to make the administration a matter of partnership business, and to share as partners the gains and losses resulting from the administration, so that in signing the bond he would become the surety of the firm and not of the individual partner, can not be recovered by the surety from the firm: Forsyth vs. Woods, 484. RAILROAD BONDS.-See Notice, 1. REBELLION. 1. Suspended the running of statutes of limitation during its continuance, in regard to the claims of the government against its own citizens resident in the rebellious States. Nor did the act of June 11th, 1864, change this: United States vs. Wiley, 508. 2. As also as against persons in the loyal States, the running of the prescription given by articles 3505 and 3506 of the Louisiana Code, prescribing bills and notes in five years from their maturity, and providing that this prescription run against minors, interdicted persons, and persons residing out of the State: Levy vs. Stewart, 244. SOVEREIGNTY. No judgment for the payment of money can be rendered against the United States in any court other than the Court of Claims without a special act of Congress conferring jurisdiction: Case vs. Terrill, 199. STATUTES OF LIMITATION.-See Rebellion, 1, 2. TAX. Collection of, will not be restrained in equity only because illegal. Grounds for equitable aid must be shown: Dows vs. City of Chicago, 108. UNITED STATES.-See Sovereignty. SELECTED DIGEST OF STATE REPORTS. [For the present number of the Digest, selections have been made from the following volumes of State Reports: 19 Michigan; 2 Heiskell; (Tennessee); 33 Maryland; 29 Iowa; 51 Illinois; 25 Arkansas; 19 Ohio (Critchfield); 36 Connecticut; 47 Missouri; 103 Massachusetts; 28 Texas; 14 Minnesota; 3 Lansing (New York); 40 Georgia; 5 Kansas (Banks); 48 New Hampshire; 57 Maine; 25 Wisconsin; 20 Grattan (Virginia).] ACCEPTANCE.-See HIGHWAY, 1, 2. ACCOUNTING.--See ACTION, 1. ACTION. 1. In an action for an accounting, the judgment should be conclusive, upon the parties upon all questions between them, arising on the accounting. In an action in equity for an accounting between co-partners, judgment can not be rendered for goods sold and delivered, nor can an accounting be had in an action simply for goods sold: Short vs. Barry, 3 Lansing, (N. Y.,) 143. 2. Where there is a public employment, from which arises a common law duty, an action may be brought in tort, although the breach of duty assigned, is the doing something contrary to an agreement made in the course of such employment by the party, on whom such general duty is imposed: 20 Grattan, (Va.,) 264, Express Co. vs. McVeigh. 3. The holders of a bill of sale of a vessel, absolute on its face, though intended as a mortgage, may maintain an action for her conversion against a person claiming under a barratrous sale by the master; although on learning of the barratry, they abandon her to the insurers, and receive payment from them, as on a total loss: Clark vs. Wilson, 219; 103 Mass. 4. A person who had received goods from the owner, with the right to use them, and to become owner of them on fulfillment of certain conditions, among which were, that he should not sell or remove them from a certain place without the owner's consent, and that they should not become his till paid for, sold them to a third person, who removed and sold them. Held, that the third person, was liable to the owner of the goods for their conversion, although he had acted in good faith, and had parted with them before any demand upon him: Carter vs. Kingman, 517; 103 Mass. 5. Where, by conveyances of water at a dam, a particular owner is entitled to a priority in the use of a specified amount of water; this must be held to imply that he is entitled to such a head of water as will enable him to make a beneficial use of that amount in propelling machinery: Samuels vs. Blanchard, 329; 25 Wis. 6. If, in such case, the head becomes so low that parties subsequent in right, by continuing to use the water, prevent such benificial use by the party prior in right, they are liable as for a wrongful diversion: 329 Wis. 7. Where taxes have been illegally assessed, and collected by distress, for the use of a city, and paid into its treasury, and appropriated by it, the tax payer may recover the amount in an action at law against the city. Phillips vs. City of Stephens' Point, 594, 25 Wis. 8. In an action by A. against B. for a malicious prosecution, A. must show that B. brought his suit not only with malice, (i. e., for a purpose not contemplated by the law in authorizing such a suit), but also, without probable cause: Spain vs. Howe, 625; 25 Wis. 9. An action for damages to plaintiff's premises by fire alleged to have caught, through defendant's negligence, from one kindled on his land, where the evidence showed that defendant's fire must have been communicated to plaintiffs' premises, (if at all,) by combustible material burning unobserved under ground, and there was no proof that defendant knew the combustible nature of the soil under the surface, or was guilty of negligence in acertaining that fact, it was not error to grant a non-suit: Case vs. Hobart, 654; 25 Wis. 10. Defendants having cut timber from plaintiff's land in another State, and converted the timber to their own use; an action for the conversion, (but not for the trespass,) will lie against them in this State: Tyson vs. McGuineas, et. al., 656; 25 Wis. 11. Tenant for life, who neglects to pay taxes which accrue after his tenancy commences, is liable to an action for waste: Phelan vs. Boylan, 679; 25 Wis. SEE LEASE, 1; LIMITATIONS, 4; FRAUDS, STATUTE OF, 1; HusBAND AND WIFE, 6; PLEADING, 2; TRESPASS, 1, 3. ACT OF GOD.