purposes for which they were rented, for nearly one-half of the complainant's whole term. The law gives no adequate remedy for such a wrong. Successive suits at law, in which only pecuniary damages could be awarded, would give the complainant neither the full measure of his rights, nor justice, but would permit the defendant to deprive the complainant of his rights for such compensation as a jury might see fit to award. The complainant's case presents a strong instance of irreparable injury. All that is meant by that phrase is that the injury shall be a material one, and of such a nature as cannot be adequately redressed by pecuniary damages. Mere inconvenience, resulting in but slight damage, may, in consequence of its peculiar character, constitute an injury so irreparable in its nature as to be the proper subject of redress by injunction. Kerr on Inj. 199, 200. The right involved here is an easement. The complainant, on the undisputed facts of the case, has a right to pass through the defendant's shop to and from the heater. Courts of equity exercise a very liberal jurisdiction in the protection of such rights. Mandatory injunctions may, contrary to the general rule, be issued at the very inception of the suit for the protection of such rights. Rogers Locomotive Works v. Erie Railway Co., 5 C. E. Gr. 379. An inspection of the record in Shivers v. Shivers, reported in 5 Stew. Eq. 578, shows, that a mandatory injunction was granted on filing the bill, and without hearing the defendant, commanding the defendant forthwith to take down and remove a gate, which he had erected across a private way running through his land. Like injunctions have recently been granted in several similar cases. The true rule on this subject, in my judgment, is that declared in Whitecar v. Michenor, 10 Stew. Eq. 6, 14. Chancellor Runyon there said: "The court is always very reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application, but where extreme or very serious damage would ensue from withholding it, as in cases of interference with easements, or other cases demanding immediate relief, it will be granted."

The complainant is entitled to the writ he asks, but it must be so framed as to limit the exercise of his right of passage, to such use of it as may be necessary, to give such care and attention to the heater as shall be required to enable him to have the use of the heater for the purpose of heating the two floors covered by his lease.

NOTE. The recording or non-recording of a lease only affects subsequent rights of parties claiming under or against the landlord without actual notice, and not its validity between the parties thereto, Rev. of N. J. p. 157 § 19; 1 Taylor on L. & T. (8th ed.) § 171; Wood's L. & T. § 222; also, Barnum v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137, 149; Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168; Lake v. Campbell, 18 Ill. 106; Brown v. Matthews, 3 La. Ann. 198; Bridgmans v. Wells, 13 Ohio, 43; Anderson v. Harris, 1 Bail. 315; Enos v. Cook, 65 Cal. 175. But see Anderson v. Critcher, 11 Gill & Johns. 450; Polk v. Reynolds, 31 Md. 106.

As to recording an assignment of a lease, Martindale

v. Price, 14 Ind. 115. See James v. Morey, 2 Cow. 246, 288; Washburn v. Burnham, 63 N. Y. 132; Booth v. Kehoe, 71 N. Y. 341; Ladley v. Creighton, 70 Pa. St. 490.

If the statute requires actual notice, mere constructive notice, as the lessee's possession of the premises, is insufficient, Wilhelm v. Mertz, 4 Greene, 54; City Council v. Page, Spears' Eq. 159, 212; Lamb v. Pierce, 113 Mass. 72. See Smith v. Miller, 63 Tex. 72; Vaughan v. Tracy, 22 Mo. 415; Fowke v. Woodward, Spears' Eq. 233; Brophy Co. v. B. & D. Co., 15 Nev. 101.

As to the effect and extent of notice from the record, Libbey v. Staples, 39 Me. 166; Everman v. Robb, 52 Miss. 653. See Weisberger v. Wisner, 55 Mich. 246; Spielmann v. Kliest, 9 Stew. Eq. 199.

A copy of the registry of a lease, not required by law to be registered, is not evidence, Burnett v. Thompson, 13 Ired. 179, 3 Jones, 113.

A deposit of the lease for record, and the clerk's indorsement of record thereon, is sufficient, although it be not in fact recorded in the proper book, Lewis v. Klotz (La.), 1 So. Rep. 539.

