An order directing a railroad receiver to pay
certain wages to his employés is appealable.-
Guarantee Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Philadel-
phia, R. & N. E. R. Co. (Conn.) 792.

Since an appeal lies whenever a writ of error
could be sustained, an appeal from a judgment
rendered on the overruling of a demurrer is prop-
er, though defendant might have pleaded over.
O'Donnell v. Sargent (Conn.) 216.

An appeal will not lie from the decree made in
accordance with instructions contained in a re-
mittitur from the court of errors.-Jenkins v.
Guarantee Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. (N. J. Err.
& App.) 695.

Under P. L. 1892, p. 257, an appeal lies from
a judgment of the First district court of the city
of Newark for a sum in excess of $200.-Ma-
gowan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (N. J. Err.
& App.) 671.

An appeal will not lie from the taxation of
costs.-Lamoille County Savings Bank & Trust
Co. v. Buck (Vt.) 62.

Where a demurrer to a bill is overruled, and ex-
ceptions taken, it is irregular, without further pro-
ceedings, to bring the case to the law court.
City of Bath v. Palmer (Me.) 365.

Exceptions in equity cases cannot be brought to
the law court before final hearing.-City of Bath
v. Palmer (Me.) 365.

That affidavit of attachment was filed several
months before suit brought held insufficient to
raise the question of jurisdiction, where no ob-
jection was made below.-Hadden v. Linville
(Md.) 900.

An exception to a refusal to direct a verdict,
which does not disclose grounds of motion, will
not be considered.-Ottawa Tribe, No. 15, Im-
proved Order of Red Men, v. Munter (N. J. Err.
& App.) 696.

On exception to a refusal to nonsuit only the
grounds disclosed in bill of exceptions will be
considered.-Ottawa Tribe, No. 15, Improved
Order of Red Men, v. Munter (N. J. Err. & App.)
696.

Requisites for transfer of cause.

A petition for special allowance of an appeal
from the superior court must show specifically
what constitutional question is involved.-In re
Vacation of Part of Melon St. (Pa.) 482: Appeal
of Stadelman, Id.; Appeal of Bowers, Id.; Ap-
peal of Eddowes, Id.; Appeal of Levering, Id.;
Appeal of Perkins, Id.

Under sixteenth rule supreme court, an appeal
will not be dismissed because of failure to file
transcript in time, through the negligence of the
officer whose duty it was to transmit it.-Bald-
win v. Mitchell (Md.) 775.

Bonds.

Objections that there was no evidence as to fact
assumed by instruction cannot be considered
where no exception was taken below.-Gunther
v. Dranbauer (Md.) 33.

In an action to try title, the objection that the
title under which plaintiff claims is not sufficiently
proved cannot be first raised on exceptions.-
Haydock v. Salvage (N. H.) 207.

Appellant is confined to the precise objection
made below.-Redding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.)
230.

Assignment of error to admission of testimony
voluntarily given without objection cannot be
sustained.-Bascom v. Danville Stove & Manu-
facturing Co. (Pa.) 510.

Objection that bill does not state that plaintiffs
have exhausted their legal remedy cannot be first
raised on appeal.-People's Nat. Bank v. Loeffert
(Pa.) 996.

When the clerk of the probate court approves
of a bond under such statute, his minute there-
on that the court is not then in session is suf-
ficient evidence of that fact.-Liscomb v. El-

dredge (R. I.) 1052.

Record and proceedings not in record.

Findings of fact will not be reviewed upon a
record that does not purport to contain all the
evidence.-Anderson v. Town of New Canaan
(Conn.) 944.

Assignments of error.

An assignment of error examined, and held to
present no question that can be reviewed, as fail-
ing to specifically describe any error of law com-
mitted by the trial court.-Anderson v. Town of
New Canaan (Conn.) 944.

court to charge that plaintiff cannot recover, the
On assignment of error as to refusal of the
only inquiry is whether there was any evidence
for the jury.-Phillips v. Duquesne Traction Co.
(Pa.) 611.

