A will bequeathed a sum of money to a trus-
tee for each of certain grandchildren of the
testator, "to provide for some of my sons who
have a greater number of children than the
others," the money to be invested and the in-
come to be expended for the maintenance of
the grandchildren, and the principal paid over
to them as they arrived at the age of 30 years.
Held, that the legacies vested in the grand-
children at testator's death.-Id.

§ 634 (Me.) A will construed, and held to give
testator's son and stepsons vested remainders
at testator's death, subject to power of sale
during the widow's life, precluding a sale by
the executor after her death.-Danforth v.
Reed, 82 A. 699.

§ 634 (Md.) An estate taken by a devisee held
to be a contingent remainder.-Jenkins v. Bon-
sal, 82 A. 229.

§ 634 (Pa.) Testator devised real estate to his
son on condition that he pay testator's widow
an annuity "at his death to be divided among
his living children as follows: $500 to M., a
daughter of the son, the remainder to be equal-
ly divided among other children." The son
at the date of the will had five children. An-
other child was born before the death of tes-
tator, and two were born after. Held, that the
words "at his death" fixed the death of the son
as the time for division, and that the words
"living children" and "other children" described
the persons entitled to take, and, until the time
for division was reached, such persons could
not be ascertained.-Day v. Thompson, 82 A.
935.

(G) Conditions and Restrictions.

§ 657 (Pa.) The word "if" may be construed
"when," where fairly capable of that interpre-
tation, particularly where the condition prece-
dent would defeat the plain intention of the tes-
tator.-Hyde v. Rainey, 82 A. 781.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.
$ 671 (Conn.) It is sufficient to create a
testamentary trust that the will as a whole
showed a purpose of creating it, though no
special words be used.-Ryder v. Lyon, 82 A.
573,

$ 676 (Conn.) A trust will be implied,
though none is expressly created by the will,
if the duties to be performed require the crea-
tion of a trust.-Ryder v. Lyon, 82 A. 573.

§ 683 (Conn.) A will "gave and bequeathed"
the use and income of testator's estate to his
wife during her life, and after her death cer-
tain sums to persons named and the residue to
testator's grandson during his life after he be-
came of age, and at his death to his lineal de-
scendants forever, or, if he died without de-
scendants, then to a religious society for the
support of the ministry, but if not accepted by
the church within one year the "trust" to
terminate and the estate to be distributed as
intestate property. Another paragraph of the
will appointed an executor, following which
was a paragraph appointing L. "to be trustee
of my said estate." Held, that a trust was
created covering the entire estate, and, after
the executor had made his final settlement,
it was his duty to transfer all the estate to L.
as trustee.-Ryder v. Lyon, 82 A. 573.

§ 683 (N.J.Ch.) In a will postponing disposi-
tion of testator's principal estate until after
the death of his wife and his three children,
there were clauses giving to the wife one-third
of the income during her life, and distributing
the remainder of the income to the children in
specified shares. Then followed these clauses:
"Item. Upon the death of my wife I do order
that the one-third of the income hereby be-
queathed to her shall be distributed among my
surviving three children." "Upon the death of
any of my three children, I do order the portion

among his or her heirs." Held, that the second
of the quoted clauses, as well as the first, refers
to income only, and was not intended to make
disposition of any portion of the principal es-
tate.-In re Smisson, 82 A. 614.

§ 684 (Del.Ch.) A devise of corporate stock
to trustees, to pay "the net income, interest,
and dividends" to certain persons, held not to
include stock dividends.-Bryan v. Aikin, 82 A.
817.

§ 684 (N.J.Ch.) A testamentary trust fund
held not available for the education of testa-
tor's nieces until one of them became 16 years
of age.-Seal v. Holzshuh, 82 A. 326.

$692 (Conn.) A will construed, and held that
the legal title of property devised vested in a
trustee, and the beneficiary interested vested in
beneficiaries.-Allen v. Davies, 82 A. 189.

Where the valid exercise of a power of ap-
pointment by will is separable from an invalid
exercise of the power, the legal exercise of the
power controls.-Id.

