applies to England, as well as to sister states of the American union.

Wickersham v. Johnston, 118.
FOREIGN LAW MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED. -A foreign law is a mata
ter of fact, which the courts of this country cannot be presumed to be
acquainted with, or to have judicial knowledge of. Therefore it must

be pleaded and proved. Wickersham v. Johnston, 118.
9. DECLARATIONS OF DecedeNT.–Statements made by a grantor that he

bad delivered a deed to his daughter to be delivered to another of his
daughters, named as grantee therein, are adinissible in evidence in
an action, subsequent to the grantor's death, to compel a delivery of

the deed to the grantee. Brown v. Stulson, 462.
10. PAROL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE TO FILL OUT INCOMPLETE CONTRACT.

If a written order for the purchase of a chattel is incomplete, parol evi.
dence is adınissible to show what the whole agreement was that tho
article was ordered upon condition that it should be of a certain qual.
ity, and that perforinance on the buyer's part depended upon a com-

pliance with the condition. Aultman v. Cliford, 478.
11 JUDGMENT-ROLL OF ANOTHER State COURT-EVIDENCE.—The judgment

roll of another state cour, or an authenticated copy of it, is evidence
of all that it properly contains, including the judgment; and is, at
least, prima facie evidence that the judgment was properly rendered

and entered so as to have effect. In re Ellis' Estate, 514.
12 Books or Account of a partnership which has executed a chattel morte

gage on its goods in trust to secure an alleged indebtedness to the
mortgagee and others are admissible in evidence as tending to show
the mala fides of the transaction, if they tend to prove that part of the
alleged indebtedness never in fact existed, and that the mortgagee was
80 familiar with the business of the mortgagors as to support the in.

ference that he had examined the books. Cluett v. Rosenthal, 446.
See CONTRACTS, 11; Deeds, 4; Extortion, 3; JUDGMENTS, 23; NUISANCE,

2, 3; PATENTS, 1.

EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.

See JUDGMENTS, 19.

NOT

EXECUTION.
1. EXEMPTION.-WAGES EARNED IN ANOTHER Srate, by the laws of which

they are exempt from execution, are nevertheless subject to garnish.
ment in this state. The exemption laws of another stato cannot be
pleaded or relied on as a defense by either the garnishee or the judge

ment debtor. Lyon v. Callopy, 396.
2 THE INTEREST OF A BENEFICIARY UNDER A Trust Deed is

SUBJECT to execution nor to garnishment when the estate is held by
trustees with the power to take and keep possession thereof, and to
apply the income and increase to the support, comfort, and education
of such beneficiary, so far as may be required for such purposes. Her
creditors can have no greater interest in the property than she possesses,
and she cannot control the disposition of the trustees, nor require them
to turn the property over to her. That result cannot be indirectly
secured through the action of her creditors attempting to reach the
property or its proceeds under process against her. Meek v. Briggs
410,

See DEEDS, 3.

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-SALE OF CHOSES IN ACTION.- Under

the statute choses in action are to be sold in the same manner as other

personal property. Wickersham v. Johnston, 118.
& NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.-The executors of the estate of a deceased

person have no authority to sell and transfer notes belonging to the
deceased. They are assets of the estate which can be sold only under

and by order of the probate court. Wickersham v. Johnston, 118.
3. JUDICIAL SALES--ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE WITHOUT APPRAISEMENT-

COLLATERAL Attack.–The sale of real estate by an executor or adminis-
trator without having it appraised is an irregularity for which the sale
may be set aside in a direct proceeding for that purpose; but it is not
on this account absolutely roid in a collateral proceeding after confir.
mation by the probate court; nor is it void because appraisement was

made before the entry of the order of sale. Noland v. Barrett, 572.
& JUDICIAL SALES.- ADMINISTRATOR'S SALES OF REAL ESTATE, ander

orders of the probate court, in those states which require such sales to
be reported to the court for its approval or rejection, are judicial

sales. Noland v. Barrett, 572.
8. JUDICIAL SALES.-ADJOURNMENT BY AN ADMINISTRATOR of a sale of real

estate to a time different from that fixed in the order of the probate
court authorizing the sale does not render void the sale as afterward
made, reported, and confirmed by such court, especially if the adminis.
trator has exercised a wise discretion in adjourning the sale for the pure

pose of preventing a sacrifice of the property. Noland v. Barrelt, 572
& JUDICIAL SALES-CONFIRMATION-CONCLUSIVENESS. - The judgment of

the probate court confirming an adjourned sale of real estate made by
an administrator is final and conclusive until set aside in a direct pro

ceeding, and cannot bo collaterally attacked. Nolund v. Barrett, 572
7. Right or EXECUTORS TO INVOKE COVENANT NOT TO CONTEST WILL-

Privity. The executors of the will of a deceased ancestor are in such
privity with him that they have the right, as against an heir at law,
who petitions to revoke the probate of the will, to invoke the bene
fit of the heir's covenant in a compromise agreement not to contest the

will. In re Estate of Garcelon, 134.
8. EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL RECORDS-PROOF OF PROBATE OF FOREIGN WILL,

How MADE TO BE EFFECTUAL.-A foreign judicial record of the pro-
bate of a will may be proved by a copy thereof, attested and certified
as provided by statute, and is admissible in evidence, though, in the
absence of proof of the foreign procedure being different from that of
our own courts, it would be insufficient to support a right claimed
under the will, unless an exemplified copy of the pleadings, petitions,
or proceedings leading up to the order of admitting the will to probate
and giving jurisdiction to make it is also introduced to make the record

complete. Wickersham v. Johnston, 118.
8. A JUDGMENT AGAINST AN ADMINISTRATOR OF A DECEASED PERSON in one

state is no evidence of debt in a subsequent action by the same person
in another state against an administrator, whether the same or a dif.
ferent person, appointed there, or against any other person having

assets of the deceased. Braithwaite v. Harvey, 625.
10. JUDOMENTS_PARTIES.—AN ADMINISTRATOR UNDER A GRANT OF AD-

MINISTRATION IN ONE State is not privy in law nor in estate to an endo
ministration in another state. Braithwaite v. Harvey, 625.

