lative of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, § 1, forbidding any state to deny to any person equal protection of the law.-Williams v. City of St. Paul, 142 N. W. 886.

CONSTRUCTION.

See Bonds, § 50; Chattel Mortgages, § 116; Contracts, $$ 170-221; Statutes, §§ 181-231; Street Railroads, § 74.

CONTEMPT.

XI. DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

§ 251 (Wis.) "Due process of law" excludes interference with personal or property rights, except according to established rules of justice.Ekern v. McGovern, 142 N. W. 595.

CONTEST.

CONTINUANCE.

"Due process of law" means according to the law of the land; due process according to the principles of natural justice by the rules of the common law, except as constitutionally changed by statute.-Id.

§ 277 (Wis.) The right to an office is within the protection of the due process provisions of the state and federal Constitutions.-Ekern V. McGovern, 142 N. W. 595.

§ 287 (Neb.) An ordinance providing a fine and imprisonment to enforce a license tax is not violative of Const. art. 1, § 3, providing that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.-Norris v. City of Lincoln, 142 N. W. 114.

§ 290 (Minn.) St. Paul City Charter, § 23, as amended in 1912, providing for the enforcement of local assessments, is not violative of Const. Minn. art. 1, § 7, or Const. U. S. Amend. 14, 8 1, though by the judgment therein provided for the land on which an installment is adjudged a lien becomes a city's property at the end of the year without a sale; the owner having his day in court on application for judgment and hav ing a right to redeem.-Williams v. City of St. Paul, 142 N. W. 886.

§ 318 (Minn.) A rescaling of timber sold by the state, as provided by Laws 1895, c. 163, § 27, without affording defendant an opportunity to be heard before the rescalers, held not violative of the due process of law provision of Const. U. S. Amend. 14.-State v. Brooks-Scanlon Lumber Co., 142 N. W. 717.

8318 (Wis.) Where the statute specifies no proceeding for removing an officer for cause, the due process of law provision of the Constitution guarantees the common-law method, which accords a hearing before condemnation.-Ekern v. McGovern, 142 N. W. 595.

Where the statute prescribes a proceeding for the removal of an officer for cause, such proceeding is the "due process of law" guaranteed by the Constitution.-Id.

The statutory right to remove an officer is presumptively to be exercised under the restrictions of due process of law in the common-law sense, unless the contrary expressly or by necessary implication appears to have been the legislative intent.-Id.

$ 26 (Iowa) As the granting of a continuance for absence of witnesses is largely discretionary, it was not improper for the trial court to deny a continuance asked on that ground, where, though defendant's counsel knew of the assignment of the case on Thursday, he did nothing toward procuring the witness or her testimony until the following Monday, and failed to procure her attendance in time to testify.-Wilson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 142 N. W. 54. continuance for absent witnesses, the affidavit $ 47 (Mich.) Where defendant asked for a making out a prima facie case, the filing of a cross-affidavit that the absent witness was plaintiff's husband, and that he could not be examined as a witness against her, will not authorize the denial of a continuance, it not appearing on what subject the witness would testify, and Comp. Laws, § 10213, containing many exceptions which were not negatived.Snyder v. Berrien Circuit Judge, 142 N. W. 767.

CONTRACTS.

See Alteration of Instruments; Assignments; Attachment, § 366; Attorney and Client, § 44; Bills and Notes, § 369; Bonds; Breach of Marriage Promise; Bridges, §§ 20, 21; Brokers; Cancellation of Instruments; Carriers, §§ 154, 159; Chattel Mortgages; Compromise and Settlement; Constitutional Law, S$ 121-149; Corporations, §§ 76-88, 285, 407, 429, 432, 448, 579; Counties, § 113; Covenants; Customs and Usages; Damages, §§ 23, 40; Deeds; Descent and Distribution, 82; Drains, §§ 9, 29, 49; Electricity, § 12; Equity, 8239; Escrows, § 12; Evidence, $8 397-465; Exchange of Property; Frauds, Statute of; Gaming, § 19; Highways, § 95; Husband and Wife, § 279; Injunction, §§ 59, 62, 137; Insane Persons, § 66; Insurance; Interpleader, § 7; Joint Adventures; Judgment, $736; Landlord and Tenant; Limitation of Actions, §§ 105, 182; Logs and Logging, 10; Mechanics' Liens; Mines and Minerals, § 56; Money Received; Mortgages; Municipal Corporations, §§ 231-255, 340-371, 663; Partnership, § 242; Payment; Physicians and Surgeons, § 18: Pleading, § 143; Principal and Agent, § 103; Reformation of Instruments; Release: Rewards; Sales; Schools and School Districts, $$ 81, 86; Specific Performance; States, §§ 95, 102; Subrogation; Taxation, § 107; Torts, §§ 12, 27, 28; Usury, §§ 6-95; Vendor and Purchaser; Warehousemen; Waters and Water Courses, § 230; Wills, § 212.

press

a

§ 105 (S.D.) A contract which is expressly prohibited by law is unenforceable as a general rule.-Nerbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N. W. 847.

