the time a resident of Missouri, and was not in Ohio while the suit was pending; but some years before, when he was in Ohio, he executed the note sued on, and included in it what purported to be an authori zation to any attorney at law to appear in any court in the United States, waive process, enter appear. ance, and confess judgment on the note against him. Under that authorization some one said to be an attorney at law, did essay to enter the defendant's appearance, waive process, and confess judgment. That character of proceeding is said to be valid in Ohio, and I will assume that it is, and that the judg ment is valid in that state. Suppose there had been no such authorization in the note, and an attorney at law, without any authority from defendant whatever, had entered his appearance and suffered the judgment to go. That would be a valid judgment in the state where rendered to the extent, at least that it could not be avoided collaterally. But the decisions above cited are authority for saying that if that judgment should be sued on here, the defendant may avoid it by a plea showing that the court had no jurisdiction of his person. Now, the supposed case differs from the case at bar only in this: that in that case there was no semblance of authority to the pragmatical attorney, while here there is claimed to be authority. But, if what is here claimed as authority is no author. ity, then there is no difference between the cases. That so-called authorization would certainly not be recognized as valid under the laws of this state, not because we do not recognize the right of a man to appoint an attorney in the regular way to enter his appearance in a suit in court, even for the purpose of suffering judgment to go against him, but because it is against the policy of our law to permit a man when ertering into an obligation, to bargain away his right to be heard in court, should a question ever arise between him and his adversary in relation to it. A man who has signed a paper of that kind, if it is valid, is completely at the mercy of the holder, whatever the merits of the case may be, because the holder may go to any forum in the United States and select any attorney whom he chooses, and have judgment entered against the maker, who does not know that he is being sued, and this judgment creditor comes to the state in which the judgment debtor resides, and asks the courts of such state to say that "full faith and credit" must be given to the judgment of that sister state. But it is said that this contract was good in the state where it was made, and is therefore valid everywhere. That is not a rule of universal application. In the case last cited the Supreme Court of the United States said: "The several states are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others; and so it is laid down by jurist as an elementary principle that the laws of one state have no operation outside of its territory, except so far as is allowed by comity.' That comity never admits the validity of an act done in another state by authority of the law there, if it contravenes the policy of the law here. In Missouri a man's right to be heard in court is inalienable, and a contract like the one in question is not only not authorized, but contrary to our policy. The pretended appearance that is entered under such authority is not real but fictitious. We are not forced to recognize it, and would do violence to our judicial policy if we did so.', But two recent cases, very similar to the principa case, were not cited in either the court's opinion or that of Justice Valliant. These cases are, Teel v.

Yost, 128 N. Y. 387, and First Nat. Bank of Athens v. Garland, 109 Mich. 515. In Teel v. Yost, it was held that a judgment duly entered in one state on a warrant of attorney is as conclusive in all other states as in the state where it is entered. The note in this case contained the ordinary "confession and release" clause. The court said: "This instrument is usually called a judgment note,'-an obligation quite common in Pennsylvania. The parties to the note. were both residents of that state, and the court of common pleas was a court of general jurisdiction in that state, of which the prothonotary was clerk, and had charge of its records, and authority to enter judgments by confession. If this was a valid judgment under the laws of the state where it was rendered, it must, under the constitution of the United States, be accorded the same force and effect in this state that it had in the state where rendered." It will be noticed that in this case the warrant authorized "any attorney" to confess judgment; but since the law of Pennsylvania permitted a prothonotary to perforta the duties of an attorney in such cases, the court held the proceeding valid and the judgment based thereon enforceable in any other state, although in such latter state no such proceeding would be authorized. The court after quoting from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upholding such judgments, uses this strong language: "These clear and explicit announcements by the highest courts of the state, of the force and defect given to such judg ments in that state, are entitled to the highest respect, and cannot, without ignoring the requirements of comity and propriety prevailing among sister states, be disregarded by the courts of other states. It should in any event be for the gravest reasons alone, and those demanded by the clearest rules of public policy and justice, that the courts of one state should deliberately deny to the decisions of the courts of another state the authority which they possess in the state where rendered." So also in First Nat. Bank v. Garland, 109 Mich. 515, it was held that a warrant of attorney, purporting to authorize "any attorney at law" to confess judgment on a note in "any court of record," is sufficient to sustain a judgment entered in a court of the state in which the warrant was executed, on confession of an attorney of such court, even though the warrant could be given no extra territorial force. This judgment was rendered in Ohio on a note containing the same clause as the note in the principal case. The court expressly followed the case of Teel v. Yost, supra, and held that "the warrant of attorney was such as to confer the necessary jurisdiction." It seems that Pennsylvania and Ohio have been flooding the country with these kind of notes and it is not unlikely that the questions of public policy as suggested by Judge Valliant in the principal case may yet become one of serious discussion. The weight of authority, however, is in favor of recognizing judgments based on such notes where the law of the state has been complied with.