In Kingston Building Assn. v. Rainsford, 10 U. C. Q. B. 236, a statute required all leases for twenty-one years to be recorded. A lease was given for fourteen years to A, with the privilege of renewal for fourteen years longer, which A recorded. Afterwards A assigned his lease for part of the premises to B, which assignment was not recorded; then A mortgaged all the leasehold to C: Held, that the lease was valid without recording, and so was the assignment, and that C, as mortgagee of its interest, was not entitled to a renewal of the lease for the additional fourteen years. See Williams v. Downing, 18 Pa. St. 60. In Latch v. Bright, 16 Grant's Ch. 653, such an unregistered lease, accompanied by the lessee's possession, was held to be valid in respect to the covenanted renewal, as between the lessee and a mortgagee of the lessor.

In Weaver v. Coumbe, 15 Neb. 167, the possession of a tenant under a lease signed by the parties, but not witnessed, acknowledged or recorded, was held valid against a subsequent lessee of the same premises, who had notice thereof when he obtained his own lease.

If a statute prescribes that a lease, for more than seven years, shall not be valid unless recorded, an unrecorded one for ninety-nine years is not good for seven, Brohawn v. Van Ness, 1 Cranch C. C. 366; Clift v. Stockdon, 4 Litt. 215. See Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439; Thomas v. Nelson, 69 N. Y. 118.

In Beebe v. Coleman, 8 Paige, 392, a written unrecorded lease for two years, with the privilege of cutting and carrying away all the wood and timber on the premises, the lessee being in possession, was held valid against a subsequent vendee of the lot, without notice of such lease. See Ferry v. Pfeiffer, 18 Wis. 510; Ala. Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 78 Ala. 158; Smith v. Simmons, 1 Root, 318; and so of a right to dig and remove clay, Sheets v. Allen, 89 Pa. St. 47.

In Whittemore v. Smith, 50 Conn. 376, the statute provided that an unrecorded lease of lands for more than one year should be ineffectual against any other person than the lessor and his heirs. An unrecorded lease was made to A for one year, with the privilege of five. A elected to occupy for five years, and during the second year the premises were conveyed to B, who repeatedly accepted rent afterwards from A. In an action subsequently brought by B to recover possession: Held, that evidence that B knew of the existence of the lease and its terms when he bought was admissible.

The purchaser, under an execution against the landlord, would be entitled to the subsequent rents, even if such purchaser be the tenant himself, Casey v. Gregory, 13 B. Mon. 505; Nellis v. Lathrop, 22 Wend. 121; Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177; Hetzie v. Barber, 69 N. Y. 1; Ryder v. Mansell, 66 Me. 167; Elliott v. Smith, 23 Pa. St. 131; Camley v. Stanfield, 10 Tex. 546; Tilghman v. Little, 13 Ill. 239; Franklin v. Palmer, 50 Ill. 202. See Claiborne v. Holmes, 51 Miss. 146; Matthew's Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 444; Campbell v. Fetterman, 29 W. Va. 398; Houston v. Farris, 71 Ala. 570; Lausman v. Drahos, 10 Neb. 172; Scott v. Levy, 6 Lea, 662.

Where there is no concealment or imposition on the part of the lessor, the lessee must ascertain the means of access to the demised premises at his own peril, Handrahan v. O'Regan, 45 Iowa, 298; Talbot v. Rossin, 23 U. C. Q. B. 170; nor, it seems, would the lessor be bound to communicate knowledge of an intention on the part of an adjoining owner to close the way, Hazlett v. Powell, 30 Pa. St. 293. See Hilliard v. New York Co., 41 Ohio St. 662; Coke v. Gutkese, 80 Ky. 598.

The tenant is liable for the rent, although the access be afterwards cut of by the civil authorities, Lyman v. Snarr, 9 U. C. C. P. 104; Frost v. Earnest, 4 Whart. 86; Post v. Logan, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 59; Eldred v. Leahy, 31 Wis. 546. See Wood's L. & T. 794; 1 Taylor's L. & T. (8th ed.) § 519; 38 Am. Dec. 737; Mills on Em. Dom. § 69; Blyth v. Pratt, 62 Miss. 707.

