VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
(A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen-
eral.
$718 (Ill.) A widow's failure to sooner de-
mand a partition of property devised by will,
or seek a construction of the will, held not to
affect her right to claim certain interest in the
land devised on partition thereof.-Downing v.
Grigsby, 96 N. È. 513.
The fact that testator's widow accepted pro-
visions of the will giving her personalty held
not to estop her from claiming an interest in
the residue of the homestead, a life estate in
which was devised to her.-Id.
(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac-
tion, and Lapse.
$775 (Mass.) Under Rev. Laws, c. 135, §
21, legacies bequeathed to testator's sister-in-
law, who predeceased him, and to relatives who
died without issue before testator, lapsed.
Worcester Trust Co. v. Turner, 96 N. E. 132.
$ 801 (I.) A widow's renunciation of a pro-
vision in her husband's will for her benefit does
not render any part of her husband's estate
intestate property.-Dunshee v. Dunshee, 96
N. E. 298.
$ 802 (Ill.) The rule that a lapsed or void
devise of real estate goes to the heir, notwith-
standing a residuary clause in the will, does
not apply to a provision for testator's widow
which she renounced.-Dunshee v. Dunshee, 96
N. E. 298.
A provision for the benefit of testator's wid-
ow, which she renounced, held to pass under
the residuary clause to the residuary legatees.
-Id.
§ 805 (Ill.) Legacies are charges against the
personal estate, and, where it is insufficient to
pay them, they must abate, unless the will
charges the real estate with their payment.
Haynes v. McDonald, 96 N. E. 823.
(F) Legacies Charged on Property, Es-
tate, or Interest.
§ 820 (Ill.) Legacies are not charges against
the real estate of a testator, unless made so by
will.-Haynes v. McDonald, 96 N. E. 823.
A will construed, and held that a legacy was
not a charge against real estate undisposed of
by the will.-ld.
The rule making legacies in specified cases
charges on testator's real estate held not
adopted in Illinois.-Id.
(H) Vold, Lapsed, and Forfeited Devises
and Bequests, and Property and
Interests Undisposed of.
§ 858 (Mass.) The amount of certain lapsed
legacies held to augment the residue, and to be
distributable under the residuary clause.-Wor-
cester Trust Co. v. Turner, 96 Ñ. E. 132.
§ 862 (Mass.) Where legatees predeceased
testator, and their legacies and interest in the
residue lapsed, such interest was distributable
as intestate property.-Worcester Trust Co. v.
Turner, 96 N. E. 132.
See Criminal Law, §§ 304-531, 785, 1159, 1171;
Depositions; Drains, § 81; Evidence; Per-
jury; Wills, §§ 116, 120, 360.
(A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen-
$40 (Ill.) The action of a trial court in per-
mitting a child to testify held not an abuse of
discretion.-People v. Lewis, 96 N. E. 1005.
(B) Parties and Persons Interested in
Event.
§ 94 (Ill.) A business partner of an execu-
tor held to have a disqualifying interest in the
will contest instituted by testator's heirs, with-
in Evidence and Depositions Act, § 2.-Bailey
v. Beall, 96 N. E. 567.
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased
or Incompetent.
§ 133 (Ind.App.) Trial court held not to have
abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff to
testify in an action by her for services render-
ed decedent.-Dearing v. Coulson, 96 N. E. 9.
§ 142 (Ill.) Members of a church held compe-
tent witnesses in an action contesting a will in
which the church is beneficiary.-Adams v.
First Methodist Episcopal Church of Irving
Park, 96 N. E. 253.
§ 159 (Ill.) One suing to set aside a will on
the ground of testamentary incapacity held in-
competent to testify to personal transactions
with decedent.-Beemer v. Beemer, 96 N. E.
1058.
(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
$ 200 (Ill.) An attorney at law is a compe-
tent witness as to matters which come to his
knowledge solely as scrivener, attesting wit-
ness, and notary public.-Spencer v. Razor, 96
N. E. 300.
III. EXAMINATION.
(A) Taking Testimony in General.
