date of its record.-Central Trust Co. of New
York v. Bartlett (N. J. Sup.) 583.

Sufficiency of a mortgage given to secure a
Surety on a note as regards the description of
the note.-Whitney v. Hale (N. H.) 417; Chen-
v. Peterborough Sav. Bank, Id.; Vail v.
Hudson Nat. Bank, Id.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

See, also, "Bridges"; "Counties"; " Highways";

"Poor and Poor Laws"; "Schools and School
Districts."

Excavation in street, see "Limitation of Ac-
tions."

An assignee of a mortgage takes it subject to
an order by the mortgagee on the mortgagor, ac-
cepted before the assignment, though without
knowledge thereof.-In re Geiger (Pa.) 262; Ap-
peal of Rumbaugh, Id.

Evidence bearing on question whether a mort-
gage was given to secure only the first six
months' rent of a building, or as a continuing
security for any rent that might become due. -
Horn v. Hutchinson (Pa.) 152.

Where several of a series of notes secured by
mortgage are assigned, a proportionate interest
in the mortgage passes with the notes.-Bartlett
v. Wade (Vt.) 4.

Where one gives a mortgagor money to pur-
chase one of a series of mortgage notes of the
mortgagee, and he conceals his agency, and ten-
ders the money as payment, the purchaser can-
not enforce the note as against the mortgagee.
Bartlett v. Wade (Vt.) 4.

Release and satisfaction.

Where the executor of an estate lent part of
a fund to one having an interest in remainder
therein, the mortgage securing such loan was
extinguished by the amount of the mortgagor's
distributive share upon the ending of the life
estate.--Henderson v. Stryker (Pa.) 386.

A part of the mortgaged property first sold by
the mortgagor may be relieved from the lien by
a release of a part last sold, the mortgagee hav-
ing knowledge of the previous sale.-Turner v.
Sharpneck (Pa.) 486.

Testimony showing that payments have been
made on a mortgage, and that a certain amount
remains due, is a competent reply to the pre-
sumption of payment of said mortgage by the
lapse of time.-Turner v. Sharpneck (Pa.) 486.
Where assignees of mortgages consent to, and
receive the proceeds of, the sale by the mortga-
gors of timber on the mortgaged land, they can-
not afterwards appropriate the timber, on the
mortgages. Fredonia Nat. Bank v. Borden
(Pa.) 975; Appeal of Collins, Id.

Foreclosure and sale.

Where one buys land under a contract, the
title to the crops to remain in the vendor until
the installment of the price for that year is paid,
it is a common-law mortgage of the crops, and
it cannot be foreclosed separately from the
mortgage on the land.-Whitney v. Adams (Vt.)

32.

A terre tenant not a party to foreclosure may
intervene.-Packer v. Owens (Pa.) 314.

Where necessary for the administration of an
estate, the court will order surplus money aris-
ing on foreclosure to be paid to personal rep-
resentative of the owner of the equity.-Salaun
v. Hartshorne (N. J. Ch.) 181.

In a proceeding by scire facias sur mortgage,
the fact that the sheriff returned on the first
writ, "non est," renders the judgment voida-
ble merely.-Brundred v. Egbert (l'a.) 503.

A mortgage containing a power of sale, and
authorizing payment of all expenses out of the
proceeds, does not entitle the mortgagee to
commissions on the sale. -Johnson v. Glenn
(Md.) 993.

Under a city charter providing that the coun-
cil shall designate two official newspapers by
ballot, no member to vote for more than one,
and three papers receive the same number of
votes, there is a tie requiring the mayor to
vote for two of the papers.-Wooster v. Mullins
(Conn.) 144.

A borough on which is imposed the duty of
making regulations necessary for the health
and cleanliness of the borough may be indicted
for permitting its sewers to become a public
nuisance.-Commonwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.

A city does not hold property, acquired for
the purpose of furnishing water to its inhabit-
ants, as a private corporation, so that the leg-
islature cannot modify the management thereof
at will.-Coyle v. Gray (Del. Err. & App.) 728.

A municipal corporation being merely an
agency of the state, the legislature may change
its internal government at pleasure.-Coyle v.
Gray (Del. Err. & App.) 728.

Ordinances and resolutions.