When a tenant is limited to a way of necessity merely, Harding v. Wilson, 3 D. & R. 287; Skull v. Glenister, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 81; Shuttleworth v. Shaw, 6 U. C. Q. B. 517; Ramirez v. McCormic, 4 Cal. 245; Bennett v. Seligman, 32 Mich. 500; Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 507, 513; 36 Am. Rep. 415; Clancy v. Byrne, L. R. (11 Irish C. L.) 355; Motes v. Bates, 74 Ala. 374; or to one described in the lease as it existed when the lease was made, Crisp v. Price, 5 Taunt. 548; Jackson v. Allen, 3 Cow. 220; Taylor v. Bailey, Wright, 646; or to one afterwards substituted therefor, Blumenthal V. Bloomingdale, 100 N. Y. 558.

A covenant to furnish timber and roads to a saw-mill during the term is not a condition precedent, McCoy v. Hill, 2 Litt. 372; Gourdin v. Davis, 2 McCord, 514. See Newman v. French, 45 Hun, 65; but if the way be partly occupied by the lessors as a railroad track, they are bound to use reasonable care in running their trains over that part, McDermott v. New York Central R. R. Co. 28 Hun, 325. See Nash v. Minneapolis Co., 24 Minn. 501; Gwinnell v. Eamer, L. R. (10 C. P.) 658; 14 Moak, 492; Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545; Wood's L. & T. § 539; 1 Taylor's L. & T. §§ 175, 192.

If the means of access be agreed upon, equity may reform the lease so as to insert it therein if omitted by mistake, Newcomb v. Ketteltas, 19 Barb. 608; 17 N. Y. 491; and for instances of other reformations of leases, see Isenhoot v. Chamberlain, 59 Cal. 631; Silbar v. Ryder, 63 Wis. 106; Paget v. Marshall, L. R. (28 Ch. Div.) 255; Mortimer v. Shortall, 2 Dr. & War. 363; Eaton v. Wilcox, 42 Hun, 61, 67; Anderson v. Tighe, 10 Heisk. 299; Campbell v. Hatchett, 55 Ala. 548.

In Doe v. Burt, 1 T. R. 701, under a demise of certain premises, described as lately in the occupation of A, a cellar thereunder, although it would prima facie have passed, was held not to be included, because the cellar was then occupied by B, another tenant of the lessor. See Smith v. Galloway, 5 B. & Ad. 43; Dyne v. Nutley, 14 C. B. 122; Magee v. Lavell, L. R. (9 C. P.) 107; Martyr v. Lawrence 2 De G., J. & S. 261; Maggart v. Chester, 4 Ind. 124; Trimble v. Ward, 14 B. Mon.

Jackson v. Barringer, 15 Johns. 471; Goodenow v. Allen, 68 Me. 308; Cary v. Thompson, 1 Daly, 35; Olgen v. Jennings, 62 N. Y. 526.

A tenant under a renewed lease was allowed to show that under his former holding he had enjoyed certain privileges, and they were held to be embraced in the second lease, Thomas v. Wiggers, 41 Ill. 470; or to show that the preceding occupant had done so, Kooystra v. Lucas, 3 B. & Ald. 830; Hinchliffe v. Kinnoul, 5 Bing. N. C. 1. See Morris v. Edgington, 3 Taunt. 24.

