Grantee entitled to a way "to the west end" of granted premises held entitled to way en- abling him to pass upon that end.-Morton v. Thompson (Vt.) 88.
Grant of easement with defeasance clause held to entitle heirs and assigns of grantor to defeat the easement, though not named in the clause.-Morton v. Thompson (Vt.) 88.
Occupant of premises held entitled to ease- ment, though not in privity with the orig- inal grantee.-Morton v. Thompson (Vt.) 88. One entitled to way over land held not enti- tled to exclusive use of it.-Morton v. Thomp- son (Vt.) 88.
Of passenger, see "Carriers."
In ejectment to recover possession and rent of premises leased to defendant, plaintiff must prove that defendant was in possession when suit was brought.-Sowles v. Carr (Vt.) 77.
In ejectment to recover possession and rent of premises leased to defendant, when it is shown that defendant was in possession when suit was brought, if defendant relies on a sur- render, he must prove it.-Sowles v. Carr (Vt.) 77.
After plaintiff has recovered on his legal title, defendant cannot sue in equity for the value of improvements made while in possession.- Fricke v. Safe-Deposit & Trust Co. (Pa.) 601. Evidence held to justify directing verdict for plaintiff.-Williams v. Milligan (Pa.) 1015.
Of widow under will, see "Wills."
Under Burlington City Charter, held that an alderman, to be eligible, must be a legal voter of the ward for which he is elected.-State v. Mc- Geary (Vt.) 165.
Under Burlington City Charter, held that one who owned a house in a ward, and was prepared to move into it, was not a resident of that ward, where he had not given up his dwelling in an- other.-State v. McGeary (Vt.) 165.
The fact that officers empowered to hold a special election were not sworn does not invali- date the result, if neither fraud nor harm be shown.-Smith v. Howell (N. J. Sup.) 180.
Indictment charging embezzlement of certain money held to sufficiently show the value thereof. -State v. Barr (N. J. Sup.) 817.
Indictment for embezzlement of certain mon-
ey held to sufficiently specify the money embez- zled.-State v. Barr (N. J. Sup.) 817.
Where an employé of an individual embezzles his money, he embezzles the money of his em- ployer, within Crimes Act, § 161.-State v. Barr (N. J. Sup.) 817.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
tional burden on the soil of a common highway. An electric street railway held not an addi- -Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Wilmington City Ry. Co, (Del. Ch.) 1067.
Compensation for laying out a highway across railroad determined.-Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 689.
Laying out of a highway across a railroad is a taking of the company's property for public use.-Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. v. City of Newark (N. J. Sup.) 689.
An action on the case against lessees for leased property burned through their negligence held consistent with an action therefor on their Of taxes, see "Taxation." agreement to return the property in good con- dition.-Priest v. Foster (Vt.) 78.
By presenting claim against insolvent estate of defaulting tax collector, and obtaining dividend thereon, a town does not waive its right to pur- sue sureties on his official bond.-Town of Paw- let v. Kelley (Vt.) 92.
In a recount of ballois the board of election should count as many ballots as there are names of apparent voters on the poll book.-Lippincott v. Felton (N. J. Sup.) 821.
On a partial recount of ballots, the justice ordering the same should make a certificate as to the whole number of votes for each person for the office, as shown by the original certificate of the canvassers corrected by the recount.- Lippincott v. Felton (N. J. Sup.) 821.
Mandamus lies to compel supervisors of elec- tion to place the name of a nominee for office on the ballot, when a vacancy in the office is to be filled.-Wells v. Munroe (Md.) 987.
The house of delegates has authority to decide on the election and qualifications of candidates for office and order new elections in case of va- cancy.-Wells v. Munroe (Md.) 987.
One who votes for an ineligible candidate must be clearly shown to have purposely done so be- fore the vote can be thrown aside in determining whether the opposing candidate received a ma- jority of votes cast.-State v. McGeary (Vt.) 165.
Performance of the condition of a bond for ti- tle by the obligee before a levy of an execution is no defense in an action at law by a grantee of the execution creditor.-Marston v. Osgood (N. H.) 378.
See, also, "Charities"; "Injunction"; "Marshal- ing Assets and Securities"; "Mortgages"; "Partition"; "Partnership": "Receivers": "Specific Performance"; "Trusts."
Equity has jurisdiction of an action compel- ling an agent to account.-Yeaney v. Keck (Pa.) 1041.
