spiracy is within the discretion of the trial judge, reviewable only See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 19; JURISDICTION. ASSIGNMENTS. See PUBLIC LANDS, 25. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. BAIL. See HABEAS CORPUS, 3. BANKRUPTCY. 1. Acting or forbearing to act under § 29b 5 of Bankruptcy Act; what In the absence of any proof to that effect in the record, a promise by the bankrupt made between the petition and the discharge to pay 2. Compositions; acquisition of money for; use of bankrupt's credit. 3. Discharge; effect of, on liability under new promisc. A discharge, while releasing the bankrupt from legal liability to pay a 4. Discharge; effect on debt and remedy. The theory of bankruptcy is that the discharge does not destroy the 5. Discharge; relation. As a general rule, the discharge when granted relates back to the in- 6. Discharge; relation. This court by promulgating General Orders and Forms in Bankruptcy 7. Discharge; provable debts included in. Obligations created after the filing of the petition and before the dis- 8. Intent to defraud and intent to prefer differentiated. 9. Preferences; intent to defraud; general verdict in equity case held not to A general verdict in an equity case to declare a payment to be a fraud- 10. Preferences; transfer of securities to secure loan to one immediately A bona fide transfer of securities to secure a loan made to one who im- 11. Promise to pay provable debt; validity of. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 an express promise to pay a prov- See APPEAL And Error, 2; JURISDICTION, A 7, 8; B; C 2,4, 4. BAY-WINDOWS See PARTY WALLS BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. See APPEAL AND ERROR, 67, 8. BILL OF PARTICULARS. See CRIMINAL LAW, 5. BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS. 1. Liability on bond given to secure performance of contract. 2. Liability on bond given to secure performance of contract. for a public utility and bond for performance and are simply 3. Liability of surety where performance of contract prevented by obligee. nance, the municipality itself makes performance impossible, it BOUNDARIES. See INDIANS, 6 STATUTES, A 9; TREATIES, 3. BUILDING REGULATIONS. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, S BURDEN OF PROOF. As to denial of equal protection of law through classification. The burden is on the one who complains of his classification under a legal ordinance to show that he was denied equal protection of the See CRIMINAL LAW, 7. CALLS BOUNDING LAND. See TREATIES, S CARMACK AMENDMENT. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 3, 4. 7, 22-27, 32, 45. CARRIERS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 6; LOCAL LAW (Utah); INTERSTATE COMMERCE; RAILROADS; RESTRAINT OF TRADE. CASES APPROVED. Hastings & Dakota Ry. Co. v. Arnold, 26 L. D. 538, approved in Svor CASES DISTINGUISHED. Baltimore v. Trust Co., 166 U. S. 673, distinguished in Grand Trunk Barney v. New York, 193 U. S. 430, distinguished in Home Tel. & Tel. Emert v. Missouri, 155 U. 3. 296, distinguished in Crenshaw v. Arkansas, Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196, distinguished in McMichael v. Murphy, 197 U. S. 304, distinguished in Robinson v. CASES FOLLOWED. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, followed in Wells, American R. R. Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 547, followed in American R. R. Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills; 219 U. S. 186, followed in Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 639. Barrett v. United States, 169 U. S. 231, followed in Matheson v. United Bennett v. United States, 227 U. S. 333, followed in Harris v. United States, 340. Bierce v. Hutchins, 205 U. S. 340, followed in Zimmerman v. Harding, Champion Lumber Co. v. Fisher, 227 U. S. 445, followed in Foreman v. Chicago & Alton Ry. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, followed in Kansas City Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Willard, 220 U. S. 413, followed in Chicago, Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, followed in Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. Crenshaw v. Arkansas, 227 U. S. 389, followed in Rogers v. Arkansas, Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469, 165 U. S. 373, followed in Mathe- Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co., 226 U. S. 102, followed in Mengel v. Estes v. Timmins, 199 U. S. 391, followed in Ross v. Stewart, 530. Los Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100, followed in Mengel v. Mengel, 674. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 224 U. S. 503, followed in Gulf, Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, followed in Bradley v. Richmond, Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, followed in Hampton v. St. L., I. M. Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45, followed in Hoke v. Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, followed in Athanasaw v. Houston & Texas Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 329, followed in Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, followed in Mis- |