Mandamus, see "Mandamus," § 1.
Quo warranto, see "Quo Warranto."

Particular classes of officers.

See "Judges"; "Justices of the Peace"; "Re-
ceivers"; "Sheriffs and Constables."
Bank officers, see "Banks and Banking," § 2.
Corporate officers, see "Corporations," §§ 3, 4.
County officers, see "Counties," § 2.
Health officers, see "Health," § 1.
Railroad commissioners, see "Railroads," § 1.

§ 1. Rights, powers, duties, and liabilities.

Where school trustees require the contractor for a schoolhouse to give a bond, under Comp. Laws, §§ 10,743-10,745, they are not individually liable to one furnishing materials to such contractors, though the sureties have no prop

erty in the state.-Huebner v. Nims (Mich.) 180. OPENING.

Judgment, see "Judgment," § 4.

Persons entitled to allege error, see "Appeal and Error," § 24.

Persons entitled to redeem from foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 8.

Persons entitled to sue for partition, see "Partition," § 1.

Persons entitled to sue for wrongful conver sion, see "Trover and Conversion," § 2.

In particular actions or proceedings. See "Certiorari," § 2; "Partition," § 1; “Quo Warranto," § 2. Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 1. Foreclosure, see "Mortgages," § 7. On appeal or writ of error, see "Appeal and Error," §§ 4, 9. Suits to set aside fraudulent conveyances, see "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 3.

To particular classes of conveyances, contracts,

or transactions.

See "Fraudulent Conveyances," § 2.

1. New parties and change of parties. Where a party to an action makes an assignment pending litigation, it is not necessary to have the assignee substituted in his place; nor has the opposite party a right to insist on such substitution.-Kringle v. Rhomberg (Iowa) 1115.

PARTITION.

§ 1. Actions for partition.

Under Comp. Laws, § 11,020, a mortgagee, a party in partition, may foreclose the mortgaged interest, and the purchaser may become a party to the suit, if there is no redemption before confirmation of the partition.-O'Connor v. Keenan (Mich.) 186.

Under 3 Comp. Laws, §§ 11,020 et seq., 11050 et seq., a co-tenant can maintain a suit for For accounting by executor or administrator, see the latter had redeemed the property from the foreclosure sale.-Wettlaufer v. Ames (Mich)

ORDINANCES.

Complainants in partition suit held not entitled to complain of the decree failing to set off dower to complainant's mother, where she Ames (Mich.) 950.

PARENT AND CHILD.

Where lands are devised to two or more jointly, one devisee may bring partition against the executor and the other devisees after the

Actions for seduction of child, see "Seduction," § 1.

Where, at the dying request of his wife, a father consented that his young babe and his five year old girl be given to their uncle and aunt to rear, and in three years the father remarried, he, if competent and not unsuitable, under Gen. St. 1894, § 4540, is entitled to the care and education of his minor children.-State v. Anderson (Minn.) 681.

Evidence considered, on application of father, on his remarriage, for the surrender of his minor children, whom at the death of his first wife he had intrusted to their uncle and aunt to rear, and held, that they would be awarded to the uncle and aunt for two years from the date of the application for their surrender to the father. State v. Anderson (Minn.) 681.

PAROL EVIDENCE.

In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 9.

PARTIES.

Examination of adverse parties, see "Witnesses," § 2.

the estate.-Schick v. Whitcomb (Neb.) 1023.

The district court has no jurisdiction to partition real property in another state.-Schick v. Whitcomb (Neb.) 1023.

In partition by a devisee against the executor and other devisees, the district court has jurisdiction to determine every question necessarily involved.-Schick v. Whitcomb (Neb.) 1023.

Referees in partition are not required to procure certificates of incumbrances and have the land appraised, nor need the clerk report as to incumbrances, as required by Code Civ. Proc. 1901, § 819, before the sale.-Schick v. Whitcomb (Neb.) 1023.

A surviving husband, in possession of the homestead and claiming his homestead right therein, cannot maintain an action for partition thereof against the heirs of the deceased wife. Wells v. Sweeney (S. D.) 394.

Comp. Laws Dak. 1887, §§ 5763, 5778, and Pol. Code, §§ 2463-2465, clearly show the lawmaking power's intent that a homestead shall not be partitioned among the heirs so long as it is occupied by the surviving husband, wife, or any minor child.-Wells v. Sweeney (S. D.) 394.

