§ 27. A wife's refusal to cohabit with her husband held extreme cruelty entitling him Of civil causes for trial, see Trial, § 11. to a divorce.-Case v. Case (Mich.) 565.

§ 254. A judgment for division of property See Bills and Notes. in an action for divorce is final. and not open to change after the term at which it is rendered.-Kistler v. Kistler (Wis.) 1028.

§ 258. A judgment for a wife of a division of property held not satisfied by a subsequent agreement between the parties.-Kistler v. Kistler (Wis.) 1028.

§ 312. Proceedings on examination of a child, § 20. A complaint, in an action against drain on an application for the modification of a di-commissioners for work and labor, is subject to

demurrer when it does not show that any drain was laid out or that the defendants refused to allow the amount claimed.-Reed v. Heglie (N. D.) 1127.

Public easements.

See Dedication; Highways; Navigable Wa

ters.

Streets, see Municipal Corporations, §§ 703706.

§ 20. Where drain commissioners are sued in their representative capacity, their representative character must be stated in the body I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TERof the complaint.-Reed v. Heglie (N. D.) 1127.

§ 20. When the boards of drain commissioners of two or more counties act together for the construction of a drain through two or more counties, the remedy on their contract is not by action.-Reed v. Heglie (N. D.) 1127.

20. An action will not lie against the board of drain commissioners of a county on its contract.-Reed v. Heglie (N. D.) 1127.

34. At the final hearing the court is required to determine whether the damages and benefits have been duly awarded and assessed, and whether the benefits exceed the costs, including the damages. In re Judicial Ditch No. 1, Big Stone County (Minn.) 227.

§ 35. Though at preliminary hearing the utility of a ditch was determined, a different conclusion at a final hearing held not legally inconsistent. In re Judicial Ditch No. 1, Big Stone County (Minn.) 227.

$35. That the court found that a ditch was necessary does not render illegal its final order dismissing the petition.-In re Judicial Ditch No. 1, Big Stone County (Minn.) 227.

DRAMSHOPS.

See Intoxicating Liquors.

DRUGGISTS.

Necessity of license to sell liquors, see Intoxicating Liquors, § 55.

Validity of law relating to issuance of druggists' permits as denial of right of appeal, see Constitutional Law, § 329; as encroachment on executive, see Constitutional Law, § 74.

DRUNKARDS.

Civil liability for sale of liquor to drunkards, see Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 309, 316. Intoxication as ground for removal of mayor, see Municipal Corporations, § 156. Intoxication as ground for removal of public officer, see Officers, § 66.

DUE COURSE OF TRADE. Transfer of negotiable instruments, see Bills and Notes, § 362.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

See Constitutional Law, §§ 257-317.

DUPLICITY.

MINATION.

§ 1. A deed held a conveyance of an easement for highway purposes only and not the fee. -Maxwell v. McCall (Iowa) 760.

§3. An easement granted by a lease of land held to be appurtenant and not in gross.-Smith v. Garbe (Neb.) 921.

§ 12. An assignable and inheritable right to use for profit the land of another may be created by a deed, and need not be reserved as appurtenant to other property.-Baker v. Kenney (Iowa) 901.

§ 18. Defendant held entitled to a way of necessity over complainant's land.-Moore White (Mich.) 62.

V.

§ 18. A way of necessity over another's land may be reserved by implication.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

$ 24. An easement appurtenant to land will pass by a conveyance, although the words "with the appurtenances" are not used.-Smith v. Garbe (Neb.) 921.

§ 24. An easement created for the benefit of the adjoining land of the grantor is appurtenant to such land, and passes by a conveyance of the dominant estate without express mention. In re Barkhausen (Wis.) 649.

