To hawkers and peddlers; validity of
Limitation of actions; against carrier; by
special contract of carrier
761 Logs. See WATERS AND WATERCOURSES.
796 Lottery, or game of chance.
189 Mandamus; as a remedy; purposes purely
mandatory; distinguished from injunc-
tion; discretion as to issuing; cannot try
title to office; distinguished from prohibi-
tion

808

Trusts. See also CHARITABLE USES; PERPE-

TUITIES.

392

Liability of surety on penal bond; extent of 482
Probate; jurisdiction; rules of practice 812
Prohibition; distinguished from manda-

mus; design and object of writ; discretion
as to issuing; not to review or correct
either law or fact; prohibits judicial pro-
ceedings only

Public lands; when interest vests; entry;
homestead; pre-emption; notice of claim;
certificates of entry: proofs of settlement;
oath of pre-emptor; transfer of claim
Quo warranto; ancient remedy; jurisdic-
tion; discretion; proceedings, by whom in-
stituted; information in nature of; rem-
edy by action

161

By deposit of money for another's use
Villages. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Wagering contracts. See OPTIONS.
Warranty. See SALE.

56 Waters and watercourses; navigable
streams defined; easement and public
right to use of private streams; obstruc-
tion of navigable streams; mooring logs
and rafts; obstruction by logs; preven-
tion of jams; injury to riparian owners 406
Defined; as public highways; private
streams: remedy for obstruction
Obstruction to navigation

510

609

234

1. No action to enforce a gratuitous prom.
ise can be maintained, however worthy the ob-
ject to be promoted. First Presbyterian Church
v. Cooper (N. Y.)

6. An action for breach of contract of mar
riage and seduction necessarily tenders an is-
sue as to the plaintiff's character, and is with-
in the exception of Mill. & V. (Tenn.) Code,
abate by the death of either party, except ac-
§ 3560, which provides that actions shall not
tions "for wrongs affecting the character of the
plaintiff." Weeks v. Russell (Tenn.)

212

7. The liability of a person, under the Penn-
sylvania Act of 1855, for causing the death
of another by unlawful violence or negligence,
does not survive against his administrator.
Moe v. Smiley (Pa.)

341

8. The provision of Pa. Const. art. 3, § 21,
that in case of injuries resulting in death the
right of action shall survive, saves the cause of
action, but not the liability.
Id.

NOTES AND BRIEFS.

Abatement by death; suit for breach of
promise.

For death caused by negligence.

ADMIRALTY.

the river.

212

385

468
2. The filing and prosecuting to decree of
a bill, by the surviving members of a partner-
ship against the executor of a deceased part-
ner, to obtain an account and payment over
of plaintiffs' share of certain partnership assets
1. Admiralty has no jurisdiction of an in-
which came to defendant's hands as such exec-jury to a swing bridge turning on its center,
utor and have been sold by him, constitutes a
which rests upon a stone pier constructed upon
ratification of such sale, and is an election of the bed of a river, caused by vessels navigating
remedies which will bar a subsequent action of
The Curtis, The Camden, and The
tort against the executor for a wrongful con-
Welcome (D. C. E. D. Wis.)
version of the property. Bradley v. Brigham
(Mass.)
507
3. A man who has made a contract with
another for the support of his infant daughter,
although the contract in one sense is for her
benefit, can himself maintain an action for the
breach of the contract. Vancleave v. Clark
(Ind.)

519

711
2. A state statute creating a lien for all in-
juries done by vessels to persons or property
cannot give jurisdiction in admiralty for in-
juries the consummation and substance of
which are on the land.

NOTES AND BRIEFS.
Liability for collision.
Jurisdiction.

ADOPTION.

ld.

234

711

See DESCENT AND DISTRI-
BUTION; PARENT AND CHILD.

4. Agents to whom goods were billed by
their principals, and who received them, and in
their own firm name contracted for the deliv
ery of the goods to themselves, acting as fac-
tors, and having no pecuniary interest in the ADVANCEMENTS.
goods beyond their lien for commissions, are
entitled to maintain an action as trustees of an
express trust, under Mo. Rev. Stat. 1879,
§ 3463, for breach of the contract by the car-
rier. Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo.) 539
5. Bringing in one of the beneficiaries, who
is a necessary party in an action for causing
the death of a person, after the expiration See also INSOLVENCY AND ASSIGNMENT FOR

CREDITORS.

of the time allowed for bringing the suit, obvi-
ates an objection for nonjoinder of a necessary Geneva award; right of assignees; war pre-
party, although the action as to such party is miums; claims against indemnity fund; com-
dismissed on a plea of the Statute of Limita-pensation for collection; rights of representa-
tions. East Line & R. R. R. Co. v. Culberson tives of deceased claimant; jurisdiction in pro-
(Tex.)
567 cedure; litigation as to title to fund.

460

ALIMONY. See JUDGMENT, 9.

NOTES AND BRIEFS.

Provided for by statute.