On appeal from a decree refusing to admit an
instrument to probate, a ground that the in-

strument is the last will of deceased is suffi-
ciently specific.-Liscomb v. Eldredge (R. I.)
1052.

Review.

On appeal from order distributing proceeds of
sale, the decree authorizing the sale is not open
to review.-Green v. Western Nat. Bank (Md.)
131.

the question of defendant's negligence will not
In an action for damages caused by negligence,
be reviewed, where rule as to degree of care re-
quired was applied to defendant by the trial
court.-Bergin v. Southern New England Tel.
Co. (Conn.) 888.

Where, on the undisputed facts, the action can-
not be maintained, it is unnecessary to consid-
er the exceptions.-Rhoades v. Cotton (Me.) 367.

Where an affidavit showed service of a cita-
tion on Harriet R. Eldredge in Boston, Mass.,
it was presumed that the person served is iden-
tical with Harriet Richmond Eldredge, of Dor-
chester, Mass.-Liscomb v. Eldredge (R. I.)
1052.

Conclusion by the trial court, based on its
own findings of fact, that a sale was authorized
by implication, held a conclusion of law, review-
able on appeal, though, if the facts had been
found by a jury, the latter would also have de-
termined the conclusion as to authority.-Win-
sted Hosiery Co. v. New Britain Knitting Co.
(Conn.) 310.

A refusal by the court below of a rehearing will
not be reviewed.-Crane v. Judik (Md.) 131.

Motion to set aside verdict as against the
weight of evidence is addressed to discretion of
trial court.-Sowles v. Carr (Vt.) 77.

The court will not review the order of a sin-
gle judge at chambers refusing to strike out a
plea as frivolous.-Key v. Paul (N. J. Sup.) 823.
Questions of fact, verdict, and find-

ings.

In an action for death by negligence, a
finding by the court that deceased was not in the
exercise of due care held conclusive.-Bergin v.
Southern New England Tel. Co. (Conn.) 888.
A finding, under Pub. St. c. 76, § 8, that a
party injured on a culvert was unavoidably pre-
vented from filing her claim within the 10 days
provided by the statute, is conclusive upon the
parties.-Boyd v. Town of Derry (N. H.) 1005.
Conclusions of judge on a hearing in open
court held conclusive, unless manifest error is
shown. McMillin v. McMillin (Pa.) 512.
Exceptions will not lie to findings on ques-
tions of fact.-Laroche v. Despeaux (Me.) 100.
Where there is no indication of prejudice or mis-
apprehension, a verdict will not be disturbed.-
Palmer v. Penobscot Lumbering Ass'n (Me.) 108.
In an action for tort, a judgment will not
set aside as excessive unless it is flagrantly
cessive. Smith v. Hall (Conn.) 386.

Harmless error.

based, held not ground for appeal.-McNamara v.
McDonald (Conn.) 54.

Decision.

Where a recovery is had for an amount not
justified by the pleadings, the judgment will be
affirmed only on remittitur of the excess.-Smith
v. Hall (Conn.) 386.

eral specific items which he is not entitled to, ex-
Where plaintiff recovers a verdict covering sev-
ceptions will be overruled if he remits the aggre-
gate thereof.-Ekstrom v. Hall (Me.) 106.

Act May 20, 1891, authorizing the supreme
court to amend or modify a judgment as it may
deem proper, held constitutional. - Nugent v.
Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 587.

Where the supreme court reverses a judgment
for mistake of law, and the evidence discloses
no cause of action, a formal judgment for de-
fendant may be added thereto.-Nugent v. Phila-
delphia Traction Co. (Pa.) 587.

Question of jurisdiction cannot be raised in
the common pleas after final adjudication on ap-
peal.-Paul v. Grimm (Pa.) 1006.

A decision of the supreme court, on the case
again coming to that court, constitutes the law
of the case.-Sherman v. Estey Organ Co. (Vt.)
70.

