« AnteriorContinuar »
laration, that the shooting was willful and malicious, is not objectionable as the mere statement of an opinion, without facts on which to base it, since there was tes. timony which tended to show tbat there were facts within the knowledge of the deceased on which he might have based an opinion, and it was not necessary for him to state them.--STATE V. LEE, S. Car., 86 8. E. Rep. 707.
31. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE - Homicide-Res Gestæ.Where the State's theory was that a homicide was committed for the purpose of robbing deceased of money which defendant knew he intended to draw from the bank, evidence as to the amount of deceased's deposit was admissible, as tending to prove the motive.-STATE V. LUCEY, Mont., 61 Pac. Rep. 394.
32. CRIMINAL LAW-Burden of Proof.-An instruction, in a criminal case, throwing upon the defendant the burden of proving the matters of defense to the satis. faction of the jury, is erroneous, and is not cured by a general instruction giving the law as to the burden of proof and a reasonable doubt.-STATE V. GRINSTEAD, Kan., 61 Pac. Rep. 975.
33. CRIMINAL LAW-Dead Bodies-- Disposing of for Disseetion.-The unauthorized disposition and sale of a dead body of a human being for gain and profit is a common law misdemeanor of high grade, and malum in se; and an unsuccessful attempt to commit that offense is a misdemeanor indictable and punishable at .common law, though there is no statute probibiting guch offense.-THOMPSON V. STATE, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 213.
34. CRIMINAL LAW-Homicide - Arrest Without War. rant.-The court refused an instruction for the defend. ant to the effect that a 'sheriff and his deputies have no right to make an arrest of any person without lawful warrant, except the person has committed a felony, or is engaged at the time in a riot or unlawlul assem. bly, or is about to commit a felony. Held, that the refusal was correct, because of the failure of the instruction to include the idea that the officer may ar. rest without warrant for any misdemeanor tending to a breach of the peace, when committed in view of the officer making the arrest.-ROBERSON V. STATE, Fla., 28 South. Rep. 424.
35. CRIMINAL LAW-Homicide-Instructions Defining Degree.-A charge given on the court's own motion, that the indictment was for murder in tbe first degree, and that the verdict should be either for murder in the first degree or acquittal, violates Code, $ 3326, prohibit. ing a charge on the effect of the testimony unless requested to do so by one of the parties.-GAFFORD V. STATE, Ala., 28 South. Rep. 406.
36. CRIMINAL LAW-Homicide-Quarrelsome Disposi. tion.- Where defendant claimed that he shot the de. ceased in self-defense, evidence that the deceased, in a quarrel with defendant a few weeks prior to the hom. icide, armed himself with nice pick, was incompetent to show that the deceased was a quarrelsome and dan. gerous person, since it was a specific act in no way connected with the res gesta.--STATE V. MIMS, Oreg., 61 Pac. Rep. 888.
37. CRIMINAL LAW-Iomicide - Witnesses.--Where, in a criminal case, the defendant made application to have certain convicts in the State prison brought to the place of trial to testify in his behalf, and the court granted the application as to part, and ordered the depositions of the others taken, defendant has no cause of complaint, since an order for the production of such witnesses does not issue as a matter of right. -PEOPLE V. PUTTMAN, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 961.
38. CRIMINAL LAW - Information - Verification.-A verification on information and belief to a complaint in a criminal case is not sufficient to authorize a court to put the defendant upon trial for the offense charged therein. Such complaint should be sworn to pos. itively, or the facts upon which the warrant should is. sue ought to be presented to the court by affidavit or by competent evidence.-MOLKINS V. UNITED STATES,
Okla., 61 Pac. Rep. 925.
39. CRIMINAL LAW-Larceny Former Jeopardy.Where one is indicted for stealing property of w, and on trial it is proved that the property belonged to A,and under the direction of the court the jury renders a ver. dict of not guilty, defendant is not placed in jeopardy, so as to bar a prosecution under another indictment chargiog him with stealing the same property, belong. log to A.-STATE V. COUNCIL, S. Car., 36 8. E. Rep. 662.
