H^9 ^, *. (Snrnpll Slam i^rljanl ICibrary Cornetl University Library KF 240.H89 The technology of law :a condensus of ma 3 1924 024 514 212 The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024514212 THE TECHNOLOGY OF LAW A CONDENSUS OF Maxims, Leading Cases AND Elements of Law. LEADING QUESTIONS AND PROPOSITIONS OF THE LAW ADJUSTED TO ITS TECHNICS. I/egal Bibliography should be a Leading Question with every Lawyer. Old cases are the fountains; for the law is judiciary made. These are cited in the latest reports, in the new cases, in all text and reference books of high merit. The old case when found in tables of cases cited affords a valuable key; and in this a ready adjustment to all books —books of^ny age. The great leading and annotated cases are connectives of both old and new; the latter are best presented in these annotations, which review and generally notice all; this is their function. To touch both old and new, wherever found, whenever needed, has been a long felt want; an apparatus enabling that end must meet a demand, which will not long cavil about merely the twine that binds them. Condensation is a crying necessity; the extremes must admit the means. BY WM. T. HLLLGHES, LL B. OF THE CUKORADO bar. LONDON: TORONTO, ONTARIO: STEVENS AND SONS, Limited, ^jjj, cARSWBLL CO., Limited. 119 AND 120 Chancery Lane, DENVER, COLO. : Adams & Co., Publishers. 1893. pyright 1893, BY WM. T. HUGHES. PREFACE. The author assumes the law a science ; that sciences have their germs or technics, from which they are developed. In an introductory chapter we point out that the law is written aroand its maxims and leading cases, hence we call them technics; from this the work is named. By arrangement and employment of these, we reach our condensation, one of the leading features of this work. This constitutes a universal index, next illustrated, after which we present technic features of fundamental and far reaching advantage. From an ordinary library we may select many combina- tions of volumes, each presenting in common some leading discussion, e. g., 3 Gray's Report; 63 Am. Dec; Bige. Lead. Cas. Torts; Redf. Lead. Cas. Railways; 2 Thomp. Neg.; Laws. Lead. Cas. Simp.; 1 Am. L. C; Broom's Maxims, eight volumes, besides our own work. Upon painstaking investigation, we find in each of these volumes a valuable principle, to- wit: the doctrine of Respondeat Superior; (let the principal be held responsible) — which is a great rule of agency — discussed from various standpoints, and from widely separated sources. Any well written text book on agency, torts or cognate subjects will, in connection with the subject of agency or torts, conduct us as far as this brief citation reaches, i. e. "Agency — Respondeat Superior — Hilliard v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 349." Generally this is the end of condensation and bibliography afforded. What is beyond is omitted. With but this we are minus the remaining volumes, and the suggestion of the important fact that a great maxim and case — technic — is involved. This is patent when the fact is so apparent as it is after noting the other discussions above cited— ^the other volumes — all, too, can see that if we invariably gave full citations to each of these volumes whenever a great case or principle is cited in every relation it is found, blemishing, injuring, and to the highly trained, needless repetition follows. Can these discus- sions be condensed in citation so as to be found with facility, iy TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. accuracy, certainty, scieutifically and comprehensively ? We answer, most certainly. We are next confronted with the ques- tion "How can condensation and great utility be secured and real objections overcome?" Again we answer, most easily, if only a table which shall be a blended result, combining the plan of the index, digest and encyclopedia attend the work. This can be done, if in a methodically arranged table we place a case or maxim and under it cite all the discussions, and in a brief statement add the trend of the subject, following this with cognate maxims and cases set in distinguishing type, which readily suggests they are also found in the table. These will present, e. g. the great leading maxim of agency: — Qui per alium facit, facit per se — and its accompanying technic, Thomson v. Davenport. Under each, is presented a distribution of the entire subject of agency, which must be seen to be appreciated. The contents of such a table can everywhere be integrated in independent volumes, or even works, by merely setting the maxim or title of the case in distinctive type, — say in bold-faced or brevier — anything which uniformly means, "Here is a distinguished leading discussion set out in the Technological Table, to which turn and see full citation, besides find the great confirming, modifying, qualifying, denying or excepting cases or maxims (cognate technics, we call them), following, found in this table as well." If one can correctly express a maxim or leading case, either in Latin or English, he is at once master of the discus- sion ; so far as this goes nothing else is equal to it. This, we believe, we demonstrate in the introductory chapter ; every- thing afforded by any library, large or small, whatever is accessible, is under command. If neither can be expressed, or turned to in the table, then, of course, a general table of cases or an index is the next reliance, and if these fail, one must "turn and turn and look until he finds it;" so the popular index is of the greatest consequence. This we afford, and have adjusted it, not only to the main line of the work, — the chapter discussions, but to the Technological Table, e. g. for the principle above cited we naturally turn to "Agency," "Torts," "Contractor," "Respondeat Superior," which should be index topic heads. If we turn to " Agency," in our index, we, among other things will find : TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. V AGENCY; PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Rationale — Qui per alium facit, facit per se. See this maxim and Thomson t. Davenport. " General agents;" Acts of, bind principal if within the agency — Rossiter t. Bossiter. "Special agents;" must follow instructions — Batty t. Carswell; Cox V. Midland B. B. Co.; Jacques v. Todd; Courcier v. Bitter. "Scope of agency;" Agents acts within, bind principal — MeClure v. Bichardson; Odiorne v. Maxcy. "Authority;" "Instructions;" Agents must follow — Jacques v. Todd; Cox V. Midland B. B. Co. Authority under seal, conferred under seal — Nihil tam conven- iens, etc.; Brookshire v. Brookshire. Authority; False assumption of, agents liability — CoUen v. Wright; Cornfoot v. Fowke. Authority; Judicial; Jurisdiction, Limitations op — Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal; Munday v. Vail. Authority; Official; Executive power, Limits op — Mostyn v. Fatori- gas; Ela v. Smith. Ministerial power; Delegation of. Permissible — Taylor v. Brown. Authority, Ministerial, Liability of executive oflBcers — Savacool v. Boughton. Blanks, Filling in commercial paper — Angle v. N. W. Mutual Ins. Co. Blanks, Filling in deeds— Bibblewhite v. McMorrine. See Nihil tam conveniens, etc. Election; Doctrines of — Smith v. Hodson. Chap. LII. Qui sentit commodum, etc.; "Benefits and burthens go hand in hand." — Thomson v. Davenport; Henley v. Lyme Begis. Deeds; Distinctive rule — Elwell v. Shaw; New England Marine Insurance Co. v. De Wolf. Descriptio person.^] words — Sturdivant v. Hull; Pentz v. Stanton. Duties op agent to principal — Burrill v. Phillips. Disbursements of agents, eights to — Bradford v. Kimberly; D'Arcy V. Lyle. Integrity and interest. Conflict prohibited — Eeech v. Sanford. See Trusts, Chap. LVI. Respondeat superior — Billiard v. Bichardson; McManus v.Criekett; Gregory v. Piper; Wilson v. Peverly. Torts of agent; Principal, when liable for — McManus v. Crickett; Gregory v. Piper; Billiard v. Bichardson; Wilson v. Peverly; Thomas v. Winchester; Little Miami B. Co. v. Wetmore. Fellow Servant's Torts; Principal's Liability — Farwell v. Boston, etc. B. B. Co. Servants; Liability to third PERsoN^Harrlman v. Stone. vi TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Crimes op agents, who liable fob — Kex T. Almon; McManns T. Grickett. Fraud op agent; Misrepresentation; Principal liable fob — Corn- foot T. Fowke. Ratification; Omnis eatihabitio, etc. — Smith v. Hodson. Chap LIV. Principals, Disclosed and undisclosed; Rights and duties op — Thomson v. Davenport j Addison v. Gandasequi; Paterson v. Gan- dasequi; Pentz t. Stanton; Rathhon v. Budlong; Dnscnbnry v. Ellis; Taintor v. Pendergast; United States v. Parmele. Competency op agent as witness — Res inter alios acta, etc. Public; Government; Agents, exceptional rule — Lakeman v. Mountstephen. Commercial paper; Distinctive rule — Pentz v. Stanton; Sturdi- Tant T. Hnll. ExPRBssio uNius, ETC., AppLiBS TO DEEDS — Elwcll T. Shaw; and commercial paper ; Sturdivant v. Hull. Simple contracts need not be signed in principal's name — New England, etc. Co. t. DeWolf; contra, commercial paper and deeds, — Elwell Y. Shaw; Sturdivant v. Hull. Commercial paper and deeds must be signed in principal's name— Elwell V. Shaw; Sturdlrant t. Hull. Note, made by one for another without authority; Maker lia- ble— Dusenbnry T. Ellis. Common carriers; as a public agency — Coggs v. Bernard. Chap. LIV. Government; as an agency — Ghisholm v. Georgia; Dennett v. Peti- tioner. Partners; Agents fob each other — Waugh v. Carver. See Part- nership. Chap. LVIII. Husband and wipe; Powers of wife a question op agency — Manhy v. Scott; Dehenham v. Mellon; Jolly v. Rees. Crimes; Crimes op wife; Coercion — Commw. v. Neal. Infants; Necessaries; Power to bind parents — Porter v. Powell. Revocation of authority; By death — Hunt v. Rousmanier; Harper V. Little. Termination op the powers of an agent — Hunt v. Rousmanier. Agency, in general : Chap. LIII. See Attorneys; Trusts and Trustees; Oppicee and Officers; Jurisdiction; Administrators and Executors; Partnership; Common Carriers; Municipal Corporations; Master and Ser- vant; Guardian and Ward. One line of our index page is shown to index a discus- sion in eight independent volumes, and we have to add the cognates besides; Gregory v. Piper, 3 Vols.; Thomas v. Win- chester, 5 Vols.; McManus v. Grickett, 3 Vols., etc., for each TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. vii cognate in addition to the other cognates, and we have further to consider what we command from independent sets of reports, e. ^. 2 Black, (U.S.) 423; Mass. 122-208; 118-117 102-213; 112-99; 3 Gray, 148; 4 Allen, 140; 11 Id. 422 12 Id. 470 ; Ind. 23-577 ; 64-354 ; 70-78 ; Ills. 70-54 ; 40-435 52 N. H. 124; Pa. St. 46-22; 57-381 ; 6 Phila. 257 ; 30 Conn. 550; 9 Mich. 187; 61 N. Y. 186; 35 N. J. L. 22; 5 Neb. 143 11 Bush, 480 ; 49 Me. 123; 59 Id. 531 ; 11 R. I. 455; 6 Rep. 461, 752. Legal periodicals are also included, e. g. Respondeat Superior, 14 Alb. L. J. 195; 5 Am. L. Rec. 412; 3 Cent. L. J. 647; 21 Id. 263; 10 West. Jur. 265; 11 Id. 18 ; Doctrines of 10th Ir. L. Times, 336. The American Decisions, Reports and similar series may be added, and the pages of text book indexed to either "Res- pondeat Superior or Hilliard v. Richardson," in the tables of cases. But we must quit the trail of the wanderer, and leave the reader to inform us exactly what we have indexed; its extent and limitation in books not mentioned and in the numberless yet to come. The law is infinite; no finite work will compass it. In futurity, in countless and now inconceivable combi- nations of facts, the great case or principle will be discussed. Representative cases or maxims presenting or expressing these principles are limited ; beacon lights, shining on from age to age, can be tabulated and indexed to constitute a universal and endless reference. There is no end to book making, but we can approximately fix the limits of indexing; assuredly we can to whatever subject the technic attaches, either posi- tively or negatively, e. g. AsJiby v. Wliite — Chasemore v. Rich- ards — De minimis nan curat lex. Be observant, our example flows from one indice of the above index ; neither page nor section is expressed, yet accu- racy is secured and the technic given. The reader may make his own additions for the ultimate aggregate of the remaining lines of "Agency." When announcements of new works are heralded with the statement that they contain it all, we have a criterion by which they may be, at least partially, tested ; certainly the reader will be pleased if they conduct him through the mazy viii TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. labyrinths of tlie library, as above indicated, and far more still if they enunciate everything. As we have proceeded with "Respondeat Superior," so we might with "Caveat Emptor" — Volenti non fit injuria" — Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam" — Fletcher v. Rylands — Hadley v. Baxendale, and scores of other principles, but we must be brief. Had we selected for our illustration another great but older case, e. g. Duchess of Kingston's Case, Cumber v. Wane, Coggs V. Bernard, Pasley v. Freeman or Scott v. Shepherd, we could present a far more extended and imposing example ; around which more citations from the mother nation could be gathered. This index being adjusted to the Technological Table, is to be used in unison with it. It is understood that matter in bold-faced type refers to the table. By this joint use of adjusted parts the above puts us in command of more than one thousand pages of choice legal bibliography, including great maxims and leading cases, leading the way into a wide-ranging and far extended legal discussion. One hundred such results, a volume of such labor is now an accomplishment. A good start upon these is more than half the labor of research; subjects are written around technics although these may not be expressed or made attractive ; possession of these to lead the way is an inestimable desideratum; the technic is required — to this, form must yield. Here is an important subject condensed, and far more, too, is accomplished. Every lawyer will recognize fully what has been focused upon a page — how the technic is evolved and with permanancy and for facility fixed — that leading subjects are presented in minia- ture. Similarly catch-word citations will be adjusted under the index topics of " Torts," " Contractor," " Respondeat Superior," or, where necessary, reference to other subjects will be made, and this in much less space than it takes to describe it — merely the title of a case or maxim. From the ''tip" the whole is expanded. Attention is invited to a consideration of placing statements and technics like "Respondeat Superior" — Hilliard v. Richard- son, in juxtaposition. This we conceive is instructive, strengthening, refreshing, affords the richest terminology and TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. JX shorthand hints, an ever broadening foundation for sound analysis, and a ready adjustment to all well-written and perfected works. This and the item of indexing through the Technological Table are two points for especial consideration and submission. Cumulative examples are unnecessary; prefaces should be brief. But many things crowd upon us, and we have only space to mention what we conceive is most impressive. Other distinctive features of compression are found throughout the work, to some of which presented in the Technological Table, we shall advert ; a reflex from the leading subjects of Plead- ings, Practice and Evidence. Pleadings, Evidence and Practice, often abstruse and even repulsive, are the grave-yard of the young lawyer ; by these, ends are reached and secured that are neither expressed nor kept in mind, as many decisions show. To rightly view a vast and unfathomed sea, incompre- hensible from any cursory exploration of only one of its many currents or inpours, is impossible. Extensive reading and reflection upon each, and afterwards a generalized view of the entire expanse, is essential; all must be viewed collectively after intimacy with each. Every eye can see the sunbeam, the ascending and transported fog from the home of its wondrous transformation ; the radiant and changeful glories and dark shadows of the cloud from cirrus to nimbus in all their glows; the precipitation of the snowflake upon the mountain peak ; its liquifaction and percolation to the brook ; how it crosses one man's lot and another's farm, where it turns the miller's wheel on its way to the mighty river sweeping majestically back to its destinies in the seas. Each of these phenomena everyone can see alike; but not collectively nor the entire round ; nor the mighty and inscrutible mysterious forces which carry forward the marvelous operations. But the eye of a Humboldt or a Darwin sees the deeper works of nature, the immutable relations of cause and efiect, the inex- orable command of stupendous forces, axial, gravity and the sunbeam, and the ever attending obedience of matter; the rotation of the earth, centripetal attraction, the tidal wave, and its vaporization, condensation and return to its home. We are told of the wonderful correllation of these forces, but X TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. not from whence they come nor whither they go. Beyond its limits the finite dimly peers towards the infinite, the source of all force. No one can tell all, yet origins, analogies, aflBni- ties and repulses have been pointed out, classified and highly improved for the understanding. Whether subjects are high or low, great or small, limited or boundless, attractive or repellant, simple or profound, depend upon the intellect. We believe it is permissible to glance at other fields for premises for a comparative and analogous view, which may be suggestive, besides possibly strengthening and encouraging. The fields of comparative anatomy, biology, astronomy, geology, soci- ology, bacteriology, language and history have phases somewhat resembling the correllation of forces, so to speak. From these, facts can be marshalled to illustrate the idea in hand. History tells us of two kings, separated by five generations. How their subjects hated the parent houses of the daughters these kings married; each had bad ministers; ruptures and bloody tumults with their subjects; each left his capital, intending to return with a foreign army to extirpate red-handed revolution; each was captured and brought back a prisoner for execution only; each pleaded; no court existed to hear and decide; for each a court was created; for each was afforded the form of a hearing; each was sentenced and executed too, by usurping legislative force; how this grasped and wielded all authority; this was succeeded in each case by one-man power; these by a restoration of the deposed houses of the decap- itated monarchs; these were succeeded in each case by second revolutions and were driven from their thrones forever. Only the dates, theatres, and actors are changed — the play is the same. Out of this parallelism, it is almost as easy to learn both epochs as either; and similarly this is true in many subjects in law, e. g. Defamation, Malicious Prosecution and False Imprisonment. History repeats itself, and then its master hand writes the history of civilization, which in his eye is a wondrous stream — an amelioration of man's condition, and into which merges all human endeavor and from which all human progress is reflected — a mighty rope of which all "ologies" are but strands. All sciences are kindreds; a knowledge of one materially aids in the acquisition of others. The universality of law may yet be written. Advanced minds tell us a universal history is near and awaiting; then, as in Physics, cause and effect, will be determinate. Leading subjects often explain and assist in arranging and comprehending subordinates — dependents and details, for the relations of these to the rationale involved are important. Division of state power into three departments must be considered from a standpoint of arbitrariness — the eternal enemy of law and justice, with a full comprehension of its operations and vigilant tendencies; from this is founded a fundamental idea of government — the division of state power TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. xi "Allegata and Probata must correspond," is a rule involving at least three leading subjects, and is itself dependent ; a corol- lary of Res Adjudicata — Due process of law; yet, these three are often treated separately and irrelatively in independent fields. From these premises many things crowd into view — more than we have space to mention ; here, we can but invite and hurriedly pave the way for a view, by mentioning from the Technological Table, Audi alteram partem, Regina v. Vaux, U.\ S. V. Perez, Munday v. Vail, Lea v. Lea, Bristow v. Wright, Borkenhagen v. Paschen, Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co., Dovaston v. Payne, Moore v. Commonwealth, etc., etc. We offer these and their associated cognates as a striking condensus. We consider Pleadings and its cognate rules from Evidence and Practice may be best viewed from a standpoint of Res Adjudicata — Due process of law. The end of every case is Res Adjudicata for reasons of Salus populi suprema lex — public policy ; this must be shown by and remain of record ; this record generally is constituted from the pleadings, and beyond this is sometimes added a bill of exceptions. The rules that records must be certain; that regular allegations are essential, justify this view; the rule involving Allegata and Probata clearly indicates the intimacy of Evidence with Pleadings ; which last rule itself suggests Practice. The rules of Evidence are chiefly a;rbitrary. Writers arrange this subject differently, widely variant, and under a varied nomenclature, e. g. Mr. Greenleaf devotes but a section to Res gestse, whilst other authors chapterize it ; and likewise of the subject Pedigree. These facts, we think, the work will show have been given long and careful consideration, and, perhaps, the adjustment demanded. The result of this, we hope, is into judicial, legislative and executive departments that we may liave a government of laws and not of men. A corollary of this — this idea in miniature — is seen in the organization of courts — their constitution of constituent functions, to- wit: — the Judge, Jury, Clerk and Sheriff; from this important and primal principles of procedure, designed for the pru- dent application of official power, result; if this reason is overlooked, the spirit and true meaning is not comprehended, and if not, real progress is obstructed. Standpoints for generalization are of much benefit. From another's preface we quote: " The laurels that grow within these precincts are to be gathered by no vulgar hands; they resist the unhal- lowed grasp, like the golden branch with which the hero of the JEneid threw open the adamantine gates that led to Elysium." xii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. reflected from the Technological Table. An inspection of the matter it presents will show the warrant for our expectation. A comparatively few scattered passages, making in the aggre- gate but a few pages, mirror, we believe, Mr. Greenleaf's leading principles; his arrangement and chapter titles, we have, as far as compatible with our plan, carefully respected. Familiarity with the plan of the author enables one to immediately find nearly any leading or prominent question of that recondite, changeful and technical subject ; these, when possible, we have connected with apt and suggestive technics — thus giving that good start elsewhere mentioned, and following this, have adjusted all to Mr. Greenleaf, and in addi- tion, to the other standard works — Wharton, Rice, Taylor, Best, Phillips, Starkie, Roscoe, Stephen, and the leading, the anno- tated and prominent cases. Here is another condensation resembling those elsewhere illustrated; a careful inspection of the plan and labor bestowed in these particulars is invited. Justice to this subject can not be done in shorthand, yet we have compressed it, and in this we have created something for the pushed to turn to in those emergencies which are so trying, making a ready reference to leading questions in all standard works the exact sections or pages, maxims or cases, which is a rescue — reinforcement, and turns the scale at a crisis which so often arises in a trial. Courts respect priority — they may be likened to a fountain where all may have water in turn ; they are created to afford one, real, full, bona fide opportunity to be heard, for which the actors must be ready and have all essentials in hand. To place within grasp those requirements, the index and the maxim are made to mutually' assist and aid each other, e. g. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare; Res gestse; Res ipsa loquitur; Omnia prsesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta; Omnia prsesum untur contra spoliatorem; Probatis extremis prsesumuntur media., Falsus in uno,falsus in omnibus; Relevancy; Best Evidence Burden of Proof; Substance of Issue; Impeachment of Wit nesses ; Leading Questions ; Cross-examination of Wit nesses; Hand- writing; Judicial Notice; Production of Docu- ments; Lost Documents, etc., etc., have not been overlooked, but have a place and can be found just when wanted. These we have so arranged as to fly to the center of need, and no TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xiij longer fugitive-like elude the distressed want. Lawyers will understand what we hint. We had the busy lawyer in view when we included such subjects within the plan. An exami- nation of our matter will show that it might be much more extended, but not consistently with our plan ; at all times this plan and purpose must be considered in judging the work. Practice also has its fundamental rules for which we have found a place ; chief among these is Consensus tollit errorum. This great principle is otherwise expressed, as reference to its cognates will show. It is highly instructive to note, that when this principle attaches to different subjects matter, the form of its expression changes, but nevertheless the idea — the principle — is just the same. It lies at the base of Waiver, Equitable Estoppel, Election and Ratification. This rule is inseparably associated with Pleadings and Evidence, like most other rules of practice, yet in classification it stands with Practice. In this we present the last of our under- takings above premised — and another complexity very similar to the other above noted. Departures in arrangement of works in their different editions have presented a serious obstacle we could not over- come. However, generally, we have sought the latest and contemporaneous editions. Citations are to sections, if the work be one with general sections, otherwise to its pages. Another trouble arose from selections by annotators of cases to introduce their elucidations where the principal case is not in exact line with the appended notes. The generality of maxims also presents the same trouble ; as we have elsewhere observed. In citing Chandelor v. Lopus, Staffer v. State, we impliedly include the criticisms accompanying these cases in derivative reports. This disaccord or remoteness of the anno- tations from the principal case, we could not always commept upon, consistently with our plan. We mean to include the appended notes when we cite the official title of a case. We cannot revise the invaluable labor of others — nor can we write all. Many other difficulties have been met and imperfectly disposed of The mechanical execution has been of great perplexity and anxiety. We are painfully conscious of these xiv TECHNOLOGY OF LAW, facts, yet submit the work to the judgment of the ablest, most comprehensive and charitable class of society ; those who look at everything within the four corners; at the old and the new, the expressed meaning and purpose ; those familiar with the rule expressed in the words, " The old law, the mischief and the remedy;" a class who look and consider, estimate and apply with intelligence, Audi alteram partem. That we may be rightly understood by student and practi- tioner alike, we fully define this work in an introductory chapter, in which we add some conceived needful hints for those interested. Before final judgment we desire a full hear- ing. It is due to say that Mr. James D. Andrews, of the Chicago bar, and Mr. Thomas D. Adams, of the Denver bar, lent much assistance in the final revision of the Technological Table for the press. In the latter high professional competence and a cheering affinity were found ; his mechanical abilities are also of a high order. It is owing to him that the table appears now and independent of the chapter line of the work. W. T. H. Dbnvek, Colo., February 12, 1893. INTRODUCTORY. The style and form of this work will be considered a great innovation upon established forms of book making ; but the departure is not without a purpose. Its design is to accom- plish for the busy lawyer and student something exceedingly useful, however incongruous and novel it may appear at a first or hurried glance. The undertaking is primarily to furnish the investigator the best, most scientific, universal key to the subject, the most accurate and finest notes that give the pitch and adjustment which lead to what is sought. To hundreds of subjects such keys can be afforded, and further than this, also to well written text books, whether old or new, annota- tions of cases, and to the ablest of opinions whether of one age or another. Viewing the rack upon rack of reports, a great ocean which is rapidly and constantly growing, seas of current literature, and an unending stream of text books, it may be seriously asked if that end can be secured upon old and long established plans? Without previously debating the question, we have departed from them and present a work, the absolute, perfect integrity of whose system must speak for itself, after a few introductory remarks. The purpose is so vast and comprehensive, the plan should at the threshold be suflBciently outlined to succinctly demonstrate its feasibility. Our effort at this will indicate our anxiety to be well under- stood. Greater brevity might be observed for many lawyers. Working from certain reasons the work was conceived ; these reasons will be reviewed and presented hand in hand with the history and description of the work. When an extreme is desired, the means must be permitted. Addition of newly devised organic parts and combinations of type and technics must be admitted when higher accuracy and utility are thereby secured. A work may be viewed from many standpoints by good critics; a condensus of leading propositions with the finest citations and annotations does not render it impregnable to many possible objections, such as, the plan might have been more closely adhered to, the work might xvi TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. Introductory. have been better, more fully or in some way differently writ- ten. We are ever mindful that progress is eternal. It is well known among lawyers, that one-half of office labor consists in finding the law, and generally the greatest strain involved is to precisely express a maxim or title or other brief set of words, which in hundreds of cases suggest or lead the discussion, e. g. Caveat Emptor — Pasley v. Freeman, herein- after mentioned. In this labor, memory plays a leading part, and suggest catch-words, topic heads — suggestive words, which will lead to a main line of discussion. From incidents or trimmings we reach a main line. For this purpose indexes and digests are chiefly relied upon. But few lawyers rely upon tables of cases. When writers upon a subject fail to cite great and widely known cases, or what is nearly as bad, fail to add tables of cases to their works, the very valuable index which would otherwise be afforded, not only to their own, but to independent volumes, tables of cases, and cita- tions of cases in sets of reports, as well, is wholly lost. Again, writers and jurists would keep their labors in touch with elementary discussions, if only they would cite the funda- mental maxims of the law, and index and digest makers would give these maxims an alphabetical place upon their pages. A good start is of great value ; lawyers must not only know the law, but where to find it. At least two-thirds of the labor of finding doctrines of condition precedent or entirety of contracts, is happily and thoroughly performed if only the title of Gutter v. Powell is suggested or afforded in some way. In possession of nothing more than this case nomenclature, which we classify and call a " technic,'' any lawyer's clerk can rapidly follow the discussions through the various works on contracts which have tables of cases, without which no book is perfect. Now, a table always presenting this, or a like case, and by apt cross reference to cognate and germane cases linked therewith in the most concise, yet expressive way, always keeps the lawyer in command of the doctrine involved. If the monograph, as is contended, is to be the ultimate reposi- tory of the law, then by this system we have in hand, we cer- tainly demonstrate that we keep the busy lawyer and student' TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xvii — 1 Introductory. in touch with the chapter discussions found in the large vol- umes of to-day ; and we submit if these are anything other than a mere collection of monographs. Lucidity and minutiae of statement are important in this introduction. We wish to make our position most clear on this point, and for this we more fully elaborate. Turning to our Technological Table under the letter "C" we will find: Cutter T. Powell (1795), 6 T. R. 320; S. C, 2 Sm. L. 0. 1; Shir. L. C. 222; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 123. Entire Contracts; Conditions Precedent: When one may abandon a contract and sue upon a quantum meruit. Expressio nnius est exclusio alterius; "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." Marbiiry v. Madison. See Chap. XXXIX. Hiking of Persons: Exceptional rules in cases of, Britton v. Turner; Duncan v. Baker; also in building contracts, Gleason v. Smith; Haynes v. Second Baptist Church. Contra, Smith v. Brady. . The title of these cases being in bold-faced brevier, and dis- tinguished as above set out, indicates by this suggestive type that they also appear in their proper place in this table — are found like a name in a directory. We therefore turn to the letter "B" for Britton v. Turner, the title of which we have just set out in bold-faced brevier type; this case is selected because of its prominence, age, and being an American case in line or a cognate of Outter v. Powell. Now, under the letter " B " we find: Britton t. Turner (1854), 6 N. H. 481; S. C, 26 Am. Dec. 713; S. C, cited, 1 Suth. Dam. 160, 283, 299; 2 Id. 466; S. P. as Duncan v. Baker; and denies Gutter v. Powell. One may abandon an express contract and sue upon a quantum meruit. See Expressio unius, etc. Chap. XXXIX. We add this proposition to prevent useless turning to OuMer V. Powell, or elsewhere for suggestions to determine the direc- tion of their discussions. Thus it is from one standpoint, needful repetition ; likewise we proceed upon each case cited. Again, turning to the letter "E" we find: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius : The express men- tion of one thing implies the exclusion of another.^ 1 See p. xxvi, post for elaboration of this maxim. 2 xviii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. This cross reference matter is set in brevier, and is thus made indicative and may also be turned to. Thus the great principle involved, which is correctly expressed in the maxim, may be traced with the greatest ease and certainty ; and every- thing in relation thereto is so gathered that it can readily be followed from thence into the various subjects matter in which it has been applied, and the exceptions, modifications, and denials of the case or principle quickly and accurately pointed out. The fullest elaboration of Expressio unius, etc., is found in Chap. XXXIX indicated, at the head of which is found this maxim, as well as the great cases, in order to keep promi- nently before the reader the distinctive importance of these as legal technics, and to keep him in constant touch with the subject he seeks and its technics or commanding tips. This maxim we will again mention and more fully set forth in connection with case technics. He will find these universals not only in the popular index, but in the summary of con- tents. If "Accident" is sought, we are similarly provided with Actus Dei., etc., and case technics associated with this, such as Fletcher v. Rylands, Taylor v. Caldwell, Brown v. Kendall, Nichols V. Marsland, Robinson v. Davidson, Lawrence v. Law- rence, Salisbury v. Herchenroder, Brown v. Collins, Dygert v. Schenck, Scott v. Shepherd, Elwes v. Mawe. Before proceeding further, the reader should apply this sys- tem, at least as far as we have above invited, with such books as he has at hand. We confidently believe, without further elucidation, he will then have reached a point where he will approve the plan and arrangement ; that he will have nothing farther to say unless it is this : " If you could furnish me these subjects matter and these tips or technics in juxtaposi- tion, and give me an arrangement by which I could find the subject matter, and with it suggest its tips or technics with certainty, facility, and in emergencies, then I can afford to dispose of half my library to own such a work." In answer to this we confidently assure the interrogator, that the exist- ing arrangement accomplishes this result; that the popular index, which is carried out to the minutest extent on an TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. ^ix Introductory. alphabetical progression plan, together with its cross refer- ences, affords him that for which he seeks, with very great certainty, after a natural and easy step — a glance at the index, the title of his subject matter and the question in hand, if within the limitations of the work, and in juxtaposition to his question there indicated, is set the technic in distinctive type, and from this he understands that the technic appears in its proper place in the Technological Table ; and after turning to that, he starts in pursuit of his question, as from Cutter v. Powell or Actus Dei, etc, above specified. It is this feature, among others, that makes the work quite another thing than a commonplace book. The arrangement of the work will be found to rest upon a most natural and really scientific founda- tion. Memory is most retentive to, and is best developed, 1, by visual concepts ; 2, by words, and 3, by association. This naturally results from groupings and clusterings, so that when one link is suggested, the whole cluster or chain is fully rein- stated. These facts, among others, are reasons for the ar- rangement, style and form of the work. Titles of cases, maxims and other catch-words are employed whenever prac- ticable to these ends, and, as the student will find, with the best possible effect. Technics are deployed in diflferent type, and thus become objective ; visual objects in fact, and at the same time the words composing them are emphasized and accentuated for special consideration and recollection. The commanding " tips " — those fragments most valuable to know, and to be familiar with, are selected and distinguished. Pointing out or comments by a preceptor are unnecessary. A key composed of technics or titles of cases and maxims can be constructed within a few hundred pages, which will command nearly the whole library, at least the well written parts thereof. But it would require a legal education adjusted to these to make available such a condensed short- hand instrumentality. All lawyers can not read or construct as does the comparative anatomist. We have every reason to believe that such a table, without further ' or accompanying elaboration, would be a failure, except to a few lawyers of XX TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. culture. Such a table may yet be constructed. We now par- ticularly wish to demonstrate the feasibility of including in a popular index well-known and standard topic heads, sugges- tive of the leading subjects of law; and to these set in juxta- position, technics which will lead to a table where the technics themselves will be found in their alphabetical order, asso- ciated with cognate technics, which intelligently lead the inves- tigator through the entire library, with the greatest facility and advantage. This popular index is substantially like any other good index, with copious cross references to kindred subjects or synonyms therein, but having in addition the technics added. The value of such an arrangement will doubtless at once suggest itself to the lawyer already familiar with the great monuments which have become, through years of unquestioned acceptance and application by the law-givers of the land, the corner stones upon which the whole founda- tion and superstructure of our jurisprudence rest. So far as the intelligent clerk and mere student are concerned, they are referred to the Technological Table (a very novel feature of this work), from which, we believe, they will be enabled to acquire that knowledge so eagerly sought by all who would excel in the profession of the law, and which is so invaluable to the young lawyer in the many emergencies which must necessarily arise in his practice. Fundamental requirements are essential in the use of any professional work ; and with this simple attainment, we feel that the necessity for so much use of the popular index will cease to exist. Eventually, we hope, this need only be used when the technic eludes precise expression, and it is necessary to have it reinstated in the recollection. This demand, we trust, has been carefully esti- mated, and the work constructed to supply it. Out of these premises, we see the necessity for the popular index constructed as it is; of the Technological Table; also the general table of cases; for here the subordinate cases, and indeed all cases, are alphabetically arranged; and we can further see why the chapters have summaries of contents, consisting of nothing more than index statements, associated with the technics; from caution these were added. Every TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxi Introductory. safeguard has, we think, been employed to keep the work from confusioa and in practical touch. So much depends on keep- ing subjects connected with the technics, that all the incidents of the work should be admissible. This should be fully con- sidered, we submit, before intelligent criticism is offered. In the formative period of our jurisprudence, its molders acutely comprehended the above remarks, concerning cases, for shorter than the record or official report title they were commonly cited as the "Squib Case," {Scott v. Shepherd); Rum- jord Market Case," {Keech v. Sanford); "Spencer's Case;" "Twyne's Case;" "Dumpor's Case;" "Dred Scott Case," {Scott v. Sanford). From the novice, all know of "Shelley's Case," and although its rule has been abolished, by statute, in many jurisdictions, still, as a catch-word — a technic — it is familiar to all. What an immense stride of progress would be made by the legal profession if Cumber v. Wane, Thomson v. Davenport, Miller v. Race, Pasley v. Freeman, Hilliard v. Richardson, May V. Burdett, and a hundred like great leading cases were equally familiarized ; and greater yet, if a hundred elementary max- ims were likewise assimilated by all lawyers, and their works adjusted to this advancement. Agreement in this is necessary for concurrence upon the highest value of this work. A novice can, we submit, better find in this work the great leading cases and elementary maxims than in any other publication; and for this mere finding machine the work should be valuable to him ; for in it are presented all the great leading cases found in Smith's; White & Tudor's Equity; The American; Bennett & Heard's Leading Criminal; Lawson's; Shirley's; Thompson's Negli- gence; Ewell's Infancy, Coverture and Idiocy; Zinn's Cases Trusts; Bigelow Leading Cases Notes and Bills, and on Torts; many of the leading cases in Sedgwick's Leading Cases on Damages; all the practical maxims in Broom's Maxims, expressed in both Latin and English; the great annotated cases found in the American Decisions and Reports, and many of those found in Moak's English Reports ; besides other impor- tant and widely cited and known cases. But with other classes of lawyers, it is hoped that this work will be far more valuable xxii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. than as a most perfect and elaborate reference book; this, however, we are in hopes, it will be for all. The author has reason to believe, that real lawyers have trained themselves as recommended by J. W. Smith, Mr. Cooley and other writers, and have learned to associate princi- ples and cases, e. g. in Semayne's Case, they see the statement, "Every Tnan's house is his castle;" or in Armory v. Delamire, "Every presumption is to he made against a wrong doer," or in Swift V. Tyson, or Leneve v. Leneve, they recognize the law of bona fide purchasers is involved ; for this class, he confidently believes, this work will prove very valuable. He also has the cherished hope, that those who have not studied the law upon this plan, will at once act upon the suggestion of the ablest professors and writers. Looking at our vast and unending literature, is it not re- freshing to know that we may have the briefest " tip '' — the title of a great annotated case ; associate with it a principle, and with nothing more we are quite masters in the aggregate of many volumes — of thousands of cases ? Development on this plan should tend to constitute lawyers for any age ; law- yers who can utilize more than was afforded by Comyn's Digest, Peterdorff's, Dane's or Bacon's Abridgement; the great and prized works of the past generation. Real lawyers must have very exact education, and this must have great fixity. At every step in professional life is found the neces- sity of exactly referring to, or precisely pointing out, certain passages, and no exception can be made in the elemental rules. The nature of the business carries with it a necessity for this ; for nearly always there is some one on the adverse side denying; the life of the lawyer is a struggle. As with woman, neither is his work ever done ; in the face of a skilled and determined opponent he advances. To the student, seeing is knowing; the ablest judge must be refreshed, and have exact passages or statements reinstated in mind. These facts have constantly attended and encouraged the preparation of this work. Maxims and great cases have formed the staple of legal composition for centuries. Many of these, all judges capable TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxiii Introductory. of bettering the law they have been elevated to improve and rightly administer, are familiar with. A tabulation by means of which they may be readily found, must, we feel assured, be recognized as a worthy achievement. For this, the leading and suggestive expressions must be catalogued; made as easy and certain to find as a word in the dictionary, and when found they must be linked with their cognate technics, and from there must be indicated where they are elaborated and applied, to various subjects matter. Technics must be selected and arranged to this end, and in such tables all brief suggestive matter must be stated, and further, the tables themselves must be indexive. The author has endeavored to make the contents matter the most solid and desirable that could be introduced and presented in connection with the technics which the ablest writers have afforded the profession. Nothing is more comprehensive or equals these; they constitute, we believe, the finest raw material obtainable. It is the practical maxims and general principles found, discussed and introduced under leading and annotated cases, which form the chief staple. To gather these was the labor of years, not to mention the time spent in perfecting the arrangement necessary to keep this unequalled gathering of matter in ever ready and constant command, and to afford either the technic or leading catch- word or title or set of words, or something a little more exten- sive, yet most brief, pertinent and full of reference and awakening suggestions. We think by words, and when these cannot be expressed we have no exact command of ideas. We will further mention this arrangement, and call particular attention to it. In connection with the foregoing remarks, it will doubtless strongly suggest to the reader the propriety of a learned condensation of the law, and progress in a direction opposite to that of this age, which has been towards a mono- graph upon every conceivable subject. Every index topic which thrifty and fertile imagination can suggest, e. g. Verba generalia restringunter ad habilitatem rei vel personam, we call a technic, for it is a germ ; a great principle ; the title of a chap- ter in Broom's Maxims ; a great rule of construction, and as xxiv TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. such applies to every collocation of words. It is of wide use in the construction of the powers of agents; it applies to Con- tracts; it is of wide application in Pleadings, Evidence and Practice; it may be used with reference to many subjects matter. The trained lawyer sees in it the germ, although authors express it in various statements, with reference to every subject matter, e. g. we find a rule predicated upon it in reference to a demurrer, Sec. 5, Abbott's Brief on Pleadings ; and another with reference to Averments in Pleadings, Sec. 33, Id; and still another, Sec. 63, Id; also with reference to Motions; again, in Practice, where general objections are made, followed by specific ones; also in Proofs, in applying the rule, "It is sufficient if the substance of the issue be proved." Res inter alios acta, etc., is but assent in contracts, where the rule is, two cannot contract and bind a third without his assent. Principal and debtor cannot change the contract and bind the surety. The same principle lies at the basis of Hearsay Testimony; likewise the rule that Estoppels must be mutual. When any of these phases of a great principle is desired, the author has proceeded on the theory that it is most convenient and instructive to turn to the technic and find the whole clustered ; to find a focus in which so much is concen- trated and from which so much radiates, e. g. Oustodia Legis ; Conflict of Jurisdiction; Division of State and National Power, are well introduced by Ableman v. Booth, among the first cases in our table, a case, at one time, of national importance^ This great case and Freeman v. Howe, Buck v. Colbath and Noe V. Qibson, when cited and found in tables of cases, wholly command great subjects which enter into discussions of many subjects matter, and which may with appropriateness be repeated under each. In any relation they appear, the com- mand of the discussion is held within the grasp, by know- ing any one of them, when as has been done, with it all are clustered or linked in the Technological Table. And like- wise, the discussion of void and voidable acts of infants is held in command by turning to Zouch v. Parsons and the cog- nate cases associated with it. Nearly the entire law of Infancy, we contend, may be so arranged as to radiate from this case. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxv Introductory. and the radiations thereof easily followed by turning to it and its cognates; and let it be observed too, a range of discussion is most plainly and distinctly placed in hand, which otherwise is not readily found or reduced to possession ; such as that found under Vasse v. Smith, Tucker v. Moreland, or the important points involved in Dixon v. Bell, Oilson v. Spear, Hagerty v. Powers, Baker v. Haldeman. These cases present a volume of law, commonplace law too, which is discussed by many authors; some arranging it under Trespass, others Torts or Infants; Parent and Child; The Domestic Relations or Agencit. General writers upon all subjects frequently extend or mention this law. Leading case writers and annotators have also devoted much space to it; besides the decisions of able courts have discussed it hundreds of times, and have made these discussions classical and valuable, by citing one or more of the great leading cases, which, when tabulated, reduce such decisions to hand, just when sought, thereby demonstrating the advantage afforded by a technic, which is under immediate command by simply turning to Zouch v. Parsons, in the Technological Table. If this title is not known or remembered, it is afforded with exactness and certainty from the technical index, which we next illustrate. From such illustrations we can see the greatest condensus yet produced. Carefully consider this feature and in connection with it our uses of the Technological Table hereafter specially mentioned. We may compress the technics and great discussions of Infancy in an index, as follows: — Criminal liability op infants — Rex T. York; Godfrey v. State. CONPESSION OP infants ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THEM — ReX V. Tork. Infants liable for torts like adults — Gilson v. Spear. Parents not liable for torts op — Gilson v. Spear. Liability for entrusting dangerous instruments with infants — Gilson V. Spear; Dixon v. BeU. Void and voidable acts op — Zouch v. Parsons; Craig v. VauBebber. Legal capacity op infants — Tucker v. Moreland. Necessaries; may contract for — Peters v. Fleming'. Their liability ex-oontractu and ex-delicto — Tucker v. Moreland; Gilson Y. Spear; Vasse t. Smith; Dixon v. Bell. Xxvi TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. Plea op infancy; effect in ex-delioto actions — Vasse v. Smith. Disaffirmance op contracts by — Crai^ v. YanBeblier. General discussion of. Chap. LXIX. To show how much of the library is embraced iu this col- location, we will again cite titles and add the volumes where reports of these are found; this also shows that such indexing reaches farther than this work : Rex v. York, Foster's Crown Law; 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. — (B. & H.); Laws. L. C. Crimes; Godfrey v. State, 31 Ala.; 70 Am. Dec; Gilson v. Spear, 38 Vt.; 78 Am. Dec; Ewell's L. C. Inf., etc; Dixon v. Bell 5, Maule & S.; Bige. L. C. Torts; Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burr.; 1 W. Black.; Ewell's L. C; Oraig v. VanBebber, 100 Mo.; 18 Am. St. Rep ; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet.; 1 Am. L. C; Ewell's L. C. Inf.; Vasse v. Smith, 6 Cranch ; 1 Am. L. C; Ewell's L. C. Inf , etc All these volumes are involved; are compassed in the Technological Table; every case referred to by notes or other- wise in these annotated cases is made accessible. By this means we are afforded the titles of the leading cases to work from, in all books. We see here such series of reports incorporated as the American Decisions; besides, as subordinate cases embraced in the statement of Qilson v. Spear, in the Technological Table, will be found citations to Hagerty v. Powers and Baker V. Haldeman. Thus, both the American Decisions and Re- ports, and all their linked cases and references are ever attend- ing emergency's call. All these cases appear in the Techno- logical Table, where full and accurate citation to them is found. This case nomenclature furnishes the leading cases, the uni- versal index elsewhere hinted at. We will now compare with this a maxim technic, selecting one already introduced: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius : The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, Bro. Max. 651. See Chap. XXXIX, infra. Code Pleadings: Maxim is applicable to codes, e. g. as to statutory grounds of demurrer, these are exclusive; all other faults are correct able by motion. It also applies to grounds of recovery or defenses stated upon the record, McLaughlin v. Kelly; Field v. Mayor, etc.; Sturges V. Burton; Kraner v. Halsey. See Due Process op Law. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxvii Introductory. Pleadings and Pkactioe: Maxim applies to with great force, Bristow V. Wright: Munday t. Vail; Osborn v. Bank of U. S.: Piper v. Pearson; Bates v.Bulkeley. Pleadings; Evidence and Pkactioe: Maxim applies to, Bristow v. Wright; Kraner t. Halsey; Gridley v. City of Bloomington, 68 Ills. 47. Practice; Ebeoes; Exceptions; Appellate Peooeduke: See Kraner V. Halsey; Consensus toUit erroriim. Appellate Proceduke, Chap. CXL; Waiver; Chap. XLVII, infra. Construction: Is of wide application in, People T. Hastings; Mar- biiry V. Madison; People v. Maynard; McCuUough v. Maryland; Page T. Heineberg. Contracts: Is applied in construing of. Cutter v. Powell; Smith v. Brady. See Entire Contracts. Hiring of Persons; Building Contracts: Rule relaxed in some cases, Britton v. Turner; Smith v, Brady. Contra, Cutter v. Powell; Gleason v. Smith, 9 Cush. 484; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 62; Haynes v. Second Baptist Church, 88 Mo. 285; S. C.,57 Am. Rep. 413. Bills op Particulars: These bind a party to the items specified. Abb. Brief Crim. Cas. Sec. 353; Id. Plead. Sees. 743, 745. The items specified are conclusive upon the party furnishing them. See Chap. CXXVI, infra. Exemptions: Particular designation of goods claimed as exempt waives all others, Behymer v. Cook (1880), 5 Colo. 399. Agency: Agent acting for undisclosed principal in a simple contract binds such principal when discovered by third person. In deeds and commercial paper the maxim applies as to parties, but not in other and simple contracts, Thomson y. Davenport. Commercial paper: Applies to, Sturdivant v. Hull. Deeds: Applies to. El well v. Shaw. Certificates of officers: Extends to no fact not designated by law, 1 Gr. Ev. 498; 2 Wh. Ev. 841; 2 Tay. Ev. 1584; Stark. Ev. 257; 5 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 795, 805, 810. Copies: Sworn and examined are admissible as well as ofiicial. See "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Executions: Executions must conform to the record from which they emanate; certainty in this is essential. Audi alteram partem; They cannot describe one record and depend on another. See Executions, Chap. XII. Dedication of land for one purpose excludes all others, Dovaston t. Payne; Goddard on Easements (Bennett's Ed), 8. Maxims are generalities; but under them, statements and case technics can, we confidently believe, be arranged with exactness and imposing efiect, as will be apparent from the inspection of Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ; Caveat emptor; Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur. "Maxims do not perhaps play so prominent a part in the modern as in the older law; but the convenience of the old Latin phrases that have come down to us from the days of Fortescue and Coke's Littleton is still recognized. XXviii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. A much greater compression may yet be made: To illus- trate, let us suppose reference to the great discussions of Ex nudo pado non oritur actio was sought. Naturally, we turn to this head or "Consideration," or "Contracts" in the popular index, where under these heads, cross reference is made to the others. So we necessarily find " Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio; Discussion of — Cumlter v. Wane." This title and type leads us to the Technological Table, where is indicated all the reports of Gumber v. Wane, and associated with it, Lampleigh v. Brathwait (Smith's L. C. and notes); Depeau v. Waddington (Am. L. C; Am. Dec); Vadakin v. Soper (Am. L. C), besides a score of other great cases, the maxim itself, and also citations to where it is the subject of an independent chapter. In like manner the Law of Arrest is distributed from Allen v. Wright; of Bona Fide Purchasers, from Swift v. Tyson; Leneve V. Leneve; Defamation, from Brooker v. Coffin; of Agency, from Thomson v. Davenport; Statute of Frauds, from Byrkmyr V. Darnell; Wain v. Warlters; of Remoteness, from Hadley v. Baxendale, etc., etc. — (See uses of Technological Table post). No existing compression we know of surpasses this; in many cases we have observed this last plan. However, full and complete statements in the index, with technics added, save much turning, in many cases, and are productive of fine results- Bear in mind, every subject is capable of this compression, and that in it is found the means of mastery of all well written and perfect books — books haying tables of cases incor- porating the great leading cases. This observation is verified if we examine Elwes v. Mawe, in works on Fixtures; or Humphries v. Brogden; Panton v. Holland; and Wood v. Lead- bitter, in works on Easements and Servitudes. The proper function in law ot a maxim is to bind together a class of cases possibly very dissimilar in their facts, by the connecting thread of some legal principle pithily expressed. It should be concise, with no superiiuity or ambiguity of words; and the legal notion sought to be conveyed should be so apparent, that the application of the maxim itself to new sets of circumstances will be easy and natural. If a legal maxim fulfil these condions it is a convenient, economical expression of an idea which may perhaps be very complex." C. H. Barrows, 14 Am. Law Rev. 350, (1880). TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxix Introductory. Out of the foregoing we can well see the comparative merits of both maxims and case technics. Looking at the law as an immense chart spread out, we see great areas with a beginning, middle and ending of discus- sions, emanating from such groups of cases as the above are examples of. A work gathering these cases in tabulated form and there constituting them centers which always lead to these discussions, regardless of what they are attached to, has distinctive merit, and should have such consideration. Recorded events of one man in history, often reach out and present the history of" the world ; a great event likewise so ramifies and influences ; as it is in history, similarly it is in law. Hence the importance of familiarity with great com- manding and decisive turning points. The tabulation of these, to aid and develop the memory must be appreciated ; from this view the Technological Table presents one of its best sides. Likewise we might here repeat our elucidations from else- where of Expressio unius est excludo alterius, Expressio eorum quss tacite inmnt nihil operatur, and other maxims, to enforce the view that the ultimate of the law will not be the mono- graph; but it must be admitted, a change from this direction must first be permissible from higher culture. Investigators are now almost wholly taught to approach a great leading prin- ciples from a subject matter; then its sound comprehension depends on research, reflection and examination of it in an independent field, and as an original principal subject enter- ing into, and forming a basic element of many subjects matter. In indexing, unless the technic is known, respected, and intelligently worked to, arrangement and distribution of statements depend on subject matter, and often diff'use them- selves on a concordance plan, and when so, finding a thing from them is largely an accident; but little of discipline or scientific training enters into it. It is a matter fairly recog- nized among members of the legal profession, that no two minds arrange a subject alike; no two men have arranged their works alike. Some writers, unlike Mr. Greenleaf, are never satisfied with their arrangement of a work, nor do they XXX TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. index alike. Indexing expertness depends on possession of excellent terminology, and in this work, the best technics as well. Men know these in varying degrees ; the highly cul- tured, trained and practical mind will arrange his catch-word under one topic head, which another mind would never think of. Great latitude is allowable in indexing. Again, topic heads have synonyms, redundancies just like these words when elsewhere used ; and here are sources of much uncer- tainty and difficulty. The indexer has a wide choice in his labor ; nearly everything has been selected to arrange a case or a decision under. A case generally involves several dis- • tinct and independent points ; the arrangement of the case under the alphabetical head fitting one of these points only, is arbitrary ; the other points belonging to other topics, must be utilized and represented from indexes and tables of cases. It is not difficult to see, that it is of secondary importance where the case is found. It is always instantly found from a good index, digest or table of cases. Out of this we see the advan- tage of adhering to the best and long established topic heads. A series of Insurance Reports is arranged chronologically, with excellent effect. Authors, compilers and publishers must cater to conditions, and offer what can be comprehended, and that for which a demand will arise. It is time to consider what many able law- yers assert, "that the legal profession has ceased to be learned ; that there are a few real lawyers, and distinguishable from these, many members of the legal profession." Notoriously, pub- lishers are shy of a work which does not, upon its face, suggest it will be comprehended by all, and meet with ready demand; and judging by much of the indexing and digesting, they are peculiarly made for members of the legal profession in the sense above used. We admit, a work should have the popular index feature; but in addition to this, we contend, for the reasons we offer, that it should admit as topic heads the practical, elementary maxims, and the work also be indexed to these, regardless of what language the author chose to express them in ; undoubtedly, this would require fine analytical perception and high training ; and further, that principles for which the TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxxi Introductory. great leading cases stand, which cases are by some writers and jurists cited to stand for the principle, should also be associ- ated, so that from the popular index the investigator is with certainty afforded the benefits of tables of cases. A popular index is the ready reference pages of a work for all lawyers. However, there are a few lawyers, and a goodly number of writers, who fully understand the excellence of the table of cases index. Lawyers, like chemists, musical composers, comparative anatomists, druggists, physicians, mathematicians, chess play- ers, railroad employes, and men in other vocations, must learn abbreviations, words and symbols necessary for exact, concise, convenient expression, for only these can be indexed and arranged in tables for the attainment of certainty and utility. An exact and perfect terminology is essential in dealing with any art or science. Requisite knowledge of the literature which expresses it, is of the highest importance and is of far reaching consequence. Probatis extremis prsesumuntur media, must be applied. The compositions of Mozart, Liszt and Wagner are wholly lost to those who do not comprehend the significance of the notes which express them — in which they are forever imbedded — notes which can alone reinstate them. For similar ends, lawyers must learn maxims and cases, and that maxims expressed in English cannot be scientifically indexed, e. g. Caveat emptor, Audi alteram partem. Volenti non fit injuria, Omne majus continet in se minus, cannot be accu- rately or aptly indexed when expressed in English; dear bought experience taught us to respect the short and forceful expression of the Latin. Consideration of these facts, and adjustment to them, would, in fact, lessen the labors of lawyers and relieve authors and publishers of grave responsibilities. The arrangement of this work was from a standpoint of these premises. It has cost years of labor; has caused extensive discussion, and even adverse opinions. But these happily proved temporary. Summaries of contents might have been omitted, and other arrangements made under different conditions. It was appar- ent that such a work never could arise above an unwieldy xxxii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW, Introductory. commingling of a vast amount of admittedly valuable matter, unless great innovations and departures were made from estab- lished forms. To this end the various parts of this work were devised, that all this matter might have an orderly and really scientific arrangement, and be held so close in hand that it would be sensitive to every touch and attend every call, either from its Technological Table, its tables of cases, its sum- maries of contents or its popular or technical index. These parts are closely linked and tied together by cross reference, and plainly traceable ties; and these made tangible and so plain and simple that either the novice or the ablest lawyer can readily touch and with certainty and advantage trace them into every relation and subject matter. This is the extreme wanted, and, we repeat, the means of affording this must be permitted . CHAPTERS. The main body of the work is comprised of 177 chapters, a large number when viewed from one standpoint. But when we consider that the leading cases in Smith's and White & Tudor's Equity cases, nearly equal this number, it is seen that much condensation has been observed. Mr. Broom presents 104 Maxims as chapter topics in one volume. Our chapters present the whole field of the law, and relate to every form of action; they present the keys that command its completest and ablest literature. Chapter topics have been selected with the greatest care, and fully understanding and appreciating that much apt and accurate terminology may be taught and developed by these, they have been selected with reference to accurate and practical indexing, which is so essential for a work of this character, as well as to make great cases and maxims prominent and accessible. Indexes and chapter titles should mutually aid each other; if an important subject is chapterized a needful prominence is aff'orded it; the adjustment of the index to this end is also advanced by sound indexing. Each chapter was entitled with reference to all the matter at hand, and the entire field of the law. The plan is both plastic and elastic. As laid out, the whole body of the law can be TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxxiii Introductory. added and distributed among them, and the popular index and general table of cases would assimilate and hold the mass in systematic command. Chapters are associated as far as possible, in logical connection, so that cognate subjects may be connectedly viewed. No part of the work is alphabetical in its arrangement, excepting the Technological Table, technical index, popular index and tables of cases. The author believes a work can have no analytical arrangement when its subjects are arranged merely upon an alphabetical alliteration; naturally, such works are short lived. An arrangement of chapters has also been sought to assist and develop memories retentive of locality and of the relationship of subjects. Generally, for titles of chapters, those selected in standard works or for titles of these works have been adopted, except- ing that the titles of cases are not so represented. These, how- ever, are made prominent in the Technological Table; at the head of chapteqs; and also by suggestive type and position upon pages. It is valuable to make clear, attractive and suggestive, great cases and maxims; to emphasize these, and thus indicate their importance; various authors have attempted this. At the head of his discussions, Mr. Broom set the principal maxims under consideration ; the leading case writers set the title of cases. In this work, each is followed. Would Mr. Broom's work have been impaired had he associated with "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas," 8t. