LOST INSTRUMENTS. Burden of proof is on plaintiff to, establish execution and contents of contract relied on by him, where paper has been lost, by preponderance of evidence.-Gallagher v. McBride (N. J. Sup.) 203. LOTTERIES. § 1. Criminal responsibility. An indictment that defendant "did unlawfully make and put up a pretended lottery, called policy," etc., held sufficient, under Pub. St. c. 270, 4.-State v. Martin (N. H.) 605. LUMBER. See "Logs and Logging." LUNATICS. See "Insane Persons." MACHINERY. Dangerous machinery, see "Negligence," § 1. Liability of employer for defects, see "Master and Servant," § 3. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. § 1. Nature and commencement prosecution. of A search warrant furnishes no justification where officer omits to return it by defendant's direction.-Anderson v. Cowles (Conn.) 477. § 2. Actions. Admissibility of evidence to repel defendant's claim that he acted in good faith in swearing out search warrant against plaintiff determined.Anderson v. Cowles (Conn.) 477. To show reasonable cause for complaint for a search warrant for articles stolen, defendant cannot show that other persons had lost property and that he had been told that plaintiff stole it.-Anderson v. Cowles (Conn.) 477. MANDAMUS. § 1. Subjects and purposes of relief. The supreme court has authority, by writ of mandamus, to compel county commissioners to award warrant of distress to enforce payment of damages for land taken by water company. Furbish v. Kennebec County Com'rs (Me.) 364. A board of county school commissioners, wrongfully organized, on the governor's unauthorized removal of a member of a former board, held not entitled to mandamus against the comptroller to compel the payment of school a warrant drawn by such board.Board of School Com'rs of Worcester County v. Goldsborough (Md.) 1055. Mandamus to admit to membership in public body will not be ordered, where it will oust the incumbents whose claims of title are not frivolous.-Casey v. Chase (N. J. Sup.) 872. MANDATE. MARRIAGE. See "Divorce"; "Husband and Wife." cousins, the survivor of such a marriage has no Under an act prohibiting the marriage of first rights, by reason thereof, in the property of the other. Hayes v. Rollins (N. H.) 176; Colbath v. Rollins, Id. In suit to determine complainant's claim to esand to quiet title to same, held, that relation of tate in remainder in his grandfather's estate, his father and mother was illicit, and not matrimonial, and that he could not maintain suit.— Haley v. Goodheart (N. J. Ch.) 193. MARRIED WOMEN. See "Husband and Wife." MASTER AND SERVANT. Employés of municipal corporations, see "Municipal Corporations," § 3. § 1. The relation. A contract held no more than a simple hiring to cut and saw timber.-Lambden v. West (Del. Ch.) 797. That employers gave reasons for discharging an employé at the time does not prevent them from assigning additional reasons for such discharge.-Allen v. Aylesworth (N. J. Ch.) 178. Secret examination of employers' books, to which employé had no right of access, is sufficient ground for discharge.-Allen v. Aylesworth (N. J. Ch.) 178. That employers anticipated or brought about a refusal of their employé to obey orders does not show a want of good faith in discharging such employé for other misconduct.-Allen v. Aylesworth (N. J. Ch.) 178. An employé is not entitled to securities placed in trust for hin, to be delivered on the faith ful performance of his contract, where he was discharged for misconduct before the completion of the contract.-Allen v. Aylesworth (N. J. Ch.) 178. § 2. Services and compensation. In action against corporation to recover for services, extracts from certain records of corporation which purchased stock of defendant held inadmissible.-Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation to recover for services, evidence of what plaintiff was doing admissible.-Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. during the time for which he claimed pay held (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation to recover for services and money paid out, evidence that plaintiff paid money to bookkeeper, and amount paid, held admissible. -- Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation, where it is contested whether plaintiff was employed after certain date, evidence of what he did after such date held admissible.-Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation to recover for services, evidence that business had increased To lower court or decision on appeal or writ of during period of employment held inadmissible. error, see "Appeal and Error," MARITIME LIENS. 18. 1. Nature, grounds, and subject-matter in general. A contract for repairs to a vessel at her home port is maritime.-Hankins v. Cox & Sons Co. (N. J. Sup.) 206. -Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation to recover for services, evidence of employment of plaintiff by former holder of stock, and ratification by company, held admissible.