INDEX.

ABATEMENT. See Married Women, 4.

ACCOUNT. See Use and Occupation, 1.

ACCOUNT, ACTIONS OF. See Auditor, 1, 2.

ADMINISTRATORS. See Executors and Administrators.

AGENCY. See Principal and Agent.

ALTERATIONS OF WRITINGS. See Evidence, 7.

APPEALABLE ORDERS. See Attorneys, 3.

An order passed by the justice holding the Circuit Court, vacating a
judgment rendered ex parte, at a previous term, and awarding a
new trial upon the merits, is not an appealable order within the
provision of Section 722 of the Rev. Stats. D. C. Phillips v.
Neyley, 236.

ASSIGNMENT. See Evidence, 9; Vendor and Vendee, 1, 2.
The Maryland act of 1763, chap. 23, sec. *, providing that where a
judgment has been recovered against principal debtors and sureties
and the judgment has been satisfied by one surety, the creditor
shall be compelled to assign the judgment to him, is in force in
this District, but it applies only to cases where payment is made
by a surety on judgments, and not to decrees. Herr v. Barber,
545.

ATTACHMENT.

1. The landlord has no right to an attachment against his tenant's
chattels which have been removed from the premises before the
rent is due. His remedy is by judgment against the tenant and
execution to be levied upon such chattels, or any of them, in
whosesoever hands they may be found. Wallach v. Chesley, 209.
2. Circumstances under which an attachment for rent may be issued
by the landlord against the goods and chattels of the tenant. Id.
3. Notwithstanding the act of Congress of April 29, 1878, providing
for the recording of deeds, &c., property in the possession of one
who has in good faith purchased and paid for it, but has failed to
record the conveyance, is not liable to attachment in a suit by a
creditor against the absconding vendor, when it appears that as
between the vendor and vendee the entire equity in the property
has passed to the latter; the statute regulating attachment pro-
ceedings permits the plaintiff to attach only the property of the
defendant, not the property of some one else. United States v.
Howgate, 408.

ATTORNEYS.

1, Before judgment, the parties to a pending suit may settle it between
themselves without considering either the wishes or the interest
of the attorneys. Lemont v. Railroad Company, 502.

2. Plaintiff brought an action of tort to recover damages for injuries
received. Pending the suit, plaintiff and defendant, without the
knowledge of plaintiff's attorneys, settled the case. Plaintiff then
gave defendant an order on the clerk of the court to dismiss the
suit, which being filed, plaintiff's attorneys moved the court to set
the cause down for trial notwithstanding, on the ground that the
settlement was collusive, and was made with knowledge on the
part of the defendant that the plaintiff's attorneys were interested
in the case to the extent of their fees for services. An affidavit
accompanied the motion showing that the plaintiff had agreed to
pay his attorneys a contingent fee of thirty-three per cent. of the
amount that should be recovered. The court thereupon passed
an order that defendant should pay to plaintiff's attorneys one-
third of the sum for which the case had been settled, and in
default thereof the entry of dismissal should be struck out and the
cause set down for trial. On appeal this court reversed the order,
holding:

That the court will not interfere to enforce in a summary way through

the original suit, the collateral engagement of a client for the
compensation of his attorney, but will leave the latter to his com-
mon law remedy. Id.

3. Whether the order of the court below was an appealable order,
quære. Id.

AUCTION SALES. See Building Associations, 1, 2.

AUDITOR.

1. Where, in a reference to an auditor under the Act of Maryland,
1785, ch. 80. the proceedings before the auditor are such as in
actions of accounts, the right of hearing before the court as to all
questions of law, and of trial by a jury upon all matters of fact, is
to be preserved to the contestants. McCullough v. Groff, 361.
2. And where the auditor undertakes to decide all questions of fact,
it would seem to be clearly against the spirit of the statute to
admit the report before the jury even as prima facie evidence of
the truth of its assertions or conclusions.

BANK CHECKS. See Laches.

Id.

1. The act of Congress of June 30, 1877 (19 St., 94), is substantially an
enactment that the acts of Congress relating to national banks,
including the provisions of Section 5154, providing for the con-
version of banks into national banks, shall be applicable to sacings
and other banks in this District, except that savings banks ex-

BANKS (continued.)

isting at the time of the passage of the act are not required to
have a capital of $100,000 in order to be converted into national
banks. It was competent, therefore, for a savings bank, organ-
ized in this District under the General Incorporation acts of May
5, and June 17, 1870, R. S. D. C., § 553, to avail itself of the law
for converting banks into national banks. Keyser v. Hitz, 473.
2. The certificate of the Comptroller of the Currency is conclusive as
to the regularity of the proceedings by which any bank has been
converted into a national bank. Id.

3. Where the owners of more than two-thirds of the stock of a bank
consent to the conversion of the bank into a national bank, such
a conversion may take place without the concurrence of the re-
maining stockholders.

Id.

4. While it might be more regular, on the conversion of a bank into
a national bank, for a new stock book to be opened and new cer-
tificates to be issued in the name of the national bank, yet as
there is nothing in the law prescribing the form of the stock book,
or of the certificates of stock, there is nothing to prevent the new
bank from treating the old books and certificates as sufficient evi-
dence of title in the concern; neither the rights nor liabilities of
the stockholders could be affected by the mere omission to issue
a new form of stock certificate to them. To hold otherwise
would be to allow all the stockholders to escape liability by the
mere omission of the formality of issuing the shares in a new
form. Id.

