took the grantor's acknowledgment, held a will440 (Mich.) While the intent of the testa-
properly signed and witnessed as required by
Code 1897, § 3274.-Id.

123(5) (Iowa) In absence of statute, it is
not necessary that witnesses of will attest in
presence of each other.-In re Bybee's Estate,
160 N. W. 900.

(G) Revocation and Revival.

tor as expressed in the will, taken as a whole,
must govern its construction, the intent must
be tangibly expressed somewhere in the instru
ment in such language as conveys the thought
beyond mere surmise, conjecture, or supposition.
-In re Shumway's Estate, 160 N. W. 595.

448 (Minn.) While intestacy is to be avoid-
ed, presumption against it does not prevail when

N. W. 790.

194 (Minn.) Where a testator, having de-language of will, fairly construed, is insufficient
vised specific farms to his two daughters, be- to carry whole estate. In re May's Estate, 160
queathed certain sums to the daughters, provid-450 (Iowa) In construing a will, a con-
ing that they should be paid by the son, his con-
veyance of the farms to his daughters did not
revoke the bequests; the same not being made
charges on farm conveyed.-In re Miller's Es-
tate, 160 N. W. 1025.

struction giving effect to every provision con-
tained therein is favored.-Ellsworth College
v. Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.

452 (Iowa) Where various interpretations
of a will are equally doubtful, that one will be
statutory order of distribution.-Ellsworth Col-
lege v. Čarleton, 160 N. W. 222.

V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT, AND preferred which approximates closest to the

ANNULMENT.

(E) Jurisdiction, Limitations, and Laches.
259 (Wis.) A will may be admitted to pro-
bate at any time after the testator's death.-
In re Brandon's Estate, 160 N. W. 177.

452 (Mich.) The law favors that construc-
tion of a will which conforms most nearly to the
general law of inheritance.-In re Shumway's
Estate, 160 N. W. 595.

261 (Wis.) Any delay in probate of a will456 (Minn.) The cardinal rule of construc-
by virtue of an agreement between the heirs tion is to give effect to the testator's intent, and
ought not to be taken advantage of by any of for that purpose words must be given their ordi-
parties. In re Brandon's Estate, 160 N. W. 177. nary meaning, unless the context shows other-
wise. In re May's Estate, 160 N. W. 790.

(I) Hearing or Trial.

458 (Iowa) A word when found more than
once in a will is presumed to have been used in
the same sense throughout, unless the contrary
is indicated by the context.-Ellsworth College
v. Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.

331(4) (Mich.) In a proceeding to estab-
lish an alleged lost or destroyed will where
there was no evidence of undue influence, an
instruction submitting undue influence in de-
struction of will held erroneous. In re Foer-460 (Iowa) To ascertain testator's inten-
ster's Estate, 160 N. W. 459.

(K) Review.

tion in a will, words may be and even sen-
tences transposed. Ellsworth College v. Carle-
ton, 160 N. W. 222.

462 (Iowa) To ascertain testator's intention
in a will, words may be supplied.-Ellsworth
College v. Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.

384 (Iowa) Order merely declining probate
of instrument as will would be presumed on ap-
peal to pass on every issue presented, unless 463 (Iowa) To ascertain testator's intention
the record shows the contrary. In re Bybee's in a will, words therein are sometimes disre
Estate, 160 N. W. 900.
garded as surplusage.-Ellsworth College v.

400 (Mich.) In a proceeding to establish Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.
an alleged will, it will be presumed that jury481 (Minn.) The rule that a will speaks as
followed an erroneous instruction submitting of the time of testator's death will yield to plain
undue influence in procuring destruction of will, language of instrument. In re May's Estate,
although a correct instruction that there was 160 N. W. 790.
no evidence of undue influence was given.-In
re Foerster's Estate, 160 N. W. 459.

(M) Operation and Effect.

