PRMERCRMUAD Aenea rut eee sire ; ; t | i bat i teert(h 24) Sen f ny atthe Bie iec i Pea ate t, ia nt olen sepa i ei et aan aiid a de! i ue Hi Hy i Hy aaniaiean aati ial i a 7 i FAC ee ame a ei PUNO Earn ee Gornell Law School Library Cornell University Library 8935.R49 v. eneral princi iit 924 020 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE WITH THEIR APPLICATION TO THE TRIAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AT COMMON LAW, IN EQUITY AND UNDER THE CODES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE SEVERAL STATES. IN TWO VOLUMES, AN APPENDIX TO VOL. II. CONTAINS THE CODE PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA. BY FRANK 8. RICE CounsELoR AT Law. VOLUME LI. THE LAWYERS’ CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO. ROCHESTER, N. Y. 1892. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two, by THE LAWYERS’ CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO., In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. has RY B. R. ANDREWS, PRINTER, ROOHESTER, N, Y. PREFACE. The existing condition of the legal literature expository of this subject, as indicated by the various text-books now before the profession, will afford ample vindication for the appearance of the present work. Without hypercriticism, it may be safely assumed of Best, Phil- lipps, Taylor and Starkie that they wrote for a generation which has. long since passed away. Their text was professedly designed to meet the requirements of a social, professional and commercial con- dition that was entirely foreign both to the sentiment and emer- gencies of the present day and to the genius and spirit of our institutions. Their works nat only embodied the exact scholarship and the judicial opinion ‘pf\.their day, but also faithfully reflected the attitude of the English bar on this topic during the first half of the present century. But apart from the great lapse of time and the radical change in all material conditions—causes in them- selves amply sufficient to impair the usefulness of any text-book whatever—an unfortunate system of alleged annotation in the form of “marginal notes” and cross references, usually in fine type, and by a succession of editors foreign to the author, has been engrafted upon the original text, necessarily without regard to either the logical development of the general theme, or the perti- nency of the particular discussion. This had the dual effect of giving bulk and proportion to the volume, and perplexity and delay to the practitioner, until such undue expansion of the sys- tem has resulted in a very sturdy protest from bench, bar and commentator alike. : A critic of rare discernment and acknowledged eminence, both as a text-writer and a jurist (Sir James Stephen), has voiced the prevailing opinion as to those various publications and their authors, in the following language: “All the existing books on the Law of Evidence are written on the usual model of English law-books, which, as a general rule, aim at being collections, more or less complete, of all the authori- ties upon a given subject to which a judge would listen in an (iii) iv PREFACE. argument in court. Such works often become, under the hands of successive editors, the repositories of an extraordinary amount of research, but they séem to have the effect of making the attain- ment, by direct study, of a real knowledge of the law, or of any branch of it as a whole, almost impossible. The enormous mass of detail and illustration which they contain, and the habit into which their writers naturally fall, of introducing into them every- thing which has any sort of connection, however remote, with the main subject, make these books useless for purposes of study, though they may increase their utility as works of reference.” (Introduction to Stephen’s Digest of the Law of Evidence.) The countless intricacies that have arisen from railway expan- sion, electrical communication, the more general employment of mechanical appliances and other equally radical innovations, are loudly calling for an abandonment of the metaphysical treatment of the various formulas and rationale of evidence as an abstract science, and its consideration with special reference to its practical application to the variant phases of an immense volume of litiga- tion. Of Stephen’s Digest it may be said that while it isin every way admirable as a terse statement of general principles, the restrictive treatment his plan imposed excludes its consideration as a repository of applied principles or rules of illustrative appli- cation. It is impossible to more than outline the features of a great topic within the compass of such a work. Of the American authorities, Greenleaf and Wharton, the former, owing to the crude and inceptive condition of our jurisprudence, was confined largely to English precedent for principle and author- ity. He wrote with rare discernment and classic elegance of diction, but from the standpoint of fifty years ago; and much of the scholarly suggestion and research of his time have become utterly oblivion- ized and useless. Dy, Wharton appears to have adopted many of Prof. Greenleaf’s limitations, and his very able work is character- ized by a decided adherence to common law precedents, metaphy- sical disquisition, and historical résumé, in which Justinian, Tri- bonian, Puffendorf and Vattel vie with Nottingham, Hardwicke and the medizval scholastics in casting obscurity and confusion upon the application of the text to the demands of our modern practice methods. Few lawyers in the press and exigency of a hotly contested case have either the time or disposition to investi- gate subjects of even great fascination to the antiquary and biblio- PREFACE. v mane, but which, it is respectfully submitted, neither solve perplex- ities or even afford the faint suggestion of relief. Mr. Abbott, in the introductory paragraph of his Trial Evi- dence, indicates the self-imposed limitation the distinguished author has placed upon his incomparable work he says: “In this volume I ‘assume’ that the reader is familiar with the general principles of the law of evidence.” This is a safe postulate with the intellectual Titans of the bar; and to those who are to-day the recognized primates of professional capacity, it may well apply; but what can we “assume” for the vast mass of the rank and file, including those who are just entering upon their professional career, or are struggling through the first years of an arduous and exacting practice, limited as to time and means for the fullest assimilation of such “general principles,” to say noth- ing of the other “readers” who now and then need to refresh their “familiarity 2” It is a notorious fact among the American judiciary, a fact sus- tained by abundant data, that fully four fifths of the cases in the appellate courts allege as matter of reversible error the errone- ous reception or rejection of some evidentiary fact that the respective counsel offered to prove. This fact alone is a practical demonstration of the uncertainty and contradiction that prevail in the present law on this topic, and unmistakably indicates the demand for some standard of authority that will assist in harmo- nizing the discrepancies that pervade the Federal and State decisions. The progressive and assimilative character of law as a recog- nized science is best illustrated by the radical innovations that have recently been effected in the rules regulating the production of evidence in civil cases. Statutory enactment, judicial decision, with new customs and usages, have fastened upon the early maxims of evidence a mass of additional matter that in many instances has quite ob- scured the original rule, to which it was supposed to sustain some affinity. As typical of this we cite the effect of such legislation as we find embodied in § 829 of the New York Code of Civil Pro- cedure, as to examination of a party in his own behalf, ete. This has been a prolific source of litigation. Its provisions have been substantially re-enacted in nearly all of the Code states, and it is still a never-failing spring of legal agitation and vi PREFACE. controversy. So, too, the abrogation of all restrictive regulations as to the competency of witnesses, arising from mental, moral and social disqualification, has effected extended changes in the former rules, while the force and effect of legislative sanction now given to public records under the various recording acts, must be regarded as innovations that have placed many important questions of the early law in new and modified lights. Again, the radical changes effected by the reformed procedure, the elimination of all distinctions between law and equity in our practice methods, the extended application accorded to the doc- trine of res geste, estoppel and res adjudicata, the almost univer- sal use of depositions as effective auxiliaries to evidence, the start- ling and violent inroads affected by the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph, with the extensive application of photography in evidence, have placed the frontier line of relevancy far beyond anything that would be recognized by the presiding judge of even twenty yearsago. Further, consider the latitude now accorded to the trial court as to limiting the scope and range of cross-exam- ination and the order of proof, the liberality with which cer- tain presumptions are indulged, and the equally generous provis- ions relating tv amendments, and the averment is fully sustained by the whole tenor and trend of modern adjudication, that, under the impulse of present ideas, the courts are disposed to greater freedom and latitude in construing evidence. Still another formidable deflection from early rule is found in the effort of the federal courts to assimilate their practice to the statutory law in force in the particular State in which they are sitting; this, with the extended discretion accorded to the trial court in the admission of evidence, calls for a correlative increase of care on the part of the appellate court in reviewing evidentiary facts with a view to relieve agaiust such errors as may have affected the substantial rights of the parties to the litigation. This system of reviewing the evidence, on the appeal, has necessitated great care in the preparation for trial, and exacts a discriminating review of the authorities which will best indicate the methods by which the allegations of the pleadings are to be sustained. So much, as explanatory, in part, of the reasons that have called forth this undertaking. It only remains to add some brief obser- vations on the nature, scope and character of this treatise. It is grounded upon the state and federal decisions and is therefore PREFACE. vii distinctively and eminently American. It presents an analysis of the subject in all its branches, and embraces a wide range of author- ity, as is best evidenced by the fact that nearly ten thousand decis- ions are cited and discussed. There is nothing whatever speculative. or argumentative about the text, but it is rather a somewhat elab- orate attempt to state what has been decided—what the law is, not what, in the writer’s opinion, the law should be. The authorities cited are believed to enunciate the entire substance of the law trib- utary to the subject, and they are supposed to faithfully reflect in minute detail, the letter and spirit of modern rules. In general, the author has preferred to leave any apparent con- tradiction in the citations without even an attempt at reconcile- ment, rather than incumber the free movement of the text with expositions that at best must be purely speculative, and that are without the least influence either upon the conscience or discre- tion of the trial court. The practitioner is best qualified to draw these lines of demarcation and observe the variant nature of the facts, which doubtless will indicate or suggest the reasons for the apparent want of harmony. As a contribution to the legal literature of the period, I disclaim all consideration not merit- ed, but will insist that the undertaking is something more than a mere compilation from the syllabi of reporters, brought together because of a fancied affinity to. the general subject. It is a studious attempt to appropriately group and classify the latest utterances of authority upon every proposition that is avowedly -or by implication involved in the proper evolution of the text. As no apology for the work is required or expected, none cer- tainly will be offered. Those whose advanced “personal equation” and mental equipment emancipate them from the need of such an assistant are hardly in a position to resent its appearance if in any’ way it prove beneficial to others; while those who are disposed to admit the existence of a “long felt want” should not discounte- nance an attempt, however ineffectual, to supply that want. While conscious of many deficiencies both of treatment and of style, the work is offered to the profession with the hope that such merits as it may possess will entitle it to indulgent consideration as embodying data that will often assist and never mislead. It remains to express a proper appreciation of the many courte- sies received, during an extended period of preparation, from the editorial staff of the Lawyers’ Co-operative Publishing Company. viii PREFACE. Particularly am I indebted to Messrs. Robert Desty, Charles A. Ray and 8. K. Williams, for much valuable suggestion and matured advice; also to Mr. B. A. Rich for his personal co-opera- tion in the preparation of the elaborate index, upon which depends so much the value of the volumes themselves. Dee. 1891. FS. R. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. (Pages 1-12). Sec. 1. The Subject Defined. Sec. 2. As Defined by Bentham. Sec. 38. A Definition by Best. Sec. 4. ‘‘Evidence” and “Proof” not Synonymous—Whately. Sec. 5. Judicial Proof not a Matter of Arbitrary Rule Sec. 6. Matters of Fact are Proved by Moral Evidence Alona, Sec. 7. A Further Definition from Best. Sec. 8, Definitions by Various American Courts. Sec. 9. Bouvier’s Summary. Sec. 10. Parker’s Definition. Sec. 11. Exhaustive Analysis of Sir James Stephen. Sec. 12. A Definition from Wait’s Law and Practice. Sec. 18. Wharton’s Definition. Sec. 14. The Statutory Definition of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a. Evidence. b. Proof. The Law of Evidence. Degree of Certainty Required to Establish Facts. Four Kinds of Evidence. , . Degrees of Evidence. Primary Evidence. Secondary Evidence. Direct Evidence. . Indirect Evidence. Prima Facie Evidence. . Partial Evidence. . Satisfactory Evidence. . Indispensable Evidence. . Conclusive Evidence. . Cumulative Evidence. . Corroborative Evidence. ther Definition of Cumulative Evidence. B Fa. 509 rhe Bio Eevos Sec. 15. F CHAPTER II. JUDICIAL NOTICE. (Pages 13-47.) Sec. 16. Present Attitude of Judicial Authority upon This Subject as Defined = by Chief Judge Hunt. Sec. 17. Definition by Sir James Stephen. Sec. 18. Definition by Chief Justice Taney in a Celebratcd Case. Sec. 19. View of the Subject by United States Courts. Sec. 20. View of the Subject by State Courts. a. Jurisdiction and Authority of Courts. b. Terms of Courts. c. Court Proceedings. d, Court Records. x TABLE OF CONTENTS. Sec. 21. Time in Its Relations to Judicial Notice, a. Facts Stated in the Almanac. b. The Course of Nature. Sec. 22. Place in Its Relations to Judicial Notice, Sec. 28. Corporations and Corporate Officials. a. Private Corporations, b. Public Corporations. c. Public Officers. Sec. 24. Circumstances in Their Relations to Judicial Notice. . Civil Divisions of the State. . Subdivisions of the Fractional Townships. . Elections and Changes in Office. . Matters of General Knowledge and ixperietos: Matters of History. . Geographical and Topographical Facts. Population. Facts in Relation to the Industrial Arts and Sciences. . Matters of Science or Art. . Supreme Law of the Land. Congressional Acts. General Law. . Usages and Customs. Public Laws of the State. . Special Legislation. Legislative Journals. Municipal Ordinances. . Seal of the State. . Foreign Laws. . Laws of a Sister State. . Records of a Sister State. . Facts in Relation to the Circulating Medium. w. Meaning of Words and Phrases. Sec, 25. mies Applicable in Particular States, . Alabama. . Arkansas. California. . District of Columbia, Illinois. Indiana. Towa. Kansas, Kentucky. Louisiana. . Mississippi. . Missouri. . North Carolina, . Tennessee. Texas, p. Wisconsin. Sec. 26. Recent Utterances of the State and Federal Courts on the Subject. Sec. 27. Manifest Defects of Any Tabulation of the Topics Embraced within This Subject. CHAPTER IIL PRESUMPTIONS. (Pages 48-104.) Sec. 28. Blackstone’s Definition. Sec, 29, Presumption of Law. Sec. 80. Presumption of Fact. Sec. 81. Presumptions as to Documents Thirty Years Old. Sec. 82. Proper Custody of Such Documents, Sec. 338. Character of Evidence Offered in Support of Presumptions. asf aunnedos pee Hho BO op oP Bima. bone tees Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 34. . 85. Sec. Sec. 36, 37. 38. 39. 40. 41, 43. 44, TABLE OF CONTENTS. xi Inferences from Inferences not Permitted. Wharton’s Definition. Inferences and Presumptions. Statutory Law of California on This Subject. a. When Presumptions may be Controverted. - b. What Presumptions are Conclusive. c. What Presumptions may be Contrcverted; Extended Tabulation of These Instances. Presumptions Affecting Judicial Acts. The Subject as Treated by Text-Writers and Courts, a. By Best. b. By Starkie. c. By Phillips. d. By Sir James Stephen. e. By Taylor. f. By Judge Grover. g. By the [llinois Supreme Court. h, By the Federal Courts. Presumptions as to the Acts of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction. The Maxim ‘‘Lex Loci Ret Site.” a. Review of the Authorities Bearing upon This Maxim. b. The Caution of High Authority. c. Implications of this Maxim with the Rule Requiring Proof of Foreign Laws. d. Foreign Laws, how Proved. e. Presumption as to Foreign Law. . Presumption of Continuance. a. Views of Commissioner Hunt. b. Miscellaneous Authorities on This Subject. c. Statement of the General Rule. d. Concise Statements of the Rule by Mr. Justice Johnson and Mr. Chief Justice Dixon. e. Commentary by Sir James Stephen; Autaorities Sustaining His Views, f. 7 Statute of Limitations in Its Relations to this Phase of the aw. Presumptions Regarding the Absolute Payment of Promissory Notes. a. Rebuttal Evidence as to this Presumption. b. Authorities Bearing upon this Subject Collated. Presumption of Intent. a. Persons of Sound Mind and Discretion Presumed to Intend Ordi- nary Acts. . Fraudulent Intent Never to be Presumed. . Intention of Parties a Fact to be Proved. . Presumption of Intent Rebuttable by Competent Evidence. . Further Presumption that a Person Intends to Do What is within His Power and Right to Do. Corporations Subject to the Presumption of Intent. . Review of the Celebrated Case of Curtis v. Leavitt; Views of Chief Judge Comstock. h. Qualification of the Rule Stated by Justice Hubbard, Cnog 9 ps Sec, 45. Presumption of Life. a. These Presumptions Cautiously Indulged. pb. Views of Mr. Gresley. c. Presumptions should be Made upon the Common Principles of Induction. d. An Extreme Case Considered. e. Presumption of Suicide not to be Indulged. f, Ordinary Term of Life not Presumed to Exceed Ninety-nine Years. Sec, 46. Presumption of Death. a. Raised by Continuous Absence for Seven Years. — pb, No Presumption as to the Time of Death Arises from Mere Absence. . xii Sec. 47. Sec, 48. Sec. 49. Sec. 50. Sec. 51. Sec. 52. Sec. 53. Sec. 54. Sec. 55. Sec. 56. Sec. 57. Sec. 58. Sec. 59. TABLE OF CONTENTS. . Statement of the North Carolina Rule. . Authorities Cited by Mr. Justice Harlan. . Death, how Proved. Importance of This Presumption in Criminal Law. Presumption of Survivorship. a. No Speculative Presumption as to the Order in Which Two Per- sons Die. b. Death Occasioned by Catastrophe Raises no Presumption of Sur- vivorship. Presumption of Sanity. Presumption of Legitimacy. a. Present Status of the Rule. . Want of Access may be Shown. . Presumption of Legitimacy Rebuttable. Doubt and Suspicion not Indulged. Presumption of Legitimacy of Child Born in Wedlock. . Burden of Proving Ilegitimacy. When Legal Presumption Relieves from Proof. What Evidence Necessary to Bastardize. Father’s Declarations Insufficient. . Likeness as Regards the Question of Paternity. . legitimacy may be Established by Proof of Other Facts. . Evidence of Intercourse with Other Men. . Proof of Non-access. . Parties Themselves not Competent Witnesses on the Subject of Access, o. Proof of Impotency of Husband. Presumption of Domicil. a. Once Acquired Presumed Continued. b. Lord Westbury’s Statement of the Rule. c. Domiciliary Relations Perpetuate Themselves, Presumption of Negligence. a. How Established. b. Not Assumed where Proper Care is Shown. c. Mere Happening of Accident not Sufticient to Establish. d. Fact of Killing does not Establish. e. Rule in Actions Based ou Contracts. : Presumptions Arising from Lapse of Time and Notorious Possession. a. This Rule one of Convenience and Policy. b. Conveyance Presumed from Lapse of Time. Presumption of Identity. a. Shown by Identity of Name. b. May be Repelled. c. The Rule Condensed. Presumption of Innocence. a. Wide Acceptation of This Rule. b. Party Alleging Guilt must Prove It. Presumption of Knowledge. a, Universality of This Presumption. b. The Maxim ‘“Jgnoratia Legis Neminem Excusat.” c. Wharton’s View. d. Argument of Mr. Livingston. Presumption as to the Date of a Document. a. Rule from Stephen’s Digest. b. No Presumption Indulged as to Forged Instruments, c. All Presumptions Subject to Rebuttal. Presumptions as to Alluvion and Riparian Rights, Views of Sir James Stephen, Extended Citation of Authority, moRha BB ere. B08 eo AO oF Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, See. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 85. . The Scintilla Doctrine Considered. 87. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xili CHAPTER IV. PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. (Pages 105-107.) . Starkie’s Definition, . As Defined by the United States Supreme Court. . Implications of the Topic with the Burden of Proof. . Best’s Definition. CHAPTER V. THE BURDEN OF PROOF. (Pages 108-143.) . The Ulterior Aim of Litigation. . Burden of Proof Usually with the Plaintiff. . Degree of Proof Necessary. . An Unfailing Test—Burden on the Affirmative. . General Acceptation of This Rule. . Early Recognized by English Courts. . The Rule in State and Federal Courts Considered. . Effective Presentation of This Subject. . Other Authorities, . Rule where Both Parties Hold the Affirmative. . Rule where Presumption Stands for Proof. . Shifting Nature of the Burden of Proof. . Mercurial Character of the Rule. . When Facts are Peculiarly within the Knowledge of a Party. . Harmony of the Authorities. . Burden of Proof in Malicious Prosecution. . In Cases of Payment. . In Cases of Undue Influence. . Proof of a Negative not Required; Exceptions to This Rule. a. Views of Mr. Justice Miller. b. Affirmative Evidence Entitled to the Greatest Weight. . Burden of Proof in Cases of Contributory Negligence. a. The Weight of Authority. b. When Governed by the Pleadings. . The Rule as to Negotiable Paper. a. An Exception as to Unindorsed Paper. b. A Further Exception where Paper was Executed without Consid- eration. c. Where Instrument is Payable to Bearer. d. The Rule in Cases of Fraud. e. In Cases of Lost and Stolen Instruments. Burden of Proof in Matrimonial] Actions. Opening the Case; Rights of the Parties. a. Of Great Importance. b. The Present and the Former Rule. . Party must Exercise his Right. . The Rule in Cases of Libel and Slander. . Where Damages are Liquidated. . Object of the Opening; What may be Stated. Difficulty of Formulating a General Rule. Undue License in Opening a Case or in Addressing the Jury. Free Latitude Allowed. . A Recent Case Considered. . Instance of Improper Opening. 1. Further Illustrations of Impropriety; Reprimand by the Court. Rove B08 ng Qo Sec. 88, Personal Abuse. a. Extreme Cases Cited. b. Restraining Use of Degrading Language. xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS, Sec. 89. In Criminal Cases the Rule is That the Burden of Proof never Shifts.. a. Distinction between Civil and Criminal Cases as Regards Quan- tum of Evidence. b. Plaintiff ‘‘Rests” after Proving a Prima Facie Case. ; Sec. 90. Party Having Affirmative should Open and Close Case; This Rule Practically without Exception. Sec. 91. Proof ot Negative Pregnant. Sec. 92. Citation of Recent Authority in Support of the Foregoing Rules. CHAPTER VI. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. (Pages 144-182.) Sec. 98. Exacting Nature of the Rule Requiring the Best Evidence . The Rule without Practical Modification. . Reason of the Rule. . Further Illustration of the Rule. Where Primary Evidence has been Lost or Destroyed. . The Cardinal Consideration Stated. . Rule does not Require the Greatest Amount of Evidence, . Modifications of the Rule. 1. Public Character of Officer. 2. Public Records or Registers. 8. Transcripts from Justices’ Dockets, 4, Where Primary Evidence is in the Hands of Adverse Party. 5. Written Stipulations or Agreements between Parties. Sec. 94. Blending of the Subject with Secondary Evidence. Sec. 95. What Party must Show in order to Introduce Secondary Evidence. a. Due Diligence Required in order to Command Best Evidence. b. Foundation must be Satisfactory. . Negative Definition of This Term. . Secondary Evidence must be the Best Attainable. The Rule Allowed is One of Policy and Convenience. . Extended Statement of the English Rule. . Scope of the Rule. . Frequent Application of the Rule. The Rule as Stated by the United States Supreme Court. . Rule where Primary Evidence is Lost. . Degree of Diligence Necessary to be Shown in Effort to Produce- Primary Evidence. Sec. 96. Preliminaries Necessary for the Introduction of Secondary Proof. a. Notice to Produce; Mode of Service. b. What Notice should Contain. c. Effect of Notice. Sec. 97. Another Theory of This Grade of Evidence. Sec. 98. No Absolute Rule as to the Extent of Search. Sec. 99. Value of a Missing Paper a Circumstance to be Considered. Sec. 100. Character of the Paper. Sec. 101. Search must be Made in Ordinary Place of Deposit. Sec. 102. Secondary Evidence of Articles in Their Nature Immovable. a. Relaxation of the Rule in Some Cases. b. Best’s Theory in Cases of This Description. Sec. 108. Effect of Notice to Produce. Sec. 104, Effectof Refusal to Produce a Paper. Sec. 105. Foundation for Secondary Evidence. Sec. 106. Further View of the Preliminary Proof. Sec. 107. Proof of Instruments Lost or Destroyed. Sec. 108. Proof of Instruments in Other Party’s Possession or beyond Reach... Sec. 109. Frequent Calls for Appeal to Secondary Evidence. Sec. 110. Judicial Utterances on the Subject. Sec. 111. Extract from a Late Opinion of Judge Rapallo. Sec. 112. Absence of a General Rule, Sec. 118. A Pennsylvania Precedent. Bre htoaoe Fro 50g tho Qo Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. See. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 114, 115. 116, 117. 118. 119, 120. 121, 122. 128. 124, 2 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 182. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142, 148. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xV Secondary Evidence Showing the Contents of a Public Document. Theories Which Underlie Introduction of Certified Copies. Common Law Provisions on This Subject. Extent of Their Adoption in Illinois. In Massachusetts, In Tennessee, In Louisiana. Views of the United States Supreme Court as to Common Law Meth- ods of Evidence. : Effect of Abrogation of the Common Law upon Secondary Evidence. Becondary Hvldenge where Party has been Deprived of the Original y Fraud, a. Fraud may not be Proved, but Inferred. b. The Rule as to Fraud Stated. c. A Corollary of These Propositions Stated. Secondary Evidence in Cases where the Primary Evidence is in the Control of a Stranger. CHAPTER VIL. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. (Pages 183-251.) What the Term Includes; Various Definitions, Public Documents. The Statutory Law. Examined Copy. Provisions of the New York Code. Recent Legislation on the Subject. Provisions of the California Code. The Nebraska Code. Proof of Official Documents. abs New York Commision to Devise and Regulate a Code of Evi- ence, Definitions by the Commission. Records of the United States Courts, How Proved. Typical Legislation on this Subject. a. Statutes, etc., How Proved. b. Copies of Record and Papers in Certain Offices—Presumptive Evidence. c. Papers Filed with Town Clerk. Further Illustration of Proof Allowed in United States Courts. Legislation of Illinois. Judicial Records—Judgments, Verdicts, Writs, etc. Statement of the English Rule Regarding the Effect and Introduc- tion in Evidence of this Proof. a. The Presumptions Favor Validity of the Recitals in Public Documents. b. Judgment May be Impeached for Fraud. ce. Also for Want of Jurisdiction. d. Bcbetgalial Re-enactment of the English Rule in the United tates. Article TV. of the Federal Constitution. a. Wide Diversity of Opinion as to its Construction. . Judicial Comment on the Question. Extended Review of the Authorities. Views of Mr. Desty. Summary of the Cases Cited. Further Consideration of this Subject Reserved. Judgments in Their Relation to Evidence. a, An Erroneous and Misleading View. b. An Important Distinction Outlined. c. Views of Mr. Justice Woodruff. d. Fluctuations of the Decisions, moles xvi Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 144, 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. TABLE OF CONTENTS. . Mr. Black’s Extended Review of Authority. An Exposition by Mr. Justice Field. . Well Defined Modifications of the Earlier Rule. . Exception Recognized by Chief Justice Helm. . What Evidence is Competent. Fraud and Lack of Jurisdiction as Defenses. Evidence of Official Returns. . Every Intendment Indulged in Their Favor. . Rule as to Their Admissibility. When Ambiguous or Uncertain in Phraseology Paro] Evidence Admissible to Explain. . Conclusive as to the Facts Stated Until Vacated. Return of “‘Nudla Bona” Prima Facie Proof of Insolvency, . Return Cannot be Collaterally Impeached. g. Parties Interested may Obtain Leave to Amend. Evidence in its Relation to Deeds, a. Possession and Record Prima Facie Evidence of Delivery and Acceptance. b. Acknowledgment and Record Entitle Deed to Admission in Ev- idence. c. Presumption as to Acknowledgment. d. Strict Proof Required in Doubtful Cases, e. What may be Shown by Parol Evidence., Pleadings in Their Relation to Evidence. a. Answer of One Defendant Evidence Against All. b. Admissions in Pleadings Competent as Evidence. c. What is Confessed or Admitted need not be Proved; Extended Review of Authorities, Receipts, ‘Their Effect and Couclusiveness. a. Mere Acknowledgment of Payment not Treated as Conclusive. b. Generally Open to Explanation. c. Exception as to ‘Receipt in Full.” d. The Authorities Reviewed. Newspapers in Evidence. a. A Price Current List. b. Notice of Dissolution. Seas of Patents, Grants, Records, Surveys, Plats, Maps, ete. a. Patent under Seal of the United States Conclusive. b. Exemplifications of Public Grants Admissible in Evidence. Ste en EIQ bh ret Porn Op 150. Evidence of Private Statutes and Their Preambles, 151. Voluminous Documents. 152. The Date of Documents. 153. 164 a. Presumed to be That Given. b. This Presumption Open to Rebuttal. c. Views of Sir James Stephen. d. Date is not of the Essence of the Contract, . Duplicate Documents as Evidence. . Discovery and Inspection of Documents. . General Rules Regulating the Subject. Demand and Refusal Must be Shown. . Part of the ory eons Procedure, In Most Instances a Matter of Statutory Law. New York Provisions Regulating the Subject, Order, When and by Whom Vacated. Proceedings upon the Return of the Order. . Principles of This Code Widely Accepted. . Rule in the Federal Courts. . Comment of Professor Pomeroy. . Statement of a Recent Rule. . The Rule Construed in its Application to Books of Account, . What is Embraced within the Purview of This Rule. n, Substantial Re-enactment of the Rule by the English Parliament, Bry. 08 he Bo oe Sec, 155, What Evidence may be Given for the Interpretation of Documents. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. ‘See. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 156. 157, 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171, . 192. 178. 174, 175. 176. 177. 178. . 179. 180. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xvii CHAPTER VIII. PAROL EVIDENCE. (Pages 252-322.) The Term Defined. The General Rule Rejecting. Not Admissible to Vary the Terms of a Written Instrument. Apparent Exception to This General Rule. Rule Never Applies in Cases of Fraud or Mistake. Equity Will in all Cases Last Named Afford Relief. Three Celebrated Cases Considered. A Further Expression of the General Rule—Illustrations, Principle as to Deeds. Gross Inadequacy of Consideration. Review of Authority. Deed Construed to be a Mortgage Where the Design was Merely to Secure a Loan. Admissible to Show Real Party in Interest. Its Relations to Negotiable Paper. a. Recent Authorities Examined. b. Modifications of the General Rule as to Negotiable Paper. Parol Evidence in Relation to Ambiguities, a. Patent Ambiguity Defined. b. Latent Ambiguity Defined. Parol Evidence in Relation to Custom and Usage. a. Evidence of Custom and Usage to Contravene a Rule of Law. b. When Admissible. ‘When Resorted to as a Means of Determining Intent. Rule Admitting Always Taken with Qualifications. Usage Must be Uniform. . Custom or Usage Must be Shown Reasonable. . One Witness not Sufficient to Prove a Custom. . Proof must Show Custom to Have been that Length of Usage which has Become a Law. i. Federal Authorities in Full Accord with the State Tribunals. Parol Evidence to Establish a Forfeiture. a. Forfeitures not Favored in Law. b. Special Province of Equity to Prevent Forfeiture. ae Evidence in its ,Relations to Matters Within the Statute of rauds. « Parol Evidence; When Admissible to Show Warrant. a. General Rules Respecting Warrants. b. A Leading Case Considered. c. Further Consideration of the Subject. Parol Evidence to Establish a Resulting Trust. a. The Subject in its Relations to Evidence. b. Wills no Exception. Parol Evidence to Contradict the Consideration Expressed. Parol Evidence to Show Merger. a. Merger not Prevented by after Intention. b. Kule where Intention is not Expressed. Parol Evidence to Impress a Trust, Evidence of Co tenancy. a. A Familiar Principle of Equity Jurisdiction Stated. b. Position of the United States Supreme Court, ce. Authorities Collected. . Parol Evidence in Cases of Fraud. a. The Policy of the Law. b. The True Test Stated. ce. The Controlling Inquiry. d. Acts and Declarations Usually Characterizing a Fraudulent Intent. Parol Proof as Original Evidence. B EO ho 20 XViii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Sec. 181. Parol Evidence to Vary the Terms of a Written Contract. Boro Poe ho Oo oD , Limitations of the Rule. . Rule in Cases of Illegal Contract, The Case of Gillespie v. Moon Examined. : . Authority of Courts of Equity to Relieve from Mistake. . Parties Entitled to Relief. Mutuality of Mistake Necessary to Reformation of Contract. Relief Obtainable in Equity. Instances of Mistake, Relief from. . Mistake Shown by Parol Proof. . Burden of Proof. . Evidence to Show Mistake Must be Clear and Strong. . Relief from Mistake in Conveyance. . Enforcement of Corrected Agreement. Sec. 182. Intention Cannot be Proved by Parol. . Parol Evidence to Show a Condition Precedent, Sec. 183 Sec. 184. efesp . Parol Evidence to Prove a Warranty. . A Cardinal Principle Stated. Sale of Merchandise by Sample. . Distinctions in the Older Cases not Tenable. Rules Governing Contracts of Warranty. Warranty Outside of Agreements Relating to Land. f. An Elementary Rule of Law. Sec. 185. Parol Evidence to Explain Receipts in Full, Bills of Lading, ete. Sec. 186. Parol Evidence of Antecedent Contemporaneous and Subsequent. Agreement, Sec. 187. Function of Courts of Equity in Cases of Mistake. . Collection of Recent Authorities on the Subject. Sec. 188. CHAPTER IX. EXPERT AND OPINION TESTIMONY, (Pages 328-364.) Sec. 189 Sec. 190. Sec. 191 Sec. 192. Sec. 193 Sec, 194. a. b c d. e. f g. bh. i. j. k, ] m0 Sec. 195. Mat . Necessity for, Created by Specialized Pursuits. . General Rule Restricts a Witness to Evidence of Facts, . Witness Not to Draw Conclusions or Give Opinions, . The English Rule. . Its Harmony with American Decisions, . Necessity for an Accurate Definition of the Term ‘‘ Expert.” Ro 29 op Authorities Collected. . Qualifications of an Expert, Question for the Court, . Opinions of, Weight to be Given to. The Governing Rule. A Judicial View of the Subject. . Testimony not to be Unnecessarily Extended. Discountenanced by High Authority. What Will Warrant Introduction of. Upon Questions Relating to Arts and Sciences. Compensation for Services of. A Distinction Noted. . Decision of New York Court of Appeals. . Rule Approved by Weight of Authority. ters of Ordinary Observation, Expert Evidence Incompetent. . Opinion of Chief Justice Waite. Of Mr. Justice Strong. Expressions of the Rule by Massachusetts Supreme Court. By Judge Earl. . Expert Opinion, Province of the Jury. . Real Estate Values, how Proved. Value of Animals, Sec. 196. Proof of Hand-writing. a. Its Inherent Weakness as Evidence. b. Comparison by Juxtaposition. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. . 206. Recent Cases Considered. . 207. Form of Question and Testimony, . . 208. Expert must State upon What he Bases his Conclusion. Sec. Sec. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xix . Fluctuation of the Rule, . Extracts from Recent Authorities. . Statutory Innovation upon the Common Law Rule. . Unanimity of Recent Decisions. Examination of Late Authorities, Chaotic Condition of this Question in Several States—In Indiana. In Maryland. . In Mississippi. In Iowa. . In California. . The Rule Merely Declaratory of the Common Law. aes Presumed Acquainted with Another's Hand-writing when. Comparison Permitted when. No Standard as to Qualitication.: Common Law Rule. Comparison Allowed in Several States, An Exception Noted. When Expert is Disqualified. Citation of Authority. North Carolina Rule as to Comparison. . Dissenting Views of the Texas Court. . Authenticity of Signature, Comparison of Hand-writing. . Cautionary Suggestions by Mr. Justice Bradley. 197. Experts Entitled to Adequate Pay. : a. Views of the New York Supreme Court, b. Converse of the Above. 198. Subscribing Witnesses as Experts.. a Non-professional Witnesses, Conflict of Authority. pb. Cross-examination of Experts. c. Testimony of Expert as to Mental Capacity. d. Testimony of Non-professional Witness—Expression of General Opinion. 199. Hypothetical Questions—Definition. a. When Expert may Give Opinion. pb. Duty of Counsel in Framing. c. Object of. 200. Qualifications of Expert—Information Necessary. 201. Expert Testimony may be Shown to be Erroneous, 202. The Principal as Stated in a Recent Case, 203. Non-professioual Witnesses. a. Exclusionary Rule of Evidence. b. Review of the Authorities. 204., Binding Force of Expert Testimony. a. Witness Confined Strictly to Facts Stated in Hypothetical Question. . Personal Knowledge Necessary. Speculative Questions Discountenanced. . Opinion Evidence not Binding. Non-expert Evidence as to Sanity. . When Prima Facie Evidence may be Rebutted. . Opinion of Non-professional Witness as to Pain and Suffering. h. Testimony as to Value of Services. 205. Views of Mr. Justice Stephen. be +020 5 B Pre ee Sunade anno Ty PAO a. What Hypothetical Questions Should Embrace. b. The Rule in Condemnation Proceedings, c. In Actions for Damages. 209. Education in the Particular Profession will Qualify as Expert. 210. Instances of Competent Expert Testimony, xx TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER X HEARSAY EVIDENCE, (Pages 365-430.) Sec. 211. Hearsay Evidence Irrelevant when. a. The English Rule. oB ope be no QO oF . The Unsatisfactory Nature of the Definition. Importance of Hearsay Evidence. Limitations Upon the Rule. Intrinsic Weakness of this Grade of Evidence. . Admitted as Part of Res Geste. Cardinal Principles of Exclusion. Bouvier’s Definition. Reasons for Rejection of. . Stating Language of Others, Hearsay. . The Most Satisfactory Evidence Attainable. . Former Embarrassment Removed. . Views of Chief Justice Marshall. . Prevalence of the Exclusionary Rule. Exceptions Under which Hearsay is Admissible. 0. Sec. 212. Doctrine of the Res Geste, Principles Involved. OBB ora. b0 402 Oop . Definitions by High Authorities. Equity Rules Regulating. Conclusions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. . Expressions of Pain, Suffering, etc. . Ilustration of the Rule. . Unsworn Statements Generally Excluded. . Corollary to Above. Statements as to Written Contract Given when Made. Serious Dissent from Conclusions Reached. Argument of Mr. Justice Thayer. . Summary of Conclusions Reached, The General Rule. . Recent Decisions. . Contemporaneous Declarations, When Admissible. Argument of Mr. Justice Field. : a Sec. 218. Declarations or Entries Made in the Course of Business or Professionat Duty by Parties Since Deceased. a. The General Rule. b. Its Limitations. c . Matters Provable in Reference to Declarations. d. Fraud Vitiates all Contracts—Application of Maxim. Sec. 214. Testimony of Former Witness Since Deceased, Absent or Disqualified. a. . Opinion of the New York Court of Common Pleas. . Person who Heard may be Sworn. . Critical Examination of the Rule. . View of Supporting Cases. . Fluctuation of the Rule in Different Jurisdictions. . Views of Judge Sharswood. Fro E02 mo no The Prevailing Law. The Prevailing Law. . Precise Language Need not be Proved. . Use of Notes by Witness. Miscellaneous Rulings on the Subject. Sec. 215. Proof of Ancient Documents. a. When Proof of Execution is Unnecessary. b. When Necessary. c, Law Indulgent as to Proof. Sec. 216, Of Ancient Possessions and Evidence Thereof by Deed. a. English Origin of the Rules. b. Admissibility of Decds, Subscribing Witness. c. Views of the United States Supreme Court. Sec. 217. Ancient Boundaries. a. Mr. Justice McLean's Statement of the Rule. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 218. 219. 220. 221, 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. ret. 228. 229, 2380. 231. 282. TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxi b. The Case of Bogardus (Anneke Jans) v. Trinity Church. As to Ancient Facts of Public Interest. Dying Declarations. a. Rule Excluding Hearsay Evidence, Modification of. b. When Admissible. c. Implicated with Res Geste, d. Not Generally Competent. e. Further I}ustration of the Exception. Matters of Pedigree. a. Definition. b. When Admitted. 1 c. Views of the United States Supreme Court. d. Miscellaneous Authorities Collated. Declarations Against Interest. a, Declaration, when Deemed Irrelevant. b. The English Rule. c. A Distinction Noted. d. Declarations in Disparagement of Title. Telepbonic Communication not Hearsay Evidence. a. Recent Adjudications Considered, b. Tendency of Modern Decisions. CHAPTER XI. ADMISSIONS. (Pages 431-487.) Various Definitions of the Term. . Bouvier’s Definition, Haines Treatise. . The General Rule. . Opinion of Best and Others. . The English Rule. . Oral Admissions Cautiously Received. f. Classification of Best. Admissions Without Prejudice. Admissions of Previous Owner. ' Admissions in a Pleading. Admissions Under Oath. a. What Necessary to Satisfy the Present Rule. b. Extreme Caution in Applying. c. Views of the New York Court of Appeals. d. Affinities With Estoppel. Entire Admissions to be Taken Together. a. Views of Authority as to This Rule. b. Conclusions in the Queen's Case. ce. Lord Denman’s Rule. The Admissions of a Partner. a. Partnership Relation Must be Established. b. A Distinction Noted. The Admissions of an Agent. When Admissible. Part of the Res Gesta. Rule Applies to Both General and Special Cases, . Its: Application in a Recent Case. The Prevailing Doctrine Stated. . Application of the Rule, How Tested. . Explanatory Acts Admissible. . Summary of Conclusions, Admissions of an Attorney. a. When Privileged. b. Considered Confidential. Admissions by or to Husband or Wife. a. Rule as Grounded in the Marriage Relation. pb. What Necessary to Charge the Husband. ap Cans 1 ho BO oP or Xxli Sec. 233. Sec. 284. Sec. 2385. Sec. 236. See. 237. Sec. 238. Sec. 239. Sec. 240. Sec. 241. Sec. 242. Sec. 248. Sec. 244. Sec. 245. Sec. 246. Sec. 247. Sec. 248. Sec. 249. Sec. 250. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Admissions of Parties to Promissory Notes. a. Usually Inadmissible Against Purchaser. b. Rule in Paige v. Cagwin. c. Review of Authorities. d. Summary of the Juridical View. “Acceptance” Defined. a. Relation to Law of Evidence. b. Acceptor as Principal Debtor, c What Drawee Admiis by Acceptance, d. Admission of Agent’s Signature. e. That Drawee Has Funds of the Drawer. f. That Drawee Has Capacity to Draw the Bill. g. That the Firm is in Existence. What not Admitted by Acceptance. a, The Genuineness of the Payee’s Signature. b. Of Agent’s Indorsement. c. Nor that Bill is Drawn Payable to Drawer’s Order, d. Nor the Body of the Bill. Admissions in Pleading and on Trial. a. Facts Admitted Regarded as True. b. Practice Rule Thirty-eight. c. Provisions of the New York Code. d. Admissions of Attorneys on the Trial. The Admission of Third Parties. Admissions of Former Owner of Land. a. Of Party in Possession of Land. b. Declarations of Grautor After Conveyance. Admissions Implied from Conduct. a. Language and Demeanor Considered. b. Accounts Stated When Deemed an Admission. c. Silence as an Admission. d. Passiveness as an Admission. e. Distinction Outlined. Admissions of Principal when Binding on Surety, a. Rationale of the Rule. b. Rule as Between the Parties. The Admissions of Former Owner of Personal Property. Admissions of Assignor. Admissions Made With View to Compromise. a. Statement of Lord Mansfield. b. Views of Mississippi Supreme Court. Admissions to Prove Partnership. a, Not Evidence After Debt Incurred, b. Of General Reputation. Admission in Deeds, Estoppel. Admissions Discredited how. a. No Limitation. b. Admission when Conclusive. c. Rebuttal of Evidence of Admission d, Miscellaneous Instances. Admissions Against Interest. The English Rule. a. Admissions by Strangers. b. Admissions of Person Referred to by Party. c. Admissions Made Without Prejudice. Miscellaneous Topics on the Subject of Admissions, Self-serving Admissions of Predecessor in Title. a. Generally Inadmissible. b. Opinion of Chief Judge Folger. Sec. 251. Bec, 252. ‘Sec. 258, Sec. 254. Sec, 255. Sec. 256. Bec. 257. Sec, 258, ‘Sec. 259. Sec. 260. Sec. 261. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXili CHAPTER XII. RELEVANCY. (Pages 488-524.) The Term Defined. a. By Chief Judge Folger. b. By Wait. c. By Sir James Stephen. d. By Reynolds. Relevancy not the Sole Test of Admissibility. . A Dissenting View. . Views of the United States Supreme Court, . Evidence May be Rejected when. . An Abandoned Definition. . Statutory Provisions of the California Code, . The Rule in Connecticut. In Illinois. h. Views of Chief Justice May. i. Of Mr. Justice Davis. j. When Irrelevant Testimony Cannot be Excluded, Separate Functions of the Judge and Jury. a. Duty of the Court. b. When Court May Direct a Verdict. c. Law is for the Court, Fact for the Jury. d. Pertinent Hypothesis Defined, e. Recent Adjudications. The Doctrine of Scdenter. Evidence Tending to Support an Issue. a. When Excluded in Rebuttal. b. Proof Must Correspond With Allegations of Complaint, ce. Autborities From the United States Supreme Court. Res Inter Alios Acta. a. Analysis by Best and Sir James Stephen. b. Modern Relaxation of the Rule. c. Subdivision of the Rule. d. Recent Application of the Rule. e. An Exposition by Peckham, J. Evidence Excluded on the Ground of Indecency. Counsel’s Offer to Make Certain Proof. a. The Method Sanctioned by Usage. b. Offer Must be Specific. . No Doubt Must Exist as to Competency and Materiality, . The Practice in New York. m4Ooanore e c d e. The California Rule. f. Views of Judge Rumsey. g. Suggestions of Chief Judge Folger. otion to Strike Out. a, When the Motion Will be Entertained. b. Limitations of the Right. ce. Exercise of the Right. d. Waiver of the Right. e. Answer Out of Time, when Stricken out. Summary of the Preceding Views. a. Position of the English Courts. b. American Vindication of the English Theory. ce. Implication With the Principles Outlined in Res Geste, d. Citation of Authority. Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts. a. The English Statute on the Subject. b. Indorsed by New York Court of Appeals. c. Crimina] Features of the Rule. d. Relevancy of Occurrences Simliar to, but Unconnected with Facts in Issue. e. General Application of the Foregoing Rules, M XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF EVIDENCE. (Pages 525-575.) Sec. 262, The Competency of Witnesses. ss Sec. Sec. Sec. See. See. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. a. Preliminary View. b. Incompetency the Exception. . Statutory Provisions. . Interpretation of Decisions. . General Abrogation of Former Disqualifying Law. Theory of Chief Justice Appleton. at Witnesses are Incompetent. Incompetency Arising from Relationship. From Idiocy or Lunacy. . Infamous Persons. Effect of Liquor or Opium to Disqualify. Deaf Mutes, Competency of. . Infancy as a Disqualification. . General Rule as to Infants. . Court May Instruct Infant as to Nature of Oath. . No Precise Age Insisted On. Incompetency Arising from Transactions with a Deceased Party. a. Reasons for this Exclusionary Rule. b. Statutory Provisions. c. New York Code, Section 829. Objections to Competency Taken when. Swearing Interpreter, Form of Oath. The Common Law Features of Incompetency. a. Mental, Moral and Social Disqualification. b. State Legislation. c. Early Misconception. d. Effect of Civil Rights Bill. e. The California View as to Mongolians. The Common Law Disqualification for Infamy. a. “Infamy ” Defined. b. Crime and Not Punishment Considered. c. Scope of the Enabling Statutes. d. Lord Mansfield’s Rule. e. Conflict in the Judicial Dicta. Questions Having Tendency to Disgrace Witness. a. Want of Harmony of Authorities, b. Present Theory. ec. Attitude of Judicial Decision. Insanity as a Disqualification. a. Views of Medical Jurisprudence. . ‘ Lunatic” Defined. . Distinction between Weakness of Mind and Insanity . Presumption of the Continuance of. . Lunatic Allowed to Testify when. Confusion of Authority. . Conclusion of the English Jurists. . Controlling Inquiry. Incompetency Relieved by Executive Pardon. a, Alexander Hamilton on the Pardoning Power. b. Effect of its Legitimate Exercise. c. Views of Mr. Justice Story. d. Of the United States Supreme Court, e. Power Unlimited in its Scope. The Oath of Witnesses. a, All Witnesses Must be Sworn. b. Ancient Mode of Administering Oath. c. Rule Prescribed by the Illinois Statute. d. Who May Administer. So Qo WwW 09 ho OOP bie no moe Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, Sec. 278. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV e. When Affirmation may be Made. f. Other Modes of Swearing. g. When Court may Examine Witness. h. Fryatt v. Lindo, and Note. i, Summary of the Conclusions Reached. Witness Punished for Perjury when. CHAPTER XIV. THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. (Pages 576-642.) 274. 275, 276. 277. . 278, 279. 280. 281. 282. . 288. 284. 285. 286. The Preliminary Examination on the Voir Dire. a. Object of This Examination, b. By Whom Conducted. The Direct Examination. a. Scope of Rules Governing. b. Strict Mode of Procedure Seldom Pursued, The Cross-Examination. . A Preliminary Inquiry. Theory of. . Object of. . Importance of the Right. . Scope and Range of. What May be Asked, The Refusal to Answer. a. Disparaging Questions Not Relevant to the Issue. b. The Leading Case Examined. c. Antagonism of the Text-writers. d. Further Examination of the Authorities, The Discretionary Powers of the Court. a. Unless Abused Not Reviewable. b. Extent Of. c. Indulgence of. d. Illustration of the Rule. The Re-direct Examination. a. What Questions are Pertinent. b. Rights of Opposite Counsel. c. The Rule Established by the Michigan Court. The Re-Cross-Examination. Further Examination. Rebutting Evidence. a. Term Defined by Bouvier, b. By Chamberlayne. c. Re-examination and Rebuttal as to Credit. d. Explaining New Facts. Conducting Examination, Order of Proof. a. Leave to Supply Omitted Evidence. b. Order of Proof, Contradiction of Authorities c. Right of Juror to Question Witness. d. Limitation on This Right. e. Party Concluded by His Answer when, Leading Questions. a, When Allowed. b. Discretion of the Trial Judge as to. c. Instances of. Witness must Remain the Wituess of the Party Calling Him. a. Misconception on the Subject. b. The General Rule. c. Recent Views on the Subject. Impeachment of Witnesses. a. Universality of the Rule Allowing. b. What Necessary to Show Witness, c. Views of Chief Justice Church. Pelee xxXvi TABLE: OF CONTENTS. . Not Concluded by Unfavorable Testimony. 3 . Proof of Statements Inconsistent with the Present Testimony. . Witness May Explain Inconsistencies. Witness’s Attention Called to What. . Examination by Commission or Deposition. . The Settled Rule. General Rule in This Country. Foundation Necessary to Impeach. What May be Shown if Contradiction. Views of the United States Supreme Court. . Of the New York Supreme Court. . When Character Alone is in Question. . Number of Impeaching Witnesses, . The English Rule. . Further Views. . Inquiry as to Character and Time. Sec. 287. The Exclusion of Evidence to Contradict Answer. a. When Contradiction is Proper. b. Contradiction of Witness on Collateral Matter in Cross Exami- nation. c. What Questions are not Collateral. ad. Diversity in the Reported Cases. Sec. 288. Form of the Inquiry. a. No Form of Words Prescribed. . Lord Ellenborough’s Rule. . Rule Where Character of Witness is Doubtful. Views of Judge Bockes, . The Criterion in Impeachment Cases. What Impeaching Witness Must Show. What is Discretionary With the Court, Summary of the Rule. p09 rho ane@dob Bere. PR ro Qe oF CHAPTER XV. PRIVILEGES OF WITNESSES. (Pages 643-659.) ‘Sec, 289. Confidential Communications. a. The Privilege is That of the Client. b. Extent of Rule. c. What Constitutes Waiver of Privilege. da. Views of a Prominent Text-wriler. e. Review of Authorities Sec. 290. Self-Criminating Evidence. a, Generally Applied to Criminal Cases. b. Application of the Principle. : Sec, 291. Immunity From Arrest. - a. Policy of This Protection. b. Process on Non resident Witness. . Service Obtained by Fraud. When Mandamus Lies. Habeas Corpus Invoked when. . Witness Excluded From Court Room when. . Punishment for Contempt, . Review of Authorities. mr Qag Ss es: CHAPTER XVI. SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE AND VARIANCE. (Pages 660-681.) Sec. 292. Rule Requiring Substance Only to be Proved. a. ‘The Reformed Procedure. b. Degree of Variance Fatal. c. Object and Design of Pleading. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVil . The Conclusion Reached. . Fundamental Rule. . Variances, How Divided. Material and Immaterial Variance. Motion to Conform Pleading to Proof, . Instances of Material Variance. . Technical Variance, When Variance May be Disregarded. . Immaterial Variance, Instances. . Views of Commissioner Dwight. . The Rule in Common Law Jurisdictions, Illustrations of the Rule. Sec, 293. Distinction between Variance and Failure of Proof. Code Provisions. Instances of Fatal Disagreement between Pleading and Proof. . Liberality Allowed as to Amendment, . Material Variance. . Immaterial Variance, How Provided for, What is not Deemed Variance. Sec. 294. The Maxim Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocet, a. Judicial Comment. b. Comments of Judge Gardner. Sec. 295. Instances of Fatal Disagreement. Sec, 296. Evidence to Warrant Court in Directing Verdict. pipe deasuaes moa tp CHAPTER XVII. EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY DEPOSITION OR COMMISSION. (Pages 682-704.) Sec. 297. Legal Aspects of the Subject. . The Term Defined. . Distinguished from Affidavit. . California Code Provisions. Provisions of the New York Code. . Judicial Interpretation. . Statutory Formalities. Further Rules. . Illinois Decisions Considered. . Deposition in Another Cause. Objections to Depositions Considered. Sec. 298, meeineey of Witness Out of State, When Taken. Sec. 299. Testimony of Witness in State, Whet Taken a. Provisions of the California Code. b. Examination of Authorities, c. Statutory Regulations. Sec. 300. Motion to Suppress Deposition. Sec. 301. Letters Rogatory. a. Import of Phrase. b. Generally Superseded by Other Remedies, c. A Precedent Examined. ot. 08 rh SG Op CHAPTER XVIII ESTOPPEL. (Pages 705-731.) Sec. 302. Its Relation to Evidence. a, Former Aspersion of the Principle, b. Not in Derogation of the Truth. c. Liberal Application of the Rule. d. Views of Jurists and Text-writers. xxvii Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. x Sec. Sec. Sec. sec, ¢ Sec. 308 304 . 805 312. 313. 314, TABLE OF CONTENTS. e. Conclusive at Common Law when. f. Foundation of the Rule. g. An Early English Case. h. Citation of Authority. . Estoppel Zn Pads. a. Uses of. b. Remarks of Judge Hinman, e. Illustration of the Doctrine. . Equitable Estoppel, Evidence of Fraud not Essential. a. How Treated in Equity. b. Prerequisites of. c. Recent Adjudications. . By Failure to Speak. : a. Silence, when Fatal. b. Sir James Stephen’s Statement. c. Examination of American Decisions. . By Previous Recognition of Authority. . By Representations and Declarations, . By Acceptance. . Doctrine, Inapplicable when. . Waiver of Estoppel. . Summary. CHAPTER XIX. RES ADJUDICATA. (Pages 732-743.) General Considerations of the Rule. a. The Maxim Interest Reipudlica ut Sit Finis Littum. . Competency to Show Form of Adjudication. Third Parties Privileged to Attack a Judgment. . Application of the Principle. . Corollary From the Principles Established. Cases Illustrative. . Extensive Recognition of the Principle. Test of Hes Adjudicata. What Judgments are not Conclusive. j. The Law Governing the Principle. The Doctrine of Stare Decisis. a, As Pendant to Res Adjudicata. b. Reasons for the Rule. c. Doctrine not Always to be Relied upon. d. Views of Chancellor Kent, cu. pe bog HO ao a CHAPTER XX. MEMORANDA IN EVIDENCE. (Pages 744-763.) Refreshing Recollection. . The Present Law. . Prerequisites to the Introduction of Memoranda. . Distinction Noted. The Formula Deduced. . Views of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Massachusetts Rule. The Rule as to Parties Since Deceased. Restriction on the General Rule. Danger in Following Maxims, . Refinement of the General Rule. Recent Cases Collected. Fur 50 +o he Oe Sec. 315. Memorandum Received in Evidence when, a. Want of Harmony in Decisions. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XX1X . Views of United States Supreme Court. . Time of Making Memorandum. . Reasons for Limiting the Time. . Restrictive View of a Vermont Court. . Liberal Views of the Georgia Court. . Remarks on the English Rule. Sec. 316. The Right to Inspect Memoranda. a. Juridical Views on this Subject. b. Views of the United States Supreme Court. c. Review of Recent Authorities. BrmreRnoo CHAPTER XXII. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. (Pages 764-776.) Sec. 317. Various Definitions. a. Synonymous with Presumptive Evidence when. b. Considered as Cumulative Evidence. : . Essentials of Circumstantial Evidence. . In what it Consists. Its Advantages, May be as Convincing as Positive Evidence. . Logic upon Which it is Based. Views of the United States Supreme Court. . Of Phillips. spiracy in its Relation to Circumstantial Evidence. . The Term Defined. Declarations of Co-conspirators Admissible. Boycott Considered as Conspiracy. In What its Unlawfulness Consists. What Will Sustain a Conviction for Boycotting Evidence to Show Wanton Interference. . Relevancy of Evidence in Case of Boycott. Evidence as to Former Roycott. . What Evidence is Properly Excluded and Admitted. . Admissions of Boycott Conspirators, Sec. 319. Conspiracy, how Proved. a. Difficulty of Proving Conspiracy by Direct Evidence. b. Leading Cases Considered, Pita rao Bo _ Sec. 318. Co o hr Oa he Be op CHAPTER XXII. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. (Pages 777-787.) Sec. 820. Various Definitions. a. As Re-examination of Issues of Fact. Settled Principles with Reference to. Views of the California and Iowa Courts, What Should be Shown. Addressed to the Discretion of the Court. Application Disregarded when. . Limitations of the Present Rule. . Decisions Considered. PO ro Bot CHAPTER XXIII. DUTY OF THE JURY IN WEIGHING EVIDENCE. (Pages 788-804.) Sec. 321. What Consideration Should Influence, a. Consistency and Probability. b. Importance of Demeanor. XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. . Jury Judges of Value of Evidence. . And of the Credibility of Witnesses. Maxim, Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus. . Views of New York Supreme Court. . Judge’s Charge, Weight of. Various Matters Influencing Deliberations, . Weight and Safficiency, P02 4o WO CHAPTER XXIV. ALTERATIONS IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. (Pages 805-809.) Sec. 322, All Rules Within the Purview of Legislative Power. a. Retroactive Laws Constitutional. b. Illustrations of the Principle. INTRODUCTORY TO THE REMAINING CHAPTERS. EVIDENCE IN ITS RELATION TO PARTICULAR FACTS, ISSUES AND TOPICS. (Pages 810, 811.) CHAPTER XXvV. ACCOUNT BOOKS IN EVIDENCE. (Pages 812-835.) Sec. 323, Preliminary Remarks. a. Necessity for Rule Admitting. b. Reasons for this Species of Evidence. c. Importance of the Subject. d. Regulated in Part by Statutory Enactment. e. Suppletory Oath Required when. Sec. 324. Rites Obtaining in Various States. . The Rule Established in New York. . The Rule in Other Jurisdictions. . Decisions of United States Supreme Court. . Vosburgh v. Thayer Considered. . Attitude of Georgia Courts. . The Texas Rule, x, Survival of Colonial Rule. Rules in the Different States Considered. Sec. 325. What are Considered Books of Original Entry. a. General Rules. . Must Afford Evidence of Business Actually Done. . Must Contain Original Entries. . Must be Void of Suspicious Circumstances, No Formula of Book-keeping Required. Production of Books, How Compelled. What Items May be Properly Considered. . Integrity of Books, How Shown. | Fairness of Prices Need Not be Shown. . Considered a Low Species of Evidence. . Review of Authorities, . Summary of Rules, — OPI roo oD reo. B09 bho Qo oF TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXVI. ACCOUNTS STATED. (Pages 836-839.) Sec. 326. General Incidents of this Relation. a. Accounts Stated Defined. b. What May be Shown. c. What Necessary in Stating an Account. CHAPTER XXVII. AFFIDAVITS IN EVIDENCE. (Pages 840-849.) Sec. 327. Scope, Nature and Effect of. Regarded as Admission or Estoppel. On Information or Belief. New York Code Provisions. . Unsatisfactory Nature of. Want of Title does not Impair. When Jurisdiction Depends on. May be Relied on to Dispute Notice, When Denied Consideration. When Sufficient. . English Regulations. . Comments. Sec. 828. Peculiar Application of this Evidence. Pret pp UR the BO SP t CHAPTER XXVIII. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. (Pages 850-859.) Sec. 329. Material Alteration, General Principles. a. The English Rule. b. California Code Provisions. c. What May be Shown. da. Alteration, How Proved. e, Prevents a Resort to Original Contract. f. Application of Evidentiary Rules. g. The Rule in Relation to Commercial Paper. h. General Rule. CHAPTER XXIX. BREACH OF PROMISE, (Pages 860-863.) Sec. 380. Scope and Nature of Rules. a. What Plaintiff May Show. b. Direct Evidence Not Required. c. When Promise May be Inferred. d. Proved by Circumstantial Evidence, CHAPTER XXX. CONSPIRACIES. (Pages 864-873.) Sec. 331. Relations with Criminal Evidence. Sec. 832. Conspiracy Defined. Sec, 333. Acts and Declarations of Co-conspirators. Sec. 334. Conclusions Reached in the Anarchists’ Case XXXil Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. See. Sec. See. Sec. See. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342, 343, 344, 345, 346. 347, 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357, 358, 359, 360. 361, 362, 363. 364. 865, 366. 367. TABLE OF CONTENTS. View of Mr. Justice Andrews. Apparent Modifications of Rule. Evidence of Speeches, when Admissible. A Recent Case Examined. CHAPTER XXXL CORPORATE MATTERS. (Pages 874-900.) Contradictory Character of Decisions. Evidence of Stock Delivery and Transfer. Title to Stock, how Evidenced. Maxim ‘‘Caveat Hmptor.” The Present Rule. Evidence of Incorporation. Admissible to Fasten Liability when. Records and Books as Evidence. Authorities Collected. CHAPTER XXXII. CUSTOM AND USAGE. (Pages 901-912.) Custom and Usage Defined. How Proved. The English Rule. Examination of Authorities, CHAPTER XXNITI. EJECTMENT. (Pages 913-917.) Regulated by Statutory Law. Plaintiff must Repose upon his own Title. What Defendant is Allowed to Prove. Public Lands, Federal Provisions. An Early Case Examined. CHAPTER XXXIV. EXCEPTIONS TO RULINGS. (Pages 918-926.) Objection to and Striking out Evidence. Must Present what. Must be Made when. General Exceptions on Appeal. Exceptions Must be Specific. Grounds Must be Stated. Bill of Exceptions Must Show what, ‘What is a Sufficient Objection. CHAPTER XXXV FEDERAL COURT RULES. (Pages 927-945.) Application to Civil Cases, the Rule. Act of 1864, Construction of Proviso. Text of Congressional Enactments. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. See. Sec. Bec. Bec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Bec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 3875. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384, 3885, 386. 387. 388. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXili CHAPTER XXXVI. FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS, (Pages 946-978.) Fraud Defined and Illustrated. . Incidents and Indicia of Fraud. What Must be Shown. . Deciarations, When Binding. . Fraudulent Intent. Fraud in Law and in Fact, Distinction. . Evidence Required. . Liberality in the Admission of Evidence . Degree of Evidence Required. . Burden of Proof. Indications of a Fraudulent Transfer. Presumptions in Cases of Fraud. a. Fraudulent Intent not Presumed. b. Kinds of Presumptions. Declarations of Parties. a. When Receivable. b. Conspiracy Must First be Established. Grounds for Setting Aside Transfer. a, Equity Jurisdiction. b. Competency of Evidence to Show Fraud. c. Entire Transaction May be Shown. When Trust May be Established. Fraudulent Intent and Design, a. Cannot Allege his Own Fraud. b. Allegations Must be Specific. c. The Tweed Ring Case. d. Law and Equity Rules of Proof the Same. e. Miscellaneous Authorities. Conditions Necessary to Sustain Charge of Fraud. pb holo oS CHAPTER XXXVIL. GARNISHMENT. (Pages 979-986.) The Term Defined. « Collateral to the Writ of Attachment, ‘*Garnishee” Defined. Rules Governing the Process, Miscellaneous Rules. CHAPTER XXXVIII. HUSBAND AND WIFE. (Pages 987-999.) Exclusion of Evidence, Public Policy. Evidence of Marriage. Recent American Decisions. CHAPTER XXXIX. INSURANCE. (Pages 1000-1006.) Secondary Evidence of Application Allowed. What Extent of Injury Must be Proved. Previous Condition of Health. Statements as to Use of Intoxicating Liquors. Review of Authorities, Cc XXXxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XL. {LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS. (Pages 1007-1040.) Sec. 889. General Rules as to Contents of Letters. a. Originals Must be Produced, Letter-Press Copies. b. Secondary Evidence. c. Decoy Letters. d. Unanswered Letters. e. Extract from Lost Letter. f. Importance of Letters. g. Failure to Answer as Admission. h. Notice to Produce. i. Letter-press Copy Admissible when. j. Letter as ‘‘ Writing.” k. Letter Duly Posted, Presumption. 1. Letters as the Subject of Copyright. m. Injunctive Relief against Improper Use. n. Miscellaneous Authorities. Sec. 390. Telegrams as Evidence. . Rules as to Letters Applied. . Views of the Illinois Supreme Court. . Of Alabama. . When Evidence of Contract. . Presumption as to Telegrams. f. Miscellaneous Authorities. 9 eonmod Sec. 391. Use of Telegraph Blanks Evidence of what Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 392. 400. 401. 402, 403. 404, a, Agreement Considered Mutual when. b. A Leading Case. A Restrictive View. . Views of Judge Kent. The Present Rule. Exemption from Liability Denied. . Ewo Early Cases. Comments upon These Rules, . Position of the Ohio Supreme Court. . Special Contract, how Evidenced. . Secondary Evidence of Contents of Message. . Ruling by Judge Dillon, Fo, pe BOG Hh BO CHAPTER XLI. LIBEL AND SLANDER. (Pages 1041-1050.) Definitions. . Absence of Malice May be Proved. . Exemplary Damages not Allowed when. . Instructions to the Jury. . Evidence as to Matters of Common Rumor. . Evidence in Aggravation of Damages. . Nature and Order of Proof. . Evidence of Another Cause of Action. A Late Decision. CHAPTER NLII. LIS PENDENS. (Pages 1051-1060.) General Principles, Foundation of the Doctrine, Exceptions to the Rule. Rule in United States Supreme Court Effect of Filing Notice. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Bec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec: 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412 418. 414, 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421, 422, 423. 424, 425. 437, 438. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV Personal Property, Application to, Primary Object of the Rule. The Rule Grounded in Public Policy. Lord Bacon’s Expression of the Rule. Application in England. Application in This Country. Confusion in Authorities, CHAPTER XLII. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. (Pages 1061-1063.) General Principles, Burden of Proof. Various Matters that May be Shown. CHAPTER XLIV. MALPRACTICE. (Pages 1064-1074.) The Term Defined. The Right to Inspect. Relation to Right of Discovery. Reportorial Note. Conclusions of the Iowa Supreme Court. Recent Federal Court Decision. Review of the Authorities. CHAPTER XLV. MECHANICS’ LIEN. (Pages 1075-1082 ) What Necessary to Establish. The Rule as Stated by Phillips. By Kneeland. Effect of Certified Copy. Authorities Cited. CHAPTER XLVI. MENTAL INCAPACITY. (Pages 1063-1093.) . Mental Alienation Includes what. . When Equity Will Interfere. . Inquisition Evidence of what. . Contracts of Lunatics. . Insane Delusion, etc., Defined. . What will Authorize Interference of Court, . Competency in its Relations to Contracts. . Principles Governing Courts. . Conclusions of Judge Story. . A Well Considered Case. . Résumé of Authority. CHAPTER XLVII. NEGATIVE PROOF. (Pages 1094-1096.) General Rule, Burden of Proof. Application of the Rule. XXXVi Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 439. 440. 441, 442, 443. 444. 450, 451. 452. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XLVIII. NEGLIGENCE. (Pages 1097-1121.) The Conduct of Common Carriers. a. Vigilance Required. b. Negligence Subject of Affirmative Proof. c. What the Pleadings Should State. d. Onus Probandt with the Plaintiff. e. Reputation for Care and Caution. f. What is Competent Proof. Ls) g. Carriers of Baggage and Goods, Distinction. 7 ction for Injuries Arising from Negligence. a. Admission of Evidence, Restriction. b. Custom Cannot Justify a Negligent Act. c. Precautions Adopted after Injury. d. Contributory Negligence. e. Review of a Recent Case. Examination of the Person. Negligence of Imposed Duties, Personal. A CHAPTER XLIX. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. (Pages 1122-1145.) Rights of Innocent Holders. . Evidence of Fraud or Other Infirmities. . Possession, Evidence of what. Undue Confidence in Uttering. . Burden of Proof. . Fraud in the Nativity of Paper. Holder Deemed Maker’s Agent when. . Filling in Improper Date, etc. . Oral Testimony, when Competent. . Views of New York Court of Appeals. . Miscellaneous Decisions. Parol Evidence as Affecting Indorsement. a. General Considerations. b. Review of Authorities, jee OOS OBA oe CHAPTER L. OFFICIAL BONDS. (Pages 1146-1152.) . What is Binding on Obligee. . Congressional Enactments. . Nature of Evidence in Actions on. . Receipt of Deputy Evidence Against Sureties. . Miscellaneous Authorities, CHAPTER LI. PARTNERSHIP. (Pages 1153-1162.) What Evidence Will Establish the Relation. What Evidence Incompetent. Dormant or Secret Partnership. a. Definition. b. Liabilities Imposed Upon This Relation. c. Parol Proof of Land Purchase. d. Participating in Profits, Effect of. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 463. . General Characteristics of. 465. 466. . Views of Mr. Justice Field. 468. 469, 470. 471. 472, 473. 474, 475. 476, 477. . The Illinois Probate Act. 479, 480. 481. 482, 483. 484, 485. 486. . Parol Evidence Competent when. 488. 489, 490. 491. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXxvii . General Reputation. . Contradiction in Authorities. . A Familiar Principle Restated. . Partnership Books as Evidence. . Instances of Proper Testimony. . A Late Authority. . Review of Decisions. . The Illinois Rule. we Fe, es ETD OD CHAPTER LII. PHOTOGRAPHY. (Pages 1163-1176.) . Recent Views. . A Celebrated Case. . Necessity of. . The Discoveries of Science. . Illustrations of the Present Rule. . Views of Alabama Supreme Court. . What Verification Necessary. . Views of the Michigan Supreme Court. . Caution in Admitting. . Review of the Authorities. CHAPTER LIL PLEADINGS. (Pages 1177-1187.) Proof Necessary to Neutralize the Effect of. Evidentiary Facts, How Treated. Pomeroy’s Statement of the Rule. Present Attitude of Courts. CHAPTER LIV. PROBATE MATTERS. (Pages 1188-1221.) “ Probate” Defined. Various Incidents in the Proceedings. Various Principles of Construction. Cancellation of a Will. Testamentary Capacity. Due Attestation. Jurisdiction of Equity to Correct Mistakes. Subscribing Witnesses Subject to Subpcena. What Must be Proven. Outline of the New York Practice. Illustrations of the Law and Practice in These Courts, Testamentary Provisions, How Established. Burden of Proof. The Lispenard Will Case. Principles of Interpretation by a rete Lost, Suppressed or Destroyed Wills. Petition Must Prove what. When Equity May Interpose. California Regulations. The English Rule. Miscellaneous Authorities, XXXVili TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER LV. PROOF OF DEATH. (Pages 1222-1224.) Sec. 492. Direct and Inferential Testimony. CHAPTER LVI. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. (Pages 1225-1231.) Sec. 493. Law for the Court, Fact for the Jury. Sec. 494. Law and Fact, Distinction. CHAPTER LVII. REPLEVIN. (Pages 1282-1241.) Sec. 495. The Term Defined. Sec. 496. Views of Prominent Writers. Sec. 497. Questions of Demand. Sec. 498. Measure of Damages. Sec. 499. Jury Required to Assess Damages. Sec. 500. When the Action Lies, Views of Wait. Sec. 501. Note from Greenleaf. Sec. 502. Question of Damage, What May be Shown. Sec. 508. Miscellaneous Citations. CHAPTER LVIII. REPUTATION. (Pages 1242-1250.) Sec. 504, Evidence in Support of, Admission of, Sec. 505. The General Rule. Sec. 506. Reputation Defined. Sec. 507. The English Rule. Sec. 508. American Cases. Sec. 509. Rule as Stated by Stephen. CHAPTER LIX. SCIENTIFIC WORKS. (Pages 1251-1256.) Sec. 510. Conflict of Authorities. Sec. 511. An Early Case Examined. Sec. 512. Views of Mr. Moak. Sec. 513. Of Chief Justice Shaw. Sec. 514. Views of Text-writers on Medical Jurisprudence. CHAPTER LX. STATUTE OF FRAUDS. (Pages 1257-1265.) Sec. 515. ‘Memorandum ” Clause Examined. Sec. 516. Confusion as to Admission of Parol Evidence. Sec. 517. Evidentiary Rules Regulating Sale of Land. Sec. 518. Miscellaneous Authorities. Sec. S Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Bec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524, . 525. . 626. . 527. . 528. . 529. . 530. . 581. . 582. . 533, . Tax Deed Open to Rebuttal. 535. . 586. . 587, 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551, 552. 553. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xxxix CHAPTER LXI. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (Pages 1266-1273.) Object of the Statute. Equitable Consideration of the Subject. In Cases of Insurance. Acts upon Remedy; asa Bar. Instances of its Application. CHAPTER LXII. TAX TITLES. (Pages 1274-1291.) Typical Legislation on the Subject. Ekect of Tax Deed as Evidence. All Formalities Must be Complied with. Substitutionary Evidence not Competent, Views of Maryland Supreme Court. Common-Law Rule. Tax Deed Prima Facie Evidence when. What Constitutes Color of Title. Record is Controlling. Burden on Party Setting up Title. Statute may Shift Burden of Proof. Lack of Uniformity in Rules. Views of Mr. Justice Strong. F . Preliminary Proof. . 539. . 540, . 541. . 642. The English Rule. . 543. . 544, 545. Impeaching Evidence Competent. What Flee Should Allege, Views of Chief Judge Church. Mississippi Regulations. Evidence of Title as Affected by Patents, Wills, Court Rolls. Miscellaneous Citations of Authority. CHAPTER LXIII. TELEPHONE. (Pages 1292-1300.) Preliminary Consideration. Views of Judge Thompson. Sullivan v. Kuykendall, CHAPTER LXIV. USURY. (Pages 1801-1306.) Views of Justice Tyler. Of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Miscellaneous Authorities, CHAPTER LXV. VALUE. (Pages 1307-1309.) Determined Largely by Opinion. Market Reports, Schedules, etc. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, 554, 555. 556, 557, 558. 559, 560. 561, TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER LXVI. WARRANTY. (Pages 1310-1320.) No Particular Form of Words Required. Warranty and Guaranty Distinguished. Implied Warranties. 1 Views of the Illinois Supreme Court. The Rule Caveat Emptor Applied. Implied Warranty Depends upon what. Leading Cases Examined. Review of Authorities, TABLE OF CASES. Abbey v. Dewey, 25 Pa. 413_... v, Ferris, 31 N. Y. 8. R. 59 Abbott ». Abbott, 41 Mich. 540, AD 5S achat ck ao arte v. Bates, 22 Week. Rep. 488 , Coleman, 22 Kan. 250, 31 Am. Rep. 186.___. ». Lindenbower, 42 Mo. 162, 46 Mo. 291--._807, 808, ». Pearson, 130 Mass. 191... ». Rose, 62 Me. 194, 16 Am. Rep: 437. vo. sets v. Treat, 78 Me. 121__..-- Abegg v. Schwab, 31 N. Y. 8. RB. 977 919 1191 910 344 1231 1159 856 977 975 Abell 2. Douglass, 4 Denio, 805_. 64 Abney v, Kingsland, 10 Ala. 355, 498, 961, 962 Abraham 2. Wilkins, 17 Ark, 292 355 Abrams 2, Pomeroy, 13 II]. 183-238, 256 . Van Brunt St. & E. B. R. Co, 13.N. Y. Civ. ! Proc. 404,n..-.-...-- 781 ». Winshup, 1 Russ. 526__ 604 Accounting of Kelly, Re, 1 N.Y. Week. Dig. 308... -_ 829 Acebal . Levy, 10 Bing. 376_1263, 1264 Ackerman 2, Ackerman, 44 N. J. 1 949 L. Acklen v. Hickman, 60 Ala, 568, 63 Ala. 495, 385 Am, Tet Bbc ce veges men 746, '748 Acton 0. eaiey; 74 Mo. 63_-_.- o. Blundel, 12 Mees. & W. BOE le wicencetesecincis 1121 Adae 0, Zangs, 41 Iowa, 536..753, 758 Adair v, Adair, 88 Ga. 49.__..-.. 308 », Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 5389. 91 Adams v. Adams, "22 Vt. 50_.-_- 216 0. Beale, 19 Iowa, 61_.-152, 807 »% Bowerman, 11 Cent. Rep. 479, 109 N. Y. 23 822 v. Chaplin, 1 Hill, Eq. 266 1198 ». Coulliard, 102 Mass. 167 752 ». Davidson, 10 N. Y. 309 Sanaa Eee EoLee 865, 951 Field,:21 Vt. 256.344, 346, 1207 Frye, 3 Met, 108....--- 225 Funk, 53 Ill. 219___.--- Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. . Harrin ton, 114 Ind. 66. Harrold, 29 Ind. 198... 608 R Johnson, 15 Ill, 345... 1812 esses ee Adams v. Jones, 39 Ga. 479....76, 77 . Jones, 12 Ad. & El. 455 1140 . Lambard, 80 Cal. 426.. 288 . Merritt, 10 I, App. 275 847 3 M Millan, 7 Port.(Ala.) 73 1264 . Otterback, 56 U. §. 15 yer 539, 14 L. ed. Scere Sere tee ole 9 . People, 47 Ill. 876_..._- . Pittsburgh Ins. Co. 95 Pa. 355, 856.-...-..-- eseeses es v Robertson, 37 Ill. 45__-. 1306 v Rockwell, 16 Wend. 318 723 v. Rowe, 11 Me. 95_._.... 209 v. Russell, 85 Ill. 284... 691 v. Sage, 28 N. Y. 108_._.- 949 v. State, 87 Ind. 573___._- 95 ». Stevens, 49 Me. 362__300, 302 ». Thornton, 78 Ala. 489.. 977 ». Way, 33 Conn. 419_.._- 207 v, Wordley,1 Mees.& W.374 278 Adams Exp. Co. ». Haynes, 42 TAs. (89 sce eia tees 1026 Adamson 2. Jarvis, 12 Moore, 253 1311 » Smith, 2 Mill. 269, 12 Am. Dec. 665.____-.- Addicks v. Bush, 1 Phila. 19.... 655 Addy »v. Grix, 8 Ves. Jr. 504_-.. 1198 Adee v. Howe, 15 Hun, 20__.--- 464 v. Thomas, 41 Fed. Rep. 342, 1G a 729 Adkins 2. Watson, 12 Tex. 199.. 1264 Adler v, Lang, 4 West. Rep. 269, 21 Mo. App. 516-__.-- 922 o. Pin, 80 Ala. 351_--.---. W21 ». State, 55 Ala. 16....... 28 Adlum »v. Yard, 1 Rawle, 163, 1 Am. Dec. 608----.-- '982, 985 Bina Ins. Co. 2. Weide, 760.5. 9 Wall. 677,19 L. ed. 810, 81 U. 8. 14 Wall. 875, 20 L. ed. 894.758, 754, 818 4itna L. Ins. Co. v. Davey, 40 Fed. Rep. 911..-.---- 802 v. Deming, 123 Ind. 384_.. Agar v, Tibbets, 46 Hun, 52-.-.- Agnew 2. x ae 10 Smedes & Aiken 2. Hoe 61 Ill. 436_...- v Kenison, 2 New Eng. Rep. 797, 58 Vt. 665.. 503 xli xii Aiken v, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 37 Wis. 469.--.-- , Peck, 22 Vt. 255___-_-. Airey v, Okolona Sav. Inst. 33 Li, Ann. 1346___.------- Akin a. eee 2 La, Ann, Alabama G. 8. R. Co. 2. Hill, 9 L. R.A. 442, 90 Ala. 71,44 Am. & Eng. R. ie, WUE ee Albany City Nat. Bank v. Albany, 92 N. Y. 368, 367.-.-- Albany City ae. ae 2. Burdick, Albert v, Koei 29 N. Y. 8. R. 644 Alberti v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 6 L. R. A. 765, 118 N. Y. 77, 645, 649, 1166, Albrecht 0, Strimpler, 7 Pa. 476, 1126, Albro 2, Seren Canal Co. 6 ush Alden v, Grove, 18 Pa, 377_..--. v. Pryal, 60 Cal. 222__.__. Alderman »v. People, 4 Mich. 414 Alderson v. Bell, 9 Cal. 815_____- v. Langsdale, 3 Barn. & Ad. 660 » White, 2 DeG. & J. 97_ Aldrich ». Kinney, 4 Conn. 380, 1074 890 300 784. 1170 1142 1042 913 299 645 17 854 268 209, 1181 Alexander v, Burnham, 18 Wis. LU onaa ce eene Saaenee ». Church, 1 New Eng. Rep. 824, 53 Conn. 561 ». Chamberlin, 1 Thomp. & 2 Ellison, 79 Ky. 148.___- . Gould, 1 Mass. 165_._.. . Harris, 8U.8. 4 Cranch, 299, 2L. ed. 627_.__- . Knox, 7 Ala. 408___.___ . Milwaukee, 16 Wis. 247. es soe Ss . Western U. Teleg. Co. 3 L.R.A. 71, 66 Miss. 161 Alfonso 2. ee States, 2 Story, Alford 2, Bale, 53 Ind. 279.._. v, State, 8 Tex. App. 545_ Allaire v. Allaire, 87 N. J. L. 812. Allan 2. Like 18 Q. B. 560_.._. Allegheny v. Nelson, 25 Pa. 832_ Allegre 2. Maryland Ins. Co. 6 Harr. & J. 408, 2 Gill 947 . Walter, 8 Gill, 239____88, 711 1022 1307 64 26 1207 1310 34 & J. 187___._-- 280, 903, 909 Allen ». Armstrong, 16 Iowa, 508 807, 808, 1282 TABLE OF CASES. Allen ». Baker, 86 N. C. 91_---- 860 ». Coit, 6 Hill, 318.832, 895, 897 ». De Witt, 3 N. Y. 276... 1289 ». Dykers, 3 Hill, 593. -_- 278 ». Fox, 51 N. Y. '562_____- 1240 ® Graham, 12 Phila. 176. 995 ». Hill, 78 Ky. 119 222s 1270 v Judson, TIN. Y. 77---- 1287 v. Mandeville, 26 Miss. 399 1055 2. Marney, 65 ae 398, 32 Am. Rep. 78_-------- 1146 ». Martin, 10 Pavend: 800-218, 221 v. Morse, 72 Me. 502----_.- 1283 v. Patterson, TN. Y.476__ 1100 v. Poole, 54 Miss. 333 .---- 1054 ». Robinson, 3 Bibb, 326.. 1279 v. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 120 U.S. 20, 30 L. ed. 573 912 », Scharringhausen, 8 Mo. ADpp. 229. 2222055222 22 » aad 31 N. J. L. 870 ne ncidceciawseeersae "97 ». Watson, 2 Hill, L. 319.. 192 ». Williard, 57 Pa. 374____ 1100 ». Winston, 1 Rand. 65... 711 ». Withrow, 110 U. 8. 119, 28 L. ed. 90... ------ 858 ». Woonsocket Co. 13 K. I. AG tment Ashen 230 Allender v. Riston, 2 Gill & J. 86 222 Allerton v. Belden, 48 N. Y. 378, BT tert anigaadeeioees 1306 Allesbrook »v. Roach, 1 Esp. 351 332 Allie » Schmitz, 17 Wis. 169.... 734 Alling 2. Cook, 49 Conn, 574_.-_. 633 Allis v. Day, 14 Minn. 516 .____. 330 ». Moore, 2 Allen, 306_... 1270 Allison », Allison, 7 Dana, 94 1194, 1195 o. Allison, 46 Til. 61._---- 1211 ». Matthieu, 3 Johns, 235-. 523 Allison Mfg. Co. v. McCormick, 11 Cent. Rep. 396, 118 Pay, G19 oc cccee awed 1119 Allman ». Owen, 31 Ala. 167_... 19 Allore 2. dewalt 94 U.S. 506, 24 ed. 260 ._..--.---- 1086 Alner 2. ee 1 Campb. 392.. 232 Alpers 2. Schammel, 75 Cal. 590 924 Alstin v. Cundiff, 52 Tex. 453... 224 Alston v. Hawkins, 105 N.C. 3. 102 v, Jones, 10 Paige, 98, 4 L. ed. 9038 _...._.- 2... 1218 » Rowles, 13 Fla. 128.... 990 Alter’s App. 67 Pa. 841.....__.- 1200 Alton v. Gilmanton, 2 N. H. 488. 465 Altschul v. Doyle, 48 Cal. 586.... 785 Alvord v. Smith, 5 Pick, 282.... 875 Amberg 2. Rogers, 9 Mich. 882... 807 Ambler 2, Choteau, 107 U. 8. 591, 27 L. ed. 824.... 222. 969 Ambrose »%. Clendon, Cas, ¢ Hardw. 267_.....___. 519 TABLE OF CASES, American Bell Teleph. Co. 2, Cushman T. & S. Co. 1L. R. A. 799, note, ‘86 Fed. Rep. 488__._. % Globe Teleph. Co. 24 Blatchf. 522, 81 Fed. Rep. 729 ......-..--- American Exch. Bank v. Webb, 16 How. Pr. 198 ____- American Fur Co. ». United States, 27 U. S. 2 Pet. 358, 7 L. ed. 450 _.865, 870 ‘American Ins. Co. » Smith, 2 West. Rep. 150, 19 Mo. App. 627 ._.2.22. 222. American L. ins. Co. v. Mahone, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 152, 22 L. ed. 593 _.__. 449, 1001 American L. Ins. & T. Co. 2. Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507 65, 176, 415, 1223 American R. Teleg. Co. ». Conn, Teleph. Co. 49 Conn. 352, 44 Am. Rep. 287, andnote _._-..___._ American Transp. Co. 5 Mich, 368 ._________ American U. Teleg. Co. ». Daugh- tery, 89 Ala. 191__148, 1022, 1023, Brooks, 3 New Eng. Rep. 485, 143 Mass. B44 ». New York Union Ins. Co. 14. N. Y. 253 728, 1271, 1278 . Rathbun, Barb. 194_____ 1062 ». Snider, 69 Ill. 376 1061 Amherst Bank 2. Root, 2 Met. 522 343 Amesbury v. Rowditch Mut. F. Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 596 728, 1268, 1271 Amethyst, The, 2 Ware, 28, 2N. Y. Leg. Obs, 812. .... 1118 Amey 2 Cockey (Md.) 19 Wash. L. Rep. 163__..._- 142, 416 ». Long, 9 East, 473._._.. Amidon 2, Hosley, 54'Vt. 25- -639, 642 Ammendale Normal Inst. ». An- derson, 71 Md. 128... 1082 Amory 2. Amory, 3 Biss. 266.- 199 Amsden v. Dubuque & 8. C. ‘R. 1300 196 1038 805 Ames 2. Co. 82 Iowa, 288.____ 213 Anacker »v. Chicago, R.L&P.R. Co. (Iowa) 47 N. W. Reps 68 cercenene wens 803 Anderson 2, ee 6 Iowa, 486_ 820 v Anderson, 8 Ohio, 108_ 208 ». Case, 28 Wis. 505 _.. 678 ». Cranmer, 11 W. Va. 584 79 v. Fitzgerald, 17 Jur. 995. 1005 v, Hubble, 93 Ind. 576.724, 725 v, Jackson, 16 Johns. 383._ 748 ». Long, 10Serg.& R.55 1248, 1249 1300 Anderson ». May, 10 Heisk. ag - 38 » McAleenan, 29 N. Y. 8. R406 cree secatieces 485 », Parker, 6 Cal. 197_.--.- 18 v. Roberts, 18 Johns. 584_. 229 %. Russell, 84 Mich. 109... 585 v. Snow, 9 Ala, 247._.._-- ATG v. State, 89 Ala, 12___-_-- 688 v Taylor, 56 Cal. 131_... 1101 v. Walter, 34 Mich. 113.- 585 v. Weston, 6 Bing. N. G; OG ahaa a WA a aha Nanas 98, 238 Anderson County Comrs. ». Beal, 113 U.S. 227, 28 L. ed. 966 eed e howe cee 680, 970 Andes‘Ins. Co. v. Fish, 71 Ill. 620 1272 Andre 2. State, 5 Iowa, 394_____ 1243 Andrews ». Congar, 20 Am. L Reg. 331 _.---.----.- 1130 v. Essex F. & M. Ins. Co. 3 Mason, 10_ ___ ._..261, 299 . Gillespie, 47.N. Y. 487__ 299 . Graves, 1 Dill. 108____- 690 . Herriot, 4 Cow. 515..__64, 209 wth County Suprs. 70 ll. 6 esee ». Lyons, 11 Allen, 349. _707, 708 v ontgomery, 19 Johns, ieee duet ceee eae 209 6 On EK R. Co, 14 Ind. 169___........ 182, 648 v, Pond, 38 U. S. 18 Pet. 65, 10 L. ed. 61_____- 1305 ». Smithwick, 20 Tex. 111 795 v. Solomon, 1 Pet. C.C.356 643 Androscoggin Bank ». Kimball, 10 Cush. 373 855, 1125, 1127 Andrus v. Opelousas Police Board, 5 L. R. A. 681, 41 La. 17 Angier v. Ash, 26 N. H. 99-219, 221, 968 ». Schieffelin, 72 Pa. 106, 13 Am. Rep. 659... _. Angle v. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 92 U. 8. 330, 23 L. ed. 556_-.--._-- Anglo-American Pack. & P. Co. » Cannon, 31 Fed. Rep. 313.-..-..--- 149, 172 Angus 2. Smith, 1 Mood. & M. 473 617, 719 Anheuser-Busch Brew. Asso. 2. Hutmacher, 4L. R. A. 575, 29 Ill. App. 316_- Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. Gantt, . 39 Md. 115 -..-.--_-- Anonymous, 22 Beav. 481--.__-- Loft, 372 149 xliv Pea 35 Ala, 226.------- 1074 ill, 251,-...--- 629, 630, 1249 7 R. A. "425, 89 Ala. 291 apisiciecne. ase 1069, 1074 1P. Wms. 300_...------- 227 Ans*n Dwight, 18 Iowa, 244.. 336 Anthony 2% Savage, 8 Utah, 277. 685 ». Smith, 4 Bosw. 508_.354, 581 Apitz v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 17 Mo. App. 419..--.--- 28, 24 Apperson v. Cottrell, 3 Port. (Ala.) 51, 29 Am. Dec. 989 eis asteureiset Ses 217 Applegate ». Lexington & C. County Min. Co. 117 U. 8S. 255, 29 L. ed. 892 __- Appleman », Fisher, 84 Md. 540- Appleton 2. Boyd, 7 Mass. 131-., v. Parker, 15 Gray, 173--- ‘estore ® Comstock, 2 Paige, 482, 2 L. ed. 997.770, 787 Arapahoe Cattle & L. Co. ». Stevens, 18 Colo. 584. 974 Arbouin ». Anderson, 1 Q. B. 498 1124 Archambau v.Green, 21 Minn. 520 264 Archer v, New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 9 Cent. Rep. 238, 106 N. Y. 589..1166, 1170, 1178 Arctic F. Ins. Co. ». Austin, 69 N. Y. 470, 477 .-. 68, 405, 406, 892 279 654 71 Armor 2. Spalding, 15 Colo. ee i Armour v. McMichael, 36 N. J. L a Armour Bros. Bkg. Co. v. Riley Co. Bank,’ 30 Kan. 163 275, 1140 Arms ». Arms, 1138 N. Y. 646.... 289 % Middleton, 23 Barb. 571 416. 893 Armstrong v. Baker, 9 Ired. L. LOO) oer pserrcttahatercilors 1216 v. Garrow, 6 Cow. 465._.. 220 v. Lear, 33 U. 8. 8 Pet. 52, 8 L. ed. 863__-..-.___- 386 v, Lewis, 4 Moore & 8. 1__ 1162 v. People, 70 N. Y. 388.... 649 v Percy, 6 Wend. 585_.._ 1811 v. Timmons, 3 Harr. (Del.) A aay nt etd ct tere 562 v. United States, 80 U. S. hie 154, 20 L. ed. lpiolelnla's = ae laenalahgtahe 45 Arnett 2. aes 83 Ala.'278_.... 216 ®, Hill, 38.N. Y. 8. BR. 982 803 Arnold 2, Arnold, 13 Vt. 862.... 549 » Chesebrough, 41 Fed, REP TE aise icine 649 TABLE OF CASES. Arnold ». Cornman, 50 Pa. 861_. 711 v. Fowler, 44 Ala. 168.... 803 ». Gorr, i Rawle, 228_-.-- 402 2 Macungie Sav. Bank, 71 Pay 28iecasccccsccecs 500 v. Renshaw, 11 N.J. L.367 694 o Sprague, 34 Vt. 409.... 270 Arnot 2. Biscoe, 1 Ves. Sr. 97_._- 1178 Artcher 2. Douglass, 5 Denio, 509 1184 Arthur v. Arthur, 10 Barb. 23___ 1192 ». Homestead F. Ins. Co. 78 N. Y. 462, 34 Am. Rep. O00 32s ae ecole S 1272 e. James, 28 Pa, 236._-_-- 435 v«. Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. 12 Mo. App. 335._..- ae Ashbury 2. Sanders, 8 Cal. 62_-- Ashby 2. Glasgow, 7 Mo. 320-_-- 736 Ashley 2, Hart, 1 L. R. A. 355, 147 Mass. 573._-....- 1119 v. Martin, 50 Ala. 587__.28, 500 e. Robinson, 29 Ala, 112, 65 Am. Dec, 387..-.---- 291 Ashlock », Linder, 50 M11. Hi eas 440 Ashpitel 2. Bryan, 82 L. J. Q. B , 3 Best. & 8. 474__. 460: Ashwell 2. Lomi, L.R. 2P. &D. MG oot ae Bcapscsiascias 1092 Ashworth 2. ade 12 Cush. Askew 2. Re 1 Dev. & B. Ws BO c.catiane edocs 950- Aslin 2, Parkin, 2 Burr. 665____. 734 Aspden 2. Nixon, 45 U.8.4 How. 467, 11 L. ed. 1059212, 737 Aspinwall, Re, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 448._.._..-....-. 646: ev. Wake, 10 Bing. 51____. 460 Astley v. Milles, 1 Sim, 298_..._. 290- Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 268... 769 Astor v. Union Ins. Co. 7 Cow. Atchinson », Rose, 48 Kan. 605_- Atchison». M’Culloch, 5 Watts,13 Atchison & N. R. Co. ». Harper, 19 Kan. 529._.._.... 336 Atchison, T. & 8. F. R. Co. a. Betts, 10 Colo. 481... 87 v. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 477 34, 589 ». Brewer, 20 Kan. 669. _- 1106: ». Jefferson County Comrs. 12 Kan, 127_.._ 22. 737, 740 1074 166- Atherfold ». paar 27. R. 610. Atkins 2. Hosely, 3Thomp. & C, 322, 328 1811 Atkinson 2. Grabam, 5 Watts, 411 1242 2 Hawdon, 2Ad.& El 628 854 TABLE OF CASES. Atlanta 0. Gate City Gas Light Co. 71 Ga. 106 Atlas Bank 2. Doyle, 9 R. I. 76, 98 Am. Dec. 368_.124, Atlas Engine Works »v. Randall, 100 Ind. 293__....._- Attleborough »v, Middleborough, 10 Pick. 378.... ..__. Atty-Gen. », Bowman, 2 Bos. & P. 582, note......-._. 1248 VD. Bradlaugh, L. R. 14 Q. . Div. 667._---__.-- v Hitchcock, 1 Exch. 91 632, 6338, 634 Mathias, 4 Kay & J. 579 908 Parnther, 3 Bro, Ch. 369 561 Thurnall, 2 Cox, Ch. 2. 604 725 1126 1119 ess Atwater v. Clancy, 107 Mass. 869 284 ». Fowler, 1 Edw. Ch. 417, 6 L. ed. 193...--__..- 836 ». Schenck, 9 Wis. 160.... 32 Atwell ». Lynch, 39 Mo. 519.... 420 v eer 11 Md. 348._... 420 “Am, Dec, 657_-.--_-. 263 ». Cornwall, 28 Mich. 336. 420 2 sat We 2 Dougl. (Mich.) ae Ca tee ea 484 ageen, 2 Car. & P. 368. 1129 iz Impson, 20 N. J. Eq. 150 639, 952 v. Welton, 7 Conn. 66_-549, 614 Au v, New York, L. E. & W. R Co. 29 Fed. Rep. 72.. 797 Aud 0. Magruder, 10 Cal. 288... 258 Auditor v. Haycraft, 14 Bush, 284 35 ». Johnson, 1 Hen. & M. 542 229 749 Augusta v. Windsor, 19 Me. 317- Augusta & 8. R. Co. 2. Randall, 79 Ga. 311_.......--- Augusta Factory v. Barnes, 72 Ga. 217, 53 Am. Rep. 838, 386, 411 Aulger o, Smith, 34 Ill. 534_-._. 368 Ault 2. Zehering, 38 Ind. 429.... 740 Aultman enn 58 Iowa, De ein ciane els Aurora ». West, 74U.8. 7 Wall. 82, 19 L. ed. 42. 706, 734 735 Aurora Branch RB. Co. 2. Grimes, 13 Il. 585__.....2--- 1 BO essen ais tat aciers 1182 v. Manchester, 8S. & L. R. Co, 11 Eng. L. & Eq. DI gested credo 1084 o. New York & E. R. Co. 25 N. J. L. 881___-.-- 1100 ». Walton, 68 Tex. 507.... 36 ® Wilson, 24 Vt, 632__... 1137 2, Wohler, 5 Ill. "App. 300_ 1076 xlv Automatic Phonograph Ex. Co. ». North Am. Phono- graph Co. 45 Fed. Rep. Averatt o. Thompson, 15 Ala. 678 64 Avery v. Chappel, 6 Conn. 274, 16 Am. Dec, 56. __.301, 1218 v. Hall, 50 Vt. 11-...---- 914° v. Pixley, 4 Mass. 460_-..- 1194 ». Stewart, 2 Conn. 69. -277, 280 Aveson », Kinnaird, 6 East, 188 378, 519, 1001 Ayer 2. eee Glaucus, 4 Cliff. 53 Ayers 2. Chisum (N. M.) 1 West. Coast. Rep. 520.--.-- ». Harness, 1 Ohio, 368_857, 1151 ». Harris, 77 Tex. 108..-.. 1174 vo. Hewett, 19 Me. 281-963, 1238 ». Metcalf, 89 Il. 307... _- 436 Aymar »v. Astor, 6 Cow. 267... 1228 Ayres ». Duprey, 27 Tex. 593.__ 221 v, Findley, 1 Pa. 501 _-_-- 1311 v. French, 41 Conn, 142... 958 v. Weed, 16 Conn. 300.... 276 Ayrault ». Chamberlain, 33 Barb. 229 129 Baalam »v. State, 17 Ala. 451... Babb »v. Clemson, 10 Serg. & R. 419, 12 Serg. & R. 328 v. Talcott, 47 Mo. 348___. Babcock », Camp, 12 Ohio St. 11 734, 736 Eckler, 24 N. Y. 623.298, 953 Meek, 45 Iowa, 187__.. 1258 People, 13 Colo. 515_--. 613 Utter, 1 Keyes, 407, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 37._. 724 Baby v. Dubois, 1 Blacktf. 255-. 31 Bachelder 2. Heagan, 18 Me. 32. 1118 Bachman 2, Killinger, 55 Pa. 418 989 Backentoss v. Speicher, 31 Pa. 324 958 Backhouse 2, Harrison, 5 Barn, & Ad. 10 457 1229 217 1131 82 950 1235 es 3 Backus 0. Shipherd, 11 Wend. 629 Bacon »v. Bevan, 44 Miss. 293_--- v Burnham, 37 N. Y. 616 », Chesney, 1 Stark. 192.. 470 v. Cropsey,7 N. Y.195_-. 463 ». Frisbie, 80 N. Y. 394.451, eel v. Towne, 4 Cush. 238__.. 1068 v. Williams, 18 Gray, 527. 344 Badeau ». Niles, 9 Abb. N. C. 48, a 1184, 1186 xlvi Badger v. Badger, 69 U. 8. 2 _ _ Wall. 95, 17 L. ed. 888 969 vo. Story, 16 N. H. 168_. 968 Baer ov. Martin, 2 Ind. 229_____. 1234 Bagley 2. MeMickle, 9 Cal. 480.. 151 Bagot 2. ee 3 Barn, & C. Bailey v. Baile , 8 Humph. 2380, : . 260, 261 . Bailey, 25 Mich. 185_... 78 0. Barnelly, 23 Ga. 582-815, 819, 829 ee hae 13 Mees. & W. Meee Rane 124, 1125, 1142 ue 88U.8. 21 Wall. 342, 22 L. ed. 636.._. 1267 Cooper, 5 Humph. 100_ 610 ». Dilworth, 10 Smedes & M. 404, 48 Am. Dec. 3 < = = se Ze 2 a ° 5 3H 4 @ 4 a Q 2 i wo NG YW ice2 cece ose . Kalamazoo Pub. Co., 40 Mich, 251___._...-_-- 9 v. McGinniss, 57 Mo. 371_. 1054 ». Ogden, 3 Johns. 899_._ 1263 2. Richardson, 9 Hare, 784. 289 v. Taylor, 11 Conn. 531, 534 857, 858 Baily v. Doolittle, 24 I], 577___. 1288 Bain v, Clark, 89 Mo. 252_._.___ 420 Bainbridge v. Wade, 16 Q. B. 89, 1263, 1264 Bair v. Peoples Bank, 27 Neb. 577 718 Baird 2. ae 4 Serg. & R. s 39 v. Daly, 68 N. Y. 547___586, 587 v. New York, 96 N. Y. 567 970 Baisch v. Oakley, 68 Pa. 92._..- 268 Bajus v. Syracuse, B. &N. Y. R. Co., 4 Cent. Rep. 518, 103 'N. Y. 312_..-_-_- 1120 Bakeman v. Rose, 14 Wend. 110, 1243 ». Rose, 18 Wend. 146__626, 630 Baker v. Baird, 79 Mich. 255___. 818 v, Baker, 3 Swab. & T. 218 683 v. Bradley, 7 DeG. M. &G. OO eet seas 1093 ». Dening, 8 Ad. & El, 94_1198, 1199 v. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518.... 276 ». Fehr, 97 Pa. 72...___._- 1119 » Griffin, 10 Bosw. 140... 3877 ». Home L, Ins. Co., 64 N. be iy: | ee eee eres 1005 o. Kelley, 11 Mion. 480-1280, 1281 v. Lyman, 53 Ga. 389___._ 500 ». McDuffie, 28 Wend. 289. 220 vo, Massey, 50 Towa, 899... 300 ». Moor, 84 Ga. eae 784, 785 ®. . Mygatt, 14 Iowa, 131-18, 342, 339 TARLE OF CASES. Baker v. Robinson, 63N.C.191-- 273 ». Scott, 5 Rich. L. 805.271, 273 ov. Seely, 17 How. Pr. 297. 711 v. Spencer, 47 N. Y. 562.. 949 ». Stackpole, 9 Cow. 420-_ 484 v. Vanderburg, 99 Mo. 878 714 ». Vining, 30 Me. 121___284, 290 Balbec v. Donaldson, 2 Grant, Cas. - 821 362 868. 724 878. 1127 182 734 1119 460 Baldridge v. Penland, 68 Tex. 441 Baldridge & C. Bridge Co. v, Car- trett, 75 Tex. 628___.-. Baldwin, Re, 27 Fed. Rep. 193-- . Brown, 16 N. Y. 359__- . Canfield, 26 Minn. 43___ . Fagan, 83 Ind. 447____- . Grand Trunk R. Co., 64 ; McCrea, 38 Ga. 650-_--- . St. Louis, K. & N. R. Co., 68 Iowa, 87__.-- v. United States Teleg. Co., 45 N. Y. 752, 6 Abb. Pr. N. S. 405-114, 1387, ». Weed, 17 Wend. 227._- Bales v. Perry, 51 Mo. 449_____- Balfour v. Davis, 14 Or. 47____- Balke ». Coleman, 22 Wis. 415__ Ball ». Mannin, 3 Bligh, N. 8.1 Ballard v.. Appleton, 26 Wis. 67. v. Burgett, 40 N. Y. 314.- Ballentine », Clark, 38 Mich. 395 Ballinger v. Elliott, 72 N. C. 596. Balmer v. Sunder, 11 Mo. App. esec es 1036. 1063 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hoge, 34 Pa, 214___...__--- . Noell, 32 Gratt. 394___. v Sherman, 30 Gratt. 602_ % Whittington, 30 Gratt. v Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431 ». Worthington, 21 Md. 275 Baltimore & P. R. Co. 2. Sixth Presb. Church, 91 U. Baltimore & P. 8. B. Co. 2, Brown, D4, Pais Ween worne'eses 8. 127, 23 L. ed. 260_. Baltimore & 8. R. Co. 0. Wood- Baltimore ©. P. R. Co. v. Sewell, + Md. 238, 6 Am. Rep. 292 87 23. 1103 1098 1099 3 959 63 509 877 333: Baltimore, * ‘SO R. Co. v. Ev- arts, 11 West. Rep. 875, 112 Ind. 538____- Baltimore Perm. Bldg. & L. Soc. ». Smith, 54 Md. 187 Baltimore Steam Packet Co. 2. Smith, 28 Md. 402, 87 Am. Dec. 575 520 256 TABLE Bamford v. Melvin, 7 Me. 14.___- OF CASES. 221° Bank of United States v. Bank of xlvii Banert v. Day, 3 Wash. C. C Baltimore, 7 Gill, 415. 209 AD oe ares A 416 v. Bank of Georgia, 23 U. Bangs 0. Edwards, 88 Ala. 382.. 776 S. 10 Wheat. 333, 6 L. vo. Strong, 4N. ¥. 315____- 1151 CO B8 eae a tsee tots 458 Bank of Albion 2. Smith, 27 Barb. v. Beverly, 42 U. 8.1 How. BBQ. ee us aces 1138, 1140 134, 11 L. ed. 75.783, 1179 Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 v. Corcoran, 27 U. S. 2 Pet. ush, 54_-_-----_. 876, 877 121, 7 L. ed. 368____- 61, 68 ». Woodworth, 18 Johns. v Dandridge, 25 U. 8. 12 315, 19 Johns. 391____ 8538 Wheat. 70, 6 L, ed. 554 Bank of Augusta 2. Earle, 38 U. ; 52, 887 8. 18 Pet. 519, 10 L. v. Daniel, 37 U. S., 12 Pet. CU; 274s eis cee, 15} 82, 9L. ed. 989 Ssieeislow! 90 Bank of Columbia 2. French, 1 0. Davis, 2 Hill, 451____ 228 Cranch, C. C. 221... 644 o. Dunn, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. Bank of Commerce’s App., 73 Pa. ; 51, 8 L. ed. 816._____. 1142: Be co to meie anes 875 2 Kurtz, 2 Cranch, C. C Bank of Commerce 2. Bissell, 72 BADE cessor aah hy Aa 245 Nw Y: 6153.22 25, caheee 906 0. Schultz, 2 Ohio, 471__665, 1102 v, Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230 ». Waggener, 34 U. S. 9 458, 461 Pet. 378, 9 L. ed. 168. 1305 Bank of Commonwealth . Curry, Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 2 Dana, 148___---..-- Barb. Ch. 528, 5 L. ed. 655, 856, 1123 1125 OOS e. ese eed 450, 451, 648 ». McChord, 4Dana, 191_. 856 o. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770.875, "883, v. Mudgett, 44 N. Y. 514. 348 1304 Bank of pope eee ». Woods, ov. Wagar,7 Cow. 712, aff’d, INGLY: S40 a cccewers 669 8 Cow: 898... -..00056 1303. Bank of Panels ». Travers, 4 : Bank of ‘Wesntngeen ». Triplett, Biss: 50 Von eeeeeee 690 | 26 U. $8. 1 Pet. 25, 71. Bank of Gallipolis 7. Domigan, 12 OU Bi ets leet - 278 Ohio, 220, 40 Am. Dec. | Bank of Wilmington 2. Wollas- AD tyre) daar 218 ton, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. 711, 892, 900 Co., 93 U. 8. 177, 23 L. Banker ». Banker, 63 N. Y. 412_ 1084 ed. 874.__--.----.--- 1105 | Banks », Burnam, 61 Mo. 76_. 18 Bank of Limestone v. Penick, 5 o. Farquharson, 1 Dick. 167 604 T. B. Mon. 25.---- 855, 1123 | Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271. 427 Bank of Louisville ». Trustees of v. Sibley, 3 Minn. 489_... 985. Public Schools, 88 Ky. Bannister 2. Jackson, 46N. J. Eq. D1 Oi s bere semen cameos 96 593, aff’g 45 N. J, Ea. Bank of Motopolis v. Jones, 33 102i saweee ecole ete 1220 . 8. 8 Pet. 12, 8 L. Bannon v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 800 societies 1143 24 Md. 108__...-...2- 1105 Bank of Middlebury o. Rutland, 0. BTESTaRG: 13 Jones & S. 3 Vit 614s. tes 404) Bl Fasc eosin eee oes. 786. Bank of eee Culver, 2 Hill, Bantley 2. Made 22 Tex. 27C_ 308 Solesees2 752, 815, 816, 831 | Baptist Church v. Robbarts, 2 Pa. Bank of Newbury 2. Eastman, 44 WA Ov ecient egies 1194 Ne e434 eee ens 221 | Baptiste 2. De Volunbrun, 5 Harr. Bank of ey ey v. Greenville Is BC esncimcensccce 36 &C. R. Co., 9 Rich. L. Barbat 2. een 21 L. J. Exch. 996 eee eee 23 196 = oo ceeen eso secces 546 Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 63 U. Barber v. Bennett, 58 Vt. 476, 56 S. 22 How. 96, 16 L. Am. Rep. 565__.----. 755 ed. 823.128, 457, 855, 856, | ®. Bennett, 1 L. R. A. 224, 1128 60 Vt. 662, 6 Am. St. Bank of Rochester v. Gray,2 Hill, Reps4) ci occcencess 424 OO etesccseet acces 1136 vo. Cary, 11 N. Y. 397_... 1289 ». Jones, 4N. Y. 500.--_. 312 . Lyon, 15 Iowa, 87.___- 300 Bank of Steubenville ». Hoge, 6 v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322 Ohio. 17 scceecs— 5555 1185 377, 380 xlviii TABLE Barbin 2. ee 15 La. Ann. Barbour 2. See 14 Lea, 716.. 1270 Barclay 2. iv anwright, 86 Pa. sai % Warn we oe 1140 Barcroftv. Haworth, 29 Iowa, 462 ian 475, 1154, Barden »v. Southerland, 70 N. C. 028 eae eee aaa 1151 Bardsley v. Hines, 33 lowa, 157. 844 Barger v. Hobbs, 67 Tl. 592 oes 213 v. Miller, 4 Wash. C. C. 288 so aaansaccesineas 402 Bargett v. Orient Mut. Ins. Co., 3 osw. 885-.....----- 908 Barham v.Turbeville,1 Swan, 437, 47 Am. Dec. 784, "17 722 Barker v. Binninger, 14N.Y.270 222 . Bushnell, 75 Til. 220.. 485 v. Cassidy, 16 Barb, 177.. 844 », Comins, 110 Mass. 477_. 349 », Haskell, 9 Cush, 218.__ 814 v, Kuhn, 88 Iowa, 392.... 645 v Ray, 2 Russ. 63_-__---- 423 ». Tabor, 4 Mass. 81_____- 984 Batitiegs. Wilcox, 86 N. Y. 140, 40 Am. "Rep. G1Q een 1121 Barkly ». Copeland, 86 Cal. 483 518, 627 Barksdale ». Brown, 1 Nott & MCC O19 upc ee cece 279 Barlow ». Lambert, 28 Ala. 704 176, 277, 905 %. Scott, 24 N. Y. 40_.... 801 Barnard ». Campbell, 65 Barb. 286, 58 N. Y. 73, 17 Am. Rep. 208_._..-.- 958 ». Darling, 1 Barb. Ch. 218, 5 L. ed. 360_.--- 843 ». Gaslin, 23 Minn. 192.. 1138 ». German American Sem- inary, 49 Mich. 444... 718 v Kellogg, 77 U_S. 10 Wall. 383, 19 L. 987..277, 278, 280, 807, 908, 905, 910, gil 912, 1813 , 1819 Barnes », Allen, 1 Keyes, 390, i Abb. App. Dec. 111, 442 519 ». Doe, 4 Ind. 182_...___. 1276 » Dow, 4 New Eng. Rep. 717, 59 Vt. 580-_.2 2. 821 Harris, 7 Cush. 576... 648 . Quigley, 59 N. Y. 265.. 678 . Taylor, 27N. J. Eq. 259 285 . Wayland, 14 La, Ann, 982, 984 Barnett ov. Selling, 70 N. Y. 494. 1268 Barnett Line of Steamers ». Blackmar, sees 58 Ga, 98._..---- 2... 1161 Barney v. Chittenden, 2 G. Greene, 165,-......_- 1216 OF CASES. Barney v. Earle, 18 Ala, 106.... 1122 v. Forbes, 118 N. Y. 580 319, 320 Barnhardt v. Smith, 86 N. C. 473° 1214 Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 295. 702- Barons v. Brown, 25 Kan. 410__ 1018 Barony of Saye and Sele, 1 H. L. Cas. 507_-.-.-.------. 83 Barough 2». Pee 4 Barn. & C, seeeecasedenstaed 456 Barr v. Kee 56 Mo. 577. 796 vo. Chandler, 47 N. J. Eq. 002 esceeeeeeemacets 804, 974 ». Gratz, 17U. 8. 4 Wheat. 213, 4 L. ed. 553..408-406 . Graybill, 13 Pa. 396, 899 1191 ». Greenawalt, 62 Pa. 172 & 452, 487 », Mitchell, 7 Or. 346___.. 1130 Barreli v. Sabine, 1 Vern. 268___. 268 Barrett 0. Copeland, 18 Vt. 67 219, 221, 222 ». Dodge, 16 R. I. 740.... 784 ». Long, 3H. L. Cas. 395 1046 Barringer v. Sneed, 3 Stew.(Ala.) 201, 20 "Am. Dee. 74 263, 484 Barron v. How, 3 Mart. N.8. 144 71 % Mason, 81 Vt. 198.222. 1062 Barronet’s Case, 1E) & Bhi... 91 Barrows v. Bohan, 41 Conn. 278 290 Barry v, Coombe, 26 U. 8. 1 Pet. 640, 7 L. ed. 295__._. 2. Davis, 33 Mich. 515___- v. Law, 1 Cranch, C. C. 77 1262, 1263 v. Morse, 3N. H. 182_ 1138, 1140 v Ransom, 12.N. Y. 462. 1134, 1135 Barstow 2. Sprague, 40 N. H. 27 1190 Barthell ms Syverson, 54 Iowa, i 26 530 960 825 650 1013 . Emerson, 7 Gray. 174.. 408 . Hogden, 8 Cal. 57. --779, 782 . Knight, 1 Mass. 408_... 209 . Tarbox, 1 Abb. App. B66, 120 ooo any Western U. Teleg. U 62 Me.209,16 Am. Ten 437__1081, 1032, 1038. 1036, 1037 Barton v. Bank of New South Wales, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 379 »% eToand of Education, 59 Tl. 864... -2222222. Bunn, 56 Hun, 509__-- Crittenden, 5 McLean, Bartlett es eeee s TABLE OF CASES, Barton vo. Forsyth, 61 U.S. 20 How. 582, 15 L. ed. % ie 2 Dev. L. 520 629 v. Murrain, 27 Mo, 235.... 1288 o. Thompson, 56 Iowa, 571 1248 Bas v. Steele, 3 Wash. C. C. 381 158, 170, 245 Basbam 2. State, 88 Tex. 622.... 587 Baskins v. Calhoun, 45 Ala. 582. 1306 Bass 2. Clive, 4 Maule G8. 138 . 460 Bassett o. Avery, 15 Ohio St. 299 1124 . Marshall, 9 Mass. 312__ 148 . United States, 137 U.S. 496, 34 L. ed. 762_.658, 659 Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412. 6&8 Batdorff ». Farmers Nat. Bank, Bate 2. hey 1 Cromp. M. & R. 170, 645 Bateman 2. * alley: 5 T. R. 512. v. Phillips, 15 Hast, 272. __ 1263 Bates ». Ableman, 13 Wis. 644 952, 968 ». Barber, 4 Cush. 107_... 1249 o. First Nat. Bank of Brockport, 23 Hun, 420 992 95 743 233 1085 1259 74 Relyea, 23 Wend. 336__ Seabury, 1 Sprague, 483 Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Batterman ». Pierce, : 3 Hill, “171 264, 284, 1144, Battin v. Bigelow, 1 Pet, C. C. 453 Battles 9. aoe 84 Pa. WAG fos ewok 138 Ga. 63 1194, 1195 Batturs o. Sellers, 6 Har. & J. 249 256 Baudin ». Roliff, 1 Mart. N. 8. 165, 14 Am. Dec. 181. 949 Is 231 ess 125 Batton ». Watson, Baugh ». Brassfield, 5 J. v Cradocke, 1 Mood. & R. TON cee Sakt ole cee tieke Bavington 2. Pittsburgh & 8. R. Co., 34 Pa. 858_------ Baxley 2. Linah, 16 Pa. 247__-.- 207 Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71, 82, 356,603 v. Eee 24 Tex. 1%, 71 Am. » comme 1 Pinn. 501_.-- v. Portsmouth, 5 Barn. & C. 170, 7 Dowl. & R. 1085, Bay 2. Cook, 22.N. J. L. aes Bayard 2. Farmers & M. Bank, 52 Pa. 232 1087 833 xlix Bayles ». Baxter, 22 Cal. 580.... 258 Bayley 2. Bailey, 5 Gray, 505... 265 Baylies 2, Davis, 1 Pick. 206 -... 733 Baylis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 113 U.S. 816, 28 L. ed. 989 680 ee Cockeroft, 81 N. Y.363 516 . Williams, 6 Coldw. 442 cited in 2 Lead. Cas, Eig: 1194... - seinsiarer 1092 Bayly v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. 284... 82 Beach v. Beach, 20 Vt. 83 _--.-- 913 o. Eager, 3 Hun, 610__--- 671 o. King, 17 Wend. 197__.. 1229 ». Miller, 180 Ill. 162__._- 974 v. Mills, 5 Conn. 396__..-- 833 v. Packard, 10 Vt. 96.__.- 232 v. Raritan & D. B. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 457 _...1019, 1020 ». Tooker, 10 How. Pr. 297 669 v. Wise, 1 Hill, 612___.._- 455 » Workinan, 20N. H. 379 36 Beadles 2. Alexander, 9 Baxt. G04 cai 3 > Sea red ee 1191 Beak v. Beak, 2 Moak, Eng. Rep. 390, 893, note, L. R. 18 Eig. 489 - ce ccce ecu 994 Beal 2. Blair, 833 Iowa, 318__._.- 276 ». South Devon R. Co., 3 Hurlst. & C. 337.1034, 1035 v. Thatcher, 3 Esp, 194_... 524 Beall ». ae 3 Harr, & McH. A ccmtrceaeeetneieiae 470 Beals v. Merriman, 11 Met. 470-_ 111 ». See, 10 Pa. 56_-:-..--. 1087 v. Terry, 2 Sandf. 137. 905 Beam 2. Barnum, 21 Conn. 200_. 288 Bean »%. Boothby, 57 Me. 295... 289 v. Briggs, 4 Iowa, 464__.. 36 v.. Parker, 17 Mass. 591... 221 v. People, 7 Colo. 20__--- 250 Beard v, Campbell,2 A. IX. Marsh. Mi cies ctci crarsey lee a patte 966 ». Converse, 84 I]. 512__.. 1258 v, inois C. R. Co., 7 L. R. A. 280, 79 Towa, 518 141 o. Kirk, 11 N. H. 397___. 1808 ». Linthicum, 1 Md.Ch. 345 261 v. Talbot, Cooke (Tenn.) TO ate Ne yoy ay seth che 416 Beardsley . gDanley 69 N. Y. apie payee eta 804 % Hail, 86 Conn, 270_.__- 483 » Knight, 10 Vt. 185_..260, 304 Beardstown ». Virginia City, 76 Tl. 48, 44_-._.------- 1095 Beary v. Haines, 4 Whart. 20.... 1150 Beasley v. Beckley, 28 W.Va. 81. 24 ». Western U. Teleg. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 181-..-. 1024 Beasney’ et al Re, L. R. 7 Eq. AOB icc ewe saree 1222 Beattie v. Hilliard, 55 N. H. 428 1017 ». Qua, 15 Barb. 182...... 829 D ] TABLE OF CASES. Beatty 2. Central Iowa R. Co., S 58 Iowa, 242, 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. _--_-- 210, 1117 v. Gilmore, 16 Pa. 463__-. 1102 Beaty v. Knowler, 29 U. 8. 4 Pet. 152, 7 L. ed. 813____- Beaubien ». Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459 355 Beauchamp ». Mudd, Hardin (Ky.) 168-..- -------- 38 Beaumont ». Bramley, Turn. & R. 41 Tse 717, 721 .& ¢ Beaver ». Taylor, 68 U. 8.1 Wall. 637. 17 L. ed. 601-818, 1010 Bebee v. Bank of New York, 1 Johns, 552_....-._.-- 886 2. Moore, 3 McLean, 387_. 231 Becher ». Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 247_..2- 1106 Beck »v. Cole, 16 Wis. 65._.._-_- 984 Beckman ». Skaggs, 59 Cal. 541. 633 Beck with ». Benner, 6 Car. & P. OSI pasa Sees 644 », Whalen, 65 N. Y. 822_. 68 Bedell ». Carll, 33 N. Y. 581__.. 993 ». Chase, 34.N. Y. 386.... 952 v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 147__..- 465 v. Foss, 50 Vt. 94._..._. 499 v. Long Istand R. Co., 44 Ne VipdOle ancien ee seen 835 Bedford 2. ee 11 Humpbh. ah v ne. 58 Mich, 424__ 133 v. Shilling, 4Serg. & R. 401 805 Bedingfield’s Case, 14 Am. L. Rey. 817. Scania tiated 384 Beebe v. DeBaun, 8 Ark. 510._477, 618 », Wilkinson, 30 Minn. 548 717 Beele v. Keife, 18 La. Ann, 524_. 1150 Beeler v. Frost, 70 Mo. 186___..- Beeman v. Buck, 3 Vt. 58..-_-._ v. Duck, 11 Mees & W. 251 Beers, Hz parte, 2 Bradf. 168___- v. Botsford, 13 Conn. 146_. Beeson v. Beeson, 9 Pa. 279____. » Hutchison, 4 Watts, 442 Behler 2, State, 11 West. Rep. 104, 112 Ind. 140... 222. Behrens v. Behrens, 47 Ohio St. BoB keeeieuel cece 139, 1189 » Gone Ins. Co., 58 ee OO eeuct teehee 801 307, 808, 905, 1318 Belcher v. Belcher, 10 Yerg. 121. 179 ». M’Intosh, 8 Oar. GP. 720 1095 » Mulhall, 57 Tex. 17_-. 256 Belden ». Lamb, 17 Conn. 441.. 493 v.Nicolay,4 E. D. Smith,14 1309 Belden v. Seymour, 8 Conn. 304, 21 Am. Dec. 668__..- 304 Belk 0. Meagher, 104 U. 8. 279, 6 L. ed. 735_..-.--.- 919 Belknap 2. Wendel 21N.H.175 128. Bell v. Barnet, 2J. J. Marsh. 516 28, 30 ® Brewster, 9 West. Rep. 429, 44 ‘Ohio St. 690... 3, 401, 520- . Ellis, 83 Cal. 620_..._-. e v. Hoagland, 15 Mo. 360_- 722, '739- v. Ingestre, 12 Q. B. 317_. 1140 v. Jamison, 102 Mo. 71_... 695. % Kendrick, 8 N. H. 550_. 988 2. Kennedy, L. R. 1H. L. BOn3320 sais cette cy 85 v. Morrison, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 351, 7 L. ed. 174___.. 483. v. Prewitt, 62 Ill. 862__._- 586 ». Quick, 18 N. J. L. 312 857 », Smith, 2 Johns, a ected 1228 ». Wardell, Willes, 2 1229- Bell Teleph. Uo. 0. Com. Pay 3 Cent. Rep. 907_..-_.- 428 Bellamy 2. Sabine, 3 Phillim. 425, 1 DeG. & J. 566, 971; 1051, 1057, 1058. Bellas v. Levan, 4 Watts, 294___69, 236 Bellefontaine R. Co. ». Hunter, 33 Ind, 804 sccceaee acters Bellinger o. People, 8 Wend. 595 628. Bellis, Re, 3 Ben. 386, 8 Am. L. Reg. N. 8S. 747, 38 How. Pr. 79, 3 Nat. Bankr. Reg. Bellows », Stone, 14 N. H. 175_- 260, 309- Belmont v. Morrill, 69 Me. 314._ 84 Belmont Branch Bank ». Hoge, 35 N. Y. 65__..--_2-2 123 Beloit o. eo 74U.S. 7 Wall. 9,19 L. ed. 205_. 735 Belote >. eae % Yerg. 584__ 483. Bemis v. Becker, 1 Kan. 226_... 148 Benaway a Gomme, 8 Chandler, ; 65 408 887 852 3851 484 Bender ». Pee 27 Pa. 333___. Bendernagle ». Cocks, 19 Wend. ~ 207, 82 Am. Dec. 448. Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396, 10 Am. Rep. 382.2... ». Fon du Lac, wl Wis. 495 ». Hecox, 18 Wend. 502... Benepe ». Wash, 88 Kan. 407___. 919 Benford 2, Sanner, 40 Pa. 9_._458, 871 Benham’s TAG, Re, 87 L, J. Ch. OO cxcpacy tel tata cet te Benham 2. Cary, 11 Wend. 83... 865 Bening 2. Nelson, 23 Ala, 801_.. 714 Benjamin 2. Arnold, ~ Hun, 447, 5 Thomp. &C. 54. 1138, 1144 v. Coventry, 19 Wend. 353 646 TABLE OF CASES. Benjamin us pene 3 Conn. DB oe cso Sanit hte adil e. Smith, 4 Wend. 334___. Bennett v. Beam, 42 Mich. 346_. v. Camp, 54 Vt. 36_____.. », Edwards, 27 Hun, 352__ ». Holmes, 32 Ind. 108___. ». North British & M. Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 471...._- . O’Brien, 37 Lil. 250_.___ . Pratt, 4 Denio, 275...._ ». Robinson, 3 Stew. & P. 228 860 487 847 1154 31 111 1264 403 ec 3 . Runyon, 4 Dana, 422__- o. State, 24 Tex. App. 73- . State, 1 Swan, 411____.. ». Syndicate Ins. Co., Minn. 254____...2---- v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 18N. Y.8. R. 777__-- o. Womack, 3 Car. & P. 96 Bensell 2. Chancellor, 5 Whart. 371, 34 Am. Dec. 561. Bensley 0. Homier, 42 Wis. 631_. Benne v ee 1 Paige, 122, 2 CO DBO Sccceeasaetaseos ®. Titcomb, 72 Me. 31 Bentley ». Brown, 37 Kan. 14_-_.- e. Hollenback, Wright. (Ohio) 169.... -.--.-- ». Ward, 116 Mass. 833___ Benton ». Central R. Co., 42 Iowa, 192.....--: 121, 2 165, 175_..----.------ v. Nicoll, ‘24 Minn, 221___- Bentz v, Northwestern Aid Asso. 40 Minn. 202_____-.-- Benz v. Hines, 3 Kan. 390_-___- Berdel v. Egan, 125 [I]. 298_158, 159, 172 Berdell ». Berdell, 2 Month. L. Bule. (N. Y.) 82--..-- Bergen v. Udall, 31 Barb. 9..-_- Berkeley Peerage Case, 8 H. L. Cas. 21, 4 Campb. 401 414, 620, 1223 Berkshire Woolen Co. 2. Proctor, : % Guah. 429)... 2. oo Berliner 7. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378 Berney 2. aes 34.N. J. L. Berntanit : oe &S. R. Co., 32 Barb. 165, aff’d 23 How. Pr. 166_._.-- Berniaud v. Beecher, 71 Cal. 38- Berry 2. Fletcher, 1 Dill. 66_---- Tiffin, 10 Md. 27____-- 71 ». Hall, 105 N.C. 154_.__ ». Osborne, 15 Ga. 194___- o. Reed, 53 Me. 487....--- 34 = Berry v. State, 10 Ga.511___...-..- Bed aaa 349, 354, 355 Berthelemy v.Johnson, 3 B. M.90- Bertie v. Beaumont, 2 Price, 303 Bertrand v. Taylor, 82 Ark. 476_ Berty v. Dormer, 12 Mod. 526. ___ Besse v. Sawyer, 28 Ill. App. 248 Bessette v. State, 101 Ind. 85___- Besson v. pens 26 N. J. Eq. i ayarein Sita eee 724 v Soni, 10 N. Y. 236 1061, 1063 Best 2. Polk, 85 U. 8. 18 Wall. Betham »v. Benson, Gow (N, P.) 48 ‘ me Bethel ». Chipman, 57 Mich. 381. 985- Bethlehem v. Watertown, 51 Conn. 490 2 cna me nwcncsc seme Bethune v. Hale, 45 Ala. 522___. Betsinger oe 38 N. Y. 17 999 Betts v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 181-51, 1169 Bettys ». Chicago, M. & 8t. P. RB. Co., 43 Iowa, 602_... 738 Bevan v. Waters,1 Mood. & M. 235 650 Bevens v. Baxter, 28 Ark. 887... 83 Bevis v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 871 1177 26 Mo. App. 19-....- Bibb v. Smith, 1 Dana, 580______ 995 974 Bicknell v. Field, 8 Paige, 446, 4 L. ed. 495... -_-_-__ Le. Biddle v. shippen, Ao S.1 Dall. Bickford v. Dane, 58 N. H. 185. Bickle v, Irvine, 9 Mont. 251___-_ 703 Bidault 2. elas, 19 Mo. 36, 20 DA Gerstein raye 957, 958 4 Bieischotiny >. People, 3 Han, 40; Aff’d 60 N. Y. 616... Bigelow »v. Foss, 59 Me. 162.--.- o. Legg, 2 Cent. Rep. 877, 102 N. Y. 652___..__- ». Sickles, 75 Wis. 427___- v, Stilphen, 35 Vt. 521_... 851 v. Winsor, 1 Gray, 299-... 737 Bigler ». Reyher, 43 Ind. 112__645, 647 Bilansky v. State, 3 Minn. 427__.. 786. Billage v. Southee, 9 Hare, 534 ~ 1090-1092 Bills v. Ottumwa, 35 Iowa, 107_. 383. Bimeler v. Dawson, 5 Il]. 588.__ 1180 Binford v. Young, 13 West. Rep. 815, 115 Ind. 174_____- 361, 482, 922 Bingham ‘ a erhard, 36 Minn. v. senior. 2Q. B. 117__--. 1142 v. Thompson, 4 Nev. 224._ 225 Binney v. Plumley, 5 Vt. 500... 463 ». Russell, 109 Mass. 55..__ 1017 Binns ov. State, 66 Ind. 432...._. 51 522 17 912 785. lii Birch v, Somerville, 2Ir. L. R. N. Bs O48 ak ol aa 546, 575 Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67_-369, 441 Birckhead 2. ‘Brown, 5 Sandf. 184 7387 Bird v. Com., 21 Gratt. 800_---.. 31 ». Great Northern R. Co., 28 L. J.N. 8. Exch. 3 86 ' ». Hueston, 10 Ohio St. 418 392 v. Mayer, 8 Wis. 362..__. 1186 v. Monroe, 66 Me. 337. -238, 282 Birdseye ». Frost, 34 Barb. 367 _ 1229 Birmingham 2, Anderson, 40 Pa. DOG HSie Sea eee ae ane Birney v. New York & W. Print. Teleg. Co., 18 Md. 341 ae 1033 Bischoff ». Wethered, 76 U. 8. 9 Wall. 812,19 L. ed. 829 199 Bischoffsheim ». ao 29 Fed. Rep. $41a25 cs0cc cen Biscoe v. Coulter, 18 Ark. 423.._ 1279 Bishop 2. Clay F. & M. Ins. Co., 49 Conn, 176_-__-_-_. 299 % ae 1 Mood, & M. ‘90 Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462-... 201 ». Harrington, 18 Hun, 81 116) ». Kellogg, 65 N. Y. 432._ 1306 ». Morgan, 11 Cush. 198.. 123 v, Ryan, 23 Ill. 566_-.-279, 902 Bitner v. Bitner, 65 Pa. 347 1084 Bixby ». Carskaddon, 55 Iowa, 5383 954 Blachford ». Christian, uy Knapp,73 1088 Black v. Brisbin, 3 Minn. 360.... 844 v Carrollton Co., 10 La. WANN S wien dasniaan 1097 % Halstead. 39 Pa, 64__... 848 ». Paul, 10 "Mo. 108.-.-__- 984 v. Pratt Coal & C. Co., 85 Ala, 604 -....-.-2.--. De v. Shreve, 13 N. J. Eq. 455 225, 892 se . Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 111 Ill. 352__..816, 485 . Ward, 27 Mich. 191_...91, 750 . Winneshick Ins. Co., 31 es % Woodrow, 89 Mich. 221 401 ». Zacharie, 44 U. 8. 3 How. 483, 11 L. ed. 690_.875, 879 Blackburn — Crawford, 70 U. 8. 3 Wall. 175, 188, 18 L. ed. 186....._... '82, 174, 650 v. Morton, 18 Ark. 884..._ 693 » Randolph, 33 Ark. 119_ 800 Blackett 2, Royal Exch. Ins. Co., 2 Cromp. & J.244__.904, 909 Blackie v, Clark, 15 Beav. 600... 1090 Blackman ». Lackawanna, I. &C. Co., 3 N.Y. Week. Dig. 266 icewiciselaeieige sicia ie 781 TABLE OF CASES. Blackeniore, », Fairbanks, 79 Iowa, 23 Blackwell » Wright, 27 Neb. 269 624 Blaeser v. Milwaukee Mechanics Mut. Ins. Co., 87 Wis. Bl ose we ciimnins sas 801 Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N. Y. 150... 733 Bass, 4 Blackf, 539__-.. 285 Bromley, 5 Hare, 559... 972 Buser, 1 Wils. (Ind.) 333 1127 Cummings, 89 Cal. 667.. 199 Madison County (Iowa) 46 N. W. Rep. 1093-46, 362 . Marks, 27 Mo. 579_--.-. v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420 1166, 1172, 1178, 1175 Sos S Blaisdell ». Cowell, 14 Me. 370_. 89 Blake ». Butler, 10 R. I. 133... 216 v. Everett, 1 Allen, 848__. 466 ». Fash, 44 Ill. 802-___.-- 151 ». Graves, 18 Iowa, 312... 9350 ». Griswold, 5 Cent. Rep. 83, 103 N. Y. 429.___. 895 ». Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co., 67 Tex. 163_.___- 1013 Heyward, 1 Bail. Eq. 208 1058 . Howard, 11 Me. 202__715, 977 . Lowe, 3 Desaus. Eq. 263 826 . Tucker, 12 Vt. 39 721 . White, 18 N. H. 267_714, 950, 977 Blakely v. Frazier, 20S. C. 144.. 500 Blakeman 2. _ Blakeman, 89 Conn. mies Sie oe coe ees ay 301 1114 Blanchard 2. “tly 21 Wend. 342_ 1812 seees ». Kenton, 4 Bibb, 441..._ 297 ». Moore, 4J. J. Marsh. 471 257 v. Nestle, 3 Denio, 87____. 1198 ». Pratt, 37 IN. 248..-.- 501, 640 v, Sprague, 1 Cliff. 288..-. 927 ». Trim, 88 N. Y. 225.... 1261 » Vargas, 18 La. Ann, 486 984 Blanchette v. Border City Mfg. 0., 3 New Eng. Rep. 92, 143 Mass. 21___... 1119 Bland o. Warren, 65 N. C. 372.749, 816 Blandy’s Case, 18 How. St. Tr. 1118, TST ee cevensees Blaney v. Bearce, 2 Me. 182____. 265 Blank v. Livonia Twp., 79 Mich.1 364 Blankman v. Vallejo, 15 Cal. 638 120, 137 Blatchley v. Coles, 6 Colo. 82... 1100 Blattner v. Weis, 19 Ill. 246__..- 392 Blatz v. Rohrbacb, 6 L. R. A. 669, 116 N.Y. 450_...._.. Bledsoe v. Nixon, 68 N. GC. 521.. 90 v. Doe, 4 How. (Miss.)13.. 48 Bleu v. Kirby, 1T.B. Mon. 195. 630 Blewett ». jpegenning, 8 Ad. & El. 554 600 TABLE OF CASES. Blight 0. Banks, 6 T. B. Mon. 192 226, 227, 281 Bliss v. McIntire, 18 Vt. 466... 852 Bliven v. New England Screw Co., 64 U. S. 23 How. 420, 16 L. ed. 510-280, 908, 910, 911 Block v. State, 14 Ind. 425______ 13801 Blocker v. Burnes, 2 Ala. 854.__. 549 ». Guild, 28 N. Y. 8S. R.14 696 Blodgett 2. eae. 103 Mass. 48 . Hobart, 18 Vt. 414_.__- Blood v. Goodrich, 9 Wend. 68__ 1260 Blooiield a Buchanan, 13 Or. each aman a ntats 1160 Bloomer 2. nae 48 Md. 521__.. 870 Blossburg & C. R. Co. 2. Tioga R. Co., 1 Keyes, 486_---- 275 Blow ». Vaughan, 105 N. C. 198. 319 Bloxton v. Drewit, Prec. in Ch. 64 604 Bluck 2, Rackham, 5 Moore, P. C. 148 1009 222 1270 292, 293 1126, 1127 Blumenthal, ae 18 Nat. Bankr. © 1159 290 142 v. Thorne, 4 Campb. 192_- Blue v. Com., 2 J.J. Marsh. 26_- v. Gilchrist, 84 N. C. 239_. », Penniston, 27 Mo. 272- Blum 2. Loggins, 53 Tex. 121-122, 43 Blunt 2. Barrett, 35 N.Y.S. R. 64 Board of Education ». Keenan, 55 Cal, 642 ev. Moore, 17 Minn. 412_-_-. Board of Public Works 2. Colum- bia College, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 521, 21 L. ed. OS. sosseucnia 207, 209, 1189 Board of Trustees ». Davison, 65 WD G24 etc cteaodee coke 996 v. Misenheimer, 78 Ill. 22...340, 343 Boardman »v. Reed, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 828, 8 L. ed. 415.._407, 410 ®. Roe, 18 Mass. 104. _..988, 1306 ®. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120.349, 851, 355 Bocock v. Pavey, 8 Ohio St. an 708 Bodfish 0. Fox, 23 Me. 90_.--276, 901 Bodley 2. Emporia Nat. Bank, 38 Kan. 59 1124 Body ». Jewsen, 33 Wis. 402.. 68 Boeklen v. Hardenbergh, 60 N. Y. Bera ee Biciaor ertaerraicias 1161 Bofurths v. Goodrich, 3Gray, 508 209 Bogardus (Anneke Jans) 0. Trin- ity Church, 4 Paige, 178, 3 L. ed. 394 514 893 409 Bogart ». Brown, 5 Pick. 18__... Boggs v. Merced Min. Co., 14 Cal. 279 Bogle 2. Kenta, 46 Pa. 465_.639, 795 Bogue ». Bigelow, 29 Vt. 179__.. 89 Bohanon ». Walcot, 1 How. (Miss.) 246_....------ 1195 Bohr v. Neuenschwander, 120 DG 449 scopes cm ereersys 484 Boies v. Henney, 32 Ill. 130_._.. 294 Bolan v, Bolan, 4 Nev. 150_____- 1283 Bolen 2 San Gorgonio Fluminog Co., 55 Cal. 164____.. 675 Bolles 2. Bowen, 45 N.H.125... 221 v. Sachs, 37 Minn. 315_.... 288 Bolling v. Carter, 9 Ala. 921__... 1059 Bolton v. Colder, 1 Watts, 360.. 906 v. Liverpool, 1 Myl. & K. SBS ssa on oct 647 ». Stewart, 29 Cal. 617.... 785 Bomar v. Maxwell, 9 Humph. 621, 51 Am. Dec. 682__.__ 1107 Bonar 2. Seat: 1 Eng. L. & EQ: Usnncocecoennces5 1151 Bonard’s wil 16 Abb. Pr. N. 8. Soar ee tac eta 349 Bonce ». mae St. R.Co., 53 Towa, 278.....--.----.-_. 1098 o. Clark, 35 Vt. 577_...__- 1310 ». Hall, 8Jones, L.14_____ 795 Bond ». Perkins, 4 Heisk. 864... 29 ». Wilson, 8 Kan. 229____- 223 Bone v. a Ga.) 12 8. E. Rep. ae ee eens eae 1013 Bonnell v. Griswold, 89 N. Y.122 890 Bonnett 0. Glatfeldt, 8 West. Rep. 637, 120 Ill. 166___._- 752 Bonomi v. Backhouse, 27 L. J. Q. Gc lojra ee 750 Bouya Water bury, 12 Hun, sisi mero 782 Boomer 2. ae 10 Wend. 525. 221 Boon 2. Bowers, 30 Miss. 246_... 742 v. Pierpont, 28.N.J.Eq.7 69 ». The Belfast, 40 Ala 184 1318 ». Weathered, 23 Tex. 675. 626 Boone 2. Chiles, 35 U. 8. 10 Pet. 211, 9 L. ed. 400_____. 230: Boorman v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 18 N.Y DOD aceasta 243 Booth v. Cook, 20 Ill. 129__.._.. 147 Hynes, 54 I). 863._____ 288 Quin, 7 Price, 193 ____. 1155 Smith, 3 Wend. 66__... TW . Swezey, 8 N. Y. 276, 439, 486 ae laa 4 Bro. P.C. I 6dkemoeececeekics kek 1267 Boothby 2. Plaisted, 51 N.H.486 308 Boots v. Canine, 94 Ind. 413_.._. 240 Borden 2. Fitch, 15 Johns. 141__- 205, 208, 217 Borland 2. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104 __961, 962 v. Walker, 7 Ala. 269_____ 952 esess liv Borvheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27 Borrett ».Gomeserra, Bunb. Ex.94 420 967 Borum ». Fouts, 15 Ind. 50_---.-- 644 Boston v. Benson, 12 Cush. 61... 851 ». Haynes, 98 Cal. 81 ..--- 737 ®. Murray, 13 West. Rep. 264, 94 Mo. 175.--.-- 922 v. State, 5 Tex. App. 3838. 21 ». Tileston 11 Mass. 468-_ 221 Boston & P. R. Corp. v. New York &N. E. R. Co., 18 R. I. 265-_..------ 724 Boston & W.R. Corp. v. Dana, 1 Gray, 88, 104.._-.- 237 v. Old Colony & F. RR. Co., 8 Allen, 142_.._----- Bostwick , oo 63 Mich. 333 954 Bosville - i -Gen., L. R. 12 Prob. Div. 1772 81 Bosworth v. Bryan, 14 Mo. 575_. 1278 Bot v. Brewster, 75 Iowa, 631... 779 Boteler 2. Beall, 7 Gill & J. 389. 610 Botsford 2. Burr, 2 Johns. Ch. 405, 1 L. ed. 426 285 ». McLean, 45 Barb. 481.. 298 Bott 2 Burnell, 11 Mass. 163_--- 219, 221, 914, 915 Bottomley 1 ae 5 Bing. N. 12 % United States, 1 Story, 1b cidestememacsenie 522, 960 Bottorff 7. Wise, 53 Ind. 32 ---_- Bouchaud ». Dias, 3 Denio, 244-- Boucicault v. Fox, 5 Blatchf. 87- Boudereau 2. Montgomery, 4 Boughton ». Flint, 74.N. Y. 476- 994, v. olen L. {R. 3 Prob. 735 148 416 1269 1086 381 30 978 Boullemet 3 Toes 28 Ala. 83__- Bourn 2. Davis, 76 Me. 223----_- Boushelde. Mould, 1 DeG. &S. Bouslog 2. ante 39 Ind. 338_- Bouton v. Dement, 11 West. Rep. 437, 128 Ill. 142.__._. Bovee v. Danville, 53 Vt. 188___. », McLean, 24 Wis. 225-- Bow v. ‘Allenstown, 34 N. H. 365 Bowden v, Bowden, 75 Ill. 148__. Bowditch ». Boston, 101 U. 8. 16, 25 L. ed. 980_-_....-- Bowen 2. na 22 Cal. 566, 546 8338 898 1102 148 51 179 680 1186 ». Buck, 28 Vt. 308.._.-.- 11 ». Chase, 98 U. S. 254, 25 L, ed. 47_.-..-------- 424 ». De Lattre, 6 Whart. 430 840 . Emmerson, 8 Or. 855, 858 1186 ¢ TABLE OF CASES. Brown ». Evans, 2 H. L. Cas. 257 978 ». Kirwan, & G. t. Sugd. 44_-...-.-.---- 965 - v National Bank of New- port, 11 Hun, 226.... 180 ». Newell, 8 N. Y. 194.--- 1318 », Parkhurst, 24 Ill. 257._ 222 v. Reed, 103 .Mass, 46--__-- 83 ». Rutherford, 60 Ill. 41__- 476, 1155-1157, 1158 », Slocum, 17 Wis. 181_-.. 844 ». Spears, 20 Ind. 146_...- 128 ». Stoddard, 10 Met. 375.. 906 Bower v. Smith, 8 Ga. 74 -----.- 826 Bowers v. Andrews, 52 Miss. 596 1287 », Heaps, 8 Ves. & B.117_ 965 Bowery Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 12 Gun 200s ee wecease ces 265 Bowie v. Kansas City, 51 Mo.454 48 v. Madox, 29 Ga. 285___.-. 120 Bowler v. Huston, 30 Gratt. 266, 32 Am. Rep. 573___-- 209 Bowles ». Bingham, 2 Munf. 599 82 Bowlsby ». Speer, 31 N. J. L. 351 1121 Bowman 2. gbentendse, 4 Watts, - Cocbeill 6 Kan. 311_... 1280 Eppinger (N. D.) 44 N. W. Rep. 1000 -__----. Norton,5 Car. & P.177. 647 Sanborn, 25 N. H. 87.340, 343 Taylor,'2 Ad. & El. 278 706 Woods, 1 G. Greene, 441 1256 Box v. Lawrence, 14 Tex. 556--_ 722 Boyce 2, California Stage Co., o Cal. 460__..-.----. 7, 1099 oe R. Co., 42 N 7 ses sess e. e. Boyd 2. Lake, 178. CG. 481_...-- Bopst, 2U. 8. 2 Dall. 91, 1L. ed. 302__-------- 1 Baye, 2 Nott. & McC. 125 v . Brown, 17 Pick. 453_.715, 977 . Cleveland, 4 Pick. 525_. 1140 Cook, 3 Leigh, 32 1195 Cross, 35 Md. 194 Eby, 8 Watts, 66_....-- . Hitchcock, 20 Johns. 76 . Johns, 60 Mo, 454....-- . McCann, 10 Md. 118.__. . oe 10 Humph. . McIver, 11 Ala, 822___. . M’Lean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582, 1 L. ed. 254.__.. 284, 285, 290 Murray, Phil, Eq. 288-_ 221 Wilson, 83 Pa. 319, 24 Am. Rep. 176_..... Sweet, 4 Ill. 120 176, 824 Wiseman, 29 Eng. L. & Kq. 4 174 eeseseeesse o v. v Boyer 2. Boyle ». TABLE OF CASES. lv Boylston 2. Carver, 11 Mass.515_ 298 Boynton @, Boynton, 16 Abb. Pr. ». Willard, 10 Pick. 169_.. 221 Bozeman v, Browning, 31 Ark. Brabrook ». Boston Five Cent Sav. Bank, 104 Mass. Bracken 2. “Dillon, 64 Ga. 243__. 819 Brackenridge ». Dawson, 7 Ind. 383 : . Duncan, 2 A. K. Marsh. 50, 12 Am. Dec. 359.. 1218 Brackett ». Edgerton, 14 Minn. 174, 100 Am. Dec. 211 336, 1809 a. Nikirk, 20 Ill. App. 525 688 %. Norton, 4Conn.517_... 65 % People, 1 West. Rep. 616, 115 Ill. 29_...__- 25 Bradbury ». Cronise, 46 Cal. 287 187 v. White, 4 Me. 391.____- 257 Bradfield v. Elyton Land Co. (Ala.) 8 So. Rep. 888.. 142 Bradford ». Cooper,1 La.Ann. 325 83 %. Floyd, 80 Mo. 207__.._. 20 ». Manly, 13 Mass. 138, 7 Am. Dec. 122, 125 306, 308, 309 % ah cee 12 Mo. 71__._- 795 p. 2 . Stevens, 10 Gray, 379... 752 . Union Bank of Tennes- see, 54 U.S. 18 How. 57, 14 L. ed. 49....297, 301 ss Bradish »v. Bliss, 35 Vt. 326_.._.. 801 Bradlay ». Conner, 5 Cranch, C. Oy G18 5 caeereaw noc ccc 1289 Bradley v. Bentley, 8 Vt. 248__.. 255 v. Bradley, 4 Whart.178.. 