§ 693 (Pa.) Executors of one to whom a pow-
er to sell certain shares of stock was given by
the will of her ancestors had no title in the
shares of stock, where she failed to exercise the
option to sell, as she had no interest in the
stock, but only in the proceeds.-In re Hays'
Estate, 82 A. 1102.

beneficiaries therein took a vested interest sub-
§ 694 (Conn.) A will construed, and held, that
ject to be divested by a valid exercise of pow-
er of appointment by will.—Allen v. Davies, 82

A. 189.

(I) Actions to Construe Wills.
$703 (Me.) In an action to construe a will
the burden is on heirs claiming a lapsed legacy
to show that the legacy lapsed.-Lynch v. South
Congregational Parish of Augusta, 82 A. 432.
VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.

(A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-
eral.

§ 723 (N.J.Ch.) Legacies are purely equita-
ble interests in their origin.-Jenkinson v. New
York Finance Co., 82 A. 36.

§ 733 (N.H.) A will construed as to time of
vesting in and distribution among testator's
grandchildren of property given in trust.-Bar-
ker v. Eastman, 82 A. 166.

(B) Specific, Demonstrative, and General
Devises and Bequests.

a

§ 750 (Md.) Courts incline to construe
legacy as demonstrative rather than specific.—
Gardner v. McNeal, 82 A. 988.

$753 (Md.) Bequests of "the pearl pin and
earrings" and of "my bureau silver" are specific
bequests.-Gardner v. McNeal, 82 A. 988.

legacy.-Gardner v. McNeal, 82 A. 988.
§ 754 (Md.) Legacy of stock held a specific

$755 (Md.) Legacy of a certain sum of mon-
ey in a bank held a demonstrative legacy, en-
titling the legatee to payment of the balance
out of the general assets of the estate or pro
rata with the general legatees.-Gardner v.
McNeal, 82 A. 988.

(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac-
tion, and Lapse.

§ 764 (Md.) Modes by which a legacy may
be adeemed stated.-Gardner v. McNeal, 82

A. 988.

§ 766 (Md.) Where a testatrix, after be-
queathing jewelry, during her lifetime gave it
to the legatee, the legacy was anticipated in
a manner which had the same effect as an
ademption.-Gardner v. McNeal, 82 A. 988.

§ 767 (Md.) Bequest of stock held adeemed
by its sale during the life time of the testatrix,

WITNESSES.

See Appeal and Error, §§ 992, 1033; Criminal
Law, §§ 616, 742, 763, 764; Depositions; Evi-
dence; False Imprisonment, §§ 7, 27; Trial,
§§ 121, 140.

II. COMPETENCY.

§ 248 (Md.) The answer of a witness asked
to state what was said to him held not objec
tionable as nonresponsive, though it included
the witness' own remark, which called forth
the statement inquired about.-Dudderar v.
Dudderar, 82 A. 453.

jection to an answer that it is not responsive,
§ 248 (Vt.) It is not sufficient ground of ob-
if the evidence thereby given is material-
Barney v. Quaker Oats Co., 82 A. 113.

§ 248 (Vt.) Answer of witness, which was a
mere opinion, held not responsive to a question
calling for descriptive testimony.-Fowlie v.
McDonald, Cutler & Co., 82 A. 677.

§ 248 (Vt.) An answer of a witness, that pro-
ponent wanted testatrix to "do as he said
and had great influence over her," was not re-

eral.

$37 (R.I.) A witness, who knew of the pos-
sibility of two teams passing at a given point,
could testify thereto, though he did not know
the measurement.-Champlin V. Pawcatuck
Valley St. Ry. Co., 82 A. 481.

$41 (R.I.) A plaintiff, suing for a personal
injury, held presumptively sane and competent
to testify.-Cole v. Barber, 82 A. 129.

$57 (N.J.Ch.) A father held incompetent to
testify that a child born to the mother after
marriage, though conceived before, was not his
child.-Palmer v. Palmer, 82 A. 358.

$60 (N.J.) A husband is competent to give
testimony in corroboration of the alleged para-
mour of his wife, in an action for divorce for
adultery.-Letts v. Letts, 82 A. 845.

