duct offered to show the manner in which the officers attended to their duty, held admissible as part of res gestae. Approved in Northern Commercial Co. v. Nestor, 138 Fed. 386, 70 C. C. A. 523, where officers of ship permitted passengers to discharge firearms on board in reckless manner, owner is liable to passenger injured; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Crosby, 53 Fla. 445, 43 South. 332, holding admissible exclamations made at time of accident by mother of infant plaintiff; Hemmingway v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 72 Wis. 51, 7 Am. St. Rep. 829, 37 N. W. 807, in action for damages caused by alighting from a train permitting evidence of conversation of a passenger with the plaintiff as res gestae. Declaration of bystander at time of accident as part of res gestae. Res ipsa loquitur where passenger is injured by instrumentality Owner of vessel is liable for injuries to passenger caused by riotous conduct of other passengers. Approved in Grimsley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1 Ga. App. 559, 57 S. E. 944, holding whether carrier should have apprehended intoxicated passenger carrying pistol would injure passenger by shooting was question for jury; Pittsburgh etc. Ry. Co. v. Richardson, 40 Ind. App. 507, 82 N. E. 537, holding railroad liable for injuries to passenger shot by fellow-passenger; Kuhlen v. Boston etc. St. Ry. Co., 193 Mass. 347, 118 Am. St. Rep. 516, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 729, 79 N. E. 816, holding carrier liable for injuries to passenger caused by pushing of crowd at station. Liability of carrier for accidental injury to passenger caused by act of other passenger. Note, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 56. Liability of carrier for act of obviously drunken passenger. Note, 4 B. R. C. 337. 13 Wall. 6-13, 20 L. Ed. 476, YEAGER v. FARWELL. Strictly speakling, there can only be waiver of demand and notice by indorser before note is due; but an indorser may so act toward payee after it is due as to render want of demand and notice immaterial, as, by promise to pay after knowledge of default of maker. Approved in Bessenger v. Wenzel, 161 Mich. 66, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 516, 125 N. W. 752, holding failure to present note waived where indorsers, who were officers of bank where payable, assured payee it could not be paid at maturity; Moll v. Roth Co., 77 Or. 599, 152 Pac. 237, holding consent by indorser to extension of time amounted to waiver of presentment; White v. Keith, 97 Ala. 669, 12 South. 611, holding that waiver of protest and notice after dishonor will not bind the indorser unless a new and valid promise to pay is made by him; Martin v. Lennon, 19 Minn. 74, holding that a subsequent promise to pay by an indorser, with knowledge that he was not liable on the bill or note for failure to give notice of dishonor, was binding on the ground that it amounted to a waiver; Lockwood v. Bock, 50 Minn. 144, 52 N. W. 391, holding it was settled law that no new consideration for a waiver made after maturity was necessary, it is in effect a waiver of a condition precedent to the liability of the indorser, which may be dispensed with by the indorser as well after as before maturity; Quaintance v. Goodrow, 16 Mont. 378, 41 Pac. 77, holding that an indorser who at time of indorsing told the payee to look to him and no one else for payment, and on the last grace day and after maturity promised to pay and asked for time, waived notice of demand and dishonor. Distinguished in Sebree Deposit Bank v. Moreland, 96 Ky. 156, holding subsequent promise by indorser, made without adequate consideration, is void. Necessity for new consideration to support waiver of lack of notice of dishonor, or subsequent promise by indorser. Note, 29 L. R. A. 308. Miscellaneous. Cited in Allen v. Rundle, 50 Conn. 27, 47 Am. Rep. 606, written indorsement cannot be varied or modified by parol. 