349

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
See also BILLS AND NOTES, NOTES AND
BRIEFS.

er place in a skeleton bill of exceptions. Joy
v. Bitzer (Iowa)

184

6. Appellee's additional abstract is not to
be taken as admitted, although not denied in
terms, where the appellant has filed a certified
transcript of the record, and a statement that
he has done so because the correctness of his
abstract has been so persistently denied, and
has attached an index of the transcript and ab-
stract, for the purpose of aiding in the verifi-
cation of the abstract by the transcript. Id.

1. The indorser of a promissory note which
is complete on its face,-the sum payable, the
date, time of payment, and name of payee, all
being inserted,-who delivers it to the maker, tent and immaterial" is sufficient to apprise the
7. An objection to evidence as "incompe-
who is neither his agent nor employé, to be court of the real nature of the objection, when
carried to the payee, is not liable to a bona fide it immediately succeeds eight previous objec-
holder for value for the increased amount of tions to similar evidence, made upon the
the note, if the maker raises it before delivering ground that the witness was not competent to
it, simply because spaces were left in the note
in such a manner as to permit the words and testify to transactions and conversations with
figures to be inserted, and thus increase the a deceased person. Re Eysaman's Will (N. Y.)
amount payable, and readily deceive innocent
third parties. Burrows v. Klunk (Md.) 576

2. The alteration, without authority or di-
rection from the holder of a note, by one of
the makers, changing it from a note for $1,500
at 8 per cent to one for $1,590 at 12 per cent,
as well as changing the date, is a material al-
teration which discharges an accommodation
indorser who did not consent thereto. Ruby v.
Talbott (N. M.)
724

ANIMALS. See WARRANTY, NOTES AND
BRIEFS.

APPEAL AND ERROR. See
TRIAL, 4.

599

8. One who reserves only a general excep
tion to a charge cannot afterwards be allowed
to select particular phrases and found special
exceptions thereon. Com. v. Tolman (Mass.)

747

9. A bill of exceptions is not defective in
failing to copy a mortgage as part of the evi-
dence where, after stating that it was read in
evidence, it refers to a previous page of the
transcript where it is copied as an exhibit filed
with the answer. Binkley v. Forkner (Ind.)

33

10. An appeal from a decree dismissing a
bill asking to have tax bills declared void as a
also cloud upon title is improperly dismissed against
the objection of the appellant, upon proof that
the other parties had caused the tax bills to be
canceled and marked paid, and had paid all
the costs which had arisen or might arise,
when the appellant shows that the object of
his suit is to have the bills canceled as void ab
initio, and that during the pendency of the suit
he has conveyed the property, with covenants
against incumbrances. State, Bayha, v. Kan-
sas City Ct. App. (Mo.)

476

11. The exclusion of testimony will not
be presumed error where the evidence is not
in the record, and there is nothing to show
that it was not excluded because intrinsically
incompetent or a mere repetition of testimony
already given. Mercer v. Corbin (Ind.)

221

1. A decree declaring a person entitled to
a share of a legacy, with interest, and adjudg
ing the true construction of a will, with direc-
tions that all future proceedings in the cause
be in accordance with such construction, but
making no decree for any money, is not final.
Jameson v. Major (Va.)
773
2. The decision of the lower court in refus
ing to grant an injunction on the ground of
fraud against creditors will not be reviewed
on appeal. Powell v. Kelly (Ga.)
139
3. There is no limitation upon the time
within which an appeal will lie from an inter-
locutory decree settling the principles of a
cause. The limitation of one year upon the 12. The finding of a referee in favor of the
time for appealing provided by Va. Code, genuineness of a promissory note upon which
§ 3455, runs only as against a final decree. the suit is brought is conclusive upon the Court
Jameson v. Major (Va.)
773 of Appeals of New York, if there was enough
4. Affidavits are not admissible in an ap evidence before him to call for his opinion
pellate court to show that a bill of exceptions upon that subject. Mills v. Davis (N. Ỷ.) 394
was improperly allowed and signed by the 13. In an action upon a policy of accident
trial judge, where it was allowed, signed, and life insurance, where the defense is that the as-
filed as a part of the record during term time. sured came to his death by suicide, if there is
The record cannot be attacked in that way. some evidence to go to the jury upon the ques-
East Line & R. R. R. Co. v. Culberson (Tex.) tion of insanity, and the jury have, under a
567 fair submission, determined that question in
5. A translation of evidence by the short- the affirmative, the Michigan Supreme Court
hand reporter, not containing the name of the will not disturb the finding. Blackstone v.
cause except by an indorsement on the out- Standard L. & A. Ins. Co. (Mich.)
side, which is not in the handwriting of the
reporter, and is not referred to in the certifi-
cate, and is not identified in any other man
ner.--is not sufficiently identified to become a
part of the record, though inserted in the prop-be (Ind.)

486

14. The permission of leading questions is
much in the discretion of the trial court, and a
case will not be reversed on that account un-
less the discretion was abused. Goudy v. Wer

114