$ 36. In a suit to restrain defendants from cressing complainant's land, over which defendants claimed a way of necessity, evidence held not to show that defendants had waived or

abandoned their easement.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

II. EXTENT OF RIGHT, USE, AND
OBSTRUCTION.

§ 48. The owner of the servient estate has a right to locate a way of necessity across his land in favor of another.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

§ 48. While the land over which defendant had a way of necessity was wooded and unfenced, and no way had ever been defined, deer it was fenced and used for pasture he must fendant could cross it by several paths, but aftuse only the way established.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

$ 52. The servient owner may use a way of necessity in such a manner as not to impair the dominant owner's use.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

$ 53. One having a way of necessity over another's pasture land may make it passable for uses necessary to its full enjoyment, but must provide stock proof gates at both ends, and keep it in repair.-Moore v. White (Mich.) 62.

In indictment or information, see Indictment ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS.

and Information, § 125.

DYING DECLARATIONS.

See Homicide, § 203.

EASEMENTS.

Grant of right of way to railroad, see Railroads, § 71.

In particular species of property.

See Waters and Water Courses, § 156.

See Religious Societies.

EDUCATION.

Regulation of education of infants, see Infants, § 14.

EJECTMENT.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DE

FENSES.

Right of executor to maintain ejectment, see
Executors and Administrators, § 130.

For adoption of local option law, see Intoxi-
cating Liquors, §§ 32-37.

For submission of municipal contracts, see
Municipal Corporations, § 244.

I. RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE AND REGU-
LATION THEREOF IN GENERAL.
§ 21. The power of the majority of voters
to elect an officer is subject to the legislative
power to prescribe his qualifications, and to
specify constitutional grounds of removal.-
State v. Henderson (Iowa) 767.

§ 27. The fact that a voter cannot in using a voting machine see that it correctly records and counts his ballot does not make the use of

the machine for voting unconstitutional.-Hen-
derson v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of
Saginaw (Mich.) 1105.

II. ORDERING OR CALLING ELEC-
TION, AND NOTICE.
Local option election, see Intoxicating Liquors,
$ 33.

IV. QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.

$ 59. The challenge of a voter is no test of his qualification to vote.-Henderson v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Saginaw (Mich.) 1105.

§ 60. Code Supp. 1907, § 679d (Acts 29th Gen. Assem. p. 17, c. 31, § 4), requiring two of the three members of the board of fire and po

lice commissioners of certain cities to be selected from the dominant political party, when practicable, held not to interfere with the political freedom or rights of electors in violation of Const. art. 2, § I.-State v. Sargent (Iowa) 339.

VII. BALLOTS.

Sufficiency of allegations as to distinguishing marks on ballots in application for quo warranto, see Quo Warranto, § 43.

VIII. CONDUCT OF ELECTION. Partial invalidity of statute relating to use of voting machines, see Statutes, § 64.

§ 198. Pub. Acts 1909, No. 214, § 11, providing for voting by machine and challenging unqualified voters, etc., held not unconstitutional because it provided no method of identifying a challenged vote illegally cast.-Henderson v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Saginaw (Mich.) 1105.

IX. COUNT OF VOTES, RETURNS,
AND CANVASS.

Mandamus to compel making of certificate of
result of election, see Mandamus, § 160,
164.
Mandamus to compel preparation of new ab-
stract of canvass, see Mandamus, §§ 16. 143.
Sufficiency of allegations as to distinguishing
marks on ballots in application for quo war-
ranto, see Quo Warranto, § 43.

auditor is required to furnish each official paper,

$259. Under Code, §§ 441, 1149, the county

as a part of the supervisors' proceedings, a schedule of the election returns, showing the vote by precinct for each person voted for at a general election.-Clark v. Lake (Iowa) 866.

ication.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Dedication of property to public use, see Ded-
Public improvements by municipalities, see
Municipal Corporations, §§ 208-523.

II. COMPENSATION.

(A) Necessity and Sufficiency in General. $$ 79, 80. A grantee in a deed with a corenant giving railroads a right of way held not entitled to maintain condemnation proceedings.

§ 198. Pub. Acts 1909, No. 214, § 11, held not unconstitutional as giving the right to vote to persons not constitutional electors.-Henderson v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Sag-In re Barkhausen (Wis.) 649. inaw (Mich.) 1105.

§ 222. Under Pub. Acts 1909, No. 214, §§ 11, 12, held that a challenged vote by voting machine cannot be identified.-Henderson v. Board of Election Com'rs of City of Saginaw (Mich.) 1105.

