ALIEN.

9. An alien woman married to an alien in a foreign country and continuing
to reside there until her husband's death, did not become a citizen of the
United States by the naturalization of her husband subsequent to their mar-
riage. Burton vs. Burton, 425.

10. She is, therefore, not entitled to dower under the laws of the state of
New York. ld.

11. Construction of the Act of Congress 10th February 1855, sec. 2. Id.
12. May hold land until office found in Rhode Island. Cross vs. De Valle,
630.

13. May sue another in courts of this country on contract made abroad.
Roberts vs. Knights, 697.

AMENDMENT. See EQUITY, 6.

1. In allowing amendments all legal defences, including those styled un-
conscionable, stand on an equal footing. Sheldon vs. Adams, 503.

2. An amendment will not be allowed that would cut off the defence of the
statute of limitations. Id.

3. Nor an amendment by which a note liable to be assessed only for losses in
one class of hazards, is made liable for all losses. Id.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD. See BOUNDARY, 1.

1. Arbitrators under statute cannot award the transfer of specific property.
Brown vs. Evans, 373.

2. An award which provides for the payment of an amount, after deduct-
ing sums not fixed by the award, is invalid. Fletcher vs. Webster, 62.
3. On claim to realty is void in New York. Wiles vs. Peck, 568.
4. Interest to disqualify arbitrators. Leominster vs. Fitchburg Railroad
Co., 505.

5. Presumption in favor of award. Id.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

Evidence of special damage. Brown vs. Cummings, 698.

ASSIGNMENT. See FUTURE ACQUISITIONS; INSURANCE, 26, 39, 42.

A judge's salary is assignable, and a purchaser for value of an assignment
to order, properly indorsed, acquires a good title. State vs. Hastings, 378.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

1. Not void for reserving property exempt from execution, without specify-
ing it.
Smith vs. Mitchell, 248.

2. But it must fairly assign all the assignor's property liable for his debts.
Id.

3. What evidence admissible on the question of good faith, and of value of
property. Id.

4. Assignment by railroad company of unpaid subscriptions to stock to
secure an indorser for the company, is not an assignment for benefit of credi-
tors. McBroom and Woods' Appeal, 309.

5. Assignment in general terms referring to an annexed schedule may in-
clude property not named in the latter. Turner vs. Jaycox et al., 318.

6. By partners may provide for payment of private debts out of the residue
after paying partnership debts. Id.

7. When the conduct of an assignor shows that he still claims and seeks to
derive a benefit from the property, to the prejudice of his creditors, it will
tend to show that the assignment was originally made with a fraudulent pur-
pose. Flanigan vs. Lampman, 183.

8. The fact that the assignor, as agent for one of the creditors, purchased
part of the property at the assignee's sale, and afterwards continued in pos-
session of it himself, is evidence of the fraudulent intent. Id.

9. Property fraudulently put in the hands of a debtor for the purpose of
giving him a false credit, does not vest in the assignee under an assignment.
Audenried vs. Betterly, 62.

ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

10. Assignee may maintain trespass against one who interferes with the pro-
perty. McQueen vs. Babcock, 701.

11. Such action is not intermeddling within the terms of an injunction. Id.
12. Such injunction is no bar to suit against a sheriff for taking the pro-
perty out of assignee's hands. Therefore the statute of limitations runs in his
favor. Id.

1. For money had, &c., may be maintained by creditor against one to whom
his debtor has delivered money to pay the debt. Stoudt vs. Hine, 571.

2. No promise in writing is required, as the Statute of Frauds does not ap-
ply. Id.

3. Money paid by the putative father of an unborn bastard to the super-
intendent of the poor upon a compromise, may be recovered back upon its
appearing that the supposed mother was never pregnant. Ruhl vs. Hicks, 56.
4. Money paid voluntarily, under a mistake of facts, cannot be recovered
back. Brown vs. Rich, 188.

5. A moral obligation founded upon an antecedent valuable consideration
may be sufficient to sustain a promise though the obligation on which it is
founded never could have been enforced at law. Goulding vs. Davidson, 34.
ATTACHMENT. See BANKS, 20; INSOLVENCY, 3; INTEREST, 2; MUNICIPAL COR-
PORATION, 3, 4.

