1. Plaintiffs, owners of judgments to the
amount of about $2,500 against defendant,
which were liens on a tract of coal land owned
by him, agreed with him that in considera-
tion of $10, and that plaintiffs would not en-
force payment of their judgments before a
time stated, and would protect defendant
against certain other judgments and claims;
also that plaintiffs "have heretofore protected
[defendant] against a sale by execution of
said property, on verbal agreement for an in-
terest in said property;" and, further, that
plaintiffs would apply the first $5,000 realized
from the coal, or so much as might be neces-
sary, to the payment of all judgments against
defendant; after the $5,000 had been realized,
plaintiffs were to have 40 per cent. of all
the royalties received for coal taken from the
land. Held that, past acts being good con-
sideration for present promises, the agree-
ment was not usurious.-Appeal of Trine,
(Pa.) 765.

VENUE IN CIVIL CASES.

Trespass to land.

1. A suit will not lie in the district court of
the county of Hudson for a trespass to lands
in the county of Essex.-State v. Crevier, (N.
J.) 28.

Pleading.

2. The declaration in a transitory action
need not allege a venue.-Blackstone Nat.
Bank v. Lane, (Me.) 683.

Verdict.

Objections to, see New Trial, 3.
Special verdict, see Criminal Law, 5.

See Insurance, 1.

Wager.

Wages.

Assignment of unearned wages, see Assign-
ment, 1.
Judgment for, see Appeal, 5.

WATERS AND WATER-
COURSES.

See, also, Riparian Rights.
Riparian rights.

1. The owner of a mill-dam is obliged to vent
the water for the use of mill-owners below, so
that each shall have the natural flow of the
stream, except so far as that flow is modified
2. After the agreement had been executed, by the reasonable use of the water by the suc-
on the same day a supplement was added, by cessive riparian proprietors, and, in the ab-
which plaintiffs released their right to the sence of malice, is not liable to a riparian pro-
royalties in exchange for defendant's judg-prietor above, whose ice crop has been thereby
ment note for $3,000. Held that, the transfer destroyed.-Stevens v. Kelley, (Me.) 45.*
of the royalties being valid, the note was sup-
ported by a valid consideration, and the mere
fact that it was given on the same day did
not stamp the transaction as a device to cover
usury.-Id.

2. The ice in a mill-pond is the property of
the riparian owner, and he has the sole right
to take it, subject only to the qualification
that it is not to be taken in such quantities as
to appreciably diminish the head of the water
at the dam below.-Searle v. Gardner, (Pa.)
835.

Freshets-Injury to property.

3. Where, under special act Conn. 1881, au-
thorizing the town of N. H. to deepen the
natural streams within its limits, as public
health may require, the selectmen, exercising
reasonable care, straighten and deepen the
channel of a river running through the town,
and the work is done under the direction of,
and according to plans and specifications pre-
pared by, a competent city engineer, the in-
tention being to make as ample provision for
the flow of water as existed before, the town
is not liable for injury to private property, dur-
ing an extraordinary, but not unprecedented,
freshet, though the injury was caused by the
oversight or misjudgment of the engineer in
allowing the earth excavated to be deposited,
as required in the specifications, but not by
the original plan, on the banks of the river,
which prevented the natural overflow of its
banks, and thus set back the water.-Dia-

mond Match Co. v. Town of New Haven, | neither so accepted it, his executors were to
(Conn.) 409.
Obstruction.

.

-

dice of the widow, without her consent.-
Wyckoff v. Wyckoff, (N. J.) 662.

Rights of devisees and legatees.

