993 For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND ANNULMENT. (B) Actions to Establish or Determine Validity in General. 439 (N.H.) If the testator's purpose is legal, and can be ascertained, it is the duty of the court to enforce it.-Roberts v. Corson, 107 A. 625. 230 (Pa.) Where a daughter contests her 440 (Me.) The object of judicial interpretafather's will, à family settlement between her- tion of a will is to ascertain what the language self and her two brothers, two of the three ex-used by testator represented in his mind.-Johnson v. Palmer. 107 A. 291. ecutors, by which, in consideration of her with-448 (Pa.) There is no presumption that tesdrawal of the caveat, she receives absolutely a tator died intestate as to part of his real estate. portion of the estate in lieu of a separate use -Craig v. Craig, 107 A. 719. trust provided by the will, is void, and will be set aside to permit renewal of the contest, pending which distribution will be stayed.-Instrued as to impute to testator a purpose to die intestate, or partially intestate, if it can be re Schwehm's Estate, 107 A. 699. avoided; the law preferring one that will prevent, rather than one that will permit, intestacy.-Bruce v. Bruce, 107 A. 434. (E) Jurisdiction, Limitations, and Laches. 449 (N.J.) A will ought not to be so con An enumeration of paragraphs by testator on margin of paper on which will is written, to which no reference is made in body of will as a means for identification of something therein, is not controlling in ascertaining his intention, and two such paragraphs may be read as one to prevent intestacy, unless there is something in will to contrary, if testator's intention to dispose of his entire estate is other 249 (Pa.) Where testator maintained home in Philadelphia county for 50 years and declared in his will that he resided in Philadelphia, though he died at his country home in Montgomery county, which he had maintained for 35 years, and which, up to execution of his will, he had regarded as his domicile, having registered, voted, and made returns to assessor therein, and after execution of will did not indicate that he regarded his principal residence as being therein, Philadelphia county was his principal residence, within Act June 7, 1917 (P. L. 470 (N.J.) In construing a will, the true in418) § 4, for purpose of probating his will.-Intention of the testator, as gathered from the whole will, should be given effect.-Bruce v. re Winsor's Estate, 107 A. 888. Bruce, 107 A. 434. (G) Petitions, Objections, and Pleadings. (H) Evidence. wise clear.-Id. ~471 (N.H.) Where the terms of a will are in conflict, such construction is given to particular clauses which appear to be in conflict as will carry out the purpose of the testator as disclosed by the entire will.-Roaf v. Champlin, 107 A. 339. 481 (Me.) A will, being operative from the death of its maker, is presumed to refer to a situation then existing, but this presumption yields when the will manifests testator's differ302(2) (Pa.) Where there are no subscrib-ent intention.-Johnson v. Palmer, 107 A. 291. ing witnesses, a will may be sufficiently proved 487(1) (N.J.Ch.) Intention of testatrix must by two witnesses who are acquainted with the be found in the will, and cannot be established handwriting of the testator.-McClure v. Red- aliunde.-Smith v. Pond, 107 A. 800. man. 107 A. 25. 303(4) (Pa.) Each of the two witnesses required for the proof of a will must depose to all facts necessary to complete the chain of evidence, and when the evidence is circumstantial each must make proof complete in itself, so that a case would be made out by the evidence of either.-McClure v. Redman, 107 A. 25. 487 (2) (N.H.) Evidence of the circumstances under which the language of will was used is competent upon the question of what the words used meant to testator.-Roaf v. Champlin, 107 A. 339. (B) Designation of Devisees, and Legatees and Their Respective Shares. 304 (Pa.) Where at the execution of a will524(6) (N.J.Ch.) Where testatrix, after giva single witness is present, the statutory requirement of two or more witnesses to prove the will may be supplied by circumstantial evidence, though such rule can apply only where the signature to be adjudged is shown by attesting witness to have been written by testator's own hand.-McClure v. Redman, 107 A. 25. (1) Hearing or Trial. 316(1) (N.J.Prerog.) Application to certify questions involved in a controversy over the probate of a will into the circuit court for trial by jury under 3 Comp. St. 1910, p. 3818, § 18, is discretionary with the orphans' court, and not mandatory upon that tribunal.-In re Morrissey's Will, 107 A. 70. 327 (Conn.) In proceedings for probating a will contested by testator's daughter on the ground of undue influence of a legatee, a niece with whom testator lived about six months after the daughter moved from the parental home, evidence held to justify the direction of a verdict in favor of proponent at the close of contestant's case.-Downey v. Guilfoile, 107 A. 562. VI. CONSTRUCTION. 