JETSAM AND FLOTSAM.

RAILROAD TICKET "SCALPING."

The question as to the legal status of the business of ticket "scalping" appears to be still unsettled, though in the most recent cases the scalpers have bad somewhat the better of the controversy. A short time ago the appellate division of the New York su. preme court held the anti-scalping law passed by

the legislature this year unconstitutional, and took the ground that when a ticket is sold it belongs to the person who buys it, and that, unless its use is in some way limited, it has the same quality as every other kind of property. More recently the Lackawanna Railroad Company applied to Judge Hazel, of the United States District Court of Buffalo, for an injunction to restrain a number of ticket brokers from dealing in special Pan American tickets issued by that road. The judge declined to grant the injunc tion, for the reason that the Lackawanna was a member of the Trunk Line Association, the members of which, he said, combined to fix rates in violation of law, and, therefore, was not entitled to redress in a court of equity. At the same time, he held that the railroad company has the right to make special contracts with individual purchasers of tickets, and that the purchasers cannot violate such contracts by selling their tickets. It will be seen that two opposing views of the law are here set forth, though in the second case the decision went against the railroad company on another ground. The question at issue is important enough to render a final settlement a matter of wide interest.-Bradstreet's Journal.

LAWYER AS POET.

Quite a valuable edition of poems entitled "In the Shadow and Other Poems," has lately been published by one of America's bright young lawyers, Herbert B. Robinson. The editor of the Chicago Legal News, in speaking of these poems and of its author, said: Herbert B. Robinson, the son of Ex-Senator M. W. Robinson, who was in the senate while James B. Bradwell was in the house, many years ago. The father and son are now practicing law together in this city. The son is twenty two years of age. After reading these poems we are convinced that close application to the law has not driven the music from his soul. The prayer, which con. cludes the volume, is as follows:

Take not away my simple faith

Oh God of Reason, sheathed in steel,
And glitt'ring with the shining points
Of bloodless logic;-Let me kneel

A child of nature still, aghast
At my strange future;-Let the past,
Which filled my infant mind with hope,
Still guide me as I vainly grope.
Away, dark clouds of doubt and fear;
Away, ye earth bound chains of thought;
From out this prison of the brain
My soul must fly! The answer sought
When my poor reason glowed with fire
Is not my goal,-not my desire;

I wish it not, Oh God of Love,
But Thee, Thy Blessing from above.

PROCRASTINATION.

In no profession is the tendency to procrastinate so strong as among lawyers. Hence, the appropriateness

linca

But we say to ourselves, there's time to begin
Some other day;

And so, deferring, we loiter on,
The strength of the hope we leaned upon,
Some other day.

And when we are old and our race is run,
Some other day;

We fret for the things that might have been done
Some other day;

We trace the path that leads us where
The beckoning hand of grim despair
Leads us yonder out of there,
Some other day!

-Sommerville Journal.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

A Handbook of Parliamentary Practice. By Rufus Waples, Author of Treatises on Attachment and Garnishment, Proceedings in Rem, Homestead and Chattel Exemptions, etc. Second Edition, Enlarged. Chicago: Callaghan and Company. Cloth, pp. 306. Price $1.00. Review will follow. A Treatise on Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies, covering habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari or review. Containing an exposition of principles governing these several forms of relief, and their practical use; with citations of all the authorities to date. By Thomas Carl Spelling. Second edition, revised and enlarged. In two volumes. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1901. Sheep, pp. 1894. Price $12.50. Review will fol low.

