1. In Rhode Island, adults cannot be legal-
ly adopted.-Williams v. Knight, (R. I.) 27 A.
210.

Decree of adoption-Alteration.

2. The record of the probate court showed
two decrees substantially alike,-one a letter

Affirmance.

On appeal, see "Appeal," 24.

Agency.

See "Principal and Agent."

Alcoholic Liquors.

See "Intoxicating Liquors."

Alimony.

Alteration.

of adoption, addressed to the adopting parents, See "Divorce," 10, 11.
and the other attached to the petition
as a memorandum. On application of another
child of the adopters, to have the record
altered so as to show that the decree was made Of highway, see "Highways," 7.
out of court, at a place other than where the
court sat, the judge of probate refused to
change the record, and the applicant appealed,
and later applied for mandamus, alleging that
but one decree was signed, and asking to have
that amended. Held a fatal defect, for, if the
prayer should be granted, the alteration would
affect only one decree, and the other would
sustain the adoption.-Hurley v. Robinson, 27
A. 270, 85 Me. 400; Appeal of Hurley, Id.
· Adultery.

ALTERATION OF INSTRU-

As ground for divorce, see "Divorce," 3.

Advancement.

See "Wills," 36.

By factor, see "Factors and Brokers."

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

Mistake as to boundaries, see "Boundaries,"
4, 5.
Riparian rights by, see "Riparian Rights," 1.
Character and sufficiency of possession.
1. One who has by his deed conveyed lands
to others in trust may, by subsequent adverse
use, acquire rights inconsistent with the trusts.
-Snyder v. Snover, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 1013.
2. A stranger may, by adverse possession
or use of land for the requisite period of time,
bar both the legal estate of the trustee and the
equitable estate of the cestui que trust.-Sny-
der v. Snover, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 1013.

By wife.

MENTS.

Of contracts, see "Contracts," 10-13.
Question for jury.

Where the makers of a note allege an al-
teration therein after execution, the questions
as to whether there was an alteration, and, if
so, when and by whom made, are for the jury.
-Martin v. Kline, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 753.

Amendment.

Of constitution, see "Constitutional Law," 1, 2.
Of pleading, see "Pleading," 8.
Of praecipe, see "Writs," 2.
Of records, see "Evidence," 32.
Of statutes, see "Statutes," 2.

ANIMALS.

Trespassing animals.

The fence act of 1700, (section 1,) com-
pelling each landowner to defend his crops.
against his neighbor's cattle by constructing a
sufficient fence, was repealed by Act April 4,
1889. Held, that such repeal did not affect the
act of 1842, (section 3,) which provides for the
division of the cost of partition fences between
adjoining landowners, and for a view by town-
ship auditors to determine the sufficiency of the
fence; but while, when the act of 1700 was in
force, it was the duty of the landowner to
maintain a sufficient fence to bar out his neigh-
bor's cattle, it is now the duty of the cattle
owner, as it was at common law, to maintain
a sufficient fence to keep his cattle out of his
neighbor's land; and, if he does not do so, he
is answerable in damages, without regard to
the liability for the cost of the division fence.-
Barber v. Mensch, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 708.

3. Defendant in ejectment, in support of
her claim of title by adverse possession, gave
evidence of a sale and transfer of possession
of the land in suit to her mother, who contin-
ued in possession till her death. To defeat
such claim plaintiff attacked the transfer to de-
fendant's mother, and showed a recovery in
ejectment of the land by third parties against
her husband, and declarations showing that the
husband, who also lived on the land, claimed
some title thereon independently of her. Held, Of garnishee, see "Garnishment," 3.
that it was error for the court to charge that
the circumstances were not sufficient to over-
come the presumption that the possession of
the husband and wife in joint occupancy of
premises as a home is the possession of her
husband.-Collins v. Lynch, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.

721.

4. Where a married woman took posses-
sion of land in her own right, and continued
it for 21 years, her title would not be affected
by the acts of her husband.-Collins v. Lynch,
(Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 721.

Affidavit.

For arrest, see "Arrest," 2, 3.
Of defense, see "Pleading," 5-7.
Of juror, see "New Trial," 4.

