Statute of Frauds, and need not be in | vendee at stipulated time, and upon vendee's writing. failure to perform condition, issue execution and recover possession of the land. Authorities cited. Id. Freed v. Richey (Pa.) 153 2. The owner of two adjoining city lots, Nos. 141 and 143, conveyed lot No. 143 to defendant's grantor, by metes and bounds, as being twenty-two feet wide, "with the buildings and improvements thereon," "together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging." The house on the lot conveyed extended beyond the line called for by the deed five feet on lot No. 141 on the east, up to the west wall of a building thereon, used as the east wall of the house, the greater part of which was on the land conveyed, but was not used as a party wall. The original grantor being still the owner of lot No. 141 brought ejectment for the said five feet of lot No 141. Held, said deed conveyed only that part of the house which is on the land described therein, and that no easement exists for the extension of the house upon the land not conveyed. Griffiths v. Morrison (N. Y.) 773 3. The vendor is regarded as trustee of the land for the purchaser, and the purchaser as the trustee of the purchase money. Bostwick v. Beach (N. Y.) BRIEFS AND NOTES. 865 667 VOLUNTARY PAYMENT. See PAY 8. A vendor in good faith is not responsible for his title, beyond his covenants. Id. 4. Jurisdiction, having attached, will not be ousted by lapse of time, except by the 9. If a person in peaceable possession under unmistakable intent of the Act that it should claim of lawful title, but really under a de-not continue beyond the day of election. Id. fective title, makes in good faith permanent improvements, the true owner, who seeks the aid of equity to establish his own title, will be compelled to reimburse the occupant for his expenditure. Thomas v. Evans (N. Y.) 800 10. Evidence that an amicable eject Election certificate is prima facie evidence of election to office. (Pa.) 157 ment between vendor and vendee was for Appeal from decision from registrar of voters; time; jurisdiction. (Md.) 389 WAGES. See ASSIGNMENT, 2. was found to exist, the transaction would WAREHOUSEMAN. be void. WATERS AND WATERCOURSES. 1. The natural flow of water from a higher to a lower lot cannot, as a general rule, give a cause of action to one injured thereby. Sowers v. Lowe (Pa.) 145 1. Whether the dedication of a street is complete, as against the owners of the soil, is one for the jury; but where the facts are undisputed, it is a question of law. Kennedy v. Cumberland (Md.) Id. 409 2. Plaintiff and defendant owned adjacent lots. Plaintiff's house was close to the line; limits, laid out by the owner into lots and 2. The fact that vacant land within the city defendant's thirty-two feet from it. The inter-streets, is assessed by the city as "S's Addivening space was sandy, and sloped from de- tion," is of no weight in determining this fendant's house to plaintiff's. Plaintiff's cellar question of acceptance. was always dry until defendant changed the spouting which had formerly discharged into the street the water from defendant's house, and turned the spouts upon the space between the houses. The water then percolated through the sand, and plaintiff's cellar became damp, and the house was damaged. Held, that plaintiff had no right of action against defendant for the damages thus caused. Id. 3. The acceptance by the City of Cumberland of its amended Charter of 1848 did not operate as an acceptance of streets previ ously laid out within the city limits, and dedicated to the public by the owners. Id. 4. An uninterrupted use of a street by the public for at least twenty years is necessary to establish a public highway by user. Authorities cited. Id. 412 5. There must be an acceptance of a dedication of a street before the duty of the county or municipality in improving or keeping it in repair can arise. Authorities cited. Id. after the report was filed and confirmed | said deed did not convey fee in roadbed of nisi, and on the same day a decree such street, and that grantor was entitled to was filed opening the road. Affirmed on recover possession of the roadbed to the center. certiorari. Schweitzer's Appeal (Pa.) 631 9. In a statutory proceeding the court of quarter sessions should either unqualifiedly approve or disapprove the road laid out and returned. Re Road in Benzinger Township (Pa.) 663 10. In an action to recover damages by the owner of land against a municipality for the taking of land for a street, a reference to the street as a boundary in deed to private parties, held, not to operate as a dedication, so as to prevent the recovery of damages. Easton v. Rinek (Pa.) 192 11. The right to damages did not accrue until the street was opened. Id. 12. A recorded road return cannot be attacked collaterally. Humphreys v. Woodstown (N. J.) 109 13. The Road Act, § 78, refers to cases where no part of the road has been opened and used. Id. 14. Certiorari to review a decree confirming a report of viewers laying out a public road, taken more than two years after final confirmation of the report, will be quashed. Supervisors of Saucon Township v. Brodhead (Pa.) 496 III. CHANGE OF GRADE. 