years in a mutual insurance company, and a part of it is destroyed 59. AGENCY.-KNOWLEDGE OF A LOCAL INSURANCE 60. INSURANCE.-AN ACTION BY A MORTGAGEE may be 61. INSURANCE-FIRE-ACTION ON POLICY-ADMISSIBLE 62. INSURANCE-FIRE-ACTION ON POLICY-HARMLESS 63. INSURANCE-REFUSAL TO PAY LOSS-LIABILITY.—If 64. INSURANCE, LIFE-ACTION-DIRECTION OF VERDICT. 65. INSURANCE-LIFE-POLICY AS EVIDENCE.-In an action 66. INSURANCE, LIFE-EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY OF IN- 67. INSURANCE-LIFE-EXPERT EVIDENCE.-In an action on a policy of life insurance, expert physicians who have personally examined the insured, and who as medical examiners for the insurer have passed upon the application upon which the policy is issued, may testify as to what they mean by the use of the word "paralysis" in their reports to the insurer. (Albert v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 693.) See Attachment, 8, 9; Contracts, 8; Duress. INTENT. See Criminal Law. INTEREST. 1. INTEREST-ALLOWANCE OF, ON JUDGMENTS.-At common law, judgments carried no interest. Its allowance on judgments is controlled entirely by statute. (Hoyt v. Beach, 461.) 2. INTEREST-JUDGMENT FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.-If the allowance of interest on a judgment is not limited by statute, a judgment for costs and attorney's fees will draw interest from the date of its entry. (Hoyt v. Beach, 461.) INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 1. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-DELETERIOUS ARTICLE POWER OF STATE.-A state has no right to interfere with, or to attempt to regulate, interstate commerce in an article on the ground that it is deleterious to the inhabitants of the state, so long as it is recognized in the commercial world, by the laws of Congress, and by the decisions of the courts as a commodity in which a right of traffic exists. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) 2. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-SALE OF CIGARETTES-VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTE.-If an importer, after bringing Into the state stamped packages of cigarettes, packed in a common pine box, for convenience of shipment, opens the box and sells one of the packages to a customer, who applies for it, the sale violates a statute of the state which prohibits the sale of cigarettes within the state by all persons except jobbers doing an interstate business. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) 3. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-SALE OF CIGARETTESREGULATION OF BY STATE-UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.-Cigarettes are a recognized commercial commodity. Hence, a state statute which prohibits the sale of cigarettes within the state by all persons except jobbers who do an interstate business with customers outside of the state is in contravention of section 8, article 1, of the federal constitution, conferring upon Congress the exclusive right to regulate commerce among the several states, and is void, so far as it amounts to such a regulation. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) 4. INTERSTATE COMMERCE "ORIGINAL PACKAGE"WHAT IS.-An "original package," within the meaning of the interstate commerce law, is a bundle put up for transportation or commercial handling, and usually consists of a number of things bound together, convenient for handling and conveyance. It is the unit which the carrier receives, transports, and delivers as an article of commerce the identical package delivered by the importer to the carrier at the initial point of shipment, in the exact condition in which it was shipped. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) 5. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-CIGARETTES "ORIGINAL PACKAGE"-DECISION OF REVENUE OFFICERS AS TOFORCE OF.—In determining whether or not there has been a viola tion of a state anti-cigarette law, the fact that the internal revenue department has recognized a package containing ten cigarettes as an "original package," for the purpose of taxation, is not conclusive, as the repacking of such packages in additional coverings is optional with the manufacturer in placing them upon the market. The package so recognized is not the original package of commerce, within the meaning of the interstate commerce law. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) 6. INTERSTATE COMMERCE-CIGARETTES "ORIGINAL PACKAGE”-COMMON PINE BOX.-If packages of cigarettes, each package containing ten cigarettes, and sealed with an internal revenue stamp, are packed in a common pine box, for convenience of shipment, such box is the original package of commerce; and when it is opened or "broken," the packages of cigarettes are subJect to the police power of the state as a part of the common mass of property therein. (McGregor v. Cone, 522.) INTERSTATE COMMERCE. See Taxes, 6, 7. JOINT LIABILITY. See Judgment, 28; Libel, 3; Partnership, 1. JUDGMENT. 1. JUDGMENT-"RENDITION”-LIEN-NECESSITY OF RECORD.-A judgment is not rendered, so as to be a lien from the time of its "rendition" until it is entered on the records, as prescribed by the statute, although an entry or direction therefor has been signed by the judge and indorsed by the clerks as "filed." (Callanan v. Votruba, 538.) 2. JUDGMENTS.-DOCKETING of a judgment is not an essential condition of its efficacy, except for the purposes of a lien, and is not a condition precedent to issuing execution thereon to an officer where it is rendered or to an officer in any other county. (Bernhardt v. Brown, 725.) 