ADJUDICATION.

Of courts in general, see "Courts," § 1.
Operation and effect of former adjudication,
see "Judgment," §§ 7, 8.

ADMINISTRATION.

Of charity, see "Charities," § 2.

Of estate assigned for benefit of creditors, see
"Assignments for Benefit of Creditors," § 3.
Of estate of decedent, see "Executors and Ad-
ministrators."

Of trust property, see "Trusts," § 4.

ADMISSIONS.

As evidence, see "Evidence," § 3.

ADOPTION.

Where a judge of probate, on petition, under
Rev. St. c. 67, § 34, for leave to adopt a child,
signs as a memorandum that on the forego-
ing petition, the facts stated having been con-
sidered, it is decreed that the prayer of the
petition be granted, and at the same term signs
a formal decree under the seal of the court,
in all respects in accordance with the require-
ments of the statute, and such decree shows an
adjudication of all the facts required to be
passed upon, and it sets forth facts as required
by statute, it is the decree of the court.-In
re Hill (Me.) 885.

A document in the form of a decree, with
blanks, held sufficient evidence of rendition of a
judgment of adoption.-Wilson v. Otis (N. H.)

439.

A judgment of adoption having been render-
ed, though not actually entered up in the tech-
nical form of a decree, is good as against col-
lateral attack.-Wilson v. Otis (N. H.) 439.
Removal of papers in a case held not to in-
validate a judgment of adoption.-Wilson v.
Otis (N. H.) 439.

Petition held not required to state all the nec-
essary facts to support a judgment of adoption.
--Wilson v. Otis (N. H.) 439.

In support of a judgment of adoption against
collateral attack, held, that a necessary finding,
not inconsistent with facts disclosed, would be
considered included in the general finding in
favor of adoption.-Wilson v. Otis (N. H.) 439.

See "Bigamy."

ADULTERY.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See "Limitation of Actions."

AFFIDAVITS.

See "Depositions."
Affidavit of defense, see "Pleading," § 2.
In particular proceedings.
See "Arrest," § 1; "Garnishment," § 2.
AGENCY.

See "Principal and Agent."

AGREEMENT.

See "Contracts."

AGRICULTURE.

Property in crops, see "Crops."

Where an agricultural society let space on its
fair grounds for a shooting gallery, and a bul-
let fired missed the target and killed plaintiff's
intestate, standing on a railroad platform out-
side the grounds, the society was liable for his
death.-Thornton v. Maine State Agricultural
Soc. (Me.) 979.

It is the duty of an agricultural society, in
making allotments of space for exhibits and oth-
er features, and in their subsequent supervision,
to see that the safety of the public is not en-
dangered.-Thornton v. Maine State Agricul-
tural Soc. (Me.) 979.

Where an agricultural society gives a fair,
it consists not only of the exhibits particularly
under the society's own direction, but also of all
shows and attractions permitted to have space
on its grounds.-Thornton v. Maine State Ágri-
cultural Soc. (Me.) 979.

It is the duty of an agricultural society to
use reasonable care to see that there is no firing
of dangerous firearms on the grounds under
such conditions as jeopardize the life of any of
those invited to the fair.-Thornton v. Maine
State Agricultural Soc. (Me.) 979.

An agricultural society must use reasonable
care to keep its grounds and the approaches
thereto safe for visitors.-Thornton v. Maine

State Agricultural Soc. (Me.) 979.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.
See "Reformation of Instruments."

AMBASSADORS AND CONSULS.
Authority of deputy counsel general to take ac-
knowledgment, see "Acknowledgment," § 2.

AMENDMENT.

§ 1. Nature and requisites.

A claim of title by adverse possession on the
part of another is of no avail where the chain

of title does not connect the claimant with the
one claimed to have exercised the adverse pos-
session. Murray v. Pannaci (N. J. Ch.) 595.

Where the fencing of a spring on plaintiff's
land by defendant was not in the assertion of a
right in defendant thereto, it did not constitute
adverse possession.-Hunter v. Emerson (Vt.)
1070.

Where defendant's taking of water from a
spring on plaintiff's land was consistent with a
license, and not under a claim of right, defend-
ant did not acquire title to the spring by ad-
verse possession. - Hunter v. Emerson (Vt.)
1070.

Error," § 8.

Of particular legal proceedings.
See "Judgment," § 4; "Process," § 2.
Pleading in equity, see "Equity," § 3.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

Jurisdictional amount, see "Appeal and Error,"
§2; "Courts," §§ 2, 3; Justices of the
Peace," § 3.

ANIMALS.

Carriage of live stock, see "Carriers," § 2.