WEEKLY DIGEST.

Weekly Digest of ALL the Current Opinions of ALL the State and Territorial Courts of Last Resort, and of all the Federal Courts ALABAMA, 2, 11, 41, 46, 55, 56, 74, 79, 81. 87, 93, 95, 100, 105, 112, 115, 121, 131, 158, 159, 168, 172, 205, 206 CALIFORNIA, 8, 17, 20, 27, 30, 43, 45, 58, 76, 82, 89, 90, 119, 134, 136, 137, 141, 161, 174, 198. 208

GEORGIA, 39, 47, 59, 77, 139, 142, 145, 148, 156, 189, 195, 209, 212, 214

MAINE, 1.5, 7, 18, 19, 22, 35, 37, 60, 63, 67, 68, 72, 72, 88, 99, 123, 128, 129, 138, 140, 146, 152, 154, 185, 188, 207, 210, 213 MISSISSIPPI.. ......109 NEW JERSEY....28, 33, 44, 75, 86, 103, 104, 147, 170, 171, 183 NEW YORK.......

NORTH CAROLINA.......

..34, 61, 162, 184 64, 97, 163, 167, 202, 211

iff must show that the steer came to his death by violence of defendant, held proper.-SPEAKMAN V. ROB. ERTS, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 359.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR-Absence-Oath-Poor Person. -Appeal dismissed because of absence from record of bond or oath as poor person, as required by trial court when granting appeal.-TURNER V. TURNER, Tenn., 64 S. W. Rep. 388.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR Assignment of Errors.-Filing of assignment of errors before issue of writ of error is indispensable under the eleventh rule of the cir cuit courts of appeals.-FRAME V. PORTLAND GOLDMIN. CO., U. S. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 750.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR - Burden of Proof.-The bur. den is on appellant in an equity suit heard by a single justice on matters of fact to show that the decree is clearly wrong.-SIDELINGER V. BLISS, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1094.

6. APPEAL AND ERROR-Citation.-The mere fact that citation is not issued until after the time limited for taking the appeal has expired does not defeat the jurisdiction of the appellate court. - BERLINER GRAMOPHONE CO. v. SEAMAN, U. S. C. C. of App., Fourth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 714.

7. APPEAL AND ERROR-Dismissal. - Where a case in equity has been held and reported to the law court, and it finds the allegations insufficient, it may dismiss the bill without considering the evidence.-LOGGIE V. CHANDLER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1059.

8. APPEAL AND ERROR- Errors Considered.-On an appeal from an order denying a new trial, the court can consider only attacks made on the findings as not supported by the evidence and alleged errors in law occurring during the trial.-HUNTER V. MILAM, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1079.

11. APPEAL AND ERROR -Grounds of Demurrer Sus. tained. Where a demurrer to bill is sustained generally, if any of the grounds are well taken, the decree will be affirmed.-BARRETT V. CENTRAL BLDG. & LOAN ASSN., Ala., 30 South. Rep. 347.

12. APPEAL AND ERROR-Grounds of Motion.-On appeal from judgment of nonsuit, only those grounds on which motion was based can be considered.-BURNS V. SOUTHERN RY. Co., S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 567.

13. APPEAL AND ERROR Jurisdictional Amount.The supreme court will bave jurisdiction where the amount of a set-off allowed and that of the decree rendered equal the jurisdictional amount.-BUNTING V. COCHRAN, Va., 39 S. E. Rep. 229.

14. APPEAL AND ERROR-Order Granting Change of Venue. Where no abuse of discretion is shown, order granting change of venue will not be reviewed.-CARROLL V. CHARLESTON & S. R. Co., S. Car., 39 S. F. Rep.

261

18. APPEARANCE Presumption.-Presumption is that an attorney has full power to enter appearance for non resident defendant.-FLINT V. COMLY, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1044.

