consideration, of blood or marriage, but a deed for a consideration other than blood, that is, a valuable consideration, is a purchase. (Brown v. Whaley, 793.) 7. DEEDS-WHETHER OF GIFT OR PURCHASE.-A deed of real estate from a father and mother to their daughter, "in consideration of our love and affection for our daughter, and in consideration of the faithful obedience and faithful services to us of our said daughter, and in further consideration of one dollar to us in hand paid by our said daughter," is not a deed of gift, but a purchase, and the title acquired under such deed is by purchase. (Brown v. Whaley, 793.) ... 8. DEEDS OF CORPORATION-DEFECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.-An acknowledgment of the deed of a corporation made by individuals instead of by its officers is fatally defective and its registration is void. A subsequent reacknowledgment and reregistration of the deed, after the accrual of another title and after action brought to maintain such title, can have no effect. (Bernhardt . Brown, 725.) 9. EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT A DEED WAS INTENDED AS A MORTGAGE.-Where a deed purports to be absolute, a trial court is justified in requiring clear proof that it was intended as a mortgage. (Falk v. Wittram, 184.) See Trusts, 10. DEFINITIONS. "Aged or infirm person." (Allen v. Pearce, 306.) Criminal contempt. (State v. Circuit Court, 90.) Insurance. (Dover Glass etc. Co. v. American Fire Ins. Co., 204.) "Malicious abuse of process." (Docter v. Reidel, 40.) "Mayhem and maim." (State v. Johnson, 769.) "Original package." (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) Succession tax. (State v. Switzler, 653.) Warehouseman. (Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Kent Mfg. Co., 876.) DEPOSITIONS. See Appeal, 8. DESCENT. See Adoption, 2, 8. DEVISE. DEVISE TRUST-EFFECT OF RELINQUISHMENT OF DEVISE AND FAILURE OF TRUST.-If an absolute devisee relinquishes all claims under the will, except such as may come from a trust thereunder, the devise must fail if no trust is shown, and the property becomes a part of the residuary estate, to be disposed of as if no devise of it had been attempted. (Moran v. Moran, 443.) See Charities, 7-9; Estates. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. DURESS. DURESS OF GOODS.-A lessee who, in compliance with the terms of his lease, has taken out insurance policies, covering the lessor's interests in the property, as well as his own, and who is in a position where he must obtain insurance money at once to enable him to go on with his business and fulfill outstanding contracts or AM. ST. REP., VOL. LX V.-59 suffer great loss, and who pays to the lessor under protest a sum which he does not owe, to induce such lessor to join in executing proofs of loss and in indorsing drafts without which the lessee cannot obtain his insurance money, the policy being payable to both of the parties as their interests shall appear, may recover the amount so paid on the ground that it was paid under duress. (Guetzkow Bros. Co. v. Breese, 83.) EASEMENT. See Waters, 2. EJECTMENT. 1. EJECTMENT MAY BE MAINTAINED BY A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION to recover possession of a street dedicated to a public use, whether it or the adjacent proprietor owns the fee. (San Fra acisco v. Grote, 155.) 2. EJECTMENT.-RENTS AND PROFITS for a period prior to the commencement of an action of ejectment can be recovered only when it is shown that the defendant had knowledge of the plaintiff's claim. (Clarkson v. Hatton, 635.) 3. EJECTMENT-BURDEN OF PROOF.-If the land in dispute in ejectment is within the boundary of plaintiff's deed, and the defendant claims under exceptions to such deed, the burden of proof is upon him to bring himself within such exceptions. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 4. EJECTMENT.-EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION for a period less than prescribed time is not a circumstance to go to the jury as tending to show title in an action of ejectment. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 5. EJECTMENT-PAYMENT OF TAXES AS EVIDENCE OF TITLE.-In an action of ejectment, mere evidence of the payment of taxes is not proof of title in the payor, when he has not connected himself with any outstanding title, or shown adverse possession for the time required. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) EMINENT DOMAIN. 1. EMINENT DOMAIN.-THE RIGHT TO TAKE LANDS ALREADY APPROPRIATED TO ONE PUBLIC USE for the purpose of appropriating them to another exists only when there is a statute clearly conferring such authority. A statute authorizing the laying out of a public highway does not justify taking therefor lands previously devoted to some other public use. (Little Nestucca Road Co. v. Tillamook Co., 802.) 2. EMINENT DOMAIN. THE TAKING OF LAND ALREADY DEVOTED TO ONE PUBLIC USE and appropriating it to another may be authorized by the legislature, but the authority must be conferred by express terms or arise from necessary implication. (Little Nestucca Road Co. v. Tillamook Co., 802.) 