In order to avoid a multiplicity of suits, an an- swer in a suit in equity may, by consent, be con- sidered as a cross bill.-Gray v. Taylor (N. J. Ch.) 951.
Where objection to jurisdiction is not taken. before answer, the suit will be entertained, unless there are no facts giving jurisdiction.-People's Nat. Bank v. Loeffert (Pa.) 996.
Under 2 Gen. St. p. 1273, § 1, a court of chan- cery has jurisdiction of a suit by a wife for separate maintenance, where the domicile of both parties is in the state, and defendant is tem- porarily absent.-Hervey v. Hervey (N. J. Ch.) 767.
In bill to enjoin obstruction of a way, held that defendant could amend cross bill to show that during the hearing he had tendered orator a deed of another sufficient way in lieu of the one he was obstructing.-Morton v. Thompson (Vt.) 88. Where plaintiff's stock stands in defendant's name, the latter may be compelled to make such assignment as may be necessary for plaintiff's beneficial use.-Scott v. Scott (N. H.) 567.
Application for an accounting by the committee of a lunatic 14 years after the death of the lu- natic, who died one year before the committee, denied for laches.-Commonwealth v. Stewart (Pa.) 597.
Twelve years' delay held to constitute laches barring bill to have a constructive trust declared. -Wiggin v. Swamscot Mach. Co. (N. H.) 727. Where an answer to a bill contains a demurrer, as permitted, and, although a replication has been filed, the case is set down for hearing generally before the expiration of 60 days, it constitutes a waiver of the replication, and the case is to be heard on bill, answer, and demurrer; the answer to be taken as true.-Ricker v. Portland & R. F. Ry. (Me.) 338.
that the payee was estopped to refuse to surren- der the note, on the ground that the stock had not been given up within said time.-American Gas & Ventilating Mach. Co. v. Wood (Me.) 548.
Sellers of mortgaged personalty, who covenant to warrant and defend against every person, held estopped to enforce the mortgage when subse- quently assigned to them.-Kane v. Lodor (N. J. Ch.) 966.
Grantor held estopped by deed to assert that the grantee had no right of way over adjoining property of the grantor.-Seibert v. Graff (N. J. Ch.) 970.
Husband held estopped to set up, as to premises to which his wife had title through foreclosure of a mortgage given by him with warranty, a prior mortgage inherited from her on her death.-Brad- ford v. Burgess (R. I.) 975.
Where devisees, in order to escape personal liability for testator's debt, to the amount of con- sideration received by them on alienation of lands, surrendered the consideration, held, that they were estopped to deny that there was a consideration paid.-Ransom v. Brinkerhoff (N. J. Ch.) 919.
A bill to rescind a sale for fraud held not de- murrable because there was an adequate remedy at law, where the procedure in equity could afford the complainant more efficient modes of relief. See, also, "Criminal Law"; "Trial"; "Witness- Morse v. Nicholson (N. J. Ch.) 178.
Equity will not interfere with a lawful litiga- tion, unless some fraudulent or wrongful use is made of the proceeding.-McInnes v. McInnes Brick Manuf'g Co. (N. J. Ch.) 182.
So long as complainant acts in a lawful man- ner in the assertion of his rights, it is no defense that he is actuated by evil motives. McInnes v. McInnes Brick Manuf'g Co. (N. J. Ch.) 182. Amendment to bill charging fraud on failure of evidence to establish the same allowed on pay- ment of costs.-O'Connor v. O'Connor (R. I.) 370.
Where answer is prayed under oath, and de- fendant denies a material allegation of the bill, complainant must plead further, or offer proof in behalf of the allegation.-Neldon v. Roof (N. J. Ch.) 429.
The court will not refuse to hear a defense based on an event which happened since the fil- ing of the bill.-Hall v. Home Building Co. (N. J. Ch.) 447.
ERROR, WRIT OF.
See "Appeal and Error."
ESTABLISHMENT.
Of boundaries, see "Boundaries." Of bridges, see "Bridges."
See, also, "Life Estates."
Created by will, see "Wills."
Of decedents, see "Descent and Distribution." Tenancy in common, see "Tenancy in Common."
An estate in expectancy is not the subject of a grant. In re Lennig's Estate (Pa.) 466.
By judgment, see "Judgment."
Under a quitclaim deed containing a special warranty against claims under the grantor, a subsequently acquired title does not inure to the grantee.-Bennett v. Davis (Me.) 372.