$116 (Iowa) A seller of a wagon and team cannot, by condition in the contract of sale, require the purchaser to use them solely in connection with the seller's business.-Elijah & Winne v. Mottinger, 142 N. W. 1038.

§ 138 (S.D.) Where one of the parties thereto has performed in whole or in part a contract which is expressly prohibited by law, he cannot avoid the contract and recover reasonable compensation.-Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N. W. 847.

The rule that where a contract is prohibited by law there can be no recovery does not apply where the law provides for a recovery, or where the contract is not declared void, and does not relate to a penal matter.-Id.

The person for whose benefit a contract is prohibited may waive the prohibition or by acts estop himself from asserting the invalidity, in which case the court will authorize a recovery on quantum meruit, or quantum valebat, but this rule is not available when the contract is in contravention of public policy.-Id.

§ 139 (S.D.) The rule that where a contract is prohibited by law there can be no recovery does not apply where the parties are not in pari delicto.-Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N. W. 847.

II. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA

TION.

(A) General Rules of Construction. § 170 (Neb.) The practical interpretation given contracts by the parties thereto before any controversy has arisen will generally be enforced.-Cady v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 142 N. W.

107.

(B) Parties.

§ 187 (Minn.) To authorize a stranger to a contract to sue thereon, it must appear that the promisor undertook to perform some duty due from the promisee to such stranger, and the contract was made for his benefit.-Clark v. P. M. Hennessey Const. Co., 142 N. W. 873.

§ 187 (S.D.) Under Civ. Code, § 1193, providing that a contract made expressly for the benefit of a third person may be enforced by him, a contractor cannot enforce a contract made by a lumber dealer for his own benefit with the owner of a house, which provided that the contractor should be employed to make the repairs for which the lumber dealer advanced money.-Hollister v. Sweet, 142 N. W. 255.

(E) Conditions.

§ 221 (Minn.) A contract held not an absolute promise to pay money, but an agreement to pay out of the proceeds of a claim against the city only when such claim should be paid, and to make the parties jointly interested in such claim.-Hodgdon v. Peet, 142 N. W. 808.

III. MODIFICATION AND MERGER. $ 237 (Neb.) While executory and before a breach, the terms of a written contract may be

V. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. § 303 (Mich.) The refusal of complainant to carry out an oral agreement to apply the proceeds of a sale of his property towards the construction of a new house on his farm would not furnish a legal excuse for defendant's failure to carry out a prior independent written contract to support complainant for life in consideration of his executed conveyance of the farm.-Ebling v. Ebling, 142 N. W. 1066.

VI. ACTIONS FOR BREACH.

§ 346 (Neb.) In a broker's action on a contract for a commission, he cannot recover upon a quantum meruit without first amending his petition.-Starbird v. J. H. McShane Timber Co., 142 N. W. 683.

CONTRIBUTION.

§3 (Minn.) Where one of two persons jointly interested in a fund is required to sue to preserve such fund, equity will compel all interested to contribute to the cost in proportion to their respective interests.-Hodgdon v. Peet, 142 N. W. 808.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. See Negligence, 88 70-101, 122, 136.

CONVERSION.

See Trover and Conversion.

§ 15 (Iowa) Land devised with directions to sell and distribute the proceeds is to be treated as personalty.-Blain v. Dean, 142 N. W. 418.

CONVEYANCES.

See Assignments; Assignments for Benefit of Creditors; Deeds; Fraudulent Conveyances; Homestead, § 118; Mortgages; Public Lands, § 136; Vendor and Purchaser.

CORPORATIONS.

See Abatement and Revival, § 83; Banks and Banking; Carriers; Drains, §§ 2, 5, 13-15; Insurance; Municipal Corporations; Partnership, § 213; Railroads; Sales, 23; Street Railroads; Taxation, $$ 3711⁄2-394; Telegraphs and Telephones; Torts, $$ 27, 28; Waters and Water Courses, §§ 183–230. IV. CAPITAL, STOCK, AND DIVIDENDS.

