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 matter 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 had delivered a deed to his daughter to be delivered to another of his daughters, named as grantee therein, are admissible in evidence in an action, subsequent to the grantor's death, to compel a delivery of the deed to the grantee. Brown v. Stutson, 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 admissible to show what the whole agreement was that the article was ordered upon condition that it should be of a certain qual ity, and that performance on the buyer's part depended upon a compliance with the condition. Aultman v. Clifford, 478. 11 JUDGMENT-ROLL OF ANOTHER STATE COURT-EVIDENCE.-The judgment roll of another state court, 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 OF ACCOUNT of a partnership which has executed a chattel mort. 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 so familiar with the business of the mortgagors as to support the inference 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. EXECUTION. 1. EXEMPTION.-WAGES EARNED IN ANOTHER STATE, by the laws of which they are exempt from execution, are nevertheless subject to garnish. ment in this state. The exemption laws of another state cannot be pleaded or relied on as a defense by either the garnishee or the judg ment debtor. Lyon v. Callopy, 396. 2. THE INTEREST OF A BENEFICIARY UNDER A TRUST DEED IS NOT 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. Brigge 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. 2 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 void 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 4. JUDICIAL SALES.-ADMINISTRATOR'S SALES OF REAL ESTATE, under 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. B. 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 purpose of preventing a sacrifice of the property. Noland v. Barrett, 572 6. 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 preceeding, and cannot be collaterally attacked. Noland v. Barrett, 572 7. RIGHT OF 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 benefit 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 probate 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. 9. 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. JUDGMENTS-PARTIES.-AN ADMINISTRATOR UNDER A GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION IN ONE STATE is not privy in law nor in estate to an administration in another state. Braithwaite v. Harvey, 625. 11. Judgment—PARTIES.-AN ADMINISTRATOR has no authority to act for or bind the estate outside of the jurisdiction of the state of his appointment, 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. Braith waite v. Harvey, 625. See APPEAL, 2, 3. EXEMPTION. See DEEDS, 3; EXECUTION; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, 4. 1 АТТЕМРТ то Сомміт. EXPECTANCIES. EXPERTS. See WITNESSES, 8-10. EXTORTION. - THIS CRIME DEPENDS ON THE MIND AND INTENT OF THE WRONG DOER, and not on the effect or result upon the person sought to be coerced. Hence, a person may be guilty of an attempt to commit it though he does not, as he intends, produce fear on the part of the person from whom he attempts to extort. People v. Gardner, 741. 2 WHERE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF AN ATTEMPT to commit extortion are present the person having the guilty intent cannot es cape conviction on the ground that the person of whom he sought to extort was acting as a decoy, and therefore was not put in fear by the threats of the accused. People v. Gardner, 741. 8. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION-EVIDENCE-Where, on the part of the prosecu. tion, evidence is received that the accused was frequently in the company of a person whom he is charged with attempting to extort money from, and that he visited her at her house, and in saloons, etc., it is error to exclude evidence on the part of the defendant that in these acts he was under the direction of the officers of a society for the prevention of crime, and seeking to aid them, and bringing other persons to justice. People v. Gardner, 741. FEES. See OFFICERS, 5. FELLOW-SERVANTS. See MASTER And Servant, 7-12; Railroads, 11. FILING. See LIS PENDENS, 8. FIXTURES. See MORTGAGES, 7, 8; PERSONAL PROPERTY, FORECLOSURE. See JUDGMENTS, 14: MECHANIC'S LIEN, 8-10; MORTGAGES, 9-18. FORFEITURE See OFFICERS, 6. FORGERY. See 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 gives 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 actionable 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. Bee FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES; JUDGMENTS, 11-13, 18; NEGOTIABLE IS. STRUMENTS; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 12, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. LEVIDENCE-CONCEALMENT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN SON'S NAME — 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 creditors, 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. 2 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 business actually belongs to such other person or to the ostensible agent and debtor, and whether the alleged agency is a mere scheme and device to conceal and keep the property used in, or gained by, it from his creditors. Ansorge v. Barth, 928. 3. CHATTEL MORTGAGE, authorizing the mortgagee to take possession forthwith, and, in addition to the usual power of sale upon default, author. izing 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. Cluett v. Rosenthal, 4 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. 6. 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 convenience of the husband, and for the purpose of defrauding, hindering, and delaying his just creditors, of which fact complainant was ignorant 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. 6 PURCHASE BY HUSBAND FOR WIFE-RIGHT OF 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 husband, unless the presumption of fraud is negatived by the financial condition of the husband, and the circumstances at the time, or other rebutting evidene. Reel v. Livingston, 202. See DEBTOR AND CREDITOR; PARTNERSHIP, 7. FUGITIVES. See HOMESTEAd, 7. FUTURE EARNINGS. See ASSIGNMent, 7. GARNISHMENT. See ASSIGNMENT, 3; ATTACHMENT, GIFTS. See LEGISLATURE GRANTS. See BOUNDARIES; PUBLIO LANDS, L GUARDIAN AND WARD. HABEAS CORPUS. 1. 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. AM. ST. REP., VOL. XLIII. — 62 |