See "Dedication"; "Highways"; "Municipal Hamlin (Me.) 76.
Corporations."
Right of one indebted on a note, after having
paid to the state treasurer a tax of 1 per cent.
for five years, to have the board of relief de-
duct the amount of the note from his tax list.
Of insurer to judgment recovered by insured, Tallcott v. Town of Glastonbury (Conn.) 764.
see "Insurance."
The excess only of the value of bank stock
over a debt for which it is pledged is taxable
against a nonresident.-Town of Farmington v.
Downing (N. H.) 345.
A collector and his sureties are liable for all
the taxes collected on the duplicate delivered to
them, either during the term for which the bond
was given or afterwards. - Commonwealth v.
Stambaugh (Pa.) 293.
Effect, on liability of principal and sureties on
tax collector's bond for a balance due the school
district, of the failure of the directors of the dis-
trict to deliver to the tax collector their war-
rant with the tax duplicate.-Commonwealth v.
Stambaugh (Pa.) 293.
Assessment and levy.
A finding by a court on appeal from the valu-
ation of capital stock of a corporation by the
auditor and state treasurer for taxation will not
be disturbed.-Commonwealth v. Delaware, S.
& S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
Where the assessors intentionally omit prop-
erty of a corporation liable to taxation, the as-
sessment is illegal.-McTwiggan v. Hunter (R.
I.) 962.
Where notice of an assessment is not given as
required by Pub. St. c. 43, § 6, the assessment
is invalid.-McTwiggan v. Hunter (R. I.) 962.
Equity will take jurisdiction of a suit by a
taxpayer, where the illegality of the assessment
extends to the whole tax.-McTwiggan v. Hunt-
er (R. I.) 962.
Where the state board increases the valuation
of a taxing district under Act March 19, 1891,
§ 8, it should add the increased valuation to the
valuations of the other taxing districts, and ap-
portion a tax to be raised among such districts
in the proportion of the valuation of each to the
total valuations.-Township of East Brunswick
v. City of New Brunswick (N. J. Err. & App.)
684.
Mode of assessment of mortgage given to an
administrator, and belonging to a fund in
which a certain person had a life interest.-
Dilts v. Taylor (N. J. Sup.) 599.
In determining the value of the capital stock
of a corporation under St. June 8, 1891, the
value of the franchise owned by the corporation
should be considered.-Commonwealth v. Dela-
ware, S. & S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
It is in the discretion of the court, after judg-
ment on appeal from the valuation of capital
stock, to consider a loss affecting its valuation
which accrued after the hearing. Common-
wealth v. Delaware, S. & S. R. Co. (Pa.) 522.
returned to the appeal tax court shows that per-
Where a copy of the inventory of a decedent
the assessment roll for the current year, it may
sonal property of decedent was omitted from
be added to the roll, though the inventory was
not returned until May.-Hopkins v. Van Wyck
(Md.) 556.
Method of fixing the value of the capital stock
of a corporation under the act of 1891.-Com-
monwealth v. Edgerton Coal Co. (Pa.) 125.
The remedy for an overassessment is by ap-
peal, and not by a defense to suit to collect the
tax.-Town of Farmington v. Downing (N. H.)
In debt to recover state, county, and city tax-
es assessed in sclido, it is no defense to the state
and county taxes that the city tax is invalid.-
City of Rockland v. Farnsworth (Me.) 68.
Where a deed was duly presented for registry,
and was registered in the name of "H. et al.,"
instead of in the name of all the defendants. a
sale for taxes without designating the names
of the owners, and without service on them, is
void. Fryer v. Magill (Pa.) 191.
In a sale for nonpayment, a want of copy of
the record of the state treasurer's doings, a
failure to show for what years the taxes were
assessed, and whether assessed by the county
commissioners or by the legislature, and a fail-
ure to prove publication and notice of sale, are
fatal.-Skowhegan Sav. Bank v. Parsons (Me.)
