reliance thereon, without notice of condition.Martin v. Steinke, 154 N. E. 47.

ship to circumvent defendant's collection of his
debt, held to set forth valid defense.-Knight v.
Burns, 154 N. E. 345.

XI. DISSOLUTION AND FORFEITURE OF
FRANCHISE.

269 (1) (OhioApp.) Evidence that stock subscription contract was conditional cast burden on plaintiff to show in rebuttal that rights of creditors accrued after subscription or that corporate debts were contracted thereafter.-Mar-592 (Mass.) Corporation can come to end tin v. Steinke, 154 N. E. 47.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS.

only by act of power which established it (G. L. c. 155, §§ 50-55).-Syrian Antiochean St. George's Orthodox Church v. Ghize, 154 N. E.

(C) Rights, Duties, and Liabilities as to 839. Corporation and Its Members.

596 (Mass.) Omission to exercise franchise 320 (14) (Mass.) Treasurer held erroneous-held not to work forfeiture.-Syrian Antiochely required to return converted stock to corpoan St. George's Orthodox Church v. Ghize, 154 ration instead of stockholder.-Handy v. Miner, N. E. 839.

154 N. E. 557.

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND

LIABILITIES.

(A) Extent and Exercise of Powers in General.

383 (Mass.) "Corporation" can act only in manner pointed out by statute or controlling principles of law.-Syrian Antiochean St. George's Orthodox Church v. Ghize, 154 N. E. 839.

Corporation need not be continuously in active exercise of corporate functions to preserve them.-Id.

Nonuser alone does not automatically surrender charter.-Id.

609 (Ind.) Equity ordinarily has no jurisdiction to dissolve corporation at instance of tion have become impossible.-Allied Magnet stockholder, except where objects of corporaWire Corporation v. Tuttle, 154 N. E. 480. Preferred 614(1) (Ind.) stockholder's 385 (Mass.) Whether act is ultra vires is rights to have receiver appointed and corporadetermined by corporation's charter and busi-tion dissolved depended on stipulated preferences in stock certificate.-Allied Magnet Wire ness it was organized to transact.-Bennett v. Corporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 835. Corporation v. Tuttle, 154 N. E. 480.

(B) Representation of Corporation by of- require liquidation of corporation held to refer

ncers and Agents.

432(7) (Mass.) Excluding

evidence of

Statute giving preferred stockholders right to only to failure to comply with such conditions and stipulations as parties could lawfully make (Acts 1923, c. 181, § 15a).-Id.

XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

vote of directors designating bank as depository held proper as not bearing on question of treasurer's power to indorse note.-Bennett v.642(1) (Ind. App.) Foreign corporation, inCorporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 835. 432(12) (Mass.) Evidence held to author-stalling ammonia compressor and other apparaize finding that directors of corporation rati tus within state, using local labor, heid not fied and confirmed treasurer's indorsements of doing business within state" (Burns' Ann. St. notes.-Bennett v. Corporation Finance Co., 1926, § 4910 et seq.).-Vilter Mfg. Co. v. Evans, 154 N. E. 677. 154 N. E. 835.

COSTS.

1. NATURE. GROUNDS. AND EXTENT OF RIGHT IN GENERAL.

433(1) (Mass.) Whether treasurer, having general charge and direction of corporation, was authorized to indorse notes on its behalf, held under evidence for jury-Bennett 13 (Mass.) Costs in equitable action are v. Corporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 835.

(D) Contracts and Indebtedness. 484(3) (Mass.) Ordinary business corporation is unauthorized to become guarantor.Bennett v. Corporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 835.

484(4) (Mass.) Ordinary business

cor

discretionary.-Daudelin v. Lee, 154 N. E. 252.

COUNTIES.

IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC DEBT,
SECURITIES, AND TAXATION.

1532 (Ohio) Public money may be used only for public purposes and never for private poration is unauthorized to become surety.-gain. Kohler v. Powell, 154 N. E. 340. Bennett v. Corporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 162 (III.) Power of county board to appropriate money being delegated one, limitations imposed thereon must be observed.-People v. Kimmel, 154 N. E. 97.