439 (N.H.) Effect will be given to the intention of the testator regardless of lack of technical language defining the purpose.-Roaf v. Champlin, 107 A. 339. 107 A.-63 ing her residuary estate in trust for the benefit of her son for life, directed her executors to distribute the estate after his death "among my legal heirs and next of kin who shall be by law entitled to the same as though I died intestate," and the son died after his mother, leaving a widow, the nephews and nieces of testatrix took the corpus of the estate, to the exclusion of the son and his widow.-Oleson v. Somogyi, 107 A. 798. (C) Survivorship, Representation, and Substitution. 545 (2) (Pa.) A will directing that "after the death of my sons and daughters" a trust fund should vest in their respective children and their legal representatives, as such sons and daughters should respectively direct and appoint by their wills, and in default thereof should de scend according to intestate laws, and if any of his children died without issue living their share to be paid to survivors share and share alike, intended that in such event share should be paid to survivors immediately, and not after death of all sons and daughters.-Roberts v. Moorhead, 107 A. 701. 545 (3) (Pa.) Under a will giving absolute control of all testator's estate to his wife, and the income, subject to the support of his daughter, and on daughter's death in wife's lifetime to the wife in fee, and remaining property to daughter if she survived wife, with income for life and over to her heirs, the daughter, surviv- tion of extraordinary dividends as between life ing testator and his wife takes a fee, which is tenant and remainderman of a trust fund, such not cut down by a subsequent clause that, on intention would govern.-Rhode Island Hospital daughter's death without issue surviving, the Trust Co. v. Peckham, 107 A. 209. property should go in fee to another; such 686(3) (Me.) A residuary clause, devising a clause being simply alternative or substitutionary, and effective only on daughter's death in testator's lifetime.-In re Stark's Estate, 107 A. 699. (D) Description of Property. 567 (Pa.) Where testatrix in a codicil reduced certain legacies "in order to avoid a possible deficiency," such reduction was absolute, and not conditional, and the fact that her fear of deficiency of assets proved groundless did not entitle the legatees to the original amount of the legacies.-In re Prevost's Estate, 107 A. 388. (E) Nature of Estates and Interests Created. 601(2) (Pa.) Where testator gave to daughter, her heirs and assigns, one-fourth of all his estate, and requested executors to convey his house and lot to her for $1,500, payable out of her interest and bequest, and on the death of herself and husband everything left to daughter and in their possession to revert for division among others, the daughter, after her election to take homestead and a deed to her, took a good marketable title in fee.-Oyler v. Clements, 107 A. 326. 627(2) (N.H.) While Pub. St. 1901, c. 137, § 14, changed the common-law rule, so that a devise to two or more persons creates an estate in common, and not one in joint tenancy, unless it is expressed that such estate is to be held by the devisees as joint tenants, or other words are used clearly expressing an intention to create a joint tenancy, the use of technical terms is not necessary to create a joint tenancy where that is the testator's intention.Roaf v. Champlin, 107 A. 339. Where testator gave the residue of his property, real and personal, to his mother and sister in equal shares for their support during their natural lives, with full power to dispose of all or any part thereof if necessary for their support, directing that at the death of one or both of them whatever of the estate might remain undisposed should pass to his brother, held that, conceding, in view of Pub. St. 1901, c. 137, § 14, a technical joint tenancy between the life tenants was not created, nevertheless the testator's sister, who survived the mother, might sell the whole of the property when necessary for her support.-Id. (F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In terests. 634(4) (N.H.) Where a testator devised and bequeathed his real and personal property to life tenants, authorizing them to dispose of all or any part thereof necessary for their comfort, with remainder over, the remaindermen took a vested remainder, subject to be divested by the power of disposition attached to the life estate.-Roaf v. Champlin, 107 A. 339. 634(10) (Pa.) Under will giving residue in trust to pay income to a sister for life, and on her death to pay and divide two-fifths of income among six named children, of life tenant for their respective lives, and on death of each to pay a representative part of capital to his living children and to issue of any deceased children, and in default of such children or such issue then living to pay to sister's other living children, and, if none of them or issue of a deceased child was then living, then over to testatrix's next of kin, gift to life tenant's children was contingent upon their surviving her.