76 ». Davis, 26 Me. 45_._.__- 752 ». Geiselman, 17 Ill. 571 -. 691 », Harwi, 43 Kan. 814__.. 141 e. Johnson, 49 Ga. 412_... 740 o. State, 31 Ind. 492_____- 1088 . United States, 104 U.S. 442, 26 L. ed. 824.___- 554 v. Wheeler, 44 N.Y. 495, 278, 280 Bradshaw v. Combs, 102 Ill. 428. ° 581 ». Mayfield, 18 Tex, 21... 38 Brady v. Barnes, 42 Conn. 512... 179 ». Hennion, 8 Bosw.528-.. 914 ov. Page, 59 Cal. 52_-__.-_ 41 ». Parker, 4 Ired. Eq. 430 260, 292 Bragg v. Colwell, 19 Ohio St. 418 344 Braithwaite 2. Gardiner, 8 Q. B. ABs ocscaceeoseesasa 459 Brakefield v. State, 1 Sneed, 215. 418 Braly 2. Seaman, 30 Cal. 610.... 844 Bramble 2. State, 41 Md. 485.... 711 Branan v, May, 17 Ga. 186..121, 1102 Branch v. Dawson, 33 Minn. 399. 1269 Branden 2. Gowine. 7 Rich. L. Brandon 2. “Cablness 10 Ala. 155 111 Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Morse, 48 Vit 822 etree etietatow! 255 Brandt 2. Klein, 17 Johns. 335.. 650 Brandford v. Freeman, 5 Exch. 734 Brant v. Virginia C. & I. Co., 93 U.S. 326, 23 L. ed.927 716, 722 Brantley ». Thomas, 22 Tex. 270, 73 Am. Dec. 264____- 307 Brard v. Ackerman, 5 Esp. 120.. 650 Brass v. Maitland, GEL & Bl. 485 1117 Brattle Square Church Proprs. 2. Bullard, 2 Met. 363... 88 Braunstein v. Accidental Death Ins. Co., 1 Best & 8. "SQ seiner aaanied seenices 1004 Bray 0. Comer, 82 Ala. 183__.--- 148 ». Marshall, 75 Mo. 327... 718 ». Parker, 82 Ga. 2384____- 922 Braydon v. Goulman, 1 T. B. Mon; 110 == scececeemc 580 Brearley v. Cox, 24 N. J. L. 287 1239 Breck v. Cole, 4 Sandf. 79.----. 238 Breckenridge v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 4 West. Rep. 565, 87 Mo. 62.._..--- 22 ® Ormsby, 1 J. J. Marsh, be ate een a al en 733 Breckon 0 Sai 1 Ad. & El. si Bredin 2. Bredin 3 Pa. 81. ___-. 960 Bree v. Hollbech, 2 Dougl. 655_. 1267 Breed v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Colo. 280 sincera 1012, 1015, 1019 ». Northern Pac. R. Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 642 .-__--- 15 Breen, oes 18 B. Mon. Breene 2. Now York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 11 Cent. Rep. 891, 109 N. Y. 297 1120 Breese v. State, 12 Ohio St. 146_. 796 v. United States Teleg. Co., 45 Barb. 274, 48 182, 8 Am. Rep. 526.- : 114, 1025, 1031, 1032, 1083 Breeze 0. Haley, 10 Colo. 7____.- 224 Brehm v. Great Western R. Co., 34 Barb, 256_-..----- 1099 Breinig 0. Meitzler, 23 Pa. 156... 815 Breneman 2. Furniss, 90 Pa. 186_ 274, 1189, 1140 Brengle 9. ele, 7 Gil & J. — lvi Brennan v, People, 15 Ill. 516-_. 640 Brent v. Bank of Metropolis, 26 U. S. 1 Pet. 89, 7 L. 60, GO canconke cess cee 1145 Brenton ». Davis, 8 Blackf. 318. 1815 Brett v. Beales, 1 Mood. & M. 416 236, 890 » Be 13 Abb. Pr. N. 200n ccoe Baesees ». Buckman, 32 Barb. 655_ Bretz v. New York, 6 Robt. 325 Brewer v. Knapp, 1 Pick. 337... v. Reel, 74 Iowa, 506..... Brewster v. Doane, 2 Hill, 587_- ». Hardeman, Dudley, 138 ». McCall, 15 ‘Conn. 292___ v. Sewell, 3 Barn. & Ald. OG ard Sa acid ee a 149, 175 2. Silliman, 38 N. Y. 423, 1237 a. Sime, 42 Cal. 189... Brice 2. Bauer, 11 Cent. Rep. 327, 108 N. Y. 428_______. 482 v. Brice, 5 Barb. 583______ Briceland 0. Com. , 74 Pa. 463... Brick 2. rs 98 U. 8. 514, 25 v Campbell, 10 L. R. A. 259, 122 N. Y. 887.__. Brickell ». New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 80 N. Y. 8S. ie cies care atau 140 Bricker ». Lightner, 40 Pa. 199_. 355 Bridge v. Eggleston, 14 Mass. 245 369 ». Gray, 14 Pick. 55, 25 Am. Dec. 858___.__ 483, 484 ». Payson, 5 Sandf. 210... 462 Bridgeport Bank v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 30 Conn. Role erenns ec cmc sce. 876, 878 Bridger v. Huett, 2 Fost. & F. 35 415 Bridges v. Miles, 152 Mass. 249._ 148 v Winters, 42 Miss. 185, 2 Am. Rep. DOB secede. 851 Bridgham’s App., 82 Me, 323-- 688 Bridgman ». Green, 2 Ves. Sr. 627 1092 730 ». Hopkins, 34 Vt. 582__.. 1044 Brierly v. Davol Mills, 128 Mass. BON eo oct cites Aametcnsrnetorn 499 Briffitt 0. State, 58 Wis. 39___._. 28 Briggs ». Hervey, 130 Mass. 186_ 0. Morgan, 2 Hage. Consist. 324, 3 Phillim. Eccl. Gi ee 1113 683 v. Olson, 4 Hurlst. & C. 403 1120 v. Patridge, 64 N. Y. 857, 269 ». Rafferty, 14 Gray, 525. 726 v. Taylor, 28 Vt. 181____. 1085 2. Titus, 7 R. I. 441_.1076, 1078 OF Wells, 12 Barb. 567__._- 215 v. Wheeler, 16 Hun, 588_. 623 Bright v. Boyd, 1 Story, ©, C. 487-1289 Brigins v. Chandler, 60 Miss. 862 1287 Brill o. Flagler, 23 Wend. 354... 336 TABLE OF CASES. Brindle 2. ae 10 Serg. & R. 2 Laeunceeeeeses 629 Brinkley 2. Boyd, 9 Heisk. 149.. 272 Brinkman 2. Jones, 44 Wis. 498. 265 | Brisban 2. Boye: 4 Paige, 22, 3 L. 60: 324.0 sreeeetes 484 Brisbane 2. Pratt, 4 Denio, 63-_. 455. Bristol Canal Co. ». Amos, 1 Maule & 8. 569_-__-_- 888 Bristol County Sav. Bank 2. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298. 336: Bristow v. Eastman, 1 Esp. 173_. 282 Britt ». Bradshaw, 18 Ark. 580_. 981 v. Bradshaw, 14 Ill. 842... 984 Britton, Hw parte, 4 Jur. 948... 655 Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y. 51-- 450, 451, 647 Broaders v. Toomey, 9 Allen, 65. 110 Broadway Bank »v, McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24._-.--- 878, 879 Brobston v. Cahill, 64 Ill. 858... 344 Brock v. Milligan, 10 Ohio, 121. 549 v. Savage, 31 Pa. 422.__._- 69 Brockway v. Lascala, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 185_-..____. 1097 Brogden 2. ao 2 Harr. & J. wats Bromley 2. Milion 38 N. H. 287, 72 Am, Dec. 182_.... 1159 ». Holland, Coop. 9__---- 968 ». Miller, 2 Thomp. & C. 575 1190 Bronson v. Wilmington, N.C. L. Ins, Co., 85 N. C. 411 212 Brooke v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 1 Cent. Rep. 125, 108 Pa. 529____.. % Washington, 8 Gratt. 248, 56 Am. Dec. 142_ v Winters, 39 Md. 505__. Brookings 2. White, 49 Me. 483. 267 Brooks v. Action, 117 Mass. 204. 420 v. Brooks, 4 Redf. 315_.991, 992 723. 1156 500: ». Bruyn, 35 Ill, 894_____- 1279 ». Jenkins, 3 McLean, 432, ASO S a cetera ese ais 689 ® Walker, 3 La. Ann. 150 59 ». White, 2 Met. 288__.._. 231 Brotherline ». Hammond, 69 Pa. 128 es ntl 89 Broughton v. Blackman, 1 N, Chip. (Vt.) 10022 sc3 25 2 Brand, 13 West. Rep. 255, 94 Mo. 169_____. 994 v. McGrew, 5 L. R. A. 406, 39 Fed. Rep. 672_1062, 1063 ». Sherman, 21 Minn. 481_. 1279 Brow 2. State, 1 West. Rep. 180, 108 Ind. 133..__-__.. 132 Brower v. Goodyear, 88 Ind, 572. 952 Brown, #2 parte, 72 Mo. 83....- 168 vo. Abington i Bank, 119 Mass. 6 Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181___- essessess ess ess sssesees esse . Davis, 9 N. H. 76_.--.- . Davis, 9 N. H. 82_...- . De Selding, 4 Sandf. 10 TABLE OF CASES. 876 . Anderson, 77 Cal. 286.. 20 . Anderson, 18 Ga. 171___ 1216 . Balen, 33 NU. Eq. 469. 300 . Barnes, 6 Ala. 694_____ 1258 F Barnes, 39 Mich. 211... 860 . Bellows,4 Pick. 187_.._- 611 . Blunt, 72 Me. 415._.._- 964 Bowen, 30 N. Y. 519 717, 724 . Brooks, 25 Pa. 210____. 220 Brown, 23 Barb. 565... 998 Brown, 66 Me. 316_.._. 1290 . Brown, 16 Barb. 574___ 1194 . Bulkey, 14 N. J. Eq. 294 702 Burrus, 8 Mo. 26_.__- 602, 608 . Butchers & D. Bank, 6 Hill, 443___...___.... 1198 Butler, 99 Mass. 179... 2738 Camden & A. R. Co., 83 Pas O16 cc cececees 65 . Congress. & B.St. R. Co., 49 Mich. 153_.__._... 1100 Clark, 77 N. Y. 369--.- 1191 Clifford, 7 Lans, 46----- 268 . Colorado, 106 U. 8. 95, 27 L. ed. WSO Sacctemtee 16 Connelly, 5 Blackf. 390 59 Corey, 43 Pa. 495__-_.-- 335 Crandall, 11 Conn. 92... 476, 1153-1157 221 220 Dean, 3 Wend. 208--265, 267 1207 v. Dewey, 2 Barb. 28_.-267, 268 », Eastern lt. Co., 11 Cush. OG 28 ta eae ee 1026 ». Edgington, 2 Man. & G. 279. cc. nce 1318, 1815, 1817 v. Elms 10 Humph. 135.. 21 ®. Evans, 8 Sawy. 488 .... 1242 ». Foster, 1138 Mass. 136 -- 276 ». Foster, 1 Hurlst. & N. 736, 3 Jur. N. 8. 245, 26 L. J. Exch. 249.-.. 648 ». Gill, 49 Ga. 549_-____--- 59 ». Glines, 42 N. H. 160... 300 ». Guice, 46 Miss. 299_... 1287 ». Gummersell, 30 Mo. App. 341 _--._.------ 982 ». Hannibal, & St. J. R. Co., 33 Mo. 309_----- 87 ®, Hatton, 9 Ired. L. 319-- 1005 ». Higginbotham, 5 Leigh. 583, 27 Am. Dec. 618. 1159 ®. Hull, 1 Denio, 400-.--- 1144 % Jackson, 2 Wash. (C. C.) widiecine|siewicle cies 910, 1818 24 , Jewett, 18 N. H. 230__. 1223 o. Jodrell, 3 Car. & P. 30, 1 Mood. & M. 105.-.. 1085 lvii Brown v. Kennedy, 82 U. 8. 15 esss eee eeecees ees Wall. 597, 21 L. ed.193 219 . Lamphear, 35 Vt. 252.. 300 . McCune, 5 Sandf. 828.. 728 . M’Kinney, 9 Watts, 565 88 . Metz, 33 Ill. 8389 --.-__- 89 . Mitchell, 102 N. C. 347, 11 Am. Rep, 748.-..- 784 . Mitchell, 75 Tex.9_... 696 Mooers, 6 Gray, 451_-.. 420 New York Cent. R. Co., 382 N. Y. 597 --_.-- 377, 380 . Osgood, 25 Me. 505 _... 952 . Payson, 6 N. H. 443.... 644 . Pike, 84 La. Ann. 576__ 1269 . Piper, 91 U. §. 37, 23 L. ed. 200_.-_--.--- 30, 47, 505 . Pratt, 3 Jones Eq. 202.. 64 ; Riggin, 94 Ill. 560___._. 1214 . Roger Williams Ins. Co., 5 R. 1. 394, 7 R. I. 801 728, 1271, 1272 ». St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 52 ‘Ark. 120 -.--- 784 ». San Francisco Gas Light Co., 58 Cal. 426__...- 64 ». Savannah Mut. Ins, Co., 24 Ga. 97 ___.._-. 728, 1272 ». Scott, 87 Ala. 453___._. 118 ». Slate, 7 Humph. 112... 984 ». Spofford, 95 U. 8. 474, 24 L. ed. 508... - 122, 1122 v. State, 5 Colo. 469_.__.- 223 ». State, 72 Md. 468_...624, 659 ». State, 82 Miss. 488___.. 413 ». State, 2 Tex. App. 115-. 536 ». Straw, 6 Neb. 537, 29 Am, Rep. 369__---.-- 852 o. Street, 6 Watts & §, 221 1126, 1127 ». Sullivan, 71 Tex. 470... 670 v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282 1380 » Tarkington, 70 U. 8. 3 Wall. 877, 18 L. ed. POO ves cece wes Secesise 689 ». Texas Cactus Hedge Co., 64 Tex. 396 __..._--- 957 . Thurber, 77 N. Y. 618, 58 How. Pr. 95 __..-- 295 ». Torrey, 24 Barb. 583... 79 o. Turner, 15 Ala. 882... 694 ». Tuttle, 66 Barb. 169__._ 1310 ». Vandyke, 8 N. J. Eq. 795, 55 Am. Dec. 250 836, 837 o. Ward, 58 Md. 376.1086, ‘1214 0. Way, 28 Ga. 581-..---- 218 ». Wheeler, 17 Conn, 345_ 717 ». Willoughby, 5 Colo.1-. 118 ». Woodman, 6 Car. & P. 206.22 vamncmansmncne 1009 ». Wright, 17 Ark. 9..... 711 vo. Wright, 17 Vt. 97 ..--. 1279 lviii TABLE OF CASES. Brownell ». Pacific R. Co., 47 Buckingham v.Smith,10 Ohio.288 724 Mo. 239_...-.--.-- 377, 388 | Buckinghouse »v. Gregg, 19 Ind. ‘Browning »v. Merritt, 61 Ind. 425 AQT eee ince 17, 20, 30, 64 278, 1188 | Buckley v. Artcher, 21 Barb. 586 958 ». People, 38 Mich. 7382... 351 o. Beardslee, 5 N. J. L. 570 1264 Broyles v. State, 47 Ind, 251 _... 469 ». Buckley, 12 Nev. 423 Bruce v. Holden, 21 Pick. 189-- 219 585, 586, 813 v. Nicolopulo, 11 Exch. 129 166 ». Gutta Percha & R. Mfg. ». Rogers, 2 Sch. & Lef. Co., 113 N. Y. 540... 1119 396, note_....--..---- 967 ». United States, 45 U.S. 4 v. Smith, 44 Ind. 1-_---_- 876 How. 251, 11 L. ed. ». Westervelt, 2 E. D O61 ete oh ae eee oS 354 Smith, 440 _-..------ 1285 ». Wood, 4 Coke, 14_--_. 1002 Brucker »v. State, 19 Wis. 589... 19| Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Barb. 393.... 1268 Brueshaber »v. Hertling, 78 Wis. ». State, 20 Ohio St. 18_._ 1249 BOB reed caida wicca eee 104 | Bucknall v, Story, 36 Cal. 67_.._ 1276 Bruise v. Gates, 80 Cal. 462__... 316 | Buckner v, Ferguson, 44 Miss. 677 248 Bruguier v. United States, 1 Dak Buell v, State, 72 Ind. 523 ____.. 40 bey eaters amie Sainte 670 vo. Warner, 33 Vt. 570_-.. 28 Brunswick »v. Moore, 74 Ga. 409 921] Buesching v. St. Louis Gas Light Brunswick First Parish » Mc- Co., 73 Mo. 219, 89 Kean, 4 Me. 508.--__- 52 Am. Rep. 503 -_-_--- 1103 Brush ». Peterson, 54 Iowa, 248. 264] Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 99 900 ». Scribner, 11 Conn. 888. 456] Buffalo Pipe Line Co. ». New ». Wilkins, 4 Johns. Ch. York, L. E. & W. R. 520, 1 L. ed. 922)... 65 Co., 10 Abb. N. C. Bryan v. Beckley, Litt. Sel. Cas. LOT See ee sae 80 Ol se cccuscetses ce sce} 20| Buffalow »v. Buffalow, 2 Dev. & ». Jeffreys, 104 N. ©. 242 688 Eq..241. ---.-.-224 1089 ». Naughton, 38 Kan. 98_. 359] Buffington ». Gerrish, 15 Mass. ». Primm, 1 Ill. 88_._.____ 962 156... o5see.25050 5 5512 1234 ». Swain, 56 Cal. 616____- 810] Buford v. Buford, 4 Munf. 241_. 217 v. Walton, 14 Ga. 185 -.-. 711 v Hickman, 1 Hemp. 282 17 ». Winburn, 48 Ark. 28... 727 . Tucker, 44 Ala. 89____- 40 Bryant v. Allen, 6 N. H.116_--. 216 ». Wellborn, 6 Ala. 818... 983 ». Central Vermont R. Co., Bull v. Com., 14 Gratt. 613._.412, 413 56-Vt. 710... --. 333 #. Harris, 31 Ill. 487... -- 837 o. Commonwealth Ins. Co., ». Loveland, 10 Pick. 9... 654 6 Pick. 181 _-..-.---- 278 | Bullard ». Hy Creditors, 56 Cal, 906, 908,909; 600 -.-.-_-.----.---- 192 ». Crosby, 40 Me. 9_ ._308, 1310|° o. Navel Eagle Bank, 85 ©. Mansfield, 22 Me. 360. 90 U. 8. 18 Wall. 589, 21 , Stilwell, 24 Pa. 814__... 1070 L. ed. 923 _.....----- 881 Bryce v. Joynt, 63 Cal. 375, 49 ». Pearsall, 58 N. Y. 230.611, 613 m. Rep. 94._......- 1159 | Bulliner », People, 95 Ill. 397_-.. 657 ». Lorillard F. Ins, Co., 55 Bullock v. Boyd, 2 Edw. Ch. 293, N. Y. 240__..- 297, 298, 681 6L. ed. 405___..----- $38 Bryden ». Taylor, 2 Harr. », Goodall, 8 Call, 44..... 229 OO oe Rane eaten 1157 v. Rouse, 81 Cal. 591___-- 118 Bryne ® oe 2 Hurlst. & C. Bulkeley v. Butler, 2 Barn, & C. wSGseL aL beeunes ees. 120 435 Bisse eso, SEB 1123 ah uae Matlock, 8 Humph. v. Keteltas, 4 Sandf. 450, 6 5 400 ene se canes 1216 WB 84 vaso maces 229 v. Moore, 13Serg. & R.404 711 Oe Smith, 2 Duer, 262__._. 1063 ». Whitham, 86 Ind. 257_. 42} Bulkley a. Devine, 3L. R.A. 830, Buck 9, Collins, 51 Ga. 895_-.... 249 127 Nl. 407..._...._.. 307 v. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 167.... 1264] Bulson v. People, 31 Ill. 409____- 608 Buckingham 2. Coming, 91 N. Bumpus 2. Fisher, 21 Tex. 561_... 58 Wo 020 nec sees eccicne 1806 | Bunch 2. Hurst, 8 Desaus. ae ». Hana, 2 Ohio St. 551... 707 Bipot ee eaetls 965, 966 », McLean, 54 U. 8. 18 Buncombe ome Co. ». M’Car- How. 150, 14 L. ed. 91 1805 son, 1 Dev. & B. L. v. Payne, 36 Barb, 81._.-. 1227 BUR cea ee 894 TABLE OF CASES. Bundy 2. Cunningham, 5 West. Rep. 540, 107 Ind. 360 921 %. McKnight, 48 Ind. 502. 1213 Bunker 2. Gilmore, 40 Me. 88___. 221 ® McKenney, 63 Me. 629. 1238 Bunn’s Case, 1 Mood. C. C. 146_ 522 Bunnell 2. Butler, 23 Conn. 65.. 627 ». Studebaker, 88 Ind. 388-425 Bunting v. Lepingwell, 4 Coke, 29 Moore, 169__-..._.-.. 999 Burbank v. Beach, 15 Barb. 326. v. People, 90 Ill. 555_.__... Burch v. Smith, 15 Tex. 219.... 953 Burchard ». Frazer, 23 Mich. 228 71 Burchfield x. McCauley, 3Watts,9 236 ». Moore, 3 El. & Bl. 688._. 853 Burd 2. Seabold, 6Serg. & R. 187 236 Burdell ov. ae 92 U.S. 716, 23 Burdett v. Sine 3d. J. Te eee ache keaton 297, 301 Burdine v. cra Lodge of Ala- bama, 87 Ala. 478___. Burger v. Northern Pac. R. Minn. 343____.-..- Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80... Burgess». Bennett, 20 Week. Rep. 720 844 1279 Diane, Brown, 51 Mo. 600.. 584 lix Burlingame ». Burlingame, Cow. 141 1063 Burlington v. Calais, 1 Vt. 335.. 228 Burlington & M. R. Co. v, Har- ris, 8 Neb. 140__.-_--- 718 ®. Thompson, 81 Kan. 180, 16 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. BS hse bane ce MN ees 983 v. White, 28 Neb. 166_---- 362 Burnett ». Henderson, 21 Tex. DS8e aSeke de aeace ease 25 Burnham », Ayer, 35 N. H. 351. 852 ». Ayer, 86 N. H. 182.... 340 ». Cornwell, 16 B. Mon. 284, 68'Am. Dec. 546- 860, 862 %, Dunn, 35 N. H. 556..981, 984 v. Mitchell, 84 Wis. 117... 559 ». Noyes, 125 Mass. 85---. 977 ». Webster, 5 Mass. 266.-. 32 Burns v, Burns, 4 Serg. & R. 295 1195 », Lynde, 6 Allen, 305_-857, 997 » McKenzie, 23 Cal. 102.. 484 ». Paine, 8 Tex. 159___._- 787 v. People, 126 Ill. 282-.._- 925 ». Rowland, 40 Barb. 368. 1161 ». Thompson, 91 Ind. 146. 295 Burt ». Dewey, 40 N. Y. 283...- 1811 Burtenshaw ». Gilbert, 1 Cowp. 4 9 Burtis, Hz parte, 103 U. 8. 238, 26 Burk’s Will, 2 Redf. 239...._..- 1206 L. ed. 892....------- 167 Burke v. Grant, 2 West. Rep. 884, Burtners o. Keran, 24 Gratt. 42.710, 965 116 Ti, 124_...-.-2--- 723 | Burton v. Black, 32 Ga. 58_.__-- 711 . Koch, 75 Cal. 356__-.-- 921 % Blakemore, 2 Jur. 1062. 972 ® Miller, Y Cush. 547_.._- 865 v. Briggs, 87 U. 8. 20 Wall. a. Miltenberger, 86 U. 8. 19 125, 22 L. ed. 299.287, 692 Wall. 519, 22 L.ed.158 29 1017 . Nolan, 1 Dem. 436, 1191, v, Goodspeed, 69 Il]. 237_. 1159 1204, 1208 v. Griffiths, 11 Mees. & W. ». Ryan, 1 U. §. 1 Dall. 94, i; ol a ae 1228 Li Ly, ed, 269.252.2226 405 v. Payne, 2 Car. & P. 520. 1019 ». Smith, 88 U. 8.16 Wall. ». Plummer. 2 Ald. & EI. 395, 21 L. ed. 863._..- 899 841,4 Nev. & M. 315 v. Wolfe, 6 Jones & 5. 263 754, 748, '756 826, 893 ». Scott, 3 Rand. 399_...79, 355 Burkhalter v. Edwards, 16 Ga. Burr, Re, 17 Barb, 14__..------- 1086 O98 e ceckins een cesemes 711 ». American 8. 8. B. Co., 8 Burkham 2. Ohio & M. R. Co., Abb. N. C. 408, 81 N. 122 Ind. 844..-_-.--- 729 Y. 175, aff’g 17 Hun, v, Mastin, 54 Ala. 122__.. 1258 TSB 2 Sart sencttaeieame 171 Burkhart». Gladish, 123 Ind. 337 ®. Broadway Ins. Co., 16 363, 1189 IN Ye6%eveu cece tees 680 Burkholder v. Casad, 47 Ind. 418 224 ». Byers, 10 Ark. 398, 52 Burkett v. Bond, 12 Ill. 87_----- 1105 Am. Dec, 239___----- 1161 Burleigh 2. Stibbs, 5 T. R. 465. 161 ». Hutchinson, 61 Me. 514 Burlen 2. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200 212 300, 301 Burleson 0, Goodman, 32 Tex. 229 v. Moody, Wright, 449_.... 221 814, 828] Burr ». Sherwood, 3 Bradf. 85.. 874 Burley »v. German American v. Sickles, 17 Ark, 428_... 902 Bank, 111 U. 8. 216, Burrell v. Bull, 8 Sandf. Ch. 15, 298 L. ed. 406..------ 816 7L. ed, 752..-.-.---- 988 o. Russell, 10 N. H. 184--. 728 ». Parsons, 71 Me. 282... 1128 lx Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 713-.412, 413 Burrough?. Martin, 2Campb. 112 754 Burrowes v. Lock, 10 Ves. Jr.470 967 Buscher 2. Scully, 4 West. Rep. 725, 107 Ind. 246.-..-- Busenius ¥. Coffee, 14 Cal. Bush v, Hicks, 60 N. Y. 298----- ». Lathrop, 22 N. Y. 535, 883, 885, 886 Y. 347... 1101 216 727 1289 v. Prosser, 11 N. ». Sheldon, 1 Day, 170---. v. White, 85 Mo. 339.---. v. Williams, 1 Cooke, 360- Bushnell 2 New Orleans City Nat. Bank, 20 La. Ann. 865 Bussard v. Levering, 19 U. S. 6 Wheat. 102, 5 L. ed. 1012 820 477 Bustin v. Rogers, 11 Cush. 346_- Buswell v, Pioneer, 37 N. Y. 312 Butcher ». ne of Brownsville, ANOS dome eae eee v. Benson, 1 Barb.526, 1207, 1209, 1216 v. Butler, 46 Wis. 480_-___- 225 v. Chicago &N. W.R. Co., 71 Iowa, 206.-------- Cornwall Tron Co., Ss v. Flanders, 12 Jones & S. 531 584 v. Haskell, 4 Desaus. Eq. 651 965, 966, 967 ». Howell, 15 Colo. 249_... 3861 . Livingston, 15 Ga. 565.. 72 . Mountgarret, 7 H. L. Cas. 638_-.-.------- 93, 410 22 ». Peck, 16 Ohio St. 385__ 1121 ® Price, 115 Mass. 578.... 453 ». Robinson, 75 Mo, 192___16, 22 v. St. Louis L. Ins. Co., 45 Towa, 95..----------- 349 ». Smith, 35 Miss. 457_.__- 282 %, State, 20 Ind. 169_____-. 222 v. Viele, 44 Barb. 166, 2 Wait, Pr. 818_______- 1184 v Watkins, 80 U. 8. 18 Wall. "457, 20 L. ed. O20 re eet eke ok tet ease 499 ». Wright, 2 Wend. 369._. 893 Button ». American Tract Soc., 28 Vt. 350___.._. 276, 1194 v. Hudson River R. Co., 18 NS M2485 2 cece 119, 1102 v. McCauley, 1 Abb. App. DOG; 282 score ete ace 860 v. Padgett, 26 Md. 228... 1264 Buttram 0. Jackson, 32 Ga. 409. 220 Butts ». Dean, 2 Met. Woe nis 71 ». Francis, 4 Conn. 424____ 223 TABLE OF CASES. Butts v. Startwood, 2 Cow. 431. 568 Buzzell v. Snell, 25 .N. H. 474... 186 Byard 2. Harkrider, 6 West. Rep. 867, 108 Ind, 293----- 921 Bybee ». Hageman, 66 Ill. 519_.. 276. Byers v. Danley, 27 Ark. 77_.-.- 290 v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218, 54 ‘Am. Dec. 287.....--- 229 ® McClanahan, 6 Gill & oH 0 eeeaeter eared ee 1151 ». Orensstein, 42 Minn. 886 688 Byler v. Jones, 4 West. Rep. 896, 22 Mo. App. 623_..655, 656 Byrd a. Bertrand, 7 Ark. 3827.-.. 459 v, Hall, 2 Keyes, 646_---.- 957 Byrne v. Jansen, 50 Cal. 624____- 1310 v. Reed, 75 Cal. 277___.-. 779. 2. Schwing, 6 B. Mon. 199 459 Byrnes 2. Pacific Exp. Co. (Tex.) 158, W. Rep. 46_---- 762° Byrns 2. Fay, 14 Pick. 8-------. 820- Bywater v. meres 1 Ad. & o DOS eR eecee 2 soe 1 Byxbie 2. Wood. 24 N. Y. 607, aff’g 3 Bosw. 267..... 668. C. Cabot ». Christie, 45 Vt. 121, 1. Am. Rep. 313._.----. 310- v. Walden, 46 Vt. 11____-- 823. », Washington, 41 Vt.168. 734 Cadogan v. Cadogan, 2 Hagg. Consist. 4, note.__..-. 769 Cadwallader v. West, 48 Mo. 483_ 965 Cady v. Eggleston, 11 Mass. 282. 238- v. Norton, 14 Pick. 286... 566 v. Shepard, 12 Wis. 639_271, 273- ». Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379_._488, 484 Cae v. Redfield, 7 Wend. 398_... 221 Cahen v. Continental L. Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 300, rev’g 9 Jones & S, 296.___- 160, 171 o. Platt, 69 N. Y. 848___.. 1308. Cahn 2. Dutton, 67 Mo. 297__... 2738 Cahoon 2. Coe, 57 N. H. 556 ._. 1276. ». Marshall, 25 Cal. 197... 950 | Cain vo. Gimon, 86 Ala. 168_____- 1306 Cairo & F. R. Co. v Parks, 32 AUT, Na i aprcronperee: 1279 Cairo & V. R. Co. v. Stevens, 73 : ne 278, 88 Am. Rep. ath tas Sond 2 SoM fe 1121 Calder v. Detail. L.R.6C. P. 486 269 Caldwell v. Auger, 4 Minn. 217_. 709 v. Bowen, 80 Mich. 382. __- 763 v. Davis, 10 Colo. 481. __.. 651 v. Dawson, 4 Met. (Ky.) WP igecictaeiaie ae eta 906. v0. McDermott, 17 Cal. 466_ 826, 827 TABLE OF CASES. 1 Duer, 238, 416.377, 378, 1097 v. New Jersey 8. B. Co., 47 N. Y. 282, 56 Barb. 425 581, 1098, 1099 v. Rose, 1 Smith (Ind. )190 950 » Smith, 77 Ala, 157... W27 v White, 77 Mo. 471._.22 733, 736, 788 ». Williams, 1 Ind. 405. 961, 962 Caleb v. State, 39 Miss. 722___._- 351 Calef v, Thomas, 81 Ill. 478.1061, 1062 Calkins ». Barger, 44 Barb, 424__ 1118 Caldwell v. ely, Call v. Byram, 39 Ind, 499______ 348 v. Palmer, 116 U.S. 101, 29 Te, 60 BO ats ors 1308 Callan v. Gaylord, 3 Watts, 321. 1020 ». Statham, 64 U. 8. 23 How. 477, 16 L. ed. D8 tenuis seeewe woes 956 Callanan v. Brown, 81 Iowa, 333_ 308 ». Hurley, 93 U. 8. 387, 23 L, ed. 9381....-.-.2-.- 1289 ». Shaw, 24 Iowa, 441.___. 501 Callaway 2. Harrold, 61 Ga. 111. 272 v. McMillian, 11 Heisk. 557 749 Callis 0. Waddy, 2 Munf. 511_._ 1267 Callison 0. Autry, 4 Tex. 871_... 59 Callow v. Jenkinson, 5 Eng. L. & Eq. 583_...__.-..--. 706 Calverly Wiliams 1 Ves. Jr. Se eee ees eee ee 801 Calvert v. Baker 4 Mees. & W. Be ieteina ee eicielnist 838 2. Fitzgerald, Litt. Sel. Cas, bags eseeeeeteteaes 761 Cambioso 2. oe 2 Wash. C. Nagy ie a ae 91 Camden 2. Dae 44 U. 8. 3 How. 516, 11 L. 705 928, 926 Camden & potas Co, v. Baldauf, 16 Ohi ten Camden & A. R. & Transp. Co. o. Burke, 13 Wend. 611, 28 Am. D ec. 488____- Camp 2. Bates, 11 Conn. 487_____ . 1806 », Camp, 2 Ala. 632 ». Camp, 5 New Eng. Rep. 140, 59 Vt. 667___.-_- ». Phillips, 42 Ga. 289__-- e. Randie, 81 Ala. 240.... 38 » Walker, 5 Watts, 482... 455 v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 1 Met. (Ky.) 164 __- 114, 1025 Campau 2. Davey 9 Mich. 881.. 587 520 795 3| Canon, Re, 47 Mich. 481...._..-. lxi Campau ». Dubois, 39 Mich. 274. 485 ». Lafferty, 43 Mich. 429... 727 Campbell’s Case, 2 Bland, Ch. 209, 20 Am. Dec. 381, NOC 2 catween ncaa aan 1055 Campbell v. American Popular L. Ins. Co., 1 McArth. PAG AT oo cobctccSie 1004 v. Borreau, 62 U. S. 21 How. 223, 16 L. ed. 96 919 ». Bouskell, 27 Beav. 825. 1199 ». Butts, 3N. Y. 178___.- 215 ». Hastings, 29 Ark. 512_- 1154, 1156, 1161 ». Johnson, 44 Mo. 247_.._ 275 v. Johnston, 4 Dana, 177 1806 v. Knight, 24 Me. 382____. 289 v. Logan, 2 Bradf. 90.1200, 1205 ». McArthur, 2 Hawks, 383, 11 Am. Dec. 788__..- 852 ®. New Eng. Mut. L. Ins. Co., ¥8 Mass. 381____- 121 ». Nichols, 83 N. J. L. 81_ 1141 v. Robbins, 29 Ind. 271__. 1188 %. State, 11 Ga, 353._..___. 413 v. State, 23 Ala. 44_.____. 528 v. Tate, 7 Lans, 870._____- 1132, 1136, 1144 v. Wallace, 46 Mich. 320_. 89 v. Webster, 15 Gray, 28. 218, 221 v. West, 86 Cal. 197 45 Campion 2. Kille, 15 N. J. Eq. 4 74 Canada v. Barksdale, 76 Va. 899_ 1160 (anal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287__..459, 460, 461 Cancemi v. People, 16 N. Y. 501_ 1250 8 | Cane v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35__.212, 887 Canedy v. Marcy, 18 Gray, 378. 297, 300 Canfield ». Fairbanks, 63 Barb. 465 Cannady ». Lynch, 27 Minn. 4385 Cannon v. Brame, 45 Ala. 262... . Cannon, ‘66 Tex. 682. __ ». Cannon, 7 Humph. 410_ ». Hargadon, 10 Allen, 106 v. ee 3 Harr. (Del.) Cansler 2. ‘Cobb, 77 N.C. 80_... Canterbury Aqueduct Co. o. Ens- worth, 22 Conn. 608_. Cantling v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 54 Mo. 385___--- Canton v. McGraw, 10 Cent. Rep. 187, 67 Md. 588__.._- Cantrell ». Colwell, 8 Head, 471- 452, 487 Car ». Northern Liberties, 35 Pa. 3 354 Lxii Card v. Card, 89 N. Y. 317_-..-- ». Foot, 59 Conn. 369, 7 Am. St. Rep. 311----- ®. State, 7 West. Rep. 81, 109 Ind, 415__------- Carder v. Bank of West Virginia (W. Va.) 11S. E. Rep. 716 784, 785 Carew 2. teen, 106 Mass. 0,8Am Rep. 287.... 771 Carey 2. ane 4 Campb. 92-452, 487 »v. Pitt, Peake, Add. Cas. BO xoeceiisiogan sabe 1297 ». Sheets, 67 Ind. 375_---. 1095 Carhampton %. Carhampton, 1 Trish T. R. 578_--.-- 402 Cariss 2. Tattersall, 2 Man. & G. 890. ssccccccenesescee 858 Carl v. Ayers, 58 N. Y. 17_.-.-- 1063 Carland 2. ee 37 Pa. v Day, 4E. D. Smith, 251 476 Carle v. Underhill, 3 Bradf. ‘101. 1205 Carleton 2. oe 13 Gray, 59 siGdessceseadae 201, 209 Carley v. Wilkins, 6 Barb. i 308 Carlile v. Parkins, 3 Stark. 1638.. 221 Carlisle 2. Cooper, 21 N. J. Eq. OUls-oceeeceseesccees 724 Carll 0. Oakley, 97 N. Y. 6338---. 727 Carlton ». Ludlow Woolen Mill, ais OT Vity 496. eee cee cca 6 . Vineland Wine Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 466.----.-- 255 Carmichael, Re, 36 Ala. 514_.--. 355 Carmichael 2. Bodfish, 32 Iowa, AB: ceecencene scheme 306 ». Greer, 55 Ga. 116 _.---- 1161 Carnes 2. Platt, 4 Jones & 8. 361, 15 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 337, 59 N. Y. 405_--__-- 515, 647 Carney v. Carney, 7 Baxt. 284___. Carondolet Iron Works v. Moore, 78 Ill. 65 Carpenter v. Ambroson, 20 111.170 608 . Camp, 39 La. “Ann, 1024 822 . Carpenter, 8 Bush, 283. 560 . Dame, 10 Ind. 125._._- 157 . Davis, 72 Ill. 14..--_--- . Dexter, 75 U. 8. 8 Wail. 518, 19 L. ed. 426..38, 996 eeccc v. Grand Truok R. Co., 72 Me. 888. -..-----.---- 65 v, Jones, 44 Md, 625._.... 91 » Muren, 42 Barb. 800.... 949 v Nixon, 5 Hill, 260_-.... 534 ». People, 8 Barb. 608.... 1248 ». Providence Wash. Ins, Co., 45 U. 8.4 How. 217, 11 L. ed. 945.280, 299, 1177, 1178 . Robinson, 1 Holmes, 73 336 », Sawyer, 17 Vt. 121.-... 1278 e TABLE OF CASES. Carpenter ».Wall,11 Ad. & El. 803.618, 619, 841, 1249 ». Ward, 30 N. Y. 243... 605 Carpenter’s Co. ». Hayward, 1 Doug). 375__-.---- 497, 500 Carr v. Callaghan, 3 Litt. 365.... 964 ». Carr, 52 N. Y. 251, 4 Lans. 314___._...---- 269- ». Hilton, 1 Curt. 230____- 1267 s ; Holliday, 5 Ired. Eq. 167 1087 ». Louisville Bkg. Co., 11 Bush, 180_--.-------- 1806. v. Moore, 41 N. H. 131-601, 603. ». Racine Commerc’l Bank, 16 Wis. 51-222 cs 2226 221 o. Rising, 62 Il. 14_-..--. 268- ». Stanley, 7 Jones L. 131. 753 o. Waugh, 28 Ill. 418_-__- 986. Contause, Bideoteor, 3 Met. 297 983 Carroll v. Carroll, 60 N. ¥. 121_. 1189, 1224 o. Craine, 9 Ill. 563__---_- 1076 », Hayward, Mass. 120 456. v. New York & N. H.R. Co., 1 Duer, BTL. 1111 ® Norwood, 1 Harr. & J. Aidvees eos sues e 402 v. Sprague, 59 Cal. 655_.... 792 ®, Staten Island R. Co., 58 N. Y. 126 1098 », Upton, 3 N.Y. 272-1227, 1229 Carrollton Bank », Cleveland, 15 La. Ann, 616__-__-.-- Carrow ». Washington Toll-Bridge Co., Phill. L. 118__--. Carson v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187 316 ». Beals, 44 N. H. 412___.. 376 vo. Bennett, 4 Fla. 352, 6 v Black, 46 Mo, 384____-- 1811 v. Bloodgood, 3 Sandf, Ch. 299, 7 L. ed. 860____-- 1192. ». Bochm, 3 Burt, 1905, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. (4th Am. ed.) 286....._... 328 ». Buchannan, 3 Ga. 5138... 375 vo. Dalton, 59 Tex. 500__.. 21 o. Douglass, 2 Ala. 499__.. 1156. » Fitz, 124 Mass. 269____. 420 v Gunnels, 67 Ill. 270... 954 v. Hamilton, Seldon’s Notes, ety reversing 11 Barb. 1A ocincasaccccece 263, 1144 , 2% Humboldt F. Ins. Co., 12 Iowa, 287.-...-..- 728, 1272 vo, Jones, 6 Carr. & P. 64.. 128. » Smith, 5 Minn. 78__._.. 31 v. State, 63 Ala. 52....__. 538 », State, 2Ind. 617_.__.___- 1252 TABLE OF CASES. Caruthers v, Eldredge, 12 Gratt. O10 sivemecmer ecu 404, 406 », Hunt, 18 Iowa, 576____. 265 Carver ». Astor, 29U. 8S. 4 Pet. 1, 7 iL. ed. 761__..2. 2222 721 v. Detroit &S. Pl. Road Co., 69 Mich. 616_._.._... 802 », Jackson, 29 U. S. 4 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 761___._.2. 706 Cartwright ». McGown, 10 West. Rep. 589, 121 Ill. 888. 99 Cary v. Hotaling, 1 Hill, 311, 87 Am. Dec, 323___._- 528, 957 ». Lovell Mfg. Co., 31 Fed. Rep. 344...-._.-..--. 800 v. State, 76 Ala. 78_.....-. 41 Casco Mfg. Co. 2. Dixon, 3 Cush. BOT ro eect cera 1319 Case v. Case, 49 Hun, 83_______- 1084 % Chicago, R. 1. & P Co., 64 Iowa, 762_... 1117 ». Dean, 16 Mich. 13_-___. 808 ». Hall, 24 Wend. 102____- 1811 ». Hartford F. Ins. Co., 13 TM OG oo joecass 1005 a. Kelly, 188 U.S. 21, 38 L. ed. 518__..-.-.---- 45 o. Marks, 20 Conn. 248... 1044 v. Mobile, 80 Ala. 588__..24, 35 v. Perew, 46 Hun, 57_- 360, 763 ». Perew, 34 Hun, 130___. 906 v, Phelps, 89 N. Y. 164___ 969 v. Potter, 8 Johns. 212.815, 824 Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U. S. 481, 34 L. ed. 1019. 680 Casey 2. eat ad. 8. 673, 24 L. Se ace aoe 726 a fie 7 Gill, 480____. 88, 410 ». New York Cent, © H. R R. Co., 78 N. ¥.518.. 411 Cash o. Clark County Auditor, 7 Inds. 22sec esos 42 v. State, 10 Humph.111--. 16 Casler 0, Shipman, 35 N. ¥. 5838. 215 Cass v. Bellows, 31. N. H. 501_... 749 Cassady v. Trustees of School, 105 Ill. 560_--.--.---- 398 Castner v. Sliker, 88 N. J. L. 95. 351 Casto v. Fry, 33 W. Va. 449--.. 319 Castor 2. Ae, 2 Watts &S. 505 Caswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407.-487, 950 Cates 2. Loftus, 3 A. K. Marsh. Cathcart x odaen 380 U. 8. 5 Pet. 264, 8 'L. ed. 120. Catlin 0. Gunter, 11 N. Y. 368, 10 How. Pr. 315, rev’g 1 Duer, 253_._. -665, 666, 668 ». Underhill, 4 McLean, 199 753 Caton v. Caton, L. R. 2 H. L. Cas. 127, 36 L. J. Ch. 886, 16 Week. Rep. 1-_.---- 315 Lxiit Catterlin v. Hardy, 10 Ala. 511_- Caufield v. Sanders, 17 Cal. 569_- Caughey »v. Smith, 47-N. Y. 244_ Caujolle », Curtis, 80 U. S. 18 Wall. 465, 20 L. ed. 507 e. nee 26 Barb. 177, 23 , 416 N. Y. Caulkins . Whisler, 29 Iowa, 495 1180: Cavazos 2. Trevino, 73 U~. 8. 6 Wall. 778, 18 L. ed. 813 1189 Cavendish ». Troy, 41 Vt.99.... 855 Cavett’s App., 8 Watts & 8, 21_._ 1199: Caw »v. People, 3 Neb. 357____.. 786 Cayon v.D welling House Ins, Co., 68 Wis. 510_.______.. Cayuga we Bank v. Warden, 6N. Y. 29._.._..- 676, 1229 Cazenove v. British Eq. Ins. Co., 5 Jur. N. 5. 1809, 6 Jur. N. S. 826_-..... 1005 Cecil ». Cecil, 19 Md. 72...____- 721 Cecil Bank 2, Snively, 23 Md. 258 180- Center v. Spring, 2 lowa, 393_... 1062 Central Bank of Troy 2. Heydorn, 48 N. Y. 260______... Central Bridge Co. ». Butler, 2 Gray, 182__-.----.... Central M. T. R. Co. v. Rockafel- low, 17 Ill. 541.549, 567, 568 Central New York Diocese v. Col- grove, 4 Hun, 368__._ 1194 Central Pennsylvania Teleph. & 8. Co. v. Thompson, 2 Sig Rep. 544, 112 Pa, 722 1387 519 215. ®. De Bi. 71 Ga. 406_... 1108 o. Freeman, 75 Ga. 831_._. 920 . Moore, 61 Ga. 151__121, 1102. Central Sav. Bank »v. Baltimore, W1oMds Sliscecc.secscy 44. Central Turup. Corp. 2. Valentine, 10 Pick. 142 --._.___. 896 Central Union Teleph. Co. 2. State, 106 Ind. 1__.. 1299 ». State, 118 Ind. 194, 10 Am. St. Rep. 114__._. CHAI ORE o ar 35 N. J. L. Gk eke 278, 274, 1189, Chadwick rs Fonner, 69 N.Y. 429 1140 467 Chaffee v. Baptist Missionary Con- vention, 10 Paige, 85, 4 L. ed. 896......__. 1198, 1207, 1209, 1210: ». Fort, 2 Lans, 87 958. v. United States, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 516, 21 L. ed. 908, 170, 754, 818 Chafraix % tlle: 30 La. Ann. Se 1159 Chalfant ».- her rarset 35 Pa. 212 259 lxiv Chamberlain », Chamberlain, 71 N.Y. 428 ener 416 v. Davis, 33 N. H. 121... 452 v. Dow, 10 Mich. 319__..- 234 v. Lindsay, 1 Hun, 231--. 781 ». Milwaukee & M. R. Co., 11 Wis. 288_.-.-..--- 1098 . Rodgers, 79 Mich. 219.. 362 ec . Thompson, 10 Conn. 243 260, 297, 804 ». Vance, 51 Cal. 75_-...- o. Western Transp. Co., 45 Barb, 218._......_._. 1107 Chamberlin v. Huguenot Mfg. o., 118 Mass. 582.-_ 887 Chambers v. Crabbe, 34 Beav. 457 1098 ». Hodges, 23 Tex. 104... 464 v. Livermore, 15 Mich. 381 257, 964 v. Mason, 5 C. B. N.S. 59 464 Champion v. earn: 45 N. Y. 653 468 2. Plummer, 4 Bos. & P. 20a ae euieScisiew accice Champion Mach. Co. ». Gorder Oe N. W. Rep. Champlin ee ate 18 Wend. 407, 31 Am. Dec. 398.91, 299 2 Tilley, 3 Day, 306__475, 1153 GChecneye Pinneneos 39N. Y. emeisied See aeetaan 994 v Bere 84 Barb. 589.... 289 Chance v. Indianapolis & W. G. R. Co., 82 Ind. 478... 341 Chandelor ». Lopus, Cro. Jac. 4 308, 309 Chandler ». a Barron, 45 Me. OF aes Sarna ». St. Paul, F. & M. Ins. Co., 21 Minn, 85___.. ® Thompson, 30 Fed. Rep. brpetate Teac 357, 858, 799 % Von Roeder, 65 U. 8. 24 pte 224, 16 L. ed. peereuagsencsed 497, 500 Chanter ». “Hop 4 Mees. & W. 809._....... 1811, 1817 Chapin ». Chleage, M. & St. P. R. Co., 79 Iowa, 582. 316 v. Coleman, 11 Pick. 881. 227 v. Dobson, 78 N. Y. 74, 84 Am. Rep. 255, 259, 264, 288, 284, 818 TABLE OF CASES. Chapin v. Lapham, 20 Pick. 467 748 v. Siger, 4 McLean, 378, 618, 620, 622 ». Taft, 18 Pick. 879----. 420 Chaplin 2. Baker, 124 Ind. 885_. 322 Chapline ». Conant, 3 W. Va. 507, 100 Am. Dec. 766... 1160 Chapman, Re 27 Hun, 578__... 649 ». Carolin, 3 Bosw. 456... 666 ». Chapman, 2 Conn. 347_ 415, 416 ». Chapman, 59 Pa. 214... 722 ». Colby, 47 Mich. 46__... 23 . Devereaux, 32 Vt. 616.. 908 v. Edmands, 3 Allen, 512_ 466 ». Lipscomb, 18 S. C. 222. 1159 v. Moore, 5 West. Rep. 270, 107 Ind. 228_-____... 919 ». Murch, 19 Johns. 290. 3809 v O’Brien, 2 Jones & 8. De46e2e eee coke c meee T11 o. Rawson, 8 Q. B. 678_-. 128 ». Rose, 56 N. Y. 187._-_. 965 v. v. Turner, 1 Call, 280.._.- 229 Chaquette 2. Ortet, 60 Cal. 594... 706 Charidon ». Olinhant, 3 Brev. 188, 6 Am. Dec. 572.. 484 Charlebois v. Bourassa, Montreal L. Rep. 5 Super. Ct. AB ai Sete Gate pea 1062 Charles v. Denis, 42 Wis. 56_... 1188 », Waugh, 35 Ill. 817__... 1283 Charlton 2. Lawry, Mart. (N. C.) 20 ses aanaasseeeasts 815, 833 Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. v. Rodel, 95 U. S. 282, 24 L. ed. Chase, Re, 41 Hun, 203.._.-___. ». Alliance Ins. v. Blodgett, 10 N. H. 22_- 584, 555, 558 v. Chiesgo, 201]. App. 274 181 v. Hazelton, 7 N. H.171-. 221 v. Lowell, t Gray, 38_.... 1263 o. Palmer, 29 Il}. 806..... 857 ». Searles, 45 N. AH. 511. 1055 vo. Smith, 5 Vt. 559__.._... 423 v. South’ P. C. R. Co., 88 Cal.. 468: 222 cc ceccene 140 ® Bpuuesele Mills Co., 75 Mee VOC aaron Sacer 398 v. Sycamore & C. R. C 38 Ill. 215.825, Sea. 392, 896 Chateaugay, O. & I. Co., Peti- tioner, 128 U. 8. 544, 23 L. ed. 508_.-..-__- Chatterton v, Saul, 16 Ill. 149___ 1239 Cheatham 0. Hatcher, 30 Gratt. TABLE OF CASES. Cheeney v. Arnold, 18 Barb. 434 581 Cheever v. Brown, "30 Ga. 904... 818 ». Sweet, 151 Mass, 186... 1062 ® Wilson, 76 U.8.9 Wall. 108, 19 L. ed. 604.... 36 Cheney 2. Arnold, 15 N. Y. 345. 65 Cheritree 2. Roggen, 67 Barb. 124 631 Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md. 75___.- 18 v. Frost, 7 Thea, Vge secede: 878 ‘Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. 2. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 4Gil @&J.1_.-.....- 31, 38 ‘Chesapezke & P. Teleph. Co. 0. Baltimore & O. Teleg. Co., 66 Md. 899, 6 Cent. Rep. 472, 59 Am. Rep. 167.428, 1299, 1300 ‘Chesapeake Bank 2 Swain, 29 Md. 483 902 Chesley 0. Brown, 11 Me. 146... 51 Chester v. Bower, 55 Cal. 46.... 657 e. Dickerson, 54N. Y. 1.- 1156, 1160, 1161 v. State, 23 Tex. App. 577 173 Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 MO S209 eee 875 Chicago 0. Dalle, 2 West. Rep. 901, 115 Ill. 886______ 503 1146 1009 o Gage, 95 Il). 598, 85 Am, Rep. 182 o. Greer, 76 U. 8.9 Wall. 726, 18 L. ed. 769.449, v McGraw, 75 Ill. 566.... 148 ». Major, 18 Ill. 349. .____ 1103 ®. Smith, 48 Ill. 107_____. 640 v Wright, 82 Ill. 192... __ 1276 Chicago & A. R. Co. 0. Buttolf, 66 Ill, 347 v. Ragland, 84 Ill. 875___- o. Utley, 38 Ill. 410 ® Wiggins Ferry Co., 108 U.S 18, 27 L. ed. 636, ae "U.8 . 615, 80 L. ed. ae Seat wield 38, 63 ‘Chicago - E I B Co. v. Hol- land, 11 West. Rep. 51, 122 Til. 461 . People, 9 West. 740, 120 Ill. 667 Chicago & M. R. Co. v. Patchin, 641 983 796 92 920 16 TY, 198). = 2 87 Chicago & N. R. Co. v. Boone qaanly Suprs., 44 Il. 4 heehee 2 ssc, 44 . Fillmore 57 Ul. 266___- . Howard, 6 Til. App. 569 1105 . Ingersoll, 65 Ill. 399__. 825 . Ohle, 117 U. 8. 128, 29 L. ed. 837 840, 841 . People, 56 Ill. 365,8 Am. Rep. 690__..--..-...- Chicago & R. I. R. Co. ». Fahey, 52 111.81, 4 Am. Rep.5 7 1107 E 762 ssss s lxv Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. North- ern Illinois, C. & I. Co., 86 Ill. 60 Chicago & W. Coal Co. v. Lid- dell, 69 Ill. 639 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Greg- ory, 58 Ill. 272 ». Harwood, 90 Ill. 425.121, v. Riddle, 60 Ill. 535 ». Stumps, 55 IN. 367 v. Sullivan, 21 Ill. App. 580 Chicago ee Go. 2. Young, 62 Chicago, K. & a R. Co. 2. Brown, 44 Kan, 384__ Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Cos- per, 42 Kan. 561 Chicago, i IL& PLR. Clayton, 78 Tl. 616... Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co. 2, Trotter, 61 Miss. 417_ Chicago W. D. R. Co. ». Becker, 128 Ill. 545 v. Klauber, 9 Ill. App. 618 Chichester v. Cobb, 14 L. T. N. Si Abbe conte cee eee 1265 Chickering ». Failes, 26 Ill. 507_ 238 Chicopee v. Whately, 6 Allen, 5038_69, 86 1118 784. 1097 687 836 1106 1117 36 Child ». Grace, 2 Car. & P. 193. 469 2. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Sandf. 26_.._..__.__. 1228 Childress 2. eee 8 Yerg. 113 984 Childs » Delaney, 1 Thomp. & C. 506 apse ta 647 v, State, 55 Ala. 28__... 2 641 Chiles 2, Conley, 2 Dana, 22_.__ 88 Chipman % DP EOOS 63 N. até Chirac 2. foe 24U. 8. 11 Wheat. 280, 6 L. ed. 474, 27 U. 8. 2 Pet. 618, 7 L. ed. 588, 414 keaceets 796, 997, 451, 648, 644 Chisholm ». Williams, 128 11]. 115 1081 Choice v. State, 31 Ga, 424 2. dace 19 Ves. Jr. 268 648 Chouquette v. Barada, 28 Mo. 491 52 Chouteau 2. Jupiter Iron Works, 13 West. Rep. 666, 94 M0888 3 oc cossenes 358 ®, Pierre, 9 Mo. 3.____--- 36, 43 Chowning 2. Stanfield, 49 Ark. 87 41 Chrisman v. Harman, 29 Gratt. 494, 26 Am. Rep. 387 214 Christ 2. Diffenbach, 1 Serg. & RB. 464. ow cccce ccd 260, 965 Christian ». First Division St. au on R. Co., 20 2 lxvi Christianson ». Linford, 3 Robt. ReOe ca Sead eedsocse se Christie 7. Bishop, 1 Barb. Ch. 105, 5 L. ed. Bea tal, 467 Christmas »v. Russell, 72 U:. 8. Wall. 290, 18 L. ed. a5. 201, 208, 209 Christopher 2. Covington, 2B. Mons 80 lecen cececcms ». Garr, 6 N. Y. 62.------ Chubb 2. Upton, o5 Ul 8. 665, 24 L. ed. 523......._.__. Chumasero v. Gilbert, 24 Ill. 293. Chunot ». Larson, 43 Wis, 536_- Church 2, Burghardt, 8 Pick. 327 ». Cole, 86 Ind, 34......_- 268 vo Davis, 9 Watts, 304____ 1078 ». Drummond, 7 Ind. 19_- 1242, 1248 2. Hubbart, 6 U. 8. 2 Cranch, 187, 2 L. ed. 249.2... _- 36, 64, 65, 194 o. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512 1166, 1169, 1172, 1175 v. Rowell, 49 Me. 367. ..-69, 86 Churchill ae Bradley, 11 Jones & 170 eee eee e ete 233 ». Gardner, 7 T. R. 592___ 463 ». Lee, 77 N. ©. 341_.___- 136 Churchman v. Lewis, 34 N. Y. 444.000 294, 393 ». Smith, 6 Whart. 146_826, 824 Chute 2. State, 19 Minn. 271__758, 758 Cicotte 9. ‘Anciaux, 53 Mich. 227 22, 726 Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. ». Clif- ford, 18 West. Re Pp. ; 384, 118 Ind. 460..__- 22, 84 Cincinnati Inclined R. Co. 2. City & §. Teleg. Asso., 48 Ohio St. —, 46 Am. & Hg. R. Cas. 588, rev’g 12 L. R. A. 534, 24 Ohio L. J. 471....__- Cincinnati, I, St. L. & C. R. Co. ». Howard, 8 L. R. A, Cire 2, Rian 11 La, 142_.___. Citizens Bank v. Grafflin, 31 Md. 507, 1 Am. Rep. 66.279, 905 Citizens Nat. Bank v. Hooper, 47 Md. 456 Bil Bde df cs 227 City Bank of en % Me- Chesney, 20 N. Y. 240 455 City Bank of Columbus »., Phil- lips, 22 Mo. 85__.._... 1123 City Ins, Co. », Bricker, 91 Pa. 490 1262 City R, oa a Chesney, 30 Kan. 1284 TABLE OF CASES. Clafin v. Baere, 28 Hun, 204... 129 ». Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260... 116 Claggett 0. Heads; 45 N. H.363 220. Clapp ». Cedar County, 5 Iowa, 15, 68 Am. Dee. 678... 1123 ®. Fullerton, 34 N. Y. 190. 350, 855. v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 36 Minn. 6,1 Am. St. Rep. O20 cde ete v. Rice, 18 Gray, 403... ». Wilson, 5 Denio, 285_622, 623. Clara v. i 3 Cranch, Cc. C. 208 a cyseeh eateries kal ecoay ae 414 ». State, 5 Iowa, 50$___.__ 35- Clarendon ». Barham, 1 Younge OSS sss 2 de) sedate 289 Claridge ». Klett, 15 Pa. 255-... 288. Clarita, The, 90 U. 8. 23 Wall. 1, 23 L. ed. 146._._.._2_. 1119: Clark », Akers, 16 Kan. 166_____ 238. ». Allen, 84 Iowa, 190.... 857 v, Baird, 9 N. Y. 188____. 326 ». Baker, 2 Whart. 840... 450 ». Beach, 6 Conn. 142_____ 499: ». Blair, 14 Fed. Rep. 812. 214 o. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 28 Minn, 69... 1184. v. Clark, 1 Mood. & R. 8.. 647 0, Clark, 65 N. ©. 655.... 633 o. Conway, 23 Mo. 438_... 920 o. Fisher, 1 Paige, 171, 2 L. ed. 604...___- 1197, 1218 v. Foot, 8 Johns. 422..___ 1118 % Graham, i9 U. S&S. 6 Wheat. 557,5L, ed. 384 727 o. Grant, 14 Ves. Jr. 519. 298 o Haugham, 3 Dowl. & R. Dee seco eee, 1267 o. Henry, 2 Cow. 382___.. 266- ». Hornbeck, 17 N. J. Eq. BO Oia ae a J eae 164 %. Houghton, 12 Gray, 38. 238 o. Hyatt, 118 N. Y. 563... 108. a. Little, 41 Iowa, 497... 209 ®. Lyon, 46 Ga. 302 pees 265. ». Morton, 5 Rawle, 235, 28 Am. Dec. 667_....... 1217 . New York L. Ins, & T. Co., 7 Lans, 328_.__.. 255 , Owens, 18 N. Y. 435... 1228 0 Peabody, 22 Me. 500... 455: o. Partridge, 2 Pa. 18, 4 Pay 166-0. keno 260 » Periam, 2 Atk. 887_._.. 1183 v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 36 Cal. 168_......22-2. 665 0. Ralls, 50 Iowa, 275____- 1310 a Reininger, 66 Towa, 508 633 v. Rhodes, 2 Heisk. 206... 843 » Roberts, 1D). 222. 525.- 844 ». Rockland W. P. Co., 52 Me. 77 TABLE OF CASES, Clark ». Smith, 84 Barb. 140__.. 1195 ». State, 12 Ohio, 483, 40 Am. Dec. 481.349, 355, 1085 . St. Louis K. C. & N. R. s Co., 64 Mo. 440_.___. 796 v. Thompson, 47 Til. 25... 200 o. Trail, 1 Met. (Ky.) 35_. 1270 2 Troy, 20 Cal. 220_._._. 224 2 VanRiemsdyk, 13 U. S. 9 Cranch, 153, 8 L. ed. 688.226, 227, 280, 1177, 1178 ®. Vorce, 15 Wend. 198, 30 v. Wyatt, 15 Ind. 271--.-- ». Young, 5 U. 8. 1 Cranch, 181, 2 L. ed. 74..-._. 137 Clark Civil Twp. v. Brookshire, 18 West. Rep. 879, 114 Ind, 487__-.---.----. 921 Clarke v. Allen, 182 Pa. 40__-.-_ 975 » Cummings, 5 Barb. 339_ 1228 v. Dunnavant, 10 Leigh, 13 1216 ». Courtney, 80 U.S. 5 Pet. 819, 8 L. ed. 140____. 403 »®. Dutcher, 9 Cow. 647... 91 ». Jennings, 1 Anstr. 178.. 604 ». Kownslar, 35 U. 8. 10 Pet. 657, 9 L. ed. 571. 796 o. Pratt, 20 Ala. 470_..... 38 ». Rist, 3 McLean, 494._.. 813 v, Russell, 8 U. S. 3 Dall. 415, 1 L. ed. 660.___.- 1261 ». Saffery, Ryan & M. 126 599 vo. Sawyer, 3 Sandf. Ch. 351, 7 L. ed. 879_.355, 1198 o. Smith, 46 Barb. 80.._.. 833 ». State, 85 Ga. 75__-...--- o. Strickland, 2 Curt. C. C3439 sso sowed 1289 White, 37 U. 8. 12 Pet. 178, 9 L. ed. 1046_... 179 _ Clarkson v. Hanway, 2 P. Wms. 204 s Clary v. Clary, 2 Ired. L. 78_.349, 355 Clason 2. Morris, 10 Jobns. 548_. 229 Claxton v. Adams, 1 McArthur, AQG von ocsecneussens 691 Clay v. Alderson, 10 W.Va. 49. 343 Clayes o. Ferris, IOV, W8csece 604 v Hooker, 4 Hun, 231---. 670 Clayson ». Morris, 10 Johns. 542 231 Clayton ». Freet, 10 Ohio St. 544 300 o. Greyson, 5 Ad. & El. 302 279, 904, 906 v. May, 67 Ga. 769_.__---_- 21 », Yarrington, 33 Barb. 144 787 Claytor o. Anthony, 6 Rand. 285 865, 871, 961, 968 Claywell 2. . MeGimpsey, 4 Dev. eee eee eee 956 ene Meredith, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 48, 17 L. ed. G09 sscacccaccssancces 735 Lxvii Cleave o. Jones, 7 Exch. 421, 21 L. J. Exch. 105..-.647, 649 Cleeve v. Powell, 1 Mood. & R.228 648 Clegg v. Dearden, 12 Q. B. 576. 739 Clelland v. James, 33 Jowa, 571.. 306 Clemens 2. Patton, 9 Port (Ala.) OG cee cate cman eos 749 Clement v. Bennett, 70 Me. 207__ 265. o. Western U. Teleg. Co., 137 Mass. 4638_....._. 114 Clementine v. State, 14 Mo. 112. 618 Ciements v. Moore, 73 U. 8S. 6 Wall. 315,18 L. ed.789 288 v. Rogers, 95 N. C. 248._. 924. Cleveland ee , Boerum, 27 Barb. 2, 23 Barb. 201._..- 1289 v Clap. 5 Mass. 201-_-_-- 985 ». Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 Wit 48 se oo eee ake 509 ». Hatch, 25 Hun, 308_... 462 Cleveland & M. R. Co. ». Rob- bins, 85 Ohio St. 483. 878 Cleveland & P. R. Co. », Rowan, “66 Pa, 398_....--___- 1103 Cleveland & T. R. Co. v, Perkins, 17 Mich. 296__._.___. 1808 Cleveland C. & ©. R. Co. v. Mara, 26 Ohio St. 185 __..-- 3877 Cleveland, C.C. & I. R. Co. ». Closser, 9 L. R. A. 754, 126 Ind. 348__..._._- 776 0. Newell, 1 West. Rep. 890, 104 Ind. 264 .._.87, 95 Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. ». Erie, 1 Grant. Cas. 212_.... Clews v. Kebr, 90 N. Y. 688__-- Clifford ». Burton, 1 Bing. 199, 8 Moore, 16____- 452, 465, 487 ». Hunter, 3 Car. & P. 16__ 1228 ». Parker, 2 Man. & G. 909 854, 858 ». Richardson, 18 Vt. 620. 355 Clifton 2. Howard, 5 West. Rep. 327, 89 Mo. 192, 58 Am. Rep. ». United States, 45U. 8.4 How. 247, 11 L. ed. 957 146, 147, 149, 170, 1070: Clinan v. Cooke, 1Sch. & Lef. 89 1257 Cline v. Catron, 22 Gratt.378__.. 410 ». Lindsey, 9 West. Rep. 218, 110 Ind. 337 ____- Clinton »v. Estes, 20 Ark. 216 865, 870, 871 ». Haddam, 50 Conn. 84._ 716 ». Rowland, 24 Barb. 634. 825 v, State, 838 Ohio St. 27_... 634 Clinton Lumber Co. ». Mitchell, 61 Iowa, 132.._..-_.. 420 Cliquot v. United States (‘‘Cli- quot’s Champagne”) 70 U. 8. 3 Wall. 114, 18 Ged. 116. ..00-.2< 854, 445 454 lxvili Clitherall ». Ogilvie, 1 Desaus. Eq. 258, 259, note p.-. 967 Clopton »v. Martin, 11 Ala. 187 260, 300 Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466, 27 L. ed. 408 726 ». Olney, 1 Denio, 319_-.. 653 Cloud ». Patterson, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 394 148 Clough v. Monroe, 34 N.H. 381 218, 221 Cloyes v. Thayer, 3 Hill, 564_... 652 Cluley v. Lockhart, 59 Pa. 876.. 222 Clyke v. Rogers, 24 Hun, 146... 828 v. Rogers, 87 N. ¥. 825, 94 N, Y..342____....---- 829 ‘Clymer v. Cameron, 55 Miss. 593 1287 Coal & I. Co. ». Tilghman, 13 Md. 1287 Coale ». Chase, 1 Bland. Ch. 136 1177 v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 227_____. 509 Coalfield Co. v. Peck, 98 Ill. 189 212 Cobb v. Arundell, 26 Wis. 5538 _. 787 v. Fogalman, 1 Ired. L. 440 795, 796 v. Hatfield, 46 N. Y. 583__ 965 Cobbett v. Brock, 20 Beav. 524_. 1092 Coble o. ss 79 N. C. 589, 28 . Rep. 388____---. Cobleigh 2 “McBride, 45 Iowa, 116 268 ». Odell, 80 N. H. 540 ____ ». Travelers Ins, Co., 5 New Eng. Rep. 182, 145 Mass. 226....___- ». Webb, 56 Ind. 96, 24 Am. Rep. 15......._. Cochran »v. Butterfield, 18 N. H. 115, 45 Am. Dec. 363_ v. Fort, 7 Mart. N.S. 626. 94 v. Nebeker, 48 Ind. 459... 854 v. Retberg, ’3 Esp. 121_ -280, 904 Cock »v. Carson, 45 Tex. 429 _... 484 Cocking 0. Pratt, 1 Ves. Sr. 400_ 1093 Cocks 2. Purday, 2 Car. &K. 270 1255 Codman »v. Caldwell, 831 Me. 560_ 833 348 Cody 2. Bemis, 40 Wis. 666_____ 670 e. Bunn, 46 N. J. L. 131.. 1221 v. Conly, 27 Gratt. 3138_... 340 », Raynaud, 1 Colo. 272.. 1101 Coenen 2. Staub, 74 Iowa, 82, 7 Am. St. Rep. 470 _... 1082 Coffee v, Neely, 2 Heisk. 804._.. 199 Coflin ». Coffin, 23 N. Y. 9. 1205, 1207 v. Collins, 17 Me. 440__ 889, 896 v Vincent, 12 Cush. 98... 748 Cogburn 2. Hunt, 54 Miss. 675, 56 Miss. 718__.._......- 1287 Coggswell ». Warren, 1 Curt, 223 217 Cogswell v. Dolliver, 2 Mass. 217 825 v. Hayden, 5 Or. 28 1180 TABLE OF CASES. Cohea ». State, 11 Tex. App. 153 871 Cohen v. Frost, 2 Duer, 341_.--- 1106 Cohn ¢. Mulford, 15 Cal. 50 ..715, 977 Joit » Commercial Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 385_-280, 904, 905, 909 ». North Carolina Gold Amalgamating Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 577..-___-- 245 Coker v. State, 20 Ark. 58_...___ 786 Colburn ». Lansing, 46 Barb. 87. 238 Cole ». Boardman, 2 New Eng. Rep. 716, 63 N. H. 580 95, 5038 v. Byrd, 83 Ga. 207_.._._- 922 v. Cassidy, 188 Mass. 487. 978 o Eat, 8 Car. & P. pe omagee asa acees 862, 863 v. ee 1 Cromp. & J. AGL cance cena 1263 v. Edgerly, 48 Me. 108_-.. 289 ». Germania F. Ins. Co., OO N.Y, (8625252 5 89 2. Goodwin, 19 Wend. 251, 82 Am. Dec. 470_--... 1107 ». Howe, 50 Vt. 35 ___.___ 238 v. Jessup, 9 Barb. 401____- 938 ». Sater, 5 Minn. 463_._._ 985 o. Smith, 29 La. Ann. 551_ 274, 1189 o. Taylor, 22 N. J. L. 59-. 231 ». Terrell, 71 Tex. 549_... 955 v, Varner, 81 Ala, 244__ 950 ». Wendel, 8 Johns, 115... 275 Coleman, Re, 111 N. Y. 220_.645, 650 Coleman’ 2. Bean, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 394 11 ». Com., 25 Gratt. 865 _ 533, 528 ». Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156.... 35 ». Elmira First Nat. Bank, 53 N. Y, 388, ---.---- 269 v. Fennimore, 16 La. Ann. DB x chare etnies eaclcsrata 4 v. Frazier, 4 Rich. L. 146. 392 v Murdo, 5 Rand. (Va.) ew een tamara 278, 907 » Pike County, 83 Ala. 326 295 ». Southwick, 9 Johns. 45 228 Coles 2 Bowne, 10 Paige, 526, 4 L. ed. 1076_..... 260, 297 v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. Jr. ‘ 67 Coley v2. Coley, 2 Younge & J 44 604 Cohman-s: Philips, 7 Rich. L, 859 452, 487 Colgate ». Compagnie Francaise, 28 Fed. Rep. 82___.244, 245 Cole Horn, 3 Bing.119_.. 464 Collender 2, Dinsmore, 55 N.Y. eet eee in eet Dats 277 Collier : rect Education Soc., Mon. 68......__. 84 %. Brown, 1 Cox, Ch. 428. 966 TABLE OF CASES. Collier v. Simpson, 5 Car. & P. 73 1252, 1255 Colligan 7. McKernan, 2 Dem. 421 1209 Collin v. Card, 2 Cal. 421._.__-- 827 Collins v. Blantern, 2 Wils. 3841_. 964 ». Collins, 51 Miss. 311, 24 Am. Rep. 622_......- . Doe, 33 Ala, 91_._-..--- 1278 . Gashon, 2 Fost. & F. 47 170 . Gilbert, 94 U. 8. 753, 24 L. ed. 170_.--.--.. 122, 128 v ae 1 Barn. & Ad. ees 0. ae oe 12 Ind. 440. ». Martin, 1 Bos. & P. 648_ ». Nicols, 1 Harr, & J. 399 », Osborn, 34 N. J. Eq. 511 v. Rockwood, 65 How. Pr. Miesoamoemaeemc ace! 746, 747 v. Rogers, 63 Mo. 515..-.-. 914 o. State, 58 Ind. 5___.___- 26 v. Stephenson, 8 Gray, 488 614 Collinson ». Owens, 6 Gill & J.4 216 Collis v. Emmett, 1H. Bl. 312... 1125 Collyer 2. ee 17 Abb. Pr. ». Collyer, 110 N. Y. 481,17 Abb. N. C. 328, 6 Am. Rep. 405.-..---- 1217, 1209 ». Pennsylvania R. Co., 4 Cent. Rep. 568, 49 N. Ma 09 mcd eclomieteets Colman 2. Shattuck, 62 N. Y. 348 1279 Coln 2. Coln, 248. ©. 597-_-_... 920 Colorado, C. & L. Oo. 2. United States, 123 U. 8. 317, 31 L. ed. 186_.___...- Colorado Vent. R. Co. v. Allen, 18 Colo. 229.........- Colquitt o, Thomas, 8 Ga. 258_.- Colt v. Ives, 31 Conn. 25._..__-- Columbia Ins. Co. 2. Catlett, 25 U. 8. 12 Wheat. 383, 6 798 118 960 882 909 247 Columbian Government 2. Roths- child, 1 Sim. 94_____. Columbian Ins. Co. ». Lawrence, 7 U, &. 2 Pet. 25, 7 L. a BOO Se eect 729, 921, 1272 Columbus ». Columbus St. R. Co., 10 West. Rep. 440, 45 Ohio St. 98 ___..-..-- 721 Columbus, H.V. & T. R. Co. 2. Gardner, 11 West. Rep. 264, 45 Ohio St. 309._ 359 Colvin 0. Warford, 20 Md. 358_. 88 Colwell v. Woods, 3 Watts, 188, 27 Am. Dec. 345..__- 265 Coman 2. State, 4 Blackf. 241_.. 1012 Combs 2. Tarlton, 2 Dana, 465.. 216 Comer 2. Consolidated Goal & Min. Co. (W. Va.) 12 8. E. Rep. 476 ------- 142 Comer] ». Hart, 79 Ala. 889_-_.- Comes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 78 Iowa, 391-_- .-- Comfort v. People, 54 Ill, 404___- Commercial & F. Nat. Bank 2. First Nat. Bank, 50 Madi Ul ceseweceeeetos Commercial Bank of Buffalo 2. Kortright, 22 Wend. 3418) vacances 875, 877 Commercial Bank of Pennsyl- vania 2. Union Bank, 920 369 Commiskey 2. Williams, 2 West. Rep. 605, 20 Mo. App. G0 Gorin emanecmees 95 Commissioners of Beaufort 7. prea 1 Jones, L. 795 684 Commissioners of Berks County ». Ross, 3 Binn. 589-_.- Common Council of Alexandria ». Corse, 2 Cranch, C. OC) BOB oro ssitrcrcteper tec sear Commonwealth 2, Allen, 128 Mass. 46, 35 Am. Rep. 356.. 344 ; Bagley, 7 Pick. 279_-..- 91 . Bennett, 118 Mass, 443__ 1159 . Brown, 14 Gray, 419, 865, 870 1147 ees v. Buzzell, 16 Pick. 153-602, 865 v. Carey, 2 Pick. 47_....- 345 v. Carey, 2 Brewst. 404_... 536 v. Carey, 12 Cush. 246... 413 ». Casey, 11 Cush. 417... 412 ». Choate, 105 Mass. 459._ 522 ” . Coe, 115 Mass. 481__..-- 840, 522, 1173, 1175 v. Cooper, 5 Allen, 495.... 412 . Cullen, 18 Pa. 148, 53 Am. Dec. 458_-__----. 229 ». Daniel, 4 Pa. L. J. 49.. 655 ». Downing, 4 Gray, 29... 792 ». Duncan, 128 Mass. 422. 633 ®,. Eastman, 1 Cush. 189___ 840, 522, 528, 1164 v. Eberle, 3 Serg. & R. 7 871 vo. Eddy, 7 Gray, 584_-_._- 185 ». Fairbanks, 2 Allen, 511. 356 ». Farrar, 10 Gray, 6....-- 633 ». Felch, 182 Mass. 22.... 420 ». Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386.... 522 ». Fitzpatrick, 1 L. R. A. 451, 121 Pa. 109_...-. 27 v. Ford, 180 Mass. 64____- 748 ». Fuqua, 3 Litt. 41_.__.-- 222 v. Green, 17 Mass. 515_-_._ 207, 546, 555 », Hackett, 2 Allen, 136__. 1011 ». Harmon, 4 Pa. 271-273. 768 v, Hill, 14 Mass. 207_.---- 536 v. Hunt, 4 Met. 121__-.___- 864. ». Hutchinson, 10 Mass. 225 537 Ixx TABLE OF CASES. Commonwealth »v. Ipswich, 2 eese es essss es s gesss ses ess ee v. Soniaenes . McKie, 1 Gray, 61- . McPike, 3 Cush. 181, 50 . Morrell, 99 Mass. 542_._ . Price, 10 Gray, 472____- . Williams, 6 Gray, 1 . Williams, 22 Pick. 476_ v. Pick. 70 1290 . Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548_.. 1015 . Kinison, 4 Mass. 646_--- . Knowlton, 2 Mass, 530- . McGrath, 1 New Eng. 148 177 Rep. 515, 140 Mass. 450 96 --118, 185 Am. Dec. 727__---.-- 877, 382, 411, 1011 . Matthews (Ky.) 11 Ky. L. Rep. 505_.-...-.-- Moltz, 10 Pa. 530_.__.- Moore, 3 Pick. 196.1243, New York, 9 Met. 125. O’Brien, 119 Mass. 342_. 1246, Peckham, 2 Gray, 514-_ 28 Piper, 120 Mass. 185.380, 333 522 Reed, 5 Phila, 528_____- Richards, 18 Pick. 4384, 29 Am. Dec. 608__...- . Rogers, 7 Met. 500, 41 Am. Dec. 458_349, 356, 1084 . Ruckerman, 10Gray, 179 522 . Sacket, 22 Pick. 394... 598, 605, 1245 . Schneider, 59 Pa. 828 .. 1084 . Shaw, 4 Cush. 593._...- 605 Ei Shurn, 5 New Eng. Rep. 170, 145 Mass. 150.... 174 . Snowden, 1 Brewst. 218 19 . Stone, 4 Met. 43 -__. 522, 525 . Stricker, Append. to 1 Browne (Pa.) 47_...-- 81 . Stump, 53 Pa. 182_____- 415 . Susquehanna & D. R. 0., 1 L. R. A. 225, 122 Pa. 306 _..._..__. 466 . Thompson, 6 Mass. 134_ 1064 . Thurlow, 24 Pick. 374_- ; 148, 1279 Bir ue 7 J. J. Marsh. oO; 654 ; Tider, 3 New Eng. Rep. 299, 143 Mass. 180 s012 Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 179 Twitchell, 1 Brewst. 561 653 522 1068 1245 806 792 . Webster, 5 Cush, 295__- 135, 332, 766, Wilson, 1 Gray, 387... . 1258, 1255, Wright, Ben. & H. L. Cr. Cas, 299 1256 185 192 ee : Bae , Humph. 358 Compton v. Young, 26 Tex. 644. 820 Comstock ».Carnley, 4 Blatchf. 58 148 v. Comstock, 57 Barb. 453- 992, 1093 ». nye pe Soc., 8 Conn. 254__-.-.------ 128 v. Hannah, 76 Ill. 530---.- 456 ». Smith, 20 Mich. 338.... 500 v. Smith, 23 Me. 202__.... VW ». Smith, 26 Mich. 306.... 722 Conant v. Jackson, 16 Vt. 335... 952 ». Seneca County Bank, 1 Ohio St. 298 -------.- 79 Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co. of N. Y., 26U. S. 1 Pet. 386, ie v. Nicoll, 29 U. 8. 4 Pet. 291, 7 L. ed. 862-_.72, 947, 1304 ees a ». Greely, 23 N. 237 Condit 2. Goi 123 N. Y. 463 321 Confer ». McNeal, 74 Pa. 112.-.. 962 Conger 2. Converse, 9 Iowa, 554. 148 ®. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Duer, 875_.-...---- 1228 Congress & E.S. Co. v. Edgar, a S. 645, 25 L. ed. Eph tee 827, 828 Conkey 2. Peoil 1 Abb. App. Dee: 418i sca2veccuseeis 1250 Conklin 2, Conklin, 20 Hun, 278. 990 v. Stamler, 2 Hilt. 422... 838 Conkling 2, King, 10 Barb. 872.. 70 Conley v. Chilcote, 25 Ohio St. 320 983 v. Winsor, 41 Mich, 253.124, 1126 Connecticut ». Bradish, 14 Mass. 296 esc Seinen 1015, 1206 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins, Co. 0. Lathrop, 111 U.S. 612, 28 L. ed. 536, 29 Alb. L. J. 429.326, 328, 354, 1010 v. Schaefer, 94 U. 8. 457, 24.1. eds 26loccccescs 182 v. Schwenk, 94 U.S. 598, 24 L. ed, 294___...... 93, v. Siegel, 9 Bush, 450___-- 1004 v. Talbot, 12 West. Rep. 296, 113 Ind. 373._... 35 Conner v. Allen, 3 Head, 418_... 984 ». State, 4 Yerg. 137... 797 Connery 2. Brooke, 73 Pa. 80_... 739 HeRHOY a Pardon, 1 Paige, 291, 2 L. ed. 651, 19 Am. Dec. 488._..-.....--. 1218 Connor v. Donnell, 55 Tex. 167_. 1142 v. Mt. Vernon Co., 25 Md. SVD side nesta Sanja taba 753 v. Stanley, 67 Cal. 315_... 888 ». Trawick, 87 Ala. 289... 64 Connors v, People, 50 N. Y. 242. 652 Conover 2. Porter, 14 Ohio St. 450 711 v,. Wardell, 20 N. J. Eq. 266 257 TABLE OF CASES. Conrad »v, Fisher, 8 L. R. A. 147, 37 Mo. App. 352_44, 141, 320 v. Griffey, 52 U. 8.11 How. 481, 18 L. ed. 779_.618, 625 v. Griffey, 57 U. 8. 16 How. 88, 14 L, ed. 885___..-. 622 v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389, 37 Am. Rep. 412_____... 726 ». Williams, 6 Hill, 444... 7938 ‘Conrow 2. oe. " L. R. A. 693, 115 N. Y. 387_...-..-. 714 Conselyea v. Swift, 5 Cent. Rep. 795, 103 'N. Y. 604.... 136 v. Walker, 2 Dem. 117_... 1191 Consolidated R. E. & F. Ins. Co. ». Cashow, 41 Md. 59_ 351 Contee v. Pratt, 9 Md. 67._._---- 18 ‘Continental Ins. Co. v. Del Peuch, 82 Pa. 225...._...-. 826, 453 o. Horton, 28 Mich. 173... 336 Continental L. Ins. Co. ». Webb, 54 Ala, 688_.--_-.---- 248 ‘Continental Nat. Bank ». Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. Rep. 869__-..2---- 878, 880, 883 Converse v. Converse, 21 Vt. 168 1197 Conway v. Alexander, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch, 218, 3 L. ed. o. Cable, 87 Ill. 89___..... ». Vizzard, 122 Ind. 266... 1.20 Conwell v. Evill, 4 Blackf. 67... 225 Conyers 2. Ennis, 2 Mason, 236.. 957 v. State, 50 oe 108, 15 Am. Rep. 686 Cook v. Allen, 2 Mass. 462__._.. 733 ». Barr, 44 N. Y. 158__-228, 840 ». Cockril, 1 Stew. (Ala.) ». Combs, 39 N. H. 592, 75 Am. Dec. 241, note, A path ut aa --262, 310 ». Cook, 56 Wis. 195__.-._. 206 o. Finkler, 9Mich. 181... 711 ». Helms, 5 Wis. 107_.-.-- 123 ». Hunt, 24 Il. 586_--.._. 640 o. Knowles, 88 Mich. 316__ 238 v. Lamotte, 15 Beav. 234_- 1090, 1092 v. Moore, 39 Tex. 255-___-_- 965 ». New York Cent. R. Co., 5 Lans, 401__.------- 1105 ». Staats, 18 Barb. 407.... 848 ». Swan, 5 Conn. 140_---- 715, 968, 977 Cooke v. Cooke, 48 Md. 522--.-- 293 . Crawford, 1 Tex. 9_---- ». Husbands, 11 Md. 492.. 300 ». Woodrow, 9 U. S. 5 Cranch, 18, 3 L. ed. 22 146 Cookendorfer ». Preston, 45 U. S. 4 How. 817, 11 L. ed. lxxi Cookson v. Richardson, 69 Ill. 187 691 Cooley v. Warren, 53 Mo. 166... 721 0. O’Connor, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 391,21 L. ed. 446 505 Coon 2. Knapp, 8 N. Y. 402.232, 311 Coons ».Chambers, ! Abb. Pr. 165 1228 Cooper 2. eae 4 Moore, P. C. pee Beaeehi id ones 332 ». Brakeman, 33 Me. 376.. 684 ». Davison, 86 Ala. 868... 955 . Dedrick, 22 Barb. 516.. 66 v, Galbraith, 8 Wash. C. C. 8 Gibbons,3 Campb.363-161, 170 . Kane, 19 Wend. 386.-.. 277 . Langway, 76 Tex. 121-_ 1062 . Meyer, 10 Barn. & C. 468 460, 461 . Randall, 59 Il. 317____- 369 v. Robinson, 10 Mees. & W. 694 eeee e ®. State, 538 Miss. 398__._. ®. State, 59 Miss. 267_.... ». Utterbach, 37 Md. 282. Coopwood ». Bolton, 26 Miss. 212 Cooth »v. Jackson, 6 Ves. Jr. 12. Cope 2. Cope, 5 Car. & P. 604, 1 Mood. & R. 269__-... v. Dodd, 18 Pa. 33._----- Copeland v. Copeland, 28 Me. 525 »v, Yoakum, 88 Mo. 349... Copley 2». Sanford, 2 La. Ann, Copp 2. Upian, 3.N. H. 159._.. Soppernian 3 People, 56 N. Y. Corbin 9. Hill, 21 Iowa, 70_._.-- » Sistrunk, 19 Ala. 203__- Corbit ». Smith, 7 Iowa, 60, 71 Am. Dec. 481__._----...- Corbley 2. Wilson, 71 Ill. 209___- Corby v. Burns, 36 Mo. 194____. ». Butler, 55 Mo. 898___.- » Wright, 4 Mo. App. 443 ». Wright, 9 Mo. App. 5_- Corcoran 2. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co., 94U.8. 741, 745, 24 L. ed. 190, 191 w. Doll, 82 Cal. 88......_. Cordes ». Straszer, 8 Mo. App. 61 Cordrey v. Cordrey, 1 Houst. (Del.) 269... 2-22. Core v. Wilson, 40 Ind. 204____- Corey v. Janes, 15 Gray, 545___-. v eo (Va.) 14 Va. L. J. Corkhill v. Landers, 44 Barb. 218- 711, 724 Corl ov. Corl, 6 N. Y. Week. Dig. 5 Cormac 0. Western White Bronze Co., 77 Iowa, 32_----- Cormack »v. Wolcott, 37 Kan. 391 249 lxxii Corn v. Cameron, 2 West. Rep. 145, 19 Mo. App. 573.96, 97 Corn Exchange Bank v. Nassau Bank, 91.N. Y. 74..277, 906 Cornell 2. Hall, 22 Mich. 877.... 268 v. Utica, I. & E. R. Co., 61 How. Pr. 184____-.-- 1056 Cornick v. Richards, 3 Lea, 1-.. 880 Corning vw. Ashley, 4 Denio, 354. 746 o. Corning, 6 N. Y. 97.595, 606, 629, 1243 Corps v. Robinson, 2 Wash. C. C. B8BE goes see ccen 475, 1153 Corr v.Sellers,100 Pa. 170, 171- 825, 833 Corrigan *. oe 38 Mo. App. Corse v. Sanford, 14 lowa, 235-_-- Corser v. Paul, 41 N. H. 24___.- Corson v. Berson, 86 Cal. 433_--- cores eon Brundt, 2 Johns. 210 469 974 276 870 1303 762 473 352 1186 Cortez 2. gia 24 Tex. App. 511 Cortland County ». Herkimer County, 44.N. Y. 22_- Cortland Mfg. Co. 2. Platt, 83 Mich, 419_____..----- Cory 0. Bretton, 4 Car. & P. 462__ v. Silcox, 6 Ind. 39__----- Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 567___--- Costa Rica ». Erlanger, 11 Moak, Eng. Rep. 653____.--- Costello v. Crowell, 183 Mass. 352 749, 758 Costen’s App., 18 Pa. 296___.--- 1150 Cotes v. Campbell, 8 Cal. 191_... 672 ». Davis, 1 Campb. 485..-. 465 Cotheal v. Blydenburgh, 5 N. J. Bi tate ascceeetemae ». Talmadge, 1 E. D. Smith, 578, aff'd 9 N. Y. 561- Cothran ». State, 389 Miss, 541__- Cotterell 2. Jone 7 Eng. L. & 666 795 eset, : Springer, 88 Ill. 90 1282 Cottle v. Cleaves, 70 Me. 256__.. 124 ». Sydnor, 10 Mo. 768_.._ 722 Cotton v. Campbell, 3 Tex. 493.148, 150 v, Ulmer, 45 Ala. 878____. ® Wood, 29 L. J.N. S.C. Cottrell’s Will, Re, 95 N. Y. 884_ Cotulla 2. Kerr, 14 Tex. 89.____- Coughlin 2. People, 18 Ill, 266_- Coulson v. Allison, 2 DeG. F. & J. 521 1092 405 515 % Walton, 84 U. 8. 9 Pet. 62, OL. ed. 51__..222- OF Whitney, 12 Daly, 408__ Counselman, Re, 8 Inters. Com. a 826, 44 Fed. Rep. TABLE OF CASES. Countant a Schuyler, 1 Veg 6, 2 L. ed. 662 990 wGRunioe ante o. Bennett, ar ] 151, 645 Course ». Stead, 4 U. S. 4 Dall. 22,1L. ed. 724.._.-- Coursin 2. Pennsylvania Tans. Co., 46 Pa. 823. ...215, 729, 1272: Courtright ke Courtright, 53 Towa, Coutt v. Craig, 2 Hen. & M. 618- Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. 495 602, 949 Covell ». Hill, 6 N. Y. 881-__-_- 1228. Coveney v. Tannahill, 1 Hill, 33 450, 451, 650 Covenhoven ». Shuler, 2 Paige, 122, 2 L. ed. 889____-_- 1193. Covert v. Gray, 34 How. Pr. 450. 69 Covey v. Campbell, 52 Ind. 157_ 330. Covington Draw Bridge Co. a. Shepherd, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 227, 15 L. ed. Cowan 2. Beall, 1 McArth. 271. 387 ». Hite, 2 A. K. Marsh. 288 414 ©. Wheeler, 31 Me. 439... 222 Coward 2. Dillinger, 56 Md. 59_. 844 Cowart v. Williams, 34 Ga. 167.. 217 Cowden 2. ae 12 Serg. & 28) cence aera we 611 Cowell v. Colored springs Co., 3 Col. 82 2c 5 ansne kt cuee 891 Cowie v. Fisher, vr Mich. 629_.. 69 Cowin 2. Toole, 81 Iowa, 513.199, 1186 Cowles v. Bacon, 21 Conn. 451-711, 796 v, State, 50 Ala. 454______ 753 Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464. 1171 vo, Smyth, 46 N. J. L. 880. 978 Cowls v. Hastings, 9 Met. 476... 218 Cowman o. ee (Md.)10 L. R. ‘4 Saueeere tee 104 Cowper ». “Gower 2 P. Wms. Peeaedeseeooeeee 172 pupal ». Jones, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. 55,1 L. ed. 287 783. Cowton 9. Wickersham, 54 Pa. 902 a seceeeteeeec knee 460- Cox v, Bennett, 18 N. J. L. 168. 1261 ». Cox, 44 Ind. 373__...-. 1193 v. Cox, 59 Tex. 521_.____- 111 qa. James, 45 N. Y. 557, af- firming 59 Barb. 144_ 989: v. Morrow, 14 Ark. 604... 64 v. National Bank of New York, 100 U. S. 712, 25 L. ed. 741__-...2 2. 458 v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 4831... 85: v. State, 41 Tex. 1_______. 410 a. State, 8 Tex. App. 254.. 870 Coxe 2. Heisley, 19 Pa. 248_____ ---- 280, 904, 906, 910, 1818 Coxhead ». Huish, 7 Car. &P. 68 127 TABLE OF CASES, Coy, Re, 31 Fed. Rep. 794_.___- 27 Coye v. Leach, 8 Met. 371_._____ 78 Coykendall 2. ‘Eaton, 55 Barb. 193 1268 Coyle v. Com., 104 Pa, 117.___.- 327 Coyne 2. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 886.. 473 Cozine 0. Walter, 55 N. Y. 304._ 221 Cozzens v. Higgins, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 451_.-1166, 1178, 1175 Crabtree ». Kile, 21 Ill. 180__ 626, 640 Craft’s App., 42 Conn. 146_____. 456 Crafts v. Clark, 81 Iowa, 77....- 201 Craig’s App., 77 Pa. 448_._.___- 180 Craig v. Brown, Pet. C.C. 854__ 207 v. Fowler, 59 Iowa, 203... 970 v. Kittredge, 28 N. H. 231 260, 304 v. Pervis, 14 Rich. Eq. 150 111 v. Rohrer, 68 Ill. 325... __ 639 v. Sibbett, 15 Pa. 288___.- 1123 ». Smith, 100 U. S. 326, 25 Le 00, Of cecn ee nsces 685 . State, 5 Ohio St. 695... 1249 Vicksburg, 31 Miss. 216 1126 . Ward, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 454, 3 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 285, 3 Keyes, 387, aff’g 36 Barb, 877__------- secs Cragin v. Tarr, 32 Me. 55______- 954 Crake v. Crake, 18 Ind. 156__.__ 64 Cram v. Cram, 88 Vt. 15_.____ 850, 355 v. Mitchell, 1 Sandf. Ch. 251. 7 L. ed. 818______ 976 Cramer v. Cullinane, 2 McArth Sogo cman Ses eenes 586 ». Stone, 88 Wis. 259_____ 742 Crampton »v. Perkins, 65 Md. 22_. Crandall 2. Gallup, 12 Corn.365__ a, Quin, 19 Jones & S.___- Crane v. Andrews, 6 Colo. 358__ ». Bounell, 2 N. J. Eq. 264 0. DeCamp, 21 N. J. Eq. 1123 733 860 150 266 Bee oLesecesteces= 269 ® Peer 4E.D. Smith, 448__.. eee 622 v. Morris, 31 U. 8. 6 Pet. 598, 8 L. ed. 514_____ 105 v. Morse, 49 Wis. 868____- 137 v. Sayre, 6N. J. L. 133... 786 v. Thayer, 18 Vt. 168____- 1248 ». Wright, 46 Ill. 107____. 487 Crane Lumber Co. v. Otter Creek Lumber Co., 79 Mich. £0 yea Sei ea 363 Crans’s App. 8 Cent. Rep.166_.. 720 Cranston v. Smith, 6 R. I. 231___ 1258 Cranwell v. The Fanny Fosdick, 15 La. Ann. 436_-_.278, 907 Crary 0. Campbell, 24 Cal. 636-. 258 o. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41, 27 Am. Dec. 110__.__ 400, 865, 968 Crassen ». Swoveland, 22 Ind. 427 265 Craven, Hz parte, L. R.10 Eq. 648 72 Craven %. Central Fac. R. Co., 72 Crawford’s App., 61 Pa. 55_.-.- veaytord v Chapman, 17 Ohio 452 2. Elliott, 1 Houst. (Del.) v. ae 10 West. Rep. 78, 92 Mo. 498.___-.. v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282, 28 Am. Rep. 704_..._---- v. Lockwood, 9 How. Pr. 7 v Loper, 25 Barb. 449__396, 401 ». Spencer, 10 West. Rep. 78, 92 Mo. 498. ___.___ v. Stetson, 51 Ga. 121____. v Wilson, 4 Barb. 504___- Crawfordsville & S. W. Turnp. Co. v. Fletcher,1 West. Rep. 247, 104 Ind. 97_- Cray »v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 1 Blatchf. 280____- 1268, Crease v. Barrett, 1 Cromp. M. & Be OUD oes Creed v. Hartmann, 29 N. Y. 591_ ». Lancaster Bank, 1 Ohio 2. Pennsylvania R. Co., 86 Pa. 139, 27 Am. Rep. 608 ek ete 1109, Cregler v. Durham, 9 Ind. 875__- Creighton v. Hoppis, 99 Ind. 369 Crepps v. Durden, Cowp. 640, 1 Smith’s Lead Cas. 824 Crerar 2. awe & &t. P. R. 35 Wis. 67_..._- Cressey 2. ae 9 Or, 541____. Creswell v. Slack, 68 Iowa, 110__ Cribb ». Morse, 77 Wis. 822____- Criddle 2. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522___ Crim v. Handley, 94 U.S. 652, 24 L. ed. 216__..-.-.-_- Crippen v. Baumes, 15 Hun, 136. v. Dexter, 13 Gray, 330--_ v. Morse, 49 N. Y. 63..._- Criss v. Withers, 26 Md. 558____ Crissman »v. Crissman, 28 Mich. 21 e. Rear Dudley, 254__- ». Thomason, 5 Sneed, 342 Croft v. Lumley, 6 H. L. Cas. 672 v. State, 6 Humph. 317__- ». White, 36 Miss. 455___. Cromack v. Heathcote, 4 Moore, 357, 2 Brod. & B. 4. Ixxiii 520 989 177 1272 410 1119 290: 1112 234 425 199 256 989 646. 871 711 739 851 1095. 796. 851 647 ixxiv ‘Cromelien v. Brink, 29 Pa. 522__ ‘Crompton ». Pratt, 105 Mass. 255 Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. 8. 351, 24 L. ed. 195, 681 1122, ‘Crook 2. Jadis, 5 Barn. & Ad. 909 ». Walters, 4 Iowa, 72.__. Croome 2. ee 2 Myl. & K. 59 70 1123 457 187 Seca tee ain ices 256 ‘Cropsey 2. eo 8 Neb. 157_. 128 Crosbie v. Leary, 6 Bosw. 3138-_. 462 Crosby v. Berger, 11 Paige, 377, 5 L. ed. 168__-.--- 647, 648 », Chase, 17 Me. 869_____- 289 v Stephen, 97 N. Y. 606_. 732 v. Taylor, 15 Gray, 64.... 289 ». Wendell, 6 Paige, 548, 3 L. ed. 1096___._....- 1193 Crose v. Rutledge, 81 Ill. 267... 1248 Crosier v. Craig, 47 Hun, 83.... 860 Cross v. Bartholomew, 42 Vt. 206 755 v. Cross, 3 Paige, 189, 3L. ed. 89___...-_.-. 2-2 $2 ». Everts, 28 Tex. 523... 1258 ». Langley, 50 Ala. 8_...- 445 ». Peters, 1 Me. 376, 10 Am. Dec, 78__......- 958 », State Bank, 5 Ark. 525. 857 Crossfield v. Such, 8 Exch. 825, 22 L. J. Exch, 325__..- - 1268 Croswell v. Labree, 81 Me. 44, 10 Am, St. Rep. 288... 148 ‘Crouch v. Hall, 15 Ill. 263.____- 64 v. London& N. W. R. Co., 14 C. B. 291_.___.-.. 1117 Crough v. Eveleth, 15 Mass. 305. 78 Crounse 2. Fitch, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 475.__..._..._.. 13809 Crow v. Marshall, 15 Mo. 499__. ° 88 ». Ruby, 5 Mo. 484____. 714, 976 Crowe 2. Baleed, 1 Ves. Jr. 215. 965 Crozier v. Kirker, 4 Tex. 252, 51 Am. Dec, 724_._-_..2- Cruise. Christopher, 5 Dana, 181 1089 Crump v, Com., 84 Va. 927, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895... - 771 Crutchfield ». Dacihiy. 16 Gu. 432 964 Cubbedge v. Napier, 62 Ala. 518. 64 Cubbison ae Creary, 2 Watts & estat ae acral aha 549 Cucullu ». eae 103 U.S. 105, 26 L. ed. 822..__. 504 Cudy 2. Brown, 78 Ill. 415... 2. 415 Cuff ». Penn, 1 Maule & S, 21.__ 1261 Culhane v, New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 60 N.Y. 183.120, 121 Culver v. Haslam, 7 Barb, 814... 3855 ». Marks, 71. R. A. 489, 122 Ind. 654_.....___. 528 TABLE OF CASES. Cumberland Bank ». Hall, 6 N. J.L. 2 pesecusueeues 858 Cumberland Telepb. & Teleg. Co. v. United Electric R. Co. (Tenn.) 12 L. R. A. 544_.-.---- 2. 1207 Cummings v. Arnold, 3 Met. 486_ 1261 v. Cummings, 123 Mass. 270 216 ». Freer, 26 Mich. 128.... 301 ». Holt, 56 Vt. 384__..-_.. 1376 v. McCullogh, 5 Ala. 324. 714 v. Nichols, 13 N. H. 420.. 826 2. Parks, 2 Ind. 148.__._- 1095 v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 246 123, 1126, 1142 ». Vorce, 3 Hill, 282_.____ 1232 Cummins v. Hull, 35 Iowa, 253.. 828 ». Hurlbutt, 92 Pa.165_... 977 . Wire, 6 N. J. Eq. 73-_. 1306 Cumpston v. McNair, 1 Wend. BOT cio iae Saas ae 1229 Cunningham ». Fonblanque, 6 Car. & P. 44_.____ 12. 902 ». Hall, 4 Allen, 268_..__- 1315 Cunninghams 2. Cunninghams, 2 Dow. 482._._........ 415 Cureton v. Westfield, 24 8. C.457 920 Curran 2. Arkansas, 56 U.S. 15 a 304, 14 L. ed. at oak Spee eels 899 % Gee C. & Mfg. Co., : SOON. Meo 168 gece 1108 Curren v. Crawford, 4 Serg. & siD beh See cede eaters 827 Currie ». Hart, 2 Sandf. Ch. 358, D700; 628 sscaeaas.ee 950 Currier v. Gale, 14 Gray, 504.... 455 Curson 2, Belworthy, tl’ Jur. 916 972 Curtin v. Nittany Valley R. Co., 135 Pa. 20. -.----c2 363 Curtis v. Fay, 87 Barb. 64___.-.. 629 %. Home Ins. Co., 1 Biss. ABS sees scons acsas 1272 o. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9..__. 73 . Moore, 20 Md. 98____-- 292 ». Rochester & S. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 5384__87, 119, 1098 Cushing v. Hacket, 10 Mass. 164 738 2. Laird, 6 Ben. 408_...982, 984 Cushman 2. Loker, 2 Mass. 108.. 555 v. Thayer Mtg. Co., 76 N. Y. 365, 7 Daly, "380, 32 Am. Rep. O10 weeds 8i7 Custace ». Cunningham, 13 Beav. 968 eet Semen 1092 Cuthbert v. Appleton, 24 Wis. 383 187 Cutler ». Newlin, cited in3 Stark. By 1887. socccec canes 470 ». New York, 92 N. Y. 166 232 Cutter a. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178_ 17 %. Pool, 3 Abb. N.C, 120. 241, 249 ». State, 86 N. J. L. 125 -- 92 TABLE OF CASES. Cutting ». ae 9 Abb. Pr. N. BBG se eat 462 Cutts v, York Mfg. Co., 18 Me. TOO ee sce cicicys koe tea 1290 Cuyler v. Ferrill,1 Abb. U.S. 169 29 2. McCartney, 40 N. Y. 221, 83 Barb. 165...._____ 473, 865, 961, 962, 968 D. Dack o. Dack, 19 Hun, 680; mod- ified, 84 N. Y. 663..__ Da Costa ». Jones, Cowp. 729... Dade v. Madison, 5 Leigh, 401.-. Daggett v. J Johnson, 49 Vt. 345, 348 1206 511 226 v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223_.._- 408,466 2. Tallman, 8 Conn. 169.. 621 Dailey v. Coons, 64 Ind. 545._._ 485 Daily v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 82 Conn. 356.... 412 Dainese v. Allen, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S: S68. cc. Sees es 1009 Dair v. Und See 83 U. 8. 16 Wall. 1, 21 L. ed. 491_ 307 Dale ». Gear, 38 Conn. 15, 39 Conn. 89....271, 1139, 1140 ». Roosevelt, 5 Johns. Ch. 175, 1 L. ed. 1048__.. 301 v. Rosevelt, 1 Paige, 35, 2 L.. 60.962 225 ccceuc= 216 o. See, 5 L. R. A. 588, 51 N. J. L. 878 _... 2 922 Dallas County o. McKenzie, 110 U. 8. 686, 28 L. ed. 285 = 68 Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg. Consist. 54, 64___. _. 65, 999 e. a Pa 32 N. J. Eq. 0. Maguire, 6 Blatchf. 137_ 1155, 1166, 1168 Dambmann v. White, 48 Cal. 439 687 Damon v. Granby, 2 Pick. 345. 1290 Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 483, 15 Am, Dec. 39..-_- 1194, 1217 Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y. 40.... 1308 ». Kemble, 19 Pick. 112... 1009 2. National Bank of the Re- public, 182 Mass. 156. 719 Dane 2. Kirkwall, 8 Car. & P. 679 1084 Dangerfield ». sClaiborne, 2 Hen. iM Ase Strays Daniel ». Ballard. 5 Dana, 296.226, 227 2 Bellamy, 91.N.C. 78... 18 Daniel ». Day, 51 Ala. 431__.__. v. Lefecre, 19 Ark. 201___- %. Mitchell, 1 Story, 172. 280, 1177, 1178 Daniels v. Conrad, 4 Leigh, 401, 405, 406_._......----- v. Hamilton, 52 Ala, 105_.69, 86 v. Woonsocket, 11 R. I. 4. 485 Danville & W. L. Pl. Road Co. 2. State, 16 Ind. 456 Darbee v. Elwood, 2 Hun, 599, 67 23 0. 7 23 U. 8. 10 Wheat. 456, 6 L. ed. D’Arcy v. Ketchum, 52 U. §, 11 How. 165, 138 L. ed. 648___.--- 2038, 205, 207, 209 Darley v. Singleton, Wightw. 25 965, 967 Darling ». ee rOneenG, 52 N. AON oe ee eek arlinpee I Iron Co. 0. Foote, 16 Fed. Rep. 646_-_.-_-. 1013 Darnaby v. Darnaby, 14 Bush, 485 Darnell v. Williams, 2 Stark. 145 459 Dart ». Barbour, 32 "Mich. 267__- 301 Darwin 2. Keigher, 45 Minn. 64. 543 Dasher »v, Dasher, 47 Ga. 820_... 228 Daughtery v. American U. Teleg. Co., 75 Ala. 168.._... 1022 Davant v. Carlton, 57 Ga. 489 _.. 221 Davenport 2. Cummings, 15 Iowa, UD aise ceeiiminaies 4, 753, 292 ». Mason, 15 Mass, 85____- 82 v. Ruckman, 10 Bosw. 20, 37 N. Y. 568......... 1121 Russell, 5 Day, 145____- 1242 ss Sleight, 2 Dev. & B. L. 881, 81 Am. Dec. 420. 1151 », Wright, 51 Pa. 392___.- 231 Davenport Woolen Mills Co. 2. Nienstedt (Iowa) 46 N. W. Rep. 1085_-.._._. 1014 David v. Shepard, 40 Ala. 587__. 711 Davidson v. Greer, 3 Sneed, 384. 302 ». Hutchins, 1 Hilt. 123___ 475, 1154, 1158 v. Lanier, 71 U. 8. 4 Wall. 447, 18 L. ed. 377_856, 1127 v. Nicholson, 59 Ind. 411_ 111 ». Peticolas, 84 Tex. 27... 18 v. Silliman, 24 La. Ann. », State, 39 Tex. 129______ Davie v. Briggs, ue S. 628, 24 L. ed. 1086_......._. 16, 77 v MeDeniel, 47Ga.195--. 216 ». Wisher, 72 Il. 262_____ 1061 Davies 2. Austen, 1 Ves. Jr. 247_ 886 Ixxvi Davies v. Waters, 9 dees & W. GOS 2s cite Lie Davis v. 232 v Bagley, 40 Ga. 181- ---90, 725 ». Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. 69 ee Sada ua eee v. Barrett, 14 Beav. 542_._ 289 ®. Barrington, 80 N. H. 517 1135 2. Bartlett, 12 Ohio St. 534, 80 Am. Dec. 375.___. 122-124, 1126, 1127 %. Bedsole, 69 Ala. 362.736, 737 v. Bowling, 19 Mo. 651_.. 64 2. Brown, 94 U. 8. 428, 24 . Led. 204... .._. 740, 1188 ». California Power Works, 84 Cal. 617___._---_. 98 ». Calvert, 5 Gill & J. 269. 499 v, Campbell, 12 Ind. 192__ 228 ». Carlisle, 6 Ala. 707____- 851 v, Cayuga & 8S. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 380_._.___- 1106 v. Coleman, 7 Ired. L. 424 858 v. Davis, 61 Me. 895______ 199 o. Dinwoody, 4 T. R. 678. 987 v. Field, 56 Vt. 426_..758, 1270 ». Fox, 59 Mo. 125._____- 964 v. Freeland, 32 Miss. 645.. 915 v. Gallagher, 55 Hun, 593- 104, 542, 548 ». Garr, 6 N. Y. 124_____. 66 v Gowen, 19 Me. 449____. 1140 v Guilford, 5 New Eng. Rep. 318, 55 Conn, 851 670 ». Hare, 82 Ark. 386____. 152 v. Headley, 22 N. J. Eq. 11D eee ees emcees 217 Henderson, 20 Wis. 520 447 Houston, 2) Yeates, 289. 84 . Hudson, 29 Minn. 28_59, 1189 . Keyes, 113 Mass, 436... 633 . Knapp, 8 Mo. 657_..981, 984 . Liberty & C. G. Road Co., 84 Ind. 308_____. . Luster, 64 Mo, 48____.- eseseses ss ®. eee 64 N.C. 570_- 274, 1189 v. Murphy, 2 Rich. L. 560 733 v. Roby, 64 Me. 427..__.. 590 ». Shields, 26 Wend. 341__ 1264 v. State, 87 Tex. 227_____- 420 v. Stern, 15 La. Ann. 177_ 960 », Stout, 126 Ind, 12___.__ 821 v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 621... 268 v. Tarver, 65 Ala, 98____. 835 v. Tarwater, 15 Ark. 286_.. 9638 ». Thomas, 1 Russ, & M. 006 sc crazcuiateies 2h 268 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 5 Weat. Rep. 445, 89 Mo. 340_.....--..- 1104 TABLE OF CASES. Davis v. Wood, 14 U. 8. 1 Wheat. 6,4 L. ed. 22_-.------ 417 Davis’ Estate, Re (Mont.) 25 Pac. Rep: 105222-s2.2225=< 103 Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. Bes, 7 Cent. Rep. 68, 105 N. Wess D9 acetates 148 Davison 2. ree 16 How. Pr. Seniesa 187, 820, 830 ieee Gaull, 5 Rich. L. 151 982, 984 Dawley ». Brown, 79 N. Y. 391. 739 %. State, 4 Ind. 128---___- 555 Dawson ». Coffman, 28 Ind. 220. 177 Day v. Cooley, 118 Mass. 524_._. 969 ». Day, 84 N.C. 408___-- 300 ». Elmore, 4 Wis. 190__.. 1264 ». Raguet, 14 Minn. 273.. 307 .. Roberts, 8 Vt. 413___.. 218 v. Roth, 18 N. Y. 448.... 0 926 ». State, 18 Mo. 422______ 19 ». Thompson, 65 Ala. 269_ 1138 Dayton v. Mintzer, 22 Minn. 393 216. ». Trull, 28 Wend. 345... 71 o. Williams, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 81._........ 1258: Dean v. Aina L. Ins, Co., 62 .N. Ne Ol eeces seeasesicc 446. v. Borchsenius, 30 Wis, 286 808 v. Davis, 51 Cal. 406_..._ 891 ». Dean, 6 Conn. 285_.___ 292 v. Doe, 8 Ind. 475_______. 07 v. Leonard, 9 Minn. 190._ 187 v. Martin, 24 La. Ann. 103 711 v, Mason, 4 Conn, 4382_.._ 1816 Deakers 0. Temple, 41 Pa. 234.715, 950 Dearle v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1__...._. 880 Deaver v. Rice, 2 Ired. L. 280... 174 DeBaril v. Campoy y Pardo (Pa.) 7 Cent. Rep. 642____. 149, 172,173 DeBeil ». Thompson, 3 Beav. 469 1263 De Benedetti ». Mauchin, 1 Hilt. 21S ev sccsnmcccace 1102, 1105 DeBerkom v. Smith, 1 Esp. 29_. 475, 1153. De Oe 88 0. een 4 Ad. & 16 v. Scofield, 75 Mich. 449_- DeCelis v. United States, 18 Ct. Cl. 117 Decker v. Decker, 10 West. Rep. 848, 121 Ill. 841_____- v. Leonard, 6 Lans. 264_- » Livingsion, 15 Johns. Oe ieee eee 70, 233 % Maneee 12 N. Y. 318. 1101, 1228 De ee eponaeeh 2P. Wms. 9 Deere v. ae 80 Iowa, 197... 1021 TABLE OF CASES. Deering v. Creighton, 19 Or. 118 1131 . Metcaif, 74 N. Y. 501_. 794 Deery v. Cray, 72 U. 8S. 5 Wall. 417. 760, 996 v. Cray, 77 U.S. 10 Wall. 276 Deford v. Mercer, 24 Iowa, 118- DeForest v. Parsons, 2 Hall, 130 220 arate an Apa is 1811 DeGive v. Healey, 60 Ga. 391__- 671, 678, 1186 Deig v. Morehead, 9 West. Rep. 358 Deininger ». McConnel, 41 Il]. 228 1290 Dejol ». Johnson, 12 La. Ann. 853 Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9, 1 Redf. 1380, 42 Barb. OE sc es orca tna ara ae as 355, 1198, 1204, 1212, 1218 25 La. 80 795, 18 L. ed. 653____ 268, 19 L. ed. 887___- 800 DeFreeze v. Trumper, 1 Johns. 90 DeGraw »v. Elmore, 50 N. Y. 1__ 204, 110 Ind. 451_____ DeKay o. Darrah, 14 N. J. L. 294 1271 274, 16 Abb. Pr. 397, De La Grange v. Southwestein 122 DeLane v. Moore, 55 U. 8. 14 How. 253, 14 L. ed. 409__146, 147, 158, 159, 175 Delano». Jopling, 1 Litt, 119, 417 42 Delaplaine v. Cook, 7 Wis. 54.806, 807 ». Turnley, 44 Wis. 81_... 670 Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 15 Gratt. WOT cata BSc oe Delaware Ins. Co. v. Hugan, 2 Wash. C. C. 5____-_- 261 Delaware, L. & W. R Co. Napheys, 90 Pa. 135. 1099 Del Escobal’s Succession, 9 L. R. A. 829, 42 La. Ann. 1086s eae es DeLoach v. Smith, 83 Ga. 665__- Demarest v, Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. 129, 1 L. ed. 566, 8 Am. Dec. 467_--..--- Demelt v. Leonard, 19 How. Pr. 33 Den ». Farlee, 12 N. J. L. 874_- . Gibbons, 22 N. J. L. 117 . Johnson, 5 N. J. L. 454 . Mitton, 12 N. J. L. 81-_- . Vancleve, 4 Wash. C. C. eeee ®. Wharton, 1 Yerg. 125-- ». Wright, 7N. J. L, 212- Denham »v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182 Denike v. Rourke, 3 Biss. 39-_--- Denison v. Hyde, 6 Conn. 508_-- 1289 733 354 6} DeRacouilla 2. Rene, 82 Cal. 455 Ixxvii Denison v. Wertz, 6 Serg. & R. 375 1006 Denmead v. Maack, 2 McAith. 475 Dennett ». Crocker, 8 Me. 239-.- ®. Dow, 17 Me. 19___.---- Dennie v. Smith, 129 Mass. 143. Dennis ». Chapman, 19 Ala. 29, 54 Am. Dec, 186_..-- Dennison ». Page, 29 Pa. 420--_82, Denniston v. Bacon, 10 Johns. 198 274, 1189 Denny »v. Reynolds, 24 Ind. 248 734 Dent v. Bennett, 4 My]. & C. 262 1091, 1092 Denton v. Peters, L. R. 5 Q. B. OND: ccecmniies Soe memes Denver & R G. R. Co. v. Neis, 10 Colo. 56_--------- Denver 8S. P. & P. R. Co. Woodward, 4 Colo. L 1099 DePeyster 2. Hasbrouck, 11 N. Wi O88 sade 262, 297, 303 Deputron B Young, 134 U. 38. 241, 88 L. ed. 923 - 139 Dequasie ». Harris, 16 W. Va. 1279 1187 3836 cker, 8 Me. 239__- 159 622 721 Derby ». Gallup, 5 Minn. 119--- De Reimer v. De Cantillon, 4 Johns. Ch. 85, 1 L. Derham ». Lee, 15 Jones &8. 188, 60 How. Pr. 338__---- De Ridder » McKnight, Johns, 294_._...---.-- Derrick v. Lamar Ins. Co., 74 11. 303 893 1228 1272 282 et octave tthe ek we eee Derrickson ». Morris, 2 Harr. (Del). 392....--..---- De Rutte v. New York, A. & B. E. M. Teleg. Co., 1 Daly; 547; scesiscencice Desha v. Holland, 12 Ala. 513- Deshon ». Merchants Ins. Co., 11 1032 910 282 19 1282 420 994 1] De Treville v. eae 98 U.S. 517, 25 L. ed. 174___- Detroit & M. R. Co. »v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99 Detroit Second Nat. Bank ». Williams, 18 Mich. 291 Devanbagh ». Devanbagh, 6 Paige, 554, 3 L. S26e esses 1067, ». Devanbagh, 6 Paige, 175, 8 L. ed. 945..-_--__- sii cuar vo. McLeroy, 82 Ga. 87 1113 1074 925 1268 857 Devereux . Barclay, 2 Barn. & Ald. (01 -ccceccs cai Devin v. Himer, 29 Iowa, 299 __- Ixxviii Devine v. McCulloch, 15 Tex. 488 pea Devlin v. Clark, 31 Mo. 2 ». Wabash, St. L. & P.R. Co., 4 West. Rep. 54, 87 Mo. 545 -____-. 390, 1119 Devoe v. Brandt, 538 N. Y. 466_. 959 Devol v. Dye, 7LRB A, 439, 123 Ind. 321..____-..-_... 659 Devoll ». Brownell, 5 Pick. 448 652, 988 Devries ». Buchazan, 10 Md. 210 981, 984 Dew ». Clark, 3 Adams, Eccl. 79, 2 Eng. Eccl. Rep. 441 1086 Dewees v. Colorado Co., 32 Tex. ' 2 Dewey v. Leonard, 4 Minn. 153 1118 ». Mover, 72 N. Y.70-... 969 DeWitt »o. ao 13 Barb. 550, 9 Ns Mr ths cee oe 355 v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340_.350, 855 o. Berry, 134 U. 8. 306, 33 L. ed. 896__---_-.. 316, 321 », Walton, 9N. Y. 571__. 270 De Wolf v. Johnson, 23 U. 8. 10 Wheat. 367, 393, 6 L. ed. 348, 849_____.___- 1806 ». Strader, 26 Lil. 225._-_._ 644 Dexter v. Arnold, 3 Sumn. 152_. 826 ». Booth, 2 Allen, 559 _... 226 ». Hall, 82 U. 8. 15 Wall. 9, 21 L. ed. 78,__..--- 350 ». Ohlander, 89 Ala. 262.. 320 Deyo v. New York Cent. R. Co., DLN. Nia once cases 1098 Dezel] v, Odell, 8 Hill, 215._..707, 713 Diamond ». Lawrence County, 37 Pa. 353___.1058, 1055, Diamond Match Co. v. Powers, 51 ne 145, 8 Am. & g. Corp. Cas. 144__ Dias ». iver e6 How. Pr. 822. Dibble ». Brown, 12 Ga. 217, 56 Am. Dec. 460_...___- Dibblee v. Furniss, 4 Blatchf. 262 927, 928 Dibdin v. Morris, 2 Car. & P. 44 232 Dick v. Leverich, 11 La, 573_- 460 Dicken ». Johnson, 7 Ga. 484_ “349, 850 Dickens ». Beal, 35 U. 8. 10 Pet. 582, 9L. ed. 542... Dickenson, Re, 38 Harr. 517 1059 249 1011 v. Breeden, 80 Ill, 279... 26 v. Dickenson, 2 Murph. 279 291 Dickerson v. Acosta, 15 Fla. 614. 1281 v. Colgrove, 100 U. 8. 578, 25 L. ed. 618_.717, 718, 722 v. Johnson, 24 Ark. 251_. 795 v. Nabb, Sneed, 320, 2 Pi ajaicraieiiahtarejars 1102 TABLE OF CASES, Dickey . Malechi, 6 Mo. 177, 34 Am. Dec. 180.-.----- 1218 ‘| Dickie o. Austin, 65 How. Pr. AQ. fan caso Siete -241, 249 v. Carter, 42 Ill. 376_-1211, 1212 Dickinson v. Barber, 9 Mass. 225 349. o. Breeden, 25 Ill. 186... 174 v. Breeden, 30 111. 279--.. 82: ». Central‘ Nat. Bank, 129 Mass, 279 __-_-_..- 881, 882. v. Chesapeake & O. R.Co., 7 W. Va. 390_...__-- 179 v. Dickinson, 61 Pa. 401_. 355 v. Gay, 7 Allen, RO ok Sin 1818. ». Hayes, 31Conn. 417__.. 216 0. McKamy, 5 Ga. 486_.._ 1268 ® FES ens, 75 N. Y. ee ieee rs Ronee 904, 966. v eae 13 Allen, 211 1121 Dickson v. Harris, 60 Iowa, 727. 256 Dictator, The, 30 Fed. Rep. 687_ 188. Diefendorf ». Oliver, 8 Kan. 365 949 Diercks v. Roberts, 18 8. C. 888_ 1125. Dierstein ». Schubkagel, 6 L. R. A. 481, 181 Pa. 46._.- Dietrich v. Baltimore & H. 8. R. Co., 58 Md. 347_..._- ». Mitchell, 43 Ill. 40.__.. Dietz v. Langfitt, 63 Pa. 234 Dikeman ». Norris, 36 Cal. 94.__ Dill v. Shahan, 25 Ala. 694__.__. ». South Carolina R. Co., 7 Rich. L. 158, 62 Am. Dillard 2. State, 58 Miss. 868___- Dille ». Lowell, 37 Ohio St. 415-__ Dilleber ». Home L. Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 258 649- 761 647 1061 665 90- 1107 333 136. Yew Diller 2. Tabata, 13 Serge. & R. 60, 15 Am. Dec. 578 219, 221 Dillin 7. People, 8 Mich. 857_... 517 Dillingham 2. Roberts, 77 Me. 284 111 Dillon ». Dillon, 3 Curtiss, 86... 611 Dilts o. Stevenson, 17 N.S. Eq. AO eatereint cn en hoe 993 Dimick v. Downs, 82 Ill. 570... 626 Dimmitt », Robbins, 74 Tex. 441 625 Dishazer 0. Maitland, ,12 Leigh, 524 404 Dishon 2, Schorr, 19 Nl. 59 825 Dismukes 2. Tolson, 67 Ala. 386 835. District of Columbia ». Armes, 107 U. 8. 519, 27 L. Diven 2. Johnson, 8 OL. R.A, 3808, n7 Ind. 512_.... Division of Howard County, Re, 15 Kan. 194... 2. 2. 42 Dixon 2. ae 7 El. & Bi. Ee doe ae eciercea 1182 a Niccoils; 89 Ill, 872_... 20: TABLE OF OASES. Doane 2. Garrettson, 24 Iowa, 351 336 o. Glen, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 88, 22 L. ed. 476 -..-.-- 2. 691 Dobbin ». Perry, 1 Rich. L. 32.. 2381 Dobbins o. Brown, 119 N. Y. 188 98 Dobbs 2. Kellogg, 53 Wis. 448 _. 914 Dobson 2. Pearce, 12 N.Y. 156. 199, 209 Dodd v. Denny, 6 Or. 156_____ 670, 674 vo. Farlow, 11 Allen,426_906, 1318 Dodge v. Coffin, 15 Kan. 277__._42, 59 v, Farnsworth, 19 Me. 278 221 o. Freedman’s Sav. & T. Co., 93 U. 8. 379, 23 L. ed. 920_..._.-.--.. 455 v. Hopkins, 14 Wis. 631_. 238 ». Kiene, 28 Neb. 216_.__. 319 Doe v, Aiken, 31 Fed. Rep. 8938_. 172 a e. Andrews, Cowp. 845.648, 650 Andrews, 15 Q. B. 759. _ 1222, 1223 Arkwright, 5 Car. & P. 575 v. 1011 . Beeson, 2 Houst. 263... 1087 Beynon, 4 Perry & D. DO Bie tere’ alarade where ares 403 . Birch, 1 Mees. & W. 402 281 Bird, "7 Car. & P. 6..__. 462 Burdett, 4 Ad. & El. 1. 402, 403 7 . Campbell, 10 Johns. 475 402 Carr, Car. & M. 123_____ 648 . Cockell, 6 Car. & P. 525 171 . Davies, 10 Q. B. 314.... 414 Davis, 11 Jur. 182__._.. 1199 Deakin, 8 Car. & P. 402 408 . Dignowitty, 18 Miss. 57 954 Doe, 87 N. Y. 268___-_- 300 Errington, 8 Scott, 210. 722 Eslava, 11 Ala. 1028__.. 37 Flanagan, 1 Ga. 538_.-.76, 77 . Fleming, 4 Bing. 266, 12 Moore, 500__--------- 998 . Griffin, 15 East, 2938.... 415 . Harris, 5 Car. & P. 592. 182 . Hodgson, 4 Perry & D. us. 12'Ad. & El. 135, 2 Moore & Rob. 283, 4 sesesessssssas sss ees 170 709 222 1223 s . Jesson, 6 East, 80_-.--- . Johnson, 18N. J. L. 87 961 . Langdon,12 Q. B. 711. 182 Meux, 4 Barn. & C. 606 281 . Minge, 56 Ala. 121.__-- 1281 . M’Quilkin, 8 Blackf. 835 1276 . Nepean, 5 Barn. & Ad. 86, 2 Mees. & W. 894. 77 332, 340 : Newton, 5 Ad. & El. 514 . Oldham, 8 Barn. & C. 25 . 408 gseseessss 3 lxxix Doe v. Oliver, 2 Smith. L. Cas. (7th Am. ed) 734 ... 719 Owen, 8 Car.& P.751.. 403 Passingham, 2 Car. & P. d4A0> auc cele 404, 407 . Pembroke, 11 East, 504 415. . Phelps, 9 Johns. 169.... 402 . Randall, 2 Moore & P. BO AsenniesaselAaaeaes 415, 416. vanes ee 217, 33 Am, D 349, 856, 555, 618, 620 . Richards, 2 Car.& K. 216 465 . Roe, 1 Mees. & W. 207. 651 . Roe, 2 Barb. 200__.1205, 1207 Ross, 7 Mees. & W. 102 107. oe 155, 182, 1009, 1011 ®. Rowlands, 9 Car. & P. ® ®. ssa sess Bug erTers 5 Ad. & El. TOS iia icone eee 382, 343. : auton, 3 Barn. & Ad. 868 o. Webber, 1 Ad. & El. 733 473 Doherty 2. Enterprise Min. Co., DO Cal ABT ae aco re aie 786- Dole v. Burleigh, 1 Dak. 227.... 187 ». Gold, 5 Barb. 490______ 1229 ». Johnson, 50 N. H. 452_- 827, 351, 354 ». Wilson, 16 Minn. 625... 31 Domestic & Foreign Missionary eee s App., 30 Pa. Domestic S ck Co. o. Ander- son, 28 Minn. 57_.__.- Donahue v. Coleman, 49 Conn. 464 ». McNulty, 24 Cal. 416__- ». Mills, 41 Ark. 421_.___- Donaldson 2. Mississippi & M. R. Co., 18 Iowa, 280__.._ Donckt v. Thellusson, 8 C. B. 812 Donegan 0. Wood, 49 Ala. 242__ Doniphan 2. Street, 17 Iowa, 317 674 Donkle v. Kohn, 44 Ga. 266__._. 550- Donley v. Hall, 5 Bush, 549-475, 1154 ®. Tindall, 82 Tex. 438, 5 147 68. 258. 428 351 65 178. Am. Rep. 234...._- 264, 296- Donnell v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 umn; $77.....<-.- 905, 909. Donnelly’s Case, 2 East P. C. 715 766 Donohue 2. People, 56 N. Y. 208 530: Donworth v. Coolbaugh, 5 Iowa, 300 aateeciaseemesaese, 212 Doods v. Marx, 63 Miss. 443..__- 1287 Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Gray #494 __.__._-- 888, 891 v. Dooley, 14 Ark. 122... 216 ». Wolcott, 4 Allen, 406... 218 Doolittle o. Ferry, 20 Kan. 230-. 271 lxxx Doon ». Ravey, 49 Vt. 2938------ Dora Mathews, The, 31 Fed. Rep. 620 oe asters Doran v. Mullen, 78 Ill. 342__--- 583, 607, 1216 Dorlarque ». Cress, 71 Il. 380... 716 Dorlon 2. Douglass, 6 Barb. 451. 444 Dorman 2. State, 56 Ind. 454__ der Dorn 2. Parsons, 56 Mo. 601__.. 122 Dorr v. Dudderar, 88 Ill. 107._.. 1289 v. Fisher, 1 Cush. 272.... 110 v. Stockdale, 19 Iowa, 269. 216 Dorsey 2. le 5 J. J. Marsh. 3 ». Kendall, 8 Bush, 294... 199 v. Warfield, 7 Md. 65_..348, 355 Doss v. Peterson, 82 Ala. 253---. 317 Doster v. Brown, 25 Ga. 24___.-- 826 Doty v. Brown, 4.N. Y. 71-_---- 137 ». Turner, 8 Johns. 20____ 222 ». Wilson, 47 N. Y. 580_.. 994 Doud v. Hall, 8 Allen, 410-_-.-- 559 Dougal 2. Cowles, 5 Day, 511_--. 70 Dougherty 2. People, 14 West. Rep. 359, 124 Ill. 557. 22 v. Scudder, 17N. J. Eq. 248 1123 Douglass ». Branch Bank at Mo- bile, 19 Ala. 659_-_- ». Dakin, 46 Cal. 49_____- 89 v. Howland, 24 Wend. 35. 1264 ». Merceles, 25 N. J. Eq. WA in teh eee aise 877 ». Mitchell, 35 Pa. 446.-__ 58 ». Sanderson, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. 116, 1 L. ed. 312, 1 Yeates, 15._.--_--- 414, 417 Douglass County Comrs. v. Bolles, 94 U.S. 104, 24 L.ed. 46 Dounce v. Dow, 64 N. Y. 411_--- Douthitt ». Stinson, 68 Mo. 268_.. 29 ‘Dove ». State, 3 Heisk. 3848.__--- 849 Dow v. Chamberlin, 5 McLean, QB rice nine wees 265 ». Humbert, 91 U.S. 294, 23 L. ed. 868..-.-..-. 504 ®. Merrill, 65 N. H. 107... 920 ® Planter, 16.N. Y. 567... 1228 ». Sanborn, 8 Allen, 181 .. 958 Dowd v. Watson, 105 N. C.476_. 102 Dower v. Seeds, 28 W. Va. 118. 1215 Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 18__-_ 1119 Downer 2. Chesebrough, 36 Conn. DO se tatel Sees 274, 1188, 1189 », Shaw, 22 N. H. Q77.... 211 Downey 2. Hicks, 55 U. 8. 14 ae 240, 14 L. ed. “eecineeeseenteuce 1182 Downing « Miioavat, 86 Kan. Sebi cemueeeaks 36 Dows 2. Sie. 10 Barb. 218.... 886 Doyle v. Boston & A. R. Co., 5 New Eng. Rep. 454, 145 Mass, 386_.___._- 801 TABLE OF CASES. Doyle v. Bradford, 9011.416.--. 24 ». Mizner, 42 Mich. 332... 726 v. Reilly, 18 Iowa, 108.-.. 734 Dozier v. Joyce, 8 Port. (Ala.) 8038 16, 633 Drake ». Buck, 35 Iowa, 472.-.. 984 Drake, 8H. L. Cas. 178 276 Duvenick, 45 Cal. 455_. 199 Flewellen, 38 Ala. 106_. 23 Henly, Walk. (Miss.) 541 1143 eee 7 Harr. & J. esses s Lae} ES om & Pe 4 © a zo = eo ae 45 Conn, 96.._. v. State, 45 Ga. 413.-.___- Draper v. Draper, 68 Ill. 17__536, 538. 589 . Hatfield, 124 Mass. 58__ 485 v. Saxton, 118 Mass. 428__ 1308 v. Snow, 20 N, Y. 331. _238, 239 Drayton v. Dale, 2 Barn. & 0. 293 460 ». Wells, 1 Nott. & McC. 409, 9 Am. Dec. 718-400, 401 Dredge »v. Forsyth, 67 U. 8. 2 Black, 563, 17 L. ed. 120 1102 Dresser v. Van Pelt, 1 Hilt. 316. Dressler ». Davis, 7 Wis. 527____ Drew v. Gaylord Coal Co. (Pa.) 3 Cent. Rep. 389__.---- v. Towle, 30 N. H.481___- ». Wood, 26 N. H. 363__.. Driggs v. Garretson, 25 N. J. Eq. 178 1120 1005 614 838 746 213 411 1238 899 410 643 1810 ». Smith, 4 Jones & 8. 283 Driscoll v. Damp, 18 Wis. 106_._ ». People, 47 Mich. 413_-_ Drummond v. Hopper, 4 Harr. (Del.) 827._-.---.--.- Drury v. Cross, 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 299,19 L. ed. 40_...- ». Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. Du Barre 2, Livette. Peake, 77__- DuBois 2. Bigler, 95 Pa. 203_-.-. ». Delaware & H. Canal Co., 6 Wend. 285__._. ». Mason, 127 Mass, 87___- ». Ray, 33 How. Pr. 303, 7 Bosw. 288__..--...-- v. Ray, 85 N. Y. 162____.- 1192, 1193, Dubois City Nat. Bank ». Wil- liamsport Nat. Bank, eee Rep. 194, 114 Duchess of Kingston’s Case, 1 East, P. C. 468, 11 How. St. Tr. 198, 2 Smith, Lead. Cas. 573 729, 786 Duckham 2. Wallis, 5 Esp. 252.. 472 270 64 1198 1194 752 TABLE OF CASES. Duckworth v. Duckworth, 35 Ala. 70 Ducoign 2. are pels 1 Yeates, 815, 829 Dudgeon - "eieee 17 Mich. 278 1 Dudley 0. McCluer, 65 Mo. 241.. 1248 Duerson v. Alsop, 27 Gratt. 229, 248, 249.123, 124, 1126 Duff v. Budd, 3 Brod. & B. 177. 1085 v. Ivy, 3 Stew. 140....__.. Duffield v. Delancey, 36 Il]. 258. Dugan 2. Gittings, 3 Gill, 188, 48 Am. Dec. 306........ ». Mahoney, 11 Allen, ae 573 752, 758 82 256 121 Dugas 2. Estiletts, 5 La. Ann. 559 Duke ». Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 Ala. 82...876, 879, 889, 895 ». Thompson, 16 Ohio, 85. 88 Duke of Cumberland 2. Graves, 9 Barb, 595__.....--..- Dukes 2. Rowley, 24 Ill. 210.._. 1288 Dula 2. Cowles, 4 Jones, L. 519.. 795 Duling v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 5 Cent. Rep. 570, 66 Md. 120.....- praia St oes ye 140 Dunbar 2. *Aellinshead, 10 Wis 008 226 2 aoases Sees 780 ». Johnson, 108 Mass. 519. 838 Duncan v. Beard, 2 Nott. & McC. 400 2.2 ouescsussias 402, 403 ». Duncan, 28 Ill. 864... ._ 1212 e, Gilbert, 29 N. J. L. 521 1126 a Hodges, 4 McCord L. 239,17 Am. Dec. 734 857, 858 », Jaudon, 82 U. S. Dunlap v. Cody, 31 Iowa, 260, 7 Aw. Rep. ». Glidden, 34 Me. 517... Dunlop v. Ball, 6 U. 8. 2 Cranch, v, Seeley, 34 Mich. 369... 737 Dunham 2. Cudlipp, 94. N. Y. 129 908 ». Gannett, 124 Mass. 151_ -Dunham’s App., 27 Conn. 192.349, 355 217 180, 2 L. ed. 246...... - 1020 15 Wall. 165, 21 L. ed. 142 875 758 v. Stokes, 47 Ga. 595__.-- Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445 670 464 ». Dey, 18 Johns. 40, 16 Johns, 367....---.--- 275 ». Riley, 4 Wash. C. C. 126 167, 248 Dunham’s Will, Re, 121. N. Y.575 542 Dunkle 2. Worcester, 5 Biss. 102 690 212 70 648 966 v. Chambers, 4 Barb. 379. lxxxi Dunn 2, Commercial Bank of Buf- falo, 11 Barb. 580..... 876 v. Durant, 9 Daly, 391.-.. 673 ». Ghost, 5 Colo. 184.1188, 1140 v. James, 62 How. Pr. 307 746 ®. Ketchum, 38 Cal. 98... 568 » Slee, Holt, 899_._..___. 470 ». Snell, 15 Mass. 481____- 456 » %6 % State, 2 Ark, 229_._.. 412, 415 Dunn’s Case, 1 Mood. C. C. 146. 522 Dunning v. Pratt, 4 Duer, 331. 1144 v. Roberts, 35 Barb. 471.. 1019 Dunster v. Glengall, 3 Ir. Ch. 47 880 Duparquet » Knubel, 24 Hun, 653 313 "1058 1103 %. eee 29 N. J. L. 544. Durell v. Haley; 1 Paige, 492, 2 L. ed. 727,19 Am. Dee. 444__2 ee eee. -- Durham 2. Alden, 20 Me, 228.-- v. Daniels, 2G. Greene, 518 v, Shannon, 116 Ind. 403__ Durkee v. Central Pac. R. Co., 69 Cal. 583, 58 Am. Rep. 958 117 22 425 411 a. Stringham, 8 Wis. 1_.._ 487 ». Vermont Cent. R. Co., 29 Vt, 127..1015, 1019, 1020 Durst v. Burton, 47 N. Y. 167... 1162 Duruty v. Musacchia, 42 La. Ann. 35 Dutton o. ean ee 89.310, 1517 ». Tilden, 13 Pa. 4 231 v Woodman, 9 Cush. 255. 6038 Duval ». Covenhoven, 4 Wend. DOs co eeco- es eee 465 Duvall v. Fearson, 18 Md. 502... 207 Duvals v. Ross, 2 Munf. 290_____ 242 Dwight v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316- 908 ». Enos, 9 N. Y. 470_..-- 1240 v. Germania L. Ins. Co., 4 Cent. Rep. 529, 103 N. Ye Baloo cies 1002 Dwyer ». Collins, 7 Exch. 639, 16 Jur. 569, 211. J. Exch, R20- a2 Setoeres nonce 648 o. Dunbar, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 318, 18 L. ed. 489.148, 691, 727 Dyce Sombre 2. Troup, 1 Deane, Eccl. Rep. 38.----.-- Dye 2. Scott, 35 Ohio St. 194__.. 1140 Dyer 2. Cady, 20 Conn. 563_.-711, 712 Dyer v. Day, 61 Ill. 886____.--.. 913 + ». Flint, 21 Ill. 80_-__..-- 25 ® Girard, 2 Root, 55.-.-- 233 v. Last, 51 Il, 179.2222... 16 Ixxxii Dyer v. Rich, 1 Met. 180_-._--- 2 Smith, 12 Conn. 384... 65 v. Talcott, 16 Ill. 300_-125, 1102 Dyk v. DeYoung, 138 Ill. 82..'784, 785 Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill, 498_-._- 905 ». Townsend, 24 N. Y. ae 269 Dyson v. New York & N. E.R Co., 57 Conn. 9..1170, 1178 E., Eadie v. Simmon, 26 N, Y. 9... 965 Eagan v. State, 53 Ind. 162_.___- 28 Eager v. Stover, 59 Mo. 87___--- 209 v. Wiswall, 2 Paige, 369, 2 L. ed. 947...---------. 651 Eagle’s Case, 8 Abb. Pr. 218, 4 Bradf. 117._.__--.--- 1223 Eagle & P. Mfg. Co. v. Browne, 58 Ga. 240.-_-------- 330 Eagle Ins. Co. ». Lafayette Ins. Co., 9 Ind, 448_-.728, 1272 Eagle Pe Co. 2. Defries, 94 Ill. 1099 1234 Eames ®. ea tt N. H. 177_.66, 68 ». Whittaker, 123 Mass. 842 63838 Ean ». Snyder, 46 Barb. 230.___. 1213 Earl v. Champion, 65 Pa. 194... 989 . Clute, 2 Abb. App. De eee ae 456 v. Hurd, 5 Blachf. 248.... 1156 ®. Lefler, 46 Hun, 10__-.. 920 ®. Stevens, 57 Vt. 474_.._- 718 Earle v. Grout, 46 Vt. 118______- 647 v. Rice, 111 Mass. 17_____- 282 v. Sawyer, 1 Allen, 316... 826 Karly v. Early, 5 Redf. 876_.._.- 1209 ». Garland, 18 Gratt. 1... 216 Easly v. Eakin, Cooke (Tenn.) 388 815 ». McClinton, 38 Tex. 288. 209 Eason 0, Chapman, 21 Ill. 88.... 689 Eastabrook 2. prone, 10 Mass. BIB ree ecient ee 221 Easterly o. Barber, 66 N. Y. 453_ 1145 Eastern U. Teleg. Co. v. Hender- son, 89 Ala. 510_..._- 140 Eastin v. Succession of Osborn, 26 La, Ann. 158_____- 459 East Kingston 0, Towle, 48 N. H. 57, 2 Am. Rep. 174 809 Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. 276... 1160 %. Cooper, 15 Pick. 276... 789 v. Crosby, 8 Allen, 206 _.. 36 ». Moulton, 8 N. H. 156... 827 Easton ¥, O’ Reilly, 68 Cal, 809.512, 514 East Tennessee & V. R. Co. 2. Eanes, 8 Baxt. 221.... 1105 East Tennessee Iron Mfg. Co. 2. Gaskill, 2 Lea, 742_... 48 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 2. Johnston, 75 Ala. 596. 906 ® Mitchell, 11 Heisk. 400. 1098 TABLE OF CASES. Easyman 2. Cooper, 15 Pick. 276 737 Eatherly v. Eatherly, 1 Coldw. 461, 78 Am. Dec. 499. 1218. Badger, 83 N. H 228.199, se Eaton ». ». Cooper, 29 Vt. 444____.- o. Eaton, 87 N. J. L. 108_. 1087 ». Green, 22 Pick. 580.... 266- v. Hasty, 6 Neb. 419, 29 Am. Rep. 365___._..- 208 » New England Teleg. Co., 68 Me. 63___..-- 499: v Smith, 19 Wis, 539. _... 913. 0. Woy dt, 26 Wis. 383__.-69, 86 Eaves 2. People's Sav. Bank, 27 Conn. 229._._..- 1318, 1819 Eberhart ». Page, 89 Il. 550... 2738. Eborn v. Zimpelman, 47 Tex. 503, 26 Am. Rep. 315, note, See ees 1166, 1171, Eby v. Eby, 5 Pa. 4385--__------ ». Guest, 94 Pa. 160___... v. Hoopes, 1 Pennyp. 175. Ecker v. Behn, 45 Md. 278__._-- v: New Windsor First Nat. Bank,1 Cent. Rep. 476, 64 Md. 292 Eckert ». Cameron, 48 Pa. 120_- Eclectic L. Ins. », Fahrenkrug, 68 Ti. 468_..--------.-- Ector 0. Welsh, 29 Ga. 443___..- Eddy v. Faulkner, 3 Yeates, 580, 1 Binn. 188_..._...-- Edelen 2. Gough, 8 Gill, 87_.-340, 343 ®. Gough, 5 Gill, i 1264 -v. Strong, 34 Mo. App. 287 676 Edelin ». Sanders, 8 Md. 118.796, 1151 Edgell v. Hart, 9 N.Y. 218_--_-- 1229 v. Sigerson, 26 Mo. 538_-.. 734 Edgerly v. Bush, 81 N. Y. 208... 1141 . Emerson, 23 N. H. 564. 258 Edgerton ». Bird, 6 Wis. 527_... 127 ». New York & H. R. Co., 39 N.Y. 227_..---- 87, 1120 ». Wachter, 9 Neb. 500__.. 1270 Edie ». Kast India Co., 2 Burr. 1216, 1318 Edington 2. Atna L. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 564, 1 Cent. Rep. 524, 100 N. Y. 586... 1006 Edison Electric Light Co. v. Uni- ted States Electric Lighting Co., 54 Fed. a 55 Edmundson 0. Thompson, 31 L. epee, 207, 8 Jur. N. S235, 10 Week. Rep. 300, 5 L. 1. N. 8. 228, 2 Fost. & F. 564...... 1155. TABLE OF CASES. paseo ». Hartshorn, 19 io 9 152, 169 Edrington v. Harper, : Marsh. 358_....--- 264, 266 v. Kiger, 4 Tex. 89.__.--.- 6 Edwards »v. Bibb, 43 Ala. 673.... 1192 v. Carr, 13 Gray, 234____- 1102 ®. Derrickson, 28N.J. L. Dek 4 Barn. & Ald. 212 1270 ; M’Connell, Cooke, 805.. 738 . Scott, 1 Man. & G. 962, 2 Scott, N. R. 266.... 1228 eo ». Stewart, 15 Barb. 67__.. 734 v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 488_... 456 ». Tracy, 62 Pa. 874._...- 1154 2. University, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. 325, 30 Am. Dec. TO ircrrein ximsjmsaiad sjoaere 1271 o. Wall, 79 Va, 821---._-- 225 % Warren, 85 Conn. 517_. 954 Edy v. Williams, 1 Root, 185... 733 Egan v. Grece, 79 Mich. 629..--- 140 v. Murray, 80 Iowa, 180_._ 1063 Egbert 2. Egbert, 78 Pa, 326..__- 79 ». Greenwalt, 44 Mich. 250 980 Egert ». Wicker, 10 How. Pr. 193 666 Egerton v. Mathews, 6 Hast, 308. 1263 Egery v. Buchanan, 5 Cal. 56... 221 Egleston »v. Knickerbacker, 6 Barb, 458 ....-----.-- 231 Ehle 2. fia 25 Wend. 94_.._ 1268 apie ae | Moriarty, 10 Iowa, Eichholz v. een 17C.B.N. 708 1811 Eicke ». Nake. Mood. & M. 303 644 Eilbert ». Finkbeiner, 68 Pa. 243 278 Eimer v. Richards, 25 Tl. 289..._ 734 Eisenlord v, Clum, 126 N. Y. 552 414, 417, 419, 548 Elder ». Cozart, 59 Ga. 199.1. 220 v. Elder, 10 Me. 86, 25 Am. v. O letree, 86 Ga. 64 Eldred ». azlett, 83 Pa. 307_... 716 ». Oconto Co., 33 Wis, 140 1236 Hizin# Hoag, 25 ll. App. 380.. 785 Elkins v. McKean, 79 Pa, 498... 411 Elkinton 2, Brick, 1 L. R. A. 161, 44.N. J. Eq. 154 Ellege v. State, 24 Tex. 78_._._-. Ellicott 2. Martin, 6 Md. 509, 61 Am, Dec, 327.__.---- 123, 456, 1126, 1127 ». Pearl, 85 U.S. 10 Pet. 412, 9 L. ed. 475_.-416, 621 Ellingwood ». Bragg, 52 N. H. 490 lxxxili Elliott ». Chestnut, 830 Md. 502. 1129 ». Connells 5 Smedes & M. ae 78 Ala. 150__'749, 885 . Hayden, 104 Mass. 180. 840 Jenness, 111 Mass. 29. . 1258 . McCormick, 3 New Eng. Rep. 871, 144 Mass. 10 211 . Peirsol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 828, 7 L. ed. 169_-__-- 208, 926, 417, 997 . Peirsoll, 1 McLean, ‘11__' 962 . Stoddard, 98 Masa. 145. 968. . Van Buren, 83 Mich. 51, 20 Am. Rep. 668--.801, 802. Ellis », American Teleg. Co., 18 Allen, 226_.114, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1082, Clarke, 19 Ark. 420 -_.- Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co., 4 Ohio St. 628 Park, 8 Tex. 205___._.- People, 21 How. Pr. 358 Reddin, 12 Kan. 306_-- White, 61 Iowa, 644__-_- Williard, 9 N. Y. 529_- Ellison v. Tuttle, 26 Tex. 283---- Ellmacker 2 Buckley, 16 Serg. & ecscee s ec 1083. 734 es 586 5 Pa. 287 Ellsworth 2. Central R. Co., 84.N. J; Ly, 98.25.2258 288, 1290 Elmondorif 2. Carmichael, 3 Litt. 473 236 1264 68 1103 1283 1258 Elmore v. Kingscote, 5 Barn. & C. 583 v2. Naugatuck R. Co., 23 Conn. 482 El Paso v. Causey, 1 Ill. App. 531 Elston v. Kennicott, 46 Ill. 187_- Elting »v. Vanderlyn, 4 Johns. 237 Elton v. Larkins, 5 Car. & P. 385, 1 Mood. & R. 196... 465, 621, 632 v. Markham, 20 Barb. 348_ 926 Elvira Harbeck, The, 2 Blatchf. B86. 22sec Reman ae Elwell v. es 31 N. Y. Soe Sines 126, 127, te 129 Elwood 0. Tienian, 104 U. 562, 26 L. ed. Be tks 36 e. Klock, 13 Barb, 50__--- 996 Ely ». Kilborn, 5 Denio, 512-307, 1144 v Stewart, 2 Atk. 44_._.-- 403. Emerick ». Chesrown, 90 Ind. 47 1269 Emerson v. Atwater, 4 Mich. 12. 743 ». Blonden, 1 Esp. 142-452, 487 ». Burns, 114 Mass. 348, B49 ca cemicuccaaans 124, 1142 v. Murray, 4 N. H. 171_... 858 ». Slater, 63 U. 8. 22 How. 42.16 L. ed. 865_....- 1261 lxxxiv Emerson v. White, 29 N. H. 491 Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 473__- Emig v. Diehl, 76 Pa. 373__.__-- Emma Silver Min. Co., Re, 12 Moak, Eng. Rep. 701_ Emmet 2. Dewhirst, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 83, 3 Mac. N. & G. 587 1260 Empire Mfg. Co. ». Stuart, 46 Mich. ABO eects 340 Empire Tee Co. v. Steele, 70 Pas VSB tics aceniass 174 Emrie »v, Gilbert, Wright, 764... 231 Endel v, Walls, 16 Fla. 786... ... 562 Engel ». Fischer, 3 Cent. Rep. 303, 102 N. Y. 400_.-. 1270 Engelhorn v, Reitlinger, 9 L. R. A. 548, 122 N.Y. 76_ 316 Engle v, Burns, 5 Call, 463__--- 725 English’s App., 12 Cent. Rep. 164, 119:-P a; O89 wnine oeceie English v. Murray, 13 Tex. 366__ 1224 Ennis v. Smith, 55 U. 8. 14 How. 400, 14 L. ed. 472.--36, 194 Ennor v. Thompson, 46 Il. 221_. 996 Enos v, Sutherland, 11 Mich. 588 265 v, Tuttle, 8 Conn. 250.... 375 Ensel . Levy, 46 Ohio St. 255 .. 720 Ensign v. Sherman, 13 How. Pr. 37, 14 How. Pr. 422.- 1101, 1228 2 Ayer 1 Johns. Cas. 145 416 192 398 243 Entwhistle v. Feighner, 60 Mo. 214 411, 1105 Erber v. Dun, 12 Fed. Rep. 526_ 1050 Erd v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 41 Wis. 65 Erie & W. “Pad R. Co. v, Smith, 125 “Co., 21 N. J. Eq. Erskine », Adeane, L. R. 8 Ch. pp. 756_._-.---.. 264, 318 », Sangston, 7 Watts, 150- 981, 984 Erwin v. Commercial & R. Bank, La. Ann, ». Hammer, 27 Ala, 296_.. v. Lowry, 48 U. 8. 7 How. 172, 12 L. ed. 655....- v. Saunders, 1 Cow. 249__. ». Voorhees, 26 Barb. 127. Eslava v, Mazange, 1 Woods, 623 Eslow ». Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500. . Esmay 2. Fanning, 9 Barb, 176.- Espy v. Bank of incinnati, 85 U. 8. 18 Wall. 604, 21 L. ed. 947 ---.......-... Essex v. Essex, 20 Beav. 449__.. 1200 62 1144 1229 691 157 1268 1161 TABLE OF CASES. Hissex Co. & uemenis, 12 Gray, uote 8 P. Mfg. Co. ». Ahern, 30 N. J. Eq. BAL Wo coceesoceescas 18 Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnels, 55 Mich. 1380__--.----.-- 725 Etcheborne v. Auzerais, 45 Cal. WD opr rats 2h ees 709 Etting v. Bank of United States, 24 U. 8. 11 Wheat. 59, 6 L. ed. 489__-_.-_--- 797 Eureka Ins. Co. ». Robinson, 56 Pay, 266 gosccedesscecs 420 Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette Printing Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 570__..--------- 39 Evans 2. Bailey, 4 West. Coast RepAgt oss cc csc eos 672 6 Ves. Jr. 174 716, 963, 1182 e, Bicknell, ». Brown, Wightw. 102... 967 v. Covington, 70 Ala. 440. 64 v. Davis, 8 B. Mon. 344... 222 v. Eaton, 20 U. 8.7 Wheat. 356, 5 L. ed. 472, aff’g 3 Wash. C. C. 443. -689, 692 e. Hettich, 20 U. % Wheat. 758, 5 2 ‘ed. s iso) = oe” x eo = @m a Q O¢ . Luelyn, 3 Bro. C. C. 150 965 . Kilby, 81 Ga. 278_..._. 21 . Maston, 56 Pa. 54__..715, 865 Mengel, 1 Pa. 68__-.__- 795 . Peacock, 16 Ves. Jr. 512. 965 . Smith, 5 T. B. Mon. 364 629 . Staples 6 Cent. Rep. 554, 42 N. J. Eq. 584. 248 ». Stewart, 81 Va. 724.... 99 v. Verity, Ryan & MM. 230. 886 Evansville & C. R. Co. 2. Smith, 65 Ind. 92___..._....- Evansville, I. & 8. C.8t. L. R. Co. v. Cochran, 10 Ind. 560 seesesee 335 Eve v. Moseley, 2 Strobh. L. 208. 282 Eveleth v. Wilson, 15 Me. 109___ 255 Evening Journal Asso. v. McDer- mott, 44 N. J. L. 480. 1047 Everingham 9, Roundell, 2 Mood, & R. 138_...-..-.-..- Everley v. Stoner, 2 Yeates, 122. Everson 2. Carpenter, 17 Wend. AND 22 site ct She everee 618, 622 Ewald v. Waterhont, 37 Mo. 602. 739 Ewart v. Davis, 76 Mo. 129__...- v Morrell, 5 Harr. (Del.) 126 2. cn oseenes 814, 815, 829 o, Walling, 42 Ill. 458 -... 265 Ewing » Howard, 74 U. S. Wall. 499, 19L. ed. 398 1805 TABLE OF CASES, 795 1224 483 287 880 Ewing 0. Runkle, 20 Ill. 448___. v. Savary, 3 Bibb. 235. .-. Exeter anor », Sullivan, 6 N. H. ae Express er Co. v, Aldine Press, 126-Pa. 847 sac seen Soe Eyre ». McDonald, 9 H. L. 619-.- ». Potter, 56 U. 8. 15 How. 42, 14 L. ed. 699...... Eysman’s Will, Re, 3L.R 599, 113 N.Y. 6b 542, 921 rR Faber 0. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107, 19 Am. Re ee B08 os aceus 201 Facey »o. Hurdon, 3 Barn. & C. OB vineesceseeawesen 1228 Factors & T. Ins. Co. v. Marine Dry Dock & 8. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149_...----- 878 Fahey v.Crotty, 6 West. Rep. 137, 63 Mich. 888__--.-.-- 1242 Fahn ». Reichert, 8 Wis. 255-_.. 1118 342 1229 1099 1156 1107 984 446 256 1279 1237 483 1260 26 Fanning 2. Pritahen 6T. B. Mon. MO cose ha ea: ole 226, 227 Fairbank ». Hughson, 58 Cal. 314 cee Pigomaalds 2 Duer, % Fairchild, 64.N, Y. 471. Fairfax v. New York Cent. & H. R. Co.,5 Jones& 8. 516 Fairfield 7. McNany, 37 Iowa, 75 Fairlie v, Hastings, 10 Ves. Jr. 129 Falconer . Garrison, 1 McCord, 209) ccc acicaasawicm Fales 0. Whieporn 23 Me. ee 06, Fallon 2. Manning, 35 Mo. 271 _- Falls ». Sherrill, 2 Dev. & B.L.371 Falmouth v. Thomas, 1Cromp. & My. 109. cs-ssccees Fancher 2. ee 1 Head, Farish v. Coon, 40 Cal. 33__----- ». Reigle, 11 Gratt. 697___- Farley v. Lincoln, 51 N. H. 577, 1099 12 Am. Rep. 182_.--- 1288 Farlin ». Sook, 830 Kan. 401, 46 Am. Rep, 100_.-.---- 949 920 Farman v. Ellington, 46 Hun, 47 179 Farmer v. Calvert, 44 Ind. 209-_-- o. Cram, 7 Cal. 186_--.--- 672 v. Farmer, 89 N. J. Eg. 211 992 ». Grose, 42 Cal. 169__._268, 269 a. Pickens, 88 N. C. 549.. 727 ». Robbins, 47 How.Pr. 415 645 lxxxv Farmers & M. Bank ». Boreaf, 1 Rawle, 152 58, 831 o. Kimmel, 1 Mich. 84... 1806 Farmers & T. Bank ». Lucas, 26 Ohio St. 885_-..-.--- 1123 Farmers ie ». Inglehart, 6 Gill, lectern haere 8 v vail, 21 N.Y. 487_-.-- 1229 Farmers Bank of Lancaster 2. Whitehill, 10 Serg. & Ry AAO eee eaeeeeasie 344 Farnsworth ». Bell, 5 Sneed, 581 950 Farr v. Payne, 40 Vt. 615_------ 68 Farrar v. Bates, 55 Tex. 198. ..-- 19 ». United States, 80 U. 8. 5 Pet. 378, 8 L. ed. 159. 471 Farrell v. Bean, 10 Md. 217__-.- 959 ». Brennan, 82 Mo. 828_--. 79 v. Lovett, 68 Me. 326, 28 Am. Rep. 59_--.-- 456, 1123 ». Patterson, 48 Ill. 52..-. 1211 Farrington 2. Tucker, 6 Colo. 558 814 Farron v. Sherwood, 17N. Y. 227 1186 Farrow v. Hayes, 51 Md. 498.... 256 Farwell v. Ensign, 10 West. Rep. 564, 60 Mich. 600.387, 318 v Meyer, 35 Ill. 41__.---.- 640 Faulkner v, Faulkner, 73 Mo. 327 278, 1137 o. Ware, 34 Ga. 498_.-__-- 122 Fauntleroy 2. Hannibal, 1Dill.118 24 Faure v. Martin, 7 N. Y. 219, 57 Am. Dec. 518....-.-- Favill ». Roberts, 8 Lans. 14--.. 711 ». Roberts, 50 N. Y. 222.. 722 Faxon v. Hollis, 18 Mass. 427.__- 814, 815, 816, 820, 828 Fay v. Gray, 124 Mass, 500... -.- 255 ». Grimsteed, 10 Barb. 321 6738 ». Harlan, 128 Mass. 244, 35 Am. Rep. a ee 380 o. Richards,30 Ill. App. 477 785 ». Tower, 58 Wis. 286.... 716 ». Valentine, 12 Pick. 40.. 232 Haysoux ». Prather, 1 Nott. & ue 296, 9 Am. Dec. G91 2 hace woascemee ces Feamster 2. areas 12 W. Va. 651 299 Feely v. Shirley, 48 Cal. 369... Feemester opines 5 T. B. Mon. Bd0rccemasskereesesee Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 525_- Fegenbush 2. Lang, 28 Pa. 193_- Feidler v. Motz, 42 Kan. 519_--- Feigley 2. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606, 10 Am. Rep. 778- Feller ». Green, 26 Mich. 70_---- Fellows 2. Menasha, 11 Wis. 558 Fells ». Vestvali, 2 Keyes, 152_.. Feltz v. Walker, 49 Conn. 98---. 969 lxxxvi 948 453 999 28 221 296 41 Fenner v. Dickey, 1 Flipp. 34---- ». Lewis, 10 Johns. 88---- Fenton v. Reed, 4 Johns, 52_.--- ». State, 100 Ind. 598-__-- Fenwick v. Fenwick, 2 W. Bi. 788 ». Ratliff, 6 T. B. Mon. 154 Ferdinand 2, State, 39 Ala. 706_- Ferguson ». Carrington, 9 Barn. ‘ BSP ce Me ato sues shih 58 ». Crawford, 70 N. Y. 253 208 v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. 507.- 828, 329, 380 ». Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co., 82 Hun, 306_ 1001 ~v. Neilson (R. L.)9L. R. Ay Wien eev ez seek ees 634 v. Rafferty, 6 L. R. A. 33, 128 Pa. 387_-.-..---- 2 Rutherford, 7 Nev. 885. 587 2. Thatcher, 79 Mo. 511... 500 ». Tutt, 8 Kan. 377___...--- 218 Fermor’s Case, 8 Coke, 78_------ 734 Ferrill ». Dickerson, 63 Miss. 210 1287 Ferris v. Irons, 83 Pa. 179_------ 292 Ferry v. Tayler, 33 Mo. 323-435, 474 Fetherly 2. ee 11 Wend. Fidgett 2. Foray, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 108, 2 Dowl. P. C. 714, 4 Tyr. 650__-_--- Field 2. Boynton, 83 Ga. 239___. . Brown, 24 Gratt. 74___. . Davis, 'Q7 Kan. 400__._- a Doyon, 64 Wis. 560____ . Goldsby, 28 Ala. 218____ . Holland, 10 U. S. 6 Cranch, 8, 3 L. ed. 136 226, 227, o. Lelean, 30 L. J. N. 8. Exch. 168 235 oscc0cce . McKinney, 60 Miss. 763 ». New York, 6 N. Y. 188, 57 Am. Dec. 435_...-. 837 . New York Cent. R. Co., _ B2N. Y. 839_._- 222. 509 ». Stagg, 52 Mo. 584, 14 Am. Rep. 435_-._- 858, 1150 v eats 119 Mass. Fiedler 2. Darrin, 50 N.Y. 487__ ©. Varner, 45 Ala, 429._ Fielding v. Du Bose, 63 Tex. 631 726 Fifield 0. Gaston, 12 Towa, 218.949, 954 eesee> 1178 911 738 Filkins v, Baker, 6 Lans. 516_._. 518 v People, 69N. Y.101--. 72 ». Whyland, 24 N. Y. 343_ 268, 264 Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 391_-._ 298 Finch’s Case, 4 Inst. 86_-.-..._. 291 Finding v. Hartman, 14 Colo. 596 675 Findlay v. Hale, 12 Ohio St. 610. 1142 TABLE OF CASES. Fink». Manhattan R.Co., 24 Abb. NGC, 8lsecet concnsae Finneran v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 54 209 Finney’s App., 59 Pa, 398___.._- 879 Finney 2. Bedford Commercial Ins. Co., 8 Met. 348_-_ ». Finney, L. R. 1 Prob. Div 4882 ..5520452255 Firmstone ». DeCamp, 17 N. J. Eq. 815__-..---.---- 297, 299 First Baptist Church of Brouklyn ». Brooklyn F. Ivs.Co., 23 How. Pr. 448__.--- First Massachusetts Turnp. Corp. ». Field, 3 Mass. 201------ First Nat. Bank 0. Haight, 55 Ill. 191 v. Hammond, 51 Vt. 215_- v. Heaton, 6 Thomp. & OC. ST ss caeuieice sma? sans ». Leppel, 9 Colo. 594__._- ». Schuyler, 7 Jones & S. 255 724 782 925 458 First Nat. Bank of Canton v. Mc- Cann, 4 Ill. App. 250 275, First Nat. Bank of Carlisle 2. Graham, 1 U.S. 702, 25 Ty CG (Obie seit, First Nat. Bank of Clarion 2. Jones,88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 825, 22 L. ed. §42__--- Bank of Davenport 2. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575- Bank of Meadville 2. Fourth Nat. Bank of New York, 77 N. Y. 820, 88 Am. Rep. 618. 65 Bank of South Bend 2. Lanier, 78 U. 8. 11 Wall. 369, 20 L. ed. diate 876, 878, 879, 880 Bank of Sprinefield ». Dana, 79 N. Y. 108.- 1231 Bank of Whitehall 2. 1140 970 7 876 First Nat. First Nat. First Nat. First Nat. First Nat. Tisdale, 84 N. Y. 655. 895 First Unitarian Soc. 0. Faulkner, 91 U.S. 420, 28 L. ed. OBA 8 oth eae 446, 449 ee ee 21 Wend. 651.. 275 Payne, 7 Hun, 586_-... 957 a Redington, 81 Cal. 185. 187 Fishell ». Bell, 1 Clarke, Ch. 38. 7 L. ed. 45.......-.- 299, 301 Fisher ». Bishop, 10 Cent. Rep. 707, 108 N. Y. 25..... 955 % Brown, 104 Mass. 259.. 875 v, Carter, 1 Wall. Jr. 69.. 416 v, Conway, 21 Kan. 18... 453 v aka 60 ll. 114___.. 177 v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray, 373 882 v. Forrester, 83 Pa. 501... 1062 % 955 . Herron, 22 Neb. 188_... TABLE OF CASES. Fisher v. Horicon Mfg. Co., 10 Wi v Leland, 4 Cush. 456, 50 Am. Dec. 805-...---- 1123 Meister, 24 Mich. 447... 996 New York, 67 N. Y. 73 813, 893 Sargent, 10 Cush. 250--_ 906 True, 38 Me. 534____456, 714 Whoollery, 25 Pa. 197_. 1240 Waralls 5 Watts & 8. NO cre seams aes Fisk, pereere tM U.S. 718, 28 Fitch 0. Casey, 2 G. oe 300. ». Chapman, 10 Conn. 8-. % iL 32 Eng. L. & Eq. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238. 1124, ss ssss 1071 1276 456 124 1142 v v. Pinckard, 5 Ill. 69_____- 892 o. Poeter, 8 Ired. L. 511__ 199 ». Woodruff & B. Iron Works, 29 Conn. 82.. 263 Fitschen 7, Thomas, 9 Mont. 52. 658 Fitzgerald v, Adams, 9 Ga. 471__ 148 ». Brennan, 57 Conn. 511. 485 » Fanconberge, FitzG.207, 218 857 ». Kimball, 86 Ill. 396__.. 221 : Pendergast, 114 Mass. ete tye teMeee to 499 a Woston, 52 Wis. 354... 1105 Fitzgibbon ». Kinney, 3 Harr. (Del 807s sees 753 Fitzhugh v. Anderson, 2 Hen. & M. 289, 3 Am. Dec. 625 1270 ®. se 2 J. J. Marsh. losiweeweneedeneam 88 2 eo 8 Johns. 375_. 1144 . Wilcox, 12 Barb. 235__- 1087 o. Wiman, 9 N. Y. 559___ 1237, 1240 Fitzwater v. Stout, 16 Pa. 22.... 493 Flack ». Neill, 26 Tex. 273 647 Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 486, 266, 1178, 1179 ». Mason, 2 New Eng. Rep. 162, 141 Mass. 64_____ o. Willington, 6 Me. 386_715, 977 ». Worcester, 13 Gray, 601 1121 Flanagan 2. Packard, 41 Vt. 561 66 %. State, 25 Ark. 92___.536, 589 Flanders 2. Cottrell, 36 Wis. 564 670 Flandreau 2. Downey, 23 Cal. 354 709 Flanigen 0. Washington Ins. Co., 7 Pa. 306 33 Flato v. Mulhall, 72 Mo. ima. 66 87 Flattes ». Chicago, R. I. & P. R Co., 85 Iowa, 191__.. ¥leckner o. Bank of Unieed States, 21 U. 8. Wheat.338,5 L. ed. eat 1304 | Fleischmann 2. Stern, 90 N. Y. Ad lies aindeine eee eerste 278 Fleshman 2. Collier, 47 Ga 253. Fletcher v. Boston & M. R. Co., 1 . Calthrop, 1 New Sen. Cas. 5: . Ferrell, 7 Dana, 377_.-.- . Fuller, 120 U. 8. 534, 30 L. ed. ©. Gushee, 32 Me. 587___. v, Sondes, 3 Bing. 588__-- 11 La. s v. v. Fletcher’s Succession, Ann. 59 Flettesham ». Julian, 1 Y. B. 7 Hen. IV. 9, pl. 18__.- Flick v. Devries, 50 Pa. 267____. Flickinger v. Wagner, 46 Md. 581 Flint». Bell 19N. Y. Week. Dig. Florence eae Machine Co. ». Zeigler. 58 Ala. 221_- Florey v. Florey, 24 Ala. 241__._ Florida R. Co. v. Smith, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 255, 22 L. ed. 613 Flournoy v. Andrews, 5 Mo. 71- ». Warden, 17 Mo, 435.89, Floyer v. Sherard, Amb!. 18__ Floyd v. Bovard, 6 Watts & 8. 75 ». Johnson, 2 Litt. 109__.. ». Ricks, 14 Ark. 286.____ Flubarty 2, Beatty, 4 W. Va. 625 Fluker v. Herbert, 27 La. Ann. OBA seemed oceeee Fly 2. Brooks, 64 Ind. 50__...-. Flynn v. Coffee, 12 Allen, 133_77, >. Massachusetts Ben. Asso., 152 Mass. 288__.____- Foersh 2. Blackwell, 14 Barb. 607 Fogg v. Child, 13 Barb, 246._._. ». Holcomb, 64 Iowa, 621- ». Sanborn, 48 Me. 432_. Fogleman 2. State, 82 Ind. 145_- Foley v. Mason, 6 Md. 48.--___- Folger 2. Columbian Ins. Co., 99 Mass. 267 v. Fitzhugh, 41 N. Y. 228 Folkes 2. Chadd, 3 Doug]. 157_- Follansbee ». Walker, 61 Me. 391 Follett 7. Hoppe. 5 C. B. 238___. v. Steele, 16 Vt. 30 Folsom 2. Brawn, 25 N. H. 114. o. Carli, 5 Minn. 338, 80 Am. Dec. 429...... 219, Ixxxvii 1154 632 1228 1052 97 123 743 296 80 989 1061 725 52 201 778 332 739 738 71 801 221 lxxxvili Folsom v. Marsh,2 Story, 110_... 1013 Fonda v. Sage, 48 N. Y. 187... 962 Fontaine v. Lee, 6 Ala. 891 484 Foot v, tna L. Ins. Co., 61 N. V3 10 Migsasheancee aes 1005 ». Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166_- 1008, 1011 ». Wiswall, 14 Johns. 304. 1227 Foote ». Silsby, 3 Blatchf. 509_. 230 Forbes v. Halsey, 26 N. Y. 53... 806 v. Logan, 4 Bosw. 475__.. 952 », Snyder, 94 Ill. 874_.._- 691 ». Wale, 1 W. Bl. 582-__. 403 Ford », Chambers, 19 Cal. 148.. 977 ». Chambers, 28 Cal. 18__. 792 ». Ford, 7 Humph, 104... 1195 ». Ford, 17 Pick. 418-_-.. 851 ». Harrington, 16.N. Y. 285 957 v. Joyce, 78. N. Y. 618.... 299 ». Niles, 1 Hill, 800_--_.. 581 v. St. Louis, K. & N. W. R. Co., 54 Iowa, 728. 826 ». Smith, 27 Wis. 261__._. 11 v. State, 11 West. Rep. 858, 112 Ind. 373__._....- 871 », State, 71 Ala. 385_____. 349 v. Tenant, 9 Jur. N. 8. 292, 82 Beav. 162_......-. 648 v. Williams, 62 U.S. 21 How. 287, 16 L. ed. 36 269 v Sy ‘ams, 8 B. Mon. aati tate iatactarate 976 Teuiuiee, Sate, 46 N. Y. 638, 44 How. Pr. 472-___- 611 Foreman v. Baldwin, 24 Ill. 298. 565 v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 548.... 969 Forman, Re, 54 Barb. 274.._. -. 1088, 1194, 1195 Forman v. Smith, 7 Lans. 448__. 1214 Forman’s Will, Re, 54 Barb. 274, 1 Tuck. 205.__..._.. 560 Forniquet v. West Feliciana R. Co., 6 How. (Miss.)116 897 Forrest v. Forrest, 6 Duer, 102_- 280, 444, 840 Forrester v. State, 46 Md. 154_._ 420 Forsaith ». Clark, 21 N. H. 409. 1228 Forshaw 2. Lewis, 1 Jur. N.S. 26dee sik eae tre ate 644 Forster v. Hale, 3 Ves. Jr. 696.. 291 Forsyth o. Clark, 3 Wend. 643.. 231 v. Day, 46 Me. 176__.__.. V1 Forsyth Coun. 89 Fort adie Lumber Wo, ». Ba- tavian Bank. 71 Iowa, 270, 6 Am. Rep. 789. Fort Wayne 0. De Witt, 47 Ind. 1 TABLE OF CASES. Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. ». Hog- sett, 67 Tex. 685_.-_- ». Thompson, 75 Tex. 501 Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. 2. Cul- ver (Tex. App.) 14 8S. W. Rep. 1018.______. Forward v. Harris, 30 Barb. 338_ Foscue v. Lyon, 55 Ala. 440_..__ Foshay »v. Ferguson. 5 Hill, 154, 2 Denio, 617 965, Fossler 0. Schriber, 88 IN. 172... Foster 2. Brooks, 6 Ga. 287__.-. v. Charles, 6 Bing. 396_-_-. v oe 3 Clark & F. 46 Foster v. Evans, 51 Mo. 39 ». Gressett, 29 Ala. 393___. v. Jolly, 1 Cromp. M.&R. LOD need tach v Mackinnon: L. RB. 4C. P. 704 % Reid, 78 iowa 205, 16 Am. St. Rep. 487 .... 11% Smith, 18 C. B. 156... 13811 The Richard Busteed, 100 Mass. 409, 1 Am. Reps 120 secon o. Wells, 4 Tex. 101_...218, 783 2. Woodfin, 11 Ired. L. 889 950 Foster’s App., 87 Pa. 67, 30 Am. Dec, 340 -.25.0n0-2- 1 Foster’s Will, Re, 34 Mich. 21 337, 1174, 1175, 1166. Fothergill ». Stover, 1 U. 8. 1 ics Dall. 7,1 L. ed. 18.... 235. Foulk v. Brown, 2 Watts, 214... 88 Fountain 0. Fountain, 93 Ti. App. 629 -_-___--2 2... 676. ». Ware, 56 Ala. 558_.__.. 683 v. Young, 6 Esp. 118_.-.. 648 Fourth Nat. Bank of New York ». Francklyn, 120 U. 8. 747, 30 L. ed. 825... 15 Foust 2. Ross, 1 Watts & 8. 501 1279 Fowle v. Coe. 63 Me. 245....___- 238 Fowler v. .Etna F. Ins. Co., 6 Cow. 678....---.. -. 1242 v. Baltimore & O. R. Go., 18 W. Va. 579__....- 1103 ». Bebee, 9 Mass. 231.___- 150 vo. Byrd, Hemp. 214__.... 1054 v. Fowler, 4 DeG. & J. 255 298 » Martin, 1 Thomp. & C. 3877, 56 N. Y. 676 ..-- 860: » Merrill, 52 U. 8 11 How. 3875, 18 L. ed. FLD Os sicl tk A cas arate 238 » Parsons, 8 New Eng. Rep. 449, 148 Mass. 401 724 a eye C.) VL. R.A. TABLE OF CASES. Fowler v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 6 New Eng. Rep. 725, 80 Me. 381, 6 Am. St. Rep. 211 _...--.---.. 032 Fowler’s Felilon, 9 Abb. N. C. 208 siete meine wes 651 Fox »v. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776, 9 Bing, 1B sc22 ccs 875 v. Com., 81 Pa. 511_.....- 25 % Hilliard, 35 Miss.160... 111 v. Territory, 5 West Coast Rep. 389 .....-..---. 535 Fox’s Case, 3 DeG. J. & 8. 465__ 888 Foxworth 2. Bullock, 44 Miss. 457 964 Foye v. Leighton, 22 N. H. 71 -. 907 Frain v. State, 40 Ga. 529....__- 530 France 0. Haynes, 67 Iowa. 189. 727 Francis, Re, 2 Sawy. 286, 7 Nat. Bankr, Reg. 359__-_- 1160 Frank 2. Chemical Nat. Bank, 13 Jones & 8. 452.__._.- 1168 ». Chemical Nat. Bank, 84 N. Y. 209__..---.._-- 719 ». Lilienfeld, 88 Gratt. 392 456, 1139 Franklin v. Fisk, 7 Allen, 19_..- 1121 ». Long, 7 Gill & J. 407__ 1261 ®. Merida, 85 Cal. 558 _.__ 706 o. State, 69 Ga. 42__.1155, 1166 Franklin Bank ». Blossom, 23 Me. 546 -.-2 2 eee 217 » Pennsylvania, D. & M. Steam Nav. Co,, 11 Gil & J. 28.... 22. €18, 620 Franklin F. Ins. Co. v. Gruver, 100 Pa, 266.--._--._. 833 Frantz 0. Ireland, 66 Barb. 386_. 88 o. Lenhart, 56 Pa. 365 -... 121 Fraser 0. Charleston City Coun- ci], 11 8. C. 486._.._- ®. Davie, 15 8. C. 496 ». Tupper, 29 Vt. 409 Frasier 7. Williams, 15 Minn. 294 Frazer v. Frazer, 2 Del. Ch. 260. Frazier 2. Pennsylvania R. Co., 88 Pa, 104__...--.--- Frear v. Everston, 20 Jobns. 142 Frederick . Missouri River, Ft. 8S. & G. R. Co., 82 Mo. AD aici cacy yates Fredericks v. Davis, 6 Mont. 460 Free v. Hawkins, 8 Taunt. 92__- Freese v. Brownell, 30 N. J. L. 285 Freeland ». Heron, 11 U. 8S. 7 Cranch, 146, 3 L. ed. OO aria re tietra layers Freelove v. Cole, 41 Barb. 318__- Freeman, Re, 46 Hun, 458_.___- Freeman ». Baldwin, 13 Ala, 246 ®. Curtis, 51 Me. 140 __. 2. »®. Howell, 4 La. Ann. 196, 50 Am. Dec. 561 Ixxxix Freeman v, Sanderson, 128 Ind.264 368, 1062 o. Thayer, 33 Me. 76 _..-- ®. Travelers Ins. Co., 4 New Eng. Rep. 621, 144 Mass, 572_._....- 138 Freeman’s Nat. Bank ». Savery, 127 Mass. 75_.-.-.-__- 456. Freemen 0. Arkell, 2 Barn. & C. BOS. eee Naas ee 1%5 Fremont ». United States, 58 U. 8. 17 How. 542, 15 L. 00 24W orca ca nnen 37 French ». Barre, 2 New Eng. Rep. 807, 58 Vt. 567_.24, 26 . Burns, 85 Conn. 359_... 268 . Kirst Nat. Bank of New York, 7 Ben. 488_.__- . Frazier, 7 J. J. Marsh, 425 . French, 14 W. Va. 495_ 1ibt . Howard, 14 Ind. 445... 784 . Ladd, 57 Miss. 678_._.- Lafayette Ins. Co., 5 Mc- Lean, 461 _.__._-- 728, 1272: . Lancaster, 2 Dak. 846 -... 81 O’Connor, 89 Mich. 106. 683 Patterson, 61 Me. 203_. 1276. . Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 39 Md. 574__-_ 1103 s ss esses eses v, Rainey, 2 Tenn. Ch. 640 248 o. Snyder, 30 Ill, 344 _..-- 836 v, Sturdivant, 8 Me. 246.. 268. Fresh ». Gilson, 41 U. 8. 16 Pet. 327, 10 L. ed. 982...68, 146 Freytag v. Powell, 1 Whart. 5386 236. Frick v. Barbour, 64 Pa, 120.... 1158 v. School Trustees, 99 Il. VOT 2.3. c ec crduarn Sendapiacis Frie 2. Vogel, 40 Mo. 149..__--. Friedley 2. Hamilton, 17 Serg. & ReWO) = 2 55 etedocae 265, 267 Friedlander v. Brooks, 35 La. Ann, 741 __.---.---.- Friendly v. Lee, 20 Or. 202___762, 882 Frink ». Coe, 4 G. Greene, 555 376, 877, 441, 1097 ». Potter, 17 Ill. 406__.... 1097 Frith v. Barker, 2 Johns. 327.277, 1318 v. Sprague, 14 Mass. 455.. 36 Fritz v. Joiner, 54 Ill. 101___.... 1271 Frosh v, Holmes, 8 Tex. 29 -.._- 59 Frost v. Brown, 2 Bay, 183 .___- 88. 0. McCargar, 29 Barb. 617 622 ». Halloway, cited in 1 Phil- lips, Ev. Cowen & Hills’ ed. 283, note_... 591 Frout 0. Hardin, 56 Ind. 165..-. 678 Frowman ». Smith, Litt. Sel. | CSS). Wess cetcmanemienee 1061 Fry v. Bennett, 28 N. Y. 824.... 128 v. Gallaspie, 61 Ind. 478.. 218 ». Hill, 7 Taunt. 397_____. 1228 XC Fry »v. Leslie, 15 Va. L. J. 87 --- 588 ». Slyfield, 3 Vt. 246._.--- 829 ». Wood, Selw. N. P. 540. 4038 Fry’s Will, QR. I. 88_---.----- 1216 Taya: Lindo, 3 Edw. Ch. 239, 6 L. ed. 641 __.__------ 550, 589 Frye 2. Bank of Illinois, 11 Il. 867 csi soeeeeaceede 1249 Fulford o. Johnson, 15 Ala. 3885. = 71 Fulkerson v. Holmes, 117 U. 58. 389, 29 L. ed. 915 _--. 405 Fullam ». New York U. Ins. Co., 7 Gray, 61__--.--- 798, 1271 Fuller v. Boston & A. R. Co., 133 ass, 491_..._..----- 1102 v. Crittenden, 9 Conn. 401 233 » Hutchings, 10 Cal. 5238 129, 1126 ». McDonald, 8 Me. 213.” 1140 2. Robinson, '86. N. Y. 806 906 ». Smith, 74 Ga. 835-..-.. 921 Fullerton v. Sturges, 4 Ohio St. §29__..855, 1128, 1125, 1128 Fullwood 2. Sees 26 8. C. BI inn cece 306, 313 Fulmer 2. af 68 Pa. 237, 9 m. Rep. 172, note... 852 Fulton 2. Fulton, 48 Barb. 592_. 994 v. Gracey, 15 Gratt. 314... 840 ». Hanlow, 20 Cal. 450.... 914 Fulton Bank 2. Benedict, 1 Hall, 480 2. aces ctaenoree 630 Fulweiler v. gone 15 Serg. & DR AD apo eect 74 -Funch v. Abenheim, 20 Hun, 6.. 299 Furneaux & Hutchins, 2 Cowp. Meccan cokenesceas 499 Furst 2. deal Ave. R. Co., 72 IN, Yi 04 ss sorceress ae 682 Fusting v. Sullivan, 41 Md. 162. 288 G. ‘Gabbey 2. Forgeus, 88 Kan. 62.. 857 ‘Gabe v. Root, 93 Ind. 256_._.._- 1284 Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51___._-. 39 Gage 2, Carraher, 14 West. Rep. 928, 125 Tl. 451-_ 1, 809 v. Holmes, 12 Gray, 428.. 212 ». Lewis, 68 Ill. 613_.___- 965 v Lightburn, 93 Ill. 248__ 1288 ». Parker, 25 Barb. 141___. 1229 v. Sharp, 24 Towa, 19.__.- 456 ‘Gain v. Butler, 29 Ill. App. 425.. 1080 Gainer %. Cotton, 49 Tex. 101... 405 ‘Gaines », Chew, '43:U. 8. 2 How. 619, 11L. ed. 402__._. 1216 ». Com., 50 Pa. 819___.__. 6384 ». Hennen, 65 U.S. 24 How, 553, 16 L. ed. 770_-88, 1179 a Miller, 111 U. 8. 395, 28 L. ed. 466_.. .....2-- 70 TABLE OF CASES. Gaines v. Nicholson, 50 U. 8S. 9 How. 356, 18. ed. 172 72 v. Relf, 58 U. 8. 12 How. 472, 18 L. ed. 1071... 420 ». Union Transp. & Ins. Co., 28 Ohio St. 418_. 670 ». White (8. Dak.) 47 N. W. Rep. 524___...--- 142 Gains v. Hasty, 63 Me. 361_-..-- 420 Galbraith v. Lunsford, 1L. R. A. 522, 87 Tenn. B9uscece 722 Galceran 2. Noble, 66 Ga. 867_... 448 Gale v. Gale, 19 Barb. 249.__.-- 179 ». Norris, 2 McLean, 469. 826 Galen v. Brown, 22 N. Y. 87_.275, 276 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 Til. 558 ». Jacobs, 20 Ill. 478__-.- 2 Yarwoud, 17 Ill. 509__. Gallagher 2. White, 81 Barb. 92. ®% Williamson, 23 Cal. 331 Galland » Jackson, 26 Cal. 85_- Gallego, The, 38 Fed. Rep. 271. 26 Galloway ». Stewart, 49 Ind. ADS oe 2 Saeieieemmees Galpin 2. Page, 85 U. 8. 18 Wall. 850, 22 L. ed. 959---.- Galt v. Galloway, 29 U. 8. 4 Pet. 382, 7 L. ed. 876_._--. Galveston 2. Barbour, 62 Tex. 172, 50 Am. Rep. 519- Galveston City Co. ». Sibley, 56 Tex. 269 .2cssas-s-25- 878 Galyon v. Ketchen, 85 Tenn. 55. 1081 Gamble v. Central R. & Bkg. Co., 411 80 Ga. 595_...--- --- ». Gamble, 89 Barb. 373-- 1205, 1207 ». Johnson, 9 Mo. 605.---- 968 ». Witty, 55 Miss. 26..__- 1287 ney ages 40 N. ass Ganea 2. Sone Pac. R. Co. 51 Cal. 140..--.---.-- "1061 Ganley v. Troy City Nat. Bank, 98 N. Y. 487, affirming 20 N. Y. Week. Dig. °* iy See ee eee 991, 1269 Garbutt 9. ere ie du Chien Bank, 22 Wis. 384_...--...- Garden 2. Garden, 2 Houst, 574. 1998 Gardner v. Astor, 3 Johns. Ch. 53, 1 In Cd, BW) onaeve 289 ». Babcock, 70 U. 8. 3 Wall. 240,18 L. ed. 81._..- 781 ». Bartholomew, 40 Barb. CL ee eee eee 5384 v. Buckbee, 3 Cow. 120... 784 ». Cover, 1 Gale, 45____. 219, 221 » Eberhart, 82 Ill. 816... 32 v. Gardner, 22 Wend. 526. 79 TABLE OF CASES. XCl Gardner v. Gorham, 1 Doug]. Gatling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572_._ 959 (Mich.) 507...------- 71| Gaul v, Willis, 26 Pa. 259__._-_- 1148 v. Hosmer, 6 Mass. 323.218, 222) Gautier ». Douglass Mfg. Co., 52 » Lightfoot, 71 Iowa, 577- How. Pr. 325._-.--. 286, 818| Gavisk 0. Pacific R. Co., 49 Mo. v. Northwestern Mfg. Co. OT Ae cca nee eee 354 52 Ill. 367_......- 476, 1154 v. Peckham, 18 R. I. 102. 1051 v. Raisbeck, 28N.J. Eq. 71 739 v. State, 81 Ga. 144.__.___ 85 ». Watson, 76 Tex. 25..._. 820 “Gardiner Bank ». Wheaton, 8 Me. DO rececararenwaee see 285 Gardinier ». Marcy. 5 Watts, 337 236 ‘Garey 2. Meagher, 33 Ala. 630_. 902 2. Nicholson, 24 Wend. 351 443, 444 Garland, Hu parte, 71 U. S. 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. ed. B66 scence eens 553, 564, 565 Garland 0. Agee, 7 Leigh, 362.. 483 ». Jacomb, L. R. 8 Exch. v. Lane, 46 N. H. 245.148, 1142 ‘Garnar v. Bird, 57 Barb. 277... 90 v. Green, 8 Ala. 96_______ 66 v. White, 23 Ohio St. 192. 847 ‘Garnett ». Macon, 6 Call, 307, 2 Brock. 185_......_.-- 966 Garrard v. Grinling, 2 Swanst. 248 297 »v. Haddan, 67 Pa. 82,5 Am. Rep. 856 Garrels ». Alexander, 4 Esp. 37. 340 “Garrett 0. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 121.... 1100 ». Crooks, 15 La. Ann. 483 960 ‘Garrison 0. Garrison, 15 N. J. Eq. ». Garrison, 29 N.J.L. 158 711 Garrott 2. Johnson, 11Gil& J. 178, 85 Am. Dec. 272. 