(B) Parties and Persons Interested in
Event.

§ 116 (Conn.) Under Gen. St. 1902. § 677,
an attorney acting as his own attorney in a
case against him held not disqualified from tes-
tifying in his own behalf.-Kaeser v. Bloomer,
82 A. 112.

noticed proponent do in respect to testatrix?"
-In re Bean's Will, 82 A. 734.

(B) Cross-Examination and

tion.

Re-examina-

§ 268 (Conn.) Certain cross-examination of
defendant who claimed title to land held prop-
er.-Roy v. Moore, 82 A. 233.

$268 (R.I.) Cross-examination of servant,
to show that he was not acting within the
scope of his employment at the time of an
accident, was proper.-Colwell v. Etna Bottle
& Stopper Co., 82 A. 388.

§ 269 (R.I.) A question asked a witness con-
cerning a matter not in evidence held properly
excluded.-Ralph v. Taylor, 82 A. 279.

$280 (R.I.) A question on cross-examination
whether witness ever saw plaintiff drunk or
under the influence of liquor held properly ex-
cluded as too general.-Ralph v. Taylor, 82 A.
279.

§ 280 (Vt.) An answer, "Not to my knowl
edge," made in response to a question on cross-
examination as to whether witness had made a
certain statement, was unambiguous, and a
excluded.-In re Bean's Will, 82 A. 734.

terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased
or Incompetent.

176 (Me.) Rev. St. c. 84, § 112, par. v,
held not to authorize decedent's nephew to tes-
tify in replevin brought by decedent's testator.
-Hahn v. Dean, 82 A. 204.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.
§ 230 (R.I.) Whether answers to questions
put to a witness through an interpreter are re-
sponsive is for the court.-Tavares v. Dewing,
82 A. 133.

$236 (Vt.) Evidence, in an action for the
death of an employé through a dust explosion
in an elevator, held admissible as relating to
the same kind of dust as that which exploded.
-Barney v. Quaker Oats Co., 82 A. 113.

$240 (R.I.) The allowance of leading ques-
tions is in the discretion of the court.-Cole v.
Barber, 82 A. 129.

The allowance of a question asked a witness,
as against the objection that it was leading,
held proper.-Id.

$240 (R.I.) A question asked a servant tes-
tifying in an action for injuries held objection-
able.-Tavares v. Dewing, 82 A. 133.

$246 (R.I.) In a personal injury action, it
was not error for the trial judge to ask a sur-
geon who testified as an expert witness, what
he meant by a "relaxed sacroiliac joint,"
whether all surgeons did not say it was rare to
find normal movability in the joint, and wheth-
er he would be surprised if certain surgeons
said that such cases were rare and that they

Where the proponent of a will testified that
he had corresponded with his parents for
years, the exclusion of a question on cross-ex-
amination as to whether he had written that
he wanted the things fixed up so there would
be no contest, and that it could be done by
willing the other children a dollar, was not
affirmatively erroneous because the inquiry fail-
ed to indicate whether it related to a letter
written to his mother or his father.-Id.

§ 286 (Vt.) Defendant held not entitled to
object to plaintiff's question on redirect exam-
ination, where he had in substance asked the
same question on cross-examination.-Barney
v. Quaker Oats Co., 82 A. 113.

287 (Vt.) Where the evidence showed that
contestants received only a nominal sum, while
proponent received the bulk of the estate, and
that testatrix had opposed the marriage of a
contestant, and after the marriage had hard
feelings towards her and her husband, and that
contestant had been abused by her husband,
cross-examination of contestant as to abuse
by her husband was relevant only as connected
with evidence of testatrix's knowledge thereof,
and redirect examination as to the cause of
the trouble was properly excluded without a
showing of such knowledge.-In re Bean's Will,
82 A. 734.

are contradictory of statements made as a wit-
ness, are admissible without a denial thereof by
him as a witness.-State v. Pulley, 82 A. 857.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

"Action."-King v. Wynema Council, No. 10,
Daughters of Pocahontas, Improved Order
of Red Men of Delaware (Del. Super.) 82 A.
1076; Smith v. Ribblett (Pa.) 82 A. 245.
"Adoption."-Batchelder v. Walworth (Vt.) 82

A. 7.

A. 243.

"Alibi."-State v. Massey (Del. Gen. Sess.) 82
"Alteration in the work."-Trustees of Seventh
Baptist Church v. Andrew & Thomas (Md.)
82 A. 452.
"Appliances of transportation."-Burns v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 82 A. 246.
"Approval."-Pushee v Lyme School Dist. (N.
H.) 82 A. 718.