As to the rights and liabilties of a lessee of a cellar or apartment, see 2 Taylor's L. & T. (8th ed.) § 520; Wood's L. & T. § 394; also Curtiss v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154; Guthman v. Castleberry, 49 Ga. 272; Bentley v. Sill, 35 Ill. 414; Burt v. Boston, 122 Mass. 223; Lothrop v. Thayer, 138 Mass. 466; Lowell v. Strahan (Mass.), 12 N. E. Rep. 401; Krueger v. Ferrant, 29 Minn. 385; Cincinnati College v. La Rue, 22 Ohio St. 469; Alger. v. Kennedy, 49 Vt. 109; Cole v. McKey, 66 Wis. 500; Abrams v. Watson, 59 Ala. 524; Whitaker v. Hawley, 25 Kan. 686; Purcell v. English, 86 Ind. 34; Bissell v. Lloyd, 100 Ill. 214; Snowhill v. Reed, 20 Vr. 292; Lucas v. Coulter, 104 Ind. 81; Simmons v. Thompson, 1 Handy, 521; Gould v. Sub-District, 8 Minn. 427; Dyett v. Pendleton, 8 Cow. 727; Stein v. McArdle, 24 Ala 344; Newby v. Sharpe, L. R. (8 Ch. Div.) 39; Ivay v Hedges, L. R. (9 Q. B. D.) 80; Maclennan v. Royal Ins. Co., 37 U. C. Q. B. 284; Williams v. Herrick, 5 U. C. Q. B. 613; Polack v. Shafer, 46 Cal. 270; Jackson v. Eddy, 12 Mo. 209; Jones v. Willis, 8 Jones, 430; Woods v. Naumkeag Co., 134 Mass. 357; Harrington v. Watson, 11 Oreg. 143; and, also, 29 Alb. L. J. 65: 35 Id. 363.

Where a landlord, having leased property to one tenant, subsequently leases a part of the same premises to another, the first tenant is under no obligation to resist the second by force in taking possession, McElderry v. Flannagan, 1 Harr, & Johus. 308; and the lessor is liable to the first tenant for the damages sustained by the second letting, Child v. Stenning, L. R. (11 Ch. Div.) 82; Clark v. Butt, 26 Ind. 236; Grace v. Haas, 20 La. Ann. 73; Halligan v. Wade, 16 Ill. 507, 21 Ill. 470; MacKellar v. Sigler, 47 How. Pr. 20; Rhodes v. Baird, 16 Ohio St. 573; Maule v. Ashmead, 20 Pa. St. 482; Poposky v. Munkwitz (Wis.), 35 Alb. L. J. 429; 1 Taylor's L. & T. § 177. See Newby v. Harrison, 2 Johns. & H. 393; 4 L. T. (N. S.) 424; Reynolds v. Toronto, U. C. C. P. 276; Crooks v. Dickson, 15 U. C. C. P. 23; Oliver v. Mowatt, 34 U. C. Q. B. 474; Cameron v. Tarratt, 1 U. C. Q. B. 312; Mills v. Sampsel, 53 Mo. 360; Staples v. Flint, 28 Vt. 794; Lanigan v. Kille, 97 Pa. St. 120; and so is the lessor's grantee, Wright v. Lattin, 38 Ill. 293; or agent, Spedding v. Nevell, L. R. (4 C. P.) 212: and the lessor is liable for the costs, Child v. Stenning, L. R. (11 Ch. Div.) 82; or he may be enjoined, Leader v. Moody, L. R. (20 Eq.) 145; Raband v. Frank, 17 Mo. App. 64. See Worthy v. Tate, 44 Ga. 152; Huff v. Markham, 71 Ga. 555; Leopold v. Judson, 75 Ill. 536; Furey v. Gravesend, 104 N. Y. 405; Crowe v. Wilson, 65 Md. 479; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313; Stamps v. Cooley, 91 N. C. 316; O'Conner v. Memphis, 7 Lea, 219, 223.

As to a right of action by the first tenant against the second, see Emerson v. Goodwin, 9 Conn. 422; Hibbard v. Ramsdell, 2 N. Y. State Rep. 141; Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350; Chancey v. Smith, 25 W. Va. 404; McAlester v. Landers, 70 Cal. 79; or by an under lessee against the lessee, Long v. Bowring, 33 Beav. 585.

JOHN H. STEWART

COLORADO...

CONNECTICUT..

GEORGIA....

ILLINOIS

.89, 168, 253 ...128, 140 .8, 9, 32, 180, 183, 277 ....107 INDIANA.........36, 91, 118, 119, 126, 134, 187, 220, 250, 252, 271 IOWA...5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 27, 35, 37, 46, 51, 57, 58, 62, 71, 80, 83, 85 105, 113, 114, 130, 162, 163, 164, 207, 221, 241, 244, 247, 256, 276 KANSAS.. ..13, 15, 28, 152, 203, 214, 234, 267, 275

KENTUCKY..

LOUISIANA.

MAINE.

MARYLAND....