-In re Evans' Estate, 107 A. 731. (H) Estates in Trust and Powers. 684 (3) (R.I.) If testator in his will had expressed an intention relative to the disposi farm in trust, with yearly payments from income to testator's wife while unmarried, and upon her death or marriage trustee to convey to testator's two sons, for life, or, if one die, without children, to the survivor of them, "reversion" to be conveyed to their children if any, otherwise to all his grandchildren, construed to postpone vesting of reversionary estate, the trustee intervening, only until widow's death or marriage, and when she married the life estate should have been conveyed forthwith, and at such time the class of reversioners should have been ascertained and the reversion conveyed.Johnson v. Palmer, 107 A. 291. (I) Actions to Construe Wills. 695 (N.H.) An executor who makes claim to property upon the ground that his decedent had an interest under the will of another is not entitled to the advice of the court as to the validity of such claim, as he can proceed directly for the recovery of his claim.-Scammon v. Pearson, 107 A. 605. 697 (3) (N.H.) Where an executor holding property in trust as such dies before qualifying as trustee under the will by giving bond as required by Pub. St. 1901, c. 198, § 1, the trust relation is terminated and does not pass to his personal representative, and the latter cannot maintain a bill for advice as to distribution, where the executor's successor objects.-Scammon v. Pearson, 107 A. 605. The ground on which a trustee under a will is permitted to maintain a bill for advice is that otherwise he must act at his peril, or else wait until a claimant brings suit.-Id. VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF DEVISEES AND LEGATEES. (A) Nature of Title and Rights in Gen eral. 728 (Md.) Where a testator orders his land to be sold for payment of debts and legacies, one-third of the price of the land to be secured thereon, the interest therefrom to be paid the wife, and she elects to take in lieu of her devise a legal share in the estate, a beneficiary cannot compel the executor to account for crops raised on the land in the interval between testator's death and the sule of the two-thirds interest because in the interval the freehold descends to the heirs, and they are entitled to the profits until the sale is made.-Kneisley v. Kneisley, 107 A. 195. 732(5) (Pa.) In the absence of an express restriction or its equivalent, the corpus of an estate given subject to an annuity may be taken for its payment when the income proves insufficient, regardless of testator's belief that the income would be sufficient.-In re Johnston's Estate, 107 A. 335. 747 (Pa.) There is no presumption that a testator's heirs at law are the devisees of any particular part of his real estate.-Craig Craig, 107 A. 719. (F) Legacies Charged on Property, tate, or Interest. V. Es 825 (Pa.) Where testator's will gave his wife an annuity for life and made it a lien upon his realty, the fact that she joined with other parties in interest in a lease of principal part of realty for a term at a large rental would not waive her right to have her annuity charged on land, though it might estop her from contesting lease. In re Johnston's Estate, 107 A. 335. 826(2) (Pa.) Where testator gave his wife an annuity for life and made it lien on realty of which he died seized, and, after giving remainder of income to certain persons for life, directed disposition of corpus subject to gifts, For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER etc., the widow, on a deficiency of income to transaction with decedent.-Miller v. Frick, 107 pay the annuity, might proceed under Act Feb. A. 394. 24, 1834 (P. L. 84) § 59, incorporated under Fiduciaries Act, § 25, to have her annuity charged upon land. In re Johnston's Estate, 107 A. 335. (G) Debts of Testator and Incumbrances on Property. 167 (N.H.) In a will contest, contestant's testimony that proponent told him she advised testatrix to make a will to cut off a brother's widow is admissible to show a continuing purpose to deceive the heirs, although Pub. St. 1901, c. 224, §§ 16, 17, prohibiting survivors from testifying to facts occurring in deceased's lifetime, etc., rendered it inadmissible to show that proCobb v. Follansbee, 107 A. 630. ponent induced testatrix to make the will. 839 (Conn.) A covenant by the purchaser of wharf property, giving an option of purchase on agreed terms to the grantor, made by the covenantor "for himself, his heirs and adminis-176(1) (N.H.) Pub. St. 1901, c. 224, § 16, trators," binds his devisee notwithstanding the omission of the word "assigns."