Where the maker of a note was entitled to its surrender on giving up certain stock within a prescribed time, held, under the circumstances,
The court will not take judicial notice of pro- ceedings in a case referred to in the bill unless they are offered in evidence.-Anderson v. Cecil (Md.) 1074.
Proceedings to punish for contempt for cer- tiorari held no part of the certiorari suit, so as to authorize the court to take notice of the files without their being put in evidence in a contempt proceeding.-State v. Hudson County Electric Co. (N. J. Sup.) 818.
Relevancy and competency in general.
Evidence in relation to matters with which the adverse party is entirely unconnected is proper- ly excluded.-State Bank of City of New York V. Waterhouse (Conn.) 904.
Jocular statements held not admissible in evi- dence as res gestæ. - Holmes v. Washington Real-Estate Co. (R. I.) 946.
Evidence of the conduct of horses in general in the presence of moving trains is admissible to show how a particular horse would act in a similar situation.-Folsom v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 209.
In a suit against a city for damages caused by defects in a sewer, the testimony of a physician as to other sickness in the neighborhood held inadmissible.-Willett v. Village of St. Albans (Vt.) 72.
Evidence of what plaintiff "understood" held admissible in explanation of his acts.-Bertoli v. Smith (Vt.) 76.
Certain evidence held admissible in proof of age.-Parkhurst v. Krellinger (Vt.) 67.
Letters and declarations of a judge out of court are inadmissible to show why he made a decree. -Appeal of Allen (Conn.) 701.
Demonstrative evidence.
Signatures having no date were properly used as standards of comparison, where it does not appear that there was nothing to show when they were written.-Redding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.) 230.
Signatures of the maker executed two years prior to execution of the notes in suit held admis- sible as standards of comparison, though the maker's handwriting had materially changed in the meantime. - Redding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.) 230.
Writings of the maker of a note, though not signed, may be used as standards of comparison,
where it is contended that the bodies of the notes were written by him.-Redding v. Redding's Es- tate (Vt.) 230.
Declarations and admissions.
Declaration of husband held admissible against his wife in a contest for property between the wife and the husband's creditors.-Poundstone v. Jones (Pa.) 714.
Declarations of person as to his symptoms, made to a physician, leading him to form an opinion to which he may testify as a witness, are inadmissible.-Lambertson v. Consolidated Traction Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 683.
Declarations of agent held admissible only when the existence of the agency has been estab- lished.-Bennett v. Talbot (Me.) 112.
Declarations of a grantor that he had not made payments called for by his deed, and the fact of his poverty, held admissible to show that the payments had not been made.-Oakman v. Wal- ker (Vt.) 63.
Declarations of a grantor held admissible for the purpose of showing full consideration.-Oak- man v. Walker (Vt.) 63.
Declaration as to past transactions held inad- missible against another, though at the time they were conspirators to defraud creditors.- Smith v. Brockett (Conn.) 57.
Declarations of conductor of a train as to how a person was injured, made two months after the accident, held inadmissible.-Nebonne v. Con- cord R. R. (N. H.) 17.
Failure to reply to letter not sent in course of correspondence is not an admission of the truth of its contents.-Hand v. Howell (N. J. Sup.) 748.
Admission as to the condition of a person in- jured a month after the accident held admissible as the description of a fact.-Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Nugent (Md.) 779.
Printed copies of the constitution of a beneficial order in the hands of the secretary of the grand lodge, sent for his guidance by the secretary of the supreme lodge of the world, are presumed to be genuine and accurate.-Schubert Lodge, No. 118, Knights of Pythias of New Jersey, v. Schu- bert Kranken Unterstuetzungs-Verein (N. J. Ch.) 347.
Bible held insufficient to show age where en- tries are not shown to have been contemporane- ous with the facts stated.-Supreme Council of Golden Star Fraternity v. Conklin (N. J. Err. & App.) 659.
Where defendant refused to produce vouchers as required by order, held, that he could not aft- erwards use them as evidence, in view of Com- mon Law Practice Act, § 157.-Flemming v. Lawless (N. J. Ch.) 864.
Parol evidence held not admissible to show the
intention of parties to a contract during the negotiations. In re Haynes' Estate (Vt.) 240.
On the question of the recognition by a land- lord of his tenant, as such, after the expiration of the lease, parol evidence is admissible.-Ams- den v. Atwood (Vt.) 263.