.49, 77, 88, 103 .3, 95, 206, 260 .39, 146, 150, 151, 245 ..181

MICHIGAN..16, 42, 48, 52, 69, 73, 75, 76, 81, 86, 101, 104, 110, 123 136, 145, 153, 161, 167, 191, 217, 222, 229, 230, 251, 262, 263, 270 279,285.

MINNESOTA

.7, 29, 78, 99, 109, 133, 144, 176, 186, 232, 2 '5, 240 255, 261, 278. MISSISSIPPI

.197 MISSOURI........33, 59, 65, 82, 87, 9, 111, 135, 199, 208, 242, 248 NEW HAMPSHIRE... ....116, 184, 258, 264 NEW JERSEY....17, 26, 34 43, 54, 66, 112, 117, 148, 169, 215, 287 NEW YORK..... ..22, 50.63, 200, 210, 269, 272 ..25, 38, 84, 122 .....175

NORTH CAROLINA...... OHIO................

When

5. APPEAL-Abstract of Evidence-Review. the abstract on appeal professes to contain all the evidence of the opposing party, but shows on its face that the claim is not correct, the questions of fact in the cause are not open to review.-Hart v. Hart, S. C. Iowa, May 18, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 375.

6. APPEAL-Assignment of Error There being at least three distinct points in a demurrer, an assignment of error that the court erred in sustain ing defendant's demurrer to the original petition is not sufficiently specific, under Iowa law. - Town of Waukon v. Strouse, S. C. Iowa, May 26, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 408.

When

8. APPEAL- Bill of Exceptions - Service. there is no evidence of the service of the bill of excep. tions upon defendant in error, except an indorsement thereon by plaintiff's counsel to that effect, and no appearance by the defendant, the appeal will be dismissed.-Westfield v. Toccoa City, S. C. Ga., May 7, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 471.

9. APPEAL-Findings-Review.

Where the superior court sustains the findings of a justice's court on a question of fact, the findings will not be reversed on appeal.-Mc Williams v. Ambrose, S. C. Ga., May 4, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 467.

10. APPEAL-Jurisdiction-Certificate.- When less than $100 is involved in a case, if the judge's certificate, under Iowa law, fails to aver that the cause involved the determination of certain questions of law, upon which the court should pass, the supreme court will acquire no jurisdiction of the appeal.-Beach v. Donovan, S. C. Iowa, May 25, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 404.

11. APPEAL-Jurisdictional Amount.- -The jurisdic tion, on appeal, of the Supreme Court of Appeal is de termined, not by the amount which may come in question, but by the amount of the plaintiff's claim, or that by which defendant can discharge himself, and this must not only be of the value of $.00, but the controversy in relation to matter of that value must be continued on appeal.-Hawkins v. Gresham, S. C. App. Va., May 10, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 472.

12 APPEAL-Record-Evidence in Equity Case.A certificate that the cause was submitted upon packages of depositions filed at a certain date, does not suffciently identify the evidence to allow it to be considered on appeal, under Code Iowa, 1880, § 2742.-Runge v. Hahn, S. C. Iowa, May 23, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 389.

13. APPEAL-Review-Demurrer to Evidence. -When a demurrer to the evidence has been overruled, such ruling will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is shown that no competent evidence was given at the trial tending to support the issues.-Missouri, etc. R. Co. v. Pierce, S. C. Kan., May 4, 1888; 18 Pac. Rep. 305. 14. APPEAL-Review Weight of Evidence.law action, when the only question is one of fact and there is a fair conflict of evidence, the findings will not be disturbed on appeal.-McCormick v. Lundburg, S. C. Iowa, May 28, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 409.

-In a

When

15. APPEAL-Review-Weight of Evidence.plaintiff proves a prima facie case, some of his facts being proved by circumstantial evidence, and one of his witnesses contradicts some of his circumstantial evidence, and no other evidence is introduced, the court may rightfully overrule a demurrer to the evidence and sustain the jury's verdict for the plaintiff.Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Foster, S. C. Kan., May 4, 1888; 18 Pac. Rep. 285.

16. ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS Jurisdiction by Consent. Under Michigan law, when a dispute arises between an assignee for the benefit of creditors and a third person as to the ownership of certain per

sonal property, the circuit court in chancery has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question upon a submission by the parties and an agreement to abide by its decision.-Sawyer v. McAdie, S. C. Mich., May 18, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 292.

17. ATTACHMENT-Conflict of Laws.-—————————— The law of the State in which personal property is situated control its liability to be seized and sold upon attachment or execution, although all the parties are non-residents of that State.-Cronan v. Fox, N. J. Ct. Err. & App., May 23, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 119.

18. ATTACHMENT-Damages for-Fraudulent Convey. ances. In an action for damages for wrongful attachment of property, claimed by defendant to have been conveyed to plaintiff in fraud of creditors, the burden of proving the fraud rests upon the defendant. -Freiberg v. Elliott, S. C. Tex., May 4, 1888; 8 S. W. Rep. 322.

19. ATTACHMENT-Motion to Dissolve.A motion to dissolve an attachment for rent is for the court, but not for the jury, but if the jury finds thereon under instructions, defendant cannot claim such irregularity as a ground to set aside the order dismissing the motion. -Harmon v. Jenks, S. C. Ala., May 18, 1888; 4 South. Rep. 260.

Compensation.

An

21. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT attorney who had been regularly employed by his client, and had ceased to hold that relation to him, cannot recover for services which he afterwards voluntarily performs for him.-Safford v. Vermont, etc. Co., S. C. Vt., May 24, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 91.

22. BILLS AND NOTES-Acceptance-Bill of Lading.Circumstances stated under which a party accepting a draft, to be accompanied by bills of lading of hemp shipped, was held not to be liable on his acceptance because the hemp so said to be shipped proved upon its arrival to be merely matting.- Bank of Montreal v. Recknagel, N. Y. Ct. App., June 5, 1888; 17 N. E. Rep. 217. 23. BILLS AND NOTES-Negotiable. A draft in the following words: Mr. L: Please pay to K $500, and charge same to account. P-accepted by the drawee and indorsed by the payee, is not negotiable, and need not be protested to bind the indorser.-Kampmann v. Williams, S. C. Tex., May 1, 1888; 8 S. W. Rep. 310.

24. BOROUGH- Sidewalk. Circumstances stated under which a borough may cause a sidewalk to be relaid and require the owner of the abutting property to pay the cost of it.-Smith v. Borough of Kingston, S. C. Penn., May 14, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 170.

25. BOUNDARIES-Declarations of Grantor-Res Gestæ. -When defendant in trespass for cutting timber claimed under a deed executed by plaintiff's deceased ancestor, in which the boundaries of the land were ambiguously described, testimony by the grantee therein as to declarations by the grantor at the time, assented to by him, that the tract in dispute was reserved, is admisssible as part of the res gesta to aid the jury in identifying the boundaries.-Roberts v. Preston, S. C. N.-Car., May 14, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 574.

a lost quarter section corner.-Anderson v. Peterson, S. C. Iowa, May 17, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 386.

28. BOUNDARIES-Survey-County Surveyor.—Where the boundary line between two quarter sections of land is in dispute, in an action of trespass to determine the boundary and the rights of the parties to the disputed liue, the record of a survey thereof by the county surveyor is admissible, although not made in strict conformity with the law.-Holliday v. Maddox, S. C. Kan., May 4, 1888; 18 Pac. Rep. 299.

31. CARRIERS-Receiving Freight-Boycotting. The federal courts will enforce by a mandatory injunction the duty of common carriers to receive freight from connecting lines, though their employees may leave if they do so.-Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Burlington, etc. R. Co., U. S. C. C. (Iowa), March 23, 1888; 34 Fed. Rep. 481. 32. CERTIORARI Justice of the Peace. Where facts are involved in a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in an action involving less than $50, certiorari will not lie to review such judgment when no appeal was taken to a jury in a justice's court.- Wynne v. Durden, S. C. Ga., May 4, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 470. 33. CHARITIES-Cy Pres-Equity. A gift of real estate to an historical society and academy of science, being for the promotion of science and the education and benefit of mankind, is valid as a charity, though not so denominated in the gift. A court of equity in such case, under the doctrine of cy pres, can order a sale of the property, to allow each society to erect a building for itself, it being impracticable to erect a building thereon for their joint use, as intended by the donor in the gift.-Missouri H. S. v. Academy of Science, S. C. Mo., Feb. 20, 1888; 8 S. W. Rep. 346.