The following description: "9,098 acres in 2
R. 2 W. K. R. Highland," is defective.
Skowhegan Sav. Bank v. Parsons (Me.) 110.
A treasurer's deed of land sold for taxes is
invalid, and passes no title without acknowledg-
ment in open court.-Lee v. Newland (Pa.) 258.
Contradictory entries on the treasurer's sales
book as to whether or not there were adjourned
sales in January, 1859, are insufficient to im-
peach the recitals of a treasurer's deed that
such adjourned sales were held.-Lee v. New-
land (Pa.) 258.
Liability for injury from surface water, see
"Surface Water."
support of paupers, see "Poor and Poor
Laws."
An act annexing "all the inhabitants of
South Hampton and their estates" to another
town did not convey uninhabited land in the
former town.-Seabrook v. Fowler (N. H.) 414.
Effect of Act June 26, 1822, providing that
all lands east of a certain line shall belong to
the town of Seabrook for the purpose of taxa-
tion, and for other legal purposes, as regards
the title to land within such limits previously
vested in another town.-Seabrook v. Fowler
(N. H.) 414.
A corporation engaged in an illegal business
cannot enjoin another corporation from using
a similar name.-Portsmouth Brewing Co. v.
Portsmouth Brewing & Bottling Co. (N. H.)
346.
Sufficiency of proof of acknowledgment of
treasurer's deed, the certificate reciting that it
was made in open court, but the minute docket
containing no report thereof.-Lee v. Newland See "Injunction."
(Pa.) 258.
Sufficiency of treasurer's deed as prima facie
evidence of the facts recited, it containing a re-
ceipt for the purchase money not signed by the
treasurer, and a faint ring in the usual place
for the seal of the court.-Lee v. Newland (Pa.)
258.
TENANCY IN COMMON.
See, also, "Partition."
The possession of the common property by one
tenant for 29 years does not constitute an ac
tual ouster of his cotenants.-Milbourn v. David
(Del. Super.) 971.
The purchase, by a tenant in common, of a
life estate in the property, does not extinguish
the life estate, nor inure to the benefit of all
the cotenants. - McLaughlin v. McLaughlin
(Md.) 607.
A tenant in common, who alone occupies the
common property, is not liable to his coten-
ants for rent unless their actual ouster by him
is proved.-McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (Md.)
Evidence of, see "Homicide."
License to cut, see "License."
Of acts, see "Statutes."
To maintain ejectment, see "Ejectment."
trespass, see "Trespass."
See "Death by
by Wrongful Act"; "Deceit";
"Fraud"; "Libel and Slander"; "Malicious
Prosecution"; "Negligence"; "Nuisance";
"Trespass"; "Trover and Conversion."
Liability of municipal corporations, see "Munic
ipal Corporations."
Final judgment, stay, see "Abatement and Re-
vival."
Sufficiency of plea, in an action for trespass
to land by cattle, it alleging that plaintiff,
having maintained a gate in the fence between
their closes for 15 years, tore it down, and so
allowed the cattle to enter his close.-Carpenter
v. Cook (Vt.) 998.
Measure of damages in an action against a
sheriff for his wrongful seizure of property on
execution. Kirkley v. Lacey (Del. Super.) 994.
the land in suit, adjoining land conveyed to
Sufficiency of evidence of plaintiff's title to
him, which was somewhat less than called for
by his deed, the land in suit never having be-
longed to his grantors.-Dubuque v. Coman
(Conn.) 777.
possession, though it was not properly execut-
Admissibility of deed to plaintiff to define his
ed under a power in a will.-Dubuque v. Coman
(Conn.) 777.
In an action for an unlawful ouster by a pur-
chaser at sheriff's sale, the question as to wheth-
er defendant's entry was peaceable, or with
overpowering numbers and a strong hand, was
for the jury.-Frick v. Fiscus (Pa.) 515.
The measure of damages for cutting timber is
its value when cut and hauled to market.-Whit-
ney v. Adams (Vt.) 32.