40. CRIMINAL LAW-Larceny-Possession,-The pos. session of stolen property, unexplained, is evidence of guilt. But where a reasonable explanation is given, and there is no conflict of evidence in regard thereto, and the witness is not impeached, the jury cannot arbitrarily ignore such evidence.-STATE Y. SEYMOUR, Idaho, 61 Pac. Rep. 1033.
41. CRIMINAL LAW - Rape-Iudictment.-An indict. ment charging defendant that he did "carnally know and abuse" a female child under 16 years, without al. leging the specific age of such child, is sufficient to al. lege a pablic offense under section 6521, Gen. Si. 1894.STATE V. ERICKSON, Minn., 83 N. W. Rep. 512.
42. CRIMINAL LAW-Receiving Stolen Goods.-Where the indictment in a prosecution for receiving stolen goods laid the ownership thereof in a railway com. pany, proof that the company was engaged under & corporate Dame in carrying on the business of a pub. lic carrier was sufficient proof of its corporate existence to sustain a conviction.-STATE V. M18810, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 216.
43. CRIMINAL LIBEL-Indictment - Defenses.-In an action for libel, where the words have the alleged slanderous meaning, not by their own extrinsic force, but by reason of the existence of some extraneous fact, this fact must be averred in traversable form, and it is not suficient to plead such fact by way of innuendo only.-STATE V. ELLIOTT, Kan., 61 Pac. Rep. 981.
44. CRIMINAL LIBEL – Information – Innuendo. Where, in all the counts of an information charging a criminal libel, matters explanatory of the publica. tion, and necessary to be statod by way of induce. ment, are stated only by way of innuendo, and the of. fense is not complete from the pablication itsell, & motion to quash should have been sustained, since matters which should have been stated by way of in. ducement cannot be supplied by the innuendo.-STATE V. GRINSTEAD, Kan., 61 Pac. Rep. 976.
45. Damages-Objections to Juror-Color.-A written objection by a juror to serving on a jury with another certain juror, on account of the color of the latter, al. though frivolous, unwarranted, and unworthy, forms no basis for an action at law for damages, especially where the objection was not accompanied by either abusive language or assault or defamation of cbaracter. -MCPHERSON V. MCCARRICK, Utah, 61 Pac, Rep. 1004.
46. DEED-Boundaries--Declarations.-Declarations of former owners in possession, whether dead or alive, and of a surveyor, are admissible to show cor. ners of a grant.-MONTGOMERY V. LISCOMB, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 806.
47. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION - Bastards.-Under Shannon's Code, $ 4169, providing that where a woman dies intestate,leaving a natural born child, he shall take her estate by the general rules of descent and distribution, equally with her other children; and section 4163, subsec. 2a, providing that, if inteståte die with. out issue, his land shall be inherited by his brothers and sisters, and if any such brother and sister die in Intestate's lifetime, leaving issue," such 198ue shall represent their deceased parent-an Illegitimate child, the only son of his mother, who predeceased her sis. ter, who died intestate without issue, takes the share of the estate of his mother's sister which his mother would have taken had she survived her sister.-DEN. NIS V, DENNIS, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 284.
his case would not be reached for trial for several months.-MELDE V. REYNOLDS, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 932.
63. LANDLORD AND TENANT-Lease-Covenant for Im. provements.-A lease of ground made by an executor as trustee for the three minor devises, provided for the appraisement of all permanent and valuable improvements at the termination of the lease, and that the extent to which such improvements enbanced the value of the property should be allowed and paid to the lessee by the estate of the lessor. Held, that such covenant did not run with the land, so that the same could be enforced by an assignee of the lease against an assignee of the reversion, where it was optional with the lessee whether to improve the lot, and the improvements were not made until after the execu. tion of the lease.-CICALLA V. MILLER, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 210.
61. LAW OF THE CASE-Judicial Notice- Decision of United States Supreme Court.-Where a State law as to a certain class of cases, has once been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be in contra. vention of the constitution of the United States or ex post facto, a State court will, whenever thereafter a case of such class comes before it, take notice of the decision of the federal court, and of the question respecting which the decision was made. - STATE V. BATES, Utah, 61 Pac. Rep. 905.
