ENTRY.

1. Reservation of right by deed.

Valentine vs. Central Railroad Co.,. 55

EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS of future ACQUISITIONS,

EQUITY.

.527

See JUDGMENT, 7.

MORTGAGE, 2, 16-18.

1. Party desiring relief on ground of mistake must offer to rescind.
Sandford vs. Travers,

566

2. Bill will not lie to compel reconveyance by grantee in deed fraudu-
lently obtained before delivery. Pratt vs. Pond et al.,

3. Bill will lie to compel mortgagor to deliver up mortgage intrusted
to him to have recorded. Pierce vs. Lawson,

4. Bill to quiet title by one not in possession dismissed. Blackwood vs.
Van Vliet,

509

509

.571

ERROR.

1. If the points of plaintiff in error were answered by Court below
with sufficient distinctness in connection with the general charge, there
is no ground for reversal. Pierce vs. Cloud,

446
2. Where the evidence seemed equally balanced, the presumption is
that the Court below carried out the intention of the testator. Wagner's
Appeal,

ESTATE ON CONDITION.

1. Land granted for certain use, to revert to grantor if used for other
purposes, does not revert until actual abandonment. Penna. Railroad Co.
vs. Parke et al.,

EVIDENCE.

See CORPORATION, 1.

GRANTOR, 2.

HUSBAND AND WIFE, 6.

1. It is competent to show by parol, the grounds on which a verdict
or judgment was rendered, when the grounds become material and do not
appear on the record. White vs. Madison,

2. Where a number of articles are sold together, opinions of witnesses
will not be received as to value of some in order to fix the value of others
in action for the conversion of the latter. Wells vs. Kelsey,

3. One who has voluntarily destroyed a written document cannot tes-
tify to its contents in an action by himself founded on it, without first
negativing the suspicion of fraud from his act. Count Joannes vs. Ben-
nett,

4. Unanswered letter from party offering it. Fearing vs. Kimball,
EXECUTION.

See MORTGAGE, 23-24.

634

- 502

663

. 631

. 767
. 64

1. It is fraud in law to permit goods levied on to remain in possession
of defendant and be sold by him as before, and such execution will be
posponed to subsequent one. Parys & Co.'s Appeal,

312

2. Attachment of lands in hands of apparent owner, but real mort-
gagee-unrecorded defeasance. Columbia Bank vs. Jacobs,

3. Misdescription of land levied upon. Steel vs. Steel,

4. Machines exempt from attachment in Massachusetts. Daniels vs.
Hayward,

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

See DECEDENT, 2, 4.

254

446

3. What expenses before the discovery of a will administrator may be
allowed for. Edwards vs. Ela,

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR.

1. Sureties of administrator are liable on the bond, although he be
improperly appointed, if he act under his appointment. Shalter and Eb-
ling's Appeal,

2. Cannot be compelled by the heir to complete the
estate which his decedent had orally agreed to buy.
et al.,

634

purchase of real
Gay et al. vs. Gay

697

508

4. Objections to the granting of letters testamentary to, under New
York statute. McGregor vs. Buel,

120

5. Issue of special letters of administration to a collector.-Remedy
for refusal of Surrogate to do so. Id.

FACTOR.

See AGENT.

1. Evidence of title to protect the pledgee-New York Factors' Act.
Cartwright et al. vs. Wilmerding et al.,

122

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

1. Person arrested on void execution cannot recover damages for re-
maining on the prison limits under his void bond. Fuller vs. Bowker,

571

FAMILY PICTURES.

See HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, 3.

FOREIGN LAW.

See HUSBAND AND WIFE, 11.

FOREIGN MINISTERS.

See INTERNATIONAL LAW, 7.

FORGED SIGNATURE.

1. May be adopted-evidence of adoption. Greenfield Bank vs. Crafts, 379
FORNICATION AND BASTARDY.

1. The order of maintenance is part of the sentence, and cannot be
made where defendant is pardoned before sentence. Commonwealth vs.
Ahl,

2. Evidence in action against putative father. Eddy vs. Gray,
FREIGHT.

See COMMON Carrier, 4.

GOOD-WILL.