835.

of

487 (2) (Mass.) Defense ultra vires held unavailable to corporation sued as indorser of notes, in view of charter purpose and its interest in affairs of makers of notes.Bennett v. Corporation Finance Co., 154 N. E. 835.

Note indorsed by corporation for accommodation cannot be enforced against it by holder with notice.-Id.

191 (III.) County tax levy held void, no aye and nay vote of county commissioners having been recorded (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1923, c. 34, § 45). People v. Kimmel, 154 N. E. 97.

V. CLAIMS AGAINST COUNTY.

207(1) (Ind.App.) Assignee of disallowed portion of claim against county held not entitled VIII. INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERS. to sue thereon after assignor's acceptance of 552 (Ind.) Power to appoint receiver for amount allowed (Burns' Ann. St. 1926, §§ 695, corporation should be exercised cautiously, es-5964, 5965, 5975).-Parrish v. Board of Com'rs pecially where acts relied upon are not by law of Shelby County, 154 N. E. 879.

expressly made grounds for appointment (Burns' Ann. St. 1926, § 1300, subd. 7).—Al

COURTS.

lied Magnet Wire Corporation v. Tuttle, 154 See Clerks of Courts; Contempt; Judges.
N. E. 480.

I. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION IN GENERAL.

←553 (Ind.) Under preferred stock certificate, stockholder could not have receiver appointed for failure to pay dividends, where (III.) Jurisdiction of subject-matter is althere were no profits (Acts 1921. c. 206. and ways conferred by law.-Smith v. Herdlicka, chapter 35. § 23; Acts 1923, c. 181. § 15a).-154 N. E. 414. Allied Magnet Wire Corporation v. Tuttle, 15436 (II.) Same presumptions of legality in N. E. 480. exercise of jurisdiction attend proceedings of courts of limited jurisdiction as apply to courts of general jurisdiction.-Smith v. Herdlicka,

560(11) (OhioApp.) Allegations in set-off that sole stockholder was real party in interest

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

U. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND | 219(33) (11.) Mortgage redemptioner's pe

PROCEDURE IN GENERAL.

(D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, Opinions, and Records.

95(1)(III.) In cases of first instance here, Supreme Court will hesitate to rule contrary to substantially unanimous rulings of Supreme Courts of other states.-Talty v. Schoenholz, 154 N. E. 139.

tition for writ of assistance did not involve freehold, and Supreme Court was without jurisdiction of error proceeding.-Vette v. Brown, 154 N. E. 450.

237 (2) (N.Y.) Court of Appeals does not consider appeal on certified questions, unless answers will be decisive of correctness of order or judgment appealed from.-Gray v. H. H. Vought & Co., 154 N. E. 615.

99(1) (Mass.) Decision in scire facias proceedings sustaining validity of prior release as Court of Appeals dismissed appeal, when orto alimony held law of case on petition to re-der appealed from was, among others, on ground vise.-Hanson v. Hanson, 154 N. E. 525. of laches which court could not consider.-Id.

104 (Mass.) Judge cannot be compelled to state reasons for ruling given.-Williams v. Pittsfield Lime & Stone Co., 154 N. E. 572.

III. COURTS OF GENERAL ORIGINAL JU-
RISDICTION.

(B) Courts of Particular States.
139 (Mass.) District court is court of gen
eral jurisdiction (G. L. c. 268, § 4).-Common
wealth v. Duggan, 154 N. E. 67.

IV. COURTS OF LIMITED OR INFERIOR
JURISDICTION.

188 (8) (OhioApp.) Under Gen. Code, 1579-286, the municipal court of Toledo has original jurisdiction of proceeding in forcible entry and detention.-Poulos v. Toledo Labor Bldg. Co., 154 N. E. 57.

VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICTING
JURISDICTION, AND COMITY.

(A) Courts of Same State, and Transfer
of Causes.

474 (OhioApp.) Where there is conflict of jurisdiction as to custody of children, court obtains precedence by priority of actual service of summons and by decree based thereon (Gen. Code, §§ 11231, 11983).-Creager v. Creager, 154 N. E. 316.

Under general rule of lis pendens, actual service is test for acquirement of jurisdiction, especially so in action for divorce, in view of Gen. Code, 11983.-Id.