Counts of an information for cruelty to ani-
mals, charging the offense to have been com-
mitted on January 1st, and on each day from

then until March 11th, may have been used to
describe one offense.-State v. Cook (Conn.)
589.

The making and filing by a former owner of
a stallion of the certificate required by Rev. St.
c. 38, § 61, in order to recover compensation
for service, does not inure to the benefit of any
subsequent owner or keeper.-Davis v. Randall
(Me.) 835.

The owner or keeper of a horse who fails to
file the certificate required by Rev. St. c. 38, §
61, stating the pedigree of the horse, before
advertising for the service of the horse, can re-
cover no compensation therefor.-Davis v. Ran-
dall (Me.) 835.

ANNULMENT.

Of marriage, see "Marriage."

ANSWER.

In pleading, see "Equity." § 3; "Pleading," § 2.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See "Certiorari"; "New Trial."

§ 3. Presentation and reservation in
lower court of grounds of review.
Where a contention was not made at the

trial, it will not be reviewed on appeal.-Cun-
nongham Lumber Co. v. Mayo (Conn.) 580.

The appellate court will not consider grounds
of objection not raised below or mentioned in
the petition of appeal.-Boice v. Conover (N. J.
Err. & App.) 910.

Law of consideration of contract cannot be
first raised on appeal.-Henry v. Zurflieh (Pa.)
243.

Where manifest injustice would be done by
an objection raised for the first time on ap-
peal, it will not be considered.-In re Hart's
Estate (Pa.) 369.

In action by servant for injuries, an objection
raised by demurrer to declaration held not prop-
erly before appellate court-Cox v. American
| Agricultural Chemical Co. (R. I.) 871.

§ 4. Requisites and proceedings
transfer of cause.

for

The reason of appeal from the probate court
held not sufficiently stated, within Pub. St. c.
200, § 2.-Stevens v. Stevens (N. H.) 1020.
§ 5.

Record and proceedings not in rec-
ord.

Review in particular civil actions.
Foreclosure suits, see "Mortgages," § 6.
For personal injuries, see "Highways," § 3.
Review in special proceedings.
Accounting by executor or administrator, see
"Executors and Administrators," § 8.
Assessment of taxes, see "Taxation," § 2.
For sale of realty of decedent, see "Executors
and Administrators," § 6.

Inquisition in lunacy, see "Insane Persons,"
$ 1.

Probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 4.

Review of criminal prosecutions.

See "Criminal Law," § 5; "Homicide," § 5.

§ 1. Nature and form of remedy.
A final judgment of a circuit court is review-
able only by a writ of error.-Morse v. Baake
(N. J. Sup.) 693.

§ 2. Decisions reviewable.

Where an appellant did not rest his case nor
produce any evidence when a judgment of non-
suit was entered on appeal from probate court,
nor file a motion to set it aside, a further appeal
to supreme court under Gen. St. 1888, § 1110,
could not be sustained.-Appeal of White
(Conn.) 582.

An order denying a defendant's right to have
a rule for security for costs laid, under Code.
art. 16, 152, held appealable.-Watson v.
Glassie (Md.) 428.

Order of court appointing viewers to assess
damages for use of tracks of another street rail-
way company held final and appealable.-Peti-
tion of Philadelphia, M. & S. St. Ry. Co. (Pa.)

191.

No appeal lies from interlocutory order dis-
charging a rule to strike off the appeal from re-
port of county auditors settling accounts of the
County commissioners.-Appeal of Moore (Pa.)
241.

No appeal lies from an order fixing the
amount of a bond in a railroad condemnation
proceeding.-Pittsburg, C. & W. R. Co. v. Gam-
ble (Pa.) 759.

In determining right to appeal to superior
court, the amount of the decree is the amount
in controversy.-Prentice v. Hancock (Pa.) 763.

as agent, while defendant alleged that he had
never received any of the money, the court on
appeal could not say, in the absence of the
questions and answers, that it was error to
cross-examine defendant as to a bank deposit.
-Brown v. Woodward (Conn.) 112.

To sustain exceptions, it is not sufficient that
an instruction may have been erroneous, but
the exceptions must contain within themselves
sufficient to show that the excepting party was
prejudiced.-Copeland v. Hewett (Me.) 36.

The record held not to authorize a finding of
error in admission of parol testimony.-Wal-
lace v. Hendee (N. J. Sup.) 694.

The supreme court cannot consider objection-
able remarks by counsel where they are not
brought on the record by affidavit and excep-
tion. Guckavan v. Lehigh Traction Co. (Pa.)
351.

§ 8. Review.

