erty which came to him from the will of his father. The testator gives and bequeaths all of that property to his trustees, thereafter named, in the will, and their heirs and assigns forever, "with full power to sell, convey, mortgage, encumber, and reinvest, in trust nevertheless to pay and see to the application of: First, the sum of ($10,000) ten thousand dollars to Georgetown University in the District of Columbia, to be used and held as an endowment for the prosecution of research in the colonial history of Maryland and the territory now embraced in the District of Columbia, and obtaining and preserving archives and papers having relation thereto, and known as the James Ethelbert Morgan fund."

Aside from the objections to the bequest to Georgetown University already considered, a further objection is made, and the disposition is alleged to be void, because there is no charter power in any institution which could take under this bequest that authorizes it to prosecute such research, and obtain and preserve the archives relating thereto. It is well said, in the opinion of the court of appeals in this case, that the act of incorporation of Georgetown College, in 1844, confers "corporate power upon the institution for the instruction of youth in the liberal arts and sciences, and also clothes the corporation with power to take any estate whatsoever, in any lands, etc., or goods, chattels, moneys, and other effects, by gift, bequest, devise, etc., and the same to grant convey or assign, and to place out on interest for the use of said college, and to apply the same [thereto]. The cultivation of historical research would seem to be a part of a liberal education, such as should be encouraged by a college intended to confer degrees upon students in acquiring a liberal education in the arts and sciences." In Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 189, 27 L. Ed. 407, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336, it is said that "a corporation may hold and execute a trust for charitable objects in accord with or tending to promote the purposes of its creation, although such as it might not, by its charter or by general laws, have authority itself to establish or to spend its corporate funds for. A city, for instance, may take a devise in trust to maintain a college, an orphan school, or an asylum."

Although it is, under the will, the duty of the trustees therein named to exercise supervision over the administration of the fund, nevertheless, the death or resignation of the trustees named in the will cannot, and does not, defeat the bequest. There is not such a personal trust as renders it necessary to have the personal action of the trustee named in the will, and the trust does not fail upon the death or resignation of the named trustee. The court may appoint his successor. Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L. Ed. 617. Both courts below have held the bequest of a sum not to exceed $5,000, to be expended under the personal supervision of the trustees in the purchase and erection of a chime of bells, etc., to be void. We agree with those

courts in that respect. We also agree with the views of the court of appeals, holding that the alternative bequest of this same sum, not to exceed $5,000, to be equally divided between the two orphan asylums, is valid. There is no material misnomer in either case, although they are incorporated institutions, one by the name of St. Vincent's Orphan Asylum and the other as St. Joseph's Male Orphan Asylum in the city of Washington, and they are referred to in the will as as St. Vincent's Orphan Asylum and St. Joseph's Catholic Orphan Asylum.

Nor does the bequest violate the 34th section of the Maryland Bill of Rights, already referred to. The same reasoning on that point governs this bequest as is applicable to the bequest to the University of Georgetown. Neither of these orphan asylums is a sectarian institution under the aets of incorporation. The other objection made is that the clause directs that a sum, not exceeding $5,000, shall be equally divided between these orphan asylums; and it is said that there is such uncertainty in the amount of the bequest as to render it impossible to execute it, that it might be fulfilled by dividing a dollar between the asylums, or any other sum within the $5,000 named in the bequest. But it seems to us that the intention of the testator is clear to give the full sum of, but not to exceed, $5,000. That is, he gives $5,000 to be equally divided between these two asylums. While the amount is not to exceed $5,000, the direction for an equal division, taken in connection with the other facts, renders it, in our opinion, clear that the intention of the testator was that that sum should be the amount of the beqnest. Courts are always reluctant to hold a bequest void for uncertainty, and they only do it when actually compelled to do so by the language used. Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L. Ed. 617. If the testator had really intended that any less sum than $5,000 should be disposed of by and equally divided under this clause in his will, he would have said so.