401 Garry v. Nicholson, 24 Wend. 350 486 ‘Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622__._ 1239 Gartside ». pee moot, 1 Bro. Ch. reas aerate aa 1088 ‘Garvin 9. ace 52 Miss. 209.... 341 vo. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286_.__- 85 ‘Garwood v. Garwood, 29 Cal.514 216 Gaskell », Durdin, 2 Ball & B. WO ja eee weer eee! “Gasper 0. Adams, 28 Barb. 441_. Gass v. Mason, 4 Sneed, 497____- 1089 v Stinson, 2Suma. 605_6381, 1249 Gately o. Irvine, 51 Cal. 72.--.- 288 Gaters 2. Madeley, 6 Mees. & W. BOB sie doe es ee ‘Gates 0. Bennett, 88 Ark. 475... ©. Green, ‘4 Paige, 355, 3 L. ed. 468.__.....---- Ce a aa County, 36 Tex. 218 304 ». Salmon, 46 Cal. 361.... 1186 o. Treat, 17 Conn. 388-_.. 216 Gawtry ». Doane, 51 N. Y. 84, aff’g 48 Barb. 148.844, 845 Gay v. Bowen, 8 Met. 100.-..-.- 483 v% Gillilan, 10 West. Rep. 303, 92 Mo. 250_--.-- 119 2. Hunt, 1 Murph, 141_-.. 292 v. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 472... 127 v. Stancell, 76 N. C. 369_. 739 Gayle v. Bishop, 14 Ala, 552_... 602 Gaynor v. Old: Colony & N. R. Co. , 100 Mass. 208---- Gear v. Parish, Burn. ee 7 Geary v. Physic, 5 Barn. & C. 284. 1198 Gebb »v. Rose, 40 Md. 387__..--- 90 Gebhart v. Burkett, 57 Ind. 378, 487, 1243 Geib o. oe Ins. Co., 1 1003 1220 1102 1179 Dill. 44: Gelbke 2. Gelbke, 88 Ala. 427__- General Mut. Ins. Co. 2. Sher- wood, 55 U. S. 14 How. 351, 14 L. ed. 452 Genesee County Sav. Bank ». Michigan Barge Co., 52 Mich. 164___.-_-- George ». Gillespie, 1G.Greene, 421 ». Nichols, 32 Me. 179___- » Richardson, Gilmer (Va.) »..St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co., 84 Ark. 613_.-.- ». Surrey, 1 Mood. & M. 516 Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Freeman, 83 Ga. 583____---_--- o. Strickland, 80 Ga. 776. 12 Am. St. Rep. 282-153, 159 Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Ander- 280 978 213 684 967 1099 1198 son, 33 Ga. 110_.__-.- 1098 Gerald ». Elley, 45 lowa, 822_... 301 Germain »v. Brooklyn L. Ins. Co., 26 Hun, 604.__.__--_-- 76 German U. Bldg. & Sav. Asso. 2. Sendmeyer, 50 Pa. 67_... 877 Germania Bank ». Distler, 67 Barb. 333, 64 N. Y. 642 1144 Gerry v. Post, 18 How. Pr. 118_ 1223 Getman 2. Beardsley, 2 Johns. Ch. 274, 1 L. ed. 876____.- 301 Geyger ». see 2 U.8. 2 Dall. 332, 2 L. ed. 408__--. 245 Giant Powder Co. v. Oregon Pa- cific R. Co., 8 L. R. A. 700, 42 Fed. Rep. 470. 1079 3 | Gibbes 2. Vincent, 11 Rich. L. 323. 77, 1223 Gibbon 2. Scott, 2 Stark. 286.... 1143 x¢il Gibbon’s we 17 How. St. Tr. 2 Spice 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23_-_._.-- ». Pepper, 1 Ld. Raym. 88 86 . Wilcox, 2 Stark. 39__475, 1153 Gibbs v. Dortch, 62 Miss. 671__- 1286, 1287 ®. Frost, 4 Ala. 720_._...-- 1150 v. Gale, 7 Md. 76__....... 806 o. Neely, 7 Watts, 805... 2. Williams, 25 Kan. 214, 387 Am. Rep. 241..___ Gibney 0. Marchay, 34 N. Y. OO Meio cele 468, 470 Gibson 2, American Mut. L. Ins. Co., 87 N. Y. 580____ 960 1004 o. Bailey, 18 Met. 587_.814, 830 v. Cook, 2 Blatchf. 148... 298 ». Jeyes, 6 Ves. Jr. 266_966, 1090 v. Miller, 29 Mich. 855.... 122 v. Russell, 2 Younge. & C. TOF cet et oe poke cee 1092 v. Soper, 6 Gray, 285.___. 1084 .o. Stearns, 8 N. H. 185... 1304 Giddings». Coleman, 12. N.H.153 985 ». Munson, 4 Vt. 808... 231 Giffert v. West, 37 Wis. 115___.. Gilbert v. Anthony, 1 Yerg. 69, 24 Am, Dec. 439 857 v. Duncan, 29 N. J. L. 183 180 ®. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 51 Mich. 488, 47 Am. Rep. 592_.......-.... 2 Os ner, 52 N. Y. 125.1205, 1206 v. Manchester Iron Mfg. Co., 11 Wend. 627.__. 875, 883 2 Merriam & R. Saddiery Co., 26 Neb. 194____. 827 ® Mickle, 4 Sandf. Ch. 857, 7 L. ed. 1182. 771 ». Moline W. P. & Mfg. Co., 19 Iowa, 319..-. 80 o Sheldon, 13 Barb. 623_. 637, 641, 1249 ». Wiman, 1 N. Y. 580... 1148 Gilchrist ». Bale, 8 Watts, 355__ 519 v Beswick, 83 W. Va. 168 975 v Brooklyn Grocers Mfg. Asso.,66 Barb. 390_.-. 836 ». M’Kee, 4 Watts, 880_1248, 1249 2 Rogers, 6 Watts & 8. 488 795 vo. West Virginia, O. & O, L. Co., 31 W. Va. i15 209 Gildersleeve ». Caraway, 10 Ala. 260, 44 Am. Dec. 485. 401 v Landon, 73 N. Y. 609_. 175, 462 TABLE OF CASES. Gilighan », Boardman, 29 Me. 79 etd Gill v. Caldwell, 1 Ill. 98_....-.. 567 - % Continental U. Gas Co., L. R. 7 Exch. 332_-880, 881 ».Corbin, 4 J. J. Marsh, 392 964 ». Cubitt, 3 Barn. & C. 466 457 v. Ferris, 82 Mo. 156__...- 1160 v. Kaufman, 16 Kan. 571-_ 308 Gillaspie v. Kelley, 41 Ind. 158, 18 Am. Rep. 318.-_.__-- 856- Gillespe 2. Moon, 2 Jobns. Ch. 585, 596, 1 L. ed. 500_ 260, 261, 262, 296, 315 v. Sawyer, 15 Neb. 536_.-.. 256 Gillet v. Fairchild, 4 Denio, 88.. 1229 Gillett o. Sweat, 6 Ill. 475_...... 858 Gillbam v. Kerone, 45 Mo. 490.. 1235 Gillilan ». Myers, 31 Ill. 525__-_- 459: Gilliland ». Gilliland, 96 Mo. 522 993 v. Sellers, 2 Ohio St. 223.17, 199- Gilman, Re, 388 Barb. 364__...__- 1205 v. Gilman, 126 Mass. 26, 30 Am. Rep. 646__.._- 206, 209° v. Kibler, 5 Humph. 19... 1264 ». Lewis, 15 Me. 452_____. 1181 v. Sheets, %8& Iowa, 499.697, 988 Gilmanton v. Ham, 35 N. H. 108 1175- Gilmer 2, Higley, 110 U. 8. 50,28 L. ed. 68__-.-.----.-- Gilmore 2. Wilbur, 18 Pick. 517. ». Wilson, 35 Pa .194___.. Gilmore’s Estate, Re, 81 Cal. 240 Gilpin 7. Howell, 5 Pa. 41, 45 Am. Dec. 720____.-.. v. Sierra Nevada Consol. Min. Co. (Idaho) 23 Pac. Rep. 547....__.- 111 753- 485: 167 102 8 | Gilpins », Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85, 3 Wash. C. C. 184... 689 Gilson 2. Gilson, 16 Vt. 464_.... 453 ®. Jackson County Horse R. Co., 76 Mo. 282... 1098 », Spear, 38 Vts B1lo cece 728: Giltner 2, Gorham, 4 McLean, 402 622 Gimbel a. Hufford, 46 Ind. 126.. 148. Ginnon v. New York & H. R. Co., 3 Robt. 26_...___-..- 1227 Girard Bank ». Comly, 2 Miles (P82) 408 occccoc arte cee Girard L. Ins. A. & T. Co. 2. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 97 Peas ih Die eee ie arse 1004 Girardin o. Dean, 49 Tex. 243... 787 Gist v. Loring, 60 Mo. 487 _..--- 796: o.McJunkin,1 Speer, L, 158 218 Gitt o. Watson, 18 Mo. 274_.. 89, 1298 Given v. Marr, 27 Me. 212._-_-. 289: Givens 2. Bradley, 3 Bibb, 195._ 1242 ». Tidmore, 8 Ala. 745.... 89 Glacius 0. Black, ‘67 N. Y. 563.. 1005 Glanton v. Griges, 5 Ga. 424 456 Glasco ». New York Cent. R. Co., 36 Barb. 557 TABLE Glasgow v. Baker, 72 Mo. 441__. v. Hobbs, 52 Ind. 239, 242_ Glass v. Hulbert, 102 Mass. 24, 3 Am. Rep. 260, 261, 262, 296, 297, 304 Glaze v. Blake, 56 Ala. 3879__._. 950 Gleadow oo 1 Car. & M. Glegg v. Legh, 4 Madd. 193____- Glenn 2. een 20 Mo. App. 722 670 b 238 v. Orr, 96 N. C. 418_._.894-896 v. Smith, 2 Gill & J.4938.. 71 Glidden v. Dunlap, 28 Me. geen 12 Globe Iron Roof. & OC. Co. Thatcher, 87 Ala. 458. 1080 Globe Print. Co. 2. ‘Stahl, 23 Mo. App. 451 __-_.-.-----. Glos v. Randolph, 183 Tll. 197_.. ‘Glover 2. eh 2 Denio, 1295 139 4 Goddard 2. ane 28 Conn. 172 646 v. Gloninger, 5 Watts, 219. 224 ». Gray, L. R. 6 Q. B. 189_- », Pratt, 16 Pick. 412__420, 1157 ». Sawyer, 9 Allen, 78__.. 238 Goddell v. Field, 15 Vt. 448.____ 257 Godding v. Orcutt, 44 Vt. 54__755, 825 Godfrey »v. Schmidt, 1 Cheves, NG. OW raisins 377 2. Obear, 59 Ga. 682__.--- 1086 o. Piugry, 17 Vt. 419__.706, 709 ». Portland Bank, 3 Mass. Lynchburg & 8. Turnp. Co., 4 Rand. (Va.) 518 894 Greathead 2. Bromley, 77. BR. AGL aaace om asecnseee 736 Great Northern R. Co. » Mos- sop, 17 C. B. 140___-_- 732 Greaton v. Smith, 1 Daly, 380-604, 629 Grays v. Greenfield ». Camden, 74 Me. 56 Greenfield Sav. Bank ». Stowell, 123 7 196, 25 Am. epee 86- Greenlaw v. King, 1 Beav. 187.. Greenleaf v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 801_._. 416 ». Goodrich, 101 U. S. 278, 25 L. ed. 845....._.. 834 ». Ludington, 15 Wis. 568 737 ». Quincy, 12 Me. 11, 28 Am. Dec. 145.....__. . %. Smead, 3 Ohio St. 415__ 272, 1189 xevi Greenshields ». Crawford, 9 Mees. & W. 814_...-- 1298 ‘Greenstine v. Borchard, 50 Mich. 434, 45 Am. Rep. 51_- 906 Green walt A Kohne, 85 Pa. 369, TG aiconinciads ame 259 Greenway v. Mead, 26 N. J. L. Pets eee heres 844 Greenwood ». Lowe, 7 La. Ann OF oc ciiidio tatiana weed 89 ‘Greer v. Caldwell, 14 Ga. 215, 15 m. Dec. 558__--_--- 6 ». New York, 1 Abb. Pr. N.S. 206_...---.---- v. Young, 8 West. Rep. 440 654 Gregor v. Patan, 2 Desaus. Eq. GBT asst Seite acteesicn es Gregory v. Martin, 78 Ill. 38_-_-- 1161 vo. New York, L. E. & % Parlor, 1 Campb. 394_- Greneaux 2. Wheeler, 6 Tex. 515 Grennan 2, McGregor, %8 Cal. 258 Gresham v. DeLaunay, 34 Ga. 442 Gresley 2. Mousley, 2 Kay & J. 288, 2 Jur. N. 8. 156. Greton v. Smith, 33 N. Y. 250_- Greville 7. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 731 Grey v. Grey, 47 N. Y. 552___.- Grice v. Scarborough, 2 Speers, L. 649, 42 Am. Dec. 391. Gridley v. Bane, 57 Ill. 529____- v. Boggs, 62 Cal. 201.__-- v. Dole, 4 N. Y. 486_.-._- Grider o. Tally, 77 Ala, 422.___. Griel v, Lomax, 86 Ala. 182_._.. Grieff v. Boudousquie, 18 La. Ann. 631, 89 Am. Dec. 698 ‘Grierson v. Mason, 60 N. Y. 394 264, 282 Griffin » Chubb, 7 Tex. 603, 58 Am. D . Cranston, 1 Bosw. 281_- . Griffin, 40 Ala. 296____- : Johnson, 84 Ga. 279_... 919 Marquardt, 21.N. Y.121 952 . New York, 9 N. Y. 456 1102 . Parsons, 1 Russ, Cr. 755 72 . Pleasant, 1 Ired. Eq. 152 226 . Sketoe, 80 Ga. 800_.._. 963 . State, 14 Ohio St. 56... 1250 v. Tripp, 8 Jones, L. 64.-. 956 Griffing ». Gibb. 67 U.5. 2 Black, 519, 17 L. ed. 358_... 16 Griffith ». Evans, 1 Pet. C. C. 166 285 2 Griffith, Hoffm. Ch. 159, 465 128 39 844 648 598 600 990 263 esseeseees 6 L. ed. 1100_.__.... - 1055 ». Lake (Tex.) 12 8. W. Rep. 285_.....-.--.- 1014 ». Spratley, 2 Bro. C. C. 179, note b....----2 2. 967 TABLE OF CASES. Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox,Ch. 383 966 ». Tunckhouser, 1 Pet, C. C. 418 38 Griffits 2. Ivery, 11 Ad. & El. 322 332 Griggs », Houston, 104 U. 8. 558, 26 L. ed. 840__.--...- ». Howe, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 291, 31 Barb. 100_.664, 1129 Grignonv. Astor, 43 U. 8. 2 How. 319, 11 L. ed. 283_... 62 Grigsby 2. Shwarz, 82 Cal, 278.. 697 Grill o. ae Iron Screw Col- lier Co., L. R. 1 ©. P. 600 Grim 2. Bonnell, 78 Pa. 152 Grimes v. Bastrop, 26 Tex. 310_- 88 Grimm v. Hamel, 2 Hilt. 484_.160, 393 Grimmet . a 66 Ala. eumaieaa p, Baga, 4 Towa, 559 855 Grinnell v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 113 Mass. 299, 18 Am. Rep. 485 276, 1025, 1033 Grinstead v. Foute, 26 Miss. 476. 59 Griswold v. Gallup, 22 Conn. 208 33 ». Miller, 15 Barb. 522.1054, 1084 Groat »v. Gile, 51 N. Y. 481..-_. 908 Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119.... 35 Grocers Bank 9, Penfield, 7 Hun, OO ees ceewe een 123 Groesbeck v. Seeley, 13 Mich. 329 808, 1279, 1281 Gross 0. Bock, 14 N. Y. Ci ‘ 905 Grosvenor 2. Phillips, 2 Hill, 151 311 Grover v. Howard, 31 Me. 546... 221 vo. Wakeman, 11 Wend. 188 971 Groves v. Tallman, 8 Nev. 178._ 1186 Grubbs 2. McDonald, 91 Pa, 236 1214 v. Morris, 1 West. Rep. 187, 103 Ind. 166__..- 924 Gruber »v. Boyles, 1 Brev. 266_.. 968 Grund », Tucker, 5 Kan. 70__210, 212 Grundeis v. Hartwell, 90 Ill. 324 1076, 1078 Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y.17-.. 875 Guardian Mut. L. Ins. Co. 29. Hogan, 80 Ill. 85__... %4 Guerin v. Hunt, 6 Minn. 875,.8 Minn, 477..._.._.. 714, 977 Am. Guggenheim ». Lake Shore & M. 8. R. Co.. 9 West. Rep. 907, 66 Mich. 150 860 TABLE OF CASES. Gulerette ». McKinley, 27 Hun, B20 on craic Sareaes Gulf, OC. & 8. F. R. Co. 2. Venn ton (Tex.) 2 Am. R. & Corp. Cas. 105, note.. 1109 ». Dawkins, 77 Tex. 228.. 189 o. Evansich, 61 Tex. 3.___ 1108 v. Levy, 59 Tex. 567.__-- 1024 v. Miller (Tex.) 7 8. Rep. 658__......_._- 1280 2. State, 1h R. A. 849, 72 Tex. 404........---_- 28 Gulick v. Loder, 8 N. J. L. 68. 199 Gully 0. Exeter, 4 Bing. 290-... 175 Gunderson v. Cook, 38 Wis. 551. 915 Gunn v. Bates, 6 Cal. 263_--.... 915 ». Howell, 85 Ala. 144... 228 Gunther v, Atwell, 19 Md. 157.307, 308 ‘Gurley v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 12 West. Rep. 330, 98 Mo. 445 Gurr v0. Martin, 73 Ga. 528_._._- Guthrie 2. Kahle, 46 Pa. 331___. ». Lowrie, 84 Pa. 588____- ». Quinn, 48 Ala. 561, 568 724, 7125 Gutridge us pie oue Pac. R. Co., 3 West. Rep. 646, 94 Mo. 408 2s aoe Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 165 596, 614 Gutzweiler 3. Lachman, 28 Mo. 43 16 Guy v. Bibend, 41 Cal. 325_-_--- ». Mead, 22 N. Y. 462__-- TAT, 158, 761 Guyot v. Butts, 4 Wend. 579... 781 ». Hilton, 32 Fed. Rep. 748 244, 245 Gwynne v. Heaton, 1 Bro.C.C.1 967 Gyer v. Irwin, 4 U.S. 4 Dall. 107, 1 L. ed. 762....-..... H Haber ». Klauberg, 3 Mo. App. 42 Ae dare iueatemenion Hacker ov. Horlemus, 74 Wis. 21. Hackett ». Lats of California, 57 GoOmen Aheew sche Hadden ». laa 20 Johns, 654, DUB e terete 1052, Haden v. Ivey, 41 Ala. 381...--- Hadfield v. Jameson, 2 Munf. 66 Hadjo v. Gooden, 13 Ala. 718... Hadley v. Green, 2 Tyrw. 390.-- ». State, 55 Ala. 31.-..--- ». Western U. Teleg. Co., 13 West. Rep. 405, 115 Tnd: 191. anncaccaeme 18 914 678 1054 64 1162 603 737 641 xevii Haenschen ». Luchtemeyer, 49 MO: -Slecesccscecseee 968 Hagan v. Domestic 8. Mach. Co., 9 Hun, 74___.-....-.- 1262 v. Merchants & Bkrs. Ind. Co. (Iowa) 46 N. W. Rep. 1114_______. 100, 1014 Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476_ 889, 892 ». Thompson, 66 U. 8. 1 Black, 80, 17 L. ed. 43_ Jobiesecrweceeet. 72, 89, 969 Hagerty ». Andrews, 94N. Y.195 499 Hagey v. Hill, 75 Pa. 108..__-_. 255 Haggin 2. Squires, 2 Bibb, 334._ 207 Hagthrop v. Hook, Gill & J. 270 1177 Hahn 2. Doolittle, 18 Wis. 196_- 283, 1811 ». Kelly, 34 Cal. 391-58, 199, 200 Haight v. Joyce, 2 Cal. 64_------ 1123 ®. Morris eee 4 Wash. C. C. 601..-.- 1177 Hailes». State, 9 Tex. ‘App. 170. 84 Haines 0. Guthrie, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 818._.._-..---.- 418 ®. Thomson, 70 Pa. 484... 268 ». Stouffer, 10 Pa. 3868_... 795 Hakes o. Hotchkiss, 28 Vt. 231.. 262 Halderman v. Halderman, Hempst. DOG cence seo ath: 158 Hale v. Brennan, 23 Cal. 512___. 1159 ®. Milwaukee Dock Co., 23 v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292..__. 136 a. Smith, 78 N. Y. 480.-.. 1095 2. Union Mut. F. Ins. Co., ’ 82.N. H. 295_.-.----- 73 Haliday 2. pt ational 20 Wend. Sieueeeee ee cee mae 1154 Halifax 2. ie 8 Exch. 446.... 460 Hall, Re, 1 Wall. Jr. 85-...--.- 416 Acklen, 9 La. Ann. 219 148 . Allen, 37 Ind. §41__122, 1126 Brown, 58 N. H. 93..-. 28 . Carey, 5 Ga. 239... 889, 895 Cazenove, 4 East, 477_. 1137 Com., Hardin (Ky.) 480 74 Connecticut River 8. B. Co., 18 Conn. 319.... 1097 eeseses} » Costello, 48 N. H. 176.. 65 ~. Dana, 2 Aiken, 881_-.-. 783 o. Earnest, 36 Barb, 585... 518 v. Emporia First Nat. Bank, 183 Ill. 2384--_. 103 », Featherstone, 3 Hurlst. & N. 284....124, 1124, 1127 ». Fisher, 9 Barb, 81.... - 724 ». Fuller, 5 Barn. & C. 750 461 v. Gittings, 2 Harr. & J. B80 so ssa soe see Leben 402 ». Glidden, 389 Me. 445_... 820 vo. Heydon, 41 Ala. 242.... 949 o. Huff, 74 Ga. 409.-..--. 921 xevili Hall v. Janson, 4 El. & Bl. 500, 1 Jur. N.S. 571, 24L. J.Q. B. 97_......---. v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160, 23 L. ed. 271.___.- 209, 484 . Luther, 18 Wend. 491__ 1148 . Maltby, 6 Price, 240.._. 1182 . Merrill, 9 Abb. Pr. 116, ec s v. Naylor, 18 N. Y. 588.523, 957 ». Patterson, 51 Pa. 289__. 997 v. Perkins, 3 Wend. 626.. 966 ». Rose Hill & E. Road Co. ji TOLL. 678__.--. 2. 876 v. Stanley, 86 Ind. 219... 500 0 shea 6 Barb. 83_.-_. 1062 v% ees Abb. (U. S.) ciel alciee eee dea na ates 560 0 Ven Wenain. 64 How. Pre AO cisrce tartans 338 ». Williams, 10 Me. 2838... 209 v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232_201, 209 ». Wright, ‘EL Bi. G EL. 860 Haller v. 892 Hallett ». Collins, 51 U. 8S. 10 How. 174, 18 L. ed. BiG sence soacssmemesye Halliday v. Butt, 40 Ala. 178__- v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81, 22 Wend, 264__..475, 1158, 1156, 1157 v2 Martinet, 20 Johns. 168. 893 Hallowell . Page, 24 Mo. 590.218, 221 Halpin v, Stone, 78 Wis. 183_____ 819 Halsey 2. Sinsebaugh, 15 N. Y. ASS sj arajercrere o steiner 758, 754 ». Stewart, 4N. J. L. 866. 654 Halwerson 2. Cole, 1 Speers, L. Hambleton v. Veere, 2 Saund. 169 Hamburger v. Miller, 48 Md. 325 274, 1189, 1140 Hawill 7. Thompson, 3 Colo. 518_ 223 Hamilton v. Catchings, 58 Miss.92 458 v. Conyers, 28 Ga. 276.959, 960 ». Cummings, 1 Johns. Ch. TABLE OF CASES. Hamlin 2. Sears, 82 N. Y. 827_.. 335. Hammack 0, White, 11 C. B. N. 8. 588, 31 L. J. N.S. CoP, 126 coc ccecesc 86, 1119 Hammann ». Mink, 99 Ind. 279__ 16 Hammerskold », Rose, 7 Jones, L. Gee acca diss acutneca; 655. Hammond v. Anderson, 4 Bos. & Decenisnemeew anata: 743 ». Gordon, 11 West. Rep. 904, 98 Mo, 223.___.. 149: v Inloes, 4 Md. 188____.. 82 v, Straus, 538 Md. 1_-__.__ 896 v. Varian, 54.N. Y. 898-848, 340- Hammond’s Case, 2 Me. 33, 11 Am. Dec. 39.-.-_-. 832, 343 somuauine Hopkins, 2 Yerg. sebobeds seein: exes 265. Hampton 2. a (Tex. App.) 148. W. Rep. 1072_.. 781 ». Boylan, 46 Hun, 151-.. 651 % Nicholson, 23 N. J. Eq. 42 oss vison ee abana 91 Hanayalt %, State, 64 Wis. 84__. 82 Hancock v. American L. Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 26_-..--- 76, 77, 1223 a. Kelly, 81 Ala. 268___._- 751 ». Hintrager, 60 Iowa, 374 1161 . Wilson, 39 Iowa, a 500. Hancox »v. Fishing Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. 132 Hand ». Ballou, 12 N. Y. 548... 807 ». Grant, 5 Smedes & M. B08 ou cee ete 818, 826. Handelun 2. Burlington, C. R. & N.R. Co., 72 Iowa, 709 1119: Hanf v.-Northwest Masonic Aid Asso., 76 Wis. 450_--. 542 Hanford ». Blessing, 80 Ili. 188.. 268 2, Fitch, 41 Conn. 486.... 88 Hangen v. Hachemeister, 5 L. R. A. 187, 114. N. Y. 566 919 Hankey v. Becht, 25 Minn, 212.. 1160: Hanley 2. Donoghue, 116 U. 5. 1, 29 L. ed. 585 ®% Erskine, 19 Tl. ». Foley, 18 B. Mon. 519.. 734 ». Gandy, 28 Tex. 211..348, 346. Hanlon v, Doherty, 7 West. Rep. ag 517, 1 D. ed. 229... 962 885, 109 Ind. 37___-.- 2. Kneeland, 1 Nev. 40.__. 177] Hanna», Barker, 6 Colo. 811... 224 v. Matlock, 5 Blackf. 421_. », Curtis, 1 Barb. Ch. 263, 218, 221 HL. 60. 81a cece 473 ». New York Cent. R. Co., Hannah v, McKellip, 49 Barb. 342 622 51 N. Y. 100......._- 518 | Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. vo. Swift, v. People, 29 Mich. 193.54, 6146 79 U. 8S. 12 Wall. 262, ». Russell, 5U. 8.1 Cranch, 20 L. ed. 4238__-._---- 1107 309, 2L. ed. 118.._.. Aa Hanover i oT ». Coyle, 55 Pa. v Scull, 25 Mo. 165_...-. 698) = = 896__....2 LL. 889, 891, 411 » Vought, 34.N. J. L. 190 156 Hamilton & D. Pl. Road 2. Rice, 7 Barb. 162_...-...-. 895 Hamlet v. Richardson, 9 Bing. 641 738 Hansom 2. five 45 Ill. 496.307, 1812 Hanson v. Eustace, 48 U. S. 2 How. 658, 11 L. ed. A16 wocece cee eet 158 TABLE OF CASES. Hanvey 2. State, 68 Ga. 612_._._ 658 Happy v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 3138_. 658 Hapsey 2. Sinsebaugh, 15 N.Y. pee daue sShumssuels 752 Hertixone. eae of imefous, 28 Ind. 138, 92 Am. Dec. S08 nc2ne sacs 124, 125, 1127 2. Hawkins, 81 Pa. 142._.. 829 v. Lemon, 3 Blackf. 56.265, 267 Hard »v. Decorah, 48 Iowa, 3138.. 24 Hardee v. Langford, 6 Fla. 18_-. 968 Harden v. Atchison & N. R. Co., 4 Neb. 521 Jzaceessces 137 ». Gorden, 2 Mason, 541_-. 281 Hardenbrook’s Case, 8 Abb. Pr. AIG Sooo cee eecee Hardie ». Chrisman, 60 Miss. 671 1279, 1287 Hardigree ». Mitchum, 51 Ala. 151 os ooo sm ase chaene 90 Hardin 2. ro Litt. Sel. Cas. BA oo actate anatase 226 v. Iowa R. & Constr. Co., 6 L. R. A. 52, 78 Iowa, 726,40 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 894_........---- 894 ». Kretsinger, 17 Johns. 293 160 Harding v. Hale, 2 Gray, 400.... 739 o Handy, 24 U. S. il Wheat. 104, 6 L. ed. o. Strong, 42 Tl. 148___._- 41 Hardy 2. creeps Bank, 51 A. 562) soon oese cee 2 Mervill ea oe 227, 22 Am. Rep. 355 ». Norton, 66 Barbs 533... 1129 v. White, 60 Ga. 454_.274, 1140 Hardy, Trial of, 24 St. Tr. 1079_ 1248 Harford County Comrs. v. Wise, 71 Md. 48....-.--_.-- Harger 2. Worrall, 69 N. Y. 370. Hargrave 0. Hargrave, 9 Beav. 552 81 . Melbourne, 86 Ala. 270. 305 Hargrove 2. John, 120 Ind. 285_. 1015 Hargroves ». Cooke, 15 Ga, 321.. 1264 Harkness v. Board of Public Works, 1 McArth. 121 1289 Harlan 0. Howard, 79 Ky. 878_-. 406 Harlow ». Hamilton, 6 How. Pr. Aba orem ema 184 Harmon 2. Columbia & G. R. Co., 82:8. CO. 187 caascecece v. Harmon, 61 Me. 227__.. 964 Harnett 2. Johnson, 9 Car. & P. 1G Harnor 0. ee 15 C. B. 667, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 220. 262 Harper 0. Burrow, 6 Ired. L. 30. 654 v. Dougherty, 2 Cranch, C. C. 284 1178 xeix 279 Haber v Pound, 10 Ind. 32 -__. vse: 7 Cranch, C. C. 100 49 Harrell ». Hill, 19 Ark. 102_- v Mitchell, 61 Ala, 270__- Harriman ». Stowe, 57 Mo, 93._- 377, 388, 411 Harrington v. Fry, Ryl. & M. 90 1296, 1297 ». Lincoln, 4 Gray, 563. 436, 603 v. Upton, 78 Mich. 28. _... 975 Harris v. Aldrit, 2 Chitty, 229... 651 ». Bank of Jacksonville, 22 Fla. 501, 1 Am. St Rep. 201._....-.-..-- . Barnett, 3 Gratt. 339__- . Brooks, 21 Pick. 195.__ . Clark, 3 N. Y. 98_...-. . Colquit, 44 Ga. 663_._.-. . Columbiana County Mut. Ins. Co., 18 Ohio, 116. v. Frank, 81 Cal. 280____- . Hardeman, 55 U.S. 14 ae 334, 14 L. ed. percena abate 201, 204, 208 eeesesr e a Hanis 36 Barb. 88.736, 1917 ®. Harris, 59 Cal. 620___.- 224 ». Holmes, 30 Vt. 352____- 498 v. Ingledew, 3 P. Wms. 91 79 o. Knickerbocker, 5 Wend. 638 sesanccunsiicccscs 668 v. Lindsay, 4 Wash. C. C. 98, 271 7 . McGovern, 2 Sawy. 515 1271 . Panama R. Co., 68 N.Y. 660 es 3 g ae “5 2 B © a Sy 2 @ ° a 4 ee 5 Litt. 105_-.-- Shontz, 1 Mont. 212___. . Tippett, 2 Campb. 637... . Tisereau, 52 Ga. 153____ . Tumbridge, 838 N. Y. 92 . Wall, 48 U.S. 7 How. 693, 12 L. ed. 875..__. Harris Photographic Supply Co. ». Fisher, 81 Mich. 186 Harrison v. Blades, 3 Campb. 458 . Cachelin, 27 Mo. 26_... . Edwards, 3 Litt. 840__._ . Elvin, 3 Q. B. 117_____- 1199 . Harrison, 8 Ves. Jr. 185. 1198 . Howard, 1 Ired. Eq. 407 292 . Johnson, 3 Litt. 286__226, 227 . Middleton, 11 Gratt. 527 753 . Phillips Academy, 12 Mass, 456__-.--..--.. 2. Rowan, 8 Wash. C. C. 580_.....--.- 855, 586, 1196 v. Swift, 13: Allen, 144__.. 860 Harrod 2. Barretto, 2 Hall, 302.. 1180 1215 906 690 141 423 795. 226 eeeeese eeeeeecs c TABLE OF CASES. Harrod 2. Harrod, 1 Kay & J. 4, 18 PUT) 80d eericicsisesacicis Harrow ». Myers, 29 Ind. 469__-_ Harryman v. Roberts, 52 Md. 64_ Hart's, Baltimore & O. R. Co., 6 998 742 737 W. Va. 336_.-.------ 33 . Bodley, Hardin (Ky.) 98 28 . Boller, 15 Serg. &R.162 71 Dablgreen, 16 La. 559.. 985 Deamer, 6 Wend. 497.- 1084 Giles, 67 Mo. 180---.--- Hart, 1 Hare, 1----- 163, 164 Henderson, 17 Mich. 218 808 . Hudson, 6 Duer, 294... 668 . Hudson River Bridge Co., 84 N. Y. 56_.---- 1102 : Kelly, 83 Pa, 286_..-.- 1160 . Kendall, 82 Ala. 144... 821 , Livingston, 29 Iowa, 217 818, 826 . Newland, 3 Hawks, 122 493 . Powell, 18 Ga. 635 411 . Roper, 6 Ired. Eq. 349.. 72 . Smith, 44 Wis. 223..... 1279 . State, 55 Ind. 599__..-- 39 . Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Ch. 88, 1 L. ed. 306___.--- 1179 . Tulk, 2 DeG. M. & G.300 1199 . Vidal, 6 Cal. 57__...--- 342 Western U. Teleg. 66 Cal. 579_------ 114, 1022 ». Wilson, 2 Wend. 513_-. 893 Hartford ». Palmer, 16 Johns. 143 528, 535 Hartford Bridge Co. 0. Granger, 4 Conn. 142...-.-.-- 435, 489 Hartley 2. Brooks, 6 Whart. 189. 820 ». Harrison, 24 N. Y. 170_ 1306 Hartman 2. Diller, 62 Pa. 37_.960, 962 Hartshorn 2. Potroff, 89 Ill. 509. 727 ». Williams, 31 Ala. 149._ 420 Hartt ». McNeil, 47 Mo. 526_.--- 1234 Hartwell v. McMaster, 4 Redf. BOO at tence ac tacieies Harvey 2. Childs, 28 Ohio St. 319 1159, 1160 ». Drew, 82 Til. 606------ ». Grabham, 5 Ad. & El. 738 1261, 1262 . Ledbetter, 48 Miss. 95.. 290 . Morris, 63 Mo. 475_.-.- (27 Mount, 8 Beav. 439.._.. i Fennypecken, 4 Del. Ch. eessesesss ec eeeses oc seese 1013 157 1270 v. Thorpe, 28 Ala. 250.._. o. Tobey, 15 Pick. 99, 25 Am. Dec. 480_.----.- » Sowers 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 53 v Tyler, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 828, 17 L. ed. 871...63, 1289 » Skipwith, 16 Gratt, 405. 797 ®. Smith, 17 Ind. 272__... 9 Harvey v. United States, 18 Ct.Cl. 470 1260 ». Vandervoort,9 N. Y. 153 988 Haskins 2. Spiller, 1 Dana, 174.. 1177 ». Warren, 115 Mass. 514 902, 908 Haslam 2. ae 19 Week. Rep. Haslet 2. Bee 2 McCord, L. 311 Hassam ». Barrett, 115 Mass. 256 Hassard v. Municipality No. Two, 7 La. Ann. 495_._---. Hastings v. Livermore, 15 Gray, 10 484 268 35 634 581 o. Palmer, 20 Wend. 225_- ». Vaughn, 5 Cal. 315_-_-- 224 Hatch 2. Kimball, 16 Me. 146... 717 v, Sigman, | Dem. 519.__. 1209, 1210 v. Skelton, 20 Beav. 453.289, 290 v. State, 8 Tex. App. 416, 84 Am. Rep. 751-.-.- 135 Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18 N. Y.86 88 Hatfield ». Lasher, 17 Hun, 23... 1044 o. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 33 Minn. 130, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cag. 292....- 1074 Hathaway 2. Brady, 23 Cal. 124. 785 ev. Brown, 18 Minn. 414, 22 Minn. 214_-_-- 951, 952, 961 ». Clark, 5 Pick. 490_.-.-- 52 ». National L. Ins. Co., 48 Wit, 880. cee sweats 349 ». Ryan, 35 Cal. 188_.--.- Hathaway's App., Re, 46 Mich. B26 cece. caeenees Hathorn 2. oKing, 8 Mass. 371, 5 Am. Dec, 106_-._..-- Hatton ». Robinson, 14 Pick. 416 Hauck 2. Craighead, 4 Hun, 349 644 666 Haun 2. State, 18 Tex. App. 3883. 172 Hauseman ». Sterming, 61 Barb. BAT Selec ceseeseues Haussknecht v. Claypool, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 481, 17 L. Cds Pee nce es 554, 927, 928 Een 2, Ingersoll, 12 Abb. Pre, WN, iS, 801-.-2-2.. Haven ». Brown, 7 Me. 421, 22 Am, Dec. 208 in. es 268, 448 o. Neal, 43 Minn, 315_---- 363 ®% Wendell, 11 N. H, 112- 752, 761 Haverly ». Alcott, 57 Iowa, 173-- ‘1056 Haviland 2. Pratt, 1 Phila. 864_- 1076, 1079 TABLE OF CASES. ‘Hawes 2. ae P. Co., 101 ci Healey 0. Thatcher, 8 Car. & P. 38 Mass, 394._...--.---- 167) BBL ees 436 ». Dingley, 17 Me. 341.524, 954 | Healy v. Moul, 5 Serg. & R.181_ 402 ». Langton, 8 Pick. 67_... 984 v. Root, 11 Pick. 290_.-_-- 209 Hawker 2. Baltimore & O. R. Co., ». Utly, 1 Cow. 845___...- 1229 15 W. Va. 686 _.---. 762 | Heane 2. sees, 9 Barn. & C. Hawkesworth ». Showler, 12 DI Marea tah chain hela AT7 Mees, & W. 45_-..--. 988 | Heard v. State, 9 Tex. App. 1... 339 Hawkins ». Berry, 10 Ill. 36..--- 1312 | Hearne 2. Marine F. Ins. Co., 87 ». Chace, 19 Pick. 502..-. 1263 U. 8. 20 Wall. 488, :: Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586, 41 22 L. ed. 395.__..._.- 298 Am. Dec. 767_..--.-- 1107 | Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. ». Pemberton, 51 N. Y. 198 R. Co., 16 Ind. 275. ..28, 34 808, 809, 1811 | Heath 2. ma 15 Hun, 100__._. 1206 Hawks ». Baker, 6 Me. 72_.__.- 575 ». Erie R. Co., 9 Blatchf. Hawley v. Bennett, 5 Paige, 104, OlG--seceee wet 242, 247, 248 3 L. ed. 646.-_.-.---- 466 o. Frackleton, 20 Wis. 320 ®% aridlebanak: 28 Conn. 734, 738 Sree Rel achrenatetenanete v. Page, 63 Pa. 108__.. .293, 968 a Union 102 U. 8. 314, 26 o VanCott, 9 Wis. 516_-.. 272 VR 0ed sg AID wears siete 9 | Heathcote’s Divorce Bill, 1 Macq. ». Warner, 12 Iowa, 42... 1237 H. L. Cas, 585...-... 84 Hawse v. Crowe, Ryan & M. 414 958 Hawthorne », Hoboken, 32 N. J. L, 172 33 Haycock v. Greup, 57 Pa. 488_.. 344 Hayden v. Anderson, 17 Iowa, 158 1237 ». Bucklin, 9 ‘Paige, 512, 4 L. ed. 796...---- 1054, 1055 Hayes v. Berwick, 2 Mart. 188._ 1222 Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H. sc chica ead Sis ensin 887, 889 ». Jones, 2 Head, 372__--. 1271 v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319. 587 ». Powell, 3 Dowl. P. C. 500 ee cen aceied eee 843 ». Small, 22 Me. 14..-.--- 222 ». Wheat, 9 Ala. 239.-.__- Haynie v. Robertson, 58 Ala. 37. Hays v. Cage, 2 Tex. 501....--- v. Ford, 55 Ind. 52.------- 59 » Millar, 77 Pa, 238--_--- 1105 v Richardson, 1 Gil & J. COU cs nenenerencansacw: 654 ». Stone, 7 Hill, 128___.-- 70 Hayward v. Carroll, 4 Harr. & Je O18 be = Se esemcien 226 ». Conkling, 14 N. Y. Week. Dig. 236_----- 1281 ». Dimsdale, 17 Ves. Jr. 111 962 Hazard v. Day, 14 Allen, 487.... 1020 ». Loring, 10 Cush. 266... 282 o White, 26 Ark. 155.... 1140 Hazaltine 2. Page, 4 Vt. 58____.. 982 Hazen v. Kostenbauder (Pa.) 3 Cent. Rep. 632_....-- 868 Head v. Head, 1 Sim. & Stu. 150 80 Heady’s Will, 15 Abb. Pr. N.S. 211 1209 Heald c. Thing, 45 Me. 394_.-327, 349 Healey, Re, 58 Vt. 694.___.----- 654 o. Jagger, 3 Sim. 494.-_.- » Terry 80 N. Y.5.R. 664 625, 631 Heaton v. Fryberger, 838 Iowa, 185 996 ». Myers, 4 Colo. 62__.__- 270 v. Shanklin, 115 Ind. 596. 954 oe Mondy, 49 Ind. Hedden 2. Cnn 4 Bibb, 406. 235 ». Roberts, 1384 Mass. 38, 45 Am. Rep. 276_.-__... 906 Hedge v. Clapp, 22 Conn. 262... 622 Hedgepeth v. Rose, 95 N.C. 41_ 728 Hedger 2. eee 3 Car. & P. bsiet aise i eeeameeies 455 Heeter v. Glasgow, 79 Pa. 79___- 316, 488, 996 Hatel Beer 2 7 Shutz, 16 Serg. & Heffernan v. P uupene Unk i of H., 40 Mo. App. G00 =. Seeds co eoace ca ate Heffron ». Pollard, 73 Tex. 96___ Hefner v. Vandolah, 57 Ill. 520__ Hegeman v. Western R. Corp., 16 ¥ 353, aff'd 13 N. 805 712 Heinemann ® ‘Heard, 62 N, Y. 448 111, 115, 118 Heintzelman ». Druids Relief Asso., 88 Minn. 188_.. 894 Heiser v. VanDyke, 27 Iowa, 359 787 Helena v. Albertose, 8 Mont. 499 921 . Turner, 386 Ark. 577_... 727 Helfenstein ». Cave, 3 Iowa, 287. 983 cil Helm »v. Boyd, 13 West. Rep. 879 124 Wh. B70 cvcee cee 266 Helme ». Philadelphia L. Ins Co., 61 Pa. 10% eee ctece 281 v. Pollard, 14 La. Ann. 304 981, 984 Helms v. Green, 105 N.C. 251-. 624 ». Wayne Agricultural Co., 73 Il. 825, 88 Am. Rep. Helser ». McGrath, 58 Pa. 458___ Helwig ». Lascowski, 10 L. R. A. 378, 82 Mich. 619__-.- Hemmens 2. Bentley, 32 Mich. 89 600, 603 Hemmenway v. Towner, 1 Allen, 209 1122 865 Hemphill ». Alabama Bank, 6 Smedes & M. 44.1125, 1130 Hempstead v. Easton, 33 Mo. 142 722 ». Johnston, 18 Ark, 123, 95 Am. Dec. 621_.._.. 954 Henderson 2. Anderson, 44 U. 8. 3 How. 73, 11 L. ed. 499 1143 a. Goce 93 Il. App. 601, aff'd in 11 West. Rep. 729, 123 Ill. 98._ 1080 v. Hackney, 16 Ga. 521-343, 346 ». Henderson, 3 Hare, 115. 734 v. Hill, 64 Ga. 292---.-_-- 736 v. Overton, 2 Yerg. 394... 725 ». State, 1 Tex. App. 482. 633 Hendrickson ». Ivins, 1 N. J. Eq. 862. sasceeseciermem cel an 297 Henegar v. Spangler, 29 Ga. 217. 654 Henkel v. Pape, L. R. 6 Exch. 7, 23 L. T.N. 8. 419, 19 Week. Rep. 106.-..-- 1020 Henkle v. Royal Exch. Assur.Co., 261, 298, 301, 302, 303 ». Smith, 21 Il. 238.2. ‘1308 Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22.225, 268 Hennessy 2 teas (N. D.) 44N. Rep. 1010 __-_...- 316 Henry v. Carson, 59 Pa. 297_.._- 1271 », Davis, 7 Johns. Ch. 40, QL. ed. 218..._.... 265, 267 ». Everts, 29 Cal. 610.__.- 514 v, Henry, 8 Barb. 588____. 954 #, Jackson, 87 Vt. 481_... 900 v, Jones, 1 Idaho, 48_.___- 797 a. Risk, 1 U.S. 1 Dall. 265, 1D. ed. 130..--.__._- 906 ». Salina Bank, 1 N. Y 83 654 . Sneed, 99 Mo, 407__.730, 974 ' Southern Pac. R. Co., 50 Cal. ec ». Travelers Ins. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 863___..... ®, Williard, 73 N. C. 35__- 100 445 TABLE OF CASHES. Henshaw ». Bissell, 85 U.S. 18 ‘Wall. 271, 21 L. ed. 840 716 ». Robins, 9 Met. 88_____. 1319 Hensler v. Sefrin, 19 Hun, 564._ 270 Hensley v. Tarpey, 7 Cal. 288... 41 Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157.42, 408 Hentz v. Long Island R. Co., 13 Barb. 647_...---.---- 1229 ». Miller, 94 N. Y. 64____. 726 Hepburn ». Auld, 9 U. 8. 5 Cranch, 262, 3L.ed.96 88 Herbert v. Butler, 970. 8. 819, 24 L. ed. 958___------ 680, 970 o. Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581-... 261 ». Huie, 1 Ala. 18, 834 Am. Dec. 755_.--.--..---. 1125 ». Odlin, 40 “N. H. 267_... 300 Herdic ». Bilger, 47 Pa. 60_-.-_. 795 Hereth v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 34 Ind. 380_-_.-- 1122, 1124 Herndon ». Bryant, 39 Miss. 336 Herne v. Meeres, 1 Vern. 465-_-__- Herold v. Herold, 9 L. R. A. 696, 47 N. J. Eq. 210__------ Herrick ». Smith, 18 Hun, 446_. Herring 2. Clobery, 1 Phill. Ch. 94 ov. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 63 How. Pr. 497 734, 736 o. Wickham, 29 Gratt. 628 949 Herrington ee Herrington, 27 Mo. BOQ mec Sie erie lene Hersom »v. Henderson, 21 N. H. 224, 58 Am. Dec. 185. Hervey v. Hervey, 2 W. Bl. 877. Herzo v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. U4 aes se aes Hess v. Lowrey, 7L. R. A. 90, 122 Ind. 225_261, 486, 1069, 1070 v. Shorb, 7 Pa. 231__..-..- 984 ». State, 5 Ohio, 5... __- 343 Hess’s App., 134 Pa. 31 -_..._101, 141 Heuston v. Simpson, 14 West. Rep. 828, 115 Ind. 62. 651 Hewey 2. Nourse, 54 Me, 156__.. 1118 Hewitt v. Dement, 57 Ill. 500_.... 1804 ». Hewitt, 5 Redf. 71, aff'd in 91. N. Y. 261-. 1209 ». Kaye, L. R. 6 Eg. 198.. 994 Hewitt’s App., 1 New Eng. Rep. 461, 58 Conn. 387_.___. 1189 Hewlett 7. Cock, 7 Wend. 371__- 402, 404, 407 ». Hewlett, 4 Edw. Ch. 8, 6 L. ed. 780...---_-_- 89 a. Steele, 11 Pac. C. L. J. 30 258 v Wood, 65 N.Y. one 327 Heyne 2. Blair, 62 N. Y. 19....- 1061 Heyward 2. Hazard, 1 te 335. 355 Hibbard ». Mills, 46 Vt. 343 peg 965 Hibbert o. Carterm, 1T. R. 745. 311 Hibler 2. McCartney, 81 Ala. 501_ 279, 796 TABLE OF CASES. Hickerson 2, ee of Mexico, 58 Mo. 213 963 209 Hickey 2. Due 47 Mo. 369___. ® Stewart, 44U.8. 3 How. 762, 11 L. ed. 819_... Hickman », Alpaugh, 21 Cal. 225 66 v. Jones, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 201,19 L. ed. 558_... 126 % Trout, 83 Va. 478____954, 955 », State, 88 Tex. 190___.__ Hickox 2. Naugatuck R. Co., 81 Conn. 281._......-..- 1106 v. Tallman, 38 Barb. 608_806,807 Hicks v. Branton 21 Ark. 186... 1076 ». Coleman, 25 Cal. 141... 915 . Cram, 17 Vt. 449___._.. 392, 476, 1155, 1156 ». Lovell, 64 Cal. 14_.___. 398 v. Marshall, 8 Hun, 827... 561 ». Person, 19 Ohio, 426... 332 Hlidden v. Waldo, 55 N. Y. 294. 459 Higbie ». Guardian Mut. L. Ins. Co., 58 N. Y. 603.... 519 ®. Hopkins, 1 Wash. C. C. 2 eee 2380, 1177, 1178 Higginbotham o. Burnet, 5 Johns. Ch. 184, 1 L. ed. 1050 297 Higgins v. Bullock, 66 Ill. 37__.. 222 ». Dewey, 107 Mass. 494.. 338 v. McCrea, 116 U. 8. 683, 29 L. ed. 768___-.-... 680 Moore, 34 N. Y. 417.280, 908 Senior, 8 Mees. & W. 384 269 State, 1 Cent. Rep. 704, 64 Md. 419__.___. Lo. v. Reed, 8 Iowa, 298 ess High, Re, ees (Mich.) 515... 64 Higham v. Ridgway, 10 East, 120 414 Highberger », Stiffler, 21 Md. 388 1093 Highes 2. Blake,19 U. 8. 6 Wheat. 458, 5 L. ed. 303... 733 Highland Turnp. Co. 7. McKean, 10 Johns. 154______.. 889, 890, 894, 898 ee ee a Ivy, 2 Port. a 30 Higley ». Gilmer, 3 Mont. 90._.. 1106 ibn 2. Courtis, 31 Cal. 402____- 742 Hildeburn 2. Curran, 65 Pa. 59.682, 633 Hildreth », O’Brien, 10 Allen, 104 282 e. Troy, 2 Cent. Rep. 273, 101 N. Y. 284_._..-.. 19, 23 ‘Hileman v. Hileman, 85 Ind. 1-. 992 0. Wright, 9 Ind. 126... 302 Hiles v. Cate, 75 Wis. 91_.._...- 1 Hill a. Bacon, 43 Ill. 477_....... v, Barrett, 14 B. Mon. 83- 1188 » Blackwelder, 113 Ill. 2938 722 v. Blake, 97 N. Y. 216.... 1260 clii Hill 2. Burget, 8 Bradf. 482-_..- 415 ». Com. 2 Gratt. 594___._- ». Crompton, 119 Mass. 376 499 ®. Edwards, 11 Minn. 22, St fate rata tan ate tate 264, 267 . Ely, 5 Serg. & R. 363 1189, 1140 . Epley, 31 Pa, 331___.722, 724 . Grant, 49 Pa. 200.-..218, 221 . Gray, 1 Stark. 434___-. 262 Hibernia Ins. Co., 10 907 Hill, 2 ‘Strange, 1094__.. 987 . Kling , 4 Ohio, 185_..219, 221 R Teseeed. 5 Ill. 140____. 1282 . Manchester Water Works Co., 2 Nev. & Man 573, 2 Barn. & Ad. 54d 890 . Mendenhall, 88U. 58. 21 Wall. 453, 22 L. ed. GIG ccc eet ge 209, 1181 eses seee s v. Miller, 5 Serg. & R. 355_ 1235 ». Miller, T6N. Y¥. 382 --.. 269 . Palm, 88 Mo. 18._-...- 1062 2. Pine River Bank, 45 N. Hy 800) si 22 eee co ee 877 ®. Portland & R. R. Co., 55 Me. 488.-..------- 906 o. Scott, 12 Pa. 168._..815, 830 % Supervisor of Road Dist. No. 6, 10 Ohio St. 621 678 », Wilkes, 41 Ga. 449____. 66 Hilliard 2. Outlaw, 92 N. C. 286 38 Am. Rep. 299_... 201, 206 ». Phillips, 81 N.C. 99.... 950 Hilliker ». Coleman, 73 Mich. 170 20 Hillis v. Wylie, 26 Ohio St. 574. 639 Hillman ». Wilcox, 30 Me. 170__ 1310 Hills ». Barnes, 11 N. H. 395.... 855 ». Hoitt, 18 N. H. 603.... 714 Hillyer 2. Vaughan, 1 J. J. Marsh. 588 _.......-- 232 Hilsen 2. pe 12 Jones & S. eohan ee eects 1184 Hilton 2. Becaae 69 N. Y. 75 1285, 1286 Himmelman ». Hoadley, 44 Cal. 2 25 setae mneweciceces 391 eee eS 91 Hinde 2. Waite 1 McLean, 110, rev'd 32 U. 8. 7 Pet. 252, 8 L. ed. 657___-- o. Vattier, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 898, 8 L. ed. 168__--. Hinds ». Harbou, 58 Ind. 121--. 351 Hinkley 2. St. Louis Fourth Nat. Bank, 77 Ind. 475.-.. 1127 Hinton v. Dibbin, 2 Q. B. 646... 1034 civ Hinton v, Locke, 5 Hill, 487.278, 280, 904, 906, 910, 1818 Hintrager v. Kiene, 62 Iowa, 605 1284 Hirsch v, Richardson (Miss.) 7 So. Rep. 323__...--..---. 803 Hirsh v. Whitehead, 65N. ©. 516 1238 TABLE OF CASES. Hogaboom ». Ehrhardt, 58 Cal. 281 os once seeee eet 512, 514 Hogan v. Kurtz, rn U.S. 778, 24 L. ed. 1271 Secs eeesnseeeseeaes 231 Hirshfield ». Waldron, 88 Mich. Hoge 2. Fish, Pet. C. C. 163.. 355. TGs co siaascn eae 9 | Hogg ». Brown, 2 Brev. 223-.-. 282 Hise v. Finches, 10 Tred. L. 189_ 1195 o. Orgill, 84 Pa. 344_____. 445 Hitchcock, Will of, Re, 16 N. Y. Hoghton »v, Hoghton, 15 Beav. Week. Dig. 583.1204, 1218 278.--.------ 821, 486, 1090: Hitchin 2. oe 2 W. Bi. Hogue ». er (Or.) 10 L. R. 779, 3 Wils. 240___- A. 673, 832 Am. & Eng. 735, 737, 789 Corp. Cas, 49..-_-._. 104 Hitchins 2, Pettingill, 58 N. Y. Hoitt v. Wanlinn, 21 N. H. 586_. 150. G15)! Meraaigerats eee ey epee 300 | Holabird v. Atlantic Mut. L. Ins, Hizer ». State, 12 Ind. 330_.._.- 27 Co., 12 Am. L. Reg. Hoadly ». McLaine, 10 Bing. 482 1264 Re ier a 997 Hoagland ». Bell, 26 Barb, 27... 895| Holbrook v. Blod ett, 5 Vt. 491_ 232: Hoar ». Goulding, 116 Mass. 182 276 ®. Burt, 22 Pick. 546...__. 959 Hoare v. Graham, 3 Campb. 57. 1148 v. Finney, 4 Mass. 466.-.. 267 v. Johnstone, 2 Keen, 553, v. Jackson, 7 Cush. 186.... 890 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 496__ 226 0. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 v. Silverlock, 12 Q. B. 624 47 N. Y. 616... 876, 878, 1060 Hobart v. Dodge, 10 Me. 156, 25 0. Utica & 8. R. Co., 12 N. m. Dec. 214_____..- 263 Y. 236 __87, 119, 1098, 1120: v. Penny, 70 Me. 248__.-- 1123 | Holcomb 2. Holcomb, 28 Conn. Hobbs ». Duff, 43 Cal. 489_....- 258 UE (ots tented aces 528, 562 ». Memphis & C. R. Co., 9 v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y. 316. 542. Heisk. 878._......--- 38 ». Wyckoff, 35 N. J. L. 35, ov. Middletown, 1 J. J. 10 Am. Rep. 219____. _ 1123 Marsh. 178 --_.--._.- 1177 | Holcombe v. Holcombe, 10 N. J. Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250... 1300 Qi 280 sion cnsars Hse 702 Hocum ». oo 22 Mion. ». Munson, 5 Cent. Rep. Leeeeeedeeseaee des 1108 402, 103 N. Y. 682_... 920: Hodgdon é *Wighe, 36 Me. 326.. 70 ». State, 28 Ga. 66._____.. 180 Hodge v. Denney, 6 Alb. L. J. Holden v. Kirby, 21 Wis. 149... 187 TOP eon ace a neaeeae 781) Holder v, Nunnelly, 2 Coldw. 288 290 Hodges v. Eddy, 38 Vt. 327.___- 1279 | Holdfast ». Dowsing, 2 Strange, ® Tarrant, 31 8. C. 608, 1208 coc wie een 987 mem, --....-----.--- 658} Holeman v. Hobson, 8 Humph . TennessceeM. &F.Ins. | — 19%7..........-....... 123: Co., 8 N. Y. 416__.265, 266 Eiolenbecls v. Rowley, 8 Allen, Hodson ». Davis, 43 Ind. 258.....995}. «475... Hoe v. Sanborn, 21 N.Y. 552_.._. % Yan Valkenburgh, 5 1314, a How. Pr. 281, 1 Code Hoey o. Furman, 1 Pa, 295_____- Rep. N. 8. 88.__..-2- 1209: Hoffar v. Dement, 5 Gill, 182, 46 Holley ». Scans 68 Me. 215, 28 Am, Dec. 628_...-... 837 Am. Rep. 40_-...-... 462 Hoffman ». Altna F. Ins. Co., 19 Holiday o. Arthur, 25 Towa, 19 369 Abb. Pr. 325, aff'd. 32 ». Harvey, 89 Tex. 670 _.. 148. N.Y. 405 13 v FitzWilliam, 81 Ill. 521 986 . Hoffman, 46 N. Y. 30,7 Am, Rep. 299.__.. 201, 206 2 National City Bank of Milwaukee, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 181, 20 L. ed. B06 commas asa cueis 458, 459 . State, 12 Tex. App. 406 . Treadwell, 2 Thomp. & C, 57 3 s Hollingsworth v. State, 9 West. Rep. 803, 111 Ind. 289 287 ®. Swickard, 10 Iowa, 385 1306 Hollis 2, Hayes, 1 Md. Ch. 479.. 290 Hollister ». Nowlen, 19 Wend. 234, 32 Am. Dec. 455. 1107 Holloway v. Galloway, 51 Ill. 159 1211 Holman 2. Kimball, 22 Vt. 555.. 643- Holme o. Karsper, 5 Binn. 469_. 122, 1142: Holmes 2. Baldwin, 17 Me. 398_. 221 ». Beal, 9 Cush, 223_.... 833. TABLE OF CASES. Holmes v, Broughton, 10 Wend. NO sa eceena 64, 65, 178 . Campbell, 12 Minn. 221 674 . Carley, 31 N. Y. 290... 1270 . Fresh, 9 Mo. 200______- ; Grant, 8 8 Paige, 259, 4 L. 6042) coco mesos ¥ faa 3 West. Rep. 296, 20 Mo. App. 661.28, 30 » Holmes, 1 Abb. (U. 8.) B20 =raivcyamistccinieerse cm 997 ». Hunt, 122 Mass, 505... 1279 v. Johnson, 42 Pa. 159..76, 908 v. Kring, 12 West. Rep. B64 "98 Mo. 452___._- 28, 29 v McCray, 51 Ind. 858__.. 1161 ». Mallett, 1 Morris (Iowa) eeseed s Be scin S aes Las oe ol 64 ». Statelor, 17 Ill. 453____. 640 v. Steele, QBN. J. Eq. 178. 712 ». Turners Falls Lumber Co., 6 L. R. A. 388, 150 Mass, 585 _--__-_- 466 Holst o. State, 28 Tex. App. 1... 540 Holt ». Alloway, 2 Blackf. 108-_- 209, 1181 v. Crume, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 500 -._.-.-----. 497 ». Hemphill, 8 Obio, 282_. 1278 ». Ross, 54 N. Y. 474___.. 460 Holton v. Lake County Comrs., 55 Ind. 194 --.....--- 336 ®. Southern Pac. R. Co., 50 Mo. 151______..- 981, 984 Homan v. Laboo, 1 Neb. 204.--_- 1935 Home Ins. Co. ». Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 U. S. 527, 23 L. ed. 868.. 486 ®. Weide, 78 U. 8. 11 Wall. 438, 20 L. ed. 197.51, 53, 493 Homer 2. Cilley, 14 N. H. 85_... 404 ». Dorr, 10 Mass. 26.....- 1318 ». Grosholz, 88 Md. 520___ 711 %. Wallis, 11 Mass. 309, 6 Am. Dec. 169___.-- 344, 347 Hone ». Mutual 8S. Ins. Co., 1 Sandf. 187_.........- 1318 Honore v. Hutchings, 8 Bush, 687 264 Honstine ». roamed, 5 Hun, 472 Honyman v. Campbell, 5 Wils. & 144, 2 Dow. & C. Hood ». Aston, 1 Russ. 412_..._- ». Hood, 2 Grant, Cas. 229 ». Hood, 110 Mass. 463.... 2138 ». Maxwell, 1 W. Va. 289. 336 ». Pimm, 4 Sim. 101. -_..- 604 v. Reeve, 3 Car. & P. 532__ 228, 465 ». State, 56 Ind. 263 .__..- 207 Hook ». Stovall, 30 Ga. 418_....- 1308 », Stovall, 26 Ga, 704._..- 330 cv Hooker v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 76 Wis. 542, 41 Am. &Eng. R.Cas. 488 v, Johnson, 6 Fla. 730_--- % Terpenny, 29N.Y.5. BR. 818 785 826 784 Hoomes v. Smock, 1 Wash. (Va.) DOO ae cercieue ae 226, 229, 1178 Hooper 2, Moore, 5 Jones, L. 130 36 v. Taylor, 39 Me. 224_.... 826 Hoosac Min. & Mill. Co. ». Donat, 10 Colo. 529-_..-...-- 670 Hoose v. Robbins, 18 La. Ann. 648 968 Hoover ». Gehr, 62 Pa. 136.._._. 813 ». Reilly, 2 Abb. (U. 8.) 475 302 Hope »v. Beadon, 17 Q. B. 509-_- 161 ® Lawrence, 50 Barb. 258. 725 Hopewell », ne Pinna, 2 Campb. 11Bioeececees bee kes 76. Hopkins v. Coburn, 1 Wend. 292. 655 2 Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co., 78 Ill. 82..----.. 333. ». Kansas City, St. J. &C. B. R. Co., 79 Mo. 98.. 25 o. Lee, 19 U. 8. 6 Wheat. 109, 5 L. ed. 218..._.- 784 v. Megquire, 35 Me. 78_... 340 v, Orcutt, 51 Cal. 587__..- 675 o. Orr, 124 U. 8. 510, 31 L. ed. 523 670 v. Sievert,58 Mo.201-179, 294,953 Hopkirk ». Page, 2 Brock. 20... Hopper v. Jones, 29 Cal. 18.___. v. Sage, 112 N. Y. 530... Hoppock v. Moses, 43 How. Pr. 0 lee oc anlaad 445, 1154, 1158 v. United N. J. BR. & C. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 286- Hopt v. Utah, "120 U. 8. 430, 30 L. ed. 708 Hord v. Bodley, 1 J. J. Marsh. 79 ‘1279 Horn v. Brooks, 61 Pa. 407-__.-. 965. v eyes o & N.W.R. Co., 18; AGB yas saya ‘», Keteltas, 46 N. Y. 610. 42 How. Pr. 152_.__267, 291 v. Ludington, 28 Wis. 81 1186 2. Perry, 14 Hun, 409____. 471 v. Pullman, 72N. Y. 269.. 1214 Horne »v. M’ Kenzie, 6 Clark & F. O28 sarcieirete eee ats 748, 756 Horner v. Doe, 1 Ind. 180, 48 Am. Dec. 355_._._._. Horry Dist. Comrs. ». Hanion, 1 Nott. & McC. 554. Horst ». Wagner, 43 Iowa, 373, 22 Am. Rep. 255.......- Horton v. Bayne, 2 Mo. 5381_..- 122, 124, 1126 Hortsman ». Henshaw, 52 us. 11 How. 177, 18 L. ed. 653 5 -decsc0cce 458, 459, 460 853 Cvi Hosford v. Nichols, 1 Paige, 220, QL. ed. 624_._....__- 38, 64 Hosley v. Black, 28. N. Y. 488... 516 Hosmer ». Warner, 15 Gray, 46-. 336 Hostler ». Hays, 3 Cal. 302... .'709, 711 Hotchin v. Secor, 8 Mich. 494._. 71 Hotchkiss 0, Germania F. Ins. Co., 5 Hun, 90.__---- 622 » Lyons, 2 Blackf. 222--. 470 osher, 48 N. Y. 478... 159 Hotion. v. Browne, 9C. B.S. 442 964 Hough ». Cook, 69 Ill. 581... .496, 500 v. Doyle, 4 Rawle, 291_... 450 v. Richardson, 3 Story, 659 1178 Houghtuling ». Kilderhouse, IN. ¥. 58 iets teats 1242 2. oe 2 Barb. 150 1248 Houghton v. Gilbart, 7 Car. & P. NON St Ape eters 904 ». Houghton, 15 ae 278 1093 o. Jones, 68 U. 8. 1 Wall. 702, 17 L. ed. 503__.-- 919 House v. Alexander, 3 West. Rep. 816, 105 Ind. 109___.. 921 v, Fort, 4 Blackf. 293___.- 351 ». Low, 2 Jobns. 378___..- 231 ”. McCormick, 57 N.Y.310 710 v. State, 9 Tex. App. 567. 133 ‘Houser v. Hampton, 7 Ired. L. Dole mesons ack ewes 222 ». Irvine, 8 Watts & §. 247 484 ». Lamont, 55 Pa. 811_.._ 265 Houston v. Bruner, 39 Ind. 383__ 1138 v. Clark, 50 N. H. 482___. 990 v. Musgrove, 35 Tex. 594.. 739 v, Shindler, 11 Barb. 86... 282 Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Cow- ser, 57 Tex. 293__.__. 1103 v. Knapp, 51 Tex. 592... 336 Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. 2. Blagge, 73 Tex. 24... 679 Hovenden v, Annesley, 2 Sch. & Lef. 634 ..._.---..2_. 1267 Hovey ». Crane, 12 Pick. 167_... 983 v. Grant, 52 N. H. 569... 499 Howard 2. American Peace Soc., 9 Me. 288.__.._..... 1194 v. City F. Ins. Co., 4 Denio, OO Reece aeee ee 594, 596 v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 862, 19 Am. Rep. 285... ..1009, 1020 », Fletcher, 59 N. H. 151_. 1270 ». Holbrook, 9 Bosw. 287. 1296 ». Kimball, 65 Me. 308___. 740 v. Patrick, 88 Mich. 795... 398 v. Sheward, L. R.2C.P.148 1319 », State, 82 Ind. 478_____. 613 Howard's Will, 5 T. B. Mon. 199.1191 Howe v. Hartness, 11 Ohio St. 449 1060 ». Plainfield, 41 N. H. 135 378 w. Reed, 12 Me. 515. 524, 715, 976 0. Biarkweather, 17 Mass. 3 TABLE OF CASES. Howe Mach. Co. 2. Pettibone, 74 N. Y. 68 seeae aceon, - 847 ». Snow, 32 Iowa, 483_... 445 Howell o. Baker, 4 Johns.Ch, 118, 1L. ed. 784...._..... 967 ». Hathaway, 28 Neb. 807_ 1081 v. Howell, 37 Mo, 124____. 420 ® McCrie, 86 Kan. 636, 59 Am. Rep. 584__.____- 423 . Moores, 127 Ill. 67____. 288 » Reynolds, 12 Ala. 128.. 619 Howes 2. Barker, 3 Johns. 506.. 301 Howie v. Rea, 75 N.C. 326.._.- 753. Howland »v. Blake, 97 U. 8. 624, 24 L. ed. 1027____- 225, 303 v. Crocker, 7 Allen, 1538____- 420 v. Reeves, 25 Mo. a4 458 785 Howley v. Whipple, 48 N. H. 487 1015, 1018, 1019, 1021 Howze v. Patterson, 53 Ala. 205, 25 Am. Rep. 607_.---. Hoy ». Morris, 13 Gray, 519_.__. Hoysradt » Kingman, 22 N. Y. Le Sees acti earatenaln Sst 1210 Hoyt v. Adee, 3 Lans. 173___.562, 563 ® Dillon, 19 Barb. 644____ 1278 ». Hudson, 27 Wis. 656, 9 Am. Rep. 1121 v. Hudson, 41 Wis. 105... 1103 » Newbold, 45N.J.L.219 76 v. Russell, 117 U. 8. 401, 29 L. ed. 914 ®. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 224 1141 Hoxie v. Green, 37 How. Pr. 97_. 128, 186 Hubbard-v. Androscoggin & K. R. Co., 39 Me. 506_... 508 ». Coolridge, 1 Met. 98.... 967 ». Elmer, 7 Wend. 446.... 446 ». George, 49 Ii]. 275___ _- 308 ». Gurney, 64 N. Y. 457. 1133, 1186, 1144 . Hibbard, 7 Or. 42______ 1214 ® Marsh, 7 Ired. L. 204... 488 »%, Marshall, 50 Wis. 326_. 283 Hubbell 0. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480_. 976 ». Moulson, 53 N. Y. 225. 1306 Hubbell’s Case, 4 Ot. Cl. 87.__- Huckins v. People’s Mut. F. Ins. Co., 31 N. H. 288_... 752 Huddeson v. Prizer, 9 Phila. 95_. 655 Hudler v. Golden, 36 N. Y. 446._ 1283 Hudson v. Carman, 41 Me. 84.892, 897 v. Georgia P. R. Co., 85 Ga. 554 BUS bak Lite seemed 362 ® Green Hill Seminary Corp., 113 Ill. 618... 726 v. Irwin, 60 Cal. 450...__- 792 ». Judge of Superior Ct. 42 Mich. 239... 2 2222. 736 %. Maze, 3 Ill. 579_..._... 1236 a McCartney, 88 Wis. 881. 672 0. Messick, 1 Houst. 275.. 59 TABLE OF CASES. Hudson 9, State, 61 Ala. 333_... 336 Huff 2, Bennett, 6 N. Y. 387___. 396, 401, 748 v. Roane, 22 Ark. 184____. 293 Huffman 2. Ackley, 34 Mo. 277__ 796 v, State, 28 Tex. App. 174 924 Hughes 2. Biddulph, 4 Russ. 190 647 v, Blake, 19 U. 8. 6 Wheat. Blake, 1 Mason, 514.230, 1177 . Bray, "60 Cal. 284....__. 308 Coleman, 10 Bush, 246.. 996 Davis, 8 Md.27___....-- 207 . Edwards, 22 U. 8. 9 Wheat. 489,6 L. ed. 142 291 . Griswold, 82 Ga. 299... 923 . Hampton, 2 Treadw. 745 830 . Jones, 2 Md. Ch. 178___ 218 ; Muscatine Co., 44 Iowa, 333 332 . Rogers, 8 Mees. & W. 123 . State, 27 Tex. App. 127 921 ‘Hugill v. Kinney, 9 Or. 250___-- 719 Huguenin v. Baseley, 1 White & T. Lead. Cas. 1156___ 1090, 1091, 1093 Hull o. Augustine, 23 Wis. 383.64, 66 ». Campbell, 56 Pa. 154... 914 v. Peer, 27 Ill. 812_______- 1258 ‘Hulme ». Shreve, 4’'N. J. Eq. 116 724 Humboldt a v. Dinsmore,75 Cal. Hume 2. Sone 38 A.K. Marsh. 260 630, 686, 1249 Humes 2. Bernges, 94 U.S. 22, 24 Dséds- 92 shsesscicn 969, 995 Humphrey ca aes 4 Bush, ssses eeese ss ». Humphrey, 7 Conn. 116 1242, 1248 v. People, 18 Hun, 398_-.. 890 ‘Humphreys ». Finch, 97N. C. 303 728 v. Guillow, 138 N. H. 385, 38 Am. Dec. 499-_..- 855 ». Hurtt, 20 Hans a 5 Thomp. & C. 4 908, 298, 302 o. Spear, 15 Ill. 275___._.. Humphries v. Lawson, 7 Ark. 341 222, 223 ® McGraw, 5 Ark. 61___.- 231 ‘Hunscom 2, oes 15 Mass. 1B 4s ooo ee ee es Hunsinger v. Hoffer, 9 West. Rep. 46, 110 Ind. 890_____- Hunt o. Amidon, 4 Hill, 345, 40 Am. Dec. 2! Carr, 8 G. Greene, 581_- . Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 232_-_--- 851, 853 959 es ~. Haven, 52 N. H. 178__. 1054 o. Hunt, 72 N. ¥. 217-... 208 ». Hunt, 3 B. Mon. 575... 349 evll Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374._..- 289 ». Juncks, 1 Hayw. 178, 1 Am. Dec. 555.-_..--- 1156 ». Lowell Gas Light Co., 8 Allen, 169... .-..---. 351 v. McFadgen, 20 Ark. 277. 1280 ». Massey, 5 Barn.& Ad. a. v. Rousmanier, 21 U. S&S. Wheat. 174,5 L. ei 589, 26 U. S.1 Pet. 1, 7 L. ed. 27..90, 91, 298, 300 2. Stewart, 7 Ala. 527_.-__ 89 ». Weiner, 39 Ark. 70__-_- Hunter 2. Bilyeu, 80 Ill. 228_-.- 261, 292, 959, 960 y, Cleveland, 1 Brev. 167_. 655 ». Harris, 131 Ill. 482__-_. 845 . Hudson River I. & Mach. Co., 20 Barb, 501__-_- 957 a. Kehoe, Ridgway Pall., 5 Schwabs, 880_.__.... 598 % New York, 0. & W. R. Co., 6 L. R. A. 246, 115'N. Y. 615_.___... 45 ®. Reilly, 836 Pa. 509__-_-- 849 ». Watson, 12 Cal. 363__.. 648 v. Wetsell, 84. N. Y. 549.. 611 Hunting », Emmart, 55 Md. 265. 256 Huntington »v, Attrill, 118 N. Y. BOD be ceclaatiotecr 831, 895 ®. Branch Bank at Mobile, 8 Ala. 186__...-. 1125, 1128 9. Conkey, 83 Barb. 218-127, 128 ». Knox, 7 Cush. 371-.-.- 269 ». Mendenhall, 73 Ind. 460 670 ». Schultz, Harper, 452... 635 Huntington First Nat. Bank », Ruhl, 122 Ind. 279... 142 Huntley 2. Holt, 9L. R.A. 111, 58 Conn. 445....-.-.. 1081 2. Whittier, 105 Mass. 392 1020 Huntress 2. Tiney, 39 Me. 237_221, 222 Huntzinger v. Harper, 44 Pa. 204 715, 977 Hurd v. Blackman, 19 Conn. 177. 238 v Moring, 1 Car. & P. 372 648, 650 ». West, 7 Cow. '752_-.--. Hurley v. State, 4L. R. A. 46 Ohio St. 320_..._- 616 Hursh v. North, 40 Pa. 241...280, 901 Hurst 2. Pippo t 1U.8. 1 Dall. 20, Se 2 Harper er Hun, 283... 291 Hurst’s Case,4U. S. 4 Dall. 387, 1 Ti, ef, S84 poancocee 655 3 | Hurt v. St. Louis, I. M. & 8. R. Co., 13 West. Rep. 235, 94 Mo, 255..-..-.---. 358 Huss 2. Morris, 68 Pa. 372.299, es 801 Hussey 2. Manufacturers & M Bank, 10 Pick. 415... 877 », State, 87 Ala. 121.-.-371, 625 evill Hussman v. Wilke, 50 Cal. 250_- 258, 295 Husted v. Mead, 58 Conn. 55_... 784 Huston 2. Stringham, 21 Iowa, 36 1306 Hutcheon v, Johnson, 33 Barb. B98. oss Shae aees 299, 301 Hutchings v. Cochrane, 2 Bradf. 200-cceacnemccesaseae 1207 ». Corgan, 59 Ill. 70_...-- 396 ». Western & A. R. Co., 25 Ga. 61,71 Am. Dec. Hutchins ». Ford, 82 Me. 363-362, 363 v. King, 68 U. §. 1 Wall. Hutchinson v. Boggs, 28 Pa. 294 ». Brown, 83 Wis. 465_._. %. Dearing, 20 Ala. 793.-- . Perley, 4 Cal. 38._.---. . Peyton, 2 Cranch, C. C. 365 124 336 736 914 158 911 %. Tindall 3N. J. Eq. 357 292 %. Wheeler, 385 Vt. 340_... 614 Hutt » Bruckman, 55 Ill. 441__. 1235 Hutto v, State,7 Tex. App. 44--. 90 Hutton v. Mansell, 3 Salk. 16, 6 Mod. 172_..._- 861, 862, 863 es v wee 1 Mees. & W. AGG eo oo eS 278 ». Williams, 60 Ala. 107.. 216 Huyler v. Cragin Cattle Co., 5 Cent. Rep. 645, 42 N. J. Eq. 189_._-------. 248 Hyatt 7. Adams, 16 Mich. 180__. 378 ®. McMahon, 25 Barb, 458_ 1228 ». Pugsley, 23 Barb. 301_. 1198 Hyde v. Goodnow, 3N. Y. 266. 1141, 1142 ». Heath, 75 Ill. 881__..._. 111 %. Jamaica, 27 Vt. 448... 1102 2. Paige, 9 Barb. 150...-_. 270 %. Shank, 77 Mich. 517..-. 974 ® Tanner, 1 Barb, 75-_-..- 260 ». Woolfolk, 1 Iowa, 166-. 327 Fiydiick », Burke, 30 Ark. 124.. 64 Hynes v, McDermott, 82 N. Y. Miewwccsews 1164, 1166, 1171 I. Iasigi ». Brown, 1 Curt. 401_.... 245 Iberia, The, 40 Fed. Rep. 8938.... 356 Ide v. Ingraham, 5 Gray, 106_... 488 v. Stanton, 15 ve ‘691__-.. 1263 Idley v. Bowen, 11 Wend. 227._ 1194 {glehart ». Jernegan, 16 Ill. 520. 401 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v, Cragin, 71 TT 2 oe Siero 1098, 1100 v. Frankenberg, 54 Il], 88_ 1026 v. Johnson, 40 Ill, 35-_-.. 24 TABLE OF CASES. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 40 Ill. 234, 551]. 194 109% ». Schwartz, 13 Ill. App. 490) cece aaa 737, 738 » Weaver, 54 Ill. 319____- 986. Tllinois F. Ins. Co. v. Stanton, 57 Tl, Bods es as 1005 Ilinois Land & L. Co. 2. Bonner, V5 TIL 815.-.--------- 157 Illinois Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Arch- deacon, 82 Ill. 236, 25 Am. Rep. 318_------- 1278. 2 Marseilles Mfg. Co., 6 TN, 286 soc ccene ees 1005- Imhoff ». Witmer, 31 Pa. 243... 1087 Improvement & R. Co. v. Mun- son, 81 U. 8.14 Wall. 448, 20 L. ed. 872_.__- 126- Imray 2. Magnay, 11 Mees. & W. Mla cxccceesseeslass 715. Indiana, B. & W. R. Co. v. Ad- ams, 11 West. Rep. 668, 112 Ind. 302 _.- 924- % Dailey, 110 Ind. 75, 8 West. Rep. 516.------ 1119 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Case, 15 Ind, 42_..._------ 2t . Means, 14Ind. 30---.-- 87 ». Stephens, 28 Ind. 429... 30: Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. ». Horst, 98 U. 8. 291, 23 L. ed. 898....1071, 1103 Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. 2. Risley, 50 Ind. 60.--. 199: Ingalls », Bulkley, 15 Ill. 224._.. 1286 Inglev. Wallach, 66 U. S. 1Black, 96,17L ed. 50....-. 1240: Inglis 2. State, 61 Ind. 212._____ 25 Ingraham 2». Disborough, 47 N. ieee ae ae epee 886. Ingram ». Little, 14 Ga. 173, 58 Am, Dec. 549_.._---- 857 v. State, 27 Ala. 17_...-..-. 25. ®. State, 67 Ala. 67_...---- 596 Innis ». Campbell, 1 Rawle, 373- 74, 563 Insurance eS vo, Wright, 68 U. 8.1 Wall. 470, 17 L. ed. 508.....------- 903: International & G. N. R. Co. ». Dyer, 76 Tex. 156.... 588 v. Ragsdale, 67 Tex. 24... 482 ». Underwood, 64 Tex. 468, 27 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. AQK eenteaca ysis ict es 1074 Inyo Mining Co. v. Pheby, 17 Jones & 8. 892....--- 248 Jowa Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa, 676 71 Iredell County Comrs. 2. Wasson, 82 N. C. 808.....-..- 1140 Trish o. Nutting, 47 Barb. 870... 993 » Smith, 8 Serg. & R. DiS sees aoge eased 850 TABLE OF CASES. Jron Mountain Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70_........ 510, 590 Iron R. Co. 2. Mowery, (86 Ohio St. 418, 38 Ane Rep. {ee eee ere 1098 ae Brownell, 11 Ill. 402... 1284 v. Motly, 7 Bing. 548_ 222. 228 Irwin 0. Ivers, 7 Ind. 808._..--. 256 v. Smith, 66 Wis. 113... 219 v. Williar, 110 U. 8. 499, 28 L. ed. 225......._. 912 Isabella ». Pecot, 2 La. Ann. 387.65, 148 Isenhoot ». Chamberlain, 59 Cal. edie le bean wate 965 Iser », Cohen, 1 Baxt. 421___.__- 273 Isler 2. Dewey, TLN. OC. 14.___. 603 Isles v. Tucker, 5 Duer, 393____- 446 Israel v. Brooks, 23 Ill. 575_- Ivat v. Finch, 1 ‘Taunt. 141__- Ives o, Allyn, 12 Vt. 582_....... v. Bosley, 35 Md. 262 v. Farmers Bank, 2 Allen, 236 wcicancane 855, 1127, 1129 v. Hazard, 4 R. I. 14_--.-_- 1263 2. Humphreys, 1 E. D. Smith, 200--.......-- 1228 2. Kimball, 1 Mich. 308... 1279 2. Waters, ’30 Hun, 297... 819 J. Jaccard ». Anderson, 37 Mo. 91_. Jack v, Des Moines & Ft. D. R. Co., 53 Iowa, 399..._-_ ® State, 26 Tex. 1__..._.- 399 8. Jackson 2. ee 59N. Y. 244 298, 300 . Bard, 4 Johns. 230. __467, 544 . Betts, 9 Cow. 208..-.-- 1195 Betts, 6 Cow. 877._.411, 1194 Blanshan, 3 Johns. 292. 402, 4038, 404 fess ». Boneham, 15 Johns. 226 416 v. Bowner, 18 Johns. 37-. 416 v. Britton, 4 Wend. 507... 275 ». Bronson, 19 Johns. 325_ 1806 ». Brooks, 8 Wend. 426_-402, 545 v, Burtis, 14 Johns. 891... 182 ». Burton, 11 Johns. 64... 4038 v Christman, 4 Wend. 277 402, 1207 . Clopton, 66 Ala. 29.... 435 Cody, 9 Cow. 140 89 . Collins,3 Cow. 96_-..--- 1270 Cooley, 8 Johns, 128... 416 Crafts, 18 Johns. 110__. 1306 Davis, 5 Cow. 128_.-.-- 402 Delancy, 4 Cow. 427._. 1192 Denison, 4 Wend. 558.. 182 Dickenson, 15 Johns. 315 1055 sssssessss . Etz, 5 Cow. 314..78, 416, 640 cix Jackson v. Evans, 8 Mich. 476.816, 830 . Fairbank, 2 H. Bl. 340. 483 . Frier, 16 Johns. 193.174, 175 z Goes, 13 Johns. 518__._. 89 Hale, 55 U. S. 14 How. 525, 14 L. ed. 526____. 238 ; Halloway, 7 Johns, 394_ 1194 Hart, 11 Wend. 3438__.. 231 . Henderson, 3 Leigh, 196 904 . Hoover, 26 Ind. 521____ 1193 Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498 428, 594 Jackson, 1 Johns. 424.. 217 . Jackson, 5 Cow. 178_. 546 . Jackson, 389 N. Y. 153, rev’g 1 Tuck. 259.1207, 1210 . Johnson, 67 Ga. 167__.. 855 ». King, 5 Cow. 237._..- 89, 416 . King, 4 Cow. 207.79, 559, 1085 Lamb, 7 Cow. 431." 402, 404 ®%, Laroway, 3 Johns. Cas. 283, 286, 287, 289____ 402, 404, 407 . Lewis, 13 Johns. 504.629, 1249 Loomis, 18 Johns. 81... 677 . Love, 82 N. C. 405.--__ 122 . Ludeling, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 616, 22 L. ed. 492 . 898, 899 . Luquere, 5 Cow. 221___. 402, 404, 407 . McCall, 10 Johns. 877_. 88 . M’Vey, 18 Johns. 330_182, 650 . Mather, 7 Cow. 301.949, 1062 . Moore, 13 Johns. 513.88, 1271 . Nelson, 6 Cow. 248.. 545 New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 2 Thomp. & C. 653 eeseee sees ses sees e eseesese 1308 ». Osborn, 2 Wend. 555_629, 838 ». Payne, 2 Met. (Ky.) 567 1200 ». Philips, 9 Cow. 112._.. 388 ». Potter, 9 Johns. 312, 313 1194 ». Roberts, 11 Wend. 482_ 12738 ». Schoonmaker, 4 Johns. 1Glevecuee ce ococesee 995 ». Shearman, 6 Johns, 19-. 161 », Sheldon, 5 Cow. 460.... 235: v, State, 72 Ga. 28.......- 23 v, State, 14 Ind. 327____._ 657 v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469_... 899 ». Van Dusen, 5 Johns, 144 79, 882, 346, 544, 1199 ®. Waldron, 18 Wend. 178 706 v. Walsh, 3 Johns, 226... 890 ». Warford, 7 Wend. 66... 51 ». White, 1 Pet. Adm. 179 233 v. Wynne, 7 Wend. 47.. 999 Jacobs 2. Heeler 118 Mass. 161-. 990 v Layborn, 11 Mees. & W. GOL Sic cecnantar cece am 546 v. Morange, 21 Gratt. 318. 90 v. Remsen, 36 N. Y. 668.. 950 Cx Jacobs v. Shorey,48 N.H. 100-441, 1161 Jacobson v, Metzger, 35 Mich. 103 585 Jacobus v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., ‘ 0 Minn. 125,18 Am. Rep. Jacques ». Collins, 2 Blatchf. 23_ 245, 246 ov. McKnight, 26 N. J. L. 92) 2018! oe siete Jaeger 2. Kelley, 52 N. Y. 274_- Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v. Chandler, 121 Mass. 1 James 2, EMME: 6 Car. & P. DO0eeew ees weed Chalmers, 6 N. Y. 209... McKernon, 6 Johns. 559 Muir, 33 Mich. 223_____ Wood, 8 L. R. A. 448, 82 Me. 173 Jameson v. People, 16 Ill. 257__- Jamison v. King, 50 Cal. 186___- v. Ludlow, 3 La. Ann. 492 v. Miller, 64 Iowa, 402. __. Janeway 2. opkermitt, 30 N. J. L. Janis v. Gurno, 4 Mo. 458_____.. Janson 2. Rany, 2 Atk, 140_-... January ». Martin, 1 Bibb, 586. Janvrin v. Scammon, 29 N. H. 280 Jaqua v, Witham & A. Co., 4 West. Rep. 715, 106 Ind, 6455-60000 ceeci, Jaques v. Wecks, 7 Watts, 261_. 265 Jardine v. Payne, 1 Barn, & Ad. seeree(aeiecinie stom 837 v Releherl 39 N. J. L. 165 206, 208 Jarrett v. Phillips, 90 Ill. 287_... 991 Jarvis v. Albro, 67 Me. 810_____. 69 » Furman, 25 Hun, 391_. 3886 o. Palmer, 11 Paige, 658, 5 L. ed. 289 5 se nme nome v. Wilson, 46 Conn, 90.457, 459 Jasper v. Porter, 2 McLean, 579-16, 689 Jasper County Conirs. 2. Spiller, _ 18 Ind. 235__.-2.22.. Jaspers v. Lano, 17 Minn. 296, B05 emeewien- Seemed 601, 603 Jauncey ». Thorne, 2 Barb. Ch. 41,5 L. ed. 549... __. 1206 Jaycox v. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 395 989 J. D. Peters, The, 42 Fed. Rep. 269 99 Jeffersonville R. Co. 0. Swift, 26 Ind. 459__._ 22222 oe. Jeffery v. Walton, 1 Stark. 267 264 Jeffres v, Cochrane, 48 N. Y. 671 1060 Jeffries v. Harris, 3 Hawks, 105. 1242 Jenison v. Graves, 2 Blackf, 440_ 285, 1177 Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, ist 620, 1188 2. German Lutheran Cong., 58 Ga, 125.-..---.... 860 455 229 282 98 891 1102 295 718 448 915 1178 966 653 911 TABLE OF CASES. Jenkins v. Reynolds,2 Ball.& B.14 1263: Jenkins, Will of 48 Wis. 610, 612 1191 Jenkinson 2. State, 5 Blackf. 465 451 Jenks v. Fritz, 7 Watis & S. 201. 304 Jenne v. Joslyn, 41 Vt. 478_.___. 960- Jennings v. Broughton, 17 Beav, DOG Seis ae Ns ae ame 972 o. Carter, 2 Wend. 446.__. 1229: ». Davis, 81 Conn. 188.-_. 990 », Johnson, 17 Ohio, 154__ 1237 ». Newman, 52 How. Pr DOeb eee ese stems aas 1077 ». Thomas, 13 Smedes & M. 617_-._---. --.. 271, 278 Jennison v. Hapgood, 7 Pick. 1, 19 Am. Dec. 258_.___- 216. Jenny a a v, Bower, 11 Cal. Liars Semi awn ees 783 Jenys v. Fawler 2 Strange, 946_ 458 Jermain 0 Denniston, 6N. Y.276 894 ». Worth, 5 Denio, 342_... 890 Jernigan v. State, 81 Ala. 58_... 172 Jervis 2. Berridge, 27 L. T. N. S. 486....-.----..--- 282 ». White, 7 Ves. Jr. 413... 1058. Jesse v. Preston, 5 Gratt. 120___. 1279 Jessop 2. Collins, 6 Mod. 155, 2 Salk. 487_.....-----.- 999 Jessup v. United States, 106 U.S 247, 27 L. ed. 85_.-_- "1149 Jessup’s Estate, Re, 6 L. R. A. 594, 81 Cal. 408__1014, 1176 Jewell », Center, 25 Ala. 498... 83. v. Jewell, 42 U. S. 1 How. 219, 11 L. ed. 108____. v. Parr, 18 C. B. 909_--__- Jewett v. Lineberger, 3 Pittsb. 157 Jewett v. Miller, 10 N. Y. 407... Job v. Tebbetts, 10 Ill. 380__..-. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 2. Moore, 84 Mich. 42, 16 Am. L. Reg. N.S. 214 73, 1223 Johnson v. Albany & 8. R. Co., 54.N. Y. 416__....... », Arnwine, 42 N. J. L. 451, 36 ‘Am. Rep. 527- 164, 174 ». Baker, 4 Barn. & Ald. BA eco ese yea 225 », BO 65 Mo. 250, 27 Am. Rep. 276.__.___- 216 » Blasdale, a ‘Smedes & M. ty ep cticheia es pea oho 180 v. Brailsford, 2 Nott & MeN, 273.....--.---- 194 ». Chambers, 12 Ind. 102. 66 ». Clark, 5 ‘Ark, 340_._..- 268 » Cleaves, 15 N. H. 382_. 71 v. Com., 2 Gratt, 581_.... 530: Johnson es gesss 5 oo 2 on 524... . Daverne, 19 Johns. 134, TABLE OF CASES, o. : Eoncend e Corp. H. 218.12... 7, 901 10 Am. Dec. 198__._. 343, 648, 650 . Dunn, 6 Gratt. 625____. 1217 . Elwood, 53 N. Y. 431_. 1280, 1290 Fall, 6 Cal. 359... 2... 742 Filkington, 39 Wis. 62-. 500 Flint, 75 Tex. 379_.___. 784 . Fry, "1 Coldw. 101. -... 1216 Gallivan, 52 N. H. 143_ 445, 475, 1154 Gilson, 4 Esp. 21___--. 167 Glover, 10 West. Rep. 126, 121 Ill. 288____.. 317 ». Gorman, 30 Ga. 612.... 111 ». Hicks, 1 Lans. 150____. 1205 ». Hubbell, 10 N. J. Eq. B32) moss osaaaneace 1200 o. Hudson River R. Co., 5 Der; 21 cssaciacc cane 1102 », Indianapolis, 16 Ind. 227 42 ». Jenkins, 24 N. Y. 252_. 860 ». Johnson, 11 Mass. 363.. 281 ®. Johnson, 14 West. Rep. 198, 70 Mich. 65 _... 173 ». Johnson, 8 Baxt. 261_.. 300 ». Johnson, 1 West. Rep. 622, 114 Ill. 611______ 96 ». Josephs, 75 Me. 545._... 136 vo. Kinsey, 7 Ga. 488____.- 618 vo, Lawson, 2 Bing. 86__.. 415 D. 8 ss 3 sseadse 3 . Moss, 45 Cal. 515__._ 2. . Robertson, 31 Md. 476. . Robinson Consol. Min. . Smith, "8 Johns. 383_._- . State, ’29 Ala. 62_.._.-- . State, 76 Ga. 76, x-_.-- . State, 2 Ind. 652.____.. . Sullivan, 23 Mo, 474_.. ; egitivan 10 Rich. Eq. | Underbiil 52 N. Y. 203 McMurry, 72 Mo. 282_. 122, 124, 125 Mey porough, 2 Stark, 313 . Merithew, 5 New Eng. Rep. 855, 80 Me. 111- Miller, 63 Iowa, 529___. Monell, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 470....--.------ Murray, 11 West. Rep. 94, 112 Ind. 154______ . Oppenheim, 55 N. Y. 280 264, 313 Ramsey, 43 N. J. L. 279 278, 1139 33 Co., 5 L. R. A. 769, 18 679 739 865 539 657 647 225 876 CXL Johnson 2. ee Velsor, 43 Mich. 2. Way 37 Onlo 8 874.2 ® Webster, 4DeG. M. & G. a o. Weed, 9 Johns. 310.... 231 Johnson’s Estate, Re, 57 Cal. 529 1214 Jobnston », Hannah, 66 Ala. 127 844 v. Laflin, 103 U. 8. $00, 26 456 L. ed. 582..-....__.. 879 ». McDuffee, 83 Cal. 30_._ 687, 695 2. Todd, 5 Beav. 600-602. 618. » Wallace, 53 Miss..335, 428, 995 o. Warden, 3 Watts, 101.. 1154 ». Wilson, 29 Gratt. 8379.. 29 Johnstone »v. Sutton, 1 T. R. 510 1063. Johnston Harvester Co. 2, McLean, 57 Wis. 258, 46 Am. Rep. OOo seine Jolly » Young, 1 Esp. 186-..280, 904 Jones 0. Andover, 9 Pick. 146__. 1290 v. Bache, 3 ‘Wash. C. 0.199 236. ». Bland, 2 Cent. Rep. 326, 112; Pa. 1765 222cc2s0< 914. ». Bowden, 4 Taunt. 853_. 1319- ». Britton, 1 Woods, 667.. 225 ». Call, 98 N. C. 170__.__- 1159 o. Cénoway, 4 Yeates, 109 1267 ». Darch, 4 Price, 300..459, 460 o. Davenport, 11 Cent, Rep. 597, 44 N. J. Eq. B8ecceweevoseeeee bode 994. vo. Degge, 84 Va. 685_____ 954 ». Devore, 8 Ohfo St. 480. 1279, 1282 v. Dodge, 61 Mo. 368___.-. 1239 ». Doe, 2 Ill. 276_....-_-.. 420 v. Dove, 7 Or. 467___-.--. 727 v. Fales, 4 Mass. 245.-.... 22 o. Greaves, 26 Ohio St. 2.. 977 vo. Harris, 1 Strobh. L. 160 549 vo. Hays, 4 McLean, 521--. 16 ». Hill, 9 Bush, 692_...... 963 ». Hoey, 128 Mass. 585... 907 vo. Howland, 8 Met. 386... 78 ». Hurlburt, 29 Barb. 403. 865 v. Jamison, 15 La. Ann. 85 740 ». Jones, 21 N. H. 219... 826 ». Jones, 91 Ind. 378._... 1269 ». Just, L. R. 3Q. B. 197_ 13814 ». Knauss, 31N. J. Eq. 216 654 ». Larrebee, 47 Me. 474... 1212 vo. Long, 8 Watts, 825__.. 825 v. Loveless, 99 Ind. 327... 223 v. Morrell, 1 Car. & K. 266 469 o. New York Cent. & H. R. *R. Co., 10 Abb. N. C. 200, 62 How. Pr. 450. 1103. vo. New York Guaranty & I. Co., 101 U. 8. 622, 25 L. ed. 1080.--.-..- 27 exii Overstreet, 4 T. B. Mon. OA eos eeecenecceone v. Palmer, 1 Doug). (Mich.) 379 Jones ». 39 erste meee 38 o. Perkins, 54 Me. 398.... 214 v. Perry, 10 Yerg. 59, 30 Am. Dec, 480__._..-- 963 v. Pierce, 184 Pa. 5388_... 266 ». Ricketts,'’7 Md. 108.... 72 ». Scott, 2 Ala. 61_....... 175 %. Shelbyville Ins. Co., 1 Met. (Ky.) 58__-_- 858, 1123 ». Sinclair, 2 N. H. 321_.. 1078 o. State, 71 Ind. 66.__.._- 333 v. State, 18 Tex, 168__-_._ 1249 %. Tarleton, 9 Mees, & Ww GiOeeeceeceseeacoees 166 v. Tebbetts, 57 Me. 572... 1212 ». Thompson, 5 Del. Ch. S14 cae ceaomenas 1089, 1093 v. Trustees Florence Wes- leyan Univ., 46 Ala. G26 2c ececedeemesewe 892 o. Tuberville, 2 Ves. Jr. 11 226 ». Tucker, 41 N. H. 546 827, 342, 358, 354 ». United States, 137 U. 8. 202, 34 L. ed. 691_.__44, 45 ». Victoria G. D. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. Div. 26, 46 L. J. Q. B. 219, 25 Week. Rep. , Weitershausen, 131 Pa. 62 1265 TABLE OF CASES. Judge of Probate v. Green,1 How. (Miss.) 146 Judkins ». Union Mut. F. Ins, Juillard 2. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 535 Jumpertz v. People, 21 Tl. 375_- Junction R. Co. v. Bank of Ash- land, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 226, 20 L. ed. 385.36,42,13805 Juneau a ». McSpedan,5 Biss. 654 1181 3806 344 4 Jungerman v. Bovee, 19 Cal. 864 258 Justice v. Lang, 52 N. Y. 823... 61 Juzan v. Toulman, 9 Ala. 663... 175 K. Kain a. Old, 2 Barn. & C. 634__- 262, 964, 965 Kaine ». vegey, 22 Pa. 179_.179, 960 Kalamazoo Novelty Mfg. Co. 2. McAlister, 40 Mich. 84 282, 295 Kaler ». Builders’ Mut. F. Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 333-589, 633 Kamm ». Holland, 2 Or. 59, 60_- 272, 1180 Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha . Coal Co., 7 Blatchf, 391._-....-._. 891 Kane ». ae Ins. Co., 39 N. band ena htta To ttm ots 100 Sasieiecaoasiqne O01 v. Westcott, 2 Brev. L. 166, v. Johnston, ses 154.. 148 3 Am. Dec. 704..__.- 1126 ». Northern Cent. R. Co. v. White, 11 Humph. 268. 330 128 U. 8. 94, 32 L. ‘ed. ». Witter, 13 Mass. 304... 136 OAL a ce ecnceee 680 », Wood, 16 Pa. 25..-__.. 795 | Kane acer Herrington, 50 Il. Jordan v. Com., 25 Gratt. 945-.. 411{ = 2B2_L lle 290 v. Davis, 108 Ill. 336__._-. 224 | Kannon 2. ‘Giles 2 Baxt. 230 348 v. Meredith, 3 Yeates, 318 906] Kansas City Planing Mill Co. ». v. Osgood, 109 Mass. 457.. 957 Brundage, 25 Mo.App. v. Rouse, 1 Jones, L. 119. 1276 OG Bete pate ey cree 1080 ». Stewart, 23 Pa. 244.449, 450) Kansas Pac. R.Co. ». McCormick, » Tarkington, 4 Dev. L. 20 Kan. 107._....---- 1is4 OO brunet eek os cece 459 v. Miller, 2 Colo. 442.1097, 1099 Joseph v. First Nat. Bank, 17 ees oe Co. v.Hoke, Kan. 256._......-.2- 1125 0 Fed Rep. 444.___. 40 Joslyn v, Capron, 64 Barb. 598.. 232] Karney ». Pally, 13 Iowa, 89.. 806 v, St. Paul Distilling Co., Karr »v, Stivers, 84 Iowa, 128__-. 44 Minn. 183 .____. 878, 879 814, 815, 827 Journu v, Bourdien, 1 Park. Ins., Karst ». St. Paul, S. & T. FR. BAD re ieee oka te eau 280, 904 Co., 283 Minn. 401_... 111 Joy v. Hopkins, 5 Denio, 84_____ 387 | Katz o. Bedford, 1 L. R. A. 826, Joynes v. Statham, 3 Atk, 389--. 298 Cal. 319........ 306, 313 Judah » Vincennes University, 16 Ind. 56.-......... 385 Judd v. Flint, 4 Gray, 557-._... 265 Judge 2. Heese, 24 N. J. DO Ma aos uid pat ee 268 ». Jordan fave) 46 N. W. Rep. 1077_.....-...-- 486 Kaufmann ». Schilling,58 Mo. 218 1238 Kaughley oe Brewer, 16 Serg. & feitteceiale acermas 826 Kaut 2. cn 6 Cent. Rep. 244, 114 Pa. 608 ......-... 651 Kavanaugh v. Day, 10 R. I. 3938. 996 Kay v. Curd, 6 B. Mon, 100....- 1263 TABLE OF CASES. Kay v. Smith, 21 Beav. 522, aff’d on appeal, 7 H. L. Cas. 750 10 Kealing v. Vansickle, 74 Ind. 529 271, 278 Kean v, Newell, 2 Mo, 9.__.___. 420 Keane ». Cannovan, 21 Cal. 291, 82 Am. Dec. 788, note v, Klausman, 4 West. Rep. 276, 21 Mo. App. 485. 86 Kearney 2. Buttles, 1 Ohio St. 362 742 ». London, B. & 8S. C. R. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411, L. R.6 Q. B. 759__-_ 1120 v. New York, 92N. Y. 617 174 v. Jeffries, 48 Miss. 348___ 242, 247, 248 iXeating Implement & M. Co. ». Marshall Electric Light & P. Co., 74 Tex. 605 1080 Keaton 2. Mayo, 71 Ga. 649____- 4385 Keech »v, Rinehart, 10 Pa. 240... 1223 Keedy v. Moats, 72 Md. 325 101 Keefe v. Bramhall, 3 Mackay, 551 1278 Keene v. Lownsbury, 5 Watts, 348 236 v. Meade, 28 U. S. 8 Pet. 1, 7L. ed. 581._.. .152, 1199 Keeney 2. Se: 16 Barb. ee eE ee ese coe 1205 Keep v. Sanderson, 12 Wis. 352. _ _ 981, 984 Kegan v. Carpenter, 47 Ind. 597_ 420 Keichline », Keichline, 54 Pa. 75 224 Keiffer v. Ehler, 18 Pa. 391_... 1053 Keiser ». Decker, 29 Neb. 92.... 784 2 Gammon, 14 West. Rep. 768, 95 Mo. 217___._. 800 Keisselbrack », Livingston, 4 Johns. Ch. 144, 1 L. ed. 259, 261, 297, 301, 315 Keith ». Kibbe, 10 Cush. 35____. 826 ». Lothrop, 10 Cush. 458_. 340 v. Stetter, 25 Kan. 100_-._ 845 v. Wells, 14 Colo. 821_____ 919 », Wooibell, 8 Pick. 217_ 652 Kellen v. Benett, 4 Bing. 171-.-. 781 Kellenburger v.Sturtevant,7 Cush. ABD ee SiS ESAS At Shes 466 Keller 2. Lieb, 1 Penr. & W. 220 ». New York Cent. R. Co., 2 Abb. App. Dec. 480 Kelley v. Campbell, 1 Keyes, 29. v. Fisk, 9 West. Rep. 189, 231 516 968 110 Ind. 552_____..-- 722 v. Merrill, 14 Me. 228_._-- 610 v. Richardson, 14 West. Rep. 416, 69 Mich. 430.__-- 361 v, Riley, 106 Mass. 339-... 860 ». State, 25 Ark. 393__._.- 551 ». Story, 6 Heisk. 202... -- 29 v. Weymouth, 68 Me. 197. 984 exiil Kelley x. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110_- Kellogg v. Curtis, 69 Me. 212, 31 Am. Rep. 278__..---- 128, 124, 125, 456, 1127 Dunn, 2 Met. (Ky.) 215- 272, 278 Fancher, 23 Wis. 21__.. 1052 Kellogg,6 Barb. 116 182, 647 McLaughlin, 8 Ohio, 114 1280 Richards, 14 Wend. 116 232, 311 ». Secord, 42 Mich. 318_-. 398 Steiner, 29 Wis. 626.... 965 Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, ee 8. 108, 28 L. ed. 456 = sess ee Kellogg Newsp. Co. ». Farrell, 4 a Rep. 50, 88 Mo. Kellum, R:, 58 WW StF TTT! tit Kelly v. Bowman, 12 Pick. 383_983, 985 », Bradford, 8 Bibb, 317, 6 Am. Dec. 656 -.__-_- 263 ». Bryan, 6 Ired. Eq. 283.. 268 . Campbell, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 492_.-..---.---- 989 oe. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of Penn.,10 Bosw. 88_ 605 -», Drew, 10 Allen, 107___. 1222 ». Ford, 4 Iowa, 140..___-. 124 v. Jackson, 81 U. 8. 6 Pet. 622, 8 L. ed. 528___.- 106 v. Kelly, 5 Lans. 446_-__-- 1193 », Lenihan, 56 Ind. 448_... 960 o. McBlain, 42 Kan. 764._ 1291 o. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555._ 355 v. Morris, 31 U. 8.6 Pet. 622, 8 L. ed. 528___.._ 781 ». Solari, 9 Mees. & W. 54 91 ». Thompson, 7 Watts, 403 267 Kelsea v. Fletcher, 48 N. H. 282 pb tsc amend wich chats 756, 761 . Kelsey ». Bush, 2 Hill, 440-_--_. 436 ® Frazier, 78 Mo. 111_-.._ 111 ». Griswold, 6 Barb. 486.. 1268 v. Murphy, 26 Pa. 78___._- 960 ». Universal L. Ins. Co., 35 Conn. 225__-__--- 519, 1001 ». Western, 2 N. Y. 500.._ 678 Kelso v. Townsend, 18 Tex. 140. 795 Kemble v. Lull, 3 McLean, 272.. 459 Kemp 2. Western U. Teleg. Co., 28 Neb. 661__.._____- 1022 Kendal v. ee 1 A. K. Marsh. : ae hehe NS te 73 Kendall v. ‘Browason, 47 N. H. Sicha Sever nanse ites he 111 v Galvis, 15 Me. 181... _ 459 2 Hughes, 7 B. Mon. 268. 960 v. Kingston, 5 Mass. 524 806, 1279 ». Mann, 11 Allen, 15..__- 290 ». May, 10 Allen, 59...-.. 528 H ¢xiv Kendall v, San Juan S, Min. Co., 9 Colo. 349__....--.. 18 . United States, 87 U.S. 12 Pet. 524, 9 L. ed. TG), noseme se omcemere 178 Kendrick ». Latham, 25 Fla. ae Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39, 43 ‘Am. Dec. 249....___. B77 v. George, 44 N. H. 440... 300 Kennedy 2. Crandall, 8 Lans.1.. 758 ». Johnson, 2 Bibb, 12.... 964 Kennedy, 2Ala. 571... 179 » v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 452... 1248 % Williamson, 5 Jones L. 284 TABLE OF CASES. Ketchum »v. Duncan, 96 U. S. 659, 24 L. ed. 868.__.. ». Protection Ins. Co., 1 Allen (N. B.)136_..__ Keteltas ». Wilson, 36 Barb. 298, 23 How. Pr. 69 Key 2. es 1 Pittsb. 117 __._.. Keyes v. Grant, 118 U. S. 25, 80 Tien 6 kee ake Keyser v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co., 10 West. Rep. 646, 66 Mich. ae 388- ” Chicago & G.T.R.C slariatacanaianw wntataca alps 837 56 Mich. 559, 56 ne ». Wood, 52 Hun, 46.___- 441 Rep. 405 --._.-.--_-. All Kenney ». Dow, 10 Mart. 577, 13 ». Hitz, 183 U. 8. 188, 33 Am. Dec. 342_.__...- 949 Ti €@).03 lo geset eet cyes 45. ®. Public Administrator, 2 Kibbe ». Bancroft, 77 Il]. 18.... 825 Bradf. 819._.......-- 990} Kickland ». Menasha Wooden Kenny 2. Clarkson, 1 Johns. 385 Ware Co., 68 Wis. 34 288. 65, 161 | Kid o. Mitchell, 1 Nott & McC. Kensington »v. Inglis, 8 East, 273 748 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702__ 725 Kent v. Garvin, 1 Gray, 148 _... 752] Kidder, Estate of, 57 Cal. 282_. 1219- v. Kent, 62 N. Y. 560_.._ 217 v. Stevens, 60 Cal. 415__.. 66. v. Lasley, 24 Wis. 654.... 268| Kieffer v. Ehler, 18 Pa. 291____-_ 1058 v. Lincoln, 82 Vt. 591_... 877| Kiern ». Ainsworth, 95 Pa. 310. 706 vo. Mahaffey, 10 Ohio St. Kilburn ». Thompson, 103 U. 8. B04, ccna 195 168, 26 L. ed. 877_-.__. 658. ». Manchester, 29 Barb. Kilby 0. Wilson, Ryan & M. 178 958 597, 596: sccscccccs 298, 299| Kile o. Tubbs, 32 Cal. 332, 339, ® Walton, 7 Wend. 256.. 456 DS Gi ci arate ar aointi 785, 913, 915. Kentucky Cent. RR. Co. 2. Talbot, . Yellowhead, 80 Ill. 208. 40: 18 Ky. 621 coc iseecs. 87) Kiley 0. Western U. Teleg. Co., Kenyon 2. Nichols, 1R. I. 106. 908 11 enh Rep. 805, 109 » Welty, 20 Cal. 687__... 90 INS BYE 28 Mie aracey hs 115, 1031 v Williams, 19 Ind. 45-.. 270] Killam ». Allen, 52 Barb. 613__... 1193. Keppel »v. Petersburg R. Co., Chase, Dec. 167_.__._ Kerfoot v. Marsden, 2 Fost. & F. 160 tensa 860, 861 Kergin v. Dawson, 6 Il. 86__-984, 986 Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich, 181.39, 831 Kern v. Bridwell, 19 Ind. 226... 1070 », Von Phul,7 Minn, 426.. 1140 Kernin v. Hill, 37 Ill. 209____. 388, 844 Kerr v. Gilmore, 6 Watts, 406 265, 267 ». Kerr, 41 N. Y. 212. -206, 208 Oe McGuire, 28 N. 28 How. Pr. Bre Sheri v. Russell, 69 Ill. 666, 18 Am. Rep. 634.815, 995, 996 Kerwin, Zu parte, 8 Cow. 118... 858 Kessel 0. Albetis, 56 Barb. 862.. 82 Kessler 2. McConachy, 1 Rawle, 4 15 924 Ketcham v. Barbour, 3 West. Rep. 856, 102 Ind. 576 Ketchum v. American Merchants U. Exp. Co., 52 Mo. Killebrew s Murphy, 3 Heisk. DAG ecrorea ye ce coe! Kilmer v. Smith, 77 N. Y. 226_- Kilpatrick v. Com., 31 Pa. 198___ Kimball, The, 70 U. 8.3 Wall. 45, 18 L. ed. 54 -____- Kimball v. Brawner, 47 Mo. 398. ». Davis, 19 Wend. 487, 25 Wend. 259, 618, 620, 622, 623: v, Lohmas, 81 Cal. 158__.. 1100 v. Union Water Co. 44 Cal. 173, 18 Am, Rep. 157. 877 Kimbro v., Hamilton, 2 Swan. 90 300: 17 1132: 276 Hiern ». Benton, 8 Humph. TOOL ois 2 Berea 914, 915 Kimmel v. Kimmel, 8 Serg. & R. D8On cman memmcend 629, 1249 Kimmell », Geeting, 2 on O88. 195 oe cacuwedeees King». Baldwin, 17 Johns. 304. 1188 v Barrett, 11 Ohio St. 261 646. 2. Butterton, 6 T. R. 554_. 718 v. Chase, 15 N. H. 9 ._.212, %7 TABLE OF CASES. King v. Enterprise Ins. Co., 45 ING: 48 etl tei aes o. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 721, 414, 626 . Fitch, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 508, 1 Keves, 432._180, 959 . Fowler, 11 Pick. 302_.74, 415 . Frost, 28 Minn. 417_... 420 . Gottschalk, 21 Iowa, 512 122 Hullet, 1 Clark & F. . Hunt, 13 Mo. 97 . Kent, 29 Ala. 542______ . Leighton, 58 N. Y. 33. Moon, 42 Mo. 551-_.-_-- . Morton, 4 Maule & 8, 48 . Paddock, 18 Johns. 141 %6, 1223 . Parker, 3 Dougl. 242_.. 628 . Phillips, 8 Bosw. 603 -- . Poole, 36 Barb. 242__-- . Smith, 42 Minn. 286.__. . Smith, 15 Ala, 264_.__- . Twyning, 2 Barn. & Ald. 886___..-.--.--- Voos, 14 Or. 91_------- Wicks, 20 Ohio, 87_-.--- 0. Wilcox, 11 Paige, 589, 5 L. ed. 248 ». Williams, 65 Iowa, 167_ %. Loh. 1 Leach, 480, ®, Worcienen, 104 U.S. 44, 26 L. ed. 652 om ». Younger, 5 T. R. 450 -. 742 Kingory v. United States, 44 Fed. Rep. 669 762 Kingsbury z. Moses, 45 N. H. 222 152, 1309 v. Yuiestra, 59 Ala. 820... 208 iuselend s f Pryor, 33 Ohio St. ee ” 1212 971 216 650 s eseee eseeess escecesr 74 453 618 969 965 538 528 3 2 Heelan, 78N. Y. 215 ». Miller, 45 Cal. 95 Kington v. ale 8 Vin. Abr. 548, NN. Pi 28422508 Kingwood een of Poor 2. peeeneeh 18 N. J. GAD tis te cedaalh Kinley 9. Mae 4 How. ee 34 Am. Dec. POS ss cise ce cetene ote Kinne v. Johnson, 60 Barb. 69--- v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 21 ‘Am. Dec. 732..---- 349, 355 Kinney »v, Flynn, 2 R. 1. 319.... 346 ». Kiernan, 49 N. Y. 164.. 965 ». Kruse, 28 Wis. 188___-- 124 Kinnier 2. Kinnier, 45 N. Y. 585 208 Cxv Kinsey v. Grimes, 7 Blackf. 290. 485 Kinsman v. Kinsman, 1 Russ. & Ma 617 3 code seamen 1057 Kirby v. Boylston Market Asso., 14 Gray, 249.__._.__- 1121 v. Chitwood, 4 T. B. Mon. ON eed ah ene ae eset 258: ». Com., 7 Va. 681, 46 Am. Rep. NAL ease (ort aeenrs 411 ». Hewitt, 26 Barb. 607._- 475, 1154, 1158 o, Watt, 19 Til. 8938.______ 823: Kirchuer 2. Laughlin (N. M.) 28 Pac. Rep. 175..___._- 485. ». Venus, 12 Moore, P. C. 361, 5 Jur. N. 8. 395, 7 Week. Rep. 455._._ 279, 906, 910 Kirk 0. Carr, 54 Pa. 285, 990... 1190 v. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68, 26 L. ed. 79. .--712, 718, 724 Kirkham ». Boston, 67 Ill. 599__ 274, 1139, 1140 Kirkland 2. PeHeaerS 62 'N. ¥ Kirksey 2. Bee 1 Ala. 303._218, 221 Kirkwood 2. Reedy, 10 Kan. 453 222 Kirschmann », Lediard, 61 Barb. DID ire aa Serene cage ae 307 Kirst 0. Milwaukee, L. 8S. & W. R. Co., 46 Wis. 489... 1120 Kitchen 0. Place. 41 Barb. 465._ 854 Kitchens v. Kitchens, 39 Ga. 168, 99 Am. Dee. 453.1217, 1218 Kittering v. Parker, 8 Ind. 44.__ 952 Klare v. State, 48 Ind. 488_____. 28 Klein ». Hoffheimer, 182 U. 8. 367, 88 L. ed. 878_... 974 2. Horine, 47 Ill. 480____. 179 », Laudman, 29 Mo. 259.. 90 v. Russell, 86 U. 8. 19 Wall. 433, 22 L.ed.116 505 Klinck v. Price, 4 W. Va. 4__.65, 269 Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass, 253__.64, 958 vo. Kansas City, St. J. &C. B. R. Co., 50 Iowa, 656 333 Kling 2 Fries, 33 Mich. 275. __- 66 2. Sejour, 4 La. Ann. 129. 43 Knapp v. Bailey, 4 New Eng. Rep. 150, 79 Me. 195. 317 o. White, 23 Conn. 529... 72 Knaresborough v. Belcher Silver Min. Co., 3 Sawy. 446 1103 Kneeland e Milwaukee, 15 Wis. Tlokertioct v. Harris, 1 Paige, 212, 2 L. ed. 620___.- Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. »v. Nel- son, 78 N. Y. 154....- Cxvi Knickerbocker L. Ins.Co. 0. Nor. ton, 96 U. S. 234, 24L. C0) G89 saccene sens see 281 v. Schneider, 181 U. 8. —- 25 L. ed. 694 __..--_.. 1004 Kniffen v. eee 30 N. Y. BO weitere teeieme 860 Knight ». Serene 8 Ad. & El. OLD races aaee ye care ie 854, 858 v. Heath, 23. N. H. 410... 954 v McCord, 63 Iowa, 429.. 225 v. Pugh, 4 Watts & 8. 445, 39 Am. Dec. 99._.--.- 128, 1126, 1142 Knobb 2. Lindsay, 5 Ohio, 471... 967 Knode v. Williamson, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 586, 21 L. ed. 670 631, 1244 Knoght 2, jggnnlagton, 6 Hun, 6 » Knowles, 86 Ill. 1... 0. Logansport Gas Light & C. Co., 86 U. 8. 19 Wall. 58, 22 L. ed. 70 208. 217, 1181 », Lord, 4 Whart. 500, 34 Am. Dec. 525____- 958, 1235 v. Michel, 13 East, 249... 837 v. Scribner, 57 Me. 497__.. 1386 Knowlton v. Moseley, 105 Mass. 1G eee Reece 840 . Walker, 138 Wis. 264_._.. 265 Knox 2. Silloway, 10 Me. 217.402, 403 Knuckolls v. Lea, 10 Humph. 577 964 Kobbe 2. Price, 14 Hun, 55_..416, 589 Kock 2. Bonitz, 4 Daly, 117____- 837 Koehring ». Muemminghoff, 61 Mo. 256 215 712 875 1806 Koon 2. Saodtnne 18 W. Va. 320- Kortright v. Buffalo Commercial Bank, 20 Wend. 91__. », Cady, 21 N. Y. 848____. v. Commercial Bank of Buffalo, 20 Wend. 91. 883 Kountz ». Kirkpatrick, 72 Pa. 376, 13 Am. Dec. 687_ 1809 Kowing »v. Manly, 49 N. Y. 198 838, 3844, 345 Krause v. Meyer, 82 Iowa, 567... 855 Krech 2. eae Railroad, 64 Mo. Da ars oer be 796 Kreitz ». Behrensmeyer, 14 West. Rep. 593, 125 Tl. 141. 178 Kribs v. Jones, 44 Md. 396__.._. 1261 Krider ». Lafferty, 1 Whart, 314. 258 Kritzer vo, Mills, 9 Cal, 28.__.___ 258 v, Sweet, 57 Mich. 617_._. 1161 TABLE OF CASES. Krouskop »v. Shontz, 51 Wis. 204 995 Krug v. Herod, 69 Ind. 78____-- 1234 Kuhland »v. Sedgwick, 17 Cal. 123 137 Kuhn v. Brown, 1 Hun, 244..._ 1260 Kuhns v. Gates, 92 Ind. 66._.___ 425 Kuntz v. Tempel, 48 Mo. 71.... 273 L. Lacey v. Davis, 4 Mich. 140.807, 1281 v. Forrester, 2 Cromp. M. Ge TR BOD tse 1127 Lackawanna & B. R. Co. ». Chenewith, 52 Pa. 382. 1110, 1111 Laclede Buy v. Keeler, 109 Ill. ase aeeaeocet 689 Lacoste ». Ber County, 28 Tex. swssiecheswersecsiso 484 La Croix 7 Sarrazin, 15 Fed. Rep: 4892205506 c00 81 Lacy v. McNeile, 4 Dow. & R.7_ 483 v, Weaver, 49 Ind. 375__.. 1238 Ladd ». Hildebrandt, 27 Wis. 185 996 v. Jackson, 48 Ga. 288__._ 1271 v. Moore, 3 Sandf. 591.__. 957 vo. Wiggin, 35 N. H. 421, 69 Am. Dec, 551__.__ 219, 221, 1306 LaFarge v. Rickert, 5 Wend. 187, 21 Am. Dec. 209__..255, 263 LaFayette B. & M. R. Co. ». Winslow, 66 Ill. 219__ LaFayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. Rep: (385.2 ooseusese5 Laflin ». Chicago, W. & N. R. Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 415- Laggett ». Boyd, 3 Wend. 376_.- Laggat ». oe Brew. Co., 60 Ill. 158 1307 279 27 Laidley ». Cima s, 83 Ky. 607 32 ». Kline, 8 ae Va. 218._.. 217 Laing ». Lee, 20 N. J. L. 337_.-- 1264 Lainson v. Tremere, 1 Ad. & E}. NO Da na ane oer Laird . Campbell, 100 Pa. 159, TA9, 833 », Hiester, 24 Pa. 452___.- 1277 Lajoye v, Primm, 3 Mo. 529____- 76 Lake ». Freer, 11 I. App. 576._ 291 v. Ranney, 33 Barb. 49... 1204, 1212 2. Reed, 29 Iowa, 258_.__- 456 ® Skinner, 1Jac. & W.12 604 Lake Merced Water Co. 0. Cowles, 81 Cal. 215_........ 18 Lake Ontario Nat. Bank o. Jud- son, 122 N.Y. 278_.__ Lake Superior Ship Canal R.& I. Co. », Cunningham, 44 Fed. Rep. 819 186 731 TABLE OF CASES. Lamar ». Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 29 L. ed. Ye eee Lamb ». Camden & A. R. & T. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 -... 118 % Crafts, 12 Met. 853_____ 1816 ® Franklin Mfg. Co., 18 Me: 18% o> 2 asoseesace 983 Lambe 2. Orton, 29 L. J. Ch. 286 76 Lambert 2. People, 29 Mich. 71_. 411 2. Seely, 17 How. Pr. 482_ 283 Lamberts v. Cooper, 29 Gratt. 61 1191 Feeney a Roberts, 81 N. Y. 8. NAGS ogee. ccotciete 762 Lambeth ». “Seatel 88 La. Ann. i eee aaa son ARS 9 Lamoille oe Nat. Bank »v. Bingham, 50 Vt. 105__ 1806 L’Amoureaux ». Crosby, 2 Paige, 42, 2 L. ed. 972 _____- 1084 Lamping ». Keenan, 9 Colo. 890_ 1235 eee qVestern Assur. Co., U. ©. Q. B. 361- 729, 1272 Lampton - Haggard, 3 T. B. Mon. 100 --_... 22... Lanahan 2. Sears, 102 U. 8. 318, 26 L. ed. 180_...-.-.. 265 Lancaster 0. Washington L. Ins. Co., 62 Mo.121_77, 1222,1228 Lancaster County Nat. Bank 0. Moore, 78 Pa. 407, 414 420, 1087 Land 2. Patteson, Minor (Ala.) 14. 35 Lander ». People, 104 Ill. 248 .-_ 387 Landers v, Bolton, 26 Cal. 893... 187 Landis v, Turner, 14 Cal. 573_.820, 828 Landsberger v. Gorham, 5 Cal. 45 Landwerlen 2. Wheeler. 3 West. Rep. 639, 106 Ind. 523 921 Lane 2. Brainerd, 80 Conn. 565._ 896 v. Bryant, 9 Gray, 245_... 761 », Cameron, 38 Wis. 608 .. 678 v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 177._ 1102 v. Dickerson, 10 Yerg. 373 268 v. Harris, 16 Ga. 217__.__- 33 ». Morse, 6 How. Pr. 394__ 8438 v. Pferdner, 56 Cal. 122___ 1101 ». Reynard, 2 Serg. & R.65 914 ». Shears, 1 Wend. 488... 265 v. Stewart, 20 Me. 98____- 1140 Lanfear ». oven 18 La. Ann 50 Lang 2. Watlne, 17 Ala, 157_.._- 484 ». Waters, 47 Ala. 624.452, 487 Langdon 2. Goddard, 2 Story, 367 1178 v. Langdon, 4 Gray, 186_. 282 v. People, 183 Ill. 882___-- 100 a. Raiford, 20 Ala. 582.... 784 ». Roane, 6 Ala. 518, 41 Am. Dec. 60....----- 836 Langer v. Meservey, 80 Iowa, 158 266 Langford 2. Freeman, 60 Ind. 46_ 1258 Langley ». Brown, 2 Atk. 203... 296 ‘ Langley ». pee, 1 Mees. & W. exvii ere ie 18 C. BLN. Dy 200eee ce Letee aise 212, 733 Langslow 2. Fe 1 Chitty, 98... 651 Langton 2. Lazarus, 5 Mees. & W. 62 28. . Lansing 2. Rasch 2.N. Y. 563, 13 Bark. ». Russell, 8 Barb, Ch. 325, B: Lived; 9192 v5 nae Lapham 2. Kelly, 35 Vt. 195___- La Porte City v. Goodfellow, 47 Towa, 572....--..---. 36 Laraby v. Reed, 3 G. Greene, 419 1284 Largan », Central R. Co., 40 Cal. i nih sat woken Sees 35: Larkins 0. Biddle, 21 Ala. 252_.. 300 La Rose 2. Logansport Nat. Bank, 102 Ind. 346_________ 449 La Rue v. Gilkyson, 4 Pa. 875... 1087 187 345 755 9 | Larue v. Rowland, 7 Barb. 107_. 825, 833 ». Slack, 4 Bibb, 858_..___ 1177 Larum ». Wilmer, 35 Iowa, 244. '709 Lasak’s wie Re, 831 N. Y. 8. R. Laschear 2. mWibite, 88 Ill. 42.___ Laski 2. Goldman, 18 La. Ann. 04s on a oem sae eee Lasley 2. ee 7 How. ame eee tS 981, 984 Lassalle o. ee 1 Blackf. 150 711 Lassitter v. Lee, 68 Ala, 287_____ 1279 Latch v. Rumner R. Co., 27 L. J. N. 8. Exch, 155...-.- 86 Latham v. Smith, 45 Tl]. 25_____. 369 » State, 19 Tex. App. 305. 22 Lathrop 2. Bramhall, 8 Hun, 394 469 ». Bramhall, 64 N. Y. 865. 918 o. Knapp, 27 Wis, 215--.. 711 Laub v. Trowbridge, 71 Iowa, 396 720 Laudman 2. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 28 Wis. 204_____- 68 v. Hawley, 9 Colo. 174..-. 224 v. Ingram, 49 Mo. 212_... 288 v, State, 18 Ohio, 99_...._- 658 Laughton v, Harden, 68 Me. 208. 949 Laurence ». Hopkins, 18 Johns. 474 Laurent ». Vaughn, 30 Vt. 90-336, 1808 Lautour v. Teesdale, 8 Taunt. 830 999 Lavalle v. People, 6 Ill. App. 157 33. Law ». McDonald, 62 How. Pr. ». Merrills, 6 Wend. 268_. v. Wells, Peake, 93_.----- Lawler v. Cosgrove, 89 La. Ann. 488 441 Lawrence 2. Barker, 5 Wend. 301 598, 616, 621, 752, 761 exvili Lawrence v. Boston, 119 Mass. 126 336, 1309 v. Cabot, 9 Jones & 8.122. 187 v. Clark, 14 Mees. & W. OOo aaa 161 v epnee 56 Me. 187_____- 860 v Englesby, 24 Vt. 42... 216 v. Haynes, 5 N. H. 338-_-. 721 v. Houghton, 5 Johns. 129. 575 2. Jarvis, 32 Ill. 304 ...... 209 v. Kenney, 82 Wis. 281... 1273 2. Lawrence, 21 N. J. Eq. Ds PAG oot tS ata 840, v. McCready, 6 Bosw. 829. 673 v. Milwaukee, 45 Wis. 306 736 ~. Ocean Ins. Co., 11 Johns. DA cis a sae ey ale 1228 v. Pond, 17 Mass. 483 .... 221 v. Schuykill Nav. Co., 4 Wash. C. C. 562 231 ». Staigg, 8 R. I. 256 257 v, Stonington Bank, 6 Conn. Dole ssa aoe eee 1139 ». Tayloe, 5 Hill, 107_____ 270 ». Vernon, 3 Sumn. 20... 789 Lawrenceburgh First Nat. Bank ». Lotton, 67 Il. 256_. 1122 Lawson 2. a 61 How. Pr. 4046 noc seseaceinees 298, 299 18 Lawton v. Chase, 108 Mass. 238. 1308, 1309 Lawyer v. Langhans, 85 Ill. 188. 845 Lay Grae v. Peterson, 2 Sandf. 338 453 Lazare v. Jacques, 15 La. Ann. DOO Sa aches Se Reyerceises 295 Lea v, Lea, 99 Mass. 498, 96 Am. ‘Dec. 722.....-...._.. 214 Leach v. Beardslee, 22 Conn. 404. 1318 ». Buchanan, 4 Esp. 226_. 458 v. Noyes, 45 N. H. 864__.. 300 Leadbetter 7. Etna Ins. Co., 18 Me. 26%. 2 se paces 1272 League v. Waring, 85 Pa. 244 .__ 1182 Leahey v, Cass Ave. & F. G. R, Co., 97 Mo. 165 -____. 888 Leak v. Isaacson, Abb, Adm, 41. 233 Leake ». Bergen, 27 N. J. Eq. Bsr Aenean a , 66 Lear v. Chouteau, 23 Ill. 89___._- 1258 ». Durgin, 6 New Eng. Rep. 896, 64 N. H. 618____- 805 Learned 2. Hall, 133 Mass. 417__ 638 » TiHlotson, 97 N. Y. 1... 1011 v Vanderburgh, 7 How. BD es etait Siete 223 Leary 2. pete: 48 Me. 269_ 275, 1140 Leather Mfrs. Nat. Bank ». Mor. gan, 117 U. 8. 96, 29 L. ed. 811.....-.. 22. 719 TABLE OF CASES. Leathers v. Salvor Wrecking Co., 2 Woods, 682...1155, 1166, 1167 Leatherwood ». Sullivan, 81 Ala, 458 osm seu eneousae 38 Leavenworth County Comrs. 2. Barnes, 94 U. 8. 70, 24 L. @d.. 68 scccantaececes 725 Leavenworth Second Nat. Bank v. Smoot, 2 McArth. Bilececeres cece cis 1141 3 Le Barron v. Le Barron, 35 Vt. BG ccczcate cece 1074, 1118 Lee v. Adsit, 37 N. Y.78__...--- 239 vy. Alexander, 9 B. Mon. 25, 48 Am. Dec. 412..... ». Dill, 11 Abb. Pr. 214._. 1204 ». Huntoon, Hoffm. Ch. 453, 6 L. ed. 1205___.. » arose Coal Co., ». Lamprey, 43 N. H. 13- 865, 960 ». Pearce, 68 N. C. 76.-_- ». Pile. 37 Ind. 107_.--.-- ». Reed, 4 Dana, 109_...- ». Winston, 68 Ala. 402__. Lee County v. Rogers, 74 U. 8. 7 Wall. 181,19 L. ed. 160 1053 Leech 2. Beardslee, 22 Conn. 404 1819 Leeds 2. Cook, 4 Esp. 256_-.-160, 170 ». Marine Ins. Co., 15 U. 8. 2 Wheat, 3838, 4 L. ed. Ol ewsecceas 229, 466, 1179 Leeper v. Hersman, 58 Ii]. 218-. 711 Lees v. Whitcomb, 5 Bing. 34... 1263 Leetch v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 4 Daly, 419_-_..---_- 546 Leete ». Gresham L. Ins. Soc., 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 57$_... 136 Lefever ». Lefever, 830 N. Y. 27.. 752 Lefler v. Field, 50 Barb. 407._.. 589 ». Sherwood, 21 Hun, 5738 670 LeFranc », Hewitt, 7 Cal. 186... 827 Leftwich v. Neal, 7 W. Va. 569. 996 Legg v. Drake, 1 Ohio St. 286._._ 1252 o. Myer, 5 Redf. 628..--_- 1218 v, Olney, 1 Denio. 202.._. 866 Legge v. Edmonds, 25 L. J. N. BS. Ch, TYG cecce. seen 82, 85 Lepent a Boyd: an 376... 987 v. Hyde, 58 N. Y. 272, 17 Am. Rep. 244.......- 1159 v. Rogers, 9 Barb, 406_... 1278 Legrand 2», Ee 4 T. B. Mon. 589___....._-.- 655 v% Honmpden Sidney Col- lege, 5 Munf. (Va.)324 85 Lehigh Valley R. Co. » Beatty, 134 Pa. 294_._.....2- 101 TABLE OF CASES. Lehman 2. Greenhut, 88 Ala. 478 978 ». Marshall, 47 Ala, 362. 908, 912 o. Tallassee Mfg. Co., 64 Ala, 598....----.-..- Leibersperger v. Reading Sav. Bank, 30 Pa. 5381 Leibman 9. Polley, 1 Stark. 167_ 1012 Leicester », Rehoboth, 4 Mass, 180 708 Leitch 0. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585 876, 1051, 1053 2. Wells, 48 Barb. 650... .- 1052 Leitensdorfer 7. Delphy, 15 Mo. 160, 55 Am. Dec. 140 260, 297 Leland v. Bennett, 5 Hill, 282... 581 ». Cameron, 31 N. Y. 115 422, 423 . Wilkinson, 31 U. 8S. 6 Pet. 317, 8 L. ed. 412. 195 Lemaster 2 Burckhart, 2 Bibb, - ciliates) compa hee eel 251 Lemon 2. a 68 Mo. 340.. 1099 Lemp 2. Hastings, 4 G. Greene, AOS so recess ape echona rs 742 Lennard 2. Vischer, 2 Cal. 37.... 256 Lenoir v. Rainey, 15 Ala. 667... 88 Lenox ». Fuller, 89 Mich. 268... 639 ». Notrebe, Hempst. 251 226,227, : 1179 v. Prout, 16 U. 8.3 Wheat. 527, 4 L. ed. 451-_...- 229 Lenz v. Charlton, 23 Wis. 482... 808 Leonard 2. Diamond, 81 Md. 586 913 ». Fowler, 44 N.Y. 289._ 308 ». Leonard, 14 Pick. 280_. 1087 o. New York, A. & B. E. M. Teleg. Co., 41 N. Y. 544, 1 Am. Rep. BAG so oeine eeciee 1082, 1033 v. Peeples, 30 Ga. 61.-_906, 1810 % Aedes: 8 Johns. Leopold 2. Vanikivk, 27 Wis. 152 1815 Leppoc 2. Maryland’ Nat. Union Bank, 82 Md. 136 -282, 295 Lerch v. Snyder, 2 Cent. Rep. 538, 112 Pa. 161-__--.---- LeRoy v. Reeves, 5 Sawy. 102... 1289 Lesley v. Nones, 7 Serg. & R.410 70 Leslie v. Leslie, 15 Weekly Dig. 56, 92.N. Y. 636._._-- ». Wiley, 47N. Y. 648... 1155 Lester v. Pittsford, 7 Vt. 158_.354, 355 Lestrade ». Barth, 19 Cal. 660... 300 Letcher . Kennedy, 3J. J. Marsh. NOL ir adaticasewsen es 59 ‘Leuckart 2. Cooper, 3 Bing. N. C. 99, 8 Scott, 521, 2 Hodges, 150_---...--- 912 - 9, Cooper, 7 Car. & P. 19. 902 Leverich ». Frank, 6 Or. 212-- - 626 Levering 2. Rittenhouse, 4 Whart. 180 ccuwecesiaweniaees 450 exix Levering v. Union Trans. & Ins. Co., 42 Mo. 89, 97 Am. Dec. 320 Levison v. Schwartz, 22 Cal. 229 136 Levy 0. Bank of United States, 1 fiths QTc cneoce mice 459 ». Brannan, 39 Cal. 485... 1061 ». Cadet, 17 Serg. & R. 126, 17 Am. Dec. 650..--. 483 v. Gadsby, 7 U.S. 8Cranch, 180, 2 L.ed. 404__-._- 1006 v. Merrill, 52 How. Pr. 360 69 o. Merrill, 4 Me. 180._._-- 1264 ». Pope, Mood. & M. 410. 644 v. State, 6Ind. 281_...-.-- 33 Lewe’s Trust, Re, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 236......------- 76, 78 Lewis’ Emels, Re, 40 L. J. Ch. e Bw anavnenaetea 8 Lewis v. Baird, 8 McLean, 56... 404 ». Barker, 55 Vt. 21__...-- 633 ». Blair, 1 N. H. 68_____- 221 ». Boston, 180 Mass. 339_. 736 v. Castleman, 27 Tex. 407. 722 v. Dunlap, 72 Mo. 174___.. 274, 1189, 1140 ». Harris, 31 Ala. 689___.- 40 ». Hudmon, 56 Ala. 186... 148 v. Jones, 50 Barb. 648.-.. 1084 ». Lewis, 2 Rep. in Ch. 77. 291 v. Lewis, 11 N. Y. 220, aff’g 13 Barb. 17, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 150.-.1191, 1206, 1207, 1210 o. Lyons, 13 Tl]. 117__-_-- 282 ce. McClure, 8 Or. 278..-. 38 «. Marshall, 30 U. S. 5 Pet. ae 8 L. ed. 195, 414, 1222, 1223 ; Marball, 7Man. & G. 729, 8 Scott, N. R. 477 279, 909 F een, 1 Wash. (Va.) ee 8 Cow. 71, 18 Am. Rep. 427....---.----- Peake, 7 Taunt. 158._._ 1228 . Saylors, 73 Iowa, 504... 1079 Seabury, 74 N. Y. 409_. 318 . Small, 71 Me. 552 264 . State, 9Smedes&M.115 418 . Willoughby, 43 Minn. 307 322 . Wintrode, 76 Ind. 13... 17 Lexington, F. L. & M. Ins. Co. 2. Paver, 16 Ohio, 824... 128 Leysor 2. Field (N. M.) 23 Pac. Rep. 178_....-------- L’Hommedieu 2. Cincinnati, W. & M.R. Co., 120 Ind. Libbey ». oe 3 New Eng. p. 249, 78 Me. 492. s eeseese 822 Lick ». Diaz, Br Cal. 438....-.-- 514 CXX Lieb ». Craddock, 87 Ky. 526... 118 Lieupo 2. State, 28 Tex. App. 179 696 Life & F. Ins. Co. v, Mechanics F. Ins. Co., 7 Wend. le eG chine 161, 168, 171 Liggett v. Ashley, 5 Litt. 178. 301 Lightner 2. Steinagel, 33 Ill. 510 986 vo. Wike, 4 Serg. & R. 203. 761 Lilienthal’s Tobacco». United States, 97 U. 8. 237, 24 igs 319 954 Liljengren Furniture & L. Co. 2. ead, 42 Minn. 420_- Lillie v, McMillan, 52 Iowa, 4638_ Lillis ». St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Lilly ». Kitzmiller, 1 "Yeates, 28. a Waggoner, 27 Ill. 395_- ‘Lime Rock Bank »v. Mallett, 34 796 414 79 1135 Lincoln 2. Batelle, 6 Wend. 475, 36, 65, 708 ». Fitch, 42 Me. 456_..__- 1148 ». French, 105 U. S. 614, 26 -L. ed. o. Hinzey, 51 Ill. 436.__-.- ». Norton, 86 Vt. 679__._- » Taunton Copper Mfg. Co, 9 Allen, 181____-_ Lindenberger v. Beal!, 19 U. 8. 6 bie eat. 104, 5 L. ed. 1012 264 297 1216 678 330 518 236 17 Lindsay ». eer 2A. K. Marsh. 229____..__-- v. Mulquenn, 26 Hun, 485 ». People, 63 N. Y. 148__- v. People, 67 Barb. 548, 5 Hun, 104....--_- 2. ». Scroggs, 2 Rawle, 141_- vo. Williams, 17 Ala. 229_- Lindsey », Atty-Gen., 33 Miss. O08 cease ee ate keenn 27 Lindsley v. Coats, 1 Ohio, 245... 176 ». Diefendorf, 48 How. Pr. DOU emake eum e ask ». European Petroleum Co., 41 How. Pr. 56.122, 126 v. James, 3 Coldw. 484... 242 % Thompson, 1 Tenn. Ch. ie Se hag nck demic 739 Line 2. one 122 Ind. 548.108, 142 Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, Ch. 249__.....0 2. Linn »v. Sigsbee, 67 Ill. 75... v. Wright, 18 Tex. 317_.. Diane! v Sutherland, 11 Wend. Beene eA nae 815, 833 Linthicum ». Remington, 5 Cranch, ©, C. 546.... 644 TABLE OF CASES. Lippincott 0, Whitman, 83 Pa. 244 259 Lipsmeier v. Venslage, 29 Fed. Rep. 175 143 Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 489... 456. Litchfield Iron Co. v. Bennett, 7 Cow. 234....---.---- Little ». Giheon, 39 N. H. 505__- v Herndon, 77 *U. 8. 10 ‘Wall. 26, 19 L. ed. 878 859, 1283, v. Phenix Ins, Co., 123 Mass. 380, 25 Am. Rep. 96..----- ~~... v. Ragan, 838 Ky. 321-_-..- Littlefield v. Brooks, 50 Me. 475 v. Maxwell, 31 Me. 134___ shan . _ Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 392 225. 1276. 1272 955. 86 908 128. 256. Little Rock & Ft. 8. RB. Co. ». Eubanks, 48 Ark. 460, 3 Am. St. Rep. 245__) ». Henson, 39 Ark. 413... Little Rock & Ft. S. Teleg. Co. ». Davis, 41 Ark. 79_._. Little Rock & N. R. Co. 2. Little Rock, M. R. & T. R. . Co., 86 Ark. 663....- Littlewort ». Davis, 50 Miss. 403 Livar v, State, 26 Tex. App. 115 Livermore v. Aldrich, 5 Cush. 485 v. Northrup, 44 N. Y. 107 714, 977 Household _— Stores Asso., Re (Eng. Ch. Div.)8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 227 Livesey ». Festner, 28 Neb. 333_ 734 Livingston 2, Arnoux, 56 N. Y. DOG. ac cccetemacas 423, 813 1108. 87 1032 73 268. 924 285. Liverpool ». Bell, 3 Watts, 198._.__. 265. ». Bird, 1 Root, 03_.___. 1804 ». Kiersted, 10 Johns. 362. 528, 533. ». Maryland Ins. Co., 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 506, 3 L. ed. 421_._._.____.- 902, 908. v Peru Iron Co., 2 Paige, 390, 2 L. ed. 956_._.. Llano County v. Moore, 77 Tex. 515 Lloyd 2. Inglis, 1 Desaus. Eq. 333 291 ». Jones, 6 C. B. 81..__.- 908 » Lloyd, 1 Redf, 899. .._- 826. » Pughe, L.R. 8 Ch.App. 88 993. ». Scott, 29 U.S. 2 205, 7 L. ed. 38. 1304, 1305 Lobdell o, Lobdell, 36 N. Y. 327, 4 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 56, 2 Trans. App. 868, 38 How. Pr. se rev’g 32 How. Pr. 669 TABLE OF CASES. Lock o. Johnson, 36 Me. 464... 9838 v. Norborne, 8 Mod. 142.. 216 Lockart v. Roberts, 3 Bibb, 361. 857 Locke v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 112.___- 1166, 1173 », Stearns, 1 Met. 563____. 1161 Lockett ». Nicklin, 2 Exch. 98_. 1259 Lockhard »v. Beckley, 10 W. Va. Bie ae tsti cia scminecers 954 Lockridge 0. Wilson, 7 Mo. 560. 1157 Lockwood », Doane, 107 Ill. 235 1159 v Quackenbush, 83 N.Y. 678 607 : 836 ». Thorne, 11 N. Y. 170, 62 Am. Dee. 81_.._- 886, 1229 v. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 285_._ 839 Loder v. Whelpley, 111 N. Y. 289 650 Lodge 2. ot aa 11 Serg. & R. Be apecae te tas 345 Loeb »v. Flash, 65 Ala. 526___..- 954 Logan ». State, 9 Humph. 24.-.. 413 Logston », State, 3 Heisk. 414_537, 539 Lohman 2. People, 1 N. Y. 380 594 v. State, 81 Ind. 15.._____ 39 Loker v. Haynes, 11 Mass. 498.. 952 Lomax ». Ripley, 24 L. J. Ch. 254 972 Lombardo ». Case, 45 Barb. 95_. 905 Lomer 2. eels 25 N. Y. 361, BO oats d Ave east sees London ». Lynn, 1 H. Bi. 214--- London & 8. W. Bank »v. Went- worth, L. R. 5 Exch. 1006 890 Lonergan : Royal Exch. Assur. Co., 7 Bing. 729_..-- v Whitehead, 10 Watts, ar Long ». Galton, 116 Mass. 414.408, 466 % Conklin, 75 Til, 32._... 813 ». Doxey, 50 Ind. 385-_.. 675 ». Hartwell, 34N. J. L. 116 1261 v. Lamkin, ’9 Cush. 365... 614 v. Mulford, 17 Ohio St. 484, 93 Am. Dec. 638_ 955, 1092 v. North British & M. Ins. Co.. 187 Pa. 385___-- 631 ». State, 10 Tex. App. 186 339 ». Straus, 124 Ind. 84__-99, 694 Longabaugh ». Virginia & T. R. Co., 9 Nev. 271_._--- 509 Longhurst 2. "Star Ins. Co., 19 Towa, 364._..-.---.. 1273 Long Island Bank v, Boynton, 7 Cent. ae 738, 105 N. Ne 606s cs.S52ncecesecs 148 Loomer 2. Wheewreht 8 Sandf. Ch. 185, 7 L. ed. 800 289 CXXL Loomis ». Eagle L. & H. Ins. Co., Gray, 896_._--2.-_. 1004 0, Eaton, 82 Conn. 550... 1306 v Pearson, 1 Harper, 470. 484 v. Spencer, 2 Paige, 153, 2 L. ed. 852_.__..--._- 1087 Lord 2. Midland R Co., L. R. 2 O..P 844n oc eeueee 1085. ». Moore, 37 Me. 208.___. 826 Lord Lovatt’s Case, 18 How. St. E006. Soocccecce sts 546 Lord Say : oe s Case, 10 Mod. beatae Gpinate arenes 650 Lore v. Hil. 3 Harr. (Del.) 580_._ 914 Lorenzana v. Camarillo, 41 Cal. GS Sires evens Heath ieee 785. Lorillard v. Coster, By alge, 172, 3L, ed. 672_.._.._-__- 1193 Loring 2. Harmon, ud Mo. 1238... 727 v. Salisbury’ M 1ls,125 Ma gs, 188: fe eeer meee ears 876. », Steinman, 1 Met. 204__.76, 77 Lorman 2. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568 178 Loss v. Obry, 22 N. J. Eq. 55--.. 303. Lothrop v. Abbott, 16 Me. 421-- 218, 221 Loud ». Hall, 106 Mass. 404_..__- 907 Lougee v. Bray, 42 Minn. 828... 696 Louisville & N. R. Co. v, Brown, 13 Bush, 475 -_......- ». Gilbert, 7 L. R. A. 162, 80 Tenn. 480, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas, 372_.- Louisville & P. R. Co. ». Smith, 2 Duvall, 556__._.._. Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Leonard, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 917... 101 Louisville City R. Co. v. Weams, 80 Ky. 420___... 1097, 1117 Louisville, N. A. & OC. R. Co. o. Buck, 2 L. R. A. 520, 784. 116 Ind. 566__.___- 386, 412 v. Falvey, 1 West. Rep. 876, 104 Ind. 409____..... 921 vo. Faylor, 126 Ind. 126_.-. 141 ». Grantham, 2 West. Rep. 281, 104 Ind. 358_.... 921 o. Hixon, 101 Ind. 887_... 42 =: Kane, 120 Ind. 140___.- 925 . Thompson, 6 West. Rep. 555, 107 Ind. 442____. v. Thompson, 5 West. Rep. 833, 107 Ind. 442____- 95, 97, 924 ». Wood, 12 West. Rep. 303, 118 Ind, 544_.-.--..-.- vo. Wright, 13 West. Rep. 806, 115 Ind. 878___.- Louks v. Kenniston, 50 Vt. 116.. 711 Lounsbury 2. Depew, 28 Barb. 44 708 Loup v. California S. R. Co., 63 Cal 97 cc ceee tess cece 1101 Love v. Barbour, 17 Tex. 312... 711 s 358 €XXil Love v. Braxton, 5 Call 587 -... 1178 ». Gates, 4 Dev. & B. L. 363 1279 . Waltz, 7 Cal. 250 77 v. Wells, 25 Ind. 503__--.. Loveden ». Lovenden, 2 Hagg. Consist. 1 so2222-2ses5 Lovejoy v. oe Bank, 23 ere Lovell o Walliaaos, 125 Mass. 439 Lovelock v. Gregg, 14 Colo. 538_. Lovett ». Brown, 40 N. H. 511-.- ». Demarest, SN. J. Eq. 113 ». Steam Saw-Mill Assu., 6 Paige, 54, 3 L. ed. 896 Low ». Barchard, 8 Ves. Jr. 183- v Chifney, 1 Bing. N. C. 26h. cote c ees ». McCallum, 64 Cal. 2._.- ». Mitchell, 18 Me. 372..-. 652 » Payne, 4.N. Y. 247-.... 828 v. Tandy, 70 Tex. 746_.153, 159 Lowe v. Dalrymple, 10 Cent. Rep. 802, 117 Pa. 564_._-_- ». Foulke, 103 Ill. 58__--- v. Jolliffe, 1 W. Bl. 365... 1207 v. Lowe, 40 Iowa, 220---- 209, 582, 607 v AOE 2N. J. Eq. Lowell v. ee 4 Cush. 277 1121 Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Safeguard F. Ins. Co., 88 N. Y. 591 295 Lower v. Winters, 7 Cow. 265_-- 680 Lowmun 2. Sheets, 7 L. R. A. 784, 124 Ind. 416____-...-. Lowney v. Perham, 20 Me. 235-- Lowry v. Commercial & F. Bank, Taney, 310 ___..--- 875, 878 ». Doubleday, 5 Maule & 8. 169; note.2o-cnce2c =< Lowther v. Lowther, 13 Ves. Jr.95 967 Loyd v. Haunibal & St. J. R. Co., 53 Mo. 509__.-_- 1070, 1072 Lozear ®. Shields, 23 N. J. Eq. 509 1087 Lubbering ». ea 22 Mo. 59 123 780 181 Lucas 2. Brooks, 85 U. 8.18 Wall.’ 436, 31 L. ed. 779_.... ». Wattles, 49 Mich. 880.. 1100 Luce v. Doane, 88 Me. 478_____. 826 2. Hoisington, 56 Vt. 436. 499 Luck 2. cia 96 Ind. 16__.___-. 42 217 85 111 Lucker v. oo 4 Bush, 440__.. Luckhart 9. Ogden, 30 Cal. 547_- Luco v. United States, 64 U. S. 28 How. 541, 16 L. ed. BDO es cusoeacese 1155, 1166 Ludlow ». Dole, 62 N. Y. 617, aff’g 1 Hun, 715_.__.. TABLE OF CASES. Ludlow v. Van Camp, 6N. J. Eq. 118, 11 Am. Dec. 529_ » Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 69 9 Luellen v. Hare, 32 Ind. 211....- Luff ». Lord, 11 Jur. N. S. 50..- Lufkin v. Haskell, 3 Pick. 256__- Luke 2. Calhoun County, 52 Ala. VG ont eccewercod see “7, 1155, 4168, 1168, 1172 Lull o. Cass, 43 'N. H. 62../___. 295 TLumbard 2. Aldrich, s N Hi; 31, 892, 899 Lumbert 9, Hill, 41 Me. 475___.- 802 ». Palmer, 29 Iowa,104_... 672 Luminary, The, 21 U. 8. 8 Wheat, 407, 5 L. ed. 647_..__ 170 Lumpkin v. Murrell, 46 Tex. 51. 39 Lumsden 2. Cross, 10 Wis. 289.. 807 Lund 2. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. BG wsccesecsee 377, 388, 411 Lunday v. Thomas, 26 Ga. 538_. 960 Lumsford 2, Dietrich, 86 Ala. 250 1063 Lunt v. Bank of North America, 49 Barb. 221_....-..- 994 Lush »v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313_647, 1307 ». McDaniel, 13 Ired. L. 485 330 Inther v. Winnisimmet Co., 9 Cush. 171_._._.--....-. 1121 Lutterell », Reynell, 1 Mod. 282. 620 Lutz ». Ey, 3 Abb. Pr. 475.1076, 1078 o. Ky, 3 E. D. Smith, 621. 1077 Lux 2. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255___._- 71 Lyell v. Lapeer County Suprs., 6 McLean, 446....._-2- 34 Lyle v. Ellwood, 11 Moak’s Eng. Rep. El 415 v. Elwood, 19 L. R. Eq. 98, 44 L. J. Ch. 164, 23 Week. Rep. Lyle’s Estate, 11 Phila. 65_-..__- Lyles v. Lyles, 1 Hill, Eq. 77_... 622 Lyman v. Brown,2 Curt. C. C.559 740 o. United Ins. Co.,17 Johns. 373 _- 260, 297, 298, 802, 304 ». United States Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 630, 1 L. ed. 519_.261, 292, 301, 302, 308 Lynch, Hv parte, 1 Madd. Ch. 19 965 Cox, 23 Pa, 265.__..... 1271 Cronan, 6 Gray, 581.... 820 . Goldsmith, 64 Ga. 42_274, 1140 . Livingston, 6 N. Y. 438 996 . Petrie, 1 Nott McC. 130 826, 870 . Swanton, 58 Me. 100_ 734, 737 Lynde »v. Judd, 3 ‘Day , 499.182) 647 Lyndsay 2. Conneatient & PLR, 998 993 eeeese e R. Co., 27 Vt. 643.... 87 Lynn v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 60 Md. 404....._2-.2. 977 Lyon v. Adde, 63 Barb. 89_____. 70 2. Culbertson, 88 Ll. 88... 114 TABLE OF CASES. ‘Lyon 0. Home, L. R. 6 Eq. 655_ 1086, 1092 ®. Lyman, 9 Coun.55___.-- 832, 344, 345, 346 ». Reed, 138 Mees. & W. 286 709 v. Richmond, 2 Johns. Ch. 51,1 L. ed. 292___.. 90, 301 o. Sanders, 23 Miss. 530... 9 Lyons v. Campbell, 88 Ala. 462... 1189 v. Rosenthal,11 Hun, 46.87, 1120 Lytle v. Lytle, 37 Ind. 281-._-.. 1186 M. Maber 2. Aaah, 1 Younge & C. Macaulay 2. er TN. ¥. 173 Macbride 2. Macbride, 4 Esp. 242 Macdougall 5 Maguire, 35 Cal. 27 268 596 514 24 1200 1271 140 1112 Macey v. Titcombe, 19 Ind. 135- Machem 2. Machem, 28 Ala. 274. Machir v. May, 4 Bibb, 43... .__- Mack v. Davidson (Super. Ct. N. Y.) 30 N. Y. 8S. R. 805 v. Parks, 8 Gray, 517__..- Mackay 2. Rhinelander, 1 Johns, Cas. 408 Mackey v. Gordon, 34N. J. L. 286 201, 208 Mackinley v. M’Gregor, 3 Whart. B09 woca ce 452, 487, 954, 1234 Macon & % R. Co. v. J obnson, Macy 2. Whaling Ins. Co., 9 Met. 354 _L.---------.- 280, 904 aeons ne 1 Dow, P. C. McAleer ». Horsey, 35 Md. 439__ ». McMurray, 58 Pa. 126__ McAlister » Butterfield, 31 Ind. 25 », Jerman, 32 Miss. 142___ McAllister » McAllister, 7 B. McAnally o. O’Neal, 56 Ala. 299 ‘M’Andrew 2. Electric Teleg. Co., 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 180 ec 1083 5, 1032 221 343 64 ». Electric Teleg. Co., C. B. 3 ND DD pe 3 oT McArthur v. Pease, 46 Barb. 493 McAuley ». sarees 1 Jones, 715 221 607 304 88 304 148 236 McBee 2. Btate, Meigs, 122._..-- McBride 2. Wallace, 62 Mich. 541 McCall v. Davis, 56 "Pa. 485_... ®. Doe, 17 Ala, §83-2.2--- v. M’Call, 3 Day, 403.--.- ». Moschcowitz, 10 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Rep. 107.- o. Syhert, 4 Watts, 431_.- McCamant v. Muckolls, 85 Va. 33 0} McCann a. Lewis, 9 Cal. 331 5 | McClay v. Hedge, 18 Iowa, 66_. @XXxili McCamman 9. Cunningham, 6 West. Rep. 909, 108 Ind. 545.__....-.-.-- 1085 McCampbell v. Durst, 73 Tex. 410 296 McCandless v. Belle Plain Can- ning Co., 4 L. R. A. 396, 78 Iowa, 161 _... 805 246_... 122 McCarney »v. People, 838 N. Y. 408, 388 Am. Rep. 456 1010 Metasrall 2 Alexander, 48 Miss. sit aa jecsemn scala a 2 McCartee : Se 1 Barb. Ch. 455, 5 L. ed. 453__.77, McCarthy, Re, 55 Hun, 7___..-. v. White, 21 Cal. 495___.. 1268 McCarty v. Deming, 4 Lans. 440 416 ». Edwards, 24 How. Pr. 686 416 v. Terry, 7 Lans. 239 McCaskey 2. Graff, 23 Pa. 321, 62 Am. Dec. 336, 340, note Sumaceee eee segen 879 186 - 1100 369 271 3849 608 McUlellan v. Filson, 3 West. le 120, 44 Ohio St. 190 McClintick 2. Cummins, 2 Mc- Lean, 98-- 184. 1127, McClure 2. Jeffrey, 8 Ind. 79___. ». Otrich, 6 West. Rep. 65, 118 Ill. 320 M’Clurg 2. Ross, 5 Binn. 219 -.. McCollem v, White, 23 Ind. 48_- McCollough 2. Moss, 5 Denio, 567 Nietoids oe Gilkey, 29 Miss. 146_ McComber ¢. Granite Ins. Co., 15 N. Y¥ McConnell’s ‘App. 97 Pa, 34____. McConnell v, Bowdry, 4 T. Mon. 392 cccccue vase v. Brillhart, 17 Ill. 354... v. Bryant, 38 Ga. 639_-._- v. Hannah, 96 Ind. 102-_-- C@XX1V McConnell 2. Osage, 8 L. R. A. 778, 80 Iowa, 293_._.- 645 McCoon v. Biggs, 2 Hill, 121 274, 1189 McCord v. Seale, 56 Cal. 262.._. 675 McCorkle v. Bins, 5 Binn. 340 346, 1041 McCormick v. Central R. Co., 75 GaN DOG sacral wher hanint 779 ». Holmes, 41 Kan. 265__. 118 MCormick »v. M’Murtrie, 4 Watts, 198___-..-.._- 236 v. Malin, 5 Blackf. 509.966, 1092 ». Pennsylvania Cent. R. Co., 49. N. Y. 308_... 746 ». Robb, 24 Pa. 44___._... 410 v. Sisson, 7 Cow. 715 1061, 1063 McCorquodale 2. Bell, L. R. 1 C. Py Dive 47 ene ce McCorry v. King, 3 Humph. 267-88,177 McCotter v. Hooker, 8 N. Y. 497 1011 M’Coul v. Lekamp, 15 U. S. 2 i 109, 4 L. ed. 197 McOoy ®. Artcher, 3 Barb, 323_. 1811 v. Curtice, 9 Wend. 17..-- 1290 v. Nichols, 4 How. (Miss.) Bc terete Res cies ®. Rhodes, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 141, 18 L. ed. 638 229, 1199 0. Williams, 6 Ill. 584... 985 McCrary v. Caskey, 27 Ga. 54... 2388 v. Slaughter, 58 Ala: 280_. 1155 McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460 231 McCready v. Sexton, 29 Iowa, 856 808 Metulloch ts. McCulloch, 69 Tex, 82 Sateeisuece rks we 81 McCullough v. Davis, 6 West. Rep. 579, "108 A OOO occrenye eet c3 7, 921 McCune v. McMichael, 29 Ga. aa 17 McCurdy 2. Breathitt, 5 T. B. Mon. 133, 17’Am. Dec. OG seca inc ee 297, 301 M’Cutchen 2. Miller, ‘81 Miss. 83 1052 McCutcheon 2. Homer Common Council, 48 Mich. 483 743 McDaniel v. Baca, 2 Cal. 826.... 179 v Bais 8 Smedes & M. 412 38 281 209 2 wrighaTi J. Marsh. 475 McDaniels v. Lapham, 21 Vt. 222 McDermott », Clay, 107 Mass. 501 v, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 73 Mo. 516, 89 Am. Rep. 526_...448, 1105 McDermott’s App., 106 Pa. 358, 51 Am. Rep. 526... 992 McDonald v. Carnes, 90 Ala. 147 885 v, Kirby, 3 Heisk. 607.- 29 v Leewright, 31 Mo. 29, 77 Am. Dec. 681___.. 219, 221 TABLE OF CASES. McDonald v. Magruder, 28 U. 8. 3 Pet. 470, 7 L. ed. 744_ v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358 __-- ». Muscatine Nat. Bank, 27 Towa, 319....-_-.-.-- 1125. ®, Ryan, 39 Minn. 341 __.. 1079 ». Woodruff, 2 Dill. 244 1048, 1050. McDonnell v. Alabama G. L. Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401_..._. », Milholland, 48 Md. 545_ McDougald v. Carey, 38 Ala. 320 2. McLean, 1 Winst. L. 120 v. Rutherford, 30 Ala. 2538 McDougall v. Cooper, 31 N. Y.498 McDowell v. Goldsmith, 6 Md. 319, 2 Md. Ch. 870, 24 Md. 214 McDowell ». Preston, 26 Ga. 528 528, 625 ». Rissell, 37 Pa. 164__ 865, 960- McDuff 2. Bentley, 27 Neb. 880. 625. McElmoyle 0. Cohen, 38 U.S. 18 : Pet. 312, 10 L. ed. 177 206. McEntire 0. Brown, 28 Ind. 347_ 1276 McEvoy »v. Lane, 9 Mo. 48_-___- 981 McFadden o. Reynolds (Pa.) 10 Cent. Rep. 387_-____-- McFadyen »v. Harringion. 67 N. C. 29 1145 1160 41 303 65. 349: 1141 282. McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Denio, 392._..._._--- McFarland v. Peabody Ins. Co., 6 W. Va. 425..-__.- 729, 1272: v, Stone, rt 165, 44 Am. Dec. 3 % Washivarn, 14 Ill. App. 206 McGee v. Long, 88 Ga. 156_____- v. Raiguel, 64 Pa. 110.-.- M’Gennis a Allison, 10 Serg. & 190: ecneaer se 2, 403. McGill ». Meal 2 Met. (Ky. ry 1161 v Rowand, 8 Pa. 451, 45 Am, Dee. 654. _..1106, 1107 McGinity 0. McGinity, 68 Pa. 38 290 McGinnis », State, 24 Ind. 500 . 18. McGoldrick v. Traphagen, 88 N. Wi. 884.02 ee 816, 830, 833. McGough », Jamison, 107 Pa. 336 1269 McGrath 0. Bell, 1 Jones& 8. 195 516 ». Bell, 42 How. Pr. 182.. 512 o. Clark, 56 N.Y. 34, 15 Am, Rep. 872 2.22... MeGregor s. Cleveland, 5 Wend. 477 meine Ny Ziaes sape na cia 475. McGuff », State, 88 Ala. 147_... 1074 McGuire v, Drew, 83 Cal. 225... 919 v, Kerr, 2 Bradf. 244____. 1209 TABLE OF CASES. McHenry jiaeanl, 45 N. Y. ele acai gee ee 962 iMeRusie. Teal F. Ins. Co., 48 How. Pr. 230 . 298 McIlvaine 2 eee 34 La, Ann. is MclInroy : ee 11 Johns. 02. 23 3 aa e Sere ans 1289 McIntire v. McIntire, 5 Cent. Rep. 431, 5 Mackey, 344... 656 v Oliver, 2 Hawks, 209, 11 Am, Dec. 760..-...-- 483 McIntire Poor School v. Zaines- ville Canal & Mfg. Co., 9 Ohio, 208 _._ ._--- 891 McIntosh 2. Lee, 57 Iowa, 356 - 19 McIntyre 2. Humphreys, Hottm. Ch. 34,6 L. ed. 1054. 266 0 Kennedy, 29 Pa, 448... 1182 ». New York Cent. R. Co., 87 N. Y. 291_-.__---- 401 McKavlin ». Bresslin, 8 Gray, 177 894 McKay ». Jarvis, 8 N. Y. Week, Die. 100 pee 2 pe eiseete 1101 ». Overton, 65 Tex. 82.338, 924 McKee v, Com., 2 Grant Cas, 23. 1149 ». Gilchrist, 3 Watts, 230. 960 ». Nelson, 4 Cow. 355__..- ®, White, 50 Pa. 854___.__ ». Whitten, 25 Miss, 31._-. McKeever v. New York Cent. & H.R. R. Co., 88 N. Y. GOT sa eceeace te eceice McKellip ». McIhenny, 4 Watts, 317,28 Am. Dec. 711_ MW’Kelry 2, Gilleland, 3 Watts, 312 McKenire v. Fraser, 9 Ves. Jr. 5. McKenney v. Dingley, 4Me. 172_ McKeone v. Barnes, 108 Mass. 344 McKesson 2. Sherman, 51 Wis. ». Stanberry, 8 Ohio St. 156 M’Kewn 2. ae hee 2 Nott & McC. 17..2.--.---- 818, 826 M’Kinney ie MW’ Genel 1 Bibb, 655 DO eee cate ae ee o. Neil, 1 McLean, 540-618, 620, 622, 1099 . O'Connor, 26 Tex. 5.-.. 25 . People, 7 Il. 540....-.- 567 . Pinckard, 2 Leigh, 149. 967 . Rhoads, 5 Watts, 343_._ 968 McKinnon 0. Bliss, 21 N.Y. 206 236, 237 McKinstry v. Conly, 12 Ala. 678. 268 McKinzie v. Steele, 18 Ohio St. 38 124 sees McKivitt 7. Cone, 80 Iowa, 455__ 758 McKown v. Hunter, 30 N. Y. 625 1061, 1063 McLane v. Jobnson, 43 Vt. 48_-- 968 Le (Wright, 2 Ired. Eq. CXXV McLaurine 2, Monroe, 80 Mo. 462 1060 McLean», Burbank, 11 Minn. 277 1099 ® Piedmont & A. L. Ins. Co., 29 Gratt. 861.... 256 v. State, 16 Ala. 672..___- 657 McLellan v. Longfellow, 32 Me. AOA a eas 2a nia's bees 647 McLeod 2, Bullard, 84.N. 0.515. 683 v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 899.... 411 % McLeod, 73 Ala. 42_... 1063 v. Skilles, 81 Mo. 595 .__-- 310 M’Lughan 2, Bovard, 4 Watts, 808 71 McMahon % Harrison, 6 N. Y. Canc et nme ANd 66 %. McMahon, 100 Mo. 97._ 1220 v. Macy, BIN. Y. 155.212. 292 » Miller, 82 NaC. Bliss 670 McManuus 2. State, 2 Head, 213. 647 McMaster ». Insurance Co. of North America, 55 N. Miele a deisciepininesenats ae 298 ». Pennsylvania R. Co., Pax B14 ston Saka Q77 McMicken v. Com., 58 Pa. 218.. 222 McMillan 2. Bissell, 63 Mich. 66. 266 McMillen ». McMillen, 13 N.Y. Week. Dig. 350.--_-- 1210 McMorine »v. Loper, 4 Dev. & B. L. 189, 84 Am. Dec. Di Age messes es ee wis 401 McMurray v. St. Louis Oi] Mfg. Co., 33 Mo, 877_.__-- 90 McNab ». Young, St TN AT oe, 857 McNair v. Toler, 5 Minn. 485_... 275 », Wilkins, 3 Whart. 551.. 167 McNally v». Brown, 5 Redf. 376 - 1209 ». Weld, 30 Minn. 209.... 992 McNamara 2. Culver,.2 Kan. 661 268 ». Ellis, 14 Ind. 516. ..__._- 844 McNaughton v. McNaughton, 41 Barb. 52, 34 N. Y. 204 1192 v. Partridge, 11 Ohio, 223. 3800 McNeal Pipe & F. Co. v. Bullock 38 Fed. Rep. aa Smee McNeil 2. Holbrook, 87 U. Pet, 84, 9 L. ed. Tote 474, 928 ». Magee, 5 Mason, 244.-_ 1177 ». Tenth Nat. Bank, 55 Barb. 59, 46 N. Y. 825 883, 884, 877, 879 McNeill ». Reynolds, 9 Aia. 813_ 1159 McNichol »v. Pacific Exp. Co., 12 Mo. App. 401 -. _.-. 40 McNitt », Turner, 83 U. S. 16 Wall, 352, 21 L. ed. 3841 59 McPadden »v. New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 478____ 1117 McPhaul » Lapsley, 87 U. 8. 20 Wall. 264, 22 L. ed. 344 146 McPheeters v.Campbell,5 Ind. 109 232 McPherson v. Allegheny Nat. Bank, 96 Pa. 185. ... 849 CXxvi McPherson », Rathbone, 7 Wend. 216, 11 Wend. 96, 161, 182, 445, 475, 1153, 1154, 1155, ». Ryan, 59 Mich. 33_--.- McRae v. Kennon, 1 Ala. 295.... 454 v. Mattoon, 18 Pick. 58 -. 209 McRary ». Fries, 4 Jones, Eq. 284 1052 M’Reynolds ». M’Cord, 6 Watts, 288. 290 172 McShane 2. Hazlehurst, 50 Md. 107 1157 860 peer ak re 977 ». Howard Bank, 10 L. R. A. 552, 73 Md. 135. 478 McSparran 2, Neeley, 91 Pa. 17. 456 McSwyny 2. Eroae wey & SA R. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp. MDG oa wensaan aaiiosememe 1070 McVay 2, jams, 27 Ala. 288_... 742 McVey v. Cantrell, 8 Hun, 522_. 847 McWhirt v. McKee, 6 Kan. 412. 1138 McWilliams ». Kalbach, 55 Iowa, DU Qe rare wraps eae abe 721 Madden 2. Blain, 66 Ga. 49_-_-_. 907 Maddox ». Simmons, 31 Ga. 512. 559 Maden 2, Catanach, 31 L. J. Exch. 118, 7 Hurst. & N. 360 566, 569 Madeville ». Reynolds, 68 N. Y. ‘ D2 shoes ee eta 2 9 Madison ». Zabriskie, 11 La. 251. 1198 Madison County Comrs. v. Bur- ford, 93 Ind. 383... --- 34 Maduska vo. Thomas, 6 Kan. 153. 722 Magee v. Atkinson, 2 Mees. & W. BAD areas amie Gem eters 278 v. Badger, 84 N. Y. 247.. 123 v. Osborn, 82 N. Y. 669... 348 ». Scott, 9 Cush. 148_.___. 67 Magniac v. Thompson, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 348, 8 L. ed. 709. 949 Maguire v. Baker, 57 Ga, 109_-.. 276 », Selden, 4 Cent. Rep. 379, 103 N. Y. 642_.._...- 17 Magwood 2», Railroad Bank, 5 8. 875 Mahaska County v. Ingalls, 16 Towa, 81 Mahone ». Central Bank, 17 oe rsteoeeecesince 55, Maigley 2. oe 7 Johns, 844__ Maillard ». Arevle, 6 Man. & G. Maine Bank ov. Butts, 9 Mass. 49_ Maise », Garner, 1 Mart. & Y. 3838, 17 Am. Dee. 817. .__. Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 168_.._. Malin 2. Malin, 1 Wend. 625____ Mallan v. May, 18 Mees. & W. 511 Malloney v. Horan, 49 N.Y. 111 Mally v. Mally, 52 Iowa, 654___. Malone v. Boston & W. R. Corp., 12 Gray, 888......... TABLE OF CASES, Malone ». Del Norte County, 77 Cal. 217 2! ». Hobbs, 1 Rob. (Va.) 846 1195. Malpas 2. Clements, 19 L. J. Q. Sears hh he mee ral Mamlock v. White, 20 Cal. 598 ._ Mammon 2. Hartman, 51 Mo. 169 Man v. Ward, 2 Atk. 229___.._.. Manby 2. Curtis, 1 Price, 282... Manchester & L. R. Co. v0. Con- cord R. Co. (N. H.) 9 L. R. A. 689, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. Mandel 2. Fulcher (Ga.) 12 8. E. Rep. 469.-_--.--___..- Mandere »v. Bonsignore, 28 La. Ann, 415 Mangam v. Brooklyn R. Co., 36 Barb. 237._ __-..-.-. Mangun v. Webster, 7 Gill, 78__- Manhattan, A. & B. R. Co. 2. Stewart, 30 Kan. 276. Manhattan B. Mfg. Co. ». Thomp- , Son, 58 N. Y. 80 Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Francis- co, 84 U. 8.17 Wall. 672, 21 L. ed. 698. ___- Manion Blacksmith & W. Co. 2. Carreras, 26 Mo. App. 229 soon ie ke Manley ». Bonnel, 11 Abb. N. C DOs pmo ee eae ». Boycott, 2 El. & Bl. 46_ v. Headley, 10 Kan. 88_-- Manly ¢. Howlett, 55 Cal. 94... o Kidd, 83 Miss. 141___.. ». Smith, 10 Wis. 509. ____ Mann ». Locke, 11 N. H. 246 __. 2. Mann, 1 Jobns. Ch. 234, 1L. ed. 124... v, Nunn, 43 L. J.C. P. “241 v, Sioux City & P. BR. Co, 46 Iowa, 637___.....-. Manning v. Lechmere, 1 Atk. 453 v. Keenan, 73 N. Y. 45__. Manny ». Harris, 2 Johns, 24, 8 Am. Dec. 3 Mantel », Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 833 Minn. 62_. Mantz 0. Hendley, 2 Hen. & M. 308 238 961 278. 972 403. 696- 104 1227 19 351 995- 214 383 844 Manufacturers & M. Bank 0, Bank of Pennsylvania, 7 Watts & 8. 885..._.. Manville v. Western U. Teleg.Co., o tobe 220, 18 Am, 265. Manwell oa, Eee 17 Vt. 176__. Manzoni 2, Douglas, L. R. 6 Q. B. Div. 145-..22222.. Maples 0. Browne, 48 Pa. 458. _._ Marble r. Fay, 49 Cal. 586_____. 2. Lypes, 82 Ala. 822..._. TABLE OF CASES. Marbury 2. Madison, 5 U. 8.1 nee 137, 2L. ed. March v, ie 12 B. Mon. 25___ » Mitchell, 26 N. J. Eq. ADT 2s ammamme cores Marcly 0. Shults, 29 N. Y. 846-_ 747, 752, 754 Marcy e. Barnes, 16 Gray, 161. 1163, 1166, 1169. "1173, 1175 Mareau 2. Vanatta, 88. Ill. 133__ 503 Margraf 0. Muir, 57 N. Y. 155_- 257 Marine Ins. Co, of Alexandria 2. Hodgson, 10 U. 8S. 6 aes 206, 3 L. ed. D Young oi 8.5 Cranch, 187, 38 L. ed. 74 _____ Marine Nat. ‘Bank 9. National ar Bank, 59 N. Y. Mariner 0, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 26 Wis. 84 33 687 692 461 717 1135 Marion County Comrs. 0. Clark, 94 U. S. 278, 24 L. ed. D9 Seseiersrcs = 122, 123, 1128, 1125, 1126, Markel v. Evans, 47 Ind. 326... Market Nat. Bank », Pacific Nat. Bank, 27 Hun, 465__. v. Gonaston, 2 Cro. Eliz. 626__......-._.. v, Jaudon, 41 N. Y. 235 _- », O'Connor, 52 Ga. 183. 725 Marks 0, Cass County M. & E. Co., 43 Iowa, 146_____ 305 o Pell, 1 Johns. Ch. 594, 1 L. ed. 258_.....2- 301, 304 saiaiaet y Taylor, 10 Bush, 1127 58 23 858 905 Markham De Pa cay ee chin te 180 Marlborough B. C. Co. 2. Arnold, 9 Gray, 159..._.2 222. 896 Marney 2. State, 13 Mo. 7. ._.-- 1151 Marr 0, Gilliam); 1 Coldw. 488... 88 Marriage v. Lawrence, 3 Barn. & 1 NAD rarsiate ee Se 890 '8Smith, Lead. Cas. 5th ed, 238... __- 309, 734, 738 Marsh o. Chestnut, 14 III. 224" | 1283 2 Collnet, 2 Esp. 665... 403 » Davis, 24 Vt. 363 _. 2... 968 0 Hampton, 5 Jones, L. 382 950 ® Hand, 35 Md. 69 ces, 1008 2. Hutchinson, 2 Bos. & P. 281, note.._.__._.- 2. 1190 2 Low, 55 Ind. 271 __._-- 459 . McPherson, 105 U. 8S. 2 Marshall, 58 Pa. 396.... 849 709, 26 L. ed. 1189_-. 505 ®. Mitchell, 26N.J. Eq. 497 996 * Marsh », Nichols, 128 U. 8S. 82 L. ed. 588 » Pier, 4 Rawle, 285 vo Tyrrell, 2 Hage. Eccl. Di eee elec - 1195. Marshall ». Benson, 48 Wis. 558 1279 % Cliff, 4 Campb. 183 ._.. 465. ®. Crutwell, L. R. 20 Eq. ». Davies, 78 N. Y. 414, 58 How. Pr. vo. Hubbard, 117 U. 8. 415, 29 L. ed. 919__-..---- Lynn, 6 Mees, & W. 109 1261 Stewart, 17 Ohio, 356.. 265 Vicksburg, 82 U. S. 15 ak 146, 21 L. ed. Marshall Cae H. 8. Co. 2. Iowa Evangelical Synod, 28 Iowa, 860__ 310 Martendale 2. Follet, 1 N.H. 95 854 Martin v, Anderson, 21 Ga. 301. 644 2. Barney, 20 Ala. 369.219 221, 222. . Berens, 67 Pa. 459 259: . Brewster, 49 Ill, 806__.. 111 . Clarke, 8 R. I. 389__._. 295- . Cole, 3 Colo. 114__..274, 1189- fea 3 Abb. App. Dec. 5 Hanlin, 18 Mich. 354, 100 Am. Dec, 181-.-- . Hill, 41 Minn. 337 . Ives, 17 Serg. & R. 364. 708 . Jordan, 69 Me. 581_.__. . Kaffroth, 16 Serg. & R. 120 eestor s zeit 475, 1154. » Henney 2 Bos. & P. eee asia remern 737, 788. % Marchail, 6 New Eng. Rep. 235, 60 Vt. 321_. . Martin, 51 Me. 366_.___ 605, sss esece ae) eese v. Mae 1 Heisk. 644__.. 1093 a Maynard, 16 N. H. 165_ 905. v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 19, 6 L. ed. 587 __-___- 1240 ». Orndorff, 22 Iowa, 504. 182 ». Perkins, 56 Miss. 204.. 1216 ». Peters, 4 Robt. 484_____ 478. », Platt, 51 Hun, 430__..-. 650 v. Rector, 24 Hun, 27___-_- 405 v. Righter, 10N. J. Eg. 510 711 0. Spofford, 8 Abb. N.C. TOS acmacism nace ee 2438. ». State, 63 Miss. 505, 56 Am.Rep. 813__-_- omer LOe v. Stubbings, 126 Ill. 887_. 188 ». Tobin, 123 Mass. 85_ 499 ».Zellerbach, 38 Cal. 300_ 711, 716. exxvili series ®. Falkner, 2 C. B. 651 716 1194 Martinez 2. Pee ‘ sass ; 68. Martins v. Gardiner, 8 Sim. 73_- Martyn 2. oe 140. B.N.S. AB = a oemenibatsisnete 223 Marvin v. Bennett, 8 Paige, 312, 4 L. ed. 441, 26 Wend. - 1155 301 v, Marvin, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 193, cited in 2 White & T. Lead. Cas. Marx v. Abramson, 53 Tex. 264_ ». Fore, 51 Mo. 69, 11 Am. : Rep. 432 1093 844 46 Mich. ®. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357. ». Press Pub. Co. 84N., Y. v. Hilsendegen, 336 Mary Paulina, The, 1 Sprague, 45 Maryland Ins. Co. », Ruden, 10 U.S. 6 Cranuh. 338, 3 783 641 Mason, Re, 3 Edw. Ch. 380, 6 L. ed. 696, 1 Barb. 441... 1086 v. Burton, 54 Ill, 349_____ 1138 v. Crosby, 8 Woodb. & M. NO eae ecm in amen vy. Fearson, 50 U.S. 9 How. 248, 13 L, ed. 125___- . Fractional School Dist. No. 1, 34 Mich. 228__ . Fuller, 45 Vt. 29___.415, . Hearne, 1 Busb. Eq. 88. 264 . Howell, 14 Ark, 199____ 483 . Jones, 2 Barb, 229.1192, 1193 . McCampbell, 2 Ark. 506 981, 984 . Mason, 1 Meriv. 308_... 78 a a 120 N Y. 230 1289 148 1223 eeece s e v ro 5 Blackf. 98._____ v. Skurry, 1 Park, Ins, 245 280, 908 » ea States, 4 Ct. Cl. [ieee rere ®, Williams, 66 N. CG. 565_ Mason Lumber Co. v. Buchtel, 101 U. 8. 637, 25 L. ed. Masonic Tem ple ‘Asso. », Chan- nell, 43 Minn. 358_._. 5 nee Hubbard, 8 Barn. & Cc. 1 TABLE OF CASES. Massey ». Allen, L. R 13 Ch. Div; 508.2 -sennecu8 ws ». Young, 73 Mo. 260__._. Massure v, Noble, 11 Ill. 581__. . Mast v. Pearce, 58 Iowa, 579___- Master ». Miller, 1 Anstr. 228, 4 283 Masters v. Ibberson, 8 C. B. 100_ "1128 ». Shute, 2 U.S. 2 Dall 81, 1L. ed. 298_...-..--- Master Stevedores’ Asso. v. Walsh, 2.Dalyy [2 cxscesscc== Masterson v. Boyce, 29 Hun, 456 295 », LeClaire, 4 Minn. 163._ 25 Masterton a Deers, 1 Sweeney, Mastin v. Halley, 61 Mo. 196_. Mather 2. aon 8N.Y.S. 273 ». Phelps, 2 Root, 150.-_.- Mathes v. Robinson, 8 Met. 269. 818, 826 Matheson v. Hearin, 29 Ala. 210. 742 Mathews ». Hamilton, 23 Ill. 470 796 ». Poultney, 33 Barb. 127. 952 ». Stewart, 44 Mich. 209.. 336 Mathias v. O’Neill, 12 West. Rep. 229, 94 Mo. 520 -__._- 821 Mathis v. Buford, 17 Tex. 152... 608 v. Tennessee & C. R. R. 40 915 Co., 88 Ala. 411___._. Matney 2. Graham, 50 Mo. oe Matteson 0. New York Cent. Co., 35 N. Y. 487, e Barb. 364__._- 877, 380, 519 ». Noyes, 25 Il. 591..1017, ‘1020 Matthews v. Cady, 61 N. Y. 651. 678 » Crockett, 82 Va. 394... 954 ». Green, 12 Phila. 341_787, 738 ». Houghton, 10 Me. 420.. 456 ». Light, 832 Me. 305___.-- 71 ». Poythress, 4 Ga. 287___- 1126, 1127 Matthew's Hstate, 5 Pa. L. J. Rep. 123 149 587 300 951 752 752 “502 122 v. Cox, 67 Cal. 887._.___.- G27 Maulsby, Ev parte, 13 Md. 625_. 182, 648 Maupin v. Whiting, 1 Call, 224.. 229 Maurice v. Graham, 8 Paige, 483, 4 L. ed. BI. Maury 2. ae Mattice ». Allen, 33 Barb. 548___ Mattingly 2. Speak, 4 Bush, 316. Mattison ». Demarest, 4 Robt. 161 Mattocks 2. Lyman, 16 Vt. 113_- TABLE OF OASES. Maus v. Bome, 123 Ind. 522__... 485 Mauzy 2. Sellars, 26 Gratt. 646.. 303 Mawich v. Elsey, 47 Mich. 10-.. 398 Mawson ». Hartsink, 4 Esp. 102- 635, 1249 Maxham v. Day, 16 Gray, 213... 1112 Maxwell v. Rives, 11 Nev. 213... 656 ». Van Sant, 46 Ill. 58_... 1137 May ». Baker, 15 Ill. 89 .-...--- 986 ». Hewitt, 83 Ala. 161... 469 v. Hoover, 12 West. Rep. 171, 112 Ind. 455_.__- 85 ». Shumway, 16 Gray, 86. 654 . Strauss, 8 Abb. N. C. QA see e seem se eee 781 Maybee 2. Moore, 7 West. Rep. 302, 90 Mo. 340__---- 1258 Mayer 2. Adrian, 77 N. C.88.... 256 o. Erhardt, 88 Ill. 542--__- 717 Mayes v. Farnish, 11 B. Mon. 38. 796 2. State, 64 Miss. 329.-..- 387 Mayhew 2. § eae Min. Co., 76 100 wo cieecescsse 333 Maynard 2. eis 70 N. C. 546_ 914, 915 Mayo v. Boston & M. R. Co., 104 Mass; 137.0002 000.ce06 1108 Mayson v. Banks, 59 Miss. 447-_- 1286, 1287 ». Beazley, 27 Miss. 106.749, 813 Meacham i Collignon, 7 Daly, Mead ». Boston, 3 Cush. 404__.. 534 » McGraw, 19 Ohio St. 55 501 Meador, Re, 1 Abb. U.8.317..-. 652 » Dollar Sav. Bank, 56 Ga. 605_.-__----- 274, 1140 Meadows v. Cozart, 76 N.C. 450 288 Meads ». Lansingh, Hopk. Ch. 184, 2 L. ed. 369. ___-- Means ». Means, 7 Rich. L. 633- Mears 0. ae 4 Houst. (Del.) 336 903 o. Union Bonk. 89 U.S. 22 Wall. 276, 22 L. ed. 871 Mechanics Bank of Alexandria 2. Seton, 26 U. 8. 1 Pet. 299, 7 L. ed. 152_--.- Mecouch ». - Loughery, 12 Phila. ~ Medway’s cul 6 Ct. Cl. 421-340, 346 Meech ». Fowler, 14 Ark. 29.... 1290 Meegan 2. Borie, ‘60 U. 8. 19 How. 130, 15 L. ed. 577._404, 405 Meehan ». Forrester, 52 N. Y. Ohicincae armas a sweses Meek v. Perry, 36 Miss. 261---.- 377 Mehan ». State, 7 Wis. 670_____- Mehesy 2. Kahn, 18-Jones & S. 209, 6 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Te Meldrum ». “Clark, Morris, 130_- Melen »v. eae 1 Mood, & M. Melhuish ». Collier, 15 Q. B. 878_ Mellish ». Robertson, 25 Vt. 608_ Melvin v. Melvin, 58 N. H. 569_- Memphis & C. R. Co. 2. Maples, 63 Ala. 601__._.-. _-- Memphis & L. R. Co. ». Shoe- craft, 58 Ark. 96.___- Memphis & O. River P. Co. 2. McCool, 83 Ind. 392, 48 Am Rep. Wasa 87, Mendenhall v, Davis 72 N. G30 137 Mendota 2 Fay, 1 Ill. App. 418- Mengel’s App., 8 Cent. Rep. 262, 116 Pa, 292....____.- Menges ». Oysier, 4 Watts & S. Mentz v. ae 5 Whart. 150 Mercantile Bank ». Hawe, 33 Mo. App. Mercer v. Kelso, 4 Gratt. 106 __- v. Mercer, 87 Ky, 21__---- » Selden, 42 ou 8. 1 How. 87, 11 L. ed. 38_.__.- ». Vose, 8 Jones & 8. 218. Merchants’ Will, 1 Tuck. 151.-. Merchants & M. Mut. Ins. Co. 2. Washington Mut. Ins. Co., 1 Handy (Ohio) 408 Merchants & P. Nat. Bank v. Ma- sonic Hall Trustees, 62 72 spiiaceer hee v Harrison, 39 Mo. 483__- v. Rawls, 7 Ga. Wieecckes ». State Bank, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 687. 19 L. ed. ». Taylor, 21 Ga. 334.__.- ». Woodruff, 6 Hill, 174__ Merchants Exch. Nat. Bank 2. Commercial Ware- house Co., 49 N. Y. Merchants int. 8. B. Line v. Ly- on, 12 Fed. Rep. 63... Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. La- croix, 85 Tex. 249, 14 Aw. Rep. 360. _._- 728, Merchants Nat. Bank 2. Richards, 6 Mo. App. 454... - o. State Nat. anaak, 3 Cliff. AU ara ates area 2. CXxix 997 238 469 613 90 611 186 1389 1108 1140 1103 822 91 222 785 305 784 1271 513 1205 1306 215 1272 879 245, 248 CXxxX Merchants Wharfboat Asso. 2. Wood, 64 Miss. 661. 1118 Meredith ». Footner, 11 Mees. & OQ ee: carting ees A487 Meriden Britannia Co. ». Zingsen, 4 Robt. 318, 48 we Merk v. Gelzheuser, 50 Cal. 631-- Merkle v, Bennington, 12 West. Rep. 516, 68 Mich. 133 Merle v. Moore, Ryan & M. 390-- Merrick 2. Boury, 4 Ohio St. ae 1, Merrifield v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 150 Merrill 0. Dawson, 1 Hemp. 563- ». Grinnell, 30 N. Y. 594, 595 v. Ithaca & O. R. Co., 16 Wend. 585. _.396, 397, 401, 757, 761, 815, 826, 893 669 792 923 645 1182 192 16 TABLE OF CASES. Meyer ». Casey, 57 Miss. 615_---- 296: v. Dresser, 16 C. B. N.S. a 279: ». Goodell, 31 How. Pr. 456 581 X Knickerbocker L. Ins, Co., 738 N. Y. 516.__. 28t v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236. __.64, 65: Miami & M. Turnp. Co. 2. Baily, 87 Ohio St. 104_____.. 1074 Michel 2. Tinsley, 69 Mo. 442... 300: Michigan Bank ». Eldred, 76 U. 8. oe 544, 19 L. ed. eee oat ee. Bene 858, 1128 Michigan Carbon Works 2. Cole- man, 28 Mich. 440, 446 762, 1102 ». Schad, 88 Hun, 71.___. 441 Michigan Ins. Co. ». Leaven- worth, 30 Vt. 11_.855, 1123 Michigan L. & I. Co. 0. Republi- ©. Meachum, 5 Day, 341-- 968 can Twp.,9 West. Rep. ». Montgomery, 25 Mich. 124, 65 Mich, 628... 