On an appeal taken under Pub. Acts 1895, c.
283, of a railroad company on failure of a city
to render a decision on a proposed plan presented
by such company, the dismissal of the applica-
tion is not a bar to another presentation of a
plan to the city.-Appeal of Norwalk St. Ry. Co.
(Conn.) 708.

Liabilities on bonds.

Error in refusing to allow a question on cross-
examination held cured by witness' subsequent
testimony in rebuttal as to the same matter.-
Smith v. Brockett (Conn.) 57.

Admission of hearsay evidence held harmless
error, where the facts were subsequently shown
by competent evidence.-Smith v. Hall (Conn.)
386.

Where an action is tried by a referee, the fact
that there was some incompetent testimony held
not reversible error.-Huntley v. Goodyear (Pa.)

507.

An appeal bond is enforceable only to the
extent that appellants were required by law to
furnish security for their appeal.-Court of In-
solvency v. Meldon (Vt.) 167.

APPEARANCE.

Leave to enter a special appearance denied,
except on condition that defendant stipulate to
submit to the jurisdiction without further pro-
cess.-Hervey v. Hervey (N. J. Ch.) 767.

APPLIANCES.

888.

Error in rulings on evidence which could not
have affected the result is harmless.-Bergin v.
Southern New England Tel. Co. (Conn.) 888.

Error in sustaining demurrer held harmless, the
evidence offered showing that the complaint could
not be supported by proof.-McNamara v. Mc-
Donald (Conn.) 54.

A decision that a city is liable for defects in
sidewalk of which it had no knowledge is harm-
less error, where the decision states there was in
fact notice.-Cummings v. City of Hartford
(Conn.) 916.

Though the judge in his charge alludes to an
irrelevant fact, it is no ground for reversal where
he states that it has no bearing on the question
in issue.-Humphrey v. Cooper (Pa.) 994.

Improper remarks of counsel, not prejudicial
to appellant, held not ground for reversal.-Sa-
bine v. Merrill (N. H.) 733.

and Servant.'

ARREST.

Illegal arrest, see "False Imprisonment."

ARREST OF JUDGMENT.

In civil actions, see "Judgment."

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

Firing a pistol in direction of another held an
assault with a dangerous weapon.-State v. Ba-
ker (R. I.) 653.

ASSESSMENT.

erence by the assignor.-Colt v. Sears Commer-
cial Co. (R. I.) 1056.

An assignee who, without order of court, pays
money of the estate to one who, under the as-
signment, has no right to it, takes the risk.-
In re Wright & Schmid's Estate (Pa.) 151; Ap-
peal of Vietor, Id.

As against an assignor, the assignment takes
effect from the time he delivers it to his at-
torney for recording.-In re Wright & Schmid's
Estate (Pa.) 151; Appeal of Vietor, Id.

Counsel for assignee held not entitled to be
paid out of the assigned estate. In re Wright &
Schmid's Estate (Pa.) 151; Appeal of Vietor,
Id.

One who loaned money that was used in pay-

Of tax, see "Taxation."

ASSETS.

Marshaling, see "Marshaling Assets and Securi-
ties."

Of partnership, see "Partnership."

ASSIGNMENTS.

Fraud as to creditors, see "Fraudulent Convey-
ances."

Of bonds, effect on guaranty, see "Guaranty."
Of dower, see "Dower."

Of error, see "Appeal and Error."

Of lease, see "Landlord and Tenant"; "Mines
and Minerals."

Of mortgage, see "Mortgages."

by attorney, see "Attorney and Client.”
One to whom a claim is assigned as collateral
is, when the claim is paid, entitled to receive
the money, the debt for which the collateral was
given not having been paid; and this although
the claim was not due.-Todd v. Meding (N. J.
Ch.) 349.

Though only part of a claim is assigned, the
debtor, having notice of the assignment, cannot
ignore it, and pay the whole debt to the original
creditor. Todd v. Meding (N. J. Ch.) 349.