65. LICENSE - Revocation.-An instrument which granted the right to enter upon premises at any time within five years, and to cut and remove therefrom all the standing pine, is a conveyance of an interest in the land, and not a license revocable at will.-BOLLAND V, O'NEAL, Mion., 83 N. W. Rep. 471.
66. LIMITATIONS-New Promise.- Where, after lim. itations had run against a claim, the debtor promised to pay it "when he became able," the statute began to run for the new period from the date of his becoming able, and not from the date of the new promise.SCOTT v. THORNTON, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 236.
67. LIMITATIONS — Presumption of Possession-Ad. verse Possession.--Under section 2861, Rev. St. 1898, the presumption is that one holding the legal title bud been possessod of the land within the time required by law, unless it appears that the property was held and possessed adversely to him for seven years.-FONK V. ANDERSON, Utab, 61 Pac. Rep. 1006.
68. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-Advice of Magistrate.An instr ction, in an action for malicious prosecution, that if defendant fairly and fully laid the facts before a justice of the peace, and honestly sought his advice, for the purpose of bringing what defendant supposed was a criminal to justice, he was not liable, is errone. ous, in making the mere seeking of the justice's ad. vice sufficient to relieve from liability, without requir. ing the additional condition that the justice gave the advice sought.--MAULDIN V. BALL, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 249.
69. MANDAMUS-Swamp Lands-Reclamation Funds.Since Pol. Code, $ 3477, requiring the county treasurer to pay amounts due on reclamation of swamp land to the original purchaser or his assigns, contemplates payment only to the owner or assignee of the indebtedness, mandamus will not lie to ccmpel such a payment to one who is not shown to be the ageigree of the claim on the fund of an original purchaser who be. came entitled thereto, though he claims as a succes. sor in interest of such original purchaser, by virtue of a purchase of the land.-MILLER & LUX V. BATZ, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 935.
70. MARRIAGE PROMISE-Damages.-This is an action for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff testi. fied that she was engaged to B, and at the solicitation of the defendant she broke her engagement and promised to marry him. The trial court instructed the jury to the effect that if the plaintiff broke her engagement with B at the solicitation of defendant, and on account of his promise to marry her, they might consider as an element of her damages her loss of the opportunity
to marry B. Held, error.-HAHN V. BETTINGEN, Minn., 83 N. W. Rep. 467.
71. MARRIED WOMAN-Liability for Debt.-Under Act April 30, 1897, making a married woman engaged in business liable for her debts incurred therein, ber mere recogoition, after passage of the act, of the ex. istence of potes theretofore given by her, does not make her liable therefor, even it a subsequent promise to pay them would do so.-LEVIS-ZOKOSKI MER. CANTILE CO. v. BOWERS, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 287.
72. MASTER AND SERVANT-Action for Services-Delenses.-In a suit by an employee against a railroad company for the balance of his wages, the company cannot legally defend by showing that the plaintiff had made a mistake whereby the company had suffered loss, which had been charged to an agent who was his superior, and under whom he was employed, and that in order to reimburse that agent it had stopped the wages of the plaintiff, such a course not being an. thorized by any rule of the company known to the employee, or agreed to by him.-GEORGIA R. Co. v. GOUEDY, Ga., 36 S. E. Rep. 691.
73, MASTER AND SERVANT-Contributory Negligence. -Code, $ 3441, provides that, where the tracks of two railroads cross each other, engineers and conductors must stop their trains within 100 feet of the crossing. and not proceed until they know the way to be clear. Plaintiff's intestate, an engineer, brought bis train into collision with that of defendant at a crossing, and was thereby killed. The night was dark; defendant's engine had no headlight, but a lantern instead; and the evidence was covflicting as to whether either train stopped within 100 feet of the crossing. Held, that plaintiff's intestate, by the exercise of extraordinary care, which the statute imposed on him, might have ascertained whether the track was clear, and, having failed to do so, was guilty of negligence contributory to his own death, and hence plaintiff could not recover therefor.-SOUTHERN RY.CO. V. BRYAN, Ala., 28 South. Rep. 415.