(B) State Courts and United States Courts. 489 (3) (OhioApp.) United States courts are given exclusive jurisdiction in suits for inV. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDICTION.fringement of letters patent, either in law or 202(1) (Mass.) Practice in probate, where equity.-Henry Gehring Co. v. McCue, 154 N. applicable, follows that in equity.-Harvard E. 171. Trust Co. v. Frost, 154 N. E. 863. 202 (5) (Mass.) Presumed that material facts presented on appeal from probate court were presented below.-Lye v. Lye, 154 N. E 80.

VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURIS

DICTION.

(B) Courts of Particular States. 219(8) (III.) Supreme Court has no juris diction of writ of error based on conviction for misdemeanor; no constitutional question being presented.-People v. Minner, 154 N. E. 418.

Trial for misdemeanor instead of felony, as charged and denial of motion requiring state to indicate character of prosecution, presents no constitutional question.-Id.

219(8) (1) Attack on trial court's judg ment on ground enforcement will violate constitutional right does not involve constitutional question authorizing direct appeal (Practice Act).-Albrecht v. Omphgent Tp., 154 N. E.

898.

Where issues raised in action for patent infringement do not involve validity of patent right, they are within jurisdiction of state courts.-Id.

COVENANTS.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION. (A) Covenants in General.

26 (Ind.App.) Grantee's covenant to maintain partition fence held independent and not released by abandonment of switch rendering unnecessary performance of covenant to fence switch. Stover v. Harlan, 154 N. E. 882.

(C) Covenants as to Use of Real Property.

51(2) (Mass.) Gasoline pump, underground tank, and concrete pit held not a "building" within restriction of deed.-Small v. Parkway Auto Supplies, 154 N. E. 521.

"Building" ordinarily means a structure or edifice, inclosing a space within its walls, covered with a roof.-Id.

(D) Covenants Running with the Land.

On determining constitutional question is not 61 (Mass.) Covenant to pay taxes runs with involved on direct appeal, cause will be trans- the land.-Security System Co. v. S. S. Pierce Co., 154 N. E. 190.

ferred.-Id.

219(10) (III.) Where divorce decree grant-68 (Ind.App.) Covenant to build and mained wife undivided interest in farm, freehold was involved, and appeal was properly taken to Su-tain fences runs with land-Stover v. Harlan, preme Court.-Young v. Young, 154 N. E 405. 154 N. E. 882.

219(10) (III.) Validity of ordinance limit

ing speed of trains held not involved in action

CRIMINAL CONVERSATION.

under federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. See Husband and Wife, 341–350.
Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665).-Brundege v. Chica-
go, B. & Q. R. Co., 154 N. E. 433.

Supreme Court held required to transfer cause to Appellate Court, where validity of municipal ordinance on which its jurisdiction depended was not involved.-Id.

219(17) (III.) Appeal from dismissal of bill to set aside fraudulent conveyance lies to Appellate Court, not to Supreme Court; freehold not being involved.-Clark v. G. A. Ball-Bearing Mfg. Co., 154 N. E. 446.

219(23) (III.) Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on appeal in partition solely for nonjoinder of beneficiaries under agreement to

LAW.

CRIMINAL See Assault and Battery, 66; Automobiles, 340-355(8); Bail, 42; Bribery; Burglary; Conspiracy, 45; Embezzlement; False Pretenses; Fines; Forgery; Fraud,

68, 69; Homicide; Indictment and Information; Larceny; Malicious Mischief; Pardon; Perjury; Rape, 45-48; Receiving Stolen Goods; Vagrancy.

I. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME
AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL.

devise not involving freehold.-Pfeiffer v. Kem-5 (N.Y.) Legislature may designate crime per, 154 N. E. 476.

154 N.E.-60

by any term.-People v. Bord, 154 N. E. 620.

13 (Ind.) Act concerning intoxicating liquor held not unconstitutional as indefinite and (A) Judicial uncertain (Acts 1925, c. 48, § 4).-Csallo v. State, 154 N. E. 671.

X. EVIDENCE.

Notice, Presumptions, and Burden of Proof.

