(Jorn^U Slam ^rlyonl IGibtarg Cornell University Library KF 1414.C77 1903 V 1 ' A treatise on the law of corporations ha 3 1924 019 294 531 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019294531 A TREATISE ON THE LAW OP CORPORATIONS HAVING A CAPITAL STOCK WILLIAM W. COOK, LL. D. Of the New Tobk Bab FIFTH EDITION VOL.1 CHICAGO CALLAGHAK AND COMPANY 1903 CoPTRiaHT. 1887, BY WILLIAM W. COOK. Copyright. 1889, BY WILLIAM W. COOK. Copyright, 1894, BY WILLIAM W. COOK. Copyright, 1898, BY WILLIAM W. cook:. Copyright, 1SJ03, BY WILLIAM W. COOK. STATE JOURNAL PRINTING COMPANY, Printers ajd Stkeeotypbrs, madi90n, "wis. TO THE HONOEABLE THOMAS M. COOLEY, LL. D., Professor, Author and Judge, Whose ability, research, learning and character secured for him an imperishable fame as a jurist, this work is respect- , fully dedicated. PREFACE TO FIFTH EDITION. The most striking feature of corporation law, during the past five years, has been the creation and development of a new mode of combination and consolidation. It is known as the plan of " com- munity of interest," which means the recognition by parties, con- trolling competing corporations, that there is more money to be made by co-operation than by destructive competition. Later a further development of the idea took place. Owing to the uncer- tainty of life and of the fortunes of individuals, and the danger of the control passing into incompetent or hostile hands, corporations were organized to hold a majority of the stock of various competing corporations. Frequently, also, these latter corporations, so con- trolled, were used to purchase the stock of stfll other corporations. This plan seemed to render practicable that which otherwise was impracticable, on account of a legal consolidation being impossible, by reason of statutes or of objecting minority stockholders. These great corporations, holding a majority of the stock of many other corporations, are the latest development of the consolidating tend- ency of the age. The United States Steel Corporation and the In- ternational Mercantile Marine Company are notable instances. A great hue and cry was raised both in England .and America against these stockholding corporations. In the United States, on . a bill in equity, filed by the Attorney-General, the Circuit Court of the United States held that the Northern Securities Company had illegally and in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of Congress of 1890 acquired a majority of the stock of the Northern Pacific Eail- road Company and the Great Northern Eailroad Company, two competing trans-continental lines. The court accordingly put an end to the career of that company and made clear that that par- ticular mode of establishing a "community of interest," between competing corporations, would not be tolerated by the law. No attack has been made, however, on the United States Steel Corpo- ration, or the International Mercantile Marine Corporation, or the Vi • PBEFACE TO FIFTH EDITION. various railroadcorporations which, during the past fire years, have acquired stock in other railroad corporations. And it is unlikely that any such attack will be made. The Northern Securities Com- pany case probably marks the limit to which the government cares to go, and also marks the limit which financiers are warned not to approach. In England the government itself investigated the legal, com- mercial, and international effects of allowing an American corpora- tion to own a majority of the stock of English corporations, owning English steamboats, receiving English subsidies, on English-built boats, manned by English crews, and flying the English flag. The opposition, however, was of no avail. And, in fact, the whole eco- nomic history of England shows the irresistible tendency of the times. For more than thirty years Parliament legislated against the' consolidation of railroads. This legislation proved to be utterly futile, and in 1872 a parliamentary committee made an elaborate and exhaustive report on the subject, and said, among other things, that consolidation " had not brought with it the evils that were anticipated, but that, in any event, long and varied experience had fully demonstrated the fact that, while Parliament might hinder and thwart it, it could not prevent it." The consolidations of railroads, which took place in America from 1865 to 1873, seem to have been insignificant as compared with the consolidations of the year 1900. Great trunk lines were swallowed up by other trunk lines. This was done, for the most part, by one railroad purchasing the stock of the other, instead of purchasing its tangible property. The result was that practically all of the eastern railroads passed under the control of the two great eastern systems, the Pennsylvania Eailroad and the New York Central Railroad; the western railroads, for the most part, passed under the control of the three great systems, the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Eailroads, the Union Pacific Eailroad, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Eailroad, while in the south the Southern Eailroad practically controls the situation. This process of consolidation demonstrated the truth of George Stephenson's saying, that " where combination is possible, competition is impos- sible." So also as to other classes of American corporations. Early in the year 1899 the whole industrial world of America, with an out- burst of prosperity, underwent a remarkable change. Consolida- PEEFAOE TO FIFTH EDITION. VU 'tions of manufacturing institutions took place on a colossal scale, and industrial corporations, having a capitalization greater than that of the great trunk railroads, sprang into existence. These vast manufacturing corporations were denounced by the politicians as " trusts " and illegal combinations in restraint of trade. Statutes were enacted against them and suits started to forfeit their charters. All this, however, availed nothing. The laws of trade were stronger than the laws of men. Moreover, these consolidated manufacturing concerns have enabled America to invade the markets of the world. The beginning of the twentieth century witnessed the formation of the greatest corporation that ever existed, the United States Steel Corporation. With a capitalization of nearly one and a half billion dollars, it controls the steel product of the United States; lias over one hundred and fifty thousand employees; a pay-roll of over one hundred million dollars a year, and is the owner of mines, steamship lines^ railroads, iron plants, and steel rolling mills. No one knows how much of the |90,000,000,000 of wealth of the United States, in the year 1900, was represented by industrial and railroad consolidations. Consolidation is the spirit of the age, moving on resistlessly, re- gardless of human laws and hostile public sentiment. Yast corpo- rations have taken charge of the industries of the country and are destroying the old order of things, and the legal profession has been profoundly affected by these great industrial changes. Wealth has become concentrated in corporations, and the American corporation lawyer of to-day is called upon to aid in the management of these powerful forces. Counsel work is becoming more important than court w^ork — avoiding litigation a higher test of efficiency than success in litigation. Business judgment and foresight are required of coqnsel, as well as legal skill and learning. Commercial inter- ests have become too vast to be managed without legal advice, and too important to be hazarded in litigation. A broader field to-day invokes the foresight, mental alertness, and resourcefulness of the lawyer. Colossal enterprises now call for a leadership and capacity which twenty years ago would have been considered beyond the province of the lawyer and the law. Leadership in the counsel room is necessary, if the lawyer is to maintain the supremacy he has exercised in American government for a hundred years. His pre-eminence in that field has been remark- able. T wenty-one of the twenty -five Presidents of the United States Vllr PEEFAOB TO FIFTH EDITION. were lawyers ; thirty-two of the thirty-three Secretaries of State ; all the Attorneys-General; all the Judges and two-thirds of the members of Congress. And yet there are but eighty thousand lawyers for the eighty millions of American people. Never before in the history of the world has so small a class governed so great and intelligent a people. The lawyers rule because they have the capacity to rule. Mr. Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of the United States, in drawing the contrast between the lawyer of these and other days, says : "The lawyer is evermore the leader in society; and by society I do not mean that little coterie which lives simply to dine and wine,, but that larger association of all individuals whose mingled labors- have achieved the present, and will work out the future of human life and destiny. In society, in this better sense of the term, the lawyer is the leader." It is fitting that such men should control the creation and de- velopment of corporation law, which is to-day more important than all the other branches of law combined. William W. Cook. New Yoek, August 5th, 1903. CONTENTS. PAET I. ISSUE OF AND LIABILITY ON STOCK. CHAPTEE I. Sec. Definitions and Nature of Coeporations 1 CHAPTER II. Stock May be Issued Legally for Money or Property or by a Stock Dividend 16 CHAPTEE III. " "Watered " Stock — Stock Issued Illegally for Money, Property, OR by a Stock Dividend — It is Then Called " Watered " OR Fictitiously Paid-up Stock 38 A. Nature of Watered Stock. B. Watered Stock Issued for Cash. C. Watered Stock Issued for Property or. Construction Work, which is Overvalued. D. Who May Complain and Against Whom Complaint May be Made. E. Issue of Watered Stock by a Stock Dividend. CHAPTER lY. Method of Subscribing — Parties to Subscriptions — Action to En- force Subscriptions 63 A. Methods of Subscribing. B. Who is Competent to Subscribe for Stock. C. An Action Lies to Collect Subscriptions. CHAPTER Y. Conditional Subscriptions 77 CHAPTEE YI. Municipal Subscriptions 90 CHAPTER YII. Calls 104 X CONTENTS. CHAPTER yill. Sec. Forfeiture of Shares for Non-payment 121 CHAPTER IX. Defense of Parol Agreements and Fraudulent Representations In- ducing Subscriptions foe Stock 135 CHAPTER X. Miscellaneous Defenses to Subscriptions for Capital Stock . . 166 CHAPTER XI. The Stockholders' Liability to Corporate Creditors Upon Unpaid Subscriptions 199 CHAPTER XII. Statutory Liability of Stockholders to Corporate Creditors . 213 A. Extent of the Liability. B. Enforcement of the Statutory Liability. CHAPTER XIII. Liability of Stockholders Where the Supposed Incorporation Does Not Protect Them, and for Assessments Beyond the Par Value of the Stock 330 CHAPTER XIY. Liability of Pledgees, Trustees, Executors, Agents, etc. . . 244 CHAPTER XV. Liability as Affected by Transfers 254 CHAPTER XVI. IssxJE OF Preferred Stock and Stock Upon Which Interest is Guar- antied 267 \ CHAPTER XVII. Increase and Reduction of the Capital Stock and Overissued Stock 279 A. Legal Increase or Reduction of Capital Stock. B. Illegal Increase of Stock, Being Overissued Stock. CONTENTS. XI PART II. TRANSFERS OF STOCK. CHAPTEE XYIII. Sec. « SjEgacies and Gifts op Stock 299 CHAPTEE XIX. Who May Buy and Sell Stock 309 CHAPTEE XX. :Sales of Stock — The Formation and Peepormance of the Con- tract — Gambling Sales — Fraudulent Sales . . 331 A. Formation and Performance of Contracts to Purchase Stock. B. Gambling Sales of Stock. C. Fraud as Affecting a Sale of Stock. CHAPTEE XXI. ^ALES OP Stock — Sales While Suits Are Pending Affecting that Stock; Forgery; Lost and Stolen Certificates of Stock; Confiscation of Stocic 358 A. Stolen and Lost Certificates and Purchases Without a Certificate of the Stock. B. Sales of Stock While Suits are Pending Affecting that Stock, C. Forgery. D. Confiscation of Stock. CHAPTEE XXII. ;Salbs of Stock — Formal Method of Transperriijg Certificates and Registry Thereof 873 A. Method of Transferring the Certificate. B. Method of Registering a Transfer of Stock. C. Rights an(J Duties of the Corporation in Allowing or Refusing Reg- istry. CHAPTEE XXIII. Rules for Corporations in Regahd to Refusing or Allowing Reg- istries of Transfers of Stock 393 CHAPTEE XXIY. l^ON-NEGOTIABILITY OF STOCK AND DANGERS INCURRED IN THE PURCHASE OF Certificates of Stock ....... 411 A. Non-:negotiability. B. Dangers Incurred in Purchasing Stock. Xil CONTENTS. PAET III. MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS. CHAPTER XXV. Sec, Stock-brokers and Their Contracts 445- CHAPTEE XXVI. Pledges and Mortgages of Stock . 463" CHAPTER XXVII. Levy of Attachment and Execution Upon Shares of Stock . . 480- CHAPTER XXVIII. Constitutionality op Amendments to Charters— Right of a Stock- holder TO Object 493' CHAPTER XXIX. "Trusts" and Unincorporated Joint-Stock Associations . . . 503a- A. "Trusts." B. Unincorporated Joint-Stock Associations. CHAPTER XXX. Stockholders' Right to Inspect the Books op the Corporation . 511 CHAPTER XXXI. Liens of thI Corporation on Stock foe the Stockholders' Debts to THE Corporation 530 • CHAPTER XXXII. Dividends 534. CHAPTER XXXIII. Life Estates and Remainders in Shares of Stock .... 553- CHAPTER XXXIV. Taxation op Shares of Stock and of Corporations .... 561. A. Taxation of Shares of Stock. B. Taxation of National Bank Stock. C. Other Methods of Taxing Corporations. CONTENTS. XIll CHAPTER XXXY. Sec. Forms of Actions and Measure of Damages Where a Stockholder Has Been Deprived op His Stock 573 CHAPTEE XXXVI. Stockholders' Meetings — Calls, Time, Place, and Classes of Meetings. 588 CHAPTER XXXVII. Elections and Other Coeporatb Meetings 603 CHAPTER XXXVIII. Dissolution, Forfeiture, and Irregular Incorporation . . . 628 PAET IT. FRAUDS — ULTRA VIRES ACTS — INTRA VIRES ACTS — NEGLIGENCE AND IRREGULAR CONTRACTS OF DIRECTORS, STOCKHOLDERS, PROMOTERS, AND AGENTS. CHAPTER XXXIX. Fraudulent Acts of Directors, Majority of Stockholders, and Third Persons . . .^ 643 A. The Occasion, Scope, and Purpose of the Subject Herein. B. Frauds of Corporate Directors, of a Majority of the Stockholders or of Third Persons, to Remedy Which a Stockholder May Bring Suit. CHAPTEE XL. Ultra Vires Acts and Contracts — In Other Words, Acts and Con- tracts Which Are in Excess op the Charter Powers op the Corporation, Directors, or Stockholders 667 CHAPTER XLI. Intra Vires Acts and Contracts — In Other Words, Acts and Con- tracts Which Are Within the Charter Powers of the Corpora- tion, Directors, or Stockholders 688 CHAPTER XLII. Stockholder's Actions to Hold the Directors Liable for Negli- gence IN the Discharge of Their Duties 701 Xiv CONTENTS. CHAPTEK XLTII. Sec. The Power of Various Officers and Agents to Contract for a Cor- poration, AND THE Mode op Drawing and Executing Cor- porate Contracts — Admissions and Notice . . . .704 A. Power of Promoters, Stockholders, Directors, Executive Committee, President, Secretary, Treasurer, Cashier, General Manager, and Miscellaneous Agents to Contract for a Corporation. B. The Form of Corporate Contracts — Corporate Seal — Drafting, Signing,andSealing — Liability of Officers on Contracts Irregu- larly Executed. C. Admissions of Officers and Notice to Officers. CHAPTER XLIY. Ratification, Accjuiescence, or Laches as a Bar to a Stockholder's Action Herein 738 CHAPTEE XLV. Parties, Pleadings, etc., in Suits by Stockholders in Behalf of the Corporation — Suits by or Against the Corporation in General 734 A. Suits by Stockholders in Behalf of the Corporation. B. Suits by or Against the Corporation in General. PART Y. BONDS, MORTGAGES, FORECLOSURES, RECEIVERS, AND REORGANI- ZATIONS. CHAPTEE XLYL Bonds, Notes, etc., of a Corporation — Guaranties and Accommoda- tion Paper 760 CHAPTEE XLYII. Mortgages — Power to Issue and Form Thereof .... 779 A. Power to Make Mortgages. B. Form and Provisions of the Mortgage Deed of Trust, C. Authorizing, Executing, and Recording Mortgages. CHAPTEE XLYIII. Trustees and Bondholders — Remedies of Each 812 A. The Position, Duties and Liabilities of Trustees. B. The Remedies of the Trustee to Enforce the Security — Foreclosure, Sale, and Taking Possession. C. Bondholders' Suits to Foreclose and to Protect or Enforce Their Rights. CONTENTS. XV CHAPTEE XLIX. Sec. The Foreclosure of Mortgages by Suit in Equity .... 832' CHAPTEE L. Priority of the Mortgage Lien Over Other Liens, Mortgages, Deeds, Leases, Claims, Judgments, Debts, and Liabilities . . . 851 CHAPTEE LI. Receivers 863; A. Appointment of Receiver — Effect as to Title to the Property. B. Suits and Claims by and Against Receivers. C. Duties and Powers of Receivers. D. Liability, Compensation, Accounts, and Discharge of Receivers. CHAPTEE LIL Purchases and Reorganizations 883; PAET TI. STEAM RAILROADS, STREET RAILWAYS, TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE,. GAS, ELECTRIC LIGHT, WATER-WORKS, AND OTHER QUASI- PUBLIC CORPORATIONS. CHAPTEE LIIL Steam Railroads 891 CHAPTEE LIV. Street Railways 913 CHAPTEE LY. Gas, Electric-light, Telephone, Water- works, and Other Quasi- Public Corporations 933 CHAPTEE LVI. Telegraph Companies 933- TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss (1896), A. C. 273—315, 336. Abbeville, etc. Co. v. Western, etc. Co., 39 S. E. 559 (S. C.)— 1954. Abbey v. Chase, 60 Mass. 54—1817. Abbey v. Grimes, etc. Co., 44 Kan. 415, 24 Pac. 426—452. Abbey v. International, etc. Receivers, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 261, 23 S. W. 934— 2225 2455, Abbey' V. Long, 44 Kan. 688, 24 Pac. 1111—480. Abbot V. American Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578, 584—1305, 1386, 1550, 1733. Abbot V. American Hard Rubber Co., 4 Blatchf. 489, 1 Fed. Cas. 13—1550, 1898 Abbott V. Aspinwall, 26 Barb. 202, 207—370, 427, 450, 451, 452. Abbott V. Baltimorer etc. Co., 1 Md. Ch. 542—1601. Abbott V. City of Duluth, 104 Fed. 833 —2755, 2756, 2773, 2815. Abbott V. Cobb, 17 Vt. 593—1085, 1699. Abbott V. Hapgood, 150 Mass. 248, 22 N. B. 907, 5 L. R. A. 586, 15 Am. St. Rep. 193—1702, 1718. Abbott V. Jack, 136 Cal. 510, 69 Pac. 257—559. Abbott V. Jewett, 25 Hun, 603—2491. Abbott V. Johnstown, etc. R. R., 80 N. Y. 27, 36 Am. Rep. 572—2564, 2581. Abbott V. Merriam, 62 Mass. 588 — 1904. Abbott V. New York, etc. R. R.. 145 Mass. 450, 15 N. E. 91—2629. Abbott V. Omaha Smelting Co., 4 Neb. 416—496. Abel V. Allemania Bank, 79 Minn. 419, 82 N. W. 680—2515. Abeles v. Cochran, 22 Kan. 405, 31 Am. Rep. 194—671. Abels v. McKeen, 18 N. J. Eq. 462— 1073, 1090. Abels V. Planters,' etc. Co., 92 Ala. 382, 9 South. 423—1013. Abercrombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. Gh. 320— 653, 1146, 1200, 1202. Aberdeen v. Honey, 8 Wash. 251, 35 Pac. 1097—2673. Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis County, 166 V. S. 440, 17 Sup. Ct. 629, 41 L. Ed. 1069—1224. Aberdeen Ry. v. Blakie, 1 Macq. 461 (1854)— 1454, 1483. Abney v. Ohio, etc. Co., 45 W. Va. 446, 32 S. E. 256—1811. Abraham v. Mercantile T. & D. Co., 86 Md. 254, 37 Atl. 646—2488. Abrath v. Northeastern Ry., L. R. 11 App. Cas. 247 (1886)— 75, 330. Academy of Music's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 510, 1 Atl. 78, 56 Am. Rep. 231—35, 859. Accidental, etc. Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 15 L. T. 182 (1866)— 321. Accola V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 70 Iowa, 185, 30 N. W. 503—66. Achenbach v Pomeroy Goal Co., 2 Kan. App. 357, 42 Pac. 734—449. Ackerman v. Emott, 4 Barb. 626—715. Ackerman v. Halsey, 37 N. J. Bq. 356 —1685, 1694. Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 85 N. Y. 43, 39 Am. Rep. 621—1974, 2116. Ackerson v. Brie Ry., 32 N. J. L. 254— 77, 78. Ackerson v. Lodi, etc. R. R., 28 N. J. Bq. 542—2198. Acklin V. Paschal, 48 Tex. 147—1433. Ada, etc. Assoc, v. Mears. 123 Mich. 470, 82 N. W. 258—183, 309, 359. Adair v. Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 539, 551 — 715. Adamantine Brick Co. v. Woodruff, 4 MacArthur, 318—1730. Adamant Mfg. Co. v. Wallace, 16 Wash. 614, 48 Pac. 415—136, 148, 275. Adams v. Ball, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 69, 48 N. Y. Supp. 778—973. Adams v. Burke, 102 111. App. 148— 1509. Adams v. Burke, 66 N. E. 235 (111.) — 1510. Adams v. Creditors, 14 La. 454—1807. Adams v. Cross, etc. Co., 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 18 (111.)— 1, 1648, 1945. Adams v. Empire, etc. Co., 4 N. Y. Supp. 738—1585. XVlll TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Adams v. Ft. Plain Bank, 36 N. Y. 255 —606. Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 233—429, 430. Adams v. Grand Island, etc. Ry., 10 S. Dak. 239, 72 N. W. 577—2335. Adams v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 74 Mo. 553, 41 Am. Rep. 333—1830. Adams v. Jackson, etc. Ry., 30 South. 58 (Miss.)— 2^82. Adams v. Kehlor Milling Co., 35 Fed. 433—1648. Adams v. Kehlor Milling Co., 36. Fed. 212—1648. Adams v. Kennedy, 34 Atl. 659 (Pa.) —209, 685. Adams v. Lamson, etc. Co., 59 Hun, 127, 13 N. Y. Supp. 118—1942. Adams v. Mercantile Trust Co., 66 Fed. 617, 15 C. C. A. 1—2227. Adams v. Mills, 60 N. Y. 533—1785. Adams v. Minor, 121 Cal. 372, 53 Pac. 815—41. Adams v. Nashville, 95 U. S. 19. 24 L. Ed. 369—1223, 1227. Adams v. Natchez, etc. R. R., 76 Miss. 714, 25 South. 667—267. Adams v. Rivers, 11 Barh. 390 — 2636. Adams v. Roscoe, etc. Co., 159 N. Y. 176, 53 N. B. 805—1583, '1832. Adams v. Union R. R., 21 R. I. 134, 42 Atl. 515, 44 L. R. A. 273—2713. Adams v. Yazoo, etc. R. R., 77 Miss. 194, 24 South. 200, ' 317, 28 South. 956—2588. Adams' Case, L. R. 13 Eg. 474—190, 343. Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, 5 S. D. 418, 59 N. W. 214, 49 Am. St. Rep. 887—676, 1970. Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, 8 S. D. 119, 65 N. W. ,471, 31 L. R. A. 497, 59 Am. St. Rep. 751—674, 1599. Adams, etc. Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 171, 17 Sup. Ct. 527, 41 L. Ed. 960— 7, 1234. Adams Exp. Co. v. Denver, etc. Ry., 16 Fed. 712, 4 McCrary, 77—1966. Adams Exp. Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73, 21 N. B. 340, 7 L. R. A. 214, 16 Am. St. Rep. 315—1942, 2727. Adams Exp. Co. v. Hoeing. 88 Ky. 373, 11 S. W. 205—2727. Adams Exp. Co. v. Holmes, 9 Atl. 166 (Pa.)— 2727. Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185, 17 Sup. Ct. 604, 41 L. Ed. 965—1241. ■ Adams Exp. Co. v. State, 55 Ohio St. 69, 44 N. E. 506—1081. Adamson v. Jarvls, 4 Bing. 66 (1827) —910. Adamson v. Nassau Elec. R. R., 89 Hun, 261, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1073—2684. Adamson's Case, L. R. 18 Eg. Cas. ST&-, (1874)— 272. Addams v. Perick, 26 Beav. 384 (185S) —547. Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624—35, 532,. 567, 572, 932. Addison v. Pacific, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 459—138. Addison's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 294, 297 (1870)— 343, 533, 546. Addlestone, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 37 Ch.- D. 191 (1887)— 121. Addyston, etc. Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 44 L. Ed.. 136—1060. Adee v. Nassau, etc. R. R., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 529, 72 N. Y. Supp. 992— 2697. Adalbert College v. Toledo, etc. Ry.,. 47 Fed. 836—2253. Adirondack Ry. v. New York State, 176 U. S. 335, 20 Sup. Ct. 460, 44 L. Ed. 492—1039, 2632. Adkins v. Thornton, 19 Ga. 325—427. Adler v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 92 Mo.. 242, 4 S. W. 917—64. Adler v. Milwaukee Patent Brick Mfg. Co., 13 Wis. 57—274, 401, 403, 404,. 405, 409. Adley v. Reeves, 2 Maule & S. 53 (1813) —289. Adley v. Whltstable Co., 17 Ves. Jr, 315 (1810); 19 Ves. Jr. 304 (1815)— 21, 301, 1074. Admiral, The, 1 Fed. Cas. 178—1841. Addlph V. Central Park, etc. R. R., 65 N. Y. 554, 76 N. Y. 530—2713. Adriance v. Roome, 52 Barb. 399 — 1550,, 1795. Advance, etc. v. Penn. etc. Co., 195 Pa. St. 602, 46 Atl. 102—1579. ^tna Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 11 Wis. 394 —1678, 1682. ^tna Life Ins. Co. v. Middleport, 124 U. S. 534, 8 Sup. Ct. 625, 31 L. Ed.. 537—265. .^tna Nat. Bank v. Charter Oak L. I. Co., 50 Conn. 167—2071. Africa v. Duluth, etc. Co., 82 Minn. 283,. 84 N. W. 1019, 83 Am. St. Rep. 424— 1544, 1778. Africa v. Knoxville, 70 Fed. 729 — 2170,. 2663, 2666, 2671, 2678, 2693, 2695. African M. E. Church v. Conover, 27 N. J. Bq. 157—1079. Agar V. Athenaeum Life, etc. Soc, 3 0. B. (N. S.) 725 (1858)— 1822, 2095. Agate V. Sands, 73 N. Y. 620—479. Age-Herald Co. v. Potter, 109 Ala. 675, 19 South. 725—1633, 1657. Aggs V. Nicholson, 1 H. & N. 165' (1856)— 1817. Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 Me. 256 — 187, 379. TABLE OF CASES. XIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Agricultural Bank v. Wilson, 24 Me. 273—52, 854. Agricultural Branch R. R. v. Winches- ter, 95 Mass. 29 — 1030. Agricultural, etc. Ins. Co. v. Fitzger- ald, 15 Jur. 489 (1850)— 377. Agricultural Hotel Co., In re (1891), 1 Ch. 396—611. Agriculturalists, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 161, 511 (1866)— 1853. Ahern v. Newton, etc. Ry., 105 Fed. 702—2613. Ahern v. Oregon Tel. Co., 24 Or. 276, 33 Pac. 403, 35 Pac. 549, 22 L. R. A. 635—2831. Aiello V. Montecaloo, 21 R. I. 496, 44 Atl. 931—60, 1080. Aiken v. Colorado River Irr. Co., 72 Fed. 591—1925. Aiken v. Western R. R., 20 N. Y. 370— 2733. Aikin v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482—430. Akin V. Blanchard, 32 Barb. 527 — 1625, 1824. Alabama v. Montague, 117 U. S. 602, 6 Sup. Ct. 911, 29 L. Ed. 1000—2317. Alabama, etc. Bank v. O'Nell, 128 Ala. 192, 195, 29 South. 688—1732, 1785. Alabama, etc. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. Co., 37 S. W. 1004 (Tenn.)— 1179, 1539, 1998. Alabama, etc. Co. v. McKeever, 112 Ala. 134, 20 South. 84—1982, 2140, 2377. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co. v. Central, etc. Assoc, 54 Ala. 73—1969. Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 56 ' Fed. 690, 6 C. C. A. 79—2062, 2128, 2179, 2194. Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 72 Fed. 708, 19 C. C. A. 152—2283. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Chumley, 92 Ala. 317, 9 South. 286—1950. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Jones, 1 Fed. Cas. 281—2388. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Kenney, 39 Ala. (N. S.) 307—2633. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Kldd, 29 Ala. 221—1780, 1800. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Mount Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173, 4 South. 356—2641. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508, 514—271, 284, 285, 1105. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. South, etc. R. R 84 Ala. 570, 3 South. 286, 5 Am. St! Rep. 401—1793. Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343, 3 South. 802—2644. Alabama, etc. Ry., In re (1891), 1 Ch. 213—2528. Alabama, etc. Ry. v. Anniston L,. & T. Co., 57 Fed. 25, 6 C. C. A. 242—2462. Alabama, etc. Works v. Dallas, 127 Ala. 513, 29 South. 459—111, 317, 318. B Alabama Grand Lodge v. Waddill, 36 Ala. 313—1625. Alabama Midland Ry. v. Martin, 100 Ala. 511, 14 South. 401—2656. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Halsey, 109 Ala. 196, 19 South. 522—149. Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mary Lee, etc. Co., 108 Ala. 288, 19 South. 404—2305, 2320, 239d! Alabama & Chattanooga Railroad Case, 53 Ala. 341—2463. Alaska Min. Co. v. Whelan, 168 U. S. 86, 18 Sup. Ct. 40, 42 L. Ed. 390— 2834. Albany v. Watervliet, etc. R. R., 76 Hun, 136, 27 N. Y. Supp. 848—2830. Albany City Nat. Bank v. Maher, 20 Blatchf. 341, 9 Fed. 884—1224, 1228. Albany, etc. Bank v. Maher, 19 Blatchf. 175, 6 Fed. 417—1227. Albany, etc. Co. v. Arnold, 103 Ga. 145, 29 S. B. 695—1152. Alberger v. National Bank, 123 Mo. 313, 27 S. W. 657—1637. Albert v. Baltimore Sav. Bank, 1 Md. Ch. 407—725. Albert v. Baltimore Savings Bank, 2 Md. 159, 171—722, 725. Albert v. Clarendon, etc. Co., 23 Atl. 8 (N. J.)— 2381. Albert v. State, 65 Ind. 413—1390. Alblna Ferry Co. v. The Imperial, 38 Fed. 614, 13 Sawy. 639, 3 L. R. A. 234—2848. Albion, etc. Co. v. Martin, L. R. 1 Ch: D. 580 (1875)— 1479, 1482. Albltztigui V. Guadalupe, etc. Co., 92 Tenn. S98, 22 S. W. 739—169, 489. Albright V. Lafayette, etc. Assoc, 102 Pa. St. 411, 423—15, 501. ■ Albright v. Texas, etc. R. R., 8 New Mex. 110, 42 Pac. 73, 8 N. Mex. 422, 46 Pac. 448—354, 395. Alcock V. Sloper, 2 Myl. & K. 699 (1833)— 1195. Alcorn v. Newark, etc. Co., 48 Atl. 235 (N. J.)— 2693, 2793. Alcoy, etc. Co. v. Greenhill, 79 L. T. Rep. 257 (1898)— 1173, 2656. Aldebert v. Leaf, 1 Hem. & M. 681 (1864)— 1889, 2744. Alden v. Boston, etc. R. R., J. Fed. Cas. 328—2388. Alderman, etc. v. Finley, 10 Ark. 423, 52 Am. Dec. 244—1944. Alderson v. Dole, 74 Fed. 29, 20 C. C. A. 280—157, 403, 456. Aldham v. Brown, 2 El. & El. 398, 7 EI. & Bl. 164—1709, 1710. Aldlne Mfg. Co. v. Phillips, 118 Mich. 162, 76 N. W. 371, 42 L. R. A. 531, 74 Am. St. Rep. 380—1127. Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Phillips, 88 N. W. 632 (Mich.)— 1522. XX TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Aldred v. North Midland Ry., 1 Ry. Cas. 404 (1839)— 1713. Aldrich v. Anchor Coal Co., 24 Oreg. 32, 32 Pac. 756, 41 Am. St. Rep. 831— 446, 469, 1961. Aldrich v. Campbell, 97 Fed. 663, 38 C. C A 347 443. Aldrich v. Chemical, etc. Bank, 176 U. S. 618, 20 Sup. Ct. 49^, 44 L. Ed. 611—1789, 1970. Aldrich v. Drury, 8 R. I. 554—2636. Aldrich v. McClaine, 98 Fed. 378—484. Aldrich v. McClaine, 106 Fed. 791, 45 C. C. A. 631—484 Aldrich v. Press Printing Co., 9 Minn. 133 (Gil. 123), 86 Am. Dec. 84—72. Aldrich v. Skinner, 98 Fed. 375—484. Aldrich v. Yates, 95 Fed. 78—484. Aldridge v. Pardee, 24 Tex. Civ. App. '254, 60 S. W. 789—2318. Alessandro Irr. Dist. v. Savings & Trust Co., 88 Fed. 928—976. Alexander v. Atlanta, etc. R. R. Co., 108 Ga. 151, 33 S. E. 866—1033, 2547, 2582. Alexander v. Atlanta, etc. R. R., 113 Ga. 193. 38 S. E. 772, 54 L. R. A. 305 —2480. Alexander v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 67 N. C. 198—2028, 2054. Alexander v. Automatic, etc. Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 302, [1900] 2 Ch. 56—271, 281, 378, 1457, 1911. Alexander v. Barney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90, 92—63, 64. Alexander v. Brown, 9 Hun, 641 — 1785. Alexander v. Cauldwell, 83 N. Y. 480 — 1785, 1829. Alexander v. Central R. R., 3 Dill. 487, 1 Fed. Cas. 363—2195, 2215. Alexander v. Culbertson, etc. Co., 85 N. W. 283 (Wis.)— 1778. Alexander v. Donohoe, 68 Hun, 131, 22 N. Y. Supp. 652—1930. Alexander v. Donohoe, 143 N. Y. 203, 38 N. E. 263—1930. Alexander v. McDowell County, 67 N. C. 330—2062. Alexander v. Relfe, 74 Mo. 495 — 675. Alexander v. Rollins, 84 Mo. 657 — 707. Alexander v. Rollins, 14 Mo. App. 109 — 707. Alexander v. Searcy, 81 Ga. 536, 8 S. E. 630, 12 Am. St. Rep. 337—680, 1322, 1847, 1858, 1896, 2268, 2276. Alexander v. Simpson, L. R. 43 Ch D. 139 (1889)— 1279. Alexander v. Tolleston Club, 110 111. 65—1420, 1663. Alexander v. Williams, 14 Mo. App. 13—1516. Alexander v. Worman, 6 H. & N. 100 (1860-1085. Alexander's Case, 15 Sol. Jour. 788 (1871)— 537, 539. Alexandra, etc. Co., In re, 61 L. T. Rep. 325 (1889)— 2457. Alexandra Palace Co., In re, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 149 (1882)— 1185, 1187. Alexandria, etc. R. R. v. Johnson, 58 Kan. 175, 48 Pac. 847—1597, 2092. Alexandria, etc. Ry. v. Graham, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 769—2326. Alfonso's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 347—729. Alford V. Miller, 32 Conn. 543—1464. Alford V. Wilson, 20 Fed. 96—744, 2038. Alger V. Thacher, 36 Mass. 51, 31 Am. Dec. 119—1056. Aliunde, etc. Co. v. Arnold, 67 Pac. 28 (Colo.)— 1768. Allan V. Graves, L. R. 5 Q. B. 478 (1870)— 916. Alleghany County v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 51 Pa. St. 228, 88 Am. Dec. 579— 2654. ' Allegheny v. Federal Street, etc. Ry., 179 Pa. St. 424, 36 Atl. 320—176, 1142, 1231, 2569. Allegheny v. Millville, etc. St. Ry., 159 Pa. St. 411, 28 Atl, 202—2676. Allegheny v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry., 179 Pa. St. 414, 36 Atl. 161—176, 1140, 1142, 1231, 1566, 2569. Allegheny County Workhouse v. Moore, 95 Pa. St. 408—1750, 1770, 1793. Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 147 Pa. St. Ill, 23 Atl. 439—501. Allemong v. Simmons, 124 Ind. 199, 23 N. E. 768—1725, 1732. Allen v. American, etc. Assoc, 49 Minn. 544, 52 N. W. 144, 32 Am. St. Rep. 574—304, 990, 1128, 1250. Allen V. Arnold, 18 R. I. 809, 31 Atl. 268—445. Allen V. Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co., 21 Hun, 22—2825. Allen V. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 377, 43 Atl. 681—204, 224, 705. Allen V. Brown, 6 Kan. App. 704, 50 Pac. 505—1803. Allen V. Buchanan, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 283 (1873)— 1432. Allen V. Central R. R., 42 Iowa, 683 — 2410, 2414, 2430. Allen V. Clark, 108 N. Y. 269, 15 N. E. 387—481. Allen V. Clausen, 90 N. W. 181 (Wis.) —2662. Allen V. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 — 1876. Allen V. Dallas, etc. R. R., 3 Woods 316, 1 Fed. Cas. 465—1985, 1991, 2120, 2345, 2363, 2436, 2459. Allen V. Dubois, 117 Mich. 115, 75 N W. 443, 72 Am. St. Rep. 557—955. Allen V. Dykers, 3 Hill, 593—926, 955 969, 986. TABLE OF OASES. XXI [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Allen V. Fairbanks, 45 Fed. 445 — 118, 421. Allen V. Fairbanks, 40 Fed. 188 — 421. Allen V. First Nat. Bank, 23 Ohio St. 97—1626. Allen V. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1—1061, 2625. Allen V. Freedman's Sav. etc. Co., 14 Fla. 418—1626. Allen V. French, 180 Mass. 487, 62 N. E. 987—1578. Allen V. Fuller, 65 N. B. 31 (Mass.)— 774. Allen V. Gillette, 127 U. S. 589, 8 Sup. Ct. 1331, 32 L. Ed. 271—2501. Allen V. Gold Reefs, etc., [1899] 2 Ch. 40, [1900] 1 Ch. 656—287, 299, 1116, 1281. Allen V. Graves, L. R. 5 Q. B. 478 (1870)— 575. Allen V. Herrick, 81 Mass. 274—607. Allen V. Hill, 16 Cal. 113, 119—1310, 1312, 1316, 1318. Allen V. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175, 61 Pac. 750—58, 524. Allen V. Jackson, 122 111. 567, 13 N. B. 840—1490. Allen V. Jay, 60 Me. 124, 11 Am. Rep. 185—250. Allen V. Jersey City, 53 N. J. L. 522, 22 Atl. 257—2662. Allen V. Londonderry, etc. Ry., 25 W. R. 524 (1877)— 605. Allen V. Long, 80 Tex. 261, 16 S. W. 43, 26 Am. St. Rep. 735—1077, 1085. Allen V. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 26 L. Ed. 318—242. Allen V. McConihe, 124 N. Y. 342, 26 N. E. 812—908, 926. Allen V. McKean, 1 Sumn. 276, 1 Fed. Cas. 489—1037. Allen V. Montgomery R. R., 11 Ala. 437, 451, 454—291, 292, 293, 400, 401, 402, 407, 554, 576, 736, 1633, 2114. Allen V. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 49 How. Pr. 14—1896, 1897, 1928. Allen V. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 163, 173—44, 45, 784. Allen V. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327—427, 452. Allen V. South Boston R. R., 150 Mass. 200, 22 N. B. 917, 5 L. R. A. 716, 15 Am. St. Rep. 185—640, 644, 845. Allen V. Stewart, 7 Del. Ch. 287, 44 Atl. 786—1006. Allen V. Sullivan, etc. R. R., 32 N. H. 446—1806. Allen V. Texas, etc. Ry., 25 Fed. 518— 1676. Allen V. Walsh, 25 Minn. 543—449. Allen V. West Point, etc. Co., 31 South. 462 (Ala.)— 1824. Allen V. Wilson, 28 Fed. 677—1848, 1860, 1908. Allen V. Windham Co., 87 Fed. 786— 2324. Allen V. Wisconsin, etc. Ry., 90 Iowa, 473, 57 N. W. 1121—164, 2278. Allen V. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. 288 — 1589. AUentown v. Western Union Tel. Co., 148 Pa. St. 117, 23 Atl. 1070, 33 Am. St. Rep. 820—2840. AUentown, etc. Turnpike v. Lehigh, etc. Co., 174 Pa. St. 273, 34 Atl. 565— 2696. AUer V. Cameron, 3 Dill. 198, 1 Fed. Cas. 522—1418. Allerton v. AUerton, 50 N. Y. 670— 1915. Allerton v. Lang, 10 Bosw. 362—663. Alliance, etc. Co. v. Bartlett, 9 N. M. 554, 58 Pac. 351—1938. AUibone v. Hager, 46 Pa. St. 48 — 201, 385 545. Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264, 24 N. B. 551—135, 348, 349, 546, 558. Allin's Case, 16 Bq. 449 (1873)— 581. Allis V. Jones, 45 Fed. 148—949, 1630, 1734, 1759, 1973, 2149. Allison V. Coal Creek, etc. Co., 87 Tenn. 60, 9 S. W. 226—1842. Allison V. Louisville, etc. R. R., 10 Bush, 1—246. Allison V. Tennessee, etc. Co., 46 S. W. 348 (Tenn.)— 1825. Allison V. Wood, 147 Pa. St. 197, 23 Atl. 559, 30 Am. St. Rep. 726—766. Allman v. Havana, etc. R. R., 88 111. 521—358. All Saints Church v. Lovett, 1 Hall, 191—1737. Almada, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 38 Ch. Div. 415—122. Almand v. Equitable, etc. Co., 113 Ga. 983, 39 S. B. 421—1808. Almy V. Orne, 165 Mass. 126, 42 N. B. 56J.— 1348. Alpena, etc. Assoc, v. Denison, 121 Mich. 159, 79 N. W. 1098—1692. Alpena, etc. Co. v. City of Alpena, 90 N. W. 323 (Mich.)- 2757. Alpha Co., In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 646 (1903)— 1929, 2274, 2493. Alsop V. Riker, 155 U. S. 448, 15 Sup. Ct. 162, 39 L. Ed. 218—2500, 2513. Alta Silver Min. Co. v. Alta Placer Min. Co., 78 Cal. 629, 21 Pac. 373— 1722, 1734, 1746, 1769, 2114, 2148. Altenberg v. Grant, 85 Fed. 345, 29 C. ' C. A. 185—143. Alters v. Journeymen, etc. Assoc, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272—17. Altgelt V. San Antonio, 81 Tex. 436, 17 S. W. 75, 13 L. R. A. 383—2761. Altoona, etc. R. R. v. Beech Creek R. R., 177 Pa. St. 443, 35 Atl. 734—2596. XXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Alvord V. Syracuse Sav. Bank, 98 N. Y. 599 247. Alward v. Holmes, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 96 —1661. Amador, etc. Co. v. Dewitt, 73 Cal. 482, 15 Pac. 74—2633. Amalgamated Syndicates, In re, [1897] 2 Ch. 600—1392. Ambergate, etc. Ry. v. Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 (1849)— 270, 276, 638, 1123. Ambergate, etc. Ry. v. Norcliffe, 6 Exch. 629 (1851)— 283. Amberson v. Johnson, 127 Ala. 490, 29 South. 176—720, 1145. Ambrose Lake, etc. Min. Co., In re, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390, 394, 395, 397 (1880) —93, 100, 108, 109, 121, 122, 166, 1476, 1477. American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. 398—211, 279, 287, 290, 345, 369, 555. American-Atlantic Cable Tel. Co., Mat- ter of, 14 Opinions of Attorney-Gen- eral, 62—2847. American Bank v. Baker, 45 Mass. 164, 176—36. American Bank v. Mumford, 4 R. I. 478—1215. American Bible Soc. v. American Tract Soc, 62 N. J. Eq. 219, 50 Atl. 67—1080, 1668. American Bible Soc. v. Marshall, 15 Ohio St. 537—1668, 1670. American Bible Soc. v. Noble, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 156—1666. American Bridge Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U. S. 798, 24 L. Ed. 144—2302, 2363. American Button, etc. Co. v. Moore, 2 Dak. 280, 8 N. W. 131—1677. American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hettler, 37 Neb. 849, 56 N. "W. 711, 40 Am. St. Rep. 522—1950, 2746. American Cent; Ry. v. Miles, 52 111. 174—1499, 1782, 2535. American Coal Co. v. County Com'rs, 59 Md. 185—1212, 1213. American Colonization Soc. v. Gartrell, 23 Ga. 448—1951. American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 937—2306, 2415, 2435. American, etc. Assoc, v. Brantingham, 57 N. Y. App. Div. 399, 68 N. Y. Supp. 285—831, 861. American, etc. Assoc, v. Brantingham, 37 N. Y. Misc. 426, 75 N. Y. Supp. 765—831. American, etc. Assoc, v. Rainbolt, 48 Neb. 434, 67 N. W. 493—334. American, etc. Assoc, v. Smith, 122 Ala. 502, 27 South. 919—1768, 2144. American, etc. Bank v. Gluck, 68 Minn. 129, 70 N. W. 1085—2072. American, etc. Bank v. Oregon, etc, Co., 55 Fed. 265—1767. American, etc. Bank v. Ward, 111 Fed. 782, 49 C. C. A. 611, 55 L. R. A. 356^ 1650, 1781. American, etc. Clans v. Merrill, 151 Mass. 558, 24 N. E. 918, 8 L. R. A. 320—61. American, etc. Co., Ex parte, 3 De G., J. & S. 147 (1865)— 1824. American, etc. Co. v. American, etc. Co., 198 Pa. St. 189, 47 Atl. 936—60, American, etc. Co. v. Bateman, 22 S. W. 771 (Tex.)— 1680. American, etc. Co. v. Bayless, 91 Ky. 94, 15 S. W. 10—165, 840, 863. American, etc. Co. v. Brewer, 32 South, 906 (Miss.)— 480. American, etc. Co. v. Bulkley, 107 Mich. 447, 65 N. W. 291—504, 522. American, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Exch., 143 111. 210, 32 N. E. 274, 18 L. R. a; 190, 36 Am. St. Rep. 385—20. American, etc. Co. v. East, etc. R. R., 37 Fed. 242—1678. American, etc. Co. v. Easton, 120 Fed. 440—1454, 1685. American, etc. Co. v. Eddy, 89 N. W. 952 (Mich.)— 596, 1178. American, etc. Co. v. Ellis, 156 Ind. 212, 59 N. E. 679—463. American, etc. Co. v. Fargo, 77 Fed. 671—1631. American, etc. Co. v. General Electric Co., 51 Atl. 660 (N. H.)— 2108, 2729,. 2785. American, etc. Co. v. German, 126 Ala. 194, 28 South. 603, 85 Am. St. Rep. 21—954, 2478. American, etc. Co. v. Home, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 171—2088, 2668, 2762, 2767. American, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 60 Fed. 503. 9 C. C. A. 110—3. American, etc. Co. v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 826—2128, 2199. American, etc. Co. v. Kersh, 66 S. W. 74 (Tex.)— 2831. American, etc. Co. v. Klotz, 44 Fed. 721 —1057. American, etc. Co. v. Linn, 93 Ala. 610,. 7 South. 191—1322, 1896, 1901. American, etc. Co. v. Maurer, 10 Atl. 762 (Pa.)— 1793. American, etc. Co. v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 166 Mass. 337, 44 N. E. 340— 2100. American, etc. Co. v. Phoenix, etc. Co., 113 Fed. 629, 51 C. C. A. 339—37, 1845. American, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 819—2028. American, etc. Co. v. Standard, etc. Co., 59 S. W. 709 (Tenn.)— 1054. TABLE OF CASES. XXUl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] American, etc. Co. v. State Board, 56 N. J. L. 389, 29 Atl. 160—30, 42, 52, 1310. American, etc. Co. v. Woodwortli, 82 Fed. 269—467. American, etc. Co. v. Woodworth, 79 Fed. 951—471. American, etc. Co. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 100 Fed. 40—2152, 2325. American, etc. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 81 Mass. 491—1629, 1951. American, etc. T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 47 Fed. 343—1344. American, etc. Worlts v. De Aguayo, 53 S. W. 350 (Tex.)— 1872, 2426. American Exp. Co. v. Conant, 45 Mich. 642, 8 N. W. 574—1953. American Exp. Co. v. Johnson, 17 Ohio St. 641—1955. American Exp. Co. v. Patterson, 73 Ind. 430—74, 2647. American File Co. v. Garrett, 110 V. S. 288, 4 Sup. Ct. 90, 28 L. Ed. 149— 547, 2043. American F. Ins. Co. v. State, 75 Miss. 24, 22 South. 99—1048. American Grocery Co. v. Flint, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 263, 39 N. Y. Supp. 153 —457. American Homestead Co. v. Linigan, 46 La. Ann. 1118, 15 South. 369— 368. American Ins. Co. v. Butler, 70 Ind. 1 — 1678. American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 9 Paige, 496, 38 Am. Dec. 561—1774, 1798, 1802. American Ins. Co. v. Wellman, 69 Ind. 413—1678. American Inv. Co. v. Yost, 25 Abb. N. Cas. 274—1319. American Life Ins. Co. v. Dobbin, Hill & D. (Lalor's Supp.) 252 (1743)— 1673. American L. & T. Co. v. Central Vt. etc. Co., 86 Fed. 390—2228. American L. & T. Co. v. Central Vt. R. R., 84 Fed. 917—2225, 2245, 2421. American L. & T. Co. v. East, etc. R. R., 37 Fed. 242— 2220, 2244. American L. & T. Co. v. East, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 101—2358. American L. & T. Co. v. Minnesota, etc. r: R., 157 111. 641, 42 N. B. 153—1420, 2246, 2262, 2549. American L. & Ti Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 42 Fed. 819—1781. American L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 29 Fed. 416—1921, 2215, 2368. American L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 47 Fed. 343—2010. American L. & T. Co. v. Union Depot Co., 80 Fed. 36—2217, 2284, 2293. American Mortgage Co. v. Tennille, 87 Ga. 28, 13 S. E. 158, 12 L. R. A. 529—1671. American Nat. Bank v. American, etc. Co., 19 R. I. 149, 32 Atl. 305, 29 L. R. A. 103, 61 Am. St. Rep. 746—2044, 2129. American Nat. Bank v. Dallas, etc. Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 631, 39 S. W. 955— 1643. American Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 82 Fed. 961, 27 C. C. A. 274— 1742. American Nat. Bank v. Nashville, etc. Co., 36 S. W. 960 (Tenn.)— 945, 1156. American Nat. Bank v. National Wall Paper Co., 77 Fed. 85, 23 C. C. A. 33— 685, 1545, 2078. American Nat. Bank v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 89 Fed. 610, 32 C. C. A. 275—2368. American Nat. Bank v. Oriental Mills, 17 R. I. 551, 23 Atl. 795—852, 1311, 1315. American Nat. Bank v. Supplee, 115 Fed. 657, 52 C. C. A. 293—474. American Nat. Bank, etc. v. Ham- mond, 25 Colo. 367, 55 Pac. 1090— 806, 951. American Nat. Bank, etc. v. Williams, 101 Fed. 943, 42 C. C. A. 101—536, 939. American Paper Bag Co. v. Van Nort- wick, 52 Fed. 752, 3 C. C. A. 274— 1698. American Pastoral Co. v. Gurney, 61 Fed. 41—279, 281, 282. American Preservers' Co. v. Norris, 43 Fed. 711—1057, 1724, 1728. American Preservers' Trust v. Taylor Mfg. Co., 46 Fed. 152—1057. American Press Assoc, v. Branting- ham, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 435, 78 N. Y. Supp. 305—831, 832, 861. American Primitive Soc. v. Pilling, 24 N. J. L. 653—1292. American Ry. Frog Co. v. Haven, 101 Mass. 398, 3 Am. Rep. 377—679, 1319, 1331. American Rapid Teleg. Co. v. Con- necticut Teleph. Co., 49 Conn. 352, 44 Am. Rep. 237—2754, 2841. American R. Tel. Co. v. Hess, 125 N. Y. 641, 26 N. E. 919, 13 L. R. A. 454, 21 Am. St. Rep. 764—2846. American Salt Co. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344, 15 S. W. 1038, 26 Am. St. Rep. 743—501. American Silk Works v. Salomon, 4 Hun, 135—82. American Slate Co. v. .Phillipsburg, etc. Bank, 8 W. N. Cas. 430 (1880) — 1661. XXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] American Steel, etc. Co. v. Wire Drawers', etc. Unions, 90 Fed. 608 — 1056. American Steel, etc. Co. v. Wire Draw- ers,' etc. Unions, 90 Fed. 598—1088. American Surety Co. v. "Worcester, etc. Co., 90 Fed. 773—2245, 2420. American Tel. etc. Co. v. Day, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. (20 J. & S.) 128—836, 838, 863. American Tel., etc. Co. v. Millcreek Tp., 195 Pa. St. 643, 46 Atl. 140— 2817, 2837. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pearce, 71 Md. 535, 18 Atl. 910, 7 L. R. A. 200— 2798, 2802. American Trust & Savings Bank, etc. V. McGtettigan, 152 Ind. 582, 52 N. E3. 793, 71 Am. St. Rep. 345—1635, 2154, 2246, 2264. American Tube, etc. Co. v. Hays, 165 Pa. St. 489, 30 Atl. 936—81, 133, 145. American Tube Works v. Boston Ma- chine Co., 139 Mass. 5, 29 N. B. 63— 606, 607, 633. American Union Tel. Co. v. Bell Tele- phone Co., 10 Cent. L. J. 438, 11 Cent. L. J. 359, 22 Alb. L. J. 363— 2754. American Union Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 31 N. J. Ea. 627—2673, 2814. American Union Tel. Co. v. Middle- ton, 80 N. Y. 408—2794, 2845. American Union Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 67 Ala. 26, 42 Am. Rep. 90—1674. American Waterworks Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 73 Fed. 956, 20 C. C. A. 133—2256, 2511, 2766. American Water-Works Co. v. Venner, 18 N. Y. Supp. 379—748, 1781, 2037. American W. Co. etc. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 91 Fed. 562, 34 C. C. A. 7— 2511. American W. W. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 20 Colo. 203, 37 Pac. 269, 25 L. R. A. 338, 46 Am. St. Rep. 285— 2429. American Wire Nail Co. v. Gedge, 96 Ky. 513, 29 S. W. 353—1136. Ameriscoggin Bridge v. Bragg, 11 N. H. 102—8. Ames V. Birkenhead Docks, 20 Beav. 332 (1855)— 2370, 2423. Ames V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 39 Fed. 881 —2232. Ames V. Lake Superior, etc. R. R., 21 Minn. 241, 291—1025, 1042. Ames V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 206, 1 Fed. Cas. 760—2002. Ames V. Union Pac. Ry., 60 Fed. 966 — 2081, 2393, 2444, 2445, 2446. Ames V. Union Pac. Ry., 60 Fed. 674 — 2434. Ames V. Union Pac. Ry., 62 Fed. 7— 2434. Ames V. Union Pac. Ry., 64 Fed. 165— 2615. Ames V. Union Pac. Ry., 74 Fed. 335 — 2359, 2451. Amesbury v. Bowditch, etc. Co., 72 Mass. 596—21. Ames, etc. Co. v. Heslet, 19 Mont. 188, 47 Pac. 805, 61 Am. St. Rep. 496^ 1637. Ames & Harris v. Sabin, 107 Fed. 582 — 1573. Amey v. Allegheny City, 24 How. 364, 376, 16 L. Ed. 614—243, 253, 258. Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 23 Mass. 427, 17 Am. Dec. 387—212, 213, 1801. Amherst Bank v. Root, 43 Mass. 522, 533—1799. Amiss V. Williamson, 17 W. Va. 673 — 1201. Ammant v. New Alexandria, etc. Road, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 210, 15 Am. Dec 593—1948, 2748. Amory v. Lawrence, 3 Cliff. 523, 1 Fed. Cas. 778—547. Amory v. Meryweather, 2 B. & C. 573 (1824)— 781. Amoskeag Bank v. Ottawa, 105 U. S. 667, 26 L. Ed. 1204—244, 248. Amsden v. Norwich, etc. Ins. Soc, 44 Fed. 515—1965. Amsterdam, etc. Co. v. Dean, 162 N. Y. 278, 56 N. E. 757—2779. Amsterdam, etc. Co. v. Dean, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 42, 43 N. Y. Supp. 29— 2779. Amsterdam, etc. R. R., In re, 86 Hun, 578, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1009—2664. Amy v. Dubuque, 98 U. S. 470, 25 L. Ed. 228—2066. Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91, 71 Am. Dec. 625—1075. Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawkes, 171 Mass. 101, 50 N. E. 509, 41 L. R. A. 189, 68 Am. St. Rep. 403—1047. Ancient, etc. Club v. Miller, 7 Lans. 412—15. Anderson v. Anderson Iron Co., 65 Minn. 281, 68 N. W. 49, 33 L. R. A. 510—434. Anderson v. Avis, 62 Fed. 227, 10 C. C. A. 347—126, 710. Anderson v. Beard, [1900] 2 Q. B. 260 —916. Anderson v. Black, 32 S. W. 468 (Ky.) —813. Anderson v. Buckley, 126 Ala. 623, 28 South. 729—1438. Anderson v. Bullock, etc. Bank, 122 Ala. 275, 25 South. 523—2020, 2139, 2143, 2144, 2260, 2273. Anderson v. Byrnes, 122 Cal. 272 54 Pac. 821—464. TABLE OF CASES. XXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Anderson v. Chicago, etc. Bank, 63 N. E. 203 (111.)— 813. Anderson v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 117 111. 26, 7 N. E. 129—1243. Anderson v. Chicago, etc. T. Co., 101 Wis. 385, 77 N. W. 710—2290, 2439, 2499. Anderson v. Condict, 93 Fed. 349, 35 C. C. A. 335—2450, 2465, 2488. Anderson v. Daley, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 505, 56 N. Y. Supp. 511—1614. Anderson v. Haddon, 33 Htm, 435 — 419, 474. Anderson v. Inland Tel. & Tel. Co., 19 Wash. 575, 53 Pac. 657, 41 L. R. A. 410—2832. Anderson v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 628, 1 Fed. Cas. 842—2280, 2284. Anderson v. Jett, 89 Ky. 375, 12 S. W. 670, 6 L. R. A. 390—1046. Anderson v. Klnley, 90 Iowa, 554, 58 N. W. 909—1835. Anderson v. Kissam, 35 Fed. 699 — 912. Anderson v. Line, 14 Fed. 405 — 544. Anderson v. Longden, 1 Wheat. 85, 4 L. Ed. 42—1799. Anderson v. Middle, etc. R. R., 91 Tenn. 44, 17 S. W. 803—306, 364, 371. Anderson v. Midland Ry., [1902] 1 Ch. 369—1883, 1934, 2610, 2650. Anderson v. Midland Ry., 85 L. T. Rep. 408 (1901)— 1548, 1595, 1624. Anderson v. Newcastle, etc. R. R., 12 Ind. 376, 74 Am. Dec. 218—311, 377. Anderson v. Nicholas, 28 N. Y. 600— 820, 1248. Anderson v. Olln, 145 111. 168, 34 N. E. 55—976. Anderson v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co., Ill TJ. S. 479, 4 Sup. Ct. 525, 28 L. Ed. 478—533, 942. Anderson v. Portland, etc. Co., 37 Oreg. 483, 60 Pac. 839, 50 L. R. A. 235, 82 Am. St. Rep. 771—883. Anderson v. Rome, etc. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 334—1831. Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 V. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 413, 29 L. Ed. 633—261. Anderson v. Scott, 70 N. H. 534, 49 Atl. 568—178, 185, 312, 340. » Anderson y. Scott, 70 N. H. 350, 47 Atl. 607—312. Anderson v. Seymour, 70 Minn. 358, 73 N. W. 171—440. Anderson v. South, etc. Co., 173 111. 213, 50 N. E. 655—1766. Anderson r. Speers,'21 Hun (N. Y.), 568—^32. Anderson v. Thompson, 51 La. Ann. 727, 25 South. 399—502. Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 19 Sup. Ct. 50, 43 L. Ed. 300— 1060. Anderson v. Waco State Bank, 92 Tex. 506, 49 S. W. 1030, 71 Am. St. Rep. 867—705. Anderson v. Wallace, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 247 (Wash.)— 1776. Anderson County v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227, 5 Sup. Ct. 433, 28 L. Ed. 966— 259. Anderson, etc. Co. v. Pungs, 127 Mich. 543, 86 N. W. 1040—1345, 1374, 1742, 1755. Anderson's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 75, 94, 95, 104 (1877)— 132, 165. Anderson Transfer Co. v. Fuller, 174 111. 221, 51 N. E. 251—1766. Anderton v. Wolf, 41 Hun, 571—1897, 1910. Andover, etc. Corp. v. Gould, 6 Mass. 40, 4 Am. Dec. 80—214, 219, 290, 291. Andover, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Hay, 7 Mass. 102, 107—184, 1760, 1802. Andover Free Schools v. Flint, 54 Mass. 539, 543—21, 223, 519, 525. Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124, 45 Pac. 534—1764, 1809. Andres v. Morgan, 62 Ohio St. 236, 56 N. E. 875, 78 Am. St. Rep. 712—1543, 1585, 1726. Andrew v. Vanderbilt, 37 Hun, 468 — 1181. Andrews, In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 20 (1902), —664. Andrews v. Bacon, 38 Fed. 777 — 439, 455, 486, 487. Andrews v. Callender, 30 Mass. 484 — 421, 449, 537. Andrews v. Clark, 72 Md. 396, 20 Atl. 429—648, 834, 912. Andrews v. Gierke, 3 Bosw. 585 — 925. Andrews v. Delhi, etc. Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 23, 72 N. Y. Supp. 50— 2800. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361—585, 586. Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., 75 L. T. Rep. 267—586. Andrews v. Hart, 17 Wis. 297—84. Andrews v. Michigan Cent. R. R., 99 Mass. 534, 97 Am. Dec. 51—1953. Andrews v. Mockford, 73 L. T. Rep. 726 (1896)— 801. Andrews v. National, etc. Works, 76 Fed. 166, 175, 22 C. C. A. 110, 36 L. R. A. 139—157, 535, 2023, 2321. Andrews v. National, etc. Works, 77 Fed. 774, 23 C. C. A. 454, 36 L. R. A. 153—535, 1419, 2231, 2237, 2241, 2321. Andrews v. National Foundry, etc. Works, 61 Fed. 782, 10 C. C. A. 60— 2299, 2758, 2766. Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 14 Ind. 169—281, 319. Andrews v. Stanton, 18 111. App. 163 — 2448. XXVI TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Andrews v. Steele City Bank, 57 Neb. 173, 77 N. W. 342—2385, 2412. Andrews v. Union, etc. Ins. Co., 37 Me. 256—2743. Andrews v. Worcester, etc. R. R., 159 Mass. 64, 33 N. B. 1109—849, 1009. Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown Coie Co., 86 Fed. 585, 30 C. C. A. 293—2, 1083, 1967. Andrews, etc. Co. v. Youngstown, etc. Co., 39 Fed. 353—1820. Andriessen's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 303, 16 Atl. 840—809, 813. Androscoggin, etc. Co, v. Bethel, etc. Co., 64 Me. 441—68. Angas' Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 560 (1849) —204, 543. Angel V. Hume, 17 Hun, 374—256. Angell, In re, 91 N. W. 611 (Mich.)- 2471. Angell V. Hadden, 16 Ves. Jr. 202 (1809)— 861. Angell V. Lawton, 76 N. Y. 540—1092, 1341. Angell V. Springfield Home, 157 Mass. 241, 31 N. B. 1064—657, 658. Angelo, In re, 5 De G. & S. 278 (1852)— 941. Angerhoefer v. Bradstreet Co., 22 Fed. 305—1952, 1955. Angle V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 94 Fed. 717, 36 C. C. A. 438—47, 85, 197, 2041. Angle V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 151 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct. 240, 38 L. Ed. 55—1497, 1583, 1613,-1651, 1705, 2658. Angle V. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 9 Iowa, 487—2640. Anglesea Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 2 Bq. 379 (1866)— 533. Anglo-American Co. v. Dyer, 64 N. E. 416 (Mass.)— 214, 220, 279, 361, 394, 1945. Anglo-American, etc. Co. v. Davis, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 574—1658. Anglo-Am. etc. Co. v. Davis, etc. Co., 169 N. Y. 506, 62 N. E. 587, 88 Am. St. Rep. 608—1952. Anglo-Austrian, etc. Union, In re, [1892] 2 Ch. 158—180. Anglo-Austrian, etc. Union, In re, [1895] 2 Ch. 891—2481. Anglo-Callfornian Bank v. Grangers' Bank, 63 Cal. 359—1117, 1119, 1126. Anglo-Californian Gold Min. Co. v. Lewis, 6 H. & N. 174 (I860)— 1278. Anglo-Danubian, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eg. 339 (1875-)— 592, 2005. Anglo, etc. Bank v. Baragnon, 45 L. T. 362 (1881)— 281. Anglo, etc. of W. A., In re, [1898] 1 Ch. 327—1440. Anglo-French Co-operative Soc, In re, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 492 (1882)— 1467, 1931. Angus V. Clifford, [1891] 2 Ch. 449— 802. Angus V. Robinson, 62 Vt. 60, 19 Atl. 993—971. Anita Berwind, The, 107 Fed. 721— 2848. Anniston, etc. R. R. v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 82 Ala. 297, 2 South. 710— 2635. Anoka, etc. ■ Co. v. City of Anoka:, 109 Fed. 580—2764, 2765, 2773. Anon., 3 Salk. 102—64. Anon., 12 Mod. 559—77. Anon., 2 Salk. 522 (1649)— 958. Anson, In re, 85 Me. 79, 26 Atl. 996 — 2179. Ansonia Brass, etc. Co. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 53 N. Y. 123, 13 Am. Rep. 476—396, 447. Antelo V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 95 Fed. 12—2171. Anthony v. American Glucose Co., 146 N. Y. 407, 41 N. E. 23—27, 1542, 1568. Anthony v. Campbell, 112 Fed. 212, 50 C. C. A. 195—701, 1573, 1854, 1856, 1887, 1988, 2167, 2274, 2505. Anthony v. Household, etc. Co., 16 R. I. 571, 18 Atl. 176, J L. R. A. 575— 588. Anthony v. Jasper County, 101 U. S. 693, 25 L. Ed. 1005—255. Anthony v. Unangst, 174 Pa. St. 10, 34 Atl. 284—770. Anthony, etc. Co. v. West Jersey R. R., 57 N. J. Eq. 607, 42 Atl. 279—2690. Antietam Paper Co. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 115 N. C. 143, 20 S. B. 366—2140. Antipffida Bapt. Ch. v. Mulford, 8 N. J. L. 182—66, 1798, 1802. Antoine v. Smith, 40 La. Ann. 560, 4 South. 321—550. Anvil Min. Co. v. Sherman, 74 Wis. 226, 42 N. W. 226, 4 L. R. A. 232—358. Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md. 354—1219. Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md. 377 — 1219. Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md. 302— 1217. Apperly v. Page, 1 Phillips, 775 (1847) —1710. Applegarth v. McQuiddy, 77 Cal. 408, 19 Pac. 692—1913. Applegate v. Ernst, 3 Bush (Ky.), 648, 96 Am. Dec. 272—1239. Appleman v. Fisher, 34 Md. 540—904, 913, 924. Appleton V. American Malting Co., 54 Atl. 454 (N. J.)— 1186, 1381, 1910. Appleton V. Turnbull, 84 Me. 72, 24 Atl. 592—383, 989. Appleton, etc. Co. v. Central Trust Co. etc., 93 Fed. 286, 35 C. C. A. 302— 1493, 2127, 2226, 2237, 2251, 2342. TABLE OF CASES. XXVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Appleton Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 87 Mass. 446—369. Appleyard's Case, 49 L. J. Ch. 290 (1880)— 83. Application of Bank of Commerce, In re, 153 Ind. 4S0, 53 N. E. 950, 55 N. E. 224, 47 L. R. A. 489—6. Application of Rochester, etc. R. R., Matter of, 110 N. Y. 119, 17 N. E. 678—2634. Application of Steinway, In re, 31 N. Y. App. Dlv. 70, 52 N. Y. Supp. 343— 1094, 1100. Application of Steinway, In re, 159 N. Y. 251, 53 N. E. 1103, 45 L. R. A. 461—1094, 1096, 1100. Apponaug, etc. Co. v. Rawson, 22 R. I. 123, 46 Atl. 455—1641. Apthorp V. North, 14 Mass. 167—1799. Aransas, etc. Co. v. Manning, 63 S. W. 627 (Tex.)— 1556, 1779. Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens. 13 Colo. 534, 22 Pac. 823—83, 116, 1775, 1826. Arapahoe Inv. Co. v. Piatt, 5 Colo. App. 515, 39 Pac. 584—1506. Arauco Co., In re, 79 L. T. Rep. 336 (1898)— 2097. Archambeau v. New York, etc. R. R., 170 Mass. 272, 49 N. E. 435—2535. Archambeau v. Piatt, 173 Mass. 249, 53 N. E. 816—2490. Archbald v. Carbondale Traction Co., 3 Pa. Dist. 751—2681. Archer v. Amer. etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 33, 24 Atl. 508—745, 1326, 1328. Archer v. Dunham, 89 Hun, 387, 35 N. Y. Supp. 387—645. Archer v. People's Sav. Bank, 88 Ala. 249, 7 South. 53—1730. Archer v. Rose, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 264— 437. Archer v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 102 111. 493—2548, 2573, 2578. Ardesco Oil Co. v. North American, etc. Co., 66 Pa. St. 375—1641. Arents v. Blackwell's, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 338—1386, 1551, 1885. Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 750, 767—2055, 2056, 2062, 2080, 2082. Arenz v. Weir, 89 111. 25—438. Argus Co., In re, 138 N. Y. 557, 34 N. E. 388—851, 1312, 1336, 1339, 1353, 1746, 1747. Argus Co. V. Mayor, etc., 55 N. Y. 495, 14 Am. Rep. 296—1756. Argus Printing Co., In re, 1 N. D. 434, 444 48 N. W. 347, 12 L. B. A. 781, 26 Am. St. Rep. 639—1019, 1292, 1295, 1313, 1316, 1373. Argyle, etc. Co., In re, 54 L. T. Rep. 233 (1885)— 343. Arkadelphia Cotton Mills v. Trimble, 54 Ark. 316, 15 S. W. 776—361. Arkansas Const. Co. v. Eugene, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 601, 50 S. W. 736—78. Arkansas, etc. R. R. v. St. Louis R. R., 103 Fed. 747—2544. Arkansas, etc. Soc. v. Bichholtz, 45 Kan. 164, 25 Pac. 613—210, 623, 1494. Arkansas Midland R. R. v. Berry, 44 Ark. 17—1238. Arkansas River, etc. Co. v. Farmers,' etc. Co., 13 Colo. 587, 22 Pac. 954— 12, 101, 146, 1461, 1849, 1882, 1884, 2030. Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Ratteree, 57 Ark. 429, 21 S. W. 1059—2827. Arkansas Valley, etc. Co. v. Lincoln, 56 Kan. 145, 42 Pac. 706—1601. Arkwright v. Newbold, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 301, 319 (1881)— 315, 328, 805, 811, 1479, 1480. Arlington v. Savannah, etc. R. R., 95 Ala. 434, 11 South. 7—2649. Armant v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 41 La. Ann. 1020, 7 South. 35—1154. Armington v. Barnet, 15 Vt. 745, 40 Am. Dec. 705—2751. Armington v. Palmer, 21 R. I. 109, 42 Atl. 308, 43 L. R. A. 95, 79 Am. St. Rep. 786—68, 1567, 2299. Armitage, In re, [1893] 3 Ch. 337— 1197. Armour, etc. Co. v. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 113 Mo. 12, 20 S. W. 690, 35 Am. St. Rep. 691—1003. Arms V. Conant, 36 Vt. 744—1741, 1762, 2138. Armstrong v. Abbott, 11 Colo. 220, 17 Pac. 517—1841. Armstrong v. Burkitt, 34 S. W. 759 (Tex.)— 2350. Armstrong v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 41 Fed. 234, 6 L. R. A. 226—1631, 1632. Armstrong v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 83 Fed. 556, 27 C. C. A. 601—1789, 1970. Armstrong v. Church Soc, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 552—1593, 1883. Armstrong v. Danahy, 75 Hun, 405, 27 N. Y. Supp. 60—198, 378, 409. Armstrong v. Grant, 56 Hun, 226, 9 N. Y. Supp. 388—2846. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276, 24 N. E. 897—232, 234, 308, 340, 373, 376, 390, 2567, 2580. Armstrong v. Savannah Soap Works, 53 Fed. 124—1609. Armstrong County v. Brinton, 47 Pa. St. 367—248, 266. Arnison v. Smith, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 567 (1889)— 329. Arnison v. Smith, [1889] 41 Ch. D. 348 —316. Arnison v. Smith, 59 L. T. Rep. 627 (1888)— 316, 329. Arnold v. Pawtuxet, etc. Co., 18 R. I. 189, 26 Atl. 55, 19 L. R. A. 602—1109. XXVIU TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165—43, 44, 45, 704. Arnold v. Suffolk Bank, 27 Barb. 424 — 50, 858, 1115, 1116, 1120, 1123, 1246. Arnold v. Welmer, 40 Neb. 216, 58 N. W. 709—2325. Arnold! v. Gouin, 22 Grant, Cb. (Up. Can.) 314 (1875)— 430. Arnold's Appeal, 6 Atl. 751 (Pa.)— 658. Arnot V. Erie Ry., 67 N. Y. 315—2074, 2083 2597 Arnot 'v. Erie Ry., 5 Hun, 608—2074, 2597. Arnot V. Pittson, etc. Co., 68 N. Y. 558, 23 Am. Rep. 190—1052, 1341. Arnot V. United, etc. Lands, [1901] 1 Cb. 518—1295. Arnot's Case, L. R. 36 Cb. D. 702 (1887)— 16.3. Arnstein, In re, 101 Fed. 706—1444. Aron V. De Castro, 13 N. Y. Supp. 372— 809 2271 Aron'v. De Castro, 131 N. Y. 648, 30 N. B. 491—744, 809, 2271. Arthur v. Clarke, 46 Minn. 491, 49 N. W. 252—359. Arthur v. Commercial Bank, 17 Miss. 394, 430, 48 Am. Dec. 719—1409, 1636, 2111, 2117, 2262. Arthur v. Griswold, 55 N. Y. 400, 406, 410—331, 805, 807. Arthur y. Midland Ry., 3 Kay & J. 204 (1857)— 552. Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 11 C. C. A. 209, 25 L. R. A. 414—2624. Arthur v. Willius, 44 Minn. 409, 46 N. W. 851—435, 456. Ascetelyn, etc. Co. v. Smith, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 61—333. Ash V. Guie, 97 Pa. St. 493, 39 Am. Rep. 818—1071. Ashburner v. Macguire, 2 Bro. Cb. 108 (1786)— 660. Asbbury v. Watson, L. R. 30 Cb. D. 376 (1885)— 590. Ashbury, etc. Co. v. Rlche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 672 (1875), L. R. 9 Bxcb. 224, 262—1548, 1847. Asbby V. Blackwell, 2 Eden, 299 (1«765) —835. Ashe V. Johnson, 2 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 149—753. Asber v. Sutton, 31 Kan. 286, 1 Pao. 535—1770. Asheville Division v. Aston, 92 N. C. 578—65, 1667. Ashhurst v. Field, 26 N. J. Bq. 1 — 1191. Ashhurst v. Mason, L. R. 20 Eq. 225 (1875)— 669, 1695. Ashhurst v. Montour Iron Co., 35 Pa. St. 30—2158, 2212. Ashhurst's Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 290 — 1488, 1854, 1859, 1860, 2509. Ashland v. Wheeler, 88 Wis. 607, 60 N. W. 818—2759. Ashland & C. St. Ry. v. Faulkner, ib. S. W. 235, 43 L. R. A. 554 (Ky.) — 2696. Ashley v. Frame, 4 Kan. App. 265, 45 Pac. 927—463. Ashley v. Kinnan, 2 N. Y. Supp. 574 — ]#08. Ashley v. Quintard, 90 Fed. 84—1002. Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436, 14 Sup. Ct. 865, 38 L. Bd. 773—1241. Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Bq. 263 (1870) — 318, 335, 336, 337, 1862. Ashley Wire Co. v. Illinois Steel Co.,. 164 111. 149, 45 N. B. 410, 56 Am. St. Rep. 187—1740, 1746, 1747, 1823,. . 2142. Ashmead v. Colby, 26 Conn. 287—328. Asbpitel V. Sercombe, 5 Bxcb. 147 (1850)— 199, 200, 1709. Ashtabula, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 15 Ohla St. 328—181, 185, 207, 228, 232, 235, 236, 354, 1296. Ashton V.' Ashton, 3 P. Wms. 384- (1735)— 653. Ashton V. Atlantic Bank, 85 Mass. 21T —723. Ashton V. Burbank, 2 Dill. 435, 2 Fed.. Cas. 26—291, 1031, 1041, 2743. Ashton V. Dakin, 7 W. R. 384 (1859) — 771. Ashton V. Dashaway Assoc, 84 Cal. 61,. 22 Pac. 660, 23 Pac. 1091, 7 L.. R. A.. 809—1092, 1179, 1437, 1531, 1910. Ashton V. Heggerty, 130 Cal. 516, 62 Pac. 934—734, 762, 832, 864, 870. Ashton V. Langdale, 4 Bng. L. & Bq. 80' (1851)— 44. ■ Asbton's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 153—959. Ashton V. Zeila Min. Co., 134 Cal. 408,. 66 Pac. 494—734, 762, 832, 864, 869,. 870, 887, 1145. Ashuelot Boot, etc. Co. v. Hoit, 56 N, H. 548—81, 86, 214. Ashuelot, etc. Co. v. Marsh, 55 Mass. 507—1774. Ashuelot R. R. v. Elliot, 52 N. H. 387— 2236. Ashuelot R. R. v. Elliot, 57 N. H. 397,. 437—2061, 2167, 2190, 2501. Ashuelot R. R. v. Elliot, 58 N. H. 451 454—1034. Ashworth v. Munn, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 363, 368 (1880)— 767. Askew's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. 664 (1874) — 327. Aspell V. Campbell, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 393, 72 N. Y. Supp. 76—849. Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. Aspen, 5 Colo. App. 12, 37 Pac. 728—10, 32, 523. Asplnwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 595, 10 Sup. Ct. 417, 33 L. Bd. 779—365, 629. TABLE OF CASES. XXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 22 How. 364, 16 L. Ed. 296—252, 254, 265. Aspinwall v. Meyer, 2 Sandf. 186, 3 N. Y. 290—1774. Aspinwall v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 20 Ind. 492, 83 Am. Dec. 329—1741, 2651. Aspinwall v. Sacchi, 57 N. Y. 331—370, 491. Aspinwall v. Torrance, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 381—421. Assessors v. Commissioners, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 333—253. Associated Press v. United Press, 104 Ga. 51, 29 S. E. 869—1950. Astley V. New Tivoli, Ltd., [1899] 1 Ch. 151—1755. Aston, In re, 27 Beav. 474 (1859) — 1076. Astor V. Arcade Ry., 113 N. Y. 93, 111, 20 N. B. 594, 2 L. R. A. 789—1035. Aster V. Westchester Gas Light Co., 33 Hun, 333—1550, 2138, 2263. Astoria, etc. R. R. v. Hill, 20 Oreg. 177, 25 Pac. 379—360, 380. Atchafalaya Bank v. Dawson, 13 La. 497—1415, 1417. Atcherson v. Troy, etc. R. R., 6 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 329—430. Atchison V. Butcher, 3 Kan. 104 — 245. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Brown, 57 Kan. 785, 48 Pac. 31—75. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Cochran, 43 Kan. 225, 23 Pac. 151, 7 L. R. A. 414, 19 Am. St. Rep. 129—682, 1538, 1541, 1727. Atchison, etc. R. K. v. Davidson, 52 Kan. 739, 35 Pac. 787—2689. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Denver, etc. R. R., 110 U. S. 667, 674, 680, 682, 4 Sup. Ct. 185, 28 L. Ed. 291—2595, 2596, 2609, 2640, 2642. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Fletcher, 35 Kan. 236, 242, 244, 247, 248, 250, 10 Pac. 596—511, 682, 683, 1030, 1864, 1893, 2076, 2082, 2553, 2554, 2577. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Phillips County, 25 Kan. 261—264, 269. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Roach, 35 Kan. 740, 12 Pac. 93, 57 Am. Rep. 199— 2641. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Sumner County, 51 Kan. 617, 33 Pac. 312—1904. Atchison, etc. Ry. v. Cunningham, 59 Kan. 722, 54 Pac. 1055—2531. Atchison, etc. Ry. v. General, etc. Ry., 112 Fed. 689, 50 C. C. A. 424—2705. Atchison, etc. Ry. v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 70 Pac. 939 (Kan.)— 2634. Atchison St. Ry. v. Nave, 38 Kan. 744, 17 Pac. 587, 5 Am. St. Rep. 800— 2681. Athenaeum, etc. Soc, In re, 4'K. & J. 549 (1858)— 1826. Athenaeum, etc. Soc. v. Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294 (1858)— 2098. Athenaeum L. Ass'n Soc, In re, 3 De G. & J. 660 (1859)— 436. Athens County v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 37 Ohio St. 205—258. Atherford v. Beard, 2 T. R. 610 (1788) —768. Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Tump. Co., 67 Ind. 334—276. Athol, etc. Co. V. Carey, 116 Mass. 471 —214. Athol, etc. R. R. v. Prescott, 110 Mass, 213—291, 292. Atkins V. Albree, 94 Mass. 359—1193, 1199. Atkins V. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86, 91, 100, 10 Am. Rep. 282—45, 954, 970. 1248. Atkins V. Judson, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 42, 53 N. Y. Supp. 504—2165, 2255, 2407, 2506. Atkins V. Petersburg R. R., 3 Hughes, 307, 2 Fed. Cas. 90—2346. Atkins V. Wabash, etc. Ry., 29 Fed. 161—2235, 2376, 2386, 2492. Atkinson v. Asheville St. Ry., 113 N. C. 581. 18 S. E. 254—2663. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 90 Mass. 15 — 727, 846. Atkinson v. Foster, 134 111. 472, 25 N. E. 528—828, 936. Atkinson v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 15 Ohio St. 21—2118, 2119. Atkinson v. Pocock, 1 Exch. 796 (1848)— 1710. Atkinson v. Rochester Printing Co., 114 N. Y. 168, 21 N. E. 178—1638, 1821. Atkinson's Appeal, 11 Atl. 239 (Pa.) — 1519. Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106—8, 1394. Atlanta v. Grant, 57 Ga. 340—2600. Atlanta, etc. R. R. v. State, 63 Ga. 483 —2587. Atlanta, etc. R. R. v. Western Ry., 50 Fed. 790, 1 C. C. A. 676—1630. Atlanta, etc. Ry. v. Jackson, 108 Ga. 634, 34 S. E. 184—2714. Atlantic City Water-works v. Atlantic City, 39 N. J. m. 367—2762. Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Abbott, 63 Mass. 423—220, 366. Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian Or- chard Mills, 147 Mass. 268, 17 N. E. 496, 9 Am. St. Rep. 698—1834. Atlantic De Laine Co. v. Mason, 5 R. I. 463—518, 1278. Atlantic Dynamite Co. v. Andrews, 97 Mich. 466, 56 N. W. 858—290. Atlantic, etc. Bank v. Savery, 82 N. Y. 291—1841. XXX TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Kreusler, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 268, 57 N. Y. Supp. 983— 380. Atlantic, etc. Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 36 N. H. 252, 269—1744, 1752. Atlantic, etc. R. R., In re, 4 Hughes, 157, Fed. Gas. No. 13,358—2452. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637—1237. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. Hodnett, 36 Ga. 669—314. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. Johnson, 134 N. Y. 375, 31 N. E. 903—2564. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. Reiser. 18 Kan. 458—1795. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. St. -I/ouis, 66 Mo. 228—1415, 1428, 2625, 2661, 2662. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. SuUivant, 5 Ohio St. 276—1416. Atlantic, etc. R. R. v. United States, 76 Fed. 186—2611. Atlantic, etc. Ry., In re, 35 Atl. 387 (N. J.)— 2706. Atlantic, etc. Ry. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162, 2 Am. Rep. 382—78. Atlantic, etc. Tel. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 2 Fed. Cas. 176, 6 Biss. 158— 2804. Atlantic, etc. Tel. Co. v. Comm'on- wealth, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 366—1150. Atlantic, etc. Tel. Co. v. Union P. Ry., 1 Fed. 745, 1 McCrary, 541—1916, 2810, 2844. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 402, 23 Atl. 934— 2381. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Crystal Water Co., 72 N. Y. App. Div. 539, 76 N. Y. Supp. 647—1285, 2027, 2049, 2130, 2139. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Kinerhook, etc. Ry., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 212, 45 N. Y. Supp. 492—2060. Atlantic Trust Co. v. New York, etc. Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 354, 78 N. Y. Supp. 120—1855, 2146, 2277, 2327, 2591. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Osgood, 116 Fed. 1019—117, 212, 287, 401, 420. Atlantic Trust Co. v. The Vigilancia, 73 Fed. 452, 19 C. C. A. 528—1284, 1823, 2035, 2142. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Woodbridge, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 39—2359, 2787. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Woodbridge, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 501—2787. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Woodbridge, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 842—142, 2021, 2252, 2260. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Woodbridge, etc. Co., 86 Fed. 975—989, 1990, 2157, 2359, 2788. Atlas Bank v. Nahant Bank, 40 Mass. 480—1948. Atlas, etc. Co. v. Exchange Bank, etc., Ill Ga. 703, 36 S. B. 939—1656. Atlas Nat. Bank v. F. B. Gardner Co., 8 Biss. 537, 2 Fed. Cas. 186—1376, 1380. Atlas Nat. Bank v. Moran, etc. Co., 138 Mo. 59, 39 S. W. 71—1637. Atlas Tack Co. v. Macon Hardware Co., 101 Ga. 391, 29 S. B. 27—1659. Attaway v. Third Nat. Bank, 93 Mo. 485, 5 S. W. 16—1457. Atterbury v. Knox, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 90—1672. Attleboro Nat. Bank v. Wendell, 64 Hun, 208, 19 N. Y. Supp. 45—1447. Attleborough Nat. Bank v. Rogers, 125 Mass. 339—1624. Attorney-General, In re, 88 N. W. 912 (Wis.)— 2225, 2439, 2621. Attorney-General v. Atlantic, etc. Ins. Co., In re, 100 N. Y. 279, 3 N. B. 193—2395. Attorney-General v. Bank of Columbia, 1 Paige, 511—2386. Attorney-General v. Bank of Niagara, Hopk. Ch. 354, 403—1394, 1412. Attorney-General v. Batley, 26 L. T. Rep. 392 (1872)— 1594. Attorney-General v. Bay State, etc. Co., 99 Mass. 148, 96 Am. Dec. 717—1205, 1240. Attorney-General v. Boston, etc. R. R., 109 Mass. 99—621. Attorney-General v. Boston, etc. R. R., 160 Mass. 62, 35 N. E. 252, 22 L. R. A. 112—2605. Attorney-General v. Clergy Society, 10 Rich. Bq. (S. C.) 604—1385. Attorney-General v. Continental, etc. Ins. Co., 27 Hun, 195—2479. Attorney-General v. Continental L. Ins. Co., 28 Hun, 360—1924. Attorney-General v. Continental L. Ins. Co., 93 N. Y. 630—1924. Attorney-General v. Detroit, 112 Mich. 145, 70 N. W. 450, 37 L. R. A. 211— 1731. Attorney-General v. Detroit Suburban Ry., 96 Mich. 65, 55 N. W. 562—1405, 2672. Attorney-General v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400—2785. Attorney-General v. Edison Tel. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 244—2755. Attorney-General v. Bvart Booming Co., 34 Mich. 462—2627, 2786. Attorney-General v. Foundling Hos- pital, 2 Ves. Jr. 42—1413. Attorney-General v. Germantown, etc. Road, 55 Pa. St. 466—2751. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Ry., E R. 11 Ch. D. 449, 481 (1879) — 1411, 2648. TABLE OF CASES. XXXI [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Attorney-General v. Great Northern Ry., 1 Dr. & Sm. 154 (I860)— 1411. Attorney-General v. Grote, 2 Russ. & M. 699 (1827)— 656. Attorney-General v. Guardian, etc. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 272—438, 1939, 2405. Attorney-General v. Jamaica Pond, etc. Corp., 133 Mass. 361—1411. Attorney-General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94, 106, 20 N. W. 806—63. Attorney-General v. Leicester, 7 Beav. 176 (1844)— 1617. Attorney-General v. Life, etc. Ins. Co., 9 Paige, 470—1627, 1976, 1978, 1980. Attorney-General v. Looker, 111 Mich. 498, 69 N. W. 929—1303, 1331. Attorney-General v. Margate, etc. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 749—2786. Attorney-General v. Massachusetts, etc. Co., 179 Mass. 15, 60 N. E. 389— 32, 632, 1232. Attorney-General v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 121 Mass. 524—1070. Attorney-General v. Metropolitan R. R., 125 Mass. 515, 28 Am. Rep. 264 — 2687, 2702. Attorney-General v. Mid-Kent Ry., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 100 (1867)— 1411. Attorney-General v. N. Y. Breweries Co. (1898) 1 Q. B. 205, (1899) A. C. 62—45, 46, 730, 1245. Attorney-General v. Niagara, etc. Co., 20 Grant's Ch. Rep. (Can.) 34 (1873) —2576, 2725. Attorney-General v. North America, etc. Ins. Co., 26 Hun, 294—2433, 2473. Attorney-General v. North America, etc. Ins. Co., 26 Hun (N. Y.), 294— 2433, 2473. Attorney-General v. North America L. Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 57, 43 Am. Rep. 648—2479, 2480. Attorney-General v. North, etc. Tram- ways Co., 72 L. T. Rep. 340 (1895) — 1411. Attorney-General v. Old Colony R. R., 160 Mass. 62, 35 N. E. 252, 22 L. R. A. 112—2615. Attorney-General v. Petersburg, etc. R. R., 6 Ired. L. (N. C.) 456, 470— 1414, 1415. Attorney-General v. Plngree, 120 Mich. 550, 79 N. W. 814, 46 L. R. A. 407— 2671. Attorney-General v. Railroad Cos., 35 Wis. 425, 523, 553, 588—1412, 2611. Attorney-General v. Rye, 7 Taunt. (1817) 546—67. Attorney-General v. Scott, 1 Vesey, 413 (1749)— 1305, 1750. Attorney-General v. Simonton, 78 N. C. 57—1410. Attorney-General v. Tudor Ice Co., ip4 Mass. 239, 6 Am. Rep. 227—1412. Attorney-General v. United, etc. Tel. Co., 30 Beav. 287—2819. Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co., 2. Johns. Ch. 371—1412, 2260, Attorney-General v. West Wisconsin Ry. Co., 36 Wis. 466—1407. Attorney-General v. Whitwood Local Board, 40 L. J. (Ch.) 592 (1871) — 1103. Attorney-General v. Wilson, 1 Cr. & Ph. 1 (1840)— 1413. Attree v. Hawe, L. R. 9 Ch. D. (1878) — 2093 Attrill V. Huntington, 70 Md. 191, 16 Atl. 651, 2 L. R. A. 779, 14 Am. St. Rep. 344—461, 462. Attrill V. Rockaway, etc. Co., 25 Hun, 376, 509—2491. Atwater v. American, etc. Bank, 152 111. 605, 38 N. B. 1017—1634, 1650. Atwater v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507, 76 N. W. 253—675. Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277,. 77 N. W. 963—85, 378. Atwood V. Rhode Island Agric. Bank, 1 R. I. 376—412, 518. Atwood V. Shenandoah, etc. R. R., 85. Va. 966, 9 S. E. 748—1973, 1983, 2161. Atwool V. Merryweather, L. R. 5 Eg. 464, note. (1867)— 1452, 1526. Auburn, etc. Assoc, v. Hill (Cal.), 32. Pac. 587—215, 365. Auburn, etc. Assoc, v. Plill, 113 Cal. 382, 45 Pac. 695—215, 365. Auburn, etc. Co. v. Douglass, 9 N. Y.. 444, 453—2752. Auburn, etc. Works v. Shultz, 143 Pa.. St. 256, 22 Atl. 904—342, 372. Auburn Nat. Bank v. Dillingham, 147 • N. Y. 603, 42 N. B. 338—445, 453. Audenried v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R.,. 68 Pa. St. 370, 380,' 8 Am. Rep. 195— 2786. Auer V. Lombard, 72 Fed. 209, 19 C. C. A. 72—451. Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28. Minn. 291, 9 N. W. 799, 41 Am. Rep. 285—1801, 1971. Augir V. Ryan, 63 Minn. 373, 65 N. W. 640—509. Augsburg Land, etc. Co. v. Pepper, 95- Va. 92, 27 S. B. 807—676, 1722. Augusta V. National Bank, 37 Ga. 620 — 1207. Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 49 Me. 507 — 246. Augusta Bank v. Hamblet, 35 Me. 491 —1775. Augusta, etc. R. R. v. City Council, 10(> Ga. 701, 28 S. E. 126—14. Augusta, etc. R. R. v. Kittel, 52 Fed. 63, 2 C. C. A. 615—1644, 1782, 2139,. 2318. XXXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Augusta Ry. v. Andrews, 89 Ga. 653, 16 S. B. 203—2832. Aulbach v. Dahler, 43 Pac. 322 (IdahoJ —571. Aull V. Colket, 33 Leg. Int. 44 (Pa.) — 820. Aull V. Colket, 2 W. N. Cas. 322 (1875)— 1249. Aultman v. Waddle, 40 Kan. 195, 19 Pac. 730—370. Aultman, etc. Co. v. Holder, 68 Fed. 467—1676. Aultman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 505 — 459, 460, 476, 532, 557, 576. Aurora v. "West, 9 Ind. 74, 22 Ind. 88, 85 Am. Dec. 413—245, 253. Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 105, 19 L. Ed. 42—2056, 2062. Aurora, etc. Co. v. Holthouse, 7 Ind. 59—1400. Aurora, etc. See. v. Paddock, 80 111. 263—1665, 1865, 2106, 2147. Aurora Nat. Bank v. Black, 129 Ind. 595, 29 N. B. 396—2332. Austin V. Aldermen, 7 Wall. 694,, 19 L. Bd. 224—1221. Austin V. Bank of England, 8 Ves. Jr. 522 (1803)— 732. Austin V. Berlin, 13 Colo. 198, 22 Pac. 433—434. Austin V. Boston, 96 Mass. 359 — 1220, 1221, 1222. Austin V. Daniels, 4 Denio, 299 — 1619, , 2404. Austin V. First Nat. Bank, 100 Mich. 613, 59 N. W. 597—1636. Austin V. Gillaspie, 1 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 261—755, 759. Austin V. Mancliester, etc. Ry., 10 C. B. 454 (1850)— 2644. Austin V. Murdock, 127 N. C. 454, 37 S. B. 478—806. Austin V. Rawdon, 44 N. Y. 63—926, Sll, 1251. Austin V. Tecumseh Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 412, 68 N. W. 628, 35 L. R. A. 444, 59 Am. St. Rep. 543—1584. Austin, «tc. Co. v. Gemmell, 10 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 696 (1886)— 1298, 1335. Austin's Case, 24 L. T. (N. S.) 932 (1871)— 297, 1751. Australian, etc. Co. v. Mounsey, 4 K. & J. 733 (1858)— 1969, 2106. Auten V. City, etc. Ry., 104 Fed. 395 — 1728, 2122, 2143, 2146, 2159, 2408. Auther v. Anther, 13 Sim. 422 (1843) —654. Automatic, etc. Co. v. North American, etc. Co., 45 Fed. 1—1426. Avegno v. Citizens' Bank, 40 La. Ann. 799, 5 South. 537—629. .Avelyn v. Ward, 1 Ves. Sr. 420 (1749) —654. Averill v. Barber, 6 N. Y. Supp. 255 — 1379, 1517, 1535, 1833, 1908. Avery v. Blees Mfg. Co., 27 N. J. Bq. 412—2381. Avery v. Boston, etc. Trust Co., 72 Fed. 700—2401. Avery v. Ryan, 74 Wis. 591, 43 N. W. 317—744, 1704. Avil V. Alexandria Water Co., 1 Hughes, 408, 2 Fed. Cas. 254—841. Aycock V. San Antonio, etc. Assoc, 63 S. W. 953 (Tex.)— 2692. Aydelott v. Breeding, 64 S. W. 916 (Ky.)— 716. Ayer v. Ayer, 33 Mass. 327 — 1154. Ayer v. Seymour, 5 N. Y. Supp. 650 — 939, 1317. 1327. Ayers v. Green, etc. Co., 48 Pac. 221 (Gal.)- 1732. Aylesbury Ry. v. Mount, 4 Man. & G. 651 (1842)— 555. Aylesbury Ry. v. Mount, 5 Scott, N. R. 127—555. Aynsworth v. Bank of England, 8 Ves. Jr. 524, note (1793)— 732. Ayray's Case, 11 Co. 18b (1612)— 65. Ayres v. Dutton, 87 Mich. 528, 49 N. W. 897, 13 L. R. A. 698—212, 1602. Ayres v. French, 41 Conn. 142 — 804, 1248. Ayres v. Siebel, 82 Iowa, 347, 47 N. W. 989—2399. Ayre's Case, 25 Beav. 513 — 311, 333. B. Babbitt v. East, etc. Co. (N. J.) — 525, 1285. Babbitt v. Gibbs, 150 N. Y. 281, 44 N. E. 952—1705, 2521. Babcock v. Beman, 11 N. Y. 200 — 1817. Babcock V. Helena, 34 Ark. 499 — 259. Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. Ry., 9 N. Y. Supp. 845—1871. Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. R. R., 133 N. Y. 420, 31 N. E. 30—197, 2564. Babcock v. Thompson, 20 Mass. 446, 15 Am. Dec. 235—769. Bach v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 373—1622. Bache v. Nashville, etc. Soc, 10 Lea (Tenn.), 436—1394, 1424, 1937. Bacheller v. Pinkham, 68 Me. 253 — 1695. Bachman, In re, 12 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 223, 2 Fed. Cas. 310—557, 565, 576, 1115, 1122, 1124, 1129. Back River, etc. Co. v. Homberg, 54 Atl. 82 (Md.)— 2753. Backus V. Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19, 35 Am. Dec. 466—2752. TABLE OF CASES. XXXIU [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bacon v. Board, etc. Com'rs, 126 Mich. 22, 85 N. W. 307—1210. Bacon v. Grossman, 37 N. Y. Misc. 165, 74 N. Y. Supp. 878—743. Bacon v. Grossmann, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 574, 76 N. Y. Supp. 188—2087. Bacon v. Irvine, 70 Cal. 221, 11 Pac. 646—1904. Bacon v. Michigan Cent. R. R., 66 Mich. 166, 33 N. W. 181—73. Bacon v. Mississippi Ins. Co., 31 Miss. 116—1770, 1971. Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. (U. S.) 480, 15 L. Ed. 499—1434. Bacon's Adm'r v. Bacon's Trustees, 94 Va. 686, 27 S. B. 576—948. Badcock v. Cumberland, etc. Co., [1893J 1 Ch. 362—1874. Badger v. American Ins. Co... 103 Mass. 244, 4 Am. Rep. 547 — 1819. Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87, 17 L. Ed. 836—1860, 1861. Badger v. Cumberland Bank, 26 Me. 428—1739. Badger v. Sutton, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 294, 52 N. Y. Supp. 16—1588, 1994, 2485. Badger Lumber Co. v. Marion, etc. Co., 48 Kan. 182, 29 Pac. 476, 15 L. R. A. 652, 30 Am. St. Rep. 301— 2732. Badger Lumber Co. v. Marion, etc. Co., 48 Kan. 187, 30 Pac. 117, 30 Am. St. Rep. 306—2333. Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wis. 145, 70 N. W. 302, 37 L. R. A. 162— 216, 525. Badgerow v. Manhattan Trust Co., 64 Fed. 931—744, 1706, 2041. Badgerow v. Manhattan Trust Co., 74 Fed. 925—2041. Baeck v. Melnken, 33 N. Y. Misc. 371, 68 N. Y. Supp. 428—702, 972. Baeder v. Jennings, 40 Fed. 199—1077. Bagaley v. Pittsburgh, etc. Iron Co., 146 Pa. St. 478, 23 Atl. 837—1508. Bagaley v. Vanderbilt, 16 Abb. N. Gas. 35^ 2037. Bagby v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 86 Pa. St. 29]_ 2428 Bagg V. Detroit, 5 Mich. 336—2750. Baggaley v. Pittsburg, etc. Co., 90 Fed. 636, 33 C. C. A. 202—1666. Bagglan Hall Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 346 (1870)— 88. Baggott V. Turner, 21 Wash. 339, 58 Pac. 212—1736, 1753. Bagg's Case, 11 Coke, 93b, 99 (1616) —1075. Baggs V. Martin, 179 U. S. 206, 21 Sup. Ct. 109, 45 L. Ed. 155—2417. Bagley v. Carthage, etc. R. R., 165 N. .Y. 179, 58 N. E. 895—1506, 1735. Bagley v. Carthage,, etc. R. R., 25 N. Y. App. Div. 475. 49 N. Y. Supp. 718— 1503. Bagley v. Reno, etc. Co., 201 Pa. St. 78, 50 Atl. 760, 56 L. R. A. 184—1276, 1277, 1278. Bagley v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 489, 61 Am. Dec. 756—1070, 1090, 1371. Bagley, etc. Co. v. Ehrlicher, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 581, 40 N. Y. Supp. 922— 457. Bagley. etc. Co. v. Lenning, 61 N. Y. . App. Div. 26, 70 N. Y. Supp. 242— 426, 453. Bagnall v. Carlton. L. R. 6 Ch. D. 371. 381, 382,'407 (1877)— 315, 1470, 1479. Bagnall v. State, 25 Wis. 112—1224. Bagot, etc. Co. v. Clipper, etc. Co.. [1902] 1 Ch. 146—1160, 1714. Bagot, etc. Co. v. Clipper, etc. Co., 85 L. T. Rep. 652 (1902)— 601. Bagshaw, Ex parte, L. R. 4 Eq. 341 (1867)— 1562. Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Ry., 7 Hare, 114—1621, 1879, 1896, 1897, 2646. 2649. Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Ry., 19 L. J. (Ch.) 410 (1850)— 1550, 1905. Bagshaw v. Seymour, 18 C. B. 903 (1856)— 335, 801. Bahia, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 3 Q. B. 584, 595 (1868)— 639, 839, 1256, 1263. Baile v. Calvert, etc. Soc, 47 Md. 117 — 310. Bailey v. Association of Master Plumb- ers, etc., 103 Tenn. 99, 52 S. W. 853, 46 L. R. A. 561—20, 1054. • Bailey v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 3 Dill. 22, 2 Fed. Cas. 365—1204. Bailey v. Bailey, 97 N. Y. 460, 470— 1202. Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188, 38 Am. Dec. 625—428, 441, 473, 481. Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry., 12 Beav. 433 (1850)— 280, 1622, 1875. Bailey v. Buchanan County, 115 N. Y. 297, 22 N. E. 155, 6 L. R. A. 562— 2057. Bailey v. Buchanan County, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 237—2054. Bailey v. Buffalo, etc. Ry., 14 Hua, 483—1505, 1773. Bailey v. Chamberlain, N. Y. D. Reg., July 23, 1888, 22 N. Y. Supp. 144, 67 Hun, 652—975. Bailey v. Champlain, etc. Co., 77 Wis. 453, 46 N. W. 539—195, 630, 2040. Bailey v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 196—692, 1138, 1140, 1565. Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284, 22 L. Ed. 651—30. Bailey v. Ford, 13 Sim. 495 (1843) — 1069, 1090. Bailey v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., -1 Dill. 174, 2 Fed. Cas. 371—591, 604. XXXIV TA.BLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text.] Bailey v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 17 Wall. 96, 21 L. Ed. 611—591, 604. Bailey v. Holllster, 26 N. Y. 112—537, 1026, 1030, 1036. Bailey v. McCauley, 13 Q. B. 815 (1849)— 1700. Bailey v. Mosher, 63 Fed. 488, 11 C. C. A. 304—444. Bailey v. Mosher, 95 Fed. 223—1615, 1966, 2417. Bailey v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 4 Harr. (Del.) 389, 44 Am. Dec. 593— 2603. Bailey v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 139 Pa. St. 213, 21 Atl. 72—405. Bailey v. Platte, etc. Co., 12 Colo. 230, 21 Pac. 35—1436. Bailey v. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 604, 608, 635, 637, 22 L. Ed. 840—44, 174, 1139, 1311. Bailey v. Strohecker, 38 Ga. 259, 95 Am. Dec. 88—866, 1012, 1013. Bailey v. Tillinghast, 99 Fed. 801, 40 C. C. A. 93—457, 630, 631, 634. Bailey v. Universal, etc. Assoc, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 557 (1857)— 178. Bailey v. Valley Nat. Bank, 127 111. 332, 19 N. E. 695—1942. Bailey's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 253—1393. Baily v. Burgess, 48 N. J. Eq. 411, 22 Atl. 733—1720. Baily v. Cardnuff, 14 Colo. App. 169, 59 Pac. 407—928. Baily v. Gas-Fuel Co., 193 Pa. St. 175, 44 Atl. 251—2734. « Baily v. Philadelphia, 184 Pa. St. 594, 39 Atl. 494, 39 L. R. A. 837, 63 Am, St. Rep. 812—2739. Baily v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 396, 84 Am. Dec. 385-2050, 2051. Bain v. Globe Ins. Co., 9 How. Pr. 448 —1955. Bain v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 105 N. C. 363, 11 S. E. 311, 8 L. R. A. 299, 18 Am. St. Rep. 912—1243. Bain v. Whitehaven, etc. Ry., 3 H. L. Cas. 1 (1850)— 856. Bainbridge v. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 462 (1889)— 1373, 1380. Baines v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 581, 27 Pac. 674, 30 Pac. 776, 29 Am. St. Rep. 158—395, 396, 402, 408, 417, 540, 559. Baines v. Coos Bay, etc. Co., 68 Pac. 397 (Or.)— 1505. Baines v. West Coast Lumber Co., 104 Cal. 1, 37 Pac. 767—404, 445. Baird v. Bank of Washington, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 411—1628, 1737. Baird v. Ross, 2 Macq. 61, 68 (1856) — 1710. Baird's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 725 (1870)— 536. Baker v. Atlas Bank, 50 Mass. 182 — 393, 483, 485, 487. Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 79, 110—487, 1392, 1396, 1418, 1921. Baker v. Beach, 85 Fed. 836—539. Baker v. Cotter, 45 Me. 236—1774, 1800. Baker v. Cummings, 169 U. S. 189, 18, Sup. Ct. 367, 42 L. Ed. 711—1862. Baker v. Drake, 53 N. Y. 211, 217, 13 Am. Rep. 507, 66 N. Y. 518, 23 Am. Rep. 80—913, 914, 919, 923, 925, 926, 927, 942, 981, 1256, 1262. Baker v. Emerson, 4 N. Y. App. Div> 348, 38 N. Y. Supp. 576—1639. Baker v. First Nat. Bank, 67 111. 297— 1222. Baker v. Fort Worth Board of Trade, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 560, 28 S. W. 403— 384. Baker v. Guarantee, etc. Co., 31 Atl. 174 (N. J.)— 160, 1973, 2024, 2404. Baker v. Harpster, 42 Kan. 511, 2? Pac. 415—1581, 1734, 2534. Baker v. Kansas Oity, etc. R. R., 91 Mo. 152, 3 S. W. 486—1798. Baker v. Marshall, 15 Minn. 177 (Gil. 136)— 865. Baker v. Meloy, 51 Atl. 893 (Md.)— 2058. Baker v. Neff, 73 Ind. 68—1420. Baker v. Old National Bank, 86 Fed. 1006, 101 Fed. 391—534, 535, 548. Baker v. Old Nat. Bank, 91 Fed. 449, 33 C. C. A. 570—535. Baker v. Reeves, 85 Fed. 837—578. Baker v. Selma, etc. Ry.. 33 South. 685 (Ala.)— 2692. Baker v. Tynte, 2 El. & E. 897 (1860) —996. Baker v. Wasson. 53 Tex. 150—827, 1247. Baker v. Wasson, 59 Tex. 140, 53 Tex. 150—619, 827. Baker v. Woolston, 27 Kan. 185, 189 — 1844. Baker-Ricketson Co., In re, 97 Fed. 489—1631. Baker's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 510, 1 Atl. 78, 56 Am. Rep. 231—1349. Baker's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 461, 42 Leg. Int. 226—1303, 1552. Baker's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 115 (1871)— 205, 543. Bakersfield, etc. Assoc, v. Chester, 55 Cal. 98—1420. Bakewell v. Board of Education, 33: N. E. 186 (111.)— 1436. Balch V. Hallet, 76 Mass. 402—1193, 1194. Balch V. New York, etc. R. R., 46 N. Y. 521—430. Bald Eagle Valley R. R. v. Nittany Valley R. R., 171 Pa. St. 284, 33 Atl. 239, 29 L. R. A. 423, 50 Am. St. Rep. 807—2534, 2597. TABLE or CASiCS. XXXV tThe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Baldwin v. Bank, etc., 1 Wall. 234, 17 L. Ed. 534—1812. Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 43, 54, 56, 1 N. W. 261—686, 849, 937, 1748, 1882, 1934. Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 86 Fed. 167—2650. Baldwin v. Commonwealth, 11 Bush (Ky.), 417—753. Baldwin v. Johnson, 65 S. W. 171 (Tex.)— 1438. Baldwin v. Lawrence, 2 Sim. & S. 18 (1824)— 1875. Baldwin v. Ministerial Fund, 37 Me. 369—68. Baldwin v. Payne, 6 How. 332, 12 L. Ed. 447—1^5. Baldwin, etc. Co. v. Davis. 15 Colo. App. 371. 62 Pac. 1041—1942. Bale V. Cleland, 4 F. & F. 117 (1864)- 330. Balestier v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 43 Hun, 564—2403. Balfour v. Baker City Gas Co., 27 Oreg. 300, 41 Pac. 164—349. Balfour v. Ernest, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 601 (1859)— 1971. Balfour v. Fresno, etc. Co., 123 Cal. 395, 55 Pac. 1062—1778. Balfour-Guthrie, etc. Co. V. Wood- worth, 124 Cal. 169, 56 Pac. 891— 1370, 1748, 2157, 2182. Balkis Consol. Co., In re, 58 L. T. Rep. 300 (1888)— 846. Balkis Consol. Co. v. Tomkinson (1893), A. C. 396—828. Ball V. Anderson, 196 Pa. St. 86, 46 Atl. 366—439, 479. Ball V. Gilbert, 53 Mass. 397—769. Ball V. Maysville, etc. R. R., 43 S. W. 731, 80 Am. St. Rep. 362 (Ky.)— 2321, 2322. Ball V. Reese, 58 Kan. 614, 50 Pac. 875, 62 Am. St. Rep. 638—473. Ball V. Rutland R. R., 93 Fed. 513— 595, 1907, 2615. Ball V. Tolman, 119 Cal. 358, 51 Pac. 546—431. Ball V. Towle Mfg. Co., 65 N. B. 1015 (Ohio)— 996, 1004. Ball V. Warrington, 108 Fed. 472, 47 C. C. A. 447—472. Ballard v. Beveridge, 171 N. Y. 194, 63 N. B. 960—711. 1252. Ballard v. Carmichael, 83 Tex. 355, 18 S. W. 734—1821. Ballard v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 5 S.. W. 484 (Ky.)— 2636. Ball Blect. Light Co. v. Child, 68 Conn. 522, 37 Atl. 391—479, 532. Balliet v. Brown, 103 Pa. St. 546— 1551, 1889. Ballin v. Ferst, 55 Ga. 546—1103. C Ballin V. Loeb. 78 Wis. 404, 47 N. W. 516, 10 L. R. A. 742—403. Ballin v. Merchants' Exch. Bank, 89 Wis. 278, 61 N. W. 1118, 27 L. R. A. 357, 46 Am. St. Rep. 834—1644. Ballou V. Farnum, 91 Mass. 47—2191. Ballou V. March, 133 Pa. St. 64, 19 Atl. 304—2496. Ballou V. Willey, 62 N. B. 1064 (Mass.) —774. Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 18 Wis. 490—405. Balsh V. Hyham, 2 P. Wms. 453 (1728) —531. Baltimore v. Baltimore Trust, etc. Co., 166 U. S. 673, 17 Sup. Ct. 696, 41 L. Ed. 1160—2170, 2668, 2703. Baltimore v. Connellsville, etc. Ry., 6 Phila. 190—1402. Baltimore v. Ketchum, 57 Md. 23 — 836, 837. Baltimore v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 1 Abb. (U. S.) 9, Fed. Cas. No. 827— 1432. Baltimore, etc. Assoc, v. Alderson, 90 Fed. 142, 32 C. C. A. 542—2235, 2240, 2393, 2465. Baltimore, etc. Assoc, v. Alderson, 99 Fed. 489, 39 C. C. A. 609—2369, 2484. Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Interstate Co., 54 Fed. 50, 4 C. C. A. 184—1180, 1574. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Burris, 111 Fed. 882, 50 C. C. A. 48—2455. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Cannon, 72 Md. 493, 20 Atl. 123—1554. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Cary, 28 Ohio St. 208—1675. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Compton, 2 Gill (Md.), 20—2626. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 330, 2 Sup. Ct. 719, 27 L. Bd. 739—2, 70, 75. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Fifth Bapt. Church, 137 U. S. 568. 11 Sup. Ct. 185, 34 L. Bd, 784—66, 1943. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Ford, 35 Fed. 170—2653. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Glenn. 28 Md. 287, 92 Am. Dec. 688—388. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Kensington Land Co., 175 Pa. St. 95, 34 Atl. 345 —226. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Marshall Co.,. 3 W. Va. 319—1425, 1431. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Noell, 32 Graft. (Va.) 394—2653. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Pumphrey, 74 Md. 86. 21 Atl. 559—232. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 54 Ohio St. 562, 44 N. E. 240—488. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Wabash R. R., 119 Fed. 678—2226. XXXVl TABLE OF CASES, [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Wheeling, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 40—1939. Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Wightman, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 431, 26 Am. Rep. 384— 2653, 2654. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Board of Com'rs, 156 Ind. 260, 58 N. B. 837. 59 N. B. 856—2633. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341, 26 Atl. 279—195, 380, 381, 621, 627, 1151, 1311. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. North, 103 Ind. 486, 3 N. B. 144—2623. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Ocean City, 89 Md. 89, 42 Atl. 922—1238. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 238, 257, 6 Am. Rep. 402—196, 197, 847, 1250, 1259, 1263, 1264. Baltimore, etc. Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77—2640. Baltimore, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Barnes, 6 H. S J. (Md.) 57—386. Baltimore, etc. Turnpike v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 81 Md. 247, 31 Atl. 854— 2696. Baltimore, etc. Turnp. Rd. v. Boone, 45 Md. 344—77. Baltimore, etc. T. Road v. Green, 86 Md. 161, 37 Atl. 642—74. Baltimore, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Union R. R., 35 Md. 224, 6 Am. Rep. 397— 2634, 2635. Baltimore Marine Bank v. Biays, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 338—67, 1153. Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. v. Mali, 65 Md. 93, 3 Atl. 286, 57 Am. Rep. 304— 663. Baltimore Trust, etc. Co. v. Baltimore, 166 U. S. 673, 17 Sup. Ct. 696. 41 L. Ed. 1160—2668, 2669, 2670. Baltimore Trust, etc. Co. v. Baltimore, 64 Fed. 153—2170, 2662, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2703. Baltimore T. & G. Co. v. Hofstetter, 85 Fed. 75, 29 C. C. A. 35—2292, 2336. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. Gallahue, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 655, 658, 65 Am. Dec. 254—1939, 2653. Baltimore & O. Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 24 Fed. 319—2809. Baltzen v. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467— 762. Bancroft v. Wilmington, etc., 5 Houst. (Del.) 577—1802. Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 504— 215, 271, 277, 1029. Bang V. Brett, 62 Minn. 4, 63 N. W. 1067—1840. Bangor, etc. Co. v. Robinson, 52 Fed. 520—821, 861. Bangor, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 47 Me. 34—9, 1041, 1757. Bangor, etc. Ry. v. American, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 40 (Pa.)— 1767, 1836. Bangor, etc. Slate Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eq. 59 (1875)— 610. Bangs V. Mcintosh, 23 Barb. 591— 1948. Bangs V. National Macaroni Co., 15 N. Y. App. 522, 44 N. Y. Supp. 546— 1650. Banigan v. Bard, 134 U. S. 291, 10 Sup. Ct. 565, 33 L. Bd. 932—584, 586, 630. Banigan v. United States, etc. Co., 22 R. I. 452, 45 Atl. 739—18, 1503. Bank v. Bonnie, 43 S. W. 407 (Ky.) — 1123, 1125. Bank v. Byers, 139 Mo. 627, 41 S. W. 325—783, 2001, 2163. Bank v. Cresson, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 306—1739, 1825. Bank v. Flour Co., 41 Ohio St. 552— 1645, 1746. Bank v. Griffin, 168 111. 314, 48 N. E. 154—1766. Bank V. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19, 21 L. Ed. 554—1390. Bank V. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369, 20 L. Ed. 172—678, 825, 1134. Bank v. McLeod, 38 Ohio St. 174 — 2309, 2399. Bank Commissioners v. Bank of Brest, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 106—1724, 1732. Bank Corn'rs v. Granite, etc. Assoc, 49 Atl. 124 (N. H.)7 85 Am. St. Rep. 646—2392. Bank Com'rs v. New Hampshire, etc. Co., 69 N. H. 621, 44 Atl. 130—990, 1443, 2100, 2167, 2286. Bank Com'rs v. Security, etc. Co,, 70 N. H. 536. 49 Atl. 113—966. Bankers,' etc. Tel. Co. v. Bankers,' etc. Tel. Co., 27 Fed. 536—2345. Bank, etc. v. Faber, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 159, 56 N. Y. Supp. 542—1378. Bank, etc. v. Guttschlick, 14 Pet. 19, 10 L. Ed. 335—1802. Bankhead v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540 — 2627. Banking, etc. Co. v. Rood, 132 Mo. ^256, 33 S. W. 816—40. Bank of Africa v. Salisbury, etc. Co., L. R. 17 App. Cas. 281—983. Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 Bush (Ky.), 54—847, 1120, 1130, 1132, 1247, 1248. Bank of Atchison County v. Durfee, 118 Mo. 431, 24 S. W. 133, 40 Am. St. Rep. 396—1117, 1120. Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers,' etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501—1114, 1116, 1117, 1355. Bank of Attica v. Pottier, etc. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 483—1784. Bank of Auburn v. Weed, 19 Johns. 300—1942. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 588, 10 L. Bd. 274—510, 1672, 1951. TABLE OF OASiiSS. XXXVll ?rhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bank of Australasia v. Breillat. 6 Moore, P. C. 152 (1847)— 1969. Bank of Australasia v. Nias, 16 Q. B. 717, 20 L. J. (Q. B.) 284 (1851) — 472. Bank of Batavia v. New York, etc. R. R.. 106 N. Y. 195, 12 N. E. 648, 60 Am. Rep. 429—883. Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383, 20 L. Ed. 840—1390. Bank of Bramwell v. Mercer County Court, 36 W. Va. 341, 15 S. E. 78— 1221. Bank of British Columbia v. Page, 6 Or. 431—1677. Bank of British N. A. v. Barling, 44 Fed. 641—1965. Bank of British N. A. v. Hooper, 71 Mass. 567, 66 Am. Dec. 390—1812. Bank of British N. A. v. Madison, 99 Cal. 125. 33 Pac. 762—1680. Bank of California v. Collins, 7 Hun, 336—505. Bank of California v. Puget Sound, etc. Co., 20 Wash. 636, 56 Pac. 395— 1643, 2497. Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 26 N. Y. 467—1034. Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 8 Barb. 233—1673, 1980. Bank of Chillicothe v. Swayne, 8 Ohio, 257, 32 Am. Dec. 707—1630. Bank of China v. Morse. 168 N. Y. 458, 61 N. E. 774, 56 L. R. A. 139, 85 Am. St. Rep. 676—277, 278, 280, 282, 374, 390, 394, 419, 474, 521, 700, 1559, 1560, 1852, 2529. Bank of China v. Morse, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 435, 445, 61 N. Y. Supp. 268— 277, 389, 700. Bank of Circleville v. Renick, 15 Ohio, 322—1425. Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299, 306, 3 L. Ed. 351- -1764, 1798, 1801, 1802. Bank of Commerce v. Bank of New- port, 63 Fed. 898, 11 C. C. A. 484— 852, 1124. Bank of Commerce v. Central, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 878, 53 C. C. A. 334—2464. Bank of Commerce v. Hart, 37 Neb. 197, 55 N. W. 631, 20 L. R. A. 780, 40 Am. St. Rep. 479—685, 1788. Bank of Commerce v. New York, 2 Black, 620, 17 L. Ed. 451—1219, 1220. Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134, 16 Sup. Ct. 456, 40 L. Ed. 645—1218. Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 163 U. S. 416, 16 Sup. Ct. 1113, 41 L. Ed. 211—1219. Bank of Commerce's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 59—888, 1144. Bank of Dansvllle, In re, 6 Hill, 370— 1081. Bank of Edwardsville v. Simpson. 1 Mo. 184—1951. Bank of England v. Lunn, 15 Ves. Jr. 568, 569 (1809)— 732, 992. Bank of England v. Moffat, 3 Bro. Ch. 260 (1791)— 732. Bank of England v. tarsons, 5 Ves. Jr. 665 (1800)— 732. Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden, 129 U. S. 372, 9 Sup. Ct. 332, 32 L. Ed, 725—136. Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank, 13 N. Y. 309—1812, 2071. Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank, 19 N. Y. 312—1787, 1812, 2072. Bank of Georgia v. Savannah, Dudley (Ga.), 130—1207. Bank of Hindustan, In re, L. R. 16 Eq, 417 (1873)— 1926. Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 5f( Miss. 421, 435, 38 Am. Rep. 330— 1115, 1117, 1119. - Bank of Ireland v. Evans Charities, 5 H. L. Cas. 389 (1855)— 838, 839, 1247. Bank of Jamaica v. Jefferson, 92 Tenn. 537, 22 S. W. 211, 36 Am. St. Rep. 100—1943. Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Pars. Sel. Cas. 180, 216—639. Bank of Kentucky v. Winn, 61 S. W. 32 (Ky.)— 717. J3ank of Leavenworth v. Hunt, 11 Wall. 391, 20 L. Ed. 190—2153. Bank of Little Rock v. McCarthy, 55 Ark. 473, 18 S. W. 759, 29 Am. St. Rep. 60—1743. Bank of Louisville v. Gray, 84 Ky. 565, 2 S. W. 168—705, 796, 1154. Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398—1673. Bank of Lyons v. Demmon, Hill & D. Supp. (N. Y.) 398—350, 764, 1789. Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 11 Vt. 302—8. Bank of Marietta v. Pindall, 2 Rand. (Va.) 465, 473—1951. Bank of Metropolis v. Guttschlick, 14 Pet. 19, 10 L. Ed. 335—1798. Bank of Metropolis v. Jones, 8 Pet. 12, 8 L. Ed. 850—1769, 1789. Bank of Metropolis v. Orme, 3 Gill (Md.), 443—66. Bank of Michigan v. Gray, 1 U. C. Q. B. (Can.) 422 (1841)— 39, 580. Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 401, 41 Am. Dec. 575—1628. Bank of Michigan v. Niles, Walk. (Mich.) 99—1661. Bank of Michigan v. Williams, 5 Wend. 478, 482—1942, 1951. XXXVlll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bank of Mlddlebury v. Bdgerton, 30 Vt. 182—2572, 2628. Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 30 Vt. 159—1749, 1805. Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 56 Miss. 166—1433. Bank of Monroe v. Gifford, 72 Iowa, 750, 32 N. W. 669—1725. Bank of Montgomery v. Reese, 26 Pa. St. 143—620, 1262, 1264. Bank of Montreal v. Bathune, 4 Up. Can. tQ. B.) (O. S.) 341 (1832) — 515. Bank of Montreal v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Iowa, 518, 520—2466, 2467. Bank of Montreal v. Potts, etc. Co., 90 Mich. 345, 51 N. W. 512—1636, 1654. Bank of Montreal v. Sweeny, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 617 (1887)— 721. Bank of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 Fed. 622, 2 McCrary, 1—2467. ' Bank of National City v. Johnston, 133 Cal. 185, 65 Pac. 383—275, 287, 413, 1287, 1745,- 2431. Bank of National City v. Johnston, 60 Pac. 776 (Cal.)— 1745. Bank of New South Wales v. Goul- burn, etc. Co., 87 L. T. Rep. 88 (1902)— 1543. Bank of N. Y. etc. Assoc, v. American Dock, etc. Co., 143 N. Y. 559, 38 N. B. 713—641. Bank of North America v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 82 111. 493—69. Bank of North America v. Rindge, 57 Fed. 279—450, 483. Bank of North America v. Rindge, 154 Mass. 203, 27 N. E. 1015, 13 L. R. A. 56, 26 Am. St. Rep. 240—465. Bank of Old Dominion v. McVeigh, 20 Graft. 457—1036. Bank of Oldtown v. Houlton, 21 Me. 501—40, 1830. Bank of Orleans v. Torrey, 7 Hill, 260 —1494. Bank of Pennsylvania v. Common- wealth, 19 Pa. St. 144—1025. Bank of Pennsylvania v. Gries, 35 Pa.. St. 423—430. Bank of Pennsylvania v. Reed, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 101—1789. Bank of Pittsburgh v. Whitehead, 10 Watts (Pa,), 397, 36 Am. Dec. 186— 1839. Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 5 Hill, 461—476. Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473, 479—397, 426, 448, 450, 451, 454, 487. Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U. S. 60, 8 Sup. Ct. .772, 31 L. Ed. 688—1226. Bank of Republic v. Hamilton County, 21 111. 54—1210, 1235. Bank of Rome v. Rome. 18 N. Y. 38, - 19 N. Y. 20, 75 Am. Dec. 272—247, 259, 265. Bank of St. Mary's v. Mumford, 6 Ga. 44-1835. Bank of St. Mary's v. St. John, 25 Ala. 566—347, 1177, 1737, 1740. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Pacific, etc. Co., 103 Cal. 594, 37 Pac. 499— 482. Bank of San Luis Obispo, etc. v. Wick- ersham, 99 Cal. 655, 34 Pac. 444— 670, 679. Bank of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604, 34 Pac. 337—1418. Bank of Sing Sing, In re, 32 Hun, 462—483. Bank of Sing Sing v. Baker, 96 N. Y. 672—483. Bank of South Australia v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. App. 265—271, 277, 2094. Bank of South Carolina v. Humphreys, 1 McCord (S. C), 388—1845. Bank of State v. Bank of Cape Fear, 13 Ired. L. (N. C.) 75—2604. Bank of State v. Harrison, 66 Ga. 696 —865. Bank of Statesville v. Statesville, 84 N. C. 169—263. Bank of Switzerland v. Bank of Tur- key, 5 L. T. (N. S.) 549 (1862) — 1386. Bank of Syria, In re, [1900] 2 Ch. 272, [1901] 1 Ch. 115—1755. Bank of Toledo v. International Bank, 21 N. Y. 542—1425. Bank of Topeka v. Baton, 100 Fed. 8 — 1087. Bank of Toronto v. Coboiirg, etc. Ry., 10 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 376 (1885) — 1496, 2005, 2029. Bank of U. S. v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. St. 400—1425. Bank of U. S. v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574—387, 395, 401, 454. Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, 6 L. Bd. 552—1801, 1822. Bank of U. S. v. Davis. 2 Hill, 451, 464—1840. Bank of TJ. S. v. Deveaux. 5 Cranch, 61, 88, 3 L. Ed. 38—3, 68. Bank of U. S. v. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51, S L. Ed. 316—1769, 1789. Bank of U. S. v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 7 L. Ed. 508—1630, 1673. Bank of U. S. v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. Ed. 244—266, 1957. Bank of Upper Canada v. Baldwin, In re, 1 Draper (K. B. Can.), 55—1093. Bank of Utica v. Hillard, 6 Cow. 62 — 1103. TABLE OF OASES. XXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770, 14 Am. Dec. 526—40, 66, 849, 1115, 1118, 1125, 1131, 1144, 1942. Bank of Vergennes v. Warren, 7 Hill, 91—1807. Bank of Virginia v. Adams, 1 Pars. Sel. Cas. 534—395, 398. Bank of Virginia v. Craig, 6 Leigh (Va.), 399, 432, 435—726, 832. Bank of Watertown v. Watertown, 25 Wend. 686—1081. Bank of Waterville v. Beltser, 13 How. Pr. 270—1942. Bank of West Superior, In re, 109 Wis. 672, 85 N. W. 501—1758. Bank of Wilmington v. Wollaston, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90—19. Bank of Wooster v. Stevens, 1 Ohio St. 233, 59 Am. Dec. 619—416. Bank of Yolo v. Weaver, 31 Pac. 160 (Cal.)— 488, 1759. Banks v. Gay Mfg. Co., 108 N. C. 282, 12 S. B. 741—1956. Banks v. Judah. 8 Conn. 145 — 1559, 1864. Banks v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.) 136, 146, 15 Am. Dec. 706— '1662, 1801. Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. 200, 17 L. Ed. 793—1220. Bannatyne v. Direct, etc. Co., L. R. 34 Ch. D. 287 (1886)— 611, 637. Banner v. Lowe, 13 Ves. Jr. 135 (1806)— 1198. Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown, 34 Fed. 162, 196, 198—320, 327, 1481, 1996, 1998. Baptist Church, In re, 1 Haz. Pa. Reg. 75, 3 Haz. Pa. Reg. 225—61. Baptist Church v. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 18 Barb. 69—1830. Baptist Meeting-House v. Webb, 66 Me. 398—1394, 1424, 1760. Barbar v. Martin, 93 N. W. 722 (Neb.) —708, 711, 797. Barber v. Andover, 8 N. H. 398— 2634. Barber v. International Co., 73 Conn. 587, 48 Atl. 758 (Conn.)— 1389, 1580, 1945, 2372, 2387. Barber v. International Co., 74 Conn. 652, 51 Atl. 857—2484, 2486, 2488. Barber, etc. Co. v. New Orleans, 41 La. Ann. 1015, 6 South. 794—1239. Barber, etc. Co. v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 49 La. Ann. 1608, 22 South. 955—2720. Barber's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 963 (1877)— 1375. Barbour v. National Exch. Bank, 50 Ohio St. 90, 33 N. E. 542, 20 L. R. A. 192—2408. Barcello v. Hapgood, 118 N. C. 712, 24 S. E. 124—1666, 1669. Barclay v. Culver, 30 Hun, 1 — 954. Barclay v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 9 Atb. Pr. (N. S.) 283—1550. Barclay v. Talman, 4 Edw. Ch. 123— 395, 1394. Barclay v. Wainewright, 14 Ves. Jr. 66 (1807)- 1195, 1196. Barclay's Case, 26 Beav. 177 (1858) — 1076. Barcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. 783—106, 112, 329, 817, 1903, 1907. Bard v. Banigan, 39 Fed. 13—584, 586, 630, 1512. Bard v. Poole, 12 N. Y. 495—513, 1673. Bard v. Chamberlain, 3 Sandf. Ch. 31 (1845)— 1629. Bardstown, etc. Co. v. Rodman, 13 S. W. 917 (Ky.)— 1030. Bardstown, etc. R. R. v. Metcalfe, 4 Met. (Ky.) 199, 81 Am. Dec. 541— 2107, 2111, 2145, 2190. Bardwell v. Sheffield Waterworks Co., L. R. 14 Eq. 517 (1872)— 608. Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 H. L. Cas. 297 (1855)— 563, 1357, 1821. Barge's Case, L. R. 5 Eg. Cas. 420 (1868)— 272. Barhite v. Home, etc. Co., 50 N. Y. App. Div. 25. 63 N. Y. Supp. 659— 2755. Baring v. Dix, 1 Cox Ch. 213 (1786) — 1069, 1090. Baring-Gould v. Sharpington, etc. Syn- dicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 80—1564, 2584. Barkalow v. Totten, 53 N. J. Eq. 573, 32 Atl. 2—414. Barker, In re, 6 Wend. 509—1305, 1314, 1316. Barker v. Boston, etc. Co., 178 Mass. 503, 60 N. B. 2—2832. Barker v. Hartman Steel Co., 129 Pa. St. 551, 18 Atl. 553—2679. Barker v. Lamb, 68 N. W. 686, 34 L. R. A. 704 (Iowa)— 2398. Barker v. Lyndon, 2 Car. & K. 651 (1847)— 1700. Barker v. Mechanics,' etc. Co., 3 Wend. 94, 20 Am. Dec. 664—1818, 1977. Barker v. Stead, 3 C. B. 946 (1847) — 1700. Barker v. Troy, etc. R. R., 27 Vt. 766— 2040. Barksdale v. Finney, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 338, 357—43, 45. Barling v. Bank of British North America, 50 Fed. 260, 1 C. C. A. 510 —427, 1677. Barlow v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 29 Iowa, 276—2637. Barnard, In re, 61 Fed. 531—2418. Barnard v. Backhaus, 52 Wis. 593, 6 N. W. 252, 9 N. W. 595—769, 776, 777, 778, 780, 781. Barnard v. Hawks. Ill N. C. 333, 16 S. E. 329—710, 936. xl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Barnard v. Insurance Co., 4 Mackey, 63—992. Barnard v. Norwich, etc. R. R., 2 Fed. Cas. 840—2327. Barnard v. Vermont, etc., 89 Mass. 512 —605, 607, 608, 1158, 1159. Barndollar v. Du Bois, 142 Pa. St. 565. 21 Atl. 988—1089. Barndt v. Frederick, 78 Wis. 1, 47 N. W. 6, 11 L. R. A. 199—805. Barned v. Hamilton, 2 Ry. & Canal Cas. 624 (1841)— 750, 1256, 1260. Barned's Bkg. Co., In re, L. R. 2 Cli. App. 350 (1867)— nil. Barned's Banking Co., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 10§ (1867)— 686, 847. Barnes v. Arnold, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 314, 61 N. Y. Supp. 85—1037. Barnes v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354, 47 S. W. 498—1825. Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 527, 534— 93, 109, 1297, 1344, 1460. Barnes v. Brown, 130 N. Y. 372. 29 N. B. 760—749, 752, 1258, 1261. Barnes v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 122 U. S. 1, 7 Sup. Ct. 1043, 30 L. Ed. 1128— 2273, 2501. Barnes v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 8 Biss. 514, 2 Fed. Cas. 862—2257, 2273, 2501. Barnes v. Hall, 55 Vt. 420—992, 1212. Barnes v. Kornegay, 62 Fed. 671 — 1204, 1868, 1908. Barnes v. Lacon, 84 111. 461—242. Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okl. 156, 59 Pao. 995—1488. Barnes v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 12 Hun, 126—1955, 1997. Barnes v. Morgan, 3 Hun, 703 — 996. Barnes v. Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152 —1787, 1820, 1969, 1976, 1979. Barnes v. Seligman, 55 Hun, 339, 8 N. Y. S. 834—752. Barnes v. Smith, 159 Mass. 344, 34 N. B. 403—771. Barnes v. Suddard, 117 111. 237, 7 N. B. 477—1663, 1668. Barnes v. Trenton, etc. Co., 27 N. J. Bq. 33—1837. Barnes v. Wheaton, 80 Hun, 8, 29 N. Y. Supp. 830—465. Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555, 25 L. Ed. 212—1630. Barnett v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 4 Hun, 114—1952, 1954, 1955. Barnett v. Kinney, 147 U. S. 476 13 Sup. Ct. 403, 37 L. Bd. 247—2425. Barnett v. Lambert, 15 M. & W. 489 (1846)— 1700. Barnett v. South London, etc. Ry. L R. 18 Q. B. D. 815 (1887)— 1829. Barnett's Case, L. R. 18 Eq. 507 — 132 344. Barnett's Case, L. R. 19 Bq. 449 (1875) —382, 383. Barney v. Joshua Stubbs (1891), 1 Ch, 187, 64 L. T. 306—2493. Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 24 L. Bd. 224—2686. Barney v. Pforr, 117 Cal. 56, 48 Pac. 987—1810. Barney v. State, 42 Md. 480—1213. Earnhardt v. Star Mills. 123 N. C. 428, 31 S. B. 719—1792. Barnstead v. Empire Min. Co., 5 Cal. 299—37. Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393, IS Sup. Ct. 638, 37 L. Ed. 495—246. Barr v. King, 96 Pa. St. 485—1953. Barr v. New York, etc. R. R., 96 N. Y. 444—1524. Barr v. New York, etc. R. R., 125 N. Y. 263, 26 N. B. 145—108, 127, 1461, 1513, 1849, 1850, 1914, 2007, 2081. Barr v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 40 Fed. 412—1910. Barr v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 33—1518, 1526, 1849. Barr v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 57 Fed. 86, 6 C. C. A. 260—1484, 1518, 2480. Barr-Dinwiddie, etc. Co., In re, 42 Atl. 575 (N. J.)— 70, 429. Barrel! v. Lake, etc. Co., 122 Cal. 129, 54 Pac. 594—1748. Barre Nat. Bank v. Hingham Mfg. Co., 127 Mass. 563—394, 408, 533, 534. Barret, In re. t C. B. (N. S.) 423 (1857)— 2622. Barrett v. American, etc. Co., 56 Hun, 430, 10 N. Y. S. 138—1956. Barrett v. Bloomfield Sav. Inst. 54 Atl. 543 (N. J.)— 1386, 2791.. Barrett v. Blunt, 2 Car. & K. 271 (1846) —1700. Barrett v. Hyde, 73 Mass. 160—772. Barrett v. King, 63 N. B» 934 (Mass.) 21, 1357. Barrett v. Mead, 92 Mass. 337 — 772. Barrett v. Pollak Co., 108 Ala. 390, 18 South. 615, 54 Am. St. Rep. 172— 2140. Barrett v. Twin City, etc. Co., 118 Fed. 861—2039. Barrett's Case, 4 De G., J. & S. 416 (1864)— 540, 549. Barrick v. Austin, 21 Barb. 241 — 1789. Barrick v. Gilford, 47 Ohio St. 180, 24 N. B. 259, 21 Am. St. Rep. 798—448, 483, 487. 568. Barril v. Calendar, etc. Co., 50 Hun, 257, 2 N. Y. S. 758—1501, 1502. Barrington v. Mississippi Cent. R. R. 32 Miss. 370—354. Barrington v. Washington Bank, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 405—1738. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 8 L Bd. 672—2632. Barron v. Burnside, 121 XJ. S 186 7 Sup. Ct. 931, 30 L. Ed. 915—1675.' TABLE OF CASES. xli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Barron v. Burrlll, 86 Me. 66, 72, 29 Atl. 939—115, 178, 379, 551, 559. Barron v. Paine, 83 Me. 312, 22 Atl. 218—417, 434, 572. Barrow v. Nashville, etc. Co., 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 304—1662. Barrow v. Smith, 109 Ga. 767, 35 S. B. 108—351, 2039. Barrowcliffe v. Cummins, 66 Hun, 1, 20 N. Y. Supp. 787—708, 1251. Barrow, etc. Co., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 846—612. Barrow, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 582 (1888)— 590, 611. Barrow, etc. Co., In re, 85 L. T. Rep. 493 (1901)— 611, 637. Barrows v. Natchaug, etc. Co., 72 Conn. 658, 45 Atl. 951—632. Barrow's Case, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 432— 167. Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane. 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. 526, 42 L. Ed. 964— 1962. Barry v. Calder, 111 N. Y. 684, 19 N. B. 285—922, 957, 1248. Barry v. Calder, 48 Hun, 449, 1 N. Y. Supp. 586—922, 957, 1248. Barry v. Croskey, 2 J. & H. 1 (1861) — 311, 772, 1341. Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280, 305—30, 32, 1158, 1162, 1627, 1660, 1663, 1665, 1801, 1969, 1971, 1976, 2186. Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 631—2200. Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 1, 5 —2067, 2068, 2069, 2201. Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 34 Fed. 829—2069. Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 36 Fed. 228 —2069. Barstow v. Pine Bluff, etc. Ry., 57 Ark. 334, 21 S. W. 652—2049. Barstow v. Savage Mln. Co., 64 Cal. 388, 1 Pac. 348, 49 Am. Rep. 705— 820, 883. Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9. 6 Am. Rep. 434—2190. Barth v. Backus, 140 N. Y. 230, 35 N. E. 425, 23 L. R. A. 47, 37 Am. St. Rep. 545—68, 2425. Barth v. Koetting, 99 "Wis. 242, 75 N. W. 395—1624. Barthel v. Header, 72 Iowa, 125, 33 N. "W. 446—254. Barthell v. Hencke, 99 Wis. 660, 75 N. W. 952—994. Bartholomew v. Austin, 85 Fed. 359, 29 C. C. A. 568—2765. Bartholomew v. Bentley, 1 Ohio St. 37 —1372, 1373. Bartholomew v. Bentley, 15 Ohio, 659, 45 Am. Dec. 596—166, 1180. Bartholomew v. Derby R. Co., 69 Conn. 521, 38 Atl. 45, 61 Am. St. Rep. 57— 1555. Bartholomew Brewing Co. v. Wyatt (1893), 2 Q. B. 499—1245. Bartholomew County v. Bright, 18 Ind. 93—245. Bartlett v. Cicero, etc. Co., 177 111. 68, 52 N. B. 339, 42 L. R. A. 715, 69 Am. St. Rep. 206—2455. Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y. 587—407, 1177, 1180, 1182. Bartlett v. Gates, 118 Fed. 66—1292, 1330, 1335. Bartlett v. Keim, 50 N. J. L. 260, 13 Atl. 7—2424, 2452. Bartlett v. Kingsley, 15 Conn. 327— 1724. Bartlett v. Mystic River Corp., 151 Mass. 433, 24 N. E. 780—1502. Bartlett v. Norwich, etc. R. R., 33; Conn. 560 — 2594. Bartlett v. Pentland, 1 B. & Ad. 704 (1831)— 396. Bartlett v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 94 Ind. 281—2644. Bartlett v. Smith, 13 Fed. 263, 4 Mc- Crary, 388—770, 778. Bartlett v. West Metropolitan, etc. Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 286—2110, 2211, 2576, 2686. Bartley v. Bartley, 1 Drew, 233—1103. Bartley v. Hayden, 74 Fed. 913 — 444, 2400. Barto V. Nix, 15 Wash. 563, 46 Pac. 1033—201, 351, 672, 674. Barto V. Stewart, 21 Wash. 605, 59 Pac. 480—538. Bartol V. Walton, etc. Co., 92 Fed. 13— 319, 328, 339, 340. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 26 L. Ed. 672—2414. Barton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. Jr. 461 (1800) —653. Barton v. Enterprise, etc. Assoc, 114 Ind. 226, 16 N. E. 486, 5 Am. St. Rep. 60S— 1386. Barton v. International, etc. Alliance, 85 Md. 14, 36 Atl. 658—1387. Barton v. London, etc. Ry., L. R. 38 Ch. D. 144 (1888)— 837. Barton v. London, etc. Ry., 62 L. T. Rep. 164 (1889)— 730. Barton v. North Staffordshire Ry., L. R. 38 Ch. D. 458 (1888)— 725, 839. Barton v. Port Jackson, etc. Co., 17 Barb. 397—673, 679, 1628, 1846. Barton, etc. Bank v. Atkins, 72 Vt. 33, 47 Atl. 176—446, 453, 538, 548, 572, 1027, 2100. Barton's Case, 4 De G. & J. 46 (1859) —289. Barton's Est, 1 Pars. Sel. Cas. 24 — 715. xlii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the textj Barton's Trust, In re, L. R. 5 Bq. 238 (1868)— 1195. Barwick v. English Joint Stock. Bank, L. R. 2 Bxch. 259 (1867)~71, 72, 331. Bash V. Culver Gold Mln. Co., 7 Wash. 122, 34 Pac. 462—1711. Bashford, etc. Co. v. Agua, etc. Co., 35 Pac. 983 (Ariz.)— 507. Bason v. King's Mountain Min. Co., 90 N. C. 417—1806, 1811, 1821. Bass V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 42 Wis. 654, 24 Am. Rep. 437—78. Bass V. Roanoke, etc. Co., Ill N. C. 439, 16 S. E. 402, 19 L. R. A. 247— 2727. Bassett v. Atwater, 65 Conn. 355, 32 Atl. 937, 32 L. R. A. 575—1274. Bassett v. Fairchild, 132 Cal. 637, 64 Pac. 1082, 52 L. R. A. 611—1505, 1621, 1722, 1751, 1753. Bassett v. Fairchild, 61 Pac. 791 (Cal.) —1865. Bassett v. Monte Chrlsto, etc. Co., 15 Nev. 293—1487, 1740, 2138, 2160. Bassett v. St. Albans Hotel Co., 47 Vt. 313—425, 449. Bassford v. Blakesley, 6 Beav. 131 (1842)— 1107. Basshor v. Dressel, 34 Md. 503 — 1415. Basshor v. Forbes, 36 Md. 154 — 435. Basting v. Ankeny, 64 Minn. 133, 66 N. W. 266—411, 2385. Basting v. Northern Trust Co., 61 Minn. 307, 63- N. W. 721—557, 561, 995. Batard v. Hawes, 2 El. & B. 287 (1853) —1702. Batchelder v. Council, etc. Co., l31 N. Y. 42, 29 N. E. 801—2128. Batchelder v. Council Grove Water Co., 59 N. Y. Super. Ct. 262, 14 N. Y. Supp. 306—2215. Batchelder, etc. Co. v. Knopf, 54 N. Y. App. Div. 329, 66 N. Y. Supp. 513— 1952. Bateman v. Mid-Wales Ry., L. R. 1 C. P. 499 (1866)— 1978. Bateman v. Service, L. R. 6 App. Cas. 386 (1881)— 459, 460, 511. Bateman v. Western, etc. Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 90, 20 S. W. 931—1675. Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. R. R., 49 Me. 491—584, 603, 606. Bates V. Bank of State, 2 Ala. (N. S.) 451, 452—1625, 1760, 1802. Bates V. Coronado Beach Co., 109 Cal 160, 41 Pac. 855—1590. Bates V. Day, 198 Pa. St. 513, 48 Atl. 407, 82 Am. St. Rep. 811—466. Bates V. Great Western Tel. Co., 134 111. 536, 25 N. B. 531—35, 115. Bates V. Keith, etc. Co., 48 Mass. 224— 1790. Bates V. Lewis, 3 Ohio St. 459—308. Bates V. Mackinley, 31 Beav. 280 (1862) — 1195-, 1196. Bates V. Mackinley, 31 L. X (Ch.) 389 —1146. Bates V. New York Central R. R., 92 Mass. 251—1805. Bates V. New York Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 238—1114, 1122, 1133, 1156. Bates V. Wiles, 1 Handy (Ohio), 532— 1262. Bates V. Wilson, 14 Colo. 140, 24 Pac. 99—16, 500, 745, 1707. Bates County v. Winters, 97 U. S. 83, 24 L. Ed. 933—259, 263, 268. Bates-Farley, etc. Bank v. Dismukes, 107 Ga. 212, 33 S. E. 175—849. Bates Machine Co., In re, 91 Fed. 625 — 1631. Batesville, etc. Co. v. Myer, etc. Co., 68 Ark. 115, 56 S. W. 784—856, 1014. Bath v. Caton, 37 Mich. 199—1695. •Bath V. Miller, 51 Me. 341—2303. Bath V. Miller, 53 Me. 308— 2303, 2320. Bath Gaslight Co. v. Claffy, 151 N. Y. 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 45 N. E. 390, 36 L. R. A. 664—14, 1608, 1847, 2563, 2577, 2578, 2739. Bath Sav. Inst. v. Sagadahoc Nat. Bank, 89 Me. 500, 36 Atl. 996—945, 1441. Bath's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 334 (1878) —325, 352. Batsell V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 580, 23 S. W. 552—230. Battelle v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89, 33 N. W. 327—1485, 1716, 1849. Batterson v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 53 Mich. 125, 18 N. W. 584—1578. Battery, etc. Bank v. Western, etc. Bank, 126 N. C. 531, 36 S. E. 39— 2473. Battey v. Eureka Bank, 62 Kan. 384, 63 Pac. 437—679, 1115, 1626. Battle's Case, 39 L. J. (Ch.) 391 (1870) —579. Battle V. McArthur, 49 Fed. 715 — 2334. Baty V. Keswick, 85 L. T. Rep. 18 (1901)— 315. Bauer v. Piatt, 72 Hun, 326, 25 N. Y. Supp. 426—438, 455, 457. Bauernschmldt v. Bauernschmidt, 54 Atl. 637 (Md.)— 665. Bauernschmldt v. Maryland, etc. Co., 89 Md. 507. 43 Atl. 790-2162. Baughman v. National, etc. Co. 46 Fed. 4—1965. Baumgarten v. Nichols, 69 Hun, 216 23 N, Y. Supp. 592-1343, 1344, 1568, 1704. Bausman v. Credit Guarantee Co.. 47 Minn. 377, 50 N. W. 496—1602. TABLE OF CASES. xliii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bausman v. Denny, 73 Fed. 69 — 383, 414, 2400. Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. S. 113, 19 Sup. Ct. 316, 43 L. Ed. 633—2401. Bausman v. Kinnear, 79 Fed. 172, 24 C. C. A. 473—382, 414. Bavington v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 34 Pa. St. 358—231, 282, 312. Bawknight v. Liverpool, etc. Ins. Co., 55 Ga. 194—1953. Baxendale v. Eastern Counties Ry., 4 C. B. (N. S.) 63 (1858)— 2609. Baxendale v. London, etc. Ry., L. R. 1 Exch. 137 (1866)— 2609. Baxter v. Lowe, 93 Fed. 358, 35 C. C. A. 344—2482, Baxter v. Moses, 77 Me. 465, 1 Atl. 350, 52 Am. Rep. 783—395. Bayard v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232—717, 724, 732, 858. Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. Ch. 450— 993. Bay, etc. Assoc, v. Williams, 50 Cal. 353—1761. Bayles v. Kansas Pac. Ry., 13 Colo. 181, 22 Pac. 341, 5 L. R. A. 480—2606. Bayless v. Orne, Preem. Ch. (Miss.) 161—1730, 1921. Bayley v. Wilkins, 7 C. B.-886 (1849) — 910, 914, 928. Bayliffe v. Butterworth, 1 Exch. 425 (1847)— 928. Bayliffe v. Butterworth, 5- Rail w. Cas. 283 (1847)— 910, 913. Bayliss v. Lafayette, etc. R. R., 9 Bias. 90, 2 Pqd. Cas. 1080—2358, 2482. Bayliss v. Lafayette, etc. Ry., 8 Biss. 193, 2 Fed. Cas. 1079—1455, 2264. Bayliss v. Swift, 40 Iowa, 648—395, 445. Bayne v. Brewer Pottery Co., 82 Fed. 391—2392. Bayne v. Brewer Pottery Co., 90 Fed. 622^2291. Bayne v. Brewer Pottery Co., 90 Fed. 754—2153, 2407. Beach v. Cooper, 72 Cal. 99, 13 Pac. 161—1613, 1927. Beach v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cow. 485—75. Beach v. Fulton Bank, 3 Wend, 573 — 1625. Beach v. Miller, 130 111. 162, 22 N. E. 464, 17 Am. St. Rep. 291—1647, 1733. Beach v. Smith, 28 Barb. 254—355, 356. Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116—86, 355, 356. Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Iowa, 567, 76 N. W. 688, 78 N. W. 197—1972, 2146, 2273, 2333. Beadles v. McElrath, 85 Ky. 230, 3 S. W. 152—777. Beadleston v. Knapp, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 335—2181. Beal V. Chase, 31 Mich. 490—1535. Beal V. Dillon, 5 Kan. App. 27, 47 Pac. 317—339, 415. Beal V. Essex Sav. Bank, 67 Fed. 816, 15 C. C. A. 128—534. Beale v. Mouls, 5 Ry. & Can. Cas. 105 (1847)— 1699. Beale v. Railway, 1 Dill. 568, 2 Fed. Cas. 1110—78. Reals V. Buffalo, etc. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 589, 593, 63 N. Y. Supp. 635— 307, 378, 380, 561, 852. Seals V. Illinois, etc. R. R., 27 Fed. 721—2177, 2257,- 2262. Beals V. Illinois, etc. R. R., 133 U. S. 290, 10 Sup. Ct. 314, 33 L. Ed. 608— 2177. Bean v. American L. & T. Co., 122 N. Y. 622—817, 827, 831, 864, 1361, 2523. Bean v. Bean, 53 Atl. 807 (N. H.) — 665. Bean v. Bowen, 47 How. Pr. 306—1062. Bean v. Maine Water Co., 92 Me. 469, 43 Atl. 22—2759, S824. Beard v. Hopkinsville, 95 Ky. 239, 24 S. W. 872, 23 L. R. A. 402, 44 Am. St. Rep. 222—2764. Beard v. Milmine, 88 Fed. 868—641. Beard v. Union, etc. Pub. Co., 71 Ala. 60—1678. Bearden v. Jones, 48 S. W. 88 (Tenn.) —810. Beard's Estate, In re, 7 Wyo. 104, 50 Pac. 226, 38 L. R. A. 860, 75 Am. St. Rep. 882—539. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 IJ. S. 262, 11 Sup. Ct. 318, 34 L. Ed. 928—710, 739. Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201— 206. Beardsley v. Johnson, 121 N. Y. 224, 24 N. E. 380—418, 1277, 1286, 1291, 1376, 1737, 1938. Beardsley v. Johnson, 1 N. Y. Supp. 608—1277. Beardsley v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 162 N. Y. 230, 56 N. E. 488—2605. Beardsley v. Smith, 16 Conn. 368, 41 Am. Dec. 148—244. Bear Lake Irr. Co. v. Garland, 164 U. S. 1, 15, 17 Sup. Ct. 7, 41 L. Ed. 327— 2323. Bear River, etc. Co. v. Hanley, 15 Utah, 506, 50 Pac. 611—691, 959, 1565. Bear Valley, etc. Co. v. Savings, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 941—1559, 1855. Beaston v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Pet. 102, 135, 9 L. Ed. 1017—68. 1951. Beattie v. Carolina Cent. R. R., 108 N. C. 425, 12 S. B. 913—2637. Beattie v. Ebury, L. R. 7 Ch. 777 (1872), L. R. 7 H. L. 102, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 788, note— 1614, 1618. Beattie v. Ebury, L. R. 7 Ch. 801 (1872) —1975. xliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Seattle v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 131, 53 S. W. 685—515. Beatty v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Johns. 109, 3 Am. Dec. 401 — 1820. Beatty v. Northwest Transp. Co., 5 Can. L. T. 277 (1885), 4 Can. L. T. 85—1525. Beattys v. Town of Solon, 136 N. Y. 662, 32 N. B. 1062—355, 2062. Beattys v. Town of Solon, 64 Hun, 120, 19 N. Y. Supp. 37—355. Beattyville, etc. Co. v. Bamberger, etc. Co., 53 S. W. 31 (Ky.)— 1938. Beaty v. Johnston, 66 Ark. 529, 52 S. W. 129—747, 1257, 1556, 1704. Beaujolais Wine Co., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. 15 (1867)— 1392. Beaumont v. Meredith, 3 Ves. & B. 180 (1814)— 1071. Beavan v. Beavan, 53 L. T. Rep. 245 (1885)— 1198. Beaver County Vi Armstrong, 44 Pa. St. 63—2062, 2065. Becher v. Wells, etc. Co., 1 Fed. 276, 1 McCrary, 62—888, 939, 1622. Bechuanaland, etc. Co. v. London, etc. Bank (1898), 2 Q. B. 658—640, 2047. Beck V. Kantorowicz, 3 K. & J. 230 (1857)— 1475, 1479. Beck V. McGillis, 9 Barb. 35, 59—657. Becker v. Gulf City, etc. Co., 80 Tex. 475, 15 S. W. 1094—1908, 1925, 2572, 2701. Becker v. Hoke, 80 Fed. 973, 26 C. C. A. 282—2378. Becker v. Lebanon, etc. Ry., 188 Pa. St. 484, 41 Atl. 612—2799. Becker v. Oliver, 111 Fed. 672, 49 C. C. A. 533—950. Becket v. Uniontown, etc. Assoc, 83 Pa. St. 211—15, 501. Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind. 393—51, 1310. Beckford v. Wade, 17 Ves. Jr. 87 (1805) — 1S61. Beckhuson v. Hamblet (1900), 2 Q. B. 18 (1901), 2 K. B. 73—916. Beckitt V. Bilbrough, 8 Hare, 188 (1850)— 753, 757. 824. Beckwith v. Burrough, 13 R. I. 294 — 847, 947, 999. Beckwith v. Burrough, 14 R. I. 366, 51 Am. Rep. 392—998. Beckwith v. Hartford, etc. R. R., 29 Conn. 268, 76 Am. Dec. 599—2061. Beckwith v. Rochester Iron, etc. Co., 12 N. Y. Week. Dig. 528—1604. Beckwith v. Windsor, 14 Conn. 594 — 1806. Bedford v. American, etc. Co., 51 N. Y. App. Div. 537, 64 N. Y. Supp. 856—869, 1253. Bedford v. Bagshaw, 4 H. & N. 538 (1859)— 335, 801. Bedford v. Sherman, 68 Hun, 317, 22: N. Y. Supp. 892—431, 1843. Bedford County v. Nashville, etc. Ry.,. 14 Lea (Tenn.), 525—83, 196, 348,. 1150, 1154. Bedford, etc. Ry. v. Stanley, 2 J. & H, 746 (1862)— 1718. Bedford R. R. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29—231, 294, 343, 636, 1041, 1844. Bedford Springs Co. v. McMeen, 16L Pa. St. 639, 29 Atl. 99—1335. Beebe v. George H. Beebe Co., 64 N.. J. L. 497, 46 Atl. 168—1774. Beebe v. Richmond, etc. Co., 3 N. Y. App. Div. 334, 38 N. Y. Supp. 395— 83, 2140. Beebe v. Richmond Light, etc. Co., 6' N. Y. App. Div. 187, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1013—2239, 2240, 2244, 2271, 2295. Beecher v. Dacey, 45 Mich. 92, 7 N. W.- 689—2071. Beecher v. Marquette, etc. Co., 45 Mich.. 103, 7 N. W. 695—2138. Beecher v. Schieffelin, 4 N. Y. Civ.. Proc. 230—1914. Beethley v. Mulville, 102 Iowa, 602, 70- N. W. 107, 71 N. W. 428, 63 Am. St. Rep. 479—1046. Beekman v. Hudson, etc. Ry., 35 Fed.. 3—1419, 2134, 2199, 2221, 2240. Beekman v. Saratoga, etc. R. R., 3- Paige, 45, 73, 74, 22 Am. Dec. 679-^ 2625, 2639. Beekman v. Third Avenue R. R., 153 N. Y. 144, 158, 47 N. B. 277—2674,. 2690. Beekman v. Third Avenue R. R., 13 N. Y. App. Div. 279, 43 N. Y. Supp. 174, 153 N. Y. 144, 47 N. E. 277—2690. Beels V. N. Nebraska, etc. Assoc, 54 Neb. 226, 74 N. W. 581—2258. Beeman v. Ruftord, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 55a' (1851)— 1550. Beene v. Cahawba, etc. R. R., 3 Ala. 660' —66, 211, 215, 290. Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Co., 42 Conn. 17—1151, 1152, 1153, 1162,. 1174. Beers v. New York L. Ins. Co., 66 Hun, 75, 20 N. Y. Supp. 788—1502, 1508. Beers v. Phoenix, etc. Co., 14 Barb. 35$ —1733, 1739, 1969, 1980. Beers v. Waterbury, 8 Bosw. 396 — 44L Beeson v. Chicago, 75 Fed. 880 — 2697. Beeson v. Lang, 85 Pa. St. 197—1611, 2191. Behler v. German Mut. F. Ins. Co., 68 Ind. 347—1678. Bei.tman v. Steiner, 98 Ala. 241 13 South. 87—150, 1343. Belcher v. Willcox, 40 Ga. 391 — 477 480. Belcher, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 82 Mo. 121—2786. TABLE OF CASES. xlv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.]- Belcher, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc Co., 101 Mo. 192, 13 S. W. 822, 8 L. R. A. 801—1603. Belden v. Burke, 147 N. Y. 542, 551, 42 N. E. 261—1851, 1994, 2011, 2043, 2051, 2206, 2252, 2273. Belden v. Burke, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 3, 1890—1997, 2010. Belden v. Burke, 20 N. Y. Supp. 320 — 1889, 2011, 2205. Belden v. Burke, 72 Hun, 51, 74, 75, 25 N. Y. Supp. 601—1994, 2011, 2051. Belding v. Floyd, 17 Hun, 208—1617, 2746. Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Belfast, 77 Me. 445, 1 Atl. 362—582, 588, 591, 595, 596, 602, 604, 1166, 1167. Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Brooks, 60 Me. 568—257, 264, 363. Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Cottrell, 66 Me. 185—220, 358, 363. Belfast, etc. Ry. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561— 219, 229. Belhaven's Case, 3 De G. J. & S. 41 (1865)— '352. Belhaven's Case, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 572 (1865), 12 L. T. (N. S.) 595 (1865)— 294. Belknap v. Adams, 49 La. Ann. 1350, 22 South. 382—134, 616, 679. Belknap v. Boston, etc. R. R., 49 N. H. 358—78. Belknap v. North America, etc. Co., 11 Hun, 282—1889, 2744. Belknap, etc. Bank v. Lamar, etc. Co., 28 Colo. 326, 64 Pac. 212—2175, 2199, 2465, 2466. Bell, In re, 65 L. T. Rep. 245 (1891) — 860, 1358. Bell V. American Protective League, 163 Mass. 558, 40 N. B. 857, 28 L. R. A. 452, 47 Am. St. Rep. 481—2444. Bell V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 34 La. Ann. 785—2319, 2325; Bell V. Donohoe, 17 Fed. 710, 8 Sawy. 435—1868, 1898. Bell V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 131 Pa. St. 318, 18 Atl. 1079-731. Bell V. Farwell, 176 111. 489, 52 N. E. 346, 42 L. R. A. 804, 68 Am. St. Rep. 194—470. Bell V. Francis, 9 Car. & P. 66—1699. Bell V. Hull, etc. Ry., 6 M. & W. 699— 40. Bell V. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 53 Ind. 57—2453. Bell V. Lafferty, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 454— 1144. Bell V. Montgomery Light Co., 103 Ala. 275, 15 South. 569—1910. Bell V. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R., 10 Atl. 711 (N. J.)— 1860, 2562, 2582. Bell V. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598, 18 L. Ed. 338—242, 262. Bell V. Shibley, 33 Barb. 610—2407. Bell V. Wood, 181 Pa. St. 175, 37 Atl. 2Q-y 2378 Bellairs v. Tucker, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 562, 563, 579 (1884)— 801, 804. Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 14—135, 344, 669, 670. Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 265—346. Bell, etc. Co. v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 4& S. W. 440 (Ky.)— 1601, 2122. Bell, etc. Co. v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 106 Ky. 7, 50 S. W. 2, 1092, 51 S. W. 180 —1764, 1973, 2106, 2142, 2273. Belleville v. Citizens' Horse Ry., 152 111. 171, 38 N. B. 584, 26 L. R. A. 681—2666, 2681. Belleville Sav. Bank v. Winslow, 35 Fed. 471—1781. Bellevue Water Co. v. Bellevue, 35 Pac. 693 (Idaho)— 2758. Bellinger v. Bentley, 1 Hun (N. Y.), 562—1816. Bellona Co.'s Case, 3 Bland (Md.), 442, 446—1726. Bellows v. Hallowell, etc. Bank, 2 Mason, 31, 3 Fed. Cas. 144—62. Bellows V. Todd, 39 Iowa, 209, 217 — 1741. Bellows Falls Bank v. Rutland, etc> R. R., 28 Vt. 470—1874. Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88, 8 Atl. 177, 2 Am. St. Rep. 532—215, 404,. 557. Bell's Case, 22 Beav. 35 (1856)— 317. Bell's, etc. R. R. v. Christy, 79 Pa. St. 54, 21 Am. Rep. 39—1719. Bell's Gap R. R. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 232, 10 Sup. Ct. 533, 33 L. Ed. 892—1233. Bell Silver, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank,. 156 U. S. 470, 15 Sup. Ct. 440, 39 L. Ed. 497—2193. Bell Telephone Co. v. Commonwealth, 3 Cent. Rep. 907 (Pa.), 35 Alb. L. J. 4—2754. Bell Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth, 17 W. N. Cas. 505—2842. Belmont v. Coleman, 21 N. Y. 96—418,. 473.- Belmont v. Coleman, 1 Bosw. 188 — 418. Belmont v. Brie R. R., 52 Barb. 637, 669—617, 1387, 1892, 1921, 1928. Belmont, etc. Co. v. Columbia, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 336—1929. Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 8—2375. Belo V. Forsyth Com'rs, 82 N. C. 415, 33 Am. Rep. 688—1215, 1217. Belo V. Fuller, 84 Tex. 450, 19 S. W. 616, 31 Am. St. Rep. 75—73. Beloit V. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619, 19 L. Ed. 205—244. xlvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Belton, In re, 47 La. Ann. 1614, 18 South. 642, 30 L. R. A. 648—1318, 1395, 1926, 2378. Belton V. Hatch, 109 N. Y. 593, 17 N. B. 225, 4 Am. St. Rep. 495 — 1074. Belton Compress Co. v. Saunders, 70 Tex. 699. 6 S. W. 134—359. Beman v. Rufford, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 106 (1851)— 2574, 2593, 2648. Beman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 550, 564 (1851)— 1875, 1885, 1905. Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. C, 324, 20 S. E. 453, 44 Am. St. Rep. 454—8, 1285, 1297, 1805. Bend v. Susquehanna Bridge Co., .6 Har. & J. (Md.) 128, 14 Am. Dec. 261—556. Benedict v. Columbus Const. Co., 49 N. J. Bq. 23, 36, 23 Atl. 485—1387, 1603, 2742. Benedict v. Goit, 3 Barb. 459—2748. Benedict v. Guardian T. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 302, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1082— 71, 800. Benedict v. Lansing, 5 Denio, 283 — 1799. Benedict v. Moore, 76 Fed. 472—712, 811, 2518. Benedict v. St. Joseph, etc. R. R., 19 Fed. 173—2236, 2366. Benedict v. Western Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. Cas. 214, 222—1884, 2844. Benesch v. John Hancock, etc. Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 348—1826, 1943. Beneville v. Whalen, 2 N. Y. Supp. 20 —2474. Bengley v. Wheeler, 45 Mich. 493, 8 N. W. 75—1493, 1875, 1898. Benjamin v. Elmira, 54 N. Y. 675 — 2324. Benjamin v. Blmira, etc. R. R., 49 Barb. 441—2161, 2239, 2324. Bennett, Ex parte, 18 Beav. 339 (1854)— 580. Bennett v. Austin, 81 N. Y. 308, 322— 956. Bennett v. Complete, etc. Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 301, 40 N. Y. Supp. 1139— 2396. Bennett v. Glenn, 55 Fed. 956, 5 C. C. A. 353—378. Bennett v. Knowles, 66 Minn. 4, 68 N. W. 111—1811. Bennett v. Maryland F. Ins. Co., 14 Blatchf. 422, 3 Fed. Cas. 229—1800, 1833. Bennett v. Millville Imp, Co., 51 Atl. 706 (N. J.)— 1135, 1778, 1779. Bennett v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 19 Mo App. 349—1500. Bennett's Case, 5 De G., M. & G 284 (1854)— 546, 580, 668. Bennett Water Co. v. Burgess, etc. 202 Pa. St. 616, 51 Atl. 1098—2761. Bennington v. Park, 50 Vt. 178—248. Bennison, In re, 60 L. T. Rep. 859 (1889)— 1718. Bennison v. McConnell, 56 Neb. 46, 76 N. W. 412—421. Benoist v. Carondelet, 8 Mo. 250 — 1801, 1977. Bensiek v. Thomas, 66 Fed. 104, 13 C. C. A. 457—1648, 1972. Bensinger, etc. Co. v. National Cash Reg. Co., 42 Fed. 81—1965. Benson, Ex parte, 18 S. C. 38, 44 Am. Rep. 564 (1882)— 2609. Benson v. Albany, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 248—247. Benson v. City of San Diego, 100 Fed. 158—2202. Benson v. Heathorn, 1 Y. & C. 326 (1842)— 1469, 1477, 1482, 1505. Benson v. Keller, 37 Or. 120, 60 Pac. Qi Q 1782 Bent V. Hart, 10 Mo. App. 143, 146—30, 43, 673. Bent V. Priest, 86 Mo. 475—1463, 2745. Bent V. Underdown, 156 Ind. 516, 60 N. B. 307—5, 12, 16, 114, 351. Benthin v. N. Y. C. etc. R. R., 24 N. Y. App. Div. 303, 48 N. Y. Supp. 503— 2835. Bentinck v. London, etc. Bank, [1893] 2 Ch. 120—920. Bentley, etc. Co., In re, 69 L. T. Rep. 204 (1893)— 56, 181. Bentllff V. London, etc. Corp., 44 Fed. 667—1960. Benton v. Minneapolis, etc. Co., 73 Minn. 498, 76 N. W. 265—1618. Benton v. Ward, 47 Fed. 253—810. Benton v. Ward, 59 Fed. 411 — 812. Benton Harbor v. St. Joseph, etc. Ry., 102 Mich. 386, 60 N. W. 758, 26 L. R. A. 245, 47 Am. St. Rep. 553—2717. Benwell v. Mayor, 55 N. J. Eq. 260, 36 Atl. 668—2000. 2168. Benwood Iron Works v. Hutchinson, 101 Pa. St. 359—1954. Bercich v. Marye, 9 Nev. 312 — 820, 1255, 1256, 1261, 1264. Beresfoi-d, Ex parte, 2 Macn. & G. 197 (1850)— 293. Berford v. New York Iron Mine, 4 N. Y. Supp. 836—1160, 1177, 1724, 1873. Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 238, 3 Atl. 404—495. Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 397, 8 Atl. 523—1638, 2030. Berger v. United States Steel Corp., 53 Atl. 68 (N. J.)— 600, 674, 1037, 1176, 1622, 2015. Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wis. 641, 71 N. W. 1056, 65 Am. St. Rep. 85—497. Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. Assoc, 29 Minn. 275, 282, 13 N. W. 120 122—21 635. TABLE OF OASES. xlvii [The numbers after the dash reifer to the pages of the text.] Berks . County v. Reading, etc. Ry., 167 Pa. St. 102, 31 Atl. 474, 663—2716. Berks, etc. Road v. Myers, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 12, 16, 17, 9 Am. Dec. 402— 64, 1806, 1810. Berks, etc. Turnpike v. Lebanon, etc. Ry., 3 Pa. Dlst. 55—2696. Berkson v. Anderson, 87 N. W. 402 (Iowa)— 498. Berkson v. Kansas, etc. Ry., 144 Mo. 211, 45 S. W. 1119—2691. Berlin v. Eddy, 33 Mo. 426—955. Berliner t. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378 — 249. Bermlngham v. Sheridan, 33 Beav. 660 (1864)— 755, 756, 858. Bernard's Case, 5 De G. & Sm. 283 (1852)— 31t 562. Bernards Township v. Morrison, 133 U. S. 523, 10 Sup. Ct. 333, 33 L. Ed. 766—247. Berney v. Tax Collector, 2 Bailey (S. C), 654—1220. Berney Nat. Bank v. Guyon, 111 Ala. 491, 20 South. 520—1574. Berney Nat. Bank v. Pinckard, 87 Ala. 577, 6 South. 364—1013. Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C. 587, 29 S. B. 884, 65 Am. St. Rep. 725— 1810. Berrian v. Methodist Soc, 4 Abb. Pr." 424—1955. Berridge v. Abernethy, 24 N. Y. Week. Dig. 513—473, 1711. Berrien Springs, etc. Co. v. Berrien Circuit Judge, 94 N. W. 379 (Mich.) 2785 Berry v. Brett, 6 Bosw. 627—2409. Berry v. Broach, 65 Miss. 450, 4 South. 117—1385. Berry v. Cross, 3 Sandf. Ch. 1—1730. Berry v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 52 Kan. 774, 36 Pac. 724, 39 Am. St. Rep. 381—2590. Berry v. Rood, 67 S. W. 644 (Mo.) — 136, 150, 171, 410, 412, 1836, 2406. Berry v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199—201, 363, 377, 687, 2743. Berryman v. Cincinnati Southern Ry., 14 Bush (Ky.), 755—233. . Berryville, etc. Co. v. Lewis, 19 S. B. 781 (Va.)— 326. Bertram v. Godfray, 1 Knapp P. C. 381 (1830)— 907. Berwind v. Canadian, etc. Ry., 98 Fed. 158—1907. Berwind v. Van Home, 104 Fed. 581— 1898 Bery v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 26 Ohio St. 673—389. Bescoby v. Pack, 1 Sim. & Stu. 500 (1823)— 657. Beshoar v. Chappell, 6 Colo. App. 323, 40 Pac. 244—1893. Besley, Ex parte, 2 Mac. & G. 176 (1850), 3 Mac. & G. 287, 3 De G. & S. 224—178, 185, 1700. Best V. Davis S. M. Co., 65 Hun, 72, 19 N. Y. Supp. 731—2066. Best, etc. Co. v. Klassen, 185 111. 37, 57 N. E. 20, 50 L. R. A. 765, 76 Am. St. Rep. 26—1600, 2080. Bestor v. Wathen, 60 111. 138—1463. Best's Case, 2 De G. J. & S. 650 (1865> —190. Bethel, etc. Co. v. Bean, 58 Me. 89—287. Bethlehem Iron Co. v- Philadelphia, etc. Ry., 49 N. J. Bq. 356, 23 Atl. 1077—2285, 2287. Bethune v. Kennedy, 1 Myl. & C. 114 (1835)— 656. Bethune v. Wells, 94 Ga. 486, 21 S. B. 230—1875. Betts V. De Vitre, L. R. 3 Ch. 429, 441 (1868)— 196. Bevans v. Dingman's Choice Turnp., 10 Pa. St. 174—1111. Beveridge v. Hewitt, 8 111. App. 467— 776, 778, 781. Beveridge v. New York, etc. R. R., 112 N. Y. 1, 21, 23, 19 N. B. 489, 2 L. R. A. 648—1162, 1723, 2084, 2564, 2578. Bewley v. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 61 How. Pr. 344—1889, 2744. Bexar, etc. Assoc, v. Heady, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 50 S. W. 1079, 57 S.. W. 583-1812. B. P. Avery & Sons v. Texas, etc. Agency, 62 S. W. 793 (Tex.)— 59, 2195. Bianki v. Greater, etc. Co., 92 N. W.. 615 (Neb.)— 1612. Bibb V. Hall, 101 Ala. 79, 14 South. 9» —354, 1777. Bibb V. Montgomery Iron Works, 101 Ala. 301, 13 South. 224—2016, 2206. Bibber- White Co. v. White River, etc Co., 107 Fed. 176—2421. Bibber- White Co. v. White River, etc. R. R., 110 Fed. 472—2284, 2439, 2458". Bibber-White Co. v. White River, etc. R. R., 115 Fed. 786, 53 C. C. A. 282 — 2464. Bickford v. Grand Junction, etc. Ry.,. 1 Can. Sup. Ct. 696, 729, 734, 735, 736 (1877)— 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115. Bickford v. McComb, 88 Fed. 428 — 2488. Bickley v. Schlag, 46 N. J. Eq. 533, 20 Atl. 250—129, 404, 405. Bicknell v. Austin Min. Co., 62 Fed. 432—1794. Biddle v. Bayard, 13 Pa. St. 150—820, 1249. Biddle v. Wayne, etc. Co., 190 Pa. St. 94, 42 AtL 380—2763. xlviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbere after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Biddle, etc. Co. v. Port Townsend, etc. Co., 16 Wash. 681, 48 Pac. 407—1643. Biddle's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 278—621, 1190, 1199. Bidstrup V. Thompson, 45 Fed. 452 — 936, 1007, 1369. Bidwell, In re, [1893] 1 Ch. 603—1306. Bidwell V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 114 Pa. St. 535, 6 Atl. 729—518. Biederman v. Stone, L. R. 2 C. P. 504 (1876)— 910, 913, 928. Bienville, etc. Co. v. Mobile, 112 Ala. 260, 20 South. 742, 33 L. R. A. 59, 57 Am. St. Rep. 28—2774. Bienville, etc. Co. v. Mobile, 175 U. S. 109, 20 Sup. Ct. 40, 44 L. Ed. 92— 2760. Bienville, etc. Co. v. Mobile, 186 U. S. 212, 22 Sup. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 1132 —1037, 2762. Bigbee, etc. Co. v. Moore, 121 Ala. 379, 25 South. 602—203, 584, 691, 1149, 1151. Big Creek Stone Co. v. Seward, 144 Ind. 205, 42 N. B. 464, 63 N. B. 5— 412. Bigelow, In re, 2 Ben. 469, 3 Fed. Cas. 341—1123. Bigelow, In re, 1 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 632, 667, 3 Fed. Cas. 341, 343—1119, 1129. Bigelow V. Benedict, 70 N. Y. 202, 26 Am. Rep. 573—770, 904. Bigelow V. Congregational Soc, 11 Vt. 283—527. Bigelow V. Gregory, 73 111. 197—15, 495, 496. Biggart v. City of Glasgow Bank, 6 Scotch Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th Ser.) 470 (1879)— 204. BiggerstafE v. Rowatt's Wharf, [1896] 2 Ch. 93—1794, 2097. Biggs v. Elliston Dev. Co., 93 Va. 404, 25 S. B. 113—37. Biggs V. Utah, etc. Co., 64 Pac. 494 (Ariz.)- 1084, 2787. Bigg's Case, L. R. 1 Eq. 309 (1865) — 299. Bigler v. Waller, 14 Wall. 297, 20 L. Ed. 891—2193. Biglin V. Friendship Assoc, 46 Hun, 223—823. Bill V. Fourth, etc. Road, 14 Johns. 416—1945. Bill V. New Albany, etc. Ry., 2 Biss. 390, 3 Fed. Cas. 379—2176, 2222 2230 2253, 2303, 2495, 2496. Bill V. Western Union Tel. Co., 16 Fed 14—1514, 1906. Billing V. Gilmer, 60 Fed. 332, 8 C C A. 645—974. Billings V. Aspen, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 338 2 C. C. A. 252, 349—1836. Billings V. Robinson, 94 N. Y. 415— 412, 438, 554, 576, 578. Billings V. Robinson, 28 Hun, 122— 412, 554, 576. 578. Billings V. Trask, 30 Hun, 314—1843, 1844. Billingslea v. Smith, 77 Md. 504, 26 Atl. 1077—771. Bills V. Silver King Mln. Co., 106 Cal. 9, 39 Pac. 43—1154.- Bimber v. Calivada, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 58—1896, 1907. Binder v. McDonald, 106 Wis. 332, 82 N. W. 156—1644. Bingaman v. Hickman, 115 Pa. St. 420 8 Atl. 644—1065. Bingham, In re, 127 N. Y. 296, 27 N. E. 1055—537. Bingham v. Lipman, etc. Co., 67 Pac. 98 (Or.)— 74. Bingham v. Marion T. Co., 61 N. E. 29 (Ind.)— 1178. Bingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403—398. Bingham v. Welderwax, 1 N. Y. 509 — 1433, 1434. Binghamton v. Binghamton, etc. Ry., 61 Hun, 479, 16 N. Y. S. 225—2666, 2718. Binghamton Bridge, The, 3 Wall. 51, 18 L. Bd. 137—1234, 2723. Binghamton Gen. Blec. Co., In re, ' 143 N. Y. 261, 38 N. E. 297—1389., 1987. Binney's Case, 2 Bland, Ch. 99, 142— 1666, 2638. Birch v. Cropper, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 525 (1889)— 24, 595, 609. Bircher v. Walther, 163 Mo. 461, 63 S. W. 691—200, 381, 634. Birch's Case, 2 De G.>& J. 10 (1857) — 581, 1079. Bird V. Bird's, etc. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. App. 358 (1874)— 1550, 1558, 2575. Bird V. Calvert, 22 S. C. 292 — 446. Bird V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 137 Mass. 428—724. Bird V. Daggett, 97 Mass. 494—16, 505, 1799, 1978. Bird V. Hayden, 1 Rob. 383 — 462. Bird V. Magowan, 43 Atl. 278 (N. J.) — 1692. Bird, etc. Co. v. Humes, 157 Pa. St. 278, 27 Atl. 750, 37 Am. St. Rep. 727 —1533. Birdsall v. Davenport, 43 Hun, 552— 1251, 1998. Birdsall v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 220 1992. Birdsell, etc. Co. v. Oglevee, 58 N. E 231 (111.)— 1613. Birge v. Browning, II Wash. 249, 39 Pac. 643—365. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. v. Pilcher, 5 Exch. 24 (1850)— 542, 703. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. v. Webster 6 Bxch. 277 (1851)— 283. TABLE OF CASES. xlix [The numbers after ftie dash refer to the page'b of the text.] Birmingham v. Gallagher, 112 Mass. 190—1088. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Birmingham, etc. Co., 122 Ala. 349, 25 South. 192— 2707. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Birmingham Traction Co., 128 Ala. 110, 29 South. 187—1297, 1758. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Freeman, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451, 39 S. W. 626— 1643. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Hume, 121 Ala. 168, 25 South. 806, 77 Am. St. Rep. 43—48, 705. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Mutual L. & T. Co., 96 Ala. 364, 11 South. 368— 2270. Birmingham, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 18 Ch. D. 155 (1881)— 411, 2370. Birmingham, etc. Ry. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 256 (1841)— 293, 296, 299, 300, 563, 1310. Birmingham, etc. Ry. v. White, 1 Q. B. 282 (1841)— 1107, 1109. Birmingham F. Ins. Co. v. Common- wealth, 92 Pa. St. 72—865. Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Mosser, 14 Hun, 605—396, 486, 488. Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Roden, 97 Ala. 404, 11 South. 883—50, 195, 869. Birmingham T. Co. v. Birmingham Ry. etc. Co., 119 Ala. 137, 24 South. 502, 43 L. R. A. 233 — 2690, 2695. Birmingham T. etc. Co. v. East Lake Land Co., 101 Ala. 304, 13 South. 72 —1116, 1118, 1123. Birmingham T. etc. Co. v. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 99 Ala. 379, 13 South. 112, 20 L. R. A. 600—1130. Birmingham T. Co. v. Southern, etc. Tel. Co., 119 Ala. 144, 24 South. 731 —2837. Bischoftsheim v. Brown, 34 Fed. 156 — 908. Bish V. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490—213, 319, 377. Bish V. Johnson, 21 Ind. 299—2550, 2579. Bishop V. American, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 845—1059. Bishop V. American, etc. Co., 157 111. 284, 41 N. B. 765, 48 Am. St. Rep. 317—1045. Bishop V. American Preserver's Co., 51 Fed. 272—1059. Bishop V. Balkis Consol. Co., L. R. 25 Q. B. D. 77, 512 (1890)— 855. Bishop V. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289— 1039, 2580, 2583, 2654. Bishop V. Breckles, Hoffman, Ch. 534 (1840)— 1371. Bishop V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. 132— 846, 1118, 1126, 1130. Bishop V. Kent, etc. Co., 20 R. I. 680, 41 Atl. 255—2139. Bishop V. McKlllican, 124 Cal. 321, 57 Pac. 76, 71 Am. St. Rep. 68—2152, 2397. Bishop V. Smyrna, etc. Ry. (1895), 2 Ch. 265—610, 1175, 1442. Bishop, etc. Assoc, v. Kennedy, 12 Atl. 141 (N. J.)— 963. Bishop of Peterborough v. Mortlock, 1 Bro. Ch. 565 (1784)— 655. Bishop's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. 296, note (1869)— 579, 1358. Bishop's Fund v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 476—346. Bissell V. Besson, 47 N. J. Eq. 580, 22 Atl. 1077—1638. Bissell V. First Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. St. 415—1787. Bissell V. Heath, 98 Mich. 472, 57 N. W. 585—337, 565, 573, 1035. Bissell V. Kankakee, 64 111. 249, 21 Am. Rep. 554—250. Bissell V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Cos., 22 N. Y. 258, 289, 293—1547, 1978, 2640. Bissell V. Ryan, 23 111. 566—914. Bissell V. Spring Valley, 110 U. S. 162, 3 Sup. Ct. 555, 28 L. Ed. 105—255, 262. Bissell V. Taylor, 7 Wash. 324, 35 Pac. 68—1932. Bissit V. Kentucky, etc. Nav. Co., 15 Fed. 353, 360—405, 416, 474. Bissit V. Kentucky, etc. Co., 15 Fed. 360, note — 1932. Bi-Spool, etc. Co. v. Acme Mfg. Co., 153 Mass. 404, 26 N. E. 991—1565, 1771. Bittinger v. Bell, 65 Ind. 445—245. Bixler v. Summerfleld, 195 111. 147, 62 N. B. 849—5, 1390, 1509, 1664. Bjorngaard v. Goodhue County Bank, 49 Minn. 483, 52 N. W. 48—1458, 1525, 1526, 1863, 1910. Black V. Delaware, etc. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Bq. 130, 399, 403, 415, 422, 24 N. J. Eq. 455, 469, 475—28, 1032, 1041, 1386, 1563, 1669, 2110, 2561, 2570, 2582, 2583. Black V. First Nat. Bank, 54 Atl. 88 (Md.)— 1784, 1839. Black V. Hobart T. Co., 53 Atl. 8215 (N. J.)— 597. Black V. Homersham, L. R. 4 Bxch. D. 24 (1878)— 1147, 1148. Black V. Huggins, 2 Tenn. Ch.- 780— 1896, 1929. Black V. Shreve, 13 N. J. Bq. 455— 1844. Black V. Vanderbilt, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 16, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1095—710, 1708. Black V. Wabash, etc. R. R., Ill 111. 351, 53 Am. Rep. 628—2645. a'ABLE OF CASES. [The numberg. after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Black V. Zacharie, 3 How. 483, 511, 514, 11 L. Ed. 690—46, 47, 888, 1001, 1008, 1017. Blackburn v. Mason, 68 L. T. Rep. 510 (1893)— 913, 917. Blackburn v. Selma, etc. R. R., 2 Flip. 525, 3 Fed. Cas. 526—1418, 1965, 2651, 2652. Blackburn's Case, 3 Drew. 409 (1856) —317. Black, etc. Soc. v. Vandyke, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 309, 30 Am. Dec. 263—1074, 1075. Blackman v. Central R. R. etc. Co., 58 Ga. 189—2267. Blackmore v. Woodward, 71 Fed. 321, 18 C. C. A. 57—537, 547. Blacknall v. Rowland, 116 N. C. 389, 21 S. E. 423—784. Black River, etc. R. R. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208—356, 370. Black River Imp. Co. v. Holway, 85 Wis. 344, 55 N. W. 418—1763, 1765. Black's Appeal, 83 Mich. 513, 47 N. W^ 342—430. Black's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 254 (1872)— 382. Blackshaw v. Rogers (1780), 4 Bro. Ch. 349—660. Blackshire v. Iowa, etc. Co., 39 Iowa, 624—1807. Blackstock v. New York, etc. R. R., 20 N. Y. 48, 75 Am. Dec. 372 — 2620. Blackstone v. Blackstone, 3 Watts (Pa.), 355, 27 Am. Dec. 359—654, 660. Blackstone Mfg. Co. v. Blackstone, 79 Mass. 488—1240. Blagen v. Thompson, 23 Oreg. 239, 31 Pac. 647, 18 L. R. A. 315—742, 2039, 2683. Blain v. Agar, 1 Sim. 37 (1826), 2 Sim. 289 (1828)— 1710. Blain v. Pacific Exp. Co., 69 Tex. 74, 6 S. W. 679—1829. Blair v. Buttolph, 72 Iowa, 31, 33 N. W. 349—309, 318. Blair v. Compton, 33 Mich. 414 — 992, 993. Blair v. Illinois Steel Co., 159 111. 350, 42 N. E. 895, 31 L. R. A. 269—1634. Blair v. Massey, L. R. 5 Eq. 623 (1871) —1103. Blair v. Metropolitan, etc. Bank, 67 Pac. 609 (Wash.)— 23. Blair v. Newbegin, 62 N. E. 1040, 58 L. R. A. 644 (Ohio)— 458. Blair v. Perpetual Ins. Co., 10 Mo. 559, 564, 47 Am. Dec. 129—1625, 1673. Blair v. Reading, 99 111. 600—2384. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 19 Fed. eei— 2338. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 20 Fed. 348, 351—2367, 2482. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 36 —1586, 2052. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 471—2347, 2352, 2353, 2358. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 23 Fed. 521, 523, 524 — 2002, 2346, 2347, 2353, 2354, 2482, 2539. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 769, 23 Fed. 704—2353. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 24 Fed. 148, 27 Fed. 176—1586, 2348. Blair V. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 2—2232, 2413. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 232—2279, 2358. Blair v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 684—1586, 1843, 2051. Blair v. Silver Peak Mines, 93 Fed. 332—1531, 2240. Blair v. Telegram News Co., 172 Mass. 201, 51 N. E. 1080—1499, 1503, 1913. Blair v. Walker, 26 Fed. 73—2222, 2230, 2232. Blair Co. v. Rose, 26 Ind. App. 487, 60 N. E. 10—820, 870, 871, 1259, 1261, 1265. Blair, etc. Co. v. Walker, 50 Iowa, 376— 1517. Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56—836, 837. Blake, Ex parte, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 278 (1865)— 343. Blake v. Bayley, 82 Mass. 531 — 1378. Blake v. Brown, 80 Iowa, 277, 45 N. W. 751—375. Blake v. Buffalo Creek R. R., 56 N. Y. 485—1517. Blake v. Clausen, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 223, 41 N. Y. Supp. 772—477. Blake V. Domestic, etc. Co., 38 Atl. 241 (N. J.)— 1573, 1783, 1784, 2072, 2073. Blake v. Domestic, etc. Co., 41 Atl. 376 (N. J.)— 2488. Blake v. Griswold, 103 N. Y. 429, 9 N. B. 434—153, 1844. Blake v. Hinkle, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 218 —395. Blake v. Holley, 14 Ind. 383—1418. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 259, 19 Sup. Ct. 165, 43 L. Ed. 432—70, 1640, 1642, 1683. Blake v. McClung, 176 TJ. S. 59, 20 Sup. Ct. 307, 44 L. Ed. 371—1441, 2485. Blake v. Portsmouth, etc. R. R., 39 N. H. 435—1434, 1448. Blake v. Ray, 62 S. W. 531 (Ky.) — 1488. Blake v. Rich, 34 N. H. 282—2636. Blake v. Traders' Nat. Bank, 145 Mass. 13, 12 N. E. 414—719. Blake v. Wheeler, 18 Hun, 496 — 1378. TABLE OF OASES. li [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text.] Blakeley's Case, 13 Beav. 133 (1850)— 537. Blakely, etc. Co., In re, K R. 3 Ch. D. 154 (1867)— 2098, 2099. Blakely, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 8 Eq. 244 (1869)— 1990. Blakeman v. Puget Sound Iron Co., 72 Cal. 321, 13 Pac. 872—1017. Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal, 1 Myl. & K. 162 (1832)- 1410. Blaker v. Herts, etc. Water-works Co., L. R. 41 Ch. D. 399—2096, 2110, 2211, 2576, 2686, 2767. Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 (1865)— 314, 317, 325. Blakeslee v. Ervin, 40 Neb. 130, 58 N. W. 850—1147. Blalock V. Kernersville Mfg. Co., 110 N. C. 99, 14 S. B. 501—672, 1641. Blanc V. Paymaster Min. Co., 95 Cal. 524, 30 Pac. 765, 29 Am. St. Rep. 149 —1572, 1583. Blanchard v. Commercial Bank, 75 Fed. 249, 21 C. C. A. 319—1779. Blanchard v. Dedham Gas Light Co., 78 Mass. 213—888, 1010. Blanchard v. Dow, 32 Me. 557—1296. Blanchard v. KauU, 44 Cal. 440—496. Blanchard v. Western Union Tel. Co., 60 N. Y. 510—2849. Blanek v. Nelson, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 21, 56 N. Y. Supp. 867—957, 1249. Blanek v. Sadlier, 153 N. Y. 551, 47 N. E. 907, 40 L. R. A. 666—2002. Bland v. Crowley, 6 Bxch. 522 (1851) — 1701. Blandford School Dist. v. Gibbs, 56 Mass. 39—8, 1339, 1737. Blann v. Bell, 2 De G., M. & G. 775 (1852)— 658. Blanton v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 120 Fed. 318—1761, 2195. Blaschko v. Wurster, 156 N. Y. 437, 444, 51 N. E. 303—2758. Blashfield v. Empire State Tel. & Tel. Co., 147 N. Y. 520, 42 N. E. 2, 71 Hun, 532, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1006—2794. Blatchford v. New York, etc. R. R., 5 Abb. Pr. 276—1168. Blatchford T. Ross, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 434—1029, 1500. Blatchford v. Ross, 54 Barb. 42—1509, 1764, 1875, 1917. Blen V. Bear, etc. Co., 20 Cal. 602, 81 Am. Dec. 132—1770. Blewett V. Front St. Ry., 51 Fed. 625, 2 C. C. A.' 415, 49 Fed. 126—2683. Blewitt V. Roberts, Craig & P., 274 (1841)— 659. Blien v. Rand, 77 Minn. 110, 79 N. W. 606, 46 L. R. A. 618—37, 489. Bligh'v. Brent, 2 Younge & C. (Exch.) 268—44. Blindell v. Hagan, 54 Fed. 40—1059. D B. Lippitt V. American, etc. Co., 15 R. I. 141, 23 Atl. Ill, 2 Am. St. Rep. 886—1000. Bliss V. Anderson, 31 Ala. 612, 70 Am. Dec. 511—2647. Bliss V. Ball, 99 Mass. 597—2822. Bliss V. Fosdick, 76 Hun, 508, 27 N. Y. Supp. 1053—662, 1254. Bliss V. Kaweah, etc. Co., 65 Cal. 502, 4 Pac. 507—1770, 1807. Bliss V. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 22—2504. Bloch V. O'Connor, etc. Co., 129 Ala. 528, 29 South. 925—1394. Bloch, etc. Co. v. Metzger, 65 S. W. 929 (Ark.)- 1545. Block V. Atchison, etc. R. R., 21 Fed. 529—1953, 1957. Block V. Commissioners, 99 U. S. 686, 25 L. Ed. 491—258. Block V. Fltchburg R. R., 139 Mass. 308, 1 N. E. 348—1588, 2641. Blodgett V. Abbott, 72 Wis. 516, 40 N. W. 491, 7 Am. St. Rep. 873—1798. Blodgett V. Lanyon Zinc Co., 120 Fed. 893—1669, 1677. Blodgett V. Morrill, 20 Vt. 509—308, 344. Blodgett V. Northwestern El. R. R., 80 Fed. 601, 26 C. C. A. 21—2689. Blood V. Erie, etc. Loan Co., 164 Pa. St. 95, 30 Atl. 362—969. Blood V. La Serena, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 221, 41 Pac. 1017, 45 Pac. 252—1722, 1734, 1736, 1805, 2137, 2148. Blood V. La Serena, etc. Co., 134 Cal. 361, 66 Pac. 317—1468, 1735, 2146. Blood V. Marcuse, 38 Cal. 590, 99 Am. Dec. 435—1782. Bloodgood V. Mohawk, etc. R. R., 18 Wend. 9, 65, 31 Am. Dec. 313—250. Bloom T. National, etc. Loan Co., 152 N. Y. 114, 46 N. E. 166—1454, 1692, 1876. Bloom V. National, etc. Loan Co., 81 Hun, 120, 30 N. Y. Supp. 700—1876. Bloom V. Pond's Extract Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 179 (1891)— 1758. Bloomenthal v. Ford (1897), A. C. 156 —170, 536. Bloomer v. Union, etc. Co., L. R. 1(> Eq. 383 (1873)— 2095, 2304. Bloomfield, etc. Gaslight Co. v. Calkins, 62 N. Y. 386—2737, 2738, 2739. Bloomfield, etc. Gaslight Co. v. Rich- ardson, 63 Barb. 437—2628, 2737. Bloomfield, etc. Mills, In re, 101 Iowa, 181, 70 N. W. 115—1657. Bloomfield R. R. v. Van Slike, 107 Ind. 480, 8 N. E. 269—2455. Blooming Grove, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 56 S. W. 552 (Tex.) — 1146. Blossburg, etc. R. R. v. Tioga R. R., 1 Abb. App. Dec. 149 — 2598. Hi TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Blossburg, etc. R. R. v. Tioga R. R., 5 Blatchf. 387, 3 Fed. Gas. 735—69. Blossom V. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 1 Wall. 655, 17 L. Ed. 673—2281, 2282. Blossom V. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 196, 18 L.Ed. 43—2285. Blouin V. Hart, 30 La. Ann. 714—937, 938, 977. Bloxam v. Metropolitan Ry., L. R. 3 Ch. 337, 344, 350, 354 (1868)— 1166, 1175, 1621, 1862, 1893. Bloxam's Case, 33 Beav. 529 (1864) — 190. Bloxham v. Consumers,' etc. R. R., 36 Fla. 519, 18 South. 444, 29 L. R. A. 507, 51 Am. St. Rep. 44—2699. Bluck V. Mallalue, 27 Beav. 398 (1853) —756. Blue V. Capital Nat. Bank, 145 Iiid. 518, 43 N. E. 655—1347, 1499. Blue, etc. Co. v. Mercantile, etc. Assoc, 53 Pac. 761 (Kan.)— 690, 1601. Bluehill Academy v. Witham, 13 Me. 403—1712. Blue Jacket, etc. Co. v. Scherr, 40 S. B. 514 (W. Va.)— 1229. Blue Mountain, etc. Assoc, v. Borrowe, 51 Atl. 670 (N. H.)— 22, 518, 1121. Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402, 91 Am. Dec. 350—2415, 2469. Blundell v. Winsor, 8 Sim. 601 (1837) —1076. Blunt V. Walker. 11 Wis. 334, 349, 78 Am. Dec. 709—84, 177. Bly V. Second Nat. Bank, 79 Pa. St. 453—1626. Blyth V. Carpenter, L. R. 2 Eq. 501 (1866)— 1263. Blyth's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 140 (1876) —379. Board, etc. v. Crittenden, 94 Fed. 613, 36 C. C. A. 418—3. Board, etc. v. Lafayette, etc. R. R., 50 Ind. 85—2551. Board, etc. Church v. Campbell, 48 La. Ann. 1543, 21 South. 184—503. Boardman v. Cutter, 128 Mass. 388 — 764. Boardman v. Gaillard, 1 Hun, 217^914. Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 84 N. Y. 157, 174, 178, 181, 185, 187— 187, 583, 591, 592, 603, 605, 606, 1148, 1154, 1860, 1874, 2035, 2590. Boardmen v. Marshalltown Grocery Co., 105 Iowa, 445, 75 N. W. 343—22, 1104. Board of Assessors v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 60 Fed. 37, 8 C. C. A. 490— 1243. Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Coler, 113 Fed. 705, 51 C. C. A. 379—248. Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Peirce, 90 Fed. 764—2416. Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Sutllff, 97 Fed. 270, 38 C. C. A. 167—640, 2046. Board of Liquidation v. New Orleans Water-Works Co., 39 La. Ann. 202, 1 South. 445—868. Board of Public Works, etc. v. Denver Tel. Co., 28 Colo. 401, 65 Pac. 35— 2816. Board of Trade v. Christie, etc. Co., 116 Fed. 944—2789. Board of Trade v. Hadden-Krull Co., 109 Fed. 705—2789, 2843. Board of Trade v. O'Dell, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 574—780, 2789, 2843. Board of Trade, etc. Co. v. Darst, 192 111. 47, 61 N. E. 398, 85 Am. St. Rep. 288—2801. Board of Trade, etc. v. Thomson, etc. Co., 103 Fed. 902—2788, 2843. Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Barnett, 107 111. 507, 47 Am. Rep. 453—2794, 2820. Board of Water Com'rs, Matter of, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 544, 76 N. Y. Supp. 11—2772. Boatmen's Ins. etc. Co. v. Able, 48 Mo. 136—827, 888. Boaz V. Sterlingworth, etc. Co., 68 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1039— 1911. Bobb V. Savings Bank, etc., 64 S. W. 494 (Ky.)— 2791. Bockes V. Hathorn, 20 Hun, 503 — 2043, 2059. Bocock V. Alleghany, etc. Co., 82 Va. 913, 1 S. E. 325, 3 Am. St. Rep. 128— 1798. Boddy V. Henry, 113 Iowa, 462, 85 N. W. 771, 53 L. R. A. 769—708, 785. 793, 806, 808, 1266. Bodey v. Cooper, 82 Md. 625, 34 Atl. 362—539, 1083. Bodley v. Reynolds, 8 Q. B. 779 (1846) —1264. Bodmin, etc. Co., In re, 23 Beav. 370 (1857)— 1078. Bodwell V. Eastman, 106 Mass. 525 — 1085. Boehm v. Lies, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct 436, 18 N. Y. Supp. 577—737. Boehme v. Rail, 51 N. J. Eq. 541, 26 Atl. 832—1638. Boeppler v. Menown. 17 Mo. App. 447 — 274. Bogardus v. Rosendale Mfg. Co., 7 N. Y. 147—406, 408. Bogardus v. Trinity Church. 4 Sandf. Ch. 633—1667. . Boggiano v. Chicago, etc. Co., 99 111. App. 509—1505. Boggs V. Adger, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 408 —716. Boggs V. Brown, 82 Tex. 41, IT S W 830—2491. TABLE OF OASES. liii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the test.] Boggg V. Lakeport, etc. Assoc, 111 Cal. 354, 43 Pac. 1106—1761, 2145. Boggs V. Olcott, 40 111. 303—178, 183, 379. Boggs V. "Wann, 58 Fed. 681—811, 816. Bohannan v. Binns, 31 Miss. 355 — 1421. Bohleber v. Waeldin, 69 Hun, 79, 23 N. Y. Supp. 391—2746. , Bolilen's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 304, 312— 717, 725, 726. Bohm V. Loewer's, etc. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 514—1826. Bohmer v. City Bank, 77 Va. 445 — 1115, 1118. Bohmer v. Hoffen, 161 N. Y. 390, 409, 411, 412, 55 N. E. 1047—6, 2576. Bohn V. Brown, 33 Mich. 257, 263— 438, 475. Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 55 N. W. 1119, 21 L. R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319—1048. Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 45 Minn. 164, 47 N. W. 652—237. Bohrer v. Adair, 61 Neb. 824, 86 N. W. 495—398. Boice V. Hodge, 51 Ohio St. 236, 37 N. B. 265, 46 Am. St. Rep. 5'69— 568. Boice V. Rabb, 24 Ind. App. 368, 55 N. E. 880—1179. Boisgerard v. New York Banking Co., 2 Sandf. Ch. 23—64, 1081, 1812, 1822. Bolen V. Crosby, 49 N. Y. 183—476. Boll V. Camp, 92 N. W. 703 (Iowa) — 304 737. Bolles V. Brimfleld, 120 U. S. 759, 7 Sup. Ct. 736, 30 L. Ed. 786—254. Boiling V. Le Grande, 87 Ala. 482, 6 South. 332—502. Bolton V. Liverpool, 3 Sim. 467 (1831), 1 Myl. & K. 88—1094. Bolton V. Madden, L. R. 9 Q. B. 55 (1873)— 1346. Bolton V. Natal Land, etc. Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 124—1172. Bolt & Iron Co., In re, 14 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 211 (1887)— 1505. Bolt & Iron Co., In re, 10 Pr. R. (Can.) 434 (1884)— 277. Bolz V. Ridder, 19 Weekly Dig. 463— 153. Bommer v. American, etc. Co., 81 N. Y. 468—1425, 1715. Bonaparte v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 75 Md. 340, 23 Atl. 784—1429, 2681. Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. R. R., Baldw. 205, 3 Fed. Cas. 821—2625, 2626, 2627. Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Standard F. Ins. Co., 34 W. Va. 764, 12 S. E. 771— 1426. Bond V. Appleton, 8 Mass. 472, 5 Am. Dec. 111—451, 460, 566, 567. Bond V. Barrow, etc. Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 10 (1902)— 601, 1165, 1170. Bond V. Central Bank, 2 Ga. 92—1626. Bond V. Mt. Hope Iron Co., 99 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 49—857, 1247. Bond V. State, 68 Miss. 648, 9 South. 353—2491. Bond V. Terrell, etc. Co., 82 Tex. 309, 18 S. W. 691—1625. Bond V. Wabash, etc. Ry., 67 Iowa, 712, 25 N. W. 892—2609. Bone V. Delaware, etc. Co., 5 Atl. 751 (Pa.)— 1663. Bonewltz v. Van Wert County Bank, 41 Ohio St. 78—407, 452. Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. Eq. 691, 38 Atl. 189—350. Bonham v. Bonham, 33 N. J. Eq. 476 — 1200. Bonnardet v. Taylor, 1 J. & H. 383 (1861)— 1103, 1108. Bonnell v. Griswold, 80 N. Y. 128— 1378. Bonner, In re, 8 Daly, 75 — 962. Bonner v. Blum, 25 S. W. 60 (Tex.) — 2454. Bonner v. Franklin C. Assoc, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 166, 23 S. W. 317—2432. Bonner v. New Orleans, 2 Woods, 135, 3 Fed. Cas. 853 — 2083. Bonner v. Villaume, etc. Co., N. T. L. J., Feb. 14, 1895 (Com. PI.)— 1576. Bonner, etc. Co. v. McClelland, 53 Pac. 866 (Kan.)— 2215. Bonnet v. First Nat. Bank, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 613, 60 S. W. 325—622, 626, 2589. Bonney v. Tilley, 109 Cal. 346, 42 Pac. 439—1518. Bonnifield v. Bidwell, 32 Iowa, 149— 245. Bonta V. Gridley, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 33, 78 N. Y. Supp. 961—1348. Boody V. Drew, 46 How. Pr. 459 — 1089. Boody V. Rutland, etc. R. R., 3 Blatchf. 25, 3 Fed. Cas. 857, 24 Vt. 660—87. Booe V. Junction R. R., 10 Ind. 93 — 1031, 2550. Boogher v. Life Assoc, of America, 75 Mo. 319—74. Booker, Ex parte, 18 Ark. 338—37, 373, 1042, 1926. Booker, Ex parte, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 317 — 2075. Booker v. Young, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 303 — 1752. Boone v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 84 N. Y. 83, 87, 38 Am. Rep. 498—1066. Boord V. African, etc. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 596—1106. Boorman v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 78 N. Y. 599—1112. liv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Booske V. Gulf Ice Co., 24 Fla. 550, 5 South. 247—1417. Boot, etc. Co. V. Dunsmore, 60 N. H. 85—1764. Booth V. Brown, 62 Fed. 794—2624. Booth V. Bunce, 33 N. Y. 139, 88 Am. Dec. 372—1575. Booth V. Campbell, 37 Md. 522—426. Booth V. Clark, 17° How. 322, 15 L. Bd. 164—2396, 2399. Booth V. Dear, 96 Wis. 516, 71 N. W. 816—446. Booth V. Dexter, etc. Co., 118 Ala. 369, 24 South. 405—1690, 1844. Booth V. Dodge, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 23, 69 N. Y. Supp. 673—617, 624, 679, 1082, 1091, 1552, 1899. Booth V. Fielding, 1 W. N. 245 (1866) — 917. Booth V. Illinois, 184 V. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623—773. Booth V. New Afrikander, etc. Co., 87 L. T. Rep. 509 (1902)— 1481, 2499. Booth V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419—688, 1516. Booth V. Smith, 117 111. 370, 7 N. E. 610—789. Booz's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 592, 1 Atl. 36—16. Borden v. Atlantic, etc. Ry., 33 Atl. 276 (N. J.)— 2691. Borland v. Haven, 37 Fed. 394, 13 Sawy. 551—451, 471, 475, 551, 571, 1645, 1802. Borland v. Nevada Bank, 99 Cal. 89, 33 Pac. 737, 37 Am. St. Rep. 32—939. Borland v. Stokes, 120 Pa. St. 278, 14 Atl. 61—1249. Borax Co., In re (1901), 1 Ch. 326— 2098. Borough, etc. Soc, In re (1893), 2 Ch. 242—668. Borough of New Hope v. Postal, etc. Co., 202 Pa. St. 583, 52 Atl. 127— 2839. Borough of Taylor v. Postal, etc. Co., 202 Pa. St. 583, 52 Atl. 128—2839. Borton v. Brines-Chase Co., 175 Pa. St. 209, 34 Atl. 597—1637, 1641, 2388. Borton V. Dunbar, 30 L. J. (Ch.) 8 (I860)— 657. Bosanquet v. St. John, etc., 77 L. T. Rep. 206 (1897)— 1173. Bosanquet v. Shortridge, 4 Exch. 699 (1850), 16 Beav. 84 (1852)— 563, 564, 1749. Bosher v. Richmond, etc. Co., 89 Va. 455—315, 327, 811. Bosley v. National Machine Co., 123 N. Y. 550, 25 N. E. 990, 6 N. Y. Supp. 4—327, 336. Bosshardt, etc. Co. v. Crescent Oil Co., 171 Pa. St. 109, 32 Atl. 1120—1596. Bostock V. Blakeney, 2 Bro. Ch. 653 (1789)— 718, 1196. Boston V. Beal, 51 Fed. 306—1222. Boston Electric Co. v. Electric Gas L. Co., 23 Fed. 838—1957, 1965. Boston, etc. Co. v. Ansell, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 339 (1888)— 1464. Boston, etc. Co. ^v. Banker's, etc. Co., 36 Fed. 288—688, 1163, 1566, 2015, 2231, 2256, 2324, 2328, 2844, 2845. Boston, etc. Co. v., City of Racine, 97 Fed. 817—1959, 2169, 2767. Boston, etc. Co. v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 34 Atl. 778 (Md.)— 1213. Boston, etc. Co. v. Montana, etc. Co., 89 Fed. 529—2139. Boston, etc. Co. v. Parr, 98 Fed. 483 — 426. Boston, etc. Co. v. Plattsmouth. 76 Fed. 881—2766. Boston, etc. Co. v. Salem, etc. Co., 94 Fed. 238—2772. Boston, etc. R. R., In re, 53 N. Y. 574 — 2632, 2634. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 65 N. H. 393, 23 Atl. 529—2560, 2570, 2577, 2578. Boston, etc. R. R. v. CoflSn, 50 Conn. 150, 159—2184, 2316, 2317. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Commonwealth, 100 Mass. 399—1142. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Commonwealth, 157 Mass. 68, 31 N. E. 696—1232. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Gilmore, 37 N. H. 410, 72 Am. Dec. 336—2600, 2601. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Graham, 179 Mass. 62, 60 N. E. 405—1559, 1563, 1851, 2557, 2584. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Graves, 80 Fed. 588—537, 1187. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Lowell, etc. R. R., 124 Mass. 368—2634. Boston, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 R. I. 260—1554, 1860, 1865, 2570, 2578. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Parr. 104 Fed. 695, 44 C. C. A. 139—459, 1615, 1887. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Pearson, 128 Mass. 445—1082, 1084, 1085, 1089. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Richardson, 135 Mass. 473, 477—619, 837, 1264. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Salem, etc. R. R., 68 Mass. 1—2639, 2752. Boston, etc. R. R. v. State, 32 N. H. 215—77, 2623. Boston, etc. R. R. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79—86, 178, 183, 220, 290, 360. Boston, etc. Trust Co. v. American Rapid Tel. Co., 67 Fed. 165 — 1857. Boston, etc. Trust Co. v. Chamberlain, 66 Fed. 847, 14 C. C. A. 363—2475. Boston, etc. Trust Co. v. Hudson, 68 Fed. 758, 15 C. C. A. 651—2335. TABLE OF CASES. It [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Boston Glass Mfy. v. Langdon, 41 Mass. 49, 52, 35 Am. Dec. 292—1393, 1394, 1395. Boston Loan Co, v. Boston, 137 Mass. 332—1240. Boston Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 144 Mass. 598, 12 N. E. 362—1207. Boston Music Hall Assoc, v. Cory, 129 Mass. 435—736, 1010. Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Boston Rubber Co., 149 Mass. 436, 21 N. B. 875—61. Boston Water-power Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 40 Mass. 360—2752. Bostwick V. Detroit Fire Dept., 49 - Mich. 513, 14 N. W. 501—1075. Bosworth V. Allen, 168 N. Y. 157, 61 N. E. 163, 55 L. R. A. 751, 85 Am. St. Rep. 667—1345, 1454, 1498, 1616, 1890. Bosworth V. Jacksonville Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 615, 12 C. C. A. 331—1656, 2306. Bosworth V. St. Louis, etc. Assoc, 174 U. S. 182, 19 Sup. Ct. 625, 43 L. Ed. 941—2420. Bosworth V. Terminal R. R. Assoc, 80 Fed. 969, 26 C. C. A. 279—2407. Bothamley v. Sherson, L. R. 20 Eq. 304 (1875)— 656. Bottomley's Case. L. R. 16 Ch. D. 681 (1880)— 27Y, 1754. Botts V. Simpsonville, etc. Turnp. Co., 88 Ky. 54, 10 S. W. 134, 2 L. R. A. 594—1906, 2554, 2750. Bouch V. Sproule, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 385 (1887)— 1196. Bouchaud v. Diq^, 3 Denio, 238 — 187. Boulden v. Estey Organ Co., 92 Ala. 182, 9 South. 