HUMOR OF THE LAW.

"I want to be excused," said a worried-looking juryman addressing the judge. "I owe a man $10, and, as he is leaving for a post abroad, to be gone some years, I want to catch him before he gets on board, and pay the $10. It may be my last chance."

"You are excused," returned His Honor in iey tones. "I don't want anybody on the jury who can lie like that."

Col. Robert H. Thompson of Jackson, Miss, who is a sedate, dignified lawyer of recognized standing, had a new office boy who about every week wanted a day off. While black, this boy claimed Irish extraction, and his brogue bore out his contention.

"Sorr, I'd like to get off Saturday."

"What's the matter this time? Your grandmother hasn't died again, surely," asked the Colonel.

"No, sorr; it's loike this, sorr. Oi've a brother who was born blind, sorr, and he's just got his sight and wants to see me, sorr."-Lawyer and Banker.

When Theodore Roosevelt was President a man visited him who had a request to make. In his arms he carried a bundle of letters of introduction. He stated his request and closed his argument with these words:

"Mr. President, I am sure that if you do this for me you will please the people of my state. In fact, I could have brought with me a thousand letters more asking you to do it."

"Oh, pshaw," was Roosevelt's blunt reply. "l could get a thousand people in your state to sign a petition to have you hanged."

An unmarried mother had obtained an order of court in one of the Southern states against a well-to-do business man for the payment of certain monies monthly on account of the sup port of her child, the order providing that he should make this "involuntary donation" until the child became of the age of 14 years. When that day occurred the daughter called for the usual stipend. As it was handed her the gen tleman remarked: "Take this to your mother. Bertha, and tell her I am no longer your fa ther."

As the girl turned the money over to her mother she repeated what her "father" had said.

"Well," said the mother, "you go back and tell the gentleman that he never was."-Lawyer and Banker.

..8, 11, 22, 56, 57, 77, 79, 81, 85 ..2, 30, 37 ...3, 32 23, 24, 38, 52 40, 68, 93 The

1. Attorney and Client Collusion. courts will protect an attorney against a collusive settlement of the litigation in fraud of his lien. Millsap v. Sparks, Ariz., 188 Pac. 135. 2. Bankruptcy-Concealment. The deposit by bankrupts of money in bank in their own name cannot be considered a transfer or concealment to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, which will bar discharge under Bankruptcy Act, § 14b (4), Comp. St. § 9598.-In re Oliner, U. S. C. C. A., 262 Fed. 734.

3. -False Pretenses.-The giving by a bankrupt of a mortgage on property which he did not own, to secure a note for money borrowed, held not an obtaining of the money upon a materially false statement in writing which bars discharge, under Bankruptcy Act, § 14b (3), Comp. St. § 9598; the debt being one which, under section 17a (2), Comp. St. § 9601, is not released by a discharge. In re Hudson, U. S. D. C., 262 Fed. 778.

4.

Stockholders.-Officers and stockholders of bankrupt corporation required to replace capital and assets fraudulently withdrawn not entitled to be restored to status quo.-Johnson v. Canfield-Swigart Co., Ill., 126 N. E. 608.

5. Banks and Banking Garnishment. Trustee of insolvent bank in other state takes title to funds in Illinois subject to remedy of garnishment.-Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Northern Bank & Trust Co., Ill., 126 N. E. 533.

6. Bills and Notes-Renewal.-A renewal note given for purchase price of land does not change the character of the original debt, and is neither a payment of the old debt nor the creation of a new indebtedness, unless the parties have expressly agreed to that effect.-Cheves v. First Nat. Bank of Gainesville, Fla., 83 So. 870.

7. Threat of Extortion.-In suit on note, defense that plaintiff's attorney threatened court proceedings to hold up defendant's property and to extort money or a note which defendant did not owe, and to offset plaintiff's indebtedness to defer.dant on a sale of cattle, whereupon he gave the note in uit, which was without consideration, and alleging duress and asking judgment against plaintiff, was properly stricken.Miller v. C. M. Keys Commission Co., Ga., 102 S. E. 555.

not

10.- Exclusive Agency.-Where it was agreed that a broker's agency for the sale of property should be continued for a definite time, or that it should be an exclusive agency, the. owner had the right to make the sale himself, without incurring liability for the commission. -Gammell v. Cox, Ark., 219 S. W. 745.