74. MASTER AND SERVANT-Defective Appliances - In. jury to Servant.-An instruction that where a master allowed an independent contractor to erect appliances on his premises for the use of the contractor, and the master adopted and used such appliances himself, or acquiesced in their use by his servants while engaged in his work, be was responsible for his servants safety as if he had erected the appliances himself, was proper, without submitting to the jury that such acquiescence must have been for sucb a period of time as would indicate an adoption by the master, since the word"acquiesced" was used by the court in the sense of "being satisfied with," and such acquiescence would amount to an adoption.-RINAKE V. VICTOR MFG. CO., 8. Car., 36 S. E. Rep. 700.
75. MASTER AND SERVANT-Unsafe Place-Evidence. -Where plaintiff, while in defendant's employ, was knocked from the top of a freigbt car, which he was helping to switch to one of defendant's buildings, by being struck by a steam pipe crossing the side track and connectiog two of the buildings, evidence that the steam pipe might, at small cost, and without in. jury to its efficiency, have been raised so as not to interfere with the defendant's employees riding on the top of its freight cars, was properly admitted.-RENNE v. UNITED STATES LEATHER CO., Wis., 83 N. W. Rep.
76. MECHANIC'S LIEN- Enforcement.--The holder of a mechanic's lien for material furnished for the con. struction and erection of two buildings, the property of separate owners, but located upon adjoining real property, and erected as one structure, under an agreement between the contractor and the owners of each building, may enforce the lien against the separate property of each by showing the proportionate amount and value of the materials used in each build. ing.--KINNEY V. MATHIAS, Mion., 83 N. W. Rep. 497.
77. MECHANIC'S LIEN-Priority-Prior Attachments.
Acts 1897, ch. 78, provided that employees of any cor. poration doing business in the State should have a Hen on all the corporate property for the amount dua for services rendered during three months prior to a suit to enforce the same, which lien should be superior to all others, except lieps to secure purchase money and lions created before the passage of the act. Plaintiffs claimed under the act, and defendants claimed under attachments for ordinary debts, levied a month prior to the commencement of plaintiff's suit. Held, that plaintiffs' lien was superior to that of defendants:-BOSHTON V. PERRY LUMBER CO., Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 269.
78. MORTGAGES-Foreclosure-Paramount Title.-In a proceeding to foreclose a mortgage where detend. apt claimed title to tbe property paramount to that of both mortgagor and mortgagee, she cannot set up such title in a cross complaint, and litigato it in the foreclosure proceedings. - MORRAY V. ETCHEPARE, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 930.
79. MORTGAGES-Notice of Sale-Publication.- Where a mortgage provided that, in case of foreclosure, notice of sale should be published at least three times before the sale in a paper published in the county, a notice of the sale published regularly for three weeks in a weekly paper in the county in all the copies of each issue except a few, which were to be sent to non. resident advertisers, was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the mortgage.-JOHNSON V. WOOD, Ala., 28 South. Rep. 454.
80. MORTGAGES - Trust Deed Registration.-Tbe preceding a defective registration of a deed of trust by statutory notation under Shannon's Code, $ 567, is no protection to the grantee against a levy of a judg. ment creditor of the grantor, since the notation stood in place of a full and accurate registration, and gave the grantee priority over subsequent claimants only until the registration of the deed of trust.-SOUTHERN BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. RODGERS, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 234.
81. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Repairing of streets -Negligence.-Rev. St. $ 1582, giving a right of action against cities for injuries sustained "by reason of defects or mismanagement of anything under control of the corporation," is broad enough to include an ac. tion for injuries sustained by an employee of the city by reason of defendant's mismanagement of a steam roller while repairing its streets.-BARKSDALE V. CITY OF LAUBENS, S. Car., 36 S. E. Rep. 661.
82. MONICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Street Improvements. -Under St. 1891, p. 201, 97, subd. 1, providing that the costs of grading streets shall be assessed against the lots fronting thereon, such assessment should be made against the lots fronting on both sides; and hence an assessment of the total cost of grading one side of a street against the lots fronting on that side was invalid.-SAN DIEGO Inv. Co. v. Shaw, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 1082.
83. NEGLIGENCE-Defective Premises – Evidence.Evidence of repairs subsequent to an accident is not admissible to show negligence in allowing the prem. 1868 to be in the condition they were at the time of the accident.-ILLINOIS CENT. R. Co. v. WYATT, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 308.
84. NEGLIGENCE-Injury to Wife-Damages.-A hus. band may, i) an action for damages resulting from in. juries sustained by his wife by reason of the negli. gence and carelessness of another, ia some cases, re. cover for the loss of his own time in attendance and nursing his wife. The value of the husband's time, how. ever, while so engaged, is determinable with reference to its value as a nurse; but be cannot recover, in addi. tion, for the loss of his time, as such, its value in his ordinary occupation, nor for the reasonable value of his time which he may have lost from his business. WESTERN UNION TEL. 00. V. MORRIS, Kin., 61 Pac. Rep. 972. 85. NUISANCE-Maintenance.-An owner of land is
entitled to build stables thereon in the manner best suited to his business, and such stables, it conducted in a reasonably proper manner, do not constitute a nuisance for which damages can be recovered by ad. jolplog property owners.-HARVEY V. CONSUMERS' ICE 00., Teon., 58 8. W. Rep. 316.
86. PARTITION-Mistake Evidence.-Where land which, on an amicable partition, fell to the share of a wife, wae conveyed by the otber belre to the husband, a court of «quity can entertain an action to correct the mistake, and partition the lands as property of the wite.--SCHELLINGER V. SELOVER, N. J., 46 Atl. Rep. 1058.
87. PUBLIC LANDS-Entry of Timber Claim-Applica. tion.-Under 20 Stat. 89, $$ 2, 3, requiring the applicant for the purchase of timber lands to make affidavit tout the land is unfit for cultivatijn and valuable chiefly for timber, the applicant must have personally examined the land, so as to be able to make suid affidavit from his personal knowledge.-HOOVER V. SALLING, U. S.C.O., W. D. (Wis.), 102 Fed. Rep. 716.
89. PUBLIC LANDS-Location-Ratification.-A loca. tion of land under a headrigbt certificate by one of the owners thereof is not ratified by tbe others by their act of selling the certiicate, where they did not know of the location.-KIRBY V. ESTELL, Tex., 58 S. W. Rop. 254.
89. POBLIC OFFICERS -- Contracts.- When public offi. cers or øgents in good faith contract with parties hav. ing equal means of koowledge with themselves, they do not become personally liable, although they may have exceeded their authority.-FIRST NAT. BANK OF DETROIT V. BOARD OF COM88. OF BECKER AND BELTRAMI COUNTIES, Mion., 83 N. W. Rep. 468.
90. QUIETING TITLE-Bill - Sufficiency-Foreclosure. -Tbat a bill in a suit to quiet title asked the annul. ment of a sheriff's deed executed on a sale of the property under mortgage foreclosure did not render it de. murrable as improperly uniting two causes of action, since the annulment of the deed was only a remedy incidental to the enforcement of plaintiff's right to the property, and did not in itself constltute a cause of ac. tion.-BERONIO V. VENTURA COUNTY LUMBER CO., Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 959.
91. QUIETING TITLE – Limitations.-Since a deed made an exhibit and referred to in a complaint in equity controls the averments of the complaint in re. gard thereto, and the right of action on a sealed prom19e to pay a dent continues for 10 years, a complaint in equity, filed in 1897, to cancel a deed of trust which matured in 1888, alleging that it was barred by limitations, with a copy of the trust deed as an exhibit, did not show a good cause of action.-AMER. FREEHOLD LAND MORTG. CO. OF LONDON v. MCMANUS, Ark., 58 8. W. Rep. 250.
