As to particular facts or issues.

See "Assault and Battery," § 1; "Damages,"
3; "Deeds," § 3; "Domicile"; "Estoppel,'
1; "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 3; "Judg-
ment," § 10.

Adultery, see "Divorce," § 2.

Agency, see "Principal and Agent," § 1.
Agency of town officers in procuring marriage
of pauper so as to change settlement, see
"Paupers," § 1.

Agency of wife for husband, see "Husband and
Wife," § 1.

Creation of trust, see "Trusts," § 1.

of a machine held inadmissible to show the
condition of the machine.-Leonard v. Mallory
(Conn.) 778.

6. Documentary evidence.

Where, in an action for false imprisonment,
which occurred in proceedings for contempt,
the answer alleges and reply denies such pro-
ceedings, the original papers are admissible at
the trial as proof of their existence.-Church
V. Pearne (Conn.) 955.

Receipts for payments, purporting to be sign-
ed by an agent, held inadmissible, in the ab-
v. Daniels (Vt.) 150.

Desertion, see "Divorce," § 2.

Existence of easement, see "Easements," § 1.
Testamentary capacity, see "Wills," § 2.
Undue influence in procuring making of will,
see "Wills," § 3.

In actions by or against particular classes of
parties.

See "Carriers," § 3; "Master and Servant,"
§ 5.

In particular civil actions or proceedings.
See "Divorce," § 2; "Libel and Slander," § 4;
"Malicious Prosecution." § 2; "Money Lent"
"Negligence," § 2; "Specific Performance,'
§ 3; "Trespass," § 1; "Trover and Conver-
sion," § 1.

For breach of contract for sale of land, see
"Vendor and Purchaser," § 4.

For injunction, see "Injunction," § 3.
For personal, injuries, see "Bridges." § 1; "Car-
riers," § 3; "Electricity"; "Highways." § 3;
"Master and Servant," § 5; "Railroads," § 4;
"Street Railroads," § 2.

For price of goods, see "Sales," § 5.
On note, see "Bills and Notes," § 5.
Probate proceedings, see "Wills," § 4.

To abate liquor nuisance, see "Intoxicating Liq-
uors," § 5.

To enforce vendor's lien, see "Vendor and Pur-
chaser." § 3.

To establish or enforce trust, see "Trusts," § 7.
To establish railroad crossings, see "Railroads,'
§ 3.

In particular criminal prosecutions.
See "Abortion": "Criminal Law." § 3; "Hom-
icide." $3; "Larceny," § 2; "Receiving Stol-
en Goods"; "Rescue."

1. Relevancy, materiality, and com-
petency in general.

In an action for libel, after defendant has
attacked the reputation of plaintiff, he is en-
titled to give evidence in relation thereto.-
Clark v. North American Co. (Pa.) 237.

§ 2. Best and secondary evidence.
Circumstantial evidence held sufficient to
show former existence of a lost instrument.-
Bright v. Allan (Pa.) 248.

§ 7. Parol or extrinsic evidence affect-
ing writings.

Parol evidence held inadmissible to vary a
written order for goods.-New Idea Pattern Co.
v. Whelan (Conn.) 953.

Evidence as to false representations to ia-
duce the signing of a contract held incompe-
tent, where there was no allegation of fraud.-
New Idea Pattern Co. v. Whelan (Conn.) 953.

ed or varied by any antecedent parol agreement
The language of a deed cannot be contradict-
between the parties.-Gam v. Cordrey (Del. Su-
per.) 334.

Parol evidence that a receipt was given with-
out consideration and as a duplicate held prop-
French (Me.)
erly admitted. - Truworthy v.
1005.

Certain parol evidence held not inadmissible
as varying a written contract.-French v. West-
gate (N. H.) 310.

In an action for breach of a covenant of let-
ting, recovery cannot be had for failure to fur-
nish articles not specified in the lease.-Drisch-
man v. McManemiù (N. J. Err. & App.) 548.

Where a single partner attempts to assign
the moneys due on a contract with the firm,
and the assignment is ambiguous, parol evi-
dence as to the identity of the subject-matter
held admissible.-Sullivan v. Visconti (N. J.
Sup.) 598.