Where no particular mode has been prescribed
by the legislature, any authorized municipal ac-
tion may be taken by resolution as effectively as
by ordinance.-Brady v. City of Bayonne (N. J.
Sup.) 968.

The city of Baltimore has power, by ordi-
nances, to prohibit the sale of impure milk.-
Deems v. Mayor and City Council of Balti-
more (Md.) 648.

The misrecital in a city ordinance of the
source of the power by which the ordinance is
passed does not invalidate it.-City of Baltimore
v. Ulman (Md.) 43.

Officers and agents.

The board of police commissioners, under city
charter of Bridgeport (section 58), can remove
a captain of police, after trial, for disobedience
of order.-State v. Rusling (Conn.) 758.

Liability of borough officers, after their with-
drawal from office, for costs of their prosecu-
tion for maintaining a public nuisance.-Com-
monwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.

An indictment against B., burgess, and K. and
others, councilmen, of the borough of L., held
to be an indictment against them in their official
capacity.-Commonwealth v. Bredin (Pa.) 921.

A street commissioner, in the construction of
a public sewer, at the expense of the city, act-
ing under the orders of the mayor, is not the
agent of the city, so as to render it liable for
any trespass committed by him.-Gilpatrick v.
City of Biddeford (Me.) 99.

By electing municipal officers to superintend
construction of public drain, a town incurs no
liability for damages by their misconduct.-Gil-
patrick v. City of Biddeford (Me.) 99.
Contracts.

Under Pub. Laws 1888, p. 366, the board of
councilmen of the city of Bayonne is empowered
to contract for a further water supply.-Brady
V. City of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 968.

A provision in a city contract for a water
plant that certain facts shall be indorsed on the
bonds issued by the contractors, and that the
payment of rentals shall be made to the trus-

tees for the bondholders, does not involve a
loaning of credit by the city, or its becoming
security for any person.-Brady v. City of Bay-
onne (N. J. Sup.) 968.

Applicability of Pub. Laws 1894, p. 280, pro-
viding for bids or proposals to be asked for by
the board of councilmen, to the making of a con-
tract for a water supply.-Brady v. City of Bay-
onne (N. J. Sup.) 968.

A contract by a city for a water supply, which
was silent as to the source of supply, is not in-
valid because there is a possibility of the direct-
ors bringing the supply from outside the state,
in which case the city might be unable to exer-
cise its option of the contract.-Brady v. City
of Bayonne (N. J. Sup.) 968.

It is within the discretion of council to con-
tract for lighting the streets of a borough to
promote the comfort and convenience of its
citizens.-Wade v. Borough of Oakmont (Pa.)

959.

Act May 23, 1874, vests discretionary, and
not merely ministerial, powers in municipal offi-
cers in regard to the awarding of contracts.
Interstate Vitrified Brick & Paving Co. v. City
of Philadelphia (Pa.) 383.

Liability for torts and negligence.

No action will lie against a town where the
highway surveyor, by cleaning out the culverts,
caused the surface water to flow on plaintiff's
land more freely than before.-Gardiner v. In-
habitants of Camden (Me.) 13.

A city has not constructive notice of defects
in a sidewalk not observable by persons passing
over it.-Lohr v. Borough of Philipsburg (Pa.)

822.

No right of action exists against a city for
injuries through the unrepaired condition of a
street, under Act March 23, 1859, § 20.-Carter
v. City of Rahway (N. J. Err. & App.) 863.
Whether the plaintiff injured by the defective
sidewalk was guilty of contributory negligence
is for the jury.-Biggs v. Borough of West
Newton (Pa.) 204.

Evidence of the condition of a sidewalk two
days after an accident thereon is admissible
where there has been no change.-Lohr v. Bor-
ough of Philipsburg (Pa.) 822.

Public improvements.

Under Act May 16, 1891, § 9, authorizing the
opening of streets by ordinance, the petition
must be signed by a majority in interest and
number of owners of property abutting on the
parts to be opened.-Speer v. City of Pittsburgh
(Pa.) 1013.

Right of city, after having received assess-
ments for improvements levied under unconsti-
tutional statute, to demand payment of another
assessment, levied under a subsequent statute.
-City of Pittsburgh v. Logan (Pa.) 1017.