An assignee of a bond may maintain an action
on the guaranty thereof in his own name when
the assignment was made prior to Act March
4, 1890.-Wooley v. Moore (N. J. Sup.) 758.

by taking an assignment of the claims after the
borrower became insolvent, succeed to the stat-
utory rights of the laborers.-In re Fair Hope
North Savage Fire-Brick Co.'s Estate (Pa.) 519;
Appeal of Boyts, Id.

Judgments that have become liens on the land
of a manufacturing partnership association six
months prior to its assignment have priority
over laborer's claims for wages subsequently ac-
cruing. In re Fair Hope North Savage_Fire-
Brick Co.'s Estate (Pa.) 519; Appeal of Boyts,
Id.

ASSOCIATIONS.

See "Beneficial Associations"; "Building_and
Loan Associations"; "Cemeteries"; "Joint
Stock Companies"; "Partnership."

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See, also, "Work and Labor."

Where plaintiff sued on a written contract for
delivery of timber for spring shipment, he could
not prove that the parties by their conduct ex-
tended the period of spring shipment.-Parker v.
Selden (Conn.) 212.

When the writ contains a count on an ac-
count annexed, in which the various kinds of
goods sued for are accurately specified, it is
sufficient, where the goods have been delivered,
and by the terms of the agreement the price
is to be paid in money.-Dudley v. Poland Pa-
per Co. (Me.) 157.

ASSUMPTION.

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS.

See, also, "Insolvency."

Contract between creditor and debtor exam-
ined, and held to create an equitable lien on
personal property sought to be held thereby su-
perior to other creditors.-Textor v. Orr (Md.)
939.

ATTACHMENT.

See, also, "Execution"; "Garnishment."
Effect of proceedings in insolvency, see "Insol-
vency."

Service of writ by reading the same to defend-
ant held insufficient, under Pub. St. c. 219, § 3.—
Blake v. Smith (N. H.) 16.

An assignee may be compelled to attack a
preference, where it is his plain duty to do so.
-Colt v. Sears Commercial Co. (R. I.) 1056.

An assignee may elect whether or not he will
attack a preference of creditors by assignor.-
Colt v. Sears Commercial Co. (R. I.) 1056.

An assignee must exercise the utmost dili-
gence and good faith.-Colt v. Sears Commer-
cial Co. (R. I.) 1056.

The assignee of an insolvent estate is the only
person who can bring an action to avoid a pref-

discharge of a mortgage on the attached prem-
Bill by attaching creditor, praying for the
ises, examined, and held not to state grounds
for relief.-Felker v. Hazelton (N. H.) 1051.

Where a stockholder's interest in a corpora-
tion was attached by service on a director, it
was a sufficient service, under Pub. St. c. 219,
§ 13, as explained by Laws 1895, c. 93, § 1.—
Abbott v. Kimball (N. H.) 1051.

A return describing the property as all the
real estate of the debtor in a certain town held

-Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias of New Jer-
sey, v. Germania Lodge, No. 50 (N. J. Ch.) 341.
Where trustees of a subordinate lodge wrong-
Where trustees of a subordinate lodge wrong-
fully diverted its funds from the grand lodge,
held, that they were jointly and severally liable.
-Grand Lodge, Knights of Pythias of New Jer-
sey, v. Germania Lodge, No. 50 (N. J. Ch.) 341.
Constitution and laws of a beneficial order as to
disposition of funds of subordinate lodges form a
contract between the members of an incorporated
subordinate lodge, and hence the funds cannot be
disposed of, except as provided.-Schubert Lodge,
No. 118, Knights of Pythias of New Jersey,
Schubert Kranken Unterstuetzungs-Verein (N. J.
Ch.) 347.

On dissolution of a subordinate lodge of the
Knights of Pythias, the members of the lodge
could not give the funds to another independent
society of which they were members.--Schubert
Lodge, No. 118, Knights of Pythias of New Jer-
sey, v. Schubert Kranken Unterstuetzungs-Ver-
ein (N. J. Ch.) 347.

