successful party.-Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Croly, 96 N. E. 973. §1009 (Ind.App.) The court on appeal in an equity case will not weigh the oral evidence, and where there is some evidence supporting the findings they will not be disturbed.-Belk v. Fossler, 96 N. E. 15. § 1009 (Mass.) The chancellor's findings will be sustained on appeal, where it cannot be said that they are clearly wrong.-Adams v. Protective Union Co., 96 Ñ. E. 74. § 1010 (Ind.App.) The court on appeal will presume that the findings of the trial court are correct, notwithstanding Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 698.-Berkey v. Rensberger, 96 N. E. 32. § 1011 (Ind.App.) Where the evidence conflicts or reasonable minds might draw different inferences, the Supreme Court will not disturb the trial court's findings.-Brett v. Pretorious, 96 N. E. 211. § 1015 (Ind.) Refusal of new trial on conflicting evidence as to disqualification and misconduct of juror held not reviewable.-Harbison v. Boyd, 96 N. E. 587. § 1017 (Mass.) Where the pleadings in a suit to question the validity of a deed raise questions of fact, a master's conclusion that the essential allegations of the bill were not established will not be disturbed.-Crosier v. Kellogg, 96 N. E. 76. § 1018 (Mass.) The findings of a master, not ordered to report the evidence, will not be set aside, unless plainly wrong.-Houle v. Abramson, 96 N. E. 77. (H) Harmless Error. § 1026 (Ind.App.) An error will be adjudged harmless where it affirmatively appears from the record that it resulted in no harm to the party against whom it was committed.-Gregory v. Arms, 96 N. E. 196. Overruling of a demurrer to an insufficient answer is reversible error, and the court will not ordinarily look to the evidence to see whether the error is harmless.-Id. § 1040 (Ind.App.) In certain circumstances, overruling a demurrer held not available as error.-Timmonds v. Taylor, 96 N. E. 331. § 1040 (Ind.App.) Error in sustaining demurrer to part of an answer held harmless.Malon v. Scholler, 96 N. E. 499. § 1041 (Ill.) Defendants were not prejudiced by the court's refusal of leave to amend their answer, where they were permitted to exercise every right they were entitled to in making their defense.-Town of Crooked Creek v. King, 96 N. E. 905. St. $1043 (Ind.App.) Under Burns' Ann. 1908, § 950, error in attachment in striking plaintiff's complaint and affidavit in attachment in filing under held not cured.-E. I. Dupont Co. v. Pennsylvania & Indiana Coal Co., 96 N. E. 204. § 1047 (Ill.) Where, upon the whole record, the dismissal of the bill was obviously required, technical errors in rulings on evidence will not cause a reversal.-De Graff v. Manz, 96 N. E. 516. § 1047 (Ind.App.) That the court permitted a nonresponsive statement by a witness to stand held not an abuse of discretion.-Week v. Rawie, 96 N. E. 206. $1050 (Ill.) Evidence in an action for the balance of the price of machinery held harmless as being irrelevant.-Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co., 96 N. E. 1063. § 1050 (Mass.) Error in admitting a paper in evidence held not shown to have been harmless to plaintiff.-Flaherty v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co., 96 N. E. 716. § 1054 (Ill.) Where a correct conclusion was reached on the construction of an unambiguous deed, the error in refusing to exclude parol § 1028 (Ind.App.) Where the result reached evidence as to the effect of the deed was harmis clearly right upon the evidence, the judg-less.-Morton v. Babb, 96 N. E. 279. ment will not be reversed for error in an instruction.-Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. E. 503. § 1032 (Ind.App.) A party claiming that an error is harmless has the burden of showing it to be so.-Gregory v. Arms, 96 N. E. 196. § 1033 (Ind.App.) In an action by a remainderman for the cutting of timber from the land, an instruction that, if plaintiff knew defendants were going to cut the timber under some arrangement with the life tenant, they did so under an implied license held harmless error as to defendant.-Stevens v. Howerton, 96 N. E. 968. poration for services of an officer, exception to § 1056 (Mass.) In an action against a corthe rejection of evidence offered by him held rendered immaterial by general verdict for the corporation.-Marcy_v. Shelburne Falls & C. St. Ry. Co., 96 N. E. 130. § 1056 (Mass.) In an action against the owner of a building for injury to a subtenant's employé in an elevator accident, error in excluding evidence held harmless to plaintiff.Baum v. Ahlborn, 96 N. E. 671. § 1057 (Ill.) Rejection of the written statement of a witness, who admitted making it and testified as to contents thereof, held harmless error.