"Arrest."-Town of Hamden v. Collins (Conn.)
82 A. 636.

"Assault."-State v. Hill (Del. Gen. Sess.) 82
A. 221.

"Assault with intent to commit murder."-State
v. Stockley (Del. Gen. Sess.) 82 A. 1078.
"At any time."-Slaughter v. Moore (Del. Ch.)
82 A. 963.

"At his death."-Day v. Thompson (Pa.) 82 A.
935.

"Between the parties."-Batchelder v. Wal-
worth (Vt.) 82 A. 7.

"Bonus."-Smith v. David B. Crockett Co.
(Conn.) 82 A. 569.

"Business."-Easterbrook v. Hebrew Ladies'
Orphan Society (Conn.) 82 A. 561.
"Candidate for public office."-Usilton v. Bram-
ble (Md.) 82 A. 661.

"Carnal knowledge."-State v. Sigerella (Del.
O. & T.) 82 A. 31.

"Charge."-Cain v. Miller (Md.) 82 A. 1055.
"Charitable institution."-Inhabitants of Gor-
ham v. Trustees of Ministerial Fund in
Gorham (Me.) 82 A. 290.
"Chickens."-Town

of Wolcott V. Stickles
(Conn.) 82 A. 572.
"Children."-Batchelder v. Walworth (Vt.) 82

A. 7.

"Determined."-Greenough v. Industrial Trust
Co. (R. I.) 82 A. 266.
"Dictum."-In re Chadwick's Will (N. J. Pre-
rog.) 82 A. 918.

"Due process of law."-Lutz v. Roberts Cotton
Oil Co. (Del. Super.) 82 A. 601.
"Dwelling house."-Goater v. Ely (N. J. Ch.)
82 A. 611.

"Employé."-In re Peninsula Cut Stone Co.

(Del. Ch.) 82 A. 689.
"Employment."-Fredericks v. Board of Health
of Town of West Hoboken (N. J. Sup.) 82
A. 528.

"Equitable estoppel."-Conway Nat. Bank v.
Pease (N. H.) 82 A. 1068.

"Estoppel in pais."-Cartun v. Myers (N. J.)
82 A. 14.

"Excusable homicide."-State v. Watson (Del.
O. & T.) 82 A. 1086.

"Express malice aforethought."-State v. Short
(Del. O. & T.) 82 A. 239; Same v. Watson,

"False imprisonment."-New York, P. & N. R.
Co. v. Waldron (Md.) 82 A. 709.
"Forthwith."-In re Edson (Vt.) 82 A. 664.
"Guaranty."-Booth v. Irving Nat. Exch. Bank
(Md.) 82 A. 652.

"Has no heir."-Horton v. McCall (Pa.) 82 A.
472.
"Heirs."-In re Smisson (N. J. Ch.) 82 A. 614.
"Heirs at law."-Shugrue v. Long (N. J.) 82
A. 905.
"Homicide."-State v. Watson (Del. O. & T.)
"Homicide by misadventure."-State v. Wat-
"Homicide in self-defense."-State v. Watson
son (Del. O. & T.) 82 A. 1086.
(Del. O. & T.) 82 A. 1086.
"House."-Goater v. Ely (N. J. Ch.) 82 A.

82 A. 1086.

611.

"If."-Hyde v. Rainey (Pa.) 82 A. 781.
"Implied malice."-State v. Watson (Del. O. &
T.) 82 A. 1086.
"Inevitable."-Barney V. Quaker Oats Co.
(Vt.) 82 A. 113.
"Intent."-State v. Jackson (Del. Gen. Sess.)
82 A. 824.
"Issue."-Batchelder V. Walworth (Vt.) 82
A. 7.
"Judgment."-Newcomer v. Beeler (Md.) 82
A. 460.