29 (N.Y.) Under statute making incestuous Chicago Heights and Homewood, Ill., are in 304(6) (III.) Court judicially knows that marriage misdemeanor, elements are same as Cook county.-People v. Farnsworth, 154 N. under statute punishing incest as felony, and E. 705. prosecution may be had for either; intermar-304(13) (III.) Court will take judicial noriage" (Domestic Relations Law, § 5, subd. 3tice that terms of Cook county criminal court Penal Law, § 1110).-People v. Bord, 154 N. commence first Monday of every month.-People E. 620. v. Grandstaff, 154 N. E. 448.

184. (Mass.) Dismissing jury because remark of defendant's counsel injected false issue held not unjustifiable, so as to bar another trial.-Commonwealth v. Cronin, 154 N. E. 176. 186 (Mass.) Former acquittal is bar to indictment for same offense (G. L. c. 263, § 7).Commonwealth v. Crowley, 154 N. E. 326.

304(20) (Ind.) Court takes judicial knowledge that whisky is intoxicating.-Kinley v. State, 154 N. E. 667.

304 (20) (Ind.) Court judicially knows that whisky is intoxicating liquor.-Dilly v. State, 154 N. E. 865.

306 (Ind.) Conviction of transporting liquor on admissions by defendant as to liquor being brought in her house in a machine held a basing of one presumption on another, and not sustainable (Acts 1923, p. 70, c. 23, § 1).— Hudson v. State, 154 N. E. 7.

Presumption of fact cannot be based on another presumption of fact.-Id.

Facts on which indirect evidence is to be based, from which an inference is sought to be made, should be established by direct evidence, as if such facts were very facts in issue.

195(1) (Mass.) On plea of former acquit-Id. tal, it must appear that offenses charged were 308 (Ind.) Accused is presumed innocent same in law and fact.-Commonwealth v. Crow-throughout trial, it being jury's duty to reconley, 154 N. E. 326. cile all evidence with that theory, if possible.McKee v. State, 154 N. E. 372.

If offenses are distinct in point of law, plea of former acquittal is bad.-Id.

196 (Mass.) Unless, under first indictment, prisoner could be convicted on proof of facts contained in second, acquittal on first indictment is not bar.-Commonwealth v. Crowley,

154 N. E. 326.

~308 (Ind.) State has burden to remove beyond reasonable doubt presumption of innocence.-Osborn v. State, 154 N. E. 865.

(B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues,

and Res Gestæ.

198 (Mass.) That defendant was not 338(1) (Mass.) Relevancy of testimony dechargeable with offense charged during whole pends on its rational tendency to prove maperiod covered by complaint is not defense.terial issues.-Commonwealth v. Durkin, 154 N. Commonwealth v. Micheli, 154 N. E. 586.

E. 185.

Whole circumstance of 200 (1) (Mass.) Acquittal of bribery held 338 (2) (Mass.) not bar to prosecution for larceny by false pre- crime may be shown.-Commonwealth v. Durtenses (G. L. c. 277, § 75).-Commonwealth v. kin, 154 N. E. 185. Crowley, 154 N. E. 326.

(C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused.

~369(1) (III.) General rule is that evidence of distinct, substantive offense is inadmissible.-People v. Rogers, 154 N. E. 909.

212 (111.) Reasonable belief, supported by 369(6) (III.) Former conviction of violatcircumstances indicating guilt, is sufficient ing Prohibition Act cannot be considered in deground for warrant for arrest; "probable termining whether defendant made sale chargcause."-People v. Daugherty, 154 N. E. 907. ed (Prohibition Act, § 33).-People v. Jabine, 260 (7) (Mass.) On appeal to superior 154 N. E. 430. court, complaint and action thereon may be 369 (9) (III.) Admission, in prosecution for shown only by district court record.-Common- receiving stolen meat, of evidence showing othwealth v. Duggan, 154 N. E. 67. er burglaries, held error.-People v. Knight, 154 N. E. 418.

True copy of complaint and record in district court should be filed in superior court.-Id.

260(13) (Ind.) Defendant held properly tried on plea made in city court, on appeal to county court, where plea was not withdrawn.Brackeen v. State, 154 N. E. 9.