-Dickerson v. Henrietta Coal Co., 96 N. E. 225. $1039 (Ill.) That the name of one of the infant defendants in a suit for the construction of a will was wrongly stated in the an§ 1060 (Ill.) Questions and statements of an swer held not prejudicial.-Comstock v. Red-attorney held not reversible error, where an obmond, 96 N. E. 1073. § 1040 (Ind.) The sustaining of a demurrer to a paragraph of an answer is harmless error, where all the evidence admissible thereunder was admissible, and was given under a general denial.-Stultz v. Miltenburger, 96 N. E. 581. § 1040 (Ind.) The error in sustaining a defective demurrer to a defective pleading is harmless.-Duffy v. England, 96 N. E. 704. § 1040 (Ind.App.) Defendants held not prejudiced by the overruling of a demurrer to plaintiff's plea of limitations where such plea could not have affected the judgment.-Humphrey v. Harris, 96 N. E. 38. § 1040 (Ind.App.) When the fact that an insufficient paragraph has been held good on demurrer or the fact that a demurrer is sustained to a good paragraph of an answer is harmless error stated.-Gregory v. Arms, 96 N. E. 196. jection to them was sustained, and the judg ment is correct on the merits.-People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 1049. § 1062 (Mass.) Error in submitting to the jury the question of negligence of using a defectively equipped car, when the declaration charges only negligent operation of a car, held to require a new trial, provided the declaration be amended to present the issue.-Lemay v. Springfield St. Ry. Co., 96 N. E. 79. § 1064 (Ind.) Any error in an instruction in an employé's personal injury action in setting out a section in the employer's liability act held harmless to defendant; the statute merely embodying the common law.-Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Long, 96 N. E. 604. § 1064 (Ind.) An instruction, in an action against a lighting company for death from an electric shock, held not prejudicially erroneous. -Valparaiso Lighting Co. v. Tyler, 96 N. E 768. § 1064 (Ind.App.) In an action for personal injuries, an instruction held prejudicial to plaintiff. Sherman v. Indianapolis Traction Co., 96 N. E. 473. § 1064 (Ind.App.) The giving of an instruction directing the jury to the consideration of improper evidence in assessing damages held reversible where there was such evidence in the record.-Mesker v. Leonard, 96 N. E. 485. § 1064 (Ind.App.) The error in instructions held not to authorize the reversal of the judgment under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 700.Sullivan v. Hoopengarner, 96 N. E. 620. § 1064 (Ind.App.) Error in an instruction, in requiring defendant to prove the allegations in both counts of his answer, when the proof of either count would have defeated plaintiff's recovery, is not prejudicial, where neither paragraph required more proof than the other. Advance Veneer & Lumber Co. v. Hornaday, 96 N. E. 784. $1064 (Ind.App.) The giving of instructions which are inconsistent and calculated to mislead the jury or leave them in doubt as to the law is ground for a reversal.-Inland Steel Co. v. Ilko, 96 N. E. 963. § 1066 (Ind.App.) Defendant railroad held not prejudiced by an instruction that the burden was on it to prove that plaintiff knew of the incompetency of defendant's trainmaster by whose negligence plaintiff was injured.-Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring, 96 N. E. 180. § 1066 (Ind.App.) Failure to submit an issue of the delivery of a guaranty by defendant as an essential element of recovery was harmless if delivery was admitted or undisputed.-Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. E. 503. § 1066 (Ind.App.) The error, in an instruction in an action for injuries to a child struck by a street car, held not prejudicial.-Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Croly, 96 N. E. 973. 1067 (Ind.App.) In an action for the negligent death of a railroad engineer in a collision, the refusal to give a charge held not prejudicial in view of the findings.-Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Hamerick, 96 N. E. 649. § 1068 (Ind.) Refusal to give certain requested instructions held cured by a special verdict.