1. The defendant sold the good-will of his business to the plaintiff
under a written agreement, one of the terms of which was as follows:-
"That the defendant should not carry on, or assist in carrying on, a busi-
ness such as is now carried on at 17 Lupus street, Pimlico, being a
general drapery and hosiery businss, within two miles of that place."
The defendant afterwards went into the district for the purpose of col-
lecting old debts, and being there was asked by some persons to supply
them with goods, which he did: Held, in an action for breach of the
agreement against the defendant for carrying on business within the pre-
scribed limits, that in order to do so to such an extent as to be a breach
of the contract, it was not necessary he should have either place of
business or house within the district. Brampton vs. Beddoes,
375

1. Grant with condition to support the grantor and in case of failure

GRANTOR AND GRANTEE.

the deed to be void, the condition is in the nature of a penalty, and fail-
ure to perform involves forfeiture. Spaulding vs. Hallenbeck,

2. Admissions of a grantor held to be evidence as part of res gesta
against plaintiffs who were identified in interest. Id.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

1. Guardian is liable for losses in consequence of disregard of his li-
cense to sell, and of careless and imprudent investments. Harding vs.
Larned,

2. The assent of the ward is immaterial. Id.

3. Commissions do not always cover every allowance that can be made
to guardians. Morgan vs. Morgan,

4. Where guardian's bond has been improperly marked "cancelled,"
it is not error for Orphans' Court to order the word "cancelled" to be
stricken off. Newcomer's Appeal,

5. The Court has no power to order a guardian's bond to be cancelled
while the guardianship remains and its duties are unperformed. Id.
6. Change of ward's domicil. Kirkland vs. Whately,

HABITUAL DRUNKARD.

1. Jurisdiction of New York Courts over. Davis vs. Spencer,

HIGHWAY.

See ROADS.

HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE.

1. The term "household furniture," is understood to include everything
which may contribute to the use or convenience of the householder, or the
ornament of the house, such as plate, linen, china, pictures, &c.
M'Micken vs. M'Micken University,

763

252

701

633

. 380

2. Where a testator by his will bequeathed to A. "all his library and
household furniture of every description, and any other personal property
not thereinafter specifically devised," and by a subsequent clause devised
to B. "all his real estate and personal property, which he may acquire
after the date of his will," and again to B. "all the rest and residue of
his real and personal estate, not thereinbefore devised," Held, that a por-
trait of testator, painted after the making of the will, and at the time of
his death still in possession of the artist in another city, passed to A.
under the devise of "household furniture." Id.

3. By the law of Ohio "family pictures" are exempt from execution,
but, per STORER, J., this exemption would not extend to the private gal-
lery of a connoisseur nor to costly pictures the subjects of which are not
connected with the family in whose possession they are found. Id.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

See BILLS AND NOTES, 9.

I. Alimony.

1. Cases where it is allowed discussed in Note to Le Barron vs. Le
Barron,

II. Divorce.

59

489

220

2. The settled practice in the English Courts in divorce suits for impo-
tence is, to require a medical examination. Le Barron vs. Le Barron, . 212
3. Impotence being made by statute a cause for nullifying a marriage,
the Court have power to compel the defendant to submit to a medical
examination, though the statute makes no provision for it. Whether in
such case the Court have power to compel the defendant to answer inter-
rogatories on oath-quære. Id.

HUSBAND AND WIFE.

4. It seems, that an application of the above principles would authorize
the Court to order the payment of temporary alimony, though not pro-
vided for by statute. Le Barron vs. Le Barron,

5. Divorce for impotency-personal examination. Note to Le Barron
vs. Le Barron,

.

6. Fraudulent divorce in another State no bar-decree of Court grant-
ing divorce not conclusive as to citizenship-evidence of the fraud.
Shannon vs. Shannon,

III. Dower.

7. Where wife refuses to release after agreement by the husband to
convey free of dower, compensation in damages may be decreed against
him. Park vs. Johnson,

8. In lands in possession of husband under executory contract for
purchase of them. Lobdell vs. Hayes,

IV. Separate Estate of Wife.

9. No particular form is necessary to make an estate for sole and
separate use of the wife, but the words used must clearly express the
intention to exclude the husband's curtesy. Nightingale et al. vs. Hidden
et al.,

10. Where land is purchased by wife's means and improved by her
separate funds, her separate title will prevail against a subsequent judg-
ment-creditor of the husband, although the deed was by mistake made to
the husband. Damon vs. Hall and Wife, .