19. ASSIGNMENTS — Action-In Whose Name.-Under Rev. St. ch. 82, § 180, assignee of a chose in action not negotiable may sue in his own name, but must file with his writ the assignment or a copy thereof.-DAMREN V. AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER Co., Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1092.

20. ATTORNEY and ClienT - Attorney of Record.Where appellant's attorney is one of the firm who were his attorneys of record below, a motion to dismiss on the ground that such attorney is not the attorney of record should be denied.-WOODMEN OF THE WORLD V. RUTLEDGE, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1105.

21. BANKRUPTCY - Alimony · Provable "Debt.”—A decree awarding alimony to a wife on granting her a divorce, although creating a fixed liability payable at once, does not evidence a "debt" provable against the husband's estate in bankruptcy, under Bankr. Act 1898, § 63a.-TURNER V. TURNER, U. S. D. C., D. (Ind.), 108 Fed. Rep. 785.

22. BANKRUPTCY Attachment.-An attachment of realty more than four months before filing petition in bankruptcy against defendant held not dissolved by such filing.-STICKNEY & BABCOCK COAL Co. v. GOODWIN, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1039.

23. BANKRUPTCY Discharge Fraudulent Book. keeping.-A bankrupt not entitled to a discharge on the ground that he failed to keep proper books of ac count with fraudulent intent to conceal his true finan. cial condition.-IN RE FELDSTEIN, U. S. D. C., S. D. (N. Y.), 108 Fed. Rep. 791.

24. BANKRUPTCY - "Mercantile Pursuits."—A livery stable is engaged principally in "trading or mercantile pursuits," within the meaning of Bankr. Act 1898, § 4b, and may be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt. -IN RE MORTON BOARDING STABLES, U. 8. D. C., S. D. (N. Y.), 108 Fed. Rep. 791.

25. BANKRUPTCY-Sale of Homestead.-Where bank. rupt may have entered into a contract for the sale of his homestead, held not to deprive him of his right to exemption.-IN RE CARMICHAEL, U. S. D. C., D. (Ky.), 108 Fed. Rep. 789.

26. BANKS AND BANKING Certificates of Deposit.An instrument executed by a cashier of a bank, which merely certifies that on a prior date named a party had a stated sum on deposit to its credit in the bank, is not a certificate of deposit.-MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA V. UNION NAT. BANK, U. S. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 753.

27. BILLS AND NOTES-Attorney's Fees.-A provision in a mortgage securing a note for attorney's fees in case of foreclosure renders the note non-negotiable.MEYER V. WEBER, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1110.

28. BILLS AND NOTES-Enforcement-Partnership.Party on the faith of whose name and collateral credit was given to take up certain partnership notes entitled to participate in the funds in hands of firm's re ceiver.-LAWSON V. DUNN, N. J., 49 Atl. Rep. 1087.

29. BOUNDARIES-Evidence.-In trespass, after establishment of dividing line by defendant, no evi

32. CARRIERS-Impending Danger.-A railroad company held liable for negligence in an impending dan. ger in failing to make any effort to have a passenger get out of the car, beyond making an announcement in English, which the passenger did not understand. -SOUTHERN PAC. Co. v. TARIN, U. s. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 734.

33. CEMETERIES - Location-Consent.- By granting consent to the location of a rural cemetery, the mu nicipal authorities necessarily approve that location within the meaning of the statutes.-BURDETTE V. BOROUGH OF FAIRVIEW, N. J., 49 Atl. Rep 1029.

35. CHATTEL MORTG GES-Cancellation.-That chattel mortgagee, after payment retains the mortgage, held not ground for a decree requiring its cancellation or surrender.-LOGGIE V. CHANDLER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1059.

36. COLLISION-Fault.-A schooner is not in fault where, after she had been placed in peril through the fault of the steamer, she changed her course for the purpose of easing the blow.- MERCHANTS' & MINERS' TRANSP. Co. v. HOPKINS, U. S. C. C. of App., Fourth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 890.

