North Carolina. Oklahoma. South Carolina U. S. C. C. App. 1. Adverse 39 12 1, 22, 28, 32, 50, 54, 56, 75, 77 Possession 7 .6, 69 13 44, 45 .42 26, 63 .15, 25, 33, 37, 71, 81 23, 29, 38, 47, 59, 61, 67 62 ...3, 16, 27, 41 19, 21, 36, 60, 66, 82 .8, 51, 68, 76 14, 17, 18, 30, 73 2, 72, 74 .58 Boundary Line. Where a proprietor claimed beyond his true line to a well-defined boundary, and held the excess land openly, notoriously adversely, and continuously for the statutory period, he acquired title by adverse possession, though neither he nor his devisee inclosed all the excess land with a fence. -Heinrichs v. Polking, Ky., 215 S. W. 179. 2. Attorney and Client-Implied Authority.An attorney at law, employed to prosecute or defend a suit, has implied authority to agree to a continuance, when it is in the client's interest, or in attorney's judgment will expedite a hearing. Board of Com'rs of Ohio County v. Clemens, W. Va., 100 S. E. 680. tributed ratably among the general creditors, and such sum as may be neecssary to pay priority claims and costs of the proceedings.— American Improvement Co. v. Lilienthal, Cal., 184 Pac. 692. 6. Intervention.-A trustee in bankruptcy may proceed in the state courts to set aside a fraudulent transfer, or, in proper cases, may intervene in behalf of all creditors, in an action brought by a creditor.-Googins v. Skillings, Me., 108 Atl. 50. 7. Limitation of Action.-Rev. St. U. S, $ 5057, providing no suit shall be maintainable between an assignee in bankruptcy and a person claiming an adverse interest touching any property transferable to or vested in the assignee, unless brought within two years, held not applicable to minor children of a father who inherited from their deceased mother land of the community adjudicated improperly to the father who subsequently became bankrupt.-Brewer v. Brewer, La., 83 So. 30. 8. Preference.-Where a claim filed against a bankrupt estate is contested by the trustee on the ground that the creditor received a voidable preference, the decision of the referee that such preference was received and an order for its return, unappealed from, renders the question res judicata, and the creditor cannot relitigate it in a plenary action by the trustee to recover the preferenec.-Lincoln v. People's Nat. Bank, U. S. D. C., 260 Fed. 422. The 9. Banks and Banking Estoppel. knowledge of a bank president as to purpose of himself and comakers of notes in borrowing money from the bank for the use of a levee district, and their intention to be absolutely released by the bank's acceptance of the levee district's notes in lieu of theirs, is not chargeable to the bank, since his interests conflicted with those of the bank, and could not create an estoppel against the bank to enforce payment of the debt.-Greer v. Levee Dist. No. 3 of Conway County, Ark., 215 S. W. 171. 10. Insolvency.-It is to be presumed that defendant, a private banker, charged with having received a deposit while insolvent, knew whether or not he was insolvent.-People v. Dubia, Ill., 124 N. E. 537. 11. Bills and Notes-Failure of Consideration. -A purchaser before maturity, who had knowledge of the character of the consideration, but who acquired the note before the consideration had actually failed, and had no notice, constructive or otherwise, that the consideration would fail, is an innocent purchaser as respects defense of failure of consideration.-Prater v. Baughman, Ga., 100 S. E. 647. prima facie was an acceptance of the freight by the railroad.-Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Nichols & Co., Miss., 83 So. 5. 14. Lien for Freight.-For its legal charges, a common carrier by rail had a lien on the goods carried, which could be discharged, and the consignee become entitled to the goods only upon payment or tender of the rate.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Fink, U. S. S. C., 40 Sup. Ct. 27. 15. Carriers of Passengers-Stoppage at Station. It is the duty of a common carrier receiving a passenger on its train with a ticket calling for a certain station, and without notice the train does not stop there, to stop the train at the station and permit the passenger to alight.Blaylock v. Southern Ry. Co., N. C., 100 S. E. 599. 16. Cemeteries-Regulation.-The powers of municipal bodies, under legislative authority, to adopt reasonable regulations with reference to public cemeteries, cannot be questioned.-Ex parte Adlof, Tex., 215 S. W. 222. - 17. Commerce-Exclusive Powers. When the United States has exercised its exclusive powers over interstate commerce, so far as to take possession of the field, the states no more can supplement its requirements than they can annul them.