92. RAILROAD COMPANY - Injury to Animals-Negli. gence.- Where an engineer could have seen an animal, by keeping a proper lookout, when it came on or in dangerous proximity to the track, and the train was being run at the speed of 25 miles an hour, rendering it impossible to control it so as to avoid injuring the animal, the railroad company was liable to ibe owner of the aplmal for the jury.-CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. V. STARK, Ala., 28 South. Rep. 411.
93. RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES-Review of Proceedings by Courts.-The court of cbancery will not review the de. cisions or proceedings of ecclesiasticul judicatures in matters properly within their province under the laws and regulations of the church.-TRAVERS V. ABBEY, Tepp., 58 S. W. Rep. 247.
94. REMOVAL OF CAUSES – Amount in ControversyJurisdiction.-To an action to restrain the prosecution of a suit in a State court because of the removal to the federal court of a previous euit based upon the same cause of action, which was still pending, defendent answered that, wbile in the writ filed lu the first action bis demand was placed at $2,500, it was his intention to claim only $1,500; that he paid the writ tax required by
the laws of the State upon that sum only; and the first action was dismissed, and the second sult brought, because of a mistake in the form of the action. Held that, no declaration baving been filed in the first ac. tion, the amount lo controversy must be determined from defendant's answer bereln, and, it appearing that this was but $1,500, the federal court was without jurisdiction thereof, and the same should be remanded to the State court, and the injunction restraining the second action diseolved.-WESTERN UNION TEL. Co. v. WHITE, U. 8.0. C., W.D. (Va.), 102 Fed. Rep. 708.
95. REMOVAL OF CAUSES - Foreign CorporationsResidence.-A rallroad corporation, created under the laws of Virgioia, which has complied with the requirements of Act March 19, 1896, providing that such for: eign corporation shall thereupon become a domestic corporation, with all the rights and liabilities thereof, is still a pop-resident of South Carolina, within the act of congress authorizing the removal of causes from State to federal courts on the ground of non-residence, and hence is entitled to have a cause against it in a State court removed to the United States court.-WILSON V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 8. Car., 86 8. E, Rep. 701.
96. RES JODICATA-Contest of Will.-Where a contest of a will was dismissed because not stating a cause of action, such dismissal did not deprive contestant of the right to maintain a subsequent contest based on other grounds.-RALEIGH V. DISTRICT COURT OF FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRIOT, Mont., 61 Pac. Rep. 991.
97. RES JUDICATA - Estoppel-Right of Way.-A rall. road, by accepting the benefits of the deed of the owner of the toe of its right of way, in some directions extending and others narrowing its rights, is estopped to set up any claim to right of way under its charter Inconsistent with the deed.-MOBILE & O. R. Co. v. DONOVAN, Tenn., 58 S. W. Rep. 309.
98. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE – Attorney and ClientContingent Fee – Public Policy.-Defendant agreed in writing to pay an attorney a contingent fee of onethird of all community property he might secure in an action for divorce against ber husband, or by reason of any compromise or settlement thereof. The attor. ney assigned the contract to plalptiff, wbo sued for specific performance. Held, that the contract was vold and udenforceable, as against public policy.NEWMAN V. FREITAS, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 907.
99. TAXATION-Void Tax Sale-Llen.-A purchaser of laods at a tax sale is entitled to a lien on such lands for the purchase price and taxes subsequently paid, though such sale be void.-STROTHER V. REILLY, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 332.
100. TAX CERTIFICATE-Assignment.-A tax certifi. cate, and a valid assigoment thereof, where the ag. signee clalms title under a tax deed, are essential and necessary to the validity of the deed, and to the au. thority of the taxlpg powers to devest the title of the former owner or those claiming througb him.-WILSON V. WOOD, Okla., 61 Pac. Rep. 1045.
101. Tax DEED Recitals.- It is not competent for a tex.deed holder to introduce evidence to contradict the recitals of bls tax doed.-HANENKRATT V. HAMIL, Okla., 61 Pac. Rep. 1050.
