to a third bank); and the claimant had allowed his agent in that behalf (with the assent of one of the State officers, given with the reservation that the liability of the State should not be thereby admitted nor affected), to receive from such banks choses in action and other property in full settlement and payment, but to be held by him for the claimant or for the State, whichsoever might assume or be charged with the debt; of which settlement the State, through its Legislature and its State officers, had full notice; the decision of the said Board, created by the State, is to be taken as conclusive that notwithstanding these facts the claimant is entitled to recover; and although prior to the trial and decision by that Board, such agent and trustee, with the assent of the claimant, has colected from such choses in action a part of the amount due thereon, and converted others into other property, and the claimant has settled with him, taken a transfer of a part of the property (being that received from one of such banks), and released him from all liability, the omission of the claimant to apprise the State of such dealings and release, and the concealment by the claimant, on presenting his claim before such Board, of such dealings and release of the agent and trustee, though such concealment be practised in the belief that if known the claim would be disallowed, and though practised in order to obtain the allowance of the claim, are not a fraud sufficient to impeach the decision of the Board in favor of the claimant and entitle the State to recover back the money paid in pursuance of the decision and in ignorance of the facts thus concealed. (WOODRUFF, J., dissented): Id.

In such case, knowledge by the State of the said settlements with the banks, and that the said agent and trustee held the said choses in action and other property in trust for the purposes aforesaid, is sufficient to put the State upon inquiry as to the then situation of the trust fund; and if by due diligence the facts might have been discovered and proved by the examination of witnesses, it is the fault of the State that the facts were not proved before the Board, and the claimant by omitting to give notice thereof to the State, and failing to disclose them to the Board (though with the intent and belief aforesaid), violated no duty and committed no fraud which entitles the State to impeach the judgment and recover back the money paid thereon in ignorance of such facts. (WOODRUFF, J., dissented): Id.

Mortgage-Unexpired Lease-Mistake-Deed by Executors-Implied Covenants in Conveyances.-In a suit to foreclose a mortgage given to

secure the purchase-money agreed to be paid for the mortgaged premises, where no covenant in the deed is broken and there has been no fraud on the part of the grantors, it is no defence that a part of the premises at the time of the grant and mortgage, was incumbered by an unexpired lease thereof: Sandford vs. Travers.

Where there is a mutual mistake as to a material fact for which a Court of equity would relieve, a party desiring relief on that ground must, on discovering the mistake, offer to rescind: Id.

A deed by executors, as such, with a covenant against their own acts, cannot be construed as containing an implied covenant that their testator was seised of an estate in fee simple; or a covenant on their part to put the purchaser in possession: Id.

No covenant can be implied in any conveyance of real estate, whether such conveyance contains special covenants or not: Id.

Negligence-Liability of Contractor.-Where a person employs another to do a piece of work, and the one so employed does it by his own workmen, using his own discretion as to the manner of doing it, having exclusive control of the matter, and a third person is injured while the work is in progress, by the careless manner in which it is done, the contractor and his servants guilty of the negligence are alone liable for the injury : O'Rourke vs. Hart.

It makes no difference, in such a case, that the work done consists in altering a public street. When the work to be done cannot itself be dangerous to others, unless it becomes so by the dangerous or unskilful manner of executing it, and is done by one contracting to do it, and having exclusive control of the men employed, and injury results from such unskilfulness, the remote principal is not liable. The liability is confined to the persons guilty of the negligence, and to their principal: Id.

Surety-Variation of Contract without knowledge of Surety.-Where, by a sealed contract between two persons, one is to serve the other in a specified business for a term of years, at a fixed sum per annum, and the laborer as part of the arrangement gives a bond with surety to the employer, conditioned for the performance by the laborer of the contract on his part, and subsequently a verbal contract is made and acted upon between the employer and laborer by which the latter is to receive compensation graduated by the amount of work he may perform, and this is done without the knowledge or consent of the surety, the latter is discharged: Bagley vs. Clark.

Where, after the contract has been made and the bond executed and delivered, the employer forms a partnership with third persons, and the laborer, by verbal agreement between him and the firm, contracts to serve the firm, and pursuant to such agreement does subsequently serve the firm for nearly two years, upon a different agreement as to compensation, the sealed contract and bond are thereby abandoned and superseded, and no action will lie thereon for an alleged breach occurring after such a term of service under the new arrangement: Id.

Shipping-Bill of Lading-Purchase of Goods in Transitu-Claim for Freight.-The master of a vessel, who signs a bill of lading by which he acknowledges the receipt, on board, of goods, of a designated kind and a specified quantity, and agrees to deliver the same to the shipper or his assigns, on payment of freight, at a specified rate per ton, is bound to deliver to one purchasing the goods in transitu and taking from the shipper, an assignment of the bill of lading, in good faith, and relying thereon, goods of the kind so designated, and the specified quantity thereof: Byrne Vs. Weeks.

