MORTGAGES-Continued.

dence considered, and held, to support her contention.
Stevens v. Stevens, 438.

3. The defendant husband was not entitled to an accounting,
where he abandoned the farm mortgaged and went to
Canada, leaving his wife in possession of the farm and
some of the personal property, in order to escape pressing
obligations due to creditors and other mortgagees, and
where he borrowed money from her from time to time
and it appeared that the question of the amount obtained
by the complainant from the farm was involved in an
action on the law side of the court. Id. 439.

4. A foreclosure bill may be maintained in the name of the
grantee of real property, conveyed by warranty deed as
security for advances to be made or credit extended by
his principal or employer after the date of its execution;
such grantee being agent for a nonresident partnership
doing brokerage business in Michigan and other States.
Bennett v. Clark, 690.

5. Nor was the bill multifarious because it asked for a de-
ficiency judgment and for foreclosure of a deed given as
security. Id.

See APPEAL AND ERROR (7); EQUITY (3); GIFTS (2); PLEAD-
ING (1); TENDER; USURY (2); VENDOR AND PURCHASER (7).
MOTIONS-See AFFIDAVITS (1); EQUITY (2); QUO Warranto.
MULTIFARIOUSNESS-See MORTGAGES (5); PLEADING (2).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

1. By the terms of the charter of the city of Grand Rapids,
the common council is composed of the mayor and alder-
men; the common council is constituted judge of the elec-
tion and qualifications of its members, and the action of
the common council in so determining is final. No change
in the charter was effected by the amendment of 1913,
providing for nonpartisan municipal elections. Sinclair
v. Com. Council of City of Grand Rapids, 186.

2. A recount of the votes for mayor will not be ordered by
mandamus in proceedings brought by the candidate de-
clared to be defeated by the board of canvassers: the
remedy of the claimant is exclusively in the common
council as elected at the same election as that in which
the mayor was chosen; and the rule was not changed by
a provision of the amendment that, in cases of contested
election for any office, the contest shall be decided by the
council as nearly as may be according to the laws of the
State regulating election contests, and a certificate of elec-
tion shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated. Id.

3. The passage of Act No. 283, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat.
[2d Ed.] § 2173 et seq.), which provides for the so-called

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Continued.

county road system, and creates a board of county road
commissioners to have authority over grading, draining,
and constructing roads, the construction of bridges and
culverts; enacting, further, that "they shall have all the
authority in respect to such roads, bridges, and culverts
which is vested in the highway officers in townships,"
etc.; also, enacting that townships and unincorporated
villages shall possess the authority to build, repair and pre-
serve sidewalks, was not intended to make counties that
adopt the system liable for defects in sidewalks situated
in an unincorporated village. Ferguson v. County of Mus-
kegon, 335.

4. Under Act No. 279, Pub. Acts 1909, as amended by Act No.
203, Pub. Acts 1911 and Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913, an
amendment to the charter of the city of Detroit, adopted
by the vote of the people, establishing a system of civil
service as to all officers, commissions and departments
of the city and prohibiting the discharge of employees
for political reasons, took effect when certified copies of
the enactment and the vote for and against it were filed
with the secretary of State and county clerk; i. e., on
May 3, 1913. See section 24 of Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913.
Grobbel v. Board of Water Com'rs of Detroit, 364.

5. Although the board of water commissioners, created by
special act of the legislature, was not embraced within
the provisions of the city charter and is a distinct entity,
the provisions of the Constitution, sections 20 and 21,
art. 8, grant plenary power to the electors of local mu-
nicipal bodies over their local affairs, and such civil
service provisions were valid. Id.

6. Where the civil service amendment was adopted at the
spring election, on April 7, 1913, and the certified copies
required by section 24 of Act No. 5, Pub. Acts 1913, were
filed with the proper officials on May 3d, the employees
of the board of water commissioners of the city of Detroit
were affected and brought within the law on the 3d day
of May, although no commission as provided for by the
amendment had yet been appointed, and an employee who
was discharged by the commissioners on the 6th of May
was entitled to invoke the benefit of the civil service law:
mandamus will issue to require the board to rescind such
resolution discharging the relator. Id. 365.

7. An ordinance of the city of Detroit providing that the
department of buildings shall have power, after notice and
a hearing, to stop the construction, alteration, etc., of any
building which violates the restrictions of the ordinance,
and that the department may apply to the court to re-
strain the further violation of its terms, authorizes an
injunction at the instance of the department as if the
structure had been first declared to be a public nuisance.
Building Com'n of Detroit v. Kunin, 604.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-Continued.

8. Such ordinance is not invalid because it prescribes what
percentage of a lot may be occupied with a tenement, and
prescribes the size of the yard at the rear: the restric-
tions being for the benefit of the community as a whole
and of the adjacent property. Id.

9. The presumption being that an ordinance is valid, the duty
of establishing its invalidity rests on the party who at-
tacks it. Id. 605.

10. The court has no right to invade the province of the legis-
lature, and is required, if it can consistently do so, to
give an ordinance such a construction as will sustain it:
the power to declare an enactment invalid is limited to
cases in which it is clearly made to appear to be unrea-
sonable or oppressive in its operation. Id.

11. Mere evidence that some unreasonable result occurs in an
individual case is not ground sufficient to invalidate an
ordinance. Id.