173. 1 2 so-ed oe case's Seas 844 | Michigan, P. M. & Mfg. Co. 2. ». Rolston, 5 Redf. 220.... 1218 Parsell, 838 Mich. 480. 724 v. Walker, 24 Me. 237.-.. 896] Michigan, 8. & N. I. R. Co. 2, v. Western U. Teleg. Co., McDonough, 21 Mich. 1 New Eng. Rep. 677, LOS mretsorwan mein eel 836. 18 Mes Qi emcts oedaccee 1022 | Michoud ». Girod, 45 U. S. 4 Merriman »v. Cunningham, 11 How. 508, 11 L. ed. Us 40s. oye seein 728 TOG scion cores eae acm, 288. Merritt ». Brown, 19 N. J. Hq. 286 268 | Mickey o. Burlington Ins. Co., 35 ». Day, 38 N. J. L. 82, 20 Iowa, 174,14 Am. Rep. Am. Rep. 362__._---- 484 AOA 2 inhi Ae ete A 1272 », Pearson, 38 Ind. 385_--- 1078] Middleborough ». Rochester, 12 ». Seaman,6 N. Y.168___. 925 Mass, 365__.. 2.2 2 1085: 2. Thompson, 1 Hilt. 550_ Middleditch ». ee 4L. R. 1222, 1223 oo ,45 NJ. Eq. ». Yates, 71111.636,22 Am. =| = 726 Lee ne 1085 Rep. 128..-.--------- 996 | Middleton ®. et 4 Exch. 241 Merwin ». Chicago, 45 Il. 183... 986 599, 1126 Meshke v. Van Doren, 16 Wis. 319 17 », Crofts, 2 Str. 1056_____ 91 Mesker 2. eee 42 Fed. Rep. v. Mass, 2 Nott & McC. 55 402 lagen ea heh ng Tere as v. Melton, 5 Mood. & R. Messer 2. Bailey, SLN; He) Denes 221 264, 10 Barn. & C. 317 423. Metcalf o. Officer, 1 McCrary, 325 1157 v. Tyler, 1 N. J. L. 445_.. 694 » Putnam, 9 Allen, 97.260, 304] Middletown Bank v. Jerome, 18 ». Smith, 40 Mo. 576..-.-- 1054 onn, 443__.....2. 2. 711 Methodist Episcopal Church 2, Mildmay v. Smith, 2 Saund. 343 222 Jaques, 1 Johns. Ch. Miles ». Albany, 38 New ans: bea 1 L. ed. 205 and Rep. 478, 59 Vt. 79._-_ 919 Bese euaMetowe ses 991 » Berry, 1 Hil, L. ae 1267 Matnepoiiten ie Ins. Co. v © ». Edelen, 1 Duvall, 270.. 4 Dempsey, 72 Md. 288, ». Loomis, 10 Hun, 375, 900, 1001 aff'd 75 N.Y. 288, 31 v. McTague, 8 Cent. Rep. Am. Rep. 470. 338-340, 844 611, 49 N. J. L. 587_- 1001] Millaudon = Ranney, 18 La. Metropolitan Nat. Bank ». Hale, Ann, 196__...._.2 8. 913 28 Hun, 341..._.__.. 618 | Miller’s ae ng 380 N. Y. 8S. Mettlestadt x. Ninth Ave R.Co, | sCOR B 101 4 Robt. 877__-- 2.2 -- 1227 | Miller ». dotennne 24 Iowa, 128. 738 Metzger », Franklin Bank, 119 », Anderson, 1 West. Rep. Ind, 859_.---.--.---- 921 810, 43 ‘Ohio St. 473.. 81 Mews v. Mews, 15 Beav. 529-- 990 %, Balthasser, 78 Ill. 802.. 796 TABLE OF CASES. Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558... 870 v. Bedford, 86 Pa. 454-1076, 1078 v. Bernecker, 46 Mo. 194__ 742 v. Bradish, 69 Iowa, 279.. 919 2, Butterfield, 79 Cal. 62.. 287 v. Cook, 124 Ind. 101__._. 624 o. Covert, 1 Wend. 487... 734 v. Craig, 23 Ill. App. 128. 688 o. Creyon, 2 Brev. 108.... 654 v. Drake, 1 Cai. 45._.___- 1258 o. Edgerton, 38 Kan. 86__ 317 ». Fichthorn, 31 Pa. 252_.. 311 ». Hampton, Ala. Sel. Cas. DOU a scmumnacas ee hsams 238 o. Henderson, 10 Serg. & Ri 2290 2 acta toas 259 ». Hughes, 1 A. K. Marsh. 181, 10 Am. Dec. 719. 1159 v Irvine, 1 Dev. & B. L. 103 Sessccenncaueeeses 1264 ». James, L. R. 3 Prob. 4. 1190 v. Kendig, 55 Iowa, 174_. 670 o. Kershaw, 1 Bail. Eq. 481, 23 Am. Dec. 185_ 1054 v. Luco, 80 Cal. 257_____. 785 v. Lullman, 81 Mo. 81__._ 223 ‘o. Lumsden, 16 Ill. 161_--_ 71 . 0. Mabon, 6 Iowa, 456..._ 787 2. M’ Clenachan, 1 Yeates, 144 Sooco seco aoe 475, 1153 Milligan, 48 Barb. 36_. 1063 Montgomery, 78 N. Y. OBO scl e a okes 518, 517, 918 0. Manice, 6 Hill, 114.787, 739 v. Miller, 1 Bail. i, 244___ 209 v. Miller, 68 Pa. 486_.__._ 965 v. Miller, 60 Pa. 16_____.. 722 0 v. ». Pendleton, 8 Gray, 548_ 906 ». Race, 1 Burr. 453... 1124 o. Shay, 5 New Eng. Rep. 158, 145 Mass. S62. $20, 821 A Sherry, 69 U. 8. 2 Wall. 287, 17 L. ed. 827__.. 1053 o. Smith, 112 Mass. 470... 337 vo. Springer, 70 Pa. 269_.- 711 ». Stevens, 100 Mass. 518, 1 Am. Rep. 189__.._ 280, 903 o. Tetherington, 6 Hurst. & Ne 95405 0ucc.ct ce ». Texas & P. R. Co., 132 U. 8. 662, 83 L. ed. 487 714 . United States, 78 U.S. 1 Wall. 268, 20 L. ed. 3 3 0. White, 50 N. Y. 187... 212 %. White, 5 Redf. 320___._ 1213 Millerstown : Frederick, 5 Cent. p. 281, 114 Pa. 435. 96 Milligan 2. Hil, 4 Phila. 52, 38 Pa. 237.......--_._.. 1076 Milliken »v. Dockray, 5 New Eng. Rep. 861, 80 Me. 82_. 720 v. Whitehouse, 49 Me, 527 212 CXXXi Millman ». Tucker, Peake, Add. Cas; 222.2. nnncccsn 592 Mills v, Bank of United States, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 481, 6 L. ed. 512_.-..--._. 278, 909: v Barber, 1 Mees. & W. BoD ed tee hae 128, 1126, 1142 vo. Barney, 22 Cal. 248.__. 785: v. Bliss, 55 N. Y. 189____. 1056 v. Darling, 48 Me. 565... 265. v. Duryee, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 484, 3 L. ed. 412, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 728, note..._- 201, 202, 206: ». Gore, 20 Pick. 28___._. 226- ». Hallock, 2 Edw. Ch. 652, 6 L. ed. 588_....-__.. 02. »®, Herndon, 77 Tex. 89... 103. o. Starr, 2 Bail. L. 359_._. 852. ». Thompson, 72 Mo. 867. 950 Millsaps ». Pfeiffer, 44 Miss. 805 247 Milne v. Henry, 40 Pa. 352_.__- 952 Milsap v. Stone, 2 Colo. 187.__558, 915. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 2. Kellogg, 94 U. 8. 469, 24 L. ed. 256. .328, 333, 354 Mima Queen v,. Hepburn, 11 U.8. 7 Cranch, 291, 3 L. ed. 3 , 874 Mimm ». State, 16 Ohio St. 221__ ” 634 Mims v. Sturdevant, 36 Ala. 640. 761 ». Swartz, 37 Tex. 13____- 32 ». Weot, 38 Ga. 238__-_.-. 1053 Mincke »v. Skinner, 44 Mo. 92_._ 351 Miner v. McLean, 4 McLean. 138 1276, 1289 ». Phillips, 42 Ill. 123..640, 952 Minet ». Morgan, L. R. 8 Ch. 361 647 Minnesota, L. & T. Co. v. Beebe, 2 L. R. A. 418, 40 Minor ». Mechanics Bank of Alex- andria, 26 U. 8. 1 Pet. 46, 7 L. ed. 47__...... 1147 a. Stone, 1 La. Ann. 283.. 18 », Tillotson, 32 U. 8. 7 Pet. 99, 8L, ed. 621.___.. 150, 159, 163, 164 Minturn ». Smith, 3 Sawy. 142._ 1276 Mish v. Wood, 34 Pa. 451.__.__- 1808 Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Ken- nedy, 41 Miss. 671--- 1106, 1107 Missouri v. Bell Teleph. Co., 23 Rep. 539._._.__-- Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. ». Haines, 10 Kan. 489.. 589 Missouri Pac. R. Co. ». Finley, 88 Kan. 550___._._._- 359 ® Mitchell, 75 Tex. 78.... 1108 vo. Neiswanger, 41 Kan. 621, 13 Am. St. Rep. 804.. 691 Mitchell 2, Burnham, 44 Me, 286. 267 C@Xxxil Mitchell v. Deeds, 49 Tl]. 416_... 954 o. Ferris, 5 Del. 84__-..._- 209 vo. Gall, 2 Harr. & G.171__ 1156 ». Huron Circuit Judge, 53 Mich, 541_ ____--_- 654, 656 v. Lipe, 8 Yerg. 179.----- 915 v. McDougall, 62 Tl], 498_. 965 2, Mitchell, 438 Minn. 73_-.. 1220 ®. Mitchell, 1 Md. 44_.__-- 914 ». Moore, 24 Iowa, 394.... 964 ». Pitts, 61 Ala, 219 ._..-- 847 v. Reed, 9 Cal. 204 _-.-_-_ Wh 2. Roulstone, 2 Hall, 351__ 475, 1153 3 ee 1 McLean, es eer le ete 1267 % united States, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 650, 22 L. ed. Otel S Seat seat eek 85 vo. Welch, 17 Pa. 339__.--- 455 ». Western & A. R. Co., 30 Ga 20 eee eececed 1098 Mitchell’s Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249_ 647, 651 Mitchinson », Cross, 58 Ill. 366_. ‘1061 Mix v. Osby, 62 Tl. 1938________- 445 Moale ». a, 11 Gill & J. bi Loioieereskeccecer t) Mobile & AL R. Co. ». Ashcraft, 48 Ala, 15.-.-..__- 509, 762 v. Jay, 61 Ala. 247_____.- 907 Mobile & O. R. Co. ». Whitney, 39 Ala. 468 _.....___- 41 Mobile M. D. & Mut. Ins. Co. 9. McMillan, 31 Ala, 711 354 Mobley ». Ryan, 14 Ill. 1126 Modawell v. Holmes, 40 Ala. 391 39, 740 Moehring v. Mitchell, 1 Barb. Ch. 264, 5 L. ed. 879_ ....78, 79 Moffatt o. Henderson, 18 Jones & Eeeee teen 248 Moffitt ». cae 60 Iowa, 44... 720 v Wereen, 5 Cranch, Cc. C. Soames eee 76 Moline Plough Co, v, Braden, 71 Towa, 141___._...__. 520 Molton 2. Camroux, 2 Exch. 487_ 1087 Moncure v. Dermott, 38 U. S. 18 Pet. 345, 10 L. ed. 198 1805 Mondell 2. Steel, 8 Mees. & W. 8082 eee eet esas as 1811 Mondran »v. Goux, 51 Cal. 151... 675 Monell v. Lawrence, 12 Johns, 921 1058 Monks ». Belden, 80 Mo. 639_... 718 Monkton ». Atty- ‘Gen., 2 Russ, & Me NG Bi cos testes 415 Monroe ». Gentes 54 Mich. 9. 1160 ». Snow, 131 Ill. 126___._- 784 Monroe cy ae v. May, 67 Fe af Ae cate nh eeepc 2 Montague a Sone 12 West. Rep. 447, 68 Mich. 98. 820 TABLE OF CASES. Cee v. Perkins, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 516 Montgomery »v. Pickering, 116 Mass. 227__.___ 645, 646, 965 ». State, 11 Ohio, 424._.__ 413 v, State, 80 Ind. 338, 3 Crim. L. Mag. 523._.. 512 Montgomery & W. Pl. Road Co. v, Webb, 27 Ala. 618. 66 Montgomery City Council ». Montgomery & W. PI. Road Co., 31 Ala. 76__22, 41 Montgomery S. R. Co. ». Mat- thews, 77 Ala. 857_... 954 Montrose 2. Wannamaker, 21 Abb. N. C. 478 .____- 651 Moody v. Andrews, 7 Jones & S§. 302, aff'd 64 N. Y. 641 463 % Hamilton, 22 Fla. 298.. 318 v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490, 28 Am. Dec. 317____.._- 332, 344, 345, 347 v. State, 48 Ala. 115.____- 35 Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420. 89 Moog 2. Benedicks, 49 Ala. 512__ 180 Moon ®. Stone, 19 Gratt. 278__.. 1191 Mooney »v. Howard Ins. Co., 138 Mass. 375.._..._._- 277, 907 ». Kennett, 19 Mo. 551__.. 85 v. Peck, 8 Cent. Rep. 637, 49 N. J. L. 282.___.-- 923 Moons v. De Bernales, 1 Russ. BOM santas so 604, 1189 Moor ov. Adams, 5 Maule & 8.156 348 e. Towle, 88 Me. 188_____- 983 vo, Watts, 1 Ld. Raym. 614 739 Moore », Andrews, 5 Port. 106.. 835 v. Appleby, 10 Cent. Rep. 697, 108 N.Y. 287_- 510 », Bank of Metropolis, 38 U. 8S. 13 Pet. 302, 10 v Bettis, 11 Humph. 67_.. 614 v. Bickham, 4 Binn. 1_... 858 ». Bray, 10 "Pa. 519... --- 451 ». Brown, 52 U.S. 11 How. 414, 13 L. ed. 751.___- 1289 s . Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 78 Wis. 120__..141, 261 ». Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 385__... 983 o. Ferrell, 1 Kelly, yronnwey 229 vo. Green, 73 N.C. 894... 655 © Green, 4 Humoh, 299... 984 ® Greene, 60 U. 8.19 How. 69, 15 L. ed. 583. -969, 1267 v, ilegeman, 27 Hun, 68... 999 v. Hill, 85 N. ©. 218__..712, 727 . Ivey, 8 Tred. Eq. 192... 225 . Lake Company, 58 N. H. 254 675 SS. TABLE OF CASES. Moore v. Meacham, 10 N. Y. 207 448, ». Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 55 N.Y. 41 752 v. Moore, 2 Bradf. 261... 1206 vo. Neil, 39 Ill. 256._.___.- 59 vo. Newbury, 6 McLean, 472 233 v. Noble, 58 Barb, 425.... 678 v. Roberts, 64 Wis. 588_.. 727 v. Rush, 30 La. Aun. 1157 965 v. State, 79 Ga, 498______. 539 ». State, 12 Ala. 764___._. 412 v9, State, 17 Ohio St. 521.. 383 v, Steamer “Evening Star,” 20 La. Ann. 402_._--. 1107 Steele, 10 Humph. 562-. 1217 The Fashion, Newb. 49. 233 . Tice, 22 Cal. 515___.665, 672 Titman, 33 Ill, 359_____ 223 Tracy, 7 Wend. 229.._. 873 . Trimmier, 82 8. C. 511. 5438 Ullman, 80 Va. 311_- 970 United States, 91 U.S. 270, 23 L, ed. 346_.348, 347 ». Wade, 8 Kan. 380_-__-- 269 Moores 2. Bricklayers Union No. 1 (Super Ct. Cincin- nati), 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 108 v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 104 U. 8. 680, 26 L. ed. 872 Moorman 2. Board, etc., 11 Bush, ssssesses 772 760 996 753 13 Moots 2. State, 21 Ohio St. 653_- Moppin v. Aitna, A. & §. Co., 41 Conn. $4......-.---- Moran v. McLarty, 11 Hun, 66, aff'd 75 N. Y. 25 Morasse » Brochu, 8 L. R. A. 524, 151 Mass. 567__.- Moreau 2. Detchemendy, 41 Mo. 496 298 673 1278 _ 1817 626 415 209 626 Moreland 2. Ca 23 Minn. 84 Morewood v. Wood, 14 East, 330 Morey v. Morey, 27 Minn. 265-___- Morford ». ate Sneed (Ky.) 221 * 1086 2 Chicago & A. R. Co., 6ULS. 716, 24 L. ed. ». Collier, 6 Mo. 568------ . Farrel, 58 Conn. 413_44, ‘ind . Griffith, L. R. 6 Exch. . Morse, 13 Gray, 150_._- , Neville, 74 Pa. 52___--- . Olvey, 58 Ind. 6_...--_- Ravey, 6 Hurlst. & N. OBO cians nepinicisioeme sine es esses exxxili Morgan ». State, 12 Ind. 448.___17, 59 ». Tipton, 3 McLean, 339. 1179 v. United States, 113 U.S, 477, 28 L. ed. 1044... 91 », Whitmore, 6 Exch. 726_ 288 v. Yarborough, 18 La. 74, 83 Am. Dec. 558____- 1127 Morgan County 2. Allen, 103 U. 8. 498, 26 L. ed. 498.. 898 Morganthau v, King, 15 Colo. 418 1231 v. White, 1 Sweeney, 395. 257 Morissey v. Pecple, 11 Mich. 827_ 351 Moritz v. Melhorn, 18 Pa. 831... 862 Morley 2. Boothby, 3 Bing. 107._ 1263 Morningstar ». Cunningham, 9 A Rep. 59, 110 Ind, Eeaeceeeass 28, 277, 318 v Selby 15 Ohio, 345.__- 1216 Mornyer v. Cooper, 35 Iowa, 257 1124 Morrell v. Cawley, 17 Abb. Pr. 76 842 Morrill ». Blackman, 42 Conn. 824 958 ». Robinson, 71 Me. 24_._. 255 ». Wallace, 9 N. H. 111... 1810 ». Whitehead, 4 E. D. Smith, 239__.......--- 829 Morris v. Briggs, 3 Cush. 342__814, 833 v, Cain, 89 La, Ann. 712_. 651 ». Davidson, 49 Ga. 3861___ 32 v. Davies, 5 Clark & F. 163, 1 Jur. 911 ». East Haven, 41 Conn.252 333 vo. Faurot, 21 Ohio St. 155 274, 1189 . Hazelwood, 1 Bush, 298 1242, 1248 . Henderson, 37 Miss. 501 225 Hurst, 1 Wash. C.C. 483 827 Lachman, 68 Cal. 109_. 752 Landaur, 48 Iowa, 284_. 89 Morris, 5 Mich. 171_.._. 281 Patchin, 24 N. Y. 895_. 188 . Robinson, 80 Ala. 291... 305 Terrenoire,2 La.Ann.458 960 . Vanderen, 1 U.8.1 Dall. 236 129 724 727 672 268 754 736 5386 845 74 val 693 s ssssssees Morris & E. R. Co. ». Ernddon, 20 N. J. Eq. Morrison ». Bassett, 26. Minn, 235 ® eee Corp. 5 Cal. . Brand, 5 Daly, 40__.__- , Chapin, 97 Mass. 72____. . Clark, 55 Tex. 487__._. . Lennard, 3 Car. & P. 127 . Lovejoy, 6 Minn. 183__-_ . New York Cent. & H.R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 648- Morriss v. Harvey, 75 Ga. 726__. Morrow v. Hatfield, 6 Humpb. 108 Morse v. Crawford, 17 Vt. 499, 44 Am. Dec. 349___.___. eeesecese CXXxiv Morse v. Elms, 181 Mass, 151_.-. 736 v. Emery, 49 N. H. 239__. 410 ©. Hewett, 28 Mich. 481... 16 », Marshall, 22 Iowa, 290-- 985 ». Mason, 103 Mass. 560.. 995 ». Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 80 Minn, 465.-- 1106, 1109 v. Presby, 25 N. H. 299.199, 211 ». Royal, 12 Ves. Jr. 355.. 226 Mortimer v. M’Callan, 6 Mees. & Won SS cocenessacaekee 166 ». Orchard, 2 Ves. Jr. 248. 668 Mortlock ». Butler, 10 Ves. Jr. 292 967, 1178 Morton »v. Copeland, 16 C. B. 517 148 v. Dean, 18 Met. 885_----- 1263 v. Reeds, 6 Mo. 64.-.1276, 1279 v. White, 16 Me, 53__.-148, 150 ». Young, 55 Me, 24, 92 Am. Dec. 565_-.----- Mosby v. Wall, 28 Miss. 81_~.-~- Moseley ». Armstrong, 3 7 B. Mon, 287.._.------ 226, 227 ». Mastin, 37 Ala. 216 40. Moser v. Libenguth, 2 Rawle, 428 300 Moses v. Mead, 1 Denio, 378.... 308 e Murgatroyd, 1 Johns. Ch. 128, 1L. ed. 86--- 301 Mosher 2». Heydick, 45 Barb. 552 843 ». Rogers, 2 Tl. App. 577. 726 Moshier 2. ae College, 32 Ill. 956 31 924 268 212 Mosley ». Vermont Mut. F. Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142__-.--- Moss 2. Cameron, 66 Tex. 412___ v, Green, 10 Leigh, 251_-_ ». McCullough, 5 Hill, 131 Mossman 2. Forrest, 27 Ind. 233 30, 32 Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 174 .64, 65 Motsinger o. State, 123 Ind. 498. 322 Mott v. Harrington, 12 Vt. 199.. 230 o. Richtmyer, 57 N. Y. 49 240 Motteux v. London Assurance Co., 1 Atk. 545.___._- Motz v. Bolard, 6 Serg. & R. 210 Moul vo. Hartman, 104 Pa. 48___. Moulin v. Trenton Mut. L. & F. Ins. Co., 24N. J. L. 208, 1181 Moulor v, American L. Ins. Co., 111 U.S. 885, 28 L. ed. 835 - 261 236 410 1005 - 1195 Mt. Holly b. & M. Turnp. Co. 9. i 17 N. J. Eq. qT, ete arene eee 876 Mowatt v. Blake, 31 L. T. 887... 972 Mower »v. Hanford, 6 Minn. 535 715, 976 Mowrey v, Walsh, 8 Cow. 288.. 1235 TABLE OF CASES. Mowry ». Chase, 100 Mass. 79._. 830 ». Heney, 86 Cal. 471___-- Moyer’s App., 77 Pa. 482..._- 487, 989 Mudd », Sackermore, 5 Ad. & El. W082 —sscoccteecuemme Mudgett ». Horrell, 83 Cal. 25 888, 896 Mueller v. Bates, 2 Disney, 318_. 228 2. Kaessmann, 84 Mo. 318. 716 Mugge v. Adams, 76 Tex. 448_.. 147 Mulcahy 2. Reg., L. R. 3 4H. L. ou 1 Ir. C. L. Rep. Muldon 2. Whitlock, 1 Cow. 290 70, 71 Muldowney ». Illinois Cent. R. Co., 86 Iowa, 462 _... 827 Mulford v. Tunis, 35 N. J. L. 256 913 Mulhado », Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370_... 1069 Mulhall vo. Keenan, 85 U. 8S. 18 Wall. 842, 21 L. ed. SOG eae Aol ass 782, 818 Mullally v. Holden, 123 Mass. 583 1258 Mullen v. Pryor, 12 Mo. 807.... 66 ®, St. John, 57 N. Y. 567 87, 1120 St. Louis Hospital Asso., 73 Mo, 242__.. 614 Mulqueen v. Duffy, 6 Hun, 299. 926 Mumford »v. oo 1 Johns. Muller 2. Munro a, Merchant, 26 Barb. 1224 1142 Munroe 2. Cooper, 5 Pick 412. Munson 2. Hastings, 12 Vt. 346, 36 Am. Dec. 345 ». Nichols, 62 Ill. 111... 2. Murdock 0. Cox, 118 Ind. 266_._ Murphy 2. men 28 How. Pr. ise RI. & PLR. Co., 45 Iowa, 661_121, 1102 =s v. Collins, 121 Mass. 6____64, 66 v. Deane, 101 Mass, 455.119, 1102 % Hendricks, 57 Ind. 693 32 ». Hobbs, 7 Colo, 541- 1042, 1043 ®% Hubert, 16 Pa. 50.__.452, 487 ». New York Cent. R. Co., 66 Barb. 125... .-__. 377 v, Purdy, 13 Minn, 422... 847 v. Rooney, 45 Cal. 78_.._. 260 v. Trigg, 1 T. B. Mon. 73. 297 Murray, Re, i ‘Curt 596__22 222. 8 » Ballou, 1 Johns, Ch. 566, 1 L. ed. 247.1052, 1054, 1056 TABLE OF CASES. Murray o. Beckwith, 81 Ill. 43_- v. Dake, 46 Cal. 644__.._- »% Dowling, 1 Cranch, C. 456 260 Oe DBM sie terete gs 451, 648 % Hise 2 Johns. Ch. 155, IL. ed. 8289... 1055 ». Gouverneur, 2 Johns. Cas. 488_............ 231 ». Graham, 29 Iowa, 524.. 855 v. Lardner, 69 U. 8S. 2 Wall. 110, 17 L. ed. BD irae eee 123, 457, 1126 cS . Long, 1 Wend. 140____. 1063 v. Lylburn, 2 Johns. Ch. 441, 1 L. ed. 440.1052, 1059 2. Mann, 2 Exch. 588_.947, 972 . Missouri Pac. R.Co., 101 MO: 286 22226 cece nce 804 . Palmer, 2 Sch. & Lef. WA oe ise eee ate 965 . Smith, 4 Daly, 277_-308, 1310 . Spencer, 88 N. C. 857_-- 410 877 269 2 e e es . Stevens, 110 Mass. 95 _- ». Walker, 31 N. Y. 399_- Murrell 9. Johnson, 8 Hiil, L. 12 vo. Smith, 3 Dana, 468_.._. Murtz 2. Hartley, 4 Watts, 261 _- Muse v. Donelson, 2 Humph. 166 Mushat 0. aes ‘4 Dev. & B. L. Ihe See acct oe vec Mussel Slough Case, The, 5 Fed. Rep. 680........--..- Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 9 Met. 806 Muster 2. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 61 Wis. 825_.... Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v, Can- non, 48 Ind. 264_____. » Higginbotham, 95 U. 8. 880, 24 L. ed. 499____ v. Newton, 89 U.S. 82, 22 L. ed. 793 .-.....-..- ». Robertson, 59 Il]. 128, 14 Am. Rep. B ce erie 519, Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Morris, 31 N. J. Eq. 583__.....- Mutual Rately ce Co. 2. Hone, DNe Ws 280) onc’ scene Myatt ». Lockhart, 9 Ala. 91___- Myer v. Muscatine, 68 U. 8. 1 ao 384, 17 L. ed. ete maple SAAS 1305 Myers ». o'ttaiio, 12 Rich. Eq. 196 oss oscuccmeec ace 963 v Sarl, 1 El. & El. 306... 264 ». United States, 1 McLean, 471 %. Vanderbelt, 4 Pa. 513. 1262 Myrick v. Dame, 9 Cush. 248.-.. 255 N. Naeson v. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336... 445 CXXKV Naglee ». Pacific Wharf Co., 20 Cal. 580._-.--------- 876 Nance ». Leary, 5 Ala, 370.._-.- 1130 Nantz v. McPhergon, 7T. B.Mon. 600-- sec eeksesis ueell Napier 2. Elam, 6 Yerg. 112_... 229 Napper 2. Sanders, Hutton, 118. 76 Napton ». Leaton, 71 Mo. 358... 208 i Bank ». Atlantic Co., 3 Met. 282....---.--- 887 Nary v. New York, O. & W. R. Co. 29 N. Y. S. R. 630 361 Nash ». Drisco, 51 Me. 417_.---- 1005 v. Fugate, 32 Gratt. 595, 34 Am. Rep. 780---.---- 1146 v. Gilkeson, 5 Serg. & R. BOe soa nee ee eee 1242 ». Hall, 4 Ind. 444 --.---- 1095 ». Nash, 2 Madd. 183-_---- 992 v. Towne, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 689, 18 L. ed. 527 __.- 270, 504, 505 © Williams, 87 U. S. 20 Wall, 226, 22 L. ed. 254 155, 157 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Elliott, 1 Coldw. 611, 78 Am. Dec. 506_...-..-.---- 1107 ». Messino, 1 Sneed. 220.. 1097 Nason v. Jordan, 62 Me. 480.... 157 National Bank of Metropolis 2. Kennedy, 84 U. 8. 17 Wall. 19, 21 L. ed. 554 National Bank of Michigan 2. Green, 83 Iowa, 140_- National Bank of Monticello 2. Bryant, 13 Bush, 419. National Bank of New York 2. Lake Shore & M. 8. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 221-_- National Bank of North America ». Kirby, 108 Mass. 497 National Bank of Salem v. Thom- as, 47 N. Y. 15.-1155, National Ins. Co. ». Chamber of Commerce, 69 Ill. 22. National Park Bink ». Ninth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 77_-- National Trust Co. v. Gleason, 77 N. Y. 400 Nations v. Johnson, 65 U. 8. 24 How. 195, 16 L. ed. 628 Naugatuck Cutlery ‘Co. ». Bab- cock, 22 Hun, 485-__-_- Nazro v. Fuller, 24 Wend. 874__ Neaderhouser 2. State, 28 Ind. 257 Neal ». Neal, 58 Cal. 287_..___- ». Patten, 40 Ga. 374.____- ov. Peden, 1 Head, 546___. ». Scruggs, 95 U. 8. 704, 24 L. ed. 586___...-_- Neale v, Hagthrop, 3 Bland, Ch. 6%, NOt nccecsancicnic 1 924 65 19 CXXXV1 Nedvidek v. Meyer, 46 Mo. 600.. 288 Needham ». Smith, 2 Vern. 468. 546 ». Thayer, 147 Mass. 536-. 211 Neese v. Farmers Ins. Co., 55 owa, 604__...--.---- 38 Neff ». Thompson, 8 Barb. 218_. 1232 Neftel v. Lightstone, 77 N. Y. 96 678 Negley v. Jeffers, 28 Ohio St. 90_ 1261 Neile v. Jakle, 2 ‘Car. & K.709.. 469 Neill » American Popular L. Ins. Co., 10 Jones & 8. 200s oe pe oetipemeeenees 1004 Neimcewicz v.Gahn, 3 Paige, 614, 8L. ed. 295_.---.---- 1134 Nell v. Dayton, 43 Minn. 242.... 730 Nelson v. Allen, 1 Yerg. 360_-.. 748 OF Carrington, 4 Munf. 352 301 o. Chicago, R. I. P. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 564__.-. 1098 v Cook. 19 Ill, 440_.._... 222 », Couch, 15 C. B.N. 8.99 738 ® Cowing, 6 Hill, 886_... 1129 v. Goebel, 17 Mo. 161__._- 1276 v. Hall, 1 McLean, 518___- 416 » McGiffert, 3 Barb. Ch. 158, 5 L. ed. 855-1194, 1205 Nelson, 7 West. Rep. 117, s 90 Mo, 460....__-..._ 822 ». Smith, 28 11]. 495._-___.- 369 v State, ‘7 Humph. 542_412, 413 v, State, 32 Tex. 71__._._- 787 o. State, 2 Swan, 237. .... 657 v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 71 N. iy AO seers 354, 527 ». United States, 1 Pet. C. Ce RBG e8 se beet 602, 703 Nepean v. Doe, 2 Mees. & W. 913 1228 v% Knight, 2 Mees. & W. 76 Neugent». No 2 Redf. 369 1206 Neuman v. Third Ave. R. Co.,18 Jones & 8, 412__._.__. 1070 Nevill v. State, 60 Ind. 809_____- 870 Neville ». Northcutt, 7 Coldw. BOA orisha o erence 820, 826 Nevius 0, Dunlap, 33 N. Y. 676. mah 298 Newark v. Liverpool & L. F. . Ins. Co., 30 Mo. 160 333 Newberry v. Detroit & L. 8. Iron Mfg. Co., 17Mich. 141 876 Newbold v. Wright, 4 Rawle, 195 278, 908, 912 Newbury 2. i 6 Bing. 201 1263 Sj csase moyen Give aval 534 Newell ». Blain 7 Mich. 108-- 983 % Mayberry, 3 Leigh. 250. 852 v ee ee 25, 4. teeny SGuamier tere 1074 v . 0 Pick. 472.. 209 » Nichols, 12 Hun, 617__. 79 TABLE OF CASES. 7 1003 Newell v. Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78- New England F. & M. Ins, Co. ». Wetmore, 32 Ill. 221 New ingle Mfg. Co. ». Van- dyke, 9 N. J. Eq. 498- Newhall ». Hott, 6 Mees. % W. 662 nce ges seaces ee », Jenkins, 2 Gray, 562__- Newham 2. Tate, 1 He 244) 6 Scott, 584s sis eccowee Newhard v. Yundt, 182 Pa. 324. New Haven & N. Co. v. Good- win, 42 Conn. 230.__. New Haven Co. Bank »v. Mitch- ell, 15 Conn. 206___. Newhouse v. Godwin, 17% Barb. 236 892 838 580: 1114 98 813. 1012. 1191 New Jersey Exp. Co. 0. Nichols, 3N. J. L. 434, 32 N. 1103 1301 New Jersey P. J. Co. ». Turner, 4.N. J. Eq. 326____- New ae R. & Transp. Co. 2. Pollard, 89 U. 8S. 22 von 341, 22 L. ed. New ieee Steamboat Co. 2. New York, 11 Cent. Rep. 478, 109 N. Y. GO et cera eke tents, Newlin v. Beard, 6 W. Va. 110. 1150 v. Lyon, 49 N. Y. 661_.-. 950 Newman »v. Bennett, 23 Ill. 427_ 1286 », Chapman, 2 Rand. 93, 14 Am, Dec.774,note.1055-1057 o. Cordell, 48 Barb. 448.294, 952 ». Hook, 87 Mo. 207_____- 711 ». Jenkins, 10 Pick. 515__ 1189: 928 358: ». Studley, 5 Mo. 291__... 88 New Orleans 0. Labatt, 33 La, Ann. 100 oo se see aes 35. New Orleans Canal & Bkg. Co. 2. Templeton, 20 La. Anny; U4: 2.c222260 25 29: New Orleans, J. &G. N. R. Co. a. Allbritton, 38 Miss. 242 87, 1098 ». Enochs, 42 Miss. 608... 87 New eae Kingtield, 55 Me. Pe 172 fo ee See SEN aL fe a - Newsom 2. Bufferlow, 1 Dev. Eq. CO ses ate Sek clit 0, 297 Newson v. Jackson, 26 Ga. 241.. 150: Newstadt ». ‘Adams, 5 Duer, 48. 669: Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 819.. 654 v. Belcher, 12 Q. B. 921. 477 v Berresford, 1 Younge, Oe emit ioe oe 647 v. Liddiard, 12 Q. B. 925. 477 % State Bank, 14 Ark, 9, 58 Am. Dec. 363.___. 218, Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 47 Ga. 400_.-----. 22. TABLE OF CASES, New York ». Hamilton F. Ins. Co., 10 Busw. 587.... 1278 v. Hamilton F. Ins. Co., 39 N.Y. 46: 2 nen 728, 1271 ». Price, 5 Sandf. 542.___. », Second Ave. R. Co., 3 Cent. Rep. 822, 102 N. ¥e012: c scness Saacce New York & N. H. R. Co. 2. Schuyler, 38 Barb. 534 876 v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 ° 874, 875, 879, 883 New York & W. Print. Teleg. Co. o. Dryburg, 35 Pa. 28 scigada races 1032, 1033 New York Car Oil Co. 2». Rich- mond, 6 Bosw. 218-.. 151 New York Cent. R. Co. 2. Lock- wood, 84 U. S. 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. ed. . 1105 New York Elev. R. Co., Re, 70 N. Y. 338 891 New York F. Ins. Co. v Ely, 2 Cow. 67 908 New York L. Ins. Co »o. Eggles- ton, 96 U.S. 572, 24 L. 281 New York Rubber Co. 2. Roth- ery, 9 a Rep. 827, 107 N. Y. 310_--__-_- Niagara District Bank ». Fairman & W. Mach. Tool Co., 717 853 711 Nichol 2. ae 10 Yerg. 429____ 855, 1125, 1127 ». Ridley, 5 Yerg. 68, 25 m. Dec. 254_....__- 218 Nicholls ». Webb, 21 U. 8S. 8 Wheat. 826, 5 L. ed. 628__-.--- 392, 422, 480, 754 Nichols 2. Fearson, 32 U. 8. 7 Pet. 108, 8 L. ed. 623. 1305 . Goldsmith, 7 Wend. 160 893 », Haynes, 78 Pa. 174_-__- 814, 820 ». Johnson, 10 Conn. 192. 851, 1263 McGeoch 78 Wis. 360.. 696 . Michael, 23 N. Y. 264_- 957, 958, 1268 es v. Pinner, 18 N. Y. 295... 957 ”. Webb, 21 U. 8.8 Wheat. 326, 5 L. ed. 628___-- 479 ». White, 85 N. Y. 5381... 445 ». Wyman, 71 Iowa, 160-_ 317 Winhiaen e Caress, 59 Ind. 39.. 300 o. Conner, 8 Daly, 215.--. 175 v. Dyer, 45 Mich. 610__._- 1234 . Frazier, 4 Eiger. (Del.) 206 cee cach eneweede css CXXXviL Nickerson ». Buck, 12 Cush. 382 1207 Nicklin 0. Wythe, 2 Sawy. 535.. 290 Nicks v. Martindale, Harp. L. 135, 18 Am. Dec. 647_ 1270 Nicol 2. Crittenden, 55 Ga. 497.. 71 Nicoll ». Burke, 78 N. Y. 580... 269 Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Minn. 85__.._--__.. 879 Nicolls ». McDonald, 101 Pa. 514 265 Niell 2. Morley, 9 Ves. Jr. 478.. 1087 Niles 0. Brackett, 15 Mass. 878.. 546 ®. Patch, 18 Gray, 254_... 466 Niller ». Johnson, 27 Md 6____- 1175 Nimmo 2. Davis, 7 Tex. 26___-_- 43 Nipper v. Groesbeck, 22 Barb. 670 1206 Niskayuna Overseers of Poor ». Albany Overseers of’ Poor, 2 Cow. 587_...- 157 Nissen v. Genesee Gold Min. Co., 104 N. C. 309_______- 318 Nitche v. Earle, 117 Ind. 270__.32, 33 Niven ». Belknap, 2 Johns. 588. 725 Noble ». Adams, 7 Taunt. 59__.. 958 ©. Comstock, 8 Conn. 295. 301, 304 v. Epperly, 6 Ind. ee 1237 ». Thompson Oil Co., Pay 804s2cennss sarees 209 Noel v. Dickey, 3 Bibb, 268__._- 630 ». Karper, 53 Pa. 97_----- 561 ». Murray, 13 N. Y. 167__- 1182 Nolan o. Shickle, 3 Mo. App. 300 1119 v. Skelly, 62 How. Pr. 102 1387 Nolting, Re, 43 Hun, 456__.._..- 96 Noonan 2». Ilsley, 22 Wis. 27... 336 Norman’s Will, Re, 72 Iowa, 84. 358, 359 Norris v. Beach, 2 Johns. 294... 654 ». Glenn, 1 Idaho, 590__.. 187 v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226._._64, 178 ». State, 16 Ala. 776__.__- 855 North v. Bloss, 30N. Y. 874.1155, 1156 v. Williams, 12 Cent. Rep. 369, 120 Pa. 109__---- 799 North American Bldg. Asso. 2. Sutton, 35 Pa. 463.... 877 North Birmingham St. R. Co. 9. Calderwood, 89 Ala. North Brookfield ». Warren, 16 Gray, 171_.--414, 415, 1223 Northeastern R. Co. 0. Chandler, 84 G : 4 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 31 Md. 357 1103 North Pennsylvania R. Co. 2. Commercial National Bank, 123 U. S. 783, 31 L. ed. 288 North River Meadow Co. ». Christ Church, 22 N, J. L. 424 North Side St. R. Co. o. Want 1 (Tex.) 1558. W. Rep. 40 104 CXXXViil Northrop v. Curtis, 5 Conn, 246. 876 Northrup », Shephard, 23 Wis. Dd ied coh a Wine ce Sikh Northwestern a Co. v, Phoenix & C.Co., 31 Pa. Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. 2. Hazelett, 2 West. Rep. 698, 105 Ind. 212____. 921 » Nelson, 103 U. S. 549, 26 ed, 438__-.--..-_.. 302 L. North Western R. Co. v. Whin- ray, 10 Exch. 77 Northwestern U. Packet Co. ». Clough, 87 U. 8S. 20 Wall. 528, 22 L. ed. AG oe fe eo eens 927 Norton v. Downer, 33 Vt. 26_.... 752 ». Norton, 2 Redf, 18_____ 1207 a. Relly, 2 Eden, 286 v. Warner, 9 Conn. 172.-_- 1242, Norvell v. McHenry, 1 Mich. 297 v. Porter, 62 Mo. 309 980 Norwood ». Kirby, 70 Ala. 397.783, 737 Nowlin v. Burwell, 75 Va. 551_-. 405 Noyes v. Butler, 6 Barb. 613... 209 v. Kern, 94 Ill. 521_--_--.- 736 v. Smith (Me.) 4 New Eng. Rep. 788_......-.---- 924 Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. 8. 426, 23 L. ed. 286.420, 872, 1071 Nulton v, Baum (Pa.) 9 Cent. Rep. WD wai cincca som ania Nurre v, Chittenden, 56 Ind. 465 278, 1187 Nussbaumer v. Becker, 87 Tl. 281 234 Nutt o. Nutt, 1 Freem. Eq. 128_- 1200 Nutting v. Page, 4 Gray. 584__.. 375 Nutwell v. Tongue, 22 Md. 419. 722 Nye 2. Gribble, 70 Tex. 458___._- 159 O. Oakey v. Wilcox, 3 How. (Miss.) HOU ee cisaseeonea ea es 853 Ae apogee tau ecats 121 Oakley v. ee 1 Abb. Pr. N.S. Ba cer eter eecemeee 781 Oaks v, Harrison, 24 Iowa, 179_.. 118 v, Weller, 16 Vt. 71..._-- 51 ». Weller, 13 Vt. 106_.... 1015 Oates v. Gray, 66 N.C. 442_.._. 1186 v. Kendall, 67 N. C. 241__. 678 Oatis ». Brown, 59 Gs. 711_____- 950 Ober v, Carson, 62 Mo. 209._.__- 28, 581, 907 Oberg 2. ee et Rep. 860, ON. JL. 145.._._.- 822 Oberle ». sehmiat, 86 Pa. 221... 122 Oberman Brew. Co. »v. Adams, 85 Il. App. 540-....-2.. 1292 TABLE OF CASES. Obert v. Obert, 12 N. J. Eq. 423 Oberthier ». Stroud, 33 Tex. 522. O’Brien v. Jones, 91 N. Y. 193__. o. St. Paul, 18 Minn. 176... O'Callaghan 2. Booth, 6 Cal. 63_. Ocean Beach Asso. v. Brinley, 34 N. J. Eq, 438 » tone 2 Wend. 72... Ocean Nat. Bank 2. Carll, 9 Hun, 24 % Ree, 11 Clark & F. 155. O'Connor v. Fond du Lac, A. & P. BR. Co. 52 Wis. 526, 38 Am. Rep. 754 v, Silver, 26 Tex. 606 2. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400_-.-- Odell v. Buck, 21 Wend. 142___- O’Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 Pa. 289___. v. Harmon, 3 Daly, 424__. v. Leeman, 48 Me. 158__.- 1248, v. Segar, 25 Mich. 867.. - Oelricks ». Ford, 64 U. 8S. 23 How. 49, 16 L. ed. 534 903, 905, 911, O’Farrell ». Harney, 51 Cal. 125. », Heard. 22 Minn. 189___ O’Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 381 O’Gara v. Eisenlohr, 88 N. Y. 296 74, 75, 90, Ogden »v. Grant, 6 Dana, 473____ 2. Harrington, 6 McLean, ». Miller, 1 Browne (Pa.) TO Sire Sent ee v. Saunders, 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L. ed. 606 806, 963 290 1312 677 1228 28 37 1228 893 393 907 913 868 1121 219 221 559 1110 300 1264 $52 1318 27 844 177 1222 265 1279 Ogle v Brooks, 87 Ind. 600_._500, 510 O’Grady v. Barnishel, 23 Cal. 287 1279, O'Hagan v. Dillon, 76 N. Y. 170. O’Hara ». King, 52 Ill. 303. Ohio ». Hinchman, 27 Pa. 479___ Ohio & L R. Co. 2. Ridge, 5 Blackf. 78 o. Taylor, 27 Ill. 207..___. ». Walker, 12 West. Rep. 731, 118 Ind. 196... Ohio S. R. Co. ». Morey, 7 L. R. A. 701, 47 Ohio St. 207 Olden ». Hallet, 5 N. J. L. 466_. . 1289 581 249 38 23 921 147 207 TABLE OF CASES. Olden v. Hendrick, 100 Mo. 533. 730 ». Hubbard, BAN. J. Eq. 85 69 Oldham 2», Bentley, 6 B. Mon. 428 865 v. Halley, 2J.J.Marsh.114 265 v. Kerchner (N. C.) 28 Am. Rep. 308 .....-....--- 118 Olds Wagon Go ». Benedict, 25 Neb, 872_...----_---. 118 Olivari 2. Menger, 39 Tex. 76... 965 Olive v. State, 4 L. R. A. 35, 86 a. “33 ao ascase see 20 liver v. Holt, 11 Ala. 574, 46 Am. Dec. 228.....--- 837 ». Mutual C. M. Ins. Co., 2 Curt. C. C. 277_.....- 300 ». New York & E.R. Co., 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 589_ 1089 ®. Robinson, 58 Ala. 46... 1281 ». State, 39 Miss. 526__..- 795 ‘Olmstead ». Hill, 2 Ark. 3538_... 12 ‘Olney v, Chadsey, 7 R. 1. 224... 897 Olson ». Gjertsen, 42 Minn. 407. 356 Omaha & G. Smelt. & Ref. Co. a. Tabor, 5 L. R. A. 226, 18 Colo. 41____.._- 223, 805 ‘Omichund 2. Barker, Willes, 538, 545, 1 Atk 21,1 Smith, Lead. Cas. (6th Am, ed.) 585..549, 566, 568, 574 O'Neale ». Walton, 1 Rich. L. 234 758, 754 ‘Oneida Mfg. Soc. v. Lawrence, 4 Cow. 440 308, 683 ‘O'Neill 0. Capell, 62 Mo. 202. ._. Oppentekine: », Barr, 71 Iowa, 5 eee apeteite Stic 922 ‘Orange County Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 85, 24 Am. - Dec: 129! nein xapedccun 1107 Oregon Steamship Co. ». Otis, 1 Cent. Rep. 784, 100 N. Y. 446._.---- 97, 1015, 1016 ‘O’Reilly », Guardian Mut. L. Ins. Co., 60 N. Y. 169..-_ 1004 Organ 2. Stewart, 60 N. Y. 413... 1260, 1261 Orifiamme, The, 3 Sawy. 897_... 1097 Ormrod ». Huth, 14 Mees. & W. 1318 985 1123 871 1279 Ormsbee 2. ‘Davis, 5 R. 1. 442_- », Howe, 54 Vt. 182, 41 Am. Rep. 841___.---- Ormsby v. People, 53 N. Y. 472_ Orono »v. Veazie, 57 Me. 517_-.-- O’Rourke v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 55 Iowa, 332.. 209 ‘Orr v. New York, 64 Barb. 106-_ 1308 Orrick 0. Colston, 7 Gratt. 189_- 1125, 1128 ‘Orser ». Orser, 24 N. Y¥. 51-1191, 1205 Orthwein v. Thomas, 4 L. R. A. 434, 127 Ill. 554...._. 81 Orton v. Noonan, 25 Wis. 672. 1273 CXXXiX Osborn ». Allen, 26 N. J. L. 888_ 1223 ». Blackburn ei 10 L. Rie As 86 Teint acinmomn 103 v, Elder, 65 Ga. 360__.-.-- 712 v. Hendrickson, 7 Cal. 285 258 ». Sutton,6 West. Rep. 903, 108 Ind. 448__..__.-- 924 ». United States Bank, 22 U. 8. 9 Wheat. 788, 6 LL. ed. 204._.......- 227 Osborne v. Brennan, 2 Nott. & McC. 427,10 Am. Dec. GUAn a ceyacon taba ais 1161 v. Graham, 80 Ark, 67_... 216 ». Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 6838.. 52 ». Wilson, 1 New Eng.Rep. 518, 141 Mass. 307_... 652 Osgood v. Coates, 1 Allen, 77_-. 466 ». Franklin, 2 Johns, Ch.- 1, 1 L. ed. 275, 14 Johns, 527.......-- 965, 967 », Lewis, 2 Harr. & G. 495 1319 O’Shea 2. McLear, 15 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 69__...----.... Osmond ». Fitzroy, 3 P. Wms. 129 1092 QOsterhout v. Shoemaker, 3 Hill, DUB 2 treeteted beaten s 1084, 1087 Oswald v. ee 3 El. & BI. 652 1152 v. Leigh, 1 T. R. 270.-__- 70 Oteri ». Parker, 42 La. Ann. 874 98 Otey v. Hoyt, 3 Jones, L. 407... 843 Ott v. Soulard, 9 Mo. 581.-.-..-- 43 Ottawa Bottle & F. G. Co. 2. Gunther, 31 Fed. Rep. UG). yee cree lato eu 1817 Ottawa University ». Parkinson, 14 Kan. 159... _- 330 - Ottenheimer v. Cook, 10 Heisk. UGE ceee ate cote aoe ee 90 Otto v. Doty, 61 Lowa, 23_._.__. 1086 ». Trump, 7 Cent. Rep. 629. 115 Pa. 425_._..__. 178, 821 Oullahan v. Starbuck, 21 Cal. 418 785 Outlaw v. Davis, 27 Ill. 467... 59 Outram v. Moorewood, 3 Kast, 346 737 Overlock v, Hall, 81 Me. 348.... 81 Overstreet v. Manning, 67 Tex, Overton 2. [arvey, 9 C. B. 824__ 734, 736 Owen v. Bartholomew, 9 Pick. 520 708 v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147__.___ 37 v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600.453, 462 v. Perry, 25 Iowa, 412, 96 Am. Dec. 49....._._- 857 v. Phillips, 73 Ind 284_.... 675 v. Slatter, 26 Ala. 547.___- 725 Owens v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 95 Mo. 169, 33 Am. & Eng. R. Cas, 524__....__..._. 1078 ». Richmond & D. R. Co., 88 N.C. 502._-..____- 1102 exl Owens», State, 74 Ala, 401.____. v State, 8 Cent. Rep. 871, 67 Mo. 807_.--------- Owings ©., Baker, 54 Md. 82-278, Hull, 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 607, v. Low, 5 Gil & J. 144_-_- v Norwood, 2 Harr. & J. OG tere ol eae esses ». Speed, 18 U. 8. 5 Wheat. 420,5 L. ed. 124_.__- Oyshterbank ». oe 17 Jones & 8. 2 1118 Pack v. Crawford, 29 Ark. 489_. 1283 Packard v. Getman, 4 Wend. 613 1268 ». Richmond, 17 Mass. 122 1264 v. Snell, 85 Iowa, 80__.__.-- 678 Packer 2. Cockayne, 3G. Greene, Drs apne rec erates 797 ». Stewart, 34 Vt. 127... 1261 Paddock ». Forrester, 8 Man. & Gi 90 Bee eceteeica aces 436 ». Forrister, 3 Scott, N. R. TO 2a racarieraic eam 436 Paducah & M. R. Co. ». Hloehi, 12 Bush, 43___._.____ 1098 Page, Re,6 West. Rep. 505. 118 Ill. 576, 59 Am. Rep. BOD sek atercrantia ress ach ae, 1218 v. Brant, 18 Ill. 87_.______. 234 ». Dennison, 1 Grant, Cas OU Cagis Stee eee es 84 ». Einstein, 7 Jones, L. 147 152 ». Horne, 11 Beav. 227... 1092 2. Morrell, 8 Abb. App. Dec. 488_..-..._- 856, 1128 ». New York, 82 N 8. Ri GOl secioees ee 784 v. Page, 8 N. H. 187___285, 290 v. Parker, 43 N. H. 363.770, 873 ». Parker, 40 N. H. 47___. i 333, 420, 868 ». Vilhac, 42 Cal. 75.___.. 268 ». Wells, 87 Mich. 415__.. 885 », Winston, 2 Munf. 298__ 229 Pagett ». Curtis, 15 La. Ann. 451 19 Paige v. Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361___. 439, 454, 486 ». Chapman, 58 N. H. 888 1123 vo. Willet, 88 N. Y. 28.... 462 Paine, Re, 6 Dem. 861...__-__ 1209 ». Mooreland, 15 Ohio, 445 201, 208 ». Schenectady Ins. Co., 11 Rey Toate ecccea cues 38 v, Stone, 10 Pick. 75__...- 216 Paisley ov. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51, 2 Smith, Lead. Cas. (4th Am. ed.) 55....-.2... 947 OF CASES. Pelethorp'®: Paruish, 2 Esp. 511, 46 Sah sioa dete cere 5 Palfrey ». Paniding, 7 La, Ann, Pecks Riaeininersinenn eit 887 ® Bead 8.&P.R. Co., 4 Allen, O0seonees ose 36 Palmer v. Aldridge, 16 Barb. 181 25 0. Blackburn, 1 Bing. 61_. 909: ». First Nat. Bank, 4 N.Y. Week. Dig. 268__.... 1011 ». Galvin, 72 Cal. 188_____ 22 v. Haight, 2 Barb. 210_- 618, 620, 622, 623 ». Hanna, 6 Colo. 55_____- 983 v. Hussey, 87 N. Y. 303.. 723. v. Low, 98 U.S. 1, 25 L. ed). 60 sectese cites 928. v. Nassau Bank, 78 Ili, 880 122. a. oaey 2 Doug. (Mich.) A eater ats pape a peace 59 v. Richardson, 70 Ill. 544. 1061 vo. Rowan, 21 Neb. 455.___ 654 v. Stephens, 1 Denio, 471_ 1265 vo. Thayer, 28 Conn. 287___ 223. ». Whitney, 21 Ind. 61____ 122 Palmyra 2. Morton, 25 Mo. 598._ 900: Pangburn 2 Patridge, 7 Jobns. TA eee ena es oaks 1282. Panhandle Nat. Bank 2. Emery, 78 Tex. 498_-...._ 1014 Panton v. Tefft, 22 Ill. 366______ 275. Papin v. Ryan, 82 Mo. 21__-___- 32 Parchen v. Anderson, 5 Mont. 488, 51 Am. Rep. 65_.___- 1160: Pardee v. Drew, 25 Wend. 459__ 1107 Parfitt v. Lawless, L. R. 2 P.& D3 460 22 ce cece oe 1092 Parish v. Scott. 10 Heisk. 488_.. 801 Park v. Peck, 1 Paige, 477, 2 L. CGV RI. once sawols 467 v Neem 16 Mo. App. a ASN hee ees 907 Parke 2. ines 90 Pa. 52.. 2... 93. Parker v, Barker, 3 Moore, 226_- 475, 1153 2 Bogardus, 5 N. Y. 811. 1194 2. Byrnes, 1 Low. 589.... 958. ». Carter, 4 Munf. 2738__._ 648 ». Connor, 98 N. Y. 118._ 1283 o. Enslow, 102 Ill. 272.1070, 1073. ». Griswold, 17 Conn. 302, 43 Am. Dec. 739... __ TT o. Hardy, 24 Pick. 248.... 11 v. Lewis, 39 Tex. 394____- 459 v. Merrill, 6 Me. 41______. 483 v. Morrell, 12 Jur. 253__._ 226 v. Overman, 59 U. §. 18 How. 187, 15 L, ed. 318 1276, 1289 v. Palmer, 4 Barn. & Ald. OOM seis Atop mers 307 2 Rule 13 U. 8. 9 Cranch, 64,8 L. el, 658.2222. 1276 TABLE OF CASES. Parker v. Saratoga, 9 Cent. Rep. 276, 106 N. Y. 392_..- . Washoe Mfg. Co., 8 Cent. ep 348,49 N. J. LL. AGO ec oemccbeese sues v. Way, 15 N. H. 45.-_--- TS Lowten, 2 Swanst. 138 ». McGraw, 24 Miss. i 954 Parkins 2. Corbet, 1 Car. & P. ®. ico "2 Stark. 239 644 Parkinson », Atkinson, 31 L. J. o. Lee, 2 East, 314._..807, 1318 Parks 0. Alta California Teleg. Co., 18 Cal. 422,73 Am. Dec. 589_...-.-. 1082, 1033 v. Parks, 9 Paige, 107, 4 L. ed. 637.....-..--.-. . Ross, 52 U. §. 11 How. 378, 13 L. ed. 785..126, 768 Parmelee »v. Lowitz, 74 Til. 116, 4 Am. Rep. 276....- 1106 Parmlee v. Sloan, 37 Ind. 469_-. 290 Parr v. Jewell, 1 Kay & J. 671-. 972 Parret ». Schaubhut, 5 Minn. 323 964 Parrott v. Byers, 40 Cal. 614__... 876 ». Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2 Sweeney, 93-.------ 119 ». Parrott, 1 Heisk. 681... 952 v. Wells (‘‘Nitro-Glycerine Case”), 82 U. 8. 15 Wall. 524, 21 L. ed. 206 1117 Parry v. Parry, 180 Pa. 94..__.- 974 Parshall v, Klinck, 43 Barb. 212. 12 Parsons v. Bedford, 28 U. 8. 3 Pet. 446, 7 L. ed. 736- ® os 9 Abb. N. C. 178 chic tah Ricans locates 243 » aa 15 Barb. 593... 1228 D. Copeland, 33 Me. 870... 721 ». Hughes, 9 Paige, 591, 4 Ted), 828) 2 co0 Sani 949 Partridge 2. ee 29 Ala. 200 279, 902 ». Mitchell, 3 Edw. Ch. 181, 6 Li, ed, 618i necconecs 1270 ». Phenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 82 U. 8. 15 Wall. 573, 21 L. ed. 229.__._.-.- v. Stokes, 44 How. Pr. 381 969 Pasceniit 31 ana 34 Fed. Rep. Paschal 2. Davis 3 Ga. 256__-.- Pasley 2. Freeman, 8 T. R. 51, 2 Smith, Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1300.-_.801, 1810 Pasman 2. ial 30 N. J. Eq. Passenger Conductors L. Ins. Co., ». Birnbaum (Pa.) 7 Cent. Rep. 635....--- exli Patapsco, The, v. Boyce (‘‘The Pa- tapsco”) 80 U. 8S. 13 Wall. 329, 20 L. ed. 696 818 Patch v. Boston, 5 New Eng. Rep. 473, 146 Mass, 52_-.-- 360 Pate» Turner, 94 N. C. 47____- 727 v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. BOB) Soe cemeeteeacee ae 238 Paton ». Coit, 5 Mich. 505, 72 Am. Dee OS 92252 ea 1142 ». Lent, 4 Duer, 281___.-- 161 2. Winter, 1 Taunt. 420... 854 Patrick ». Farmers Ins. Co., 48 __N. H. 621 _..--_----- 728 v. Graham, 132 U. 8. 627, 38 L. ed. 460..__-.__. 356 ». Hallett, 1 Johns. 241___ 1228 v. Jack, 82 DN BA eo 813 Patriotic Bank 2. Coote, 8 Cranch, C. 169_... 2-22. 158, 629 Patten 2. Gurney, 17 Mass. 182.. 1161 ». Moor, 29 N. H. 168___-_- 648 ®. Patten, 75 Tl. 446... 990 », Pearson, 57 Me. 428.274, 1140 v. People, 18 Mich. 814._._. 633 Patterson, Re, 4 How. Pr. 85_... 1084 v. Bloomer, 85 Conn. 57... 257 », Carrell, 60 Ind, 128____. 1386 v, Gaines, 47 U. 8. 6 How. 550, 12 L. ed. 553___80, 997 ». M’Causland, 3 Bland, es . Maryland Ins. Co. 3 Harr. & J. 71, 5 Am. 842 v. Todd, 18 Pa. 426... _2 74, 1140 Pattie v. Wilson, 25 Kan. 326... 70. Pattison 2. Taylor, 8 Barb. 250_. 1186 Patton v. Minesinger, 25 Pa. 898. 450 v. State, 6 Ohio St. 467_... 871 Paty v. Martin, 15 La. Ann. 620. 330 Paul v. Chouteau, 14 Mo. 580... 290 v Virginia, 75 U. 8. 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 857____. 429 Paulette ». Brown, 40 Mo. 52_.__ 501 Paull ». Padelford, 16 Gray, 263. 83 Pavey v. Pavey, 30 Ohio St. 600_ * 339 Paxson’s App., 49 Pa. 195.______ 221 Paxton v. Boyce, 1 Tex. 317_____ 89, 952, 954 ». Courtnay, 2 Fost. & F. 1Sl ce. asueiwenj-ce 279, 910 v. Steckel, 2 Pa. 98______- 222 Payne v. Allen, 1 Sprague, 804._ 238 »v. Forty: ‘Second St. & G. St. F. R. Co., 8 Jones GSe 8. eck 435 v. Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 146. 994 v. Ladue, 1 Hill, 116____. 1144 v Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220__24, 28 v. Weems, 36 Mo. App. 54 "84 Paynes v. Coles, 1 Munf. 897... 229 Peabody v. Bement, 79 Mich, 47_ 319 exlii 258 Peobody ». Phelps, 9 Cal. 228_- 290 . Tarbell, 2 Cush. 232___- Peacock v, New York L. Ins. Co., 20 N. Y. v. Rhodes, 2 Doug]. 682-_-. 1001 1124 Peak 2. Cogborn, 50 Ga, 562___-- 12388 Peake v. Highfield, ‘1 Russ. 559: 962 v. Stout, 8 Ala. 647__..__- 951 Pearce 2. Jenkins, 10 Ired. L. 355 392 o. Langfit, 101 Pa. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 787__...-.- 20 Pearl v. Garlock, 61 Mich. 419_. 1233 Pearsall ». Elmer, 5 Redf. 181... 649 Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227 26 ’ », Forsyth, 61 Ga. 587_... 968 v — A aaa 5 Man. & G. RR sean a a ceca 1046 %. MeDenieh 62 Ga. 100... 340 v. Seay, 38 Ala. 643...__- 268 ». Stoddard, 9 Gey. 199_. 271 Pease 2. ce 31N. Y. 8. RB. epacpaitetn siemaete cin 975 ®. Cale, 53 Conn. 71.__.__ 113 vo. Pease, 35 Conn. 181_... 270 », Smith, 61 N. Y.477__.. 798 Peaslee v. Robbins, 3 Met. 164... 460 Peasley, Re, 44 Fed. Rep. 271... 653 Peck o. Ashley, 12 Met. 478_____ 247 ». Callaghan, 95 N. Y.73_388, 339 vo. Cary, 27 N. Y.9, Aff’g 38 Barb. 771__.-.-.. 1204, 1205 ». Chouteau, 8 West. Rep. 318, 91 Mo. 188_____- 920 . Crouse, 46 Barb. 151___- Hibbard, 26 Vt. 698___. Lake, 3 Lans. 186_.___. . Land, 2 Ga. 1-......._. ‘New York & N. J. RB. Co., 85 N. Y. 246___. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114_-._ 445 . Valentine, 94 N. Y. 569 758 » Von Keller, 76N. Y. 604 746, 826 ». Ward, 18 Pa. 506_ _ 452, 487 Peckham 2 Gilman, 7 Minn. 446 272 Pecquet v. a 17 La. Ann. seeess 670 es Peebles v. ae 2 Bradf. 226__ 611, 1191, 1204 Pegram 2. ae 18 How. Pr. Peirsoll v. Elliott, 31 U. 8. 6 Pet. 95, 8 L. ed, 832....__. Peisch 2%. Dickson, 1 Mason, 11 280, 904 Peixotti 7. McLaughlin, 1 Strobh. 468, 47 Am. Dec. Pelamourges v. Clark, 9 Iowa, 1 388, 850, 855 Pell v. Ball, 1 Cheves, Eq. 99... 78 Pelletreau 2. Jackson, 11 Wend. TABLE OF CASES. Peltier v. Collins, 8 Wend. 459_. 1263: Pelton ». Prescott, 18 Iowa, 567. 855- Pember ». Mathers, 1 Bro. Ch. 52 1178 Pembroke ». Allenstown, 41 N. H. 365 753- Pence v. Arbuckle, 22 Minn. 417 9857 v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 79 Iowa, 889_____ ®. Makepeace, 65 Ind 3845_ Pendegrast’s Case, 3 City Hall Recorder, lees ae 550, 567 Pendery v. New Orleans Cres, Mut. Ins. Co., 21 La. Ann, 410-222 22 Pendleton 0. Richey, 32 Pa. 63_. Penn v. Hartman, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. oh 1 L. ed. 360_____. 441 148 970 v ae 5 Esp. 248 ___. Pennefather ». ea unetattign, 6 Ir. 2 Abb. Pr. N. 298, 303 Penniman » Hudson, 14 Barb. OD easy Soap Sri eecck 1229- e Wilson, S. 46 Sansecnloas sacar 36, 62 0. aaa 2Gill & J. 208 1177, 1178. Pennock». Freeman, 1 Watts, 401 684, 1267 Pennoyer 2 Neff, 95 U. S. 714 41. ed. 565 __.._. 208, 211 Benet & N. Y. Canal Co. %. Betts. 1 Weekly 256. 99 1100- a Setleeewesccoe v. Krick, 47 Ind. 868_____ ®% Marion. TL. R.A. 687, 123 Ind. 415, 18 An. St. Rep. 330 | Pere ae 35 ee Rep. 620.._.. Pennsylvania Canal Co. 0. Bent- ley, 66 Pa, 80__.____. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sander- son, 4 Cent. Rep. 480, 113 Pa. 126___. 2222. & N. Y. R. Con Fed. Rep. 129_.____. 23. v. Books, 57 Pa. 339, 98 Am. Dec. 229_ 450, 761, 1099: v. Peoples, 31 Ohio St. 587 985 Penny v. Corwithe, 18 Johns, 499 852, 855. Peniypacker % vonlst Ins. Co. 8 Lis A. 236, 80 1109: "1085 1103. 1121 Jowa, fe TABLE OF CASES. Pennywit 0. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 0, 22 Am. Rep. 340, 200, 206, 207, 208 Penobscot & K. R. Co. o. Dun, Penobscot Boom Corp. ». Lam- son, 16 Me. 224, 3 Am. Penobscot R. Uo. 2. Dummer, 40 Me: 192) oe concngon 896 v. White, 41 Me. 512...892, 896 Pensacola Teleg. Co. 0. Western U. Teleg. Co., 96 U.S. 9, 24 L. ed. 708___..- 429 Pentland ov. Stewart, 4 Dev. & B. Di 386 cece cc sec ees 1278 Pentz v. Stanton, 10 Wend. 271_ 270 People 2. Abbott, 19 Wend. 192 594, 630, 640 o. Albany & Vt. R. Co., 24 N.Y 26102220000 05 429 o. Ames, 35 N. Y. 482___. 222 2. ‘Arnold, 46 Mich. 268_.. 871 v. Atkinson, 40 Cal. 284.. 451 o. Austin, 1 Park. Crim. Rép. 154 acon cae 623 v. Barber, 115 N. Y. 475._ 356 ». Beach, 87 N. Y. 512... 601 o. Beck, 58 Cal. 212_____- 642 o. Bell, 58Cal.119.__.. _. 633 v. Benjamin, 9 How. Pr. GND se otis 181, 182, 647 o. Blake, 65 Cal. 279___512, 514 ». Blakeley, 4 Park, Crim. Reps dG aceatee en ates 594 ». Bodine, 1 Denio, 281... 594 v. Bonney, 19 Cal. 426.__. 786 vo. Brady, 56 N. Y.182_... 65 ». Brown, 59 Cal. 345____- 870 o. Brown, 67 Ill. 485 ____- 711 0. Buchanan, 1 Idaho, N. GB ie a yet 36 0. Buddensiek, 4 Cent. Rep. 787, 108 N. Y. O09 Soca eves tee Ue es 1172 D aa 60 How. Pr. deat ce mee eee 22 2. Guns 1 Mich. N. P. Seg SAAN OAD 83 o. Carney, 29 Hun, 47_... 82 o. Chacon, 2 Cent. Rep. 910,102 N. Y. 669_ . 517 ». Chapleau, 121 N. Y. 266 625 o. Chee Kee, 61 Cal. 404.. 19 ». Cole, 43 N. Y. 508_._.- 517 2. Cook, 14 Barb. 259, aff’d 8N. Y. 67_..566, 950, 1101 o. Coughlin, 11 West. Rep. 556, 67 Mich. 466__._- 924 , Courtney, 94.N. Y. 490 652 877 . Crockett, 9 Cal. 112___. App. 354__.-.---- 501, 1041 sao . Croswell, 3 Johns, Cas. exliii People v. Cunningham, 3 Park. e. 2. v. © sesssee ssees ss gee 3 Crim. Rep. 581_------ 737 Dane, 59 Mich. 550----- 182 Davis, 56 N. Y. 96__-_- 412 Dawell, 25 Mich. 247, 12 Am. Rep. 260.206, 207, 209 . De La Guerra, 24 Cal. 73° 19 Dennison, 84 N.Y. 272, 80 N. Y. 656_.-..--.-- 678 . Devine, 44 Cal. 452._.. 683 . Doe, 31 Cal. 220_------- 1283. ; Douglass, 4 Cow. 26.... 786 Dyckman, 24 How. Pr. OOO aot a Leet 243 . Elyea, 14 Cal. 144.._-_- 153. . Fair, 43 Cal. 187__--.-- 1250 3 Farnham, 85 Ill. 562... 89] . Farrell, 30 Cal. 317_-_--. 792 . Fish, 125 N. ¥. 186_... 695 . Fong Ah Sing, 70 Cal. 8 782 . Fulton F. Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 208_.-.---- 415, 416 Genung, 11 Wend. 18, 21 , 596 . Glenn, 10 Cal. 32.___.. 413 . Green, 53 Cal. 61_._---. 1174 . Guidici, 1 Cent. Rep. 722, 100 N. Y. 508__.-.--. 652. . Hall, 80 N. Y. 117 __---- 734 ». Herrick, 13 Jobns. 82_555, 652 ». Hewit, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 20_..--------- 382, 345. 2. Hopt, 3 Utah, 396____.- 34 o. Horton, 64 N. Y. 610... 499 %. Jackson, 3 Park. Crim. Rep: 59025.45, scetecs 550 o. Jansen, 7 Johns, 332__.. 1133 v. Jenkins, 17 Cal. 500__.. 1149 ». Jenness, 5 Mich. 305_... 550 ». Jobnson, 14 Ill. 842.... 984 o. Johr, 22 Mich. 461_._.-- ». Josephs, 7 Cal. 129 o. Keith, 50 Cal. 187___._. ». Kelly, 35 Barb. 444_--_ 948 o. Kelly, 24N. Y. 74_.__. 653 o. Kennedy, 32 N. Y.141_ 768 . Knapp, 42 Mich. 267... 684 2. ssessese s saoes . Knickerbocker, 1 Park. Crim. Rep. 302_--. 412, 413 Lake, 12 N. Y. 358____. 349 Lee, 17 Cal. 76__------. 413 . Lohman, 2 Barb. 221... 505 . Lyman, 2 Utah, 30__._- 17 Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481. 35 . Markham, 64 Cal. 157_. 689 . Mather, 4 Wend. 229-248 594, 607, 608, 630, 635, 869: Matteson, 2 Cow. 4338, D1), NOE = 5 ua occaese 568. . McCann, 16 N. Y. 58-. 114 . McCoy, 45 How. Pr. 216 1068 . McDowell. 71 Cal. 194.- 361 . McGee, 1 Denio, 19.... 536 exliv People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241 580 ©. McGuire, 45 Cal. 57... 529 v McKeller, 53 Cal. 65... 633 ». McLane, 60 Cal. 412... 529 vo. McNair, 21 Wend. 608-. 537 ». Mead, 50 Mich. 228_-420, 1250 v. Mercein, 8 Paige, 50, 4 L. ed. 841__..__.----- 987 ». Mitchell, 45 Barb. 212-_ 808 v. Moett, 58 How. Pr. 467. 794 ». Molins, 10 N. Y. Supp. 190e22r cei ce oecense ee 689 © Honig 13 bb. Ni 8s OP actcisi- 847, 348 v ieeph , 39 Cal. 52-_--- 442 vo. New York Super. Ct., 10 Wend. 285_......-.-- 12 2. Oakland County Bank, 1 Doug]. (Mich.) 282.889, 892 wv. Oyer & Terminer Ct., 83 iN, Y. 486__..-.---- 581, 586 v. Page, 1 Idaho, 194 ____- 603 ». Parish, 4 Denio, 158.... 446 . Parker Vein Coal Co., 1 Abb. Pr, 128, 10 How. Pr. 548 ». Peacock, 5 Utah, 237-784, 785 v. Petheram, 7 West. Rep. 592, 64 Mich. 652___.- v. Queens County Suprs., 1 FT D9 6 esectnoe Seer 1290 Qurise, 59 Cal. 348_.__- 399 . Rector, 19 Wend. 569.594, 629 . Reilly, 88 Hun, 483... 249 Rice, 7 West. Rep. 642, 64 Mich. 385____.__.. 35 Riley, 15 Cal. 48_-____.- . Roberts, 6 Cal, 214.___. Robinson, 17 Cal. 363... Ryder, 12 N.Y. 483. ._- 1182, 1184, sess esses ». Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17 _... 413 ». Sanders, 3 Hun, 16____. 513 a. Sanford, 48 Cal. 29..__. 349 », San Francisco, 27 Cal. . GOD i a pene ele 734 v. Schuyler, 8 Cent. Rep. 772,106 N.Y. 298.... 188 ». Sessions, 58 Mich, 594.. 3838 2. Shannon, 1011. App. 864 1149 ». Sheriff of New York, 29 ae 622, '7 Abb. Pr. beens aS gees aie 182 0 Se 48 Mich. 474._ 411 v. Smiler, 85 N. Y.8.R.1 362 . Snyder, 41 N. Y. 518_._ 288 v. Soto, 59 Cal. 369______- 792 ». Sprague, 53 Cal. 491.... 792 v. Stanley, 47 Cal. 118_... 870 v. State Bank of Ft. Ed- ward, 36 Hun, 607__.. 992 Stephens, 71 N. Y. 529. 971 Stokes, 71 Cal. 268..... es TABLE OF CASES. People v. Strong, 80 Cal. 156-.-- ». Sutherland, 16 Hun, 192 . Sutton, 73 Cal. 243-__-- . Thompson, 84 Cal. 598 . Tonielli, 81 Cal. 275__.- . Turner, 117 N. Y. 227. Vail, 1 Cow. 589, 2 Cow. . Velard, 59 Cal. 457_.._. . Vernon, 35 Cal. 49____- Vilas, 86 N. Y. 469.1149, . Walden, 51 Cal. 588_--- . Walker, 2 Abb. Pr. 422_ . Waller, 14 West. Rep. 435, 70 Mich. 237_._.. . Ward, 3 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 48852 22c5232sen2 . Wayne Circuit Judge, 36 Mich. 334____.-..---- . Whipple, 9 Cow. 707_-- . White, 14 Wend. 111__- . Williams, 64 Cal. 87_-__- . Wood, 8 Park. Crim. Rep. . Ybarra, 17 Cal. 166 ___. People’s oe v. Gridley, 91 Tl. BOT ccdsencincaeasacien. People’s Sav. Bank & Bldg. Asso. ». Collins, 27 Conn, 142 Peoria & ai R. Co. v. Neill, 16 Peoria M. & F. Ins. Co. 2. Hall, 12 Mich. 202_....--.- ». Whitehill, 25 Ill. 466_728, Peoria, P. & J. R. Co. v. Rey- nolds, 88 Ill. 418___.. Pepin v. Lachenmeyer, 45 N. Y. 27 Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns, Cas. 11 esseee esesese se Sees s +c Pepoon, Will of, Re, 91 N. Y. 255 1206, Pepper v. Barnett, 22 Gratt. 405_ ». Cairns, 7 L. R. A. 750, 138. Pa; 14s sc cmccens Peppinger v. Low, 6 N. J. L. 467 Percival 2. Hickey, 18 Johns, 257 Percy v. Foote, 36 Conn. 102_--- Perdicaris ». Trenton City Bridge Co., 29 N. J. L. 3867_- Perkins ». Augusta Ins. Ba Bkg. Co., 10 Gray, 312.__- Burley, 6 New ae Rep. 817, 64 N. H. 524... Burnett, 2 Root, 80_.._- Catlin, 11 Conn. 218___- . Challis, 1 N. H, 254__.. 1 : Coleman, 1 12 Ky. L. Rep. . Concord, R. Co., Hy 228 is cians ected ». Eastern R Co,,29 Me. 307 v% ee Bank, 21 Pick. 4 esses es e 739 23 333 182 228 273 1128 730 78, 436 1102 TABLE OF CASES. Perkins v. Mobley, 4 Ohio St. 668 a . Moore, 16 Ala. 17 . Prout, 47 N. H. 387___- ine Rice, Litt. Sel. Cas. 218 963 Stebbins, 29 Barb. 523.. 447 Stickney, 182 Mass. 217 328, 333 Wright, 37 Ind. 27 1107 Perley v. Langley, 7 N. H. 233_. 908 Perminter 7. McDaniel, 1 Hill, L. 267,.26 Am. Dec. 179. 857, 11651 Perrin v. Broadwell, 3 Dana, 597 238 eee s: s ». Leverett, 18 Mass. 128.. 228 ». Noyes, 39 Me. 384__.... 123 Perrine v. Cheeseman, 11 N. J. G20 lice eceeccsenac 255 v. Cooley, 388. N. J. L. 449. 284 ». Leachman, 10 Ala. 140_ 1258 Perry v. Banks, 14 Ga. 699... 832 », Com., 8 Gratt. 6382..__. 550 v. Dubuque 8. W. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 106 v. Graves, 12 Ala. 246._.. 455 v. Lewis, 49 Miss. 448._737, 740 ». Meddowcroft,4 Beav.197 268 v. New Orleans, M. & C. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413... 23 », Pearson, 1 Humph. 481. 257 o. People, 86 N. Y. 353, 62 How. Pr. 148.__..... 530 o. Perry, 130 Pa. 94..._._ 485 ». Smith, 9 Mees. & W. 681, Car. & M.554..__ 648 . Stowe, 111 Mass. 60__.. 1238 o. Tynen, 22 Barb. 187____. 1290 ‘Person v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 124... 654 ee 654 o. Pardee, 6 Hun, 477 Persse & B. Paper Works 2. Wil- lett, 1 Robt. 181__.950, 952 Perth Amboy Mfg. Co. ». Condit, 21 N. J. L. 659__...-- 1005 ‘Peterhoff, The, Blatchf. Prize Cas: A638. anc cde ereais 21 Peters v. Florence, 88 Pa. 194... 91 ». Fowler, 41 Barb. 467... 998 v. Gallagan, 37 Mich. 407. 8138 Peterson, Hz parte, 33 Ala. 74... 17 ». Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 80 Iowa, 92.-___. 320 e. Clark, 15 Johns, 205_... 265 ». Grover, 20 Me. 363__255, 257 v. Morgan, 116 Mass. 350_. 1245 o. Nehf, 80 Ill. 25.....-.. 739 v. Speer, 29 Pa. 479._.... 865 2 State,’ 47 Ga. 524___._ 537, 539 ». Toner, 80 Mich. 850_-__- 1062 ‘Petite v. Teal, 57 Ga. 145._..._- 819 Pettibone ». Smith, 387 Mich. 579 3836 ». Stevens, 15 Conn. 19__.. Pettigrew o. Evansville, 25 Wis. 223, 3 Am. Rep. 50... 1121 Pettis ». Westlake, 4 Ill, 585_... 1126 972 |, J Pettus ». Roberts, 6 Ala. 811_... 281 5 | Petty ». Anderson, 3 Bing. 170.. 465 Peyton v. Heinekin, 131 U. 8S. —, 20 L. ed. 679_........ 1805 Pfiel 1. Kemper, 8 Wis, 815___.- 903 Pfisterer v, Pfisterer (Md.) 7 Cent. Rep. 414__..-.-..--.- 800 Phelan 2. Moss, 67 Pa. 62___.... 456 Phelps ». Mayer, 56 U. 8.15 How. 160, 14 L. ed. 643..._ 919 ». Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 39, 28 Am. Rep. 93__..----- 1121 v. Parks, 4 Vt. 488____._. 222 v. People, 6 Hun, 445___-. 893 v. Phelps, 28 Barb. 123._. 994 v. Seely, 22 Gratt. 587_... 290 v. Sheldon, 13 Pick. 50, 23 Am. Dec. 659__------ 263 ». Union Copper Min. Co., 39 Cal. 407_____------- 785 Phene’s Trust, Re, L. R. 5 Ch. 189 es 76, 78 App. Philadelphia & RB. R. Go. 2. An- derson, 94 Pa. 351, 39 Am. Rep. 787 o. Yeiser, 8 Pa. 366 Philadelphia & T. R. Co. Stimpson, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 448, 10 L. ed. 535 586 Philadelphia & W. C. R. Co. »v. Hickman, 28 Pa.318 .892, 896 Philadelphia Bank ». Officer, 12 Serg. & R. AO se 749 Philadelphia, Ww. & B. R. Co. 2. Howard, 54 U. 8. 18 How. 307, 14 L.ed.157 687 », Lehman, 56 Md. 209.-. 19 Philbrick ». O’Coonor, 15 Or. 15. 955 Philbrook 2. Delano, 28 Me. 410_ 292 Philips 7. Sherman, 61 Me. 548_. 1278 Phillips ». Allen, 2 Allen, 453-.. 85 ». Belden, 2 Edw. Ch. 1, 6 Ly ed. 289.222nc52- 836 ». Berryman, 8 Dougl. 286 737 v. Coffee, 17 Ill. 154__...- 223 ». Cooper, 50 Miss. 722... 706 v. Croft, 42 Ala. 477.._.-- 268 ». Crutchley, 3 Car. & P. Sisco ateeeoeneesce 861 o. Davis, 92 N. Y. 204.... 1193 ». Demoss, 14 Ill. 410.____ 222 v. Elwell, 14 Ohio St. 24, 84 Am. Dec. 373_.-220, 221 ». Evans, 64 Mo, 17_._..- 89 v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628. -.377, 378 v. Kingfield, 19 Me. 375. 1249 v. Mullings, L. R. 7 Ch App. Cas, 244__.____. 1090 . Phillips, 40 Me. 160.... 1278 Pope, 10 B. Mon. 168.. 1268 . Pullen, 45 N. J. Eq. 830 975 . Richardson, 4 J Marsh. 218_.....----- eeee exlvi Phillips ». State, 6 Tex. App. 364 870 ®. Thompson, 1 Johns, Ch. 188, 1 L. ed. 91-2. 804 ». Van Schaick, 37 Towa, O29 sateen aates eee, 678 0. woe 85 Ill. 146.... 220 Phillipson ». Kerry, 32 Beav. 628 1090 Philly ». Sanders, 11 Ohio St. 490 721 Philpott 0. Elliott, 4 Md. Ch. 273 292 Phippen 2. Stickney, 3 Met. 384_ 1290 Pheenix v. Day, 5 Johns, 412__226, 473 Pheenix F. Ins, Co. ». Hoffheimer, 46 Miss. 658_.___.- 299, 302 Phenix Ins. Co. », Church, 59 ed, $84... n-ne % Philip, 18 Wand. 81... Phenix Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Dos- ter, 106 U. S. 30, 27 L. €d.. :G02cecc—e2- os 723, 801 ». Hinesley, 75 Ind. 1._._- Phyfe v. Wardell, 2 Edw. Ch, 47, 6 L. ed. 304__.__.. 297, 964 Physio- Medicai College v. Wil- kinson, 6 West. Rep. 585, 108 Ind. 314__... 333 2 Piati, 9 Ohio, 37_..___- 218 » Vattier, 1 McLean, 163. 1178 Pickard 2. Bailey, 26.N. H.152.. 65 v. Collins, 23 Barb. 44..._ 462 v. Sears, 6 Ad. & El, 469. 710, 713 Pichering v. Fisk, 6 Vt. 102____. a: Tiftasonibe H. Co., L. R. v Pickering, 6 N. H. 120 452, 487 ». Reynolds, 119 Mass. 111 466 Pickett ». Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177 256 v. Loggon, 14 Ves. Jr. 215 965 Pico v. Cohn, 67 Cal. 258__.____ 780 Pidcock 2». Potter, 68 Pa. 342, 8 Am, Rep. WS eee oe Piehl v. Balchen, Olcott, 24____. 233 Pier v. George; 20 Hun, 210.._. 890 v. Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. B98 a cniwewcee es 671, 1186 Pierce v,. Carey, 87 Wis. 232____- v. Chicago& N. W.R. Co., 36 Wis, 288____..___. 983 v. Hoffman, 24 Vt, 625- 715, 954 v. Indseth, 106 U. 8. 546, 27 L. ed. 254... 2. 26 Kimball, 9 Me. 54_____. 33 i Northey, 14 Wis. 9.... 343 . Robinson, 18 Cal. 116__ 291 Thompson, 6 Pick. 198_. 1062 . Traver, 13 Nev. 526.... 235 . Van Dyke, 6 Hill, 618_. 1282 . Wilson, 84 Ala. 596_._- 960 Piercy 0 Adams, 22 Ga. 109_... 1258 eseseses TABLE OF CASES. Piers v. Piers, 2 H. L. Cas. 331, 13 Jur. 569... ____ 998: Pierse v. Irvine, 1 Minn. 369.273, 1137 Piersol 2. Grimes, 30 Ind. 129, 95 ‘Am, Dec. 673.....__. 851 Pierson 2, Baird, 2G. Greene, 235 34. o. Catlin, 18 Vt. 77._.____ 733 0. Freeman, 77 N. Y.589_ 847 Pigot v. Davis, 3 Hawks, 25____. 218. Pike v. Emerson, 5 N. H. 398___ 465. v. Vigers, '8Dru. & W. 267 973 Pilkington v. Bayley, 7 Bro. P. C.. B88 noose scceeewe 292 Pillow 2. Bushnell. 5 Barb. 156_. 987° ». Roberts, 54 U.S. 13 How. 472, 14 L. ed. 228___. 1276 ov. Thomas, 1 Baxt. 121__. 290 Pillsbury 2. Locke, 33 N. H. 96. 829: Pilmer 0. Branch of oe Bank, 16 Iowa, 321._...___. 287 Pinckney 2. Western U. is Co., 19 8. C. 71.2222. 1032 Pindar 2. Barlow, 31 Vt. i eee 1129: o. Black, 4 How. Pr. 95_. 843 Pingry v. Washburn, 1 Aik. 264_ 694. Pinkerton ». Manchester & L. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424... 876 Pinkham ». Cockell, 77 Mich. 265 1015. v. Gear, 3 N. H. 163_____. SL Pinney v. Barnes, 17 Conn. 420_. 737 ». Fellows, 15 Vt. 625. .___ 290 Pintard v. Davis, 21 N. J. L. 6382 1184 Pipe 2. care 4 Colo. 444, 5 Colo. Sees Seance taiea praia 224 Piceteata: Bach, Bank 2. Carter, 20 N. H. 246___.2 2 908 Pitcairn ». Ogbourne, 2 Ves. Sr. Ol Ose ce po coterie 298. Pitcher v. Clark, 2 Wend. 631... 847 v. Dove, 99 Ind. 175_____- AT v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. 415 300: Pitney v. Glen Falls Ins. Co., 61 Barb. 835. -_.___.. 513. 6 vo. Shew, 4 Barn. & Ald. 206 1398. Pitts v. Cable, 44 Ill. 108__.___.. 268 v. Wilder, 1 N. Y. 525_467, 487 Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. v. Pillow, 76 Pa. 510_.._... 1097, 1098 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. 2. Heck, ae S. 120, 26 Tay Od, BO cee caceres 918 e. a 80 U. 8. 22 Wall, 322, 22 L. ed. B28 eee oe ee ete 59, 62. 9, v. Theobald,51 Ind.246_449, 1105 v Williams, 74 Ind. 462. 87, 1099 Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & ©. R. Co. 2. Lewis, 83 Ohio St.196 64 Pittsburgh, W. & K. R. Co. 0. Applegate, 21 W. Va. 2 cise Ger heerecrsese 896 TABLE OF CASES. Pittsford 2. Chittenden, 2 New Eng. Rep. 191, 58 Vt. Place 2. ingen 20 Minn. 229._ 3803 %. Minster, 65 N. Y. 89___ 666, 667, 770, 798, 873 v er, 3 H. L. Gas. 383_ | 736 Plant v. Condit, 22 Ark. 464____ ». Gunn, 2 Woods, C. C. Dl Qo rireistsoes delet aoe 965 Planters & M. Bank ». Borland, 5 Ala. 681__.....__-. 152 Plath ». Minnesota Farmers Mut. F. Ins. Co., 23 Minn. Platner v. Platner, 78 N. Y.90_489, 499 Plato ». Roe, 14 Wis. 453_._____ 265 Platter 2. Elkhart County, 1 West. Rep. 246, 103 LNG: 360 nsec. ees 17, 19 Player v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co., 62 Iowa, 723. Pleasant v. State, 15 Ark. 624__- Pleasants v. Fant, 89 U. S. 22 614 653 Wall. 116, 22 L. ed. 780.126, 475. 6:0, 970, 1154 Pontifex ov. Bignold, 3 Man. & G. Plowes v. Bossey, 8 Jur. N. S. aa 31 L. J. N.S. Ch. wi Plumer @. Lord, 9 Allen, 455.711, 1158 Plummer 2. Currier, 52 N. H. 287 441 Plunkett 2. Dillon, 4 Del. Ch. 225 604 Poe v. Dorrah, 20 Ala. 289____.- 67 361 652 673 Poindexter v. Davis, 6 Gratt. 481 Poirer v. Fisher, 8 Bosw. 258... Polhemus 2. Heiman, 45 Cal. 578 308, 1310 Polk v. Butterfield, 9 Colo. 325. 38, 189 ». Oliver, 56 Miss. 566_- 234 v. Rose, 25 Md. 153_.1276, 1278 ». State, 86 Ark. 117_.___- 351 Pollak v. Gregory, 9 Bosw. 116.. 348 Pollard v. People, 69 Ill. 148--.. 420 », Union Pac. R. Co., 7 Abb. Pr. N.S. 70.--- Pollen », LeRoy, 10 Bosw. 38--- Polley v. Lenox Iron Works, 4 655 287 Allen, 829_-_.--...-- 218 Pollock ». Bradbury, 8 Moore, P. OTe oe 8 os Sealant 1140 v Glassell, 2 Gratt. 489... 1191 ». Morris. 7 Cent. Rep. 752, 105 N, Y. 676___-.-.-- ». Stables, 12 Q. B. 765_- Pomeroy v. Bailey, 43 N. H. 118 950, 968 o. Bank of Indiana, 68 U. 8. 1 Wall. 592, 17 L. exlvii Pomeroy »v. Manin, 2 Paine, 476. 1177 o. Tanner, 70 N. Y. 547.. 459 Pond 2. Bergh, a ence 140, 4 6d, 919 22522 sue. 1191 0. aust ae Works, 50 Iowa, 600_-.------ Pontifex ». Bignold, 3 Man. & G. 6 GOS 35cs oe meneee nena Pontius 2. People, 82 N.Y. 339 518, 521. Pool v. Breese, 2 West. Rep. 78, 114 I. 994.2 oocceines 227 o. Devers, 30 Ala. 672... 121. 2. Ellison, 56 Hun, 108-.. 974 ». Morris, 29 Ga. 374___.. W Poole v. Peterson, 9 Ired. L. 180 410 ». Richardson, 3 Mass. 330 348, 356 v. Seney, 70 Iowa, 275..-- 18 ». Union Pass. R. Co. (Pa.) 24-W. N C. 876. ._-- 1081: a Pope 2. Alli 115 U. S. 363, 29 L.. CU O08 cared eeten 504, 840: v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 99 Mo. 400_-.--- @. Macon, 23 Ark. 644... ». Western U. Teleg. Co., 9 Ill. App. 288------.-- 1230: Portage County Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. West, 6 Ohio St. 599 1272: Porter 2. Campbell, 2 Baxt. 81.. 79 ». Chicago & W. M. R. Co., “30 Mich. 156, 20 Am, St. Rep. 511__.. 1109 . Hills, 114 Mass. 106__.28, 907 . Judson, 1 Gray, 175-423, 749 Rea. 6 Mo 48___--___- 456 . Sandidge,32La.Aun.449 256 . Seiler, 23 Pa. 424_.1242, 1248 . Spence, 88 N. Y.119.-. 264 State, 2 Ind. 485____- 658, 787 Post v. Hover, 30 Barb. 821__.-. % Kendall County Suprs., 105 U. S. 667, 26 L. ed. ». Smilie, 48 Vt. 185..___. Postal Teleg. Cable Co. ». La- throp, 7 L. R. A. 474, 1381 Til. Potomac, The, 67 U. 8. 2 Black, 581, 17 L. ed. 263__.. 883: Potter v. Hopkins, 25 Wend. 417 264 McDowell, 31 Mo. 62.952, 968: . Merchants’ Bank, 28 N. Saar ess ee s a] ° = = o a in — i = @ oO e TR c © — a a” Q ge wr eS 4 : Third Nat. Bank of Chi- oe 102 U. S. 168, 26 L. ed. 114__._------- ®. Warner, 91 Pa. 362, 36 Am, Rep. 66822555505 s exlvili 1248 727 355 540 1093 Fotter v. Webb, 6 Me. 14_._.___. Potts v. Coleman, 67 Ala. 821_. - v. House, 6 Ga, 324_-. -_-- ». Mayer, 86 N. Y. 302-_-- o. Surr, 84 Beav. 543____- Poultney v. Ross, 1 U. 8. 1 Dall. 238, 1 L. ed. 117___-- Powell ». Bradlee, 9 Gil & J. DO elect ina 795, 957, 958 v Dat 3 Campb. 182_ '855, 1123 vo. Hunt, 11 Iowa, 430_.._ 1806 ». Jones, 44 Barb, 521__.. 1804 ». Myers, 26 Wend. 591... 1107 ». Smith, 30 Mich. 451_... 290 ». State, 25 Ala, 21..__--- 355 Powelton Coal Co. ». McShain, 75 Pa, 238.-_..------ 259 Power v. Barham, 4 Ad. & El. 473 1310 Powers . Ball, 27 Vt. 662__-.-- 1123 ». Chelsea Sav. Bank, 129 Mass, 44._..____...-- 733 v. Fowler, 4 El. & Bi. 511. 1263 a. French, 1 Hun, 582_... 463 ». Leach, 26 Vt. 270.--.-- 633 Prall v. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 483... 879 Prather v. McClelland, 76 Tex. ON4 -oocccosananseseas 363 v. Michigan Mut. L. Ins. Co. (Ind.)7 Rep. 293.. 801 v. Palmer, 4 Ark. 456___-- 86 v. Wilkens, 68 Tex. 187.. 178 Pratt », Andrews, 4.N. Y. 498_. 1242 ». Jones, 25 Vt. 303___._- 806 ». Philbrook, 38 Me. 17_.- 964 v. Phillips, 1 Sneed, 548, 60 Am. Dec. 162_._--- 218, 222 ». Richards ES ea EE Oy 69 Pa. Prell o. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426.. Prentiss 2. Danaher, 20 Wis. 314 982, 985 ». Sinclair, 5 Vt. 149_..._- 234 Presbyterian Church o. Emerson, 66 Ill. 269_.....-..-.. 4 Prescott ». Hayes, 48 N. H. 593_. ®. Flynn, 9 Bing. 19___-_- Pressly 2. eet 1 Speers, L. Preston v. Bowers, 18 Ohio St. 1. vo. Hull, 23 "Gratt. 600, 12 Am. L. Reg. N.S. 699, 14 Am. Ren. 153. 1150, 1151 ». Mann, 25 Conn. 118_.707, 711 % Wright, 60 Iowa, 351-. 59 Prevost 2, Gratz, 19 U. 8. 6 ae 481, 5 L. ed. 865 2] Prout 2. Roberts, 32 Ala. 427. __. TABLE OF CASES. Price v. Berrington, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 254...----.------ Brown, 48. C. 144____. 290 Dewey, 6 Sawy. 493.733, 786 . Dyer, 17 Ves. Jr. 357_-. 298 Ferguson, 66 Miss. 404_ 1287 . Hickok, 39 Vt. 292____. 1181 . Juokin, 4 Watts, 85, 28 Am. Dec. 685.-..-- 865, 871 . Karnes, 59 Ill. 276__.225, 268 . Lavender, 28 Ala. 390._ 272 . Mazange, 31 Ala. 701_- 981, 982, 984, 985 sesseses ese v. Neale, 8 Burr. 1354_... 45x v. Page, 24 Mo. 65_____-.. 43 v. Powell, 3 Hurlst. & N. D4 led eteeeeete acces 1194 v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322__.. 376 v. Price, 1DeG. M. & G. B08 prt ect ccareeans 1090 v. Torrington, 1 Salk. 285, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas.(6th Am.ed.) 390_._..___. 831 vo. Weaver, 13 Gray, 278_. 1258 v. White, 1 Bail. Eq. 244__ 1058 Prieger ». Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Wis. 89.......- 82 Priest v. Essex Hat. Mfg. Co., 115 Mass. 380_-.....- 887 v, State, 10 Neb. 393____. 551 v. Whitacre, 78 Va. 151... 111 Priestman v. United States, 4 U. 8. 4 Dall. 28, 1 L. ed. 1 mene ee me gees 136 Primm v. Stewart, 7 Tex. 178_.76, 415 Primros: 2. Browning, 59 Ga. 69 222 Prince v. Griffin. 16 Iowa, 555.. 215 e. Samo, 7 Ad. & El. 627, 3 Nev. & P. 137_-_.- 444, 600 ». Smith, 4 Mass. 455__._- Prindle 2. Campbell (D. C.) 18 Wash. L. Rep. 254.... 922 v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. 427 Printz v. Cheney, 11 Iowa, 469... Prioleau v. United States, L.R.2 Eq. 659, L. R. 3 Eq. W24 os cecesesecseweass 247 369 285 483 1206 479 1044 76 91 1077 964 727 397 v. Draper, 1 Russ. & M. 191 Pritchett ». _ Atltebell, 17 Kan. 356, 4 Am. Rep. 287_...- Pritt 0. Taloigneh damp: 305 Proctor 2. Houghtaling, 37 Mich. % M’Call, 2 Bail. L. 298... o Thrall, 22 Vt. 262._.._-. Protective Union 9. Nixon, 1 E. D. Smith, 671.......- Providence County Sav. Bank 2. Phalen, 12 R. 1. 495_- TABLE OF CASES. Pruden 2. ae 14 Ohio St. 11 » cee 6 N. Y. Civ. Proc, 360.-..--.----- 828 Pruitt 0. Brockman, 46 Ind. 56.. 589 Pryor v. Coggin, 17 Ga. 444.... 1195 Puffer v. Graves, 26 N. H. 258_.. 982 Pugh v. Good, 19 Or. 85.____..- ». Grant, 86 N. C. 39.1126, ». State, 2 Head, 227... Pullen 2. oe 25 Me. 249, a Sa ee ceme sey B57 485 - 1092 1061 Purcell 2. Mie 9 East, 361 Purchase v. Mattison, 6 Dever, 587, rev'd 25 N. Y. 211, 25 How. Pr. 161, 15 Abb. Pee AO 8 te wcocsieteerete nee 669 . New York Exch. Bank, 3 Robt, 164.2... 00. 876 Purkitt », Polack, 17 Cal. 3827_... 956 Purrington v. Loring, 7 Mass. 392 222 Purvis v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 321. 1227, 1229 Pusey 0. Wright, 31 Pa. 387 _... 118 Putnam »v. Clark, 34 N. J. Eq. DB Se ean ce Sh owicnewcee 733 . Goodall, 31 N. H. 419_. 148 . Lewis, 8 Johns, 389._.71, 231 . Sullivan, 4 Mass. 45_._- 1125, 1128, 1130 v. Tyler, 10 Cent. Rep. 752, 117 Pa. 570._.-._---. Pybus v. Gibb, 6 El. & Bl. 903__ 1152 Pyle v. Warren, 2 Neb. 241____- 1235 Pym 2, Campbell, 6 El. & Bl. 370 306, 307 eee Q. Quackenbush 2. Eble, 5 Barb. 469 739 Quaife v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 48 Wis. 513, 33 Am. Rep. 821 _-. 380, 1100 Queen v. State, 5 Harr. & J. 232. 616 Queen’s Case, The, 2 Brod. & B. 247.2... 150, 443, 565, 569, 574, 600, 617-619, 622 Quick ». Stuyvesant, 2 Paige, 84, 2 L. ed. 823._.---- 297, 304 Quilter 2. ae 14 C. B. N.S. Shoei ok ete 175 Quimby 2. Eoatn, 1L.R. A. 514, 148 Mass. 104.-.-.--- 1081 Quin 2. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349__..- 513 v. Sterne, 26 Ga, 224..__-- 272, 273, 1187 Quinebaugh Bank ». Brewster, 30 Conn. 659. cece ne, 72 Quiner ». Marblehead Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476.... 875 exlix Quinn v. Halbert, 57 Vt.178.... 399 v. Roath, 37 Conn. 16_..-- 257, 260, 304 ». State, 14 Ind. 589 __._-- 616 ». Windmiller, 67 Cal. 461 32 Quinsigamond Bank ». Hobbs, 11 Gray, 250_-----..---- 639 Quinton 2. ae Tuyl, 30 Iowa, SaeeineEecieveceeeee 1242 Quirk ». octane 6 Mich. 76.... 711 Quivey v. Hall, 19 Cal. 100_--_..- 1270 R. Raborg v. Hammond, 2 Harr. & G40) oot eal eemennns 414 » Peyton, 15 U. S. 2 Wheat. 385, 4 L. ed. COS esee eee ame seen 459 Rabun 2. Rabun, 61 Ga. 647__..- 712 Rachal v. Rachal, 4 La. Ann. 500 960 Racine v. Crotsenberg, 61 Wis. 481, 50 Am. Rep. 149. 913 Radcliffe ». Fursman, 2 Bro. P. GC, O14. gee ce cescmeniere 647 Radford 2. peel 13 W. Va 016222 eee eeres 995 Raifensberger v. Cullison, 28 Pa. AQ Ges see neue ee 298 Rafferty 2. cee of eae City, 33 N. J. L. 868_.._--- 892 Ragan v. Kennedy, 1 Overt. 91.. 950 Ragland v. Wills, 6 Leigh, 1_... 787 ». Wynn, 87 Ala. 32.._.._- 25 Ragsdale v. Gohlke, 86 Tex. 286. 711 v. Gossett, 2 Lea, 729____- 805 Railing v. Com., 1 Cent. Rep. 205, 106 Pa Oe. 412 Railway Pass. Assur. Co. v. War- ner, 62 N. Y. 651-___- 629 v ‘Warner, 1 Thomp. & C. Addenda, Bil side cross 1009 Raines ». Walker, 77 Va. 92_-288, 1290 Raisin v. Clark, 41 Md. 158____- 276 Rajah, The, 1 Sprague, 199____. 233 Rake ». Pope, 4 Ala. VOl 2. 213 Ralph 2. a 3 Watts & 8. 00a amoseties eke 174 v. Harvey, 1 Q. B. 845... 1154 Rambler v. Tryon, 7 Serg. & R. 90, 10 Am. Dec. 444._ 349, 3855 Ramsey ge aa 1 McLean, Rancliffe v. Parkyns, 6 Dow. 202 404 Rand ». Dodge, 17 N. H. 348.... 455 o. Hanson ‘aa )12 L. R. DAE SO TAS a Bo Fol he cea es tae, 210 ». Newton, 6 Allen, 88_... 336 Randall ». Baltimore & O. R. Co. 109 U.S. 478, 27L. ed. 10082 aeueee ees ee ce 680 el Randall v. Crandall, 6 ur 342__ 645 v. Newson, L. R. . B. iv. 102__..--...--.- 1318 v. Phillips, 8 Mason, 378_. 1179 v. Rhodes, 1 Curt. 90-1260, 1316 v. Richardson, 3 Doug. . Smith, 63 Me. 105, 18 Am. Rep. 200_-276, 278, 907 2 Xe Vechten, 19 Jobns. s Randel 2. eae 48 Miss. 685... 644 San goa 48 N. Y. Ecmapeae gece 340, 344 oes ces 21 Me. 137_- Rankin ». American Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 619._______. 909, ». Goddard, 54 Me. 28___-_ o. Simonds, 27 Ill. 852_.__ v. Tenbrook, 6 Watts, 388_ ». Woodworth, 3 Pa. 48___ Ransdale v. Grove, 4 McLean, 282 Ransford a Copeland, 6 Ad. & 17 1318 209 984 1271 1268 158 1229 Ransom ». Taye 39 Mo. 445.... 1806 v, Stanberry, 22 Iowa, 334 678, 709 Ransone». Frayser, 10 Leigh, 592 268 Raphael v. Bank of England, 33 En ng. L. & Hq. 276_... 457 Raphelsky v. Lynch, 48 How. Brot ooncsees 32526 778 ‘Rapp 2. Palmer, PWatis 178... 279 Rathbone 2. Dyckman, 3 Paige, 9,3 L. ed. 87 ____.-_. 1193 ». Hooney, 58 N. Y. 468_. 217 Rathbun ». Ross, 46 Barb. 127._ 630 Raub »v. Barbour, 11 Cent. Rep. — 717, 6 Mackey, 245... 288 Rawles ». James, 49 Ala. 183__ 336 Rawlings ». Chandler, 9 Exch. OB ccsiecseubacaue 605 Rawls v. American Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 282_... 1001 Rawson v. Adams, 17 Johns. 130 228 ». Haigh, 2 Bing. 094s sede 1011 ». Lampman, 5 N. Y. 456 249 % Plaisted, 151 Mass. 71_. 484 ». Walker, 1 Stark. 361... 1148 Rawstron v. Taylor, 11 Exch. 369 1121 Ray v. Gardner, 82 N. C. 146... 722 ». Murdock, 36 Miss. 692_ 1284 v Pearce, 84. N. ©, 485... 70 Rayburn v. Kuhl, 10 Iowa, 92... 1278 Raymond _ _paymond, 10 Cush. Ecamiaminjaneicisienders 310 Raynes »v. ae 114 Mass. ADA Stale aetp ee ee 499 Rayvor v. Drew, 72 Cal. 807.... 266 TABLE OF CASES. Missouri, 84 U. 8. 17 Wall. 582, 21 L. ed. 707 598, 599, 801, 968 970 Reab 2. Pool, 308. C. 140... -_ 305 Read, Re, 34 "Ark, 239.____.-... 1149 Read 0. Attica Bank, 55 Hun, 154 976 ». Brookman, 3 T. R. 151 Rea ». 151, 1180 ». Buffalo, 4 Abb. App. Dees 22. 2 seen 199 v. Decker, 67N. Y.182__ 499 v, Hutchinson, 3 Campb. 3 v. McLemore, 34 Miss. 110 474 o. St. Louis, K.C.& N. R. Co., 60 Mo. 199_____. Reading v. Weston, 8 Conn. 122, 20 Am. Dec. 99... 299, 301 Ready ». Huebner, 46 Wis. 792, 382 Am. Rep. 749_____ Real v. People, 42 N. By 282... 349 Reber ». Dowling, 65 Miss. 259-_ 1287 v. Herring, 7 Cent. Rep. 841, 115 Pa. 599 _____ 358 v Wright, 68 Pa. 471.__.. 199 Rector ». Gaines, 19 Ark. 70 ... 915 Redden v. Baker, 86 Ind. 191 ___ 1087 ». Spruance, 4 Harr, (Del.) Diy el eaten ete s we 761 Reddin v. Gates, 52 Iowa, 210_._ 1242 Reddington v. Gilinan, 1 Bosw. 235 1 Redfield ». Buck, 35 Conn. Kary 950 Redhead ». Midland R. Co., R. 4Q. B. 879___.__. Redington v. Roberts, 25 Vt. 686 957, 958 ». Woods, 45 Cal. 406 .... 124 Redlich v. Bauerlee, 98 Ill. 183, 88 Am. Rep. v Doll, 54 N. Y. 284, 18 Am. Rep. 573_._.854, 856, 1125, 1128 Redpath 2. Western U. Teleg. Co., 112 Mass. 71, 17 Am. Rep. 69._.._. 114, 1025 Redus 2. Burnett, 59 Tex. 576... 209 Reed v. Evans, 17 Ohio, 128____. 1264 ». Field, 15 Vt. 672_.___.- 1278 v. Gardner, 84 U. 8S. 17 Wall. 409, 21 L. ed. GO Spee te eke ee 924 v. Hastings, 61 Il. 266 1310, 13812 v. Kemp, 16 Ill, 445_._._- 224 v. Lawrence, 29 Fed. Rep. QU is Seals = Gerri 80 v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N.Y. 575_....22.. 886 o. Noxon, 48 Ill. 328 .___. 960 v Reed, 75 Me, 272 _____- 267 ® Roark, 14 Tex. 829..__. 853 v, Bmith, 14 Ala. 880. _.._. 950 TABLE OF CASES. eli Reed ». Taylor, 4 Taunt. 616.... 1062] Reg. o. Megson, 9 Car. & P. 428 536 o. Tyler, 56 Ill. 292.._._-. 808 o. Murphy, 8Car. & P. 306 498 ». Van Ostrand, 1 Wend. ». Nicholas, 2 Car. & P.246 538 424,19 Am. Dec. 529 263 v. Price, 11 Ad. & El. 727 91 v. Vaughan, 15 Mo. 141.. 59 ». Richardson, 8 Cox, C. C. v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29 BAS renee acess 522 19, 83 ». Rowton, Leigh & C. C. ». Wood, 9 Vt. 285_....-. 1316 . 520, 10 Cox, C. C. Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y.180--. 664) = H_Leee 1246, 1250 Reedy v. Scott, 90 U. 8. 23 Wall. 0 saffron, 16 Eng. L. & 352, 23 L. ed. 109-... 59 iG: S08 ask esenoees 1%5 Reel v. Elder, 62 Pa. 308_-..---- 209 o. St. George 9 Car. & P. Rees 2. Berrington, 2 Ves, dr V0 ASB eee cemeat ye one 618 042 oe somcietermnsseres 134 ® gaan 2 Car. & K. 56 574 ». Conococheague Bank, 5 ». Shaw, L. R. 1 C. C. 145 1088 Rand. 326 ----...---- 129 v. Shellard, 9 Car. & P. 277 868 Reese o. Reese, 90 Pa. 89, 35 Am. ». Tewksbury, L. R. 3 Q. Rep. O84 .cescscescess 344 BP O20 aes eee aie 92 ». Stille, 388 Pa. 188__._.-. 79 e. Te 1 Leigh & C. o. Western U. Teleg. Co., C. C. 495 ---- ee 1250 7L.R. A. 583, 123 Ind. ». Vincent, . Car. & P. 91. 867 DOE recast ee es 1022 », Whitehead, 35 L. J. M. Reeside, The,2 Sumn. 567-905, 909,1318 C. 186, L. R. 1.0. C. Reeve v. Long, Holt, 286 -___._- "1012 33, 10 Cox, C. C. 2384. 546 Reeves v. Booth, 2 Mill, 334, 12 ». Williams, 8 Car. & P. 481 332 Am. Dec. 679.-...--- 1217 v. Wood, Jebb. & B. Ap- ». Dougherty, 7 Yerg. 222 89 pend. VII._.____.--. 575 o. Reeves, 83 Mo. 28____-- 221)! Regnier ». Cabot, 7 Ill. 34_____-_ 618 ». Shry, 39 Tex. 684__._.- 952 | Reich 2. New York, 12 Daly, 72. 188 Reg. 2. ele 1 New Mag. Reichart v. Castator, 5 Binn, 109. 968 Cass Oles ccc secs 8 | Reichert o. McClure, 23 Ill. 516_ 742 » Sa ras 4El. & Bl. Reid v. Reid, 2 Dev. L. 247..._. 232 DBD sense ou cemkrcm cma 410 v. State, 20 Ga. 681___.__- 870 ». Bedingfield, 14 Cox, Reins v. People, 30 Ill. 256, 278. 786 Crim. Cas. 341 ------. 883 | Reitenbach ». Reitenbach, 1 o. Coote, L. R.4 P. C. 599, Rawle, 362, 18 Am. 9 Moore, P. C.N. S&S. Dec. 638_.--..__-- 866, 961 Reliance, The, 4 Woods, 420.... 87 463,42 L. J. P. C. 45.91, 653 . Courvosier, 9 Car, & P. 1252 ». Dossett, 2 Car. & K. 306 521 v. Duffield, 5 Cox, C. C. 432 771, 872 o. Francis, 12 Cox, C.C. 612 522 ». Frost, 9 Car. & P. 183.. 546 2. Geering, 18 L. J. M.C. as 5 876 91 536 ; Gace Cemetery Co., 6 El. & Bl. 415__.-._-- . Good, 1 Car. & K. 185_. . Guttridge,9 Car.& P. 471 . Hill, 15 Jur. 470, 5 Eng. L. & Eq. 547, 5 Cox, eee Cp Oy 25U tae cscs 563 . Hinckley,3 Best & 8. 885 164 ». Hoatson, 2Car.&K.777 91 2. Kenilworth, 7 Q. B. 642 1088 , Liverpool, M. & N. C. Co., 11 Eng. L. & Eq. AS cccsecceceaeh cause 877 v, Lumley, L.R.1C.C.196 76 v. Mansfield, 1Q. B. 444,5 Jury 605-0 ese sceee 84 Remington 0. Henry, 6 Blackf.63 221 Remington Paper Co. v. O’Dough- erty, 81 N. Y. 474__.. 92 Remsen v. People, 48 N. Y. 6___ 1250 2. Remsen, 2 Johns. Ch. a. 1 L. ed. 463 - Eset 280 0d. C28... Rennell 2. Kimball, 5 Allen, 356 82 Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 591, 597, 6 L. ed. 168, 170___155, 909 Reno v. McCully, 65 Iowa, 682__ 1188 Renwick ». New York Cent. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 182.__. Republic F. Ins. Co. ». Weide (‘Insurance Companies v. Weide”), 81 U.S. 14 Wall. 375, 20 L.ed. 894 159, 504, 818 Republican Pub. Co. 2. Miner, 12 Colo. TT sca.- 5.02555 1042 ov. Mosman, 15 Colo. 399-_- 1045, 1068 Requa v. Holmes, 16 N. Y. 188. 926 121 elii Reviere TABLE OF CASES. ». Powell, 61 Ga. 30, 34 Am. Rep. eee 755, 819 Revill v. Petit, 3 Mat, (Ky.) 314. "1242 Rex ». Appleby, 8 Stark. 33---- 2 es esessesss sess sees 469 Bailey, 1 Russ. & R. C. C1 Balls, 1 Mood. C. C. 470 522 : Batwick, 2 Barn. & Ad. . Bispham, 4 Car.& P. 392 630 Bowman, 6 Car. & P. 99 555 . Bramley, 6 T. R. 330.. 84 . Burnette, 4 Barn. & Ald. 1402p coc te eee actoes 117 Cator, 4 Esp. 120-..---- 332 Clarke, 2 Stark. 241.--. 629 Clarke, 8 T. R. 220.... 840 ' Cliviger, 2 T. R. 268... 988 Cook, 18 How.St.Tr. 348 658 Cox, 2 Burr. 787_...--- 743 Davis, 6 Car. & P. 177. 521, 522 Dixon, 3 Burr. 1687_... 648 Edwards, 4 T. R. 440... 596 Egerton, Russ. & R. 375 499 Ellis, 6 Barn. & C. 145__ 499, 521 Rex »v. Rookwood, 18 How. St. Tr. 211 ». Smith, 2 Stark. 183_.-- % Staffordshire, 6 Ad. & El. 99 . Steel, 2 Mood. C. C. 246 . Stimpson, 2 Car. & P. AN Diino) heer . Stockland, Burr. 8S. C. 508, 1 W. BI. 3867.._. 998 ; Stone, 6 T. R. 865 5 Sutton, 4 Maule & 8. 582 236 . Taylor, Peake, 11_._-_- 569: . Turner, 5 Maule & 8S. 205 i tape 2Barno. & Ald. 386 1249 553 eeesse iS es 3 89, 998. %, Van Butchell, 3 Car. & P.. 629). - cnn scene naan . Wade, 1 Mood. C. C. 86 539 . Watson, 6 Car. & P. 653 605- . Watson, 2 Stark. 108, 32 How. St. Tr. 496... 546, 688, 1249: . Westwood, 4 Barn. & C. 899 . White, 1 Leach, 430_565, 569 es sss esees ». Esop, 7 Car. & P. 456.. 91 . Williams, 7 Car. & P.298 587 v. Farringdon, 2 T. R. 471 402 . Withers, 2 Campb. 578. 647 v. Frederick, 2 Strange,’ ». Woolf, 1 Chit. 401_.__- 78% 1O9SY co neceeeteate 987 | Rexford 2. Comstock, 3.N. Y. o. Frith, 8 East, 589_---_- 418 Supp. 876.-.......-.. 819 v Fursey, 6 Car. & P. 81 Rey v. Simpson, 63 U.S. 22 How. 166, 499 341, 16 L. ed. 260___.- » Goodere, 17 How. St. 272, 278, 1139 he, TO1G . cc nc eae seax 658 | Reyburn v. Belotti, 10 Mo. 597_. 340 ». Hodgson, Russ, & R. C. Reyner v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725.__. 476 65209: scsusescscmcce 629 | Reynolds, Re, 4 Dem. 68___.___- 1217 ». Hunt, 3 Barn. & Ald. vo. Brumagim, 54 Cal. 254. 216 DOG: cee emecce eee 868 v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 282, 15 v. Kea, 11 East, 182..__.- 84 Am. Dec. 369. ..-- 475, 1150 ». Kinnear, 2 Barn. & Ald. v. Copeland, 71 Ind. 422.. 420: AOQ sc ccuceeaagsccesiae 187 ». Jourdan, 6 Cal. 112_... 342 ». Lewis, 4 Esp. 226__._--- 592 v. McCormick, 62 Ill. 412. 1234 ». London Assur. Co., 5 2. Manning, 15 Md. 510... 485: Barn. & Ald. 899.... 877 ». Nelson, 41 Miss. 88____. 59 o. Long, 4 Car. & P. 423._ 1064 v. Robinson, 110 N. Y. 654 v, Luffe, 8 East, 193._..-- 84 306, 312 », Maidstove, 12 East, 550. 88 2. Schweinefus, 27 Ohio’ ». Mashiter, 6 Ad. & El. Ste 81 Tatton s fore 898. 108i ances Repos 279, 904 o. Scott, Brayton (Vt.) 75. ». Mead, 2 Barn. & C. 608. 412 282, 265- v Miller, 6 T. R. 280__._- 899 ». Staines, 2 Car. & K. 745 89 v. Mothersell, 1 Strange, 93 890 v. Stansbury, 20 Ohio, 344 200 ». Nichols, 18 East, 412, vo. Sumner, 12 West. Rep. NOL waichicinicie seca an. 869 8387, 126 Til. 68... - 08. 823 ». Pearce, Peake, 75._.._. 499 | Rhett v. Poe, 43 U. S. 2 How. v. Pitcher, 1 Car. & P. 84. 458, 11 I. ed. 888..._ 796. e . iene, 1 Campb, 399-- 592, 596 . Ramsden, 2 Car. & P. 603 757 k Hein, Cas. ¢. Hardw. 8 521 4) Rhoda o, Annis, 75 Me. 17 Rhoades 2. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. Gs sence 182, 451, 648, 644 Rhoads ». Woods, 41 Barb. 471... 1287 etree 978: Rhodes 2. Chesson, Busb. L. 336 1006 TABLE OF CASES. Rhodes v. Childs, 64 Pa, 18... v. Vinson, 9 Gill, 169, 52 Am. Dec, 685-__---.-- 1194, 1217, 1218 ». Whithead, 27 Tex. 304. 88 Rhyan 2. Dunnigan, 76 Ind. 178. 186 Ricardo v. Garcias, 12 Clark & F. elit Rico Reduction & Min. Co. 2. Musgrave, 14 Colo. 79 1080 Riddles v. Aiken, 29 Mo. 453_... 646 Riddlesbarger v. Hartford Ins. o., 74 U. 8.7 Wall. 386, 19 L. ed. 257.1266, 1272 Ridenour v, Beekman, 68 Ind. 236 1284 : SOB cscs se 212, 785] Rideout » Newton, 17 N. H. 71. 348 Rice v. Barrett, 116 Mass, 312__- Rider v. Legg, 51 Barb, 260_---. 1204 711, 1161 v Miller, 86 N. Y. 511... 1084 ». Bunce, 49 Mo, 231__..- 725 ». Morrison, 54 Md. 429... 899 ». Courtis, 82 Vt. 464____- 882 vo. Powell, 28 N. Y. 510, 4 ». Groff, 58 Pa. 116___.219, 221 Abb. App. Dec. 66 ». King, 7 Johns. 20_----- 739 298, 801, 303 vo. Lumley, 10 Ohio St. 596 76] Ridgeley v. Johnson, 11 Barb. 527 ». Montgomery, 4 Biss. 75. 30 404, 1222 v. Morner, 64 Wis. 599.... 846] Ridgway ». eaetak, 2 Mood. & v. Rice, 6 Ind. 100.--.----. 797 Re Qh vnc ncecceecces 1095. v. Schloss, 90 Ala. 416.-.. 835 Ridley 2. Grae, ‘O Bing. 349__376, 1011 ». Shook, 27 Ark. 187_-.. 29] Riewe .». McCormick, 11 Neb. ». State, 8 Mo. 561____---- 1064 QGl pce asesseenecedian 1239 ». Williams, 32 Fed. Rep. Rigers ». Brown, 61 Mo. 187... 1271 4882 cece ame seeds 1018 | Rigg ». Cook, 9 Ill. 386__._____. 369 Rich v. Doane, 35 Vt. 125_...--. 268 ». Wilton, 18 Il. 15._1211, 1212 ». Flanders, 29 N. H.323__ 806] Riggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 568_-__-- 21 ». Rich, 16 Wend. 676.... 500/ Riggs v. Hatch, 16 Fed. Rep. 888. 1012 Richards ». Allen, 8 Pick. 406-.. 266 » Tayloe, 22 U. 8. 9Wheat. 2 Heusl 51 L. J. Q. B. 486, 6 L. ed. 141-__-. 158 ee eae 575 v Weise, 24 Wis. 548__... 753 2. secon, 18 Ves. Jr. 472 647] Rigney v. Smith, 39 Barb. 883-.. 711 v Richards, 2 Barn. & Ad. Riker ». Hooper, 35 Vt. 457___-- 739 AA ccm seae tesa bhee 992} Riley o. Gerrish, 9 Cush. 104 Richardson v. Chickering, 41 N. 278, 1137 B80iees ceeeeeek oe 711 v. Riley, 20 N. J. L.114_. 199 0 Ellett, 10 Tex. 190_...- 288 v. Schawacker, 50 Ind. 592 1124 v. Emery, 23 N. H. 220.813, 826 », Suydam, 4 Barb, 222_452, 487 ». Farmer, 36 Mo. 35, 88 v. White, 6 N. Y. Leg Am Dec, 129-._.---- 1156 ODS: 27 ise eect aie 282 ». Goodson, 2 Va. Cas. 881 655 | Rindge v. Breck, 10 Cush. 43_... 820 vo. Hughitt, 76N. Y. 55, 32 eee -Hartman,3 West. Am. Rep. 267.._.---- 1159 863, 102 Ind. 587 924 ». McNulty, 24 Cal. 339-.. 514] Ringgold 2. aware, 7 Ark. 86. 222 v. Scott River, W. &M. R. ». Ringgold, 1 Harr. & G. Co., 22 Cal. 155. .---- 258 11, 18 Am. Dec, 266-. 228 ». Wilkins, 1 Barb. 518... 281] Ringhouse ». Keever, 49 Ill. 470 1224 o. Williams, 2 Port. (Ala.) Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385 392 239) ooo eamecietaeeeal 21) Ripley o. Attna F, Ins. Co., 17 -». York, 14 Me. 216 ___--. 1239 How. Pr. 445, 29 Barb. Riche 2. Broadfield, 10.8.1 Dall. 16, 1 L. ed. 18.- Richelieu & O. Nav. Uo. v. For- tier, Montreal L. Rep. 5 Q. B 224 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Child- ress, 8 L. R. A. 808, 82 Ga. 719, 41 Am. & 817 Eng. R. Cas. 216.1069, 1074 Rickett’s App. (Pa.) 11 Cent. Rep. 484_...-.------- 671 % Pendleton, 14 Md. 320 1189, 1140 Ricks ». State, 19 Tex. App. 308 188, 134 552, 30 N. Y. 136, 728, 729, 1005, 1271, 1272 0. Mason, Hill& D. 8 Ripon ». Bittel 30 Wis. 614. 1252, "1253 Rison v. Cribbs, 1 Dill. 1812.2... 927 Risser 2. Rathburn, 71 Iowa, in 951 Ritchie v. Kinney, 46 Mo, 298... 148 Rittenhouse v. Independent Line of Telegraph, 44.N. Y. 268, 4 Am. Rep. 672_. 1036 Ritter » Democratic Press Co., 68 Mo. 458....... --. 565 v. Worth, 58 N. Y. 627... 1289 Rivard v. Gardner, 39 Ill. 125... 218 cliv Rivers v. Steel, 1 Vern. 286 _.__- 1057 v. Thomas, 1 Lea, 549._.. 271 Rixford v. Miller, 49 Vt. 319.._.69, 86 Roach v. Chapin, 27-Ill. 196.... 1076 v. Martin, 1 Harr. (Del.) 548, 28 Am. Dec. 745. 216 Robards v. Marley, 80 Ind. 185.. 38 Robarts v, Tucker, 16 Q. B. 560. 460 Robb v. Hackley, 28 Wend. 50.. 629 Robbins v. Codman, 4 E. D. Smith, 315...-..-..-- 462 v. Davis, 1 Blatchf. 238... 248 v. Diggins, 78 Iowa, 521 ! 676, 802 v. State, 8 Ohio St. 181... 412 v. Townsend, 20 Pick. 345 70 v, Willard, 6 Pick, 465.154, 475 Robert v. Strasburger, 11 N. Y. Week. Dig. 373_..__- 1213 Roberts, Re, 59 How. Pr. 141_-.. 728 v, Adams, 8 Port.(Ala.) 297, 33 Am. Dec. 291____- 1125 v, Burks, Litt. Sel. Cas. 41 762 ®. Fleming, 31 Ala. 658... 380 ». Graham, 73 U. 8. 578, 18 L. ed. 791 --__. 22. 919 v. Heim, 27 Ala. 678 .____ 734 v. Hershiser, 20 Neb. 594. 918 v. Jackson, 1 Wend. 485 225, 1054 a. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613 7, 1119 v. Lane, 64 Me. 108______- 124 v. Masters, 40 Ind. 462.__. 272 ®. Medbery, 182 Mass. 101 420 v Morgan, 2 Cow. 488__.. 309 v. Ogdensburgh & L. C. R. Co., 29 Hun, 154.1070, 1072 v People, 9 Colo. 458____- 52 v. Pillow, 1 Hempst. 624__ 1283 v. Press Pub: Co. 30 N. . Y. 8. R. 20._...-222. 697 2, Salisbury, 3 Gill & J. 425 1177 v. State, 3 Ga, 829__..___- 1084 v. Trawick, 22 Ala. 490_. 477 o. Trawick, 18 Ala. 68.... 355 ». Wisconsin Teleph. Co., 77 Wis, 589__....... 1292 Robert’s Widow ». Stanton, 2 Munf. 129, 185....... 402 Robertson »v. Barbour, 6 T. B. Mon, §23___._...2..- . Campbell, 1 Overt. 172. %. Clarke, 1 Bing. 445.._. 909 ® Lynch, 18 Johns. 451... 1009 2. Pickrell, 109 U. 8. 608, 27 L. ed. 1049. __.727, 1189 v. Stark, 15 N. H. 109... 854 . Wright, 17 Gratt. 584.216, 217 Robinett v, Wilson, 8 Gill, 179_. | 231 1190 693 eS s Robins ‘v. Ayres, 10 Mo. 588_... 310 ». Coryell, 27 Barb. 556__- 1205, 1209 TABLE OF CASES, Robins ». State, 8 Ohio St, 131_-. 413 ». Warde, 111 Mass, 244_- 475, 1154, 1159 Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. 369, 16 Am. Rep. 473-..350, 1085 ». Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65 Demo Se eRe eE eens 1122 ». Batchelder, 4 N. H. 40. 1261 ». Brown, 82 Ill. 279_.._-- 19 ». Catheart, 8 Cranch, C. C. 877, 2 Cranch, C. C. GUO SS Sez chs ec 288, 1179 v. Cropsey, 6 Paige, 480, 3 L. ed. 1069__..___... 267 v. Fitchburg & W. R. Co., % Gray) 02.2.2. 222525 1102 v. Gilman, 20 Me. 299.__. 36 . Gould, 11 Cush. 57_.__. 964 ». Harvey, 82 Ill. 58.1810, 1312 ». Howard, 5 Cal. 428__.. 735 v. Hoyt, 39 Mich. 405_._. 826 v. Lane, 14 Smedes & M, NO Les yh Soccer See atee, 218 », Litchfield, 112 Mass. 28 420 v. Marks, 19 Hun, 325_... 737 2. Mollett, L. R. 7 H. L. SOD arate createed Boon! 912 v. Morgan, Litt. Sel. Cas. 56 22, v. National Bank of New Berne, 95 N. Y. 637_. 886 v. Nesbit, L. R.8 C. P. 264 880 v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 20 Blatchf. 338 1099 o. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 146_ 1102 v. Noel, 49 Miss. 253____. 996 v. Pitzer, 3 W. Va. 835... 950 v. Reynolds, 2 Q. B. 196_. 1123 v. Stuart, 68 Me. 61_._._. 441 v. Sulter, 85 Ga. 875_____. 1291 0. United States, 30 U. S. 13 Wall. 368, 20 L. ed. 653_.277, 280, 903, 910, 911 v. Vernon, 7 C. B. N.S. odse seca ayn aeons 964 669 Cc. Pee eee tiee eae 265, 269 v. Yarrow, 7 Taunt. 455, 1 Moore, 150....459, 460, 461 Robson v. Devon, 4 Jur. N. 8.248 972 v. Kemp, 4 Esp. 285, 5 Eyp. 52-_...-.2 22222. 650 ». Osborn, 18 Tex. 298____. 1276 Roby v. Chicago, 64 Ill. 447___._ 1279 Rocco v. Parezyk, 9 Lea, 828... 633 Roche v. Ware, 71 Cal. 875... . 821 Rochelle v, Harrison, 8 Port. (Ala.) 851.2... 487, 452, 458 Rochester ». Alfred Bank, Wis. 482.2202 2 8. Rochester City Bank ». Suydam, 5 How. Pr. 218° 1182 TABLE OF CASES. Rockafellow ». Newcomb, 57 Ill. 186 1140 496 1292 24 21 Minn, 385__--. 275, Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co. 2. Rafferty, 73 Ill. 58-_. Rock Island & P. R. Co. v. Pot- ter, 36 Ill. App. 590__ Rock iene County v. Steele, 31 DAB cc sek aaa oas ‘Rockville & W. Turnp. Co. 2. Van Ness, 2 Cranch, 895 623 384 1315 C. C, 44 Rockwell v. Brown, 36 N. Y. 207 v. Taylor, 41 Conn. 55-_--. ‘Rodgers v. Niles, 11 Ohio St. 53- v. State, 50 Ala. 102.._._- ‘Rodman v. Hoop, 1 U.S. 1 Dall. 85,1 L. ed. 47__._-- 69, 817 Rodney v. Wilson, 67 Mo. 128.. 1140 -Rodriguez v. Hayes, 76 Tex. 225 102, 141 Rodwell 2. Henne 1 Car. & P. 220 we othe Ne cea, Roe v. Harvey, 4 Burr. 2484.... 170 ». Jerome, 18 Conn. 138-711, 712 v. Rawlings, 7 East, 282.332, 415 v. Roe, 8 Jones & 8. 1_.333, 926 v. Taylor, 45 Ill. 485__-..- 355 -Roehl ». Haumesser, 12 West. Rep. 899, 114 Ind. 811 Roethke v. Phillips Best Brew. Co., 33 Mich, 340_-_- Roff ». Duane, 27 Cal. 565_.._.. 514 ‘Rogers, Hu parte, 7 Cow. 526... 1289 . Ackermay, 22 Barh. 134 1310 . Arnold, 12 Wend. 380_.. 1232 . Brent, 10 Ill. 578.-__-- 916 . Brown, 61 Mo. 187, 191 1271 . Coleman, Hard. (Ky.) BN Ding tard taht BASE es 209 ». Dare, Wright (Ohio) 136 648 . Hadley, 2 Hurlst. & C. 964 960 v. Hall, 4 Watts, 359____- v. Ingham, L. R. 3 178 65 eeee & s clv Rogers ». Walker, 6 Pa. 871_.-. 1084 v. Winton, 2Humph. 178__ 1216 ». Wolfe, 104 Mo. 1______- 1262 ® Woodruff, 28 Ohio St. G82 ss oe os 276 . Zook, 86 Ind, 237..__-- 64 Robrer v. Morningstar, 18 Ohio, O19 occ eceee eee ae 1148 v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 407._-- Rollins ». Dyer, 16 Me. 475___.-- v. Pucblo County Comrs., 15 Colo. 108__--...- 821, 973 Rolmagen 2 Ro Rollwagen, 3 Hun, 43, 221 231 Romanes 2. Weer 16 Grant, Ch. (Upper. Can. ) 97, ‘aff'd 17 Grant, chap. 367_-- Romero, Re, 75 Cal. 379_...-.--- Romertze v, East River Nat. Bank, a Y. 577, 2 Sweeny, Seprenerer sete eater 581, 615 Romeyn 2. ‘Sickles 11 Cent. Rep. 312, 108 N.Y. 650... 664 Ronkendorff v. Taylor, 29 U. 8. 4 Pet. 349, 7 L. ed. 882. 1289 Rooker v. Perkins, 14 Wis. 79... 88 Roosevelt v. Hungate, 110 Il]. 595 914 996 81 Root ». Brown, 4 Hun, 797___.- 622 . French, 18 Wend. 570.- 1233 v. Shields, 1 Woolw. 340_. 840 ©. Wood, 34 Ill. 283.__.- -- 640 v. Wright, 84 N.Y. 72_... 647 Rose 2, clark, 8 Paige, 574, 4 L. Gs BAB re tote eae 999 v Stephens & C. Transp. Co., 20 Blatchf. 411__. 1099 Rosenbaum 2. ‘State, 83 Ala. 854. 683 Rosenheim v, America Ins. Co., 83 Mo. 230.._.-_----- 333 Rosenstock v. Tormey, 32 Md.169 420 Rosenthal ». Mayhugh, 383 Ohio te TOO i sceeeias ste ai ». Walker, 111 U. 8. 185, 28 L. ed. 395._.._.._- 1012, 1015, 1019. 1020 Rosevelt v. Dale, 2 Cow. 133_.299, 301 Div: B5leceecedeeehen 91 v. Fulton, 2 Cow. 129_.260, 304 ». Jackson, 19 Wend. 883. 189] Ross v. Austill, 2 Cal. 188.__.._- 17 ». Kneeland, 10 Wend. 218, e. Barker, 5 Watts, 891___ 286 13 Wend. 114___-1268, 1264 ». Bedell, 5 Duer, 462 _.._ 1126 ©. McCune, 19 Mo. 557.... 448 ». Boswell, 60 Ind. 285.... 20 v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis. 610 1186 v. Drinkard, 35 Ala, 434_.. 124 2. oC Hotel Co., 4 Neb. ». Elizabeth Town & S. R. Pe CEs el eho? shoe 079 Co., 2.N. J. Eq. 422... 724 . ie 79 U. S. 12 Wall. ». Gould, 5 Me. 204______. 838 317, 20 L. ed. 417..340, 347 v. Mather, 51 N. Y. 108... 678 » Rogers, 15 B. Mon. 864. 199 v. Norvell, 1 Wash. 14, 1 ». Saunders, 16 Me. 92_... 257 Am. Dec, 422___.._.- 292 . Shaler, Anth. N. P. 109. ». Reddick, 2 Ill. 73_-_.-- 34 832, 333 ». Southwestern R. Co., 53 o. Shaw, 59 Cal. 260_._..- 854 Ga. 514 _.__ 875, 876, 879 ». Van Hoesen, 12 Johns. Roth v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., Beek ke Sheet 160 84.N. Y. 548_-..---22 1107 elvi Roth v. Miller, 15 Serg. & R. 100 1005 ». Palmer, 27 Barb. 652_.. 958 Rothe ». Rothe. 31 Wis. 570.... 6738 Rott v. Kile, 1 Leigh, 216_.-..-- 843 Rouch a. Great Western R. Co., IQ. Bplicccewec cc 1011 Rountree v. Smith, 108 U. 8. 269, a7 L. ed. 722_..-----. 506 Rourke 2. rials 4E. D. Smith, sae v. Whited, 25 N. Y. 170-- 436, 442 Routledge v. Worthington Co., 119 N. Y. 592_....-.- Rowe v2. Hulett, 50 Vt. 687____.- ev Parsons, 6 Hun, 888___. Rowell v. Doggett, 3 New Eng. Rep. 756, 143 Mass. 483 v. Klein, 44 Ind. 290.____. ». Montville, 4 Me. 270___- Rowland v. Fowler, 47 Conn. 347 Rowley v. Bigelow, 12 Pick. 307 Rowt v. Kile, 1 Leigh, 216___._. Roy »v. Targee, 7 Wend. 359 ____ Royal aa 0. v. Schwing, 87 Ky. Roast: Espy, 66 Pa, 481_.._.- », Watrous, 73 N. Y. 597. 718 Ruan 2. Perry, 3 Cai. noe 1248 Ruby ». Talbott a M.) 3 L. R. Ay Rasen so ccc escsess 859 Ruch »v. Rock Island, 97 U. 8. 693, 24 Led. 1101._.- 400, 401, 692 TABLE OF CASES. Runyan 2. Price, 15 Ohio St.1-. 7 Rupart 7. Dunn, 1 Rich. L. 101- 963 FTES. - Com., 2 Met. (Ky.) aie 0. Geddes, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 220, 18 L. ed, 348 _... 687 v Rutherford, 1 Denio, 33 1206, 1807 0. Schattman, 119N.Y. 604 511 Rutledge v. Moore, 9 Mo. 553_836, 837 Rush v. Barr, 1 Watts, 110___._- 1267 6 | Rusling ». Bray, 87 N. J. Eq. 174 614 Russel v. Branham, 8 Blackf. 277 23. v. Langstaffe, 2 Doug). 514 855, 1126, 1127 Russell v. Baptist Theo. Union, 73 Tl. 387 -..---.--2- 303- vo. Clark, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 69, 3 L. ed. 271 ..___- 1178. ». Cowles, 15 Gray, 582, 77 Am. Dec. 391_____.-. 863- ». Freedman’s Sav. Bank, 50 Ga. 575_......_-_- 983 v. Frisbie, 19 Conn. 209... 376. v. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N. Y. 184. _.200... "756, 161 », Jackson, 22 Wend. 277 414, 416, 1224 v. Lewis, 15 Mass. 197... 983 v. Loomis, 43 Wis. 545_... 670 ». McDowell, 88 Cal. 70... 808 v. Mann, 22 Cal. 181___..- 1284 v. Martin, 15 Tex. 238..._ 39 v. Place, 94 U. 8. 606, 24 L. ed. 214.___- 212, 214, 723 . Sargent, 7 Ill, App. 98.. 42 . Southard, 58 U. S. 12 ee Rucker ». Reid, 36 Kan. 470.._. 684 How. 139, 18 L. ed. 927 291 Ruckman ». Ruckman, 32 N. J. Russell’s App., 75 Pa. 269..___. 1090 Eq. 200 2aiepsiemcnte es 224) Rust v, Frothingham, 1 II], 259_. 209 Rudicel o. State, 10 West. Rep. Rustell v. Macquister, 1 Campb. 838, 111 Ind. 595____. 318 AON Misr re ered ale 1046. Rudolph ». Lane, 57 Ind. 115.--. 151 | Ruston’s Case, 1 Leach, C. C. 408 1170 Ruff v. Bull, 7 Harr. & J. 14, 16 Ryan 2. Bindley, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. Am. Dec. 290._.....- 1270 66, 17 L. ed. 559-_.927, 928: ». Jarrett, 94 Ill. 475___. _- 977 ». Couch, 66 Ala, 244... . 657 Ruffner 2. Hogg, 66 U.S. 1 Black, v. Dox, 84 N. Y. 3807___.. 285 115, 17 L. ed. 88._... 1304 » Dunphy, 4 Mont. 856_._ 826: Rugg v. Rugg, 83 N. Y. 592, aff’ v. Gilmer. 2 Mont. 517.... 87 21 Hun, 383.1191, 1205, 1207 ». Springfield, F. & M. Ins. Ruhe v. Burnell, 121 Mass. 450_. 445 Co.. 46 Wis. 671___.. 670: Ruhl v, Phillips, 48 N. Y. 125, 8 » Ward, 48 N. Y. 204..._ 3811 Am. Rep. 522_...___. 949 | Ryder 2. Alton & 8. RB. Co., 18 Ruiz v. Norton, 4 Cal. 859___._- 256 WN, “B19 Gie cece ec cen 895 Rule 9. Parker, 1 Cooke, 865__.. 1289 % Wombrel; L.R. 4 Exch, Ruloff v. People, 18 N. Y, V9 ee. FB. BP sedate cecincuncee 125, v. People, 45 N. Y. 218... Ryno 2, ba 20 N. J. Hg. 281 257 652, 1155, 1163, 1166, 1168, 1172, 1173, 1175 Rundlet ». Jordan, 3 Me. 47.00. 226 8. Runkle v. Gates, 11 Ind. 95... 1195 Runyan 2. Messer 11 Johns. Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U.S. O84 oc seine aint eee 1806 261, 81 L. ed. 430_. 173: TABLE OF CASES, Sabins v. Jones, 119 Mass. 167.. 83 Sabioncello, The, 8 Ben. 90_.__. 836 Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. R. Co., 18 Nev. 155.-....._-- 23 Sacia v. Decker, 1 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Rep. 47_....... 558 Sackett ». Spencer, 65 Pa. 89_... 968 Safety Fund Nat. Bank ». West- lake, 4 West. Rep. 881, 21 Mo. App. 565. .__- 922 Sage v. Hazard, 6 Barb. 179_-.-- 1228 v Wilcox, 6 Conn, 81_... 1264 Sager v. Tupper, 38 Mich. 258___ 1157 Sagua, The, 2, The Grace, 42 Fed. Rep; 46 Lesescuecaceeus Saint ». Smith, 1 Coldw. 51____. St. Clair 0. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 80 Towa, 804_._. ». Shale, 20 Pa. 108____._- St. Clair County ». Lovingston, 90 U. 8. 23 Wall. 46, 23 Jobn 2. " Bastern R. Co., 1 Allen, 544_...--.___- 110 Joseph Mfg. Co. v. Daggett, 84 Ill. 556___.._____- 718 Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. ». Belleville, 10 West. Rep. 608, 122 IN. 376. 721 Louis & S. E. R. Co. 2. Mathias, 50 Ind. 65... 1100 Louis & 8. F. R. Co. vo. Ed- wards, 26 Kan. 72_._. 351 Louis Fourth Nat. Bank ». Altheimer, 8 West. Rep. 562, 91 Mo. 190_ 1160 St. Louis, F. 8. & W.R. Co. 2. Tiernan, 37 Kan. 606. 318 . Louis, J. & C. R. Co. v. Ter- hune, 50 Ill. 151, 99 Am. Dec. 504.__.._-. Louis, K. & A. R. Co. Chapman, 38 Kan. 307 149, 360 . Luke’s Hospital», Association for Aged and Indigent Females, 52 N. Y. 191 1005 St. Paul & D. R. Co. v. Blackmar, 44 Minn. 514.______-. St. Paul, F. & M. Ins. Co. », Al- lis, 24 Minn. 75__-_-- 891 Salinger 0. Lusk, 7 How. Pr. 430 137 Salisbury 2. Clarke, 61 Vt. 453_. 286 ». Stainer, 19 Wend. 159. 1318 Salmon 2. io 8 Bland, Ch. aman eaaants 229, 1178 » Seed 5 Duer, 511_.-.- 420 v Rance, 3 Serg. & R. 315 235 Salmon Falls Mfg. Co. 0. God- dard, 55 U.S. 14 How. 446, 14 L. ed. 493.1263, 1264 Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 540. 8. 13 How. 229, 14 L. ed. 124 1143 ‘St. St. St. St. St. Si. St. 8 o elvii Sample 0. Coulson, 9 Watts & 8S. 62 Sampson a Buffalo, N. Y. & P. R. Co., 4 "Thomp. &C. 600, 2 Hun, 512__1077, 1079 v Jobnson, 2Cranch, C. C. 10 245 464 689 v. Ohleyer, 22 Cul. 200._- Samuel, The, 14 U. S. 1 Wheat. 9, ‘4 L. ed. 23-__.__.. 207 Sun Antonio & A. P. R. Co. ». Bennett, 76 Tex. 151- Sanborn 2. Sanborn, 7 Gray, 142- Sanchez v. People, 22 N. Y. 147. Sanders v. Bagwell (S. C.) TLR. A. 748 v. Reister, 1 Dak. 151_.___ Sanderson, Re, 74 Cal. 199._.__. ». Collman, 4 Man. & G. 209 cise coe Sees 458, 709 Sandford ». Remington, 2 Ves. “Js 189) one ees ». Weeden, 2 Heisk. 76__- Sandidge ». Hunt,40 La. Ann. 766 Sands v, Church, 6 N. Y. 347... Sandwell v. Sandwell, Comb. 445, 989 33 1806 754 351 654 3804 Sandwich Mfg. Co. 0. Nicholson, 32 Kan. 666 Sanford v. Chase, 8 Cow. 381__._ ». Howard, 29 Ala. 684____ o. Nichols, 14 Conn. 324_. 223 v. Rawlings, 43 111. 92... 905 v. Sanford, 62 N. Y. 553__ 1268, 1270 Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. 8. 56, 23 L. ed. 220 898 371 1155 Sangster o. Dalton (Ark.) 12 S. W. Rep. 202...--.--.- ». Mazaredo, 1 Stark. 161_ Santa Cruz Gap Turnp. J. 8. Co. v. Santa Clara County Suprs., 62 Cal. 40___. Santissima Trinidad, The,20 U.S. 7 aoe 328, 5 L. ed. 736 Sappington S Watson, 50 Mo. 88 1061 Sarahass 2. . Armstrong, 16 Kan. Sarbach 2, ae 20 Kan. 497_528, 562 Sargeant, Ex parie, 17 Vt. 425___ 787 ». Pettibone, 1 Aiken, 855 826 Sargent v. Essex Marine R. Corp., 9 Pick. 201_..._._- 881, 882 ®. Franklin Ins. Co., PICK. 90 ec cecaise 875 elviii Sargent v. Salmond, 27 Me. 589. 721 v. Wilson, 59 N. H. 896... 6389 Sarl 2. Bourdillon, 1 C. B. N. 8. ABB) en mein ee Mrs: 1263 Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R. I. 582___.- 976 Sartorious 2. State, 24 Miss. 602_. 658 Sartwell 2. Wilcox, 20 Pa, 117_-. 795 Sasscer 0, Farmers Bank, 4 Md. AOD tcc rrcretaya cs oot ovens Sater v. Burlington & M. P. Pl. Road Co., 1 Iowa, 886 3385 Satterwhite » Hicks, Busb. L TABLE OF CASES. Schaale v, Wasey, 14 West. Rep. 650, 70 Mich. 414._.-- 22 Schaetzel » Germantown Farm- ers Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Wik: 412 oon ecen'e 187 Schafer v. Reilly, 50 N. Y¥. 61... 886 Schaible », Washington L. Ins. Co., 9 Phila. 136_.... 1001 Schall v, Hisner, 58 Ga. 190____- 546 Schaper v. Bibb, 71 Md. 145_-_. 1082 Schaser 2. Slate, 36 Wis. 429_... 600 Scheel v. Kidman, 77 Ill. 301_.78, 1222 105, 57 Am. Dec. 577. 954] Scheibel o. Fairbaia, 1 Bos. & P. Saukville v. State, 69 Wis. 178. 21) — 888....--_____._-_--. 229 Saulet » Shepherd, 71 U. S. 4 Schell v. Nev ae Mill Co., Wall. 508, 18L. ed. 446 93 89 Tl. 581--_.--.-__.- 188. Saunders a. Cavett, 88 Ala, 51... 844 v. Plumb, 5 © Y. 592.-. 46 v. McCarthy, 8 Allen, 42._ 486 | Schenck v. apcnenck, 20 N. J. L. v Wakefield, 4 Barn. & [| —— 208___._----.--.--._. 1047 Ald. 595._.....2.222- 1268 v sone Lake Beach Imp. Saunderson v. Ballance, 2 Jones, Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 44_ Eq. 322,67 Am. Dec. 320, 521 BIG eee aaoeassesaeos 725 » Stumpf, 6 Mo. App. 381 722 ». Judge, 2H. Bl. 509.... 1020]|Schenley ». Com., 36 Pa. 29_____ 633- Savage v. Brocksopp, 18 Ves. Jr. Schermerhorn ». Talman, 14 N. BO opens aspen 1178 N04 se eee ea ecemsen 1306. a. French, 13 Ill. App. 17. 787] Schettler 7. Smith, 41 N. Y. 341_ 1193. 0 Stevens, 128 Mass. 254__ 787] Schick v. Grote, 5 Cent. Rep. 826, Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. ». 42.N. J. Eq. 352___._. 992 Harris, 26 Fla. 148... 102] Schiffer v, Adams, 18 Golo. 572_. 900 2 Holland (Ga.) 9 S. E. Schilling o. Territory, 2 Wash. Rep. 1040..-_..... 22. 624 988 - eo mmicicicigutoncaetess 22. 0. Holland, 82 Ga. 257.... 886] Schindel 2. Suman, 18 Md. 310.. 739 Saveland v. Green, 40 Wis. 481_. 476] Schindler ». Smith, 18 La. Ann, Savery v. Browning, 18 Iowa, 246 238 AIG ci saiiwnicnnctin wares 980- vo. King. 5 H. L. Cas. 626. 1093 | Schlencker 2. Siate, 9 Neb. 241_- Sawtelle ». Drew, 122 Mass. 601, 603 DOB ae een haere 907 | Schlicht v. State, 56 Ind. 173__ 28 Sawyer v. Curtis, 2 Ashm. 127.222, 225 | Schloss 2. ae Creditors, 3L Cal. ®, Hannibal & St. J. Ro fo OBL Leelee Co., 87 Mo. 240__.._. 87 | Schmidt ». ne York U, Mut. 0 Hanson, 48 Wis. 611... 3800 F. Ins. Co., 1 Gray, vo. Hoag, 84 U. 8.17 Wall. O20 sn aentd os, Seema 2 136, 9 610, 21 L. ed. 781_... 898] Schmieder v. Barney, 113 U. 8. Saxon v. Whitaker, 80 Ala. 237_. 79 645, 28 L. ed. 1180__. Saxton ». Hitchcock, 47 Barb. 333-885, 355- oO yaiaidyeavajute Storate A eiree 267 | Schneider v. Manning, 10 West. Sayer v. Glossop, 2 Exch. 411_.. 166 Rep. 183, 121 Ill. 876_ v. Kitchen, 1 Esp. 210.... 167 857, 359: Sayre v. Peck, 1 Barb. 464,_.___ 287 v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 75 » Wilson, 86 Ala. 151_.506, 313 Mo. 295.222.222.222 22. 1100 Scales v. Key, 1 Ad. & El. 819, 3 v. Schiffman, 20 Mo. 571._ 1188 Perry & D. 505____.- 902 | Schueir 2. Chicago, RLG&PR. v. Swan, 9 Port (Ala.) 162 985 Co., 40 Iowa, 887.... 87 Scammon ». Adams, 11 Ill. 575, Schofield 2. Chicago, M. & St. P. 274, 1189, 1140 R. 114 U. §S. 618, v. Chicago, 40 II]. 146_.__ 1276 20 L. -) 225-22. oe 680: ». Scammon, 83 N. H, 52_. Scanlan v. Cobb, 85 Tl. 299__... v% Cowley, 2 Hilt. 489... _. 1068 peieniah % pearborough 54 Ark. 20 804 Scattergood v. Wood, 79 N.Y. 263 383 456 1087 Schreyer v. Scott, 184 U. 8. 405, BL. ed. 955.._... 101, 975 Schroeder v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 875... 1069, 1074. 2, Schmidt, 74 Cal. 459... 805- TABLE OF CASES. Schryver 0. Hawkes, 22 Ohio St. B08 secictmee cee e 1125, 1128 Schuchardt 2. Allen, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 859, 17 L.ed. 642 307, 783, 970 See 2 Harriman, 2 Dill. v. Harriman, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 44, 22 L. ed. 551 Schuler 9. Gillette, 12 Hun, 278_ Schultz . sees 2 Bing. N.C. Ade ee 855, 1128, v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 67 Wis. 616...._.._.- v. Coon, 51 Wis. 416_.256, 2. McLean (Ual.) 25 Pac. Rep. 427_._..._....-.. 731 0. Pacitic R Co., 86 Mo. 82 1119 a. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, 91 Am. Dec. 88_-1208, 1218 v. Third Ave. R. Co., 15 Jones & 8. 285. - Ee 781 607 Schuman ». Garrett, 16 5 Gai. 100- 722 Schurman ». Marley, 29 Ind. 458 64, 831 Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bullong, 24 Neb. 825___....___ Schuylkill & D. Imp. & R. Co. ». Munson, 81 U. 8. 14 eal 442, 20 L. ed. 21 eae eee 51, 680, 970 Schwab 2. Gingerick, 18 Ill. 697 981, 984 Schwalbach v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 78 Wis. 137 295 Schwander »v. Birge, 46 Hun, 66_ 358 Schwartz 0. Atlantic & P. Teleg. Co., 18 Hun, 157__... 114 Scidmore v. Clark, 47 Conn. 20.. 457 Scoggin 2. Schloath, 15 Or. 380. 288 Scotland County ». Hill, 112 U. 8. 183, 28 L. ed. 692-_ 1054 Scott 0. Babcock, 3 G. Greene, 188 1276 Baker, 87 Pa, 380.....- 180 . Blood, 16 Me. 192..._.. 1157 Com., 4 Met. (Ky.) 227. 1088 655 229 1080 sseesee eeses . Curtis, 17 Vt. 762_....- . Gibbon, 5 Munf. 86___- : Goldinghorst, 123 Ind. t Hae 126 Ind. 239... 321 . Hastings, 4 Kay & J. 633 880 Jackson, 12La. Ann. 640 25 . Lilenthal, 9 Bosw. 224_. 668 . Lloyd, 84 U. 8S. 9 Pet. 418, 9 L. ed. 178_.919, 1805 2. London & St. K. Docks Co., 83 Hurlst. & C. 596 1120 . Pentz, 5 Sandf. 572 _... 160 . Ratliffe, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 81, 9 L. ed. 54.....-- sec 1| Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. 304... Scott v. Scott, 17 Md. 78 ® pees 34 How. Pr. »% Wood. 81 Cal. 398__..98, 1388 %. Woodward, 2 MCord, Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 148, 26 L. ed. 968_._.-.._- Scoville ». Landon, 50 N. Y. 686 Scripps 2. ae "35 Mich. 371, 24 Am. Rep. 575__-_- Scripture v. Francestown Soap- stone Co., 50 N. H. 571 Scudder v. Van ‘Amburgh, 4 Edw. Ch. 29, 6 L. ed. 787__ 1052, Seagrove v. Redman, 4 U. 8. 4 Dall. 158,1 L. ed. 779. 817 Seale v. Mitchell, 5 Cal. 401___._ 742 Seaman 2. Luce, 28 Barb. 240... 1287 Searle v. Arnold, 7 R. L. 582_.353, #54 Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 316 442 Sears 2. Brink, 3 Johns. 210.1263, 1264 ». Shafer, 6 N. Y. 268_... 1u9: v. Terry, 26 Conn. 2738_... 199 v. The Scotia (‘‘The Sco- tia”), 81 U. 8.14 Wall. 150. 20 L. ed. 822_... 899 122 1382 876 1059: 8z 1035 Seavey v. Shurick, 9 West. Rep. 250, 110 Ind. 494____- 318. Seavy v. Dearborn, 19 N. H. 351 118, 633. Seay v. Bank of Tennessee, 3 Sneed, 558___-_------ 1129 Sebor 2. Armstrong, 4 Mass. 206. 985. Sebree ». Dorr, 22 U.8. 9 Wheat. 558, 6 L. ed. 160_..._. 158 Seckler ». Fox, 51 Mich. 92___.- 256. Second Nat. Bank ». Miller, 2 Thomp. & C. 104___.- 453. Second Ward Bank ». Upmann, 12 Wis. 499__..-.--_. 265. Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 556... 837 Secrest v. Turner, 2 J. J. Marsh. Ac emmaeeceeaie sae 266 Secrist 0. Green, 70 U.8. 3 Wall. 744, 18 L. ed. 153__.- 416, 996, 1222 Security Bank v. National Bank, 67 N. Y. 458, 28 Am. Rep. 908 44 739 118 723 Seddon 2», Te 8 T. R. 607__- Sedgwick v. Taylor, 84 Va. 820_. Seekel », Norman, 71 Iowa, 264_ Seeley v. Engell, 13 N. Y. 542_ 918 Segar v, Lufkin, 77 Me. 142____- 499 Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11_- 554, 1289 Seguine o. Seguine, 2 Barb. 885._ 1205 Seiber v. Price, 26 Mich. 518.... 965. elx Seibert v. Allen, 61 Mo. 482___-- 581 Seigbert . Stiles, 39 Wis. 583... 1309 Seixas ». Woods, 2 Cai. 48__.--- 808 Selden v. Coffee, 55 Miss. 41____ 1287 a. Myers, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 506, 15 L. ed. 976_... 959 Seliger 2. Bastian, 66 Wis. 521_-. 333 Seligman v. Ten ‘Eyck, 53 Mich. DRO ce eee eee eae 826 Selleck o. gee 107 11]. 889... 1269 Sellick v. Starr, 5 Vt. 255....--- 88 Sells v. Brown, 9 Car. & P. 601_- 899 ». Haggard, 21 Neb. 857... 38 v. Hoare, 3 Brod. & B. 282, Y Moore, 36_.-------- 574 v. Sells, 1 Drew. & 8. 42.. 298 Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala: TS?icacewecesen %3 Selma, R. & D. R. Co. o. Keith, 58 Ga. 178_._.---.--- 500 2. Lacy, 43 Ga. 461____--- 64 Selser ». Brock, 3 Ohio St. 302_. 1123 Selway 2. Chappell, 12 Sim. 113. 564 Semmens v. Walters, 55 Wis. Gi 8 scncecemioenee seee 686 Semon ». People, 42 Mich. 141-. 802 Semples v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163--. 31 Sentney v. Overton, 4 Bibb, 445_ 1271 Sergeant v. Ewing, 36 Pa. 156_.. 734 Serle v. Norton, 2 Mood. & Rob. AQ eg emccnaceees 1228 Serrecold ». Hampson, Lofft, 372 219 Serviss 2. eee, 30 Ohio St. Sia renner cieaynere 238, 256 Sessions v. The, 9N. H. 271__. 3876 .Setchel ». Keigwin, 57 Conn. 473 835 Seton v. Hanham, R. M. Charlt. S142. eo caewenemen ace Sever v. Russell, 4 Cush. 5138, 50 Am. Dec. Severn v. Olive, 3 Brod. & B. 72. Sevier 2. Greenway, 19 Ves. Jr. 216 348 266 1319 207 Sewall v. Gikts, 1 Hall, 602_.... %. Sewall, 122 Mass. 156_- Sewell v. Corp., 1 Car. & P. 392. 280 vo. Evans, 4 Q. B. 626_-.-- 1297 ». McDonald, 58 Miss. 251 1242 », Watson, 31 La. Ann. 589 Seymore v. Farrell, 51 Mo. 95 278, Seymour 2. oes Abb. App. 1138 ». Delancey, 6 Johns, Ch. 225, 2. L. ed. 108...__- v. Delancy, 8 Cow. 445 966, 967 ». Marvin, 11 Barb. 80.... 39 . Micey, 15 Ohio St. 515 273 ». Seymour, 4 Johns. Ch. 409, 1 L. ed. 885..-216, 242 ». Wilson, 14 N. Y. 567 952, 1803 e 721 |. TABLE OF CASES. Bhackelton!. ov. New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co., 87 Miss. 202......------ 27 Shackleton v. Lawrence, 65 Ill. Wb swscnsseceesececey 1312 Shadburn ». Jinnings,1 A. K. Marsh. 179 __.-..---- 733 Shadock 2. Alpine Pl. Road Co., 19 Mich, Tocesceccese 803 Shafer v. Ferguson, 1 West. Rep. 129, 103 Ind. 90____919, 924 Shaftsbury 2. ‘Arrowsmith, 4 Ves. Jr. 71 sear nae lerciatsinse 247 Shain v. Forbes, 83 Cal. 577____- 108 Shall ». Biscoe, 18 Ark, 142..... 724 Shamburgh v. Commagere, 10 Mart. O. S. 139 _..._- 1143 Shank 2. Butsch, 28 Ind. 20----.. 341 Shanks 2. Lancaster, 5 Gratt. 110 404 Shapley v. Abbott, 42 N. Y. 448. 712 Sharkey 2. Sharkey. 47 Mo. 543. 265 Sharon v. Gager, 46 Conn. 189_. 965 v. Minnock, 6 Nev. 3877... 711 Sharp 2. Johnson, 81 Beav. 22 Ark. 79.2 vecseswesis 1092 ». Leach, 31 Beav. 491.... 1072 ©. New York, 40 Barb. 270 668 ». Smith, 7 Rich. L. 8-... 456 v. Smitherman, 85 Ill. 1538 225 Sharpe v. Johnston, 59 Mo. 557 1062 v. Speir, 4 Hill, 76_..1276, 1285 Shattuck ». Gay, 45 Vt. 87..__.- 300 ® Rand, 142 Mass. 83, 2 New Eng. Rep. 372__. 1119 . Train, 116 Mass. 296... 351 Shaver v. McCarthy, 1 Cent. Rep. 142, 110 Pa. 839.....- 1085 Shaw ». Beebe, 35 Vt. 205....707, 717 v. Boston & W. R. Corp., 8 Gray, 45__...-.-.---- 1105 ». Bradley, 59 Mich. 199._ 1080 ~. Broom, 4 Dowl. & R. Wi BOr ate deo emma ee ee 455 v. Charlestown, 2Gray, 107 336 v. Emery, 42 Me. 59__.-_- 639 v. Erskine, 43 Me. 871..-- 265 ». Mason, 10 Kan. 188.... 151 » Moore, 4 Jones, L. 25.. 549 2% Simpson, 1 Ld. Raym. UGA 2t ooo oe setaeleeme 221 2. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 1 Am. Rep. 115..273, 25, 876 ». State, 56 Ind. 188___... 28 v. State, 3 Sneed, 86_.___- 39 », Stewart, 48 Kan. 572__. 1080 v. Van Rensselaer, 60 How, Pe a8 ose ed 1072 Shealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 411. 600 Shearer e Corbin, 1 McCrary, Cae caine agate tee 1282 %, Sere 7 Blackt. 99._... 1094 » Woodburn, 10 Pa. 512. 1290 TABLE OF CASES. Shearman 2. New York Cent. Mills, 1 Abb. Pr. L87_ Shed v. Augustine, 14 Kan. 282_ Sheehan v. Albany & B. Turnp. Co. 28 N. Y. 8. R. 20 Sheehy o. Hinds, 27 Minn. 259-- ». Mandeville, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 208, 3 L. ed. 317 Sheetz v. Kirtley, 62 Mo. 417_..- Sheirburn ». DeCordova, 65 U. S. 24 How. 423,16 L. ed. 137 42 696 1279 504 216 Shelburne v. Inchiquin, 1 Bro. Ch. 838_.-298, 299, 302, 303 Shelby 2. Clagett, He Ry Aa 606, 46 Ohio St. 549.. 357 . Governor, 2 Blackf. 289 470 © Smith, 2 A. K. Marsh. 504 Sheldon ». Ferris, 45 Barb. 124. 1222 v. Payne, TN. Y. 453 .... 220 ®. White, 35 Me. 233... _- 721 ». Wood, 2 Bosw. 269 _... 152 Shelhamer v. Thomas, 7 Serg. & R. 106 Sesto te 228, 450 Shell 2. Boyd, 82.8. C. 859___._. 542 Shelley v. Austin, 74 Tex. 608... 364 »v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74, 39 Shelton 2. Cocke, 3 Munf,. 191_- ». Johnson, 4 Sneed, 672 ®. State, 34 Tex. 662___._- v. Tiffin, 47 U. 8. 6 How. 168, 12 L. ed. 387_... Shenandoah Valley. R. Co. o. 950 483 207 330 209 Griffith, 76 Va. 9138._. 734 Shepard 2. Giddings, 2 Conn. 282 174 ». Missouri Pac. R. Co., 85 Mo: 629 cc ceccceme 1078 #. Potter, 4 Hill, 286.___.- 581 ». Pratt, 16 Kan. 209____- 1159 v% Shepard, 86 Mich. 179_. pnephenty ee 5 Barn. & Ald. 303 1319 0. Mie 4 Beav. 252_.-. 1183 0. Nabors, 6 Ala. 631 64 ». Pybus, 3 Man. & G. 868 1313-1315 ». White, 11 Tex. 346___-. 1005 Shepley 2. siatethouse, 22 Me. icone *Wilidne, 1 Ala. 62.. 836 Sherburne v. Shaw, 1 N. H. 157_ 1263 Sheridan v. Houghton, 6 Abb. N. C. 284, 16 Hun, 628, aff'd 84 N. Y. 648... 1209 ®. Medara, 10 N. J. Eq. 469, 64 Am. Dec. 464. 1159 . New York, 68 N. Y. 30 175 Sherlock v. Alling, 44 Ind. 184. 1097 Sherman v. Crosby, 11 Johns. 70 228 ®. Fitch, 98 Mass, 59 963 K elxi Sherman 9. Hogland, 73 Ind. 472 961 Sherman’s App., 16 Abb. Pr. 397, TOC ces Sank ate ms 204 Sherman Center Town Co. a. Swi- gart, 43 Kan. 292__..- 140 Sherwood ». Ruggles, 2 Sandf. 55 1228 ». Sutton, 5 Mason, 143... 1267 Thomasson, 124 Ind. 541 659 Shewalter = Bergman, 123 Ind. 1088 v. Guffey, 9 Iowa, 322_..- o. Stark, 14 Ga. 429 683 844 BEEK ». Bulloch, 18 Ga. 283. Shoe & Leather Nat. Bank 2. Wood, 3 New Eng. Rep. 118, 142 Mass. 567 Shoemaker »v. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176 1141 483 1098 1235 695 180 410 674 v. Lacey, 88 Iowa, 277.--- ». Simpson, 16 Kan. 43__.. ». Smith, 80 Iowa, 655_..- Shoenberger v. Hackman, 37 Pa. BC socket easels Shook v. Pate, 50 Ala. 91 Short 7. McRea, 4 Minn. 119..-- ». Woodward, 18 Gray, 86 1006 Short Staple, The, 1 Gall. 104... 769 Shorter 2. Sheppard, 38 Ala. 648 1017 Shott v. Strealfield, 1 Mood. & M. Shotwell v. Hamblin, 23 Miss. 156 222 v. Murray, 1 Jobns. Ch. 512, 1 L. ed. 227-___- ®. Smith, 20 N. J. Eq. 79- ob, 247, 248 Showman ». Miller, 6 Md. 485.. | 302 Shrewsbury ». Boylston, 1 Pick. LOD icrtiaieiats a ssenarcieenareres Shriver v. State, 3 Cent. Rep. 230, 65 Md. 278_...-_---. 96 Shropshire v. Reno, 5 J. J. Marsh. 91__..--_.-.. 1197 », State, 12 Ark. 190___... Shuford a. Shingler, 30 S. C. 612 Shughart v. Moore, 78 Pa. 469_- Shulman 2. Brantley, 50 Ala. 81_ Shultz v, Hoagland, 85 N. Y. 467 Shuman »v, Shuman, 27 Pa. 90__- Shumway ». Phillips, 22 Pa. 155 ». Reed, 34 Me. 560 ». Stillman, 6 Wend. 447- 201, o. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292... Shutte o. Thompson, 82 U. 8. 15 a 151, 21 L. ed. 20 Ke eeeaeamemheeena 724 282 111 971 414 914 71 1180 209 elxii Shuttleworth », Winter, 55N. Y. O28 J ececcscce 989, 990, 993 Sias v. Badger, 6 N. H. 393__-_. 221 Sibbet 2. aula 3 L. T. N.S. a Sibila v. Bahney, 34 Ohio St. 399 670 Sibley 2. Smith, 2 Mich. 486.... 1280 o. Smith, 46 Ark. 275...-- 1074 2 Waffle, 16 N. Y.180_.. 644 Sichel 2. Lambert, 15 C. B. N. 8. Sickles 0. Mather, 20 Wend. 72. 815, 830 Sidekum o. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 10 West. Rep. 277, 93 Mo. 400, 30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. G40 co eweteeeemesse 1078 Sidgier v. Birch, 9 Ves. Jr. 69... 655 Sidgreaves ». Myatt, 22 Ala. 617 658 Sidney School Furniture Co, 2. Warsaw School Dist., 122 Pa. 494 Sigfried 0. Levan, 6 Serg. 308 8,9 Am. Dew 427__ 611, 857, 1150 Sill v. Leslie, 16 Ind. 236____- 271, 272 ». Reese, 47 Cal. 294_..-_- Sillick 2. Booth, 1 Younge & C, Silliman »v. Tuttle, 45 Bar. 175_. Sillivant 0. Reardon, 5 Ark. 140- Silver o. Kansas City, St. L. & C. R. Co., 3 West. Rep. 284, 21 Mo. App. 88_- Silverthorne v. Troxall (N. J.) 10 Cent. Rep. 883_------ Silverton First Nat. Bank v. Wal- ton, 5 L. R. A. 765, 18 Simanovich 2. Wood, 5 New Eng. Rep. 190, 145 Mass. 973 287 781 216 136 905 826 % Goodall 1 New Eng. Rep. 839, 63 N. H. 458 Green, 35 Ohio St. 104. Law, 3 Keyes, 217_-__. . New Bedford, V. & N. 8. B. Co., 97 Mass. 361 ». Trumbo, 9 W. Va. 858. 39 Simms a. Smith, 11 Ga. 198____- 291 », Southern Exp. Co., 38 Ga 120. oa eco 38 1123 ess Simon ®. Merritt, 88 Iowa, 537_. Simonton v. Winter, 80 U. 8. 5 Pet. 141, 8 L. ed. 75.. 109 Simpkins v. Rogers, 15 IH, 3898.. 424 ». Smith, 94 Ind. 470__... 420 Sinpion, Re, 56 How. Pr. 125... 1209 Dall, 70 U. 8.8 Wall. 460, 18 L. ed. 265_.159, 161, 174 TABLE OF CASES. Simpson v, Del Hoyo, 94 N. Y. 189 peeaaner ahead ts otha 726 v Dis 181 Mass, 179_--_. 466 v. Geddes, 2 Bay, 533_---- 483 o. Hart, 14 Johns, 68____. 230 ». Howden, 3Myl.&C.¥7_ 968 ». Mundee, 3 Kan. 181_... 224 a. Norton, 45 Me. 281.... 216 ». Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 44 Cal. 141_.-._...-.. 785. ». Pearson, 31 Ind. 1_-...-. 722, ». Westenberger, 28 Kan. 756, 42 Am. Rep. 196. 1242, 1248, 1248 Simpson’s Will, 2 Redf. 29_.____ 1204 Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U.S. 300, 26 L. ed. 87--.-.--.-- 728 ». Gaines, 64 Ala. 392__264, 265 ® Hundley, 47U. 8.6 How. 1,12 L. ed. 319_.____ o. Sims, 75 N. ¥.466_584,556, 558 Sinclair ». Baggalay, 4 Mees. & 312 Somiekeme nce 238 ». Wood, 3 Cal. 98_____.. 1156 Sinclair’s Case, 2 Lew. 49____... 72 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 28 We Vay VW6e not: cos ss 15 ». Forsythe, 6 West. Rep. 553, 108 Ind. 334__... 287 ®. Rawson, 50 Iowa, 6384.. 965 Singleton ». St. on Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Mo. 68___._-.- 1001 » Scott, 11 Iowa, 589_____ 1186 Sioux City & P. R.Co. 2. Finlay- son, 16 Neb. 578, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 68 1074 Sir Parkyn’s Will, 6 Dow. 202.. 407 Sise ». Drew, 18 N. H. 409.-.__. 981 Sissions 2. Dixon, 5 Barn. & C.758 1095 Sisson v. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489____.___- 1308 Sistermans . Field, 9 Gray, 331 124, 1142. Sisters of Charity 2. Keity, 67 N. Y. 409, rev’g 7 Hun, 200 ste samemtas asain 1210 Sizer o. Burt, 4 Denio, 426_____- 354 Skaife ». Jackson, 3 Baro. & C. deh nisiateieane eliomlenuas 231 Skeel 2. Boe? anno 189, 4 ed. 895 __ 12. 055. Skillet o. Fister, . R.2 C. P. 469 iusto aetee cre 1150. Skillman ®. Sai a 1 N. J. Eq. bec is tell Sch ceas cenans 297 Skinner v. Cae 36 Iowa, 91.. 1138 2. Great Northern R. Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 289_... 486 v. Harrison Twp., 2 L, R. A. 187, 116 Ind. 189.. 42 ®. Miller, 5 Litt. 84..-_ 2. 266 ». Perot, 1 Ashm. 57_____- 555 ». White, 17 Johns. 367-.. 229 TABLE OF CASES. Skowhegan Bank ». Outler, 49 Me. 815 881 Slacom 2. Wishart. 3 McLean, 517 1122 Slade v. Nelson, 20 Ga. 365___-- 819 Slade’s Case, 4 Coke, O 2 esas 739 Slagel ». Murdock, 65 Mo. 522.. 711 Slattery v. People, 76 Ill. 217... 469 Slauson v. Englehart, 34 Barb. 198 127 Slawson v. Loring, 5 Allen, 340. 270 Slayton 0. Chester, 4 Mass. 478... 221 Sleator 2. Richardson, 14 West. Rep. 481, 69 Mich. 478 361 Sledge o. Scott, 56 Ala. 202__... 333 Slee 2. Bloom, 20 Johas. 669.211, 8388 Sleeght o. Rhinelander, 1 Johns. Sleeper 2. Ven Middlesworth, 4 Denio, 481..__. 66, 630, 640 Sleght 2. Hartshorne, 2 Johns. 531 904 Slim 2. os 1 DeG. F. & J. maw icanaeceeemes 716 Sloan 2. a 61 Md..89__.. 689 e. Grimshaw, 4 Houst.(Del.) BDO ie ice pu acierwivoeioeieie 822 vo. Maxwell, 3 N. J. Eq. 663 oc cee eaees < 355 v. New York Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 125... _... 626 v. Union Bkg. Co., 67 Pa. AO 22 crac tees 128, 124 Sloan Saw Mill & L. Co. ». Gutt- shall, 8 Colo. 8_.-...- 150 Slocovich v. Oriental Mut. Ins, Co , 10 Cent. Rep. 456, 108 N. Y. 56_.__.- 352, 360 Slocum ». Marshall, 2 Wash. C. Oe Bheccmccceeeecinea 1098 v. Perkins, 3 Serg. &©R. 295 485 ». Riley, 5 New Eng. Rep. 279, 145 Mass. B10... 138 Slocumb» Holmes, 1 How. (Miss.) 139 Small 2. Hodgen 1 Litt, 15...218, 222 Smalley v. Appleton, 75 Wis. 18. 356 v. Edey, 19 Ill. 207__-.... 739 v. Hale, 37 Mo. 102_--____ 953 ». Hendrickson, 29 N. J. L. Oe cere creleiiya =i eretaaree 1006 ». Iowa Pac. R. Co., 36 Towa, 571_.....---... 336 Smets v. Plunkett, 1 Strobh. L. Biase aeetioe 1242, 1246, 1248 Smiley v. Py 1 Cent. Rep. 510, - 100 N. Y, 262.-.-__.- 1269 ». Gambill, 2 Head, 164__. 1195 Smilie ». Biffle, 2 Pa. 52, 44 Am. Dec. 156 ssccncnccaninn 1270 Smith v. Allen, 1 N. J. Hq. 48... 260 » Allis, 52 Wis. 837.-.308, 804 Smith 2, v. v. s s 3 sessees Ss ssses esesesese Arnold, 5 Mason, 414_.. 1264 Axtell, 1 N. J. Eq. 494. 164 . Battens, 1 Mood. & R. B48 hosts wae wces 238 . Beach. 3 Day, 268____. 1804 . Bell, 31 U. 8. 6 Pet. 75, 8 L. ed. 825___. 2-22. 286 . Benson, 1 Hill, 176__._. 1233. . Bettger, 68 Ind. 254, 34 Am. Rep. 256_-.....- 1095. . Bodine, 74 N. Y. 80.... 1159 . Bolles, 182 U. 8. 125, 38 L. ed. 279_..-----.--- 973 . Boston & M. R. Co., 44 Ni Hy 826 2222 cee an 1107 . Boyer, 29 Neb. 76_-___. 486 . Braine, 3 Eng. L. & Eq. 123, 124, 1124, 1227 . British & N. A. R.M.S. Packet Co., 14 Jones & 8. 86 1099 983 1178 . Burnham, 8 Sumn. 435, O12 eoeceestens 1156, 1183 . Carter, 25 Wis. 288-274, 1189 . Carrington, 8 U.S. 2 Cranch, 62, 2 L. ed. 550 . Chester, 1 T. R. 654_ 458, 460 4 Childress, 27 Ark. 328__ 274, 1189 . Clark, o Palge, 368, 3 L. ed. 473 --- 222 ee 1177 : God 17 Wis. 556.. 808 . Collins, 5 Watts, 505... 236 . Collins, 115 Mass. 388__ 1154 Com., 1 Duvall, 224.... 1083 . Corcoran, 7 La. 46__.__ 1278 Cremer, 71 Ill. 185.__.- 225 Crescent City, L. S. L. & 8. H. Co., 80 La. Ann. 1878... ...__- . Croom, 7 Fla. 81 Crosby, 47 Wis. 160.._. 268 . Cushing, 18 Wis. 295... 780 . Davies, 7 Car. & P, 807_ 1095. a 3N_Y. Civ. Proc. pesctereesecemcmeee 845 Dita, 34N. Y. 8. RB. Pl ee ee 377. men 54 Md. 18832... 1018 ; Fellows, 9 Jones & §.37 992 . Fenner, 1 Gall. 170 _... 852 . Flournoy, 47 Ala. 345.. 41 Ford, 48 Wis. 145_....- 724 Fr st, TON. Y. 65__._- 673 Gibbs, 44 N. H. 335..255, 279 . Graves, 25 Ark, 458.... 1284 elxiv Smith ». gsss sss es esseseses 8 s see eee TABLE OF CASES. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R.2C. P. 10 ---.---- . Greley, 14 N. H. 378.260, 3804 . Griffith, 3 Hill, 333, 38 Am. Dec. 639 _...-_-- 1156 . Heidecker, 88 Mo. 157-_- 981, 984 . Hemstreet, 54 N. Y. 644 733 . Henderson, 9 Mees. & W. 19S ieee semen Sree 1297 . Henry, 2 Bail. L. 118-.. 602 . Hill, 45 Vt. 90, 12 Am. Rep: 189222: Saas 1161 . Hodson, 4 T. R. 211, 2 Smith, Lead. Cas. (4th Am. ed.) 81____------ 947 . Holland, 61 N. Y. 6385__ 2838 . Hornback, 38 A. K. Marsh. 392 _.._.--- 218, 221 . Hulett, 65 Ill, 495___.-- 445 James, 72 Iowa, 515... 921 . Jordan, 18 Minn. 264__- 297, 300, 401 Kay, 7 H. L. Cas. 750_. 972 King, 81 Ind. 217_--.-- 722 Knight, 71 Ill. 148 --__- 1160 Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191 76, 77, 1222 Livingston, 111 Mass. 342 456, 1123 Maben, 42 Minn. 516_._ 1061 McCann, 65 U. S. 24 How. 398, 16L.ed.714 913 . Macdonald, 52 How. Pr. 117, 1 Abb. N. C. 350 243 . McLean, 24 Iowa, 322__ 1285 McDougal, 2 Cal. 586-. 90 . Mackin, 4 Lans. 46__. _- 298 Marsack, 6 C. B. 486... 460 Mayer, 3 Colo. 207 ____- 118 . Morrell, 54 Me. 48__..- 1137 . Moynihan, 44 Cal. 58-258, 295 Munice Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 158_.-._--.---- 65, 458 . Natchez Steamboat Co., 1 How. (Miss.) 479.... 889 Nevlin, 89 I]. 198 __... 136 New York Cent. R. Co., 48 Barb, 225......._. 67 . Noe, 80 Ind. 117.._._.- 221 . Odom, 68 Ga. 499______ 256 . Old Colony & N. R.Co., 10 RL. 22 ccccccescn 509 . Patterson, 14 West. Rep. 757, 95 Mo. 525 _.._.- 482 ; Penn, 22 Gratt. 402_____ 90 f People, 25 Til. 24__..-.. 868 t i ale Bank, 24 Me. MBO sae eo apes eset 267 . Peterson, 68 Ind, 248... 65 . Porter, 10 Gray, 66._._. 288 : Portland, 380 Fed. Rep. TBA iia sarcasm 671 Smith v. Robertson, 23 Ala. 312_ 963, 964 ». Sac County, 78 U. 8. 11 Wall. 189, 20 L. ed. 109) 2 ee bias 128, 1127 ». Sandford, 12 Pick. 139_-_ 814, 830 v, Sasser, 5 Jones, L. 888_ 795 . Schanck, 18 Barb. 344._ 456 . Shane, 1 McLean, 22__- 1178, 1179 », Shoemaker, 84 U. 8. 17 Wall. 680, 21 L. ed. ec Ml reetrcimeces see ae 93, 760 ». Smith, a Paige, 432, 3 L. ed. 502 __-._.-.-----. 66 ®. saith Pf Pa,, 86722222 958 ® Smith, 49 Ala. 156__.77, 1223 ». Smith, 4 Harr. (Del.) 532 826 v. Smith, 60 Wis. 329.___- 111 ». Smith, 2 Me. 408______- 693 v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276_-__- 40 v. Speer, 34 N. J. Eq. 336. 993 v. State, 9 Humph. 9 ____. 413 ». Stevens, 82 Ill. 554_.... 42 v. Tallapoosa County, 2 Woods, 574._.._____. 16 ». Tarlton, 2 Barb. Ch. 336, 5 L. ed. 665.....__... 1161 v. Taylor, 56 Ga. 292____- 1149 e . Thompson, 1 Cow. 221_ 787 . United States, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 292, 8 L. ed. 180. 194 s v. United States, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 219, 17 L. ed.788 859 ». Wait, 4 Barb. 28__..___ 1194 ». Walton, 8 Gill, 77_..848, 344 ». Ward, 2 Root, 374.____ 428 v. Weld, 2 Pa. 54._._____- 853 o. Western U. Teleg. Co., 83 Ky. 104__.- 222 Le 1022 2. Williams, 1 Murph. 426, 4 Am. Dec. 564____.. 263 v ve 8 Barn. & Ad. ieeetedsecatased 279, 904 ®. gee 59 Ind. 362______. 1095 Smith’s App., 52 Mich. 415_____ 111 Smith’s Will, Re, 52 Wis. 548___ 1086 Smither, Re, 30 ‘Hun, 632...... 994 Smithson 2. United States Tele. Co., 29 Md. 167. ____. 1082 Smyth 2. Jeffries, 9 Price, 257... 148 Smythe 2. Banks, 4 U. 8.4 Dall. 829, 1 L. ed. 854..__.- 655 v. Scott, 3 West. Rep. 750, 106 Ind. 245...._.._. 921 Snell 2. keine” F & M. Ins. oe 98 U. 8. 85, 25 L. d. 58 Raietensceee 90, 299, 301 Snelling 2. Viterhack, 1 Bibb, ‘609, 4 Am. Dec. Lit) eee 292 TABLE OF CASES, Snider v. Croy, 2 Johns. 227_.218, 739 ®. State, 81 Ga. 753...._.- 28 Snodgrass v. Branch Bank at De- catur, 25 Ala. 161_... 1267 Snook v. Snetzer, 25 Ohio St. 516 983 Snow 2. Boston & M. R. Co., 65 Mie 280 secon se aege 336 ». Grace, 29 Ark. 181.__-. 641 v. Paine, 114 Mass. 520_-. 952 Snydacker v. Brosse, 51 Tl. 357. 840 Snyder ». Andrews, 6 Barb. 48._ 501 ». Bowman, 4 Watts, 132. 236 v. Findley, ‘LN. J. 1. 48.. 282 v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co., 111 W. Va. 14 1103 v. Riley, 6 Pa, 164, 47 Am. Dec. 452__.-.--- 1126, 1127 v. Snyder, 6 Binn. 483, 488 988 vo. Warbasse, 11 N. J. Eq. v. Wilt, 15 Pa. 59...-_.-- Society Prop. Gosp. ». Young, 2 N. H. 310 Socola v. Chess-Carley Co., 39 La. Ann. 344 Soles » Hickman, 20 Pa. 10_.._ 1264 Solomon v, Hughes, 24 Kan. 211 36 v. Underhill, 1 Campb. 229 654 Solyer v. Romanet, 52 Tex. 562._ 48 Sommers 2. Mississippi & T. R. Co., 7 Lea, 201__----- Somerville 2. Wimbish, 7 Gratt. 205 Somerville & E. R. Co. v. Dough- ty, 22 N. J. L. 495.601, 6038 Sorrell », Carpenter, 2 P. Wm. AG Siete ona ares Sourwine »%. Claypoo! (Pa.) 21 Pittsb. L. J. N. 8.146 478 South v. Thomas, 7 T. B. Mon. 59 1271 South & North Ala. R. Co. ». Pilgreen, 62 Ala. 305. 28 v. Thompson, 62 Ala. 497_ 1100 ». Wood, 74 Ala. 449__-__ 31 South Bend v. Hardy, 98Ind.577 614 South Berwick »v. Huntress, 53 Me. 89_-._------- 857, 1150 Southard v. Rexford, 6 Cow. 255 594, 652, 862 Southern California Lumber Co. ». Schmitt, 74 Cal. 625 1082 Southern Development Co. v. Sil. va, 125 U.S. 247, 31L. Southern Exp. Co. v. Caldwell, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 267, 22 % Seide, 67 Miss. 609__-.- ». Thornton, 41 Mass. 216 3 0, 348 Southern Kansas R. Co. »v. Hins- dale, 88 Kan. 507----- ». Robbins, 48 Kan. 145.363, 695 elxv Southern L. Ins. Co. v, Wilkinson, 53 Ga. 585_______-- 458, 952 South Ottawa». Perkins, 94 U. 8. 260, 24 L. ed. 154.--. 195 South School Dist. v. Blakeslee, 18 Conn, 227_....-..- South Sea Co. v. Wymondsell, 3 P. Wins, 148....__--- 1267 Southwestern F. & C. Press Co. v. Stanard, 44 Mo. 71_. 276, 277, 279 Southwick »v. First Nat. Bank, 61 How. Pr. 170.....--- 663 ». Hayden, 7 Cow. 334.147, 231 ». McGovern, 28 Iowa, 543 1157 ». Southwick, 49N. Y.510 806 Southworth vo. Hoag, 42 Ill. 446. 118 Spain v. Brent, 68 U. 8. 1 Wall. 604, 17 L. ed. 619_._- 1805 Spann v. Baltzell, 1 Fla. 801, 46 Am. Dec. 360__._-- 831, 894° Sparks v. Pittman, 51 Miss. 511.. 300 o. Rawls, 17 Ala. 211... 2. 88 Sparling v. Marks, 86 Ill. 125__- 1310, 1812 Spatz v. Lyons, 55 Barb. 476__._ 411 Spaulding v. Strang, 36 Barb. 310, 82 Barb. 285, 37 N. Y. 185, 38 N. Y. 9_.._925, 951 Speake v. Prewitt, 6 Tex. 258___ 1156 Speck v. Gurnee, 25 Hun, 644.__ 995 Spear v. Ditty, 8 Vt. 419_-..__._ 1278 v. Hart, 8 Robt. 420_____- 277 ». Richardson, 84 N. H. 429. oo demos ccuee 354 Spears v. Burton, 31 Miss. 554... 76 ». Forrest, 15 Vt. 487____- 1243 o. Toland, 1 A. K. Marsh. 208, 10 Am, Dec. 722. 1161 Speer 2. Bishop, 24 Ohio St. 598. 670 Spelman v. Aldrich, 126 Mass.117 995 ». Curtenius, 12 Il. 409... 1288 Spence v. Sanders, 1 Bay, 119.._ 815 Spenceleyv. De Willott,7 East, 198 592, 598, 683 v. Schulenberg. 7 East, 357, 8 Smith, 825-_.__--_- 648 Spencer ». Ayrrult, 10 N. Y. 202 289 ». Brockway, 1 Ohio, 260- 208, 209 ». Buchanan, Wright (Ohio) 583 Scabe aieaeeeasnens 1150 0. ee 45 N. Y. 406__._- 725 v. Curtis, 57 Ind. 221____. a4 ». Roper, 13 Ired. L. 383.. 77 ». Spencer. 9 R. I. 162..._ 1054 v. Tilden, 5 Cow. 144____- 255 Sperry 2. Spaulding, 45 Cal. 544 124, 1126, 1127 Spicer v. Slade, 9 Johns. 359... 1289 Spiers 2. Halstead, 71 N.C. 209_. 844 Spies v. Ilinois, 123 U. 8. 181, at L. ed. 80 elxvi Spies 7. People, 10 West. Rep. 701, 122 Tl. 1,3 Am. St. Rep.320.864,866,872, 1010 Spiker v. Nydegger, 30 Md. 315. 