INDEX. [For index to notes see page 643.] Head-note references are to pages. Cross-references are to subjects; and the number of the note is added in parenthesis, unless the reference is to all. ABANDONMENT-See EASEMENT. ACCEPTANCE-See CONTRACT (1); EVIDENCE (36); Order; SALE (8). ACCOUNTING-See PARTNERSHIP (2). ACCOUNT STATED-See SALE (3). ACQUIESCENCE-See EJECTMENT (1–3). ACTION. ASSUMPSIT. 1. To recover the balance due on a contract for the sale of slabs, etc., cut at plaintiff's mill, the defense being the nonperformance of the contract by the plaintiff. 1. 2. On an insurance policy, the question involved being the authority of plaintiff's agent to consent to the cancellation of a prior policy issued by another company on the same property. 75. 3. To recover damages for the breach by a land-owner of a contract for the sale of land, the defense being that the offer by letter to sell was not so accepted as to complete the contract. 94. 4. By the secretary of a corporation to recover an increase of ACTION-Assumpsit-Continued. salary agreed by the president to be paid for a given year. 124. 5. To recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. 150. 6. By an assignee for collection upon a logging contract. 9. To recover the purchase price of a harvesting machine, the 10. Upon an acceptance by a contractee of an order in favor of 268. 11. To recover a commission for the sale of real estate. 320. 12. Upon defendant's agreement to pay $100 to secure the 13. Upon certain promissory notes, the defense being that one 326. 14. By a paving company for the value of work alleged to have 15. Against alleged partners to recover for goods sold by the 16. By the owners of a tug against a log-towing company for 17. By the plaintiff in a personal injury case against a railroad company for the breach of a contract made with him at the |