-See Common Carriers, 2. ADMINISTRATION. 1. An administrator in the year 1862, after receiving into his hands a sufficiency of assets to meet all unsettled claims against the estate, delivered over the remainder to the heirs at law; but in making the distribution, gave one share to Barbara Davis and her children, under a mistake of law, the fact being that it belonged to Barbara Davis alone, and the said Barbara made no objection at the time, but consented, under the same mistake of law, to the said distribution, but did nothing to mislead the administrator, who was not at all influenced by her consent. Held, 1st, The delivery of the assets to the children, who were not entitled, was, to that extent a devastavit, and Mrs. Davis is not estopped by her acts, from claiming of the administrator her rights as heir at law. The effects delivered to the children, are still in contemplation of law in the hands of the administrator, to be accounted for not only to Mrs. Davis, but to any other person who has claims against the estate: Davis vs. Bagley, 40 Ga. 2. Sales by administrators when it is not otherwise provided by will, of any property of the estate except annual crops, carried to market, must be at public out-cry, to the highest bidder, and the purchaser is bound to see that the administrator is apparently proceeding under the prescribed forms: Neal vs. Patten, 40 Ga. 3. When there are no debts unpaid, and the administrator of an estate illegally disposes of property of the estate, and is insolvent, equity will entertain a bill filed by the heirs at law, to recover the property so illegally disposed of, or to decree an account of its proceeds: S. W. R. R. Co. vs. Thomasson, et al, 40 Ga. ADVERSE POSSESSSON.-See LAND TITLES, 2. ADMISSIONS.-See ATTACHMENT, 3; PARTNERSHIP, 4; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 1; EVIDENCE, 6, 7, 8. AGENT. 1. An Agent as a tax collector, suing for commissions, must show as a condition necessary to a recovery, that he has fully performed the duties of his agency: 2 Heiskell, (Tenn.,) Mayor and Aldermen of Winchester vs. Slatter, 65. 2. A principal can not ratify the act of an agent in part, and disaffirm it in part. A ratification as to part, operates as a confirmation of all: 2 Heiskell, (Tenn.,) Wood vs. Cooper, 441. Payment to an agent, during the war, of the purchase money of land sold by the agent, under a power to sell on such terms as he might think best, in Southern bank notes, that being the best currenin circulation at that time, was a good payment: Wood vs Cooper, 2 Heiskell, (Tenn.,) 441. су 4. An agent to whom a judgment was assigned for collection, receiving it in Confederate notes, and entering satisfaction on the docket, the payment was held to be good, in the absence of proof that the defendant had notice of the agency: Dillard vs. Jared, 2 Heiskell, 646. 5. Where a public officer loaned the School money of the State without authority of law, and took mortgages from the borrowers to secure such loans, it was held competent for the State to so far ratify the unauthorized acts, as to avail itself of and enforce the securities thus taken, not only as against the mortgagors, but as against subsequent purchasers and incumbrances: 28 Iowa, The State vs. Shaw, et. al. 6. The authority of an agent to contract for the sale of the lands of his principal may be established by parol evidence: Rothman vs. Wasson, 5 Kan., 552. 7. If money belonging to a bank is taken from its agent or collector by thieves or robbers, when he is using ordinary care and is guilty of no negligence, he is clearly not liable. It is clearly the established rule of law, that an agent is bound to execute the orders of his principal whenever, for a valuable consider ation, he has undertaken to perform them, whether reasonable or not, unless prevented by some unavoidable accident, without any default on his part, or unless the instructions require him to do an illegal or immoral act; and it is no defense, that he intended to act for the benefit of his principal. He is still responsible for loss occasioned by any violation of his duties, either in exceeding or disregarding instructions: Retchtscherd vs. Accommodation Bank, 47 Mo., 181. 8. Where an agent without the authority of his principal, borrows money and invests it in property, the principal, by afterwards appro |