the old rent, and same terms as old lease. At the time of the contract, only one of the firm was present, and he agreed, verbally, to take it. In the course of a few minutes after the landlord left, he came back and said he wished the lease to run only to February instead of May, but we might have the lease until 1881 if we wished. He was told that such was not the original understanding, but if both of us were satisfied we would let him know on the return of the member of our firm absent, but, in the meantime, we held the place as taken for a year. Instead of waiting to hear from us he let the building at an advance to another party, and now denies he ever let to us. It so happened, however, that our office door being open at the time of the contract, a party with whom we had some business heard the contract, and is will. ing to swear he heard the facts as stated. We wish to know if we have hired our store; or if we can be dispossessed on the first of May, and what notice, if any, we must give the landlord of our intention to stay.

A. If the above statement can be proved to the satisfaction of a court and jury, you can hold the premises for another year. No notice to the landlord is needed, but it may be well to send him word that the tenants hold to the verbal lease he gave, and can establish it by legal proof.

13. Does not a lease terminable upon a legal holiday oblige the tenant to vacate the previous day?

A. The holiday law in this State only applies to bills of exchange, bank checks, and promissory notes. It does not affect a lease; and if such lease expires on a Sunday or other holiday, the lessee cannot be compelled to vacate the day before.

14. N. J.-A gentleman in New Jersey leased a farm from a person whom he had known for many years, and whom he trusted so much that no written arrangement of any kind passed between them. The terms were for one year with the privilege of two more, at tenant's option, entirely verbal and, I believe, without witnesses. The gentleman and his wife went to work and by their taste, skill, and money, changed a common looking farm house into a neat, cosy cottage, with pretty flower garden and various other accessories of a gentleman's place. So great was the improvement under their hand that the owner sold it for a good deal more, and he notifies them that they must leave it at the end of the first year, and entirely ignores his agreement of two years more, tenant's option. Can the gentleman be turned out thus? what rights has he in the case?

A. A verbal lease for three years is good in New Jersey, and so, it is safe to assume, would be a lease for one year with an

option of two more. The testimony of the parties can be taken to establish the agreement. So if ejected from the premises our correspondent can probably obtain damages of his landlord, and the improvements made by the tenant would no doubt weigh with the jury in making up their verdict.

LOANS.

(SEE ALSO COLLATERALS.)

1. Inform me whether, when receiving during business hours a sum due him with accrued interest for a number of days, a creditor is entitled by law or usage to include in his computation of interest the day on which the payment takes place? I have always been under the impression that interest on money loaned could be charged either for the day upon which it was loaned, or for the day upon which it was returned, but not upon both.

A. The day a loan is dated is excluded from the time it has to run and from the calculation of interest, but the day of maturity is included. (Story on Prem. Notes, sec. 211; Chitty on Bills, ch. 9, pp. 403, 404, 406.)

2. A owes B $100. B gives C an order on A for $80. C presents this draft to A who declines to honor it. Immediately afterward, B's workmen whom he owes for wages, trustee in due form the $100, which A has in hand owing B. The wages are proved, and the $100 is thus absorbed. And now B sues A for $80, the amount of the dishonored draft, or order. Can B collect?

A. An attempt to hold A as still liable to B for the amount of the draft or order, could be made only on the theory that he was legally bound to accept the draft, and appropriate the requisite amount of the debt, owed by him to its payment. But unless A is a banker, or had funds in his hands belonging to B for the special purpose of meeting such a draft; in other words, if he was merely an ordinary debtor of B, he was not bound to accept the draft, and his debt having been liquidated and discharged by the trustee process, B has no cause of action against him.

3. I lend my horse to an irresponsible person to use. I demand him back after a few weeks, when he says he is not through with him yet. I am told that I cannot take possession then of my own property, but must wait his pleasure to give it up. If the man was responsible I could sue him for damages.

A. If the owner can recover possession of his horse without a breach of the peace he may do so, otherwise he will have to resort to a justice's summons. If a few day's loss of the animal's use will justify the expense, he may give bonds and compel the immediate delivery of the property, without waiting for the return day of the summons.

4. A being in business applies to C for a permanent loan, offering a stated share of profits in lieu of interest. Can C enter into such an arrangement without incurring liability as a general partner in the business? If no, could the liability be avoided by advertising the loan as at the risk of the business, or in any manner besides forming a special partnership?

A. A loan can be made at simple interest, and by agreement be subjected to the risk of the business without constituting the lender a partner. But an advance of capital, subject alike to the risks of the business and to a share in the profits, will be certain to involve the lender in the risks of the partnership beyond the limit of the loan. The special partnership act was passed expressly to meet this case.