753 Spitler v. James, 32 Ind. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 334 __..856, 1129 Splabn ». Gillespie, 48 Ind. 397_ 220 Spofford », Smith, 59 N. H. 866. 216 Spooner 2. se gmnaings, 151 Mass. 313 316 ». Holmes, 102 Mass. 503. 456 Spottiswood v. Weir, 80 Cal. 448 779, 784 Sprague v. Bailey, 19 Pick. 486.. 1290 ». Craig, 51 Ill. 288__-.-_- v. Duel, 11 Paige, 480, 2 L. Gy 200 cio teceenecee ». Duel, Olas Ch. 93, 7 L, ed. 6 1086 v. Pitt, MoCaboa, 212__.. 1283 Spratt vo. Spratt, 76 Mich. 384... 802 Sprigg v. Moale, 28 Md. 497-509 415, 1222 1266 Spring o. Gray, 5 Mason, 523_-- v. Lovett, 11 Pick. 417... 1148 34 mpugnele a Worcester, 2 Cush. Springfield ® & M. Ins. Co, 2. Sea, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 158, 22 L. ed. 511-_-. Spring Garden Mut. Ins. Co. 2. Evans, 15 Md. 54._-- Springhead Spinning Co. ». Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. 551-- Springs v. Harven, 3 Jones, Eq. 96 Sprowl v. Lawrence, 38 Ala. 674 Spurgeon v. Collier, 1 Eden, 58_- Spurlock 2. Sproule, 72 Mo. 509- ». West, 80 Ga. 302.__-_- Spurr 2. Thrimble, 1A. K.Marsh. 218 we ecceeeseeeees 77, 1223 Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459_____ 90 2 Whitton, 1H. L.Cas. 333 1151 Squire’s App., 70 Pa, 266____..- 292 Squires ». Amherst, 5 New Eng. Rep. 148, 145 Mass. 199 317 ». Brown, 22 How. Pr. 35 210, 211 Stack ». Beach, 74 Ind. 571_._.. 1138 Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 27 270 Stacy v. Graham, 3 Duer, 444... 623 Stadt v. i it Campb. 242, 9 East, Stafford ». ae 1 Paige, 239, 2 L. ed. 531, 8 Wend. 552 doe 231, 1177 ®. Clerk, 2 Bing. 882._... 734 ®. Rubens, 1 West. ; 640, 115 Ill, 196__.. 2. Stalker 2. Cau 12. N. Y. Leg. Obs, 124 -..------- 161, 242 TABLE OF CASES. Stall ». Meek, 70 Pa. 181_.-__- 452, 487 Stamper 2. Griffin, 12 Ga. 450___ 608 Stanberry v. Nelson, Wright (Ohio) 966 Jone sans see Ok 27 Stanbery 2. Silion, 13 Ohio St. 571 1282 Standard Oil Co. v. Van Etten, 107 U. 8. 325, 27 L. ed. Standen v. Standen, 6 T. R. 331, note 4, Peake, N. P. 32 Stanfield a. Stilz, 98 Ind. 249___. Stanford 2. Mangin, 30 Ga. 355_- Stanley v. Stanley, 26 Me. 191__- v. State, 26 Ala. 30.._.___ Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 N.Y. 520 o oe Morris (Lowa) 124 Stanton o. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548. 23 L. ed. 983__.._. 830, 531 ». Hodges, 6 Vt. 64_._____ Stanwood v. McLellan, 48 Me. 275 758 Stape v. People, 85 N. Y. 390... 642 Stapler v. Burns, 43 Ga. 382-274, 1140 Staples v.Smith, 48 Me.470. 715, 977, 954 2 Wellington, 58 Me. 453. ' 560 Starbuck 2. Murray, 5 Wend. 148 199, 205, 208, 1180 Starin 0. alloy 15 Jones & 8. 288, d88 N.Y. 418.... 781 Staring 2. ee 6 Barb. 109_._. 1216 Stark 2. Boswell, 6 Hill, 405_.439, 486 499 84 952 913 v Henderson, 30 ‘Ala. 438. 963 Stark Bank v. United States Pot- tery Co., 34 Vt. 144._ 66 Starke 2. Littlepaige, 4 Rand. 368 959 Starks v. People, 5 Denio, 106___ 630 Starr ». Peck, 1 Hill, WO ccceae 64, 65 2. Torrey, 22N. J. _L. 190. 1020 Starratt 0. Mullen, 2 L. R. A. 697, 148 Mass. 570.._.___. 119 State v. Ackerson, 25 N. J. L. 209 218, 222 ». Ah Loi, 5 Nev. 99..__. 411 v. Allen, 1 Hawks, 6_____. 343 vo. Anderson, 92 N. C. 732. 868 e. Arnold, 13 Ired. L. 184. 412 ». Arthur, 23 Iowa, 430___ 796 v. Babcock, 1 Conn. 401_. 786 » Bacon, 41 Vt. 526, 98 Am. Dec. 616_._..... 758 v. Bailey, 16 Ind, 46_____- 34 2. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1.752, 1252 ». Baltimore & O. R. Co., 24 Md. 84__.....2.__. 1108 v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65.... 17 %. Barton, 19 Mo. 227. .... 786 0. Bell, 65 N. C. 813___._- 1265 2. Bell’ Teleph.Co., 36 Ohio St. 296, 88 Am, Rep. OSS oe ee cela 428, 1800 ». Benner, 64 Me. 267.00. 582, 599, 609, 633 TABLE OF OASES. State vo. Bennett, 75 N.C. 805... 88 ». Benoit, 16 La. Ann. 273 5538 0. Bilansky, 3 Minn. 246_.. 653 ®. Bloom, 68 ae §4.__... 1250 » sesesssesss es s e 8 eee es es eeesee e¢segeee sssesses Rep. 7384_.......----- Boothe, 68 Mo. 546 ..'786, 737 . Boswell, 2 Dev. L. 209 - 629, 680 Bowen, 16 Kan. 475__.. 18 Bowles, 7 Jones, L. 579. 82 Brannon, 45 Mo. 329... 786 Broadway, 69 N.C. 411 85 Brooks, 39 La. Ann. 817 357 Brookshire, 2 Ala. 808_. 658 Bruce, 24 Me. 72_. 1248, 1249 Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 274 40 Brunetto, 18 La. Ann, 45 349 Bryant, 12 West. Rep. 334, 98 Mo. 273_-.... Se 35 La. Ann. i Crave, 79 Iowa, 4382. 3864 . Candler, 3 Hawks, 393_. 555, 558 . Carr, 21 N. H. 166_.._. 782 . Center, 35 Vt. 878...412, 413 . Central N. J. Telephone Co. (N. J) 11 L. R.A, Obl esrc ene teas sae 1298 Chee Gong, 16 Or. 584__ 609 Clay, 100 Mo. 571__..-- 102 Clevelund, 80 Mo. 108.. 27 Cobb, 64 ‘Ala. 197... 1122 Collins, 3 Dev. L. 117_. 629 Colwell, 3 R. I. 182_... 756 Cooper, 101 N. C. 684.. 43 Crittenden, 88 La. Ann. WABs SAR eed cee 652 Crowell, 25 Me. 174.... 148 Dahl, 65 Wis. 510-___-- 26 Day, "100 Mo. 242..___- 918 . Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 54. 683 Delaware & A. Teleg. & Teleph. Co. (C. C. D. Del.) 10 Ry. & Corp. Li: Ji 128 ewes ceneceens 1292 . Delesdenier, 7 Tex. 76.. 84 . De Witt, 2 Hill, L. 282, 27 Am. Dec. 871-..-- 401 . DeWolf, 8 Conn. 93-556, 628 . Dolan, 12 West. Rep. 259, 93 Mo. 467_...------- 30 . Duncan, 64 Mo. 262_--- 870 . Edgerton School Dist. No. 8,7 L. R. A. 330, 16 Wis. 177...------. 43 . Edwards, 19 Mo. 674... 18 . Egan, 59 ‘Towa, 636 .689, 1244 " Bhliott, 68 N. C. 124.... 633 i Evans, 5 Jones, L. 250.. 148 . Farmer, 46 N. H. 200-. 658 Felter, 25 Iowa, 67__--- 855 elxvii State vo. Field, 14 Me. 249...._. 498 », Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236 658 ». Foote, 88 N. C.102_--. 847 ». Fox, Ga. Dec. pt.1 p. 35 787 v. Foxworthy, 29 Neb. 341 321 v, Frederick, 45 Ark. 347. 30 o, Fritz, 23 La. Ann, 55... 344 ®% Garrett, 71 N.C. 85__.. 1068 v. Givens, 5 Ala, 747__.... 343 », Glidden, 3 New Eng. Rep. 849, 55 Conn. 46. 772, 868, 869 v. Goyette, 11 R. 1.592... 28 ». Grant, 79 Mo, 118....-- 639 ». Green, Kirby (Conn.) 87 '769 ». Griffin, 98 Mo. 672_.... 923 ». Gurnee, 14 Kan.111__.. 152 » Hammet, 7 Ark, 492... 17 ». Harldw, 21 Mo. 446.... 786 ». Harper, 85 Ohio St. 78-. 412 v. Harris, 59 Mo. 50... 796 ». Harris, 12 Nev. 414_... 786 ». Harrison, 5 Jones, L.115 795 ®. Harrison, 116 Ind. 3800... 25 ov. Harston, 68 N. C. 294.. 580 ». Hartford & N. H. R.Co., 29 Conn. 538..__..-.- 429 ». Hastings, 58 N. H. 452- 332, 339, a o. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307 --.-. ». Haynes, 71 N. C. 79.--- 430 ». Heisey, 56 Iowa, 404... 1149 ». Herman, 18 Ired. L. 502, 1 Phil. Ev. 87, note... 85 », Hickerson, 72 N. C. 421 88 ». Hinkle, 6 Iowa, 380.... 351 ». Hirsh, 45 Mo. 429.____- 148 v. Holloway, 8 Blatchf. 45 562 ». Hopkins, 50 Vt. 316____ 1015 ». Horan, 82 Minn. 394, 50 Am. Rep. 583_....... 411 ». Howard, 102 Mo. 142... 478 ». Howard, 9 N. H. 485__. 1248, 1249 ». Howe, 64 Ind. 18_._... 148 v. Hoyt, 46 Conn. 830 .... 1252 %. Hudson, 50 Iowa, 157.. 870 ». Igo, 21 Mo. 459... ..-- 786 ». Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278.-..--------.. 40 v. Jackson, 89 Me. 291_... 21 ». Jackson, 35 La. Aun. 769 ag ». Jackson, 6 La. Ann. 593 ». Jacobs, 5 Jones, L, 259_ 1088 % Jarrett, 17 Md. 309____- 25, 34 ». Jim, 1 Dev. L. 508..__. 794 », Johnson, 12 Nev. 121.. 899 », Johnson, 26 Minn. 316.. 40 ». Keith, 68 N.C. 140.... 420 v. King, 78 Mo. 555__._--. 1250 v. Kingsbury, 58 Me. 239. 633 v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245.. 1250 ». Larkin, 49 N. H. 44.... 870 elxvili TABLE OF CASES. State ». Lazarus, 39 La. Ann, 142 19 ». Leach, 71 Iowa, 54_... 922 ». Leiber, 11 Iowa, 407_.-. 36 v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104___-- 538 ». Lewis, 20 Nev. 888___.- 856 », Lewis, 22 N. J. L. 564.. 59 ». Lipscomb, 52 Mo. 82... 148 », Lytle, 5 Ired. L. 58, 62. 787 ©. McAllister, 24 Me. 139__22, 47 ». McCollough, 3 Nev. 202 23 v. McCurry, 63 N. C. 38_. 797 ®. McDonald, 3 West. Rep. 758, 106 Ind. 283___.- 26 ess ess Ses ses 8 eseeese . Norris, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 438 . Pagels, 10 West. . McGee, 7 Ired. L. 377._ 1147 Madoil, 12 Fla. 151.___. 787 . Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 528____....- 1106 Marshall, 36 Mo. 400... 653 Meyers, 99 Mo. 107..219, 920 Miller, 1 Dev. & B. L. 1 a eee 786 Miller, 100 Mo. 606____- 624 Minnick, 15 lowa, 123.. 27 Mix, 15 Mo. 158__..__.- 786 Moore, 11 Ired. L. 160-. 77 Moore, 61 Mo. 279___. 1298 Morphy, 33 Iowa, 270.. 330 Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. i 412, 415, 865, 870 . Nebraska Teleph. Co., 17 Neb. 126, 52 Am. Rep. 404....428, 1299, 1300 Noland, 85 N. C. 576133, 134 Bean ceieeeeesee sees 616 O’Brien, 7 R. I. 386__.. 787 O'Connor, 18 La. Ann. 34 1149 221 800 633 633, 999 . O'Gorman, 75 Mo. 370- 721, O'Neill, 4 Mo. App. 221 Rep. 288, 92 Mo. 300__..__. Patterson, 74 N. C. 157- . Patterson, 2 Ired. L. 846 . Pepper, 31 Ind. 76_.708, 1151 . Perkins, 66 N. C. 126_. . Phair, 48 Vt. 366__...- 589 827, 749, 818, 816 . Fike, 49 N. H. 899, 6 Am. Rep. 533_.79, 349, 356 Poll, 1 Hawks (N. ©.) AAD i Sal ss eect a eccyaprn 412 . Postlewait, 14 Iowa, 446 19 . Powers, 25 Conn, 48... 26 Price, 6 La. Ann. 691.. 418 . Pugsley, 75 Iowa, 742._ 609 . Pulley, 63 N. C, 8...... 683 . Quaite, 3 West. Rep. 275, 20 Mo, App. 405_..__- 21 State ». v. ®. wv. ev. sess Sessess es eseee ese eeee seses . Stouderman, 6 La, Ann. 286 . Tall, 43 Minn. 273__ i Thawley, 4 Harr. (Del. ) 562 . Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100__-- . Thompson, 18 8. C. 588 . Thompson, 79 Lowa, 703 . Tootle, 2 Harr. . Turner, 25 La, Ann. 573 . Ward, 61 Vt. 158_._.__ . Weaver, 57 Iowa, 780.420, 871 : Whisenburst, 2 Quick, 15 Rich. L. 342. 412 Rachac, 37 Minn. 372.. 249 Randolph, 24 Conn. 363 639, 1249 Rash, 12 Ired. L. 3882.. 796 Rawls, 2 Nott. & McC. 396, 397, 753, 754, 756, 761 Reader, 60 Iowa, 527_-. 21 Reddick, 7 Kan. 143. 351, 560 Reed, 60 Me. 550_______ Richie, 28 La. Ann. 327 536, 539 Rodman, 62 Iowa, 456_. 1250 Romaine, 58 Iowa, 48... 84 Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155._ 877 -Ross, 29 Mo. 82._... 865, 871 Russell, 17 Mo. App.16. 40. Ruth, 14 Mo. App. 226. 24 Sargent, 82 Me. 429._.. 634 Schilling, 14 Iowa, 455. 19 Secrest, 80 N. C. 458... 351 Sellner, 17Mo. App. 39 40 Sherman, 42 Mo. 210... 24 Shinborn, 46 N. H. 497 752 Smith, 4 West. Rep. 103, 44 Ohio St. 349_____- Smith, 7 Vt. 141___.. 2 1249 Smith, 75 N. C. 806.138, 134 Smith, 58 Mo, 267_._... 7 Smith, 32 Me. 369._____ 330 Spence, 2 Harr. (Del.) BAO a acter os 340, 343. . Staley, 14 Minn. 105_ 632, 633 . Stallings, 2 Hayw. 300_. 630, 636 Stinson, 17 Me. 154__.. 796- -631, 624 eau, 30 Vt. 100... 623 1278 148. 30- 787 177 (Del.) 541 Twogood, 7 Iowa, 252__ Underwood, 6 Ired. L. oleh Sts eRe eRe 528 Underwood, 63 N. ©. 98 551 Ward, 39 Vt. 225-_-__832, 840 919: 2 Hawks, Whitworth, 8 Lea, 594. Wiggin, 20 N. H. ‘449. 1158 Williams, 14 W. Va. 851 565 Wihiams, 5 Wis. 808... 27 Williams, 2 Rich. L. 418 522: 743 v. Williams, 65 N. C, 505.183, 134 TABLE OF CASES. State o. Williamson, 57 Mo. 192 59 v. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304_... 70 v. Wilson, 10 Ired. L. 181 85 ». Wilson, 80 Conn. 507... 771 v. Wise, 7 Ind. 645.._.... 23 ». Wood, 58 N. H. 484.... 381 ». Zellers, TN. J. L. 265__ 657 State Banke Curran, 10 Ark. 142 = 25 v. Rude, 23 Kan. 143____- 737 v Wiiliams, 6 Ark. 156... 796 State Ins. Co. v. Schreck, 6 L. R. A. 524, 27 Neb. 527_- Stauffer o. Young, 39 Pa, 455___ Stead v. Course, 8 U. 8. 4 Cranch, 403, 2 L. ed. 660____- v. Dawber, 10 Ad. & El. 57 Steadman »v. Wilbur, 7 R. I. 481 Steamboat Charlotte 2. Ham. 679 953 1276 1260 989 mond, 9 Mo. 58_.___. val Stearns v. Field, 90 N. Y. 640_.. 110 v. Hall, 9 Cush. 81___.--- 1261 v. Page, 48 U. 8S. 7 How. 819, 12 L. ed. 928.969, 1267 ». Ravmond, 26 Wis. 74_. 1288 Stebbins », Duncan, 108 U. 8. 22, 27 L. ed. 641__-__._--- 158 v. Miller, 94 Mass. 591__.. 954 Stedman v. Vickery, 42 Me. 182. 983 Stedwell ». Anderson, 21 Conn. TOD tis ork Seen eee 300 Steel v. St. Louis Smelt. & Ref. Co., 106 U. 8. 447, 27 Teed, OOle 716 Steele 0. Etheridge, 15 Minn. 501 148 v. Hoe, 14 Q. B. 481_____. 1264 ». Kinkle, 3 Ala. 352__..-. 179 v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 215 1041 Steere v. Steere, 5 Johns. Ch. 1, 1 L. ed. 987, 9 Am. Dec. 256 Steffy 2. People, 130 Il. 98__-919, 923 Stegall v. Stegall, 2 Brock. 256.- 80 Stein 0. Bowman, 38 U. §. 13 Pet. 209, 10 L. ed. 129___. 415-417, 685, 987 v. Keeler, 4 G. Greene, 86 1123 v Railroad Co., 10 Phila. 1105 v. Schultz, 28 Ill. 646.1076, 1078 Steinbach v, Relief F. Ins. Co., Tt Ns. Ve A908 2 we cee 736 Steinhart v. Boker, 84 Barb. 486. 457 Steinkeller 7. Newton, 9 Car. & PP; BiB. peewedeceteen 754 Steinmetz ». Currey, 1 U. S. 1 Dall. 284,1 L. ed. 115 783 o, Logan, 5 Watts, 518_... 236 ®. Versailles & O. Turnp. Co., 57 Ind. 457_._--- 27 Steinruck’s App., 70 Pa. 289... 268 Stehman 2. Crull, 26 Ind. 486__. 914 Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 480. 836 Stephen o. State, 11 Ga. 225. ._-- 40 elxix Stephens, Re, L. R. 9 C. B. 187. 1155, 1166 Bateman, 1 Bro. C. C.22 967 Baird, 9 Cow. 274_..-.--. 711 Follett, 43 Fed. Rep. 842 148 Fox, 88 N. Y. 318_--210, 212 People, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 396 Sse ss ». Vroman, 18 Barb. 250.440, 441 v. Vroman, 16 N. Y. 881.. 370 Stephenson 2. State, 9 West. Rep. Bl veeinangeanacese 359 Sterling o. Merrill, 25 Ill. App. 596, aff’d in 14 West. Rep. 890, 124 Ill. 522. 785 Stern v. People, 102 Ill. 540....- 399 Sterritt v. Bull, 1 Binn. 237.__-- 827 Stetson v. Gulliver, 2 Cush. 494. 1009 Stevens v. Brennan, 79 N. Y. 254 1233 ». Brown, 8 Vt. 420_----- 221 ». Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. 429, 1 L. ed. 198_-.-. 1260 v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 324.. 711 ». European & N, A. R. Co., 66 Me, 74..----- 1098 o. Lockwood, 13 Wend. 644, 28 Am. Dec. 492. 837 vo. McNamara, 36 Me. 176- 16, 77, 117 vy. Palmer, 10 Bosw. 60... 1276 ». Reeves, 9 Pick. 197... 906 o. Rodger, 25 Hun, 54..-. 630 v. State, 81 Ind. 485_----- 1084 ». Tuller, 4 Mich. 387-_..-- 838 Stevenson 2. Hoy, 48 Pa. 191.--. 157 v. Marony, 29 Ill. 532_.112, 113 Stewart v. Cole, 46 Ala. 646-_.-- ‘1061 ». Connor, 9 Ala. 808_.--_ 749 ». Emerson, 52 N. H. 3801. 958 ». Everts, 76 Wis. 35, 20 Am. St. Rep. 17_----- 1108 v. Flint, 4 New Eng. Rep. 120, 59 Vt. 144.------ 1086 . Howard, 15 Barb. 26... 645 es ’ Lispenard, 26 Wend. 255 855, 1198, 1213 . McSweeney, 14 Wis. 468 1280 . Montgomery, 23 Pa. 410 216 . Preston, 1 Fla. 10, 44 aie Am, Dec. 224, 349, 355. 954 eee . Redditt, 3 Md. 67 ». Severance, 43 Mo. 322__ v. Sonneborn, 98 U. S. 1&7, 25 L. ed. 116_---- 506, 1068. ». Spedden, 5 Md. 433._.. 355 », State, 2 Harr, & G. 114. 966 », Stewart, 27 W. Va. 167_ 218 » Stewart, 6Clark&F.966 91 o. Strasburger, 51 How. Pr. S88 yea cessseneeees 179 v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400, 97 Am. Dec, 278-.-.---- 219 elxx Stewart’s Will, 2 Redf. 77_.__.. Stickney 2. Bronson, 5 Minn. 215 Stier 2, Oskaloosa, 41 Towa, 353. Stikeman 2. ee 1 DeG. & 1206 753 24 m, 105.....------.- 179 Stiles v, Willis, ou Rep. 489, 66 Md. 552__.--..---- 302 Stilwell . Carpenter, 2 Abb. N. O88 scaasacaacet tee 120 v Wilkins, Jacob, 280.... 967 Still o. Hose, 6 Madd. 192_..-.- 276 Stilling.o. Thorp, 54 Wis. 528, 41 : Am. Rep. 60--.------ 352 Stillwell o, Adams, 29 Ark. 346. 996 Stimpson v. Brooks, 8 Blatchf. ADO scciais sicic Steimneiaciemet= 683 Stimson v. Connecticut River R. Co., 98 Mass. 83.-.--- 1106 v. Helps, 9 Colo. 36_--.--- 970 ». Whitnay, 130 Mass. 691 456 Stinchfield v. Emerson,52 Me. 465 1228 Stinde v. Goodrich, 3 Redf. 89.. 78 Stines v. Hays, 36 N. J. Eq. 369. 3803 Stinson v. Snow, 10 Me. 263, 25 ». Thornton, 56 Ga. 877--- Stitt 2. Huidekoper, 8 U. 8. 17 Wall. 882, 21 L. ed. 644 Stoakes 2, Monroe, 36 Cal. 388. Stockbridge Iron Co. 2, Hudson Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290 cia Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. Stockett o. Wailing, 2Gil & J. 826, 20 Am. Dec. 488. Stockham 2. Stockham, 32 Md.196 Stockton v, Frey, 4 Gil. 406_.... Stockwell Hi Blamey, 129 Mass. OU ero Paha istana cichsvah dionaterate e. Silloway, 113 Mass. 384 977 Stoddard v. Chambers, 48 U.S. 2 How. 284, 11 L. ed. ». Hart, 28.N. Y. 566__ -90, 1306 ®. Nelson, 17 Or. 417_...- 312 v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 680.__.26, 27 Stoever 2. Stoever, 9 Serg. G RK. Oh Ste espe a cae ceae ». Whitman, 6 Binn. 416__ 278, 906, 908 Stokes 2. Dawes, 4 Mason, 268.. 403 2 Johnson, 57 N. Y. 673. 1010 % Macken, 62 Barb. 145_.. 64 ». Salomons, 9 Hare, 79_- » 91 Stone ». Britton, 22 Ala. 648.... 711 o. Chicago & W. M. R. Co., 9 West. Rep. 596, 66 Mich. 76__-......_... 799 v. Crocker, 24 Pick. 81__. 187, 1062, 1068 ». Denny, 4 Met. 15t..-.. 809 v. Elliott, 11 Ohio St. 252. 1058, 1060 TABLE OF CASES. Stone v. Hale, 17 Ala. 557, 52 Am. D ». State, "92 Tex. App. 185 133 Stoneman 2. Erie R. Co., 52 N.Y. AOU! oo 2 eas crete 1106 Stoner v. Milliken, 85 Il]. 218__.. 1122 Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63, 1 Am. Rep. 85.__------ 264 Stoors v. Kelsey, 2 Paige, 418, 2 L. ed. 970.__---.-- 221, 223 Storey ». Brennan, 15 N. Y. 524. 796 Storm »v. United States, 94 U.S. 76, 24 L. ed. 42 _____- 614 Storrs v. Barker, 6 Johns. Ch. 166, 2 L. ed. 88, 10 Am. Dec. 316 --_____.-- 724, 725 Story 0. Norwich & W. R. Co., 24 Conn. 94__...--... 179 ». Patten, 3 Wend. 488_... 166 Stoudt v. Sheperd, 73 Mich. 588_ 609 Stoudenmeier »v. Williamson, 29 Ala. 558.....---..--- 352 Stoudenmire v. Brown, 57 Ala ABI bce cesadoncdts tec 1279 », Harper, 81 Ala. 242.... 751 Stout 2. on Ins. Co., 12 Iowa, Ble wa doetinidte Pocecce 1273 ». Coffin, 28 Cal. 65-..... 675 ». Cook, 47 Ill. 580___.... 398 ». Grant County, 5 West. Rep. 635, 107 Ind. 348 80 o. Keyes, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 1842.5 cebseudoeaeces 176 v iat 4 Park, Crim. Rep. Tecs ee cson 522 Stoutenburgh 2. Hopkins,11 Cent. Rep. 232, 43 N. J. Eq. Oiccemienceabieweceawre, 801 Stouvenel v. Stephens, 26 How. Pie 24g oe cemremtey ae 415 v. Stephens, 2 Daly, 319.77, 1222 Stovall », Farmers & M. Bank, 8 Smedes & M. 305.960, 962 Stover v. People, 56 N.Y. 315.62, 1250 Stow v. Wyse, 7 Conn. 214.-.-_. 721 Stowe v. United States, 86 U.S. 19 Wall. 18, 22 L. ed. Strange »v. Lo ce ac Co., 53 Tex. 162____.. Strauss 2. Abrahams, 82 Fed. Rep. 0. Meertiet. 64 Ala. 299, 88 Am. Rep. 8.....-.. _ 587 Stricker ». aor 122 Ind. 848. 775 TABLE OF CASES. Strickland v. Maddox, 4 Ga. 398 ». Poole, 1 U. 8, 1 Dall. 14, Striker 2. Kelly, 2 Denio, 323__-. Stringer v. Frost, 2 L. R. A. 614, 979 415 1282 146 Ind, AT sccconene 921 v. Young, 28 U.8.3 Pet. 320, 7 L. ed. 693._..- 504 Stringfellow ». Montgomery, 57 Tex. 340 cece cece Strode v. Washer, 17 Or. 50_.._- 420 1291 Strong v. Brewer, 17 Ala. 706... 340 ». Clem, 12 Ind. 87__.___- 742 ». Ellsworth, 26 Vt. 866_. 711 ». Glasgow, 2 Murph. 289_ 292 ». Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 Mich. 206_...._...--- 906 ». Hines, 35 Miss. 201-_---- 952 ». Riker, 16 Vt. 554__.273, 1187 % Stewart, 4 Johns. Ch. 167, 1 L. ed. 802_..-- 266 Strother v. Barr, 5 Bing. 151_... 149 ». Lucas, 81 U. 8S. 6 Pet. 763, 8 L. ed. 578___.. 36 ». Lucas, 87 U. S. 12 Pet. 446, 9 L. ed. 1151_... 901 Stroud v. Tilton, 42 N. Y. 189, 3 Keyes, 189, 4 Abb. App. Dec. ae 815, 816, 820, 8383, 893 Strough . Wilder, 7 iL. R.A. 555, 119 N. Y. 530_.. Stroup 2. State, 70 Ind. 495_..-- Strouse, Re, 1 Sawy. 605_..--.-- Strout v. Packard, 76 Me. 148, 49 101 Am. Rep. 604.--.---- 869 Strung v. Wilson, 1 Morris (Iowa) S84. cietocbeneet ack Stuart 0. Havens, 17 Neb. 21_.._ 1074 v. Hawley, 22 Barb. 619_. 1118 v. Lowry, 42 Minn. 478___ 729 %. voy a Co., 82 Gratt. Stubbs v. Houde, 33 Ala. 555.79, Bae o. State, 58 Miss, 487... 26 Studdy ». elie 2 Dowl. & R. Studebaker Bros Mfg. Co. 2. Iili- nois Iron & B. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 52 Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249 Stumore v. Shaw, 10 Cent. Rep. 109, 68 Md. 11_-_----- Stump 2. Napier, 2 Yerg. 45.__- ‘Sturdy v. St. Charles Tana & C. Co., 83 Mo. App. 44-- Sturge 2. Buchanan, 10 Ad. & El. O98 Sescose sees 444, 600 Sturges 2. Bank of Circleville, 11 Ohio St. 169_....--.- 1311 », Buckley, 82 Conn, 21_. 1318 44 728 358 177 784 elxxi Sturgis 7. Work, 122 Ind. 134... 1221 Sturm 2. Parish, 1 W. Va. 185_. 724 Sturtevant 2. Ballard, 9 Jobns. 337 EN AEA Ged te 1229 ® Rendall 53 Me. 149... 271 ». Sturtevant, 20 N. Y. 39, 75 Am, Dec. 371----- 291 Stutsman 2. Barringer, 16 Ind. 363 787 Succession Ee Jones, 12 La. Ann. Sullivan 2. {wees “984. ___ ». Decker, 1 E. D. Smith, 10 G99 os i ecemeeee ce 77 ». Dimmitt, 84 Tex. 114_. 914 ». Hense, 2 Colo. 424__._. 33 v. Iron Silver Min. Co., 109 U. 8S. 550, 27 L. ed. TOO Bee comer wees ae 1100 ». Kelly, 3 Allen, 148____- 80 v. Kuykendall, 82 Ky. 483, 56 Am. Rep. 901, 24 Am. L. Reg, 442____- 97, 427, 1015, 1298 v. Lear, 23 Fla. 463_...... 1307 ». Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 12 Or. 392, 538 Am. Rep. 364__-_-----. 381, 384 ». People, 11 West. Rep. 566, 122 Ill. 885_-__.. 21 ». Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 80 Pa. 234____.. 1099 v. Wallace, 73 Cal. 307_.. 780 Sullivan’s App., 180 Pa. 342__.. 1220 Sully 2. Goldsmith, 32 Towa, 397 1123 Sumner v. Bowen, 2 Wis. 524... 1137 ». Child, 2 Conn. 610_.._. 70 ». Cook, 12 Kan. 162_.___ », Seaton, 47 N. J. Eq. 103 780 ». Tyson, 20 N. H. 384... 1319 Summers v. Howland, 2 Baxt. 407 976 Sunbolf v. Alford, 3 Mees. & W. 248, 258, 254.__.-__-. PO WY cot shgeeee Supples 2. Cannon, 44 Conn, 424 213, 723 ». Lewis, 37 Conn. 568.... 180 Supreme Council O. of C.F. 9. Forsinger, 9 L. R. A. 6 S01, 128 Ind. 52_.-... usquehanna yoming Valle . Railroad & Cc Co. 2 Blatchford, 78 U. 8. ti Wall. 172, 20 L. ed. WM9e ea gaceueeeeance ee 95 Susquehanna Boom Co. v. Fin- ney, 58 Pa. 200_--.-- 221 Susquehanna Fertilizer Co. 2. White, 66 Md. 444... 276 Susquehanna Ins. Co. »v. Perrine, 7 Watts & 8. 348___.. 260 Sussdorf v, poe, 55 N.Y. BID ses are ee ele 668 elxxii Sussex Peete oe 11 Clark & F. a maeoeivecanaae: 413 Sutcliff 2. inn 18 Ohio, 181, 51 Am. Dec. 450. 1237 Sutphen 2. Cushman, 35 Ill. 188. 62 Sutter v. Lackmann, 39 Mo. 91._. 89 Sutton v, Anderson, 108 Pa. 151 1061 ». Calhoun, 14 La, Ann. O09 5p ricer 1276 v. Fox, 55 Wis. 581_..__- 5380 v. Johnstone, 1 T. R. 498_ 1063 ». Madre, 2 Jones, L. 320- : 795, 796 vo. Tatham, 10 Ad. & El. 27 907 0, Tyrrell, 10 Vt. 491_____ 282 Suydam vo. Williamson, 61 U.S. 20 How. 427, 15 L. ed. O78 iscrctsietncie ts starate sey 923 Swain v. Comstock, 18 Wis. 463. 24 v. Seamens, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 254, 19 L. ed. 554 720, 1261 Swales 0. Grubbs, 126 Ind. 106_ 44, 346 Swamp Land Dist. No. 121 9. Haggin, 64 Cal. 204__ 1101 Swank ». Nichols, 24 Ind. 199_. 795 Swartz v. Ballou, 47 Iowa, 188, 29 Am. Rep. 857 462 Sweatland 2. Lllinois & M. Teleg. Co., 27 Iowa, 488, 1 Am. Rep. 285....___. 1027, 1082, 38 Kan. vo. Ten-Mile Oil & G. Co., 130 Pa. 1938_...--___. Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 385__ Brackley, 53 Me. 346__- Fairlic, 6 Car. & P. 1... Lee, 3 Man, & G. 452__ Maupin, 65 Mo. 65___.- Sherman, 21 Vt. 23__.- Sweet, 1 Redf. 451____- Sweeting v. Pearce, 7 0. B. N.S. 49, 6 Jur. N. 8. 758, 9 C. B. N. 8. 687, 7 Jur. Ne 1S, S00 sxctcriccienr sia Sweeney »v. Merrill, ssesses 1194 8 Swett v. Hooper, 62 Me. 54____- Swinfen v. Swinfen, 29 Beav. 199 Swift », Dean, 6 Tobe: 528.2... v. Kingsley, 24 Barb. 541. ». Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins, Co., 2 Thomp. & C. 308... 464 TABLE OF CASES. Swift o. Tyson, 41 U.S. 16 Pets 1,10 L. ed. 865_._.__- 1122 », Winterbotham, L. R. 8 b Bi PA dese ese ermcee 801 Swinnerton - Columbian Ins. 387 N. Y.174.... 15 Swinney 2. State, 14 Ind. 815___ 1801 Switland o. Holgate, 8 Watts, 885 795: Sylvester 2. Crapo. 15 Pick. "92... 455 v. Downer, 20 Vt. 855-273, 1137 Syme v. Stewart, 17 La. Ann. 73.36, 64 Byington 2: M’Lin, 1 Dev. & B. 291 ee giaete meters 171 Symmes v. Major, 21 Ind. 443... 18 Symonds ». Gas Light & C. Co., 11 Beav. 283__....... 832. T. Tabor v. Bush, 4 Colo. L. R. 209 783. Taft o. Schwamb, 80 Ill, 289 _... 305 Taggart v. Fox, 11 Daly, 159__ 833 ®. Newport St. R. Co., TL, R. A. 205, 16 R. L 668 45. Tagiasco 2. Molinari, 9 La. 512_- 1198 Taintor v. Keys, 48 Ill. 832______ Talbot v. Doran & W. Co., 30 N. Y. 8. R. ». M’Gee, 4 'T. B. Mon. 377 465. v. Seeman, 5 U. S. 1 Cranch, 1,2 L. ed. 15_ 36, 37 ». Taunton, 1 New Eng. Rep. 619, 140 Mass. 552 v. Wilkins, 81 Ark. 411__ Talbott 2. Padgett, 30 8. C. 167_- Talcott v. Brackett, 5 Ill. App. 60 %. Henderson, 31 Ohio St. 162, 27 Am, Rep. 501. 957, 958: Talaternoy, Porter, Wright (Ohio) 919 295. 922 TI Talley 2. Gomis 1 Heisk. 718 297 Tallman v. Franklin, 14 N.Y. 584 1263. ». White, 2 N.Y. 66.._... 1276 Tama Water Power Co. 9. Hop- kins, 79 Iowa, 6538_... 731 Tams v. Lewis, 42 Pa. 406 eosin 213. Tandy v. Masterson, 1 Bibb, 330. 753 Taney v. Kemp, 4 Harr. & J. 3848 654 Tanner 0. Hughes, 58 Pa. 289__. 1015, 1020: Tapp 2 Green, 22 La, Ann. 42.. 983. Tappan ». Beardsley, 77 U. §. 10 Wall. 427, 19 L. ed. 974 687 2%, Morseman, 18 Iowa, 499 711 Tarleton 2. Johnson, 25 Ala. 800. 784 Tarrant 7. Ware, 25 N. Y. 425, ONO hE NN ool rts 1207 141, 39 Am. Dec. 65.. 484 Tate 2. Jordan, 3 Abb. Pr, 394__ 1054. TABLE OF CASES. elxxili Tate o. Missouri, K,&T. R. Co., Taylor v. Zepp, 57 Til. 41_--_.. 711 64 Mo. 149_____-.._.- 336 | Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr. N. v. Tate, 75 Va. 622._._._- 645 8. 800-1164, 1178, 1175, 1205 ‘Taunton Bank ». Briggs, 5 Pick. Teal ». Woodworth, 3 Paige, 470, 436 ssocaeceee sesmee™ 174 3 L, ed. 235____....-- 737 ‘Tayloe v. Riggs, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. Teakle v. Bailey, 2 Brock. 48... 973 591, 7 L. ed. 275__._- Tebbetts ». Levy 84N. Y. 8. R.58 804 147, 150, 156, 842 | Tedrowe v. Esher, 56 Ind. 443.961, 962 Taylor, Re, 9 Paige, 611, 4 L. ed. Teegarden ». Caledonia, 50 Wis. B86 2cecceceneeeeeee 82, 376 BOD Ei eced cnr ie arises 148 v, Adam, 2 West. Rep. 827, Teerpenning ». Corn Exch. Ins. 115 Ill. 570 --- 2 -- Co., 43 N.Y. 279_... 326 », Atna L. Ins. Co., 13 Teese v. Huntingdon, 64 U. S. 23 Gray, 484__.--_..---- 1004 How. 2, 16 L. ed. 479_ ». Baldwin, 10 Barb. 585._ 302 631, 639, 641, 1248, 1250 ». Bowker, 111 U. 8. 110, Telegraph Co. 2. Griswold, 37 28 L. ed. 368_...-.... 899 Ohio St. 801 -_______- 1033 v. Brodhead, 5 Redf. 624_. 1205} Telford v. Garrels, 182 Ill. 550__ 141 », Castle, 42 Cal. 371__._-- 739 | Teller v. Patten, 61 U.S. 20 How. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. 125, 15 L. ed. 831__474, 476 Co., 80 lowa, 431 _... 784] Temple ». Com., 75 Va. 892____- 653 . Coleman, 20 Tex. 772-820, 826 v. Hays, Morris, 9_..____. 1122 ». Croker, 4 Esp. 187_..459, 460 %. State, 15 Tex. ave 804 = 25 v. Dening, 3 Nev. & P. 228 1199 % Temple, 1 Hen. & M. v. Deverell, 48 Kan. 469.. 922 ANG 2 oe ce oe thous 855 2. Diplock, 2 Phill. Eccl. Templeman v. Biddle, 1 Harr. Rep. 261, 3 Hag. Eccl. (Del.) 522_......-- 22. 904 Rep. 748_------------ 78 | Templeton v. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. a. Fickas, 64 Ind. 167,81 | 9 488______-_-____._LL LL. 25 Am. Rep. 114_-.----- 1121 ) Templin 2. Towa City, 14 Iowa, ». Fleet, 4 Barb. 95._._-_. 179 59, 81 Am. Dec. 455... 786 v. Foster, 2 Car. & P. 195. 644] Tennant 2. Bell, 16 Law Jour. 2. French, 2 Lea, 260_.--- 1140 Rep. (M. C.) 81 ____-- 1228 ». Gould, 57 Pa. 152___._. 392 ». Hamilton, 7 Clark & F. #. Graham, 18 La. Ann. Tee eS eR ae: 633 G0Gc2 4 cesless 2cees 9 | Tennery . Pippinger, 1 Phila. @ Grand Trunk R.Co.,48 {| § 548___-_------------- 1098 N. H. 304____.--_---- 7 Tennessee &C. R. Co. v. East Ala- ® Griswold, 14N. J. L. bama R. Co., 73 Ala. Oooo retedaaseeseeanns 899 B26 ce Anesau ees seme 256 v eae 17 Serg. & Tenney v. Tuttle, 1 Allen, 185__ 1105 ected east eee 1154 | Tenny v, Mulvaney, 8 Or. 513... 683 ® Hirde 1 Burr, 119... 1273 | Terre Haute &I. R. Co. v. Brunk- t. Jacques, 10¢; Mass. 291. 964 x nen E. Rep. ». Jones, 2 Campb.106__.. 474) = = 1%8___._---------.---- 1070 ». Luther, 2 Sumn, 228.266, 291 » Clen: 7 L.R. A. 588, 128 ». McIrvin, 94 Ill. 488_... 653 Tad 5s. 2- 22 oes 101 ». McKinley, 4 Cal. 104°_. 785 | Terrill ». Beecher, 9 Conn. 344__ 827 ». Mosely, 6 Car. & P. 273 858 ae ere Evans (Idaho) 7 L. R. ». Reese, 44 Miss. 89______ 1386, 8A. 646_.....-.--._ 22. 688 ». Rennie, 35 Barb. 272... 20 2, O’ Tine ie D.) 44 N.W. ». Richardson, 2 Drew. 16 1199 Rep. 1008_-_---_.._..- 845 v. Robinson, 2 Allen, 562. 715| Terry ». McNiel, 58 Barb. 241... 1308 ». Ross, 3 Yerg. 330-.__-- 1264 ®. Merchants &P. Bank, 66 v. State, 83 Ga. 647_.____- 362 Ga Ta eiocatas exerts 28 ». Steamboat Robert Camp- v Ty Hane Oe: 15 Wis. bell, 20 Mo. 254..___- 1020 IG sotins! rotary, gators 24 2. Stringer, 1 Hilt. 877..._ 753 v. Sickles, 18 Cal. 427_.___ 836 ». Taylor, 1 Atk. 386_._.. 291 | Tesson ». Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., v. Taylor, 49 U. S. 8 How. Mo: 862252 s200 261 183, 12 L. ed. 1040__.. 1093 | Tetherow 2. St. Joseph & D. M. ». Tucker, 1 Ga, 231....-- 826 R. Co., 98 Mo. 74, 14 », Watkins, 26 Tex. 688.. 88 Am. St. Rep. 617__._. 1108 elxxiv Tewksbury ». Schulenberg, 41 Wis, 584._----------- Texas v. Chiles, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 488, 22 L. ed. 650.... 928 Texas Homestead B. & Lh. Asso. v. Kerr (Tex.) 13 8. W. Rep. 1020__.-----.-- - 674 Texeira v. Evans, 1 Anstr, 228.. 858 Thallhimer ». Brinkerhoff, 4 Wend. 396_...--..--. 228 ». Crow, 13 Coio. 397_-_-- 679 Tharp v. Com., 3 Met. (Ky.) 411. 59 v Tharp, 15 Vt. 105..__-. 836 Tharpe v. Dunlap, 4 Heisk. 686. 1054 Thacher v. Stevens, 46 Conn. 561 1139 Thatcher v. Heisey,21 Ohio St. 668 678 ®. Kaucher, 2 Colo. 698... 336 ». Powell, 19 U. 8.6 Wheat. 119, 5 L. ed. 221__1276,1289 Thaule v. Krekeler, 81 N. Y. 428 1061 Thayer v. Boyle, 30 Me. 475_---- 535, 801, 1242 o. Deen, 2 Hill, L. 677___. 826 . Middlesex Mut. F. Ins. Co., 10 Pick. 829____- o. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. eae 22 Ind. 26 Leung Theilmann ». "ee, 73 Ill. 298__- Third Nat. al Owen, 101 Mo. Third Nate Banik v. McCann, 15 Phila. 826__--.------- 1128 Third Nat, Bank of Syracuse 2. Clark, 28 Minn.263_275, 1140 Thierens yet parte, 1 Rose, 8 25 Thom 2. a 27 Ind. 3870__.. 71 Thomas 0. ‘Austin,4 Barb.265_. 231, 282 v. Beck, 89 Conn, 241-_... 715 ». Beebe, 25 N. Y. 244_... 963 ». Hage (Del.) 18 Atl. Rep. BT los eyes Stearate isin 730 », Connell, 4 Mees. & W. 520 . David, 7 Car. & P. 850. 634 . Graves, 1 Mill (S.C.) 310 906 . Hawkes, 8 Mees. & W. 140, 9 Dow]. P. ©. 802 . Horlocker, 1 U. 8.1 Dall. 14,1 L. ed. 17___.. 408, 405 . M’Daniel, 14 Johns. 185 282 . Mallinckrodt, 43 Mo. 58 3386 Nelson, 69 N. Y. 118_-. 670 . Pendleton (8. Dak.) 46 N. W. Rep. 180_----- 100 . Price, 80 Md. 483__.._. 830 . Sigers, 89 Pa. 486_.__-- 30 , Sprague, 12 Mich. 120-. 984 752 445 s eee eese eeee . State, 1 West. Rep. 314, 108 Ind. 419.___.-..- . Sternheimer, 29 Md. 268 s TABLE OF CASES, sl ». Sturges, 32 Mo. 657 984 . Thomas, 15 B. Mon. 178 1005 é Turner (Va.) 14 Va. L. J. 608-2 eo ceccedopecen ». Tyler, 8 Young & C. Exch. 255_....---.-. ». Woods, 4 Cow. 178... 1229: Thomas & Henry, The, v. United States, 1 Brock. 363___ Thomason ». Odum, 31 Ala. 108. 722: ». Tucker, 2 Blackf. 172.. 226. Thommon 2. Kalbach, 12 Serg. & R. 238 , 1153- 654 913 124- 103. 690 Thompson's Case, 122 Mass. 428. Thompson 2. Adams, 55 Pa. 479 o. Armstrong, 7 Ala. 256_. ». Ashton, 14 Johns. 316_. 905, 907, 1818. . Blanchard, 4 N. Y. 303- 611, 724 ». Bowie, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 463, 18 L.ed.423- 498, 769,775 330: v Boyle, 85 Pa. 477_....- ». Bullock, 1 Bay, 364.... 402 ». Carroll, 63 U. 8. 22 How. 422,16 L. ed. 887__.. 128% ». Church, 1 Root, 312.___ 1242. v. Deprez, 96 Ind. 67____- 333. ». Donaldson, 3 Esp. 68__. 1189, 1224 o. Emmert, 15 Ill. 416.... 208 ». Faussat, 1 Pet.C.C.181 281 ». Gotham, 9 Ohio, 170... 1276 » Hammond, 1 Edw. Ch. 497, 6 L. ed. 228._.... 224 v. Haskell, 21 Tl. 215____. 25- v Higginbotham, 18 Kan, BPs acl aes rcs tet EAS, 847 v. Ist 99 Mo. 160__..1189, 1220 v. Ketchum, 8 Johns. 189. 1144 ». Leake, 1 Madd. 40..__- 804 v. Lumley, 50 How. Pr. 105 1061, 1062 2, Madison B. & A. Asso., 1 West. Rep. 269, 1038 Ind. 279___._...2-22- 922. ®. Maxwell, 74 Iowa, 415. 312 ». Monrow, 2 Cal. 99__.-. 64 %. Musser, 1 U.S. 1 Dall. 458, 1 L. ed. 222__._. 195 ® Myrick, 24 Minn. 4._.. 786 » North Missouri R. Co., 51 Mo. 190__...2 2222. 11038. . Riggs, 72 U. 8.5 Wall. 568, 18 L. ed. 704____- 908, 905, 910, 1818 . Rose, 16 Conn. 71, 41 Am. Dec. 121_____. 524, 958: . Shannon, 9 Tex. 536. 796, 953 . Sloan, 23 Wend, 71, 35 Am. Dec. 546__...... 263 ®, State, 24 Ga. 297... 412 “%, Stevens, 62 N. Y. 684._ 1206. TABLE OF CASES, Thompson ov. Stevens, 2 Nott & McC. 493_._..--.---- 423 ». Stewart, 8 Conn. 171.684, 982 o. Strode, 2 Hen. &M. 19. 229 ov. Whitman, 85 U. S. 18 Wall. 457, 21 L. ed. 897.201, 207, 208, 217, 1181 Thoms a. Southard, 2 Dana, 480. 1059 Thomson 2. Austin, 2 Dowl. & R. 35 gente ect 442 ». Blanchard, 2 Lea, 528.. 737 ® ees 13 Serg. & ee eee ee 826 ®. Moiienn B. & A. Asso., 1 West. Rep. 269, 103 Ind. 279__...---... 918, 919 Thorley v. Kerry, 4 Taunt. 355__ 1041 Thorn v. Knapp, 42 N. Y. 474___ 860 ». Sutherland, 25 Hun, 485 836 Thorndike v. Boston, 1 Met. 242 1011 Thorne v2. McVeagh, 75 Ill. 81_-- 308, 1812 a ca Ins. Co., 80 Thornton - ee 29 Me. 300 o. Bank of Washington, 28 U. S. 3 Pet. 36, 7 L. ed. 594__._._--- _-... 1804 ». Thornton, 39 Vt. 122 602, 1207 Thoroughgood’s Case, 2 Coke, 5. 315 Thorp 0. Goewey, 85 Ill. 611_... 456 ® ae Coal Co., 48 N. Y. 2 463 264 703 41 65 737 H. 248_....---.------ 209 Thurman 2. ae 53 Ill. 129... 965 » Cameron, 24 Wend. 91 52 ». Virgin, 18 B. Mon. 792_ 1249 Thurmond 2. Clarke, 47 Ga. 500. 90 ». Sanders, 21 Ark. 255.837, 838 Thurston v. Cornell, 88 N. Y. 281 1808 Kennett, 22 N. H. 151 128,136 M’Kown, 6 Mass. 428___. 1123 Mauro, 1 G. Greene, 231 270 St. Joseph, 51 Mo. 510. 750 Spratt, 52 Me. 202..._.- 1811 . Wright, 77 Mich. 96._.. 1014, 1062 Tibbetts v. Flanders, 18 N. H. 284 633 ». Sternberg, 66 Barb. 201 758 Tibbs v, Alleh, 27 Ill. 119._..... 59 Tiffany ». Anderson, 55 Iowa, A05 cscccen Sonwece 712, 717 840 79 416 Threebridge v. Kilburne, 2 Ves, SE. 236 occ esc emet oes Thron 2. Weatherly, 50 Ark. 237 Throop 2. Hatch, 8 Abb. Pr. 23. Thrustout . Crafter, 2 W. Bi. ssssss elxxv Tiffany »v. Lord, 65 N. Y. 810... 336: Tift o. Griffin, 5 Ga. 185.__..__- 808 Tilden 2. Barnard, 43 Mich. 876_ 124 », Streeter, 45 Mich. 538.. 225 v. Tilden, 18 Gray, 110_-. 1216. Tiley ». Cowling, 1 Ld. Raym. 744 987 Tilford 2. Canes % Humph. oy Tilley 2. chtcage (Tilley v. Cook County), 103 U.S. 155, 26 L. ed. 374._505, 903, 911 v. Damon, 11 Cush. 247... 485- Tillou », Clinton & E. Ins. Co., 7 Barb. 564_._._....._._- Tilton 0. Cofield, 93 U. 8S. 168, 23 ed. 859.-__.._.--. 1051 %. Nelson, 27 Barb. 595... 722 v. Tilton, 9 N. H. 385..260, 304 Timberlake ». Cobbs, 2 J. J. Marsh. 136...__...-.- Timlow »v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 99 Pa, 284_.___. Timon 0. Claffy, 45 Barb. 488, aff'd 41 N. Y. 619___- v, Whitehead, 58 Tex. 290 Timothy 2. Chambers, 85 Ga. 267 102. Tindal v. Brown, 1 T. R. 167___. 1229 Tinker v. McCauley, 3 Mich. 188 272 34 1208. 711 Tinkham v. Arnold, 8 Me. 120... 88 Tinney »v. Ashley, 15 Pick. 347.. 282 Tioga R. Co. v. Blossburg & ©, R. Co., 87 U. 8. 20 Wall. 137,22 L. ed. 831 734 Tioga County 2. South Creek Twp., 75 Pa, 433_.._- 84 Tipton v. Harris, Peck, 414____. 645 Tisdale >. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 26 Iowa, 170 1189 Titford o, Knott, 2 Johns. Cas. 211 343. Titlow 2. Tivlow, 54 Pa. 216_.348, 855 Titus v. Morse, 40 Me. 348_____. 709 o. Scantling, 4 Blachf. 89. 64 Tobey ». Barber, 5 Johns. 68____ 71, 231, 477 v. Leonard, 2 Chff. 40... 295. Tobin v. Murison, 5 Moore P. C. 1 2 oo oSuisece aonseats 2. Walkinshaw, 1 McAll. (U. 8.) 154.222.2222 915 v. Young, 124 Ind. 507... 485. Tod v. Wick, 36 Ohio St. 890... 125 e Ockerman, 1 Yeates, 295 236 Todd v. Grove, 33 Md. 188.__._- 1092. ». Kauffman (D. C.) 19 Wash. L. Rep. 101-_-_ 1291 v. Rivers, 1 Desaus. Eq.155 297 0. Stewart, 9Q. B.759_... 7384 Toland »v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 355.. 838 Toledo & W. R. Co. ». Goddard, 25 Ind, 185__-.-..... 411 ». Smith, 25 Ind. 288._...-. 337 GIXXV1 ‘Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Butler, 58 Tit. 828__......--- Toledo, W. & W. R. Co. 2. Beggs, a. Ingraham, 77 Tl. 809... 796 ‘Tolman ». Emerson, 4 Pick. 160, 402, 403 Tome v, Parkersburg & B. R. Co., 89 Md. 36, 90, 17 Am. Rep. 540..341, 848, 344, 1166, 1168, 1175 Tomlinson v. Borst, 30 Barb. 42 827, 833 ». Greenfield, 81 Ark. 557 20 ». Monroe, 41 Cal. 94-_--672, 673 Tompkins v, Saltmarsh, 14 Serg. & R. 275 -...-------- v, Starr, 41 Ohio St. 805_- v. State, 17 Ga. 356, 359 v. Wadley, 3 ee & C. 24 281 Toole v. Nichol, 48 Ala. 406.__. Toombs 2. Hombuekle, 1 Mont. eae 2. London, B. & 8.6. R. Co.,3 C. B.N.S. Toomy v. Dunphy, 86 Cal. 689_-_ Topliff ». Jackson, 12 Gray, 565_ Topping »v. Bickford, 4 Allen, 120 » Van Pelt, 1 Hoffm. Ch. 970 321 832 898 455 Toponce v, Corinne Mill C. & 8. Co. (Utah) 24 Pac. Rep. 584__.__.----..-- Torrance v. Betsy, 30 Miss, 129_. Torrey v. "iti 4 Wash. C. Cy 248 aos Ameieceae 100 918 236 , 1125 1206 1127 1057 192 1118 723 1812 296 806 Torry z. Bonen 15 Barb. 304. ahe Totien v, Bucy, 57 Md. 446.1126, ». Stuyvesant, 3 Edw. Ch. 500, 6 L. ed. 740_.... Toulandou »v. Lachenmeyer, 6 bh. Pr. N. 8. 215_.. Tourtellot i Rosebrook, 11 Met. Tousley ». Board of Education, 89 Minn, 419_...2.22. Towel] », Gatewood, 3 Ill. 22 ___ Towers v. Moor, 2 Vern. 98_____ Towler v. Chatterton, 6 Bing. 258 Towles v. Fisher, v7 N. ©. 437.. 452 Town »v. Lamphere, 84 Vt. 865.. 734 ». Tabor, 34 Mich, 262_... 1284 Towa: v. Smith, 1 Woodb. & M. TABLE OF CASES. Townsen v. Wilson, 9 Pa, 271... 1284 2|Townsend » Bogart, 5 Redf, 93_ 1213 ». Coleman, 18 Tex. 418 820, 826 ». Cowles, 31 Ala, 428. -959, 960 ». Downer, 82 Vt. 183_... 88, 404, 1190 Hargraves, 118 Mass. 325 282 Olin, 5 Wend. 207__-__. 222 Wesson, 4 Duer, 342... 914 eee 5 Harr (Del.) SLR ele hen aie aeee 28, 279 Towneliend- ». Stangroom, 6 Ves. Jr. 828__-296, 298, ae 308 Townsley v. Sumrall, 270.8 Pet. 170, 7 L. ed. soe. Towsley 2. Johnson, 1 Neb. 95_. Tozer v. New York Cent. & H, R. R. Co., 7 Cent. Rep. 339, 105 N. Y. 659___. 920 Tracey v. Sacket, 1 Ohio St. 54 1089 Tracy v. Ames, 4 Langs. 500____-- 677 ». Norwich & W. R. Co., 39 Conn. 882_.._.___- ae Eecree Case, 10 Clark & F.1 (UO Sri Sa Tee 329 1006 Trammell v. Bassett, 24 Ark. 499 442 v. Hudmon, 78 Ala. 222 158, 159, 392 Trapbagen ». Burt, 67 N. Y. 30 1161 Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 397, 19 L, ed. 487__..374,375, 882, 388, 389, 411 sess 1136 722 v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751.. 1004 Traver 0. pt re R. Co., 6 Abb. N. 8. 46, 3 Keyes, *T0 sate Bea wih sassy 1101 Traverso v. Tate, 82 Cal. 170.... 1291 Travis 2. Barger, 24 Barb. 614 __ 632 v. Brown, 43 Pa. 9...2._.- 339 Treat v. Barber, 7 Conn. 274._ 420 pubeonage McAlpine, 46 Hun, sucmocctiee oh = 88 Tredwell v. Graham, 88 N. C. 208 955 Trelawney 2. Colman, 2Stark.191 860 Trentman 2 Fletcher, 100 Ind. 105 astieicwcingescuas 256 Trenton Bie Se a Duncan, 86 San ce sche hee 716 Treseott 2. shew, “8 La. Ann. Gia eae Dea aa, 784 Trevor v. Wood, 86 N. Y. 807.. 1019 Trexler ¢. Miller, 6 Ired. Eq. 248 1200 Triebel 2. Colburn, 64 IN. 876... 986 Trigg Faris, 5 Humph. 348_-_ 1311 2, Lewis, 3 Litt. 129_._____ 223 v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245, 72 Am, Dee. 268. __.-_.. 852 TABLE OF CASES. Trimble o. Turner, 13 Smedes & MBAS: oe. ete creer 960 Triplett o. Bank of Washington, 3 Cranch, C. ©. 646.__ 245 Tripner 2. Abrahams, 47 Pa, 220 962, 989 Trisler o. Williamson, 4 Harr. & McH. 219 Trotter v Blake, 2 Mod. 231.-._- ® MacLean, L. R. 18 Ch. 1019 Troup 2. Smith, 2U Johns. 88_... 1267 Trow 0. Glen Cove Starch Co., 1 Daly, 855 Trowbridge, Didier, 4 Duer, 448 669 v. Matthews, 28 Wis. 656. 711 Trowel. v. Castle, 1 Neb. 22_____ 857 Trows Print. & B. B. Co. o. Hart, 9 Daly, 416_... 848 Troy Iron & N. Factory v. Corn- ing, 45 Barb. 255_____ Truaz ov. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630 455, 473 True ». International Teleg. Co., 60 Me. 9, 11 Am. Rep. eso shn cr epee 1080, 1031 ‘Trueman 2. pao ue li Ad. & El. Truitt o. Griffin, 61 Ill. 26 Trull ». True, 33 Me. 367____.__- Truman 2. Owen, 17 Or. 528___- Trustees of Auburn Theo. Sem- inary 2. Calhoun, 62 Barb. 381, 88 Barb. 148, rev’d 25 .N. Y. 422 1191, 1204, ». Kellogg, 16 N. Y. 87___ Trustees of Second Precinct 2, Stetson, 5 Pick. 506.- Trustees of Union College 2. Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 88- Tucker v. Baldwin, 13 Conn. 137 ». Barrow, 7 Barn. & C. . Henniker, 41 N, H. 325_ . Jones, 8 Mont. 225..__- . Madden, 44 Me. 206_-_-.- . Moreland, 85 U. 8. 10 Pet. 58, 9 L. ed. 345.. . Peaslee, 36 N. H. 167... . Smith, 68 Tex. 4738...-. v, State, 11 Md. 322_____. . Tucker, 11 West. Rep. 860, 113 Ind. 272____. 317 ». Welsh, 17 Mass, 160.... 622 » Wilkins, 105 N. C. 272. 1061 Tufts v. Tufts, 3 Woodb. & M. 988 Tullis 9. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277.218, 221 v. Kidd, 12 Ala. 648_.___. 351 ». State, 39 Ohio St. 200.. 634 476, 1155, 1157 1207 1192 1148 886 233 837 130 922 300 92 832 482 17 sees es Tumlin v. Goldsmith, 40 Ga, 221 elxxvii Tung = Re, 1 West Coast Sine beseaueb 552 p. 6 Turnbull ». Dayecn, 95 U.S. 418, 24 L. ed. 487_...-.--- 895 v. Richardson, 14 West. Rep. 444, 69 Mich. 400 358, 799 Turner v. Browder, 5 Bush, 216. 459 ». Cheesman, 15 N. J. Eq. PAB eo enanesermmciemace 355 o. Crebill, 1 Ohio, 872... 1058 ». Edwards, 2 Woods, 485. 706 v. Ferguson, 58 Tex. 6.... 716 2. Hardin, 80 Iowa, 691... 695 v. Hawkeye Teleg. Co., 41 Iowa, 458, 20 Am. Rep. 605 2 ese ee 1036 ». Holman, 5 T. B. Mon. A cee gata 226, 227 v. Kerr, 44 Mo. 429._..... 268. ®. Malone, 248.C. 398._.. 216 v. McIlhaney, 8 Cal. 575-- 476, 1155 v. Newburgh, 12 Cent. Rep. 215, 109 N. Y. 301_.._ 923 . Patton, 49 Ala. 406_.___. 29 . Pearte, 1 T. R. 717__--- 546 . Railton, 2 Esp. 474_--_- 435 . Turner, 5 Jur, N. 8.839 348 . Turner, 44 Mo, 535-_.965, 1092 . Yates, 57 U. 8. 16 How. 14, 14 L. ed. 824 eeeceeo Turney Turquand v. Strand Union, 8 Dowl. P. C. 201, 4 1070, 1114 %. Horii 85 N. C. 456... 788 . Heidermann, 5 Redf. 202 1193 v. Mechanics & T. Loan Co., 6 Whart, 216.... 167 ». Turner, 28 Tex. 759.--. 960 Twyman v. Knowles, 13 C. B. OE eras wterepul te epecsentat 149 Tye v. Finmore, 3 Campb. 462._ 1819 Tyler 2. Herring, 67 Miss. 169... 98 v. Gardiner, 35 N. Y. 559. 1090 ». Mather, 9 Gray, 177._-.. 466 v. Odd Fellows Mut. Rel. Asso., 5 New Eng. Rep. 196, 145 Mass. 184 7238 ». Pomeroy, 8 Allen, 480.. 634 ». Smith, 8 Met. 599.....- 218 2. Todd, 36 Conn. 218_-.. 1175 . Western U. Teleg. Co., 60 Ill. 421, 14 Am. Rep. 88_..-1025, 1027, 1028, 1036 Tyler Cotton P. Co. ». Chevalier, 56 Ga. 494 L elxxviii Tynan v. Paschal, 84 N. Y. 628, note 12 v. Paschal, 27 Tex. 286, 84 Am. Dec. 619__..1217, 1218 Tyng v. Theological Seminary, 14 Jones & 8. 250__....- 1231 Tyron v. Miller, 1 Whart.11_... 485 Tyrwhitt te 32 Beav. 2 CSR ee eto 289 Tyson 2. aa 2 Pa. 122, Se ae ete 8, 04. U. Ubsdell, ae au L. T. N.S. 460, 1 Week. Rep. 70.... 648 Udall 2. maa 3 Cow. 590--966, 967 Udderzook »v. Com., 76 Pa. 340_- 1155, 1163, 1166, 1167, 1172 Ufford ». Dickinson, 12 ‘Allen, 9 Ulster County National Bank », Madden, 41 Hun, 118. 287 Umbenhower v. Miller, 101 Pa. 71 265 Underhill ». Horwood, 10 Ves. IV 209 acer ence. 966, 967 scene, s Hithcox, 1 Ves. Sr. McVeigh, 23 Gratt. 40s.” West, 43 Tl. 408______- White, 45 Ill. 487___._- Wing, 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 293, 4 DeG. McN. & G. 633, 19 Beav. 459__ Underwriters Agency »v. Suther- lin, 55 Ga, 266 _-____- Unger v. Jacobs, 7 Hun, 220___- Union aa ». Bell, 14 Ohio St. 2 0 esses 8 i ed, v. Ellis, 3 La. Ann. 188__. 130 2. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96, 15 Am. Dec. 181, note_748, 835 ». Mott, 39 Barb. 180 ___.. 604 v. Ridgeley, 1 Harr. & G. B24e ce doen 892, 893, 899 % Re 45 Wis. 873... 670 v. Sollee, 2 Strobh. L. 390, 282, 238 Union Bank of Georgetown 2. Geary, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 99, 8 L. ed. 60.._.1177, 1178 Union Canal Co. v. Loyd, 4 Watts GS, B98 oe eteienstvag 892 Union Central he Co. v, Cheev- er, 2 Cin. Law. Bull. 19 1001 Union Dime Sav. Inst. » Wil- mot, 94 N, Y. 221.726, 1806 TABLE OF CASES. Union India Rubber Co. ». Tom- ae 1 E. D. Smith, Union Ins. Ge. v, Smith, 124 U. 8. 405, 31 L. ed. 497_. 174, 360- Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Mow- ry, 96 U. 8. 544, 24 L. ed. 674 o. Reif,2 Cin. Ton Bull.290 iho ». Slee, 10 West. Rep. 156, 123 Ill. 57___-.-__- 721, 923. ®. Wilkinson, 80 U. 8S. 13 Wall. 281, 20 L. ed. 621 256. Union Nat. Bank ». Barber, 56 Iowa, 559.___-.__---- Union Pac. R. Co. ». Botsford, 141 U. 8. 250, 85 L ed. BF occas 1069, 1072, 1112 o. Durant, 95 U. 8. 576, 24 L. ed. 391 United Electric R. Co. v. Shelton, 89 Tenn. 423, 46 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 206... 1298 United States v. Amedy, 24 U.S. - Wheat. 392, 6 L. ed. ed. 295 ». Anthony, 11 Blatchf. 200° 91 v. A Quantity of Tobacco, 6 Ben. 68 ». Arredondo, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 691, 8 L. ed. 547 Seneca 72, 201, 208, 235, 947 ». Babcock, 3 Dill. 571---- 1018, 1019, 1040 v. Biebusch, 1 Fed. Rep. 218 sock Sc cierrerssee 530: v. Bornemann, 386 Fed. Rep. DOs gprs ee a eeeaaeren ». Boyd, 40 U. 8. 15 Pet. 187, 10 L. ed. 706_-__.. v. Brave Bear, 3 Dak. 34. - ». Breitling, 61 U. S. 20 How. 252, 15 L. ed. v. Britton, 17 Fed. Rep. 732 1012 ». Brocious, 3 Wash. C. C. OO a aaete eK er isa ». Buchanan, 48 U. 8. 8 How. 83, 138 L. ed. 997 910, 1818 v ee alae 41 Fed. Rep. », Carrico, 2 Cranch, C. C. v. Cases of Champagne, 1 Ben, 241.2 co.cc cc see 348 v,Chenault,2Cranch,C.C.70 158 United States 7. Cole, 5 McLean, 513 eo sess 2s eseese 3 s s e ss sees a. . Gibert, 2 Sumn. 19, 78_- . Gooding, 25 U. 8S. 12 TABLE OF CASES. Collins, 1 Cranch, C. C. DOO i te tetas ete acictrey as Collins, 1 Woods, 499.. 652 Craig, 4 Wash. C. C. 729 652 Cutts, 1 Sumn. 183____- 879 Dickinson, 2 McLean, 325 ___618, 620, 622, 631, 633 . Distillery, 8 Chicago Leg. News, 57 Doebler, Baldw. 519__. Duff, 19 Blatchf. 10____ 158 1012 . Dunham, 11 Law Rep. Ne 2000 sce ccesossae . 18 Barrels cf High Wine, 8 Blatchf. 476._....-- Eldridge, 5 Utah, 161_- 4.000 American Gold Coins, 1 Woolw. 217. 388 Fuller, 4.N. M. 358_-.. 39 Gaussen, 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 198, 22 L. ed. 41 1146 601 784. . Gaylor, 17 Fed. Rep. 441 1012 Gear, 3 McLean, 571_.. 288 170 Wheat. 460, 6 I. ed. 55: . Hall, 10 L. R.A. 824, 44 Fed. Rep. Hancock, 133 U.S. 193, 33 L. ed. 601..-_-.... Hawthorne, 1 Dill. 422. 554 Hayward, 2Gall. 485.111, 148 Howell, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. (5th ed.) 448_____ 1134 . Jackson, der Se 8. 41, 26 L. ed. 651___..__.... 26 . Johns, 4 vy 8S. 4 Dall. 412, 1 L. ed. 888__.196, 207 . Johnson, 2 Sawy. 482.. 27 . Johnson, 26 Fed. Rep. G82 se icciweies Sete enioe 868 . Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 209 622 . Kane, 23 Fed. Rep. 748. 869 . King, 84 Fed. Rep. 302. 800 . Kirkpatrick, 22 U. 8. 9 ay Beals 720, 6 L. ed. Gigecocenaceecaee 1150 ie 10 L. R. A. 833, 44 Fed. Rep. 896. 631 ®. Langton, 5 Mason, 280_984, 985 %. 0. v 2 Learned, 11 Tnt. Rev. Le Baron, 60 U. §. 19 How. 78, 15 L. ed. 525 2388 Le Baron, m1U. S. 4 Wall. 642,18 L. ed. 809 505 Leffler, 836 U. 8. 11 Pet. 86,9 L. ed. 642_..788, 1148 elxxix United States v. Linn, 42 U. S. e. v. esee esc s e e F McCready, 11 Fed. Rep. a8 ; MeGlue, 1 Curt. 1_-.--- . McMasters, 71 U. 8. 4 y ie 2 Watts, 406___- . Mitchell, Baldw. 366_- . Molloy, 31 Fed. Rep. 19 799 . Morrissey, 82 Fed. Rep. How.104, 11 L.ed. 64 859 ao 1 Cranch, Cc. Cc. Maccaniel 82 U. S. 7 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 587... 506 Wall. 680, 18 L. ed. 311 923. . Macomb, 5 McLean, 286, 289. “a 401 968. 503 . Nelson, 2 Brock. 64.857, 1150: . Neverson, 1 Mackey, 152 633. . One Case of Hair Pencils, 1 Paine, 400__._....-- 690 Owens, 37 Fed. Rep. 112 32 Parker, 21 Int. Rev. Rec. BO oe tase rt AA ae 652 . Parrott, McAll. 285__.. 229 5 Peggy, The, 5 U. 8. 1 ee 108, 2 L. ed. eke eg ctata trata as arse 31 f Pendraas, 32 Fed. Rep. NOB aero se 328, 798, 799 Perot, 98 U. 8. 428, 25 Toy ody OR oa eiestcnse 37 . Philadelphia & N. O. 52 U. 8. 11 How. 654, 18 Dis C0 802s edinee ead 37 . Purdy, 38 Fed. Rep. 902 674 . Rauscher, 119 U. 8. 407, 30 L. ed. 425..-...._- 81 . Reyburn, 31 U. 8. 6 Pet. 352, 4 L. ed. 824 146, 150, 158 i Reynes, 50 U. 8. 9 How, 127, 13 L. ed. 74___.. 31 Ridgeway, 31 Fed. Rep ie Seer reek whe = eect ats) 086 Has, ae 8. 281, 23 L. Saeeeehesisns , 53 Roel 2 Cranch, (CAR OR ))|: eee ame 565 . Simpson, 3 Penr. & W. 437, 24 Am. Dec. 331. 343 Tamer, 6 McLean, 128. 1018 b ae i cigars, 1 Woolw. Thee Tons of Coal, 6 Biss. 879_..._-..-_.- Turner, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 663, 13 L. ed. 857 36, 37 elxxx United States v. Vansickle, 2 Mc- Lean, 219.631, 639, 1248, 1249 o. Vaughan, 3 Binn. 394... 879 % ve 1 Cranch, C. C. ». Wallauact, Vv. & CO. M. Wagon Road Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 351_------- 44 ». Wanson, 1 Gall. 20--.. 178 v. Wary, 1 Cranch, C. C. v. White, 5 Cranch, C. C.. Bo ncasienes 621, 6238, 629, 633 ». Wiggins, 39 U. 8. 14 Pet. 334, 10 L. ed. a 6, 105 ®. Wiley, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 508, 20 L. ed. 211---- uae ® Williams, 6 Mont. 379.- ». Wilson, 82 U.S. 7 Pet. 150, 8 L. ed. 640.--.- v. ne 2 McLean, 564 158 v. Wood. 18 Blatchf. 252, 4 Meyers, Fed. Dec. 282 1149, 1248 v. Wood, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 430, 10 L. ed. 527_-.- 147 v Woods, 4 Cranch, C. C. AGA. ch riciesemacionseee 413 United States Bank », Carrington, 7 Leigh, 566-.._----- 290 United States Exp. Co. v. Rush, 24 Ind. 406.-.------- 27 United States Teleg. Co. v. Gilder- sleeve, 29 Md. 243, 247 114 vo. Wenger, 55 Pa. 262... 1036 Upstone v. Merchant, 2 Barn. & C. 10 854 Upton ». Archer, 41 Cal. 85, 10 Am. Rep. 266... ..857, 1150 », Paxton, 72 Iowa, 205... 42 v. Tribileock, 91 U. 8. 45, 28 L. ed. 208__.------ 898 Urket v. Coryell, 5 Watts & 5, 60, 758, 795 Usher v. Dauncey, 4 Campb. 97. 855 % Ba 5.N. Y. Leg. ODS 90 se ccceceeeecics Usry 2. am euee 40 Ga. 328.. 1238 Utica Ins. Co. »v. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296 --_.---- 161, 168 Utter v. Rich, 10 Ad. & El. 784. ‘1124 v. Travellers Ins. Co., 9 West. Rep. 108, 65 Mich. 545......--.--- Vv. Vail v. Rice, 6 N. Y. 155.279, 905, 910 ». Vail, 49 Conn. 52__..-- 995 TABLE OF CASES. Vaillant v. Dodemead, 2 Atk. 546 645 Valentine v. Piper, 22 Pick. 85.. 88 Vallett ». Parker, 6 Wend. 615.. 122 Valpy v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 837, 864 1263 Valton »v National Fund L. Assur. Soc., 22 Barb. 9 622 Van Aernam ». Van Aernam, 1 Barb. Ch. 878, 5 L. ed. BD Desc lsira Geer eae 80 Van Allen v, Allen, 1 Hilt. 524_. 1144 Van Alst v. Hunter, 5 Johns. Ch. 148, 1 L. ed. 1038.... 787 Vanauken, Re, 10 N. J. Eq. 192. 365 Vanbibber v. Beirne, 6 W. Va. 168 L. v. Weils, 19 Wend. 203_.- 512, 515, 516 Van Buskirk ». Day, 32 Ill. 260. 287, 959, 965 ®. Murden, 22 Ill. 446.__. 1312 Vance v. Caldwell, 1 Yeates, 8321. 825 ». Campbell, 66 U. S. 1 Black, 427, 17 L. ed. 168_____- 505, 554, 927, 928 Fairis, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. 217, 1 L. ed. 355__.-. 817 . Schroyer, 77 Ind. 501-. 914 Upson, 66 Tex. 476.... 924 1269 s see . Vance, 108 U.S. 514, 27 Van Court 2. “Bushnell, 21 Ill. 624 1076 VanCort ». VanCort, 4 Edw. Ch. 621, 6 L. ed. 997___-- Vanderveer, Re, 20 N. J. Eq. 463 179 Vanderwerken v. Glen, 85 Ga. 9. 895 Vanderwerker 2. People, 5 Wend. 580_...------- 21 ” 1084 Vandever v. Freeman, 20 Tex. 38, 292 962 Am. Dec. 391__--. Van Dorenv. New York, 9 Paige, 888, 4 L. ed. 748__--- Van Dusen v. Morrell, 3 Keyes, as Vanduzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 531 461, 856, 1126, 1129 Van Dyke § 2 Maguire, 67 N.Y. 429 462 101 ls Maat ne Doane 157 Van Eps », Dillaye, 6 Barb. 244. 475, 1154 Van Etta v. Evenson, 28 Wis. 83, 9 Am. Rep. 486. _ 857, 1150 Van Evera 0. Davis, 51 Jowa, 6387 305 Van Gelder v. Van ‘Gelder, si N. 1020 secncenc Asc 455 v..Van Dyke, 185 Pa. 459. Van Dyne 2 Petal bawe 19 Wend. 6 TABLE OF CASES. Van Hook »v. Somerville Mfg. , ON. J. Eq. 1872. v, Walton, 28 Tex. 80.._. Van Horn ». Bell, 11 Iowa, 468_. », Great Western Mfg. Co., 87 Kan. 523......-.-. Van Horne». Crain, 1 Paige, 455, 21K 00s TB sc co cemene eo. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 804, 1 L. ed. 891.__.. ® end 5 Johns. Ch. 416, 892 262 855 656 240 523 Van Kirk a Wilds: 11 Barb. 520 714, 976 Van Kleek 0. eh 4 Ab. Pr. N. 8. Van Ness v. Bush, 14 Abb. Pr. 33, 22 How. Pr. 481...622, 686 ». Washington, 29 U. 8. 4 Pet. 282, 7 L. ed. 842. 257 Van Nest v. Talmage, 17 Abb. Pr. 99 282 957 712 Van Norman »v. Jackson County Circuit Judge, 45 Mich. 204_-._------. Vannoy v. Klein, 122 Ind. 416_- Van Nuys v. Terhune, 3 Johns. Cas. 82 42 Van Pelt ». The Alaska, 33 Fed. Rep. 107_..--.-.---.. 360 ». McGraw, 4 N. Y. 110_. Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 52 U. 8. 1 How, 297, 13 L. ed. 708_....--.-.-. 707, '708 ee e.- » Kane, 1 Gal. 31 . i Van Sickle v. People, 29 Mich. 61 339, 848 Van Syckel o. Dalrymple, 32 N. J. Eq. 233, 826 1260 Vantrot 7. McCulloch, 2 Hilt. 272 1228 Van Tuyl u Van Tuyl, 8 Abb. Pr. B. 8. 5 Van Voorhis ». eintoall 86 N. Y. 18,40 Am. Rep. 505 998, 999 Van Wyck »v. Allen, 69 N. Y. 61. 308 », McIntosh, 14 N. Y. 489, BAO: on vai eiia 832, 340, 344 elxxxi Van Wycklen ». Brooklyn, 118 Nig Vs AO 4 evra 329, 363 Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend. 166- QOL. -wecemeaesescese ®. Tallman, 2 Barb. 117... Varney 2. Hawes, 68 Me. 442.__- Varona 2 Socarras, 8 Abb. Pr. 302 Vason v. Beall, 58 Ga. 500_____. Vassault v. Seitz, 81 Cal. 225__.. Vastbinder v. Metcalf, 8 Ala. 100 Vastine v, Fury, 2 Serg. & R. 426 Vathir o. Zane, 6 Gratt. 246__124, Vattier v. Hinde, 82 U.S. 7 Pet. 252, 8 L. ed. 675, aff’g 1 McLean, 110_---._- ae »% eee 56 Miss. 704 Taff Vale R.Co.,5 Hurlst. & N. 678.......- 1117, ». Worrall, 2 Madd. 322, 2g Veazie v. Williams,49 U.S. 8 How. 157, 12 L. ed. 1028__. Veiths 7. Hagge, 8 Iowa, 163.___ Velott v. Lewis, 102 Pa, 326_._.. Venable v. Bank of United States, 27 U. 8. 2 Pet. 107, 7 Venning ». Hacker, 2 Hill, L. 584 Verdery 2. Savannah, F.& W.R. Co., 82 Ga. 675_-_.. Verhein 2, Schultz, 57 Mo. oS Vermilye 2. . Adams Exp. Co., U. 8. 21 Wall. 138, 2 1278 267 629 510 18 753 223 1127 690 1283 1118 546 303 823 751 956 825 784. 739 506 967 265 1191 Vernon 2. mites ities, 110... o. Kirk, 30 Pa, 218... __. 284 216 82 1169 674 21 921 ». Vall, 2 Hill, Ch. 257... » Vernon, 6 La. Aun, 243 Verran v. Baird, 150 Mass. 141__ Viadero v, Viadero, 7 Hun, 316_- Viaian a. State, 16 Tex. App. 262 Vickery ». MeCormack, 117 Ind. Vicksburg & M. R. Co. 2. O’Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 30 L. ed. 299_---. 390, 391, 392, 761 Victory Webb Mfg. Co.v. Beecher, 55 How. Pr. 193...... Vigers 0. Dean of St. Paul’s, 14 Pare LOM ane eemee Vilas v. Downer, 21 Vt. 419__._. ». Mason, 25 Wis. 310___. Vilhac v. Biven, 28 Cal. 409_____ Vinal ». Burrill, 16 Pick. 401___- v, Gilman, 21 W. Va. 301, 45 Am. Rep. 562__.. 831, 838, 894 Vincent v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 49 Ill. 88....---.--.. 331 725 514 483 elxxxii Vincent v. State, 3 Heisk. 120.537, 538 ». Watson, 1 Rich. L. 194. 655 Vines v. Serell, 7 Car. & P. 163. 1045 Violett ». Patton, 9 U. 8.5 Cranch, 142, 3 L. ed. 61..1128, 1264 Virden v. Bowers, 55 Miss. 1.1279, 1281 Virginia &T. R. Co. 2. Sayers, 26 Gratt. 328_--_.-- 448, 761 Virginia Cent. R. Co. v. Sanger, 15 Gratt. 230_..._---. 1097 Visher ». Webster, 8 Cal. 109__-- Vivian 2. Otis, 24 Wis. 518, 1 Am. Rep. 199_.----------- 471 v. State, 16 Tex. App. 262. 40 Viiet ». Camp, 13 Wis. 198_-857, 1151 Von Glahn»v. Brennan, 81 Cal. 261 784 Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548 237, 454 ‘Vooght 2. ee 2Barn. & Ald. A pected oar 709, 739 ‘Voorhees v. ce of United States, 35 U. S. 10 Pet. 449, 9 856 L. ed. 490____---.---- 63 v. Jackson, 35 U.S. 10 Pet. 475, 9 L. ed. 500_.-201, 208 v Voorhees, 89 N. Y. “463, 100 Am. Dec. 458__-- 1208, 1217, 1295 Voorhis v. Voorhis, 50 Barb. 119_ 1194 Vore v. Hurst, 13 Ind. 554__-_.-- 272 Vosburgh 2. "Thayer, 12 Jobns. 461.22 ncn sacs 815, 819, 824 Vose v. Dolan, 108 Mass. 155, el. ‘Am. Rep. 331 Voss v. King, 83 W. Va. 286---- Vowles 2. oung, 13 Ves. Jr. a 414, 415 Vrooman 2. Griffiths, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 505 Wabash & E. Canal Trustees ». Reinhart, 22 Ind. 463. Waddell v. Glassell, 18 Ala. 561- ». Judson, 12 La. Ann. 18_ Waddingham 2. ‘Loker, 44 Mo. 132 % Waddingham, 4 West. Rep. 884, 21 Mo. App. Waddle v. Morrill, 26 Wis. 611.. 711 Wade ». Carter, 76 N.C. 171... 288 », Holbrook, 2 Redf. 878.. 1214 ». Leroy, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 34,15 L. ed. 813____- 504 ». Simeon, 2 C, B. 342_... 546 Wadley 2. Davis, 68 Barb. 500-907, 908 Wadsworth »v. Allcott, 6N. Y. 64 1229 ». Sharpsteen, 8 N. Y. 388 1087 vy, Sherman, 14 Barb. 169. 1087 152 960 223 179 96 TABLE OF CASES. Wadsworth v. Treat, 43 Me. 163 1043 ». Wendall, 5 Johns. Ch. 224,1L. ed. 1064____- 297 Wager 2. Schuyler, 1 Wend. 553 46 Waggoner ». Cooley, 17 Til. 239. 950 ». Millington, 8 Hun, 142_ 854 Wagner ». Aiton, 1 Rice, L. 100 404 ® Diedrich, 50 Mo. 484_._ 1130 v. Winter, 122 Ind. 57... 1063 Wagoner v. Wagoner (Md.)9 Cent, Hep 64oc222 220 ssa, 800 Wain v. Washers 5 East, 10.... 1268 Wait v. Brewster, 31 Vt. 516--.. 683 ». Chandler, 63 Me. 257... 1123 ». Pomeroy, 20 Mich. 425. 853 Waite v. Merrill. 4 Me. 102, 16 Am. Dec. 238___-._-- 263 Wakefield ». Smithwick, 4 Jones, Vip Betoce tech seeks 795 v, State, 41 Tex. 556_--__- 187 Wakeman 2. Bailey, 2 Barb. Ch. 482, 5 L. ed. 981____. 651 ». Grover, 4 Paige, 23, 3 L. Cd) B20 ee ctede ce tes 230 ». Robinson, 1 Bing. 213.. 86 Walbridge 2. Kilpatrick, 9 Hun, TOO se0 a= nsabbos sane s 1010 v. Knipper, 96 Pa. 48.___- 398 ». Ocean Nat. Bank, 59 N. WiG4e oe choose cen 669 ». Shaw, 7 Cush. 560_-_-- 1240 Waldele o, New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 61 How. Pr. 350, 95 N. Y. 274__887, 412 Walden v. Davison, 11 Wend. 65, 25 Am. Dec. 602.___- 166 . Sherburne, 15 Johns. 409 825 o. Skinner, 101 U. 8. 577, 25 L. ed. 963_.299, 301, 815 Waldridge v. Kennison, 1 Esp.143 435 Waldron ». sChasteney, 2 Blatchf. »% a 12 Wend.100._ 262 ». Tuttle, 4N. d. 371__402, 416 . Mitchell, 18 B. Mon. 541 784 . Moore, 2 Dill. 256 1289 . Richards, 389 N. H. 259. 1258 . Tiffin, G@. & 8. Min. Co., 2 Colo. Pe ease aie eh . Vicksburg 8. & P. R. Co., 7 L. R. A. 111, 41 La. Ann. 795, 17 Am. ‘ St. Rep. 417, note... 1109 v. Walker, 41 Ala. 858_... 64 » Walker, 14 Ga, 242. 355 Walker v. Allen, 72 Ala. 456.... 40 vo. Barrou, 6 Minn. 508.._. 907 v. Brown, 66 Tex. 556___. 1161 », Chapman, 22 Ala, 116_. 1151 ». Cronin, 107 Mass. 564.. 771 ». Curtis, 116 Mass. 98.749, 813 2. Herron, 22 Tex. 55__._. 1102 ». Hunter, 27 Ga. 386_____ 962 » v ao », e TABLE OF CASES. elxxxiii ‘Walker 0. Walker, 1 Mo. App.404 86] Walton». Coulson, 1 McLean, 121 403 ov. Western Transp. Co., 70 ». Hobbs, 2 Atk. 19.__...- 1178 U. 8. 8 Wall. 150, 18 v% Maguire, 17 Cal. 92_... 785 Bip: 005- 172 on os ceetinen 910 ». Robinson, 5 Ired. L. 841 488 Wall 2. Livezay, 6 Colo. 465-87, 1099 v. State, 88 Ted, Oo-G ee 639 "Wallace ». Baker, 1 Binn. 610... 259 %. Walton, 80 N. C. 26... 722 ® Bradshaw, 6 Dana, 3886. 910] Walz». Alback, 87 Md. 404___.- 273 2. Branch Bank at Mobile, Waltz v. Borroway, 25 Ind. 380. 739 LAlas569222-25e53.25 1127 | Wanderer, The, 29 Fed. Rep. 260 317 ». Cox, 71 Tl. 548_-__.... 58) Wann v. Western U. Teleg. Co., ». Goodall, 18 N. H. 439-. 752 37 Mo. 472__...___--- 1025 ». Harmstead, 15 Pa. 462, Wannall ». Kem, 51 Mo, 150.... 996 53 Am. Dec. 603-__.. 853 | Wanner 2. Landis, 187 Pa. 61_... 319 ». Loomis, 97 U. 8. 146, 24 Waples v. Overaker, "7 Tex. 7... 784 L. ed. 895_...-...--- 726 | Ward, Re, 2 Redf. 251... 993 ». Matthews, 39 Ga. 617, 99 v Allen, 2 Met. 57 461 Am. Dec. 473_...-__- 436 % Busack, 46 Wis. 407.... 180 ». Mattice, 118 Ind. 59... 954 v. Day, 4 Best & S. 887... 281 v. Minor, 86 Va. 550..___- 1221 ». Dewey, 16 N. Y. 519_.. 968 v. Story, 189 Mass. 115-_.. 420 ». Henry, 19 Wis. 76_---- 25 v. Taunton St. R. Co., 119 ». Herndon, 5 Port. (Ala.) Mass. (O12 orcsiccciees 607 OSes Sete keene a 1242 ‘Waller v. Graves, 20 Conn. 310 12 ». Leitch, 80 Md. 826..__. 823 Wallis v. Hodgeson, 2 Atk. 56.. 604 v. McNaughton, 43 Cal. 159 258 », Littell, 11C. B. N. 8.368 306 2 People, 8 Hill, 895, 6 », Littell, 14C. B. N.S. 369 1140 Ail, W442 ce 652 ‘Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464, 10 v. People, 6 Hill, 144..._- 596 Am. Rep. 407_-.__--- % Quinlivin, 57 Mo, 425... 199 277, 278, 280, 901, 907 v. Reynolds, 32 Ala. 384.. 336 Wally o. Kennedy, 2 Yerg. 554-_ 805 o. Shaw, 15 Vt. 115.__-_- 654 Walrath ». Campbell, 28 Mich.111 968 ». Sinfield, 48 L. T. N.S. ». Norton, 10 Ill. 487_.... 231 262, 49 L. J. C. P. 696 634 Walrod v. Ball, 9 Barb. 271____- 66 v. State, 40 Miss. 108.._.__ 216 % Bennett, 6 Barb. 145_462, 464 ». Voris, 117 Ind. 368___.. 782 Walsby 2. jane 38 L. T. N.S. ». Wheeler, 18 Tex. 249_. 820 Lica eben eeeomcanes 771 | Warden »v. Enslen, 73 Cal. 291_. 266 Walsh ». aoe 12 Mo. 520.... 722} Ware v. Chew, 10 Cent. Rep. 675, ». Hill, 88 Cal. 488_____-- 915 43 N. J. Eq. 493____- 28 ». Kattenburgh,8 Minn.127 1258 ». Dudley, 16 Ala. 742.--_ 837 ». McMenomy, 74 Cal. 356 1082 ». Gay, 11 Pick. 106_____- 1099 2. sar unt a ale ». Hayward Rubber Co., 3 Co., 52 Mo. 484___.-. 907 Allen, 84.__. ------.. 1318 v Morse, 80 Mo. 568 Seeeiin 978 v Percival, 61 Me. 391_-.. 789 v. People, 88 N. Y. 458... 129 v. Ware, 8 Me. 42_____- 349, 633 » Porterfield, 87 Pa. 376.. 601] Waring ». Mason, 18 Wend. 425. 308 v. Virginia & T. R. Co., 8 ». Smyth, 3 Barb. Ch. 119, Neve Hite ok 87 5 L. ed. 580_--__---.- 852 ». Sayre, 52 How. Pr. 834_ v. Somborn, 82 N. Y. 604. 722 1066, 1070, 1072 », Waring, 12 Jur. 947.... 568 Walsh’s Will, 1 Tuck. 132_.1204, 1217 »v, Warren, 1 Johns. 340_._ 168 Walsham 2. ten, 5 Ty J. Warner. Blakeman, 4 Keyes, 487 394 Ch, 68ccscccuseessse 770 ». Howell, 3 Wash. C. C. 12 1289 », Stainton, 1 Deg. J. & 8. v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 639 GTS cckinn stacey Sasa ae 963 v. Lucas, 10 Ohio, 836__.. 652 Walter ». Bennett, 16 N. Y. 250_ 678 v. Matthews, 18 Ill. 88.... 1237 Walston 2. Com., 16 B. Mon. 15 412, 41¢ ». New York Cent. R. Co., ». Hodge, "2 Swanst. 97. 990, 994 44.N. Y. 465.------.- 119 ». Lockwood, 4 Abb. Pr. v. Warner, 31 N. J. Eq. BOT scoetvemeenetese 1184 DOB ioc cerca aitcrsivasine 702 o. People, 32 N. Y. 147.-. 79] Warren, Hz parte, 31 Tex. 143.- 551 ». Ross, 2 Wash. C. C. 283 312 v. Gabriel, 51 Ala. 235__.. 179 Walters 2. Dashiell, 1 Md. 455... 292 ». Lovis, 58 Me. 468__.._- 265 ». Moore, 90 N. C. 41----- 219 v. Lusk, 16 Mo. 111....-- 64 elxxxiv TABLE Warren »v. Nichols, 6 Met. 267.. 401 v. Philadelphia Coal Co., 83 Pa, 487_-_.-.----- 1310 v. Spencer Water Co., 3 New Eng. Rep. 502, 148 Mass. 155._.__-.. 924 vo. Swett, 81 N. H. 882_... 223 ». Wheeler, 21 Me. 484._.. 336 ». Williams, 52 Me. 843.715, 976 Warren County v. Marcy, 97 U. 8. 96, 24 L. ed. 977... 1058 as Underwood, 3 Head, aA Washburn Merits, 1 Day, 189 304 v. Nashville & C. R. Co., 3 1111 645 ». Phelps, 24 Vt. 506_--.-- Washington v. Cole, 6 Ala. 212. 351 ». Pratt, 21 U. 8. 8 Wheat. 681, 5 L. ed. 714____- 1289 Washington & G. R. Co. v. Glad- moon, 82 U. S. 15 Wall. 401, 21 L. ed. 114_.__. Washington & N. O. Teleg. Co. ». Hobson, 15 Gratt. 120: sa aces cee sacence 1082 Washington, A. & G. S. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 592, 18 L. ed. B08 feet stesso as Washington Bridge Co. v. Stew- art, 44 U. 8S. 3 How. 418, 1L. ed. 658.-.__- Washington Ice Co. ». Webster, 62 Me. 341_.......--- 1020 Washington L. Ins. Co. ». Ha- ney, 10 Kan. 525__..- ®. Schaible, 1 W. N. C. 369 1155, 1166 Winns qos 18Wend. See e eae ae 961, 962 Witemnaie or 4 Cush. 497. 1263 Water’s App., 85 Pa. 528____- 706, 708 Waters v. Lilley, 4 Pick. 145... 908 1108 ». Riggin, 19 Md. 536_._.. 968 o. Waters, 35 Md. 589_... 401 v. Wing, 59 Pa, 211___--- 1102 Waterviiet EOEDD. Co. v. M’Kean, All, 6162620500004 681 Watlington v. Howley, 1 Desaus. Bg. 1G ccccc cameo oe 1059 4. Watkins ». Gregory, 6 Blackf. 118 265 v. Hodges, 6 Harr. & J. 38 1261 % ay anineae 26N.J. L. 271 » Since 6 Harr. &J. 485 769, 802 ». Wallace, 19 Mich. 47. 802, 844 Watkinson 2. Bank of Pennsyl- vania, 4 Whart. 483.. 284 Watkyns v, Watkyns, 2 Atk. 97. 89 Watrous 2. Cunningham, 71 Cal. BU hie celaweeeeued 820 OF CASES. Watrous 27. McGrew, 16 Tex. 509 v. Rodgers, 16 Tex. 410.-. Watry ». Hiltgen, 16 Wis. 516... Watson ov. Baker, 71 Tex. 739__. . Hewitt, 45 Tex. 472... i Hutton, 27 Ala. 515--.. . King, 3 C. B. 608__--_. . Knight, 44 Ala, 852___. Lisbon Bridge Proprs., 14 Me. 201, 31 Am. Dee, 49.552 ccoee . McClay, 4 Cal. 288.__._ . McLaren, 19 Wend. 557 ..Mainwaring, 4 Taunt. 763 207 336 306. 722 465: 725 sesees 401 1264 1001 336. 1013. 1222 305 223. 435 520: 780 740. 890: eee ». Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. 37 Pa. 469 . Roode (Neb.) 46 N. W. Rep. 491....<2<2=-ni0 . State, 55 Ala, 158___._. . Tindal, 24 Ga. 474___75, . Watson, 24S. C. 229__. . Watson, 6 Conn. 334__. . Williams, Harp. L. 447. Watson Coal & Min. Co. 2. James, 72 Towa, 184___._._.- Watt o. Starke, 101 U. 8S. 247, 25 L. ed. 826__..---..-.- ». Watt, 87 Ala, 546___... Watt's ae 12 Vin. Abr. 10 pl. Watts o Lindsey, 20 U.S. 7 Wheat. 158, 5 L. ed. v. Porter, 8 El. & Bl. 748_. Waugh 2. Schlenk, 23 Ill. App. 433 3 essees 279 880- 676. 1264 272 74 296: 76 Waul o. Kirman, 27 Miss. 823... Way »v. Butterworth, 108 Mass. 51 Weatherhead % Baskerville, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 329, 18 L. Weaver v. Alabama ©. Min. Co., 80 Alas176scs.2cceecu Barden, 3 Lans. 338, 49 N. Y. 286 3, Darby, 42 Barb. 411...- Davis, 47 Il]. 285_..... McElhenon, 18 Mo. 89.- Webb ». Alexander, 7 Wend. 281 . Baird, 27 Ind. 868...... 576, 15 L. ed. 35....806, 807 . Dye, 18 W. Va. 376, 888 1191 . Page, 1 Car. & K. 93... 348 Paterson, 7 Humph. s ses ec o oe o our oO ae ms —_ a js) ° 4 ses TABLE OF CASES. Webb 2. ee Eater 368, 3 L. Seeeceeeeouicat, 226 ® ieauraion. 42 Vt. 465_ 415, 416 Webber ». Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469 65 Weber v. Fickey, 52 Md. 500.... 212 ». Kansas City C. R. Co., 7 L. R. A. 819, 100 Mo. 194,18 Am. St. Rep. DAL ise Pe eee td oases 1109 ». Rothchild, 15 Or. 385, 3 Am. St. Rep. 162__187, 957 Webster v. Ela, 5 N. H. 540__--. 1263 ». Granger, 78 Ill. 280_... 308 o. Harris, 16 Ohio, 490--. 260 v Hunter, 50 Towa, 215... 209 ». Lee, 5 Mass, 334_.__. 654 v. Reid, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 437,18 L. ed. 761_... 204 . Upton, 91 U. 8. 65, 28 L. ed. 384__--- 876, 877, 899 ». Vickers, 3 Il]. 295.-.--. 1148 Webster oy v Tyler, 35 Mo. s ee aa aCe eeu 795 Weed v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co., FON, Ye S6Lo 2 cnn ais 2. Panama R. Co., 5 Duer, AOD St hat Sieh ae heats 1098 ». Snow, 3 McLean, 265_- 281 ». Stevenson, Clarke Ch. 166, 7 L. ed. 82_--.-- - 265 Weeks v. Lowerre, 8 Barb. 530._ 398 o. Medler, 20 Kan. 57__..- 313 Weems v. Weems, 19 Md. 884__.. 355 Webhle v. Spelman, 1 Hun, 634.. 465 Weide v. Gehl, 28 Minn. 449-_.. 268 Weidler v. Farmers Bank, 11 Serg. & R. 134. "498, 499 Weidman v. Kohr, 4 Serg. & R. V4 Loco com mesecezaae = 456 968 796 256 1310 473 618 1216 97 Weil v. Silverstone, 6 Bush, 698_ Weiland 2. Weyland, 64 Mo. 168 Weiler ». Hottenstein, 102 Pa. 499 Weimer v. Clement, 37 Pa. 147. Weinrich »v. Porter, 47 Mo. 293_- Weinzorpflin v. State, 7 Blackf, 186s. senses aaeusede Weir v. Fitzgerald, 2 Bradf. 42_- 1218, o. Marley, 6 L. R, A. 672, 99 Mo. 4 Weisrod v. Chicago &N. W. R. Co., 20 Wis. 420_...- Welch 2. Jugenheiner, 56 Iowa, 11, 41 Am. Rep. 77--- v Louis, 31 Dl. 458_--_--- . Mandeville, 14 U. S. Wheat. 233, 4 L. a 10: secesuon Se aestese ». Sackett, 12 Wis. 257_..51, 68 ». Ware, 32 Mich. 77_..-- 500 Wellborn v. Odd Fellows Bldg. & Exch. Co., 56 Tex. 501 992 elxxxv Wellborn v. Weaver, 17 Ga. 267 1270 Welfare ». London & B. R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 698..-. 86 Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480.-..._.-- 09 Welles v. Fish, 3 Pick. 75_.-_--- 1267 ». Yates, 44 N. Y. 525___-- 297, 298, 299 Wellover 2. Soule, 30 Mich. 481_ 984 Wells v. Austin, 4 New Eng, Rep. 799, 59 Vt. 157___.__- 723 Babcock, 56 Mich. 276_. 1160 Bennefield, Wright, 201 222 Francis, 7 Colo. 896.... 215 Jackson, 6 Blackf. 40.. 272 Jackson Iron Mfg. Co., 48N. H. 491_._.._...- ». Pierce, 27 N. H. 508.711, 722 v.Shipp,1 Walk. (Miss.) 358 420 ». Waterhouse, 22 Me. 131 200 v. Yates, 44.N. Y. 525... 262 Welker ». Coulter, Ad. 390____. 914 Welsh »v. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380__ 749, 818, 831 ssses Welton ». Divine. 20 Barb. 9... Wemple v. Knopf, 15 Minn. 440, 2 Am. Rep. 147..__264, 282 o, Stewart, 22 pub 154,158 299, 1807 Wendell v. Munridas. 19N.H. 109 221 v Lr Rensselaer, 1 Johns. eee eee eee eee 725 Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend.267,28 Am. Dec. 464__-._- 22-2 ee. 1270 Wentworth v. Lloyd,10 H.L. Cas. 589, 10 Jur. N. 8. 961, 33 L. J. Ch. 688, 10 L. TON. 8.96% acase 647 v. Tubb, 11 N.Y. Leg. Obs. O95 2tami UR eh eaoaee nee 265 ». Wentworth, 71 Me. 72... 77 Werely v. Persons, 28 N. Y. 344 377, 380 Wernag v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 4 West. Rep. 344, 20 Mo. App. 473_-...... 751 Wernwag : Pawling, 5 Gill & J. eerste aleeranslns 209 Wertz v. May, 21 Pa. 274_.____. 603 Wesley 2. rade 6 Harr. & J. icles acide eri emeiermiatay 260 West 2. ene 89 Kan. 736_. 159 Laraway, 28 Mich. 464_ 995 St. John, 63 Iowa, 287_ 111 State, 22.N. J. L. 212.340, 343 . State, 1 Wis. 209.-_.... 90 . Van "Tuyl, 28N. Y. 8. TR D4 sec het eerearn sessss elxxxvi We3t Coast Lumber Co. v. New- kirk, 80 Cal. 275____. Westcott ». Brown, 18 Ind. 83__ ». Thompson, 18 N. Y. 363 ‘West Cumberland, I. & S. Co. v. Kenyon, L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 782 Westerlo v. De Witt, 36 N.Y. 340 ‘Western v. Russell, 3 Ves. & B. 187 1080 201 905 1121 994 967 123 Western Cottage Organ Co. 2. Boyle, 10 Neb. 409_-- Western M. & M. Co. 2. ‘esi C. C. Co., 10 W. Va. Western R. Co. of Alabama 2». McCall, 89 Ala, 375_. Western U.Teleg.Co. v. Broesche, 2 Tex. 654__....___- ». Buchanan, 35 Ind. 429__ », Carew, 15 Mich. 525__- 114, es on 1036 ». Cooper, 1 L. R. A. 728 71 i 507, 10 Am. St. Rep. 123 v Graf, 1 Colo. 230, 9 Am. Rep. 186___.1080, 1032 ». Henderson, 89 Ala. 510_ 44 1024 114 1021, 1022 o. Hyer, 22 Fla. 648__._-. 1022 %, Meek, 49 Ind. 58___...- 1036 v. Neill, 57 Tex. 283, 44 Am. Rep. 589__.1024, 1082 ®. Sheffield, 71 Tex. 570... 1023 ». Way, 83 Ala. 542__1022, 1023 Westervelt ». Smith, 2 Duer, ies 1149 Westfield o Warren, 8 N.JI. West Haven Water Co. v. Red- field, 58 Conn. 389____- Westmorland v. Carson, 76 Tex. Weston v. Empire Assur. Corp., L. R. 6 Eq. 28_-----. ». New York Elev. Co., 10 Jones & 8. 156 ». Sprague, 54 Vt. 895___- ». Wilson, 31 N. J. Eq. 51 West Republic Min. Co. o. Jones, 108; Pas 60 ee meepxtie yee 307 Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. O01 eee nee sne se 899 ». Dunn, 82 Cal. 106_...25, 1279 ». Ezekiel, 25 Vt. 47_____- 647 ». Marsh, 20 N. H. 561_._. 1044 Wetherill ». Neilson, 20 Pa. 448. 1318 Wetmore v. Mell, 1 Ohio St. 26, 59 ‘Am, Dec. 607...-.-.- ‘862 v. Peck, 19 Alb. L. J. 400. 888 Wetumpka v0. Wetumpka Wharf Co., 63 Ala. G11_-__.. 123 Wetzler v. Kelly, 83 Ala. 440. . 20 Weyand v. Tipton,5 Serge. & R. 832 1283 733 |: TABLE OF CASES, Weyman ». People, 4 Hun, 511, aff’d 62 N. Y. 623 ._522, 523 Wharam v. Routedge, 5 Esp. 235 167 Wharf ». Howell, 5 Binn. 503___ 265 Wharton 2. Douglass, 76 Pa. 273 965 v. Mackenzie. 5 Q. B. 606_ 1229 Wheat 2. ce a Md. 99, 1 Am. BeeR eos acasS, 1018 Wheatley v. Williams 2 Gale, 140, 1 Mees. & W. 583._.. 647 Wheaton v. Baker, 14 Barb. 597. 957 v, North Beach & M. R, Co., 36 Cal. 590___._. v. Peters, 33 U. 8. 8 Pet. 658, 8 L. ed. 1079____- v. Voorhis, 538 How. Pr. 319 ». Wheaton, 9 Conn. 96_. Wheelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11__ Wheeler v. Collier, 1 Mood. & M. TOBE co ogewe seneeoeeeks . Guild, 20 Pick. 551_- . Newbould, 16 N. Y. 392 278, 905, Newbould, 5 Duer, 29__ 906 . Reed, 36 Ill 81..._____ 1812 : Walker, 45 N. H. 355.892, 896 Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Tins- ley, 75 Mo. 458._._452, 487 Wheeling v. Union Nat. Bank of Pittsburgh, 96 U. S. 268, 24 L.ed. 883_____ 1805 Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt. 440 483 v. Freeman, 13 Pick. 165__ 852 Wheeltoa v. Hardisty, 8 El. & Bl. 200s iene vememeneas 519, 970 Whelan 2. nee 26 Ohio St. ». eo 60 N.Y. 469.284, 1807 ®. Whetan, 3 Cow.587_ 1084, 1093 Whelpley 2. Loder, 1 Dem. 368._ 649 Whetmore v. Murdock, 3 Woodb, & M. 386 1097 178 664 91 952 1263 1124 1318 ee ees 276 Whilden ». Merchants & P. Nat. Bank, 64 Ala. 1.____. 1017, 1018, 1088 Whipple ve ee 10 N. H. Whitaker ». Brown, 8 Wend. 490 455, 456 v. Sumner, 7 Pick. 551, 19 Am. Dec. 298_...___. 219, 221, 914, 915 Whitcher v. Hall,5 Barn. & C. 269 1151 % eee 115 Mass. Biase eatery, 483 White v. Ambler, 8 N. Y. 172... 898 2. Bailey, 10 Mich. 155._.. 855 », Burnley, 61 U. §. 20 How, 250, 15L. ed. 890 207 TABLE White », Chaney, 83 West. Rep. OF CASES. elxxxvii Whiteman v. The Neptune, 1 Pet. 276, 20 Mo. App. 389-87, 95 Adm. 180_.-..-_.---- 233 o Chicago, M. &S&St. P.R. Whitenack A Syne 2N. J. Co. (8.D.)9 LRA, | Eq. 8. eee 355 824 go usooaaodnecene 804} White ivan Bonk ». Downer, 29 e. Continental Nat. Bank, EDO rs ete 221 64 N. Y. 316.458, 460, 461 | Whitescarver v. Bonney, 9 Iowa, v. Crow, 110 U.S. 183, 28 480) cise eteenirneweeciee 453 Loed1182 2. 63 | Whiteside . Haselton, 110 U. S. v. Flora, 2 Overt. 480__.__ 966 296, 28 L. ed. 152.... 1054 0. Flynn, 23 Ind. 46_____- 808 | Whitesides ». Lafferty, 9 Humph. v. Fox, 22 Me. 341___..-_. 1150 Dib eernsere ces eeiclcieia cicia 242 % oo 107 Mass. 325, 9 ®. Poole, 9 Rich. L. 68_.__ 38 Am. Rep. 38_.._-._.- 994| White Water Valley Canal Co. o. ». Hampton, 10 Iowa, 238. 836 Valette, 62 U. S. 21 v. Hass, 32 Ala. 430_-___-. 853 How. 414, 16 L. ed. v. Hawn, & Johns. 351_... 575 Use etsy od 891, 1304 ». Howard, 1 Sandf. 81... 71] Whitfield » Aland, 2 Car. & K. v. Joy, 13 N. Y. 86_.-__.- 1229 TONS bus sece cet 754 v. Knapp, 47 Barb. 549. .64, 178 % Colling wand, 1 Car. & v. Langdon, 30 Vt. 599_711, 716 POS Se cee emote ee 858 v. Lyons, 42 Cal. 279____- 1186 o. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352. 336 . McGuirons, Minor (Ala.) Whiting 2. Barney, 30 N. Y. 330 Dsl oes Se atoe 2 450, 648 #. McLean, 47 How. Pr. v. Bradley, 3 N. H. 81___- 198, 57 N. Y. 620.___- 218, 221, 2382 586, 599, 793 v. Independent Mut. Ins. ». Miller, 71 N. Y. 118.308, 446 Co., 15 Md. 297_____. 721 », Milwaukee City R. Co., ». Lake, 91 Pa. 349_._____ 449 61 Wis. 536, 18 Am. & v, Nicholl, 46 Ill. 280___._ U7 Eng. R. Cas. 213_.__- 1074 | Whitlock ». Castro, 22 Tex. 108_ 21 ». Miners Nat. Bank, 102 U. §S. 658, 26 L. ed. 250 ®. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 2 West. Rep. 154, 19 Mo. App. 400-_.-_-------- ». Nichols, 44 U. 8. 3 How. 285, 11 L. ed. 600_... 1041 2. Old Dominion Steamship Co., 3 Cent. Rep. 40, 102'N. Y. 661__...... 439 o. Perry, 14 W. Va. 66._.. 960 ». Thomas, 39 II]. 228_.._. 386 » Todd’s V. W. Co., 8 Cal. 443, 68 Am. Dec. 388. 786 v. Trotter, 14 Smedes & M. 30, 538 Am. Dec. 112_. 954 . Tucker, 9 Iowa, 100_... 882 ». Western U. Teleg. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 710___.- 114 vo, White, 7 L. R. A. 799, 82 Cal. 47_..___.__. 100 v. Whitney, 82 Cal. 163... 832 ». Williams, 48 Barb, 222. 257 ». Wilson, 6 Blatch. 448_. 297 Whitefield ». M’Leod, 2 Bay, 880.222 sume tueoes 967 Whitehouse ». Hansom, 42 N. Be Qiocte meh mae 272 Whitehurst ». Rogers, 88 Md. 503 213 White Mountains R. Co. v. East- man, 34 N. H. 124_888, 892 Whitman ». Granite Church Proprs., 24 Me. 236.889, 890 ». Hunt, 4 Mass. 272.__._. 983 v Spencer, 2 R. I. 124__770, 872 Whitmarsh v. Angle, 8 Code CD, Qos ame as- eee. Whitmore ». Bouth Boston Iron Co., 2 Allen, 52, 58__. 808, 905, 1816 Whitnash v. George, 8 Barn. & C. 556, 3 Mood. & R. 42. 423 Whitnay v. Bunnell, 8 La. Ann. 429 Wohitner », Hamlin, 12 Fla. 18_. Whitney v. Boston, 98 Mass. 312 684 v. Clary, 5 New Eng. Rep. 152, 145 Mass. 156__ 148 Eager, Crabbe, 442_____ 233 . Ferris, 10 Johns. 66-475, 1158 . Gauche, 11 La. Ann. 482 20 . Janesville Gazette, 5 Biss. 331 -.-__-...-.- . Ludington, 17 Wis. 140, 84 Am. Dec. 734 o. Sawyer, 11 Gray, 243__ 815, 820, 830 v. State, 8 Mo. 165____._-. ». Sterling, 14 Johns. 215- 475, 1158, 1157 », Sutton, 10 Wend. 411.. 309 v, Thacher, 117 Mass, 526- 334, 1308 eees e elxxxviii Whittaker, Hv parte, L.R. 10 Ch. Oho Sasicascts 95 % Edmunds, 1 Mood. & R. staid emma seiean 1127 v Bighth Ave. R. Co., 5 Robt. 650..-.---.-.-. 24 ©. Hueske, 29 Tex. 855___- v. Voorhes, 88 Kan. 71__.- Whittemore 2. _Bartington, 76 N. Y. 4 Whittick 2. Kane, 1 Paige, 206, 2 1s. G0, OY Sicpucweeccone Whittier v. Varney, 10 N. H. 291 ». Wendell, 7 N. H. 257_. Whittingham » Thornburgh, 2 Vern, 206 se socnccee ce Whittlesey ». Starr, 8 Conn. 134. Whittuck 2. Waters, 4 Car. & P. DAD mais eee deters Whitney Holmes Organ Co. ». Petitt, 34 Mo. App. 536 Whorton v. Moragne, 62 Ala, 201 Wiatt vo. Effington, 2 Ld. Raym. 41 739 603 1062 858 553 728 262 958 499 A Oe earch eer Wickenkamp 2. Wickenkamp, 77 M92 sss emrersge aaah Wicker 2. Hotenkise, 62 Tl. 107, f 14 Am. Rep. Ge Wickes v. Caulk, 5 Harr. & J. ATs scpeck Sek peer mysteries Wicks v. Smallbrooke, 1 Sid. 51_ Wieland 2. Kobick, 110 Tl. 16___ Wiest 2. Sarman, 4 Houst. (Del.) Wiggin ». Dae ee ». Scammon, 27 N. H. 360 ‘Wigetuea, Burkham, 77 U. 8. 10 Wall, 129, 19 L. ed. ». Leonard, 9 Iowa, 194_790, 871 Wiggins i Co. 0. Chicago & A. R. Co., 5 Mo. App. Wigglesworth ». Dallison, 1 Dougl. 201, Smith, Lead. Cas. (6 Am. ed.) 677, '7 Am. ed.) 900_- 277, 278 Wightman »v. Coates, 15 Mass. 1, Am. Dec. 77_...- 861, 862 Wike v. Lightner, 11 Serg. & R. 198, 199... 629, 680, 1249 Wilbur ». Selden, 6 Cow. 168._.. 398, 423, 893 v. Strickland, 1 Rawle, 458 950 Wilcocks oa Phillips, 1 Wall. Jr. Wilcox v. Dodge, 12 Ill. App. 517 1159 v. Green, 23 Barb. 639.... 860 v. lowa Wesleyan Universt- ty, 82 Iowa, 867__.._. 722 v, Jackson, 109 Ill. 261... 22 TABLE OF CASES. Wilcox », Leominster Nat. Bank, 48 Min, S41 eccccceccc 9 v, Smith, 5 Wend. 231.... 150 ». Wilcox, 46 Hun, 32_.._ 1166. ». Wood, 9 Wend. 346. 277, 901 Wilcoxon »v. Osborn, 77 Mo. 621. 727 Wilcoxson v. Burton, 27 Cal. 228, 87, Am. Dec. i 786. Wilde o. Gibson, 1H. L. Cas.605 972 Wilder v. Bailey, 3 Mass. 294__._ 1177 ». Cowles, 100 Mass. 487_. 113, 118. v. Welsh, 1 McArth. 566_. 655: Wilding 2. Horner, 50 Ill. 50_-_. 1283 Wiley v. Athol, 6 Th i As 342, 150 Mass. 426.....__. o. Logan, 95 N. C. 858.-.. 924 v. Moor, 17 Serg. & R. 488 ay 1151 Wilhelm v. Burleyson, 106 N. C BO com socceoncinbceens Wilhelmi 2. Haffner, 52 Ill. 26.. 984 Wilkes 2. Collins, L. R. 8 Eq. 388 290 Wilkie ». Bolster, 3 E. D. Smith, ae as en yeaa 1 Wilkins 2. ale, 44.N. Y. 172.66, 793 » Malone, 14 Ind. 158_... 653 v. Stidger, 22 Cal. 231-___. 469 Wilkinson v. Arnold, 11 Ind. 45_ 1061 v, Bauerle, 5 Cent. Rep. 124, 41 N. J. Eq. 635. 230- ® Davis, 84 Ga. 549... 633. ». First Nat. F. Ins. Co., 72 N.Y. 499, 25 Am. Rep. GDS fall 22% ah an a te 1273: v. Fowkes, 9 Hare, 592... 1092. ». Johnson, 3 Barn. & C. DOS ac pae een 2 eu ciad 458. v. Lutwidge, 1 Strange, 648 458 v. Payne, 4 T. R. 468. .-74, 998 v. Pearson, 23 Pa. 117__ 355. »% Sargent, 9 Iowa, 521__. 1126 v, Stewart, 85 Pa. 255... 1289 vo, Verity, L. R. 6 C. P. 206, 40 L. J. C. P. 140 1268 Willan v. Willan, 16 Ves. Jr. 82. 2097 Willard 0. Pike, 4 New Eng. Rep. 608, 59 Vt. 202..-.._- 920 Willer ». Bergenthal, 50 Wis. 474 670 Willett ». People, 27 Hun, 469.. 1010 2. Rich, 2 New Eng. Rep. 672, 142 Mass. 857._.. 118 William & Mary College v. Powell, 12 Gratt, 872....2.22. 968 Williams’ Case, 1 Leach, 538, 1 Fast, P. C. 424.._...- 72 ». Bacon, 10 Wend. 636... 655 v% Brickell, 387 Miss. 682._ 1020 v. Betts, 4 Denio, 201__... 340 a Brown, 28 Ohio St A es tip ten ek ni 330- 2. Chandler, 25 Tex. 4.... 722 % Cheatham, 19 Ark. 278_ 225 TABLE OF CASES. Williams o. Crutcher, 5 How. 2 eseess esese ss sss ssesese . East India Co., 3 East, 192 . Jarrett, 5 Barn. & Ad. 32 . Jersey, 1 Craig & P. 91 . Lee, 47 Md. 321______.. . Lowndes, 1 Hall, 579... ae 35 Am. Dec. 848, 344, 460, 461 Las itt bua ae 1095 . Eldridge, 1 Hill, 249 __- 581 . Gillies, 75 N. Y. "197__.. 1161 p Glasgow, 1 Nev. 588... 844 . Hayes, 20 N. Y. 58.... 462 . Hodgson, 2 Harr. & J. A Ae rts ears cieaanate 227 Housel, 2 Iowa, 154.... 985 Ines, 1 Campb. 364, note 465 Ingell, 21 Pick. 288_... 913 Jackson, 28 Ind. 834... 711 854 716 Jones, 42 Miss. 270_._.. 984 Kirtland, 80 U. 8. 18 Wall. 310, 20 L. ed. 684 1279 348 220 Mudie, 1 Car. & P. 158._ 475, 1158 Owen, 5 Myl. & C. 303. 268 Peyton,17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 77, 4 L. ed. 518_-1278, 1280 Robbins, 16 Gray, 77... 270 Sheldon, 10 Wend. 654. 2385 Smith, 2 Barn. & Ald. BOGE soccca came e 1229 Soutter, 55 11]. 180_.__. 996 Soutter, 7 Iowa, 485__.. 1160 Spafford, 8 Pick. 250-307, 308 State, 24 Tex. App. 17. 870 State, 64 Ind. 558___ 22. 30 State, 67 Ga. 260.._.._. 29 Straton, 10 Smedes & Wy 21S icemcne soocccu 225 Raye 10 Rich. Eq. eho eis iain re arenes 225 i nee 125 Mass. 84._ 280 Thorp, 8 Cow. 201_..485, 478 . Threlkeld, 2 Cranch, C. C807 seetoteascie can 1262 Turner, 7 Ga. 348_____. 618 Union Bank, 2 Humph Dace ore toate ates 891 . United States, 42 U.S. 1 How. 290, 11 L. ed. TBO eisai ee ery: 63, 175 Vance, 2 La. Ann. 908. 960 Vanmeter, 8 Mo. 339... 1061 Vermont Mut. Ins. Co., 20 Vt. 222.....2.. 728, 1271 . Vreeland, 30 N. J. Eq. D7 Because eee se 702 . Waters, 36 Ga. 454_____ 1006 . Williams, Carth. 269.. 27 . Williams, 63 Md. 871... 963 Williams 9. Williams, 11 Ky. L, Rep. 828 ». Woodard, 2 Wend. 487_ v. Woods, 16 Md. 220.__. Williamson v. Berry, 49 U. 8. 8 How.495, 12 L. ed.1170 eo, Cambridge R. Co., New Eng. Rep. 750, elxxxix 995 238 199 144 Mass, 148____. 449, 1000 ® Be eda 26 Ohio St. Die Taw “& G. 444 . Ringgold, 4 Cranch, C. Op AV eects % Williamson, L. R. 7 Eq. O42t Sac euwon awe useiels Willingham v. Chick, 14 8. C. 98 Willings ». ._Consequa, Pet. C. C. ees Willink 2. Stiles Pet. C. C. 429. Willis ». Gattman, 53 Wis. 721. v. Hill, 2 Dev. & B. L. 281, 81 Am. Dec. 412..._- v, Owen, 42 Tex. 41_____- » eee Brod. fs B. v. Pern 54 Til. 266__...2 Willover v. Hill, 72 N. Y. 36__._ Wills ». Leverich, 20 Or. 168... ». Wills, 34 Ind. 106, 107. Willse », Whitaker, 22 Hun, 242 Willson »v. Betts, 4 Dento, 201_-- ®. Ellis, 1 Denio, 462__._. Wilmer v. Israel, 1 Browne (Pa.) er a Wilson v. “tna Ins. Co., 27 Vt. 99 728, 1268, 1271, . Babb, 18 8. C. 59___._- . Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 6 Léigh, 570....22-.-+.4 _ Bauman, 80 Ill. 493___- . Beauchamp, 50 Miss, 24 . Boerem, 15 Johns. 286__ . Boughton, 50 Mo. 17___ . Bowen, 5 T. B. Mon. 33 . Bowie, 1 Car. & P. 8__- . Boyce, 92 U.S. 826, 23 L. ed. 610_...-.-.--- See ee 2 S ec it w el o es em” me = oO oO a & = . Carpenter, 62 Ind. 495. . Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 21 Gratt. 654......... . Deen, 121 U. 8. 525, 30 : Deen, TAN, Y. 581. ._.. . Forsyth, 24 Barb. 105. . Fuller, 9 Kan. 176_.__-- . Gerhardt, 9 Colo. 585_. . Glenn, 68 Ala. 383_...- ss e Sees 3 428 420 1289 897 1319 167 1192 : 1084 268 1107 212 1260 949 925 cxe Wilson v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 56 Me. 60, 96 Am. Dec. OC asigas aos «Kas 1106, 1107 ». Green, 25 Vt. 450.._.-- 1185 . Henderson, 9 Smedes & M. 375, 48 Am. Dec. ». Hotchkiss, 81 Mich. 172 99 ». Hurst, 1 Pet. C. C. 441- 219, 221 o. Johnson, 74 Wis. 337.784, 785 vo. Kings County El. RB. s Co., 114 N. Y. 487..-- 921 »% Knapp, 70 N. Y. 596... 830 ». Lazier, 11 Gratt. 477, 478 128, 1127 v. Lemon, 28 Ind. 488._.. 1282 ». McCormick, 86 Va. 995_ 485 ». McKenna, 52 Il). 44.... 808 ». Marsh, 1 Johns. 503__._ 1316 ». Oldham, 12 B. Mon. 55. 1089 v. Powers, 131 Mass, 589-_ 306 v. Rastall, 4 T. R. 753__451, 647 v. Robertson, 1 Overton, A642 aise ose Sesecccus 207 v. Smith, 61 Cal. 209___-- 1100 v. State, 41 Tex. 820_...-. 351 v. State, 16 Tex. App. 497 36 v. Stockholders of Pitts- burgh & Y. Coal Co., 43 Pa. 424_..--_.---- 212 . Stoner, 9 Serg. & R. 389 236 . Strayhorn, 26 Ark. 28.. 964 . Wager, 26 Mich. 452_584, 610 Wilson, 6 N. J. L. 114-827, 828 v. Young, 2 Cranch,C. C.33 158 Wiltsie, Re, 12N. Y.8. R. 144. 944 Winans v, New York & E. R. Co., 62 U.S. 21 How. 88, 16 L. ed. 68_-.__.---- 689, 692 eeses TABLE OF CASES. Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254. 35 ». Thompson, 24Minn.199 256 Winooski ». Gokey, 49 Vt. 282... 24 Winship v. United States Bank, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 529, 8 L. ed. 216...---<<---- 1156 Winslow v. Cooper, 104 Ill. 2385. 716 ». Newlan, 45 Ill. 145___-- 640 ‘Winsor v. Dillaway, 4 Met. 221_. 279 Winstead v. Davis, 40 Miss. '785_ 1123, 1126 Winston v. Westfeldt, 22 Ala. 760, 1053, 1055, 1059, 1060: Winter v. Belmont Min. Co., 53 Elmore, 88 Ala. 555_--_ McMillan, 87 Cal. 256__ Sass, 19 Kan. 556_____- Oe States, Hempst. ” 697 731 535. 910: 983 91 esses Winterfield ». Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 29 Wis, 589 Wintermute 2. Snyder, 3.N. J. Eq. 48: Co., 39 Mo. 468______ v ey, Litt. Sel. Cas, Winton v. Meeker, 25 Conn. 456, 632, 633. ». Saidler, 3 Johns. Cas.185 602 Wisdom 2. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 1 West. Rep. 447, 19 Mo, App. 324.24, 35- Wiser ». Blachly, 1 Johns. Ch. 607,1 L. ed. 263.297, 301, 304 Wiswall o. Hall, 3 Paige, 318, 3 L. ed. 168.._-- 262, ’300, 804 Withee v. Rowe, 45 Me. 571_... 332 Witherell v. Goss, 26 Vt. 748219, 221 Winants v. Sherman, 3 Hill, 74.. $25] Withers v. Patterson, 27 Tex. 491 200 Winch v. Norman, 65 Iowa, 186. 3839] Withrow 2. Biggerstaff, 87 N.C. Winchell v. Edwards, 57 Ill. 41-_ 711 DG cists ie aaiehaes 954 Winchester v. Beavor, 3 Ves. Jr. Witte v. Williams, 8 S. C. 290, 28 tn ota Si i ncn eed 1052 Am, Rep. 294.450, 856- ». Charter, 97 Mass. 140.. 954] Witting o St. Louis & 8. F. ». Paine, 11 Ves. Jr. 200._ 1052 Co., 10 L. R. A. eos Winchester & P. Mfg. Co. 2. 101 Mo. 631, 20 Am. Creary, 116 U. 8. 161, St. Rep. 686_..._...- 1105. 29 L. ed. 491.._... 446, 449 | Woburn a endian: 101 Mass. Winder ». Blake, 4 Jones, L. 332, 190 ea aoe sets 645, 646 278, 907 | Wogan v. Finals 11 Serg. & R. ®, Little, 1 Yeates, 152... 414) ~~ = 144... 2.2 355 Windham v. Chetwynd, 1 Pa. 424 988] Wolcot v. ienig ht, 6 Mass. 418_. 722 Winehart a. State, 6 Ind. 80_._.. 91 | Wolcott v. Heath, 78 1. 488.... 758 Winkley 2. Kaime, 82 N. H. 268 1194 ». Meech, 22 Barb. 321 _.. 669 Winlock v. Hardy, 4 Litt, 272_. 499 ». Mount, 86 N. J. L. 262. 1810 Winn ». Patterson, 34U. 8. 9 Pet. Wolf ». Carothers, 3 Serg. & R. 663, 9 L. ed. 266._.._. 9402 oe ece Seca 952 403, 405, 407, 1009 ». Fletemeyer, 8311. 418__ 287 v. Foster, 18 Kan. 116.... 152 Winnipiseogee Lake C. & W. Mfg. Co. », Young, 40 N. H. 420 o. Stix. 99 U.S. 1, za hs, ed. 809 TABLE OF CASES. Wolf vo. Western U. Teleg. Co., 62 Pa. 83, 1 Am. Rep. OM ayes eens ear tear Wolfe ov. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 3 L. R. A. 539, 97 Mo. BT sp pee erecta eat 425, 1299 ». Murphy, 60 Miss. 1..._ 1286 Wolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69____- 484 Wollenweber v. Ketterlinus, 17 Womack ». Western U. Teleg. Co., 58 Tex. 180___._- 1024 ». Womack, 23 La. Ann. 351 216 Woman’s U. Miss. Soc. ». Mead, 131 Il. 338_--___..2. Wood ». Bishop, 1 Dem. 512__._ 1213 v. Braddick, 1 Taunt.104. 483 0. Chetwood, 12 Cent. Rep. 248, 44.N. J. Ey. 64.. 994 v. Cooper, 1 Car. & K. 645 754 ». Coosa & C. R. Co., 32 895 . Cullen, 18 Minn. 394.151, 174 . Doane, 20 Vt. 612_._.219, 221 Dummer, 3 Mason, 308, sss 899 . Foster, 8 Allen, 24..-.410, 466 Fe Fowler, 26 Kan. 682___. 30 . Gault, 3 Md. Ch. 433... 836 . Hickok, 2 Wend. 501-279, 902 . Hubbell, 10 N. Y. 487, 5 Barb. 608......---- 299, 304 J 9 Cow. 194____- 889, 898, 895 eeses exci Woodbridge o,. State, 43 N. J. L, Py ee ee oe ae Woodbury ». District of Colum. bia, 3 Cent. Rep. 788, 5 Mackey, 127......_.. ». Larned, 5 Minn. 889__.. 447 v. Obear, 4 Gray, 467_..__ 849: Woodcock ». Bennet, 1 Cow. 743 231 v Houldsworth, 16 Mees. 10: Wooden». Haviland, 18 Conn. 101 260. 804 ». Wafile, 6 How. Pr. 145_ 1182 Woodford a McClenahan, 9 II. 231 at aa ones aese: Woodman ». Churchill, 51 Me. A ney aicpayen eee ». Churchill, 52 Me. 58... 1124 ». Dana, 52 Me. 9...._.__- ». Freeman, 35 Me. 531___ Wood River Bank » Kelley, 29 Neb. 590__._..--..__- Woodrow »v. O’Connor, 28 Vt. 776 36 Woodruff v, Frost, 2. N. J. L. 322 256 v. Garner, 39 Ind. 246_.__. ». Hill, 116 Mass. 310..._- ». Merchants Bank, 25 Wend. 678, 6 Hill, 1'74 277, 1818 Woods v. Davis, 34 N. H. 828__. 645 ». DeFiganiere, 25 How. Pr. 522, 1 Robt. 688. 242 ». Devin, 18 Ill. 747, 56 Am. Dec. 483_-..1106, 1107 ». Knapp, 1 cont. Rep. 170, v. Keyes, 14 Allen, 238.... 401 100 "N. “Ws. 109: 2a 111} Woodsides ». State, 2 How. (Miss.) ». McGuire, 17Ga. 303.... 602 600 soos a aiooas sce 413 2 Mann, 2 Sumn. 316, 2 Woodson». a 24 Tex.App.153 149 Dan. Ch. Pr. 1148-702, 1249 | Woodward 2. Chicago & N. W. ». Matthews, 73 Mo. 477__ R. Co., 21 Wis. 809... 21 274, 1139 ». Clark, 30 Kan. 78....-- 1161 v. Moriarty, 4 New Eng. % Eastman, 118 Mass. 408. 6383 Rep. 269, 15 R. 1. 518 288 ». Sloan, 27 Ohio St, 592__ 1281 v. New York Cent. & H.R. ». Tremere, 6 Pick. 354... 209 R. Co., 5 N. Y. Week. Woodwell v. Brown, 44 Pa. 121. 447 Dig? 80-- seseek coos 1231 | Woodworth ». Bellows, 4 How. o. Nichols, 88 La. Ann. 744 718 Pr. 24, 1 Code, Rep. ». Nortman, 85 Mo. 298... 382 (CN. Y.)29 2250 coos 463. », Ostram, 29 Ind. 177.... ‘709 ». Cook, 2 Blatchf. 159... 298 v2. Steele, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. ». Knowlton, 22 Cal. 164.. 187 80, 18 L. ed. 725...854, 859 | Woolen v. Vankirk, 61 Ill. 497.. 1122 ». United States, 41 U. 38. Wooley »v. Constant, 4 Johns, 54, 16 Pet. 360,10 L. ed. 4 Am. Dec. 246..-... 855 O94 eo eee eins 522 », Watkins (Idaho) 6 Ry. & o. Weir, 5 B. Mon. 544.-.. 1063 Corp. L. J. 223_-.--- T72 ® White, 32 Me. 340_---. 1200 | Woolf v. Jacobs, 2 Jones& 8. 509 781 ». Wood, 78 Ky. 624.-..-- 209 | Wooloy 2. Grand St. & N. R. Co., Woodard 2. Spiller, 1 Dana, 180, 83Ne Me 121 scccecss 1106. 25 Am. Dec. 139__--- 844 | Woolsey v. Bohn, 41 Minn, 235.. 827 Woodbridge ». Spooner, 3 Barn. ». Judd, 4 Duer, 879_... 1013 & Ald. 2338_--.-.-.--- », Williams, 34 lowa, 413. 671 excil Woolway ». Rowe,1 Ad. & El. 116- Worcester ee seas chester & M. Bank, 10 ABO sod seman "6 Iowa, 311__.....-- 11 ov. Salter, 90 Ill. 60._.-..-- Work 2. Ellis, 50 Barb. 512___-- Workingmen’ 8 Bank ». Converse, 83 La. Ann. 968__...- Workman ». Guthrie, 29 Pa. 495_ World Mut. L. Ins.Co. 2. Schultz, 73 Il. 586._-...------ 1001 Worley v. Columbia,4 West. Rep. 348, 88 Mo. 106__--.- 24 o. Tuggle, 4 Bush, 168__-_- 260, 261, 297, 300, 301 Wormsdorf ». Detroit C. R. Co., % Mich, 472_....-... Worsley 2. Scarborough, 3 Atk. 39 1057 Worthing o. Webster, 45 Me. 270 1278 Wray v. Wray, 32 Ind. 126_-_-_-- 965 Wrege v. Westcott, 30 N. J. L. 212 4385 Wren »v. Harris, 78 Tex. 349.... 103 ». Parker,6L R.A. 80, 57 Conn. 529.-.....----- 1291 v. Pearce,4 Smedes & M. 91 1264 Wright 2. Andrews, 130 Mass. 149 208 ». Boller, 42 Hun, 77_._-. 906 . Brown, 67 N. Y. 1.957, 958 . Bandy, 11 Ind. 398__._ 1806 . Cornelius, 10 Mo. 174_. 962 . Cradlebaugh, 3 Nev. 349 808, 1281 v. Crane, 13 Serg. &R. 450 167 . Delafield, 23 Barb. 498.. 66 f Delaware & H. Canal Co., 40 Hun, 343.____ 1160 . Dunham, 18 Mich. 414. 807 . Fletcher, 12 Vt. 481.... 199 . Hanna, 98 Ind, 217__. 642 . Harris, 81 Iowa, 272.__.. 1151 . Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452_ 23, 80,48 y Hazen, 24 Zt a eesti 2 eees eeeeees 80 is lees 8Car.&K.158 84 . Johnson, 50 Ind. 454... 670 . Linn, 16 Tex. 34.__.___ 293 McKee, 87 Vt. 161.1242, 1247 . McPike, 70 Mo. 175, . Midland R. Co., L. R. 8 Exch, 187, 42 L. J. N. 8. Exch. 89 eseess s TABLE OF CASES. Wright ». Netherwood, Salk.(Ev- an’s Ed.) 593_.__.- %8 v. Paige, 3 Keyes, 581__.. 637 v. Phillips,2G. Greene,191 382 ». Proud, 13 Ves. Jr. 136. 1092 v. Standard, 2 Brock. 811. 966 v. State, 81 Ga. 745_..-. 2. 919 ». Tatham, 9 Scott, 79.... 518 o. Taylor, 2 Dill. 23.-___. 996 v. Vanderplank, 8 DeG. M. & G. 183.....------- 1098 v Willcox, 9 C. B. 650... 605 a Williams, AT Vt. 222_... 354 ». Wright, 139 Mass. 177-- 110 Wrightsman v. Bowyer, 24 Gratt. AGO ne toe eee ie mecree 288 Wych ». Meal, 3 P. Wms. 311__ 226 Wyckoff ». Carr, 8 Mich. 44._.. 968 Wycoff v. Longhead, 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 92, 1 L. ed. 808. 1805 Wyer v. Andrews, 13 Me. 168, 29 m. Dec, 497.--_. 219, 222 ® Dorchester & M. Bank, 11 Cush. 51_-....-..- Wylde. oe R.Co., 14 Abb. Pr. N.S. 213, 53 N. Y. Wylder v. Crane, 58 Ill. 490_____ Wyman »v. Gould, 47 Me. 159___- o. Perkins, 89 N. H. 218_- v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins, Co., AION. Ye 074 esc ces o. po (8S. Dak.) 46 W. Rep. 190_..__. ei v. People, 18 N. Y. 392 Yale », Comstock, 112 Mass. 269 401 Yardley ». en 10 Mees. & W. Soiree alas acdc pidraenn des 545 Yates v. Cole, 1 Jones, Eq. 110. 1200 ». Olmstead, 56 'N. Y. 682. 450, 647 v. Pym, 6 Taunt, 445__.906, 909 o. Yates, 76 N. ©. 143. --. 9346 Yeaton 2. Fry, 9 U. S. 5 Cranch, 885, 3 L. ed. 117 ____- 689 Yell a. Lane, 41 Ark. 58...._... 19 Yenda v. Wheeler, 9 Tex. 408... 1282 Yerkers 0. Keokuk N. L. Packet , 7 Mo. App. 265.. 1099 Yerrill a, Achauer, 14 Ohio St. 223 TABLE OF CASES. York »v. Bright, 4 Humph. 312__ 1267 ». Clemens, 41 Iowa, 95__-_ 1161 York & M. L. R. Co. 2 Winans, 58 U. 8. 17 How. 30, York County Bank o. Carter, 38 Young v. Barner, 103 v. s seesseeses Ss eeeed ; ancl ‘Ins. Pay 446 oo oss cseesce 27 Gratt. 96, Meanie, “T11 Paige, 98, 5 L. ed. 68 . Black, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 565, 3 L. ed. 440_...-- . Bushnell, 8 Bosw. 1_.-- . Catlett, 6 Duer, 487___- Clerk, Prec. in Ch. 583_ . Edwards, 72 Pa. 257.970, Foute, 48 Ill, 88....--- Frost, 5 Gill, 287_-__-- Grote, 4 Bing. 253 i Highland, 9 Gratt. 16 - . Johnson, 123 N. Y. 226. be Lehman, 63 Ala. 519___. . Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50 83, . Martin, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 968 809 476 137 967 977 476 256 461 128 332 461 420 854,19 L. ed. 418-918, 925 . Miller, 10 Ohio, 85.__-- . Rheinecher, 25 Kan. 367 . Rummel), 2 Hill, 478_.- . Shinn, 48 Cal. 26____.-- . South Tredegar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189, 4 Am. St. Rep. 752_....---- . State, 7 Gill & J. 253_- . State Bank, 5 Ala. 179__ . Stevens, 48 N. H. 187, 2 Am. Rep. New Eng. Rep. Me. 244 3800 1279 214 915 1148 827 excili Young v. Ward, 21 Ill. 223 ov. Western U. Teleg. ©. Western U. Teles. Co.. 9 L. R. A. 669, for N. Ce S10 re wseae eke oe 1022 ». Willet, 8 Bosw. 486.... 1287 v. Wright, 1 Campb. 139._ 465 ». Young, 18 Minn. 94.... 848 Young American Engine No. 6 ». Sacramento, 47 Cal. OA ape perches ete tate 258 Youngman 2. Linn, 52 Pa. 4138-. 88 ‘Youngs 0. Heffner, 36 Ohio St. DBD emia ceeen lia raetenarne U7 Z. Zacharie ». Franklin, 37 U. 8. 12 Pet. 151, 163, 9 L. ed. dQ 3 Deas sci es Semen 666 Zachary v. Swanger, 1 Or. 92... 354 Zane v. Soffe, 110 U.S. 200, 28 L. Ce NO pp ets al 505 Zeh v. Glaskin, 22 Jones & 8. 351 651 Zeigler v. Henry, 77 Mich. 480__ 1014 Zell ». Com., 94 Pa. 258 _-._. ___. 17 Zeller ». Eckert, 45 U. 8.4 How. 289, 11 L. ed. 979_.__ 919 Zelnicker 2, Brigham, 74 Ala. 598 936 Zepp v. Hager, 70 Ill, 223_____ 201, 208 Zerbe v. Miller, 16 Pa. 489_293,715, 954 vo. Schall, 4 Watts, 188____ 236 Zerrabn v. Ditson, 117 Mass. 558 264 Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md. 296____ 956 Zollicoffer v. Turney, 6 Yerg. 297 654 Zollman v, Moore, 21 Gratt. 818. 90 Zook v. Simonson, 72 Ind. 88.... 1127 LAW OF EVIDENCE BP eee PES e bm SP MISA wD Dp CIVIL CASES. VOLUME I. CHAPTER I. VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. The Subject Defined. As Defined by Bentham. A Definition by Best. *“Huidence” and “‘Proof” not Synonymous — Whately. Judicial Proof noi a Matter of Arbitrary Rule. Matters of Fact are Proved by Moral Evidence Alone. A Further Definition from Best. . Definitions by Various American Courts. . Bouvier’s Summary. . Parker’s Definition. . Exhaustive Analysis of Sir James Stephen. . A Definition from Wait’s Law and Practice. Wharton’s Definition. The Statutory Definition of the California Code of Civil Pro- cedure. . Evidence. . Proof. The Law of Evidence. . Degree of Certainty Required to Establish Facts. Four Kinds of Evidence. Degrees of Evidence. . Primary Evidence. . Secondary Hvidence. Direct Evidence. Indirect Evidence. . Prima Facie Evidence. 1 wooo ho ao of 2 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. l. Partial Evidence. m. Satisfactory Evidence. n. Indispensable Evidence. 0. Conclusive Evidence. p. Cumulative Evidence. q. Corroborative Evidence. 15. Further Definition of Cumulative Evidence. § 1. The Subject Defined.—A critical analysis of the com- ponent parts of every judicial decision will disclose the fact that essentially it is nothing more than an adjustment to and applica- tion of well recognized and indisputable legal principles to the equities of the controversy as revealed by the facts established. The decision imports the existence of certain facts, and implies that the judicial knowledge of those facts has resulted from, and is inspired by, some information communicated to the trial court which justifies and logically enforces the decree, decision or order rendered. Obviously the most effective method of imparting such information as will warrant the rendition of a final judgment and conclude all parties to the litigation, is to impose upon the parties to the controversy the burden of introducing the necessary infor- mation to the attention of the court; and this information so im- parted which is the basic principle of the decision rendered is “Hvidence,” while the rules which dictate the admission or rejec- tion of this evidence,—the method and order in which it is intro- duced,—the effect accorded it,—the weight assigned to it,—consti- tute as an entirety what is recognized as the “ Law of Evidence.” § 2. As Defined by Bentham.—With the above definition in view we may quote another from a more distinguished source: Evidence is “any matter of fact, the effect, tendency or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion, affirmative or dis- affirmative, of the existence of some other -matter of fact. The fact sought to be proved is termed the ‘principal fact;’ the fact which tends to establish it, ‘the evidentiary fact.’” 1 Benth. Jud. Ev. 17, 18. § 38. A Definition by Best.— The word “proof” seems properly to mean anything which serves, either immediately or mediately, to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition; and as truths differ, the proofs adapted to them differ also. Thus the proofs of a mathematical problem or theorem VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 3 are the intermediate ideas which form the links in the chain of demonstration; the proofs of anything established by induction are the facts from which it is inferred, etc.; and the proofs of matters of fact in general are our senses, the testimony of wit- nesses, documents and the like. “Proof” is also applied to the conviction generated in the mind by proof properly so called. Best, Ev. § 10. § 4. “ Evidence”’ and ** Proof’? not Synonymous—Whate- ly. —“ Evidence” and “proof” are often used indifferently, as. synonymous; but the latter is applied, by the most accurate logi- cians, to the effect of evidence, and not to the medium by which truth is established. Whately, Logic, chap. IIT.; Schloss v. fLis Creditors, 81 Cal. 2038 (186); Perry v. Dubuque S. W. BR. Co. 86 Towa, 106 (1872). § 5. Judicial Proof not a Matter of Arbitrary Rule.— Judicial proof is not a matter of arbitrary rule. Its principles are drawn from the experience and observation of men and should be applied as they are by men in general. Bell v. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. 699 (1887). § 6. Matters of Fact are Proved by Moral Evidence Alone.—The word “evidence,” then, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which an alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved. Stark. Ev. 10. None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error, and which, therefore, may reasonably be re- quired in support of every mathematical deduction. Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects con- nected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition or from demonstration. In the or- dinary affairs of life we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. The most that can be affirmed of such things is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things estab- 4 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. lished by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. Haines’ Treatise on Civ. and Crim. Law (12th ed.) 625. §7. A Further Definition from Best.— The word “evi- dence” signifies, in its original sense, the state of being evi- dent, 7. ¢., plain, apparent or notorious. But by an almost peculiar inflection of our language, it is applied to that which tends to ren- der eviceit or to generate proof. Best, Ev.$11. This is the sense in which it is commonly used in modern law books, and will be used throughout this work. § 8. Definitions by Various American Courts.— The only purpose of evidence is to establish what is alleged by one party and denied by the other. Parkhurst v. McGraw, 24 Miss. 134. To establish the controverted facts, proof is the end and evi- dence is the means. Proof establishes the iruth. Evidence only tends towards it. Any pertinent and legitimate facts conducing to the proof of a litigated fact are evidence of it, either weaker or stronger, according to their entire character and complexion. Miles v. Edelen, 1 Duv. 270. Evidence which tends to prove an issue contributes to its establishment and assists in giving a leaning to the mind in its consideration or determination. That which is directed to an end, however, may not necessarily attain it. It may be received as evidence if it has this tendency, but it is not to be treated as conclusive or as necessarily warranting the fact which it tends to establish. Evidence, however, may be so direct and posi- tive as to amount to proof itself, but in general it consists of facts, which, while they do not necessarily establish the controverted fact, tend to justify the inference of its existence. Davenport y. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219. See Bump, Fraud. Cony. 578. § 9. Bouvier’s Summary.—/vdye Bouvier, in the fifteenth edition of his Law Dictionary (1888), under the title of Aeidence, after citing various definitions of the term from well-recognized authorities, says: “Kividence may be considered with reference to its instruments, ’ its nature, its legal character, its effect, its object and the modes of its introduction. “The instruments of evidence, in the legal acceptation of the term, are: “1. Judicial notice or recognition. There are divers things of which courts take judicial notice, without the introduction of VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 5 proof by the parties; such as the territorial extent of their juris- diction, local divisions of their own countries, seats of courts, all public matters directly concerning the general government, the ordinary course of nature, divisions of time, the meanings of words, and, generally, of whatever ought to be generally known in the jurisdiction. If the judge needs information on subjects, he will seek it from such sources as he deems authentic. See 1 Greenl. Ev. chap. 2; Steph. Ev. art. 58. “2, Public records; the registers of official transactions made by officers appointed for the purpose; as, the public statutes, the judgments and proceedings of courts, ete. “3. Judicial writings; such as inquisitions, depositions, ete. “4, Public documents having a semi-official character; as, the statute books published under the authority of the government, documents printed by the authority of Congress, ete. “5, Private writings; as deeds, contracts, wills. “6. Testimony of witnesses. “7, Personal inspection, by the jury or tribunal whose duty it is to determine the matter in controversy; as, a view of the lo- cality by the jury, to enable them to determine the disputed fact or the better to understand the testimony, or inspection of any machine or weapon which is produced in the cause. “There are rules prescribing the limits and regulating the use of these different instruments of evidence, appropriate to each class. “In its nature, evidence is direct, or presumptive, or cireum- stantial. ~ Direct evidence is that means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact. “Tt is that evidence which, if believed, establishes the truth of a fact in issue, and does not arise from any presumption. Evi- dence is direct and positive when the very facts in dispute are communicated by those who have the actual knowledge of them by means of their senses. 1 Phill. Ev. 116; 1 Stark. Ev. 19. In one sense, there is but little direct or positive proof, or such proof as is acquired by means of one’s own sense; all other evi- dence is presumptive; but, in common acceptation, direct and positive evidence is that which is communicated by one who has actual knowledge of the fact.” 6 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. § 10. Parker’s Definition.—An admirable definition that seems to have escaped notice is that given by Professor Parker in his lectures on Medical Jurisprudence in Dartmouth College: “That which tends to prove or disprove any matter in question, or to influence the belief respecting it. Belief is produced by the consideration of something presented to the mind. The matter thus presented, in whatever shape it may come, and through whatever material organ it is derived, is evidence.” § 11. Exhaustive Analysis of Sir James Stephen.—From the scholarly attainments and judicial reputation of Sir James Stephen we had a right to expect, and have received, definition, criticism and exegesis upon evidentiary matters that in many respects exhaust the subject and leave but little room for com- mentary or demur. From the introductory chapter of his cele- brated Digest I excerpt the following: “The law of evidence is that part of the law of procedure which, with a view to ascertain individual rights and liabilities in particular cases, decides: “J. What facts may, and what may not, be proved in such Cases; “TI. What sort of evidence must be given of a fact which may be proved; “TIT. By whom and in what manner the evidence must be produced by which any fact is to be proved. “T. The facts which may be proved are facts in issue, or facts relevant to the issue. “Facts in issue are those facts upon the existence of which the right or liability to be ascertained in the proceeding depends. “Facts relevant to the issue are facts from the existence of which inferences as to the existence of the facts in issue may be drawn. “A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the one can be shown to be the cause or one of the causes, or the effect or one of the effects, of the existence of the other, or when the existence of the one, either alone or together with other facts, renders the existence of the other highly probable, or improbable, according to the common course of events. “Four classes of facts, which in common life would usually be regarded as falling within this definition of relevancy, are ex- cluded from it by the law of evidence except in certain cases: VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 7 “1. Facts similar to, but not specifically connected with, each other. (Les inter alios acte.) “2. The fact that a person not called as a witness has asserted the existence of any fact. (Hearsay.) “3. The fact that any person is of opinion that a fact exists. (Opinion.) “4, The fact that a person’s character is such as to render con- ‘duct imputed to him probable or improbable. (Character.) “To each of those four exclusive rules there are, however, im- portant exceptions, which are defined by the law of evidence. “TI, As to the manner in which a fact in issue or relevant fact must be proved. “Some facts need not be proved at all, because the court will take judicial notice of them, if they are relevant to the issue. “Every fact which requires proof must be proved either by oral or by documentary evidence. “Hivery fact, except (speaking generally) the contents of a document, must be proved by oral evidence. Oral evidence must in every case be direct; that is to say, it must consist of an asser- tion by the person who gives it that he directly perceived the fact to the existence of which he testifies. “ Documentary evidence is either primary or secondary. “Primary evidence is the document itself produced in the ‘court for inspection. “Secondary evidence varies according to the nature of the document. In the case of private documents a copy of the docu- ment, or an oral account of its contents, is secondary evidence. In the case of some public documents, examined or certified copies, or exemplifications, must or may be produced in the ab- sence of the documents themselves. “Whenever any public or private transaction has been reduced to a documentary form, the document in which it is recorded be- comes exclusive evidence of that transaction, and its contents cannot, except in certain cases expressly defined, be varied by oral evidence, though secondary evidence may be given of the contents of the document. “TTI. As to the person by whom, and the manner in which, the proof of a particular fact must be made. “ When a fact is to be proved, evidence must be given of it by the person upon whom the burden of proving it is imposed, 8 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. either by the nature of the issue or by any legal presumption, unless the fact is one which the party is estopped from proving by his own representations, or by his conduct, or by his relation to the opposite party. “The witnesses by whom a fact is to be proved must be com- petent. With very few exceptions everyone is now a competent witness in all cases. Competent witnesses, however, are not in all cases compelled or even permitted to testify. “The evidence must be given upon oath, or, in certain excepted cases, without oath. The witnesses must be first examined in chief, then cross-examined, and then re-examined. Their credit may be tested in certain ways, and the answers which they give to questions affecting their credit may be contradicted in certain cases and not in others. “This brief statement will show what I regard as constituting the law of evidence properly so called.” § 12. A Definition from Wait’s Law and Practice.—That which is legally offered by the litigant parties to induce a jury to decide for or against the party alleging such facts, as contradis- tinguished from all comment and argument on the subject, falls within the description of evidence. When such evidence is suffi- cient to produce a conviction of the truth of the fact to be estab- lished, it amounts to proof. But the parties to an action are not permitted to adduce every description of evidence which, accord- ing to their own notions, may be supposed to elucidate the matter in dispute; if such a latitude were permitted, evidence might frequently be brought forward which would lead rather to error than to truth, the attention of the court or jury might be diverted by the introduction of irrelevant or immaterial evidence, and the investigation extended to a most inconvenient length. In order to guard against these evils, the law has provided cer- tain rules for limiting and regulating the admissibility of evi- dence. Some of these rules are statutory enactments, but the great majority of them are judicial decisions, which are founded upon convenience and the promotion of justice. 3 Wait, Law and Pr. (5th ed. 1885) 374. § 18. Wharton’s Definition.—Dr. Wharton says (§ 3): “ Evi- dence includes the reproduction before the determining tribunal, of the admissions of the parties, and of facts relevant to the issue. Proof, in addition, includes presumptions either of law or fact, VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 9 and citations of law. See Harvey v. Smith, 17 Ind. 272. Proof, in this sense, comprehends all the grounds on which rests assent to the truth of a specific proposition. Evidence, on the other hand, is adduced only by the parties, through witnesses, docu- ments or inspection; proof may be adduced by counsel in argu- ment, or by the judge in summing up a case.” § 14. The Statutory Definition of the California Code of Civil Procedure.—The California Code of Civil Procedure, as adopted in 1377, contains a classification of the rules of evidence and a series of definitions thereunder that embody the accumu- lated experience of nearly thirty years’ practice under the re- formed procedure. Sections 1823-1839 express and typify the judicial sentiment of the American judiciary upon the subject matter of which they treat, and illustrate the dominant view that long experience and actual practical application have both sug- gested and enforced. While it is not claimed that these Code provisions possess any extraterritorial force, still the substantial unanimity with which they have been adopted in many of the Western States, together with their obvious merit and concise- ness, are sufficient excuse for their reproduction in this instance. After an exhaustive survey of the entire subject in so far as it relates to the classification and definition of the various grades of evidence, it is safe to affirrh that no tabulation is more expressive or complete, and none attempts the least approach to these enact- ments, either in precision or conciseness. I append the various provisions 7m extenso, and affirm their wide acceptation and indorsement by eminent authority. a. Evidence.—Sec. 1823. Judicial evidence is the means, sanctioned by law, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a question of fact. b. Proof.—Sec. 1824. Proof is the effect of evidence, the establishment of a fact by evidence. e. Law of Evidence.—Sec. 1825. The law of evidence, which is the subject of this part of the Code, is a collection of general rules established by law,— 1. For declaring what is to be taken as true without proof; 2. For declaring the presumptions of law, both those which are disputable and those which are conclusive; and, 8. For the production of legal evidence; 10 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. 4. For the exclusion of whatever is not legal; 5. For determining, in certain cases, the value and effect of evidence. si d. Degree of Certainty Required to Establish Facts.—Sec. 1826. The law does not require demonstration; that is, such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces abso- lute certainty; because such proof is rarely possible. Moral cer- tainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. e. Four Kinds of Evidence. kinds of evidence: 1. The knowledge of the court; 2. The testimony of witnesses; 8. Writings; 4, Other material objects presented to the senses. f. Degrees of Evidence.—Sec. 1828. There are several de- grees of evidence: 1. Primary and secondary; 2. Direct and indirect; 3. Prima facie, partial, satisfactory, indispensable and con- clusive. g. Primary Evidence.—Sec. 1829., Primary evidence is that kind of evidence which, under every possible circumstance, . affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question. Thus, a written instrument is itself the best possible evidence of its exist- ence and contents. h. Secondary Evidence.—Sec. 1830. Secondary evidence is that which is inferior to primary. Thus, a copy of an instru- ment, or oral evidence of its contents, is secondary evidence of the instrument and contents. i. Direct Evidence.—Sec. 1831. Direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute, directly, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively estab- lishes that fact. For example: If the fact in dispute be an agreement, the evidence of a witness who was present and wit- nessed the making of it is direct. j. Indirect Evidence.—Sec. 1832. Indirect evidence is that which tends to establish the fact in dispute by proving another, and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish Sec. 1827. There are four VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF THE SUBJECT. 11 that fact, but which affords an inference or presumption of its existence. For example: A witness proves an admission of the party to the fact in dispute; this proves a fact, from which the fact in dispute is inferred. k. Prima Facie Evidence.—Sec. 1833. Prima facie evidence is that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until con- tradicted and overcome by other evidence. For example: The certificate of a recording officer is prima facie evidence of a rec- ord, but it may afterward be rejected upon proof that there is no such record. 1. Partial Evidence.—Sec. 1834. Partial evidence is that which goes to establish a detached fact, in a series tending to the fact in dispute. It may be received, subject to be rejected as incompetent, unless connected with the fact in dispute by proof of other facts. For example: On an issue of title to real prop- erty, evidence of the continued possession of a remote occupant is partial, for it is of a detached fact, which may or may not be afterwards connected with the fact in dispute. : m. Satisfactory Evidence.—Sec. 1835. That evidence is deemed satisfactory which ordinarily produces moral certainty or conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Such evidence alone will justify~a verdict. Evidence less than this is denominated slight evidence. n. Indispensable Evidence.—Sec. 1836. Indispensable evi- dence is that without which a particular fact cannot be proved. o. Conclusive Evidence.—-Sec. 1237. Conclusive or unan- swerable evidence is that which the law does not permit to be contradicted. For example: The record of a court of compe- tent jurisdiction cannot be contradicted by the parties to it. p. Cumulative Evidence.—Sec. 1838. Cumulative evidence is additional evidence of the same character to the same point. q. Corroborative Evidence.—Sec. 1539. Corroborative evi- dence is additional evidence of a different character to the same point. § 15. Further Definitions of Cumulative Evidence.—Cumu- lative evidence has been defined as evidence of the same kind to the same point. Parker v. Hardy, 24 Pick. 248 (1837), Mor- ton, J. “ According to my understanding of cumulative evidence, it 12 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. means additional evidence to support the same point, and which is of the same character with evidence already produced.” Ch. J. Savage, in People v. New York Super. Ct. 10 Wend. 285 (1833). Evidence which simply repeats, in substance and effect, or adds. to, what has been testified to. Purshall v. Hlinck, 48 Barb. 212 (1864), E. D. Smith, J. Evidence which merely multiplies witnesses to a fact before in- vestigated, or only adds other circumstances of the same general character. Waller v. Graves, 20 Conn. 310, 311 (1850). See. also Olmstead v. Hill, 2 Ark. 353; Glidden v. Dunlap, 28 Me. 383; Fleming vy. Hollenback, 7 Barb. 278; Anderson, Law Dict. p. 422, 16. 1%. 13. 19. 20. 21. 24. CHAPTER IL JUDICIAL NOTICE. Present Attitude of Judicial Authority upon This Subject as Defined by Chief Judge Hunt. Definition by Sir James Stephen. Definition by Chief Justice Taney tn a Celebrated Case. View of the Subject by United States Courts. View of the Subject by State Courts. a. Jurisdiction and Authority of Courts. b. Zerms of Courts. c. Court Proceedings. d. Court Records. Time in Its Relations to Judictal Notice. a, Facts Stated in the Alinanae. b. The Course of Nature. 2. Placein Its Relations to Judicial Notice. . Corporations and Corporate Officials. a. Private Corporations. b. Public Corporations. ce. Public Officers. Circumstances in Their Relations to Judicial Notice. Civil Divisions of the State. Subdivisions of the Fractional Townships. Elections and Changes in Office. Matters of General Knowledge and Experience. Matters of History. Geographical and Topographical Facts. Population. Facts in Relation to the Industrial Arts and Sciences. Matters of Science or Art. . Supreme Law of the Land. . Congressional Acts. . General Law. Usages and Customs. . Public Laws of the state. Special Legislation. . Legislative Journals. 13 BoBpB pray PR mo foo 14 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. . Municipal Ordinances. Seal of the State. Foreign Laws. Laws of a Sister State. Records of a Sister State. Facts in Relation to the Circulating Medium. w. Meaning of Words and Phrases. 25. Rules Applicable in Particular States. Alabama. Arkansas. California. District of Columbia. Lilinois. . Indiana. Towa. . Kansas. . Kentucky. . Louisiana. . Mississippi. . Missourt. . North Carolina. Tennessee. o. Texas. p. Wisconsin. 26. Recent Utterances of the Stute and Federal Courts on the Sub- ject. 27. Manifest Defects of Any Tabulation of the Topics Einbraced within This Subject. $16. Present Attitude of Judicial Authority upon This Subject as Defined by Chief Judge Hunt.—The present attitude of judicial authority upon this important topic of the law of evi- dence is indicated in a sententious utterance of the New York Court of Appeals in an opinion by Chie? Judge Hunt. It is an epitome of the legal sentiment of this country, and through its logical inferences and implications it can be made to embrace every rule pertinent to this discussion. After an interesting résumé of the authorities implicated with this question, his honor: summarizes the conclusion in the following terms: ‘In fine, courts will yencrally take notice of whatever ought to be general- ly known within the limits of their jurisdiction, and where the memory of the judge is at fault, he may resort to such documents aS tm rine BOOP me Pe ee BB “JUDICIAL NOTICE. 15 of reference as may be at hand and he may deem worthy of con- fidence.” Swinnerton v. Columbian Ins. Co. 37 N. Y. 174. § 17. Definition by Sir James Stephen.—Sir James Stephen erystalized the wealth of English adjudication upon this subject in art. 59 of his Digest. The expression seems somewhat involved when contrasted with the singular lucidity of the paragraph above quoted; still it is a safe embodiment of the existing law and well merits reproduction in our text: “No evidence of any fact of which the court will take judicial notice need be given by the party alleging its existence, but the judge, upon being called upon to take judicial notice thereof, may, if he is unacquainted with such fact, refer to any person or document or book of reference for his satisfaction, in relation thereto, or may refuse to take judi- cial notice thereof unless and until the party calling on him to take such notice produces any such document or book of refer- ence.” § 18. Definition by Chief Justice Taney in a Celebrated Case.—The Supreme Court of the United States has given expres- sion to similar views, and the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, in Bank of Augusta v. Harle, 38 U. 8.138 Pet. 519, 10 L. ed. 274, should be consulted for further elucidation. The tenor and trend of judicial comment is sufficiently indicated in the somewhat extended résumé of the topic this chapter attempts, and it may be affirmed as an indisputable proposition that both the state and federal courts are in entire accord as regards the salient features of the rules that now obtain in reference to this subject. § 19. View of the Subject by United States Courts.—United States courts will take judicial notice of the public statutes of the several States (Elwood v. Flannigan, 104 U.S. 562, 26 L. ed. 842); of the laws of every State and Territory in the United States. Breed v. Northern Pac. R. Co. 35 Fed. Rep. 642. They, as well as the supreme court on appeal or error from that court, take judicial notice of the laws of every State of the Union. Fourth Nat. Bank of New York v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747, 80 L. ed. 825; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Bennett, 28 W. Va. 16. Although the supreme court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction from the lower courts of the United States, takes judicial notice of the laws of all the States, yet, upon error to the highest court of a State, it takes judicial notice of the laws of that State only—the laws of the other States being known to the 16 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. court below only as facts to be proved as such. Hanley v. Don- oghue, 116 U. 8. 1, 29 L. ed. 535; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U.S. 277, 29 L. ed. 629. It will not take judicial notice of the laws of another State, unless the courts of the State from which the case is brought up do so. Jb¢d. The supreme court will take judicial notice of Legislative Acts establishing a territorial government. Brown v. Colorado, 106 U. 8. 95, 27 L. ed. 182. The Supreme Court of the United States will take judicial no- tice of the persons who preside over the Patent Office. York & M. L. R. Co. v. Winans, 58 U. 8. 17 How. 30, 15 L. ed. 27. It notices judicially state laws defining the limits of a city, but not on a demurrer. Griffing v. Gibb, 67 U.S. 2 Black, 519, 17 L. ed. 353. : The United States circuit courts will take judicial notice of the laws of the several States, applicable to causes depending before them. Jferrill v. Dawson, 1 Hemp. 563; Jones v. Hays, 4 McLean, 521; Jasper v. Porter, 2 McLean, 579. They will take judicial notice of the authority given by a general and public Act of the Legislature of a State. Smith v. Tallapoosa County, 2 Woods, 574; Butler v. Robinson, 75 Mo. 192. § 20. View of the Subject by State Courts. a. Jurisdiction and Authority of Courts.—Courts will take judicial notice that tribunals are established in the several States for the adjudication of controversies and the ascertainment of rights. Dozier v. Joyce, 8 Port. (Ala.) 303. The court will take judicial cognizance of the external bound- ary lines of its jurisdiction, and that a crime committed at a place on an Indian reservation within such boundary lines is within the jurisdiction of the court (United States v. Brave Bear, 3 Dak. 34); of the decision of the court in fixing the boundaries of counties (Cash v. State, 10 Humph. 111); that a court is a court of record. Morse v. Hewett, 28 Mich. 481. The court will take judicial notice of who are its officers (Vor- vell v. McHenry, 1 Mich. 227; Dyer v. Last, 51 Il. 179); of who is its clerk (Hammann v. Mink, 99 Ind. 279); but not those of other courts. Morse v. Hewett, 28 Mich. 481; Worvell v. McHenry, 1 Mich. 227. It will take judicial notice of all persons who have been JUDICIAL NOTICE. 17 duly appointed deputies by its clerk, where such appointments must be proved by the court (State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65); and of signatures of its officers as such (Alderson v. Bell, 9 Cal. 315); that a person present in the grand jury room was a ‘duly appointed assistant United States district attorney. People v. Lyman, 2 Utah, 30. Territorial courts are bound to know the officers, and enforce the judgments, of United States courts. Buford v. Hickman, 1 Hemp. 232. The appellate courts should take notice of the inferior courts, and who are their judges (Zucker v. State, 11 Md, 322; Ex parte Peterson, 33 Ala. 74; Kilpatrick v. Com. 31 Pa. 198); of the jurisdiction of the county court. Meshke v. Van Doren, 16 Wis. 319. Courts must take judicial notice of their authority. Platter v. Lilkhart County, 1 West. Rep. 246, 103 Ind. 360. The California Supreme Court takes judicial notice of the rules of the district courts. Cutter v. Caruthers, +8 Cal. 178. When the official acts of a justice of the peace are offered in evidence in a county other than that where he resides, the offi- cial character of the justice must be certified by the proper officer. Chambers v. People, 5 Ill. 351. b. Terms of Courts.—The Supreme Court of a State should take notice of the time prescribed by law for holding the terms of the various courts of the State. Lindsay v. Williams, 17 Ala. 229; State v. Hammet, T Ark. 492; Morgan v. State, 12 Ind. 448; Gilliland v. Sellers, 2 Ohio St. 223; Pugh v. State, 2 Head, 227; Buckinghouse v. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401; Williams v. Hubbard, 1 Mich. 446. It should take notice of what is the twentieth judicial day of the court below next succeeding a certain other day (Lewis v. Wintrode, 76 Ind. 13); that the date on which a judgment by default was recorded was not a day of’ a term such that the same was not prematurely rendered (Bethune v. Hale, 45 Ala. 522); of the history of a country as to the times of holding courts, and as to the seat of justice (oss v. Austil/, 2 Cal. 183); of the dit- ferent terms of a circuit court of a county (Dorman v. State, 56 Ind. 454), and of their duration (Spencer v. Curtis, 57 Ind. 221); of the commencement and duration of the term of the circuit 2 18 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. court, and of the coincidence of the days of the week and month (Rodgers v. State, 50 Ala. 102); that the circuit court should not have been in session so as to find an indictment at the time stated. (McGinnis v. State, 24 Ind. 500); that terms of the district court. were held at the times prescribed by law. Davidson v. Peticolas,, 84 Tex. 27. e. Court Proceedings.—Courts will take judicial notice of all prior proceedings in the case (State v. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475);. that the case before the court had connection with one formerly decided by it (Banks v. Burnam, 61 Mo. 76); of the existence: before the court of a prosecution for crime against one called as. juror (State v. Jackson, 85 La. Ann. 769); of a judgment of the supreme court (Afinor v. Stone, 1 La. Ann. 283); of the fact that. a former adjudication has been reversed. Poole v. Seney, 70 Iowa,. 275. On a second appeal the court will judicially know what attor- neys have appeared in the cause. Symmes v. Major, 21 Ind. 443. The appellate court will take judicial notice of the date of the making of an order made at a subsequent term of the court, although this last does not appear upon the record. Fredericks v. Davis, 6 Mont. 460. State courts cannot, however, take judicial notice of proceed- ings pending in federal courts (Vassawlt v. Seitz, 81 Cal. 225; Haber v. Klauberg, 3 Mo. App. 342); as, that proceedings in bank- ruptcy had been instituted pending suit. Esterbrook 8. P. Mfg. Co. v. Ahern, 80 N. J. Eq. 341. Courts cannot take judicial notice of their own motion of the pendency of another action before them (Lake Merced Water Co. v. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215); nor of the fact that an affidavit of a party had been admitted in another cause, to which he was not a party (Baker v. Myguitt, 14 Towa, 131); nor of a conviction or nol. pros. (State v. Ldwards, 19 Mo. 674); nor that a will was. revoked pending other proveedings. Duniel v. Bellumy, 91 X. C. 78. Whether an appellate court will take judicial notice of the rules. of the inferior courts, see Contee v. Prutt, 9 Md. 67; Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md. 75; Scott v. Scott, 17 Md. 7s. The facts left in issue, being facts of which the court could take judicial notice, are deemed part of the pleadings and not matter for evidence. Kendall v. Suan Juan S. Min. Co. 9 Colo. 349. JUDICIAL NOTICE. 19 The court will take judicial notice of the city charter provision in relation to jurors. Hildreth v. Troy, 2 Cent. Rep. 278, 101 N. Y. 2384. d. Court Records.—A court takes judicial notice of its own records (Taylor v. Adam, 2 West. Rep. 827, 115 Ill. 570; Lam- beth v. Sentell, 38 La, Ann. 691; ational Bank of Monticello v. Bryant, 13 Bush, 419; Robinson v. Brown, 82 Til. 279; Platter v. Llhhart County, 1 West. Rep. 246, 103 Ind. 360); of its own record and proceedings upon the former writ of error (Brucker v. State, 19 Wis. 589), but not of the record in another case (People v. De La Guerra, 24 Cal. 73); of its own judgment in a suit which was virtually a portion of the same record (Farrar v. Bates, 55 Tex. 193); of the genuineness of its own records and of the signatures of its own officers. State v. Postlewait, 14 Towa, 446; State v. Schalling, 14 Iowa, 455. The minutes of a court are in the nature of a citation, and need not be offered in evidence, as they prove themselves. State v. Lazarus, 89 La, Ann, 142. An order of the court entered upon the minutes is a part of the record of the case. Pagett v. Curtis, 15 La. Ann. 451. Courts take judicial notice of the seal of a state court (De So- bry v. De Luistre, 2 Har. & J. 191; Mangun v. Webster, T Gill, 78; Com. v. Snowden, 1 Brewst. 218); of its clerk’s indorsement of date of filing complaint. Yell v. Lane, 41 Ark. 53. § 21. Time in Its Relations to Judicial Notice. a. Facts Stated in the Almanac.—Courts will take judicial notice of the facts stated in the almanac (eed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29); of days of the week as shown by the almanac (Aldnan v. Owen, 31 Ala. 167; Sprowl v. Lawrence, 33 Ala. 674); of the days of the week on which particular days of the month fall (Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209); that a particular date falls on Sunday (MeJntosh v. Lee, 57 Iowa, 356), and that itis a non-judicial day (Ecker v. New Windsor First Nat. Bank, 1 Cent. Rep. 476, 64 Md. 292); of the recurrence of the day on which the general election is held. L'lks v. Reddin, 12 Kan. 306. Judicial notice will be taken of the time the moon rises and sets on the several days of the year (Agar v. Tibbets, 46 Hun, 52), and when the sun rose on a certain day. People v. Chee Hee, 61 Cal, 404. 20 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Courts will not take judicial notice of the time of the creation of new counties (Buckinghouse v. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401); nor of the time of holding elections in another State (Taylor v. Rennie, 35 Barb. 272); nor that driving cattle at certain seasons renders them liable to communicate disease (Bradford v. Floyd, 80 Mo. 207); nor when the pasturing season closes. Gove v. Downer, 3 New Eng. Rep. 463, 59 Vt. 189; Olive v. State, 4 L. R. A. 35, 86 Ala. 88. b. The Course of Nature.—Oourts will take judicial notice, from time of ancestor’s death, that children arrived at full age before suit commenced. /'loyd v. Johnson, 2 Litt. 109. Courts are bound to notice the magnetic variation from the true meridian. Bryan v. Beckley, Litt. Sel. Cas. 91. They will take notice of facts of unvarying occurrence, but not of the vicissitudes of climate or of the seasons (Dixon v. Wicholls, 39 Ill. 3872); of the course of the seasons and of husbandry (Zoss v. Boswell, 60 Ind. 235); that the end of the calendar year is long after the season for gathering a crop (Brown v. Anderson, T7 Cal. 236); the succession of the seasons, as in relation to vegeta- bles and animals (Patterson v. I Caustand, 3 Bland, Ch. 69); of the seasons and of the general course of agriculture, crops ma- tured so as to be severed ('loyd v. Ricks, 14 Ark. 286); of the fact that cotton is not planted until after the month of January ( Wetzler v. Kelly, 83 Ala. 440); that a mortgage made in Janu- ary, upon a cotton crop, is upon a crop not yet in being (Zomlin- son v. Greenfield, 31 Ark. 557); that the natural watercourses in the State have all decreased in volume, and many of them have been dried up, by the cultivation and clearing of the country (Hilliker v. Coleman, 73 Mich. 170); of the navigability of the streams (Weaderhouser v. State, 28 Ind. 257); that the capacity of streams to float logs and lumber has been greatly increased by dams (Tewksbury v. Schulenberg, 41 Wis. 584); that the tide ebbs and flows. Whitney v. Gauche, 11 La, Ann. 482. § 22. Place in Its Relations to Judicial Notice.—The court takes judicial notice that St. Louis and Chicago are great marts of trade for stock (White v. Missouri Pac. £2. Co.2 West. Rep. 154, 19 Mo. App. 400); of the distance between well-known cities in the United States, and of the ordinary speed of railway trains between the same (Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 737); and the situation of a foreign town, and that a bar exists in the river, JUDICIAL NOTICE. 21 which vessels cannot cross (The Peterhoff, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 463); of the fact that a certain country joins another, and that there are facilities for communication by railroad and telephone between two certain places (Zvans v. Hilby, 81 Ga. 278); of the distance of a place from the seat of government (Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401, 29 L. ed. 914); of the result of an election on the ques- tion of the removal of a county seat (Andrews v. Anox County, Suprs. 70 Ill. 65); of the limits of the county and of the fact that the place proved was within such limits (2ndianapolis & C. R. Co, v. Cuse, 15 Ind. 42); of the lines of counties and towns em- braced therein (//uin v. Ham, 39 Me. 263; State v: Jackson, 39 Me. 291; Brown v. Eins, 10 Humph. 135); of the county in which a town created by law is situated. Jfurtin v. Martin, 51 Me. 366; Vanderwerker v. People, 5 Wend. 530; Hoffinan v. State, 12 Tex. App. 406. Compare Cluyton v. May, 67 Ga. 769. Proof that a crime was committed in Chicago is proof that it was committed in Cook County. judicial notice being taken that Chicago is in Cook County. Swullivun v. People, 11 West. Rep. 566, 122 Ill. 385. Notice will be taken of the towns existing within the State (Saukville v. State, 69 Wis. 178; People v. Waller, 14 West. Rep. 435, 70 Mich. 237): of the fact that a town in Texas is situated in a county of which it is the county seat. Carson v. Dalton, 59 Tex. 500. The court knows judicially that there is a town of the County of Wilkinson named Woodville, and that there is but one. Jor- gan v. State, 64 Miss. 511. When acrime is committed in an incorporated town, the court will notice in what county such town is situated. State v. Reader, 60 Iowa, 527. But courts will not take judicial notice of the existence of a town of a cetain name in another State (iggin v. Collier, 6 Mo. 568; Whitlock v. Castro, 22 Tex. 108; Woodward v. Chieugo & NW. R. Co. 21 Wis. 309; Richardson v. Williams, 2 Port. (Ala.) 239); that a certain court-house is in a particular county ( Vivian v. State, 16 Tex. App. 262); nor whether a particular locality is within a county (Boston v. State, 5 Tex. App. 383); nor of the local situation and distances of places in a county (Goodwin v. Appleton, 22 Me. 453; State v. Quuite, 3 West. Rep. 275, 20 Mo. App. £05); nor that a particular town is in a certain county (Clay- ton v. May, 67 Ga. 769. Contra, if the fact is recognized by 22 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. statute. Hoffman v. State, 12 Tex. App. 406; Latham v. State, 19 Tex. App. 305. Contra, as to a city. Schilling v. Territory, 2 Wash. 283); or as to the locality of streets and avenues and their termini and the number of houses thereon (People.v. Callahan, 60 How. Pr. 372); or as to the locality of a justice's office, or the number of a certain street (Allen v. Scharringhausen, 8 Mo. App. 229); or as to the place of intersection of a city street (Pennsyl- venia Co. v. Lrana, 13 Dl. App. 91); or that a certain building in a city is situated in a certain ward (Schaale v. Wasey, 14 West. Rep. 650, 70 Mich. 414); or as to city plats or location of city lands (Cicotte v. Anciaua, 58 Mich. 227); or as to direction of streets of a city. Breckenridge v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 4 West. Rep. 565, 87 Mo. 62; Dougherty v. People, 14 West. Rep. 359, 124 Il. 557. Where land was shown to have been originally included within the San José military reservation, but granted by the Act of July 1, 1870, to San Francisco in trust, and afterwards conveyed to a beneficiary, the court will not take judicial notice that the land was not within such reservation (Palmer v. Galvin, 72 Cal. 183); nor that certain land is not subject to location. Welcoxw v. Sack- son, 109 Ill. 261. § 23. Corporations and Corporate Officials. a. Private Corporations.—-The statute incorporating a com. pany being a public law, the court is bound to take judicial notice of its organization and existence. Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 227,15 L. ed. 896; Crawfordsville &S.W. Turnp. Co. v. Fletcher, 1 West. Rep. 247, 104 Ind. 97. An Act of incorporation containing a provision that it shall not be considered as a public Act must be noticed without being specially pleaded, as would be necessary if the Act were private. Beaty v. Knowler, 29 UL 8. 4 Pet. 152, 7 Li ed. 818; Ceneinnati, A. &1. BR. Cov. Clifford, 138 West. Rep. 384, 113 Ind. 460; Butler v. Robinson, 75 Mo. 192. In Iowa, Maine and Massachusetts judicial notice is taken of all Acts of incorporation. Durham v. Daniels, 2G. Greene, 518; State v. McAllister, 24 Me. 189; Jones v. Fides, 4 Mass. 245. In Alabama, New Jersey and North Carolina charters of private corporations are not judicially noticed. Jontyomery City Conneil v. Montgomery &W. Pl. Road Co. 31 Ala. 76; Perdicarisv. Tren- JUDICIAL NOTICE. 23 ton City Bridge Co. 29 N. J. L. 367; Carrow v. Washington Toll Bridge Co. Phill. L. 118; Drake v. Flewellen, 33 Ala. 106. The existence of corporations created in other States will not be recognized by the Nevada courts (State v. McCullough, 3 Nev. 202); otherwise in Michigan. Chapman v. Colby, 47 Mich. 46. Bank charters are public Acts, and it is the duty of courts to take judicial notice of them (Davis v. Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. 69; Buell v. Warner, 33 Vt. 570; Bank of Newberry v. Green- ville & C. R. Co. 9 Rich. L. 495); and that the Ohio Insurance ‘Company was by public law a bank of discount and deposit, Gordon v. Montgomery, 19 Ind. 110. Courts will take judicial notice of the expiration of a bank charter (Terry v. Merchants & P. Bank, 66 Ga. 177); of the fact that a corporation is authorized by an Act of Congress to build and maintain a bridge over navigable-waters (Pennsylvania RL. Co. v. Baltimore & N.Y. R. Co. 37 Fed. Rep. 129); that a Free Mason lodge is a charitable or eleemosynary body (Burdine v. Grand Lodge of Alabama, 37 Ala. 478); that a railroad com- pany is a corporation (Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Sherman, 30 Gratt. 602); of general laws concerning the incorporation of rail- ways. LHeaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. &. Co. 16 Ind. 275; Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93. Special charters to particular railways have been held to be public (Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452), and private. Ohio & I. R. Co. v. Ridge, 5 Blackf. 78; Perry v. Vew Orleans, W. & C. I. Co. 55 Ala. 413; Hildreth v. Troy, 2 Cent. Rep. 274, 101 N. Y. 234. Courts will take judicial notice of a railroad charter, published with other legislative enactments (Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93); of the authority of a railroad superintendent to receive nor refuse cord wood (Sacalaris v. Eureka & P. BR. Co. 18 Nev. 155); of the names of chartered companies. Jackson v. State, 72 Ga. 28. But courts will not judicially notice private incorporation Acts, as a Toll-Bridge Act (Currow v. Washington Toll-Bridge Co. Phill. L. 118); nor private plank-road corporations (Danville & W. ZL. Pl. Road Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456. See Russell v. Bran- ham, 8 Blackf. 277); nor the charter of a railroad company (Perry v. Vew Orleans, M. & C. &. Co. 55 Ala. 418), or of a savings bank (Mandere v. Bonsignore, 28 La. Ann. 415); nor the exist- ence of ferries (Stute v. IWise, 7 Ind. 645); nor city ordinances (CApitz v. Missouri Puc. R. Co. 17 Mo. App. 419; Wisdom v. 24 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 447, 19 Mo. App. 324)s nor that a bank in another State is insolvent (Market Nat. Bank v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 27 Hun, 465); nor a private corporate seal. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 40 Ill. 35. b. Public Corporations.—Courts will take judicial notice of the charter of a municipal corporation created by an Act declared to be public. Worley v. Columbia, 4 West. Rep. 343, 88 Mo, 106; Fauntleroy v. Hannibal, 1 Dill. 118. Courts will take judicial notice of the charters of cities or the laws under which they are incorporated (Stier v. Oskaloosa, 41 Iowa, 358); of the incorporation Act of a city or town (Hard v. Decorah, 48 Iowa, 318); of a city charter, as a public Act, and of the municipal jurisdiction and powers in general (See Case v. Mobile, 380 Ala. 538; Puyne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220; Terry v. Milwaukee, 15 Wis.'490; Alexander v. Milwaukee, 16 Wis. 247; State v. Sherman, 42 Mo. 210. But see Apitz v. Missoura Pace. R. Co. 17 Mo. App. 419; Wisdom v. Wabash, St. L. & P. BR. Co. 1 West. Rep. 447, 19 Mo. App. 324); of a village charter ( Winooski v. Gokey, 49 Vt. 282); of the Act of the Legislature: incorporating the town, city or village, and of the county within which the same is situated. Beasley v. Beckley, 28 W. Va. 81. The supreme court will take judicial notice of the fact that a county has adopted township organization (Rock Island County y. Steele, 31 Ill. 543); that a certain village is not incorporated. French v. Barre, 2 New Eng. Rep. 807, 58 Vt. 567. Evidence that a town has assumed to act as a village incorpora- tion is sufficient to warrant judicial notice of the change. Doyle v. Bradford, 90 Il. 416. See Zilford v. Woodbury, 7 Humph. 190; State v. Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. 217; Swain v. Comstock, 18 Wis. 463. An Act relating only to the powers of a single municipal cor- poration is in its nature public. Luuntleroy v. Hannibal, 1 Dill. 118. Courts will take judicial notice of old and well-known streets. of a city and that the streets of a city are public highways (State v. uth, 14 Mo. App. 226; Whittaker v. Highth Ave. R. Co. 5 Robt. 650), but not of the width of streets or sidewalks (Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250); of the powers of a city to improve streets. (Macey v. Titcombe, 19 Ind. 135); of the duties and powers of the trustees prescribed by general law. State v. Bohicke (Mo.) 4 West. Rep. 734. JUDICIAL NOTICE. 25. But courts will not take judicial notice of the incorporation of towns under a privilege statute (Temple v. State, 15 Tex. App. 304); or that a particular town has incorporated under a general law (Hopkins v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. RB. Co. 'T9 Mo. 98); or of regulations of the canal board. Palmer v. Aldridge, 16 Barb. 131. ce. Public Officers.—Courts will take judicial notice of the character and acts of the collector and deputy collector of the in- ternal revenue. Lerch v. Snyder, 2 Cent. Rep. &38, 112 Pa. 161. Courts will take judicial notice of the official character of pub- lie ofticers (Brackett v. People, 1 West. Rep. 616, 115 Ill. 29); of a law passed to enable a particular officer to qualify (State v. Jar- rett, 1T Md. 809); of the official character of an alderman (Jom vy. Com. 81* Pa. 511); of a construction given by the administrative department of the State to statutes fixing the compensation of ofticers (State v. Harrison, 116 Ind. 300); if necessary to support the jurisdiction, that the salary of the office exceeds $100. Me- Binney v. O Connor, 26 Tex. 5. Courts will take judicial notice of the civil officers in the coun- ties in which they hold their sittings (Zhedmann v. Burg, 73 Ill. 293; Dyer v. Flint, 21 Ill. 80); as to who fill county offices with- in their jurisdiction, and of the genuineness of their signatures ( Wetherbee v. Dunn, 32 Cal. 106; Templeton v. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 488); and of those of such deputies as the law authorizes (Himmelman v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 215; Scott v. Jackson, 12 La. Ann. 640); but not of one who may hold the office of deputy sheriff (Land v. Patteson, Minor (Ala.) 14; State Bank v. Cur- van, 10 Ark. 142), or constable (Broughton v. Blackman, 1 N. Chip. (Vt.) 109), or deputy marshal. Ward v. Henry, 19 Wis. 76. Courts take judicial notice of the authority and signature of a. constable (Cannon v. Cannon, 66 Tex. 682), but not of an attor- ney (Masterson v. LeClaire, 4 Minn. 163); of the appointment or election of sheriffs as well as of other executive and administra- tive officers (Thompson v. Haskell, 21 Ill. 215; Alexander v. Burnham, 18 Wis. 199; Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17); that a tax collector duly appointed is a sheriff under the Act of June 16, 1840 (Burnett v. Henderson, 21 Tex. 588); of the time at which a sheriff’s term of office expired (Ragland v. Wynn, 37 Ala. 32); that the trustee of the civil, is also trustee of the school, township (Inglis v. State, 61 Ind. 212); of the legal time for the sessions of 26 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. boards of county commissioners (Collins v. State, 58 Ind. 5); that -one who signs as “notary public” is a notary for the county (Stod- dard v. Sloan, 65 Towa, 680); of the notarial certificate as proof of presentment and nonpayment (Pierce v. Lndseth, 106 U.S. 546, 27 L. ed. 254); of a notarial seal (Zhe Gallego, 30 Fed. Rep. 271); that a certificate, indorsed on the bond of a county treasurer by the deputy anditor-general of the State, was so indorsed by an -oflicer of the State. People v. Johr, 22 Mich. 461. Courts take judicial notice of the registers of counties (Pancher v. DeMontegre, 1 Head, 40); and this embraces sheriffs and mar- -Shals. The court will take judicial notice of the office of treasurer of a school district (State v. Dahl, 65 Wis. 510); that a township trustee acts as trustee of a school township. State v. McDonald, 3 West. Rep. 753, 106 Ind. 233. The circuit court will take cognizance of who are the justices of the peace for the county in which it is held (Chambers v. Peo- ple, 5 UL. 851; Graham v. Anderson, 42 Ill. 514); and that, by the Constitution and laws of the State, the terms of all justices of the peace terminate on a certain date. Stubbs v. Stute, 53 Miss. 437. Courts do not take judicial notice of any person as an officer unless enumerated as such in the Code. A/fund v. State, 8 Tex. App. 545. The court does not judicially know that the prosecuting attor- ney and the presiding judge are the same persons. Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190. An appellate court cannot take judicial notice of the value of an attorney’s services. Pearson v. Darrington, 32 Ala. 227. § 24. Circumstances in Their Relations to Judicial Notice. a. Civil Divisions of the State.—Courts take judicial notice of the civil divisions of the States, such as counties, towns, cities and incorporated villages (Wrench v. Barre, 2 New Eng. Rep. 809, 58 Vt. 567; Vinckley v. Beckwith, 23 Wis, 328; Winnipiseogee Like C.& W. Mfg. Co. v. Young, 40 N. H. 420; Goodwin ve Apple- ton, 22 Me. 453; Dickenson vy. Breeden, 30 Ul. 279; State v. Powers, 25 Conn, 48); that the United States is by law, for internal revenue purposes, divided into collection districts with defined geographical boundaries (Uv /terd Stutes v. Jackson, 104 U. S. 41, 26 L, ed. 651); that the State of Oregon is a congressional JUDICIAL NOTICE. 27 and judicial district of the United States (United States v. John- son, 2 Sawy. 482); that the State and the township are distinct organizations (LaGrange v. Chipman, 11 Mich. 499); of the names of the townships composing a county (United States Exp. Co. v. Fush, 24 Ind. 406); that there is but one township of a given description in the county (Stoddard v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 680); that land in a certain township is in a certain county (Fogg v. Holcomb, 64 Towa, 621); of the fact that a certain county constitutes a judicial district (Com. v. Fitzpatrick, 1 L. R. A. 451, 121 Pa. 109); that a certain judicial district is within and for a certain county, though it coraprises only a portion of the territory of that county (People v. Robinson, 17 Cal. 363); that a road district in a certain county is within the State (Humboldt Co. v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 604); or that a road running from one terminus to the other is located wholly in such county. Steinmetz v. Versailles, & O. Turnp. Co. 57 Ind. 457. b. Subdivisions of the Fractional Townships.—But courts will not take judicial notice of the subdivisions of a fractional township (Stanterry v. Neison, Wright (Ohio) 766); nor that a county has adopted township organization. State v. Cleveland, 80 Mo. 108. ce. Elections and Changes in Office —Oourts take judicial notice of the day of hoiding the general state election within their respective States and of the officers to be then elected (tute v. Minnick, 15 Iowa, 123); but not that an election has a held under a Local Option Law. Grider v. Tally, 77 Ala. 422. Courts of the United States will take judicial notice of elections of state officers held at the sa:ne time as the election of the repre- sentatives in Congress and what ballots offered at such election should contain (United States v. Morrissey, 32 Fed. Rep. 147; fe Coy, 31 Fed. Rep. 794); of the accession of a new governor (Hizer v. State, 12 Ind. 330; State v. Williams, 5 Wis. 308), and of the changes made in the executive department of the government. Lindsey v. Atty-Gen. 33 Miss. 508. Courts are presumed to know who the executive may be at any time when the fact may be called in question. Dewees v. Colo- rado Co. 32 Tex. 570. d. Matters of General Knowledge and Experience.—Courts take judicial notice of the universal usage of merchants ( W////ams v. Williams, Carthew, 269), and ordinarily of a common-law cus- 28 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. tom (Morning Star v. Cunningham, 9 West. Rep. 59, 110 Ind. 328); for they will not pretend to be more ignorant than the rest of mankind. Munn v. Burch, 25 ll. 88. See Porter v. Hills, 114 Mass. 106; Ober v. Carson, 62 Mo. 209; Wilson v. Bauman, 80 Ill. 493; Ocean Beach Asso. v. Brinley, 84 N. J. Eq. 488; Townsend v. Whitby, 5 Harr. (Del.) 55. Judicial notice will be taken of whatever ought to be gener- ally known within the limits of the court’s jurisdiction (Hoimes v. Kring, 12 West. Rep. 366, 98 Mo. 452); as, of the operations. of commercial agencies (Holmes v. Harrington, 3 West. Rep. 296, 20 Mo. App. 661); or of the general certainty that matter carried through the mail will, in spite of imperfection in the ad- dress, reach its proper destination (Gamble v. Central R. & Bkg. Co. 80 Ga. 595); that generally trains running upon a railroad are run by the owners of the road (South d& Worth Ala. R. Co. v. Pilgreen, 62 Ala. 305; Evansville & C. BR. Co. v. Smith, 65 Ind. 92); of the fact that two railroads touching the same points are parallel and competing lines (@uif, C. & S. FB. Co. v. State, 1 L. R. A. 849, 72 Tex. 404); that a box freight car standing still at a highway crossing will not frighten horses of ordinary gentle- ness ((rilbert v. Flint d& P.M. R. Co. 51 Mich. 488, 47 Am. Rep. 592); that alcohol is intoxicating (Snider v. State, $1 Ga. 753); that whiskey is an intoxicating liquor (Zagan v. State, 53: Ind. 162; Schlicht v. State, 56 Ind. 173); that distilled spirits are intoxicating (Com. v. Peckham, 2 Gray, 514; Klare v. State, 48: Ind. 483); that blackberry brandy is intoxicating (Fenton v. State, 100 Ind. 598); that lager beer is a malt liquor (Adler v. State, 55- Ala. 16; Watson v. State, 55 Ala. 158; State v. Goyette, 11 R. I. 592), and an intoxicating liquor. Brifftt v. State, 58 Wis. 39. Contra, Shaw v. State, 56 Ind. 188, Where a stone wall is erected within 3 feet, 8 inches, of a window, judicial notice will be taken that it will diminish the passage of air and light. Ware v. Chew, 10 Cent. Rep. 675, 43 N. J. Eq. 493. e. Matters.of History.—Courts take judicial nctice of trans- actions and objects which form a part of the history and geogra- phy of the country (Zart v. Bodley, Hardin (Ky.) 98; Bell v- Barnet, 23.3. Marsh, 516); of matters of public history affecting the whole people (Puyne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220), or the times (Ashley v. Martin, 50 Ala. 537), and such occurrences as consti- JUDICIAL NOTICE. 29 tute a part of the history of the State. Holmes v. Kring, 12 ‘West. Rep. 364, 93 Mo. 452. ~ Fremont’s public career in California in 1846-47 is a matter of history. DeCelis v. United States, 13 Ct. Cl.117. Courts will take judicial notice of the existence of the Civil War of 1861-65, and of the facts of public history connected with its origin and progress (Cuyler v. Ferrill, 1 Abb. U. S. 169); that the late Civil War or Rebellion was terminated prior to June first, 1865 caer v. Patton, 49 Ala. 406); of such a public event as Sher- man’s march to the sea and the time when it occurred. Weallcams v. State, 67 Ga. 260. Judicial notice will be taken of all military orders issued by the commanding general or military governor while New Orleans was held by United States troops and which affected proceedings in» the courts of the State (Lanfear v. Mestier, 18 La. Ann. 497; Taylor v. Graham, 18 La. Ann. 656; Vew Orleans Canal & Bhg. Co. v. Templeton, 20 La, Ann. 141); of General Ewing’s Military Order No. 11, dated August 25, 1863, requiring removal from residences of persons in border counties. Holmes v. Kring, 12 West. Rep. 364, 93 Mo. 452. But judicial notice will not be taken of the various orders issued by a military commander in the war (Johnston v. Walson, 29 Gratt. 379; Burke v.Miltenberger, 86 U.S. 19 Wall. 519, 22 L. ed. 158); nor of the position of+ the lines in the field. Avelley v. Story, 6 Heisk. 202. Courts judicially notice that certain localities or portions of a State in insurrection were in the possession and under the custody of the forces of the United States (Mice v. Shook, 27 Ark. 137); that Missouri was not one of the Confederate States (Douthitt v. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268); that when courts of a particular county were closed civil law was suspended, and military power pre- vailed (Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk. 546); but not that one belligerent or the other held the locality at a particular time. McDonald v. Kirby, 3 Heisk. 607. Compare Bond v. Perkins, 4 Heisk. 364. Courts judicially notice whether a trustee acted with prudence in the management of assets during war times. oscue v. Lyon, 55 Ala. 440. Courts will not judicially notice the general organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Sarahass v. Armstrong, 16 Kan. 30 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. 192), although a separation into two churches forms part of the history of the country. AHumphrey v. Burnside, 4 Bush, 215. f. Geographical and Topographical Facts.—The history of a country, its topography and general condition, being elements. which enter into the construction of its laws, are matters within the judicial notice of courts (Stout v. Grant County, 5 West. Rep.. 635, 107 Ind. 843; Wéllcams v. State, 64 Ind. 553; Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind. 238; Lice v. Montgomery, 4 Biss. 75; Hinckley v. Beckwith, 23 Wis. 328); so of the boundaries of the States and. the extent of their territorial jurisdiction (Gilbert v. Moline W. P. & Mfg. Co. 19 Iowa, 319; Thomas v. Sigers, 39 Pa. 486); of the navigability of large rivers (Wood v. Fowler, 26 Kan. 682);, but not of the capacity of a creek for navigation. Buffalo Pipe Line Co. v. New York, L. E. dé W. R. Co. 10 Abb. N. C. 107. Courts take judicial notice of the area of an established county (Jasper County Comrs. v. Spitler, 18 Ind. 235; Buckinghouse v.. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452); and of the geographical position of towns in the county. Jndzanapolis & C. R. Co. v. Stephens, 28 Ind. 42). To nearly the same effect, see State v. Tootle, 2 Warr. (Del.) 541. g. Population.—Courts take judicial notice of the result of taking the census (People v. Williams, 64 Cal. 87); of the pop- ulation of the county according to the last census. Worcester Nat. Bank v. Cheney, 94 Tl. 430. Under the Missouri Act of 1887, courts take judicial notice of the population of cities, as shown by the census. State v. Dolan, 12 West. Rep. 259, 93 Mo. 467. h. Facts in Relation to the Industrial Arts and Sciences.. —Courts will take judicial notice of what is commonly known in the various manufactures and industries (Reed v. Laiercence, 29 Fed. Rep. 915); of the character, construction, use, ete., of a. manufactured article which has for many years been in common use throughout the country—such as the ice-cream freezer (Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 87, 23 L. ed. 200); the peculiar nature of lot- teries and the mode in which they are generally carried on (Boul- lemet v. State, 28 Ala. 83); of the business of mercantile agen- cies (LZolines v. Hurrington, 3 West. Rep. 296, 20 Mo. App. 661): of the prices of ordinary labor (Bell v. Barnet, 2 J. J. Marsh. 516);. or that carrying on the barber’s business on Sunday is not a work. _ of necessity. State v. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347. JUDICIAL NOTICE. 38L i. Matters of Science or Art.—Courts will not take judicial’ notice that gin and turpentine are inflammable liquids, within the. clause of a policy of insurance (Afosley v. Vermont Mut. F. Ins. Co. 55 Vt. 142); nor that kerosene oil is a refined oil (Bennett'v.. North British & M. Ins. Co. 8 Daly, 471); nor of the rule for measurement of corn in the shuck (South & North Ala. R. Co. v.. Wood, 74 Ala. 449); nor of the capacity of a railroad car (702d); nor of the art of photography, the mechanical and chemical proc- esses employed, the scientific principles on which they are based and their results (Luke v. Calhoun County, 52 Ala. 115); nor of a new process of practical utility in facilitating trade ( Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & A. BR. Co. 5 Mo. App. 347); nor, ona trial for arson,. that coal oil is inflammable. State v. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307. j. Supreme Law of the Land.—All courts take judicial notice of the Constitution of the United States and of the public laws. of the State where they are exercising their functions (Purman vy. Nichol, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 44,19 L. ed. 370; Marbury v. Madi-. son, 5 U. 8. 1 Cranch, 187, 2 L. ed. 60); and of the Amendment. to the United States Constitution abolishing slavery. Graves v. Keaton, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 8. All courts, state and national, must take judicial notice of and. be governed by a treaty of the United States, as a law of the land (United Stutes v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 80 L. ed. 425; United Stutes v. The Peggy, 5 U. 8. 1 Cranch, 103, 2 L. ed. 49); of the public treaties between the United States and foreign countries (La Croie vy. Sarrazin, 15 Fed. Rep. 489); of treaties, public. acts and proclamations in carrying those treaties into effect. (Onited States v. Reynes, 50 U.S. 9 How. 127, 13 L. ed. 74; Baby v. Dubois, 1 Blackf. 255); of the date of the ratification of a treaty (Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn. 78), and of the authority thereunder conferred upon the President. Dole v. Wilson, 16- Minn. 525. Courts will take judicial notice of the laws of Mexico, upon which the title of lands in California depended prior to the cession of California to the United States (Bouldin v. Phelps, 30: Fed. Rep. 547); of how titles derived from the Spanish or Mexi-. can government are to be perfected (Semples v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163); that the laws of Maryland are in force in that part of the District of Columbia ceded by Maryland (Bird v. Com. 21 Gratt. 800); that the land in controversy was within an Indian reserva- tion. Prench v. Lancaster, 2 Dak. 346. 32 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. k. Congressional Acts.—Courts take judicial notice of the laws of Congress (Laidley v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 607; Wood v. Nortman, 85 Mo. 298); of the Acts of Congress, as published in the pamphlet Acts of the Session ( White v. McGuirons, Minor (Ala.) 331); of an Act affecting the rights of navigation and fish- ery, by allowing improvements to be made out into navigable waters (Hammond v. Inloes, 4 Md. 138; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266); of the law applicable to the duties of the cashier of the assistant treasurer of the United States (United States v. Borne- mann, 36 Fed. Rep. 257); of the Bankrupt Act of Congress and how it operates (Afims v. Swartz, 37 Tex. 13; Morris v. David- son, 49 Ga. 361); of the Internal Revenue Laws of Congress (Kessel v. Alletis, 56 Barb. 362); of the form and substance of obligations of the United States authorized by Act of Congress ( United States v. Owens, 37 Fed. Rep. 112); of the Acts of Con- gress relating exclusively to the District of Columbia (Bayly v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. 284); of the Acts of Congress granting swamp land to the States (Wétche v. Karle, 117 Ind. 270); of the Acts of Congress for the survey of land within the States, and the dedi- cation of a portion for bounties to soldiers of the War of 1512 (Dickinson v. Breeden, 30 Il. 279); of the government surveys and the legal subdivisions of the public lands ( Wright v. Phillips, 2G. Greene, 191; Atwater v. Schenck, 9 Wis. 160; Hill v. Bacon, 43 IL 477; Mossman v. Forrest, 27 Ind. 233; Prieger v. Ex- change Mut. Ins. Co. 6 Wis. 89; Gardner v. Lberhart, $2 Vl. 316); of Acts of Congress confirming claims that lands in Mis- souri are public (Papin v. Ryan, 32 Mo. 21); of the Acts of Congress in regard to the disposal of the public lands (Gooding v. Morgan, 70 Ill. 275); of the intended area of a quarter-section of land (Quinn v. Windmiller, 67 Cal. 461); that the congress- ional survey of lands lying northwest of the Ohio River is public law (Murphy v. Hendricks, 57 Ind. 593); of a county in which a public highway is located, where the lands affected by it are described by sections, townships and ranges. Adams v. Harring- ton, 12 West. Rep. 303, 114 Ind. 66. Courts take judicial notice that there may be found in many government surveys lands corresponding to a certain description (Black v. Pratt Coal & C. Co. 85 Ala. 504); of rules of naviga- tion (Sears v. The Scotia (“ The Scotia”), 81 U.S. 14 Wall. 170, 20 L. ed. 822); of statutes of a State which have been incorpor- JUDICIAL NOTICE. ‘ 83 ated into Acts of Congress. Flanigen v. Washington Ins. Co. 7 Pa. 306. 1. General Law.—Courts take judicial notice of the law- merchant (Jewell v. Center, 25 Ala. 498; Bradford v. Cooper, 1 La. Ann. 325; [eed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29); of the custom of mutual credits in business houses (Cameron v. Blackman, 39 Mich. 108); of the commercial usage to observe Sundays and great festivals (Sasscer v. Farmers Bank, 4 Md. 409); that gold ‘coin is no longer used in the business of the country, but has become an article of merchandise and traffic. United States v. 4,000 American Gold Coins, 1 Woolw. 217. Of the rules and regulations as to the cutting of timber upon the public lands of the United States, prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, courts will take judicial notice (United States v. Williams, 6 Mont. 379; Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Me. 54); and of the principles of common law as it prevails in other States. Sandidge v. Hunt, 40 La. Ann. 766. m. Usages and Customs.—Courts will not take judicial notice of usages of business (Goldsmith v. Sawyer, 46 Cal. 209; John- son v. Lobertson, 31 Md. 476); or of local mining customs (Lewis v. McClure, 8 Or. 273; Sullivan v. Hense, 2 Colo. 424); or of the ‘customs, laws or proceedings of inferior courts. Jfarch v. Com. 12 B. Mon. 25. n. Public Laws of the State.—OCourts take judicial notice of the existence and tenor of the public laws of the State (Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 217; Bevens v. Baxter, 23 Ark. 387; Witehe v. Earle, 117 Ind. 270); of the general law relative to highways (Griswold v. Gallup, 22 Conn. 208); of an Act prohibiting the ‘sale of liquors (Levy v. State, 6 Ind. 281); of a supplement to such Act (Hawthorne v. Hoboken, 32 N. J. L. 172); of a public law, although local in its general provisions, if public in its ‘character. Bretz v. Vew York, 6 Robt. (N. Y.) 325. The Local Option Law, although local, is a public law, and courts are bound to notice it (Wiggins v. State, 1 Cent. Rep. 704, 64 Md. 419); and such a statute, though local or private, as appears to have been relied on in the court below (art v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 6 W. Va. 336), and a public Act expressly recognizing a private Act. Lavalle v. People, 6 Ill. App. 157. Special laws enacted by a Territorial Legislature are public Acts, Prell v. McDonald, 7 Kan, 426. 3 34 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Judicial notice will be taken that a statute has been properly enacted (Madison County Comrs. v. Burford, 93 Ind. 383); or of an unpublished statute (People v. Hopt, 3 Utah, 396); or of the time when a public statute takes effect. State v. Bacley, 16 Ind. 46; Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. RB. Co. 16 Ind. 275; Pierson. v. Baird, 2 G. Greene, 235; Berliner v. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378. The public laws of a State are before its courts without being pleaded or inserted in the record (Cincinnath, ZT. & I. £. Co. v. Clifford, 13 West. Rep. 384, 113 Ind. 460), even though they contradict the allegations of the pleader. State v. Jarrett, 17 Md. 309. Courts judicially notice statutes defining the boundaries of counties (22oss v. Reddick, 2 Ill. 78; Lyell v. Lapeer County Suprs, 6 McLean, 446); also public statutes of the State regulating the rate of speed. Horn v. Chicago & N. W. Le. Co. 88 Wis. 463. The courts take judicial notice of the proclamation of the governor as to the taking effect of the Acts. State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46. Courts take judicial notice of the repealing statute, although it does not make a part of the case as reported. Springyield v- Worcester, 2 Cush. 52. It is the duty of the court, officio, to notice the repeal of laws. State v. O’ Connor, 13 La, Ann, 486. The repeal of a section of an Act incorporating a town is a public Act. Belmont v. Morrill, 69 Me. 314. They also take notice of a joint resolution which imvoses a par- ticular duty upon any officer of the State. Stute v. Delesdenier, 7 Tex. 76. o. Special Legislation.—Courts cannot take judicial notice of a special Act. Lazles v. State, 9 Tex. App. 170; Adlegheny v. Nelson, 25 Pa. 332. A special Act for the survey of a particular tract of land is not, as a general rule, such a public statute as the courts are bound to take notice of and expound without requiring its production (Allegheny v. Nelson, 25 Pa. 332); and so of a private Act. Timlow v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 99 Pa. 284; Atchison, T. & S.F. &. Co. v. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 477; Workingmen’'s Bank v. Converse, 33 La. Ann. 963. As to how far private statutes may be noticed, see Collier v. Baptist Education Soc. 8 B. Mon. 68; Somerville v. Wimbish, T JUDICIAL NOTICE, 385 Gratt. 205; Wisdom v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 447,19 Mo. App. 324. Though private statutes of Virginia may be given in evidence without their being specially pleaded, the court will not judicially take notice of them, but they must be exhibited as other docu- ments unless admitted by consent of parties. Legrand v. Hamp- den Sidney College, 5 Munt. (Va.) 324. p- Legislative Journals.—Courts take judicial notice of legis- lative journals and of the modes by which domestic laws are authenticated (State v. Smith, 4 West. Rep. 108, 44 Ohio St. 349; People v. Rice, 7 West. Rep. 642, 64 Mich. 385); of the statute books and journals of the Houses of Legislature (People v. Mahaney, 18 Mich. 481); of the journal of each branch of the General Assembly (Auditor v. Haycraft, 14 Bush, 284; Moody v. State, 48 Ala.115. Contra, Grob v. Cushman, 45 Ill. 119); of such contemporaneous history as led up to, and probably induced the passage of, the law. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Talbot. 12 West. Rep. 296, 113 Ind. 873; May v. Hoover, 12 West. Rep. 171, 112 Ind. 455. The judicial knowledge of courts is not presumed to extend to the history of every statute in its progress through the Legislature; and they will not take judicial notice of legislative journals (Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156), or whether or not there are proper and legitimate modes of expending money in procuring the passage of an Act of the Legislature. Judah v. Vincennes University, 16 Ind. 56. The appellate court will inform itself, and take cognizance, of the true reading of a statute, by referring to the original Act on file in the office of the secretary of state. Clare v. State, 5 Towa, 509. It is not the duty of courts to take judicial notice of the execu- tion of apublic statute. Chisupeake & O. Cunul Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 4 Gil & J. 1. q. Municipal Ordinances.—Municipal ordinances are not regarded in the light of law, of which the courts should take judicial notice. Case v. Mobile, 30 Ala. 538; Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286; Vew Orleans v. Labatt, 33 La. Ann. 107; State v. Jackson, 6 La, Ann. 593; Hassard v. Municipality No. Two, 7 La, Ann. 495; Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254; Cox v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 431; Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; Lucker v. Com. 4 36 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Bush, 440; Wélson v. State, 16 Tex. App. 497; Chicago W. D. R. Co. v. Klauber, 9 Ill. App. 613; People v. Buchanan, 1 Idaho, N. 8. 681; Austin v. Walton, 68 Tex. 507. Ordinances are not the subjects of judicial notice, but must be pleaded. Keane v. Klausman, 4 West. Rep. 276, 21 Mo. App. 485. But see Downing v. Miltonvale, 36 Kan. 740. But on an appeal from a police judge the district court may take judicial notice of city ordinances. Solomon v. Hughes, 24 Kan. 211. So a city court may take judicial notice of city ordinances without proof. State v. Leiber, 11 Iowa, 407. So a mayor may take judicial notice of municipal ordinances. La Porte City v. Goodfellow, 47 Iowa, 572. r. Seal of the State.—Courts take judicial notice of the seal of a State (Robinson v. Gilman, 20 Me. 299; Lincoln v. Batelle, 6 Wend. 475); but not of the private seal of the governor of a province. Beach v. Workman, 20 N. H. 379. s. Foreign Laws.—Foreign laws must be proved; the court cannot be charged with knowledge of foreign laws. Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U. 8. 1 Cranch, 1, 2 L. ed. 15; Church v. Hubbard, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 187, 2 L. ed. 249; Strother v. Lucas, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 763, 8 L. ed. 573; Armstrong v. Lear, 83 U.S. 8 Pet. 52, 8 L. ed. 863; United States v. Wiggins, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 334, 10 L. ed. 481; Ennis v. Smith, 55 U. 8. 14 How. 400, 14 L. ed. 472; Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. 8. 18, 23 L. ed. 190; Hinde v. Vattier, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 398, 8 L. ed. 168; Priestinan v. United States, 4 U.S. 4 Dall. 28, 1 L. ed. 727; Owings v. Hull, 834 U.S. 9 Pet. 607, 9 L. ed. 246; United States v. Turner, 52 U.S. 11 How. 663, 138 L. ed. 857; Pennington v. Gibson, 57 U.S. 16 How. 65, 14 L. ed. 847; Covington Draw Bridge Co. v. Shepherd, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 227,15 L. ed. 896; Cheever v. Wilson, 76 U. 8. 9 Wall. 108, 19 L. ed. 604; Junction R. Co. v. Bank of Ashlund, 79 U.S.12 Wall. 226, 20 L.ed. 385; Blwood v. Hlannigan, 104 U. S. 562, 26 L. ed. 842; Lamar v. Aficou, 114 U.S. 218, 29 L. ed. 94; Chumasero v. Gilbert, 24 Il. 293; Syme v. Stewart, 17 La, Ann. 78; Pecquet v. Peeguet, 17 La. Ann. 204; Frith v. Sprague, 14 Mass. 455; Palfrey v. Portland, S. GP. R. Co. 4 Allen, 55; Baptiste v. De Volunbrun, 5 Har. & J. (Mad.) 86; Chouteaw v. Pierré, 9 Mo. 3; Hooper v. Aloore, 5 Jones, L. 180; Pech v. Hib- bard, 26 Vt. 698; Woodrow v. O'Conner, 28 Vt. 776; Bean v. Briggs, 4 lowa, 464; Hastman v. Crosby, 8 Allen, 206. JUDICIAL NOTICE. 37 The unwritten or common law of a foreign country or province must be proved as a fact. Owen v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147. Courts will not officially recognize the Usury Laws of other countries (Campion v. Kille, 15 N. J. Eq. 476; Cooke v. Craw- ford, 1 Tex. 9), nor the Revenue Laws of a foreign country. Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 94. The statute law of Great Britain cannot be judicially noticed or established before our courts. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Fields, 2 Story, 59. The laws or usages of Turkey must be shown, to define the jurisdiction of consular courts there under treaty. Dainese v. Hale, 91 U. 8. 13, 23 L. ed. 190. But in so far as the laws of a foreign country are properly operative as laws within the jurisdiction, the rule that a party claiming under a foreign law must prove it, as matter of fact, does not apply. Doe v. Eslava, 11 Ala. 1028. Where countries have been acquired by the United States its courts take judicial notice of the laws which prevailed there up to the time of such acquisition (United States v. Perot, 98 U.S. 428, 25 L. ed. 251; United States v. Turner, 52 U.S. 11 How. 668, 13 L. ed. 857; Fremont v. United States, 58 U. 8. 17 How. 542, 15 L. ed. 241); of the Spanish laws which prevailed in Louis- iana before its cession to the United States (United States v. Turner, 52 U.S. 11 How. 668, 18 L. ed. 857. But see United States v. Philadelphia & NV. O. 52 U. 8. 11 How. 654, 13 L. ed. $52); of the laws of Spain which regulated the conveyance of real property in Mobile and the country adjacent. Doe v. Eslawa, 11 Ala. 1028. The public laws of a foreign country on a subject of common concern to all nations can be noticed as law by our courts of admiralty. Zalbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch, 1, 2 L. ed. 15. t. Laws of a Sister State.—State courts do not take judicial notice of the laws of other States, the several States being consid- ered in this respect foreign to each other. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L. ed. 535; Atchison, 7. &S. FR. Co. v. Betts, 10 Colo. 481. A party relying upon a law of another State must plead it and then allege such facts as bring the case within the law. Insuch case courts do not presume that the laws of another State are like their own (Balfour v. Davis, 14 Or. 47; White v. Chaney, 3 West. Rep. 276, 20 Mo. App 389; Silver v. Kansas City, St. L. & C. 38 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. R. Co. 3 West. Rep. 284, 21 Mo. App. 5; Leatherwood v. Sulla- van, 81 Ala. 458; Chicago & A. RB. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co. 119 U.S. 615, 30 L. ed. 519; Sells v. Haggard, 21 Neb. 357; Polk v. Butterfield, 9 Colo. 325; Cump v. Randle, 81 Ala. 240; Lob- ards v. Marley, 80 Ind. 185; Weese v. Karmers Ins. Co. 55 Iowa, 604; Beauchamp v. Mudd, Hardin (Ky.) 163; Hosford v. Nich- ols, 1 Paige, 220, 2 L. ed. 624; Simms v. Southern Lirp. Co. 38 Ga. 129; Whetesides v. Poole, 9 Rich. L. 68; Hillard v. Outlaw, 92 N. C. 286); so of a law of another State regulating the validity of contracts (Jones v. Palmer, 1 Doug]. (Mich.) 379; Martin v. Martin, 1 Smedes & M. 176); of the laws as to distribution to heirs (McDaniel v. Wright, 7 J. J. Marsh. 475); of the rate of interest allowed in another State (Dorsey v. Dorsey, 5 J. J. Marsh. 280; Clarke v. Pratt, 20 Ala. 470); so of the proposition that the common law prevails in the other States (Bradshaw v. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 21); so of a matter concerning the internal policy of another State. Pichering v. Mish, 6 Vt. 102. ‘But Acts of a State Legislature, or of Congress, called for, recognized or adopted by public laws of any State, will be judicially noticed by the courts of such State. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. + Gill & J. (Md.) 1. Where the laws of one State recognize the official acts done in pursuance of the laws of another State, the courts of the State recognizing such acts will take judicial cognizance of the laws of such other State. Carpenter v. Deuter, 75 U. 8. 8 Wall. 518, 19 L. ed. 426. When a statute of another State has once been recognized as law, courts of the latter State will thereafter take judicial cogni- zance of the statute. Graham v. Williams, 21 La. Ann. 594. That the law of another State differs from the law of New York will be judicially noticed. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Church, 59 How. Pr. 293. u. Records of a Sister State.—As to credit to be given to judicial proceedings in other States, courts take notice ew officio of the local laws of the State from which the record comes. OAhzo v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. 479. When the judgment of a court of a sister State is impleaded, cognizance of the laws of such State is taken. Pu/ne v. Schenee- tady Ins. Co.11 R. I. $11; Ohio v. Hinehman, 27 Pa. 479. Compare Hobbs v. Memphis & @. R. Co. 9 Heisk. 373; Ander- son v. May, 10 Heisk. 84. JUDICIAL NOTICE. 39 v. Facts in Relation to the Circulating Medium.—Courts take judicial notice of the character of the circulating medium, and popular language in reference to it (Lampton v. Haggard, 8 T. B. Mon. 150; Jones v. Overstreet, 4 T. B. Mon. 547); that under the statutes of the United States, a dollar is the unit of value, and that a package containing $800 is an article of value (United States v. Fuller, 4 N. M. 358); that bills averred to be “currency of the United States of America” are prima facie of a commercial value equal to that imported by their face (Gady v. State, 88 Ala. 51); that bank notes constitute a circulating medium and are of value (Shaw v. State, 3 Sneed, 86); of general facts connected with the issuing, use and depreciation of the Confederate cur- rency (Simmons v. Trumbo, 9 W. Va. 358); but not of the extent of depreciation of the currency during the Rebellion. Dodawell v. Holmes, 40 Ala. 391. Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that the dollars in Con- federate currency were different in value from lawful money of the United States (Aeppel v. Petersburg R. Co. Chase, Dec. 167); of the different classes of notes and bills in circulation as money at a particular time. Hart v. State, 55 Ind. 599; Lumpkin v. Mur- vell, 46 Tex. 51. The value of the notes of the Bank of the Commonwealth at any particular time is not judicially noticed. Leemester v. Lingo, 5 T. B. Mon. 336. The value of Canada currency, and the rate of Canadian inter- est, are not judicially known by courts within the United States {Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181); nor that a note expressed to be payable in New Orleans, La., is meant to be payable in the State of Louisiana (Russell v. Martin, 15 Tex. 238); nor of what are the fair and usual commissions on acceptances paid without funds. Seymour v. Marvin, 11 Barb. 80. w. Meaning of Words and Phrases.—Courts take judicial notice of the meaning of words and phrases in the English language (Grennan v. McGregor, 73 Cal. 258); and of such matters of com- mon knowledge and science as may be known to all men of ordi- nary understanding and intelligence (Zureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette Printing Co. 35 Fed. Rep. 570); of the meaning of cur- rent phrases which everybody else understands (Bailey v. Kala- mazoo Pub. Co. 40 Mich. 251); of what is meant by a “gift enterprise,” upon the trial of one indicted for advertising such (Lohman v. State, 81 Ind. 15); of the meaning of initials appended 40 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. to the clerk’s signature (Buell v. State, 72 Ind. 523); of the mean- ing of initials used in the description of land (A%le v. Yellowhead, 80 Ill. 208); of the meaning of “C. O. D.” when affixed to pack- ages sent by common carriers (State v. Intowicating Liquors, 73. Me. 278. Contra, McNichol v. Pacific Eup. Co. 12 Mo. App. 401); but not that “ D. C.” ina bail bond means Demmett County ( Virian v. State, 16 Tex. App. 262); nor that “St. Louis, Mo.,” in the date of a contract, means St. Louis in the State of Missouri. Ellis v. Park, 8 Tex. 205. Judicial notice will, however, be taken of the customary abbre- viations of Christian names (Stephen v. State, 11 Ga. 225; Weaver v. McElhenon, 18 Mo. 89); or ordinary abbreviations, such as. “admr.” for administrator. Moseley v. Mastin, 37 Ala. 216. But judicial notice will not be taken of matters contained in dictionaries, encyclopedias or other publications, unless such mat- ters are of universal notoriety and may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person (Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. Rep. 444); nor that playing “policy ” is playing a game of chance (State v. Lussell, 17 Mo.App. 16; State v. Seliner, 17 Mo. App. 39); nor that the words “ drawing” and “ Kentucky Drawing” designate a game of chance (State v. Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 274); nor of the proper orthography or orthoepy of Polish names. State v. Johnson, 26 Minn. 316. § 25. Rules Applicable in Particular States. a. Alabama.—Courts take judicial notice of the fact that the federal government has taken no action declaring a forfeiture of certain state lands (AZathis v. Tennessee & C. R. R. Co. 83 Ala. 411); that there are no tidal streams in Jackson County ( Walker v. Allen, 72 Ala. 456); that all the lands in Franklin County are held under the government of the United States (Lewis v. Harris, 31 Ala. 689); that lands within the district of lands for sale at Cahaba. are within the State. . Justice Miller of the United States Supreme Court has given the most perfect exposition of the principles that dominate and control this refinement of the logicians, and in Stitt v. Huidekoper, 84U. 8. 17 Wall. 385, 21 L. ed. 644, he employs the following language: “The court charged the jury that it is a rule of presumptions that ordinarily a witness 120 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. who testifies to an affirmative is to be preferred to one who testi- fies to a negative, because he who testifies to a negative may have forgotton. It is possible to forget a thing that did happen. It is not possible to remember a thing that never existed. We are of opinion that the charge was a sound exposition of a recognized rule of evidence, of frequent application, and that the reason of the rule, as stated in the charge, dispenses with the need of further comment on it here.” The New York Court of Appeals adds the weight of its authority in affirmance of the same proposition, and Judge Allen, in a com- paratively recent case, where the question of negligence was an important factor in an action for damages occasioned by a railway accident, says: “As against positive, affirmative evidence by credible witnesses to the ringing of a bell or the sounding of a whistle, there must be more than the testimony of one or more that they did not hear it, to authorize the submission of the ques- tion to the jury. It must appear that they were looking, watch- and listening for it, that their attention was directed to the fact, so that the evidence will tend to some extent to prove the negative. A mere ‘I did not hear’ is entitled to no weight, in the presence. of affirmative evidence that the signal was given, and does not. create a conflict of evidence justifying a submission of the question to the jury as one of fact.” Culhane v. New York C.& H. RB. Lf. Co. 60 N.Y. 188. It will be seen from the cases that no general and universal rule can be laid down, respecting the comparative value of positive and negative testimony. Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182. But. when positive testimony on the one side is met by belief or impression on the other, and there are no means of determining the truth, other than by testimony itself, there is in fact no con- fiict of evidence, and a finding which rejects the positive testimony and adopts the mere impression is not only not conclusive, but is. against evidence. Dresser v. Van Pelt, 1 Hilt. 316. But it must be remembered that circumstances may outweigh direct evidence. Bowie v. Maddow, 29 Ga. 285. An inherent improbability in a statement may deny all its claims to belief. Blankman v. Vallejo, 15 Cal. 638; Stilwell v. Carpenter, 2 Abb. N. ©. 288. b. Affirmative Evidence Entitled to the Greatest Weight. —When the evidence in a case is of both an affirmative and nega- tive character, the affirmative evidence is entitled to the greater THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 121 weight. Frantz v. Lenhart, 56 Pa. 365; Pool v. Devers, 30 Ala. 672; Meheever v. New York Cent. d& H. R. R. Co. 88 N. Y- 667; Culhane v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 60 N. Y. 133. But it is not true as a matter of law that negative evidence may not be sufficient, in fact, to counterbalance the positive testimony of a single witness. Campbell v. New England Mut. L. Ins. Co. ¥8 Mass. 381. Where there is no conflict, negative testimony may have ail the force of positive evidence. Renwick v. New York Cent. R. Co. 36 N. Y. 182. An issue of fact may be proved by either affirmative or negative evidence. Duffield v. Delancey, 36 Til. 258. § 33. Burden of Proof in Cases of Contributory Negligence. a. The Weight of Authority.—There is a conflict among the decisions as to the party upon whom the burden of proving the plaintiff's contributory negligence rests. The weight of authority seems to favor the doctrine, that the plaintiff must show that he used due care and caution, and that his own negligence did not contribute to cause the injury, and that a plaintiff suing for the death of a person killed through the negligence of the defendant must show due care and want of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The use of due care may be proved by circumstantial or direct evidence. The plaintiff is not required to- prove due care by direct affirmative evidence; the inference of such care may be drawn from the absence of all appearance of fault, either positive or negative, in the circumstances under which the injury was received. On the other hand, by well-considered authorities, it has been held that the want of due care or the con- tributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a matter of defense, and that the burden of establishing it is on the defendant. This is certainly the more reasonable rule, and it is the one adopted by Wharton, Shearman and Redfield, and Deering (§ 406). Bran- an v. May, 17 Ga. 136; Central R. Co. v. Moore, 61 Ga. 151; Dyer v. Talcott, 16 I. 800; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Fay, 16 Ill. 558; Chicago, B. & Q. RB. Co. v. Harwool, 90 Tl. 425; Ben- ton v. Central R. Co. 42 Towa, 192; Wurphy v. Chicago, 2. L. & P. R. Co. 45 Iowa, 661. b. When Governed by the Pleadings.—Where an answer admits the making and delivering of a promissory note and sets up an affirmative defense, the affirmative is with the defendant, who is entitled to open and close the case, and the refusal of the court 122 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. to allow him so to dois error, for which judgment will be reversed and a new trial ordered. Lindsley v. European Petroleum Co. 41 How. Pr. 56. § 84. The Rule as to Negotiable Paper.—The burden of proof as to the bona fide ownership of negotiable paper is an important topic, meriting careful scrutiny. Mr. Tiedeman, in a late treatise on Commercial Paper, at sec. 303, introduces the fol- lowing language: “The possession of the paper by an indorsee or by an assignee, where the paper is payable to the bearer or indorsed in blank, is universally held to be prima facie proof of bona fide ownership, and the burden of proving the contrary is thrown upon the defendant in the action.” Marion County Comrs. v. Clark, 94 U.S. 285, 24 L. ed. 62; Collins v. Gilbert, 94 U. 8. 753, 24 L. ed. 170; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 478, 24 L. ed. 508; Faulkner v. Ware, 84 Ga. 498 (case of bill payable to bearer); Vadllett v. Parker, 6 Wend. 615; Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531; Johnson v. McMurry, 72 Mo. 282; Holme v. Karsper, 5 Binn. 469; Hall v. Allen, 87 Ind. 541; Jackson v. Love, 82 N.C. 405; Merchants & P. Nat. Bank v. Masonic Hall Trustees, 62 Ga. 271; Blum v. Loggins, 58 Tex. 136; Davis v. Bartlett, 12 Ohio St. 544; J/e- Cann v. Lewis, 9 Cal. 246; Palmer v. Nassau Bank, 73 I. 380; Lehman v. Tallassee Mfg. Co. 64 Ala. 593. a. An Exception as to Unindorsed Paper.—The possession of an instrument, payable to order, unindorsed by the payee or the last indorsee, is not prima facie proof of bona fide ownership (Dorn v. Parsons, 56 Mo. 601; Gibson v. Miller, 29 Mich. 355), unless it be in the possession of the personal representatives of a deceased payee or indorsee (Scoville v. Landon, 50 N.Y. 686. See, as to possession of the heir, Ling v. Gottschalk, 21 Towa, 512); nor is it prima facie proof of bona fide ownership for a prior indorser to have possession. He must show good title. Palmer v. Whitney, 21 Ind. 61; Mauldin v. Branch Bank, 2 Ala. 502. See also Oberle v. Schmidt, 86 Pa. 221. b. A Further Exception where Paper was Executed with- out Consideration.—It has also been held not to shift the burden to the holder, if it be proven that the paper was executed without consideration between the original parties, at least in the instances where the instrument is made payable to bearer, and is held by an indorsee. Jarion County Comrs. v. Clark, 94 U.S. 285, 24 L. ed. 62; Collins v. Gilhert, 94 U.S. 757, 24 L. ed. 170; Jlechan- THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 123 tes & T. Bank v. Crow, 60 N. Y.85; Grocers Bank v. Penjield, 7 Hun, 279; Goodman v. Simonds, 61 U.S. 20 How. 343, 15 L. ed. 458; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 63 U.S. 22 How. 96, 16 L. ed. 323; Murray v. Lardner, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 110, 17 L. ed. 857; Baz- ter v. Lillis, 57 Me. 180; Cummings v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 252; Fletcher v. Gushee, 32 Me. 587; Hellogg v. Curtis, 69 Me. 212; Magee v. Badger, 34 N. ¥. 247; Belmont Branch Bank v. Hoge, 35 N. Y. 65; Cropsey v. Averill, 8 Neb. 137; Western Cottage Organ Co. v. Boyle, 10 Neb. 409; Harger v. Worrall, 69 N.Y. 370; Duerson v. Alsop, 27 Gratt. 248; Wilson v. Lazter, 11 Gratt. 478; Ellicott v. Murtin, 6 Md. 509; Knight v. Pugh, 4 Watts & 8.445; Sloan v. Union Bkg. Co. 67 Pa. 470; JMutthews v. Poythress, 4 Ga. 287; Mills v. Barber, 1 Mees. & W. 425; Low v. Chifney, 1 Bing. N.C. 267; Smith v. Braine, 16 Q. B. 244; Cook v. Helms, 5 Wis. 107; Greneuux v. Wheeler, 6 Tex. 515; Holeman v. Hobson, 8 Humph. 127; Davis v. Bartlett, 12 Ohio St. 537. See, contra, Wetumpka v. Wetumpka Wharf Co. 63 Ala. 611. ec. Where Instrument is Payable to Bearer.—It has been held that if the instrument is payable to bearer there is nothing on the face of the instrument to indicate that it has been transferred, and hence proof of want of consideration will throw upon the holder the burden of proving that he is a bona fide hold- er. Bissell v. Morgan, 11 Cush. 198. It would seem to be almost impossible for the maker to show want of consideration, without pointing out the additional fact that the instrument was delivered to someone other than the present holder. Furtlier- more the reason assigned for the justification of this exception is as applicable when there is as when there is not consideration between the original parties, and has no more weight in the one case than in the other. d. The Rule in Cases of Fraud.—When fraud or illegal- ity is proven to taint the original transaction, the difficulty of proving that the holder has knowledge of the same, and the usual rapidity of transfer of such instruments, for the purpose of realizing something out of the transaction, would seem to justify the shifting of the burden of proof, and the requirement that the holder should show affirmatively that he is a bona fide holder. Smith v. Sae Connty, 73 U. S. 11 Wall. 139, 20 L. ed. 102; Marion County Comrs. v. Clark, 94 U.S, 285, 24 L. ed. 62; Collins v. Gilbert, 94 U.S. 761, 24 L. ed. 173; Perrin v. Noyes, 124 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. 39 Me. 384; Cottle v. Cleaves, 70 Me. 256; Kellogg v. Curtis, 69 Me. 212; Roberts v. Lane, 64 Me. 108; Pitch v. Jones, 32 Eng. L. & Eq. 134; Smith v. Braine, 3 Eng. L. & Eq. 380, 16 Q. B. 244; Conley v. Winsor, 41 Mich. 253; Sperry v. Spauld- ing, 45 Cal. 544; Redington v. Woods, 45 Cal. 406; Devlin v. Clark, 31 Mo. 22; Horton v. Bayne, 52 Mo. 531; Johnson v. Me Murry, 72 Mo. 282; Fuller v. Hutchings, 10 Cal. 526; Me- Clintick v. Cummins, 2 McLean, 98; Vathir v. Zane, 6 Gratt. 246; Hutchinson v. Boggs, 28 Pa. 294; Sloan v. Union Bhg. Co. 67 Pa. 470; Ststermans v. Filed, 9 Gray, 331; Thompson v. Arm- strong, T Ala. 256; Loss v. Drinkard, 35 Ala. 434; Kelly v. Ford, 4 Iowa, 140; Harbison v. State Bank, 28 Ind. 133; Merchants & P. Nat. Bank v. Masonic Hall Trustees, 62 Ga. 271; Duerson v. Alsop, 27 Gratt. 249; Boyd v. Mclver, 11 Ala, 822; Perkins v. Prout, 47 N. H. 887; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. 231; McKesson v. Stanberry, 3 Ohio St. 156; Hall v. Featherstone, 3 Hurlst. & N. 284; Bailey v. Bidwell,13 Mees. & W. 73; Vation- al Bank of North America v. Kirby, 108 Mass. 497; Lmerson. v. Burns, 114 Mass. 348; daples v. Browne, 48 Pa. 458. It is evident from the most cursory examination of these authorities that the principle referred to is absolutely controlling. But in order that the proof of fraud may shift the burden of . proof, it must be a fraud committed upon the maker; fraud against the payee or indorsee is insufficient. Aénney v. Kruse,. 28 Wis. 1838. See Atlas Bank v. Doyle, 9 R. I. 76. e. In Cases of Lost or Stolen Instruments.—The burden of proof is also shifted to the holder, when it is shown that the instrument has been stolen or lost. Union Nut. Bank v. Barber, 56 Lowa, 559; Worcester County Bank v. Dorchester & M. Bunk, 10 Cush. 488; Jatthews v. Poythress, 4 Ga. 287; JJerchants & P. Nat. Bank v. Masonie Hall Trustees, 62 Ga. 271. The holder, in the case of fraud or illegality being proven, establishes his prima facie case again, by showing that he paid full value for it and took it in the ordinary course of business and before maturity. He is not required to prove that he took the paper without notice of the fraud or illegality. The burden of proving notice is thrown upon the defendant. Although there are decisions to the contrary (Tilden v. Barnard, 43 Mich, 376, Marston, /.), the weight of authority supports the doctrine here laid down, Davis v. Bartlett, 12 Ohio St. 541. See also, to the THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 195 same effect, Kellogg” v. Curtis, 69 Me. 914; Harbison v. State Bank, 28 Ind. 183; Buttles v. Larudenslayer, St Pa. 446; Zod v. Wick, 36 Ohio St. 390; Johnson v. McMurry, 72 Mo. 282. In Wortendyke v. Meehan, 9 Neb. 229, where the holder paid value, it was held that he could not recover, since he did not deny having knowledge of the illegality. § 85. Burden of Proof in Matrimonial Actions.—In matri- monial actions the burden of proof is usually with the plaintitf, though there are exceptions to this rule, as to most most others, which will be subsequently considered. A suit for divorce is a proceeding swz generis. While it may partake of the nature of a chancery suit, it is also ecclesiastical, and is therefore in strictness neither a civil suit nor a criminal prosecution. The rules of evidence in divorce cases are therefore not well defined. Not only are all causes for divorce offenses against the State, which is a party to the marriage, and many of them, such as adultery, cruelty (assault and battery), crimes, but the results of: a divorce are far reaching, in that they affect offspring and soci- ety at large. The party charged with a matrimonial offense must be presumed innocent until proved guilty; the burden of proof is on the complainant to establish his case by a preponderance of proof, and even, it has been held, beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the rule, that “if the commission of a crime is directly in issue in any proceeding, civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The proof must therefore in all cases be full, clear and satisfactory, and the graver the offense charged, the stricter is the proof required. § 86. The Scintilla Doctrine Considered.—Judges are no longer required to submit a case to the jury merely because some evidence has been introduced by the party having the burden of proof, unless the evidence be of such a character that it would wwarrant the jury to proceed in finding a verdict in favor of the party introducing such evidence. yer v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Exch. 39. Decided cases may be found, where it is held that if there is a seintilla of evidence in support of a case, the judge is bound to leave it to the jury; but the modern decisions have established a more reasonable rule, to wit: that, before the evidence is left to the jury, there is or may be in every case a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but wheth- 126 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. er there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a. verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the burden of proof isimposed. Improvement & [. Co. v. Munson, $1 U. 8. 14 Wall. 448, 20 L. ed. 872; Pleasants v. Hunt, 89 U.S. 22 Wall. 120, 22 L. ed. 782; Parks v. Ross, 52 U. 8.11 How. 878, 18 L. ed. 735; Merchants Bank v. State Bank, 77 U. 8.10 Wall. 637, 19 L. ed. 1015; Hickman v. Jones, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 201, 19 L. ed. 553. § 87. Opening the Case; Rights of the Parties.—The legal principle is now well established that the burden of proof is cast upon the party holding the affirmative position, and by this is. meant the affirmative in substance, not the affirmative in form. To this extent, then, the law of evidence imposes an obligation, in that it casts this burden of proof upon the attirmative, but as. compensatory and as an inseparable accompaniment of this burden, is the advantage of opening the case. a. Of Great Importance.—The right to begin is a matter of great importance in a trial by jury, as the party who begins has a. right to make the closing address to the jury; and this latter right, when exercised by a skillful advocate, is often the means of se- curing a verdict in favor of the party holding the affirmative of the issue, even in adoubtful cause, and notwithstanding the clear and impartial charge of the judge. Lindsley v. Huropean Pe- troleum Co. 41 How. Pr. 56; Hlwell v. Chamberlin, 31 N. Y. 611. It generally follows that the party entitled to commence his. evidence is entitled to close, and under our present system of pleading it very frequently occurs that the defendant has the af- firmative, and when he has it has been also generally admitted that he was entitled to open and close the case to the jury. b. The Present and the Former Rule.—Under our former system of practice, if the defendant did not plead the general issue, and sought to avoid it by some affirmative defense, the rule and practice of the courts in England prevailed. 2 Dunlap, Pr. 637; 1 Paine & Duer, 522; Gra. Pr. 280. That rule is announced in an authoritative and able work on the practice of the court of king*s bench, where the author observes: “It has been laid down as a general rule, that the party who has to maintain the affirmative of the issue must begin the evidence. Where there are special plead- ings, or where a special defense is not intended to be given in evidence under the general issue, it may, perhaps, be more accu- rate to say that the party who has added the sim ¢/éter shall begin. THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 127 If both parties, however, have added the sémiliter to the different. sets of pleadings in the same cause, then the plaintiff shall begin. When a special defense is intended to be given in evidence under the general issue, the party shall begin who would have been entitled to do so, if the defense had been specially pleaded.” 1 Arch. Pr. 169, 170. In Jackson v. Hesketh, 2 Stark. N. P. 518, it was held, that. when the affirmative of an issue lay upon the defendant he had the right to begin. Bayley, /., after having consulted Wood, B., said they were both of them of the opinion that the defendant was entitled to begin. In the case of Goodtitle v. Braham, 4 T. R. 497, the question was who was entitled to the reply, in an action of ejectment, when the lessor of the plaintiff claimed as heir-at-law, and the defendant was devisee, and the court decided (upon a trial at bar) that if the plaintiff proved his pedigree and stopped, and the defendant set up a new case, which the plaintiff answered by evidence which ultimately went to the jury, the de- fendant should have the general reply, and Buller, J, said he had so ruled at Winchester in 1789. The general rule prevailing in this country and in England is well stated in Bouvier, Inst., 323, § 3043, as follows: “That the party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition or issue of facts should prove it, because a neg- ative does not in general admit of the simple and direct proof of which the affirmative is capable, and therefore the party who has to maintain or prove the only affirmatives must begin the evi- dence.” See also the case of Huntington v. Conkey, 33 Barb. 218, where, in the opinion of J/r. Justice Smith, the authorities are collected, and the doctrine clearly stated. In that case the action was upon a promissory note, which was set out in the complaint. The answer admitted the making of the note, and set up the de- fense of usury. The plaintiff in that case was entitled to a verdict, if no evidence had been offered on the trial;. and the judge at the circuit held that the counsel for the plaintiff had the right to open the case to the jury, and toreply. See also Elwell v. Cham- berlin, 81 N. Y. 611. ce. Party must Exercise His Right.—The party having the right to begin must exercise it; and on failure to do so the court. may compel him to open his case and produce hisevidence. Slau- son v. Englehart, 34 Barb. 198; Brandford v. Freeman, 5 Exch. 734; Coxhead v. Huish, 7 Carr. & P. 63. 128 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. d. The Rule in Cases of Libel and Slander.—In all cases of slander, libel and other actions where the plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages of an unascertained amount, he is entitled to begin, although the affirmative of the issue may, in point of form, be with the defendant. Carter v. Jones, 6 Carr. & P. 64; Young v. Highland, 9 Gratt. 16; Hecker v. Hophins, 16 Abb. Pr. 801, note; Littlejohn v. Greeley, 13 Abb. Pr. 41; Fry v. Ben- nett, 3 N. Y. 324. See Harnett v. Johnson, 9 Carr. & P. 206; Chapman v. Rawson, 8 Q. B. 673. Whenever the plaintiff has anything to prove, on the question of damages, or otherwise, he has the right to begin. Huntington v. Conkey, 33 Barb. 218; Thurston v. Kennett, 22 N. H. 151; Bel- knap v. Wendell, 21 N. H.175; Comstock v. Hadlyme Eecl. Soc. 8 Conn. 254; Leavington F. L. & WM. Ins. Co. v. Paver, 16 Ohio, 324; Bowen v. Spears, 20 Ind. 146. e. Where Damages are Liquidated.—In other cases, where the damages are liquidated, or depend upon mere caleulation—as the casting of interest—the party holding the affirmative of the issue has a right to begin, and the affirmative in such cases will be with the party against whom a verdict may be given, provided no evidence were given atthe trial. Huntington v. Conkey, su- pra; Elwell v. Chamberlin, 31 N. Y. 611; Howie v. Green, 37 How. Pr. 97; Geach v. Ingall, 14 Mees. & W. 95. f. Object of the Opening; What may be Stated.—The object of an opening is to state briefly the nature of the action, the sub- stance of the pleadings, the points in issue, the facts and the sub- stance of the evidence counsel is about to introduce. Plaintiff’s counsel, in opening, may also state the nature of the defense, if it appears upon the record, and the manner in which he proposes to dispose of it. Counsel has not a right to state intended evidence in detail, nor to read documents he proposes to offer, so as to get matter before the jury without opportunity for the court to decide upon its admissibility. But he may state the material facts he relies on, and in so doing may refer to documents to refresh his memory. Itis a matter of discretion with the judge, whether he will allow the pleadings to be read to the jury except so far as they have first been put in evidence. If they contain irrelevant allegations raising issues improper for the jury’s consideration it is proper to prohibit them from being read. If the counsel’s open- ing discloses a fatal objection to his action or defense, or if he THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 129 expressly puts his case solely cn a ground untenable in point of law, the court may refuse to hear evidence in support of it, and dismiss the complaint and direct a verdict. To justify granting such a motion, the admission must be one which is necessarily fatal to the case. It is not good practice to grant such a motion, unless the opening has been taken down by the stenographer, or the statements relied on are noted in writing. Abb. Tr. Br. 40; Colo. Code Proc. 418. When the defendant claims to hold the affirmative, and to have the right to open and close, he is called upon to make it appear beyond all reasonable doubt that he has admitted the essential facts upon which the plaintiff bases his right of action, and he cannot call upon the court to make a critical examination of the pleadings to determine whether he is entitled to the privilege or not. Claflin v. Baere, 28 Hun, 204. The counsel for plaintiff in opening may also state the nature of the defense as it appears upon the record, but further than this he ought not to go. GQ Definitions by High Authorities. Equity Rules Regulating. Conclusions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- chusetts. . Expressions of Pain, Suffering, ete. . Illustration of the Rule. . Unsworn Statements Generally Excluded. . Corollary to Above. . Statements as to Written Contract Given when Made. . Serious Dissent from Conclusions Reached. . Argument of Mr. Justice Thayer. Summary of Conclusions Reached. . The General Rule. . Recent Decisions. Contemporaneous Declarations, When Admissible. Argument of Mr. Justice Field. 213. Declarations or Entries Made in the Course of Business or Professional Duty by Parties Since Deceased. 365 366 214. 218. 219. 220. 221. LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. a. The General Rule. b. -Lts Limitations. c. Matters Provable in Reference to Declarations. d. Fraud Vittiates all Contracts—A pplication of Maxim. Testimony of Former Witness Since Deceased, Absent or Dis- qualified. The Prevailing Law. b. Opinion of the New York Court of Common Pleas. Person who Heard may be Sworn. Critical Haamination of the Rule. View of Supporting Cases. Fluctuation of the Rule in Different Jurisdictions. Views of Judge Sharswood. The Prevailing Law. 1. Precise Language Need not be Proved. j. Use of Notes by Witness. k, Miscellaneous Rulings on the Subject. © ‘FOR po oo . Proof of Ancient Documents. a. When Proof of Execution is Unnecessary. b. When Necessary. ce. Law Indulgent as to Proof. . Of Ancient Possessions and Evidence Thereof by Deed. a. English Origin of the Rules. b. Admissibility of Deeds, Subscribing Witness. c. Views of the United States Supreme Court. . Ancient Boundaries. a. Mr. Justice McLean's Statement of the Rule. b. The Case of Bogardus (Anneke Jans) v. Trinity Church. ‘As to Ancient Facts of Public Interest. Dying Declarations. a. Rule Excluding Hearsay Evidence, Modification of. b. When Admissible. c. Implicated with Res Geste.r d. Not Generally Competent. e. Further Illustration of the Exception. Matters of Pedigree. a. Definition. b. When Admitted. c. Views of the United Stutes Supreme Court. d. Miscellaneous Authorities Colluted. Declarations Against Interest. a, Declaration, When Deemed Irrelevant. b. The English Rule. HEARSAY EVIDENCE, 3867 c. A Distinction Noted. d. Declarations in Disparagement of Title. 222. Telephonic Communication not Hearsay Evidence. a. Recent Adjudications Considered. b. Tendency of Modern Decisions. § 211. Hearsay Evidence Irrelevant When. a. The English Rule.—The fact that a statement was made by a person not called as a witness, and the fact that a statement is contained or recorded in any book, document or record what- ever, proof of which is not admissible on other grounds, are respectively deemed to be irrelevant to the truth of the matter stated, except in certain cases. Stephen, Dig., art. 14. b. The Unsatisfactory Nature of the Definition. — The above is Mr. Stephen’s statement of the present English rule. Commenting on his own paragraphs the distinguished author says: “The unsatisfactory character of the definitions usually given of hearsay is well known. See Best, c. 495; T. E. §$ 507-510. The definition given by Phillips sufficiently exemplifies it: ‘When a witness, in the course of stating what has come under the cogni- zance of his own senses concerning a matter in dispute, states the language of others which he has heard, or produces papers which he identities as being written by particular individuals, he offers. what is called hearsay evidence. This matter may sometimes be the very matter in dispute,’ ete. (1 Phil. Ev. 143). If this defini- tion is correct, the maxim, ‘hearsay is no evidence,’ can only be saved from the charge of falsehood by exceptions which make non-- sense of it. . . . There isno real difference between the fact that. a man was heard to say this or that, and any other fact.” Words spoken may convey a threat, supply the motive for a crime, con- stitute a contract, amount to slander, ete., etc.; and if relevant or in issue, on these or other grounds, they must be proved, like other facts, by the oath of some one who heard them. The im- portant point to remember about them is that bare assertion must. not, generally speaking, be regarded as relevant to the truth of the matter asserted.” ce. Importance of Hearsay Evidence.—One of the most. important of the rules of evidence in regard to relevancy is that which is frequently summarized by the maxim “hearsay is no evidence,” but which may be more accurately given thus: The fact that a statement has been made by a person not called as a oa 368 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. witness, or is contained in any book, document or record whatever, proof of which is not admissible on other grounds, is not relevant as a fact from which the truth of the fact stated may be inferred, except in certain cases hereinafter mentioned. This rule is not applicable to the case of words or exclamations accompanying an act which are received in evidence as part of the res gestw, or to such as are offered merely as indicative of the actual state of mind or feeling of the person using them, at the time when they were uttered, but refers solely to narratives of past occurrences. The reasons for the rule excluding hearsay, or as Best more accurately terms it, “ Derivative evidence,” are not difficult to discover, for apart from the circumstances that the probabilities of falsehood and misrepresentation, either wilful or unintentional, being intro- duced into a statement are greatly multiplied every time it is repeated, there remains the further fact that the original statement, even if correctly reported, has scarcely ever been made under the safeguards of the personal responsibility of the author as to its truth, or the tests of a cross-examination as to its accuracy. Reynolds, Theory of the Law of Ev. 8§ 16, 17. d. Limitations Upon the Rule.—When a witness, in the course of stating what has come under the cognizance of his own senses relative to a matter in dispute, states the language of others which he has heard, or produces paper which he identifies as hay- ing been written by particular individuals, he offers what is called hearsay evidence. The term is used with reference both to that which is spoken and to that which is written. In its legal sense, however, it is confined to that kind of evidence which does not derive its effect solely trom the credit to be attached to the wit- ness himself, but rests also, in part, on the veracity and competency of some other person from whom the witness may have received his information. 1 Phil. Ev. 169. When the court admits a part of the evidence of a plaintiff given on the trial of an- other cause, it is error to prevent a witness from giving all his evidence relating to the matter in issue. ed ger v. Snuth, 34 Il. 534, Hearsay evidence, as thus described, is uniformly held incompetent to establish any specifie fact, which in its nature is susceptible of being proved by witnesses who can speak from their own knowledge. Ilaines’ Treatise, 649. e. Intrinsic Weakness of this Grade of Evidence. — Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisty the mind as to the HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 369 existence of the fact, and the frauds which may be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 99. This is the general rule, and we find it generally enunciated that “hearsay is not evi- dence.” The language of this maxim is not strictly accurate, con- veying as it does, the idea that what a person has been heard to say is not receivable as evidence—an assertion which every day’s experience refutes. What a man has been heard to say against his own interest is not only receivable as evidence, but is gener- ally the best evidence against him. Prior v. White, 12 Ill. 265; Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67; Bridge v. Eggleston, 14 Mass. 245; Best, Ev. § 330. f. Admitted as Part of Res Gestw.—Hearsay is often admit- ted as evidence as part of the ves gestw; as where it is necessary to inquire into the nature of a particular act, and the intention of the person who did the act, proof of what the person said at the time of doing it is admissible evidence, for the purpose of showing its true character (1 Phil. Ev. 238; Latham v. Snvith, 45 Ill. 25; Comfort v. People, 54 Ill. 404; Velson v. Sinith, 28 Ill. 495; Rigg v. Cook, 9 Ill. 836; Welch v. Louis, 31 Tl. 458; Cooper v. Ran- dall, 59 Ill. 817); but a party cannot make evidence for himself in this way, and claim its admissibility as part of the res gestw. Mce- Causland v. Wonderly, 56 Il. 410. g. Cardinal Principles of Exclusion.—Whatever may have been the foundation for this rule, the principle of exclusion which is now its inseparable accompaniment has long been recognized. ‘The maxim “hearsay is no evidence” isan expression inaccurate in every way, and one which has caused the nature of the rule to be very generally misunderstood. The language of this formula conveys two erroneous notions to the mind; first, directly, that what a person has been heard to say is not receivable in evidence; and second, by implication, that whatever has been committed to writing, or rendered permanent by other means is receivable— positions neither of which is even generally true. On the one hand, what a man has been heard to say against his own interest is not only receivable but is the very best evidence against him; and on the other, as already stated, written documents with which a party is not identified are frequently rejected. Hence it is that hearsay evidence is so often confounded with res geste, 2. é., the 24 370 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. original proof of what has taken place, and which the least reflec- tion will show may consist of words, as well as of acts. h. Bouvier’s Definition.—I will add that the definition most in vogue, and the one adopted substantially by Bouvier, is that given by Taylor in his Treatise on the Law of Evidence. “The term hearsay is used with reference to what is done or writ- ten, as well as to what is spoken; and, in its legal sense, it denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also, in part, on the veracity and competency of some other person. That. this species of evidence is not given upon oath, that it cannot be tested by cross-examination, and that it supposes some better testi- mony, which might be adduced in the particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to protract legal in- vestigations to an embarrassing and dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency, to satisfy the mind as to the existence. of the fact, and the frauds which may be practiced with impunity under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.” i. Reasons for Rejection of.—As a test of truth it is found indispensable to the due administration of justice, that every liv- ing witness should be subjected to the ordeal of a cross-examina- tion, that it may appear what were his powers of perception, his opportunities for observation, his attentiveness in observing, the strength of his recollection and his disposition to speak the truth. But testimony which is derived from the relations of third per- sons, even when the informant is known, cannot be subjected to this test nor is the statement under oath, and besides it is fre- quently impossible to ascertain through whom, or how many per- sons the narration has been transmitted from the original wit- nesses of the fact. There are several exceptions to this rule which excludes hearsay evidence. But those cases in which it is received are of that character which sufficiently guards against frauds, and in most of them rejection of the evidence would work a greater mischief than could result from its reception. 8 Wait, L. & Pr. (5th ed.) 480. The channel through which hearsay evidence comes does not. change its nature; it continues hearsay evidence and inadmissible, though repeated by a party to the suit as mere hearsay. Stephens v. Vroman, 16 N.Y. 881. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 371 So declarations of third persons are inadmissible, although they were made concerning a fact which would be relevant to the issue if proved by a competent witness. Bevis v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 26 Mo. App. 19. Testimony of a witness as to what he has been told, but of which he knows nothing personally, is mere hearsay. Sangster v. Dalton (Ark.) 12 8. W. Rep. 202; Crockett v. Althouse, 35 Mo. App. 404. Testimony of a physician that other physicians concurred with him in his opinion as to the nature of a wound is merely hear- say and inadmissible. Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 122. j. Stating Language of Others, Hearsay.— When a witness, in the course of stating what has come under the cognizance of his own senses, concerning a matter in dispute, states the language of others, which he has heard, or produces papers which he iden- tifies as being written by certain individuals, he offers what is called hearsay evidence. This evidence may sometimes be the very matter in dispute, or something from which a pertinent in- ference, relative to the matter in dispute may be drawn; or on the other hand, it may consist of a verbal or written narrative of facts received from the witness from some other person which he de- livers at second hand to the court. This term, hearsay evidence, is used with reference both to that which is written and that which is spoken. But in its legal sense it is confined to that kind of evidence (whether written or spoken) which does not derive its credibility solely from credit due the witness himself, but rests also in part on the veracity and competency of some other person from whom the witness may have received his information. It may be here stated that the general rule is, and it is a rule of very extensive influence, that hearsay evidence is not receivable. 3 Wait, L. & Pr. (Sth ed.) 429. As stated in the above paragraph, the term applies to written as well as oral matter, but the writing or words are not necessarily hearsay, because those of a person not under oath. Thus infor- mation on which one has acted; the conversation of a person sus- pected of insanity; replies to inquiries; general reputation; expres- sions of feeling; general repute in the family on questions of pedigree; a great variety of declarations, (see “ Declarations”); entries made by third persons in the discharge of official duties; entries in the party’s shop-book, or other books kept in the regular course of business; indorsements of partial payments,—have been 372 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. held admissible as original evidence under the circumstances, and. for particular purposes. Matters relating to public interest may be proved by hearsay testimony, but the matter in controversy must be of public inter- est; the declarations must be those of persons supposed to be dead, and must have been made before controversy arose. Bouvier’s Law Dict. ttle Hearsay Evidence.” k. The Most Satisfactory Evidence Attainable.—The most satisfactory evidence which can be afforded is the evidence of our own senses. But in judicial investigations, the court and jury cannot have that kind of evidence, since they must decide upon the evidence adduced at the trial. The great bulk of the proof which is made in the trial of actions is the testimony of witnesses orally delivered; the power of cross- examination has been justly said to be one of the principal, as it certainly is one of the most efficacious tests which the law has devised for the discovery of truth. By means of it, the situation of the witness with respect to the parties, and to the subject of litigation, his interest, his motives, his inclination and prejudices, his means of obtaining a correct and certain knowledge of the facts to which he bears testimony, the manner in which he has used those means, his powers of discernment, memory and description, are all fully investigated and ascertained, and submitted to the considera- tion of the jury, before whom he has testified, and who have thus had an opportunity of observing his demeanor, and of determining the just weight and value of his testimony. 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.) §446. But where the testimony is in the nature of a narration by third parties—even in cases where the integrity of such persons is unquestioned—it is impossible to exercise the safeguards that cross- examination guarantees, and the testimony is subjected to all the infirmities of a treacherous memory or an imaginative mind. 1. Former Embarrassment Removed.— Whatever embarrass- ment may infest the treatment of this subject, or the definition given by English commentators, all possible misconception of the principles regulating it, so far as the practical application of it by the jurists of this country is concerned, has been entirely removed by the singularly logical exposition the entire topic received from Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Mima Queen v. Hep- burn, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 281, 3 L. ed. 848. The opinion there rendered has passed into a classic and has been received without HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 3873 murmur or dissent as the most thoroughly logical exposé of the subject ever attempted. The principles this case established, the vigor of the reasoning employed, the conciseness of the statement and the ‘pitiless logic of the conclusion reached all serve to invest this case with exceptional interest. I excerpt from the opinion the following passages, as they disclose both the principle and author- ity upon which much that is valuable in the entire domain of hear-’ say evidence depends. m. Views of Chief Justice Marshall.— “This court cannot per- ceive any legal distinction between the assertion of this, and of any other right which will justify the application of a rule of evidence to cases of this description which would be inapplicable to general cases in which a right to property may be asserted. The rule, then, which the court shall establish in this cause will not, in its application, be confined to cases of this particular de- scription but will be extended to others where rights may depend on facts which happened many years past. “It was very justly observed by a great judge, ‘that all questions upon the rules of evidence are of vast importance to all orders and degrees of men; our lives, our liberty and our property are all concerned in the support of these rules, which have been matured by the wisdom of ages, and are now revered from their antiquity and the good sense in which they are founded.’ “One of these rules is, that ‘hearsay’ evidence is in its own na- ture inadmissible. That this species of testimony supposes some better testimony which might be adduced in the particular case, is not the sole ground of its exclusion. Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible. “To this rule there are some exceptions which are said to be as old as the rule itself. These are cases of pedigree, of prescription, of custom, and in some cases of boundary. There are also mat- ters of general and public history which may be received without that full proof which is necessary for the establishment of a priv- ate fact. ° “Jt will be necessary only to examine the principles on which these exceptions are founded to satisfy the judgment that the same principles will not justify the admission of hearsay evidence to prove a specific fact, because the eye-witnesses to that fact are 374 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN OIVIL CASES. dead; but if other cases standing on similar principles should arise, it may well be doubted whether justice and the general pol- icy of the law would warrant the creation of new exceptions. The danger of admitting hearsay evidence is sutlicient to admonish courts of justice against lightly yielding to the introduction of fresh exceptions to an old and well established rule, the value of which is felt and acknowledged by all. “Tf the circumstances that the eye-wituesses of any fact be dead should justify the introduction of testimony to establish that fact from hearsay, no man could feel safe in any property, a claim to which might be supported by proof so easily obtained.” dJfima Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U. 8. 7 Cranch, 291, 3 L. ed. 348. Further comment would be animpertinence. This language of the Chief Justice has been cited with approval by the courts of every State in the American Union, and as recently as 1868 the same high tribunal from which the original decision proceeded, re-examined and reaffirmed the principles of this salutary rule, and that, too, in the course of an equally celebrated case involving the application of a well recognized exception to the rule of ex- clusion adopted in the earlier one. Vide Opinion Clifford, J., Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 75 U.S. 9 Wall. 397, 19 L. ed. 437. n. Prevalence of the Exclusionary Rule.—The consistency with which the courts adhere to the exclusivnary rule, rejecting hearsay evidence, is not less apparent than the cordiality with which they admit evidentiary matter falling under any subdivi- sion of the well recognized exceptions to the rule. Those excep- tions are subdivided by text-writers in various ways. The tabula- tion I adopt has at least the merits of convenience. o. Exceptions Under which Hearsay is Admissible.—(1) Ex- ceptions as to Hes (reste, (2) As to Admissions. (3) As to Pub- lic Documents. (4) As to Judicial Documents. (5) As to Mat- ters of Pedigree and Ancient Possession. (6) As to Declarations Against Interest. (7) As to Declarations or Entries made in the Course of Professional Duty or Business. (3) As to the Testimony on a Former Trial of Witness since Deceased. (9) As to Dying Declarations. (10) As to Telephonic Communications. The above tabulation naturally divides into two classes, The first class includes statements made under circumstanees which render it unnecessary or inexpedient to either swear the witness or cross-examine him. These would embrace: HEARSAY EVIDENOE, 315 I. Admissions. 7 YI. Statements in Public Documents. II. Statements in Judicial Records.. IV. Statements showing the existence of a general reputation in cases where the existence of such reputation is a relevant fact. The second class would naturally include all not mentioned in the first. These several exceptions to the rule of exclusion will be considered subsequently, after first disposing of the some- what involved and intricate topic of Res Geste, the proper ap- prehension of which will vastly simplify our analysis of the remain- ing propositions. § 212. Doctrine of the Res Gestz, Principles Involved. a. Definitions by High Authorities.— (es gestw has received its most apt and logical definition from the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Carter v. Buchannan, 3 Ga. 513: “The circum- stances, facts and declarations which grew out of the main fact, are contemporaneous with and serve to illustrate its character are part of the res gestw.” They must in all cases be contemporaneous with the main fact; they must have been made at the time of the act done, to which they relate, and must be well calculated to unfold the nature and quality of the facts they were intended to explain, and to so harmonize them as obviously to form one trans- action. nos v. Tuttle, 3 Conn. 250. They are the circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular litigated act, and which are admissible when illus- trative of such act. WVutting v. Page, 4 Gray, 584. Starkie says ves geste are the surrounding facts of a transaction, and may be submitted to a jury, provided they can be established by competent means sanctioned by law, and afford any fair pre- sumption or inference as to the question in dispute. And again, it is said that declarations accompanying an act, explanatory of that act, are res geste. They are the surrounding facts—explanatory of an act or showing a motive for acting. But the principal fact must be first established; and until it is established, surrounding facts are not admissible; and certainly exhibiting surrounding facts is not establishing a principal fact. Zravelers Ins. Co. v. Mos- ley, 73 U. 8. 8 Wall. 397, 19 L. ed. 4877. Undoubtedly whenever evidence of an act done by a party 1s admissible, the declarations he made at the time the act was done are also admissible, if they were of a character to elucidate and 376 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. unfold the act, because they derive a degree of credit from the act itself, and do not rest entirely upon a statement not made under oath. Sesscons v. Little, 9 N. H. 271. Much of the difficulty in the application of the rule arises from the nature of the principal act, especially where it is continuous, or extends for a considerable time, as in questions of domicil or of bankruptcy; but there is no difficulty in applying the rule in cases where the principal act is single and well defined as to time, nor is there any well considered case, which gives any countenance to the admission of such declarations, unless they were made at the time the principal act was done, or as in case of a riot, during the continuance of the transaction. éwssell v. Frisbie, 19 Conn. 209; Carter v. Beals, 44 N. H. 412; Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; Lidley v. Gyde, 9 Bing. 351. b. Equity Rules Regulating.—Equity rules are the same as the rules at common law, as appears by the decision of Chancellor Walworth in Re Taylor, 9 Paige, 617, in which he held that the declarations of parties and other attending circumstances, in order to render them admissible as a part of the ves geste, must be con- temporaneous with the main fact under consideration, and to which they were intended to give character. rink v. Coe, 4 G. Greene, 556. ce. Conclusions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- chusetts.—The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, after careful and discriminating review of the authorities bearing upon this topic of ves geste, formulate the following conclusions, which may be regarded as the principles still controlling in all cases, and the tests by which this class of questions must be determined: 1st. That the admission of such evidence is not left to the pre- siding judge, as had sometimes been supposed; that its admission is governed by principles of law, which must be applied to partic- ular cases as other principles are applied, in the exercise of a judi- cial judgment, and that errors of judgment in that case, as in other cases, may be exemined and corrected. 2d. That a declaration, if it has its force by itself, as an abstract statement, detached from any particular fact in question, is not admissible in evidence, beeanse it depends for its effect on the credit of the person making it, and therefore is hearsay. 8d. That mere narrative is never admissible, because such state- ments are detached from any material act which is pertinent to the issue. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 387T 4th. That whenever the act of the party may be given in evi- dence, his declarations made at the time are also admissible, if they were calculated to elucidate and explain the character and quality of the act, and were so connected with it as to derive credit from the act itself, and to constitute one transaction. 5th. That there must be a main or principal fact or transaction and that such declarations only are admissible as grow out of the principal transactions, serve to illustrate its character, are contem- porary with it, and derive some degree of credit from it. 6th. That the main act or transaction is not, in every case, necessarily confined to a particular point of time, but whether it is so or not depends solely upon the nature and character of the act or transaction. Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 41. Search is made in vain for any decided case, where the princi- ples and tests which regulate and control the admission of such evidence is so satisfactorily stated, and with so much fullness and clearness as in that case. Meek v. Perry, 36 Miss. 261. d. Expressions of Pain, Suffering, ete.—Declarations of the injured party, though plaintiff, at time of disaster, explaining the occurrence and its effects upon him, are competent in his own favor, if part of the res geste. Brownwell v. Pacifie R. Co. 47 Mo. 239; Frink v. Coe, 4G. Greene, 555. Declarations subsequent to the act are also deemed admissible. Com. v. I’ Pike, 3 Cush. 181; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93. Contra, see Cleveland, C. & 0. R. Co. v. Mara, 26 Ohio St. 185. A formidable array of authorities establish the proposition that all declarations of pain, suffering, actions, groans, outcries, expres- sions of pain and distress at the time of such suffering, may be given in evidence of the injured person’s favor, even though after the commencement of the action. Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co. 85 N. Y. 487, 62 Barb. 364; Murphy v. New York Cent. R. Co. 66 Barb. 125; Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322; Kent v. Lincoln, 32 Vt. 591; Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39, 43 Am. Dec. 249; Phillips v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628; Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416; Werely v. Persons, 28 N. Y. 844; Baker v. Griffin, 10 Bosw. 140; Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co. 32 N. Y. 597; Gray v. McLaughlin, 26 Iowa, 279. Evidence of exclamations of pain made by a person immediately on returning home an hour or two after receiving personal injuries is admissible on the question of damages. Smith v. Dittman (C- P.) 34 N. Y. S. R. 308. 378 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. When such declarations are evidence, they may be proved by any witness who heard them; they are of greater weight if made to and proved by a medical attendant. Howe v. Plainfield, 41 N. H. 135; Perkins v. Concord R. Co. 44 N. H. 228. In all instances where it is pertinent to show the bodily or men- tal feelings of a person, the natural expressions of such feel- ings made at the time in question are, as to the facts in issue, regarded as original evidence. Such expressions usually furnish satisfactory evidence, and it is the province of the jury to deter- mine what degree of credence should be accorded them. Phzllips y. Kelly, 29 Ala. 628; Hyatt v. Adams, 16 Mich. 180; Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N.Y. 416. Judge Denio, in the case last cited, says: “It is one of the natural concomitants of illness and of physical injuries for the sick or injured person to complain of pain and distress. .A complaint, it is true, may be simulated, but it is generally real. I think such evidence is admissible from the necessity of the case, and that it may safely be left to the jury in connection with the other evi- dence touching the alleged sick or injured person’s condition.” In a somewhat similar case, Zord Ellenborough said: “If inquiries of patients by medical men, with the answers to them, are evidence of the state of health of the patient at the time, this must be evidence. What were the complaints, what the symp- toms, what the conduct of the parties themselves at the time, are always received in evidence upon such inquiries and must be resorted to from the very nature of things.” Aveson v. Kinnaird, 6 East, 188. e. Illustration of the Rule.—An apt phase of illustration may be found in a New York case, decided in 1866. An action was brought by a husband against a railroad company for damages sus- tained from injuries inflicted upo nhis wife. This claim was based principally upon the hypothesis that by the concussion sustained by his wife in the defendant's car, she received an internal injury, which so affected her as to produce a partial paralvsis. seriously and per- manently impairing her health and physical capacity, rendering her unable to labor, or even to walk without assistance, and thereby subjecting him to great pecuniary loss and expense. In support of that theory, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to show the nature and cause of the accident, the force of the concussion, its immediate and visible effects on his wife, and that previous to HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 879 the accident she attended actively and efficiently to her household affairs, although she was subject to occasional sickness, but that since the accident she had lost to a great extent the use of her limbs, her general health was greatly impaired, and she was unable to do any work. This outline of the case gives a general view of the points con- tested on the trial and the character of the testimony by which the plaintiff attempted to establish his claim. All the questions suggested in the points submitted by the counsel for the appel- lants, as to the credibility of the plaintiff’s witnesses, and the probability of their statements, of course belonged to the jury, and were conclusively disposed of by them. Assuming that the witnesses were truthful, and that their testimony established the fact that she was suffering from an affection of the spinal column, which tended to paralysis, it was impossible to prove by direct evidence, and with absolute certainty, from what cause the affec- tion proceeded. Something was necessarily left to inference; not a merely speculative, but a rational inference based upon all the circumstances of the case. The testimony, including that of the physicians, authorized the jury to find that, previously to the accident, she was free from all disease of the spine, tending to paralysis; that immediately thereafter, a disease of that nature began to be exhibited, and was subsequently manifested in increased force until the time of the trial; that on the occasion of the accident, she received a jar or blow that was sufficient to pro- duce such disease; and that no other cause was shown to which it could be reasonably ascribed. It became material to show the bodily health and condition of the wife from the time of the accident to that of the trial. Upon that point, the most satisfactory species of testimony was that of physicians, who saw and examined her at different times during that period with a view to ascertaining her condition; her complaints and representations of pain and suffering, together with her appearance and conduct, necessarily formed the basis of their judgment. Such complaints and representations are original testimony, and not hearsay. This is the case notwithstanding the examinations referred to were made by physicians after the suit was commenced, and with a view to their testifying therein as to the result of their examinations. It doesnot appear that the patient knew that such was their object, and if she did know it, the jury were to judge whether her representations were false, or her testimony collusive. 380 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Werely v. Persons, 28 N. Y. 344; Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co. 82 N. Y. 600; Matteson v. New York Cent. R. Co. 35 N.Y. 487 f. Unsworn Statements Generally Excluded.—Statements made out of court and without the sanction of an oath are dan- gerous as evidence, and the rights of suitors should not be put in peril by them. The instances are few in which declarations and unsworn statements made out of court have been permitted to be given in evidence as proof of the facts sought to be established. Statements and representations of a sick person of the nature, symptoms and effect of his malady, have been received as orig- inal evidence, and especially when made to a medical attendant, to enable him to minister to the patient, have they been regarded as competent evidence, and entitled to weight. There is good reason for their admission when made to the attending surgeon or physician, as upon them, in connection with the manifestations and symptoms of injury or disease, the opinion of the expert is. based and the treatment governed. But in every other case the admission of testimony so exceptional, as a departure from the established rules of evidence must be referred to the necessities. of the case, and the inability of the party to give a higher and more satisfactory nature. The general rule is that the best evi- dence of which the fact is susceptible must be adduced, and secondary or inferior evidence will not be received, so long as the: higher and better evidence can be had. eed v. New York Cent. RR. Co. 45 N.Y. 575. g. Corollary to Above.—As a corollary of the propositions. above established, we may infer that complaints and indications. of suffering by injured parties on a physical examination requested by opposite party, are admissible ( Quuire v. Chicago & WV. W. Lt. Co. 48 Wis. 513, 33 Am. Rep. 821); or to his attending physi- cian. Suey v. Llurlan, 128 Mass. 244, 35 Am. Rep. 372. The existence of many bodily sensations and ailments which. go to make up the symptoms of disease or injury can be known only to the person who experiences them. It is the statement. and description of these which enter into and form part of the facts on which the opinion of an expert as to the conditions of health or disease is founded. Burber v. Aferriam, 11 Allen, 324. h. Statements As to Written Contract Given When Made. —Familiar principles long regarded as elementary exclude HEARSAY EXIDENCE, 381 parol evidence in reference to a written contract. The instru- ment itself is regarded as the most certain memorial of the trans- action, and barring the exceptions which we have elsewhere considered, in the absence of fraud or mistake, this written memo- rial evidences the meaning and intent of the parties. What is done may constitute a part of the res geste, as well as what is said. Both are entitled to grave consideration in determining the ad- missibility of evidence, and in many instances it is of great im- portance to show the contemporaneous acts and declarations that accompany most contractual matters. Under proper circum- stances, and in the exercise of due discretion, the acts and sayings of the party are admissible. Great care should be adopted, lest testimony distinctively and pronouncedly hearsay should be con- founded with ves geste, ¢. e. the original proof of what has taken place, and which the least reflection will show, may consist of words as well as acts. The application; force and extent of the exception which allows the acts and sayings of parties to a written instrument at the time of its execution to be admitted in evidence, must depend in all instances upon the nature and circumstances disclosed by the transaction. A variety of suggested incidents frequently call for this grade of evidence, and in all instances the discretion of the trial court should regulate the admission of such testimony by a consistent apprehension of all the facts in evi- dence. i. Serious Dissent from Conclusions Reached.—There has been serious dissent and strenuous opposition to many of the legal conclusions which have been engrafted upon this law of res geste. Within what contines it is expedient to admit the testimony of statements made at the time of the accident, or what criteria should be adopted as to the lapse of time after the accident, or what cir- cumstances should govern as to the condition, mental or physical, of the declarant, his freedom from restraint, and general environ- ment,—these and various other incidental considerations are always elements to be considered. The most vigorous protest comes from the Supreme Court of Oregon in a recent case, where this entire principle of the res geste was under review, and as it has many affinities with the principle implicated in this discussion, we will incorporate the following excerpt from the able opinion of Justice Thayer in Sullivan v. Oregon BR. & Nav. Co. 12 Or. 392, 53 Am. Rep. 364. Its pertinency relates to statements made 382 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. after the injury, and it is an able criticism upon Com. v. M’ Pike 3 Cush. 181, and Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 397, 19 L. ed. 487. j. Argument of Mr. Justice Thayer.—“Such testimony has. in many instances been admitted in evidence, and courts have at- tempted to give reasons for holding it competent. The line of authorities in this country which maintain its admissibility seems. to have commenced with the case of Com. v. IM’ Pike, 3 Cush. 184. The courts that have followed the ruling in that case have frequently manifested a sort of hesitancy as to its correctness, but have concluded that such statements were a part of the res- geste, and been content to place their decisions upon that ground. “That mode of disposing of important questions of proof in such cases is becoming quite unsatisfactory. Its tendency has. been to overthrow one of the fixed principles of the law, that the best evidence which the case is susceptible of shall be produced and it leads to uncertainty and doubt. It is very easy to say that. the statements and declarations of a party who has received an injury, made after its occurrence, as to how it was occasioned, are. a part of the res geste, but extremely difficult to explain it, and many times wholly impossible to point out any rule under which the determination has been arrived at. An act may sometimes be explained, or its nature and quality be ascertained by an ac- companying declaration which may be properly regarded as a. part of the transaction in which it occurred, but it is never the act itself, nor the mere evidence of it. Ifa party were to be set up- on and wounded, his narration of the circumstances attending the affair, or declarations as to who inflicted the injury, made after the transaction was ended, and his assailant gone, would be no part of the occurrence, it would be only his own account of the: affair. None of the class of cases referred to furnish any certain test as to when such declarations may be given in evidence as a. part of the res geste. It is said in some of them that they must have been made at the time the act transpired; but in others, that a considerable time may elapse and they still be such part; that. each case must depend upon its own peculiar cireumstances and be determined by a sound judicial discretion. I do not fully un- derstand what is meant by the latter expression. I it is intended by ‘a sound judicial discretion, that the court before whom the trial is had must judge as to whether the transaction was continu- HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 883. ¥ ing when the declaration was made, or had ended prior thereto, then the question would not differ from other questions regard- ing the admissibility of testimony; the court would consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the affair, and determine therefrom as to its competency; but if, on the other hand, it is to be understood that the court is to decide the question in accord- ance with the judge’s notions as to the justice of the particular: case, then it is afloat without any chart to direct it; precedents, under that view, would be of little value, as the peculiar cireum-- stances attending each transaction would be likely to vary from those surrounding others of a like character which had been ad- judicated upon sufficiently to authorize a different holding. Such theory necessarily abrogates any law upon the subject, as law is, as a rule, applicable to a class of cases which are alike in principle. “The question is too important to be left to such uncertainty, and there is no occasion for leaving it to be determined by vague: speculation. The authorities upon the subject are quite numer- ous, and are widely different. The Massachusetts cases, with the exception of the one referred to, have generally held to a reason- able and consistent rule upon that branch of evidence. They have repudiated the notion that the admission of such declara- tions is left to the discretion of the presiding judge, and admit. them only. when they are calculated to explain the character and quality of the act, and are so connected with it as to derive credit from the act itself, and to constitute one transaction. Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 41. This appears to me to be as liberal arule as any court can consistently with the rules of evidence sanction, and J think it very doubtful whether our courts, under certain provisions of our statute, would have any right to permit the introduction of declarations of parties as evidence except un- der the condition of circumstances above referred to.” The limit of extreme indulgence was reached in the Mosley ease. That decision and all of a kindred nature cannot, in my opinion, be maintained without doing violence to the law of evi- dence. It cannot be established by any system of logic that can be employed, that the statements and declarations of a party to a. transaction made after it has ended are a part of it. The case of Reg. v. Bedingfield, 14 Cox's Crim. Cas, 341, is an extreme case upon the other side, and goes much further than would be needed to justify the exclusion of these declarations. That case was decided by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, after 384 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. consulting with Field and Manesty, J, and aroused much dis- cussion and criticism in England. Bedingfield’s Case, 14 Am. L. Rev. 817. In dealing with judicial evidence of all kinds, ignorance dog- matizes, science theorizes, and sense judges. The stream and even the source of justice may be poisoned by causes irrespective of the imbecility of laws, of the blunderings of tribunals. It occurs to me that courts at nist priws would have but little difficulty in determining when the statements of a party in such cases were admissible as a part of the res geste, or incompetent upon the ground that they were only hearsay, if they would consider whether the transaction to which they were relating were contin- uous when they were made, or terminated at the time, and make that the test of the matter; and I believe that much of the embar- rassment they labor under in applying the rule in such cases has arisen in consequence of an attempt that has frequently been made to stretch the res geste doctrine to an unnatural extent in order to suit some supposed meritorious case, and which has led to the great diversity of decisions and confusion of the law upon that subject. Sullwvan v. Oregon Rh. & Nav. Co. 12 Or. 392, 53 Am. Rep. 364. k. Summary of Conclusions Reached.