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, U. S. S. C., 40 Sup. St. 36. 18. Constitutional Law-Espionage. - The acts of printing and disseminating, during the war with Germany, pamphlets containing disloyal, scurrilous and abusive langauage about the form of government of the United States, also language intended to incite, provoke and encourage resistanec to the United States in the war, etc., were not within the protection of the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by Const. U. S., Amend. 1.-Abrams v. U. S., U. S. S. C., 40 Sup. Ct. 17. 19. Franchise.-A provision of a franchise ordinance granted by a city and accepted by a street railroad company, requiring the company to sell half-fare tickets to certain classes of passengers, held not to constitute a contract protected from change or annulment by the legislature of the state by the contract clause of the federal Constitution, but a government regulation, made under state authority, and subject to revocation by the state.-Dubuque Electric Co. v. City of Dubuque, Ia., U. S. C. C. A., 260 Fed. 353. -Stockholder.-A 20.stockholder may invoke and set in motion powers of a court of equity to appoint a receiver, where the corporation is fraudulently mismanaged by the officers, whereby it is in imminent danger of insolvency, or has been rendered insolvent by reason of such mismanagement.-Blanchard Bro. & Lane v. S. G. Gay Co., Ill., 124 N. E. 616. 21. Contracts-Compounding Felony. One party to a contract, the purpose of which was the compounding of a felony, and which has been carried out by the other party, will not be relieved from the contract in equity.-National Bank of Savannah v. All, U. S. C. C. A., 260 Fed 370. agreement to have case dismissed by order dismissing the case settled; each side to pay own costs.-Karnes v. Black, Ky., 215 S. W. 191. 23. Mutuality.-An agreement founded on a consideration is not invalid for want of mutuality because one party has an option while the other has not, so that it is obligatory on one and optional with the other.-Miller v. Kimmel, Okla., 184 Pac. 762. 24. Repugnancy.-Where there is an inconsistency between two clauses in a written contract, the repugnancy must be reconciled so as to give effect to the repugnant clauses, in keeping with the general intent or predominant purpose of the instrument.-Todd v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco, Cal., 184 Pac. 684. 25. Statutory Duty.-When a statute provides a duty, and a contract is made involving performance of the duty, the statute becomes part of the contract.-Guilford Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Holladay, N. C., 100 S. E. 597. Evidence. 27. Criminal Law-Circumstantial -In a criminal trial, it is not error to refuse defendant's instructions on circumstantial evidence, which matter was covered by the main charge. (Per Prendergast, J.)-Porter v. State, Tex., 215 S. W. 201. 28. Continuance.-Refusal of a continuance held not reversible error, where the three absent witnesses named in defendant's affidavits all admittedly lived in the county and within a few miles from the county seat, and six days intervened between arrest and date of trial, since they could have been secured by using reasonable diligence, with the possible exception of one whose pregnancy it was not shown would probably terminate in time for attendance at the succeeding term.-Hogan v. Commonwealth, Ky., 215 S. W. 183. 29.- -Intoxicating Liquors. In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor, evidence of other sales in defendant's place of business, near time of the sale charged, was competent to show that part of defendant's business, in connection with alleged cigar store, was the sale of whisky, and to show that he knew of them, and that liquors were intermingled with other goods as tending to show that particular sale was a part of defendant's business.-Bundy v. State, Okla., 184 Pac. 795. 30. Joint Indictees.-Joint indictees may, in the discretion of the court, be ordered to be tried together.-Stilson v. U. S., U. S. S. C., 40 Sup. Ct. 28. 31.- Similar Offense. In a prosecution for burglary, testimony tending to prove a similar burglary of the store, by two of the three defendants, in which they took money to a certain amount, was competent on the issue of intention in entering the store on the night of the offense charged.-Camp v. State, Ark., 215 S. W. 170. 