11. JUDGMENT–PARTIES. — AN ADMINISTRA'ror has no anthority to act for

or bind the estate outside of the jurisdiction of the state of his appointo
ment, and therefore cannot be bound by a judgment entered against an
administrator of the same estate in another state on the ground that he
participated in the defense of the action in the other state. Braithe
waite v. Harvey, 625.

See APPEAL, 2, 3.

EXEMPTION.
See Deeds, 3; EXECUTION; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, 4.

FORFEITURE
See OFFICERS, &

FORGERY.
Soe Banks, 3-6; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, 3, 4.

FRAUD.
DECEIT—JOINT PURCHASE OF LAND.-If one party induces another to join

with him in the purchase of land, each to pay one-half of the purchase
price, which the former falsely represents to be greater than it really
is, and the latter gires the former one-half of such excessive price to be
used in paying for his share, and the former pays for the land with a
smaller amount, keeping the remainder himself, the deceit is actioa.
able and the latter may recover the amount paid in excess of his share
of the actual price, though the land is worth the price represented

Bergeron v. Miles, 911.
80. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES; JUDGMENTS, 11-13, 18; NEGOTIABLE L..

STRUMENTS; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 12.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.
1 EVIDENCE—CONCEALMENT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN Son's NANB-

In an action to subject land purchased in the name of the wife of
an insolvent debtor, and paid for out of the proceeds of a business
carried on by him in the name of his son, evidence that the wife had
no separate estate, that the son had made no other contribution to
the business than the use of his name, that he had paid no atten.
tion to the purchase of the real estate, which was made by his
father, and not showing that the son had ever received any of the
proceeds of the business, or that they have ever had an accounting
with reference thereto, sustains findings that the debtor was the real
owner of the business, and carried it on in the son's name for the
purpose of fraudulently concealing it and its profits from his credit.
ors, that the real estate was purchased with such profits, and conveyed
to the wife, and accepted by her with like fraudulent intent, and that
it should be conveyed by her to her husband's assignee for the benefit
of creditors. Ansorge v. Barth, 928.
FRAUD AGAINST CREDITORS-CONCEALMENT OF PROPERTY UNDER COVER
OF AGENCY.-An insolvent debtor cannot accumulate property under
cover of another's name, acting ostensibly as the latter's agent. If
such a claim is made, it is always a question of fact whether the basic
ness actually belongs to such other person or to the ostensible agent
and debtor, and whether the alleged agency is a mere scheme aod de-
vice to conceal and keep the property used in, or gained by, it from his

creditors. Ansorge v. Barth, 928.
2. CHATTEL Mortgage, authorizing the mortgagee to take possession forth.

with, and, in addition to the usual power of sale upon default, antbor.

zing the mortgagee to sell at private sale or in the usual course of
trade, does not vest any actual title in the mortgagee, and is not
inconsistent with the rights of the mortgagors or their creditors who
may acquire liens to redeem at any time. Hence such mortgage is
not void as a general assignment with preferences. Clueti v. Rosenthal,

INSOLVENT DEBTOR-DISPOSITION OF EXEMPT PROPERTY.- As'against
creditors, an insolvent debtor has a right to give his exempt property
to his son as well as his time in carrying on and managing his son's
business. Ansorge v. Barth, 928.
SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING TO Show. An allegation in a bill in equity
that the payment by the husband of à mortgage note given for the
purchase money of property conveyed to the wife was for the con.
venience of the husband, and for the purpose of defrauding, hindering,
and delaying his just creditors, of which fact complainant was igno-
rant until recently before the filing of the bill, is an allegation of fraud
in fact, and, coupled with a showing that the complainant, at the time
of such settlement, sustained the relation of creditor to the husband,
is sufficient of itself, if true, to maintain the bill and to subject the
property in the hands of the wife to his debt, to the extent of the

amount thus paid by the husband. Reel v. Livingston, 202.
& PURCHASE BY HUSBAND FOR Wife-RIGHT or HUSBAND'S CREDITORS

TO ATTACK. - The fact that property is purchased by the wife and
partly paid for by the husband, and the deed taken in the name of
the wife, coupled with an existing indebtedness of the husband, makes
a prima facie case of fraud, and the creditor of the husband can sub.
ject the property in the hands of the wife or her legal representatives
to his debt to the extent of the amount paid by the busband, unloss
the presumption of fraud is negatived by the financial condition of
the husband, and the circumstances at the time, or other rebutting orlo
deno. Reel v. Livingston, 202.

See DEBTOR AND CREDITOR; PARTNERSHIP, 7.

FUGITIVES.
See HOMESTEAD, 7.

FUTURE EARNINGS.

See ASSIGNMENT, 7.

GARNISHMENT.
Soo ASSIGNMENT, 3; ATTACHMENZ.

GIFTS.
See LEGISLATURE

GRANTS.
Soo BOUNDARIES; Publio Lands, L

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

See HOMESTEAD, 4.

HABEAS CORPUS.
L IRREGULARITIES–Review OF JUDGMENT.-After the court has acquired

jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person the subsequent
proceedings, however erroneous, constitute no ground for the discharge
of such person on a writ of habeas corpus. This writ cannot be used to
review a judgment. Smith v. Clausmeier, 311.
AU, ST. REP., VOL. XLIII. - 62