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping; or similiarly if "Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium," had been followed by Semayne's Case, or e converso, or if the leading case writers had likewise associated with the titles of their cases the maxims which introduce similar discussions? This, we think, is an important question. Indeed, we think these writers would have improved their works, had they thus asso- ciated maxims and leading case technics. One of the leading objects of the work being to furnish its possessor with a key to the library, no very extended discussion of subjects has been indulged in; securing certain ends has made it neces- sary to constitute the chapters synoptical in character ; clear, brief statements with fine citations is the constant aim, not xxxiv TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. lengthy and rounded arguments. The line of discussion is directed by the matter on hand, not from preconceived notions of symmetry and extent; such a work must be kept in close limitations: who will write all, will write forever. Such being the leading salients of the work, it makes full recognition of the value thereof, and the discussion of subjects by various authors, which is given by frequent reference to all works, and the incorporation of them by fine, full and accurate annotations, whether of text books, works on leading cases, maxims or the leading cases, with large annotations, as found in the American Decisions and Reports. A further important feature is, that at the end of each chapter in a note thereto is found a thorough reference to all the treatises, and the year of the edition upon the subject, or that treats of the chapter, or a reference to chapters in standard works bearing upon the subject. In this connection, particular attention has been given to the American and English Encyclopedia of Law, Wait's Actions and Defenses, Lawson's Rights, Remedies and Practice. Works on leading cases and maxims are woven in by the Technological Table and the indexes. It has been the earnest effort to make this feature of great value, affording very exact and apt references as to where the subject matter of each chapter or its cognate subjects are found. Its biblio- graphical features have had close and earnest attention, and it is believed this important labor will meet with welcome. The work makes full recognition of the fact, and seeks to thoroughly impress that the law is judiciary made, and that upon this force it depends far further development, stability, uniformity and firm moorings. Its largest digressions are discussions from this standpoint, and from this some conceived needful remarks are made of existing disorders of this real foundation and fountain head of the law. It is believed that the raw material from which the surpassing and rapidly growing great digests are made, needs a close revising; these "current" cases have been and are constantly leading courts further and further from firm and well ascertained boundaries. Such a review must be of cases most familiar to the reviewer; and with the facts in hand he must make more than general hints; TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxxv Introductory. he must drive at the center, and expose the evil in every possi- ble way consistent with the facts. It is time a few of the "new" cases were carefully examined, and that many of them be condemned with unsparing severity. Constitutions, statutes and precedents may clearly express and sternly com- mand, but the primal fact remains, courts, able and willing are the mainspring to the watch, the steam to the engine, the nerve force to the organism. Therefore, great prominence is given case law, and from this the work is chiefly elaborated, it everywhere giving appropriate space to the great leading annotated cases, and indicating these by positions and sug- gestive type, for the same reasons that Mr. Broom did maxims and Mr. Smith's school did cases. However, we repeat, the work is friendly to, and depends upon all, and is not commit- ted to the advocacy of Mr. J. W. Smith's theories; for it espouses and vindicates the view of Bacon and Broom with equal force. Everj' practical maxim of Mr. Broom is incor- porated in the work, and these made commonplace, and on every possible occasion the maxim and case are associated as companion pieces, presenting discussions or views positive or negative, e. g. Ubi jus ibi remedium — Ashby v. White, Chase- more V. Richards; Armory v. Delamire — Omnia prsesumuntur contra spoliatorem. Here, as in the general index and the Technological Table, these great cases and maxims are kept in the closest and most perfect touch throughout. Every real lawyer knows the value of these in the immense domain of the law as great beacon lights to guide and lead investigation, e. g. Mr. Sutherland understood this, when he placed Actus nan facit reum nisi mens sit rea, as a topic in his index to Statutory Construction. In Smith's Contracts is a fine illustration of a mind most familiar with, and attaching the greatest value to, a knowledge of leading cases. In consonance with the foregoing premises, the contents of Smith's, the American, White &Tudor's, Thompson's, Bennett & Heard's (Crim.), Redfield &Bigelow's (N. & B.), Shirley's, Law- son's, Ewell's, etc., leading cases, have been carefully arranged with reference to finding them and their valuable discussions suddenly, with facility, and in every emergency just when XXXvi TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. needed. In the preface we mention what has been done for various subjects, and especially evidence. To insure this desideratum, a Technological Table, together with its tech- nical index, is made a part of the work, and the contents of this are easily found directly by referehceto it, and besides is suggested from the popular index. This Table includes nearly fifteen hundred technics of the law, gathered and ar- ranged to carry out the above views, and to aid in accuracy, and to insure the highest utility. Associated with these technics throughout the work are all the widely known or cited and largely annotated cases which are found in the American Reports and Decisions. The work is elaborated upon a system to make the great cases and maxims, and ele- mentary rules of law, common -place and tangible to all, upon every hurried and pressing occasion, as well as to afford the outlines to every subject and question with accurate reference to its bibliography. This system is exceedingly simple, and can be comprehended by a lawyer at a glance. Clerks and mere students' with the least direction can pursue it with facility. The greatest danger of such a work is impracticability or confusion ; and this has been, we believe, carefully excluded by the system adopted. The development of the work and all its parts, keeps constantly in view the needs of the busy law- yer; it being understood that whatever is a benefit to this class, must be the end sought, and the attainment of this, a work of great value to all. THE POPULAR INDEX. It is advisable to particularly notice the functions of the popular index and the Technological Table, although in deal- ing with these, some views already presented will recur; this indicates the intimate and necessary association of the parts and their mutual dependence. The general utility of this work depends on its tables of cases and other trimmings. Therefore, its popular index is made large and copious, with full references to cognate subjects. Maxims in Latin as well as English, when practicable, are represented in it. Some English translations will barely admit of catch-word index TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxxvii Introductory. arrangement as above noticed. But those in English, how- ever, are arranged in the Technological Table, and are always associated with the Latin, and are thus linked and integrated with the work. A full and alphabetical progression of topic heads has been carefully sought. Under these, various points are briefly stated, and following this, is set the technic or title of a case or catch-word of a maxim, if such is to be found within the scope of the work. To illustrate: — Under "CON- TRACTS" would follow " Entirety OF Contracts; Doctrines OF — Cntte;- v. Powell," above introduced. Again, under "CONDI- TIONS" would follow "Conditions Precedent in Contracts — Cutter T. Powell." Again, under EXPRESSIO UNIUS, ETC., are similar index statements and associations of technics. Of course the topic "ACCIDENT" should be represented in a popu- lar index, and with this should be associated, "Actus Dei, etc.," This the clerk or student would understand was in the Technological Table; turning there he gets the fullest expres- sion of the technic, and associated with it the case technics. Again, under an apt index statement would be associated Fletcher v. Rylands. This, by its indicative type, and position would likewise refer the clerk or student to the Technological Table, where he would find this case, and the various reports of it with annotations and its associations; also with it the maxim or technic and its cognate case technic. Many of the statements of maxims and cases in this Tech- nological Table, for condensation and comprehension, most nearly resemble algebraic formulas; are as nearly like these as widely separated sciences will admit of. By these, state- ments it is sought to place the entire Subject they command in instant and certain touch, and within surprisingly easy mastery. If reference to a question of " Nuisance " is sought, this is found in the popular index, and is there associated with "Sic utere tuo, etc.," also St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, and from these in the Technological Table, the plainest sign- boards point the way to the great discussions found upon it in the library. Of course, in the popular and technical index would appear the topics "Negligence," "Contributory Neg- ligence," "Torts," "Trespass," "Nuisance" and "Acci- xxxviii TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. DENTS." Under these would be found many index statements of propositions, and with these associated the technics, and turning to these in the Technological Table the great discus- sions of various phases of these immense fields would at once be placed in the hand of the clerk or student; for here the tips of these great discussions are stated, and around them the whole subject is easily marshalled. The use of. this table on one or more occasions enables its possessor to reassemble these discussions wherever and whenever wanted. To all, the pop- ular and technical indexes make plain, available and perfectly congruous, the whole system; their ofiBce is to clear and secure the plan from confusion and unavailability for all interested in legal questions. Intelligent inquisition generally moves from what memory a£fords; trained, professional memory suggests that matter tabulated in the trimmings, and this matter ever stands like the words in a dictionary, or the subjects of an encyclopEedia, and ever leads to the main line, and in this is found full incorporation of the trimmings — index fingers of the work — by apt reference. By devices employed, the parts of the work are ingeniously linked. Additional examples are certainly unnecessary to illustrate the system. After no greater elaboration than the above, we ask how any lawyer of the least endowment can avoid finding the linked maxims and cases and great discussions? When, too, the main line of the work makes these most conspicuous, both by indicative type and position upon pages ? And all the trimmings of the work are adjusted to the same end ; are chained together, and have for results the accomplishment of the one purpose? THE TECHNOLOGICAL TABLE. It is difficult to minutely specify all the functions of the Technological Table. Through this organism, we compress the substance of more than fifty large volumes within a few pages, and place in touch that substance whenever it is desired, by means of technics, deployed as elsewhere stated, which TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xxxix Introductory. touch the great discussions so often desired, and by an index adjusted to these. In the preface, illustrations of these results are found, and especial attention is here invited to what we there set out in connection with HiUiard v. Richardson, and the statements there made with.reference to Pleadings, Practice and Evidence, particularly the undertaking relating to the latter. Not less phenomenal are the results attained in treating other subjects. In Cumber v. Wane, Allen v. Wright, Brooker v. Coffin, May v. Bur- dett, Armory v. Delamire, Hadley v. Baxendale,. St. Helen's Smelt- ing Co. V. Tapping, Audi alteram partem, Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, Caveat emptor, etc., etc., additional illustrations of accomplished facts are found. Bearing these wrought problems in mind, and others in this introduction, we should then exam- ine the index of this table. The extent and make-up of this index; the reflex of all its calls and adjusted technics, will enable the reader to form a quite definite notion of the extent and character of the matter contained in this table. In the preface, we pursue one technic, from one indice, some distance. Again we leave the reader to deal with each line of the entire index, and, if he pleases, inform us the aggre- gate result. This index, its statements and technics, certainly justify all claims for condensation of unsurpassed valuable matter — of existing great discussions — wherever and under whatever theory written; whether of maxim or leading case. So to speak, it presents the dry anatomy of the law, and this is attended with comprehensive indicators or exponents ever outlining its histology. Elsewhere we have enumerated works of which this table will be found a focus; these it presents, with fixity, permanency and system, and all are fully reflected from it. Verification of these statements depends on inspection; then. Res ipsa loquitur. The high-grade lawyer will find in it, we believe, his best remembrancer; the preceptor, an ever ready and accurate coadjutor; the student, a valuable suggester. No lawyer remembers more than a fragment of the law; all need to have it reinstated in mind, and for this, nothing is more refreshing than the statement of once familiar maxims xl TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Introductory. and cases; these always operate as a stimulant. We feel quite certain the student will not be less appreciative. The possessor of a few books will prize it for its biblio- graphical economies, too numerous to mention. These each person can estimate for himself. The possessor of many books will certainly prize it for the reasons mentioned in the preface. For the "good start" it affords, by its index, the statement and technic in juxtaposition, and to these added the citations to the technic, also its cognates, etc., we believe, all must recognize its intrinsic worth, and that this wholly flows from the use of the table. With it in hand, the clerk can be directed to gather the citations led to from the index, upon any one of the widely discussed and great annotated subjects, and without further effort upon the part of the possessor, there will be collected and marked for him, an immense array of authority; by machinery, so to speak, he is placed in possession of an extensive volume of matter, which might otherwise long elude his grasp, if, as business goes, he ever found it. Those who value time, will readily discover a great time-saver. TABLE OF CASES. (This Table is constructed for reference to cases appearing either in their alphabetical order in the Technological Table, or therein cited. Representative cases appearing in that Table are followed by the abbrevia- tions "T. T.," which stand for "Technological Table.'' Figures following the abbreviation "C," indicate pages where cases are cited. Cases only cited in the table are followed by the letter "C") Abel V. Alexander, T. T. 1. C. 101, 145, 162. Abell V. Munson, T. T. 1. C. 78, 110. Abel, Walworth v. C. 81. Ableman v. Booth, T. T. 1. C. 27, 74, 131, 178. Ableman v. Booth (1859), 11 Wis. 517. C. 1. Abrahams, Wells v. T. T. 229. C. 232. Abrams v. Foshee, T. T. 1. Ackroydv. Smithson, T. T. 1. C. 72. Acraman v. Morrice, T. T. 2. C. 76,202. Acton V. Blundell, T. T. 2, C. 191. Adams, Gebhart v. C. 175, 236. Adams, Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. C. 182. Adams V. Lindsell, T: T. S. C. 21, 63, 71, 90, 114, 203. Adams, Parker v. T. T. 137. C. 27, 49, 100, 133, 160, 225. Adams, Sargent v. T. T. 183. C. 6, 9. Adams, Tash v. C. 111. Adams V. Waggoner (1870), 33 Ind. 531; 5 Am. Rep. 230. C. 225. Addison v. Gandasequi, T. T. 4. C. 208. Afaeck, Child v. C. 25. Agar V. Fairfax, ST. T. 4. Agar V. Holdsworth, T. T. 4. Agra Bank v. Barry, T. T. 4. C. 13. Albee, Buckv. C. 26, 89. Alcorn, Shelby v. T. T. 186. C. 182. Alderman, Commw. v. C. 228. Aldons V. Cornell, T. T. 4. C. 41, 116, 177. Aldrich V. Cooper, T. T. 4. C. 61, 188. Aldrich, Grain v. T. T. 78. C. 15, 78. Aldrich V. Press Co. (1864), 9 Minn. 133; 86 Am. Dec. 84. C. 82. Alexander, Abel v. T. T. 1. C. 101, 145, 162. Alexander v. Jacoby, (1872). 23 Oh. St. 358. C.234. Aleyn v. Belchier, T. T. 4. Alger V. Thatcher, T. T. 5. C. 122. Allday, I,umby v. T. T. 113. C. 11, 25, 26, 146. Allen V. Hundred of Kirton, 2 W. Bl. 842; 3 Wils. 318. C. 236. Allen V. State, T. T. 5. C. 47, 69. Allen V. Wright, T. T. 5. C. 13, 74, 78, 84, 87, 107, 131, 148, 152, 156, 181, 183, 185, 190, 197, 210, 215, 217, 235. Allington, Welch v. C. 210. Almon, Rex v. T. T. 166. C. 84, 87, 110, 119, 153, 168, 209. Almy V. California (1860), 24 How. 169; I,aws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 199. C. 27, 109. American Popular Life Ins. Co., Fitch v. C. 225. American Print Works v. Lawrence (1851), 3 Zab. 590; 57 Am. Dec. 42-434. C. 213. Amistad, The (Cinque's Case), T. T. 6. C. 184, 190, 218. Amos V. Hughes (1835), 1 Moody & Rob. 464. C. 19. Anarchist's Case, T. T. 6. Ancaster v. Mayer, T. T. 7. Anderson v. Hapler (1864), 31 Ills. 436; 85 Am. Dec. 818. C. 214. Anderson V. State (1859),3 Head, 455; 75 Am. Dec. 774. C. 198. Anderson, Terry v. T. T. 204. C. 24, 116. Anderson v. Thompson (1881), 7 J. B. Lea, 259. C. 136. Anderson v. Tompkins, T. T. 7. C. 110. Andrew, Back v. C. 50. Andrews v. Morse (1838), 12 Conn. 444; 31 Am. Dec. 752-760. Angle V. N. W. Mut. Ins. Co., T. T. 7. C. 41, 86, 153, 204. Ankeny, McGoon v. C. 238. Anonymous, T. T. 7. C. 193. Anthony v. Haney, T. T. 7. C. 55, 235. Anthony, Un ited States v. T. T. 216. C. 3, 21, 78, 93, 94, 105, 170, 1S2. Appeal Tax Court, Gordon v. T. T. 78. C. 72. Archer, Upton v. C. 86. Armory V. Delamire, T. T. 7. C. 8, 23, 53, 59, 133, 134, 153, 166, 214, 215, 237. , Arms, MUwaukee v. T. T. 121, 122. C. 47, 71, 120. Armstrong, Durham v. T. T. 61. Armstrong, TuUet v. T. T. 211, C. 63, 127. Arndt V. Grigg (1890), 134 U. S. 316. C. 140. Arnold V. Poole, T. T. 8. C. 12, 71, 117, 152. Ash, Wenmau v. T. T. 229. C. 42, 55, 98, 114. Ashburner, Fletcher v. T. T. 72. C. 1, 214. Ashburner v. Macguire, T. T. 8. C. 17, 189. Ashby V. White, T. T. 8. C. 34, 55, 116, 188, 213 Ashl?y. Culver v. T. T. 52. C. 134. Ashton, Tarry V. T T. 202. C. 94, 210. Aslin V. Parkin, T. T. 9. Aspden's Estate, T. T. 9. C. 6, 183. Aspinall, Rushton v. T. T. 174. C. 11, 19, 22, 124, 161, 221, 236. Astorv. Wells (1819), 4 Wheat. 466. C. 173. Atchison V. Baker, T. T. 9. C. 234. Atchison & N. R. R. Co., Harden v. C. 92. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. NichoUs (1884),8Colo. 188. C. 20. Athearn, Poppe v. C. 44. Attenborough, Morley v. T. T. 124. C. 98. Auriol V. Mills, T. T. 11. Austin, Fletcher V. C. 101. Avery v. Avery (1854), 12 Tex. 54; 62 Am.- Dec. 513. C. 52. Avery, Scott v. T. T. 184. C. 88. Aylesbury, Howe v. T. T. 91. Aylesworth v. People (1872 1, 65 Ills. 301. C. 93. Ayre v. Craven, T. T. 11. C, 25, 113, 146. xlli TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. B Baehelder v. Brown (1882), 47 Mich. 866, 370. O. 60. Bachert, Weaver v. C. 215. Bachman v. People (1885), 8 Colo. 472. C. 18. Back V. Andrew (1609), 2 Vern. 120; Pre. Ch. (Finch's) 1; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 230; Ewell's I,. C. Inf. Id. & cov. 488. C. 50. Backhouse, Bonomi v. C. 231. Backman v. Wright (1855), 27 Vt. 187; 63 Am. Dec. 187.C.173. Bacon V. Bassett (1865), 19 Wis. 45. C. 145. Bacon, State v. T. T. 192. C. 46, 47, 147. Bdgley, Comtnw. v. T. T. 36. Bagley V. McMickle (1858), 9CaUf. 430. C. 38. Baily V. Baily (1883). 44 Pa. St. 274. C. 90. Bailey V. DeCrespigny, T. T. 12. C. 109, 203. Bailey v. Mayor, T. T. 11. C. 85, 143, 172, 229, 232 Bailey, Morrison v. T. T. 124. C. 12, 67, 227. Bailey v. Smith (1863), 14 Ohio St. 396; 84 Am. Dec. 885-405 C. 201. Bain v. Fothergill, T. T. 12.. Bainbridge v. Firmstone, T. T. 12. C. 13, 53, 209. Baird, Watkins v. C. 177. Baker, Atchison v. T. T. 9. C. 234. Baker, Duncan v. T. T. 61. C. 24, 53. Baker v. Haldeman (1857), 24 Mo. 219; 69 Am. Dec 430. C. 76. Baker, Horn v. T. T. 90. C. 52, 90, 109, 122, 152, 162. Baker, People v. C. 239. Baker, State v. T. T, 192. C. 35, 133, 197. Baker, ThornbrouEh v. T. T. 209. Baldey v. Parker, T. T. 12. C. 210. Baldry, Reg. v. T. T. 155. C. 128, 129, 152, 159. 161, 166. Baldwin y. Franks (1887), 120 U. S. 678. C. 112. Baldwin v. Hale (1863), 1 Wall. 223; I,aws. I<. C. Const. Law Simp. 251. C. 133. Baldwin, King v. T. T. 101. C. 1, 12. 81, 33, 57, 82, 133, 145, 146, 155, 162, 163, 199, 218, 231. Ballou, Murray v. C. 210. Baltimore, Mayor of, Barron v '^. T. 13. C. 174. Bait. & O. R. R. Co., Hawker v. C. 142. Baltimore, I/jrd, Penn v. T. T. 110. C. 213, 214. Bankhead, Williams v. T. T. 234. C. 14, 19, 33. 122. 123, 127, 156, 167, 170, 220. Banks, Goul(^v. C. 149. Bank, Snodgrass v. C. 68, 231. Bank of Alexandria v. Swann, T. T. 12. C, 16. 108. 124, 227. Bank of America, Woodworth v. T. T 237. C. 41, 55. Bank of Charleston, Dearing v. T. T. 55. C. 53, 96, 176. Bank of Columbia v. Lawrence T. T. 12. C. 16. Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, T. T. 12. C. 8. Bank of Kentucky, Briscoe v. C. 50. Bank of Steubenville v. Leavitt, T. T. 12. C. 57. 101, 231. Bank of Stockton, Easton v. C. 216. Bank of Tennessee, Seay v. C. 7. Bank of U. S., Mills v. T. T. 121. Bank of U. S., Osborn v. T. T. 135. C. 19, 68, 128. Bank of U. S. v. Smith, T. T. 13. C. 118. Bank of U. S., Voorhees v. T. T. 226. C. 19, 44, 123, 125, 152, 161, 170, 187, 221. Bank of Washington, McGruderv. T. T. 118. C. 13. Bannister, Brice v. T. T. 23. C. 44, 227 Banta v. Savage (1S77). 12 Nev. 151; 7 Mor. Min. Rep. 113. C. 92. Barber, Tobey v. T. T. 210. C. 54, 133. Barker v. Braham, T. T 13. C. 6, 78, 182. Barker, Omichund v. T. T. 134. C. 158. Barker, Parker v. C. 135. Barkerv. Pullman P Car Co. (1878), 4 Colo. 344; 84 Am. Rep, 89. C. 226. Barker, Rew v. C. 136. Barnes V. Beighly (1886), 9 Colo. 475. C. 92. Barney, Parrott v. C. 130. Barnhart, Christy v. C. 108. Baronet, Ex parte (1852), 16 Law and Eq. 361; 1 Pearce C. C. 51; 1 El. & Bl. 1 (72 H. C. L. R). C. 203. Baronet, Ex parte, T. T. 13. Barr, B ^yer v. C. 122. Barr, Turney v. T. T. 212. C. 51, 183, 193, 221. Barrett, Spaids v. C. 89. Barrettv. White (1825), 3 N. H. 210; 14 Am. Dec. 352. C. 114. Barron V. Mayor of Baltimore, T. T. 13. C. 174. Barrow, Shields v. C. 123, 234. Barry, Agra Bank v. T. T. 4. C. 13. Barry, Brodie v. T. T. 24 C. 233. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, T. T. 13. C. 27, 109, 135, 189. Bartholomew v. Jackson, T. T. 13. C. 12, 21, 53, 104, 121. Bartlett, Boston & Maine Co. v. T. T. 21. C. 3. Bartlett v. Crozier (1820), 17 Johns. R. 456. C. 235. Basel, Mackey v. C. 201. Basely, Huguenin v. T. T. 91. Basford v. Pearson (1864), 9 Allen 387; 85 Am. Dec. 764. C. 86. Bassett, Bacon v. C. 145. Bassett v. Nosworthy, T. T. 13. C. 4, 69, 70, 77, 86, 94, 108. 109, 126, 153, 201. Batchelor, Rogers & Sons v. T. T. 172. C. 98, 110, 117. Bates V. Bulkley, T. T. 14. C. 67, 68, 126, 234. Bates, Steele v. C 66. Batty V. Carswell, T. T. 14. C. 49, 97, 133, 139, 173, 208. Bauerman v. Radenius, T. T. 14. C. 57, 60, 99, 157, ^58, 163, 164, 165. Baxendale, Hadley v. T. T. 80. C. 43, 95, 105, 112, 113, 120, 157, 166, 176, 184, 188. 207, 224. Baxter v. Portsmouth. T. T. 14. C. 122, 217. Baxter, Tarling v. T. T. 202. C. 2, 64, 76, 186, 204, 232. Baynton, Cryps v. T. T. 51. Bean, Commw. v. T. T. 86. C. 235. Bean v. Tonnele (1884), 94 N. Y. 381; 46 Am. Rep. 153. C. 163. Beattv, Brown v. T. T. 26. C. 103, 178, 211. Beatty v. Ebury (1874), 7 Ho. Lds. Cas. 102; 9 Mo. Eng. R. 64. C. 144. Beaumont v. Reeve, T. T. 14. C. 53. Beaver, People v. C. 219. Beck, State v. T. T. 192. C. 35, 197, 225. Beckett v. Cuenin (1891), 15 Colo. 281. C. 10, 21, 175. Beebe, Fitzgerald v. C. 215. Beer Co. v. Massachusetts (1877), 7 Otto 25; Myer's Ves. Rights, 584; Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 275, note. C. 13. Behn V. Burness, T. T. 14. C. 31. Behymer v. Cook (1880), 5 Colo. 899. C. 68, 122, .134. Behymer V. Nordloh (1888), 12 Colo. 852. C. 234. Beighly, Barnes v. C. 92. Belcher v. Chambers, T. T. 15. C. 71, 127, 183, 211. Belchier, Aleyn v. T. T. 4 Belknap V. Sealey (1856), 14 N. Y. (4 Kern.) 148; 67 Am. Dec. 120. C. 23, 126. Bell V. Brown, T. T. 15. C. 5, 146, 193, 200. Bell, Dixon v. T. T. 6M. C. 73, 76, 211. Bell, Doe d. Rigge v. T. T. 59. Bell V. Hansley (1855), 3 Jones Law (N. C ) 131 C 225 Bell v. Morrison, T. T. 15. C. 2, 202, 221, 231. Bell, Rigge V. T. T. 171. C. 35, 59. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xim Bell, Smith v. T. T. 189. C. 237. Bell V. Twilight, T. T. 15. C. 9, 13, 31, 212. Bemis, Kelly v. T. T. 100. C. 121, 136. Bemis v. Leonard (1875), 118 Mass. 502; 19 Am. Rep. 470. C. 227. Bendeniagle v. Cocks, T. T. 15. C, 78. Benedict, Lange v. T. T. 105. C. 22, 21, 30, 55, 145, 168, 177, 179, 198, 201. Benedict, Montagu v. T. T. 123. Benedict, Seaton v. T. T. 185. C. 55, 9B, 114, 190. Benham, State v. T. T, 192. C. 217, 218. Benjamin, Gibbs v. T. T. 76. C. 2, 202, 232. Bennett, Ex parte, C. 136. Bennett, Fry v. C. 19. Bennett v. New Jersey R. R. Co., T. T. 18. C. 209. Bennett, Salmon v. T. T. 178. C. 3, 89, 185, 212. Berdell v. Bissell (1882' 8 Colo. 162, 164. C. 19, 20, 23, 44, 93, 145. Bergen v. People (1858), 17 Ills. 426; 65 Am. Dec. 872-679, notes. C. 185. Bergen v. Rig?s (1864), 40 Ills. 61; 89 Am. Dec. 335. C. 135 Bergheim v. Great East. R. R. Co. T. T. 16. C.ISO. Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor, T. T. 16. C. SO. Bernard, Coggs v. T. T. 35. C. SO, 95, 154, 155, Berrian v. State, T. T. 18. C. 108, 220, 238. Berrington, Rees v. T. T. 155. C. 33, 101, 162, 231. Bertles v. Nunan (1883), 92 N. Y. 152-156. C. 50. Bertschy, McI,eod v. T. T. 120. Beshoar, Skinner v. C. 20. Beverly's Case, T. T. 16. C. 217. Beverly, U. S. v. C. 60. Bickerdike v. BoUman, T. T. 16. C. 12, 90, 108, 171. Bickford, Carleton v. T. T. 30. C. 84. Biesenthall v. Williams (1864), 1 Duvall, 329; 85 Am. Dec. 629. C. 40. Biffle, Smiley v. C. 231. Biggs V. State (1860), 29 Ga. 723; H. & T. S. D. 744r-757. C. 218. Bills, Ingalls v. T. T. 95. C. S5. Billings, Marsh v. T. T. 115. C. 138. Billings, Providence Bank v. T. T. 149. C. 118, 138. Bindley, Felthouse v. T. T. 71. C. 3. Bingham, Miffin v. C. 159. Bird V. Brown (1846), 4 Exch. 793. C. 109. Birkmyr v. Darnell, T. T. 18. Birmingham & Gloucester R. R. Co., Reg. V. T. T. 156. C. 157. Bissell, Berdell V. C. 19, 20, 23, 44, 93, 145. Bissell V. Spring Valley Township, T. T. 18. C. 10, 39, 60, 92, 182. Black, Stite v. C. 197. Blackburne, Craufurd v. C. 163. Blackett v. Royal Exc. Ass'n Co., T. T. 17. C 191 233 Blakey/ciayton v. T. T 35. C. 171. Blanchard, Western Un. Tel. Co. v. C. 230. Bland V. Mayo, T. T. 17. C. 8. Blandy v. Widmore, T. T. 17. Blaukman, Boyd v. T. T. 22. C. 11, 19, 32, 67, 94, 174, 221, 224, 231. Blantern, Collins v. T. T. 38, 42, 84, 65, 86, 84, 88, 89, 97, 98, 99, 151, 178. Blood V. Light (1866), 31 Calif. 115. C. 92. Bloom v. Burdick, T. T. 17. C. 11, 32, 120, 123, 171, 175, 192, 224, 235. Bloom v. Richards, T. T. 17. C. 57, 88, 138, 183, 184, 200. Bloomington, City of, Gridley v. C. 23, 88. Blower v. Great Western R. R. Co., T. T. 18. Blue Gravel Co., Curnow v. C. 92. Bluett, White v. T. T. 232. Blundell, Acton v. T. T. 2. C. 191. Boadle, Byrne v. T. T. 29. C. 99, 186. Board County Commrs. v. Goddard (1879), 22 Kans. 389, 399 C. 32. Boehm, Carter v. T. T. SI. C. 111. Bogardus, Hurlbiird v. C. 212. Boggs V. Merced Min. Co., T. T. 18. Boldero, Godsall v. T. T. 77. C. 54, 107, 111. BoUman, Bickerdike v. T. T. 16. C. 12, 90, 108, 171. Bond, County of, White v. T. T. 232. C. 12, 85, 88, 143, 175, 178, 229. Bonnell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., T. T. 18 C. 132 201 Bonnell v. Wilder, T. T. 18, 19. C. 4, 42. 115. Bonomi v. Backhouse (1858), 9 Ho. Ld. Cas. 603; El. Bl. & El. 822 (98 E. C. L. R.); IB Mor. Min. Rep. 677. C. 231- Booth, Ableman v. C. 1. Booth, Ableman v. T. T. 1. C. 27, 74, 131, 178. Booth, In re (1854), 8 Wis. 13-19o. C. 1. Borden v. Fitch, T. T. 19. C. 65, 127, 140. Borden, Hunsaker v. T. T. 93. C. 34, ,56, 188, 169,177,213. BDrkenhagen v. Paschen, T. T. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. C. 9, 10, 11, 44, 45, 48, 60, 61, 67„ 68, 72, 79, 88, 92, 93, 96, 106, 115, 119, 123, 125, 135, 145, 161, 162, 170, 174, 179, 180, 183, 213, 221, 228, 234, 235, 236. Borland v. Guffey, T. T. 21. C. 3. Boston & Me., Co. v. Bartlett, T. T. 21. C. 3. Boston, City of, toring v. T. T. 112. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., Farwell v. T. T. 70. C. 87, 105, 119, 148, 153. Boston, Hill V. T. T. 86. C. 85, 175. Bo.ston Ice Co. v. Potter, T. T. 21. C. 13, 53, 78, 99, 100, 104, 186, 235, 240. Boston, Lowell v. C. HI. Boston & Me. R. R., Moses v. C. 165. Boston, Parks v. C. 166. Boston R. R. Co,, Wright v. C. 174, 236. Bostwick, Merry v. C. 3. Bostwick V. Stiles, T. T. 21. C. 2, 27, 93, 94, 98, 108, 216. Bosville, Glenorchy v. T. T. 77. Boucicault V. Fox (1862), 5 Blatch. 87, 101. C. 149. Boughten, Savacool v. T. T. 183. 184, C. 6, 11, 18, 20,83, 78, 123, '152, 168, 177, 181, 197, 201. Bowes, Strathmore v. T. T. 199. Bowman v. Gonegal (1867), 19 La. Ann. 328; 92 Am. Dec. 587. C. 72. Bowman v. Smiley (1858), 31 Pa. St. 225; 72 Am. Dec. 738. C. 103. Box V. Jubb, T. T. 21. C. 87. Boyd V. Blankman, T. T. 22. C. 11, 19, 32, 67, 94, 174, 221, 224, 231. Boyd, Quimby v. C. 19, 20, 44. Boyd, Renick v. C. 214. Boydell V. Drummond, T. T. 22. C. 78, 87, 221, 224. Boyer v. Barr (1878), 8 Neb. 68; 30 Am. Rep. 814. C. 122. Bradbury v. Cronise (1873), 48 Calif. 287; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 868 C. 92. Bradford v. Kimberly, T. T. 22. C. 53. Bradley, Cook v. T. T. 47. C 53. Bradley v. Fisher, T. T. 22. C. 3, 48. 105, 179. Bradley v. People, T. T. 22. C. 43, 176, 187. Bradwell v. State, T. T. 22. Brady, Smith v T. T. 189. C. 68. Brady v. Weeks, T. T. 22. C. 24, 187, 190, 225. Braham, Barker v, T. T. 13. C. 8, 78, 183. Braiuard, New London v. C. 111. Branch v. Libbey (1888), 78 Me. 321; 57 Am. Rep. 810. C. 163. Brandon v. Old (1828), 8 Car. & P, 540 (14 E. C. L. R.). C. 188. Brannon, People v. C. 18. Brant, Northwestern Distilling Co. v. C. 69. Brathwait, Lampleigh v. T. T. 104. C. 13, 44, 58, 57, 87, 121, 155, 221. Brazil, State v. T. T. 193. C. 168, 196. xliv TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Breasted v. Farmer's Loan & T, Co. (1853), 8 N. Y. 299; 59 Am. Dec, 482, C. 225. Bree V. Holbreck (1781), Doug. 654. C. 66. Breese v. State, T. T. 2S. C. 3. Breeze V. Haley (1888), 11 Colo. S51. C. 10, 46, 61. Brett, Wilson v. T. T. 236. C. 35. Brewer, Phelps v, T. T. 144. C. 11, 91, 107. Bricev. Bannister, T. T. 23. C. 44, 227. Brice V. Stokes, T. T. 23. Brickland, Oliver v. T. T. 134. Bridgeford v. Masonville etc. Co. (1868), 84 Conn. 546; 91 Am. Dec. 744. C. 38. Bridges v. Winters (1868), 42 Miss. 135; 97 Am. Dee. 443. C. 237. Brintnall, Van Voorhis v. T. T. 222. C. 182. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky (1837), 11 Pet. 207; Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp 212. C. 50. Bristol V. Burt, T. T. 23. C. 8, 111. Bristow V. Wright, T T. 23. 24. C. 10, 11, 19, 20, 23, 44, 45, 46. 55, 67, 68 101. 102, 126, 135, 162, 170, 172, 200, 220, 233, 235. Britton V. Turner, T. T. 24. C 53, 61, 211. Brockport, Trustees of, Weet v. T. T. 229. C. 85 143 232 Broderv. Saillard, T. T. 24. C. 146, 176, 190. Brodie v. Barry, T. T. 24. C. 283. Brodribb, Rex v. T. T. 166. C. 193, 196. Brogden, Humphries v. T. T. 92. C. 76, 137, 190 209 Brogien V. Marriott, T. T. 24. C. 28. Bromage v. Prosser, T T. 24. C. 3, 11, 25, 29, 33, 67, 82, 83, 91, 97, 166. Bronson v. Fitzhugh, T. T. 24, C. 64. Bronson v. Kinzie, T. T. 24. C. 63, 93, 116, 132, 178, 204. Bronson, Newton v. C. 213. Bronson v. Schulten (1881), 104 U. S. 410, 415. C. 135. Brook, Finch v. T. T. 72. C. 115. 125. Brooker v. Coffin, T. T. 24. C. 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 55, 57, 76, 82, 83, 91, 97, 101, 113, 114, 188, 139, 146, 197, 209, 210, 227. Brooks V. Bruyn (1864), 40 Ills. 64. C. 135. Brooks, Harris v. T. T. 82. C. 65, 101, 199. Brooks V. Martin, T. T. 26. C. 65, 89, 95. Brooks, Murdock v. C. 224. Brooks, Pearce v. T. T. 139. C. 65, 88, 139, 191. Brookshire v. Brookshire, T. T. 26. C. 110, 130. Brown, Bachelder v. C. 60. Brown v. Beatty, T. T. 26. C. 103, 178, 211. Brown, Bell v. T. T 15. C. 5, 146, 193, 200. Brown, Bird v. C. 109. Brown v. Butcher's & Drover's Bank, T. T. 26. C. 32, 66, 233. Brown V. C. M. & St. P. R. R. Co. (1882), 54 Wis. 842; 41 Am. Rep. 41, 51. C. 226. Brown V. Collins, T. T. 26. C. 2, 62. 73. Brown V. Colquitt (1884), 73 Ga. 59; 54 Am. Rep. 869. C. 86. Brown V. Co. Commrs. (1853). 21 Pa. St. 87. C. 224. Brown, Elliott v. T. T. 83. C. 85, 197. Brown V. Kendall, T. T. 26. C. 2, 73, 106, 130, 184. Brown V. Lamphear, T. T. 27. C. 21, 93, 94. Brown, Mahan v. T. T. 114. C. 28, 142, 171, 187. Brown v. Maryland, T. T. 27. C. 13, 109, 135. Brown, MiUken v. C. 52. Brown, Reg. v. T. T. 156. C. 6, 131, 185. Brown V. Saul (1826), 4 Martin N. S. 431; 16 Am. Dec. 175-184. C. 216. Brown, Stewart v. T. T. 198. C. 103, 134, 188, 216, 222. Brown V. Sullivan, T. T. 27. C. 178. Brown V. Swineford (1878), 44 Wis. 282; 2S Am. Rep. 582. C. 121. Brown, Taylor v T, T. 203. C. 222. Brownlow, Egerton v. T. T. 63. C. 88. Bruce, No. 5 Min. Co. v. C. 45. Brugler, Fries v. T. T. 74. C. 46, 51, 61, 66, 128, 177. Brunst, State V. C. 141. Bruyn, Brooks V. C. 135. Bryan, Thorogood v. T. T. 209. C. 16, 226. Bryden, McChntock v. C. 18. Buck V. Albee (1854), '26 Vt. 184; 62 Am. Dec. 564. C. 26, 89. Buck V. Colbath, T. T. 27. C. 1, 74, 131, 188, 214. Buck V. Swazey (1852), 35 Me. 41; K) Am. Dec. 681. C. 67. Buchanan, Losee v. T. T. 112. Buckout V. Swift (1865), 27 Calif. 433; 87 Am. Dec. 90. C. 162. Budden, Wood v. C. 23. Budlong, Rathbon v. T. T. 155. C 208. Buffalo, Hodges v. C. 111. Bug Case, T. T. 27. Bulkeley V. Landon, T. T. 28. C. 53. Bulkley, Bates v. T. T. 14. C. 67, 6S, 126, 234. Bull,'calder v. T. T. 29. C. 132, 178. Bull V. Griswold, T. T. 27. C. 73, 98, 116, 120, 133, 137, 176, 177, 215, 225. Bull, McKyring v. T. T. 119. C. 20, 21, 42, 72,97.115.110, 125,179. Bull, Simmons V. C 147. Bullock, Little Rock v. C. 136. Bunn V. Riker, T. T. 28. C. 24, 53, 65, 77, 88. Burdett, May v. T. T. 116, 117. C. 62, 73, 112, 117, 176, 187, 213, 222. Burdick, Bloom v. T. T. 17. C. 11, 32, 120, 123, 171, 175, 192, 224, 235. Burgess v. Gray, T. T. 28. C. 34, 87. Burke V. Smith, T. T. 28. C. 3, 114, 171. 187. Burke, State v. C 192. Burns V. Hamilton's Admrs. (1858), 33 Ala. 210; 70 Am. Dec. 570. C. 82. Burness, Behn v. T. T. 14. C. 81. Burnett, Quarman v. T. T. 151. C. 34, 87, 155 Burriu v. Phillips, T. T. 28. Burrows v. March Gas & Coke Co. , T. T. 28. C. 176. Burt, Bristol v. T. T. 23. C. 8, 111. Burtch v. Nickerson, T. T. 28. C. 25, 139, 146, 227. Burton, Kennard v. T. T. 100. C. 49, 137. Burton V. Knapp (1862), 14 la. 196; 81 Am. Dec. 46.5-480. C. 211. Burton, Sturges v. T. T. 200. C 15, 68, 115, 126, 149. Bush, Harrison v. T. T. 82. C. 24, 25, 38, 83, 91, 176, 177, 210, 230, 232. Busteed v. Parsons, T. T. 28. C. 30, 55, 145, 1»6, 168, 177, 179, 198. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank, Brown v. T. T. 26. C. 82, 66, 233. Butler v. Pennsylvania. T. T. 29. Butler, Ross v. T. T. 173. Butler V. Winona Mill Co. (1881), 28 Minn. 205; 41 Am. Rep. 277. C. 184. Butterfield v. Fqrrester, T. T. 29. C. 54, 83, 113, 133, 154, 171, 225. Buzick, Ferrier V. C. 210. Byers v. Rollins (1889), 13 Colo. 22, 25. C. 39, 68. Byne v. Moore, T. T. 29. C. 25, Byrkmyr v. Darnell, T. T. 29. C. 16, 62, 104. Byrne v. Boadle, T. T. 29. C. 99, 186. c Cady, Kortright v. T. T. 103. Calder v. Bull, T. T. 29 C. 132, 178. Calder v. Halkett, T. T. 30. C. 28, 105, 134, 146, 198. Caldwell v, Carrington's Heirs (1835), 9 Pet. 86. C. 210. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. xlv Caldwell v. Center (1868), 30 Calif. 539; 89 Am. Dec. 131. C. 224. Caldwell, ffaylor v. T. T. 203. C. 2, 12, 81, 109, 171. Caldwell v. Vanvlissengen, T. T. 30. Califorma, Almy V, C. 27, 109, Calye's Case, T. T.30. C. 16, 35. Cameron, Freer v. C. 225. Campbell, People v. T. T. 140. C. 30, 218. Campbell V. People, T. T. 30. C. 140, 163, 218 Campbell, Pym v. T. T. 150. 151. C. 97, 110, 114, 130, 181, 190, 191. Campbell v. Race (1851), 7 Cush. (Mass.) 408; 54 Am. Dec 728-734. C. 181. Campbell v. Seaman, T. T. 30. C. 176. Campbell v. Shiland (1890), U Colo. 491. C. 149. Campbell v. Smith (1877), 71 N. Y. 26; 27. Am. Rep. 5. C. 85. Campbell V. State, T. T. 30. C. 161. Cannon v. New Orleans, T. T. 30 C. 136, 149, Cantrell v. Colwell (1859), 3 Head ( Tenn.), 471. C. 110. Caphart v. Dodd (1868), 8 Bush. 584; 96 Am. Dec. 258. C. 64, 153, 200, 208. Capital & Counties Bank v. Henty, T. T. 80. C.26 Carew, Western Un. Tel. Co. v. T. T. 230. "Carleton v. Bickford, T. T. 30. C. 84. Carpenter V. Carpenter (1883), 80 Kan. 712: 46 Am. Rep. 108. C. 124. Carpenter v. King (1845), 9 Met 511; 2 Am. I,ead. Cas. 427; 43 Am. Dec. 405. C. 101. Carpenter v. Washington Ins. Co., T. T. 31. C. 61. Carr, Roberts v. C. 67. Carotti v. State, T. T. 30. C. 15, 31. Carrmgton's Heirs, Caldwell v. C. 210. Carroll v. Marine Ins. Co.. T. T. 31. C. 61. Carslake v. Mapledoram, T. T. 31. C. 24, 25, 97. Carswell, Batty v. T. T. 14. C. 49, 97, 133, 139, 178, 208. Carter V. Boehm, T. T. 31. C. 111. Carter, Singletary v. T. T. 188. C. 9, 58, 66, 99, 131, 181. Carthage, Cullen v. C. 143. Carver, Waugh v. T. T. 229. C. 49, 110. Carwardine, Williams v. T. T. 235. C. 21, 48. Casborne v. Scarfe, T. T 31. C. 114. Case V. Cushman (1842), 3 Watts & Serg. 544; 39 Am. Dec. 47. C. 218. Case, Hurd v. T. T. 93. Case, Prince v. T. T. 148. C. 161, 237. Caspar, Reg. v. T. T. 156. C. 168. Castro, People v. C. 174, 238. Castro V. Richardson (1861), 18 Calif. 478. C. 223 Catchpole, Ledwith v. T. T. 107. C. 5, 148, 183, 210. Cates V. McKinney (1874), 48 Ind. 582. C. 220. Catlin V. Skoulding, T. T. 31 C. 132, 224, 231. Catlin V. Valentine, T. T. 31. C. 178.. Cave, Payne v. T. T. 139. C. 48. Center, Caldwell v. C. 224. Central P. R. R. Co., Durkee v. C. 142 Chalmers v. Payne, T. T. 33, C. 24, 25, 97. Chambers, Belcher v. T. T. 15. C. 71, 127, 183, 211. Chamberlin, Elwell v. C. 19. Chamberlin, Parsons v. C. 228. Chance v. Hine (1826), 6 Conn. 231-232. C. 159. Chancy's Case, T. T. 33. C. 67, 69. Chandelor v. I,opus, T. T. 33. C. 31, 98, 112, 138, 185. Chandelor, I,opus v. T. T. 112. Chandler, Craig v. C. 19, 20 Chapin v. School District (1837), 35 N. H.445. C. 69. Chapman, Dennis v, C. 164. Charles v. Hoskins, T. T. 33. C. 101, 133, 155. Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge, T. T. 33. C. 76. Charleston, City Council of, Weston v. T.T. 230. C. 50, 118. Chase, Fairfield Bank v. C 173. Chasemore v. Richards, T. T. 34. C. 8, 55, 64, 113, 116. 188, 191, 213. Chauvin v. Valiton (1889), 8 Mont. 451. C. 51. Che-ire, Watson v. C. 32. Chesterfield v. Jansen, T. T. 34. C. 99. Chicago, B. & Q. R R. Co. v. Iowa (1878), 1 Otto, 155; Laws. L C. Const. Law Simp. 281 C. 126, 140. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R. Co., Brown v. C.226- Chicago & N. W R. R. Co., Croaker v. C. 121. Chicago, Northern Trans. Co. v. T. T. 132. C 85 95. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., Peik v. T. T. 140. C. 126. Chicago, R I. & P. R. R. Co. v. McAra (1869), 52 Ills. 298 C. 193, 236 Chicago V. Powers (1866), 42 Ills. 169; 89 Am. Dec. 418. C. 163. Chicago v. Robbins, T. T. 34. C. 28, 87, 151, 155, 171. Chicago, Robbins v. T. T. 171. Chicago Zinc Co , Wickersham v. C. 173. Child V. Affleck (1829), 9 Barn. & Cress. 403 (17E. C. L. R). C. 25. Chisholm v. Georgia, T. T. 34. C. 93, 142, 168, 199, 213. Chitty, Cooper V T. T. 48. Chitty, State v. T. T. 193. Cho\mondeley v. Clinton (1820), 2 Jacob & Walk. 1. C 232. Chrisp, State v. C. 188. Christ v. People ( 1877 ), 3 Colo. 394. C. 239. Christmas v. Oliver, T. T. 34 C. 20, 59. Christopher, First Nat. Bank of Hights- town V. C. 173. Christy v. Barnhart (1850), 14 Pa. St. 260; 58 Am. Dec. 538. C. 108. Chrysolite Silver Min. Co., Sullivan v. C. 4. Chy Lung v. Freeman, T. T. 34. C. 48, 50, 109. 189, 217. Cincinnati, City of, v. First Pres. Church ( 1838), 8 Ohio 298; 32 Am. Dec. 718. C. 133, 143. Cinque's Case, See The Amistad, T. T. 6. C. 184, 190, 218. Citizen's Savings Bank, Jemison v. C. 137. City Bank V. Cutter (1826), 3 Pick. (Mass.) 414. C. 237. City Ins Co , Harper v. T. T. 83 C. 67, 181. Civil Rights Cases (1888), 109 U. S. 3. C. 112. Claggett, George v. T. T. 75. C. 72, 106, 223. Clap, Commw. v. T. T. 36. C. 26, 82. Clarencieux, Holt v. T T. 89. C. 48. 93. Clark V. Clay (1855), 31 N. H. 393. C. 81. Clark, Commw. v. C. 106. Clark v. Downing (1882), 55 Vt. 259; 45 Am. Rep. 612. C. 35. Clark, Dyer v. T. T. 62. C. 35. Clarke v. Gray (1805), 6 East, 568. C. 236. Clarke. Reg. v. T. T. 156. C. 188. Clark, Harris v. C. 227. Clark, Holmes v. T. T. 89. C. 225. Clark, McCully v. T. T. 118 C. 99. Clark V. Mo^dy, T. T. 35. Clark V. Ostrander (1823), 1 Cow. 437; 13 Am. Dec. 546. C. 187. Clark, Rex V. C. 169. Clark, Spencer v. T T. 191. Clark, State v. C. 77. Clark, Sutton v. T. T. 201. C. 105, 125. 133, 183. Clark, Ward v. T. T. 227. C. 25. 26, 28. 97. Clart, Zaleski v. T. T. 240. C. 21, 100, 186, 232. Clason, Merritt v. C. 26. Clay, Clark v. C. 81 xlvi TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Clayton v. Blakey, T. T, 35. C. 171. Clemenis, Wright v. T. T. 238. C. 16. Clements. Wright v. C. 224. Cleveland, Jackson v. T. T. 97. C. 20, 36, 64, 150, 151, 166. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co., Kerwhacker v. T. T. 100. C. 1,54. Cleves v. Willougtiby, T. T. 85. C. 32, 36, 82, 189. Clinton, Cholmondeley v. C. 232. Closson V. Staples (1869), 42 Vt. 209; 1 Am. Rep. S16, C. 216. Clough, Dalton v. C. 4. Coates, Wightman v. T. T. 233. C. 234. Cochran, Simpson v. T. T. 188. C. 92, 128. Cocks, Bendernagle v. T. T. 15. C. 78. Codman, Souter v. C. 203. Cody, Dunlap v. T. T. 61. C 2, 51, 66, 74, 177. Cody, Filley v. C. 136. Coffin, Brooker v. T. T. U. C. 24, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 55, 67, 76, 82, 83, 91. 97, 101, 113, 114, 138, 139. 146, 197, 209. 210, 227. Cofield, Tilton v. T. T 210. C. 108, 109, 183. Coegs v. Bernard, T T. 35. C. 30, 95, 154, 155, 236. Cohen, McElmoyle v. T. T. 118. C. 91, 107, 121, 128. Cohoes Co., Hay v. T. T. 84 C. 211. Cohoes Co., Tremain v. T. T. 211. C. 84. Colbath, Buck v. T. T. 27. C. 1, 74, 131, 188, 214. Cole, Commw. v. T. T. 36. Cole, Horn v. T. T. 90. C. 5, 20, 60, 66, 109, 122, 13S, 141, 144, 162, 165, 181, 182, 228. Cole, Small V. C. 236. Cole, Taylor v, T. T. 203. C. 151, 154, 176, 177, 215. Cole v. Turner, T.T. 35. C. 37, 43, 63, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 202. Coleman, Pool v. T. T. 146. C. 24. Coles V. Coles, T. T. 35. C. 62. Collector v Day, T. T. 35. C. 118. Collen V. Wright, T. T. 35. C. 48, 104, 189, 209. Collins V. Blantern, T. T. 36 C. 42, 64, 65, 66, 84, 88, 89, 97, 98, 99, 151, 178. Collins, Brown v. T. T. 26 C. 2, 62, 73 Collins V. Godcfroy (1831), 1 Barn. 8t Adol. 950 ( 20 E. C. L. R.). C. 199. Collins, Reg. v. T. T. 158. C. 3, 42, 197, 151. Collins v. State, T. T. 36. Colquitt, Brown v. C 86. Colt, Gilbert v. C. 214. Colwell, Cintrell v C. 110. Commercial Ins. Co., Kane v. T. T. 99 Commrs. of Arapahoe Co v. Cutter (1877), 3 Colo. 849 351. C. 109, 216. Commw. V. Alderman ( 1808), 4 Mass. 477. C. 228. Commw. V. Bagley, T. T. 36. Commw. V. Bean, T. T. 36. C. 235. Commw. V. Clap. T. T 36. C. 26, 82. Commw. V. Clark (1849), 4 Cush. 596. C. 106. Commw. V. Cole, T. T. 36 Commw. V. Cook, T. T. 38. C. 2. Commw. V. Cummings, T. T. 37. C 140. Commw. V. Dascom (1873), 111 Mass. 404. C. 228 Commw. V. Eastman, T. T.37. C. 66, 94, 175, 23.5 Commw. V. Ebelle, T. T. 37. C. 190. Commw. V. E'well, T. T 37. Commw. V. Eyre, T. T. 37. C. 35, 197. Commw. V. Foster, T. T. 37. Commw. V. Green, T. T 37. Commw. V. Hart, T. T 37. Commw. V. Hartnett (1855), 3 Gray, 450. C. 213. Commw., Hawkins v. T. T. 84. C. 5, 59, 185. Commw., Hey V. C. 46. Commw. v. Holder, T. T. 37. C. 43, 193 Commw. V. Holmes (1879), 127 Mass. 424; 34 Am. Rep. 391 C. 158. Commw. V. James, T. T. 37. Commw. V. Kane, T. T. 87. C. 7, 17, 38, 40, 41, 55, 60, 81, 84, 86, 104, 108, 115, 117, 121, 127, 130, 134, 149, 207. 220, 237. Commw. V. Keyes (1858), 11 Gray, 323-326. C. 46,144. Commw. V. Knapp, T. T. 42. C. 99, 101, 166, Commw. Ins. Co., I 221. Compounding oppensbs; Illegal contracts: No valid agreement can be made to stifle a prosecution ot a public offense. Collins v. Blan- ternj Commw. y. Pease; Jones v. Rice; Holman v. Johnson. 100 TECHNOLOGY OF L\W. • Technological Table. Kelly X. Bemis (1855), 4 Gray, 83; S. C, 64 Am. Dec. 50, note; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 901; S. C, stated. Judges, Chap. XVI. Co.NsTiTUTioNAL LAW; CONSTRUCTION: Unconstitutional statutes are void for all purposes, and should be so declared. Lane v. Dorman (1841), 3 Scam. 238; S. C, 36 Am. Dec. 543; Milli^an Ex parte; Packet Co. v. Keokuk. Kelley v. Hemmingway (1852), 13 Ills. 604; S. C, Bige. L.C.N. & B. 10; S. C, 56 Am. Dec. 474; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 152. CoMMERCiAi, paper; Certainty: a note must have certainty of time. A note payable when an infant is of age, is void for uncertainty. Certainty of time, amount, maker and payee are essential. Certum est quod certum reddi potest; "That is sufficiently certain which can be made certain." An uncertain agreement is no contract. Sherman V. Kitsmiller; Zaleski v. Clark; Lawrence v. Fast; Lea y. Lea; Robinson v. Raley; Kyle v. Kavanau^li; Boston Ice Co. v. Pot- ter. See Falsa demonstratio non nocet. Kemble v. Farren (1829), 6 Bing. 141 (19 E. C. L. K.); S. C, Shir. L. C. 244; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 126; S. C, Sedg. L. C. Dam. 432; S. C, cited, Anson's Conts. 255; 1 Suth. Dam. 481, 482, 487, 492, 512, 522, 523. Damages; Penalties; Forfeitures: Sum described by parties as liquidated damages may be only a penalty. See Sloman v. Walter; Peachy v. Somerset. Kennard v. Burton (1845), 25 Me. 39; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 368. Highways; Law of the road; Collision of travelers on highway: Construction of statute requiring a traveler to turn to the right. " Turn to the right is the law of the road." 1 Thomp. Neg. 383; Parker V. Adams; Cotton v. Wood. Kerwhacker v. The Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. (1854), 3 Ohio St. 172; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 472-475, notes; S. C, 62 Am. Dec. 246, note. Negligence; Railroads; Injuries to domestic animals; Duties as to fencing tracks. See Railroad Co. v. Skinner. King, The, v. Inhabitants of All Saints, Worcester (1817), 6 ^[aule & Selwyn, 194; S. C, 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. 266. Husband and wife: When competent witnesses. Regiua v. Hill. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. JQI Technological Table. King V. Baldwin (1817), 2 Johns. Ch. 554; 17 Johns. 554 (1819); S. C, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 372, notes; S. C, 8 Am. Dec. 415. Sureties. Carpenter v. King, 9 Met. 511; S. C, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 427; S. C, 43 Am. Dee. 405; Charles v. Hoskins; Place v. Mcllvaine, 38 N. Y. 96; S. C, 97 Am. Dec. 777, notes; Okie v. Spencer; United States V. Howell; Bank of Steubenville v. Learitt; Lime Rock Bank v. Mallett, 34 Me. 547; S. C, 56 Am. Dec. 673, note; Abel V. Alexander; Dickerson v. Board of Commissioners; Whitcher V. Hall; Bees v. Berrington. Any variance of the contract between principal and surety, without the surety's consent, will discharge him. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet; "A transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of a third." No one is bound by a con- tract to which he has not assented. Pickering' v. Bay; Harris v. Brooks. Bond with names of sureties inserted in body, all must sign; if they do riot it is prima facie presumed that the bond is not enforceable against sureties who signed with such presumed understanding, Fletcher v. Austin (1839), 11 Vt. 447; State Bank v. Trenton (1835), 15 N. J. Law, 155. Obligations of sureties are strictly construed. Miller v. Stewart (1824), 9 Wheat. 680; Slater v. Jacobitz (1893), Colo. Ct. Appeals; S. C, 32 Pac. Rep. 184. King, The, v. Ellis (1836), 9 Dowl. & Ry. 174 ; S. C, 6 Barn. & Cress. 147 (13 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. 18. Several felonies parts of one transaction; One, evidence to show THE character OP ANOTHER: "The evidence must correspond with the allegations and be confined to the point in issue," has exceptions in counterfeiting, poisoning cases, etc. The King v. Wylle; Res Inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. See System. King, The, v. Hollingberry (1825), 6 Dowl. & Ry. 345; S. C, 4 Barn. & Cress. 328 (10 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. (B. & H.) 34. Evidence; Proof: It is sufficient if the substance of the issue be proved. Utile per inutile non vitiatur; " Surplusage does not vitiate that which is in other respects good and valid." Proof of so much of an indictment as constitutes a crime punishable by law, is sufficient. Divisible averments. Bristow V. Wright. King, The, v. Johnson (1805), 7 East, 65; S. C, 3 Lead. Crim. Cas. 432. Libel; Evidence op publication. Brooker v. Coffin. King, The, v. Marsh (1836), 1 Nev. & P. 187; S. C, 6 Adol. & El. 236 (33 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 260. Grand jury must not consist of more than twenty-three. Affidavits of jurors, inadmissible to prove what occurred in jury room. Work v. State. 102 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. King, The, v. Mead (1824), 2 Barn. & Cress. 605 (9 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 4 Dowling & Ry. 120. Dying declatations. Rex v. John. See Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. King, The, v. Peace (1820), 3 Barn. & Aid. 579 ; S.C, 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 247. Evidence: Variance, by proof of two persons of the same name. Bris- tow T. Wriglit. King, The, v. Vandercomb (1796), 2 Leach, 708; S. G., East's Pleas of the Crown, 519; S. G., 1 Lead. Crim. Gas. 516. Former jeopardy; Former acquittal; Different offenses. United States T. Perez. King V. Vantandillo (1816), 4 M. & S. 73 ; S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 154. Ndisance; Contagious diseases. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tip- ping; Commonwealth t, Upton; Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Ixdas. King, The, v. Westbeer (1740), 1 Leach G. G. 12; S. C., 2 Strange, 1133; S. C, 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 543. Allegata and probata must correspond; Felony; Misdemeanor Conviction of the lesser offense. Merger: Omne majus continet in se minus; "The greater contains the less." King, The, v. Woolf (1819), 1 Chit. 401 (18 E. G. L. R.); 2 Barn. & Aid. 462; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Gas. 496. Former jeopardy: Separation of jury in criminal cases before verdict, effect of. Does not vitiate in misdemeanor case, in the absence of fraud. King, The, v. Wylie (1804), 1 New Reports, 92; S. C., under the name of The King v. WhUey, 2 Leach C. C. 983 ; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 26. The evidence must correspond with the allegations and be confined to the point in issue. But to this general rule are many exceptions, and in many cases, like counterfeiting, poisoning, etc., collateral facts and circumstances may be shown. King v. Ellis; Bristow v. Wright. See System. Kingston, R. v. Dnchess of. See Duchess of Kingston's Case, as generally cited. Kinloch's Case (1746), Foster's Grown Law, 16; S. C, 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 440. Former jeopardy; Felony: Discharge of a jury without a verdict, when permissible. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 103 Technological Table. , Kirkstall Brewery Co. v. Furness R. Co. (1874), L. R., 9 Q. B. 468; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp. 275. Evidence; Admissions; Agents: Agents, within the "scope of the agency," may bind the principal. Didsbury v. Thomas; Thomson V. Davenport. Kirkwood v. Miller (1858), 5 Sneed, 455 ; S. C, 73 Am. Dec. 134-149. Joint trespassers: The least participation in a trespass renders the participant a joint trespasser. Hllberry v. Hatton; Scott v. Shep- herd; Vosburgh v. Moak. Kneettle v. Newcomb (1860), 22 N. Y. 249; S.C.,78 Am. Dec. 186; S. C , stated, 31 Am. Rep. 44. Waiver; Exemptions: Exemption rights cannot be waived. Contra, Bowman v. Smiley (1858), 31 Pa. St. 225; S. C, 72 Am. Dec. 738, notes. Joint owners in property may claim exemption, Stewart v. Brown, 37 N. Y. 350; S. C, 93 Am. Dec. 578. Contra, Wise v. Frey, 7 Neb. 134; S. C, 29 Am. Rep. 380. Kohl T. United States (1867), 91 U. S. 367; S. C, 4 L. C. Am. R. P. 411, notes. Eminent domain. Brown v. Beatty. Kortright v. Cady (1860), 21 N. Y. 343; S. C, 78 Am. Dec. 145, notes. Liens; Tender: Tender of amount due, discharges a lien, Van Husan V. Kanouse (1865), 15 Mich. 392. Contra, Crain v. MeGoon (1887), 86 Ills. 431; Sliields v. Lozear (1869), 34 N. J. Law, 396. See Tender, Chap. XCV; Liens, Chap. CVII. Kraner v. Halsey (1889), 82 Calif. 209; S. C, 22 Pac. Rep. 1137. Pleadings; Dilatory pleadings must not be too broad: Expressio unius- est exclusio alterius; ''The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." If objection be made by a demurrer, that a complaint is "ambiguous, uncertain and unintelligible," com- plaint must be defective as to all these three grounds, else the demurrer will be overruled." Donnell v Jones, 13 Ala. 490; S. C, 48 Am. Dec. 59-66: [Motions must be definite and certain; courts will not pick out obnoxious parts.] See Prolixity; Piper v. Pearson; People V. McCumber; Robinson v. Raley; Consensus tollit erro- rem. Abatement. Surplusage: Utile per inutile non vitiatur; "Surplusage does not vitiate that which in other respects is good and valid," does not apply in pleadings raising formal issues, or dilatory points; but in essential pleadings the rule is otherwise; here, Omne majus continet ia se minus; "The greater contains the less," is the rule. 104 TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. Technological Table. Krom V. Schoonmaker (1848), 3 Barb. 647; S. C, Swell's Ld. Cas. Inf. Id. & Gov. 638; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 52. Lunatics: Insane persons are liable for their torts; and so are infants. Gilson V. Spear; Piper v. Pearson. See Actas noii faclt reuin nisi mens sit rea. Kyle V. Kavanaugh (1869), 103 Mass. 356; S. C, 4 Am. Rep. 560; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 25. Contracts; Mistake: Mistake as to subject-matter avoids a contract. Cooke v. Oxley; Jordan t. Norton; Eelly t. Hemmingway; Bos- ton Ice Co. T. Potter; Sherman v, Eitsmiller. lake V. Craddock (1732), 3 P. Wms 158; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Cas. 265; S. C. Laws. Ld. Cas. Eq. Simp. 66. Tenants in common: "Equality is equity." Lake v. Gibson (1729), 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 294, pi. 3. See Lake v. Oraddoch. Lakeman v. Mountstephen (1874), L. R., 7 Ho. Lds. 17; S. C, 9 Moak's Eng. Rep. 5-16, notes. Statute op frauds; Guaranty: Guaranty is a collateral undertaking to answer for another person who remains primarily liable. Byrkmyr V. Darnell. Agency:. Generally, an agent failing to bind his principal in contract, binds himself, but this rule does not apply to government or public agents. Note, 5 Moak's Eng. 'Rep. 14-16; Thomson v. Davenport; CoUeu V. Wright. ToETS OF agent: Who liable for, Cornfoot v. Fowke. Lampleigh v. Brathwait (1613), Hob. 105 ; S. C, 1 Sm. Ld. Cas; 267; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Simp. 39; S. C, Shir. L. C.4. Consideration: A past consideration, to support a promise, must be moved by a previous request. Voluntary services, if moved by a pre- vious request, will support a subsequent promise. Bartholomew v. Jackson; Mills v. Wyman; Yadakin v. Soper; Depeau v. Wad- dington; Compton v. Jones; Hogins v. Plympton; Cumber v. Wane; Mills v. Wyman; Rann v. Hughes. Lanfear v. Mestier (1866), 18 La. Ann. 497; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 658, extended notes. Judicial notice: What things are judicially noticed. Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur; "The expression of that which is tacitly implied is inoperative." See Commonwealth v. Enapp; Eearney r. London, etc. R. R. Co.; Commonwealth v. Eane; Res ipsa loquitur. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 105 Technological Table. Lanfear v. Mestier — continued. Grounds of belief, in judicial procedure, 1 Gr, Ev. 7-14; 1 Wh. Ev. 408- 417; 1 Best Ev. 1-10, 27; 1 Tay. Ev. 42-60. Things judicially noticed, 1 Gr. Ev. 276-344; 1 Rice Ev. 16-27; 1 Tay. Ev. 4-20. De non apparentibus et non existentibue eadem est ratio; " Where the court cannot take judicial notice of a fact, it is the same as if the fact had not existed." Laugabier v. Fairbury, Pontiac, etc. R. R. Co. (1872), 64 Ills. 243, 248. Sunday law; Injunctions: Injunctions may issue on Sunday. Dies dominicus non est juridicus; "Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings." Necessity: Necessity has no law; to necessity all laws must yield. The Generous, 2 Dodson (Ei^. Ad.), 323, 324; 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 352, ^3, Bro. Max 242. Lange v. Benedict (1878), 73 N. Y. 12; S. C, 29 Am. Rep. 80. Judicial acts: Judges are not liable for their judicial acts. Busteed T. Parsons; Piper v. Pearson^ Calder v. Halkett; Stewart v. Cooley; Mech. Pub. Off. 616-643; Bradley v. Fisher; Yates, lure; Sutton T. Clark; De fide et officio jndicis non recipitur qusBStio sed de scientia sive sit error juris sive facti; Hex non debet esse sub homiue sed sub Deo et sub le^e, quia lex facit regem ; Kex non potest peccare. See Due Process of Law. Langridge t. Levy (1838), 4 Mees. & Wels. 337; S. C, Shir. L. C. 345; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 248; S. C, stated. Wells V. Cook, 16 Ohio St. 67; S. C, 88 Am. Dec. 436 ; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 233. Damages; Privity; Remote and proximate cause: A wrong must be the natural, legal and proximate cause of an injury, to be actionable. In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; Hadley v. Bax- endale; Lumley v. Gye; Scott v. Shepherd; Sharp v. Powell; Thomas v. Winchester; Vicars v. Wilcocks. Lauing v. New York Central R. R. Co. (1872), 49 N. Y. 521; S. C, 10 Am. Rep. 417; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 932, notes. Agency; Master and servant; Negligent pellow-servants: Lia- bility of master for injury to servant by unfit or incompetent fellow- servant. Waiver of master's negligence by servant. Salus populi suprema lex; " The welfare of the public is the highest law.'' Far- well v. Boston, etc. E. R. Co.; Priestley v. Fowler. Lansdowne v. Lansdowne, (1730) Mos. 364; S. C, 2 Jac. & W. 205; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Gas. Simp. 95. Mistake; Mistake of law. Hunt v. Rousmanier; United States v. Anthony. 106 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Lapse of time does not bar the right of the crown : Nullum tempus occurrit regi, Bro. Max. 65. Latent ambiguity may be supplied by evidence; for an ambiguity which arises by proof of an extrinsic fact, may, in the same manner, be removed: Ambiguitas verborum latens veriflcatione sup- pletur; nam quod ex facto oritur ambiguum veriflcatione facti tollitur, Bro. Max. 608. Laussatt v. Lippincott (1821), 6 Serg. & R. 386; S. C, 9 Am. Dec. 440; S. C, 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 805. Agency: A factor cannot pledge the goods of his principal. George T. Claggett. Lawrence v. Fast (1858), 20 Ills. 338; S. C, 71 Am. Dec. 274. Certainty: " 248," in an assessment roll, without words or characters to indicate what it stands for, whether eagles, dollars, dimes, cents or mills, is void for uncertainty. S. P., in Tilton v. Railroad Co., 3 Sawyer, 22. And a complaint which states the year of the commis- sion of the offense, in figures only, without prefixing the letters "A. D.," is fnsufflcient. Commonwealth v. McLoon, 5 Gray, 91; S. C, 66 Am. Dec. 354; Commonwealth v. Clark, 4 Cush. 596; Berrian v. State. But a note for "37.89," without anything else on the face of the order to denote that dollars and cents were intended, is sufficient. The federal laws governing United States money justify the conclusion that S37.89 was intended, Northrop v. Sanborn, 22 Vt. 433; S, C, stated, 54 Am. Dec. 83; 8 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 463. S. P., Murrill V. Handy, 17 Mo. 406; S. C, stated, 54 Am. Rep. 49. But state statutes change this rule, Jenkins v. McTigue, 22 Fed. Rep. 148. See Falsa demonstratio iion nocetj Kelly t. Hemmingway; Lea v. Lea; Borkenhageu v. Paschen; And! alteram partem; De minimis iion curat lex. Lawrence v. Lawrence (1860), 42 N. H. 109; S. C, Laws. L.C. Eq. Simp. 82. Accidents; Loss op documents: Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam; " The act of God is so treated by the law as to affect no one injur- iously," Bro. Max. 229. Fletcher v. Rylands; Nichols v. Mars- land; Brown y. Kendall; Bostwick v. Stiles; Jones t. Lewis. Lawrence v. Mason (1806), 3 Cranch, 492 ; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 335. Letters op credit. Douglass v. Reynolds. Lawson v. Morrison (1792), 2 Dall. 286; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 482-545; S. C, 1 Am. Dec. 288. Wills; Revocation op wills: Cancellation or destruction of a revok- ing will IB prima facie a revival of that which it revokes. Graves v. Sheldon. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 107 Technological Table. Lazaras v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. (1827), 5 Pick. 76 ; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 797. Insurance; Insurable interest. Godsall v. Boldero; Dalby v. India, etc. Ins. Co.; Locke v. North American Ins. Co. Lazier v. Westcott (1862), 26 N. Y. 146; S. C, 82 Am. Dec. 404. Jurisdiction; Comity op courts; Foreign judgments: A foreign judgment, if obtained by "due process of law," is conclusive. Plielps T. Brewer; Huglies v. Cornelius; McElmoyle v. Colieu. Lea V.Lea (1868), 99 Mass. 493; S. C, 96 Am. Dec. 772, notes. Certainty: An adjudication must appear from a record with certainty. See Munday T. Tail; Reynolds t. Stockton; Green t. Palmer; Robinson t. Raley; Kelly v. Hemmingway; Lawrence t. Fast; Audi alteram partem. Ambiguity in a record will destroy it as a plea of an adjudication. Le Blanche v. London & N. W. R. R. Co. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 286; S. C, Shir. L. C. 64. Contracts; Lateness op trains: When one party to a contract fails to fulfill his part of it, the other may perform it for himself and send in his bill; but he must not perform it unreasonably or oppressively. Ledwith v. Catchpole (1783), Caldecott's Cases, 291; S. C. 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 195, notes. Arrests; False imprisonment: Either an officer or a private person may arrest for a felony actually committed, and upon reasonable ground of suspicion that the prisoner committed it; and each may arrest to stop a brawl or a breach of the public peace. Allen v. Wright; Price v. Seeley; Timothy T.Simpson; Samuel r. Payne. Lee V. Griffin (1861), 1 Best & S. 272 (101 E. C. L. R.) ; S. C, Shir. L. C. 30; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 30. Statute op frauds: Sale of goods not yet in existence, as of teeth to be manufactured, is within the statute, if the price exceeds $50. But this case is now disapproved. See Licet dispositio de interesse futuro sit inutilis, etc. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant : When the provisions of a later statute are opposed to those of an earlier, the earlier statute is considered as repealed, Bro. Max. 26. Construction; Repeal op statute, by implication. Suth. Stat. Con- strue. 137-168. Legg V. Goldwire (1736), Temp. Talbot, 20; S. C, 1 Ld. Eq. Cas. 13. Trusts; Executed and executory trusts: Rectification of a settle- ment by articles. 108 TECHNOLOGY OF LA.W. Technological Table. Leneve v. Leneve (1747), Amb. 428; S. C, 3 Atk. 646; S. C, 1 Ves. 64; S. C, Ld. Eq. Cas. 109-228. Bona fide purchasers op real estate; Registry op deeds; Pos- session: Its effect to impart notice of the rights of the occupant. Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure; "He who is first in point of time is first in point of right." Fair v. Stevenot; Bassett v. Jfos- worthy; In sequali jure melior est conditio possidentis. See Priority. Copyrights: Registration of, essential. Law of priority of rights and of bona fide purchasers attaches to, 2 Pars. Conts. p. 257 al. (6th Ed.); 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 161; outline citation to law of, 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 147-168. Lis pendens: Notice from, Tilton v. Colield. Lennox et al. v. Roberts (1817), 2 Wheat. 373; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 478. Commercial paper: Time of notice of dishonor. Bank of Alexandria T. Swann; Bickerdike v. BoUman. Lent T. Padelford (1813), 10 Mass. 230; S.C.,6 Am. Dec. 119; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 33. Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda; " The law forces no one to do vain or fruitless things." Notice; Guaranty; Demand: Notice of things equally within the knowledge of the plaintiff and defendant need not be given by the plaintiff. Bickerdike v. Bollman; Douglas t. Reynolds; Rey- nolds V. Douglas. Demand: Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur; "Things implied need not be mentioned." Pleadings: Documents may be set forth by substance. Lester v. Foxcroft (1701), 1 CoUes, 108; S. C, 1 Ld. Eq. Cas. 1027-1063; S. C, Laws. L. C. Eq. Simp. 121. Statute op frauds; Contracts relating to real estate: Equit- able exceptions to the statute of frauds; part performance. Con- tracts proven by " act and operation of law." Lyon v. Reed; Christy V. Barnhart, 14 Pa. St. 260; S. C, 53 Am. Dec. 538, notes; WooUaui V. Hearn; Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; Ubi jus ibi remediuni. Let the principal be held responsible : Respondeat superior, Bro. Max. 843. Let a purchaser beware : Caveat emptor, Bro. Max. 768. Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda: The law forces no one to do vain or fruitless things. And. Die. Law, 616. Commonwealth v. Temple, 14 Gray, 78; Matter of Thirty-fourth St_ R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 347; High Ex. Rem., Sec. 14; Ha^thorp \. Hook; Bickerdike v. Bollman; Lent v. Padelford; Common- TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 109 Technological Table. Lex neminem, etc. — continued. wealth V. Kane; Trustees of Huntington v. Nicoll, 3 Johns. 598; Manhattan Life Co. v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 156; Suth. Stat. Construe. 331. Quod constat clare non debet Teriflcare. Administration not essential if no creditors or contention exists, Mc- Cracken v. McCaslin (1892), Kan. City Ct. Appeals; S. C, cited, 35 Cent. L. J. 219; Hagtliorp v. Hook. Replevin; Demand: Demand in replevin is waived by pleading to the merits, if inconsistent with complying with the demand, if made. Expressio eoruni quie tacite Insunt nihil operatnr ; Wells Replevin, Sec. .374; Seaver v. Dingley, 4 Green. (Me.) 307; Cranz v. Kroger, 22 Ills. 74. Taxes paid under protest need not be demanded before suit brought. Commissioners of Arapahoe County v. Cutter {ISll), 3 Colo. 349,351. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia : The law does not seek to compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform, Bro. Max. 242. Bailey v. DeCrespigny; Taylor v. Caldwell; Hallett t. Willye; Commonwealth v. Temple, 14 Gray, 78. See Accidents; Impossibilities. Lex vigilantibns favet: The law favors the vigilant, And. Die. Law, 1090. See Vigilantibns non dormientibus, jura subveni- unt; Tilton v. Cofleld. License Cases, The (1846), 5 How. 504; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 22.5. Constitutional law; Commerce and the police power; Original. PACKAGES. Brown v. State of Maryland; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 199; Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 200, notes; City of New York v. Miln; Bartemeyer v. Iowa; Chy Lung V. Freeman. Licet dispositio de interesse futuro sit inutilis, tamen fieri potest declaratio praecedens qu£e sortiatur effectum interveniente novo actu: Although the grant of a future interest is invalid, yet a declaration precedent may be made which will take effect on the intervention of some new act, Bro. Max. 62, 498. Sales; Conveyances: Transfers of things not in esse are inoperative. Row y. Dawson; Lee v. Griffin. See Sales; Assignments. LicJibarrow y. Mason (1788), 2 Term Rep. 63; S. C, 1 H. Bl. 357; S. C, 6 East, 21; S. C, 1 Sm. Ld. Cas. 1159; S. C, Shir. L. C. 204; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 161. "Where one of two equally innocent persons must suffer from the fraud of a third, he who first trusted must first suffer." Bassett v. Nos- worthy; Watkina v. State. Stoppage in transitu: Negotiating of bills of lading to defeat stoppage in transitu, Bird v. Brown, 4 Exch. 798; S. C, cited, Bro. Max. 871. Equitable estoppel. Horn v. Cole; Mitchell v. Reed; Young T. Grote; Loffus v. Maw; Horn v. Baker. 110 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Lictbarrow v. Mason — continued. Allegans contraria non est audiendus: "He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other," Bro. Max. 169. See Estoppel; Equitable Estoppel. Like reason doth make like law: Ubi eadam ratio idem ibi jus, Bro. Max. 153. Limpus T. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), 32 L. J., Ex. 34; S. C, Shir. L. C. 293; S. C, stated, Moak's Und. Torts, 33-36. Agency; Respondeat superior: Principal generally responsible tor torts of servant, committed in " course of employment " and within "scope of agency." Poulton t. London, etc. B. R. Co.; Mellors V. Shaw; McManus v. Crickett. Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore (1869), 19 Ohio St. 110; S.,C., 2 Am. Eep. 373. Agency; Respondeat superior: Principal is not liable for wilful or malicious act of agent, not expressly commanded, and which was not a natural, direct and probable incident within the scope of the agency, and done for the principars benefit. Cantrell v. Colwell, 3 Head (Tenn.), 471; McMauns T. Crickett; Gregory t. Piper; Morier v. St. Paul R. R. Co.; Rex v. Almon. See In flctione juris semper aequitas existit. Livingston v. Roosevelt (1809), 4 Johns. 251; S. C, 4 Am. Dec. 273 ; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 507. Partnership: Partners are agents for each other, and within the "range of the agency," the "scope of the business," may bind each other, as an agent may a principal. Waugh T. Carver; Anderson T. Tomp- kins; Rogers v. Batchelor. Loach V. Farnum (1878), 90 Ills. 368; S. C., 8 Cent. L. J. 352; S. C, cited, Anson's Contracts. 268. Sealed instruments; Alteration; Dissolution: Nihil tam conven- iens est naturali sequitati quam unumquodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est; "Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the same means which rendered it binding." A sealed instrument, while executory, cannot be dero- gated from by matters of less dignity, such as simple writings. Goss V. Nugent; Hibblewhite v. McMorrine; Malpas t. London, etc. R. R. Co.; Brookshire t. Brookshire; Abell t. Munson; Ellis v. Esson; Pym v. Campbell. Loan Association v. Topeka (1875), 20 Wall. 655; S.C, Laws. Lead. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 192. Taxation: Tax must be tor public purpose. It is not enough that the public will be incidentally benefitted. Municipal bonds issued to a TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. HX Technological Table. Loan Association v. Topeka — continued. manufactory to locate at a certain place are void. People t. Town of Salein; Hoke v. Henderson; Stetson v. Kempton. In 1872 Boston was destroyed by fire. The legislature authorized the city to issue bonds and lend the proceeds to owners of lots, upon mort- gage, and so enable these mortgagees to rebuild, and by this means help the whole city. SeZd, this act was void, Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 455; S. C, 15 Am. Rep. 39. To aid grasshopper sufferers, counties were authorized to issue bonds, to enable farmers to buy seed for the next sowing. Held, void. State V. Osawkee Township, 14 Kan. 418; S. C, 19 Am. Rep. 99; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 193. A fortiori, public money cannot be appropriated for celebrations and amusements; e. g., on the 4th of July, New London v. Brainard, 22 * Conn. 552; Hodges v. Buffalo, 2 Denio. 110. Or the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, Task v. Adams, 10 Cush. 252. Lock V. North American Insurance Co. (1816), 13 Mass. 61; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 926. Insurance; Insurable interest; Representation. Grodsall v. Bol- dero; Lazarus v. Com. Ins. Co.; Carter v. Boehm. Lockwood V. Tliorne (1854), 11 N. Y. 170; S. C, 62 Am. Dec. 81, notes. Accounts stated; Doctrines of: Are a new contract, and rest on the new promise. Chap. CIII. Loeflfner v. State (1857), 10 Ohio St. 598; S. C, Laws. Insan. Cas. Simp. 832; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 249. Homicide; Insanity: Burden of proof of insanity. Commonwealth V. Rogers; State v. Marler. Loeschman v. Machin (1818), 2 Stark. 311 (3 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 393. Conversion : The hif er of a piano, who sends it to an auctioneer to be sold, is guilty of a conversion; and so is the auctioneer who refuses, unless the expense incurred be first paid, to deliver it up. Bristol v. Burt. Loifus V. Maw (1862), 8 Jur. 607, N. S., Pt. 1: 32 L. J., Ch. 204; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp. 282. Cited, notes to Duchess of Kingston's Case. Trust, coupled with interest: A niece was induced to bestow valua- ble services for an aged uncle, upon his representations that at his death he would make her valuable bequests; he read her a codicil to a will, creating trusts in her. Held, he could not revoke these trusts. Estoppels; Equitable estoppel. Lickbarrow T. Mason. Logan V. United States (1892), 144 U. S. 263; S. C, stated, 34 Cent. L. J. 486. Due process op law; Jurisdiction: Lawless violence done to one in custody of a U. S. Marshal is actionable in federal courts. 112 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Logan V. United States — continued. Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur Buum principale; '"The incident shall pass by the grant of the principal, but not the principal by the grant of the incident." See In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3; Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678; U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 543; Strauder v. West Va., 100 U. S. 303; U. S. v. Cruik- shank, 92 U. S. 543; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; U. S. v. Har- ris, 106 U. S. 629; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651; U. S. v. Wad- dell, 112 U. S. 76; McCuUough t. Maryland; Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S. 421, 440, 441; S. C, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 122; Cuicunqne aliquis quid, etc. Loomis V. Terry (1837), 17 Wend. 496; S. C, 1 Thomp.Neg. 192; S. C, 31 Am. Dec. 306. Negligence; Nuisance: Savage dogs; liability of owner for keeping. May V. Burdett. Lopus V. Chandelor. See Chandelor v. Lopus, which is the proper title. Lords Bailiff Jurats of Romney Marsh t. The Corporation of the Trinity House (1872), L. R., 5 Exch. 204; in the Exchequer Chamber, L. R., 7 Exch. 247; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1063, notes. Peoximate and remote cause; Causation: In jure, non remota causa Bed proxima spectatur; "In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded." Combined result of negligence and accident. Salisbury v. Herchenroder; Hadley t. Baxendale. Loring v. City of Boston (1844), 7 Met. 409; S.C, Lang. Cas. on Con. 99; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 9. Contracts: OflEer must be accepted within reasonable time after it is made. Anson's Contracts, 20. Losee v. Buchanan (1873), 51 N. Y. 476; affirming S. C, 42 How. Prac. 385; reversing S. C, 61 Barb. 86; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 47; S. C, 10 Am. Rep. 623. Negligence: Liability of proprietor of a manufacturing establish- ment for injury to adjacent property caused by explosion of steam boiler. Lowe T. Peers (1768), 4 Burr. 2225; S. C, Shir. L. C. 133; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 102. Contracts: Contracts in restraint of marriage are contrary to public policy, and are void. Maddox T. Maddox; Holman t. Johnson; Sains populi snprema lex. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. II3 Technological Table. Lownsdale v. Portland (1862), 1 Ore. 390 ; S. C, cited, Due Process of Law. Res adjudioata; Constitutional law; Separate powers op depart- ments OP state: Decision made by one department of state, within its jurisdiction, is binding upon the other departments. Dennett v. Petitioner; Marriott v. Hampton. Lumby v. AUday (1831), 1 Cromp. & Jer. 301; S. C, 1 Tyrw. 217; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts. 87; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 264. Defamation; Actionable words: Words not actionable per se must affect one in his particular calling or business. Brooker v. Coffin; Pollard V. Lyon; Ayre v. Craven. Lumley v. Gye (1853), 2 El. & Bl. 216 (75 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Bige. L. 0. Torts, 306; S. C, Shir. L. C. 359; S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 264; S. C, cited, 3 Sm. L. C. 1810 (9th Ed). Tobts; Remoteness; Causation: Enticing to break contract is action- able. Hadley v. Baxendale; Chasemore y. Richards; Martin v. Payne; Sharp v. Powell; Winsmore t. Greenbank. Contra, Cool. Torts (1st Ed.), 497. Privity. Langridge v. Levy; Thomas v. Winchester. There can be no conspiracy to entice a devispr to change his will Hutchins v. Hutchins; See Kimball v. Harman (1871), 34 Md. 407; S. C, 6 Am. Rep. 340. Lynch t. Nurdin (1841), 1 Q. B. 29 (41 E. C. L. R.); S. C. 2 Thomp. Neg. 1140; S. C, Shir. L. C. 273; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 237. Negligence; Negligence op children: Children can be guilty of contributory negligence. Butterfleld v. Forrester. Lyon V. Heed (1844), 13 Mees. & Wels. 285; S. C, cited, 5 Wait's Ac. & Def. 212 ; notes to Duchess of Kingston's Case, 885, 888, 889, 891, 892, 893. Statute op frauds: Surrender of estates within, " by act and opera- tion of law." Lester v. Foxcroft; Shindler v. Houston; Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; Expressio eorum quae tacite, etc. Mackalley's Case (1612), 9 Coke, 66 ; S. C, Cro. Jac. 279. Sunday laws: Dies dominicus non est juridicus; "Sunday is not a day for judicial or legal proceedings," is only applicable to judicial proceedings; process may issue and be served on Sunday. Chap. I. Mackreth t. Symmons (1808), 15 Ves. 329; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Gas. 447-502 ; S. C, Laws. Lead. Eq. Cas. Simp. 22. Constructive trusts; Vendor's lien for purchase money. 11 114 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW, Technological Table. Maclay v. Harvey (1878), 90 Ills. 525 ; S. C, 32 Am. Rep. 35 ; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Simp. 7; S. C, cited, Anson's Contracts, 21. Contracts: Proposer may prescribe time, place and form of accept- ance. Letters: Acceptance of proposal by letter. Adams v. Lindsell; Household Ins. Co. v. Grant; Tayloe v. Insurance Co.j Welborn V. Weaver. Maddox t. Maddox (1854), 11 Gratt. 804; S. C, Laws. Lead. Cas. Eq. Simp. 102. Fraud; Illegality: Contracts in restraint of marriage void, being against public policy. Lowe v. Peers; Holman v. Johnson. Mahan v. Brown (1835), 13 Wend. 261-265; S. C, cited, Cool. Torts, 690. Torts; Motive; Intent as an element: Bad motive by itself will not constitute a tort. Contra, Burke v. Smith. See Sic utere tuo lit alienum non Isedas; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea; People v. Roby; Rideout v. Knox. Malachy v. Soper (1836), 3 Bing. N. C. 371 (11 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts. 42. Slander op title; Deceit. See Defamation. Brooker t. CotSn. Malcom v. Spoor (1847), 12 Met. 279; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 378; S. C, 46 Am. Dec. 675. Trespassers ab initio: Abuse of official duty by an officer constitutes him a trespasser a6 imfio. Six Carpenters' Case; Barrett v. White, 3 N. H. 210; S. C, 14 Am. Dec. 352, notes. Malpas V. London & Southwestern R. R. Co. (1859), L. R., 1 C. P. 336; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 79. Evidence: Contemporaneous, parol evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary a written contract. But supplementary contract may be shown. Loach v. Farnum; Pym v. Campbell. Manby t. Scott (1759), 1 Sid. 109; S. C, 1 Lev. 4; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 458; S. C, Shir. L. C. 69; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 45; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 75. Husband and wife: Power of wife to bind the husband in contract is a question of agency. Debenham v. Mellon; Jolly t. Rees; Seaton v. Benedict; Wenman v. Ash. Marbury v. Madison (1803), 1 Cranch, 137, 174; S. C, stated, Cool. Const. Lim. 59; S. C, cited. High Ex. Rems., Sees. 29. 98, 99, 119, 127, 587, 589; S. C, cited, Ex parte Boll- man V. Swarthout (1807), 4 Cranch, 75, 100. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 115 Tiechnological Table. Marbury v. Madison — continued. Jurisdiction; Construction: When those things are mentioned of which a court has jurisdiction, no other thing is implied. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; " The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another," Bro. Max. 651. Munday v. Vail. Expres- sio eorum quse tacite insunt nihil operatur; " The expression of what is tacitly implied is inoperative." "Things implied need not be men- tioned," Bro. Max. 669. McCuUough v. Maryland; Noscitur a sociis; Sturges \. Burton; Audi alteram partem. Mandamus: Mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a minis- terial duty. Marbury t. Madison; Routt v. Greenwood Cemetery Land Co. (1892), 17 Colo.; S. C, 31 Pac. E«p. 858. Ministerial and judicial acts: Flourney v. JeiTersonville; Marbury t. Madison; Ubijus ibi remedium. Mtirine Insurance Co. v. Hodgson (1843), 7 Cranch, 332; S. C, Laws. Lead. Eq. Cas. Simp. 129, notes. Injunctions: Enjoining proceedings at law. Earl of Oxford's Case. Marriott v. Hampton (1797), 7 Term Rep. 269; S. C, 2 Sm. Lead. Cas. 436; S. C, Laws. Lead. Cas. Simp. 120; S. C, Shir. Lead. Cas; 209 ; stated under Due Process OF Law. Receipts; Double payment; Res adjudicata: A tailor sold and delivered to his customer a suit of clothes, for which he paid and took a receipt. Afterwards the vendor sued for the price; the defense was payment, and the burden of proof being on the pleader ( Mc- Kyring t. Bull; Bonnell v. Wilder), and he being unable to produce his receipt, judgment was entered against him, which he satisfied. Afterwards finding his receipt he sued for a return of the second pay- ment; he was also defeated in this second suit, for reasons of res adjudicata. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat; " Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse." (A receipt cannot be demanded when payment of a debt is made; a tender must be unconditional. Finch v. Brook). Res adjudicata: Recovery at law ends litigation; or it is to the interest of the public that there be an end of litigation, Bro. Max. 326. Wheadon v. Olds; Lownsdale v. Portland; Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadam causa; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Common- wealth T. Kane. See Due Process of Law. Judgments: Successive actions may be maintained upon a judgment, Hummer v. Lamphear. Marsh y. Billings (1851), 7 Cush.322; S. C.,Bige. L. C. Torts, 56; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 723. Deceit; Fraudulent use of badge. Pasley t. Freeman. Marsh v. Lee (1671), 2 Vent. 337; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Cas. 837. Mortgages; Tacking incumbrances; Doctrines of tacking. 116 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Marshall v. Delaware Insurance Co. (1807), 2 Wash. 54 ; S. C.,2 Am. L. C. 664. Maeine insurance; Abandonment. Wyman t. Hurlbert. Martin v. Payne (1812), 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 387; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 286; S. C, 6 Am. Dec. 288. Seduction and enticing away; Parent and child: Daughter in employ of another; elements of the action for seducing and enticing away. Lumley t. Gye. Martin v. Porter (1839), 5 Mees. & Wels. 351; S. C, Sedg. L. C. Dam. 677; S. C, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 74. Measure of damages for mining minerals. Bull T. Griswold; Forsyth T. Wells; Terry t. Hutchinson. Marzetti v. Williams (1830), 1 Barn. & Adol. 415 (20 E. C. X^- R); S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 255. Damage without injury. Ubi jus ibi remedium; " There is no wrong without a remedy." Ashby v. White; Chasemore t. Richards. Mason t. Haile (1827), 12 Wheat. 370; S. C, stated. Myer's Vested Rights, 429; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 256. Constitutional law; Impairing the obligation of contracts: Abolishing imprisonment for debt, does not affect the contract, but the remedy only. Terry v. Anderson; Bronson v. Elnzie. Master v. Miller (1791), 2 H. Bl. 141; S. C, 4 Term Rep. 340; S. C, 1 Sm. Ld. Cas. 1277-1316; S. C, Shir. L. C. 157; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 158. Alteration of instruments: Material alteration vitiates written instruments. Aldous v. Cornell; Hibblewhite t. McMorrine; Young V. Grote. Mastin v. Gray (1878), 19 Kan. 149; S. C, 27 Am. Rep. 452. Recitals of jurisdictional facts in a judgment are not conclusive; they may be collaterally attacked. Ferguson T. Crawford; Xeedhani v. Thayer; Hauswirth v. Sullivan. Matthews v. State (1876), 55 Ala. 187; S. C, 28 Am. Rep. 698. Confessions: Corpus delicti must be proved in felonies; confession without this is insufficient. See Nemo tenetur seipsnin accnsare. May V. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101; S. C, 9 Adol. & El. 100 (58 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 174; S. C, Bige. L. G. Torts, 478; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Simp. 218. Mrs. May was attacked and bitten by Burdett's monkey, for which injury he was compelled to pay damages, although he had no knowledge of the "vice" of that particular monkey, and the monkey escaped con- finement without his owner's fault. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. II7 Technological Table. May Y. Bardett — continued. Owners of domestic animals like horses, cows, dogs, etc., must know they are bad, before they are liable; owners of animals ferae naturae like lions, tigers, bears, wolves, etc., are held to know that they will bite if they get a chance; like noxious elements, they must be restrained. Fletcher v. Rylands; Ubl jus ibi remediuin. "A dog has his first bite, but a bear has not," is a homely but sound proposition ( May v. Burdett ) that rests on latent reasons which do not immediately suggest themselves. There are often two standards of law and morals. Scienter: Liability of owner of animals. Earl v. Van Alstine; Van Lenven v. Lyke; Loomis v. Terry. Mayor of Gloucester v. Wood (1843), 3 Hare, 131.; SC.,1 Ho. Lds. Cas. 272; S. C , Laws. L. C. Eq. Simp. 18. Trusts: A voluntary trust failing, reverts to the donor's estate. Mayor, etc. v. Patten (1808), 4 Cranch, 317; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 330. Application op payments: Quicquid solvitur, solvitur secundum modum solventis; quicquid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis; " Money paid is to be applied according to the intention of the party paying it; and money received, according to that of the recipient." Arnold v. Poole; Field v. Holland. McClure v. Richardson (1839), Rice's Reports, 215; S. C, 33 Am. Dec. 105; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 667. Agency: Principal is liable for acts of agent when done in the "scope of the agency," "range of the business.'' Rossi ter v. Rossiter; Peck V. Harriott; Wilson t. Peverly; Gregory v. Piper. See Respondeat superior. McCormick v. Trotter (1823), 10 Serg. & R. 94; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 366. Negotiability op instruments. Overton v. Tyler; Gerard v. La Coste. McCoy V. Curtice (1832), 9 Wend. 17; S. C, 24 Am. Dec. 113. Authority: If delegated to several, in private matters, all must act; contra, in public matters. Official character proved by general reputation, Comw. v. Kane. McCullough V. Dashiell's Adm'r (1827), 1 Harris & Gill, 96; S. C, 18 Am. Dec. 271; S. G., 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 569. Partnership: Joint creditors, in equity, can only look to the surplus of the separate estate after payment of the separate debts. Separate creditors, in equity, can only seek indemnity from the surplus of the joint fund after the satisfaction of the joint creditors. In the Matter of P. S. Smith; Rogers & Son v. Batchelor. 118 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. McCuUough V. State of Maryland (1814), 4 Wheat. 316; S. C, Gt. Opia. by Gt. Judges, 267; S. C, Laws. Lead. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 185, notes, and 302. Jurisdiction; Federal courts: AcceBSorium non ducit sed sequitur Buum principale; "The incident shall pass by the grant of the prin- cipal, but not the principal by the grant of the incident." " Cuicun- que aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit; " Whoever grants a thing, is supposed also tacitly to grant that without which the grant itself would be of no effect"; and federal courts will protect those executing federal authority, Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Logfan t. U. S. Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur; " The expression of that which is tacitly implied is inoperative." "Things implied need not be men- tioned." The power to raise money, gives, by implication, power to establish a bank. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." Marbnry v. Madison; Noscitur a soclis; Verba generalia restrin- guntur ad habilitatem rei vel personam. Taxes: States cannot tcx federal agencies. Cool. Tax. 5, 12, 45, 83, 84, 94, 95, 162, 163, 167, 210, 221; Cool. Const. Lim. 18, 28, 78, 588, 590; Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie Co.; Weston v. City Coancil of Charlestownj Crandall t. State of Nevada; Collector v. Day. " The power to tax is the power to destroy," Providence Bank v. Bill- ings; Hoke V. Henderson; People v. Town of Salem; Sanson v. Vernon, 27 la. 28; S. C, 1 Am. Rep. 215; 18 Fed. Rep. 398-406, Field, J. McCuUy T. Clark (1861). 40 Pa. St. 399; S. C, 80 Am. Dec. 584; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 559. Negligence: Negligence as a question of law or fact. Eearney t. London & Brighton R'y Co., notes. McElmoyle v. Cohen (1839), 13 Pet. 312; S. C, 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 597-664, extended notes. Due process op law: Judgments of sister states; foreign and domes- tic judgments. Mills y. Duryee; Hughes v. Cornelius; Ifeedham V. Thayer; Lazier v. Westcott. McGruder v. Bank of Washington (1824), 9 Wheat. 598; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 427; S. C, Redf. & Bige. L. C. Notes & Bills, 447. Commercial paper: Presentment of, to charge the indorser. Bank of U. S. T. Smith. McKlnnon v. Penson (1854), 9 Exch. 609; S. C, Shir. L. C. 279. Torts; Official duty: Surveyors of highways may be liable for mis- feasance, but not for non feasance. Henley v. Lyme Regis, TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. ng . Technological Table. McKyriug. v. Bull (1857), 16 N. Y. 297; S. C, 69 Am. Dea 696-7, 707, notes. Pleading; New matter; Payment: A plea of payment must be Bpecially pleaded. It is a plea of confession and avoidance. J' Anson V. Stuart; Mostyn t. Fabrigas; Field v. Mayor of New York; Marriott v. Hampton; Commonwealtli v. McEie. Mitigation must generally be pleaded, notes to McKyring v. Bull; but not when it arises from the res gestcB, in all cases, Moak's Und. Torts, 80-98; Davis v. N. W. R. Co., 7 W. E. 105; 7 Wait's Ac. & Def . 331-340; 1 Suth. Dam. 244; also general discussion of the subject, Id. Mitigation as an element of defense in defamation suits, 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 331-340; 1 Suth. Dam., supra. Pendency op another action: This must be pleaded, else it is waived, Williams v. McGrade, 18 Minn. 82, 88; 2 Bates PI. 905. Pendency in another state is no defense, Davis v. Morton, 4 Bush. 442; S. C, 96 Am. Dec. 309.- Pendency of one action as a defense to another, Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. St. 326; S. C, 84 Am. Dec. 448-457, notes; 8 Am. & Bng. Encyc. Law, 549-555; 6 Wait's Ac. & Def. 397-400, 496-505; 2 Pars. Oonts. 725-728; 2 Chit. Conts. 1169-1189; Sto. Conts. 988; 2 Kent's Com. 122. McLaughlin v. Kelly (1863). 22 Calif. 212; S. C, 7 Mor. Min. Eep. 444. Pleadings; Court records; Jurisdiction; Issue: Under code plead- ings the records must show the issue. Borkenhagen v. Pasclien, 1 Gr. Ev. 532; Piper v. Pearson; Humphreys v. McCall. Courts are bound by their records, Houston v. Williams; Munday v. Vail. Offlce and function of pleadings under a code, Kendall v. San Juan Silver Min. Co. (1886), 9 Colo. 346, 353. McManus v. Crickett (1800), 1 East, 106 ; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg.* 365; S. 0., Laws. Ld. Cas. Simp. 225. Agency: Wilful acts of agent, principal is not liable for. Respondeat superior. Limpus T. London, etc. Co.; Poulton v. Lon- don, etc. Co.; Gregory V. Piper; Billiard v. Richardson; Wilson y. Peverly; Thomas v. Winchester; Morier v. St. Paul R. B. Co.; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore; Rex v. Almou; Whatman v. Pearsoh; Qui per alium facit, etc. M'Naghten'8 Case (1843), 10 Clark & Fin. 200; S. C, Laws. Insan. Cas. Simp. 150; S. C, Laws; L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 6. Criminal law; In'sanity: Liability of insane persons. Commonwealth V. Rogers. Mellors v. Shaw (1861), 30 L. J., Q. B. 333; S. C, Shir. L. C. 282. Agency; Respondeat superior: Master employing incompetent work- men, or using defective machinery, may be responsible to servant hurt thereby, in course of service. Farwell v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co.; Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. 120 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. ffleneeley v. Meneeley (1875), 1 Hua, 367; S. C, 62 N. Y. 427; S. C, 20 Am. Rep. 489; S. C, Laws. L. C. Eq. Simp. 174. Trademarks: Family names used without intent to deceive, though the same, permissible. Croft Y. Day; Glenny t. Smith. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Mere false descriptioa does not make an instrument inop- erative: Falsa demonstratio non nooet, Bro. Max. 629. Merest t. Hervey (1814). 5 Taunt. 442 (1 E. C. L. R.). Exemplary damages: Exemplary damages allowed for criminal acts. See Cook v. Ellis; Fay v. Parlcer; MilTraukee v. Arms. McLeod V. Bertschy (1873), 33 Wis. 176; S. C, 14 Am. Rep. 755. Practice; Dismissal; Discontinuance: Where the defendant in an action sets up a counterclaim in his answer, the court has no author- ity to grant plaintiff leave to discontinue the action, except as to his own claim or demand. Merryweather v. Nixan (1799), 8 Term Rep. 186; S. C. 2 Sm. L. C. 542-548 ; S. C, Shir. L. C. 358 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 269. Fraud; Contribution: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; "No cause of action can arise out of fraud." "No contribution among wrong- doers." Holman T.Johnson; Peck v. Ellis; Bull v. Gtriswold. Mersey Docks Trustees, The, v. Gibbs & Penhallow (1864, 1865, 1866), 11 Adol. & El. 223 (39 E. C. L. R.) ; L. R , 1 Ho. Lds. Cas. 93; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 581, notes. Negligence; Counties; Quasi-municipal corporations; Townships. Counties, etc.: Negligence of incorporated trustees having charge of public works. Russell v. Men of Devon. Metallic Compression Casting Company v. Fitchburg Rail- road Company (1872), 109 Mass. 277; S. C, 12 Am. Rep. 689; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1079, notes. Proximate and remote cause; Causation: Preventing extinguish- ment of fires. Salisbury v. Herchenroder; Hadley v. Baxendale. Michoud T. Girod (1846), 4 How. 503; S. C, Zinn's L. C. Trusts, 43. Trusts; Trustees; Agency. Eeech v. Sanford; Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal. Miller v. Horton (1891), 152 Mass. 540; S. C, 32 Cent. L. J. 246; S. C, 26 N. E. Rep. 100. Statutory powers: Persons exercising statutory powers must make these appear, and they must be true in fact. Bloom v. Burdick; JSIoore v. Commonwealth; Piper v. Pearson. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 121 Technological Table. Miller v. Race (1791), 1 Burr. 452; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 158; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 838; S. C, Shir. L. C. 157. Commercial paper. Swift v, Tyson? Farrell v. Lovett. Millett V. People (1886), 117 Ills. 294; S. C, Myer's Vested Rights, 157; S. C, 7 N. E. Rep. 631. Constitutional law; Due process op law; Deprivation of eights; Right to regulate private business: Requiring mine owner to contract with miners, by weight, for coal mined. Salus populi suprema lex; " The welfare of the public is the highest law.'' Ride- out T. Knox. See Interest; Usury; Weights and Measures. Mllligan, Ex Parte (1866), 4 Wall. 2. Sovereign rights; Jurisdiction; Limitation of powers of differ- ent departments op government: Any department of government exceeding its limits, acts without authority, and it can confer no such authority upon the others. Kelly v.Bemis; Johnson v. Jones (1867), ii Ills. 142; S. C, 96 Am. Dec. 152. I(la this case. Congress gave the President extraordinary power to arrest, and he acted under it, but the act was declared void, and those acting under it liable for trespass). Mills T. Bank of United States (1826), 11 Wheat. 431; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 460; S. C, Redf. & Bige. L. C. Notes & Bills, 358. Commercial paper: Form of notice of dishonor is immaterial. Any form that imparts notice is sufficient. The law regards substance, not form. Mills V. Duryee (1813), 7 Cranch, 481; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 597. Due PROCESS OP law: Judgments of sister states; foreign and domes- tic judgments. Needham v. Thayer; MeElmoyle v. Cohenj Commw. V. Kane. See Due Process of Law. Mills T. Wyman (1825), 3 Pick. 207; S. C, Lang. L. C. Conts. 370; S. C, cited, Anson's Conts. 80. Contkact; Consideration: Promise to pay for goods already fur- nished, without a previous request, is a nudum pactum. Lampleigfh V. Brathwait; Bartholomew y. Jackson; Cumber v. Wane. Milwaukee v. Arms (1876), 91 U. S. 489. Exemplary damages: Exemplary damages are too well established to be shaken; they rest securely on stare decisis. S. P., Brown v. Swine- ford, U Wis. 282; S. C, 28 Am. Rep. 582; Note, 61 Am. Dec. 100; Croaker v. C. N. W. B. R. Co., 36 Wis. 657; S. C, 17 Am. Rep. 504; New York, L. E. & W. B. B. Co. v. Winters (1892), 143 U. S.; S. C.,12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356, where 110,000 damages were allowed for expulsion 122 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Milwaukee v. Arms — continued. from cars of company. Merest v. Herveyj Cook v. Ellis. Contra, Boyer v. Ban- (1878), 8 Neb. 68; S. C, 30 Am. Rep. 814; Fay y. Parker. Mistake of law and fact. See Ignorantia facti excusat, igno- rantia juris non excusat. Mitchell V. Kingman (1827), 5 Pick. 431; S. C, Ewell's L. C Inf. Id. & Gov. 522; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 50. Lunatics: Contracts of lunatics voidable. Baxter T. Portsmouth; U. S. V. Drew. Mitchell V. Keed (1858), 9 Calif. 204; S. C, 70 Am. Dec. 647; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 282. Equitable estoppel: If one acquiesce in a statement made in his presence, he is bound by it. Lickbarrow v. Mason; Pickard v. Sears; Horn v. Cole; Horn v. Baker; Yonn^ v. Grote. Mitchel V. Reynolds (17*^1), 1 P. Wms. 181; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 756-783; S. C, Shir. L. C. 131; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 101. Contracts in total restraint op trade illegal. Salus populi suprema lex; " The welfare of the public is the highest law." Green- hood's Pub. Pol. 683-770; Alger v. Thatcher. See Holman v. John- son. Modus et conventio vincunt legem : The form of agreement and the convention of parties overrule the law, Bro. Max. 689. Shutte V. Thompson; Montgomery v. Edwards; Warren y. Slade; Con- sensus tollit errorem. See Waiver; Consent makes law; Prac- tice. Waiver; Exemptions: Exemptions are waived, if not specifically claimed, Behymer v. Cook (1880), 5 Colo. 397-399. Objection for failure to file appeal bond in time, or have it approved by the proper officer, is waived unless objection be made specifically, Mitchell v. Jacobs, 17 Ills. 235. Mohr V. Manierre (1879), 101 U. S. 417; S. C, stated, Waples' Proceed, in Rem, Sees. 574, 576. Due process op law: Court acquiring jurisdiction of a conservator's estate may adjudicate upon it, although in subsequent proceedings new parties are necessary, and a statute prescribing how they shall be brought in, is disregarded. Contra, Mohr y. Tulip; Williams v. Bankhead; Piper y. Pearson. Mohr V. Porter (1881), 51 Wis. 487; S. C, stated, Wap. Pro ceed. in Rem, 574; Brown Jurisdic. 64, 143. game point as Mohr v. Tulip. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 123 Technological T?able. Mohr V. Tulip (1878), 41 Wis. 274; S. C, stated, Wap. Proceed, in Rem, 576. Due proobss of law. See Bloom v. Burdick; Mohr v. Manierre. These cases are in conflict. SJiields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; Williams V. Bankhead; Ricketson t. Richardson; Miller v. Mahaffey, 45 la. 289; 2 Woernei- Adm., Sec. 463. Mandatory Statutes, Chap. I. Money paid is to be applied according to the intention of the party paying it; and money received, according to that of the recipient: Quicquid solvitur, solvitur secundum modum solventis; quicquid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis, Bro. Max. 810. Montagu v. Benedict (1824), 3 Barn. & Oress. 673 (10 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 483-488; S. C, Shir. L. C. 69; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 46. Husband and wipe: Husband not liable for goods not necessaries, supplied to wife, unless on affirmative proof of his having authorized the contract. Montgomery v. Edwards (1873),. 46 Vt. 152; S. C, 14 Am. Rep. 618. Waiver; Equitable estoppel; Consent makes law: Consensus toUit errorum; "Acquiescence in error, by a party who might take advant- age of it, obviates its eflfect," Bro. Max. 125-139. Voorhees v. Bank of U. S.; Shutte v. Thompson; Begina t. Hill; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Munday t. Vail; Beg. v. Waters; Regina v. Waverton. See Modus et conventlo Tincunt legem; Quilibet potest renuuciare juri pro se introducto. Practice. Moore t. Commonwealth (1843), 6 Met. 283; S. C, 39 Am. Dec. 734; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. (B. & H.) 284. Adultery; Indictment; Certainty: An indictment which alleges that P. M., on a certain day and at a certain place, "did commit the crime of adultery with one M. S., by then and there having carnal knowledge of the body of the said S., she, the said S., then and there being a married woman and having a husband alive," is not sufficient to support a conviction. These allegations do not show with certainty that M. S. was not the wife of P. M. Munday t. Vail; State v. Thnrstin. Every presumption against the pleader, Dovaston T.Payne; Prolix- ity; Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem. Pleadings: A crime must be charged upon the record. A cause must be averred. Essential allegations must be present. Beg. v. Waverton; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; State v. Thnrstin; U. S. v. Perez; Little V. Thompson (1823), 2 Greenleaf (Me.), 228-232, stating rule most clearly. Statutory rights must be averred with great strictness, Bicketson v. Richardson; Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co.; Miller v. Horton; £loom t« Burdick; Prolixity. 124 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Moore v. Commonwealth — continued. Waiver; Aider: Aider by waiver may assist detective allegations, but not the absence of them, Little v. Thovipson, 2 Greenleaf (Me.), 228- 231; Commonwealth v. Shed, 1 Mass. 227. (Excellent illustration of allegations by implication, after verdict). Reg. v. Waters; Rush- ton V. Aspinall; Munday v. Vail; Regina v. Waverton; Audi alteram partem; Couseusus tollit error em. Morean v. U. S. Insurance Co. (1816), 1 Wheat. 129; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 726. Marine insurance; Construction. Morgan v. Cox (1856), 22 Mo. 373; S. C, 66 Am. Dec. 623; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 239-248. Negligence; Fire-arms: Injuries caused by; liability for. Right to keep and use fire-arms. Notes, 1 Thomp. Neg. 242-248. ,Morier v. St. Paul R. R. Co. (1884), 3 Minn. 351; S. C, 47 Am. Rep. 793. Agency; Respondeat superior. McManus v. Crickett; Hilliard T. Richardson; Gregory v. Piper; Limpus v. London Gen. Omnibus Co.; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore. Morley v. Attenborough (1849), 3 Exch. 500; S. C, Shir. L. C. 164. Sales; Warranty: Implied warranty of title. Jones v. Just. Morrison v. Bailey (1855), 5 Ohio St. 13; S. C, Redf. & Bige. L. C. N. & B. 716; S. C, 64 Am. Dec. 632; S. C, cited, under Warren v. Slade. Commercial paper: Days of grace added by operation of law. War- ren T. Slade; Bank of Alexandria v. Swaun; Expressio eorum qnse tacite insuut nihil operatur. Morris v. Morris (1859), 14 .Calif. 76; S. C, 73 Am. Dec. 615- 631, extended notes. Divorce: Cruelty as a ground for. Cooper v. Cooper (1868), 17 Mich. 205; S. C, 97 Am. Dec. 182; Palmer v. Palmer (1881), 45 Mich. 150; S. C, 40 Am. Rep. 461, note. Accusation of adulterous intercourse is cruelty, Carpenter v. Carpenter (1883), 30 Kan. 712; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 108. S. P., Kelly v. Kelly (1883), 18 Nev. 49; S. C, 51 Am. Rep. 732, notes. Condonation as an element, Nogees v. Nogees (1852), 7 Tex. 538; S. C, 58 Am. Dec. 78. Repetition of oflfense, after condonement, revives antecedent and forgiven grounds, Gordon v. Gordon (1883), 88 N. H. 45; S. C, 43 Am. Rep. 729; Johnson v. Johnson (1835), 14 Wend. 637; Shackelton v. Shack- elton (1891), 48 N. J. Eq. 364; S. C, 33 Cent. L. J. 91, note. Does not extend to causes unknown at time of condonement, Morrison V. Morrison (1886), 142 Mass. 361; S. C, 56 Am. Rep. 688. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 125 Technological Table. Morris v. Morris — continued. Self abuse, practiced in wife's presence is not ground of divorce, W. v. W. (1886), 141 Mass. 495; S. C, 55 Am. Rep. 491. Adultery as a ground for, Nichols v. Nichols (1858), 31 Vt. 328; S. C, 73 Am. Dec. .352, note. Moss V. Gallimore (1780), Doug. 279; S. C, 1 Srn. L. C. 967; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 170; S. C, Shir. L. C. 106. Mortgages; Attornment: A lessee under a lease given prior to mortgage must attorn to the mortgagee, after notice. Doctrines of attornment. Keech v. Hall. Moss V. Pacific R. R. Co. (1872), 49 Mo. 167; S. C, 8 Am. Rep. 126 ; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 951, notes. Negligence; Agency; Master and servant: Master's duty, measured by the rule of ordinary care. Mostyn v. Fabrigas (1775), Cowp. 161; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 1027-1078; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 283; S. C, Shir. L. 0.384; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 619; Mech. on Agency, 680. Torts; Venue; Transitory and local actions; Liability of public OFFICERS FOR TORTs; Pleas OF JUSTIFICATION: As to torts Com- mitted and contracts made abroad, but sued on here. Governors are liable for torts; if they have a justification, they must plead it. McKyring r. Bull. See Ela v. Smith; Eex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem; Rex non potest peccare; Savacool v. Bongliten; Sutton v. Clarlie. Mountstephen v. Lakeman. See Lakeman v. Mountstephen. Moynahan v. Moore (1860), 9 Mich. 9; S. C, 77 Am. Dec. 468, extended notes. Tender; Payment; Mechanics' Lien: Demand for the property at the time tender is made will not vitiate tender. See Fincli T. Brooli. Munday v. Tail (1871), 34 N. J. Law, 418, 422; S. 0., stated. Due Process op Law. Jurisdiction; Court records; Due process of law: Courts are bound by their records, and can obligate no person and no subject- matter not presented by the record. Borkenhagen v. Pascheu; Moore v. Commonwealth 5 State v. Thurstln; Reynolds v. Stock- ton; Houston V. Williams; Lea v. Lea; Northern Bank v. Por- ter Township; U. S. v. Perez; Voorhees v. Bank of U. S. Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem; " The king is under no man, yet he is in subjection to God and to the law, for the law makes the king," Bro. Max. 47. See Audi alteram partem; Consensus toUit errorem. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Munday v. Vail — continued. Eecordsare made by parties and the ministerial function. See Andi alte- ram partem; Cooper T. Reynolds' Lessee; Hauswlrtli v. Snlliyan; Montgomery v. Edwards. Due Process of law. The judicial function ought not to participate in making jurisdictional record facts. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." Marbury T. Madison; Osborn v. Bank of U. S.; Sturges v. Burton. Nothing is presumed to exist not alleged directly or by implication, Tadakin t. Soper; Robinson v. Raley. .A/Zegrato and probata must correspond, Bristow v. Wright; Belknap V. Sealey (1856), 14 N. Y. (i Kernan) 143; S. C, 67 Am. Dec. 120, notes. Allegata must exist, and they bind the court. See McLaughlin T. Kelly; Bates T. Bulkley; Bristow v. Wright; Field t. Mayor of Ifew York; Green t. Palmer; Regina v. Waters ; Regina t. Warerton. Munn V. Illinois (1876), 4 Otto, 113; S. C, Myer's Vested Rights,, 176; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 282. Monopoly: Private property devoted to public use, is a governmental agency, and is subject to public control. Peik v. Chicago & If. W. R. R. Co.; Chicago, B. cfc Q. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, i Otto, 155; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 281. Munns t. Dupont (1811), 2 Browne Pa. App. 42; S. C, 3 Wash- C. C. 31; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 249; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 262; S. C, cited, Newell Mai. Pros. 14, 500. Malicious prosecution: Action of. Vanderbilt t. Mathis; West y. Smallwood. Murray t. Hall (1849), 7 C. B. 441 (62 E. C. L. R.); S. C.,Bige. L. C. Torts, 343. Trespass upon property; Co-tenants: Trespass quare clausumf regit lies by one of several tenants in common against his co-tenant, where there has been an actual expulsion. Murray v. lardner (1864), 2 Wall. 110, 118-122; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 372, cases; citing Gill v. Oabitt, overruled in Good- man V. Harvey. Swayne, Judge. Commercial paper; Bona fide purchaser: Gross negligence per se, unless wilful, wanton and actually dishonest, will not defeat the bona fide holder of commercial paper. See Farrell v. Lovett; Goodman T. Simonds; Bassett v. Nosworthy; Overton v. Tyler; Swift v. Tyson; Smith v. Culton (1879), 15 Brad. (Ills.) 424. Gross negligence in the reception of commercial paper will . not defeat its bona fide holder. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 127 Technological Table. Murray v. Lord Elibank (1804), 10 Ves. 84; S. C. 1 Ld. Eq. Cas. 629-679 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Eq. Simp. 74. . Wife's equity to a settlement. Jacques v. Methodist Episcopal Church; Tullett v. Armstrong. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Company (1855), 18 How. 272; S. C, Myer's Vested Rights, 250; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 284. Due process of law: " Life, liberty and property can only betaken by due process of law." Audi alteram partem; " No man shall be condemned unheard." Every man has his day in court, and should have an opportunity to be heard. Notice or appearance is essential in judicial proceedings. "Due process of law" includes actor, reits, judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and atrial accord- ing to some settled judicial proceedings, Bro. Max. 11.3; Davidson v. New Orleans; Pennoyer v. NelT; Santa Clara County v. S. P. R. K. Co.; Thompson v. Whitman; Galpin v. Page. Judgments without notice, appearance or right to cross-examine or introduce witnesses, or to contest a case, are void, Hale v. Finch (1881), 104 U. S. 261. It the right to contest has existed, or if exercised in another's name, this is sufficient, Tift v. Griffin (1848), 5 Ga. 185; S. C, Myer's Vested Rights, 264. See Due Process op Law. Myers v. Erwin (1851), 20 Ohio 382, note. Pleading; Pleas op abatement: An issue of fact, joined on a plea of abatement, if decided for plaintiff, the judgment is quod recuperet. Rex V. Gibson; Reg. v, Dulfy; Williams t. Bankhead; Piper v. Pearson; Rice v. Shute. National Bank v. Johnson (1881), 104 U. S. 271. Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri, 18 Wall. 409. Constitutional law; Conflict between federal and state laws: National agencies and their incidents cannot be abridged by the states. Usury laws of the states have no application to contracts made with National Banks for interest, except as permitted by fed- eral laws. Sturges v. Crowninshield. Necessitas inducit privilegium quo ad jura privata : With respect to private rights, necessity privileges a person acting under its influence, Bro. Max. 11. Self-defense. United States v. Holmes. Evidence. Commonwealth v. Kane. Needham t. Thayer (1889), 147 Mass. 536 ; S. C, 18 N. E. Rep. 429; S. C, 7 New. Eng. Rep. 159. Due pkocess op law: A jurisdictional recital cannot exclude the truth. An in personam domestic judgment, reciting jurisdiction of the per- son is not conclusive. Belcher v. Chambers; Borden Y. Fitch; 128 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Needham v. Thayer — continued. Ducliess of Kingston's Case; Hughes v. Cornelius; Mastln V. Gray; Ferguson v. Crawford; Santa Clara County v. S. P. R. R. Co.; Pennoyer v. Neff; McElmoyle v. Cohen; Mills v. Duryee; Starbucli v. Murray; Thompson v. Whitman; Audi alteram partem; Trevlvan v. Lawrence. See Due Process of Law. Nelson v. Liverpool Brewery Co. (1877), L. R, 2 C. P. Div. 311; S. C, stated, Laws. L. 0. Simp. 224, cited, Fay Land. & Ten., Sees. 175, 175a; Wood's Land. & Ten., p. 921. Nuisance; Negligence; Landlord and tenant: Injuries from non- repair of buildings. When landlord, and when tenant is liable for non-repair. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: It is a rule of law, that a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the same cause, Bro. Max. 327. Due process op law; Res adjudicata; Pokmee jeopardy. Reg. T. Vaux; Marriott v. Hampton; United States v. Perez; Duchess of Kingston's Case; Audi alteram partem; Simpson t. Cochran. Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa: No man can be judge in his own cause, Bro. Max. 116. Dimes t. Grand Junc- tion Canal; Keech v. Sanford. See Due Process of Law. Nemo est haeres yiventis: No man can be heir during the life of his ancestor, Bro. Max. 522. Administration; Heir and ancestor; Descents and distributions. Nemo patriam in qua natus est exnere nee ligeantiae debitnm ejurare possit: A man cannot abjure his native country nor the allegiance which he owes to his sovereign, Bro. Max. 75. Aliens; Naturalization; Domicile. Inglis T. Sailors' Snug Har- bor, note; Guier v. O'Daniel. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare : No man can be compelled to criminate himself, Bro. Max. 968; And. Die. Law, 20. Evidence; Confessions. The Queen v. Johnston; Reg. y. Baldry; Counselman T.Hitchcock; Regina v. Moore. See Consensus tollit errorum; IGr. Ev. 451; 1 Wh. Ev. 533-548; Stark. Ev. 41, 111, 202- 206; 2 Phil. Ev.. Chap. 10; 1 Best Ev. 125; Rose. Crim. Ev. 146, 148, 150, 160; 2 Phil. Ev. 929, 955; 2 Tay. Ev. 1308, 1322; 1 Rice Ev. 269, 277; 2 Id. 290; 1 Wh. C. L. 805-813; 14 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 693-698, cases; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 129. Privileges of witnesses, Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare; Fries v. Brugler. Omne niajus continet in se minus. No one link of the chain can be proved, 1 Gr. Ev. 451; 1 Wh. Ev. 533. Integrity and interest in conflict: If only pecuniary liability fol- lows, witness must answer, 1 Gr. Ev. 452; 2 Tay. Ev. 1317: 1 Wh. Ev. 533-548. See Keech v. Sanford. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 129 Teclinological Table. Nemo tenetur, etc. — continued. Forfeiture of estate: This stands on same footing as Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare, 1 Gr. Ev. 453. Exposure to disgrace: If this only follows he is not privileged from answering, 1 Gr. Ev. 454; 1 Wh. Ev. 533, 548; 1 Best Ev. 128 et seq.; 2 Tay. Ev. 1313; 1 Wh. C. L. 805-813; Rose. Grim. Ev. 149, note; 1 Rice Ev. 269; 3 Rubb. Crimes, 538. Fraud: Must testify to his own fraud, 1 Gr. Ev. 383-385; Regina T. Hill. Contra, Walton v. Shelly, 1 Term Rep. 296. Confessions, 1 Gr. Ev. 213-235; 1 Tay. Ev. 789-828; 1 Phil. Ev. 532- 567, Chap. 10, Sec. 11; Wh. Cr. Ev. 623-698; 1 Wh. C. L. 683-701; Roscoe Cr. Ev. 38-56; 3 Russ. Cr. 365-502; 2 Best Ev. 551-557, 523- 528; Steph. Dig. Ev., Arts. 21, 24; Burr. Circ. Ev. 495-507; Begina v. Moore; Regina v. Baldry; Regina v. Warringham ; Queen v. Johnston; Bro. Max. 967; 3 Am. & Eng. Encyo. Law, 439-497. Chap. CLXIV. Weight of, 1 Gr. Ev. 214, 215; 1 Tay. Ev. 789-791; 1 Wh. C. L. 683; 3 Russ. Cr. 433; Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. Judicial confessions, 1 Gr. Ev. 216; 1 Tay. Ev. 792, 793. Extra-judicial confessions, 1 Gr. Ev. 217; ITay. Ev. 794. Must be taken as a whole, 1 Gr. Ev. 218; 1 Tay. Ev. 795; 1 Wh. C. L. 697. Must be voluntary, Regina v. Warringham; 1 Gr. Ev. 219-226; 1 Tay. Ev. 796-814; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 685; 3 Russ. Cr. 367, 433; Steph. Dig. Ev. Art. 22. Inducements, Regina y. Warringham; Regina t. Moore; Queen v. Johnston; 1 Gr. Ev. 222-227; 1 Tay. Ev. 797; 1 Phil. Ev. 544-557. Examinations, 1 Gr. Ev. 224-231; 1 Tay. Ev. 809; 1 Phil. Ev. 535, 560; 3 Russ. Cr. 436-464. Imprisonment, as inducement, 1 Gr. Ev. 230; 1 Tay. Ev. 820; 1 Wh. C. L. 689. Nepean v. Doe (1837), 2 Mees. & Wels. 894; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 593; S. C, Shir. L. C. 397; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 278. Evidence; Presumption; Adverse possession: When a man has not been heard of by those who naturally would have heard of him, had he been alive, (or seven years, a presumption arises that he is dead. Hoyt V. Newbold (1883), 16 Vroom (N. J.), 219; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 757- 772, notes, cases; Sprigg v. Moale, 28 Md. 497; S. C, 92 Am. Dec. 698-708, notes. Taylor d. Atkins v. Horde. Nettleton v. Gridley (1852), 21 Conn. 531; S. 0., 56 Am. Dec. 378-385, notes. Arbitrations and awards: Agreements for, do not oust courts of jurisdiction. Uhi jus ibi remedium. Chap. CVI. 12 130 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. New England Marine Insurance Co. t. De Wolf (1829), 8 Pick. 56; S.C, 1 Am. L. C. 726. 4.GENcy: Simple contracts need not be signed in principal's name; but deed, bill or note should be. Elwell v. Shaw; Thomson v. Daren- port. New York Central R. R. Co. v. Fraloif (1879), 100 U. S. 24; S. C, Laws. L; C. Simp. 212; S. C, Thomp. L. C. Cart. Pass. 502. Common careiebs; Passengers; Baggage: What is "baggage" for which carrier is responsible. Bergheim v. Great East. B. R. Co. Nichols T. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. Div. 1; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 217; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 86. Negligence; Accidents: Accidents are damnum absque injuria; but voluntary acts are actionable, whether intentional or not. Brown t. Eendall; Readhead t. Midland R. R. Co.; Lawrence t. Law- rence; Actus Dei nemini facit injnriam. Nihil tarn conveniens est natural! aeqnitati quam unnm- quodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est: Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the "same means which rendered it binding, Bro. Max. 877. Deeds; Seals; Simple contracts; Distinctions. Elwell t. Shaw; Loach v. Farnum; Brookshire v. Brookshire; Goss v. Nugent; Hihblewhite v. McMorrine; Dinehart v. Lafayette; Thomson v. Davenport; Commonwealth v. Kane; Pym v. Campbell; Anson's Contracts, 268. Nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur et talis eertitudo certi- tudinem confundit: The law does not allow of a captious and strained intendment, for such nice pretense of certainty confounds true and legal certainty, Bro. Max. 187. CoNSTRtJCTioN: BenignsB f aciendsB sunt interpretationes propter sim- plicitatem laicorum ut res magis valeat quam pereat; et verba inten- tioni non e contra debent inservire; "A liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold -them, if possible, and carry into effect the intention of the parties." Roe V. Tranmarr. Nitro-Glycerine Case, The, (Parrott v. Wells, Fargo & Co.) (1872), 15 Wall. 524; affirmiDg S. C, svh nom. Parrott v. Barney, 2 Abb. 197; 1 Sawyer, 423; 1 Deady, 405; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 42. Negligence: Liability of carriers for injuries to adjacent property, caused by explosion of nitro-glycerine. Noble v. Durrell (1789), 3 Term Rep. 271. Usage and custom: Customs contrary to statutes, bad. Governor v. Withers, 6 Gratt. 24; S. C. 50 Am. Dec. 95. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. ^31 Technological Table. No cause of action arises from a bare promise : Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio, Bro. Max. 745. No cause of action arises out of fraud: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio, Bro. Max. 729. Noe V. Gibson (1839), 7 Paige, 513; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp, 184. CusTODiA LEGis: Goods custodia legis are not subject to further levy, execution or seizure from writs of process issued from other courts. Buck V. Colbath; Freeman v. Howe; Ableman v. Booth. Salus populi suprema lex; "The welfare of the public is the highest law." Noles V, State (1855), 26 Ala. 31; S. C, 62 Am. Dec; 711; S. C.,Hor.& Thomp. Cas. Self-Def. 697; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 262. Self-defense; Resisting arrest. See Allen T. Wright; U. S. v. Holmes; Regina v. Brown; State t. Roane. No man can be compelled to criminate himself: Nemo tea- etur seipsum accusare, Bro. Max. 968. No man can be judge in his own cause : Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa, Bro. Max. 116. No man should be condemned unheard : Audi alteram par- tem, Bro. Max. 113. No man should take advantage of his own wrong : Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, Bro. Max. 279. Non jus sed seisina tacit stipitera : It is not the right, but the seisin, which makes a person the stock from which the inheritance must descend, Bro. Max. 525. Marriage; Descents and distribution. Non potest adduci exceptio ejusdem rei cujus petitur disso- lutio. A matter, the validity of which is at issue in legal proceedings cannot be set up as a bar thereto, Bro. Max. 166. Non potest rex gratiam facere cum injuria et damno alio- rum: The king cannot confer a favor on one subject which occasions injury and loss to others, Bro. Max. 64. Constitutiohai. law; Monopoly. No one can act where his integrity and his interests are in conflict, Keech v. Sanford; Dimes v. Proprietors Grand Junction Canal; Singletary v. Carter. No one can be heir during the life of his ancestor : Nemo est hieres viventis, Bro. Max. 522. 132 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Northern Bank v. Porter Township (1883), 110 U. S. 608, 615; S. C, stated. Due Process of Law. Dictum and authentic opinions distinguished. Manday T. Tail; Houston T. Williams. Northern Transportation Company, The, v. The City of Chicago (Transportation Co. v. Chicago) (1878), 99 U. S. 635; S. C , 11 Chicago Legal News, 255; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 692, notes. Negligence; Municipal corporations: Liability for consequential damages to land-owners, arising from the construction or reparation of public works. Consequential damages growing out of work done in pursuance of legislative authority. In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; " In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded." Henley v. Lyme Regis. North Fennsylrania K. R. Co. v. Heileman (1865), 49 Pa. St. 60; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 401, notes; S. C, 88 Am. Dec. 482. Negligence; Highways: Collisions at railroad crossings between travelers .and railway trains. Relative rights of travelers and railway trains. Bonnell v. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co.; Sweeney t. Old Col- ony, etc. R. R. Co. Norton t. larco (1866), 30 Calif. 127; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 70-85, notes. Limitations; "Mutual, open account current." Catlin t. Skould- ing; Whitcomb v. Whiting; Yigilantibns et non dormientibng jura subveniunt. Noscitur a sociis : The meaning of a word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; or, in other words, "A thing is known by its companions,'' Bro. Max. 588. Construction. McCuUougli v. Maryland; Marbury v. Madison; Houston V. Williams; Henderson's Distilled Spirits; Verba gen- eralia restringuntur ad habilitatem rei vel personam; Reddendo singula singulis. Probatis extremis prsesumuntur media; Con- temporanea expositio, etc. General reputation; Construction Chap. XLVII; Res Gest.*;. Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the same means which renderd it binding: Nihil tarn conveniens est natural! sequitati quam unumquod- que dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est, Bro. Max. 877. Nova constitutio futuris formani imponere debet, non prae- teritis: A legislative enactment ought to be prospective, not retro- spective, in its operation, Bro. Max. 34. Ex post facto and retrosi'eotive laws. Calder v. Bull; Bronson v. Kinzie; Ogdeu v. Saunders. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. I33 Technological Table. Nowell V. Wright (1861), 3 Allen, 166; S. C, 80 Am. Dec. 62; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 812, notes. Negligence; Officers; Misfeasance: Liability of a salaried, public, ministerial officer for acts of misfeasance. Suttou v. Clark. Noys V. Mordaunt (1706), 2 Vern. 581; S. C. 1 Ld. Eq. Cas. 503- 573. Election: Doctrines of election, in equity. Streatfleld v. Streatfleld. Nnllutii tempns occarrit regi: Lapse of time does not bar the right of the crown, Bro. Max. 65. 13 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 711. Limitations; Statutes of: Sovereignty is not barred by the statute of limitations. Fink v. O'Neill; County of St. Charles v. Powell; City of Cinciimati v. First Presbyterian Church; Yigilantibus et nou dormieutibus jura subveniunt. , , Mullas commodnm capere potest de injuria sua propria : No man should take advantage of his own wrong, Bro. Max. 279. See Goddard's Easements (Bennett's Ed.) 443. Waiver; Contributory negligence: Volenti non fit injuria; "That to which a person assents, is not esteemed in law an injury." "He who assents to his injury shall not be heard to complain of it." This maxim is widely applied in contracts, practice and trespass. It is the basis of contributory negligence. Butterfleld v. Forrester; Rob- inson T. Cone; Bull v. Griswold; Davies v. Mann; Radley T. London, etc. R. R. Co.; Parker v. Adams; Armory v. Dela- mire; Regina t. Lon^bottom; Regina v. Smith; Royce v. Gug- genheim; Peck V. United States; State v. Baker; Common- wealth T. Selfridge; Salisbury v. Herchenroder. See Self-defense. Odiorne v. Maxcy (1816), 13 Mass. 178; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 664. Agency: The authority of factors and agents to bind their principals. Rossiter v. Rossiter; Batty v. Carswell; Cox v. Midland Coun- ties R'y Co.; Jacques v. Todd; Peck v. Harriott. Ogden V. Saunders (1827), 12 Wheat. 358; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 251. Constitutional law; Impairing the obligation op contracts: Laws in force at the time of contract. Domicile of creditor. State cannot change law to affect rights of creditors in other states. Bald- win V. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 251; Nova constitutio futuris for mam imponere debet, non praeteritis. Okie V. Spencer (1836), 2 Whart. 253; S. C.,2 Am. L. C. 253; S. C, 30 Am. Dec. 251; S. C, Redf. & Bige. L. C. N. & B. 547. Sureties. Eing r. Baldwin; Charles v. Hoskins; Tobey t. Barber. 134 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Oliver v. Brickland, 1 Vesey, Sr. 1; S. C.,3 Atk. 420; S. C , Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 49. [We cite this case as we find it cited by Mr. Lawson]. Performance: " Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation." Wilcocks T. Wilcocks. Omichnnd v. Barker (1743), Willes, 538 ; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 1361-3378. Witnesses; Religious belief: What religious belief required of a witness to render him competent. See Chap. I. Omne majus continet in se minas : The greater contains the less, Bro. Max. 174. Cited, Miller v. Stewart (1828), 9 Wheat. 683. Construction; Merger. King t. Westbeer; Prolixity; Eraner t. Halsey; Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operator; Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. Exemptions: Claim of must be specific; demand of legal rights, with- out further designation, is insufficient, Behymer v. Cook, 5 Colo. 398-399. See Stewart v. Brown. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. This protects each link — each fact relating to the crime, 1 Gr. Ev. 451; Stark. Ev. 41. , Omnia praesnmuntur contra spoliatorem : Every presump- tion is made against a wrong-doer, Bro. Max. 938. Armory v. Dela- mire; Cutts t. Spring; 1 Gr. Ev. 34, 37; 1 Tay. Ev. 97-103; 2 Best Ev. 411^13. Chap. CXLIV. Omnia praesumuntnr rite et solemniter esse acta: All acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done, Bro. Max. 948. Piper v. Pearson; Crepps v. Burden; Calder v. Halket; Oalpin T. Page; Tadakin v. Soper; Commonwealth t. Eane; Kes ipsa loquitur. Chap. CXLV; Presumptions. Superior and inferior courts: This maxim is applied to the pro- ceedings of the former, but as to the latter, every presumption is made against their jurisdiction, unless their records show the facts upon which jurisdiction depends. See Jurisdiction. In practice, error must be made to affirmatively appear. See Waiver. See Probatis extremis prsesumuntur media; 1 Gr. Ev. 38. Omnis innoratio plus noritate perturbat quam utilitate prodest: Every innovation occasions more harm and derangement of order by its novelty, than benefit by its abstract utility, Bro. Max. 147. See Stare decisis, Sub Duchess of Kingston's Case; Ita lex scripta est. Omnis ratihaMtio retrotrahitur et mandato priori sequipa- ratur: A subsequent ratification has a retrospective effect, and is equivalent to a prior command, Bro. Max. 8C6. Agency; Ratification. Culver v. Ashley. See Agency, Chap. LIV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 135 Technological Table. Optiraus interpres rerum usus : Usage is the best interpreter of things, Bro. Max. 917. Construction; Evidence. Wigglesw ortli v. Dallison; Soutier v. Eellerman. Original Package Cases. See Bartemeyer t. lowaj Brown T. state of Maryland. Osborn t. Bank of United States (1824), 9 Wheat. 738. Courts are bound by their records, and can obligate no person and no subject-matter not presented by the record. Borkenhagen v. Pas- chen; Munday v. Vail. Records are made by parties and the ministe- rial function. The judicial function ought not to participate in making jurisdictional record facts. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another," Bro. Max. 651; McCuUough T. Maryland. Overton v. Tyler (1846), 3 Pa. St. 346; S. C, 45 Am. Dec. 645; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 363; S. C, cited, Redf. & Bige. L. C. N. &B. 9. Negotiability op instruments; Promissory note; Requisites op. McCormick t. Trotter; Gerard t. La Coste; Murray v. Lardner. See Commercial Paper, Chap. XCI. Owen V.Weston (1885), 63 N. H. 599; S. C, 56 Am. Rep. 647, 551-553. Judgments, amendment op: Sometimes allowable. But see Owen v. Weston, for abrogation of strict rule allowing amendment. Eice v. Shute; Bristow t. Wright. There must be something in the record to amend by, Makepeace v. Lukens (1867), 27 Ind. 4.35; S. C, 92 Am. Dec. 262. Judgment may be amended at subsequent term, Rugg v. Parker (1856), 7 Gray, 172; 2 Wh. Ev. 982; Pow. App. Proc. 172-177; Frink v. Frink (1862), 43 N. H. 508; S. C, 80 Am. Dec. 189; S. C, 82 Am. Dec. 172; Seely v. Pelton (1872), 63 Ills. 101; Reynolds v. Stansbury (1851), 20 Ohio, 344; S. C, 55 Am. Dec. 459, note. ( This case is also widely cited to a point in Galpin v. Page). Jurisdiction of court ends with entry of judgment; with that, the parties are dismissed sine die, Freem. Judg. 103. Bills of exception amendable. Brooks v. Bruyn (1864), 40 Ills. 64; Bergen v.Riggs(im^)AQl\\s.Ql; S.C.,89 Am.Dec.335; Wallahan v. People (1867), 40 Ills. 103; Wolfley v. Lebanon Min. Co. (1877), 3 Colo. 296; Knox V. McFerran (1878), 4 Colo. .348; 2 Thomp. Tri. 2828; Sub, Bork- enhagen v. Paschen. Returns may be amended, Malone v. Samuel (1821), 3 A. K. Marshall, 350; S. C, 13 Am. Dec. 172-181, extended notes; Parker v. Barker (1861), 43 N. H. 35; S. C, 80 Am. Dec. 130, note; Rickards v. Ladd (1879), 6 Sawyer, 41. See Chap. CXXXII. Records cannot be amended after lapsing of term of court, 3 Bl. Com. 407, and this rule is adhered to in federal courts, Bronson v. Schulten (1881), 104 U. S. 410, 415; Hickman v. Fort Scott (1891), 141 U. S.415, 418. 136 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Owen T. Weston — continued. Clerical errors may be' amended. Actus curiaa neminem gravabit; "An act of the court shall prejudice no man," Freeman Judg., Sec. 70; 1 Black Judg., Sec. 306. Investiture of power to amend is limited to the cases specified. Ex- change Bank v. Ford (1884), 7 Colo. 314, 322; Expressio unins est exclusio alterius. Amendments after appeals permissible, Bew v. Barker (1823), 2 Cow. 408; S. C, 14 Am. Dec. 515-518, note. Verdicts may be amended after appeal, Note, 14 Am. Dec. 518. The practice regarding is not uniform, and it must be inspected in each jurisd'ction. Statutory regulations are very important. No doubt, clerical errors may be amended at any time. But if the judgment intended to be entered was entered, it seems, the power to amend is gone, after the close of the term; thereafter, judicial errors cannot be amended, Freem. Judg., Sec. 90. See Amendments, Chap. CXXXII. Cuicnnqne alicjuis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potnit. By an application of this maxim, to effectuate the judgment in clerical details, amendments hav3 been recognized; yet this is denied, Bawdon v. Bapley (1853), 14 Ark. 203; S. C, 58 Am. Dec. 370, note; Black Judg. 306; nor can it be done by agree- ment. Id.; Little Book v. Bullock (1845), 6 Ark. 282; Anderson v. Thompson (1881), 7 J. B. Lea, 259; and it is held, a void judgment cannot be validated, 1 Black Judg. 306. This conclusion is reached upon grounds of Salus populi suprema lex; that after the term, it is an act coram non judice ; that the court cannot be revested with power by consent. Cooper T. Reynolds. Bills of exceptions must be tendered in term time, or within such time as the court orders, Hance v. Miller (1859), 21 Ills. 636; Evans v. Fisher (1849), 5 Gilm. (Ills.) 453; Filley v. Cody (1879), 4 Colo. 542; Cranmer v. K. P. B. B. Co. (1878), 4 Colo. 96; Stocking v. Morey (1890), 14 Colo. 317, 318; 6 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 30-33, cases. Tekms op court: Courts can only convene and adjourn as may be prescribed, Boy v. Horsley (1877), 6 Oreg. 682; S. C, 25 Am. Rep. 537, note; Freem. Judg. 121: Wells Jurisdic. 132-139; 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 447-462. Judge cannot extend a term beyond the statutory period. Wells Jurisdic. 135. Terms of court are regarded as a single day. Wells Jurisdic. 138. Judges at chambers have only those powers expressly conferred upon them. Ex parte Bennett (1872), 44 Calif. 84; Norwood v. Kenfield (1867), 34 Calif. 332. Held, they may stay execution in vacation, Commw. V. Magee (1848), 8 Pa. St. 240; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 509, notes. Packet Co. t. Keokuk (1872), 5 Otto (95 U. S.), 80 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 208. CONSTITUTIONAI, LAW; CONFLICT; STATUTES CONSTITUTIONAL IN PART: Statutes which are constitutional in part, will be enforced as to that part not in conflict with the constitution, provided, the allowed and prohibited parts are severable. See Kelly T. Bemis; Spraigne v. Thompson. Taxation; Duty on tonnage: States cannot lay duty on. Cannon v. New Orleans; Passenger Cases; The Providence Bank v. Billings. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. I37 Teclinological Table. Page V. Heineberg(1868),40Vt.81; S. C, 94 Am. Dec. 378, notes. Corporations; Power to hold real estate: At common law, corpo- rations generally have legal capacity to take title in fee to real prop- erty. Ultra vires: Generally a corporation has only such powers as are expressly conferred by its charter or are necessarily implied in the power so conferred, and its contracts beyond that are ultra vires and void. Note to Leavitt v. Palmer, 51 Am. Dec. 341. See Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Con. Co.; Expressio eorum quse tacite insunt nihil operatur; Jemison v. Citizens Savings Bank (1890), 122 N. Y. 135, S. C, 19 Am. State Rep. 482, 485, note; Expressio unius est exelusio alterius; 2 Beach Corp. 181-271, 421-439. Foreign corporations: Powers of, 2 Beach Corp. 411-420. Pain V. Packard (1816), 13 Jolins. 174; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 362, notes; S. C, 7 Am. Dec. 369. See Place v. Mcllvain. Sureties: Held, a surety can compel a creditor to make a prompt use of his remedies. Palfrey t. Portland, etc. R. R. Co. (1862), 4 Allen, 55; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 32. Consideration: Forbearance to sue, a sufficient consideration, provided there is a legal consideration. Hockenberry t. Myers; Cumber v. Wane. Pankey v. People (1833), 1 Scam. (Ills.) 80; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 92. Criminal law; Perjdry: Oath must be required by law. State v. Gage; People v. Travis. Panton v. Holland (1819), 17 Johns. 92; S. C., 1 Thomp. Neg. 249; S. C., 8 Am. Dec. 369; S. C., Laws. L. C. Simp. 220. Easements: Liability for removing the support of land. Humphries T. Brogden; Smith v. Thackerah. Pleadings; Surplusage: Allegations of malice are surplusage. Parker v. Adams (1847), 12 Met. 415; S. G., 1 Thomp. Neg. 376; S. G., 46 Am. Dec. 694. Highways; Collision op travelers on: One guilty of negligence cannot recover, although other traveler did not turn to the right in obedience to statute requiring it. Volenti non iit injuria; " He who assents to his injury cannot complain of it." Nullus commodpm capere potest de injuria sua propria; "No man should take advan- tage of his own wrong." Cotton t. Wood; Keunard v. Burton. See Bull V. Griswold ; Regina v. Smith. 138 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Parnaby v. The Lancaster Canal Co. (1839), 11 Adol. & El. 223 (39 E. C. L. R.) ; S. C, 3 Nev. & P. 223; S. C, 3 Per. & Dav. 162; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 541, notes. Negligence: Private corporations owning public works; liability for failing to repair. Pasley v. Freeman (1794), 3 Term Rep. 51; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 75-105; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 142; S. C, Hecker's Cases Warranty, 62; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 245; S. C. Shir. L. C. 312 ; S. C, stated, 3 Suth. Dam. 583 ; S. C, cited, under Brooker v. Coffin. Wakkanty; Sales; Fraud; Deceit; False affirmations, when actionable: Caveat emptor is the rule, in the absence of fraud or warranty. Chaiidelor v. Lopns; Pickard v. Sears; Horn v. Cole; Jones V. Just; Marsh t. Billing's; Sexias t. Woods; Harris t. Tyson; Simplex commendatio non obllgat. See Caveat Emptor. Passenger Cases, The, (1849) 7 How. 283; S. C, Laws. L. C. Cans^t. Law Simp. 216. Commeece: Regulation of commerce, like "due process of law," is of federal prescription and regulation. States cannot interfere with this. Crandall y. State of K^evada; Gibbons r. Ogden; Cooley t. Port Wardens; Packet Co. t. Eeokak. Paterson v. Gandasequi (1812), 15 East, 62; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 360; S. C, Shir. L. C. 79 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 141. Agency: Agent buying for an undisclosed principal renders not only himself liable, but his principal as well, upon his discovery by the seller. In such a case, the seller, upon discovering the principal, may elect to hold either the agent or the principal. Thomson T. Daven- port. Pattee t. Greeley (1847), 13 Met. 284; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 93. Illegal contracts; Sunday laws: Contract void, if made in a juris- diction forbidding that secular labor be done on that day. Bloom v. Kichards. " Dies domini dies non juridicus; " " Sunday is not a day for court pro- ceedings." Holman v. Johnson. Paul T. Yirginia (1868), 8 Wall. 168; S. C.,Laws.L. C. Const. Law Simp. 168, 274. . Corporations: Corporations are not citizens, so as to entitle one to " the rights, privileges and immunities of every other citizen." Commerce: What is commerce. Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 168, notes. Veazie v. Moor; Gibbons v. Ogden. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 139 Technological Table. Payne v. Cave (1789), 3 Term Rep. 148 Durn. & East; S. C, Lang. Cas. Conts. 1; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 5. Contracts; Proposal and acceptance; Auctions: Proposal can be retracted at any time before acceptance. Cooke v. Oxley. Peachy v. Duke of Somerset (1715), 1 Strange, 447; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 2014-2072; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 69. Penalties and forfeitures: " Equity looks to the intent rather than than to the form." Eemble T. Farren; Sloman v. Walter. Peake v. Oldham (1775), 1 Cowp. 275 ; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 73. Defamation; Interpretation op words: " I am thoroughly convinced that you are guilty (innuendo of the death of D. D.); and, rather than you should go without a hangman, I will hang you;" held, actionable. "You are guilty" (innuendo of the murder of D. D.); lield, after ver- dict, a sufficient charge of murder, though the colloquium were only of the death. Brooker v. Coffin; J' Anson v. Stuart; Pollard v. Lyon; Burtch t. Nickerson. Pearce v. Brooks (1813), 1 Exch. 213; S.C.,Laws. L.C.Simp. 95; S. C, Shir. L. C. 126, note; S. C, cited, Anson's Conts. 187, 192. Illegal contracts; Prostitution: Contracts made to aid, or in any wise connected with, prostitution, are illegal and void. Holman v. Johnson; Spring Co. v. Enowlton. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; •' No cause of action arises out of fraud." Feck T. Ellis. Peck V. Ellis (1816), 2 Johns. Ch. 131; S. C, Gt. Opin. by Gt. Judges, 233. Equity; Fraud: "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; " No cause of action arises out of fraud." Holman v. Johnson; Merryweather v. Nixan; Pearce v. Brooks. Peck T. Harriott (1820), 6 Serg. & R. 146; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 655; S. C, 9 Am. Dec. 415. Agency; Appointment and powers: A special authority must be strictly pursued. Batty v. Carswell; Bossiter v. Rossiter; Odi- orne T. Maxcy; MeClure v. Bichardson; Jacques v. Todd; Cox V. Midland Counties R'y Co. Peck V. United States (1880), 102 U. S. 65; S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 101. Contracts; Performance of; Discharge by act op promisee: NuUus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; " No man should take advantage of his own wrong." 140 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Peik V. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co. (1876), 4 Otto, 164; S. C, Myer's Vested Rights, 557; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 280. Monopoly; Public agencies; Regulation op railroads: Govern- ment has the power to control governmental agencies, and private property devoted to public use. Muun v. Illinois ; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. V. Iowa, i Otto, 155; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 2S1; R. R. Co. V. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 278. Penn v. Lord Baltimore (1750), 1 Ves. 444; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 127; S. C, 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. 1806-1832. Jurisdiction in equity: "Equity acts in personam.''' Ubi jus ibl remedinm. Pennoyer v. Neflf (1877), 95 U. S. 714. Due process of law; Service op process: Personal service of pro- cess alone, will support a \\iAgaient in personam. "Life, liberty and property can only be taken by due process of law." Audi alteram partem; " No man should be condemned unheard." Eyery man has his day in court, and shall have an opportunity to be heard; notice or, appearance is essential in judicial proceedings. Cooper v. Reynolds' Lessee. " Due process of law" includes actor, reus, judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to some settled judicial proceedings, Bro. Max. 113. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Company; Borden v. Fitch; Needhain v. Thayer; Santa Clara County v. S. P. R. R. Co.; Thompson v. Whitman; Trevivan v. Lawrence. Service by publication: A state may provide by statute, that the title to real estate within its limits shall be settled and determined by a suit in which the defendant, being a non-resident, is brought into court by publication. See Arndt v. Origg (1890), 134 U. S. 316. Pentz V. Stanton (1833), 10 Wend. 271; S. C, 25 Am. Dec. 558; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 744. Agency: Agent is personally liable if he does not disclose the name of liis principal, and gives his note for what he has purchased, though signed with the word "agent" after his name. Thomson t. Daven- port; Sturdivant v. Hull. People T. Campbell (1881), 59 Calif. 243; S. C, 43 Am. Rep. 257, notes. Homicide; Threats: Threats as an element of homicide. Campbell v. People. People T. Corning (1848), 2 N. Y. (2 Comstock) 9; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 599; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 364. Writ op error: Writ of error lies for a defendant in a criminal case. Commw. T. Cummiugs. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 141 Teclinological Table. People V. Cunningham (1845), 1 Denio,523: S. C, 43 Am. Dec. 709; S. C, Laws. L, Grim. Gas. Simp. 143. Nuisance; Obstructing highways. St. Helen's Smelting Co. T. Tip- ping; Commonwealth v. Upton; Sic utere tno ut alienum non laedas. People V. Dohring (1874), 59 N. Y. 374; S. G.. 17 Am. Rep. 349 ; S. C., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 228. Rape: Force and resistance requisite. Stephens T. Myers; Regrina V. Saunders. People V. Hastings (1866), 29 Galif. 449. Constitutional powers; Separate departments of government; Ministerial and judicial officers: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; " The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." Powers vested by a constitution in certain officials cannot be exercised by others. No one can assess but the assessor. A min- isterial officer cannot exercise judicial power. Gregory v. State, 91 Ind. 384; S. C, 48 Am. Rep. 162; cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 511. Those named in a constitution alone, can exercise the powers conferred, Mech. Pub. Off. 501, 514; People v. Maynard; Bennett t. Peti- tioner. Powers vested by a constitution cannot be divested by legislatures, Mech. Pub. Off. 504, 511; State v. Brunst (1890). 26 Wis. 412; S. C, 7 Am. Rep. 84; Dennett v. Petitioner; Audi alteram partem. People V. Johnson (1815), 12 Johns. 292; S. C., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 293. False pretenses. Rex y. Wheatley. False personation, 7 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 695-698. People el rel. Lewis v. Waite (1873), 70 Ills. 25. Election law; Equitable estoppel: A candidate who participates in an irregular election, and is defeated, is estopped from complain- ing of it, for reasons of public policy. AUegans contraria non est audiendus; "He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other." Pickard t. Sears; Horn v. Cole. People T. Maynard (1855), 14 Ills. 420. Constitutional law; Legislative power; Jurisdiction: Jurisdic- tion vested in certain courts cannot be divested by legislatures. Marbury v. Madison; Mech. Pub. Off. 514; Dennett v. Petitioner; Audi alteram partem. People V. Murray (1859), 14 Galif. 159; S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 63. Attempts: Preparation is not attempt. Griffin v. State; Regina T. Taylor. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. 142 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. People T. McCumber (1858), 18 N. Y. 315; S. C, 72 Am. Dec. 515, extended notes. Cottrill V. Cramer (1876), 40 Wis. 555, 559. Sham pleadings: Definitions and practice pertaining to sham, imma- terial and frivolous pleadings. Kraner v. Halsey; Humphreys v. McCall. People V. Roby (1884), 52 Mich. 577-581; S. C, 50 Am. Rep. 270. Crimes; Intent: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, does not apply to statutory crimes, where intent is not made a specific element. Commonwealth v. Mash; Malian y. Brown; Reynolds t. U.S.; Retina v. Prince; Shaf her t. State; Errington's Case. See Igno- rantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris uon excnsat. I.vtention. People T. Rogers (1858), 16 N. Y. 9; S. C, Laws. Insan. Cas. Simp. 624; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Cas. Simp. 15; S. C, 72 Am. Dec. 484. Drunkenness: When a defense. TJ. S. T. Drew; Pirtli v. State; Commonwealth v. Roarers. Insanity: As an element in criminal cases, Commw. v. Rogers; State V. Marler. Burden of proof: Authorities are in conflict. It generally rests on the prosecution, State v. Marler, notes; Commw. v. Rogers, notes. People V. Tinder. Bail. See Tayloe, Ex parte. People T. Town of Salem (1870), 20 Mich. 452 ; S. C, 4 Am. Rep. 400; S. C, 9 Am. Law Reg. 487. Taxation: Taxation must be for a public, or governmental use. Loan Association t. Topeka; Hoke v. Henderson; McCuUough v. Mary- land. Powers op government; Limitations upon. Stockdale t. Hansard; Chisholm v. Georgia. People T. Trayis (1828), 4 Park. 213; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Cas. Simp. 92. Criminal law; Perjury: Oath must be required by law. State T. Gage; Pankey v. People; Regina v. Hook. People V. Ternon (1868), 35 Calif. 49; S. C., 95 Am. Dec. 49- 76, notes. Res gestje: What acts admissible as. 1 Gr. Ev. 108. Res gest^; Declarations: Declarations made by slain party an hour before fight, admissible, Cox v. State, 64 Ga. 374; S. C, 37 Am. Rep. 76; DurJcee v. Central P- R. R. Co., 69 Calif. 633; S. C, 58 Am. Rep. 562-568, notes; Hawker v. Bait. & Ohio R. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 628; S. C, 36 Am. Rep. 825. See Res inter alios acta alterl nocere non debet. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 143 Technological Table. People T. Wilson (1872), 64 Ills. 195; S. C, 1 Am. Crim. Rep. 107; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 170. Contempt op court. Perry v. City of Worcester (1856), 6 Gray, 544 ; S. C, 66 Am. Dec. 431-442, notes. Municipal corporations: Liability for exercise of sovereign powers. See Negligence; Nuisance. Municipal and quasi-municipal corporations: Distinctions, Notes, 66 Am. Dec. 434; White v. County of Bond; 2 Beach Corp. 832. Liability of, for unauthorized acts ,of , Hilsdorf v. City of St. Louis (1869), 45 Mo. 94; S. C, 100 Am. Dec. 352-360, notes. Liability for mobs, Notes, 27 Am. Rep. 83-85; Darlington v. Mayor, etc. of New York (1865), 31 N. Y. 164; S. C, 88 Am. Dec. 248-271, notes. Statute of limitations: Run against, same as an individual; are not exempt like the sovereign power. Nullum tempus occurrit regfi, does not apply to subdivisions of sovereignty, City of Cincinnati v. First Presbyterian Church (1838), 8 Ohio, 298; S. C, 32 Am. Dec. 718, notes; Nullum tempug occurrit regij County of St. Charles t. Powell. Ultra vires: Trustees of a town have implied power to employ coun- sel to defend the marshal against an action of false imprisonment, brought by one arrested by him for violation of town ordinance, Cul- len V. Town of Carthage (1885), 103 Ind. 196; S. C, 53 Am. Rep. 504, note. Liability of, for grading and regrading streets, Wilson v. Mayor, etc. of New York (1845), 1 Denio, 595; S. C., 43 Am. Dec. 719-725, notes. Highways; Objects op pkight; Liability op towns for: Liability of cities and towns for injuries caused by horses becoming frightened at objects in streets and highways, Morse v. Town of Bichmond (1868), 41 Vt. 435; S. C, 98 Am. Dec. 600-612, notes; Weet v. Trus- tees of Brockport; Henley v. Lyme Regis; Bailey v. Mayor, etc. Streets; Coasting in: Causing injury to pedestrian by, city liable for. Note, 51 Am. Rep. 860. Firing cannon: Not liable for unauthorized firing of cannon by disor- derly persons, Robinson v. Greenville (1885), 42 Ohio St. 625; S. C, 51 Am. Rep. 857, notes. Persona conjnncta aequiparatnr interesse proprio: The interest of a personal connection is sometimes regarded in law as that of the individual himself, Bro. Max. 533. Peter t. Comptou (1690), Skinner, 353; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 614 ; S. C, Shir. L. C. 25; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 60. Statute op frauds: Contracts not to be performed in one year must be in writing, if executory and not relating to lands. Young v. Dake. Peters v. Fleming (1840), 6 Mees. & Wels. 42; S. C, Ewell's L. 0. Inf., etc. 56: S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 42; S. C, Shir. L. C. 171. 144 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Peters y. Fleming — continued. Infants; Liability for necessaries: "NeceBsaries for infants are sucli things as it is reasonable that they should have." Ryder v. WombwelL Phelps V. Brewer (1852), 9 Gush. 390; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 56. note. A foreign judgment, if obtained by "due process of law,'' is conclusive. Lazier t. Wescott, Hughes t. Cornelins. See Andi alteram partem. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. t. Derby (1852), 14 How. 468; S. C, Thomp. L. C. Pass. 31; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 207. Common carriers: Liability for injury to free passenger. Railroad Co. T. Lockwood. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. t. Hnmmell (1863), 44 Pa. St. 375; S. C. 1 Thomp. Neg. 433, 462; S. C, 84 Am. Dec. 457. Negligence; Railroads; Collisions: Injuries to persons at other places than at highway crossings. Duty of protection owed by railway company to trespassers upon its right of way. Harlan v. St. Lonis, etc. R. R. Co.; Railroad Co. v. Houston. Philadelphia & Trenton R. R. Co. t. Stimpson (1840), 14 Pet. 448, 461. Cross-examination op witnesses: If questions foreign to direct exam- ination are asked, the cross-interrogator makes the witness his own, 1 Gr. Ev. 461; Commonwealth v. Keyes (1858), 11 Gray, 323, 326; Donnelly v. State, 2 Dutch. (N. J.) 463; Consensus toUit errorum. Pickard v. Sears (1837), 6 Adol. & El. 469 (33 E. C. L. E,.); S. C, stated, 2 Pom. Eq. 804, notes; Bro. Max. 291; S. C, stated, Horn v. Cole, a very full and instructive case. Cited, notes to Duchess of Kingston's Case, 2 Sm. L, C; 2 Rice Ev., Sec. 302, p. 710. Estoppel: Allegans contraria non est audiendus; "He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other," Bro. Max. 169; People ex rel. Lewis v. Waite; Horn v. Cole; 1 Bates Part. 90; Note, 38 Am. Dec. 631. Equitable estoppel: Fraudulent intent is not essential to constitute equitable estoppel, Cornfoot v. Fowke; Pasley y. Freeman; Mitchell V. Reed; Watkins v. State. See Duchess of Kingston's Case. If a man misrepresent a fact, to that fact he is bound, if any other per- son misled by such misrepresentation acts upon it, and thereby suffers damage, Beatty v. Ebury (1874), 7 Ho. Lds. Cas. 102; S. C, 9 Mo. Eng. R. 64; L. R., 7 Ch. App. 777. See Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 145 Technological Table. Pickering v. Day (1867), 3 Houston, 474; S. C, 95 U. S. 290, notes. Sureties: Creditor consenting to acts prejudicial to surety exonerates him. Abel T. Alexander; King t. Baldwin. Pirth V. State (1849), 9 Hump. (Tenn.) 663; S. C, Laws. Insau. Cas. Simp. 645; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. CaSi Simp. 18. Drunkenness: When a defense. U. S. T. Drew; People v. Borers. Piper T. Pearson (1854), 2 Gray, 120; S.C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 304; S. C, 61 Am. Dee. 438; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 619, 630, 631, 632. Judicial opficees: Liability of justices of the peace for acts done without their jurisdiction. Generally, judicial officers are not liable for judicial acts. Busteed T» Parsons; Lange v. Benedict; Stew- art V. Cooley; Crepps t. Burden; See Audi alteram partem. Inferior courts: Justices' courts are inferior statutory tribunals, Crepps V. Burden; Piper t. Pearson; Miller v. Horton. No pre- sumption of regularity attends their proceedings. Omnia prsesu- muntur rite et solemniter esse acta; "All acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done," does not apply. Presumptions are sometimes indulged in in favor of inferior courts. Bacon v. Bassett (1865), 19 Wis. 45; Galpin v. Page. Pleadings; Justices' courts: Except in specified oases, or as to speci- fied items, pleadings before, are not in writing but are oral; there- fore issues before, may be shown by oral evidence, Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 34. In this there is a wide and chief distinction from courts of record, Borkenhagen v. Paschen. Here, the issues must arise from, remain of, and be shown from the record, McLanghlinT. Kelly; Salus populi suprema lex. Where a g:eneral mode of statement is permitted, to avoid prolixity, there the issue may be particularized orally; but as to this, under codes, a strict rule prevails, McLaughlin V. Kelly; Prolixity; Borkenhagen v. Paschen. Pleas op abatement: Where pleas of abatement apply to any court, as such pleas are applied at common law, then they must be in writ- ing, sworn to, and be very exact and precise, for they are not amend- able, Myers v. Erwin; Eex T.Gibson; Regina v. Duffy; Kraner T. Halsey. These apply in Justices' courts in Illinois, and states having like statutes, Haynes' Treatise, 309, 10th Ed.; Craig v. Smith et al. (1887), 10 Colo. 220. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, where Justices have jurisdiction, generally the pleadings and proceedings are made of record. In these and similar proceedings, the whole record should be viewed as proceedings from a court of record, when it is pleaded as res adjudicata. Here, oral evidence is inadmissible to show the issues. Bxpressio unius est exclusio alterius; " The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another." In other cases, a Justice's judgment is equally conclusive, but there the issue may be shown orally, or by evidence aliunde. Indeed, in Colorado, this pro- cedure was followed in a court of record, Berdell v. Bissell, 6 Colo. 162, 164; also in other cases. 146 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Piper T. Pearson — continued. For distinctions between superior and inferior courts, See Galpin T. Fag's; Crenps t. Durdenj Omnia praesnmuntur rite et solemniter esse acta; Molir t. Mamerre; Due Process op Law; Kes Adju- DICATA. Statutory requirements of Justices to make record entries of certain things, are generally mandatory; upon them depends the validity of the judgment. Requirements of res adjudieata cannot be waived. Same technical rule applies in tax proceedings. See Taxation; Due Process op Law. Entries of record required by law, if made accordingly, are conclusive and incontrovertible in collateral proceedings. See Due Process op Law; Res Adjudicata. Justices liable for acting out of jurisdiction, Krom v. Schoonmaker; Miller v. Horton. "All men are presumed to know the law," is applied to them. Superior judges not subject to this rule, Bnsteed T. Parsons; Calder v. Halket; Crepps v. Dnrden. Pitt T. Mackreth (1787), 2 Bro. C. C. 400; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cases, 188. " No one can act where his interest and integrity come in conflict." Fox V. Mackreth; Keech v. Sanford; Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal. Pla«e V. Mcllvain. Sureties. King t. Baldwin. Pleadings ought to be true. See Bell t. Brown; Humphreys v. McCall; People t. McCnmber. Planters Bank v. Sliarp (1848), 6 How. 301; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 235. Corporations: Charters to private corporations. Dartmouth College V. Woodward. Pollard T. Lyon (1875), 91 U. S. 225; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 263. Slander: Defamatory words, when actionable and when not. Lnmby v. AUday; Burtch v. Nickerson. Held, to accuse a woman of adulterous intercourse was not actionable per se; the charge must injure her specially. Pecuniary injury must be alleged and proved. Character passes as De minimis non cnrat lex; IJM jus ibi remedium; Brooker v. Coffin; Feake t. Old- ham; Ayre v. Craven. Pond V. People (1860). 8 Mich. 150; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 814. State V. Kennedy, 7 Nev. 374; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 137, notes. Self-defense: "Retreating to the wall," doctrine of. United States T. Holmes. Pool T. Coleman (1878), 8 Daly, 113; S. C, Laws. Ld.Eq. Cas. Simp. 149. Nuisance; Noise; Proper use. Broder v. Saillard. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. X47 Technological Table. Porter t. Powell (1890), 79 la. 151; S. C, 44 N. W. Rep. 295. Infants; Parent and child: Father is bound to support infant. Not bound to support bastards, Simmons v. Bull (1852), 21 Ala. 501; S. C, 56 Am. Dec. 256, notes; Vasse T. Smith; Gilson v. Spear; Kex v. Smith. See Infants; Negessabies. Possessio fratris de feodo simplici facit sororem esse haere- dem: The btother's possession of an estate in fee-simple makes the sister to be heir, Bro. Max. 532. Descents and distributions. Poulton T. London & Southwestern R. R. Co. (1867), L. R., 2 Q. B. 534; S. C, stated. Moak's Und. Torts, 36; S. C, Shir. L. C. 294, note. Agency; Respondeat superior: Liability of principal for wilful acts of agent. See McManus v. Crickett; Gregory v. Piper; Hilliard Y. Richardson. Prescott T.Union Insurance Co. (1836), 1 Whart. 399 ; S.C, 30 Am. Dec. 207; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 756. Marine insurance; Warranty of seaworthiness. Price T. Earl of Torrington (1703), 1 Salk. 285; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 563; S. C, Shir. L. C. 369; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 276. Evidence; Admissions: Declarations of deceased pers<)ns in the course of business, admissible in evidence. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet; State v. Bacon. Books op account: In the first place, the only books which can be introduced are books of original entry. This does not necessarily mean the memorandum book in which certain data have been set down as a basis for charge, but it means the book in which the actual charges have been made. For instance, it has been held, where it appeared that a certain book had been used as a memorandum book, from which an entry of charges against parties in what was called the " sales book " was made, the sales book was the book receiv- able in evidence as the book of original entry, and not the memo- randum book; and where it appeared that the ledger was the party's book of original entries, that book has been admitted as evidence. Second — The books must be verified by the oath of the party who made the entries,. or a sufficient reason must be given why such verification is not made. If, however, the clerk or party who made the entry is dead, or, for any other reason, cannot be produced, the books may, upon proof of their genuineness, of the evident right of the party who made the entries to make them, and that it was his duty to make them, be received as evidence; and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be sufficient to establish a, prima facie case. In the third place, books must show a continuous dealing with persons generally, or several items of charge, at different times against the other party in the same book, or set of books. A mere occasional entry made by a party as a memorandum of a transaction would not be admissible. It would be too easy for a litigant to make such an entry long after the transaction, and give it a weight with the jury 148 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Price V. Earl of Torrington — continued. far beyond its real worth. The entries which are offered must appear to be a part of the series of transactions, and must ha" e been made in regular order with other transactions of the same date. Fourth — The entries must have been made at the time of the transac- tion. The probabilities are that there was then no motive to falsify. After the law-suit has begun, entries made by either party are made under the strongest motive to misrepresent, and are worthless. Fifth — The entries must have been made in the ordinary course of business; that is, a dry goods dealer could not prove by his books the charge made for the sale of a horse and wagon; neither could he show a charge made for a sum of money loaned, because he is not in the business of loaning money or dealing in horses. Some courts, however, will receive books as evidence of loans of money where the sums are small, say not more than five or ten dollars. Sixth — If the entries are made by a clerk it must have been a part of his duties to make such entries, and if the entry is made by a clerk who ordinarily had nothing to do with the books, it is probable that such an entry would not be admissible. Seventh — The entries made, must have been within the ordinary scope of the employment of the party making them. A memorandum voluntarily made by the book-keeper of the same transaction outside of the line of his work is not admissible. Eighth — The entry must have been made by some one who knew the facts recited therein, or at least whose duty it was to know them. Ninth — There must have been no more motive to falsify that particular transaction than any other transaction entered at the time. Price T. Seeley (1843), 10 Clark & Fin. (House of Lords) 28; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 177. See Allen t. Wright; Led- with T. Catchpole. Priestley t. Fowler (1837), 3 Mees. & Wels. 1; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 919; S. C, Shir. L. C. 282; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 229. Agency; Master and servant: Master not generally responsible to servant for hurt sustained in service. Farwell T. Boston, etc. B. R. Co. ; Laning v. New York Central B. B. Co. Prince v. Case (1835), 10 Conn. 375; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 540; S. C, 27 Am. Dec. 675. Statttte of frauds; Oral licenses: Parol license to build on land of another is not binding on a subsequent purchaser in good faith. Kerlck v. Kern; Wood v. Leadbitter. See Notice; Possession. Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 Macn. & G. 25; S. C.,Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 167, notes. Copyright; Literaby piracy: One is protected in his work until he has published it. Folsom v. Marsh. One cannot reproduce a play from memory or stenographic notes, Tompkins v. Hallett (1882), 133 Mass. 32; S. C, 43 Am. Rep. 480, note. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 149 Technological Table. Prince Albert v. Strange — continued. Copyright may be subjected to execution, Pacific Bank v. Robinson (1881), 37 Calif. 520; S. C, 40 Am. Rep. 120, notes. State has copyright in its judges' opinions, Oould v. Banks (1885), 53 Conn. 415; S. C., 55 Am. Rep. 143, notes. Arrangement of works protected, Emerson v.Davies,3StoTy, 768; S. C, stated, 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 164. Old matter cannot be protected independent of arrangement, Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatch. 618; BoucicauU v. Fox, 5 Blatch. 87, 101; S. C, stated, 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 154. Probatis extremis praesumuntur media : From the extremes the intermediates are presumed, 1 Gr. Ev. 20. See Chap. CXLI; Presumptions; Omnia prsesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta; Expressio eorum quse tacite insunt nihil operatur; Res ipsa loquitur; Prolixity; Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. This maxim is founded on a familiar axiom in mathematics. Prolixity. Pleadings: A general mode of pleading is allowed where great prolix- ity is thereby avoided, 1 Chit. PI. 245; Steph. PL 318; J' Anson v. Stuart; Omne majus continet in se minus; Probatis extremis praesumuntur media. It is to be avoided in appellate procedure, R. R. Co. T. Stewart; Kra- ner t. Halsey; Piper v. Pearson; Sturges v. Burton. Chap. XLIII; CXXIII. Conclusions of law and fact: Indebitatus assumpsit, as pleaded at common law, is sufficient under a code requiring facts, Campbell v. Shiland, 11 Colo. 491. Chap. CXXIII. Pacts, how pleaded. See Moore v. Commonwealth; Doraston v. Payne. Chaps. XLIII, CXXIII Best evidence; Appointment to office: Generally it is sufficient to show that an officer has acted as such, Commw. y. Kane; 1 Gr. Ev. 41, note, 83, 92; Utile per inutile non vitiatur. Providence Bank v. Billings (1830), 4 Pet. 514; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 188. Taxation: Taxation is the power of sovereignty, and unless fixed by constitutions is unlimited, and may be anything fixed by the legisla- ture. Hanson v. Vernon, 27 la. 28; S. C, 1 Am. Rep. 215; McCul- lough T. The State of Maryland, where the rule is, " the power to tax is the power to destroy." Packet Co. T. Keokuk. Taxation; Duty on tonnage: Charge for use of wharves is not a duty on tonnage. Cannon v. New Orleans; Packet Co. v. Keokuk. Pusey T. Pusey (1684), 1 Vern. 273; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1109. Specific performance; Articles of special value; Specific deliv- ery UP op chattels. McOowin v. Remington (1849), 12 Pa. St. 56; S. C, 51 Am. Dec. 584-590, notes; Somerset v. Cookson; Ubi jus ibi remedium. 150 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Pye, Ex parte (1811), 18 Ves. 140; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 741-751. Satisfaction of debts by legacies; Ademption. Hooley t. Hatton; Graves v. Sheldon. Pym V. Campbell (1856). 6 El. & Bl. 370 (88 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 76. Evidence: Oral evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary a contempo- raneous written instrument; but it may be shown that there nevei was in fact any agreement made. Malpas v. London, etc. R. E. Co.; Smith v. Wilson; Sontier v. Eellerman. Oral evidence: Its admissibility to affect written, 1 Gr. Ev. 275-305; 2 Wh. Ev. 920-1070; 2 Tay. Ev. 1031, 1113; 1 Rice Ev.. Sees. 156-188; Abb. Tri. Ev. 295; 2 Phil. Ev., Chap. 8; 1 Best Ev. 222-226; Stark. Ev. 648, 710. Absolute deed may be shown to be a mortgage. "Once a raortgage always a mortgage," Weathersly v. Weathersly (1866), 40 Miss. 462; S. C, 90 Am. Dec. 344; Jackson v. Cleveland. Sealed iNSTRnMENTs: Rule in. Loach T. Farnum; Xihll tam con- veniens, etc. Chap. CLXVI. Exceptions to rule rejecting oral evidence to affect written: 1. Where the action is not between parties to the instrument, nor those claiming under and in privity with them. Res inter alios acta, etc. 2. Where the object of the evidence is to impeach the validity of the instrument, or any part of it. Jfeedham v. Thayer; Hanswirth V. Sullivan. 3. Where the object of the evidence is to establish a separate, oral agreement constituting a condition precedent to the existence of an obligation claimed to arise on the instrument. 4. Where the object of the evidence is simply to show the surround- ing circumstances of the parties, and of the subject of the con- tract, and the usages of language under which the instrument was written, in order to enable the court to read the instrument with the same knowledge with which the parties wrote it. Nos- citnr a sociis; Contemporanea expositio, etc. 5. Where the language of the instrument leaves its meaning doubtful, or extrinsic facts in evidence raise a doubt in respect to its appli- cation. Ambi^uitas verborum, etc. 6. Where it appears that the instrument was not intended to be a complete and final statement of the whole transaction, and the object of the evidence is simply to establish a separate, oral agree- ment on a matter as to which the instrument is silent, and which is not contrary to its terms, nor to their legal effect. 7. Where the object of the evidence is to show a usage legally affect- ing the parties, by which incidents not expressly mentioned in such contracts are annexed to or implied in them, if the usage be not repugnant either to the express terms or the legal effect of the contract. Optimus interpres rerum ujus; Expressio eorum, etc.; Cnicuique aliqnis quid, etc. Usage; Custom. 8. To show, if the contract be unsealed, that it was made for the ben- efit and on behalf of the party suing or sued upon it, even though he be not named in it; or, if it be sealed, that it was so made, and has been duly ratified by such party. Expressio unius, etc.; Elwell T. Shaw; Sturdivant y. Hull. See Agency. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 15 1 Technological Table. Pym V. Campbell — continued. 9. To show that the date was erroneous; the true date may always be shown. 10. To show that the consideration was different from that stated (except for the purpose of defeating the instrument), or that it was not paid, though payment was acknowledged. Jackson v. Clereland; Collins t. Blantern. 11. To show that a transfer absolute on its face was given as security or in trust. Weathersly v. Weathersly, supra. 12. To show the mistake which caused a repugnancy appearing on the face of the instrument. 13. Where the object of the evidence is to show a separate, subsequent, valid agreement to rescind, modify, extend or waive the contract or a provision of it. Loach v. Farnum. Abb. Trial Ev. 294, 295. The 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th and 13th exceptions, supra, are practically an application of Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; "Fraud vitiates all into which it enters;" like the impeachment of a fraudulent judg- ment, Starbuck v. Murray; Xeedham v. Thayer; Duchess of Kingston's Case. Sealed instruments, while executory, have the rule strictly applied. Loach T. Farnum. Bond for penalty or forfeiture expressed, may nevertheless be shown to be for actual damages only, Eemble v. Farren. Qnaudo jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt, jus regis prae- ferri debet: Where the title of the king and the title of a subject concur, the king's title shall be preferred, Bro. Max. 67. Henderson's Distilled Spirits. Salus populi suprema lex; " The welfare of the public is the highest law." The claims and demands of sovereignty are paramount to those of an individual. Taylor t. Cole. In praesentia majoris cessat potentia minoris. Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499; S. C, Shir. L. C. 290. Agency: Liability of employer for acts of independent contractor. Person employing contractor, generally is not responsible for his neg- ligence. HilUard v. Richardson; Chicago t. Bobbins; Keedie v. London, etc. B. B. Co. Queen, The, v. Goodhall (1846), 1 Dennison 0. C. 187; reported as Regina v. Ooodall, 2 Cox C. C. 40 ; and Regina v. Good- chUd. 2 Car. & Kir. 293 (61 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 446. Abortion; Indictment: It need not be averred woman was pregnant. Begina t. Collins; CommouTrealth v. McDonald. Queen, The, v. Hughes (1860), 26 L. J., M. C. 202; S. C, 1 Fos. & Fin. 726; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 39. Crimes: When there is a legal duty to perform, then act of omission is a crime. Bex v. Smith; Beg. v. Conde; Beg. v. Lowe; Begina r. Smith. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. 152 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Queen, The, v. Johnston (1864), 15 Ir. Law Rep. 60; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 504. Confessions: Elicited by questions. Reg. v. Baldry; Regina t, Moore. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare; " No man can be compelled to criminate himself." Kes inter alios acta alter! nocere non debet. Quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit : Whatever is aflSxed to the soil belongs thereto, Bro. Max. 401. Fixtures. Elwes v. Mawe; Horn v. Baker. Quicquid solvitur, solvitur secundum modum solventis; quicquid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis: Money paid is to be applied according to the intention of the party paying it; and money received, according to that of the recipient, Bro. Max. 810. Application op payments. Arnold v. Poole; The Mayor, etc. v. Patten; Field v. Holland. Qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice : He who considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning, Bro. Max. 685. Construction Benignse faciendag sunt interpretationes propter simpli- citatem laicorum ut res magis valeat quam pereat; et verba inten- tioni non e contra debent inservire; "A liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intentions of the parties. Roe v. Tranmarr; Crooker t. Holmes. Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse, quia parere necesse est: Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounden duty to obey, Bro. Max. 93. Savacool v. Bonghten. Ministerial and executive officers; Justification for opFiciAL acts; Regular process: Executive officers holding process, regu- lar on its face, issued by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, are justified for acts done under such process. Grace v. Mitchell; Savacool v. Boughten; Allen v. Wright. Arrests. Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto: Any one may, at his pleasure, renounce the benefit of a stipulation or other right introduced entirely in his own favor, Bro. Max. 699. Shntte v. Thompson; Montgomery v. Edwards; Voorhees v. Bank of TJ. S.; Commnnis error facit jus; Consensus toUit erroruni. See Chap. XLVII. Waiver. Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere yidetur: He who does an act through the medium of another party is in law considered as doing it himself, Bro. Max. 817. Qui facit per alium; "Must face it himself," Punch, 1 Bates Part. 90. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 153 Technological Table. Qui per alium facit, etc. — continued. Simple contracts; Disclosed and undisclosed principals. See Respondeat superior, Thomson v. Davenport. Commercial paper; Filling blanks in. Caphart v. Dodd (1868), 96 Am. Dec. 258; Sturdivant v. Hull; Angle v. Jf. W. Mut. Ins. Co. Deeds; Filling blanks in, Elwell v. Shaw; Hibblewhite v. McMor- rine. Corporation officers and agents, 1 Beach Corp. 181-271. Husband and wipe; Agency: Power of wife to bind husband by con- tract is a question of agency, Manby v. Scott. Ratification; Election: One may waive a tort and sue in assumpsit. Smith r. Hodson. Qui seutit commodum sentire debet et onus: "He who derives the advantage ought to sustain the burthen." Hilberry v. Hatton; Henley v. Lyme Regis, 1 Beach Corp. 197. Respondeat superior; Torts by independent contbaotok, Hilliard V. Richardson. Respondeat superior; Malicious torts by agents, XcManus v. Crickett. Fellow servants; Torts op: Who responsible for, Farwell T. Bos- ton, etc. R. R. Co. Respondeat superior, Gregory t. Piper; Hilliard v. Richardson. Crimes, Rex t. Almon. Husband and wife; Crimes: Liability of husband for crimes com- mitted by wife. Commonwealth v. Neal. Agency: In general, Thomson v. Davenport, Cases. Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure: He has the better title who was first in point of time, Bro. Max. 352. Chap. XLIX. Priority; Limitations; Possession; Adverse possession; Notice; Registry op deeds; Replevin; Ejectment; Bona fide purchaser: Possession is sufficient against a wrong-doer. See Bassett v. Jfos- worthy; Armory v. Dalamire; leneve v.Leneve; Fairv.Stevenot. Court acquiring jurisdiction first will retain it. Freeman v. Howe. Qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus : He who derives the advantage ought to sustain the burthen, Bro. Max. 706. Agency. Thomson v. Davenport; Henley v. Lyme Regis; Qui per aUum facit, etc. See Respondeat superior; Ratification. Ratification by acceptance of benefits with full knowledge, 1 Beach Corp. 197. Quod at) initio non valet, in tractu temporis non convalescit: That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid, Bro, Max. 178. Construction. See Henderson's Distilled Spirits; Cool. Const. Lim. 449. Void and voidable. Quod constat clare non debet veriflcare: That which is clearly apparent need not be verified, Bro. Max. 139. Res ipsa loquitur; Utile per inutile non vitiatur; lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inntilia peragenda. 154 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Quod remedio destituitur ipsa re Talet si culpa absit: That which is without remedy avails of itself if there be no fault in the party seeking to enforce it, Bro. Max. 212. Rights; Remedies: Ubi jus ibi remedium; "The(:e is no wrong with- out a remedy." See Taylor V. Cole. Remittitur; Retainer; Self- DEPENSE. Quoties in yerbis nulla est ambi^tas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba flenda est: In the absence of ambiguity, no exposition shall be made which is opposed to the express words of the instru - ment, Bro. Max. 619. Construction; Ambiguity: A liberal construction should be followed if words are clear and certain. Crooker v. Holmes. Radley t. London & Nortliwestern E. R. Co. (1875), L. R., 9 Exch. 71; S. C, 43 L. J., Exch. 73; 1 App. Cas. 574; rever- sing, L. R, 10 Exch. 100; 44 L. J., Exch. 73; 33 L. T. (N. S.) 209; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1108, extended notes. Contributory negligence. Davies v. Mann; Robinson v. Cone; Biitterfleld v. Forrester; ITuUns commodnm capere potest de injuria sua propria. Railroad Company v. Houston (1877), 95 U. S. 697; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 444, notes. Negligence; Railroads; Collisions with persons: Relative duty of pedestrian and trainmen. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. T. Hnmmell; Harlan v. St. Louis, etc. Co. Railway Company v. lockwood (1873), 17 Wall. 357; S. C , Thomp. L. C. Carr. Pass. 378; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 209. Common carriers; Passengers: Traveling on "free pass" with condi- tions. Common carriers can make no conditions that will exempt them from the exercise of ordinary care. Coggs v. Bernard; Phila- delphia, etc. R. R. Co. V. Derby; Readhead v. Midland R. R. Co. Salus populi suprema lex; "The public welfare is the highest law." Railroad Company v. Skinner (1852), 19 Pa. St. 298; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 654; S. C, 1 Redf. Am. Ry. Cas. 358 ; S. C , 1 Thomp. Neg. 463, notes. Negligence; Railroads: Injuries to domestic animals. Eerwhacker V. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. Railroad Company v. Stewart (1877), 95 U. S. 279. 284. Bill op exceptions: Substance only, of proceedings should be set out in. Prolixity should be avoided. Full stenographic reports, ques- tions and answers, and repetitions forbidden, Harvey v. Van De- Mark (1873), 71 Ills. 117, 120; People v. Getty, 49 Calif. 581-584; Snyder ■w. Vrt7te2/ (1876), 33 Mich. 483; Verba relata hoc uiaxinie, etc.; Pro- lixity; Utile per inutile nou vitiatur. TECHNOLOGY OF LA.W. 155 Technological Table. Rann t. Hughes (1797), 7 Term Eep. 350 (Durn. & East); S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 28. Consideration; Contracts: A conBideration is necessary to support a contract. Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio; "No cause of action arises out of a nude pact." Lampleigh v. Brathwait, notes; Cumber v. Wane; Stilk t. Myrick; Reynolds v. Nugent; Tadakin T. Soper; Hogins v. Plympton. Rathbon v. Endlong (1818), 15 Johns. I; S. C, 1 Am.L. C. 742. Agency; Parol (unsealed) contracts made with agents: If an agent discloses his principal, the agent is not bound. Agent for gov- ernment is not liable if he does not disclose his principal. Thomson V. Davenport. Readhead v. Midland, etc. R. R. Co. (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B. 349; S. C, Shir. L. C. 263. Common carriers; Passengers: Carriers of passengers bound to use the greatest care, but are not insurers. Coggs T. Bernard; Railroad Co. T. Lockwood; Xichols t. Marsland. Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases so does the law itself: Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex, Bro. Max. 159. Reddendo singula singulis: Referring the several things to distinct persons; construing distributively the particular things enumerated, among the different persons designated. And. Die. Law, 266. This is an important rule in construction. N oscitur a sociis ; Verba generalia, etc. Reedie v. London, etc. R. R. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 244; S. C, Shir. L. C. 291, notes. Agency: Liability of persons employing a contractor. Hilliard v. Richardson; Chicago t. Robbins; Qnarman t. Burnett. Rees T. Berrington (1795), 2 Ves. Jr. 540; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1867-1921. Sureties: Release of sureties by the creditor giving time to the debtor. The least change of contract with the debtor without the surety's consent releases him. Whitcher V.Hall; King v. Baldwin; Charles V. Hoskins; Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Regina v. Baldry (1852), 2 Den. C. C. 430; S. C, 5 Cox C. G. 523; S. C, 12 Law & Eq. Rep. 590; S. 0., 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. 484. Confessions. Queen v. Johnston; Regina v. Moore; Nolen v. State, 14 Tex. Ct. App. 474; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 247-260, notes; Heldt v. State (1886), 20 Neb. 492; S. C, 57 Am. Rep. 835-842; Nemo tenetnr seipsum accusarle; Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. 156 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Teclinologieal Table. Regina v. Birmingham & Gloucester R. R. Co. (1842), 3 Q. B. 223 (43 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 158; 8. C., 3 Eng. Ry. & Canal Gas. Ill; S. C., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 26. Corporations; Criminai. liability; Non-feasance: Corporations may be indicted. Regina t. Gt. North of Eng. R. R. Co. Regina v. Brown (1843), 1 G. & K. 144 (47 E. C. L. R.); S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 126. Bigamy: Second marriage imay be void. Shafher t. State. R«gina y. Brown (1841), 1 Gar. & Marsh. (41 E. G. L. R.) ; S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 100. Arrest: Obstructing lawful arrest. Allen t. Wright; Noles T. State. One called upon to aid in an arrest must do so at his peril. Regina v. Caspar (1840), 2 Moody G. G. 101; S. G., 9 Gar. & P. 289 (38 E. C. L. R.); S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 451. Indictment; Receiving stolen goods; Substantive felony. Rex v. Jervis. Regiaa v. Clarke (1854), 1 Dearsley G. G. 397; S. G., 6 Gox G. C. 412; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 255. Rape; Married woman: Consent obtained by fraud. Rex T. Jack- son. Regina v. Collins (1864), Leigh & Gave G. C. 471; S. G., 9 Gox G. G. 497; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 478. Larceny: Attempt to commit larceny by stealing from the person. It must be shown that the person upon whom the theft was attempted had a subject of larceny in his pocket. Commonwealth v. McDon- ald; The Qneen t. Goodhall; State t. Wilson. See Actus non facit renm nisi mens sit rea. Regina y. Conde (1868), 10 Gox G. G. 547: S. G.. Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 39. Crimes: Omission to perform a duty is a crime. Queen T. Hnghes; Rex T. Smith; Regina v. Lowe; Regina t. Smith. See Actus non facit renm nisi mens sit rea. Regina T. Duffy (1849), 4 Gox G. C. 24; S. G., 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 276. Abatement; Criminal practioe: A prisoner indicted for felony may, after demurring to the indictment, it his demurrer be overruled, plead over to the felony. Rex v. Gibson; Myers v. Erwin; Williams v. Bankhead; Piper v. Pearson. See Pleas in Abatement. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 157 Technological Table. Regina v. Featherstone (1854), Dearsley C. C. 369; S. C, 6 Cox C. C. 376; S. C, 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 362. Larceny; Adulterer: Taking goods by delivery of adulteress is larceny. Rex Y. Tolfree. Regina v. Gardner (1856), Dearsley & Bell C. G. 40; S. C., 7 Cox G. G. 136; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. 163. In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; "In law the imme- diate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded." Hadley v. Baxendale. Indictment; Remoteness; False pretenses. Regina v. Great Nortli of England Railway Co. (1846), 9 Q. B. 315 (58 E. C. L. R ); S. G., 2 Gox G. G. 70; S. G., 1 Lead. Grim. Cas. (B. & H.) 166; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 26. Corporations; Misfeasance; Appearance of: A corporation may be indicted for a misfeasance as well as a non-feasance. Regrina T. Bir- mingham, etc. R. R. Co. Regina v. Grey (1864), 4 F. & F. 73; S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 161. Nuisance: Offenses to public decency. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping; Commonwealth v. Upton; Sic ntere tno ut alienum non Isedas. Regina v. HiU (1851), 15 Jur. 470; S. G., 5 Cox G."g. 259; S. C., 2 Den. G. G. 254; S. G., 4 New Sessions Gases, 613; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Cas. 204. Monomaniac; Competency op witness: Questions of competency to be decided by the court. Competency op testimony: Is a question for the court, 1 Gr. Ev. 49; 1 Tay. Ev. 21-41; Bro. Max. 102; Stark. Ev. 764; 1 Wh. Ev. 391; Ad^ qnsestionem facti non respondent judices, ad questionem legis non respondent juratores; State v. Croteau; competency of wit- ness is a question of law; his credibility a question for the jury, Reg. v. Hill. Competency op witnesses, 1 Gr. Ev. 32&-430; 2 Tay. Ev. 1210-1257; 1 Best Ev. 132-188; 1 Wh. Ev. 391-490; 1 Phii. Ev., Chaps. 1-8; 3 Phil. Ev. 1-100; Rose. Crim. Ev. 113-134; 1 Rice Ev., 262-272; 3 Russ. Crimes, 612-637; State v. Hlldreth. Must have sanction op oath: A witness must be sworn, 1 Gr. Ev.328; 2 Tay. Ev. 1247; 1 Wh. Ev. 386; 1 Best Ev. 56; 1 Rice Ev. 272. HusBAi^D AND WIPE: Rule in, 1 Gr. Ev. 334; 1 Rice Ev. 263; 1 Wh. Ev. 421-4.33; 1 Best Ev. 175-182; 2 Tay. Ev. 1232-1250; The King v. Inhabitants of All Saints. Wife can swear to contents of a trunk, 1 Wh. Ev. 423; Illinois R. R. Co. V. Taylor, 24 Ills. 323. Marriage must be lawful, 2 Tay. Ev. 1231. Are competent in collateral cases, 1 Gr. Ev. 342; 2 Tay. Ev. 1233-1235. Parties to the record: Incompetent at common law, 1 Gr. Ev. 329; 1 Wh. Ev. 457-490- 1 Best Ev. 168: Banerman t. Badenius. 158 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Regina v. Hill — continued. Party to a cause not compensable to teakify.iGr-Ev. 353; Banerman v, Radenius. Equity rule more liberal, 1 Gr. Ev. 361. Nominal party cannot testify without consent of real party, 1 Gr. Ev. 353. Infants: No precise rule of admissibility, 1 Gr. Ev. 367; 1 Wh. Ev. .397; 2 Tay. Ev. 1242; 1 Rice Ev. 263 f, g, h, i; 1 Best Ev. 156-158; Stark. Ev. 30, note 1; 1 Wh. C. L. 755; Wh. Grim. Ev. 366. Confessions of. Rex v. York. Child at six testified, State v. Richie, 28 La. Ann. 327; S. C.,26 Am Rep. 100. Mental deficiencies, Reg. v. Hill; 1 Rice Ev. 263, 270; 1 Gr. Ev. 365; 1 Best Ev. 133, 146-158; 2 Tay. Ev. 1240; 1 Wh. Ev. 406. Moral deficiencies, Omichnnd v. Barker; 1 Gr. Ev. 368; 2 Tay. Ev. 1247; 1 Best Ev. 159-166; 1 Phil. Ev. 15; 1 Wh. C. L. 795-800. Morality presumed, 1 Gr. Ev. 370; 2 Tay. Ev. 1250; 3 Russ. Crimes, 219; 1 Wh. Ev. 396. Accomplices, 1 Gr. Ev. 379; 2 Tay. Ev. 877; 2 Id. 889; 1 Bish. Crim. Proced. 1072-1079; Commw. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424; S. C, 34 Am. Rep. 391, note; Commonwealth v. Price, 10 Gray, 472; S. C, 71 Am. Dec. 668, notes; State v. Kellerman (1875), 14 Kans. Ill; State t. Hildreth. Infamous persons: Credibility of, 1 Gr. Ev. 372; 1 Wh. Ev. 399; 1 Rice Ev. 263, 268; 1 Best Ev. 141. Agents: May testify, when, 1 Gr. Ev. 416. See Agency, Chap. LIII; Res GESTiE, Chap. CLV. Functions of judge and witness incompatible, 1 Gr. Ev. 362; 2 Tay. Ev. 1244; 1 BestEv. 184. See Evidence Excluded from Public Policy, 1 Gr. Ev. 166, 249, 364; 1 Wh. Ev. 599-600; Taylor v. Larkin, 12 Mo. 103; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 119. Interest: When it disqualifies, 1 Gr. Ev. 387-430; 2 Tay. Ev. 1256; 3 Wh. C. L. 3009a, p. 69; Stark. Ev. 114-115, 144; 1 Wh. Ev. 393; Keech y. Sanford. « If witness is sworn according to his religion, it is sufficient, Omichuud v. Barker; 1 Gr. Ev. 371; 1 Wh. Ev..386; 2 Tay. Ev. 1253; Stark. Ev. 29- 36; 1 Best Ev. 162. Fraud: Parties may testify to their own fraud, 1 Gr. Ev. 383; Nemo tenetnr seipsnm accusare. Statutory provisions of the states affecting competency, 1 Best Ev. 167, note. Incompetency arising from transactions with deceased persons, 1 Ric-e Ev. 264. Common law features op incompetency, 1 Rice Ev. 267. Mental, > moral and social disqualifications. State legislation; effect of civil rights bill; California rule applying to Mongolians, 1 Rice Ev. 267. Objections to competency. See Consensus tollit errorem; Shutte V. Thompson; Montgomery v. Edwards; 1 Wh. Ev. 393; 1 Gr. Ev. 421, note; Stark. Ev. 113-114, 144; 2 Tay. Ev. 1256-1257; Waiver. Chap. XLVII. Issues on competency are independently heard; evidence may be pro- duced on, 1 Gr. Ev. 423, note; Brief on Jur. Tri. Civ. Cas. 55; Stout v. Wood, 1 Black, 71; Rose. Crim. Ev., p. 102; 1 Phil. Ev. note 48. Con- TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 159 Technological Table. B«gina v. Hill — continued. tra, Miffin v. Bingham, 1 Dall. 272-275; Chance v. Hine, 6 Conn. 231- 232. Voir dibe examinations: Are allowed, to disclose competency, 1 Gi-. Ev. 95, 423, 424; 1 Best Ev. 133j 1 Wb. Br. 492; 2 Tay. Ev. 1257; 2 Phil. Ev. 873, note, 568; 1 KIce Ev. 274; Consensus toUit errorum. May be made during examination in chief, 1 Wh. Ev. 492; 1 Gr. Ev. 424; 1 Best Ev. 133; 1 Phil. Ev. 97; 2 Phil. Ev. 872, 876. R^na T. Hook (1858), De*rsley & Bell C. C. 606; S. C, 8 Cox C. C. 5; S. C, 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 80. Pebjuby; Corbobobative evidence; Admissions by defendant. State V. Gage; People v. Travis; U. S. v. Wood. R^na V. Lewis (1857), Dearsley & Bell G. C. 182; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 298. Manslaughter; Death in England pbom injubies inflicted on the HIGH seas; Foreigners; JubisdictIoij; Venue. Regina v. Longbottom (1849), 3 Gox G. C. 439; S. G., 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 66; S. G., Laws. L. Grim. Gas. Simp. 274. Volenti non fit injuria; "He who assents to his injury shall not be heard to complain of it," does not apply to criminal law as it does in civil actions. IfuUus commodum capere potest de injuria sua pro- pria. Cbiminal negligence; Negligence of both pabties: Wherever death ensues from injuries inflicted by parties engaged in any illegal act, an indictment for manslaughter will lie, even though it appear that the deceased had materially contributed to his death by his own negligence. See Begrina v. Lowe. Regina t. Lowe (1850), 4 Gox G. G. 449 ; S. G., 3 Garr. & Kir. 123; S. G., 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 60; S. C., 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 180. Criminal negligence; Omission and commission: Gross negligence supplies malice. Regina v. Longbottom; Rex v. Smitli; Queen t. Hughes; Regina v. Conde; Rex v. Hull; In jure, non remota causa ged proxima spectatnr; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. R«gina v. Moore (1852), 2 Den. G. G. 522; S. G., 5 Gox G. G., 555; S. 0., 12 Eng. L. & Eq. R. 583; S. G., 3 Gar. & Kir- wan, 153 (61 E. C. L. R.) ; S. G., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 499; 21 Law J. Rep. (N. S.) M. G. 199; 16 Jur. 621. Confessions; Pbbsons in authority. Queen v. Johnston; Regina T. Baldry; Regina v. Warringliam. Nemo tenetur seipsum accus- are; "No man can be compelled to criminate himself." Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. 160 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Regina t. Preston (1851), 2 Den. C. C. 353; S. C. 5 Cox C. C. 390; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 417. Larceny; Finding of lost propekty. Regina T. Thabborn. Eegina v. Prince (1875), 1 Eep., 2 C. C. R. 154; S. C, 11 Cox C. C. 193; S. C, 13 Mo. Eng. Rep. 385; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 52. Statutory crimes; Mistake: Ignorantia facti excnsat, ingorantia juris non excusat, does not apply in all statutory crimes. People v. Roby. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Regina v. Roirton (1865), Leigh & Cave C. C.520; S. C, 10 Cox C. C. 25; 34 Law Jour., M. C. 57; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 383. Character: When an element in criminal cases. If defense offers it in issue, then the prosecution may assail it. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. General reputation; Character, 1 Qr. Ev. 54, 55, 101; 1 Tay. Ev. 516, 517; 1 Wh. Ev. 252; Stark. Ev. 43 et seq.; Roscoe Cr. Ev. 57-84; 2 Rice Ev. 504-509. General reputation, or character, when admissible, Reg:ina v. Rowton. Chap. CLVI. Regina v. Saunders (1838), 8 Car. & P. 265 (34 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 235. Rape: Fraud not force. Stephens T. Myers; People v. Dohring. Regina v. Smith (1868), 10 Cox C. C. 82; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 43. Crimes: Prisoner preventing one from protecting himself is guilty of a crime. Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; " No man should take advantage of his own wrong." See also Rex v. Smith; Queen v. Hughes; Regina v. Conde; Parker v. Adams; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Regina v. Stedman (1704), Fost. C. C.292; S.C.,Laws. L.Crim. Cas. Simp. 265. Homicide; Manslaughter; Provocation. U. S. t. Holmes. Regina v. Taylor (1859), 1 F. & F. 511; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas, Simp. 66. Attempt: Voluntarily abandoned. GrifBn v. State; People v. Mur- ray. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Regina v. Thubbom (1849), 1 Den. C. C. 387; S. C, Temple & Mew C. C. 67; S. C, 2 Car. & Kir. 831; S. C, 17 Law Jour., M. C. 140; S. C, 13 Jur. 499; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 409 ; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 306 Larceny; Finding op lost property. Regina t. Preston. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. IQl Technological Table. Begina v. Vaux (1590), 4 Coke, 44; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Gas. 513, note. Former jeopardy. United States t. Perez. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa; " It is a rule of law that no man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause." See Hummer t. Lamphear; Campbell v. State; Audi alteram partem. DaE Process of Law. Begina v. Warringham (1851), 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 487. Confessions: Must be voluntary, and prosecution must show this. Queen v. Johnston; Reg. T. Baldry; Reg. t. Moore; Nemo tene- tur seipsum aceusare; Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Begina v. Waters (1848), 1 Den. C. C. 356; S. C., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 152, notes. Pleadings; Aider by verdict: Aider by verdict cures defective alle- gations, but not absence of allegations. Rushton V. Aspinall; Mont- gomery v. Edwards; Toorhees V. Bank of United States; Munday V. Vail; Boyd t. Blankman; Moore v. Commonwealth; Borken- hagen t. Pascheu; Regina t. Waverton; Audi alteram partem; stated under Waiver. See Verba relata hoc maxime operantur per referentiam ut in eis inesse videntur; Uines t. Robinson. Begina v. Waverton (1851), 17 Q. B. 562 (79 E. G. L R.); S. G., 1 Den. G. G. 365; S. C., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 152; S. G.. 8 Law and Eq. Eep. 344. Due process of law: Presence of essential allegations indispensable. Regina v. Waters; Munday v. Vail; Moore t. Commonwealth; Wil- liams T. Hingham Turnpike Co. See Borkenhagen t. Paschen; Montgomery v. Edwards; Rushton t. Aspinall; Audi alteram partem. Belative words refer to the next antecedent, nnless by such a construction the meaning of the sentence would be impaired: Ad proximum antecedens flat relatio, nisi impediatur sententia, Bro. Max. 680. Bericli v. Kern (1826), 14 Serg. & R. 267; S. G., 2 Am. Lead. Gas. 546; S. C., 16 Am. Dec. 501, note. Statute op frauds; Parol (oral) licenses: Parol licenses, if exe- cuted, are irrevocable, notwithstanding the statute of frauds requires sales of lands to be evidenced by writings. Prince v. Case; Wood v. Leadbitter. Bes accessoria sequitur principalem: The principal thing car- ries the incident, Bro. Max. 401. Harper v. City Insurance Co.; Ex- pressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur. 152 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere noii debet: A transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of a third, Bro. Max. 954. Applied in German Nat'l Bank v. Nat'l State Bank (1892), Colo. Ct. Appeals; S. C, 31 Pac. Rep. 122, 123; Field v. Mayor, etc.; Rees v. Berringtou; Cooke v. Oxley; Ubi jus ibi remediura. See Mutality; Assent; Contracts, Estoppel; Sure- ties; Res Gest^. Estoppels: Estoppels must be mutual; both sides must be bound or neither, in contracts, Cooke v. Oxley; Price v. Earl of Torrington; Kin^v. Baldwin; Abel v. Alexander. See Dnchess of Kingston's Case; Consensus tolllt erroruin; Privity; Hendricks v. Lindsay; AUegans contraria non est audiendus; Horn v. Cole. Due Pro- cess OF Law; Equitable Estoppel. Equitable estoppel, Horn v. Cole; Pickard v. Sears; Horn v. Baker. Chap. XLVIII. Where one of two equally innocent persons must suffer from the fraud of a third, he who tirst trusted must first suffer, Horn v. Cole. Relevancy of evidence: The evidence must correspond with the alle- gations and be confined to the point in issue, 1 Gr. Ev. 49-73; 1 Best Ev. 251-264; 1 Wh. Ev. 20-56; 1 Wh. C. L. 647-668; 1 Rice Ev. 251-261; 1 Phil. Ev., Ch. 10, Sec. 3, pp. 732-778; Stark. Ev. 617-639; Rose. Crim. Ev. 79-105; 3Russ. Crimes, 279-304; Bristow v.Wriglit; Borkenhagen v. Paschen. Relevancy of Evidence, Chap. CXLIX. Pacts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, admissible, 1 Rice Ev. 261; People v. Vernon. Res Gestje. Obder of proof: Court rarely interferes with, 1 Gr. Ev. 51 a; 2 Phil. Ev. 915. Pleadings as evidence, Buckout v. Swift, 27 Calif. 433; S. C, 87 Am. Dec. 90; Pom. Rem. 617; 1 Tay. Ev. 145-757; 2 Wh. Ev. 836-1112; Stark. Ev. 442-449; 1 Est. PI. 160-163; 1 Bates PI. 197; Boone's PI. 64-280; Bissell v. Spring Valley Townsliip. Judgments as evidence, 1 Gr. Ev. 522-551; 2 Wh. Ev. 758-841; Stark. Ev. 317; 2 Best Ev. 588-595; Duchess of Kingston's Case; Steph. Dig. Ev., Arts. 39-47. System; Collateral pacts: When admissible to show scienter, guilty knowledge, intent, motive, malice and wilful act. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet; Strong v. State. False pretenses, Shaffner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa. St. 60; S. C, 13 Am. Rep. 649. Poisoning case. People v. Corbin, 56 N. Y. 366; S. C, 15 Am. Rep. 427. Forgery : Same rule as in counterfeiting, Wh. Crim. Ev. 32; or successive burnings of insured property, 1 Wh. Ev. 39. System: May be proved by distinct transactions, 1 Wh. Ev. 30-45; Wh. Crim. Ev. 23-84; 1 Gr. Ev. 53. Adultery: Illicit intercourse is proven by system, Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. Ill; Wh. Crim. Ev. 35. Collateral facts: When to prove an issue. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet; 1 Bish. Crim. Proced. 1064-1067. Intent: Distinct felonies may be shown to prove. Wh. Horn. 696, 705; 1 Wh. C. L. 643; King v. Ellis; Scarver v. State, 53 Miss. 407; De- frese v. State, 3 Heisk. 53; S. C., 1 Gr. Crim. Rep. 356; S. C, 8 Am. Rep. 1; Reg. v. Roden, 12 Cox C. C. 630; S. C, 2 Gr. Crim. Rep. 34. (Systematic suffocation of infants may be shown). TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 163 Teclinological Table. Res inter alios acta, etc. — continued. Guilty knowledge: May be shown by proving collateral facts, Reg. v. Cotton, 12 Cox C. C. 400; S. C, 1 Green's Grim. Rep. 102; Strong v. State; Reg. v. Francis, 12 Cox C. C. 612; S. C, 2 Green's Crim. Rep. 24; Reg. v. Hagan,12, Cox C. C. 357; S.C, 1 Green's Crim. Rep. 109. Threats, Campbell v. People. See Self-defense, Chap. XXII. Collateral accidents: May be shown to prove knowledge, Chicago V. Powers, 42 Ills. 169; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 418. Negligence: Other acts are admissible, Crocker v. McGregor, 76 Me. 282; S.C, 49 Am. Rep. 611, note, Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind. 720; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 98. Contra, Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y.. 38; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 153, Branch v. Libbey, 78 Me. 321; S. C, 57 Am. Rep. 810, note, cases. Hearsay evidence, 1 Gr. Ev. 98-126; 2 Best Ev. 492-505; 1 Id. 112-118; 1 Tay. Ev. 507-542; 1 Wh. Ev. 170-269, 90, note; Steph. Dig. Ev., Chap. 4; Id., Art. 61; Stark. Ev. 35, 36, Chap. 3; 3 Russ. Cr. 246-276; 5 U.S. Dig. (CoDsd.) 638-659; 3 Bac. Abr. 629-635; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 662-668; Rose. Cr. Ev.24-.38;Bro.Max. 954;lPhil.Ev.,Chap.8;Wh. Cr.Ev.31-84; Bauer- man T. Radenins ; Higham v. Ridgway; King v. Baldwin; 1 Rice Ev. Chap. 10; Didsbury v. Thomas. Chap. CLIV. What the other man said is not evidence. Pedigree; Birth; Life; Death; Marriage: How proved, 1 Gr. Ev. 103-107, 134; 2 Best Ev. 498; 1 Wh. Ev. 202-225; 1 Tay. Ev. 571-592, Chap. 9; 1 Wh. C. L. 666; 1 Phil. Ev. 242-281, Sec. 4, Chap. 8; Stark. Ev. 45, note, 62, 63, 188; 1 Rice Ev. 220; Abb. Tri. Ev. 90-100; Crau- furd V. Blackburn (1860), 17 Md. 49; S. C, 77 Am. Dec. 323-328, note; 19 L. J. 714; Rose. Cr. Ev. 28. Hearsay; Reputation. Chap. CLVII. Marriage; Issue or want of issue; Survivorship; Death; Relative age; Name; Relationship: Generally provable by reputation in fam- ily. Chap. CLVII. General reputation; Character: Inadmissible in civil cases, unless in- volved in issue. May be introduced in criminal cases by prisoner, and rebutted by prosecution. Regina T. Rowton. Chap. CLVI. Res GEST.E, 1 Gr. Ev. 108-123; 1 Phil. Ev. 108, 185-211; 2 Best Ev. 495; 1 Wh. Ev. 258-267; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 663; 3 Russ. Cr. 245-249; Rose. Cr. Ev. 22-25; 1 Tay. Ev. 521-542; Stark. Ev. 884, note, 89, 78; 1 Rice Ev. 212; Steph. Dig. Ev., Chap. 2; Wh. Cr. Ev. 31, 262-270; Price v. Earl of Torrington; Higham v. Ridgway; Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96; S. C, 15 Am. Dec. 181, note; People v. Vernon. "The principal thing carries the incident." Cuicunque aliquis, quid, etc. Contemporaneous surrounding circumstances admissible to prove principal fact. Chap. CLV. Declarations as to title, 1 Gr. Ev. 109; Nelson v. Iverson (1853), 24 Ala. 9; S. C, 60 Am. Dec. 442^50, note; People v. Vernon; 2 Rice Ev. 423. Declarations of conspirators, 1 Gr. Ev. Ill; Steph. Dig. Ev., Chap. 2, Art. 4; 1 Phil. Ev. 205-211; 1 Tay. Ev. 529; 2 Wh. C. L. 2350-2355; 2 Wh. Ev. 1205; Rose. Cr. Ev. 415-417; 2 Best Ev. 504; People v. Ver- non. Declarations op partners, 1 Gr. Ev. 112; 1 Tay. Ev. 535-537; 2 Wh. Ev. 1192-1205; 1 Phil. Ev. 493-500; People t. Vernon. Declarations op agents, 1 Gr. Ev. 113-114; 1 Tay. Ev. 539-541; 2 Best Ev. 531; 1 Phil. Ev. 306, 506-507, 515-516, 520; 2 Wh. Ev. 1170-1183. 164 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Res inter alios acta, etc. — continued. Shop-books, Price v. Earl of Torrington; Hig'hain v. Ridgrway ; f/reion. Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96; S. C. 15 Am. Dec. 181, note; 1 Gr. Ev. 117- 119; 2 Best Ev. 503; 1 Wh. Ev. 678-688; Rose. Cr. Ev. 29; 1 Phil. Ev. .347-389; 1 Tay. Ev. 641; Stark. Ev. 493-497; Staph. Dig. Ev., Art. 37; 2 Rice Ev. 323-325. Entries by thikd persons, 1 Gr. Ev. 115-117, 120; 1 Wh. Ev. 238, 251; 1 Phil. Ev. 446, note; 1 Tay. Ev. 630 et seq.; Stark. Ev. 465-470, 493; Rose. Cr. Ev. 29; 2 Best Ev. 501; Steph. Dig. Ev., Arts. 27, 38; 1 Rice Ev. 213. Parties' own entries, 1 Gr. Ev. 118, 119; 1 Wh. Ev. 683; 1 Tay. Ev. 641-642; Steph. Dig. Ev., Arts. 37, 38. Indorsement op payme'jt as part of res gest^, 1 Gr. Ev. 121-122. Matters of public and general interest, 1 Gr. Ev., Chap. 6. Chap. CLVIII. Ancient possessions, 1 Gr. Ev., Chap. 7, Sees. 141-146; 1 Tay. Ev. 593-601 ; 1 Wh.Ev. 185-200; 1 Rice Ev.216; 2 Best Ev. 499; 1 Phil. Ev. 281-285, Sec. 5, Chap. 8; Stark. Ev. 46. Exception to the rule reiecting hearsay in case of ancient possession, and ancient documents in support ot it, Chap. CLIX. Proper custody, 1 Gr. Ev. 142; 1 Wh. Ev. 194, 197; 1 Tay. Ev. 595-599; 2 Best Ev. 499; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 88; 1 Phil. Ev. 285. Must have been acted upon, 1 Gr. Ev. 143; 1 Phil. Ev. 277. Part of res gestce, 1 Gr. Ev. 144, 1 Tay. Ev. 601. Ancient boundaries, 1 Gr. Ev. 145; 1 Wh. Ev. 191; Stark. Ev. 473; 1 Rice Ev. 217; 1 Phil. Ev. 230. Perambulations, 1 Gr. Ev. 146; 1 Phil. Ev. 234; Stark. Ev. 50; 1 Tay. Ev. 562; Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M. & S. 687. Chap. CLIX. Declarations of parties op record and in interest, Bauerman v. Radenius. Declarations against interest, 1 Gr. Ev. 147-155; 1 Tay. Ev. 602-629; 1 Rice Ev. 222, 247; 1 Phil. Ev. 300-347, Sec. 7, Chap. 8; 2 Best Ev. 500; 1 Wh. Ev. 226-237; Rose. Cr. Ev. 28; Stark. Ev. 475; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 28; 3 Russ. Cri. 276; Higham v. Ridgway; Dennis v. Chap- man (1851), 19 Ala. 29; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 186-188, note. Chap. CLX. Exception to rule rejecting hearsay. Chap. CLX. Ground for admission, Higham v. Ridgway; 1 Gr. Ev. 148; 1 Tay. Ev. 602. Books of account, Higham y. Ridgway; Price v. Earl of Torriiigton; 1 Gr. Ev. 150, 152, 117; 1 Phil. Ev. 347, Sec. 8, Chap. 8; 1 Wh. Ev. 238; 1 Tay. Ev. 607. Res Gest^. Declarant need not be competent, 1 Gr. Ev. 153; 1 Tay. Ev. 614. Books of deceased rector, 1 Gr. Ev. 155; 1 Tay. Ev. 621. Chap. CLX. Stewards, agents, etc, 1 Gr. Ev. 154; 1 Tay. Ev. 616; 1 Phil. Ev. 298; 1 Rice Ev. 221 c. Dying declarations, 1 Gr. Ev. 156-162; 1 Tay. Ev. 644-652; Rose. Cr. Ev. 31-37; 3 Russ. Cr. 250-273; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 669-682; 1 Phil. Ev. 285-301, Sec. 6, Chap. 8; 2 Best Ev. 505; Wh. Horn. 742-775; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 26; 1 Rice Ev. 219; Wh. Cr. Ev. 276-304; Stark. Ev. 32, 38; Rex V. John; Tiie King v. Mead; People v. Vernon; Price v. Earl of Torrington. Chap. CLXI. Admissible to prove cause of death, Chap. CLXI. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 1(55 Technological Table. , Res inter alios acta, etc. — continued. Grounds of admission, 1 Gr. Ev. 157; 1 Tay.Ev. 647; 1 Best Ev. 82, note; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 675. Must be under sense of impending death, 1 Gr. Ev. 158; 1 Tay. Ev. 648; 1 Best Ev. 82, note; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 669; 5 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 712. Only as to what deceased might have testified to, 1 Gr. Ev. 159; 1 Tay. Ev. 650, 651; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 678. Admissibility, question for judge, 1 Gr. Ev. 160; 1 Tay. Ev. 651; 1 Best Ev. 82, note; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 681. Declarations in writing, 1 Gr. Ev. 161. Precise language not necessary, 1 Gr. Ev. 161 a. Signs, 1 Gr. Ev. 161 b. Weight of such evidence, 1 Gr. Ev. 162; 1 Tay. Ev. 652. In general, Rex v. Johiij The Kin^ v. Mead. Chap. CLXI. Testimony of witnesses subseqcently dead, absent or disqualified, 1 Gr. Ev. 163-168; 1 Tay. Ev. 433-447; 1 Rice Ev. 214; 2 Best Ev. 496; 1 Phil. Ev. 389^01, Sec. 9, Chap. 8; 1 Wh. Ev. 177-180; 1 Wh. Cr. L.667e; Wh. Cr. Ev. 227-231; Stark. Ev. 36, note; 3 Russ. Cr. 249, 250; Steph. Dig. Ev., Arts. 25, 32; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. 