An acceptance of goods of the designated kind, but less than the specified quantity thereof, after discovering that there are more goods of one designated kind and less of another on board than the bill of lading calls for, but the same aggregate quantity in all, does not absolve the master from the liability contracted by the bill of lading, nor impose upon such an assignee of it a duty to take more of one kind or accept less of another, than the bill of lading specifies: Id.

Where, in such a case, after a part delivery, the master refused to make a further delivery, unless the assignee would accept a delivery of all the goods on board as a performance of the carrier's contract, which the assignee declined to do, and the master thereupon sued the assignee and recovered judgment for the whole freight; issued execution thereon, and caused the goods remaining on board to be levied on as the defendant's property, and to be removed and stored, and they were subsequently sold by the depositary to satisfy his claim for storage, and at such sale they were purchased by such assignee-the master thereby loses his lien on the goods so levied on for freight; and the assignee obtaining possession as such a purchaser, does not obtain a delivery under the bill of lading, and is not liable for the freight of such goods-they having been so bought in ignorance of any claim or lien thereon in favor of the master for freight: Id.

SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.1

Land Contract-Failure to " improve," and to pay Taxes-Evidence of Intention of Vendor to rescind-Compound Interest, where Vendee in Default asks Specific Performance.-The failure of the vendee to tender performance and demand a deed before filing a bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of lands, only affects the question of costs: Morris vs. Hoyt.

A stipulation in such a contract, that the vendee shall "improve the premises," but specifying neither the kind nor extent of the improvements, is so indefinite that the intention of the parties cannot be known; and on a bill for specific performance, it will be treated as immaterial: Id.

A failure of the vendee to pay the taxes as stipulated in such a contract, stands upon the same basis, as respects specific performance, as a default in the payment of instalments of the purchase-money: Id.

A provision in such a contract, that on failure by the vendee to fulfil the agreements on his part at the time specified, the vendor may re-enter and take possession of the land, and all rights of the vendee under the contract shall be null and void, and all payments and improvements made by him shall be forfeited, does not make time so far of the essence of the contract, as that all rights of the vendee become ipso facto forfeited merely by a failure to pay at the times agreed upon, without any act on the part of the vendor indicating an intention to insist upon the forfeiture Id.

Under such a provision, the only mode by which the vendor can forfeit the rights of the vendee, is by re-entering and taking possession of the land, or some act equivalent thereto : Id.

Where a vendee seeks the specific performance of a contract after default in the payment of instalments of principal and interest, he will be required to pay interest on the instalments of interest from the time they fell due: Id.

Constitutional Law-Control of Detroit City over Ferries to the Canada Shore, not an interference with the Power of Congress over Commerce.— The Ordinance of the City of Detroit, requiring ferry-boats running to the Canada shore to pay a license-fee, and imposing a penalty for its violation, is not unconstitutional as an interference with the power of Congress over And the master of a boat, enrolled and licensed under the

commerce.

1 From Hon. T. M. Cooley, Reporter; to appear in 11 Michigan Reports.

acts of Congress for the coasting and foreign trade, is liable to the penalty for running it as a ferry-boat without first obtaining a license from the city: Chelvers vs. People.

Ustry a personal Defence.-Usury is a personal defence, to be made by a party to the contract. One who has purchased lands subject to a mortgage, cannot make this defence to the mortgage in a suit to foreclose it: Sellers vs. Botsford.

Constitutional Law-"Due Process of Law"-Seller of Property cannot purchase of Himself.-Unless in proceedings to collect the public revenue, no person can legally be divested of his property without remuneration or against his will, unless he is allowed a hearing before an impartial tribunal, where he may contest the claim set up against him, and be allowed to meet it on the law and the facts: Ames vs. The Port Huron Log-Driving and Booming Co.

The statute for the formation of log-driving and booming companies, in so far as it undertakes to authorize companies formed under it, without any necessity arising from the obstruction of their own business, to assume the control and management, on the public waters, of the logs of unconsenting parties who have made insufficient provision for running them, and to enforce compensation against the logs for thus controlling and managing them, is unconstitutional:

1. It allows persons thus organizing to assume a police power over the waters used, and thus to exercise a public office without either an election or an appointment.

2. It deprives persons of their property without due process of law, since under the statute the company or its agents must of necessity determine when the case arises which justifies assuming such control, and the company afterwards assesses its own charges, and proceeds to sell the property to pay them: I.

No one without express authority of law can become a purchaser of property, which it is his duty to sell for the best price it will bring: Id.

Equity of Redemption in Chattels.-A mortgagor of chattels is entitled to redeem in equity, at any time before the mortgagee has foreclosed by reducing the property to possession, or by selling it under the power of sale in the mortgage: Van Brunt vs. Wakelee.

Sale of Chattel Interests in Lands on Execution.-Chattel interests in lands are to be sold on execution as personal estate. The sale of an estate