spiracy is within the discretion of the trial judge, reviewable only
in case of abuse. Heike v. United States, 131.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19;

JURISDICTION.

ASSIGNMENTS.

See PUBLIC LANDS, 25.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.
See PRACTICE AND Procedure, 4.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
See PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS.

BAIL.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 3.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Acting or forbearing to act under § 29b 5 of Bankruptcy Act; what
constitutes.

In the absence of any proof to that effect in the record, a promise by

the bankrupt made between the petition and the discharge to pay
the balance of his provable debt to one of his creditors who ad-
vanced money to enable him to effect a composition without
obtaining any undue preference over the other creditors, will not
be regarded as an act of extortion or attempted extortion in viola-
tion of § 29b 5 of the Bankruptcy Act, prohibiting acting or for-
bearing to act in bankruptcy proceedings. Zarelo v. Recres, 625.

2. Compositions; acquisition of money for; use of bankrupt's credit.
As § 12 of the Bankruptcy Act requires that money for effecting the
composition be deposited before the application to authorize it,
it contemplates that the bankrupt may acquire such money by
use of his credit. Ib.

3. Discharge; effect of, on liability under new promisc.

A discharge, while releasing the bankrupt from legal liability to pay a
provable debt, leaves him under a moral obligation that is suffi-
cient to support a new promise to pay it. Ib.

4. Discharge; effect on debt and remedy.

The theory of bankruptcy is that the discharge does not destroy the
debt but does destroy the remedy. Ib.

5. Discharge; relation.

As a general rule, the discharge when granted relates back to the in-
ception of the proceeding, and the bankrupt becomes a free man
as to new transactions as of the date of the transfer of his property
to the trustee. Ib.

6. Discharge; relation.

This court by promulgating General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy
construed § 63a 4 as confining the discharge to provable debts
existing on the day of the petition and having it relate back
thereto. Ib.

7. Discharge; provable debts included in.

Obligations created after the filing of the petition and before the dis-
charge are not provable under § 63 and therefore are not included
in the discharge. Ib.

8. Intent to defraud and intent to prefer differentiated.
There is a difference between intent to defraud and intent to prefer—
the former is malum per se and the latter malum prohibitum and
only to the extent forbidden. Van Iderstine v. National Discount
Co., 575.

9. Preferences; intent to defraud; general verdict in equity case held not to
be finding of.

A general verdict in an equity case to declare a payment to be a fraud-
ulent preference in favor of the trustee, which was only advisory,
and which was practically demanded by the instructions of the
court, cannot be treated as a finding of intent by the bankrupt to
defraud, of which intent defendant had notice. Ib.

10. Preferences; transfer of securities to secure loan to one immediately
thereafter becoming bankrupt.

A bona fide transfer of securities to secure a loan made to one who im-
mediately thereafter becomes a bankrupt is not an illegal prefer-
ence where the person making the loan has no knowledge that the
borrower intends to defraud any of his creditors, even though he
may know that the whole or part of the money loaned is to be
used to pay some of his debts. Ib.

11. Promise to pay provable debt; validity of.

Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 an express promise to pay a prov-
able debt is good although made after the petition and before the
discharge. Zavelo v. Reeres, 625

See APPEAL And Error, 2;

JURISDICTION, A 7, 8; B; C 2,4, 4.

BAY-WINDOWS

See PARTY WALLS

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See APPEAL AND ERROR, 67, 8.
COURTS.

BILL OF PARTICULARS.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 5.

BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS.

1. Liability on bond given to secure performance of contract.
In this case held that a bond given in pursuance of an ordinance, for
faithful performance of a contract, was solely for the complete
result at the end of the period specified, and that it did not permit
a recovery of the whole penalty upon any intermediate breach.
Porto Rico v. Title Guaranty Co., 382.