The question whether property in a special
assessment is urban, and subject to the front-
foot rule, or rural, is one of fact for the jury.
-City of McKeesport v. Soles (Pa.) 1019.

Where an unauthorized change of grade is
made by the agents of a city, it may ratify the
work, and recover the expense of the abutting
owners. In re Grading of Shiloh Street (Pa.)
986; Appeal of McCormick, Id.

Where a judgment in favor of an abutting
owner against a city by the proposed change of
grade is reversed, and the city repeals the or-
dinance, proceedings will be quashed on pay-
ment of plaintiff's costs.-In re Grade of San-
dusky Street (Pa.) 983; Appeal of City of Alle-
gheny, Id.

A city is not liable to an abutting owner for
damages for change of grade of a way which it
by mistake assumed to be a public street. -
Huckestein v. City of Allegheny (Pa.) 982.
v.30 A.-74

Where a city erroneously assumes that a cer-
tain way is a public street, an abutting owner
can recover of the city the expense incurred in
showing that it has no rights in such way.-
Huckestein v. City of Allegheny (Pa.) 982.

Property which does not abut on the line of
a public improvement is not subject to assess-
ment.-In re Fifty-Fourth Street (Pa.) 503; Ap-
peal of City of Pittsburgh, Id.

Construction of acts providing for the im-
provement of streets, as to the necessity of no-
tice previous to the passage of an ordinance for
such improvements.-City of Baltimore v. Ul-
man (Md.) 43.

Right of collector to sell property assessed for
street improvements under Acts 1892, c. 284.-
City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.

Right of legislature, after the making of a
street improvement under an invalid ordinance,
to authorize the collection of the cost from the
property benefited.-City of Baltimore v. Ulman
(Md.) 43.

Validity of Acts 1892, c. 284, authorizing cities
to provide for the levy of a special tax for pub-
lic improvements on property benefited when the
original assessment was void.-City of Balti-
more v. Ulman (Md.) 43.

Validity of statute providing for street im-
provements which does not provide for a hear-
ing as to the aggregate amount of expense.-
City of Baltimore v. Ulman (Md.) 43.

When a majority of abutting owners petition
for the paving of a street, a publication of a no-
tice of the improvement is not necessary to an
order providing therefor.-Oil City v. Lay (Pa.)
289.

Proceedings to assess damages to abutting
property caused by the opening of a street are
not admissible to affect a claim for damages to
the same property caused by the subsequent
widening of another street.-Markle v. City of
Philadelphia (Pa.) 149.

The repair of a street at the expense of the
city is not an original paving, such as will pre-
ting owners.-City of Philadelphia v. Hill (Pa.)
vent a future paving at the expense of the abut-

1134.

Fiscal management.

The valuation referred to in Const. art. 9, §
8, and Act April 20, 1874, relating to city in-
debtedness, is the valuation fixed by the city
authorities as a basis of taxation for city pur-
poses, and not the valuation by county officers
for county purposes.-Bruce v. City of Pitts-
burgh (Pa.) 831.

The increase of indebtedness under Acts April
20, 1874, and June 9, 1891, must be pre-
ceded by the levy of a tax equal to at least 8
per cent. of such increased indebtedness before
the issue of bonds or certificates for such in-
debtedness.-Bruce v. City of Pittsburgh (Pa.)

831.

It is in the discretion of the city council
whether the loans made under Acts April 20,
1874, and June 9, 1891. are matured in 10, 20,
or 30 years.-Bruce v. City of Pittsburgh (Pa.)
831.

An annual sum to be paid monthly for light-
ing streets for a limited term is not the incur-
ring of a new indebtedness, within the meaning
of Const. art. 9, § 8, and Act 1874, limiting
municipal indebtedness.-Wade v. Borough of
Oakmont (Pa.) 959.

Liability of officers of a borough, or of the
borough itself, to an action by taxpayers on
account of its payment of part of the debts
of the borough from which it was formed, with-
out a decree to that effect.-Wade v. Borough
of Oakmont (Pa.) 959.

A new borough, formed by detaching part of
the territory of another, cannot levy a special

porations."

Of railroad company, see "Railroad Compa-
nies.'

Of street railroad, see "Horse and Street Rail-
roads."