3. A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, based on the facts thereby conceded, cannot be sustained, except where, under such facts, a judgment different from that pronounced could not be rendered, notwithstanding any evidence which might be produced. In other words, it cannot be sustained unless, under the admitted facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment, without regard to what the findings might be on the facts upon which issue is joined. (Mills v. Hart, 241.) 4. A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS cannot, under the guise of such a motion, be substituted for some other plea. (Mills v. Hart, 241.) 5. A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS cannot prevail, unless, on the facts thereby established, the court can, as a matter of law, pronounce a judgment on the merits, one final between the parties. (Mills v. Hart, 241.) 6. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS-RIGHT TO, HOW DETERMINED.-In determining the right of a party to a judgment given him on the pleadings, the real question to determine is the sufficiency of the admitted facts to warrant the judgment rendered, and the materiality of those upon which issue is joined. (Mills v. Hart, 241.) 7. JUDGMENT - WHEN NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS SHOULD BE GRANTED.-The action of a court cannot be falsified by the failure of a mere ministerial officer to perform his duty, and the plaintiff has a right to have the record show what the court 8. JUDGMENT-RECORD-VALIDITY.-The record is the 9. JUDGMENT.-THE RATIFICATION OF A JUDGMENT 11. PRACTICE.--THE RELIEF WHICH CAN BE GRANTED 12. A JUDGMENT IS AN ENTIRETY, and if void as to one of 13. A JUDGMENT AGAINST A PERSON DEAD AT THE 14. JUDGMENTS-IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS.-A 15. JUDGMENT-IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS.—A 16. JUDGMENTS, IF ERRONEOUS, may be remedied by ap- 17. JUDGMENTS.-IRREGULAR JUDGMENTS ARE VOID- 18. JUDGMENT-FRAUD AS A GROUND FOR A MOTION TO 19. JUDGMENT-PROCEEDING TO ANNUL-PARTIES.-In a the parties to the judgment should be made parties. (Day v. Goodwin, 465.) 20. JUDGMENT-DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESSWHEN EXTRINSIC FACTS TO DEFEAT ARE AVAILABLE ONLY ON DIRECT ATTACK.-Although the service of notice of the pendency of an action is irregular and insufficient, yet, if the court assumes jurisdiction, the judgment is not void, where the service appears, upon the face of the record, to be good. Hence, extrinsic facts relied upon to defeat it can be shown only in a direct attack on the judgment. (Day v. Goodwin, 465.) 21. JUDGMENT-DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON PARTY ADJUDGED INSANE-EFFECT OF.-If a wife has been adjudged insane, but is living with her husband when both are made parties defendant to a foreclosure action, and notice of the pendency of the action is served upon both, the judgment therein is not void, though a strict compliance with the statute, in such a case, would have required the notice to her to be also served upon her husband. (Day v. Goodwin, 465.) 22. JUDGMENTS.-RELIEF WILL NOT BE GRANTED IN EQUITY against a judgment at law, unless some meritorious and sufficient defense exists to the action at law or to some substantial part thereof. (Handley v. Jackson, 839.) 23. JUDGMENT-RELIEF FROM AN EQUITY AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL MOTION IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION.-Where a party against whom a judgment has been entered moves in the original action to have it set aside, and such motion is there denied, he cannot maintain a suit in equity for relief based upon the same grounds, they being, if established by the evidence, sufficient to have warranted the granting of relief on the motion. (Thompson v. Connell, 818.) 24. RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT WILL BE DECREED IN EQUITY upon there appearing any fact clearly proving that it is against conscience to execute the judgment, and that the injured party could not have availed himself of this fact in the court of law, or if he could have so availed himself, that he was prevented from doing so by fraud or accident unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents. (Handley v. Jackson, 839.) 25. A JUDGMENT BASED ON AN UNAUTHORIZED APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEY will be relieved against in equity, and the want of authority on the part of the attorney may be proved by parol. This rule is equally applicable whether the attorney be responsible or not, and whether or not he acted by the procurement or collusion of the adverse party. (Handley v. Jackson, 839.) 26. JUDGMENTS GENERALLY ARE CONCLUSIVE, except for fraud or mistake. (Bear v. Board of Co. Commrs., 711.) 27. JUDGMENTS-CONCLUSIVENESS.-A judgment against parties present before a competent court is conclusive of matters adjudged therein. (Bear v. Board of Co. Commrs., 711.) 28. A JUDGMENT FOR OR AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT cannot be res judicata for or against another where they are entitled to, and demand, separate trials, or where for some other reason one of them is not a party to a judgment, or is entitled to relief from a judgment against himself and the other. (Handley v. Jackson, 839.) 29. JUDGMENTS AGAINST CORPORATIONS-CONCLUSIVENESS.-A valid judgment against a corporation binds the stockholders in respect to corporate matters. Such judgment is not open to collateral attack. (Bear v. Board of Co. Commrs., 711.) 30. JUDGMENTS-CONCLUSIVENESS.-In a proceeding to compel the levy of taxes, to pay a judgment against commissioners of a |