(B) Taking

or

Injuring Property

Ground for Compensation.

§ 96. Any damage to trees growing on a strip taken may be considered a diminution in value of interest of the owner of the land.-Tri

State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Cosgriff (N. D.) 75.

on

ENTERTAINMENT.

$119. Damage to owner of lands abutting See Theaters and Shows. a highway by taking the strip for a telephone line is not nominal, as a matter of law. -Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Cosgriff (N. D.) 75.

(C) Measure and Amount.

ENTIRE CONTRACTS.

See Contracts, § 171; Sales, § 62.

ENTRY.

§ 136. Measure of damages in condemnation proceedings stated.-Tri-State Telephone & Of public lands, see Public Lands, § 35. Telegraph Co. v. Cosgriff (N. D.) 75.

III. PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE PROP-
ERTY AND ASSESS COM-
PENSATION.

§ 169. A contention that failure to comply in certain particulars with St. 1898, § 3187a, relative to taking land for highways, could be taken advantage of only by subsequent purchasers or

incumbrancers held without merit.-Roehl v. City of Milwaukee (Wis.) 400.

ENTRY, WRIT OF.

Actions for damages for wrongful entry upon
or injury to real property, see Trespass.
Actions for recovery of possession of real
property, and damages for detention thereof,
see Ejectment.

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
See Constitutional Law, §§ 211-248.

EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS.

§ 169. Proceedings under St. 1898, § 3187a, relating to the taking of land for highways, held invalid for failure to comply with statutory requirements.-Roehl v. City of Milwaukee (Wis.) In general, see Assignments, § 52.

400.

§ 177. An owner of a factory site, to which a railroad right of way was appurtenant, held properly made a party in condemnation proceedings. In re Barkhausen (Wis.) 649.

EQUITABLE ESTATES.

See Mortgages; Trusts.

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

§ 203. In proceedings to condemn use of part of right of way for a telephone and tele- See Estoppel, §§ 54-110. graph company, evidence that an abutting owner used a portion of the highway for agricultural purposes held improperly admitted.Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Cosgriff (N. D.) 75.

§ 222. An instruction that the jury may consider the damages that will naturally result to a grove by the operation of a telephone line is erroneous, as not confining the jury to the damages sustained at the time of the trial.Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Cosgriff (N. D.) 75.

§ 254. Under St. 1898, § 925-171, relating to appeals to the circuit court from awards for damages for the taking of land by a municipality, held that appellant may accept payment thereof pending the appeal, without waiving his right to the appeal.-City of Grand Rapids v. Bogoger (Wis.) 659.

§ 263. Under St. 1898, § 925-171, relating to appeals to the circuit court from awards for damages for the taking of land by a municipality, held that the circuit court on such an appeal has no power to reduce the award.-City of Grand Rapids v. Bogoger (Wis.) 659.

EQUITY.

Award of costs in equity, discretion of court,
see Costs, § 13.
Equitable assignment, see Assignments, § 52.
Equitable estates, see Mortgages; Trusts.
Equitable estoppel, see Estoppel, §§ 54-110.
Transfer of causes from equity docket to law
docket, and vice versa, see Trial, § 11.
Transfer of equity of redemption by mortgagor,
see Mortgages, §§ 280-296.
Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and
equitable remedies.

See Cancellation of Instruments; Creditors'
Suit; Fraudulent Conveyances, § 295; In-
junction; Quieting Title; Receivers; Refor-
mation of Instruments; Specific Perform-
ance; Subrogation; Trusts.

Relief from judgment, see Judgment, § 416.

Review on appeal.

Scope and extent of review in equitable actions, see Appeal and Error, §§ 1000, 1009.

I. JURISDICTION, PRINCIPLES, AND

MAXIMS.

(A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent of Jurisdiction in General.

Grounds for injunction, see Injunction, § 11.

§ 38. Where the jurisdiction of a court of equity exists over a substantial portion or incident of the controversy, the jurisdiction will embrace the whole subject-matter of the controversy. St. Croix Timber Co. v. Joseph (Wis.) 1049.