Sufficiency, see "Elections and Voters," 11.

Answer.

APPEAL.

I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

II. REQUISITES.
III. PRACTICE.
IV. REVIEW.
V. DECISION.

See, also, "New Trial."

Allowance of claims against insolvent, see "In-
solvency," 4.

Amendment of praecipe, see "Writs," 2.
From award in proceedings, see "Eminent Do-
main," 5, 6.

judgment declaring insolvency, see "Insol-
vency," 1.

In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law," 14, 15.

demurrer as irregular and defective. There- Pleading.
upon, defendant filed a rejoinder to the repli-
A replication to a plea of set-off that
cation, and the cause went to trial. Held, on the causes of action set up in the plea, as well
review, that it was unnecessary to determine as those in the declaration, had been sub-
whether the order striking out the demurrer mitted to arbitration, and an award thereon
was erroneous or not, since the real questions delivered to the parties, is bad, in that it does
in controversy between the parties were actu- not disclose the nature of the award nor in
ally put at issue and determined, and the or- whose favor it was made.-Heath v. Doyle, (R.
der, if erroneous, did no injury.-Monmouth I.) 27 A. 333.
Park Ass'n v. Warren, (N. J. Err. & App.) 27
A. 932.

Argument of Counsel.

ARREST.

In civil action.

22. In an action on a contract which re-
quired the work to be done to the satisfaction See "Criminal Law," 7; "Trial," 5-7.
and acceptance of defendant, the cause was
tried on the theory that actual acceptance
must be proved. The court found acceptance
by defendant's engineer, and held that, by a
true construction of the contract, his accept-
ance was that of defendant. Held that, if
there was error in the ruling, it would not jus-
tify reversal, since there was sufficient evi-
dence to justify a finding by the court of an
actual acceptance by defendant, by implica-
tion, from the acts of its officers and agents
other than the engineer.-Monmouth Park
Ass'n v. Warren, (N. J. Err. & App.) 27 A.
932.

23. The failure of the court in a condemna-
tion proceeding, through mere inadvertence, to
instruct the jury that the burden of proving
damages is upon the landowners, is harmless
error, where the whole course of the trial and
the tenor of the whole charge is to the effect
that only damages proved can be allowed.
Camden & Rockland Water Co. v. Ingraham,
27 A. 94, 85 Me. 179.

Affirmance.

V. DECISION.

24. Where the record on appeal contains no
bill of exceptions, and the only assignment of
error is as to the language of the court, and
the statement as to the language in appellant's
paper book is denied by appellee, the judgment
will be affirmed.-Harris v. Schuylkill River E.
S. R. R., 27 A. 297, 156 Pa. St. 252.
Awarding damages for vexatious ap-
peal.

25. In an action by a minor by her next
friend, pending appeal by defendants from a
judgment in favor of the minor, defendants
settled the same with the next friend for a
discount, without the leave of the court. No
paper books were filed. Held, that the appeal
would be non-pros'd, with attorney's fees, and
6 per cent. damages for frivolous appeal.
O'Donnell v. Broad, 27 A. 305, 149 Pa. St. 24.

APPEARANCE.

Effect as waiver of objections.

In proceedings in the orphans' court
by an heir to compel the administrator to ac-
count, the administrator answered that the mon-
eys of the estate had been received by his attor-
ney. Held that, though the attorney was not made
a party to the proceedings before the orphans'
court, yet, having funds of the estate in his pos-
session, his appearance, both personally and by
counsel, conferred on the orphans' court juris-
diction over his person. Mitchell and Thomp-
son, JJ., dissenting.-In re Watts' Estate, (Pa.
Sup.) 27 A. 861.

Application.

For insurance, see "Insurance," 3, 4.

Appointment.

Of receivers, see "Receivers."

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
Validity of appraisement, see "Insurance," 10,
11.

1. In an ex parte affidavit made for the
purpose of holding a defendant to bail, state-
ments to which the affiant could not lawfully
testify in open court are not competent evi-
dence of fraud.-Truax v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,
(N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 1063.
Affidavit.