-New York, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Roper, 96 N. E. 468. a § 1068 (Ind.App.) Error in instructions in ignoring elements essential to recovery is harmless if such elements are specially found. -Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. E. 503. § 1068 (Ind.App.) Where verdict cannot be sustained under one paragraph of the complaint, owing to the insufficiency of the evidence, errors in ruling on instructions upon the issues submitted by that paragraph are immaterial.-Inland Steel Co. v. Ilko, 96 N. E. 963. 1068 (Ind.App.) Any error in an instruction on an implied license, in an action for wrongfully cutting timber on plaintiff's land, held not prejudicial to defendants, where the jury found that plaintiff did object, and that there was no such license.-Stevens v. Howerton, 96 N. E. 968. § 107 (Ill.) In ejectment by a railroad company for a strip of land claimed to be a part of its right of way, the refusal of the court trying the case without a jury to hold a requested proposition of law held not to affect the judgment.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Noyes, 96 N. E. 830. § 1071 (Ind.App.) A finding of fact wholly unsupported by the evidence, but which is immaterial to the decision of the case, will not be ground for reversal.-Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. § 1073 (Mass.) Though a decree should not have been entered where the case was reported from the superior court, where the decree for plaintiff is correct and the Supreme Judicial Court has jurisdiction on defendant's appeal, the decree will be affirmed.-Boston & M. R. R. v. Hunt, 96 N. E. 140. (1) Error Waived in Appellate Court. § 1078 (Ill.) Cross-errors, not argued in appellees' brief, will be deemed waived.-Bower v. Livingston, 96 N. E. 244. § 1078 (Ill.) Under the record on appeal from a judgment for township road and bridge taxes, the Supreme Court held not required to rule on cross-errors assigned by plaintiff.People v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 96 N. E. 923. $1078 (Ind.) Assignments of error not urged in appellant's brief will not be considered.City of Huntington v. Mitten, 96 N. E. 467; Harbison v. Boyd, Id. 587; (App.) Mesker v. Leonard, 96 N. E. 485; Ft. Wayne & Wabash Valley Traction Co. v. Miller, Id. 496; Board of Com'rs of Greene County v. Lattas Creek Coal Co., Id. 633. § 1078 (Ind.) Error in sustaining a demurrer to a portion of defendant's answer is waived by defendant's failure to present any reason or authority in support of its position in its brief.-City of Huntington v. Mitten, 96 N. E. 467. Overruling a demurrer to a complaint held waived, where defendant failed in its brief to state any proposition challenging the sufficiency of the complaint required by Supreme Court Rule 22 (55 N. E. v.).-Id. § 1078 (Ind.) An error is waived by appellant failing to properly present the same in his brief.-Duffy v. England, 96 N. E. 704. $1078 (Ind.) Appellant, by failing to urge in his brief error in overruling a motion for new trial, waived the determination of error in rulings on instructions and evidence required to be raised by motion for new trial.-Bennett v. Root Furniture Co., 96 N. E. 708. § 1078 (Ind.App.) Alleged errors, not referred to in an appellant's brief, and specifications for a new trial not discussed, are waived.Kraus v. Thomas, 96 N. E. 12. § 1078 (Ind.App.) The giving of an improper instruction and the existence of evidence in the record which renders it reversible will not relieve the party charging error from pointing it out.-Mesker v. Leonard, 96 N. E. 485. § 1078 (Ind.App.) Errors assigned and gued, but not set out in appellant's brief as relied on for reversal, will not be considered.School Tp. of Jeffersonville v. School City of Jeffersonville, 96 N. E. 662. ar (J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts. $ 1082 (N.Y.) Only errors of law raised and pointed out by exceptions taken by defendant during the trial are reviewable on plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of the Appellate Division reversing judgment for plaintiff, and granting a new trial.Porges v. United States Mortgage & Trust Co., 96 N. E. 424. § 1083 (N.Y.) A question of the admission of evidence held one of law, so as to be subject to review in the Court of Appeals, though a judgment for plaintiff was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.-Davidge v. Guardian Trust Co. of New York, 96 N. E. 751. APPOINTMENT. APPORTIONMENT. §1083 (N.Y.) Where an order granting man- See Trusts, § 155. damus is reversed upon the law, and not as a matter of discretion, a further appeal to the Court of Appeals presents a question which it must review.