Parol evidence held admissible to contradict

statement as to consideration in deed.-Henry
v. Zurflieh (Pa.) 243.

8. Opinion evidence.

The legal insufficiency of evidence to furnish
any foundation for an inference of mental in-
capacity in a testator held to preclude hypothet-
ical questions based on the same evidence.-
Berry v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. (Md.)

720.

In action against railroad for injuries, certain
cross-examination of a witness held proper.-
McGovern v. Smith (Vt.) 326.

In action for injuries to one on track, the en-
gineer could testify that he did not know of
anything that he could have done to stop the
train that he did not do.-McGovern v. Smith
(Vt.) 326.

probable recovery of plaintiff held inadmissible
Opinion of physician at time of accident as to
in action for damages. McGovern v. Smith
(Vt.) 326.

9. Evidence at former trial or in
other proceeding.

timony of a witness on a former trial, where
In a civil case held proper to introduce the tes-
such witness was beyond the jurisdiction of the
court.-McGovern v. Smith (Vt.) 326.

§ 10. Weight and sufficiency.

Testimony of unimpeached witness held_not
conclusive on the trial court.-Phoenix Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Opper (Conn.) 586.

EXAMINATION.

Of expert witnesses, see "Evidence," 8 8.
Of witnesses in general, see "Witnesses," § 2.

EXCEPTIONS.

In deeds, see "Deeds," § 2.

To master's report, see "Equity," § 4.
To pleading, see "Pleading," § 4.

EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF.

Necessity for purpose of review, see "Appeal
and Error," $ 5.

Taking exceptions at trial, see "Trial," §§ 1, 4.

EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

See "Damages," § 2.

EXCISE.

Regulation of traffic in intoxicating liquors, see
"Intoxicating Liquors."

Validity of act providing for appointment of ex-
cise commissioners by court as conferring ex-
ecutive authority, see "Constitutional Law,"
§ 2.

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE.

See "Homicide," § 2.

EXECUTION.

See "Garnishment."

In ejectment proceedings, see "Ejectment," 82.
§ 1. Property subject to execution.
Certain property held subject to a lien of
execution.-Peters v. Cape May & N. J. Coast
S. S. Co. (N. J. Ch.) 092.

§ 2. Stay, quashing, vacating, and re-
lief against execution.'
Modification of judgment entered after ex-
piration of term, granting stay of execution
against particular property, held erroneous.-
Lewis v. Linton (Pa.) 999.
§ 3.

Sale.

The court out of which an execution issues
may at its discretion order the money which
is payable to a person named to be paid into
court.-Gifford v. McGuinness (N. J. Err. &
App.) 87.

A purchaser at execution sale, buying subject
to the lien of a mortgage, cannot contest its
validity. Steele v. Walter (Pa.) 1097.

A purchaser at execution sale, subject to a
mortgage, bought simply the right to redeem the
land by paying the mortgage debt.-Steele v.
Walter (Pa.) 1097.

that executor must have notice and opportunity
to be heard.-State v. Clark (R. I.) 636.

§ 2. Assets, appraisal, and inventory.
Failure of executors to file an inventory held
excusable.-Mulford v. Mulford (N. J. Ch.) 79.
83. Collection and management of es-
tate.

Only the unadministered property of the intes-
tate vests in the administrator de bonis non.-
Meservey v. Kalloch (Me.) 876.

An administrator de bonis non can sue his
predecessors and his sureties only as to the un-
administered property of the intestate, and ex-
cept as to such he is not "a person interested
personally or in any official capacity," within
Rev. St. c. 72, § 10.-Meservey v. Kalloch (Me.)
876.

Where a portion of an estate bequeathed in
trust for certain beneficiaries included a cer-
tain judgment, but the executors knew as a
matter of fact that the testatrix had received
payment of the debt, they were not chargeable
for failure to institute proceedings to collect
the judgment.-Mulford v. Mulford (N. J. Ch.)
79.

Executors held not chargeable with interest
Mulford v. Mulford (N. J. Ch.) 79.
on funds in their hands for certain period.-

Executors held chargeable for moneys which
they failed to collect, though able so to do, and
for money collected which they failed to charge
themselves with.-In re Irvine's Estate (Pa.) 502;
Appeal of Bachop, Id.