3. EMINENT DOMAIN.-PROPERTY ALREADY DEVOTED TO ONE PUBLIC USE cannot be taken for another without first making compensation to the persons interested in the previous public use. Hence, lands used as a public toll road cannot be taken for public highways free from such tolls, unless the owners of the toll road are compensated for moneys expended by them in acquiring the right of way and in making improvements. (Little Nestucca Road Co. v. Tillamook Co., 802.) 4. PLEADING ANTICIPATING DEFENSES.-Ordinarily, a plaintiff need not in his complaint anticipate or negative a possible defense. Hence, where plaintiff seeks to enjoin the taking of his EQUITABLE CONVERSION. See Wills, 5. EQUITY. 1. EQUITY JURISDICTION MAY BE SUSTAINED upon the 2. PRACTICE-EQUITABLE DEFENSES.-The mere sugges- 3. EQUITY.-PARTIES IN PARI DELICTO are not entitled to 4. EQUITY-MISTAKE-REFORMATION OF CONTRACT— 5. EQUITY-MISTAKE AND FRAUD-REFORMATION OF 6. EQUITY-MISTAKE AND FRAUD-REFORMATION OF 7. EQUITY-REFORMATION OF CONTRACT-RATIFICA- DEVISE TO A PERSON NAMED, AND HIS "HEIRS." Jact that he is presumed to have intended a devise of all his interest See Appeal, 9; Partition, 2. ESTOPPEL. ESTOPPEL TO ASSERT SUPERIOR TITLE.-If parties See Building and Loan Associations, 1, 2; Corporations, 5; Husband EVIDENCE. 1. EVIDENCE JUDICIAL NOTICE-POWER OF NOTARY IN 2. EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL NOTICE AS TO PLEADINGS 3. STATUTES OF OTHER STATES-JUDICIAL NOTICE.- 4. STATUTES OF OTHER STATES-PROOF OF.-The statute STATES-PLEADING AND 5. STATUTES OF OTHER 6. ACTIONS-TORTS-PRESUMPTION AS TO STATUTE.-If 7. EVIDENCE-PRESUMPTION FROM SUPPRESSION OR 8. EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECT upon one of plaintiff's eyes 9. EVIDENCE-PROOF OF CONTENTS OF WRITING BY PAROL.-If the fact that a witness has knowledge of the existence of an insurance policy is relevant as affecting her credibility, it may be inquired into, and she may be allowed to state the amount of such policy if she knows it, as a substantive fact independent of the policy. (Kearney v. State, 344.) 10. EVIDENCE-CONFESSIONS.-A LETTER GIVEN BY A PRISONER to the sheriff, to be delivered to a third person, but retained by the sheriff, is admissible in evidence against the writer, if it contains statements amounting to admissions of his guilt. (Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 852.) 11. EVIDENCE-ARTIFICE IN OBTAINING CONFESSIONS DOES NOT RENDER THEM INADMISSIBLE.-Hence if a person accused of murder requests an interview with a girl charged with complicity with him, and, on such interview being granted, two deputy sheriffs are concealed so as to hear what was said, their tes timony and that of the girl is admissible. (Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 852.) See Contracts, 1, 2, 5; Corporations, 7; Deeds, 4, 9; Fraudulent Conveyances, 2; Homestead, 4; Homicide, 1-6, 9; Insurance, 61, 62, 65-67; Marriage and Divorce, 2; Trusts, 8, 9. 1. EXECUTIONS. EXECUTIONS.-AN EXCESSIVE SEIZURE under execu tion of a defendant's property is a fraud upon his rights and void; and a sale by parcels does not cure it, when it appears that the seizure of anyone of the parcels would have been in itself an excessive levy. (Williamson v. White, 302.) STATUTE. — A 2. EXECUTIONS - DIRECTORY statutory requirement that the date of the docketing of judgment shall be stated in the execution issued thereon, is directory merely. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) Sale 3. EXECUTION SALES - DOCKETING JUDGMENT. under an execution levied on realty carries a good title, though the judgment under which the execution issues is not docketed, or the lien of the docketing has expired. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 4. EXECUTIONS-COLLATERAL ATTACK.-Proceedings under a voidable execution cannot be collaterally attacked. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 5. EXECUTIONS.-CLERICAL ERRORS contained in an execution which do not invalidate any other part of it cannot be complained of by strangers to it. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 6. EXECUTION SALES AND SHERIFF'S DEED-REFORMATION OF.-If one parcel of land is intended to be conveyed to a judgment debtor, but another is actually conveyed to him, and he takes and holds possession of that intended to be conveyed, a levy and sale under execution describing the property according to the conveyance is void, and cannot be perfected, assisted, or reformed in equity. (Burrows v. Parker, 812.) 7. EXECUTION SALES-APPLICATION OF PURCHASER TO BE PUT IN POSSESSION-PARTIES BOUND BY PROCEEDING. If, when a purchaser of real estate at execution sale applies to the court for an order requiring the sheriff to put him in possession thereof, one who claims to be the owner of the property appears at the hearing and presents written objections to the granting of such order, he is not, unless actually made a party to such proceeding, bound by any judgment rendered therein. (Williamson v. White, 302.) |