34. CHARITIES Will - Public Policy.A bequest designed to promote the distribution of books, in which the owners of land are charged with holding their property by mere robbery, is not such a charity as a court of equity will assist.-Hutchins, etc. v. George, N. J. Ct. Chan., May 21, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 108.

35. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Description-Certainty.In a chattel mortgage, certain farm wagons were described as eleven Smith farm wagons, four Ketchum farm wagons. The mortgagor at the time had just this number of wagons: Held, that the mortgage is not void for indebtedness as against the grantor or any adverse claimant having notice of the transaction.-Clapp v. Trobridge, S. C. Iowa, May 26, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 411.

36. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Foreclosure.

Where, at

an unimpeached foreclosure sale, mortgaged chattels are bought by the mortgagor, the price paid fixes the value of the property as to junior mortgages.-Dehority v. Paxson, S. C. Ind., May 30, 1888; 17 N. E. Rep. 259.

37. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Future Crops.- A chattel mortgage upon crops to be raised in the future is valid. and attaches to the crops as soon as they come into existence.-Norris v. Hix, S. C. Iowa, May 24, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 395.

38. CHATTEL MORTGAGE-Sales-Accepting Benefits.— Where a mortgagor is directed by the mortgagee to prepare the mortgaged crops for market, and to do so sells cotton included in the mortgage to a person, who ships it to the defendant, the mortgagee having received the benefit of the mortgagor's acts, the mortgagee's agent in selling the cotton cannot maintain an action for the conversion of such cotton.-Etheridge v. Hilliard, S. C. N. Car., May 14, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 571.

39. CONDITIONAL SALE-Recording.

A conditional

Lookout.

41. COLLISION-Steam and Sail Held, that the collision in this case of a steamer with a sail vessel was due to the failure to keep a proper lookout on the steamer.-The Atlas, U. S. D. C. (N. Y.), March 7, 1888; 34 Fed. Rep. 543.

42. CONFUSION OF GOODS-Retaking.- Where A cut logs on B's land, supposing he was on his own land, and mixed them with his own logs, so that they could not be identifled, B had a right to select from the mass a quantity of an average quality with his own, equal to the quantity taken from his land.-Gates v. Rifle B. Co., S. C. Mich., May 18, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 245.

43. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Assessment-Mortgage. A statute which prescribes the mode of assessing prop. erty mortgaged to a certain official person is unconsti tutional, being in violation of the provision that all property shall be assessed for taxes by the same equal rule.-Dunham v. Cox, N. J. Ct. Err. & App., May 23, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 123.

46. CONTRACTS-Gambling- Future Deliveries. Owners of corn sold it for future delivery, intending to ship it to cover their contracts, but afterwards, desiring more time, bought in and resold on like contracts: Held, that the transaction was not illegal.-Douglas S. & F. v. Smith, S. C. Iowa, May 17, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 163.

47. CONTRACT-Good Title.- A contract to convey a good title to land means a title free from litigation, palpable defects and grave doubts, consisting of both legal and equitable titles, and fairly deducible of record.-Turner v. McDonald, S. C. Cal., May 19, 1888; 18 Pac. Rep. 262.

48. CONTRACT - Warranty Latent Ambiguity. Under a guaranty in the sale of an engine that the saving of fuel should be equal to that claimed for the Corliss, evidence of that the parties understood the claim to be is admissible.- Wickes v. Swift, etc. Co., S. C. Mich., May 18, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 299.

49. CORPORATIONS-Charters-Legislative Control.A was authorized by its charter to construct a street railroad in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the city might by contract or otherwise prescribe. The city was authorized to contract for the construction of street railways: Held, that the legisla ture might authorize other companies to go on the same streets or upon A's track.-Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., Ky. Ct. App., May 10, 1888; 8 S. W. Rep.

329.