-H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. West, 107 A. 138. WITNESSES. See Costs, 187; Criminal Law, 782, 11702; Depositions; Evidence; Judgment, 648; New Trial, 69, 72; Wills, 133, 304. II. COMPETENCY. (A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen eral. 37(1) (Pa.) Witnesses who testify to insanity in a defendant's ancestors, either direct or collateral, must do so from personal knowledge and observation, and not from reputation. -Commonwealth v. Dale, 107 A. 743. providing that neither party shall testify regarding facts occurring in deceased's lifetime, unless deceased's executor elects to testify, etc., allows will contestants to testify regarding occurrences in testatrix's lifetime after executrix had testified, where there had been no error in admitting evidence against executrix up to time of her election to testify.-Cobb v. Follansbee, 107 A. 630. 182 (N.H.) Pub. St. 1901, c. 224, §§ 16, 17, providing that when an executor is a party neither party shall testify regarding facts occurring in deceased's lifetime, unless the executor elects to testify, or it appears that injustice may be done without such testimony, do not preclude testimony regarding facts unknown to decedent, nor need fact that decedent could not contradict the testimony be shown by evidence other than testimony in question.-Cobb v. Follansbee, 107 A. 630. (D) Confidential Relations and Privileged Communications. 52(7) (N.J.Sup.) Where a wife was the voluntary agent in bringing to the grand jury's attention her husband's perjury, had the matter brought to the attention of the prosecuting 199(4) (Md.) Unless provided otherwise by officer, and because of this fact was subpoenaed statute, communications by a client to an atto appear before the grand jury, it must be torney who drafted his will, in respect to that presumed that in giving her testimony she was document, and all transactions occurring beacting as a free agent in presenting her com- tween them leading up to its execution, are not, plaint against her husband, so that in the hear- after the client's death, within the protection of ing before the grand inquest she was, within the rule as to privileged communications in a the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Act, § suit between the testator's devisees and heirs at 57, the complainant against him, so that her law or other parties who all claim under him.testimony was admissible.-State v. Snyder, 107 Benzinger v. Hemler, 107 A. 355. A. 167. Where a wife on being called to testify was asked if she offered herself as a witness, and she answered that she did, the matter being for her personal determination whether she would pursue her original complaint by testifying against her husband at the trial or would not, she came within the statutory description of a complainant against her husband, who offered herself as a witness against him at the trial, and her testimony was properly admitted. Criminal Procedure Act, § 57.-Id. (C) Testimony of Parties or Persons Interested, for or against Representatives, Survivors, or Successors in Title or Interest of Persons Deceased or Incompetent. 202 (N.J.) In action against executors for breach of testator's agreement to make will, with specified bequest to plaintiff, or to recover compensation for services rendered testator, written instructions from testator to attorney, who prepared will, together with statements by testator to attorney at such time, were inadmissible, being privileged communications from client to attorney; though attorney was attesting witness to will.-Anderson v. Searles, 107 A. 429. 217 (N.J.Sup.) In a prosecution for manslaughter by reckless driving of an automobile while drunk, admission of testimony of an attorney at law as to what was said to him after the accident by one of defendant's companions in the car, if erroneous, was not assign158 (N.H.) In a will contest, evidence as to al to his companion.-State v. Snook, 107 A. 62. able by defendant; any privilege being personconversations showing that proponent's husband misrepresented the value of the estate to dece-tween attorney and client from being given in The privilege protecting communications bedent's heirs, snd having no tendency to prove evidence by the attorney is personal to the or disprove any litigated fact which could have client.--Id. been known to the decedent, is admissible to show a scheme to defraud.-Cobb v. Follansbee, 107 A. 630. III. EXAMINATION. (A) Taking Testimony in General. In a will contest, contestant's testimony that proponent told him the will would make no dif-255(4) (Conn.) In an action for failure to ference to him is admissible to show a scheme to defraud.—Id. 159(7) (Md.) In action by an executor to recover property claimed to have been given by the testatrix to defendant, defendant's testimony regarding his transactions with, and statements made by, the deceased is incompetent.-Chase v. Gray, 107 A. 537. 159(13) (Del.) In replevin for jewelry and furniture of plaintiff administrator's decedent, testimony of defendant that he himself had paid with checks for the furniture bought by and billed to decedent and in her possession at the time of her death held inadmissible as relating to a deliver lumber, a salesman for a company other than defendant, who did nothing in the figuring of costs to make up price sheets furnished him by his employer, could not use such a sheet to refresh his memory, since he had no knowledge or memory to be refreshed.