11. Revocation.-The authority of an agent to sell land, who had no interest therein, but merely an interest in earning his compensation, was revocable, though the owner had agreed the agency should continue for a fixed period.-Morgan v. Harper, Tex., 219 S. W. 888. 12. Cancellation of Instruments Equity.Fraud, of which forgery is a glaring example, is one of the principal grounds of equity jurisdiction, and as a general rule equity may decree the cancellation of a written instrument found to be a forgery.-In re Fleming's Estate, Pa., 109 Atl. 265.

13. Carriers of Goods-Act of God.-If a carrier accepts goods for shipment with full knowledge floods and washouts on its line and the lines of connecting carriers, it should notify the shipper of the same, or stipulate against the consequences, and if it fails to do so it should not be heard to offer as an excuse that delay in shipment was caused by an act of God.Gray v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., S. C., 102 S. E. 512.

14. Draft with Bill of Lading.-Where a consignor drew draft on consignee in favor of consignor's home bank and surrendered to it the bill of lading and received credit on his checking account, and consignee paid draft and received the bill of lading and possession of goods and claimed a defect in quality or quantity, he could not garnishee shipper's interest in proceeds in correspondent bank, which belonged to the bank extending credit, whether it had been checked against or not. Lampi v. Hawkins, Kansas, 188 Pac. 233.

15. Initial Carrier.-When one carrier pays the charges of a preceding carrier, it is subrogated to the rights of such carrier, and may demand the entire charges, its own and the first carrier's, before surrendering the shipment. Hammer Lumber Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., N. C., 102 S. E. 508.

16.- -Perishable Freight.-A carrier is not an insurer of perishable freight, if the damage is caused by it perishing, but is an insurer in all other respects, just as if it were not perishable, as where it is injured in a wreck or fire, or from any other cause not the act of God or the public enemy.-Singer v. American Express Co., Mo., 219 S. W. 662.

17. Special Contract.-A special contract between a carrier and a shipper in consideration of a lower freight rate, providing that for loss or damage the carrier's liability should not exceed a maximum valuation, is not a contract attempting to exempt carrier from liability on account of its own negligence, and, if reasonable and just and fairly entered into by shipper will be upheld.-Lusk v. Durant Nursery Co., Okla., 188 Pac. 104.

18. Carriers of Live Stock-Care Taker-Live stock shipper, permitted by carrier to ride with stock in stock car, was a passenger.-Beasley v. Hines, Ark., 219 S. W. 757.

19. Twenty-Eight Hour Law.-The receipt of live stock by a railroad company, whose line connected with one over which the stock was being shipped, but formed no part of the through route, and the transporting of such stock with

due diligence to a reasonably convenient stockyard for unloading for feed, water, and rest, held not a violation of the Twenty-Eight Hour Law Comp. St. § 8651), although the stock was confined longer than the time limited.-U. S. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., Ohio, 262 Fed. 775.

Alighting.

20. Carriers of Passengers Alighting from a slowly moving street car is not negligence as a matter of law.-Sivicek v. Dunham, Mo., 219 S.-W. 594.

21. Negligence.-The fact that the driver of a jitney bus operating as a common carrier permitted a passenger to ride on the step, which was a place of danger, does not disprove that it was negligence per se for plaintiff to rice there, unless the bus was crowded.-Karnitsky v. Machanic, N. J., 109 Atl. 303.

22. Cemeteries-Dedication.-A cemetery does not lose its character as such because further interments in it have ceased or become impossible, but remains subject to the use so long as the bodies remain buried, or until they are moved by public authority, friends, or relatives.-Barker v. Hazel-Fain Oil Co., Texas, 219 S. W. 874. 23. Chattel Mortgages-Subject of.-Property bought for the express purpose of dally indiscriminate sale to the general public, exposed for such sale at the place of business of a licensed dealer, and over which the dealer is permitted to exercise the dominion of an owner, cannot be made the subject of a valid chattel mortgage, though, as in the case of an automobile, it is of considerable size and value, and capable of identification.- -Boice v. Finance & Guaranty Corporation, Va., 102 S. E. 591.

24. Contracts-Autenuptial Contract. - -Antenuptial contract between father and mother of illegitimate child, whereby mother agreed to accept small weekly payments in full of her claims against the father's estate., having been actually made in contemplation of an immediate separation and desertion of the mother by the father, held illegal and void, and unenforceable against either party.-Cumming v. Cumming, Va., 102 S. E. 572.

