ceased is admissible. - Glessner v. Patterson
(Pa.) 355.

In an action against administrators for money
loaned, where defendants allege that the claim
is fraudulent, and that plaintiff had no money
to loan, it is error to exclude evidence of dec-
larations made by plaintiff inconsistent with
her claim.-Glessner v. Patterson (Pa.) 355.

Admissibility of evidence, in an action against
administrators for an alleged loan of money to
deceased, where defendants allege that plaintiff
was without property from which to make such
loan, and that the claim was fraudulent.-
Glessner v. Patterson (Pa.) 355.

FACTORS AND BROKERS.

See, also, "Principal and Agent."

The mere employment of a real-estate broker
to find a purchaser of land at a stated price
does not include authority to execute a contract

Finding.

See "Arbitration and Award."

FISHERIES.

Indictment for dredging on oyster bed examin-
ed, and held insufficient, as charging a statutory
offense unknown to the common law, and fail-
ing to allege facts showing the violation of the
statute.-Polbamus v. State (N. J. Sup.) 480.

FIXTURES.

A shingle mill and cider mill, standing on
legs, and held in place by their own weight, are
not fixtures, as between the mortgagor and
mortgagee of the building.-Kendall v. Hatha-
way (Vt.) 859.

Definition of "fixtures" as used in the mort-
gage of articles in a store.-Sawyer v. Long
(Me.) 111.

Machinery placed in a building under an
agreement that the title shall remain in the sell-
er until paid for may be removed by the seller,
as against a mortgagee, with knowledge of the
agreement.-Hawkins v. Hersey (Me.) 14.

Foreclosure.

J. Ch.) 1063; Same v. Griffith, Id.

Where a broker was authorized to sell certain
property at the "present price," and offers it to

Foreign Judgment.

Foreign Law.

Forfeiture.

False Representations.

See "Deceit."

Fellow Servant.
See "Master and Servant."

Feme Covert.
See "Husband and Wife."

Feme Sole Trader.

See "Insolvency."

FENCES.

The term "highways," as used in R. L. §§
3178, 3179. relieving owners of land from the
duty of maintaining fences on the sides of high-
ways, does not include pent roads.-Carpenter
v. Cook (Vt.) 998.

A division of the partition fence between
lands owned by plaintiff and lands owned by
him in common with another may be establish-
ed by usage and acquiescence.-Gibson v. Hey-
ward (N. H.) 407.

The usage sufficient, under Gen. Laws, c.
142, § 3, to establish the division of a partition
fence, need not be an enjoyment of a right
claimed adversely by him, but may be in pur-
suance of an agreement.-Gibson v. Heyward
(N. II.) 407.

FORNICATION.

One may be convicted of fornication, though
the evidence shows that, being a married man,
the offense also constituted adultery.-Common
wealth v. Kammerdiner (Pa.) 929.

Franchise.

See "Horse and Street Railroads."

FRAUD.

See, also, "Deceit"; "Fraudulent Conveyances."
As a defense, see "Negotiable Instruments."
Relief barred by laches, see "Equity."

The fact that a married woman, continuing
her husband's business after he became insol-
fraud as to creditors.-Kirkley v. Lacey (Del.
vent, employed him as her agent, does not show
Super.) 994.

A mere allegation of belief is not sufficient to
charge fraudulent collusion. Smith v. Provi-
dence County Sav. Bank (R. I.) 342.

FRAUDULENT CONVEY-

ANCES.

See, also, “Assignment for Benefit of Credit-
ors"; "Fraud."

Inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground
for the inference that a sale was not absolute.-
Goddard v. Weil (Pa.) 1000.

Where the vendee took immediate control, the
question whether the sale was bona fide is for
the jury.-Goddard v. Weil (Pa.) 1000.

On a bill to set aside a conveyance to a wife
as fraudulent, she is entitled to a lien for an
amount paid by her out of her own earnings on
a prior mortgage debt thereon. - Costello v.
Prospect Brewing Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 682.
In an action to set aside the conveyance as
void for excess, there being no evidence of fraud
in the grantee, its validity will be maintained
as to the amount due on the debt it sought to
secure. Merchants' Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v.
Barber (N. J. Ch.) 865.

Where one of a firm is in difficulties, and the
other partner has land which he deeds to his
wife, it does not show an intent to defraud.
Moore v. Moore (Pa.) 932.

A judgment confessed by a brother in favor
of his sister, in excess of an amount due, is not
void, where the sister was inexperienced, and
relied on his statements.-Merchants' Bldg. &
Loan Ass'n v. Barber (N. J. Ch.) 865.