37. CONTRACTS-Delivery of Goods.- Where goods were not called for within the time provided by the contract, plaintiff was absolved from liability under the contract.-NEW BEDFORD COPPEE Co. v. SOUTHARD, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1062.

38. CONTRACTS-Two Agreements to Same Effect.Where two writings of different dates, do not differ in legal effect, first agreement is not discharged by the second. - RHODES V. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. Co., W. Va., 39 8. E. Rep. 209.

39. CONVICTS-Employment.-A contract for the employment of convicts in the sawmill of a private citizen held against public policy. -PENITENTIARY Co. No. 2 v. ROUNDTREE, GA., 39 S. E. Rep. 508.

40. CORPORATIONS-Assessments-Action on Call.— Assumpsit held the proper form of action by an English corporation against a stockholder to recover the amount of a call made on his stock. - NASHUA SAV. BANK V. ANGLO-AMERICAN LAND MORTGAGE & AGENCY Co., U. S. C. C. of App., First Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 764. 41. CORPORATIONS Dissolved Party to Suit.-A foreign corporation, which has been legally dissolved by judicial decree, cannot be made a party to a suit. -FITTS V. NATIONAL LIFE ASSN. OF HARTFORD, CONN., Ala., 30 South. Rep. 374.

42. CORPORATIONS- Foreign Corporations-Service. -Service of summon on traveling salesman of a foreign corporation held a good service, under Code Civ. Proc. § 155, as amended by Act March 2, 1899.ABBEVILLE ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. v. WESTERN ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 559.

43. CORPORATIONS-Note-Liability of Stockholders. -Where a note given by a corporation is paid by a surety thereon, the surety may recover the amount paid from those who are stockholders at the time pay. ment is so made.-YULE V. BISHOP, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1094.

44. COSTS Sheriff - Liability. Fees incurred by sheriff, after satisfaction of judgment to officer holding the original execution held payable by the defend. ant in execution, unless incurred after notice of satis. faction.-REICK V. STEELMAN, N. J., 49 Atl. Rep. 1083.

45. COSTS-Taxing Costs on Appeal.-Where the order appealed from is at first reversed, but finally affirmed on a ground first urged at the rehearing, costs should be allowed to appellant.-YULE V. BISHOP, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1094.

46. COUNTIES - County Treasurer Witnesses. Mandamus lies to compel county treasurer to register certificate of state's witness, when duly authenticated though paid in part.-GRAY V. ABBOTT, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 346.

47. COURTS-City Courts.-Act establishing city court does not bring such court within the section of the constitution authorizing supreme court to review de cisions of city courts.-SAVANNAH F. & W. RY. Co. v. JORDAN, Ga., 39 S. E. Rep. 511.

48. COURTS - Improper Remarks of Counsel.- An allusion by counsel to the fact that certain of the defendants did not testify in their own behalf held not reversible error, in view of the ruling of the court on objection made.-WRIGHT V. UNITED STATES, U. S. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 805.

49. COURTS-Jurisdiction of County Courts.-The county court has no jurisdiction of a suit to sell land for the enforcement of a judgment lien.-TURNER V. TURNER, Tenn., 64 S. W. Rep. 392.

50. COVENANTS Breach of Warranty. Where a grantee goes into possession under a warranty deed, a right of action for breach of the warranty does not accrue until his title is assailed.-HUFF V. REILLY, Tex., 64 S. W. Rep. 387.

51. CURTESY-Value.-In ascertaining the value of the interest of a tenant by the curtesy, the value of the timber on the land should not be deducted.-ROND V. GODSKY, Va, 39 S. E. Rep. 216.

52. CUSTOMS DUTIES-Papaw Juice. -Powder from the juice of the papaw melon is duitable as a drug, not edible.-UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN FERMENT CO., U. S. C. C., S. D. (N. Y.), 108 Fed. Rep. 802.

58. CRIMINAL LAW-Court Expressing Opinion.-In. struction of court, in trial for violating banking law, that in his opinion it was the duty of the jury to convict, held ground for new trial.-BREESE V. UNITED STATES, U. S. C. C. of App., Fourth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 804.