Executors held jointly liable for depreciation
of realty which they were directed by the will
to sell, and which they made no attempt to sell.
In re Irvine's Estate (Pa.) 502; Appeal of
Bachop, Id.

Executors may be compelled to make convey-
ance of land in accordance with contract of
their decedent and deliver same to donce of
the contract.-In re Huggins' Estate (Pa.)
746.

Where executors claim proceeds of sale of
realty made by decedent, and a third party
claims them as a gift, orphans' court may
award an issue to the common pleas.-In re
Huggins' Estate (Pa.) 746.

Jurisdiction of orphans' court on petition of
executors for a decree for payment under a
land contract made by their decedent held not
lost by claim of third party for proceeds there-
of.-In re Huggins' Estate (Pa.) 746.

§ 4. Allowance and payment of claims.
Claim against decedent's estate held barred
by the general statute of limitations (Gen. St.
$1110) for failure to sue within six years from
appointment of administrator.-Appeal of Ma
son (Conn.) 895.

§ 5. Distribution of estate.

See "Wills."

Testamentary trustees, see "Trusts."

Testimony as to transactions with decedents,
see "Witnesses," § 1.

administrator to transfer assets to himself as
foreign guardian.-State v. Whitehouse (Conn.)
897.

Decree of distribution held not necessary to
enable domestic administrator to transfer as-
sets to himself as foreign guardian.-State v.
Whitehouse (Coun.) 897.

§ 6. Sales and conveyances under order

of court.

Under Rev. St. c. 71, § 1, to justify a de-
cree licensing an executor to sell real estate of
his decedent, it must be shown that it was nec-
essary to pay debts, legacies, or expenses of

To authorize a sale of the real estate of a
decedent, where the debts amount to less than
the value of the whole, it must be alleged in
the petition that the residue would be greatly
depreciated by a sale of less than the whole.
In re Snow (Me.) 116.

A license to accept an advantageous offer for
the purchase of a decedent's real estate can
only be granted the executor of the estate
where the court could grant a license to sell at
auction, under Rev. St. c. 71, § 1, to pay debts
or legacies. In re Snow (Me.) 116.

A decree of sale of decedent's real estate is
insufficient, on appeal, to show the necessity
of such sale, which must be proven.-In re
Snow (Me.) 116.

Where executors under Orphans' Court Act
(P. L. 1898, p. 715) § 85, report a sale to the
court for confirmation, it should order a resale,
if the bid is far below the estimated value of
the property, and it was not offered for sale in
a manner likely to bring the best price.-Ryan
v. Wilson (N. J. Err. & App.) 1039.

An administrator's account held chargeable
with the full purchase price of real estate sold,
though, on counting the money taken as the
purchase price, he found a shortage.--Carpenter
v. Stowe's Estate (Vt.) 360.

8 7. Actions.

In a suit by the administrator of a tenant for
an irregularity committed by the landlord in
carrying out a lawful distress levied after the
death of the tenant, the mere insolvency of the
tenant's estate is unimportant.-Brown v. How-
ell (N. J. Err. & App.) 459.

The provision of P. L. 1898, p. 738, § 65,
against actions against an executor or admin-
istrator within six months, held not to apply
to a suit to foreclose a mortgage.-Ayres v.
Shepherd (N. J. Ch.) 690.

Under Gen. Laws, c. 215, § 21, a bank in
which intestate had deposited $700 might set
off a note of the intestate for $400 which the
bank has discounted, though not proved before
commissioners. - Troup V. Mechanics' Nat.
Bank (R. 1.) 122.

An action against an executor held barred un-
der Gen. Laws, c. 234, § 8. though plaintiff
had complied with chapter 215, §§ 2-4.-Mac-
Neill v. Gallagher (R. I.) 630.

Where executor published no notice of ap-
pointment. limitations began to run from notice
published by administrator de bonis non subse-
quently appointed.-Lynch v. Farnell (R. I.) 869.
That creditor knew of executor's appointment
held not to cause limitations to run before no-

tice of appointment was published.-Lynch v.
Farnell (R. I.) 869.