-People ex rel. Farley v. Winkler, 96 N. E. 928. See Costs, §§ 61, 241; States, § 27; Statutes, 267; Taxation, § 299. APPORTIONMENT ACTS. § 1085 (N.Y.) An exception to a refusal to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action survives a unanimous affirm- See States, § 27. ance of the Appellate Division so as to be reviewable by the Court of Appeals.-Case v. Case, 96 N. E. 440. APPRAISERS. ARBITRATION AND AWARD. $1094 (I.) Practice Act, § 120, and section See Municipal Corporations, §§ 370, 408, 511. 122, as amended by Laws 1909, p. 304, held not repugnant and that the Supreme Court in chancery cases has authority to review the facts. Fox v. Simons, 96 N. E. 233. $1094 (N.Y.) Upon appeal from a judgment affirming a nonsuit, the Court of Appeals will See Reference; Submission of Controversy. ARGUMENT. only determine whether there is evidence suf- See Appeal and Error, § 1078. § 1094 (N.Y.) Affirmance by the Appellate Division of a judgment is conclusive as to the facts found under the verdict.--Brockport-Holley Water Co. v. Village of Brockport, 96 N. E. 745. (K) Subsequent Appeals. ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. See Criminal Law, § 721; Trial, § 109. ARRAIGNMENT. See Criminal Law, §§ 262, 264. ARREST. $ 1097 (Ind.App.) A decision on a former appeal is the law of the case only so far as the See False Imprisonment. questions presented on retrial are the same.Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring, 96 N. E. 180. $ 1099 (Ind.App.) Affirmance of a ruling sustaining a demurrer to the complaint is the law of the case, whether right or wrong, if the question is necessarily involved on the appeal. -Goldsmith v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. E. 503. A decision on a former appeal as to the sufficiency of the complaint held to have become the law of the case, as being necessarily involved on the appeal.-Id. XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO- (D) Reversal. § 1170 (Ind. App.) A reviewing court will not reverse a cause for a failure to find a fact on conflicting evidence.-Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. $1170 (Ind.App.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 700, a judgment will not be reversed for technical errors where the merits of the cause have been fully and fairly tried, and a correct result reached.-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Born, 96 N. E. 777. § 1170 (Ind.App.) An instruction held harmless, and hence, under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, §§ 407, 700, no ground for reversal.-Inland Steel Co. v. Ilko, 96 N. E. 963. See ARREST OF JUDGMENT. Criminal Law, § 974; Judgment, § 263. ASSAULT AND BATTERY. See Action, § 27; Costs, § 260; Homicide, {{ 101, 307; Justices of the Peace. ASSESSMENT. See Drains, §§ 14, 16, 66-89; Insurance, $ 750-756; Levees; Municipal Corporations, §§ 296, 370, 408-586; Taxation, §§ 299-496. ASSETS. See Corporations, § 619. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. See Appeal and Error, §§ 719-750; New Trial. §§ 74, 79, 128. ASSIGNMENTS. See Fraudulent Conveyances; Principal and ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF (F) Mandate and Proceedings in Lower See Bankruptcy; Exemptions. Court. § 1212 (Mass.) Where a new trial was ordered on the question of damages only no other ASSOCIATIONS. question was open on retrial.-Stone v. Pente- See Charities, § 1; Trade Unions. cost, 96 N. E. 335. APPEARANCE. ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF. See Appeal and Error, § 931; Eminent Do- See Vendor and Purchaser, § 299; Work and main, § 178; Taxation, § 642. V. LEVY, LIEN, AND CUSTODY AND | chase held a breach of the bailment contract, DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. justifying rescission by the bailor.-Atlantic $168 (Mass.) Where property has been at- Building Supply Co. v. Vulcanite Portland Cetached by a deputy sheriff, writs of attachment ment Co., 96 N. E. 370. subsequently issued should also be placed in the same hands for execution.-Beaulieu v. Clark, 96 N. E. 319. § 184 (Mass.) Since an attachment of chattels rests upon possession, it is dissolved when the attaching officer parts with custody of the chattels.-Beaulieu v. Clark, 96 N. E. 319. VI. PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT OR ENFORCE. $217 (I.) A judgment in attachment against a nonresident, served by publication only, held good in form.-Pyatt v. Riley, 96 N. E. 570. A judgment in attachment against a nonresident held not void because it does not award special execution against the property attached.-Id. VIII. CLAIMS BY THIRD PERSONS. $ 282 (Ind.App.) Under Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 978, plaintiff in attachment held empowered to file under in his own suit.