A sale by an insolvent debtor is invalid unless
for a valuable consideration, and without
knowledge on the part of the purchaser of an
intent to defraud creditors.-Miller v. Lacey
(Del. Super.) 640.

A conveyance for an inadequate consideration,
grantor retaining an interest in the property,
made with intent to hinder creditors, is void as
against creditors and bona fide purchasers with
or without notice.-Jones v. Light (Me.) 71.

Funeral Expenses.

See "Executors and Administrators"; "Husband
and Wife."

GARNISHMENT.

See, also, "Attachment."

Where a debtor, with knowledge that the debt
had been attached, paid it over to his creditor,
under an agreement that his creditor should pay
certain claims and save him harmless, he can-
not claim, as against the attachment, that he
did not have in his hands, subject to attach-
ment, the amount so paid to his creditor.-Hum-
phrey v. O'Donnell (Pa.) 992.

Where a wife takes title to land paid for by
her husband for business reasons, and it is
afterwards sold and he deals with the proceeds
as his own, the presumption of a gift is rebut-
ted.--Moore v. Moore (Pa.) 932.

Evidence showing a failure by a garnishee in
his duty towards the owner of the property on ac-
count of which he was garnished, so as to release
the owner from liability on a bond given by him
to indemnify the garnishee for delivery of the
property to him.-Schempp v. Fry (Pa.) 941.

Credits in the hands of nonresidents cannot
be garnished.-Craig v. Gunn (Vt.) 860.

A corporation organized in New York, with
its place of business there, and operating rail-
roads from points in that state to points in Ver-
mont, is a nonresident of the latter state, with
in R. L. § 1073.-Craig v. Gunn (Vt.) 860.

An order by an employé to pay his wages to a
certain firm does not, as against a creditor who
garnishes the employer, warrant the latter in
paying the wages to a successor of the firm.—
Card v. Ahearne (R. I.) 850.

In attachment against a garnishee under Act
June 16, 1836, on default plaintiff must estab-
lish his claim by evidence of the garnishee's
possession of goods or credits of the defendant.
Longwell v. Hartwell (Pa.) 495.

chants' & Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Baeder
Glue Co. (Pa.) 290.

A garnishee must account for moneys paid
him in settlement of a prosecution of a third
person for embezzlement of funds of the at-
taching debtor.-Merchants' & Manufacturers'
Nat. Bank v. Baeder Glue Co. (Pa.) 290.

An attaching creditor can compel a garnishee
to account for collaterals held by him, though
the debtor has released all claims.-Merchants'
& Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Baeder Glue
Co. (Pa.) 290.

GIFTS.

See, aiso, "Garnishment."
What constitutes, see "Trusts."

Declarations of attachment and of an inten-

tion to do more for the donee than for others
are admissible in an action by the administrator
Meriden Sav. Bank v. Wellington (Conn.) 774.
to recover an alleged gift from the donee.-

Paper reciting gift of certain property is in-
operative when undelivered.-Tozer v. Jackson
(Pa.) 400.

Taking possession of property after donor's
death by donee does not aid gift where paper
declaring gift is undelivered.-Tozer v. Jackson
(Pa.) 400.

Evidence considered, and held insufficient to
show a gift causa mortis by deceased to her
daughter, she having handed the latter a bank
book, telling her to keep it, but there being
nothing to show her purpose in so doing, and
it appearing that she had intended to provide
for another daughter. Citizens' Sav. Bank v.
Mitchell (R. I.) 626.

GUARANTY.

Liability of guarantor, see "Custom and Usage."

A note addressed to a person, asking him to
"let M. have what goods he requires, and
oblige," is not a guaranty, but an original under-
taking to become liable for such goods as might
be delivered to M.-Buckingham v. Murray's
Ex'r (Del. Super.) 779.

Evidence bearing on issue as to whether goods
were furnished on the credit of the person to
whom they were delivered, or on the credit of
one who had given the person a written order
for the goods.-Buckingham v. Murray's Ex'r
(Del. Super.) 779.

One who seeks to enforce a guaranty must
show that notice of its acceptance was given to
the guarantor.-Buckingham v. Murray's Ex'r
(Del. Super.) 779.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

See, also, "Parent and Child."

An orphans' court can order a resident guard-
ian to turn over his ward's property to a foreign
guardian subsequently appointed in a state to
which such infant had removed.-Bernard v.
Equitable Guarantee & Trust Co. of Wilming
ton (Md.) 563.

Habeas Corpus.

Discharge of prisoner tried without jury, see
"Criminal Law."

Heirs.

See "Descent and Distribucion."