It is actionable negligence for one while ad-
justing the hammer of a loaded revolver to hold
it so that an accidental discharge would injure
another.-Judd v. Ballard (Vt.) 96.

A contractor is not liable for injuries caused
by the bursting of a sewer, where he had com-
pleted the work, and the city had assumed the
control. First Presbyterian Congregation V.
Smith (Pa.) 279. ·

A contractor is not liable for injuries caused
by the bursting of a sewer completed under di-
rection of the city in a manner claimed to be
negligent.-First Presbyterian Congregation v.
Smith (Pa.) 279.

Evidence examined, and held not to show neg-
ligence of defendant in furnishing a defective
car.-Rehm v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 356.
Sufficiency of evidence to show negligence on
the part of an electric light company in suspend-
ing a lamp so insecurely that it fell, and in-
jured one thereunder.-Excelsior Electric Co. v.
Sweet (N. J. Sup.) 553.

Liability of street contractor for injuries re-
ceived by plaintiff from the piling of bricks on
plaintiff's sidewalk by the contractor without
sufficient lights thereon.-Mayor v. Everson (R.
I.) 626.

Where a gas company pays judgments for
damages by explosions caused by a traction
company excavating about the main so as to al-
low it to settle and leak, the traction company
is liable over.-Philadelphia Co. v. Central Trac-
tion Co. (Pa.) 934.

Evidence examined, and held, that the speed
of a grip car, and not the negligence of a third
person, was the proximate cause of the injury
to plaintiff.-Thatcher v. Central Traction Co.
(Pa.) 1048.

Where horses on a ferry-boat are frightened
by the whistle of a steamer, and a horse jumps
against and breaks a defective rail, and is
thrown into the water and drowned, the defec-
tive rail is the proximate cause thereof.-Stur-
gis v. Kountz (Pa.) 976.

Question whether one who drove into an ex-
cavation in a street was warned thereof by the
presence of fresh dirt, stones, and tools in the
neighborhood of the excavation. - Rowell v.
Stamford St. R. Co. (Conn.) 131.

The question of the negligence of defendant,
and the contributory negligence of plaintiff,
where the evidence is conflicting, is for the jury.
-Gray v. Floersheim (Pa.) 397.

Where the testimony renders the questions of
negligence and contributory negligence ques-
tions of fact, the case should not be withdrawn
from the jury. - Kilkeary v. Thackery (Pa.)
1013.

Where a driver failed to use care to relieve
his horse, who was entangled in a harness,
whereby he ran away, the disposition of the
horse was immaterial on the question of negli-
gence. Whissler v. Walsh (Pa.) 981.

In an action by an assignee of a note, plaintiff
need not prove title because of an allegation
of want of consideration, by reason of a de-
fect in the article for which the note was given.
-Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan
(Pa.) 957.

75 per cent. of its face value is inconsistent with
An allegation that plaintiff paid for a note
an allegation that it was not obtained for value.
Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.)
957.

An affidavit of defense, in an action by an
indorsee on a note, that it was obtained with
knowledge of fraud, is insufficient, if it does
not allege the facts on which to found the be-
lief of the maker.-Second Nat. Bank of Clarion
v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.

A bona fide holder can recover, though he
took the note under circumstances which ought
to have excited his suspicion that the payee
obtained it by fraud.-Second Nat. Bank of
Clarion v. Morgan (Pa.) 957.

One who signs on the back of a note, before
delivery, a waiver of demand and notice, and a
guaranty of the full payment, is a joint maker.
-Jackson Bank v. Irons (R. I.) 420.

Where a note provided for payments in truck-
ing monthly, in 24 months, the payments are
to be made in consecutive months following the
date of the note, and an action may be main-
tained for such payments before the expiration
of 24 months.-Hobbs v. Moore (Me.) 110.

NEW TRIAL.

In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."

A new trial will not be granted where its re-
sult, on the admitted facts of the case, will not
be different from that of the former trial.-Gil-
bert v. Walker (Conn.) 132.

A new trial will be denied where the newly-
discovered evidence is unimportant and cumu-
lative.-Dodge v. Dodge (Me.) 14; Dodge V.
Page, Id.

Non Obstante Veredicto.

Nonsuit.

See "Practice in Civil Cases."