423 (S.D.) In view of Prob. Code, § 31,
subds. 1, 2, probate of a will reciting that tes-
tator was a resident of South Dakota, and re-
cital of papers attendant upon probate that she
was a resident, held an adjudication of jurisdic-
tion over the will, but not an adjudication that
jurisdiction attached _under_one subdivision to
exclusion of other. In re James' Estate, 160
N. W. 525.

434 (Minn.) Judgment of probate court
of Massachusetts holding will invalid because
not executed in accordance with laws of that
state held not binding on probate court of
Minnesota; the Massachusetts decree being sub-
sequent to the one entered in Minnesota.-In re
Griggs' Estate, 160 N. W. 1018.

VI. CONSTRUCTION.

(A) General Rules.

439 (Iowa) The mere matter of wording
will not be permitted to interfere with testa-
tor's intention when ascertained.-Ellsworth
College v. Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.

487(1) (Iowa) It is only when terms of will
are not clear that collateral evidence may be
received to ascertain its intent.-In re Bybee's
Estate, 160 N. W. 900.

(D) Description of Property.

574 (Iowa) In a will giving a college $10,-
000, the provision "that contributions hereto-
fore made" to the college "which are a matter
of record will form no part of the above provi-
sion and will be canceled," held not to bequeath
a $9,000 note and mortgage of the college given
to testator shortly before his death.-Ellsworth
College v. Carleton, 160 N. W. 222.

587(1) (Minn.) Where testatrix, whose prin-
cipal estate was land, after executing a will di-
viding same between her two children, disposed
of land and died in possession of proceeds, held
that such proceeds did not pass to one of chil-
dren under residuary clause as personalty.-In
re May's Estate, 160 N. W. 790.

The words "personal effects," used in the re-
siduary clause of a will, held, under the doc-
trine of ejusdem generis, to include only personal
property of character described in preceding be-
quests, and not money and securities received
by testatrix after executing will as purchase
price of land.-Id.

(E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre

ated.

440 (Iowa) The intent of the testator is to
be ascertained from the terms of the will in
connection with other legitimate sources of in-
formation. Ellsworth College v. Carleton, 160617 (Mich.) A devise of a life estate is not
N. W. 222.
inconsistent or repugnant with a devise of a

vested remainder to the life tenant; the fact
that such remainder can never come into the
actual possession of the remainderman not
invalidating the devise.-In re Shumway's Es-
tate, 160 N. W. 595.

testator by codicil
734(4) (Wis.) Where
changed interest of a daughter from an equal
share in homestead to a legacy of $200 and to be
paid by other daughters who had the use of the
homestead immediately after testator's death,
legatee was entitled to interest beginning one
(F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In-year after testator's death.-In re Brandon's
Estate, 160 N. W. 177.

terests.

(D) Election.

629 (Mich.) The policy of the statute is in
favor of vested rather than contingent estates,
and only plain unambiguous language by the tes-779 (Neb.) Statute fixing time for elec-
tator will prevent application of that rule in tion to take dower or under will pertains to
construing a will.-In re Shumway's Estate, 160 remedy, and compliance with statutes in force
at husband's death or at filing of election is
N. W. 595.
sufficient. In re Enyart's Estate, 160 N, W.
120.

634(13) (Mich.) Where will made at time
when Pub. Acts 1893, No. 200, was in force
devised to testator's wife use of all his proper-800 (Minn.) Where widow of Iowa resident
ty during her life, remainder to testator's legal elected to take under his will, held that such
heirs to be divided according to provisions of election, other devises having lapsed by reason
statute, held, that wife was included in the of the prior death of the devisee, estopped the
term "legal heirs," and her life estate did not widow from claiming pursuant to statute land
prevent her heirs from taking her share în re- in Minnesota in excess of amount given by will.
mainder.-In re Shumway's Estate, 160 N. W.-In re McAllister's Estate, 160 N. W. 1016.
(F) Legacies Charged on Property, Es-

595.

Since a will takes effect from the death of the
testator, a will which devised the use of all tes-
tator's property to his wife during her life and
remainder to his legal heirs created vested
remainder in which the wife, as one of testator's
heirs, under Pub. Acts 1893, No. 200, shared
with testator's other heirs.-Id.