283—1682. Bouldin v. Baltimore, 15 Md. 18—1940. Boullemet, Succession of, 39 La. Ann. 1046, 3 South. 401—724. Boultbee v. Gzowski, 29 Canada S. C. Rep. 54 (1898)— 916. Boultbee v. Gzowski, 24 Ont. App. Rep. 502 (1897)— 574. Boulter v. Peplow, 9 C. B. 493 (1850)— 1702. Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460, 43 N. W. 290, 5 L. R. A. 649— 161, 166, 167, 382, 479. Boulware v. Davis, 90 Ala. 207, 8 South. 84, 9 L. R. A. 601—1419, 1682, 2399. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 43 Fed. 404—2477. Bound T. South Carolina Ry., 46 Fed. 315—2285. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 47 Fed. 30—2355. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 50 Fed. 312 — 2360. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 50 Fed. 853—2130, 2217. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 51 Fed. . 58—2475. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 55 Fed. 186—2285. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 58 Fed. 473.- 7 C. C. A. 322—2244, 2280, 2293, 2355, 2531. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 59 Fed. 509, 511—2242, 2477, 2479. Bound V. South Carolina Ry., 71 Fed. 53—2513. Bound V. South Carolina R. R., 62 Fed. 536—2477. Bound V. South Carolina R. R., 78 Fed. 49, 23 C. C. A. 636—2003, 2512. Bourdette v. Sieward, 52 La. Ann. 1333, , 27 South. 724—1095. Bourdette v. Sieward, 31 South. 630 (La.)— 1095. Bourdon v. Martin, 142 N. Y. 669, 37 N. E. 571—2413. Bourdon v. Martin, 74 Hun, 246, 26 N. Y. Supp. 378—2413. Bourget v. Cambridge, 156 Mass. 391, 31 N. E. 390, 16 L. R. A. 605—2823. Bourne v. Freeth, 9 B. & C. 632 (1829) —1709. Bouton V. Dement, 123 111. 142, 14 N. E. 62—84, 393, 415. Bouton V. Dry Dock, etc. Co., 4 E. D. Smith, 420—273. Boutwell V. Townsend, 37 Barb. 205 — 430. Bow V. Allenstown, 34 N. H. 351, 372, 69 Am. Dec. 489 — 8. Bowden v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 1 Hughes, 307, 3 Fed. Cas. 1029 — 559. Bowden v. Farmers', etc. Nat. Bank, 25 Int Rev. Rec. 405, 3 Fed. Cas. 1029—532. Bowden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251, 2 Sup. Ct. 246, 27 L. Ed. 386—576. Bowden v. Santos, 1 Hughes, 158, 3 Fed. Cas. 1034—576. Bowditch v. New England, etc. Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 292, 4 N. E. 798, ,55 Am. Rep. 474—1626. Bowditch, etc. Co. v. Jones, 50 Atl. 41 (Conn.)— 1768. Bowen v. Brecon Ry., L. R. 3 Eq. 541 (1867)— 2064, 2096, 2097, 2211, 2370. Bowen v. Bull, 12 N. Y. Supp. 325 — 1072. Bowen v. Carolina, etc. Ry., 34 S. C. 217, 13 S. E. 421—1502. Bowen v. Cleary, 35 S. W. 281 (Ky.) — 968. Bowen v. First Nat. Bank, 34 How. Pr. 408—1966. Bowen v. Kuehn, 79 Wis. 53, 47 N. W. 374—280. Ivi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Bowen v. Needles, etc. Bank, 94 Fed. 925, 36 C. C. A. 553—1593, 2081. Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. 430—2071. Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 Minn. 238, 47 N. W. 792—1807, 1810. Bowery Bank, In re, 16 How. Pr. 56 — 2386. Bowick V. Miller, 21 Or. 25, 26 Pac. 861—1761. Bowker v. Hill. 115 Fed. 528—676, 1182, 1891. Bowker v. Pierce, 130 Mass. 262 — 718, 1194. Bowlby V. Bell, 3 C. B. 284 (1846) — 910, 928. Bowling Green, etc. R. R. v. Warren County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.), 711 — 258. Bowman v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700—2603. Bowman v. Foster, etc. Co., 94 Fed. 592—690, 1598. Bowman v. Harris, 95 Fed. 917—2400. Bowman v. Wathen, 1 How. 189, 11 L. Ed. 97—1861. Bowring v. Shepherd, L. R. 6 Q. B. 309 (1871)— 574, 914. Bowro'n, In re, L. R. 5 Eq. 428 (1868) — 189. Bowyer v. Anderson, 2 Leigh (Va.), 550—2732. Box, In re, 1 Hem. & M. 552 (1863) — 1197, 1200. Boyce v. Missouri, etc. R. R., 168 Mo. 583, 68 S. W. 920, 58 L. R. A. 442— 2631, 2636. Boyce v. Montauk, etc. Co., 37 W. Va. 73, 16 S. E. 501—1807, 1859, 1865, 2141. Boyce V. St. Louis, 29 Barb. (N. T.) 650—1670. Boyce v. Trustees, etc., 46 Md. 359 — 1427. Boyd V. American, etc. Co., 182 Pa. St. 206, 37 Atl. 937—1589. Boyd V. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 17 Md. 195, 79 Am. Dec. 646—1938, 1953, 2301. Boyd V. Conshohocken Worsted Mills, 149 Pa. St. 363, 24 Atl. 287—945. Boyd V. Hall, 56 Ga. 563—428, 451, 477, 479, 480. Boyd V. Hankinson, 83 Fed. 876—1434. Boyd V. Hankinson, 92 Fed. 49, 34 C C. A. 197—1442, 1447, 1913. Boyd V. Hanson, 41 Fed. 174 — 778. Boyd V. Heron, 125 Cal. 453, 58 Pac. 64—474, 489, 1982, 2138. Boyd V. Mutual Fire Assoc, 90 N. W 1086 (Wis.)— 482, 1861. Boyd V. Mutual Fire Assoc, 94 N. W 171 (Wis.)— 1454. Boyd V. Peach Bottom Ry., 90 Pa. St. 169—230, 231, 357. Boyd V. Portland, etc. Co., 37 Or. 567, 62 Pac. 378, 52 L. R. A. 509—2827. Boyd V. Portland, etc. Co., 40 Or. 126, 66 Pac 576, 57 L. R. A. 619—2827. Boyd T. Redd, 120 N. C. 335, 27 S. E. 35, 58 Am. St. Rep. 792—1114, 1126, 1430. Boyd V. Rockport, etc. Mills, 73 Mass. 406—888, 1010. Boyd V. Sims, 87 Tenn. 771, 11 S. W. 948—1912. ■Boyd, etc. Co. t. Coates, 69 S. W. 1090 (Ky.)— 774. Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689, 5 Sup. Ct. 706, 28 L. Ed. 1089—1223, 1227. Boyer v. Northern, etc. Ry., 66 Pac. 826 (Idaho)— 1957. Boyertown Water Co. v. Borough of Boyertown, 200 Pa. St. 394, 50 AtU 189—2760. Boykin v. State, 96 Ala. 16, 11 South. 66—1943. Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nev. 345 — 919,-955, 1248, 1256, 1263, 1264. Boyle V. Farmers', etc. Co., 101 Fed. 184, 41 C. C. A. 291—2533. Boyle V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 88 Fed. 930, 32 C. C. A. 142—2535. Boyle V. Henning, 121 Fed. 376—914, 923 Boyle's Case, 54 L. J. Ch. 550 (1885)— 375. Boynton v. Andrews, 63 N. T. 93 — 152, 153. Boynton v. Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225 — 152. Boynton v. Lynn, et(^ Co., 124 Mass. 197—1790. Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 401, 72 N. W. 257—1569, 1636. Boynton, etc. Co., In re, 34 Hun, 369 — 1390, 2379. Boys V. Williams, 2 Russ. & M. 689 (1831)— 655. Brace v. Ormond, 1 Meriv. 409 (1816) — 1094. Brace v. Yale, 92 Mass. 441 — 2779. Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 111. 66, 35 N. E. 62, 22 L. R. A. 340, 37 Am. St Rep. 206—2603. Bracher v. Hat Sweat Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 921—1057, 1711. Bracken v. Atlantic Trust Co., 167 N. Y. 510, 60 N. E. 772, 82 Am. St Rep. 731—700, 701, 934, 951, 1255, 1988, 2091, 2169, 2173. Bracken v. Atlantic Trust Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 67, 55 N. Y. Supp. 506 — 2173. Braekett v. Griswold, 112 N. Y. 454 20 N. E. 376—167. Braekett v. Griswold, 13 N. Y. Supp 192—139, 818, 1889. TABLE OF CASES. Ivii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brackett v. Harvey, 91 N. Y. 214—2323. Bradburn v. Solvay Process Co., 18 N. Y. App. Div. 542, 46 N. Y. Supp. 161—1149. Bradbury v. Barnes, 19 Cal. 120 — 1493. Bradbury v. Boston Canoe Club, 153 Mass. 77, 26 N. B. 132—1970. Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 45 N. J. L. 363—270, 271, 285, 308. Braddock, etc. Ry. v. Bily, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 144—343. Braddock, etc. Ry. v. Braddock Elec. Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 44—2677. Braden's Estate, In re, 165 Pa. St. 184, 30 Atl. 746—994, 1004. Bradford v. Frankfort, etc. R. R., 142 Ind. 383, 40 N. B. 741, 41 N. E. 819— 1849, 2551. Bradford v. Harris. 77 Md. 153, 26 Atl. 186—199. Bradford v. Water Lot Co., 58 Ga. 280— 65. Bradford Banking Co. v. Brlggs, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 29 (1886)— 1132. Bradford, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 123 N. Y. 316, 25 N. B. 499, 11 L. R. A. 116—2084. Bradford Navigation Co., In re, L. R. 10 Eq. 331 (1870)— 1392. Bradlee v. Boston, etc. Mfy., 33 Mass. 347—1813. Bradlee v. Warren, etc. Bank, 127 Mass. 107, 34 Am. Rep. 351—1784. Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413, 417, 7 Am. Dec. 656—1969, 1970. Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 28, 35, 38 Am. Rep. 547—42, 1205, 1208, 1211. Bradley v. Bradley. 165 N. Y. 183, 58 N. E. 887—816. Bradley v. Chester Valley R. R., 36 Pa. St. 141—2212. Bradley v. Farwell, Holmes, 433, 3 Fed. Cas. 1146—1649. Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Pub. Co., 17 N. Y. Supp. 587—1711. Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 M. & W. 422 (1838)— 44. Bradley v. Luce, 99 111. 234—810. Bradley v. Marine, etc. Co., 3 Hughes, 26, 3 Fed. Cas. 1172—2484. Bradley v. New York, etc. R. R., 21 Conn. 294—2627. Bradley v. Northern Pac. R. R., 38 Minn. 234, 36 N. W. 345—2626. Bradley v. People, 4 Wall. 459, 18 L. Ed. 433—1220, 1224. Bradley v. Poole, 98 Mass. 169, 93 Am. Dec. 144—784. Bradley v. Reppell, 133 Mo. 545, 32 S. W. 645, 34 S. W. 841, 54 Am. St. Rep. 685—1434. Bradley v. Seaboard Nat. Bank, 167 N. Y. 427, 60 N. E. 771—785. Bradley v. Southern, etc. Tel. Co., 66 Conn. 559, 34 Atl. 499, 32 L. R. A. 280—2822. Bradley v. South, etc. Co., 1 Hughes, 72, 3 Fed. Cas. 1165—2752. Bradley, etc. Co. v. Norfolk, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 681, 41 C. C. A. 600—1439. Bradly v. Marine, etc. Co., 3 Hughes, 26, 3 Fed. Cas. 1172—1519. Bradner, In re, 87 N. Y. 171—262. Bradshaw, Ex parte, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 465 (1879)— 2092. Bradstreet v. Bank of Rutland, 42 Vt. 128—1732. Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93, 99— 1393, 1395. Brady v. Atlantic City, 53 N. J. Bq. 440, 32 Atl. 271—2770. Brady v. Bay State, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 584—698, 702, 2368. Brady v. Brooklyn, 1 Barb. 584—1760. Brady v. Delaware, etc. Co., 2 Penne- will (Del.), 237, 45 Atl. 345—1426. Brady v. Eliot, 181 Pa. St. 259, 37 Atl. 343—224. Brady v. Bvans, 78 Fed. 558, 24 C. C. A. 236—1611. Brady v. Johnson, 75 Md. 445, 26 Atl. 49, 20 L. R. A. 737—2324, 2726. Brady v. Mount Morris Bank, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 212, 73 N. Y. Supp. 532— 641, 963, 1788. Brady v. National, etc. Co., 64 Ohio St. 267, 60 N. E. 218, 83 Am. St. Rep. 753—1941. Brady v. New York, 16 How. Pr. 432 — 1551. Braem v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 508, 28 N. B. 597—1651, 1890. Brainerd v. Cowdrey, 16 Conn. 1 — 653. Brainerd v. New York, etc. R. R., 10 Bosw. 332—2000. Brainerd v. New York, etc. R. R., 25 N. Y. 496—2043. Brainerd v. Pecjr, 34 Vt. 496—2320, 2325. Braintree, etc. Co. v. Braintree, 146 Mass. 482, 16 N. B. 420—525, 1271, 1425. Bramah v. Roberts, 3 Bing. N. Cas. 963 (1837)— 1616, 1732. Braman v. Farmers', etc. Co., 114 Fed. 18, 51 C. C. A. 644—2473. Brampton, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 177 (1875)— 1714. Branch v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 481, 4 Fed. Cas. 12—2113, 2328. Branch v. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573, 23 S. E. 128—214, 227, 237, 281, 481, 1748. Branch v. Baker, 53 Ga. 502—427, 451. Branch v. Charleston, 92 U. S. 677, 23 L. Ed. 750—1237. Iviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Branch v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468, 476, 485, 486, 1 Sup. Ct. 495, 27 L. Ed. 279—83, 586, 1849, 2326, 2328, 2546, 2571, 2572. Branch v. Macon, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 385, 4 Fed. Gas. 15—2121. Branch Bank v. Steele, 10 Ala. 915— 1835. Brand v. Godwin, 8 N. Y. Supp. 339— 35. Brand t. Henderson, 107 111. 141—776. Brand v. Lawrenceville Branch R. R., 77 Ga. 506, 1 S. B. 255—236, 362. Brander v. Brander, 4 Ves. Jr. 800 (1799)— 1195. Brandon Iron Co. v. Gleason, 24 Vt. 228 1394 Brandreth, In re, 169 N. Y. 437, 62 N. B. 563, 58 L. R. A. 148—665, 1149, 1202, 1319, 1350. Brandreth, In re, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 575, 69 N. Y. Supp. 142-1149, 1359. Brandreth, In re, 28 Misc. Rep. 468, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1092^1244, 1257. Branham v. Record, 42 Ind. 181—236. Branin v. Connecticut, etc. R. R., 31 Vt. 214—2602. Branley v. Southeastern Ry., 12 C. B. (N. S.) 63 (1862)— 2609. Branson v. Oregonian Ry., 10 Or. 278 — 452. Brant, In re, 96 Fed. 257—2379. Brant v. Bhlen, 59 Md. 1—81, 82, 84, 128, 169, 171. Braslan v. Superior Court, etc., 124 Cal. 123, 56 Pac. 792—1382, 1754. Brass V. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. 857, 38 L. Ed. 757—2619, 2786. Brass v. Worth, 40 Barb. 648—924, 981, 985. Brassey v. New York, etc. R. R., 19 Fed. 66j?— 2197, 2367. Brauser v. New England, etc. Ins. Co., 21 Wis. 506—69. Bravard v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 115 Ind. 1, 17 N. E. 183—1431. Bray v. Farwell, 81 N. Y. 600, 608— 358, 1070, 1089. Bray v. Seligman, 75 Mo. 31 — 204. Brayton v. Cleveland, etc. Co., 63 Ohio St. 83, 57 N. E. 1085, 52 L. R. A. 525—73. Breck v. Barney, 66 N. E. 643 (Mass.) —88. Breedlove v. Martinsville, etc. R. R., 12 Ind. 114—272. Brehm v. Sperry, 92 Md. 378, 48 Atl. 368—755, 810, 1481, 1703, 1876, 2525. Breitung v. Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217 — 1027. Breman, etc. Bank v. Branch, etc. Co. 104 Mo. 425, 16 S. W. 209—1585. Brenham v. Water Co., 67 Tex. 542, 4 S. W. 143—2737, 2761, 2763, 2765. Brepnan v. Emery, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 971—1832. Brennan v. Tracy, 2 Mo. App. 540 — 73, 75, 76. Brennan v. Vogler, 174 Mass. 272, 54 N. B. 556—135, 1717. Brent v. Bank of Washington, 2 Cranch, C. C. 517, 4 Fed. Cas. 61— 1121, 1122, 1156. Brent v. Bank of Washington, 10 Pet. 596, 613, 615, 617, 9 L. Ed. 547—1115, 1116, 1117, 1122, 1123, 1126, 1127. Brent' v. State, 43 Ala. 297 — 1415. Bressler v. Wayne County, 25 Neb. 468, 41 N. W. 356—1225, 1226. Bressler v. Wayne County, 32 Neb. 834, 49 N. W. 787, 13 L. R. A. 614— 1226. Brewer v. Boston Theater, 104 Mass. 378—1521, 1905, 1912. Brewer v. Harrison, 27 Colo. 349, 62 Pac. 224—2166. Brewer v. Michigan Salt Assoc, 58 Mich. 351, 25 N. W. 374—1180, 1182. Brewer v. Stone, 77 Mass. 228—236. Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 46 Am. Rep. 318—1094. Brewer Brick Co. v. Brewer, 62 Me. 62, 16 Am. Rep. 395—250. Brewer, etc. Co. v. Boddie, 181 111. 622, 55 N. E. 49—1600. Brewers', etc. Ins. Co.- v. Burger, 10 Hun, 56—188, 306, 307. Brewery Assets Corp., In re (1894), 3 Ch. 272—190. Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15, 99 Am. Dec. 237—554, 932, 937, 940, 1320, 1337. Brewster v. Hatch, 122 N. Y. 349, 25 N. E. 505, 19 Am. St. Rep. 498—327, 329, 1472, 1477, 1481, 1878. Brewster v. Hatch, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 400—329, 1477. Brewster v. Lathrop, 15 Cal. 21 — 1148. Brewster v. Sime, 42 Cal. 139 — 722. Brewster v. Van Liew, 119 111. 554, 8 N. B. 842—1256. Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118, 16 L. Ed. 301—2061. Breyfogle v. Walsh, 71 Fed. '898— 968. Briar Hill Coal, etc. Co. v. Atlas Works, 146 Pa. St. 290, 23 Atl. 326— 1421. Brice v. Munro, 5 Can. Law T. 130 (1885)— 397. Brick V. Brick, 98 U. S. 514, 25 L. Ed. 256—939. Brick T. Campbell, 122 N. Y. 337, 345, 25 N. E. 493, 10 L. R. A. 259—48. Brickley v. Edwards, 131 Ind. 3, 30 N. B. 708—1418. TABLE OF CASES. lix [The numterg after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bridge v. Penniman, 105 N. Y. 642, 12 N. E. 19—815. -Bridge v. Penniman, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 183—812. Brldgeford v. Hall, 18 La. Ann. 211, 218—65. Bridgens v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 66 Fed. 9—676, 1515, 1890. Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. R., 15 Conn. 475—244. Bridgeport Bank v. New York, etc. R. R., 30 Conn. 231, 274, 275—824, 825, 846, 847, 850, 884. Bridgeport City Bank v. Empire, etc. Co., 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 421—1980, 2071, 2072. Bridgeport . Development Co. v. Trltsch, 110 Ala. 274, 20 South. 16— 1925. Bridgeport Electric, etc. Co. v. Header, 72 Fed. 115, 18 C. C. A. 451—1284. Bridgeport Savings Bank v. Eldredge, 28 Conn. 556, 73 Am. Dec. 688— 1774. Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116, 17 L. Ed. 571, 13 N. J. Bq. 81—2723, 2724. Bridger's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 305 (1870)— 88. Bridger's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 74 (1869) ^308, 344. 3ridgeton v. Bennett, 23 Me. 420—1802. Bridgeton v. Bridgeton, etc. Co. (N. J.), 43 Atl. 715, 45 L. R. A. 837 —2621, 2714. ;Bridgewater Iron Co. v. Lissberger, 116 U. S. 8, 6 Sup. Ct. 241, 29 L. Ed. 557—1017. Bridgewater Nav. Co., In re (1891), 2 Ch. 317 (1891), 1 Gh. 155—609, 1440. Bridge-water Nav. Co., In re, L. R, 39 Ch. D. 1 (1888)— 24, 584, 609. Bridgman v. Keokuk, 72 Iowa, 42, 33 N. W. 355—43, 1206. Bridport Old Brewery Co., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. 191 (1866)— 1277. Brien v. Harriman, 1 Tenn. Ch. 467 — 1070, 1090. Brierfleld, etc. Co. v. Gay, 106 Ala. 615, 17 South. 618—2230. Brigel v. Creed, 65 Ohio St. 40, 60 N. ■p] QQi 976 Griggs, Ex parte, L. R. 1 Eg. 483 (1866) 317, 333. "Briggs V. Cape Cod Land Co., 137 Mass. 71—1415, 1430. Briggs V. Cornwell, 9 Daly (N. Y.), 436—479, 2079. Briggs V. Horse R. R., 79 Me. 363, 10 Atl. 47, 1 Am. St. Rep. 316—2690. Briggs V. Massey, 42 L. T. 49 (1880) —886. IBrlggs V. Penniman, 8 Cow. 387, 18 Am. Dec. 454—426, 448. I Briggs V. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132, 147, 150, 151, 152, 11 Sup. Ct. 924, 35 L. Ed. 662—1379, 1686, 1691, 1692, 1891, 2404. Briggs V. Waldron, 83 N. Y. 582—572. Brigham v. Mead, 92 Mass. 245 — 51, 554, 556, 564, 574, 772, 843, 936. Brigham v. Nathan, 62 Kan. 243, 62 Pac. 319—476. Bright v. Canadian, etc. Co., 83 Hun, 482, 32 N. Y. Supp. 71—1773. Bright V. Farmers,' etc. Co., 3 Colo. App. 170, 32 Pac. 433—2788. Bright V. Hutton, 3 H. L. Cas. 341 (1852), 1 Sim. (N. S.) 602—1700, 1701. Bright V. Lord, 51 Ind. 272, 19 Am. Rep. 732—1148. Bright V. Me'tairie Cem. Assoc, 33 La. Ann. 58—1774. Bright's Case, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 602 (1851), 3 H. L. Cas. 341—1700. Brightman v.- Bates, 175 Mass. 105, 55 N. E. 809—1362. Brighton Arcade Co. v. Dowling, L. R. 3 C. P. 175 (1868)— 382. Brighton Brewery Co., In re, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 278 (1868)— 1467. Brighton, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 28 (1890)— 592. Brightwell v. Mallory, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 196—43, 736, 993. Brill v. West End R. R., 4 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 139—2300. Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 88 N. Y. 52 —1412, 1687, 1876, 1896, 1910. Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 99 N. Y. 185, 194, 1 N. E. 663—487, 1861, 1862, 1928. 1929. Brinckerhofe v. Bostwick, 105 N. Y. 567, 12 N. E. 58—1876. Brinckerhoff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 217—406. Brine v. Insurance Co., 96 U. S. 627, 24 L. Ed. 858—2236. Brinham v. Wellersburg Coal Co., 47 Pa. St. 43—421, 442, 449, 450, 491, 492. Brinkerhoff-Farrls, etc. Co. v. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447, 24 S. W. 129—17, 884, 1117, 1257, 1353, 1356. Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67 Md. 169, 8 Atl. 904—574. Brinley v. Grou, 50 Conn. 66, 47 Am. Rep. 618—1199. Brinley v. Mann, 56 Mass. 337, 48 Am. Dec. 669—1804, 1805. Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 94 N. Y. 204—825, 1144, 1145. Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 2t Hun, 438—825, 1144. Briscoe v. Southern Kan. Ry., 40 Fed. 273—2554, 2581. Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. 307 —2401. Ix TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bristol V. Bristol, etc. W. "W., 34 Atl. 359, 32 L. R. A. 740 (R. I.)— 2771. Bristol V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 15 111. 436—69. Bristol V. Sandford, 12 Blatclif. 341, 4 Fed. Cas. 163—438. Bristol V. Scranton, 57 Fed. 70—1461. Bristol V. Scranton, 63 Fed. 218, 11 0. C. A. 144—1461. Bristol, etc. Bank v. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298—1784. Bristol, etc. Co. v. Bristol Gas, etc. Co., 99 Tenn. 371, 42 S. W. 19—1990, 2001, 2336. Bristol, etc. Co. v. Selliez, 175 Pa. St. 18, 34 Atl. 309—198, 378. Bristol, etc. Co. v. Thomas, 93 Va. 396, 25 S. B. 110—2371. Bristol, etc. Co. v. Tilton, 70 N. H. 239, 47 Atl. 591—193. Bristol, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 6 Eq. 448 (1868)— 592, 2527. Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545, 48 S. W. 228—34, 68, 80, 1373, 1568. Bristol Milling, etc. Co. v. Probasco, 64 Ind. 406—492. Bristol Sav. Bank v. Judd, 89 N. W. 93 (Iowa)— 1797. Bristor v. Smith, 158 N. Y. 157, 53 N. B. 42—429. Britannia, etc. Assoc, In re, [1891]' 1 Ch. 202—541. British American Land Co. v. Ames, 47 Mass. 391—1951. British Assur. Co. t. Brown, 12 C. B. 723 (1852)— 1820. British, etc. Ass'n Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 335 (1880)— 1698. British, etc. Box Co., In re, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 467—101, 107. British, etc. Co., In re, 3 Kay & J. 408 (1857)— 1286, 1295. British, etc. Co., In re, 59 L. T. Rep. 291 (1888)— 1752. British, etc. Co. v. Inland Rev. Com'rs, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 165 (1881)— 2092. British, etc. Corp. v. Couper (1894), A. C. 399—616, 668. British, etc. Soc, In re, 4 De G., J. & S. 407 (1864)— 699. British, etc. Tel. Co. v. Colson, L. R. 6 Bxch. 108 (1871)— 190. British Farmers,' etc. Co., In re, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004 (1880)— 171. British Farmers', etc. Co., In re, L. R 7 Ch. Div. 533 (1878)— 163, 171. British Farmers', etc. Co., In re, 13 Weekly Notes, 81—173. British Nation, etc. Assoc, In re, L. R 8 Ch. D. 679 (1878)— 687, 2743. British Provident, etc. Assoc, In re L. R. 5 Ch. D. 306 (1877)— 1373. British Prov. L. Ins. Co., In re, 4 De G., J. & S. 407 (1864)— 278. British Sugar Refining Co., In re, S K. & J. 408, 413 (1857)— 281, 1279, 1284. British & A. Tel. Co., In re, L. R. 14 Eq. 316 (1872)— 180. Briton, etc. Assoc, v. Jones, 61 L. T. Rep. 384 (1889)— 277, 1285. Brittain v. Allen, 1 Dev. L. (N. C.) 120—42. Brittain v. Newland, 2 Dev. & N. (N. C.) L. 363 (1837)— 66. Brittan v. Oakdale, etc., 124 Cal. 282, 57 Pac. 84, 71 Am. St. Rep. 58—798, 961, 985. Brittian, Bx parte, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 281 (1851)— 1700. Brittle, etc. Co. v. Rust, 10 Colo. App. 463, 51 Pac. 526—2332. Britton v. Green Bay, etc. Co., 81 Wis. 48, 51 N. W. 84, 29 Am. St. Rep. 856 —2772. Broadbent v. Farley, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 214—1249. Broadbent v. Johnson, 2 Idaho, 300, IS Pac. 83—212. Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24—51, 847, 849, 937, 1005. Broadway, etc. Bank v. Baker, 176' Mass. 294, 57 N. B. 603—469, 471, 480, 2083. Broadway, etc. Co. v. Dessau Co., 45- N. Y. App. Div. 475, 61 N. Y. Supp. 335—1604. Brobst V. Brock, 10 Wall. 519, 19 L. Ed. 1002—2289. Brocaw v. Gibson County, 73 Ind. 543- —245, 252, 263. Brock V. Ruttan, 1 C. P. (Can.) 218 (1851)— 994, 1008. Brock Dist. Council v. Bowen, 7 U. C. Q. B. 471 (1850)— 65. Brockenbrough v. James River, etc. Co., 1 Patton & H. (Va.) 94 — 292. Brockert v. Iowa Cent. Ry., 93 Iowa, 132, 61 N. W. 405—2530. Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40 — 65, 1818. Brockway v. Gadsden, etc Co., 102 Ala. 620, 15 South. 431—281, 1741. Brockway v. Innes, 39 Mich. 47, 33 Am.. Rep. 348—430. ^ Brockway v. Ireland, 61 How. Pr. 372 — 153. Brockway Mfg. Co., In re, 89 Me. 121, 35 Atl. 1012, 56 Am. St. Rep. 401— 676, 1612, 2014. Broderip v. Salomon (1895), 2 Ch. Z2S —27, 504. Brodie v. McCabe, 33 Ark. 690 — 242. Brodrick v. Brown, 69 Fed. 497—226 519. TABLE OF CASES. Ixi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brokaw v. New Jersey R. R. & T. Co., 32 N. J. L. 328, 90 Am. Dec. 659—70, 73, 1617. Bromley, In re, 55 L. T. Rep. 145 . (1886)— 1199. Bromley v. Billot, 38 N. H. 287, 75 Am. Dec. 182—436. Bromley v. Smith, 1 Sim. 8 (1826) — 1875. Bronsdon v. Winter, Ambl. 56 (1738) — 655. Bronson, In re, 150 N. Y. 1, 17, 24, 44 N. E. 707, 34 L. R. A. 238, 55 Am. St. Rep. 632—47, 1244. Bronson v. Albion Tel. Co., 93 N. W. 201 (Neb.)— 2794, 2799, 2820. Bronson v. La Crosse, etc. R. R., 2 Wall. 283, 302, 17 L. Ed. 725—1939, 2028, 2030, 2240, 2244, 2256, 2264, 2474. Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524, 17 L. Ed. 347—2238, 2239, 2243, 2244, 2281. Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, 19 L. Ed. 141—2002. Bronson v. Schneider, 49 Ohio St. 438, 33 N. E. 233—483. Bronson v. Wilmington, etc. Ins. Co., 85 N. C. 411—492. Bronson, etc. Co. v. Rheubottom, 122 Mich. 608, 81 N. W. 563—1119. Brookfield v. Hecker, 118 Fed. 942 — 2400. Brooklyn v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 47 N. Y. 475, 7 Am. Rep. 469—2719. Brooklyn v. Nassau Blec. R. R., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 31, 46 N. Y. Supp. 651— 2713. Brooklyn Crosstown R. R. v. Strong, 75 N. Y. 591—645, 647. Brooklyn El. R. R., Matter of, 32 N. Y. App. Div. 221, 52 N. Y. Supp. 997— 41. Brooklyn, etc. Co. v. City, 78 N. Y. 524 —1428. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., In re, 75 N. Y. 335 —1428. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., In re, 81 N. Y. 69—2564, 2576. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., In re, 125 N. Y. 434, 26 N. E. 474—1429. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. v. Brooklyn City R. R., 32 Barb. 358, 364—2667, 2681, 2703, 2707. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 33 Barb. 420—2635, 2707. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. v. Long Island R. R., 72 N. Y. App. Div. 496, 76 N. Y. Supp. 777—2566. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. v. Nagel, 75 Hun, 590, 27 N. Y. Supp. 669, 150 N. Y. 562, 44 N. E. 1121—2800. Brooklyn, etc. Ry., In re, 72 N. Y. 245— 1416, 1428, 2681. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., v. Brook- lyn, 152 N. Y. 244, 46 N. E. 509— 2700. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co. v. Bledsoe, 52 Ala. 538—1683. Brookman v. Merchants', etc. Bank, 31 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 191, 65 N. Y. Supp. 54—469. Brookman v. Rothschild, 3 Sim. 153 (1829)— 909. Brooks v. Brooks, 174 Pa. St. 519, 34 Atl. 205—1179. Brooks V. City of Wichita, 114 Fed. 297, 52 C. C. A. 209—2731. Brooks V. Dick, 135 N. Y. 652, 32 N. E. 230—2520. Brooks V. New York, etc. R. R., 30 Hun, 47—1961. Brooks y. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 443, 25 L. Ed. 1057—2333. Brooks V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 14 Blatchf. 463, 4 Fed. Cas. 308—2184, 2222, 2239, 2291. Brooks V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 211—2188. Brookville, etc. Co. v. McCarty, 8 Ind. 392, 65 Am. Dec. 768—369. Brookville Ins. Co. v. Records, 5 Blackf . (Ind.) 170—1802. Brooksville R. R. v. Byron, 50 S. W. 530 (Ky.)— 372. Broome v. New York, etc. Tel. Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 141, 7 Atl. 851—2793. Brotherhood's Case, 31 Beav. 365 (1862)— 297, i860.' ^roughton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 462, 79 N. W. 691—1742, 2142. Broughton v. Manchester, etc. Water- works, 3 B. & Aid. 1 (1819)— 1627, 1978, 1980. Brouwer v. Cotheal, 10 Barb. 216— 1099. Brouwer v. Harbeck, 9 N. Y. 589— 1891. Brower v. Baucus, 14 N. Y. Supp. 462 — 2258, 2263. Brower v. East, etc. Co., 84 Ga. 219, 10 S. B. 629—1761. Brower v. Passenger Ry., 3 Phila. 161 —191, 203. Brown, Ex parte, 19 Beav. 97 (1854) — 58L Brown, Ex parte, 72 Mo. 83, 37 Am. Rep. 426—2844. Brown, Ex parte, 15 S. C. 518 — 2452, 2492. Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181, 4 Fed. Cas. 350—854, 888, 1439. Brown v. Anderson, 104 Ga. 30, 30 S. E. 412—950, 1991. Brown v. Andrew, 13 Jur. 938 (1849) — 1752, 1765. Brown v. Bache, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 367, 72 N. Y. Supp. 687—1928, 2522. Ixii TABLE OB'' CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227, 69 Am. Dec. 389—2627. Brown v. Bedford City, etc. Co., 91 Va. 31, 20 S. E. 968—1902. Brown V. Black. L. R. 8 Ch. App. 939 (1873)— 541, 581. Brown v Boorman, 11 CI. & P. 1 (1844) —911. Brown v. Bradford, 103 Iowa, 378, 72 N. W. 648—224, 1135, 1660. Brown v. Brink, 57 Neb. 606, 78 N. W. 280—440. Brown v. Brltton, 41 N. Y. App: Div. , 57, 58 N. Y. Supp. 353—1352. Brown v. Brown, 58 Conn. 85, 19 Atl. 236—1771. Brown v. Brown, 4 K. & J. 704 (1858) —658. Brown v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 27 Hun, 342—1162, 1904. Brown v. Byers, 16 M. & W. 252 (1847) —1306, 1616. Brown v. Calumet River Ry., 125 111. 600, 18 N. E. 283—1416. Brown v. Campbell, Hopk. Oh. (2d ed.) 265—715. Brown v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 101 Mo. 484, 14 S. W. 719—2637. Brown v. Clow, 62 N. E. 1006 (Ind.) — 156, 432, 463, 1378, 1755. Brown v. Collins, L. R. 12 Eq. 586, 594 (1871)— 653. Brown v. Commissioners, 21 Pa. St. 37—248. Brown v. Commonwealth, 3 Grant. (Pa.) 209—1305. Brown v. Corbin, 40 MJnn. 508, 42 N. W. 481—501, 507. Brown v. Creston Ice Co., 113 Iowa, 615, 85 N. W. 750—1507. Brown v. De Young, 167 111. 549, 47 N. E. 863—1501, 1857, 1879. Brown v. Dibble, 65 Mich. 520, 32 N. W. 656—236, 372. Brown v. Donnell, 49 Me. 421, 77 Am. Dec. 266—1771. Brown v. Duluth, etc. Ry., 53 Fed. 889 —158, 1850, IbSO, 2020. Brown v. Duplessis, 14 La. Ann. 842— 2661, 2673, 2703. Brown v. Eastern Slate Co., 134 Mass. 590—435. Brown v. Ellis, 86 Fed. 357—538. Brown v. Ellis, 103 Fed. 834—186, 539, 1199. Brown V. Fairmount, etc. Co. 10 Phlla 32—1029. Brown v. Farmers' L. & T Co 117 N Y. 266, 22 N. E. 952—990. Brown v. Farmers' Supply Co. 23 Or 541, 32 Pac. 548—1814, 2149. Brown v. Finn, 34 Fed. 124 — 549 Brown v. Fisk, 23 Fed. 228—402.' Brown V. Florida Southern Ry., 19 Pla. 472—622, 625. Brown v. French, 125 Mass. 410, 28 Am. Rep. 254—715. Brown V. Galveston, etc. Co., 92 Tex. 520, 50 S. W. 126—1504. Brown v. Grand Rapids, etc. Co., 58 Fed. 286, 7 C. C. A. 225, 22 L. K. A. 817—1631, 1658. Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St. 667, 678—427, 428, 461, 568, 571, 575. Brown v. Holt, 4 Taunt. 587 (1812) — 1076. Brown v. Hotel Assoc, 88 N. W. 175 (Neb.)— 937, 953. Brown v. Howard F. Ins. Co., 42 Md. 384, 20 Am. Rep. 90—835. Brown v. Jacobs, etc. Co., 41 S. E. 553, 57 L. R. A. 547 (Ga.)— 1045. Brown v. Keifer, 71 N. Y. 610—1974, 2116. Brown v. Killian, 11 Ind. 449 — 1628. Brown V. King, 62 Fed. 529, 10 C. C. A. 541—2481. Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530, 10 Sup. Ct. 604, 33 L. Ed. 1021—2372, 2374, 2375. Brown v. Lawton, 6 N. Y. Supp. 137 — 1256. Brown v. Lehigh, etc. Co., 49 Pa. St. 270—1138, 1142. Brown V. Lunt, 37 Me. 428 — 1737. Brown v. McGuire, 1 Beatty, Ir. Ch. 358 (1829)— 661. Brown v. Manchester, etc. Ry., L. R. 10 Q. B. D. 250 (1882), L. R. 9 Q. B. D. 230 (1882)— 2644. Brown v. Maplewood, etc. Assoc, 89 N. W. 872 (Minn.)— 32, 508. Brown v. Mayor, etc., 66 N. Y. 385— 69. Brown v. Merrill, 107 Cal. 446, 40 Pac. 557, 48 Am. St. Rep. 145 — 442. Brown v. Mesnard M. Co., 105 Mich 653, 63 N. W. 1000—1438. Brown v. Morristown, etc. Co., 42 S W. 161 (Tenn.)— 1651. Brown v. New Bedford Sav. Inst., 137 Mass. 262 — 975. Brown v. New York Cent etc. R. R 75 Hun, 355, 27 N. Y. Supp. 69— 2650. Brown v. New York, etc. R. R., 22 How. Pr. 451—2437. Brown v. O'Connell, 36 Conn. 451, 4 Am. Rep. 89 — 1737. Brown v. Ohio Valley Ry., 79 Fed 176—2337. Brown v. Orr, 112 Pa. St. 233, 3 Atl 817—1889. Brown v. PaciBc Mall, etc. Co 5 Blatchf. 525, 4 Fed. Cas. 420—1298 1308, 1326, 1327, 1329, 1367. TABLE OF CASES. Ixiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brown v. Penobscot Bank, 8 Mass. 445 —2604. Brown v. Phelps, 103 Mass. 313 — 772. Brown v. Republican, etc. Mines, 17 Colo. 421, 30 Pae. 66, 16 L. R. A. 426 —1500. Brown v. Republican, etc. Mines, 55 Fed. 7—1282, 1558, 1872, 2528. Brown v. Rosedale St. Ry., 15 S. W. 120 (Tex.)— 2454. Brown v. Runals, 14 Wis. 693 — 973. Brown v. Schleier, 112 Fed. 577 — 1597, 2445. Brown v. Schleier, 118 Fed. 981 — 1436, 1595. Brown v. Smith, 88 Fed. 565 — 444, 2400. Brown v. Smith, 122 Mass. 589—847. Brown V. Somerset, 11 Mass. 221 — 1799. Brown v. Speyers, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 296 —778. Brown v. Stoerkel, 74 Mich. 269, 41 N. W. 921, 3 L,. R. A. 430—1071. Brown v. Tillinghast, 84 Fed. 71—630. Brown v. Tinsley, 21 S. W. 535 (Ky.) — 246. Brown v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 35 Fed. 444—2443. Brown v. Trail, 89 Fed. 641 — 438, 440, 442, 451, 480, 569. Brown v. Union Ins. Co., 3 La. Ann. 177, 182—398, 1382. Brown v. Valley, etc. Co., 127 Cal. 630, 60 Pac. 424—1732, 1754. Brown v. Vandyke, 8 N. J. Eq. 795, 55 Am. Dec. 250 — 2268. Brown v. Wabash Ry., 96 111. 297— 2536. Brown v. Ward, 3 Duer, 660 — 977. Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 93 Mass. 326, 334—1601, 1608, 1784, 1800. Brown v. Wyandotte, etc. Ry., 68 Ark. 134, 56 S. W. 862—1430. Browne, In re, 104 Fed. 762 — 980, 2421. Browne v. Collins, L. R. 12 Eq. 586, 594 (1871)— 1196, 1202. Browne v. La Trinidad, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 1 (1886)— 1712, 1730. Browne v. "Monmouthshire Ry., 13 Beav. 32 (1851)— 1173, 1176. Browne v. St. Paul Plow Works, 62 Minn. 90, 64 N. W. 66—182, 350, 671, 765. Browne, etc. Co., In re, 106 La. 486, 31 South. 67—499. Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N. Y. 518, 22 N. E. 24, 4 L. R. A. 685—248. Brown, etc. Co. v. Troxel, 98 Fed. 620— 1056. Browning v. Camden, etc. R. R., 4 N. J. Eq. 47—2625. Browning v. Great, etc. Co., 5 H. & N. 856 (1860—1716. Browning v. Hinkle, 48 Minn. 544, 51 N. W. 605, 31 Am. St. Rep. 691—171,. 1796, 1831. Browning v. Kelly, 124 Ala. 645, 27 South. 391—2522. Browning v. Mullins, 13 S. W. 427" (Ky.)— 2107, 2749. Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 18 Ind. 68—180, 185, 216, 307, 319. Brownlie v. Campbell, L. R. 5 App.. Cas. 925 (1880)— 319. Brownson v. Chapman, 63 N. Y. 625 — 762, 912. Brown's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 102 (1873)— 180. Brown's Petition, 14 R. I. 371, 51 Am.. Rep. 397—1195. Broyles v. McCoy, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 602—525. Brua's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 294—769,. 775. Bruce v. Lord, 1 Hilton, 247 flS56) — 1818. Bruce v. Nickerson, 141 Mass. 403, 5 N. E. 647—332. Bruce v. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379—1379, 1393. Bruce V. Smith, 44 Ind. 1 — 736, 746, 888. Bruce County v. Cromar, 22 L. J.. Exch. 321, 327 (1863)— 67. Bruff V. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200—639, 646, 647. BrufEett V. Great Western R. R., 25 111. 353—1394, 2119, 2532. Brum V. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. 140, 4 Woods, 156—1582. Brumly v. Westchester, etc. Soc. 1 Johns. Ch. 366—1111, 1940. Brundage v. Brundage, 65 Barb. 397 — 1138, 1146, 1152. Brundage v. Brundage, 60 N. Y. 544,. 551—1138, 1139, 1146, 1147, 1149,. 1152, 1197. Brundage v. Brundage, 1 Thomp. & G.- (N. Y.) 82—36, 1147. Brundage v. Monumental, etc. Min.. Co., 12 Or. 322, 7 Pac. 314—407, 456. Brundred v. Rice, 49 Ohio St. 640, 32 N. E. 169, 34 Am. St. Rep. 589—1537,.. 1610, 2608. Bruner v. Brown, 139 Ind. 600, 38 N. E. 318—128. Bruning v. Hoboken, etc. Co., 50 Atl.. 906 (N. J.)— 1104. Brunner, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 18 Ind. App. 174, 47 N. E. 686, 63- Am. St. Rep. 339—2455. Brunswick, etc. Co. v. National Bank, etc., 99 Fed. 635, 40 C. C. A. 22—485, 1544, 2013. Brunswick, etc. Ry., In re, 1 Pugs. &- B. (N. B.) 667 (1878)— 2622. Brunswick, etc. R. R. v. Hughes, 52; Ga. 557—2192. 3xiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. United Gas, etc. Co., 85 Me. 532, 27 Atl. 525, 35 Am. St. Rep. 385—2739. Brunswick Terminal Co.. v. National Bank, etc., 88 Fed. 607—485. Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank, 112 Fed. 813—532, 572. Brunton's Claim, In re, L. R. 19 Eq. 302 (1874)— 2096. Bruschke v. Nord Chicago, etc. Verein, 145 111. 43, 34 N. E. 417—1896. . Brush V. Fisher, 70 Mich. 469, 38 N. W. 446, 14 Am. St. Rep. 510—2655. 3rush Electric Co. v. Brush-Swan, etc. Co., 49 Fed. 8—1531. Brush Elec. L. Co. v. Jones, etc. Co.; 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 340—2730. Brush El. L. Co. v. Kelley, 126 Ind. 220, 25 N. E. 812, 10 L. R. A. 250— 2826. Brush, etc. Co. v. City, etc. Montgom- ery, 114 Ala. 433, 21 So. 960—1769. Brush, etc. Co. v. Consol. etc. Co., 60 Hun, 446, 15 N. Y. Supp. 477—2846. Brush, etc. Co. v. Consul, etc. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 81—2846. Brush, etc. Co. v. Jones, etc. Co., 23 W. L. Bull. 329—2676. Bryan v. Baldwin, 52 N. Y. 232—909, 923, 982, 987, 1263. Bryan v. Baldwin, 7 Lans. 174 — 982. Bryan v. Board of Education, 151 TJ. S. 639, 14 Sup. Ct. 465, 38 L. Ed. 297— 1037. Bryan v. Board of Education, 90 Ky. 322, 13 S. W. 276—1042. Bryan v. Lewis, Ryan & M. 386 (1826) —774. Bryan v. Montandon, 55 Pac. 650 (Idaho)— 705. Bryant v. Goodnow, 22 Mass. 228 — 1285. Bryant's, etc. Co. v. Felt, 87 Me. 234, 32 Atl. 888, 33 L. R. A. 593, 47 Am. St. Rep. 323—342. Bryce v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 73 Hun, 233, 25 N. Y. Supp. 1043—2075. Brymer v. Butler Water Co., 179 Pa. St. 331, 36 Atl. 249, 36 L. R. A. 260— 2767. Byrne v. Chicago Gen. Ry., 169 111. 75, 48 N. E. 703—2675. Bryon v. Carter, 22 La. Ann. 98 — 1114, 1116, 1117, 1120. Bryson v. Rayner, 25 Md. 424, 90 Am. Dec. 69—971, 984, 985, 988, 1254. Bryson v. Warwick, etc. Co., 1 Sm. & G. 447 (1853)— 1897, 2574. B. S. Green Co. v. Blodgett, 159 111. 169, 42 N. E. 176, 50 Am. St. Rep. 146 —1594, 1803. Buchan, Ex parte, 36 L. J. (Ch.) 150 (1866)— 1107, 1108. Buchanan v. Barnes, 34 S. W. 425 (Tenn.)— 1642. Buchanan v. LitchHeld, 102 U. S. 278, 26 L. Ed. 138—256, 2765. Buchanan v. Meisser, 105 111. 638—479, 480. Buchan's Case, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 549 (1879)— 539. Bucher v. Dillshurg, etc. R. R., 76 Pa. St. 306—180, 194. 307, 357. Buck V. Buck, 1 Campb. 547 (1808) — 1076. Buck V. Jones, 70 Pac. 951 (Col.) — 146. Buck V. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 4 Cent. L. J. 430 (Tenn.)— 2804, 2308, 2318. Buck V. Ross, 68 Conn. 29, 35 Atl. 763, 57 Am. St. Rep. 60—676. Buck V. Seymour, 46 Conn. 156—2320, 2323, 2545, 2577. Buckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr. 652 (1795)— 44. Buck, etc. Co. V. Lehigh, etc. Co., 50 Pa. St. 91, 88 Am. JDec. 534—1396. Buckfield, etc. R. R. v. Irish, 39 Me. 44 —220. Buckland v. Adams Exp. Co., 97 Mass. 124, 93 Am. Dec. 68—2727. Buckley v. Briggs, 30 Mo. 452 — 1624, 1801, 1802, 1977, 1980. Bucklin V. Bucklin, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 141—1063. Buckmaster v. Consumers' Ice Co., 5 Daly, 313—867. Buckner v. Hart, 52 Fed. 835—2674, 2705. Bucksport, etc. R. R. v. Brewer, 67 Me. 295—229, 230, 239, 264. Bucksport, etc. R. R. v. Buck, 65 Me. 536—361, 367. Bucksport, etc. R. R. v. Buck, 68 Me. 81—229, 1030, 1284. Bucksport, etc. R. R. v. Edinburgh, etc. Co., 68 Fed. 972, 16 C. C. A. 74—1460. Buckwalter v. Atchison, etc. Ry., 64 Kan. 403, 67 Pac. 831—2630, 2798. Buckwalter v. Whipple, 41 S. E. 1010 (Ga.)— 1570. Budd V. Multnomah Street Ry., 12 Or. 271, 7 Pac. 99, 53 Am. Rep. 355—1248, 1251. Budd V. Multnomaii St. Ry., 15 Greg. 413, 15 Pac. 659, 3 Am. St. Rep. 169— 276, 279, 281, 289, 1256. Budd V. Munroe, 18 Hun, 316 — 720, 760, 868, 1372. Budd V. New York, 143 tJ. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. 468, 36 L. Ed. 247—2613, 2786. Budd's Case, 3 De G., F. & J. 297 (1861) —580. Buel V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 104 Fed. 839, 44 C. C. A. 213—2272. TABLE OF CASES. Ixv rrhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Buell V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 236, 57 N. Y. Supp. Ill— 1381, 1939. Buell V. Buckingham, 16 Iowa, 284, 85 Am. Deo. 516—1486, 1635, 1654, 1665, 1751. Buell V. Rope, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 113, 39 N. Y. Supp. 475—1575. Buena Vista, etc. Baiik v. Grief, 114 Ga. 398, 40 S. B. 284—41, 1117. Buenos Ayres, etc. Co., In re, 66 L. T. Rep. 408 (1892)— 592, 1558, 2579. Buenz v. Cook, 15 Colo. 38, 24 Pac. 679 —426, 517. Buffalo, In re, 68 N. Y. 167—2625, 2633. Buffalo County Nat. Bank v. Sharpe, 40 Neb. 123, 58 N. W. 734—1840. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Bellevue, etc. Co., 165 N. Y. 247, 59 N. E. 5, 51 L. R. A. 951—2714. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 130 N. Y. 152. 29 N. E. 121—2604. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Medina, etc. Co., 162 N. Y. 67, 56 N. E. 505—641, 1725, 1986, 2014, 2045, 2062, 2168, 2257. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 42 Hun, 153—75, 331. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Third, etc. Bank, 162 N. Y. 163, 56 N. B. 521, 48 L. R. A. 107—1121, 1134. Buffalo, etc. Inst. v. Bitter, 87 N. Y. 250—1815. Buffalo, etc. R. R., In re, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1048—683, 1324, 2565. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100—2625, 2627. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., Ill N. Y. 132, 19 N. B. 63, 2 L. R. A. 284—2611, 2617. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 —370, 495. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Clark, 22 Hun, 359, 362—185. Buffalo, etc. R. -R. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336, 346, 347, 354—192, 194, 218, 290, 292, 314, 1029, 2583. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Glfford, 87 N. Y. 294—180, 185, 191, 218, 376, 377. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Gifford, 22 Hun, 359—376, 377. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Harvey, 107 Pa. St. 319—2322. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157—372. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Lampson, 47 Barb. 533—1517, 2319. Buffalo, etc. Ry. v. New York, etc. R. R., 22 Alb. L. J. 134 (N. Y.)— 1423. Buffalo, etc. Ry. v. New York, Lake Erie, etc. R. R., 72 Hun, 583, 587, 25 N. Y. Supp. 155—2706. Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Pottle, 23 Barb. 21—1040. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co. v. Alberget, 22 Hun, 349—821, 862. Buffalo Lioan, etc. Co. v. Medina Gas, etc. Co., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 199, 42 N. Y. Supp. 781—2013, 2062. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 106 N. Y. 669, 12 N. B. 826— 75. Buffington v. Bardon, 80 Wis. 635, 50 N. W. 776—490, 1711. Bufflt V. Troy, etc. R. R., 40 N. Y. 168— 2640. Buford V. Keokuk, etc. Co., 69 Mo. 611 —1914. Buford V. Keokuk, etc. Co., 3 Mo. App. 159—1563. Bugg, Ex parte, 2 Dr. & Sm. 452 (1865) —529, 530, 549, 551. Buie V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 65 S. W. 27, 55 L. R. A. 861 (Texas)— 1542, 2629. Buie V. Payette Com'rs, 79 N. C. 267 — 1222. Builders', etc. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ala. 202, 24 South. 416—1634, 2373. Building, etc. Assoc, v. Chamberlain, 4 S. D. 271, 56 N. W. 897—509, 1419. Building, etc. Co., In re (1896), 1 Ch. 100—173. Buist V. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 4 Kan. App. 700, 46 Pac. 718—449. Buist V. Melchers, 44 S. C. 46, 21 "S. E. 449—1686. . Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assoc, 164 N. Y. 557, 58 N. E. 1085—302, 1881. Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assoc, 18 App. Div. 548, 46 N. Y. Supp. 35—302, 1881. Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assoc, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 507, 71 N. Y. Supp. 610— 335. Bulkeley v. Stephens (1896), 2 Ch. 241 —1198. , Bulkley v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 77 Mo. 105—1904.' Bulkley v. Derby Pishing Co., 2 Conn. 252, 7 Am. Dec 271—1798, 1800, 1820. Bulkley v. Whitcomb, 121 N. Y. 107, 24 N. E. 13—480, 1518. Bull V. Douglas, 4 Munf. (Va.) 303, 6 Am. Dec 518—1256, 1258, 1264. Bull V. Smith, 84 L. T. Rep. 835 (1901) —662. Bullard, Matter of, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 207, 78 N. Y. Supp. 491—665. Bullard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589, 21 L. Ed. 923—1134. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243, 289, 4 Ped. Cas. 625—451, 456, 485. Bullard v. Kinney, 10 Cal. 60—1085. Bullard v. Nantucket Bank, 5 Mass. 99—66. Bullard v. Saratoga, etc. Co., 77 N. T. 525—2777. Ixvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bullen V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 109 Wis. 41, 85 N. W. 115—1606, 1776, 1808. Buller, In re, 74 L. T. Rep. 406 (1896) —657, 658. Bullock V. Bullock, 55 L. T. Rep. 703 (1886)— 719. Bullock Y. Chapman, 2 De G. & Sm. 211 (1848)— 581. Bullock V. Consumers' Lumber Co., 31 Pac. 367 (Cal.)— 1830. Bullock V. Falmouth, etc. Co., 85 Ky. 184, 3 S. W. 129—179, 213, 1087. Bullock V. Kilgour, 39 Ohio St. 543— 472. Bulmer's Case, 33 Beav. 435 (1864) — 537. Bulow V. Charleston, 1 Nott & M. (S. Q \ g27 1219 Bult V. Morrell, 12 Ad. & E. 745 (1840) —1978. Bumgardner v. Leavitt, 35 W. Va. 194, 13 S. E. 67, 12 L. R. A. 776—750. Bump V. Butler County, 93 Fed. 290— 267, 1395, 1587, 2154, 2177, 2250, 2279. Buncombe County v. Tommey, 116 U. S. 122, 135, 5 Sup. Ct. 626, 29 L. Ed. 308—2331, 2599. Buncombe Turnp. Co. v. McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 306, 310—1756, 1802. Bundy v. Cocke, 128 IT. S. 185, 9 Sup. Ct. 242, 32 L. Ed. 396—456, 544. Bundy v. Jacksdn, 24 Fed. 628 — 678. Bunn V. Riker, 4 Johns. 426, 4 Am. Dec. 292—768. Bunn's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49—393, 398, 402, 557. Bunn's Case, 2 De G. F. & J. 275, 295 (I860)— 96, 579. Bunting v. Camden, etc. R. R., 81 Pa. St. 254—2000, 2042. , Burbank v. Dennis, 101 Cal. 90, 35 Pac. 444—1470, 1476. Burbridge v. Morris, 3 H. & C. 664 (1865)— 1699. Burch V. Breckinridge, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 488, 63 Am. Dec. 553—1065. Burch V. Caden Stone Co., 93 Fed. 181 —1614, 2827. Burch V. Taylor, 1 Wash. St. 245, 24 Pac. 438—395, 402, 427. Burchinell v. Bennett, 10 Colo. App. 502, 52 Pac. 51—1652. Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y. 287, 304 307, 308, 54 N. B. 17—18, 690, 749, 1031, 1158, 1272, 1353, 1513, 1515, 1556, 1566, 1621, 1750, 1794, 1848. Burden v. Burden, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 160, 40 N. Y. Supp. 499—690, 749, 1515, 1794. Burden, etc. Co. v. Ferris, etc. Co. 87 Fed. 810, 31 C. C. A. 233—2481. Burdett-Coutts v. True Blood, etc., [1899] 2 Ch. 616—1338, 1560, 1864. Burdine v. Grand Lodge, 37 Ala. 478 — 67. Burgess' Case, L. ,R. 15 Ch. D. 507 (1880) 337. Burgess v. Pue, 2 Gill (Md.), 11—1799. Burgess v. St. Louis County R. R., 99 Mo. 496, 12 S. W. 1050—1491, 1859, 2030. Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 Sup. Ct. 10, 27 L. Ed. 359—533, 939. 940. Burgess v. Sherman, 147 Pa. St. 254, 23 Atl. 554—1707. Burget V. Robinson, 113 Fed. 669, 51 C. C. A. 488—479. Burham v. San Francisco, etc. Co., 76 Cal. 24, 26, 17 Pac. 939—302. Burhorn v. Lockwood, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 301, 75 N. Y. Supp. 828—925, 944. Burk V. Mead, 64 N. E. 880 (Ind.) — 385, 507, 1427, 1707. Burk V. Muskegon, etc. Co., 98 Mich. 614, 57 N. W. 804—2415. Burkamp v. Healey, 72 S. W. 759 (Ky.) —1803. Burke v. American L. & T. Co., 155 XJ. S. 534, 15 Sup. Ct. 214, 39 L. Ed. 251 —2010. Burke v. Badlam, 57 Cal. 594—1209, 1214. Burke v. Concord, etc. R. R., 61 N. H. 161—2597. Burke v. Flood, 1 Fed. 541, 6 Sawy. 220 —1868. Burke V. Short, 79 Fed. 6, 24 C. C. A. 422—2489. Burke v. Sidra Bay Co., 92 N. W. 568 (Wis.)— 1294, 1759. Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390, 396, 21 L. Ed. 361—197, 231, 350, 554. Burke, etc. Co. v. Wells, etc. Co., 60 Pac. 87 (Idaho)— 1568. Burkett v. Taylor, 86 N. Y. 618—681, 1342, 1351. Burkinshaw v. Nicolls, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004, 1012, 1017—80, 170, 171. Burkitt V. Taylor, 13 N. Y. Week. Dig. 75—906. Burland, etc. v. Earle, etc. (1902) A. C. 83—1161, 1456, 1484. Burland, etc. v. Earle, etc., 85 L. T. Rep. 553 (1902)— 687. Burleigh v. Chehalis County, 75 Fed. 873—2343. Burleigh v. Ford, 61 N. H. 360—1765. Burlingame v. Parce, 12 Hun, 144 — 2366. Burlington v. Burlington St. Ry., 49 Iowa, 144, 31 Am. Rep. 145 — 2702. Burlington v. Burlington Water Co. 86 Iowa, 266, 53 N. W. 246—355, 2764. TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Burlington, etc. R. R. v. Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555 — 237, 238. Burlington, etc. R. R. v. Chicago Lum- ber Co., 15 Neb. 390, 19 N. W. 451— 2606. Burlington, etc. Ry. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 Am. St. Rep. 477—2612. Burlington, etc. Ry. v. Palmer, 42 Iowa, 222—184. Burlington, etc. Ry. v. Simmons, 123 U. S. 52, 8 Sup. Ct. 58, 31 L. Ed. 73— 2282. Burlington, etc. R. R. v. Verry, 48 Iowa, 458 — 2340. Burlington, etc. R. R. v. White, 5 Iowa, 409—1030. Burlinson's Case, 3 De G. & Sim. 18 (1849)— 205, 543. Burmester v. Norris, 6 Ex. 796 (1851) —1970. Burnap v. Haskins Steam Engine Co., 127 Mass. 586—427. Burnes v. Atchison, 2 Kan. 454 — 245, 253. Burnes v. Pennell, 2 H. L. Cas. 497, 519, 531 (1849)— 563, 783, 818, 1185, 1724. Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, 782, 783, 4 Sup. Ct. 675, 28 L. Ed. 596— 2187, 2289, 2351, 2353, 2357. Burnham v. Lutz, 8 Kan. App. 361, 55 Pac. 519—521, 785. Burnham v. Strafford Co. Sav. Bank, 5 N. H. 446—66. Burns v. Atchison, 48 Kan. 507, 29 Pac. 579—1925. Burns v. Beck, etc. Co., 83 Ga. 471, 10 S. E. 121—359, 382, 522, 1504. Burns v. City of Emporia, 63 Kan. 285, 65 Pac. 260—2827. Burns v. Commencement Bay, etc. Co., 4 Wash. St. 558, 30 Pac. 668, 709— 1500. Burns v. Lawrie, 2 Sc. Ct. of Sess. Cas. 1348—1124. Burnside v. Dayrell, 3 Exch. 224 (1849) —1700, 1710. Burnsvllle Tp. Co. v. State, 119 Ind. 382, 20 N. E. 421, 3 L. R. A. 265—865. Burr V. Charlton Co., 12 Fed. 848, 2 McCrary, 603—259. Burr V. McDonald, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 215 —1730, 1737. Burr V. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. (N. Y. Surr.) 85—1146. Burr V. Smith, 113 Fed. 858—469. Burr V. Wilcox, 22 N. T. 551, 555, 556, 561—44, 50, 51, 207, 279, 379, 481, 540. Burr V. Wilcox, 6 Bosw. 198 — 379. Burrall v. Bushwick R. R., 75 N. Y. 211, 216—30, 42, 844, 851, 867, 1255, 1433. E Burrell v. Bennett, 20 Wash. 644, 56 Pac. 375—1643, 2497. Burrill v. Boardman, 43 N. Y. 254, 3 Am. Rep. 694—1080, 1667. Burrill v. NahS,nt Bank, 43 Mass. 163, 167, 35 Am. Dec. 395—1764, 1800, 1807. Burroughs v. Brinkerhoff, 68 N. Y. 259 —5. Burroughs v. Commissioners, 65 N. C. 234—2062. Burroughs v. North Carolina R. R., 67 N. C. 376, 12 Am. Rep. 611—36, 1148. Burrows v. Matabele, etc. Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 23—112, 211, 625, 1524. Burrows v. Niblack, 84 Fed. Ill, 28 C. C. A. 130—678. Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550, 556 — 54, 192, 193, 198, 232, 235, 380. Burt V. Bailey, 73 Fed. 693, 19 C. C. A. 651—565, 572, 650. Burt V. Batavia Paper Mfg. Co., 86 111. 66—1831. Burt V. British, etc. Assoc, 4 De G. & J. 158 (1859)— 1880. Burt V. Bull, [1894] 1 Q. B. 276—2471, Burt V. Dutcher, 34 N. Y. 493—1262. Burt V. Farrar, 24 Barb. 518—199, 343. Burt V. Rattle, 31 Ohio St. 116—598, 2106. Burt V. Real Estate, etc., 175 Pa. St. 619, 34 Atl. 923, 52 Am. St. Rep. 858— 566. Burt V. Richmond, 107 Fed. 387 — 650. Burtis V. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 24 N. Y. 269—2640. Burton, In re, 31 L. J. (Q. B.) 62 (1861)— 1109. Burton v. Burley, 13 Fed. 811, 9 Biss. 253—1780. Burton's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 213—1665. Busby V. Riley, 6 S. Dak. 401, 61 N. W. 164—2335. Busch, etc. Co. v. Niagara River, etc. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 204, 58 N. Y. Supp. 812—2306. Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15, 6 Am. Rep. 350—35, 346, 1274, 1881. Bush V. Gilmore, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 89, 61 N. Y. Supp. 682—1816. Bush V. Robinson, 95 Ky. 492, 26 S. W. 178—120, 420, 435. Bushee v. Freeborn, 11 R. I. 149—1195. Bushel V. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 173—69, 1953. Bushnell v. Belolt, 10 Wis. 195—249. Bushnell v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 13S 111. 67, 27 isr. E. 596—501. Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684, IT Sup. Ct. 209, 41 L. Ed. 598—443. Bushnell v. Park, 46 Fed. 209—1967. Bush's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 246— 563. Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bush's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 554 (1874)— 52. Bustros V. White, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 423 (1876)— 1108. Buswell V. Order of Iron Hall, 161 Mass. 224, 36 N. B. 1065, 23 L. R. A. 846—2391. Butchers', etc. Bank v. McDonald, 130 Mass. 264—1418. Butler V. Asplnwall, 33 Fed. 217—365. Butler V. Cockrill, 73 Fed. 945, 20 C. C. A. 122—1582. Butler V. Cumpston, L. R. 7 Eq. 16 (1868)— 204, 530, 544, 575. Butler T. Duke, 39 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 235, 79 N. Y. Supp. 419—1112. Butler V. Dunham, 27 111. 474—245. Butler V. Duprat, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 77—1785. Butler V. Eaton, 141 U. S. 240, 11 Sup. | Ct. 985, 35 L. Ed. 713—196, 380. Butler V. Edgerton, 15 Ind. 15—2035. Butler V. Finck, 21 Hun, 210—911. Butler V. Glen Cove Starch Co., 18 Hun, 47—822, 1138. Butler V. Glens Falls, etc. R. R., 121 N. Y. 112, 24 N. E. 187—42. Butler V. Harrison, etc. Co., 139 Mo. 467, 41 S. W. 234, 61 Am. St. Rep. 464—1655. Butler V. Holmes, 68 S. W. 52 (Tex.) —1937. Butler V. Horwitz, 7 Wall. 258, 19 L. Ed. 149—2002. Butler T. Myer, 17 Ind. 77—2035. Butler V. Poole, 44 Fed. 586—386, 482. Butler V. Rahm, 46 Md. 541—2064, 2118, 2125, 2138, 2150, 2153, 2158, 2325. Butler V. Watkins, 13 Wall. 456, 20 L. Ed. 629—72. Butler Paper Co. v. Robbins, 151 111. 588, 38 N. E. 153—675, 1493, 1650. Butler University v. Scoonover, 114 Ind. 381, 16 N. B. 642, 5 Am. St. Rep. 627—184. Butman v. Howell, 144 Mass. 66, 10 N. E. 504—939, 978. Butt V. Monteaux, 1 K. & J. 98 (1854) —1710. Butte, etc. Min. Co. v. Montana, etc. Co., 21 Mont. 539, 52 Pac. 375—1792. Butte Hardware Co. v. Cobban, 13 Mont. 351, 34 Pac. 24—1663. Butte Hardware Co. v. Wallace 59 Conn. 336, 22 Atl. 330—517. Butterfield v. Beardsley, 28 Mich. 412 — 1084, 1091. Butterfield v. Cowing, 112 N. Y 486 20 N. E. 369—1848, 2499. Butterfield v. Ontario, 44 Fed 171— 2063. Butterfield v. Spencer, 1 Bosw 1— 1084. Butternuts, etc. Turnp. Co. v. North, 1 Hill. 518—232. Butterworth v. O'Brien, 39 Barb. 192— 1181. Butterworth, etc. v. Kritzer, etc. Co., 115 Mich. 1, 72 N. W. 990—1662, 2077, 2262. Button V. American Tract Soc, 23 Vt. 336—67. Button V. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 20, 20 N. W. 667, 50 Am. Rep. 131—1725, 1726. Buttrick v. Nashtia, etc. R. R., 62 N. H. 413—1009, 1748, 1839. Butts V. Burnett, 6 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 302—925, 970, 983, 1248. Butts V. Wood. 37 N. Y. 317—1507. Butz V. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575, 19 L. Ed. 490—253. Buxton V. Lister, 3 Atk. 383 (1746) — 753. Bwlchyplwm Lead INt. Co. v. Baynes, 36 L. J. (Ex.) 183 (1867)— 326, 340. Byam v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31, 2 N. E. 687-1080. Bybee v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 139 U. S. 663, 11 Sup. Ct. 641, 35 L. Ed. 305— 1429. Byers v. Beattie, Ir. Rep. 2 C. L. 220 (1867)— 778. Byers v. Franklin Coal Co., 106 Mass. 131—570. Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 22, 21 Pac. 894—51, 614, 630, 648, 792, 1339. 1896, 1903. Byers v. Union, Trust Co., 175 Pa. SL 318, 34 Atl. 629—2163. Byers Bros. v. Maxwell, 73 S. W. 437 (Tex.)— 340. Bynum v. Clark, 125 N. C. 352, 34 S. E. 438—1576. Byrd v. Rautman, 85 Md. 414, 36 Atl. 1099—789, 814. Byrne v. New York Brick, etc. Co., 16 Week. Dig. 139—1387. Byrne v. Schuyler, etc. Co., 65 Conn. 336, 31 Atl. 833, 28 L. R. A. 304— 688, 1555, 1856. Byrne v. Union Bank, 9 Rob. (La.) 433—1114. Bywaters v. Paris, etc. Ry., 73 Tex. 624, 11 S. W. 856—371, 1429. c. Cabana v. Holyoke Conclave, 160 Mass. 1, 34 N. E. 1135—1941. Cabaniss v. Reco, etc. Co., 116 Fed 318, 54 C. C. A. 190—1890, 2373" 2383. Cable V. McCune, 26 Mo. 371, 72 Am Dec. 214—438, 463. Cable Ry., Re, 40 Hun, 1—1432. TABLE OF OASES. Izix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Cabot V. Kent, 20 R. I. 197, 37 Atl. 945—766. Cabot, etc. Bridge v. "Chapin, 60 Mass. 50—362. Cachar Co., In re, 36 L. J. (Ch.) 490 (1867)— 317. Cache, etc. Co. v. Larimer, etc. Co., 25 Colo. 144, 53 Pac. 318, 71 Am. St. Rep. 123—2788. Cackett v. Keswick, 85 L. T. Rep. 14 (1901)— 103, 138, 318, 1469. Cackett v. Keswick, 87 L. T. Rep. 11 (1902)— 103, 138, 318. Cadett V. Barle, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 710 (1877)— 658. Cadillac, etc. Bank T. Cadillac, etc. Co., 88 N. W. 67 (Mich.)— 1790, 1804. Cady V. Potter, 55 Barb. 463—825, 828, 862. Cady V. Smith, 12 Neb. 628, 12 N. W. 95—463. Caffery v. Choctaw, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 1049 (Mo.)— 1002. Cagill V. Woolbridge, 5 Cent. L. J. 6— 2399. Caguey, In re, N. Y. L. J., Sept. 15, 1891—1337. Cagwin v. Hancock, 84 N. Y. 532, 22 Hun. 201—247. 258, 261. Cahall V. Citizens', etc. Assoc, 61 Ala. 232—1420. Cahill V. Bigger, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 211—63. Cahill V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Dougl. (Mich.) 124, 43 Am. Dec. 457—17, 1394, 1738, 1751. Cahill V. Original, etc. Assoc, 50 Atl. 1044 (Md.)— 478, 479. Cahill V. People's, etc. Co., 47 La. Ann. 1483, 17 South. 784—1645. Cahn V. Western U. Tel. Co., 48 Fed. 810, 1 C. C. A. 107, 46 Fed. 40—927. Cahocn v. Bank of TJtica, 7 How. Pr. 134—973. Cahoon v. Bank of TJtica, 7 N. Y. 486— 973 Cain V. Pullen, 34 La. Ann. 511—1106. Cain V. Syracuse, etc. R. R., 27 N. Y. App. DIv. 376, 50 N. Y. Supp. 1— 2566, 2581. Cain V. Western Union Tel. Co., 18 Cin. Week. Bull. 267, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 381—2842. Cairo, etc. R. R. v. Fackney, 78 111. 116—2331. Cairo, etc. R. R. v. Mahoney, 82 111. 73, 25 Am. Rep. 299—1795. Cairo, etc. R. R. v. Sparta, 77 111. 505— 249 255. Cake v. Mohun, 164 V. S. 311, 17 Sup. Ct. 100, 41 L. Ed. 447—2471. Cake T. Pottsville Bank, 116 Pa. St. 264, 9 Atl. 302, 2 Am. St. Rep. 600— 1771. Calder, etc. Nav. Co. v. Pilling, 14 M. & W. 76 (1845)— 21. Calderhead v. Downing, 103 Fed. 27 — 456, 1962. Caldicott V. Griffiths, 8 Exch. 898 (1853)— 1071, 1073. Caldwell v. Burke County, 4 Jones, Eq. 323—248. Caldwell v. Morganton Mfg. Co., 28 S. E. 475 (N. O— 1805, 1809. Caldwell v. Mutual, etc. Assoc, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 245, 65 N. Y. Supp. 826—1593. Caldwell v. National Mohawk Bank, „64 Barb. 333—1787. Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 282—78. Caleb V. Goodwin, 114 Ala. 615 (1897) —2020. Caledonian, etc. Ry. v. Helensburg, etc., 2 Maca. 391 (1855)— 1714. Caledonian, etc. Ry. v. Helensburgh, etc. Trustees, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 695 (H. of L. 1856)— 2649. Caledonian, etc. Ry. v. Magistrates, etc, 2 Macq. 391 (1855)— 1713. Caledonian Ry. v. Solway, etc. R. R., 49 L. T. Rep. 52b (1883)— 2646. Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363—230, 231, 232, 233, 307, 373. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 127 U. S. 634, 8 Sup. Ct. 1345, 32 L. Ed. 297—2419. Calhoun v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 2 Flip. 442, 4 Fed. Cas. 1045—2319, 2321 Calhoun v. Millard, 121 N. Y. 69, 24 N. E. 27, 8 L. R. A. 248—248. Calhoun v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 14 Fed. 9, 9 Biss. 330—2358, 2449, 2451, 2460, 2467. Calhoun v. Steam Ferry Boat, 27 Int. Rev. Rec. 273—405. Calhoun County v. Galbraiih, 99 U. S. 214, 25 L. Ed. 410—252, 262. California v. Pacific R. R., 127 U. S. 1, 39, 8 Sup. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150— 3, 1241. California Bank v. Kennedy, 1d7 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, 42 L. Ed. 198— 548, 684, 685, 686, 1598. California, etc. Co. v. Alta, etc. Co., 22 Cal. 398—2813. California, etc. Co. v. Pauly, 111 Cal. 122, 43 Pac. 586—2326. California, etc. Co. v. Russell, 88 Cal. 277, 26 Pac. 105—362. California, etc. Co. v. Schafer, 57 Cal. 396—216. California, etc. Hotel Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 120, 29 Pac 859, 28 Am. St. Rep. 99—364, 380. California, etc. T. Co. v. Yakima, etc. Co., 82 Fed. 542—2359. Ixx TABLE OF CASKS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text,] California Nat. Bank, In re, 53 Fed. 3g 4gg Calisher's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 214 (1868) —382. Calivada, etc. Co. t. Hays, 119 Fed. 202—97, 108, 141, 1855, 2019. Calkins v. Atkinson, 2 Lans. 12—410. Calkins v. Equitable, etc. Assoc, 126 Cal. 531, 59 Pac. 30—665. Callahan v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 11 Fed. 536—2653. Callanan v. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193, 42 N. W. 652—104, 105, 107, 161, 382. Callao Bis. Co., In re, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 169 (1889)— 2527. Callaway v. Powhatan, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 916 (Md.)— 1919. Callaway County v. Foster, 93 U. S. 5b7, 23 L. Ed. 911—252, 254. Callaway, etc. Co. v. Clark, 30 Mo. 305—1603. Callendar v. Kelly, 190 Pa. St. 455, 42 Atl. 957—704. Callander v. Painesville, etc. R. R., 11 Ohio St. 316—1425. Calloway, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Clark, 32 Mo. 305—1603, 2643. Calteaux v. Mueller, 102 Wis. 525, 78 N. W. 1082—672. Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell, etc. Co., 144 Mo. 331, 45 S. W. 1115, 66 Am. St. Rep. 425—1637, 1749. Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Inv. Co., 96 Iowa, 147, 64 N. W. 782, 59 Am. St. Rep. 362 — 401, 498, 532, 556, 688, 1580. Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Or. 412, 36 Pac. 24—1590, 1793. Calvert v. State, 34 Neb. 616, 52 N. W. 687—2706. Calvert, etc. Ry. v. Driskill, 71 S. W. 997 (Tex.)— 25»9. Camacho v. Hamilton, etc. Co., 2 N. Y. App. Div. 369, 37 N. Y. Supp. 725— 1793. Camblos v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 4 Brewst. 563, 597, 4 Fed. Cas. 1089— 1622, 1892, 2639. Cambria, etc. Co. v. Union, etc. Co., 154 Ind. 291, 55 N. B. 745, 56 N. E. 665, 48 L. R. A. 41—2344, 2718. Cambrian Rys., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 278 (1868)— 591, 2527, 2528. Cambridge v. Cambridge R. R., 92 Mass. 50—2717. Cambridge Waterworks v. Somerville Dyeing Co., 86 Mass. 239—395, 445. Cambridge Waterworks v. Somerville Dyeing, etc. Co., 80 Mass. 193 — 408, 456. Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515, 11 L. Ed. 705—396. Camden v. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73, 9 Sup. Ct. 246, 32 L. Ed. 608—2291. Camden v. Stuart, 144 V. S. 104, 12 Sup. Ct. 585, 36 L. Ed. 363—115, 137. Camden, etc. Co. v. Burlington, etc. Co., 33 Atl. 479 (N. J.)— 1375, 1994, 2152. Camden, etc. R. R. v. Briggs, 22 N. J. L. 623—2602. Camden, etc. R. R. v. Elkins, 37 N. J. Eq. 273—1322, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1894. Camden, etc. R. R. v. Guarantors of Pennsylvania, 59 N. J. L. 328, 35 Atl. 796—1088. Camden, etc. R. R. v. May's Landing, etc. R. R., 48 N. J. L. 530, 7 Atl. 523— 1607, 2562, 2571, 2577. Camden F. Ins. Assoc, v. Jones, 53 N. J. L. 189, 21 Atl. 458, 23 Atl. 166— 845. Camden Rolling-mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 32 N. J. L. 15—1953, 1954. Came y. Brignam, 39 Me. 35 — 418, 471, 1932. Cameron v. Durkheim, 55 N. Y. 425 — 770, 904, 924, 1258, 1264. Cameron v. First, etc. Bank, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 309, 23 S. W. 334—1589. Cameron v. First, etc. Bank, 34 S. W. 178 (Tex.)— 1588, 1761. Cameron v. Groveland Co., 20 Wash. 169, 54 Pac. 1128, 72 Am. St. Rep. 26—1923. Cameron v. Havemeyer, 12 N. Y. Supp. 126—1053. Cameron v. Kenyon-Connell, etc. Co.,^ 22 Mont. 312, 56 Pac. 358, 44 L. R. A. 508, 74 Am. St. Rep. 602—1611. Cameron v. Seaman, 69 N. Y. 396, 25 Am. Rep. 212—1378. Cameron v. Tome, 64 Md= 507, 2 Atl. 837—2058. Cameron v. Tompkins, 72 Hun, 113, 26 N. Y. Supp. 305—763. Cameron v. United, etc. Co., 67 N. Y. App. Div. 557, 73 N. Y. Supp. 981— 2591. Cameron v. Wright, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 395, 47 N. Y. Supp. 571—742. Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wall. 643, 21 L. Ed. 244—2746. Cammell, Ex parte (1894), 1 Ch. 528^ 180. Cammeyer v. United, etc. Churches, 2 Sandf. Ch. 186, 249—1373, 1750. Camp V. Barney, 4 Hun, 373 — 2415, 2469, 2470. Camp V. Byrne, 41 Mo. 525 — 1269, 1270. Camp V. Land, 122 Cal. 167, 54 Pac. 839—1599, 1629, 2157, 2246, 2263. Camp V. Taylor, 19 Atl. 968 (N. J.) — 1690. Campau v. Detroit, etc. Club, 90 N. W. 49 (Mich.)— 2423. Campbell v. American Zylonite Co., 122 N. Y. 455, 25 N. E. 853, 11 L. R. A. 596—586, 590, 868, 949, 1882. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the tert.] Campbell v. Argenta, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 1—1284, 1822, 2140. Campbell v. Chapman, 31 South. 101 (Miss.)— 410. Campbell v. Cincinnati Southern Ry., 6 S. W. 337 (Ky.)— 1798. Campbell v. Cypress Hills Cemetery, 41 N. Y. 34—1464, 2029, 2044. Campbell v. Duluth, etc. Ry., 50 Fed. 241—1964. Campbell v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 49 Neb. 143, 68 N. W. 344—1579. Campbell v. Fleming, 1 Ad. & El. 40 (1834)— 809. Campbell v. James, 104 U. S. 357, 26 L. Ed. 786—1807. Campbell v. James, 17 Blatchf. 42, 4 Fed. Cas. 1168—1807. Campbell v. Kenosha, 5 Wall. 194, 18 L. Ed. 610—243. Campbell v. London, etc. Ry., 5 Hare, 519 (1846)— 593. Campbell v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 23 Ohio St. 168 (1872)— 2607. Campbell v. Milliken, 119 Fed. 981 — 1871. Campbell v. Mississippi Union Bank, 7 Miss. 625—1393. Campbell v. Morgan, 4 Bradw. (111.) 100—50, 95, 110. Campbell v. Paris, etc. R. R., 71 111. 611—242. Campbell v. Parker, 9 Bosw. 322—983. Campbell v. Pope, 96 Mo. 468, 10 S. W. 187—1802. Campbell v. Poultney, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 94, 26 Am. Dec. 559—1326, 1350, Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 368, 4 Fed. Cas. 1178—2184, 2196, 2253, 2255, 2256. Campbell v. Reese, 56 Pac. 543 (Kan.) —478. Campbell v. Richardson, 10 Johns. 406—768. Campbell v. Texas, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 263, 4 Fed. Cas. 1188 — 2135, 2220, 2238, 2319, 2324.- Campbell v. Watson, 62 N. J. Eq. 396, 50 Atl. 120—22, 23, 1686, 1688, 1694, 2404. Campbell v. Woodstock Iron Co., 83 Ala. 351, 3 South. 369—933. Campbell v. Wright, 118 N. Y. 594, 23 N. B. 914—907, 923. Campbell, etc. Co. v. Hering, 139 Pa. St. 473, 20 Atl. 1061—1679. Campbell's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 470 (1876)— 1519, 2005, 2098. Canada Southern Ry. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527, 536, 3 Sup. Ct 363, 27 L. Ed. 1020—512, 1674, 2497, 2527, 2529. Canada Southern Ry. v. International Bridge Co., L. R. 8 App. Cas. 723 (1883)— 2607. Canadian Pac. Ry. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 17 S. C. of Can. 151 (1889) — 2809. Canal Bridge v. Gordon, Is Mass. 297, 11 Am. Dec. 170—1798, 1800. Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1, 131—2652. Canal, etc. R. R. v. Crescent, etc. R. R., 44 La. Ann. 485, 10 South. 888— 2712. Canal, etc. R. R. v. Orleans R. R., 44 La. Ann. 54, 10 South. 389—2712. Canal, etc. R. R. v. St. Charles St. R. R., 44 La. Ann. 1069, 11 South. 702—2672, Canal St., etc. Co. v. Paas, 95 Mich. 372, 54 N. W. 907—1424. Canandarqua Academy v. McKechnie, 90 N. Y. 618—2116, 2148. Canandarqua Academy v. McKechnie, 19 Hun, 62, 90 N. Y. 628 — 1807, 1941. Canastota, etc. Co. v. Newington, etc. Co., 69 Conn. 146, 36 Atl. 1107— 2683, 2690, 2693. Candee v. Pennsylvania R. R., 21 Wis. 582, 94 Am. Dec. 566—2640. Candy v. Globe Rubber Co., 37 N. J. Eq. 175—72. Canfield v. Gregory, 66 Conn. 9, 33 Atl. 536—391. Canfield v. Minneapolis, etc. Asso- ciation, 14 Fed. 801, 4 McCrary, 646—981. Cannan v. Bryce, 3 B. & A. 179 (1819) —781. Canning, etc. Co., In re (1900), l.Ch. 708—2486, 2523. Cannon v. Breckenridge, etc. Co., 69 Pac. 269 (Colo.)— 426. Cannon v. Brush, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 121 (Md.)— 502, 1420, 1528. Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577, 22 L. Ed. 417—2786. Cannon v. Trask, L. R. 20 Eq. 669 (1875)— 281, 1275, 1350. Cantillon v. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 35 N. W. 620—269. Cantillon v. Dubuque, etc. Ry., 78 Iowa, 48, 42 N. W. 613, 5 L. R. A. 776—268. Cape Breton Co., In re, 19 W. N. 54 (1884)— 1482. Cape Breton Co., In re, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 221 (1884)— 1477. Cape Breton Co., In: re, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 795 (1885)— 1476. Cape, etc. R. R. v. Cape May, 59 N. J. L. 404, 36 Atl. 678, 36 L. R. A. 657— 2716. Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Cape Fear Bank v. Edwards, 5 Ired. L. (N. C.) 516—1218. Capel V. Sim's, etc. Co., 58 L. T. Rep. 807 (1888)— 318, 1481. Cape May v. Cape May, etc. R. R., 60 N. J. L. 224, 37 Atl. 892, 39 L. R. A. 609—2702. Cape May, etc. Co., In re, 16 Atl. 191 (N. J.)— 728, 1318, 1340. Cape's Case, 2 De G., M. & G. 562 (1852)— 556, 570, 572, 575. Capital City, etc. Co. v. Tallahassee, 186 U. S. 401, 22 Sup. Ct. 866, 46 L. Ed. 1219—2737. Capital City Gas Light Co. t. Des Moines, 72 Fed. «29 — 2735. Capital City Water Co. v. State, 105 Ala. 406, 18 South. 62, 29 L. R. A. 743—1398, 2774. Capital, etc. Co. v. Charter, etc. Co., 51 Iowa, 31, 50 N. W. 579—2741. Capital, etc. CJo. v. Lieamed, 36 Or. 544, 59 Pac. 454, 78 Am. St. Rep. 792— 1605. Capital, etc. Co. v. Young, 109 Cal. 140, 41 Pac. 869, 29 L. R. A. 463—1515. Capital F. Ins. Co., In re, L,. R. 21 Ch. D. 209—1409. Capper, Ex parte, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 178 (1851)— 1701. Capper's Case, L.. R. 3 Ch. App. 458 (1868)— 206, 541, 580. Capps V. Hastings, etc. Co., 40 Neb. 470, 58 N. W. 956, 28 L. R. A. 259, 42 Am. St. Rep. 677—372. Cappur V. Harris, Bunb. 135 (1723)— 753. Capron v. Oapron, L. R. 17 Eq. 288 (1874)— 1198. Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304—430. Capron v. Thompson, 86 N. T. 418 — 925, 928. Caraher v. Royal Ins. Co., 136 N. Y. 645, 32 N. E. 1015—1491. Caraher v. Royal Ins. Co., 63 Hun, 82, 17 N. Y. S. 858—1491. Caratal Mines, In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 437 (1902)— 1296, 1307. Card V. Carr, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 197 (1856)— 1763. Card V. Hope, 2 B. & Cr. 661—1346. Card V. Moore, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 327, 74 N. Y. Supp. 18—523, 1426. Cardiff Sav. Bank, In re (1892), 2 Ch. 100—1694. Cardiff Sav. Bank, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 537 (1890)— 1690. Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281, 20 Am. Rep. 533—2469. Cardwell v. Kelly, 95 Va. 570, 28 S. B. 953, 40 L. R. A. 240—368, 509. Oarew v. White, 5 Beav. 172 (1842) — 1104. Carew's Estate Act, In re, 31 Beav. 39 (1862)— 1839. Carey, In re, Sol. Jour., June 8, 1895, p. 541—1576. Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 171, 23 L. Ed. 469—2184. Oairey v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 5 Iowa, 357—340, 1421, 1427. Carey v. Coffee, etc. Co., 20 S. E. 778 (Va.)— 328. Carey v. Des Moines, etc. Co., 81 Iowa, 674, 47 N. W. 882—1711. Carey v. Houston, etc. Ry., 161 U. S. 115, 16 Sup. Ct. 537, 40 L. Ed. 638— 2203. 2242, 2268. Carey v. Houston, etc. Ry., 45 Fed. 438—2217, 2269, 2504. Carey v. Houston, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 671—1858, 2203, 2217, 2271, 2509. Carey v. Mayer, 79 Fed. 926, 25 C. C. A. 000 390 Carey v. Williams, 79 Fed. 906, 25 C. C. A. 227—188. Carey Lumber Co. v. Neal, 3 Kan. App. 399, 42 Pac. 925—449. Carglll V. Bower, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 502 (1878)— 330, 331, 801, 1616. Oargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 IJ. S. 452. 21 Sup. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 618— 2815. Carli V. Stillwater, etc. Co., 28 Minn. 373, 10 N. W. 205, 41 Am. Rep. 290— 2689. Carling, Ex parte, 56 L. T. Rep. 115 (1887)— 337, 807. Carling's Case. L. R. 1 Ch. D. 115 (1875)— 121, 165, 173. Carlisle v. Cahawba, etc. R. R.. 4 Ala. (N. S.)— 70, 284. Carlisle v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 477—308. Carlisle v. Saginaw, etc. R. R., 27 Mich. 315—185, 210. Carlisle v. Southeastern Ry., 1 Macn. & G. 689 (1850)— 1175, 1176. Carlisle v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 6 Ind. 316—1031. Carman v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 70 Hun, 283, 24 N. Y. Supp. 39—2525. Carmel, etc. Co. v. Small, 150 Ind. 427, 47 N. B. 11, 50 N. E. 476—1333. Carmichael's Case, 17 Sim. 163 (1850) —1699. Carmody v. Powers, 60 Mich. 26, 26 N. W. 801—1706. Carnaghan v. Exporters', etc. Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 172—1379, 1395. Carnahan v. Campbell, 59 N. E. 1054 (Ind.)— 215, 351, 409, 420. Carnahan v. Campbell, 63 N. E. 384 (Ind.)— 211, 274, 435. Carney v. Duniway, 35 Or. 131, 57 Pac. 192, 58 Pac. 105—2071. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Carney v. New York L. Ins. Co., 162 N. Y. 453, 57 N. E. 78, 49 L,. R. A. 471, 76 Am. St. Rep. 347—1793. Carney v. New York L. Ins. Co., 19 N. Y. App. Div. 160, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1103—1793. Carolina Nat. Bank, Ex parte, 18 S. C. 289—1985, 2456. Carothers v. Alexander, 74 Tex. 309, 12 S. W. 4—1771. Carpenter v. American, etc. Assoc, 54 Minn. 403, 56 N. W. 95, 40 Am. St. Rep. 345—871, 1250. Carpenter v. Black Hawk, etc. Co., 65 N. Y. 43—1996, 1997, 2106, 2107, 2113, 2117, 2122, 2158, 2193. Carpenter v. Canal Co., 35 Ohio St. 307—2200, 2322. Carpenter v. Capital, etc. Co., 178 111. 29, 52 N. E. 973, 43 L. R. A. 645, 69 Am. St Rep. 286—2794. Carpenter v. Catlin, 44 Barb. 75 — 2512. Carpenter v. Danforth, 52 Barb. 581 — 707. Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561, 8 Am. Rep. 360—1817. Carpenter v. Frazer, 102 Tenn. 462, 52 S. W. 858—503. Carpenter v. Logan, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L. Ed. 313—2050. Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 14 Wis. 705, note — 404, 405, 406, 454. Carpenter v. New York, etc. R. R., 5 App. Pr. 277—1168. Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. R., 75 Fed. 850—2417. Carpenter v. Oswego, etc. R. R., 24 N. Y. 655—2797, 2798. Carpenter v. Rommel, 5 Phila. 34 — 2048. Carpenter v. Westinghouse Airbrake Co., 32 Fed. 434—1957. Carpentier v. Atherton, 25 Cal. 564 — 2002. Carr v. Chartiers Coal Co., 25 Pa. St. 337—1500. Carr v. Commercial Bank, 19 Wis. 27;!— 1955. Carr v. Georgia, etc. Co., 108 Ga. 757, 33 S. E. 190—1808. Carr v. Hinchliff, 4 B. & C. 547 (1825) —917. Carr v. Iglehart, 3 Ohio St. 457—519. Carr v. Lancashire, etc. Ry., 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 340 (1853), 7 Exch. 707— 2644. Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. 413— 83, 84, 87, 115, 131, ' 2042, 2049, 2055. Carr v. National Bank, etc., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 10, 59 N. Y. Supp. 618— 312, 1772. Carr v. Nat. Bank, etc. Co., 167 N. Y. 375, 60 N. B. 649, 82 Am. St. Rep. 725—71, 794, 812, 1605. Carr v. Rischer, 119 N. Y. 117, 23 N. B. 296—463. Carriage, etc. Assoc, In re, L. R. 27 Ch. D. 322 (1884)- 1467. Carrick's Case, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 505 (1851)— 1700, 1701. Carrigan v. Port Crescent Imp. Co., 6 Wash. 590, 34 Pac. 148—1794. Carritt v. Bradley and another (1901), 2 K. B. 550—947. Carrol v. St. Johns, etc., 125 Mass. 565 —1812. Carroll v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 550, 17 S. W. 884—2733. Carroll v. Campbell, 110 Mo. 557 — 2733. Carroll v. Cone, 40 Barb. 220 — 1154. Carroll v. East St Louis, 67 111. 568, 16 Am. Rep. 632—1670. Carroll v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, 511, 515, 23 L. Ed. 738—482, 483, 485, 487. Carroll v. Mullanphy Sav. Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249—17, 847, 888, 987, 1117, 1131. Carroll v. Pacific Bank, 19 Wash. 639, 54 Pac. 32—521. Carroll v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 Mass. 152, 35 N. E. 456—2834. Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556, 4 Sup. Ct 539, 28 L. Ed. 517-256, i 258, 261, 264. i Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren, 5 H. L. I Cas. 416 (1952)— 1952. \ Carrugl v. Atlantic, etc. Co., 40 Ga. i 135, 2 Am. Rep. 567—1826. Carruth v. Harris, 41 Neb. 789, 60 N. W. 106—791. Carson v. Arctic Min. Co., 5 Mich. 288 —292. Carson v. Central R. R., 35 Cal. 325— 2687. Carson v. Iowa, etc. Co., 80 Iowa, 638, 45 N. W. 1068—981, 983, 1894. Carson City Sav. Bank. v. Carson City Blev. Co., 90 Mich. 550, 51 N. W. 641, 30 Am. St. Rep. 454—1597. Carswell v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 74 Fed. 88, 20 C. C. A. 282—2445. Cartan v. Father Matthew, etc. Soc, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 20—289. Carter v. Dime Sav. Bank, 61 Neb. 587, 86 N. W. 29—2225, 2402. Carter v. Forbes, etc. Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 56 S. W. 227—1574. Carter v. Ford Plate Glass Co., 85 Ind. 180—1685, 1878, 2505. Carter v. Good, 57 Hun, 116, 10 N. Y. Supp. 647—730. Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290, 34 Am. Rep. 311—71, 72, 74, 75. Ixxiv TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Carter v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 71 Me. 448, 36 Am. Rep. 338—734, 966. Carter v. Meuli, 122 Cal. 367, 55 Pac. 138—2748. Carter v. Producers', etc. Co., 164 Pa. St. 463, 30 Atl. 391—1562, 1880. Carter v. Producers' Oil Co., 182 Pa. St. 551, 38 Atl. 571, 39 L. R. A. 100— 1083, 1349. Carter v. Producers' Oil Co., 200 Pa. St. 579, 50 Atl. 167—1359. Carter v. Taggart, 16 Sim. 423 (1848) —659. Carter v. Union Printing Co., 54 Ark. 576, 16 S. W. 576—349. Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432, 68 N. W. 74—376. Cartmell's Case, L. R. 9 Cli. App. 691 (1874)— 563, 993, 1763. Cartter v. Rome, etc. Co., 89 Ga. 158, 15 S. B. 36—2332. Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476, 12 S. W. 1030, 7 L. R. A. 706, 17 Am. St. Rep. 910—198, 343, 372, 380, 390, 415, 562, 649. Caruthers v. Kansas City, etc. Co., 59 Kan. 629, 54 Pac. 673, 44 L. R. A. 737—2581. Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 2 Story, 432, 5 Fed. Cas. 235—40, 425, 438. Carver Co. v. Manufacturers', etc. Co., 72 Mass. 214—1784. Carver Merc. Co. v. Hulme, 7 Mont. 566, 19 Pac. 213—508. Gary v. Schoharie, etc. Co., 2 Hun, 110 —37. Caryl v. McElrath, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 176—1773. Casco Nat. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 307, 34 N. E. 908, 36 Am. St. Rep. 705 —1819, 1838. Case V. Bank, 100 U. S. 446, 25 L. Ed. 695—853, j.j.i:0, 1130, 1134. Case V. Benedict, 63 Mass. 540—1799. Case V. Cayuga County, 88 Hun, 59, 34 N. Y. Supp. 595—2662, 2688. Case V. Citizens' Bank, 2 Woods, 23, 5 Fed. Cas. 251—1632. Case V. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21—1454, 1664, 1665, 2645. Case V. Marchand, 23 La. Ann. 60 — 2386. Case V. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, 1 Sandf. 693—1081. Case V. Small, 10 Fed. 722, 4 Woods 78—551. Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U. S 431, 11 Sup. Ct. 360, 34 L. Ed. 1019— 1716, 1796. Case Plow Works v. Finks, 81 Fed 529, 26 C. C. A. 46—2418. Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673, 24 L Ed 168—279, 367, 433, 443, 481. | Casey v. People, 132 111. 546, 24 N. B. 570—263. Casey v. Societe de Credit Mobilier, 2 Woods, 77, 5 Fed. Cas. 262—1633. Cashman v. Brownlee, 128 Ind. 266, 27 N. E. 560—1434. Cashman v. Root, 89 Cal. 373, 26 Pac. 883, 12 L. R. A. 511, 23 Am. St. Rep. 482—773, 919. Cason V. City of Lebanon, 153 Ind. 567, 55 N. B. 762-2721. Cass V. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607—248, 251. Cass V. Manchester, etc. Co., 9 Fed. 649—1723. Cass V. Ottawa, etc. Co., 22 Grant (U. C), 512 (1875)— 1875, 1898, 2647. Cass V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 80 Pa. St. 31—194, 234, 237, 287. Cass V. Sutherland, 98 Wis. 551, 74 N. W. 337—1577. Cassagne v. Marvin, 143 N. Y. 292, 38 N. E. 285, 25 L. R. A. 670—1115, 2523. Cassard v. Hinman, 6 Bosw. 9, 14 — 776. Cassard v. Hinmann, 1 Bosw. 207 — 773. Cassard v. Hinmann, 14 How. Pr. 84 — 773. Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585, 25 L. Ed. 585—252, 254, 263. Cass County v. Johnson, 95 U. S. 360, 24 L. Ed. 416—261. Cass County v. Jordan, 95 U. S. 373, 24 L. Ed. 419—261. Cassell V. Lexington, etc. Co., 9 S. W. 502, 701 (Ky.)— 1272, 1273, 1282. Cassidy v. Uhlmann, 170 N. Y. 505, 63 N. E. 554—1618, 1689, 1695, 2791. Castellan v. Hobson, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. 47 (1870)— 574, 580. Castell, etc. Co., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 315—2005, 2108. Castell, etc. Llm., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 315—2108. Castell, etc. Llm., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 15—2097. Castello v. City Bank of Albany, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 25—985. Castello's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 504 U869) —206, 542, 581. Castle V. Belfast, etc. Co., 72 Me. 167 — 1774. Castle V. Bell, etc. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 437, 63 N. Y. Supp. 482—2795, 2847. Castle V. Bell, etc. Co., 30 N. Y. Misc. 38, 6j. N. Y. Supp. 743—2688, 2795. Castle V. Lewis, 78 N. Y. 131 — 1736, 1755, 2108. Castlehow, In re. 88 L. T. Rep. 455 (1903)— 717.' Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 1—427, 541, 551, 567. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] ■Castleman v. Templeman, 87 Md. 546, 40 Atl. 275, 41 L. R. A. 367, 67 Am. St. Rep. 363—410, 412. 413, 418, 2400. Castner v. Twitchell, etc. Co., 91 Me. 524, 40 Atl. 558—1298. Gaston's Case, 7 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 448 — 308. Caswell V. Hunton, 87 Me. 277, 32 Atl. 899—787. Caswell V. Putnam, 120 N. Y. 153, 24 N. E. 287—918, 919, 954. Catawba, etc. Co. v. Flowers, 110 N. C. 381, 14 S. E. 918—2733. Catawissa R. R. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 3 Pa. Dist. 111—2570. Catchpole v'. Ambergate, etc. Ry.,~l El. & B. Ill (1852)— 295, 296, 855, 1247. ■Cater v. Eveleigh, 4 Desaus. (S. C.) 19, 6 Am. Bee. 59B— 1064. -Cater v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co., 60 Minn. 539, 63 N. W. Ill, 28 L. R. A. 310, 51 Am. St. Rep. 1543—2793. Caterham v. London, etc. Co., 1 C. B. (N. S.) 410 (1857)— 2622. 'Caterham Ry. v. London, etc. Ry., 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 259 (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.) 410—2607. ■Cates V. Baxter, 97 Tenn. 443, 37 S. W. 219—933, 1007. Gates V. Sparkman, 73 Tex. 619, 11 S. W. 846, 15 Am. St. Rep. 806—222, 789, 1531. Catlett V. Starr, 70 Tex. 485. 7 S. W. 844—1803. Gatlin v. Eagle Bank, 6 Conn. 233— 1634. ■Catlin V. Green, 120 N. Y. 441, 24 N. E. 941—618. •Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. 471— 1588. Gatt V. Olivier, 98 Va. 580, 36 S. E. 980—224, 2407. ■Gaulkins v. Gaslight Co., 85 Tenn. 683, 4 S. W. 287, 4 Am. St. Rep. 786—863, 1201. Cave V. Cave, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 639—1834. -Cawley, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 209 (1889)— 1124. Gayley v. Cobourg, etc. Co., 14 Grant's Ch. Rep. (Can.) 571 (1868)— 618, 2589. •Caylus V. New York, etc. R. R., 10 Hun, 295—1995, 2000. ■Caylus V. New York, etc. R. R., 76 N. Y. 609—1995, 2000. 'Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige, 116—2723. ■Cayuga Lake R. R. v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185—183, 184, 370. ■Cayuga Ry. v. Niles, 13 Hun, 170—2318. Cazeaux v. Mali, 25 Barb. 578—646, 783, 799. tCecil, In re, 36 How. Pr. 477—1307, 1316. Cecil Nat. Bank v. Watsontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217, 26 L. Ed. 1^39-1133. Cedar Lake Hotel Co. v. Cedar Creek, etc. Co., 79 "Wis. 297, 48 N. W. 371— 1937. Cedar Rapids, etc. Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 91 N. W. 1081 (Iowa)— 2766, 2769. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. v. Butler, 83 Iowa, 124, 48 N. W. 1026—335. Ceeder v. Loud, etc. Co., 86 Mich. 541, 49 N. W. 575, 24 Am. St. Rep. 134— 1794. Cefn Cilcen Min. Co., In re, L. R. 7 Bq. 88 (1868)— 1980. Centennial Board, In re, 48 Fed. 350 — 1439. Center, etc. Co. v. Lindsay, 21 Utah, 192, 60 Pac. 559—1518. Central Agric. etc. Assoc, v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120—369, 448, 576, 1027. Central Bank v. Empire, etc. Co., 26 Barb. 23—1980, 2071, 2072. Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 70 Mass. 474—2752. Central City Sav. Bank v. Walker, 5 Hun, 34—526. Central City Sav. Bank v. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424—526, 1854. Central Democratic Assoc, In re, 46 Leg. Int. 380—16. Central Elevator Co. v. People, 174 111. 203, 51 N. E. 254, 43 L. R. A. 658— 1045, 1412, 2623, 2786. Central, etc. Assoc, v. James, 81 Ga. 762, 7 S. E. 862—743, 2090. Central, etc. Bank v. Levin, 6 Mo. App. 543—1837. Central, etc. Bank v. Wilder, 32 Neb. 454, 49 N. W. 369—944. Central, etc. Co., Matter of, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 553, 55 N. Y. Supp. 729— 2801. Central, etc. Co. v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120—369, 1027. Central, etc. Co. v. Buchanan, 90 Fed. 454, 33 C. C. A. 598—2408. Central, etc. Co. v. Capital, etc. Co., 60 Ohio St. 96, -63 N. E. 711—1557, 160.5. Central, etc. Co. v. Cheatham, 85 Ala. 292, 4 South. 828, 7 Am. St. Rep. 48— 1795. Central, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Co., 54 Fed. 598 (Mo.)— 2334. Central, etc. Co. v. Citizens', etc. Ry., 80 Fed. 218—2615. Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 112 Fed. 81—1568, 2084, 2087, 2547. Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 113 Fed. 405—2391. Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 114 Fed. 263, 52 C. C. A. 149—2046, 2075, 2160. Ixxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 116 Fed. 700—1591. 2045, 2046, 2136, 2487. Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 158—2444. Central, etc. Co. v. Louisville, etc. Co., 100 Fed. 545, 40 C. C. A. 530—2479. Central, etc. Co. v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 104 Fed. 418, 43 C. C. A. 613—2272. Central, etc. Co. v. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47, 4 South. 708—2645. Central, etc. Co. v. Sprague, etc. Co., 120 Fed. 925—1581, 1761, 1830. Central, etc. Co. v. State, 118 Ind. 194, 19 N. B. 604, 10 Am. St. Rep. 114— 2756, 2841. Central, etc. Co. v. United States, etc. Co., 113 Fed. 587—2281. Central, etc. Co. v. Wilkesbarre, etc. Ry., 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 417—2837. Central, etc. Co. v. Wilkesbarre, etc. Ry., 4 Am. El. Cas. 260—2837. Central, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 67 Conn. 197, 35 Atl. 32—2674. Central, etc. Exch. v. Board of Trade. 63 N. E. 740 (111.)— 780, 2789. Central, etc. Ins. Co. v. Callaghan, 41 Barb. 448—1718. Central, etc. Ry. v. Hitchcock, 91 Fed. 209, 33 C. C. A. 453—2351, 2448. Central, etc. R. R. v. Morris, 68 Tex. 49, 3 S. W. 457—2581. Central, etc. R. R. v. Twenty-Third St. R. R., 54 How. Pr. 168, 183 (Super. Ct, Sp. T., 1877)— 2565. Central, etc. R. R. v. Twenty-Third St. Ry., 53 How. Pr. 45—1098, 1107, 1414, 1424. Central, etc. R. R. v. Western XJ. T. Co., 3 Fed. 417, 1 McCrary, 551— 2810. Central, etc. Tel. Co. v. Bradbury, 106 Ind. 1, 5 N. E. 721—2841. Central Gold Min. Co. v. Piatt, 3 Daly. 263—1659, 2035, 2158. Central Lumber Co. v. Kelter, 66 N. E. 543 (111.)— 2080. Central Mfg. Co. v. Hartshorne, 3 Conn. 199—1941. Central Mills Co. v. Hart, 124 Mass. 123—2190. Central Nat. Bank v. Hazard, 30 Fed. 484—2467, 2531. Central Nat. Bank v. Hazard, 49 Fed. 293—2232. Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432, 18 Sup. Ct. 403, 42 L. EM. 807—2207, 2233, 2232, 2292. Central Nat. Bank v. U. S., 137 U. S. 355, 11 Sup. Ct. 126. 34 L. Ed. 703— 1137, 1151, 1222. Central Nat. Bank v. White, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 297—1106, 1112. Central Nat. Bank v. Williston, 138 Mass. 244—1010. Central of Georgia Ry. v. Paul, 93 Fed. 878, 35 C. C. A. 639—2086, 2487, 2507, 2532. Central Ohio Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Ohio St. 666—1053. Central Park, In re, 63 Barb. 282 — 2628. Central Plank Road Co. v. Clemens, 16 Mo. 359—369, 373. Central R. R., In re, 1 Thomp. & C. 419—2635. Central R. R. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83, 10 Sup. Ct. 235, 33 L. Ed. 561—2216. Central R. R. v. Claghorn, 1 Speers' Eq. (S. C.) 545, 562—35. Central R. R. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582, 636—680, 1029, 1625, 1893, 2547, 2645. Central R. R. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 665, 670, 23 L. Ed. 757—1237, 2585. Central R. R. v. Georgia, 54 Ga. 401 — 1237. Central R. R. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 31 N. J. Eq. 475—500, 680, 1541. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 50 Ga. 444—1262. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 56 Fed. 357—2224. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 158—2532. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Georgia, etc. Co., 32 S. C. 319. 11 S. E. 192—1949. Central R. R etc. Co. v. Papot. 59 Ga. 342—1151. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Pettus. 113 U. S. 116, 5 Sup. Ct. 387, 28 L. Ed. 915- —1571, 2479, 2480. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga. 515—840. Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Wright, 164 XJ S. 327, 17 Sup. Ct. 80, 41 L. Ed. 454—1219. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572, 52 Am. Rep. 353— 2643. Central Shade-Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353, 9 N. E. 629—1047. Central Sugar Factories, In re (1894), I Ch. 369—2428. Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 49, 53, II Sup. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55—7, 1056, 1609, 2568, 2788. Central T. Co. v. Arctic, etc. Mfg. Co.. 77 Md. 202—2052, 2178, 2312, 2349. Central T. Co. v. Ashville Land Co., 72 Fed. 361, 18 C. C. A. 590—1794. Central T. Co. v. Bartlett, 57 N. J. L. 206, 30 Atl. 583—1994, 2153. Central T. Co. v. Benedict, 78 Fed. 198, 24 C. C. A. 56—2476. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Central T. Co. v. Bridges, 57 Fed. 753 — 38, 1284, 1533, 1534, 1540, 1631, 1653, 1724, 1823, 2109, 2142, 2203, 2336, 2349. Central T. Co. v. California, etc. R. R., 110 Fed. 70—1995, 2037, 2040, 2248, 2252, 2265. Central T. Co. v. Carter, 78 Fed. 225, 24 C. C. A. 73—2518. 2520. Central T. Co. v. Charlotte, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 257—2337. Central T. Co. v. Charlotte, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 264—2444. Central T. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 62 Fed. 950—2224. Central T. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 68 Fed. 685—2422. Central T. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 69 Fed. 295—2351. Central T. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 89 Fed. 388—2320. Central T. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 94 Fed. 275, 36 C. C. A. 241—2305, 2323, 2356, 2364. Central T. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 58 Fed. 500—2291, 2473, 2485, 2511, 2533. Central T. Co. v. Citizens' Street R. R., 80 Fed. 218—2170. Central T. Co. v. Citizens' Street Ry., 82 Fed. 1—2615. Central T. Co. v. Clark, 81 Fed. 269, 26 C. C. A. 397—2352. Central T. Co. v. Colorado, etc. Ry., 89 Fed. 560—2545, 2595. Central T. Co. v. Columbus, etc. Ry., 87 Fed. 815, 828—1973, 2011, 2077, 2082, 2117, 2256, 2257, 2272, 2273, 2277. Central T. Co. v. Condon, 67 Fed. 84, 14 C. C. A. 314—1284, 2039, 2654. Central T. Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 86 Fed. 517, 30 C. C. A. 235— 2451. Central T. Co. v. Bast Tennessee, etc. R. R., 30 Fed. 895—2234, 2361, 2483. Central T. Co. v. East Tennessee, etc. Ry., 59 Fed. 523—2417, 2418. Central T. Co. v. Blast "Tennessee, etc. R. R., 80 Fed. 624, 26 C. C. A. 30— 2352. Central T. Co. v. Bast Tennessee, etc. Co., 116 Fed. 743—138, 1474, 1481, 1890, 1931, 2300, 2404, 2411, 2538. Central T. Co. v. East Tennessee Land Co., 71 Fed. 353—2126. Central T. Co. v. East Tennessee Land Co., 79 Fed. 19—2442. Central T. Co. v. Florida, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 751—2234. Central T. Co. v. Georgia Pac. Ry., 83 Fed. 386—2153, 2334. Central T. Co. v. Georgia Pac. Ry., 87 Fed. 288, 30 C. C. A. 648—2530. Central T. Co. v. Grant, etc. Works, 135 U. S. 207, 10 Sup. Ct. 736, 34 L. Ed. 97—2282. Central T. Co. v. Grantham, 83 Fed. 540, 27 C. C. A. 570—2232. Central T. Co. v. Hennen, 90 Fed. 593, 33 C. C. A. 189—2322, 2339. Central T. Co. v. Hubinger, 87 Fed. 3 — 2283. Central T. Co. v. Indiana, etc. R. R., 98 Fed. 666—2082, 2085, 2295, 2553. Central T. Co. v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414, 11 Sup. Ct. 357, 34 L. Ed. 1014— 700, 1538, 1545, 2300, 2317, 2324, 2326, 2329, 2330. Central T. Co. v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 81 Fed. 772—2321. Central T. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 87 Fed. 23—2479. Central T. Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129, 14 Sup. Ct. 286, 38 L. Ed. 98— 1958, 2202, 2391. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 14—2267. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 32—2441. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 850, 1 C. C. A. 116—2311. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 864, 1 C. C. A. 139—2311. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 865, 1 C. C. A. 130—2311. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 868, 1 C. C. A. 133—2311. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 875, 1 C. C. A. 140—2442. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 51 Fed. 15, 16 L. R. A. 90—2447. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 73 Fed. 589—2003. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, eta. R. R., 75 Fed. 193, 21 C. C. A. 291—2461. Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 75 Fed. 209, 21 C. C. A. 307— 2461. Central T. Co. v. Moran, 56 Minn. 188, 57 N. W. 471, 29 L. R. A. 212—2301, 2600. Central T. Co. v. New York Equipment Co., 74 Hun, 405, 26 N. Y. Supp. 850— 2313. Central T. Co. v. New York Equipment Co., 87 Hun, 421, 34 N. Y. Supp. 349— 2313. Central T. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 18 Abb. N. Cas. 381, 395—2010, 2026, 2031. Central T. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 33 Hun, 513—2194, 2215. Central T. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 47 Hun, 587—2459. Central T. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 110 N. Y. 250, 259, 18 N. E. 92, 1 L. R. A. 260—2343, 2459. Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text ] Central T. Co. v. Ohio Cent. R. R., 23 Fed. 306—2436, 2597. Central T. Co. v. Ohio Cent. Ry., 36 Fed. 520—2309, 2315. Central T. Co. v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 118 Fed. 30, 55 C. C. A. 52 — 2289, 2504. Central T. Co. v. Richmond, etc., 54 Fed. 723—2333. Central T. Co. v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 68 Fed. 90, 15 C. C. A. 273, 41 L. R. A. 458—2040, 2333. Central T. Co. v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 105 Fed. 803, 45 C. C. A. 60—2482. Central T. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 40 Fed. 426—2419. Central T. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 551—2332, 2352, 2453, 2651. Central T. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 59 Fed. 385—2420, 2488. Central T. Co. v. Seasongood, 130 U. S. 482, 9 Sup. Ct. 575, 32 L. Ed. 985— 2463. Central T. Co. v. Sheffield, etc. Ry., 42 Fed. 106, 9 L. R. A. 67—2332. Central T. Co. v. Sheffield, etc. 'Ry., 44 Fed. 526—2460. Central T. Co. v. Sheffield, etc. Ry., 60 Fed. 9—2217, 2279, 2288, 2289, 2290. Central T. Co. v. SIoa,n, 65 Iowa, 655, 22 N. W. 916—2333, 2536. Central T. Co. v. South Atlantic, etc. R. R., 57 Fed. 3—2224. Central T. Co. v. Tappan, 6 N. Y. Supp. .918—2460. Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 135—2392. Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 673—2334. Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 703—2334. Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 846—2134, 2194, 2249. Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 24 Fed. 151, 153—2249. , Central T. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 178—2334. Central T. Co. v. Thurman, 94 Ga. 735, 20 S. E. 141—2354, 2472, 2478. Central T. Co. v. Unadilla, etc. R. R., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 604, 72 N. Y. Supp. 189—2254. Central T. Co. v. U. S. Rolling-Stock Co., 56 Fed. 5—2216. Central T. Co. v. Utah Cent. Ry., 16 Utah, 12, 50 Pac. 813 — 2352. Central T. Co. v. Valley Ry., 55 Fed. 903—2482. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 675—2474. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. R. R., 23 Fed. 858—2267, 2415. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry. 23 Fed. 863—2443. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. R. R., 24 Fed. 98—2121. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 25 Fed. 69—2440. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 25 Fed. 693—2219, 2242, 2367. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 175—2340. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 28 Fed. 871—2361. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 29 Fed. 546—2348. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 29 Fed. 618—2235, 2289, 2376, 2388. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 30 Fed. 332—2436, 2449, 2535. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 32 Fed. 187—2473. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 32 Fed. 566—2347, 2348, 2361. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 34 Fed. 259—2443. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 36 Fed. 622—2475. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 38 Fed. 63—2444. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 46 Fed. 26—2450. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 46 Fed. 156—2441. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 50 Fed. 857—2447. Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 908—2447. Central T. Co. v. Western, etc. R. R., 112 Fed. 471—2232. Central T. Co. v. Western N. C. R. R., 89 Fed. 24—2229, 2287, 2531, 2567. Central T. Co. v. West India, etc. Co., 169 N. Y. 314, 62 N. B. 387—700, 948, 2041, 2124, 2403. Central T. Co. v. Worcester Cycle Mfg. Co., 90 Fed. 584—1587, 2009. Central T. Co. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 86 Fed. 35—2389. Central T. Co. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 491—2011, 2134, 2263, 2272, 2320. Central T. Co. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 659—2396. Central T. Co. etc. v. Denver, etc. R. R., 97 Fed. 239, 38 C. C. A. 143—2532, 2594. Central T. Co. etc. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 93 Fed. 712, 35 C. C. A. 547— 2299, 2396. Central T. Co. etc. Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 94 Fed. 275, 36 C. C. A. 241—2305, 2364. Central Turnp. Corp. v. Valentine, 27 Mass. 142—358, 364. Centre, etc. Co. v. McConaby, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 140—308, 334, 370. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chable v. Nicaragua Canal Co., 59 Fed. 846—2435, 2504. Chadwick v. Livesey, 56 N. J. Bq. 453, 41 Atl. 1115—160. Chadwick v. Old Colony R. R., 171 Mass. 239, 50 N. E. 629 — 2120. Chafee v. Quidnick Co., 13 R. I. 442— 2427. Chafee v. Sprague, 16 R. I. 189, 13 Atl. 121—737. Chaffe V. Ludellng, 27 La. Ann. 607— 497, 526. Chaffee v. Middlesex R. R., 146 Mass. 224, 16 N. E. 34—617. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R., 55. Vt. 110, 139—582, 587, 595, 596, 603, 1135, 1137, 1158, 1164, 1176, 2012. Chaffee v. Tel. & Tel. Con. Co., 77 Mich. 625, 43 N. W. 1064, 6 L. R. A. 455, 18 Am. St. Rep. 424—2829. Chaffee County v. Potter, 142 U. S. 355, 12 Sup. Ct. 216, 35 L. Ed. 1040—244. Chaffin V. Cummings, 37 Me. 76—178, 333, 379. Chagrin Falls, etc. Co. v. Cane, 2 Ohio St. 419—2748. Chalmers v. Paterson, etc. Co., 66 N. J. L. 41, 48 Atl. 993—2826. Chamberlain v. Bromberg, 83 Ala. 576, 3 South. 434—411, 1633. Chamberlain v. Burlington, 19 Iowa, 395—245. Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424—1664, 1670. Chamberlain v. Connecticut Cent. R. R., 54 Conn. 472, 485, 9 Atl. 244— 2158, 2214, 2247. Chamberlain v. Detroit Stove Works, 103 Mich. 124, 61 N. W. 532—1506. Chamberlain v. Greenleaf, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 178—919, 926, 943, 957, 962. Chamberlain v. Iowa Tel. Co., 93 N. W. 596 (Iowa) — 2815. Chamberlain v. New York, Lake Erie, etc. R. R., 71 Fed. 636—2453. Chamberlain v. Pacific, etc. Co., 54 Cal. 103—1501. Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc. R. R., 15 Ohio St. 225—229, 230, 231, 233, 238, 354, 1273, 1285. Chamberlain v. Rochester, etc. Co., 7 Hun, 557—2379. Chamberlain v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 92 U. S. 299, 23 L. Ed. 715—2121. Chamberlain v. Walter, 60 Fed. 788— 1229. Chamberlain, etc. v. Kemper, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 175 (Neb.)— 1943. Chamberlin v. Huguenot Mfg. Co., 118 Mass. 532—424, 447, 1186, 1944. Chamberlin v. Mammoth Min. Co., 20 Mo. 96—1938, 1945. Chambers v. Chambers, etc. Co., 185 Pa. St. 105, 39 Atl. 822—1933. Chambers v. Falkner, 65 Ala. 448 — 1625. Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N. Y. 342,. 54 N. E. 707—1775. Chambers v. M'Creery, 106 Fed. 364„ 45 C. C. A. 322—665. Chambers v. Manchester, etc. Ry., 5 B. & S. 588 (1864)— 2094. Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 543, 576. —1662. Chambersburg Ins. Co. v. Smith, 11 Pa. St. 120—560, 856, 857, 1130. Champion v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 35 Miss. 692—1031, 1040. Champlain, etc. Co. v. O'Brien, 104 Fed. 930—2656. Champlain, etc. Co. v. O'Brien, 117 Fed. 271—2656. Champollion v. Corbin, 51 Atl. 674 (N. H.)— 44, 1356. Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. 538 — 166, 1464, 1480, 1899. Chandler v. Brown, 77 111. 333—353,. 410, 412, 492. Chandler v. Hoag, 2 Hun, 613—1378. Chandler v. Hoag, 63 N. Y. 624—1378. Chandler v. Keith, 42 Iowa, 99—274, 409, 411, 414. Chandler v. Monmouth Bank, 13 N. J. L. 255—1505. Chandler v. Northern Cross R. R., 18 111. 190—379, 389. Chandler v. Sheep, etc. Co., 15 Utah, 434, 49 Pac. 535—276. Chandler v. Siddle, 3 Dill. 477, 5 Fed. Cas. 459, 10 Natl. Bankr. Reg. 236— 398, 402, 409, 2399. Chandler's Case, Ex parte, 6 Biss. 53, 30 Fed. Cas. 828—777. Chapin v. Cambria, etc. Co., 145 Pa.. St. 478, 22 Atl. 1041—1734. Chapin v. Chicopee Universalist Soc.,. 74 Mass. 580—1079. Chapin v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 14 N. Y. St. Rep. 272—678. Chapin v. Sullivan R. R., 39 N. H. 564,, 75 Am. Dec. 237—2636. Chapin v. Thompson, 4 Hun, 779 — 2397. Chapin v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 74 Mass. 575—1992, 2043. Chapin v. Winchester School Dist., 35 N. H. 445—67, 1591. Chapleo v. Brunswick, etc. Building Soc, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 696 (1881) — 1975. Chaplin v. Clarke, 4 Exch. 403 (1849) —199, 1709. Chapman, In re (1896), 2 Ch. 763— 718. Chapman v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 59 Fed. 370—1963, 2654. Chapman v. Atlantic T. Co., 119 Fed. 257—2175, 2294, 2478. Ixxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 9 Sup. Ct. 426, 32 L. Ed. 800—1083, 1942, 1967. Chapman v. Bates, 60 N. J. Bq. 17, 46 Atl. 591—1363. Chapman v. Bates, 47 Atl. 638, 88 Am. St. Rep. 459 (N. J.)— 1363. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 890, 62 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 779—69. Chapman v. Brooks, 31 N. Y. 75—958. Chapman v. City Council, 28 S. 0. 373, 6 S. E. 158, 13 Am. St. Rep. 681— 724. Chapman v. Comstock, 134 N. Y. 509, 31 N. E. 876—1627. Chapman v. Comstock, 58 Hun, 325, 11 N. Y. Supp. 920—1627. Chapman v. Doray, 89 Cal. 52, 26 Pac. 605—1230. Chapman v. Douglas County, 107 U. S. 348, 2 Sup. Ct. 62, 27 L. Ed. 378— 1914. CJhapman v. First Nat. Bank, 56 Ohio St. 310, 47 N. E. 54—1225. Chapman v. Gates, 54 N. Y. 132 — 250. Chapman v. Iron, etc. Co., 62 N. J. L. 497, 41 Atl. 690—672. Chapman v. Lynch, 156 N. Y. 551, 51 N. E. 275—463. Chapman v. Mad River,* etc. R. R., 6 Ohio St. 119—229, 331. Chapman v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 4 La. Ann. 153—863, 1011. Chapman v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 85 N. Y. 437, 44 N. Y. Super. Ct. 340—841. Chapman v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 26 W. Va. 299—2318. Chapman v. Porter, 69 N Y. 276—188, 1568, 1570. Chapman v. Reynolds, 28 Beav. 221 (I860)— 657. Chapman v. Shepherd, L. R. 2 C. P. 228—578, 910, 928. Chapman v. Virginia, etc. Co., 96 Va. 177, 31 S- E. 74—188. Chapman's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 567 (1866) —190. •Chapman's Case, L. R. 3 Bq. 361 (1866) —208, 529, 531, 533, 545. iChapman Valve Mfg. Co. v. Oconto Water Co., 89 Wis. 264, 60 N. W. 1004, 46 Am. St. Rep. 830—2332. Chappel V. Skinner, 6 How. Pr. 338 — 1248. ■Chappell's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 902 (1871)— 580, 1357. ■Charitable Corp. v. Sutton, 2 Atk. 400 (1742)— 1451, 1692. Charity Hospital v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 40 La. Ann. 382, 4 South. 433— 2587, 2590. ■Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L. Ed. 773, 938—2723. Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge, 24 Mass. 344—1415. Charleston v. People's Nat. Bank, 5 S. C. 103, 22 Am. Rep. 1—1221. Charleston Ins. & T. Co. v, Sebring, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 342—1494, 1896. Charlestown, etc. Co. v. Dunsmore, 60 N. H. 85—1722, 1764. Charleton v. Newcastle, etc. Ry., 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1096 (1859)— 1885, 2597. Charlick v. Flushing R. R., 10 Abb. Pr. 130—1094. Charlotte, etc. v. Blakely, 3 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 245—185, 216, 354. Charlotte, etc. R. R. v. Gibbes, 142 tJ. S. 386, 12 Sup. Ct. 255, 35 L. Ed. 1051 —2614. Charlton v. New Castle, etc. Ry., 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1096 (1859)— 2575, 2597. Charter Oak, etc. Ins. Co. v. Sawyer, 44 Wis. 387-J.682, 1683. Chartiers R. R. v. Hodgens, 77 Pa. St. 187—373. Chartiers Ry. v. Hodgens, 85 Pa. St. 501—1409, 2115, 2537, 2623, 2683. Chase v. Burritt, 14 Atl. 212 (Conn.) — 662. Chase v. City of Boston, 62 N. E. 1059 (Mass.)— 919, 944. Chase v. Curtis, 113 TJ. S. 452, 5 Sup. Ct. 554, 28 L. Ed. 1038—438, 459, 462, 473. Chase v. East Tenn. etc. R. R., 5 Lea (Tenn,), 415—211, 288, 1074. Chase v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 44 La. Ann. 69, 10 South. 379—705. Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1—34, 424, 517, 537. Chase v. Michigan, etc. Co., 121 Mich. 631, 80 N. W. 717—1579, 1726, 2756. Chase v. Redfield, etc. Co., 81 N. W. 951 (S. D.)— 1717. Chase v. Sycamore, etc. R. R., 38 111. 215—236, 239. Chase v. Tuttle, 55 Conn. 455, 12 Atl. 874, 3 Am. St. Rep. 64—1747. Chase v. Vanderbilt, 62 N. Y. 307, 814 — 592, 603, 1111, 1150, 1897. Chase Nat. Bank v. Faurot, 149 N. Y. 532, 44 N. E. 164, 35 L. R. A. 605— 1977. Chase's, etc. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co., 152 Mass. 428, 28 N. E. 300, 9 L. R. A. 339—1423. Charter v. San Francisco, etc. Co., 19 Cal. 219—197, 215, 748, 755. Chatham Bank v. Brobston, 99 Ga. 801, 27 S. B. 790—532, 571. Chattanooga, etc. Ass'n v. Denson, 23 Sup. Ct. 630—1677. Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Elvans, 66 Fed. 809, 14 C. C. A. 116—1567, 1569, 1572, 2015, 2336. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Liddell, 85 Ga. 482, 11 S. E. 853, 21 Am. St. Rep. 169—1828. Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599, 25 S. B. 988—278, 309, 1029, 1041. Chattanooga Terminal Ry. v. Felton, 69 Fed. 273—2433, 2493, 2628. Chattaroi Ry. v. Klnner, -81 Ky. 221— 2625. Chautaque County Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y. 369, 75 Am. Dec. 347—1661, 2395. Chavent v. Schefer, 59 Fed. 231—415, 1439. Cheadle, In re (1900), 2 Ch. 620—659. Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G. & J. 27 (1858)— 576, 736, 753. Chedworth v. Edwards, 8 Ves. Jr. 46 (1802)— 1253. Cheney v. Lafayette, etc. Ry., 68 111. 570, 18 Am. Rep. 584—1507. Cheetham v. McCormick, 178 Pa. St. 186, 35 Atl. 631—98. Cheever v. Meyer, 52 Vt. 66—1011, 1017. Cheever v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 150 N. Y. 59, 44 N. B. 701, 34 L. R. A. 69, 55 Am. St. Rep. 646—641, 2047. Cheever v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 81, 50 N. Y. Supp. 1067—641. Cheever v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 39 Vt. 653—2367. Chelsea Water-Works v. Bowley, 17 Q. B. 358 (1851)— 2741. Cheltenham, etc. Ry. v. Daniel, 2 Q. B. 281 (1841)— 178, 848. Chemical Bank v. City Bank, 160 U. S. 646, 16 Sup. Ct. 417, 40 L. Ed. 568— 678. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 50 Fed. 798—964. Chemical Nat! Bank v. Armstrong, 59 Fed. 372, 8 C. C. A. 155, 28 L. R. A. 231—965, 1987, 1989. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Colwell, 132 N. Y. 250, 30 N. B. 644—851, 1376, 1379. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Colwell, 9 N. Y. Supp. 285—1379. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Hartford De- posit Co., 161 U. S. 1, 16 Sup. Ct. 439, 40 L. Ed. 595-1395, 1444. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Havermale, 120 Cal. 601, 52 Pac. 1071, 65 Am. St. Rep. 206—548, 685. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Kohner, 85 N. Y. 189—1772, 1787. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Wagner, 93 Ky. 525, 20 S. W. 535, 40 Am. St. Rep. 206—1783. Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 178, 38 Am. Rep. 407—508. Chenango, etc. Co. v. Lewis, 63 Barb. 111—1757. Chenango, etc. Ins. Co., In re, 19 Wend. 635—1293, 1338, 1339, 1737. Chenault v. Chappell, 8 Kan. App. 807, 57 Pac. 553—448. Cheney v. Goodwin, 88 Me. 563, 34 Atl. 420—1086. Cheney v. Maumee, etc. Co., 64 Ohio St. 205, 60 N. E. 207—2153, 2402. Cheney v. Murto, 67 Pac. 340 (Colo.) —2191, 2286. Cheraw, etc. R. R. v. Garland, 14 S. C. 63—271, 361. Cheraw, etc. R. R. v. White, 10 S. C. 155—359. Cherokee Iron Co. v. Jones, 52 Ga. 276 —1592. Cherokee Nation v. Kansas Ry., 135 U. S. 641, 10 Sup. Ct. 965, 34 L. Ed, 295—2626. Cherry v. Colonial Bank, L. R. 3 P. C 24 (1869)— 1618. Cherry v. Frost, 7 Lea (Tenn.), 1 — 8 960, 962. Cherryvale, etc. Co. v. City of Cherry- yale, 69 Pac. 176 (Kan.)— 2772. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co. v. Balti more, etc. R. R., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1, 121—1385, 1393, 1414, 1424, 1432 2652. Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Blair, 45 Md. 102—2043, 2048, 2056. Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238, 22 Sup. Ct. 881, 46 L. Ed 1144—2615, 2756. Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc, 89 Md. 689, 43 Atl. 784, 44 Atl. 1033— 2847. Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 90 Md. 638, 45 Atl. 446— 2847. Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. United States, 115 Fed. 610, 53 C. C. A. 256—1059. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Atlantic, etc. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 751, 48 Atl. 997— 2343, 2478. Chesapeake, etc. R. R'. v. Griest, 85 Ky. 619, 4 S. W. 323—1578. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Miller, 114 U. S. 176, 5 Sup. Ct. 813, 29 L. Ed. 121— 1237, 2537. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. v. Paine, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 502, 506—45, 997, 1001, 1004, 1020. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Swayze, 60 N. J. Eq. 417, 47 Atl. 28—2428. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 718, 24 L. Ed. 310—1237, 2585. Chesapeake, etc. Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co., 66 Md. 399, 17 Atl. 809, 59 Am. Rep. 167—2754, 2756, 2842. Chesapeake, etc. Tel. Co. v. Mackenzie, 74 Md. 36, 21 Atl. 690, 28 Am. St. Rep. 219—2794, 2800. Ixxxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chesapeake & Ohio R. E. v. Howard, 14 App. Cas. Dist. of Columbia, 262— 1&43. Cheshire Banking Co., In re, L. R. 32 Ch. D. 301 (1886)— 537. Cheshire, etc. Teleph. Co. v. State, 63 N. H. 167—1215. Chesley v. Pierce, 32 N. H. 388—567, 572. Chester v. Buffalo, etc. Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 443, 75 N. Y. Supp. 428— 1192. Chester v. Philadelphia, etc. Tel. Co., 148 Pa. St. 120, 23 Atl. 1070—2840. Chesterfield, etc. Co. v. Black, 37 L. T. Rep. 740 (1877)— 1484. Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94, 8 Am. Dec. 128—51, 178, 195, 379, 1602. Chester's Appeal, 8 Atl. 400 (Pa.) — 2763. Chester Traction Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 174 Pa. St. 284, 34 Atl. 619—2706. Chestnut v. Pennell, 92 111. 55— 4J.7, 474. Chestnut Hill, etc. Co. v. Rutter, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 6, 8 Am. Dec. 675— 75, 1798. Chestnut Hill Turnp. Co. v. Martin, 12 Pa. St. 361—2750. Chetlain v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220—373, 374, 670, 1926. Chetwood v. California Nat. Bank, 113 Cal. 414, 45 Pac. 704—1687. Chetwood v. California Nat. Bank, 113 Cal. 649, 45 Pac. 854—2481. Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 14 Md. 299—705, 848. Chew V. Henrietta, etc. Co., 2 Fed. 5, 1 McCrary, 222—642, 1799, 2028, 2054. Chew V. Louchheim, 80 Fed. 500, 25 C. C. A. 596—922, 956. Chewacla Lime Works v. Dismukes, 87 Ala. 344, 6 South. 122, 5 L. R. A. 100—1599. Chicago V. Baer, 41 111. 306—2720. Chicago V. Cameron, 120 111. 447, 11 N. E. 899—1858, 1860, 1896, 1908, 2026, 2648. Chicago V. Evans, 24 111. 52 — 2660, 2699, 2700, 2717. Chicago V. Hall, 103 111. 342—477, 491. Chicago V. Joney, 60 111. 383—619. Chicago Bldg. See. v. Crowell, 65 111. 453—1599, 1786. Chicago,. B. & Q. R. R. v. Chicago, 149 111. 457, 37 N. E. 78—2808. Chicago Dep. "Vault Co. v. McNulta, 153 U. S. 554, 14 Sup. Ct. 915, 38 L. Ed. 815—2433. Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 164 111. 323, 45 N. E. 534—837. Chicago, etc. Bank v. Bentz, 59 Fed.. 645—2127, 2300. Chicago, etc. Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55. Kan. 17, 39 Pac. 727—1647. Chicago, etc. Bridge Co. v. Pacific M. Tel. Co., 36 Kan. 113, 12 Pac. 535— 2813. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Boggiano, 67 N. B. 17 (111.)— 1295, 1304, 1501. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Chicago Nat. Bank, 176 111. 224, 52 N. E. 52— 1784. Chicago, etc. Co. v. City of Chicago, 65 N. E. 451, 470, 59 L. R. A. 631 (111.)— 2616. Chicago, etc. Co. v. City of Chicago, 65 N. E. 470 (111.)— 1543. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Graham, 78 Fed. 83, 23 C. C. A. 657—184, 216, 526. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Higginbotham, 29 South. 79 (Miss.)— 207, 324, 363. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Jones, etc. Co., 91 111. App. 547—1600. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Lyon, 10 Okl. 704, 64 Pac. 6—346. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Smith, 158 111. 417, 41 N. E. 1076—1634. Chicago, etc. Co. v. State Bank, 121 Fed. 58—301. Chicago, etc. Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 112 Fed. 607 — 1232, 1244, 1259. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Summerour, 101 Ga. 820, 29 S. E. 291—324, 346. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Talbotton, etc. Co., 106 Ga. 84, 31 S. E. 809—1716. Chicago, etc. Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 574, 5 Sup. Ct. 681, 28 L. Ed. 1084—1400. Chicago, etc. Land Co. v. Peck, 112 111. 408, 439—617, 1994, 2049, 2089, 2172, 2184, 2198, 2279, 2289, 2338, 2340, 2504. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179, 24 L. Ed. 99—2610. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Ashling, 160 111. 373, 43 N. E. 373—176, 2549, 2587, 2589. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Auditor-General, 53 Mich. 79, 18 N. W. 586—1233, 2651, 2652. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Aurora, 99 111. 205—245, 259, 263. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Ayers, 140 111. 644, 30 N. E. 687—2548, 2592. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Cason, 133 Ind. 49, 32 N. E. 827—2383. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 17 Sup. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979— 2635, 2693, 2807, 2808. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Chicago, etc. Coal Co., 79 111. 121—2610. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 181 111. 605, 54 N. E. 1026—2694, 2705. TABLE OF OASES. Izxxiii Crhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 186 111. 219, 57 N. E. 822, 50 L. R. A. 734—2715. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. City of Chicago, 176 111. 253, 52 N. E. 880, 68 Am. St. Rep. 188—2675. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Clapp, 66 N. B. 223 (111.)— 2638. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Coleman, 18 111. 297, 68 Am. Dec. 544—1766. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Crane, 113 U. S. 424, 5 Sup. Ct. 578, 28 L. Ed. 1064— 2621. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Dakota Co., 28 Fed. 219^2652. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Davis, 86 111. 20— 70, 74. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Denver, etc. R. R., 45 Fed. 304—2592. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Denver, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 145—2595. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Dey, 35 Fed. 866, 1 L. R. A. 744—2614. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Dey, 38 Fed. 656—2614. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Baton, 136 111. 9, 14, 26 N. B. 575—2771. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. EUicott, 88 Fed. 941—2700, 2784. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 68, 1 Sup. Ct. 10, 27 L. Bd. 47— 2128, 2131, 2133, 2134, 2192, 2196, 2214, 2217, 2239, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2284. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Foster, 106 U. S. 47, 68—2239. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Guffey, 120 IT. S. 569, 7 Sup. Ct. 693, 30 L. Bd. 732—1216. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Hall, 135 Ind. 91, 34 N. B. 704, 23 L. R. A. 231—2321. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Hannibal, etc. Ry., 110 Fed. 599—2559. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Hoyt, 89 Wis. 314, 62 N. W. 189—803, 1569, 1706. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Bd. 94—2610. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. James, 22 Wis. 194—1732. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. James, 24 Wis. 388—1777. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Jones, 149 111. 361, 37 N. E. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141, 41 Am. St. Rep. 278—2611. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 52 Fed. 178—2712. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Keegan, 56 N. E. 1088 (111.)— 1662. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Keisel, 43 Iowa, 39—66. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Kennedy, 70 111. 350—2192. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Kenney, 62 N. E. 26 (Ind.)— 2375. F Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Keokuk, etc. Co., 108 111. 317, 48 Am. Rep. 557—2427. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Lake, 71 111. 333 —2627, 2634. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Lewis, 53 Iowa, 101, 4 N. W. 842—1663, 1807. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Loewenthal, 93 111. 433—2036, 2051, 2217, 2322, 2637. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. McCammon, 61 Fed. 772, 10 C. C. A. 50—2532. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Mallory, 101 111. 583—256, 260. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Marseilles, 84 111. 145—264, 670. Chicago Ry. etc. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 136 U. S. 268, 10 Sup. Ct. 999, 34 L. Bd. 349—2050. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Metropolitan, etc. R. R., 152 111. 519, 38 N. B. 736— 2634. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Miller, 91 Mich. 166, 51 N. W. 581—802. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 418, 72 N. W. 1118—2635. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 95 Wis. 561, 70 N. W. 678, 37 L. R. A. 856, 60 Am. St. Rep. 136— 2691. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 33 L. Bd. 970—2613, 2786. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Minnesota, etc. R. R., 29 Fed. 337—2651, 2652. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Moulton, etc. R. R., 57 Iowa, 249, 10 N. W. 639— 2637. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Osage County, 38 Kan. 597, 16 Pac. 828—252. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Oshkosh, etc. Ry., 107 Wis. 192, 83 N. W. 294—506, 2646. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Otoe County, 5 Fed. Cas. 598—244. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Page, 1 Biss. 461, 5 Fed. Cas. 600—1199. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Peck, 112 111. 408 (1885)— 2049. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. People, 56 111. 365, 8 Am. Rep. 690—2622. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. People, 67 111. 11, 16, 24, 16 Am. Rep. 599—2607, 2610. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. People, 105 111. 657—2604. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pinckney, 74 111. 277—251, 253. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pontiac, 169 111. 155, 48 N. B. 485—2693, 2808. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Price, 138 U. S. 185, 11 Sup. Ct. 290, 34 L. Ed. 917— 2655. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pullman South. Car Co., 139 U. S. 79, 11 Sup. Ct. 490, 35 L. Ed. 97—2788. Ixxxlv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pyne, 30 Fed. 86—2126. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Railroad Com'rs, 35 Fed. 883—2614. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Rio Grande, etc. R. R., 143 U. S. 596, 12 Sup. Ct. 479, 36 L. Ed. 277—2592, 2594. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Schewe, 45 Iowa, 79—264. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Smith, 110 Fed. 473—2612. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 62 111. 268, 14 Am. Rep. 99—245. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Stafford County, 36 Kan. 121, 12 Pac. 593—263, 269, 2554, 2580, 2582. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Third Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 276, 10 Sup. Ct. 550, 33 L. Ed. 900—1582. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Tompkins, 176 TJ. S. 167, 20 Sup. Ct. 336, 44 L. Ed. 417 —2612. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Tompkins, 90 Fed. 363—2611. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Turner, 79 Mich. 133, 44 N. W. 174—2060. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Union, etc. Co., 109 V. S. 702, 3 Sup. Ct. 594, 27 L. Ed. 1081—2332. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Union Pac. Ry., 47 Fed. 15—1277, 1545, 1725, 1763, 2592. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 61 Fed. 993, 9 C. C. A. 659—28, 2597. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. Ed. 176— 2612, 2613. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. West Chicago St. R. R., 156 111. 255, 40 N. E. 1008, 29 L. R. A. 485—2705. Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Whiting, etc. Ry., 139 Ind. 297, 38 N. E. 604, 26 L. R. A, 337, 47 Am. St. Rep. 264—2705. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Williams, 55 111. 185, 8 Am. Rep. 641—74. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Wilson, 17 111. 123—2626. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N. E. 451, 50 Am. St. Rep. 320—2610. Chicago Gas L. Co. v. People's Gas L. Co., 121 111. 530, 13 N. E. 169, 2 Am. St. Rep. 124—1046. Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 111. 320, 30 N. E. 667, 33 Am. St. Rep. 315—1531, 1912. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor, 101 111. 82—1400, 2747. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 574, 5 Sup. Ct. 681, 28 L. Ed. 1084—2743. Chicago R. R. V. Northern Trust Co 90 111. App. 60—144, 1933. Chicago, T. & T. Co. v. State Bank, 86 Fed. 863, 30 C. C. A. 443—301, 1128 Chicago & A. R. R. v. Glenny, 175 111. 238, 51 N. E. 896—1942. Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. State, etc., 153 Ind. 134, 51 N. E. 924—2587. Chick V. Puller, 114 Fed. 22, 51 C. C. A. 648—1183, 1653, 1687. Chick V. Northwestern, etc. Co., 118 Fed. 933—458, 1930, 2274. Chlckaming v. Carpenter, 106 U. S. 663, 1 Sup. Ct. 620, 27 L. Ed. 307— 246, 269. Chickering, In re, 56 Vt. 82—2067, 2200, 2253. Chicora, etc. Co. v. Dunam, 91 Md. 144, 46 Atl. 347, 50 L.-R. A. 401— 972. Chicot County v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164, 26 L. Ed. 495—260, 262. Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, 13 Sup. Ct. 695, 37 L. Ed. 54B— 244. Chiera v. Brevoort, 97 Mich. 638, 57 N. W. 193—1326. Child V. Boston, etc. Iron Works, 137 Mass. 516, 50 Am. Rep. 328 — 437. Child V. Coffin, 17 Mass. 64—537, 567. 1026, 1030. Child V. Hudson's Bay Co., 2 P. Wms. 207 (1723)— 1116. Child V. Hugg, 41 Cal. 519—974. Child V. Morley, 8 T. R. 610 (1800) — 910. Child V. New York, etc. R. R., 129 Mass. 170—2059, 2088, 2504, 2511. Childs V. Carlsteln Co., 76 Fed. 86— 1649. Childs V. Cleaves, 50 Atl. 714 (Me.)— 469. Childs V. Digby, 24 Pa. St. 23—1003. Childs V. Harris Mfg. Co., 104 N. Y. 477, 11 N. B. 50—1954. Childs V. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66, 9 S. E. 362—496. Childs V. Smith, 46 N. Y. 34—370, 1707. Childs V. Smith, 55 Barb. 45—370, 738. Chillas V. Snyder, 1 Phila. 289 — 772. Chilllcothe, etc. Bank v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431, 5 Fed. Cas. 632—674, 679. Chillicothe, etc. R. R. v. Brunswick, 44 Mo. 553—246. Chilton V. Brooks, 71 Md. 445, 18 Atl. 868—65. China Steamship, etc. Co., In re, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 512 (1869)— 272. Chincleclamanch, etc. Co. v. Common- wealth, 100 Pa. St. 438—1410, 1428. Chinnock's Case, Johns. (Eng. Ch.) 714 (I860)— 580. Chippendale, Ex parte, 4 De G., M & G. 19, 54 (1854)— 531, 1079. Chippewa, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 75 Wis. 224, 44 N. W. 17, 6 L. R A. 601—1596. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Chlsholm V. Eisenbuth, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 134, 74 N. Y. Supp. 496—811, 816. Chlsholm V. Forny, 65 Iowa, 333, 21 N. W. 664—161, 393. Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191, 17 L. Ed. 839—2230. Chittenden v. Thannhauser, 47 Fed. 410—153. Choat V. Yeates, 1 Jac. & W. 102 (1819)— 660. Cholsser v. People, 140 111. 21, 29 N. B. 546—254. ChoUete v. Omaha, etc. R. R., 26 Neb. 159, 41 N. W. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 135— 2581. Chorley, Ex parte, L. R. 11 Eq. 157 (1870)— 2027. Chouteau t. Allen, 70 Mo. 290—957, 959, 983, 989, 1799, 1814. Chouteau v. Dean, 7 Mo. App. 210 — 80, 294. 393. Chouteau Ins. Co. t. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286—279, 308, 349, 389. Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 68 Mo. 601, 30 Am. Rep. 807—1747. Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris, 20 Mo. 382—564, 576, 736, 847, 855, 857. Chrisman, etc. Co. v. Independence, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 1026 (Mo.)— 349. Christ Church v. Philadelphia County, 24 How. 300, 16 L. Ed. 602—1025. Christ Church v. Pope, 74 Mass. 140 — 1293, 1339. Christensen v. Colby, 43 Hun, 362— 383 387 479 Christensen v. Bno, 106 N. Y. 97, 100, 12 N. E. 648, 60 Am. Rep. 429—30, 117, 217, 399, 400, 401, 464, 2006. Christensen v. Eno, 21 Weekly Dig. 202—114. Christensen v. Illinois, etc. Co., 52 Hun, 478, 5 N. Y. Supp. 925—2005. Christensen v. Quintard, 36 Hun, 334 — 120, 139, 387. Christensen v. Quintard, 8 N. Y. Supp. 400—117. Christian v. American, etc. Co., 89 Ala. 198, 7 South. 427—1682. Christian v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 133 U. S. 233, 10 Sup. Ct. 260, 33 L. Ed. 589—934, 936, 937, 2121. Christian v. Bowman, 49 Minn. 99, 51 N. W. 663—501. Christian v. Smith, 105 Fed. 466—2523. Christian County Court v. Smith, 12 S. W. 134, 13 S. W. 276 (Ky.)— 246. Christian, etc. Co., In re, 128 N. Y. 550, 28 N. E. 665—2422. Christian, etc. Co. v. Fruitdale, etc. Co., 121 Ala. 340, 25 South. 566—524. Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 352, 25 L. Ed. 888—512, 1668, 1670. Christian University v. Jordan, 29 Mo. 68—1799, 1800. Christie v. Gage, 2 Thomp. & C. 344 — 1805. Christie v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 94 Mo. 453, 7 S. W. 567—2606. Christmas v. Biddle, 13 Pa. St. 223 — 1003. Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69, 20 L. Ed. 762—2323. Christopher v. Noxon, 4 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 672 (1883)— 203, 309, 625, 1284, 1287, 1293, 1321. Christy v. Sill, 131 Pa. St. 492, 19 Atl. 295, 297—1088. Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665, 24 L. Ed. 523—113, 334, 338, 359, 370, 394, 409, 416, 631. Church V. A'yer, 80 Fed. 543 — 441. Church V. Church, etc. Co., 75 - Minn. 85, 77 N. W. 548—1504. Church V. Citizens' Street R. R., 78 Fed. 526—107, 112, 649, 1902, 1909, 2010, 2271. Church V. Sterling, 16 Conn. 388 — 39, 1518, 1785, 1800. Church, etc. v. Algemeine, etc., 31 N. Y. App. Div. 133, 52 N. Y. Supp. 922— 1077. Churchill v. Bank of England, 11 M. & W. 323 (1843)— 732. * Church of Christ v. Christian Church, 193 111. 144, 61 N. E. 1119—65. Church of Redemption v. Grace Church, 68 N. Y. 570—1667. C. H. Venner Co. v. United States, etc. Corp., 116 Fed. 1012—2015. Chynoweth's Case, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 13 (1880)— 579. Ciancimino, In re, N. Y. L. J., Dec. 23, 1890—1094. Ciancimino v. Man, 20 N. Y. Supp. 702—1333, 1335, 1337, 2382. Cicero v. Clifford, 53 Ind. 191—2056. Cicotte V. Anciaux, 53 Mich. 227. 18 N. W. 793—1918. Cincinnati v. Morgan, 3 Wall. 275, 18 L. Ed. 146—2122. Cincinnati Cooperage Co. v. Bate, 96 Ky. 356, 26 S. W. 538, 49 Am. St. Rep. 300—64, 527. Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Bruck, 61 Ohio St. 489, 56 N. E. 198, 76 Am. St. Rep. 433—1453, 1927. Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Ohio St. 189, 56 N. E. 1033. 48 L. R. A. 732, 78 Am. St. Rep. 707—1103, 1106, 1543, 1726. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 56 Ohio St. 351, 47 N. E. 249, 43 L. R. A. 777—645, 890. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Clarkson, 7 Ind. 595—83, 84. Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Clifford, 113 Ind. 460, 15 N. E. 524—1431. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Clinton County, 1 Oliio St. 77—248. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St, 523—2659, 2687. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Duckworth, 2 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 560 (1887) — 1921. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Harter, 26 Ohio St. 426—1807. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. McKeen, 64 Fed. 36, 12 C. C. A. 14—682, 2567. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Pearce, 28 Ind. 502—50, 306, 309, 1668. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391—2642. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St. 1—2384, 2492. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 29 Ohio St. 291, 308—2676, 2679. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. v. Telegraph Assoc, 48 Ohio St. 390, 27 N. E. 890, 12 L. R. A. 534, 29 Am. St. Rep. 559—2697. Cincinnati, etc. St. Ry. v. Village Commissioners, 14 Ohio St. 523 — 2696, 2749. Cincinnati Mut. etc. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 111. 85, 8 Am. Rep. 626—1674, 1676, f682. Citizens' Bank v. Los Angeles, etc. Co., 131 Cal. 187, 63 Pac. 462, 82 Am. St. Rep. 341—2196. Citizens' Bank v. Parish of Orleans, 54 Fed. 73—5, 1236. Citizens' Bldg. etc. Assoc, v. Coriell, 34 N. J. Ed. 383—1689. Citizens' Coach Co. v. Camden, etc. R. R., 33 N. J. Eq. 267, 277, 36 Am. Rep. 542—2666, 2713, 2748. Citizens' Elec. L. Co. v. Sands, 95 Mich. 551, 55 N. W. 452, 20 L. R. A. 411-2729, 2818. Citizens,' etc. Assoc, v. Belleville, etc. R. R., 117 Fed. 109, 54 C. C. A. 495— 198, 2041. Citizens," etc. Bank v. Bay Circuit Judge, 110 Mich. 683—2421. Citizens,' etc. Bank v. Blakesley, 42 Ohio St. 645—1787. Citizens,' etc. Bank v. Columbia County, 23 Wash. 441, 63 Pac. 209— 1228. Citizens,' etc. Bank v. Kalamazoo, etc. Bank, 111 Mich. 313—1118, 1123, 1127, 1131. Citizens,' etc. Bank v. Town of Green- burg, 31 N. Y. Misc. 428, 65 N Y Supp. 554—266. Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Elwood, 114 Ind 332, 16 N. B. 624—2736. Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 564, 9 Atl. 73—274, 404, 557. Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Parry, 59 Hun, 202, 13 N. Y. Supp. 490, 128 N. Y. 669, 29 N. E. 148—2763. Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Tompkins, 54 Atl. 617 (Md.)— 2473. Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Union, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 97—1958, 2228, 2375. Citizens,' etc. Ins. Co. v. Sortwell, 92 Mass. 110, 112—281. Citizens,' etc. R. R. v. Batley, 65 N. B. 2 (Ind.)— 2828. Citizens,' etc. Ry. v. Philadelphia, 49 Pa. St. 251—1135. Citizens,' etc. R. R. v. Robbins, 144 Ind. 671, 42 N. E. 916, 43 N. B. 649— 733, 1264, 1552, 2551. Citizens' Gas Light Co. v. Wakefield, 161 Mass. 432, 37 N. E. 444, 31 L. R. A. 457—2730. Citizens' Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Sortwell, 90 Mass. 217—1274, 1298. Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lott, 45 Ala. 185—1200. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Elliott, 55 Iowa, 104, 7 N. W. 470, 39 Am. Rep. 167— 1499. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Wintler, 14 Wash. 558, 45 Pac. 38, 53 Am. St. Rep. 890—1789. Citizens' Ry. v. Africa, 100 Tenn. 26, 42 S. W. 485, 878—2663. Citizens' Sav. Assoc, v. Topeka, 3 Dill. 376, 5 Fed. Cas. 737—250. Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Ingham Circuit Judge, 98 Mich. 173, 57 N. W. 121— 2414. Citizens' Sav. Bank, eto. v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636, 19 Sup. Ct. 530, 43 L. Ed. 840—6, 1039 Citizens' State Bank v. Hawkins, 71 Fed. 369, 18 C. C. A. 78—548, 686, 1598. Citizens' State Bank v. McGraft, etc. Co., 122 Mich. 573, 81 N. W. 563— 2138. Citizens' State Bank v. Pence, 81 N. W. 623 (Neb.)— 1603. Citizens' State Bank v. Story, etc. Co., 84 Minn. 408, 87 N. W. 1016—432, 1615. Citizens' St. R. R. v. City Ry., 56 Fed. 746—2669. Citizens' St. R. R. v. City Ry., 64 Fed. 647, 166 U. S. 557—2671, 2712. Citizens' St. Ry. v. Jones, 34 Fed. 579 —2677. Citizens' St. R. R. v. Memphis, 53 Fed. 715—5, 2586, 2667. Citizens' St. Ry. v. Robbins, 128 Ind. 449, 26 N. E. 116, 12 L. R. A. 498, 25 Am. St. Rep. 445 — 733, 828. Citizens' Water Co. v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 55 Conn. 1, 10 Atl. 170—2770. TABLE OF OASES. Ixxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] City Bank, In re, L. R. 3 Ch. 758 (1868)— 2092. City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige, 570 — 861. City Bank v. Bartlett, 71 Ga. 797—335. City Bank v. Bateman, 7 Har. & J. (Md.) 104—1827, 1828. City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507—616, 674, 679. City Bank v. Perkins, 29 N. Y. 554, 86 Am. Dec. 332—1787. City Bank of Columbus v. Beach, 1 Blatchf. 425, 5 Fed. Cas. 739—1978 City Electric St. Ry. v. Conery, 61 Ark. 381, 33 S. W. 426, 31 L. R. A. 570, 54 Am. St. Rep. 262—2831. City, etc. t. Charleston, etc. R. R., 100 Tenn. 138, 44 S. W. 670—248. City, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 65 Ark. 543, 47 S. W. 835—642. City, etc. Co. v. State, 88 Tex. 600, 32 S. W. 1033—1442, 2118, 2493. City, etc. Corp. v. Central Trust Co. (N. Y. L. J., June 12, 1891)— 810. City, etc. Ry. v. Mayor, 77 Ga. 731, 4 Am. St. Rep. 106—2716. City, etc. San Antonio v. San Antonio, etc. Ry., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 39 S. W. 136—2713. City F. Ins. Co. v. Carrugi, 41 Ga. 660 —1952. City F. Ins. Co. v. Olmstead, 33 Conn. 476—755. City Hotel v. Dickinson, 72 Mass. 586 —215, 220, 290, 366, 372, 1601. City Nat. Bank v. National Park Bank, 32 Hun, 105—1773. City Nat. Bank v. Paducah, 2 Flip. 61, 5 Fed. Cas. 755—1224, 1225, 1228. City Nat. Bank v. Phelps, 86 N. Y. 484 —63. City Nat. Bank v. Phelps, 16 Hun, 158 —63. City of Ashland v. Ashland, etc. Co., 110 Wis. 94, 85 N. W. 695—1404, 1607, 2773. City of Ashland v. Whltcomb, 89 N. W. 886 ("Wis.)— 1680. City of Atlanta v. Old Colony Trust Co., 88 Fed. 859, 32 C. C. A. 125— 2715. City of Austin v. Bartholomew, 107 Fed. 349, 46 C. C. A. 327—2766. City of Austin v. McCall, 68 S. W. 791 (Tex.)— 2760. City of Baxter Springs v. Baxter Springs, etc. Co., 68 Pac. 63 (Kan.)— 2729. City of Bradford v. Postal Tel. Co., 11 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 54 (Penn.)— 2841. City of Brooklyn, In re, 143 N. Y. 596, 38 N. B. 983, 26 L. R. A. 670, 166 U. S. 685—2759, 2761, 2770. City of Brooklyn v. Nassau, etc. R. R., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 365, 56 N. Y. Supp. 609—2716. City of Canton v. Shock, 66 Ohio St. 19, 63 N. E. 600, 58 L. R. A. 637— 2779. City of Cape May v. Cape May, etc. R. R., 44 Atl. 973 (N. J.)— 2368. City of Danville v. Danville, etc. Co., 178 111. 299, 53 N. E. 118, 69 Am. St. Rep. 304—2617, 2768. City of Danville v. Danville Water Co., 180 111. 235, 54 N. E. 224—2768. City of Denver v. Sherret, 88 Fed. 226, 31 C. C. A. 499—2823, 2825. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry., 184 U. S. 368, 22 Sup. Ct. 410, 46 L. Ed. 592—2670, 2672, 2684. City of Duluth v. Duluth Tel. Co., 84 Minn. 486, 87 N. W. 1127—2756. City of Eau Claire v. Payson, 107 Fed. 552, 46 C. C. A. 466— 2538, 2766, 2767. City of Eau Claire v. Payson, 109 Fed. 676, 48 C. C. A. 608—2538, 2766. City of Galveston v. Guaranty, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 325, 46 C. C. A. 319—2344, 2718. City of Glasgow Bank, In re, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 337, 550, 567, 581, 583, 598, 607, 615, 624, 632 (1879)— 520. City of Grand Haven v. Grand Haven, etc. Co., 119 Mich. 652, 78 N. W. 890 —2773, 2775. City of Greenville v. Greenville, etc. Co., 125 Ala. 625, 27 South. 764— 1422, 2761, 2772. City of Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 47 N. B. 525, 51 N. B. 80, 41 L. R. A. 337, 344—2616. City of Johnstown' V. Wade, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 5, 51 N. Y. Supp. 763—2800. City of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo, etc. Co., 124 Mich. 74, 82 N. W. 811— 1422, 2557, 2739. City of Kansas v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 77 Mo. 180—1805, 1811. City of Kansas City v. File, 60 Kan. 157, 55 Pac. 877—2828. City of Kansas City v. Wyandotte, etc. Co., 61 Pac. 317 (Kan.)— 1601. City of Knoxville v. Africa, 77 Fed. 501, 23 C. C. A. 252—2170. City of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. Ry., 93 N. W. 766 (Neb.)— 1993, 2344, 2560, 2571. City of London v. Mayor, etc. (1901), 1 Ch. 602—2684. City of Marshfleld v. Wisconsin Tel. Co., 102 Wis. 604, 78 N. W. 735, 44 L. R. A. 565—2815. City of Mobile v. Bienville, etc. Co., 30 South. 445 (Ala.)— 2761. Ixxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] City of Mobile v. Wood, 95 Fed. 537— 2758. City of New Britain v. New Britain Tel. Co., 50 Atl. 881 (Conn.)— 2756. City of New York v. McLean, 170 N. Y. 374, 63 N. E. 380—1222. City of NCSblesville v. Noblesville, etc. Co., 60 N. B. 1032 (Ind.)— 2735. City of Ogden v. Grossman, 17 Utah, 66, 53 Pac. 985—2841. City of Ohio v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 6 Ohio St. 489—607, 608, 1142, 1148, 1153. City of Philadelphia v. Atlantic, etc. Co., 102 Fed. 254, 42 C. C. A. 325— 2839. City of Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 Fed. 454, 32 C. C. A. 246 —2840. City of Pueblo v. Shutt Inv. Co., 67 Pac. 162 (Colo.)— 1599. City of Rochester v. Bell, etc. Co., 52 N. Y. App. Div. 6, 64 N. Y. Supp. 804 —2846. City of St. Cloud v. Water, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 1112 (Minn.)— 2773. City of St. Paul t. Freedy, 86 Minn. 350, 90 N. W. 781—2816. City of Salem v. Anson, 40 Oreg. 339, 67 Pac. 190, 56 L. R. A. 169—2731. City of Spokane v. Amsterdamsch, etc.. 2'2 Wash.. 172, 60 Pac. 141—360, 949, 1557, 1851, 1882. City of Syracuse v. Stacey, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 249, 61 N. Y. Supp. 165— 2781. City of Toledo v. Western, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 10, 46 C. C. A. Ill, 52 L. R. A. 730—2815. City of Topeka v. Topeka Water Co., 58 Kan. 349, 49 Pac. 79—1409. City of Tower v. Tower, etc. Ry., 68 Minn. 500, 71 N. W. 691, 38 L. R. A. 541, 64 Am. St. Rep. 493—2680. City of Zanesville v. ZanesvlUe T. & T. Co., 64 Ohio St. 67, 59 N. E. 781, 52 L. R. A. 150, 83 Am. St. feep. 725— 2816. City Ry. v. Citizens,' etc. R. R., 52 N. E. 157 (Ind.)— 2663, 2672, 2675. City Ry. v. Citizens' Street R. R., 16G U. S. 557, 17 Sup. Ct. 653, 41 Tj. Ed. 1114—1038, 2668. 2671, 2712, 2740. City Terminus Hotel Co., In re, L. R. 14 Eq. 10 (1872)— 533, 547, 940. City Water Co. v. State, 88 Tex. 600, 32 S. W. 1033—2118. City Water Co. v. State, 33 S. W. 259 (Tex.)— 1410, 2774. Claflin V. Dewey, 177 Mass. 166, 58 N. E. 581—1200. Claflin V. Farmers,' etc. Bank, 25 N Y 293—641, 1979. Claflin T. McDermott, 12 Fed. 375, 20 Blatchf. 522—395. Claflin V. South Carolina R. R.. 8 Fed. 118, 138—1645, 1983, 1984, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2059, 2192. Clancey v. Onondaga, etc. Co., 62 Barb. 395—1052. Clap V. Interstate St. Ry., 61 Fed. 537 —23.89. Clapp V. Allen, 20 Ind. App. 2C3, 50 N. E. 587—1574. Clapp V. Astor, 2 Edw. Ch. 379—1149, 1197. Clapp V. Burlington, 42 Vt. 579, 1 Am. Rep. 355—1222. Clapp V. Cedar County, 5 Iowa, 15, 68 Am. Dec. 678 — 245. Clapp V. Peterson, 104 111. 26—670, 675, 1178. Clapp V. Spokane, 53 Fed. 515 — 2170, 2713, 2720. Clapp V. Wright, 21 Hun, 240 — 479. Clara Killam, The, L. R. 3 Adm. & Ecc. 161—2848. Claremont Bridge v. Royce, 42 Vt. 730, 736—1668. Clarian v. Western Union Tel. Co., 40 La. Ann. 178, 3 South. 625—2836. Clark, Ex parte, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 550 (1869)— 163. Clark, In re, 92 Mich. 351, 52 N. W. 637 —2333. Clark V. American Coal Co., 86 Iowa, 436, 53 N. W. 291, 17 L. R. A. 557— 105, 883, 1465, 1505, 1851, 1894. Clark V. American, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 962, 4 C. C. A. 120—1631. Clark V. Atkins, 90 N. C. 629, 47 Am. Rep. 538—658. Clark V. Bacorn, 116 Fed. 617, 54 C. C. j^ yg 2413. Clark V. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 451, 2 Sup. Ct. 878, 27 L. Ed. 780—303, 2652, 2654. Clark V. Bever, 139 U. S. 96, 11 Sup. Ct. 468, 35 L. Ed. 88—115, 118, 161. Clark V. Bever, 31 Fed. 670 — 118. Clark v. Brockway, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 13—2408. Clark V. Campbell, 23 Utah, 569, 65 Pac. 496, 54 L. R. A. 508—737. Clark V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 66 Fed. 803, 14 C. C. A. 112—2359. Clark V. Continental Improvement Co., 57 Ind. 135—87, 179, 182, 380. Clark V. Cuckfield Union, 11 Bng. L. & Eq. 442—1802, 1803. Clark V. Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199, S7 Am. Dec. 423 — 250. Clark V. Easton, 146 Mass. 43. 14 N. E. 795—1738. Clark V. Edgar, 84 Mo. 106, 54 Am. Rep. 84—805. TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] ' Clark V. Farmers,' etc. Co., 15 Wend. 256—1736, 1756, 1757, 1801, 1804, 1806, 1976, 1977. Clark V. F^rrington, 11 Wis. 306 — 83, 84, 87, 178, 379, 1628. Clark V. Flint, 39 Mass. 231, 33 Am. Dec. 733—755. Clark V. German Security Bank, 61 Miss. 611—1007. Clark V. Gibson, 12 N. H. 386—769. Clark V. Gordon, 121 Mass. 330—1812. Clark V. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 (1858) 295 Clark v'. Hodge, 116 N. C. 761, 21 S. B. 562—1815, 2149. Clark V. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583, 22 L. Ed. 427—2055, 2066. Clark V. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136—248, 249. Clark V. Janesville, 13 Wis. 414 — 249. Clark V. Jones, 87 Ala. 474, G South. 362—502, 1086, 1944. Clark V. Leathers, 5 S. W. 576 (Ky.)— 251. Clark V. Le Cren, 9 B. & C. 52 (1829) —21. Clark V. McGhee, 87 Fed. 789, 31 C. C. A. 321—2343. Clark V. Mayor, 4 N. Y. 338, 53 Am. Dec. 379—2657. Clark V. Middleton, 19 Mo. 53—1682. Clark V. Monongahela Nav. Co., 10 Watts (Pa.), 364—357, 1030. Clark V. Myers, 11 Hun, 608 — 441, 491. Clark V. National, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 787, 45 C. C. A. 53—1387, 1919. Clark V. Ogilvie, 63 S. W. 429 (Ky.) — 532. Clark V. Omaha, etc. R. R., 4 Neb. 459 —2576. Clark V. Omaha, etc. R. R., 5 Neb. 314—2647. Clark V. Pinney, 7 Cow. 681 — 1260. Clark V. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 184 Pa. St. 188, 39 Atl. 86—1523, 1849. Clark V. Reed, 28 Mass. 446 — 1085. Clark V. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 318, 19 L. Ed. 354—2187. Clark V. Rhode Island, etc. Works, 53 Atl. 47 (R. I.)— 457, 1111. Clark V. Richardson, 31 S. W. - 878 (Ky.)— 501. Clark V. Rumsey, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 435, 69 N. Y. Supp. 102—1086. Clark V. San Francisco, 53 Cal. 306 — 1900. Clark V. Sigua, etc. Co., 81 Fed. 310, 26 C. C. A. 423—278. Clark V. South Metropolitan Gas Co., 54 L. J. (Ch.) 259 (1884)— 727. Clark V. Sparhawk, 2 W. N. Cas. 115, 5 Fed. Cas. 928 — 981. Clark V. Titcomb, 42 Barb. 122—1624, 1969, 2108. Clark V. Titusville, 184 U. S. 329, 22 Sup. Ct. 382, 46 L. Ed. 569— 2839 Clark V. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 149, 25 L. Ed. 573—2192. Clark V. Turner, 73 Ga. 1 — 649. Clark V. Wilcklow, 75 Hun, 290, 27 N. Y. Supp. 43— 52S, 1111, 1941. Clarke, Ex parte, 126 Cal. 235, 58 Pac. 546, 46 L. R. A. 835, 77 Am. St. Rep. 176—1110. Clarke, Ex parte, 20 L. J. (Ch.) 14 (1851)— 1699. Clarke, Ex parte, L. R. 7 Eq. 550—88. Clarke v. Central, etc. Co. of Georgia, 54 Fed. 556—1334, 23J6, 2386, 2457. Clarke v. Central R. R. etc. Co., 50 Fed. 338, 15 L. R. A. 683—508, 512, 680, 690, 1059, 1314, 1323, 1329, 1369, 2100, 2160. Clarke v. Central R. R. etc. Co., 66 Fed. 16—2490. Clarke v. Cold Spring, etc. Co., 58 Minn. 16, 59 N. W. 632—435. Clarke v. Dickson, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 453 (1859)— 329. Clarke v. Dickson, 27 L. J. (Q. B.) 223 (1858)— 336. Clarke v. Eastern, etc. Assoc, 89 Fed. 779—1112, 1907. Clarke v. Foss, 7 Biss. 540, 5 Fed. Cas. 955—768, 779, 781. Clarke v. Hancock County, 27 111. 305 — 257. Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L,. Cas. 633 (1858) 289 294 Clarke v. Hill, 93 N. W. 1044 (Mich.) — 866. Clarke v. Imperial Gas Light & C. Co., 4 B. & Ad. 315 (1832)— 1594. Clarke v. Janesville, 1 Biss. 98, 5 Fed. Cas. 962 — 2057. Clarke v. Lexington Stoveworks, 72 S. W. 286 (Ky.)— 1792. Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co., 59 Wis. 655, 18 N. W. 492—106. Clarke v. Meigs, 22 How. Pr. 340, 13 Abb. Pr. 467—925. Clarke v. Meigs, 10 Bosw. 337 — 906, 907. Clarke v. Milligan, 58 Minn. 413, 59 N. W. 955—65. Clarke v. Olson, 83 N. W. 519 (N. Dak.) —2408.. Clarke v. Omaha, etc. R. R., 4 Neb. 459—2559. Clarke v. Omaha, etc. R. R., 5 'Neb. 314—2559. Clarke v. Potter County, 1 Pa. St. 159 — 65. Clarke v. Richmond, etc. Ry., 62 Fed. 328, 10 C. C. A. 387—508, 512, 680, 683, 690, 1059, 1314, 1323, 1329, 1369, 2100, 2160, 2577. xc TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Clarke v. Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605—247. Clarke v. Second Nat. Bank, 177 Mass. 257, 59 N. E. 121—1636. Clarke v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46—368, 411, 629, 631. Clarke v. Warwick, etc. Co., 174 Mass. 434, 54 N. B. 887—1283, 1728, 1832. Clark, etc. Co. v. Parker, etc. Co., 91 N. W. 134 (Mich.)— 1790. Clark's Appeal, 100 Mich. 448—430. Clarksburg, etc. Co. v. City of Clarks- burg, 47 W. Va. 739, 35 S. B. 994— 2663, 2676. Clarkson v. Clarkson, 18 Barb. 646 — 1142, 1191, 1197.' Clarkson v. Hudson River R. R., 12 N. Y. 304—5. Clarkson v. Snider. 5 Can. L. T. 587 (1885)— 958. Clausen v. Head, 110 Wis. 405, 85 N. W. 1028, 84 Am. St. Rep. 933—503. Clausen, etc. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co., 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 210 (N. Y.)— 2796. Clay V. East, etc. R. R., 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 421—2305. Clay V. Hawkins County, 5 Lea, 137 — 248. Clay V. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 70 Miss. 406, 11 South. 658—2820. Clay V. Selah Valley Irr. Co., 14 Wash. 543, 45 Pac. 141—2181. Clay County v. Society for Savings, 104 U. S. 579, 26 L. Ed. 856—244, 254. Clayton v. Gresham, 10 Ves. Jr. 288 (1804)— 1195. Clayton v. Ore Knob Co., 109 N. C. 385, 14 S.^. 36—130. Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 25, 40, 17 L. Ed. 604—1022, 1031, 1040, 2551, 2685. Cleghorn v. New York, etc. R. R., 56 N. Y. 44, 15 Am. Rep. 375—78. Clegg V. Ellison (1898), 2 Ch. 83—1092. Clegg v; Hamilton, etc. Co., 61 Iowa, 121, 15 N. W. 865—497. Cleland v. Anderson, 92 N. W. 306 (Neb.)— 1048. Clem v. Newcastle, etc. R. R., 9 Ind. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 653—309, 321, 389. Clemens v. Clemens, 37 N. Y. 59 — 1664. Clemens v. Heckscher, 185 Pa. St. 476, 40 Atl. 80—721. Clemens, etc. Co. v. Walton, 173 Mass. 286, 52 N. B. 132, 53 N. E. 820— 2557. Clement v. Lathrop, 18 Fed. 885 — 65. Clement, etc. Co. v. Michigan, etc. Co., 110 Mich. 458, 68 N. B. 224 — 1602. Clements v. Bowes, 1 Drew. 684 (1853) —1880. Clements v. Bowes, 17 Sim. 167 (1852) —1710. Clements v. Louisiana El. etc. Co., 44 La. Ann. 692, 11 South. 51, 16 L. R. A. 43, 32 Am. St. Rep. 348—2831. Clements v. Todd, 1 Exch. 268 (1847) — 1710. Clemshire v. Boone County Bank, 53 Ark. 512, 14 S. W. 901—183, 509, 791. Cleveland v. Bangor St. Ry., 86 Me. 232, 29 Atl. 1005—2824. Cleveland v. BurnhaA, 55 Wis. 598, 13 N. W. 677, 680—279, 395. Cleveland v. Burnham, 64 Wis. 347, 25 N. W. 407—480. Cleveland v. Cleveland, etc. Ry., 93 Fed. 113—2630. Cleveland v. Marine Bank, 17 Wis. 545 —396. Cleveland v. Mullin, 54 Atl. 665 (Md.) —371. Cleveland City Ry. v. City of Cleveland, 94 Fed. 385—2616, 2668. Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Cleveland, 71 Fed. 610—2735. Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Crawford, 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 171—144, 1462. Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Stone, 105 Fed. 794—2788, 2843. Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Taylor, etc. Co., 54 Fed. 82—1284, 1390. Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 250—139, 170. Cleveland, etc. Ry v. Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 9 L. R. A. 754, 22 , Am. St. Rep. 593—2597, 2606. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 20 Sup. Ct. 722, 44 L. Ed. 868— 2605. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. Kent, 87 Hun, 329, 34 N. Y. Supp. 427—465. - Cleveland, etc. R. R. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 64 Fed. 623—2376, 2436. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 86 Fed. 73—2335. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. People, 175 111. 359, 51 N. B. 842—2604. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. Prewitt, 134 Ind. 557, 33 N. B. 367—2590. Cleveland, etc. R. R. v. Robbins, 35 Ohio St. 483—826, 871, 1144. Cleveland, etc. Ry. v. Scott, 64 N. E. 896 (Ind.)— 2836. Cleveland, etc. R. R. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325, 94 Am. Dec. 84—2625, 2633, 2651. Cleveland Iron Co. v. Bnnor, 14 N. E. 673 (111.)— 1985. Cleveland Iron Co. v. Ennor, 12 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 88 (111. 1886)— 308. Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier Co., 67 Mich. 152, 34 N. W. 556—1588. Cleveland Rolling M. Co. v. Crawford, 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 172 (111. Cir. Ct.) —2031. TABLE OF OASES. XCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Cleveland T. Co. v. Lander, 184 U. S. Ill, 22 Sup. Ct. 394, 46 L. Ed. 456— 1206. Clews V. Bardon, 36 Fed. 617 — 1690. Clews V. Brunswick, etc. R. R., 54 Ga. 315—2121. Clews V. Friedman, 66 N. E.' 201 (Mass.)— 1009. Clews V. Jamieson, 89 Fed. 63 — 740. 926. Clews V. Jamieson, 96 Fed. 648, 38 C. C. A. 473—773. Clews T. Jamieson, 182 U. S. 461, 21 Sup. Ct. 845, 45 L. Ed. 1183—751, 769, 904, 917. Clews V. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 Fed. 31—1960. Clifford V. Taylor, 1 Taunt. 167—1104. Clifton, etc. Co. v. Randell, 82 Iowa, 89, 47 N. W. 905—1077. Clinch V. Financial Corp., L. R. 2 Eq. 271 (1866)— 1106. Clinch V. Financial Corp., L. R. 5 Eq. 450, 482 (1868)— 1558, 1913, 2575. Clinard v. White, 39 S. E. 960 (N. C.)— 1954. Clinton v. Myers, 46 N. Y. 511, 7 Am. Rep. 373—2778. €liquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 18 L. Ed. 116—1258. Clise Inv. Co. v. Washington Sav. Bank, 18 Wash. 8, 50 Pac. 575—295, 1114. Clive V. Clive, Kay, 600—1148, 1196. Clokey v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 304, 44 N. Y. Supp. 631— 2085. Clokey v. International, etc. Co., 28 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 326, 59 N. Y. Supp. 878 —1571. Clokus V. Hollister Min. Co., 92 Wis. 325, 66 N. W. 398—431. Close V. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466, 2 Sup. Ct. 267, 27 L. Ed. 408— 1035, 1036, 1038, 1421. Close V. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145, 49 N. E. 686—461, 474, 477, 486, 487, 1376, 1755. Cloutman v. Pike, 7 N. H. 209—1730. Clow V. Brown, 31 N. E. 361 (Ind.) — 128, 139. Clow V. Brown, 134 Ind. 287, 33 N. E. 1126—128, 139. Clow V. Brown, 150 Ind. 185, 48 N. E. 1034, 49 N. E. 1057—156, 2024. Clow V. Redman, 57 Pac. 437 (Idaho) — 1437. Clowe V. Imperial, etc. Co., 114 N. C. 304, 19 S. E. 153—1821. Clowes V. Brettell, 10 M. & W. 506 (1842)— 396. Clowes V. Brettell, 11 M. & W. 461 (1843)— 856. Clowes V. Miller, 60 N. J. Eq. 179, 47 Atl. 345—1359, 1364. Clowes V. Miller, 50 Atl. 728 (Conn.) — 740. Club V. Fitzgerald, 109 Mich. 670, 67 N. W. 899—391. Clute V. Loyeland, 68 Cal. 254, 9 Pac. 133—1072. Clyde V. Richmond, etc. Co., 55 Fed. 445 —2181. Clyde V. Richmond, etc. R. R., 56 Fed. 539—2354. Clyde V. Richmond, etc. R. R., 57 Fed. 436—2614. Clyde V. Richmond, etc. R. R., 63 Fed. 21—2446. Clyde V. Rogers, 24 Hun, 145, 87 N. Y. 625—1108. Coal City, etc. Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., 108 Ala. 218, 19 South. 392— 1633. Coal Co. V. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172, 20 L. Ed. 179—2184, 2202. Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank, 142 Pa. St. 288, 21 Atl. 811—1567. Coaldale Min. etc. Co. v. Clark, 43 W. Va. 84, 27 S. E. 294—1644. Coal, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eq. 114 (1875), L. R. 1 Ch. D. 182—1474. Coal, etc. Co. v. Tennessee, etc. Co., 106 Tenn. 651, 62 S. W. 162—1666, 1723, 2141. Coalfield Co. v. Peck, 98 111. 139—398. Coalport China Co., In re (1895), 2 Ch. 404—1358. Coalter v. Bargamin, 99 Va. 65, 37 S. E. 779—521. Coates V. London, etc. Ry., 41 L. T. Rep. 553 (1879)— 836. Coates V. Nottingham, etc. Co., 30 Beav. 86 (1861)— 591, 604, 1176. Coats, Matter of, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 178, 76 N. Y. Supp. 730—1101. Coats, Matter of, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 469, 78 N. Y. Supp. 425—823. Coats, Matter of, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 567, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 429—1101. Coats V. Donnell, 94 N. Y. 168—1640, 1787, 1969. Coats V. Elliott, 23 Tex. 606—1948. Cobb V. Fant, 36 S. C. 1, 14 S. E. 959— 1192. Cobb V. Legarde, 129 Ala. 488, 30 South. 326—1097, 1102. Cobb V. Prell, 15 Fed. 774, 5 McCrary, 80—777. Cobb V. Sweet, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 375, 61 N. Y. Supp, 545—2448. Coble V. Beall, 41 S. E. 793 (N. C.) — 1909. Coburn v. Cedar Valley, etc. Co., 138 U. S. 196, 11 Sup. Ct. 258, 34 L. Ed. 876 —1482. XCll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Coburn v. New Tel. Co., 156 Ind. 90, 59 N. B. 324—2847. Coburn v. Omega Lodge, 71 Iowa, 581, 32 N. W. 513—1817. Cochecho Nat. Bank v. Haskell, 51 N. H. 116, 12 Am. Rep. 68—1829. Cochran v. Anglo-American, etc. Co., 69 Hun, 168, 23 N. Y. Supp. 404— 1640, 1989, 2249, 2484. Cochran v. McGee, 53 S. W. 519 (Ky.) —1154. Cochran v. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 30 La. Ann. 1365—1177, 1652. Cochran v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 91 Va. 339, 21 S. E. 664—2207. Cochran v. Selling, 36 Oreg. 333, 59 Pac. 329—227, 744. Cochran v. Wiechers, 119 N. Y. 399, 23 N. E. 803. 7 L. R. A. 553—457, 461. Cock V. Bailey, 146 Pa. St. 328, 23 Atl. 370—145, 2004, 2498. Cockburn v. Union Bank, 13 La. Ann. 289—1096, 1099, 1108. Cockburn's Case, 4 De G. & Sm. 177 (1850)— 668. Cockerell v. Aucompte, 5 W. R. 633 (1857)— 1071. Cocker's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 1 (1876) —2746. Cocking V. Ward, 48 S. W. 287 (Tenn.) —429, 442. Cockran v. Cockran, 14 Sim. 248 (1844) —656. Cockranev. Chambers, Ambl. 79 (1825) —704. Cockrell v. Van Diemen's Land Co., 26 L. J. (C. P.) 203 (1857)— 298, 299. Cockrill V. Abeles, 86 Fed. 505. 30 C. C. A. 223—85, 165, 174, 625, 1186, 1612, 1660, 1685. Cockrill V. Butler, 78 Fed. 679—487. Cockrill V. Cooper, 86 Fed. 7, 29 C. C. A. 529—456. Cocksedge v. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, 64 L. T. Rep. 826 (1891)— 337. Cocksedge v. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, 65 L. T. Rep. 432 (1891)— 337. Coddington v. Canaday, 157 Ind. 243, 61 N. E. 567—85, 1612, 1686, 1689, 1694, 1865, 2404, 2410. Coddington v. Gilbert, 17 N. Y. 489— 1997. Coddington v. Railroad, 103 U. S. 409, 26 L. Ed. 400—51, 2278. Codman v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 16 Blatchf. 165, 5 Fed. Cas. 1157—2076, 2082, 2573, 2576. Coe V. Columbus, etc. R. R., 10 Ohio St. 372, 386, 390, 403, 410, 75 Am. Dec. 518—2016, 2118, 2150, 2184, 2323, 2423, 2475. Coe v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 34 N. J Eq. 266—2329. Coe V. East, etc R. R., 52 Fed. 531, 534, 559—86, 125, 143, 1383, 1513, 1523, 1994, 1995, 2007, 2019, 2020, 2031, 2053, 2139, 2248, 2257, 2258, 2272, 2345. Coe V. Johnson, 18 Ind. 218 — 2107, 2159. Coe V. Knox, etc. Bank, 10 Ohio St. 412—2424, 2601. Coe V. McBrown, 22 Ind. 252—2159, 2236, 2320, 2323. Coe V. New Jersey, etc. Ry., 31 N. J. Eq. 105, 128—1420, 2124, 2138, 2145, 2147, 2150, 2151, 2153, 2179, 2240, 2246, 2337. Coe V. New Jersey Midland Ry., 27 N. J. Eq. 37—2459. Coe V. New Jersey Mid. Ry., 28 N. J. Eq. 31—2490. Coe V. Peacock, 14 Ohio St. 187 — ^232,4. Coeur D'Alene Ry. etc. Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 280, 35 C. C. A. 295—2223, 2390. Coey V. Belfast, etc. Ry., Ir. Rep. 2 C. L. 112 (1866)— 594, 606, 1150, 1153. Cofeey V. Coffey, 179 111. 283, 53 N. E. 590—662, 664. Coffin V. Batesville, etc. Ry., 63 Ark. 602, 40 S. W. 88—2294. Coffin V. Chattanooga, etc. Co., 44 Fed. 533—1965, 2222. Coffin V. Chicago, etc. Co., 4 Hun, 625 — 979. Coffin V. Collins, 17 Me. 440 — 9, 186. Coffin V. Ransdell, 110 Ind. 417, 11 N. E. 20—80, 128. Coffin V. Reynolds, 37 N. Y. 640—430. Coffin V. Rich, 45 Me. 507, 71 Am. Dec. 559—424, 517, 1026, 1027. Coffin V. State, 144 Ind. 578, 43 N. E. 654, 55 Am. St. Rep. 188—748, 751, 752. Coffing V. Dodge, 167 Mass. 231, 45 N. E. 928—465. Coghlan v. South Carolina R. R., 142 U. S. 101, 12 Sup. Ct. 150, 35 L. Ed. 951—2063. Cogswell V. Bull, 39 Cal. 320—1903, 1904, 1910. Cogswell V. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. 231 — 653, 1202. Cohen v. Berlin, etc. Co., 166 N. Y. 292, 304, 59 N. E. 906—1049. Cohen v. Gold Creek, etc. Co., 95 Fed. 580—2394, 2493. Cohen v. Gwynn, 4 Md. Ch. 357—723, 863, 1084. Cohen v. Wilkinson, 12 Beav. 125- (1849)— 2623. Cohen v. Wilkinson, 1 Macn. & G. 481 (1849)— 2648. Cohn V. Borst, 36 Hun, 562 — 1071. Coil V. Pittsburgh Female College, 4* Pa. St. 439—319. TABLE OF CASES. XCllI [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Coit V. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 509, 514— 1861. Coit V. Freed, 15 Utah, 426, 49 Pac. 533—134, 994. Colt V. Gold Amal. Co., 119 U. S. 343, 7 Sup. Ct. 231, 30 L. Ed. 420—124, 135, 152, 635. Coit V. North Car. Gold Amal. Co., 14 Fed. 12—124, 135, 152. Coit V. Sutton, 102 Mich. 324, 60 N. W. 690—1677. Colbert v. Sutton, 5 Del. Ch. 294—993. Colborne, Ex parte, L. R. 11 Eq. 478 (1870)— 2093. Colburn v. Riley, 11 Colo. App. 184, 52 Pac. 684—973, Colby University v. Canandaigua, 69 Fed. 671—2759. Colchester v. Lotten, 1 Ves. £ B. 226 (1813)— 2260. (3olcock V. Garvey, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 231 (1815)— 1760. Colderwood v. McCrea, 11 111. App. 543 —776, 778. Cole V, Adams, 92 Tex. 171, 46 S. W. 790—148. Cole V. Adams, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 507, 49 S. W. 1052—148, 168, 174, 416, 553, 554, 1143. Cole V. Butler, 43 Me. 401—480, 491. Cole V. Cassidy, 138 Mass. 437, 52 Am. Rep. 284—805. Cole V. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107, 10 Sup. Ct. 269, 33 L. Ed. 538—2428. Cole V. Great Bend, etc. Co., 54 Pac. 920 (Kan.)— 503. Cole V. Joliet Opera House Co., 79 111. 96—286. Cole V. Knickerbocker, etc. Co., 91 N. Y. 641—1390, 1889. Cole V. Knickerbocker, etc. Ins. Co., 23 Hun, 255—1390, 1889. Cole V. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. 416, 28 L. Ed. 896—250. Cole V. Logan, 24 Or. 304, 33 Pac. 568 — 2787. Cole V. Millerton Iron Co., 133 N. Y. 164, 30 N. E. 847, 28 Am. St. Rep. 615—1585. Cole V. Millerton Iron Co., 59 Hun, 217, 13 N. Y. Supp. 851—1586. Cole V. Milmine, 88 111. 349—772. Cole V. Oil Well Supply Co., 57 Fed. 534—2425. Cole V. Price, 22 Wash. 18, 60 Pac. 153— 1545. Cole V. Ryan, 52 Barb. 168 — 219, 554, 578, 736. Cole V. Satsop R. R., 9 Wash. 487, 37 Pac. 700, 43 Am. St. Rep. S58 — 363, 415, 55L Coleman, Matter of, 174 N. Y. 373, 66 N. E. 983—2438, 2439. Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 — 496. Coleman v. Columbia Oil Co., 51 Pa. St. 74—672, 1147. "Coleman v. Eastern Counties Ry., 10 Beav. 1—2078. Coleman v. Howe, 154 111. 458, 39 N. E. 725, 45 Am. St. Rep. 133—93, 139, 144, 167, 169, 2017. Coleman v. Oregonian R. R., 25 Or. 286, 35 Pac. 656—2335. Coleman v. San Rafael Tump. Co., 49 Cal. 517—1663, 1664. Coleman v. Second Ave. R. R., 38 N. Y. 201—1482, 2661. Coleman v. Spencer, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 197—197. 888, 1016. Coleman v. West, etc. Co., 25 W. Va. 148—1774. Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700, 80 Am. Dec. 797—404, 406, 428, 454, 456. Coler V. Allen, 114 Fed. 609, 52 C. C. A. 380—1631. Coler V. Barth, 24 Colo. 31, 48 Pac. 656 —2291. Coler V. Grainger County, 74 Fed. 16, 20 C. C. A. 267—278, 2297. Coler V. Tacoma, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 680 (N. J.)— 514, 684, 1323, 1562, 2024. Coler V. Tacoma Ry. etc., 54 Atl. 413 (N. J.)— 148, 692, 1562, 1565, 2022, 2024, 2563, 2574. Coleridge, etc. Co. v. Jenkins, 92 N. W. 123 (Neb.)— 1662. Coles V. Bank of England, 10 Ad. & E. 437 (1839)— 838, 1247. Coles V. Brlstowe, L. R. 4 Ch App. 3 (1868)— 913. Coles V. Kennedy, 81 Iowa, 360, 46 N. W. 1088, 25 Am. St. Rep. 503—316. Colfax Hotel Co. v. Lyon, 69 Iowa, 683, 29 N. W. 780—179. Colgate V. Compagnie Francaise, 23 Fed. 82, 23 Blatchf. 86—1110. Colglazier v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 568—2651. Coliseum v. Interstate, etc. Co., 123 Ala. 512, 26 South. 122—2373. Colket V. Ellis, 10 Phila. 375—914, 924. Collamer v. Day, 2 Vt. 144—769. College, etc. Line v. Ide, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 273, 40 S. W. 64—1492. CoUender v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200, 14 Am. Rep. 224—2644. Colles V. Trow, etc. Co., 11 Hun, 397 — 1604. Collier v. Collier, 3 Ohio St. 369-658, 1201. Collier v. Deering, etc. Assoc, 66 S. W. 183 (Ky.)— 1875. Collier v. Morgan's, etc. R. R., 41 La. Ann. 37, 5 South. 537—1938. Collier v Mutual, etc. Assoc, 119 Fed. 617—1957. XCIV TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the tert.] Collier v. Squire, 3 Russ. 467 (1827) — 657. Collingwood v. Berkeley, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 145 (1863)— 1698. Collins V. Bellefonte Cent. R. R., 171 Pa. St. .243, 33 Atl. 331—2314. Collins V. Bradbury, 64 Me. 37—2050. Collins V. Central Bank, 1 Ga. 435— 2192. Collins V. Chicago, 4 Hiss. 472, 6 Fed. Cas. 118—1220. Collins V. City, etc. Bank, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 289 (1877)— 336. Collins V. Godefroy, 1 B. & Ad. 956 (1831)— 1502. Collins V. Lowry, 78 Wis. 329, 47 N. W. 612—1249. Collins V. Rea, 127 Mich. 273, 86 N. W. 811—2073, 2110. Collins V. Riggs, 14 Wall. 491, 20 L. Ed. 723—2294. Collins V. Steuart, 58 N. J. Eq. 392, 44 Atl. 467—665, 705. Collins V. Stofer's Ex'rs, 52 S. W. 940 (Ky.)— 1576, 2540. Collins V. Yates, 27 L. J. (Exch.) 150 (1858)— 1107. Collins' Claim, L. R. 12 Eq. 246 (1871) —1749. Collins Park, etc. R. R. v. Short Elec. Ry., 25 S. E. 929 (Ga.)— 2346. Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry., 10 Beav. 1 (1846)— 1893. Colonial Bank v. Cady, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 267—885. Colonial Bank v. Willan, L. R. 5 P. C. 417 (1874)— 1822. Colonial City Traction Co. v. Kingston City R. R., 153 N. Y. 540, 47 N. B. 810—2698. Colonial, etc. Co. v. Catlin, 57 Pac. 140 (Kan.)— 1951. Colonial, etc. Co. v. Hutchinson Mort- gage Co., 44 Fed. 219—1111. Colonial, etc. Corp., In re, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 465 (1879)— 2094. Colorado, etc. Co. v. Acres, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 954 (Cal.)— 1575. Colorado, etc. Co. v. American, etc. Co., 97 Fed. 843, 38 C. C. A. 433—1592, 1721, 1786. Colorado, etc. Co. v. Lenhart, 6 Colo. App. 511, 41 Pac. 834 — 487. Colorado, etc. Co. v. Sedalla, etc. Co., 13 Colo. App. 474, 59 Pac. 222— 381. Colorado, etc. Co. v. Western Hard- ware Co., 16 Utah, 4, 50 Pac. 628 — 1653. Colorado, etc. Corp. v. Lombard etc Co., 71 Pac. 584 (Kan.)— 1379. Colorado, etc. Ry. v. Union, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 293—2634. Colorado Iron Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., 15 Colo. 499, 25 Pac. 325, 22 Am. St. Rep. 433—1679, 1937. Colorado Savings Bank v. Evans, 12 Colo. App. Div. 334, 56 Pac. 981— 1614. Colquhoun v. Courtenay, 43 L. J. (Ch.) 338—580, 581, 711. Colquhoun v. Courtenay, 29 L. T. Rep. 877—712. Colston V. Southern, etc. Assoc, 99 Fed. 305—1870, 2226. Colt V. Barnes, 64 Ala. 108—2121, 2122. Colt V. Clapp, 127 Mass. 476—208, 772. Colt V. Ives, 31 Conn. 25, 81 Am. Dec. 161—1015, 1018. Colt V. Nettervill, 2 P. Wms. 304 (1725) —753, 762. Colt V. Owens, 90 N. Y. 368—925, 927, 1256, 1263. Colt V. WooUaston, 2 P. Wms. 154 (1723)— 199, 786, 1710. Coltness Iron Co. v. Black, L. R. 6 App. Cas. 315 (1881)— 1166. Colton V. Mayer, 90 Md. 711, 45 Atl. 874, 45 L. R..A. 617, 78 Am. St. Rep. 456—438. Colton V. Oakland Bank, etc., 70 Pac. 225 (Cal.)— 961. Colton V. Ross, 2 Paige, 396, 22 Am. Dec. 648—1914. Colton V. Stanford, 82 Cal. 351, 23 Pac. 16, 16 Am. St. Rep. 137—706, 786. Coltraine v. Blake, 113 Fed. 785, 51 C. C. A. 457—583. Coltrane v. Baltimore, etc. Assoc, 110 Fed. 281, 288—609. Coltrane v. Templeton, 106 Fed. 370, 45 C. C. A. 328—1929, 2235, 2392, 2393. Columbia Bank v. Gospel Tabernacle, 127 N. Y. 361, 28 N. E. 29—1748, 1772. Columbia Bank v. Gospel Tabernacle, 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 149, 6 N. Y. Supp. 537—1783. Columbia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463, 49 N. W. 244—371, 380, 791, 1418. Columbia, etc v. Belmar, etc. Ass'n, 54 Atl. 142 (N. J.)— 644. Columbia, etc. Co. v. Gelsse, 38 N. J. L. 39, 42—2771. Columbia, etc. Co. v. Meier, 39 Mo. 53 —1298. Columbia, etc. Co. v. Mercer, 57 S. W. 787 (Ky.)— 947, 2041. Columbia, etc. Co. v. Vancouver, etc. Co., 32 Or. 532, 52 Pac. 513—1760. Columbia, etc. Trust Co. v. Kentucky Union Ry., 60 Fed. 794, 9 C, C. A. 264 —2089, 2236, 2243, 2284, 2328. Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 85 Fed. 934—631, 1286, 1306. TABLE OF CASES. XCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Columbia Nat. Bank's Appeal, 42 Leg. Int. 226—633. Columbia Nat. Bank's Appeal, 16 W. N. Cas. 357—633, 1284. Columbian Ath. Club v. State, 143 Ind. 98, 40 N. E. 914, 28 L. R. A. 727, 52 Am. St. Rep. 407—77, 1411, 2379. Columbian Bank, In re, 147 Pa. St. 422, 23 Atl. 625, 626, 628—675. Columbian Ins. Co., In re, 30 Hun, 342 —2483. Columbine v. Chicliester, 2 Ph. Ch. 27 (1846)— 756, 757, 759. Columbus V. Street R. R., 45 Ohio St. 98, 12 N. E. 651—2719. Columbus Buggy Co. v. Graves, 108 111. 459—1669. Columbus, etc. Co. v. Long, 121 Ala. 245, 25 South. 702—2629. Columbus, etc. Ry. v. Braden, 110 Ind. 558, 11 N. E. 357—2318. Columbus, etc. R. R. v. Burke, 19 Week. L. Bull. 27 (Ohio), 20 Week. L. Bull. 287—98, 682, 1889, 2010, 2260, 2261. Columbus, etc. R. R. v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 5 McLean, 450, 6 Fed. Cas. 193—2594, 2596. Columbus, etc. Ry. v. Lanier, N. Y. L. J., Feb. 4, 1893—2011. Columbus, etc. Ry. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37—1584, 2551. Columbus, etc. R. R. Appeals, 109 Fed. 177, 48 C. C. A. 275—1581, 2062, 2353, 2458, 2525, 2539. Columbus Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 18 Mo. 229 —1677, 1683. Columbus Land Co. v. McNally, 172 Pa. St. 158, 33 AU. 339—184, 526. Columbus Southern Ry. v. Wright, 151 U. S. 470, 14 Sup. Ct. 396, 38 L. Ed. 238—1229. Colville's Case, 48 L. J. (Ch.) 633 (1879)— 342, 344. Colvin V. Williams, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 38—762, 763. Comanche County v. Lewis, 133 U. S. 198, 10 Sup. Ct. 286, 33 L. Ed. 604— 249, 1414. Combes v. Keyes, 89 Wis. 297, 62 N. W. 89, 27 L. R. A. 369, 46 Am. St. Rep. 839—1395. Combination Trust Co. v. Weed, 2 Fed. 24—940, 1611, 2108. Combs V. Agricultural Ditch Co., 17 Colo. 146, 28 Pac. 966, 31 Am. St. Rep. 275—2788. Combs V. Smith, 78 Mo. 32—2361. Comer v. Felton, 61 Fed. 731, 10 C. C. A. 28—2402. Comesky v. Postal Tel. etc. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 245, 58 N. Y. Supp. 467 —2796, 2801. Comet, etc. Co. v. Frost, 15 Colo. 310, 25 Pac. 506—1938. Comfort V. Leland, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 81 —282. Comins v. Coe, 117 Mass. 45 — 786. Commercial Bank, In re, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 174 (1886)— 2391. Commercial Bank, In re, L. R. 6 Eq. 517 (1868)— 1392. Commercial Bank v. Azotine, etc. Co., 66 Minn. 413, 69 N. W. 217—435. Commercial Bank v. Azotine, etc. Co., 69 Minn. 232, 72 N. W. 108—435. Commercial Bank v. Chatfleld, 121 Mich. 641, 80 N. W. 712—1688. Commercial Bank v. Chatfield, 127 Mich. 407, 86 N. W. 1015—1687. Commercial Bank v. Cunningham, 41 Mass. 270, 276, 35 Am. Dec. 322— 1840. Commercial Bank v. French, 38 Mass. 486, 32 Am. Dec. 280—64, 1812. Commercial Bank v. Great Western Ry., 3 Moore's P. C. Rep. (N. S.) 295 (1865)— 1970. Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 20 Wend. 91—938. Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend. 348, 351, 34 Am. Dec. 317— 846, 847, 850, 853, 938, 1131. Commercial Bank v. Lockwood, 2 Har. (Del.) 8—1433, 1578. Commercial Bank v. Nolan, 8 Miss. 508 —1630. Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242, 15 N. E. 311—1943. Commercial Bank v. State, 6 Sm. & M. (14 Miss.) 599, 622—1392, 1399, 1402, 1414, 2604. Commercial Bank v. Ten Eyck, 48 N. Y. 305—1687. Commercial Bank, etc. v. Newport Mfg. Co., 1 B. Mon. 13, 35 Am. Dec. 171— 1969, 1976. Commercial, etc. Co. v. Scammon, 102 111. 46—1629. Commercial F. Ins. Co. v. Board of Revenue, 99 Ala. 1, 14 South. 490, 42 Am. St. Rep. 17—30, 202, 687. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Brill, 37 Neb. 626, 56 N. W. 382—1783. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Burch, 141 111. 519, 31 N. E. 420, 33 Am. St. Rep. 331—675, 2051, 2375. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 82 Iowa, 192, 47 N. W. 1080— 994, 1016. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Gibson, 3T Neb. 750, 56 N. W. 616—445, 555. Commercial Nat. Bank v. lola, 2 Dill, 353, 6 Fed. Cas. 221—250. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Motherwell, etc. Co., 95 Tenn. 172, 31 S. W. 1002, 29 L. R. A. 164—2425. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Pirie, 82 Fed, 799, 27 C. C. A. 171—2081. XCVl TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Commercial Union Tel. Co. v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 61 Vt. 241, 17 Atl. 1071, 5 L. R. A. 161, 15 Am. St. Rep. 893—2842. Commerford v. William J. Johnston Co., N. Y. L. J., 1890—1105. Commissioner, etc. v. Grand Rapids, etc. Ry., 89 N. W. 967 (Mich.)— 2533, 2611. Commissioners v. Elston, 32 Ind. 27, 2 Am. Rep.' 327—1220. Commissioners v. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631, 24 L. Ed. 133—1834. Commissioners, etc. v. BoUes, 94 U. S. 104, 24 L. Ed. 46—1417. Commissioners, etc. v. Buckner, 48 Fed. 533—1137, 1231. Commissioners, etc. v. Holyoke Water- power Co., 104 Mass. 446, 6 Am. Rep. 247—1432. Commissioners, etc. v. Northern, etc. Co., 12 Pa. St. 318—2740. Commissioners of Aberdeen v. Brad- ford, 51 Atl. 614 (Md.)— 2764. Commissioners of Central Park, In re, 62 N. Y. 645—805. Common v. McArthur, 29 Canada S. C. Rep. 239—294. Common Petroleum Eng. Co., In re (1895), 2 Ch. 759—117. Commonwealth v. Allegheny Bridge Co., 20 Pa. St. 185—1396, 1402, 2724. Commonwealth v. Allegheny County, 32 Pa. St. 218—248. Commonwealth v. American, etc. Teleph. Co., 129 Pa. St. 217, 18 Atl. 122—1239. Commonwealth v. Arrison, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 127, 16 Am. Dec. 531-1330. Commonwealth v. Bakeman, 105 Mass. 53—8, 1944. Commonwealth v. Bala, etc. Turnp. Co., 153 Pa. St. 47, 25 Atl. 1105—2748. ■Commonwealth v. Banks, 198 Pa. St 397, 48 Atl. 277—59. Commonwealth v. Beech Creek R. R., 188 Pa. St. 203, 41 Atl. 605—1232. Commonwealth v. Boston, 97 Mass. 555 —2814, 2819. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. R. R.,' 57 Mass. 25—41. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. R. R., 142 Mass. 146, 7 N. E. 716—175, 679. 1319. Commonwealth v. Breed, 21 Mass. 460 —1402. Commonwealth v. Bringhurst, 103 Pa. St. 134—1305. Commonwealth v. Brush, etc. Co., 145 Pa. St. 147, 22 Atl. 844—1230, 1231, 1236. •Commonwealth v. Butterworth, 160 Pa St. 55, 28 Atl. 507—1304. Commonwealth v. Central Bridge Corp., 66 Mass. 242 — 76. Commonwealth v. Central, etc. Tel Co., 145 Pa. St. 121, 22 Atl. 841, 27' Am. St. Rep. 677—1230. Commonwealth t. Central P. Ry., 52 Pa. St. 506—98, 146, 2119, 2540, 2702. Commonwealth v. Central Transp. Co., 145 Pa. St. 89, 22 AU. 209—638, 1137, 1230, 1231. Commonwealth v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 32 Md. 501, 547—1994, 1995, 2043, 2055, 2059, 2061, 2062, 2065, 2089. Commonwealth v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 27 Gratt. 344—1233. Commonwealth v. Chestnut, etc. Bank, 189 Pa. St. 606, 42 Atl. 300—953, 1020. Common-wealth v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 29 Pa. St. 370—1142. Commonwealth v. Cochituate Bank, 85 Mass. 42—485, 487, 1026. Commonwealth v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 383—1399. Commonwealth v. Conover, 10 Phila. 55—15. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 130 Mass. 285—909. Commonwealth v. Corkery, 175 Mass. 460, 56 N. E. 711—1945. Commonwealth v. Covington, etc. Co., 21 S. W. 1042 (Ky.)— 2725. Commonwealth v. Cullen, 13 Pa. St. 133, 53 Am. Dec. 450—1042, 1382, 1394, 1726. Commonwealth v. Dalzell, 152 Pa. St. 217, 25 Atl. 535, 34 Am. St. Rep. 640— 1310, 1313, 1316. Commonwealth v. Delaware, etc. Canal Co., 43 Pa. St. 295—1404, 2726. Commonwealth v. Delaware, etc. Co., 150 Pa. St. 245, 24 Atl. 599—1233. Commonwealth v. Detwiller, 131 Pa. St. 614, 18 Atl. 990, 992, 7 L. R. A. 357, 360—1301, 1305, 1349, 1374, 1375. Commonwealth v. Eastern R. R., 103 Mass. 254, 4 Am. Rep. 555—2622. Commonwealth v. East Tennessee Coal Co., 97 Ky. 238, 30 S. W. 608—1675. Commonwealth v. Emigrant, etc. Bank, 98 Mass. 12, 93 Am. Dec. 126—1992. Commonwealth v. Empire Pass. Ry., 134 Pa. St. 237, 19 Atl. 629—1098, 1102. Commonwealth v. Erie, etc. R. R., 27 Pa. St. 339—2625, 2628, 2634. Commonwealth v. Erie, etc. Transp. Co., 107 Pa. St. 112—1234. Commonwealth v. Essex Co., 79 Mass. 239—1037. Commonwealth v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 156 Pa. St. 488, 26 Atl. 1071—1216. TABLE OF CASES. XCVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Commonwealth v. Pall Brook R. R., 188 Pa. St. 199, 41 Atl. 606—1232. Commonwealth v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 38 Mass. 542, 32 Am. Dec. 290—1400. Commonwealth v. Fayette R. R., 55 Pa, St. 452—1235. Commonwealth v. Pitchburg R. R., 78 Mass. 180—1408. Commonwealth v. Flannery, 52 Atl 129 (Pa.)— 1304. Commonwealth v. German See, 15 Pa. St. 251—1074. Commonwealth v. Gill, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 228—18, 1290, 1331, 1349. Commonwealth v. Gloucester, etc. Ferry Co., 98 Pa. St. 105—1240. Commonwealth v. Graham, 64 Pa. St. 339—1330. Commonwealth v. Grinstead, 55 S. W. 720 (Ky.)— 1046. ' Commonwea/lth v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 94 Mass. 298—1205. Commonwealth v. Hamilton Mfg. Co. 120 Mass. 383—2603. Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 131 Pa. St. 614, 18 Atl. 990, 992, 7 L. R. A. 357, 360—1374. Commonwealth v. Intoxicating Liquors, 115 Mass. 153—2603. Commonwealth v. J. B. Lippincott Co., 156 Pa. St. 513, 27 Atl. ,10—1238. Commonwealth v. Jones, 174 Mass. 401, 54 N. B. 869—2713. Commonwealth v. Juniata Coke Co., 157 Pa. St. 507, 27 Atl. 373, 22 L. R. A. 232—1238. Commonwealth v. Keim, 38 Leg. Int. 32—1275. Commonwealth v. Keystone Bridge Co., 156 I^a. St. 500, 27 Atl. 1—1238. Commonwealth v. Langley, 139 Mass. 89, 47 N. E. 511—325. Commonwealth v. Lehigh Avenue Ry., 129 Pa. St. 405, 18 Atl. 414, 498, 5 L. R. A. 367—31. Commonwealth v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 165 Pa. St. 162, 30 Atl. 836, 27 L. R. A. 231—76. Commonwealth v. Lintsman, 6 Pittsb. L. J. (N. S.) 122—1302. Commonwealth v. Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. 241—1406. Commonwealth v. Lykens, etc. Co., 110 Pa. St. 391, 2 AtL 63—1428, 2775. Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 11 Pa. St. 61—248. Commonwealth v. Mahoning Rolling- Mill Co., 129 Pa. St. 360, 18 All. 135— 1236. Commonwealth v. Manor, etc. Co., 188 Pa. St. 195, 41 Atl. 605—1232. Commonwealth v. Milton, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 212, 54 Am. Dec. 522—1240, 1674. Commonwealth v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 64 S. W. 451, 54 L. R. A. 916 (Ky.) — 1026. 1676, 2601. Commonwealth v. Nashville, etc. Co., 93 Ky. 430, 20 S. W. 383—1236. Commonwealth v. National Oil Co., 157 Pa. St. 516, 27 Atl. 374—1238. Commonwealth v. New Bedford Bridgo, 68 Mass. 339—76, 2623. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 114 Pa. St. 340, 7 Atl. 756— 1661. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 132 Pa. St. 591, 19 Atl. 291, 7 L. R. A. 634—682. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 139 Pa. St. 457, 21 Atl. 528—682, 1661. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 145 Pa. St. 57, 22 Atl. 212, 236— 1239. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 150 Pa. St. 234, 24 Atl. 609—1215, 1233. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. R. R., 188 Pa. St. 169, 41 Atl. 594—1232. Commonwealth v. Nickerson, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 55—1297, 1301. Commonwealth v. Northeastern El. Ry., 161 Pa. St. 409, 29 Atl. 112— 2699. Commonwealth v. Northern, etc. Co., 145 Pa. St. 105, 22 Atl. 839, 14 L. R. A. 107—1236. Commonwealth v. Nunn, 67 Pac. 342 (Colo.)— 1797, 1940. Commonwealth v. Oliver, 2 Pars. Sel. Cas. 420, 426—1075. Commonwealth v. Ontario, etc. Ry., 188 Pa. St. 205, 41 Atl. 607—1232. Commonwealth v. Order, etc., 192 Pa. St. 487, 43 Atl. 1084, 193 Pa. St. 240, 44 Atl. 327—1331. Commonwealth v. Order of Vesta, 156 Pa. St. 531, 27 Atl. 14—1407, 2379. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 158 P^. St. 476, 27 AtL 998—1306, 1313. Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania Co., 145 Pa. St. 266, 23 Atl. 549-1230. Commonwealth v. People, etc. Co., 183 Pa. St 405, 39 Atl. 42—1208, 1258. Commonwealth v. Perkins, 43 Pa. St. 400—248. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Co., 157 Pa. St. 527, 27 Atl. 378—1230. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 145 Pa. St. 74, 22 Atl. 235— 1232. Commonwealth v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 3 Pa. Dist. 115—1101, 2435. Commonwealth v. Philanthropic Soc, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 486—1075. Commonwealth v. Phoenix Bank, 52 Mass. 129—68. XCVlll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Commonwealth v. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St. Ill, 51 Am. Rep. 184— 1093, 1094, 1096, 1098, 1099, 1100. Commonwealth v. Pike Ben. Soc., 8 Watts & S. 247—1075. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa. St. 278—248, 265, 269. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 74 Pa. St. 83, 90—1136, 1137, 1142,. 1231. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 34 Pa. St. 496—248, 253. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 58 Pa. St. 26—1402, 1432, 2651. Commonwealth v. Pottsville Iron, etc. ■ Co., 157 Pa. St. 500, 27 Atl. 371, 22 L. R. A. 228—1238. Commonwealth v. Pulaski County, etc, Assoc, 92 Ky. 197, 17 S. W. 442—76. Commonwealth v. Punxsutawney, etc. Co., 197 Pa. St. 569, 47 Atl. 843—691, 1401, 2018, 2120. Commonwealth v. Reading, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 755 (Pa.)— 99, 1413, 2018, 2260. Commonwealth v. Runk, 26 Pa. St. 235 —2469. Commonwealth v. St. Bernard Coal Co., 9 S. W. 709 (Ky.)— 1216. Commonwealth v. St. Mary's Church, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 508—1820. Commonwealth v. St. Patrick Benev. Soc, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 448, 4 Am. Dec. 453—1075. Commonwealth v. Smith, 92 Mass. 448, 87 Am. Dec 672—1973, 1974, 1981, 2107, 2110, 2119, 2256. Commonwealth v. Smith, 45 Pa. St. 59—1273, 1331. Commonwealth v. Smith, 6 Am. Elec Cas. 167—2821. Commonwealth v. Standard, etc. Co., 50 Atl. 1003 (Pa.)— 980, 1124, 1127, 1130. Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. St. 119—1233. Commonwealth v. Stevens, 168, Pa. St. 582, 32 Atl. 111—1329, 1331. Commonwealth v. Sturtevant, 182 Pa. St. 323, 37 Atl. 916—1404. Commonwealth v. Susquehanna, etc. R. R., 122 Pa. St. S06, 321, 15 Atl. 448, 1 L. R. A. 225—1993, 2064, 2165, 2196. Commonwealth v. Temple, 80 Mass. 69 —2712. Commonwealth v. Tenth, etc. Turnp. Co., 59 Mass. 509—1399, 2119. Commonwealth v. Texas, etc. R. R., 98 Pa. St. 90—1240. Commonwealth v. Thackara Mfg. Co, 156 Pa. St. 510, 27 Atl. 13—1238. Commonwealth v. Tuckerman, 76 Mass 173—35. Commonwealth v. Union, etc. Co., 192 Pa. St. 507, 43 Atl. 1010—1140, 1370, 2086, 2570. Commonwealth v. Union Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230, 4 Am. Dec. 50—1396. Commonwealth v. Union League, 13S Pa. St. 301, 19 Atl. 1030, 8 L. R. A. 195, 20 Am. St. Rep. 870—1073. Commonwealth v. U. S. Express Co., 157 Pa. St. 579, 27 Atl. 396—1243. Commonwealth v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 70 Mass. 22 — 76. Commonwealth v. Warwick, 185 Pa. St. 623, 40 Atl. 93—2817. Commonwealth v. Watmough, 6 Whart. 117—1005. Commonwealth v. West Chester R. R., 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 200—357. Commonwealth v. Western Land, etc, Co., 156 Pa. St. 455, 26 Atl. 1034— 1231. Commonwealth v. Westinghouse Elec- tric, etc. Co., 151 Pa. St. 265, 24 Atl. 1107, 1111—1230. Commonwealth v. Wickersham, 66 Pa, St. 134—1300, 1751. Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 33 Mass. 175, 26 Am. Dec 654—2750. Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 29, 8 Am. Dec. 628—17, 19, 1293, 1296. Commonwealth v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 8 N. E. 432—789. Commonwealth v. Wyman, 49 Mass. 247—35. Commonwealth v. Tetter, 190 Pa. St. 488, 495, 43 Atl. 226—15, 508, 1302, 1331, 1423. Commonwealth, etc. v. Philadelphia County, 193 Pa. St. 236, 44 Atl. 336— 1423. Commonwealth, etc. Co. v. Hayden, 6C^ Neb. 636, 83 N. W. 922, 83 Am. St. Rep. 545—419. Commonwealth, etc. Co. v. Havden, 8» N. W. 443 (Neb.)— 419. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Crane, 47 Mass. 64—1501. Commonwealth's Appeal, 129 Pa. St. 346, 18 Atl. 133—1236. Compagnie Bellegarde, In re, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 470 (1876)— 2029. Compagnie de Mayville t. Whitley (1896), 1 Ch. 788—1746. Compton V. The Chelsea, 12S N. Y. 537, 28 N. E. 662—20, 590, 799, 1150, 1297. Compton V. The Chelsea, 59 Hun, 624. 13 N. Y. Supp. 722—590, 1150. Compton V. Jesup, 167 U. S. 1, 20, 21, 17 Sup. Ct. 795, 42 L. Ed. 55—1586, 1983, 2052, 2117, 2217, 2235, 2293, 2326, 2339, 2586, 2590, 2591. TABLE OF OASES. XCIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Compton V. Jesup, 68 Fed. 263, 289, 15 C. C. A. 397—2203, 2293, 2235, 2284, 2326. Compton V. Schwabacher, etc. Co., 15' Wash. 306, 46 Pac. 338—1643, 2397. Compton V. Wabash, etc. Ry., 45 Ohio St. 592, 16 N. E. 110, 18 N. E. 380— 1586, 2117, 2329, 2590. Comstock, In re, 3 Sawyer, 218, 6 Fed. Gas. 244—1672, 1677. Comstock V. Buchanan, 57 Barb. 127 — 706, 708. Comstock V. Frederickson, 51 Minn. 350, 53 N. W. 713—2398. Conant v. Millaudon, 5 La. Ann. 542 — 1314, 1337, 1339, 1350. Conant v. National Ice Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 83—197. Conant v. Reed, 1 Ohio St. 298 — 847, 888, 1123, 1129, 1132. Conant v. Seneca County Bank, 1 Ohio St. 298—847, 888, 1123, 1129, 1132. Conant v. Van Schaick, 24 Barb. 87 — 419, 427, 430, 473, 475, 1027. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189—1942. Concession Trust, In re (1896), 2 Ch. 757—171. Concord v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 92 U. S. 625, 23 L. Ed. 628—250, 251, 264, 265. Concord v. Robinson, 121 U. S. 165, 7 Sup. Ct. 937, 30 L. Ed. 885—265. Concord, etc. R. R. v. Forsaith, 59 N. H. 122, 47 Am. Rep. 181—2607, 2608. Concord First National Bank v. Haw- kins, 174 IT. S. 364, 19 Sup. Ct. 739, 43 L. Ed. 1007—548, 685. Concord R. R. v. Greeley, 17 N. H., 47 —2627. Concord & M. R. R. v. Boston & M. R. R., 68 N. H. 519, 39 Atl. 1073— 2711. Condict V. King, 13 N. J. Eq. 375— 861. Cone V. Dunham, 59 Conn. 145, 20 Atl. 311, 8 L. R. A. 647—751, 974. Cone V. Empire Plaid Mills, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 314, 42 N. Y. Supp. 160— 1826. Cone V. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 208, 21 Atl. 847—1309, 1346. Conely v. Collins, 119 Mich. 519, 78 N. W. 555, 44 L. R. A. 844—1791. ' Coney Island, etc. Ry. v. Coney Island, etc. R. R., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 494, 56 N. Y. Supp. 508—2594, 2708, 2845. Congdon v. WInsor, 17 R. I. 236, 21 Atl. 540—188, 431, 475. Conger v. Judson, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 121, 74 N. Y. Supp. 504—709. Conger v. New York, etc. R. R., 120 N. Y. 29, 23 N. E. 983—2610. G Congregational, etc. Soc. v. Scandi- navian Free Church, 24 Wash. 433, 64 Pac. 750—65. Congregational Soc. v. Perry, 6 N. H. 164, 25 Am. Dec. 455—1418. Congregational Soc. v. Sperry, 10 Conn. 200—1272. Congress, etc. Co. v. Worcester, etc. Co., 65 N. B. 792 (Mass.)— 1815. Conine v. Junction, etc. R. R., 3 Houst. (Del.) 288, 89 Am. Dec. 230—1810. Conkey v. Bond, 36 N. Y. 427—908. Conklin v. Purman, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 161—418, 482. Conklin v. Furman, 57 Barb. 484 — 427. Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank, 45 N. Y. 655—19, 1116, 1121, 1134. Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. 512—1116. Conkling v. Butler, 4 Biss. 22, 6 Fed. Cas. 279—2483. Conkling v. Washington University, 2 Md. Ch. 497—1063. Conley v. Mathieson, etc. Works, 23 Sup. Ct. 728—1962. Conn V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 177—1965, 2652. Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Dunscomb, 69 S. W. 345, 58 L. R. A. 694 (Tenn.) — 1438, 1440. Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Hollister, 50 Atl. 750 (Conn.)— 653. Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Rockbridge Co., 73 Fed. 709—2394. Connecticut, etc. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 41 Barb. 9—1822, 2044, 2055, 2062, 2074, 2076. Connecticut, etc. Ins. Co. v. Duerson, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 630—69. Connecticut, etc. R. R. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465, 58 Am. Dec. 181—219, 290, 308, 377. Connecticut, etc. R. R. v. Baxter, 32 Vt. 805—233, 235. Connecticut, etc. Ry. v. Morris, 14 S. C. Rep. (Can.) 318 (1887)— 986, 994. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co, v. Albert, 39 Mo. 181—1673. Connecting Ry. v. Union Ry., 108 111. 265—2639. Conner v. Robertson, 37 La. Ann. 814, 55 Am. Rep. 521—771, 776. Connolly's Estate, In re, 198 Pa. St. 137, 47 Atl. 1125—1198, 1201. Connor v. Black, 132 Mo. 150, 33 S. W. 783—771. Connor v. Hillier, 11 Rich. L. (S. C.)i 193, 73 Am. Dec. 105—1248, 1256. Connor v. Tennessee, etc. Ry., 109 Fed. 931, 48 C. C. A. 730, 54 L. R. A. 687— 2218, 2232, 2244, 2290, 2537, 2599. Connor v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R., 36 Fed. 273, 1 L. R. A. 331—1958. TABLE OF CASES. [me numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Conover v. Albany Ins. Co., 1 Comst. OQQ 1739 Conover v. Hull, 10 Wash. St. 673, 39 Pac. 166, 45 Am. St. Rep. 810—1643. Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 N. Y. 290 —1786. Conrad v. La Rue, 52 Mich. 83, 17 N. tV. . 706—225, 1249. Conro V. Gray, 4 How. Pr. 166—1889, 1924. Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27, 55—64, 1550, 1722, 1820. Conshohocken Tube Co. v. Iron Car Equip. Co., 161 Pa. St. 391, 28 Atl. 1119—2065. Consideration Mercantile Trust Co. v. Klser, 91 Ga. 636 (1893)— 2075. Consol. etc. Co. v. City of San Diego, 92 Fed. 759—2198. Consolidated Assoc, v. Avegno, 28 La. Ann. 552—2048. Consolidated Assoc, v. Lord, 35 La. Ann. 425—1036. Consolidated Coal Co. v. National St. Bank, 55 N. J. Eq. 800, 38 Atl. 657— 1637. Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers, 150 111. 344, 37 N. B. 937—1815. Consolidated Electric Storage Co., In re, 26 Atl. 983 (N. J.)— 1238. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Huff, 62 Kan. 405, 63 Pac. 442—196, 869, 1254. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Kansas City, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 204, 45 Fed. 7—523, 1630, 1656, 1833, 1843, 1886, 1889, 1890, 2375. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Koepp, 68 Pac. 608 (Kan.)— 2830. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Lamson, etc. Co., 41 Fed. 833—1956. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Nash, 109 Wis. 490, 85 N. W. 485—89, 754, 1551, 1703, 2515. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. People's, etc. Co., 94 Ala. 372, 10 South. 440—2731. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. South, etc. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 569, 40 Atl. 15—2707. Consolidated, etc. Works v. Brew, 112 Wis. 610, 88 N. W. 603—1454, 1786, 1937. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. South- ern Pac. Co., 9 Interstate Com. Rep. 182—2844. Consolidated T. Co. v. Taborn, 58 N. J. L. 1, 32 Atl. 685, 58 N. J. L. 408, 36 Atl. 1128—2714. Consolidated Water Co. v. Babcock, 76 Fed. 243—1896, 2204, 2763. Consolidated W. Co. v. City of San Diego, 84 Fed. 369—2169, 2617. Consolidated Water Co. v. City of San Diego, 89 Fed. 272—2169, 2769. Consolidated W. Co. v. San Diego, 84 Fed. 369, 93 Fed. 849, 35 C. C. A. 631 —2169, 2617, 2768. Consols Ins. Assoc, v. Newall, 3 Fost. 6 F. 130 (1862)— 182. Consort, etc. Mines, In re (1897), 1 dh. 575—181. Constant v. Rochester University, 111 N. Y. 604, 19 N. E. 631, 2 L. R. A. 734, 7 Am. St. Rep. 769—1834. Constantine v. Kalamazoo, etc. Co., 93 N. W. 1088 (Mich.)— 1791. Constantinople, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 11 Eq. 86 (1870)— 190. Consumers,' etc. Co. v. Harless, 131 Ind. 446, 29 N. B. 1062, 15 L. R. A. 505—2738. donsumers' Gas Co. v. Congress, etc. Co., 61 Hun, 133, 15 N. Y. S. 624— 2729, 2796. Consumers' Ice Co. v. Webster, etc. Co., 32 N. Y. App. Dlv. 592, 53 N. Y. Supp. 56—524, 1080. Content v. Metropolitan, etc. R. R., 73 N. Y. App. Div. 230, 76 N. Y. Supp. 749—1917, 2566. Content v. Metropolitan, etc. Ry., 37 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 618, 76 N. Y. Supp. 151 —2566. Continental, etc. Assoc, v. Masonic, etc. Co., 62 S. W. 930 (Tex.)— 1606. Continental, etc. Assoc, v. Miller, 33 South. 404 (Fla.)— 1555, 1924. Continental, etc. Bank v. Buford, 107 Fed. 188—476. Continental, etc. Co. v. Lewis Voight, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 550—1379. Continental, etc. Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 99 Fed. 171—2259, 2281, 2284. Continental Nat. Bank v. Buford, 114 Fed. 290, 53 C. C. A. 14—476. Continental Nat. Bank v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 12 Rep. 35, 7 Fed. 369—47, 849, 937, 938, 1008. Continental Nat. Bank v. Hellman, 66 Fed. 184—1111. Continental Tel. Co. v. Nelson, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 197—127, 164. Continental Trust Co. v. American Surety Co., 80 Fed. 180, 25 C. C. A. 364—2280, 2532. Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc. Co., 86 Fed. 929—2017. Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 59 Fed. 514—2434, 2435, 2624. Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 72 Fed. 92—597. Continental T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 82 Fed. 642—141, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2203, 2243, 2259, 2272, 227S, 2487, 2550, 2568, 2573. TABLE OF OASES. 01 [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 86 Fed. 929—125, 609, 610, 1441, 1459, 1460, 2021, 2023, 225S, 2539. Continental T. Co. etc. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 93 Fed. 532—2347. Contoocook Valley R. R. v. Barker, 32 N. H. 363—358. Contra Costa, etc. R. R. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 324—2627. Contracting, etc. Co. v. Continental T. Co., 108 Fed. 1, 47 C. C. A. 143—2314, 2347. Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Mich. 121, 90 Am. Dec. 280—1853. Converse v. Dimock, 22 Fed. 573 — 1906. Converse v. Hood, 149 Ma-ss. 471, 21 N. E. 878, 4 L. R. A. 521—1602. Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. 18—2051, 2238. Converse v. Norwich, etc. Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166—2640. Converse v. Sharpe, 161 N. Y. 571, 56 N. E. 69—1650, 1843. Conway, Ex parte, 4 Ark. 302, 352— 1634. Conway v. City of Rochester, 157 N. Y. 33, 51 N. E. 395—2717. Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 30, 23 Pac. 170—1013, 1015. Conway v. Smith, etc. Co., 6 Wyo. 468, 46 Pac. 1084—1644. Conwell V. Connersville, 15 Ind. 150 — 1207. Conyngham's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 474 — 971, 981, 985, 1254. Cook V. Berlin Woolen Mill Co., 43 Wis. 433—1495. Cook V. Burlington, 59 Iowa, 251, 13 N. W. 113, 44 Am. Rep. 679—1206 1215. Cook V. Champlain Transp. Co., 1 Denio, 91 — 1961. Cook V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 81 Iowa, 551, 46 N. W. 1080, 9 L. R. A. 764, 25 Am. St. Rep. 512—2608. Cook V. Chittenden, 25 Fed. 644 — 342. " Cook V. Detroit, etc. Ry., 43 Mich. 349 —1579, 2530. Cook V. East Trenton Pottery Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 29, 30 Atl. 534—2381. Cook V. Emmet, etc. Assoc, 90 Md. 284, 44 Atl. 1022—1073. Cook V. Gray, 133 Mass. 106—1064. Cook V. Hager, 3 Colo. 386—69. Cook V. Hopkinsville, etc. Co., 32 S. W. 748 (Ky.)— 237, 374. " Cook V. Monroe, 45 Neb. 349, 63 N. W. 800—1147, 1148. Cook V. Moody, 18 Wash. 114, 50 Pac. 1020, 63 Am. St. Rep. 872—1643. Cook V. Rome Brick Co., 98 Ala. 409, 12 South. 918—1682. Cook V. Sherman, 20 Fed. 167, 4 Mc- Crary, 20—1463, 1628. Cook V. Southern, etc. Co., 75 Miss 121, 21 South. 795—1478. Cook V. Sumner Spinning, etc. Co., 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 698—250, 251. Cook V. Ward. K R. 2 C. P. D. 225 (1877)— 1766. Cooke V. Hallett, 119 Mass. 148—999. Cooke V. Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 315, 43 Atl. 314—30, 32, 81, 614. Cooke V. Marshall, 196 Pa. St. 200, 46 Atl. 447—32, 1290. Cooke V. State Nat. Bank, 52 N. Y. 96, 11 Am. Rep. 667—1787, 1797, 1967. Cookney's Case, 3 De G. & J. 170 (1858)— 180. Coolgardie, etc. Mines, Ltd., In re, 76 L. T. Rep. 269 (1897)— 376, 1392. Coolldge V. Goddard, 77 Me. 579, 1 Atl. 831—110. Coolldge V. Rhodes, 64 N. E. 1074 (111.) —109, 785. Coon V. Plymouth, etc. Co., 32 Mich. 248—1399. Cooney v. Booth, etc. Co., 169 111. 370, .48 N. E. 406—1662. Cooper V. Adel, etc. Co., 122 N. C. 463, 30 S. B. 348—398, 399, 406. Cooper V. Adel, etc. Co., 127 N. C. 219, 37 S. E. 216—405. Cooper V. Corbin, 105 111. 224—1241, 2109; 2147, 2151, 2530. Cooper V. Curtis, 30 Me. 488—1738. Cooper V. Dismal Swamp, etc. Co., 2 Murph. (N. C.) 195—866, 992. Cooper V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 738 — 636, 1027. Cooper V. Griffin (1892), 1 Q. B. 740— 1008. Cooper V. Hill, 94 Fed. 582, 36 C. C. A. 402—1618. Cooper V. Illinois, etc. R. R., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 22, 57 N. Y. Supp. 925— 721, 725, 2050, 2168. Cooper V. Ives, 62 Kan. 395, 63 Pac. 434—455. Cooper V. Lampeter, 8 Watts (Pa.), 125—1766. Cooper V. McNeil, 13 W. N. 128 (1878) —777. Cooper V. New York, etc. R. R., 6 Hun, 276—1795. Cooper V. Thompson, 13 Blatchf. 434, 6 Fed. Cas. 491—2056. Cooper V. Webb, 15 Sim. 454 (1846) — 1710. Cooper Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 71 Fed. 372, 18 C. C. A. 81—548, 685, 1598. Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 Sup. Ct. 739, 28 L. Ed. 1137— 1681. Coopers v. Wolf, 15 Ohio St. 523—2324, 2600. Cll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Coos Bay, etc. v. Dixon, 30 Oreg. 584, 48 Pac. 360—238. Cope V. Dodd, 13 Pa. St. 33—914. Copeland v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 61 Barb. 60—1550. Copeland v. Copeland, 7 Bush, 349 — 44. Copeland v. Johnson Mfg. Co., 47 Hun, 235—1508. Copeland v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 651, 6 Fed. Cas. 501—2652. Copley V. Grover, etc. Co., 2 Woods, 494, 6 Fed. Cas. 517—71, 75. Copp V. Colorado, etc. Co., 29 N. Y. Misc. 109, 60 N. Y. Supp. 293—2589. Copp V. Lamb, 12 Me. 312—1269. Coppage V. Hutton, 124 Ind. 401, 24 N. E. 112, 7 L. R. A. 591—181. Coppell V. Hollins, 159 N. Y. 551, 54 N. E. 1089—2521. Coppell V. Hollins, 91 Hun, 570, 36 N. Y. Supp. 500—2521. Copper Mines v. Fox, 16 Q. B. 229— 1607, 1802. Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co., 38 Ohio St. 275, 43 Am. Rep. 425—672. Copsey V. Sacramento Bank, 133 Cal. 659, 663, 85 Am. St. Rep. 238—2160, 2191, 2272, 2286. Coquard v. National L. S. Co., 171 111. 480, 49 N. B. 563—1046, 1097, 1176, 1396, 1847, 1882. Coquard v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 7 S. W. 176 (Mo.)— 635. Coquard v. Wernse, 100 Mo. 137, 13 S. W. 341—709, 1341. Corbett v. Twenty-third, etc. Ry., 42 Hun, 587—2714. Corbett v. Underwood, 83 111. 324, 25 Am. Rep. 392—914. Corbett v. Woodward, 5 Sawyer, 403, 6 Fed. Cas. 531—1654, 1741, 1747, 1769. Corbus V. Alaska, etc. Co., 187 U. S. 455, 23 Sup. Ct. 157—1595, 1672, 1906, 1933. Corbus V. Alaska, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 334 —1204, 1597. Corcoran v. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 94 U. S. 741, 24 L. Ed. 190—2063, 2176, 2238. Corcoran v. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 1 MacArthur (D. C), 358—2063. Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74. 23 N. B. 727—1783, 1836. Corcoran v. Sonora, etc. Co., 71 Pac. 127 (Idaho)— 1761. Cordova Coal Co. v. Long, 91 Ala. 538, 8 South. 765—1974, 1983. Cordova, etc. Co., In re (1891), 2 Ch. 580—409. Corey v. Griffin, 63 N. B. 420 (Mass.) —774. Corey v. Long, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 427 —2473. Corey v. Morrill, 61 Vt. 598, 17 Atl. 840—496. Corey v. Wadsworth, 99 Ala. 68, 11 South. 350, 23 L. R. A. 618, 42 Am. St. Rep. 29—1648. Corey v. Wadsworth, 118 Ala. 488, 25 South. 503, 44 L. R. A. 766—1654. Cork, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. 748 (1869)— 1969, 1973, 2093. Cork, etc. Ry. v. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935 (1847)— 206, 542. Cormac v. Western, etc. Co., 77 Iowa, 32, 41 N. W. 480—563. Cornell, Matter of, 170 N. Y. 423, 63 N. B. 445—666, 1149, 1202, 1244. Cornell v. Clark, 104 N. Y. 451, 10 N. E. 888—1517, 1519, 1887. Cornell v. Hay, L. R. 8 C. P. 328 (1873) —315. Cornell v. Hichens, 11 Wis. 353 — 84. Cornell v. Simms, 111 Ga. 828, 36 S. E. 627—1935. Cornell v. Utica, etc. R. R., 61 How. Pr. 184—2513. Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153, 6 Atl. 258—236, 363, 386, 405, 408, 704. Cornell University v. Fiske, 136 U. S. 152, 10 Sup. Ct. 775, 34 L. Ed. 425— 1667. Corn, etc. Bank v. American, etc. Co.,. 163 N. Y. 332, 57 N. E. 477—795, 961, 1775. Corn Bxch. Bank v. Cumberland Coal Co., 1 Bosw. 436—1751, 1764, 1820. Corn Exchange Bank v. Nassau Bank, 91 N. Y. 74, 43 Am. Rep. 655—914. Cornford v. Carlton Bank, 80 L. T. Rep. 121, 81 L. T. Rep. 415 (1899)— 75. Cornick v. Richards, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 1 —937, 942, 979, 1007. Corning, In re, 51 Fed. 205 — 1059. Corning v. Barrett, 48 N. Y. Supp. 1013 —1883. Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 47, 49 Am. Dec. 287—427, 428, 460, 482, 485. Corning v. Roosevelt, 11 N. Y. Supp. 758—750. Corning v. Troy, etc. Factory, 40 N. Y. 191—2779. Cornish v. West, 82 Minn. 107, 84 N. W. 750, 52 L. R. A. 355—216, 225, 1087. Cornwall, etc. Co. v. Bennett, 5 H. & N. 423 (I860)— 1761. Cornwall Minerals Ry., In re (1897), 2 Ch. 74—2066. Corpus Christl v. Central, etc. Co., 8 Tex. Civ. App. 94, 27 S. W. 803—1606, Corrigan v. Trenton, etc. Co., 5 N. J. Eq. 52—1806. Corry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry., 29 Beav. 263 (I860)— 591, 602, 604, 606, 1167. Corser v. Hale, 149 Pa. St. 274, 24 Atl- 285—750. TABLE OF CASES. CllL [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Corser v. Russell, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 316— 2490, 2536. Cortelyou v. Lansing, 2 Caines Cas. 200—969, 1260. Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser, 45 Fed. 730 —1473. Cortis V. Kent Water Works, 7 B. & C. 314 (1827)— 68. Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 502—306, 310, 365. Cory V. Lee, 93 Ala. 468, 8 South. 694— 501, 525. Cosgray v. New England P. Co., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 455, 48 N. Y. Supp. 7— 1830. Costa, etc. R. R. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 324 (1863)— 2627. Costa Rica v. Brlanger, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 171 (1875)— 1110. €osta Rica Ry. v. Forwood, [1900] 1 Ch. 756, [1901] 1 Ch. 746—1523. Costello V. Portsmouth, etc. Co., 69 N. H. 405, 43 Atl. 640—671, 1116. Costello's Case, 2 De G., F. & J. 302 (I860)— 580. Coster V. Tide Water Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 55—2627. Cotheal v. Brouwer, 5 N. Y. 562—1099, 1105. Cothran v. Ellis, 125 111. 496, 16 N. E. 646—770. Cottage, etc. Church v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 529, 23 Am. Rep. 286—212. Cottam V. Eastern Counties Ry., 1 Johns. & H. 243—725, 833, 836. Cotten V. Leon County, 6 Fla. 610 — 244. Cotting T. Grant Street Elec. Ry., 65 Fed. 545—1814. Cotting V. Kansas City, etc. Co., 183 U. S. 79, 22 Sup. Ct. 30, 46 L. Ed. 92 —2618, 2790. Cotting V. New York, etc. R. R., 54 Conn. 156, 5 Atl. 851—596, 604, 1173. Cottle, Ex parte, 2 Macn. & G. 185 (1850)— 1700. Cotton V. Atlas Nat. Bank, 145 Mass. 43, 12 N. E. 850—946. Cotton V. Imperial, etc. Corp. (1892), 3 Ch. 454—20, 1558. Cottrell V. Manlove, 58 Kan. 405, 49 Pac. 519—483. Cottrell V. Tenney, 48 Fed. 716—1877. Coulter V. Robertson, 24 Miss. 278, 57 Am. Dec. 168—1433. Coulter V. Western Theol. Seminary, 29 Md. 69—67. Council Bluffs v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 45 Iowa, 338, 24 Am. Rep. 773— 2603. Council, etc. Ry. v. Lawrence, 3 Kan. App. 274, 45 Pac. 125—1446, 2588. County Com'rs v. Annapolis, etc. R. R., 47 Md. 592—1218. County Com'rs v. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 48 Md. 117—1214. County Com'rs v. Woodstock Iron Co., 82 Ala. 151, 3 South. 23—1235. County Com'rs' Case, 143 Mass. 424, 9 N. E. 756—2532. County Court v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 35 Fed. 161—1744, 1984, 2653. County, etc. Bank v. Rudry Merthyr, etc. Co. (1895), 1 Ch. 629—1736, 1808, 1823, 1827, 2143, 2299. County, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. 288 (1870)— 1738. County Marine Ins. Co., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 104 (1870)— 1176, 1183, 1185. Couper V. Gaboury, 69 Fed. 7, 16 C. C. A. 112—2332. Couper V. Whitson, 9 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 1115—1690. Coupland v. Challis, 5 C. B. 115 (1848) —1709. Courtois V. Harrison, 12 How. Pr. 359 —455. Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 — 51, 194, 372. Couse V. Columbia, etc. Co., 33 Atl. 297 (N. J.)— 1570. Cousland v. Davis, 4 Bosw. 619 — 941, 1248. Covell V. Loud, 135 Mass. 41, 46 Am. Rep. 446 919 943. Cover V. Smith, '82 Md. 586, 34 Atl. 465 —771. Coverdale v. Edwards, 155 Ind. 374, 58 N. E. 495—2729. Covert V. Rogers, 38 Mich. 363^282, 1636, 1747, 2386. Covey V. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 3 Phila. 173—2151, 2324, 2600. Covington v. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 10 Bush (Ky.), 69—8, 587, 1029, 1041, 1297, 2652. Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112, 16 L. Ed. 38—2371, 2598, 2723, 2725. Covington, etc. Bank v. Commercial Bank, 65 Fed. 547—1128, 1132. Covington, etc. Bank v. Covington, 21 Fed. 484—1225. Covington, etc. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 14 Sup. Ct. 1087, 38 L. Ed. 962—2619, 2724. Covington, etc. Bridge Co. v. Sargent, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio) 354—587. Covington, etc. Bridge Co. v. South Covington, etc. Ry., 93 Ky. 136, 19 S. W. 403, 15 L. R. A. 828—2708, 2725. Covington, etc. Co. v. City of Coving- ton, 58 S. W. 805 (Ky.)— 2739, 2742. Covington, etc. Co. v. Keith, 130 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. 461, 35 L. Ed. 73— 2622. ClY TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Covington, etc. Co. T. Mayer, 31 Ohio St. 317—1270, 2650, 2651. Covington, etc. Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 594, 17 Sup. Ct. 198, 41 L. Ed. 560—2617, 2749. Covington, etc. Co. v. Sandford, 20 S. W. 1031 (Ky.)— 2588, 2751. Covington, etc. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227, 15 L. Ed. 896—1949. Covington, etc. Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112, 16 L. Ed. 38—2371. Covington, etc. R. R. v. Bowler, 9 Bush (Ky.), 468—1492, 1865. Covington, etc. Ry. v. Covington, 9 Bush (Ky.), 127—2660, 2721. Cowan V. Pennsylvania, etc. Co., 184 Pa. St. 1, 38 Atl. 1075—1644, 2346,, 2451. Cowardin v. Universal L. Ins. Co., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 445—1949. Cowden v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 94 Cal. 470, 29 Pac. 873, 18 L. R. A. 221, 28 Am. St. Rep. 142—2785. Cowdrey v. Galveston, etc. R. R., 93 U. S. 352, 23 L. Ed. 590—2281, 2431, 2452, 2476, 2477. Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 6 Fed. Cas. 660—2387, 2432, 2436, 2472, 2474, 2483, 2491. Cowell V. City, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 769— 2228, 2255. Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Colo. 82—1415, 1420. Cowell V. Springs Co., 100 TJ. S. 55, 25 L. Ed. 547—512, 1420, 1662, 1668. Cowles V. Cromwell, 25 Barb. 413 — 554. Cowles V. Glass, 30 S. W. 293 (Tex.)— 1910. Cowles V. Whitman, 10 Conn. 121, 25 Am. Dec. 60 — 755. Cowling V. Cowling, 26 Beav. 449 (1859)— 657. Cowling v. Zenith Iron Co., 65 Minn. 263, 68 N. W. 48, 33 L. R. A. 508, 60 Am. St. Rep. 471—434. Cox, Ex parte, 13 L. R. Ir. 174 (1884) —2094. Cox V. Bodflsh, 35 Me. 302—1071. Cox V. Elmendorf, 97 Tenn. 518, 37 S. W. 387—564. Cox V. First Nat. Bank, 119 N. C. 302, 26 S. E. 22—1201. Cox V. Hickman, 1 H. L. Cas. 268 (I860)— 1065. Cox V. Island, etc. Co., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 508, 73 N. Y. Supp. 69—1100. Cox V. Midland, etc. R. R., 3 Exch. 268 (1849)— 1795. Cox V. Montague, 78 Fed. 845, 24 C. C. A. 364—577. Cox V. Robinson, 82 Fed. 277, 27 C C A. 120—1781. Cox V. Stokes, 156 N. Y. 491, 51 N E 316—336, 814, 1864, 2505, 2517, 2521, 2525. Cox V. Volkert, 86 Mo. 505—2408. Coxe V. Hart, 53 Mich. 557, 19 N. W. 183—1896. Coxe V. Huntsville, etc. Co., 129 Ala. 496, 29 South. 867—1326, 1917. Coxe V. Huntsville Gas Light Co., 106 Ala. 373, 17 South. 626—1861. Coxe's Estate, In re, 193 Pa. St. 100, 44 Atl. 256—1244. Coxon V. Gorst (1891), 2 Ch. 73—1187, 1447. Cox's Case, 4 De G., J. & S. 53 (1863) —207, 551. Cox's Case, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 145 (1864)— 580. Coy V. Indianapolis, etc. Co., 146 Ind. 655, 46 N. E. 17, 36 L. R. A. 535— 2734. Coy V. Jones, 30 Neb. 798, 47 N. W. 208, 10 L. R. A. 658—463. Coyle V. Ball, etc. R. R., 11 W. Va. 94— 1830. Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 Or. 284— 1160. Cozad V. McKee, 130 Pa. St. 406, 18 Atl. 616—1179. Cozart V. Georgia, etc. Co., 54 Ga. 379 — 2076. Cozart V. Herndon, 114 N. C. 252, 19 S. E. 158—216. Cozzens v. Chicago, etc. Co.; 166 111. 213, 46 N. E. 788—1944. Crabb v. Miller, 19 W. R. 419 (1871) — —788. Crabtree v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 39 Fed. 746—1735. Crafford v. Warwick County, 87 Va. 110, 12 S. E. 147, 10 L. R. A. 129—69. Craft v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 166 111. 580, 46 N. E. 1132—2183, 2234, 2236. Craft V. McConoughy, 79 111. 346, 22 Am. Rep. 171—1046. Craft V. South Boston R. R., 150 Mass. 207, 22 N. E. 920, 5 L. R. A. 641— 1783. Craft V. Tattle, 27 Ind. 332—1207, 1222. Cragg V. Riggs, 5 Redf. 82 — 1191. Cragg V. Taylor, L. R. ' 2 Exch. 131 (1867)^996. Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131, 1 N. B. 537, 52 Am. Rep. 9—72, 1833. Cragin v. O'Connell, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 339, 63 N. Y. Supp. 1071—738, 747. Craig V. Andes, 93 N. Y. 405—247, 260. Craig V. California, etc. Co., 30 Or. 43, 46 Pac. 421—1576. Craig V. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 638, 12 Sup. Ct. 97, 35 L. Ed. 886— 1833. Craig V. First, etc. Church, 88 Pa. St. 42, 32 Am. Rep. 417—1298, 1299, 1305, 1339. Craig V. Gregg, 83 Pa. St. 19 — 1876, 1877. TABLE OF CASES. CV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Craig V. Hesperia, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 7, 45 Pac. 10, 35 L. R. A. 306, 54 Am. St. Rep. 316—56, 554, 1115. Craig V. James, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 238, 75 N. Y. Supp. 813—1933, 2409. Craig V. Phillips, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 722 (1876)— 1475. Craig V. Rochester, etc. R. R., 39 N. Y. 404—2688. Craig Medicine Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 59 Hun, 561, 14 N. Y. Supp. 16—1750, 1752, 1790, 1793. Craig's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 396 — 1520. Craig Silver Co. v. Smith, 163 Mass. 262, 39 N. E. 1116—746, 1269. Cram v. Bangor, etc., 12 Me. 354 — 1751. Cramer v. Bird, L. R. 6 Eq. 143 (1868) —1162, 1391. Cramer v. Pry, 68 Fed. 201 — 1610. Crampton v. Varna Ry., L. R. 7 Ch. 562 (1872)— 1803. Crandali v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73, 52 Am. Rep. 560—537, 540, 545, 619, 673. Crandell v. "White, 164 Mass. 54, 41 N. E. 204—774. Crane v. Bayley, 126 Mich. 323, 85 N. W. 874—226. Crane v. Macdonald, 118 N. Y. 648, 23 N. E. 991—862. Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Neb. 123. 57 N. W. 1015, 42 Am. St. Rep. 562—63. Crane, etc. Co. v. Adams, 142 111. 125, 30 N. E. 1030—1511. Craven County Com'rs v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 77 N. C. 289—1969, 1981, 2034, 2106. Cravens v. Carter-Crume Co., 92 Fed. 479, 34 C. C. A. 479—1056. Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co., 120 Ind. 6, 21 N. E. 981, 16 Am. St. Rep. 298—236, 372. Craw V. Easterly, 54 N. Y. 679—1377, 1740. Crawford v. Albany Ice Co., 36 Or. 535, 60 Pac. 14—1768. Crawford v. Dox, 5 Hun, 507 — 827, 1200. Crawford v. Fisher, 1 Hare, 436, 441 (1842)— 861. Crawford v. Gross, 140 Pa. St. 297, 21 Atl. 356—1077. Crawford v. Longstreet, 43 N. J. L. 325 —1663, 1801. 2750. Crawford v. Northeastern Ry., 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1093 (1856)— 582, 591, 596, 604. Crawford v. Provincial Ins. Co., 8 Up. Can. C. P. 263 (1859)— 847, 854, 866. Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. 599—128, 275, 393, 401, 409. Crawford v. Spencer, 92 Mo. 498, 4 S. W. 713, 1 Am. St. Rep. 745—781. Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 93 N. W. 781 (Neb.)— 2787. Crawford County v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 39 Ind. 192—245. Crawford County v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 32 Pa. St. 141—377. Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wall. 739, 18 L. Ed. 845—1850, 2510. Crease v. Babcock, 51 Mass. 525, 567 — 404, 405, 428, 429, 456, 488, 521, 532, 546, 572, 67i, 1432, 1448. Credit Assurance,' etc. Corp., In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 216 (1902)— 612, 637, 1440. Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent. R. R., 15 Fed. 46, 52, 5 McCrary, 23—1491, 1853, 1863, 2131, 2176, 2214, 2278, 2458. Credit Co. v. Howe Mach. Co., 54 Conn. 357, 8 Atl. 472, 1 Am. St. Rep. 123— 2072. Credit Co. v. Webster, 53 L. T. Rep. 419 (1885)— 1109. Credit Foncier, In re, L. R. 11 Eq. 356 (1871)— 1027. Credit Mobiler v. Commonwealth, 67 Pa. St. 233—1061, 1066. Creed v. Commercial Bank, 11 Ohio, 489 —1630. Creek v. State, 77 Ind. 180—1330. Cregin v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 19 Hun, 349—41. Crenshaw v. Ullman, 113 Mo. 633, 20 S. W. 1077—1421. Crescent City, etc. Co. v. Deblieux, 40 La. Ann. 155, 3 South. 7?6— 937, 1007. Crescent City, etc. Co. v. Planner, 44 La. Ann. 22, 10 South. 384—1487. Crescent City R. Co. v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 1057, 11 South. 681— 1137. Crescent City R. R. v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 48 La. Ann. 856, 19 South. 868—2708. Cresson's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 437 — 67. Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111. App. 281 — 526. Creswell v. Lanahan, 101 U. S. 347, 25 L. Ed. 853—1799, 1822. Crews V. U. S. etc. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 357, 42 Atl. 272—2343. Creyke's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 63 (1869)— 292. Crichton's Oil Co., In re, 84 L. T. Rep. 864 (1901), 86 L. T. Rep. 787 (1902) —610. Crickmer's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 614 (1875)— 163, 171. Cridge's Appeal, 18 Atl. 1010 (Pa.)— 954, 974. Cridland v. De Mauley, 1 De G. & S. —1710. Cridland's Estate, 132 Pa. St. 479, 19 Atl. 362—1200. Crimp V. McCormick Const. Co., 71 Fed. 356, 18 C. C. A. 70—222. 741, 935. CVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Crippen v. Laighton, 69 N. H. 540,, 44 Atl. 538, 46 L. R. A. 467, 76 Am. St. Rep. 192—466. Crissey v. Cook, 72 Pac. 541 (Kan.) — 298. Crittenden, etc. Co. v. Cowles, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 95, 72 N. Y. Supp. 701— 1518. Croarkin v. Hutchinson, 187 111. 633, 58 N. B. 678—1576. Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211, 34 Am. Dec. 228—191, 192, 356. Crocker v. Crocker, 31 N. Y. 507, 88 Am. Dec. 291—796. Crocker v. Manley, 164 111. 282, 45 N. E. 577, 56 Am. St. Rep. 196—782. Crocker v. Old Colony R. R., 137 Mass. 417—734. Crocker v. Whitney, 71 N. Y. 161— 1629. Crocket v. Young, 9 Miss. 241 — 1787. Crofoot V. Thatcher, 19 Utah, 212, 57 Pac. 171, 75 Am. St. Rep. 725—387. Croft V. Bunster, 9 Wis. 503—2051. Croft V. Colfax, etc. Co., 113 Iowa, 455, 85 N. W. 761—866, 980, 994, 1016. Croft V. Lumpkin, etc. Min. Co., 61 6a. 465—1387. CroU V. Empire, etc. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 282, 45 N. Y. Supp. 680—1640. Crombie v. Order of Solon, 157 Pa. St. 588, 27 Atl. 710—1389, 1921. Cromford, etc. Ry. v. Lacey, 3 Y. & J. 80 (1829)— 369. Cromwell v. American Loan, etc. Co., 57 Hun, 149, 11 N. Y. Supp. 144—863. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681—2026, 2028, 2036, 2045, 2046, 2061, 2062, 2065. Cronmire, In re (1898), 2 Q. B. 383— 778. Crook V. Girard, etc. Co., 87 Md. 138, 39 Atl. 94, 67 Am. St. Rep. 325— 1961. Crook V. Jewett, 12 How. Pr. 19 — 1924. Crooked Lake Nay. Co. v. Keuka Nav. Co., 37 Hun, 9—1483. Crooks V. State, 4 N. B. 589 (Ind.) — 243, 269, 277. Crosby, Matter of, 28 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 300, 59 N. Y. Supp. 865—1100. Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. 404—2752. Crosby v. Montgomery, 108 Ala. 498, 18 South. 723—2774. Crosby v. Morristown, etc. R. R., 42 S. W. 507 (Tenn.)— 2229, 2323, 2468. Crosby v. New London, etc. R. R., 26 Conn. 121—2062, 2066. Crosby v. Stratton, 68 Pac. 130 (Colo ) —135, 623. Crosby v. The Lillie, 42 Fed. 237— 1493. Crosby Lumber Co. v. Smith 51 Fed 63, 2 C. C. A. 97—1568. Cross V. Eureka Lake, etc. Co., 73 Cal. 302, 14 Pac. 885, 2 Am. St. Rep. 808— 975, 1145. Cross V. Evans, 86 Fed. 1, 29 C. C. A. 523—2449. Cross v. Fisher, L. R. (1892) 1 Q. B. 467—1976. Cross v. Johnson, 20 Wash. 124, 54 Pac. 1000—2269. Cross V. Jackson, 5 Hill, 478 — 1085, 1087. Cross V. Peach Bottom Ry., 90 Pa. St. 392—1030, 1034, 1036. Cross V. Phenix Bank, 1 R. I. 39— 1115, 1125, 1129. Cross V. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 III. 54—214, 502. Cross V. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr. 247—109, 167, 799. Cross V. Sackett, 2 Bosw. 617 — 786, 799. Cross V. Sackett, 16 How. Pr. 62-r- 799. Cross V. West Va. etc. Ry., 34 W. Va. 742, 12 S. B. 765—1331. Cross V. West Va. etc. Ry., 35 W. Va. 174, 12 S. E. 1071—1304, 1331. Cross V. West Va. etc. Ry., 37 W. Va. 342, 16 S. E. 587, 18 L. R. A. 582— 20, 1374, 1377. Cross V. Williams, 10 W. R. 302 (1862) 1071. Crossette v. Jordan, 92 N. W. 782 (Mich.)— 1652, 1759, 2137. Grossman v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., 26 Pa. St. 69—310. Cross's Case, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 583 (1869) —667. Crosstown St. Ry., In re, 68 Hun, 236, 22 N. Y. Supp. 818—2683. Croton Tump. Co. v. Ryder, 1 Johns. Ch. 611—2752. Crouch V. Credit Foncier, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 (1873)— 640, 2043, 2047, 2096, 2098. Crow V. Green, 111 Pa. St. 637, 5 Atl. 23—526, 1704, 1709. Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486, 28 N. E. 94, 13 L. R. A. 647—500, 2730. Crowell V. Jackson, 53 N. J. L. 656. 23 Atl. 126—707, 1611. Crowley v. Walton, 50 Atl. 38.'? (R. I.) —87, 131, 309. Crown Bank, In re, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 634 (1890)— 16, 507, 1410, 1926. Crown, etc. Co. v. Allen, 199 Pa. St. 239, 48 Atl. 968—556. Crown, etc. Co. v. State, 87 Md. 687, 40 Atl. 1074, 53 L. R. A. 417, 67 Am. St. Rep. 371—1230. Crown, etc. Co. v. Thomas, 177 111. 534, 52 N. E. 1042—89, 1569, 2077, 2517. Crowther v. Thorley, 32 W. R. 330 (1884)— 1065. TABLE OF OASES. evil [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Croydon Hospital v. Farley, 6 Taunt. 467 (1816)— 67. Crulkshank v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 16 Fed. 888, 21 Blatchf. 322—1966. Crull V. Dodson, Sel. Cas. Ch. t. King (2d ed., p. 113— 1725)— 762. Crumlish v. Central Imp. Co., 38 W. Va. 390, 18 S. E. 456, 23 L. R. A. 120, 45 Am. St. Rep. 872—1506. Crumlish v. Shenandoah Valley R. R., 28 W. Va. 623—1863, 1872. Crumlish v. Shenandoah Valley R. R., 40 W. Va. 627, 22 S. E. 90—2480. Crump V. Thurber, 115 U. S. 56, 5 Sup. Ct. 1154, 29 L. Ed. 328—760, 868. Crump V. U. S. Min. Co., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 352, 56 Am. Dec. 116—311, 313, 314, 352, 1770, 1830. Crum's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 474 — 1090. Cruse V. Paine, L. R. 6 Eq. 641, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 441 (1869)— 531, 575, 755, 915. Crutcher v. Commonwealth, 89 Ky. 6 (1889)— 2728. Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 Sup. Ct. 851, 35 L. Ed. 649—1242. Crutcher v. Nashville Bridge Co., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 403—1663. Crutchfield t. Mutual, etc. Co., 2 S. W, 658 (Tenn.)— 1439. Crymble v. Mulvaney, 21 Colo. 203, 40 Pac. 499—1888. Crystal, etc. Co., In re, 96 Fed. 945 — 416. Crystal, etc. Co. v. State, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 293, 56"S. W. 562—1055. Cucullu V. Union Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 571—398, 400. Cucullu V. Union Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 573—215, 400. Cuddon V. Eastwick, 1 Salk. 183 (1704) —241. Cud or Cuddee v. Rutter, 1 P. Wms. 570 (1719), 5 Vin. Abr. 538 (1720) — 753. Culbertson v. Wabash Nav. Co., 4 Mc- Lean, 544, 6 Fed. Cas. 944—37. Cullen V. Coal Creek, etc. Co., 42 S. W. 693 (Tenn.)— 691, 1465, 1858. Cullen V. Nickerson, 10 Up. Can. C. P. Rep. 549 (1861)— 1819. Cullen V. Thompson, 6 L. T. Rep. 870 (1862)— 798. Culp V. Mulvane, 71 Pac. 273 (Kan.) — 58, 993. Culpeper Agric. etc. Soc. v. Digges, 6 Rand. (Va.) 165, 18 Am. Dec. 708— 65. Culver V. Fort Edward, 8 Hun, 340— 261. Culver V. Reno, etc. Co., 91 Pa. St. 367—602, 2071. Culver V. Third Nat. Bank, 64 111. 528— 446, 451, 452, 455. Culver V. Wilkinson, 145 U. S. 205, 12 Sup. Ct. 832, 36 L. Ed. 676—954. Cumberland v. Magruder, 34 Md. 381 — 253. Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman, 30 Barb. 553, 577—1305, 1454, 1486, 1526, 1527, 1852. Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman, 20 Md. 117—1454, 1486. Cumberland County v. Randolph, 89 Va. 614, 16 S. E. 722—248. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 South. 762—2822. Cumberland, etc. (3o. v. CJook, 103 Tenn. 730, 55 S. W. 152—2825. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Clinton Hill, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 627, 42 Atl. 585 —410. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Clinton Hill, etc. Co., 54 AO. 450 (N. J.)— 413, 480, 2406, 2410. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Daniel, 52 S. W. 446 (Tenn.)— 1080, 1421. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Hoffman, etc. Co., 30 Barb. 159, 171—1874. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Louisville, etc. Co., 72 S. W. 4 (Ky.)— 2837. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Parish, 42 Md. 598—1645. Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Shaw, 102 Tenn. 313, 52 S. W. 163—2822. Cumberland, etc. Corp. v. Portland, 56 Me. 77—68. Cumberland, etc. R. R. v. Barren County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.), 604— 263. Cumberland, etc. Tel. Co. v. Morgan's, etc. R. R., 51 La. Ann. 29, 24 South. 803, 72 Am. St. Rep. 442—2623, 2809. Cumberland Tel. Co. v. United Elec. Ry., 42 Fed. 273, 12 L. R. A. 544— 2697, 2755. Cumberland Tel. etc.. Co. v. Boston, 94 Tenn. 696, 30 S. W. 1040—2822. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. United Elec. Ry., 93 Tenn. 492, 29 S. W. 104,' 27 L. R. A. 236—2697. Cumberland Valley R. R. v. Baab, 9 Watts (Pa.), 458, 36 Am. Dec. 132— 233. Cumberland Valley R. R. v. Gettys- burg, etc. Ry., 177 Pa. St. 519, 35 Atl. 952—2596. Cuming v. Boswell, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 1005 (1856)— 1196. Cumming v. Prescott, 2 Younge & C. (Exch.) 488 (1873)— 1373. Cummings v. American Gear, etc. Co., 87 'Hun, 598, 34 N. Y. Supp. 541— 1890. Cummings v. Cummings, 143 Mass. 340, 9 N. E. 730—704. Cummings v. Hollis, 108 Ga. 402, 33 S. E. 919—1437. CVlll TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Cummings v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 25 L. Ed. 903—1225, 1227, 1228. Cummings v. Prescott, 2 Y. & C. Exch. 488 (1837)— 935, 1377. Cummings v. Synnott, 120 Fed. 84 — 797, 1533. Cummings v. Union, etc. Co., 164 N. Y. 401, 58 N. E. 525, 52 L. R. A. 262, 79 Am. St. Rep. 655—1049. Cummings v. Webster, 43 Me. 192 — 21. Cummins v. People's, etc. Assoc, 61 Neb. 728, 86 N. W. 474—871, 1250. Cumnock v. Newburypbrt Sav. Inst., 142 Mass. 342, 7 N. E. 869, 56 Am. Rep. 679—969, 1250. Cunningham, In re, L. R. 36 Ch. D. 532—1789. Cunningham v. Alabama, etc. Co., 4 Ala. (N. S.) 652—1115, 1117, 1122, 1123. Cunningham v. Augusta National Bank, 71 Ga. 400, 51 Am. Rep. 266— 780, 781. Cunningham v. City of Cleveland, 98 Fed. 657, 39 C. C. A. 211—506, 1422, 1541, 2538, 2737, 2742, 2763, 2765, 2767. Cunningham v. Edgefield, etc. R. R., 2 Head (Tenn.), 23—312, 320, 323. Cunningham v. Grerman, etc. Bank, 101 Fed. 977, 41 C. C. A. 609—1143, 2142. Cunningham v. Holley, etc. Co., 121 Fed. 720—104. Cunningham v. Jones' Ex'rs, 57 S. W. 488 (Ky.)— 990. Cunningham v. Macon, etc. R. R., 156 XT. S. 400, 15 Sup. Ct. 361, 39 L. Ed. 471—2121, 2122, 2255, 2294. Cunningham v. Massena, etc. R. R., 63 Hun, 439, 18 N. Y. Supp. 600, 138 N. Y. 614, 33 N. E. 1082—1780, 2657. Cunningham v. Pell, 5 Paige, 607 — 1874, 1875, 1896. Cunningham v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 78 Mass. 411—607. Cunningham v. Wechselberg, 105 Wis. 359, 81 N. W. 414—1686. Cunninghame v. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 607 (1879)— 530. Cunningham's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 546 —626, 628. Cupit V. Park City Bank, 20 Utah, 292, 58 Pac. 839—1377, 1643, 1745, 1755. Curien v. Santini, 16 La. Ann. 27 — 1386, 1393. Curling v. Chalklen, 3 M. & S. 496, 510 (1833)— 1737. Curran v. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33, 46 N. B. 297, 37 L. R. A. 802, 57 Am. St. Rep. 496—1061, 2625. Curran v. Rothschild, 14 Colo. App 497, 60 Pac. 1111—1575. Curran v. State of Arkansas, 15 How. 304, 14 L. Ed. 705—266, 393, 1177, 1180, 1433. Currie v. Bowman, 25 Or. 364, 35 Pac. 848—1641, 1769, 2147. Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822—738, 1146, 1147, 1148. Currier v. Concord R. R., 48 N. H. 321—2560, 2577. Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 262—546, 616, 675. Currier v. Marietta, etc. R. R., 11 Ohio St. 228—2625, 2626. Currier v. New York, etc. R. R., 35 Hun, 355—1457, 1889, 1910. Currier v. Poor, 155 N. Y. 344, 49 N. E.. 937— 785. Currier v Poor, 84 Hun, 45, 32 N. Y. Supp. 74—816. Currie's Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 367 (1863)— 132, 165. Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270—203, 587, 620, 623, 865, 1029. Curry v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 305 — 36, 1153. Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371 — 274, 386, 398, 401, 409, 1434. Curry Hotel Co. v. Mullins, 93 Mich. 318, 53 N. W. 360—366. Curson v. African Co., 1 Vern. 121 (1632)— 1947. Curtice v. Crawford, etc. Bank, 110 Fed. 830—856, 1119, 1836. Curtice v. Crawford, etc. Bank, 118 Fed. 390—1132, 1836. Curtin v. Salmon, etc. Co., 130 Cal. 345, 62 Pac. 552, 80 Am. St. Rep. 132—1722, 1742, 1753, 2137, 2142. Curtis, In re, N. Y. L. J., Jan. 24, 1890 —1191. Curtis V. Butler County, 24 How. 435, 16 L. Ed. 745—243, 265. Curtis V. Crossley, 59 N. J. Eq. 358, 45 Atl. 905—717, 844. Curtis V. Cutler, 76 Fed. 16, 22 C. C. A. 16, 37 L. R. A. 737—2294. Curtis V. Harlow, 53 Mass. 3 — 567. Curtis V. Lakin, 94 Fed. 251, 36 C. C. A. 222—712, 761, 1573, 1856. Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 194, 195 — 1765, 1781, 1820, 1834, 1969, 1976, 2035, 2106, 2108, 2178. Curtis V. Lewis, 50 Atl. 878 (Conn.) — 1634, 2154, 2246, 2263, 2408. Curtis V. Meeker, 62 111. App. 49 — 500. Curtis V. Piedmont, etc. Co., 109 N. C. 401, 13 S. E. 944—1820. Curtis V. Steever, 36 N. J. L. 304— 705, 997, 998. Curtis V. Tracy, 169 III. 233, 48 N. E. 399, 61 Am. St. Rep. 168—500. Curtis V. Van Bergh, 161 N Y 47 55 N. E. 398—2656. TABLE OF CASES. CIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Curtis V. Watson, 64 Vt. 536, 25 Atl. 478—1725. Curtis V. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350, 1 Am. Rep. 187—250, 251. Curtiss V. Hurd, 30 Fed. 729 — 788. Curtis's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 455 (1868) —206, 541, 581. Cushing V. Chapman, 115 Fed. 237 — 2040. Cushing V. Perot, 175 Pa. St 66, 34 Atl. 447, 34 L. R. A. 737, 52 Am. St. Rep. 835—439, 470. Cushman v. Bonfield, 139 111. 219, 28 N. E. 937—2500. Cushman v. Hayes. 46 111. 145 — 981. Cushman v. Shepard, 4 Barh. 113 — 453. Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247 — 2626. Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Co., 76 N. Y. 365, 32 Am. Rep. 315-755, 824, 825, 847, 858, 867, 888. Cusiek V. Bartlett. 91 Me. 153 — 346, 1572, 2555. Custar V. Titusville Gas, etc. Co., 63 Pa. St. 381—309, 312. Custer V. Tompkins County Bank, 9 Pa. St. 27—1841. Cutbill V. Kingdom, 1 Exch. 494 — 1278. Cutchogue Congregational Church, In re, 131 N. Y. 1, 30 N. E. 43— 1426. Cuthbert v. Cuthbert, 3 Yeates (Pa.), 486—655. Cutler V. North London Ry., L. R. 19 Q. B. D. 64 (1887)— 2644. Cutler V. Thomas, 25 Vt. 73—1085, 1089. Cutright V. Stanford, 81 111. 240— 395. Cutshaw V. Fargo, 8 Ind. App. 691, 34 N. E. 376, 36 N. E. 650—1932. Cutter V. Gudebrod, etc. Co., 44 N. Y. App. Div. 605, 61 N. Y. Supp. 225— 68, 1557, 1567. Cutter V. Iowa, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 777 — 2278, 2510. Cutting, Ex parte, 94 TJ. S. 14, 24 L. Ed. 49—1932. Cutting V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 414, 73 N. Y. Supp. 21—2506. Cutting V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 616, 72 N. Y. Supp. 27—1529, 2506. Cutting V. Damerel, 88 N. Y. 410— 411, 438, 560, 569, 849, 857. Cutting V. Florida, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 743—2597. Cutting V. Florida, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 747—2432. Cutting V. Florida Ry. etc., 45 Fed. 444 — 2244. CutUng V. Marlor, 78 N. Y. 454—948. Cutting V. Tavares, etc. R. R., 61 Fed. 150, 157—2291, 2357, 2489. Cuykendall v. Corning, 88 N. Y. 129— 438. Cuykendall v. Douglas, 19 Hun, 577— 486. Cuykendall v. Miles, 10 Fed. 342— 455 461 Cuyler v.'sanford, 8 Barb. 225—1081. Cyclemaker's, etc. Co. Ltd., 88 L. T. Rep. 360 (1903)— 2409. Cynthiana, etc. Co. v. Hutchinson, 60 S. W. 378 (Ky.)— 2753. D. Dabney v. Stevens, 40 How. Pr. 341— 1773, 1780. Dade Coal Co. v. Haslett, 83 Ga. 549, 10 S. E. 435—528. Dady v. Georgia, etc. Ry., 112 Fed. 838—1300, 1368, 1524, 1930, 2547, 2577, 2578. Dady v. O'Rourke, 172 N. Y. 447, 65 N. E. 273—306, 743. Daft V. Daft, etc. Co., N. Y. L. J., Dec. 3, 1890—1880. Daggett V. Davis, 53 Mich. 35, 18 N. W. 548, 51 Am. Rep. 91—1247, 1249, 1265. Dahl V. Montana Copper Co., 132 U. S. 264, 10 Sup. Ct. 97, 33 L. Ed. 325— 1679. Dailey v. Wight, 51 Atl. 38 (Md.) — 719, 1315, 1504, "2180. Dails V. Lloyd, 12 Q. B. 531 (1848) — 910. Daily v. State, 51 Ohio St. 348, 37 N. E. 710, 24 L. R. A. 724, 46 Am. St. Rep. 578—2796, 2820. Dain, etc. Co. v. Trumbull, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 951 (Mo.)— 562, 844. Daland v. Williams, 101 Mass. 571 — 1142, 1193, 1194. Dale, In re, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 255 (1889) —1503. Dale, In re, 61 L. T. Rep. 206 (1889) —1511, 1718. Dale V. Donaldson Lumber Co., 48 Ark. 188, 2 S. W. 703, 3 Am. St. Rep. 224—1795. Dale V. Hayes, 40 L. J. (Ch.) 244 (1871)— 1197. Dallas V. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 2 Mac- Arth. 146—1953. Dallas V. Columbia, etc. Co., 158 Pa. St. 444, 27 Atl. 1055—1499, 1782. Dallas County v. McKenzie, 110 U. S. 686, 4 Sup. Ct. 184, 28 L. Ed. 285— 252. Dallas, etc. Co. v. Crawford, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 176, 44 S. W. 875—1774. Dallas, etc. Mills v. Chancey, 15 S. W. 194 (Tex.)— 376, 380. ox TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the teirt.] Dallas, etc. Ry. v. Maddox, 31 S. W. 702 (Tex.)— 2581. Dallemand v. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank, 74 Cal. 598, 16 Pao. 497—365. Dallett V. Staten Island, etc. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 39, 48 Atl. 231—1580, 2171 2539 Dalton V. Midland, etc. Ry., 13 C. B. 474 (1853)— 204, 1153. Dalton V. Midland Ry., 12 C. B. 458 (1852)— 836, 837, 863, 1156. Dalton V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 118 Fed. 876—1964. Dalton, etc. Co. v. Dalton, 66 L. T. Rep. 704 (1892)— 86, 122. Dalton, etc. R. R. v. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191—275, 400, 401, 403, 410. Daly, Matter of, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 394, 76 N. Y. Supp. 28—2781. Daly V. Brennan, 87 Wis. 36, 57 N. W. 963—791, 1669. Daly V. Georgia, etc. R. R., 80 Ga. 793, 7 S. B. 146, 12 Am. St. Rep. 286— 2690. Oaly Y. National, etc. Ins. Co., 64 Ind. 1—1674, 1949, 2745. Daly V. Thompson, 10 M. & W. 309 (1842)— 639, 646, 858, 1247. bamarin v. Huron Iron Co., 47 Ohio St. 581, 26 N. B. 37—1641. Dammert v. Osborn, 140 ISi. Y. 30, 35 N. E. 407—1666, 1667. Dana v. Bank of St. Paul, 4 Minn. 385 (Gil. 291)— 1822. Dana v. Bank of U. S., 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 223, 247—1551, 1722. Dana v. Brown, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 304—1114. Danbury, etc. R. R. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435—184, 209, 213, 283, 286, 292, 369, 1030, 1042. Dane v. Dane Mfg. Co., 80 Mass. 488— 424, 537. Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160—427, 559, 563, 571, 634, 636, 853. Danforth v. Allen, 49 Mass. 334—1085. Danforth v. National C. Co., 68 Minn. 308, 71 N. W. 274—2487. Danforth v. Penny, 44 Mass. 564 — 511. Daniel v. Gold Hill, etc. Co., 68 Pac. 884 (Wash.) — 992, 1002. Daniel v. Wilson, 91 Ga. 238, 18 S. E. 134—2389. Daniell, Ex parte, 1 De G. & J. 372 (1857)— 93, 96, 121. Daniell v. Royal British Bank, 1 Hurlst. & N. 681 (1857)— 336, 856. Daniell's Case, 22 Beav. 43 (1856) — 545, 580, 668. Daniels v. Belvidere, etc. Assoc, 61 N. B. 1031 (111.)— 1600. Daniels v. Hart, 118 Mass. 543—2110 2190. Danielson v. Yoakum, 116 Cal. 382, 48 Pac. 322—574. Dannebroge Mln. Co. v. Aliment, 26 Cal. 286—1425. Dannmeyer v. Coleman, 11 Fed. 97, 8 Sawy. 51—1861, 1884, 1929. Danville v. Montpelier, etc. R. R., 43 Vt. 144—262. Danville Bridge Co. v. Pomroy, 15 Pa. St. 151—1833. Danville, etc. Co. v. Watkins, 97 Vb/. 713, 34 S. E. 884—2827. Danville, etc. Pr. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456—1402. Danville, etc. R. R. v. Kase, 39 Atl. 301 (Pa.)— 130, 145, 1484, 1499, 1862, 2007, 2008. Danville Seminary v. Mott, 136 111. 289, 28 N. E. 54—1436, 1803. Darby v. Wright, 3 Blatchf. 170, 6 Fed. Cas. 1187—2120. D'Arcy v. Tamar, etc. Ry., L. R. 2 Exch. 158 (1867)— 1749. Dardanelle, etc. Ry. v. Shinn, 52 Ark. 93, 12 S. W. 183—1167. Darling v. Boston, etc. R. R., 93 Mass. 295—2641. Darling v. Brewster, 62 N. Y. 630— 1210. Darling v. Klock, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 270, 53 N. Y. Supp. 593—320, 794. Darling v. Potts, 118 Mo. 506, 24 S. W. 461—723, 967, 1263. Darlington Forge Co., In re, L. R. 34 Ch. D. 522 (1887)— 163. Darnell v. Dickens, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 7 —1807. Darnell v. State, 48 Ark. 321, 3 S. W. 365—1399. Darner v. Gatewood, 89 N. W. 603 (Neb.)— 2397. Darragh v. Wetter Mfg. Co., 78 Fed. 7, 23 C. C. A. 609—1883, 2378, 2380. Darrah v. Wheeling, etc. Co., 50 W. Va. 417, 40 S. B. 373—1381, 1787. Darst V. Gale, 83 111. 136, 141—1786, 1970, 2106, 2108, 2271. Dart V. Laimbeer, 107 N. Y. 669, 14 N. E. 291—1371. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 4 L. Ed. 629—2, 1022, 1023, 1234. Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. 625, 4 L. Bd. 629—2723. Dater v. Troy, etc. R. R., 2 Hill, 629— 74. Dauchy v. Brown, 24 Vt. 197—395, 425, 445, 449, 566, 576, 1606. Dauler v. Hartley, 178 Pa. St. 23, 35 Atl. 857—780. Dauphin, etc. Ry. v. Kennerly, 74 Ala. 583—1234, 1235. Davelaar v. Blue, etc. Co., 110 Wis. 470, 86 N. W. 185—2383. tablp: of cases. CXI [The numbsrs after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Davenport v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 519, 7 Fed. Cas. 8—2451, 2452, 2469. Davenport v. Dews, 18 Wall. 626, 21 L. Ed. 938—1204, 1896. Davenport v. Kleinschmidt, 6 Mont. 502, 13 Pac. 249—2761. Davenport v. Lines, 72 Conn. 118, 44 Atl. 17—128, 596, 1173, 1183, 2405. Davenport v. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 12 Iowa, 539—1211, 1233. Davenport v. Moore, 74 Fed.* 945 — 2255. Davenport v. Newton, 71 Vt. 11, 42 Atl. 1087—1617. Davenport v. Peoria, etc. Co., 17 Iowa, 276—1801. Davenport Bank v. Davenport, 123 U. S. 83, 8 Sup. Ct. 73, 31 L. Ed. 94—1224. Davey v. Pemberton, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 628 (1862)— 1108. Davey & Co. v. Williamson, etc. Ltd. (1898), 2 Q. B. 194—2098. Davidson, Ex parte, 57 Fed. 883 — 2402. Davidson v. Bridgeport, 8 Conn. 472 — 1739. Davidson v. Grange, 4 Grant's Ch. (Up. Can.) 377 (1854)— 207, 1321, 1333. Davidson v. Gretna, etc. Bank, 59 Neb. 63, 80 N. W. 256—223. Davidson v. Holden, 55 Conn. 103, 10 Atl. 515, 3 Am. St. Rep. 40—1086. Davidson v. Mexican Nat. etc. R. R., 58 Fed. 653—1515, 2521. Davidson v. Mexican Nat. R. R., 11 N. Y. App. Div. 28, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1015—639, 2271, 2538. Davidson v. Ramsey Co., 18 Minn. 482 (Gil. 432)— 246. Davidson v. Rankin, 34 Cal. 503 — 387, 425, 427, 446, 482, 567. Davidson v. Tulloch, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 543, 3 Macq. (H. L.) 783—315, 798, 1256. Davidson v. Westchester, etc. Co., 99 N. Y. 558, 2 N. E. 892—517, 1996, 2325, 2738. Davidson's Case, 3 De G. & S. 21 (1849)— 308, 344. David's Trusts, In re, 1 Johns. Eng. Ch. 495—659. Davies, Matter of, 168 N. Y. 89, 61 N. E. 118, 56 L. R. A. 855—1049. Davies v. Fowler, L. R. 16 Eq. 308 (1873)— 652, 653, 654. Davies v. Harvey Steel Co., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 166, 39 N. Y. Supp. 791— 1779. Davies v. Monroe, etc. Co., 107 La. 145, 31 South. 694—147, 1552, 1923. Davies v. New York Concert Co., 41 Hun, 492—2198, 2215, 2248. Davies v. New York Concert Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 739—1778. Davies v. Stowell, 78 Wis. 334, 47 N. W. 370, 10 L. R. A. 190—811. Daviess County v. Gravel-Road Co., 63 S. W. 752 (Ky.)— 2753. Daviess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98, 25 L. Ed. 112—249. Davis, Ex parte, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 463 (1876)— 547. Davis V. Bank of England, 2 Bing. 393 (1824)— 836, 839, 844, 858, 1247. Davis V. Beverly, 2 Cranch, C C. (U. S.) 35, 7 Fed. Cas. 112—437. Davis V. Cain, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 304 —655. Davis V. Cook, 9 Nev. 134—1967. Davis V. Coventry, 70 Pac. 583 (Kan.) —2789. Davis V. Davis, 119 Ind. 511, 21 N. E. 1112—780. Davis V. Duncan, 19 Fed. 477 — 2454,^ 2470, 2489. Davis V. Electric Def. Co., 19 W. N. Cas. 567—2842. Davis V. Elmira Sav. Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 16 Sup. Ct. 502, 40 L. Ed. 700— 1633. Davis V. England, 141 Mass. 587, 6 N. E. 731—1818. Davis V. Essex Baptist Soc, 44 Conn. 582, Fed. Cas. No. 3633—529, 530, 534, 559. Davis V. Gemmell, 70 Md. 356, 17 Atl. 259—1520, 1861, 1910. Davis V. Gemmell, 73 Md. 530, 21 Atl. 712—1878, 2269, 2480. Davis V. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L. Ed. 447—438, 2401, 2405. Davis V. Gwynne, 57 N. Y. 676, 4 Daly, 218—906, 907. Davis V. Haycock, L. R. 4 Exch. 373 — 574, 913, 917. Davis V. Hofer, 38 Or. 150, 63 Pac. 56. 1494, 1647, 1927. Davis V. Jackson, 152 Mass. 58, 25 N. E. 21, 23 Am. St. Rep. 801—1194.. Davis V. Kneale, 97 Mich. 72, 56 N. W. 220—194. Davis V. McMillan, 13 Ind. App. 424^ 41 N. E. 851—401. Davis V. Martin (1894), 3 Ch. 181— 1992. Davis V. Mayor, etc., 1 Duer, 451, 484 —1947. Davis V. Mayor, etc., 14 N. Y. 506, 523, 67 Am. Dec. 186—2660, 2666, 2672. Davis V. Memphis, etc. Ry., 22 Fed. 883—1509, 1774. Davis V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 87 Ala. 633, 6 South. 140—1434, 1435, 1436,. 1668. 0X11 TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Davis T. Mercantile Trust Co., 152 IT. S. 590, 14 Sup. Ct. 693, 38 L. Ed. 563—2282. Davis V. Mills, 99 Fed. 39—468. Davis V. Mills, 113 Fed. 678—462. Davis V. Montgomery, etc. Co., 101 Ala. 127, 8 South. 496—133, 150, 1715, -1981, 2006. Davis V. National, etc. Bank, 50 Atl. 530 (R. I.)— 731, 967. Davis V. Nebraska Nat. Bank, 51 Neb. 401, 70 N. W. 963—1941. Davis V. Old Colony R. R., 131 Mass. 258, 41 Am. Rep. 221—2079. Davis V. Oswell, 7 Car. & P. 804— 1264. Davis V. Peabody, 170 Mass. 397, 49 N. E. 750—1901. Davis V. Ravenna Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471, 67 N. W. 436—184, 216, 526. Davis V. River Raisin Bank, 4 McLean, 387, 7 Fed. Cas. 111—1627, 1980. Davis V. Rock Creek, etc. Co., 55 Cal. 359, 36 Am. Rep. 40—1518. Davis V. Rockingham Investment Co., 89 Va. 290, 15 S. E. 547—1790. Davis V. San Antonio, etc. Ry., 92 Tex. 642, 51 S. "W. 324—148. Davis V. Second Univ. Meeting-house, 49 Mass. 321—19, 598. Davis V. Shafer, 50 Fed. 764—217, 225, 1710. Davis V. Smith Am. Organ Co., 117 Mass. 456—212. Davis V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235—505. Davis V. Stevens, 17 Blatchf. 259, 7 Fed. Cas. 177—550, 576. Davis V. Thomas A. Davis' Co., 52 Atl. 717 (N. J.)— 1504. Davis V. Titusville, etc. R. R., 114 Pa. St. 308, 6 Atl. 736—2799. Davis V. Tuscumbia, etc. R. R., 4 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 421—2627. Davis V. V. S. etc. Co., 77 Md. 35— 1318, 1322, 1922. Davis V. Vernon, etc. Co., 103 Ga. 491, 29 S. E. 475—1399, 2753. Davis V. Weed (U. S. D. C), 44 Conn. 569, 7 Fed. Cas. 186—537, 569. Davis V. Yoder, 173 Pa. St. 138, 33 Atl. 882—990. Davis V. Yuba County, 75 Cal. 452, 13 Pac. 874, 17 Pac. 533—2063. Davis, Adm'r, v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 70 S. W. 857 (Ky.)— 1676. Davis' Estate v. Watklns, 56 Neb. 288, 76 N. "W. 575—481, 490. Davis, etc. Co. v. Barber, 51 Fed. 148— 225, 401. Davis, etc. Co. v. Best, 105 N. Y. 59 11 N. B. 146—1778. Davis, etc. Co. v. Caigle, 53 S. W. 240 (Tenn.)— 216. Davis, etc. Co. v. Davis, etc. Co., 20 Fed. 699—745, 1535, 1831, 1840. Davis, etc. Co. v. Dickson, 53 S. W. 237 (Tenn.)— 216. Davis, etc. Co. v. Dix, 64 Fed. 406 — 1676. Davis, etc. Co. v. Hillsboro Creamery Co., 10 Ind. App. 42, 37 N. B. 549— 1711. Davis, etc. Co. v. Jones, 66 Fed. 124, 14 C. C. A. 30—184, 216, 526. Davison v. Davis, 125 U. S. 90, 8 Sup. Ct. 825, 31 L. Ed. 635—748. Davison v. Gillies, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 347 (1879)— 1168, 1175. Davison v. Seymour, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 88—1480. Davis's Case, L. R. 12 Bq. 516 (1871)— 1972, 1973. Davis S. M. Co. v. Best, 30 Hun, 638 —1626, 1627. Davy v. Bangs, 174 Mass. 238, 54 N. E. 536—774. Dawes v. North River Ins. Co., 7 Cow. 462—1819. Dawes's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 232 (1868) — 293. Dawkins v. Antrobus, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 615 (1881)— 1075. Dawson v. Kittle, 4 Hill, 107—914. Dawson v. Morrison, 5 Railw. & Can. Cas. 62 (1847)— 1699, 1700. Dawson v. ShoUey, 4 Kan. App. 367, 45 Pac. 949—421. Day V. Buckingham, 87 Wis. 215, 58 N. W. 254—431. Day V. Day, 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 (I860)— 1200. Day V. Day, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 365 (1860) —547. Day V. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306—907, 914, 926, 941, 942. Day V. Ogdensburg, etc. R. R., 107 N. Y. 129, 13 N. E. 765—1429, 1672, 2067, 2069, 2564, 2570, 2576. Day V. Perkins, 2 Sandf. Ch. 359 — 1260. Day V. Postal Tel. Co., 66 Md. 354, 7 Atl. 608—1543, 1729, 2392, 2433, 2446. Day V. Spiral, etc. Co., 57 Mich. 146, 23 N. W. 628, 58 Am. Rep. 352—1602. Day V. Vinson, 78 Wis. 198, 47 N. W. 269, 10 L. R. A. 205--431. Day V. Worcester, etc. R. R., 151 Mass. 302, 23 N. E. 824—618. Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435—219, 401, 410, 411. Dayton v. Warns, 43 N. J. L. 659—1818. Dayton, etc. Co. v. Coy, 13 Ohio St. 84 —216. Dayton, etc. Co. v. Palsenthall, 116 Fed. 961, 54 C. C. A. 537—2443. Dayton, etc. R. R. v. Hatch, 1 Disney (Ohio), 84—84, 232, 238, 240, 1029, 1070. TABLE OF CASES. CXlll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dayton Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 37 Ohio St. 208—931. Deaderick v. Wilson, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108—408, 707, 1093. Deadrick v. Bank o£ Com., 100 Tenn. 457, 45 S. W. 786—1889. Deaf & Dumb Inst. v. Norwood, Busb. (N. C.) Eq. 65—67. Dean v. Baldwin, 99 111. App. 582— 112. Dean v. Bennett, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 489 (1871)— 1075. Dean v. Biggs, 25 Hun, 122—397, 398, 412, 699. Dean v. De Wolf, 16 Hun, 186—430. Dean v. Mace, 19 Hun, 391—471. Dean v. Mayor, etc., 50 Atl. 620 (N. J.) —2717. Dean v. Reynolds, 12 Ind. App. 97, 39 N. B. 763—2333. Dean v. Sullivan R. R., 22 N. H. 316, 321—2636. Dean v. Whlton, 16 Hun, 203—450, 452. Dean and Chapter of Femes, Davies, 116, 129—1305. Deane v. Test, 9 Ves. Jr. 146 (1803) — 656. Deansville Cemetery, In re, 66 N. Y. 569, 23 Am. Rep. 86—2627, 2628. Dearborn Foundry Co. v. Augustine, 5 Wash. St. 67, 31 Pac. 327—1679. Dearing v. McKinnon, etc. Co., 165 N. Y. 78, 58 N. E. 773, 80 Am. St. Rep. 708 —1639, 2125, 2152, 2159, 2300, 2350. Dearing v. McKinnon, etc. Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 31, 53 N. Y. Supp. 513— 1639. Deavitt v. Eldridge, 73 Vt. 332, 50 Atl. 1057—535. De Betz's Petition, 9 Abb. N. Cas. 246— 2476. De Beville's Case, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 11 (1868)— 121. Debnam v. Southern, etc. Co., 36 S. B. 269 (N. O— 1675, 1962. De Bost V. Albert Palmer Co., 35 Hun, 386—1773. De Camp v. Alward, 52 Ind. 468 — 1394, 1634. De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 36, 31 N. J. Eq. 671—1663, 1664, 1971. De Castro v. Compagnie, etc., 155 N. Y. 688, 50 N. E. 1116—2847. De Castro v. Compagnie, etc., 85 Hun, 231, 32 N. Y. Supp. 960—2847. Decatur Bldg. etc. Co. v. Neal, 97 Ala. 717, 12 South. 780—1306. Decatur, etc. Co. v. Palm, 113 Ala. 531, 21 South. 315, 59 Am. St. Rep. 140— 1507, 1912, 2480. De Caumont v.' Bogert, 36 Hun, 382— 662. Dechert v. Municipal, etc. Co., 39 N. Y. App. Div. 490, 57 N. Y. Supp. 225— 2829. Decker v. Bvansville, etc. R. R., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. B. 349—2726. Decker v. Gardner, 124 N. Y. 334, 26 N. E. 814, 11 L. R. A. 480—1388, 2371, 2379, 2412, 2434. Decker v. Gutta Percha, etc. Co., 61 Hun, 516, 16 N. Y. Supp. 352—1794. Decker v. Hughes, 68 111. 33—245, 252. De Comeau v. Guild Farm Oil Co., 3 Daly, 218—1005. De Cordova v. Barnum, 130 N. Y. 615, 29 N. B. 1099, 27 Am. St. Rep. 538— 921, 978, 979. Dederick v. Ormsby, etc. Co., 12 S. D. 59, 80 N. W. 153—1797. Dedham Bank v. Chickering, 20 Mass. 335—1799. Dedham Inst. v. Slack, 60 Mass. 408 — 1784. Deems v. Albany, etc. Line, 14 Blatchf. 474, 7 Fed. Cas. 348—1088. Defiance, etc. Co. v. City of Defiance, 100 Fed. 178—2221. De Forth v. Wisconsin, etc. R. R., 52 Wis. 320, 9 N. W. 17, 38 Am. Rep. 737—263. Defour v. Stacey, 90 Ky. 288, 14 S. W. 48, 29 Am. St. Rep. 374—2732. De Frees v. Carr, 8 Utah, 488, 33 Pac. 217—706. De Gendre v. Kent, L. R. 4 Bq. 283 (1867>— 653, 1148, 1202. De Graaf v. Thompson, 24 Minn. 452 — 2303. De Graaf v. Wyckoff, 13 Daly, 266— 2066. De Graffenried v. Brunswick, etc. R. R., 57 Ga. 22—2418. De Grauw v. Long Island, etc. R. R., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 502, 60 N. Y. Supp. 163—2700. De GrofC v. American Linen T. Co., 21 N. Y. 124—1604, 1822, 2075. Dehon v. Foster, 86 Mass. 545—2427. Deitz v. Field, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 425, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1087—965. De La Cuesta v. Insurance Co. of North Am., 136 Pa. St. 62, 658, 20 Atl. 505, 9 L. R. A. 631—627. Delacy v. Neuse River Nav. Co., 1 Hawks (N. C), 274, 9 Am. Dec. 636 —1074. Delafleld v. Illinois, 26 Wend. 192 — 914. Delafield v. San Francisco, etc. Ry., 40 Pac. 958 (Cal.)— 2039. Delahunty v.. Hake, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 230, 41 N. Y. Supp. 896—742. Delamater v. Miller, 1 Cow. 75, 13 Am. Dec. 512—1154. CXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Delamater's Estate, 1 Wliart. (Pa.) 362—657, 663. Delaney v. Van Aulen, 84 N. Y. 16, 21 Hun, 274—1200. Delano v. Butler, 118 V. S. 634, 7 Sup. Ct. 39, 30 L. Ed. 260—394, 443, 477, 629, 634. Delano v. Case, 121 111. 247, 12 N. B. 676, 2 Am. St. Rep. 81—1889. Delano v. Case, 17 111. App. 531 — 1890. Delano v. Rice, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 327, 48 N. Y. Supp. 295—788, 1347. Delano v. Smith Charities, 138 Mass. 63—1760. Delauney v. Strickland, 2 Stark. 416 — 1071. De La Vergne, etc. Co. v. German, etc. Inst., 175 U. S. 40, 20 Sup. Ct. 20, 44 L. Ed. 65—687, 717, 1382, 1552, 1722, 1768. De La Vergne, etc. Co. v. Palmetto Brewing Co., 72 Fed. 579—2226. Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Common- wealth, 17 Atl. 175, 1 L. R. A. 232 (Pa.)— 1243. Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Pennsyl- vania Coal Co., 50 N. Y. 250—2726. Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Pennsyl- vania Coal Co., 21 Pa. St. 131— 1737, 1739, 2726. Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Sansom, 1 Bin. (Pa.) 70—290, 557. Delaware, etc. Co. v. Bethlehem, etc. Ry., 53 Atl. 533 (Pa.)— 1680. . Delaware, etc. Co. v. Layton (Del.), 50 Atl. 378—5, 1113, 1945. Delaware, etc. Co. v. Mahlenbrock, 63 N. J. L. 281, 43 Atl. 978, 45 L. R. A. 538—1681. Delaware, etc. Co. v. Pensauken 1*p., 116 Fed. 910—2817. Delaware, etc. Ins. Co. v. Wagner, 56 Minn. 240, 57 N. W. 656—2743. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Central, etc. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 50, 17 Atl. 146, 6 L. R. A. 855—2790. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Central, etc. Co., 46 N. J. Eq. 280, 19 Atl. 185— 2790. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. City of BufCalo, 158 N. Y. 266, 53 N. E. 44—2705. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Brie Ry., 21 N. J. Eq. 298—2381. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Irick, 23 N. J. L. 321—40, 67, 1032. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Oxford Iron Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 340—1134. Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Rowland, 9 Atl. 929 (Pa.)— 376. Delaware, etc. Tel. Co. v. Committee, etc., 50 Atl. 452 (N. J.)— 2816. Delaware, etc. Tel. Co. v. State, 50 Fed. 677, 2 C. C. A. 1—2842. Delaware R. R. v. Tharp, 5 Harr. (Del.) 454—1432. Delaware R. R. v. Tharp, 1 Houst. (Del.) 149—1029. Delaware R. R. Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. Ed. 888—1023, 1024, 1204, 1205, 1218, 1234, 1235, 1237, 2585. Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Camden, 16 N. J. Eq. 321—2633. De Lery v. Rogers, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 99, 75 N. Y. Supp. 513—1704. Delevan v. Simonson, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 243—925. Delhi School Dist. v. Everett, 52 Mich. 314, 17 N. W. 926—1667. De Lisle v. Hodges, L. R. 17 Eq. 440 (1874)— 660. Deller v. Staten Island, etc. Cliib, ^ N. Y. Supp. 876—1797. Delta Lumber Co. v. Williams, 73 Mich. 86, 40 N. W. 940—1796. Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205, 28 N. E. 645, 13 L. R. A. 854—8. 499, 504, 510, 528, 1612, 1739. Demarest v. Flack, 32 N. Y. St. Rep. 675, 11 N. Y. Supp. 83—499, 510. Deining v. Bailey, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 1— 704. Deming v. Bull, 10 Conn. 409—427, 452, 566. Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 20 N. E. 107, 2 L. r: a. 743—790. Deming v. Puleston, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 231—441. Deming v. Williams, 26 Conn. 226, 68 Am. Dec. 386 — 663. Demings v. Supreme Lodge, 131 N. Y. 522, 30 N. E. 572—1822. Dempsey v. Harm, 12 Atl. 27 (Pa.) — 780. Dempster v. United Traction Co., 54 Atl. 501 (Pa.)— 2691. Den V. Vreelandt, 7 N. J. L. 352, 11 Am. Dec. 551—1809. Denaby, etc. Co. v. Manchester, etc. Ry., L. R. 11 App. Cas. 97 (1885), L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 209 (1884), L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 674 (1884)— 2610. De Neufville v. New York, etc. Ry., 81 Fed. 10, 26 C. C. A. 306—1528, 1909. De Neufville v. New York & N. Ry., 84 Fed. 391—2251. Denham, In re, L. R. 25 Ch. D. 752 (1883)— 331, 1178, 1183. Denike v. New York, etc. Co., 80 N. Y. 599, 606—1385, 1386. Denlson, Matter of, 114 N. Y. 621, 21 N. E. 97—2439. Denison, etc. Ry. v. Ranney-Alton, etc. Co., 104 Fed. 595, 44 C. C. A. 65— 2181, 2448, 2656. Denison, etc. Ry. v. Ranney, etc. Co., 53 S. W. 496 (Ind. Ter.)— 2468. TABLE OF CASES. CXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Denney v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 28 Ohio St. 108—617. Dennis v. Joslin, etc. Co., 19 R. I. 666, 36 Atl. 129, 61 Am. St. Rep. 805— 1137, 1759. Dennis v. Kennedy, 19 Barb. 517 — 1084, 1087, 1089, 1490. Dennis v. Moses, 18 Wash. 537, 52 Pac. 333, 40 L. R. A. 302—2002. Dennis v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. 548, 27 Pac. 1031—461. Dennison, Ex parte, 3 Ves. Jr. 552 (1797)— 955. Dennison v. Chapman, 105 .Cal. 447, 39 Pac. 61—743, 1535, 1708. Denniston v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 4 Biss. 414, 7 Fed. Cas. 482—2358. Dennistoun v. New York, etc. R. R., 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 62—2653. Denny v. Cole, 22 Wash. 372, 61 Pac. 38, 79 Am. St. Rep. 940—976, 2421. Denny v. Lyon, 38 Pa. St. 98, 80 Am. Dec. 463—963. Denny Hotel Co. v. Gilmore, 6 Wash. 152, 32 Pac. 1004—391. Denny Hotel Co. v. Schram, 6 Wash. 134, 32 Pac. 1002, 36 Am. St. Rep. 130—201, 359, 363. Densmore v. Shepard, 46 Minn. 54, 48 N. W. 528, 681—435. Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. St. 43, 54—34, 1373, 1475. Dent V. Holbrook, 54 Cal. 145—1262. Dent V. London Tramways Co., L. R. 16 Ch. D. 344 (1880)— 602, 604, 1158, 1159. Dent V. Matteson, 70 Minn. 519, 73 N. W. 416, 75 N. W. 1041—538. Dent V. Mickalls, 29 L. T. Rep. 536 (1873)— 905, 913. Dent V. Mickalls, 30 L. T. Rep. 644 (1874)— 905, 913. Dent V. North, etc. Co., 49 N. Y. 390— 1780. Denton v. Baker, 79 Fed. 189, 24 C. C. A. 476—2430. Dentoii v. Baker, 93 Fed. 46, 35 C. C. A. 187—2430. Denton T. International Co., 36 Fed. 1, 13 Sawy. 355—1958. Denton v. Jackson, 2 Johns. Ch. 320 —3. Denton v. Livingston, 9 Johns. 96, 6 Am. Dec. 264—45, 992. Denton v. Macneil, L. R. 2 Bq. 352 (1866)— 316, 335. Denton v. Ontario County Nat. Bank, 150 N. Y. 126, 44 N. E. 781—2187, 2239. Dent's Case, L. R. 15 Eq. Cas. 407 (1873)— 163. Denver v. Mullen, 7 Colo. 345, 3 Pac. 693—1425. H Denver Chamber," etc. v. Green, 8 Colo. App. 420, 47 Pac. 140—290, 1073, 1075. Denver, etc. Co. v. Denver, etc. R. R., 69 Pac. 568 (Colo.)— 2635, 2785, 2805. Denver, etc. Co. v. Union, etc. Ry., 34 Fed. 386—2.635. Denver, etc. R. R. v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 15 Fed. 650, 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. 185, 28 L. Ed. 291—2595, 2597. Denver, etc. Ry. v. Barsaloux, 15 Colo. 290, 25 Pac. 165, 10 L. R. A. 89— 2703. Denver, etc. Ry. v. Bourne, 11 Colo. 59, 16 Pac. 839—2690. Denver, etc. Ry. v. Harris, 122 U. S. 597, 7 Sup. Ct. 1286, 30 L. Ed. 1146— 70, 73, 77. Denver, etc. R. R. v. Roller, 100 Fed. 738, 41 C. C. A. 22, 49 L. R. A. 77— 1958. Denver, etc. R: R. v. U. S. Trust Co., 41 Fed. 720—2172. Denver Tramway Co. v. Londoner, 20 Colo. 150, 37 Pac. 723—2662. De Pass's Case, 4 De G. & J. 544 (1859) —565, 572, 579, 580. De Peyster v. American Fire Ins. Co., 6 Paige, 486—1174. De Peyster v. Beekman, 55 How. Pr. 90—1067. Deposit Bank v. Barrett, 13 S. W. 337 (Ky.)— 686, 1042, 1797, 1859, 2504, 2554. Deposit Bank, etc. v. Hearne, 104 Ky. 819, 48 S. W. 160—1380. Deposit, etc. Co. v. Ayscough, 6 El. & B. 761 (1856)— 326, 340. De Pothonier, In re (1900), 2 Ch. 529 — 720, 1201. Deppen v. German-American, etc. Co., 70 S. W. 868 (Ky.)— 317, 815, 1512. Derby v. Yale, 13 Hun (N. Y.), 273— 1928. Derby Tump. Co. v. Parks, 10 Conn. 522, 27 Am. Dec. 700—2751. De Ribeyre v. Barclay, 23 Beav. 107 — 906. Dern v. Salt Lake City R. R., 19 Utah, 46, 56 Pac. 556—1430, 2680. Derrickson v. Smith, 27 N. J. I^ 166 — 462. Derr's Estate, In re, 52 Atl. 27 (Pa.) — 717. Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337 (1889)- 329, 804. De Ruvigne's Case, L. H. 5 Ch. D. 306; (1877)— 165, 1467. De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 3 Barb. Ch. 119—1665. De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 3 N. Y. 238—1665. CXTl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after tlie dash refer tx) the pages of the text.] Descombes v. Wood, 91 Mo. 196, 4 S. W. 82, 60 Am. St. Rep. 239—1860, 1913. Desdoity, Ex parte, 1 Wend. &8 — 1320, 1336, 1339. Des Moines, etc. Bank v. Warren, etc. Bank, 97 Iowa, 204, 66 N. W. 154— 1119. Des Moines, etc. Co. v. Des Moines, etc. Bank, 97 Iowa, 668, 66 N. W. 914—856, 1131. Des Moines, etc. Co. v. Tilford, etc. Co., 9 S. Dak. 542, 70 N. W. 839— 1771. Des Moines, etc. Co. v. West, 44 lorwa,, 23—2254, 2363. Des Moines, etc. R. R. v. Des Moines, 73 Iowa, 513, 33 N. W. 610, 35 N. W. 602—2676. Des Moines, etc. R. R. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 135 U. S. 576, 10 Sup. Ct. 753, 34 L. Ed. 243—2348. Des Moines Gas Co. v. West, 50 Iowa, 16—1973, 2261. Des Moines Valley R. R. v. Graff, 27 Iowa, 99, 1 Am. Rep. 256—233, 235. De Sobry v. Nicholson, 3 Wall. 420, 18 L.. Ed. 263—1965. Despatch Line v. . Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205. 37 Am. Dec. 203— 1373, 1737, 1738, 1744, 1796, 1800, 1801. Desper v. Continental, etc. Co., 137 Mass. 252—1953. Dester v. Ross, 85 Mich. 370, 48 N. W. 530—2496. Detroit v. Detroit City Ry., 56 &ed. 867, 54 Fed. 1, 60 Fed. 161, 64 Fed. 628, 12 C. C. A. 365—1436, 2669, 2672. Detroit v. Detroit City Ry., 76 Mich. 421, 43 N. W. 447—2673, 2722. Detroit v. Detroit, etc. Co., 43 Mich. 140, 5 N. W. 275—1033, 1433, 2751. Detroit V. Detroit, etc. Ry., 54 Fed. 1 — 2i69. Detroit V. Detroit, etc. Ry., 184 U. S. 368, 22 Sup. Ct. 410, 46 L. Ed. 592— 1436. 2110, 2595, 2616, 2671, 2672, 2736, 2756, 2768. Detroit V. Fort Wayne, etc. Ry., 90 Mich. 646, 51 N. W. 688—2720. Detroit v. Ft. Wayne, etc. Ry., 95 Mich. 456, 54 N. W. 958, 20 L. R. A. 79, 35 Am. St. Rep. 580—2716. Detroit v. Jackson, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 106—1739, 1800, 1802. Detroit v. Mutual, etc. Co., 43 Mich. 594, 5 N. W. 1039—2108, 2738. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. v. Detroit, 64 Fed. 628, 635, 643, 12 C. C. A. 365, 26 L. R. A. 667—1436, 2661, 2670, 2672. Detroit City Ry. v. Mills, 85 Mich. 634, 48 N. W. 1007—2691, 2692, 2705. Detroit Daily Post Co. v. McArthur, 16 Mich. 447—72, 77. Detroit, etc. Co. v. Detroit Suburban Ry., 103 Mich. 585, 61 N. W. 880— 2696. Detroit, etc. Co. v. Third, etc. Bank, 111 Mich. 407, 69 N. W. 726—1788. Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Commissioner of Railroads, 127 Mich. 219, 86 N. W. 842—2707. Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Common Council, 125 Mich. 673, 85 N. W. 96, 86 N. W. 809, 84 Am. St. Rep. 589—2557, 2670, 2722. Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Detroit, 64 Fed. 628, 635, 643, 12 C. C. A. 365, 26 L. R. A. 667, 184 U. S. 368—2661, 2670, 2672, 2684. Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Detroit Ry., 171 U. S. 48, 18 Sup. Ct 732, 43 L. Ed. 67—2676. Detroit, etc. R. R. v. Starnes, 38 Mich. 698—235. Detroit, etc. Works v. Riverside St. Ry., 29 S. W. 412 (Tex.)— 522. Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. Detroit Agitations Verein, 44 Mich. 313, 6 N. W. 675, 38 Am. Rep. 270—1088. Detroit St. Rys. v. Guthard, 51 Mich. 180, 16 N. W. 328—1235. Detroit Transp. Co. v. Board of As- sessors, 91 Mich. 382, 51 N. W. 978— 1229. Detweiler T. Breckenkamp, 83 Mo. 45 — 289. Deutschman v. Bryne, 64 Ark. Ill, 40 S. W. 780—994. Devala, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 22 Ch. D. 593—340. Development Co. etc.. In re, 86 L. T. Rep. 323 (1902)— 57, 174, 594. Devendorf v. Beardsley, 23 Barb. 656— 1830, 1948. Devereges v. Sandeman, etc. Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 269 (1902)— 920, 930, 978. Deverges v. Sandeman, etc. Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 70—930, 935. Devine v. Brooklyn, etc. Co., 1 N. Y. App. Div. 237, 37 N. Y. Supp. 170— 2827. Devine v. Frankford, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 578 (Pa.)— 1533. Devlin v. Beacon, etc. Co., 192 Pa. St. 188, 43 Atl. 962—2828. Devlin v. Mayor, 63 N. Y. 8—2657. Devlin v. Pike, 5 Daly (N. Y.), 85— 1262. Devoe v. Ithaca, etc. R. R., 5 Paige, 521—1948. Devon, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 6 Bq. 610 (1868)— 592, 595, 2527, 2528. TABLE OF CASES. CXVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Devon, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 6 Eq. 615 . (1868)— 2527. Dewees v. Miller, 5 Harr. (Del.) 347 — 768. De Weese v. Smith, 97 Fed. 309—443, 484. Deweese v. Smith, 106 Fed. 438, 45 C. C. A. 408—443. Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co., 57 Vt. 332—425, 520. Dewey v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 91 Mich. 351, 51 N. "W. 1063—683, 1978, 2557. Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 193, 198, 24 L. Ed. 654—648, 840, 1685, 1878. De Witt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518— 370, 502, 505, 1944. De Witt V. Hastings, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 463—1944. De Witt V. Walton, 9 N. Y. 570, 571— 1812, 1817. De Witt, etc. Co. v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 314 (N. Y. C. P.)— 1052. De Wolf V. Mallett, 3 Dana (Ky.), 214 —1937. De Wolf V. Sprague Mfg. Co., 49 Conn. 282—1634. Dexter v. Bdmands, 89 Fed. 467 — 471, 472, 484. Dexter v. Long, 2 Wash. St. 435, 27 Pao. 271, 26 Am. St. Rep. 867—2147, 2149. Dexter v. McClellan, 116 Ala. 37, 22 South. 461—957, 1468, 1986. Dexter, etc. Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich. 91 —211, 284, 285. Dexter Sav. Bank v. Friend, 90 Fed. 703—1767, 1785. Dexterville, etc. Co., In re, 4 Fed. 873 —2361. De Zeng v.. Beekman, 2 Hill, 489— 1840. Dial V. Valley, ete. Assoc, 29 S. C. 560, 8 S. E. 27—1761. Diamond, etc. v. Davenport, etc. Co., 115 Iowa, 480, 88 N. W. 959—2785. Diamond, etc. Co. v. Rarig Co., 93 Va. 595, 25 S. E. 894—2491. Diamond, etc. Co. v. San Antonio, etc. Ry., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 587, 33 S. W. 987—2430. Diamond, etc. Co. v. United States, etc. Co., 187 V. S. 611, 23 Sup. Ct. 206— 1677. Diamond Match Co. v. Powers, 51 Mich. 145, 16 N. W. 314—1094, 1672, 1673. Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. Rep. 464—1053. Dias V. Merle, 2 Paige, 494 — 1104. Dibble v. Richardson, 171 N. Y. 131, 63 N. E. 829—741, 905, 931. Dick v. Balch, 8 Peters, 30, 8 L. Ed. 856—187. Dick V. Struthers, 25 Fed. 103—2410, 2411. Dickenson v. Lilwal, 1 Starkie, 128 (1815)— 908. Dickenson v. Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce, 29 Wis. 45, 9 Am. Rep. 544—1074. Dickerman v. Northern T. Co., 176 U. S. 181, 188, 191, 202, 203, 206, 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423—99, 100, 114, 125, 160, 172, 1060, 1452, 1471, 1474, 1481, 1697, 1902, 1932, 2006, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2032, 2044, 2108, 2130, 2136, 2214, 2218, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2251, 2269, 2275, 2277, 2363, 2371, 2377. Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 80 Fed. 450, 25 C. C. A. 549—100, 2006, 2248, 2276, 2277, 2484. Dickerson's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 198, 8 Atl. 64, 2 Am. St. Rep. 547— 662. Dickey v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 122 Mo. 223, 26 S. W. 685—2580. Dickey v. Maine Tel. Co., 46 Me. 483— 2828. Dickinson v. Central Nat. Bank, 129 Mass. 279, 37 Am. Rep. 351—47, 706, 848, 938, 1120. Dickinson v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 232, 119 Fed. 871—1522, 1558, 1564, 1723, 1856, 1907, 2563, 2578. Dickinson v. Consolidated Traction Co., 119 Fed. 871—1522, 1723, 2563. Dickinson v. (Gray, 89 Mass. 29, 83 Am. Dec. 656—914. Dickinson v. Valpy, 10 B. & C. 128 (1829)— 1709, 1978. Dickinson's Appeal, 152 Mass. 184, 25 N. E. 99, 9 L. R. A. 279—715. Dickson v. Great Northern Ry., L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 176 (1886)— 2644. Dickson v. McMurray, 28 Grant's Ch. Rep. (Can.) 533 (1881)— 1292, 1293. Dickson v. Thomas, 97 Pa. St. 278 — 769, 770, 775. Dickson v. Valentine, 6 N. Y. Supp. 540—941. Diggle V. London Ry., 5 Exch. 442 (1850)— 1802. Dill V. Wabash Valley R. R., 21 111. 91—306. Dillard v. Central Va. Iron Co., 82 Va. 734, 1 S. E. 124—1961. Dillaway v. Alden, 88 Me. 230, 33 Atl. 981—776. Dillaway v. Boston, etc. Co., 174 Mass. 80, 54 N. B. 359—702, 1462, 2164, 2180, 2206. Diller v. Brubaker, 52 Pa. St. 498, 91 Am. Dec. 177—977. CXVlll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dilley v. Wilkes-Barre, etc. Ry., 2 Pa. Dist. 91—2702. Dillingham v. Crank, 87 Tex. 104, 27 S. W. 93—2828. Dillingham v. Hawk, 60 Fed. 494, 9 C. C. A. 101, 23 L. R. A. 517—2420. Dillon V. Anderson, 43 N. Y. 231— 2657. Dillon V. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430, 22 L. Ed. 673—2345. Dillon V. Barnard, 1 Holmes, 386, 7 Fed. Cas. 714—2345. Dillon V. Commercial Cable Co., 87 Hun, 444, 34 N. Y. Supp. 370—1716. Dillon V. Lee, 110 Iowa, 156, 162, 81 N. W. 245—1903. Dillon V. Oregon, etc. Ry., 66 Fed. 622 —2393. Diman v. Providence, etc. R. R., 5 R. I. 130—182. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, 3 H. L. Cas. 759—40. Dimmick v. Register, 92 Ala. 458, 9 South. 79—1581. Dimpfel v. 0. & M. Ry., 110 U. S. 209, 3 Sup. Ct. 573, 28 L. Ed. 121—1855, 1895, 2106, 2549. Dimpfel v. O. & M. Ry., 9 Biss. 127, 7 Fed. Cas. 722—1855, 2106, 2549. Dingman v. People, 51 111. 277—2603. Dingwell v. Askew, 1 Cox Ch. 427 (1788)— 661. Dinkier v. Baer, 92 Ga. 432, 17 S. B. 953—310, 742, 763. Dinsmore v. Central R. R., 19 Fed. 153—1893. Dinsmore v. Racine, etc. R. R., 12 Wis. 649—2317, 2320. Dinsmore v. Southern, . etc. Co., 92 Fed. 714—1204, 1598. Direct, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 34 Ch. D. 307 (1886)— 635. Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Dominion Tel. Co., 84 N. Y. 153—1951. Disborough v. Outcalt, 1 N. J. Eq. 298, 306— 99C. Distilling, etc. Co. v. People, 156 111. 