25. Entirety.-Where an employe, paid by the piece, under an agreement to work for a specified term, struck, but was induced to remain until the end of the week on employer's promise to pay for the work done, the agreement, though entire, was several in performance, and employe could sue at once on employer's breach of its promise to pay.-Englander v. Abramson-Kaplan Co., N. J., 109 Atl. 307. 26. Mutuality.-Though a contract for the sale of coal was not binding while executory beof want of mutuality of obligation, it served to fix the prices which the buyer was bound to pay for coal actually delivered. White Oak Coal Co. v. Ed E. Squier Co., Mo., 219 S. W. 693.

cause

27. Mutuality.--One of the essential elements of a contract is that there must be mutuality of agreement; that both of the contracting parties must assent to its terms.-HartParr Co. v. Brockreide, Okla., 188 Pac. 113.

28. Corporations-Charter Powers.-Corporations can only exercise such power as may be conferred by the legislative bodies creating them, either by express terms or by necessary implication.-North American Union v. Johnson, Ark., 219 S. W. 769.

29.- -Contract with Officer.-The rule that a contract between a director and the corporation is voidable at instance of the latter or of its stockholders is not applicable where all interested in corporation, its officers, directors and stockholders, have knowledge of such a contract and consent to it. and where the property acquired thereunder by corporation is used for its benefit. McKee V. Interstate Oil & Gas Co., Okla., 188 Pac. 109.

30. Directors.-A mortgage on property of a corporation, made to two of its directors, even though voidable by the corporation, held valid as against a corporation succeeding to its assets, which assumed it by unanimous vote of

its directors, who were also soie stockholders. -Geisenberger & Friedler v. Robert York Co., U. S. C. C. A., 262 Fed. 739.

31. Insolvency.-The directors of an insolvent corporation occupy toward the creditors of the corporation a fiduciary relation, in that the properties of the corporation constitute a fund for the payment of the corporation's debts, which fund the directors are charged with managing to the best interest of the creditors.-Beach v Williamson, Fla., $3 So. 860.

32. Courts Ancillary Jurisdiction.-A federal court without ancillary jurisdiction of an action at law on a judgment of a court of another district against the surety on the bond of a contractor given under Act Feb. 24, 1905 (Comp. St. § 6923), and in favor of a subcotractor, where the real parties are citizens of the same state and the amount involved is less than $3.000.-U. S. v. Pedarre, U. S. D. C., 262 Fed. $39. 33. Criminal Law-Confession.-Where, in a prosecution for murder, it is shown that the defendant, without inducement by promise, threat, or duress, made a confession, such confession is the less admissible in evidence because made while defendant was in the custody 6 the arresting police.-State v. Bailey, La., So. 854.

none

34. Instructions.-The statute requiring th court in a criminal case to instruct on all ques tions of law has no application to misdemeanor cases. State v. Magruder, Mo., 219 S. W. 701.

35. Presumption of Honesty.-In view of presumption that all men are honest and innocent, mere suspicion will not support a convietion; but where facts and circumstances are relied upon the evidence must be sufficient to negative and be inconsistent with every other rational hypothesis, except that of guilt.-State v. Vandewater, Iowa, 176 N. W. 883.

36. Recent Possession.-Statement of district attorney that defendant produced no wilness to account for his possession of the stolen car was not a violation of his right to have no comment on his failure to testify in his own behalf.-People v. Miller, Cal., 188 Pac. 52.

37-Wrongful Intent.-The presumption of wrongful intent of a defendant based upon the natural result of his words or acts. is not cORclusive, but rebuttable, and this rebutting evi dence may take the form of testimony by de fendant that he intended no such results.-Bentall v. C. S., U. S. C. C. A., 262 Fed. 74:

38. Damages-Quantum of Proof Where the existence of a loss is established, absolute certainty in proving its quantum is not required – Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Vir ginia v. Carless, Va., 102 S. E. 569.

39. Deeds-Description of Property.-If par ties to a conveyance knew the particular tract by a name which they had adopted for it, the deed to the property by such name was a good description.-Merchant v. Marshfield Realty & Trading Co., Ore., 188 Pac. 174.

40. Divorce Cruel Treatment. Cold and studied indifference toward a wife and failur to talk to her or to accompany her anywhere. and the spending of evenings with his friends and companions, was cruel treatment entitling the wife to a divorce. Kreplin v. Kreplin, Wash., 188 Pac. 14.