Where a mortgagee willfully despoils the mort-
gagor's premises. to prevent him from raising
the money necessary to redeem from the mort-
gage, it constitutes trespass.-Whitney v. Ad-
ams (Vt.) 32.
An equitable title is sufficient on which to
maintain trespass against a mere wrongdoer.-
Irvin v. Patchin (Pa.) 436.
The owner of unimproved and unoccupied
land will be deemed in possession for the pur-
pose of maintaining trespass.-Irvin v. Patchin
(Pa.) 436.
Right of recovery of damages for possible
profits which plaintiff might have made by the
cultivation of land from which he was evicted.
and which he thought of planting with tobacco.
-Irwin v. Nolde (Pa.) 246.
Trespass lies for an injury caused by an ac-
cidental shot from a revolver carelessly held by
another.-Judd v. Ballard (Vt.) 96.
See, also, "Appeal"; "Certiorari"; "Evidence";
"Judgment"; "Jury"; "New Trial": "Plead
ing"; "Practice in Civil Cases"; "Witness."
Continuance, see "Justices of the Peace."
In criminal cases, see "Criminal Law."
It is a question for the court whether clauses
in the description of land are repugnant.-Rath-
bun v. Geer (Conn.) 60.
The materiality of evidence must be shown in
the trial court.-Dunham v. Boyd (Conn.) 62.
Where a party requests submission of a ques-
tion to the jury, he cannot complain that there
was no evidence to warrant a submission.
Means v. Gridley (Pa.) 390.
Remarks of counsel.
Where, upon objections to the remarks of
counsel, the court ordered the jury to disregard
them, exceptions will not lie, and the only rem-
edy is by a motion addressed to the discretion of
the court. Sherman v. Maine Cent. R. Co.
(Me.) 69.
Where unwarranted remarks of counsel are
retracted, and the jury are not influenced there-
by, the verdict will not be disturbed.-Furnald
v. Burbank (N. H.) 409.
A remark by counsel to the jury in a person-
al injury case, that "when people get $1,200
or $1,500 for a fracture, is $3,000 too much in
this case?" is improper.-Noble v. City of Ports-
mouth (N. H.) 419.
Error in isolating portions of a charge is not
ground for reversal where the charge, taken as
a whole, could not have been injurious to appel-
lant.-Whitmire v. Montgomery (Pa.) 1016.
Instructions, in effect directing a verdict by
belittling defendant's evidence, are erroneous.
Heydrick v. Hutchinson (Pa.) 819.
A charge submitting to the jury a question
of law is properly refused.-Caledonian Ins. Co.
of Scotland v. Traub (Md.) 904.
for plaintiff if the jury believe his testimony.-
White v. Blanchard (Pa.) 204.
Special verdict.
A special finding, which is signed neither by
the foreman nor the jury, nor read to them by
the clerk, cannot be entered as a verdict after
the jury's discharge.-Rose v. Harvey (R. I.)
459.
Mandamus will not lie to compel a court to re-
ceive a special verdict until the jury has found
on all the special issues.-Rose v. Harvey (R.
I.) 459.
Right of wife, paying part of purchase mon-
A charge presenting a hypothesis of fact not ey for land deeded to her husband, to a re-
supported by the evidence is properly refused.-sulting trust in her favor, though she does not
Caledonian Ins. Co. of Scotland v. Traub (Md.) pay the money all at once.-Gilchrist v. Brown
(Pa.) 839.
Effect of instructions as curing erroneous rul-
ings throughout the trial, up to the delivery of
the charge to the jury.-Bergen Neck Ry. Co.
v. Point Breeze Ferry & Imp. Co. (N. J. Err.
& App.) 584.
Requests which assume controverted facts are
properly refused.-Means v. Gridley (Pa.) 390.
An instruction is improper when there is no
evidence on which to base it.-Dooner v. Dela-
ware & H. Canal Co. (Pa.) 269.