Objection is also made to the bequest of "a sufficient sum, not to exceed three thousand (3,000) dollars, the income to be applied to maintain a scholarship in the study of medicine, preferably in Georgetown University; otherwise in some medical college in the district, to be known as the E. Carroll Morgan scholarship." The first objection, as to the uncertainty of the amount of the bequest, we do not regard as meritorious. It is a sum sufficient to found a scholarship, and it shall not exceed, in any event, $3,000. If one can be founded, within the conditions named in the will, for a less sum than $3,000, then that less sum only can be used. The discretion to be exercised by the trustee in selecting the college with which to connect the scholarship does not render the bequest void. The testator has, by this clause in his will, himself expressed his preference for Georgetown College, if the scholarship can be maintained in that institution, but if not, it is to be a scholarship in some medica

college of the district. This, we think, is not an improper or uncertain disposition of the bequest, or an illegal placing of a discretion in the trustee under the will. See Attorney-General v. Glee, 1 Atk. 356; Attorney-General v. Fletcher, 5 L. J. Ch. N. S. 75, 2 Perry, Trusts, 4th Ed. § 721.

The last bequest objected to is that of $5,000, to form a fund known as the E. Carroll Morgan fund or scholarship, to be applied as the testator might thereafter indicate to his trustees, etc. This has been declared void by both courts, and no appeal has been taken from the judgment of the court of appeals, adjudging that item to be void. That bequest being adjudicated invalid, the fund provided for therein forms part of the residue of the testator's estate, and passes under the residuary clause of the will.

These views call for an affirmance of the judgment of the court of appeals, with costs to the several parties, to be paid out of the residuary fund, as provided for by the judgment of that court.

Affirmed.

NOTE. The frequency with which devises are made to educational and religious institutions makes the principal case one of importance to the profession and it will be interesting to note some of the opinions of other courts. In Minat v. The Boston Asylum, 48 Mass. 446, a testator gave a legacy to the "Boys' Asylum and Farm School." There was no institution or association of any similar name, except a body incorporated by the name of the Boston Asylum and Farm School of Indigent Boys. The court held that this corporation was entitled to the fund.

In the case of Stratton v. Physio-Medical Institute 149 Mass. 505, a testamentary gift to the trustees of the Psyo-Medical College of Cincinnati Ohio to be used by the college for promotion of the medical art as favored and believed in by the testator and in support of that institution, will not be decreed to the Psyo-Medical Institute, where the testator supposed there was a school of the name used by him, of which bis friend at whose instance the gift was made, was the president or director, but which in fact had ceased to exist. In New Hampshire it was held, where a bequest was made to the Franklin Seminary of Literature and Science, New Market, N. H., there was no school of that name but there was an institution incorporated by the name of the Trustees of the South Newmarket Methodist Seminary, and there was no other public school in Newmarket. The court held that as the bequest was to a seminary at Newmarket, the trustees were entitled to the legacy. In New York a devise to the trustees of an incorporated college and their successors forever, in trust, vests the estate in the college as a corporation.

In Pennsylvania in the Appeal of Newell, 24 Pa. 197, it was held that the trustees of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian church may take under a devise to the "trustees or those who hold the funds of the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J.," where it appeared that such corporation was generally known as the Theological Seminary at Princeton. In re Pepper's Estate, 154 Pa. 331, it was held that a bequest to the trustees of such a free library as may be established within certain limits, contemplates the creation of a new library in the future and

is not a bequest to an existing library. In Wisconsin n the case of Dodge v. Williams, 46 Wis. 70, it was held, that "a charitable bequest to an instituion of learning of a character and organization commonly called and known as a 'female seminary' to be 'or-t ganized' by the end of five years, contemplates tha the institution is to be incorporated."

In Connecticut, in Jacobs v. Bradley, Conn. 36 365, "a legacy to the Episcopal society in Hamden should be construed as a gift to Grace church, that being the only Episcopal society in Hamden." In Iowa it was held in Johnson v. Mayne, 4 Iowa, 180, "when a bequest of money is made to a church without designating the particular officer to whom payment of the leg. acy shall be made, the money may be paid to one who ordinarily receives and keeps the funds of the church or to its treasurer for the time being." See also 4 Cent. Dig., Secs. 1111 and 1112.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

The Rule Against Perpetuities. By John Chipman Gray, Royal Professor of Law in Harvard University. Second Edition. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1906. Buckram, pp. 721. Price $6.00. Review will follow.

HUMOR OF THE LAW.

NOVEL WAY OF PREVENTING LITIGATION.

