For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

being represented by guardian ad litem and at-452 (Minn.) The court will have regard
torneys, the court had jurisdiction to determine for the common desire of men to favor with
the validity of the will and refuse probate.-In their bounty their own kin.-In re Peavey's
re Kempthorne's Estate, 175 N. W. 857.
Estate, 175 N. W. 105.

(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
tees and Their Respective Shares.

355 (Iowa) Though there is no statute au-
thorizing setting aside of an order denying pro-
bate except the general statutes authorizing the
setting aside of judgments or grant of new trial,
the usual equitable jurisdiction may be invoked 535 (Iowa) Testator's grandson, devised a
in case of fraud on an application made within
a year. In re Kempthorne's Estate, 175 N. W.
857.

farm subject to a life estate in his grandmoth-
er, under the will, held without interest in
moneys and credits owned by testator and
left to his children.-Stevens v. Pels, 175 N.
W. 303.

(C) Survivorship, Representation, and

Substitution.

In proceedings to set aside judgment denying
probate of a will on the ground of fraud of
attorneys representing minor beneficiaries, evi-
dence held insufficient to show fraud on the part
of such attorneys or that they did not perform
their duty, particularly in not objecting to tes-545 (2) (Minn.) A will, creating a residu-
timony of incompetent witnesses.-Id.
ary estate chiefly out of trust fund deposits
Agreement by testator's widow, proponent, and returned upon death of certain beneficiaries
her four daughters, contestants, to pay legacies and directing transfer of balance to a cor-
made by the will, held not a circumstance show-poration to be formed, and giving residue to
ing fraud in procuring denial of probate, to the wife and children with provision that on death
prejudice of minor beneficiaries; the agreement of any child without leaving a child or chil-
not having been secret, but openly made.-Id.
In view of Code, § 3423, application by testa- with expressed intention that surviving child
dren his share should go to survivors, and
tor's widow, proponent, through her attorney,
for appointment of attorneys to represent minor take whole balance of estate, construed with
beneficiaries, which was contested by testator's other provisions, on death of a child without
daughters, and application for appointment of issue gave others his share, whether such
guardian ad litem and preparation by the wid- death occurred before or after death of tes-
ow's attorney of the formal orders, held not cir- tator.-In re Peavey's Estate, 175 N. W. 105.
cumstances showing fraud and collusion between
the minor's attorneys and the other parties in (E) Nature of Estates and Interests Cre-
procuring denial of probate.-Id.

That objections to probate of will were not
filed until the day of the hearing is not a cir-
cumstance, showing fraud in the denial of pro-
bate.-Id.

355 (Neb.) A judgment of probate entered
upon a proper petition after legal notice, and
not challenged for a year and a half, should not
be vacated on doubtful or equivocal proofs on
the issue of testator's incompetency or of un-
due influence. In re Kelly's Estate, 175 N. W.
653.
(K) Review.

384 (Wis.) On appeal from judgruent ad-
mitting a will to probate, the contest having
been for lack of genuineness of the signature,
the only question at issue is whether or not
the instrument propounded as a will should be
admitted to probate.-In re Johnson's Estate,
175 N. W. 917.

(L) Fees and Costs.

ated.

616 (8) (N.D.) A will giving all of "my
estate, real and personal, to my wife, and after
her death, all the real and personal property
to" a son, "his heirs and assigns forever," with
special bequests to be paid by him, held to de-
vise to the widow a life estate with power of
disposition if necessary for her maintenance
and support, with a limitation over in fee of
death to son, subject to the special bequests
the residue of the property remaining after her
made a personal charge on him.-Priewe v.
Priewe, 175 N. W. 732.

625 (N.D.) Under Comp. Laws 1913, §
5298, a future executory interest in real estate
may be devised which will not be rendered void
by a specific devise to the first taker of such
realty with a power of disposition.-Priewe v.
Priewe, 175 N. W. 732.

(H) Estates in Trust and Powers.
408 (Wis.) In proceedings for probate of a ed of $4,000, to be used by him for the exten-
672(1) (Minn.) A bequest to a person nam-
will contested for lack of genuineness of signa-sion of the kingdom of God in a certain church,
ture, in the absence of statutory authority the held not an absolute gift to the person named,
probate court improperly allowed fees for but an attempted bequest in trust for the pur-
services and expenses of proponent's hand-
writing expert, to be paid out of the estate, Pose stated in the will.-In re Ford's Estate,
particularly in view of St. 1917, § 4041b, ex-
pressly justifying allowance from the estate of
proponent's counsel fees.-In re Johnson's Es-
tate, 175 N. W. 917.