Comp. Laws Dak. 1887, § 5362, authorizes partition only when several co-tenants are in

PARTNERSHIP.

Right of married woman to enter business part-
nership with husband, see "Husband and
Wife," § 1.

Set-off of claim against partner in action by
firm, see "Set-Off and Counterclaim," § 1.

§ 1. The relation.

The sharing of losses is essential in a part-
nership, though the undertaking to do so may
be inferred from an agreement to divide profits,
unless precluded by the terms thereof.-John-
son Bros. v. Carter & Co. (Iowa) 850.

An agreement to share "net profits" of an en-
terprise does not exclude, as a matter of law,
the inference of the obligation to share losses.-
Johnson Bros. v. Carter & Co. (Iowa) 850.

Payment for services, or for the use of money
or property to be used in a business, may con-
sist of a share of profits, without making of the
loaner or employé a partner.-Johnson Bros. v.
Carter & Co. (Iowa) 850.

The agreement only to share profits will not
constitute partnership, though evidence of ex-
istence of that relation.-Johnson Bros. v. Car-
ter & Co. (Iowa) 850.

To constitute a partnership, the use of the
term "partnership" is not essential, and the
adoption of a firm name may be dispensed
with. Johnson Bros. v. Carter & Co. (Iowa)
850.

Where a purpose of entering into a partner-
ship relation is made manifest, all subterfuges
of either party, resorted to for the purpose of
escaping partnership liability, will be disregard-
ed.-Johnson Bros. v. Carter & Co. (Iowa) 850.
Representations of employé of a firm held not
to estop defendant from denying partnership
relation therein.-Johnson Bros. v. Carter &
Co. (Iowa) 850.

§ 2. The firm, its name, powers, and
property.

Where title to property in a partnership
transaction is taken in name of one partner,
parol evidence is admissible to establish_result-
ing trust in favor of the partnership.-Kringle
v. Rhomberg (Iowa) 1115.

In an action against several as partners for
money leut, that business was not being con-
ducted according to partnership agreement held
no defense.-Moore v. May (Wis.) 45.

4. Rights and liabilities as to third
persons.

Partner held not precluded from claiming that
money applied to his individual debt belonged
to firm.-Hoaglin v. C. M. Henderson & Co.
(Iowa) 247.

Individual interest of partner in firm debt
held not subject to garnishment in court not
C. M. Henderson & Co. (Iowa) 247.
having jurisdiction of partnership.-Hoaglin v.

The individual interest of a partner can only
be reached by equitable proceedings, as pro-
vided by Code, §§ 3904, 3977, 3978.-Hoaglin
v. C. M. Henderson & Co. (Iowa) 247.

Evidence in an action on a note considered,
and held sufficient to justify the submission of
the issue of the partnership of defendants to
the jury.-Johnson Bros. Carter & Co.
(Iowa) 850.

V.

Where one partner carries away property of
a third person, which is employed in the part-
nership business, the innocent partner is liable
for its use.-Sunlin v. Skutt (Mich.) 733.

of a firm debt, is not transferred in fraud of
Partnership property, transferred in payment
the creditors of an individual partner.-Gris-
wold v. Nichols (Wis.) 33.

In an action against several as partners,
an instruction on the question whether certain
defendants had signed the articles of copart-
nership held proper.-Moore v. May (Wis.) 45.
§ 5. Retirement and admission of part-

ners.

In an action against retiring partner on note
given by old firm, issue as to consideration for
release of such partner by holder of note held
submitted.-Hamilton
improperly
V. Smith
(Iowa) 268.

Partner, assuming indebtedness of mercantile
firm, held not liable under dissolution contract
on warranty of title to logs sold by firm.-Dor-
win v. Laughlin (Wis.) 641.

§ 6. Dissolution, settlement, and ac-
counting.

A certain trading partnership held not dis-
solved by death and withdrawal of members.
Moore v. May (Wis.) 45.

Where a person joining with another in the
purchase of land deceives the other, and the
breach of faith becomes involved in a suit

ing to the operations under their contract, the
rights of the parties as to such breach of faith
may be adjudicated in the suit.-Gates v. Paul
(Wis.) 55.

A contract of partnership between one put-
ting in the "use and occupation" of real prop-
erty against another's time held to create the
relation of landlord and tenant with reference
to the realty.-Hart v. Hart (Wis.) 890.