The fact that a supreme lodge has broken its
contract with a subordinate lodge by refusing to
allow them to use the German language for their
ritual and records does not allow such lodge to
dispose of its funds, otherwise than provided by
the constitution of the order.-Schubert Lodge,
No. 118, Knights of Pythias of New Jersey, v.
Schubert Kranken Unterstuetzungs-Verein (N. J.
Ch.) 347.

A member can enforce a property right or a
money demand in the courts in the first instance,
where there is no express agreement to the con-
trary.-Roxbury Lodge, No. 184, I. O. O. F., v.
Hocking (N. J. Err. & App.) 693.

A by-law should be construed in controversy
with members in the civil courts so as not to
have a retrospective effect.-Roxbury Lodge, No.
184, I. O. O. F., v. Hocking (N. J. Err. & App.)

693.

See, also, "Interest."

Alteration of check, see "Forgery."
Gift of, see "Gifts."

Coupon accompanying_corporate bond held a
negotiable instrument.-Fox v. Hartford & W.
H. H. R. Co. (Conn.) 871.

transfer.

liability of successive indorsers, their liability is
In the absence of any agreement affecting the
determined by the order in which their names
appear on the note.-Crompton v. Spencer (R. I.)
1002.

indorsements, held, that he could not escape lia-
Where an indorser received the benefits of the
bility on the ground that the indorsements were
Manuf'g Co. (N. J. Ch.) 241; Same v. Domestic
made for accommodation.-Blake v. Domestic
Sewing-Mach. Co., Id.

In view of the relation existing between in-
dorser and indorsee, and of the facts, held, that
Blake v. Domestic Manuf'g Co. (N. J. Ch.) 241;
the indorsement was not for accommodation.-
Same v. Domestic Sewing-Mach. Co., Id.

Banks that discounted paper, etc., held to have
done so without notice that it was accommoda-
tion paper.-Blake v. Domestic Manuf'g Co. (N.
J. Ch.) 241; Same v. Domestic Sewing-Mach.
Co., Id.

An indorser before delivery of an accommoda-
tion note held liable to an innocent purchaser as
the maker.-McFetrich v. Woodrow (N. H.) 18.

Transferee of overdue negotiable coupons held
to take free from an arrangement between the
transferror and the corporation whereby the
former was not to present the coupons until it
was convenient for the latter to pay them.-Fox
V. Hartford & W. H. H. R. Co. (Conn.) 871.

Where the payee of a note boarded with the
maker, and both parties understood that the
board was furnished and accepted in payment of
the note, it constituted a payment, even as
against a subsequent indorsee of the note after
maturity.-Whittaker v. Ordway (N. H.) 789.

Payment by the maker of a note is a defense
to an action against him by a subsequent in-
dorsee after maturity, though the indorsee paid
value, and had no notice of the payment.-Whit-
taker v. Ordway (N. H.) 789.

Actions.

Evidence that payee of a note was prompt to
enforce payment of debts held inadmissible, in
connection with lapse of time, to support pre-
sumption of payment.-Young v. Doherty (Pa.)
587.

Sealed note held properly admitted, though not
signed in the line with the seal at the end pro-
vided in the printed form.-Young v. Doherty
(Pa.) 587.

Where defendant alleges that plaintiff forged
the notes sued upon, evidence of other forgeries
by plaintiff is inadmissible.-Redding v. Red-
ding's Estate (Vt.) 230.

Notes sued upon may be admitted in evidence,
though there be no proof of consideration other
than the words "for value received" on their
face.-Redding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.) 230.

Evidence that witness saw the notes sued upon
in plaintiff's hands soon after their date is ad-
missible on the question of their carlier existence.

Where the payee of a note, at the time it was
given, executed an agreement that, on the

Evidence held irrelevant on the question of the
validity of notes alleged to have been given by