175 N. W. 913.

VII. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
DEVISEES AND LEGATEES..

(A) Nature of Title and Rights in General,

714 (Mich.) In a proceeding to collect a
claim of $3,120 against a decedent's estate for
services as housekeeper and nurse, where it
appeared that decedent had given claimant a
legacy of $5,300, the will reciting that claim-
ant "has been my housekeeper and compan-
ion for years, and this bequest is given as a
token of my regard and appreciation of her
services," such legacy, accepted by claimant,
held to constitute payment of the services
rendered; the word "appreciation" meaning to
"estimate justly," or to set a price or value
on.-Holmes v. Connell's Estate, 175 N. W.
148.

728 (Iowa) An heir or devisee was not
liable for rent to another person entitled to
a distributive share in the land until such
person's share was set apart to her.-Stevens
v. Pels, 175 N. W. 303.

(D) Election.

be allowed to testify, such testimony would be
786 (Iowa) Proceedings instituted by a competent against defendant on his sole ap-
grandchild, devisee of a farm by his grand-peal.-Palmer v. Parmele, 175 N. W. 649.
father's will subject to a life estate in his 159(1) (Wis.) Where decedent in a gen-
grandmother, and order of court pursuant eral conversation addressed to all within hear-
thereto making for the grandmother, who had ing made certain statements as to a will, those
become incompetent, a judicial election on the present all being persons interested in the es-
ground of her interest to repudiate the will, tate, such communication could not be testi-
held to operate as an estoppel by judgment fied to by those present, under St. 1917, §
against any subsequent claim of the grandson 4069.-In re Lauburg's Will, 175 N. W. 925.
that such judicial election to repudiate the 160(1) (Neb.) An adverse party who is a
will was invalid or erroneous.-Stevens v. Pels, representative of a deceased person is not
175 N. W. 303.
disqualified by Rev. St. 1913, § 7894, from testi-
fying to a conversation confined exclusively
to the person deceased and a third party.-
De Wulf v. De Wulf, 175 N. W. 884.

WINDOW DISPLAY.

See Landlord and Tenant, 41.

37(1) (Iowa) A person having no personal
knowledge as to the matter involved may not
testify as to what others did regarding it.-
Coad v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 344.
A witness may not testify that a shipment
was consigned to a certain destination and
consignee upon no foundation except that a
shipment consigned to a certain place or con-
signee is supposed to go there.-Id.

37(2) (Iowa) The fact that a witness has
a record concerning the details of a railroad
shipment does not qualify him to testify, where
he has no personal knowledge regarding the
matter.-Coad v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 175 N.
W. 344.

The fact that a person charged to load cars
makes entries in a memorandum book which
is not a part of the general books of account
will not qualify him to state the contents of
a railroad shipment, even though such contents
were entered in his memorandum book at the
time of loading.—Id.

178(1) (Mich.) In an administratrix's ac-
tion for fatal injuries to a roofer who fell
through a snow-covered skylight, plaintiff as
representative of the deceased servant being
under Comp. Laws 1915, § 12554, privileged
to call defendant employer and compel him
to testify, by doing thus opened the door to
a further examination by the employer's own
counsel on all matters relative to which he
had been questioned.-Jonescu v. Orlich, 175
N. W. 174.

180 (Iowa) The proper time to object to a
witness, as disqualified, under Code, § 4604, to
testify as to any personal transactions or com-
munications with a decedent, is when the wit-
ness is sworn.-In re Kempthorne's Estate,
175 N. W. 857.

(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
Communications.

199(4) (N.D.) In view of Comp. Laws
1913, §§ 794, 7923, it is the duty of an attor-
ney to maintain inviolate the secrets of his
clients, since such communications are confi-
dential, and an attorney appearing for the ad-
verse party to, and as a witness against, his
former client, may not disclose such communi-
cations over objection.-Fosston Mfg. Co. v.
Lemke, 175 N. W. 723.

208(1) (Neb.) In a personal injury action,
where plaintiff offered testimony in chief tend-
ing to prove freedom from venereal disease and
any taint, it was competent for defendant to
offer testimony to show that plaintiff called on
and was examined by a physician, but such
physician cannot testify as to the result of his
examination.-Livingston v. Omaha & C. B. St.
Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 662.