54. CRIMINAL LAW-Remark of Judge. -Remarks by judge held not violation of constitutional provision against instructing as to matters of fact.-STATE V. MARCHBANKS, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rẹp. 187.

55. CRIMINAL LAW-Argumentative Instruction.Instruction that deposition in criminal case should receive same consideration as if witness was present, held argumentative and properly refused.- HOGAN V. STATE, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 359.

56. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Refusal to Give Instructions.A refusal of a charge already in substance given held proper.-MITCHELL V. STATE, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 348.

57. DAMAGES-Fire-Evidence.- Difference in value of land before and after fire may be shown by proof of value of trees destroyed.-DENT V. SOUTH-BOUND R. Co., S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 527.

an

59. DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT-Evidence.-In action by a widow to recover for the negligent killing of her husband, evidence that decedent left no estate was inadmissible.-BRUNSWICK & W. R. Co. v. WIGGINS, Ga., 39 S. E. Rep. 551.

60. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION-Widow as Heir.Under Pub. Laws 1895, ch. 157, the widow is not an heir of the husband, but takes as widow, and not as heir.GOLDER V. GOLDER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1050.

61. EJECTMENT-False Representation.-Where, in ejectment, plaintiff has legal title and defendant merely possession, false representation by plaintiff in obtaining his deed is immaterial.-WILLEY V. GREENFIELD, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1046.

on

63. EJECTMENT Sufficient Seisin.-Execution judgment in attachment of property gives the creditor a seisin sufficient to maintain a real action for recovery of the property.-STICKNEY & BABCOCK COAL Co. v. GOODWIN, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1039.

64. EMINENT DOMAIN-Easement-Right of Way.-A railroad company acquires only an easement in land condemned.-SHIELDS V. NORFOLK & C. R. Co., N. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 582.

65. EMINENT DOMAIN-Life Tenant-Remainder men. -A life tenant receiving damages for injuries to life estate by condemnation held not liable therefor to the remainder-men.-TRIMMIER V. DARDEN, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 373.

66. EMINENT DOMAIN-Street Railroads.-Holder of a franchise to build a street railway may lawfully take private property for the construction of the road, provided that just com ensation is paid therefor.WATSON V. FAIRMONT & SUBURBAN RY. Co., W. Va., 39 S. E. Rep. 193.

67. EQUITY-Accounting-Procedure.-The court of chancery has power to pass on an account without the intervention of a master.-GLOVER V. JONES, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1104. 68. EQUITY Adequate Remedy at Law. - Where chattle mortgagor has reasonably paid the debt, he has an adequate remedy at law for determining questions as to the mortgaged property. LOGGIE V. CHANDLER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1059.

-

69. EQUITY-"Clean Hands" of Complainant.-The principle that he who comes into equity must do so with clean hands affects a complainant only when his equity has a necessary relation to the equity for which he sues.-SHAVER V. HELLER & MERZ CO., U. S. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 821.

70. EQUITY-Master-Objection to Evidence.-Where evidence before a master is objected to, the master should receive it, subject to the objection, so that the court may pass upon the matter on review.-KANSAS LOAN & TRUST Co. v. ELECTRIC RY., LIGHT & POWER Co., U. S. C. C., W. D. (Mo.), 108 Fed. Rep. 702.

71. EQUITY-Pleading.-A pleading bearing one name will, in course of equity, operate to perform functions of another pleading if it contains proper matter.PETHEL V. MCCULLOUGH, W. Va., 39 S. E. Rep. 199.

72. EQUITY-Pleading-Amendment.-A bill may be amended by inserting new prayers for relief, even after hearing, where no demurrer was filed.-LOGGIE V. CHANDLER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1059.

73. EQUITY-Pleading-Special Prayer.- Where there is no general prayer for relief, a court can grant only the special relief asked.-LOGGIE V. CHANDLER, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1059.

74. EQUITY-Protection of Easement--Equity has jurisdiction to protect enjoyment of easement.-COLEMAN V. BUTT, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 364.