13 Wall. 14-17, 20 L. Ed. 478, WEBB v. SHARP. Under statute of 1867, lien of landlord in District of Columbia, on chattels of his tenant subject to execution, commences with the tenancy, attaches the moment the chattel is placed on the premises and is superior to that of deed of trust or mortgage subsequently executed. Approved in Richmond v. Cake, 1 App. D. C. 462, holding attachment for rent lay against chattels subject to deed of trust for benefit of plaintiff; Hechtman v. Sharp, 3 McAr. (D. C.) 94, holding landlord's lien for rent inferior to existing lien, but superior to all subsequent encumbrances; Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 383, 387, 24 L. Ed. 173, 175, asserting priority of landlord's lien on hotel furniture over a deed of trust; Wooten v. Gwin, 56 Miss. 427, holding that under act of 1872 a purchaser, without notice, of cotton on which a landlord had a lien for rent was not liable for an action for damage for tortious removal by landlord. Distinguished in The Hempstead etc. Assn. v. Cochran, 60 Tex. 624, holding that sections 3122a, 3122b of the Revised Statutes limited the landlord's lien to yearly rentings and did not take precedence of a mortgage. Bona fide purchasers of chattels without notice are protected against landlord's lien, and goods sold in ordinary course of trade are discharged from lien. Approved in Fowler v. Rapley, 15 Wall. 336, 21 L. Ed. 37, holding that the lien when once it attaches continues to attach to the chattels into whosesoever hands they may come unless displaced by removal or by sale in the ordinary course of business; Beall v. White, 94 U. S. 386, 24 L. Ed. 175, holding that the lien attached at commencement of tenancy but is displaced where goods are sold and removed from the premises, the purchaser taking a perfect title; Smith v. Shell Lake Lumber Co., 68 Wis. 94, 31 N. W. 696, holding that a laborer's logging lien cannot affect a bona fide purchaser who buys before the filing of the claim of lien and without notice, actual or constructive. 13 Wall. 17-25, 20 L. Ed. 527, BOYDEN v. UNITED STATES. Receiver of public money is not a mere bailee, but when he binds himself by his official bond to perform duties of his office without exception, he makes himself an insurer by express contract. Approved in Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 167, 47 L. Ed. 429, 23 Sup. Ct. 282, holding superintendent of mint liable for money lost through fire; Lamb v. Dart, 108 Ga. 612, 34 S. E. 164, holding county treasurer liable on bond for public moneys lost through bank's failure; Poole v. Burnet County, 97 Tex. 84, 76 S. W. 427, county treasurer liable on bond for loss of funds which he had deposited in bank which turned out to be insolvent; Meckenburg County v. Beales, 111 Va. 697, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 285, 69 S. E. 1035, holding county treasurer liable on bond for loss of moneys by insolvency of depository; Town of Cameron v. Hicks, 65 W. Va. 493, 17 Ann. Cas. 926, 64 S. E. 835, holding surety on bond of bond commissioner liable for money lost by failure of depository bank; State v. Nevin, 19 Nev. 165, 3 Am. St. Rep. 875, 7 Pac. 652, holding that under a bond for faithful performance of official duties a county treasurer and his sureties were liable for moneys stolen; United States v. Watts, 1 N. M. 562, holding sureties of receiver of public land sale moneys liable for moneys lost by robbery, the receiver being killed in defending them; Tillinghast v. Merrill, 151 N. Y. 143, 56 Am. St. Rep. 616, 34 L. R. A. 682, 45 N. E. 377, holding that an action on official bond of town supervisor could not be defended because public school moneys in his hands had been lost by insolvency of bank of deposit; Fairchild v. Hedges, 14 Wash. 120, 31 L. R. A. 852, 44 Pac. 126, holding county treasurer not absolved from duty to pay over funds by insolvency of bank of deposit; State v. Gramm, 7 Wyo. 329, 40 L. R. A. 698, 700, 708, 52 Pac. 540, 543, 552, holding that an officer is not by virtue of his office an insurer, but may become so by the effect of his bond, but a State treasurer under a bond "to truly and justly account" is not liable for loss by insolvency of bank where State funds are deposited to a separate account according to an established custom and no negligence or fraud is charged; Roberts v. Board of Commissioners of Laramie County, 8 Wyo. 177, 56 Pac. 919, to same effect as to funds deposited by a county treasurer in bank owned by one of his official sureties, held not liable. Distinguished in York County v. Watson, 15 S. C. 9, 40 Am. Rep. 678, holding that in State a county treasurer is only subject to the commonlaw obligation and is not liable for loss of funds by failure of the bank of deposit, the bank being solvent at time of deposit; State v. Copeland, 96 Tenn. 302, 54 Am. St. Rep. 843, 31 L. R. A. 845, 34 S. W. 428, holding that it is not in accord with public policy that a public officer should be liable for public funds as an insurer, and he is not liable for money lost by failure of bank of deposit. Bonds of public officers bind obligors to pay the moneys in their hands when required