2. Under Laws, vol. 15, c. 180, authorizing
dum in a civil action on affidavit by plaintiff
the issuance of a writ of capias ad responden-
that defendant has absconded or is about to
abscond "from the place of his usual abode,"
an affidavit that he is about to abscond "from
Colvin, (Del. Super.) 27 A. 829.
his place of abode" is insufficient.-Thomas v.
Colvin, (Del. Super.) 27 A. 829.

the issuance of a writ of capias ad responden-
3. Under Laws, vol. 15, c. 180, authorizing
dum in a civil action on affidavit by plaintiff
that defendant has secreted, conveyed away,
assigned, settled, or disposed of property with
intent to defraud his creditors, an affidavit that
defendant procured property by fraud is not suf-
ficient.-Thomas v. Colvin, (Del. Super.) 27 A.

829

Of errors, see "Appeal," 8.

Of insurance policy, see "Insurance," 2.
What constitutes.

1. A member of a firm, who was indorser
on the note of S., indorsed other paper of hers
in consideration of her agreement that an ac-
count of hers against the firm should be off-
set to the amount of the note, by the note
which he undertook that the firm should pay.
Held, that this amounted to an assignment of
so much of her account to the member of the
firm, and, the note having been paid when due,
though after her death, the firm was entitled
to credit for the amount thereof against her
estate. In re Spotts' Estate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.
132; Appeal of Beetem, Id.

Equitable assignment.

2. Where a person in writing acknowledges
himself indebted to another, and binds himself
to pay the debt with the money from an inherit-

ance to be collected by an attorney, and depos-
its the instrument with the attorney, with or-
.ders to pay the debt from the money when col-
lected, this, though not a legal assignment, is
an equitable one.-Moeser v. Schneider, (Pa.
Sup.) 27 A. 1088.

and succeeds therein, it is proper to bring in
the assignee as a party before making a final
decree as to distribution of such newly-discov-
ered assets.-Hamlin v. Bennett, (N. J. Ch.) 27
A. 651.
Associations.

Action in assignor's name-Authority.
3. Testimony of C. that he bought all the See "Benevolent Societies."
accounts and claims of all kinds of T. & L., a
partnership, with right to use their names in
the collection of the same, that his dealings

were with T., and that a claim against a rail-
road for discrimination in freight rates was
mentioned as among the claims sold, with tes-
timony of L. that he did not know of the pend-
ency of an action on such claim brought by C.
in the name of T. & L., and, so far as he
knew, T. did not employ or authorize the at-
torney to bring the action, together with his
answer, to the question whether he had any-
thing to do with the action except as a wit-
ness, that he did not know; the question was
a broad one; he had already said he did not
bring the action, but he sold certain rights to
C.,-shows a right in C. to bring the action in
the name of T. & L.-Tucker v. Providence &

W. R. Co., (R. I.) 27 A. 448.

Action by assignee-On part of claim.
4. Section 19 of the practice act, as amend-
ed by Act March 4, 1890, making bills, con-
tracts, and choses in action assignable at law,
and authorizing the assignee to sue in his own
name, does not make a part of a contract as-
signable, so that the assignee of such part may
sue in his own name, without the consent of the
party who might be subjected to two suits.-
Otis v. Adams, (N. J. Sup.) 27 A. 1092.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT
OF CREDITORS.

See, also, "Fraudulent Conveyances;" "Insol-

vency."
Basis for computing dividends, see "Factors
and Brokers," 2.

What passes to assignee.

ASSUMPSIT.

8.

Recovery of money paid for liquor, see “Intox-
icating Liquors,'
Remedy by covenant or assumpsit, see "Ac-
tion.'

99

Ultra vires contract, recovery on quantum mer-
uit, see "Corporations," 9.
When lies.