-Burn & Crump v. Metropolitan Lumber Co., 107 A. 609. (B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina tion. 269(6) (Pa.) In action for death of plaintiff's husband from injury by a horse attached to defendant's delivery wagon, where the only witness called for plaintiff, the defendant's driv (B) Character and Conduct of Witness. 345(1) (R.I.) Under Gen. Laws 1909, c. 292, § 43, providing that conviction or sentence for crime or misdemeanor may be shown to affect a witness' credibility, it is immaterial, as to right to show a prior sentence of the witness, whether the sentence was based upon a verdict or plea of guilty or upon a plea of nolo contendere.-State v. Vanasse, 107 A. 85. 350 (N.J.Sup.) In a criminal prosecution where defendant took the stand, it was not error to allow the prosecutor to ask him whether he had not pleaded guilty to other offenses on the theory that a conviction of crime cannot be shown against a defendant, unless the nature of the crime is such as to render him infamous.-State v. Runyon, 107 A. 33. In a criminal prosecution where defendant took the stand, it was not error to allow the prosecutor to ask him whether he had not pleaded guilty to other offenses on the theory that the only way to prove a conviction is by production of the judgment record, because a plea of guilty is not a conviction, but a mere step in the cause antecedent thereto.-Id. (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness. 379(S) (Pa.) The record of a suit by one corporation against another, wherein judgment was entered adversely to defendant on its counterclaim for damages for rescission of contract alleged to have been assigned to it by its stockholder, did not conclusively establish stockholder's testimony that he had made such assignment so as to estop him in his suit against the corporation plaintiff in the other suit for breach of such contract, but merely affected his credibility.-Macan v. Scandinavia Belting Co., 107 A. 750. 387 (R.I.) Where questions to a state's witness on cross-examination both as to form and as to matters sought to be inquired into were indefinite, immaterial, and irrelevant, and were not in proper form for the purpose of laying a foundation by contradiction to discredit the witness, they were properly excluded.State v. Robbins, 107 A. 203. 393(1) (N.J.) In prosecution for conspiracy whereby defendant fraudulently obtained money from another, the reading and admission in evidence of defendant's testimony on a previous trial of same indictment was not objectionable as compelling defendant to testify against himself, as, if it was inconsistent with his testimony on the later trial, it was competent to show his previous inconsistent statements.-State v. Gregory, 107 A. 459. In prosecution for conspiracy whereby defendant fraudulently obtained money from another, the reading and admission in evidence of defendant's testimony on a previous trial of same indictment was not objectionable, as compelling defendant to testify against himself, as if it was inconsistent with his testimony on the later trial it was competent to show his previous inconsistent statements.-Id. WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE. See Statutes, 352. WORDS AND PHRASES. "Accommodation maker."-Lackawanna Trust Co. v. Carlucci (Pa.) 107 A. 693. "Adoption."-Edwards v. Heralds of Liberty (Pa.) 107 A. 324. "After the death of my sons and daughters."Roberts v. Moorhead (Pa.) 107 A. 701. "Ancestor."-Cook v. Mount (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 157; Wills v. Le Munyon (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 159. "Assume."-Hopkins v. Erskine (Me.) 107 A. 829. "Banks."-Department of Health of New Jersey v. Chemical Co. of America (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 164. "Benevolent purposes."-Smith v. Pond (N.J. Ch.) 107 A. 800. "Building and loan association."-In re National Bldg., Loan & Provident Ass'n (Del. Ch.) 107 A. 453. "Building of another."-State v. Lentz (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 791. "Carriages for burthen drawn by two beasts.” -Proprietors of Cornish Bridge v. Fitts (N. H.) 107 A. 626. "Certiorari."-Broley v. Superior Court (R. I.) 107 A. 104. "Charity."-In re Lawson's Estate (Pa.) 107 A. 376. "Child."-In re Book's Will (N. J.) 107 A. 435. "Children."-In re Book's Will (N. J.) 107 A. 435. "Claims."-Di Maio v. Yolen Bottling Works (Conn.) 107 A. 497. "Cloud on title."-Reed v. Stevens (Conn.) 107 A. 495. "Complainant."-State v. Snyder (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 167. "Conditional sale."-Rapoport v. Rapoport Express Co. (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 822. "Constitution."-In re Opinion of the Justices (Me.) 107 A. 673. "Dealer."-Commonwealth v. Thorne, Neale & Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 814. "Deed."