An appeal from an order denying an applica
tion to set aside a nonsuit for failure to prose-
cute cannot be made to serve the purposes of
an appeal from the judgment of nonsuit, under
Gen. St. 1888, § 1129, nor from an order refus
ing to set aside a nonsuit, granted for failure of
proof, under section 1110.-Appeal of White
(Conn.) 582.

Where the deductions drawn from the facts
by the jury are clearly erroneous, the verdict
will be set aside on appeal.-Jeffrey v. United
Order of Golden Cross (Me.) 1102.

Where an order discharging a receiver em-
braced items of expense which plaintiff con-
tended he was not chargeable with, the order
will be reviewed, though it involved the pro-
priety of appointing the receiver.-Horn v.
Bohn (Md.) 576.

Where an order modified a previous order and
directed that the costs should be paid as pro-
vided in such previous order, the questions

raised by an appeal from such order were pre-
sented by the appeal from the second order.
Horn v. Bohn (Md.) 576.

Where a case was submitted solely on the third
ground of the complaint, and a verdict was ren-
dered for plaintiff, it cannot be sustained on the
theory that the evidence would have justified
a finding against defendant on either of the
first two grounds.-Fielders v. North Jersey St.
Ry. Co. (N. J. Err. & App.) 404.

The supreme court having found that no im-
proper inducement was offered to surveyors of
the highways to lay out a public road, and the
evidence being sufficient to justify that deci-
sion, the court of errors and appeals will not
consider the question of weight of evidence.
Devine v. Olney (N. J. Err. & App.) 466.

An order quashing a writ of attachment for
failure of the sheriff to return it cannot be
sustained on account of plaintiff's laches; the
court not having passed judgment on such
question.-Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co.
r. Nebeker (N. J. Sup.) 558.

Where the only assignment of error is refusal
to take off a nousuit, questions relating to ex-
clusion of testimony cannot be considered.—
Forrest v. Buchanan (Pa.) 267.

Amendment of bill, after appeal, denied for
laches. Jackson v. Thomson (Pa.) 506.

Appellant, having contributed to error of trial
court, held not in position to complain thereof.
Pantall v. Rochester & P. Coal & Iron Co. (Pa.)
751.

In assumpsit on an agreement to convey cor-
porate stock, held, that it must be presumed,
on petition by defendant for new trial, that
the jury found the agreement was not obtained
through fraud.-Guilford v. Mason (R. I.) 284.
§ 9.

Questions of fact, verdicts, and
findings.

Conclusions of facts by the trial judge, on an
inquest after default, not without evidence, will
not be reviewed.-Leonard v. Mallory (Conn.)
778.

Where findings of fact by a justice sitting in
equity are not shown on appeal to be clearly
erroneous, they will be affirmed. Davis v.
Auld (Me.) 118; Same v. Schoppe, Id.

-

The finding of a jury on an issue of fact will
not be set aside.—Truworthy v. French (Me.)
1005.

Master's finding of fact on contradictory evi-
dence will not be set aside.-Helb v. Hake (Pa.)
491.

Decree dismissing a bill for reconveyance of

Admission of testimony incidental to the main
fact held harmless and not ground for new
trial.-Piche v. Robbins (R. I.) 92.

The submission to the jury of a question, de-
cided by them as the court would have been
compelled to decide it, had it been considered as
a matter of law, held harmless error.-Crafts v.
Carr (R. I.) 275.

In action for death of child certain evidence
held harmless, if erroneous.-Schnable v. Provi-
dence Public Market (R. I.) 634.

Where a conditional contract of sale was in-
troduced as a basis of recovery, plaintiff's prior
testimony that she owned the property sold be-
came immaterial and harmless.-Nye v. Dan-
iels (Vt.) 150.

Error in a charge held to require reversal un-
less it affirmatively appears the verdict was not
influenced thereby.-Johnson v. Cate (Vt.) 329.

In a will contest, the refusal of the court to
give certain instructions relating to execution
of the will, undue influence, and mental capac-
ity considered, and held not error.-In re Hath-
away's Will (Vt.) 996.

§ 11. Determination and disposition of

cause.

A finding not affecting the judgment held_not
necessary to be reviewed on appeal.-New Idea
Pattern Co. v. Whelan (Conn.) 953.

Under Prac. Act, § 177, referee's report held
entitled to its statutory force as prima facie evi-
force by a former reversal.-Boody v. Pratt (N.
dence on new trial, and not deprived of that
J. Err. & App.) 470.

Where the supreme court reverses a judg-
ment on certiorari, if the record disclose a
finding by the court of the facts necessary to a
determination of the controversy, the court
will render such final judgment as the trial
court ought to have rendered.-Sullivan v. Vis-
conti (N. J. Sup.) 598.