Information gathered wholly from a journal
in which the witness made entries from data
furnished by other persons who attended to
the loading of the commodity shipped, and re-
garding which the witness had no personal 211(2) (Neb.) In a personal injury action,
knowledge, is inadmissible.-Id.
where plaintiff offered testimony in chief tend-
The mere fact that witness billed a car ing to prove freedom from venereal disease and
loaded by another does not qualify him to tes- any taint, it was competent for defendant to
tify regarding its contents, starting point, des-offer testimony to show that plaintiff called on
tination, consignee, or time of shipment.-Id. and was examined by a physician, but such
The mere fact that witness made out a bill physician cannot testify as to the result of his
of lading does not qualify him to testify that examination.-Livingston v. Omaha & C B. St.
it is customary to send each shipment to its Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 662.
destination, and that a particular shipment was
sent to the destination described in the bill of
lading.-Id.

37(3) (Iowa) A witness without personal
recollection of a matter except from a record
kept by another cannot testify regarding the
transaction.-Coad v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co.,
175 N. W. 344.

40(1) (Minn.) An intelligent girl eight
years old is competent to testify to occurrences
which she remembers, though they happened
three years before, when she was too immature
to testify.-Maynard v. Keough, 175 N. W. 891.
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in

Title or Interest of Persons Deceas-

ed or Incompetent.

148 (Neb.) Plaintiff, who derived title from
decedent, is a competent witness against de-
fendant, who denied her right, and, if other
parties intervene claiming as representatives
of decedent against whom plaintiff would not

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.

255(7) (Iowa) A witness without personal
knowledge is not competent to testify because
he refreshes himself by consulting some book
having no statement on the matter regarding
which he is attempting to testify.-Coad v.
Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 344.

255(8) (Iowa) A witness without personal
knowledge is not competent to testify because
he refreshes himself by consulting some book
or record having no statement on the matter
regarding which he is attempting to testify.
-Coad v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 344.

258 (Iowa) Where book entries are made
partly by a witness and partly by several oth-
ers who do not testify, the witness may not
testify from such entries regarding the details
of a railroad shipment.-Coad v. Pennsylvania
Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 344.

A witness testifying from entries in a book
other than the regular general business books

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am,Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
cannot testify as to entries not made by him- matters to affect his credibility may be pursued
self.-Id.
is largely discretionary with the trial court.-
State v. Taylor, 175 N. W. 615.

(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-

tion.

(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
268 (1) (Mich.) In a pedigree case, where
a witness for plaintiff testified that defend-350 (S.D.) A witness may be asked on cross-
ant who, it was asserted, was not the daugh- examination as to whether he has not pleaded
ter of deceased, grew up and was known as guilty to different criminal charges, and this
deceased's daughter, it was not reversible er- rule as to cross-examination for purposes of
ror to allow on cross-examination questions impeachment applies to an examination of a
as to whether defendant had been held out party who takes the stand on his own behalf,
by deceased as his daughter, etc.-Livernash as well as to other witnesses, and it is not re-
v. De Lorme, 175 N. W. 177.
quired that the record of conviction be intro-
duced as the best evidence.-Moberg v. Scott,
175 N. W. 559.

269 (9) (Iowa) Where the ordinance limiting
the speed of trains had not been alluded to di-
rectly or indirectly in the direct examination of
A cross-examination of a witness for im-
the engineer of the train that struck deceased, peachment purposes, by asking if he had not
it was improper to allow a question on cross-pleaded guilty to a charge of crime, is not sub-
examination as to whether he knew of the exist-ject to objection because it was prejudicial to
ence of the ordinance.-Barrett v. Chicago, M. the witness, who was a party to the action.-Id.
& St. P. Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 950.
359 (S.D.) For purposes of impeachment it

(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

269 (13) (Iowa) In an action for alienation is not required that the record of conviction be
of the affections of plaintiff's wife, cross- introduced as the best evidence.-Moberg v.
examination of defendant, relative to an affida- Scott, 175 N. W. 559.
vit made by plaintiff, that defendant had never
harmed him, and that they still were friends,
not referred to on defendant's direct examina-370 (1) (Mich.) In an action against a
tion, held improper in its insinuations against
defendant.-Jones v. Spencer, 175 N. W. 855.
270(2) (Iowa) A cross-question as to the
possibility of stopping a train, if going at the
legal speed, is improper as a question, not to
ascertain the facts that existed, but to ascer-
tain what might have happened, had the facts
been different.-Barrett v. Chicago, M. & St. P.
Ry. Co., 175 N. W. 950.