The statement that witness thought there was a bill of sale held not sufficient proof of a written instrument to sustain an objection to oral proof of a transfer.-Hadden v. Linville (Md.) 37.
Where a contract is clear, evidence as to the understanding of the parties held inadmissible. -Borley v. McDonald (Vt.) 60.
Parol evidence held admissible to show that notes given on the delivery of cattle were not given for the price.-Schaeffer v. Sensenig (Pa.)
Where a tax was assessed to "Samuel J. missible to show that the assessment was meant Bridge, Estate of," parol evidence was not ad- to apply to the executor of decedent's will, so as to render him personally liable to the tax.-In- habitants of Dresden v. Bridge (Me.) 545.
Where written contract transferring title to corporate bonds showed intention to pass title to coupons, evidence as to secret intention of trans- ferror held inadmissible.-Fox v. Hartford & W. H. H. R. Co. (Conn.) 871.
Parol evidence held admissible to show modi- fication of lease.-Crawford v. Bellevue & G. Natural Gas Co. (Pa.) 595.
In an action for personal injuries a witness, not an expert. can state that a month after the injury the plaintiff looked very bad, and was lame; such evidence not being opinion evidence, but the description of a fact.-Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Nugent (Md.) 779.
Conduct of horses in the presence of moving trains is a proper subject for opinion evidence.- Folsom v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 209.
The opinion of one acquainted with the hand- writing of another is admissible to prove that such person executed the note sued upon.-Red-
Evidence held not admissible as hearsay.- ding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.) 230. Hadden v. Linville (Md.) 37.
Documentary evidence.
A certified copy of proceedings on a voluntary petition in insolvency on the court docket held admissible to show that such proceedings had been had.-Smith v. Brockett (Conn.) 57.
Copy of record of a cross-examination in in- solvency in another state held properly excluded where it has no certificate from the judge of the insolvent court.-Smith v. Brockett (Conn.) 57. The record of a court of insolvency in another state held admissible for purposes of identifica- tion.-Smith v. Brockett (Conn.) 57.
When one is deemed acquainted with the hand- writing of another, so as to be able to testify to the same.-Redding v. Redding's Estate (Vt.) 230.
to hold up an elevator gate might be fastened, An expert may be asked how the dog used so that there would be no danger of its moving except in the natural or intended way.-Sawyer v. J. M. Arnold Shoe Co. (Me.) 333.
man, alleged expert testimony that the accounts In assumpsit to recover for services as sales- between the parties were in the form of partner- ship accounts was inadmissible. - Ryder v. Ja- cobs (Pa.) 471.
The opinion of a physician formed on declara- | tions of an injured person as to his symptoms are admissible where there is evidence of the truth of the declarations. - Lambertson v. Consoli- dated Traction Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 683.
Of witnesses in general, see "Witnesses."
Reservation in lower court, see "Appeal and Error": "Criminal Law." To pleading, see "Pleading."
EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF.
See "Appeal and Error."
der the provisions of the will, held, that the court of chancery would not then give them directions as to the continuance of the business.-Tierney v. Tierney (N. J. Ch.) 971.
An administrator pendente lite held to have power to discharge the debts of the decedent.- Baldwin v. Mitchell (Md.) 775.
In the absence of fraud, an executor's sale to the life tenants under the will was refused to be set aside on application of remainder-men, made many years after the sale.-In re Markle's Es- tate (Pa.) 612; Appeal of Barber, Id.
Where testator gave lands in trust for his sons and daughters, with remainder to their chil- dren, and a trustee petitioned for the sale of the property to the sons and daughters, held, that their minor children were in fact and in law par- ties to the proceeding, though no citation to them was issued.-In re Markle's Estate (Pa.) 612; Appeal of Barber, Id.
Where the court directed the executor to trans- fer property to a beneficiary under the will, and such beneficiary assigned his interest for value to a third person, held, that the decree authoriz- ing the sale should not be so modified, as against the assignee, as to provide that any deficit in the
Regulation of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see price should stand as a lien against the proper- "Intoxicating Liquors."
A right to occupy stalls in a city market sold by the city under the statute is subject to lien.- Green v. Western Nat. Bank (Md.) 131.
Lien of execution held not defeated by existence of mortgage, where title is in the mortgagee, with only equity of redemption in the judgment debtor. -Green v. Western Nat. Bank (Md.) 131.