A nervous old lady was riding down a dangerous looking trail with a California stage-driver, when she noticed a hatchet lying in the bottom of the stage, and inquired why he carried it. "I use that hatchet to knock injured passengers on the head," replied the driver. The old lady gasped with astonishment. "We have a good many accidents on this 'ere line," he continued; "the stage's allus tippin' over and rollin' down precipices, and every time a passenger gits hurt he sues the company for damages. These here damage suits uses up all the profit of stagin,' and we've had to stop 'em, so every driver carries a hatchet. When a passenger gits hurt we simply knock him on the head and throw the body over a precipice, and then there ain't no lawsuit. See?"

The following example of cross-questioning, I have been told, occurred in this town about twenty years ago:

"Mr. Tucker, will you have the goodness to answer directly and categorically a few plain questions?" "Certainly, sir."

"Well, Mr. Tucker, is there a female living with you who is known in the neighborhood as Mrs. Tucker?" "There is."

"Is she under your protection?" "Yes."

"Do you support her?"

"I do."

"Have you ever been married to her?"

"I have not." (Here several of the jurors scowled on Mr. Tucker.)

"That is all, Mr. Tucker."

"Stop one moment, Mr. Tucker," said the opposing counsel; "is the female in question your mother?" "She is."

Another sample of the impertinence dispensed from the New York bench by Magistrate Pool whose removal is petitioned for, is furnished by his indignation at a police officer who testified that in his behalf a boy complained of for a minor offense was insane. "You mean he is non compos mentis," shrieked the magistrate.

"I don't believe I understand," said the policeman. "What! You don't know what non compos mentis means? How long have you been on the police force?"

"Twenty-five years," replied the officer.

"A detective twenty-five years and don't know what non compos mentis means?"

"Yes; if I understood that language I would not be a policeman," was the pat retort.

WEEKLY DIGEST.

Weekly Digest of ALL the Current Opinions of ALL the State and Territorial Courts of Last Resort, and of all the Federal Courts,

ARKANSAS....

CALIFORNIA

COLORADO..

CONNECTICUT..

DELAWARE.

FLORIDA..

GEORGIA.

.99, 104, 158 .130 .8, 162 .19 .16

.62, 102

.43, 61, 63, 65, 103, 109, 110, 122, 147 IDAHO. ..135, 155 ILLINOIS, 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20, 21, 31, 33, 35, 39, 53, 54, 56, 67, 82, 87, 100, 111, 119, 120, 132, 145, 146, 150, 159, 160 INDIANA.. .2, 18, 88, 97, 101, 106, 117, 148, 156 ..7, 42, 69 .76, 138 .58, 59, 108 .26, 51, 55 ..32, 68, 74, 83, 86, 92, 112, 113, 123, 131 161 .13, 17, 25, 60, 64, 79, 90, 98, 125, 129, 139 .141

IOWA..

KANSAS.

KENTUCKY.

MARYLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

MISSISSIPPI..

2. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL Defective Service. That the servant, on whom in an action against master and servant, summons for the master was served, was employed merely as a laborer, held no ground for abate. ment, but merely for quashing the service. - - Indiana Nitro-glycerine & Torpedo Co. v. Lippencott Glass Co. Ind., 75 N. E. Rep. 649.

3. ACCIDENT-Death by Inhaling Gas. - Accident insurance policy construed, and held not to exempt com. pany from liability for death caused by inhaling gas accidentally escaping.-Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Ayers, Ill., 75 N.E. Rep. 506.

4. ACCOUNT, ACTION ON-Variance Between Verification and Account.-In an action on account made out against a third person, the variance between the account and the affidavit, charging defendant with liability thereon, held immaterial.-Pelican Lumber Co. v. Johnson Mercantile Co., Tex., 89 S. W. Rep. 439.

5. ACCOUNT, ACTION ON-State of Demand.-A state of demand on a book account in the court for the trial of small causes must show the nature of the demand and the parties.-Weill v. Jacoby, N. J., 61 Atl. Rep. 389.

6. ADJOINING LANDOWNERS-Negligent Excavation.In an action by the lessee of a building for injuries caused by the fall thereof, alleged to be the result of negligent excavation by defendant, an adjoining land. owner, held error to direct a verdict for defendant.-Di Palma v. Weinman, N. M., 82 Pac. Rep. 360.