§ 226 (Ind.App.) The trial court held to have
discretion in determining the character of ques-
tions that may be asked a witness.-Week T.
Rawie, 96 N. E. 206.
§ 230 (Mass.) A witness may, in English
and without an interpreter, state a conversa-
tion held in a foreign language.-Common-
wealth v. Shooshanian, 96 N. E. 70.
§ 248 (Ind.App.) In an action for engineer's
services, answer to a question asked of plain-
tiff held objectionable as not responsive.-Week
v. Rawie, 96 N. E. 206.
§ 257 (N.Y.) A hotel register held inadmissi-
ble to refresh the memory of a witness as to a
date to which he testified without the record.-
Mattison v. Mattison, 96 N. E. 359.
(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-
§ 268 (Ill.) Where, in a will contest, testa-
tor's attorney, who drew the will, was a wit-
ness, the court erred in refusing to require him
to answer on cross-examination, as to his
withdrawal as attorney for proponents and
the executors.-Bailey v. Beall, 96 N. E. 567.
§ 277 (N.Y.) Where accused took the stand,
he subjected himself to ordinary cross-exam-
ination.-People v. Brown, 96 N. E. 367.
IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
§ 340 (Ill.) In a prosecution for embezzle-
ment, evidence that the prosecuting witness is
unchaste is inadmissible to impeach her cred-
ibility.-People v. Goodrich, 96 N. E. 542.
§ 344 (N.Y.) In an action for divorce, cer-
tain entries in a hotel register held inadmis-
§ 37 (Ill.) Witnesses held competent to tes- sible to affect the credibility of defendant's al-
tify to the identity of a person.-People v. Jen-leged paramour.-Mattison v. Mattison, 96 N.
nings, 96 N. E. 1077.
E. 359.
$350 (Ill.) It was incompetent to prove by "Any determination of the Special Term."-
cross-examination of accused that he had been In re Simmons (N. Y.) 96 N. E. 456.
convicted of a crime and served time in the "Appeal."-Holderman v. Town of North Man-
penitentiary in another state.-People v. Ble- chester (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 29.
vins, 96 N. E. 214.
"Apportionment."-Daniels v. Smith (Ill.) 96
N. E. 902.
§ 350 (Ill.) Under Evidence and Depositions
Act, § 1, a witness in a will contest could be "Architect."-People v. Lower (Ill.) 96 N. E.
properly compelled to testify on cross-exam-
ination that he had previously been convicted "Assets."-State v. Davis (Ohio) 96 N. E. 1022.
of crime, to affect his credibility.-Bailey v. "Automatically."-State v. Louisville & N. R.
Beall, 96 N. E. 567.
Co. (Ind.) 96 N. E. 340.
N. E. 354.
$ 359 (Ill.) In a prosecution for homicide, it "Baggage."-Morgan v. Woolverton (N. Y.) 96
was improper to permit the state to prove by
parol evidence of the clerk that accused plead-"Benevolent association."-Little v. City of
ed guilty to a crime in the circuit court of an- Newburyport (Mass.) 96 N. E. 1032.
other county.-People v. Blevins, 96 N. E. 214. | “Builder."-People v. Lower (Ill.) 96 N. E. 346.
"Business men."-Mooreland Rural Telephone
Co. v. Mouch (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 193.
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.
Tele-
$372 (Ill.) In a prosecution for embezzle- "Business phone."-Mooreland Rural
ment, where the prosecuting witness was
phone Co. v. Mouch (Ind. App.) 96 N. E.
woman, it was improper cross-examination to
elicit that she and accused had been unduly in- "Certiorari.”—Conover v. Gatton (Ill.) 96 N. E.
timate up to the time of the embezzlement.-
People v. Goodrich, 96 N. E. 542.
"Champerty."-Lancaster Township of Wells
County v. Graves (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 172.
"Charitable corporation."-Little v. City of
"Charitable institution."-Taylor v. Protestant
Newburyport (Mass.) 96 N. E. 1032.