-E. I. Dupont Co. v. Pennsylvania & Indiana Coal Co., 96 N. E. 204. ATTESTATION. See Wills, §§ 116, 120. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See Appeal and Error, §§ 656, 667, 801, 914, 1060; Bonds; Criminal Law, §§ 262, 640; Executors and Administrators, 8 423; Municipal Corporations, § 306; Principal and Agent, 897; Trial, §§ 109, 397; Witnesses, $$ 200, 268. I. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY. (C) Suspension and Disbarment. § 53 (Ill.) An information to disbar an attorney held not sustained by evidence.-People v. Silha, 96 N. E. 826. The truth of a charge in an information to disbar an attorney must be established by clear and satisfactory proof.-Id. § 59 (Mass.) Under Rev. Laws, c. 165, § 44, the attorney conducting disbarment proceedings held entitled to attorney's fees.-Burrage v. Bristol County, 96 N. E. 719. AUDITORS. See Municipal Corporations, § 506. AUTHORITY. See Appeal and Error, §§ 667, 801, 914; Banks and Banking, $ 315; Brokers; Carriers, §§ 47, 365; Pleading, § 8; Principal and Agent, §§ 92-137, 175; Taxation, § 376. AUTREFOIS ACQUIT AND CONVICT. See Criminal Law, § 292. BAGGAGE. See Carriers, § 158. BAILMENT. See Banks and Banking, § 127; Pledges. § 16 (Mass.) The negligent delivery to the wrong person of a parcel by the agents of a bailee for its delivery would be a conversion thereof. Murray v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 96 N. E. 316. § 22 (N.Y.) Appropriation by a bailee of cement under an independent contract of pur BALLOTS. See Elections, §§ 161-194. BANKRUPTCY. See Appeal and Error, §§ 83, 274; Evidence, $215. III. ASSIGNMENT, ADMINISTRATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANKRUPT'S ESTATE. (E) Actions by or Against Trustee. § 304 (Mass.) In an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover alleged preferences, evidence as to certain acts of the bankrupt and the defendant held sufficient to go to the jury.Brown v. Pelonsky, 96 N. E. 1102. In an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover certain alleged preferences, whether checks dated ahead and given in payment for goods were intended as payments of a preceding debt held a question for the jury.-Id. (F) Claims Against and Distribution of Estate. § 363 (Mass.) The creditor's proving of a claim for a debt created by the bankrupt's misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity did not change the relations of the parties into the ordinary relation of debtor and creditor, so as to discharge the claim.-Brown v. Hannagan, 96 N. E. 714. V. RIGHTS, REMEDIES, AND DISCHARGE OF BANKRUPT. § 425 (N.Y.) Under Bankr. Act, § 7, a list of the bankrupt's creditors held insufficient, so as to deprive the bankrupt, on discharge in bankruptcy, from proceeding under Debtor and Creditor Law, § 150, for the cancellation of a judgment against him.-Guasti v. Miller, 96 N. E. 416. propriation in a fiduciary capacity, so as to be § 426 (Mass.) A debt held created by misapexempted from a discharge in bankruptcy, under Bankr. Act, § 17, cl. 4.-Brown v. Hannagan, 96 N. E. 714. Under Bankr. Act, § 17, cl. 4, the original character of a debt arising from misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity was not lost by the claim therefor being reduced to judgment, and hence the judgment was exempted from operation of the discharge in bankruptcy.-Id. BANKS AND BANKING. See Bills and Notes, §§ 291, 525; Election of Remedies; Embezzlement, § 6; Gifts, §§ 21, 49; Guaranty; Principal and Agent, § 97; Trover and Conversion. III. FUNCTIONS AND DEALINGS. (C) Deposits. 127 (Ind.App.) A return to a depositor of a check deposited as cash, with its charge to the account of the depositor with his permission, amounts to a resale of the check to the depositor.-Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. A deposit of a check under a definite agreement to consider it as cash passes title thereto to the bank.-Id. Where a check is deposited without a specific agreement, and it is credited as cash, a rebuttable presumption arises that the transaction constitutes a sale to the bank.-Id. (D) Collections. § 159 (Ind.App.) A check shown to have been deposited merely for collection remains the property of the depositor, and subsequent collecting banks take it as his agent.-Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. § 171 (Ind.App.) A collecting bank is not the agent of a depositor of a check deposited without a special agreement as to its character, so as to render it liable to him for negligence of misconduct resulting in the loss of the debt.Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. VI. LOAN, TRUST, AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES. struments, §§ 46, 53; Compromise and Settlement, $$ 5, 25; Election of Remedies; Evidence, 423; Forgery; Guaranty; Judgment, §§ 617, 822; Physicians and Surgeons: Pleading, § 194; Principal and Agent, § 97; Spendthrifts; Trover and Conversion. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Form and Contents of Bills of Exchange, Drafts, Checks, and Orders. §13 (N.Y.) A bill of exchange held a foreign bill of exchange.-Pavenstedt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 104. (D) Acceptance. domestic $315 (N.Y.) A trust company which was trustee under a mortgage securing $66 (N.Y.) A bill of exchange held a bill on bonds held to have no authority to represent which the drawer may be sued as acceptor, to purchasers of the bonds that they were though in form the bill has not been accepted. first-mortgage bonds.-Davidge V. Guardian-Pavenstedt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 N. Trust Co. of New York, 96 N. E. 751. E. 104. DORSEMENT OR TRANSFER. In the absence of a showing of authority, held, that it could not be presumed that the V. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON INvice president of a domestic trust company, which was trustee under a mortgage securing bonds, had authority to represent that the bonds were first-mortgage bonds.-Id. A trust mortgage held not to authorize the trustee to represent to bondholders secured by the mortgage that the bonds were first-mortgage bonds, so as to make it liable for such a misrepresentation by its vice president.-Id. BAR. See Action, & 42; Appeal and Error, § 795; Judgment, 88 617-747, 949; Parties; Pleading, § 106. BATHHOUSES. See Damages, § 56. BELLS. (A) Indorsement Before Delivery to or Transfer by Payee. § 253 (Mass.) In absence of contrary proof, the parties to a promissory note held liable according to the legal effect of the instrument as stated.-Enterprise Brewing Co. v. Canning, 96 N. E. 673. (B) Indorsement for Transfer. der a definite agreement to consider it as cash $291 (Ind.App.) A depositor of a check unbecomes liable to the bank on his indorsement -Downey v. National Exch. Bank, 96 N. E. 403. (D) Bona Fide Purchasers. § 339 (Ind.) Persons dealing in commercial paper are bound to use reasonable diligence when it is offered for sale under suspicious See Commerce, § 13; Constitutional Law, 88 circumstances.-State Bank of Greentown v. 42, 48; Railroads, §§ 229, 255. BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS. See Insurance, §§ 691, 770-780. BENEFICIARIES. See Insurance, §§ 587, 590, 787. BENEFITS. See Appeal and Error, § 161; Injunction, § BIAS. Lawrence, 96 N. E. 947. A purchaser of a note cannot occupy the position of a bona fide holder where he has refrained from making inquiry lest he should learn in what manner the note originated.-Id. § 375 (Ind.) A note based on an illegal consideration, but purchased before maturity, was enforceable on proof that plaintiff was an innocent holder.-State Bank of Greentown v. Lawrence, 96 N. E. 947. VIII. ACTIONS. § 495 (Mass.) The fact that in a series of renewals of a note the order of the indorsements was changed does not raise a presumption that the indorsers jointly agreed to guarantee the note.-Enterprise Brewing Co. v. Canning, 96 N. E. 673. $525 (Ind.) Plaintiff bank held bound to See Criminal Law, § 489; Witnesses, §§ 372, make inquiry as to the consideration of a note. -State Bank of Greentown v. Lawrence, 96 N, $ 529 (N.Y.) Liability of acceptor of bill of exchange held limited to face of bill.-Pavenstedt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 104. $533 (N.Y.) Damages for refusal to pay stedt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 96 N. E. 104. Damages recoverable by the payee of a negotiable foreign bill of exchange protested for nonpayment against the drawer, defined.—Id. See Appeal and Error, § 193; Bills and Notes, foreign bill of exchange, specified.-Paven§§ 13, 66, 529, 533. BILL OF LADING. See Carriers, §§ 150, 180; Evidence, § 417. BILL OF PARTICULARS. See Indictment and Information, § 121. BILLS AND NOTES. See Accord and Satisfaction; Banks and Banking, §§ 127, 159, 171; Cancellation of In BOARDS. See Certiorari, § 26; Drains, § 16; Elections, § 186; Health; Mandamus, §§ 3, 15; Municipal Corporations, § 994; Schools and School Districts, 37; Taxation, §§ 317, 376, 466, 467, 496, 543, 608; Waters and Water Courses, § 1832. |