—Summarizing the conclusions upon this subject, we may attirm that to make declara- tions on this ground admissible, they must not have been mere narratives of past occurrences, but must have been made at the time of the act done which they are supposed to characterize, and have been well calculated to unfold the nature and quality of the acts they were intended to explain; and to so harmonize with them as to constitute a single transaction. Rockwell v. Taylor, 41 Conn. 55. Apparent abuses resulting from receiving descriptive declara- tions of pain in negligence cases, has led to a reconsideration of the rule; and the better opinion now is that a party seeking to recover damages on account of his own suffering cannot give in evidence, in his own behalf, his own descriptive declarations of suffering, as distinguished from apparently spontaneous manifes- tations of the distress. Abbott, Trial Brief, 138. 1. The General Rule.—The general rule is, that declarations, to become a part of the res geste, must accompany the act which they are supposed to characterize, and must so harmonize as to be HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 885 obviously one transaction, and where complications are introduced incident to the mutual relations involved by the relations of agency, the declarations made by such agents in general bind the princi- pal. Where his acts will bind, his statements and admissions respecting the subject matter of those acts will also bind the prin- cipal if made at the same time, and so that they constitute a part, of the res geste. To be admissible they must be in the nature of original and not hearsay evidence. They must constitute the fact to be proved, and must not be the mere admission of some other fact. They must be made not only during the continuance of the agency, but in regard to a transaction pending at the very time. This seems to be the final attitude of judicial sentiment on this subject. Whatever conclusion or result the courts of last resort may reach as regards this topic, that result is certain to be of great importance to the law of evidence. Les gestw in its ramification is invading every principle of this law. The constant tendency of the courts to admit all testimony that can elucidate or unravel the mysticism of any transaction— the declared intention of many of our jurists to sift the component parts forming the fabric of litigation, and to expose every feature delineated or suggested by the case, in order to reach the whole merit of the transaction, these tendencies with others equally potential are investing the topic with increasing interest. I can- not abandon this branch of my subject without briefly adverting to some very recent decisions, which fortify and emphasize the positions I have taken in the text. m. Recent Decisions.—The Indiana Supreme Court, in a ‘decision rendered in 1889, outlines its opinion as to res gestw as follows: Declarations which are the emanations or outgrowths of the act or occurrence in litigation, although not precisely concur- rent in point of time, if they were yet voluntary and spontaneously made, so nearly contemporaneous as to be in the presence of the transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under such circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation, are admissible as part of the act or transaction itself, Declarations of a brakeman within two minutes after he was thrown under a car while attempting to uncouple it, made while 25 386 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. remaining in the presence of the train and of the alleged defective machinery, which he declared was instrumeutal in producing his hurt, which caused his death in about six hours afterwards, and before he had been removed from the spot, are admissible as part. of the ves geste. Lowisville, VN. A. & C. &. Co. v. Buck, 2 L. R. A. 520, 116 Ind. 566. The Supreme Court of Georgia had decided in the previous year that in an action against the railway company to recover damages for personal injury, declarations made by plaintiff half an hour after the accident as to the manner of his leaving the train and receiving the injury, were inadmissible as part of the res geste. Savannah, F. d& W. R. Co. v. Holland, 82 Ga. 257. Here we closely approach the confines, at least, of very decided antagonism to the Indiana decision last cited, and the decision of the Georgia court seems repugnant to the principle formulated in an earlier case (185-4) where the injured person was a child fourteen years old, who died from the injury. Her declarations made half an hour after the injury was received were admitted in evidence upon the ground that they were free from suspicion, this court say- ing: “Itis scarcely credible that this little girl while enduring such excruciating pain—perhaps torture would not be too strong a. word to characterize it—from this frightful wound, would have been capable of framing a story with a view to her ultimate advantage of gain, or from any other ulterior purpose.” Aryusta. Factory v. Burnes, 72 Ga. 218. Upon a subsequent consideration of that case, the same court, in Augusta & 8. Le. Co. v. Lundall, 79 Ga. 311, held the declara- tions of a mature woman not more remote in time inadmissible. The courts say in reference to the Augusta factory action: “That case must rest alone upon its own peculiar facts, and will not be extended beyond them. The proximity of time in which declara- tions are made to the main transaction are not the only test of their admissibility in evidence, but they must also be free from all suspicion of device or afterthought.” A valuable contribution to the literature of this discussion, is found in the case of Chicago W.D. R. Co. v. Becker, 128 ll. 545, The action was against a city railway company to recover damages for personal injury to plaintiff's intestate, a boy, causing his death. It was claimed that the boy was thrown from a car and run over. After the boy had got up and walked to the side- walk and sat down, he stated, in answer to a question as to what HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 387 was the matter, that the conductor threw him off the car. These statements were admitted inevidence. Judge MeGruder, writing for reversal, says: ‘* We think that the admission of proof as to what was said by the deceased, under the circumstances thus detailed, was erroneous. The declarations were not a part of the res gest, They were not made at the time of the accident, nor did they explain or characterize the manner in which the accident oc- curred. They were not concurrent with the injury, nor uttered so contemporaneously with it as to be regarded as a part of the principal transaction. They were made after the injury was re- ceived and were merely narrative of what had taken place. They were spoken by the deceased as his answer, when he was asked, ‘What was the matter? The true inquiry according to the author- ities, is whether the declaration is a verbal act illustrating, explain- ing or interpreting other parts of the transaction of which it is itself a part, or is merely a history or part of a history of a completed past affair. In the one case it is incompetent, in the other it is not. A/ayes v. State, 64 Miss. 829; Wuldele v. Mew York Cent. & HR. R. Co. 95 N.Y. 274; Lander v. People, 104 Tl. 248, and other cases of a recent date.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court follows the decisions in New York and Dlinois holding that declarations as to a defect in an en- gine, made by officers of a railroad company, after an accident result- ing in the death of one of the company’s employees, constitute no part of the res geste, and are not admissible as evidence on the part of the plaintiff in an action against the company for negli- gently causing such death, when not offered in contradiction of prior testimony of such officers. Erie ce W. V. RP. Co. v. Smith, 125 Pa. 259. Vr. Justice Green, who delivered the opinion in the above entitled case, says that the rule of law upon this subject of res geste, “is so perfectly familiar that it is not necessary to refer to the authority.” The Michigan Supreme Court is not as hardy in its confidence, and employs the phrase ‘is perhaps admissible,” in lien of Ar. Justice (rreen’s “perfectly familiar” expression, and in an action against a street railway company for damages for personal injury, a conversation between the car driver and the company’s superin- tendent as to the cause of aceident was ruled admissible as part of the ves geste, but a conversation between the same parties as to a past transaction, which was not part of the res gestw, was ex- 3888 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. cluded (Wormsdorf v. Detroit C. &. Co. 75 Mich. 472); and Keyser v. Chicago & G. T. &. Co. 66 Mich. 390, sustains the same View. The Missouri Supreme Court admires the reasoning in 7ravel- ers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 75 U. 8. 8 Wall. 397, 19 L. ed. 437, and adopts the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court, rather than follow the Pennsylvania case. In Leahey v. Cass Ave. & F. G. R. Co. 97 Mo. 165, it is held that declarations to be part of the res gestw need not be coincident in point of time, with the main fact to be proven. It is sufficient if the two are so nearly connected that the declaration can, in the ordinary course of events, be said to be the spontaneous exclamations of the real cause, or if a subsequent declaration and the main fact at issue, taken together form a continuous transaction, the declaration is admissible; but a mere subsequent declaration is not of itself a sufficient connecting circumstance to make it admissible. Declarations of party injured by railway train as to how he re- ceived the injury, made when he was first picked up at the scene of the accident, surrounded by parties who witnessed it, are ad- missible as part of the res geste, but his declarations made from five to twenty minutes afterwards, when he had been removed fifty or seventy-five feet and placed on a cot, are inadmissible. The question of time is of great importance in determining the admissibility of declarations. If made instantaneously with the oc- currence they seek to characterize, the tendency is to admit them; but where these declarations are in their nature narrations of a past occurrence, are so remote from the incident they are supposed to illustrate as to be historical or rather narrative, then and in that event the weight of authority is in favor of their exclusion. In Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 98, the plaintiff was injured about noon. Her physician called between one and four o’clock of the same day, when she stated to him how she got hurt, namely by falling through a trap door. This statement the physician re- lated on the witness stand, and this court held the evidence com- petent, because part of the res gestw, saying that the declaration and accident formed connecting circumstances. The case of Brownell v. Pacific R. Co. 47 Mo. 240, was a suit instituted to recover damages for the death of the plaintiffs hus- band. There the declaration of Brownell, in reference to the switch, it is said “grew directly out of and was made immediately HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 889 after the happening of the fact,” and it was held that the declara- tion was competent evidence for the plaintiff. The case cites with approval Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 15 U.S. 8 Wall. 897, 19 L. ed. 437, which was an action on a policy of insurance. To show that the death of the insured was caused. by an accident, the wife testified that her husband left his bed between twelve and one o’clock; that when he came back he said he had fallen down the back stairs and nearly killed himself. The evidence of the son was to the same effect; he also testified fur- ther, that the day after the fall his father said he felt badly, ete. This evidence was held to be competent for two purposes: 1. To show bodily injuries and pain; and 2. To prove that deceased fell down stairs. In respect of the first, it is said such evidence must relate to the present and not the past. Anything in the nature of narration must be excluded. As to the second, it is said in substance that generally the declarations must be contemporaneous with the events; yet the rule is not of universal application. Further on it is said: “Here the principal fact is the bodily in- jury. The res geste are the statements of the cause made by the assured almost contemporaneously with its occurrence, and those relating to the consequences made while the latter subsisted and were in progress.” That court as well as this, in the cases last cited, quote approv- ingly from Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. 396, where a peddler’s wagon was struck and injured by a locomotive. The court said: “We cannot say that the declaration of the engineer was not a part of the res geste. It was made at the time,—in view of the goods strewn along the road by the breaking up of the boxes,— and seems to have grown directly out of and immediately after the happening of the fact.” Adams v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 74 Mo. 553, was an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for the death of her husband. Plaintiff proved by one witness that after the deceased was struck and after the train had stopped, two trainmen, whom the witness took to be the fireman and engineer, came up, and one of them said to the other, “If you had stopped the train when I told you, you would not have killed him.” The other replied, “It cannot be helped now; it is too late.” This court after reviewing various authorities stated its conclusion as follows: ‘Were the declara- tions connected with the calamity as a cause or concomitant ? Were they contemporary with the principal transaction and illus- 890 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. trative of its character, or merely a subsequent narrative of how it occurred, or an. explanation of how it might have been avoided? If the latter, as we think, they were wholly inadmis- sible, and the court erred in permitting the evidence to go to the jury.” This case was cited as an authority in the subsequent case of Devlin v. Wabash, St. L. & P. LP. Co. 4 West. Rep. 54, 87 Mo. 545, but that case was quite different in its facts, as will be seen as to the following statement made therein: ‘It does not appear that these statements made by the section foreman to the foreman of the roadhouse were made while the foreman was transacting the business of the defendant.” Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. O Brien, 119 U.S. 99,30L. ed. 299, was a personal damage suit. A witness was permitted to testily that between ten and thirty minutes after the accident he had a conversation with the engineer in charge of the locomotive, and that he, the engineer, said the train was moving at the rate of eighteen miles per hour. The court held that this evidence should have been excluded, four of the justices dissenting. The majority opinion is put upon the ground that the declaration did not accompany the act from which the injury arose, that it was a mere narration of a past occurrence, and therefore not a part of the res geste. The dissenting justices say: ‘As the declaration was made between ten and thirty minutes after the accident, we may well conclude that it was made in sight of the wrecked train, and in the presence of the injured parties, and while surrounded by excited passengers.” The modern doctrine has relaxed the ancient rule, that declarations to be admissible as part of the res geste must be strictly contemporaneous with the main transaction. It now allows evidence of them, when they appear to have been made under the immediate influence of the principal transaction, and are so connected with it as to characterize or explain it.” n. Contemporaneous Declarations, when Admissible.— Declarations made contemporaneously with or immediately pre- paratory to a particular litigated act, which tend to illustrate and give character to the act in question, are admissible as part of the res geste. Where, therefore, in an action to recover for an alleged breach of a contract of hiring, the disputed question is whether the hiring was for a year or for an indefinite period, a letter written by the defendants to the plaintiff on the day before the HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 391 hiring, containing a declaration that the writers desired to see the plaintiff the next day, with a view of securing his services for the coming year as foreman, though not received by the plaintiff till the day after the contract was completed, is admissible in evidence as corroborative of the plaintiffs version of the contract. inch- cliffe v. Koontz, 121 Ind. 422. o. Argument of Mr. Justice Field.—The United States Supreme Court has enlarged the scope of this entire doctrine, relating to the res geste, by an admirable decision in the Mosley ease. The adverse criticism upon that decision has been noted, and yet the same high tribunal in a very recent case, .. declined to recede from its position, and gave strength and entab- lature to its previous position, in language that unmistakably indicates the present drift of authority. dr. Justice Field, in the dissenting opinion appended to Vicksburg & M. R. Co.v. O Brien, developes the present status of res geste, at least as it is under- stood by himself and his associates on the supreme bench of the United States. He says: “The modern doctrine has relaxed the ancient rule, that decla- rations, to be admissible as part of the ves geste, must be strictly contemporaneous with the main transaction. It now allows evi- dence of them, when they appear to have been made under the immediate influence of the principal transaction, and are so con- nected with it as to characterize or explain it. “The case of the Hanover FP. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. 402, is.in point. There it appeared that a peddler’s wagon was struck by a locomotive and the peddler was injured; and the question was as to the admissibility of the declaration of the engineer that the train was behind time, to show carelessness and negligence. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held it admissible; ‘we cannot say’ said the court ‘that the declaration of the engineer was no part of the res gestw ;’ it was made at the time in view of the goods strewn along the road by the breaking up of the boxes, and seems to have grown directly out of and immediately after the happen- ing of the fact. The negligence complained of being that of the engineer himself, we cannot say that his declarations, made upon the spot, at the time, and in view of the effects of his conduct, are not evidence against the company as a part of the very transac- tion itself.’ “What time may elapse between the happening of the event in 392 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. respect to which the declaration is made, and the time of the declaration and yet the declaration be admissible must depend upon the character of the transaction itself.” See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Field, appended to Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. O Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 80 L. ed. 299. § 213. Declarations or Entries Made in the Course of Busi- ness or Professional Duty by Parties Since Deceased. a. The General Rule.—There is a rule which admits written entries, made by deceased persons as evidence, even though not made against their interests, provided that in addition to a peculiar and personal knowledge of the facts, and the absence of all interest to pervert them, the entries appear to have been made in the ordinary course of official, professional or other business or duty, and to have been immediately connected with the transac- tions to which they relate. And under such circumstances, it would appear that, upon general principles, there is no sound dis- tinction between written entries and verbal declarations. The entries which are made in books of account will be noticed in a subsequent place. 8 Wait, Law & Pr. (5th ed.) 436. Entries and memoranda, made by persons since deceased, in the ordinary course of professional and official employment, are competent secondary evidence of the facts contained in them, where they had no interest to misrepresent or misstate them (Nicholls v. Webb, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 326, 5 L. ed. 628). They are admitted from necessity. b. Its Limitations.—The principle of the rule is limited to those cases only in which the entry was made in the ordinary and regular course of business, and it does not extend to entries, which though made in the course of business, include independent matters which are not necessary to the performance of the duty by the person who madetheentry. This view is sustained by a formidable array of authority. Prescott v. Hayes, 43 N. H. 598; Hicks v. Cram, 17 Vt. 449; Ringo v. Richardson, 53 Mo. 385; Litchfield Iron Oo. v. Bennett, 7 Cow. 234; Trammell v. Hudmon, 78 Ala. 222: foster v. Brooks, 6 Ga. 287; Coleman v. Frazier, 4 Rich. L. 146; Pearce v. Jenkins, 10 Tred. L. 855; Blattner v. Weis, 19 Ill. 246; St. Clair v. Shale, 20 Pa. 108; Stair v. New York Nat. Bank, 55 Pa. 364; Taylor v. Gould, 57 Pa. 152; Bird v. Hueston, 10 Ohio St. 418. We may observe however, that the entries must be made HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 393 contemporaneously with the occurrence of the events recorded, and it should be remembered that hearsay evidence does not lose its identity as such by being the subject of an entry in an account book (opinion of Hunt, J, in Churchman v. Lewis, 34 N. Y. 444). Chief Justice Church in the case decided in 1874 held, that entries made by the discount clerk of a bank can only be proved by the clerk making them, if alive and within the State; and the receiving in evidence statements of other witnesses, not made from personal knowledge, but from entries not thus verified, is error, adding: “The rule is a wise one, and we are not at liberty to overlook a departure from it, even if its application is unim- portant. The precedent would be injurious.” Ocean Mat. Bank v. Carll, 55 N. Y. 440. ce. Matters Provable in Reference to Declarations.—The agitation and controversy that has characterized this question of relevancy in so far as it is applicable to statements made by deceased persons, has been set at rest in the English courts by the provisions incorporated in Stephen’s Digest, art. 135. The perfect applicability of these well recognized rules will give pertinency and suggestion to their introduction here, in manner following: Whenever any declaration or statement made by a deceased person relevant or deemed to be relevant under articles 25-32, ‘both inclusive, or any deposition is proved, all matters may be proved in order to contradict it, or in order to impeach or con- firm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness, and had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter suggested. d. “Fraud Vitiates all Contracts’?— Application of Maxim.—Fraud will vitiate everything; by which is signified, that no one shall, so far as the law can prevent it, be allowed by his own fraud or that of his agent, to acquire a right, escape a liabil- ity or impose an obligation on another. The law exerts its utmost astuteness to detect and defeat fraud, wherever it may lurk, and whatever form it may assume, or device it may adopt. Fraud, however, must not be presumed, but proved; honesty and good faith being in the first instance presumed, as innocence instead of guilt. And mere suspicion is 394 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. not proof; for the existence of fraud must be established by such evidence as satisfies the court or a jury that the presumption of honesty and good faith in the challenged transaction is rebutted and overcome. McAdams, Landlord and Tenant, § 71. It is the just and proper pride of our matured system of equity jurisprudence, that fraud vitiates every transaction; and however men may surround it with forms, solemn instruments, proceedings conforming to all the details required in the laws or even by the formal judgment of the courts, a court of equity will disregard them all, if necessary, that justice and equity may prevail. War- ner v. Blakeman, 4 Keyes, 487. § 214. Testimony of Former Witness Since Deceased, Ab- sent or Disqualified. a. Prevailing Law.—The prevailing law in this country touch- ing the topic under review is thus expressed: ‘Where a party has died since the trial of an action, on the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding, the testimony of the decedent, or of any person who is rendered incompetent by the provisions of the last section, taken or read in evidence at the former trial or hearing, may be given or read in evidence at a new trial or hear- ing by either party, subject to any other legal objection to the competency of the witness, or to any legal objection to his testi- .Inony, or any question put to him.” Bliss, N. Y. Code Civil Pro- cedure, § 830. ‘ This is the manifest expression of legislative enactment touch- ing this subject in most of our states. It is a code provision, of very wide acceptance. Sir James Stephen gives expression to the principle embodied in the New York Code, swprv, in art. 32, of his Digest. The language employed is as follows: “Evidence given by a witness in a previous action is relevant for the purpose of prov- ing the matter stated in a subsequent proceeding, or in a later stage of the same proceeding, when the witness is dead, or is mad, or so ill that he will probably never be able to travel, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or in civil, but not, it seems, in criminal cases, is out of the jurisdiction of the court, or per- haps in civil, but not in criminal eases, when he cannot be found. ‘Provided in all cases: “(1) That the person against whom the evidence is to be given HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 3895 had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant when he was examined as a witness. “(2) That the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. “Provided also: “(3) That the proceeding, if civil, was between the same par- ties or their representatives in interest. “(4) That, in criminal cases, the same person is accused upon the same facts. “If evidence is reduced to the form of a deposition, the provis- ions of art. 90 apply to the proof of the fact that it was given. “The conditions under which depositions may be used as evi- dence are stated in articles 140-142.” The decisions under these sections scarcely justify the expres- sion of any confident opinion as to the amount of liberality with which their language will eventually be construed, by the state and federal courts. The narrow rules of interpretation which have been promulgated by one or two of the judges, with refer- ence to this statute, are calculated to excite a reasonable fear, lest an equally strict construction should be applied, now that the rule, after repeated modifications has assumed its present form; but on the other hand, it cannot be denied that the subject is now far better understood than it formerly was, and that even judges are beginning to discover that substantial justice is of more real importance than mere technical precision. b. Opinion of New York Court of Common Pleas.—The New York Common Pleas passed upon this subject at General Term in Iss1,and the entire bench concurred in the opinion of Zr. Justice Daly who wrote for reversal. This decision establishes the principle that a party who has been examined in the first trial, and who is rendered incompetent by the death of his adversary, before the second trial, may have his testimony given in such former trial read at any subsequent trial. /udye Daly says: “There is no substantial reason why the testimony taken in such a trial should not be read. The party was on the stand and could have been cross-examined, and the same opportunity for scrutiny and for contradiction existed as if the jury had agreed upon a verdict. The objection taken upon appeal that the testimony cannot be read by the stenographer who took it down on the former trial from his notes, but must be produced in the form of depositions 396 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. reduced to writing and subscribed by the party, is not good. Such a rule would exclude all testimony taken in the manner author- ized by law, and render the code inoperative.” Lawson v. Jones, 61 How. Pr. 424. ce. Person who Heard may be Sworn.—The proof of what. the deceased witness swore may be made by any person who heard his testimony, even though he took no minutes of the evidence. Grimm v. Hamel, 2 Hilt. 434; Hutchings v. Corgan, 59 Il. 70. An attorney or counsellor or other person, who took minutes. upon a former trial, and testifies to their accuracy, may state on a subsequent trial what a deceased witness swore to on a former trial, although such attorney, etc., cannot testify from his mere recollection without a reference to his minutes. Van Buren v. Cockburn, 14 Barb. 118; Huf? v. Bennett, 6 N. Y. 337; Martin v. Cope, 8 Abb. App. Dec. 182; Crawford v. Loper, 25 Barb. 449. It is sufficient, if upon such examination of his minutes, he can swear from recollection what the evidence was given by the deceased witness. . [did. d. Critical Examination of the Rule.—In the case of the State v. Rawls, 2 Nott & McC. 334, this rule was subjected to a critical examination by the constitutional court of South Caro- lina, and was, as I think, proved to have originated in a misappre- hension of the cases of Doe v. Perkins and Tanner v. Taylor, cited by Phillips in its support. The rule as laid down in Phillips on Evidence is, in substance, that such memoranda may be used to refresh the recollection of the witness, but can have no force as evidence unless the witness, after referring to the memorandum, has a present recollection of the facts to which the memorandum relates. The commentary by Nott, 7 upon those cases, shows conclusively that the memoranda as there produced were not the originals, made by the witness at the time the events occurred, but were copies or extracts from such originals taken long before. ‘This commentary, which is quoted in extenso and approved by Cowen, /., in the case of Merrill v. Ithaca & O. R. Co. 16 Wend. 596, 12 L, ed. 1207, seems to me entirely just and sound; and I entertain no doubt that Mr. Phillips fell into an error from not discriminating with sufficient care between the original memoran- dum itself and a mere copy. The subject is treated with much learning and ability in the notes to Phillips’ Evidence, by Messrs. Cowen & Hill (note 528, p. 290), where the authorities bearing HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 3897 upon it are elaborately reviewed; and I fully assent to the prin- ciple there stated, “that an original memorandum, made by the witness presently after the facts noted in it transpired, and proved by the same witness at the trial, may be read by him, and is evi- dence to the jury of facts, the facts contained in the memorandum, although the witness may have totally forgotten such facts at the time of the trial.” Nott, J, in State v. Rawls, supra. e. View of Supporting Cases.—There are various cases, English as well as American, in addition to State v. Ravwls, and Merrill v. Ithaca & O. R. Co. (supra), which tend to sup- port this rule. It is quite obvious that the doctrine supposed to be derived from the work of Mr. Phillips would serve in many cases to defeat the ends of justice, and particularly in cases where witnesses are called upon to testify to the language of parties, used upon occasions long previous. It is well known that the efforts of memory are seldom equal to the task of recalling, after any considerable lapse of time, even the exact substance of words and phrases; while it would be comparatively easy, at the time or immediately afterwards, to make an accurate record of their im- port. To exclude such a record, when shown to have been hon- estly made, would be to reject the best and frequently the only means of arriving at the truth. The reasoning in the above cases becomes the more apparent when we consider that the chief reasons for the exclusion of hear- say evidence are the want of the sanction of an oath, and of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. If the witness is gone, no one knows whither, and his place of abode cannot be obtained by diligent inquiry, the case can hardly be distinguished in prin- ciple from that of his death; and it would seem that his former testimony ought to be admitted. If he is merely out of the juris- diction, but the place is known and his testimony can be taken under a-commission, it is a proper case for the judge to decide, in his discretion, and upon all the circumstances, whether the pur- poses of justice will be best served by issuing such commission, or by admitting the proof of what he formerly testified. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 163, and note. f. Fluctuation of the Rule in Different Jurisdictions.—The rules which obtain in the various jurisdictions differ somewhat in their scope and character. In all of the states death of the former witness is sufficient to admit his testimony taken on a previous trial. 398 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. As to other disabilities there is much difference of doctrine. Mr. Chase, in his annotation on Stephen’s Digest, under art. 32, states: “Tn civil cases New York has thus far held only death sufficient; absence from the jurisdiction or the fact that the witness cannot: be found isnot enough. Wélbur v. Selden, 6 Cow. 162; Weeks- v. Lowerre, 8 Barb. 530. In Pennsylvania such evidence is. received if the witness has died, has becoine insane, is sick and. unable to attend, has lost his memory through disease or old age, or is out of the jurisdiction, or has become incompetent to testify by reason of the death of the opposite party to the suit. Wadl- bridge v. Anipper, 96 Pa. 48. In Illinois, death, insanity or the keeping of the witness away by the adverse party, is sufficient. Stout v. Cook, 47 Il. 5380. Absence from the jurisdiction is held to be sufficient in California (Hicks v. Lovell, 64 Cal. 14); in Mich- igan, if due diligence has been used to find the witness (Howard v. Patrick, 88 Mich. 795; Mawich v. Blsey, £7 Mich. 10): but not. in New Jersey (Berney v. Mitchell, 84 N. J. L. 337); and that, too, even though he cannot be found (Jd7d.); nor in Vermont Illinois or Iowa, if there has been a lack of diligence to secure his attendance or deposition. Aellogg v. Secord, 42 Mich. 31s: S/is- ser v. Burlington, 47 Lowa, 300; Cassady v. Trustees of Schools, 105 Ill. 560. Sickness which renders the witness unable to attend is sometimes held sufficient. Chase v. Springvale Mills Co, 15 Me. 156. See Berney v. Mitchell, 84 N. J. L. 837-341; Howard v. Patrich, 88 Mich. 795.” g. Views of Judge Sharswood.—In the midst of these con- tradictory views, it is refreshing in the interest of uniformity to note the vigorous language of Jive Sharswood, than whom no more eminent authority exists: “Though we have no express opinion upon the subject, it seems clear upon principle that the deposition or testimony of a witness formerly taken in the same cause can be read in evidence, showing that he is sick and unable to at- tend, insane, or in sucha state of senility as to have lost his memory of the past, equally as where he is dead or out of the jurisdiction. The evidence that Phillips Smyser fell within the category of loss of memory and general mental incapacity from old age was very ample. Nor was it necessary to have him in court for examina- tion, It would have been a painful and improper exposure, and. no rule of law requires it. Besides, he would not have understood the meaning of the subpcena—would not have attended, perhaps, HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 3899 voluntarily—and an attachment against him for contempt would have been entirely out of the question. It was abundantly proved that at the time of the taking of the deposition he was in posses- sion of his memory and reason; it was therefore rightly received.” Emig v. Diehl, 76 Pa. 373. A stenographer’s report of the evidence given by a deceased witness at a former trial has been held inadmissible, although the witness, being dumb, gave his testimony by signs, which the stenographer’s report describes and translates. Quinn v. Hailbert, 57 Vt. 178. Such testimony must be proved by parol, not by a bill of exceptions. Stern v. People, 102 Tl. 540. But such evidence may be proved by the judge who presides at the first trial, who may also prove that such testimony was preserved in a bill of exceptions signed by him. Corby v. Wright, 9 Mo. App. 5. As to proof of shorthand notes when reporter is dead, see People v. Qurise, 59 Cal. 343. h. The Prevailing Law.—The prevailing law in this country touching the topic under review is thus expressed: Where a party has died since the trial of an action, on the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding, the testimony of the decedent. or of any person who is rendered incompetent by the provisions of the last section, taken and read in evidence at the former trial or hearing, by either party, subject to any other legal objection to the competency of the witness, or to any legal objection to his. testimony or any question put to him. This is the manifest expression of legislative construction in many of our states. There is no substantial reason why the testimony taken in such a trial should not be read. The party was on the stand and could have been cross-examined, and the same opportunity for scrutiny and for contradiction existed as if the jury had agreed upon a. verdict. The objection taken on appeal that the testimony cannot be read by the stenographer who took it down on the former trial, from his notes, but must be produced in the form of depositions reduced to writing and subscribed by the party, is not good. Such arule would exelude all testimony taken in the manner author- ized by law, and render the code inoperative. Lawson v. Jones, 61 How. Pr. 424; Stute v. Johnson, 12 Nev. 121; Juceard v. An- derson, 87 Mo. 91. 400 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. i. Precise Language Need Not be Proved.—It is not neces- sary to prove the precise language of a deceased witness. To hold otherwise would, in most instances, exclude this class of sec- ondary evidence, and in so far defeat the ends of justice. Where a stenographer has not been employed, it can rarely happen that anyone can testify to more than the substance of what was testi- fied by the deceased, especially if the examination was protracted, embraced several topics, and was followed by a searching cross- examination. It has been well said, that if a witness in such a case, from mere memory, professes to be able to give the exact language, it isa reason of doubting his good faith and veracity. Usually there is some one present who can give clearly the sub- stance, and that is all the law demands. To require more would in effect abrogate the rule that lets in the reproduction of the tes- timony of a deceased witness. The uncertainty of human lite renders the rule, as we have defined it, not unfrequently of great value in the administration of justice. The right to cross-examine the witness when he testified shuts out the danger of any serious evil, and those whose duty it is to weigh and apply the evidence will always have due regard to the circumstances under which it comes before them, and rarely overestimates its probative force. j. Use of Notes by Witness.—The living witness may use his notes taken contemporaneously with the testimony to be proved, in order to refresh his recollection, and thus aided, he may testify to what he remembers; or if he can testify positively to the ac- curacy of his notes, they may be put in evidence. J?uch v. Roek Island, 97 U. 8. 698, 24 L.ed.1101. The opinion is by Mr. Jus- tice Swain. k. Miscellaneous Rulings on the Subject.—Parol evidence of what witness swore to on former trial between the same par- ties, upon the same issue, is admissible only where the witness is dead, insane, beyond the seas or has been kept away by the con- trivance of the other party. Drayton v. Wells, 1 Nott & McC. 409, 9 Am. Dee. 718. Testimony of an interested witness, since deceased, cannot be proved on a second trial by the party in whose favor he was in- terested, although he was the latter’s witness on the former trial. Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41, 27 Am. Dee. 110. Testimony of a deceased witness given on a previous trial is admissible even in a criminal case. United States v. Macomb, 5 HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 401 McLean, 289; State v. De Witt, 2 Hill, L. 282, 27 Am. Dee. 371; Com. v. Richards, 18 Pick. 434, 29 Am. Dee. 608. Deceased witness’s whole testimony, in his own words, must be proved, and not merely the substance of what he swore to. Com. v. Leichards, 18 Pick. 484, 29 Am. Dee. 608; Corey v. Janes, 15 ‘Gray, 545; Yale v. Comstock, 112 Mass. 269; Warren v. Nichols, ‘6 Met. 267; Woods v. Heyes, 14 Allen, 238. It is held, on the contrary, that it is sufficient to prove substan- tially what the deceased witness said. Jglehart v. Jernegan, 16 Il. 520; Onited States v. Macomb, 5 McLean, 286; Garrott v. Johnson, 11 Gill & J. 178, 85 Am. Dec. 272; Black v. Woodrow, 39 Md. 221, He must give the whole substance of what deceased witness swore to, or testimony is inadmissible. Gdldersleeve v. Caraway, 10 Ala. 260, 44 Am. Dec. 485. Testimony of a deceased witness at a former trial of the action may be given in evidence. Waters v. Waters, 35 Md. 539; Wat son v. Lisbon Bridge Proprs. 14 Me. 201, 31 Am. Dec. 49. Minutes of testimony of a deceased witness, on former trial, taken by one who states that he tried to take down all that the witness said, not the substance, is admissible, although the party will not swear he took down every word. Clark v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193, 30 Am. Dec. 58; Merrill v. Ithaca & O. BR. Co. 16 ‘Wend. 598; Huff v. Bennett, 6 N. Y. 337; Melntyre v. New York Cent. R. Co. 87 N. Y. 291; Crawford v. Loper, 25 Barb. A454, ; Evidence of what a deceased witness swore to in another and different action is inadmissible. IcMorine v. Storey, 4 Dev. & B. L. 189, 34 Am. Dee. 374. Parol evidence of what witness swore to on former trial is not admissible, where witness is present but has forgotten the facts to which he formerly testified. Drayton v. Wells, 1 Nott & McC. 409, 9 Am. Dec. 718. For further information on this subject, see note appended to Ruch v. Lock Island, supra. A letter written more than thirty years ago belongs to the class of instruments known as the ancient documents, and is presumed to have been written by the person by whom it purports to have been written; and where both persons addressed and’ writer are dead, is admissible without further proof of its authenticity. Bell v. Brewster, 9 West. Rep. 429, 44 Ohio St. 690. 26 402 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. § 215. Proof of Ancient Documents. a. When Proot of Execution Unnecessary.—It is a rule that if an instrument is thirty years old, it may be admitted in evidence without any proof of its execution; such instrument is said to prove itself. 2 Phil. Ev. (6th Am. ed.) 203, citing Doe v. Burdett, 4 Ad. & El. 19; Rew v. Larringdon, 2 T. BR. 471; Bull. N. P. 255. A deed or instrument thirty years old or upwards, purporting to be a conveyance of property, real or personal, is sufficiently corroborated to be read without further assurance of authenticity, by showing possession of the thing it assumes to convey has gone along and been held in accordance with its provisions. So far the cases, both English and American, seem entirely agreed. Jackson v. Laroway, 8 Johns. Cas. 283, 286, 287, 289; Jackson v. Blan- shan, 3 Johns. 292, 297, 298; Roberts Widow v. Stanton, 2 Muntf. 129, 1385; Thompson v. Bullock, 1 Bay, 364; now v. Silloway, 10- Me. 217; Jackson v. Davis, 5 Cow. 128; Hewlett v. Cock, 7 Wend. 371; Jackson +v. Brooks, 8 Wend. 426, 431; Carroll v. Norwood, 1 Harr. & J. 174; Owings v. Norwood, 2 Harr. & J. 96, 106; Hall v. Gittings, 2 Harr. & J. 389, 392; Joce v. Harris, 1 Harr. & McH. 196; Aliddleton v. Mass, 2 Nott & McC. 55; Duncan v. Beard, 2 Nott & McC. 400; Doe v. Phelps, 9 Johns. 169, 171; Doe v. Campbell, 10 Johns. 475; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371; M’ Gennis v. Allison, 10 Serg. & R.199; Healy v. Moul, 5 Serg. & R. 181; Arnold v. Gorr, 1 Rawle, 223; Tolman v. Emerson, + Pick. 162; Barger v. Miller, 4 Wash. C. C. 283, 284. A possession of part of the premises covered by the deed under it, is sufficient. Jackson v. Davis, 5 Cow. 123, 127, 128; Jackson. v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221; Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 431. If the possession is conformable to the limitations in the deed, it shall be presumed to be under. Curhampton v. Carhampton, 1 Irish T. R. 578. b. When Necessary.—A deed appearing to be of the age of thirty years, where no possession has accompanied it, may be given in evidence without proof of its execution, if such account be given of the deed as may be reasonably expected under all the circumstances of the case, and as will afford the presumption that it is genuine. Jackson v. Laroway, 3 Johns. Cas. 283, 286, 287; Hewlett v. Cock, 7 Wend. 37 1; Jackson v. Luguere, 5 Cow. 221, 225, 226, 227, 228; Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 431; Juckson ve HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 403 Chrisiman, 4 Wend. 277; Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157, 163; Barr v. Gratz, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 213, 4 L. ed. 553; Clarke v. Courtney, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 844, 8 L. ed. 149. Where an ancient instrument stands uncorroborated by posses- sion, and is not otherwise sufficiently “accounted for,” as it is called, some proof of execution is to be adduced. J’ Gennis v. Allison, 10 Serg. & R. 199. e. Law Indulgent as to Proof.—The law, however, is indulgent in such cases and does not require that complete measure of proof. which it demands in respect to more recent transactions. Bennett: v. Runyon, 4 Dana, 422, 424; Walton v. Coulson, 1 McLean, 121;. Stokes v. Dawes, 4 Mason, 268. If the subscribing witnesses are living, and not absent or incom- petent, they should be called. Jackson v. Blanshan, 3 Johns. 292, 297, 298; Clarke v. Courtney, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 319, 344, 8 L. ed. 140, 149; Zolman v. Emerson, 4 Pick. 160, 162. But it is not unusual for the court to presume their death or absence, after the lapse of thirty years or upwards, and save the necessity of search, inquiry, etc. Hinde v. Vattier, 1 McLean, 110, reversed on other grounds, 32 U. 8. 7 Pet. 252, 8 L. ed. 675; MW’ Gennis v. Allison, 10 Serg. & R. 199; Winn v. Patter- son, 84 U.S. 9 Pet. 674, 675, 9 L. ed. 270; Jackson v. Burton, 11 Johns. 64; Duncan v. Beard, 2 Nott & McC. 400, 408; Anom v. Silloway, 10 Me. 217; Bennet v. Robinson, 3 Stew. & P. 229; Lverley v. Stoner, 2 Yeates, 122; Marsh v. Colinett, 2 Esp. 665: Doe v. Burdett, 4 Ad. & El. 1; Doe v. Deakin, 3 Car. & P. 402; Thomas v. Horlocker, 1 U. 8.1 Dall. 14, 1 L. ed. 17; Doe v. Old- ham, 8 Barn. & C. 25; Fetherly v. Waggoner, 11 Wend. 603. Phillips says that the rule first above stated requires documents to be produced from their proper place and custody; and in many instances, the circumstances of the instrument having been acted upon, and of the enjoyment of property being consistent with and. referable to it, or otherwise, afford a criterion of its genuineness. 2 Phil. Ev. (6th Am. ed.) 204; citing Ary v. Wood, Selw. N. P. 540; Forbes v. Wale, 1 W. Bl. 532; Doe v. Owen, 8 Car. & P. 751; Doe v. Beynon, 4 Perry & D. 193; Governor of Chelsea Waterworks v. Cowper, 1 Esp. 275; Ely v. Stewart, 2 Atk. 44; Manby v. Curtis, 1 Price, 232; Bertie v. Beaumont, 2 Price, 303; Wynne v. Tyrwhitt, 4 Barn. & Ald. 376. The rule which admits ancient instruments in evidence includes 404 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. such only as are valid on their face. Meegan v. Boyle, 60 U.S. 19 How. 130, 15 L. ed. 577. Where there has been a great lapse of time, strict proof of a destroyed deed under which parties have claimed, is dispensed with. Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean, 56. Strict proof of the execution of a deed which is produced is not required where there has been a great lapse of time. Stod-— dard v. Chambers, 48 U. 8. 2 How. 284, 316, 11 L. ed. 269, 289. § 216. Ancient Possessions and Evidence Thereof by Deed. a. English Origin of Rules.—In considering this particular exception to the rule rejecting hearsay evidence, it may be well to note that most of the legal authority deducible upon this subject is in its very nature of English origin. Muniments of title in this country at least are ordinarily easy of access, and our courts are seldom called upon to consider or interpret an ancient deed. There are exceptions, however, which we will proceed to con- sider. In Jackson v. Blanshan, 3 Johns. 292, the New York Supreme Court held that in order to entitle a will to be read in evidence as an ancient deed, without further proof than its pro- duction, it must be at least thirty years old from the death of the testator; for the age of the will must be computed from the time of the testator’s death, and not from its date. Thus where a will was dated in 1770, and a possession of the land was taken under it, and held from 1780 (when the testator died), for 27 years, it was not allowed to be read in evidence, with- out proof of its execution. In the note to 1 Greenl. Ev. § 145, after citing the case of Jack- son v. Blanshan, supra, the author says: “But the weight of authority at present seems clearly the other way, and it is now agreed that where proof of possession cannot be had, the deed may be read if its genuineness is satisfactorily established by other circumstances.” He cites Rancliffe v. Purkyns, 6 Dow. 202; McKenire v. Fraser, 9 Ves. Jr. 5; Doe v. Passingham, 2 Car. & P. 440; Barr vy. Gratz, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 213, + L. ed. 553; Jackson v. Laroway, 3 Johns. Cas. 283; Jueksen v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221; Jackson v. Lamb, 7 Cow. 431; Hewlett v. Cock, 7 Wend. 371; Willson v. Betts, 4 Denio, 201. Compare also Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland, 33 Vt. 414; Homer v. Cilley, 14 N. H. 85; Ledgeley v. Johnson, 11 Barb. 527; Dishazer v. Maitland, 12 Leigh, 524; Wagner v. Alton, 1 Rice, L. 100; Townsend v. Downer, 32 Vt. 183; Shanks v. Lancaster, 5 Gratt. 110; Caruthers HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 405 v. Eldridge, 12 Gratt. 670; Vowlin v. Burwell, 75 Va. 551 Mar- ten v. Erector, 24 Hun, 27; Gainer v. Cotton, 49 Tex. 101. b. Admissibility of Deeds, Subscribing Witness.—As pre- viously stated, an ancient deed is admissible in evidence without direct proof of execution, if it appears to be at least thirty years old, is found in proper custody, and either possession under it is shown or some other corroborative evidence freeing it from all just grounds of suspicion. Applegate v. Lewington & C. County Min. Co. 117 U. 8. 255, 29 L. ed. 892; Barr v. Gratz, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 213,.4 L. ed. 553; Winn v. Patterson, 34 U. 8. 9 Pet. 663, 9 L. ed. 266; Stoddard v. Chambers, 43 U.S. 2 How. 284, 11 L. ed. 269. A sheriffs deed after more than twenty years’ possession is ad- missible, although the record is not produced. Burke v. Ryan, 1U.8. 1 Dall. 94, 1 L. ed. 51. A deed sixty-three years old, though not attended by possession. where one witness is dead and the other unknown, upon proof of the handwriting of one witness, by a person who had seen many deeds and papers signed by him, is admissible in evidence. Thomas v. Horlocker, 1 U. S. 1 Dall. 14, 1 L. ed. 17. A deed sixty-one years old from 8. C. Young to John Holmes was rightfully admitted in evidence as an ancient deed, without proof by the subscribing witnesses or of possession under it, where it was produced from the custody of the grantee’s heirs, who, with the grantee had been assessed for and had paid taxes there- on for thirty-three years before the action was brought, and on proof of the genuineness of the signature to the certificate of ac- knowledgment by the officer now deceased, and that the deed had been recorded more than forty-two years, and also that the land had been known for a still longer time as the “Holmes planta- tion.” Fulkerson v. Holmes, 117 U. 8. 389, 29 L.-ed. 915. Where a bond purports to have been executed many years be- fore, as strict proof of its execution should not be required as if it was of recent date. Coulson v. Walton, 384 U.S. 9 Pet. 62, 9 L. ed. 51. The rule admitting a will in evidence without proof as an an- cient instrument, embraces no instrument which is not valid on its face, and which does not contain every essential requirement of the law. Jfeegan v. Boyle, 60 U.S. 19 How. 180, 15 L. ed. 577. 406 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. c. Views of United States Supreme Court.—All contro- versy over this subject has subsided since the decision of the United States Supreme Court. In Applegate v. Lexington & CO. County Min. Oo. 117 U. 8S. 255, 29 L. ed. 892, Mr. Justice Woods writing for reversal expresses the unanimous opinion of the court in the following language: “ The rule is that an ancient deed may be admitted in evidence, without direct proof of its execution, if it appears to be of the age of at least thirty years, when it is found in proper custody, and either pos- session under it is shown or some other corroborative evidence of its authenticity freeing it from all just grounds of suspicion. Thus in Barr v. Gratz, 17 U. S. 4 Wheat. 220, 4 L. ed. 555, a deed from Craig to Michael Gratz dated July 16, 1784, was offered in evidence, but was not proved by the subscribing witnesses, nor their absence accounted for. Its admission was alleged as error, but this court said that as the deed was more than thirty years old, and was proved to have been in the possession of the lessors of the plaintiff, and actually asserted by them as the ground of their title in a prior chancery suit, it was, in the language of the books, sufficiently accounted for, and on this ground, as well as because it was a part of the evidence in support of the decree in that suit, it was admissible without the regular proof of its exe- cution. “So in Caruthers v. Lidridge, 12 Gratt. 670, it was contended by the plaintiff in error that in no case could a paper be admitted in evidence as an ancient deed without proof of its execution, un- til it was first shown that thirty years’ quiet and continued pos- session of the land had been held under the deed. But the court held, in substance, that an ancient deed may be introduced in evi- dence without proof of its execution, although possession may not have been held for thirty years in accordance therewith, if such account be given of the deed as may be reasonably expected un- der all the circumstances of the case, and as will afford the pre- sumption that it is genuine. “In Harlan v. Howard, 79 Ky. 373, the Court of Appeals states the rule in relation to the proof of ancient deeds, thus: ‘The genuineness of such instruments may be shown by other facts as well as that of possession. And when proof of possession cannot be had, it is within the very essence of the rule to admit the in- strument, when no evidence justifying suspicion of its genuine- ness is shown, and it is found in the custody of those legally entitled HEARSAY EVIDENCE, 407 to it” See also Viner’s Abr. Huidence Ab. 5 Ancient Deeds, 7; Comyn, Dig. Hvidence B 2; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 144 and note 1; Stark. Ev. 524; Phil. Ev. Cowen & Hill’s notes (8d. ed.) part II. note,197, page 368, et seg.; Doe v. Passingham, 2 Car. & P. 440; Sir Parkyn’s Will, 6 Dow. 202; Winn v. Patterson, 34 U.S. 9 Pet. 663, 9 L. ed. 266; Jackson v. Laroway, 8 Johns. Cas. 283; Hewlett v. Cock, 7 Wend. 371, “In the case last cited, Judge Nelson, afterwards a justice of this court, said that there was some confusion in the cases in Eng- land and New York as to the preliminary proof necessary to au- thorize an ancient deed to be read in evidence; that possession accompanying the deed was always sufficient without other proof, but it was not indispensable. He approved the decision in Jack- son v. Laroway, supra, which he said had been recognized as law in Jackson v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221, and had undoubtedly in its favor the weight of English authority. These authorities sustain the rule as we have stated it.” § 217. Ancient Boundaries. a. Mr. Justice McLean’s Statement of the Rule.—A further exception to the rule excluding hearsay evidence is found in matters relating to ancient boundaries. In the very nature of the case, such evidence is always admissible, and the prevailing doctrine in this country at least was stated in 1832 by fr. Justice McLean in Boardman v. Reed, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 328, 8 L. ed. 415. We excerpt from the opinion: “That boundaries may be proved by hearsay testimony is a rule well settled, and the necessity or propriety of which is not now questioned. Some difference of opinion may exist as to the application of this rule, but there can be none as to its legal force. “Landmarks are frequently formed of perishable materials which pass away with the generation in which they are made. By the improvement of the country and other causes, they are often destroyed. It is therefore important in many cases that hearsay or reputation should be received to establish ancient boundaries. But such testimony must be pertinent and material to the issue between the parties. If it have no relation to the subject, or if it refer to a fact which is immaterial to the point of inquiry, it ought not to be admitted.” Indeed it may be affirmed that the entire tenor and trend of American adjudication has been in favor of extreme liberality in 408 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. the application of evidentiary rules to this subject. It is true that in several states of the Union decisions have been made recognizing the admissibility of the declarations of deceased per- sons, even though they were statements of particular facts and in regard to mere private boundaries, but many of them, perhaps most of them were admissible on other grounds, either as parts of the res geste or declarations of parties in possession. We think such is not the preponderant weight of decision. In Massa- chusetts, where the subject has been much discussed, it is held that to be admissible, such declarations must have been made by persons in possession of land and in the act of pointing out their bound- aries. Bartlett v. Emerson, 7 Gray, 174; Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223. And again in Long v. Colton, 116 Mass. 414, when it was said that it isan element not to be disregarded, especially where the question is one of private boundaries, that the declaration was made while in the act of pointing out the boundaries of the declarant’s land. The declaration derives its force from the fact that it accompanies and qualifies an act, and is thus a part of the act. A similar ruling was made in Bender v. Pitzer, 27 Pa. 333, We will not undertake to review the vast number of decisions of state courts upon this subject. Some things may be deduced from them which, though not universally recognized, are the con- clusions to which we think a great majority of them lead. In questions of private boundary, declarations of particnlar facts, as distinguished from reputation, made by deceased persons, are not admissible unless they were made by persons shown to have had knowledge of that whereof they spoke, or persons on the land or in possession of it when the declarations were made. To be evidence they must have been made when the declarant was pointing out the boundaries or discharging some duties relat- ing thereto. A declaration which is a mere recital of something past is not an exception to the rule that excludes hearsay evidence. Still if a different ruling has been made in a particular State, and has become a rule of property there, applicable to the deter- mination of controversies respecting disputed boundaries, the rule governing the United States District Court would require the ap- plication of the law as it obtains in that particular jurisdiction in which the court was sitting, to any case coming before it, and this principle is so well recognized in federal procedure as to dispense with the citation of any authorities in its support. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 409 Hearsay evidence is admitted in questions of boundary to establish old boundary lines, even when private, but it is under restrictions, and the restrictions appear to be the same as those which are recognized elsewhere. b. The Case of Bogardus v. Trinity Church.—The celebra- ted case of Bogardus (Anneke Jans) v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 178, 3 L. ed. 394, is an instructive commentary upon this topic, and both illustrates and enforces the contentions of the text. In ascertaining facts relative to the possession and claim of lands which occurred many years prior to the inquiry, courts re- ceive evidence which would be inadmissible if offered to prove events occurring within the period of the memory of living wit- nesses. In such cases the statements of historians of established merit (as to facts of a public and general nature); the recitals in public records, in statutes and legislative journals; the proceedings in courts of justice, and their averments and results, and the deposi- tions of witnesses in suits or legal controversies,—are received as evidence of facts to which they relate, but always with great caution, and with due allowance for its imperfections and its capability of misleading. § 218. As to Ancient Facts, of Public Interest.—It is a well authenticated principle of the law of evidence that in matters of public and general interest such as the boundaries of counties, of parishes, rights of common, claims of highway, etc., the decla- rations of deceased persons who may be presumed to have had competent knowledge on the subject, are competent evidence. The law allows facts of this nature to be proved by general repu- tation, and it is abundantly settled that such declarations, or in a pertinent case an ancient document, both originating ante litem motam, are admissible in evidence and entitled to great weight, but in order to guard against fraud, it is an established principle that such declarations, etc., must have been made ante litem motam, —an expression which has caused some difference of opinion, but which seems to mean, before any controversy has arisen on the subject to which the declarations relate, whether such controversy has or has not been made the subject of a lawsuit. The value of this ‘species of evidence manifestly depends on the degree of pub- licity of the matters in question; and also, when in a document- ary shape, on the facilities or opportunities which may exist for 410 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. substitution or fabrication, such evidence is in general incompetent where it sufficiently appears to have resulted from prejudice or interest in a pending or prospective controversy. Best, Ev. § 497; Cow v. State, 41 Tex. 1; People v. Velard, 59 Cal. 457; Shook v. Pate, 50 Ala. 91; Crease v. Barrett, 1 Cromp. M. & R. 919; Boardman v. Reed, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 341, 8 L. ed. 420; A7i- cott v. Pearl, 35 U. 8. 10 Pet. 412, 9 L. ed. 475; Butler v. Mountgarret, 7 H. L. Cas. 683; Murray v. Spencer, 88 N. OC. 357; Poole v. Peterson, 9 Ired. L. 180; Morse v. Emery, 49 N. H. 239; Wood v. Foster, 8 Allen, 24; Cline v. Catron, 22 Gratt. 378; Moul v. Hartman, 104 Pa. 438; Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill, 430; Drury v. Midland R. Co. 127 Mass. 571. See an exhaustive discussion of this subject in Reg. v. Bedfordshire, 4 El. & BI- 535; see also 1 Phil. Ev. (10th ed.) ch. 8, § 38; Tayl. Ev. (4th ed.) pt. 2, ch. 8. § 219. Dying Declarations. a. Rule Excluding Hearsay Evidence, Modification of.— Another and very important infringement of the general rule ex- cluding hearsay testimony is found in the case of dying declara- tions. In these instances the law very justly indulges the pre- sumption that the near presence of death, and the solemnity usually accompanying that dread hour, are likely to impress any person im extremis with all the safeguards usually accompanying the solemnities of an oath; hence it is a rule of very extensive ap- plication that dying declarations are admissible in evidence. By far the most important instances in which such testimony is ad- duced arise in crimina! actions, and in a subsequent work this sub- subject will receive the elaboration and analysis its importance demands. b. When Admissible.—The rule as condensed and formulated by Sir James Stephen is as follows: “A declaration made by the declarant as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circum- stances of the transaction which resulted in his death, is deemed to be relevant only in trials for the murder or manslaughter of the declarant, and only when the declarant is shown, to the satisfaction of the judge, to have been in actual danger of death, and to have given up all hope of recovery at the time when. his declaration was made. “Such a declaration is not irrelevant merely because it was in- ' HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 411 tended to be made as a deposition before a magistrate, but is irregular.” Stephen, Dig. art. 26. Dying declarations are not admissible on the trial of civil ac- tions. Jackson v. Betts, 6 Cow. 377; Spatz v. Lyons, 55 Barb. 476. ce. Implicated With Res Geste.—Dying declarations are closely implicated with the res gestw in civil cases. In our dis- cussion of the topic last named the subject is carefully reviewed; much contradiction prevails in various jurisdictions as to these admissions, but in that constantly increasing body of cases, which involve actions against railway companies for negligently causing death, the statements of the deceased made subsequent to the ac- cident and before death are in the nature of dying declarations. It is not always easy to determine when declarations having re- lation to an act or transaction should be received as part of the res geste, and much difficulty has been experienced in the effort to formulate general rules applicable to the subject. This much may, however, be safely said, that declarations which were the natural emanations or outgrowths of the act or occurrence in liti- gation, although not precisely concurrent in point of time, if they were yet voluntarily and spontaneously made so nearly contem- poraneous as to be in the presence of the transaction which they illustrate and explain, and were made under such, circumstances as necessarily to exclude the idea of design or deliberation, must, upon the clearest principles of justice, be admissible as part of the act or transaction itself. Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185; Com. v. Mc Pike, 3 Cush. 181, 50 Am. Dec. 727; Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9 Cush. 36; Augusta Factory v. Barnes, 72 Ga. 217, 53 Am. Rep. 838; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 15 U. S. 8 Wall. 397, 19 L. ed. 437; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474; Keyser v. Chicago & G. T. FR. Co. 56 Mich. 559,56 Am. Rep. 405; Kirby v. Com. 77 Va. 681, 46 Am. Rep. 747; Galveston v. Barbour, 62 Tex. 172, 50 Am. Rep. 519; State v. Horan, 32 Minn. 394, 50 Am. Rep. 583; State v. Ah Loi, 5 Nev. 99; Han- over R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. 396-402; Durkee v. Central Pace. PR. Co. 69 Cal. 533, 58 Am. Rep. 562; Lambert v. People, 29 Mich. 71; Hill v. Com. 2 Gratt. 594; Jordan v. Com. 25 Gratt. 945; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93; Entwhistle v. Feighner, 60 Mo. 215; Elkins v. McKean, 79 Pa. 493; Hart v. Powell, 18 Ga. 635; Driscoll v. People, 47 Mich. 413; Casey v. New York Cent. a&@ H. R. R. Co. 18 N. Y. 518; McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399. 412 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Any other rule would in many instances ‘operate to defeat the accomplishment of justice by excluding evidence of the most. trustworthy character. While some of the cases cited above carry the doctrine to its extremest length, they all illustrate and apply the general principles consistent with the conclusions we have: heretofore enunciated. Lowisville, W. A. & O. R. Co. v. Buck, 2 L. R. A. 520, 116 Ind. 566. d. Not Generally Competent.—A dying declaration is not ad- missible except where the death of the deceased is the subject of a charge of homicide on trial, and the circumstances of the death are the subject of the declaration. People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 96; State v. Harper, 35 Ohio St. 78; Railing v. Com. 1 Cent. Rep. 205, 110 Pa. 100; Montgomery v. State, 80 Ind. 338, 38 Crim. L. Mag. 523, with note, collecting recent authorities on their com- petency and mode of proof in homicide. See Abbott, Trial Brief, § 562. Another exception to the rule excluding hearsay evidence, which, however, is of more importance in criminal than in civil cases, is made in favor of the declarations of a deceased person made zm eatremis, as to the cause of his death and the person who. inflicted the fatal wound; in criminal cases only where the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the circumstances. of the death are the subject of the dying declarations, and never under any circumstances, in civil cases. State v. Quick, 15 Rich. L. 342; Thompson v. State, 24 Ga. 297; People v. Vernon, 35: Cal. 49; Com. v. Reed, 5 Phila. 528; State v. Mash, 7 Iowa, 347; Watston v. Com. 16 B. Mon. 15; McDaniel v. State, 8 Smedes & M. 401; Com. v. Casey, 11 Oush. 417; Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 718; State v. Poll, 1 Hawks (N. C.) 442; Welson v. State, 7 Humph. 542; Moore v. State, 12 Ala. 764; Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 131; Bull v. Com. 14 Gratt. 618; Stute v. Center, 35 Vt. 378; People v. Knickerbocker, 1 Park. Crim. Rep. 302; State v. Arnold, 13 Ired. L. 184; State v. Thawley, 4 Harr. (Del.) 562; Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229; Goodall v. Stute, 1 Or. 333; Com. v. Cooper, 5 Allen, 495. The dying declarations of a person fatally injured by the negligence of another, as to the facts attending the injury, are not admissible against such person in a civil action brought to recover damages for the injury (Daily v. Yew York & NV. H. LR. Co. 32 Conn. 356... See also Wilson v. Boerem, 15 Johns. 286; Mea v. Mead, 2 Barn. & C. 608; Waldele v. New HEARSAY EVIDENCE. + 413 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co. 61 How. Pr. 350), and this rule is held not to impugn the constitutional right of the accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him, as the Constitution does not alter the rules of evidence, but leaves it to law to determine what a witness, when confronted, shall be allowed to state as evi- dence (Walston v. Com. 16 B. Mon. 15; Campbell v. State, 11 Ga. 353; State v. Price, 6 La. Ann. 691; Com. v. Carey, 12 Cush. 246; Burrell v. State, 18 Tex. 718; People v. Glenn, 10 Cal. 32; State v. Nash, 7 lowa, 347; Woodsides v. State, 2 How. (Miss.) 655); but in order to make such declarations admissible, they must have been made while the deceased was actually in danger of death, and under the settled conviction that he was about to die, and that death did actually ensue. United States v. Woods, + Cranch, C. C. 484; United States v. Veitch, 1 Cranch, C. C. 115; Dunn v. State, 2 Ark. 229; People v. Lee, 17 Cal. 76;, People v. Y barra, 17 Cal. 166; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal. 17; Walston v. Com. supra; Brown v. State, 32 Miss. 433; People v. Knicker- bocker, 1 Park. Crim. Rep. 302; Montgomery v. State, 11 Ohio, 424; Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 131; Brakefield v. State, 1 Sneed, 215; Welson v. State, 7 Humph. 542; Lewes v. State, 9 Smedes & M. 115; Smith v. State, 9 Humph. 9; Logan v. State, 9 Humph. 24; State v. Center, 35 Vt. 378; Bull v. Com. 14 Gratt. 613. Lord Denman, in the Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Clark & F. 108, laid down the rule as follows: “With regard to declarations made by persons 7m eatremis, supposing all necessary matters concurred, such as actual danger, death following it, and a full apprehension at the time, of the danger and of death, such declarations can be received in evidence, and all these things must concur to render such declarations admissible. Such evidence, however, ought to be received with caution, because it is not subject to cross-exam- ination,” and the question as to whether these elements existed is to be determined in view of all the circumstances, as the nature of the wound, the declarations of the deceased in that regard, and the sense of impending death incident to his condition. Sullivan v. Com. 93 Pa, 284. § 220. Matters of Pedigree. a. Definition.—Pedigree as authoritatively defined is “a suc- cession of degrees from the origin; it is the state of the family as far as regards the relationship of the different members, their birth, marriages and deaths. This term is applied to persons or families 414 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. who trace their origin or descent.” Bouvier, Law Dict. tetle, “Pedi- gree.” “On account of the difficulty of proving in the ordinary man- ner, by living witnesses, facts which occurred in remote times, hearsay evidence has been admitted to prove a pedigree.” bid. The term pedigree embraces not only descent and relationship, but birth, marriage and death, and the times when these events happened, and the rule permits hearsay evidence of deceased members of the family in any case involving pedigree. Lisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552. The eminent authority of Mr. Justice Story may be invoked as. sustaining this proposition, and the rules of law have been relaxed as regards hearsay evidence to an extent far beyond what has been applied to other cases. This relaxation is founded on principles. of public convenience and necessity. Chirac v. [veinecker, 27 UV. S. 2 Pet. 613, 7 L. ed. 538. b. When Admitted.—In inquiries into events which happened. a long time ago, and beyond the memory of living witnesses,. hearsay is admitted, as in questions of pedigree, the declarations of deceased members of the family, entries in family Bibles or other books, recitals in family deeds, monumental inscriptions, engravings on rings, old pedigrees hung up in family mansions or preserved in family, and the will of an ancestor though found cancelled, and not known to have been proved or acted upon, if it appears to have been treated as a paper relating ‘to the family. 3 Bac. Abr. 630, title “Evidence ;” Higham v. Ridgway, 10 East, 120; Berkeley Peerage Case, 4 Campb. 401; Bull. N. P. 233; Goodright v. Moss, Cowp. 594; Vowles v. Young, 18 Ves. Jr. 143; Douglass v. Sanderson, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. 116, 1 L. ed. 312, 1 Yeates, 15; Winder v. Little, 1 Yeates, 152; Lilly v. Avtzmiller, 1 Yeates, 28; Laborg v. Hammond, 2 Harr. & G. 42; Lewis v. Marshall, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 470-476, 8 L. ed. 195-197; Collins v. Grantham, 12 Ind. 440; Clara v. Ewell, 2 Cranch, ©. C. 208; North Brookfield v. Warren, 16 Gray, 171; Doe v. Davies, 10 Q, B. 314; Abb. Trial Ev. 98; Russell v. Jackson, 22 Wend. 277; Cowan v. Hite, 2 A. K. Marsh. 238; Shuman v. Shuman, 27 Pa. 90. : Declarations of persons not members of the family, if known to- have been intimately acquainted with the family, may be received. Gilbert, Ev. 112; Aing v. Lriswell, 3 T. R. 723, HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 415 Proof by one of the family that a younger brother of the per- son last seised had many years before gone abroad, and that the: repute of the family was that he had died there, and the witness had never heard in the family of his having been married, has been admitted as good prima facie evidence of such person’s. death without lawful issue. Doe v. Griffin, 15 East, 293. Evidence of hearsay may be given to prove pedigree. The declarations of persons uninterested and who are then dead are admissible. Strickland v. Poole, 1U.S8.1 Dall. 14, 1 L. ed. 17; Stein v. Bowman, 38 U.S. 18 Pet. 209, 10 L. ed. 129. Declarations of servants and intimate acquaintances are not. admissible in questions of pedigree, but only those of kindred. Johnson v. Lawson, 2 Bing. 86. The facts of family history which may be proved by hearsay from proper sources are the following: Birth; Worth Brookfield v. Warren, 16 Gray, 174; American L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507, 516. Living or survival; Doe v. Pembroke, 11 East, 504. Marriage; Caujolle v. Ferrie, 23 N. Y. 90; Cunninghams v. Cunninghams, 2 Dow. 482-511; Com. v. Stump, 53 Pa. 132; Hell v. Burger, 3 Bradf. 432-487; Lyle v. Eitwood, 11 Moak’s Eng. Rep. 702. . Issue or want of issue; People v. Fulton F. Ins. Co. 25 Wend.. 208; King v. Fowler, 11 Pick. 302. Death; Mason v. Fuller, 45 Vt. 29; 1 Tayl. Ev. §§ 570-572. The times either definite or relative of those facts; Roe v. Rawlings, 7 Hast, 290; Webb v. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465; Bridger v. Huett, 2 Fost. & F. 35. Relative age or seniority; Doe v. Pembroke, 11 East, 504. Name; Monkton v. Atty-Gen. 2 Russ. & M. 158. Relationship generally and its degree; Doe v. Randall, 2 Moore & P. 20-26; Vowles v. Young, 13 Ves. Jr. 147; Wedd v. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Conn. 350, The place of residence when proved for purposes of identifi- cation; Cuddy v. Brown, 78 Ill. 415; Shields v. Boucher, 1 DeG. & Sm. 40; Doe v. Randall, 2 Moore & P. 20; Abb. Trial Ev. 91. See also on this subject, Worth Brookfield v. Warren, 16 Gray, 174; Primm v. Stewart, 7 Tex. 178; Westfield v. Warren, 8 N. J. L. 806; Stouvenel v. Stephens, 26 How. Pr. 244; Morewood v, Wood, 14 East, 330; Sprigg v. Moale, 28 Md. 497-509. 416 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. The declarations must be those of deceased members of the family legally related by blood or marriage to the family whose history the facts concern. 1 Tayl. Ev. §§ 576, 579, 581; Emerson vy. White, 29 N. H. 491; Doe v. Randall, 2 Moore & P. 20; Scoté v. Ratliffe, 30 U. 8. 5 Pet. 81, 8 L. ed. 54; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 3871, 378; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Conn. 347; Greenleaf v. Dubuque & 8. 0. R. Co. 30 Iowa, 801; Webb v. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465; Alexander v. Chamberlin, 1 Thomp. & C. 600. Hearsay, general repute, traditional evidence, ancient writings, physicians’ record of birth, ete., are admissible in proof of pedi- gree, death, marriage, ete. Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns. 128; Jackson v. Boneham, 15 Johns. 226; Jackson v. Bowner, 18 Johns. 37; Jackson v. King, 5 Cow. 237; Russell v. Jackson, 22 Wend. 277; People v. Fulton F. Ins. Co. 25 Wend. 205; Caujolle v. Ferrie, 26 Barb. 177; Leggett v. Boyd, 3 Wend. 376; Arms v. Middleton, 23 Barb. 571; Jackson v. Etz,5 Cow. 314; Bonert v. Day, 3 Wash. ©. 0. 243; Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. ©. C. 186; Stein v. Bowman, 38 U. 8. 13 Pet. 209, 10 L. ed. 129; Secrist v. Green, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 744, 18 L. ed. 153; Sewell v. Jewell, 42 U. S. 1 How. 210, 11 L. ed. 108; Scott v. Ratliffe, 30 U. S. 5 Pet. 81,8 L. ed. 54; Fisher v. Carter, 1 Wall. Jr. 69; Nelson v. Hall, 1 McLean, 518; Beard v. Talbot, Cooke (Tenn.) 142; Re Hall, 1 Wall. Jr. 85; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 11 N. Y. 423; Hobbe v. Price, 14 Hun, 55; MeCarty v. Terry, 7 Lans. 239; McCarty v. Denving, 4 Lans. 440. An entry in the family Bible as to the date of plaintiff’s births evidently made years after the event occurred with nothing to show by whom or under what circumstances it was made; and a statement as to the date of her birth in a letter written to plaint- iff by her deceased aunt in reference to a contemplated litigation, —are not sufficient to establish such date in a contest as to the infancy of plaintiff at the time she executed a deed. Amey v. Cockey (Md.) 19 Wash. L. Rep. 163. ce. Views of United States Supreme Court.—The United States Supreme Court is in entire harmony with the English decis- ions regarding matters of pedigree, and we tabulate the following authorities as suggestive of the topic under review. A letter containing statements as to his family pedigree sworn by the wife to have been written by her husband, who also swore that the facts stated in the letter had been frequently men- HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 1 417 tioned by her husband in his lifetime, is legal evidence concerning the pedigree. £liiott v. Piersol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328, 7 L. ed. 164. A leaf from a family Bible containing names of the children of one deceased, under whom plaintiff claims, annexed to a notarial certificate from another State, that it was cut from the Bible in the notary’s presence, and sworn before him to be the property and family Bible of the deceased, is admissible in evidence. Doug- lass v. Sanderson, 2 U. 8. 2 Dall. 116, 1 L. ed. 312. Entries in church registers of the burials and in the family Bible, of deaths, are admissible as evidence to prove the decease of aperson. Lewis v. Marshall, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 470, 8 L. ed. 195. Recitals of facts of family history in an ancient deed may be proved as against persons who are not parties to the deeds, and who claim no right under it. Deery v. Cray, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 795, 18 L. ed. 653; Stein v. Bowman, 88 U. S. 18 Pet. 209,10 L. ed. 129. Evidence by hearsay and general reputation is admissible as to pedigree, but not to establish the freedom of a party’s ancestor. Davis v. Wood, 14 U.S. 1 Wheat. 6, 4 L. ed. 29. Declarations relating to pedigree, made post litem motam, can- not be given in evidence. illiott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 328, 7 L. ed. 164; Stein v. Bowman, supra. Where a controversy had arisen, or was expected to arise, between parties, concerning the validity of a deed against which one of the parties claimed, but no controversy was then expected to arise about the heirship, a letter written, stating the pedigree of the claimants, was not excluded by the rule of law as to decla- rations made post Litem motam. Elliott v. Peirsol, supra. d. Miscellaneous Authorities Collated.—In cases of pedigree, hearsay evidence of declarations of persons who from their situa- tion were likely to know, is admissible when the person making the declarations is dead. Hisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552. The weight to be given this kind of evidence depends upon the facts surrounding each particular case. It is plain, however, that in cases of pedigree the declarations to be admissible need not be a part of the res geste, for if they were, they would be admissible on that ground irrespective of any question of their admissibility as in a case of pedigree. The exception to the general rule in the latter case takes a wide range. Traditional declarations become 27 418 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. the best evidence sometimes, when those best acquainted with the fact are dead. When derived from those who are most likely to know the truth and are under no bias to misrepresent the fact, such evidence affords a reasonable presumption of the truth. Stark. Ev. (9th Am. ed.) 47. Upon questions of pedigree, ¢. ¢., in a controversy merely gen- ealogical, hearsay evidence is allowed as to the time of birth of a certain party, as to a marriage, death, legitimacy or the reverse, consanguinity generally, and particular degrees thereof, and of affinity. (Per Vice-Chancellor Knight-Bruce, in Shields v. Boucher, 1 DeG. & 8S. 40-52.) In respect to such proof of particular.facts it has been said that. a birth, however, from a single woman, a birth from a married woman, a death,.a marriage, is a particular fact or a single act which, of course, is provable by hearsay (hearsay from a proper quarter) on a question of pedigree. Ldzd. The only case looking to the contrary that I have found is Westfield v. Warren, 8 N. J. L. 306, where Ewing, Ch. J., said that where marriage was to be shown as a substantive, independent fact it was within none of the exceptions to the general rule, and that hearsay evidence could not be received. The case was one regarding the settlement of a pauper, and might well have been placed upon the ground that it was not a case of pedigree at all. In Rex v. Frith, 8 East, 539, Chief’ Justice Ellenborough held, in a case of a settlement of a pauper, that it was not a case of pedi- gree, but simply a question as to what place an undisputed birth derived from acknowledged parents had taken place in. We think it entirely clear that from the nature of the case, as well as upon authority, a case of pedigree forms an exception to the gen- eral rule as to proof of a particular fact by hearsay, reputation or tradition. As to what is a case of pedigree, an examination of the question shows that a case is not necessarily one of that kind, because it may involve questions of birth, parentage, age or rela- tionship. Where these questions are merely incidental and the judgment will simply establish a debt, or a person’s liability on a contract, or his proper settlement as a pauper and things of that nature, the case is not one of pedigree, although questions of mar- riage, legitimacy, death or birth are incidentally inquired of. Whittuch v. Waters, 4 Car. & P. 375. Thus, in Haines v. Guthric, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 818, it was held both in the Queen’s Bench Division and in the Court of Ap- HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 419 peal that declarations of a deceased father were not admissible in evidence to prove the age of his son who had been sued for the price of a horse sold him, and who had set up the defense of infancy. They would have been admissible, the court stated, if the case had been one of pedigree. Brett, Jf, 2.,in the course of his opinion in the Court of Appeal, shows the absence of those facts which make up a case of pedigree, for he says: “ What the family of the defendant is is immaterial, whose son he is is imma- terial, whether he is a legitimate or illegitimate son is immaterial, and whether he is an elder or a younger son is immaterial. No ques- tion of family is raised in the case.” It simply involved the point of the age of a defendant for the purpose of thereby determining: his liability upon a contract which he had made, and upon which,. if of age, he was liable. The judgment would in such case estab- lish no fact in any contest the defendant might have in regard to property depending upon his being a member of his father’s family, or his age at any particular time. It was not at all a gen- ealogical controversy, but a mere collateral issue, and hence the rule in pedigree cases did not apply. Hisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552. It has been stated that declarations in regard to particular facts are not competent. This is true in cases where proof of custom, right of way, of common and the like is offered. But in a case of pedigree it is always a particular fact that is to be proved, and in relation to which the declarations of the deceased person are offered, and in such cases the particular facts stated, such as birth (place or time, where material), marriage and death, are compe- tent. (1 Phil. Ev. Cow. & H. & Edw. notes, 251). “Tn the case of tombstones, no doubt the publicity of the inscription gives a sort of authenticity to it, and if it remains uncontradicted for a great many years, it would, in the absence of every other fact in the case, be taken to be true; but you cannot put it higher than that.” Haslam v. Cron, 19 Week. Rep. 969; Powell, Evidence, (4th ed.) 181. “The ground upon which the inscription on a tombstone or a tablet in a church is admitted is that it is presumed to have been put there by a member of the family cognizant of the facts, and whose declaration would be evidence; where a pedigree hung up ‘in the family mansion is received, it is on the ground of its recog- nition by the members of the family.” Park, J, Davies v. 420 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Lowndes, 6 Man. & G. 525. So placards and notices posted on walls, fences, rocks and other immovable substances may be proved by parol evidence. Another rule peculiarly applicable in this connection is that which excludes the extra judicial statements of third persons when- ever hearsay evidence is offered to show the nature of such state- ments, unless they form a part of the res gestw, or are made by parties since deceased in the regular course of office or of business, or are shown to be declarations or admissions against their mani- fest interests. Gaines v. Relf, 58 U. 8. 12 How. 472, 13 L. ed. 1071; Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. 8. 426, 23 L. ed. 286; Evans v. Hettick, 3 Wash. C.C. 408; Gains v. Hasty, 63 Me. 361; Gordon v. Shurtliff, 8 N. H. 260; Page v. Parker, 40 N. H. 47; Goddard v. Pratt, 16 Pick. 412; Chapin v. Taft, 18 Pick. 379; Howland v. Crocker, 7 Allen, 153; Brown v. Mooers, 6 Gray, 451; Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50; Salmon v. Orser,5 Duer, 511; South School Dist. v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 227; Treat v. Barber, 7 Conn. 274; Wallace v. Story, 139 Mass. 115; Robinson v. Litchfield, 112 Mass. 28; Brooks v. Action, 117 Mass. 204; Carter v. Fitz, 124 Mass. 269; Stockwell v. Blamey, 129 Mass. 312; Com. v. Felch, 132 Mass. 22; Roberts v. Medbery, 182 Mass. 101; Wallace v. Story, 139 Mass. 115; McCormick v. Robb, 24 Pa. 44; Eureka Ins. Co.v. Robinson, 56 Pa. 256; Lancaster County Nat. Bank v. Moore, 78 Pa. 407; Atwell v. Miller, 11 Md. 348; Willdamson v. Dillon 1 Harr. & G. 444; Rosenstock v. Tormey, 32 Md. 169; Forrester v. State, 46 Md. 154; MU’ Kinney v. M’Connel, 1 Bibb, 239; De- trot & M. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Atwood v. Cornwall, 28 Mich. 336; People v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228; roman v. Thompson, 51 Mich. 452; King v. Frost, 28 Minn. 417; eegan v. Carpenter, 47 Ind. 597; Reynolds v. Copeland, 71 Ind. 422; Stmpkins v. Sinith, 94 Ind. 470; Jones v. Doe, 2 Il. 276; Aiken v. Hodge, 61 Il. 486; Pollard v. People, 69 Tl. 148; Bornheimer v. Baldwin, 42 Cal. 27; Flynn v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 17 La, Ann. 135; Davis v. State, 37 Tex. 227; Stringfellow v. Mont- gomery, 57 Tex. 349; Howell v. Howell, 37 Mo. 124; Buin v. Clark, 89 Mo. 252; Atwell v. Lynch, 89 Mo. 519; Cobleigh v. McBride, 45 Iowa, 116; Stute v. Weaver, 87 Iowa, 730; Clinton Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 61 Jowa, 132; State v. Keith, 63 N.C. 140; State v. Haynes, 71 N. 0. 79; Berry v. Osborne, 15 Ga. 194; Hartshorn v. Williams, 81 Ala. 149; Owens vy. State, 74 Ala. 401; Wells v. Shipp, 1 Walk. (Miss.) 353; Avean v. Newell, 2 Mo. 9. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 421 § 221. Declarations Against Interest. a. Declaration, when Deemed Irrelevant.—A declaration is deemed to be relevant, if the declarant had peculiar means of knowing the matter stated, if he had no interest to misrepresent it and if it was opposed to his pecuniary or proprietary interest. This is the exact phraseology employed by Bayley, J.,in @leadow v. Atkin, 1 Car. & M. £23. This ruling has been incorporated bodily under art. 28 of Stephen’s Digest and has been cordially accepted as a correct statement of the law as administered in the United States. b. The English Rule.—The learned author extending the article referred to says: “The whole of any such declaration and of any other statement referred to in it is deemed to be relevant, although matters may be stated which were not against the pecu- niary or proprietary interest of the declarant; but statements, not referred to or necessary to explain such declarations, are not deemed to be relevant merely because they were made at the same time or recorded in the same place. “A declaration may be against the pecuniary interest of the person who makes it, if part of it charges him with a liability, though other parts of the book or document in which it occurs may discharge him from such liability in whole or in part, and (it seems) though there may be no proof other than the statement itself either of such liability or of its discharge in whole or in part. “A statement made by a declarant holding a limited interest in any property and opposed to such interest is deemed to be rele- vant only as against those who claim under him, and not as against the reversioner. “An indorsement or memorandum of payment made upon any promissory note, bill of exchange, or other writing, by or on behalf of the party to whom such payment was made, is not sufficient proof of such payment to take the case out of the operation of the Statutes of Limitation; but any such declaration made in any other form by, or by the direction of, the person to whom the payment was made is, when such person is dead, sufficient proof for the purpose aforesaid. “Any indorsement or memorandum to the effect above men- tioned made upon any bond or other specialty by a deceased per- son, is regarded as a declaration against the proprietary interest of 429 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. the declarant for the purpose above mentioned, if it is shown to have been made at the time when it purports to have been made; but it is uncertain whether the date of such indorsement or memorandum may be presumed to be correct without independ- ' ent evidence. “Statements of relevant facts opposed to any other than the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant are not deemed to be relevant as such.” ec. A Distinction Noted.—“There are two classes of admissible entries, between which there is a clear distinction, in regard to the principle on which they are received in evidence. The one class consists of entries made against the interest of the party making them; and these derive their admissibility from this cir- cumstance alone. It is therefore not material when they were made. The testimony of the party who made them would be the best evidence of the fact; but as he is dead, the entry of the fact made by him in the ordinary course of his business, and against his interest, is received as secondary evidence in a controversy between third persons. The other class of entries consists of those which constitute parts of a chain or combination of transactions between the parties, the proof of one raising a presumption that another has taken place. Here, the value of the entry, as evi- dence, lies in this, that it was contemporaneous with the principal fact done, forming a link in the chain of events and being a part of the res gestw. It is not merely the declaration of the party, but it is a verbal contemporaneous act, belonging, not necessarily indeed, but ordinarily and naturally, to the principal thing. Itis on this ground that this latter class of entries is admitted; and therefore it can make no difference, as to their admissibility, whether the party who made them be living or dead, nor whether he was, or was not, interested in making them, his interest going only to affect the credibility or weight of the evidence when received.” 1 Greenleaf, § 120. Entries and memoranda, made by persons since deceased, in the ordinary course of professional and official employment are competent secondary evidence of the facts contained in them, where they had no interest to misrepresent or misstate them. Nicholls v. Webb, 21 U. S. 8 Wheat. 326, 5 L. ed. 628. They are admitted from necessity. In Lelind v. Cameron, 81 N. Y. 115, the entry by an attorney in his register, in the proceedings in the HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 423 action, of the issuing of an execution which could not be found, was held, the attorney being dead, to be competent evidence of ‘the fact that the execution was issued. Nor is it necessary, as the defendant claims, that the entry should have been made in a book, to make the evidence admissible. No cases have been cited which proceed upon this distinction, and there is no principle upon which it can be supported. See Porter v. Judson, 1 Gray, 175; Doe v. Turford, 3 Barn. & Ad. 868; Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y. 507, Records of this character are admissible within the principle of numerous authorities relating to the entries and memoranda of deceased persons. The receipt of the sheriff was a written paper against his interest, for by it he was charged for the amount of money mentioned in the receipt; and the principle applicable to such a paper is that it not only proved the simple fact of pay- ment, but it may be received to every incidental matter stated in the declaration, even in an action between third persons. Jfid- dleton v. Melton, 5 Mood. & R. 264,10 Barn. & C.317. The rule has been asserted to the extent of a disregard of all references to the cireumstances of any privity between the deceased and the defendant. Goss v. Watlington, 3 Brod. & Bing. 132; Whztnash v. George, 8 Barn. & C. 556, 8 Mood. & R. 42. It is said in the text of Phil. Ev. 298, that “the acknowl- edgments by deceased stewards and bailiffs in their books of the receipt of money for which they have been accountable — are very frequently adduced in evidence by their employers, or those claiming under them, or by strangers,” and at page 299, it is remarked that “receipts for the payment of money to prove the fact of its having been received, though there exists no privity between the deceased and the party against whom the evidence is tendered.” Lord Ellenborough said in Harrison v. Blades, 3 ‘Campb. 458, that a tax gatherer’s receipts would be evidence atter his death to prove who was the occupier of certain premises. For further illustration of the rule, see Thompson v. Stevens, 2 Nott & McC. 493; Chase v. Smith, 5 Vt. 559; Barker v. Ray, 2 Russ. 68; Walbur v. Selden, 6 Cow. 162; Leland v. Cameron, 31 Na ¥~ 115. d. Declarations in Disparagement of Title.—Declarations of persons in possession of land in disparagement of title of the declarant, are admissible as original evidence. Possession is prima 424 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. facie evidence of a fee simple, and the declaration of a possessor, that he is tenant to another, it is said, makes most strongly against. his own interest, and is therefore admissible. Simpkins v. Rogers, 15 Ill. 398. Declarations of a person having the possession, seisin and con- trol of lands, in harmony with a deed which he had executed or authorized, and which was against his interest, in reference to property not conveyed or not shown to have been conveyed, are admissible on the question of title. Bowen v. Chase, 98 U.S. 254, 25 L. ed. 47. When by succession of title a party to a suit is so far in privity with another that he could be affected by his acts, then he can be affected by his admissions only when they are made during the latter’s interest in the subject matter of the suit; for then only can he ingraft them upon the interests so that they will follow it into the hands of his successor. But as to the self-disserving declarations of the real party to the suit, this, as we have seen, is not the test of admissibility. And although the best text-writers. do not all suggest precisely the same ground of admissibility, yet we venture to say that it is a sufficient ground that they are the declarations of a party in interest, and are relevant to the issue. Barber v. Bennett, 1 L. R. A. 224, 60 Vt. 662, 6 Am. St. Rep. 141. Declarations against interest of party are admissible in evidence against him. Dennis v. Chapman, 19 Ala. 29, 54 Am. Dec. 186. The act, declaration or admission of a party against his interest. is relevant. The declaration of a person to whom a party has referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute is relevant. The act or declaration of another person in the presence and with the observation of a party, and his conduct in relation thereto is relevant, if under all the circumstances of the case, he - would have been likely to have been affected by the act or the declaration. A declaration of one claiming title to real property while in the actual or constructive possession thereof, is relevant in his own behalf, of one claiming under him, to characterize his posses- sion, or as to boundaries, or the extent of his occupation. A valuable group of authorities are found collected by Justice Coffey in Lowman v. Sheets, 7 L. R. A. 784, 124 Ind. 416. The principle contended for in the text has received consider- HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 425. able amplification in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana, and it is well settled in that jurisdiction that declarations made while in possession of the property, by a person in posses- sion thereof, are admissible in evidence upon an issue as to such ownership, as they are deemed to forma part of the res geste. Bunnell v. Studebaker, 88 Ind. 388; Huhns v. Gates, 92 Ind. 663. McConnell v. Hannah, 96 Ind. 102; Creighton v. Hoppis, 99 Ind. 369; Durham v. Shannon, 116 Ind. 403. It remains to add that the principle invoked in this rule has been the subject of much judicial discussion, which has resulted in some confusion of the authorities. § 222. Telephonic Communication not Hearsay Evidence.— A well recognized exception, the last it is our duty to notice, has. been imposed upon the law of evidence by the introduction of telephonic communication. The extent to which the commercial activity of the entire business community is involved in the solu- tion of this question makes it one of obvious importance, and while there is some contradiction from the earlier authorities bearing upon the subject, the drift of recent adjudication is in accord with common sense suggestions on the subject. The courts of justice do not ignore the great improvement in the means of intercommunication which the telephone has made. Its nature; operation and ordinary uses are facts of general scientific knowledge, of which the courts will take judicial notice as part of public contemporary history. When a person places himself in connection with the telephone system through an in- strument in his office, he thereby invites communication, in rela- tion to his business through that channel. Conversations so held are as admissible in evidence as personal interviews by a customer with an unknown clerk in charge of an ordinary shop would be in relation to the business there carried on. The fact that the voice at the telephone was not identified does. not render the conversation inadmissible. The ruling here announced is intended to determine merely the admissibility of such conversations in such circumstances; but not the effect of such evidence after its admission. It may be entitled, in each instance, to much or little weight in the estimation of the triers of fact, according to their views of its credibility, and of the other testimony in support or in contradiction of it. Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. 3 L. R. A. 539, 97 Mo. 473. 426 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. The question was one of first impression in Missouri at the time #0 far as appears, and both reason and authority will sustain the conclusion reached. a. Recent Adjudications Considered.—This entire subject received exceptional treatment in.a monographic note appended to a case tried in Indiana in 1888 (Central U. Teleph. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194), and reported in 10 Am. St. Rep. 114. After elaborate discussion of other principles that logically ap- pertain to telephonic matters, the note proceeds as follows: “ As telephones are used by all classes of persons for business purposes, some legal effect must be given to conversations held over them; and to the existence of this legal effect it is essential that such conversations should, at least under some circumstances, be receivable as evidence. It is true that many objections to their reception exist. The person talking cannot be seen, nor is there any method of authenticating and preserving for future reference what he says. Yet where both parties resort to this method of communication, they must intend that some legal result shall fol- low. If they. are not willing to assume the risks incident to the mode, they should decline to resort to it, or permit others to com- municate with them in that way. If the person receiving the message can recognize the voice of the sender, or testifies that he recognized it, there is but little objection to his being permitted to state the contents of the communication thus received. People v. Ward, 3 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 483, 511. If the voice is not recog- nized, but the conversation is held through a telephone kept in a business house or office it is admissible. “The one to whom the message is sent may not be in direct com- munication with the telephone. The conversation may be con- ducted by an operator in charge of a public telephone station, in which event, as the message does not personally concern the opera- tor, he will rarely remember its contents. In such a case it has been held by a divided court that the conversation was admissible in evidence, and that the person receiving the message may state its contents as detailed to him by the operator at the time, when it appears from other evidence that the person against whom the evidence was offered did in fact talk over the wire at that time. “When one is using the telephone, if he knows that he is talking to the operator, he also knows that he is making him an agent to repeat what he is saying to another party; and in such a case cer- HEARSAY EVIDENOE. 427 tainly the statements of the operator are competent, being the declarations of the agent, and made during the progress of the transaction. “Tf he is ignorant whether he is talking to the person with whom he wishes to communicate, or with the operator, or even any third party, yet he does it with the expectation and intention on his part that in case he is not talking with the one for whom the information is intended, that it will be communicated to that person; and he thereby makes the person receiving it his agent to communicate what he may have said. This should certainly be the rule as to an operator, because a person using a telephone knows that there is one at each station whose business it is so to act; and we think that the necessities of a growing business require this rule, and that it is sanctioned by the known rules of evidence.” Sullivan v. Kuykendall, 82 Ky. 483, 56 Am. Rep. 901. “In Banning v. Banning, 80 Cal. 271, an acknowledgment of a ‘deed by a married woman was sought to be avoided on the ground that she was at the time the notary took the acknowledgment three miles distant from him, and communicated with him and he with her by telephone only. But the court disposed of the question as follows: “It is admitted that the certificate of the notary is in ‘due form; and it is not alleged or pretended by the defendant that she did not voluntarily sign and deliver the deeds; nor that she did not voluntarily and without the hearing of her husband acknowledge the execution of them through the telephone, after having been informed by the notary of their contents; nor that any deception or fraud was practiced to induce her to execute the ‘deeds; nor even that the plaintiffs had notice of the manner in which it is alleged that she acknowledged the execution through the telephone. “These particulars are not stated for the purpose of maintain- ing that, under any circumstances, an acknowledgment of a deed may be taken through a telephone, but for the sole purpose of showing that there is no pretense of fraud, duress or mistake.” ‘The court then proceeded to consider the authorities bearing upon the question whether a certificate of the acknowledgment of a deed by a married woman can be contradicted collaterally; and having reached the conclusion that such certificate could not be success- fully assailed, otherwise than by proving fraud, sustained the deed and acknowledgment in question. “Hence while the court expressly withheld its opinion upon the 428 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. question whether an acknowledgment by telephone is good, “under any circumstances,” the inevitable logical result of its decision is, that such acknowledgment, followed by a certificate in due form, is good under all circumstances, unless vitiated by fraud.” The case was strenuously contested by very eminent counsel, whose main contention was that, the defendant not having been personally present before the notary, and not having ac- knowledged to him the execution of the deeds, his certificates are false and fraudulent, and therefore void. In support of this. position they cite Johnston v. Wullace, 53 Miss. 338; Williamson. v. Carskadden, 36 Ohio St. 665; Smith v. Ward, 2 Root, 374; 1 Am. Dee. 80; Heeter v. Glasgow, 79 Pa. 79; Howell v. MeCrie, 36 Kan. 636, 59 Am. Rep. 584; Donahue v. Mills, 41 Ark. 421;. Jackson v. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498; Civ. Code, §§ 1186, 115%, 1191. b. Tendency of Modern Decisions.—The tenor and trend of adjudication, in so far as it has been allowed to treat the subject, clearly indicates the disposition of the American courts to apply the settled rule relating to public agents to those laws by which itis. sought to govern companies operating the telephone. In harmony with this view, a telephone company is required to furnish indis- criminately to any and all persons applying for the same, a trans- mitter and its usual appurtenances, and any evidence tending to. show a refusal of the same, assuming that the parties offer to com- ply with all just regulations, is competent. State v. Bell Teleph. Co. 36 Ohio St. 296, 38 Am. Rep. 583; and see extended reportorial note, State v. Nebraska Teleph. Co.17 Neb. 126, 52 Am. Rep. 404; Bell Teleph. Co. v. Com. (Pa.) 3 Cent. Rep. 907, as reported in a monographic note appended to the case of Chesapeake & P. Teleph. Co. v. Baltimore & O. Teleg. Co. 66 Md. 399, 59 Am. Rep. 167. In State v. Nebraska Teleph. Co. supra, Mr. Justice Reese said, in the course of the prevailing opinion, that the telephone by the necessities of commerce and public use has become a public servant, a factor in the commerce of the nation, and of a great portion of the civilized world, cannot be questioned. It is to all intents and pur- poses a part of the telegraphic system of the country, and in so- far as it has been introduced for public use, and has been under- taken by the respondent, so far should the respondent be held to the same obligation as the telegraph and other public servants. It has assumed the responsibilities of a common carrier of news. Its HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 429 wires and poles line our public streets and thoroughfares. It has, and must be held to have taken its place by the side of the tele- graph as such common carrier. The views herein expressed are not new. Similar questions have arisen in, and have been frequently discussed and decided by the courts, and no statute has been deemed necessary to aid the courts in holding that when a person or company undertakes to supply a demand which is “affected with a public interest,” it must supply all alike who are like situated, and not discriminate in favor of nor against any. The principles established and declared by the courts and which were and are demanded by the highest material interests of the country, are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce nor to the particular kinds of service known or in use at the time when these principles were enunciated, “ but they keep pace with the progress of the country and adapt themselves to the new development of time and circumstances. They extend from the horse and its rider to the stage coach, from the sailing vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph,” and from the telegraph to the telephone, “as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all circumstances.” Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. 8. 9, 24 L. ed. 708. This last decision is especially pertinent to this subject. The opinion was delivered by Waite, Ch. J., who very adroitly evades the dilemma occasioned by the unfortunate decision in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 357. Both Justices Field and Hunt dissented, the former writing a dissenting opinion of exceptional vigor that considerably impairs the force of the prevailing view. It seems that under the authorities, which im- press upon telephone companies the status of public carriers, the remedy by mandamus is appropriate where the evidence shows a refusal to discharge against the private citizen a duty which their relations to the public clearly impose. Vincent v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 49 Tl. 33; State v. Hartford & N. H. &. Co. 29 Conn. 538; People v. Albany & Vt. R. Co. 24 N. Y. 261; 2 Shelf. Rail. 864; Moses, Mand. 155, 168, 171, 176; 2 Redf. Rail. 257, 275, 294; Chicago & NV. W. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690; State v. Bell Teleph. Co. supra. 430 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. It is believed that the principles of our unwritten law, consci- enciously interpreted and judicially applied, will furnish. an ade- quate solution to all perplexities which are likely to arise. It must be conceded, however, that the direct adjudications upon the subject of this chapter are comparatively few, entirely modern, and principally American. In view of the cases already cited, it. is obviously erroneous to treat the subject as “res integra” unaf- fected by any paramount authority, as we can apprehend the tendency of juridical sentiment from the cases already decided. 223. 224, 225. 226. 227%, 228. 229, 230, 231. 232, CHAPTER XI. ADMISSIONS. Various Definitions of the Term. Bouvier’s Definition, Haines Treatise. The General Rule. Opinion of Best and Others. . The English Rule. Oral Admissions Cautiously Received. Classification of Best. Admissions Without Prejudice. Admissions of Previous Owner. Admissions in a Pleading. Admissions Under Oath. a. What Necessary to Satisfy the Present Rule. b. Hatreme Caution in Applying. c. Views of the New York Court of Appeals. d. Affinities With Hstoppel. Entire Admissions to be Taken Together. a. Views of Authority as to This Rule. b. Conclusions in the Queen’s Case. e. Lord Denman’s Rule. The Admissions of a Partner. a. Partnership Relation Must be Established. b. A Distinction Noted. The Admissions of an Agent. When Admissible. . Part of the Res Geste. . Rule Applies to Both General and Special Cases. . Its Application in a Recent Case. The Prevailing Doctrine Stated. Application of the Rule, How Tested. . Explanatory Acts Admissible. . Summary of Conclusions. Admissions of an Attorney. a. When Privileged. b. Considered Confidential. Admissions by or to Husband or Wife. 431 rho ao SS pre he ao op 432 233. 234. 285. 236. 237, 238. 239. 240. 241. 242, 245. LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. a. Rule as Grounded in the Marriage Relation. b. What Necessary to Charge the Husband. Admissions of Parties to Promissory Notes. a. Usually Inadmissible Against Purchaser. b. Rule in Paige v. Cagwin. c. Review of Authorities. d. Summary of the Juridical View. “* Acceptance” Defined. Relation to Law of Evidence. Acceptor as Principal Debtor. What Drawee Admits by Acceptance. Admission of Agent’s Signature. That Drawee Has Funds of the Drawer. That Drawee Has Capacity to Draw the Bill. That the Firm is in Existence. What not Admitted by Acceptance. a. The Genuineness of the Payee’s Signature. b. Of Agent’s Indorsement. c. Nor that Bill is Drawn Payable to Drawer’s Order. d. Nor the Body of the Bill. Admissions in Pleading and on Trial. a. Facts Admitted Regarded as True. b. Practice Rule Thirty-eight. ce. Provisions of the New York Code. d. Admissions of Attorneys on the Trial. The Admission of Third Parties. Admissions of Former Owner of Land. a. Of Party in Possession of Land. b. Declarations of Grantor After Conveyance. Admissions Implied from Conduct. a. Language and Demeanor Considered. b. Accounts Stated When Deemed an Admission. c. Silence as an Admission. d. Passiveness as an Admission. e. Distinction Outlined. Admissions of Principal when Binding on Surety. a. Rationale of the Rule. b. Rule as Between the Parties. The Admissions of Former Owner of Personal Property. aldimisstons of Assignor. Admissions Made With View to Compromise. a. Statement of Lord Mansfield. b. Views of Mississippi Supreme Court. Rre pore ADMISSIONS. 433 244, Admissions to Prove Partnership. a. Not Evidence After Debt Incurred. b. Of General Reputation. 245. Admission in Deeds, Estoppel. 246. Admissions Discredited How. a. No Limitation. ; b. Admission When Conclusive. c. Rebuttal of Evidence of Admission. .d. Miscellaneous Instances. 247. Admissions Against Interest. 248. The English Rule. a. Admissions by Strangers. b. Admissions of Person Referred to by Party. c. Admissions Made Without Prejudice. 249, Miscellaneous Topics on the Subject. 250. Self-serving Admissions of Predecessor in Title. a. Generally Inadmissible. b. Opinion of Ch. J. Folger. § 223. Various Definitions of the Term. a. Bouvier’s Definition, Haines’ Treatise.—Admissions in evidence are the concessions or voluntary acknowledgments made by a party of the existence of truth of certain facts. As distinguished from confessions, the term is applied to civil transactions, and to matters of fact in criminal cases where there is no criminal intent. As distinguished from consent, an admission may be said to be evidence furnished by the party’s own act of his consent at a previ- ous period. Bouv. Law Dict. zetle “Admissions.” Under the head of exceptions to the rule rejecting hearsay evi- dence, it has been usual to treat of admissions and confessions by the party, considering them as declarations against his interest, and, therefore, probably true. But in regard to many admissions, and especially those implied from conduct and assumed character, it cannot be supposed that the party, at the time of the principal declaration or act done, believed himself to be speaking or acting against his own interest, but often the contrary. Such evidence seems, therefore, more properly admissible as a substitute for the ordinary and legal proof. But however the admission may have been made, whether intentionally or unintentionally, if it is offered against the party making it, it is competent evidence; if 28 434 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. it is offered in his favor, it is incompetent. Haines’ Treat. (12th ed.) 657. b. The General Rule.—The general rule is, that the declara- tions of a party to the record, or of one identified in interest with him are, as against such party, admissible in evidence. If they proceed from a stranger and cannot be brought home to the party, they are admissible, unless upon some of the other grounds already considered. Haines’ Treat. (12th ed.) 657. The rule of law with respect to self-regarding evidence is, that. when in the self-serving form it is not in general receivable; but that in the self-harming form it is, with few exceptions, receiva- ble, and is usually considered proof of a very satisfactory kind. Gilbert, Ev. (4th ed.) 119. Although when viewed independently of jurisprudence, it. would be difficult to maintain that the declarations, or what is equivalent to the declarations of one man may not in particular cases have some probative force as evidence against another,—still our law rejects them in obedience to its great. principle, which requires judicial evidence to be proximate; and also from peculiar temptations to fraud and fabrication, which the allowing such evidence would so obviously supply. This is a branch of the general rule, that a man shall not be allowed to. make evidence for himself. But on the other hand, the univer- sal experience of mankind testifies that, as men consult their own interest, and seek their own advantage may, with tolerable safety, be taken to be true as against them, at least until the con- trary appears. ce. Opinion of Best and Others.—The subject of self-serving evidence may therefore be despatched in few words, and indeed has been substantially considered under the title, “ Res inter alios acta alters nocere non debet.’ ‘There are, however, some excep-_ tions to the rule excluding it. The first is, that where a part of a document or statement is used as self-harming evidence against a party, he has a right to have the whole of it laid before the jury, ‘who may then consider and attach what weight they see fit to any self-serving statements it contains. This exception is founded on the plain principle of justice, that, by using a man’s statement against him, you adopt that statement as evidence at least. Best, Ev. §§ 519, 520. Admissions made in the course of negotiations having for their ADMISSIONS. 435 object the discontinuance of a litigation or the settlement of a controversy are within the special protection of the law. The reason often assigned by Zord Mansfield was, that it must be permitted to men to buy their peace without prejudice if an offer to buy does not succeed.” Peake, Ev. 19. In Turner v. Railton, 2 Esp. 474, Lord Kenyon observed, “eoncessions made for the purpose of settling the business for which the action is brought cannot be given in evidence, but facts. admitted I have always received.” Swift, Ev. 126. It is never the intention of the law to shut out the truth, but to repel any inference which may arise from a proposition made, not with a design to admit the existence of a fact, but merely to buy one’s peace. If an admission, however, is made because it is a -fact, the evidence to prove is competent, whatever motive may have prompted to the declaration. But if the party admits a par- ticular item in an account, or any other fact, meaning to make the admission as being true, this is good evidence, although the object of the conversation was to compromise an existing contro- versy. Bartlett v. Tarbox, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 120; Hartford Bridge Co. v. Granger, 4 Conn. 142; Waldridge v. Kennison, 1 Esp. 148; Doon v. Pavey, 49 Vt. 293. Judge Woodworth, in an early New York case, very aptly says: “Propositions on either side, made by parties on a treaty for com- posing their differences, if it be ineffectual, ought not to operate as evidence in a future contest. It seems to me that a different rule would be laying a snare for suitors, and calculated to entrap aparty. It is taking advantage of expressions made in moments of confidence, when he is off his guard, by the prospect of com- promise.” Welleams v. Thorp, 8 Cow. 201. The principle contended for in the text has received ample vindication in a number of decisions, among which we cite the following: erry v. Taylor, 33 Mo, 323; Jackson v. Clopton, 66 Ala. 29; Keaton v. Mayo, 71 Ga. 649; Watson v. Williams, Harp. L. 447; Richards v. Noyes, +4 Wis. 609; Campau v. Dubois, 39 Mich. 274; Mundhenk v. C. I. BR. Co. 57 Iowa, 718; Darley v. Coons, 64 Ind. 545; Hinsey v. Grimes, T Blacktf. 290; Barker v. Bushnell, 75 Tl, 220; Reynolds v. Munning, 15 Md. 510; Arthur v. James, 28 Pa. 236; Tryon v. Miller, 1 Whart. 11; Slocwm v. Perkins, 3 Serg. & R. 295; Wrege v. Westcott, 30 N. J. L. 219; Payne v. Forty-Second St. & G. St. F. R. Co. 8 Jones & S. 8; Daniels v. Woonsocket, 11 R. I. 4; Draper v. Hatfield, 124 Mass. 436 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. 53; Harrington v. Lincoln, 4 Gray, 563; Saunders v. McCarthy, 8 Allen, 42; Gerrish v. Sweetser, 4 Pick. 374; Perkins v. Con- cord R. Co. 44 N. H. 223; Rowell v. Montville, 4 Me. 270; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Oo. 98 U. 8. 527, 23 L. ed. 868; MceCorquodale v. Bell, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 471; Skinner v. Great Northern R. Oo. Ll. R. 9 Exch. 289; Paddock v. Forrister, 3 Scott, N. R. 734; Paddock v. Forrester, 3 Man. & G.903; Healey v. Thatcher, 8 Car. & P.388; Hoghton v. Hoghton, 15 Beav. 321; Wallace v. Matthews, 39 Ga. 617, 99 Am. Dec. 473, note. Admissions are not conclusive upon the party calling for them, but are to be considered and weighed like other evidence. Ayers v. Metcalf, 39 Ill. 307. d. The English Rule.—An admission is a statement, oral or written, suggesting any inference as to any fact in issue or rele- vant or deemed to be relevant to any such fact, made by or on behalf of any party to any proceeding. Every admission is (sub- ject to the rules hereinafter stated), deemed to be a relevant fact as against the person by or on whose behalf it is made, but not in his favor unless it is, or is deemed to be, relevant for some other reason. Stephen, Dig. art. 15. In this connection it is well to remember, that where a party on the trial of a cause avails himself of an admission of his adversary to sustain his action or defense, the opposite party is entitled to prove such other parts of the conversation had on his part as tend to explain, modify or even destroy the admission made by him, but is not at liberty to call for such parts of the conversation had by him as relate to assertions made operating in his favor upon the general merits of the case, but having no con- nection with the admission made. Garry v. Vicholson, 24 Wend. 350; Kelsey v. Bush, 2 Hill, 440; Rouse v. Whited, 25 N. Y.170; Delleber v. Home L. Ins. Co. 69 N.Y. 258. Admissions may be made on behalf of the real party to any proceeding— 1. By any nominal party to that proceeding; 2. By any person who, though not a party to the proceeding, has a substantial interest in the event; 3. By any one who is privy in law, in blood, or in estate to any party to the proceeding on behalf of that party. A. statement made by a party to a proceeding may be an admis- sion whenever it is made, unless it is made by a person suing or sued in a representative character only, in which case, it seems it ADMISSIONS. 