50. CORPORATION -Stock-Subscription - Fraud.Circumstances stated under which a subscriber to the stock of a corporation was held not to be guilty of fraud upon his cosubscribers because of his non.com. pliance with certain requirements expressed in the charter.-Meyer v. Blair, N. Y. Ct. App., June 5, 1888; 17 N. E. Rep. 228.

51. COSTS-Criminal Case-County. In the absence of a statutory provision for taxation to the county of

the costs incurred by defendant in preparation of the transcript on appeal from a judgment of conviction, an order, after reversal and procedendo, taxing such costs to the county is void, and may be corrected.-State v. Rainsbarger, S. C. Iowa, May 25, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 403. 52. COSTS Mutual Insurance Companies Assessment.- -The receiver of a mutual fire insurance company, who sues in the court of his appointment for an assessment not paid, recovers his costs, although the judgment be for less than $100.-Bacon v. Clyne, S. C. Mich., May 11, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 207.

Under

53. COSTS-Person not a Party-Taxation. South Carolina law, a court can only tax costs against a person not a party to the suit after rule to show cause and opportunity given for the person to be heard.— State v. Marshall, S. C. S. Car., April 30, 1888; 6 S. E. Rep. 564.

54. COST-Taxation of Costs. Ruling as to the taxation of cost in relation to making a map.-Booveam v. North, etc. Co., N. J. Ct. Chan., May 16, 1888; 14 Atl. Rep. 106.

55. COUNTIES-Taxation-Sales.-A sale of lands on which a county hold tax-receipts, not in conformity with the resolution of the county board, made by the clerk, is void.-Rice v. Ashland, etc. Co., S. C. Wis., May 12, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 183.

56. CREDITOR'S BILL-Legal Remedy.-A bill by a judgment creditor, showing that when the execution was returned unsatisfied and when the bill was filed there was property within the knowledge of the creditor subject to levy on execution, fails to show that the legal remedy has been exhausted, and is demurrable.Merchants' N. Bank v. Sabin, U. S. C. C. (Minn.), April 4, 1888; 30 Fed, Rep. 492.

57. CRIMINAL LAW-Appeal- Review. In a criminal case, where the transcript does not show the evidence and no error appears in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.-State v. Clayton, S. C. Iowa, May 22, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 372.

When ap

58. CRIMINAL LAW-Appeal-Review. pellants submit their case without exceptions or argument, and no errors are found in the record, the court is not required to imagine possible objections and to present reasons supporting the ruling.-State v. Kramer, S. C. Iowa, May 23, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 382.

59. CRIMINAL LAW-Assault with Intent to Kill-Different Offenses. An indictment charging that, with malice aforethought, four persons named shot at nine other persons named, with intent to kill, is not invalid as charging nine different offenses in one count, and one may be convicted and the others acquitted, though the proof shows that the assault was made on only one of the nine.-State v. Rambo. S. C. Mo., May 21, 1888; 8 S. W. Rep. 365.

60. CRIMINAL LAW-Bribery-Separate Trials.Under Utah laws, when two persons are jointly indicted for bribery, under Rev. Stat. U. S. § 5451, they are entitled upon demand to separate trials.-United States v. Jones, S. C. Utah, May 2, 1888; 13 Pac. Rep. 233.

61. CRIMINAL LAW-Burglary-Negative Allegations.An information, under Rev. Stat. Wis. 1878, § 4409, for breaking and entering in the night, etc., need not allege the negative description.-Gundy v. State, S. C. Wis., May 12, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 328.

62. CRIMINAL LAW-Conviction- Sentence for Lesser Crime. Where a jury convicts the defendant under an indictment for an assault with intent to commit murder, but the court thinks the evidence only warrants a conviction for an assault with intent to commit mansiaughter, the penalty for the lesser crime may be imposed by the court.-State v. Keasling, S. C. Iowa, May 24, 1888; 38 N. W. Rep. 397.

63. CRIMINAL LAW-Former Jeopardy-New Trial.One convicted of one degree of a crime, of which by statute there are several degrees, by obtaining a new trial places himself in the position he was in before the first trial, and may be convicted of a higher degree of crime than that of which he was convicted upon the