7. ADULTERY - Complaint by Divorced Husband.Under Code, § 4932, a divorced husband does not occupy such a status as to entitle him to complain against his wife for adultery committed by her prior to the divorce. -State v. Loftus, Iowa, 104 N. W. Rep. 906.

8. APPEAL AND ERROR-Abstract of Record.-Failure of plaintiff in error to include in the abstract a copy of the decree and special findings, as required by rule 14 (80 Pac. viii), held ground for dismissal.-Hurd v. Fleck, Colo., 82 Pac. Rep. 485.

9. APPEAL AND ERROR-Bill of Exceptions. An exception to the final judgment is necessary, in a suit tried by the court, to present the questions whether the evidence supports the judgment.-Grand Pacific Hotel Co. v. Pinkerton, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 427.

10. APPEAL AND ERROR-Constitutional Questions.-A constitutional question will not be reviewed, unless raised in the court below, and the ruling thereon assigned for error.-Masonic Fraternity Temple Ass'n v. City of Chicago, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 439.

11. APPEAL AND ERROR- Costs on Dismissal of Appeal. -Appellant from an interlocutory judgment from which no appeal will lie will be required to pay all costs occasioned by such appeal.-Chicago Portrait Co. v. Chicago Crayon Co., Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 473.

12. APPEAL AND ERROR - · Continuance on Ground of Absent Witness.-Refusal to grant a continuance for the absence of a witness is not prejudicial, where the other party admits the facts to which the absent witness would have testified.-Kellyville Coal Co. v. Strine, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 375.

13. APPEAL AND ERROR- Finding of Chancellor.-A chancellor's finding of fact in an equity suit will not be reviewed on appeal where appellant has failed to incorporate all the evidence in the record. - McKinney v. Northcutt, Mo., 89 S. W. Rep. 351.

14. APPEAL AND ERROR Instructions. A charge which submits a part only of defenses urged by a defendant is not ground for reversal unless the court refuses to give an instruction supplying omission. -Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Wishert, Tex., 89 S. W. Rep. 460. 15. APPEAL AND ERROR-Instructions as to Defective Appliances. In an action for injuries to a servant, a charge making it the absolute duty of the master to furnish reasonably safe appliances held not prejudicial to defendant.-Odin Coal Co. v. Tadlock, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep.

332.

16. APPEAL AND ERROR-Joinder of Parties in Mandamus Proceedings.-The joining of a person in mandamus proceedings who has not the power to perform the duties demanded does not vitiate the proceedings or prevent the issuance of the writ.-State v. Pan-American Co., Del., 61 Atl. Rep. 398.

17. APPEAL AND ERROR-Justice of Peace Record.Where an appeal from a justice's judgment was tried by the court, the admission of a transcript of the justice's record in evidence was not prejudicial error.-Keylon v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., Mo., 89 S. W. Rep. 337. 18. APPEAL AND ERROR-Parties.-The appellate court cannot take jurisdiction in a vacation appeal where all

the parties to the judgment are not before it as parties in the assignment of error.-Kemp v. Prather, Ind., 75 N. E. Rep. 673.

19. APPEAL AND ERROR-Separable Judgment.-That part of a judgment awarding damages in addition to the partial release of a judgment lien held separable, so that error in awarding such damages did not affect the validity of the judgment.-Byrne v. Kelsey, Conn., 61 Atl. Rep. 965.

20. APPEAL AND ERROR-Weight of Evidence.-Where there is any evidence to sustain the verdict, the supreme court will not consider whether the answer to a special interrogatory, which was in accord with the general verdict, was against the weight of evidence.-Leighton & Howard Steel Co. v. Snell, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 462.

21. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-Right to Fees.-An attorney in partition proceedings, who purposely omits lienholders from the bill, is not entitled to attorney's fees.-Mansfield v. Wallace, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 682.

22. AUCTIONS AND AUCTIONEERS- Liability on Auctioneer's Bond.-Laws 1897, p. 776, ch. 682, § 5, does not impose liability on auctioneer's sureties in favor of a mortgagee for the act of an auctioneer in personally buying property subject to mortgage and thereafter selling the same and keeping the proceeds.-Moser v. Bankers' Surety Co., 95 N. Y. Supp. 609.