487 must be made whilst the person making it sustains that character. A statement made by a person interested in a proceeding, or by a privy to any party thereto, is not an admission, unless it is made during the continuance of the interest which entitles him to make it. Stephen, Dig. art. 16. It is well in this immediate connection to call attention to the fact that the early common law regulations as to the admissions of a former owner of personal property while in possession of the same have been wholly abrogated. Where the plaintiff had, previous to the suit, assigned his inter- est in the debt or chose in action, of which the defendant had notice, evidence of confessions subsequently made by him, as to the demands of the defendant against him, which might impair the interest so assigned, or prejudice the rights of the assignee, for whose benefit the suit was prosecuted, is inadmissible. rear v. Hvertson, 20 Johns. 142. Judge Story says: “Courts of law, following, in this respect, the rules of equity, now take notice of assignments of choses in ac- tion, and exert themselves to afford them every support and pro- tection not inconsistent with the established principles and modes of proceeding which govern tribunals acting according to the course of the common law. They will not, therefore, give effect to a release procured by the defendant under a covenous combina- tion with the assignor in fraud of his assignee, nor permit the as- signor injuriously to interfere with the conduct of any suit com- menced by his assignee to enforce the rights which passed under the assignment.” Welch v. Mundeville, 14 U. 8. 1 Wheat. 233, 4 L. ed. 79. Every admission is to be taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for the one side, with the qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the other side. This is a settled principle which has passed by its universality into an axiom of the law. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Newton, 89 U.S. 82, 22 L. ed. 793. e. Oral Admissions Cautiously Received.—Oral admissions must be cautiously received, and cannot destroy the force of a settlement deliberately made by parties both of whom must have known the truth as to their transactions. Durkee v. Stringham, 8 Wis. 1. f. Classification of Best.—Upon this general topic of admis- sions it is well to observe the classification which has been adopted, 438 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. the very high authority and which it might argue a want of nice: discrimination to neglect; to avoid an imputation of this nature I will quote from Mr. Best: “Self-harming statements in civil cases are usually called ‘admissions, and those in criminal cases ‘con- fessions.’ The civilians and canonists express all kinds under the term ‘confession.’ Self-harming statements are divisible into ‘plenary’ and ‘not plenary.” A ‘plenary’ confession is when a self-disserving statement is such as if believed, to be conclusive against the person making it, at least on the physical facts of the matter to which it relates; as where a party accused of murder says, ‘I murdered,’ or ‘I killed, the deceased. In such cases the proof is in the nature of direct evidence, and the maxim is, ‘Habemus opimum testem, confitentem reum. A confession ‘not plenary’ is where the truth of the self-disserving statement is not absolutely inconsistent with the existence of a state of facts different from that which it indicates; but only gives rise to a pre- sumption inference of their truth, and is therefore in the nature of circumstantial evidence. “Although as already stated, self-harming evidence is in general admissible against the party supplying it, it has been made a great question, whether this extends to the proof of the contents of written instruments or documents, 2. é. whether the principle, that such are the best or primary evidence of their own contents, does not override the principle under consideration. Elementary as this point may seem, it has only been settled of late years, if in- deed it can be deemed fully settled even now; and there is probably not one question to be found in the whole law of England which has caused greater difference of opinion.” Best, Prin. of Ev. §§ 528-525. § 224. Admissions Without Prejudice.—There is no doubt but that the rule is well established in this country that the ad- mission of a distinct fact which in itself tends to establish a cause of action or defense, is not rendered inadmissible from the cir- cumstance that it was made during discussion relating to a com- promise, unless it is expressly stated to be made without preju- dice; but if the admission is of such a nature as that the court can see it would not have been made except for the purpose of pro- ducing the objects of the negotiation, and under an agreement that could fairly. be implied from: the circumstances that it was not to be used afterwards to his prejudice, it is not error for the court to exclude the evidence. The rule referred to is founded ADMISSIONS. 439 upon publie policy, and with a view of encouraging and facilitat- ing the settlement of legal controversies by compromise, which object is supposed to be obstructed by the fear entertained by litigants that such a negotiation may be converted into a trap to inveigle the unwary into hazardous admissions. The law, there- fore, excludes such admissions as appear to have been made ten- tatively or hypothetically, but admits those only which concede the existence of a fact. White v. Old Dominion Steamship Co. 8 ‘Cent. Rep. 40, 102 N. Y. 661. In Hartford Bridge Co. v. Granger, 4 Conn. 142, Hosmer, Ch. J., says: “The question to be considered is what was the view and intention of the party in making the admission, whether it was to concede a fact hypothetically in order to effect a settlement, or declare a fact really to exist.” § 225. Admissions of Previous Owner.—Whether the ad- mission of the previous owner of a chose in action can be proved against a purchaser from him who has bought for a fair considera- tion, and between whom and the former owner there exists no other relation that that of purchaser and seller. It is not the case of a nominal purchase, the former owner retaining the equitable interest, but of an actual and complete transfer of all interest to the purchaser. On that question, Page v. Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361, is a full authority. That case was ably considered by the court which determined it, and put an end to whatever doubts had been entertained upon the question involved. Stark v. Boswell, 6 Hill, 405, was decided shortly after Paige v. Cagwin, and the supreme court held the evidence of a mortgagee’s admis- sions inadmissible to effect the purchaser of the land under a sale on a statute foreclosure. In Booth v. Swezey, 8 N. Y. 276, the point was again raised, and this court held the admissions of the mortgagee inadmissible against his issue. § 226. Admissions in a Pleading.—“ The policy of the law is to exclude admissions by pleading, admissions which, if so pleaded, amount to estoppels, and admissions made for the purposes of a cause by the parties or their solicitors. These subjects are usually treated of by writers on evidence; but they appear to me to belong to other departments of the law. The subject is treated at length in 1 Phil. Ev. 308-401,and T. E. §§ 653-788 (1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 169 et seg). A vast variety of cases upon admissions of every sort may be found by referring to Roscoe, N. P. (Index, under the word Ad- 440 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. missions). It may be well to observe that when an admission is contained in a document, or series of documents, or when it forms part ofa discourse or conversation, so much and no more of the doc- ument, series of documents, discourse or conversation, must be proved as is necessary for the full understanding of the admission, but the judge or jury may of course attach degrees of credit to differ- ent parts of the matter proved. This rule is elaborately discussed and illustrated in Taylor’s Ev. §§ 655-665. It has lost much of the importance which attached to it when parties to actions could not be witnesses, but could be compelled to make admissions by bills of discovery. The ingenuity of equity draughtsmen was. under that system greatly exercised in drawing answers in such a form that it was impossible to read part of them without reading the whole, and the ingenuity of the court was at least as much exercised in countermining their ingenious devices. The power of administering interrogatories, and of examining the parties directly, has made great changes in these matters.” Stephen, Dig. art. 15, note. § 227. Admissions Under Oath. a. What Necessary to Satisfy Present Rule.—The law does not regard as sutticiently authentic to influence a jury, any state- ment which is not made under the sanction of an oath; and in general, it further requires that the witness making the statement. should be present at the trial, to the end that he may be examined by the adverse party, and that the jury may draw their own con- clusions as to his sincerity and accuracy by his appearance and bearing upon the witness stand. This rule does not however, embrace the admissions of a party to the action; for upon equally plain principles, any thing which a man says against himself may be given in evidence by his adversary, as it is not to be supposed that one will make a statement adverse to his own interest unless it is true. But to render admission of the adverse party com- petent as evidence, it must be of some fact material to the issue; for if the circumstances admitted be of such a character that it would have no just bearing upon the case,.if otherwise proved, it is not to be received because its existence is established out of the mouth of the party against whom it is offered. Stephens v. Vro- man, 18 Barb. 250. And see McGee v. Raiguel, 64 Pa. 110; Ch feago & NV. W. R. Co. v. Boone County Suprs, 44 Tl. 240; Ashlock v. Linder, 50 ADMISSIONS. 441 Dl. 169; Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67; Frink v. Coe, 4 G. Greene, 555; Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. 345; Ector v. Welsh, 29 Ga. 448; Plummer v. Currier, 52 N. H. 287; Robinson v. Stuart, 68 Me. 61; Goodnow v. Parsons, 36 Vt. 46; Jacobs v. Shorey, 48 N. H. 100; Kennedy v. Wood, 52 Hun, 46. b. Extreme Caution in Applying.—Evidence of the admis- sions by a party of the fact sought to be established against him, is always received with great caution and scrutiny; and as a general rule it is for the jury to say whether the admissions, as made, establish to their satisfaction the fact in issue. JLichigan Carbon Works v. Schad, 38 Hun, 71. ec. Views of New York Court of Appeals.—The principle contended for and ultimately decided in the case of Stephens v. Vroman, 18 Barb. 250, has never been condemned by express adjudication, and its wide acceptance as a correct formula for the rule in vogue must be regarded as conclusively recognizing its reliability. It has been decided upon principles well established in reference to the competency of declarations made by a party to a suit in respect to a point material to the issue. It is sustained on principle and authority, and the dissenting opinion of three judges of high repute has failed to overrule or efface the logic of Ch. J. Denio, who wrote the prevailing opinion in favor of a reversal of the judgment of the supreme court. An early case before the New York Court of Errors which has been extensively cited in other jurisdictions holds that admissions and declarations should always be scrutinized and received with caution as it is the most dangerous evidence that can be admitted in a court of justice, and the most liable to abuse. ( Vide opinion of Walworth, Chancellor, in Law v. Merrills, 6 Wend. 268). And we find the record of a similar judicial condemnation in J/alin v. Malin, 1 Wend. 625, which establishes the unsatisfactory nature of this grade of evidence unless corroborated by extrinsic circumstances. d. Affinities with Estoppel.—This entire subject of admis- sions and declarations is closely implicated with the kindred topic of estoppel, and in all instances we suggest a cross-reference to the text and annotation under that title. The most analytical and exhaustive work on evidence is bereft of most of its useful- ness if these topies are so estranged and alienated as to become matters of separate and distinct consideration. Obviously the value of an admission or declaration may be vastly augmented if ' 442 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. it can be made to appear that such admission or declaration can be raised to the dignity of a legal or equitable estoppel. Very frequently they trench closely upon the boundary line, and in all] instances there is more or less tendency to blend the rules appli- cable to both admission and estoppel. Hence in any comprehen- sive review of the law of evidence, the one should be regarded as the corrollary or pendant of the other. In the present work, such treatment will be accorded both topics as will best expand the principles underlying them with a view of placing before the practitioner the latest utterances of the courts regarding these sub- divisions of the law. § 228. Entire Admission to be Taken Together. a. Views of Authority as to This Rule.—On the subject of admissions it may be laid down as a first principle, that the whole of the statement containing the admission is to be received _ together. This is necessary in order to enable the court and jury to judge of the true extent of the admission which, when taken entire will often have a different import from that which a partial account might convey. Thomson v. Austen,2 Dowl. & R. 358; Trammell v. Bassett, 24 Ark. 499; Barnes v. Allen,1 Abb. App. Dec. 111; Searles v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 316; People v. Murphy, 39 Cal. 52; Barry v. Davis, 33 Mich. 515. This entire subject received very careful consideration from the New York Court of Appeals in the case of Rowse vy. Whited, 25 N. Y.170. From the opinion of Judge Sutherland, we extract the following: “Tt is plain that there must be some limitation of the right of the party whose statement or admission, forming a part of a con- versation, has been given in evidence against him to prove further or other statements or declarations made by him at the same time or as part of the same conversation, otherwise the court and the jury might be compelled to listen to a long story about matters not at all connected with any matter or thing in contro- versy between the parties. No one will say that a party whose statement has been given in evidence against him by his oppo- nent, has a right to prove all that he said at the same time or in the same conversation, solely because such further or other state- ments were made at the time or in the same conversation.” b. Conclusions in the Queen’s Case.—The question then is, what is the rule of the limitation of this right? In the Queen's ADMISSIONS. 443 Case, 2 Brod. & B. 297, 298. Abbott, Ch. J, in delivering the opinion of the court on certain questions proposed to the lords and judges, said: “The conversations of a party to the suits are, in themselves, evidence against him in the suit, and if a counsel chooses to ask a witness as to anything which may have been said by an adverse party, the counsel for that party has a right to lay before the court the whole which was said by his client in the same conversation, and not only so much as may explain or qualify the matter introduced by the previous examin- ation, but even matter not properly connected with the part introduced upon the previous examination, provided only that it relate to the subject matter of the suit, because it would not be just to take a part of a conversation as evidence against a party without giving to the party at the time, the benefit of the entire residue of what he said on this occasion.” The rule, as thus stated, was certainly very broad. The only limitation upon the right of the party to give the whole conversa- tion, in evidence by the rule, as thus stated, would seem to be, that the other or further part or parts of the conversation offercd in evidence, to be admissible, must relate to the subject matter of. the action. By the rule as thus stated, if the defendant is sued as the maker of two several promissory notes, to one of which his defense is that he never made it, and to the other that he had paid it, and the plaintiff proves on the trial that at a certain time the defendant admitted or said that the note which he had denied making was his note, or that he had made and delivered it, the defendant has a right to prove, that at the same time, or as part of the same conversation, he also said that he had paid the other note. So, also, by the rule as thus stated if the plaintiff has but one cause of action, and cannot recover without establishing affirmatively two distinct issuable facts, if for the purpose of establishing one of them he gives evidence of a statement or an admission of the defendant relative to it, the defendant has a right to give evidence of’ what he said at the same time or in the same conversation, relative to the other. As for instance, take the case put by Judge Cowen in Garey v. Nicholson, 24 Wend. 351. The defendant is sued as indorser; he denies that he indorsed the note, and he also denies that he received due notice of its dis- honor. The plaintiff proves his admission that he received due notiee of dishonor by the rule as stated by Abbott, Ch. J., in Queen’s Case, 2 Brod. & B. 297. The defendant has a right to 444 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. show, that when he made the admission, he also said that the indorsement was a forgery. The rule, as stated by Abbott, Ch. J., was adopted by Starkie and laid down in his work on evidence. Stark. Ev. (2d. ed.) 180. c. Lord Denman’s Rule.—In Prince v. Samo, 7 Ad. & El. 627, Lord Denman, Ch. J., who delivered the opinion of the court, referred to the broad language of the rule, as laid down in Starkie’s Evidence, on the authority of Abbott, CA. 7, in the Queen’s Case, and denied that he had the countenance of author- ity for the extent to which it went. He denied that any rule letting in the whole conversation of a party merely because it relates to the subject matter of the action had the countenance of authority. He stated the rule to be, that where part of a conver- sation had been given in evidence, any other or further part of the conversation might be given in evidence in reply, which would in any way explain or qualify the part first given in evidence. In Forrest v. Forrest, 6 Duer, 102, the rule as stated in Prince vy. Samo, and approved in Garey v. Nicholson, was somewhat. criticised, and held not to apply to documentary evidence. The rule was also approved in Dorlon v. Douglass, 6 Barb. 451, although there may be some doubt whether it was properly applied in the case. The rule was also recognized in Sturge v. Buchanan, 10 Ad. & El. 598. All the cases which I have examined, where it has been held that the whole admission or statement of the party must be taken tegether, are within the rule as stated in Prince v. Samo, supra. The principle contended for, and which allows the entire admis- sion in evidence, is grounded upon such obvious principles of jus- tice, that it may be regarded as an established rule regulating the introduction of evidence. The subtlety and acuteness of the most refined logician, has been unable to discover any just reason for invading the sanctity of this well settled law. In criminal actions where the subject of admissions becomes. metamorphosed into that of confessions, the subject receives an increased importance. § 229. Admissions of a Partner. a. Partnership Relation Must be Established.—Before the admissions of a partner can be received in evidence the existence of a partnership must be established, and while the admissions or declarations of a person may be given in evidence against him to ADMISSIONS. 445 show that he is a partner in the firm, it must be remembered that the declarations of one person that another is a partner are not legal evidence as to the latter; they are evidence against those only who make them. J/cPherson v. Rathbone, 7 Wend. 216; Henry v. Welliard, 73 N.C. 35; Ruhe v. Burnell, 121 Mass. 450; Cross v. Langley, 50 Ala. 8; Smith v. Hulett, 65 fll. 495; Johnson v. Gallivan, 52 N. H. 148; Hoppock v. Moses, 48 How. Pr. 201. It is well settled that after the dissolution of a partnership, admissions of any of the former individual partners of the firm are not binding, further than as against the party making them. Nichols v. White, 85 N. Y. 531. An agency except for special purposes is terminated by dissolution; and admissions made by those previously identified in interest are to be regarded as if made by astranger. Hogg v. Orgill, 34 Pa. 344. b. A Distinction Noted.—An important distinction has been ingrafted upon this rule relative to admissions of former partners after the dissolntion of the firm. Where such an admission relates to the business of winding up the partnership affairs and closing out the business they .are pertinent and binding, as the law regards them as partners for special purposes although there may have been a technical and legal dissolution of the partnership. Vichols v. White, supra. § 230. Admissions of an Agent. a. When Admissible.—Admissions made by an agent, made while acting within the scope of his authority and within the legitimate province of his delegated power, are by universal rules of evidence admissible as against his principal. Velson v. Cowiny, 6 Hill, 336; Peck v. Ritchey, 66 Mo. 114; Afia v. Osby, 62 U1. 13; Howe Mach. Oo. v. Snow, 82 Iowa, 483; Thomas v. Sternheimer, 29 Md. 268. This rule may be regarded as firmly established in all jurisdictions. The Federal court has given emphatic utterance to the same doctrine, and in the case of Cliguot’s Cham- pagne, 70 U. 8. 3 Wall. 144,18 L. ed. 121. Mr. Justice Swain, in delivering the opinion of the court, employs the following com- prehensive language: Whatever is done by an agent in reference to the business in which he is, at the time employed, and within the scope of his authority, is said or done by the principal, and may be proved, as well in criminal as in civil cases, in all respects as if the principal were the actor or speaker. Such admissions, if made subsequent to the timc of making the contract in reter- 446 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. ence to its subject matter, are inadmissible (Hubbard v. Elmer,, 7 Wend. 446); and proof of agency or combination must be given before acts or declaretions of the alleged agent or conspirator can be proved. People v. Parish, 4 Denio, 153. b. Part of Res Gests.—The admissions or declarations of the agent are received in evidence against the principal, not as admis- sions or declarations merely, but as parts of the res gestw; hence, only such as accompany the trangaction in which the agent acted can be proved; what the agent said at a subsequent time is. inadmissible. Fogg v. Child, 13 Barb. 246; Isles v. Tucker, 5. Duer, 393. Although in obedience to the cardinal rule of evidence proof of the agency must be first adduced; still, such agency may be admitted before proof after the introduction of pertinent testi- mony as to his admissions. This merely affects the order of proof, and is largely within the discretion of the trial court. First Unitarian Soc. v. Faulkner, 91 U. 8. 420, 28 L. ed. 284. It has been also held that it is not within the scope of an agency to make admissions or declarations as to the circumstances under which and the purposes for which the agent has purchased prop- erty for the principal. Such admissions or declarations are only recitals of the admissions or circumstances of past occurrences, and constitute in their essence hearsay evidence. Wenchester & P. Ufg. Co. v. Creary, 116 U.S. 161, 29 L. ed. 591; Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co. 15 U. 8. 2 Wheat. 380, 4 L. ed. 266. c. Rule Applies in Both General and Special Cases.—An essential prerequisite must be observed under the decision in all these cases where it is sought to charge a principal through the admissions of his agent. It is not alone necessary to prove that an agency existed; it must further appear that at the time the decla- ration or admission was made such agent was executing the authority conferred upon him, and that the admissious uivetly related to the subject matter in controversy, or were sv intimately implicated with it as to constitute a part of the ves geste. The rule is clearly operative in all cases whether the agency be gen- eral or special, or whether the principal is a corporation or a pri- vate person. White v. filler, 71 N. Y. 118; Afutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. v. Cannon, 48 Ind, 264. This principle was further: elaborated by Si, William Grant with great clearness and accura- ey in Fairlie v. Hastings, 10 Ves. Jr. 129. He said: “ What an. ADMISSIONS. 44T agent has said may be what constitutes the agreement of the prin- cipal or the representations or statements may be the foundation of or the inducement to the agreement; therefore, if a writing is not necessary by law, the evidence must be admitted to prove the agent did make that statement or representation; so with regard to acts done, the words with which the acts are accompanied fre- quently tend to determine their quality. The party thereunder to be‘bound by an act must be affected by the words, but except. in one or the other of these statements I do not know how what is said by an agent can be evidence against the principal. The mere assertion of a fact cannot amount to prove it though it may have some relation to the business in which the person making the assertion was employed as agent.” See also Story, Agency, 8§ 184, 187; Luby v. Hudson River R. Co. 17 N.Y. 181. The rule that the declarations of the agent are inadmissible to bind the principal, unless they constitute the agreement which he is authorized to make, or relate to and accompany an act done in the course of the agency is applicable in all cases, whether the agency is a general or special one. Ang. & A. Corp. § 309. d. Its Application in a Recent Case.—Thus in an action upon a policy of insurance the casual statement of an agent when not in the performance of any duty for his principal that proof of loss mailed to the home office had been received is not competent evi- dence against the company. Dean v. dina L. Ins. Co. 62 N. Y. 642. In this connection it is pertinent to remark that the agency cannot be proved by general representation. Perkins v. Stebbins, 29 Barb. 523. A mere declaration of the alleged agent made without the knowledge of the supposed principal is no evidence of the agency. In order to establish that relation it must be shown by other testimony than that of the supposed agent. Davis v. Hen- derson, 20 Wis. 520. One obvious means of determining this relation of agency is by the acts of the parties. A person performing services, negoti- ating sales, signing contracts and incurring liabilities for and on behalf of an absent principal, may be deemed, and in contempla- tion of law is the agent for the party, especially where such acts are recognized by the putative principal ( Woodwell v. Brown, 44 Pa. 121); and it is competent to introduce testimony showing his original authority to so act. Woodbury v. Larned, 5 Minn. 339. 448 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. And generally as in cases of partnership the admissions of an agent, after his authority or relationship to his principal has ter- minated, are not evidence against his principal. Janeway v. Skerritt, 30 N. J. L. 97. e. The Prevailing Doctrine Stated.—The prevailing doe- trine as regards the admissibility of this grade of evidence was stated in an early English case by Dallas, Ch. J. Thus it is not true that where an agency is established the declarations of the agent are admitted merely because they are his declarations, they are only evidence when they form a part of the contract entered into by the agent on behalf of the principal, and in that single case they become admissible. The declarations of an agent at a different time have been decided not to be evidence; indeed the cases on the subject draw this distinction between the declara- tions of the agent accompanying the making of and therefore forming part of the contract, and those made either at a subse- quent or antecedent period. Betham v. Benson, Gow. 48. The basis of such admissions is the legal identity of the principal and the agent and the fact that his declarations are a part of the res geste. McDermott v. Hannibal & St. J. RB. Co. 73 Mo. 516, 39 Am. Rep. 526; Moore v. Mvucham, 10 N. Y. 207; Galeeran v. Noble, 66 Ga. 367. f. Application of Rule, How Tested.—This is now the well established doctrine and its application to other acts of an agent, besides that of making contracts, is equally well scttled. The declarations of an agent are received not as admissions but as part of the res geste. Haven v. Brown, T Me. $25; Rogers v. MeCune, 19 Mo. 557; Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Sayers, 26 Gratt. 328. The doctrine is very clearly stated in the case last above cited; the courts say: “It is true that where the acts of the agent will bind the principal, there his declarations, representations and admis- sions respecting the subject matter will also bind him, if made at the same time and constituting a part of the res gestw. They are in the nature of original evidence, and not of hearsay. The rep- resentations and statements in such cases being the ultimate facts to be proved, and not an admission of some other fact. An adinission, whenever made, may be given in evidence against him, but the admission or declaration of his agent binds him only when it is made during the continuance of his agency in regard to the transaction then pending. It is because it 1, a verbal act, and a ADMISSIONS. 449 part of the res geste, that it is admissible at all. This well estab- lished principle usually constitutes an unerring guide in deter- mining whether or not the declarations of an agent are admissible In evidence against his principal.” The declarations of an agent cannot bind his principal unless they are part of the res geste. Pittsburgh, O. d&. St. L. R. Co. v. Theobald, 51 Ind. 249, and cases cited; Za Rose v. Logansport Nat. Bank, 102 Ind. 346, Wellcamson v. Cambridge &. Co. 3 New Eng. Rep. 750, 144 Mass. 148. Agency cannot be proved by the declarations of the alleged agent. Pepper v. Cairns, 7 L. R. A. 750,183 Pa, 114. g. Explanatory Acts Admissible.—Where an agent’s acts are admissible his accompanying declarations explanatory of the acts are also admissible in evidence, and it is not necessary that the agent himself be called upon to prove such declarations. Sidney School Furniture Co. v. Warsaw School Dist. 122 Pa. 494; Cen- tral Pennsylvania Telph. & S. Co. v. Thompson, 2 Cent. Rep. 544, 112 Pa. 118. An agent’s declarations im pais are not proof of his own author- ity. Jordan vy. Stewart, 23 Pa. 244. To the same effect are Grim v. Bonnell, 78 Pa. 152; Whiting v. Lake, 91 Pa. 349. h. Summary of Conclusions.—Admissions of an agent are not evidence without proof of the agency; but the former may be admitted before proof of the latter. irst Unitarian Soc. v. Faulkner, 91 U.S. 415, 23 L. ed. 283. An admission by an authorized agent of a city, who participated in making a contract, is evidence to prove the contract. Chicago v. Greer, 16 U. 8. 9 Wall. 726, 19 L. ed. 769. The admission of an agent, some time after the death of the insured, that it would be best for the insurance company to pay the policy, is inadmissible against the company. American L, Ins. Co. v. Mahone, 88 U. 8. 21 Wall. 152, 22 L. ed. 593. _ It is not within the scope of an agency to make admissions or declarations as to the circumstances under which, and the purpose. for which the agent has purchased property; such admissions or declarations are only recitals of the admission, or circumstances of a past occurrence, and constitute, in their essence, hearsay evi-~ dence. Winchester & P. Mfg. Co. v. Creary, 116 U.S. 161, 29 L, ed. 591. Summarizing the conclusion of authority upon this subject, we 29 450 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. may affirm that it is substantially embodied in § 27 of the pro- posed New York Code of Evidence. The section states the law with precision and conciseness in the following language: “After proof of a partnership or agency, the act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party, within the scope of the part- nership or agency, and during its existence, is relevant against such party; the act or declaration of one joint debtor, joint con- tractor or joint owner or of one party after the dissolution of the firm, is relevant against the other only if made when the declar- ant is actually engaged in the business in which they are jointly interested; but as to such persons, the act or declaration of one is. “not relevant against the other to revive or continue a liability barred, or which, without such admissions, would be barred by the Statute of Limitations.” The rule is well settled that what an agent says while acting within the scope of his authority is admissible against his princi- pal as part of the ves gestw, but not statements or representations. made by him at any other time. Shelhamer v. Thomas, 7 Serg. & R. 106; Levering v. Rittenhouse, 4 Whart. 130; Jordan v. Stewart, 23 Pa, 244. The admissions of an agent not made at the time of the transaction, but subsequently, are not evidence; thus the letters of an agent to his principal containing a nar- ration of the transaction in which he had been employed are not admissible against the principal. Hough v. Doyle, 4 Rawle, 291; Clark v. Baker, 2 Whart. 340. Naked declarations which are not part of any res gestw are mere hearsay, like words spoken by a stranger. Patton v. Minesinger, 25 Pa. 393; Pennsylvania. £2. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. 889, 98 Am. Dee. 229. § 231. Admissions of Attorney. a. When Privileged.—Admissions made by a client while in consultation with his attorney, and in fact all communication be- tween parties so situated, which are the proper subject of pro- fessional employment, are privileged, and although admissions in the strict technical sense of the term, they cannot invade the pro- vince of legal evidence, without the express assent of both par- ties. See Yates v. Olmstead, 56 N. Y. 632, citing Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y.51; Whiting v. Barney, 30 N. Y. 330; Coveney v. Tannahill, 1 Hill, 88; Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch. 538, 5 L. ed. 1001. The mere fact that the counsel himself only regarded the communication as a merely casual conversation ADMISSIONS. 451 is of no account (Moore v. Bray, 10 Pa. 519; 1 Best, Ev. (Amer- ican Notes by H. G. Wood) 329, note; Coveney v. Tannahill, Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, supra). The privilege is the privi- lege of the client, and the attorney cannot testify, even if he is willing to do so, without the consent of his client. Wélson v. Ras- tall, 4 T. R. 759; 1 Phil. Ev. 163; Bull. N. P. 284; Chirac v. Reinicker, 24 U. 8. 11 Wheat. 280, 6 L. ed. 474; Rhoades v. Sel.in, 4 Wash. C.C. 718; Jenkinson v. State, 5 Black. 465; dur- ray v. Dowling, 1 Cranch, O.C. 151; People v. Atkinson, 40 Cal. 284; 1 Best, Ev. (American Notes by H. G. Wood) 328, 329, notes. b. Considered Confidential.—The principle upon which these: communications are protected from disclosure applies to every attempt to give them in evidence, without the assent thereto of the person making them. That principle is, that he who seeks aid or advice of a lawyer, ought to be altogether free from the dread that his secrets will be uncovered; to the énd that he may speak freely and fully all that isin hismind. Now this principle is not wholly kept, if what is thus said may be told without his assent, though to the immediate harm or help of another only. The disclosure is made, his secret is bruited, and he has it no longer in his power to stay it from use by any in strife with him, just as much when given in testimony against another as against him. It is not, indeed, put directly in evidence against him to his im- mediate harm or help of another only, but that thing, the knowl- edge of which was confined to him and his adviser, has become matter of common knowledge, and may be the cause of harm to him. The effect may not be so direct and immediate, yet it is a possible effect, and the foreseen possibility would press upon his lips, when in consultation with his legal adviser, nearly as heavily as if testimony of what he showed to his counsel could be called out in evidence against himself. A branch of the rule, to wit: that the communication is to be inviolate, though no suit be be- gun or contemplated, shows that though there is no present use of the evidence of it against him, the communication is made un- der the seal of professional confidence. And it is but a further natural growth of the rule, that the communication is to be priv- ileged from being put in evidence for or against another, lest it, by means of the knowledge of it thus given be used to harm for the sustaining or defense of a suit thereafter begun in which he may be made a party. Bacon v. Frisbie, 80 N. Y. 400 (Folger, J. 452 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. But it is a rule of very extensive application, that where the admission or communication are made in the presence of all the parties to the controversy, they are not privileged but the evi- dence is competent between such parties. Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N.Y, SL. This subject naturally blends with that of “Privileged Com- munications,’ and receives due attention in another chapter of this work. § 239. Admissions by or to Husband or Wife. a. Rule as Grounded in Marriage Relation.—Admissions of a husband or wife as against the other are not evidence merely by force and virtue of the marriage relation. -One may lawfully act as the agent of the other, in which case the admissions will be admissible as against either. And the question as to the author- ization of either party to so act, and the extent of the power de- legated are always questions of fact to be determined by evidence. Admissions made by one against the other are not evidence merely because the marriage relation enforces certain rights and liabili- ties or disabilities; nor does the conjugal relationship imply or impute any necessary grade or agency. Evidence of statements made by a husband concerning his wife’s claim to certain lands in controversy is grossly incompetent in any absence of evidence that he spoke by her authority. Zowles v. Fisher, 77 N. C. 487. Where the evidence shows that the husband has directly or tacitly conferred upon the wife the relations and incidents of agency, he is concluded by her acts or admission made within the legitimate scope of the agency he has created. Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Tinsley, 75 Mo. 458; Gebhart v. Burkett, 57 Ind. 378; Cantrell v. Colwell, 3 Head, 471; Lang v. Waters, 47 Ala. 624; Rochelle v. Harrison, 8 Port. (Ala.) 351; Colgan v. Philips, 7 Rich. L. 859; Carey v. Adkins, 4 Campb. 92; Emerson v. Blon- den, 1 Esp. 142; Clifford v. Burton, 1 Bing. 199; Pickering v. Pickering, 6 N. H. 120; Peck v. Ward, 18 Pa. 506; Chamberlain v. Davis, 33 N. H. 121; Riley vy. Suydam, 4 Barb. 222; Ripley y. Mason, Dill & D. Supp. 66; Machinley v. MP? Gregor, 3 Whart. 369; Murphy v. Hubert, 16 Pa. 50; Barr v. Greenawalt, 62 Pa. 172; Stall v. Meck, 70 Pa. 181. Either may act as agent for the other, with or without com- pensation; and the husband’s creditors, where he so uses his skill without an agreement for remuneration, are not thereby de- ADMISSIONS. 453 frauded. See generally, wife as husband’s agent, 31 Alb. L. J. 206, 207, cases; he as her agent, with compensation, 30 Alb. L. J. 444, 445, cases; without compensation, Hing v. Voos, 14 Or. 91, cases. It was at one time a mooted question in the courts, whether the common law disabilities of the wife were so far modified, as to permit her to manage her estate through the intervention of agents and employees; but it is now entirely settled that she ac- quired, in this respect, the usual rights incident to absolute own- ership, and that she could avail herself of any agency, even that of her husband, with the same effect as if they were not united in marriage. Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600. The agency existing between husband and wife should in all instances be established. Conclusive evidence, however, is not required and it may be disclosed by inferential circumstances. Fisher v. Conway, 21 Kan. 18; Whetescarver v. Bonney, 9 Iowa, 480; Southern L. Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 58 Ga. 535; Continental Ins. Co. v. Delpeuch, 82 Pa. 225; Gilson v. Gilson, 16 Vt. 464; Benford v. Sanner, 40 Pa. 9; Second Nat. Bank v. Miller, 2 Thomp. & C. 104; Butler v. Price, 115 Mass. 578. b. What Necessary to Charge the Husband.—In order -to charge the husband with the admissions of his wife, some authoriza- tion actually conferred or necessarily inferable from the surrounding circumstances must be shown. Rochelle v. Harrison, 8 Port. (Ala.) 351. The case of Lay Grae v. Peterson, 2 Sandf. 338, establishes the proposition stated in the text, and it is our authority for holding that except where the agency is established the admis- sions of the wife cannot bind the husband or be used against him. Admissions of a wife after a separation are competent evidence for the husband in a case in which her relation is that of mutual agent for him and a third person. Fenner v. Lewis, 10 Johns. 38. The declaration of the husband that he is not a married man, made in promiscuous conversations having no relation to his wife, are inadmissible in reference to his marriage. Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl, 8 Abb. Pr. N.S. 5. The declarations of a wife that she will not live with her husband have been held admissible in favor of the husband, in an action against him for necessaries furnished to her. Usher v. Holleman, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 99. The criminal features of all admissions made by either husband 454 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. or wife will receive exhaustive treatment in another volume of this work. § 233. Admissions of Parties to Promissory Notes. a. Usually Inadmissible Against Purchaser.—Admissions of a party to a promissory note, although made after the maturity of the same, and while it was in his possession, are inadmissible against a purchaser for value; but otherwise if made before he parted with his interest in the note. Clews v. Kehr, 90 N. Y. 633. An acknowledgment made by the maker of a note to one who once held it as indorsee will inure to the benefit of the holder (McRae v. Kennon, 1 Ala. 295); so the declarations made by the payee of a negotiable promissory note while he owns and holds it, are inadmissible in evidence against one to whom it is subsequently transferred for value, even though the transfer is made after maturity. Paige v. Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361. The case last cited holds that the vendee or assignee must be a pur- chaser for value in order to make the declaration inadmissible and this must be regarded as an essential portion of the rule, and it has been directly held that the declarations of the prior holder of a promissory note transferred after maturity are admissible against an indorsee where the latter is a holder for value. Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548. b. Rule in Paige v. Cagwin.—The case of Paige v. Cagwin, 7 Hill, 861, has been repeatedly cited as an authority upon this proposition, and must be regarded as conclusively establishing the principle under review; it was a suit by an indorsee against one of the makers of a joint and several promissory note transferred for value after maturity to the plaintiff. On the trial the defend- ant offered to prove the declarations of the payee of the note made while he was the holder, to establish that the defendant exe- cuted the note as a mere surety for one of his co-makers, and an agreement between the payce and the principal debtor after the note was made, extending the time of payment. The evidence was rejected, and the ruling was approved by the New York supreme court, and the judgment of that court was aftirmed by the Court of Errors. The opinion of Senvtor Lott in the Court of Errors, contains an elaborate review of authorities bearing upon that question, The learned reporter in the syllabus of the ease, states as a proposition decided that declarations made by the payee of a negotiable promissory note while he owned and holds ADMISSIONS. 455 it, are not admissible against one to whom it is subsequently transferred for value, though the transfer is made after maturity. The qualification as above indicated, that the vendee or assignee must be a purchaser for value in order to make the declaration admissible was directly adjudicated in Brisbane v. Pratt, 4 Denio, 63, where it was held that the declarations of a prior holder of a promissory note transferred after maturity are admissible against ‘nis indorsee, where the latter is not a holder for value. In James v. Chalmers, 6 N. Y. 209, this case was questioned upon another point decided that the presumption that an indorsee of a note isa holder for value does not exist where it is shown that he took it after maturity, but the decision on the other point was questioned in Green v. Givan, 33 N. Y. 369, The case of Brisbane v. Pratt decided with approval upon the point that the plaintiff must be a holder for value in order to exclude the declarations of & prior party in interest from whom he derives his title. See also in further support of the proposition of the text, Van (elder v. Van Gelder, 81 N. Y. 625; Truaw v. Slater, 86. N. Y. 680; City Bank of Brooklyn v. McChesney, 20 N. Y. 240; Beach v. Wise, 1 Hill, 612; WaAztaker v. Brown, 8 Wend. 490. The rule is the same, although the payee is dead at the time his declarations are offered in evidence. Beach v. Wise, 1 Hill, 612. See Dodge v. Freedman’s Sav. & T. Co. 98 U.S. 379, 23 L. ed. 920. The decisions we have enumerated embody this proposition. A holder for value of a negotiable paper cannot be affected by declarations or admissions of the maker or indorsers of the note made after he became the holder and owner. Admissions made by the payee of a promissory note through whom the plaintiff derives title as indorsee, are not evidence to change the maker, although his admission made on a previous day in this charge of the maker had been given in evidence by the latter; the latter admission not being in the same conversation. Perry v. Graves, 12 Ala. 246; Clark v. Peabody, 22 Me. 500. c. Review of Authorities.—Hanley v. Erskine, 19 Dl. 265; Fledger v. Horton, 3 Car. & P.179; Rand v. Dodge, 17 N. H. 343; Topping v. Van Pelt, 1 Hotim. Ch. 545, 6 L. ed. 1239; Currier v. Gale, 14 Gray, 504; Criddle v. Criddie, 21 Mo. 522; Mitchell v. Welch, 17 Pa. 339; Sylvester v. Crapo, 15 Pick. 92; Camp v. Walker, 5 Watts, 482; Shaw v. Broom, 4 Dowl. & R. 730; Wool- 456 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL OASES. way v. Rowe, 1 Ad. & El. 116; Barough v. White, 4 Barn. & C. 395; Fisher v. True, 38 Me. 534; Scammon v. Scanumon, 33 N. H. 52; Earl v. Clute, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 1; Porter v. Rea, 6 Mo. 48; Thorp v. Goewey, 85 Ill. 611; Sharp v. Smith, T Rich. L. 3; Glanton v. Griggs, 5 Ga. 424; Matthews v. Houghton, 10 Me. 420; Dunn v. Snell, 15 Mass. 481; Pitch v. Chapman, 10 Conn. 8; Smith v. Schanck, 18 Barb. 344; Kent v. Walton, 7 Wend. 256; Whitaker v. Brown, 8 Wend. 490; Weidman v. Kohr, 4 Serg. & R.174; Eckert v. Cameron, 43 Pa. 120; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 489. It is settled by a formidable array of authority that a bona fide holder of negotiable paper taking for value before maturity and without notice of outstanding equities is entitled to protection, and a party seeking to impugn the character of his holding must pro- duce satisfactory evidence that through participation in some fraudulent scheme of transfer the character of this holding is tainted with fraud. Worcester County Bank v. Dorchester & M. Bank, 10 Cush.488; Wyer v. Dorchester & M. Bank, 11 Cush. 51; Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110; Pond v. Waterloo Agr. Works, 50 Iowa, 600; Lake v. Reed, 29 Iowa, 258; Gage v. Sharp, 24 Iowa, 19; Adwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 483; Comstock v. Hannah, 76 IU. 5380; Murray v. Beckwith, 81 Il. £3; Johnson v. Way, 27 Ohio St. 874; Frank v. Lilienfield, 33 Gratt. 390; Wette v. Wel- liams, 8 8. C. 290; Citizens Nat. Bank v. Hooper, 47 Md. 88; Spooner v. Holmes, 102 Mass. 503; Smeth v. Lwingston, 111 Mass. 842; Hreeman’s Nat. Bank v. Savery, 127 Mass. 75; Carroll v- Hayward, 124 Mass. 120; Stimson v. Whitney, 130 Mass. 591; Hellogg v. Curtis, 69 Me. 212; Farrell v. Lovett, 68 Me. 326; Hamilton v. Vought, 34 N. J. L.190; Brush v. Scribner, 11 Conn. 388; Craft?s App. 42 Conn. 146; Rowland v. Fowler, 47 Conn. 347; Phelan v. Moss, 67 Pa. 62; MeSparran v. Neeley, 91 Pa. 17; Lilicott v. Afartin, 6 Md. 509; Commercial & F. Nat. Bank v. first Nat. Bank, 50 Ma. 11. Evidence is pertinent which tends to show the purchase of mercantile paper before due from one who is apparently the owner and for which an adequate consideration is paid. In such case the purchaser obtains a good title though he may know the facts and circumstances that would cause one of ordinary prudence to suspect that the person from whom he obtained it had no inter- est in it; he can lose his right only by actual notice or bad faith. Swift v. Smith, 102 U. 8. 442, 26 L. ed. 193, ADMISSIONS. 457 As regards the purchaser’s suspicions being evidence of some knowledge infecting the transaction with fraud, see Scidmore v. Clark, 47 Conn. 20. d. Summary of the Juridical View.—As a summary of the juridical view adopted upon this subject we append the follow- ing as sufficiently characteristic : “One who purchases commercial paper for full value before maturity, without notice of any equities between the original par- ties, or of any defect of title, is to be deemed a bona fide holder. He is not bound, at his peril, to be upon the alert for: circum- stances which might possibly excite the suspicions of wary vigi- lance. He does not owe to the party who puts negotiable paper afloat, the duty of active inquiry, to avert the imputation of bad faith. The rights of the holder are to be determined by the sim- ple test of honesty and good faith, and not by a speculative issue as to his diligence or negligence. The authority mainly relied on in support of the opposite theory is the case of Gill v. Cubitt, 3 Barn. & OC. 466. The doctrine of that case has been repeatedly overruled, as well in the English as in the American courts; and it cannot be recognized as authority without an innovation in our system of commercial law, fraught with infinite mischief and uncertainty. Crook v. Jadis, 5 Barn. & Ad. 909; Backhouse v. Harrison, 5 Barn. & Ad. 1098; Goodman v. Harvey, 4 Ad. & El. 870; Raphael v. Bank of England, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 276; Stein- hart v. Boker, 34. Barb. 436; Goodman y. Simonds, 61 U.S. 20 How. 848, 15 L. ed. 934; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 63 U.S. 22 How. 96, 16 L. ed. 323; Murray v. Lardner, 69 U. 8.2 Wall. 110, 17 L. ed. 857.” § 234. “ Acceptance ”’ Defined. a. Relation to Law of Evidence.—The term “acceptance” as understood by the law merchant, imports an engagement to pay a bill of exchange according to its tenor, but there is another signi- ficance inherent in the term. It is an admission that the drawer’s handwriting is genuine, and hence the acceptor is debarred from offering evidence which controverts this presumption of the law. It is pertinent to state that in a treatise of this nature a system of cross-reference is indispensable, as it is obviously impossible to exhaust the treatment of any one topic which calls strenuously for extended reference under a kindred topic further on. The prac- titioner in the immediate topic under review, will find valuable 458 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. scholia embodied in the chapters entitled “Preswmptions” and “Parol Evidence,” to vary terms of written instrument. b. Acceptor as Principal Debtor.—It can scarcely be too frequently repeated that in the particular contract created by a bill.of exchange, the acceptor is regarded as the principal debtor or contractor, while the drawer and indorsers are looked upon as his sureties, and this mode of considering the subject ought to be kept steadily in view, in as much as it will not merely facilitate a comprehension of the forms of pleadings applicable to bills, but must also conduce to a right appreciation of the liabilities of the various parties whose names are attached to such instruments, The drawee named in a bill of exchange is not legally a party to it until he acceptsit. The act of acceptance, however, is like the mak- ing of a promissory note; the acceptor then becomes the principal debtor, and he is then liable to pay the amount mentioned in the bill to the payee or holder thereof when it becomes due. And he will be liable to a person who in good faith and for value, dis- counted the bill before acceptance, with knowledge that it was to be accepted for the accomodation of the drawer. First Vat. Bank v. Schuyler, 7 Jones & 8. 440; Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90; Hamilton v. Catchings, 58 Miss. 92; Smith v. Muncie Nat. Bank, 29 Ind. 158; Cow v. National Bank of New York, 100 U. 8. 712, 25 L. ed. 741; Chitty, Bills, (13th Am. ed.) 342; Bayley, Bills, (5th ed.) 154. ce. What Drawee Admits by Acceptance.—In accepting a bill the drawee admits the genuineness of the drawer’s signature, for he is presumed to know the signature of one who calls on him to pay out money for him, and he is therefore estopped from show- ing, in any action against him, that the drawer’s signature was a forgery. Wélkinson v. Lutwidge, 1 Strange, 648; Jenys v. Fuw- ler, 2 Strange, 946; Smith v. Chester, 1 T. R. 654; Leach v. Bu chanan, & Esp, 226; Price v. Neale, 3 Burr. 1354; Simuderson v. Collman, 4 Man. & G. 209; Wilkinson v. Johnson, 3 Barn. & C. 428; Bank of United States vy. Bank of Georgia, 23 UL 8. 10 Wheat. 333, 6 L. ed. 334; Lortsman vy. Lenshaw, 52 U2 8.11 How, 177, 18 L. ed. 653; Hoffman v. National City Bank of Milwaukee, 79 UL 8. 12 Wall. 198, 2:0 L. ed. 860: Bank of Com merce v. Union Bank, 8 N. Y. 230; Goddard v. Merchants? Bank, 4 N.Y. 147; National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 46 N.Y. 77; White v. Oontinental Nat. Bank, 64 N.Y. 316; ADMISSIONS. 459 Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287; Levy v. Bank of United States, 1 Binn. 27; Ellis v. Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. 4 Ohio St. 628; Whitney v. Bunnell, 8 La. Ann. 429; Peoria & O. R. Co. v. Neill, 16 Il. 269. d. Admission of Agent’s Signature.—The acceptance admits the agent’s signature and authority to sign for the drawer, where the bill was drawn by procuration ([obinson v. Yarrow, 7 Taunt. 455, 1 Moore, 150; Chitty, Bills, 717; 1 Parsons N. & B. 822; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 537); but it has been claimed in a late case, with much show of reason therefor, that the drawee is only estopped from denying the agent’s signature and authority, in any action, by a bona fide transfer; and that the estoppel does not apply to actions by the original payee. e. That Drawee has Funds of Drawer.—The drawee also by acceptance admits that he has in his possession funds of the drawer, wherewith to pay the draft, and he is not permitted to deny this fact in any suit by the holder of the bill. abory v. Peyton, 15 U. 8. 2 Wheat. 385, 4 L. ed. 258; Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90; Byrd v. Bertrand, 7 Ark. 327; Hortsman v. Hen- shaw, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 177, 138 L. ed. 653; Hastin v. Succession of Osborn, 26 La. Ann. 153; Hoffman v. National City Bank of Milwaukee, 79 U. 8. 12 Wall. 181, 20 L. ed. 366; Aendall v. Galvin, 15 Me. 131; Gallilan v. Afyers, 31 Ill. 525; Hemble v. Lull, 3 MeLean, 272; Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90; Jordan v. Tarkington, 4 Dev. L. 357; Marsh v. Low, 55 Ind. 271; Byrne v. Schwing, 6 B. Mon. 199. But as against the drawer, it is only prima facie evidence that the drawee had such funds in his possession, and it may be re- butted by any proper testimony. Darnell v. Williams, 2 Stark. 145; Parker v. Lewis, 39 Tex. 394; Turner v. Browder, 5 Bush, 216; Pomeroy v. Tanner, 70 N. Y. 547; Hidden v. Waldo, 55 N.Y. 294. f. That Drawee has Capacity to Draw Bill.—The drawee’s acceptance admits likewise the drawer’s capacity to draw the bill, so that he will be estopped from proving for the purpose of de- feating the bill, that the drawer was under a legal disability be- cause of infancy (Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187; Jones v. Darch, 4 Price, 300), or bankruptey (Braithwaite v. Gardiner, 8 Q. B. 473; Pitt v. Chappelow, 8 Mees. & W. 616), or for any other rea- son, such as that the drawer was a married woman (Smith v. Mar- 460 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. K sack, 6 C. B. 486; Cowton v. Wickersham, 54 Pa. 802); ora fictitious person (Cooper v. Meyer, 10 Barn. & CO. 468; Ashpitel v. Bryan, 32 L. J. Q. B. 91, 3 Best & S. 474); or a corporation without authority to draw. Halifax v. Lyle, 3 Exch. 446. g. That Firm is in Existence.—If the bill is drawn in the name of a firm, it admits the existence of such a firm (Bass v. Clive, 4 Maule & 8. 13), and if drawn by one signing himself as. executor or administrator, it admits his right to sign in that capacity. Aspinwall v. Wake, 10 Bing. 51. The acceptance in the same manner, admits the capacity of the payee to indorse when the bill is drawn payable to his order, for by his acceptance he agrees to pay to the order of the payee. He cannot, therefore, set up the defense that the payee was incapaci- tated by law to indorse. Jones v. Darch, 4 Price, 300; Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187; Smith v. Marsack, 6 C. B. 486; Drayton. v. Dale, 2 Barn. & C. 293. See Peaslee v. Robbins, 3 Met. 164. § 235. What Not Admitted by Acceptance. a. Genuineness of Payee’s Signature.—The acceptor does. not admit the genuineness of the payee’s signature, where the bill has been indorsed. If, therefore, the signature is forged, the acceptor will not be bound to pay the bill to the holder. “The plaintiffs as drawees of the bill were only held to ac- knowledge the signature of their correspondents; by accepting and paying the bill, they only vouched for the genuineness of such signatures, and were not held toa knowledge of the want. of genuineness or any part of the instrument, or of any other names appearing thereon, or of the title of the holder.” Allen, J.,in White v. Continental Nat. Bunk, 64 N. Y. 320; Holt v. Loss, 54 N. Y. 474; Welliams v. Drewel, 14 Md. 566; Hortsman v. Henshaw, 52 U. 8. 11 How. 177,18 L. ed. 653; Robdarts v. Tucker, 16 Q. B. 560; Smith v. Chester, 1 T. R. 654. If he has paid the bill on the faith of the genuineness of the payee’s signa- ture, he may recover the money back. Cunal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287; Willams v. Dreael, 14 Md. 566; Dick v.. Leverich, 11 La. 573. b. Of Agent’s Indorsement.—For the same reason he does not vouch for the genuineness of an agent’s indorsement, or for his authority to indorse for the payee. Robinson v. Yarrow, 7 Taunt. 455, Park, /.: The mere weeptance proves the draw- ADMISSIONS. 461 ing, but it never proves the indorsement; it is not at all necessary that a power given to draw bills by procuration should enable the agent to indorse by procuration; the first is a power to get funds into the agent’s hands, the other to pay them out.” See also Prescott v. Flynn, 9 Bing. 19. c. Nor that Bill Drawn Payable to Drawer’s Order.— The acceptance does not admit the genuineness of the payee’s in- dorsement, even when the bill is drawn payable to the drawer’s order, and the indorsement appears in the handwriting of the drawer. Robinson v. Yarrow, 7 Taunt, 455; Garland v. Jacomb, L. R. 8 Exch. 216; Beeman v. Duck, 11 Mees. & W. 257; Canal Bank v. Bank of Albany, 1 Hill, 287; Wellsams v. Drewel, 14: Md. 566. See contra, Burgess v. Northern Bank, 4 Bush, 600. But if the drawer is a fictitious person and the bill is made payable to the draweyr’s order, the acceptor is bound to pay to the order of the person who drew the bill. Cooper v. Meyer, 10 Barn. & C. 468; Beeman v. Duch, 11 Mees. & W. 251. d. Nor Rody of the Bill.—Again the acceptor does not admit the genuineness of the body of the bill, so that if the terms have been altered without authority, the acceptor isnot bound by them, and can refuse to pay the altered bill. Young v. Grote, 4 Bing. 953; Hall v. Fuller, 5 Barn. & C. 150; Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N.Y. 67; White v. Continental Nat. Bank, 64 N.Y. 320; Young v. Lehman, 68 Ala. 519; Espy v. Bank of Cincinnati, 85.U. 8. 18 Wall. 604, 21 L. ed. 947. If he has paid the bill according to its altered terms, he could recover back the excess over the amount of the altered bill (Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N.Y. 230), unless the alteration was rendered possible by the negligence of the drawer; in such a case the acceptor would be bound for the whole amount, and could not recover back any part of it, since the drawer would be bound for the whole amount to him. Van Duzer v. Howe, 21 N. Y. 531. The same rule prevails when the drawer alters the bill himself or acquiesces in its alteration. Langton v. Lazarus, 5 Mees. & W. 628; Ward v. Allen, 2 Met. 57. See generally on this topic Tiedeman, Com. Paper, § 230. § 236. Admissions in Pleading and on the Trial.— Where the parties mutually agree upon a statement of facts and submit the legal questions arising thereon to court adjudica- tion, the admission will be conclusive for that purpose. 462 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. a. Facts Admitted Regarded as True.—So, facts admitted by the pleadings are to be taken as true. A fact thus admitted need not be proved ( Walrod v. Bennett, 6 Barb. 145); and no. evidence is admissible to contradict an admission thus made upon the record. Crosbie v. Leary, 6 Bosw. 318; Bridge v. Payson, 5 Sandf. 210; Robbins v. Codman, 4 E. D. Smith, 315; Van Dyke v. Maguire, 57 N. Y. 429. “That what the parties have agreed to in their pleading shall-be admitted though the jury find other- wise,” is an ancient rule not to be departed from, except in cases. where an amendment has been ordered. Van Dyke v. Maguire, supra, T Bac. Abr. 459. Where an admission in the pleading of the adverse party is alone relied upon to establish a fact, any statements made in con- nection with the admission of another fact, which would nullity the effect of the admission, must also be held as established; the whole of the statement must be taken and construed together. Gildersleeve v. Landon, 73 N. Y¥. 609. This rule will not, how- ever, prevent the party claiming the benefit of the admission from disproving the fact so alleged in connection with it. So far as the statement is not disproved, it is effectual; so far as it is shown to be untrue, it is of no avail. bid. An admission of a legal conclusion is not binding on the court). Cutting v. Lincoln, 9 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 436, 3 Wait, L. & Pr. [5th ed.] 396); and where an absolute and unqualified admission is made in a-pending cause, whether by written stipulation of the attorney or asa matter of proof on the hearing, it cannot be retracted on a. subsequent trial unless by leave of the court. Oren v. Cuwley, 36 N. Y. 600; Holley v. Young, 68 Me. 215, 28 Am. Rep. 40; Doe v. Bird, 7 Car. & P. 6. Whatever is admitted by 3 pleading cannot be contradicted in a subsequent pleading, nor upon the trial, nor in a finding. Cleaveland v. Hatch, 25 Hun, 308; Paige v. Willet, 38 N.Y. 2s. A party who fails to call attention at the trial to an implied admission in his favor in the pleadings, will not afterwards be permitted to avail himself of their benefit, even when overlooked by the court in consequence. Wv/7iams v. Hayes, 20 N. Y. 58. Testimony given by a party on a former trial, during which he was examined as a witness for the adverse party, and which is directly contrary to his testimony in a second suit, may be given in evidence as an admission, Lichwrd v. Collins, 23 Barb. 44. ADMIS3IONS. 463. See generally on this topic, 3 Wait, L. & Pr. 84; 1 Rumsey, Pr. (1887) 272. b. Practice Rule Thirty-Eight. Practice rule thirty-eight for the courts of equity for the United States, provides: “If the plaintiff shall not reply to any plea, or set down any plea or demurrei for argument, on the rule day when same is filed, or on the next succeeding rule day, he shall be deemed to admit the truth and sufficiency thereof, and his bill shall be dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court shall allow him further time for the purpose.” An admission that a deed was executed is an admission that it was signed, sealed and executed delivered. Thorp v. Keokuk Coul Co, 48 N. Y. 253; Churchill v. Gardner, 7 T. R. 592; Bin- ney v. Plumley, 5 Vt. 500. If the answer does not deny the allegations of a complaint. which shows a cause of action, plaintiff may recover without evi- dence. Bucon v. Cropsey, TN. Y. 195. An answer that plaintiff received the note as collateral from. one to whom it was entrusted for a specific purpose, and that other parties ciaim it, does not deny the allegation of ownership. in plaintiff. Dfoody v. Andrews, 7 Jones & 8. 302; Affd, 64 Ny Y. 641. An admission by an indorser of the making, indorsement and transfer of a note does not contravene a denial of considera- tion or prevent proof that the indorsement was lent. Powers v. French, 1 Wun, 582. A defendant who does not answer is not to be taken as admitting anything in an answer of a co-defendant. Woodworth v. Bellows, 4 How. Pr. 24.1 Code Rep. (N. Y.) 29, Welles, 7. ce. Provisions of New York Code. As to admissions by new matter, see authorities collated in 1 Bliss’ New York Annotated Code, 266. Each material allegation of the complaint not controverted by the answer, and each material allegation of new matter in the answer, not controverted by the reply, where a reply is required, must, for the purposes of the action, be taken as true. The New York Code, § 522, gives to such omission the force of a formal admission, and makes it conclusive as such upon the parties and upon the court. Fleischmann v. Stern, 90 N.Y. 111. A party who admits by his pleading that which establishes the 464 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. plaintiffs rights will not be suffered to deny its existence or prove a state of facts inconsistent with that admission. It is not necessary to read the pleadings in evidence to enable a party to avail himself of an admission therein. Dunham v. Cudlipp, 94 N. Y. 129. Walrod v. Bennett, 6 Barb. 145. d. Admissions of Attorneys on the Trial. The admissions of an attorney or counsellor on the trial of a case is evidence against the party represented by him, if it is done for the purpose of obviating the necessity of proving some fact on the trial or for convenience as to some matter of practice. Chambers v. Mason, 5 C0. B. N.S. 59. In some cases such admissions are conclusive and may be given in evidence upon a new trial, although prior to such trial the party gave notice that he intends to withdraw them, or though the pleadings are altered, provided the alterations do not relate to the admissions. Langley v. Oxford, 1 Mees. & W. 508. As in other instances the admission of an attorney in order to conclude his client must be intended and understood as an admis- sion; it must be within the scope of the authority usually dele- gated to an attorney at law in conducting legal proceedings. Beyond this the authority of the attorney does not extend and statements made by counsel in summing up a case which are beyond and outside of his authority to make, cannot be given in evidence upon another trial, especially if it does not appear that his client was present and heard the statement made. Adee v. Howe, 15 Hun, 20; Wessbrod v. Chicago & NV. W.-R. Co. 20 Wis. 420. It may be stated as a general rule that in the absence of fraud the acts and admissions of the attorney are binding upon his client (Sampson v. Ohleyer, 22 Cal. 200; Chambers v. Hiudges, 23 Tex. 104); and unless an attorney be so situated as to excite the suspicion of the court his authority will not be questioned. Taliaferro v. Porter, Wright (Ohio) 611. Nor is an admission in the answer of one available against the other. Swift v. Kingsley, 24 Barb. 541. An admission made by an attorney, on the trial, is evidence against his client in that action, if it is done to save the necessity of proving some fact on the trial, or for convenience as to some matter of practice. Chambers v. Mason, 5 C. B. N. 8. 59; Haller v. Worman, 9 C. B. N.S. 802; Colledye v. Horn, 3 Bing. 119; ADMISSIONS. 465 Talbot v. M’ Gee, 4 T. B. Mon. 377; Pike v. Emerson, 5 N. H. 398; Alton v. Gilmanton, 2 N. H. 488. The admissions of attorneys of record bind their clients in all matters relating to the progress and trial of the cause; but to this end they must be distinct and formal, or such as are termed solemn admissions, made for the express purpose.of alleviating the stringency of some rule of practice, or of dispensing with the formal proof of some fact at the trial. In such cases they are in general conclusive, and may be given in evidence, even upon a new trial (1 Greenl. Ev. § 186; Gregory v. Parker, 1 Campb. 394; Palethorp v. Furnish, 2 Esp. 511, note; Clifford v. Burton, 1 Bing. 199, 8 Moore, 16; Petty v. Anderson, 3 Bing. 170; Cotes vy. Davis, 1 Campb. 485); but other admissions which are mere matters of conversation with an attorney, though they relate to the facts in controversy, cannot be received in evidence against hisclient. Young v. Wright, 1 Campb. 139-141; Elion v. Larkins, 1 Mood. & R. 196; Doe v. Richards, 2 Car. & K. 216; Watson v. King, 3 C. B. 608. If the admission is made before suit, it is equally binding, pro- vided that it appear that the attorney was already retained to appear in the cause. Marshall v. Cliff, 4 Campb. 133. § 237. Admissions of Third Parties.—There are some in- stances in which a party is bound by the statements or admissions of a third person; usually such statements or admissions apply to other matters than those connected with pleadings in a civil cause. Still, under rare instances, the rule stated as follows may apply: ‘Where a party is applied to for information in relation to an uncertain or disputed matter, and he refers the applicant to a third party, the answers of such third person will be competent evidence against the party making such reference. Welliam v. Innes, 1 Campb. 364-366, note; Hood v. Reeve, 3 Car. & P. 532; Bedell v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co. 3 Bosw. 147; Wehle v. Spelman, 1 Hun, 634. The rule on this subject is that when a person refers to another for an answer on a particular subject, the answer is in general evi- dence against him, since he makes such third person his accredited agent for the purpose of giving the answer. Marcy, /., in Duval v. Covenhoven, 4 Wend. 561. The declarations of a third person referred to by a party are 30 466 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. not evidence against such party, unless strictly within the subject: matter in relation to which the reference is made. Jdid. § 238. Admissions of Former Owner of Land.—Declarations. of a deceased former owner of land are admissible, even though they make in his favor. Daggett v. Shaw, 5 Met. 223; Wood v.. Foster, 8 Allen, 24; Wiles v. Patch, 18 Gray, 254; Long v. Colton, 116 Mass. 414. Declarations of a party in disparagement of his title are admis- sible against him (Church v. Burghardt, 8 Pick. 327; Kellenbur- ger v. Sturtevant, 7 Cush. 465; Flagg v. Mason, 2 New Eng. Rep. 162, 141 Mass. 64); and the rule extends to declarations made by a former owner, under whom the present owner claims. Tyler v. Mather, 9 Gray, 177; Osgood v. Coates, 1 Allen, 77; Blake v. Hverett, 1 Allen, 248; Chapman v. Edmands, 8 Allen, 512; Pick- ering v. Reynolds, 119 Mass. 111; Simpson v. Div, 131 Mass. 179;. Rowell v. Doggett, 3 New Eng. Rep. 756, 143 Mass. 483; Holmes- v. Turners Falls Lumber Co. 6 L. R. A. 883, 150 Mass. 535. The admissions of the real party in interest, against the validity of a claim, though made before he became the owner of a claim, are admissible and competent as tending to prove a defense in a suit founded upon such claim; and it is error to limit the declara- tions to merely impeaching testimony. Com. v. Susquehanna & D. RB. Co. 1 L. BR. A. 225, 122 Pa. 306. The above decisions harmonize with the principles already estab- lished, and indicate the disposition of the courts to confine parties strictly, to the effect of such admissions as they see fit to make, which in many instances influence the actions of innocent third parties, and place them in compromising attitudes they would not otherwise assume, but for the impulse given to those actions. by the admissions made. a. Of Party in Possession of Land.—The admission of a per- son in possession of land made under a mistake of law, and which are wholly inconsistent with his written evidence of title, cannot be received for the purpose of destroying his title to the land, Hawley v. Bennett, 5 Paige, 104, 3 L. ed. 646. Declarations of one in possession of land in assertion of his own title are inad- missible, if not within the rule of the res geste. Tuttle v. Ball, 4 .N. Y. Week. Dig. 30. Whenever admissions of one having or claiming title to real estate would be competent against him, they are competent against persons subsequently deriving title through ADMISSIONS. 467 or from him. Chadwick v. Fonner, 69 N. Y. 404. The princi- ple upon which such evidence is received is that the declarant was so constituted that he probably knew the truth and his interests were such that he would not have made the admissions to the prejudice of his title, or possession, when they were true. The regard which one so situated would have to his own interest is considered sufficient security against a falsehood. In some of the states of the Union and in England the admissions of a prior owner, choses in action and other personal property characterizing or affecting his title are also admitted in evidence upon the same principle against those subsequently taking title from him. See Jackson v. Bard, 4 Johns. 230; Pitts v. Wilder, 1 N. Y. 525. b. Declarations of Grantor after Conveyance.—Declarations of a grantor of lands subsequent to the conveyance are not admis- sible against the grantee. Corl v. Corl, 6 N. Y. Week. Dig. 52. So a party who has parted with his right or interest in property or choses in action by an absolute sale and assignment to another person cannot by his subsequent admissions affect the right of the purchaser. Christie v. Bishop, 1 Barb. Ch. 105, 5 L. ed. 316. Where the purchaser of mortgaged premises had admitted the existence of a lien within twenty years, and promised to discharge the mortgage, it was held sufficient to rebut the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of time. Park v. Peck, 1 Paige, 477, 2 L. ed. 721. § 239. Admissions Implied from Conduct. a. Language and Demeanor Considered.—Admissions are frequently implied from the language and demeanor of the party making them; so, too, admissions may be implied from the ac- quiescence of the party; but to be given the force and effect of an admission the acquiescence must exhibit some decided act of the mind; an act that will amount to irresistible inference. It must appear that the party fully understood the language implied before any inference can be drawn from his passiveness or silence; as we have previously seen a party is not to be affected by state- ments, declarations and admissions made in a loose, rambling manner in his presence and under circumstances which do not properly allow of a reply; his surroundings may be such that a denial or a statement upon his part would be either impudent or useless, and the determining factor is, was he so situated as we can reasonably expect other men, under like circumstances to 468 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. make some protest or answer? His duty to speak out is largely governed by the correct apprehension of these facts; his situation is to be carefully considered, and before an admission can be im- puted to his silence it must distinctly appear that the emergency and surroundings were such as to preclude any: utterance on his part. b. Accounts Stated When Deemed an Admission.—The principles governing an account stated require that the person against whom the account is rendered shall dispute or object to any or all of the items embraced within the account within a rea- sonable time; his failure to object is rightly construed as an ad- mission, on his part, of correctness. An account stated or settled is a mere admission that the account is correct; it is not an estop- pel; the account is still open for impeachment for mistakes or er- rors. Its effect is to establish prima facie the accuracy of the items without other proof to the party seeking to impeach it, is bound to show affirmatively the mistake or error alleged. The force of the admission and the strength of the evidence which will be necessary to overcome it will depend upon the circum- stances of the case. An account stated, which is shown to have been examined by both parties and expressly assigned to or signed by them, without affording stronger evidence as to the correctness of its items than merely appearing that it had been delivered to the party or sent by mail acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to entitle it to be considered an account stated. See Cham- pion v. Joslyn, 45 N. Y. 653. c. Silence as Admission.—Declarations or statements made in the presence of a party are received in evidence, not as evidence in themselves, but to understand what reply the party to be ef- fected by the statement should make to the same. If he is silent when he ought to have spoken the presumption of acquiescence arises; in this sense, admissions may be implied from conduct. Gibney v. Marchay, 34 N. Y. 301. d. Passiveness as Admission.—Admissions may also be im- plied from the acquiescence of the party; but acquiescence, to have the effect of an admission, must exhibit some act of the mind, and amount to voluntary demeanor or conduct of the party. Whether it is acquiescence in the conduct or in the language of others, it must plainly appear that such conduct was fully understood by the party, before any inference can be drawn from ADMISSIONS. 469 his passiveness or silence. The circumstances, too, must be not only such as afford him an opportunity to act or speak, but such also as would properly and naturally call for some action or reply from men similarly situated. A party is not to be affected by state- ments made in his presence, under circumstances which do not properly allow a reply. In legal investigations, there is a regular- ity of proceedings which does not permit a party to interpose a denial how and when he pleases, as he would in a common con- versation; and, in such cases the same inferences are not to be drawn from his silence or his conduct, as would otherwise be done. Mfelen v. Andrews, 1 Mood. & M. 336; Rew v. Appleby, 3 Stark. 33; Broyles v..State, 47 Ind. 251; Walkins v. Stidger, 22 Cal. 231. But if the party does answer or make a reply, that may be given in evidence as an admission. Jones v. Morrell, 1 Car. & K. 266. So, a statement which is made in the plaintifi’s hearing, although not in his presence, is admissible in evidence if it is otherwise receivable. Nelle v. Jukle, 2 Car. & K. 709. The general rule that a declaration is good only as against the person making it, is subject to various limitations; and a statement by a person in the presence of his associates and acquiescence in by them, is admissible against them. JZathrop v. Bramhall, 8 Hun, 394, If a party, to whom a note bearing his name is shown with a request to pay it, is silent, his silence is competent evidence that his signature is genuine, or if not genuine, of his assent to be bound by it. Corser v. Paul, 41 N. H. 24. A refusal to pay a bill because another person should pay part, is admissible as an admission of the authority of the agent who accepted it. Jay v. Hewitt, 33 Ala. 161. e. Distinction Outlined.—A distinction is made between dec- larations made by a party and those made by a stranger. An omission to reply to the latter is not an implied admission of the truth of the statement, since the refusal to reply may be on ac- count of the impertinence of the person who made it, and who is rebuked by silence. Child v. Grace, 2 Car. & P. 193. If a reply is made, that may be given in evidence. Ldid. There may also be special circumstances calling for evidence on the part of the person to whom the conversation is addressed, which will prevent such silence from being construed as ad- mission of the truth of statements made by the stranger. Slattery v. People, 76 Tl. 217. 470 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. A statement made in the presence of a party to the action be- comes evidence, as showing that the party, on hearing such a statement, did not deny its truth. Such statements are received as evidence, not as evidence themselves, but to understand what reply the party to be affected by the statements shall have made to it. If he is silent when he ought to have denied, the presump- tion of acquiescence arises. Gibney v. Marchay, 34 N. Y. 301- 305. ¢ 240, Admission of Principal when Binding on Surety. a. Rationale of Rule.—Upon the most obvious principle of equity the surety whose obligation has been secured through cer- tain and positive averments of existing facts should not be affected or placed in any situation of disadvantage by reason of subsequent admission made by his principal. This is a general rule of recog- nized standing. It is, however, subject to the one qualification, viz., that where the admissions or statements are made by the principals at the time the transaction was under discussion that resulted in the surety’s connection with the case, then and in that event the admissions of the principal may be regarded as binding upon the surety. Dunn v. Slee, Holt, 399. Adjudications sustaining this proposition of the text, if not numerous, are at least convincing. In a nist privs case, Cutler y. Newlin, cited in 3 Stark. Ev. 1387, a most eminent judge, Holroyd, refused the admission of the principal in an indemnity bond going to show the amount of damage. In strict harmony with this decision are the cases of Hotchkiss v. Lyons, 2 Blackt. 222; Shelby v. Governor, 2 Blackt. 289; Beall v. Beck, 3 Harr. & McH. 242; Bacon v. Chesney, 1 Stark. 192. These cases all hold that the declarations of the principal bind the surety only when they are part of the ves geste in reference to which the surety has covenanted, but that his subsequent admissions, not part of the res geste, do not bind and are not competent evidence against the surety. It is a very clear proposition on principle and authority that sure- ties upon the bond of a public otticer are liable only for defaults committed by him after the commencement of the term of office for which they became his sureties, and that if it should so hap- pen that the same individual had previously held the same office under a prior appointment and conunitted the faults during the term of that appointment, those who were his sureties on such ADMISSIONS. 471 prior appointments must be looked to for such defaults, and not those who signed his bonds upon his reappointment. Their engagement is for his future and not for his past conduct, and it would be a gross imposition upon them in the absence of a special stipulation to that effect, to import into their undertaking the responsibility for prior delinquencies. This principle has been frequently recognized. Dyers v. United States, 1 McLean, 493; Farrar vy. United States, 830 U. 8. 5 Pet. 373, 8 L. ed. 159; United States v. Boyd, 40 U. 8. 15 Pet. 187, 10 L. ed. 706; Viv- dan v. Otis, 24 Wis. 518, 1 Am. Rep. 199; dahaska County v. Ingalls, 16 Iowa, 81. b. Rule as Between Parties.— Where certain persons as principals and others as sureties have bound themselves for the pay- ment of any deficiency remaining after the assets of a co-partner- ship had been applied to the payment of the firm debts, the admis- sions of the principal as to the amount of such deficiency made in the absence of the sureties are not evidence as against them. Horn v. Perry, 14 Hun, 409. Mr. Justice Nelson has embodied the sentiments of the United States Supreme Court on this ‘important topic in the following conclusive language: “ The sure- ties cannot be concluded by fabricated account of their principal with his creditors. They may always inquire into the realities and truth of the transactions existing between them. The prin- ciple has been asserted and been applied by this court in several eases.” § 241. Admissions of Former Owner of Personal Property. Former owners of personal property are frequently interested in the merits or demerits of some litigation that may occur inci- dental to its transfer; they are frequently offered as witnesses, and their admissions and declarations are sought to be established as affecting various parties in the suit. It is a well recognized rule of evidence that such admissions are not admissible as against the vendee, as to the title of the property sold. This principle receives full indorsement in the case of Hurd v. West, 7 Cow. 752. “The declaration or admission of a vendor of personal property, though made before sale, are not evi- dence against the vendee, but the vendor should be called as a witness.” Starkie, in his Treatise on Evidence, says the “ad- mission of an owner is sometimes evidence against one who claims through him.’ (4 Stark. Ev. 48.) This seems to 472 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. be an exception to the general rule, which is, I apprehend, against receiving the admission of a vendor, to affect the rights of a vendee, though such admissions be made previous to the sale. In trespass de bonis asportatis, by Ivat against Finch and another, the defendants claimed that they had rightfully taken the goods in question upon a heriot custom, as the goods of Alice: Watson, deceased, the tenant; and the only question was, whether she owned them at the time of her death. To prove that she did not, it was held that the plaintiff might show her declaration made sometime before her death, that she had sold them to him. Mans- field, Ch. J., said the admission was against her interest; and had the action been by the plaintiff against her, the admission would clearly be evidence; and ought, therefore, to be received against the defendants whose right depended upon her title. vat v- Finch, 1 Taunt. 141. The principle stated here is broad enough to let in such an admission, generally, against all claiming under an owner of personal property, if the admission be made previous to the time when the title of the claimant accrued. But the case itself is of an admission by a deceased owner. Her testimony could not be obtained; and her admission was therefore to be received as the next best evidence. That such was the principle of that case is the more probable from a previous nisi prius decision (Duckham v. Wallis, 5 Esp. 252) with which it would otherwise be at war. -That was an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. It was indorsed by Evans, the holder, when overdue; so that Evans stood as vendor, and the plaintiff as vendee, claiming no more than Evans’ rights. This was admitted; and to show that the defendant had, while Evans owned the bill, discharged and settled it with him in account, his (Evans’) declarations were offered in evidence against the plain- tiff. Lord Ellenborough held the evidence inadmissible. He said the fact of the bill having been paid when due, and settled in account, was easily proved by calling Evans himself, or by the evidence of third persons. But what Evans said was not the best evidence, when he himself could be called. It would be making the declarations of a third person evidence to affect the plaintiff's title when that party was not on the record, and therefore cou'd not be received. § 242. Admission of Assignor.—It is a logical and indeed a necessury corrollary of the principle sought to be established ADMISSIONS. 473 in the text, that an assignor, who has made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, cannot by his admissions furnish evi- dence of his own fraudulent intent, or that of his trustee. When such declarations or admissions are made out of court after the execution and delivery of the assignment and the entry of the trustees upon the performance of the trust by taking possession of the assigned property. Hanna v. Curtis, 1 Barb. Ch. 263, 5 L. ed. 378; Cuyler v. MeCurtney, 40 N. ¥. 221; Weinrich v. Porter, 47 Mo. 293. The New York Court of Appeals by Earl, J, in the case of Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630, holds that mere declara- tions of an assignor of a chose in action forming no part of any res geste are not competent to prejudice the title of his assignee. Whether the assignee be one for value or merely a trustee for creditors; and whether such declarations be antecedent or subse- quent to the assignment, the same court held that after the execution and delivery for the benefit of creditors, the assignor, for the pur- pose of defeating the claim of the trustees, to hold and administer the property according to the trust, cannot invalidate the assign- ment. J/r. Justice Finch has also held that evidence and the declarations of the assignor made after the assignment, acceptance and delivery of possession under it, were properly excluded. Coyne v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 886. It would be contrary to principle to permit a title to chattels or choses in action to be effected by the declarations of any third party made after its inception. Pheniv v. Dey, 5 Johns. 412; Doe v. Webber, 1 Ad. & El. 733. § 243, Admissions Made with View to Compromise. a. Statement of Lord Mansfield.—Admissions, declarations, etc., made an attempt to compromise suits are inadmissible against the party making them, as the statement of plaintiff that his attorney was interested in the claimn to show his interest in order to exclude him asa witness. Williams v. Thorp, 8 Cow. 201. It is the policy of the law to foster and encourage all designs hav- ing for their object the pacification of controversy and amicable adjustment of disputes. To this end, confidential overture designed to effect such a result are protected, and are not admis- sible in evidence as admissions. Cory v. Bretton, 4 Car. & P. 462. The rule is founded upon the most salutary principles and is stated by Zurd Mansfield thus: “It must be permitted to all men to buy their peace without prejudice to them should the ATA. LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. offer not succeed, such offers being made to stop litigation with- out regard to the question whether anything is due or not. That no advantage shall be taken of offers made by way of compromise, that a party may, with impunity, attempt to buy his peace are well established rules of law. Zaylor v. Jones, 2 Campb. 106; Laurence v. Hopkins, 13 Johns. 288, note, to which our reason and our feelings at once assent. But I am not prepared to admit that what a party may state as a fact, though the statement may be made in the course of a negotiation for a compromise, or may be connected with an offer to purchase peace, will not be as binding as if the fact had been disclosed in any way. If a man says to me, I do not admit that I owe you anything, but rather than be sued I will give you a hundred dollars, it would be most unjust to suffer me to avail myself of this offer to recover against him. But if he tells me, it is true, I justly owe you a hundred dollars, and will give you fifty if you will give up your debt, I apprehend there is no rule of law so absurd and unjust as to prevent my availing myself of my debtor’s confession, because he connected with it an offer of compromise.” b. Views of Mississippi Supreme Court.—The Mississippi, | _ Supreme Court in a recent case has held that where a condition accompanies the offer to compromise, such offer cannot be regarded as an admission (ead v. McLemore, 34 Miss. 110); and an offer to pay a debt in goods instead of money is not an offer to compromise. Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323. Evidence of the admission of a debt and an offer to confess judgment in a suit pending if time would be given for payment of a part of the debt does not come within the principle which excludes offers to pay by way of compromise upon a disputed claim or to buy peace, and is admissible. J/°.Viel v. Holbrook, 37 U.S. 12 Pet. 84, 9 L. ed. 1009. § 244, Admissions to Prove Partnership. a. Not Evidence After Debt Incurred.—Declarations of defendants sought to be charged as a partner, that he was not a partner, made to plaintiff after the partnership debt was incurred, are not evidence conclusive of the fact. Depositions which related to the declarations of such parties, that he was not such partner, not made in plaintiff’s presence are inadmissible. Zeller v. Patten, 61 U. 8. 20 Ilow. 125, 15 L. ed. 831, ADMISSIONS. 475 A declaration or admission by a person that he is a partner, is evidence against him, and will, as far as he is concerned, be evi- dence of the existence of the partnership. Therefore, words uttered or letters written in the course of commercial transac- tions, are constantly received in evidence, to charge the speaker or writer as a partner. De Berkom v. Smith, 1 Esp. 29; Gibbons v. Wilcow, 2 Stark. 39; Parker v. Barker, 3 Moore, 226; Shott v. Strealfield, 1 Mood. & M.9; Williams v. Mudie, 1 Car. & P. 158; Champlin v. Tilley, 3 Day, 306; Mitchell v. Roulstone, 2 Hall, 351; Zhommon v. Kalbach, 12 Serge. & R. 238; MeGregor v. Cleveland, 5 Wend. 477; Reynolds v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 282; McPherson v. Rathbone, 7 Wend. 216, 11 Wend. 96; Grant v. Shurter, 1 Wend. 148; Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend. 81; Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176; Whetney v. Lerris, 10 Johns..66. The mere acknowledgement of two partners that a third person was a co-partner, is not sufficient to charge him. Whztney v. Sterling, 14 Johns. 215; Meller v. AL’ Clenachan, 1 Yeates, 144; Corps v. Robinson, 2 Wash. ©. C. 888; MePherson v. Rathbone, 7 Wend. 216; Robbins v. Willard, 6 Pick. 464; Marten v. Kaf- Sroth, 16 Serg. & R. 120. b. Of General Reputation.— General reputation, standing alone and not offered in corroboration of facts and circumstances, is inadmissible in evidence to prove a partnership. Quere, whether it be admissible even as auxiliary evidence. Halkday v. Mce- Dougall, 20 Wend. 81; McPherson v. Rathbone, 11 Wend. 96; Gowan v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 176. Admissions or declarations of a person may be given in evi- dence against him, to show that he is a partner in the firm; but the declarations of one person, that another person is a partner, are not legal evidence as to the latter. They are evidence only against those who make them. Kirby v. Hewitt, 26 Barb. 607; Davidson v. Hutchins, 1 Hilt. 128. Such evidence is incompetent, except against declarant, unless in connection with other prima facie evidence that the other per- son was a partner with declarant, or authorized him to make the statement, or was aware of it and was silent. Pleasants v. Kant, 89 U. S. 22 Wall. 120, 22 L. ed. 782; Robins v. Warde, 111 Mass. 244; Donley v. Hall, 5 Bush, 549; Johnson v. Gallwan, 52 N. H. 143; Van Eps v. Dillaye, 6 Barb. 244; Bareroft v. Haworth, 29 Iowa, 462. The declaration does not really corroborate as 476 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. against the others, but it ceases to be error to receive it against them. Gardner v. Northwestern Mfg. Co. 52 Ill. 367. General reputation, common rumor, belief or opinion of witness founded on hearsay is not competent evidence of partnership. Bowen v. Rutherford, 60 Ill. 41; Brown v. Crandall, 11 Conn. 98; Turner v. McIthaney, 8 Cal. 575; Tumlin v. Goldsmith, 40 Ga. 221; Hicks v. Cram, 17 Vt. 449. : The English cases on this subject are collated in a foot note to Teller v. Patten, 61 U. 8. 20 How. 125, 15 L. ed. 831. § 245. Admission in Deeds, Estoppel.—The mere fact that. an admission was made under oath does not of itself render it con- clusive against the party, but it adds greatly to the weight of the testimony, throwing upon the party making it the burden of show- ing that it was a case of clear and innocent mistake. Admissions in deeds, as between the parties and their privies,. are generally regarded as estoppels, if properly pleaded, and when not technically so, they are entitled to great weight from the. solemnity of their nature. But when offered in evidence by a. stranger, the adverse party may repel their effect in the same manner as though they were only parol admissions. Receipts or other acknowledgments, given for goods or money,. whether on separate papers or indorsed on deeds, or on negotia- ble securities, the adjustinent of a loss on a policy of insurance, made without full knowledge of all the circumstances, or under a mistake of law or fact, or under any other invalidating circum- stances, and accounts rendered, such as an attorney’s bill and the like, do not estop the party making them from denying the facts therein stated. MReyner v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 725, and cases cited; Wood, Pr. Ev. § 186. § 246. Admissions Discredited How. a No Limitation.—There is no limitation upon a party to introduce evidence to contradict the truth of his own admissions,. where such admissions were retrospective, and not operating by way of an estoppel. Curland v. Day, + E. D. Smith, 251; Young v. Bushnell, 8 Bosw. 1; Young v. Foute, 43 Il. 33. Where an admission is voluntarily and deliberately made, and it is satisfactorily proved, it may be strony evidence against. the: party making it. Swvelund v. Green, 40 Wis. 431. The force and efficacy of admissions muy be largely neutralized by showing that they were made under a mistake of law, provided ADMISSIONS. 477 the other party has not been induced to change his condition to his detriment in consequence. ' Vewton v. Liddiard, 12 Q. B. 925; Newton v. Belcher, 12 Q. B. 921; Heane v. Rogers, 9 Barn. & C. 577; 3 Wait, L. & Pr. (5th ed.) 418. b. Admission When Conclusive.—An admission or declara- tion is never conclusive, whether made in writing or verbally, as a mere admission or declaration not acted upon. It may become so, or rather the party may be estopped from contracting it as against one who has acted on the faith of it and has parted with property, relying upon the truth of the statement. But admis- sions and receipts, as such, are always open for any mistake, error or false statement contained in them. In a word, they may always be contradicted, varied or explained by parol testimony. 1 Phil. Ev. 107, Cow. & Hill's Notes, 213, note 194; 3 Stark. Ev. 1271; Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns. 68; Hillis v. Willard, 9 N.Y. 529. A receipt is frequently held to be an admission against the party giving it, and when it is not in the nature of a contract parol evi- dence is admissible to explain or modify it. A receipt in these words “ Received payment of M. K. & Co.’s note, four months,” may be explained or modified by parol evi- dence. Buswell v. Pioneer, 87 N. Y. 319. ce. Rebuttal of Evidence of Admission.—A party cannot rebut the evidence of his own admissions by different declarations made at other times, but he may show that they were not true. The declarations of a party that he had promised four horses to a stage line are not evidence sufficient to warrant the inference that he was a joint proprietor, and it is competent to repel all inferences to his prejudice by showing that he actually sold three horses to the agent of the ostensible proprietor of the line. An- derson v. Snow, 9 Ala. 247. d. Miscellaneous Instances.—Although the declarations or admissions of a party are evidence against himself, yet they do not, when offered, justify him in introducing proof of his counter declarations, made at different times, unless the latter form a part of the res gestw. Roberts v. Trawick, 22 Ala. 490. He may show that he made them jocularly. Beebe v. De Baun, 8 Ark. 510. Verbal admissions hastily made without investigation and in ignorance of material facts in the case, are not binding when the 478 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. facts to the contrary are unequivocally established. Martin v. Peters, 4 Robt. 484. Where an admission was on the authority of a decision, which has been overruled, and was to the prejudice of the party making it, he is held not to be bound by it. Hays v. Cage, 2 Tex. 501; Wood, Pr. Ev. § 162. The rule that statements made in the presence and hearing of a. person uncontradicted by him are implied admissions has no ope- ration when the party is under arrest at the time. State v. How- ard, 102 Mo. 142. The admissions of a bank cashier as to the amount which he owes the bank are competent evidence in an action to recover such indebtedness from the sureties of his official bond. JcShane v. Howard Bank, 10 L. R. A. 552, 73 Md. 185. An admission by one of two defendants who have answered separately, of a partnership between them, is admissible against. himself. Vannoy v. Klein, 122 Ind. 416. A wife claiming that her abandonment of her home was caused by the conduct of her husband must, in the fact of his denial, if she seeks a divorce on the ground of desertion, sustain her claim by the corroborative evidence of circumstances or of other wit- nesses. /Terold v. Herold, 9 L. R. A. 696, 47 N. J. Eq. 210. The deliberate admissions of a defendant, if sufficiently clear, full and precise, and relative to existing facts, and not to mere intention, are competent to establish an actual gift by deceased zn presenti. Sourwine v. Claypool (Pa.) 21 Pittsb. L. J. N.S. 146. § 247. Admissions Against Interest.—“ The fact that an admission is against the interest of the party who made it, always. raises a very strong presumption that it is true, and not withstand- ing the fact that it sometimes happens that a party makes a false statement, which he believes at the time to be for his own advan- tage, although it afterwards turns out to the contrary, yet even under such circumstances it is no more than right that the fact of his having made such a statement should be given in evidence, if for no other purpose, at least to throw upon him the burden of explaining it, and thereby showing his disposition to depart from the truth when he considers that his interests will be subserved by such a course.” Reynolds, Theory of Law of Ev. § 19. Any review of this subject is conspicuously deficient without a reference to the exhaustive opinion of Afr. Justice Story in W’ch- ADMISSIONS. 47 olls v. Webb, 21 U. S. 8 Wheat, 326, 5 L. ed. 628, decided in 1823. The case itself was one of exceptional interest, was. argued by eminent counsel, the decision was by an undivided court, and the distinguished jurist who wrote for affirmance may be said to have exhausted the subject, in that neither comment. nor cavil has ever arisen during the period of seventy years the rule there proclaimed and expounded has been in force. From that opinion I excerpt the following: “The rules of evidence are of great importance, and cannot be departed from without endangering private as well as public rights. Courts of law are therefore extremely cautious in the introduction of any new doctrines of evidence which trench upon old and established principles. Still, however, it is obvious that: as the rules of evidence are founded upon general interest and convenience, they must from time to time, admit of modifications. to adapt them to the actual condition and business of men, or they would work manifest injustice; and Lord Ellenborongh has. very justly observed that they must expand according to the. exigencies of society. Pritt v. Luirelough, 3 Campb. 805. The present case affords a striking proof of the correctness of this. remark, Much of the business of the commercial world is dome: through the medium of bills of exchange and promissory notes. The rules of law require that due notice and demand shall be- proved, to charge the indorser. What would be the consequence, if, in no instance, secondary evidence could be admitted, of a nature like the present? It would materially impair the negotia- bility and circulation of these important facilities to commerce, since few persons would be disposed to risk such property upon. the chance of a single life; and the attempt to multiply witnesses. would be attended with serious inconveniences and expenses. There is no doubt that, upon the principles of law, protests of foreign bills of exchange are admissible evidence of a demand upon the drawee; and upon what foundation does this doctrine rest, but upon the usage of merchants and the universal conven- ience of mankind? There is not even the plea of absolute neces- sity to justify its introduction, since it is equally evidence, whether the notary be living or dead. The law, indeed, places a confi- dence in public officers acting as the agents and instruments of private parties. The general objection to evidence, of the character of that now before the Court, is that it is the nature of hearsay, and the party 480 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. is deprived of the benefit of cross-examination. That principle also applies to the case of foreign protests. But the answer is that it is the best evidence the nature of the case admits of. If the party is dead we cannot have his personal examination on oath; and the question then arises, whether there shall be a total failure of justice, or secondary evidence shall be admitted to prove facts, where ordinary prudence cannot guard us against the effects of human mortality. Vast sums of money depend upon the evi- dence of notaries and messengers of banks; and if their memoran- dums, in the ordinary discharge of their duty and employment are not admissible after their death the mischiefs must be very extensive.” WVicholls v. Webb, 21 U.S. 8 Wheat. 326, 5 L. ed. 628. The opinion declares broadly and without proviso or excep- tion a rule that is now well recognized. In so far as a statutory form of expression is deemed advisable, Sir James:Stephen may be presumed to have met the most criti- cal requirements in his statement of the English rule; his lan- guage is in the manner following: ‘“‘A declaration is deemed to be relevant if the declarant had peculiar means of knowing the matter stated, if he had no inter- est to misrepresent it, and if it was opposed to his pecuniary or proprietary interest. The whole of any such declaration, and of any other statement referred to in it, is deemed to be relevant, although matters may be stated which were not against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant; but statements not referred to in, or necessary to explain such declarations, are not deemed to be relevant merely because they were made at the same time or recorded in the same place. “A declaration may be against the pecuniary interest of the person who makes it, if part of it charge him with a liability, though other parts of the book or document in which it occurs may discharge him from such liability in whole or in part, and (it seems) though there may be no proof other than the statement itself either of such liability or of its discharge in whole or in part. “A statement made by a declarant holding a limited interest in any property and opposed to such interest is deemed to be relev- ant only as against those who claim under him, and not as against the reversioner. “An indorsement or memorandum of a payment made upon any promissory note, bill of exchange, or other writing, by or on ADMISSIONS. 481 behalf of the party to whom such payment was made, is not suffi- cient proof of such payment to take the case out of the operation of the Statutes of Limitation; but any such declaration made in any other form by or by the direction of the person to whom the payment was made, is when such person is dead, sufficient proof for the purpose aforesaid. “Any indorsement or memorandum to the effect above men- tioned made upon any bond or other specialty by a deceased per- son, is regarded as a declaration against the proprietary interest of the declarant for the purpose above mentioned, if it is shown to have been made at the time when it purports to have been made; but it is uncertain whether the date of such indorsement or memorandum may be presumed to be correct without inde- pendent evidence. “Statement of relevant facts opposed to any other than the pecun- iary or proprietary interest of the declarant are not deemed to be relevant as such.” Stephen, Dig. art. 28. § 248. The English Rule. a. Admissions by Strangers.—This entire subject of admis- sion as applied to this immediate connection is disposed of by Szr James Stephen, in a somewhat summary manner which has never- theless met with the entire approval of the English jurists who have been called upon to weigh its effect and give force and con- sistency to the provisions; the text is appended in full. “Statement by strangers to a proceeding are not relevant, as against’ the parties, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. “In actions against sheriffs for not executing process against debtors, statements of the debtor’s admitting his debt, to be due to the execution creditor, are deemed to be relevant as against the sheriff. “In actions by the trustees of bankrupts an admission by the bankrupt of the petitioning creditor’s debt, is deemed to be rele- vant as against the defendant.” Stephen, Dig. art. 18. b. Admissions of Person, Referred to by Party.—“When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any person for infoy- mation in reference to a matter in dispute, the statements of that other person may be admissions as against the person who refer- to him.” Stephen, Dig. art. 19. c. Admissions made Without Prejudice.—“No adimission is deemed to be relevant in any civil action if it is made either upon 31 482 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the judge infers that the parties together agreed together that evidence of it should not be given, or if it was made under duress.” Stephen, Dig. art. 20. § 249. Miscellaneous Topics on the Subject.— An admission of what a person said about his indebtedness to another is com- petent evidence upon that question between those parties, but not. as to the third person not present at the time of the admission. Overstreet v. Manning, 67 Tex. 657. Admissions in letters written after the date of the deed are ad- missible in evidence in a suit to vacate the deed for fraud. Can- ton v. McGraw, 10 Cent. Rep. 1387, 67 Md. 583. Admissions in an affidavit for continuance may be used against: defendant. Behler v. State, 11 West. Rep. 104, 112 Ind. 140. An offer of compromise of a legal controversy, not accepted, is not competent evidence for or against either party. Authorities cited in Lowisville, V. A. & C. R. Co. v. Wright, 138 West. Rep. 806, 115 Ind. 878; Binford v. Young, 13 West. Rep. 815, 115 Ind. 174. If the object of the party making an offer was to buy his peace. which is impliedly manifested by a mere proposition to pay a sum in settlement, it is deemed to have been made without prejudice, and is not admissible inevidence. International & G. NV. R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 67 Tex. 24. Evidence that before a suit for damages for injuries inflicted by by a vicious dog was brought, the defendant offered the party in- jured money, is admissible to show an admission of liability, if not made confidentially or for the sake of peace. Brice v. Bauer, 11 Cent. Rep. 327, 108 N. Y. 428. The fact that some things may have been said in a conversa- tion, which witness did not hear, does not render his testimony as to what he did hear inadmissible. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Nets, 10 Colo. 56. Declarations of deceased disinterested parties who were in a position to know are admissible to establish boundary. Zucker v. Smith, 68 Tex. 473. Much latitude is allowed in the introduction of evidence as to the birth, age, and death of a person. Evidence of an inscription on a tombstone may be admissible. Smith v. Patterson, 14 West. Rep. 757, 95 Mo. 525. ADMISSIONS. 483 The existence of a partnership cannot be proved by common report or general reputation. Marble v. Lypes, 82 Ala. 322. The admissions of a partner while engaged'in the adjustment of partnership business after the dissolution of the firm, may be given in evidence to charge the other partners in relation to such business. eigley v. Whitaker, 22 Ohio St. 606, 10 Am. Rep. 778; Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104. The above doctrine, as laid down in Wood v. Braddick, is ap- proved by the English common law decisions and in many Amer- ican cases. Simpson v. Geddes, 2 Bay, 533; Joslyn v. Smith, 13 Vt. 353; Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400; Shelton v. Cocke, 3 Munf. 191; Mann v. Locke, 11 N. H. 246; Gay v. Bowen, 8 Met. 100; Brewster v. Hardeman, Dudley, 138; Parker v. Merrill, 6 Me. 41; Lacy v. McNeile, 4 Dow. & R. 7; Whitcomd v. Whiting, 2 Dongl. 652; Pritchard v. Draper, 1 Russ. & M. 191; Jackson v. Lairbank, 2 H. Bl. 340; Garland v. Agee,T Leigh, 362; Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick. 55; Vinal v. Burrill, 16 Pick. 401; Zde v. In- graham, 5 Gray, 106; Beardsley v. Hall, 36 Conn. 270; Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt. 440; Shepley v. Waterhouse, 22 Me. 497. The broad doctrine of Wood v. Braddick has been disapproved in many American cases, especially in New York, Kentucky, II- linois, Indiana and Missouri, and also by the Supreme Court of the United States. Bell v. Morrison, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 351, 7 L. ed. 174; Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. Y. 528; Shoemaker v. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176; Mason v. Howell, 14 Ark. 199; Belote v. Wynne, 7 Yerg. 534; Levy v. Cadet, 17 Serg. & R. 126, 17 Am. Dee. 650; Exeter Bank v. Sullivan, 6 N. H. 124; Muse v. Donel- son, 2 Humph. 166. Declarations of a partner after dissolution cannot charge part- nership with a debt; if existence of debt be proved aliwnde, and the original liability, such declarations would be sufficient to re- move bar of Statute of Limitations. Wéllis v. Hill, 2 Dev. & B. L. 231, 31 Am. Dee. 412; Falls v. Sherrill, 2 Dev. & B. L. 371; Walton v. Robinson, 5 Ired. L. 841; Hubbard v. Marsh, 7 Ived. L. 204, statute now changes this, (Bat. Rev. chap. 17, § 50); Greenleaf v. Quincy, 12 Me. 11, 28 Am. Dee. 145; Whztcomd v. Whiting, 2 Dougl. 652; McIntire v. Olver, 2 Hawks, 209, 11 Am. Dec. 760. 2 The tendency of American decisions is now believed to be con- trary to this doctrine. See contra cases last above cited. Angell, 4384 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. Lim. § 260; Houser v. Irvine, 3 Watts & 8.247; Hogg v. Orgill, 34 Pa. 348. Admission of indebtedness by partner after dissolution will not of itself bind other partners. Charldon v. Oliphant, 3 Brev. 183, 6 Am. Dec. 572; Lang v. Waring, 17 Ala. 157. Partner’s admissions after dissolution of firm in regard to part- nership demand, are competent, though not conclusive evidence. Cady v. Shepherd, 11 Pick. 400, 22 Am. Dec. 379. Payment of interest by one partner on firm note after dissolu- tion has been held to take the note out of the Statute of Limita- tions. Merritt v. Day, 38 N. J. L. 32, 20 Am. Rep. 362. A surviving partner cannot bind estate of deceased partner for debts created after his decease. Cock v. Carson, 45 Tex. 429. After dissolution a partner cannot appear for partner in a suit brought against the partners for a firm debt (Lull v. Lanning, 91 U. 8. 160, 23 L. ed. 271; Loomis v. Pearson, 1 Harper, +70); nor before dissolution. Haslet v. Street, 2 McCord, L. 311. Declarations of a partner after dissolution of the firm bind him- self only. Barringer v. Sneed, 8 Stew. (Ala.) 201, 20 Am. Dec. 74; see Tassey v. Church, 4 Watts & S. 141, 39 Am. Dee. 65. Admission after dissolution by active partner, who has been ap- pointed to settle firm business, that a certain firm debt is not paid, is evidence against co-partner. Bridge v. Gray, 14 Pick. 55, 25 Am. Dee. 358. Admission by a partner, after dissolution, of an account or of a debt, is not competent evidence against a copartner. Baker v. Stackpoole, 9 Cow. 420; Atwood v. Gillett, 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 216; Lacoste v. Bexar County, 28 Tex. 424; Fontaine v. Lee, 6 Ala. 891; Brisban v. Boyd, 4 Paige, 22,3 L. ed. 324; Bispham v. Patterson, 2 McLean, 90; Burns v. MeNenzie, 23 Cal. 102; Whetmore v. Murdock, 3 Woodb. & M. 386; Owings v. Low, 5 Gill & J. 144; Benedict v. Hecov, 18 Wend. 502. The admission in evidence of words and exclamations used in prayer, which inculpate the person who made the prayer, is not against public policy. Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69. Declarations made by a party against his interests, relating to the subject matter involved in the litigation, are competent. Bohr v. Neuenschwander, 120 Ind. 449. Evidence of declarations of a grantor after his conveyance is admissible to impeach the title of the grantee. Rawson v. Plats- ted, 151 Mass. 71. ADMISSIONS. 485 Evidence of the admission of a man in occupancy of land only as tenant by the courtesy is not admissible to effect the interest of his wife. tzgerald v. Brennan, 57 Comn. 511. Declarations of a party in his own interest, not made in the presence of the person claiming adversely, are not admissible against the title of the latter. Perry v. Perry, 130 Pa. 94. An admission as well as a confession, made under duress, is inadmissible, and it is equally well settled, that parol evidence was admissible to show that the execution of a certain contract, was induced by compulsion. These propositions are sustained by Tilley v. Damon, 11 Cush. 247 and Black v. Wabash, St. L. & I. At. Co. T11 Ill, 36. In order to render the statements of a person admissible as dying declarations, such persons need not in express words declare that he knows he is about to die, or to make use of equivalent language. Com. v. Matthews, (Ky.) 11 Ky. L. Rep. 505. Declarations of a testator just before his death, to his executor, as to what was intended by his will, which was made five years before such declaration, are not a part of the res geste. Re Gil- mores Estate, 81 Cal. 240. Oral declarations of counsel in a judicial inquiry are not admis- sible in evidence as admissions of fact, so as to bind his client. An- derson v. McAleenan (C. P.) 29 N. Y. 8. R. 406. Self-serving declarations are not generally competent evidence. Tobin v. Young, 124 Ind. 507. On the question of ownership of personal property, declarations made by one while in the full possession, control and use of the property indicating that he is the owner are admissible against one claiming under him. Maus v. Bome, 123 Ind. 522. It is essential to the admissibility of dying declarations that at the time they were made declarant was in actual danger of death, that he had a full apprehension of his danger, and that death ensued. Pulliam v. State, 88 Ala. 1. It is an obvious suggestion of reason that the admissions made by one partner after a dissolution in regard to the business of the firm previously transacted, should be binding on the firm. Wi¢l- son v. McCormick, 86 Va. 995. And so the declarations of an agent are admissible when the agency is proved by evidence independent of the declarations. Kirchner v. Laughlin (N. M.) 23 Pac. Rep. 175. Declarations of a partner in the course of a transaction on which 486 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. an alleged liability of the firm is based may be proved against the other partner. Hess v. Lowrey, 7 L. R. A. 90, 122 Ind. 225. The general rule that declarations of a party made after he has parted with his interest in the subject matter cannot be received to disparage the right or title of one who acquired the same before such declarations, does not apply to transfers of property made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. Smith v. Boyer, 29 Neb. 76. The fraudulent character of a conveyance being proved decla- rations and acts of the vendor, made shortly after the alleged transfer and before the rights of innocent parties intervened, are admissible as circumstances in corroboration of the fraud. Lhid. Evidence of the statements of a husband for a sale of intoxi- cating liquors to whom his wife sues under a civil damage law, are inadmissible as against the wife, where she has not called the husband as a witness. Judge v. Jordan (Iowa) 46 N. W. Rep. 1077. § 250. Self-Serving Admissions of Predecessor in Title. a. Generally Inadmissible. — Whether the admission of a previous owner of a chose in action can be proved against a pur- chaser from him, who has bought for a fair consideration, and between whom and the former owner there exists no other rela- tion than that of purchaser and seller, has been a matter of discus- sion. It is not the case of a nominal purchase, the former owner retaining the equitable interest, but of an actual and. complete transfer of all interest to the purchaser. On that question, Puige v. Cagwin, T Hill, 361, is a full authority. That case was ably considered by the court which determined it, and put an end to whatever doubts had been entertained upon the questions involved. Stark v. Boswell, 6 Hill, 405, was decided shortly after Paige v. Cagwin, and in its essential features was identical with the case before us; and the supreme court held the evidence of the mort- gagee’s admission inadmissible to effect the purchaser of the land under a sale on a statute foreclosure. In Booth v. Swezey, 8 N. Y. 276, the point was again raised, and this court held the admis- sions of the mortgagee inadmissible against his assignee. b. Opinion of Ch. J. Folger.—Chicf Judge Folger held ina subsequent case that where several parties were interested in the use of the water in a particular stream, it was competent to show ADMISSIONS. 487 what either of them said or did as to their relative rights in the presence and hearing of each other (Crippen v. Morss, 49 N. Y. ‘63); and, as we have seen, the acts and declarations of a party in possession of lands, as to the nature and extent of his interest, are competent evidence against any person claiming under him. Pitts v. Wilder, 1 N. Y. 525. The juxtaposition of the two last cases cited, suggests a renewal of the warning as to the distinction between admissions affecting real and personal property. Articles of personal property constituting a part of the wife’s paraphernalia may be proved to have been such after the death of the husband, by evidence of his self-disserving declaration. Joyer’s App.7 Pa. 482; Caswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407; Crane v. Wright, 46 Tl. 107; Bennett v. Camp, 54 Vt. 36. Where the evidence shows the wife is acting as the husband’s agent, he is bound by any admis- sions made by her within the scope of an agent’s authority. Carey v. Adkins, 4 Campb. 92; Meredith v. Footner, 11 Mees. & W. 202; Clifford v. Burton, 1 Bing. 199; Emerson v. Blonden, 1 Esp. 142; Pickering v. Pickering, 6 N. H. 124; Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Tinsley, 15 Mo. 458; Gebhart v. Burkett, 57 Ind. 378; Ripley v. Mason, Hill & D. Supp. 66; Mackinley v. M? Gregor, 3 Whart. 369; Murphy v. Hubert, 16 Pa. 50; Barr v. Greenawalt, 62 Pa. 172; Riley v. Suydam, 4 Barb. 222; Peck v. Ward, 18 Pa. 506; Stall v. Meck, 70 Pa. 181; Colgan v. Philips, 7 Rich. L, 359; Rochelle v. Harrison, 8 Port. (Ala.) 351; Zang v. Waters, 47 Ala. G24; Cantrell v. Colwell, 3 Head, 471. CHAPTER XII. RELEVANCY. § 251. The Term Defined. a. By Chief Judge Folger. b. By Wait. c. By Sir James Stephen. d. By Reynolds. 252. Relevancy Not the Sole Test of Admissibility. a. A Dissenting View. Views of the United States Supreme Court. Evidence May be Rejected When. An Abandoned Definition. Statutory Provisions of the California Code. The Rule in Connecticut. In Illinois. . Views of Chief Justice May. Of Mr. Justice Davis. j. When Irrelevant Testimony Cannot be Excluded. 253. Separate Functions of the Judge and Jury. a. Duty of the Court. b. When Court May Direct a Verdict. c. Law is For the Court, Fact For the Jury. d. Pertinent Hypothesis Defined. e. Recent Adjudications. 254. The Doctrine of Sctenter. 255. Hvidence Tending to Support an Issue. a. When Excluded in Rebuttal. b. Proof Must Correspond With Allegations of Complaint. ce. Authorities From the United States Supreme Court. 256. Res Inter Alios Acta. a. Analysis by Best and Sir James Stephen. b. Modern Reluvation of the Rule. c. Subdivision of the Rule. d. Recent Application of the Rule. e. An Exposition by Peckham, J. 25%. Hvidence Excluded on the Ground of Indecency. 258. Couusel’s Offer to Make Certain Proof. 488 Be Bde ope Ba oS RELEVANCY. 489 The Method Sanctioned by Usage. Offer Must be Speerfic. Vo Doubt Must Exist as to Competency and Materiality. The Practice in New York. . The California Rule. Views of Judge Rumsey. g. Suggestions of Chief Judge Folger. 259. Motion to Strike Out. a. When the Motion Will be Entertained. b. Limitations of the Right. c. Exercise of the Right. d. Waiver of the Right. e. Answer Out of Time, When Stricken Out. 260. Summary of the Preceding Views. a. Position of the English Courts. b. American Vindication of the English Theory. c. Implication With the Principles Outlined in Res Geste. d. Citation of Authority. 261. Facts Necessary to Explain or Introduce Relevant Facts. a. The English Statute on the Subject. b. Indorsed by New York Court of Appeals. c. Criminal Features of the Rule. d. Relevancy of Occurrences Similar to, but Unconnected With Facts in Issue. e. General Application of the Foregoing Rules. § 251. The Term Defined. a. By Chief Judge Folger.—The meaning of the word “relevant,” as applied to testimony, is that it directly touches upon the issue which the parties have made by their pleadings, so as to assist in getting at the truth of it. Whatever testimony is offered, which would assist in knowing which party spoke the truth of the issue, is relevant; and when to admit it did not override other formal rules of evidence, it ought to be taken. In determining whether evidence is relevant all the issues must be kept in view as it may he admissible as to one though not as to another. Plat- ner v. Platner, 78 N.Y. 90. Testimony is relevant which has a tendency, however remote, to establish the probability of the fact in controversy. TZrudl v. True, 33 Me. 367. b. By Wait.—* The object of every trial is to ascertain the truth of the allegations put in issue; and no evidence is admis- ro Ao os 490 LAW OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES. sible which does not tend to prove or disprove such issues. It is not necessary that the evidence should bear directly upon the particular matters in issue, for the evidence offered may be rele- vant and material otherwise.” 3 Wait, L. & Pr. 272. e. By Sir James Stephen.—