260(13) (Mass.) Record held to show that defendant was tried on appeal, on complaint different from that in lower court.-Commonwealth v. Duggan, 154 N. E. 67.

Jurisdiction of superior court on appeal is based on complaint in district court.-Id.

On appeal to superior court, complaint may be amended.-Id.

Motion to quash and plea held sufficient to cause judge of superior court to compare copy of complaint with certification of record of district court, to see if copy was same as original complaint.-Id.

ΙΧ.

ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS,
NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DIS-
CONTINUANCE.

371(9) (1.) In prosecution for taking indecent liberties with child, evidence of liberties with other children held inadmissible, not showing specific intent or guilty knowledge.People v. Rogers, 154 N. E. 909.

372(I) (III.) Evidence of distinct offense held inadmissible to show habit of accused, or probability that he committed crime charged. -People v. Rogers, 154 N. E. 909.

385 (Mass.) Evidence may be competent, if it is incidental to other circumstantial evidence.-Commonwealth v. Durkin, 154 N. E. 185.

394 (Ind.) Overruling motion to suppress evidence obtained by unlawful search held error (Const. art. 1, § 11).-Evans v. State, 154 AND N. E. 280. 394 (Ind.) Search of premises to seize and destroy liquor held not objectionable as made 279 (Mass.) General plea is waiver of mat-to procure criminal evidence against defendant. ter in abatement.-Commonwealth v. Duggan,-Piedmont v. State, 154 N. E. 282. 154 N. E. 67.

Conversation between policeman and custom

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

later set aside on ground of fraud, purchaser | 50 (Ind.) Finding, that ponds on land as-
was protected against wife's claim of dower.
-Id.

sessed as benefited had never been drained, in
proceeding to remedy public drain, held to en-
title petitioners to appointment of viewers,
notwithstanding contrary finding.-Straus Bros.
Co. v. Fisher, 154 N. E. 12.

279 (Ind.App.) Appellate court will not
consider interlocutory orders for attorney's
fees, for services, in divorce action, in appellate
court, appealed to Supreme Court.-Strecker 52 (I.) Drainage commissioners must pro-
v. Strecker, 154 N. E. 503.

VI. CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF
CHILDREN.

vide outlet of ample capacity for waters of dis-
trict and keep it open (Farm Drainage Act, §
41). People v. Barnes, 154 N. E. 437.

II. ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL TAXES.

289 (OhioApp.) Where court having juris-
diction enters valid divorce decree, it also has 83 (III.) Drainage district could not limit
jurisdiction to make order fixing custody of
minor children.-Creager v. Creager, 154 N. E.
316.

DOWER.

II. INCHOATE INTEREST.
(B) Bar, Release, or Forfeiture.
42 (III.) Husband and wife, by postnuptial
contract, based on valuable consideration, may
release their rights in each other's property,
and thereby extinguish all rights, including right
of dower.-Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N. E.
146.

DRAINS.

1. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE.

2(2) (Ind.) Statute providing, in general
terms, for opening of drains, held not to re-
peal statute authorizing special proceeding to
make public drain sufficient to perform drainage
for which intended (Acts 1915, c. 107, 35;
Burns' Ann. St. 1926, § 6196).-Straus Bros.
Co. v. Fisher, 154 N. E. 12.

assessment for drain to only such lands as were
benefited, notwithstanding organization of sub-
district was then impossible (Levee Act, §§ 37,
59).-Pistorius v. Momence and Pembroke Union
Drainage Dist. No. 1, 154 N. E. 403.

83 (III.) Assessment cannot be levied, with-
out notice to landowners, for construction of
tile drain along line of ditch which became in-
adequate (Farm Drainage Act, § 41); "new con-
struction."-People v. Barnes, 154 N. E. 437.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

See Constitutional Law, 253–318.

EASEMENTS.

I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TER-
MINATION.