Hospital Ass'n (Ohio) 96 N. E. 1089.
"Charity."-Little V. City of Newburyport
(Mass.) 96 N. E. 1032.
$ 374 (Mass.) Statements of a member of a
city board of health exhibiting bias or preju-
dice against the owner of a stable held admis-
sible in an action to restrain the use of a build-
ing as a stable, to affect his credibility.-Trow-
bridge v. Tupper, 96 N. E. 1096.
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.
§ 379 (Mass.) In an action by insurer to re-
cover back money paid in settlement of a fire
loss, statements made by insured and her hus-
band held admissible to contradict them as wit-
nesses. Palatine Ins. Co. of London v. Kehoe,
96 N. E. 1099.
§ 386 (Mass.) To make a statement out of
court admissible in evidence to contradict tes-
timony, it is sufficient if the two be so incom-
patible that an honest person would not be
likely to entertain the opinion involved in the
statement out of the court.-Smith v. Holyoke
St. Ry. Co., 96 N. E. 135.
A statement by witness out of court just
after the accident held not so contradictory
of his evidence as to make such statement ad-
missible to contradict it, in an action against a
street car company for personal injuries.-Id.
§ 393 (N.Y.) Witness who heard and remem-
bered plaintiff's testimony given at a former
trial held competent in a second trial to show
that plaintiff's testimony therein was inconsist-
ent with his testimony at the former trial.-Mc-
Rorie v. Monroe, 96 N. E. 724.
(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
Witness.
§ 405 (Ill.) Cross-examination of an attesting
witness to a will as to inconsistent statements
made out of court held improperly refused.-
Craig v. Trotter, 96 N. E. 1003.
WOODS AND FORESTS.
See Statutes, § 79.
§ 8 (Ill.) Under Laws 1909, pp. 245, 251, §§
1, 15, relating to the creation and management
of forest preserve districts, held, that an elec-
tion was illegal, and the organization of a dis-
trict invalid.-People v. Rinaker, 96 N. E. 897.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
"Accident."-Indiana Union Traction Co. v.
Long (Ind.) 96 N. E. 604.
"Accomplice."-People v. Bright (N. Y.) 96 N.
E. 362.
"Action."-Brand v. Brand (Ill.) 96 N. E. 918.
"Answer."-Duffy v. England (Ind.) 96 N. E.
704.
"Any_determination of the Appellate Division."
In re Simmons (N. Y.) 96 N. E. 456.
"Common carrier."-Mooreland Rural Tele-
phone Co. v. Mouch (Ind. App.) 96 N. E.
193.
"Common_gambler."-People v. Bright (N. Y.)
96 N. E. 362.
"Condonation.”—Hoag v. Hoag (Mass.) 96 N.
E. 49.
"Contingency."-People V. Wabash R. Co.
(Ill.) 96 N. E. 861; Same v. Chicago, B. &
Q. R. Co. (Ill.) Id. 866; Same v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co. (Ill.) Id. 877.
"Convey by warranty deed."-Bear v. Fletcher
(Ill.) 96 N. E. 997.
"Corporation."-People v. Rinaker (Ill.) 96 N.
E. 897.
V. Bristol
"Costs and expenses."-Burrage
County (Mass.) 96 N. E. 719.
"Counterclaim."-Duffy v. England (Ind.) 96 N.
E. 704.
"County."-City of Edwardsville v. Madison
County (Ill.) 96 N. E. 238.
"Credits."-State v. Davis (Ohio) 96 N. E.
"Dangerous proximity."-King v. Inland Steel
Co. (Ind.) 96 N. E. 337.
"Delivery."-Gloucester Mut. Fishing Ins. Co.
v. Hall (Mass.) 96 N. E. 679.
"Demised."-Frame's Estate v. Frame (Ind.
App.) 96 N. E. 35.
"Dependent."-Royal League v. Shields (Ill.)
96 N. E. 45.
"Descend."-Harvey v. Ballard (Ill.) 96 N. E.
"Destitute of the means of support."-Supreme
Council Catholic Benev. Legion v. Grove
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 159.