"Judicial dictum."-In re Chadwick's Will (N.
J. Prerog.) 82 A. 918.
"Justifiable homicide."-State v. Watson (Del.
O. & T.) 82 A. 1086.
"Land."-Inhabitants of Gorham v. Trustees of
Ministerial Fund in Gorham (Me.) 82 A.
290.

645.

"Lease."-Hyde v. Rainey (Pa.) 82 A. 781.
"Maintain."-Shurtleff v. Redlon (Me.) 82 A.
"Malice."-State v. Short (Del. O. & T.) 82
A. 239; Same v. Watson, Id. 1086; Same v.
Jackson (Del. Gen. Sess.) 82 A. 824; Same
v. Stockley, Id. 1078.

"Malice aforethought."-State v. Watson (Del.
O. & T.) 82 A. 1086.

"Manslaughter."- State v. Short (Del. O. & T.)
82 A. 239; Same v. Jackson (Del. Gen.
Sess.) 82 A. 824; Same v. Stockley, Id.
1078.

"May."-Workingman's Loan & Building Ass'n
of Altoona v. Heaton (Pa.) 82 A. 78.
"Murder."-State v. Jackson (Del. Gen. Sess.)
"Mineral."-McIntosh v. Ropp (Pa.) 82 A. 949.
82 A. 824; Same v. Stockley, Id. 1078.
"Murder in the first degree."-State v. Short
(Del. O. & T.) 82 A. 239.
"Murder in the second degree."-State v. Short
(Del. O. & T.) 82 A. 239.

"Negligence."-Riccio v. People's Ry. Co. (Del.
Super.) 82 A. 604; Culbert v. Wilmington
& P. Traction Co., Id. 1081; Wells v. Joslin
"New place."-Parnes v.
Mfg. Co. (R. I.) 82 A. 258.

Board of Excise
Com'rs of City of Elizabeth (N. J. Sup.) 82
A. 313.

"Next succeeding."-Commonwealth v. Langley
(Pa.) 82 A. 56.

"Obiter dictum."-In re Chadwick's Will (N. J.
Prerog.) 82 A. 918.

"Office."-Fredericks v. Board of Health of
Town of West Hoboken (N. J. Sup.) 82 A.
"Officer."-In re Peninsula Cut Stone Co. (Del.
528.
Ch.) 82 A. 689; Foxwell v. Beck (Md.) 82
A. 657.

"Other liabilities."-Wolfe v. Limestone Coun-
cil No. 373, Order of Independent Ameri-
cans (Pa.) 82 A. 499.

"Personal injury."-New York, P. & N. R. Co.
v. Waldron (Md.) 82 A. 709.
"Position."-Fredericks v. Board of Health of
Town of West Hoboken (N. J. Sup.) 82 A.
528.

"Poultry."-Town of Wolcott V.

Stickles

power to compensate him by will.-Messier v.
Messier, 82 A. 996.

720.

"Work."-Trustees of Seventh Baptist Church
v. Andrew & Thomas (Md.) 82 A. 452.
"Writ of error."-Wakefield V. Chevalier
(Conn.) 82 A. 973.

WORK AND LABOR.

See Corporations, § 99; Drunkards, § 8.

§ 1 (Del.Super.) Rule as to when an implied
promise to pay for work and labor arises stat-
ed.-Joseph v. Johnson, 82 A. 30.

§ 4 (Del.Super.) Where services are render-
ed gratuitously, with no intention to charge
therefor, compensation cannot be recovered.-
Joseph v. Johnson, 82 A. 30.

85 (R.I.) A man who expects to be com-
pensated by a legacy cannot afterwards resort
to his action for services rendered, where only
a mere expectation is shown, and no express
contract for payment of services rendered is
proven. Messier v. Messier, 82 A. 996.

§6 (Del.Super.) No implied promise to pay
for work and labor arises between friends as
to services usually rendered gratuitously.-Jo-
seph v. Johnson, 82 A. 30.