-Hammond v. Hammond Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. In action against corporation to recover for services, evidence bearing on value of services held admissible. - Hammond V. Hammond co-employé.-Levene v. Standard Oil Co. (N. J. Buckle Co. (Conn.) 25. Sup.) 847. § 3. Master's liability for injuries to servant-Tools, machinery, appliances, and places for work. Servant may assume construction of place in which he works, and, if he does, master is relieved from that duty and liability for injuries to him from defects.-Donovan v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co. (Del. Super.) 619. That defendant employed an inexperienced 15 year old girl to pass linen through rollers from which a guard had been removed, and gave her no warning of danger, is evidence of negligence. -Levy v. Clark (Md.) 990. Employés directed by a foreman to clean a pit held fellow servants of another employé, who was injured by falling upon slippery floor, rendered so by grease left thereon by those who cleaned pit.-Burke v. National India Rubber Co. (R. Î.) 307. Employés engaged in cleaning out gearing pit in a factory held fellow servants of employé engaged in feeding machine on same floor.Burke v. National India Rubber Co. (R. I.) 307. § 5. Risks assumed by servant. A brakeman who has worked two years on a Duty of master to have place of work safe is railroad where the frogs and guard rails were limited to care necessary to have it reasonably not filled must be presumed to appreciate the safe for the purpose for which it was designed. danger of getting his foot caught in such frogs. -Saunders v. Eastern Hydraulic Pressed-Brick-Gillin v. Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 361. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 630. Employment of competent builder held not a full discharge of master's duty, on subsequent use of scaffold constructed under builder's direction.-Cole v. Warren Mfg. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 647. A master's duty to see that plaintiff was supplied with safe appliances cannot be delegated to a fellow servant.-Cole v. Warren Mfg. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 647. A company bound to use reasonable care to furnish proper appliances is responsible for negligence of its agents who construct them.-Flanigan v. Guggenheim Smelting Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 762. Regulation distance between tracks on defendant's road being from seven feet to seven two inches, construction of siding only five feet six inches to six feet from next track, leaving space insufficient to allow brakeman of freight train on latter track to safely discharge his duties when cars are on siding, is negligence rendering it liable to him when injured while so acting, he not being informed of narrowness of space, and being free from contributory negligence.-Voorhees v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 335. A railroad company owes no duty to its employés to maintain a safe footway along its roadbed; hence a brakeman, injured by falling into a hole left between ties by the ballast washing out, has no cause of action against the com pany.-Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 1069. The fact that a floor had been in dangerous condition for three hours held insufficient to charge master with notice of defect.-Burke v. National India Rubber Co. (R. I.) 307. § 4. Fellow servants. Workmen are bound to see to safety of appliances which they construct for their own convenience, and duty cannot be shifted to employer.-Donovan v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Co. (Del. Super.) 619. Evidence, in action by employé for personal injuries, held to show that the injury was result of contributory negligence of a fellow servant. Demers v. Deering (Me.) 922. Employé injured by the negligence of a fellow servant. when the latter was a competent and ordinarily careful employé, cannot recover from the master.-Fournier v. Columbian Mfg. Co. (N. H.) 104. In action for personal injuries sustained by servant by fall of staging, held, master was not liable.-Leparge v. Berlin Mills Co. (N. H.) 533. Recovery for master's negligence held not barred, though negligence of fellow servant contributed to the injury.-Cole v. Warren Mfg. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 647. It is failure of fellow servant to exercise due care that absolves the master from liability to a · A brakeman on railroad crossing another railroad which has its frogs and guard rails unblocked, who continues to work without requiring them to be blocked, held to assume the risk of injury therefrom.-Gillin v. Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 361. Evidence, in action by employé for personal injuries, held to show that he had assumed the risk.