ATTORNEY. See COUNSEL; JUDGMENT, 1.

1. Statute of limitations does not begin to run against claim for services,
until entry of judgment. Eliot vs. Lawton, 566.

2. One who practises in justice's courts, though not licensed attorney, may
be within the rules applicable to attorneys. Freelove vs. Cole, 638.

AUDITOR.

See ACCOUNT RENDER, 3; HUSBAND AND WIFE, 6.

BAILMENT, 321.

BANK. See AGENT, 5, 6; BILLS, 10, 18, 19, 20, 33, 35, 41; CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, II.: CORPORATION.

1. There is no implied contract to pay the President for his services. Saw-
yer vs. Pawner's Bank, 249.

2. A debtor sued by bank, cannot plead acts by which the latter has for-
feited its charter. Such forfeiture can only be enforced by the State in a di-
rect proceeding. Farmers' Bank vs. Garten, 634.

3. The counting out of money to the person presenting a check, passes the
property in the money to the latter, and cannot be revoked. Chambers vs.
Miller, 439.

4. If a banker denies the right of a depositor, by placing the deposit to
credit of another person he is presently liable to action for the amount. Car-
roll vs. Cone, 319.

5. So where he voluntarily counts out the amount of the deposit and hands
it to a sheriff to levy upon. Id.

Id.

6. The money so counted out was his own property and not his depositor's.

7. Charging of interest on customer's accounts.

Crosskill vs. Bower, 438.

8. Cannot refuse to allow income tax to a customer, upon interest accruing
on a mortgage security. Mosse vs. Salt, 439.

9. The discounting of bills when the customer's account is overdrawn
makes the bank a holder for value. In re Carew, 439.

10. If bank takes a mortgage security from a customer for a fixed sum
owing by the latter, the relation of banker and customer ceases as to that
Mosse vs. Salt, 442.

sum.

11. Habitual mode of making out an account is evidence of an agreement
that it should be so made. Mosse vs. Salt, 439.

BANK.

12. In the absence of special agreement, express or implied, the custom
of bankers may be proved. Mosse vs. Salt, 439.

13. Disputed entry in pass-book is for the jury. Snead vs. Williams, 442.

BASTARD. See ASSUMPSIT, 3.

BILLS AND NOTES. See AMENDMENT, 3; BANK, 9; LIMITATION. 5, 6; ME-
CHANIC'S LIEN, 1; MORTGAGE, 6, 19, 20; NEGOTIABLE BONDS; USURY, 7.
I. What amounts to.

1. Note payable "subject to the policy" not negotiable. Bank vs. Blan-
chard, 567.

2. Instruments amounting to. Cory vs. Davis, 439.
II. Consideration.

Watson vs. Evans, 440.

3. The issuing of a policy, by an insolvent company, is a good considera-
tion for a note given for the premium, if the insolvency was not known at
the time. Lester vs. Webb, 62.

4. One who signs as principal a promissory note, which has already been
delivered and accepted, is not liable thereon, without proof of a new con-
sideration. Green vs. Shepherd, 62.

5. Note payable on alternative condition. Consideration to give a scholar-
ship in another institution. Genesee College vs. Dodge, 570.

III. Liability of Parties.

6. One who takes a promissory note without consideration takes it subject
to all its infirmities in his assignor's hands. Harpham vs. Haynes, 313.

7. Indorsee even with notice takes a note subject only to such equities as
attach to the instrument itself. Mattoon vs. McDaniel, 634.

8. Indorser of blank note cannot object as against a bona fide holder for
value that the blanks have been improperly filled. Farmers' Bank vs. Gar-
ten, 634.

9. A signing on condition which is not fulfilled is no defence against a bona
fide holder for value. Watson vs. Russell, 440.

10. Where a note is signed as cashier, parol evidence allowed to show of
what bank. Baldwin vs. Bank of Newbury, 629.

Bottomley vs. Fisher, 440.