(B) Subscription to Stock.

§ 76 (Mich.) One who subscribes in the articles of association for shares of stock of the subscription.-Campbell v. Raven, 142 N. W. corporation is, as a general rule, bound by his

355.

a sub

$83 (Mich.) Where a person, who signed the original articles of incorporation as scriber for stock, acted in the place of a third person, and it was understood that he should not be liable, and before the corporation was authorized to do business he assigned the stock and withdrew from the board of directors, and subsequently substituted articles, signed by the third person and those actually interested, were filed, he was not liable on the subscription.Campbell v. Raven, 142 N. W. 355.

$88 (N.D.) A purchaser of stock in a corporation which is a going concern is liable to the corporation for such part of the value of the stock as has not been paid for in cash or its equivalent.-German Mercantile Co. v Wanner, 142 N. W. 463.

A note given a corporation in exchange for its capital stock is a promise to pay for the

stock, and does not constitute payment therefor, nor relieve the stockholder, or the party entitled to the stock, from his obligation to make actual payment as provided by Rev. Codes 1905, § 4196.-Id.

Rev. Codes 1905, § 4196, providing that no note given by a stockholder "shall be considered" as payment, means that when a note is given it shall not in law effect a payment.-Id.

(C) Issue of Certificates.

$99 (N.D.) A note for shares of capital stock is property, and not included in the prohibition of Const. § 138, forbidding a corporation from issuing stock except for money, labor, or property actually received.-German Mercantile Co. v. Wanner, 142 N. W. 463.

V. MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS. (C) Suing or Defending on Behalf of Corporation.

§ 204 (Minn.) Where a corporation commences an action to cancel stock issued by a corporate officer in fraud of the corporation and its stockholders, and thereafter collusively plans to dismiss it, the stockholders may intervene and continue the action.-National Power & Paper Co. v. Rossman, 142 N. W. 818, 822. Where an action is brought by a corporation to cancel certain fraudulent stock, stockholders cannot continue the action without becoming parties to it; but after judgment of dismissal they may procure a vacation of the judgment and become parties.-Id.

While directors may ordinarily control an action by the corporation, and may dismiss it without consulting the stockholders, yet such board has no right to dismiss the action through collusion with the defendant, and if it does so the dismissal may be properly set aside at the instance of stockholders.-Id.

Where an action has been brought by a corporation to set aside a fraudulent issue of stock, and is collusively dismissed at the instance of a corporation's directors, stockholders are not obliged to resort to an independent action, but may avail themselves of the original action and the preparation made for the trial thereof by the corporation.-Id.

§ 206 (Minn.) Stockholders may maintain an action against a corporate officer and those in collusion with him to cancel stock acquired in fraud of the corporation and its stockholders, if the corporation refuses to sue.-National Power & Paper Co. v. Rossman, 142 N. W. 818, 822.

A stockholder of a corporation cannot ordinarily maintain an action to set aside a fraudulent issue of stock until demand and refusal by the corporation; but such demand and refusal are not required where it is manifest that demand, if made, would be futile.-Id.

§ 207 (Iowa) A stockholder, who sues for himself and others similarly situated, to restrain an insurance company from disposing of its assets and winding up its business, cannot claim to represent those whom he alleges were fraudulently induced to part with their stock for inadequate consideration prior to the sale, and who are not themselves objecting.-Beidenkopf v. Des Moines Life Ins. Co., 142 N. W. 434.

§ 212 (Minn.) In a suit by stockholders of a corporation to cancel an alleged fraudulent issue of the corporation's stock, evidence held to show that at least one of the complaining stockholders was a stockholder at the time of the wrongdoing complained of.-National Power & Paper Co. v. Rossman, 142 N. W. 818, 822.

(D) Liability for Corporate Debts and Acts. $221 (Iowa) Code, § 1616, relative to individual liability of stockholders in corporations defectively organized, held not to apply to one or more persons doing business under a com

pany name, although they sold shares, where they made no attempt to incorporate and assumed no corporate functions.-Schumacher v. Sumner Telephone Co., 142 N. W. 1034.