41. Equity-Definition.-The office and defintion of "equity" is the correction of that wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient.-Kansas City, to Use of Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Southern Surety Co., Mo., 219 S. W. 727. 42. Evidence-Judicial Notice. The courts will take judicial notice that the purchasing power of money has greatly decreased in the past 10 years.-Hurst v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., Mo.. 219 S. W. 566.

43. Frand Damages. To recover damages for misrepresentations inducing a contract, the representations need not have been the sole cause of the contract, but must have been of such nature, weight, and force that without them the contract would not have been made.Craig v. Shea, Cal., 188 Pac. 73.

Bulk Sales

45. Fraudulent Conveyances Law. It is unnecessary to decide whether the words "stock of merchandise," in Bulk Sales Law, include the store fixtures, sold along with the merchandise, where both parties to the transaction have considered the price to be paid for both as a single fund applicable to payment of the claims of all the seller's creditors and the greater part of it has been so applied. National City Bank v. Huey & Martin Drug Co., S. C., 102 S. E. 516.

46. Gifts-Intent.-A gift requires two things; a delivery of the possession of the property to donee, and an intent that the title thereto shall pass immediately to him.-Fox v. Shaniey, Conn., 109 Atl. 249.

47 Highways-Abutting Owner.-One owning land abutting on highway, there being nothing to the contrary appearing, is to be regarded as the owner of the soil to the middle of the highway, and enjoys over that strip the full privileges of ownership, provided his acts do not interfere with the easement of passage of the public.-Wadsworth V. Town of Middletown, Conn., 109 Atl. 246.

48. Homicide Responsibility for Crime. Ability to govern conduct in accordance with choice a necessary element of responsibility in cases of paranoia.-People v. Lowhone, Ill., 126 N. E. 620.

49. Husband and Wife-Invitee.-ir a married woman invited plaintiff on premises where her husband kept a vicious dog, or if plaintiff was there for a lawful purpose without invitation, and such married woman, in the absence of her husband, permitted the dog to run loose on the premises unguarded, knowing that persons were likely to come lawfully on the premises, her negligence in so doing concurred with the negligence of her husband in keeping the dog, rendering her liable for an injury inflicted by the dog.-Carrow v. Haney, Mo., 219 S. W. 710.

50. Injunction-Anticipated Injury.-While a Court of equity under some conditions may grant injunction to prevent an anticipated injury, it will not do so, unless it can be satisfied from all the circumstances of the case as to the illegality of the acts complained of, and that irreparable injury will result.-City of Sallsbury v. Camden Sewer Co., Md., 109 Atl. 333.

51.—Trespass.-The chancery court had jur isdiction of the subject-matter of restraining trespasses on plaintiff's lands if the pleadings raised the issue that defendant trespasser was insolvent.-Gray v. Malone, Ark., 219 S. W. 742.

52. Insurance Forfeiture. As insurance contracts are prepared by the insurer, conditions therein intended to cause a forfeiture are construed most strongly against the company.Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Walker, Va., 102 S. E. 585.

53.- Fraternal Association.-The constitution and by-laws of a mutual benefit fraternal society form the basis of, and constitute part of, the contract of insurance, which measures the obligations of the members and the liability of the association or governing body.-Sovereign Camp. Woodmen of the World v. Newson, Ark., 219 S. W. 759.

54 Knowledge of Agent.-Knowledge by insurer's agent that insured did not keep the iron safe required by a clause of the policy is knowledge of the company, and if it delivered the policies after the agent had such knowledge it waived the forfeiture for violation of the clause.-Rosenthal-Sloan Millinery Co. v. over Fire Ins. Co., Mo., 219 S. W. 669.

Han

55. Landlord and Tenant-Oral Lease.-If an annual rental is reserved by an oral lease, the law will imply a tenancy from year to year, even though the oral lease is for an indefinite time. Noll v. Moran, Conn., 109 Atl. 241.

58.

Limitations of Actions-Demand Vote Demand paper is due immediately, and the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the instrument.-McCollum v. Neimeyer, Ark., 219 S. W. 746.

59. New Promise.-After a debt is barred by the statute of limitations, a new oral promise to pay it cannot revive the original cause of action, nor constitute a new cause of action, if there was no consideration therefor.-Mortenson v. Knudson, Iowa, 176 N. W. 892.