"Duty and business."-Chicago & E. R. Co. v.
Hamerick (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 649.
"Dwelling_house."-Sayles v. Hall (Mass.) 96
N. E. 712.
"Efficient."-State v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 340.
"Eminent domain."-City of Edwardsville v.
Madison County (Ill.) 96 N. E. 238.
"Engages."-People v. Bright (N. Y.) 96 N. E.
"Ensues."-Wheeler v. Phenix Ins. Co. of
Brooklyn (N. Y.) 96 N. E. 452.
"Estate."-Downing v. Grigsby (Ill.) 96 N. E.
"Estoppel."-Johnson v. Spencer (Ind. App.)
96 N. E. 1041.
"Ex post facto law."-Commonwealth v. Phelps
(Mass.) 96 N. E. 349.
"Farm."-People v. Scheifley (Ill.) 96 N. E.
890.
"Fault."-Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Long
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 604.
"Framework."-Sullivan v. Boston & A. R. R.
(Mass.) 96 N. E. 347.
"Freehold."-Holinger v. Dickinson (Ill.) 96 N.
E. 896.
"Funds."-State v. Davis (Ohio) 96 N. E. 1022.
"Gift."-In re Robinson's Will (N. Y.) 96 N.
E. 925.
"Habitual drunkenness."-Garrett v. Garrett
(III.) 96 N. E. 882.
"Implied license.'
-Stevens v. Howerton (Ind.
App.) 96 N. E. 968.
"Interested."-Noble v. Davison (Ind.) 96 N.
E. 325.
"Joint tenancy."-Sharp v. Baker (Ind. App.)
96 N. E. 627.
"Judgment."-Sell v. Keiser (Ind. App.) 96 N.
E. 812.
"Judicial power."-Conover v. Gatton (Ill.) 96
N. E. 522.
"Jurisdiction."-Miller v. Rowan (Ill.) 96 N.
E. 285.
"Matter judicially noticed."-State v. Cameron
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 150.
"May."-Supreme Council Catholic Renev. Le-
gion v. Grove (Ind.) 96 N. E. 159.
"Mine."-Board of Com'rs of Greene County v.
Lattas Creek Coal Co. (Ind. App.) 96 N. E.
633.
"Moneys."-State v. Davis (Ohio) 96 N. E.
1022.
"Municipal corporations."-City of Chicago v.
Union Ice Cream Mfg. Co. (Ill.) 96 N. E.
872.
"Name."-People v. Gray (Ill.) 96 N. E. 268.
"Negligence."-Barrett v. Cleveland, C., C. &
St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 490;
Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Long (Ind.)
96 N. E. 604; Vandalia R. Co. v. Clem
(Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 789.
"Nuisance."Village of Barnesville v. Ward
(Ohio) 96 N. E. 937.
"Obstruction."-Village of Barnesville v. Ward
(Ohio) 96 N. E. 937.
"Offering."-French v. Calkins (Ill.) 96 N. E.
"Officers."-Watts v. City of Princeton (Ind.
App.) 96 N. E. 658.
"Operation of trains."-Richey v. Cleveland,
C., C. & St. L. R. Co. (Ind.) 96 N. E. 694.
"Ordinary action."-Brand v. Brand (Ill.) 96
N. E. 918.
"Position"-Ittenbach v. Thomas (Ind. App.)
96 N. E. 21.
"Postponed."-People v. Nelson (Ill.) 96 N. E.
"Power coupled with interest."-Cooley v. Kel-
ley (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 638.
"Proper."-State v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 340.
"Properly."-State v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 340.
"Proximate cause."-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L.
Ry. Co. v. Tauer (Ind.) 96 N. E. 758; Heit-
ing v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Ill.) 96
N. E. 842.
"Revert to my estate."-Downing v. Grigsby
(Ill.) 96 N. E. 513.
"Salary."-State v. Billheimer (Ind.) 96 N. E.
801.
"Satisfaction of the jury."-Sherman v. Indian-
apolis Traction Co. (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 473.