1099; Bergen V. People, 17 Ills. 426; S. C, 65 Am. Dec. 672-679, note. Chap. CLXII. Admissibility of, an exception to rule rejecting hearsay. Admissions, 1 Gr. Ev. 27, 169-212; 1 Wh. Ev. 836-841; 2 Id. 1075-1220; 1 Tay. Ev. 653-688; 2 Id. 506-510, 518-531; 1 Rice Ev. 223-250; 1 Phil. Ev. 402-532, Chap. 10, Sec. 10; Stark. Ev. 50, 505; 2 Best Ev. 506-510, 518-531,792-799; Steph. Dig. Ev., Chap. 4, Art. 15; 3 Russ. Cr. 365-436; 9 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 325-356; Bauermaa y. Radenius; Fickard T. Sears; Price v. Earl of Torrington. Chap. CLXIII. Attorneys op reoord: Admissions by, 1 Gr. Ev. 27, 186-204; 1 Tay. Ev. 700-709; 1 Phil. Ev. 522-525; 2 Wh. Ev. 1184-1186; 3 Br. & Had. Com. 24, note 442. Judicial admission, 1 Gr. Ev. 205-227 a; 1 Tay. Ev. 700-709, 760-765; 2 Phil. Ev. 417-478, 503-525, 785-809. Agents; Partners; Conspirators: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 171-189; 1 Tay. Ev. 712-713; 1 Phil. Ev. 496; 2 Wh. Ev. 1156, 1169. Clothing agent with authority to do an act carries with it power to prove the agency; this may be proved by the agent himself, Moses v. Bos- ton &Me. a. R. (1851), 24 N. H. 71; S. C, 55 Am. Dec. 222, note. Guardian; Executor, etc.: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 179; 1 Tay. Ev. 680-685; 2 Wh. Ev. 1208. Parties not op record: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 180; 1 Tay. Ev. 686- 687, 719. Principal and surety: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 187; 1 Phil. Ev. 526; 1 Tay. Ev. 710; 2 Wh. Ev. 1212. ■Husband and wife: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 185; 1 Tay. Ev. 694-698; 2 Wh. Ev. 1214-1220. Predecessor in title: Admissions of, 1 Gr. Ev. 190; 1 Tay. Ev. 715- 716; 1 Phil. Ev. 529; 2 Wh. Ev. 1147-1169. Assumed character, 1 Gr. Ev. 83-92, 195, 1 Tay. Ev. 726; 2 Wh. Ev. 1152-1153; Horn T. Cole. Conduct: Admission from, 1 Gr. Ev. 196; Bro. Max. 102, 938; 2 Wh. Ev. 1081, 1136-1155. Silence: Admission from, 1 Gr. Ev. 197; 1 Tay. Ev. 732-740; 1 Phil. Ev. 465, note; 2 Wh. Ev. 1081, 11.36-1155; 2 Best Ev. 521; 2 Pom. Eq. 817-821. Equitable Estoppel, Chap. XLVII. 166 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Res inter alios acta, etc. — continued. Deeds; Recitals, etc.: Admissions in, 1 Gr. Ev. 22-26, 211; 1 Tay. Ev. 785-786; Jackson v. Cleveland. Receipts: Accounts, etc.: Admissions in, 1 Gr. Ev. 212-303; 2 Id. 516; 1 Tay. Ev. 786; 1 Phil. Ev. 474-478; 1 Best Ev. 223, note; 2 Id. 406; 2 Wh.Ev. 1365. Receipts arenotconclusive.onlyprima/acieevidence. Sub, Cumber v. Wane. Admissions, Chap. CLXIII. Confessions, Regina v. Moore; Regina v. Baldry; Regina v. War- riugham ; Queen v. Johnston. Chap. CLXIV. Res ipsa loquitur: The thing speaks for itself. See Kearney v. London, etc. R. R. Co.; Quod constat clare non debet veriflcare. Negligence, State v. Smith; Byrne v. Boadle. Malice; How proved: Malice is proved indirectly, Probatls extremis Sraesnmuntur media; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea; Iromage v. Prosser; Spies v. People. Malice is implied from any deliberate or cruel act against another, how- ever sudden. Commonwealth v. Webster (1850), 5 Cush. 295; S. C, 52 Am. Dec. 711. Feaud: Proved in like manner. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; 1 Rice Ev. 179; Expressio eorum quae tacite insuut nihil operatur. View op premises: Courts sometimes permit, for the reception of evi- dence. Commonwealth v. Knapp; Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 209; Galena B. R. Co. v. Haslam, 73 Ills. 494. Circumstantial evidence, Chap. CXLII. Judicial notice, Lanfear v. Mestier; Armory v. Selamire. Acta exterioba indicant interiora secketa, Six Carpenters Case. Presumptive evidence, 1 Gr. Ev. 14-48; 1 Rice Ev. 28-59; 1 Best. Ev. 211-214, note; 2 Best Ev. 296; 1 Tay. Ev. 61-171; 2 Wh.Ev. 1226-1365; Rose. Cri. Ev. 14-24; 1 Bish. Crim. Prooed. 1059-1068; 1 Wh. Cr. L. 707-732; 3 Russ. Cri. 214-222; 1 Phil. Ev., Chap. 10, pp. 598-682; 2 Id. 591-612; Stark. Ev. 741. Chap. CXLIII. Circumstantial evidence, Burrill Circ. Ev., Wills Circ. Ev.; 2 Rice Ev., Chap. 21. Chap. CXLII., Respondeat superior : Let the principal be held responsible, Bro. Max. 843. Agency: Cornfoot v. Fowlce; Gregory v. Piper; Tliomas v. Win- chester; Hilliard v. Richardson; McManns v. Crickett; Hadley v. Baxendale; Hays v. State; Hipp v. State; Rex v. Almon. See Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur; In fictione juris semper aequitas existit. Rex V. Almon (1770), 5 Burr. 2686; S. C, 20 St. Trials, 803-850; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 145. Agency: Liability of principal for criminal acts of agent. McManus v. Crickett; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore; Hipp v. State; Hays T. State. See Respondeat superior; Qui per alium facit, etc.; Thomson v. Davenport. Rex V. Brodribb (1816), 6 Carr. & P. 571 (25 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 128. Unlawful assembly. State v. Sumner; State v. Brazil. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 1(57 Technological Table. Rex V. Crutchley (1831), 5 Carr. & P. 133 (24 E. C. L. R); S. C , Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 60. Crimes; Intent: Compulsion may excuse: Coercion as an excuse. Commonwealth v. \eal; Whitton v. State; Commonwealth r. Presby. See I^norantia facti exeusat, ignorantia juris non excusat; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Rex V. Furnival (1821), Russell & Ryan C. C. 445; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 122. Burglary; Indictment; Essential averments. Jones v. State. Rex V. Gibson (1806), 8 East, 107; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 272. Pleas in abatement; Misdemeanor; Abatement; Respondeat ouster; Final judgment: A defendant in an indictment for a misdemeanor cannot plead over to the charge, after a plea in abatement for a mis- nomer on which issue is taken and found against him. Rejf. v. Duffy; Myers v. Erwin; Rice v. Shute; Williams v. Bankhead. See Abatement. Abatement; Pleas op: Order in which matters of abatement must be pleaded. See 1 Chit. PI. 440-4U; Steph. PI. 375; Gould's PL, Chap. 5; 1 Bish. Crim. Proced. 430, Ist Ed.; 746, 3rd Ed.; Haines' Justices Treatise (Ills.), 309, 10th Ed. Chap. XLVII, Waiver. Table showing order in which pleas in abatement must be pleaded: 1. To the jurisdiction of the court. Cooper y. Reynolds. 2. To the disability of the person. 1. Of the plaintiff, and 2. Of the defendant. 3. To the count or declaration. 4. To the writ; namely, 1. To the form of it. 2. To the action of it. Gould's PI., Chap. 5, Sec. 1-3; 2 Bish. Crim. Proced., Sec. 746; Steph. PI. (Heard's Ed.) 430; (Tyler's Ed.) 373. Expressio unius, etc. Code procedure: Under this, pleas of abatement are generally pleaded with other pleas. However, the rationale of the common law as to waiver and amendment may be applied with much consistency. Waivable matters, if once passed are gone forever, Consensus tollit errorem; Kraner v. Halsey. Dilatory matters, if insisted upon should be prompt, exact and not faulty in themselves; for them no intendments are due or favors shown. Rules of, are exceedingly technical; common law requirements of, should be well understood, especially in courts where they are applicable. See Consensus tollit errorem. Waiver, Chap. XLVII. Issue under plea op abatement: An issue of fact joined upon a plea of abatement, if decided for plaintiff, is followed by a final judgment, regardless of the merits of the case, Myers v. Erwin; Steph. Plead. 133; Id. (Tyler's Ed.) 392; 1 Chit. PI. (16 Ed.) 483; Gould's PI. 278; 2 Whart. Ev. 1111. Nonjoinder and misjoinder as grounds of abatement; when waivable and when fatal unless amended. See Williams v. Bankhead; Rice Y. Shute. 168 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Rex T. Haines (1821), Russell & Ryan C. C. 450; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 43. Burglary; Actdal and constructive breaking: Pulling down the sash of a window which has no fastening, and is only kept in its place by a pulley weight, is a sufficient breaking to constitute burglary. It is equally a breaking, although there is an outer shutter which is not closed and fastened. Rex t. McKearaey; Rex t. RusselL Rex V. Hull (1664), Kelyng, 40; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 50; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 269. Criminal negligence; Manslaughter; Misadventure. Regina v. Lowe. Rex T. Jackson (1822), 1 Russ. & Ryan C. C. 486; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 254. Rape; Married woman; Consent obtained by fraud. Having carnal knowledge of a married woman under circumstances which induce her to suppose it is her husband, lield, by a majority of the judges, not to amount to a rape. Regiua v. Clarke. Rex T. Jervls (1833), 6 Car. & Payne, 156 (25 E. C. L. R). Indictment; Receiving stolen goods; Substantive felony. Regiua Y. Caspar. Rex V. John (1790), 1 East, P. C, Ch. 5, Sec. 124, p. 357; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 393. Dying declarations; Hearsay. Xing' t. Xead. See Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Rex T. McKearney (1829), Jebb C. C. 99; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 62. Burglary; Breaking out of a dwelling-house: Getting one's head out through a skylight is a sufficient breaking out of a house to constitute burglary. Jones v. State; Rex v. Haines; Common- wealth y. Stephenson; Ducher v. State; Rex v. Russell. Rex non debet esse sub homlne, sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem: The king is under no man, yet he is in subjection to God and to the law, for the law makes the king, Bro. Max. 47. Lange v. Benedict; Busteed v. Parsons; Xostyn v. Fabrigas; Mnnday v. Vail. Rex non potest peccare: The king can do no wrong, Bro. Max. 52. Savacool v. Bou^hteu; Mostyn y. Fabrigas; Lange y. Benedict; Basteed v. Parsons; Chisholm v. Georgia; Himsaker v. Borden. Sovereignty; Relations of the citizen and government: A citizen may sue a state, Chisholm y. Georgia; but this rule was abrogated by an amendment, Art. II, Constitution United States, adopted Jan. 8, 1798. Since then it is permissive with each state, TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 169 Technological Table. Rex non potest peccare — continued. Wells Jurisdic. 345-368; 1 Bates PI. 13-15; 1 BI. Com. 243; 1 Br. & Had. Com. 290, note; 1 Kent's Com. 295-298; Note, 89 Am. Dec. 658. Government cannot be sued against its consent, Hunsaker v. Borden; Note, 89 Am. Dec. 658. "Rex est vicarius," 1 Bro. & Had. Com. 290, note. Remedy against government may be taken away, Hunsaker v. Borden. Rex nunquam moritur : The king never dies, Bro. Max. 50. Rex V. Russell (1833), 1 Moody C. C. 377; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 44. Burglary; Actual and constructive breaking: Lifting the flap of cellar, usually kept down by its own weight, is a sufficient breaking for the purpose of burglary. Rex v. Haines; Rex v. McKearney; Commonwealth v. Stephenson; Duclier v. State. Rex V. Smith (1826), 1 Moody C. C. 289; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 262. Wipe: When a competent witness for co-defendant of husband. Regina V. HiU. Rex V. Smith (1826), 2 Car. & P. 447 (12 E. C. L. R.); S. C. Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 35. Crimes: Acts of omission, not connected with duty, are not crimes. Brothers and sisters do not owe to each other a duty of support. Porter t. PoweU. See Queen v. Hughes; Reg. t. Conde; Regina T. Lowe; Regina v. Smith; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Rex V. Tolfree (1830). 1 Moody C. C. 243 ; S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. 358 ; overruling Rex v. Clark, 1 Moody C. C. 376, note. Larceny; Taking goods by the delivery op adulteress: An adul- terer stole, jointly with the wife, money and plate, wearing apparel and goods, the property of the husband. Held, that he was guilty of larceny. Regina v. Featherstone. This is analogous to the law of partners. Here one cannot steal of another; but if one conspires with a third person to steal of another partner, then the larceny is complete. Rex Y. Yandercomb (1796), 2 Leach, 708; S. C.East PI. Cr. 247; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cases (B. & H.), 516; S. C, cited. Wells Res. Adj., Sec. 414. Due PROCESS op law; Former jeopardy: Regular allegations and a coram judiee are essential. United States v. Perez. See Due Pko- OESS OP Law. 170 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Rex V. Wheatley (1761), 2 Burr. 1125; S. C, 1 Wm. Bl. 273; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. (B. & H.) 1-34; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Cas. Simp. 30. Public and private wrongs: What are indictable; cheats, swindles, frauds, tricks and pretenses. Rose t. Miles; People v. Johnson; Ubi jus ibi remedium. Rex V. York (1748), Foster's Crown Law, 70; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 71; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 1. Infants; Criminal liability op; Confessions: A child ten years of age may commit murder, if he knew he was doing a wrong. They are liable for torts, like adults. Gilson t. Spear; Godfrey v. State; Converse v. Converse. See Actus non facit renm nisi mens sit rea; Regina v. Hill. Testamentary Capacity. Reynolds v. Douglass (1838), 12 Pet. 497; S. C. 2 Am. L. C. 50. Notice; Guaranty; Letters op credit. Lent v. Padelford; Dong- lass V. Reynolds. Reynolds v. Nugent (1865), 25 Ind. 328; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 34. Consideration: Promise to do what the promisor is already bound in law to do is no consideration. Cumber v. Wane; Rann v. Hughes; Stilk V. Myrick. Reynolds v, Stockton (1887), 43 N. J. Eq. 243; S. C, 10 Atlan. Rep. 385. A court is bound by its records. An adjudication of a matter not in issue is a nullity. Munday v. Vail; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Brown's Jurisdic. 1; 1 Black's Judg. 184, 242. See Hauswirth v. Sullivan; Houston v. Williams; Lea v. Lea. Compare Voorliees V. Bank of U. S. Reynolds v. Tnited States (1878), 8 Otto (98 U. S.). 145; S. C, Gt. Opin. by Gt. Judges, 716 ; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 45. Constitutional law; Motive; Religious belief: The crime of polygamy not excusable on the ground of religious belief. Motive, in statutory crimes, is sometimes immaterial. People v. Roby ; United States V. Anthony. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Rice V. Shute (1761), 2 Burr. 261; S. C. 1 Sm. L. C. 1405-1417. Parties; Nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties: Amendment. Bristow V. Wright; Williams v. Bankhead; Myers v. Erwin; Rex V. Gibson. Amendments of judgments and records, Owen v. Weston. Chap. CXXXII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 171 Technological Table. Rictetson v. Richardson (1864), 26 Calif. 149. JuEisDicTioNj Mandatory and dieectoby statutes; Sekvice by pdblication: Provisions for, must be strictly complied with. 3 Cool. Bl. 15, note. Mohr v. Tulip; O'Rear v. Lazarus, 8 Colo. 608; Bloom V. Burdlck; Russell v. Maun; Moore t. Commonwealth; Williams V. Hingham Turnpike Co. Rideout v. Knox (1889), 148 Mass. 368; S. C, Myer's Vested Eights, 286. Nuisance: Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; "Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person." St. Helen's Smelting Co. t. Tipping. Legislative interference: Statute may regulate height of fences built more than six feet high, to shut out adjacent owner's light and air. Millett v. People; Burke v. Smith; Mahan v. Brown; Yates v. Jack; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea; Ubi jus ihi reme- dium. Rigge V. Bell (1795), 5 Term Rep. 471 (Durn. & East); S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 105; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 172; S. C, Shir. L. C. 100. Statute of frauds; Leases: Leases for more than three years. Effect of lease void under sections 1 and 2 of statutes of frauds. Clayton V. Blakey. Rohbins v. Chicago. See Chicago v. Bobbins. Roberts v. Orchard (1864), 2 H. & C. 769; S. C, Shir. L. C. 350. Demand: Notice of action before bringing suit. Bicker dike T. Boll- man. In replevin, Cobbey Replev. 447-^24. Is waived if defendant's pleas show it would not have been complied with. Cobbey Replev. 450; Lex neminem cogit ad vana, etc. Roberts v. Smith (1857), 2 Hurl. & N. 213; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 684. Negligence; Master and servant: Liability of master for dangerous instruments and premises. Indermaur v. Dames. Robinson v. Cone (1850), 22 Vt. 213 ; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 67; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1129, extended notes. Contributory negligence: NuUus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; "No man should take advantage of his own wrong." Volenti non fit injuria; " He who assents to or invites his injury shall not be heard to complain of it." Butterfleld v. Forrester. Robinson v. Davidson (1871), L. R., 6 Exch. 289; S. C, Laws. L. 0. Simp. 114. Accidents: Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam; "The act of God is so treated by the law as to affect no one injuriously." Impossibility, by act of God, excuses the performance of a contract. Taylor v. Caldwell; Hallett v. Willye. 172 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Robinson v. Hurley (1860), 11 Iowa, 410; S. C, 79 Am. Dec. 497, notes. Lien; Pawn or pledge, foreclosure op; Cumulative remedies: Pledgee holding pledge may, after debt falls due: 1. Proceed personally against pledgor for his debt, without sale of pledge. 2. File a bill in chancery for a judicial sale under a regular decree of foreclosure. 3. Sell the pledge without judicial process, upon reasonable notice to debtor to redeem. See Morgan v. Dodd (1877), 3 Colo. 551. Bail- ments; Conversion; Trover. Robinson t. Raley (1757), 1 Burr. 316; S. C, 1 Sin. L. C. 1378- 1393. Pleadings; Duplicity; Certainty: "Pleadings must be certain.'' " Pleadings must be single." " Duplicity must be avoided." Am- biguity in a record will defeat it, as a plea of res adjudicata. Lea t. Lea; Munday v. Vail; Bristow v. Wright; United States t. Perez; Kelly t. Hemmingway; Kraner v. Halsey. Rochester White Lead Co., The, v. The City of Rochester (1850), 3 N. Y. 463; S. C, 53 Am. Dec. 316; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 673, notes. Negligence; Municipal corporations; Defective sewers: Liability for. Henley v. Lyme Regis; Bailey v. Mayor, etc. Roe V. Tranmarr (1758), Willes, 632; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 524- 541; S. C, Shir. L. C. 237; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 119. Construction: Construction of compacts shall be liberal, and they shall be upheld, if possible. Benignse faciendse sunt interpretationes propter simplicitatem laicorum ut res magis valeat quam pereat, et verba in- tentioni non e contra debent inservire; "A liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold them, if possible, and carry into effect the intentions of the parties," Bro. Max. 540; Crooker V. Holmes; Ut res magis valeat, qnani pereat; Kimia snbtilitas in jure reprobatur et talis eertitudo certitudinem confondit; Qui haeret in litera hseret in cortiee. Rogers & Sons t. Batchelor (1830), 12 Pet. 221; S. C, 1 Am. L. C.538; S. C, stated, 2 Bates Part. 1038, 1046. Partnership: One partner cannot pay his individual debt with firm assets. In the Matter of P. S. Smith; MeCnllongh v. Dashiell's Administrator; Livingston v. Roosevelt. Rose T. Hart (1818), 8 Taunt. 449 (4 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 330-361. Set-opp; Mutual credit: Mutuality essential to set-ofl. Sloan v. McDowell, 71 N. C .356, where held, mutuality is unnecessary. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 173 Technological Table. Rose V. Miles (1815), 4 Maule & S. 101; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts. 460. Nuisance; Public and private nuisance: What constitutes; who may be parties; remedy for; when public and when private. Bex v. Wlieatley. Ross V. Butler (1868), 19 N. J. Eq. 294; S. C, 97 Am. Dec. 654; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 162. Nuisance: Length of time immaterial; statute of limitations does not run in favor of. Ross V. Houston (1853), 25 Miss. 591; S. C, 59 Am. Dec. 231, note. Backman v. Wright (1855), 27 Vt. 187; S. C, 65 Am. Dec. 187, note. Agency; "Notice: Notice to the agent is notice to the principal. 2 Pom. Eq. 666-676; 2 Br. & Had. Com. 549, note 381; Wade on Notice, 696- 701; Astor v. Wells, i Wheat. 466; 3 Wait's Ac. & Def. 451. Director of corporation: Notice to, is not notice to corporation, unless he was acting in that capacity at the time notice was given, First Nat. Bk. of Hightstotvn v. Christopher (1878), 11 Vroom (N. J.), 435; S. C, 29 Am. Rep. 262; Fairfield Bk. v. Chase (1881), 72 Me. 226; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 319. Superintendent's knowledge of unrecorded deed, is not notice to corpor- ation, Wickersham v. Chicago Zinc Co. (1877), 18 Kans. 481; S. C, 26 Am. Rep. 784. Notice to councilman, whether notice to corporation: Notice to councilman, of defective streets, is notice to the corporation, City of Logansport v. Justice (1881), 74 Ind. 378; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 79-88, notes. Policeman, same rule applies, Eehberg v. Mayor, etc. (1883), 91 N. Y. 137; S. C, 43 Am. Rep. 657. Corporations, what is notice to, and how communicated, Wilson v. McCullough (1852),-23 Pa. St. 440; S. C, 62 Am. Dec. 347-352; Note, 51 Am. Dec. 162; Abb. Tri. Ev. 45. Rossiter v. Rossiter (1832), 8 Wend. 494; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 659; S. C, 24 Am. Dec. 62. Agency; Construction: General words following special words, are limited by the latter. Verba generalia restringuntur ad habilitatem rei vel personam; "General words may be aptly restrained according to the subject-matter or persons to which they relate," Bro. Max. 646; Batty V. Carswell; Peck v. Harriott; McClnre v. Richardson; Odiorne v. Maxcy. Roux V. Salyador (1836), 3 Bing. N. C. 286 (32 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Shir. L. C. 189. Marine insurance; Abandonment to underwriters. Row T. Dawson (1749), 1 Ves.!331; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1531. Assignments: Choses in action assignable in equity. Warmstrey v. Lady Tanfleld; Ryall v. Rowles. 174 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Royce v. Gu^enheim (1870), 106 Mass. 201; S. C, 8 Am. Rep. 322; S. C, stated, Wood Land. & Ten. 800. De Witt V. Pierson (1873), 112 Mass. 8; S. C, 17 Am. Rep. 58, note. Hayner v. Smith (1871), &3 Ills. 430; S. C, 14 Am. Rep. 124; Note, 64 Am. Dec. 691. Eviction: Xullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; "No man should take advantage of his own wrong." An entire con- tract cannot be apportioned. Eviction of tenant by landlord, wrong- fully, from a part of the leased premises suspends the payment of rent. See Actus iion faeit renin nisi mens sit rea. Chap. XXXIIL Constructive moral eviction: Here, abandonment of premises by tenant is essential to make eviction available, Dyett v. Pendleton (1826;, 8 Cow. (X. Y.) 727. Roy n'est lie per ascun statute, si il ne soit expressement nosme: The king is not bonnd by any statute, if he be not expressly named to be so bound, Bro. Max. 72. Construction: A statute does not bind the state unless it is expressly named to be so bound. States are not bound by federal constitution unless they are named to be bound. Barron v. The Mayor of Bal- timore. Rumford Market Case. See Keech v. Sanford. Rushton V. Aspinall (1781), Doug. 679; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 1445. Pleadings; Aider by verdict: A verdict cures the statement of a title defectively set out, but not a defective title. Spencer v. Over- foTi, 1 Day, 183; Regina V. Waters; Begiiia v. Waverton; Yadakin V. Soper; Moore v. Commonwealth; Borkenhagen t. Fasehen; Audi alteram partem; Edgerly v. Evierson (1851), 23 N. H. 555; S. C, 55 Am. Dec. 207, note. Aider by pleader over, Boyd v. Blankman. Verdicts: Essentials of, Wood v. McGuire's Children (1855), 17 Ga. 361; S. C, 63 Am. Dec. 246, note. Russell V. Mann (1863), 22 Calif. 132; cited Himmelman v. Danos (1868), 35 Calif. 449; McNabb v. Nixon (1871), 7 Nev. 172. Pleadings; Statutory eights and facts: Rights arising out of stat- utory facts and conditions must be shown by pleading those facts specifically. Dye v. Dye; People v. Jackson (1864), 24 Calif. 6.30; Gimmy v. Doane (1863), 22 Calif. 635; 1 Chit. PI. 372; Black Tax Tit. 500, 509; People v. Castro (1870), 39 Calif. 69; 3 Bl. Com. 15, n. It is well settled that, in declaring upon a cause of action under a statute, the plaintiff must state specifically every fact required by the statute to fix the liability, Ricketson y. Richardson; Williams y. Hingham Tnrnpike Co.; Wright v. Boston R. R. Co. (1880), 129 Mass. 444; Whitecraft v. Vanderver (1850), 12 Ills. 235, 238; Little v. Thompson (1823), 2 Greenleaf (Me.), 228 (an instructive case); Spears TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 175 Technological Table. Russell T. Mann— continued. V. Parker (1785), 1 Term Kep. (Durn. & East) 141. In declaring upon a statute, the cause of action should be described in the language of the statute, Gebhart v. Adams (1860), 23 Ills. 397, 400; S. C, 76 Am. Dec. 702. Criminal pleadings: Same rule applies to, Commonwealth t. East- man; 1 Bish. Crim. Proced. 593-642; Bish. Stat. Crimes, 375-407. See Waiver; Certainty. Strict statutory powersmust have been complied with, whether judicial, ministerial or legislative, and the party claiming under these must prove these facts affirmatively. Mech. Pub. Off. 516; Bloom v. Bur- dick; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; S. C, cited in Bloom v. Burdick. Due Process op Law. Affidavits for publication must contain requisite facts, Blcketson v. Richardson; Beckett v. Cuenin, 15 Colo. 281. Russell T. The Men of Devon (1788), 2 Term Rep. 574 (Durn. & East); S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 574, notes. Negligence; Counties; Highways: Liability of quasi-municipal cor- porations for failing to repair bridges and highways. Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs & Penhallow; Hill y. City of Boston. Counties are not liable for defective highways, Wliite v. County of Bond. Russell V. Russell (1783), 1 Bro. C. C. 269; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Cas. 931-954; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 64. Equitable mortgage, by deposit of title deeds. Ryall T. Rowles (1750), 1 Ves. 348 ; S. C, 1 Atk. 165 ; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1533-1674. Assignments: Notice to debtor of assignment, necessary to protect assignee from further equities. Compton v. Jones; Row v. Daw- son; Warmstrey v. Lady Tanfleld. See Assignatns utitur jure auctoris. Ryder v. Worabwell(1868), L. Rep., 4 Ex. 32; S. C.,Shir. L. C. 171. Infancy: Infant not liable upon contract, except for " necessaries." A silver goblet and a pair of studs are not necessaries. Peters v. Flem- ing. Rylands v. Fletcher. See Fletcher v. Rylands. St. Charles County v. Powell. See County of St. Charles v. Powell. St. Helen's Smelting Co. t. Tipping (1865), 11 Ho. Lds. Cas. 642; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 454; S. C, 4 B. & S. 308 (116 E. C. L. R.) ; S. C , 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 50; S. C, Laws. 176 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping — continued. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 135 ; S. C, Laws. L; C. Simp. 243 ; S. C, stated, 66 Am. Rep. 95 ; S. C, Nom. Tipping v. St. Helen's Smelting Co. Nuisauce; Noxious pomes: Poisoning the air is a nuisance. Injunctions to restrain, Campbell T. Seaman; Commonwealth v. Upton; People v. Cunninsrham; Bradley v. People; Croodrich v. People; King v. Yantandillo; Grisham v. State; Retina t. Grey; Fletcher t. Kylands. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Isedas; "Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person." Kideout t. Knox; Fletcher v. Kylands; Broder t. Saillard; Catlln t. Valentine; Soltau Y. De Held; May v. Bnrdett. Salisbury t. Herchenroder (1870), 106 Mass. 458; S. C, 8 Am. Rep. 354; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1067, notes. Proximate and remote cause; Causation: In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; "In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded." Concurrence of unlawful act with extra- ordinary and unforseen cause. Sign hung in prohibited place, blown down. Sntton t. Town of Wanwatosa; Lords Baliff, etc. v. The Corporation of the Trinity Church; Burrows y. The March Gas & Coke Co.; Welch v. Wesson; Metallic Compression Casting Co. t. Fitchburg Bailroad Company; Sharp v. Powell; Hadley v. Baxen- dale. See Actus Dei nemini facit injnriam; Ifullus commodnm capere potest de injuria sua propria; Yolenti non lit injuria. Salmon v. Bennett (1816), 1 Conn. 525; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 39; S. C, 7 Am. Dec. 237-240. Fraudulent conveyances. Sexton t. Wheaton; Twyne's Case; Hoi. man t. Johnson. Sains popnli snprema lex : That regard be had to the public welfare is the highest law, Bro. Max. 1. Rules founded on public policy. Harrison t. Bush; Taylor v. Cole; Sturges v. Crowninshield; R. B. Co. v. Lockwood; Bearing T.Bank of Charleston; Holman T.Johnson; Mitchel v. Reynolds; Lowe V. Peers; Bull v. Griswold; FertiUzing Co. v. Hyde Park; Hauswlrth v. SulUvan; Millett t. People; Noe t. Gibson; In pari deUcto potior est conditio possidentis; In prsesentia majoris cessat potentia minoris; Quando jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt, JUS regis praeferri debet. Salus populi suprema lex, lies at the base of all law. Enormous loss to society in comparison to small gain from any cause, is ground for abating the source of such loss. This maxim lies at the founda- tion of all government, Mugler v. Kansas (1887), 123 U. S. 623-678. [Case involving prohibitory liquor laws]. Due process of law; Res adjudicata: " It is the interest of the public that there be an end of litigation," Marriott r. Hampton. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 177 Technological Table. Salus popnli siiprema lex — continued. The immunity given to officers while acting within their proper spheres, the judicial, (Lange v. Benedict; Busteed v. Parsons) executive, (Ela V. Smith; Rex non potest peccare; Savacool v. Bough- ten), rest upon this maxim. It is an inoictable offense to refuse to accept an office, 1 Bish. C. L. 246, 458; i Br. & Had. Com. 208 note 690; 1 Dill. Munic. Corp. 162; Bro. Max. 13. Soldiers and Sailors are conscripted and forced to imperil their lives for the cause of their country. Not less necessitous is the requirement of public officers. Evidence is excluded for reasons of public policy, 1 Gr. Ev. 236-254. Notwithstanding right to property is guaranteed, yet if used in the commission of crime it may be confiscated, Spalding v. Preston (1848), 21 Vt. 9; S. C, 50 Am. Dec. 68, note. Within strict limitations, one may redress his own wrongs, e. g., a land- lord may take possession of leased premises, if he can do so without a breach of peace, Taylor v. Cole. One may employ the right of seif- defense, U. S. v. Holmes; but a valid act cannot be done by illegal means. One entitled to possession of personal property cannot take it forcibly from another, State v. Thompson (1807). 2 Overton (Tenn.), 96; 2 Bish. Crim. Law, 517, 520, 536. Process cannot be abused; Criminal process cannot be used for the collection of a debt, Watkins v. Baird (1810), 6 Mass. 506; S. C, 4 Am. Dec. 170; S. C, Ewell's Lead. Cas. Inf. Id. & Gov. 761-767; Ex dolo malo, etc. Criminal process cannot be used to enforce private rights, Fay v. Oatley (1857), 6 Wis. 45; Hackett v. King (1863), 6 Allen, 58; Foshay v. Fer- guson (1843), 5 Hill, 154; Wood v- Graves (1887), 144 Mass. 365; S. C, 59Am. Rep. 95: Bro. Max. 130, 131. One cannot be decoyed into a jurisdiction and there be validly served with process, Diinlap v. Cody; Fries v. Brngler. Breaking open a house to serve an attachment vitiates eevvice, Ilsley v. Nichols {1831),12 Pick. 269, 275; S. C, 22 Am. Dec. 425. Fraud vitiates all into which it enters. Ex dolo malo, etc. Sovereignty has immunity from liability in its operations, Wells Juris-' die. 345, 368; 1 Br. & Had. Com. 290; 1 Kent's Com. 295-298; Bex non potest peccare. A state cannot be sued without its consent, Hunsaker t. Borden. Defamation is permissible if done bona fide, and for the public weal, Harrison v. Bush. Fraud: Is indirectly repressed for the public welfare, e. jr., a triespasser cannot plead the benefits of his trespass. Bull v. Griswold; if he wilfully intermixes his goods with those of another, so they cannot be separated, he loses all, Jewett v. Dringer. Illegal contracts are suppressed; a party to an illegal contract is afforded no redress, Hol- man v. Johnson; In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. Parties to fraudulent conveyances and transfers of property, made to cheat, hinder and delay creditors, have no redress, (Holman v. John- son) for reasons of public policy; and likewise one who materially alters a contract under which he claims, cannot enforce it, Bro. Max. 154; Master v. Miller; Aldous v. Cornell. A large remedial field is given against trespassers. The least participa- tion in a trespass renders the participant liable for the whole. Bil- berry T. Hatton; Kirkwood v. Miller; Vosburgh v. Moak. Allied to this doctrine is the liability of one who meddles with a de- cedent's estate — an administrator de son tort. Such a meddler is 178 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Salus populi suprema lex — continued. liable to creditors for the entire value of the property he tampers with, Brown v. Snllivan. The public is shielded from litigation. The salaries of public officers cannot be garnished, Hightotoer v. Slaton (1875), 54 Ga. 108; S. C, 21 Am. Rep. 273; Rodman v. MusselmanmiQ), 12 Bush. 354; S. C, 23 Am. Rep. 724. Counties and other quasi municipal corporations are within this rule, Divine v. Harvie; 1 Dill. Munic. Corp. 65; State V. Eberly, 12 Neb. 616; Mayor v. Root (1855), 8 Md. 95; S. C, 63 Am. Dec. 692, note; McLellan v. Young (1875), 54 Ga. 399; S. C, 21 Am. Rep. 276. The salary of a municipal corporation officer is not subject to garnishment, Wallace v. Lawyer (1876), 54 Ind. 501; S. C, 23 Am. Rep. 661; Rodman v. Miisselman (1876), 12 Bush. 354; S. C, 23 Am. Rep. 724. Mechanic's liens cannot attach to public property, LaCrosse R. R. Co. V. Vanderpool (1860), 11 Wis. 124. States cannot be sued without their consent, supra. Counties not liable for defective highways, Russell v. Men of Devon ; White V. County of Bond. Property custodia legisnot subject to execution, or seizure on attachment, Ableman v. Booth; Drake on Attachment, 251. Property seized for a tax, not subject to other process. Wells Replevin, 224-242; Cooley's Tax. 819, Contra, if tax is void, Cooley's Tax. 800-801, 818. Le Roy V. East Saginaw City Railway (1869), 18 Mich. 233; S. C, 100 Am. Dec. 162, notes. Eminent domain: Powers of, rest upon grounds of public policy. Brown V. Beatty; Kohl v. U. S. Waiver of rights involving the public, cannot be made. Consent cannot confer jurisdiction of subject matter. See Waiver, Chap. XLVII. One cannot consent to have a crime committed upon him; and if he does, it is contrary to public policy to agree not to prosecute for it, Collins v. Blantern; Keir v. Leenian; Jones v. Bice. It is the duty of every good citizen to communicate to law enforcing offi- cials, the infraction of public laws, and this duty cannot be con- tracted away; compounding crime, is a crime in itself, Suh Holman v. Johnson. Due process of law (Chap. VII), is a constitutional guarantee, and on principle, cannot be waived. Generally, constitutional rights cannot be waived. See Doe Process of Law, Chap. VII. Audi alteram partem, (Sub Chap. VII) involves reasons of Sains populi snprema lex. Ubi jus ibi remedium (Chap. LXXX). Government is obligated to fur- nish the citizen remedies, to protect rights and enforce obligations. Cooley's Const. Lim. 447 _(6th Ed.). In connection with this, are vested rights, Bronson V. Kinzie; Edwards v. Kearzey; Mason v. Haile; Seobey v. Gibson (1861), 17 Ind. 572; S. C, 79 Am. Dec. 490-496, note. Retrospective laws, Gelpcke v. Dnbnque. Ex post facto laws. Calder v. Bull. The law of stare decisis, Ita lex scripta est. Equal protection under laws, Cooley's Const. Lim. 479-491. Equality is the aim of the law. Id. 485, 486 (6th Ed). Lack of remedies was one of the grounds of complaint in the Declaration of Independence. See Con- stitutional Law, Chap. II; Legislative Power, Chap. Ill; Re- TBOACTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE LaWS, ChaP. IV; DuE PbOCESS OF Law, Chap. VII. Remedies: Legislative control over, Seobey v. Gibson, supra; Bron- son T. Kinzie. Usurpation of power is opposed to due process of law, and is strictly guarded by technical safeguards. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 179 Technological Table. Salus populi suprema lex — continued. Jurisdiction: Authority is conferred by general laws, for the public welfare; for the erection and maintenance of equal and uniform laws; for the protection of rights and the enforcement of obligations. Con- ferring jurisdiction and exercising authority by man over man, in constitutional governments, everywhere and from every aspect, in- volve the public welfare. This is clearly expressed in the preambles to our constitutions. The history of constitutional government is a constant repetition of the maxim, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." It is but a con stant recounting of the strivings and struggles of usurping despots and classes, and of jealous state forces; from this standpoint, it is both interesting and instructive, to view the arrogance which superior judges assert for their class in some jurisdictions; with reference to them, the law is correctly stated in this, "All men are presumed to know the law, except superior judges of courts of record," Bnsteed v. Parsons; Laiige V. Benedict; Galpin v. Page. Elsewhere we quite fully notice the arbitrariness and oppression of this class. Due Pko- CESs OP Law, Chap. VII. Consent cannot confer jurisdiction of subject matter. Cooper T. Reynolds. Justices of the peace are liable for exceeding their powers. Piper v. Pearson; Miller v. Horton; McKinnon v. Penson. An insane justice is liable for his trespass, Krom v. Schoonmaker. Judges are not liable for judicial errors, within their jurisdiction, Busteed r. Parsons; Galpin r. Page; Miller v. Horton; McKin- non T. Penson. Superior judges are not liable for judicial errors, nor for malicious and corrupt acts, except by impeachment, it seems, Busteed v. Parsons; Galpin v. Page; Bradley v. Fisher. Courts are bound by their records, and cannot bind any person or thing not presented by the record, Audi alteram partem; Munday v. Vail; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; U. S. v. Perez; Reg. v. Vaux. Issues upon a record are a necessity, Borkenhagen v. Paschen. Pleadings and evidence are rules of Salus populi suprema lex. " Nothing is more important in the administration of justice, than a distinct theory and law of evidence. Without it there can be no cer- tainty in administrative justice; for it matters not how clearly a sys- tem of jurisprudence may define obligations and rights, if in judicial investigations, improper evidence is admitted, and proper evidence is rejected, there can be no security. The system of common law pleading is framed with reference to this point, making issues of fact simple, so that the relevancy of evidence may be easily perceived." Introduc. Steph. PI., p. 17 (Tyler's Ed.). Stare decisis, Sub Duch- ess of Kingston's Case; Ita lex scripta est; Borkenhagen v. Pas- chen. "It is thus seen how the common law pleading gives certainty to trials at law, making the question to be decided precise, the admission and rejection of the evidence definite, and retaining on the record, after the trial, precision in everything, from the summons to the judgment, so that it can be known what was in dispute, what was proved and what was adjudged," Steph. PI. Id. See Borkenhagen v. Paschen, and contra cases; Audi alteram partem. Defenses not pleaded are waived. Field v. Mayor, etc.; McKyring v. Bull. In pari delicto defenses, however, need not be pleaded; these cannot be waived, because they affect the public, as above noted, Holman v. Johnson; Borkenhagen t. Paschen; In pari delicto, etc. 180 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Salus populi supreiiia lex — continued. Issues upon a record cannot be waived, Borkenhageii v. Paschen; Williams v. Hinghani Turnpike Co. Allegata and probata essen- tial, Audi alteram partem; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Williams V. Hingrham Turnpike Co. Flowing from this, is the reason why a court is bound by its records, Borkenlia^en v. Paschen; otherwise anything or any person could be made to appear and be bound; this is why a record must be pleaded in presenting a former adjudication, Sub Duchess of liXn^- ston's Case; Audi alteram partem., If acts in pais before a court will supply essehtial record matter, then the question would ever be present, how far loose declarations and inadvertant acts may be indulged in, before the requisite estoppel in pais matter would supply the record p7'oper matter? It has been noticed. Sub Borkenhagen v. Paschen, that in Colorado, if both parties agreed and formally stipulated in writing, that this would be insufficient, but otherwise, it seems, if the act were ex parte and unintentional. From such standpoints a great field for judicial favor- itism and oppression appears; also that guarantees are robbed of all protective force, which amounts to nothing more than that you shall not do wrong unless you choose to, Cooley's Const. Lim. 432 (6th Ed). To avert this arbitrariness, the rule is, consent cannot confer juris diction of subject matter, and the record must present the person and thing to be bound. This record is made by the ministerial hand of the court — the clerk, at the instance and request of parties litigant; this record cannot be made by the judicial hand for other great reasons of public policy, Dennett v. Petitiouer; Flournoy v. Jef- ferson ville. Ex facti oritur legis; "Out of the facts arise the law," Cooley's Const. Lim. 58 (6th Ed). 1 Black Judg. 184, 242. Pleadings presenting a person and thing to be bound are the means of describing and presenting a subject matter; if consent cannot confer this, then, neither can the pleadings be waived. It is absurd to recog- nize one of these statem3nts of the same thing, and upon not more than a verbal distinction uphold one and uproot the other. If plead- ings can be waived, so can objections to jurisdiction of subject-mat- ter, Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Cooper v. Reynolds. After the record safeguards are waived, all depends on the character of the judge; and this, in revolutionary periods and troublous political epochs, is not always good. Protection from the judiciary is needed, Cooley's Const. Lim. 491 (6th. Ed). Dependent favoritism £ind incom- petence of the King's Judiciary is one of the grounds for revolution, in the Declaration of American Independence. The Stuarts always employed the judiciary as a chief instrumentality of persecution; its subserviency to "rings" in American commonwealths, is mentioned in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and to an extent far beyond that which is there stated the evil has existed. "Ring" government and "Boss" domination, greatly depend upon a retained and cringing judiciary. It was not the intention of our forefathers to invest judges with all power; they sought to establish and bequeath a govern- ment of laws, and not of men; they sought to leave us more protec- tion than man's capricious will, Cooley's Const. Lim. 432, 434, 442 (6th. Ed). Where an extreme is to be avoided, its means are to be excluded. A sovereignty or any of its subdivisions with all powers in one man's hands, sadly needs the presence of an able, independent judiciary to arrest oppression, discontent and finally revolution. Division of state power, is next to preambles in order in our constitu- tions; and it is a first principle not less respected in English law, TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 181 Technological Table. Salus populi suprema lex — continued. which is generally adopted in the American states, State V. Moore. Its express irecognition was wrenched from King John in A. D. 1215. Its fuller development cost two revolutions, the decapitation of a king, and finally the expulsion of his house forever. Death to him was more acceptable than the relinquishment of arbitrary power, for himself and his class. Division ol state power grounds the applica- tion of constitutionalisms to the governed, who only through its forms, should submit to government. Anything else for government is usurpation — traitorous conduct to official obligation, and this calls for a redress of grievances; such arbitrariness has often been resisted, and always justifiably, not only in the eye of the historian, but from high principle as well. From this great principle great dis- cussions flow, Dennett v. Petitioner; Flournoy v. Jeffersonville. Inferior, statutory courts, tribunals and officials are most closely guarded, for reasons of public policy. Piper V.Pearson; Galpin v. Page; Miller v. Horton; Crepps v. Burden. In tax proceedings the rule is strictly applied, Lawrence v. Fast. Similarly the law of arrest is strictly guarded, Allen y. Wright. Stare decisis: Equal and uniform law is of paramount importance, and is a vital consequence, Ita lex scripta est. Ministerial officers must act within jurisdiction, and under regular pro- cess, Saracool v. Boughten, and bona fide too, it seems, Grace t. Mitchell. Governors are liable for their trespasses, Mostyn v. Fabrigas. Constbuction; Effect of words used. Every man is presumed to know the law, Ignorantia facti,etc. One is conclusively presumed to intend the meaning of clear and unambiguous language, Expressio nnius, etc.; Expressio eoruui, etc.; Actus non facit reuni, etc. Parol, (oral) contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary a writing, Pym v. Campbell. Words declaring a forfeiture may nev- ertheless be construed for actual damages, Kenible v. Farren. Legal effect of words of context, will control the manifest intention of parties, Note, 94 Am. Dec. 428; Ellis v.Esson; 1 Hill, 185; Quoted, 36 Am. Rep. 833; Black. Tax Tit. 717. No man is allowed to act where his integrity and his interest are in con- flict, Keech v. Sanford. No man can be judge of his own cause, Biiues T. Grand Junction Canal. No man can serve his own process, Singletary v. Carter. Public laws paramount in England. An injury which is both a public and a private wrong, must first be prosecuted by the crown, White V. Fort. Private property may be entered on and inhabited tenement be demol- ished, to arrest a contagion. Meeker v. Van Rensselaer (1836), 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 397. Private property may be destroyed to arrest a conflagration, Surocoo v. Geary (1853), 13 Calif. 69; S. C, 58 Am. Dec. 385. Highway out of repair justifies passenger entering upon and passing over adjoining premises, 1 Bl. Com. 36; 2 Wait's Ac. & Def. 350-354; Campbell v. Race (1851), 7 Cushing (Mass.), 408; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 728- 734, notes. AUegans contraria non est audiendus. Inconsistent positions repressed for th& cause of truth. One is not allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, Mitchell v. Heed; Horn v. Cole. One cannot impeach his own witness, Falsus in uno, etc. 182 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Sains populi suprema lex — continued. Respondeat superior, is a rule of public policy, Greenhood Public Policj', p. 3. Employer cannot contract against liability caused by his own negligence, R. R. Co. v. Spangle (1886), 44 O. St. 471; S. C, 58 Am. Rep. 833, note. Common carrier cannot exonerate himself by contract against his neg- ligence, Moulton V. St. Paul, etc. B. M. Co. (1883), 31 Minn. 85; S. C, 47 Am. Rep. 781, note; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adams (1867), 42 Ills. 474; S. C, 92 Am. Dec. 85, note. Railway Co. v. Lockwood. Lex loci contractus, is also a rule of. Van Voorhis v. BrintualL That exemptions and homestead rights cannot be waived contempora- neously with making of contract, is generally recognized, Kueetle v. Newcomb; but the cases are in conflict. Statutes of limitations are enacted for the peace and repose of society, yet they may be waived, Bro. Max. 699; 7 Wait's Ac. & Def . 223; Wood Lim. 42-53; Riddlebarger v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1869), 7 Wall. .386; Wilkinson v. First Nat. Fire Ins. Co. (1878), 72 N. Y. 499; S. C, 28 Am. Rep. 166. Contemporaneous agreements to waive, are sometimes held void, Kellogg V. Dickenson (1889), 147 Mass. 432; S. C, 1 Lawyer's Rep. Ann. 346; 18 N.E.Rep.223; 7 New Eng. Rep. 151; 13 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 717; Greenhood's Pub. Pol. 504. Modus et conventio vincunt legem. Parties may contract away rights introduced in their favor, Bro. Max. 689. Limitations may be shortened by convention. Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (1877), 123 Mass. 380; S. C, 25 Am. Rep. 96, note; Waynesboro Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Conover (1881), 98 Pa. St. 384; S. C, 42 Am. Rep. 618, note; Note, 61 Am. Dec. 81. It may be stipulated, when claims may be presented for settlement. Southern Express Co. v. Hunnieutt (1877), 54 Miss. 566; S. C, 28 Am. Rep. 385; Wood on Lim. 42-53. Constitutional rights, generally cannot be waived, especially when life or liberty is involved; these, among others, are called absolute rights. See Waiver, Chap. XL VII. Absolute rights cannot be trafficked away. Essential rights, involving life or liberty cannot be waived, Hopt v. Utah (1884), 110 U. S. 579; a jury of twelve cannot be waived. Work v. State. Trial by jury cannot be waived, in cases of felony. State v. Dayis (1877), 66 Mo. 684; S. C, 27 Am. Rep. 387; Kelly v. People (1886), 115 Ills. 583; S. C, 56 Am. Rep. 184; Consensus toUit errorem; State v. Cro- teau; Turney v. Barr. See Waiver, Chap. XLVII. Consensus tollit errorem, elsewhere mentioned, is an important maxim of procedure. It, however, only applies to formal, dilatory or incon- sequential matters or details which, if once passed, it is held, for the public good, should not be afterwards raised. "A man who does not speak when he ought, shall not be heard when he desires to speak," Bro. Max. 138; Horn v. Cole; Mitchell v. Reed; Alle^ans coutra- ria non est audiendns; and so it is with dilatory matters, unless objection is apt, exact and most precise, Kraner v. Halsey. When public policy is involved, parties cannot waive. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Caveat emptor and its cognate subjects are also rules of public policy, Pasley t. Freeman; Rex v. Wheatley. Officers de-facto and de-jure. For reasons of public policy, one without any right to an office, but in possession thereof, may lawfully transact the public business of the same with third persons, Shelby v, Alcorn. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 183 Technological Table. Salus populi snprema lex — continued. Lis pendens notice, is also a rule of public policy, Tilton v. Cofleld. Taxation must be for public purposes. It cannot rightly be exercised except for government, Loan Association v. Topeka. Sunday laws are not enacted from a recognition of a divine will, or dic- tates of morality, Bloom v. Ricliards; Dies domiuicus, etc. See Chap. I. Salus populi supeema lex. Chap. XXIII. Samuel y. Payne (1780), 1 Doug. 359; S.C, 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 194. Arrests; False imprisonment. Allen v, Wright; Ledvrith v. Catch- pole. Santa Clara County v. S. P. R. R. Co. (1883), 18 Fed. Rep. 385, 398-406, Field, J. Due process op law: Audi alteram partem; "No man should be con- demned unheard." Pennoyer v. Jfeff; Xeedham v. Thayer; Fergu- son V. Crawford; Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co.; Belcher V. Chambers. Sargent v. Adams (1854), 8 Gray, 72; S. C., 63 Am. Dec. 718; S. G., Laws. L. C. Simp. 77. Evidence; Ambiguity: Ambiguitas verborum latens veriflcatione Buppletur; nam quod ex facto oritur ambiguum veriflcatione facti toUitur; "Latent ambiguity may be supplied by evidence, for an ambi- guity which arises by proof of an extrinsic fact, may, in the same manner be removed," Bro. Max. 608; Aspden's Estate. Saunders v. Frost (1827), 5 Pick. 259; S. G., 16 Am. Dec. 394r- 407, note. Costs: Allowance of, at law and in equity. Ela v. Knox. See Costs, Chap. LVII. Savacool y. Boughten (1830), 5 Wend. 170; S.G., Bige. Ld.Cas. Torts, 241; S. C., 21 Am. Dec. 138; S. G., cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 632, 690, 770, 778. Immunity given opficial acts: Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse, quia parere necesse est; "Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial authority, the law does not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounden duty to obey," Bro. Max. 93; Ela v. Smith; Mostyn v. Fabrigas; Sutton v. Clarke; Rex non potest peccare; Borkenhagen t. Paschen. Process, regular and valid on its face, protects executive officers called upon to serve it. Arrest; False imprisonment; Void and voidable process. State T. Weed; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1; S. C, 61 Am. Dec. 381, notes; Allen T. Wright; Barker v. Braham. 184 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Savacool v. Boughten — continued. ProceBS must not only be regular and fair, but officer must act hona fide^ in addition to holding such process, Grace v. Mitchell. Jurisdiction: A ministerial officer is protected in the execution of pro- cess, whether the same issue from a court of limited or general juris- diction, although such court have not in fact, jurisdiction in the case, provided that on the face of the process, it appears that the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and nothing appears in the same to apprise the officer but that the court also has jurisdiction of the per- son of the party to be affected by the process. Void process is no justification for an officer. State v. MeNally (1852), 34 Me. 210; S. C, 56 Am. Dec. 650, note. Scaramanga v. Stamp (1880), 5 C. B. D. 295; S. C, Shir. L. C. 192. Makine insurance; Deviation. Scarfe v. Morgan (1838), 4 Mees. & Wels. 240; S. C, Shir. L. C. 141. Sunday laws; Sabbath-breaking: "Ordinary calling," meaning of. Bloom V. Ricliardsi Wilkinson t. State. Scott V. Avery (1855), 5 Ho. Lds. Cas. 811 ; S. C, Shir. L. C. 128; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 91; S. C, cited, Anson's Conts. 185. Illegal contracts: Contracts ousting the jurisdiction of law courts are illegal and void. MeAvoy v. Long, 13 Ills. 147; Butler v. Winona Mill Co., 28 Minn. 205; S. C, 41 Am. Rep. 277; Note, 55 Am. Dec. 519; Holmau v. Johnson. See Arbitration. Scott V. Sanford (Dred Scott Case) (1857). 19 How. (U. S.) 393. Slaves; Citizenship; Liberty: The slaves of America have no absolute right to freedom, which American citizens should respect. The slaves cannot acquire citizenship or have protection in (U. S.) courts. See Amistad, The, (Cinque's Case); Somerset's Case. Scott V. Shepherd (Squib Case) (1773), 2 W. Bl. 892; S. C, 3 Wils. 403; S. C, 4 Sm. L. C. 796-809; S. C, Shir. L. C. 259 ; S. C, Gt. Opin. by Gt. Judg. 116 ; S. C , Laws. L. C. Simp. 240. Torts; Causation; Proximate and remote injury; Trespass and case: "A person who sets a dangerous thing in motion is presumed to have intended the consequences." Sharp v. Powell; Hadley v. Baxendale; Commonwealth v. York; Brown v. Kendall; Kirk- wood T. Miller; Vicars v. Wilcoeks. In jure, non remota causa Bed proxima spectatur; "In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded." See Actns Del nemini facit in- jnriam. Privity. Lan^ridge v. Levy. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 185 Technological Table. Seabury t. Grosvenor (1877), 14 Blatch. 262; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 171. Trade maeks: No relief to a wrong-doer. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; " No cause of action arises out of fraud." Holman v. John- son. Seaton v. Benedict (1828), 5 Bing. 28 (15 E. C. L. K) ; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 489; S. C , Shir. L. C. 70; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 47. Husband and wife: Responsibility of husband on wife's contracts. Debenham t. Mellon; Jolly v. Rees; Manby v. Scott; Smout v. Ilberry. Selfridge's Case. See Commw. v. Selfridge. Selleck v. French (1814), 1 Conn. 32; S. C, 6 Am. Dec. 185; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 610. Interest: Computation of, when allowed. Semayne's Case (Semayne v. Gresham) (1605), 5 Coke, 91; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 238-249; S. C, Shir. L. C. 325; S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 258; S. C, cited, Cool. Con. Lim. 367; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Ofif. 779. Sheriff; Service op process: Right to break and enter doors to arrest or serve process, Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium; " Every man's house is his castle." Or, as stated elsewhere, " Every Englishman's house is not his castle." Allen T.Wright; Hawkins V. Commonwealth. Seton T. Slade (1802), 7 Ves. 265; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1041, 1156; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 121. Specific performance: Contracts relating to real property, Ubi jus ibi remedium. Sexias v. Woods (1804), 2 Caines' Rep. 48; S. C, Hecker's Cas. Warranty, 274. Warranty; Caveat emptor: In an action on the case for selling one article for another, there must be either a warranty or fraud. A sound price does not imply warranty of soundness. The description in a bill of parcels is no warranty. Caveat emptor; Pasley v. Free- man; Chandelor v. Lopus. Sexton V. Wheaton (1823), 8 Wheat. 229; S. C, Laws. L, Cas. Eq. Simp. 109; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 1. Fraudulent conveyances; Frauds upon creditors; Statute op frauds. Salmon v. Bennett; Twyne's Case; Holman v. Johnson. Shaf her v. State (1851), 20 Ohio, 1; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 124. Bigamy: First marriage must be legal. Regina v. Brown. Intent immaterial. Commonwealth v. Mash; People t. Roby. 18C) TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Sharp T. Powell (1842), L. K, 7 C. P. 253; S. C, Shir. L. C. 260. Causation; Proximate and remote cause: In jure, non remota causa Bed proxima spectatur; "In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause. of any event is regarded." Scott v. Shepherd; Hadley v. Baxendale; Thomas t. Winchester; Lan^ridge v. Levy; Lnmley y. Gye; Salisbury v. Hercheiiroder. Shattuck V. Myers (1859), 13 Ind. 47; S. C, 74 Am. Dec. 236, notes. Change of venue: Various grounds for. Facts must be pleaded for, Tates, In re. Seduction: Evidence in cases of. Shaw y. Coster (1840). 8 Paige's Chan. 339; S. C, 35 Am. Dec. 690-712, notes. Equitable interpleader. General principles. Shelby v. Alcorn (1858), 36 Miss. 273; S. C, 72 Am. Dec. 169- 189. Offices: What is an office; what an employment. Officers: De-facto and de-jure. Acts of de-facto officer valid as to third persons. Shelley's Case (1579-1581), 1 Coke, 93 b; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 4. Estates; Conveyances: Where there is a gift to a person and his heirs, or the heirs of his body, it is not to be taken as conferring any estate on the heir, but simply showing or marking out the estate the ancestor takes. Thus, an estate is given to A. for life, and remainder to his heirs in fee-simple; this means simply that A. has an estate in fee-simple; his heirs take nothing by the conveyance itself. Is gen- erally abolished by statute in the United States. Tiedeman's Real Prop., p. 426. Sherman v. Kitsmiller (1827). 17 Serg. & R.45; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 16. Contracts; Certainty essential: Certnm est quod certum reddi pj>test. Uncertain agreement does not make contract. Kelly v. Hemmingway; Zaleski v.Clark; Boston Ice Co. t. Potter; Kyle v. Eavanangrh; White v. Corlies. An indemnifying bond failing to fix the amount of penalty, is void for uncertainty, Slater v. Jaeobitz (1893), Colo. Ct. App.; S. C, 32 Pac. Rep. 184. Shindler v. Houston (1845), 1 Denio. 48; S. C. 1 N. Y.261; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 316; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 70. Statute OP frauds; Sales; Acceptance and receipt: Acts must be shown evincing a recognition of an existing contract, after it is made, "by act and operation of law.'' Elmore v. Stone; Tempest v. Fitz- gerald; Lyon v. Reed; Tarlin? v. Baxter; Express!© eornm quae tacite, etc. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 187 Technological Table. Short V. Stotts (1877), 58 Ind. 29; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 59. Statute OP frauds; Promise "in consideration op marriage:" The statute only applies to agreements " in consideration of marriage," and not to agreements to marry. Shorter v. People (1843), 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.) 193; S. C. 51 Am. Dec. 286; S. C, H & T. S. D. 258: Selp-depense: No right to kill to prevent a mere trespass; only to pre- prevent a violent felony. United States v. Holmes; State v. Moore. Shutte V. Thompson (1873), 15 Wall. 150, 159. Modus et conventio vincunt legem; " The form of agreement and the convention of parties overrule the law," Bro. Max. 689. Consensus toUit errorem; "Consent makes law." Communis error facit jus; Quilibet potest renunciare jure pro se introducto. Practice. Montgomery v. Edwards; Voorliees v. Bank of TJ. S.; Begina v. HilL See Waiver. Waiver of an appeal or right of review, Clark v. Ostrander (1823), 1 Cow. 437; S. C, L3 Am. Dec. 546, notes. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas : Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person, Bro. Max. 365. Bideout v. Knox; St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping; Fletcher v. Bylands; Mahan v. Brown; Burke v. Smith; Brad- ley v. People; Commonwealth t. Upton; Goodrich y. People; Grisham t. State; King v. Tautaudillo; People t. Cunningham; Begina v. Grey; Soltau t. DeHeld. See Nuisance; Negligence; And. Die. Law, 1076. Three great cases are intimately connected with, and well introduce, the law of nuisance. (See five great cases of Negligence, Negli- gence). St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, is a case where noxious fumes escaped and poisoned the atmosphere and thereby injured vegetation on neighboring lands; this was held actionable. Coming to a nuisance makes no difference, Tolenti non lit injuria does not apply in such cases, Smith v. Phillips; Brady v. Weeks. Fletcher v. Bylands; here, water gathered in a reservoir on owner's premises, escaped and did injury on adjacent lands, held, actionable. May V. Burdett; here, an animal feroe naturae, escaped confinement without its owner's fault, and did injury, held, actionable. One set- ting a dangerous thing in motion is presumed to have intended the consequences, Scott v. Shepherd. One selling poison under a harm- less label, is liable to any injured person misled by such label, Thomas y. Winchester. These last five cases are closely associated, and deserve more than pass- ing notice. They are very interesting and instructive; around them, as centers, much is written, especially in text-books, relating to Tres- pass, Torts, Negligence, Nuisance, Damages, Actions and Remedies, etc. These great cases are widely cited in connection with these subjects, as reference to tables of cases in both reports and text- books will show. Familiarity with these cases, leads to a mastery of many hundreds of pages, as well as of great principles which, too, 188 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Sic utere tuo, etc. — continued. are far more embellished when considered in connection with Ubi jus ibi reinediuiu; Ashbr v. White; Chasemore v. Richards; Actus Dei iieniiiii facit injnriain, and the cognates of these great cases and principles. Nuisances are often public offenses, Rex v. Wheatley; Rose v. Miles; Salus popiili supreina lex. Drunkenness is a crime at common law, Brandon v. Old (1828), 3 Car. & Payne, 440 (14 E. C. L. R.). Profanity is an indictable offense, when swearing is done in a public place. State v. Chnsp (1881), 85 N. C. 528; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 713, note. A public nuisance may be abated by any person, Salus populi suprema lex; Rose v. Miles. Nuisance, Chap. LXXIX. Silk V. Prime (1768), 1 Bro. C. C. 138; S. C, 1 Dick. 384; S. C, 2 Ld. Eq. Gas. 353-429. Administration; Equitable assets. Aldrich T. Cooper. Simplex commendatio iioii obligat: Simple commendation is ■no obligation. Caveat emptor; Pasley t. Freeman. Simpson t. Cochran (1867), 23 la. 81; S. C, 92 Am. Dee. 410; 4 Wait's Ac. & Def. 184. Judgments: Successive actions may be brought upon. Hummer v. Lamphear. See Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa. Simpson v. Hartopp (1744), Willes, 512; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 783- 796; S. G, Shir. L. C. 92; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 182. Exemptions; Goods privileged prom distress; Goods ccstodia LEGis. Buck Y. Colbath; 1 Freeman on Ex. 208-225; Stewart v. Brown; Van Dresser v. King; Ubi jus ibi remedium. Singletary v. Carter (1830), 1 Bailey Law (S. C), 480; S. C, 21 Am. Dec. 480; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 524. Service op process; Party in interest: Sheriff can serve no paper in a cause in which he is interested. " No one can act where his interest and integrity conflict." Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal; Keech v. Sanford; Audi alteram partem. Six Carpenters' Case, The, (Vaux v. Newman) (1611) 8 Coke, 146; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 257-267; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 256; S. C, Shir. L. C. 322, under title of Vaux x. Newman. Trespass; Trespassers ab initio; Intent: Abuse of an authority given by the law, constitutes one a trespasser ab initio. Malcolm v. Spoor; Galpin t. Page. See Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta; Res ipsa loqnitur. Slaughter-House Cases, The, (1872) 16 Wall. 36 ; S. C , stated, Myer's Vested Rig^hts, 949; S. C, Laws. Ld. Gas. Gonst. Law Simp. 264. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 183 Technological Table. Slanghter-House Cases, The, — continued. Constitutional law; Police power; Pbotbotion of public health; Monopoly; Rights, privileges and immunities: An act was upheld in this case which provided, all cattle should be slaughtered at a cer- tain yard, and gave a corporation exclusive right to slaughter, upoa the ground that it was a police regulation conducive to health and comfort. Bartemeyer v. Iowa; Chy Lung' v. Freeman; Hoke v. Henderson. Sloman v. Walter (1782), 1 Bro. C. C. 418; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 2022-2072; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Gas. Simp. 68. Penalties and poreeitures. Peachy t. Duke of Somerset; Kemble T. Farren. "Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form." Greenhood's Public Policy. Smith V. Bell (1805), 2 Gaines' Gas. 153; S. C., 2 Am. L. G. 690. Marine insurance; Constructive total loss. Wood, etc. v. Lin- coln. Smith V. Brady (1858), 17 N. Y. 173; S. C., 72 Am. Dec. 442. Entire contracts; Building contracts: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius; "The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another," applies to. Contra, Haynes v. Second Baptist Church (1885), 88 Mo. 285; S. C, 57 Am. Rep. 413; Gleason v. Smith (1852), 9 Cush. 484; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 62. See Expressio unius est exclnsio alte- rins. Smith T, Freyler (1882), 4 Mont. 489 ; S. G., 47 Am, Rep. 358, note; Note, 95 Am. Dec. 313. Dane v. Corduan, 24 Cal. 157; S. C, 85 Am. Dec. 53, note. Sureties: Mere delay of creditor to proceed against principal will not discharge surety. Sterling T. Marietta, etc. Co. Smith V. Hodson (1791), 4 Term Rep. 211 (Durn. & East); S. G., 2 Sm. L. G. 124^139. Election; Mutual credit: One may waive a tort and sue in assump- sit. See Qui per alium facit, etc. Smith V. Lampton (1839), 8 Dana, 69; S. G., Laws. L. Eq. Gas. Simp. 33. Wills; General and specific legatees. Ashburner v. MacGuire. Smith T. Marrahle (Bug Gase) (1843), 11 Mees. & Wels. 5; S. C., 1 Gar. & Marsh. 479 (41 E. G. L. R,); S. G., Shir. L. C. 114; S. C., Laws. L. G. Simp. 168. Landlord and tenant; Caveat emptor; Warranty: There is an implied warranty on letting furnished rooms that they are lit for occupancy. Cleves v. Willoughby; Harris v. Tyson; Caveat emptor; CoUen v. Wright; Dutton v. Gerrish. 190 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Smith V. People (1860), 25 Ills. 17; S. C, 76 Am. Dec. 780; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 135. Conspiracy to do act not criminal. Commonwealth v. Ebelle. Smith T. Phillips (1874), 8 Phila. 10; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 160. Nuisance; Coming to nuisance: It is no defense that complainant came to the nuisance. Brady v. Weeks; Broder v. Saillard. Smith V. State (1846), 7 Hump. 43; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 188. False imprisonment. Allen v. Wright; Fox t. Gannt. Smith V. Thackerah (1866), L. R., 1 C. P. 564; S. C, Shir. L. C. 303. Easements; Support from neighboring land. Panton t. Holland; Hanipliries t. Brogden. Smith T. Wilson fRabbit Case) (1832), 3 Barn. & Adol. 728 (23 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. Us. & Cus. 335; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 83. Custom; Usage: Usage is admissible to explain a contract. Pym t. Campbell; Soutier t. Kellerman. Smoiit V. Dberry (1842), 10 Mees. & Wels. 1; S. C, Shir. L. C. 71; S. C, cited, Anson's Conts. 360. Husband And wipe; Responsibility op husband for wife's con- tracts. Debenham T.Mellon; Jolly t. Bees; Seaton t. Benedict. Soltau V. De Held (1851), 2 Sim. N. S. 133; S. C, Shir. L. C. 306; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 143; S. C, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 104. Nuisance; Nuisance prom noise; Bells: Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; " Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another." St. Helen's Smelting Co. T. Tipping. Somerset, Duke of, v. Cookson (1735), 3 P. Wms. 389; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1110-1117. Specific performance; Specific delivery up op chattels, Pnsey V. Pusey; Ubi jus ibi remedium. Somerset v. Stewart (Somerset's Case) (1772), Lofffs R. St. Tr. Vol. 1, 201; S. C.,Gt. Opin. by Gt. Judges, 112. Slavery; Slaves: The air of England is too pure to be breathed by a slave. Courts will afford slaves a remedy by habeas corpus, sought for the purpose of restoring the slave to freedom. See Scott, v. San- ford; Amistad, The. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 191 Technological Table. Soutier t. Kellerman (1853), 18 Mo. 509 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 81; S. C, cited, Anson's Cents. 326. Evidence; Usage; Custom: Usage may be shown to explain a con- tract. Optimus interpres rerum usus; " Usage is the best interpreter of things," Bro. Max. 917; Cooper v. Kane; Smith v. Wilson; Blackett r. Royal Exchange Assn. Co.; Pym y. Campbell. Spencer's Case (Spencer v. Clark) (1583), 5 Rep. 61; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 145-237; S. C, Shir. L. C. 110; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 173. Covenants; Covenants running with the land. Oibson v. Holden (1885), 115 Ills. 119; S. C, 56 Am. Rep. 146-167, notes; Norcross v. James, 140 Mass, 188; S. C, stated, 54 Am. Rep. 151. Sperry v. Commonwealth (1838), 9 Leigh (Va.), 632; S. C, 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 433; S. C, 33 Am. Dec. 261. Felonies: Defendant's presence in person at the trial and at each step is indispensible, and the record must show this. Audi alteram par- tem. Spies V. People (Anarchists' Case) (1887), 122 Ills. 1; S. C, 17 N. E. Rep. 898; S. C, 3 Am. St. Rep; 320-492, extended notes; S. C, 9 Crim. Law Mag. 829; S. C, 6 Am. Crim. Rep. 570; S. C, cited, Sackett's Instr. Jur., Chap. 56, pp. 709-738. Conspiracy; Tacking and collateral intent. Aetna non facit renm nisi mens sit rea. Spraigue v. Thompson (1885), 118 U. S. 90. Construction: Statutes and other compacts may be valid in part and void in part. Packet Co. t. Keokuk; Penniman's Case (1880), 103 U. S. 716; Virginia Coupon Cases (1884), 114 U. S. 269. Construc- tion. Spring Co. v. Knowlton (1880), 103 U. S. 49; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 108. Contracts; Illegal contracts: One standing in pari delicto, in an illegal contract can have no redress from any court, except where illegal purpose is not completed. Holman v. Johnson; Pearce v. Brooks. Springfield v. Harris (1861), 4 Allen (Mass.), 494; S.C.,81 Am. Dec. 715; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 506. Water-courses; Obstruction and diversion; Water. Chasemore v. Richards; Acton v. Blundell. Squib Case. See Scott v. Shepherd. 192 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Stapilton v. Stapilton (1739), 1 Atk. 2; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1675-1738; S. C, Laws.Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 96. Mistake; Compromise: A compromise entered into to save family honor, is upon a suflBcient consideration, and will not be disturbed by a court of equity. Hnnt t. Ronsmanier; United States t. Anthony. Starbuck v. Murray (1830), 5 Wend. 148, 157; S. C, 21 Am. Dec. 172. Judgments; Collateral attack op: Judicial recitals of jurisdictional facts not conclusive. Needham v. Thayer; Bloom v. Bnrdick. Due Process of Law. State V. Bacon (1869), 41 Vt. 526; S. C, 98 Am. Dec. 616. Witnesses; Examination op: Memoranda may be used to refresh memory. Price v. Earl of Torrlngton; Consensus toUit errorem. Refreshing memory: Witness may refresh his memory, 1 Gr. Ev. 4.36; 1 Wh. Bv. 516-526; 2 Tay. Ev. 1264, 1273; 1 Rice Ev. 314; 2 Phil. Ev. 916, 929; Stark. Ev. 177-184; 14 U. S. Dig. (Cons'd) 698-702, cases. ProfE. Jur. Tri. 229; Note, 66 Am. Dec. 714. Writings used to refresh, are of three classes; the second and third classes must be produced, 1 Gr. Ev. 437, 466; 2 Tay. Ev. 1266-1268, 2 Rice Ev. 314; ProflE. Jur. Tri. 229; 1 Wh. Ev. 516-526; 1 Best Ev. 224; 2 Phil. fiv. 916-929; 3 Russ. Crimes, 532; 14 U. S. Dig. (Cons'd) 698- 702, cases. Turney v. State. Date of writing used to refresh memory must be contemporaneous, 1 Gr. Ev. 438; 1 Wh. Ev. 521; Rose. Cr. Ev. 142; 2 Tay. Ev. 1264; 2 Phil. Ev. 916-929, note 587; 3 Russ. Crimes, 535; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 136; Turney v. State. Blind witness: Refreshing his memory, 1 Gr. Ev. 439; 2 Tay. Ev. 1268. State T. Baker (1871), 65 N. C. 332; S. C, Laws. L. Grim. Cas. Simp. 197. Assault and battery: What is. Cole t. Turner; Stephens t. Myers. State T. Baker (1854), 1 Jones Law (N. C), 267; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 75. Sblp-depense: One causing danger by his wrongful act cannot plead it in defense. United States T. Holmes; Xullus commodnm capere potest de injuria sua propria. State V. Beck (1833), 1 Hill (S. C), 363; S. C, 26 Am. Dec. 190; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 208. Assault and battery: Consent a defense. Volenti non fit injuria; Stephens v. Myers; Cole v. Turner. State T. Benham (1867), 23 la. 154; S. C, H. upon implied authority. Angle v. N. W. Ins. Co. That is sufficiently certain which can be made certain : Certum est quod certum reddi potest, Bro. Max. 623. That regard be had to the public welfare is the highest law: Salus populi suprema lex, Bro. Max. 1. That rule of conduct is to be deemed binding which religion dictates: Summa ratio est quas pro religione facit, Bro. Max. 19. That to which a person assents is not esteemed in law an injury: Volenti non fit injuria, Bro. Max. "268. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 205 Technological Table. That which is without remedy avails of itself, if there be no fault in the party seeking to enforce it: Quod remedio destituitur ipsa re valet si culpa absit, Bro. Max. 212. That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid: Quod ab initio non valet in tractu temporisnon conva- lescit, Bro. Max. 178. The acquiescence of a party who might take advantage of an error obviates its effect: Consensus tollit errorem, Bro. Max. 135. The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his inten- tions were so: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, Bro. Max. 306. The act of God is so treated by the law as to affect no one in- juriously: Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam, Bro. Max. 229. The best and surest mode of expounding an instrument is by referring to the time when, and circumstances under which, it was made: Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege, Bro. Max. 84, 682. The bestower of a gift has a right to regulate its disposal : Cujus est dare, ejus est disponere, Bro. Max. 458. The bona fides and honesty of purpose of a judge cannot be questioned, but his- decision may be impugned for error either of law or of fact: De fide et officio judicis non rocipitur qusestio, sed de scientia sive sit error juris sive facti, Bro. Max 85. The brother's possession of an estate in fee-simple makes the sister to be heir: Possessio fratris de feodo simplici facit sororem esse hseredem, Bro. Max. 532. The common law takes him only to be a son whom the mar- riage proves to be so: Haeres legitimus est quem nuptiae demonstrant, Bro. Max. 515. The express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Bro. Max. 651. The expression of what is tacitly implied is inoperative: Ex- pressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur, Bro. Max. 669. The form of agreement and the convention of parties overrule the law: Modus et conventio vinount legem, Bro. Max. 689. The greater contains the less : Omne majus continet in se minus, Bro. Max. 174. The hand that receives the benefit ought to stand the bui-den. See " IJe who derives the advantage ought to stand the burthen." The incident shall pass by the grant of the principal, but not the principal by the grant of the incident: Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale, Bro. Max. 492. 206 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. The interest of a personal connection is sometimes regarded in law as that of the individual himself: Persona conjuncta aequipara- tur interesse proprio, Bro. Max. 5.33. The king can do no wrong : Rex non potest peccare, Bro. Max. 52. The king cannot confer a favor on one subject which occasions injury and loss to others: Non potest rex gratiam facere cum injuria et damno aliorum, Bro. Max. 64. The king is not bound by any statute if he be not expressly named to be so bound: Roy n'est lie per ascun statute, si il ne soit expressement uosme, Bro. Max. 72. The king is under no man, yet he is in subjection to God and to the law, for the law makes the king: Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub lege, quia lex f acit regem, Bro. Max. 47. The king never dies : Rex nunquam moritur, Bro. Max. 50. The law does not concern itself about trifles : De minimis non curat lex, Bro. Max. 142. The law does not seek to compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform: Lex non cogit ad impossibilia, Bro. Max. 242. The law is so written: Ita lex scripta est, And. Die. Law, 618. The law will not in its executive capacity work a wrong: Ex- ecutio juris non habet injuriam, Bro. Max. 130. The law does not allow of a captions and strained intendment, for such nice pretense of certainty confounds true and legal certainty: Nimia subtUitas in jure reprobatur, et talis certitude certitudinem confundit, Bro. Max. 187. The law respects the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event. See " In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause 6f any event, is regarded." The laws are adapted to those cases which most frequently occur: Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur, Bro. Max. 43. The laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights: Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, Bro. Max. 892. The meaning of a word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it: Noscitur a sociis, Bro. Max. 588. The practice of the com-t is the law ot the court: Gurus curise est lex curias, Bro. Max. 133. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 207 Technological Table. * The right of inheritance never lineally ascends: Hsereditas nunquam ascendit, Bro. Max. 527. The welfare of the public is the highest law: See "That re- gard be had to the public welfare is the highest law." The words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them: Verba chartarum fortius accipi- untur contra proferentem, Bro. Max. 594. There is no wrong without a remedy: Ubi jus ibi remedium, Bro. Max. 191. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex; Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus; Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A statute may prescribe that an office copy may prima facie, prove a fact; such a statute does not exclude other proof, which is also^H77irt facie, e. g., a sworn copy would be admissible, Abb. Tri. Ev. 50, 536; See Records, 1 Gr. Ev. 489, 507-508; Commonwealth v. Kane; and a fortiori, the original is admissible. When an affidavit or other proof is required, the admissions of the adverse party are equal to the same thing; in reason, it is of no consequence how the proof is adduced so it appears and is equal to that required. Admission of a party may dispense with all other proof, 1 Gr. Ev. 97; even the best evidence. Id. See Equitable Estoppel, Chap. XL VIII. Things implied need not be mentioned : Expressio eorum quse tacite insunt nihil operatur, Bro. Max. 669. Thomas y. Jenks (1835), 5 Rawle, 221; S. C, 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 61. Assignments for the benefit of creditors. Grorer T. Wakeman. Thomas v. Rhymney R. R. Co. (1871), L. R., 6 Q. B. 266; S. C, Shir. L. C. 287. Common carriers; Connecting lines: Liability of contracting com- pany for negligence of a second company. See 22 N. Y. 258. Thomas v. Winchester (1852), 6 N. Y. 397; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 602-625; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 224; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 455; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 219. Negligence; Proximate cause; Warranty; Privity: Selling poison- ous drug under harmless label, renders druggist liable for damages caused thereby, and it matters not that another person than the one for whom the prescription was prepared was injured thereby. Laii^- ridge t. Levy; Hadley v. Baxendale; Gregory v. Piper; McManus V. Crickett; Ticars v. Wilcocks; Wilson v. Peverly; Sharp v. Powell. See Respondeat superior; In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; Caveat emptor. 208 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. , • Thompson v. Whitman (1873), 18 Wall. 457. Due process op law: Audi alteram partem; "No man should be con- demned unheard." Pennoyer t. Jfeff; Needham v. Thayer; Mur- ray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Co. Thomson t. Dayenport (1829), 9 Barn. & Cress. 78 (17 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 398 (8th Ed.); S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 143; S. C, Shir. L. C. 80. Agency; Disclosed and undisclosed principals: Rights of third persons dealing with agents representing undisclosed principals; and the rights of such persons against third persons dealing with such agents. Qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus; "He who derives the advantage ought to sustain the burthen," Bro. Max. 706; Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur; "He who does an act by the hand of another party is in law considered as having done it himself," Bro. Max. 822. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Credit given to known agent of a known principal binds only agent, Addison v. Gandaseqni. Same point as above, and agency undisclosed, both are liable, except by usage, Bro. Max. 822; Paterson v. Gandaseqni. Special agents. Batty v. CarswelL If fact of agency is disclosed, though name of principal is not, and charge is to agent, the principal is liable; but not on bUl or note for price, Pentz v. Stanton. If principal disclosed, agent not liable, Kathbon t. Budlong. Agent signing principal's name to note, without authority, is liable, Bnsenbury v. Ellis; Polhill v. Walter (1832), 3 Barn. & Adol. 114 (23 E. C. L. R.); S. C, stated, Anson's Conts. 178, note. Public officers: Public officers not bound by contracts, unless they agree to be bound, Lakenian v. Mountstephen; Ratliboii v. Bud- long. Principal cannot sue on contracts made in name of agent. United States T. Parmele. Commercial paper: Commercial paper and deeds must be executed as the instruments of the principal, or they will bind the agent and not the principal, Elwell v. Shaw; New England Marine Ins. Co. T. Be Wolf; Sturdivant v. Hull; Hibble white v. McMorrine; Lakeman v. Mountstephen. Contracts which need not be in writing, permit of substance, not form, governing; here, and in torts and in crime, the real, substantial prin- cipal or director may be shown, and this by oral evidence, Bro. Max. 822, citing Thomson v. Bavenport. But in cases of commercial paper and deeds, the rule is otherwise, and here, "parol contempora- neous evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary a writing," and Nihil tarn conveniens est naturali aequitati quam unumquodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est; "Nothing is so consonant to natural equity as that every contract should be dissolved by the same means which rendered it binding," are strictly applied, Taintor v. Pendergast. One essential of commercial paper is that it must have certainty, and as to this, it must speak for itself, Caphart v. Dodd, 3 Bush. 584; S. C. 96 Am. Dec. 258. Words descriptio pekson,!:, Sturdivant v. Hull; Pentz v. Stanton. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 209 Teelinological Table. Thomson v. Davenport — continued. Torts: Liability of principal for acts ot agent. See Respondeat supe- rior; Hilliard v. Richardson; Cornfoot v. Fowlie. Crimes: See Rex v. Almon. Evidence; Admission: Power of agent to bind principal, Kiri>tall Brewery Co. v. Furness R. Co.; Didsbury v. Thomas. Agent failing to bind principal binds himself, Collen v. Wright; Jac- ques V. Todd; Cox v. Midland, etc. R. R. Co. Thorley v. Kerry (1812), 4 Taunt. 355; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 90. Defamation; Libel: Printed defamation is more actionable than oral. An action may be maintained for words written, for which an action could not be maintained if they were merely spoken. S. P., Steele V. Southwick; Broolter v. Coffin; J'Anson t. Stuart; Dexter v. Spear. Thornborow v. Whitacre (1705), 2 Ld. Raym. 1164; S. C.,Shir. L. C. 1. Consideration; Adequacy of: A slight consideration will support a heavy obligation. Cumber v. Wane; Bainbridge v. Firmstone. Thornbrough v. Baker (1659), 1 Chan. Cas. 283 ; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1941-2014. Mortgages; Doctrines of: Executor of mortgagee, entitled to pro- ceeds of mortgage. Continuance of mortgage, as security notwithstanding changes in form of debt, Dumell and wife v. Terstegge (1864), 23 Ind. 397; S. C, 85 Am. Dec. 466-471, note. Thorogood v. Bryan (1849), 8 C. B. 114 (65 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Thomp. L. C. Carr. Pass. 273; S. C, Laws. L.C.Simp. 236. Negligence; Imputed negligence; Identification. Bennett v. N. J. R. R. Co.; Waite v. Northeastern Railway Co. Thurston T.U. P. R.R. Co. (1877), 4 Dill. 321; S.C, Thomp. L.C. Carr. Pass. 10; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 210. Common carrier: Whom carrier may refuse to carry. Thurston y. Hancock (1815), 12 Mass. 220; S. C, 7 Am. Dec. 57, note; S. C. Bige. Lead. Cas. Torts, 527-535; S. C, 3 L. C. Am. Real Prop. 252. Easements; Disturbance op basements of support; Liability for. Humphries v. Brogden; Gilmore v. Driscoll. Thurston t. Spratt (1863), 52 Me. 202 ; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp. 137. Sale; Warranty; Title: On the sale of a chattel, there is an implied warranty of title, i. e., that it is the property of the vendor. Jones T. Just. 210 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Tiltoii V. Cofleld (1876), 93 U. S. (3 Otto) 165. Lis pendens notice; Bona fide pukchasers: Purchasers of prop- erty pending litigation are as much bound thereby as are parties to the suit. Caldwell v. Carrington's Heirs (1835), 9 Pet. 86; Sampson v. Ohleyer (1863), 22 Calif. 200-209; Note, 96 Am. Dec. 1,35, cases; 2 Pom. Bq. 623-640; 4 Kent's Com. 429, n.; 1 Sto. Eq. 395; Jones v. Me- Narrin (1878), 68 Me. 334; S. C, 28 Am. Rep. 66; 6 Wait's Ac. & Def. 791; Murray v. Ballon (1815), 1 Johns. Ch. 566; 10 U. S.Dig. (Consd.) 825-828, cases; And. Die. Law, 633. See Notice, Chap. L. Doctrine of, is of general application. Note, 96 Am. Dec. 135. Is founded on public policy, Freem. Judgt., Sec. 191, cases. Actual notice dispenses with. Sharp v. Lumley (1868), 34 Calif. 611. Diligent prosecution essential. Lex favet diligentibus ; Ferrier v. Buziek (1858), 6 la. 258. See Notice, Chap. L. Timothy v. Simpson (1835), 1 Cromp. M. & R. 757; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 257. See Allen v. Wright; Ledwith v. Catchpole. Tisdale v. Harris (1838), 20 Pick. 9; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 65. Statute of frauds; "Goods, wares and merchandise:" Sale of stocks exceeding fifty dollars in value must be in writing. Baldey v. Parker; Elmore v. Stone; Tempest v. Fitzgerald. Tobey y. Barber (1809), 5 Johns. 68; S. C, 4 Am. Dec. 826; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 245. Payment; Commercial paper taken on account of debt: Note of debtor or of third person does not extinguish antecedent debt if given for the same, unless it is paid. McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Mo. 263; S. C, 77 Am. Dec. 611, notes; Van Stone c. Stilwell, etc. Co., 142 U. S. 128, 136; Note, 71 Am. Dec. 347; Welch v. Allington, 23 Calif. 322; Dayton v. Trull; Okie v. Spencer, suspension of the right to sue. Todd V. Flight (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 378 (99 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 223; S. C.,Shir. L. C. 298. notes. Nuisance; Negligence: Injuries from non-repair of buildings. When landlord, and when tenant must repair. Tarry v. Asliton. Toilet V. Toilet (1728), 2 P. Wms. 489 ; S. C. Mos. 46; S. C, 1 Lead. Eq. Gas. 365; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Gas. Simp. 86. Powers: Imperfect execution of powers. Toogood V. Spyriiig (1834), 1 Cromp. Mees. & Rose. 181; S. G., Bige. L. G. Torts, 139. Defamation; Privileged communications. Harrison t. Bush; Brooker v. Coffin; J'Aiison v. Stuart. Tool Co. y. Norris (1864), 2 Wall. 45; S. G., Laws. Lead. Gas. Simp. 88; S. G., cited, Mech. Pub. Off. 351. Illegal contracts: Agreements to influence officials are void. Hol- uiau V. Johnson. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 211 Technological Table. Townley v. Sherborne (1638), Bridg. Rep. 35; S. C, 2 Lead. Eq. Cas. 1738-1742. Trusts: Liability of a trustee for the acts of a co- trustee. Trapnall v. McAfee (1860), 3 Met. 34; S. C, 77 Am. Dec. 152- 160, notes. Attachment and injunction bonds: Liability of sureties upon. Ubi jus il)i remedlum. Malicious attachments: Actions for, and defenses thereto, Burton v. Knapp (1862), 14 la. 196; S. C, 81 Am. Dec. 465-480, notes. Tremain v. The Cohoes Company (1849), 2 N. Y. 163; S.C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 76 ; S. C, 51 Am. Dec. 284. Negligence. Hay v. The Cohoes Company. Treyivan v. Lawrence (1656), Salk. 276; S. C, 1 Sid. 54; S. C, Raym. 19; S. C, 1 Lev. 41; S. C, 1 Keble, 112, 141; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 799. Due process op law. Pennoyer v. Neff; Needham v. Thayer; Bel- cher v. Chambers. Trombley v. Humphrey (1871), 23 Mich. 471; S. C, 4 Am. L. C. Real Prop. 401, notes. Eminent domain. Brown T. Beatty. Trueman v. Fenton (1777), Cowp. 544; S. C, 2 Sm. Lead. Cas, 1455. Consideration; New promise: Promise to pay debt barred by bank- ruptcy revives the debt. The same rule applies to the revival of debts barred by the statute of limitations, as in Whitcomb v. Whit- ing; Cumber .v. Wane. Tucker v. Moreland (1836), 10 Pet. 59; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 280; S. C, Ewell's L. C. Inf., etc. 128. Inpanoy: Of the legal capacity of infants, and their liability ex con- tractu and ex delicto. Gilson v. Spear; Vasse v. Smith; Dixon T. Bell; Zouch v. Parsons; Craig v. Van Bebber; Fetrow t. Wiseman. Chap. LXIX. TuUet V. Armstrong (1839), 1 Beavan, 1; S. C, 4 Mylne & Cr. 377; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 80. Married women: Separate estate and restraint upon alienation. Eli- bank T. Montolieu; Murray v. Lord Elibank. Turner t. Mason (1845), 14 Mees. & Wels. 112; S. C, Shir. L. C. 214. Master and servant; Dismissal op servants; What is cause pok. Cutter V. Powell; Britton v. Turner. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Tuniey v. Ban- (1888), 75 la. 758; S. C, 38 N. W. Rep. 350. Due process of law; Trial by jury: Trial by jury in criminal causes. only jury can convict. State y. Croteaii. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat; " That the thing may have validity sooner than be lost."' See A liberal construction, etc., Suth. Stat. Construe. 331-332; Crooker v. Holmes. Tui-ney v. State' (1847), 8 Smedes & Marsh. (Miss.) 104; S. C, 47 Am. Dec. 74-85, note. Evidence; Examination of witnesses: Leading questions, when per- missible. Rules, 1 Gr. Ev. 434^35; 2 Tay. Ev. 1264; 1 Wh. Ev. 500: Proflf. Jur. Tr. 227; 2 Best Ev. 641. See €oiiseiisus tolllt erroreni. Direct, may take the form of cross-examination, iJegrina r . Marp/ij/. 8 Car. & P. 296, 305 (34 E. C. L. R.). Leading questions not permissible, 1 Gr. Ev. 434; 1 Wh. Ev. 498, 507, 509, 512, 515; 1 Rice Ev. 2.34; 2 Best Ev. 641; 2 Tay. Ev. 1262; 3 Whart. C. L. 3009a, note; Pioff . Jur. Tri. 226; 2 Phil. Ev. 890-895; Stark. Ev, 166- 172; Turuey v. State. Examples, 14 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 672-682; Peo- ple V. 3Iather, 4 Wend. 248; Proff. Jur. Tri. 226; 2 Phil. Ev. 889. Leading questions are sometimes permissible: 1. Where witness is hostile; or, 2. Of adverse interest; 3. If witness is unmindful, 1 Gr. Ev. 435; 1 Wh. Ev. 500; Proff. Jur. Tri. 227; 2 Tay. Ev. 1264; 2 Phil. Ev. 889; Stark. Ev. 170- 172; 2 Best Ev. 641; 3 Russ. Crimes, 534; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 128. Presiding judge may examine, 1 Gr. Ev. 434, note; 1 Wh. Ev. 496. Tiirnipseed v. Cunningham (1849), 16 Ala. 501; S. C, 50 Am. Dec. 190, extended note. Eiland v. Radford (1845), 7 Ala. 724; S. C, 42 Am. Dec. 610 (instructive case). Conditional sales; Mortgages; Distinction between: In case of uncertainty, equity will declare a mortgage. Twyne's Case (1585), 3 Coke, 80; S. C, 1 Sm. Lead. Cas. 1-94; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 128; S. C, Shir. L. C. 219; S. C, stated, 1 Bro. Max. 289; 1 Benj. Sales, 638. Fraudulent conveyances; Bona fide purchasers from insolvent debtors; Possession as an element. Hurlburd v. Bogardus, 10 Calif. 518. Held, there must be a visible change of possession; the continuation of a previously existing condition will not do. Bell v. Twilight; Sexton v. Wheaton; Salmon v. Bennett; Holman t. Johnson. Tjrie y. Fletcher (1777), 2 Cowp. 666; S. C, Shir. L. C. 190. Insurance; Return of premium. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 218 Technological Table. Tyrrell's Case (1557), 2 Dyer, 155 a; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 1. Trusts: There cannot be a use upon a use. TJbi eadem ratio IM idem jus: Like reason doth make like law, Bro. Max. 153. Construction: Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex; "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason for any particular law ceases so does the law itself." Borrowed statutes; Construction: When a statute is borrowed from another state it is presumed that it shall have the same construction and operation as from whence borrowed, American Print Worlcs v. Law- rence (1851), 3 Zah. 590; S. C, 57 Am. Dec. 420-1.34; Munson v. Hal- lowell (1863), 26 Tex. 475; S. C, 84 Am. Dec. 582, n; Commw. i . Hart- nett (1855), 3 Gray, 450; and is binding where borrowed, Case v. Cufsh- maw (1842), 3Watts&Serg. 544; S. C, 39 Am. Dec. 47, n; Mu,is,ni V. Hallowelk supra. Wells Res. Adj. 490; 1 Wh. Ev. 311; Sodgw. Stat. and Const. Law, 362. Common law of England is borrowed in American states, State v. Moore. But in many, this is not more than commendatory. Bork- enliagen v. Paschen; Consensus toUit errorem; Audi alteram par- tem; Volenti non fit Injuria. Ubi jiis ibi remedium: There is no wrong without a remedy, Bro. Max. 191. Ashby v.White; Chasemore v. Richards; Edwards V. Kearzey; Marzettl v. Williams; Dygert v. Schenck. Self-defense; Accidents. De minimis non curat lex; Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdlctlonem. Chap. LXXX. Bro. Max. 153. Remedies attach to every right: The history of the law is blemished with the struggles of courts and theories for the adminis- tration of these. One may be injured by a domestic animal and be without remedy against its owner. May v. Burdett. At most, the law is a crude device; and this maxim is a like generality. The fact is, the most grievous injuries are without remedy, Pollard V. Lyon; Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam; De minimis non curat lex. Sovereignty inflicts injuries for which no remedy is afforded. Rex non potest peccare; "The king can do no wrong," Hunsaker v. Borden. A state can not be sued against its consent, Hunsaker v. Borden; but this rule was formerly otherwise, Chisliolm v. Georgia. Equity; Chancery: Equity was developed to amplify remedies; ade- quate remedy at law generally excludes its jurisdiction; void things have adequate remedies at law. Penn v. Lord Baltimore; Earl of Oxford's Case, notes, present many of its peculiar features; its ex elusive, concurrent and auxilliary jurisdiction domains are of far reaching importance; its maxims, "Equity follows the law." etc., etc., are generalities, which often mislead; its jurisdiction is technical, and any mistake involving, is often fatal to the case; codes merge common law and equity procedure; but in the federal courts, they are admin- istered independently, being separated chiefly by formal, technical and expensive distinctions. Equity: Acts in personam, Penn v. Lord Baltimore; Kewton v. Branson, 13 N. Y. (3 Kernan) 587; S. C, 67 Am. Dec. 89, extended notes. Equity; Chancery; Chap. CXIII. 214 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. tJbi jus ibi remedium — continued. Equity; Misceixanies; Equitable conversion, Howe v. Earl of Dartmonth; Fletcher v. Ashburner. Reformation op instruments; Cancellation of instruments; Subrogation, Derin^ t. Earl of Winchelsea. Equity of redemption, Casborne v. Scarfe. Cloud on title; Quieting title; Qdia timet; Chattels: Specific delivery of, Puscy v. Pusey. Chap. CXIV. Specific performance, Somerset v. CooksoD; Cuddee v. Rutter; Pusey V. Pnsey; Woollam v. Hearn; Seton t. Slade; Lester v. Foxcroft. Chap. CXV. Injunctions: May have extra-territorial effect, Peiin v. Lord Balti- more. Enjoining of judgments. Earl of Oxford's Case. Necessary proofs for, Dinehart t. Lafayette. Practice in cases of. Chap. CXVI. Injunction bonds: Liability and remedies on, Trapnall v. McAfee. Mandamus, Dane v. Derby (1866), 54 Me. 95; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 722- 742, extended note; Mandamus against a governor, Hawkins v. Governor (1839), 1 Ark. 570; S. C, 33 Am. Dec. 346-.368, extended note; Marbury v. Madison; Routt v. Greenwood Cemetery Land Co. (1892), 17 Colo.; S. C, 31 Pac. R«p. 858; State v. Commissioner of Roads, 1 Mill (S. C), 55; S. C, 12 Am. Dec. 596-609, extended notes. Law of Mandamus, Quo warranto. Prohibition; Indicavit and Waste, contrasted and explained, Mandamus, Chap. CXVII. Quo warranto, The People v. Rensselaer and Saratoga R. R. Co. (1836), 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113; S. C, 30 Am. Dec. 33-52, notes. Chap. CXVII. Prohibition, State v. Commissioner of Roads (1817), 1 Mill (S. C), 55; S. C, 12 Am. Dec. 596-609, extended note; Quimbo Appo v. People (1860), 20 N. Y. 532-562. Scope and purposes — Jurisdiction, Chap. CXVII. Certiorari, Duggen v. McGruder (1822), Walker, 112; S. C, 12 Am. Dec. 527-537, extended note; Mayor v. Morgan (1828), 7 Martin N. S. 1; S. C, 18 Am. Dec. 232-241, extended notes. Habeas corpus. Cool. Const. Lim. 338-348; Milligan, Ex parte (1866), 4 Wall. 2. Custody of infants: Habeas corpus for, McKim v, McKim (1879), 12 R. I. 462; S. C, 34 Am. Rep. 694-702, extended notes; State v. Smith (1830), 6 Greenleaf (Me.), 462; S. C, 20 Am. Dec. 324-337, extended notes; In matter of Scarritt (1882), 76 Mo. 565; S. C, 43 Am. Rep. 768-780, note. Right of court to refuse writ, Williamson''s Case (1855), 26 Pa. St. 9; S. C, 67 Am. Dec. 374-398, note. Matters de hors the judgment or process: Extent of inquiry, Commw. V. Lecky (1832), 1 Watts, 66; S. C, 26 Am. Dec. 37-49, notes. Ne exeat regno, Gibert v. Colt (1825), 1 Hop. Ch. 496; S. C, 14 Am. Dec. 557-563, note. Chap. CXVII. Replevin: Claim and delivery of personal property. Property custo- dia legis is not subject to. Buck v. Colbatli j nor property seized for tax, Leroy v. City R. R. Co., 18 Mich. 233; S. C.,100Am. Dec. 162; nor rents, issues, or profits of land, if title to land is in dispute. Aiidersoii V. Hapler, 34 Ills. 436; S. C. 85 Am. Dec. 318; Renick v. Boyd, 99 Pa. St. 555; S. C, 44 Am. Rep. 124. Possession is sufficient against a wrong doer, Armory v. Delamire. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 215 Technological Table. Ubi jus ibi reiiiedium — continued. Certainty essential in proceedings, Stephens v. Osman, 1 Mich. 92; S. C, 48 Am. Dec. 696, note. Damages: What may be recovered in suit for replevin, Yandle v. Kingsbury (1876), 17 Kan. 195; S. C, 22 Am. Rep. 282-287, note. A trespasser cannot plead the benefits of his trespass. Bull v. Gris- tt'old. Replevin, Chap. CXVIII. Seduction; Action fob: Elements of the action, Weaver v. Bachert (1846), 2 Pa. St. 80; S. C, 44 Am. Dec. 159-179, extended note; Terry V. Hutchinson. Specific delivery op chattels: Compellable in equity, Somerset v. Cookson. Ejectment: Ejectment is the remedy to try title to real estate; but this may be tried in a transitory action. King v. Mason, 42 Ills. 223; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 426, extended note. Defendant may prove any title owned by him, Kalin v. Old Telegraph Co., 2 Utah, 174; S. C.,11 Mor. Min. Rep. 645. Plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, Armory v. I)el- aniire. Ejectment, Chap. CXIX. Right of owner to take possession of realty without process of law, Tay- lor V. Cole. Fokcible entry and unlawful detainer. See Ejectment, Chap. CXIX. Attachment: Is a statutory remedy, and is strictly construed, Friden- berg v. Pierson, 18 Calif. 252; S. C, 79 Am. Dec. 162-174, extended notes. Chap. CXX. Malicious attachments, remedy for, Trapnall v. McAfee. Attachment bonds: Remedies on, Trapnall v. McAfee. Garnishment: Municipal corporations not subject to. Divine v. Harvle. Chap. CXX. Landlord and tenant; Use and occupation: Action toi, Fitzgerald V. Beebe (1874), 7 Ark. 305; S. C, 46 Am. Dec. 285-290, note. Counter claim; Set-opf; Recoupment, Woodruff v. Garner (1866), 27 Ind. 4; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 477, extended notes. General discussion. Chap. CV. Recoupment, Van Epps v. Harrison (1843), 5 Hill, 63; S. C, 40 Am. Dec. 314-327, extended notes. Set-off: Mutuality essential, Rose v. Hart, notes; Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. See, Sloan v. McDoioell, 71 N. C. 356; 2 §to. Eq. 1444. Judgments; Set-off op: Mutuality not essential. Graves v. Woodbury, 4 Hill, 509; S. C, 40 Am. Dec. 296; Hart v. Simpson, 14 John. 63. See Chap. CV. Trespasser cannot set oil benefits of his trespass. Bull v. Griswold. Executions; Set-off, Wat. Set-off, 396; 7 Wait's Act. & Def . 529; Tur- ner V. Fendall, 1 Cranch, 117. See Hardy v. Tilton, 68 Me. 195; S. C, 28 Am. Rep, 34, note. Arrests: Law of, Allen v. Wright. False imprisonment: Action tov, Mitcliell v. State (19S\.), 12 Ark. 50; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 253-271, extended note. Liens: Attorney's liens for compensation and costs, .Aradreu's v. Morse (1838), 12 Conn. 444; S. C, 31 Am. Dec. 752-760, extended note; Staart V. Flowers (1870), 44 Miss. 513; S. C, 7 Am. Rep. 707-722. 216 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Ubi jus iM remedium — continued. Public and private wrongs. Bex v. Wheatley; Actus non faclt reum nisi mens sit rea. Exemptions; Homesteads: Remedies, how affected by, Simpson v. Hartopp; Van Dresser v. King; Stewart v. Brown. Levies: Law of. Chap. XIV. Malioious and unfounded suits, generally are not actionable, unless pos- session of property or liberty is interfered with, but, see Closson v. Staples (1869), i2 Vt. 209; S. C, 1 Am. Rep. 316; Easton v. Bank of Stockton (1884), 66 Calif. 123; S. C, 56 Am. Rep. 77. Bideout T. Knox. Malicious prosecution. Chap. LXX. Awards, Nettleton v. Gridley. Self-defense: Remedies of. See U. S. v. Holmes; Chap. XXII, and remedies there specified. Cloud on title: Power of equity to remove, Pnsey y. Pnsey; Som- erset V. Cookson. Bills to remove, Scott v. Onderdonk (1856), U N. Y. (4 Kernan) 9; S. C, 67 Am. Dec. 107, notes. Intervention: Origin and nature of. Brown v. Saul (1826), i Martin N. S. 434; S. C, 16 Am. Dec. 175-184, notes. linger v. The Forty-Second and Grand Street Ferry (1873), 51 N. Y. 497; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 392, notes. Negligence; Highways; Street railways: Collisions between trav- elers and the teams of horse railways. Street railways, care required op. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Dodge County (1878), 98 U. S. 541. Voluntary payments: Payments, if voluntary, cannot be recovered. Payment must be necessitous, and to prevent arrest or levy upon property. Mayor of Baltimore v. Lefferman (1846), 4 Gill. 425; S. C, 45 Am. Dec. 145, extended notes. Volenti non fit injuria. See Duress, Sub, Holman v. Johnson; Ignorantia faeti excusat, igno- rantia juris non excusat; Commissioners of Arapahoe Co. i\ Cutter (1877), 3 Colo. 349, 351. Chap. XXXIV. Duress; Law op; Doctrines op; Effect of. Hatter v. Greenlee (1834), 1 Porter (Ala.), 222; S. C, 26 Am. Dec. 370-378, notes; Mayor of Bal- timore V. Lefferman, supra. United States t. Anthony (1873), 11 Blatch. 200; S. C, 2 Green's Grim. Rep. 208. Mistake: Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat; "Ig- norance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse." "Every man is presumed to know the law." Reynolds v. The United States; Bostwick V. Stiles; Lansdowne v. Lansdowne; Hunt v. Rons- manier. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Stapilton v. Stapilton; People v. Roby; Reg, v. Prince, are interesting and striking illustration, of the doctrine of Actus non facit reum, etc. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 217 Technological Table. United States t. De Witt (1869), 9 Wall. 41; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 266. Constitutional law; Police power resides in the states; Powers OP congress: Police powers must not conflict with state rights. Cliy Lung v. Freeman; Railroad Co. v. Husen, 5 Otto, 465; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 268. United States v. Drew (1828), 5 Mason, 28; S. C, 1 Lead. Grim. Cas. 131; S. C, Laws. Insan. Cas^ Simp. 601; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 16. Drunkenness; Effect of; Criminal intent: Insanity induced by drunkenness is a defense to indictment for murder, unless the insanity was directly caused by the immediate influence of such liquors. Beverly's Case; People v. Rogers; Pirth v. State; Commonwealth V. Rogers; In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur. Effect of, upon contracts. Baxter v. Earl of Portsmouth. Insanity: When a defense to contracts, Lancaster County Bank v. Moore (1875), 78 Pa. St. 407; S. C, 21 Am. E«p. 24-35, notes. Drunkenness: How it affects contracts, Notes, 21 Am. Rep. 29-35. United States v. Holmes (1842), 1 Wall. Jr. 1; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 757; S. C, Great Speeches by Eminent Lawyers. Self-defense: Right to destroy innocent third person to protect one's own life. Dill v. State. See Shorter v. People; Commonwealth v. Selfrldge; United States v. Schooner Amistad; Pond v. Peo- ple; Grainger v. State; Gallagher v. People; State v, Ben- ham; State V. Baker; State v. Moore; Hooker v. Miller; Noles V. State; Regina v. Stedman; State v. Roane; Vaiden v. Com- monwealth; Necessitas inducit privilegium quoad jura privata; Ubi jus ibi remedium. Necessity has no law, and upon this the law of self-defense is grounded. Nature is the foundation of, and it cannot be superseded by the law of society, U. S. v. Outerbridge (1868), 5 Sawyer, 620; 1 Bl. Com. 1.31; 3 Id. 3; Bro. Max. 11. It is not derived from society, but it is a right which every individual brings with him into society, except so far as the laws of society have curtailed it, Oray v. Coombs (1832), 7 J. J. Marsh. 478; S. C, H. &. T. S. D. 867. Every man is a guardian of the public peace, of the welfare of society; a private citizen may arrest a malefactor without a warrant, for a fel- ony actually committed, Allen v. Wright. In this connection, elsewhere we have hinted at the rights and duties of the citizen, Salus populi suprema lex. Any one may interfere to stop a brawl or prevent a violent felony, and employ enough force to accomplish such a purpose, Dill v. State; 1 Bish. C. L. 843, 877; 6 Wait's Ac. & Def. 695; Cool. Torts, 167; 3 Bl. Com. 2, note; 3 Br. & Had. Com. 2, note 427; 4 Id. 388, note 7.30; Wells on Jurisdic. 308; Bro. Max. 10; Oliver v. State; Whart. Horn. 480-559; 1 Bish. C. L. 843. Any one may destroy a malefactor to save the life of a good citizen within the protection of the law. One attempting to commit a violent felony upon the good citizen, is without the protection of the 218 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. United States v. Holmes — continued. law; he stands before it an outlaw and it is the duty of every good citizen to prevent his inflicting upon society, or any of its members, a violent felony. Where one may defend himself, he may defend another, 1 Bish. C. L., Sees. 843, 877. The general rule is, that what one may do for himself he may do for another, 1 Bish. C. L. 877; 3 Br. & Had. Com. 3; 2 Bl. Com. 3, note. The law of self-defense is not larger in behalf of one's self or members of his family or those under his protection, than it is in behalf of any good citizen, Salus popiili supreiiia lex; however, it must be recog- nized that about this, the written law, and the jury law of the land are in disaccord, e. g., defense of the wife's chastity presents one of these phases. Biggs v. State (1860), 29 Ga. 723; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 744-757; Whar. Hom. 407; 1 Bish. C. L. 866; 2 Id. 408; Cool. Torts, 167; State V. John (1848), 8 Iredell's Law, 330; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 396, note; Price v. State (1885), 18 Tex. Ct. App. 474; S. C, 51 Am. Rep. .322, notes. Defense of absolute rights may be to any necessary extent. Cinque, the African, was decoyed on board a vessel to reduce him to slavery. To regain his freedom he assaulted his captors. Held, justifiable, Amis- tad, The, (Cinque's Case). In U. S. v. Holmes, sailors, with oars clubbed passengers out of life-boats; upon the ground that the com- mon carrier owed the passengers a duty, the sailors were convicted of manslaughter only, and received but nominal punishment under the circumstances. But for the fact that the common carrier owed the passengers a duty, it was conceded that the sailors were justified. The stronger may push the weaker off the plank, to save himself, where no duty is due. Resistance to simple assaults and batteries, must not be excessive, Gal- lagher v. People; Grainger V. State; State v. Beiiham. One has no right to kill to prevent a mere trespass. Shorter v. People; State v. Moore. One committing petty depredations simply — mere trespasses, is not without the protection of the law, Hoolier v. Miller. The owner of premises' has no right to resist simple trespasses — mere entries thereon, with instruments dangerous to life or limb. The owner of a vineyard, has no right to set a spring gun on his premises to shoot persons entering thereon to steal fruit, Hooker v. Miller. Retreating to the wall: One must, if possible, avoid the imminence which alone will justify excessive or destructive resistance, Poiid v. People. Volenti noii fit injuria : That which a person assents to or invites, is not, in law, esteemed an injury. One cannot provoke an assault upon himself, and afterwards make full defense, Commonwealtli v. Self- ridge (Selfridge's Case); Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; "No man should take advantage of his own wrong;" Taiden v. Commw. Words are no provocation for an assault, Stephens v. Myers. Threats, when an element in homicide cases, Campbell v. People; Peo- ple T. Campbell. Self-defense, Chap. XXII. United States v. Howell (1826), 4 Wash. 620; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 419. Sureties. King v. Baldwin. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 219 Technological Table. United States v. Hoxie (1808), 1 Paine, 265; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Gas. Simp. 76. Treason: The offense must be against the public, it is not every resist- ance of a law of the United States that constitutes. Resistance must be of a public or general character, not of a special or private nature. Bex V. Wheatley. United States v. King (1851), 5 McLean, 208; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Gas. Simp. 109. Counterfeiting; Intent: Money must be made with intent to pass as counterfeit; party must be morally guilty; he must have intended to deceive. Intent is an essential element in crime of, Actus iioii facit reum nisi mens sit rea; People v. Roby. Counterfeiting; Evidence; Presumption; Recent possession of the fruits op crime: Possession of spurious coins and tools for manu- facture of same, if unexplained, is sufficient to support a conviction, State V. Weston (1833), 9 Conn. 27; S. C, 25 Am. Dec. 46. Circumstantial evidence; Recent possession op the fruits op crime; Presumptions prom: When sufficient to convict, Commw. v. Mont- gomery (1846), 11 Metcalf, 534; S. C, 45 Am. Dec. 227, n; Wills Circ. Ev. 53; Burr. Circ. Ev. 436-457, 5.37-566; 1 Wh. C. L. 728. But this circumstance alone will not convict, Burr. Circ. Ev. 161; People v. Beaver (1874), 49 Calif. 57; People v. Swinford (1880), 57 Calif. 86. United States v. Parraele (1810), 1 Paine, 252 ; S. C., 1 Am. L. G. 752. Agency: No action will lie in the name of a principal on a written con- tract made by his agent in the agent's name, although the defend- ant may have known the agent's character. Thomson v. Daven- port. United States v. Perez (1824), 9 Wheat. 579 ; S. C., 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 461; S, C., Laws. Lead. Gas. Gonst. Law Simp. 291. Former jeopardy; When it attaches; "Due process op law:" A crime must be charged upon the record before a coram Judice. Reg. V. Vauxj Rex v. Vandercomb; Munday v. Vail; Moore v. Com- monwealtli; State v. Thurstin; Williams v. Hingliam Turnpilfe Co.; Robinson v. Raley. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadeni causa; Audi alteram partem; Consensus toUit errorem. United States v. The Schooner Amistad (1850), 15 Pet. 518. Oliver v. State, 17 Ala. 587; S. C, H. & T. S. D. 725. Self-defense: Any one may slay a malefactor to prevent the commis- sion of a violent felony. United States v. Holmes. See Due pro- cess op law. United States T.Wood (1840), 14 Pet. 430; S. G., 13 Gurtis' . Rep. 576 ; S. C., 2 Lead. Grim. Gas. 67. Perjury; Corroborative evidence: Defendant's letters, and genuine documents admitted by him to be genuine, and one witness, are suffi- cient. Regina v. Hoolc; State v. Wage; State v. Hattaway. 220 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Teclinological Table. Usage is the best interpreter of things: Optimus interpres rerum usus, Bro. Max. 917. Utile per inutile non vitiatur: Surplusage does not vitiate that which in other respects is good and valid, Bro. Max. 627; And. Die. Law, 1077. Coniiiiouwealtli v. Kane. Construction; Surplusage: Alleging with too much particularity. See Bristow V. Wright; King v. Hollingberry; Audi alteram par- tem; Consensus toUit errorem; Humphreys V. McCall. Chap. XL. Formal proceedings: Motions, demurrers and pleas; dilatory pro- ceedings, Kraner v. Halsey; Uibson v. Warden; Williams v. Bankhead; Consensus tollit errorem; Quod constat dare non debet veriflcare. Aggravation: Generally, matters of aggravation need not be averred, and if averred, need not be denied. See Index, "Aggravation," Smith's Lead. Cas.; Rule 23, Moak's Und. Torts, pp. 85-98. Seduction under guise of courtship aggravates damages; but the facts must be alleged, Leavitt v. Cutler, 37 Wis. 46; Cates v. McKinney, 48 Ind. 562; Moak's Und. Torts, 86. The Latin language, on account of its conciseness, expressiveness and con- densability.ispeculiarily fitted for conveying the ideas of jurisprudence. During the Commonwealth (1649-1660), by Act of Parliament, judicial records were kept in English; after the Restoration this innovation was discontinued. Codes provide that pleadings shall be in the Eng- lish language. Yet anglicised phrases and idioms are permissible; also Arabic figures, generally, Berrian t. State. Proving a fact admitted upon a record — admitted in the pleadings in a cause, is superfluous, unnecessary and is to be disregarded. Such matters should not be incorporated in bills ot exceptions, and if so incorporated they are to be disregarded, unless from such proceed- ings, courts of review make appropriate observationt to trial courts for permitting such proceedings. A fact admitted upon a record is conclusive, and can neither be strengthened nor derogated from, by further testimony. Substance op the issue: It is sufficient if the substance of the issue be proved, 1 Gr. Ev. 56-74; 2 Rice Ev. 292-296; 1 Wh. Ev. 20-57, 592- 646; 1 Best Ev. 278-291; 1 Wh. C. L. 592-646; 3 Russ. Crimes, 305-.3.34; 1 Phil. Ev., Ch. 2; 3 Phil. Ev. 655-704; 1 Tay. Ev. 172-238; Stark. Ev. 631. Matters of description are material, and must be proved as laid, Bris- tow V. Wright; 1 Gr. Ev. 60; 1 Tay. Ev. 227-238. Time, place, quantity and value are generally formal averments, 1 Gr. Ev. 61; 1 Tay. Ev. 220-238; 1 Phil. Ev. 853-857; 1 Best Ev. 280; 3 Russ. Crimes, 332. Substance of the issue. Chap. CL. Inquiry after irrelevant matters in cross-examining a witness is attended with serious consequences, sometimes; generally, answers to such interrogatories are conclusive, 1 Gr. Ev. 423, 448, 449, 456, 459; 1 Wh. Ev. 541; Steph. Dig. Ev., Art. 130. A purchaser of real estate at an exe?ution sale, must show a valid judg ment, execution sale and deed; at a tax sale, at least an assessnfient, process, sale and deed. Now, it in a contest, any one of these esseii tials is void, the purchaser must fail; if a lecord is presented shov\ ing any one of the essential links of the chain insufficient, it becomes ot TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 221 Technologicai Table. Utile per inutile iion vitiatur— continued. no consequence whether all the other steps are valid or void, and hence a further presentation of facts would be surplusage, needless prolixity. Railroad Co. v. Stewart; Lex nemlnem cogit ad vaiia seu inutilia peragenda. See Hurd v. McClellan (1889), 13 Colo. 7, 8-9. Statute enacted to prevent prolixity defeated. Both parties were required to contribute to make a record oertaia and sufficient: one failing in this, permitted to shift presumptions resting on him; no presumption was indulged in against the delinquent under the stat- ute; the court refused to take a mere statement of what an order of court was; or that the filing of a cross-bill changed the title of a cause. In effect, the whole record was demanded, but this was not contemplated by the statute.] Surplusage should be excluded from bills of exceptions, R. R. Co. v. Stewart. Prolixity should be avoided. See Prolixity. A fortiori, statutory recognition of this rule should be favored, and if possible, made effectual. Ut res mag'is valeat quam pereat. Ut res magis valeat, quam pereat: That the thing may have validity sooner than be lost. Crooker v. Holmes; Roe v. Tranniarr ; Turney v. Barr. See Benigiise faciendie sunt interpretationes, etc.; Audi alteram partem; Certum est quod, etc. Whole record will be reviewed; it is sufficiently certain which can be made certain, Boyd v. Blankman; Boydell y. Drummoiid; Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. Records are often supplied, by aider by verdict, Rushton v. Aspinall. Tadakin v. Soper (1826), 1 Aikens, 287; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 142. Consideration; Antecedent debt. Cumber v. Wane; Lampleigh v. Brathwait; Rann v. Hughes. An indebtedness to three jointly will not support a promise to one for his portion. Aider by verdict: Formal defects are cured by, Boyd v. Blankman; Rushton V. Aspinall; Voorhees v. Bank of U. S. Omnia prsesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta; "All acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done." Omission of what must necessarily be presumed to have been proved on trial, is no cause of arrest. But in a pleading, nothing is presumed to have been shown but what is expressly stated or necessarily implied from facts which are stated, Munday v. Tail; Rushton v. Aspinall; Borkenhagen v. Faschen. Vaiden v. Commonwealth (1855), 12 Gratt. 717; S. C, Horr. & Thomp. Cas. Self- Defense, 222; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 259. Homicide; Self-defense: Necessity produced by slayer; justification for killing, must not arise out of prisoner's misconduct. Volenti nou fit injuria; JfuUus commodum capere potest de injuria sua pro- pria; U. S. V. Holmes. Probata must be sufficient, and be present in a record, to sustain a con- viction, State V. Croteau; Ad qusestionem facti non respondent judices, ad quaestioneni legis non respondent juratores. Bill of exceptions: Facts proved, may be certified instead of the evi- d ince. 222 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Teclmological Table. Vain and fruitless tilings, the law will compel no one to do: Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda. And. Die. Law, 616. Vanderbilt v. Mathis (1856), 5 Duer (N. Y.), 304; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 178. Malicious prosecution; Elements op the cause: To maintain an action for malicious prosecution, three facts, if controverted, must be established: 1. That such prosecution was determined in favor of the plaintiff before the action was commenced. 2. The want of probable cause. 3. Malice. Consideration of these three elements. An acquittal of the plaintiff, held not prima facie evidence of want of probable cause. Munns V. Dupont. Tan Dresser v. King (1839), 34 Pa. St. 201; S. C, 75 Am. Dec. 643, extended notes. Exemption rights: Remedies for invasion or denial of. Simpson v. Hartopp; Stewart v. Brown. Van Leuven v. Lyke (1848), 1 N. Y. (1 Comst.) 515 ; S. C, 49 Am. Dec. 446; S. C, 1 Thomp. Neg. 188. Negligence; Animals: Liability of owner of domestic animals for in- juries done by them. May V. Burdett. Van Slyke v. Trempealeau County Ins. Co. (1876), 39 Wis. 390 ; S. C, 20 Am. Rep. 50; S. C, cited, Mech. Pub. Off 567; Cool. Torts, 422 ; Cool. Const. Lim. 115. Judges; Judiciary: Judicial functions cannot be delegated. Taylor T. Brown. See Audi alteram partem. Legislative functions cannot be delegated, Cool. Const. Lim. 137, 248 (6th Ed.). Ministerial acts: Mechanical or ministerial acts may be delegated, Taylor v. Brown; Mech. Pub. Off. 569. Van Vechten v. Hopkins (1809), 5 Johns. 211; S. C, 4 Am. Dec. 389; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 138. Defamation; Construction op pleadings. VanVoorhis v. Brlntnall (1881), 86 N. Y. 18; S. C, 40 Am. Rep. 505; S. C, 13 Cent. L. J. 349. Contracts; Lex loci; Marriages: Contract, it valid where made, is valid everywhere; in tliis case so held as to a marriage. Vasse V. Smith (1810), 6 Cranch, 216 ; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 293; S. C, Ewell's L. C. Inf. etc., 195. Plea op inpancy: Effect of, in actions ex delicto. Gilson v. Spear; Tucker v. Moreland; Zouch v. Parsons; Craig v. Van Bebber; Fetrow v. Wiseman; Hunt v. Peake; Porter v. Powell. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 223 Technological Table. Taughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co. (1860), 3 Hurl. & N. 743; S. C.,5 Hurl. & Nor. 679; S. C, Shir. L. C. 300; S. C.,1 Thomp. Neg. 122, S. C, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 899; S. C, 29 L. J. (Exch.) 247; S. C. Week. Rep. 549; S. C, 2 L. T. (N. S.), , 394. Negligence; Fike: Damage from sparks of railway engines. Fent y. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co; Dean v. McCarty. Taux V. Newman. See Stx Carpenters' Case. Veazie v. Moore (1852), 14 How. (U. S.) 568; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 223 ; S. C, Reported in 32 Me. 343; 52 Am. Dec. 655 as Moore v. Veazie. Constitutional law; Commerce among the states: What is. Paul V. Virginia. Veil and Petray v. Administrators of Mitchell (1821), 4 Wash. 105; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 822. Agency: Of the principal's ownership of property in the hands of his factor. George v. Cl^ggett. Verba chartaiaim fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem : The words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the per- son employing them, Bro. Max. 594. Chap. XLII. Construction. Dovaston v. Payne; Moore v. Conimonwealtli. " Every presumption is made against a pleader.'' Self preservation makes men careful not to prejudice their own interests by a too extensive meaning of words. The maxim tends to prevent deception; some would affect ambiguous and intricate expressions, if at liberty afterwards to put their own construction upon them. But the rule, being one of strictness and rigor, is the last to be resorted to, 2 Bl. Com. 380; 2 Pars. Conts. 506, cases; And. Die. Law, 1085; Woollam V. Hearn. , Verba generalia restringuntur ad habilitatem rei vel personam : General words may be aptly restrained according to the subject-mat- ter or persons to which they relate,. Bro. Max. 646. Reddendo singula singulis. Chap. XLVI. Construction. Xoscitur a sociis; McCuUough y. Maryland; Hum- phreys y. McCall; Kraner y. Halsey; Henderson's Distilled Spirits. Applies in pleadings, Abbott's Brief on Pleadings, Sec* 5, 33, 63; Suth. Con. Stat. 268; Castro v. Richardson, 18 Calif. 478; Haven v. Seeley, 59 Calif. 494, 496. To denials, as where these are specifio and also general, see Denials, Chap. CXXV. Powers; Agency: Application of, in construing authority of agents, Rossiter v. Rossiter. 224 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Verlba geiieralia restringuntur, etc. — continued. Generalia specialibus non derogant; "General words do not derogate from special,'' 1 Rap. & Law. Law Die. 567. A special provision pre- vails over a general one, see Verba generalia, etc.; Sed^. Stat. & Const. Law, 98-99; 1 Dili. Munic. Corp. 54, note; State v. Gcetze, 22 Wis. 348, 350; In re Goddard, 16 Pick. 504; Crosby v. Patch, 18 Calif. 443; State V. Mills, 34 N. J. Law, 177; Brown v. County Com., 21 Pa. St. 37; 1 Bro. & Had. Com., n. 26, side p. 89; Williams v. Pritchard. 4 Durn. & East 3, (Term Rep.); 1 Burr. Die. 539; Bish. Stat. Crimes, 156; Hen- derson's DistiUed Spirits; Humphreys v. McCall. See Construc- tion, Chaps. XLV, XLVI. Yerba relata hoc maxinie operantur per referentiam ut in eis inesse videntur: Words to wliich reference is made in an instrument have the same effect and operation as if they were inserted in the clause refering to them, Bro. Max. 673; Suth. Con. Stat. 257. Chap. XLIV. Construction. Begina v. Waters; Boydell v. Druiumond; Bloom t. Burdicli; State v. Moore. Exhibits; Documents; Copies: How set forth. Must be set forth, 1. In hceo verba, as in defamation suits and forgery, Wright v. Cle- ments, 3 Barn. & Adol. 503 (5 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Cas. (B. & H.) 94. 2. In substance, or 3. By reference, according to the principal maxim; it is mostly applied in contracts and conveyajcing. Deeds: Application of to, Caldii-ell v. Center, 30 Calif. 539; S. C, 89 Am. Dec. 131; Hines v. Robinson, 57 Me. 324; S. C, 99 Am. Dec. 772, notes; Newman v. Tymeson (1860), 13 Wis. 172; S. C, 80 Am. Dec. 735, note. See Verba hoc maxime, etc., Chap. XLIV. Exhibits, if made part of a pleading, must be set forth in it in hcec verba or in substance, Murdoch v. Brooks, 38 Calif. 597, 603. In bills of exceptions, prolixity is to be avoided. See R. R. Co. v. Stewart. See Chap. CXXIII. Ticars v. Wilcocks (1807), 8 East, 1; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 549- 581; S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 266; S. C. Sedg. L. C. Dam 720; S. C, cited, 1 Suth. Dam. 49, ^, 68; 2 Id. 72; 3 Id. 671. In jure, non remota causa sed proxima spectatur; "In law, the immedi- ate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded," Hadley v. Baxendale; Scott v. Sheplierd; Langridge v. Levy; Tliomas v. Wincliester. Vigilantibus, et non donnientibus, jura subveuiiuit: The laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights, Bro. Max. 892; And. Die. Law, 1093. Another form of this maxim is "Lex vigilantibus favet;" " The law favors the vigilant." Statute of limitations. Bell v. Morrison; Boyd v. Blankman; Catlin T. Skoulding; Norton v. Larco; Whitcomb v. Whiting. See TfuUum tempus occurrit regi. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 225 Technological Table. Volenti non fit injuria : That to which a person assents is not esteemed in law an injury, Bro. Max. 268. Reg^ina v. Longbottom; Bull V. Griswold; Biitterfleld v. Forrester; Parker v. Adams; Davies v. Manu; Salisbury v. Herchenroder; State v. Beck; Vaiden v. Commonwealth; Holmes v. Clarke; Sutton v. Wauwa- tosa; Robinson v. Cone; Brady v. Weeks; Consensus tollit errorem; Communis error facit jus. Chap. XXXIV. Voluntary payments, U. P. R. B. Co. v. Dodge County; Ignorantla facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat; Consensus tollit errorem. Homicide; Self-defense: Justification for killing, must not arise out of prisoner's misconduct, Vaiden t. Commonwealth. JfuUus com- modum capere, etc. Crimes; Fights by agreement: One injured in a fight by agreement may, nevertheless, recover for injuries received. Shay v. Thompson (1884), 59 Wis. 540; S. C, 48 Am. Rep. 538, note; Wilkinson v. State (1877), 59 Ind. 416; S. C, 26 Am. Rep. 84, n; Cool. Torts, 162-164; Bige. L. C. Torts, 232, n; Wat. Tres. 152-157; Bell v. Hansley, 3 Jones, 131. But such agreement may be shovfn in mitigation, Adams v. Waggoner (1870), 33 Ind. 531; S. C.,5 Am. Rep. 230. Nor will it make any differ- ence that the plaintiff agreed to clear of the law, Stout v. Wren, 1 Hawks, 420; Bige. L. C. Torts, 232. See 1 Wh. C. L. 751 (7th. Ed.). But a seduced woman cannot recover by reason of this maxim. Dicey Parties to Actions, 349. Nor for disease caught from illicit intercourse, Hegarty v. Shine (1878), Ir. Ct. App.; 14 Cox Crim. Cas. 124; S. C, 7 Cent. L. J. 291; S. C, 8 Id. 111-115; Cool. Torts, 510-514; 1 Thomp. Neg. 115. Assault communicating veneral disease, when actionable, Hegarty v. Shine, ante. Jfnllus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, is closely allied to this maxim. Instances illustrating one, often suggest the other. They are not separated by hard, sharp lines. This maxim lies at the base of contributory negligence, Davies v. Mann; Butterlleld v. Forrester. CoNTKiBUTOKY NEGLIGENCE; DocTRiNEs, Davles V. Manu; Butter- fleld T. Forrester; Freer v. Cameron (1851), 4 Rich. Law, 228; S. C. 55 Am. Dec. 663-678, extended notes. Entire contracts: One breaking an entire contract, generally has no redress under it. Cutter v. Powell. Landlord and tenant: A landlord who wrongfully expels a tenant from any part of the leased premises, cannot recover for the remainder, Boyce T.Guggenheim. Negligence of assured, its agents or servants, occasioning a loss by a peril insured against, is no defense to an action either on a fire or ma- rine policy, if there be no fraud or wilfulness, Note, 55 Am. Dec. 369. Suicide; Life insurance; Ws^n jt avoids, Breasted v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. (1853), 8 N. Y. 299; S. C, 59 Am. Dec. 482, extended note; Sehultz V. Ins. Co. (1883), 40 Ohio St. 217; S. C, 48 Am. Rep. 676; Penfold V. Universal Life Ins. Co. (1881), 85 N. Y. 317; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 660; 5 Bige. Ins. Cas. 316, note; Id. 478; Fitch v. American Pop- ular Life Ins. Co. (1875), 59 N. Y. 557; S. C, 5 Bige. Ins. Cas. 316; S. C., 17 Am. Rep. 372; Cooper v. Massachusetts Ins. Co. (1869), 102MaBS. 227; 226 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Volenti non fit injuria — continued. S. C, 3 Am. Rep. 451, n; Van Zandt v. Mutual Benefit Life Ing. Co. (1873), 55 N. Y. 169; S. C, 14 Am. Rep. 215; Phadenhaiier v. Germania Life Ins. Co. (1872), 7 Heisk. 567; S. C, 19 Am. Rep. 623. Consensus tollit errorem; Communis error facit jus; Modus et conventio vincunt le^em,are also maxims closely allied to the principal one; however, these last maxims are of common use in the domain of practice, and in the law of waiver. One assenting to error is not allowed to complain of it. If a party invites error, if it be waivable in character, he cannot afterwards insist upon it. Consensus tollit errorem ; Salus popnli snprema lex. Divorce; Condonation: Maxim applied to, with limitations, Sm6 Morris T. Morris. Maxim applied to a woman injured from negligence of car company con- currently with a visitation of causes natural to her sex. Barker v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (1878), 4 Colo. 344; S. C, 34 Am. R<>p. 89. See criticism of this case, Broion v. Chicago, M. & St. P. B. B. Co., 54 Wis. 342; S. C, 41 Am. Rep. 41, 51, note. Voorhees v. Bank of United States (1836), 10 Pet. 473. Waiver; Consent makes law. Montgomery t. Edwards; Shutte t. Thompson. Compare Borkenliagen T. Pasclien; Munday t. Tall; Reynolds t. Stockton; Yadakin y. Soper; Regina t. Waters; Con- sensus tollit errorem; Quilibet potest renunciare jure pro se introducto. Tosburgh v. Moak (1848), 1 Gush. 453; S. C.,48 Am. Dec. 613, note; S. C, stated, 1 Wat. Tres. 23, notes; Note, 73 Am. Dec. 138. Joint trespassers: Who are. See Hilberry t. Hatton; Kirkwood T. Miller. Wadsworth v. Wendell (1821), 5 Johns. Ch. 224; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Gas. Simp. 8. Trusts: Imperfect conveyance may constitute a trust. Wain V. Warlters (1804), 5 East, 10; S. C., 2 Sm. L. G. 271, notes; S. G., Laws. L. G. Simp. 62; S. G., Shir. L. G. 16. Statute of frauds; Memorandum: Memorandum required under the statute of frauds, its form and contents. Guarantee; Signature: A consideration must be expressed. Waite T. Northeastern Railway Co. (1858), El. Bl. & El. 719 (96 E. G. L. R.) ; S. G., Shir. L. G. 271. Negligence; Imputed negligence; Identification, doctrines of, Thorosood v. Bryan. Wake T. Conyers (1759), 1 Eden, 331; S. G., 2 Ld. Eq. Gas 850-865. Boundaries; Equity jurisdiction over. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 227 Technological Table. Walker v. Lide (1845), 1 Eich. Law, 249; S. C, 44 Am. Dec. 252, notes. Commercial paper; Bills of exchange; Acceptance: Parol accept- ance of a bill is valid, and binding by the law merchant, where it is not modified by statute. Tatlock v. Harris. Walter v. Selfe (1851), 4 De G. & Sm. 318; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Gas. Simp. 156. Nuisance: Nuisance may be disagreeable without being hurtful. Ward T. Clark (1806), 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 10; S. G., Bige. L. C. Torts, 81; S. C, 3 Am. Dec. 383. Defamation; Imputation of crime: To say of a person, "he has sworn falsely," or " he has taken a false oath against me in Squire Jamison's court," or " he has falsely and maliciously charged and im- posed on me the crime of perjury," is not actionable. Brooker v. Coffin; J' Anson v. Stuart; Burtch v. Mckerson. Ward V. Tnrner (1752), 2 Ves. 431; S. G., 1 Dick. 170; S. G.,1 Lead. Eq. Gas. 1205-1251; S. G, Laws. Ld. Eq. Gas. Simp. 36. Gifts; Donatio causa mortis; Essentials op a gift. Irons T. Small- piece. Delivery of gift essential if inter vivos; essentials of inter vivos, and causa mortis gifts, Harris v. Clark (1849), 3 N. Y. (3 Cowp.) 93; S. C, 51 Am. Dec. 352, notes.. Warmstrey v. Lady Tanfield (1629), 1 Gh. Rep. 29; S. G, 2 Lead. Eq. Gas. 1530. Assignments: Possibility assignable in equity. Bow T. Dawson; Kyall V. Bowles; Brice v. Bannister. Warren t. Slade (1871), 23 Mich. 1; S. G., 9 Am. Rep. 70. Bemis v. Leonard (1875), 118 Mass. 502; S. C, 19 Am. Rep. 470. Construction; Computation op time: Generally day of date is exclud- ed, and day of performance is included; but an express intention to the contrary controls. Modus et conventio vincunt legem; " The form of the agreement and the convention of parties overrule the law," Bro. Max. 689. Commercial paper; Days op grace added, Morrison v. Bailey. Commercial paper; Maturity: Maturing on a holiday, if entitled to grace, matures the day preceding. Reed v. Wilson (1879), 41 N. J. L. 39; City Bank v. Cutter (1826), 3 Pick. (Mass.) 414; Benjs. Chalmers Dig. Bills & Notes, 32. Notice op dishonor: Time of. Bank of Alexandria v. Swann. Performance; Holiday; Sunday: Acts to be performed on a holiday or Sunday, include all of the day following, Cresseyv. Parks (1883), 75 Me. 387; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 406, note; Edmundson v. Wragg (imi), 104 Pa. St. 500; S. C, 49 Am. Rep. 590. 228 TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. Technological Table. Warren v. Slade— continued. Instanter means within twenty-four hours, And. Die. Law, 554. Month: Meaning of. Wood Lim., Sec 55. If used in a statute, it is pre- sumed that a lunar month was intended, unless it otherwise appears. Parsons v. Chamberlin (18.30), 4 Wend. 512; Loring o. Hailing, 15 Johns. 120; Snyder v. Warren, 2 Cow. 518. When it means a lunar, and when a calendar month, See "Month," 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 232; 2 Br. & Had. Com. 276, note 256. Limitations; Statutes of: When "month" is used in, it means a lunar month, 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 232; Ang. Lim. 44; Parsons v. Chamberlin, (1830), 4 Wend. 512. When "month" is used in commercial paper, it means calendar and not lunar, Lefflngwell v. White (1799), 1 Johns. Cas. 100, notes. Day, 5 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 81-91. Fractions of a day: Courts will not notice, as a general rule. Wood on Lim. 54; Fears v. Merrill (1849), 9 Ark. 559; S. C, 50 Am. Dec. 226, note; 5 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 89; unless it be to prevent an injustice, 2 Br. & Had. Com. 274-277, note 257; 2 Cool. Bl. 142, note; Craig v. Godfrey (1851), 1 Calif. 415; S. C, 54 Am. Dec. 299, note; Westbrook Mfg. Co. v. Graiit, 60 Me. 88; S. C, 11 Am. Rep. 181; Toivn of Louisville r. Portsmouth Savings Sank (1881), 13 Otto, 469; S. C, 14 Cent. L. J. 108. In estimating damages caused by obstruc- tion in a public way, the jury may consider the fractions of a day, Ferris v. Ward, 9 Ills. 499; S. C, cited. Wood on Lim., Sec. 54. To the general rule, there are exceptions, when justice demands it, Wood Lim., Sec. 54, note. ' By a certain day," Wood Lim., Sec. 56. Intercalary day in February, when counted, in computation of time, Helphenstine v. Vincennes National Bank. 65 Ind. 582; S. C, 32 Am. Rep. 86, note. By the statute of 21 Hen. Ill, the 28th and 29th of February are one day, and in Indiana this has been held to be existing common law, Swift V. Tousey, 5 Ind. 196; S. C, cited, Wood Lim. ^, note. Hour: A party summoned to appear at a given hour is not in default if he appear before the next hour is struck. Downer v. Hollister, 14 N. H. 122; S. C, 40 Am. Dec. 175, extended notes. Wathins t. State (1879), 68 Ind. 427; S. C, 34 Am. Eep. 273; cited, Self-defense and under " Due Process op Law." Due pkocess op law; Self-conviction: One cannot prosecute or control a prosecution of himself. Convictions obtained by such means are frauds upon the administration of justice, and will not pass as auterfois convict or acquit, for Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; " Fraud vitiates all into which it enters." Commonwealth v. Alder- man, 4 Mass. 477; Commonwealth v. Dascom, 111 Mass. 404; TI"ar- nner v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 104; S. C, 30 Am. Rep. 124; cited, Due Process op Law. See Duchess of Kingston's Case. " Where one of two equally innocent persons must suffer from the fraud of a third, he who first trusted must first suffer." Lickbarrow t. Mason; Pickard v. Sears; Horn t. Cole. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 229 Technological Table. Waugh V. Carver (1794), 2 H. Bl. 235; S. C, 2 Sm. L. C. 1316-1346 ; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 150; S. C , Shir. L. C. 196. Partnership: How far sharing in the profits is evidence of partner- ship. Cox V. Hickman; Livingston v. Roosevelt. Mining partnerships: Law of, Skillman v. Lachman (1863), 23 Calif. 198; S. C, 83 Am. Dec. 96-111, notes. Weet V. Trustees of Brockport (1856), 16 N. Y: 161, note; S. C, 2 Thorn p. Neg. 678, note. Negligence; Municipal corporation; Highways; Streets: Liability of municipal corporations in the reparation of highways. Henley v. Lyme Regis; Bailey v. Mayor, etc.; White v. County of Bond; Perry v. City of Worcester, sub cases. Wellborn v. Weayer (1855), 17 Ga. 267; S. C, 63 Am. Dec. 235. Deeds; Acceptance op: What constitutes. Commercial paper, Coolidge v. Payson. Sales, Jordan v. Norton. See Statute op Frauds; Contracts. Contracts by letter, Haclay T. Harvey. Welch T. Wesson (1856), 6 Gray, 505; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 1077, notes. Proximate and remote cause; Causation: Collateral unlawful act of third person injured. Salisbury v. Herchenroder. Wells V. Abrahams (1872), L. R.. 7 Q. B. 554; S. C, Shir. L. 0. 