་ DIVORCE AND ALIMONY. Continued. BILL FOR DIVORCE. What other matters may be included. See CHANCERY, 1. EFFECT ON ESTATE BY THE ENTIRETY. Concerts it to one in common. See MARRIED WOMEN, 5. DOWER. ACCRETIONS TO RIPARIAN ESTATE. 1. The widow of one who, during coverture, was a riparian proprie. tor, becomes dowable, upon his death, in the accretions to the riparian estate. Gale v. Kinzie, 132. ELECTION. FOR ADOPTION OF CHARTER. 1. Omission to submit minority representation. An election in a city to determine the question of becoming incorporated under the act of 1872, is not invalid on account of the city authorities failing, in the or dinance calling such election and in the notices thereof, to submit at the same time the question of minority representation. City of Chicago v. The People ex rel. 496. 2. The statute itself submits the question of minority representation in the city council, at the same time and place that the question of becoming incorporated under the general law of 1872 is submitted, and a vote upon minority representation, at such election, is rightful and legal, without any formal submission or notice thereof. Ibid. 496. 3. Sufficiency of notice of election. The statute providing for an election in cities upon the question of incorporation under the act of 1872, requires the mayor and common council to submit the question on the requisite petition, and to appoint a time and place or places at which the vote may be taken, and that the mayor shall give at least thirty days' notice of such election, etc., but there is no requirement that the notice shall state the places where the election shall be held, or that the question of minority representation is to be voted upon. Therefore, when the places of holding the election are in fact appointed, the proceedings being published, and the notice of the election fails to state the places of voting, the election will not be rendered invalid because the places of voting are not specified in the notice. Ibid. 496. 4. Effect of change as to places of holding election. A change in the places of holding an election in a city, of the question of becoming incorporated under the act of 1872, after notice of the election is given, owing to the fact that in several wards the rooms indicated could not be procured, when the resolution making such changes is published in the corporation newspaper before the day of election, will not invalidate the election so held. Ibid. 496. ELECTION. FOR ADOPTION OF CHARTER. Continued. The fact 5. Irregularities and frauds do not necessarily vitiate. that there are gross irregularities and frauds on the part of the judges of election, in several wards in a city, will not necessarily render the election void. Such irregularities and frauds may furnish grounds for rejecting the returns from such wards as evidence of the votes cast, but this may not change the result as canvassed and announced. City of Chicago v. The People ex rel. 496. ERROR. INTERLOCUTORY DECREE, NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW. See PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT, 1. ESTOPPEL. ITS APPLICATION, GENERALLY. 1. Where an act is done or a statement made by a party, which can not be contradicted or contravened without fraud on his part and injury to others whose conduct has been influenced by the act or statement, the character of estoppel will attach to what would otherwise be mere matter of evidence, and the party will be concluded from denying or disproving it. International Bank, etc. v. Bowen et al. 541. TO SHOW PAYMENT. 2. To show that notes secured by trust deed were paid. Where a party purchased land upon which there was a deed of trust to secure the payment of two notes of $5000 each, the payment of which he assumed, and which he did pay, and obtained a release from the trustee, and afterwards procured a loan of $5000 of a bank, giving these notes as collateral security, the bank having no notice of their payment or of the release, and such loan was procured by his and others' acts and representations leading to the belief that the notes were unpaid, and the deed of trust still a valid and subsisting lien: Held, that the borrower and those co-operating with him to create such belief and cause the loan, were, in equity, estopped from showing and insisting upon the fact of the payment of the notes, and the release, and that the bank was entitled to a foreclosure of the trust deed, to the extent of the sum due on such loan, but not for other indebtedness of the borrower. Ibid. 541. APPLIES TO AN ASSIGNEE. 3. From one having notice. Where a party purchases notes, secured by deed of trust, of a bank, whose officers are estopped from showing the release of a prior deed of trust and payment of the indebtedness secured, against another bank loaning money on the faith of the prior trust deed being valid, such purchaser, in equity, will stand in no better position than the bank of whom he purchased. Ibid. 541. AS AGAINST PURCHASER. 4. By failing to give notice of claim. A purchaser of lots without notice of any infirmity in the title, who makes valuable improvements ESTOPPEL. AS AGAINST PURCHASER. Continued. thereon under the daily observation of one claiming an equitable right to the property who neglects to give notice of his claim, will be protected against such claim. Eldridge v. Walker et al. 270. OF INSURANCE COMPANY. To insist on forfeiture of policy. See INSURANCE, 22, 23. TO QUESTION A ROAD. By receiving damages. See HIGHWAYS, 6. EVIDENCE. PAROL EVIDENCE. 1. To show service or publication of notice. If the service upon defendants is by summons, verbal testimony can not be received to prove or aid it, but if the service is by publication of notice, parol evidence may be received to show the notice was duly published. Harris v. Lester et al. 307. 2. To vary written articles. Where articles of partnership showed, by their legal effect, that the interests of the several partners were equal in the whole capital stock, including a house and machinery put in by one, in the absence of any allegation in the pleadings showing fraud or mistake, it was held, that parol evidence to show that the parties intended their interests should be different, was properly excluded. Taft et al. Schwamb, 289. 3. To supply defect in written contract from its generality. It is competent for the parties to a written contract to supply any supposed defect in the contract, as to the quantity of the work to be done, by parol testimony. Donlin v. Daeglin et al. 608. 