32. Damages-Specific Performance. In suit for specific enforcement of contract to exchange lands, where plaintiff had conveyed her property, and defendant had conveyed to plaintiff, but had subsequently destroyed the deed and transferred the property to innocent third persons without authority, the measure of plaintiff's damages was the reasonable market value of the property of which plaintiff was deprived; defendant's liability being based, not on breach of contract, but on his tort in destroying the original deed and depriving plaintiff of her property. Johns v. Parsons, Ky., 215 S. W. 194. 33. Wife's Earning Capacity.-Wife, suing for personal injuries, was entitled to recover for loss of earning capacity.-Kirkpatrick Crutchfield, N. C., 100 S. E. 602. V. 34. Deeds-Delivery.-To constitute delivery of a deed, it must clearly appear that it was the grantor's intention that the deed should pass title at the time, and that he should lose control over it.-Pemberton v. Kraper, Ill., 124 N. E. 611. 35. Delivery.-If a deed be delivered to a third person, with the intention that it shall become operative only upon certain contingencies, there is no delivery.-Weber v. Brak, Ill., 124 N. E. 654. 36. Illegal Consideration.-A conveyance made by a mother for the purpose of securing an indebtedness of her son, with knowledge that in incurring the indebtedness he had committed a criminal offense and with intent to prevent his prosecution, is not for that reason invalid as for an illegal consideration, where not induced by any threat of prosecution or promise of immunity.-National Bank of Savannah v. All, U. S. C. C. A., 260 Fed. 370. 37. Intent to Defraud.-If conveyance, although for valuable consideration, is with actual intent to defraud creditors on part of grantor, of which intention grantee has notice, the conveyance is void. Merchants' Natl. Bank of Winston v. Park, N. C., 100 S. E. 615. 38. Intoxication.-In action to set aside a deed on account of grantor's mental weakness the test applicable is the same as in other forms of mental derangement, and the deed is voidable if grantor at its execution was so far intoxicated as to be unable to comprehend the nature and consequence of his act and unable to bring to bear any intelligent choice.-Miller v. Howard, Okla., 184 Pac. 773. 39. Descent and Distribution-Advancement. -There is a presumption that a conveyance by a parent to a child without consideration was by way of advancement.-Thompson v. Ohl, Ia., 174 N. W. 446. 40. Divorce-Death Dissolving Marriage. Marriage being a personal relation or status, and an action for divorce a proceeding of a personal nature to effect its dissolution, in the absence of contrary statute, death of one of the parties abates the action, having deprived the court of jurisdiction over the persons of the parties before decree and of the subject-matter of the action itself.-Bushnell v. Cooper, Ill., 124 N. E. 521. 41. Interference with Wife.-Under Rev. St. 1911, art. 4639, wife seeking divorce may ask injunction to restrain husband from interfering with her in the cultivation and harvesting of crops, and in the use of teams and farm implements, and from molesting or intruding himself upon wife's presence, even though wife had an adequate remedy at law of which she could have availed herself.-Hunt v. Hunt, Tex., 215 S. W. 228. 42.-Lex Domicilii.-As respects jurisdiction in divorce suits, the marital status follows the marital domicile.-Aspinwall v. Aspinwall, Nev., 184 Pac. 810. as 44. Estoppel-Change of Position.-Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision to anything involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his ground and put his conduct upon a different consideration and so mend his holding.-Mitchell v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Neb., 174 N. W. 422. 45. Fraudulent Conveyances-Intent. The question of fraudulent intent is to be considered as of the time when the conveyance is made, and with reference to the particular conveyance alleged to have been fraudulent as against creditors. Tanner v. Frink, Neb., 174 N. W. 417. 46. Guaranty-Conditions of. A guarantor may impose any terms or conditions in his guaranty which he may choose, and will only be liable to the holder according to the terms of the agreement.-Illinois Surety Co. v. Munro, Ill., 124 N. E. 528. has 47. Homestead-Definition. - Homestead both a popular and legal signification, which are the same, and in common acceptance of the term it means the residence of the family, the place where the home is, and was so employed in Const. art. 12, § 1, relating to rural homesteads. -McCray v. Miller, Okla., 184 Pac. 781. 48. Homicide-Motive.