12. Complainant building commission was not estopped from
maintaining an injunction bill to prevent the erection of
an apartment building not in conformity with the build-
ing code, although it had granted a permit to construct
the building where the ordinance did not require the
issuance of a permit for the erection of a tenement occu-
pied by three or more families who do cooking, etc., on
the premises. Id.

See COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (2); WATERS AND WATER-

COURSES.

MURDER-See CRIMINAL LAW (5, 9, 11).

NAMES.

1. The name Cross Brothers, adopted and used by two broth-
ers named Cross engaged in business as copartners, is
not an assumed name that must be registered under Act
No. 101, Pub. Acts 1907 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 2626),
requiring the filing of a sworn certificate of membership,
etc., with the county clerk. Cross v. Leonard, 24.

2. The name David S. Zemon & Company, employed by a co-
partnership composed of said Zemon and another, is not
a fictitious or assumed name, requiring registration with
the county clerk and a certificate of membership under
Act No. 101, Pub. Acts 1907 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 2626
et seq.). Zemon v. Trim, 130.

NECESSITY-See HIGHWAYS AND STREETS (1).

NEGLECT-See DIVORCE (5).

NEGLIGENCE.

1. Where the testimony, in a negligence case, tended to show
that the decedent, a minor of about 7 years of age, at-

NEGLIGENCE-Continued.

tempted to climb upon the side of a loaded wagon driven by a servant of the defendant, that the conveyance was going rapidly, but the driver did not see the child trying to climb on the wagon and stopped the team as soon as he saw the deceased fall, that the team was going down hill and there was no evidence that he observed the dangerous proximity of decedent, the trial court properly directed a verdict for defendant. Eichkern v. Park Brewing Co., 1.

2. And when it was apparent that the reason for the failure of defendants' contractor to correct certain defects pointed out by the architect was that they had paid him in full and he had become insolvent, the architect could not be charged with the deficiencies and was entitled to recover his compensation notwithstanding them. Johnson v. O'Neill, 327.

3. It was a question of fact for the jury whether defendants' servants were guilty of negligence, in view of the weather conditions disclosed and known to them, in leaving a ladder unguarded or unfastened against the side of a building in the public street so that the wind blew it down upon a pedestrian. Bacon v. Candler, 372.

4. A copartnership that furnished labor and materials for
general repair work and painting upon a building or
store, having submitted bids in response to an advertise-
ment therefor and having control of the work subject to
the supervision of general contractors to see to the proper
execution of the work, was not a servant of the general
contractor but an independent contractor, liable for the
negligence of its employees. Id.

5. Nor would the fact that at the moment of the accident the
employee was engaged in some work that the general con-
tract did not cover, and for which the owner had agreed
to pay extra compensation directly to the defendants,
relieve them of their liability for such negligence. Id.
See BILLS AND NOTES (2); DAMAGES (1); FIRES (1); LAND-
LORD AND TENANT (1); LOGS AND LOGGING (2); MASTER AND
SERVANT (5, 9, 13, 15, 16); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3);
RAILROADS (1, 2); STREET RAILWAYS; TRIAL (6).

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-See BILLS AND NOTES (15).
NEGROES-See TRIAL (2).

NEW TRIAL-See APPEAL AND ERROR (10); CRIMINAL LAW (13, 14); DAMAGES (3).

NONSUPPORT-See DIVORCE (5).

NOTICE-See AFFIDAVITS (1); BILLS AND NOTES (1); CORPORATIONS (1, 3, 4); DEEDS (3); INSURANCE (2, 3, 7).

NUISANCE.

1. It is a nuisance which equity will require to be abated to sink or build in the ground steel tanks of a capacity of 10,000 gallons for the storage of gasoline, in a residence district and about 11 feet from complainant's house, on property belonging to a laundry and dry-cleaning plant of the defendant. Whittemore v. Baxter Laundry Co., 564. 2. Any unwarrantable, unreasonable or unlawful use of property, real or personal, such as operates to injure adjoining premises, is a nuisance which will render the owner or possessor liable for damages arising therefrom. Id.

See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (7).

NUNC PRO TUNC-See TRIAL (5).

OPENING DEFAULT-See DEFAULT.

OPERATION OF CARS-See STREET RAILWAYS (1, 2).

OPTIONS-See USURY (2).

ORAL CONTRACT-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3).

ORDER OF PROOF-See EVIDENCE (14).

ORDINANCES-See INJUNCTION (1); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (7-12).

PAROL EVIDENCE RULE-See EVIDENCE (10).

PARTIES-See BILLS AND NOTES (12); ELECTION OF REMEDIES; FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3); MECHANICS' LIENS (3); MORTGAGES (4); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3); PLEADING (1); STATES.

PARTNERSHIP-See NAMES.

PART PERFORMANCE-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (3).

PAYMENT-See VENDOR AND PURCHASER (3).

PENSIONS-See SOLDIERS' HOME.

PERSONAL INJURIES-See DAMAGES (1); MASTER AND SERVANT; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3); NEGLIGENCE (3); STREET RAILWAYS (1, 4, 7).

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS-See INSURANCE (5).

PLEADING.

1. On a demurrer to complainant's foreclosure bill, the objection that a third defendant, who did not file a demurrer or join in that of the defendants, was improperly joined as a party, could not be considered, for the reason that the point concerned only the defendant who did not demur or object. Michigan Nat. Bank v. Hill, 7.

2. The ground of multifariousness set up in a demurrer is