HIGHWAYS.

See, also, "Dedication"; "Turnpikes and Toll
Roads."

The owner of land subject to a pent road may
make any use of the road not inconsistent with
a reasonable use of it as a pent road.-Carpen-
ter v. Cook (Vt.) 998.

One cannot recover for injuries resulting from
a collision on a highway, which he could have
avoided, merely because defendant did not turn
to the right.-Brember v. Jones (N. H.) 411.

One may recover for injuries resulting from a
defective highway a greater sum than that
named in the statement furnished to the munic-
ipality.-Noble v. City of Portsmouth (N. H.)

419.

The negligence of a township, and the con-
tributory negligence of a traveler, are for the
jury.-Mechesney v. Unity Tp. (Pa.) 263.

Under Gen. Laws, c. 75, § 7, providing that
every person sustaining damage by a defective
highway shall file a written statement under
oath, a statement as to injuries to plaintiff's
horse may be made and filed by his agent.
Ayer v. Town of Somersworth (N. H.) 1119.

Establishment.

Commissioners have no jurisdiction to appro-
priate land for a highway unless the landowner
is given an opportunity to be heard as to the
necessity of the highway.-Walbridge v. Cabot
(Vt.) 805.

Statements made in the report of commission-
ers to lay out a highway which are outside their
powers may be treated by the supreme court
as recommendations only.-Walbridge v. Cabot
(Vt.) 805.

Right of persons objecting to the opening of a
public road to object to the petition as not being
signed, after they have appealed to the circuit
court. Smith v. Goldsborough (Md.) 574; Al-
baugh v. Same, Id.

HOMICIDE.

Where defendant was in no apparent immi-
nent danger, he cannot justify by showing
threats, by the person shot, on the preceding
day.-Jenkins v. State (Md.) 566.

Evidence.

Sufficiency of evidence of physicians who were
present at the post mortem of the victim to show
monwealth v. Bell (Pa.) 511.
that she met her death by strangulation.-Com-

Where it appears that defendant killed his
victim by strangulation, a finding that he was
guilty of murder in the first degree was justi-
fied.-Commonwealth v. Bell (Pa.) 511.

Evidence considered, and held sufficient to sup-
port a conviction of murder in the first degree.
-Commonwealth v. Werling (Pa.) 406.

On a prosecution for assault with intent to
kill, defendant, after giving evidence of the
character of the person assaulted, cannot show
that he pointed a gun at a third person on an-
other occasion.-Jenkins v. State (Md.) 566.
expert evidence as to whether the wound from

Admissibility, on a prosecution for murder, of

which deceased died could not be inflicted_by
herself, as claimed by defendant.-State v. Lee
(Conn.) 1110.

See, also, "Carriers."
Actions for negligence, limitation, see "Limita-
tion of Actions."
Charter and franchise.

Under Act May 14, 1889, only one company
can be granted a franchise to construct a road
on the same street, and a company on incorpora-
tion is entitled to a reasonable time to obtain
the consent of the city to use the streets select-
ed.-Homestead St. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh &
H. Electric St. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 950.

Vacation.

A petition to vacate a street is sufficient if it
states that it is a public highway. In re Swan-
son St. (Pa.) 207; Appeal of Morris, Id.

Under Act May 8, 1854, the court can order
the vacation of a part of a street. In re Swan-
son St. (Pa.) 207; Appeal of Morris, Id.

Under P. L. 1893, p. 241, the municipal board
must prescribe the manner in which poles shall
be located and wires strung for a street rail-
way.-Kennelly v. City of Jersey City (N. J.
Sup.) 531.

531.

The trolley system in the streets of a city is
within the public easement.-Kennelly v. City
of Jersey City (N. J. Sup.) 531.

legality of ordinance giving a right to lay street-
Notice to private persons is not essential to
railway tracks.-Kennelly v. City of Jersey City
(N. J. Sup.) 531.

The council of a city did not, by Act March
24. 1890, acquire power to locate the tracks of a
street railway without giving notice, and with-
out consent of the property owners, required by
Act April 6, 1886.-Avon by the Sea Land &
Imp. Co. v. Borough of Neptune City (N. J.
Sup.) 529.

Under Act March 14, 1893, the municipal
board must determine whether one or two tracks

shall be laid on the location of said tracks, etc.
-Theberath v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 528.
Under Act March 14, 1893, municipal consent
to the route of a railway is not necessary be-
fore application for the location of the tracks.-
Theberath v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 528.