$ 39. Equity having acquired jurisdiction in a suit to redeem and to remove clouds on title held to retain it to reform a deed, though complainants did not claim thereunder.-Nisbett v. Milner (Mich.) 22.

(B) Remedy at Law and Multiplicity of Suits.

§ 46. The objection that there is an adequate remedy at law will not defeat a suit in equity, unless the legal remedy is as adequate as

that afforded by a court of equity.-Butterick | rescission, where there was a prayer for general relief.-Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada Pub. Co. v. Rose (Wis.) 647. v. Wolcott (Mich.) 530.

(C) Principles and Maxims of Equity.

ERROR, WRIT OF.

ESCROWS.

§ 66. Plaintiff, under his admission by demurrer, held entitled to no affirmative relief, under the rule that one who asks equity must See Appeal and Error. do equity.-Richardson v. Roberts (Iowa) 878. 866. The equitable jurisdiction to marshal assets and securities is subject to the restric§ 9. A mortgage deposited in escrow under tion that he who seeks equity must do equity. an agreement that it should have no effect exSt. Croix Timber Co. v. Joseph (Wis.) 1049. cept upon a certain condition held to have no § 66. If an owner of property which occu- validity where that condition never was satispies the position of surety of the principal debt-fied.-Carpenter v. Carpenter (Wis.) 488. or relieves the property of the burden by the equitable application of set-offs, he must do equity, and may not have property of principal applied on claim of creditor, and at the same time aver the creditor has no claim.-St. Croix Timber Co. v. Joseph (Wis.) 1049.

III. PARTIES AND PROCESS.

ESTABLISHMENT.

Of boundaries, see Boundaries, §§ 33, 36.
Of counties, see Counties, §§ 12-16.
Of highways, see Highways, §§ 19-58.
Of right of exemption, see Exemptions, §§ 116-
148; Homestead, § 203.
Of telegraphs or telephones, see Telegraphs and
Telephones, § 25.

ESTATES.

Bankrupts' estates, see Bankruptcy.
Created by will, see Wills, §§ 601, 616.
Decedents' estates, see Descent and Distribu-
tion; Executors and Administrators; Wills.
Restrictions on creation of perpetuities, see Per-
petuities.

Particular estates.

See Curtesy; Dower; Homestead.
Estates for years, see Landlord and Tenant.

ESTOPPEL.

I. BY RECORD.

In suit to reform written instrument, see Ref- By judgment, see Judgment, §§ 590, 606, 702– ormation of Instruments, § 33.

X. DECREE AND ENFORCEMENT
THEREOF.

In injunction, see Injunction, § 211.

In suit to foreclose mortgage, see Mortgages, §§ 486-497.

$ 427. Fact that a bill prayed specifically for reformation, and not for rescission of a contract, held not to preclude complainant from a

719.

II. BY DEED.

(A) Creation and Operation in General. § 32. Where the evidence does not show that a grantee in a deed accepted it with knowledge of a clause therein under which he assumed the mortgage on the property, he is not estopped from denying liability.-Demaris v. Rodgers (Minn.) 457.

III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.

Implied ratification by principal of acts of
agent, see Principal and Agent, § 171.
To assert or deny particular facts, rights, claims,
or liabilities.

Constitutionality of statute, see Constitutional
Law, § 43.

Grounds for avoidance or forfeiture of insur-
ance policy, see Insurance, §§ 377-395, 724.
Right to require notice and proof of loss un-
der insurance policy, see Insurance, § 559.
Sale of municipal property, see Municipal Cor-
porations, $ 225.

Validity of insurance policy, see Insurance, §§ 377-395, 724.

To maintain or oppose particular remedies or
defenses.

Appeal or other proceeding for review, see Ap-
peal and Error, §§ 154, 882.
Objections to evidence, see Trial, § 105.
Rescission of contract of sale, see Sales, § 121.

(A) Nature and Essentials in General.
§ 54. No equitable estoppel can exist where
the facts were known to both parties, or where
both had the same means of ascertaining the
truth.-Logan v. Davis (Iowa) 808.