Where the court in his charge groups the im-
portant testimony of the plaintiff, but makes
no mention of the circumstances corroborative
of defendant's claim, the judgment for plaintiff
will be reversed.-Young v. Merkel (Pa.) 196.
Instructions which assume the existence of
facts not proved, or which are not applicable to
any evidence in the case, are properly refused.
-Markle v. City of Philadelphia (Pa.) 149.
Taking case from jury.
Though the testimony tending to sustain the
defense is slight, it is proper to refuse to di-
rect a verdict for plaintiff.-Shoninger v. Lati-
mer (Pa.) 985.
Where defendants offer no testimony, and
plaintiff testifies that a certain amount is due
him for work, it justifies an instruction to find
Where a wife paid part of the purchase
price of land, she is entitled to be repaid, and
to interest after the husband sold the land, and
treated the proceeds as his own. - Moore v.
Moore (Pa.) 932.
ing trust is that proportion which the amount
The interest held by a beneficiary of a result-
of the purchase price paid by him bears to the
whole price.-Collins v. Corson (N. J. Ch.) 862.
Trustees.
Trustees with a discretionary power to sell
cannot delegate the discretion, but, having de-
termined to sell, and fixed a price, they may
authorize an agent to contract on their terms.-
Keim v. Lindley (N. J. Ch.) 1063; Same v.
Griffith, Id.
Sufficiency of evidence in support of a petition
for the removal of testamentary trustees unless
they give bond.-Black v. Herring (Md.) 917;
Herring v. Black, Id.
A trustee who has actually received the funds
of the estate cannot discharge himself from lia-
bility therefor by showing that they were lost
by his own neglect.-Lindsley v. Dodd (N. J.
Ch.) 896.
A trustee investing the trust funds in personal
securities does so at his own peril.-Hunt v.
Gontrum (Md.) 620.
Liability of a testamentary trustee, who ac-
cepted from the executor, in payment of the
legacy, unsecured notes in lieu of money, and
failed to collect them for 10 years.-Hunt v.
Gontrum (Md.) 620.
Question whether the beneficiary of a trust
acquiesced in the failure of the trustee to col-
lect certain notes by stating that he presumed
they could be collected at any time.-Hunt v.
Gontrum (Md.) 620.
The amount paid by a trustee to his bonds-
men for becoming his sureties is not chargeable
against the estate. In re Eby's Estate (Pa.) 124.
TURNPIKES AND TOLL
ROADS.
A turnpike company is not relieved from lia-
bility for an accident on a bridge belonging to
it by the fact that it used ordinary care to re-
pair the bridge.-Washington, C. & A. Turnpike
v. Case (Md.) 71.
Liability of turnpike company for accident oc-
curring on its bridge through the accidental
displacement of a single plank, which it could
not, with reasonable diligence, have known.-
Washington, C. & A. Turnpike v. Case (Md.)
VENDOR AND PURCHASER
See, also, "Covenants"; "Deed"; "Fraudu-
lent Conveyances"; "Sale"; "Specific Per-
formance."
where the evidence was conflicting as to the
In an action to recover the price of land,
sale, it was a question for the jury.-Reed v.
Klaus (Pa.) 1005.
stipulating for liquidated damages in case of
A provision in a contract for the sale of land
breach by the vendor held not to apply to a
willful breach, but only to failure to make title
after a bona fide effort to do so.-O'Connor v.
Tyrrell (N. J. Ch.) 1061.
Where a vendor contracts to sell certain land,
"being the same property described in a deed
from" a certain bank in fee simple, clear of in-
cumbrances, he complies with such contract
where he follows the language of the deed from
the bank, though it shows the land subject to a
private way.-Heppenstall v. O'Donnell (Pa.)
1003.
A provision in a lease that the lessee may buy
the land at the option of the parties means that
the lessee may buy at his own option.-Mack v.
Dailey (Vt.) 686.
Question whether a title under the foreclo-
The right of one to recover for injuries re- sure of a mechanic's lien was a marketable title.
ceived on a bridge belonging to a turnpike com--Reece v. Haymaker (Pa.) 404.
pany is independent of the question whether he
had paid his toll.-Washington, C. & A. Turn-
pike v. Case (Md.) 571.