60. Note and Mortgage.-The running of limitations against an action on a note secured by a chattel mortgage does not extinguish the obligation created by the note or the covenant in the chattel mortgage to pay the debt.-Lembeck & Betz Eagle Brewing Co. v. Krause, N. J., 109 Atl. 293.

61. Malicious Prosecution—Advice of Counsel. -That defendant acted on advice of the counsel does not relieve him from liability for malicious prosecution unless he made a full, fair, and truthful disclosure to counsel and acted in good faith on the advice, so that, where plaintiff denied making an admission which defendant stated to counsel he did make, the jury could find that the advice of counsel was no defense.-Webb v. Byrd, Mo.. 219 S. W. 683.

62.

Master and Servant-Assumption of Risk. -The servant never assumes a risk growing out of the master's negligence, however plain or obvious: the only risk he does assume being that remaining after the master has exercised ordinary care.-Kuhn v. Lusk, Mo., 219 S. W. 638. 63.

-Consideration.-A contract by defendant lumber company to give plaintiff employment in a sawmill, if suits by plaintiff, his wife, and stepdaughter against company's doctor and bookkeeper for slander and failure to render professional services were dismissed. which suits were said to be disturbing the company's business, is not supported by a sufficient consideration.-Rasnick v. W. M. Ritter Lumber Co.. Ky., 219 S. W. 801.

64 -Express Contract.-A complaint alleging that, at the request of defendant, plaintiff performed services for the sum of $60 per month and her board, the reasonable value thereof, which sum and board defendant agreed to furnish and pav. states a cause of action for the reasonable value of the services, permitting proof of such value. and is not founded upon an express contract.-Miller v. Howard, Ore., 188 Pac. 160.

67. Sub-Surface. Where the mineral estate has been separated from the surface, the former must support the latter as a commonlaw burden, from which it cannot be relieved except by apt words or necessary implication. -Lenox Coal Co. v. Duncan-Spangler Coal Co.. Pa., 109 Atl. 282.

68. Valid Location.-The general rule 18 that, where a person has held and worked a location and mining claim for a period to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the state where it is situated, he has a right equivalent to that of a valid location.-Newport Mining Co. V. Bead Lake Gold-Copper Mining Co., Wash., 188 Pac. 27.

69. Mortgages-Defined.-A condition indispensable to holding a deed to be a mortgage is that there shall have been a debt to secure, or some liability against which the grantee is to be guarded.-Carson v. Lee, Mo., 219 S. W. 629.

70. Municipal Corporations-Ordinances.-Ordinances interfering with use of property must be for public good and reasonable.-McCray v. City of Chicago, Ill., 126 N. E. 557.

71. Negligence.-Inevitable Accident.-Where the facts shown are such as might reasonably support the inference that the accident might have resulted from a mere casualty, or from acts of others than defendant, or from defendant, or from joint conduct of plaintiff and defendant, no presumption arises that it was occasioned by negligence charged against defendant.-Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Danneman, Ga., 102 S. E. 542.

72. Invitee.-One sent to install a machine on the purchaser's premises is an invitee to whom the owner owes the duty of keeping the premises covered by the invitation in a reasonably safe condition.-Ellington v. Ricks, N. C., 102 S. E. 510.

73. Ordinary Care.-"Ordinary care" is such care as would ordinarily be exercised by an ordinarily careful person under the same or similar circumstances. Jackson v. Southwestern

Bell Telephone Co., Mo., S. W. 655.

74. Res Ipsa Loquitur.-A petition, pleading specific negligence, excludes reliance on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Byers v. Essex Inv. Co., Mo., 119 S. W. 570.

-

75. Partnership Holding Out. One who holds himself out as a partner, though in fact he may not be, is liable to a creditor who knew of such holding out and acted on the assumption and belief that he was a partner in extending credit. Drake Hardware Co. v. Bragg, Mo., 219 S. W. 717.

76. Perjury-Former Acquittal.-An acquittal on an indictment charging larceny of an automobile is not a bar to a subsequent conviction for perjury committed by defendant as a witness on his own behalf on the former trial by swearing falsely that he had not seen and did not have such automobile in his possession. -Yarbrough v. State, Fla., 83 So. 873.