448, 41 N. B. 188, 47 Am. St. Rep. 200—1045, 1397, 1405. District of Columbia v. Camden, etc. Works, 181 U. S. 453, 460, 21 Sup. Ct. 680, 45 L. Ed. 948—1804. District of Columbia v. Washington, etc. R. R., 4 Mackey, 214, 233—2719. Dittey t. First Nat. Bank, 112 Ala. . 391, 20 South. 476—1013. Dlttman, Matter of, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 343, 72 N. Y. Supp. 886—1390, 1845. Dittman v. Distilling Co., 54 Atl. 570 (N. J.)— 696. Diven v. Lee, 36 N. Y. 302 — 425, 449. Diven v. Phelps, 34 Barb. 224—480. Diversey v. Smith, 103 111. 378, 42 Am. Rep. 14—463. Divine v. Universal, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 93—101, 135, 160, 1489. Dix V. Shaver, 14 Hun, 392—232. Dixon, Ex parte, 1 Dr. & Sm. 225 (I860)— 563. Dixon V. Bvans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606 (1872)— 294, 343, 353. Dixon V. Kennaway & Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 833—640. Dixon V. Western Union Tel. Co., 68 Fed. 630—2834. Dixon County v. Field, 111 U. S. 83, 4 Sup. Ct 315, 28 L. Ed. 360—243, 247. Dixon's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 79 (1869)— 343. Doak V. Bank of the State, 6 Ired. L. (N. C.) 309 (1846)— 931, 971. Doak V. Stahlman, 58 S. W. 741 (Tenn.)— 85, 131, 159, 202, 366, 397, 399, 417, 689, 1507, 1935, 2009. Doane v. Chicago City Ry., 160 111. 22, 45 N. E. 507, 35 L. R. A. 588— 2703. Doane v. King, 30 Fed. 106—793. Doane v. Lake St. El. R. R., 165 111. 510, 46 N. E. 520, 36 L. R. A. 97, 56 Am. St. Rep. 265—2689. Dobbins v. Walton, 37 Ga. 614, 95 Am. Dec. 37—1129. Doboy, etc. Tel. Co. v. De Magathlas, 25 Fed. 697—2849. Dabson, Ex parte, 2 Mount., D. & De G. 685 (1842)— 848. Dobson V. More, 164 111. 110, 45 N. B. 243, 56 Am. St. Rep. 184—1790, 2071. Dobson V. Peck Bros. & Co., 103 Fed. 904—1573, 2385, 2488, 2527. Dobson V. Peck Bros. & Co., 119 Fed. 254—2230. Dobson V. Simonton, 86 N. C. 492 — 1447. Dock V. Schlichter, etc. Co., 167 Pa. St. 370, 31 Atl. 656—1142, 1143. Dockery v. Miller, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 731—1627. Dr. Jaeger's, etc. Ltd. v. Walker & Sons, 77 L. T. Rep. 180 (1897)— 1835. Dodd V. Consolidated Traction Co., 5T N. J. L. 482, 31 Atl. 980—2820. .Dodd V. Wilkinson, 42 N. J. Eq. 647, 9 Atl. 685—1626. Dodd V. Winship, 133 Mass. 359—1194. Dodds, In re, 64 L. T. Rep. 476 (1891) —886. Dodds V. Hills, 2 Hem. & H. 424— 722, 885. Dodge V. American, etc. Co., 109 Ga. 394, 34 S. E. 672—1803, 1811. Dodge V. Council Bluffs, 57 Iowa, BiBO, 10 N. W. 886—2629. Dodge V. Lawson, N. Y. L. J., April 20, ■ 1892—964. TABLE OF OASES. OXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dodge V. Minnesota, etc. Co., 16 Minn. 368 (Gil. 327)— 452. Dodge V. Mission Tp., 107 Fed. 827, 46 C. C. A. 661, 54 L. R. A. 242—251. Dodge V. Platte County, 82 N. Y. 218, 16 Hun, 285—247, 252. Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 15 L. Ed. 401—1023, 1204, 1235, 1452, 1595, 1868, 1933. Dodge City, etc. Co. v. Alfalfa, etc. Co., 67 Pac. 462 (Kan.)— 2775. Dodgson V. Scott, 2 Exch. 457 (1848) — 566. Dodgson's Case. 3 De G. & Sm. 85 (1849)— 311. Doe V. Miller, 1 B. & Aid. 699 (1818) — 67. Doe V. Northwest, etc. Co., 64 Fed. 928—2375. Doe V. Northwestern, etc. Co., 78 Fed. 62—641, 965, 1503, 1631, 1681, 1988, 2047, 2464, 2465. Doe V. Talnere, 12 Q. B. 1011 (1848) — 1803. . Doernbecher v. Columbia, etc. Co., 21 Or. 573, 28 Pac. 899, 28 Am. St. Rep. 766—415, 1743. Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213, 61 N. B. 255—706. Dolan T. N. Y. etc. R. R., 74 N. Y. App. Div. 434, 77 N. Y. Supp. 815—2688. Dolan V. Wllkerson, 57 Kan. 758, 48 Pac. 23—1575, 1844. Dolgeville, etc. Co., Matter of, 160 N. - Y. 500, 55 N. E. 287—1389, 1751. Dolloret v. Rothschild, 1 Sim. & S. 590 (1824)— 753. Doman's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 21 (1876) —2746. Domestic, etc. Assoc, v. Guadiano, 195" 111. 222, 63 N. E. 98—1766, 1825. Domestic, etc. Soc.'s Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 425—67. Domestic Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Mayor, 49 N. J. L. 344, 8 Atl. 1^8—2819. Donahue v. McCosh, 70 Iowa, 733, 30 N. W. 14—739. Donald v. American, etc. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 458, 48 Atl. 786—161. Donald v. American, etc. Co., 62 N. J. Bq. 729, 48 Atl. 771, 1116—161. Donald v. Suckling, L. R. 1 Q. B. 585, 604 (1866)— 931, 958, 962. Donaldson v. Gillot, L. R. 3 Eq. 274 (1866)— 886. Donham v. Hahn, 127 Mo. 439, 30 S. W. 134—1637. Donnally v. Hearndon, 41 W. Va. 519, 23 S. E. 646—963, 1010, 1144, 1156, 1579. Donnell v. Lewis County Sav. Bank, 80 Mo. 165—1787, 1970. Donnell v. WyckofC, 49 N. J. L. 48, 7 Atl. 762—946, 976, 979.- Donnelly v. Pancoast, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 323, 44 N. Y. Supp. 104—488, 1740. Donoghue v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 87 Mich. 13, 49 N. W. 512—1725. Donohoe v. Mariposa, etc. Co., 66 Cal. 317, 319, 5 Pac. 495—1933. Donohoe v. Meeker, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 43, 54 N. Y. Supp. 286—1604, 1978. Donovan v. AUert, 91 N. W. 441, 58 L. R. A. 775 (N. D.)— 2796. Donovan v. Finn, 1 Hopk. Ch. 59, 67, 14 Am. Dec. 531 (1823)— 992. Donovan v. Penn. Co., 120 Fed. 215— 2649. ; Donovan v. Penn. Co., 116 Fed. 907 — 2649. ' Donworth v. Coolbaugh, 5 Iowa, 300 — 471. D'Ooge V. Leeds, 176 Mass. 558, 57 N. B. 1025—585, 1092, 1141, 1194, 2012. Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 81 Mass. 494—1425. Dooley v. Pease, 79 Fed. 860—1791. Dooley v. Walcott, 86 Mass. 406 — 1420. Doolittle, In re, 23 Fed. 544—2624. Doolittle V. Hoyle, 98 N. Y. 648— 1150. Doolittle V. Marsh, 11 Neb. 243, 9 N. W. 54—437. Doon V. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366, 12 Sup. Ct. 220, 35 L. Ed. 1044—245. Door V. Geary, 1 Ves. Sr. 255 (1749) — 657. Doran v. Eaton, 40 Minn. 35, 41 N< W. 244—807. Doremus v. Dutch, etc. Co., 3 N. J. Bq. 332—1738. Dorison v. Westbrook, 5 Vin. Abr. 540 (1722)— 753. Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. Co., 7 Fla. 265—376, 378. Dormitzer v. Illinois, etc. Co., 6 Fed. 217—1182. Dornan v. Swift, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 457, 41 Atl. 1105—223. Dorr V. Life Ins. etc. Co., 71 Minn. 38, 73 N. W. 635, 70 Am. St. Rep. 309— 1118. Dorris v. French, 4 Hun, 292 — 178, 370, 374, 379, 389, 410. Dorris v. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463—371, 384. Dorsey, etc. Co. v. Marsh, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 387, 7 Fed. Cas. 939—1598. Dorsey Mach. Co. v. McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 545, 38 N. E. 208, 47 Am. St. Rep. 290—340. Dorsheimer v. Glenn, 51 Fed. 404, 2 C. C. A. 309—189, 387. Doss V. Missouri, etc. R. R., 59 Mo. 27, 21 Am. Rep. 371-77. cxx TABLE OF OASBS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Doty V. First Nat. Bank, 3 N. Dak. 9, 53 N. W. 77, 17 L. R. A. 259—870, 1008, 1019, 1357. Doty V. Michigan Central R. R., 8 Abb. Pr. 427—1955. • Doty V. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60, 56 N. B. 668—500. Doud V. National Park Bank, 54 Fed. 846, 4 C. C. A. 607—225. Doiud V. Wisconsin, etc. Ry., 65 Wis. 108, 25 N. W. 533, 56 Am. Rep. 620— 1910. Dougan v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 483, 44 N. Y. Supp. 503—2083. Dougan's Case, 28 L. T. Rep. 60, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 540—374, 1555, 2575, 2587. Dougherty v. Hunter, 54 Pa. St. 380— 1777. Dougherty v. King, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 58 N. Y. Supp. 67—2491. Doughty V. Lomagunda Reefs Lim- ited, 88 L. T. Rep. 337 (1903) — 1561, 1897. Doughty V. Somerville, etc. R. R., 21 N. J. L. 442—2625. Douglas V. Carpenter, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 329, 45 N. Y. Supp. 219—944, 955. Douglas V. Chatham, 41 Conn. 211 — 244. Douglas V. Congreve, 1 Keen, 410 (1836)— 45, 657. Douglas V. Douglas, Kay, 404 (1854) — 656. Douglas V. Merceles, 25 N. J. Eq. 144 — 1256. Douglas V. Niantic Sav. Bank, 97 111. 228—262. Douglas -iv. Richmond, etc. R. R., 106 N. C. 65, 10 S. E. 1048—1896. Douglas V. Smith, 74 Iowa, 468, 38 N. W. 163—771. Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.), 608, 609, 628—2354, 2452. Douglass V. Concord, etc. R. R., 54 Atl. 883 (N. H.)— 1338, 1854, 1864, 2584. Douglass V. Craft, 9 Cal. 562—1262. Douglass V. Ireland, 73 N. Y. 100— 152, 153. Douglass V. Merchants' Ins. Co , 118 N. Y. 484, 23 N. E. 806, 7 L. R A. 822—1730. Douglass V. Mobile Branch Bank 19 Ala. 659—65. Douglass V. Phenix Ins. Co., 138 N Y 209, 33 N. E. 938, 20 L. R. A. il8, 34 Am. St. Rep. 448, 63 Hun, 393, 18 N. Y. Supp. 259—1950, 2745. Douglass V. President, etc., 22 Md 219, 85 Am. Dec. 647—2748 Dousman v. Wisconsin, etc. Co., 40 Wis. 418—628, 629. Dovey, etc. v. Cory (1901), A. C. 477— 1165, 1172, 1184. Dovey's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 153 — 795, 796, 832. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680, 8 Sup. Ct. 1028, 31 L. Ed. 841—2611. Dow V. Beidelman, 49 Ark. 325, 5 S. W. 297—2611. Dow V. Gould, etc. Co., 31 Cal. 629— 704, 749, 1146. Dow V. Iowa Cent. Ry., 144 N. Y. 426, 39 N. E. 398—2518. Dow V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 124 V. S. 652, 8 Sup. Ct. 673, 31 L. Ed. 565— 2302, 2305. Dow V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 20 Fed. 260—2125, 2183, 2186, 2194, 2220, 2237, 2353, 2363. Dow V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 20 Fed. 768—2302. Dow V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 32 Fed. 185, 23 Blatchf. 84—2475. Dow V. Northern R. R., 67 N. H. 1, 36 Atl. 510—1039. Dow V. Swain, 125 Cal. 674, 58 Pac. 271—794. Dowagiac, etc. Co. v. Higlnbotham, 91 N. W. 330 (S. Dak.)— 1944. Dowd v. Stephenson, 105 N. C. 467, 10 S. E. 1101—1771. Downer v. Whittier, 144 Mass. 448, 11 N. E. 585—974. Downer v. Zanesville Bank, Wright (Ohio), 477—1118, 1122, 1123. Downes v. Ship, L. R. 3 H. L. 343 (1868)— 317, 384, 1859. Downie v. Hoover, 12 Wis. 174, 78 Am. Dec. 730—278. Downie v. White, 12 Wis. 176, 78 A^i. Dec. 731—308, 344. Downing v. Dunlap Coal, etc. Co., 93 Tenn. 221, 24 S. W. 122—1919. Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366, 384, 392, 80 Am. Dec. 290—1660, 1664, 1666. Downing v. Mt. Washington Road Co., 40 N. H. 230—2643. Downing v. Potts, 23 N. J. L. 66—295, 1294, 1310, 1312. 1339. Downs V. Bennett, 63 Kan. 653, 66 Pac. 623, 55 L. R. A. 560, 88 Am. St. Rep. 256—20, 1046. Downs V. Farmers* L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 215, 24 C. C. A. 500—2305. Downs V. Self, 67 S. W. 897 (Tex.)— 789. Dows V. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 20 L. Ed. 65—1228. Dows V. Glasfield, 4 N. D. 251, 60 N. W. 60—779. Dows V. Naper, 91 111. 44—370. TABLE OF CASES. CXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dowson V. Gaskoin, 2 Keen, 14 (1837) —657. Doyle, Ex parte, 2 Hall & T. 221—537. Doyle V. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 148—1672, 1674, 1675. Doyle V. Leltelt, 97 Mich. 298, 56 N. W. 553—1554. 1649. Doyle v. Mlzner, 42 Mich. 332, 3 N. W. 968—1427. 1744. Doyle V. Muntz, 5 Hare, 509 (1846) — 1881. Doyle V. San Diego, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 349—1111. Doyle V. San Diego, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 709—1421. Dozier v. Arkadelphia, etc. Co., 67 Ark. 11, 53 S. W. 403—1656. Drake v. Flewelleu, 33 Ala. 106 — 1818. Drake v. Holbrook, 66 S. W. 512 (Ky.) —794, 806, 1266. Drake v. New York, etc. Co., 26 N. Y. App. 499, 50 N. Y. Supp. -826—107, 108, 127, 1857, 2277. Drake v. New York, etc. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 275, 55 N. Y. Supp. 225— 127, 1529, 1554, 1884, 1927, 1983, 2266, 2267, 2272, 2275, 2327, 2510. Drake v. New York, L. & W. Ry. Co., 151 N. Y. 648, 45 N. E. 1131—1613. Drake v. Siebold, 81 Hun, 178, 30 N. Y. Supp. 697—1051. Draper v. Beadle, 16 Weekly Dig. 475 —153. Draper v. Manchester, etc. R. R., 3 De G., F. & J. 23 (1861), 7 Jur. (N. S.) pt. 1, 86 (1861)— 1103. Draper v. Mass. etc. Co., 87 Mass. 338 —1817. Draper v. Springport, 104 U. S. 501, 26 L. Ed. 812—257. Dreisbach v. Price, 133 Pa. St. 560, 19 Atl. 569—426, 544. Dreisbach v. Ross, 195 Pa. St. 278. 45 Atl. 722—2299, 2732. Drennen v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 115 Ala. 592, 23 South. 164, 39 L. R. A. 623, 67 Am. St. Rep. 72—2360. Drew V. Longwell, 81 Hun, 144, 30 N. Y. Supp. 733—1448, 1613. Driffield Gas L. Co., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 451—1440. Drinkwater v. Falconer, 2 Ves. Sr. 622 (1755)— 653. Drinkwater v. Portland Marine Ry., 18 Me. 35—395, 445, 464. DriscoU V. West Bradley, etc. Co., 59 N. Y. 96-1114, 1116, 1117, 1119. Driver v. Broad (1893), 1 Q. B. 539, 744—2093. Droitwich Salt Co. v. Curzon, L. R. 3 Exch. 35, 42 (1867)— 614, 637. Dronfield, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 76, 97 (1880)— 121, 342. 344, 349, 668. Drover v. Evans, 59 Ind. 454—208. Drovers,' etc. Bank v. Hughes, 83 Md. 355, 34 Atl. 1012—1202. Drum, etc. Co., In re, 53 L. T. 250 (1885)— 1467. Drummond v. Crane, 159 Mass. 577, 35 N. E. 90, 23 L. R. A. 707, 38 Am. St. Rep. 460—1706. Drummond County v. South Eastern Ry., 24 L. C. Jurist, 276—2599. Drummond's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 772 (1869)— 80, 88. Drummond Tobacco Co. v. Randle, 114 111. 412, 2 N. B. 536—61. Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299, 19 L. Ed. 40—977, 2031, 2257, 2264, 2275. Drury v. Midland R. R., 127 Mass. 571, 582—2771. Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Wms. 127 (1723)— 44. Dryden v. Kellogg, 2 Mo. App. 87 — 396, 437, 447, 448. Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 177 — 247, 259. Dublin, etc. Ry. v. Black, 7 Railw. & Can. Cas. 434 (1852), 8 Exch. 181— 206, 542, 703. Dubois V. Delaware, etc. Co., 4 Wend. 285—1802, 1817. Du Bois V. Du Bois, etc. Waterworks, 176 Pa. St. 430. 35 Atl. 248. 34 L. R. A. 92, 53 Am. St. Rep. 678— 2773. Dubois V. Sistare, N. Y. L. 'j., Dec. 9, 1890—971. Dubois V. Thompson, 1 Daly, 309 — ■911, 1248. Dubuque County v. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 4 Greene (Iowa), 1—245. Ducarry v. Gill, 4 Car. & P. 121 (1830) —1751. Ducat V. Chicago, 48 111. 172, 95 Am. Dec. 529—1672, 1676. Ducat V. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 19 L. Ed. 972—1672, 1674. Duce, Ex parte, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 429 (1879)— 1308. Duchemip v. Kendall, 149 Mass. 171, 21 N. B. 242, 3 L. R. A. 784—745. Duck V. Tower, etc. Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 314—1824. 2143. Duckett V. Glover, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 82 (1877)— 1897. Duckworth v. Roach, 81 N. Y. 49— 463. Duclos V. Benner, 5 N. Y. Supp. 733 — 1200. Dudley v. Collier, 87 Ala. 431, 6 South. 304, 13 Am. St. Rep. 55—1682, 1683. Dudley v. Congregation, etc. St. Fran- ces, 138 N. Y. 451, 34 N. E. 281— 1823, 2055, 2109, 2280. Dudley v. Dakota, etc. Co., 11 S. Dak. 559, 79 N. W. 839—1920. cxxu TABLE OF CASES. rrhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dudley v. Gould, 6 Hun, 97—827, 980, 986, 1004, 2422. Dudley v. Kentucky High School, 9 Bush (Ky.), 576—1297, 1750. Dudley v. Price, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 84—1181, 1182. Dueber, etc. Co. v. Daugherty, 62 Ohio St. 589, 57 N. E. 455—795, 890, 1373. Duesler v. City of Johnstown, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 608, 48 N. Y. Supp. 683— 2779. Duff V. Maguire, 99 Mass. 300-1085. Duffield V. Barnum, etc. Works, 64 Mich. 293, 31 N. W. 310—338. Duffy V. Mutual Brewing Co., N. Y. L. J. 18—1104. Duggan V. Colorado, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113, 17 Pac. 105—1419. Duggan V. Pacific Boom Co., 6 Wash. 593, 34 Pac. 157, 36 Am. St. Rep. 182—1794. Duguid V. Edwards, 50 Barb. 288—914. Duke V. Andrews, 2 Exch. 290 (1848) —1709. Duke V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 Ala. 82, 44 Am. Dec. 472—847. Duke V. Diver, 1 Exch. 36 (1847), 1 Exch. 356 (1847)— 1709. Duke V. Markham, 105 N. C. 131, 10 S. E. 1017, 18 Am. St. Rep. 889—1383, 1748, 2148. Duke V. Taylor, 37 Pla. 64, 19 South. 172, 31 L. R. A. 484, 53 Am. St. Rep. 232—516, 1269. Duke's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 620 (1876) —669. Dulaney v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 100 Ky. 628, 38 S. W. 1050—2689. Dulin V. Pacific, etc. Co., 103 Cal. 357, 35 Pac. 1045, 37 Pac. 207—1304, 1343, 1750. Dullnig V. Weekes, 40 S. W. 178 (Tex.) —985. Duluth V. Duluth, etc. Co., 45 Minn. 210, 47 N. W. 781—2764. Duluth Club V. McDonald, 74 Minn. 254, 76 N. W. 1128, 73 Am. St. Rep. 344—518. Duluth Inv. Co. v. De Witt, "63 Minn. 538, 65 N. W. 956—391. Dummer v. Chippenham, 14 Ves. Jr. 245 (1807)— 1110. Dummer v. Pitcher, 2 M. & K. 262 (1833), 5 Sim. 35 (1831)— 663. Dummer v. Smedley, 110 Mich. 466, 60 N. W. 260, 38 L. R. A. 490—119, 2006. Duncan v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 88 Fed. 840, 843, 844, 850, 852, 4 Hughes, 125, 151—2281, 2284, 2285, 2286, 2289, 2291, 2353, 2476, 2490. Duncan v. Hill, L. R. 6 Exch. 255 (1871)— 914. Duncan v. Jaudon, 15 Wall. 165, 21 L. Ed. 142—717, 721, 723, 959. Duncan v. Jones, 32 Hun, 12 — 1081. Duncan v. Duntley,' 2 Macn. & G. 30 (1849)— 643. Duncan v. Maryland Sav. Inst., 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 299—1625. Duncan v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 567, 8 Fed. Cas. 19—2055, 2057, 2059, 2274. Duncan v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 597, 8 Fed. Cas. 25—2188, 2500, 2509, 2511. Duncan v. Treadwell Co., 82 Hun, 376, 31 N. Y. Supp. 340—1924, 2372. Duncomb v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 84 N. Y. 190, 202, 204, 206, 208—641, 940, 958, 963, 988, 1518, 1644, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 2005, 2029, 2030, 2108. Duncomb v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 88 N. Y. 1—1644. Duncuft V. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189 (1841) —753, 762. Dundas v. Desjardins Canal Co., 17 Grant's Ch. (U. C.) 27 (1870)— 2123. Dundas v. Dutens, 1 Ves. Jr. 196 (1790) —992. Dundee, etc. Co, v. Cooper, 26 Fed. 665 —1419. Dundee, etc. Co. v. Hughes, 89 Fed. 182—1447. Dundee, etc. Co. v. Hughes, 77 Fed. 855—1448. Dundee, etc. Co. v. Nixon, 95 Ala. 318, . 10 South. 311—1681. Dunham v. Boyd, 64 Conn. 397, 30 Atl. 62—951. Dunham v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 1 Wall. 254, 17 L. Ed. 584—2058, 2323, 2344. Dunham v. Earl, 8 Fed. Cas. 41—2323. Dunham v. Isett, 15 Iowa, 284 — 2113, 2303, 2306. Dunkerson, In re, 4 Biss 227, 8 Fed. Cas. 48—1115, 1133. Dunkle v. Renick, 6 Ohio St. 527 — 1629. Dunklee v. Butler, 30 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 58, 62 N. Y. Supp. 921—716. Dunlap V. Rauch, 24 Wash. 620, 64 Pac. 807—148. Dunlop V. Dunlop, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 583 (1882)— 1123, 1124, 1129, 1132. Dunlop V. Paterson, etc. Ins. Co., 12 Hun, 627—2392, 2425. Dunlop V. Paterson, etc. Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 145, 30 Am. Rep. 283—2392, 2412, 2425. Dunlop-Truffault, etc. Co., In re, 75 L. T. Rep. 385 (1896)— 333. Dunman v. Strother, 1 Tex. 89, 46 Am. Dec 97 768 Dunn V. Bell, 85 Tenn. 581, 4 S. W. 41 —780. Dunn V. Commercial Bank, 11 Barb. 580—844, 855, 1131. Dunn V. Howe, 96 Fed. 160—168, 179, 416. TABLE OF OASES. CXXUl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text,] Dunn V. Howe, 107 Fed. 849, 47 C. C. A. 13—549, 550, 578. Dunn V. Kyle, 14 Bush (Ky.), 134— 1693. Dunn V. St. Andrews' Ch., 14 Johns. 118—1798, 1801, 1802. Dunn V. Star F. Ins. Co., 19 N. Y. Week. Dig. 531—853, 1005. Dunn V. State Bank, 59 Minn. 221, 61 N. W. 27—791. 815. Dunne v. English, L. R. 18 Eq. 524 (1874)— 1482. Dunne v. Portland, etc. Ry., 65 Pac. 1052 (Or.)— 388, 487. Dunnovan v. Green, 57 111. 63 — 245, 261. Dunphy v. Traveller Assoc, 146 Mass. 495. 16 N. E. 426—1860, 1900, 1911. Dunstan v. Imperial, etc. Co., 3 B. & Ad. 125 (1832)— 37. Dunston v. Hoptonie Co., 83 Mich. 372, 47 N. W. 322— 4Q8. Dunston v. Imperial, etc. Co., 3 B. & Ad. 125 (1832)— 22, 1502. Dupee V. Boston Water-Power Co., 114 Mass. 37—671, 677, 1601, 1665. Dupee V. Chicago, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 40, 54 C. C. A. 426—181. Dupignac v. Bernstrom, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 105, 78 N. Y. Supp. 705—585, 868. 1136, 1162, 1253. 1506, 1589. 1728, 1763. Dupignac v. Bernstrom, 37 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 678, 76 N. Y. Supp. 381—1162, 1728. Dupont V. Bushong, 1 W. N. Cas. 378 — 2064. Du Pont V. Northern Pac. R. R., 18 Fed. 467—1488, 1496, 1893, 2029, 2114. 2115. Du Pont V. Tilden, 42 Fed. 87—126, 171. Dupuis V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 115 111. 97, 100, 3 N. E. 720—2771. Dupuy V. Delaware Ins. Co., 63 Fed. 680—2285. Du Puy V. Transportation, etc. Co., 82 Md. 408, 33 Atl. 889, 34 Atl. 910— 817, 1478, 1925. Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161—772, 779, 910. Duranty's Case, 26 Beav. 268—312, 328, 330. Durar v. Hudson, etc. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 171—1786, 1800. Durfee v. Harper, 22 Mont. 354, 56 Pac. 582—865, 868, 985, 1328. Durfee v. Johnstown, etc. R. R., 71 Hun, 279, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1016—2566. Durfee v. Old Colony, etc. R. R., 87 Mass. 230—1039, 1297, 2556, 2576, 2583. Durfee v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 140 III. 435, 30 N. E. 686—2637. Durgin v. American Exp. Co., 66 N. H. 277, 20 Atl. 328, 9 L. R. A. 453—2727. Durgin V. Smith, 115 Mich. 239, 73 N. W. 361—1712. Durham v. Monumental, etc. Co., 9 Oreg. 41—866, 1012. Durham County v. Blackwell, etc. Co., 116 N. C. 441, 21 S. E. 952—1215. Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Clute, 112 N. C. 440, 17 S. E. 419—1086. Durham's Case, 4 Kay & J. 517 — 436. Durkee v. Board of Liquidation, 103 XJ. S. 646, 26 L. Ed. 598—252. Durkee v. National Bank, etc., 102 Fed. 845, 42 C. C. A. 674—2448. Durkee v. People, 155 111. 354, 40 N. E. 626, 46 Am. St. Rep. 340—1290, 1349. Durkee v. People, 53 111. App. 396— 1349. Durlacher v. Frazer, 8 Wyo. 58, 55 Pac. 306, 80 Am. St. Rep. 918—1584. Durward v. Jewett, 46 La. Ann. 559, 15 South. 386—2391. Dusenbery v. Looker, 110 Mich. 58, 67 N. W. 986—1273, 1274. Dusenberry v. New York, etc. Co., 46 N. Y. App. Dlv. 267, 61 N. Y. Supp. 420—1430, 2680. Dusenbury v. Mutual Tel. Co., 11 Abb. N. C. 440—2795. Dutcher v. Importers', etc. Nat. Bank, 59 N. Y. 5—1638, 1891. Dutcher v. Marine Nat. Bank, 12 Blatchf. 435, 8 Fed. Cas. 152—438. Dutchess Cotton Co. Mfy. v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238, 7 Am. Dec. 459—219, 370, 1942. Dutchess County Ins. Co. v. Hachfield, 1 Hun, 675—1992, 2047. Dutchess County Ins. Co. v. Hachfield, 73 N. Y. 226—2047. Dutchess, etc. R. R. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397—182, 370. Dutch West India Co. v. Van Moses, 1 Strange, 612—64, 459. Dutenhofer v. Adirondack Ry., 14 N. Y. Supp. 558—2520. Dutton V. Connecticut Bank, 13 Conn. 493—855, 888, 1015. Dutton V. Ives, 5 Mich. 515 — 2051. Dutton v. Marsh, L. R. 6 Q. B. 361 (1871)— 1818. Duvergier v. Fellows, 5 Bing. 248 (1828), 10 B. & C. 826—1076. Dwight V. Boston, 94 Mass. 316, 90 Am. Dec. 149—1208. Dwight V. Elmira, 6tc. R. R., 132 N. Y. 199. 30 N. B. 398, 15 L. R. A. 612, 28 Am. St. Rep. 563—2821 Dwight V. Smith, 9 Fed. 795, 20 Blatchf. 210—2165, 2204. Dwight V. Smith, 13 Fed. 50—2165, 2204. CXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Dwinell v. Badger, 74 Minn. 405, 77 N. W. 219—482. Dwyer v. Buffalo Blec. Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 124, 46 N. Y. Supp. 874— 2836. Dwyer v. Fuller, 144 Mass. 420, 11 N. B. 686—797. Dyer v. Cranston, etc. Co., 22 R. I. 506, 48 Atl. 791—2779. Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 325, 23 Am. Rep. 460—44, 1208. Dyer v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 2 Port. (Ala.) 296, 27 Am. Dec 655—2724. Dyer v. Walker, 40 Pa. St. 157—1424. Dykeman v. Kenney, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 45, 54 N. Y. Supp. 1—1174. Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill, 497, 42 Am. Dec. 87—905, 943, 955, 956, 969, 986. Dykers v. Townsend, 24 N. Y. 57 — 773. Dykman v. Keeney, 154 N. Y. 483, 48 N. E. 894—1686. Dykman v. Keeney, 160 N. Y. 677, 54 N. E. 1090—1186. Dykman v. Keeney, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 610, 42 N. Y. Supp. 488—223, 1186. Dykman v. Keeney, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 131, 45 N. Y. Supp. 137—1186. Dysart v. Brown, 100 Ga. 1, 26 S. B. 767—2343. E. Eagan v. Clasbey, 5 Utah, 154, 13 Pac. 430—741. Eagle V. Beard, 33 Ark. 497—268. Eagle Ins. Co. v. Ohio, 153 U. S. 446, 14 Sup. Ct. 868, 38 L. Bd. 778—2742. Eagle Iron Works, In re, 3 Edw. Ch. (1840) 385—2386. Eagle Iron Works, In re, 8 Paige, 385 —2386. Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 4i Fed. 351— 1946. Eaglesfield v. Londonderry, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 693 (1876)— 196, 584, 693, 1619, 1975. Eaglesfield v. Londonderry (H. L.), 26 W. R. 540 (1878)— 331. Bakins v. American, etc. Co., 75 Mich. 568, 42 N. W. 982—1506. Bakright v. Logansport, etc., 13 Ind. 404—182; 183, 276, 284, 308. Bales V. Cumberland, etc. Co., 6 H. & N. 481 (1861)— 1505. Eames v. Doris, 102 111. 350 — 455, 457, 491. Bames v. Haver, 111 Cal. 401, 43 Pac. 1120—747. Earle, In re, 92 Fed. 22—985. Earle, In re, 96 Fed. 678—445, 2409. Earle v. Carson, 107 Fed. 639, 46 C. C. A. 498—560, 577. Earle v. Carson, 188 XJ. S. 42, 23 Sup. Ct. 254—560, 577. Barle v. Coyle, 97 Fed. 410, 38 C. C^ A. 226—561, 1356. Earle v. Humphrey, 121 Mich. 518 — 338, 2414. Earle v. .Rogers, 105 Fed. 208—537,- 1200. Barle v. Seattle, etc. Ry., 56 Fed. 909 — 1895, 1909, 2582, 2593. Earl of Lindsey v. Great Northern Ry., 10 Hare, 664 (1853)— 1714. Earl of Sandwich v. Great Northern- Ry., L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 707—2780. Barl of Shrewsbury v. North, etc. Ry.,. L. R. 1 Ea. 593 (1865)— 1714, 2649. Barl Powlet v. Herbert, 1 Ves. Jr.. 297 (1791)— 717. Early & Lane's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 411 — 672. Earp V. Lloyd, 3 K. & J. 549 (1857) — 1104. Barp's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 368—1142,. 1190. Barp's Will, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 453—1198. East Alabama Ry. v. Doe, 114 U. S.. 340, 350, 5 Sup. Ct. 869, 29 L. Ed.. 136—2599. East Anglian Ry. v. Eastern, etc. Ry., 11 C. B. 775 (1851)— 2574. • East Birmingham Land Co. v. Dennis,. 85 Ala. 565, 5 South. 317. 2 L. R. A. 836, 7 Am. St. Rep. 73—820. Bast Boston, etc. R. R. v. Eastern R. R., 95 Mass. 422—2113, 2115. Bast Boston, etc. R. R. v. Hubbard, 92 Mass. 459, note — 2115. Easterly v. Barber, 65 N. Y. 252—462, 1740. Eastern Building, etc. Ass'n v. William- son, 23 Sup. Ct. 527—1073, 1598. Eastern Counties Ry. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331 (1855)— 1661, 1663. Eastern, etc. Bank v. St. Johnsbury,, etc. R. R.. 40 Fed. 423—2082. Eastern, etc. Co., In re, 68 L. T. 321 (1893)— 1142. Eastern, etc. Co. v. Regina, 22 Bng. L. & Bq. 328 (1853)— 1399, 1409. Eastern, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 367 (1890)— 2116, 2306, 2599. Eastern, etc. Ry., In re, 65 L. T. Rep.. 668 (1891)— 2316. Eastern, etc. Ry., In re, 66 L. T. Rep.. 153 (1891)— 2438. Eastern, etc. Ry. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. . Cas. 331 (1855)— 1714. Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546—15, 219, 356, 1944. Eastern Plank-road v. Vaughan, 20' Barb. 155— 295> Eastern R. R. v. Benedict, 76 Mass.. 212—763, 1246, 1256, 1259. Eastern R. R. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 111". Mass. 125, 15 Am. Rep. 13—2634. TABLE OF OASES. oxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Eastern Townships Bank v. Vermont Nat. Bank, 22 Fed. 186, 22 Blatchf. 498—1624. East, etc. Church v. Proislie, 37 Minn. 447, 35 N. W. 260—1425. East, etc. Co. v. Brewer, 80 Ga. 258, 7 S. B. 273—1775. East, etc. Co. v. Littledale, 7 Hare, 57, 62 (1848)— 861. East, etc. Co. v. Merryweather, 2 Hem. & M. 254 (1854)— 1526. East, etc. Dock Co., In re, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 38—2528. East, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 8 Eq. 87 (1869)— 592. East Gloucestershire Ry. T. Bartholo- mew, L. R. 3 Exch. 15 (1867)— 52, 355, 856. Eastham v. Blackburn Ry., 23 L. J. Exch. 199—67. East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How. 511, 13 L. Ed. 518, 531— 2733. East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801, 24 L. Ed. 322—268. East Line, etc. Ry. v. State, 75 Tex. 434, 12 S. W. 690—1402, 1404, 2572, 2577. East Louisiana R. R. v. New Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 526, 15 South. 157—2666, 2669. Eastman v. Crosby, 90 Mass. 206—383, • 492. Eastman v. Fiske, 9 N. H. 182—746, 748, 888. Eastman v. Reld, 101 Ala. 320, 13 South. 46—760. East New York, etc. R. R. v. Elmore, 5 Hun, 214—193, 1154, 1517. East New York, etc. R. R. v. Lighthall, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 407—82. East Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S. 255, 24 L. Ed. 125—242. Easton v. German-American Bank, 127 V. S. 532, 8 Sup. Ct. 1297, 32 L. Ed. 210—977, 987, 2286, 2504, 2511. Easton v. Hodges, 18 Fed. 677—956. Easton v. Houston, etc. Ry., 38 Fed. 12—2361. Easton v. Houston, etc. Ry., 40 Fed. 189—2473. Easton v. London J. S. Bank, L. R. 34 Ch. D. 95 (1886)— 846, 886. East Pascagoula Hotel Co. v. "West, 13 La. Ann. 545 — 370. East River Bank v. Hoyt, 41 Barb. 441 —1828. East River Bridge Co., In re, 75 Hun, 119, 27 N. Y. Supp. 145—128. East River, etc. Co. v. Grant, 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 553, 9 N. Y. Supp. 317— 2846. East Rome, etc. Co. v. Nagle, 58 Ga. 474—2648. East St. Louis v. East St. Louis, etc. Co., 98 111. 415, 38 "Am. Rep. 97— 2764. East St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. City of East St. Louis, 182 111. 433, 55 N. E. 533— ■ 2667. East St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Jarvis, 92 Fed. 735, 34 C. C. A. 639—1538, 1727, 1832, 2550. East Side Bank v. Columbus Tanning Co., 170 Pa. St. 1, 32 Atl. 539—1641. East Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Gaskell, 2 Lea (Tenn.), 742—1417. Bast Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Leeson, 66 N. E. 427 (Mass.)— 1474. East Tennessee, etc. Co. v. London, etc. Co., 60 S. W. 502 (Tenn.)— 1994, 2340. East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Atlanta, etc. R. R., 49 Fed. m)8, 15 L. R. A. 109—1964, 2226, 2372, 2394. Bast Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567—213, 214, 306, 310, 1297. East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Grayson, 119 U. S. 240, 7 Sup. Ct. 190, 30 L. Ed. 382—1868, 1899. East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Pickerd, 24 Fed. 614—1234, 1235. East Tennessse, etc. Ry. v. Frazier, 139 U. S. 288, 11 Sup. Ct. 517, 35 L. Ed. 196—2115, 2337. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. v. Nashville, etc. Ry., 51 S. W. 202 (Tenn.)— 2593. Basun v. Buckeye Brewing Co., 51 Fed. 156—1565. Eaton V. Asplnwall, 19 N. Y. 119—370. Eaton V. Pacific Nat. Bank, 144 Mass. 260, 10 N. E. 844—629. Eaton V. Robinson, 18 R. I. 396, 27 Atl. 595—1912. Eaton V. Robinson, 19 ,R. I. 146, 31 Atl. 1058, 32 Atl. 339, 29 L. R. A. 100—1501, 1508, 1879, 1912. Eaton V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 7 Fed. 139, 2 McCrary, 362—1953, 1957. Eaton V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579, 43 N. W. 638, 6 L. R. A. 102—508. Eaton, etc. R. R. v. Hunt, 20 Ind. 457 — 2195, 2233, 2587, 2650. Bau Claire, etc. Bank v. Benson, 106 Wis. 624, 82 N. W. 604—433, 465. Ebbett's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 302 (1S70), 18 W. R. 202 (1869)— 205, 542, 543. Ebbinghousen v. Worth Club, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 300—1071. Ebbw Vale Steel, etc. Co., In te, L R Ch. D. 827 (1877)— 635. Ebner v. Zimmerly, 118 Fed. 818, 55 C. C. A. 430—1930. Eby V. Guest, 94 Pa. St. 160—672, 1005. Eby V. Northern Pac. R. R., 36 Leg. Int. 164—1966. CXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Eby V. Northern Pac. R. R., 13 Phila. 144—1953. Echols V. Bristol, 90 Va. 165, 17 S. E. 943—236. Echols V. Smith, 42 S. W. 538 (Ky.)— 2417. Eckfeldt's Estate, 7 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 19—651, 653, 655. Eckstein t. Downing, 64 N. H. 248, 9 Atl. 626, 10 Am. St. Rep. 404—755. Eclipse Towboat Co. v. Pontchartrain R. R., 24 La. Ann. 1, 13—2597, 2607. Economy, etc. Assoc, v. Paris, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 21 (Ky.)— 1386. Eddy V. Bay Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 668, 72 N. W. 890—1108. Eddy V. Lafayette, 163 U. S. 456, 16 Sup. Ct. 1082, 41 L. Ed. 225—2419. Eddy T. Lafayette, 49 Fed. 807, 1 C. C. A. 441—2419. Eddy V. People, 127 111. 428, 20 N. E. 83—255. Eddy V. Powell, 49 Fed. 814, 1 C. C. A. 448—2470. Eddystone, etc. Ins. Co., In re (1895), 1 Ch. 771—1471. Eddystone M. Ins. Co., In re (1893), 3 Ch. 9—132. Edelhoff V. Horner, etc. Co., 86 Md. 595, 39 Atl. 314—1635, 1779, 2147. Edelman v. Latshaw, 159 Pa. St. 644, 28 Atl. 475, 180 Pa. St. 419, 36 Atl. 926—785, 812. Edelstein v. Schuler, 87 L. T. Rep. 204 (1902)— 2043. Eden v. Ridsdales, etc. Co., L. R. 23 Q. B. D. 369 (1889)— 1467. Edgar v. Knapp, 7 Jur. 583 (1843) — 1702. Edgar Coll. Inst. v. People, 142 111. 363, 32 N. E. 494—1410. Edgell V. McLaughlin, 6 Whart. 176, 36 Am. Dec. 214—768. Edgerly v. Emerson, 23 N. H. 555, 55 Am. Dec. 207—1744, 1760. Edgerton, Matter of, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 125, 54 N. Y. Supp. 700—666, 1244. Edgerton v. Electric, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 354, 361, 24 Atl. 540—102, 161. Edgerton v. Power, 18 Mont. 350, 45 Pac. 204—1341, 1369. Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 N. J. L. 463, 33 Atl. 940—1081. Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 459 (1885)— 319, 323, 330. Edinboro Academy v. Robinson, 37 Pa. St. 210, 78 Am. Dec. 421—215. Edinburgh, etc. Ry. v. Hebblewhife, 6 M. & W. 707 (1840)— 284, 293. Edinburgh, etc. Ry. v. Philip, 2 Macq. H. L. Cas. 514, 526 (1857)— 1409. Edinburgh St. Tramways Co. v. Edin- burgh (1894), A. C. 456—2710. Edison V. Edison United Phonograph Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 620, 29 Atl. 195— 1918, 1932. Edison v. Gilliland, 42 Fed. 205—797, 1456. Edison, etc. Co. v. Farmington, etc. Co., 82 Me. 464, 19 Atl. 859—2728. Edison, etc. Co. v. Manufacturers', etc. Co.,. 49 Atl. 766, 86 Am. St. Rep. 712 (Pa.)— 2731. Edison, etc. Co. v. New Haven, etc. Co., 35 Fed. 233—1434. Edison, etc. Co. v. Packard Elec. Co., 61 Fed. 1002—1610. Edmonds v. Blaina Furnace Co., L. R. 36 Ch. D. 215 (1887)— 2092, 2093, 2094. Edmondson v. Crosthwaite, 34 Beav. 30 (1864)— 1197. Edrington v. Pridham, 65 Tex. 612— 2402. Bdsall V. Howell, 86 Hun, 424, 33 N. Y. Supp. 892—2821. Edward v. Fairbanks, 27 La. Ann. 449 —1666. Edwards v. Armour, etc. Co., 190 111. 467, 90 N. E. 807—432. 499. Edwards v. Bates County, 117 Fed. 526 —269, 2587. Edwards v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 942—1097, 1110, 1898, 1903, 1918. Edwards v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 946—2070. Edwards v. Beugnot, 7 Cal. 162—998. Edwards v. Bringier Sugar Extracting Co., 27 La. Ann. 118—82. Edwards v. Cameron's, etc. Co., 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 565 (1852)— 1812, 1820. Edwards v. Carson Water Co., 21 Nev. 469, 34 Pac. 381—1648, 1769, 1839. Edwards v. Denver, etc. R. R., 13 Colo. 59, 21 Pac. 1011—1234. Edwards v. Edwards, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 291 (1876)— 2423. Edwards v. Fargo, etc. Ry., 4 Dak. 549, 33 N. W. 100—1510. Edwards v. Grand, etc. Ry., 7 Sim. 337 —1714. Edwards v. Grand Junction Ry., 1 Myl. & C. 650 (1836)— 1713, 1714. Edwards v. Hall, 6 De G., M. & G. 74 (1855)— 44. Edwards v. HoeffinghofC, 38 Fed. 635 — 778. Edwards V. Marcy, 84 Mass. 486—2161. Edwards v. Michigan, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 491 (Mich.)— 328, 509, 809, 1602. Edwards v. Midland Ry., L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 287 (1880)— 71. Edwards v. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry., 2 De G. & Sm. 537 (1849)— 1622. Edwards v. Sonoma Valley Bank, *59 Cal. 136—858, 1250. TABLE OF CASES. cxxvn [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Edwards v. Standard, etc. Syndicate (1893), 1 Ch. 574—2098, 2370. Edwards v. Warren, etc. Works, 168 Mass. 564, 47 N. E. 502, 38 L. R. A. 791—1083. Edwards v. Wheeler's Estate, 89 N. W. 679 (Mich.)— 524. Edwards v. Williamson, 70 Ala. 145 — 255. Edwards, etc. Co. v. Stevenson, 160 Mo. 516, 61 S. W. 617—773. Edwardsville R. R. v. Sawyer, 92 111. 377—2798. Eells V. Johann, 27 Fed. 327^ — 2300, 2599. Eells V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 903—2644. Eel River R. R. v. State, 155 lad. 433, 57 N. E. 388—1398, 2553. Eels V. American Tel. etc. Co., 143 N. Y. 133, 139, 38 N. E. 202, 25 L. R. A. 640—2755, 2795, 2797. Efird V. Piedmont, etc. Co., 55 S. C. 78, 32 S. E. 758. 897—381, 553. E. F. Kirwan, etc. Co. v. Truxton, 44 Atl. 427 (Del.)— 2431. Egan V. Bonacum, 38 Neb. 577, 57 N. W. 288—212. Egbert v. Kimberly, 146 Pa. St. 96, 23 Atl. 437—501. Ehle V. Chittenango Bank, 24 N. Y. 548 —1141. Ehret v. Camden, etc. R. R., 47 Atl. 562 (N. J.)— 2690. Ehrgott V. Bridge Manufactory, -16 Kan. 486—1971, 2080. Bhrman v. Tuetoiya Ins. Co., 1 Fed. 471, 1 McCrary, 123—1682, 1956. Eichbaum v. Chicago Grain Elevators (1891), 3 Ch. 459—587. Eichels v. Evansville, etc. St. Ry., 78 Ind. 261, 41 Am. Rep. 561—2661. Eicholz V. Fox, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 382 — 1256. Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444, 11 Am. Rep. 90—619, 620, 623, 628, 1721. Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288— 306. Einstein v. Georgia, etc. Ry., 120 Fed. 1008—2228. Einstein v. Rochester, etc. Co., 146 N. Y. 46, 40 N. B. 631—127, 623, 1523. Einstein v. Rochester Gas, etc. Co., 77 Hun, 149, 28 N. Y. Supp. 434—127. Einstein v. Rosenfeld, 38 N. J. Eq. 309—1918. » Eirich v. Donnelly, etc. Co., 104 Fed. 1—1964. Eisfeld V. Kenworth, 50 Iowa, 389 — 497. Eisner's Estate, In re, 175 Pa. St. 143, 34 Atl. 577—1199. Ela v. Postal, etc. Co., 51 Atl. 281 (N. H.)— 2828. Elbogen v. Gerbereux, etc. Co., 30 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 264, 62 N. Y. Supp. 287—1386, 1529, 1551. El Capitan, etc. Co. v. Boston-Kansas, etc. Co., 69 Pac. 332 (Kan.) — 2071. Elder v. Chapman, 176 111. 142, 52 N. E. 10—1078, 1982. Elder v. First Nat. Bank, 12 Kan. 238 —1626. Elder V. New Zealand, etc. Co., 30 L. T. Rep. 285 (1874)— 362. Elderkin v. Peterson, 8 Wash. 674, 36 Pac. 1089—148, 414. Eldred v. American, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 168, 105 Fed. 455, 45 C. C. A. 1, 105- Fed. 457, 44 C. C. A. 554—1553, 1868, 1896, 1899, 1907. Eldred v. American Palace-Car Co. etc., 96 Fed. 59—1553. Eldred v. Bell Tel. Co., 119 U. S. 513, 7 Sup. Ct. 296, 30 L. Ed. 496—1719. Eldred v. Ripley, 97 111. App. 503 — 1876. Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484—2317, 2321. Eldridge v. Young America, etc. Co., 67 Pac. 703 (Wash.)— 794. Election, etc. Grove Cem. Co., In re, 61 N. J. L. 422, 39 Atl. 1024—1312, 1337. "Election Newark Assoc, etc.. In re, 64 N. J. L. 217, 43 Atl. 435—1303. Electrical, etc. Co. v. Put-in-Bay, etc. Ry., 84 Fed. 740—2229. 2468. Electric Co. v. Edison, etc. Co., 200 Pa. St. 516, 50 Atl. 164—620, 622, 623. Electric Con. Co. v. Heffernan, 34 N. Y. St. Rep. 436, 12 N. Y. Supp. 336— 2796." Electric, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 383, 55 N. Y. Supp. 460— 2817. Electric Imp. Co. v. San Francisco, 45- Fed. 593, 13 L. R. A. 131—2731, 2817. Electric Lighting Co v. Undetground Light, etc. Co., 16 W. N. Cas. 407, 42^ Leg. Int. 1—2737. Electric Power Co. v. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 75 Hun, 68, 27 N. Y. Supp. 93— 2692, 2784. 2811. Electric Power Co. v. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 148 N. Y. 746, 43 N. E. 986—2692, 2811. Electric Ry. v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 257, 47 N. W. 567—2674, 2675, 2715. Electric Tel. Co. v. Overseers, etc., 24 L. J. N. S. (Ex.) 146—2845. Electro-Pneumatic Transit Co., In re, 51 N. J. Eq. 71, 26 Atl. 463—1232. Blems V. Ogle, 15 Jur. 180 (1850)— 1757. Elevator Co. v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 85- Tenn. 703, 5 S. W. 52, 4 Am. St. Rep. 798—2079. cxxvm TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Bley V. Positive, etc. Co., L. R. 1 Elxcli. • D. 20, 88 (1876)— 1712, 1713. Elgin Butter Co. v. Elgin Creamery Co., 155 111. 127, 40 N. E. 616—62. Elgin, etc. Co. y. City of Elgin, 194 111. 476, 62 N. E. 929—11, 1600, 2779. Elias V. Schweyer, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 336, 43 N. Y. Supp. 55, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 69, 50 N. Y. Supp. 180—1315, •1361, 1501, 1509, 1879. Elizabeth v. Force, 29 N. J. Eq. 587— 1992. Elizabeth City Acad. v. Lindsey, 6 Ired. L. (N. C.) 476, 45 Am. Dec. 500—1425, 1737. Elizabeth, etc. Mills v. Dunstan, 121 N: C. 12, 27 S. E. 1001, 61 Am. St. Rep. 654—293. Elizabethtown v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 94 Ky. 377, 22 S. W. 609—230. Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. v. Ashland, etc. Ry., 96 Ky. 347, 26 S. W. 181— 2706. Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. v. Elizabeth- town, 12 Bush (Ky.), 233—1235, 1239. Elizabethtown Gaslight Co. v. Green, 46 N. J. Eq. 118, 18 Atl. 844, 49 N. J. Eq. 329, 24 Atl. 560—98, 1424, 1431. Elk, etc. Co. V. Poster, 99 Fed. 495, 39 C. C. A. 615—2382. Elkhart, etc. Co. v. Ellis, 113 Ind. 215, 15 N. E. 249—2415. Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 76—466. Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 87 Fed. 252, 30 C. C. A. 632— 458, 467. Elkington v. Hurter (1892), 2 Ch. 452 —1975. Elkington's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 511 (1867)— 88. ' Elkins V. Camden, etc. R. R., 36 N. J. Eq. 5, 233, 467, 596, 603, 604, 680, 684, 1328, 1885, 1894. Elkins V. City of Chicago, 119 Fed. 957—1871, 1&08, 2669, 2766. Ellerman v. Chicago Junction, etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 23 Atl. 287—5, 692, 1049, 1565, 1621, 1932, 2080. Elliot V. Abbot, 12 N. H. 549, 37 Am. Dec. 227—1749. Elliott V. Fair Haven, etc. R. R., 32 Conn. 579—2687. Elliott V. Pitchburg R. R., 64 Mass. 191, 57 Am. Dec. 85—2780. Elliott V. New York, etc. Co., 73 Hun, 519, 26 N. Y. Supp. 107—186, 308. Elliott V. Richardson, L. R. 5 C. P 744 (1870)— 1346. Elliott V. Sibley, 101 Ala. 344, 13 South. 500—968, 1126, 1128, 1335. Ellis' Appeal,. 8 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 538 —959. Ellis V. Andrews, 56 N. Y. 83, 15 Am. ■ Rep. 379—784. Ellis V. Barfleld, '64 L. T. Rep. 625 (1891)— 1196. Ellis V. Boston, etc. R. R., 107 Mass. 1, 18, 28, 30, 37, 136—2160, 2188, 2235, 2293, 2303, 2306, 2347, 2365, 2474. Ellis V. Eden, 23 Beav. 543 (1857) — 658. Ellis V. Essex Merrimack Bridge, 19 Mass. 243—51, 726, 1145, 1197. Ellis V. Howe, etc. Co., 9 Daly, 78— 1786. Ellis V. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 6 Am. L. Rec. 288 (Cir. Ct.)— 2453. Ellis V. Marshall, 2 Mass. 269, 3 Am. Dec. 49 — 9. Ellis V. Northern, etc. R. R., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811—249. Ellis V. Pond, 78 L. T. Rep. 125—928. Ellis V. Pullman, 95 Ga. 445, 22 S. E. 568—1889. Ellis V. Pulsifer, 86 Mass. 165 — 1817. Ellis V. Schmoeck, 5 Bing. 521 (1829) —1079. Ellis V. Vernon, etc. Co., 86 Tex. 109, 23 S. W. 858—2285, 2396. Ellis V. Vernon, etc. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 66, 23 S. "W. 856—2325, 2354, 2451, 2466, 2766. Ellis v. Ward, 20 N. E. 671, 137 111. 509, 25 N. E. 530—1510, 1862. Ellison V. Bignold, 2 Jac. & W. 510 -(1821)— 1076. Ellison V. Branstrator, 153 Ind. 146, 54 N. E. 433—1781. 1809. Ellison V. Mobile, etc. R. R., 36 Miss. 572—231, 308, 321, 389. Ellsworth V. Cole, 2 M. & W. 31 (18S6) —774. Ellsworth V. Curtis, 10 Paige, 105 — 1111. Ellsworth V. Dorwart, 95 Iowa, 108, 63 N. W. 588, 58 Am. St. Rep. 427— 1094, 1098, 1103. Ellsworth V. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 98 N. Y. 553, 1673, 1980, 2022, 2027. Ellsworth, etc. Co. v. Faunce, 79 Me. 440, 10 Atl. 250—1300, 1736. Elmes V. Duke, 39 N. Y. Misc. Rep.' 244, 79 N. Y. Supp. 425—1112. Elmira, etc. Co. v. Erie Ry., 26 N. J. Eq. 284—2348. Elmira Sav. Bank v. Davis, 142 N. Y. 590, 37 N. E. 646. 25 L. R. A. 546— 1633. Elmira Sav. Bank v. Davis, 73 Hun, 357, 26 N. Y. Supp. 200—1633. Blsbree v. Burt, 53 Atl. 60 (R. I.)— 476. Elston T. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14—1669, 1678. Blsworth V. New York, etc. R. R., 98 N. Y. 648—1150. TABLE OF CASES. CXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ulsworth V. New York, etc. R. R., 19 Week. Dig. 211—1150. Elsworth V. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 33 Hun, 7—1673, 1979, 2022, 2027. Elwell V. Dodge, 33 Barb. 336—1800, 1812. Elwell V. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500, 10 Sup. Ct. 598, 33 L. Ed. 998—2176, 2185. Elwell V. Grand, etc. R. R., 67 Barb. 83 —2147, 2325. Elwell V. Puget Sound, etc. R. R., 7 Wash. 487, 35 Pac. 376—1789. Elwell V. Tatum, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 397, 24 S. W. 71, 25 S. W. 434—435, 2046. Elwes V. Causton, 30 Beav. 554 (1862) —660. Ely, In re, 82 L. T. Rep. 501 (1900) — 1618. .^ Ely V. Sprague, 1 Clarke, Ch. (N. Y.) 351—36, 1158. Blyea v. liehigh, etc. Co., 169 N. Y. 29, 61 N. E. 992—949, 1557, 1882. Elyea v. Lehigh, etc. Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 231, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1050—949. Elysville Mfg. Co. v. Oklsko Co., 1 Md. Ch. 392—1760. Elyton Land Co. r. Birmingham, etc. Co., 92 Ala. 407, 9 South. 129, 12 L. R. A. 307, 25 Am. St. Rep. 65—150. Elyton Land Co. v. Dowdell, 113 Ala. 177, 20 South. 981, 59 Am. St. Rep. 105—693, 1561. Bmbrey v. Jemison, 131 U. S. 336, 9 Sup. Ct. 776, 33 L. Ed. 172—769, 780. Emerson v. Auburn, etc. R. R., 13 Hun, 150—1955. Emerson v. Commonwealth, 108 Pa. St. 111—2763. Emerson v. European, etc. Ry., 67 Me. 387, 24 Am. Rep. 39—2303. Emerson v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 14 R. I. 555—1860, 2570, 2578. Emerson v. Providence, etc. Co., 12 Mass. 237, 7 Am. Dec. 66—1799. Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. 28, 16 L. Ed. 360—222. Emerson v. South, etc. Co., 53 Pac. 756 (Kan.)— 1917. Emerson Co. v. Nlmocks, 88 Fed. 280 — 1942. Emerson, etc. Co. v. McCormlck, etc. Co., 51 Mich. 5, 16 N. W. 182—1953. Emery v. De Peyster, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 65, 78 N. Y. Supp. 1056—1427. Emery v. Bvansvllle, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 143—1942. Emery v. Kalamazoo, etc. Co., 94 N. W. 19 (Mich.)— 1561. Emery v. Ohio Candle Co., 47 Ohio St. 320, 24 N. B. 660, 21 Am; St. Rep. 819 —1053. Emery v. Wason, 107 Mass. 507 — 659, 1200. Emigh V. Chamberlain, 8 Fed. Cas. 648—2448. Bmlen v. Lehigh, etc. Co., 47 Pa. St. 76, 86 Am. Dec. 518—2061. Emma Min. Co. v. Grant, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 122 (1880)— 1931. Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Grant, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 918 (1879)— 1471, 1475, 1477, 1479. Emma SUver Min. Co. v. Lewis, L. R. 4 C. P. D. 396, 407 (1879)— 315, 1467, 1470, 1479. Emma Silver Min. Co.'s Case, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 194 (1875)— 1107. Emmerling v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 97 Fed. 739, 38 C. C. A. 399—1598. Emmerson's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 433 (1866)— 581. Emmert v. Smith, 40 Md. 123—405, 441. Emmet v. Reed, 8 N. Y. 312—1785. Emmett v. Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 564, 45 N. B. 1041—306. Emmitt v. Springfield, etc. R. R., 31 Ohio St. 23—364. Emmons v. Davis, etc. Co., 16 Atl. 157 (N. J.)— 2380, 2483. Empire v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 87, 25 L. Ed. 878—260, 268. Empire Assoc. Corp., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 469 (1871)— 180. Empire Ass. Corp., In re, L. R. 4 Eq. 341—2588. Empire City Bank, In re, 18 N. Y. 199, 227—479. Empire Distilling Co. v. McNulta, 77 Fed. 700, 23 C. C. A. 415—2445. Empire, etc. Co., In re, 95 Fed. 957 — 1391. Empire, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Stuart, 46 Mich. 482, 9 N. W. 527—1418. Empire, etc. Transp. Co. v. Empire, etc. Min. Co., 150 U. S. 159, 14 Sup. Ct. 66, 37 L. Ed. 1037—513, 1963. Empire Hotel Co. v. Main, 98 Ga. 176, 25 S. B. 413—599, 677, 1921. Empire Mills v. Alston Grocery Co., 15 S. W. 200, 505, 12 L. R. A. 366 (Tex.) —497, 515. Empire Min. Co., In re, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 402 (1890)— 2101, 2528. Empire State Sav. Bank v. Beard, 151 N. Y. 638, 45 N. E. 1131—1684, 1685. Empire State Sav. Bank v. Beard, 81 Hun, 184, 30 N. Y. Supp. 756—1684, 1685. Empire State Tel. Co. v. Blckford, 72 Hun, 580, 25 N. Y. Supp. 283—1685. Empire State Tel. Co. v. Bickford, 142 N. Y. 224, 36 N. E. 881—1685. Employers', etc. Corp. v. Employers', etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 845—61. Empress, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 125 (1880)— 1713, 1714. cxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Enders v. Board of Public "Works, 1 Gratt. (Va.) 364—1256, 1258. Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680, 7 Sup. Ct. 358, 30 L.. Ed. 523—253. Enfield Toll B. Co. v. Connecticut River Co., 7 Conn. 28, 45, 48—1393, 1415, 2752, Enfield Toll B. Co. v. Hartford, etc. R. R., 17 Conn. 40, 42 Am. Dec. 716, 17 Conn. 454, 44 Am. Dec. 556—2724, 2752. Engel V. South Metropolitan, etc. Co., L. R. (1892) 1 Ch. 442—2435. Engelke v. Schlenker, 75 Tex. 559, 12 S. "W. 999—1227. England v. Beatty, etc. Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 470, 4 Atl. 307—1501. England v. Dearborn, 141 Mass. 590, 6 N. E. 837—1726, 1770. Englefleld Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 388 (1878)— 1467. English V. Chicot County, 26 Ark. 454 —244. English V. Mclntyre, 29 N. T. App. Div. 439, 51 N. Y. Supp. 697—724, 912. English, etc. Bank, In re (1893), 3 Ch. 385—1306, 2527. English, etc. Trust v. Brunton (1892), 2 Q. B. 1—2094. Bnnis, etc. Co. v. Burks, 39 S. W./ 966 (Tex.)— 1716. Eno V. Crooke, 10 N. Y. 60—1736. Bnos V. New York, etc. R. R., 103 Fed. 47—2372. Ensign v. Central, etc. Co., 79 N. Y. App. Div. 244, 79 N. Y. Supp. 799— 2827 Enston's Will, In re, 113 N. Y. 174, 21 N. E. 87, 3 L. R. A. 464—1210. Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Grimes, 173 Mass. 252, 53 N.' E. 855—506, 1602, 1673. Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Moffltt, 58 Neb. 642, 79 N. W. 560, 45 L. R. A. 647, 76 Am. St. Rep. 122—302, 521, 1027. Ephraim v. Pacific Bank, 129 Cal. 589, 62 Pac. 177, 136 Cal. 646, 69 Pac. 436—2411, 2478, 2487. Episcopal, etc. Soc. 'v. Needham, etc. Church, 18 Mass. 372—1801. Epperson v. Postal, etc. Co., 155 Mo. 346, 50 S. W. 795, 55 S. "W. 1050— 2833. Eppes v. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 35 Ala. 33, 54—87, 284, 298, 1042. Eppright V. Nlckerson, 78 Mo. 482— 415, 1811. Equitable, etc. Assoc, v. Bidwell, 60 Neb. 169, 82 N. "W. 384—1419. Equitable, etc. Assoc, v. Roland, 198 Pa. St. 643, 48 Atl. 866—1690. Equitable, etc. Soc. v. Bishop (1900), 1 Q. B. 177 (1899), 2 Q. B. 439— 1245, 2745. Equitable Trust Co. v. Fisher, 106 111. 189—2182, 2192, 2261. Equity Gas-Light Co., In re, 10 N. Y. Supp. 801—1406. Equity Gas-Light Co. v. McKeige, 139 N. Y. 237, 34 N. E. 898—860, 2037. Erb V. Grimes, 94 Md. 92, 50 Atl. 397— 2193. Erb V. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584, 20 Sup. Ct. 819, 44 L. Ed. 897—2421, 2602. Erickson v. Nesmith, 81 Mass. 221 — 402, 449, 464. Erickson v. Nesmith, 86 Mass. 233 — 462, 464. Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 — 406, 408, 421, 427, 429, 456, 464, 491. Ericsson v. Brown, 38 Barb. 390 — 430, 431. Erie City Iron Works v. Barber, 106 Pa. St. 125, 51 Am. Rep. 508—72. Erie, etc. Co. v. Brown, 25 Pa. St. 156 —230, 357. Erie", etc. Co. v. National Wringer Co., 63 Fed. 248—2411. Erie, etc. Despatch v. Cecil, 112 111. 180—2610. Erie, etc. R. R. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287, 302—1024, 1432, 1435. Erie, etc. R. R. v. Owen, 32 Barb. 616 —185. Brie, etc. R. R. v. Patrick, 2 Keyes, 256—539. Erie Ry. v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 21 N. J. Eq. 283—2628. Erie Ry. v. State of New Jersey, 31 N. J. L. 531, 544, 86 Am. Dec. 226— 514, 1243. Erie Ry. v. Vanderbilt, 5 Hun, 123— 1497, 1928. Erin Township v. Detroit, etc. Co., 115 Mich. 465, 73 N. W. 556—2696, 2752. Erlanger v. New Sombrero Co., L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1268 (1878)— 1470, 1474, 1476, 1479. Ernest v. Croysdill, 2 De G., F. & J. 175 (I860)— 1862. Ernest v. Loma, etc. Mines (1897), 1 Ch. 1 (1896), 2 Ch. 572—1306, 1308. Ernest v. NichoUs, 6 H. L. Cas. 401, 417 (1857)— 1516, 1751. Ernst v. Rutherford, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 388, 56 N. Y. Supp. 403— 112, 1872, 2006, 2025, 2141. Brny v. Schmidt Co., 197 Pa. St. 475, 47 Atl. 877—1851. Brskine v. Loewenstein, 82 Mo. 301 — 170. Brskine v. Lowensteln, 11 Mo. App. 595—170. Erskine v. Peck, 83 Mo. 465—343. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Brsklne v. Peck, 13 Mo. App. 280 — 349. Erskine, etc. Co. v. Sachs, etc. (1901), 2 K. B. 504—909. Ertz V. Produce, etc. Co., 82 Minn. 173, 84 N. W. 743. 51 L. R. A. 825, 83 Am. St. Rep. 419—1048. Ervin, In re, 109 Fed. 135—1589. Brvin v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 20 Fed. 577—1530, 1899, 1931. Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 27 Fed. 625, 23 Blatchf. 517—1530, 1554. Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 28 Hun, 269—1872, 1874, 1879, 1893. Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 35 Hun, 544—1893. Ervin V. Oregon Ry. etc. Co., 22 Hun, 566—1105, 1112. EIrvin V. Oregon Ry. etc. Co., 22 Hun, 598—1954. Br win V. Davenport, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 44—2469. Erwin v. Oldham, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 185, 27 Am. Dec. 458—993. Bschweiler v. Stowell, 78 Wis. 316, 47 N. W. 361, 23 Am. St. Rep. 411— 1910. Bsgen V. Smith, 113 Iowa, 25, 84 N. W. 954—224, 628. Eskern- Slate, etc. Co., In re, 37 L. T. 222 (1877)— 1467. Eslava v. Ames Plow Co., 47 Ala. 384 —69. Esmond v. BuUard, 16 Hun, 65 — 437, 473. Esparto Trading Co., In re, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 191 (1879)— 343. Esper V. Miller, 91 N. W. 613 (Mich.) —1701. Espuela, etc. Co. v. Bindle, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 18, 23 S. W. 819—2380. Esser v. Liderman, 71 Pa. St. 76 — 923. Essex County Elec. Co. v. Kelly, 57 N. J. L. 100, 29 Atl. 427—2835. Essex, etc. Co. v. Tuttle, 2 Vt. 393 — 215, 219, 220, 284. Etesex Turnp. Corp. v. Collins, 8 Mass. 292—210, 219. 1760, 1800, 1802. Estahrook, Ex parte, 2 Low. 547, 8 Fed. Cas. 794—1976, 1979, 2071, 2072. Estate, etc.. In re, 202 Pa. St. 589, 52 Atl. 58—677, 1522, 1644, 2013. Estell T. Knightstown, etc. Turnp. Co., 41 Ind. 174—272. Bstes V. Belford, 22 Fed. 275, 23 Blatchf. 1—1955, 1957. Bstes V. Grerman Nat. Bank, 62 Ark. 7, 34 S. W. 85—1769, 1777. Etna Ins. Co., In re, Ir. R. 7 Ea. 264 (1873)— 325. Etowah Mln. Co. v. Wills- Valley, etc. Co.. 106 Ala. 492, 17 South. 522— 2374, 2490. Btting V. Bank ot XJ. S., 11 Wheat 59, 6 L. Ed. 419—72. Ettlinger v. Persian, etc. Co., 66 Hun, 94, 20 N. Y. Supp. 772—2200. Ettlinger v. Persian Rug, etc. Co., 142 N. Y. 189. 36 N. E. 1055, 40 Am. St. Rep. 587—2199, 2200. Eureka Co. v. Bally Co., 11 Wall. 488, 20 L. Ed. 209—1792, 1802. Eureka, etc. Co. v. Richmond, etc. Co., 2 Fed. 829, 6 Sawy. 471—28, 1672. Eureka Ins. Co. v. Parks, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio) 574—1683. Eureka L. & I. Co. v. Eureka, 5 Kan. App. 669, 48 Pac. 935—2772. European Ass. Soc, In re, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 307 (1875)— 2746. European Bank, Master's Case, In re, 41 L. J. (Ch.) 501 (1872)— 554. European Cent. Ry., In re, L.. R. 8 Eq. 438 (1869)— 638. European, etc. Ry. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277 —1453, 1455. European, etc. Soc, In re, L. R. 9 Eq. 122 (1869)— 1391. Eustace v. Dublin, etc. Ry., L. R. 6 Eq. 182 (1868)— 858. Evangelical, etc. Home v. Buffalo, etc. Assoc, 64 N. Y. 561—2725. Evans' Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 427 (1867)— 191. Evans v. Bailey, 66 Cal. 112, 4 Pac. 1089—688. Evans v. Boston Heating Co., 157 Mass. 37, 31 N. B. 698—1278, 2791. Evans v. Brandon, 53 Tex. 56—1685, 1876, 1878. Evans v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 86 Wis. 597, 57 N. W. 354, 39 Am. St. Rep. 908—2689. Evans v. Coventry, 5 De G., M. & G. 911 (1854)— 1889, 2744. Evans V. Coventry, 8 De Gr., M. & G. 835 (1857)— 1185. Evans v. Coventry, 25 L. J. (Ch.) 489, 501 (1856)— 420. 521, 537, 667, 669. Evans v. Dillingham, 43 Fed. 177^ 2417. Evans v. Goodwin, 132 Pa. St. 136, 19 Atl. 49—976. Evans v. Hughes County, 3 S. D. 580, 54 N. W. 60g, 3 S. D. 244, 52 N. W. 1062—2732. Evans v. Jones, 2 Coll. Ch. 516 (1846) —659. Evans v. Keystone Gas Co., 148 N. Y. 112, 42 N. E. 513. 30 L. R. A. 651, 51 Am. St. Rep. 681—2738. Evans v. Klster, 92 Fed. 828, 35 C. C. A. 28—2313. Evans v. Lee, 11 Nev. 194 — 1807. Evans v. Monot, 4 Jones' Bq. (N. C.) 227—1001. CXXXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the test.] Evans v. Nellis, 187 U. S. 271, 23 Sup. Ct. 74—439, 441. Evans V. Nellis. 101 Fed. 920—441. Evans v. Osgood, 18 Me. 213—1272. Evans v. Pease, 21 R. I. 187, 42 Atl. 506—2399. Evans V. Philadelphia Club, 50 Pa. St. 107—1074. Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 Eq. 769 —1848, 1854. Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 H. L. 249 (1868)— 297, 347, 1296, 1848, 1854. BJvans v. Texas, etc. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 326, 23 S. W. 476—209. Evans v. Tripp, 6 Mad. 91 (1821)— 653. Evans V. Union Pac. Ry., 58 Fed. 497 —1540, 1895, 1909, 2392. Evans v. Wain, 71 Pa. St. 69—914. Evans v. Wood, L. R. 5 Eq. 9 (1867) — 575, 916. Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U. S. 434, 16 Sup. Ct. 613, 40 L. Ed. 760—258. Evansville v. Hall, 14 Ind. 27—1206, 1207. Evansville Bank v. Britton, 105 TJ. S. 322, 26 L. Ed. 1053—1225. Evansville, etc. Co. v. Bank of Com- merce, 144 Ind. 34, 42 N. E. 1097— 1512. Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Dunn, 17 Ind. 603—238. Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Evansville, 15 Ind. 395—245, 260, 265, 369, 608. Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Frank, 3 Ind. App. 96, 29 N. B. 419—2459. Evansville, etc. R. K. v. Posey, 12 Ind. 363—308. Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Shearer, 10 Ind. 244—233, 236. Evansville Nat. Bank v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 2 Biss. 527, 8 Fed. Cas. 891—1117, 1134. Evansville Nat. Bank, etc. v. Britton, 8 Fed. 867, 10 Biss. 503—1225. Evansville R. R, v. Androscoggin Mills, 22 Wall. 594, 22 L,. Ed. 724^ 2642. Evarts v. Killingworth Mfg. Co., 20 Conn. 447—1394. Evening Journal Assoc, v. McDermott, 44 N. J. L. 430, 43 Afa. Rep. 392—72. Everett v. Coffin, 6 Wend. 603, 22 Am. Dec. 551—1154. Everett v. De Fontaine, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 219, 79 N. Y. Supp. 692—758, 1708. Everett v. Smith, 22 Minn. 53—1298. Everett v. United States, 6 Port. (Ala.) 166, 30 Am. Dec. 584—1787, 1800. Everhart v. West Chester, etc. R. R., 28 Pa. St. 339—357, 576, 587, 1029. Everingham v. Meighan, 55 Wis. 354, 13 N. W. 269—778. Everitt v. Automatic, etc. Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 506—1133. Everitt v. Knapp, 6 Johns. 331—781. ' Everitt's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 216—1227. Evershed v. London, etc. Ry., L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 134, 144 (1877) ; L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029—2607, 2609. Everson v. Equitable Li. Assur. Co., 68 Fed. 258—2745. Evertson v. Newport Nat. Bank, 66 N. Y. 14, 23 Am. Rep. 9—2047, 2056, 2057, 2062. Swing V. Composite B. S. Co.. 169 Mass. 72, 47 N. E. 241—1578, 1582. Ewing V. Medlock, 14 Ala. (O. S.) 82— 1071, 1090. Ewing V. Oroville Min. Co., 56 Cal. 649—631. Ewing V. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26 — 1941. Ewing V. Stultz, 9 Ind. App. 1, 36 N. E. 170—445, 492. Excelsior, etc. Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 321, 20 C. C. A. 428—1909.. Excelsior, etc. Co. v. Pierce, 90 Cal. 131, 27 Pac. 44—1168, 1170. Excelsior, etc. Co. v. Stayner, 25 Hun, 91—356. Excelsior F. Ins. Co., In re, 16 Abb. Pr. 8, 14—1029. Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Lacey, 63 N. Y. 422—635. 1183. Exchange Bank v. Gaitskill, 37 S. W. 160 (Ky.)— 800, 1267. Exchange Bank v. Macon Const. Co., 97 Ga. 1. 25 S. B. 326, 33 L. R. A. 800—26, 1539, 1726. Exchange Banking Co., In re, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 519 (1882)— 1609, 1862. Exchange, etc. Co., L. R. 38 Ch. D. 171 (1888)— 1439. Exchange Nat. Bank v. Capps, 32 Neb. 242, 49 N. W. 223, 29 Am. St. Rep. 433—1418, 1941. Exchange Nat. Bank v. Miller, 19 Fed. 372—1226. Exchange Trust Ltd., In re, 88 L. T. Rep. 56 (1903)— 297. Exeter Bank v. Rodgers, 7 N. H. 21, 33 —1799. Exeter, etc. Ry. v. Buller, 11 Jur. Part 1, 527, 532 (1847)— 1621. Exhall, etc. Co., In re, 35 Beav. 449 (1866)— 2476. Ex Mission, etc. Co. v. Mash, 97 Cal. 610, 32 Pac. 600—1477, 1858. Exmouth Docks Co., In re, L. R. 17 Eq. 181 (1873)— 1392. Exposition, etc. Co. v. Canal, etc. Ry., 42 La. Ann. 370, 7 South. 627— 359. Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1, 29, 6 Sup. Ct. 542, 29 L. Ed. 791—2727, 2728. Express Cases, 10 Fed. 210, 3 Mc- Crary, 147—2728. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXIU [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191. 25 L. Ed. 319—2348. Extension, etc. Co. v. Skinner, 28 Colo. 237, 64 Pac. 198—1785. Bxter V. Sawyer, 146 Mo. 302, 47 S. W. 951—1474. Eyerman v. Krieckhaus, 7 Mo. App. 455—114. Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177 (1862), 3 Ry. & Corp. L,. J. 169—545, 580, 667. Eyster v. Centennial Board, 94 XT. S. 500 24 L. Ed. 188—1166, 1175. Fabacher v. Bryajit, 46 La. Ann. 820, 15 South. 181—1047. Factage Parisien, In re, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 140 (1865)— 1391, 1392. Factors,' etc. Ins. Co. v. Marine, etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149—824, 826, 938, 1837. Factors,' etc. Ins. Co. v. New Harbor, etc. Co., 37 La. Ann. 233, 239—1070. Fadness v. Braunborg, 73 Wis. 257, 41 N. W. 84—1333. Fahrney v. Kelly, 102 Fed. 403—1013, 1014. Fahs V. Roberts, 54 111. 192—2301. Paikney v. Reynous, 4 Burr. 2069 (1767)— 777. Fairbank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 132 111. 120, 22 N. E. 524—944. Fairbanks v. Farwell, 141 111. 354, 30 N. E. 1056—413. Fairbanks, etc. Co. v. Macleod, 8 Colo. App. 190, 45 Pac. 282—476. Fairfield t. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47, 25 L. Ed. 544—251, 252, 255. Fairfield v. Phillips, 83 Iowa, 571, 49 N.-W. 1025—706. Fairfield County Turnp. Co. v. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173—276, 283, 286, 1738, 1827, 1830. Fairfield Sav. Bank v. Chase, 72 Me. 226, 39 Am. Rep. 319—1832, 1834, 1839. Fair Haven, etc. Ry. v. City of New Haven, 74 Conn. 102, 49 Atl. 863— 2675. Fair's Estate, In re, 128 Cal. 607, 61 Pac. 1-84-1208. Falardeau v. Boston, etc. Assoc, 65 N. E. 797 (Mass.)— 1819. Falconer v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 69 N. Y. 491—253, 262, 265. Falconer v. Campbell, 2 McLean, 195, 8 Fed. Cas. 963—1081. • Falk V. Moebs, 127 V. S. 597, 8 Sup. Ct. 1319, 32 L. Ed. 266—1817. Falk V. Whitman, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 396—275, 409. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 17 Sup. Ct. 56, 41 L. Ed. 369—251, 2786. Fall, etc. Bank v. Sturtevant, 66 Mass. 372—1835. Fallon V. Egberts, etc. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 585, .67 N. Y. Supp. 347— 2470. Fallon V. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. 121, 8 Fed. Cas. 977—755. Fall River Iron Works v. Old Colony R. R., 87 Mass. 221—1030, 1291. Fall River Nat. Bank v. Slade, 153 Mass. 415, 26 N. E. 843, 12 L. R. A. 131—963. Pallsburg, etc. Co. v. Alexander, 43 S. E. 194 (Va.)— 2628, 2785. Falmouth v. Falmouth, etc. Co., 180 Mass. 325, 62 N. B. 255—2771. Falmouth, etc. Bank v. Cape, etc. Co., 166 Mass. 550, 44 N. B. 617—2040, 2123, 2131, 2199, 2375. Falmouth, etc. Co. v. Shawhan, 107 Ind. 47. 5 N. E. 408—387. Palvey v. Woolner, 71 N. Y. App. !Div. 331, 75 N. Y. Supp. 1106—1051. Faneuil Hall Bank v. Bank of Brigh- ton, 82 Mass. 534—1627, 1787. Panning v. Gregoire, 16 How. 524, 14 L. Ed. 1043—2733. Fanning v. Insurance Co., 37 Ohio St. 339, 41 Am. Rep. 517—179. Fanning v. Osborne, 102 N. Y. 441, 7 N. E. 307—2628, 2664, 2679. Fanny Rawlings Min. Co. v. Tribe, 68 Pac. 284 (Colo.)— 972, 1254. Fareira v. Gabell, 89 Pa. St. 89—770, 775, 776, 779, 780, 781. Pargason v. Oxford, etc. Co., 78 Miss. 65, 27 South. 877—81, 355, 1602, 1636. Fargo V. Louisville, etc. Ry., 6 Fed. 787, 10 Biss. 273—1081. Fargo V. Michigan, 121 V. S. 230, 7 Sup. Ct. 857, 30 L. Ed. 888—1243. Fargo V. Redfleld, 22 Fed. 373. 22 Blatchf. 527—2728. Farington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 37 Atl. 652, 38 L. R. A. 339—1667. Paris V. Reynolds, 70 Ind. 359 — 260. Parley v. Hill, 150 U. S. 572. 14 Sup. Ct. 186, '37 L. Ed. 1186—2286. Parley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303, 7 Sup. Ct. 534, 30 L. Ed. 684—2503. Parlow V. Lea, 8 Fed. Cas. 1017 — 2401. Farm, etc. Co. v. Alta, etc. Co., 28 Colo. 408, 65 Pac. 22—1538, 2329, 2787. Parmer v. National Life Assoc, 50 Fed. 829—1956. Farmers' Bank v. Beaston, 7 Gill & J. (Md.)421, 28 Am. Dec 226—2423. Farmers' Bank v. Chester, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 458, 44 Am. Dec. 318—1739. CXXXIV TABLE OF CASES-. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Farmers' Bank v. DIebold, etc. Co., 64 N. E. 518, 58 L. R. A. 620 (Ohio) — 823, 824, 883. Farmers' Bank v. Gettinger, 4 W. Va. 305 (1870)— 2652. Farmers' Bank v. Iglehart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50—1115, 1123, 1126, 1133. Farmers' Bank v. McKee, 2 Pa. St. 318, 321—1830, 1839. Farmers' Bank Case, 2 Bland Ch. (Md.) 394—1120, 1126, 1127. Farmers' Bank, etc. v. Ohio River, etc. Co., 56 S. W. 719 (Ky.)— 1882, 1934, 2079. Farmers' Bank, etc. v. Smith, 49 S. "W. 810, 88 Am. St. Rep. 341 (Ky.) — 1720. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Butchers', 'etc. Bank, 14 N. T. 624, 16 N. Y. 125, 69 Am. Dec. 678—1797. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131, 139—39, 673. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Colby, 64 Cal. 352, 28.Pac. 118—1816. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Downey, 53 Cal. 466, 31 Am. Rep. 62—1463. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Empire, etc. Co., 5 Bosw. 275—1782, 1980. Farmers', etc. Bank v. German, etc. Bank, 80 N. W. 820 (Neb.)— 2383. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Hight, 3 Hill, 493—1806, 1812. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Kimball Milling Co., 1 S. D. 388, 47 N. W. 402, 36 Am. St. Rep. 739—1570, 1841. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Mosher, 88 N. W. 552 (Neb.)— 945, 1007, 1020, 1147. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Nelson, 12 Md. 35—355. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Payne, 25 Conn. 444, 68 Am. Dec. 362—1840. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Rogers, 1 N. Y. Supp. 757—976. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Scott, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 22, 45 S. W. 26—2572. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Stringer, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 127, 77 N. Y. Supp. 410— 463. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Troy City Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 457—1942. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Waco, etc. Co., 36 S. W. 131 (Tex.)— 1642, 2022, 2254, 2285, 2346. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wasson, 48 Iowa, 336, 340, 30 Am. Rep. ,398—19, 847, 1114, 1116, 1357. Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wayman, 5 Gill (Md.), 336—725. Farmers', etc. Co. v. American, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 23—2305, 2351, 2356. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Borders, 60 N. E. 174 (Ind.)— 1418. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Centralia, etc". R. R., 96 Fed. 636, 37 C. C. A. 528— 2461, 2468. 2518. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Chase, 56 N. H. 341—277, 1763. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 163 U. S. 31, 44, 47, 16 Sup. Ct. 917, 41 L. Ed. 60—1351, 1533, 2321, 2658. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 146, 156—1318, 1369, 2131, 2134, 2160, 2194, 2214, 2235, 2365. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 380 (Cin. Sup. Ct.)— 2340. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Eaton, 114 Fed. 14, 51 C C. A. 640—2437. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525, 26 N. E. 110, 12 L. R. A. 346, 21 Am. St. Rep. 846—355, 523. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Lake Street, etc. R. R., 177 U. S. 51, 20 Sup. Ct. 564, 44 L. Ed. 667— 2160i 2223. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 103 Fed. 110—2507. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Meese, 49 Neb. 861, 69 N. W. 113—1933. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 21 Fed. 264—1571, 1887, 2190. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 120 Fed. 873—2434, 2436. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Penn, etc. Co., 186 U. S. 434, 22 Sup. Ct. 842, 46 L. Ed. 1234—2127, 2171, 2300. Farmers,' etc. Co. v. Peiin, etc. Co., 10$ Fed. 132, 157, 161—1495, 1522, 1561, 2127, 2170, 2171, 2300, 2539. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Smith, 51 Atl. 609 (Conn.)— 22, 1356, 1591, 1676. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Stuttgart, etc. R. R., 106 Fed. 565—2464. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 54 Ffed. 759, 4 C. C. A. 561—989, 1562, 1586, 1985, 2049, 2557. Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Harrah, 47 Ind. 236—1674, 1678. Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Needles, 52 Mo. 17—2400. Farmers', etc. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 V. S. 29, 23 L. Ed. 196—1966. Farmers', etc. Nat. Bank v. Smith, 77 Fed. 129, 23 C. C. A. 80—2081. Farmers', etc. T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 39 Fed. 143—1726. Farmers', etc. T. Co. v. Newman, 127 U. S. "649, 8 Sup. Ct. 1364, 32 L. Ed. 303—2220, 2289, 2338. Farmers', etc. "Trust Co., Petitioner, 129 tr. S. 206, 9 Sup. Ct. 265, 32 L. Ed. 656—2462. Farmers' Loan, etc. Co. v. Carroll, 5 Barb. 613—1822. Farmers' Loan, etc. Co. v. Stone, 20 Fed. 270—2610, 26i4. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Ansonia, 61 Conn. 76, 23 Atl. 705—2718. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers', etc. Tel. Co.. 119 N. Y. 15, 23 N. B. 173— 1856, 2253, 2279, 2514. TABLE OF CASKS. cxxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers', etc. Tel. Co., 148 N. Y. 315, 42 N. E. 707, 31 L. R. A. 403, 51 Am. St. Rep. 690— 2346. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers', etc. Tel. Co., 44 Hun, 400—2129, 2133, 2192, 2H3, 2194, 2233, 2234. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bank of Racine, 15 Wis. 424, 82 Am. Dec. 689—2342. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Board o£ Sup'rs, etc., 93 Fed. 579, 35 C. C. A. 460—700, 2125. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Burlington, etc. Ry., 32 Fed. 805—2289. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Canada, etc. Ry., 127 Ind. 250, 26 N. B. 784, 11 L. R. A. 740—2333. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc. R. R., 62 Fed. 675—2388, 2492. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc. Ry., 71 Fed. 38—2252, 2524. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc. R. R., 73 Fed. 712—2356. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Cape Fear, etc. Ry., 82 Fed. 344—2220. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Cary, 13 Wis. 110—2307. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central, etc. Ry., 120 Fed. 1006—2508. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R., 2 Fed. 751, 1 McCrary, 352—2483. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R., 7 Fed. 537, 2 McCrary, 181—2469, 2489, 2536. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R., 8 Fed. 60, 2 McCrary, 421—2473. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R., 17 Fed. 758, 5 McCrary, 421—2536. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R., 4 Dill. 533, 8 Fed. Cas. 1037—2201, 2280, 2285. Farmers' Li. & T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 61 Fed. 543—2130. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 68 Fed. 412—2160, 2258. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 118 Fed. 204—2418. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 42 Fed. 6—2442. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 44 Fed. 653—2534. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Clowes, 3 N. Y. 470—1624. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Commercial Bank, 11 Wis. 207—2320. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Commercial Bank, 12 Wis. 653—2297. Farmers' L.. & T. Co. v. Detroit, etc. R. R., 71 Fed. 29—2150, 2306. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Equity Gas Light Co., 84 Hun, 373, 32 N. Y. Supp. 385—2137. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 44—60. Farmers' L. & T. Co v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 41 S. W. 113 (Tex.)— 2437. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Fisher, 17 Wis. 114—2319, 2328. Farmers' Ij. & T. Co. v. Forest Park, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 882, 13 C. C. A. 186—632, 2014, 2241, 2339. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Funk, 49 Neb. 353, 68 N. W. 520—433, 439, 453. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Grape Creek Coal Co., 65 Fed. 717, 13 C. C. A. 87— 2218. Farmers' L. & T. Co. t. Grape, etc. Co., 50 Fed. 481, 16 L. R. A. 603— 2466. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green, 79 Fed. 222, 24 C C. A. 506—2292. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green Bay, etc. R. R., 6 Fed. 100, 10 Biss. 203— 2002, 2237, 2254, 2278, 2503, 2511. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green Bay, etc. Ry., 45 Fed. 664—2361. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Harmony F. & M. Ins. Co., 51 Barb. 33—1670. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. 484—2106, 2307. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Housatonic R. R., 152 N. Y. 251, 46 N. E. 504—1503. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Houston, etc. Ry., 44 Fed. 115—2228. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Hughes, 11 Hun, 130—1067, 2180, 2477. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Iowa Water Co., 78 Fed. 881—2058, 2144, 2236. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 53 Fed. 182, 186, 191—2176, 2253, 2305, 2359, 2369, 2467. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Lake St. El. R. R., 177 U. S. 51, 20 Sup. Ct. 564, 44 L. Ed. 667—2160. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Lake St. El. R. R., 173 111. 439, 51 N. E. 55—2160. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Logansville, etc. Ry., 4 Fed.- 184—2346. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Long Beach, etc. Co., 27 Hun, 89 — 2325. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Longworth, 76 Fed. 609, 22 C. C. A. 420—2282. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. McAndrews, 109 Fed. 109, 48 C. C. A. 261—2174. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. McClure, 78 Fed. 209, 24 C. C A. 64— 24J7. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. McHenry, 9 Abb. N. Cas. 235—2255. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. McKinney, 6 McLean, 1, 8 Fed. Cas. 1048—1670. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 83 Fed. 870—2129. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. New Rochelle, etc. Ry., 126 N. Y. 624, 27 N. E. 410— 2344, 2718. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. New Rochelle, etc. Ry., 57 Hun, 376, 10 N. Y. Supp. 810—2344, 2718. CXXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 78 Hun, 213, 28 N. Y. Supp. 933—2015, 2266. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. New York, etc. Ry., 150 N. Y. 410, 430, 434, 438, 44 N. E. 1043, 34 L. R. A. 76, 55 Am. St. 689—698, 1323, 1528, 2015, 2131, 2265. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 58 Fed. 257—2444. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 60 Fed. 803—2624. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 61 Fed. 546—2387, 2491. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 66 Fed. 169, 70 Fed. 423—2181. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 68 Fed. 36, 71 Fed. 245—2347. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 69 Fed. 871, 72 Fed. 26—2393. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 74 Fed. 431—2360. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R., 79 Fed. 227, 24 C. C. A. 511— 2361. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern, etc. Ry., 94 Fed. 454—2062, 2130. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon, etc. Ry., 24 Fed. 407—2109, 2216, 2262. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 58 Fed. 639—2056. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 67 Fed. 404—2060. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 31 Or. 237, 48 Pac. 706, 38 L. R. A. 424. 65 Am. St. Rep. 1822— 2175, 2295, 2449, 2478. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon Pac. R. R., 28 Or. 44, 40 Pac. 1089—2281, 2284, 2288. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Perry, 3 Sandf. Ch. 339—1624, 1627. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Rockaway, etc. R. R., 69 Fed. 9—2005, 2010, 2247, 2252, 2278, 2496. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. St. Joseph, etc. R. R., 2 Fed. 117, 1 McCrary, 247—2560, 2578. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. St. Joseph, etc. Ry., 3 Dill. 412, 8 Fed. Cas. 1053 —2151, 2308. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. San Diego, etc. Co., 40 Fed. 105—2237. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. San Diego, etc. Co., 49 Fed. 188—413, 2275, 2385, 2468. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. San Diego, etc. St. Ry., 45 Fed. 518 (1891)— 1296, 1526, 1648, 1849, 1984, 1985, 2259. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Stuttgart & A. R. R., 92 Fed. 246—2342, 2347, 2355. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 43 Fed. 223—2422. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 67 Fed. 49—632, 1974, 2023, 2053, 2262, 2266. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R., 33 Fed. 778—2334, 2346, 2354. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Winona, etc. Ry., 59 Fed. 957—2131, 2214, 2364. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 74 Minn. 264, 77 N. "W. 142—2478. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Cook, 32 N. J, L. 347—1222, 1228. Farmers' Nat. Bank t. Hannan, 4 Fed. 612—221. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Hannon, 14 Fed. 593—221. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 42 Fed. 801—1966. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton, etc. Co., 52 Fed. 191, 3 C. C. A. 1, 17 L. R. A. 595—2072. Farmers' Nat. Gold Bank t. Wilson, 58 Cal. 600—1014, 1017. Farmers' Trust Co. v. Staten Island, etc. R. R., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 148, 39 N. Y. Supp. 996—2438. Farmington Academy v. Allen, 14 Mass. 172, 7 Am. Dec. 201—1801. Farmington, etc. Corp. v. Farmington, etc. Co., 93 Me. 192, 44 AU. 609— 2771. Farmington Sav. Bank v. Fall, 71 Me. 49—1628. Farmington Village Corp. v. Sandy River Nat. Bank. 85 Me. 46, 26 Atl. 965—246. . Farnam v. Brooks, 26 Mass. 212, 242 — 1861. Farnham v. Benedict, 107 N. Y. 159, 13 N. B. 784—248, 1427, 1428. Farnham Brewery Co. v. Hunt, 68 L. T. Rep. 440 (1893)— 1484. Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R. R., 83 Me. 440, 22 Atl. 373—6, 8, 1414, 2628. Farnsworth v. Minnesota, etc. R. R., 92 U. S. 48, 66, 23 L. Ed. 530—1432, 2112, 2120. Farnsworth v. Robbins, 36 Minn. 369, 31 N. W. 349—348, 677, 2743. Farnsworth v. Western, etc. Co., 6 N. Y. Supp. 735—1744, U65, 2845. Farnsworth v. Wood, 91 N. Y. 308—438, 475. . Farnum v. Ballard, etc. Shop, 66 Mass. 507^472, 1932. Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Corp., 1 Sumn. 46, 8 Fed. Cas. 1059—2651. Farnum v. Haverhill, etc. Ry.. 178 Mass. 300, 59 N. E. 755-2^01. Farnum v. Patch, 60 N. H. 294, 49 Am. Rep. 313—1087. Farr v. Brlgg's Estate, 72 Vt. 225, 47 Atl. 793, 82 Am. St. Rep. 930—462. Farrar v. Farrars, L. R 40 Ch. D. 395 (1888)— 1483. Farrar v. Midland, etc. Ry., 74 S. W. BOO (Mo.)— 2692. TABLE OF CASES. CXXXVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Farrar v. Paine, 173 Mass. 58, 53 N. E. 146—928, 969. Farrar v. Perley, 7 Me. 404—1287. Farrar v. Southwestern R. R., 42 S. E. 527 (Ga.)— 2086. Farrar v. Walker, 3 Dill. 506, 8 Fed. Gas. 1076—335. Farrar v Walker, 13 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 82, 8 Fed. Gas. 1076—338. Farrell v. Garribou Gold, etc. Go., 30 Nova Scotia, 199—1970. Farrell v. Winchester Ave. R. R., 61 Gonn. 127, 23 Atl. 757—2705. Farrell Foundry v. Dart, 26 Conn. 376 —1841. Farrington v. South Boston R. R., 150 Mass. 406, 23 N. E. 109, 5 L. R. A. 849, 15 Am. St. Rep. 222—641. Farrington v. Tennessee, 95. U. S. 679, 687, 24 L,. Ed. 558—1025, 1205, 1212, 1214, 1216. 1235. Farrior v. New England, etc. Go., 88 Ala. 275, 7 South. 200—1682. Parris v. Wirt, 63 Pac. 946 (Golo.) — 1704, 1862. Farrow v. Bivings, 13 Rich. Eq. (S. G.) 25—421, 491. Farrow v. Holland Trust Go., 74 Hun, 585, 26 N. Y. Supp. 502—1498, 1863, 1901. Farwell v. Babcock, 65 S. W. 509 (Tex.) —1489, 1880, 1921. Farwell v. Great West. Tel. Go., 161 111. 522, 44 N. E. 891—80, 86, 114, 410, 418, 1142, 1912, 2404, 2414, 2483, 2493. Farwell v. Houghton, etc. Works, 8 Fed. 66—1320, 1743. Farwell v. Twaddle, 10 Abb. N. Gas. 94—1191, 1200. Farwell Go. v. Wolf, 96 Wis. 10, 70 N. W. 289, 71 N. W. 109, 37 L. R. A. 138, 65 Am. St. Rep. 22—14, 1608. Fath V. Tower Grove, etc. Ry., 105 Mo. 537, 16 S. W. 913, 13 L. R. A. 74— 2715, 2716. Fatman v. Lobach, 1 Duer, 354 — 889, 960, 962. Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416, 11 Am. Rep. 24—1297, 1342. Faulkner v. Hebard, 26 Vt. 452 — 749. Faulkner v. Robinson, 70 S. W. 990 (Tex.)— 746, 751. FauU V. Alaska, etc. Min. Co., 14 Fed. 657, 8 Sawy. 420—398, 401, 402. Faure, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 141 (1888)— 1619. Faure, etc. Co. v. Phillipart, 58 L. T. Rep. 525 (1888)— 295, 1754. Faville v. Shehan, 68 Iowa, 241, 26 N. W. 131—783. Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. 473 — 1074. Fawcett v. Laurie, 1 Dr. & Sm. 192, 202 (I860)— 1152, 1153, 1176, 1875. Fawcett v. Order of Iron Hall, 64 Gonn. 170, 29 Atl. 614, 24 L. R. A. 815— 2391. Faxton v. McCosh, 12 Iowa, 527 — 1211. Fay V. Gray, 124 Mass. 500—941, 956. Pay V. Noble, 61 Mass. 188—1420. Fay V. Noble, 66 Mass. 1—1784, 1790, 1825, 1969. Fay V. Slaughter, 194 111. 157, 62 N. B. 592, 56 L. R. A. 564, 88 Am. St. Rep. 148—796, 834. Pay V. Wheeler, 44 Vt. 292—764. Payette Land Co. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 93 Va. 274, 24 S. E. 1016—1663. Fayetteville Waterworks Co. v. Tilling- hast, 119 N. G. 343, 25 S. E. 960— 1418. Pear v. Bartlett, 81 Md. 435, 32 Atl. 322, 33 L. R. A. 721—813. Fearing v. Glenn, 73 Fed. 116, 19 G. C. A. 388—1379. Fearnside's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 231 (1866)— 539. Peatherstone v. Cooke, L. R. 16 Eg. 298, 303—1623. Featherstonhaugh v. Lee, etc. Co., L. R. 1 Eg. 318 (1865)— 1555. Fechet v. Drake, 12 Pac. 694 — 2846. Feckheimer v. National Exch. Bank, 79 Va. 80—1355. Pee V. Gas Co., 35 La. Ann. 413 — 2555, 2580. Peige V. Burt, 118 Mich. 243, 77 N. W. 928, 74 Am. St. Rep. 390—969, 979, 981, 991, 994, 995. 1000. Feige v. Burt, 124 Mich. 565—1257. Peighner v. Delaney, 21 Ind. App. 36, 51 N. E. 379—75. Peld V. Roanoke Inv. Co., 123 Mo. 603, 27 S. W. 635—601, 1559, 1561. Felgate's Case, 2 De G. & S. 456 (1865) —311. Felix, etc. Ltd. v. Hadley, 77 L. T. Rep. 131 (1897)— 131, 1505. Pelt V. Heye, 23 How. Pr. 359—959, 969. Pelton V. Ackerman, 61 Fed. 225, 9 G. C. A. 457—2434. Pelton V. City of Cincinnati, 95 Fed. 336, 37 G. G. A. 88—2450. Pelton V. Deall, 22 Vt. 170, 54 Am. Dec. 61—2732. Pelton V. McGlave, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 53—1772. Pelton V. Potomac, etc. Ins. Co., 4 Del. Ch. 573—2301. Fenlon v. Dempsey, 50 Hun, 131, 2 N. Y. Supp. 763—1112. Penn v. Curtis, 23 Hun, 384 — 799. Fennessy v. Ross, 90 Hun, 298, 35 N. Y. Supp. 868—1347. CXXXVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Fennessy v. Ross, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 342, 39 N. Y. Supp. 323—1347, 1532. Fenn's Case, 2 De G. & J. 10 (1857) — 1079. Penton v. Dempsey, 10 N. Y. St. Rep. 1^23 1113. Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. Jr. 287 (1802) —1110. Fenwick, etc. Co., In re (1902), 1 Ch. 507—1834. Fenwiek's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 557 (1849)— 530, 551. Fergus Palls Water Co. v. Fergus Falls, 65 Fed. 586—2762. Ferguson v. Ann Arbor R. R., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 336, 45 N. Y. Supp. 172— 2508. Ferguson v. Despo, 8 Ind. App. 523, 34 N. E. 575—2335. Ferguson v. Gill, 64 Hun, 284, 19 N. Y. Supp. 149—153. Ferguson v. Paschall, 11 Mo. 267 — 755. Ferguson v. Sherman, 116 Cal. 169, 47 Pac. 1023, 37 L. R. A. 622—469, 2699. Ferguson v. Soden, 111 Mo. 208, 19 S. W. 727, 33 Am. St. Rep. 512—1672. Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 77, 87, 90 (1866)— 192, 196, 756, 1897. Ferguson, etc. Co. v. Manhattan T. Co., 118 Fed. 791, 55 C. C. A. 529— 2042. JPergusson v. Anglo-Amer. Tel. Co., 178 Pa. St. 377, 35 Atl. 979, 35 L. R. A. ^54, 56 Am. St. Rep. 770—2849. Fernald v. Highland Hall Co., 59 Kan. 534, 53 Pac. 861—226, 2014. Fernschild v. Yuengling Brewing Co., 154 N. Y. 667, 49 N. B. 151—1579, 2530. Fernschild v. Yuengling Brewing Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 29, 44 N. Y. Supp. 106—1579, 2530. Ferrin v. Myrick, 41 N. Y. 315—1064. Ferris, In re, 56 Conn. 396, 15 Atl. 751 —2253. Ferris v. Ludlow, 7 Ind. 517—614, 637. Ferris v. Strong, 3 Edw. Ch. 127 (1837) —1387. Ferris v. Thaw, 72 Mo. 446 — 496. Ferry v. Cincinnati Underwriters, 111 Mich. 261, 69 N. W. 483-64. Ffooks V. Southwestern Ry., 1 Sm. & G. 142 (1853)— 107, 1851, 1893, 2647. Ficener v. Bott, 47 S. W. 251 (Ky.) — 2471. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Fowler Water Co., 113 Fed. 560—2764, 2767. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Glover, 90 Ky. 355, 14 S. W. 343—716. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 97 Fed. 297, 38 C. C. A. 193 — 438, 468, 479. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mobile St. Ry., 53 Fed. 687—2707. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mobile St. Ry., 53 Fed. 850—2245. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mobile, etc. Ry., 54 Fed. 26—2287. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 88 Fed. 815—2531. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 90 Fed. 175, 114 Fed. 389—2339, 2361. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Roanoke, etc. Co., 68 Fed. 623—2465. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Roanoke, etc. Ry., 98 Fed. 475—2287, 2505. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Schenley, etc. Ry., 189 Pa. St. 363, 42 'Atl. 140, 69 Am. St. Rep. 815—2241, 2338. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Shenandoah, etc. R. R., 32 W. Va. 244, 9 S. E. 180— 1809, 2172, 2178. 2234. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Shenandoah, etc. R. R., 86 Va. 1, 9 S. E. 759, 19 Am. St. Rep. 858—231, 2002, 2312, 2315. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Shenandoah Iron Co., 42 Fed. 372—2360, 2467. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Shenandoah Valley R. R. 33 W. Va. 761, 11 S. B. 58— 1937, 2003, 2496. Fidelity, etc. Co. v. West Pennsylvania, etc. R. R., 138 Pa. St. 494, 21 Atl. 21, 21 Am. St. Rep. 911—1973, 2059. Fidelity, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 144—2515. Fidelity, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 108 Pa. St 492, 1 Atl. 233—654, 655, 656. Fidelity, etc. T. Co. v. Roanoke, etc. Co., 81 Fed. 439—936, 980-, 989, 2422. Fidelity Ins. etc. Co. v. Niven, 5 Houst. (Del.) 416—1951. Fidelity Insurance, etc. Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. 752—2288, 2291. Fidelity Ins. Co. etc. Co. v. Shenan- doah, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 372—2467. Fidelity K & T. Co. v. Douglas, 104 Iowa, 532, 73 N. W. 1039—2332, 2699. Field V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 71 111. 458— 2644. Field V. Cooks, 16 La. Ann. 153 — 496. Field V. Field, 9 Wend. 394—1298. Field V. Haines, 28 Fed. 919—462. Field V. Kinnear, 4 Kan. 476 — 929. Field V. Lamson, etc. Co., 162 Mass. 388, 38 N. B. 1126, 27 L. R. A. 136— 583, 595, 600. Field V. Lelean, 6 H. & N. 617 (1861)- 926, 1256. Field V. Pierce, 102 Mass. 253—42, 518. Field V. SchiefEelin, 7 Johns. Ch. 150, 11 Am. Dec. 441—726. Field V. Sibley, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 81, 77 N. Y. Supp. 252—950, 1991, 2516. Field V. Union Box Co., 2 W. N. Cas. 426 (1876)— 1500. Pielden v. Lancashire, etc. Ry., 2 De G. & Sm. 531 (1848)— 586. TABLE OF OASES. OXXXIX [The numbers otter the dash refer to the pages of the text,] Pielders v. North Jersey, etc. Ry., 67 N. J. L. 76, 50 Atl. 533—2717. JPlery v. Emmert, 36 Md. 464—406. ' Pietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293, 13 N. E. 501, 3 Am. St. Rep. 492—7. JPifth Avenue Bank v. Forty-second Street, etc. R. R., 137 N. Y. 231, 33 N. E. 378, 19 L. R. A. 331, 33 Am. St. Rep. 712—643. J'iftli, etc. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. L. 513, 7 Atl. 318—1784. J'ifth, etc. Society v. Holt, 184 Pa. St. 572, 39 Atl. 293—761. Fifth Nat. Bank v. Navassa, etc. Co., 119 N. Y. 256, 23 N. E. 737—1776. Fifth Nat. Bank t. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 1 Fed. 190—2491. Fifty-four, etc. Bonds, In re, 15 S. C. 304—2386. Filder v. London, etc. Ry., 1 Hem. & M. 489 (1863)— 1892. Filli V. Delaware, etc. R. R., 37 Fed. 65 —1958. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 45 Fed. 436—2386, 2387. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 508—2361. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 188—2358. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 49 Fed. 693—2351, 2353. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 52 Fed. 524—2451. Finance Co. T. Charleston, etc. R. R., 61 Fed. 369—2335. Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 62 Fed. 205. 10 C. C. A. 323—2359, 2459. finance Co. etc. v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 52 Fed. 526, 678—2481. "Finance Committee v. Warren, 82 Fed. 525, 27 C. C. A. 472—2481. "Financial Corporation (Holmes's Case), In re, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 714, 733 (1867)— 637. Finch V. Riverside, etc. Ry., 87 Cal. 597, 25 Pac. 765—1455, 2661, 2684. "Finch V. UUmann, 105 Mo. 255, 16 S. W. 863, 24 Am. St. Rep. 383—1421. "Finch, etc. Co. v. Stirling Co., 187 Pa. St. 596, 41 Atl. 294—1652. Finchley, etc. Co. v. Finchley, etc. Council (1902), 1 Ch. 866—2813. "Findlay v. Pertz, 66 Fed. 427, 13 C. C. A. 559—1465. Fine v. Hornsby, 2 Mo. App. 61 — 762. Finlay v. Lindsay, 7 Ir. L. R. (N. S.) 1 (1857)— 1107. "Finlay v. Mexican Inv. Corp. (1897), 1 Q. B. 517—2089. Tinlayson v. Wiman, 84 Hun, 357, 32 N. Y. Supp. 347—750. Finletter v. Appleton, 195 Pa. St. 349, 45 Atl. 1063—171. Finley, etc. Co. v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89 — 196, 619, 1382. Finn v. Brown. 142 U. S. 56, 12 Sup. Ct. 136, 35 L. Ed. 936—180, 572, 828, 1177. Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 1150. 18 L. R. A. 778, 38 Am. St. Rep. 552 — 503, 508. Finney v. Guy, 23 Sup. Ct. 558—464. Finney v. Guy, 106 Wis. 256, 82 N. W. 595, 49 L. R. A. 486—440, 465, 466. Finney's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 398—937, 977, 987, 1005. Firbank v. Humphreys, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 54 (1886)— 1975. Fire Department v. Noble, 3 B. D. Smith, 440—1672, 1674, 1676. Fireman's Ins. Co., Ex parte, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 243—864. First Ave. etc. Co. v. Parker, 111 Wis. 1, 86 N. W. 604, 87 Am. St. Rep. 841— 102, 157, 639. First Baptist Church v. Branham, 90 Cal. 22, 27 Pac. 60—1421. First, etc. Bank, Matter of, 28 Misc. Rep. 662, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1042—1102. First, etc. Bank v. King, 60 Kan. 733, 57 Pac. 952—482. First, etc. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., 191 111. 128, 60 N. E. 859—293, 348, 584, 670. First, etc. Bank v. Rector, 80 N. W. 269 (Neb.)— 1086. First, etc. Bank v. Skinner, 62 Pac. 705 (Kan.)— 1835. First, etc. Church v. Grand Rapids, etc. Co., 15 Colo. App. 46, 60 Pac. 948 — 1417. First, etc. Church v. Pungs, 126 Mich. 670, 86 N. W. 235—212. First, etc. Co. v. Hildebrand, 103 Wis. . 530, 79 N. W. 753—1474, 1484, 1697. First M. E. Church, etc. v. Dixon, 178 111. 260, 52 N. E. 887—1665. First Municipality of New Orleans v. Orleans Theatre Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 209—372. First Nat. Bank v. Albia, 52 N. W. 334 —1221. First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 Mass. 476 —521. First Nat. Bank v. Amer. Nat. Bank, 72 S. W. 1059 (Mo.)— 2081. First Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 28 S. C. 143, 5 S. E. 343—1837. First Nat. Bank v. Arlington, 16 Blatchf. 57, 9 Fed. Cas. 95—262. First Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 42 Fed. 193—1711. First Nat. Bank v. Arnold, 156 Ind. 487, 60 N. E. 134—2072. First Nat. Bank v. Asheville, etc. Co., 116 N. C. 827—1742, 1791. cxl TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] First Nat. Bank v. Ayers, 160 U. S. 669, 16 Sup. Ct. 412, 40 L. Ed. 573—1225. First Nat. Bank v. Bennett, 33 Micli. 520—1769. First Nat. Bank v. Bohne, 8 Fed. 115, 4 Woods, 74—1967. First Nat. Bank v. Brenneman, 114 Pa. St. 315, 7 Atl. 910—2583. First Nat. Bank v. Bryce, 19 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 503—956. First Nat. Bank v. Burcli, 76 Mich. 608, 43 N. W. 453—1954. First Nat. Bank v. C. Bunting & Co., 63 Pac. 694 (Idalio)— 986, 994, 2439. First Nat. Bank v. Charlotte, 85 N. C. 433—1031, 1041. First Nat. Bank v. Chattanooga, etc. Co., 9^ Tenn. 308, 37 S. W. 8—1582. First Nat. Bank v. Christopher, 40 N. J. L. 435, 29 Am. Rep. 262—1840. First Nat. Bank v. Concord, 50 Vt. 257—248, 260, 262. First Nat. Bank v. Cornell, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 427, 40 N. Y. Supp. 850— 100, 154, 357. First Nat. Bank v. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 56 Hun, 412, 9 N. Y. Supp. 859— 1783. First Nat. Bank v. Davies, 43 Iowa, 424 —497, 502. 510. First Nat. Bank v. De Morse, 26 S. W. 417 (Tex.)— 1156. First Nat. Bank v. Dorset, 16 Blatchf. 62, 9 Fed. Gas. 98—261. First Nat. Bank v. Douglas County, 3 Dill. 298, 9 Fed. Cas. 100—1220. First Nat. Bank v. Douglas County, 3 Dill. 330, 9 Fed. Cas. 84—1220. First Nat. Bank v. Dovetail, etc. Co., 143 Ind. 534, 42 N. B. 924—414, 500, 1645, 2406. First. Nat. Bank v. Dovetail, etc. Co., 143 Ind. 550, 40 N. B. 810. 52 Am. St. Rep. 435—1634. First Nat. Bank v. Drake, 29 Kan. 311, 44 Am. Rep. 646—1494, 1506, 1852. First Nat. Bank v. Dunbar, 118 111. 625, 9 N. B. 186—1787. First Nat. Bank v. Ewing, 103 Fed. 168, 43 C. C. A. 150—2321, 2336, 2342, 2345, 2448, 2458, 2464. First Nat. Bank v. Fancher, 48 N. Y. 524—1212, 1213, 1220. First Nat. Bank v. Finck, 100 Wis. 446, 76 N. W. 608—946. First Nat. Bank v. Fricke, 75" Mo. 178, 42 Am. Rep. 397—1780, 1837. First Nat Bank v. Garretson, 107 Iowa, 196, 77 N. W. 856—1635, 1785. First Nat. Bank v. Gibson, 60 Neb. 767, 84 N. W. 259—1942. First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575, 583—51, 554, 564, 825, 843, 849, 855, 936. First Nat. Bank v. Greene, 64 Iowa, 445, 17 N W. 86, 20 N. W. 754—387, 396. First Nat. Bank v. Greenville, etc. Co., 60 S. W. 828 (Tex.)— 1606. First Nat. Bank v. Gustin, etc. Co., 42 Minn. 327, 44 N. W. 198, 6 L. R. A. 676, 18 Am. St. Rep. 510—99, 136, 159. First Nat. Bank v. G. V. B. Min. Co., 89 Fed. 439—1775, 1803, 2141, 2149, First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 356, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1054—988. First Nat. Bank v. Harper, 61 Minn. 375, 63 N. W. 1079—435. First Nat. Bank v. Hartford, etc. Ins, Co.. 45 Conn. 22, 44—1115, 1118, 1126, 1129. First Nat. Bank v. Hawkins, 79 Fed. 51, 24 C. C. A. 444—548, 686. First Nat. Bank v. Hawkins, 82 Fed. 301, 27 C. C. A. 679—548, 686. First Nat. Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402, 31 Am. Rep. 153—233. First Nat. Bank v. Herbert, 44 Fed. 158—1221. First Nat. Bank v. Hoch, 89 Pa. St. 324, 33 Am. Rep. 769—1905, 1769. First Nat. Bank v. Hogan. 47 Mo. 472 — 1782. First Nat. Bank v. Holland, 39 S. B. 126, 55 L. R. A. 155, 86 Am. St. Rep. 898 (Va.)— 663. First Nat. Bank v. Hungate, 62 Fed. 548—1221. First Nat. Bank v. Hurford, 29 Iowa, 579—314, 375. First Nat. Bank v. Illinois Steel Co., 174 111. 140, 51 N. E. 200—2306. First Nat. Bank v. Illinois T. & S. Bank, 84 Fed. 34—931, 947. First Nat. Bank v. Kiefer Milling Co., 95 Ky. 97, 23 S. W. 675—1971. First Nat. Bank v. Kirkby, 32 South. 881 (Pla.)— 1790. First Nat. Bank v. Kreig, 21 Nev. 404, 32 Pac. 641—1221. First Nat. Bank v. Lamon, 130 N. Y. 336, 29 N. E. 321-1380. First Nat. Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369, 377, 20 L. Ed. 172—884. First Nat. Bank v. Lindsay, 45 Fed. 619—1228. First Nat. Bank v. Linn, etc. Bank, 30 Oreg. 296, 47 Pac. 614—2430. First Nat. Bank v. Loyhed, 28 Minn. 396, 10 N. W. 421—1840. First Nat. Bank v. Lucas, 21 N^b. 280, 31 N. W. 805—1618, 1770. First Nat. Bank v. Lumber, etc. Co., 91 Tenn. 12, 18 S. W. 400—1642. First Nat. Bank v. McDonald Mfg. Co., 67 Wis. 373, 28 N. W. 225— 1644. TABLE OF CASES. cxli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] First Nat. Bank v. Marshall, etc. Bank, 83 Fed. 725, 28 C. C. A. 42—1788. First Nat. Bank v. Meredith, 44 Mo. 500—1228. First Nat. Bank v. Mings, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 302, 32 S. W. 178-988. First Nat. Bank t. Nat. Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 459, 51 N. B. 398, 42 L. R. A. 139—720, 724, 967. First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Broadway Bank, 22 N. Y. App. Dlv. 24, 47 N. Y. Supp. 880 — 720. First Nat. Bank v. National Bxch. Bank, 92 U. S. 122, 128, 23 L. Ed. 679—201, 685, 686, 1933. First Nat. Bank v. National Bxch. Bank, 39 Md. 600—1933. First Nat. Bank v. New, 146 Ind. 411, 45 N. B. 597—1777. First Nat. Bank v. Oskaloosa Packing Co., 66 Iowa, 41, 23 N. W. 255—776, 778. First Nat. Bank v. Park, 91 N. W. 826 (Iowa)— 702, 942. First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 69 Fed. 455—121, 403. First Nat. Bank v. Peavy, 75 Fed. 154 — 121, 403, 404, 677, 1902. First Nat. Bank v. Peterborough, 56 ,N. H. 38, 32 Am. Rep. 416—1226. First Nat. Bank v. Portland, etc. R. R., 2 Fed. 831—2436. First Nat. Bank v. Price, 33 Md. 487, 3 Am. Rep. 204—462. First Nat. Bank v. Radford Trust Co., 80 Fed. 569, 26 C. C. A. 1—2003, 2201, 2202, 2511. First Nat. Bank v. Reed, 36 Mich. 263 — 1454. First Nat. Bank v. Richmond, 39 Fed. 309—1222. First Nat. Bank v. Riggins, 32 S. E. 801 (N. O— 479. First Nat. Bank v. Root, 107 Ind. 224, 8 N. B. 105—947. First Nat. Bank v. St. Joseph, 46 Mich. 526, 9 N. W. 838—1226. First Nat. Bank v. Salem, etc. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 89 (1889)— 670, 2148. First Nat. Bank v. Scott County, 14 Minn. 77 (Gil. 59), 100 Am. Dec. 194 —2045. First Nat. Bank v. Shedd, 121 U. S. 74, 86, 7 Sup. Ct. 807, 30 L. Ed. 877— 2165, 2281, 2285. First Nat. Bank v. Sherburne, 14 Bradw. (111.) 566—1837. First Nat. Bank v. Shook, 100 Tenn. 436, 45 S. W. 338—1789. First Nat. Bank v. Sioux City, etc. Warehouse Co., 69 Fed. 441 — 1971, 2109, 2146, 2299. First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 6 Fed. 215— 406, 1182. First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 65 111. 44— 1212, 1222. First Nat. Bank v. Stone, 88 Fed. 409— 1221. First Nat. Bank v. Strang, 138 111. 347, 27 N. E. 903—1597. First Nat. Bank v. Stuetzer, 80 Hun, 435, 30 N. Y. Supp. 83—1819. First Nat. Bank v. Taliaferro, 72 Md. 164, 19 Atl. 364—724. First Nat. Bank v. Tisdale, 84 N. Y. 655—1761, 1773, 1842, 1843. First Nat. Bank v. Tisdale, 18 Hun, 151—1773, 1842. First Nat. Bank v. Tompkins, 57 Fed. 20, 6 C. C. A. -237—1838. First Nat. Bank v. Treasurer, 25 Fed. 749—1227. First Nat. Bank v. Turner, 154 Ind. 456, 57 N. E. 110—1221. First Nat. Bank v. Wallis, 150 N. Y. 455, 44 N. E. 1038—1819. First Nat. Bank v. Waters, 7 Fed. 152, 19 Blatchf. 242—1223. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Weidenbeck, 97 Fed. 896, 38 C. C. A. 131—468. First Nat. Bank v. Winchester, 119 Ala. 168, 24 South. 351, 72 Am. St. Rep. 904—12, 1163, 1726, 2013, 2073, 2257, 2272. First Nat. Bank v. Winona Plow Co., 58 Minn. 167, 59 N. W. 997—435, 569. First Nat. Bank v. Wolcott, 19 Blatchf. 370, 7 Fed. 892—258. First Nat. Bank v. Wyman, 66 Pac. 456 (Colo.)— 1995, 2259, 2360. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Briggs' As- signees, 70 Vt. 594, 41 Atl. 580—1834. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Chapman, 173 U. S. 205, 19 Sup. Ct. 407, 43 L. Ed. 669—1223. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Eureka, etc. Co., 123 N. C. 24, 31 S. E. 348—1825. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. F. C. Trebein Co., 59 Ohio St. 316, 52 N. B. 834— 1578. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Hastings, 7 Colo. App. 129, 42 Pac. 691—1015, 1018. First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Oregon Paper Co., 71 Pac. 144 (Or.)— 2475. First Nat. Bank of Chattanooga v. Radford T. Co., 80 Fed. 569, 26 C. C. A. 1—2202. First Nat. etc. Bank v. North, etc. Co., 86 Mo. 125—1777. First Nat. Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303—2125, 2163, 2176, 2181, 2189, 2195, 2196, 2200, 2221, 2243. First Parish v. Stearns, 38 Mass. 148 — 1339. First Parish in Sutton v. Cole, 20 Mass. 232, 239—67, 1660, 1666. cxlii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] First Presbyterian Church, In re, 111 Pa. St. 156, 2 Atl. 574—63. First Presb3i;erlan Church of Harris- burg, In re, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 240— 61. Fischer v. Campbell, 101 Fed. 156, 41 C. C. A. 256—1577. Fischer v. San Francisco Superior Court, 110 Cal. 129, 42 Pac. 561— 1918. Fiser v. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 32 Miss. 359—354. Fish V. Gilbert, 73 Conn. 377, 47 Atl. 718—169. Fish V. Kempton, 7 0. B. 687 (1849) — 917. Fish V. Nebraska, etc. Co., 25 Fed. 795 —1442. Fish V. New York, etc. Paper Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 16—2064. Fish V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R., 79 Fed. 131—2203. Fish V. Smith, 73 Conn. 377, 47 Atl. 711, 84 Am. St. Rep. 161—189, 278, 369, 413, 1943, 2398. Fishback v. Citizens' St. R. R., Nat. Corp. Rep., Super. Ct. Ind., March 4, 1892—2379. Fishback v. Western, etc. Co., 161 U. S. 96, 16 Sup. Ct. 506, 40 L. Ed. 630 —2841. Fishel V. Goddard, 69 Pac. 607 (Colo.) —1492. Fisher, Ex parte, 20 S. C. 179—1539. Fisher v. Adams, 63 Fed. 674, 11 C. C. A. 396—1539. Fisher v. Andrews, 37 Hun, 176'— 1909, 1910. Fisher v. Black, etc. Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 174—58, 602, 1161. Fisher v. Brown, 104 Mass. 259, 6 Am. Rep. 235—798, 911, 917, 969, 1251, 1256, 1259, 1263. Fisher v. Budlong, 10 R. I. 525—707. Fisher v. Bush, 35 Hun, 641 — 1308, 1354, 1355, 1361. Fisher v. Essex Bank, 71 Mass. 373, 378 —43, 45, 848, 888, 1010. Fisher v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 7 Ind. 407—233, 284. Fisher v. Feige, 137 Cal. 39, 69 Pac. 618, 59 L. R. A. 333—2779. Fisher v. Fisher, 8 Ind. App. 665, 36 N. E. 296—781. Fisher v. Fisher, 98 Mass. 303 — 975. Fisher v. Graves. 80 Fed. 590 — 1685, 1914. Fisher v. Jones, 82 Ala. 117, 3 South. 13—854, 1013. Fisher v. Keane, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 353 (1878)— 1075. Fisher v. Knight, 61 Fed. 491, 9 C. C. A. 582—443, 2409. Fisher v. Marvin, 47 Barb. 159—570. Fisher v. Metropolitan El. Ry., 34 Hun, 433—2566. Fisher v. Murdock, 13 Hun, 485—1627, 1837. Fisher v. New York Cent. etc. R. R., 46 N. Y. 644, 657—464, 2565. Fisher v. Otis, 3 Pin. (Wis.) 83—2051. Fisher v. Parr, 92 Md. 245, 48 Atl. 621— 1685, 1686. Fisher v. Patton, 134 Mo. 32, 33 S. W. 451, 34 S. W. 1096—1881. Fisher v. Price, 11 Beav. 194 (1848)— 774. Fisher v. Sellgman, 75 Mo. 13—572. Fisher v. Sellgman, 7 Mo. App. 383 — 123. Flshkill Sav. Inst. v. FlshklU Nat. Bank, 80 N. Y. 162, 36 Am. Rep. 595— 70. Fisk V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 378—2651. Fisk V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 53 Barb. 513—95, 110. 1874. Fisk V. Kenosha, 26 Wis. 23 — 249. Fisk V. Patton, 7 Utah, 399, 27 Pac. 1 —1077, 1664, 1934. Fisk V. Potter, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 138— 2330. Fisk V. Union Pac. R. R., 10 Blatchf. 518, 9 Fed. Cas. 167—1889. Flske V. Carr, 20 Me. 301—1009, 1018. Fiske V. Williams, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 487, 38 N. Y. Supp. 899—981. Fister V. La Rue, 15 Barb. 323 — 1798. Fitch, Matter of, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 609, 57 N. Y. Supp. 786—1244. Fitch, Matter of, 160 N. Y. 87, 95, 54 N. E. 701—729, 1244. Fitch v. Central N. Y. etc. Co., 42 N. Y. App. Div. 321, 59 N. Y. Supp. 140— 2827. Fitch V. Lewlston, etc. Co., 80 Me. 34, 12 Atl. 732—1806. Fitch V. Poplar Flat, etc. Co., 13 S. W. 791 (Ky.)— 361. Fitch V. Seymour Water Co., 139 Ind. 214, 37 N. B. 982, 47 Am. St. Rep. 258—2772. Fitch V. Wetherbee, 110 111. 475—598. Fitchburg R. R. v. Gage, 78 Mass. 393— 2607. Fitchburg R. R. v. Grand, etc. Co., 86 Mass. 198—2602. Fitchburg Sav. Bank v. Torrey, 13'4 Mass. 239—847. 941. Fitchett V. Murphy, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 181, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1§2— 1136, 1504, 1904. Fitchett V. North Pennsylvania R. R., 5 Phlla. 132—2049. Fitts V. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. Ed. 535—2619. Fitts V. National, etc. Assoc, 130 Ala. 413, 30 South. 374—1447. TABLE OF CASES. cxliii [The aumbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Fitzgerald v. Evans, 49 Fed. 426, 1 C. C. A. 307—2289. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, etc. Co., 41 Neb. 374, 59 N. W. 838—27, 1514, 1521, 1535, 1859, 1892, 1910, 2430. Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. R., 63 Vt. 169, 22 AO. 76, 13 L. R. A. 70—2608. Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 45 Fed. 812—684, 1538, 1725, 1727, 2651, 2655. Fitzgerald v. Weidenbeck, 76 Fed. 695 — 452. Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav. Bank, 90 N. W. 994 (Neb.)— 279, 386, 536. Fitzgerald, etc. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 109, 110, 111, 11 Sup. Ct. 36, 34 L,. Ed. 608—1505, 1645, 1775, 1960. Fitzhugh V. Bank of Shepherdsville, 3 T. B. Men. (Ky.) 126, 16 Am. Dec. 90 —1114, 1131. Fitzhugh V. Franco-Texas Land Co., 81 Tex. 306, 16 S. W. 1078—1778, 1780. Fitzpatrick v. Dispatch Pub. Co., 83 Ala. 604—149, 175. Fitzpatrick v. Rutter, 160 111. 282, 43 N. E. 392—1088. Fitzpatrick r. Woodruff, 96 N. Y. 561— 764. Fitzroy, etc. Co., In re, 50 L. T. 144 (1884)— 1479, 1859. Fitzsimmons v. Lindsay, 54 Atl. 488 (Pa.) 757—1352. Fitzwater v. National Bank, etc., 62 Kan. 163, 61 Pac. 684, 84 Am. St. Rep. 377—1935. Plagg V. Baldwin, 38 N. J. Eq. 219, 48 Am. Rep. 308—768, 771, 776, 779, 781. Flagg V. Gilpin, 17 R. I. 10, 19 AU. 1084—778. Flagg V. Manhattan Ry., 10 Fed. 413, 20 Blatchf. 142—1513, 1723, 2578. Flagler, etc. Co. v. Flagler, 19 Fed. 468 —107, 164. Flaherty v. Atlantic, etc. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 467. 44 Atl. 186—1797. Flaherty v. Gary, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 116, 70 N. Y. Supp. 951—1346, 1703. Flaherty v. Murray, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 92, 69 N. Y. Supp. 675—1703. Flanagan v. Great Western Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. 116 (1868)— 756, 1483. Flanagan Bank v. Graham, 71 Pac. 137 (Greg.)- 2040, 2346, 2658. Flash V. Conn, 109 U. S. 371, 3 Sup. Ct. 263, 27 L. Ed. 966—447, 450, 454, 461. Fleckenstein v. Waters, 160 Mo. 649, 61 S. W. 615—1495, 1915. Fleckenstein v. Waters, 61 S. W. 615 (Mo.)— 1652. Fleckner v. Bank of U. S., 8 Wheat. 338, 5 L. ~Bd. 631—1625, 1760. Fleeson v. Savage S. M. Co., 3 Nev. 15T— 41. Fleet V. Murton, L. R. 7 Q. B. 126 (1871)— 914. Fleisher v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 473, 69 N. Y. Supp. 437—1996, 2135, 2162, 2165. Pleitas V. City of New Orleans, 51 La. Ann. 1, 24 South. 623—1436. Fleming v. Montgomery Light Co., 10ft Ala. 657, 13 South. 618—2734. Fleming v. Northampton Nat. Bank, 9 Fed. Cas. 264—948. Fleming v. Soutter, 6 Wall. 747, 18 L. Ed. 847—2293. Flemyng v. Hector, 2 M. & W. 172 (1836)— 1071. Flenniken v. Marshall, 43 S. C. 80. 2* S. E. 788, 28 L. R. A. 402—438. Fletcher, Ex parte, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 49 (1867)— 343. Fletcher v. Ann Arbor R. R., 116 Fed. 479, 53 C. C. A. 647—2252, 2287. Fletcher v. Bank of Lonoke, 69 S. W. 580 (Ark.)— 396. Fletcher v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 67 Minn. 339, 69 N. W. 1085—1747. Fletcher v. Co-operative, etc. Co., 58- Neb. 511, 78 N. W. 1070—1942. Fletcher v. Dickinson, 89 Mass. 23 — 969. Fletcher v. Harney, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 555—2394. Fletcher v. McGill, 110 Ind. 395, 10 N. B. 651. 11 N. B. 779—194. Fletcher v. Marshall, 15 M. & W. 755^ (1846)— 908. Fletcher v. Newark, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 47, 35 Atl. 903—1568. Fletcher v. New York Life Ins. Co., 13 Fed. 526, 4 McCrary, 440—1674, 2745. Fletcher v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 39 Vt. 633—2183. Fletcher v. Waring, 137 Ind. 159, 36 N. E. 896—2464. Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. 785—93, 101,. 114, 116. Flint V. Boston, etc. Co., 66 N. B. 592; (Mass.)— 433, 1972. Flint V. Clinton Co., 12 N. H. 430, 434„ 435—1637, 1807. Flint V. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, 96 Am. Dec. 691—21, 519. Flint, etc. Co. v. Kerr-Murray, etc. Co., 56 N. E. 858 (Ind.)— 2079. Flint, etc. Plank-road Co. v. Woodhull, 25 Mich. 99, 12 Am. Rep. 233—1432. Flint, etc. Ry. v. Dewey, 14 Mich. 47T —1455. Flippin V. Kimball, 87 Fed. 258, 31 C. C. A. 282—2452. Flitcroft's Case, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 519 (1882)— 1175, 1185, 1187. Flood V. Western Union Tel. Co., 131 N. Y. 603, 30 N. E. 196—2834. Flood V. Western Union Tel. Co., 15- N. Y. Supp. 400—2834. Florence, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 530 (1878)— 2095. cxliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Florence, etc. Imp. Co. v. Chase Nat. Bank, 106 Ala. 364, 17 South. 720— 2072. Florence Gas, etc. Co. v. Hanby, 101 Ala. 15, 13 South. 343—2385, 2442, 2657. Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667, 23 L.. Ed. 290—2089, 2090. Florida v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 15 Fla. 201—2383. Florida Const. Co. v. Young, 59 Fed. 721, 8 C. C. A. 231—1388, 1927. Florida, etc. Co. v. Merrill, 52 Fed. 77, 2 C. C. A. 629—745, 810. Florida, etc. Co. v. State, 31 Fla. 482, 13 South. 103, 20 L. R. A. 419, 34 Am. St. Rep. 30—2623. Florida, etc. Co. v. Usina, 111 Ga. 697, 36 S. E. 928—40, 1813, 1831. Florida, etc. Exchange v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575, 18 South. 850—1812. Florida, etc. R. R. v. Vamedoe, 81 Ga. 175, 7 S. E. 129—1828. Florsheim v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 192 111. 382, 61 N. E. 491—168, 279, 558. Florsheim v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 93 111. App. 297—558. Florsheim, etc. Co. v. Wettermark. 10 Tex. Civ. App. 102, 30 S. W. 505— 1642. Flour City Nat. Bank v. Wechselberg, 45 Fed. 547—457. Flowers v. Bartlett. 66 Minn. 213, 68 . N. W. 976—463. Flowers v. Steiner, 108 Ala. 440, 19 South. 321—763. Floyd V. National, etc. Co., 49 W. Va. 327, 38 S. E. 653, 87 Am. St. Rep. 805, 54 L. R. A. 536—1673. Floyd V. Perrin, 30 S. C. 1, 8 S. E. 14, 2 L. R. A. 242—248. Floyd Acceptances, The, 7 Wall. 666, 19 L. Ed. 169—1979. Fluck V. Lake, 54 N. J. Eq. 638, 35 Atl. 643—728. Fluker v. Emporia City Ry., 48 Kan. 577, 30 Pac. 18—1921. Flynn v. Boston, etc. Co., 171 Mass. 395, 50 N. B. 937—2835. Flynn v. Brooklyn City R. R., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 269, 41 N. Y. Supp. 566— 127, 1875, 1912, 2563. rFlynn v. Brooklyn City Ry. Co., 158 N. Y. 493, 53 N. B. 520—127, 1528, 1875, 1903, 1909, 1912, 2563. Flynn v. Columbus Club, 21 R. I. 534, 45 Atl. 551—1506. ■Flynn v. Coney Island, etc. R. R., 26 N. Y. App. Div. 416, 50 N. Y. Supp. 74—1973, 1974, 2116. Flynn v. Hudson River R. R., 6 How. Pr. 308—1955. 'Flynn v. Little Falls, etc. Water Co., 77 N. W. 38 (Minn.)— 2765. Flynn v. Third Nat. Bank, 122 Mich. 642, 81 N. W. 572 (Mich.)— 1686, 1911. Fobes V. Rome, etc. R. R., 121 N. Y. 505, 24 N. B. 919. 8 L. R. A. 453— 2688. Fogg V. Blair, 133 U. S. 534, 10 Sup. Ct. 338, 33 L. Ed. 721—1586, 2349. Fogg V. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 11 Sup. Ct. 476, 35 L. Bd. 104—115, 124, 141, 2007. Fogg V. Boston, etc. R. R., 148 Mass. 513, 20 N. B. 109, 12 Am. St. Rep 583—72. Fogg V. Griffin, 84 Mass. 1 — 72. Fogg V. Sidwell, 8 111. App. 551—1026. Foley V. Guarantee Trust Co., 74 Fed. 759, 21 C. C. A. 78—2278. Foley T. Holtry, 41 Neb. 563, 59 N. W. 781^333 Foley V. Holtry, 43 Neb. 133, 61 N. W. 120—800. Foley V. Jersey, etc. L. Co., 54 N. J. L. 411, 24 Atl. 487—2835. Foliger V. Chase, 35 Mass. 63 — ^1448. Folger V. Columbian Ins. Co., 99 Mass. 267, 96 Am. Dec. 747—1386, 1396. FoUett V. Field, 30 La. Ann. 161—1388. Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 434, 36 Am. Rep. 671—759. Folsom V. Detrick, etc. Co., 85 Md. 52, 36 Atl. 446—1576. Fonnereau v. Poyntz, 1 Bro. Ch. 472 (1785)— 656. Fontaine v. Tyler, 9 Price, Bxch. 94 (1821)— 654. Fontana, In re, 85 Hun, 219, 32 N. Y. Supp. 956—2266. Fontana v. Pacific, etc. Co., 129 Cal. 51, 61 Pac. 580—1768, 2079, 2086. Foote V. Cunard Min. Co., 17 Fed. 46, 5 McCrary, 251—1907. Foote V. Glenn, 52 Fed.. 529 — 413. Foote V. Illinois, etc. Bank, 62 N. B. 834 (111.)— 144, 167. Foote V. Linck, 5 McLean, 616, 9 Fed. Cas. 366—1204, 1868. Foote V. Mount Pleasant, 1 McCrary, 101, 9 Fed. Cas. 368—264. Foote V. Utah, etc. Bank, 17 Utah, 283, 54 Pac. 104—986. Foote V. Worthington, 39 Mass. 299 — 1146. Foote's Appeal, 39 Mass. 299 — 656, 1197. Forbell V. City of New York, 164 N. Y. 522, 58 N. E. 644, 51 L. R. A. 695, 79 Am. St. Rep. 666—2763. Forbes v. Howe, 102 Mass. 427, 436, 3 Am. Rep. 475 — 1639. Forbes v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 323, 9 Fed. Cas. 408 — 43, 1926, 2253, 2267, 2268. Forbes v. San Rafael, etc. Co., 50 Cal. 340—2140. TABLE OF CASES. cxlv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Forbes v. Whitlock, 3 Edw. Ch. 446 (1841)— 1933. Forbes v. Wblttemore, 62 Ark. 229, 35 S. W. 223—499. Forbes's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 270 (1870)— 88. Force v. Age-Herald Co., 33 South. 866 (Ala.)— 1574, 1618, 2206. Force v. Elizabeth, 27 N. J. Eq. 408— 2048. Ford V. Chicago, etc. Assoc, 155 111. 166, 39 N. B. 651, 27 L. R. A. 298— 1045. Ford V. Elasthampton, etc. Co., 158 Mass. 84, 32 N. E. 1036, 20 L. R. A. 65, 35 Am. St. Rep. 462—1152. Ford V. Ford, 23 N. H. 212—660. Ford V. Hill, 92 Wis. 188, 66 N. W. 115, 53 Am. St. Rep. 902—1644, 1771. Ford V. Plankinton Bank, 87 Wis. 363, 58 N. W. 766—1644. Fordyce y. Beecher, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 29, 21 S. W. 179—2489. Fordyce v. Dixon, 70 Tex. 694, 8 S. W. 504—2492. Fordyce v. Withers, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 540, 20 S. W. 766—2419. Foreign, etc. Trust Co. v. Sloper (1893), 2 Ch. 96, 3 Ch. 716 (1894) — 1558, 2527. Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 508, 544, 9 Fed. Cas. 427, 441—81, 84, 170, 171. Porepaugh v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 128 Pa. St. 217, 18 Atl. 503, 5 L. R. A. 508, 15 Am. St. Rep. 672—2645. Forest v. Manchester, etc. Ry., 30 Beav. 40—2643. Forest, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 450 (1878)— 1695. Forest, etc. Co. v. Bjorkquist, 110 Wis. 547, 86 N. W. 183—1480. Forest, etc. Min. Co., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 450 (1878)— 1689. Forget V. Baxter (1900), A. C. 467—920. Forget V. Ostigny (1895), A. C. 318 — 778. Forker v. Brown, 30 N. Y. Supp. 827— 2407. Forrest v. Elwes, 4 Ves. Jr. 492 (1799) —1251, 1260, 1263. Forrest v. Luddington, 68 Ala. 1—2121. Forrest v. -Manchester, etc. Ry., 4 De G., F. & J. 126 (1861)— 1892. Forrest v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 116 Fed. 357, 53 C. C. A. 577—1957. Forrester v. Bill, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 555 (1847)— 1699. Forrester v. Boston, etc. Co., 21 Mont. 544, 565, 55 Pac. 229, 353—1561, 1857, 1885, 1893, 1896, 1911, 2559. Forrester v. Boston, etc. Co., 22 Mont. 430, 56 Pac. 868—1857. Forrester v. Boston, etc. Co., 24 Mont. 148, 60 Pac. 1088, 61 Pac. 309—1923. Forrestier v. Bordman, 1 Story, 43, 9 Fed. Cas. 459—914. Forsyth v. Brown, 2 Pa. Dist. 765— 1293, 1300, 1306. Forsyth Comm'rs v. Lemly, 85 N. C. 341—1107, 1108. Porsythe v. B. & 0. Tel. Co.. 12 Mo. App. 494—2793. Fort Dearborn Nat. Bank v. Seymour, 71 Minn. 81, 73 N. W. 724—1788. Port Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. 567—213, 219, 290. Fort Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne, 15 N. Y. 583—232. Portenbury v. State, 47 Ark. 188, 1 S. W. 58—773. Port, etc. Assoc, v. Model, etc. Assoc, 159 Pa. St. 308, 28 Atl. 215—58. Fort Madison Bank v. Alden, 129 U. S. 372, 9 Sup. Ct. 332, 32 L. Ed. 725— 1890. Port Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, 71 Iowa, 270, 32 N. W. 336, 60 Am. Rep. 789—1016. Fort Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, 77 Iowa, 393, 42 N. W. 331— 1016. Fort Payne Bank v. Alabama Sanitar- ium, 103 Ala. 358, 15 South. 618— 1178, 1569, 1573. Fort Payne, etc. Mill v. Hill, 174 Mass. 224, 54 N. E. 532—1458. Port Payne Furnace Co. v. Fort Payne Coal, etc. Co., 96 Ala. 472, 11 South. 439, 38 Am. St. Rep. 109—2259. Port Wayne, etc. Co. v. Maumee Ave., etc Co., 132 Ind. 880, 30 N. E. 880, 15 L. R. A. 651—2751. Fort Wayne, etc. Corp. v. Franklin, etc. Co., 40 Atl. 441 (N. J.)— 2381. Fort Wayne, etc. Corp. v. Prankliij, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Bq. 7, 16, 41 Atl. 666, 217—2364, 2368, 2381. Fort Wayne, etc. R. R. v. Mellett, 92 Ind. 535—2415, 2419. Fort Worth City Co. v. Smith Bridge Co., 151 U. S. 294, 14 Sup. Ct. 339, 38 L. Ed. 167—143, 1594, 2018. Fort Worth, etc. Ry. v. Southwestern, etc Tel. Co., 71 S. W. 270 (Tex.) — 2804. Port Worth, etc. Ry. v. Sweatt, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 543, 50 S. W. 162—2630, 2800. Fort Worth Pub. Co. v. Hitson, 80 Tex. 216, 14 S. W. 843, 16 S. W. 551— 1585, 1780. Fort Worth St. Ry. v. Queen City Ry., 71 Tex. 165, 9 S. W. 94—2676. Forty-Second St. etc. R. R. v. Thirty- Fourth St. R. R., 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 252—2664. Porwood V. Eubank, 50 S. W. 255 (Ky.)— 585, 609. cxlvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S. 256, 25 L. Ed. 344—2442, 2450. Fosdick V. Greene, 27 Ohio St. 484, 22 Am. Rep. 328—905, 956, 1251, 1260, 1264. Fosdick V. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 253, 25 L. Ed. 339—2304, 2311, 2312, 2350, 2354, 2356, 2442, 2450, 2502. Fosdick V. Schall, 4 Cent. L. J. 458— 2307. Fosdick V. Sturges, 1 Biss. 255, 259, 9 Fed. Cas. 501, 503—95, 108, 110, 785. Foss V. Cummings, 149 111. 353, 36 N. E. 553—773. Foss V. Harbottle, 2 Hare, 461 — 1275, 1451, 1526, 1621, 1904, 1922. Foster v. Bank, etc., 88 Fed. 604 — 1908. Foster v. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 65 Fed. 836—1857. Foster v. Belcher's, etc. Co., 118 Mo. 238, 24 S. W. 63—80, 113, 1492. Foster v. Borax Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 130, 137—1560. Foster v. Chase, 75 Fed. 797—541. Foster v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 47 Fed. 369—266, 2203, 2571. Foster v. Essex Bank, 16 Mass. 245 — 1447, 1448. Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168—1246, 1801. Foster r. Gibson, 38 S. W. 144 (Ky.) — 800, 1688. Foster v. Kenosha, 12 Wis. 616—249. Foster v. Lebanon, etc. R. R., 100 Fed. 543—2224. Poster V. Lincoln, 74 Fed. 382, 79 Fed. 170, 24 C. C. A. 470—577. Foster v. Mackinnon, L. R. 4 C. P. 704 (1869)— 182. Foster v. Mansfield, etc. R. R., 146 U. S. 88, 13 Sup. Ct. 28, 36 L. Ed. 899— 1855, 1861, 2075, 2243, 2246, 2271, 2277, 2509. Foster v. Mansfield, etc. R. R., 36 Fed. 627—1861, 2075, 2243, 2246. Foster v. Moulton, 35 Minn. 458, 29 N. W. 155—1083. Foster v. Ohio, etc. Co., 17 Fed. 130, 5 McCrary, 329—1784. Foster v. Oxford, etc. Ry., 13 C. B. 200 (1853)— 1490. Foster v. Posson, 105 "Wis. 99, 81 N. W. 123—454. Foster v. Potter, 37 Mo. 525—933, 992, 997, 998, 1019, 1132. Foster v. Row, 120 Mich. 1. 79 N. W. 696, 77 Am. St. Rep. 565—338, 425, 440, 447, 561, 564, 568, 573, 578. Foster v. Seymour, 23 Fed. 65, 23 Blatchf. 107—108. Foster v. Smith, 115 Cal. 611, 47 Pac. 591—1330. Foster v. Townshend, 68 N. Y. 203 — 1948, 2397. Foster v. White. 86 Ala. 467, 6 South, 88—1096, 1098. Foster v. Wilson, 75 Fed. 797 — 541. Foster, etc. Co. v. Caskey, 72 Pac. 268- (Kan.)— 1241. Fothergill's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App, 270 (1873)— 88, 163. Fottler V. Moseley, 179 Mass. 295, 60 N. E. 788—807, 908. Fouche V. Merchants,' etc. Bank, 110' Ga. 827, 36 S. B. 256—134, 168, 532, 1756, 1836, 2036. Fougeray v. Cord, 50 N. J. Eq. 185, 24 Atl. 499—1161, 1509. Foulke V. San Diego, etc. Ry., 51 Cal. 365—1820. Foulks, etc. Co. v. Thies, 65 Pac. 37S (Nev.)— 323. Fountaine v. Carmarthen Ry., L. R. 5 Eq. 316 (1868)— 1822, 1972, 2094, 1756, 1836, 2036. Fountain, etc. Co. v. Roberts, 92 Wis. 345, 66 N. W. 399, 53 Am. St. Rep. 917—1478. Fountain Ferry, etc. Co. v. Jewell, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 140—375, 1387, 1623. Pour Mile, etc. R. R. v. Bailey, 18 Ohio St. 208—130, 377. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747, 7 Sup. Ct. 757, 30 L. Ed, 825—396, 445, 447, 461, 470, 1944. Fourth Nat. Bank, etc. v. Crescent, etc. Co., 52 S. W. 1021 (Tenn.)— 832, 869, 953, 969, 999, 1001, 1253, 1255. Foushee v. Grigsby, 12 Bush (Ky.), 75 —430. Foushee v. Snyder, 54 S. W. 730 (Ky.) —109, 320, 795, 1465. Fowie V. Ward, 113 Mass. 548, 18 Am. Rep. 534—962, 970, 981, 1261. Fowler v. Bell, 90 Tex. 150, 37 S. W. 1058, 39 L. R. A. 254, 59 Am. St. Rep. 788—1642. Fowler v. Great, etc. Co., 104 La. 751, 29 South. 271—1510. Fowler v. Jarvis, etc. Co., 63 Fed. 888 — 2387. Fowler v. Jarvis, etc. Co., 64 Fed. 279 —2268, 2378. Fowler v. Jarvis, etc. Co., 66 Fed. 14 — 2490, 2493. Fowler v. Lamson, 146 111. 472, 34 N. E. 932, 37 Am. St. Rep. 163—433, 459, 466. Fowler v. Ludwig, 34 Me. 455 — 559, 571. Fowler v. New York Gold Exch. Bank, 67 N. Y. 138—911, 1258, 1265. Fowler V. Pittsurgh, etc. R. R., 35 Pa. St. 22—2304. Fowler v. Robinson, 31 Me. 189—442, 477. Fowler's Petition, 9 Abb. N. Cas. 268 — 2435. Pox, Ex parte, L. R. 6 Ch. 176—2583. TABLE OF CASES. cxlvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Fox, In re, 52 N. Y. 530, 11 Am. Rep. 751—69. Fox V. AUensville, etc. Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31— 281, ,282, 286, 358, 1294. Fox V. Carr, 16 Hun, 566—658. Pox V. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776 (1830)— 208, 209, 362, 549, 1709. Fox V. Clifton, 9 Bing. 115 (1832)— 1709. Fox V. First, etc. Bank, 9 Kan. App. 18, 57 Pac. 241—449, 484. Fox V. Hale, etc. Co., 108 Cal. 369, 41 Pac. 308—1457, 1876, 1878, 1899, 2480. Fox V. Hartford, etc. R. R., 70 Conn. 1, 38 Atl. 871—990, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2062. Fox V. Horali, 1 Ired. Bq. (N. C.) 358, 36 Am. Dec. 48—1434. Fox V. Mackay, 60 Fed. 4—1870. Fox V. Mackay, 125 Cal. 57, 57 Pac. 670 —1532. Fox V. Northern Liberties, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 103—1800. Fox V. Robbins, 62 S. W. 815 (Tex.) — 1396, 1727, 1852, 1939, 2248, 2265. Fox V. Rural Home Co., 157 N. Y. 684, 51 N. E. 1090—2071. Fox V. Rural Home Co., 90 Hun, 365, 35 N. Y. Supp. 896—2071. Fox V. Seal, 22 Wall. 424, 22 L. Ed. 774—2328, 2335. Fox V. Union, etc. Co., 37 N. Y. Misc. 308, 75 N. Y. Supp. 464—2423. Fox V. Western Pac. R. R., 31 Cal. 538 —2626. Pox's Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 465 (1863) —581. Fox's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 118 (1868) — 325, 343. Frahn's Estate, In re, 94 N. W. 444 (Iowa) — 660. Frames v. Bulfonteln Min. Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 140—1512. Pramingham, etc. Co. v. Old Colony, etc. R. R., 176 Mass. 404, 57 N. E. 680—2783. France v. Clark, L. R. 22 Ch. D. 830 (1883)— 886, 956. Francis v. New York, etc. R. R., 17 Abb. N. Cas. 1 (N. Y.)— 663, 815. Francis v. New York, etc. R. R., 108 N. Y. 93. 15 N. E. 192—333, 815. Francis v. Taylor, 31 N. Y. Misc. 187, 65 N. Y. Supp. 28—1090, 1563, 2566. Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 U. S. 215, 7 Sup. Ct. 951, 30 L. Ed. 936—1567. Franco-Texan Land Co. v. Bousselet, 70 Tex. 422, 7 S. W. 761—617. Franco-Texan Land Co. v. Laigle, 59 Tex. 339—1270. Franco-Texan Land Co. v. McCormick, 85 Tex. 416, 23 S. W. 123, 34 Am. St. Rep. 815—1772. J Franey v. Warner, 96 Wis. 222, 71 N. W. 81—332, 1472. Franey v. Wauwatosa Park Co.. 99 Wis. 40, 74 N. W. 548—332, 1472, 1478. Frank v. Bingham, 58 Hun, 580, 12 N. Y. Supp. 767—2424. Frank v. Denver, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 123 —2313, 2315, 2330, 2441. Frank v. Denver, etc. Ry., 23 Fed. 757 —2448. Frank v. Edison, etc. Co., N. Y. L. J., Jan. 12. 16, 1892—2012. Frank v. Hicks, 4 Wyo. 502, 35 Pac. 475, 1025—2149, 2324, 2766. Prank v. Morrison, 58 Md. 423 — 410. Prank v. New York, etc. R. R., 122 N. Y. 197, 25 N. B. 332—2534. Prank Co. v. Berwind, 47 S. W. 681 (Tex.)— 1654. Franke v. Mann, 106 Wis. 118, 81 N. W. 1014, 48 L. R. A. 856—1423. Prankford, etc. Pass. Ry. v. Philadel- phia, 58 Pa. St. 119, 98 Am. Dec. 242 —2721. Frankfort Bank v. Johnson, 24 Me. 490 —1594, 1933. Prankland v. Johnson, 147 111. 520, 35 N. E. 480, 37 Am. St. Rep. 234—1613, 1816, 1819. Franklin v. Bank of England, 1 Russ. 575 (1826)— 728, 732, 1196. , Franklin v. Twogood, 18 Iowa, 515 — 1419. Franklin Bank v. Commercial Bank, 36 Ohio St. 350, 38 Am. Rep. 594 — 686, 859. Franklin Bank v. Cooper, 36 Me. 179 — 1448. Franklin Bank v. Harris, 77 Md. 423, 26 Atl. 523—954, 970, 971. Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga.. 80—3. Franklin Co. v. Lewlston Sav. Inst., 68 Me. 43, 28 Am. Rep. 9—201, 685. Franklin County Court v. Deposit, Bank, 87 Ky. 370, 9 S. W. 212—1236. Franklin, etc. Co. v. Amazon, etc. Co.,. 87 N. W. 211 (Mich.)— 1636. Franklin, etc. Co. v. Northern, etc. R. R., 11 N. Y. App. Div. 249, 42 N. Y. Supp. 211—2357. Franklin, etc. Ins. Co. v. Hart, 31 Md. 59—1719. Franklin P. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins. 3: ' Wend. 130—1609, 1619. Franklin Glass Co. v. Alexander, 2 N.. H. 380, 9 Am. Dec. 92—290. Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14 Mass.. 286—219, 291. Franklin Nat. Bank v. Newcombe, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 294, 37 N. Y. Supp. 271—981, 989. cxlviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Franklin Nat. Bank v. Whitehead, 149 Ind. 560, 49 N. B. 592, 39 L. R. A. 725, 63 Am. St. R^p. 302—1596, 2109, 2259. Franklin Sav. Bank v. Bridges, 8 Atl. 611 (Pa.)— 385. Franklin Sav. Bank v. Cochrane, 66 N. E. 200 (Mass.)— 1786. Franklin Sav. Bank v. Colby, 105 Iowa, 424, 75 N. W. 346—2172. Franklin Savings Bank v. Fatzinger, 4 Atl. 912 (Pa.)— 274. Franklin T. Co. v. Rutherford, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 42, 41 Atl. 488—118, 1297, 1308, 1758, 1894, 2025, 2035. Franks Oil Co. v. McCleary, 63 Pa. St. 317—557. Fraser v. Charleston, 11 S. C. 486 — 844, 845, 888, 938. Fraser v. Ritchie, 8 111. App. 554 — 670, 676. Fraser v. Whalley, 2 Hem. & M. 10 (1864)- 1320. V ' Fraser, etc. Mln. Co. v. Gallagher, 5 British Columbia Rep. 82 — 107. Frater v. Old Nat. Bank, etc., 101 Fed. 391, 42 C. C. A. 133—534. Frater v. Old Nat. Bank, 103 Fed. 391— 534. Fraternal Guardians' Estate, In re, 159 Pa. St. 603, 28 Atl. 479—2379. Fraylor v. Sonora Min. Co., 17 Cal. 594 —1506. Frayser v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 81 Va. 388—2302. Frazer v. Siebern, 16 Ohio St. 614 — 1214, 1216, 1224, 1225. Frazer, etc. Min. Co. v. Gallagher, 5 British Columbia Rep. 82 (1895)— 171. Frazier v. Bast Tennessee, etc. R. R., 88 Tenn. 138, 12 S. W. 5K7— 2539. . Frazier v. Willcox, 4 Rob. (La.) 517— 1672. Fredendall v. Taylor, 26 Wis. 286— 1085. Frederick v. Augusta, 5 Ga. 561 — 250, 251. Fredericks v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 109 Pa. St. 50, 2 Atl. 48—1301, 1855. Freedman's Sav. Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 8 Sup. Ct. 1250, 32 L. Ed. 163—2302. Free, etc. Co. v. Spiers, 135 Cal. 130, 67 Pac. 61—2438. Freeholders v. State Bank, 28 N. J. Bq. 166—2386. Freehold, etc. Assoc, v. Brown, 29 N. J. Bq. 121—1432. Freeland v. Hastings, 92 Mass. 570 — 250, 251. Freeland v. McCullough, 1 Denlo, 414, 422, 426, 43 Am. Dec. 685—395, 425, 460, 486, 570. Freeman v. Harwood, 49 Me. 195 — 300, 987, 1248, 1251, 1259, 1263. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 16 L. Ed. 749—2600. Freeman v. Machias Water, etc. Co., 38 Me. 343—1269. Freeman v. Matlock, 67 Ind. 99—237. Freeman v. Ottawa, etc. Assoc, 13.4 111. 182, 28 N. B. 611—294. Freeman v. Pennsylvania R. R., 173 Pa. St. 274, 33 Atl. 1(534—2085. Freeman v. Sea View Hotel Co., 57 N. J. Bq. 68, 40 Atl. 218—1559. Freeman v. Stine, 15 Phila. 37 — 114, 1502. Freeman V. Trickett, 6 Kan. App. 83, 49 Pac. 672—805. Freeman v. Winchester, 18 Miss. 577 — 290, 401. Freeman, etc. Co. v. Osborn, 14 Colo. App. 488, 60 Pac. 730—1720. Freeman's Nat. Bank v. Smith, 13 Blatchf. 220, 9 Fed. Cas. 760—1281. Freemont Carriage, etc. Co. v. Thom- sen, 91 N. W. 376 (Neb.)— 350, 675. Freeport, etc. Co. v. City of Freeport, 186 111. 179, 57 N. B. 862—2770. Freeport, etc. Co. v. Freeport City, 180 U. S. 587, 21 Sup. Ct. 493, 45 L. Ed. 679—2618, 2769. Freer v. Denton, 61 N. Y. 492 — 328, 811. Free School Trustees v. Flint, 54 Mass. 539—21. Fremont v. Stone, 42 Barb. 169 — 1345. French v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 40 Mass. 216—2627. French v. Currier, 47 N. H. 88, 99 — 715. French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill, 12 N. W. 354—1588. French v. First Nat. Bank, 7 Ben. 488, 9 Fed. Cas. 786—1110, 1111. French v. Fitch, 67 Mich. 492, 35 N. W. 258—789. French v. Fuller, 40 Mass. 108 — 1155. French v. McCarthy, 125 Cal. 508, 58 Pac. 154—979. French v. O'Brien, 52 How. Pr. 394—22. French v. Sanger, N. Y. L. J., July 22, 1892—762. French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518, 540—435, 517. French v. Union Pac. Ry., 92 Fed. 26 —2403. French v. Union Pac. Ry., 92 Fed. 28 — 2085. Frenkel v. Hudson, 82 Ala. 158, 2 South. 758, 60 Am. Rep. 736—84. Freon v. Carriage Co., 42 Ohio St. 30, 51 Am. Rep. 794—865, 1258. Fresno, etc. Co. v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379, 14 Pac. 37—1423. Fresno, etc. R. R. v. Southern Pac. R. R., 135 Cal. 202, 67 Pac. 773—1767, 2708. TABLE OF CASES. cxlix rrhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Frick V. Mercer County, 138 Pa. St. 523, 21 Atl. 6—256. Frick Co. v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 86 Fed. 725, 32 C. C. A. 31—3, 2337. Friedenwald Co. v. Asheville Tobacco Works, 117 N. C. 544, 23 S. E. 490— 1580. Friedlander v. Slaughter-House Co., 31 La. Ann. 523—827, 1007, 1011. Friedman v. Empire, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 535—1957. Friedman v. Gold, etc. Tel. Co., 32 Hun, 4—2841. Friedman v. Janssen, 66 S. W. 752 (Ky.)— 1698. Friedman v. Lesher, 64 N. E. 736 (111.) —1767. Friend v. Powers, 93 Ala. 114, 9 South. 392—454. Fries v. Southern Pa. R. R., 85 Pa. St. 73—2322. Friezen v. Allemania F. Ins. Co., 30 Fed. 349—1961. Fripp V. Chard Ry., 21 Bng. L. & Eq. 53 (1853)— 2370. Fripp V. Chard Ry., 11 Hare, 241 — 2387. Frishmuth v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 95 Fed. 5, 107 Fed. 169, 46 C. C. A. 222— 1996, 1997, 2135, 2162, 2165, 2171, 2499. Fritts V. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, 10 Sup. Ct. 93, 33 L. Ed. 317—1671. Fritz V. Muck, 62 How. Pr. 69 — 1071. Fromm v. Sierra Nevada, etc. Co., 61 Cal. 629—1262, 1263. Front, etc. Ry. v. Drake, 84 Fed. 257 — 2327. Front St. Cable Ry. v. Drake, 65 Fed. 539—2685. Frost T. Barnert, 56 N. J. Eq. 290, 38 Atl. 956—1637. Frost V. Clarkson, 7 Cow. 24, 25—770, 773. Frost V. Domestic S. M. Co., 133 Mass. 563—73, 1792. Frost V. Prostburg Coal Co., 24 How. 278, 16 L. Ed. 637—1420. Frost V. Inhabitants, etc., 88 Mass. 152 —1716. Frost V. Shackleford, 57 Ga. 261 — 1064. Frost V. Stokes, 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 76 —940. Frost V. Walker, 60 Me. 468—1073, 1084, 1085. Frostburg Bldg. Assoc, v. Stark, 47 Md. 338—1926. Frostburg, etc. Assoc, y. Bruce, 51 Md. 508—1811. Frost Mfg. Co. V. Foster, 76 Iowa, 535, 41 N. W. 212—1619. Frothingham v. Barney, 6 Hun, 366-~ 1089, 1091, 1433, 1437, 1562. Frothingham v. Broadway, etc. R. R., 9 N. Y. Civ. Proc. 304—1894. Frowd, Ex parte, 30 L. J. (Ch.) 322 (1861)— 312. Frowert v. Blank, 54 Atl. 1000 (Pa.) — 2391 Frue V. Houghton, 6 Colo. 318—753. Fruin, etc. Co. v. Marks, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 51, 62 N. Y. Supp. 621—1772. Pry, In re, 4 Phila. 129—1089. Pry V. Lexington, etc. R. R., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314—178, 209, 211, 213, 358, 1026, 1032, 2554. Pry V. Rush, 63 Kan. 429, 440, 65 Pac. 701 (Kan.)— 1498, 1903. Prye, In re, 75 Hun, 402, 27 N. Y. Supp. 14—109. Prye v. Tucker, 24 111. 180—1624, 1980. Fryeburg Canal v. Frye, 5 Me. 38 — 1739, 1765. Fuches V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 10 Ont. (Can.) 497 (1886)— 345. Fudickar v. East, etc. Dist., 109 Cal. 29, 41 Pac. 1024—1488. Fuld V. Burr Brewing Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 456—2080. Fulgam V. Macon, etc. R. R., 44 Ga. 597—379, 380. Fulkeron v. Chitty, 4 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 244—657. Puller V. Alex. Hollander, etc. Co., 47 Atl. 646, 88 Am. St. Rep. 456 (N. J.) —1108. Puller V. Dame, 35 Mass. 472 — 1346, 1463. Puller V. Ledden, 87 111. 310, 312—427, 450. Fuller V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 — 499, 505. Fuller V. Venable, 108 Fed. 126—2516. Puller V. Venable, 118 Fed. 543, 55 C. C. A. 309—2516. Fuller Co., In re, 79 Minn. 414, 82 N. W. 673—506. FuUerton v. Mobley, 15 Atl. 856 (Pa.) —979. Pulton V. National Bank, 62 S. W. 84 (Tex.)— 980. Pulton Bank v. Benedict, 1 Hall (N. Y.), 480, 557—1839. Fulton Bank v. New York, etc. Canal Co., 1 Paige, 311—1939. Fulton Bank v. New York, etc. Canal Co., 4 Paige, 127, 136—1773, 1840. Pulton County v. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 21 111. 338—1029, 1031. Furbush, etc. Co. v. Liberty Woolen Mills, 81 Fed. 425—2337. Furdoonjee's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 268 (1876)— 547. ■ Furley v. Hyder, 42 L. J. (Ch.) 626 (1873)— 653, 1202. Pumald V. Glenn, 56 Fed. 372, 64 Fed. 49, 12 C. C. A. 27—410, 418. Furness v. Cynthiana, etc. Co. (1893), 21 R. 239—536. cl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Furness v. Union Nat. Bank, 147 111. 570, 35 N. B. 624—953, 966, 975. Purniss v. Gilchrist, 1 Sandf. 53—1969. Puselier v. Great, etc. Tel. Co., 50 La. Ann. 799, 24 South. 274—2798, 2803, 2821 Fyfe V.' Swabey, 16 Jur. 49 (1851) M. R. —745. Fyfe's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 768 (1869)— 564, 565. G. Gableman v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 179 V. 8. 335, 21 Sup. Ct. 171, 45 L. Ed. 220— 2401, 2416, 2419. Gableman v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 101 Fed. 1, 41 C. 0. A. 160—2417. Gade v. Forest, etc. Co., 165 111. 367, 46 N. E. 286—637. Gadsden v. Lance, McMull. Eq. (S. C.) 87, 37 Am. Dec. 548—764. Gadsden v. Woodward, 103 N. Y. 242, 8 N. B. 653—462. Gaedeke v. Staten Island, etc. R. R., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 514, 60 N. Y. Supp. ggg 2675. Gaff V. Flesher, 33 Ohio St. 107—342, 389, 576. Gafford v. American, etc. Co., 77 Iowa, 736, 42 N. W. 550—1757, 1785. Gage V. Fisher, 5 N. Dak. 297, 65 N. W. 809, 31 L. R. A. 557—755, 1344, 1347. Gage V. Newmarket Ry., 18 Q. B. 457 (1852)— 2648. Gage V. Riverside Trust Co., 86 Fed. 984—980, 2223. Gager v. Marsden, 101 Wis. 598, 77 N. W. 922 — 454, 1686. Gager v. Paul, 111 Wis. 638, 87 N. W. 875—116, 1157, 1178. Gainey v. Gilson, 149 Ind. 58, 48 N. B. 633^414, 2397. Galnsford v. Carroll, 2 Barn. & C. 624 (1824)— 1260. Gale V. Troy, etc. R. R., 51 Hun, 470, 4 N. Y. Supp. 295—2052, 2590. Galena, etc. R. R. v. Ennor, 116 111. 55, 4 N. E. 762—377. Galena, etc. R. R. v. Loomis, 13 111. 548, 56 Am. Dec. 471—2602. Galen^, etc. R. R. v. Menzies, 26 111. 121—2304. Galigher v. Jones, 129 U. S. 193, 9 Sup. Ct. 335, 32 L. Ed. 658—906, 1260. Gallagher v. Germania Brewing Co., 53 Minn. 214, 54 N. W. 1115—383, 2269. Gallagher v. Kingston Water Co., 25 App. Div. 82, 49 N. Y. Supp. 250— 2781. Gallery v. National Bxch. Bank, 41 Mich. 169, 2 N. W. 193, 32 Am. Rep. 149—1863. Gallini v. Noble, 3 Mer. Ch. 691 (1810) —658. Galloway v. Blue, etc. Co., 37 S. W. 1016 (Tenn.)— 2336. Galloway v. Hamilton, 68 Wis. 651, 32 N. W. 636—1820. Gait V. Swain, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 633, 60 Am. Dec. 311 — 234. Galvanized Iron Co. v. Westoby, 21 L. J. Bxch. 302 (1852)— 362. Galveston City Co. v. Sibley, 56 Tex. 269—822. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. City of Galves- ton, 90 Tex. 398, 39 S. W. 96, 36 L. R. A. 33—2680. Galveston, etc. R. R. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 476, 20 L. Ed. 199—1741, 1996, 2043, 2113, 2138, 2159, 2197, 2199, 2305, 2323, 2326, 2328, 2344, 2599. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. Donahue, 56 Tex. 162—78. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. Fontaine, 57 S. W. 872 (Tex.)— 2141. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. Galveston, etc. Ry., 63 Tex. 529—2683. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496, 14 Sup. Ct. 401, 38 L. Ed. 248 —1230, 1964. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. House, 102 Fed. 112, 42 C. C. A. 205— S282, 2490. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. Johnson, 74 Tex. 256, 11 S. W. 1113—2655. Galveston, etc. Ry. v. State, 81 Tex. 572, 17 S. W. 67—1431. Galveston Hotel v. Bolton, 46 Tex. 633 —179, 360. Galveston Land & Imp. Co. v. Perkins, 26 S. W. 256 (Tex.)— 15, 507, 515, 1669. Galvin v. Mac Mining, etc. Co., 14 Mont. 508, 37 Pac. 366—846, 938. Gamble v. Queen's, etc. Co., 123 N. Y. 91, 25 N. E. 201, 9 L. R. A. 527—154, 1525, 2005. Games v. Robb, 8 Iowa, 193 — 245. Gamewell, etc. Co. v. New York, 31 Fed. 312—1111. Gamwell v. Pomeroy, 121 Mass. 207 —21. Gann v. Northeastern R. R., 57 Fed. 417—1870. Gano V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 60 Wis. 12, 17 N. W. 15—1979. Gans V. Reimensnyder, 2 Atl. (Pa.) 425—212. Gans V. Switzer, 9 Mont 408, 24 Pac. 18—431. Gansey v. Orr, 73 S. W. 477 (Mo.) — 767. Ganther v. Jenks, etc. Co., 76 Mich. 510, 43 N. W. 600—1757. Garbutt, etc. Co. v. Georgia, etc. Ry., Ill Ga. 714, 36 S. E. 942—2628. TABLE OF OASES. cli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Garden City, etc. Co. v. Geilfuss, 86 Wis. 612, 57 N. W. 349—1644, 2382. Garden, etc. Co. v. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cass. 39 — 1335. Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39 (1875)— 276, 294, 295, 296, 298. Gardiner v. Pollard, 10 Bosw. 674 — 1685, 1877. Gardiner v. Victoria Estates Co., 12 Ct. of Sess. (Sc. 4th ser.) 1356 (1885)— 668. Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. Eq. 702^ 1507. Gardner v. Caldwell, 16 Mont. 221, 40 Pac. 590—2422. Gardner v. Dangerfield, 5 Beav. 385 (1842)— 1108. Gardner v. Fremantle, 19 W. R. 256 (1870)— 1071, 1075. Gardner v. Hamiltpn Mut. Ins. Co., 33 N. Y. 421—1026, 2746. Gardner v. Hope Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 194, 11 Am. Rep. 238 — 521, 1036. Gardner v. Keogh Mfg. Co., 63 Hun, 519, 18 N. Y. Supp. 391—1577. Gardner v. London, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. 201, 215 (1867)— 278, 699, 2096, 2097, 2110, 2211, 2370, 2575, 2576, 2686. Gardner v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 73 Minn. 517, 76 N. W. 282—490, 2579. Garesche v. Lewis, 93 Mo. 197, 6 S. W. 54-386. Garland, Ex parte, 10 Ves. Jr. 110 (1804)— 1062, 1065. Gamer v. Hall, 114 Ala. 167, 21 South. 835—233. Gamer v. Hall,. 122 Ala. 221, 25 South. 187—238, 386. Garner v. Southern, etc. Assoc, 84 Fed. 3, 28 C. C. A. 381—2225. Garnet, etc. Min. Co. v. Sutton, 3 B. & S. 321 (1862)— 382. Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144 — 496. Garrard v. Hardey, 5 Man. & G. 471 (1843)— 1076. Garrett v. Belmont Land Co., 94 Tenn. 459, 29 S. W. 726—1803. Garrett v. Burlington Plow Co., 70 Iowa, 697, 29 N. W. 395, 59 Am. Rep. 461—1654, 1971. Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. R. R., 78 Pa. St. 465—342, 357, 389. Garrett v. Kansas City Coal Min. Co., 113 Mo. 330, 20 S. W. 965, 35 Am. St. Rep. 713—80, 107, 151. Garrett v. Lake Roland El. Ry., 79 Md. 277, 29 Atl. 830, 24 L. R. A. 396—2690. Garrett v. May, 19 Md. 177—2067, 2108. Garrett v. Sayles, 1 Fed. 371—442. Garrett Co. v. Astor, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 595, 73 N. Y. Supp. 966—812. Garrett Co. v. Halsey, 38 N. Y. Misc. 438, 77 N. Y. Supp. 989—812. Garrett Co. v. McComb, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 419, 68 N. Y. Supp. 996—793. Garrett Co. v. Morton, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 366, 73 N. Y. Supp. 40—740, 791. 1390. Garrett Co. v. Morton, 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 10, 71 N. Y. Supp. 17-1390! Garrick v. Taylor, 29 Beav. 79 (1860) —708. Garrison v. Coombs, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 85, 22 Am. Dec. 120—1802. Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458—441, 451, 454, 455, 457, 477. 491. Garrison v. Technic, etc. Works, 55 N. J. Bq. 708, 37 Atl. 741—311. Garrison v. Technic, etc. Works, 59 N. J. Bq. 440, 45 Atl. 612—794. Garrison v. Texas, etc. Ry., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 136, 30 S. W. 725—2418. Garton v. Bristol, etc. R. R., 1 B. & S. 112, 154, 165 (1861)— 2607. Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. 197—502. Garver v. Kent, 70 Ind. 428—2410. Garvey v. Colcock, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 231—1760. Garvin v. Pettee, 88 N. W. 573 (S. Dak.)— 795. Garwood v. Bde, 1 Exch. 264 (1847) — 1710. Garwood v. N. Y. Central, etc. R. R., 83 N. Y. 400, 38 Am. Rep. 452—2780. Gary v. York Min. Co., 9 Utah, 464, 35 Pac. 494—520. Gashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11, 91 Am. Dec. 607—1722, 1748. Gaskell v. Beard, 58 Hun, 101, 11 N. Y. Supp. 399—2334. Gaskell v. Chambers, 26 Beav. 252 (1858)— 1938. Gaskell v. Chambers, 26 Beav. 360 (1858)— 1463, 2745. Gaskill V. Dudley, 47 Mass. 546, 39 Am. Dec. 750—472. Gaskill V. Gosling (1896), 1 Q. B. 669 —2191. Gaslight, etc. Co. v. City of New Al- bany, 59 N. E. 176 (Ind.)— 2742. Gas Light, etc. Co. v. Hajmes, 7 La. Ann. 114—412. Gaslight, etc. Co. v. Albany, 139 Ind. 660, 39 N. E. 462—2740. Gaslight Imp. Co. v. Terrell, L. R. 10 Eq. 168 (1870)— 1648. Gasquet v. Crescent City Brewing Co., 49 Fed. 496—536, 940. Gasquet v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 343, 21 C. C. A. 382—700, 935, 1315. Gasquet v. Fidelity Trust, etc. Co., 57 Fed. 80, 6 C. C. A. 253—2166. Gasquoine, In re (1894), 1 Ch. 470 — 732, 2168. clii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Gass V. Hampton, 16 Nev. 185—956, 960, 963. Gass V. New York, etc. R. H., 99 Mass. 220, 96 Am. Dec. 742—2641. Gassett v. Glazier, 165 Mass. 473, 43 N. E. 193—787, 802, 816, 1267, 1348. Gaston v. American Ex. Nat. Bank, 29 N. J. Eq. 98—721. Gatch V. Pitch, 34 Fed. 566—477. Gates V. Boston, etc. R. R., 53 Conn. 333, 5 Atl. 695—2188, 2503, 2529. Gates V. National, etc. Union, 46 Minn. 419, 49 N. W. 232—742. Gates V. Tippecanoe Stone Co., 57 Ohio St. 60, 48 N. E. 285, 63 Am. St. Rep. 705—156. Gathright v. Oil City, etc. Co., 56 S. W. 163 (Ky.)— 309, 344, 351. Gatling Gun, In re, L. R. 43 Ch. D. 628 (1890)— 611, 616. Gatzmer v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 39 N. J. Eq. 363—2449. Gauch V. Harrison, 12 111. App. 457 — 480. Gaudy v. Babbitt, 56 Ga. 640—1064. Gaus, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 113 Mo. 308, 20 S. W. 658, 35 Am. St. Rep. 706—2691. Gauthler Decorating Co. v. Ham, 3 Colo. App. 559, 34 Pac. 484—1941. Gaw V. Bennett, 153 Pa. St. 247, 25 Atl. 1114, 34 Am. St. Rep. 699—777. Gay V. Brierfield, etc. Co., 94 Ala. 303, 11 South. 353, 16 L. R. A. 564, 33 Am. St. Rep. 122—2223. Gay V. Dare, 103 Cal. 454, 37 Pac. 466— 766. Gay V. Fair, 175 Mass. 521, 56 N. B. 708 —1458. Gay V. Mutual Union Tel. Co., 12 Mo. App. 485—2793. Gaylord v. Duryga, 69 S. W. 607 (Mo.) —774. Gaylord v. Port Wayne, etc. R. R., 6 Biss. 286, 10 Fed. Gas. 121—1396. Gay Mfg. Co. v. Gittings, 53 Fed. 45, 15 C. C. A. 226—2084. Gaynor v. Williamsport, etc. R. R., 183 Pa. St. 5, 41 Atl. 978—1732. Gazzam v. Simpson, 114 Fed. 71, 52 C. C. A. 19—767, 1355. Geate v. Jackson, 15 W. R. 338 (1867) —1079. Gee V. Alabama, etc. Co., 13 Ala. (N. S.) 579—1625. Gee V. Moss, 68 Iowa, 318, 27 N. W. 268—805. Geer v. Amalgamated, etc. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 364, 49 Atl. 159—111, 623, 692, 1522, 1603, 1884. Geiger v. Perkiomen, etc. R. R., 167 Pa. St. 582, 31 AU. 918, 28 L. R. A. 458—2750. Geismer v. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 102 N. Y. 563, 7 N. B. 828, 55 Am. Rep. 837—2620. Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa, 387, 83 Am. Dec. 418—306, 308. Gelpcke v. Blake, 19 Iowa, 263—346, 349. Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 17 L. Ed. 520—242, 243, 2062. Gemmell t. Davis, 75 Md. 546, 23 AtL 1032, 32 Am. St. Rep. 412—945, 1114, 1132, 1146, 1156. General Auction, etc. Co. v. Smith (1891), 3 Ch. 432—2107, 2137. General Elec. Co. v. La Grande, etc. Elec. Co., 87 Fed. 590, 31 C. C. A. 118—2198. General Electric Co. v. West Asheville Imp. Co., 73 Fed. 386—1442, 1904, 1913. General Elec. Co. v. Whitney, 74 Fed, 664, 20 C. C. A. 674—2348, 2731. General Elec. Co. v. Wightman, 3 N. Y. Ajp. Div. 118, 39 N. Y. Supp. 420— 231, 699, 1310, 2297. General Estates Co., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. 758 (1868)— 1977, 1980, 2044, 2098, 2099. General, etc. Assur. Co., In re, L. R. 14 Bq. 507 (1872)— 2106. General, etc. Co., In re, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 320 (1869)— 1820. General, etc. Co. v. Transit, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 460, 42 Atl. 101—1812, 2311, 2700. General, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 98 Fed. 907, 39 C. C. A. 345, 58 L. R. A. 231-2695. General, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 184 111. 588, 56 N. B. 963—2706. General Exchange Bank, In re, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 818—1122. General Bxch. Bank v. Horner, L. R. 9 Eq. 480 (1870)— 1464. General Ins. Co. v. U. S. Ins. Co., 10 Md. 517, 69 Am. Dec. 140—1837. General Lying-in Hospital t. Knight, 21 L. J. Ch. 537 (1851)— 67. General Railway Syndicate, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 365—337. General Railway Syndicate, In re, (1899), 1 Ch. 770—337. General South Amer. Co., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 337 (1876)— 2106, 2123. Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westman, S Up. Can. (Q. B.) 487 (1852)— 515. Genesee Say. Bank v. Michigan Barge Co., 52 Mich. 438, 17 N. W. 790, 18 N. W. 206—1978, 1979. Genet v. Howland, 45 Barb. 560—971, 981, 983, 985. Genet v. Howland. 30 How. Pr. 360 — 984. TABLE OF OASES. cliii PChe numbers after the dasli refer to the pages of the text.] Geneva v. Geneva Tel. Co., 30 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 236, 62 N. Y. Supp. 172 — 2846. Geneva, etc. Co. v. Coursey, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 268, 61 N. Y. Supp. 98— 1395. 1411. Geneva, etc. Ry. v. New York Cent, etc. R. R., 90 Hun, 9, 35 N. Y. Supp. 399—2706. Geneva, etc. Ry. v. New York Cent, etc. R. R., 152 N. Y. 632, 46 N. E. 1147—2706. Geneva, etc. Ry. v. New York Central, etc. R. R., 163 N. Y. 228, 57 N. B. 498—2698. Genin v. Isaacson, 6 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 213—767, 906. Gennert v. Ives, 102 Mich. 547, 61 N. W. 9—432. Genoa v. Woodruff, 92 TJ. S. 502, 23 L. Ed. 586—2063. Gent V. Manufacturers', etc. Ins. Co., 106 111. 252, 107 111. 652—1712. George v. Central R. R. etc. Co., 101 Ala. 607, 14 South. 752—1322, 1863, 1910, 2544, 2546. George v. Nevada Cent. R. R., 22 Nev. 228, 38 Pac. 441—1594. George v. Oxford, 16 Kan. 72—259. George v. Roblson, 23 Utah, 79, 63 Pac. 819—44, 2787. George v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 44 Fed. 117—2599. George, etc. Co., In re, 86 Mich. 149, 48 N. W. 864—1636, 1775. George, etc. Co. v. Range, etc. Co., 16 Utah, 59, 50 Pac. 630—934, 945, 1018. George Mather's Sons' Co., In re, 52 N. J. Eq. 607, 30 Atl. 321—2343. George Newman & Co., In re (1895), 1 Ch. 674, 686—1383, 1485, 1502. •Georgeson v. Caffrey, 71 Hun, 472, 24 N. Y. Supp. 971—1085, 1944. Georgetown College v. Browne, 34 Md 450—1590. Georgetown, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 34 S. W. 435 (Ky.)— 1821, 1972. George T. Stagg Co. v. E. H. Taylor, etc., 68 S. W. 862 (Ky.)— 60. George Whitechurch, Ltd. v. Cavanagh (1902), A. C. 117—1782, 1794. George Whitechurch, Ltd. v. Cava- naugh, 85 L. T. Rep. 349 (1901)— 645, 840. Georgia v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 434, 10 Fed. Cas. 243—2342. Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 43 Ga. 187 — 1712. Georgia, etc. Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 9 Sup. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377—2614. Georgia R. R. v. Hart, 60 Ga. 550—41. Georgia R. R. v. Smith, 70 Ga. 694— 2610. Georgia S. & P. Ry. v. Barton, 101 Ga. 466, 28 S. B. 842—2114, 2546. Gerard v. McCormick, 130 N. Y. 261, 267, 29 N. E. 115, 14 L. R. A. 234— 720. G«rard v. Penswick, 1 Swanst. 533 (1818)— 1104. Gerding v. Funk, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 603, 64 N. Y. Supp. 423—2523. Gere v. New York Central, etc. R. R., 19 Abb. N. C. 193—1445, 1884, 2565, 2577, 2595. Gerhard v. Bates, 2 Bl. & Bl. 476 (1853) —801. Gerhard v. Bates, 20 Eng. L. & Bq. 129 (1853)— 783, 798. Gerhard v. Bates, 10 Jur. 1097 (1853) —320. German-American, etc. Assoc, v. Droge, 14 Ind. App. 691, 43 N. B. 475—689. German Date Coffee Co., Re, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 169 (1882)— 1392. German, etc. Bank v. First, etc. Bank, 59 Neb. 7, 80 N. W. 48—1797. Germania Bank, etc. v. Osborne, 81 Minn. 272, 83 N. W. 1084—764. Germania, etc. Co. v. Boynton, 71 Fed. 797, 19 C. C. A. 118—12, 641, 1598, 2014, 2047. Germania, etc. Co. v. City, etc. of San Francisco, 128 Cal. 589, 61 Pac. 178— 1208. Germania, etc. Co. v. Hargis, 64 S. W. 516 (Ky.)— 1733. Germania Iron Min. ' Co. v. King, 94 Wis. 439, 69 N. W. 181, 36 L. R. A. 51—270, 281, 282. Germania Savings Bank v. Suspension Bridge, 73 Hun, 590, 26 N. Y. Supp. 98—1993. German Land Assoc, v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 331 (Gil. 260)— 1079. German Nat. Bank v. Farmers' & M. Bank, 54 Neb. 593, 74 N. W. 1086— 453, 457. German Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 55 Neb. 86, 75 N. W. 531—1653. German Nat. Bank v. Kentucky T. Co., 40 S. W. 458 (Ky.)— 1124. German Sav. Bank v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 526, 9 Sup. Ct. 159, 32 L. Ed. 519—254. German Sav. Bank v. Renshaw, 78 Md. 475, 28 Atl. 281—848, 884, 913, 943, 957, 959, 961. German Sav. Bank v. Wulfekuhler, 19 Kan. 60—673. German Sav. Inst. v. De La Vergne, etc. Co., 175 U. S. 40, 20 Sup. Ct. 20, 44 L. Ed. 65—717. German Sav. Inst. v. De La Vergne, etc. Co., 70 Fed. 146, 17 C. C. A. 34— 717. cliv TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] German Sav. Inst. v. Jacoby, 97 Mo. 617, 11 S. W. 256—1971. German Security Bank v. Jefflerson, 10 Bush (Ky.), 326—1115, 1127. German St. Bank v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 104 Iowa, 717, 74 N. W. 685— 227, 744, 803. Germantown, etc. Ins. Co. v. Dhein, 43 Wis. 420, 28 Am. Rep. 549—1626. Germantown, etc. Ry. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124, 100 Am. Dec. 546—275, 294, 295, 303, 393, 401, 409, 415. Germantown Pass. Ry. v. Citizens' Pass. Ry., 151 Pa. St. 138, 24 Atl. 1103 —2678. German Union, etc. Assoc, v. Send- meyer, 50 Pa. St. 67—846, 849, 1248. Germicide Co., In re, 65 Hun, 606, 20 N. Y. Supp. 495—1308. Gerner v. Mosher, 58 Neb. 135, 78 N. W. 384, 46 L. R. A. 244—800, 1610. Gerner v. Yates, 61 Neb. 100, 84 N. W. 596—800. Gernsheim v. Olcott, N. Y. L. J., May 21, 1890^2520. Gernsheim v. Olcott, 7 N. Y. Supp. 872 —2520. Gernsheim v. Olcott, 10 N. Y. Supp. 438 —2520. Gerry v. Bismarck Bank, 19 Mont. 191, 47 Pac. 810—1485, 1910, 1916. Gerry's Accounting, In re, 103 N. Y. 445, 9 N. B. 235—1200. Getchell v. Blddeford, etc. Bank, 94 Me. 452, 47 Atl. 895, 80 Am. St. Rep. 408—664. Getman v. Second Nat. Bank, 23 Hun, 498—1837. Getty V. Barnes, etc. Co., 40 Kan. 281, 19 Pac. 617-rl793. Getty V. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403, 70 N. Y. 504—1477. Getty V. Donelly, 9 Hun, 603—1477. Gettysburg, etc. Bank v. Brown, 52 Atl. 975 (Md.)— 360, 630. Geurinck v. Alcott, 66 Ohio St. 94, 63 N. B. 714—1053, 1590. Geyer v. Western Ins. Co., 3 Pittsb. 41 —1115, 1123. Geyser-Marion, etc. Co. v. Stark, 106 Fed. 558, 45 C. C. A. 467, 53 L. R. A. 684—721. G. F. Wittmer, etc. Co. v. Rice, 23 Ind. App. 586, 55 N. B. 868—1600, 2080. Gheen v. Johnson, 90 Pa. St. 38 — 779, 911. Gianella v. Blgelow, 96 Wis. 185, 71 N. W. 111—401, 536. Giant P. Co. v. Oregon, etc. Ry., 42 Fed. 470, 8 L. R. A. 700—2335. Gibbea v. Greenville, etc. R. R., 13 S. C. 228—2002, 2120, 2121, 2178. Gibbes v. Greenville, etc. R. R., 15 S. C. 518—2386. Gibbons v. Anderson, 80 Fed. 345 — 1686. Gibbons v. Brush, etc. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 140, 55 N. Y. Supp. 378— 2834. Gibbons v. Bills, 83 Wis. 434, 53 N. W. 701—227, 365. Gibbons v. Grinsel, 79 Wis. 365, 48 N. W. 255—198, 384, 408. Gibbons v. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549, 10 Sup. Ct. 1057, 34 L. Ed. 525—43, 1194. Gibbons v. Mahon, 4 Mackey, 130, 54 Am. Rep. 262 — 1142. Gibbons v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 36 Ala. 410—244. Gibbs' Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 312 (1870) — 1969. Gibbs V. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 9 Sup. Ct 553, 32 L. Ed. 979— 2734. Gibbs V. Davis, 27 Fla. 531, 8 South. 633—448, 452. Gibbs V. Long Island Bank, 151 N. Y. 657, 46 N. B. 1147—15, 1118. Gibbs V. Long Island Bank, 83 Hun, 92, 31 N. Y. Supp. 406—15, 1118. Gibbs V. McNeeley, 118 Fed. 120, 55 C. C. A. 70—696, 1060. Gibbs V. Queen Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 114, 20 Am. Rep. 513—1956. Gibbs V. Somers Point, 49 N. J. L. 515, 10 Atl. 377—1331. Gibbs' Estate, In re, 157 Pa. St. 59, 27 Atl. 383—2, 496. Gibert v. Washington, etc. R. R., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 586, 596, 645—2002, 2058, 2063, 2179, 2219, 2302, 2436, 2437. Gibson v. American L. & T. Co., 58 Hun, 443, 12 N. Y. S. 444—2171, 2180. Gibson v. Columbia, etc. Co., 18 Ohio St. 396—375. Gibson v. Crick, 1 Hurlst. & C. 142 (1862)— 914, 917. Gibson v. Hudson's Bay Co., MS. Rep. Mich. T. 12 Geo. I.— 1114. Gibson v. Lenhart, 111 Pa. St. 624, 5 Atl. 52—951. Gibson V. McCall, 1 Rich. L. (S. C.) 174—1080. Gibson v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 81, 10 N. E. 729—1956. Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283—247, 2627. Gibson v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 37 Fed. 743, 2 L. R. A. 467—949, 1316. Gibson v. Stevens, 7 N. H. 352—1068. Gibson V. Thornton, 112 Ga. 328, 37 S. B. 406—110, 649. Gibson v. Trowbridge Furnace Co., 96 Ala. 357, 11 South. 365—1648. Gibson County v. Pullman, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 572—1243. Gibson's Case, 2 De G. & J. 275 (1858) —311. TABLE OF OASES. clv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] ■Glddings v. Sears, 103 Mass. 311—929. Giesen v. London, etc. Mort. Co., 102 Fed. 584, 42 C. C. A. 515—18, 521, 560, 853, 2528. Glesy V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 4 Ohio St. 308—2626, 2636. Gleve, In re (1899), 1 Q. B. 794—769. Glfford V. Carvlll, 29 Cal. 589—807. Gifford V. Livingston, 2 Denio, 380— 1081. Glfford V. New Jersey, etc. Co., 10 N. J. Bq. 171—37, 1041, 1297, 1860; 1885. Gifford V. Rockett, 121 Mass. 431—64. Gifford V. Tliompson, 115 Mass. 478— 1193, 1194, 1197. Gihon V. Belleville "White Lead Co., 7 N. J. Eq. 531—2242. Gilbert, In re, 104 N. T. 212, 10 N. E. 148—1568. Gilbert v. Ackerman, 159 N. Y. 118, 53 N. E. 753, 45 L. R. A. 118—488, 1619. Gilbert v. Adams, 99 Iowa, 519, 68 N. W. 883—951. Gilbert v. Erie Bldg. Assoc, 184 Pa. St. 554, 39 Atl. 291—848, 968. Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 66 N. E. 133—493, 1345, 1466, 1468, 1619, 1863, 1866, 1931. •Gilbert v. Finch, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 38, 76 N. Y. Supp. 143—1616, 1866, 1933. Gilbert v. Ganger, 8 Biss. 214, 10 Fed. Gas. 345—770. Gilbert v. Hole, 2 S. D. 164, 49 N. W. 1—1671. •Gilbert v. McNulta, 96 Fed. 83—2401. Gilbert v. Manchester, etc. Co., 11 Wend. 627—40, 847. ■Gilbert v. Nantucket Bank, 5 Mass. 97 —66. Gilbert v. New Zealand Ins. Co., 49 Fed. 884, 15 L. R. A. 125—1964. Gilbert v. Seatco, etc. Co., 98 Fed. 208— 2022 Gilbert v. Sykes, 16 East^ 15b (1812) — 768. Gilbert El. Ry., In re, 70 N. Y. 361—5. •Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 559 (1870)— 280, 580, 581, 707, 1357. Gllbough V. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 1 Hughes, 410, 10 Fed. Cas. 354—2045, 2047, 2049, 2056. Gilchrist v. Dominion Tel. Co., 3 Pugs. & Bur. (Can.) 553—2821. •Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. R. R., 47 Fed. 593—1681. Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. R. R., 49 Fed. 519—382, 403. -Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. R. R., 58 Fed. 708—2334, 2337. Gildersleeve v. Wolfe Island, etc. Canal Co., 3 Ch. Chamb. (Can.) 358 (1871) —1940. •Giles V. Cornfoot, 2 Car. & K. 653 (1847)— 1700. Giles V. Hutt, 2 Bxch. 18 (1848)— 292. Giles V. Hutt, 3 Exch. 18 (1848)— 296. Giles V. Smith, 11 Jur. 334 (1847)— 437. Giles V. Stanton, 24 S. W. 556|-2336, 2354 ' * ^ Giles V. Stanton, 86 Tex. 620, 26 S. W. 615—2336. Gilfillan v. Mawhinney, 149 Mass. 264, 21 N. B. 299—340. Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co., 109 U. S. 401, 3 Sup. Ct. 304, 27 L. Ed. 977— 2497, 2529. Gilkey v. Paine, 80 Me. 319, 14 Atl. 205 —1191. Gilkle, etc. Co. v. Dawson, etc. Co., 46 Neb. 333, 64 N. W. 978, 1097—147, 168. Gilkinson v. Third, etc. R. R., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 472, 63 N. Y. Supp. 792— 665. Gill V. Balis, 72 Mo. 424—309, 349, 393. Gill V. Kentucky, etc. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635—178, 211, 215, 370, 1672. Gill V. New York Cab Co., 48 Hun, 524, 1 N. Y. Supp. 202—1499. Gillan v. Morrison, 1 De G. & Sm. 421 (1847)— 532. Gillespie v. Blair Glass Co., 189 Pa. St. 50, 41 Atl. 1112—2471. Gillespie v. Commercial, etc. Ins. Co., 78 Mass. 201, 71 Am. Dec. 743—1956, 2745. Gillespie v. Gaston, 67 Tex. 599, 4 S. W. 248—1209. Gillespie v. Planters', etc. Co., 76 Miss. 406, 24 South. 900—67. Glllet V. Bank of America, 160 N. Y. 549, 55 N. E. 292—986. Glllet V. Fairchild, 4 Denio, 80—2397. Glllet V. Moody, 3 N. Y. 479, 487—677, 678, 1081. Gillet V. Moody, 5 Barb. 185, 189—393. Glllet V. Phillips, 13 N. Y. 114—1081, 1821. Gillett V. Bate, 86 N. Y. 87—993. Gillett V. Bowen, 23 Fed. 625—222, 1531. Gillett V. Missouri V. R. R., 55 Mo. 315, 17 Am. Rep. 653—74. Gillett V. Peppercorne, 3 Beav. 78 (1840)— 90,9. Gillett V. Whiting, 120 N. Y. 402, 24 N. B. 790—923, 928. Gillett V. Whiting, 141 N. Y. 71, 35 N. B. 939, 38 Am. St. Rep. 762—924, 984. Gillette v. Meredith, 103 Iowa, 155, 72 N. W. 443—1635. Gilllg V. Barrett, N. Y. L. J., Jan. 6, 1891—1465. Glllin V. Sawyer, 93 Me. 151, 44 Atl. 677 —157. Gillis V. Bailey, 21 N. H. 149---1762, 1763. clvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Gill's Case, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 755 (1879) — 382 Gllly'v. Burley, 22 Beav. 619 (1856) — 119SI Gilman v. Des Moines, etc. R. R., 41 Iowa, 22—2476. Gilman v. Druse, 111 Wis. 400, 87 N. W. 557—495, 1422. Gilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 224, 72 N. W. 885—194, 536. Gilman v. Illinois, etc. Telegraph Co., 91 U. S. 603, 23 L. Ed. 405—2213, 2302. Gilman v. Ketchum, 84 Wis. 60, 54 N. W. 395, 23 L. R. A. 52, 36 Am. St. Rep. 899—2428. Gilman v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 72 Ala. 566—1995, 2028, 2082, 2090, 2121, 2198, 2245. Gilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black, 510, 17 L. Ed. 305—244. Gilman v. Sheboygan, etc. R. R., 37 Wis. 317—1579, 2530. Gilman, etc. R. R. v. Kelly, 77 111. 426— 95, 110, 1455, 1523, 1852. Gilmer v. Billings, 55 Fed. 775—974. Gilmer v. Lime, etc. Co., 19 Cal. 47 — 2625. Gilmer v. Morris, 35 Fed. 682, 43 Fed. 456, 46 Fed. 333, 80 Ala. 78, 60 Am. Rep. 85—974. Gilmore v. Bank of Cincinnati, 8 Ohio, 62, 71-553. Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 Fed. 525—2416. Gilmore v. Woodcock, 69 Me. 118, 31 Am. Rep. 255—769. Gilpin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 41, 45 Am. Dec. 720—954, 983. Gilreath v. Union Bank, etc. Co., 121 Ala. 204, 25 South. 581—2384. Gilson V. Dayton, 123 U. S. 59, 8 Sup. Ct. 66, 31 L. Ed. 74—260. Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260, 10 Fed. Cas. 434—1891, 2404. Ginger, Ex parte, 5 Ir. Ch. 174—311. Ginn v. New England, etc. Co., 92 Ala. 135, 8 South. 388—1682. Ginz V. Stumph, 73 Ind. 209—939. Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1, 19 L. Ed. 53—63. Girard Ins. & T. Co. v. Cooper, 162 tJ. S. 529, 16 Sup. Ct. 879, 40 L. Ed. 1062 —2451. Girard Trust Co. v. Mellor, 156 Pa. St. 579, 27 Atl. 662—935. Given v. Times-Republican, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 92, 52 C. C. A. 40—789, 803, 1584. Given's Appeal, 16 Atl. 75 (Pa.)— 820. Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch, etc. Assoc, 100 Mo. 508, 13 S. W. 707— 2679. Glaize v. South Carolina R. R., 1 Strobh. (S. C.) 70—1230, 1955. Glamorganshire Banking Co., L, R. 28'> Ch. D. 620 (1884)— 1107. Glamorganshire Iron, etc. Co. v. Irvine,. 4 F. & F. 947 (1866)— 323. Glasier v. Rolls, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 436. (1889)— 330, 804, 1471, 1481. Glass V. Hope, 16 Grant (Up. Can. Ch.), 420 (1869)— 303. Glass V. Tipton, etc. Co., 32 Ind. 376 — 58,-65. Glasscott V. Copper Miners, 11 Sim. 305. (1840)— 1110, 1111. Gleason v. McKay, 134 Mass. 419 — 1089. Gleason v. Sanitary, etc. Co., 93 Me... 544, 45 Atl. 825, 74 Am. St. Rep. 370 — 1816. Gleaves v. Brick Church Turnp. Co., 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 491—8.. Glen V. Breard, 35 La. Ann. 875—505. Glendale, etc. Assoc, v. Harvey, etc.- Co., 90 N. W. 456 (Wis.)— 1782. Glengary, etc. Co. v. Boehmer, 62 Pac.^ 839 (Col.)— 1527. Glen Iron Works, In re, 17 Fed. 324,- 20 Fed. 674—101, 114, 398. Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. 10—390. Glenn v. Clabaugh, 65 Md. 65, 3 Atl.. 902—46. Glenn v. Dodge, 3 Cent. Rep. 283- (1885)— 274. Glenn v. Dorsheimer, 24 Fed. 536—274, 388. Glenn v. Foote, 36 Fed. 824—386, 555. Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360, 13 Sup. Ct. 350, 37 L. Ed. 203—46, 394. Glenn v. Garth, 133 N. Y. 18, 30 N. E. 649, 31 N. E. 344—217, 562. Genn v. Hatchett, 91 Ala. 316, 8 South- 656—345. Glenn v. Howard, 81 Ga. 383, 8 S. E.. 636, 12 Am. St. Rep. 318—386. Glenn v. Howard, 65 Md. 40, 3 Atl. 895- —390. Glenn v. Hunt, 120 Mo. 330, 25 S. W. 181—310, 555. Glenn v. Lancaster, 109 N. Y. 641, 16 N. B. 484—401, 404. Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533, 10 Sup- Ct. 867, 34 L. Ed. 262—46, 386, 394. Glenn v. Liggett, 47 Fed. 472—187. Glenn v. McAllister, 46 Fed. 883—188, 388. Gleason v. McKay, 134 Mass. 419 — 1089- Glenn v. Macon, 32 Fed. 7 — 386. Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U. S. 499, 12" Sup. Ct. 914, 36 L. Ed. 790—386, 411.. 415. Glenn v. Orr, 96 N. C. 413, 2 S. E. 538 — 186, 372, 1943. Glenn v. Porter, 73 Fed. 275, 19 C. C. A.. 503—558. Glenn v. Priest, 28 Fed. 907 — 388. Glenn v. Priest, 48 Fed. 19 — 386. TABLE OF CASES. clyii [The numbers after tlie dash refer to the pages of the text.] Glenn v. Rosborough, 48 S. C. 272, 26 S. E. 611—374, 379. Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 353, 9 Pac. 420 —274, 275, 388, 409. Glenn v. Scott, 28 Fed. 804—546, 555. Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 159, 60 Am. Rep. 92—274. Glenn v. Soule, 22 Fed. 417—386, 2178. Glenn v. Springs, 26 Fed. 494—417. Glenn v. Sumner, 132 XJ. S. 152, 10 Sup. Ct. 41, 33 L. Ed. 301—401. Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93—274, 386, 407, 409. Glen Salt Co., In re, 153 N. Y. 688, 48 N. E. 1104—1314. Glen Salt Co., In re, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 234, 45 N. Y. Supp. 568—1314. Glens, etc. Co. v. Trask, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 449, 51 N. Y. Supp. 977—2519. Glens Falls Nat. Bank v. Cramton, 72 Fed. 734—453. Glenwood Co., In re, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 575 — 16, 507. Glenwood, etc. Co. v. Syme, 109 Wis. 355, 85 N. W. 432—1519. Glidden v. Chamberlain, 167 Mass. 486, 46 N. E. 103, 57 Am. St. Rep. 479— 1978. Glidden v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 53 Ohio St. 588, 42 N. E. 995, 43 L. R. A. 737—988. Glines v. Binghamton Trust Co., 68 Hun, 511, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1023—2390. Glines v. Order of Iron Hall, 20 N. Y. Supp. 275, 21 N. Y. Supp. 736—2325, 2390.. Globe Ace. Ins. Co. v. Reid, 19 Ind. App. 203, 47 N. E. 947, 49 N. E. 291—1807. Globe, etc. Assoc, In re, 63 Hun, 263, 17 N. Y. Supp. 822, 135 N. Y. 280, 32 N. E. 122, 17 L. R. A. 547—34. Globe, etc. Co. v. Jones, 89 N. W. 580 (Mich.)— 1443, 2587. Globe Pub. Co. v. State Bank, 41 Neb. 175, 59 N. W. 683, 27 L. R. A. 854— 445, 462, 464. Globe Realty Co. v. Whitney, 30 South. 745 (La.)— 355, 1421. Globe Refining Co., In re, 151 Pa. St. 558, 25 Atl. 128—1091. Gloninger v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 139 Pa. St. 13, 21 Atl. 211—1531, 1982, 2005, 2030, 2114, 2118. Glory Paper Mills, In re (1894), 3 Ch. 473—197. Gloucester Bank v. Salem Bank, 17 Mags. 33—1801. Gloucester, etc. Co. v. City of Glou- cester, 179 Mass. 365, 60 N. E. 977— 2771. Gloucester, etc. Co. v. Russia Cement Co., 154 Mass. 92, 27 N. E. 1005, 12 L. R. A. 563, 26 Am. St. Rep. 214— 1047. Glover v. Thayer, 101 Ga. 824, 29 S. B. 3g 2419. Glubb, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 354—323. Gluckstein v. Barnes (1900), A. C. 240 —1495, 2522. Gluckstein v. Barnes (1898), 2 Ch. 153 —1495. Glymont Imp. etc. Co. v. Toller, 80 Md. 278, 30 Atl. 651—1559, 1740. Godbold V. Mobile Branch Bank, 11 Ala. (N. S.) 191, 46 Am. Dec. 211— 1500. Godbout V. St. Paul, etc. Co., 79 Minn. 188, 81 N. W. 835, 47 L. R. A. 532— 2650. Goddard v. Fishel, etc. Co., 9 Colo. App. 306, 48 Pac. 279—2508. Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry., 57 Me. 202, 2 Am. Rep. 39—78. Goddard v. Stockman, 74 Ind. 400—260. Godden v. KImmell, 99 U. S. 201, 25 L. Ed. 431—1861. Goddin v. Crump, 8 Leigh, 120—248, 249 Godfrey v. Pell, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 220 —1248. Godfrey v. Schneck, 105 Wis. 568, 81 N. W. 656—1480. Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171, 24 L. Ed. 944—482, 483. Godwin v. Whitehead, 88 Va. 600, 14 S. C. 344—2179. Goebel v. Wolf, 113 N. Y. 405, 21 N. E. 388, 10 Am. St. Rep. 464—1063. Goesele v. Bimeler, 5 McLean, 223, 10 Fed. Cas. 528—1079. Goetz V. Knie, 103 Wis. 366, 79 N. W. 401—1644, 1722, 1825, 2141. GofC V. Hawkeye, etc. Co., 62 Iowa, 691, 18 N. W. 307—106, 310. GofC v. Winchester College, 6 Bush (Ky.), 443—216. Goforth V. Rutherford, etc. Co., 96 N. C. 535—248. Gogebic Inv. Co. v. Chief Min. Co., 78 Wis. 427, 47 N. W. 726, 23 Am. St. Rep. 417—157. Gold V. Clyne, 134 N. Y. 262, 31 N. E. 980, 17 L. R. A. 767—1447. Gold V. Clyne, 58 Hun, 419, 12 N. Y. Supp. 531—1447. Goldberg, etc. Limited v. Mayor, etc. of Liverpool, 82 L. T. Rep. 363 (1900) 2692 Goldberry v. Carter, 41 S. E. 858 (Va.) —1681. Gold Co., In re, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 701, 712, 713, 714 (1879)— 104, 108, 109, 113, 121, 122, 167. Golden Gate, etc. Co. v. Joshua, etc. Works, 82 Cal. 184, 23 Pac. 45—1424, 1426. Golden Gate, etc. Co. v. Yuba Co. Super. Ct, 65 Cal. 187, 3 Pac. 628—1946. clviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] ■Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518, 15 Sup. Ct. 559, 39 L. Ed. 517 — 1960. Goldmark v. Magnolia, etc. Co., 44 N. Y. App. Dlv. 35, 60 N. Y. Supp. 425— 1579. Gold Min. Co. v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 640, 24 L. Ed. 648—678, 1625, 1799, 1837. Goldsboro v. Moffett, 49 Fed. 213—2758. ■Goldschmidt v. Jones, 22 L. T. Rep. 220 (1870)— 913. Ooldsmith v. Great Eastern Ry., 44 L. T. Rep. 181 (1881)— 2644. Goldsmith v. Home Ins. Co., 62 Ga. 379—1674. Goldsmith v. Swift, 25 Hun, 201—1191, 1198, 1199. Goldstein v. Bwing, 62 N. J. Eq. 69, 49 Atl. 517—1337. Goldville, etc. Co., In re, 118 Fed. 892— 65, 1986, 2149, 2150, 2153, 2342. Golforth V. Rutherford, etc. Co., 96 N. C. 535, 2 S. E. 361—248. Gooch, In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 384 (1890) —662. Gooch's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 266 (1872)— 542. Good V. Daland, 121 N. Y. 1, 24 N. E. "Lg 1051 1595. Good V. Elliott, 3 T. R. 693 (1790) — —768. Goodale v. Wheeler, 68 Pac. 753 (Or.) —1575. Goodale, etc. Co. v. Shaw, 69 Pac. 546 (Or.)— 1944. Goodall V. Jack, 127 Cal. 258, 59 Pac. 575—477. Gooday v. Colchester, etc. Ry., 17 Beav. 132, 135 (1852)— 1714, 1801. Goodbar v. City Nat. Bank, 78 Tex. 461, 14 S. W. 851—1134. Goodell V. Verdugo, etc. Co., 71 Pac. 354 (Cal.)— 1459, 1521, 1863. Good Hope Co. v. Railway, etc. Co., 22 Fed. 635, 23 Blatchf. 43—1954, 1957. Goodhue, etc. Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210, 83 N. W. 531—1487. Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio St. 150—84, 1042, 1865. Goodlad v. Burnett, 1 K. & J. 341 (1855)— 656. Goodlett v. Louisville R. R., 122 U. S. 391, 7 Sup. Ct. 1254, 30 L. Ed. 1230 — 2654. Goodloe V. Godley, 21 Miss. 233, 51 Am. Dec. 150—1832, 1834. Goodman v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 2 Disney (Ohio), 176—2214, 2217. Goodman v. Jedldjah Lodge, 67 Md. 117, 9 Atl; 13, 13 Atl. 627—1071. Goodnow V. Oakey, 68 Iowa, 25, 25 N. W. 912—1807. Goodrich v. Dorman, 14 N. Y. Supp. 879—155. Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490, 83 Am. Dec. 240—84, 287. Goodrich v. Willard, 68 Mass. 203— 981. Goodsell V. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 N. Y. 430, 29 N. E. 969—497. Goodson's Claim, 28 W. R. 760 (1880) —545, 693. Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 22 Conn. 530, 58 Am. Dec. 439 — 70, 71, 74. Goodwin v. American Nat. Bank, 48 Conn. 550—730, 734, 966. Goodwin v. Bodcaw Lumber Co., 34 South. 74 (La.)— 2555. Goodwin v. Colorado, etc. Co., 110 U. S. 1, 3 Sup. Ct. 473, 28 L. Ed. 47—1956. Goodwin v. Hampton, etc. Co., 94 N. W. 729 (Mich.)— 662. Goodwin V. Hardy, 57 Me. 143 — 36, 1135, 1146, 1147. Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala. 232 — 420. Goodwin v. Ottawa, etc. Ry., 13 U. C. C. P. 254 (1863)— 853, 866. Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 476, 486, L. R. 10 Exch. 337 (1875) — 54, 2043, 2524. Goodwin v. Smith, 66 S. W. 179 (Ky.) —1577. Goodwin v. Union, etc. Co., 34 N. H. 378—1796. Goodwin, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514, 12 Atl. 736, 2 Am. St. Rep. 696— 755, 1156. Goodyear v. Phelps, 3 Blatchf. 91, 10 Fed. Cas. 711—1610. Goodyear, etc. Co. v. Caduc, 144 Mass. 85, 10 N. E. 483—1933. Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Goodyear's, etc. Co., 21 Fed. 276—61. Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Scott Co., 96 Ala. 439, 11 South. 370—1656, 1732. Goodyear's India Rubber, etc. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598, 9 Sup. Ct. 166, 32 L. Ed. 535—59, 61. Gorder v. Connor, 56 Neb. 781, 77 N. W. 383—37, 226, 517. Gorder v. Plattsmouth Canning Co., 36 Neb. 548, 54 N. W. 830—431, 1645, 1807. Gordillo v. Weguelin, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 287 (1877)— 2061. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133, 11 L. Ed. 529—1025, 1217. Gordon v. Ashley, 34 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 743, 70 N. Y. Supp. 1038—1539, 2830. Gordon v. Duff, 28 Beav. 519 (I860) — 653, 654. Gordon v. Jennings, L. R. 9 Q. B. 45— 430. Gordon v. Mayor, etc., 5 Gill (Md.), 231 —1207, 1212, 1218. Gordon v. Newman, 62 Fed. 686, 10 C. C. A. 587—2337, 2460. TABLE OF CASES. clix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.J Gordon v. Parker, 10 La. 56 — 788. Gordon v. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.), 385, 26 Am. Dec. 75—35, 1806, 2108, 2149. Gordon v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 78 Va. 501, 510, 521—584, 590, 591, 596, 598, 609, 1139, 1142, 1143. Gordon v. Sea F. & L. Ass'n Soc, 1 Hurl. & N. 599 (1857), 26 L. J. (Exch.) 202—436, 1973. Gordon v. Winchester, etc. Assoc, 12 Bush (Ky.), 110, 23 Am. Rep. 713— 1629. Gordon's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 249 (1850)— 563. Gores v. Day, 99 Wis. 276, 74 N. W. 787—1686, 1886. Gores v. Field, 109 Wis. 408/ 84 N. W. 867, 85 N. W. 411—1889, 1900. Gorgas' Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 149.-1226. Gorgier v. Mieville, 3 B. & C. 45 (1824) —2043. Gorham v. Campbell, 2 Cal. 135—1^95. Gorham v. Eastchester Electric Co., 80 Hun, 291, 30 N. Y. Supp. 125—2820. Gorham v. Gilson, 28 Cal. 479—1530. Gorman v. Davis, etc. Co., 118 N. C. 370, 24 S. E. 770—522. Gorman v. Guardian Sav. Bank, 4 Mo. App. 180—1730. ' Gorman v. Pacific R. R., 26 Mo. 441, 72 Am. Dec. 220—2601. Gorman v. O'Connor, 155 Pa. St. 239, 26 Atl. 379—1092. GormuUy, etc. Co. v. Bretz, 64 Fed. 612 —1535. Gorrell v. Greensboro, etc. Co., 124 N. C. 328, 32 S. E. 720, 46 L. R. A. 513, 70 Am. St. Rep. 598—2772. Gorrell v. Home Life Ins. Co., 63 Fed. 371, 11 C. C. A. 240—1625. Gorrissen's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 507 (1873)— 183. Gosden v. Dotterill, 1 My. & K. 56 (1832)— 45, 657. Goshen, etc. Road v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 218, 6 Am. Dec. 273—219, 290. Goshorn v. Ohio County, 1 W. Va. 308 —248, 2654. Gosling V. Gaskell, etc. (1897), A. C. 575—2191. Goss V. Peters, 98 Mich. 112, 57 N. W. 28—227, 1613, 2744. Goss, etc. Mfg. Co. v. People, 4 111. App. 5]^Q 992 994, Gott V. Cook, 7 Paige, 521, 534—1063. Gott V. Dinsmore, 111 Mass. 45 — 1085. Gottberg v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 13 N. Y. Supp. 841—730, 967. Gottfried v. Miller, 104 U. S. 521, 26 L. Ed. 851—992, 1534, 1801. Gottlieb V. Miller, 154 111. 44, 39 N. E. 992—1656, 2407. Gould V. Boston Duck Co., 79 Mass. 442 —2778. Gould V. Cayuga, etc. Bank, 86 N. Y. 75—1915. Gould V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 23 Hun,. 322—958, 963. Gould V. Head, 38 Fed. 886—1067. Gould V. Head, 41 Fed. 240, 248—859, 867, 1057. Gould V. Little Rock, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 680—1630, 1654. Gould V. Norfolk, etc. Co., 63 Mass. 338, 57 Am. Dec. 50—1757. Gould V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298—247,. 279, 293. Gould V. Seney, 9 N. Y. Supp. 818 — 2520. Gould V. Sterling, 23 N. Y. 456—259, 266. Gould V. Trask. 10 N. Y. Supp. 619 — 923 981 Goulding v. Clark, 34 N. H. 148—1274. Goundie v. Northampton Water Co., 7 Pa. St. 233—1662. Gouraud v. Edison, etc. Co., 59 L. T: 813 (1888)— 1106. Gouthwaite, Ex parte, 3 Mac. & G. 187 (1851)— 537. Gouthwaite's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 258 (1850)— 537. Government, etc. Co. v. Dempsey, 50- L. J. (Q. B.) 199—381. Government, etc. Co. v. Manila Ry. (1897), A. C. 81—2097. Governments, etc. Co. v. Manila, etc. Ry. (1895), 2 Ch. 551—2097. Gover's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 182 (1875) —322, 1469. Gover's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. 114 (1875) — 315. Gow v. Collin, etc. Co., 109 Mich. 45, 66 N. W. 676—504, 2256. Gowdy, etc. Co. v. Pattison, 64 N. E. (Ind.) 485—195. Gowen v. Penobscot R. R., 44 Me. 140 — 2604. Gowen Marble Co. v. Tarrant, 73 111. 603—1512. Gowen's Appeal, 10 W. N. Cas. 85 (Pa.) —1298, 1299. Gower's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 77 (1868) — 294, 296, 571. Goyer, etc. Co. v. Wildberger, 71 Miss. 438, 15 South. 