A bridge constructed by a private corporation
is a part of a highway, subject to the right of
the corporation to exact reasonable tolls.-Pitts-
burgh & W. E. Pass. Ry. Co. v. Point Bridge
Co. (Pa.) 511.
Townships are not obliged to work an aban-
doned turnpike unless it was originally a high-
way.-Zimmermann v. Township Committees of
Bergen and Boiling Springs (N. J. Sup.) 180.
See "Corporations."
Sale of property, see "Associations."
Construction of certain reservations in sales
of land as to timber rights thereon, as to wheth-
er they were merely to enforce a reservation by
a predecessor in title as to the merchantable
timber on the land at the time of the latter
reservation.-Irvin v. Patchin (Pa.) 436.
Bona fide purchaser.
Sufficiency of evidence of possibility of a suit
being brought to set aside the deed made to the
plaintiff's grantor to justify defendant in re-
fusing to file his contract of purchase, it ap-
pearing that plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser.
-Levy v. Iroquois Bldg. Co. of Baltimore City
(Md.) 707.
Where a deed of land acknowledges receipt
of the purchase price, though notes are given
for a part thereof, the grantor cannot, as
against a subsequent purchaser without notice
that all the price is not paid, claim a vendor's
lien. Maryland Land & Permanent Home-
stead Ass'n of Baltimore County v. Moore (Md.)
605.
Venue in Criminal Cases.
Where a lessor breaks a covenant of the lease, Of offense, see "Criminal Law."
and the benefit received by the lessee from his
use of the premises is more than the damage
from the breach of covenant, the excess may be
recovered in an action for use and occupation. See "Trial.”
Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. American Twist-
Drill Co. (N. H.) 1119.
See, also, "Building and Loan Associations."
Act Cong. June 3, 1864, § 30, relating to
usury by national banks, does not apply to the
discounting for the payee of a note given in
payment of an article, and stipulating for legal
interest. Second Nat. Bank of Clarion v. Mor-
gan (Pa.) 957.
See "Master and Servant."
See "Municipal Corporations."
Voluntary Payment.
Money paid on usurious contract in excess of
the principal and legal interest may be recov- See "Elections and Voters."
ered.-Taylor v. Hintze (N. J. Sup.) 551.
Where an upper landowner, by pumping, in-
creases the quantity of water, and changes it
to salt, thereby injuring a lower landowner, he
is liable if he could prevent the injury by rea-
sonable care and expenditure. - Pfeiffer v.
Brown (Pa.) 844.
See, also, "Easements"; "Highways."
probate to a will, the prerogative court will
pass de novo upon the right to probate, and
will review the entire evidence, and, if neces-
sary, take additional proofs.-Sanderson v. San-
derson (N. J. Prerog.) 326.
Sufficiency of evidence to entitle the pro-
ponent of a will which could not be found after
testator's death to an issue as to whether the
will had been revoked.-In re Gardner's Estate
(Pa.) 300.
Propriety of admitting to probate a will pre-
sented 13 years after the death of the maker,
and after litigation in the courts of another
state over another will purporting to be his last
will.-Gordon v. Old (N. J. Err. & App.) 19.
In the contest of a will, where the testator is
not alleged to have been generally insane, but
to have been governed by peculiar religious
views, the question to be determined is: "Was
the testator the victim of delusions which ren-
der him insensible to his parental obligations,
so as to cause him to give his estate to certain
right-In re Trich's Will (Pa.) 1053; Appeal of Tay
institutions, instead of to his own children?"
of lor, Id.
One who, in a deed of land, reserves a
of way, cannot build a fence on the right
way.-Moffitt v. Lytle (Pa.) 922.
See "Dower"; "Executors and Administrators";
"Homestead."
See, also, "Descent and Distribution"; "Exec-
utors and Administrators."
Alteration of record, see "Register of Wills."