634 (19) (Mich.) In case of a devise for life
with remainder over to testator's heirs, the fact
that the life tenant, testator's widow, would be
dead when the time for division and enjoyment
of the remainder arrived, and so can never come
into the remainder, does not change the time
when title to remainder vests in heirs of which
widow is one. In re Shumway's Estate, 160
N. W. 595.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.

681 (2) (Iowa) A will held not to give an es-
tate for years, with power to lease, to L., given
the income, with certain exceptions, for that
time, after which the executors were to sell and
distribute the proceeds, but to give to the exe-
cutors power to control and lease and collect the
rents. In re Schofield's Estate, 160 N. W. 910.

684 (5) (Minn.) Where will directs payment
of trust income, less expense of administration,
to testator's wife for life, the payment to the
beneficiary is subject to deductions of necessary
expense of administering property in hands of
executor of will.-In re Pfenninger's Estate,
160 N. W. 487.

tate, or Interest.

821 (1) (Iowa) There is no rule of law for-
bidding wife's making bequest to husband by
leaving her property to her sons on condition
they pay their father each year for his life such
part of $1,000 as he may be pleased to demand.
-Ober v. Seegmiller, 160 N. W. 21.

822 (Minn.) Where a will showed that it
was the intent of testator that specific legacies
should be discharged by his son who took under
the will and not by the estate, legacies were
properly deducted from the son's share as resid-
uary legatee.-In re Miller's Estate, 160 N. W.
1025.

826(2) (Iowa) Where wife bequeathed prop-
erty to sons providing they should pay their
father such part of $1,000 each year during his
life as he might be pleased to demand, if he
made no demand during a year, nothing was
due him for that year.-Ober v. Seegmiller, 160
N. W. 21.

(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-
competent.

684 (7) (Minn.) Will directing payment of
trust income to testator's wife for life vests in
140(1) (Neb.) Testimony of witnesses hav
the beneficiary the absolute title to the income ing a direct legal interest in subject in contro-
received by the trustees and interest on invest-versy and of attorney and confidential adviser of
ments accrued, but not due, or due but not col- the deceased, held properly excluded under Rev.
lected at death of beneficiary.-In re Pfennin- St. 1913, §§ 7894, 7898.-Crinkley v. Rogers,
ger's Estate, 160 N. W. 487.
160 N. W. 974.

175(1) (Neb.) Where checks paid to wife
VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
and receipts for annual payments provided in
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES.
antenuptial contract are in evidence on behalf
(A) Nature of Title and Rights in General. of representatives of deceased husband, widow
may testify with reference to same transaction.
733(1) (Wis.) Where deceased in a codicil-In re Enyart's Estate, 160 N. W. 120.
expressed a wish that his other heirs would pay
to a daughter after his death $200, the amount 176 (2) (Iowa) In an action to establish a
was intended to become payable in one year aft-
er death as provided in ordinary course of ad-
ministration. In re Brandon's Estate, 160 N.
W. 177.

The general rule is that a money legacy be-
comes due and payable at the end of the year
following the testator's death.-Id.

claim against estate of a decedent, in view of
Code, § 4604, although a witness for estate tes-
tified to a settlement between plaintiff and de-
ceased, in her presence, held, that plaintiff could
not testify as to what took place between him
and deceased.-Mehlisch v. Mabie, 160 N. W.
368.

734(2) (Wis.) One bequeathed a money lega-180 (Iowa) In an action to establish a claim
cy is entitled to legal interest for such time as against estate of a decedent, question, "What
he is kept out of its payment; interest not de- had you been doing there at Mr. M.'s" (the de-
pending upon demand or default, or being af- ceased), witness not being objected to, and ques-
fected by the delay in probate caused by lega- tion not showing a personal transaction, held
tee's contest of will.-In re Brandon's Estate, not incompetent under Code, § 4604.-Mehlisch
v. Mabie, 160 N. W. 368.
160 N. W. 177.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged direct examination testified he had been con-
Communications.
victed of.-State v. Price, 160 N. W. 677.