A statute of limitations in regard to suits
against administrators (Pub. St. c. 189, § 8)
held to continue to run uninterruptedly, though
the original administrator die and another one be
appointed.-Thompson v. Hoxsie (R. I.) 873.
Wife held not to have held land in trust for
her husband, so as to render the probate court,
rather than chancery, the proper forum, under
V. S. 2494, for a suit by his executrix to en-
force her rights in the premises against the
wife's heir. Wilder's Ex'x v. Wilder (Vt.)

1072.

§ 8. Accounting and settlement.

An account of an administrator held properly
confirmed.-Cummings v. Robinson (Md.) 795.

Where two coexecutors gave a joint bond and
were sureties on the bond of the executrix, one
of such executors was entitled to object to an
fixed for the presentiment of claims against the
accounting before the expiration of the time
estate.-Yakel v. Yakel (Md.) 914.

An appeal from an order dismissing a coes-
ecutor's petition to set aside the accounting of
his coexecutors, filed within 30 days after the
order, held not subject to dismissal by reason of
the fact that the order was without prejudice.-
Yakel v. Yakel (Md.) 914.

A coexecutor held not required to appeal from
an ex parte order settling the accounts on peti-
tion of his coexecutors, but entitled to petition
the orphans' court to set such order aside.-
Yakel v. Yakel (Md.) 914.

Code, art. 93, § 241, and article 90, §§ 1. 2.
held not to prevent a petition by a coexecutor
to set aside an ex parte accounting of his co-
executors.-Yakel v. Yakel (Md.) 914.

Prior commencement of proceedings in the
to compel an accounting held not to prevent
orphans' court by beneficiaries under a will
the chancery court from assuming jurisdie-
tion of bills by the executor for accounting
and adjustment of affairs.-Mulford v. Mul-
ford (N. J. Ch.) 79.

Evidence examined, and held to show that
the account submitted by a surviving executor
was substantially correct.-Mulford v. Mulford
(N. J. Ch.) 79.

Commission of an administrator on $263,000
of personal property reduced to 3 per cent.-In
re Young's Estate (Pa.) 511.

Auditor's findings as to conveyance by decedent
to his daughter will not be disturbed, where there
was evidence to sustain it. In re Young's Estate
(Pa.) 511.

Under the evidence, administrator held not
chargeable with the cost of the auditorship of
his account.-In re Young's Estate (Pa.) 511.

§ 9. Foreign and ancillary administra-
tion.

Local court held without jurisdiction to decree
a sale of the interest of a deceased debtor's
heirs in inherited realty in another state.-
Seldner v. Katz (Md.) 931.

Under Orphans' Court Act 1898. § 29, con-
ferring jurisdiction on the surrogate, the for-
eign residence of the decedent is jurisdictional;
and, where persons of interest deny the same,
the surrogate is authorized to determine the
fact, subject to the appeal given by section 201
of the act to the orphans' court.-In re Rus-
sell's Estate (N. J. Prerog.) 169.

Under Orphans' Court Act 1898. § 29, a cou-
test over the right of administration of non-
resident's estate will not oust jurisdiction of
surrogate, nor confer jurisdiction in the first
instance on the orphans'court.-In re Russell's
Estate (N. J. Prerog.) 169.

§ 10. Liabilities on

bonds.

administration

sets of the estate in his possession, cannot re-
An insolvent administrator, who has no as-
lieve his sureties by transfer of the estate to
himself as guardian of the distributees.-State
v. Whitehouse (Conn.) 897.

A creditor, widow, next of kin, or otherwise
are parties legally interested, within Rev. St.
c. 72, §§ 10, 16, and authorized to sue on a
probate bond.-Meservey v. Kalloch (Me.) 876.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

See "Libel and Slander," § 4.

A building erected by one on the land of an-
other under an agreement that it shall remain
the personal property of the builder does not
pass by the conveyance of the land to a bona
fide purchaser without notice, though from its
character, purpose, and mode of use it ap-
pears to be a part of the realty.-Peaks v.
Hutchinson (Me.) 38.

The rights of a tenant to fixtures sold to him
by the landlord held not lost by taking a new
lease, though such articles were not mentioned
therein.-O'Brien v. Mueller (Md.) 663.

The test to be applied in ascertaining wheth-
er certain chattels were real or personal es-
tate defined.-Atlantic Safe Deposit & Trust
Co. v. Atlantic City Laundry Co. (N. J. Ch.)
212.