MARRIAGE.

1. If I go to a hotel and register my own name (having a lady with me) and added, "and wife," can that lady claim me legally as her husband? Or if I should introduce her to any one saying "my wife," has she any legal claim upon me?

A. In this State marriage is a civil contract, and this contract is proved like any other bargain. Where no act of solemnization: by a magistrate or a minister can be shown, then cohabitation as man and wife, and general reputation, are sufficient to establish the existence of the contract. Under the latter one of the strongest proofs has always been the acknowledgment by the husband of the wife as such in the presence of third parties. A man who should introduce a woman as his wife, and thus record her name in the register of a hotel where they passed as man and wife, if she should insist on her claim, could be held as her husband provided there were no other testimony bearing on the

case.

2. Does not the revised statutes of the State of New York prohibit the contraction of marriages between first cousins?

A. There is no statute in this State on the subject, and such marriages are comparatively frequent. The physiological reasons commonly assigned are not sustained by satisfactory evidence, and we have no serious objections against such marriages.

3. Mr. A and Miss B fill out the blanks which Ministers are obliged to fill with the civil authorities, giving age, residence, parent's names, etc., and sign the same with their full names. Afterward these documents are exhibited to a third party, and the signatures acknowl edged to be genuine. Can this be construed to be a legal marriage according to the laws and legal decisions of the State of New York?

A. In this State marriage is a civil contract, and a mutual agreement between competent parties to this effect is a legal marriage provided it can be proved. When this contract is made in private, the difficulty is to prove that the parties actually made such an agreement. The mere filling out of a blank return stating that A and B had been married, even if signed by the parties themselves, is not undeniable proof that they were thus married, or had made such a contract. It may have been filled up in jest, where no marriage contract existed. An actual contract of marriage signed by the parties before witnesses would be evidence; but the better way in all cases is to follow the usual customs of marriage before some responsible recognized authority, as a magistrate or clergyman.

4. Because priests are legally authorized to join people in wedlock in a country, such marriage being recognized in law without any further sanction in a civil court, is it therefore correct to say that "civil marriage is not necessary" in such a country? Who are the parties authorized to perform marriages in this country, and what rules of law are such parties compelled to conform to? Is it necessary for a minister of religion who performs a marriage, or is he legally bound to report the same to some civil authority?

A. Where marriage is not recognized as a civil contract, but as a religious sacrament to be celebrated only by a priest, it is proper to say that a civil marriage is not necessary. In this State, (N. Y.,) the following persons are legally authorized to solemnize marriages, for the purpose of being registered and authenticated, viz: Ministers of the gospel and priests of every denomination, mayors, recorders and aldermen of cities; judges of the county courts, and justices of the peace; and judges and

justices of courts of record. Jews and Quakers are allowed to marry according to the regulations of their respective societies. Marriage is declared in this State, (N. Y.,) to be a civil contract, and any such contract duly made in any form, is a legal marriage. Those who perform the marriage service in this city, are required to make a return to the registrar under a penalty.

1.

MARRIED WOMEN.

(SEE ALSO HUSBAND AND WIFE.)

Can a wife dispose by will or otherwise, of real estate which had been previously conveyed to her by her husband? At her death, having failed to make a will, would the property revert to her husband or the children in equal proportion?

A. If there was a valid conveyance by the husband to the wife, the latter can dispose of the property, in part by will. If she dies intestate, the property will descend to the children in equal shares, after the husband's life estate as tenant by courtesy. This estate he will also possess, in spite of the will, the remainder being all that can be acted upon by the wife's testament.

2. Can a married woman, whose husband is alive, act under power of attorney, without interference from her husband, and receive divi. dends and interest under that power, solely and independently of him? Can her unmarried daughter, being of age, act in a similar manner under joint power with her mother? Is it absolutely necessary for a power of attorney to be recorded before it is acted on?

A. In the execution of a power it makes no difference whether a woman is married or single; her husband has nothing to do with it; and she may be joined with her daughter or any one else. If the power concerns real estate, or requires the execution of an instrument under seal, it should be recorded, otherwise such record is unnecessary.

3. Is a mortgage from a husband to a wife for actual money paid by her therefor, good as in other cases where the relation does not exist?

Can a wife who has real and personal property in her own right will it to other parties than her husband so that he has no right of dower?

A. Under the laws of New York, a married woman may thus contract with her husband, and sue him, the same as any other person, for breach.