-Demers v. Deering (Me.) 922. An employé in a guano factory held to assume the risks attending the work of repairing a leak in a sulphuric acid tank connected with the factory.-State v. Lazaretto Guano Co. (Md.) 1017. Plaintiff in action to recover damages for perincident to the service.-Casey v. Grand Trunk sonal injuries held to have assumed the risk Ry. Co. (N. H.) 92. The question whether an employé injured had assumed the risk held for the jury.-Lintott v. Nashua Iron & Steel Co. (N. H.) 98. A switchman, injured by his foot being caught in an unprotected guard rail while coupling cars, held to have assumed the risk incident to his employment; and hence no recovery could be had therefor.-Burnham v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 750. Danger because of which employé was injured held an obvious one.-Saunders v. Eastern Hydraulic Pressed-Brick Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 630. the risks incident to the employment. Coyle v. Person entering employ of another assumes all Griffing Iron Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 665. § 6. Contributory negligence servant. of Master having suffered default, evidence held not to support the master's burden of showing freedom from negligence.-Ebert v. Bridgeport Gun Implement Co. (Conn.) 723. Master having suffered default, evidence held not to support his burden of showing the servant's contributory negligence.-Ebert v. Bridgeport Gun Implement Co. (Conn.) 723. A brakeman on train crossing another railroad just constructed cannot assume that frogs and guard rails of such road are filled and blocked in compliance with statute.-Gillin v. Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 361. A brakeman, working on a railroad where frogs and guard rails are unblocked, who moves about coupling cars without taking any thought of such frogs and guard rails, and catches his foot in them, is negligent.-Gillin v. Patten & S. R. Co. (Me.) 361. Servant held injured by his own contributory negligence. negligence. - Saunders v. v. Eastern Hydraulic Pressed-Brick Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 630. A servant held to have a right to assume that scaffold on which he worked was safe. Cole v. Warren Mfg. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 647. MECHANICS' LIENS. § 1. Right to lien. An original contractor took a partner in the contract, but the same was not recognized or assented to by the owner of the building. Held, that a lien filed in the name of both partners more than 60 days after commencement of work, was invalid, under Gen. St. § 3020.-Lapenta v. Lettieri (Conn.) 730. § 2. Proceedings to perfect. Notice of workmen to retain money due contractor operates in succession in the order of the time of their service.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. · Declaration held bad on demurrer, as not apprising the defendants in what capacity plaintiff's intestate was employed, whether as their servant or as the servant of an independent contractor.-Boardman v. Creighton (Me.) 121. Under Act March 14, 1895, § 5, supplementing Evidence held to justify finding that negligence the mechanic's lien act, workmen and materialof master was cause of injury to servant.-Cole men acquire a lien which becomes perfect only v. Warren Mfg. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 647. on service of statutory notice before liability maQuestions of negligent construction of a lad-tures.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. der and opportunities for inspection held for the jury.-Flanigan v. Guggenheim Smelting Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 762. Whether one who has for two years been brakeman on road regulation distance between tracks on which is seven feet knew, or ought to have known, that a certain siding was only five feet six inches from next track, and of consequent danger, he testifying that he did not know thereof, is for the jury.-Voorhees v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Pa.) 335. If notice by workman is for less than amount due, he will be held to have waived claim for difference.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. The sum demanded under the mechanic's lien act must not, at time of demand and notice to owner to retain, exceed the sum actually owing by director to workmen or materialmen.-Flaherty v. Atlantic Lumber Co. (N. J. Ch.) 186. § 3. Operation and effect. Those serving stop orders under statute held Contributory negligence of employé held, un- entitled to payment in order of priority_of_notice. der the evidence, a question for the jury.--Me--Smith v. Dodge & Bliss Co. (N. J. Err. & Keever v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufac- App.) 639. turing Co. (Pa.) 689. Evidence that plaintiff was 22 years old, and that he had been a railroad brakeman about 3 years prior to his injury, is too meager upon which to base the expectancy of life, as fixed by any life tables.