A creditor's subsequent conveyance, with war- ranty, of property acquired by levy, is sufficient evidence of his acceptance of seisin.-Marston v. Osgood (N. H.) 378.
The sale of life estates under execution, with- out an order of the court allowing the writ, as provided by the act of 1849, and without notice, is void.-Kunselman v. Stine (Pa.) 414.
Mere inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside a sale by sheriff.-Carson v. Am- brose (Pa.) 508.
Sale for $400 of property worth $2,500 set aside where it was erroneously supposed to be subject to a mortgage of $2,000.-Stroup v. Ray- mond (Pa.) 626; Appeal of Crow, Id.
An agreement by a portion of creditors to buy the debtor's logs at sheriff's sale, for the general benefit, held not fraudulent so as to in- validate the sale.-Braden v. First Nat. Bank (Pa.) 1023.
A receiver appointed in supplementary pro- ceedings is not entitled to recover a debt due to ceedings is not entitled to recover a debt due to the judgment debtor, which was not in existence at the time of the appointment.-Guild v. Meyer (N. J. Ch.) 959.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See, also, "Wills."
Courts of probate, see "Courts."
Effect of administration on limitation, see "Lim- itation of Actions."
Liability for tax on property of estate, see "Taxation."
Right of appeal, see "Appeal and Error." Testamentary trustees, see "Trusts." Testimony as to transactions with decedents, see "Witnesses."
An administrator de bonis non defined.-Hodge v. Hodge (Me.) 535.
Where executors for three years after testa- tor's death continued a mercantile business un-
ty. In re Markle's Estate (Pa.) 620; Appeal of Hessenbruch, Id.
Where deceased held land for himself and in trust for others, and his executors sold it under a power, held, that the cestuis que trustent should have a voice in the matter of the time of enforcing the mortgage.-Arkenburgh v. Lake- side Residence Ass'n (N. J. Ch.) 297.
A mortgage by executor to secure a debt bar- red by limitations, though binding on adult heirs consenting thereto, held void as to minor heirs.-Hemphill v. Pry (Pa.) 1020.
Where a trustee converts the fund, and after- wards dies, the beneficiary has no better stand- ing than other creditors, unless he can identify the fund.-Hodge v. Hodge (Me.) 535. Appointment.
Where there is a dispute between heirs as to the alleged assets of an estate, and an unfriend- ly feeling existed, letters should be issued to a stranger.-In re Schmidt's Estate (Pa.) 464; Ap- peal of Becker, Id.
judgment of testator against him.-Anderson v. Appointment of executor does not discharge a Anderson (Pa.) 1007.
granted are revoked, the executor has no right Where letters of administration improperly to interfere with the granting of letters to the next of kin.-In re Neidig's Estate (Pa.) 1033; next of kin.-In re Neidig's Estate (Pa.) 1033; Appeal of Rupley, Id.
Probate court, in revoking on appeal letters improvidently issued, held authorized to order that letters be issued by the register to the nom- inee of the next of kin. In re Neidig's Estate (Pa.) 1033; Appeal of Rupley, Id.
Petition to revoke letters testamentary as im- Neidig's Estate (Pa.) 1033; Appeal of Rupley, Id.
properly granted held wrongfully refused. In re
Allowances to widow.
An allowance to a widow for support pending settlement of estate may be made concurrent with receipt of income by her.-Appeal of Ha- vens (Conn.) 795.
An order for allowance for widow during set- tlement of estate implies a finding of necessity thereof. Appeal of Havens (Conn.) 795.
month for the support of a widow held not lim- An order that a certain sum be allowed per ited to one year, notwithstanding an order lim- iting 12 months for settlement of the estate.- Appeal of Havens (Conn.) 795.
Residuary legatee, entitled in equity to have payments made under order of the court by executors to widow for support set off against a claim for interest on the trust fund under the will, cannot obtain such relief of the probate court.-Appeal of Havens (Conn.) 795. Allowance and payment of claims. Rev. St. c. 87, § 19, authorizing the supreme court sitting in equity to give judgment for the amount of a claim against a decedent's es- tate, when limitations have expired, if justice requires it, etc., does not create a cause of ac- tion in equity after the bar of the statute, where there was none at law before.-Hodge v. Hodge (Me.) 535.
Lien of defendants held lost by statutory limita tion, where tae will did not create an express trust for their payment.-In re Mitchell's Estate (Pa.) 489.
ty by him, though decedent had never lived in such county, and left no estate therein.-Appeal of Ela (N. H.) 501.