77. Principal and Agent-Revocation. Authority of an agent, when revocable, may be revoked by a solemn instrument under seal, by a public and formal announcement or proclamation, or by a simple and private declaration.Morgan v. Harper, Texas, 219 S. W. 888. 78. Principal and Surety · Revocation.-Unless the terms of a continuing guaranty forbid it, the law writes into it a power on the part of the guarantor to revoke it.-Gimbel Bros. v. Mitchell, Mo., 219 S. W. 676.

79. Sales-Misrepresentation.-The value of a legal work being largely dependent on its early completion and delivery, an oral representation by an agent of the seller that the work was already in plate and ready for the press was a representation of an existing material fact.American Law Book Co. v. Fulwiler, Texas, 219 S. W. 881.

80. Rescission.-Where one sells personally under an express warranty, and receives a note. reciting it to be a purchase-money note. and the seller thereafter accepts a return of the prop

erty on account of defects, the latter transaction is a complete rescission of the former contract, so that the note for the original nroperty becomes void. Evans v. Lott, Ga., 102 S. E. 556.

81. Telegraphs and Telephones Interstate Message-An interstate telegraph company may limit its liability in damages for negligence of its servants in transmitting unrepeated interstate messages involving different rates.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v. McDavid, Tex., 219 S. W. 853.

82. Trusts Personal Liability.-One holding property himself and refused to recognize plainally liable on a contract to pay a commission to a broker for effecting a sale thereof.-Breid v. Mintrup, Mo., 219 S. W. 703.

83.- Statute of Frauds. Where plaintiff verbally agreed with defendant that they would purchase property jointly or in partnership, and defendant with intent to defraud bought the property himself and refused to recognize pia:ntiff's right therein, no purchase from either of any real estate or interest therein was involved, so that statute of frauds did not apply.-Goodrich v. Wilson, Kans., 188 Pac. 225

$4. Vendor and Purchaser-Consideration.Where a conveyance of land is made in consideration of future support of a third person, no vendor's lien arises.-Murphy v. Whetstone, Ore., 188 Pac. 191.

85. Option Contract.-Time is of the essence of an option contract to purchase property, especially where the property is fluctuating in value, and equity will not relleve against a threatened forfeiture for failure to exercise the option within the time specified.-Weiss v. Claborn, Texas, 219 S. W. 884.

86. Waters and Water Courses Beneficial Use. One actually diverting water under a claim of appropriation for a useful or beneficial purpose cannot by such diversion acquire any right to divert more water than is reasonably necessary for such use or purpose.-Stinson Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Lemoore Canal & Irrigation Co., Cal., 188 Pac. 77.

87. Wills-Burden of Proof.-Contestants have burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence their allegations of fraud and undue influence, which induced testatrix to make the will as she did.-Rice v. Rice, Ore., 188 Pac. 181. 88.Collateral Attack.-A probated will is not subject to collateral attack and vests full title to the realty in the devisees named therein. -Simpson v. Lehmann, Mo., 219 S. W. 608.

89.- -Domicile.-Will may be probated in a state other than that in which testator 19 domiciled, but such probate is strictly a proceeding in rem, affecting only the property within such state, with no extraterritorial force, and does not entitle will to admission in the state of the domicile under the statutes, or under the good-faith and credit clause of the Constitution. In re Longshore's Will, Iowa, 176 N. W. 902.

90.-General Legacy.-A gift of "every species of personal property I may possess at my death not named in my will' is a general legacy In re Wiggins' Will, N. C., 102 S. E. 499. 91. Intention.-In construing a will the first and foremost rule is that it shall be so construed as to give effect to the intention of the testator, and such rule of construction is emphasized by Rev. St. 1909, §§ 583 and 2569.-Gibson v. Gibson, Mo., 219 S. W. 561.

92.-Joint Will.-Joint will not revocable without notice.-Buehrle v. Buehrle, Ill., 126 N. E. 539.

93.- -Testamentary Capacity.-Where testator knows and comprehends the transaction in which he is engaged, and the nature and extent of the property comprising his estate, and recollects the objects of his bounty, the disposition he makes of his estate will not be interfered with on any ground of testamentary incapacity. -In re Rutherford's Estate, Wash., 188 Pac. 27. 94. Undue Influence. In a will contest involving questions of undue influence and testamentary capacity, a previous will of the testatrix was admissible.-Yant v. Charles, Mo., 219 S. W. 572.