-Kerrigan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Pa.) 1069. § 8. Liabilities for injuries to third persons. Where servant does wrong without direction of master, and not for purpose of doing master's work, master is not liable.-Rowell v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 488. Master is responsible for acts of his servant while engaged in master's work, which are done for purpose of performing such work.-Rowell v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.) 488. Where evidence whether it was defendant's employé who caused plaintiff's injury was conflicting, nonsuit was properly denied.-Abbott v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 912. Where trunks were loaded by an employé so that they fell and injured plaintiff, question of employé's negligence is properly submitted to the jury.-Abbott v. Concord & M. R. R. (N. H.) 912. Question of negligence between parties engaged in racing horses on a track determined.Colvin v. Vensel (Pa.) 1072. MAXIMS. Of equity, see "Equity," § 1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See "Damages," § 2. § 4. Assignment of lien or claim. The assignee of a mechanic's lien takes it subject to all equities and defenses existing against his assignor.-Goldman v. Brintin (Md.) 1029; Drovers & Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Same, Id. 5. Waiver, discharge, release, and satisfaction. Right to mechanic's lien cannot be impaired by advance payment or secret arrangement between contractor and owner.-Smith v. Dodge & Bliss Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 639. § 6. Enforcement. plaintiff in a different right.-Naylor v. Smith A builder cannot set off claims due him from (N. J. Err. & App.) 649. isfy notices of workmen, the unsatisfied notices If there is a deficiency on installment to satwill operate on the next installment due under the contract.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. If installment after service of notices of workmen's lien satisfies them, the residue is at the disposal of the contractor.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. To secure preferences to laborers, the claimant must prove that he is a journeyman or laborer.-Donnelly v. Johnes (N. J. Ch.) 180. Where any residue of price remains after payment of costs and statutory notices and equitable assignments, it belongs to the contractor.Flaherty v. Atlantic Lumber Co. (N. J. Ch.) 186. MEMORANDA. Required by statute of frauds, see "Frauds, § 1. MINES AND MINERALS. Title, conveyances, and contracts. Under lease of coal mine, exclusive of appliances for removing coal, reciting that all improvements are to remain after its expiration, lessees cannot be restrained from removing hauling system introduced by them instead of other appliances for removing coal.-Beech Creek Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell (Pa.) 245. Lease for operating oil wells construed and held that the tenancy became one at will to be ended at any time by either party.-Cassell v. Crothers (Pa.) 446. An agreement on the assignment of a lease of oil land to pay an additional consideration if oil is found held not to create a covenant to run with the land.-Fisher v. Guffey (Pa.) 452. A failure to proceed with the explorations for oil under a lease of oil land held such an abandonment as to sustain a re-entry by the lessor. -Aye v. Philadelphia Co. (Pa.) 555. Recitals in a lease of oil land held to show an implied obligation on the lessee, if a test well proved dry, to proceed with the exploration with reasonable diligence.-Aye v. Philadelphia Co. (Pa.) 555. The title of a prior lessee of oil land, who fails to go into possession or to record his lease, will be defeated by a purchaser for value without notice of a subsequent lease.-Aye v. Philadelphia Co. (Pa.) 556. § 2. Operation of mines, quarries, and wells. Defendant, having the right to drill for oil on a farm adjoining plaintiffs, cannot be prevented from using a pump which draws the oil from plaintiffs' land.-Jones v. Forest Oil Co. (Pa.) 1074. MISREPRESENTATION. See "Fraud." By insured, see "Insurance," § 5. MITIGATION. Of damages, see "Damages," § 1. MORTGAGES. Personal property, see "Chattel Mortgages.” § 1. Requisites and validity. A mortgage may properly be made to secure future advances, in addition to present indebtedness.--Bunker v. Barron (Me.) 372. Where land is conveyed by warranty deed, and grantee leases premises to grantor with right to purchase during term, for amount loaned by grantee to grantor, grantee acquires no title or interest except as mortgagee.-Sowles v. Butler (Vt.) 355. § 2. Recording and registration. Parties to a mortgage cannot, as against subsequent parties in interest, stipulate by an unrecorded agreement for any terms not a part of the original contract.