2. Liability on bond given to secure performance of contract.
Breaches of subordinate requirements, which are specified in a contract

for a public utility and bond for performance and are simply
means to an end, cannot be made the basis of recovering the whole
penalty after final completion or after cancellation by the obligee
of the franchise. Ib.

3. Liability of surety where performance of contract prevented by obligee.
If within time for completion of a public utility authorized by ordi-

nance, the municipality itself makes performance impossible, it
cannot, under any system of law in Porto Rico or elsewhere, re-
cover upon the bond for tanure to perform. Ib.

BOUNDARIES.

See INDIANS, 6

STATUTES, A 9;

TREATIES, 3.

BUILDING REGULATIONS.
See PARTY WALLS;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, S

BURDEN OF PROOF.

As to denial of equal protection of law through classification.

The burden is on the one who complains of his classification under a

legal ordinance to show that he was denied equal protection of the
law by such classification. Bradley v. Richmond, 477.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 7.

CALLS BOUNDING LAND.

See TREATIES, S

CARMACK AMENDMENT.

See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 3, 4. 7, 22-27, 32, 45.

CARRIERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 6; LOCAL LAW (Utah);

INTERSTATE COMMERCE;

RAILROADS;

RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

CASES APPROVED.

Hastings & Dakota Ry. Co. v. Arnold, 26 L. D. 538, approved in Svor
v. Morris, 524.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Baltimore v. Trust Co., 166 U. S. 673, distinguished in Grand Trunk
Western Ry. Co. v. South Bend, 544.

Barney v. New York, 193 U. S. 430, distinguished in Home Tel. & Tel.
Co. v. Los Angeles, 278.

Emert v. Missouri, 155 U. 3. 296, distinguished in Crenshaw v. Arkansas,
389.

Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, distinguished in
New York Central & Hudson River R. Ro, v. Hudson County, 248.
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Teras, 204 U. S. 403, distinguished in Texas &
New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 111.

McMichael v. Murphy, 197 U. S. 304, distinguished in Robinson v.
Lundrigon, 173

CASES FOLLOWED.

Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, followed in Wells,
Fargo & Co. v. Neiman-Marcus Co., 469; Kansas City Southern
Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639; Missouri, Kansa, & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harri
man, 657:

American R. R. Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 547, followed in American R. R.
Co. v. Didricksen, 145.

Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills; 219 U. S. 186, followed in Kansas

City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639.

Barrett v. United States, 169 U. S. 231, followed in Matheson v. United
States, 540.

Bennett v. United States, 227 U. S. 333, followed in Harris v. United

States, 340.

Bierce v. Hutchins, 205 U. S. 340, followed in Zimmerman v. Harding,
489.

Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 227 U. S. 445, followed in Foreman v.
Meyer, 452.

Chicago & Alton Ry. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, followed in Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639.

Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, followed in Chicago,
R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 184.

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426,
followed in Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 1;
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Edwards, 265.

Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, followed in Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co.
v. Sabine Tram Co., 111.

Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, followed in Rogers v. Arkansas,
401.

Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 165 U. S. 373, followed in Mathe-
son v. United States, 540.

Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, followed in Mengel v.
Mengel, 674.

Estes v. Timmins, 199 U. S. 391, followed in Ross v. Stewart, 530.
Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663, followed in Ex parte McGee, 675.
Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, followed in. Home Tel. & Tel Co. v.
Angeles, 278.

Los

Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100, followed in Mengel v. Mengel, 674.
Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, followed in Johnson v. Hou, 245.
Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, followed in Hoke
v. United States, 308.

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, followed in Gulf,
C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Thorn, 674.

Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, followed in Bradley v. Richmond,
477.

Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, followed in Hampton v. St. L., I. M.
& S. Ry. Co., 456.

Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, followed in Hoke v.
United States, 308.

Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, followed in Athanasaw v.
United
States, 326; Bennett v. United States, 333; Harris v. United States,
340.

Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 329, followed in
Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Greenwood Grocery Co., 1.

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, followed in Mis-
souri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 657.