1. A corporation which makes a proposition
to its creditors for the selection by them of a
committee to supervise its business is liable to
the members of the committee for the services
rendered by them.-Dallas v. Columbia Iron &
Steel Co., (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 1055.
custody, under a contract by which they are to
2. Where property placed in defendants'
make repairs thereon, is destroyed by their
negligence, assumpsit may be properly brought
by the owner to recover the value thereof.-
Zell v. Dunkle, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 38.
3. A contract provided for delivery of 25
machines by plaintiff between certain dates,
and settlement therefor by defendant at a later
date by cash, indorsed notes, or his own note.
Plaintiff performed his part, but there was no
settlement. Held, that plaintiff had an action
in assumpsit on the special contract, but
none for goods sold and delivered.-Thomas
Manuf'g Co. v. Watson, 27 A. 176, 85 Me.
300.

Pleading and proof.

sold to defendant's testator has introduced his
4. Where plaintiff in assumpsit for goods
books of account in evidence under the general
issue, defendants may show that the items of
the account were charged on a consideration
previously executed by decedent, and not for
him.-Cargill v. Atwood, (R. I.) 27 A. 214.
the purpose of creating an indebtedness against

1. An assignment for benefit of creditors,
of the goods, chattels, and property of the as-
signor, does not pass to the assignee a claim
of the assignor against a decedent's estate for
Assumption of Risks.
commissions as executor.-In re Mulligan's Es-
tate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 398; Appeal of Cattell, See "Master and Servant," 27, 28.

Id.
Consent of creditors to assignment.

2. An instrument under seal, by an in-
solvent debtor, purporting to convey and assign
all his property to the grantee in trust for, and
as agent of, all creditors whose names are
signed thereto as accepting the property, is, in
the absence of fraud, an ordinary sale and con-
veyance for valuable consideration, and not an
assignment, and is valid as against subsequent
process of creditors who refuse to accept its
provisions. Kenefick v. Perry, 61 N. H. 362,
followed.-Hosmer v. Farley, (N. H.) 27 A. 223.
Proceedings by creditors to discover
property.

3. One whose debtor has made an assign-
ment for the benefit of creditors may, after
neglect on the part of the assignee for 11 years
to take proceedings to discover property be-
longing to the debtor, and having established
his claim by judgment, institute such proceed-
ings himself.-Hamlin v. Bennett, (N. J. Ch.)
27 A. 651.

4. The fact that the creditor filed his
claim with the assignee does not prevent him
from instituting such proceeding. Hamlin v.
Bennett, (N. J. Ch.) 27 A. 651.
-Making assignee party.

5. Where a creditor of one who has made
an assignment for the benefit of creditors in-
stitutes proceedings for the discovery of assets

ATTACHMENT.

See, also, "Execution;" "Exemptions;" "Gar-
nishment."
Failure to comply with statute, good as com-
mon-law bond, see "Bonds," 3.
Lien of chattel mortgage against, see "Chattel
Mortgages," 2.

Bond for release of property.

1. A bond given to procure the release of
goods taken under attachment, conditioned as
provided by Pub. St. c. 207, § 16, dissolves the
attachment, and takes its place as a security,
and therefore the liability of the obligors does
not depend on the attachment, and the execu-
tion by the attachment debtor of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors will not release the
obligors, under Pub. St. c. 237, § 12, providing
that an assignment shall dissolve attachments
pending_against the assignor.-Easton v. Orms-
by, (R. I.) 27 A. 216.

2. Plaintiff in attachment does not, by ac-
cepting a dividend from the assignee for the
benefit of creditors of defendant in attachment,
lose his recourse against a bond given for the
release of the goods attached.-Easton v. Orms-
by, (R. I.) 27 A. 216.
Lien.

3. Rev. St. c. 81, § 59, declares that no
attachment of real estate or mesne process

3. In an action against a committee ap-
pointed by a post of the Grand Army of the
Republic, as partners, upon a contract, after-
wards ratified by the post, to give a theatrical
performance for its benefit, where the only ev-
idence in regard to the power of the post is a
by-law providing that upon the death of a
comrade the sum of $100 shall be paid to his
heirs as a funeral benefit, the same to be drawn
from the funds of the post, it is error to hold
See "Assignment for Benefit of Creditors;" "In- the contract "ultra vires." - Pain v. Sample,
solvency."