§ 229 (Minn.) The intent of the parties, or the absence of fraudulent intent, is immaterial upon the question of stockholder's liability, under Rev. Laws 1905, § 3069, rendering corporate stockholders liable to creditors to the extent of withdrawals and refundments of amounts paid for stock.-Preiss v. Zins, 142 N. W. S22. § 268 (Minn.) The complaint in an action to enforce a stockholder's liability under Rev. Laws 1905, § 3069, rendering corporate stockholders liable to creditors to the extent of refundments, held sufficiently to allege that plaintiff, the corporation's trustee in bankruptcy, was the reptime of the refundment complained of.-Preiss v. resentative of creditors who were such at the Zins, 142 N. W. 822.

VI. OFFICERS AND AGENTS. (A) Election or Appointment, Qualification, and Tenure.

§ 285 (Mich.) That the incorporators of a manufacturing corporation agreed that one of them should have charge of a department of the business does not render invalid a subsequent oral agreement for the employment by the corporation of such person to have charge of that department at a specified salary and for Wheel & Windshield Co., 142 N. W. 742. a specified period.-Galvin v. Detroit Steering

VII. CORPORATE POWERS AND

LIABILITIES.

(B) Representation of Corporation by Officers and Agents.

§ 401 (Iowa) The fact that one person owns the controlling interest in both corporations does not make a transfer of all the assets from one company to the other void per se, but it is a circumstance requiring the court to scrutinize the transaction carefully.-Beidenkopf v. Des Moines Life Ins. Co., 142 N. W. 434.

§ 407 (Mich.) The president and general manager of a corporation has authority to make a contract for the corporation for the employment of one for a year at an annual salary to perform specified services for the corporation. Galvin v. Detroit Steering Wheel & Windshield Co., 142 N. W. 742.

$429 (Neb.) The manager of sales of a manufacturing corporation has power to contract for the selling of its wares, and persons contracting with such corporation are not bound to know of a by-law limiting the power of such manager to make the customary contracts.Monarch Portland Cement Co. v. P. J. Creedon & Sons, 142 N. W. 906.

§ 432 (Neb.) Evidence held to show a ratification of a written contract by a sales manager of a corporation.-Monarch Portland Cement Co. V. P. J. Creedon & Sons, 142 N. W. 906.

(D) Contracts and Indebtedness. $ 448 (Mich.) A corporation organized under Public Acts 1903, No. 232, section 9 of which provides that before any corporation shall commence business the president shall cause the articles to be recorded, has authority to make a binding contract of employment after the execution of the articles of incorporation.-Galvin v. Detroit Steering Wheel & Windshield Co., 142 N. W. 742.

(F) Civil Actions.

$505 (Mich.) Under Comp. Laws, § 10473, a mistake in the name of defendant corporation can only be raised by plea in abatement and, if not so pleaded, is waived.-Hoben v. Citizens' Telephone Co., 142 N. W. 1070.

$507 (Mich.) A return of service of summons held not to import that the summons was serv

ed upon a certain person as agent of defendant corporation or that such person was defendant's agent.-Hoben v. Citizens' Telephone Co., 142 N. W. 1070.

A jurisdictional defect in the service of summons upon the agent of defendant corporation was not aided by the statute of amendment (Comp. Laws, §§ 10272, 10273), since such defect "was against the right and justice of the matter of the suit," and since the right of amendment does not extend to matters of jurisdiction.-Id.

§ 513 (Minn.) In a suit on a contract against a corporation, plaintiff's failure to allege defendant's corporate powers, so as to show authority to make the contract, is not ground for demurrer.-Klemik v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 142 N. W. 871.

A complaint against a Maine corporation on contract held not demurrable for failure to allege that the laws of Maine authorized the corporation to make the contract in question.-Id. IX. REINCORPORATION AND REOR

GANIZATION.

§ 579 (Mich.) Where defendants, who purchased plaintiff's business, after receiving notice not to continue using his name, dissolved the corporation, and organized a new one for the purpose of evading the obligations of the contract, the dissolution will not discharge the contract, and the unauthorized use of plaintiff's name will be enjoined.-George v. Rollins, 142 N. W. 337.

XI. DISSOLUTION AND FORFEITURE OF FRANCHISE.

§ 5921⁄2 (Iowa) The provisions of Code 1897, § 1617, that a corporation may be dissolved by unanimous consent of its stockholders, or in accordance with its articles, are not so restrictive as those of Code 1873, § 1066, that no corporation can be dissolved except by unanimous consent of its stockholders, unless a different rule has been adopted in the articles.-Beidenkopf v. Des Moines Life Ins. Co., 142 N. W. 434.