23. BANKS AND BANKING Limitation of Actions.-A state statute of limitations does not begin to run against the right to enforce liability of stockholders in national bank, until amount thereof had been ascertained by comptroller of currency.-Rankin v. Barton, U. S. S. C., 26 Sup. Ut. Rep. 29.

24. BANKS AND BANKING-Shareholder's Right to Inspect Books.-Common-law right of stockholder to inspect books of corporation is not restricted as to national banks, by Rev. St. U. S. §§ 5211, 5240, 5241.-Guthrie v. Harkness, U. S. S. O., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 4.

25. BILLS AND NOTES-Innocent Purchaser.-Purchaser of note having at first acted on information that there was something wrong with it, could not claim that he was an innocent purchaser.-Vette v. Sacher, Mo., 89 S. W. Rep. 360.

26. BILLS AND NOTES-Surrender of Collateral.-Defendant held not liable to the transferee on a note which had been satisfied by the surrender of collateral.-Carrington v. Turner, Md., 61 Atl. Rep. 324.

27. BRIDGES County Commissioners. - A bridge erected by one owning land on both sides of the stream, under a contract that the county would maintain the bridge, held subject to the control of the county commissioners.-Glenn v. Moore County Comrs., N. Car., 52 S. E. Rep. 58.

-

Where

28. BROKERS - Employment of Sub-Agent. negotiations for a lease are with a broker of the owner of the premises, the burden is on the subagent claiming commissions to show the broker's authority to employ him.-Southack v. Ireland, 95 N. Y. Supp. 621.

29, BROKERS-Inconsistent Employment.-A petition in action for breach of a contract for the services in the sale of real estate held not demurrable as showing a forfeiture by plaintiff by his acceptance of an inconsistent employment.-Shropshire v. Adams, Tex., 89 S. W. Rep. 440.

30. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS What Law Governs. Where a mortgage bond provides that the obligation is a Georgia contract, to be construed by the laws of Georgia, application of payments must be made in accordance with such laws.-Equitable Building & Loan Assn. v. Corley, S. Car., 52 S. E. Rep. 48.

31. CARRIERS-Authority of Conductor.-Conductor of train held without implied authority to invite shipper of stock to ride in engine.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jennings, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 457.

32. CARRIERS- Boarding Street Car.-A passenger, intending to board an approaching street car, held guilty of contributory negligence in not taking a position out

S

ide the reach of the car as it approached the stopping place. Neale v. Springfield St. Ry. Co., Mass., 75 N. E. Rep. 702.

33. CARRIERS-Care Required for Protection of Passengers. An instruction as to the care required of a car. rier is erroneous which does not require it to be "consistent with the practical operation of the road."-TriCity Ry. Co. v. Gould, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 493.

34. CARRIERS-Concealment of Contents of Package.A messenger company held not liable as a common carrier for the safe transportation of a package containing money, delivered without notice to the carrier of its contents. Gilman v. Postal Telegraph Co., 95 N. Y. Supp. 561.

35. CARRIERS-Contributory Negligence. It is not negligence per se to alight from a moving train in the darkness at the direction of the train officlals, or in the belief that it had come to a stop.-Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Mullen, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 474.

36. CARRIERS-Deviation in Transportation of Freight. -A carrier held liable for damages because of a devia. tion consisting in the delivery of freight to a connecting carrier before the terminus of the carrier's route had been reached.-Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co., 95 N. Y. Supp. 597.

37. CARRIERS-Duty Toward Passengers.- A person held a passenger on a street car, and the servants in charge of the car obliged to exercise the care required of common carriers.-Green v. Houston Electric Co., Tex., 89 S. W. Rep. 442.

38. CARRIERS-Injury to Alighting Passenger.-That the injuries to plaintiff by the alleged negligence of a carrier would not have happened to a younger person or one of less weight does nnt relieve defendant.-Staines v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, N. J., 61 Atl. Rep. 385. 39. CARRIERS-Negligence in Leaving Switch Unlocked. -Whether failure of carrier to leave switch unlocked and unguarded was actionable negligence held a question for the jury.—Elgin, A. & S. Traction Co. v. Wilson, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 436.

40. CARRIERS-Punitive Damages for Failure to Stop at Station.-Where an engineer willfully passes a flag station, seeing a passenger standing there, the latter can recover punitive damages.-Milhouse v. Southern Ry., S. Car., 52 S. E. Rep. 41.