15. The measure of damages is the difference in the market value of the property before the change in the immediately adjoining property and the market value after the change of grade in front of the property, with interest on the principal sum to date. Freemansburg v. Rodgers (Pa.) 828 16. An assent by plaintiff when he was not the owner of the property will not bind him after he becomes such owner. Id. 17. On appeal to the common pleas from a report of viewers assessing damages for a change of grade of street, the opinion of the viewers that the change was a damage, after having testified to an acquaintance with the value of such property that they had viewed the premises, is admissible. ld. 18. The cause of action for damages accrues at time of physical change of grade of Id. street. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Gould (Md.) 379 Williams v. Mayor of New York (N. Y.) 301 2. The Act of 1857, settling the bulkhead lines for the Port of New York, authorized the city to fill up and occupy the open space between the new line and the land; and such filling would give the new made land to the city. Id. 3. The State did, by its earlier Acts and their recognition in 1857, permit solid filling on its lands under water within the bulkhead lines, and by that process part with its title and transfer it to him who lawfully made the Id. new land as an approach to the docks. 4. When the city, being owner of the upland in front of which the harbor commissioners' line had been established under Act of All that certain water lot or vacant ground 1857, made a deed to private individuals of and soil under water to be made land and gained out of the Hudson or North River or harbor of New York, and so much thereof as has already been made and gained," etc., together with the "estate, right, title and interest" that the city "may have or may lawfully claim in the premises conveyed," such deed conveyed the right to make and own a solid filling between an old wharf and a new one on the new line, and an easement, as against the State, for the approach of vessels over the land of the State under water in front of the harbor commissioners' line. Id. 5. It is not the effect of the Acts of the Legislature to convey to private proprietors all land belonging to the State between the land of such proprietors and the new bulkhead line. the gift to G. and gave him an annuity of one hundred dollars. Both the will and codicil were duly executed. Thereafter testator altered the word "one" in the amount of the annu 8. A father devised his property to his sev eral children, giving a certain farm to his son Williams v. Mayor of New York (N. Y.) 301 G. After the making of the will, G. misbe 6. When a private owner's land and haved himself, and the testator made a codicil wharf right will be taken away and dewhereby "for certain reasons" he revoked stroyed by the new extension line and struct ures of the dock department of the City of New York, he is entitled to adequate compensation. Id. 7. Where parties make a special agree-ity in the codicil to "two," and made a mem ment as to the mode of delivery of a shipment of sugar and fix the amount which the owner or consignee should pay for wharfinger's charges, the agreement is valid and binding on such owner and consignee. Woodruff v. Havemeyer (N. Y.) 776 orandum that he wished G to have "two hundred instead of one, as per codicil." The will and codicil were both admitted to probate, the latter in the condition in which it was before the alteration. Held, that the codicil, as well as the will, was properly admitted to probate. Conover v. Conover (N. J.) 136 ld. 777 777 In case of general cargo, different consignments must be properly separated; and during time required for this purpose carrier's risk continues. (N. Y.) 778 Time of removal of goods from. (N. Y.) 777 1. It appearing that testatrix, aged about seventy-seven years of age, was of testament ary capacity and free from undue influ: 473 538 Incapacity; burden of proof. (Pa.) Subscribing witnesses are not always the best to prove sanity of testator. (Pa.) Undue influence. (N. J.) 136, 137, 473; 538-9 (Pa.) Attestation clause is prima facie evidence 473 136, 137 (N. J.) 137 2. Where the grantee in a deed from hus2. The question of testamentary capacity is band and wife, of the husband's land, de Cross examination; limitation. (Pa.) 545 671 WORDS AND PHRASES. See DEFI- 9. The court may refuse to charge the jury People v. Ogle (N. Y.) 49 NITIONS. MENT. |