11. Personal liability for note signed as secretary.
12. Liability for note signed by agent in own name. Brown vs. Parker, 567.
13. Suit in equity against acceptor of a lost bill. Edge vs. Bumford, 441.
14. Notice by surety to holder of note not yet due, to sue as soon as it
should become due, will not discharge him. Hellen vs. Crawford, 310.

15. Indorsee of bills given for debt but not accepted in absolute payment
has no right of action against the debtor except upon the bills. Battle vs.
Coit, 700.

A note given in pursuance of an illegal agreement, but not made void by the
statute may be recovered on by a bona fide receiver for value. Chesbrough vs.

Wright, 444.

17. But one who takes the note in part payment of a precedent debt is not
such receiver for value.

IV. Title to a Note.

Id.

18. Bank receiving note for collection has no better title than the remitting
bank unless it becomes a purchaser for value without notice. McBride vs.
Farmers' Bank, 636.

19. Having a balance against the remitting bank and refraining from draw-
ing it, or discounting notes for the latter, do not make the bank such pur-
chaser. Id.

20. Remitting bank having demanded the note and afterwards the proceeds,
assigned its demand. The assignor may maintain an action without new de-
mand, although the assignment was made to obviate the objection to an attach-
ment by a non-resident. Id.

21. Receiver of unindorsed note has no better title than the person from
whom he received it. Whistler vs. Foster, 440.

BILLS AND NOTES.

22. Indorsement of note to two persons, with delivery, vests a valid title
in both, although one was absent at the time, and they may maintain a joint
action upon it. Flint et al. vs. Flint, 120.

23. Where a guaranty of a note is a separate instrument, title to it will
pass by delivery with the note, for a good consideration. Gould vs. Ellery, 59.
24. Where J. made a contract for the sale of C.'s promissory notes to L. when
he was not the owner nor in possession, it was held, that there was no im-
plied warranty of title, and that the subsequent acquisition of it by J. did not
enure to the benefit of L. so as to render a payment by C. to him good, and
an extinguishment of the note. Scranton vs. Clark, 125.

V. Payment.

25. On a note payable in specie plaintiff can only recover the face with in-
terest, though specie be at premium. Wood vs. Bullens, 373.

26. Renewal note retained by the payee, is satisfaction, under the circum-
stances, of the first. Sage vs. Walker, 765.

27. An indorser who takes up a note and gives a new one of his own for it,
has a right to regard this as a payment as between him and his principal.
Wilkinson vs. Stewart, 313.

VI. Demand and Notice.

28. An express company contracted in Indiana, to present a bill drawn and
indorsed by parties in that state, and accepted payable in New York. The
bill was placed in the hands of a competent notary in New York a day before
its maturity, and was, on that day, presented and protested, whereby the
indorsers were discharged. On suit brought against the express company
for their neglect, it was urged that the contract of the company was per-
formed when the bill was put into the notary's hands. This question ex-
amined, but not decided. American Express Co. vs. Dunlevy, 266.

29. The express company, by delivering the bill to the notary on the day
before its maturity, had made that officer their agent to hold and collect the
paper. This employment had nothing to do with the notary's official charac-
On this ground the express company is liable. Id.

ter.

30. The measure of damages is the face of the bill and interest. Id.

31. Foreign bill must be protested by a notary. Note to American Express
Co. vs. Dunlevy, 271.

32. A bill drawn in one state payable in another is a foreign bill.

Id

33. Liability of persons receiving bills on deposit, for transmission or col-
lection. Id.

34. For purposes of protest a collecting agent is a holder. State Bank vs.
Bank of the Capital, 701.

35. Bank acting as collecting agent merely need only notify its immediate
(principal or indorser.

Id.

36. Its undertaking to notify other parties is not sufficient evidence of
agreement to notify all.

Id.

37. Holder of note as collateral must present it at maturity. Peacock vs.
Percell, 440.

38. Presentment at the place of date is sufficient, in absence of proof that
the holder knew the maker resided elsewhere. Smith vs. Philbrick, 187.