41. CARRIERS-Upsetting Tray on Passenger in Dining Car.-In a suit for injuries to a passenger by the upset. ting of a tray over her clothing by another passenger in a dining car, whether the waiter was guilty of negligence in carrying the tray held a question for the trial judge, sitting without a jury.-Cassasa v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 95 N. Y. Supp. 648.

42. CHAMPERTY AND MAINTENANCE-Furnishing Proof in Divorce Case.-A contract between a husbamd and an attorney and a detective, relating to the procurement of a divorce for the husband, held champertous.-Barngrover v. Pettigrew, Iowa, 104 N. W. Rep. 904.

43. CHATTEL MORTGAGES-Description of Property.A mortgage on "twelve acres of cotton" does not sufficiently specify the property, under Code 1895, § 2724.Hampton v. State, Ga., 52 S. E. Rep. 19.

44. CIVIL RIGHTS-Exclusion of Negroes from Theaters. -In an action for the penalty Imposed by Laws 1895, p 974, ch. 1042, for excluding citizens by reason of their color from theaters, certain evidence held admissible on the issue of defendant's intent in excluding a negress from his theater.-Thomas v. Williams, 95 N.Y. Supp. 592. 45. COMMON LAW-Marriage.-Only such part of the common law as was in force in North Carolina at the time the territory embraced in the state of Tennessee was ceded by North Carolina to the federal government was ever in force in Tennessee.-Smith v. North Memphis Sav. Bank, Tenn., 89 S. W. Rep. 392.

46. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Jury Trial.-A judgment founded on a state statute is not wanting in due process of law because the statute does not permit trial by jury -Marvin v. Trout, U. S. S. C., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 31.

47. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Self-Executing Provisions. -Provision of Const. Fla., art. 16, § 30, giving the legisla ture power to prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges by public corporations, is self-executing as to contracts made after it went into effect.-Tampa Waterworks Co. v. City of Tampa, U. S. S. C., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23.

48. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Sale of Goods in Bulk.Sess. Laws 1903, p. 249, ch. 30, § 1, regulating the sale of stocks of merchandise in bulk, is not unconstitutional as class legislation.-Williams v. Fourth Nat. Bank, Okla., 82 Pac. Rep. 496.

49. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Taxation of Personal Property in Other State.-Due process of law is denied a Kentucky corporation by a tax assessed under St. Ky., § 4020, on its rolling stock, permanently located in another state.-Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, U. S. S. C., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 36. 50. CONTRACTS-Action for Breach. A complaint alleging an agreement by defendants to purchase certain bonds from plaintiff at par, and that plaintiff was induced thereby to sell machinery and accept such bonds in part payment, sets out a valid contract showing mutuality and consideration. Erie City Iron Works Thomas, U. S C. C., S. D. N. Y., 139 Fed. Rep. 995.

V.

51. CONTRACTS- Consideration. Where a written agreement is an original and not a collateral one, within the statute of frauds, a consideration therefor need not be set out therein, but may be shown aliunde.-Dryden v. Barnes, Md., 61 Atl. Rep. 342.

52. CONTRACTS-Legislative Alteration of School Districts.-Contract obligations are not impaired by Laws Mich. 1901, Loc. Act No 315, by creation of school district to which was given property which had belonged to the districts from which it was created. AttorneyGeneral of State of Michigan v. Lowrey, U. s. S. C., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 27.

53. CONTRACTS-Public Policy.-Employment of a rail. road's engineer to perform services for a firm in fulfill. ing a construction contract for the railroad held not contrary to public policy.-Condon v. Callahan, Tenn., 89 S. W. Rep. 400,

54. CONTRACTS-Statutory Remedies. - Contract be. tween landowner and railroad relative to crossings and passageways held not abrogated by statute providing for railroad crossings in such sense as to require the landowner to proceed under the statute instead of on the contract -Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Brubaker, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 523.

55. CORPORATIONS-Apparent Powers.-A corporation may confer upon its officer or agents larger powers than ordinarily belong to them by holding them out to the public as possessing such powers. - Carrington v. Turner, Md., 61 Atl. Rep. 324.

