INDEX.

ABANDONMENT. See Condemnation of Land, 1.

ACCOUNTING. See Estates of Deceased Persons, 27, 28; Partner-
ship, 1.

ACCOUNTS. See Estates of Deceased Persons, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21.

ACTIONS. See Appeal, 7; Mandamus, 4.

ADMISSIONS. See Findings, 1.

ADVERSE USER. See Waters and Water Rights, 13-15.

ADVICE OF COUNSEL. See Malicious Prosecution, 3.

AFFIDAVITS. See Elections, 8; Search and Seizure, 2.

which a managing official of a corporation gained as to certain
facts and conditions while a like official of the predecessor of said
corporation is imputable to the latter. (Blue Diamond Co. v.
Industrial Acc. Com., 403.)

2. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM-RECOVERY FROM AGENT-PARTIES.-In an
action for money had and received brought by principals against
their agent to recover the amount of a claim settled by the agent,
a part of which remained uncollected, the defendant cannot be
permitted to occupy the position of one refusing or failing to
make the collection of the balance to which he has long been
entitled, and yet at the same time refuse to settle with his prin-
cipals upon the sole ground that such collection has not been
made, and the plea that the party from whom the money is to be
collected should be joined as a defendant is wholly without the
semblance of merit. (Rowland v. Horst, 772.)

-

-

3. AMOUNT DUE PRINCIPALS - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. In this
action by principals to recover the amount of a claim settled
by their agent, a part of which remained uncollected at the time
of suit, the findings as to the plaintiff's share of the net amount
received, and as to the amount the plaintiffs were entitled to re-

AGENCY (Continued).

ceive of the part uncollected, are sufficiently supported by the evidence. (Id.)

See Checks, 3; Elections, 3; Negligence, 9-13, 15, 16; Pleading, 2.

ALIEN LAND LAW.

1. ALIENS-ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND-NATIVE-BORN SUBJECT OF JAPAN-INITIATIVE ALIEN LAND ACT OF 1920.-Under sections 1 and 2 of the initiative alien land law of 1920, which in effect declares that no alien who is not eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States may acquire real property, except as provided by the treaty existing between the United States and the country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and the treaty between the United States and Japan providing that citizens of Japan residing in the United States may lease land for residential and commercial purposes, but containing no provision authorizing an alien of the Japanese race to lease or acquire land for agricultural purposes, a native-born subject of Japan cannot acquire agricultural land in this state. (In re Y. Akado, 739.)

2. INITIATIVE ALIEN LAND ACT-CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT TRANSFER TO INELIGIBLE ALIEN-VALIDITY OF SECTION.-The fact that no provision of the initiative alien land law of 1920 makes it a crime or public offense for any person to transfer land to an alien ineligible to citizenship does not affect the validity of section 10, which declares it to be a crime for two or more persons to conspire to bring about such a transfer, since the act positively forbids the acquisition of such land by an alien. (Id.)

3. PURPOSE OF SECTION 10 OF ACT.-The purpose of section 10 of the Initiative Alien Land Act of 1920, which makes it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to bring about a transfer of land to an ineligible alien, was to prevent any attempts to create relations between such aliens and other persons whereby the title to land would be taken by any other person and the use thereof would be enjoyed by the alien. (Id.)

4. ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY INELIGIBLE ALIENS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-POWER OF LEGISLATURE.-The power to forbid the taking or holding of property within the limits of the state by aliens ineligible to citizenship is left to the legislature by section 17 of article I of the constitution, and since the Initiative Alien Land Act of 1920 makes it unlawful for such aliens to acquire agricultural land in this state there is also power to make it a crime to conspire to bring about such acquisition. (Id.)

ALIENS.

1. DEED. - PASSING OF TITLE. Conveyance to an alien disqualified under the law to hold real estate conveys title to such alien, until the same is divested by the state or by inquisition had upon its denouncement. (Estate of Yano, 645.)

2. PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION-ABSENCE OF IMPLIED TRUST.-The fact that a Japanese alien paid the consideration for the transfer of real property to his minor daughter, who was a native-born American citizen, did not establish a trust in the father's favor under section 853 of the Civil Code, since an implied trust will not arise in favor of aliens who are prohibited from holding lands. (Id.)

3. DEED TO MINOR-LAWFUL ACT OF JAPANESE ALIEN.-The act of a Japanese alien in securing conveyances of land to his minor daughter because the laws did not permit him to buy it for himself was not unlawful where the daughter was a native-born citizen of the United States. (Id.)

See Guardian and Ward, 5, 6, 9-11.

ALIMONY. See Divorce, 3.

ANIMALS. See Horticultural Commissioner, 1-3.

APPEAL.

1. HEARING BY SUPREME COURT-POWER TO ORDER.-The power of the supreme court to order a hearing therein after judgment by the district court of appeal is not limited to causes in which a petition for rehearing is filed, and the court may make such an order of its own motion where no petition has been filed. (Hygienic Health Food Co. v. Grant, 131.)

2. RULES OF COURT - POWER OF COURT NOT AFFECTED BY.-Neither the rule of the supreme court requiring a petition for a rehearing to be filed within ten days after the judgment of the district court of appeal has become final therein nor the one requiring printed petitions in anywise affects the power of the court to order a rehearing and transfer of cause at any time within thirty days after the judgment has become final in the district court of appeal. (Id.)

3. JUDGMENT-ROLL SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.-On an appeal upon the judgment-roll alone no question can arise as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the averments of the complaint and to justify the findings of the court. (Ensele v. Jolley, 297.)

4. UNCERTAINTY IN FINDINGS-RESOLVING TO SUPPORT JUDGMENT.— Whatever uncertainties may exist in the findings of the court are to be resolved, if reasonably possible, to support the judgment rather than to defeat it. (Id.)