§ 3. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili-
ties of partners.

Where a person agrees with another to pur-
chase land on joint account, and such person
takes a secret advantage over his associate,
the latter, on discovery, may at any time with
in the period of limitations sue in law for his
damages, or rescind the contract and recover
all the money paid, or sue in equity for rescis-
sion and accounting.-Gates v. Paul (Wis.)

55.

Evidence held to show a personal loan to part-
ners, for which they were individually liable.-
Bright v. Carter (Wis.) 645.

Plaintiffs held entitled to recover moneys loan-
ed defendants individually, regardless of their

Interest on the balance due one partner from
another held erroneously allowed as of the date
of the referee's finding, in an action for the dis-
solution of the partnership. Hart v. Hart
(Wis.) 890.

-

A life tenant, who had put the use of her life
estate, which was chargeable with her testator's
debts, into a partnership for a time certain
the amount paid out by the partnership to dis-
against her partner's time, held chargeable with
charge debts against her testator's estate.-
Hart v. Hart (Wis.) 890.

It rests within the discretion of the court to
assess the costs in an action for the dissolution
of a partnership and an accounting.-Hart v.
Hart (Wis.) 890.

§ 7. Limited partnership.

A note of a corporation, held by a limited
partnership, which also held all the stock issued
by the corporation, held a thing of value, so
that a member of the partnership could ob-
ject to its exchange thereof with the corpora-

See "Compromise and Settlement"; "Tender."
Subrogation on payment, see "Subrogation."
To agent as binding on principal, see "Prin-
cipal and Agent," § 4.

Of particular classes of obligations or liabilities.
See "Chattel Mortgages," § 7; "Insurance," §
12; "Judgment," § 12; "Mortgages," § 5.
Bill of exchange or promissory note, see "Bills
and Notes," § 5.

1. Pleading, evidence, trial, and review.

There being no plea of payment in an action for services, defendant cannot complain that he was not given deductions therefor.-Gardner v. Avery Mfg. Co. (Wis.) 292.

PERCOLATING WATERS.

See "Waters and Water Courses," § 1.

PERSONAL INJURIES.

See "Assault and Battery," § 1; "Negligence."
Measure of damages, see "Damages," § 2.
To employé, see "Master and Servant," §§ 2-8.
To licensee, see "Railroads," § 4.

To persons on or near street railroad tracks, see "Street Railroads," § 1.

To traveler on highway, see "Municipal Corporations," § 11.

To traveler on highway crossing railroad, see "Railroads," § 5.

PETITION.

For local improvements, see "Municipal Corporations," § 5.

PHOTOGRAPHS.

The reasonable value of a physician's services held to be a question for the jury.-Crumrine v. Austin (Mich.) 1057.

Instruction in action by physician to recove for professional services held not supported by the evidence.-Crumrine v. Austin (Mich.) 1657

A charge, in an action for malpractice, that defendants are not liable for the consequences of an operation, if they acted in a careful and skillful manner, under the belief that it was proper, held too broad.-Johnson v. Winston (Neb.) 607.

In an action against a physician for ma’practice, held permissible to show the proper treatment of a simple fracture, and that the is not materially different.-Leisenring v. Le treatment for the compound_fracture sufferei Croix (Neb.) 1009.

In an action for malpractice, it is proper to show the condition of plaintiff's health when the treatment began, and the length of time be was treated by others after defendant cea ei to attend him.-Leisenring v. La Croix (Neb.) 1009.

Where there is evidence that the bone under proper treatment should have united in about fendant's treatment for 14 weeks, in great pain. 6 weeks, and plaintiff was confined under de it was proper to submit the question whether the pain was caused by defendant's negligence. --Leisenring v. La Croix (Neb.) 1009.

PLEA.

In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," § 4.

PLEADING.

Conformity of judgment to pleadings, see “Julgment," § 2.

Harmless error as to pleadings, see "Appeal and Error," § 30.

Objections to, for purpose of review, see "Appeal and Error," § 6.

Allegations as to particular facts, acts, or transactions.

See "Boundaries," § 2; "Judgment," § 14; "Payment," § 1; "Release," § 1.

Settlement, see "Compromise and Settlement." Statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of," § 4. Statute of limitations, see "Limitation of Aetions," § 3.

parties.