-H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. West (Conn.) 107 A. 138. "Del credere agent."-Commonwealth v. Thorne, Neale & Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 814. "Delivery."-Abbe v. Donohue (N. J.) 107 A. 431. "Desertion."-McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 260. "Disability."-Funk v. Wingert (Md.) 107 A. 345. "Doing water business."-Town of Kearny v. City of Bayonne (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 169. "Doubtful title."-Black v. American international Corporation (Pa.) 107 A. 737. "Earnings."-Baxter v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 881. "Easement."-Ham v. Massasoit Real Estate Co. (R. I.) 107 A. 205. "Escrow."-Weisenberger 107 A. 763. V. Huebner (Pa.) "Final judgment."-Blessing v. Blackburn Varnish Co. (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 599. "For any reason."-Kowalski v. McAdoo (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 477. "Four-wheel carriage for passengers."-Proprie tors of Cornish Bridge v. Fitts (N. H.) 107 A. 626. "Guaranty of loan."-State v. O'Brien (Conn.) 107 A. 520. "Income."-In re Cook's Guardianship (N. J. Prerog.) 107 A. 818. "Indefinite number of persons."-In re Lawson's Estate (Pa.) 107 A. 376. "Insurance company."-Dickerson v. Midvale Beneficial Ass'n (Pa.) 107 A. 778. "Intentional."-Petrowski v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 381. "Interstate commerce."-Murray v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 21. "Intoxicating liquor."-State v. Killeen (N. H.) 107 A. 601. "Issue."-In re Book's Will (N. J.) 107 A. 435. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 291. “Judicially known."-Chiulla de Luca v. Board | “Reversion."-Johnson v. Palmer (Me.) 107 A. of Park Com'rs of City of Hartford (Conn.) 107 A. 611. "Legal heirs and next of kin."-Oleson v. Somogyi (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 798. "Liens."-Connecticut Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 107 A. 646. "Loan."-State v. O'Brien (Conn.) 107 A. 520. "Malice."-Elms v. Crane (Me.) 107 A. 852. "Offense.' -Commonwealth v. Brown (Pa.) 107 A. 676. "Operation."-Gillard v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pa. (N. J.) 107 A. 446. "Ordinary care."-Di Maio v. Yolen Bottling Works (Conn.) 107 A. 497. "Otherwise specially provided for."-Mimms v. Gates (Vt.) 107 A. 131. "Penal law."-Wellman v. Mead (Vt.) 107 A. 396. "Pendente lite."-In re Morrissey's Will (N. J. Prerog.) 107 A. 70. "Performance of duty."-Maitland v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Garfield (N. J.) 107 A. 411. "Permanent injury."-Hercules Powder Co. v. Morris County Court of Common Pleas (N. J. Sup.) 107 Á. 433. "Permit."-State v. Waxman (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 150. "Personal estate."-Berman v. Beaudry (Me.) 107 A. 708. "Physicians registered to practice."-In re Opinion of the Justices (R. I.) 107 A. 102. "Practice of medicine."-In re Opinion of the Justices (R. I.) 107 A. 102. "Profit."-Baxter v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 881. "Public charity."-In re Lawson's Estate (Pa.) 107 A. 376. "Public drinking house."-Griscom v. Barcelon ne (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 587. "Temporary bonds."-Darling v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 854. "Theory."-Di Maio v. Yolen Bottling Works (Conn.) 107 A. 497. "Total and permanent disability."-Simpson v. New Jersey Stone & Tile Co. (N. J.) 107 A. 36. "Trade-name."-Griffin v. Metal Product Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 713. "Umpire."-Dennis v. Standard Fire Ins. Co. (N. J. Ch.) 107 A. 161. "Vested remainder."-H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. West (Conn.) 107 A. 138. "Violence to the physical structure of the body." -Clark v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 858. "Voluntarily."-Kowalski v. McAdoo (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 477. "Wanton."-Petrowski v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 381. "Wild lands."-Holden v. Page (Me.) 107 A. 492. "Willful."-Petrowski v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 107 A. 381. "Willful and malicious."-Wellman v. Mead (Vt.) 107 A. 396. "Work, material, or labor."-Heston v. Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 820. WORK AND LABOR. See Executors and Administrators, 221. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS. "Put to loss."-Newton v. Globe Indemnity Co. See Master and Servant, 347-417. (N. J.) 107 A. 273. "Quasi estoppel."-Philadelphia County v. Shee han (Pa.) 107 A. 14. WRIT OF ERROR. "Real evidence."-Riggie v. Grand Trunk Ry. See Appeal and Error. Co. (Vt.) 107 A. 126. "Remedial statute."-Ex parte Dexter (Vt.) 107 A. 134. "Replevin."-Frick v. Miller (Del. Super.) 107 A. 391. "Result."-Reed v. Independence Tp. in Warren County (N. J. Sup.) 107 A. 174. WRITS. See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Garnishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Replevin. |