Charitable devise, see "Charities."
Deed or will, see "Deed."
Devise in lieu of dower, see "Dower."
Testamentary powers, see "Powers."
All the lands included in a residuary devise,
including those which descend in consequence
of the death of one of the residuary devisees,
are equally liable to the discharge of debts,
costs, and expenses.-Hattersley v. Bissett (N.
J. Ch.) 86.
A devise of land by one holding as devisee of
one indebted is not such a transfer of title as
will divest a lien of creditors of the devisor.-
Salaun v. Hartshorne (N. J. Ch.) 181.
Evidence considered, and held, there was no
such violation of the conditions of the will as
to cause the revocation of a devise. In re
White's Estate (Pa.) 192.
Paper giving certain land, dated three weeks
before signer's suicide, and found in his room
after death, addressed to grantee, is a will.-
Tozer v. Jackson (Pa.) 400.
The fact that a will executed by a single
woman, which was revoked by her subsequent
marriage, was admitted to probate, does not
prevent an after-born child from claiming its
distributive share, in opposition to the will.-
In re Craft's Estate (Pa.) 493; Appeal of Mar-
tin, Id.
The validity of the execution of a will is de-
termined by the law in force at testator's death,
-Langley v. Langley (R. 1.) 465.
A will will not be construed when the inter-
est of the party applying therefor is contingent
and uncertain.-Wahl v. Brewer (Md.) 654.
Where a person exercised the power of dis-
position of certain property by a will, an exer-
cise of the power by a written instrument subse-
quently making a different disposition of the
fund revoked the will.-Paine v. Forsaith (Me.)
On appeal from a decree of an orphans' court,
based on the verdict of a jury which denies
v.3) A.-75
Where the evidence does not show that the
testator's mind was so controlled by his peculiar
views as to prevent his exercising a rational
judgment in the disposition of his property, the
will should be sustained, however absurd the
peculiar views of the testator may have been.-
In re Trich's Will (Pa.) 1053; Appeal of Tay-
lor, Id.
In determining the capacity of a testator who
was alleged to be guided by insane delusions,
the question to be determined was not the
soundness of the views entertained by him, but
whether they so impressed his mind as to con-
trol his judgment in the disposition of his prop-
erty, so as to prevent his appreciating the duty
he owed to his family.-In re Trich's Will (Pa.)
1053; Appeal of Taylor, Id.
The filing of a caveat before an order ad-
mitting the will to probate arrests all further
proceedings until it is disposed of.-Keene v.
Corse (Md.) 569.
A convict may contest the validity of his wife's
will, though he cannot administer on her per-
sonalty.-Kenyor v. Saunders (R. I.) 470.
On a will contest, if the verdict of the jury
is against the weight of the evidence, the court
should set aside the verdict, and not render a
judgment non obstante veredicto.-Butts v. Ar-
mor's Estate (Pa.) 357.
Sufficiency of evidence to justify a finding
that a testator lacked testamentary capacity,
and that the will was the product of undue in-
fluence.-Sanderson v. Sanderson (N. J. Prerog.)
When, after probate, an issue devisavit vel
non was tried in common pleas, which held that
the maker intended paper as a gift, but there
was no final decree in orphans' court annulling
probate, judgment of the common pleas on is-
sue is of no effect in ejectment.-Tozer v. Jack-
son (Pa.) 400.
Where, on contest, a compromise is effected,
it will be presumed that the amount received
was to be equally divided among the contest-
ants. In re Seip's Estate (Pa.) 226; Appeal of
Probst, Id.
Where testatrix has only a life estate, a de-
vise of the land to one heir, and money to the
other in lieu thereof, conveys no title.-Mans-
field Coal & Coke Co. v. Boice (Pa.) 502.
A devise to a married daughter construed,
and held to create a coverture trust.-In re Wil-
bert's Estate (Pa.) 1022; Appeal of Berg, Id.
Where a devise was to a daughter for her
separate use during her natural life, and, at
|