by law even though the money may have been lost without fault on their part. Approved in State v. Houston, 78 Ala. 581, 56 Am. Rep. 60, holding tax collector liable for money collected and not paid over notwithstanding he had been robbed of it; District Township v. Morton, 37 Iowa, 553, holding the obligor of an official bond will not be relieved from his contract by showing any degree of diligence or care which falls short of absolute compliance with the terms of the contract, and robbery is no excuse; Board of Education v. Jewell, 44 Minn. 428, 20 Am. St. Rep. 587, 46 N. W. 915, holding that the great weight of authority is that where the statute imposing a duty to pay over contains no condition limiting the obligation, the obligation imposed on and assumed by the officer is absolute, and applying rule to a loss of funds by burglary. Distinguished in People v. Faulkner, 107 N. Y. 483, 14 N. E. 417, holding surrogate and his sureties not liable for surplus moneys arising from a foreclosure sale paid to him for distribution. Acts for which sureties on official bonds are liable. Note, 91 Am. Felonious taking, stealing and carrying away of public money in the hands of a receiver without any fault or negligence on his part does not discharge him or his sureties and cannot be set up as a defense to an action on his official bond. Approved in United States v. Fordyce, 122 Fed. 963, holding postmaster liable on bond for stamps lost through burglary; Montgomery Co. v. Cochran, 121 Fed. 25, 57 C. C. A. 261, holding treasurer liable on bond as for conversion of money lost through bank's failure; United States v. Smythe, 120 Fed. 32 (affirming Smythe v. United States, 107 Fed. 378, 46 C. C. A. 354), holding superintendent of mint and sureties liable on bond for money destroyed by fire; Estate of Ramsay v. People, 197 Ill. 588, 90 Am. St. Rep. 184, 64 N. E. 554; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Owens, 86 Minn. 197, 90 N. W. 375, and Maloy v. County Commrs., 10 N. M. 655, 658, 662, 62 Pac. 1109, all holding officials liable for public moneys lost through bank's failure; Halliburton v. United States, 13 Wall. 65, holding a receiver liable for public moneys which the Confederate authorities had compelled him to pay over to them; United States v. Bosbyshell, 73 Fed. 618, 619 (affirmed in Bosbyshell v. United States, 77 Fed. 948, 23 C. C. A. 581), holding that the superintendent of the mint under a duty bond where the duty was to safely keep until legally withdrawn all moneys or bullion, etc., was bound to deliver to his successor and was liable on his bond for shortage; United States v. Bryan, 82 Fed. 293, holding postmaster liable for embezzlement by a clerk though appointed under the civil service rules and that only exception to rule was when the loss occurred through the act of God or of a public enemy; United States v. Zabriskie, 87 Fed. 720, holding the melter and refiner of the mint at Carson City, Nevada, liable for embezzlement of bullion by a subordinate; Bryan v. United States, 90 Fed. 474, 33 C. C. A. 617, holding a postmaster liable for money embezzled by the clerk in charge of the money-order department, though not appointed by him; Gartley v. People, 24 Colo. 157, 49 Pac. 272, holding that loss of county moneys by failure of the bank in which they were deposited did not constitute a defense to an action of county treasurer's bond; Clay Co. v. Simonsen, 1 Dak. Ter. 417, 46 N. W. 596, holding that under bond of public officer he is not excused from handing over moneys collected by loss of same by accidental fire not caused by lightning, that not being "an irresistible superhuman cause"; State v. Powell, 67 Mo. 397, 29 Am. Rep. 514, holding that treasurer of school funds is liable for funds lost by insolvency of bank in which he had deposited them to his credit as trustee and treasurer; State v. Moore, 74 Mo. 417, 41 Am. Rep. 324, to same effect as to county funds deposited by treasurer in a bank which failed; Bush v. Johnson Co., 48 Neb. 10, 58 Am. St. Rep. 679, 32 L. R. A. 227, 66 N. W. 1025, to same effect where deposit in bank made by treasurer's predecessor who delivered certificate of deposit which was canceled and a new certificate issued, the bank subsequently failing; Boggs v. State, 46 Tex. 13, holding sureties on tax collector's bond liable for collections made and stolen from the collector during his life; Wilson v. Wichita Co., 67 Tex. 649, 4 S. W. 68, holding that a county treasurer is not absolved from his duty to pay over all moneys to his successor because his de |