10. A testator, after making certain pro-
visions for his wife and daughter C., provided:
"It is further my will, and I hereby order and
direct, that in case the said devise should, in
the opinion of my son A. and my daughter R. 17. A testator, by the third item of his will,
and the survivor, be insufficient for the com. devised to his son J., his heirs, etc., forever,
fortable support and maintenance of my said three separate tracts of land; "he or they pay-
wife and daughter C., then I order and directing thereout the sum of $3,000, without inter-
that the sum of one hundred dollars shall be est, in the following payments: $500 each and
paid annually to my said wife and daughter, every year to my executor; proper deeds and
and the survivor, out of the proceeds of the possession to be given him as soon as he at-
ore bed." Held, that the provisions in favor tains the age of 21 years." By the fourth item
of the wife and daughter were charges on the he devised certain other real estate to his son
real estate. Appeal of Brotzman, (Pa.) 483. D., with the same provision as to the pay-
11. The power to appoint "in such shares ment of $3,000 in yearly payments of $500, and
and for such estates " as the donee might deem as to the giving of deeds and possession on J.'s
proper, meant merely that, if there were two coming of age. Held, that possession was
or more of the class, the donee might divide not to be given to either of the sons until J.
the estate between them as he saw fit; but it became of age, and that in the mean time
did not authorize the creation of a spendthrift neither of them was liable to the executor for
trust.-Appeal of Pepper, (Pa.) 929.
the yearly payments, even though the execu-
12. A testator bequeathed to his wife all his tor had in fact put them both in possession at
property, for her sole use, support, and pos- the testator's death, under the implied author-
session during widowhood, but in case of re-ity of a provision in the will that the two sons
marriage only what the law would allow. should keep and maintain the testator's wife
Power was given the executor to sell, on the during widowhood, "and provide her with
request of the wife; the interest on the pro- food, lodgings, grain, and all things necessary
ceeds to be applied to her support, with re- for her maintenance and support. "-Appeal
mainder over after her death. The executor of Rhoad, (Pa.) 313.
was authorized to make a deed of the realty 18. Where a testator provided for a gift to
the same as the testator "could have done if his son J. of his business; and that, in case of
living. Held, that the executor had a gen- his want of success, any loss the estate might
eral power to convey, subject only to the lim- meet should be deducted "from J.'s share;"
itation regarding the wife's right to occupa- and that in such event, or if his son became
tion and possession during her widowhood.-profligate, "he shall only receive the interest
Livingood v. Heffner, (Pa.) 187.
on his share in my whole estate during life;"
and gave $5,000 to each of his children, and to
"J. the like sum when he could satisfy the ex-
ecutor that he was worth $8,000, "-the inter-
est of the son was vested, and the only con-
tingency related to the time of payment.
Meantime it must be invested for his use.-
Appeal of Schwartz, (Pa.) 212.

13. T. devised realty to his son W., in trust
for another son A. and his heirs, with power
to convey to A. or his heirs as he might think
proper. A. died, leaving a widow, and a son.
A., Jr., to whom the trustee conveyed the es-
tate. A., Jr., died a minor, leaving no issue.
Held, that the title of A., Jr., in the land was
derived by inheritance from his father, and
not under the will or by gift from the trustee,
and descended on his death to his mother. Af-
firming 3 Atl. Rep. 382.-Shepard v. Taylor,
(R. I.) 105.

19. Under the following provision in a will:
"I give all the residue of my estate in trust
for my grandchildren, to be divided equally as
they shall respectively arrive at the age of 25
years, the share of each grandchild to be de-
14. The devise, "I give and devise to my son, termined by a division of the whole amount of
his heirs and assigns by his present wife, for the fund then existing by the number of grand-
ever, creates an estate in special tail at com- children to whom no share has been distrib-
mon law, which under Revision N. J. p. 299, §uted, "-a grandchild born six months after
11, becomes an estate for life in the son, with
remainder to his children in fee.-Weart v.
Cruser, (N. J.) 36.

the death of the testator, there being no evi-
dence to rebut the presumption of law that the
child was in being at the death of the testator,
15. Under the Maryland descent laws, (Act is included in the term "my grandchildren,"
1786, c. 45; Act 1820, c. 191; and Code, art. 47, and belongs to the class capable of taking un-
§1,) a devise to testator's "son for life, and der the will at the testator's death, though
after his decease to all and every the child and one of the grandchildren was 25 years old be-
children of said son, equally to be divided before the death of the testator.-Cowles v.
tween them, and to the heirs of such child or Cowles, (Conn.) 414.
children of the blood of their father, forever,
vests a fee-simple estate in the children of
said son.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Patterson,
(Md.) 369.

16. Where a testator directs his lands to be
sold, and a part of the purchase money to be
invested on the land sold, in such manner as
that the interest thereon shall be paid annu-
ally to his widow, and the principal to his ex-
ecutor on her death, the rate of interest al-
lowed by law at the date of the investment
cannot be afterwards changed, to the preju-

20. A testator gave $1,300 in trust for his
brother during his life. Then $500 was to go
to his brother's son T., and the remainder to
his other children equally. Part of the $1,300
was taken to pay debts of the testator. Held,
that the devise of the $800 was not a devise of
the residue, in the ordinary sense of the term,
and that the share of T. should abate with
that of the other children.-Van Nest's Ex'r
v. Van Nest, (N. J.) 179.

21. Gen. Laws N. H. c. 193, § 12, providing
that the heir, in the descending line, of a lega-