A decree made without answering requests
for findings of fact and conclusions of law may
be reversed and record remitted with directions
to make such findings.-Hoyt v. Kingston Coal
Co. (Pa.) 348.

Finding of fact on partition, supported by
sufficient evidence, will not be reviewed on ap-
peal. Hanna v. Clark (Pa.) 758.

Where the evidence was conflicting as to
whether an agreement was obtained by misrep-
resentation, and whether plaintiff had performed
his part thereof, etc., the questions were for
the jury.-Guilford v. Mason (R. I.) 284.
§ 10.

-

Harmless error.
Where it appears from indisputable facts, as
shown by the evidence, that a verdict is right,
and that no other verdict would be sustained
on the evidence, all other matters of law and
fact are immaterial.-Inhabitants of Winslow
v. Inhabitants of Troy (Me.) 1008.

Where testimony was immaterial, and was
not considered by the court of appeals, it was
not necessary to consider exceptions taken
thereto.-Downs v. Miller (Md.) 445.

In an action for injuries owing to an alleged
defect in a highway, certain evidence held not

Where decree for defendant in equitable eject-
ment is reversed, and case remanded for pro-
ceedings in accordance with the opinion, de-
fendant cannot, on second trial, set up a new
defense.-Fellows v. Loomis (Pa.) 998.

APPEARANCE.

Judgment on default in appearance, see “Judg-
ment," § 2.

APPLIANCES.

Liability of employer for defects, see "Master
and Servant," § 3.

APPLICATION.

Of assets in general, see "Marshaling Assets
and Securities."

became their absolute property, and the attor
ney had no right to sell the watch to the com-
missioner in payment of his fees.-Davis v.
Ferrin (Me.) 1006.

ney.

Where judgments are set off against each
other, such set-off will not be allowed to de-
feat an attorney's lien for the taxable costs.-
Collins v. Campbell (Me.) 837; Campbell v.
Collins, Id.

AUTHORITY.

Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client," § 1.
Of justice of the peace, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 1.

BAIL.

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See "Money Lent"; "Money Paid";
and Labor."

"Work

BAILMENT.

See "Carriers," § 1; "Pledges"; "Warehouse-
men."

BALLOTS.

ASSUMPTION.

BANKRUPTCY.

See "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors";
"Insolvency."

§ 1. Constitutional and statutory pro-

visions.

as

Code Pub. Gen. Laws, art. 47, § 22,
amended by Laws 1896, c. 446, and Code Pub.
Gen. Laws, art. 47, § 23, relating to insolvency
proceedings, held not superseded by Bankr. Act
1898 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418], as to in-
voluntary insolvency proceedings taken against
a farmer.-Old Town Bank v. McCormick (Md.)

ATTACHMENT.

See "Execution"; "Garnishment."
Exemptions, see "Exemptions."

ATTENDANCE.

Of pupils at school, see "Schools and School
Districts," § 1.

ATTESTATION.

Of note, see "Bills and Notes," § 1.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

Allowance of fees to attorneys for creditors of
insolvent, see "Assignments for Benefit of
Creditors," § 4.

Argument and conduct of counsel at trial, see
"Criminal Law," § 4; "Trial," § 2.
Attorneys in fact, see "Principal and Agent."
Champertous agreements, see "Champerty and
Maintenance."

Presumption as to authority of attorney to ac-
knowledge service of process, see "Process,"
§ 1.
Services of attorney for infant as necessaries,
see "Infants," § 1.

§ 1. Retainer and authority.

An attorney is presumed to have had au-
thority to compromise a pending suit in which
he appeared. Strattner v. Wilmington City
Electric Co. (Del. Super.) 436.

Where a watch was delivered by disclosure
commissioner to the attorney of petitioners, it

§ 2. Assignment, administration, and
distribution of bankrupt's estate.
Evidence held to show such change of posses-
sion as to render a sale by an insolvent valid.-
Weeks v. Fowler (N. H.) 543.

An action of trover against a trustee in bank-
ruptcy may be maintained in a state court.-
Weeks v. Fowler (N. H.) 543.

The state courts have jurisdiction of an action
of replevin against a trustee in bankruptcy, who
claims that the goods in controversy belonged to
the bankrupt.-Cooke v. Scovel (N. J. Sup.) 692.
§ 3. Rights, remedies, and discharge of
bankrupt.

Under Bankr. Act 1898, § 16, held, discharge
of a bankrupt corporation does not release
stockholders from liability under Gen. Laws, c.
180.-Elsbree v. Burt (R. 1.) 60.

BANKS AND BANKING.

Exemption of railroad bonds held by savings
bank from exemption, see "Taxation.”