821.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

198(1) (Neb.) Testimony of witnesses hav-280 (Iowa) Where, in prosecution for un-
ing a direct legal interest in subject in contro- lawfully selling intoxicating liquor, the question
versy and of attorney and confidential adviser was asked prosecuting witness, "And you take
of the deceased, held properly excluded under your daughter around to buy beer for her at 9
Rev. St. 1913, §§ 7894, 7898.-Crinkley v. or 10 o'clock at night, do you?" held court prop-
Rogers, 160 N. W. 974.
erly sustained an objection to such question as
198(2) (S.D.) Where defendant's witness im- argumentative.-State v. Walters, 160 N. W.
peached plaintiffs' reputation for veracity based
on alleged statement of plaintiffs' attorney, ques-
tion asked attorney, if he had made such state-
ment, held not to call for a privileged communi-
cation under Code Civ. Proc. § 538, subd. 1.-
Johnson v. Ebensen, 160 N. W. 847.
217 (Iowa) Unless client waives benefit of 330(1) (Iowa) In prosecution for unlawfully
statutory rule prohibiting attorney from disclos-
ing professional communications, attorney him-
self must claim privilege and keep inviolable
confidential communications of client.-Chicago
Great Western Ry. Co. v. McCaffrey, 160 N.
W. 818.

219(3) (S.D.) Under Code Civ. Proc. § 539,
where a defendant's witness impeached plain-
tiffs' reputation for veracity based upon alleged
statement made to witness by an attorney, the
witness thereby consented to an examination of
attorney upon same subject.-Johnson v. Eben-
sen, 160 N. W. 847.

ROBORATION.

(A) In General.

selling intoxicating liquor, where testimony
for defendant indicated an attempt to frame
favorable testimony, it was not error to permit
state to cross-examine such witnesses as to their
attitude towards perjured testimony.-State v.
Walters, 160 N. W. 821.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

344(1) (Mich.) In an action for slander, in
stating that plaintiff had committed arson, ex-
clusion of evidence as to plaintiff's former use
of liquor, offered as affecting credibility of wife
who had testified as to injuries to plaintiff's
223 (Iowa) In equity suit, where a witness, feelings, held not an abuse of court's discretion.
an attorney, claimed privilege of not being re-Rabior v. Kelley, 160 N. W. 392.
quired to disclose confidential communications of
his client, court properly ruled he was not re-
quired to produce correspondence embodying 372(1) (Iowa) In prosecution for unlawfully
such communications, instead of reserving ruling
and receiving the evidence.-Chicago Great
Western Ry. Co. v. McCaffrey, 160 N. W. 818.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.
~240(4) (Iowa) In an action to establish a
claim against estate of a decedent, questions,
"Did you tell them you had settled up and had
all your money, etc.," held not leading, since a
"leading question" is one which suggests an-
swer.-Mehlisch v. Mabie, 160 N. W. 368.

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

selling intoxicating liquor, it was not error to
exclude testimony of prosecuting witness on
cross-examination that he was told by police offi-
cers that they would turn him loose if he told
where he got the beer, since such testimony had
no material bearing as to whether witness was
160 N. W. 821.
falsely accusing defendant.-State v. Walters,

372(1) (Mich.) Considerable latitude should
be allowed in cross-examination of a party to
ascertain whether his testimony is affected by
his interest.-Connor v. McRae, 160 N. W. 479.
240(5) (Iowa) Where plaintiff seeks to show
in rebuttal that statements alleged to have been (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.
made by him were not true, it was held per-379(1) (Mich.) In proceedings to establish
missible to put leading questions.-Mehlisch v.
Mabie, 160 N. W. 368.

tion.

a claim against the receiver of a banking part-
nership, declarations of the claimant inconsist-
ent with his testimony in support of the claim
held admissible.-In re Farmers' & Merchants'
Bank of Lawrence, 160 N. W. 601.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-
268(1) (Iowa) Where a witness, in an ac-387 (Mich.) Where a witness had testified
tion against a municipality for injuries received
when her horse became frightened at rock piled
in the highway, testified on direct examination
that it was unusual to see rock piled in that
way, the question whether it was natural to pile
it so for use in building culverts was not proper-Cornell v. Fidler, 160 N. W. 840.
cross-examination.-Dow v. Incorporated Town 387 (S.D.) Where defendant's witness im-

of Nora Springs, 160 N. W. 897.