-Bunker v. Barron (Me.) 372. § 3. Construction and operation. Clause, in mortgage, on a farm, to secure "all other debts which the mortgagor may contract with the mortgagee," held to cover money advanced to purchase other lands for the enlargement of the farm.-Bunker v. Barron (Me.) 372. Where the owner of the equity of redemption buys an outstanding mortgage, and attempts to foreclose it, there will be no merger.-Salvage v. Haydock (N. H.) 696. Mortgages on the same property to the same party as guardian of different minors, given and recorded on the same day, held concurrent liens. -Mason v. Daily (N. J. Ch.) 839. A mortgagee held to acquire a good title, as against the rights of a cestui que trust, of which the former had no notice.-Rutherford Land & Improvement Co. v. Sanntrock (N. J. Ch.) 938. A showing merely that a subsequent chattel mortgagee had no notice of the first mortgage held not sufficient to constitute him a bona fide mortgagee, unless it further appears that his mortgage was not given to secure a pre-existing debt.-Wilson v. Lippincott (N. J. Ch.) 989. Mortgage construed, and rights of purchasers on foreclosure thereof determined.-Waits v. Bailey (Pa.) 262. § 4. Rights and liabilities of parties. A mortgagee purchasing at a foreclosure sale does not lose any of his rights by force of notice of facts received after he took the mortgage. Rutherford Land & Improvement Co. v. Sanntrock (N. J. Ch.) 938. § 5. Assignment of mortgage or debt. Payment to mortgagee of amount of mortgage, after fire, held to entitle the insurer to subrogation to mortgagee's rights, and not to constitute payment of mortgage under the terms of insurance policy.-Badger v. Platts (N. H.) 296; Platts v. Badger, Id. An assignment is valid without being acknowledged, recorded, or attested, and may be made by parol on delivery of the mortgage and debt, or of the debt alone.-Salvage v. Haydock (N. H.) 696. A deed by a mortgagee under a power of sale in the mortgage, defective because attested by only one witness when the statute requires two, will operate as an assignment of the mortgage.Salvage v. Haydock (N. H.) 696. When note owing at execution of assignment of equitable interest in real estate to secure debt owing by assignor to assignee is not mentioned in agreement, it will be presumed that it was not intended to have security include it.Shipman v. Lord (N. J. Ch.) 215. A contract held to be an assumption of a mortgage, and an implied covenant to indemnify the vendor against liability thereon.-McAbee v. Cribbs (Pa.) 1066. The assignee of a mortgage who fails to have the transfer shown on the records takes the risk of a wrongful discharge of record by the mortgagee as against one acquiring title in reliance on the record, and without notice of the assignment, but not as against a purchaser with notice.-Passumpsic Sav. Bank v. Buck (Vt.) 93. A purchaser of real estate held chargeable with notice that a discharge of a mortgage thereon by the mortgagee was unauthorized.-Passumpsic Sav. Bank v. Buck (Vt.) 93. § 6. Transfer of property mortgaged or of equity of redemption. Holder of note secured by mortgage may recover from purchaser of mortgaged property who assumed the debt.-Cumberland Nat. Bank v. St. Clair (Me.) 123. A payment of a mortgage by a purchaser who assumed its payment held to discharge the mortgage and release the mortgagors.-Cook v. Berry (Pa.) 771. Where a purchaser of real estate is chargeable by the record with notice that a mortgage thereon, which has been discharged of record by the mortgagee, had prior to such discharge been transferred, mere lapse of time will not void the effect of such notice.-Passumpsic Sav. Bank v. Buck (Vt.) 93. § 7. Payment or performance of condition, release, and satisfaction. Security will not be considered surrendered when payment of secured debt has not been made, unless it clearly appears such was intention of creditor.-Shipman v. Lord (N. J. Ch.) 215. Evidence held sufficient to show payment.Sawyer v. Link (Pa.) 457. 8. Foreclosure by entry, possession, and notice. A writ of entry cannot be maintained by a mortgagor against a mortgagee, or one claiming under him, in possession after condition broken. -Salvage v. Haydock (N. H.) 696. § 9. Foreclosure by action. Affidavit of defense to sci. fa. sur mortgage, alleging payment, is sufficient.-Collins v. Hanson (Del. Super.) 624. A mortgagor of land cannot, before an actual severance of a growing crop, defeat, by sale, the right of the mortgagee to sell the crop on foreclosure, or of the purchaser to claim it.Wootton v. White (Md.) 1026. A purchaser of land at foreclosure is entitled to crops growing at time of the sale, unless expressly reserved.