"Set-off."-Duffy v. England (Ind.) 96 N. E.
704.
"Signal."-Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Hamerick
(Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 649.
"Special franchise."-People ex rel. New York
Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Woodbury (N. Y.)
96 N. E. 431; People ex rel. Hudson & M
R. Co. v. State Board of Tax Com'rs (N.
Y.) Id. 435.
"Subcontractor."-Johnson v. Spencer (Ind.
App.) 96 N. E. 1041.
"Suit."-Brand v. Brand (Ill.) 96 N. E. 918.
"Surface."-Sullivan v. Boston & A. R. R.
(Mass.) 96 N. E. 347.
"Surface railroad."-People ex rel. New York
Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Woodbury (N. Y.)
96 N. E. 431.
V. Dunshee
"Surviving children."-Dunshee
(Ill.) 96 N. E. 298.
"Surviving heirs."-Dunshee v. Dunshee (IL)
96 N. E. 298.
"Traveler."-City of Valparaiso v. Chester
(Ind.) 96 N. E. 765.
"Unsound mind."-Humphrey v. Harris (Ind.
App.) 96 N. E. 38.
"Waiver."-Johnson v. Spencer (Ind. App.) 96
N. E. 1041.
"Willful."-Vandalia R. Co. v. Clem (Ind. App.)
96 N. E. 789.
"Willfulness."-Barrett v. Cleveland, C., C. &
St. L. Ry. Co. (Ind. App.) 96 N. E. 490.
"Work of necessity."-Western Union Tele-
graph Co. v. Fulling (Ind. App.) 96 N. E.
967.
WORK AND LABOR.
See Appeal and Error, § 971.
§ 14 (Ind.App.) One performing services un-
der a contract to devise land held entitled to
recover on a quantum meruit on a rescission
of the contract.-Mug v. Ostendorf, 96 N. E.
780.
§ 22 (Ind.App.) A complaint based on a con-
tract to devise land in consideration for serv
ices held based on a quantum meruit.-Mug v.
Ostendorf, 96 N. E. 780.
$26 (Ind.App.) The burden of proving that
the prospective benefit under a rescinded con-
tract is less than the value of plaintiff's serv-
ices is on the defendant.-Mug v. Ostendorf, 96
N. E. 780.
$29 (Ind.App.) A party agreeing to perform
services in consideration of a contract to devise
land held entitled to recover on a quantum
meruit no more than an amount equal to the
prospective benefits under the contract.-Mug
v. Ostendorf, 96 N. E. 780.
WORKINGMEN'S COMPENSATION
"Qualified privileges."-Bingham v. Gaynor (N. See Master and Servant, § 11.
"Quarry."-Board of Com'rs of Greene County
v. Lattas Creek Coal Co. (Ind. App.) 96 N.
E. 633.
"Real property."-Board of Com'rs of Greene
See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Ha-
beas Corpus; Injunction: Mandamus; Pro-
cess; Quo Warranto; Replevin.
County v. Lattas Creek Coal Co. (Ind. App.) Of error, see Appeal and Error; Criminal Law.
"Recovery."-Sell v. Keiser (Ind. App.) 96 N.
"Re-exchange."-Pavenstedt v. New York Life
Ins. Co. (N. Y.) 96 N. E. 104.
"Refusing to pay fare."-Hull v. Boston & M. See Death.
R. R. (Mass.) 96 N. E. 58.
"Regular session."-In re Reynolds (N. Y.) 96
See Frauds. Statute of. §§ 44. 49.
Adams v. First M. E. Church of Irving
Park (96 N. E. 253)..
Glos v. Prindle (96 N. E. 539).
Greene v. Maxwell (96 N. E. 227).
Anderson v. Anderson (96 N. E. 265).
Bailey v. Beall (96 N. E. 567).
Jordan v. Kirkpatrick (95 N. E. 1079).... 116
Justice v. Wilkins (95 N. E. 1025)..
Bartley v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. of Peoria (96 N. E. 241)..
Bevans v. Murray (96 N. E. 546).