268(7) (Mich.) Where master offered evi-
dence as to the general use of pumping machine
used by deceased employé and the number put
on the market, cross-examination bringing out
the fact that the machines put on the market
differed in construction was proper.-Snowden
v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co., 160 N. W. 414.

that his son threw a stone in self-defense, it was
proper on cross-examination to ask if he had not
told one D. that the assault was the work of his
son, and, on his denial, it was proper to call D.
and allow him to testify as to such conversation.

peached plaintiffs' reputation for truth and ve-
racity on direct examination based on alleged
statement of plaintiffs' attorney, plaintiffs held
entitled to discredit him by cross-examination or
impeach him by testimony of attorney.-Johnson
v. Ebensen, 160 N. W. 847.

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
Witness.

269(2) (Iowa) In prosecution for man-
slaughter, question to witness as to what fur-405(1) (S.D.) Where defendant's witness im-
ther happened than facts related held not cross-peached plaintiffs' reputation for veracity based
examination.-State v. Towne, 160 N. W. 10. on an alleged statement of plaintiffs' attorney,
277(1) (Minn.) Cross-examination of de- question asked attorney if he made statement
fendant on matters concerning his past life, held not objectionable on ground that it im-
though not commendable, held not to deprive peached witness on a collateral matter brought
defendant of a fair trial.-State v. Price, 160 N. out on cross-examination and would only tend
W. 677.
to delay trial.-Johnson v. Ebensen, 160 N. W.
847.

277(2) (Minn.) It was not error to allow
prosecuting attorney searchingly to cross-exam-406 (S.D.) Where defendant's witness im-
ine defendant as to assault which defendant on peached plaintiffs' reputation for veracity based

on alleged statement of plaintiffs' attorney, tes-] "Entire and complete want of authority."-
timony of attorney held competent to contradict
impeaching witness.-Johnson v. Ebensen, 160
N. W. 847.

"Uniformity in taxation.”—Ewert v. Taylor (S. | plaintiff performed services at request of de-
D.) 160 N. W. 797.
fendant, and defendant promised to pay for
"Unplatted real estate."-State V. Armson them, he was liable, but that, if the third per-
(Minn.) 160 N. W. 498.

"Vacancy."-State v. Vandenberg (Wis.) 160
N. W. 1037.

"Vicinity."-Madson v. Johnson (Wis.) 160 N.
W. 1085.

"Water mill."-McDonald v. Apple River Power

Co. (Wis.) 160 N. W. 156.
"Willfully."-State v. Damuth (Minn.) 160 N.
W. 196.

"Work and labor performed and materials fur-
nished."-Wisconsin Brick Co. v. National
Surety Co. (Wis.) 160 N. W. 1044.

WORK AND LABOR.

See Mechanics' Liens.

27(2) (N.D.) On issue whether plaintiff ren-
dered services to defendant or a third person,
admission of evidence that defendant received
from the third person a sum in payment for the
services and credited it to plaintiff was not
error.-Shellberg v. Kuhn, 160 N. W. 504.

30(3) (N.D.) Where no question of implied
contract

son promised to pay plaintiff, defendant was not
liable, held not erroneous as disregarding im-
plied promise to pay.-Shellberg v. Kuhn, 160
N. W. 504.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
See Master and Servant, 359-420.

WRITING.

See Brokers, 43.

WRITS.

See Attachment; Certiorari; Garnishment;
Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus;
Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; Re-
plevin.

Of error, see Appeal and Error.

WRONGFUL EXECUTION.

was suggested, instruction that, if See Execution, 473.

For cases in Dec. Dib. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
160 N.W.-75