-It is always relevant to introduce evidence of jealousy and unrequited love and the facts on which they rest, for the purpose of showing motive in homicide.-People v. Laures, Ill., 124 N. E. 585. 49. Husband and Wife-Community Property. -The validity of a conveyance from husband to wife of the husband's interest in community property cannot be questioned by a third party, unless he was a creditor of the husband before the conveyance was made, or was a subsequent purchaser without notice.-Glover v. Brown, Idaho, 184 Pac. 649. 50. Infants-Guardian ad Litem.-Under Civ. Code Prac., § 38, court had no authority to appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant over 14 years of age until he had been summoned.Crume v. Sherman, Ky., 215 S. W. 196. 51. Ratification.-Infant defendants in partition ratify the proceedings, and are estopped to take advantage of a mere irregularity, by receiving to their guardian for and appropriating their shares of the proceeds, with full knowledge of the facts on arriving at age.-In re Youtsey, U. S. D. C., 260 Fed. 423. 52. Insurance-Partnership.-The dissolution of a partnership, indemnified against loss through injuries to servants, does not necessarily render the indemnity policy void.-Illinois Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Commisssion, Ill., 124 N. E. 665. 53. Joint Adventures-Partnership.-The resemblance between a partnership and a joint adventure is so close that the rights as between adventures are governed practically by the same rules that govern partnerships.-Keyes v. Nims, Cal., 184 Pac. 695. 54. Judicial Sales Jurisdiction. - Where court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter of the suit, and adjudges a sale by the commissioner, which is fairly made, and the sale is reported and confirmed, the purchaser, if not a party to the suit, cannot be divested of land because the judgment under which sale was made was erroneous, even though it is reversed on appeal; but the rule is different where purchaser was a party to the suit, or an attorney, or assignee of the judgment.-Crume v. Sherman, Ky., 215 S. W. 196. 55. Libel and Slander-Punitive Damages.Where plaintiff seeks to recover punitive damages for libel, or where the defendant alleges that the publication was justified on the ground that it was privileged, actual malice or malice in fact becomes an issue.-Scott v. Times-Mirror Co., Cal., 184 Pac. 672. 56. Limitations of Actions-Accrual of Action. Where limitation begins to run against the right to enforce a cause of action, as to recover land adversely held, the running of the statute is not interrupted by any subsequent event or condition, and the death of the person entitled to sue will not stop such running against her successors.-Henderson v. Fielder, Ky., 215 S. W. 187. 57. Livery Stable and Garage Keepers-Reasonable Care.-A garage keeper is bound to exercise reasonable care to preserve from injury automobiles left by the owners at his garage for hire, such as a reasonable person would exercise in respect to his own property, and he is bound to see that the person to whom he delivers an automobile left with him for safekeeping is the proper person to receive it.-Morgan Millwork Co. v. Dover Garage, Del., 108 Atl. 62. 58. Mandamus-Plain Duty.-Where there is a plain duty on the part of an official body, such as the council of a city, compliance therewith may be enforced by mandamus.-State v. City of Madison, Wis., 174 N. W. 471. 59. Master and Servant-Burden of Proof.It is not sufficient for a servant to show that the master may have been guilty of negligence, but the evidence must point to the fact that he was guilty.-Wyman v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Okla., 184 Pac. 758. 60. -Safety Appliance.-An employer cannot discharge its duties by allowing employes to operate pneumatic hammers without safety springs.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Cole, U. S. C. C. A., 260 Fed. 357. 61. Mines and Minerals-Incorporeal Hereditament.-A lease, granting oil and gas mining privileges for a term of years, is only a grant of an incorporeal hereditament.-State V. Welch, Okla., 184 Pac. 786. 62. Mortgage Attestation.-A mortgage attested by witnesses who are incompetent stands on the same footing as if it was without witnesses, and is good between the parties.-Farmers' Banks and Trusts Co. v. Fudge, S. C., 100 S. E. 628. 63.- Rents.-Mortgagee in possession will be charged with the rental value of the land.Brown v. Berry, N. J., 108 Atl. 51. 64. Transfer.-A mortgage being a mere security for debt, it is not transferable without transfer of the debt.-Johnson v. Razey, Cal., 184 Pac. 657. 65. Negligence-Imputability.