$596 (S.D.) The placing by a corporation, organized for the purpose of maintaining a public library in a city, of its books, etc., after closing its reading room in the city, in the library of a technical school one mile from the post office held not a maintenance of a public library as contemplated by its charter.-State v. Rapid City Library Ass'n, 142 N. W. 973. $597 (S.D.) Where a corporation was chartered for the purpose of maintaining a public library in a city, the leasing of part of its building for shows, entertainments, and public meetings held not a misuse of its corporate powers.-State v. Rapid City Library Ass'n, 142 N. W. 973.

§ 602 (Iowa) The sale of the assets and winding up the business of a corporation is not equivalent to a dissolution.-Beidenkopf v. Des Moines Life Ins. Co., 142 N. W. 434.

$613 (S.D.) Evidence, in a proceeding by the state to annul the charter of defendant corporation, held not to sustain a finding by the court that the corporation was exercising its franchises.-State v. Rapid City Library Ass'n, 142 N. W. 973.

XII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. § 642 (Wis.) A sale by a foreign corporation of an outfit, consisting of several parts, to be shipped into the state by the seller and installed by him, is not affected by St. 1911, § 1770b, providing that no foreign corporation shall do business until it has obtained a license.-S. F. Bowser & Co. v. Savidusky, 142 N. W. 182.

§ 661 (Minn.) A statute of a sister state, provided that corporations shall not be permitted to sue where they are in default in the payment of annual license taxes, will not be enforced in

this state, so as to prevent a corporation of such sister state from maintaining an action in this state, where the courts of the sister state have held that a default in the payment of the license tax does not of itself forfeit the corporate charter.-Gulledge Bros. Lumber Co. v. Wenatchee Land Co., 142 N. W. 305.

Though a corporation of a sister state, after its dissolution in such state, cannot maintain an action in this state, it will not be denied the right to sue in this state merely because it has failed to comply with a revenue statute of such sister state, where no proceedings had been taken in such state to enforce a dissolution for such default.-Id.

§ 685 (Minn.) In an action by a receiver of a foreign corporation, who enforced a stockholder's liability, the complaint, showing that plaintiffs were duly authorized to sue upon claims due the corporation, it not appearing therefrom that domestic creditors would be prejudiced, was not subject to demurrer.-Stevens v. Tilden, 142 N. W. 315; Same v. Dore-Redpath Co., ld. 316.

The rule of comity permitting receivers of state is not affected by the fact that plaintiffs foreign corporations to maintain actions in this were appointed by a federal court.-Id.

CORROBORATION.

See Criminal Law, § 511.

COSTS.

See Appeal and Error, $8 1151, 1189; Mortgages, 581; New Trial, § 161; Receivers, § 189.

III. PERSONS, PROPERTY, AND
FUNDS LIABLE.

§ 96 (Minn.) In the absence of express statute to the contrary, public officials performing duties expressly imposed by law are not personally liable for costs and disbursements in an action to which they are parties.-In re School Dists. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, in Nobles County, 142 N. W. 928.

V. AMOUNT, RATE, AND ITEMS.

§ 189 (N.D.) Where a trial judge in equity appoints a stenographer to take and report the testimony, it is proper to allow him the fees allowed by Rev. Code 1905, § 2608, and to tar the same as costs and disbursements.-Investors' Syndicate v. Pugh, 142 N. W. 919.

VII. ON APPEAL OR ERROR, AND ON NEW TRIAL OR MOTION THEREFOR.

§ 222 (N.D.) Rev. Code 1905, §§ 4456, 4457, authorizing the giving of surety company bonds on appeal and the taxing of costs therefor, are not unconstitutional.-Investors' Syndicate v. Pugh, 142 N. W. 919.

§ 240 (Mich.) Where relator was appointed city attorney by the city council and the president alone refused to sign salary orders, the village clerk signing the same, costs upon the appeal by the clerk and the president from a judgment awarding a writ of mandamus to compel payment of relator's salary will be assessed against the president alone.-Gansser v. Vander Veen, 142 N. W. 744.

§ 25! (N.D.) Though the giving of surety company bonds on appeal is authorized by Rev. Code 1905, §§ 4456, 4457, and the costs may be included in the taxable costs and disbursements, the amount cannot exceed 1 per cent. of the liability, no matter how much was necessary to be paid for such bonds.-Investors' Syndicate v. Pugh, 142 N. W. 919.