Certain office fixtures, etc., found in a laun-
dry plant, and not attached to the building in
any way, held to be real estate.-Atlantic Safe
Deposit & Trust Co. v. Atlantic City Laundry
Co. (N. J. Ch.) 212.

Certain machinery, found in a laundry plant
and attached to the building, held to be real es-
tate, and covered by a mortgage on the realty.
-Atlantic Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. At-
lantic City Laundry Co. (N. J. Ch.) 212.

FOLLOWING TRUST PROPERTY.
See "Trusts," § 7.

FORECLOSURE.

Of lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," § 3.
Of mortgage, see "Building and Loan Associa-
tions"; "Corporations," § 4; "Mortgages," 8
6.

FOREIGN ADMINISTRATION.

See "Executors and Administrators," § 9.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

See "Corporations," 7.

FORFEITURES.

Of dower, see "Dower," § 1.

Of franchise, see "Corporations," § 6.

FORMER ADJUDICATION.

See "Judgment," §§ 7, 8.

FORMS OF ACTION.

See "Action," § 2; "Assumpsit, Action of";
"Ejectment"; "Replevin"; "Trespass," § 1;
"Trover and Conversion."

FRANCHISES.

Forfeiture, see "Corporations," § 6.

FRAUD.

See "False Pretenses"; "Fraudulent Convey-
ances."

Parol evidence, see "Evidence," § 7.

Agreement in writing to sell land may be sub-
ject of gift, without a written assignment.-
In re Huggins' Estate (Pa.) 746.

§ 2. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-
view.

An instruction held not to properly distin-
guish between the questions whether there
was a sale and whether there was a construct-
ive delivery taking the contract out of the stat-
ute of frauds.-Devine v. Warner (Sup.) 782.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

By bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.

§ 1. Transfers and transactions invalid.
Act of owner of land in procuring title to be
taken up by another, and the land to be in-
cumbered by him, held calculated to defraud
creditors furnishing building material to owner
of land.-Baltimore High Grade Brick Co. v.
Amos (Md.) 148.

An assignment of a mortgage in trust, after
its payment by a husband, intending to make a
gift of the land covered by it to his wife, and
after the execution of the deed to her, held not
fraudulent as against the wife's subsequent
creditors.-Carter v. Carter (N. J. Ch.) 160.

Where a grantor conveys land to prevent its
application to the grantor's possible debts in
case of financial misfortune, the conveyance is
fraudulent as to creditors.-Hildebrand v. Wil-
lig (N. J. Ch.) 1035.

Evidence in suit to set aside a conveyance
as in fraud of creditors held to require a dis-
missal of the bill.-Goodwin v. McMinn (Pa.)
762.

§ 2. Rights and liabilities of parties
and purchasers.

In an action to set aside a conveyance as fraud-
ulent, evidence examined, and held, that the gran-
tee acquired only the interest of a mortgagee to
secure the actual consideration paid, as against
the attaching creditors, who should be awarded
a lien subject to such mortgage.-O'Connor v.
Williams (N. J. Ch.) 550.

Where grantor conveys land to prevent its
application to possible loss in business, the con-
veyance is valid as between the grantor and
the grantee and their heirs. — Hildebrand v.
Willig (N. J. Ch.) 1035.

Where an owner of land conveys it to secure
it against any possible insolvency, equity will
not aid his heirs by declaring such a deed to be
a nullity or directing its reconveyance.-Hilde-
brand v. Willig (N. J. Ch.) 1035.

§ 3. Remedies of creditors and purchas◄

ers.

Fraudulent nature of conveyance may be
gathered from the deed itself and the acts of
the parties. Baltimore High Grade Brick Co.

or transactions.

See "Deeds," § 1; "Release," § 1.
Indorsement, see "Bills and Notes," § 4.

§ 1. Deception constituting fraud, and
liability therefor.

Action for false warranty that a lot sold was
free from incumbrances will lie, though defend-

Constructive notice, resulting from recording
of mortgage, held not sufficient to bar right of
party to impeach it as tendering to hinder and
Grade Brick Co. v. Amos (Md.) 148.
defraud subsequent purchasers.-Baltimore High

Evidence held insufficient to show actual no-
tice to one furnishing building material to own-