NAXE. Liederkranz Singing Soc. v. Ger- Trademarks....... 88 Wis. 334........... 907 Lockwood v. Wabash R. R. Co...Carriers........ .144 N. Y. 200.... 752 Lovell v. House of the Good Parent and child... 9 Wash. 419... 839 ..... ..... Low v. Rees Printing Co.........Constitutional law.. 41 Neb. 127..... 670 Luebeke v. Berlin Machine Works. Master and servant. 88 Wis. 442..... 913 .Inheritance........100 Mich. 214.... 452 •Specific perform'nce. 163 Pa. St. 381... 800 .Suretyship ....................... 55 Minn. 187.......... 487 } Statute of frauds... 9 Wash. 442.... 844 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin..................Insurance .........104 Cal. 171...... 83 New Pittsburgh Coal etc. Co. v. Master and servant.136 Ind. 398 Judicial sales......122 Mo. 181. Lis pendens........152 Ill. 190...... 233 ·Judgments........... 9 Wash. 481... 855 ...Extortion.................144 N. Y. 119.... 741 ...............................104 Cal. 86 ...... 73 ..Appeal............104 Cal. 126...... 79 ...Fraud. conveyances. 34 Fla. 377...... 202 ...Master and servant.163 Pa. St. 253... 796 ...Judgments........104 Cal. 288 ...... ...... .............. ..... 100 Smith v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co Carriers..........100 Mich. 148.... 440 •Coupon bonds...... 34 Fla. 424...... 209 ...Mechanic's lien.....144 N. Y. 519.... 776 Tubridy v. Wright.......... ........ CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OP ARKANSAS. JONES v. HOARD. [59 ARKANSAS, 42.] ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS-CONTRACT EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE.—If a lease is executed in duplicate, both the landlord and tenant retaining a copy, both copies are originals, and the fraudulent alteration by the tenant of the copy retained by him does not annul the lease, because the remaining copy is sufficient to sustain the contract between the parties. LANDLORD AND TENANT-IMPROVEMENTS.-A tenant cannot recover for improvements erected by him on the leased premises, without the consent and against the protest of the landlord. W. G. Whipple, for the appellant. 44 BATTLE, J. This action was brought in the Pulaski chancery court by Jackson Hoard against George E. Jones to cancel a lease by which Hoard demised to Jones a certain town lot in the city of Little Rock, for three years from the first day of May, 1888, at the annual rent of twenty-four dollars, payable quarterly; and to restrain the lessee from erecting costly improvements on the demised premises. The lease was executed in duplicate, and each party retained a counterpart. By the terms of it the lessee was permitted to build five fences and dig a well on the lot, and the lessor agreed that one-half of the rent should be appropriated to the payment of the expense of 45 building the fences until it was paid in full. The lessor was to pay all taxes and assessments on the lot and improvements; and at the end of the term was to pay for the improvements at their AM. ST. REP., VOL. XLIIL-2 17 |