7(5) (Mass.) Successive possessions may
be tacked.-Bucella v. Agrippino, 154 N. E. 79.
9(2) (III.) Adverse, exclusive, uninterrupt-
ed, continuous use of all parts of tract 200
feet wide to gain access to spring deeded to
14(1) (III.) County courts in organizing public, under claim of right recognized for
drainage districts, under Levee Act, exercise nearly 60 years, gave public easement by pre-
special and limited jurisdiction, since they description.-Stowell v. Prentiss, 154 N. E. 120.
rive power from statute alone. Soldier Creek
Drainage and Sanitary Dist. v. Illinois Cent. R.
Co., 154 N. E. 153.

36 (3) (Mass.) Theory of lost grant is not
displaced by proving existence of deed ineffec-
tive to transfer easement.-Bucella v. Agrippino,
154 N. E. 79.

Where county court did not have jurisdic-
tion of subject-matter in drainage case, its 37 (Mass.) Objection to use of passageway,
attempted judgment or order was a nullity, even
though it found that it did have jurisdiction. Id. not persisted in, does not, as a matter of law.
14(2) (III.) Where petition for organiza-interrupt running of prescription.-Bucella v.
tion of drainage district was filed, hearing had, Agrippino, 154 N. E. 79.
orders entered and commissioners appointed
thereon, and then withdrawn and dismissed, it
was not functus officio when refiled later in 7(2) (N.Y.) Filing notice of lien is not elec-
same court.-Soldier Creek Drainage and Sani-
tary Dist. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 154 N. E.
153.

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

tion by contractor to abandon title to materials
furnished, or to regard them as annexed to
realty. Rapid Fireproof Door Co..v. Largo Cor-
Jurisdiction of court for organizing drain-poration, 154 N. E. 531.
age districts, under Levee Act, can be called
into action only by presentation and filing of
petition complying with statutory requirements.
-Id.

ELECTIONS.

I. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE AND REGULA-
TION THEREOF IN GENERAL.

Where petitioners did not represent majori-
ty of land, in area, in proceeding to organize 5 (III.) Constitutional limitations are only
drainage district, as required by Levee Act, limitations on powers of Legislature over elec-
§ 2, petition could not be amended, under sec- tions.-People v Emmerson, 154 N. E. 474.
tion 4, to produce necessary proportion of sign-21 (II.) Statute providing for primary
ers and acreage to give court jurisdiction.-Id. nomination of judges held not in conflict with
County court held without jurisdiction of pe- constitutional requirement of free and equal
tition for organization of drainage district, un-
elections (Const. art. 2, § 18; Laws 1925, p.
der the Levee Act, which did not contain sig 373).-People v. Emmerson, 154 N. E. 474.
natures of adult owners representing majori-
ty of land, in area, as required by section 2.
-Id.

Where court did not have jurisdiction of
hearing on original petition for organization
of drainage district because it was defective, it
had no authority to authorize amendment to
such petition.-Id.

14(3)(Ind.) Motion, not filed within stat-
utory time to dismiss petition to establish
drain, held erroneously sustained (Burns' Ann.
St. Supp. 1921, § 6142; Burns' Ann. St. Supp.
1921. § 6142f).-Hunsucker v. Montel, 154 N.
E. 389.

[II. ELECTION DISTRICTS OR PRECINCTS
AND OFFICERS.

46 (III.) Statute providing for primary
nomination of superior judges of Cook county
and other judges held void for uncertainty and
repugnancy (Const. art. 6, § 14; Laws 1925, p.
373; Primary Election Act of 1910, § 43; Smith-
Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 46, § 204).-People v.
Emmerson, 154 N. E. 474.

VI. NOMINATIONS AND PRIMARY ELEC-
TIONS.

15 (1.) Petition for organization of drain-120 (Ohio) Section 5004 of the General
age district, under the Levee Act, containing
land included within another drainage district
is defective.-Soldier Creek Drainage and Sani-
tary Dist. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 154 N. E.
153.

Code, requiring that all nominating petitions to
be filed prior to the 60th day preceding an elec-
tion, is not in conflict with section 13 of article
4, or section 2 of article 17, of the Constitution.
-State v. Hall, 154 N. E. 160.

(B) Form and Contents of Instruments. ←38(1) (III.) Grant will be void for uncertainty only where what was intended is matter 9 (III.) Objection by defendants that county of conjecture after resort to oral proof.-Bims-board had not authorized suit for taxes by lager v. Bimslager, 154 N. E. 135.