§ 254 (N.D.) An allowance for disbursements in making a transcript is made under Rev. Code 1905, § 7177, as taxable disbursements, and is not covered by section 7174, which relates to

An allowance of $534.50 for printing briefs and abstracts is not unreasonable, where of the 1,052 pages 800 are devoted to a reproduction of the pleadings, direct testimony, cross-examination, and exhibits of the complaining party, though the court on appeal decided the case on plea of res judicata, but the trial court did not, and therefore all the issues in the proceedings, were raised de novo on appeal.-Id.

§ 256 (Iowa) Where appellee filed amendments to the abstract consisting of 38 pages, and everything material therein could have been presented in 10 pages, the cost for the additional 28 pages will be taxed against the appellee, though he is successful.-Carpenter v. Modern Woodmen of America, 142 N. W. 411. § 260 (S.D.) Where an appeal was not frivolous, the counsel preparing it was not actuated by any purpose of delay, and respondent did not ask in his brief for damages for delay, the Supreme Court will not award them because of a threat by the defeated party before judgment that he would defeat the successful party by an appeal and because appellant's counsel by failing to place the case on the calendar of a term of the court delayed the determination for about two months.-Brewster v. Miller, 142 N. W. 467.

§ 262 (S.D.) The Supreme Court, on application for 10 per cent. damages for delay by the appeal, cannot consider verbal stipulations and understandings between counsel.-Brewster v. Miller, 142 N. W. 467.

COUNCIL.

§ 206 (S.D.) In particular cases, boards of county commissioners are invested with discretionary powers of investigating facts and acting with reference thereto, which powers they exercise in a quasi judicial manner, and in such case their action can only be reviewed on appeal in the legal manner; and, if no method of appeal is provided, their action is final, and not reviewable by the court in a direct action.-Hoyt v. Hughes County, 142 N. W. 471. Since, under Pol. Code, § 252, providing that the superintendent of the county board of health shall receive a certain mileage, and such other sum as the board of county commissioners may allow, the board of commissioners should allow him compensation for services after they are rendered, if it did not fix any compensation which could form the basis of an independent action against the county, the superintendent cannot maintain a direct action against it for such compensation, but must appeal from the action of the board in disallowing his claim. -Id.

COURTS.

See Abatement and Revival, § 83; Appeal and Error, 88 757, 773, 782; Appearance; Constitutional Law, § 73; Criminal Law, § 1017; Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 43; Executors and Administrators, § 337; Garnishment, § 104; Intoxicating Liquors, 88 37, 273, 278; Judges; Judgment, §§ 135, 419, 464; Justices of the Peace; Mandamus, § 16; Notice, § 10; Officers, 82; Schools and School Districts, § 39; Trial, §§ 384-404; Venue, § 22.

COUNTERFEITING.

See Forgery.

COUNTIES.

See Adoption, § 10; Bridges, 88 21, 43-46; Constitutional Law, §§ 103, 121; Courts, $205, 206; Drains, § 2; Highways, 30, 95.

II. GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS. (C) County Board.

§ 47 (Neb.) County commissioners have not only the powers expressly conferred by statute but such powers as are requisite to enable them to discharge their official duties.-Emberson v. Adams County, 142 N. W. 294.

III. PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND

LIABILITIES.

(B) Contracts.

8113 (Neb.) The county commissioners have power to employ clerical assistance to the county attorney necessary to enable that officer to perform his duties.-Emberson v. Adams County, 142 N. W. 294.

(D) Torts.

§ 141 (S.D.) Counties are public or state agencies, and are not liable for damages caused by omission to perform a duty, unless the cause of action is expressly given by statute.-Plumbing Supply Co. v. Board of Education of Independent School Dist. of City of Canton, 142 N. W. 1131.

OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. §8 (Minn.) Whether a statute is penal in an international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another state, depends upon whether its purpose is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act.-Gulledge Bros. Lumber Co. v. Wenatchee Land Co., 142 N. W. 305.

§ 21 (Iowa) Where a defendant does not appear in a proceeding, the jurisdiction of the person is to be shown by proof of service of a notice sufficient to satisfy the statutory and constitutional requirements.-Blain v. Dean, 142 N. W. 418.

§ 35 (Iowa) To support a judgment in apparent due form entered by a court of record, it is presumed that there was sufficient notice to or appearance by the defendant, but the presumption is not conclusive.-Blain v. Dean, 142 Ñ. W. 418.

$40 (Wis.) Where, though the trial court has jurisdiction to act, it is its duty not to do so, out of deference to some other branch of the government, the wrong in acting so approaches jurisdictional error that it may be attacked at any time while the order or judgment could be so attacked for judicial error.-State v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 142 N. W. 184.