Act May 14, 1889, authorizing companies to
construct street railways on any street or high-
way, authorizes such construction on a bridge
constituting a portion of such street or high-
way.-Pittsburgh & W. E. Pass. Ry. Co. v.
Point Bridge Co. (Pa.) 511.

Crossing existing tracks.

Where a railway line has tracks to be con-
ccted which strike a street on different sides
thereof, and about 200 feet apart, a track may
be laid in the street on the side of tracks al-
ready there, with a short curve at one end of
such tracks.-Citizens' Pass. Ry. Co. v. East
Harrisburg Pass. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 159.

Liability for negligence.

Whether the collision injuring plaintiff was
caused by the negligence of defendant's grip

was for the jury.-Thatcher v. Central
Traction Co. (Pa.) 1048.

Where the evidence was conflicting as to
whether the bell on a street car was rung at
the time of the accident, the question of de-
fendant's negligence is for the jury.-Central
Ry. Co. of Baltimore v. Coleman (Md.) 918.

The question whether a boy standing near the
rail of a street-car track is guilty of negligence
is for the jury.--Iaquinta v. Citizens' Traction
Co. (Pa.) 1131.

Question whether a street-railroad company
waived through its president notice of an injury
caused by the removal of earth between its
tracks, the statute requiring such notice within
60 days from the accident, in order that suit be
brought. Shalley v. Danbury & B. H. Ry. Co.
(Conn.) 135.

Right of street-railroad company to notice of
an injury caused by the removal of dirt from be-
tween its tracks, in order that suit might be
brought for such injury.-Shalley v. Danbury
& B. H. Ry. Co. (Conn.) 135.

Hospital.

Charitable devise, see "Charities."

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See, also, "Divorce"; "Dower"; "Homestead";
"Marriage."

Damages for seduction of wife, see "Seduction."
Effect of desertion, see "Descent and Distribu-
tion."

A husband is primarily liable for the funeral
expenses and those of the last illness of his
wife. In re Waesch's Estate (Pa.) 1124.

A husband is liable for necessaries furnished
his wife, where he has neglected to provide for
her, and has previously paid bills contracted by
her.-Llewellyn v. Levy (Pa.) 292.
Contracts of wife.

Where a married woman used money bor-
rowed from her father to buy a farm, giving
her separate bond, and a mortgage by herself
and her husband on the farm, she was not en-
titled, on the death of her father, to her full
share without deduction of the debt, though she
repudiated the obligation.-In re Willock's Es-
tate (Pa.) 1043; Appeal of Forsythe, Id.

cover on the note of a wife which it knows was
Under Act June 3, 1887, a bank cannot re-
given for a husband's accommodation.-Pat-
rick v. Smith (Pa.) 1044.

A married woman may engage in mercantile
pursuits on her own account, and operate there-
in through agents. Kirkley v. Lacey (Del.
Super.) 994.

The husband of a married woman engaged in
business as a feme sole may act as her agent
therein.-Kirkley v. Lacey (Del. Super.) 994.

Though a married woman cannot bind herself
ploy.-Allen v. Keilly (R. I.) 965.
by contract, she may have a servant in her em-

Evidence showing that the assignee of a
mortgage was charged with notice that the as-
signor was a married woman.-Griffin v. Blan-
din (Md.) 624.

An action may be maintained against a mar-
ried woman to recover the price of goods sold to
her, without joining her husband.--Merriam
v. White (R. I.) 601.

Wife's separate estate.

A book account against a married woman for
medical services rendered her and her children
while living with her husband is not evidence
of an understanding by her to subject her sepa-
rate estate for their payment.-Moore v. Cope-
ley (Pa.) 829.

Where a wife takes a policy on her husband's
life payable to her, and gives her note for the
premium, her separate estate is chargeable there-
with.-Mitchell v. Richmond (Pa.) 486.

Contracts and conveyances between.

In an action by the husband to establish a
trust in land in the name of his wife, the bur-
den is on the husband to show fraud in her.-
Sing Bow v. Sing Bow (N. J. Ch.) 867.

Where a wife, under a contract with the hus-
band, receives pay for work done in his laundry,
and, with his consent, makes payment on a mort-
gage on certain land, equity will not disturb her
possession of the property in which she had in-
vested her wages.-Sing Bow v. Sing Bow (N.
J. Ch.) 867.

The burden is on the husband to show that a

deed of land to his wife was not intended as a
settlement on her.-Sing Bow v. Sing Bow (N.
J. Ch.) 867.

Illegitimate Children.

Impeachment.

Improvements.

See "Municipal Corporations."

Independent Contractors.

See "Master and Servant."

TION.