4. Where a party contracted, in writing, to do the mason work in rebuilding a court house which had been burned, the walls still standing, according to plans and specifications to be furnished, the contract failing to show how much of the old wall was to be taken down and rebuilt, it was held, that parol evidence was admissible to show the extent of the work as contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was made, and that such testimony did not vary the written agreement. Ibid. 608. 5. To show that a deed is a mere security. Parol evidence is competent to show that a deed, absolute on its face, is taken merely as a security for the repayment of money advanced as a loan, but the evidence must be clear and satisfactory. Low et al. v. Graff et al. 360. 6. To show other insurance. It is competent, in an action on an insur. ance policy, to prove by parol evidence that the assured had obtained insurance in other companies on the same property. Knickerbocker Insurance Co. v. Gould et al. 388. 7. To avoid acknowledgment of deed. See ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF DEEDS, 1. EVIDENCE. Continued. ADMISSIONS. 8. Weight as evidence, a matter for the consideration of a jury. Whilst it may be true, as a general rule, that evidence of the admissions of parties is unsatisfactory, it is not necessarily and per se of that character. It may or may not be so, according to the circumstances attending it, from which the jury are to determine what weight it is entitled to, without any interference in that respect on the part of the court. Straubher et al. v. Mohler, 21. DECLARATIONS AND PROMISES OF PRINCIPAL. 9. As against surety. Where a joint suit is brought against the principal and surety in a promissory note, but the surety alone is in court, and the principal testifies, as a witness, that the note has been paid, evidence as to any promise or declarations made by the principal after the time he testified the note was paid, is not competent against the surety, the principal, in such case, not being a party to the action. Kirkpatrick v. Howk, 122. 10. Where one of the makers of a promissory note, who was not a party to an action brought on it, testified on behalf of another maker, who was a party, that the note had been paid, and no inquiry was made of him in relation to any promises or declarations made by him subsequent to the time of the alleged payment, so as to make evidence of such promises or declarations admissible for the purpose of impeaching his testimony, evidence in regard to such promises or declarations was properly excluded. Ibid. 122. PROOF OF MARRIAGE. 11. May be shown by reputation. Proof of actual marriage is required in two cases only: in a prosecution for bigamy, and in an action for criminal conversation. In other cases the presumption of marriage may be indulged in from cohabitation, name, reputation, and other circumstances. Miller et al. v. White, 580. 12. In trespass by a woman for breaking and entering her house, removing her goods and chattels, and dispossessing her under a writ of restitution, issued upon a judgment in a forcible detainer case against the lessee after the expiration of the term, the plaintiff claimed to be a sub-lessee, although the original tenant still continued in occupancy as before and furnished the supplies; on the trial the defendants offered to prove, by general reputation in the neighborhood, that the original tenant and the plaintiff, if not, in fact, married, were cohabiting on the premises as man and wife, which the court refused to admit: Held, that the court erred in rejecting the evidence. Ibid. 580. PROOF OF MORAL CHARACTER. 13. When admissible. The general rule as to the admissibility of evidence of moral character and conduct of a person in society, confines such proof to three classes, viz: 1, to afford a presumption that a particular party has or has not been guilty of a criminal act; 2, to 41-80TH ILL. EVIDENCE. PROOF OF MORAL CHARACTER. Continued. affect the damages in particular cases, where their amount depends upon the character and conduct of any individual; and 3, to impeach or confirm the veracity of a witness. Berdell v. Berdell, 604. RECITALS IN DECREE. 14. To show jurisdiction. The recitals in a decree or order are proper evidence to show jurisdiction, in a collateral proceeding. Bowen et al. v. Bond et al. 351. 15. Sufficiency of recital to show. Where an order for the sale of land by an administrator recited, "and now, on this day, came the petitioners, by Cheney, their attorney, and made proof of the service of notice according to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided:" Held, that this was sufficient to show service of notice of the application, together with a copy of the account and petition as authorized by the Revised Statutes of 1845, and gave the court jurisdiction of the parties. Ibid. 351. FILES AND PAPERS OF DIFFERENT SUIT. 16. Suit on replevin bond. In a suit upon a replevin bond, the affidavit, declaration, writ and indorsements thereon, and other papers and files in the replevin suit, when identified, and the judgment, are admissible in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Stevison et al. v. Earnest, 513. RECORD AND FILES OF OTHER COURTS. 17. While it is improper in the clerk of a court to allow the records or files in a cause to be taken from his custody to be used in the courts of a different county, yet if they are produced in another court and identified, they are admissible in evidence. Ibid. 513. ANSWER IN CHANCERY. 18. After it has been withdrawn. Where a party withdraws his answer to a bill for divorce, and suffers a decree to pass for want of an answer, he can not, afterwards, in a contest as to the custody of a child, read the same in evidence, as it ceases to exist as an answer after withdrawal. Wilkinson v. Deming, 342. TO EXPLAIN OR CONTRADICT RECORD. 19. The record of a court can never be contradicted, varied or explained by evidence beyond or outside the record itself. The record must be tried and construed by itself. This rule applies to evidence to contradict the finding of a court as to its jurisdiction by the due publication of notice. Harris v. Lester et al. 307. TO PROVE EXISTENCE OF HIGHWAY. 20. Record of judgment for obstructing. The record of a judgment recovered against a party in a suit by the town authorities for obstructing a highway, is not conclusive evidence of the existence of a public highway at a point in dispute, in a suit by the owner of land to enjoin |