11. Rights of wife as creditor of husband under law of France where
the marriage was contracted, continue and attach to his property where
he abandons her and dies domiciled in the United States. Bonati, vs.
Welsch,

12. Liability of wife's property in husband's use, for his debts-
assignment of goods by wife. Sherman vs. Elder et al.,

13. Wife not precluded by ante-nuptial agreement from claiming a
distributive share of personal estate of husband. Sullings vs. Richmond
et al.,

14. When co-defendant's wife may be a witness in New York-parol
promise of husband to repay money borrowed of wife, and post-nuptial
settlement in consideration thereof. Scheffner vs. Reuter et al.,

V. Contracts and general Powers of Married Women.

15. Bond is void even though the consideration was one that would
support an action. Keiper vs. Helfricker,

16. Bond is absolutely void in Pennsylvania, and so is any judgment
on it. Steinman vs. Ewing,

17. Cannot make agreement in writing for purchase of real estate on
credit, and her possession is possession of the husband. She is there-
fore improperly joined in action for recovery of the premises. Rose vs.
Bell and Wife,

212

219

180

180
63

443

506

250

57

697

61

18. Cannot in Michigan engage in general business so as to make the
proceeds her own. Glover vs. Alcott,

696

. 250

19. Power of married woman to make a will. Ryder vs. Hulse,

INDIANS.

See CONFLICT of Laws, 3, 4.

INFANT.

See DECEDENTS' ESTATES, 4.
NEGLIGENCE, 20-21.

1. Proper care on the part of persons having charge of young infant.
Munn vs. Reed,

INJUNCTION.

1. An action on the case will not lie for improperly causing a writ of
injunction to be issued. The remedy is on the injunction bond. Gorton

vs. Brown,

2. The case of Cox vs. Taylor's Administrators, 10 B. Monroe 17, not
recognised as authority. Id.

3. Remedy of person damaged by improper issue of, discussed. Note
to Gorton vs. Brown,

4. Want of jurisdiction in the Court over the subject-matter will not
prevent defendant from recovering costs-and a defendant may have
damages if he obey the injunction, though he was not served and entered
no appearance. Cumberland Coal Co. vs. Hoffman Coal Co.,

INSOLVENCY.

1. No bar to action by foreign corporation. Producers' Bank vs.
Farnum,

INSURANCE.

I. Action upon a Policy.

1. Plaintiff must aver an insurable interest in himself or one for whom
he acted. Freeman vs. Fulton Ins. Co.,

2. How far negligence of plaintiff is a defence on a policy. Johnson
vs. Berkshire Ins. Co.,

3. Evidence-preliminary proofs-waiver of-sufficiency of, a ques-
tion for the Court. Commonwealth Ins. Co. vs. Sennett et al.,

4. Where the policy allows insurer the option to rebuild but the muni-
cipal authority will not permit it, the insured may recover for his full
loss. Brady vs. N. W. Ins. Co.,

II. Construction of Clauses in Policies.

547

701

443

631

379

311

. 572

5. Execution clause-what is a levy within the meaning of such clause.
Commonwealth Ins. Co. vs. Berger,

505

6. Breach of condition against assignment of property insured. Western
Mass. Ins. Co. vs. Riker,

7. Warranty" free from all liens." Bidwell vs. North Western Ins. Co. 59
III. Mutual Insurance-Premium Notes.

8. Surrender of policy dissolves the relation of insured as a member
of the company, which has no claims upon him except for previous
assessments. Campbell vs. Adams,

9. Note given to mutual insurance company is payable by law at its
date, and Statute of Limitations begins to run from then. Howland vs.
Edmonds et al.,

10. Assessments upon premium note should not include former assess-
ments still in force, and as to which the power of the company is
expended. Campbell vs. Adams,

11. Transfer of policy without consent of insurers-liability upon pre-
mium note. Hyatt vs. Wait,

12. Mutual insurance policy-default of cash payment of premium.
Mulrey vs. Shawmut Mutual Ins. Co.,

INTEREST, COMPOUND.

See VENDOR, 6.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

I. War-Neutral and Belligerent Rights.

1. Neutrals have a right to challenge the existence of a blockade de
facto, and also the authority of the party instituting it. They have a
right to enter the ports of a friendly nation for the purposes of com-

506

318

500

6(

182