See, also, "Burglary"; "Conspiracy"; "Robbery."
For violation of liquor laws, see "Intoxicating
Liquors."

Sufficiency of return of constable to support
an indictment.-Commonwealth v. Bredin (Pa.)
921.

Indorsement.

Of note, see "Negotiable Instruments."

INFANCY.

v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 580.
Right to bring suit in equity to restrain a
trespass on oyster beds claimed by plaintiffs on
of a society of which defendants were the ex-
the ground of a previous trespass by members
ecutive committee, and who had collected funds
to defend such trespassers in a criminal prose-
cution.-Bateman v. Hollinger (N. J. Ch.) 1107.
Rights enforced and wrongs prevented.

Right to injunction to restrain a boycott
which threatens irreparable damage and a con-
tinning injury, the legal remedy involving a
multiplicity of suits.-Barr v. Essex Trades
Council (N. J. Ch.) SS1.

Right to injunction to restrain the board of
pilot commissioners from revoking a license

the statute creating the board.-Morris v. Board
of Pilot Com'rs (Del. Ch.) 667.

The enforcement of a void ordinance will be

enjoined at the suit of one injuriously affected
thereby.-Deems v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore (Md.) 648.

An infant is not liable for injury to property
in his possession under contract of sale if it is
caused solely by his ignorance or want of
skill.-Stack v. Cavanaugh (N. H.) 350.

An infant may avoid his contract for the pur-
chase' of personal property, and recover money
paid thereunder, by rescinding it, and returning
the property.--Stack v. Cavanaugh (N. H.) 350.
By bringing an action to recover purchase
money, an infant elects to rescind the contract
under which it was paid.-Stack v. Cavanaugh
(N. H.) 350.

It is no defense to an action by an infant to
recover money paid under a contract of sale
that the vendors were ignorant of his infancy.
-Stack v. Cavanaugh (N. H.) 350.

Damages for medical expenses may be recov-
ered by a minor though they were charged
to his father, if the physician was employed by
the minor, and he promised to pay for his
services after he became of age.-Judd v. Bal-
lard (Vt.) 96.

Right of minor on obtaining majority to re-
cover damages for loss of time during his ma-
jority, caused by defendant's negligence.-Judd
v. Ballard (Vt.) 96.

Information.

See "Indictment and Information."

INJUNCTION.

Against boycott, see "Conspiracy."
Corporation engaged in illegal business, see
"Trade-Marks and Trade-Names."

To enforce a building restriction, see "Cove-
nants."

To restrain nuisance, see "Nuisance."

sale of party wall, see "Party Walls."
ultra vires acts, see "Corporations."
Trespass will not be enjoined where the legal
rights of the parties are not settled, and the in-
jury is not irreparable.-Worthington v. Moon
(N. J. Ch.) 21.

A preliminary injunction against a labor union
for intimidation of workmen will not be dis-
solved when the answer is not sworn to.-Wick!
China Co. v. Brown (Pa.) 261.

A preliminary injunction is properly refused
when there is no ground for belief that injury
to be enjoined will be attempted. National

A court of equity will not grant a mandate
requiring a trespasser to remove a monument
which he had erected on a grave lot, the remedy
at law being adequate.-Boyden v. Bragaw (N.
J. Ch.) 330.

A contract by which a physician agrees with
another not to practice in a certain place for a
number of years may be enforced by injunction.
Wilkinson v. Colley (Pa.) 286.

Injunction is a proper remedy against the col-
lection of a tax by a school district on land
which it had no jurisdiction to tax.-Arthur v.
School District of Polk Borough (Pa.) 299.
Violation.

A person who knowingly aids in the violation
of a decree enjoining defendants, "their serv-
ants, aiders, and abettors." is in contempt,
though not a party to the bill, nor personally
named in the decree.-Fowler v. Beckman (N.
H.) 1117.

A service of a copy of an injunction ordered is
sufficient notice of the injunction without a
writ.-Fowler v. Beckman (N. H.) 1117.

Where the complaint alleges defendant's vio-
lation of an injunction to refrain from occupy-
ing a certain lot of land, it is no defense that he
occupied it under a vote of the town authorizing
him so to do.-Fowler v. Beckman (N. H.) 1117.

INSOLVENCY.

See, also, "Assignment for Benefit of Credit-
ors"; "Fraudulent Conveyances.

Of bank, see "Banks and Banking."
Of corporations, see "Corporations."

A married woman, trading as a feme sole, is
not subject to the provisions of the involuntary
insolvency law.-Clark v. Manko (Md.) 621.

A bill in equity will not lie at the suit of an
attaching creditor to defeat an insolvency pro