-Negligence of the driver of an automobile as a general rule is not chargeable to another occupant thereof.Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Howarth, Ind., 124 N. E. 687. 66.- -Mitigation of Damages.-Contributory negligence does not bar an action under the feder Employers' Liability Act (Comp. St., §§ 86578665), but only mitigates the damages.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Cole, U. S. C. C. A., 260 Fed. 357. 67. Proximate Cause. To constitute actionable negligence, where the wrong is not willful and intentional, it is necessary that there exist a duty to protect from injury, the failure to perform such duty, and injury proximately resulting therefrom.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Wolf, Okla., 184 Pac. 765. 68. Patents-Combination of Old Elements.A combination of old elements, which produced an old result in a new and cheaper way, embodies patentable invention.-Meurer Steel Barrel Co. v. Draper Mfg. Co., U. S. D. C., 260 Fed. 410. 69. Perjury-Willful and Corrupt.-To constiture perjury, both at common law and by statute, the false testimony must have been given willfully and corruptly.-State v. Henry, Me., 108 Atl. 49. in the thing or estate to be disposed of or managed under the power.-Todd v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco, Cal., 184 Pac. 684. 71. Principal and Surety-Surrender of Security.-A principal is not allowed to surrender the security which it holds for the performance of a bond, and then to hold the personal surety on the bond liable for it.-Guilford Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Holladay, N. C., 100 S. E. 597. 72.- -Voluntary Surety.-Though a voluntary surety is a favorite of the law, entitled to stand on strict letter of his contract, the rule of strictissimi juris does not apply to surety corporations, as they are essentially insurers, whose contracts, usually expressed in terms prescribed by them, should be construed most strongly in favor of obligee therein.-Board of Com'rs of Ohio County v. Clemens, W. Va., 100 S. E. 680. 73. Public Service Commissions-State Law.Whatever powers a state may deny to its Public Service Commissions, it cannot give them power to do what laws of the United States forbid, whether their action be called administrative or judicial.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, U. S. S. C., 40 Sup. Ct. 36. 74. Specific Performance Discretion. The discretion of a trial court to refuse specific performance of a contract for sale of realty on account of defects or circumstances relied upon by way of defense, is a sound and reviewable discretion, not an arbitrary one.-Rollyson v. Bourn, W. Va., 100 S. E. 682. 75. Statutes-Construction.-The obscure and contradictory condition in which legislation sometimes appears will not invalidate it, or defeat its purpose, unless it conflicts with some provision of the Constitution. if it can be construed to make it intelligible, harmonious and workable.-Wood v. Deatherage, Ky., 215 S. W. 198. 76. Trade-Marks and Trade-Names-Profits. -Where, in making sales of their product, defendants infringed complainant's trademark, the latter is entitled to the profits due to the use of the trademark.-Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville, U. S. D. C., 260 Fed. 446. 77. Trusts--Equitable Right.-Where property is left in trust, leaving the matter of distribution of the income solely to the discretion of the trustee, a cestui que trust has only an equitable right, which might be enforced in equity only upon a showing that the trustee had abused such discretion.-De Long Trustee, Ky., 215 S. W. 189. V. Anheir's 78. Resulting Trust.-A resulting trust does not spring from a contract between the parties. but arises by operation of law from the acts of the parties.-McCarthy v. McCarthy, Ill., 124 N. E. 578. 79.- -Resulting Trust.-Where A and B jointly buy land, each paying one-half of purchase money, and title is taken in name of a third party, a trust in favor of A and B will be implied, in view of Civ. Code 1910, § 3739.-Jenkins v. Georgia Inv. Co., Ga., 100 S. E. 635. 80. Wills-Insane Delusion.-An "insane delusion" is a belief in something impossible in the nature of things or impossible under the circumstances surrounding the afflicted individual and which refused to yield either to evidence or to reason. Farmer v. Davis, Ill., 124 N. E. 640. 81.-- -Precatory Words.-Precatory words in a will create a binding trust if meant to govern the conduct of the person to whom addressed and not merely as an indication of what the testator thinks would be a reasonable exercise of a discretion thereby left to such person.