-Wootton v. White (Md.) 1026. Right to foreclose mortgage held to continue for 20 years after the last payment of interest.Colton v. Depew (N. J. Ch.) 662. Under Act March 30, 1888, territory annexed to a city comes immediately under the charter of the city, and the officers of the annexed territory whose terms are not saved become at once functi officio.-Miller y. Greenwalt (N. J. Sup.) v. 880; Hufty v. Same, Id. The legislature may by special act annex a town to a city, where such act does not regulate the internal affairs of either municipality.-Miller v. City of Camden (N. J. Sup.) 961. An ordinance establishing a street-building line encroaching on private lands without notice to landowners is invalid.-Byrnes v. Borough of Riverton (N. J. Sup.) 857. Act April 21, 1896, validating incorporation of boroughs, and ordinances passed, did not validate an ordinance which did not conform to some constitutional statute.-Byrnes v. Borough of Riverton (N. J. Sup.) 857. Sufficiency of declaration, in action by city against street-railway company to recover stipulated sum for each passenger car run, determined.-City of Cape May v. Cape May Transp. Co. (N. J. Sup.) 948. § 3. Officers, agents, and employés. Under city ordinance defining duties of health officers, and providing that physician of health board shall receive from city, in full for all services required of him as member of board, an annual salary of $50, knowledge of mayor and aldermen that he is performing certain services does not entitle him to extra compensation. -Clark v. City of Portsmouth (N. H.) 388. Laws 1891, c. 209, creating a board to manage the waterworks of the city of Portsmouth, vests no title to the waterworks in the board, and does not make them a corporate body, responsible, as such, for negligence. - Gross v. Board of Water Com'rs of Portsmouth (N. H.) 529. Ordinance passed in 1893, making term of street supervisor in Atlantic City one year, held not to deprive common council of the right of removal given by the charter.-Mathis v. Rose (N. J. Sup.) 875. Under the provisions of the charter of Atlantic City, council can remove a street supervisor and appoint his successor.-Mathis v. Rose (N. J. Sup.) 875. Under Act Feb. 14, 1888, the city of New Brunswick was liable to pay salaries of commissioners of streets and sewers.-Oram v. City of New Brunswick (N. J. Sup.) 883. Acts 1896, p. 169, § 278, relating to charter of city of Burlington, and repealing earlier acts not same as act of 1896, governs in determining term of office of chief of police.-Smith v. Cosgrove (Vt.) 73. Under Charter of City of Burlington, § 215, as amended by the act of 1896, chief of police first appointed under charter holds office for three years from date of appointment, unless sooner removed.-Smith v. Cosgrove (Vt.) 73. 4. Property. Deed executed by committee, authorized to execute it in behalf of municipal corporation, is inoperative, so far as it purports to convey premises not directed by resolution authorizing it.-Urch v. City of Portsmouth (N. H.) 112. § 5. Contracts in general. P. L. 1888, p. 330, establishing a scheme for the practical effectuation of annexation of terAct May 22, 1894, relating to the lighting of ritory to cities, which is operative equally every- public streets in cities and towns, held to authorwhere and at all times, does not violate the con-ize a contract for the purposes named for a stitutional prohibition against special legislation time not exceeding five years, where made within regard to cities.-Miller v. City of Camden out advertisement or proposal.-Oakley v. City (N. J. Sup.) 961. of Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 651. § 2. Proceedings of council or other governing body. Ordinance without a penalty is nugatory.Tomlin v. City of Cape May (N. J. Sup.) 209. Common council which has power to provide penalties by fine or imprisonment for violation of ordinance must fix such penalty, and carnot delegate such power to court.-Tomlin v. City of Cape May (N. J. Sup.) 209. Resolution of city council, after veto of mayor to ordinance passed by the council, declaring that such ordinance should stand, held a readoption of the same, under 2 Gen. St. p. 2143. -Oakley v. City of Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 651. The ordinance or resolution required by Act May 22, 1894, relating to the lighting of public streets, may either precede or follow the actual execution of the contract awarded for such lighting.-Oakley v. City of Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 651. Contract for lighting streets held not invalidated by the fact that the successful bidder is allowed to use posts and lighting fixtures belonging to the city, though such fact is not stated in the contract.-Oakley v. City of Atlantic City (N. J. Sup.) 651. In the absence of fraud or palpable abuse of discretion in determining validity of contract entered into by city, the only question for the |