In actions by or against particular classes of
See "Railroads," § 7.
Heirs, see "Descent and Distribution." § 1.

In particular actions or proceedings. See "Divorce," § 2; "Ejectment," § 1; "False Imprisonment," § 1; "Libel and Slander." ; 3; "Malicious Prosecution," § 2; "Negligence.” $ 4; "Replevin," § 2; "Specific Performance." § 4.

Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do main." § 3.

PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS.

The complaint in a prosecution for practicing medicine without a license need not specify the particular acts by which the defendant practiced medicine.-White v. Lapeer Circuit Judge (Mich.) 601.

In the absence of agreement with the hospital authorities, defendant, ill in a hospital, held liable for reasonable value of services rendered by an outside physician.-Crumrine v. Austin (Mich.) 1057.

For breach of warranty, see "Sales," § 6.
Foreclosure,
see "Mechanics' Liens," § 3:
"Mortgages," § 7.

For fires set by locomotives, see "Railroads,"
For price of goods sold, see "Sales," § 5.
$ 7.
For recovery of debt secured by mortgage, see
For wrongful execution, see "Execution," § 3.
"Mortgages," § 3.
Indictment or criminal information or com-
plaint, see "Indictment and Information."
On attachment bond, see "Attachment," § 6.
On note, see "Bills and Notes," § 6.
Pleas in criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal
Law," § 4.

§ 2.

Procedure on review.

See "Certiorari," § 2; "Exceptions, Bill of"; "Justices of the Peace," § 3; "New Trial."

PREFERENCES.

By insolvent corporation, see "Corporations," $ 5. Effect of proceedings in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.

PREJUDICE.

2. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili

ties.

A contract which provides that an agent is not to receive any commissions on orders taken by him, unless defendants accept and ship the goods, held valid.-Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

Where a manufacturer of goods agreed to pay commissions to agent, and ship goods of all bur ers having a certain credit rating, held, that the credit rating, in determining principal's good faith in rejecting orders, must have been one known and in use by defendant.-Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

Where principal contracted to ship goods to

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.

whose credit rating was over a certain amocat held that, in determining principal's bad faith in rejecting orders, private information obtained by plaintiff as to customers' financial

The fact that one addressed an envelope is not sufficient proof that he is bound by the letter contained therein, purporting to authorize the addressee to act as his agent.-Darr v. Darrow (Iowa) 245.

Evidence, in a suit for specific performance, on an issue as to defendant's authorization of an agent, held insufficient to sustain the burden cast on plaintiff of showing agency.-Darr v. Darrow (Iowa) 245.

Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

On issue whether a principal had acted in good faith in rejecting orders forwarded by agent, held, that fact that certain parties to whom goods were sold might be entitled to cred it for the amount of their orders did not show bad faith in rejecting them.-Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

In action by agent for commissions, letters from principal to agent held admissible on is sue of bad faith of principal in rejecting orders. Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

In action by agent for commissions, held, that it was incumbent on him to show that he had orders sufficient to amount to a car load of goods.-Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

In action by agent for commissions on goods which principal had refused to ship, held. that burden was on plaintiff to show bad faith on the part of defendant.-Wolfson v. Allen Bros. Co. (Iowa) 910.

Where an agent has had the management of real estate, collecting the rents and paying for led to account in an equitable action.-Coffin v. repairs out of the proceeds, he may be compeCraig (Minn.) 680.

Where an agent abandoned all efforts to sell certain machinery more than a month before the principal made a sale to such person at arother place, held the agent was not entitled to commissions under his contract.-Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Brundage (Minn.) 1091.

§ 3. Rights and liabilities as to third persons-Powers of agent.

Under proof that a person had acted for a corporation, held, that there was a showing of such person's authority to receive notice of defects in a machine sold by it.-McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Lambert (Iowa) 497.

Evidence of former relations held competent for the purpose of showing an existing agency. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Lambert (Iowa) 497.

The fact that men attempting to put a machine in order came on a notice from defendant to plaintiff's agent held to show prima facie authority to act for plaintiff.-McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Lambert (Iowa) 497.

In an action for a balance on contract for the payment of money, facts held sufficient to support a finding that the debtor had good reason to believe that the creditor's workman was authorized to receive a payment.-Grant v. Humerick (Iowa) 510.