87 (Del.Super.) No implied promise to pay
for work and labor arises between near rela-
tives as to services usually rendered gratui-
tously.-Joseph v. Johnson, 82 A. 30.

Where a son rendered services, furnished
board, and expended money for his mother,
his expectation of compensation does not of
itself entitle him to compensation.-Id.

§ 14 (Md.) In an action for work and ma-
terials furnished under a contract, plaintiff held
not precluded from recovery by noncompletion
of the contract, if there was an acceptance by
defendant, or if full performance was pre-
vented by defendant.-Meyer v. Frenkil, 82 A.
208.

§ 14 (N.J.Sup.) A servant, entitled to the
part of his compensation, held entitled to re-
use of a house and garden of the master as a
cover the value of the crop on his wrongful
discharge.-Wilson v. Wilderness
Farm, 82 A. 517.
Poultry

formed has been rescinded by the defendant,
§14 (R.I.) Where a contract not fully per-
for what he has done under the special agree-
plaintiff may recover under the common counts
ment.-Messier v. Messier, 82 A. 996.

$ 27 (R.I.) In an action for work and labor
performed by a drunkard under guardianship,
evidence that he had been arrested several
ed. Ralph v. Taylor, 82 A. 279.
times for intoxication held improperly exclud-

by a drunkard, evidence as to advice given him
by his employer held improperly excluded.-Id.
In an action for work and labor performed
by a drunkard, evidence held properly exclud-
ed as immaterial to the issues.-Id.

In an action for work and labor performed

by a drunkard under guardianship, evidence as
In an action for work and labor performed
to the employer's income was properly ex-

cluded as immaterial.-Id.

$ 27 (R.I.) In assumpsit by a son against his
mother for compensation for services rendered,
testimony by the plaintiff that he performed
the services because of an agreement that he
should be compensated by will, together with
declarations by defendant tending to show that
such was the understanding, is admissible to
show that the services were not rendered gra-
tuitously.-Messier v. Messier, 82 A. 996.

In assumpsit by a son against his mother for
services, where a previous action had estab-
make a will in the son's favor, questions as to
lished that the mother had not contracted to
whether a deed made by the mother to a
daughter was before her will was burned, and
whether the mother had told any one that she
burned the will, were properly excluded.—Id.

§ 30 (R.I.) In assumpsit by a son against
his mother for services rendered and board
furnished, the amount of services and board
does not affect the right of recovery; and so
a charge that it was highly improbable that a
poor man would give or intend to give a large
amount for many years, is improper.-Messier
v. Messier, 82 A. 996.

In assumpsit by a son against his mother
for board and services, under an alleged agree-
ment that she should compensate him by will,
an instruction that he could not bring any ac-
tion until his mother had refused to give him
her property by will, or made it impossible to
do so, was technically incorrect, in charging
that plaintiff could not bring any action, in-
stead of could not support any action, and so
was properly refused.-Id.

WRITS.

Execution; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Man-
damus; Process; Quo Warranto.
Of error, see Appeal and Error.

87 (R.I.) Where a son gave board and serv-
ices to his mother with her consent, with the
expectation of being compensated by will, and
his mother expected so to do, he cannot in as-
sumpsit recover the reasonable value of such

WRONGS.

702

House v. Peacock (78 A. 723). Humphrey v. Gerard (79 A. 57).

54

216

383

Chariott v. McMullen (81 A. 65).
Chatfield v. City of Waterbury (80 A. 202) 319
Citizens' Ass'n v. City of Bridgeport (80
A. 203)
City of Hartford v. Poindexter (79 A. 79).. 121
City of Waterbury, Appeal of (80 A. 797).. 581
Coburn v. Connecticut Co. (81 A. 241). 654
Conway v. City of Waterbury (80 A. 83).. 345
Cooley v. Pigott (80 A. 92).
Cordner v. Hall (79 A. 55).

323

117

Donovan v. Connecticut Co. (80 A. 779). Downing v. Wilcox (80 A. 288). Dubreuil v. Waterman (78 A. 721).

377

420

9

628

659

..*711