102. TRIAL-Special Issue – Submission.—Where a jury is instructed by the court, of its own motion, to flod special answers to certain questions bearing upon vital issues in the case, which questions are submitted, the court 18 pot at liberty, without the consent of the parties, to withdraw or disregard such questions by acceptiog a general verdict without answers thereto.EISCHEN V. CHICAGO, ETC. RY. CO., Minn., 83 N. W. Rep. 490.
103. TRUST FOND-Life Estate-Pleading.-Where a bill to enjoin the paymont of a trust fund to an administrator is broad enough to test the question of the final disposition of the fund, so that it can be sug. talned for that purpose, even though the fund were paid over temporarily to the administrator, a de.
murrer to the bill on the ground that tbe fund stands In the name of the deceased, and that therefore the administrator is entitled to collect the same, is bad as not disposing of the whole case made by the bill.-RUSSELL V. SCATE NAT. BANK, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 245.
104. WATERS AND WATER COURSE8-Artificial LakesShore Owners-Title.-The owners of land bordering on the shore of a meandered non-navigable or dried up lake own the bed of the lake in severalty. Their title extends to the center of the lake; the boundary lines of each abutting tract being ixed by extending, from the meander lipe on each side of the tract, lines con. verging to a polnt in the center of the lake.-SHELL V. MATTESON, Mion., 83 N. W. Rep. 491.
105. WATER RIGHTS-Limitution-Adverse Possession. -To bar the claim of a senlor appropriator of wator, by limitation or lapse of time, in favor of a junior ap. propriator, the latter must show continuous adverse possession and use in himself, accompanied by claim of title, and such possession and use as exclude the senior appropriator from the possession and use of such water. -BROSSARD V. MORGAN, Idabo, 61 Pac, Rep. 1031.
106. Wills-Construction - Executory Devise-E.. ecutors.-Under a devise to certain persons named, and to the survivors of those dying without children, share and sbare allku, a deed by the several devisees will convey not only their present, but any after.ac. quired, Interest in the lands devised, as survivors of the first devisees, unless a contrary intention appears, though one of the deviseos be a married woman.BRUCE V. GOODBAR, Tenn., 68 8. W. Rep. 282.
107. WILLS-Devise-Precatory Words.-Where testa. tor devised all his property, both real and personal, to his wife, with power to sell, lease, and manage the business without order of the court, and in a subsequent and independent paragraph stated that it was his desire that his wife, on her death should devise to bis relatives one-half of the property which she received under his will, the wife was entitled to the ontire estate, free from any limitations or trust in favor of testator's relatives.-IN RE MARTI'S ESTATE, Cal., 61 Pac. Rep. 964.
108. WILL-Homestead.-Wbile section 2829, Rev St. 1898, in terms gives absolutely property in the home. stead and exempt personalty to the surviving husband or wife, yet by other terms of the section this power 18 limited, and the husband may by will dispose of the estate in excess of the hoinestead limits.-IN RE LITTLE, Utah, 61 Pac. Rep. 899.
109. Wills-Intent of Testator.-A will made by a mother in favor of her dissolute son, gave her real 88tate in trust to her son S, for bis use and benefit, after paying taxes and necessary repairs, withholding from him power to sell and convey, except at the option of the trustee, D, who was given power to sell when, in bis judgment, be deemed it necessary and advisable; and in gucb event the conveyance to be a joint act be. tween the trustee and the son. In case of the death of the son without issue, then all of sald estate "80 romalning in trust" should be sold and divided between parties mentioned in other parts of the will. Held that, to give effect to the intent of the testatrix, the will sbould be read, "I give and devise to D, in trust for my son, for his use and benefit," and that the trustee, and not the son, was entitled to control tbe es. tate.-JOBE V. DILLARD, Tenn., 58 8. W. Rep. 324.
110. WILLS - Powers Execution - Trust Déeds.Where a non-resident loan and trust company made a loan, and took a trust deed to secure it, before regis. tration of its charter where the transaction took place, such transaction was validated by the subsequent aling of an abstract of the company's charter at such place; and the company was entitled to recover the amount actually loaded, with six per cent. Interest.LAW GUARANTEE & TRUST CO, V. JONB8, Teon.,68 8. W. Rep. 219.