5. Where a stockholder of the old bank has given his consent tha
the stock should be converted into stock of the national bank, he
becomes by virtue of that consent a stockholder in the new bank,
Wathstanding any omission to issue new certificates of stock.

Id.

6. The powers of the directors of a national bank are not regulated by
the strict principles of a special trust. They act in a fiduciary
capacity, but are clothed by the statute with a power to manage
the affairs of the bank, and this implies a considerable element of
discretion. Keyser v. Hitz et al., 513.

7. It is not an improper exercise of that discretion, where cash is
needed for the legitimate business of the bank, to accept antici-
pated payment of a debt bearing a high rate of interest where
such debt constitutes an unavailable asset. Id.

8. Where a bank, under a contract made by its officers, receives
money for the purpose of being applied by it to certain uses, such
money cannot be retained by the bank except in accordance with
the contract under which it was received, although its officers ex-
ceed their powers in making the contract. The money comes
into its hands charged with a trust and the retention of it consti-
tutes an acceptance of the trust, and at the same time a ratifica-
tion of the acts of its officers. Id.

BILLS AND NOTES. See Gaming Contracts, 2; Evidence, 2; Laches,
1; Specialties, 1.

1. Although during the pendency of a suit brought upon a promissory
note endorsed in blank the plaintiff transfer it by delivery, he
may still maintain the action if it be agreed between him and the
transferee that notwithstanding the delivery the legal title shall
be considered as still remaining in the plaintiff for the purpose of
prosecuting the suit. Keyser v Shepherd, 66.

2. The holder of a promissory note endorsed in blank transferred it
by delivery pending a suit brought by him upon it, his attorney
filing an order in the cause for the entry of the suit to the use of
the transferee, which was done. On the trial the defendant con-
tended that plaintiff had parted with his title and could not
maintain the action.

Held, That the order of the attorney was to be presumed as author-
ized by plaintiff, and that this order was equivalent to an agree-
ment that the suit should be prosecuted for the benefit of the
assignee of the note, the legal title to remain in the nominal
plaintiff as far as necessary for that purpose, and that under such
circumstances the suit could be maintained. Id.

3. Semble, If M. accept an order of B. & C. in favor of H., payable
out of whatever will be due B. & C. on the completion of their
contract, and afterwards advances to B. & C. money that was
due only on such completion, he will be liable to H. for as much as
was thus paid away to the latter's prejudice. Hammond v. Miller,
145.

4. Where by a resolution of a stock company a promissory note is
issued to pay an indebtedness of the company, the note being
signed by the treasurer and endorsed by the directors as such,
and afterwards the paper is taken up by one of them, this is
nothing more than an advancement by him in behalf of his co-
obligors, and entitles him to a contribution for the money thus ad-
vanced; he cannot pick out one of the endorsers and charge him
with the whole liability, as in the case of an ordinary endorse-
ment. Middleton v. Mc Cartee, 420.

BILLS OF EXCEPTION. See Practice, 7.

1. The 65th Rule of Court requires bills of exceptions to be settled
before the close of the term, which may be prolonged for that pur-
pose. A bill of exceptions was brought to the court in General
Term, dated twenty-seven days after the close of the term at
which the case was tried, while no prolongation of the term was
shown to have been ordered. On the other hand, the entry in the
minutes of the court stated that the bill of exceptions taken in
the case had been signed and sealed on the last day of the term.
Held, That the court, having the ends of justice in view, would, in
such a conflict of dates, give weight to the statement of the

BILLS ON EXCEPTIONS (continued.)

minutes and treat the bill as having been signed during the term.
Johnson v. Douglass, 3.

2. A general exception to the granting of prayers is irregular. The
party objecting should except specially to the granting of each
prayer. Moore v. Railroad Co., 437.

3. So, too, with the charge; the unobjectionable parts should be
segregated from that which is objectionable, and the latter
excepted to specially. Id.

BILL OF REVIEW.

Where on appeal the court in General Term remands a case to the
Special Term, a bill to review the decrec entered in obedience
thereto cannot be entertained by the Special Term. But where
the decree of the General Term extends to part only of the decree
appealed from, the Special Term may entertain a bill to review so
much of its own decree as was not affected by the decree of the
appellate court. Williams v. Gardner, 93.

BUILDING ASSOCIATIONS.

1. Where, by the constitution of a building association, it is provided
that the association shall continue until the unsold stock is worth
fifty per cent. premium, and shall then proceed to close," if the
value of the association's real estate and other assets aggregate
the fifty per cent. of profit contemplated by this clause of the
constitution, then the association cannot make the stockholders
keep on paying dues while it holds its real estate for some further
advance, but it must close up. Burns v. Building Association, 7.
2. Where the real estate held by the association consists of property
bought in by it at public auction in competition with other bidders,
the price bid by the association must be taken, as against it, as
conclusive of the value of the property for the purpose of ascer-
taining if the time has arrived when the association should close;
but the value, if greater, may be shown by witnesses, for the asso-
ciation cannot, with an all-sufficient amount of property in its
hands to enable it to close up, go on collecting dues. Id.

BUILDING CONTRACTS. See Contracts, 3–6.

BURDEN OF PROOF. See Principal and Surety, 3; Husband and
Wife, 1.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES. See Landlord and Tenant, 2.

CHECKS. See Bank Checks.

CHOSES IN ACTION.

Stock of an incorporated company is a chose in action. Keyser v. Hitz,

473.

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. See Patents.