341. Crime must be first prosecuted before a private remedy will be afforded by a. court in England. Torts which are also crimes. Held, in this case, 3uch a defense must be pleaded. The above rule does not pre- vail in the United States. White v. Fort. See Merger. Wenman v. Ash (1853), 13 C. B. 836 (114 E. C. L. K); S. C., Shir, L. C. 390; S. C, 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 509; S. C, 22 L. J. Rep. (N. S.), C. P. 192; S. C, 17 Jur. 579; S. C, 1 Com. Law Rep. 592. Husband and wife: Husband and wife are two persons for some pur- poses. Manby v. Scottj Debenham v. Mellon; Jolly v. Rees; Commonwealth v. Neal. West V. Smallwood (1838), 3 Mees. & Wels. 418; S. C, Bige. L. C. Torts, 237. False imprisonment; Jurisdiction: Officer's liability: Wherp a party lays a complaint before a magistrate on a subject matter over which he has a general jurisdiction, and the magistrate grants a war- rant, upon which the party charged is arrested, the party laying the 230 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Teclinological Table. West T. Smallwood — continued. complaint is not liable as a trespasser, although, the particular case be one in which the magistrate had no authority to act. The complain- ant having accompanied the constable charged with the execution of the warrant, and pointed out to him the person to be arrested, held, that this was evidence to go to the jury of a participation in the arrest. Harrison v. Bush; Munus t. Dupont. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Carew (1867), 15 Mich. 525 ; S. C, 2 Thomp. Neg. 828, extended notes. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Blanehard, 68 Ga. 299; S. C. 45 Am. Rep. 481-500, notes. Telegraph companies: Their liability for negligence. Nature of their liability. Regulations limiting liability. Weston V. City Council of Charlestown (1829), 2 Pet. 449; S. C, Laws. L. C. Const. Law Simp. 203. A state cannot tax federal agencies. A statute taxing United States stocks is void. McCnllon^h v. The State of Maryland; Crandall T. The State of Nevada. West River Bridge Co. t. Dix (1848), 6 How. 507; S. C, My- er's Vested Rights, 550; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 262. Constitutional law; Monopoly; Impairing the obligation op a contract; Eminent domain: A bridge of a private corporation may be condemned under the power of eminent domain. Whatever is aflBxed to the soil belongs thereto,: Quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit, Bro. Max. 401. Whatman v. Pearson (1868), L. R., 3 C. P. 422; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp. 227; S. C, stated. Shir. L. C. 295. Agency; Respondeat superior: Responsibility of a master for the wilful acts of the servant. McManns v. Crickett; Gregory v. Piper. Wheadon v. Olds (1838), 20 Wend. 175; S. C, stated, Laws. L. C. Simp. 132. Res adjudicata: Recovery at law ends litigation. S. P., Marriott v. Hampton. When the provisions of a later statute are opposed to those of an earlier, the earlier, is considered as repealed: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, Bro. Max. 26. Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounden duty to obey: Qui jussu judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse, quia parere necesse est, Bro. Max. 93. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 231 Teclinological Table. Where the court cannot take judicial notice of a fact, it is the same as if the fact had not existed: De non apparentibus et non existentibus, eadem est ratio, Bro. Max. 163. Where the extremes are known, the intermediates may be inferred: Probatis extremis prijesumuntur media, l.Gr.Ev. 20; Chap. CXLI. Where the right is ei^ual, the claim of the party in actual pos- session shall prevail: In sequali jure melior est conditio possidentis, Bro. Max. 713. Where the title of the king and the title of a subject concur, the king's title shall be preferred: Quando jus domini regis et sub- diti concurrunt, jus regis praeferri debet, Bro. Max. 67. Whitcher v. Hall (1826), 5 Barn. & Cress. 269 (11 E. C. L. R ); S.C.,Shir. L. C.18. Suretyship: Alteration of contract between creditor and debtor re- leases surety. Rees r. Berrin^ton; Kingr v. Baldwin; Bank of Steubenville v. Leavitt; Dickerson v. Board Co. Com'rs. Whitcomb v. Whiting (1781), Doug. 652 ; S. C, 1 Stn. L. C. 982- 1026; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 163; S. C, Shir. L. C. 931 Limitation of actions; Co-contractors: Payment by one, is pay- ment by all. New promise. Bell v. Morrison; Boyd v. Blankman; Catlin v. Skouldin^; Norton v. Larco; Triiemau t. Fenton; Tanner v. Smart. See Tigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniuut; Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. When the statute begins to run it jvill continue to run; absence from state must date prior to time when suit could be instituted; it stat- ute has commenced to run no subsequent absence will be deducted, 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 273-275; Morgan v. Robinson (1822), 12 Martin 76; S. C, 13 Am. Dec. 366, notes. Statute once in motion, continues, 2 Or. Ev. 439; when statute begins to run it will continue to run, Smilie v. Biffle, 2 Pa. St. 52; S. C, 44 Am. Deo. 156; Whitehouse v. Fellows, 10 C. B. N. S. 765 (100 E. C. L. R.); Kistler v. Hereth (1881), 75 Ind. 177; S. C, 39 Am. Rep. 131, note; Moak's Und. Torts, 69; Wood Lim. 6; debtor cannot avail him- self of successive disabilities, Angell on Lim. 197, 477; 7 Wait's Ac. & Def. 272; Fritz v. Joiner, 54 Ills. 101. Fraud at law, preventing operation of statute, Snodgrass v. Branch Banfc(1854), 25Ala. 161; S. C, 60 Am. Dec. 505, extended note. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Ignorance op bight to sue: Effect, Williams v. Pomeroy Coal Co. (1882), 37 Ohio St. 583; S. C, 6 Mor. Min. Rep. 195; Backhouse v. Bononi, 9 Ho. Ld. Cas. 503; S. C, El., Bl. & El. 622 (96 E.G. L. R); S. C, 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 677; S. C, cited Goddard's Easements (Bennett's Ed.) 355, 416, 417, 420. Limitation by contract, of time for commencing action. One may, at his pleasure renounce the benefit of a stipulation introduced in his own favor. Little v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (1877), 123 Mass. 380; S. C, 25 Am. Rep. 96-107, note. See Waiver; Statute of limtations. 232 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Whitcomb t. Whiting — continued. In criminal cases, the prosecutor must show that the crime was com- mitted within the statutory period; this is an essential element of the crime, Bish. Stat. Crimes, 264; Wood Lim. 13. A justice was held liable for binding over, when the crime was out- lawed, Vaughn v. Oongdon, 56 Vt. Ill; S. C, 48 Am. Rep. 758. Crimes; Concealment: When this will prevent the statute running, Jones V. State, 14 Ind. 120. Commencement op action: What is. Boss v. Luther (1825), 4 Cow. 158; S. C, 15 Am. Dec. 341, note. Trusts; Trustees: Application of statute of limitations to. Miles o. Thome (1869), 38 Calif. 335; S. C, 99 Am. Dec. 384-399, extended note; Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 2 Jacob & Walk. 1; S. C, stated, 99 Am. Dec. 390. Laches, as a bar to in equity. Note, 80 Am. Dec. 390; Johnson v. Toulmin (1850), 18 Ala. 50; S. C, 52 Am. Dec. 212, notes; Note, 65 Am. Dec. 545; Concurrent remedies at law and in equity; rules are the same. Note, 66 Am. Dec. 183. Equity; Rules: Generally, 2 Pom. Eq. 965; Notes, 12 Am. Dec. 368- 373; Note, 80 Am. Dec. 390; 7 Wait's Ac. & Def . 243; Wood Lim. 58- 63, 200-220; 10 U. S. Dig. (Consd.) 735-742, cases; 2 Schoul. Pers. Prop. 687; Oliver v. Piatt (1845), 3 How. 333; S. C, Zinns L. C. Trusts, 18, notes. Waiver of rights to defense of, Sains populi snprema lex. White V. Bluett (1854), 23 L. J., Exch. 36; S. C. Laws. L. C. Simp. 80. Consideration: A consideration must be real. Cumber T. Wane. White Y. Corlies (1871), 46 N. Y. 467; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 1. Contracts; proposal and assent: Both parties must agree to the same thing in the same sense. Cooke v. Oxley. See Gribbs t. Benjamin; Tarling' v. Baxter. Certainty: Uncertain agreement is no contract. Sherman T. Kits- miller; Kelly T. Hemmingway; ZalesM v. Clark. White V. County of Bond (1871), 58 Ills. 297; S. C, 11 Am. Rep. 65. Municipal and quasi-municipal cokporations; Counties; Highways: Counties not liable for defective ways. Distinction between munici- pal and quasi-municipal corporations. Henley v. Lyme Regis; Weet V. Trustees of Brockport; Bailey v. Mayor, etc; Russell v. Men of Devon. Mob; Riot; Injuries done by: Counties not liable for, at common law. White T. Fort (1824), 3 Hawks (N. C), 251 ; S. C, 1 Lead. Grim. Gas. 34, notes. Crimes: Merger of civil into criminal remedy. Wells v. Abrahams. White V. Nichols (1844), 3 How. 266 ; S. G., stated. Bige L. C. Torts, 158. Defamation; Privilege. See Harrison v. Bush. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 233 Technological Table. Whitecross Wire Co. v. Savill (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 654; S. C, Shir. L. C, 195. Marine insurance; Average. Whitton T. State (1859), 37 Miss. 379 ; S. C, Laws. L. Crim. Cas. Simp. 55. Ignorance or mistake of law no excuse. Ignorantia f acti excusat, igno ■ rantia juris non excusat; "Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse." Commonwealth y. Presby; Bex v. Crutch- ley. Whoever grants a thing is supposed also tacitly to grant that without which the grant itself would be of no effect: Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit, Bro. Max. 479. Wiehold v. Herman (1876), 2 Mont. 609. Names; Idem sonans; Certainty essential: Initials in a pleading insufficient. Initials for a name insufficient, Herf v. Shulze, 10 Ohio, 263; Certum est quod certum reddi potest. Mistake in initials: Garnishment against "W. J." Motley, will not bind funds of "W. G." Motley, though "W. G." was intended, Qer- man National Bank v. National State Bank of Boulder (1892), 2 Colo. Ct. Appeals — ; 31 Pac. Rep. 122; Brown v. Butchers and Drovers' Bank; Bristow v. Wright.; De minimis non cnrat lex. Wigglesworth v. Dallison (1789), Doug. 201; S. C, 1 Sm. L. C. 928, 965; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 171; S. C, Shir. L. C. 38; S. C, Laws. Us. & Cus. 169. Construction; Custom; Usage; Evidence: Evidence of custom to qualify written contract. Optimus interpres rerum usus; "Usage is the best interpreter of things.'' Cooper t. Eane; Blackett v. Royal Exchange Assn. Co. Wightman v. Coates (1818), 15 Mass. 1; S. C, 8 Am. Dec. 77; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 120. Breach op promise op marriage: Evidence to prove the engagement. Willard y. Stone. Wilhanks v. Wilbanks (1856), 18 Ills. 17; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 44. Election: Doctrines of, under wills. Brodie t. Barry. Wilcocks v. Wilcocks (1706), 2 Vern. 558; S. C, 2 Ld. Eq. Cas. 833; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 48. Performance: " Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation." Wilkerson v. Utah (1878), 9 Otto, 130; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 293. Constitutional law: " Cruel and unusual punishments." Shooting is not a cruel and unusual punishment. 234 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Willard v. Stone (1827), 7 Cow. 22 ; S. C, 17 Am. Dec. 496; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 122. Breach op promise op marriage; Justification por. Atchiiifson v. Baker; Wightman v. Goates. Williams v. Bankhead (1873). 19 "Wall. 570. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; Miller v. Mahaffey, 45 Iowa, 289. Necessary parties jcrisdictional: Necessary parties must be brought before a court, before it will make a decree affecting their rights. Mohr v. Manierre; Mohr v. Tulip; Rice v. Shute; Myers v. Erwiii; Rex v. Gibson. Nonjoinder: Courts may order new parties, and if these are not brought in, the cause may be dismissed, Sherman v. Parish, 53 N. Y. 483. Under codes, no cause should be dismissed for nonjoinder or mis- joinder until after an opportunity to amend, and cure the fault; if a trial court proceeds with such a fault, a court of review should not peremptorily dismiss the cause for either of those reasons, but should remand the cause with leave to amend, otherwise the right to amend is lost, and there results the final disposal of a cause upon highly technical and even arbitrary grounds. Nonjoinder may be fatal in cases where it is inadmissible at the forum to show what issues were involved, by evidence aliunde, and where the record, if presented as res adjudicata, would be insufficient — the record would not, within its four corners show the identity of the cause adjudicated, and the cause this was pleaded in, as a bar. In such a case a fatal variance would exist, unless an amendment be made and new parties be brought in. Whenever a full and final determination of a controversy can be had; wherever a record will or can be made sufficiently certain to support a plea of res adjudicata, if a second, and whether a joint or several, suit were brought, then and in such cases, the consequences of misjoin- der or nonjoinder would be considered formal and therefore waivable — matter of abatement only, and if not aptly raised, then waived; so we see, we are not always controlled by the expression of an instru- ment or a contract, but are sometimes guided by, Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex; "Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any particular law ceases so does the law itself." See Waiver, Chap. XLVII. Abatement; Pleas of, Regiiia V.Duffy; Rex v. Gibson; Myers v. Erwin. In Colorado, the issues before a justice may be shown orally, Liss v. Wilcoxen, 2 Colo. 85; Hittson v. Davenport, 4 Colo. 169; Behymer v. Nordloh, 12 Colo. 352; Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 34. An exceptional rule exists in this state, as to issues shown upon records in superior courts, see cases cited under Borkenlingen v. Pasclien. Under such a rule, nonjoinder or misjoinder can be of no consequence, if once waived. After waiver, the reason of the law ceases, if the issues may be shown orally or by evidence aliunde. See Bates v. Bulk- ley. In judging of nonjoinder and misjoinder, the whole scope, substance, purpose and intent of an instrument sued on, will be considered, not merely its formal expressions, Alexander v. Jacoby, 23 Ohio St. 358. [Joint attachment bond, to several obligees may be sued upon by each]. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 235 Technological Table. Williams v. Carwardine (1823), 4 Barn. & Adol. 621 (24 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Langd. Cas. Con. 12; S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 22. Contracts; Rewards: Proposals to unascertained person. Cooke v. Oxley; Boston Ice Co. v. Potter. Any person may arrest a fugitive for a felony actually committed, Allen V. Wright; and this is the duty of every good citizen, Salus populi suprema lex, yet for doing it a reward may be claimed. See Stilk v.Myrick. Williams v. Esling (1846), 4 Barr (Pa.) 486; S. C.Bige. L. C. Torts, 371; S. C, 45 Am. Dec. 710. Trespass upon property; Entry upon land; Damage: An action lies for a trespass upon a right of way, without proof of actual dam- age. Anthony v. Haney; De minimis nou cnrat lex. Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co. (1841), 4 Pick. (Mass.) 341, 344. Pleadings; Statutory pacts and rights, how pleaded: Statutory rights must be averred with great strictness. Each fact is essential description and is strictly required. Bristow v. Wright. See Rick- etson V. Kichardson, statement, cases; Moore t. Commonwealth; State V. Thurstin; Regina v. Waverton; Bloom v. Burdick; Commonwealth v. Bean; Dovaston v. Payne; U. S. v. Perez; Russell V. Mann; Audi alteram partem. Fraud, pleading op: Same rule applies in. See Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. What is not alleged is proved not to exist, Dovaston T. Payne; Commonwealth v. Eastman; Moore v. Commw. "The cases in the books seem to be very explicit, that no judgment can be sustained, even after verdict, unless the declaration shows every fact that is essential to the right of action; and though this is a tech- nical rule, it is not unsupported by reason, for there will be nothing on record to show that the plaintiflf is entitled to any damages, and it cannot be presumed that facts not stated have been proved, unless they are of a nature to be necessarily inferred from those which are alleged. (Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Sains populi suprema lex). There is nothing in the declaration from which it must be inferred that the plaintiff was liable to a demand of toll, for by the 5th section of St. 1804 c. 125, divers classes of persons are exempt from toll, and there is nothing to make it appear that the plaintiff is not one of them. It is not merely that his title is defectively set forth, but there is a failure to show any title at all, for by the very statute on which he relies to support his action, it is required that he be a per- son of whom toll is demandable. The cases of Spieres v, Parker, 1 T. R. (Durn. & East), 141, and Bartlett v. Crazier, 17 Johns. R. 456, put this matter in a very clear light. He who would entitle himself to an action under a statute, must allege all the facts upon which the statute grounds the action; and if he fails to do this in his declara- tion, he cannot have judgment. The case in Term Reports is on a statute which gives a penalty to any mariner who, under certain circumstances, shall be impressed, except deserters from his majesty's ships. The plaintiff stated his case without alleging 236 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co. — continued. that he was not a deserter, and this was held to be a fatal defect. And in the New York case before the Court of Errors, the law on the subject is laid down by Chancellor Kent with admirable force and perspicuity. Numerous cases of a like nature are cited in Espinasse on Penal Actions, and we cannot find that these principles are not appli- cable to cases not strictly of a penal statute. See Rider v. Smith, ',i T. R. (Durn. & East), 766; Co. Lit. 304; Clarke v. Gray, 6 East, 568; Miles V. Sheward, 8 East, 8; 1 Wms's Saund. 228, note 1; Eex v. Pemberton, 2 Burr. 1035; Spieres r. Parker, 1 T. R. (Durn. & East), 144; The King r. Hall, ibid, 322; Allen v. Hundred of Kirton, 2 W. Bl. 842; S. C, 3 Wils. 318; Young v. Hundred of Tedcomb, 1 Show. 60; Heme i . Lilborne, 1 Bulstr. 162; Small v. Cole, 2 Burr. 1159; Rushton r. Aspin- all, 2 Doug. 679. In civil, as well as penal actions, enough must be stated in the declaration, or must be necessarily inferred from what is stated, to show a perfect right of action. As in the case of Rushton V. Aspinall, 2 Doug. 679, it is held that the omission to allege a demand on the acceptor of a bill of exchange and a refusal to pay, or notice to the indorser, is incurable by verdict and bad on error." Gebhart v. Adams (1860), 23 Ills. 397; S. C, 76 Am. Dec. 702; People V. Jackson, 24 Calif. 630; People v. Castro (1870), 39 Calif. 65, 69; Gimmy v. Doane (1863), 22 Calif. 635; Whitecraft v. Vanderver (1850), 12 Ills. 235, 238; Wright v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co. (1880). 129 Mass. 440; Little v. Thompson, 2 Greenleaf, 228, 231; 1 Bish. Stat. Crimes, .375^07; 1 Bish. Crim. Proced. 593-642; 1 Chit. PI. 372; Blackw'ell on Tax Tit. 500-509; 3 Cool. Bl. 15, note; Moore v. Com- monwealth; Borkenha^en v. Pascheii: Biissell t. Mann; Dye v. Dye; Ricketson v. Richardson. See Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur. Allegations essential, Borkenhagen t. Pasclien; Sains popnli snprema lex. Evidence essential also; without it courts will set verdicts aside, in eiftier criminal or civil cases. State v. Croteau ; Ad qnsestionem facti, etc.; Chicago R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. McAra (1869), 52 Ills. 296; Walker v. Martin (1869). 52 Ills. .347, 351; Suh Ad quKstionem facti, etc.; Salus popnli snprema lex ; Vaiden v. Commonwealth. Function of pleadings is to make of records the grounds of recovery. Sains popnli snprema lex; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Min. Co. (1886), 9 Colo. 346, 353; but see contra. Colorado cases, Sub Borken- liagen t. Paschen; McLaaglilin v. Kelly; Mnnday v. Vail. Wilson V. Brett (1843), 11 Mees. & Wels. 113; S. C, Shir. L. C. 41. Bailments; Gratuitous bailees: Although a gratuitous bailee is bound to slight diligence only, he must use special skill if he pos- sesses it. Coggs V. Bernard. Wilson V. Peverly (1823), 2 N. H. 548; S. C, 1 Am. L. C. 778. Agency; Respondeat superior: Liability of a principal for injuries done to others by his agent in the course of his duty as agent. Greg- ory V. Piper; McManns v. Crickett; Thomas v. Winchester; Mil- liard V, Richardson; McClnre v. Richardson; 1 Thomp. Neg. 225. Winsmore v. Greenbank (1745), Willes, 577; S. C . Bige. L, C. Torts, 328. Seduction and enticing away; Husband and wife; Enticing wife away; Damages. Lnmley v. Gye. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 237 Technological Table. Withers v. Yeardoii (1845), 1 Rich. Eq. 324; S. C, Laws. Ld. Eq. Cas. Simp. 88. Powers; Trusts: Powers coupled with trusts may be executed by courts. With respect to private rights, necessity privileges a person acting under its influence: Necessitas inducit privilegium quoad jura privata, Bro. Max. 11. Wood V. Leadbitter (1845), 13 Mees. & Wels. 838; S. C, Shir. L. C. 118. Licenses: Mere license is revocable at pleasure. Prince t. Case; Berick v. Kern. Wood V. Lincoln, etc. Ins. Co. (1810), 6 Mass. 479; S. C, 2 Am. L. C. 694; S. C, 4 Am. Dec. 163. Marine insurance; Constructive total loss. Smith v. Bell. Wood V. Watkinson (1846), 15 Conn. 500; S. C, 44 Am. Dec. 561, 570, extended note. North V. Mudge Co. (1862), 13 la. 496; S. C, 81 Am. Dec. 441, note. Due process op law; Service op process; Partnership: Necessity for personal service of process upon partners. One partner cannot confess a judgment for a firm. Audi alteram partem; " No man should be condemned unheard." Woodman v. Nottingham (1870), 49 N. H. 387; S. C, 6 Am. Rep. 526. Possession is sufficient against a wrong-doer. Armory v. Delamire. Woodruff V. Trapnall (1850), 10 How. 190; S. C, Laws. Ld. Cas. Const. Law Simp. 238 ; S. C, stated, Myer's Vested Rights, 1340, 1410. Constitutional law; Impairing the obligation of contracts: A state cannot refuse to accept in payment of its demands, bank notes which it agreed to accept when the notes were issued. Woodworth v. Bank of America (1821), 19 Johns. 391; S. C, 10 Am. Dec. 239, extended notes. Bridges v. Winters (1868), 42 Miss. 135; S. C, 97 Am. Dec. 443, note. Alterations; Interlineations and erasures in documents: Ma terial alteration will vitiate, 1 Gr. Ev. 566; Commonwealth v. Kane. Private Writings. WooUam v. Hearn (1802), 7 Ves. 211; S. C, 2 Ld. Eq. Cas. 920-1040; S. C, Laws. L. Eq. Cas. Simp. 122. Specific performance; Evidence: Distinction between seeking and resisting specific performance, as to the admission of evidence. See Lester t. Foxcroft; Ubi jus ibi remedium. 238 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Words shall be taken most strongly against the party employ- ing them: Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem, Bro. Max. 594. Words to which reference is made in an instrument have the same effect and operation as if they were inserted in the clause refer- ring to them: Verba relata hoc maxime operantur per referentiam ut in eis inesse videntur, Bro. Max. 673. Work y. State (1853), 2 Ohio St. 297; S. C. 1 Lead. Crim. Cas. 482 ; S. C, 59 Am. Dec. 671. Jury trials; Twelve necessary; Unanimous verdict. The King T. Marsh. Wright V. Clements (1820), 3 Barn. A, Aid. 503 (5 E. C. L. R.); S. C, 2 Lead. Crim. Oas. 94. Indictment; Written instruments; Documents, how pleaded: The word " tenor " imports an exact copy, and that the libel is set out in words and figures. Berrian v. State. Wyman t. Hurlbert (1843), 12 Ohio, 81; S. C, 40 Am. Dec. 461-469, notes. Abandonment: Law of, McGoon v. Ankeny, 11 Ills. 558. Mining claims, Richardson v. McNulty, 12A Calif. 334; S. C, Blanch. & Weeks L. C. Mines & Min. 206, note; S. C, 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 11. Insurance law: Abandonment in, Marshall v. Delaware Ins. Co. Yates V. Jack (1866), L. R., 1 Ch. 295; S. C, Shir. L. C. 250. Ancient Lights. Rideout v. Enox. Yates, In re (1809), 4 Johns. 314-376. Out of this case grew the celebrated case of Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. 395; S. C, 6 Am. Dec. 290, a case involving judicial authority; see also S. C, 5 Johns. 282; S. C, Gt. Opin. by Gt. Judges, 201. Contempt op court: Courts have inherent power to punish for con- tempts committed in their presence or immediate view. The power to hear and decide confers this power. Any resistance or obstruction of the administration of justice is a contempt. This is the gravamen of the offense. 2 Bish. C. L. 261, 5th Ed.; Moaks Und. Torts, 195- 200; State v. Woodfin, 5 Iredell's Law, 199; S. C, 42 Am. Dec. 161, note; Little v. State, 90 Ind. 338; S. C, 46 Am. Rep. 224; State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 416; S. C, 49 Am. Rep. 257-276; Abbott's Brief Crim. Cas. 6. Publications: When contempts, Sturoc, In the matter of, 48 N. H. 428; S. C, 97 Am. Dec. 626, note; State v. Oalloicay, 5 Cold. 326; S. C, 98 Am. Dec. 404, note. Constructive contempts not cognizable in federal courts, Act Cong. March 2, 1831; 4 U. S. Stat, at Large, p. 487, Sec. 725, R. S. U. S. See Contempts, Chap. XXI. Making speeches pending a trial, to excite inflammatory feelings against a judge presiding thereat, is a contempt, Reg. v. Skipworth (1873), 12 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 239 Technological Table. Yates, In re— continued. Cox C. C. 371; S. C, L. R., 9 Q. R. 230; S. C, 1 Green's Crim. R»p. 121-131; S. C, 5 Mo.Eng. Rep. 456; Reg. v. Onslo^o & Whalley (1873), 12 Cox's Crim. Cas. 358; S. C, L. R., 9 Q. B. 219; S. C, 1 Green's Crim. Rep. 110; S. C, 5 Mo. Eng. Rep. 443. In Colorado, it is held a contempt to specify the grounds why a change of venue is desired from a judge, although facts must be pleaded in such applications; where a judge is involved, reasons need not be set forth, it seems, in that state, Hughes v, People (1880), 5 Colo. 436. In Minnesota, an attorney was disbarred for not stating the reasons; for setting forth mere conclusions of fact instead of the facts them- selves. Ex parte Curtis (1859), 3 Minn. 274. Both these states adopted the English common law. State v. Moore. Judges of probity should be protected from false and infamous charges, presented upon their records. These should not be made a vehicle, to carry and spread defamation. False pleadings should be repressed and punished, wherever and whenever constituted and found, Falsns in uno, falsus in omnibus. This is the rationale involved; and this is equally protective for any litigant or officer of the court. It is not in sound theory to be enforced for judges only. But it must be admitted that many courts, announce a different view. Bad judges, against whom infamous, relevant and necessary charges, can be made, should not be permitted to pervert a defensible and salutary rule, and shield themselves under it. However we have cited a contra case, to this proposition, but an application of, Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex, indicates the sound rule. Correction of false and irrelevant pleadings is one thing; and the protection of an infamous judge or court is quite another. From this standpoint, it is submitted if the law of contempt, is not carried to an indefensible extent. Necessary allegations are as important as a judge; each must exist for the same reason, Salns populi suprema lex. Facts must be set forth in application for change of venue, Christ v. People (1877), 3 Colo. 394; People v. MeCauley (1851), 1 Calif. 379; People V. Baker (1851), 1 Calif. 454; Ex parte Curtis, supra; Shat- tack V. Iftyers. It seems, the protection of the superior judge in Colorado is paramount — a thing above the demands of pleadings, and even the adminis- tration of justice. In Liddicoat v. Treglown (1881), 6 Colo. 47, loss of an estate was alleged, which was known to have gone into admin- istration. The exact means of its embezzlement by several, among whom was a county judge, were unknown. Discovery of this in equity was sought; naturally, Probatis extremis praesumuntur media, was relied upon. Yet, under these circumstances, the court held it passing a contempt, because more was not stated than was known or was accessible to the pleader. In this case facts were demanded. In another case, disbarment proceedings, the court arguendo stated that in viewing the case it was to be observed that the alleged offenses were committed by an attorney, while a candidate for oflce of judge, and that having been elected to that oflBce, he had passed beyond correction by dis- barment. In other cases involving alleged corruption of judges, the official reports fail to correctly state the facts submitted upon the record for judgment. The situation justifies the conclusion, that justice cannot be enforced against superior judges in that state; one thing is clear, that their prerogatives are inimical to well settled and distinct theories of pleading, evidence, and the application of Ex facti oritur legis, and usual expectations in reporting of causes. 240 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technological Table. Yates, 111 re — continued. UnBettling these essentials is a disturbance of many things, as else- where observed, Salus popiili siiprema lex. Obsequiousness to officials in power is a reason why the impeachment of a judge generally fails. Permitting one to be judge of his own dispute is why prosecutions for contempt against a judge, rarely fail. Xemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa, should apply in all cases, except for contempts committed in the face of the court. The higher respect accorded the federal judiciary in many jurisdictions where the power to punish for contempt is abused, indicates, that constructive contempts should be discountenanced. Young V. Dake (1851), 1 Seld. 465; S. C, 55 Am. Dec. 356. Statute OF frauds: Leases may begin iji /Mfwro. Peter v. Compton. Young V. Grote (1827), 4 Bing. 453 (13 E. C. L. R.); S. C, Laws. L. C. Simp. 160; S. C.,Shir. L. C. 400-410; cited, notes to Duchess of Kingston's Case, Sm. L. C. 813. Equitable estoppel: " When one of two equally innocent persons must suffer from the wrong of a third, he who first trusted must first suf- fer.'' Liekbarrow v. Mason; Mitchell v. Reed; 1 Bates' Part. 90. See Master v. Miller. Zaleski v. Clark (1876). 44 Conn. 218; S. C, 26 Am. Rep. 446; S.C, Laws. L.C. Simp. 18. Contracts; Certainty; Mistake: Uncertain agreement does not make a contract. Kelly v. Hemmingway; Boston Ice Co. v. Pot- ter; Sherman V. Kitsiniller; White v. Corlies. Mistake as to person contracted with, vitiates claim of contract, although an article is delivered and consumed. Boston lee Co. v. Potter. Mutual mistake as to price prevents title passing, Rupley v. Daggett, 74 Ills. 351; cited, Anson's Conts. 123. Or to condition of a thing sold; as where a blooded cow was erroneously supposed barren, the contract may be rescinded and replevin brought. Sherwood v. Walker (1887), 66 Mich, 568; S. C, 33 N. W. R. 919; S. C, 11 Am. St. Rep. 531; cited, Anson's Conts. 123. Zouch T. Parsons (1765), 3 Burr. 1794; S. C, 1 W. Black. 575; S. C, Ewell's Lead. Cas. 3, extended note. This is a widely cited case. Infants: Deeds of, when void and when voidable. Tucker v. More- land; Yasse t. Smith. See Infancy, Chap. LXIX. INDEX. THE TECHNICAL INDEX. This index is constructed so as to instantly furnish proposi- tions and technics. Those recognizing the value of the great case and maxim in research will appreciate this. See pref- ace, and particularly pp. xv-xix, xxv-xxviii and xxxviii, of the Introduction. A further illustration is afforded, if we work from this index to Sic utere tuo ut aliennm non laedas. Under this, in the Technological Table, is gathered and pointed an immense discussion. Bearing in mind that the aldine type in this index indi- cates the technic, which will be found like a name in a direc- tory or a word in a dictionary, we think all that is apparently strained or confused will at once disappear, and instead, the most simple, accurate, natural and prized key to the law, for its great and leading discussions, will at once appear. The observing student with fair knowledge of the library, will appreciate this. He will soon learn what progress he is making, by remembering Caveat emptor, Pasley t. Freeman, etc., etc. The advantages for this class are outlined in the Preface and Introduction. After a careful review of these, and a glance at this Index, which has statements and tech- nics in juxtaposition, a right conclusion can be reached. The theories of Bacon, Broom and Smith, for finding and remembering the law, will there be seen, unified and scientifically adjusted. After a glance at the enormous domain so carefully swept, and the wheat garnered from the chaff and displayed for every and any occasion, he will be prepared to consider the quality of matter, rather than its quantity, bearing in mind that this is a work of types and tech- nics, and that the latter are indicated in this Index by their dis- tinctive type, the aldine— black letter, as elsewhere observed. Roman numerals in foot margins, indicate that index topic heads are also Chapter Titles. A table of principal abbrevia- tions will be found at end of General Table of Cases. Again, and finally, we invite an inspection and a com- parison of results. INDEX. Abandonment. Doctrine of — Wyman t. Hurlburt. See Limitations, Chap. XXIV. Abatement.' Felonies; Misdemeanors; Distinctive rules; Right to plead after de- murrer or issue of fact decided — Reg. v. Duffy; Rex y. Gibson. Practice in pleas of— Rex T. Gibson; Williams v. Baukhead; Myers V. Erwin; Piper v. Pearson. Must be in writing and aptly filed — sub Piper v. Pearson. Table showing order of pleading — Rex v. Gibson; Expressio unins, etc. See Waiver; Sec. 25, Chap. XL VII. Waiver; Doctrines of, strictly applied to — Rex v. Gibson. Technical and important rule at common law governing — Myers T. Erwin; Rex v. Gibson. Abduction. Prostitution, purposes of — Commw. t. Cook. Abortion. General discussion of — Abrams v. Foshee. Indictment; It need not be averred woman was pregnant — Queen, ThOj V. Goodhall; Reg. t. Collins; Commw. v. McDonald. Abuse of power. See Usurpation of power; Ultba vires; Agency. Acceptance. Commercial paper; Consideration suflBcient — Walker T. Lide. Deeds; Acceptance of — Wellborn v. Weaver. Commercial paper — Coolidge v. Payson. Statute of frauds; What satisfies — Jordan v. Norton. Contracts; What suflScient — See Sales. Letter; Contracts by; What sufficient — Maclay v. Harvey. Accession. See Confusion and accession; Jewett v. Dringer. Accessory. Principal and accessory — Breeze v. State; Spies v. People. See Accomplice. Accidents; Actus Dei, etc. The act of God is so treated by the law as to affect no one injuriously — Actus Dei, etc.; Fletcher v. Rylands; Nichols v. Marsland. Injuries resulting from unintentional act are non-actionable — Brown T, Kendall; Scott v. Shepherd. 'CXXVI. 244 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Accidents — continued. Voluntary acts are actionable though unintentional — Fletcher t. Ry- lands. Forfeitures, when actionable, may be relieved against — Bostwick V. Stiles. Loss of documents; Relief from — Lawrence T. Lawrence. Accidental penalties — Jones V.Lewis; Lawrence v. Lawrence? Boat* wick V. Stiles. See Impossibility; Negligence; Damages; Lex non cogrit ad Impos- sibilla; Ubi jus ihi remedium. Accomplice. Competency of, as a witness — sub Regr. v. Hill. Accord and Satisfaction. General discussion of — Cumber v. Wane. Account Stated. 1 Doctrines of — Lockwood v. Thorne. Acquiescence. Acquiescence in error by one who might take advantage of it, obviates its' effect — Consensus tolllt errorem. That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid — Quod ab initio non valet, etc. See Waivek, Chap. XLVII. "Act and operation of law," What must be proved by— Lester v. Foxcroft ; Lyon T. Reed. Actions and Remedies.' There is no wrong without a remedy— Ubi jus ibi remedium; Ashby T. White; Chasemore t. Richards. Damnum absque injuria — ^Ashby v. White; Chasemore v. Richards; Ubi jus ibi remedium. Injury without damage — Chasemore v. Richards. Superior judicial officers; Injuries by, non-actionable^Busteed v. Par- sons; Lange v. Benedict. Ministerial officers protected by regular process — Savacool v. Bongh- ten; Grace v, Mitchell; State t. Weed; Mostyn v. Fabrigas; Rex non potest peccare. Government; Right of the citizen to sue— Chisholm V.Georgia; Hun- saker V. Borden; Rex non potest peccare. Cumulative remedies; Foreclosure — Robinson v. Hurley. Splitting causes of action— Grain v. Aldrlch; Gradwohl v. Harris; Bendernagle v. Cocks. See Remedies; Pabties; Ubi jus, etc.; Bex v. Wheatley; Williams T. Bankhead. >OIII. ^LXXX. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 245 Technical Index. Act and intent must concur to constitute crime. Actus non facit reum, etc. Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta.* See Six Carpenter's Case. New promise to revive debt barred by limitations may be inferred from acts— Bell T.Morrison; Tanner t. Smart; Whitcomb v. Whiting. Acts indicate the intention; Things implied need not be mentioned — Res ipsa loquitur. Actio personalis moritur cum persona. Seduction causing death non-actionable — sub Terry v. Hutchinson. See Death, Chap. LX; Assignments; Negligence. Actus curiae neminem gravabit. An act of the court shall prejudice no man. See Pbactice. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Keligious belief no excuse for violation of statute forbidding an act — Reynolds v. U. S. See Intent, Chap. XXVI; People v. Roby. Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur. Ita lex scripta est. See Stake decisis. Addamnum. See Prayer. Ademption. Satisfaction of debts by legacies — Pye, Ex parte; Hooley t. Hatton. Abjudication. See Res adjudicata. Adminstration. Primary liability of personal estate for the payment of debts — Ancaster V. Mayer. Equitable assets — Silk v. Prime. Demanded from public policy — Hagthorp T. Hook. Not required in all cases — Lex neminem cogit, etc. Administrators de son tort — Brown t. Sullivan. See Administrators and executors; Chap. LIX. Admissions.^ Declarations of parties of record and in interest — Bauerman v. Rad- enins. Real party though not known upon a record, is bound by — Bauerman v. Radenius; sub Duchess of Eings ton's Case. Agent, within the scope of the agency, binds the principal — Kirkstall Brewery Co. v. Furness E. Co.j Didsbury v. Thomas. See Res •xxxv. CLXIII. 246 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Tectnical Index. Admissions— continued. Declarations of deceased persons in the course of business, admissible in evidence — Price T. Torringrton; Res inter alios acta, etc. See Kes gest^. In pleadings; Force and effect — Commw. v. Eane, sub cases; Bissell t. Spring y alley Township; sub Ducliess of Kingston's Case. Pleadings; Material allegations not denied are admitted — Bissell T. Spring Valley Township ; Humphreys t. McCall 5 Dnehess of King- ston's Case; sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Judicial admissions — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Predecessor in title; Admissions by — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. General citation— Res inter alios acta, etc. See Evidence; Res gest^; Deci.aeations against interest; Estop- pel; Res inter alios acta, etc. Ad qiuestionein facti non respondent jndices, ad qnaestionem legis non respondent juratores ' — State v. Crotean. Adultery. Is proved by acts and circumstances — sub Res inter alios acta, etc.; Res ipsa loquitur; System. Adverse Possession. Doctrine of— Jfepean v. Doe; Taylor d. Atkins t. Horde. See Limitations; Ejectment. AffldaTits.^ See Pleadings. Agency;' Principal and agent. Rationale — Qui per alium facit, etc.; Thomson v. Davenport. "General agents;" Acts of, bind principal if within the agency — Rossiter T. Rossiter. "Special agents,'' must follow instructions — Batty v. Carswell; Cox v. Midland R. R. Co.; Jacques v. Todd; Courcier v. Ritter. "Scope of agency;" Agent's acts within, bind principal — McClure T. Richardson; Odiorne t. Xaxcy. Custom and usage limit authority — Goodenow v. Tyler. "Authority;" "Instructions;" Agents must follow — Jacques v. Todd; Cox T. Midland R. R. Co. Authority under seal, conferred under seal — ^Tihil tarn conveniens, etc.; Brookshire v. Brookshire. Authority; False assumption of; Agent's liability — CoUen v. Wright; Cornfoot v. Fowke. Authority; Judicial; Jurisdiction; Limitations of — Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal; Munday v. Tail. *xx. ^CXXIX. »LIII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 247 Technical Index. Agency — continued. Authority; Official; Executive power; Limits of— Mostyn v. Fabrigas; Ela T. Smith. Ministerial power; Delegation of, permissible — Taylor v. Brown. Authority; Ministerial; Liability of executive officers — Savacool v. Boug^hteii. Blanks; Filling, in commercial paper — Angle T. N. W. Mutual Ins. Co. Blanks; Filling in deeds— Hibblewhlte v. McMorrine. See Nihil tam conveniens, etc. Election; Doctrines of— Smith v. Hodson; Chap. LII. Qui sentit commodum, etc.; "Benefits and burthens go hand in hand" — Thomson v. Davenport; Henley v. Lyme Repris. Deeds; Distinctive rule — Elwell v. Shaw; New England Marine Insur- ance Co. v. De Wolf. Desoriptio personoe words— Sturdivant v. Hull; Pentz v. Stanton. Duties of agent to principal — Burrill v. Phillips. Disbursements of agents; Rights to — Bradford v. Kimherly; D'Arcy v. Lyle. Integrity and interest; Conflict prohibited — Eeech v. Sanford. See Tkusts, Chap. LVI. Respondeat superior- Hilllard t. Richardson; McManus v. Crickett; Gregory v. Piper; Wilson v. Peverly. Torts of agent; Principal, when liable for— McManus v. Crickett; Gregory v. Piper; Billiard v. Richardson; Wilson v. Peverly; Thomas v. Winchester; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Wetmore. Fellow servant's torts; Principal's liability — Farwell v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co. Servant's liability to third persons— Harriman v. Stowe. Crimes of agents; Who liable for— Rex v. Almon ; McManus v. Crickett. Fraud of agent; Misrepresentation; Principal liable for — Cornfoot v. Fowke. Ratification — Omnis ratihahitio, etc. ; Smith v. Hodson; Chap. LIV. Principals, disclosed and undisclosed; Rights and duties of — Thomson v. Davenport; Addison v. Gaudasequi; Paterson v. Gandasequi; Pentz V. Stanton; Rathbon v. Budlong; Dnsenbury v. Ellis; Taintor v. Pendergast; United States v. Parmele. Set-off; Rights of, in cases of undisclosed principals — George v. Clag- gett. Factors; Rights and duties of — George v. Claggett. Public; Government agents; Exceptional rule — Lakeman v. Mountste- phen. Commercial paper; Distinctive rule — Pentz v. Stanton; Sturdivant V. Hull. Expressio unius, etc., aTpphea to deeds — Elwell v. Shaw; and commer. cial paper — Sturdivant t. Hull. Simple contracts need not be signed in principal's name — New Eng- land, etc. Co. v. De Wolf. Contra, commercial paper and deeds — Elwell V. Shaw; Sturdivant v. Hull. 248 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Agency — continued. Commercial paper and deeds must be signed in principal's name — Elwell V. Sliaw; StnrdlTant t. Hull. Note, made by one for another without authority; Maker liable — Dusen- bury V. Ellis. Common carriers, as a public agency — Coggs T.Bernard; Chap. LI V. Government as an agency — Chisholni t. Georgia; Dennett t. Peti- tioner. Partners, agents for each other — Wangh v. Carver. See Partnership, Chap. LVIII. Husband and wife; Powers of wife, a question of agency — Manby T. Scott; Uebenham v. Mellon; Jolly v. Rees; Commw. v. Neal. See Crimes; Crimes op wife; Coebcion. Infants; Necessaries; Powers to bind parents — Porter v. Powell. Revocation of authority, by death — Hunt v. Konsmanier; Harper v. Little. Termination of the powers of an agent — Hnnt t. Ronsmanier. Notice to agent, is notice to principal — Ross v. Houston. Agents as witnesses — Res Inter alios acta, etc. See Evidence. See Attorneys; Trusts and trustees; Offices and officers; Jur- isdiction; Administrators and executors; Partnership; Com- mon carriers; Municipal corporations; Master and servant; Guardian and ward. Agreement. See Contracts; Assumpsit; Accord and satisfaction. Aider. By judgment — See Pleading; Verdict. By pleading over — Boyd v. Blankman; Rnshton t. Aspinall; Reg. T. Wavertonj Reg. v. Waters; Moore t. Commw. By verdict— Vadakin t. Soper. See Pleadings; Waiver. Aggravation. Matter of, need not be pleaded. See Pleadings. Agreed statements of facts. See Pleadings. Alibi. See Circumstantial evidence; Chap. CXLII; Pleadings; Con- struction; CebtAnty. Aliens.' A man cannot abjure his native country, at common law — Nemo patri- am in qua, etc. Domicile; Doctrines of — Guier v. O'Danlel. •lxi. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 249 Technical Index. Aliens — continued. Their right to acquire and hold property — lugflis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor. See Expatriation; Domicile; Citizenship. All acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done — Omnia prsesumuntur rite, etc. AUegans contraria, etc. See Evidence. Allegata and Probata.' "The evidence must correspond with the allegations and be confined to the point in issue" — King v. Wylie; King v. Westbeer; Res inter alios acta, etc. Must correspond— Borkenhagen v. Pasehen. See Variance; Bristow T. Wriglitj Munday v. Yail. Several felonies, parts of one transaction; One, evidence to show the character of another — King t. Ellis; King v. Wylie; Res inter alios acta, etc.; Strong v. State; State t. Moore. See System. It is sufficient if the substance of the issue be proved — Utile per inntile, etc. Surplusage is no vitiation, etc.; Proof of so much of an indictment as constitutes a crime punishable by law, is sufficient — Utile per inutile non vitiatur. Divisible averments— King v. HoUingberry; Bristow T. Wright. Evidence; Variance by proof of two persons of the same name — King v. Peace; Bristow v. Wright. See Pleadings; Due process of law; Variance. Allegations essential — Borkenhagen t. Pasehen. Public policy demands stability of law relating to — Salus populi, etc. Probata essential— sm6 Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co.; State v. Crotean; Ad quaestionem facti, etc.; Yaiden t. Coiumw. Allegations. Allegations essential to compose a record to support a judgment — Bor- kenhagen V. Pasehen; Munday v. Vail; Sains populi, etc. See Due process op law. Must be certain, issuable and traversable — Munday v. Vail. Descriptive allegations — See Pleadings. Must not be argumentative— Munday v. Vail. Certainty in, is required — Moore T. Commw. Must exist of record — Borkenhagen t. Pasehen; Bristow v. Wright; Humphreys t. McCall. Material, if not denied, are admitted — sub Humphreys T. McCall; Bissell T. Spring Valley Township. Essential facts must appear by— Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co. Void and voidable allegations — See Pleadings. See Pleadings; Denials; Issues; Averments. ICXLIX. 250 TECHNOLOGY OP LAW. Technical Index. Alterations ; Interlineations and Erasures.' Commercial paper; Any holder may fill blank left in, by implication of law— Angle t. Jf. W. Mutual Ins. Co. Deeds; Blanks in; Cannot be filled upon parol authority — Hibblewhite T. McMorriiie ; Texira v. Evans. Material alteration vitiates written instruments — Master v. Miller; Al- dous V. Cornell; Hibblewhite v. McMorrinej Young v. tlrote; Woodworth v. Bank of America. Immaterial, will not vitiate — De minimis non curat lex. General citation— Commw. v. Kane, sub cases; Woodworth v. Bank of America. Alternative Pleadings. Monday v. Vail; Lea v. Lea. See Ambiguity. Ambiguity. Latent ambiguity may be explained, but not patent — Sargent v. Adams; Aspden's Estate. Fatal to dilatory pleas — Kraner v. Halsey. In pleadings — Lea v. Lea; Moore v. Commw. See CONSTKUCTION. Amendments. Judgments; Amendments of — Owen v. Weston. At subsequent term of court — sub Owen T. Weston. Bills of exceptions may be amended — sub Owen v. Weston. Return may be amended — sub Owen v. Weston. Pleas in abatement, and dilatory proceedings are not amendable — sub Piper V. Pearson. See Variance; Practice; Pleadings; Bristow v. Wright. A mistake of fact excuses, but a mistake of law will not excuse. See Ignorance. An act of the coui-t shall prejudice no man. Actus curiae neminem gravabit. See Practice. An argument drawn from inconvenience is forcible in law. Argumentum ab incouvenienti, etc. Ancient boundaries. Outline citation — Res inter alios acta, etc. Ancient instruments. How proved — sub Commw. v. Kane. See Evidence. Ancient lights. Doctrines of — Tates v. Jack. See Light; Tates v. Jack. Ancient possessions. Outline citation — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. 'LXXXVI TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 251 Technical Index. Animals. Liability of owner for keeping— May T. Burdett; Earl v. VanAIstine. Savage dogs— Loomis v. Terry. See Negligence; Scienter. Another action pending. Answers. See Pleadings. Outline citation — sub McKyring t. BuU. See Former judgment; Pending of another action. Appeals.* Waiver of rights to— sm6 Shutte v. Thompson. See Appellate procedure. Appearance.* Waives service of process — Cooper v. Beynolds. Criminal cases; Felonies; Prisoner's presence at each step essential^ Sperry t. Commw. Appellate Procedure. Consensus tollit errorem. Functions of the record proper — sub Borkeuhagen t. Paschen. Of bills of exceptions — Borkenliagen v. Paschen. See Practice; Exceptions; Errors; Waiver. Application of Payments.^ Money is to be applied as the debtor directs; if he does not direct, then as the creditor elects; and it neither elects, then the law will apply it according to equity — Field v. Holland; Mayor, etc. v. Patten; Arnold v. Poole. Money paid, is to be applied according to the intention of the party pay- ing; and money received, according to that of the recipient — Qnic- qnid solvitur, solvitur secundum niodum solrentis. Application of Purchase Money. Duty of purchasers to see to — Elliott t. Merryman. Apprehension. See Allen t. Wright; Arrest. Arbitrary Power. See Usurpation op power; Government; Due process op law; Dennett t. Petitioner; Audi alteram partem; Milligan, Ex parte. Arbitration and Award.* Contracts ousting superior courts of jurisdiction, void — Scott v. Avery. Agreements for, do not exclude jurisdiction of courts — Jfettleton v. Gridley. See Awards. ^cxxxix. *OXXXVII. *oxxxvi. *cjvi. 252 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Argument. Right to begin — sub Bonnell v. Wilder. Argumentative Pleadings. Will not support a plea of rea adjudicata — Mnnday v. YalL Argumentative Questions. See Leading questions. Arraignment. Essential; Cannot be waived — sub Humphreys T. McCaU. See Issues; Waiver. Arson. What constitutes — State v. McQowan. Arrest. Arrest by officers and private persons, with or without warrant — Allen T. Wright; Fox v. Gaant. Private person, like an officer, may arrest for a felony actually com- mitted, or to stop a brawl or a breach of the public peace — Allen v. Wright; Led with v. Catclipole. Witness privileged from — Fries v. Brugler. Fraud practiced in, vitiates — Dunlap v. Cody. Obstructing lawful — Allen v. Wright; JToles v. State. Outline citation — sub Ubi jus ibi remediam; Allen v. Wright. One called upon to aid, refuses at his peril — Beg. v. Brown. See False imprisonment; Malicious prosecution; Due process op LAW. Assaults and Batteries. What constitutes a battery — Cole v. Turner; Stephens v. Myers; State T. Baker. Force may be internal — Commw. v. Stratton. Communicating venereal disease, when actionable — sub Volenti non fit injuria. Husband and wife; Rights of — sub Stephens v. Myers. Teacher and pupil — sub Stephens v. Myers. Defense against, must not be excessive — Elliott T. Brown. Words are no assault — Commw. t. Eyre; sub Stephens t. Myers. Consent to fight, when a defense — State T. Baker; Volenti non lit injuria. See Selp-defense. Assent. Acceptance of altered proposal essential — Borland T. Guffey. Is essential for a contract — Boston Ice Co. v. Potter. Retraction of, not permissible after once given — Boston & Maine Co. T. Bartlett. Mistake of fact destroys — Zaieski t. Clark. Mutuality essential; Both sides must be bound or neither — Cooke T. Oxley; Jordan v. Norton. See Contracts; Intent; Res inter alios acta, etc. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 253 Technical Index. Assignment of Errors. See sub Consensus tollit errorem. Assignments.* An assignee is clothed with the rights of his principal— Ryall T. Rowles. Notice of assignment to debtor unnecessary — Kyall T. Rowles; Comp- ton T. Jones. Choses in action, assignment of— Brice V. Bannister} Warmstrey v. Tanfleld; Row v. Dawson. Possibility assignable in equity — Warmstrey t. Tanfleld. Assignee of part of a claim may sue for and recover it — Grain v. Aldrich; Gradwohl t. Harris. Assignments for benefit of creditors. GroTer r. Wakeman; Thomas t. Jenks. Assignments of Error. How made — Consensus tollit errorem. See Eebob; Exceptions; Appellate procbdube; Waiver, Chap. XLVII. Assumpsit. See Contracts; Agreements. Atlieists. Reg. T. Hill; Omichund t. Barker. A transaction between two parties ought not to operate to the disadvantage of a third — Res inter alios acta, etc.; Bauerman t. Radenins; Price v. Torrington. See Competency op witnesses. Hearsay evidence; What the other man said is not evidence, because the other man is not under oath, and there was no opportunity to cross-examine him— Didsbury T. Thomas; Doe d. Didsbury v. Thomas. See Privity; Res gest^; Mutuality; Assent. Attachment.^ Attachment bonds; Remedies on — Trapnall v. McAfee. Malicious attachments; Remedies — Trapnall v. McAfee. Outline citation— TJbi jus ibi remedium. Attainder. Does not attach in U. S.— Garland, Ex parte. Attempts. Act and intent constitute crime — Actus non facit reum, etc. Indictability of— Griffln v. State. Attempt voluntarily abandoned — Reg. v. Taylor. ixcviii. *cxx. 254 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Attendance of Witnesses.' Practice concerning — Cuicunque aliquis qnid, etc. Attorneys.^ Admissions of — Res inter alios acta, etc. Liens, outline citation — sub Ubi jns ibi remedium. Auctions. Bid can be retracted at any time before acceptance — Payne T. CaTe. See Sales, Chap. XCVII. Audi alteram partem. Elements of due process of law — Andi alteram partem; Daridson v. New Orleans; Needhani v. Thayer; Borkenhagen t. Faschen. See Due process of law, Chap. VII. Jurisdiction, its elements— Cooper T. Reynold's Lessee. See Coukts AND THEIR JURISDICTION. Res adjudicata — Needham v. Thayer. Pleadings; Regular allegations— Borkenhagen v. Faschen. Issues upon the record essential — ^Borkenhagen v. Faschen; Moore t. Commw.; Reg. v. Waters ; Williams t. Hingham Turnpike Co. Statutory powers must be made to appear and remain of record — Mil- ler V. Horton; Galpin v. Page; Piper v. Pearson. Autrefois acquit and convict. . Fraud vitiates— Watkins v. State. See Estoppel of record; Res adjudicata; Former jeopardy. Authority. Abuse of authority given by law, renders one a trespasser ab initio — Six Carpenter's Case. Delegated to several, all must act in private matters; contra, in public — McCoy T. Curtice. Authority to do an act under seal must be conferred under seal — Hib- blewMte v. McMorrine. See Jurisdiction; Ultra vires; Agency; Powers. ATcrments, Not denied, are admitted— Humphreys v. McCall. Essential in constitution of a record — Munday T. Tall. Certainty essential in— Moore v. Commw. See Allegations; Pleadings; Issues. ATOwry. See Replevin. Awards. Doctrines of — Nettleton v. Gridley. •CLXVII. »LV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 255 Technical Index. Baggage. Railway company not responsible tor luggage in traveling compartment, under traveler's own control — Bergheim v. Great Eastern R. K. Co. j N. T. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff. Innkeepers; Liability for baggage — Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor; Calye's Case. What is baggage— JT. T. Cent. R. R. Co. t. Fraloff. See Passengers; Negligence; Common carriers; Bailments; Inn- keepers; Coggs T. Bernard, notes. Bail. Doctrines of— Tayloe, Ex parte; Baronet, Ex parte. See Sureties; Recognizance; Bonds. Bailments. Law of, generally— Coggs v. Bernard; Wilson t. Brett. Bankruptcy. No defense to an action of covenant for rent — Auriol T. Mills. Bargain and Sale. See Conveyances; Vendor and vendee; Sales. Baron and Femme. See Husband and wipe. Barratry. What constitutes — State v. Chitty. See Champerty; Maintenance; Bills of peaok. Bastards. See Illegitimacy. Battery. See Assault and battery. Beneficiary. See Trusts; Cestui que use. Benignae faciendae sunt interpretationes propter simplicitatem laioorum ut res magis valeat quam pereat et verba intention! non e contra debent inservire — Ut res magis, etc. Bequests. See Wills; Legacies. Best Evidence.' General rule; Best evidence required — Commw. t. Kane. Prolixity to be avoided; Official character maybe proved by acts or gen- eral reputation — Commw. v. Kane, sub cases. General citation — sub Commw. v. Kane. See Evidence; Inspection; View op premises. ICLIII. 256 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Teclinical Index. Betting and Gaming. See Gaming; Wagers; Good t. Elliott. Betterments. See Improvements. Bids. See Auctions. Bigamy. First marriage must be valid — Shafher v. State. Intent immaterial— Commw. v. Xash; People t. Koby. Bills. See Commercial paper. Bills of Exceptions.' Need only include appellant's exceptions — sub Consensus tolllt er- rorem. Tendering of, when to be — sub Owen t. Weston. Facts proved, may be certified instead ot the evidence — Taiden t. Cominw. Prolixity to be avoided in — R. R. Co. v. Stewart. Functions of — sub Borkenliagen v. Paschen. Public prosecutors cannot have reviews of errors — People v. Corning; Commw. V. Cumniings. See Pleadings; Exceptions; Error; Waiver; Appellate pro- cedure. Bills of Exchange. See Commercial paper; Notes; Checks. Bill of Particulars; Bill of Items. Declarations need not contain — Cryps T. Baynton. See Expressio nnins, etc.; Chap. CXXVI. Blackmailing. See Threats; Threatening letters. Bona Fide Pui-chasers — Holders. Real estate; Notice of equities against; Possession as an element — Bas- sett T. JToswortliy; Leneve t. Leneve; Fair v. Stevenot; Agra Bank v. Barry; Bell t. Twilight. Lis pendens; Notice from — Tilton v. Cofleld. Commercial paper, gross negligence will not vitiate rights of — Farrell V. Lovett; Goodman v. Simonds; Swift v. Tyson; Murray t. Lardner. Where the right is equal, the claim of the party in actual possession shall prevail — Fair T. Stevenot; Bassett v. Nosworthy. In equal fault, the possessor's case is the better — Holman v. Johnson. icxxxiii. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 257 Technical Index. Bona Fide Purchasers — continued. Where one of two equally innocent persons must suffer from the fraud of a third, he who first trusted must first suffer — Lickbarrow T. Mason; Pickard v. Sears; Horn v. Cole. Acquires no rights through fraudulent vendor — Henderson's Distilled Spirits. Bonds. See Deeds. Boundaries. Equity jurisdiction over — Wake v. Conyers. See Descriptions. Boycotting. See Conspiracy; State v. Stewart, sub Hutchins T. Hutchins. Breach of Promise. Change of condition justifies breach— Atcliinson T. Baker; Willard t. Stone. Benunciation before performance due, gives right to sue — ^Frost T. Knight; Hoclister t. De La Tour. Evidence to prove the engagement — Wightinan T. Coates. See Contracts, Breaking and Entering Buildings. See BUBGLARY. Bribery.* Candidate offering, if elected, to serve for less than legal fees, is guilty of — State T. Purdy. Burden of Proof." One witness unimpeached, is sufficient to prove a fact; and such a wit- ness and a presumption cannot be overcome by one witness only — Bonnell v. Wilder; Commw. v. McKie. Where the court cannot take judicial notice of a fact, it is the same as if the fact had not existed — De uon apparentibus, etc. Perjury; Corroborative proof; Admissions — Reg. T. Hook. Genuine documents and one witness sufficient^U. S. v. Wood. Distinction between burden of proof and weight of evidence — sub Bon- nell v. Wilder. Negative allegations, who must prove citation — sub Bonnell T. Wilder. Defamation suits; Malice expressed and implied; Onus — Bromagpe T. Prosser; Brooker v. Coffln. Insanity; Homicide; Burden of proof in cases of — Loefner T. State; sub People v. Rogers. General citations — sub Bonnell v. Wilder. See Preponderance of evidence; Reasonable doubt; Bonnell t» Wilder. >XXXI. *CLI. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Burglary.' Pleadings; Indictment; Essential averments — Jones T. State; Eex T. FnrnlvaL Actual and constructive breaking — Bex v. Haines; Rex T. Russell; Commw. T. Stephenson. Breaking out of dwelling is sufficient breaking — Rex T. McKearney; Ducher v. State. Business law. Formation of contracts — See Contracts. Consideration essential for a contract — Cumber v. Wane. Illegal contracts^Holman T. Johnson. Agency; Lawof— Thomson v. Davenport; Qui per alium facit, etc. Infants; Contracts of — Vasse T. Smith; Tucker t. Moreland. See Infants. Insane persons; Contracts with. — Baxter v. Portsmouth; Mitchell t. Kinsman. See Insank persons. Husband and wife; Law of — Manby v. Scott; Dehenham t. Mellon. See Married women. Bona fide purchasers of commercial paper — Swift v. Tyson; Leneve T. Leneve. See Real estate and chattels; Bassett v. Nosworthy. Registry of deeds; Notice from — Fair v. Stevenot. Deeds; Contracts by — Elwell v. Shaw, and cognate cases. Seals; Law of — See Seals. Drunkards; Contracts with — sub U. S. v. Drew. Let a purchaser beware — Caveat emptor. Warranty; Law of — Caveat emptor. Misrepresentation; Effect of — Caveat emptor. Fraud in sale of real estate — Harris v. Tyson. Statute of limitations — Whitcomb v. Whiting. See Limitations. Statute of frauds — Wain v. War Iters; Byrkmyr v. Darnell. See Frauds and perjuries. Landlord and tenant; Law of — See Landlord and tenant. Oral evidence to affect written — Pym v. Campbell. See Seals. Fraud in contracts — Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. See Frauds. Construction of contracts — See Construction. Computation of time; Rules of — Warren v. Slade. Impairment of obligation of contracts — Bronson v. Kinzie. See Con- stitutional LAW. Alteration of instruments— Master v. Miller; Angle v. N. W. Mnt. Ins. Co.; Woodworth v. Bank, etc. Signature; What sufficient — Brown v. Butchers und Drovers' Bank. Cancellation. Rescission; Reformation; Fraud; Misrepresentation; Equity; Mis- cellanies; Chap. CXIV. •xxix. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 259 Technical Index. Caption. See Pleadings. Carriers. See Common carriers. Carte Blanche. See Deeds; Specialties; Texira v. Evans; Hibblewhite t. McMor- rine. Catcliing Bargains. Dealings with heirs and weak and unsound intellects^Chesterfleld t. Janssen. See Undue influence. Causation. In law, the immediate and not the remote, cause of any event is regarded — In jure, non remota, etc. See Negligence; Remoteness. Caveat emptor.^ Illustrations of; Subjects applicable to — Caveat emptor. Drugs, Sale of; Warranty — Caveat emptor; Thomas v. Winchester. Grantor and grantee — Harris v. Tyson. See Sales; Warranty. Certainty.** Contracts; Essential in— Boston Ice Co. v. Potter; Zaleski v. Clark. Commercial paper must have — Kelley v. Hemmingway. That is sufficiently certain which can be made certain — Certum est quod certum reddi potest. See Pleadings; Due process op law; Construction. Commercial paper; Certainty essential for — Kelley v. Hemmingway. Contracts; Parties; These must be known and certain — Boston lee Co. V. Potter; Williams v. Carwardine. Taxation and other proceedings; Certainty essential for — Lawrence v. Fast. Uncertain agreement no contract — Sherman v. Eitsmiller; Zaleski v. Clark; White v. Corlies. Mere false description does not make an instrument inoperative — Falsa demonstration etc. Judicial proceedings; Certainty of allegations and issues essential — Munday v. Vail; Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Houston t. Williams; Reynolds v. Stockton. Pleadings; Certainty essential for; Equivocal and ambiguous pleadings vitiate a plea of Res adjudicata — Lea v. Lea; Borkenhagen v. Pas- chen. *xcix. »xliii. 260 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW! Technical Index. Certainty — continued. Figures in pleadings have been held uncertain — Berrian y. State. Documents; How these must be pleaded — Wright v. Clements; Verba relata hoc maxime, etc. Description of lands, in pleading — Bloom v. Burdick. Practice; Taking exceptions; Certainty essential — Consensus toUit errorem. Certificate. Official certificates to copies, to prove effect of — Commw. r. Kane, sub cases. See Copies. Certiorari. Outline citation — Ubi jus ibi remedium. Certum est quod certum reddi potest. See Certainty. Chambers. Power of judges at — sub Owen v. Weston. See Judges. Champerty; Maintenance; Bai'ratry. See Babbatey; Holman t. Johnson. Change of Yenue. Facts in application must be pleaded — Tates, In re. See Venue; Pleadings; Shattuck T. Myers. Character. When an element in a criminal cause, prosecution cannot first assail — Reg. V. Rowton. Seduction; An element of damages in — Shattuck y. Myers. Outline citation — sub Bes inter alios acta, etc. See Presumptions; Reputation; Circumstantial evidence. Chattel Mortgages. See Mortgages. Cheats. See Deceit; Fraud; Misrepresentation; False pretenses. Checks. See Commercial paper; Bills and notes. Children. Duty of parents to support — Porter y. Powell. As witnesses — See Evidence. See Parent and child; Infants. Circumstantial Evidence.' Recent possession of the fruits of crime, raises presumption of guilt — U. S. y. King. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 261 Technical Index. Circumstantial Evidence— continued . Collateral facts, when admissible — See Evidence. See Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta; Res ipsa loquitur; Corpus delicti. Citizens; Citizenship. status of slaves and their desoendeats in U. S. — Scott t. Sanford. See Aliens; Domicile; Expatriation; Guler T. O'Danlel. Civil Damage Laws. See Damages. Civil Rights. See Constitutional law. Claim and Delivery of Personal Property. See Replevin; TJbi jus ibi remedium. Cloud on Title. Equity interferes to prevent — Pusey T. Pusey. Bills to remove — sub Ubi jus ibi remedium. Codes of Procedure. See Pleadings; Codification and codes of procedure, Chap. CXXI. Codicil. See Wills. Collateral Attacks on Judgments. Ferguson V. Crawford 5 Munday v. Tail j Starbucli V.Murray; Ducli- ess of Kingston's Case; Audi alteram partem; Moore v. Commw.; Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co.; Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal; Ex dolo malo, etc. See Dub Process of Law; Jurisdiction, Chap. VII. Collateral Promises. See Statute of frauds. Collateral Security. See Securities. Commencement of Action. See Practice. Commerce. What is commerce— Paul T. Virginia; Veazie t. Moor. Is within national protection— Passenger Cases; Gibbons t. Ogdenj Crandall t. State of Nevada. See Constitutional law. Commercial Paper. See Bills and notes; Checks; Indorsement. Notice of dishonor; Diligence required — Bicl^erdilie T. Bollman; Bank of Alexandria v. Swann. 262 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Commercial Paper — continued. Presentment to charge indoreer — McGruder v. Bank of Washingrton; Bank of U. S. t. Smith. Bona fide purchaser of— Swift T. Tyson; Farrell t. Lovett; Good- man T. Simonds; Miller t. Race; Murray t. Lardner. Acceptance of — Coolidg'e t. Payson. Negotiability of instruments — Gerard t. La Coste; McCormick T. Trot- ter; Overton t. Tyler. Certainty of time essential — Kelley v. Hemmingway. Notice of dishonor; Form of, immaterial — Mills t. Bank of United States. Warranty of, to what extent — Caveat emptor. Endorsement without recourse; Warrants genuineness, and that it is unpaid — sub Caveat emptor. Common Carriers. Railroad time-tables are contracts; Responsibility of railroad company for not running advertised train — ^Denton v. Great Northern R. R. Co.; Le Blanche v. London & H. W. R. R. Co. Animals, " proper vice " excuses carrier — Blower v. Great Western R. R. Co. Power to limit liability by special contract — Holllster v. Jfowlen. Responsibility of carrier of passengers for defective vehicle — ^Ingalls v. Bills; Coggs V. Bernard. Liability for carrying explosives — Nitro Glycerine Case. Liability for injury to free passenger — Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v. Derby; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood; Coggs v. Bernard. Free passengers; Duties of carriers to — Railroad Co. v. Lockwood; Coggs V. Bernard. Passengers; Highest care due to, but carriers are not insurers — Read- head V. Midland, etc. R. R. Co.; Coggs v. Bernard; Railroad Co. V. Lockwood. Connecting lines; Liability of contracting company for negligence of second company — Thomas v. Rhymney R. R. Co. Passengers; Whom carrier may refuse to carry — Thnrston T. U. P. R. B. Co. See Passengers; Negligence; Bailments. Common Counts. Not allowable under codes, in all states — Sturges V. Burton. Common error sometimes passe,s current as law. See Waivee. Common Law. Adopted by statute in American states — State v. Moore. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 263 Technical Index. Competency of Witnesses. Law ot—sub Reg. v. HiU. Competency is a question of law for the court — "Reg, T. HilL Mental deficiencies — sub Reg. t. HilL Moral deficiencies — Reg. v. Hill; Omicliund v. Barker. Agents may testify; When — sub Reg. v. Hill. See Witnesses; Evidence. Compounding Oflfenses. Contracts; Stifling prosecutions of crime or corrupting the administra- tion of justice is illegal — Jones V. Rice; Keir t. Leeman; Collins V. Blantern; Holman v. Johnson; Salus populi suprema lex. As a crime — Cominw. v. Pease. See Illegal contracts. Compromise. Mistake is no excuse for disturbing — Stapilton t. Stapilton. See Contracts. Computation of Time. Rules stated — Warren v. Slade. See Construction. Concealment. See Fraud; Misrepresentation. Conclusions of Law and of Fact. Facts, not conclusions, must be plaeded — Green T. Palmer; Probatis extremis praesumnntur media; Utile per inutile non Titiatur. See Pleadings; Prolixity. Denials of, immaterial — Humphreys t. McCall. Concurrent Remedies. Cumulative remedies — Robinson, t. Hurley. Election of remedies — Smith y. Hodson. Nuisance; Individual specially injured may sue for public nuisance although it is indictable — Rose v. Miles. Crimes; Same rule as in nuisance — Rex v. Wheatley. Conditional Sales. Mortgages; Conditional sales— Turnipseed v. Cunningham. See Sales. Conditions. Entire contracts; Conditions precedent — Cutter t. Powell. Leases; Conditions in, not to alien, if dispensed with in part, are in toto — Dumpor's Case. See Contracts, Condonation. ■ As an element in divorce cases — sub Morris V. Morris. See Divorce; Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta. 264 TKCHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Conduct. AdmissionB hy— sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Equitable estoppel from — Xitchell v. Reed. Confessions.* Admissibility of, when elicited by questions — Qneen, The, T. Johnston; Reg. V. Baldry; Reg. t. Moore. Persons in authority; When made to; Admissibility of— Reg. T. Moore. Must be voluntary— Reg. v. Warringham. Insufficient to convict in felonies, without proof of corpus delicti — Matthews v. State. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare — Connselman v. Hitchcock. Confessions; General citation — sub Nemo tenetur, etc.; Reg. t. Moore; Reg. t. Baldry; Reg. t. Warringham; Qneen t. Johnston. See Evidence. Confession and Avoidance. Pleas of— Field v. Mayor, etc.; McKyring v. Bnll; J' Anson t. Stnart. See Pleadings; Certainty; Chap. XLIII. Confession of Judgments. See Judgments. Confirmation. See Ratification; Judicial sales; Acquiescence; Waiver. Confusion and Accession. Doctrines of — Jewett T. Dringer. Consensus toUit errorem. Domain of, in pleadings — Practice and procedure; Waiver, Chap. XL VII; Appellate procedure, Chap. CXL; Shntte v. Thomp- son; Montgomery v. Edwards. See Acquiescence; Waiver, Chap. XLVII; Exceptions; Errors; Consent makes law. Limitations of doctrine of — Sains populi, etc. See Practice. Consideration.^ Ex nndo pacto, etc. No cause of action arises from a bare promise — Cumber v. Wane; Lampleigh v. Brathwait; Depeau v. Waddington. Least benefit will support a heavy obligation — Bainbridge v. Firm- stone; Thornborow v. Whitacre. Gratuitous, voluntary services must be moved by previous request — Bartholomew t. Jackson; Lampleigh v. Brathwait. Moral consideration insufficient — Beaumont v. Reeve; Mills v. Wy- man ; Cook v. Bradley. It is no consideration for one to do what in law he is already bound to do — Reynolds t. Nugent; Stilk v. Myrick. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 265 Teolinical Index. Consideration — continued. CompromiBe; This is a good consideration — Stapilton v. Stapilton. New promise revives barred debts — Truemau v. Pentoii; Whitcomb V. Whiting. An indebtedness to three jointly will not support a promise to one only, for his portion — Vadakin v. Soper. Novation; Doctrines of — Tatlock t. Harris. Commercial paper; Acceptance of — Walker T. Lide. Consolidation of Actions. See Pkactioe. Conspiracy.* Actus non f acit reum nisi mens sit rea— U. S. T. Anthony. Elements of damage — Hutchins t. Hutchins; Spies v. People. Pleadings, in cases of — Commw. v. Eastman. Doing lawful act in unlawful way — Comniw. v. Ebelle. To do an unlawful act not criminal — Smith T. People. Constable. May appoint deputies — Taylor v. Brown. See Office; Officers. Constitutional Law.^ Construction of; States not bound by Federal Constitution unless they are named to be bound — Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore. "Rights, privileges, and immunities;" Sale of intoxicants is within police regulations— Bartemeyer v. Iowa; Slaughter House Cases. Admission to the bar is subject to state control — Bradwell v. State. Original packages; Commerce — Brown T. State of Maryland; Barte- meyer V. Iowa; License Cases, The. Impairing obligation of contracts — Bronson v. Kinzie; Gelpeke v. Dubuque; Butler v. Pennsylvania. See Due pbocess of law. Duty on tonnage; States cannot impose — Cannon v. New Orleans; Packet Co. v. Keokuk. Monopoly; Grant of franchise not exclusive— Charles River Bridge Co. V. The Warren Bridge; Gibbons v. Ogden. See Monopoly. Commerce and the police power— Chy Lung v. Freeman; City of New York T. Miln; Cooley v. The Port Wardens. Power to borrow money; Bills of credit; No state shall issue — Craig To State of Missouri. Private charters of corporations are contracts, and cannot be impaired — Dartmouth College v. Woodward; Planters' Bank v. Sharp. Monopoly; Private property devoted to public use, is subject to public control— Munn v. Illinois; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co. See Monopoly. Cruel and unusual punishment— See Cruel and unusual punishment; Wilkerson v. Utah. , IXXVI. ^11. 266 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Constitutional Law — continued. Private business; Interference with— Millett v. People. Departments of state; Each sovereign— Dennett T. Petitioner; Lowns- dale T. Portland; Milligan, Ex parte. Powers vested by constitutions, cannot be divested by legislation — People V. Hastings; People v. Maynard; In praesentia majoris, etc. Jurisdiction vested in specified courts, cannot be revested by legisla- ture — People T. May nard ; Marbnry T.Madison; Expressio nnins, etc. Impairing obligation of contracts; States cannot change laws to affect credit in other states- Ogden v. Saunders; Sturges v. Crownin- shield; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix. Remedies may be changed — Bronson t. Einzie. Police power resides in the states; This cannot conflict with national power— U. S. V. De Witt. State cannot repudiate its notes, contrary to the contract it issued them upon — Woodruff V. Trapnall; Gelpcke v. Dnbnqne. Consti'uction.^ Rules of , founded on public policy — Sains popnll, etc.; Stare decisis. AccesBorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale — McGuUongh v. Maryland; Cuicnnque aliqnis quid, etc. See Incidents. Ad proximum antecedens flat relatio nisi impediatur sententia — Ifosci- tur a sociis. Ambiguitas verborum latens verificatione suppletur; nam quod ex facto oritur ambiguum verificatione facti tollitur; Latent ambiguity may be supplied by evidence — Aspden's Estate. Argumentum ab inconvenienti plurimum valet in lege. See Argumen- turn ab Inconvenienti, etc. Certum est quod certum reddi potest; Certainty; When sufficient — Kelley v. Hemmingway; Lawrence v. Fast. See Chap. XLIII. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex — IJbi eadam ratio, etc. Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege; Contemporane- ous construction — JToscitur a sociis. See Stare decisis. Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit — McGuUough v. Maryland; Accessorium non ducit, etc. Ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio — Nosci- tnr a sociis. Expressio eorum quae tacite insunt nihil operatur — McCullougli v. Maryland; Gnlcunque aliquis quid, etc.; Accessorium non ducit, etc. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — Marbnry v. Madison; Cut- ter V. PoweU. See Chap. XXXIX. Falsa demonstratio non nocet — Certum est quod, etc. IXLVI. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 267 Technical Index. Construction — continued. Generalia specialibus non derogant — Henderson's Distilled Spirits; Spraigne v. Thompson. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant; Repeal of statute by implication — Expressio eorum, etc. Nimia subtilitas in jure reprobatur et talis certitude certitudinem con- fundit— Crocker V. Holmes; Falsa demonstratio non nocet. Noscitur a sociis — Ex antecedentibus, etc.; Ad proximum antecedens flat relatio, etc. Nova constitutio f uturis f ormam imponere debet non prsEteritis; Statutes should be prospectively construed — Calder v. Bull. Omne majus continet in se minus — King' v. Westbeer. See Merger, Chap. XLI. Omnia prassumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta — Commw. v. Kane; Crepps T. Durden. Optimus interpres rerum usus; Usage — Wigfflesworth v. Dallison. Qui haeret in litera haeret in cortice — Crooker v. Holmes; Ut res magis valeat, etc. Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas ibi nulla expositio contra verba fienda est — Crooker v. Holmes. See Ambiguity, Chap. XLIV. Reddendo singula singulis — Verba generalia, etc. Ubi eadem ratio ibi idem jus — Cessante ratione, etc. Ut res magis valeat quam pereat— Crooker T. Holmes; Koe v. Tran- marr; Boydell y. Drummond. Utile per inutile non vitatur; Surplusage — Gibson v. Warden. See Chap. XL. Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem. See Chap. XLV. Dovaston v. Payne; Moore v. Commw. Verba generalia restringuntur ad habilitatem rei vel personam — Kraner T. Halsey; Rossiter v. Rossiter. Verba relata hoc maxime, etc. — Hines T. Robinson. Sum described as absolute damages, may be shown to be only a penalty — Kemble t. Farren; Sloman v. Walter. Deed absolute, may be shown to be only a jnoTtgage—Weathersly v. Weathersly, sub Pym v. Campbell. Contempts. Of court— People v. Wilson; Yates, In re. Continuance. See Practice; Pleading. Continuity. Presumption of — Carotti v. State; Bell T. Twilight. Person dealing with agent, must take notice of principal's death — Har- per V. Little. Continuance of sanity presumed— Baxter T. Portsmouth. See Presumptions. 208 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Contracts.' Lex loci— Van Voorhis t. BrintnalL Lex fori— See Contractsj Chap. LXXXIX. Proposal and acceptance; Both parties are bound or neither — Cooke v. Oxley. Mutuality essential— Jordan v. Norton; Cooke v. Oxley; Kyle v. KaTanangh. Proposer may prescribe time, place and manner of acceptance — Ellason V. Henshaw; Adams v. Lindsell; Felthonse v. Bindley; Maelay V. Haryey. Offer must be accepted within reasonable time— Lorlng t. City of Bos- ton. Infants— Tucker t. Moreland; Zouch t. Parsons. Insane persons— Baxter t. Fortsmoath. Agents; Contracts with — Thomson t. Davenport. Assent essential — White v. Corlies. Proposal can be retracted before acceptance — Cooke v. Oxley; Payne T. Cave. Rewards; Proposals to unascertained person — Williams t. Carwardine. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet — Boston Ice Co. v. Potter; Hendricks v. Lindsay. Privity in contracts — Hendricks v. Lindsay. Consideration— Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio; Cnmber v. Wane. See Chap. XC. Modification of sealed contracts — Nihil tarn conveniens, etc. Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria — Feck v. U. S. Remoteness of damages for breach of — Hadley v. Baxendale; In jure, non remota, etc. Form of contracts. See Deeds, Seals, Commercial paper. Statute OP frauds — Wain v. Warlters; Boy dell v. Drummond. Equitable exceptions to the statute of frauds — Lester v. Foxcroft. Contracts not to be performed within a year — Peter v. Compton. Guaranty; Law of — Byrkmyr v. Darnell. Consideration must be expressed in contract — Wain v. Warlters. Novation; Contracts of — Tatlock v. Harris.- Illegal contracts — Holman v. Johnson; In pari delicto, etc. Fraud; How it affects contracts — Ex dolo malo non oritur actio; Pas- ley V. Freeman. " Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," applies to contracts — Cutter v. Powell. Entire contracts; Doctrines of— Cntter v. Powell; Brittou v. Turner; Expressio unius, etc. Conditions precedent — Cutter v. Powell. Implied contracts — Expressio eorum, etc.; Porter v. Powell; Cui- cunque aliquis quid, etc. Subrogation — Bering' v. Earl of Winchelsea. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 269 Technical Index. Contracts— con tinued. Contribution among sureties -Bering t. Earl of Winchelsea. Utres magisvaleat quam pereat— Crooker v. Holmes; Beni^nse fa- ciendse, etc. Certum est quod certum reddi potest— Kelley v. Hemmingway; Sher- man v. Kitsmiller. Computation of time— Warren v. Slade. Impossibility; How it afEects contracts— Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Let a purchaser beware— Caveat emptor; Pasley v. Freeman. Limitations of actions— Whitcomb v. Whiting. Misdescription— Certum est quod, etc.; Falsa demonstratio non nocet. See Chap. XLIII. Obligation of contracts; Impairing of— Bronson v. Kinzie. One instrument referring to another incorporates it, to the extent it is referred to— Verba relata hoc maxime, etc. Sureties; Principal and surety- King t. Baldwin. Rewards; Law of— Williams t. Carwardine. Sunday laws— Bies dominicus, etc.; Bloom t. Richards. Discharge, See Performance; Satisfaction; Release; Payment. Bona flde purchaser of real estate — Leneve T. Leneye. Of commercial paper — Swift v. Tyson. See Consideration; Commercial paper; Sales; Deeds; Warranty; Statute op frauds; Limitations; Careat emptor. Contribution.! Doctrine of; Contribution between co-sureties— Derlng v. E;3,rl of Winchelsea. No contribution among wrong-doers— Merryweather t. Nixan; Hoi- man y. Johnson; Peck v. Ellis. Contributory Negligence.^ Doing illegal act at time of injury; When this will bar a recovery— Sut- tou V. Wauwatosa. Inviting an injury condones it — Volenti non lit injuria. Collateral unlawful act; When this will bar a recovery— Welch v. Wes- son; Salisbury v. Herchenroder. See Negligence; Butterfleld v. Forrester; Bavies v. Mann; Rad- ley V. London, etc. B. R. Co.; Robinson v. Cone; Volenti non fit injuria. Conversion.' What acts constitute — Armory v. Belamire; Bonald v. Suckling; Bristol v. Burt; Loeschman v. Machin. See Trespass; Trover; Equitable conversion. Conveyances.* The interest, when it accrues, feeds the estoppel — Christmas v. Oliver. See Deeds; Seals. 'CXIV. ''LXXVIII. 'LXXII. *XCII. 270 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Convicts. See Prisoners. Copies. Public records; Copies of, admissible in evidence — Commw. T. Kane, sub cases. Examined and sworn copies, admissible — Commw. T. Kane, sub cases; Things feqaal to the same thing are equal to each other. Exhibits; How incorporated in documents — Verba relata hoc maxime, etc. See Exemplification; Exhibits. Copyright. Literary piracy; Remedies for infringement of — Folsom v. Marsh; Prince Albert t. Strange. Registration of claim required — sub Lenere v. LeneTe. Outline citation — Prince Albert t. Strange. Corporations.^ May contract by parol — Bank of Columbia v. Patterson. Criminal liability of; When indictable— Reg. y. Birmingham, etc. R, R. Co.; Reg. t. Great North of England R. R. Co. Books of, are for the members, not strangers — Commw, T. Kane, sub cases. Real estate; Power to hold and convey — Page v. Heineberg. Foreign; Powers of— sm& Page v. Heineberg. Corpus Delicti. Felonies; Must be proved in — Matthews v. State; sub Bonnell t. Wil- der. See Circumstantial evidence. Costs.^ Allowance of, at law and in equity — Saunders t. Frost; Ela t. Knox. Counsel Fees. See Damages. Counterclaim.* Outline citation— sm6 TJbl jus ibi remedinm. , See Set-off; Recoupement. Counterfeiting.* Money must be made with intent to deceive — U. S. v. King. Possession of fruits of crime, sufficient to convict — U. S. v. King. Counties.' Counties not liable for defective highways — Rnssell T. The Men of Devon; White t. County of Bond. Negligence; Liability of counties for— Mersey Docks Trustees, The, V. Gibbs & Penhallow. See Quasi-municipal corporations. iLXIII. 'lvii. ^cv. *xxx. "lxii. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 271 Technical Index. Courts and Their Jurisdiction.' Superior and inferior judges, distructive fields of immunity — Bnsteed V. Parsons; Piper v. Pearson; Krom t. Schoonmaker; Galpin v. Page; Salus populi, etc. See Audi alteram partem; Dennett v. Petitioner; Due process op law; Jueisdiction; Judges; Judiciary; Government; Constitu- tional LAW. Superior and inferior courts; Distinctions— Piper V. Pearson; Galpin V. Page. Terms of court — sub Owen v. Weston. Courts are bound by their records. See Borkenhagen v. Paschen; Munday t. Vail; Allegata and pro- bata; ISSSUES. Courts Martial. See Military law. Covenants.^ Covenants running with land — Spencer's Case. Credence should he given to one skilled in his profession. Cuilibet in sua arte, etc. See Opinion evidence; Experts. Credibility of Witnesses. Duty of jury in weighing evidence — sub Bonnell v. Wilder. See Ad qusestionem facti, etc. Falsns in uno Msus in omnibus. Creditor's suits. See Executions. Criminal Conversation. See Adultery. Crimination of Witness. See Evidence. Crimes and Criminal Law.* Parties; Public and private wrongs; What are indictable cheats, swin- dles and false pretenses — Bex v. Wheatley. Merger of private injuries into — White v. Fort; Wells T. Abrahams. Acts of omission, are not — Rex. v. Smith. Public and private wrongs — Rex v. Wheatley; Actus non facit reum, etc. Venue an essential element — State v. Moore. Limitations; Act must be within statutory period — sub Whitcomb v. Whiting. See Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea; Intent as an ele- ment, Chap. XXVI. 272 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Cross Complaints. See Pleadings. Cross Examination of Witnesses. Practice concerning — Consensus tollit errorem. Inquiries after collateral matters, if answered, are conclusive — Philadel- phia, etc.R. B. Co. T. Stimpson. See Evidence; Practice; Examination of witnesses. Cruel and Unusual Punishments. Shooting is not— Wilkerson v. Utah. See Constitutional law. CuiUbet in sua arte perito est credendum. See Experts; Opinion evidence. Cumulative Remedies. Kobinson v. Hurley. Cumulative Testimony. See Evidence. Cursing. See Profanity. Curtesy. See Estates; Dower. Custodia Legis. Property in the custody of the law, not liable to seizure — Bnck v. Col- bath; Freeman v. Howe; Noe v. Gibson; Simpson v. Hartopp; Ableman v. Booth; Salus popali, etc. Custom; Usage.^ Usage must not contradict contract — Blackett v. Boyal Exchange Ass'n Co.; Wigglesworth v. Dallison. Terms and incidents may be added — Cooper v. Kane; Harper v. City Ins. Co. Usage is the best interpreter of things — Optimus interpres rernm usus. Authority of agents limited by — Goodenow T. Tyler. Usage may be shown to explain a contract — Soutier y. Kellerman; Smith v. Wilson. Contrary to statutes, bad — Noble v. Durrell. See Construction. Cy Pres. Charitable trusts; Cy pres doctrine — Jackson v. Phillips. See Construction. Damages.^ Real estate contracts; Damages for breach of — Bain v. Fothergill. Sum described as damages, may be only a penalty — Kemble v. Farren; Sloman t. Walter; Peachy v. Duke of Somerset. XXXVIII. 'lxxxi. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 273 Teclinical Index. Damages— continued. In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded — Hadley v. Baxendale; Langridge v. Levy. Damage without injury— Ashby v, White; Chasemore v. Richards; Marzetti v. Williams. Trespasser causing damages; A trespasser cannot plead the benefits of his trespass— Bull v. Griswold; Forsyth v. Wells; Martin v. Porter. Non-actionable injuries— Ubi jus ibi remediuin. See Actions and REMEDIES. Ejectment; Mesne profits— Aslin v. Parkin. Profits; Anticipated profits; When damages— Hadley v. Baxendale. Exemplary; When allowable— Fay v. Parker; Milwaukee v. Arms; Merest v. Hervey. Outline citation— Milwaukee v. Arms. See Damnum absque injuria. Damnum Atosque Iiyuria. Chasemore v. Richards; Marzetti v. Williams; Ashby v. White. See Damages. Immunity of judicial officers. See Judges. Immunity of ministerial officers. See When one does an act by com- mand, etc. Five great cases of negligence. See Negligence. Days of Grace. Are added by implication— Morrison T. Bailey. See Commercial paper. Deadly Weapon. What is— Tatum v. State. Death.i Negligence causing death is non-actionable — Actio personalis, etc. How proved — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Presumed from seven years absence — Mepean v. Doe. Seduction resulting in, non-actionable — sub Terry v. Hutchinson. De Bene Esse. See Depositions. Deceit.^ Fraudulent use of badge— Marsh v. Billings; Pasle^ v. Freeman. See Misrepresentation; Cheats; Fraud; False pretenses; Con- cealment; Caveat emptor; Pasley v. Freeman; Chaudelor v. Lo- pns. Declarations. Outline citation — sub Res inter alios, etc. 274 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW, Technical Index. Declarations Against Interest.' Title; Declarations as to — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Outline citation — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. See Admissions; Res gestje; Estoppel; Evidence; Hicham T. Ridg- way; Bauernian v. Radenins; Res inter alios acta, etc. Dedication.^ What constitutes— Dovaston v. Payne. See Easements; Highways. Deeds.^ Filling blanks in— Hibblewhite t= McMorrine; Texira t. Evans. See Alterations. Authority to make, must be under seal— Elwell v. Shaw; Hibblewhite V. McMorrine; Nothing' is so consonant with natural equity as that every compact, etc. See Specialties; Agency. Must be made in principal's name — Elwell v. Shaw. Recitals in; When conclusive — Jackson v. Cleveland. Admissions in — Jackson v. Cleveland. Estoppel by; The interest, when it accrues, feeds the estoppel — Christ- mas V. Oliver. See Specialties; Seals; Nothing is so consonant with natural equity as that every compact shall be dissolved by tlie same means as rendered it binding. Defamation.* Actionable words, must affect one in his vocation — Ay er T. Craven; Lumby v. Allday; Pollard v. Lyon; Ward v. Clark; Brooker t. Coffin, and sub cases there collected. Words actionable per se, must impute a crime, or a contagious disease; i. e., 1, leprosy; 2, the plague; 3, syphillis— Brooker v. CofBn; Burteli v. Xickerson. Privileged communications; Honest utterances and advice — Harrison v. Bush; Bromage V. Prosser; Toogood t. Spyrlng. Construction of words should be fair, and in the sense they are gener- ally understood— Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty. Charging one with having had in the past, a venereal disease, is not actionable— Car slake v. Mapledoram. Malice as an element— Chalmers v. Payne; Bromage v. Prosser. Privilege; Repeating libel; It is no defense to plead that a current libel was merely repeated — De Crespigny v. Wellesley. Malice as an element; Absolute privilege; In an action for libel, it is no plea that the defendant had the libelous statement from another, and upon publication disclosed the author's name — De Crespigny v. Wellesley. Slander of title; Deceit— Malachy v. Soper. »CLX. ^LXXXII. 'XCII. -"LXXV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 275 Technical Index. Defamation — continued. Construction of words— Peake v. Oldham. Criminal libel; Truth, when a defense to — Commw. v. Clap; Harrison V. Bush. Held, to accuse a woman of adulterous intercourse was not actionable per se; the charge must injure her specially — Pollard v. Lyon; Brooker V. Cofflii; Peake v. Oldham; Ayre v. Craven. Distinction between slander and libel; Less is required to constitute the latter than the former — Dexter T. Spear; Thorley v. Lord Kerry; Steele v, Southwick. Privileged communications; Language of counsel — Hastings v. Lnsk. Defenses to slander and libel — Howard T. Thompson; J' Anson v. Stuart. Damages— Gilman v. Lowell. Libel; Evidence of publication— King, The, V. Johnson. Burden of proof; Malice expressed and implied; Onus — Bromage v. Prosser; sub Brooker v. Coffin. See Slander and libel. Defaults. See Practice. Defences. Defences not pleaded are waived— Field T. Mayor of New York; Mon- I day V. Tail; Borkenhagen T. Paschen; McKyring v. Ball. Delegation of Authority. See Agency. Delivery. See Acceptance; Gifts. Demand.' Notice of suit may be waived, if party answers and pleads other de- fences-Roberts T. Orchard; Lex neminem cogit ad vana, etc. See Demand and notice op suit. De minimis non curat lex.^ Does not apply to injuries to real estate — Anthony T. Haney. Does not apply in trepasses to real estate — Anthony T. Haney; Wil- liams v. Esling. Immaterial errors, come within — De minimis non curat lex. Demurrer.^ Judgment upon; When allowable; Res adjudicata — Bissell v. Spring Valley Township^ Denials.* Denials essential- Humphreys t. McCall. Issues upon a record a necessity — Borkenhagen t. Paschen. Upon information and belief— Humphreys v. McCall. ^LXXX. ^LXXX. "CXXVII. — Commw. T. Kane. Burden of proof ' ^ — Bonnell v. Wilder. Character.'^ See Reputation; Reg. T. Rowton. Children as witnesses — Reg. T. Hill. Circumstantial evidence** — Res ipsa loquitur. Collateral facts; When admissible— Strong v. State; Res inter alios acta, etc. Competency of witness*' — Reg. v. Hill. Confessions'" — Nemo tenetur, etc. Continuity— Carotti v. State; Bell v. Twilight. Corpus delicti— M.a.tthevis v. State. Credence should be given to one skilled in his profession — Cnilibet in sua arte perito, etc. Credibility of witnesses — Consensus tollit erroreni. Crimination of witnesses — Nemo tenetur, etc. Cross examination of witnesses" — Consensus tollit errorem. ICXLIV. ''XXXV. ^CXLI. *XXXV. "CLXIII. «CXLII. 'CXLIX. "LXXXVI. 9CLIX. 1»CLXVII. »'CLin. '^CLI. ''CLVI. >*CXLII. *'CLXIX. >"CLXIV, I'CLXX. 282 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Evidence — continued. Cumulative testimony— Utile per inntile, etc. De bene esse. See Depositions. Declarations against interest' — Res inter alios acta, etc. Depositions' — Cnicunqne aliqnis quid, etc. Descriptive matter is material — Bristow v. Wright. Dying declarations'— Res inter alios acta, etc. Estoppels-*; Estoppel of record — Duchess of Kingston's Case. Estoppel by deed— Jackson v. Cleveland; Collins v. Blantern. Equitable estoppel; Estoppel m pais — Horn v. Cole; Pickardr. Sears; Lickharrow v. Mason. Every presumption is made against a wrong-doer — Armory v. Dela- mire. Everything is presumed to be rightly and regularly done — Crepps v. Durden; Omnia prsesnmnntur rite, etc.; Commw. v. Kane. Evidence excluded from public policy^ — Salus populi, etc. Examination of prisoners. See Practice. Examination of witnesses^ — Consensus tollit errorem. Exhibition and view — Res Ipsa loquitur. Experts— Cuilibet in sua, etc. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus^ — Stoffer v. State. Handwriting— Hanley v. Gandy. Hearsay exidence" — Res inter alios acta, etc. He who alleges things contradictory to each other shall not be heard^ Allegans contraria, etc. Identity — Res ipsa loquitur. Impeachment of witnesses* — Allen v. State; Falsus in uno, etc. Inspection — Res ipsa loquitur. Interested witness— Falsus in uno, etc. Interlineations and alterations'" — Woodworth v. Bank of America; Angle v. N. W., etc. Co. Judicial notice— Lanfear v. Mestier; Res ipsa loquitur. Judicial records'' — Duchess of Kingston's Case; Commw. v. Kane. Leading questions"— Turney v. State; Consensus tollit errorem. Lost instruments" — Commw. v. Kane. See Private and public writ- ings. Matters of general and public interest' •* — Res inter alios acta, etc. Negative averments — Bonnell v. Wilder. See Burden of proof. Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare" — Counselman v. Hitchcock. Number of witnesses; Quantity of proof required'" — Bonnell v. Wil- der. Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem" — Armory v. Delamire. Omnia praesumuntur riteet solemniter esse acta'" — Crepps T. Durden; Commw. V. Kane; Galpin v. Page. 'CLX. 'CLXVIII. ^CLXI. •'CXLVIII. "CLXV. «CLXX. 'CXLVI. «CLIV. ^CLXXII. '"LXXXVI. "CLXXIV. "clxXI. "xi. '■'clviii. '=CLXXIII. '«0LII. "OXLIV. "CXLV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 283 Technical Index. Evidence — continued . Opinion evidence — Cnilibet in sua arte, etc. Oral evidence, to alter or vary writings* — Pym v. CampbeH. Order of proof— sm& Boniiell v. Wilder; Res inter alios acta, etc. Parol evidence. See Oeai. evidence. Pedigree, birth, life, death' — Res inter alios acta, etc. Photographs. See Best evidence. Preponderance of evidence — Bonnell v. Wilder. Presumptions' — Res ipsa loquitur. Private writings'* — Commw. y. Kane. Privilege of witnesses — Dnnlap v. Cody; Fries v. Brugler; Nemo tenetiir, etc. Privileged communications^ — Sains populi suprema lex. Privity — Hendricks v. Lindsay; Res inter alios acta, etc. Probatis extremis prsesumuntur media — Res ipsa loquitur; Commw. T. Eane. Production of documents— Cominw. v. Kane. Public policy demands certainty in rules of — Salus populi, etc. Public records^ — Commw. v. Kane. Reasonable doubt— Bonnell v. Wilder. Rebuttal evidence — Consensus toUit errorem. Recalling witness— Consensus toUit errorem. Re-examination of witness — Consensus tollit errorem. Refreshing memory — Consensus tollit errorem; State v. Bacon. Relevancy of evidence' — Res inter alios acta, etc. Religious belief— Omichund v. Barker. Reputation »— Reg. v. Rowton; Res inter alios acta, etc. See Char- acter. Res gestae — People v. Vernon; Res inter alios acta, etc. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.' See Hearsay. Res ipsa loquitur — Kearney v. London, etc. Co. Returns; Records»<>— Hauswirth v. Sullivan. Sealsii— Nihil tam conveniens, etc. Separation of witnesses— Consensus tollit errorem. Shop books— Price v. Torrington. Signature— Brown v. Drovers' & Butchers' Bank. See Contracts*'; Private writings. Statute of frauds"— Goss v. Nugent; Boydell v. Drummond. Subscribing witnesses — sub Commw. v. Kane. Subpoenas— Cnicunque aliquis quid. See Attendance of witnesses. Substanceof the issue**— Utile per inutile, etc. Surplusage i5_U tile per inutile, etc. System— Bristow t. Wright; Res inter alios acta, etc.; Strong v. State. See Relevancy. Testimony of witnesses subsequently dead, absent or disqualified •«— Res inter alios acta, etc. ICLXVI. 'CLVII. 'CXLIII. XI. 11X011. I'LXXXIX. "CI. "OL. "XL. "CLXII, 284 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Evidence— continued. Time, place, quantity and value are formal averments — Utile per inu- tile, etc. View of premises— Res ipsa loqnitur. Voir dire— Consensus tollit errorem. Witnesses.' See Attendance of; Competency op. Writing. See Private writings; Public writings; Signature; Plead- ings; Practice; Construction. Evidence Excluded from Public Policy.^ See Salus populi suprema lex. Examination of Witnesses.' Practice and procedure — Consensus tollit errorem. Separation of witnesses; Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. Voir dire examination; Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. Leading questions objectionable ' — Tnrney T. State; Consensus tollit errorem. Refreshing memory— State v. Bacon; Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. Privilege of witnesses — Nemo tenetur, etc. Privilege of from arrest — Dnnlap T. Cody; Fries t. Brugler; Execntio juris, etc. Cross-examination; Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem; Phil- adelphia, etc. R. R. Co. V. Stimpson. Collateral facts; Answers to, when conclusive — Consensus tollit erro- rem. Hostility of witness may be shown — Consensus tollit errorem. Re-examination of witnesses; Outline citation — Consensus tollit er- rorem. Rebuttal testimony; Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem. Recalling witness; When permissible — Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. Impeaching witnesses" — Allen T. State; Falsus in uno, etc. Attendance of witnesses* — Cnicunque aliquis quid, etc. Competency of witnessesB^ — Reg. v. Hill. Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. See Practice. Exceptions.* Prosecution cannot take — Commw. t. Cummings; People t. Corning. Must be specific and certain — Kraner v. Halsey; Consensus tollit errorem. See Waiver, Chap, xlvii. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius— Consensus tollit errorem. Defenses not pleaded are waived — Field T. Mayor, etc. >CLXVII. 'cLXV. 'CLXX. -"CLXI. "CLXXII. *CLXVII. 'CLXIX. "XLVII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 285 Technical Index. Exceptions — continued . Must be aptly taken— Consensus toUit errorem. Criminal cases; Held not necessary in — Consensus tollit errorem. If once waived, gone forever — Consensus tollit errorem. Immaterial error will not vitiate — De minimis non curat lex. Subsequent exceptions sometimes essential to save antecedent error — Consensus tollit errorem, sub cases. General, followed by particular exceptions, are limited by the latter^ Verba ^eneralia restringuntnr, etc. See Waiver; Practice; Errors. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio.* See Fraud. Executio juris non liabet iivjuriam.^ Dunlap v. Cody. Execution Sales. Purchasers at, must beware — Caveat emptor. Title to real estate, under, depends on judgment, writ, levy, sale and deed— Cooper v. Reynolds; Utile per inutile, etc. Exemplary damages— Milwaukee v. Arms. Executions. Executions must conform to judgment — sub Expressio unins, etc.j sub Borkenhagen v. Pasclien. Executive Officers.* See Officers; Ministerial acts. Exemplifications. Of public records — Commw. v. Kane, sub cases. See Copies. Exemptions.* Rights of, cannot be waived — Kneetle v. Newcomb; Salus populi, etc. See Exemptions and homesteads; Waiver; Chap. XLVII. Joint owners of property may claim — sub Kneettle v. Newcomb. Outline citation— sm& Ubi jas ibi remedinm. See CusTODiA legis; Homesteads; Salus populi snprema lex; Simp- son V. Hartopp. Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio.^ Consideration essential to support a promise — Cumber v. Wane. Expatriation. See Aliens; Citizenship; Domicile. Experts. Credence should be given to one skilled in his profession — Cuilibet in sua arte, etc.; Hammond v. Woodman. Outline citation to— Cuilibet in sua arte, etc.; Hammond v. Wood- man. See Opinion evidence; Bes inter alios acta, etc. "lxxxv. ^lxxxv. »xix. -"xxv. =xc. 286 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Ex Post Facto Laws. See Retroactive laws; Calder T. BuU. Exposure of the Person. See Nuisance. Express Companies. See Common carriers. Expressio eorvim quae tacite insunt nihil operatur.' Things implied need not be mentioned — Cuicnuque aliqais qnid, etc. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The express mention, etc. Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.^ Expressio nnius, etc. In taking exceptions, applies — Consensus tollit errorem. See Construction. Extinguishment. See Release; Discharge; Payment; Satisfaction. Extortion; Oppression.' Misconduct in office is — Commw. v. Bagley. Factor. A factor cannot pledge the goods of his principal — Lanssatt v. Lip- pincott; George v. ('laggett. Principal's ownership of property in hands of factor — Veil and Petray V. Administrators of Mitchell. See Agency. Facts, not conclusions, must be pleaded. See Pleadings. Failure of Proof. See Variance. False Imprisonment.* Malicious prosecution. See Allen t. Wright, cases; Smith v. State. Attorney advising and abetting arrest liable — Barker T. Braham. Arrest of private person without warrant; Liability for — Fox' v. Gaunt; Allen v. Wright. Officer acting or advising bona fide, not liable for, nor for participating in it — West V. Smallwood. See Arrests; Malicious prosecution; Allen T. Wright, sub cases; Smith V. State. False Personation. See False pretenses. False Pleadings. If verified, are perjury. See Pleadings. 'XLVI. 'XXXIX. =XXXI.. ^LXXIV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 287 Technical Index. False Pretences. Elements of— People v. Johnson. See Cheats; Feauds; Deceit; Misrepresentation; Caveat emptor. False Representations.' See Misrepresentation. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.' Impeachment of witnesses— Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus j Allen V. State; Stoffer v. State. Family. See Exemptions. Fees. See Costs; Compensation. Feigned Issues. , See Issues. * Fences. See Negligence. Fiction. A legal fiction is always consistent with equity — In flctione juris, etc. Figures. It is error to express amounts or dates in Arabic figures or Roman nu- merals — Berrian t. State. Filling Blanks. See Alterations, etc.; Agency. Findings. ' See Practice. Fire. Negligent setting out — Dean v. McCarty; Pent y. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co.; Vaughan v. TalT Vale Railway Co. Fixtures^' He who possesses land possesses also that which is above it — Cujus est solum, etc. Doctrines and discussions of fixtures — Elwes v. Mawe; Horn v. Ba- ker. Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs thereto— Elwes v. Mawe; Horn v. Baker; Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. See Improvements; Confusion and accession; Betterments. FUght. See Circumstantial evidence; Presumptions. Forbearance. See Consideration. iLXXXVII. 'CXLVI. ^LXXXIV. 288 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Forcible Entry and Detainer.' Right of owner to re-occupy land by force — Taylor T. Cole. Outline citation — Ubi jus ibi reniedium. See Ejectment; Unlawful detainee. Forcible Trespass. See Self-defense. Foreclosure. Procedure; Practice; Remedies — Robinson T. Hurley. Foreign Corporations. Powers of — sub Page T. Heiueburg'. Foreign Judgraente.^ If obtained by due process of law, conclusive — Hughes v. Cornelius} Phelps V. Brewer; Lazier t. Westcott. Returns upon which they are founded, not conclusive — Carleton v. Bick- ford; Hauswirth v. Sullivan. See Due process of law; Judgments; Jurisdiction. Foreign Laws. Foreign statutes, etc., how proved — Commw. v. Kane, sub cases. Sister state records; Statutes; How proved — Commw. T. Kane, sub cases. See Lex loci; Lex fori; Conflict of laws. Forfeitui'e. See Fines and punishment. Forgery.' Elements of— Commw v. Foster. See Alterations, interlineations and erasures; Counterfeiting. Former Action Pending. See Pending of another action. Former Jeopardy.* Former acquittal; DiSerent offenses — King v. Vandercomb; U. S. v. Perez. Separation of jury in criminal cases, before verdict; Effect of; Does not vitiate in misdemeanor case, in the absence of fraud — King T. Woolf. Felony; Discharge of jury without a verdict; When permissible — Kin- loch's Case. Prosecution of one's self is a fraud — Watkins v. State; Ex dolo malo, etc. New trial; Several counts; Conviction on some only; Error to set all aside — Campbell v. State. New trial allowed after trial for felony — Commw. v. Green. It is a rule of law that a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the the same cause— Reg. v. Vaux; U. S. v. Perez; Nemo debet bis vexari pro una, etc. ICXIX. ^LXXI. ^XXX. ^VII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 289 Technical Index. Former Jeopardy — continued. See Due process of law; Res adjudicata; Autrefois acquit and CONVICT. Former Judgment. See Res adjudicata. Fornication. See Adultery. Forth-coming Bond. See Practice. Franchise. Grants of, not exclusive— Charles River Bridge Co. v. The Warren Bridge See Corporations. Fraud.' A right of action cannot arise out of fraud — Ex dolo malo, etc. Fraud vitiates all into which it enters— Bolman v. Johnson j Ex dolo malo, etc. Bona fide purchaser gets no right under — Henderson's Distilled Spirits; Bassett v. Nosworthy. Judgments; Decrees are vitiated by— Borden v. Fitch; Ex dolo malo, etc. Pleading fraud— Ex dolo malo, etc.; Salus populi suprema lex. How proved— Ex dolo malo, etc.; Res ipsa loquitur. Prosecution of one's self is a fraud — TVatkins t. State. Consent of married women to sexual intercourse, obtained by fraud, is not rape — Rex v. Jackson. Process served, and arrests made, by means of, will be set aside — Exe- cutio juris non habet injuriam; The law will not, in its executive capacity, work a wrong; Dunlap v. Cody; Salus populi suprema lex. See Cheats; Concealment; Deceit; Misrepresentation; Mistake; False pretences; Conspiracy; Estoppel; Duress. Fraudulent Conveyances.^ General discussion of— Salmon v. Bennett; Sexton v. Wheaton; Twyne's Case. Frauds and Perjuries; Statute of Frauds.' Contract for sale of a number of trifling articles amounting in aggregate to value of ten pounds, must be in writing — Baldey v. Parker; Tisdale v. Harris. "Goods, wares and merchandise;" "Accept and actually receive" — Tem- pest V. Fitzgerald; Elmore v. Stone; Shindler v. Houston. Several documents may evidence a contract — Boydell V. Drummond. "Debt, default or miscarriage of another person" — Byrkmyr V. Dar- nell; Eastwood V. Kenyon; Lakeman v. Mountstephen; (Monnt- stephen v. Lakeman). 290 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Frauds and Perjuries etc. — •continued. "Interest in, or concerning lands;" Right to cut grass, is — Crosby T. AVadswortli. Instrument required by the statute ot frauds to be in writing, cannot be varied, but may be waived orally — Goss v. >'ugeiit. Contracts not to be performed in one year must be in writing, if execu- tory and not relating to lands— Peter v. Compton; Young v. Dake. Novation; Doctrine of— Tatlock v. Harris. Commercial paper; Acceptance of — Walker v. Lide. Possession; Presumptions from — Twyne's Case. See Possession; No- tice. MemorancFiim required by; Consideration must be expressed — Wain v. Warlters. Oral evidence to affect contract within — Gfoss v. Xugent; Abell v. Mun- son. Sale of goods not in esse — yet to be manufactured, is within the stat- ute — Lee V. tirlJHn. Promises " in consideration of marriage," do not include contracts to marry— Short v. Stotts. Equitable exceptions to the statute of frauds; Contracts for the sale of land; Contracts proved " by act and operation of law " — Lester v. Foxcroft; Lyon v. Keed. Surrender of estates within statute by " act. and operation of law " — Lyon V. Keed; Lester v. Foxcroft. Oral licenses; Parol license to build on land of another, is not binding on a subsequent purchaser in good faith — Prince v. Case; Berick v. Kern; Wood v. Leadbitter. See Notice; Possession. See Statute op frauds; Collateral, undertakings. Frivolous Pleadings.' May be stricken, on motion — People v. McCumber; Humphreys v. MeCaH. See Sham pleadings. Fugitives from Justice. See Extradition. Future Advances. See Mortgages. Game. See Animals. Gaming.^ Contracts founded on, illegal — Holman T. Johnson. See Wagers; Betting and gaming; Illegal contracts. Garnisliment.' Municipal corporations not subject to — Divine v. Harvie; Salus pop- uli, etc. See Attachments; Trustee process. 'CXXIV. ^LXXXV. ^oxx. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 291 Technical Index. Oas Companies. See Corporations. Generalia specialibus non derogant. General words do not derogate from special — Henderson's Distilled Spirits J Spraigue r. Thompson. General Issue. See Pleadings. General Reputation.* Official character may be proved by — Comniw. v. Kane. Outline citation — sub Res inter alios acta, etc.; Reg. v. Rowton. See Impeachment op witnesses; Adultery; Character; Disorderly houses; Hearsay; Reputation; Continuity. Gestation. See Presumptions. Gifts. The bestower of a gift has the right to regulate its disposal — Cnjus est dare, ejus, etc. Delivery of deed necessary to a gift— Irons v. Smallpiece. Essentials of— Ward T. Turner. See Bequests. Good Faith. See Intent. Goods. See Garnishment, Government.^ Actions and remedies against — Chisholm T. Georgria. Reciprocal rights and duties of the citizen and — Chisholm T. Georgia; Milligan, Ex parte. May be sued by citizen; When — Hunsalcer T. Borden. Three departments of State: Judicial, Legislative and Executive — Den- nett r. Petitioner; Milligan, Ex parte; Lownsdale t. Portland; Stockdale v. Hansard. See Constitutional law; Sovereignty. Grand Jury. Must not consist of more than twenty-three — King, The, T. Marsh. See Jurors and jury. Grand Larceny. See Larceny. Grantor and Grantee. See Vendor and vendee; Sales; Contracts. Grants. See Deeds; Patents. >CLVI. 2vii. 292 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Grounds of Belief. Grounds of belief in judicial procedure — Lanfear v. Mestier. See Ceedibility of witnesses. Guaranty.* Notice of acceptance of guarantor essenbial — Douglass v. Reynolds; Lent V. Padelford; Reynolds v. Douglass. See Warranty; Collateral agreement; Statute of frauds; Byrk- niyr v. Darnell. Guilty Knowledge. System admissible to prove — sub Res inter alios acta, etc.; Strong v. State. See Scienter; Knowledge; Intent; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Habeas Corpus.^ Judicial power to issue writs of — Milligan, Ex parte. Outline citation — sub Ubi jus ibi remedium. See Ubi jus ibi remedium. Uandwriting. How proved — Hanley v. Gaudy; sub Commw. t. Kane. See Private WRITINGS. Hard Cases. The laws are adapted to those cases which most frequently occur — Ad ea qu» frequentius, etc. See Stare decisis; Bes adjudicata; Ita lex scripta est. Health. Injuries affecting — Sic utere tuo, etc. See Nuisance. Hearsay.' A transaction between two persons cannot operate to the disadvantage of a third — Didsbury v. Thomas. Outline citation io—sub Res inter alios acta, etc. See Dying declarations; Mutuality; Res inter alios acta, etc. He has the better title who was first in point of time. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure; Bassett v. Nosworthy ; Fair t. Stevenot. See Priority; Possession; Bona fide purchaser; Bassett v. Nos- worthy; Leneve v. Leneve. Heirs and Devisees. See Descents and distributions; Administration; Executors; Wills; Legacy; Devisees. He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other — AUegans contraria non est audiendus. See Estoppel; Equitable estoppel; Pickard v. Sears. Cl. ^CXVII. 'CLIV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 293 Technical Index. Heirlooms. See Fixtures. He who alleges things contradictory to each other shall not be heard. See Evidence. Highways.' , Law of the road; Evidence of negligent driving — Cotton V. Wood. Collisions on; Liabilities for ^Eennard T. Burton; Parker v. Adams. Objects of fright upon — sub Perry v. Worcester. Area in sidewalks; Occupier must fence — Coupland v. Harding^ham. See Streets. Obstructing way for private benefit — Dygert v. Schenck. Dedication and repair of — Dovaston v. Payne. Purposes for which dedicated, control — Dovaston v. Payne. Street railways; Care required of— linger v. Forty-second Street R. R.Co. Injuries to; When actionable— Dygert t. Schenck. If out of repair; Right of passenger— Salus popnli, etc. See Roads; Streets; Easements; Negligence; Nuisance; Munici- pal CORPORATIONS. Hire. See Bailment. Hiring. Entire contract; Contract for a fixed time; Performance, a condition precedent to payment — Cutter v. Powell; Britton v. Turner. Conditions precedent— Cutter T. Powell. Express contracts— Expressio unius, etc. Historical Works. As evidence — Comniw. v. Kane, sub cases. History. Regnal years of English Sovereigns — sub State v. Moore. Holidays. Computation of time; How regarded in — Warren v. Slade. See Sundays; Construction. Homestead. See Exemptions. Homicide. See Manslaughter; Murder; Self-defense. Horses. See Animals. Hotchpot. See Advancements. 'lxxxiii. 294 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. ' House. See Confusion and accession. Honse Breaking. See Burglary. House of HI Fame. See Disorderly houses; Bawdy houses; Nuisance. Husband and Wife.» Coercion; It is presumed wife was commanded to commit misdemean- ors when she commits them in presence of husband — Comin w. y. XeaL Agency of wile does not arise by implication; Her power to bind the husband is a question of agency — Debenliam v. Mellon; Jolly v. Rees; Seaton t. Benedict; Manby t. Scott. Husband's liability for wife's contracts — Smont v. Ilberry. Mortgage by wife; Her estate considered only as a surety — Huntingdon r. Huntingdon. Wife's separate property; Joint bond of husband and wife, binds her sep- arate property — Halme T. Tenant. Chastisement of wife by husband — sub Stephens t. Myers. Competency, as witnesses for or against each other — ^King, The, t. AU Saints, Worcester; sub Keg. v. Hill. Husband not liable for goods not necessaries supplied to wife, without affirmative proof of his having authorized the contract — Montagu v. Benedict. Are two persons for some purposes — Wenman v. Ash. Wife, when a competent witness for co-defendant of husband — Rex v. Smith. Marital rights; Frauds on— Strathniore v. Bowes. See Marriage; Divorce; Dower; Curtesy; Wife; Married women. Idem Sonans.' What names are — Wiebold v. Herman. Is governed by the ear, not the eye — sub Bristow v. Wright. Variance if slight, immaterial — De minimis non curat lex. See Names; Variance; Bristow v. Wright. Identity. See Evidence. Idiot.' Capacity to contract — Baxter t. Portsmouth. Witnesses; Monomanias; Competency of — Reg. v. Hill. See Lunatics; Insane persons. Ignorance.* Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law will not excuse— Igno- rantia fact! exensat, etc.; U. S. v. Anthony; Hunt v. Ronsmanier. 'LXVII. 'CXXXIV. ^XXVI. CV. ^CXXXVI. 'CXXXV. •'X. ''CXI,. «CV. ^XLVn. *XI.. ^XLVII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 339 Technical Index. Practice After Trial ; Civil Cases. See Appellate procedure; Chaps. CXL; CXXXVI; CXXXVII. Practice Before Trial ; Civil Cases. See Abatement; Waiver, Chap. XL VII. Practice During Trial ; Civil Cases. See Waiver. Codification and Codes of procedure, Chap. CXXI; Preliminary observations upon pleading, practice, evidence and construc- TION, Chap. CXXII; Fundamental rules of pleading, Chap. CXXIII; Pleadings ought to be true. Sham pleadings, Verifi- cation OF pleadings, Chap. CXXIV; Issues upon the record essential, Denials, General issue. Arraignment, Chap. CXXV; Answers, Pleas, Cross-complaints, Supplemental pleadings. Replications, Bill op particulars. Abatement pleas. Pleas of CONFESSION and AVOIDANCE, JUSTIFICATION, INTERPLEADER, INTER- VENTION, Survival of actions. Chap. CXXVI; Demurrer, Chap. CXXVII; Construction op pleadings. Aider by verdict. By judgment. By pleading over. Prayer for relief. Chap. CXXVIII; Miscellaneous subjects of pleadings, practice and evidence, Motions, Affidavits, Agreed statement of facts. Assign- ments OF ERROR, Chap. CXXIX; Indictments, Information, Chap. CXXX; Variance, Failure of proof, Chap. CXXXI; Amend- ments, Chap. CXXXII; Bills of exceptions. Chap. CXXXIII; Parties. Joinder op parties, Mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. Names, Idem sonans. Misnomer, Chap. CXXXIV; Prac- tice, Procedure, Chap. CXXXV; Miscellaneous subjects op PRACTICE, Discretion, Dismissal of causes. Change of venue. Continuance, Postponement op trials. Defaults, Verdict, New trials. Re-instating op causes. Service of process, and proof OF, Chap. CXXXVI; Appearance, Chap. CXXXVII; Argument, Chap. CXXXVIII; Appeals, Writs of error, Chap. CXXXIX; Appellate procedure, Chap. CXL. Prayer. See Pleadings. Preponderance of Evidence. Reasonable doubt; What is — sub Bonnell v. Wilder. See Burden of proof; Reasonable doubt; Numbep. of witnesses; Bonnell v. Wilder; Commw. v. McKie. Presumptions.' Coercion of wife presumed from participating in a misdemeanor in pres- ence of husband — Commw. t. Neal. Death presumed from seven years absence — Nepean v. Doe. Continuity presumed — Carotti v. State. Natural and probable result of acts presumed — Actus non facit, etc; Commw. V. York; Scott t. Shepherd. Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem — Armory v. Delamirie. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acca — ^Commw. T. Kane; Galpm T. Page; Crepps v. Burden. Possession of property; Presumptions from. See Possessions; Statute OF frauds; Notice; Twyne's Case; Hurlburt t. Bogardns. 'CXLIII. 340 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Presumptions — continued. "Act and operation of law;" Presumptions from acts, under Statute of Frauds. See Frauds and perjuries; Equitable exceptions to STATUTE OP FRAUDS. Acceptance and part payment — Lester T. Foxcroft. Res ipsa loquitur — Kearney v. Loudon, etc., Co. Records; Conclusiveness of, not presumed — Needham v. Thayer; Belcher v. Chambers; Ferguson v. Crawford; Mastin v. Gray. Recent possession of fruits of crime sufficient to convict — U. S. v. Xing'. Returns, not conclusive— Hauswlrth T. Sullivan. Principal and Agent. See Agency. Principal and Surety. See Sureties. Priority.' He who is first in point of time is first in point of right — Qui prior tem- pore, etc. In sequali jure melior est conditio possidentis — Bassett v. Jfosworthy. See Equitable estoppel; Possession; Bassett T.Nosworthy; Leneve V. Leneve; Henderson's Distilled Spirits. Prisoners. See Constitutional law; Indictments; Practice in criminal cases; Waiver; Civil rights. Private Writings.^ Signature; What sufficient— Brown v. Butcher's & DroTcr's Bank. General citation to — Commw v. Kane, sub cases. Privilege. Of witnesses — Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare. From arrest— Dunlap v. Cody; Executio juris, etc.; Consensus tollit, etc.; Cuicunque aliquis quid, etc. Privies. See Res ajudicata; Returns; Sureties; Waiver; Chap. XLVII. Privileged Communications. See Evidence excluded from public policy; Chap. CLXV. Privity.' Contracts; Law of, in— Hendriclis t. Lindsay; Res inter alios acta, etc. Purchasers pendente lite, have, with their vendor — Tilton T. Cofleld. See Assumpsit; Mutuality; Torts; Remoteness; Langridge t. Levy; Thomas v. Winchester; Vicars v. Wilcox; Scott v. Shepherd; Lumley v. Gye. Probable Cause. See False imprisonment; Malicious prosecution. »XLIX. 'CLXXVI. ^XLVII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 341 Technical Index, Probate Sales. Purchaser's at, must beware — Caveat emptor. Probatis extremis praesumuntur medisj.. Res ipsa loqnitur; Commw. t. Kane. See Presumptions. Process and Writs. Process must be fair on its face, to protect an oflScer, when it is void — Savacool v. Boughten; State v. Weed; Grace v. MitehelL See Courts and their jurisdiction; Summons; Executions; Attach- ments; SuBPCENAs; Search warrants; Mittimus; Arrest. Production of Documents. Practice in cases requiring — sub Commw. v. Kane. See Best evidence. Profanity. Is indictable — sub Sic utere, etc. See Blasphemy; Nuisance. Prohibition.' Outline citation — sub Ubi jus ibi remedium. Prolixity.^ Evidence; Is to be avoided in — Commw. T. Kane, sub cases. See Best evidence. Pleadings; Prolixity is to be avoided in. See Pleadings. Promissory Notes. See Bills and notes. Property. See Title; Owner. Prosecuting Attorney. See Criminal practice; District attorneys. Prostitution. See Lewdness. Provocation. See Self-depbnse; Threats; Assault and battery. Publication. See Notice. Public Documents.' Inspection of — sub Commw. V. Kane. May be proved by copies— sm6 Commw. v. Kane. See Records. Public Funds. See Trusts and trustees; Taxation. Public Policy. See Salus populi suprema lex; In pari delicto potior to est conditio defendentis; Holman t. Jolinson. 'CXVII. 'XLllI. 'CLXIV. 342 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Public Records. See Evidence. Pnis darrien continuance. See Pleadings. Punishment. See Imprisonment. Purchaser. See Vendor and vendee; Title; Sales; Bona fide purchaser; Caveat emptor. Purchase Money. See Application op purchase money. Qnando jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt jus regis prae- ferri debet— Where the title of the king and the title of the sub- ject concur, the king's title shall be preferred. See Liens; Priority; In prsesentia majoris cessat, etc.; Salus pop- uli suprema lex. Quasi-corporations.* Township; Counties not liable for defective highways— Bnssell v. The Men of Devon; White v. County of Bond. See Municipal cor- porations. Questions of law and Fact. Ad qnsestionem, etc. Criminal cases; Jury try the issues in — State v. Crotean. Quia Tarn and Penal Actions. See Actions and remedies. Quia Timet." Doctrines of — Pusey v. Pusey; Ubi jns Ibi remedium. Quicquid soMtur, soMtur secundum modum solventis, quic- quid recipitur, recipitur secundum modum recipientis — Money paid is to be applied according to the intention of the party paying it, and money received according to that of the recipient. See Application op payments. Quieting Title.^ Doctrines of — Pusey v. Pusey. See Cloud upon title; Quia timet. Qui per alium facit, per seipsum facere videtur. He who does an act through the medium of another party, is in law considered as doing it himself. See Agency. Quod constat clare non debet veriflcare. See Utile per inutile, etc.; Lex neminem cogit ad vana, etc. *LXII. 'CXIV. 'CXIV. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 343 Technical Index. Qnod ab initio non valet in tractu temporis non convalescit. That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid. See Void and voidable; Holman v. Johnson; Ex dolo malo, etc.; Ubi jus ibi remedinm. Quod remedio destituitur ipsa re valet si culpa absit. That which is without remedy avails of itself, if there be no fault in the party seeking to enforce it; Ubi jus ibi remedinm. Quo Warranto. Outline citation — Ubi jus ibi remedium. Railroads and Railroad Companies.* DomeBtic animals; Injuries to — Kerwhacker v. Cleveland R. R. Co.; R. R. Co., V. Skinner. See Negligence. Duties to trespassers on premises, and passengers on highways at cross- ings — Philadelphia R. R. Go. v. Hummell; Harlan v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co.; R. R. Co., v. Houston. See Corporations; Common carriers. Rape. Married woman; Consent obtained by fraud — Reg. v. Clarke; Rex v. Jackson. Force and resistance essential — People v. Dohring. Fraud is not force — Reg. V. Saunders. Ratification.^ A subsequent ratification has a retrospective effect, and is equivalent to a prior command — Culver v. Ashley. See Confirmation; Rescission; Election; Acquiescence; Silence AND ACQUIESCENCE. Omuis ratihabitio retrotrahitur, etc. Real Actions. See Ejectment; Forcible entry and detainer. Reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of any par- ticular law ceases so does the law itself — Cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex. Like reason doth make like law — Ubi eadam ratio ibi idem jus. Reasonable Doubt. General citation— sm& Bonnell v. Wilder. See Evidence; Preponderance of evidence. Rebuttal Testimony. See Examination op witnesses; Re-examination; Practice during trial; Consensus toUit errorem. Recalling Witness. See Evidence. iLxiv. 'liv. 344 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Recaption of Goods. See Forcible trespass; Sexf-defense; Actions and remedies. Receipts. As admissions— Res inter alios acta, etc. Receiving Stolen Goods. Indictment; Substantive felony — Reg'. T. Casper; Rex t. Jeryis. Recognizance. See Bail; Sureties. Reconvention. See Set-off; Counter-claim. Reconversion. See Equitable conversion. Recorder of Deeds. See Clerks; Registry. Recording of Deeds. See Registry op deeds. Records.* Public records as evidence; Copies admissible — sub Commw. t. Kane. See Copies. Judicial writings; Judgments; Copies to prove — Commw. T. Kane, sub cases. Lost records may be proved as any other document — Commw. t. Kane, sub cases. See Public documents. Recoupement.^ Outline citation^sMb TJbi jus ibi remedium. See Set-off; Counter-claim, Chap. CV. Recovery at law ends litigation. Splitting causes of action not permissible; Items of a running, mutual and current account cannot be sued upon successively — Bendernagle T. Cocks; Gradwohl t. Harris; Grain t. Aldricli; Marriott v. Hampton. Reddendo sii^ula singulis. General words, limited by particular — Verba generalia, etc.; Jfoscitur a sociis. Redemption. See Equity op redemption. Re-examinatien of Witnesses. Law of; Outline citation — Consensus tollit errorem. Reformation of Writings.' Doctrines of — Bering t. Winchelsea. See Cancellation. • — . 'IX. 'cv. 'cxiv. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 345 Technical Index. Refreshing of Memory. Practice concerning — State v. Bacon; Consensus tollit errorem. Registry of Deeds. Title of land does not depend on deed and its registry — Fair T. Steve- not. See Possession, Regnal Tears of English Sovereigns. Sub State v. Moore. Rehearing of Causes. See New tkiais. Reiastating of Causes. See Rehearing. Relation. Doctrines of— Cooper v. Chitty . Release. Of one joint trespasser, under seal, releases all — Ellis T. Esson. Relevancy of Evidence.' Collateral facts; When admissible — Strong v. People ; Ees inter alios acta, etc. Outline citation — Res inter alios acta, etc. See System; General reputation; Res inter alios acta, etc. Religion. See Heresy; Immorality; Dies domiuicus non est jnridicus. Religious Belief. No excuse for violating statute — Reynolds T. U. S. See Atheists; Competency op witnesses. Religious Corporations. See Churches and church wardens. Remedies. Impairing obligation of contracts — Bronson T. Einzie; Terry T. Anderson; Mason v. Haile; Edwards t. Kearzey; Salus populi, etc. Government may withdraw permission to be sued — Hunsaker v. Borden. Legislative control over — Salus populi, etc. See Actions and remedies; Vested rights; Constitutional law; Retroactive laws. Remitter. That wliich is without remedy avails of itself if there be no fault in the party seeliing to enforce it. See Self-defence. Remoteness. In law, the immediate, not the remote, cause of any event is regarded — Metallic Compression Co. v. Fitchburg: R. R. Co.; Thomas v. Winchester; Vicars v. Wilcocks; In jure, non remota, etc. See Causal connection; Priority. CXLIX.l 346 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Repeal of Law. See Statutes; Construction; Repeal by implication. Repetition. See Surplusage. Replevin. Specific delivery of chattels, in equity — Pusey T. Pusey. Certainty essential, in proceedings — sub Ubi jus, etc. Damages in replevin; What may be recovered — sub Ubi jna, etc. Outline citation— sm& Ubi jus ibi remedium. Replication. See Pleadings. Representation. See Letters op credit. Reputation. See General reputation. Res accessoria sequitur principalem. Cnicnnque aliquis quid, etc.; Expressio eornm, etc. Res Adjudieata.^ Conclusiveness of judgments — Commw. v. Kane, sub cases; Dncliess of Kingston's case; Audi alteram partem. How pleaded— sm6 Ducliess of Kingston's case. Departments of State; Decision by one, binds others — Lownsdale T. Portland. Outline citation to — Dochess of Kingston's case; Audi alteram partem. See Res judicata. Rescission of Contracts. See Ratification; Election; Acquiescence; Revocation; Modifica- tion OF contracts; Re-execution of contracts; Reformation op contracts. Rescue. See Resisting officers. Res Gestae.^ General discussion of — People v. Vernon. Outline citation to — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. See Relevancy op evidence; Hearsay; Dying declarations; Admis- sions. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.' See Hearsay; Privity; Resgest.«: — A transaction between two parties onght not to operate to the disadvantage of a third. Declarations of deceased persons — Price t. Earl of Torrington. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 347 , Technical Index. Res ipsa loquitur. Outline citation. See Res ipsa loquitur. Kearney v. London, etc. R. Co.; Byrne v. Boadle; Commw. t. Kane, sub cases. See Negligence; Burden op proof; Presumptions; Circumstantial evidence. Res Judicata. Splitting causes of action not permissible; Items of a running mutual and current account cannot be sued upon successively — Bender- nagrle v. Cocks; Gradwolil v. Harris; Grain v. Aldricli. Recovery at law ends litigation — Mariott v. Hampton; Wlieadon t. Olds. See Stare decisis; Estoppel; Precedents; Former judgments; Due process op law; Estoppel op record; Autrefois acquit and con- vict; Former jeopardy; Res adjudicata. Respondeat superior. Doctrines of— Billiard v. Richardson; Box t. Juhb; Burgess v. Gray; Bobbins v. Chicago. He who derives the benefit ought to sustain the burden — McManus v. Crickett; Little Miami R. R. Co. t. Wetmore; Limpus v. London General, etc. Co. See Agency. Restraint of Trade. See Illegal contracts; Mitehel T. Reynolds; Alger T. Thatcher. Retrospective Laws. Retrospective decisions; Property rights — Gelpeke T. Dubuque; Ita lex scripta est. See Stare decisis. See Ex post facto laws; Retroactive laws; Constitutional law; Remedies; Vested rights; Calder y. Bull. Returns.' May be impeached — Hauswirth T. Sullivan; Carleton v. Bickford. Amendment of, permissible — sub Owen v. Weston. As evidence; How proved — sub Commw. T. Kane. See Records. Revenue. See Taxation. Reversions. See Remainders, Review. See Practice. Revival of Actions. See Abatement. ReTocation. See Rescission; Modification op contracts; Wills. .148 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Rewards. Ofifera of; Nature of, as contracts: Proposals to unascertained persons — Williams t. Carwardine. light of Property. See Title; Sales; Possession. Right to Begin. Priority; Who entitled to— sub Bonnell T. Wilder. See Burden of proof; Opening and closing; Practice, bepoke trial. Riparian. Springfield v. Harris. See Water courses. Roads. See Highways; Streets. Rout. What constitutes— State t. Sumner. See Riot. Roy n'est lie per ascun statute, si il ne soitexpressement nosme. The king is not bound by any statute if he be not expressly named to be so bound. See Construction op statutes. Rules of Court. The practice of the court is the law of the court — Corus curise est lex curiae. Sphere and domain of — Bearing v. Bank of Charlestown. See Prac- tice. Sales.1 When title passes on sale of goods — Tarling t. Baxter; Gibbs t. Ben- jamin; Aeraman V. Morrice; Twyue's Case. Transfer of property not existing; Not in esse ante. When bargain is complete, the title passes at once unless something remains to be done — Gibbs T. Benjamin. See Vendor and vendee. Saloons. See Tippling houses; Intoxication and intoxicating drinks. Salus populi suprema lex.^ That regard be had to the public welfare is the highest law. Sanity. See Insane persons; Lunatics. Satisfaction. Equitable performance; Satisfaction; Distinction — Blandy v. Wldmore. Satisfaction of a debt by a legacy — Chancy's Case; Strong v. Williams; Talbot T. Duke of Shrewsbury. Of debts by legacies; Ademption — Pye, Ex parte. See Accord and satisfaction; Performa;jce, ixcvii. ^XXIII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 349 Technical Index. Schools. See Education. Scienter. See Guilty knowledge; Intent; Actus non facit, etc. SeaP Release of one joint trespasser under, releases all — Ellis V. Esson. Affixed to contracts not requiring it, is surplusage — Gibson v. Warden. Modification of contracts under — Loach V. Farniuu; \lhil tarn con- veniens, etc. Technical effect of a seal— Ellis v. Esson. See Revocation; Deeds; Specialty. Searches and Seizures. See Seizures. Search WaiTants. See Practice. f Secession. See States. Security. See Sureties. Security for Costs. See Costs. Seduction. Doctrine of — Terry v. Hntchinson. Evidence in cases of — Sliattuclc v. Myers. Hushand and wife; Enticing wife away; Damages — Winsmore t. Greenbanii; Lnniley v. Gye. Outline citation — sub Ubi juSj etc. Seizen. See Possession. Seizures. See Searches and seizures. Self-Defence.' Defense of third persons; Public laws — Dill v. State j U. S. v. Schooner Amistad. Right to destroy third persons in defense of one's own life — U. S. v. Holmes. Resistance to simple assaults and batteries must not be excessive — Gallaglier v. People; Grainger t. State; State v. Benhani. With respect to private rights, necessity privileges a person acting under its influence— U. S. V. Holmes. Retreating to the wall— Pond v. People. ixcii. 'xxii. 350 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Self-Defence — continued. No right to kill to prevent a mere trespass — Shorter v. People; State V. Moore. One making, must not be at fault — Coiiiinw. v. Selfridge; State T. Baker. Any one may slay a malefactor committing a violent felony — U. S. T. Schooner Amlstad; Oliver v. State. Trespassers; No right to kill for mere trespass — Hooker T. Miller. Provocation; What is — Re^. v. Stedinan. Citation to — sub Ubi jus ibi reiuedium. See Assault ano battery; U. S. v. Holmes, cases. Sentence. See Punishment. Separation Contracts. See Marriage; Illegal contracts. Separation of Witnesses." Generally allowable — Consensus toUit errorem. See Practice during trial. Service of Process and Proof of. Must be served by disinterested party — Singletary v. Carter. Services. . See Master and servant; Work and labor; Fees; Compensation; Entire contracts. Set-off. Agency; One dealing with agent for undisclosed principal has right to — Fish V. Kemptou; Georare v. Clasrg'ett. Trespasser cannot plead the benefits of his trespass— Bull v. Griswold; Forsyth v. Wells; Martin v. Porter. Mutuality; Essentiality of —Rose T. Hart; Sloan v. McDowell. Of judgments; Mutuality essential — Ubi jus, etc. Of executions; Citation^stt& Ubi jus ibi remedinm. Outline citation — sub Ubi jus ibi remedium. See Recoupement; Counter-claim. Several Pleas. When permissible. See Pleadings. Sham Pleadings.^ And practice— People v. McCumber; Humphreys t. McCall. If verified, perjury — sub Humphreys v. McCall. Sheriff.^' Cannot serve process in his own cause — Singletary t. Carter. See Offices and officers. ^CLX. 'CXXIV. =LVII. TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. 351 Technical Index. Shop Books. Admissibility of, in evidence— Price v. Torrington; sub Res inter alios acta, etc. See Books. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person 5 St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping; Kldeout V.Knox; Mahan v. Brown; Buriie t. Smith; May v. Burdett; Fletcher v. Bylands. See Nuisance. Side-walks. See Highways. Signature. See Evidence. Silence and Acquiescence. Admission; When silence amounts to — sub Res inter alios acta, etc. Equitable estoppel from — Mitchell v. Reed. Estoppel of record fiom— Field T. Mayor, etc.; Bissell v. Spring Valley Township. Material allegations not denied, are admitted — Humphreys t. McCall. See Acquiescence; Estoppel; Admissions; Waiveb; Chap, xlvii. Slander.* Of character — Brooker v. Coffin, cases. Of title— Malachy t. Soper. See Defamation; Libel. 5 Slander of Title. Malachy v. Soper. See Title. Slaves; Slavery. Citizenship of slaves, in U. S.— Scott v. Sanford. Slavery forbidden in England — Somerset's Case. Man captured for, may employ self-defense — Amistad, The. Smuggling. See Duties; Revenues. Sovereigns of England. Regnal years of — sub State v. Moore. Sovereignty. Immunity from liability— Bex non potest, etc.; Salug populi, etc. Statute of limitations does not bar — Nullum tempus, etc. Is shielded from litigation— Salus populi, etc. Sue and be sued, Rights to— Chisholm v. Georgia; Hunsaker v. Bor- den. Is preferred over other creditors— Quando jus domini, etc. Cannot be sued against its consent— Hunsaker t. Borden. See GOVEKNMENT; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 352 TECHNOLOGY OF LAW. Technical Index. Special Pleas. See Pleadings. Specialty.' See General issues; Contracts; Deeds, Chap. XCII. Specific Delivery of Chattels^ Pnsey v. Pusey. See Replevin. Specific Perforinaiice.' Personal property; Agreements concerning — Cnddee v. Rntter. In pari delicto contracts will not be enforced — Dodson v. Swan. Delivery of chattels sometimes compelled — Pusey v. Pusey j Somerset V. Cookson. Real property; Contracts relating to — Seton v. Slade. Evidence; Distinction between seeking and resisting specific perform- ance, as to the admission of evidence— WooUain v. Hearn. Outline citation — Ubi jus ibi remedium. Splitting Causes of Action. See Actions and remedies; Res adjudicata; Bendernagle t. Cocks. Stake-holders. See Gaming. Stare Decisis.^ Every innovation occasions more harm and derangement of order by its novelty than benefit by its abstract utility — Onmis innovatio plus noTitate perturbat quain ntilltate prodest. Obligation of contracts; Vested rights — Gelpcke T. Dubuc^ne; Ita lex scripta est. Retrospective decisions forbidden — Gelpcke t, Dnbuqne. Law of the case — Ita lex scripta est. Curus curiae est lex curiae — The practice of the court is the law of the court. Citation to — sub Duchess of Kingston's Case; Sains popnli suprenia lex. A rule of public policy — Salus popnli, etc. See Res adjudicata; Precedents; Hard cases; Ita lex scripta est; Ad ea quae frequentius, etc. States. States; Right to sue — Chisholm v. Georgia. See Constitutional law. Statutes. How proved — Cominw. T. Kane, stib cases. Sister state statutes; How proved — Comniw. v. Kane, sub cases. Facts required by; Pleading of — Williams v. Hingham Turnpike Co. Exceptions and provisos in; How pleaded — (Jommw. y. Hart. General and special statutes; Latter prevails — Henderson's Distilled Spirits. 'XCII. 'OXIV. 'CIXV.