75. EQUITY - Unliquidated Damages.-A court of equity has no jurisdiction to pass on a legal demand for unliquidated damages. -SCHWALBER V. EHMAN, N. J., 49 Atl. Rep. 1085.

76. ESCHEAT-Lands of Corporation.-Real estate purchased by a savings and loan association and not sold within five years does not escheat to the state.PEOPLE V. STOCKTON SAVING & LOAN SOC., Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1078.

77. ESLOPPEL-Claim of Title.-One procuring a loan from a third person on a statement that the land offered as security belongs to borrower held estopped, in proceeding by lender to subject the land to his debt to claim title thereto.-WRIGHT v. MCCORD, Ga., 39 S. E. Rep. 510.

78. EVIDENCE-Fire Expert Witness.-Witnesses whc have knowledge of the facts may give their opinion as to damages to land by fire.-DENT V. SOUTH BOUND R. Co., 8. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 527.

79. EVIDENCE-Impressions.-A witness cannot testify as to impression made by conversation with plaintiff as to material issue.-MARKINSVILLE MIN. Co. V. FLIPPO, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 358.

80. EVIDENCE-Proof of Foreign Statute.-An English statute held sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence in a court of the United States.NASHUA SAV. BANK V. ANGLO-AMERICAN LAND MORTGAGE & AGENCY CO., U. 8. C. C. of App., First Circuit, 108 Fed. Rep. 764.

81. EVIDENCE Res Gestæ.-Language used by con ductor towards person ejected from train, after re-entry for purpose of continuing journey, held a part of the res gesta.-MCGHEE V. CASHIN, Ala., 30 South. Rep. 367.

82. EVIDENCE-Res Gostæ.-Statements of an engineer injured in a collision to superintendent, after removal from the engine, held inadmissible as gesto.-WILLIAMS V. SOUTHERN PAC. Co., Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1100.

res

83. EVIDENCE - Secondary Written Instrument.Secondary evidence of written document heid prop. erly admitted on sufficient proof of loss of original.— PERRY V. JEFFERIES, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 515.

84. EVIDENCE-Value of Timber-Experts.- To determine value of wood cut from lands, evidence of amount cut and measured on adjoining lands held admissible.-PERRY V. JEFFERIES, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep.

515.

85. EVIDENCE-Weight of Evidence.-That a witness testified to the best of his knowledge or his recollection goes to the weight, and not to the competency of the evidence.-HOPPER V. HOPPER, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep. 366.

86. EVIDENCE-Written Evidence-Parol.-A com. plete written antenuptial agreement cannot be added to or varied by parol.-RUSSELL V. RUSSELL, N. J., 49 Atl. Rep. 1081.

86. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF-Narrative Form.-Bill of exceptions should contain the evidence set out in nar rative form; and, where a stenographer's report of questions and answers is set forth, it will be stricken from the record.-WOODWARD IRON Co. v. HERNDON, Ala., 30 South Rep. 370.

88. EXECUTION-Chattels-Telephone Poles.-As between debtor and creditor, telephone poles and wires remain chattels, and may be seized on execution.READFIELD TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Co. v. CYR, Me., 49 Atl. Rep. 1017.

89. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Administration in Debt.-Where an administrator, who is also an heir, owes the estate more than the value of his distributive share, he should account for such share as a payment on the debt.-SANCHEZ V. FORSTER, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1077.

90. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS - Appeal.Where, on appeal from settlement of an executor's account, no transcript is filed within 40 days, the appeal should be dismissed.-IN RE FRANKLIN'S ESTATE, Cal., 65 Pac. Rep. 1081.

91. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Final Settlement-Surcharge. In a suit to surcharge the final set. tlement of defendant as executor of his father's estate, the burden is on defendant to prove a claim adverse to the estate.-SCOTT V. PORTER, Va., 39 S. E.Rep. 220. 92. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Power to In vest.-An executrix held under the will to have no power to invest the funds of the estate in improvements.-TRIMMIER V. DARDEN, S. Car., 39 S. E. Rep.

373.

93. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Presentment of Claims.-A valid presentment of a claim within the statute of non-claim, must be made by some one hav