VII. Grace.

39. Maker has the whole of the last day of grace to pay in, without regard
to banking hours. Smith vs. Aylesworth, 254.

40. Maker has all the last day of grace, though he may have refused pay-
ment during the day. Oothout vs. Ballard, 444.

41. It is immaterial whether the note is payable at a bank or at large. Id.

BOUNDARY.

1. An oral award by referees, under an oral submission, is competent
evidence upon a question of disputed boundary between the parties. Byam
vs. Robbins, 120.

2. Oral agreement as to, uncertain.

Proprietor vs. Prescott, 698.

BOUNTY.

Offered to volunteers is payable to drafted men allowed to volunteer for a
period longer than the draft called for. People vs. Hammond, 249.

CALIFORNIA LAND CLAIMS. See DEED, 9, 10; MINES.

CASES AFFIRMED, OVERRULED, ETC.

Aymar vs. N. River Bank, 3 Hill 263, affirmed. Exchange Bank vs. Mon-
teath, 700.

Bloomer vs. McQuewan, 11 Howard 549, approved. Bloomer vs. Millin-
ger, 695.

Bush vs. Steinman, 1 Bos. & Pull. 404, rejected as authority. Painter vs.
Pittsburgh, 350.

Chaffee vs. Boston Belting Company, 22 Howard 223, approved. Bloomer
vs. Millinger, 695.

Cross vs. De Valle, 630.
Cross vs. De Valle, 630.

Hawley vs. James, 5 Paige 442, distinguished.
Langdale vs. Briggs, 39 E. C. L. R. 214, followed.
Lorilard vs. Coster, 5 Paige 172, distinguished. Cross vs. De Valle, 630.
Noonan vs. Lee, 2 Black 499, recognised. Orchard vs. Hughes, 694.
Parker vs. Kane, 4 Wisc. 1, approved. Howell vs. Howell, 378.
Rex vs. Horwell, 6 Carr. & P. 148, distinguished. People vs. Clements, 570.
Scribner us. Fisher, 2 Gray 43, dissented from. Baldwin vs. Hale, 462.
United States vs. West's Heirs, reviewed. United States vs. Galbraith, 51.
Wennall vs. Adney, 3 Bos. & Pull. 252. Note to, commented on. Goulding

vs. Davidson, 34.

Wheaton vs. Hibbard, 20 Johns. 290.
Porter vs. Mount, 493.

CERTIORARI.

Dictum of SPENCER, C. J., overruled.

1. A common law certiorari, sued out after the time for a statutory appeal
which would have given the same remedy, will be quashed. Farrell vs. Tay-
lor, 249.

2. The allowance of the writ in such case is not binding on the court. Id.
CHAMPERTY.

Purchase of legacy for less than its value from one too poor to sue, is not.
Tyson vs. Jackson, 441.

A creditor who has received from his debtor, a check upon a bank, cannot
return the same to the drawer, and sue upon the original cause of action,
without first demanding payment; and presenting the check to the bank to be
certified, is not equivalent to a demand of payment. Bradford vs. Fox, 61.
CITIZEN. See ALIEN.

COMMON CARRIER. See ADMIRALTY, 5; NEGLIGENCE, 11; RAILROAD, II.

1. The ticket of a passenger includes also ordinary baggage but not mer-
chandise. Smith and Wife vs. The Boston and Maine Railroad, 127.

2. Not liable for loss of merchandise brought with him by a passenger as
baggage. Cahill vs. London, &c., Railroad Co., 441.

3. Is bound to deliver goods within a reasonable time, having reference to
his means of carrying. Hales vs. London, &c., Railroad Co., 441.

4. Liable for injury to passenger by defect of vehicle, though it was not
discoverable by any practicable mode of examination. Alden vs. New York
Central Railroad Co., 498.

5. Condition that shipper assumes the risks of carrying does not relieve
carrier from ordinary liability. Falvey vs. N. T. Co., 379.

6. Cannot by a general notice exonerate himself entirely from legal liability.
Judson vs. Western Railroad Co., 316.

7. A carrier having a lien on goods for freight, &c., cannot sell the goods
to enforce his lien. Measure of damages where he does. Briggs vs. Boston,
&c., Railroad Co., 250.