56. CORPORATIONS— Attacking Legality of Corporate Existence. The legality of the existence of a corporation cannot be attacked in condemnation proceedings instituted by it, but only in a direct proceeding by quo warranto.-Eddleman v. Union County Traction & Power Co., Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 510.

57. CORPORATIONS-Call and Sale of Stock. Where a shareholder's stock in a corporation was wrongfully sold for nonpayment of a call, he was entitled to compel a reissuance of the certificate of the stock on payment of the call, interest, and costs to the date of tender of the call. -Wilson v. Duplin Telephone Co., N. Car., 52 S. E. Rep. 62.

58. CRIMINAL EVIDENCE-Proof of Testimony of Absent Witness.-On the absence of a witness testifying before the examining court, held proper to permit the person reducing his testimony to writing to read it on the trial.-Petty v. State, Ark., 89 S. W. Rep. 465.

60. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Impairment of Contract Obligations.-Tax bills issued by a city clerk in reliance on a decision of the Kansas City Court of Appeals held not contracts whose obligation was impaired by subsequent decision of the supreme court holding them invalid. City of Sedalia, to Use of Sedalia Nat. Bank v. Donohue, Mo., 99 S. W. Rep. 386.

61. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Conduct of Sheriff.-Where the sheriff stated to the judge in the presence of the jury that the mother of the accused had requested her satchel to be brought into court, and that it contained a pistol, but the jury were instructed not to consider the incident, a refusal to declare a mistrial was proper.Rawlins v. State, Ga., 52 S. E. Rep. 1.

62. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Defendant as Witness.-The trial judge should not, in his charge, impress the jury with the idea that the judge, because of the defendant's interest in the case, questioned his credibility.-Hampton v. State, Fla., 39 So. Rep. 421.

-

63. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Disorder in Court. The failure of the court to interpose of its own motion in case of disorder by the spectators at the trial is not ground for reversal.-Rawlins v. State, Ga., 52 S. E. Rep. 1.

64. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Form of Verdict.-Verdict whereby jury "assess the punishment at $40" held not defective for omission of the word "fine." State v. Jones, Mo., 89 S. W. Rep. 366.

65. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Improper Statements in Argument of Counsel.-Where a counsel in argument makes improper statements, and opponents ask for an instruction, which is given, a motion for a mistrial on the same ground should not be entertained.- Rawlins v. State, Ga., 52 S. E. Rep. 1.

66. CRIMINAL TRIAL-Statements by Court.-In a prosecution for homicide, it was improper for the court to state, on an objection to a question asked of a juror, that temporary insanity was not a defense for crime by that name.-Betts v. State, Tex., 89 S. W. Rep. 413.

67. DAMAGES - Fright Resulting in Neurasthenia.Proof that neurasthenia may be caused by fright and terror held admissible where plaintiff was physically injured at the same time.-Elgin, A. & S. Traction Co. v. Wilson, Ill., 75 N. E. Rep. 436.

68. DEATH-Joint Tort Feasors. - Joint tort feasors may be joined in one suit for wrongful death, under Rev. Laws, ch. 171, § 2.-Oulighan v. Butler, Mass., 75 N. E. Rep. 726.

69. DEDICATION-Effect of Delay in Acceptance.-An acceptance by municipal authorities of a dedication, although not made until 10 years subsequent to the filing of the plat, is in time.-Backman v. City of Oskaloosa, Iowa, 104 N. W. Rep. 347.

70. DEEDS-Necessity of Seisin.-Conveyance by a disseisee is valid in the District of Columbia.-Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., U. S. S. C., 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25.

71. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION-Construction of Will. -Where a will provided that certain property should be held in trust for testatrix's son, at his death the share to go to his heirs, at his death his widow, the sbare being personalty, became entitled to one third.-Throp v. Throp, N. J., 61 Atl. Rep. 377.

72. DIVORCE-Res Judicata. - A decree that a prior judgment dissolving the marital relation between plaintiff and defendant was valid held conclusive on plaintiff.-Bidwell v. Bidwell, N. Car., 52 S. E. Rep. 55. 73. DIVORCE-Refusal to Pay Alimony.-Commitment for contempt for refusal to pay alimony held not authorized; the attorney demanding the payment not having shown authority.-Kalmanowitz v. Kalmanowitz, 95 N. Y. Supp. 627.