270(3) (Iowa) Contention that defendant
was entitled to cross-examination as to entire
transaction gone into in chief by plaintiff's at-
torney will be overruled by the court on ap-
peal, where, so far as the record discloses, the
transaction was in no sense material, and the

answer of the witness could have thrown no
light on issues tendered by defendant's an-
swer-Lawrence v. Scurry, 175 N. W. 22.

druggist for the death of plaintiff's wife, which
he claimed was caused by an overdose of Fow-
ler's solution which she took because of the
negligence of defendant druggists in marking
directions on the bottle, held, that it was im-
proper for the court to unduly limit plaintiff's
counsel in the examination of the attending
physician who wrote the prescription and whom
plaintiff necessarily had to call to show that
the witness had become unfriendly to plain-
tiff.-Marx v. Schultz, 175 N. W. 182.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

393 (1) (Mich.) Counsel had the right dur-
ing the present trial to interrogate witnesses
as to the testimony given by them on the
former trial, either from a transcript of such
testimony, from notes taken by hini, or from
his personal recollection of what they then
testified to.-Gagush v. Hoeft, 175 N. W. 170.

276 (Mich.) In an action for fatal inju-
ries to a roofer who fell through a snow-cov-
ered skylight, under Comp. Laws 1915, § 12554,
defendant employer's brother in charge of the
work as foreman might have been called as a
witness for cross-examination, and question-
ed as to his knowledge of the existence of See Libel and Slander, 49; Wills, 164.
the skylight and the fact it was concealed by
snow. Jonescu v. Orlich, 175 N. W. 174.

276 (Minn.) The rules of evidence applied
in criminal cases should be observed at the
hearing in a proceeding in which one is accused
of a criminal contempt, and he cannot be called
as a witness for cross-examination under Gen.

St. 1913. § 8362, or section 8377, and compelled
to testify against himself.-State v. District
Court of Blue Earth County, 175 N. W. 908.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

"Accessory after the fact."-State v. Lyons

(Minn.) 175 N. W. 689.

"Accessory before the fact."-State v. Lyons
(Minn.) 175 N. W. 689.

"Accomplice."-State v. Lyons (Minn.) 175 N.
Action." In re Glover's Estate (Neb.) 175 N.

W. 689.

W. 1017.

"Actionable fraud."-Candler v. Heigho (Mich.)
175 N. W. 141.

"Aider, abettor, or procurer."-Neal v. State
(Neb.) 175 N. W. 669.

"Appreciation."-Holmes v. Connell's Estate,

(C) Privilege of Witness.
2932 (Minn.) The immunity conferred
upon defendants in criminal cases by Const.
Minn. art. 1, § 7, and by Const. U. S. amend.
5, from compulsion in any criminal case to
make an accused a witness against himself, ex-
tends to prosecution for criminal contempts."Arising out of employment."-State v. Dis-
State v. District Court of Blue Earth County,
175 N. W. 908.

297 (Neb.) An accomplice who consents to
testify on the part of the state cannot be com-
pelled, upon the cross-examination, to testify
as to whether he participated in the commis-
sion of a crime that is not connected with the
offense for which the defendant is being tried.
-Neal v. State, 175 N. W. 669.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

ROBORATION.

(A) In General.

330(3) (Minn.) The extent to which the
cross-examination of a witness on collateral

175 N. W. 148.

trict Court of Hennepin County (Minn.)
175 N. W. 110.

N. W. 556.

"Blanket policy."-Zenith Box & Lumber Co. v.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. (Minn.) 175
N. W. 894.
"Color of title."-Theisen v. Qualley (S. D.) 175
"Conditional sale."-Defiance Mach. Works v.
Gill (Wis.) 175 N. W. 940.
"Continue."-Milwaukee Corrugating Co. V.
Flagge (Wis.) 175 N. W. 777.
"Dam."-Walker v. Dwelle (Iowa) 175 N. W.
957.

"Dedication."-Schmidt v. Town of Battle Creek
(Iowa) 175 N. W. 517.

"Delivery."-Herron v. Brinton (Iowa) 175 N.
W. 831.

"Disorderly house."-State v. Namick (Minn.) | "Probable cause."-Buhner v. Reusse (Minn.)

"Place of business."-Dillard v. State (Neb.) See States, 203. 175 N. W. 668.

"Postponed."-Baxter v. Rockwell (Mich.) 175 N. W. 387.

"Presumption."-Anderson v. Chicago, R. I. & See Appeal and Error. P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 175 N. W. 583.

"Privileged communication."-Zanley v. Hyde

(Mich.) 175 N. W. 261; McLean v. Merriman (S. D.) Id. 878.

"Privy verdict."-Manion v. State (Neb.) 175 N. W. 1013.

WEST PUBLISHING CO., PRINTERS, ST. PAUL, MINN.