Whether a debt is due from an administrator to the estate, and the amount of it, are questions primarily of probate jurisdiction, subject to ap- peal to the supreme court.-Hodge v. Hodge (Me.) 535.
Executors accepting office with knowledge of provisions in will as to their compensation are bound thereby.-In re Hays' Estate (Pa.) 622.
From service of process, see "Process." taxation, see "Taxation."
A claim by remainder-men against life tenant's In civil actions, see "Evidence." estate for dissipating goods, it being impossible to follow the specific articles, must be proved as a claim against an estate, and share pro rata with other creditors.-Quicksall v. Chew (N. J. Ch.) 442.
Evidence to establish claims for services not made during decedent's lifetime held insufficient. -In re Weaver's Estate (Pa.) 12; Appeal of Paul. Id.
A mortgage creditor of deceased, who proved his claim against the estate for the entire amount, averring that he held no security, waived his security.-Nickerson v. Chase (Me.) 175.
There is no authority for appointment of com- missioners of an insolvent estate after 30 days from the expiration of period for presentation of claims.-Strong v. Luther (R. I.) 1054.
The supreme court, under Pub. St. c. 221, § 8, can grant a trial in a case in which a party had neglected to prosecute his appeal from the judg- ment of commissioners on an insolvent estate. Baker v. Hoxie (R. I.) 1000.
A suit against an executrix, in her private ca- pacity, for property which she claims as lega- tee of her testator, held not barred by Pub. St. c. 191, § 4.—Perkins v. Perkins (N. H.) 1049..
Under Pub. St. c. 191, § 6, a suit brought by an administrator within two years after ap- pointment is not barred by Pub. St. c. 191, § 4. -Perkins v. Perkins (N. H.) 1049.
Where administrator of life tenant had sold corporate stock standing in name of intestate's testator, held, that the corporation and vendee of the stock were necessary parties to a bill to com- pel the administrator to deliver the proceeds to the remainder-men, the sale being unauthorized. -Quicksall v. Chew (N. J. Ch.) 442.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
The note in the suit in which plaintiff was ar- McMullin v. Erwin (Vt.) 62. rested held admissible under the general issue.
Evidence that defendant thought the original suit had been properly brought held immateral.- McMullin v. Erwin (Vt.) 62.
An attorney giving a capias writ to an officer to serve held not liable for the tort of the offi- cer in altering the writ.-McMullin v. Erwin (Vt.) 62.
FALSE PRETENSES.
Where defendant is prosecuted for obtaining money from complainant by falsely pretending that he had, as her attorney, commenced a suit and expended certain money, defendant cannot show that complainant knew the suit she em- ployed him to prosecute was for a fictitious claim.-Cunningham v. State (N. J. Sup.) 847.
In a prosecution for obtaining a certain amount under false pretenses, the prosecution may show that defendant procured several sums of money at different times, and need not show that he obtained the exact amount charged.—Cunning- ham v. State (N. J. Sup.) 847.
Of attorney for assignee, see "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors." Of clerks of courts, see "Clerks of Courts." On foreclosure, see "Mortgages."
FELLOW SERVANTS.
An administrator de bonis non cannot sue the estate of his predecessor for money wrongfully received by the latter prior to his appointment as administrator, unless such money is distin- See "Master and Servant." guishable as a part of intestate's property.- Hodge v. Hodge (Me.) 535.
Accounting and settlement.
Rehearing allowed executor after decision on exceptions to his account.-In re Kalbfell's Es- tate (Pa.) 1007.
When an accounting to date cannot be had in the chancery court in a bill by executors for the construction of the will.-Tierney v. Tierney (N. J. Ch.) 971.
An administrator cannot set up the invalidity of a decree under which he holds property as de- fense to an accounting therefor.-Appeal of Ela (N. H.) 501.
The division of a fence on a boundary line by proceeding under 2 Gen. St. p. 1461, does not change the ownership of the materials in the existing fence.-Titman v. Smith (N. J. Sup.) 810.
Power of township committee in proceedings to divide a partition fence in awarding dam- ages to be paid in money by either owner in or- der to equalize the division.-Titman v. Smith (N. J. Sup.) 810.
In the exercise of its common-law jurisdiction, the probate court could charge an administrator Chattel mortgage, see "Chattel Mortgages." with property of the estate brought into the coun- Record on appeal, see "Appeal and Error."
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել » |