society. Whom to be taxed on leasehold prop.
erty. Hebrew Free School Association v. Mayor
&c., of New York.

Where an action was brought to recover a
Exemption from taxes, of a seminary of learn-
portion of the rents and profits of certain landing, when occupied exclusively by a religious
held by defendants adversely to plaintiffs in-
testate. Held, that to enable the plaintiffs to
maintain their action it was necessary to allege
in the complaint and prove that plaintiffs in-
testate obtained possession in some form dur-
ing her lifetime. Grant v. Cooper.
289

50

There is no power in the synod to excsind a
Presbyterian church. The authority of the con-
gregation can be expressed only by a congrega-
tional meeting regularly called. Steed v. McAuley
250

REMOVAL OF CAUSES.

The cause is removed to United States court
on complying with the statute. A state court
cannot judge whether the case is a proper one.
Durham v. Baird
166

Where the main controversy in a suit is the
indebtedness of a person, the parties to that
controversy cannot remove the suit. City of
Chicago v. Gage
331

An action by the collector of internal revenue
against against the deputy collector on his ofiì-
cial bond, may be removed from the state into
the federal court, under the act of March 3, 1875.
Orner v. Saunders
383

Under the third section of the United States
act of 1875, a cause which was pending at the
time of the passage of the act, is removable from
a state court to the federal court, if the petition
and bond are filed" at or before the first
term at which said cause could be first tried,"
16. after the passage of the act. Andrews v. Garrett
452

Reference, when denied, construction of
papers. Gautier v. Douglass Manufacturing Co.
26

A cause, under the United States act of 1875,
cannot be removed unless it is done before or
at the term at which the cause could be first
tried, and before the trial thereof. Warren v.
Pennsylvania R. Co.
568

Gas Light Companies

86

88

Hay and Straw Bales, sale of 111
Imprisonment

Insurance Companies
Jurors Compensation
Justice's of the Peace

the property was sold at auction to the defend- In relation to Fisheries
ant in 1872, subject to conditions of sale, and
defendant refused to complete on the ground
that such conditio s were unfair and mislead-
ing and not binding upon him, and that there
was not a good title in the plaintiff. Held, that
special conditions of sale are sanctioned only
that there shall be fair and honest dealing in
the transaction, and will not be binding when
founded on any erroneous statements, and that
under the circumstances of this case the suit
must be dismissed. Harnett v. Baker.

47

In 1872, sold to the plaintiff a small meadow
for £400. The sale was to be completed Aug.,
1872; on July 16, 1872, died. In 1868 made a
deed to his grand nephew, the defendant, of all
his real estate. There was no consideration
moving to make the deed beyond love and
affection, and a covenant that the grantee
would build a house, in ten years, on the prop
erty. By his will he gave the same property to
the defendant. The plaintiff, finding that the
defendant would not convey the meadow, sued
for a specific performance. Held, the contract
could have been enforced against the settlement
on defendant was purely voluntary, since there
was no penalty if the grantee should not build
the house. The contract with the plaintiff is
good as against a purely voluntary grantee.
Rosher v. Williams.

94

88. 145. 168

89. 144

144

144

Manufacturing Companies 90. 168

Military Statistics

Notaries Public

Musical Colleges

Pauper and Destitute Persons

144

114

92

117, 140, 191

An agreement of person who will receive
commissions from the sale of another's property
to pay a debt of such other person, to prevent
proceedings to take the property an original
150
promise. Young v. French.

tract for the sale of lands out of the statute.
What must be proved to take a parol con-
Contract will not be enforced when compensa-
tion can be made. The sufficiency of the evi-
dence to take the contract out of the statute for
the court. Profit to one improving property
under contract to be deducted. Overmeyer v.

Koerner.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

216

Where there was an open account between a
testator and a legatee, a promisory note of leg-
atee will not be barred by the statute of limita-
430
tion. Ross v. Ross.

142 When the maker of a promisory note to a
80 testator, being one of the executors, includes
167 his notes in the assets of the estate, that is such
80 an acknowledgment as will take the note out of
Ib.
81 the statute of limitations.

102, 146

A discharge of an obligation of a son to the
father, obtained by importunity when the father,
was in a reduced and suffering condition will
not discharge such obligation.

Ib.

Where a party is aggrieved by a decree, and
wishes to review any particular items of ac-
count, the items must be specified in the petition
Ib.
of appeal.

The

Issues must be met and determined. Pro-
vince of court and jury. Bond of indemnity,
damages under must be assessed. Walsh v.

Merbach.

The manufacturer of an article for polishing
stoves, adopted as his trade mark, an orb, with
rays of light arising over a body of water, with
the words: Rising Sun Stove Polish."
defendant adopted a similar device of an orb
rising over a body of water, with the words:
"Rising Moon Stove Polish." The answer ad-
mitted the fact, but denied intentional imitation
or sufficient resemblance to cause deception. V. Campbell.
Held, the imitation was plain and an injunction
would be granted. Morse v. Conwell.

217

On an appeal from jndgment of the special
term, enjoining defendant's use of the word
"Star" on their lead pencils, and imposing
damages for infringement. Held, that the find-
ings of the court below were fully sustained by
the evidence. That there was no abandonment
of the trade mark by the plaintiff, nor consent
to defendant's use of it, and that as no error was
apparent in the referee's assessment of damages,
the judgment must be affirmed. Faber v.
Hovey.
529

A trade mark will not be protected when it is
calculated to deceive or defraud the ordinary
purchaser. Hennessy v. Wheeler.
575

334

When two defences are inconsistent a find-
ing for one is a finding against the other. Lusk
393

Resulting trust, presumption of. Ademption
27
considered. Fowkes v. Pascoe

When trust determines in an executory gift.
Fourth rule in Edwards v. Edwards considered
70
and disapproved. O'Mahoney v. Burdett

When a trust determines in an executory
71
gift. Ingram v. Soutten

Advice of credit to one at request of third
party, effect of as to any claim on banker by
85
one so advised. Morgan v. Lariviere