— Laws v. Christmas, N. C., 100 S. E. 587. Central Law Journal. ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 9, 1919. VALIDITY OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY. Until recently there had never been much of a question raised as to the extent of the treaty-making power. But in recent years this power has been quite frequently questioned. Thus, it was contested in the case of treaties which abrogated state laws denying to aliens the right to inherit land. California denied the right of the President to interfere by treaty with its laws excluding Japanese from the exercise of rights enjoyed by other aliens. The League of Nations Covenant has raised a host of objectors to the idea that the treaty-making power is practically unlimited by the Constitution. One of the recent treaties against which. vehement objection has been made is the Migratory Bird Treaty by which the United States and Canada establish what is practically an international game law relating to migratory birds and regulating the seasons in which and the methods by which they may be captured. The objection to this treaty is that it purports to regulate the taking of game birds, whereas such regulation, it is argued, is vested in the states alone as part of their reserved powers. In the recent case of United States v. Rockefeller, the U. S. District Court for Montana held the treaty and the statute and regulations in pursuance thereof to be constitutional and sustained a conviction of the defendant for capturing wild ducks by means of a power-boat contrary to regulations established by Act of July 3, 1918C, 128 (Comp. Stat. 1918, Append. § 8837a). In support of the power of the federal government to make a treaty of this kind, the court said: "The power to enter into treaties is an 'authority, under the provisions of the federal Constitution,' vested in the United States alone. Is this treaty a 'valid exer cise' thereof? Before the Constitution the states severally possessed plenary treatymaking power, and by the Constitution they were shorn of the whole thereof, and the larger part of it was vested in the United States; the larger part, not all, for it is clear a state by treaty could have entered into some contracts affecting itself which the United States cannot. This power extends to all subjects usual to treaties, to all within the international domain, to all of international concern and negotiation, but limited, nevertheless, to subjects and treaties not inconsistent with our system of government, with the relations of the states and the United States, with the federal Constitution. Treaties in relation to such subjects, and within such limits, by the federal Constitution are made part of the supreme law of the land, to which all state Constitutions, statutes and rights yield to the extent of any conflict. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 6 L. Ed. 23; License Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256; United States v. Whisky, 93 U. S. 197, 23 L. Ed. 846; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 488. 33 L. Ed. 628; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 267, 10 Sup. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 642; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 312, 21 Sup. Ct. 770, 45 L. Ed. 1088; Compagnie Francaise v. Board, 186 U. S. 388, 22 Sup. Ct. 811, 46 L. Ed. 1209. "This supremacy of federal authority to that of the states is not peculiar to treaties, but extends to all 'valid exercise of authority under the provisions of the federal Constitution.' The states themselves (in the sense of their people) so provide in the federal Constitution ordained and established by them. "To illustrate in the matter of treaties, though it is of the reserved powers of states to control the inheritance of real property, any of their laws that aliens cannot inherit yield to treaties to the contrary. See Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 340, 21 Sup. Ct. 390, 45 L. Ed. 557, and cases cited, and United States v. Whisky, supra. "Though it is of the reserved power of states to allow, prohibit, and regulate the introduction and sale of intoxicating liquors, they cannot allow nor prohibit such introduction contrary to treaty, nor allow sale in parts of their territory where treaties otherwise provide. License Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L. Ed. 256; United States v. Whisky, 93 U. S. 197, 23 L. Ed. 846. "Though it is of the state's reserved powers to protect health and to establish and |