Boender v. City of Harvey (95 N. E. 1084) 228
Bondurant v. Bondurant (96 N. E. 306).. 324
Bower v. Livingston (96 Ñ. E. 244).
Brown v. Sunderland (96 N. E. 345).
Cameron-Schroth-Cameron Co. v. Geseke
(96 N. E. 222)..
Caswell v. Glos (96 N. E. 251).
Chicago, City of, v. Hill (96 N. E. 223).
Chicago, City of, v. Marsh (96 N. E. 250).. 298
Chicago, City of, v. Pick (96 N. E. 539). 594
Chicago. City of, v. Walker (96 N. E. 536)
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Miller (95 N.
E. 1027)
58
City of Chicago v. Hill (96 N. .E. 223). 502
City of Chicago v. Marsh (96 N. E. 250).. 298
City of Chicago v. Pick (96 N. E. 539). 594
City of Chicago v. Walker (96 N. E. 536).. 629
City of Edwardsville v. Madison County
(96 N. E. 238).
13 Kelly v. Johnson (95 N. E. 1068).. ..... 135 Liebnow v. Wisconsin Lime & Cement Co. (95 N. E. 1030)..
Norris, Village of, v. Lyon (96 N. E. 236) 457 O'Donnell v. Erie R. Co. (96 N. E. 520)... 543 Oehmich v. Hedstrom (96 N. E. 256). 481 Paine v. Doughty (96 N. E. 212). Patterson v. Patterson (95 N. E. 1051). 587 People v. Blevins (96 N. E. 214). People v. Cassesse (96 N. E. 274) People v. Coleman (96 N. E. 239). People v. Goodrich (96 N. E. 542) People v. Gray (96 N. E. 268). People v. Hubert (96 N. E. 294. People v. Hunt (96 N. E. 220). 292 People v. Marks (96 N. E. 231). 568 People v. May (95 N. E. 999). 232 People v. Smith (95 N. E. 1041).
Dunshee v. Dunshee (96 N. E. 298).
People v. Threewitt (96 N. E. 242).
People v. White (95 N. E. 1036).
People ex rel. v. Apfelbaum (95 N. E. 995) 18
People ex rel. v. Lower (96 N. E. 346)..
Peoria, B. & C. Traction Co. v. Vance (95
84 N. E. 1081)
Forcum v. Brown (96 N. E. 259).
Fox v. Simons (96 N. E. 233).
301 Peoria, City of, v. Tichenor (96 N. E. 247) 495 316 Plaff v. Pacific Exp. Co. (95 N. E. 1089).. 243
City of Chicago v. Pennsylvania Co. (96 N. E. 833).
Ladd v. Ladd (96 N. E. 561)..
Lawler v. Byrne (96 N. E. 892).
Livingston v. Moore (96 N. E. 862)..
Leonard v. Garland (96 N. E. 819).
Louis Weber & Co. v. Levine (96 N. E.
826)
City of Chicago v. Stein (96 N. E. 886).. 409
City of Chicago v. Union Ice Cream Mfg.
Co. (96 N. E. 872)..
311
City of Marion v. Sisney (96 N. E. 860).. 421
City of Moline v. Greene (96 N. E. 911).. 475
Commissioners of Sny Island Levee Drain-
age Dist. v. Shaw (96 N. E. 984).
Comstock v. Redmond (96 N. E. 1073).
Craig v. Trotter (96 N. E. 1003).
Crooked Creek, Town of, v. King (96 N.
E. 905).....
McCoy v. Sheehy (96 N. E. 1069)..
Marion, City of, v. Sisney (96 N. E. 860) 421
Marlow v. Rich (96 N. E. 921).
Marshall v. Marshall (96 N. E. 907). 568
Moline, City of, v. Greene (96 N. E. 911) 475
Moline Water Power Co. v. Cox (96 N.
E. 1044)....
Mueller v. Phelps (97 N. E. 228)..
David M. Swain & Son v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (97 N. E. 247)..
People v. Hartford Life Ins. Co. (96 N. E.
|