235—1007. Goy & Co., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 149— 2098. Grace v. Noel, etc. Co., 63 S. W. 246 (Tenn.)— 2517. Grady's Case, 1 De G., J. & S. 488 (1863)— 546, 668. Graff, In re, 117 Fed. 343—921, 925, 1256. Graff V. Bonnett, 31 N. Y; 9, 14, 18, 88 Am. Dec. 236—1063, 1068. Graff V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 31 Pa. St. 489, 495—188, 308, 557, 1844. clx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text. J Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 180, 6 Sup. Ct. 686, 29 L. Ed. 839—2287. Grafflin v. Robb, 84 Md. 451, 35 Atl. 971 —722. Graflus v. Land Co., 3 Phila. 447—1826. •Grafton v. Union Ferry Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 878—1446. Grafton v. Union Perry Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 966—1446. Grafton Nat. Bank v. Wing, 172 Mass. 513, 52 N. E. 1067, 43 L. R. A. 831, 70 Am. St. Rep. 303—1816. Graham v. Atlantic, etc. Co., N. Y. Daily Reg. Oct. 14, 1884—2035. •Graham v. Birkenhead, etc. Co., 2 Macn. & G. 146 (1850)— 1860. Graham v. Boston, 156 Mass. 75, 30 N. E. 170—2823. ■Graham v. Boston, etc. R. R., 118 U. S. 161, 176, 6 Sup. Ct. 1009, 30 L. Ed. 196—1269, 1270, 1382, 1860, 1932, 2025, 2026, 2187, 2265, 2267, 2274, 2591, 2650. Graham v. Boston, etc. R. R., 14 Fed. 753 1269 1932. •Graham v. Carr, 41 S. E. 379 (N. C.) — 1488, 1574, 1657. Graham v. First Nat. Bank of Norfolk, 84 N. Y. 393, 38 Am. Rep. 528—1145. • Graham v. First Nat. Bank, of Norfolk, 20 Hun, 326—1145. Graham v. Houghton, 153 Mass. 384, 26 N. E. 876—764. Graham v. Hoy, 38 N. Y. Super. Ct. 506—1725. Graham v. National Bank, 32 N. J. Eq. 804—1629. Graham v. O'Connor, 73 L. T. Rep. 712 (1896)— 666, 759. •Graham v. Orange County Nat. Bank, 59 N. J. L. 225, 35 Atl. 1053—1837. Graham v. Piatt, 65 Pac. 30 (Colo.) — 547. Graham v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 148, 26 L. Ed. 106—1488, 1630, 1887. ■Graham v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704, 18 L. Ed. 247—2280. Graham v. St. Joseph, 67 Mich. 652, 35 N. W. 808—1209. -Graham v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 69 Ark. 562, 65 S. W. 1048, 66 S. W. 344— 2638. Graham v. Van Dlemen's Land Co., 1 Hurl. & N. 541 (1856)— 296, 299, 1278. Graham Button Co. v. Spielmann, 50 N. J. Eq. 120, 24 Atl. 571—2403. •Grain's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 307. 323 (1875)— 275. Gram v. Stebbins, 6 Paige, 124—773. Granby, etc. Co. v. Richards, 95 Mo. 106, 8 S. W. 246—502. 'Grand Ave. Ry. v. Llndell Ry., 148 Mo. 637, 50 S. W. 302—2709. Grand Ave. Ry. v. People's Ry., 132 Mo. 34, 33 S. W. 472—2709. Grand, etc. Co. v. Rude, etc. Co., 60 Kan. 145, 55 Pac. 848—1635. Grand, etc. Ry. v. Central, etc. R. R., 84 Fed. 66—2437. Grand, etc. Ry. v. Citizens' Ry., 148 Mo. 665, 50 S. W. 305—2711. Grand Gulf Bank v. Archer, 16 Miss. 151—1402, 1629, 1630. Grand Haven v. Grand Haven Water- works, 99 Mich. 106, 57 N. W. 1075— 2773. Grand Lodge v. Farnham, 70 Cal. 158, 11 Pac. 592—212. Grand Rapids v. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R., 66 Mich. 42, 33 N. W. 15—2633. Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 45 Fed. 671—38, 1258, 1466, 1531, 1724, 1771. Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. Grand Hotel, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 838 (Wyo.)— 1832. Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. Grand Rap- Ids, etc. Co., 33 Fed. 659—2731. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62, 66, 31 Am. Rep. 306—2687. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. v. Sanders, 17 Hun, 552—2028, 2043. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. v. Sanders, 54 How. Pr. 214—1984, 2045, 2046, 2056. Grand Rapids Sav. Bank v. Warren, 52 Mich. 557, 18 N. W. 356—294, 429, 460, 473, 480, 481. Grand River Bridge Co. v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 4, 21 Pac. 897—1720. Grand Ronde, etc. Co. v. Cotton, 12 Colo. App. 375, 55 Pac. 610—1941. Grand Tower, etc. Co. v. Ullman, 89 111. 244—2190. Grand Trunk, etc. Ry. v. Brodie, 9 Hare, 823 (1852)— 199. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central, etc. R. R., 105 Fed. 411—2062. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 78 Fed. 690—2077, 2208, 2444. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 81 Fed. 60—2361. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 81 Fed. 541—2578. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 85 Fed. 87—2376. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 88 Fed. 620—2351. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 88 Fed. 636—2448. Grrand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 88 Fed. 622—2181, 2184, 2239, 2244, 2248. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 90 Fed. 163—2356. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 91 Fed. 569—2351. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vermont R. R., 91 Fed. 696—2328. TABLE OF CASES. clxi prhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central ■Vermont R. R., 103 Fed. 740—2292, 2458, 2531. Granger v. Bassett, 98 Mass. 462 — 36. 1197, 1198. 'Granger v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 198 Pa. St. 428, 48 Atl. 259—984. Granger v. Grubb, 7 Phila. 350—1287, 1298, 1382. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Hamper, 73 Ala. 325—15, 614, 637. Grangers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 61 Ga. 561—332. Grangers' Market Co. v. Vinson, 6 Oreg. 172—207, 540. Granite Roofing Co. v. Michael, 54 Md. 65—100, 271, 284. i Grannan v. Westchester Racing Assoc, 153 N. Y. 449, 47 N. E. 896—2790. —507. Gutzeil V. Pennie, 95 Cal. 598, 30 Pac. 836—1810. Guy V. Craighead, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 463, 39 N. Y. Supp. 688—2091. G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 95 Fed. 23, 36 C. C. A. 633—1776, 1805, 2139. Gypsum, etc. Co. v. Kent Circuit Judge, 97 Mich. 631, 57 N. W. 191—1000. H. Haacke v. Knights, etc. Club, 76 Md. 429, 25 Atl. 422—1423. Haag V. County Com'rs, 34 Fed. 778 —64. Haarstick v. Fox, 9 Utah, 110, 33 Pac. 251—707. Haas V. Bank of Commerce, 41 Neb. 754, 60 N. W. 85—1418. TABLE OFi CASES. clxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Haas V. Hall, 111 Ala. 442, 20 South. 78 —354. Habenicht v. Lissak, 78 Cal. 351, 20 Pac. 874, 5 L. R. A. 713, 12 Am. St. Rep. 63—1072. Habershon's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 286 (1868)— 280. Habicht v. Pemberton, 4 Sandf. 657 — 1090. Hackemack v. Wlebrock, 172 111. 98, 49 N. E. 984—1818. Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay, 36 N. J. Bq. 548—1419, 1738, 1822, 1824. 1973, 2043, 2051, 2106, 2184, 2185, 2197, 2199, 2219, 2238, 2271, 2535. Hackett v. Leominster, etc. Bank, 68 N. H. 274, 44 Atl. 393—938. Hackett v. Northern, etc. R. R., 36 N. Y. Misc. 583, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1087— 594, 600, 621, 1721. Hackett v. Ottawa, 99 U. S. 86, 25 L. Ed. 363—258. Hackettstown v. Swackhamer, 37 N. J. L. 191—1969. Hackettstown, etc. Bank v. D. G. Yuengling, etc. Co., 74 Fed. 110, 20 C. C. A. 327—2064, 2132, 2137, 2207. Hackney v. Allegheny Ins. Co., 4 Pa. St. 185—1830. Hadden v. Daudy, 51 N. J. Eq. 154, 26 Atl. 464, 32 L. R. A. 625—1079. Hadden v. Dooley, 92 Fed. 274, 34 C. C. A. 338—1732, 1791, 1952. Hadden v. Linville, 86 Md. 210, 38 Atl. 37, 900—1791. Hadden v. Spader, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 554—993. Hadden's Will, In re, 9 N. Y. Supp. 453 —654. Hadley v. Freedman's, etc. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 122—1949. Hadley v. Freedman's, etc. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 122—1672. Hadley v. Russell, 40 N. H. 109—403, 406, 421, 456, 491. Haebler, In re, 149 N. Y. 414, 44 N. E. 87—1073. Hafer v. New York, etc. R. R., 14 W. L. Bull. 68 (1886)— 1306, 1345, 1359, 1366. Haffcke v. Clark, 50 Fed. 531, 1 C. C. A. 570—1435. Hafner v. Herron, 165 111. 242, 46 N. B. 211—909. Hagan v. Providence, etc. R. R., 3 R. I. 88, 62 Am. Dec. 377—78. Hagar v. King, 38 Barb. 200—762. Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, 63 Me. 509 —1122, 1134, 1154, 1156. Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476, 491— 364, 365, 370, 426, 427, 555, 568. Hager v. Thomson, 1 Black, 80, 17 L. Ed. 41—785. Hagerman v. Empire Slate Co., 97 Pa. St. 534—1678. Hagerstown, etc. Co. v. Keedy, 91 Md. 430, 46 Atl. 965—1514, 1662. Hagerstown Turnp. Co. v. Creeger, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 122, 9 Am. Dec. 495 —67. Haggart, etc. Co., In re, 19 App. Rep. (Can.) 582 (1892)— 387. Hague V. Dandeson, 2 Exch. 741 (1848) —1122. Hagy V. McGuire, 147 Pa. St. 187, 23 Atl. 806—1535. Hahnemannian L.. Ins. Co. v. Beebe, 48 111. 88, 95 Am. Dec. 519—1951. Hahn's Appeal, 7 Atl. 482 (Pa.)— 236, 363. Haig V. Swainey, 1 Sim. & Stu. 487 (1823)— 658. Haight, Ex parte, 1 Drew. 484 — 1701. Haight V. Day, 1 Johns. Ch. 18 — 192, 1325. Haight V. Morris Aqueduct, 4 Wash. C. C. 601, 11 Fed. Cas. 156—1940. Haight V. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 15, 18 L. Ed. 818—1213, 2127. Haight V. Sahler, 30 Barb. 218—1798, 1817. Hain v. Lebanon, etc. Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 452—2692. Hain v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 41 Ind. 196—358. Haines v. Crosby, 94 Me. 212, 47 Atl. 137—2756, 2810, 2814. Haines v. Franklin, 87 Fed. 139 — 800. Haines v. Kinderhook, etc. Ry., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 154, 53 N. Y. Supp. 368 —707, 1361, 2522. Haines v. Twenty-second, etc. Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 506—2704. Hair v. Burnell, 106 Fed. 280 — 866, 1012, 1017. Hakim's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 296, note (1869)— 579. Haldeman v. Ainslie, 82 Ky. 395 — 118, 493. Haldeman v. German, etc. Bank, 44 S. W. 883 (Ky.)— 946. Hale, Ex parte, 55 L. T. Rep. 670 (1886)— 334. Hale V. Allison, 188 U. S. 56, 23 Sup. Ct. 244—439, 452, 456, 467, 2400, 2406. Hale V. Allison, 102 Fed. 790—440. Hale V. Allison, 106 Fed. 258, 45 C. C. A. 270—452, 2400, 2406. Hale V. Burlington, etc. R. R., 13 Fed. 203, 2 McCrary, 558—2333. Hale V. Calder, 113 Fed. 670, 51 C. C. A. 480—479. Hale V. Cheshire R. R., 161 Mass. 443, 37 N. E. 307—610, 1039, 2556, 2583. Hale V. Coffin, 114 Fed. 567—467, 487, 538. Hale V. Continental L. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. 718—1939. Hale V. Cushman, 51 Atl. 874 (Me.) — 486. clxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hale V. Duncan, 11 Fed. Cas. 184—2414. Hale V. Frost, 99 U. S. 389, 25 L. Ed. 419—2352. Hale V. Harden, 89 Fed. 283—439. Hale V. Harden, 95 Fed. 747, 37 C. C. A. 240—440, 468, 472. Hale V. Harris, 112 Iowa, 372, 83 N. "W. 1046—2398. Hale V. Hilliker, 109 Fed. 273—468. Hale V. Mason, 160 N. Y. 561, 55 N. E. 202—1460, 1466. Hale V. Mason, 86 Hun, 499, 33 N. Y. Supp. 789—2397. Hale V. Nashua, etc. R. R., 60 N. H. 333—2178, 2197, 2200, 2246, 2348, 2458. Hale V. Republican River Bridge Co., 8 Kan. 466—1150. Hale V. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1, 20 N. W. gi? ggg Hale V. Tyler, 104. Fed. 757—468, 2401. Hale V. Walker, 31 Iowa, 344, 7 Am. Rep. 137—533. Haley v. Reid, 16 Ga. 437—997. Halford v. Cameron's, etc. Ry., 16 Q. B. 442 (1851)— 1820. Halifax, etc. Co. v. Francklyn, 62 L. T. Rep. 563 (1890)— 1743. Halket v. Merchant Traders', etc. As- soc, 13 Q. B. 960 (1849)— 436. Hall, Ex parte, 1 Macn. & G. 307 (1849) —208, 537, 562. Hall, Ex parte, 5 Ry. & Canal Cas. 624 (1849)— 565. Hall, Matter of, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 488, 62 N. Y. Supp. 888—716. Hall V. Astoria, etc. Co., 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 412—1926. Hall V. Auburn Turnp. Co., 27 Cal. 255, 87 Am. Dec. 75—2071. Hall V. Brooklyn El. R. R., N. Y. L. J., Apr. 30, 1892—104. Hall V. Carey, 5 Ga. 259—1739. Hall V. Connell, 3 Y. & C. (Exch.) 707 (1840)— 1108. Hall V. Eagle Rock, etc. Co., 51 Pac. 110 (Idaho)— 2788. Hall V. Goodnight, 138 Mo. 576, 37 S. W. 916—1576. Hall V. Henderson, 114 Ala. 601, 21 South. 1020, 62 Am. St. Rep. 141— 403. Hall V. Henderson, 126 Ala. 449, 28 South. 531. 85 Am. St. Rep. 53—42, 676. Hall V. Herter, 157 N. Y. 694, 51 N. E. 1091—1585, 1760, 2534. Hall T. Herter, 83 Hun, 19, 31 N. Y. Supp. 692—1585, 1760, 2534. Hall V. Herter, 90 Hun, 280, 35 N. Y. Supp. 769—1585, 1760, 2534. Hall V. Lay, 27 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 602, 59 N. Y. Supp. 638—1321. Hall V. Mobile, etc. R. R., 58 Ala. 10— 1828. Hall V. Ochs, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 103, 54 N. Y. Supp. 4—59, 1816. Hall V. Old Talargoch Min. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. D. 749 (1876)— 337. Hall V. Rose Hill, etc. Co., 70 III. 673— 828, 1153. Hall V. Selma, etc. R. R., 6 Ala. (N. S.) 741—355, 377. Hall V. Sims, 106 Ala. 561, 17 South. 534—235. Hall V. Sullivan R. R., 11 Fed. Cas. 257 —2111, 2113, 2119, 2184, 2190, 2194. Hall V. Syracuse, 71 Hun, 465, 24 N. Y. Supp. 959—2790. Hall V. Tanner, etc. Co., 91 Ala. 363, 8 South. 348—512. Hall V. United States Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.), 484—283, 286, 411, 556, 847, 1124, 1129. Hall V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 28 Vt. 401 —1500, 1720. Hall V. West, etc. Pub. Co., 180 Pa. St. 561, 37 Atl. 106—1740. Hallam v. Ashford, 70 S. W. 197 (Ky.) . —2399. Hallam v. Indianola Hotel Co., 56 Iowa, 178, 9 N. W. 111—1645. Hallam v. Tillinghast, 75 Fed. 849— 2417. Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 2 Neb. 377—247. Hallenbeck v. Powers, etc. Co., 117 Mich. 680, 76 N. W. 196—1782. Hallenborg v. Greene, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 590, 73 N. Y. Supp. 403—1553. 1873, 1924. Halleran v. Bell Tel. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 41, 71 N. Y. Supp. 685—2795. Hall, etc. Co. v. Barnes, 42 S. E. 276 (Ga.)— 77. Hallett V. Dowdall, 18 Q. B. (N. S.) 2 (1852)— 436. Hallett V. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 258, 74 N. Y. Supp. 639 —155, 405. Hallett v. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 659. 72 N. Y. Supp. 370 —117, 488. Hallett V. New England, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 217—95, 106. Halliday v. Holgate, L. R. 3 Exch. 299 (1868)— 958. Hall Mfg. Co. V. American, etc. Co., 48 Mich. 331, 12 N. WT 205—1602. Hallmark's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 329 (1878)— 209. Hallowell v. Blackstone Nat. Bank, 154 Mass. 359, 28 N. E. 281, 13 L. R. A. 315—954. Hallowell, etc. Bank v. Hamlin, 14 Mass. 178—1762, 1769. Hallows V. Fernie, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 467, 476 (1868)— 315, 317, 324. 340. Hall's Case, 3 De G. & S. 214 (1850)— 1699, 1701. TABLE OF CASES. clxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hall's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 707 (1870) —191, 294. Hallstead v. Coleman, 143 Pa. St. 352, 22 Atl. 977, 13 L. R. A. 370—501, 1087. Halpln y. Mutual Brewing Co., 91 Hun, 220, 36 N. Y. Supp. 151—1924. Halpin t. Mutual, etc. Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 583, 47 N. Y. Supp. 412— 1378. Halsey v. Ackerman, 38 N. J. Eq. 501 — 1685, 1694. Halsey v. McLean, 94 Mass. 438, 90 Am. Dec. 157—461, 462. Halsey v. Rapid Transit Ry., 47 N. J. Eq. 380, 20 Atl. 859—2691, 2704. Halsey Fire Engine Co. v. Donovan, 57 Micli. 318, 23 N. W. 828—358. Halstead v. Dodge, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 169—51. Halsted v. Forest Hill Co., 109 Fed. 820—2445. Halwerson v. Cole, 1 Spears (S. C), 321, 40 Am. Dec. 603—914. Ham V. Banque Ville Marie, 22 R. I. 248, 47 Atl. 364—1442. Hambleton v. Central Ohio R. R., 44 Md. 551—835. Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. 331, 20 Atl. 115—279, 353, 417. Hambleton v. Glenn, 9 S. E. 129 (Va.) —386, 396. Hambro v. Hull, etc. Co., 3 H. & N. 789 (1858)— 2743. Hamer v. Hathaway, 33 Cal. 117 — 1262. Hamer's Case, 2 De G., M. & G. 366 (1852)— 537. Hamer's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 279 (1850) —537. Hamershlag, v. Duryea, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 288, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1061—1756. Hamilton v. Accessory Transit Co., 26 Barb. 46—1433, 1440. Hamilton v. Austin, 36 Hun, 138 — 2366. Hamilton v. Bates, 35 Pac. 304 (Cal.) —1769. Hamilton v. Bordentown, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 290 (N. J.)— 2830. Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34, 23 Atl. 53, 13 L. R. A. 779— 359, 368, 385, 387, 402, 408, 409, 421, 2569. Hamilton v. Dennis, 12 Grant, Ch. (U. C.) 325 (1866)— 1805. Hamilton v. Desjardins Canal Co., 1 Grant, Ch. (Can.) 1 (1849)— 1896. Hamilton v. Finnegan, 91 N. W. 1039 (Iowa)— 746, 751. Hamilton v. Glenn, 85 Va. 901, 9 S. E. 129—555. Hamilton v. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 347—277. Hamilton v. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co., 67 Ga. 145—332, 391. Hamilton v. Keith, 5 Bush (Ky.), 458 —2611. Hamilton v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 5 Pa. St 339, 344—1801, 1802. Hamilton v. McLaughlin, 145 Mass. 20, 12 N. E. 424—1814. Hamilton v. Menominee, etc. Co., 106 Wis. 352, 81 N. W. 876—1556, 1644. 2013, 2272. Hamilton v. Miller, 24 Ind. App. 617, 56 N. E. 923—741. Hamilton v. Newcastle, etc. R. R., 9 Ind. 359—1977. Hamilton v. New York, etc. R. R., 9 Paige, 171—2660. Hamilton v. San Antonio, etc. Co., 51 S. "W. 1104 (Tex.)— 1007. Hamilton v. Savannah, etc. Ry., 49 Fed. 412—681, 683, 1704. Hamilton v. Smith, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 32 (1859)— 1702. Hamilton v. Vaughan-Sherrin, etc. Co. (1894), 3 Ch. 589—542. Hamilton Buggy Co. v. Iowa Buggy Co., 88 Iowa, 364, 55 N. W. 496-1845. Hamilton' College v. Stewart, 1 N. Y. 581—212. Hamilton County v. Indianapolis Nat. Gas Co., 134 Ind. 209, 33 N. E. 972— 2738. Hamilton Co. v. Massachusetts, 6 Wall. 632, 18 L. Ed. 904—1205. Hamilton County v. State, 115 Ind. 64, 4 N. E. 589, 17 N. E. 855—263. Hamilton, etc. Bank v. American, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 189 (Neb.)— 439. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S. 258, 13 Sup. Ct. 90, 36 L. Ed. 963—1038, 2669, 2736, 2737. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Parish, 65 N. E. 1011 (Ohio)— 2693. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 —178, 180, 185, 186, 213, 360, 379. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Townsend, 13 Ont. App. Rep. (Can.) 534 (1886) — 503. Hamilton, etc. Ins. Co. v. Hobart, 68 Mass. 543—1026, 1042, 2746. Hamilton Gaslight, etc. Co. v. Hamil- ton, 37 Fed. 832—2736. Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Halsted, 134 N. Y. 520, 31 N. E. 900, 30 Am. St. Rep. 693—948. Hamilton Park Co., In re, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 375, 37 N. Y. Supp. 310—2247. Hamilton St. etc. Co. v. Hamilton, etc. Transit Co., 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 319 — 2681. Hamilton's Windsor Ironworks, In re, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 707 (1879)— 2093. Hamilton T. Co. v. Clemes, 163 N. Y. 423, 57 N. E. 614—1376, 2123, 2140, 2149, 2258. Hamilton T. Co. v. Clemes, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 152, 45 N. Y. Supp. 141— 2140, 2258. Hamlen v. Bennett, 52 N. J. Eq. 70, 27 Atl. 651—705, 1000. clxx TABLE OF CASKS. [The ntunbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hamley's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 705 (1877)— 180, 1374. Hamlin v. European, etc. Ry., 72 Me. 83—2319, 2328. Hamlin v. Jerrard, 72 Me. 62—2151. Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Or. 456, 15 Pac. 778, 3 Am. St. Rep. 176— 1736-. Hamlin v. Meadville, 6 Neb. 227—255. Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 78 Fed. 664, 24 C. C. A. 271, 36 L. R. A. 826— 583, 591, 595, 597, 610. Hamlin v. Union, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 292, 44 Atl. 385—1748. Hamm v. Drew, 83 Tex. 77, 18 S. W. 434—1793. Hamm v. Stone, etc. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 45 S. W. 330—2484. Hammerly v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 123 Ala. 596, 26 South. 646—2357. Hammett v. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 20 Ark. 204—372, 375. Hammock v. Farmers' L. & R. Co., 105 U. S. 77, 26 L. Ed. 1111—2151, 2236, 2384. Hammond v. Crawford, 66 Fed. 425, 14 C. C. A. 109—1706. Hammond v. Edison 111. Co., 90 N. W. 1040 (Mich.)— 626, 628. Hammond v. Hammond, etc. Co., 72 Conn. 130, 44 Atl. 25—1533, 1726. Hammond v. Hastings, 134 U. S. 401, 10 Sup. Ct. 727, 33 L. Ed. 960—58, 883, 1118. Hammond v. Hudson River, etc. Co., 11 How. Pr. 29, 33—402. Hammond v. National, etc. Assoc, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 453, 69 N. Y. Supp. 585—1447, 2396. Hammond v. National, etc. Assoc, 31 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 182, 65 N. Y. Supp. 407—1447, 2392. Hammond v. Shepard, 29 How. Pr. 188, 191—64. Hammond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1 — 9. Hammond v. Tarver, 89 Tex. 290, 32 S. W. 511, 34 S. W. 729—2201, 2219. Hammond v. Tarver, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 31 S. W. 841—2219. Hammond, etc. Co. v. Best, 91 Me. 431, 40 Atl. 338, 42 L. R. A. 528—1635. Hammond's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 503, 16 Atl. 419—1520. Hamor v. Bar Harbor, etc. Co., 92 Me. 364, 42 Atl. 790—2777, 2784. Hamor v. Taylor, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 392 —675. Hampe v. Pittsburgh, etc Co., 165 Pa. St. 468, 30 Atl. 931—2569. ' Hampshire Land Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 743—1835. Hampson v. Price's, etc. Co., 45 L. J. (Ch.) 437 (1876)— 1594. Hampson v. Weare, 4 Iowa, 13, 66 Am. Dec. 116—416, 472. Hampton, etc. R. R. v. Bank, 48 S. C. 120, 26 S. E. 238—884, 959, 2037. Hamsher v. Hamsher, 132 111. 273, 23 N. E. 1123, 8 L. R. A. 556—1667. Hanan v. Sage, 58 Fed. 651—1434. Hanchett v. Blair, 100 Fed. 817, 41 C. C. A. 76—1651, 2066, 2160. Hancock v. Clark, 68 Vt. 302—1149. Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U. S. 229, 5 Sup. Ct. 115, 28 L. Ed. 714—1385. Hancock v. Holbrook, 9 Fed. 353, 4 Woods, 52—1385. Hancock v. Holbrook, 40 La. Ann. 53, 3 South. 351—1583, 1860. Hancock v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 145 U. S. 409, 12 Sup. Ct. 969, 36 L. Ed. 755—266, 1319, 2554, 2577. Hancock v. Singer Mfg. Co., 62 N. J. L. 289, 41 Atl. 846, 42 L. R. A. 852— 1218. Hancock v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 9 Fed. 738, 11 Biss. 148—2506, 2530. Hancock, etc. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640, 20 Sup. Ct. 506, 44 L. Ed. 619 —467, 470. Hancock, etc. Bank V. Farnum, 20 R. I. 466, 40 Atl. 341—467. Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis, 166 Mass. 414, 44 N. E. 349, 55 Am. St. Rep. 414 —438. Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis, 172 Mass. ■S9, 51 N. El 207, 42 L. R. A. 396, 70 Am. St. Rep. 232—465, 469. Hand V. Blow (1901), 2 Ch. 721—2447. Hand v. Cole, 88 Tenn. 400, 12 S. W. 922, 7 L. R. A. 96—430. Hand v. Dexter, 41 Ga. 454—1921. Hand v. Savannah, etc. R. R., 12 S. C. 314—2121. Hand v. Savannah, etc. R. R., 17 S. C. 219, 266, 276—2059, 2451, 2463. Hand Gold Min. Co. v. Parker, 59 Ga. 419—2627. Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 11 Sup. Ct. 117, 34 L. Ed. 706—402, 404. Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 428, 11 Sup. Ct. 530, 35 L. Ed. 227—92, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 135, 309, 370, 381, 383, 390, 396, 500, 559, 632, 1270, 1282, 1286, 1425, 1762, 2005, 2006. Handrahan v. Cheshire Iron Works, 86 Mass. 396 — 472. Handy v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 31 Fed. 689—2432, 2492. Handy v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 334—395, 447, 450, 481, 483, 486. Handy v. Waldron, 18 R. I. 567, 29 Atl. 143, 49 Am. St. Rep. 794—785, 807. Haney, etc. Co. v. Adaza, etc. Co., 108 Iowa, 313, 79 N. W. 79—321, 365, 1086. Hanford v. Washington Life Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 614, 44 N. E. 1124—1762, 2523. TABLE OF CASES. clxxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hankey v. Hammond, 1 Cook's Bankr. Law, 67 (1785)— 1065. Hanks v. Drake, 49 Barb. 186—923, 983. Hanley v. Balch, 94 Mich. 315, 53 N. W. 954—1532, 1877. Hanna v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 20 Ind. 30—1030, 2550. Hanna v. International Petroleum Co., 23 Ohio St. 622—1951. JIanna v. People's, etc. Bank, 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 517, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1076— 1685. Hanna v. People's Nat. Bank, 76 N. 'Y. App. 224, 78 N. Y. Supp. 516—302, 1881. Hanna v. State Trust Co., 70 Fed. 2, 16 C. C. A. 586, 30 L. R. A. 201—2465. Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67 Mo. 678 — 398. Hannan's, etc. Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 643—342. Hannan's, etc. Vo., In re, 75 L. T. Rep. 45 (1896)— 56, 181. Hannerty v. Standard Theater Co., 109 Mo. 297, 19 S. W. 82—1488, 1910, 2270. Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, 105 U. S. 408, 26 L. Ed. 1103—261. Hannibal v. Missouri, etc. Tel. Co., 31 Mo. App. 23—2818. Hannibal, etc. Co. v. Menefee, 25 Mo. 547—373. Hannibal, etc. R. R. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo. 550, 558, 560—30, 1215, 1217. Hannibal Sav. Bank v. Hunt, 72 Mo. 597, 37 Am. Rep. 449—19. Hannon v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 167 N. Y. 244, 60 N. E. 597, 52 L. R. A. 429— 1592. Hanover, etc. Bank v. Brown, 53 S. W. 206 (Tenn.)— 954, 1991. "Hanover, etc. Bank v. Cocke, 127 N. C. 467, 37 S. E. 507—223. Hanover, etc. Bank v. First, etc. Bank, 109 Fed. 421, 48 C. C. A. 482—1776. Hanover, etc. Co. v. Ashland, etc. Co., 84 Pa. St. 279—1829. Hanover Junction, etc. R. R. v. Halde- man, 82 Pa. St. 36—232, 233, 238, 357, 360, 369. Hanover Nat. Bank v. American Dock Co., 75 Hun, 55, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1055— 641. Hanover Nat. Bank v. Credits, etc. Co., 118 Fed. 110—1870. Hanrahan v. National, etc. Assoc, 48 Atl. 517 (N. J.)— 816. Hanson v. Davison, 73 Minn. 454, 76 N. W. 254—460, 471. Hanson v. Donkersley, 37 Mich. 184 — 429, 476. Hanson v. Bichstaedt, 69 Wis. 538, 35 N. W. 30—1094. Hanson v. Slaven, 98 Cal. 377, 33 Pac. 266—766. Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28, 1 Am. Rep. 215—243. Harben v. Phillips, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 14, 22, 36 (1882)— 1305, 1307, 1340. Harbours, etc. Co. v. Martin, 86 L. T. Rep. 505 (1902)— 223. Hardee v. Sunset Oil Co., 56 Fed. 51— 134, 226, 303, 1508. Harden v. North Carolina R. R., 129 N. C. 354, 40 S. E. 184, 55 L. R. A. 784, 85 Am. St. Rep. 747—2582. Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356 — • 784, 789, 954. Hardenburgh v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 3 N. J. Eq. 68—192, 1273, 1287, 1292, 1295. Hardesty v. Pyle, 15 Fed. 778—2312. Hardin v. Iowa, etc. Co., 78 Iowa, 726, 43 N. W. 543, 6 L. R. A. 52—1747, 1775, 2346. Hardin v. Sweeney, 14 Wash. 129, 44 Pac. 138—194, 2410. Hardin v. White, etc. Co., 26 Wash. 583, 67 Pac. 236—953, 997, 1020, 1370. Hardin County v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 92 Ky. 412, 17 S. W. 860—174, 629. Harding v. American, etc. Co., 182 111. 551, 55 N. E. 577, 74 Am. St. Rep. 189 —1022, 1045, 1269, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1554, 1871. Harding v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 80 Mo. 659—1949. Harding v. Field, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 391, 37 N. Y. Supp. 399—955. Harding v. Hart, 113 Fed. 304, 51 C. C. A. 264—1647. Harding v. Rockford, etc. R. R., 65 111. 90—258. Harding v. Vandewater, 40 Cal. 77 — 1743. Hardman v. Sage, 124 N. Y. 25, 26 N. E. 354—448, 476, 477. Hardon v. Newton, 14 Blatchf. 376, 11 Fed. Cas. 500—1387, 1611. Hards v. Platte, etc. Co., 46 Neb. 709, 65 N. W. 781—374. Hards v. Platte Valley, etc. Co., 35 Neb. 263, 53 N. W. 73—364. Hardwick, etc. Co. v. Drenan, 72 Vt. 438, 48 Atl. 645—1829. Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203 — ■ 84, 319, 377, 1624, 1980. Hardy v. Swigart, 25 Colo. 136, 53 Pac. 380—2515, 2518. Hardy Lumber Co. v. Pickerel Co., 29 Can. S. C. Rep. 211 (1898)— 1431. Hare v. London, etc. Ry. (1860), 1 Johns. & H. 252 (1861), 2 Johns. & H. 80—1898, 2597. Hare v. London & N. W. Ry., 30 L. J. (Ch.) 817, 829 (1861)— 1550, 1905. Hare v. Waring, 3 M. & W. 362, 380— 746". Hare's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 503 (1869) — 326. clxxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Harger v. McCullough, 2 Deiiio, 119, 122—427, 428, 476, 1307. Haring v. Hamilton, 107 Wis. 112, 82 N. "W. 698—1578. Harkness v. Manhattan Ry., 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 174—1513, 1723, 2578. Harlaem Canal Co. v. Seixas, 2 Hall (N. Y. Super. Ct.) 504—290, 298, 364. Harland v. Bankers', etc. Tel. Co., 32 Fed. 305, 33 Fed. 199—2237, 2403, 2410. Harman's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 326 (1875)— 2746. Harmon v. Columbia, etc. R. R., 28 S. C. 401, 5 S. B. 835, 13 Am. St. Rep. 686—2581. Harmon v. Hunt, 116 N. C. 678, 21 S. B. 559—349. Harmon v. Page, 62 Cal. 448—402. Harmstead v. Washington Fire Co., 8 Phila. 331—1075. Haroum v. Hudnall, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 369, 382—1146. Harp V. Abbeville, etc. Co., 108 Ga. 168, 33 S. B. 998—1534, 2415. Harpending v. Munson, 91 N. Y. 650 — 1491, 1645, 1914, 2270, 2503. Harper v. Carroll, 62 Minn. 152, 64 N. W. 145—455, 486, 569. Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487, 69 N. W. 610, 1069—442, 453, 458, 481, 492, 532, 569, 571, 575. Harper v. Raymond, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 29—1084, 1358. Harper v. Union Mfg. Co., 100 111. 225— 445, 454. Harper & Bros., In re, 100 Fed. 266— 1631. Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Ohio St. 397, 21 N. B. 637, 15 Am. St. Rep. 618—428, 492, 565, 571. Harrell v. Blount, 112 Ga. 711, 38 S. B. 56—405. Harrell v. Mexico Cattle Co., 73 Tex. 612, 11 S. W. 863—1020. Harrigan v. Quay, .27 S. W. 897 (Tex.) —1642. Harrington v. Connor, 51 Neb. 214, 70 N. W. 911—1394, 1726. Harrington v. First Nat. Bank, Thomp- son's N. B. Cas. 760 (1873)— 1730. Harrington v. Plainview, 27 Minn. 224, 6 N. W. 777—259. Harrington v. Sendall, 88 L. T. Rep. 323 (1903)— 23, 1072. Harris v. American Bible Soc, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 316—1664. Harris v. American, etc. Assoc, 122 Ala. 545, 25 South. 200—1834. Harris v. Columbia, etc. Co., 67 S. W. 811 (Tenn.)— 1589. Harris v. Davis, 44 Fed. 172 — 2517. Harris v. First Parish, 40 Mass. 112 — 402, 454. Harris v. Gateway, etc. Co., 128 Ala. 652, 29 South. 611—369, 386. Harris v. Lemming, etc. Works, 43 S. W. 869 (Tenn.)— 1510. Harris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124—497. Harris v. Mississippi Valley, etc. R. R.,. 51 Miss. 602—1394, 1402. Harris v. Muskingum Mfg. Co., 4- Blackf. (Ind.) 267, 29 Am. Dec. 372— 1393, 1724. Harris v. Nesbit, 24 Ala. 398—1394. Harris v. Norvell, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 127 — 429. Harris v. Piatt, 64 Mich. 105, 31 N. W. 135—789. Harris v. Pryor, 18 N. Y. Supp. 128 — 924. Harris v. Pullman, 84 111. 20, 25, 25- Am. Rep. 416—395. Harris v. San Francisco Sugar, etc. Co., 41 Cal. 393—1142. Harris v. Scott, 67 N. H. 437, 32 Atl. 770—1347. Harris v. Sleep (1897), 2 Ch. 80—2474. Harris v. Stevens, 7 N. H. 454—1148. Harris v. Thompson, 15 Barb. 62 — 1638. Harris v. Tumbridge, 83 N. Y. 92, 38: Am. Rep. 398—770, 772, 904, 907, 923, 926, 1258, 1263. Harris v. Youngstown Bridge Co., 90= Fed. 322, 33 C. C. A. 69—2243, 2289, 2326, 2329. Harrisburg v. Pennsylvania, etc. Co.,. 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 63 (Pa.) — 2840. Harrisburg Bank v. Tyler, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 377—1830. Harrisburg, etc.'R. R.'s Appeal, 36 Am. 6 Bug. R. R. Cas. 249 (Pa.)— 2254. Harrison v. Annapolis, etc. R. R., 50 Md. 490—2147. Harrison v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 94 Fed. 728, 36 C. C. A. 443—2381. Harrison v. Glucose, etc. Co., 116 Fed, 304, 53 C. C. A. 484, 58 L. R. A. 915— 1055. Harrison v. Harrison, 36 N. Y. 543— 1063. Harrison v. Harrison, 2 Atk. 121 (1740) —718. Harrison v. Harrison, 42 Barb. 162— 1063. Harrison v. Heathorn, 6 Man. & G. 81 (1843)— 178, 333, 1076. Harrison v. Mexican Ry., L. R. 19 Eq. 358 (1875)— 583, 586, 591, 1150. Harrison v. Morton, 83 Md. 456, 35 Atl. 99—1296. Harrison v. Mulvane, 62 Kan. 454, 63 Pac. 749, 54 L. R. A. 405—1491. Harrison v. Pryse, Barn. Ch. 324 (1740)— 863. Harrison v. Thomas, 112 Fed. 22, 50 C. C. A. 98—1504, 1907. Harrison v. Union Pac. Ry., 13 Fed. 522, 4 McCrary, 264—101, 2074. TABLE OF CASES. clxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Harrison v. Union Trust Co., 144 N. Y. 326, 39 N. E. 353—2180, 2204. Harrison v. Union Trust Co., 80 Hun, 463, 30 N. Y. Supp. 443—2204. Harrison v. Vines, 46 Tex. 15, 21 — 43. Harrison v. Williams. 3 B. & C. 162 (1824)— 1108, 1109. Harrison Nat. Bank v. Votaw, 51 Kan. 362, 32 Pac. 1111—376. Harrison's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 286 (1871)— 579. Harris's Appeal, 12 Atl. Rep. 743 (Pa.) —936, 1256. Harris's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 587 (.1872)— 190, 1764. Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162—430, 496. Harrold v. Plenty (1901), 2 Ch. 314— 45. Harrold v. Plenty, 85 L. T. Rep. 45 (1901)— 931, 977. Harshman y. Bates County, 92 U. S. 569, 23 L. Ed. 747—261, 268, 269. Harshman v. Knox County, 122 U. S. 306, 7 Sup. Ct 1171, 30 L. Ed. 1152— 256. Hart, In re, 5 W. N. 95 (1870)— 777. Hart V. Allegheny, etc. Co., 201 Pa. St. 234, 50 Atl. 1010—2833. Hart V. Barney, etc. Co., 7 Fed. 543 — 2310, 2311. Hart V. Boston, etc. R. R., 40 Conn. 539 —2651. Hart V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 69 Iowa, 485, 29 N. W. 597—2644. Hart V. Clarke, 6 De Ct., M. & G. 232 (1854)— 1079. Hart V. Direct United States Cable Co., 86 N. Y. 633— 2849. Hart V. Eastern, etc. Ry., 7 Exch. 246 (1852)— 2096. Hart V. Prontino, etc. Min. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. Ill (1870)— 826, 828, 863. Hart V. Globe Ins. Co., 113 Fed. 307 — 225, 226, 1647. Hart V. Lauman, 29 Barb. 41()— 2040. Hart V. Livermore, etc. Co., 72 Miss. 809, 17 South. 769—1680. Hart V. Mt. Pleasant, etc. Co., 97 Iowa, 353, 66 N. W. 190—1849. Hart V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 1 Am. St. Ry. Dec. 4 (La.)— 40. Hart V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R., 89 Hun, 316, 35 N. Y. Supp. 566—1515. Hart V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R., 69 Hun, 378, 23 N. Y. Supp. 639—2070. Hart V. Phenix, etc. Co., 113 Ga. 859, 39 S. E. 304—1599. Hart V. St. Charles St. R. R., 30 La. Ann. 758—625, 626. Hart V. Seymour, 147 111. 598, 35 N. E. 246—1078. Hart V. Smith, 64 N. E. 661, 58 L. R. A. 949 (Ind.)— 1208. Hart V. State Bank, 2 Dec. Eq.. (N. C.) 111—1114. Hart V. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Ch. 62, 117 —718, 977. Barter v. Capital City, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 560 (N. J.)— 89, 2658. Harter v. Bltzroth. Ill Ind. 159, 12 N. B. 129—790. Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562, 26 L. Ed. 411—251, 268. Hart, etc. v. Coryell, 8 Kan. App. 496, 55 Pac. 514—1584. Hartford Bank v. Hart, 3 Day (Conn.), 491, 3 Am. Dec. 274—1827, 1828, 1830. Hartford, etc. Co. v. Plymer, 120 Fed. 624—1796. Hartford, etc. R. R. v. Boorman, 12 Conn. 530 — 556. Hartford, etc. R. R. v. Croswell, 5 Hill. 383, 40 Am. Dec. 354—1031, 2646. Hartford, etc. R. R. v. Kennedy, 12 Conn. 499—35, 215, 290, 292. Hartford, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 411—2596, 2609, 2645. Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 6 Biss. 461, 11 Fed. Cas. 702—1675. Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Hartford, 3 Conn. 15—69. Hartford & New Haven Railroad Co. v. Croswell, 5 Hill, 383—1549. Hartga v. Bank of England, 3 Ves. Jr. 55 (1796)— 732. Harting v. American, etc. Co., 182 111. 551—1871. Hartley v. Allen, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 50O (1858)— 1195, 1197, 1198. Hartley's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. 157 (1875) —344. Hartman v. Valley Ins. Co., 32 Graft. (Va.) 242—492. Hartnett v. Plumbers' Supply Assoc, 169 Mass. 229, 47 N. E. 1002, 38 L. R. A. 194—1407. Hartranft's Estate, In re, 153 Pa. St. 530, 26 Atl. 104, 34 Am. St. Rep. 717 -980. Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 260—616, 623, 670. Harts V. Brown, 77 111. 226—1490. Hart's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 512 (1868) — 206, 543. Hartsville University v. Hamilton, 34 Ind. 506—1417. Hartt V. Harvey, 32 Barb. 55—1293, 1333. Hartzall v. Sill, 12 Pa. St. 248—2779. Harvard College v. Amory, 26 Mass. 446—715, 1193, 1194. Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass. 470—1667. Harvard Unitaran Soc. v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76, 23 N. E. 1006, 7 L. R. A. 390—654, 661. clxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Harvey v. Aurora, etc. Ry., 186 111. 283, B7 N. B. 857—2665, 2670. tiarvey v. Aurora & G. Ry., 174 111. 295, 51 N. E. 163—2702. Harvey v. Clough, 8 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 324 (1863)— 1079. Harvey v. Illinois Mid. Ry., 28 Fed. 169—2591. Harvey v. Linville Imp. Co., 118 N. C. 693, 24 S. B. 489, 32 L. R. A. 265, 54 Am. St. Rep. 749—1369. Harvey v. Maine, etc. Co., 92 Me. 115, 42 Atl. 342—1580. Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 N. B. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 15 Am. St. Rep. 159—918. Harvey v. Raleigh & G. R. R., 89 Fed. 115—1330, 1869. Harvey v. Sellers, 115 Fed. '757—1708. Harvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts (Pa.), 65, 36 Am. Dec. 141—2627. Harvey v. West Side, etc. Co., 13 Hun, 392—1829. Harvey's Oyster Co., In re (1894), 2 Ch. 474—181, 240. Harward's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 30 (1871) —180. Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78, 21 L. Bd. 558—1860, 2262, 2278. Hasbrouck v. Vanderwoort, 4 Sandf. 74—932, 946, 971, 1254. Hascall v. Life Assoc, 66 N. Y. 616 — 64, 1790, 1816. Hascall v. Life Assoc, 5 Hun, 151 — 64, 1790, 1816. Hasenritter v. Kirchhoffer, 79 Mo. 239 —1419. Haskell v. Africa, 68 N. H. 421, 41 Atl. 73 ^979 Haskell v. Read, 93 N. W. 997—648,. 1311, 1317, 1335, 1847, 1850. Haskell v. Worthlngton, 94 Mo. 560, 7 S. W. 481—324, 358. Haskins v. Albany, etc. Co., 74 N. Y. App. Div. 31, 76 N. Y. Supp. 667— 1996, 2057. Haskins v. Dern, 19 Utah, 89, 56 Pac. 953—741, 931. Haskins v. Harding, 2 Dill. 99, 11 Fed. Cas. 778—449. Haskins v. Warren, 115 Mass. 514, 536 —914. Haslam v. Adams Exp. Co., 6 Bosw. (N. Y.) 235—2727. Haslam v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 79 Minn. 1, 81 N. W. 535—1006. Haslett V. Wotherspoon, 1 Strobh. Bq. (S. C.) 209, 229—521. Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493, 9 Sup. Ct. 590, 32 L. Bd. 1001—2232. Hassell v. Merchant Traders' Assoc. 4 Bxch. 525 (1849)— 436. Hasselman v. Japanese, etc. Co., 2 Ind. Apn. 180, 27 N. E. 318, 28 N. B. 207 —65, 1395. Hasselman v. U. S. etc. Co., 97 Ind. 365 —1419. Hasler v. Philadelphia Musical Assoc, 14 Phila. 233—1075. Hasson v. Venango Bridge Co., 1 Pa. ' Dist. 521—1594. Hastings v. Anacortes, etc Co., 69 Pac 776 (Wash.)— 512, 1660. Hastings v. Barnd, 55 Neb. 93, 75 N. W. 49—453. Hastings v. Blue Hill Tump. Corp., 26 Mass. 80—844. Hastings v. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 473, 34 N. E. 289—1782. Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9, 219— 473, 1177, 1180, 1181, 1433. Hastings v. Drew, 50 How. Prac. (N. . Y.) 254—1433. Hastings Malting Co. v. Iron Range Brewing Co., 65 Minn. 28, 67 N. W. 65—159. Hatch V. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 383, 23 N. B. 549—153. Hatch V. Barr, 1 Ohio, 390—1804, 1814. Hatch V. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 439, 443, 11 Fed. Cas. 795, 796—445, 451, 461. Hatch V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 6 Blatchf. 105, 11 Fed. Cas. 799—1868, 1917, 1946, 1965. Hatch V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 18 Ohio St. 92—2726. Hatch y. City Bank, 1 Rob. (La.) 470— 1104. Hatch V. Coddington, 95 U. S. 48, 24 L. Ed. 339—1774. Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 214, 25 L. Ed. 885—274, 275, 400, 402, 404, 407, 408, 409, 453. Hatch V. Douglas, 48 Conn. 116, 40 Am. Rep. 154—768, 770, 910, 918. Hatch V. Johnson L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 828—1381, 1730, 2109. Hatch V. Lucky Bill Min. Co., 71 Pac. 865 (Utah)— 295, 1381, 1753. Hatch V. Spooner, 13 N. Y. Supp. 642 — 791, 808. Hatch V. Spooner, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 408, 37 N. Y. Supp. 295—792. Hatcher v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 62 111. 477—2532. Hatcher v. United Leasing Co., 75 Fed. 368—1539, 1582, 2338. Hatfield v. Cummings, 152 Ind. 280, 50 N. B. 817, 53 N. B. 231—2385. Hathorn v. Calef, 53 Me. 471—1026. Hattersley v. Shelburne, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 873 (1862)— 1922. Hatton, Ex parte, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 340 (1862)— 580. Haugen v. Albina, etc. Co., 21 Oreg. 411, 28 Pac 244, 14 L. R. A. 424— 2757. Haun V. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 103—282. TABLE OF OASES. clxxv [The niimbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Haupt V. Independent, etc. Co., 25 Mont. 122, 63 Pac. 1033—2801. Hause v. Mannheimer, 67 Minn. 194, 69 N. W. 810—368. Havana, etc. Ry. v. Ceballos, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 263, 63 N. Y. Supp. 417— 1727, 1936. Havemeyer v. Bordeaux Co., 8 Nat. Corp. Rep. 127 (111. C. C"— 584, 599, 670. 949. Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 506, 513, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 464—681, 1342, 1351. Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 86 N. Y. 618 —681, 1342. 1351. Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294, 18 L. Ed. 38—243. Havemeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327, 24 Pac. 121, 10 L. R. A. 627, 18 Am. St. Rep. 192—1045, 1438, 1439. Haven v. Adams, 86 Mass. 80 — 1806. Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66—2349. Haven v. Grand Junction, etc. Co., 94 Mass. 337—1805, 2188. Haven v. Grand Junction, etc. Co., 109 Mass. 88—2055, 2060, 2291. Haven v. New Hampshire Asylum, 13 N. H. 532, 38 Am. Dec. 512—1756, 1757. Haven, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 151 (1881)— 1306. Haven Gold Min. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 151 (1882)— 1392. Haverford, etc. Co. v. Hart, 1 Pa. Dist. 571, 4 Am. Elec. Gas. 148—2729, 2797. Hawarden v. Youghiogheny, etc. Co., Ill Wis. 545, 87 N. W. 472, 55 L. R. A. 828—1055. Hawbeach, etc. Co. v. Teague, 5 H. & N. 151 (I860)— 1738. Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385, 111 Mass. 200—416, 427, 473. Hawes v. Gas Consumers' Ben. Co., 12 N. Y. Supp. 924—830, 862. Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, 26 L. Ed. 827—1452, 1868, 1895. Hawkins v. Carroll County, 50 Miss. 735—261. Hawkins v. Citizens', etc. Co., 38 Oreg. 544, 64 Pac. 320—239, 279, 308, 416, 559, 1157. Hawkins v. Donnerberg, 66 Pac. 691 (Or.)— 387. Hawkins v. Furnace Co., 40 Ohio St. 507—485. Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 9 Sup. Ct. 739, 33 L. Ed. 184—386, 416, 559. Hawkins v. Maltby, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 188 (1867), L. R. 6 Eq. 505 (1868) — 574. Hawkins v. Maltby, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 200 (1869), L. R. 6 Eq. 505—575, 916. Hawkins v. Mansfield, etc. Co., 52 Cal. 513—197. Hawkins v. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 35. Miss. 688—1041. Hawkins v. Municipal Council, etc., 2 U. C. C. P. 72, 121 (1852)— 67. Hawks V. Bright, 51 La. Ann. 79, 24 South. 615—2090. Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52—776, 2051. Hawley v. Brumagim, 33 Cal. 394—50. Hawley v. Cramer, 4 Cow. 717, 736— 909. Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543, 2 Sup. Ct. 846, 27 L. Ed. 820—256. Hawley v. Gray, etc. Co., 106 Cal. 337, 39 Pac. 609—1775. Hawley v. Kansas, etc. Coal Co., 48^ Kan. 593, 30 Pac. 14—2608. Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S. 314, 26 L. Ed. 179—113, 180, 183, 188, 211, 379. Hawtayne v. Bourne, 7 M. & W. 595- (1841)— 1798, 1969. Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Wall. 10, 17 L. Ed. 776—1027. Hay V. Cohoes Co., 3 Barb. 42—2627. Hay V. Palmer, 2 P. Wms. 501 (1728)- 1198. Haycraft, etc. Co., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 230—1748. Haydel v. Hurck, 72 Mo. 253 (1880) — 1200. Hayden v. Atlanta Cotton Factory, 61 Ga. 233—80, 377. Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. 93—1952, 1965. Hayden v. Brown, 94 Fed. 15—1178. Hayden v. Charter Oak Driving Park,. 63 Conn. 142, 27 Atl. 232—639, 640,. 889, 2046. Hayden v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 80 Fed. 587—1632. Hayden v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 84 Fed. 874, 28 C. C. A. 548—1633. Hayden v. Davis, 3 McLean, 276, 11 Fed. Cas. 898—1626, 1980. Hayden v. Green, 71 Pac. 236 (Kan.) —1473. Hayden v. Lincoln City Elect. Ry., 43' Neb. 680, 62 N. W. 73—1990. Hayden v. Middlesex Turnp. Co., 10- Mass. 397, 403, 6 Am. Dec. 143—1246, 1724, 1733, 1800, 1802. Hayden v. Official, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 875 —1491, 1555, 1563. Hayden v. Thompson, 67 Fed. 273 — 1181. Hayden v. Thompson, 71 Fed. 60, IT C. C. A. 592—1181, 1182, 2405. Hayden v. Wheeler, etc. Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 902—1734. Hayden v. Williams, 96 Fed. 279, 37 C. C. A. 479—189, 1113, 1178, 1181, 1842, 2405. Hayes v. Allen, 160 Mass. 286, 35 N. E.. 852, 39 Am. St. Rep. 474—742. Hayes v. Brotzman, 46 Md. 519-2397^ 2410. clxxvi TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hayes v. Columbus, etc. Ry., 67 Fed. 630—2420. Hayes v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 160—533. Hayes v. Hayes, 1 Keen, 97 (1836)— 653, 660. Hayes v. Holly Springs, 114 U. S. 120, 5 Sup. Ct. 785, 29 L>. Ed. 81—252, 253. Hayes v. Northern Pac. R. R., 74 Fed. 279, 20 C. C. A. 252—2581. Hayes v. Shoemaker, 39 Fed. 319 — 561. Hayne v. Beauchamp, 13 Miss. 515— 354. Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H. 545, 563— 178, 379, 447, 1844. Haynes v. Hunnewell, 42 Me. 276—1817. Haynes v. Palmer, 13 La. Ann. 240 — 554. Haynes v. Raleigh Gas Co., 114 N. C. 203, 19 S. B. 344, 26 L. R. A. 810, 41 Am. St. 786—2831. Hays V. Citizens' Bank, 51 Kan. B35, 33 Pac. 318—1647. Hays V. Commonwealth, 82 Pa. St. 518 —1301, 1303. Hays V. Dowis, 75 Mo. 250—255. Hays V. Franklin, etc. Co., 35 Neb. 511, 53 N. W. 381—300. Hays V. Gallon Gas, etc. Co., 29 Ohio St. 330, 340—1969, 1970, 2108, 2159, 2184, 2738. Hays V. Houston, etc. R. R., 46 Tex. 272—70, 77. Hays V. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 99 Pa. St. 621—398. Hays V. Ottawa, etc. R. R., 61 111. 422— 373, 1041, 2548, 2580. Hays V. Pennsylvania Co., 12 Fed. 309 —2608, 2609. Hays V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 38 Pa. St. 81—189, 282, 283. Hay's Case, L. R, 10 Ch. App. 593 (1875)— 1467. Hayt V. Malone, 9 N. Y. Supp. 877— 1924. Hayter v. Tucker, 4 K. & J. 243 (1858) —1079. Hayward v. Leeson, 176 Mass. 310, 57 N. E. 656, 49 L. R. A. 725—103, 129, 138, 1474, 1892, 1915, 2032, 2411. Hayward v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 611, 24 L. Ed. 855—985. Hayward v. Pilgrim Soc, 38 Mass. 270 —1800, 1830. Haywood v. Lincoln Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 639, 26 N. W. 184—1648, 1926. Haywood & Pittsborough P. R. Co. v. Bryan, 6 Jones, L. (N. C.) 82—82, 240, 354, 1308. Hayworth v. Junction R. R., 13 Ind. 348—1042. • Hazard v. Dillon, 34 Fed. 485—1068, > 1459, 2658. Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. I. 195, 196— 1765, 1862, 1904, 1909. Hazard v. National Exch. Bank, 26 Fed. 94—1008, 1012. Hazard v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 17 Fed. 753—1982, 2113, 2115, 2572. Hazelhurst v. Savannah, etc. R. R., 43 Ga. 13—583, 586, 680. Hazeltine v. Belfast, etc. R. R., 79 Me. 411, 10 Atl. 328, 1 Am. St. Rep. 330— 602, 604, 1166. Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton, etc. Co., 137 111. 231, 28 N. E. 248—61. Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton, etc. Co., 142 111. 494, 30 N. B. 339—60, 1071, 1535. Hazen v. Boston, etc. R. R., 68 Mass. 574—2626. Hazen v. LyndonvlUe Nat. Bank, 70 Vt. 543, 41 Atl. 1046, 67 Am. St. Rep. 680—996, 2428. Hazen v. Union Bank, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 115—1025. Hazelton Coal Co. v. Megargel, 4 Pa. St. 324—1627. H. B. Claflin Co. v. Bretzfelder, 69 Ark. 271, 62 S. "W. 905—980, 994, 995. Heacock v. Sherman, 14 Wend. 58 — 437. Head v. Cleburne, etc. Assoc, 25 S. W. 810 (Tex.)— 1625. Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 2 Cranch, 127, 167, 2 L. Ed. 229—3, 1819. Head v. Tattersall, L. R. 7 Exch. 7 (1871)— 1476. Head's Case, L. R. 3 Eg. 84 (1866) — 571. Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa, 23, 44 N. W. 210—497, 1976. Healey v. Loveridge, 72 Md. 220, 19 Atl. 921—222. Heap V. Heap Mfg. Co., 97 Mich. 147, 56 N. W. 349—1388. Heard v. Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242—1435. Heard v. Eldredge, 109 Mass. 258; 12 Am. Rep. 687—1193, 1194. Heard v. Pictorial Press, 65 N. E. 901 — 167, 432, 787. Heard v. Talbot, 73 MaSs. 113—1424. Heart v. State Bank, 2 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) Ill— 736, 1116. Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 16 Ind. 275, 79 Am. Dec. 430—215, 298, 379 1943 1944. Heath v. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302—1433, 1434. Heath v. Erie Ry., 8 Blatchf. 347, 11 Fed. Cas. 976—1879, 1889, 1897, 1910. Heath v. Griswold, 5 Fed. 573, 18 Blatchf. 555—533, 941, 942. Heath v. Mahoney, 12 Week. Dig. 404 (1881)— 905. Heath v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 83 Mo. 617 —2454. TABLE OF CASES. clxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Heath V. Silverthorn, etc. Co., 39 Wis. 146—9, 1269, 1316, 2050. Heathcote t. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 2 Macn. & G. 100 (1850)— 2584. Hebberd v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18, 36 Atl. 122—86, 118, 160, 352, 676, 2025, 2152. Hebb's Case, L. R. 4 Bq. 9 (1871)— 189, 190. Hebgen v. Koeffler, 97 Wis. 313, 72 N. W. 745—1478. Hecht, etc. Co. v. Phenix, etc. Co., 121 Fed. 188—536. Heck V. Bulkley, 1 S. W. 612 (Tenn.)— 1252. Heckman's Estate, In re, 172 Pa. St. 185, 33 Atl. 552—1701. Hecia, etc. Min. Co. v. O'Neill, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592—1719. Hector v. Boston, etc. Co., 161 Mass. 558, 37 N. E. 773, 25 L. R. A. 554— 2833. Hector t. Boston, etc. Co., 174 Mass. 212, 54 N. E. 539. 75 Am. St. Rep. oQQ 2832 Hedding v. Gallagher, 69 N. H. 650, 45 Atl. 96, 76 Am. St. Rep. 204— 2650. Hedge's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 273 — 1070, 1084. Hedges v. Harpur, 3 De G. & J. 129 (1858)— 659. Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Or. 77—1509. Hedlund v. Dewey, 105 Fed. 541—579. Heebner v. Chave, 5 Pa. St. 115 — 430. Hefferman v. Brierly, 62 S. W. 852 (Ky.)— 2044. HeflEner v. B*ownell, 70 Iowa, 591, 31 N. W. 947—1817. Heffron t. Detroit City Ry., 92 Mich. 406, 52 N. W. 802, 16 L. R. A. 345, 31 Am. St. Rep. 601—2714. Heflin, etc. Co. v. Hilton, 124 Ala. 365, 27 South. 301—34, 150, 436, 2054. Hegewisch v. Silver, 140 N. Y. 414, 35 N. B. 658—2384. 2492. Hegewisch v. Silver, 21 N. Y. Supp. 294—2385. Heggle V. People's Building, etc. Assoc, 107 N. C. 581, 12 S. B. 275— 344, 677, 2269. Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 112 U. S. 294, 5 Sup. Ct. 135, 28 L. Ed. 729—2223. Heilman v. Lebanon, etc. Ry., 175 Pa. St. 188, 34 Atl. 647—2691. Heilman v. Lebanon, etc. Ry., 180 Pa. St. 627, 37 Atl. 119—2691. Heilman v. Union Canal Co., 50 Pa. St. 268—2799. Heilman, etc. Co. v. Peimeisl, 85 Minn. 121, 88 N. W. 441—1678. Helman v. Hardie, 12 Ct. of Sess. 406 (Sc, 4th Ser., 1885)— 772. Helms Brewing Co. v. Flannery, 137 111. 309, 27 N. B. 286—1599. Heinig v. Adams, etc. Mfg. Co., 81 Ky. 300—500, 1425. Heinsheimer v. Dayton, etc. R. R., 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 268—2366. Heintz v. Mueller, 19 Ind. App. 240, 49 N. B. 293—805. Heintz v. Mueller, 59 N. B. 414 (Ind.) —814. Heintzelman v. Druids' Relief Assoc, 38 Minn. 138, 36 N. W. 100—17. Heinze v. South, etc. Co., 109 Wis. 99, 85 N. W. 145— 157, 1738, 1822. Helena Nat. Bank v. Rocky, etc. Tel. Co., 20 Mont. 379, 51 Pac 829, 63 Am. St. Rep. 610—1790. Heller v. National, etc. Bank, 89 Md. 602, 43 Atl. 800, 45 L. R. A. 438, 73 Am. St. Rep. 212—599. Helm V. Smith-Fee Co., 76 Minn. 328, 79 N. W. 313—480. Helm V. Smith-Fee Co., 79 Minn. 297, 82 N. W. 639—482. Helm V. Swiggett, 12 Ind. 194—870, 888, 1123, 1124, 1358. Heltzell V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 77 Mo. 315—1938. Heman v. Britton, 88 Mo. 549 — 1177. Hemans v. Hotchklss, etc. Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 115—592, 1295. Hemenway v. Hemenway, 63 N. B. 919 (Mass.)— 1193. Hemenway v. Hemenway, 134 Mass. 446—1193, 1194, 1199. Heminway v. Heminway, 58 Conn. 443, 19 Atl. 766—1095. Hemming v. Maddick, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 395 (1872)— 531. Hemming v. Maddick, L. R. 9 Eq. 175 —529. Hemp, etc; Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 121 —181, 1716. Hempfling v. Burr, 59 Mich. 294, 26 N. W. 496—786, 981. Hempill's Appeal, 18 Pa. St. 303 — 715. Hempstead v. Ball Elec. Light Co., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 48, 41 N. Y. Supp. 124 —2731. Hendee v. Pinkerton, 96 Mass. 381 — 1805, 1806, 2112, 2113, 2137. Henderson, Ex parte, 19 Beav. 107 (1854)— 563, 564. Henderson v. Bank of Australasia, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 330 (1890)— 1279, 1295. Henderson v. Bank of Australasia, 62 L. T. Rep. 869 (1890)— 1279. Henderson v. Bank of Australia, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 170 (1888)— 1594. Henderson v. Central, etc. Ry., 21 Fed. 358, 364—1435, 2637, 2662, 2671, 2711. Henderson v. Hall, 32 South. 840 (Ala.) —350, 398, 403, 676. Clxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Henderson v. Indiana Trust Co., 143 Ind. 561, 40 N. E. 516—1658. Henderson v. Jackson County, 2 Mc- Crary, 615, 6 Fed. 221—253, Henderson v. Jackson County, 12 Fed. 676, 2 McCrary, 615—268. Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 249 (1867)— 196, 311, 314, 316, 317, 330. Henderson v. Midland Ry., 20 W. R. 23 (1871)— 75. Henderson v. Ogden City Ry., 7 Utah, 199, 26 Pac. 286—2661, 2676. Henderson v. Railroad Co., 17 Tex. 560, 67 Am. Dec. 675—323, 327. Henderson v. Royal British Bank, 7 El. & Bl. 356 (1857)— 336, 856. Henderson v. Sanderson, 3 H. L. Cas. 698 (1852)— 556. Henderson v. Turngren, 9 Utah, 432, 35 Pac. 495—162, 418. Henderson v. Walker, 55 Ga. 481—2332, 2414. Henderson v. Wheaton, 139 111. 581, 28 N. E. 1100—765. Henderson Belt R. R. v. Dechamp, 95 Ky. 219, 24 S. W. 605—2689. Henderson Bridge Go. v; Common- wealth, 99 Ky. 623, 31 S. W. 486, 29 L. R. A. 73—31. Henderson Bridge Co. v. McGrath, 134 U. S. 260, 10 Sup. Ct. 730, 33 L. Ed. 934—1797, 2655. Henderson, etc. Assoc, v. People, 163 111. 196, 45 N. E. 141—1431. Henderson, etc. R. R. v. Leavell, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 358—228, 236. Hendon v. North Carolina R. R., 125 N. C. 124, 34 S. E. 227, 127 N. C. 110, 37 S. E. 155—823. Hendrickson v. Bradley, 85 Fed. 508, 29 C. C. A. 303—2249. Hendrickson v. Shotwell, 1 N. J. Eq. 595—861. Hendrie, etc. Co. v. Collins, 13 Colo. App. 8, 56 Pac. 815—1758. Hendrix v. Academy of Music, 73 Ga. 437—307, 358. Henkle v. Keota, 68 Iowa, 334, 27 N. W. 250—1206. Henkle v. Salem Mfg. Co., 39 Ohio St. 547—533, 535. Henneberger v. Matter, 88 Mich. 396, 50 N. W. 369—745. Hennessey's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 191 (1850)— 208, 541, 563. Hennessy v. Brooklyn City R. R., 73 Hun, 569, 26 N. Y. Supp. 321, 147 N. Y. 721, 42 N. E. 723—2713. Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. D. 52, 44 N. "W. 1010-1568. Hennessy v. Muhleman, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 175, 57 N. Y. Supp. 854—1552, 1589, 1622. Henning v. Planters' Ins. Co., 28 Fed, 440—1952. Henning v. U. S. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 425, 4 Am. Rep. 332—1801. „ Henning v. Western Union Tel. Co., 41 Fed. 864—2831. Henning v. Western U. Tel. Co., 43 Fed. 97—1965. Henrietta Mining, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 173 U. S. 221, 19 Sup. Ct. 402, 43 L. Ed. 675—1954. Henrietta Nat. Bank v. Barrett, 25 S. W. 456 (Tex.)— 2434. Henriques v. Dutch West India Co., 2 Ld. Raym. 1532 (1729)— 1417, 1941, 1951. Henry v. Brackenridge Lumber Co., 48 La. Ann. 950, 20 South. 221—1612. Henry v. Colorado, etc. Co., 10 Colo. App. 14, 51 Pac. 90—1780. Henry v. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 2 Iowa, 288—2636. Henry v. Great Northern Ry., 1 De G. & J. 606, 637, 642, 646 (1857)— 582, 583, 591, 604. Henry v. Great Northern Ry., 4 Kay & J. 1, 12, 21, 32 (1857)— 582, 583, 604. Henry v. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431—22, 1073. Henry v. Jeanes, 47 Ohio St. 116, 24 N. E. 1077—1932, 2567. Henry v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 27 Vt. 435 —1505. Henry v. Simanton, 54 Atl. 153 (N. J.) ■ —1678. Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 35 Fed. 15—1108. Henry v. Travelers' Ins" Co., 45 Fed. 299—971. Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 16 Colo. 179, 26 Pac. 318—2268. Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. R., 17 Ohio, 187—81, 274, 308, 354, 402, 409, 416. Henry County v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619, 24 L. Ed. 394—252, 268. Henry, etc. Co. v. Northern Bank, 63 Ala. 527—1828. Henry, etc. Co. v. Shaeffer, 173 Mass. 443, 53 N. E. 881—978, 1501. Henshaw v. Salt River Co., 54 Pac. 577 (Ariz.)— 1903, 2787. Henszey v. Langdon-Henszey, etc. Co., 80 Fed. 178—2435. Hentz v. Long Island R. R., 13 Barb. 646—2698, 2796. Hepburn v. Exchange, etc. Co., 4 La. Ann. 87 — 636. Hepburn v. School Directors, 23 Wall. 480, 23 L. Ed. 112—1223, 1227. Hepburn v. Skirving, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 651 (1858)— 656. Hepworth v. Union Perry Co., 62 Hun, 258, 16 N. Y. Supp. 692—1447. TABLE OF CASES. clxxix prhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hequembonrg v. Edwards, 155 Mo. 514, 56 S. W. 490—522, 1617. Heraud v. Leaf, 5 C. B. 157 (1847) — 1616, 1709. Herbert v. Mechanics' Bldg. etc. Assoc, 17 N. J. Eq. 497, 90 Am. Dec. 601— 963. Herbert t. TJbl, 20 N. Y. Supp. 743— 155. Herbert Craft Co. t. Bryan, 68 Pac. 1020 (Cal.)— 2167, 2262. Herbert, etc: Bank v. Bank of Orland, 133 Cal. 64, 65 Pac. 143—295, 304, 864, 1881. Herbet v. Duryea, 34 N. T. App. Div. 478, 54 N. Y. Supp. 311—81, 155. Herd v. Thompson, 149 Pa. St. 434, 24 Atl. 282—766. Herdegen v. Cotzhausen, 70 Wis. 589, 36 N. W. 385—1131. Hereford, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 621 (1876)— 1469. Heritage v. Paine, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 594 (1876)— 905. Heritage's Case, L. R. 9 Bq. 5 (1869) — 563. Herkimer v. McGregor, 126 Ind. 247, 25 N. E. 145, 26 N. E. 44—662. Herkimer Mfg. Co. v. Small, 21 Wend. 273, 2 Hill, 127—290, 291. Heme Bay Water Works Co., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 42 (1878)— 2095. Herrick v. Wardwell, 58 Ohio St. 294, 50 N. E. 903—458, 561, 852. Herrles v. Piatt, 21 Hun, 132—475, 476. Herries v. Wesley, 13 Hun, 492—181. Herriman v. Menzles, 115 Cal. 16, 44 Pac. 660, 46 Pac. 730, 35 L. R. A. 318, 56 Am. St. Rep. 81—1044. Herring v. New York, etc. R. R., 105 N. Y. 340, 12 N. E. 763—700, 2213, 2243, 2258, 2434. Herring v. Ruskin, etc. Assoc, 52 S. W. 327 (Tenn.)— 21, 674, 1357. Herrington t. District, etc., 47 Iowa, 11—1749. Herrlich v. McDonald, 80 Cal. 460, 22 Pac. 298—1252. Herrman v. Maxwell, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 347—944. Herrmann t. Central, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 41, 41 C. C. A. 569—932, 947. Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595 — 1448. Herschfeld v. Clarke, 11 Exch. 712 (1856)— 1103. Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 110, 44 Pac. 854—1698. Hersey v. Veazie, 24 Me. 9, 41 Am. Dec 364—1880, 1904. Hersh v. Northern, etc. R. R., 74 Pa. St. 181—2607. Hershfield v. Rocky Mountain B. Tel. Co., 12 Mont. 102, 29 Pac. 883—2754, 2793. Hershire v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Iowa, 272—1212. Hervey v. Illinois Mid. Ry., 28 Fed. 169—1587, 1860, 2001, 2645, 2053, 2138, 2139, 2148, 2153, 2160, 2354, 2371, 2384, 2463, 2548, 2601. Hervey v. Rhode Island Loco. Works, 93 U. S. 664, 23 L. Ed. 1003—2310, 2312, 2313, 2601. Heryford v. Davis, 102 U. S. 244, 26 L. Ed. 160—2312, 2313. Herzog v. New York El. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 665, 46 N. E. 1148—1118. Heseltine v. Siggers, 1 Exch. 856 (1848)— 762. Hess V. Rau, 95 N. Y. 359—770, 904, 924. Hess V. Sloane, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 522, 73 N. Y. Supp. 313-1605, 1783, 2079. Hess v. Werts, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 356, 361—436. Hessler v. Cleveland, etc. Co., 61 Ohio St. 621, 56 N. E. 469—453. Hess Manufacturing Co., In re, 23 S. C. Rep. Can. 644, 654, 658 (1894)— 133, 1475. Hester v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 32 Miss. 378—1029, 1031. Hestonville, etc. R. R. v. Shields, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 257—988. Hetfield v. Addicks, 154 Pa. St. 1, 26 Atl. 215—608, 1614. Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa, 2S8, 37 N. W. 1034—434, 497. Heusser v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 20 Fed. 222—1152. Hewett V. Pioneer Press Co., 23 Minn. 178, 23 Am. Rep. 680—72. Hewett V. Swift, 85 Mass. 420—73, 1617, 1695. Hewett V. Western Union Tel. Co., 4 Mackey, 424 — 2793. Hewitt V. Price, 4 Man. & G. 355 (1842) —774. Hewitt V. Steele, 118 Mo. 463, 24 S. W. 440—986, 1257. Hewitt V. Traders' Bank, 18 Wash. 326, 51 Pac 468—2343. Hey V. Dolphin, 92 Hun, 230, 36 N. Y. Supp. 627—134, 1354. Heymann v. European Central Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. 154 (1868)— 330, 335. Heymann v. European, etc. Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 154 (1868)— 321. Heymann v. European Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. 154 (1868)— 322. Hiawatha, etc. Co. v. John Strange, etc Co., 106 Wis. Ill, 81 N. W. 1034^ 643, 2072. Hibbert v. Mackinnon, 79 Wis. 673, 49 N. W. 21—755. Hibbtewhlte v. McMorlne, 5 M. & W. 462 (1839)— 774. clxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 M. & W. 200, 214 (1840)— 762, 846. Hibernia Bldg. Assoc, v. McGrath, 154 Pa. St. 296, 26 Atl. 377, 35 Am. St. Rep. 828—1690. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. New Orleans Transp. Go., 13 Fed. 516, 4 McCrary, 432—1582. Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 10 Fed. 596, 3 McCrary, 368—1582. Hibernia Nat. Bank, Appeal of, 47 La. Ann. 643—987. Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367, 38 Am. Rep. 518—1951. Hichens v. Congreve, 1 Russ. & M. 150 (1829)— 1469. Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russ. 562 — 1479. Hickling v. Wilson, 104 111. 54—114, 367, 402. Hickory Farm Oil Co. v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 32 Fed. 22—1661, 1663. Hicks V. Burns, 38 N. H. 141—447. Hide V. Holmes, 2 MoUoy, 372—1099, 1103. Hieronymous v. Bienville, etc. Co., 131 Ala. 447, 31 South. 31—2757. Higgins, In re, 27 Fed. 443—2624. Higgins V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 99 Fed. 640—760, 1254, 1959. Higgins V. California, etc. Co., 122 Cal. 373, 55 Pac. 155—1579. Higgins V. City of San Diego, 45 Pac. 824 (Cal.)— 242, 2759, 2765. Higgins V. Crouse, 147 N. Y. 411, 42 N. B. 6—813. Higgins V. Crouse, 63 Hun, 134, 17 N. Y. Supp. 696—809. Higgins V. Crouse, 71 Hun, 615, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1080—813. Higgins V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 108 Fed. 475, 46 C. C. A. 509—533. Higgins V. Hopkins, 3 Exch. 163 (1848) —1699. Higgins V. Illinois, etc. Bank, 193 111. 394, 61 N. E. 1024—167, 558. Higgins V. Lansingh, 154 111. 301, 40 N. E. 362—49, 107, 112, 584, 951, 952, 972, 974, 1318, 1461, 1482, 1520, 1838, 1856, 1910, 1927, 2035. Higgins V. Tefft, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 62, 38 N. Y. Supp. 716—1686, 1901, 2404. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462, 39 N. E. 490, 27 L. R. A. 42, 43 Am. St. Rep. 769—62. Higginshaw, etc. Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 544—2213. Higginson v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 100 Fed. 235—2612. Higginson & Dean, Re (1899), 1 Q. B. 325—1434. Higgs V. Northern Assam Tea Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 387 (1869)— 1130, 1133. Higgs V. Northern, etc. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 387 (1869)— 2098, 2099. Higgs V. Northern, etc. Tea Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 387 (1869)— 2099. Higg's Case, 2 Hem. & M. 657 (1865)— 581. High V. Berret, 148 Pa. St. 261, 23 Atl. 1004—1266. Highland, etc. R. R. v. Birmingham Electric Co., 113 Ala. 239, 21 South. 342—2693. Highland, etc. R. R. v. 'Thornton, 105 Ala. 225, 16 South. 699—2438. Highland Turnp. Co. v. McKean, 10 Johns. 154, 6 Am. Dec. 234—1757. Highland Turnpike v. M'Kean, 11 Johns. 98—219, 356. Hightower v. Mustain, 8 Ga. 506—401, 1634. Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486, 500, 52 Am. Dec. 412—30, 290, 387, 393, 401, 1433. Hilder v. Dexter, 87 L. T. Rep. 311 (1902)— 210. Hildyard v. South Sea Co., 2 P. Wms. 76 (1722)— 835. Hiles v. Case, 14 Fed. 141, 9 Biss. 549— 236L Hill V. Atoka Coal Co., 21 S. W. 508 (Mo.)— 344, 867, 889, 1146, 1153. Hill V. Atoka, etc. Min. Co., 124 Mo. 153, 25 S. W. 926, 32 S. W. 1111—107, 889 Hill V. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31—459, 514. Hill V. Beebe, 13 N. Y. 556, 563, 567— 979. Hill V. Burlington, etc. R. R., 60 Iowa, 196, 11 N. W. 249—2641. Hill V. Finigan, 77 Cal. 267, 19 Pac. 494, 11 Am. St. Rep. 279—974. Hill V. Forsyth County, 67 N. C. 367— 248. Hill V. Frazier, 22 Pa. St. 320—1185, 1188, 1519. Hill V. Glasgow R. R., 41 Fed. 610— 1032, 1870. Hill V. Gould, 129 Mo. 106, 30 S. W. 181 —1521, 1813. Hill V. Graham, 11 Colo. App. 536, 53 Pac. 1060—547. Hill V. Great Western Ry., 10 C. B. (N. S.) 148 (1861)— 1104, 1109. Hill V. Harriman, 95 Tenn. 300, 32 S. W. 202—816. Hill V. Jewett Pub. Co., 154 Mass. 172, 28 N. E. 142, 13 L. R. A. 193, 26 Am. St. Rep. 230—643. Hill V. Lane, L. R. 11 Eq. 215 (1870) — 327, 809. Hill V. Manchester, etc. Co., 5 B. & , Ad. 866 (1833)— 1109, 1782, 1806, 1807, 1844. Hill V. Manchester, etc. Water-works Co., 5 B. & Ad. 866—1820. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxi [[The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hill V. Manchester, etc. Water-works Co., 2 Nev. & M. 573 (1833)— 1820. Hill V. Marston, 178 Mass. 285, 59 N. E. 766—1655. Hill V. Memphis, 134 U. S. 198, 10 Sup. Ct. 562, 33 U Ed. 887—265. Hill V. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 134 U. S. 515, 10 Sup. Ct. 589, 33 L Ed. 994—274, 399. Hill V. Newichawanick Co., 71 N. Y. 593—944, 1146, 1148, 1152. Hill V. Newichawanick Co., 8 Hun, 459 —944, 1146, 1148, 1152. Hill V. Newichawanick Co., 48 How. Pr. 427—1148. Hill V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 11 La. Ann. 292—77. - Hill V. Nesbit, 100 Ind. 341—284, 683, 1488, 2551. Hill V. Philp, 7 Exch. 232 (1852) — 1108. Hill V. Pine River Bank, 45 N. H. 300, 309—703, 858, 1118, 1130, 1246. Hill V. Pioneer Lumber Co., 113 N. C. 173, 18 S. B. 107, 21 L. R. A. 560, 37 Am. St. Rep. 621—1651. Hill V. Rich Hill, etc. Co., 119 Mo. 9, 24 S. W. 223—683, 1482, 1742, 1746. Hill V. Ried, 16 Barb. 280—277. Hill V. Rockingham Bank, 44 N. H. 567 —661. Hill V. Silvey, 81 Ga. 500, 8 S. E. 808, 3 L. R. A. 150—345. Hill V. Smith, 21 How. 283, 16 L. Ed. 113—743. Hill V. Southern Ry., 42 S. W. 888 (Tenn.)— 2336. Hill V. Southwick, 9 R. I. 299, 11 Am. Rep. 250—751. Hill V. Spencer, 61 N. Y. 274—430. Hill V. Standard, etc. Co., 198 Pa. St. 446, 48 Atl. 432—1647. Hill V. Western Vermont R. R., 32 Vt. 68—2626. Hill V. Wilson, 88 Cal. 92, 25 Pac. 1105 —790. Hiller v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 70 N. Y 223 1954. Hiller v. Ladd, 80 Fed. 794—713, 1369. Hiller v. Ladd, 85 Fed. 703, 29 C. C. A. 394 730. Hilles V. Parrlsh, 14 N. J. Bq. 380—211, 623, 1320, 1329, 1494, 1741. Hill, etc. Co. V. Stetler, 127 Pa. St. 145, 13 Atl. 306, 17 Atl. 887—522. Hilliard v. Allegheny, etc. Co., 173 Pa. St. 1, 34 Atl. 231—338. Hilliard v. Goold, 34 N. H. 230, 66 Am. Dec. 765—1780, 1800. Hillier v. Allegheny Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Pa. St. 470, 45 Am. Dec. 656 (1846) 3g2 479. Hilllker v. Hale, 117 Fed. 220, 54 C. C. A. 252—439, 486. Hill Manufacturing Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 104 MajSS. 122, 6 Am. Rep. 202 —2640. Hills V. Bannister, 8 Cow. 31—1818. Hills V. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319, 26 L. Ed. 1052^1225. Hills V. Parker, "ill Mass. 508, 15 Am. Rep. 63—2424. Hill's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 769 (1867) 565. Hill's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 605, 618 (1870) —1970. Hill's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. 585 (1875) — 547, 708. Hill's Waterfall, etc. Co., In re (1896), 1 Ch. 947—2517. Hillyer v. Overman, etc. Co., 6 Nev. 51 1828 Hilton V. Eckersley, 6 El. & Bl. 47 (1856)— 1058. Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U. S. 38, 8 Sup. Ct. 369, 31 L. Ed. 337—763. Hinchman v. Paterson H. R. R., 17 N. J. Eq. 75, 86 Am. Dec. 252—2686. Hinchman v. Philadelphia, etc. Turn- pike, 160 Pa. St. 150, 28 Atl. 652— 2679. Hinchman v. Point, etc. Ry., 14 Wash. 349, 44 Pac. 867—2037, 2282, 2309, 2317. Hinckley v. Gildersleeve, 19 Grant, Ch. (U. C.) 212 (1872)— 2575. Hinckley v. Oilman, etc. R. R., 94 U. S. 467, 24 L. Ed. 166—2281, 2483. Hinckley v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 131 Mass. 147—2056. Hinckley v. New York, etc. R. R., 56 N. Y. 429—2644. Hinckley v. Pfister, 83 Wis. 64, 53 N. W. 21—105, 862, 971, 1145, 1317, 1388, 1882, 1985. Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 153, 25 L. Ed. 591—2483. Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, 86 Fed. 1013—800. Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 98 Fed. 562, 39 C. C. A. 1, 48 L. R. A. 210—71, 806, 951, 1597. Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 50 C. C. A. 623, 57 L. R. A. 108— 793, 794, 806, 808, 1266. Hinds V. Canandaigua, etc. R. R., 10 How. Pr. 487—455. Hine v. Bay Cities, etc. Ry., 115 Mich. 204, 73 N. W. 116—2704. Hine v. Commercial Bank, etc., 119 Mich. 448, 78 N. W. 471—871, 1013, 1248, 1250. Hinkle v. Camden, etc. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 333, 21 Atl. 861—2334, 2337. Hinkley v. Blethen, 78 Me. 221, 3 Atl. 655— lOfO. Hinkley v. Reed, 182 111. 440, 55 N. E. 337—1578. clxxzii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hlnnershitz v. United Traction Co., 199 Pa. St. 3, 48 Atl. 874—2696, 2750, 2813. Hinsdale Sav. Bank t. New Hamp- shire Bkg. Co., 59 Kan. 716, 54 Pac. 1051, 68 Am. St. Rep. 391—188. Hinshaw v. Austin, 67 Pac. 882 (Kan.) 491. Hinz V. Van Dusen, 95 Wis. 503, 70 N. W. 657—1655. Hippie V. Five Mile, etc. Co., 3 Atl. 682 (N. J. Eq.)— 402, 408, 457. Hirsch v. Norton, 115 Ind. 341, 17 N. B. 612—550. Hirsch & Co. v. Burns, 74 L. T. Rep. 769 (1897), 77 L. T. Rep. 377—623, 1552. Hirsche v. Sims, 71 L. T. Rep. 357 (1894)— 164. Hirsche v. Sims (1894), A. C. 654— 1612. Hirschel, Ex parte, 15 Jur. 924 (1851) —1709. Hirschl v. J. I. Case, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 803—1965. Hirschmann v. Iron, etc. R. R., 97 Mich. 384, 56 N. W. 842—1545, 2656. Hirsh V. Jones, 56 Fed. 137—1876. Hirshfeld v. Bopp, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 613, 57 N. Y. Supp. 699—457. Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, 157 N. Y. 166, 51 N. E. 997, 46 L. R. A. 839—458, 487, 1928, 1930. Hirshfleld v. Bopp, 27 N. Y. App. Div. 180, 50 N. Y. Supp. 676—1928. Hirst V. West, etc. Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 560—69, 1607. Hiss V. Baltimore, etc. Ry., 52 Md. 242, 36 Am. Rep. 371—2687. Hitchcock V. Barrett, 50 Fed. 653—1523, 1915. Hitchcock V. Galveston Wharf Co., 50 Fed. 263—266, 999, 1152. Hitchcock V. McElrath, 72 Cal. 565, 14 Pac. 305—1258. Hitchcock V. U. S. Bank, 7 Ala. (N. S.) 386, 435—1674. Hltchings v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 68 Hun, 33, 22 N. Y. Supp. 719—1773, 1843. Hitchins v. Kilkenny Ry., 9 C. B. 536 (1850)— 1719. Hite V. Hite, 93 Ky. 257, 20 S. W. 778, 19 L. R. A. 173, 40 Am. St. Rep. 189— 1191, 1199. Hite Nat. Gas Co.'s Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 436, 12 Atl: 267—947, 2037. Hitt V. Sterling, etc. Co., Ill Iowa, 458, 82 N. W. 919—1462. Hix V. Edison El. L. Co., 10 N. Y. App. Div. 75, 41 N. Y. Supp. 680—623, 1707, 1719. Hix V. Edison El. L. Co., 27 ^. Y. App. Div. 248, 50 N. Y. Supp. 592—623, 1707, 1719. Hix V. Edison El. L. Co., 163 N. Y. 573. 57 N. E. 1112—623, 1707, 1719. Hixon V. Pixley, 15 Nev. 475—906. Hoadley v. Essex County, 105 Mass. 5]^9 3 1089 Hoag V. Lamoiit, 60 N. Y. 96—452, 1760, 1801, 1828. Hoagland v. Bell, 36 Barb. 57—186. Hoagland v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 18 Ind. 452—360. Hoagland v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 33 Mo. 451—2643. Hoard v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 123 TJ. S. 222, 8 Sup. Ct. 74, 31 L. Ed. 130— 2530, 2534, 2580. Hoard v. Wilcox, 47 Pa. St. 51—449, 450, 452. Hoare's Case, 2 John. & H. 229 — 530. Hoare's Case, 30 Beav. 225 (1861) — 1970. Hobart v. Butte County, 17 Cal. 23— 259. Hobart v. Gould, 8 Fed. 57—479. Hobart V. Johnson, 8 Fed. 493, 19 Blatchf. 359—543, 544. Hobart v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 27 Wis. 194, 9 Am. Rep. 461—2687. Hobbs V. McLean, 117 TJ. S. 567, 6 Sup. Ct. 870, 29 L. Ed. 940—2198, 2480. Hobbs V. National Bank, etc., 96 Fed. 396, 37 C. C. A. 513—468, 484. Hobbs V. State Trust Co., 68 Fed. 618, 15 C. C. A. 604—2321, 2323. Hobbs V. Wayet, L. R. 36 Ch. D. 256 (1887)— 1200. Hobbs V. Western Nat. Bank, 12 Fed. Cas. 265—728. Hoboken Bldg. Assoc, v. Martin, 15 N. J. Eq. 427—67, 1394. Hoby V. Birch, 62 L. T. Rep. 404 (1890) qgo Hockett V. State, 105 Ind. 250, 5 N. B. 178, 55 Am. Rep. 201, 599, 5 N. B. 202—2756. Hodder v. Kentucky, etc. Ry., 7 Fed. 793—1810, 2001, 2134, 2137, 2138, 2148, 2323, 2326. Hodge V. United States Steel Corp., 53 Atl. 601 (N. J.)— 130, 161, 673, 1851, 1880, 1881. Hodge V. United States Steel Corp., 54 Atl. 1 (N. J.)— 673, 1281, 1458, 1525, 1622, 1652, 1851, 1863, 1880, 1881. Hodges V. First Nat. Bank, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 52—1769. Hodges V. Nalty, 104 Wis. 464, 80 N. W. - 726—212. Hodges V. New England Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312, 348, 53 Am. Dec. 624—693, 1689. Hodges V. Planters' Bank, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 306, 310—1115, 1129, 1133. Hodges V. Rutland, etc. R. R., 29 Vt. 220—1505, 1770. TABLE OF OASES. clxxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the t«xt.] Hodges V. Silver, Hill Min. Co., 9 Of eg. 200—396, 402, 420, 421. Hodges V. Western Union Tel. Co., 72 Miss. 910, 18 South. 84, 29 L. R. A. 770—2840. Hodges' Adm'x v. South Fork, etc. Co., 50 S. W. 969 (Ky.)— 1910, 1923. Hodge's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 359—1993. Hodges Distillery Co., Re, L. R. 6 Ch. 51 (1870)— 1433. Hodges, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 51 (1870)— 1439. Hodgkinson v. Kelly, L. R. 6 Eq. 496 (1868)— 913, 916. Hodgkinson v. National, etc. Ins. Co., 26 Beav. 473 (1859)— 347,374. Hodgman v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 23 Minn. 153—264, 265. Hodgson V. Cheever, 8 Mo. App. 318 — 460. Hodgson V. Duluth, etc. R. R., 46 Minn. 454, 49 N. W. 197—1269, 1903. Hodgson V. Powis, 1 De G., M. & G. 6 —2646. Hodsdon v. Copeland, 16 Me. 314—1439, 1530. Hodson V. Eugene Glass Co., 156 111. 397, 40 N. E. 971—2051. Hodson V. Tea Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 859 (1880)— 2095. Hoeft V. Kock, 119 Mich. 459, 78 N. W. 556—792. Hoeft V. Kock, 123 Mich. 171, 81 N. W. 1070—632. Hoene v. Pollak, 118 Ala. 617, 24 South. 349, 72 Am. St. Rep. 189—1307, 1556, 1566, 1848. Hoey V. Coleman, 46 Fed. 221 — 1082. Hoey V. Henderson, 32 La. Ann. 1069 — 1033. Hoff V. Jasper County, 110 U. S. 53, 3 Sup. Ct. 476, 28 L. Ed. 68—255. Hofeman v. Banks, 41 Ind. 1—1682. Hoffman v. Bloomsburg, etc. R. R., 157 Pa. St. 174, 27 Atl. 564—145, 2039. Hoffman v. Flint, etc. R. R., 114 Mich. 316, 72 N. W. 167—2799. Hoffman v. King, 160 N. Y. 618, 55 N. E. 401, 46 L. R. A. 672, 73 Am. St. Rep. 715—2829. Hoffman v. 'Livingston, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 552—910. Hoffman v. Reichert, 147 111. 274, 35 N. E. 527, 37 Am. St. Rep. 219—1493. Hoffman v. Reichert, -31 111. App. 558 — 1493. Hoffman Steam Coal Co. v. Cumber- land, etc. Co., 16 Md. 456, 77 Am. Dec. 311—1454, 1486, 1852. Hogadone v. Grange, etc. Co., 94 N. W. _ 1045 (Mich.)— 1701. Hogan, In re, 8 N. Dak. 301, 78 N. W. 1051, 45 L. R. A. 166, 73 Am. St. Rep. 759—2092, 2743. Hoge V. Railway Co., 99 U. S. 348, 25 L. Ed. 303—1235. Hogg V. Hoag, 107 Fed. 807—709, 1069. 1369, 2516. Hogg V. Snaith, 1 Taunt. 345 (180S) — 914. Hogg's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 195—405. Hogue V. Capital Nat. Bank, 47 Neb. 929, 66 N. W. 1036—464, 498. Hohorst, In re, 150 U. S. 653, 14 Sup. Ct. 221, 37 L. Ed. 1211—1962. Holbert v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 45 Iowa, 23—1670, 2629. Holbrook v. Basset, 5 Bosw. 147—1969. Holbrook v. Fauquier, etc. Co., 3 Cranch, C. C. 425, 12 Fed. Cas. 322— 51, 646. Holbrook v. Ford, 153 111. 633, 39 N. E. 1091, 27 L. R. A. 324, 46 Am. St. Rep. 917—2390. Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616, 623—47, 723, 825, 829, 849, 888. Holbrook v. Peters, etc. Co., 8 "Wash. 344, 36 Pac. 256—1643. Holbrook v. St. Paul, etc. Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 229—1425. Holbrook v. Worcester Bank, 12 Fed. Cas. 326 — 2294. Holcomb V. Bridge Co., 9 N. J. Eq. 457 —1751, 1820, 2144. Holden v. Great Western E. Co., 69 Minn. 527, 72 N. W. 805, 65 Am. St. Rep. 585—1940. Holden v. Hoyt, 134 Mass. 181—1760. Holden v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 138 Mass. 48—694. Holden v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 151 Mass. 112, 23 N. E. 733—1252, 1783. Holden v. New York, etc. Bank, 72 N. Y. 294—1834. Holden v. Upton, 134 Mass. 177—1784. Holder v. Aultman, 169 U. S. 81, 18 Sup. Ct. 269, 42 L. Ed. 669—1680. Holder v. Lafayette, etc. Ry., 71 111. 106, 22 Am. Rep. 89—1500. Hole's Case, 3 De G. & S. 241 (1850) — 1700. Holgate V. Oregon Pac. R. R., 16 Oreg. 123, 17 Pac. 859—1955. Holladay v. Elliot, 8 Or. 84—200, 1070, 1090. Holladay v.~ Patterson, 5 Or. 177—1463. Holland v. Cheshire R. R., 151 Mass. 231, 24 N. E. 206—593, 2513. Holland v. Dickson, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 669 (1888)— 1106. Holland v. Duluth, etc. Co., 65 Minn. 324, 68 N. W. 50, 60 Am. St. Rep. 480 —178, 187, 379, 472. Holland v. Heyman, 60 Ga. 174—480, 1519. Holland v. Laconia, etc. Assoc, 68 N. H. 480, 41 Atl. 178—1768. clxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Holland v. Lewlston Falls Bank, 52 Me. 564—1501. Holland, etc. Co. v. International, etc. Co., 85 Fed. 865, 29 C. C. A. 460— 2226. Holland Trust Co. v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 85 Hun, 454, 32 N. Y. Supp. 830 —2389. Holland Trust Co. v. Sutherland, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 252, 72 N. Y. Supp. 584 —2174. Holland Trust Co. v. Thomson-Houston El. Co., 170 N. Y. 68, 62 N. E. 1090— 1993, 2057, 2161. Holland Trust Co. v. Thomson-Hous- ton Elec. Co., 9 N. Y. App. biv. 473, 41 N. Y. Supp. 457—2058. Holland Trust Co. v. Thomson-Hous- ton, etc. Co., 62 N. Y. App. Div. 299, 71 N. Y. Supp. 51—1993, 2057, 2161. Hollenbeck t. Donnell, 29 Hun, 94— 2367. Hollenbeck v. Donnell, 94 N. Y. 342— 2367. Hollifield V. Wrightsville & T. R. R., 99 Ga. 362, 365, 27 S. E. 715—1322, 2419. Hollingshead v. Woodward, 107 N. Y. 96, 13 N. E. 621—344, 396, 485, 1143. Hollingshead v. Woodward, 35 Hun, 410—344, 1143. Hollingsworth v. Detroit, 3 McLean, 472, 12 Fed. Cas. 352—2062. Hollins V. Brierfleld, etc. Co., 150 U. S. 371, 382, 385, 14 Sup. Ct. 127, 37 L. Ed. 1113—33, 395, 1885, 1887, 2206, 2373. Hollins V. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 9 N. Y. Supp. 909—104, 1850, 2496. HoUis V. Allan, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 638 (1866)— 1195. Hollis V. Drew, etc. Seminary, 95 N. Y. 166, 173—5, 512, 1670. HoUister v. Hollister Bank, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 367—441. Hollister v. Stewart, 111 N. Y. 644, 663, 19 N. E. 782—2059, 2126, 2131, 2164, 2345, 2495. Hollister v. Stewart, 37 Hun, 645— 2131. Hollister Bank, In re, 27 N. Y. 393, 84 Am. Dec. 292—451. Hollman v. Williamsport, etc. Co., 9 G. & J. (Md.) 462—191. Hollon, In re, 69 L. T. Rep. 425 (1893) —2093. Hollwey's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 777 (1849)— 545. Holly Mfg. Co. V. New Chester Water Co., 48 Fed. 879—142, 1840, 2076, 2338. Holm V. Claus, etc. Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 204, 47 N. Y. Supp. 518—2080. Holman v. Galveston, etc. Ry., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 499, 37 S. W. 464—2536. Holman v. Norfolk Bank, 12 Ala. 369— 1830. Holman v. State, etc., 105 Ind. 569, 5 N. B. 702—98, 1399. Holmes, Ex parte, 5 Cow. 426—679, 1313, 1315, 1319, 1336, 1938. Holmes v. Cleveland R. R., 93 Fed. lOO —29, 1669. Holmes v. Gilliland, 41 Barb. 568—502. Holmes v. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74 (1822) —1702. Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 332, 344— 1062, 1063, 1079. Holmes v. Moffat, 120 N. Y. 159, 24 N. E. 275—805. Holmes v. Newcastle Abattoir Co., L. R. 1 Ch. D. 682 (1875)— 635. Holmes v. Newcastle, etc. Co., L. R. 1 Ch. D. 682 (1875)— 110, 1178, 1853. Holmes v. Northern, etc. Ry., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 49, 72 N. Y. Supp. 476— 2063, 2159. Holmes v. Old Colony R. R., 71 Mass. 58—1589. Holmes v. Seashore Electric Ry., 57 N. J. L. 16, 29 Atl. 419—2054, 2063. Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary, 405, 16 Fed. 725—402, 404, 407, 408, 421. Holmes v. Turner's Falls Co., 150 Mass. 535, 23 N. E. 305, 6 L. R. A. 283— 1775. Holmes, etc. v. Holmes, etc. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 293, 9 Am. Rep. 324— 59, 61. Holmes, -tc. Co. v. Holmes, etc. Co., 127 N. Y. 252, 27 N. E. 831, 24 Am. St. Rep. 448—690, 746, 1565. Holmes, etc. Co. v. Holmes, etc. Co., 53 Hun, 52. 5 N. Y. Supp. 937—690, 751, 746. Holmes, etc. Co. v. Morse, 53 Hun, 58 — 751. Holmes, etc. Co. v. United, etc. Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 62, 53 N. Y. Supp. 81 —1718. Holmes, etc. Co. v. Willard, 125 N. Y. 75, 79, 81, 25 N. E. 1083, 11 L. R. A. 170—1616, 2073. Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. Cas. 191, 223—2123. Hoist V. Sydney, etc. Ry., 69 L. T. Rep. 132 (1893)— 1523, 1564. Holt V. Bennett, 146 Mass. 437, 16 N. E. 5—1654. Holt V. Holt, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 597— 271. Holt V. Indiana Mfg. Co., 80 Fed. 1, 25 C. C. A. 301—1230. Holt V. Jex, 48 Hun, 528, 1 N. Y. Supp. 195—658. Holt V. Met. Trust Co., etc., 11 S. Dak. 456, 78 N. W. 947—1811. Holt V. Thomas, 105 Cal. 273, 38 Pac. 891—571. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text.] Holt V. Winfleld Bank, 25 Fed. 812— 1817. Holton V. Bangor, 23 Me. 264 — 1208. Helton V. New Castle, etc. Ry., 138 Pa. St. Ill, 20 Atl. 937—1903. Holton V. Wallace, 66 Fed. 409—406, 1849, 1901. Holton V. Wallace, 77 Fed. 61, 23 C. C. A. 71—1909. Holt's Case, 22 Beav. 48 (1856)— 311. Holt's Case, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 389 (1851) —529. Holyoke v. McMurtry, 33 Neb. 548, 50 N. W. 767—933. Holyoke Bank v. Burnham, 65 Mass. 183, 187—532, 567, 572, 578. Holyoke Bank v. Goodman Paper Mfg. Co., 63 Mass. 576—472, 848. Holyoke, etc. Co. v. United States, etc. Co., 65 N. E. 54 (Mass.)— 1578, 1714. Home Assoc, In re, 129 N. Y. 288, 29 N. E. 323—2305, 2374, 2469. Home, etc. Bank v. Hosie, 119 Mich. 116, 77 N. W. 625—224. Home, etc. Co. v. Barber, 93 N. W. 1024 (Neb.)— 1809, 1865, 1894, 1896, 2015. Home, etc. Co. v. McKibben, 60 Kan. 387, 56 Pac. 756—1935, 2267. Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Barber, 93 N. W. 1024 (Neb.)— 548, 1163, 1851, 1894. Home Ins. Co. v. Board of Assessors, 42 La. Ann. 1131, 8 South. 481—1220. Home Ins. Co. v. Buckley, N. Y. L. J., April 22, 1890-2744. Home Ins. Co. v. Davis, 29 Mich. 238 — 1674. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 119 U. S. 129, 8 Sup. Ct. 1385, 30 L. Ed. 350— 1220. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 10 Sup. Ct. 593, 33 L. Ed. 1025— 1239. Home Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 104 111. 653— 1241. Home Nat. Bank v. Waterman, 134 111. 461, 29 N. E. 503—221, 225, 227. Home of the Friendless v. Rowse, 8 Wall. 430, 19 L. Ed. 495—1234. Homer v. Barr, etc. Co., 180 Mass. 163, 61 N. E. 883—2411. Homer, etc. Mines, In re, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 546 (1888)— 1747. Homersham v. Wolverhampton Water- works, 6 Exch. 137 (1851)— 1802. Homestead St. Ry. v. Pittsburg, etc. St. Ry., 166 Pa. St. 162, 30 Atl. 950, 27 L. R. A. 383—2663, 2677. Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 72 Mo. 461—354, 369, 848, 856. Hone V. Van Schaick, 7 Paige, 221 — 1062. Honold V. Meyer, 36 La. Ann. 585—795. Honsucle v. Ruffln, 172 Mass. 420, 52 N. E. 538—1266. Hood V. French, 37 Fla. 117, 19 South. 165—450, 477, 479. Hood V. McNaughton, 54 N. J. L. 425, 24 Atl. 497—559, 2404, 2493. Hood V. New York, etc. R. R., 22 Conn. I, 502—2640. Hook V. Ayers, 63 Fed. 347, 12 C. C. A. 554—1645, 1888, 1986. Hook V. Ayers, 80 Fed. 978, 26 C. C. A. 287—936. Hook V. Bosworth, 64 Fed. 443, 12 C. C. A. 208—2305, 2382. Hooker v. Eagle Bank, 30 N. Y. 83, 86 Am. Dec. 351—1772. Hooker v. Utica, etc. Turnp. Co., 12 Wend. 371—1435. Hooker v. Vandewater, 4 Denio, 349 47 Am. Dec. 258—1052. Hoole V. Great Western Ry., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 262 (1867)— 1142, 1174, 1176, 1550, 1875, 1893, 1901, 1905. Hooper v. Kerr, etc. Co., 83 L. T. Rep. 729 (1900)— 1273. Hooper v. Rossiter, McClel. (Exch.) 527 (1824)— 1195. Hooper V. Wells, Fargo & Co., 27 Cal. II, 85 Am. Dec. 211—2727. Hoopes V. Auburn, etc. Co., 109 N. Y. 635, 16 N. E. 681—1811. Hoopes V. Auburn, etc. Co., 37 Hun, 568—1811. Hoosac, etc. Co. v. Donat, 10 Colo. 529, *6 Pac. 157—1860. Hooven, etc. Co. v. Evans, etc. Co., 193 Pa. St. 28, 44 Atl. 277—1423, 1646. Hoover v. Montclalr, etc. Ry., 29 N. J. Eq. 4—2459. Hoover v. Pennsylvania R. R., 156 Pa. St 220, 27 Atl. 282—2606. Hopcroft V. Parker, 16 L. T. Rep. 561 (1867)— 1698. Hope V. International Financial So- ciety, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 327 (1876)— 667, 668. Hope V. Lawrence, 50 Barb. 258 — 907, 1264. Hope V. Valley City Salt Co., 25 W. Va. 789—1490, 1645. Hope Ins. Co. v. Beckman, 47 Mo. 93 — 1029, 1041. Hope Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 38 N. Y. 404 —1969. Hopkins v. Clark, 158 N. Y. 299, 53 N. E. 27—906, 907. Hopkins v. Clark, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 207, 40 N. Y. Supp. 130—906. Hopkins v. Connel, 2 Tenn. Ch. 323 — 2361, 2469. Hopkins v. Gallatin, etc. Co., 4 Humph. 403—1642, 1806. Hopkins v. Mehaffy, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 126—1817. Hopkins v. O'Kane, 169 Pa. St. 478, 32 Atl. 421—770. clxxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers alter the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co., 72 111. 373, 383—1725, 1726. Hopkins v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 2 Dill. 396, 12 Fed. Cas. 494—2530. Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 43 L. Ed. 290— 1057. Hopkins v. Whitesides, 1 Head (Tenn.), 31—1435. Hopkins V. Worcester, etc. Canal, L. R. 6 Eq. 437—2001, 237fl. Hopkins' Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 69—1650. Hopkinson v. Exeter, L. R. 5 Bq. 63 (1867)— 1075. Hopkinson t. Marquis of Exeter, 16 W. R. 266 (1867)— 1071. Hopkins' Trusts, In re, L. R. 18 Eq. 696 (1874)— 1195, 1197. Hopper V. Lovejoy, 47 N. J. Eq. 573, 21 Atl. 298, 12 L. R. A. 588—1810. Hopper T. Sage, 112 N. Y. 530, 20 N. E. 350, 8 Am. St. Rep. 771—913, 914, 1148. Hoppin V. Buffum, 9 R. I. 513, 518, 519, 11 Am. Rep. 291—1310, 1314, 1317. Hopson V. .ajtna Axle, etc. Co., 50 Conn. 597—1645, 2107. Horbach v. Marsh, 37 Neb. 22, 55 N. W. 286—1494, 1857. Horbury, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 11 Cb. D. 109 (1879)— 1294, 1301. Horgan, In re, 97 Fed. 319—1544. Horn V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 38 Wis. 463 —2602. Horn V. Horn, Ambl. 79 (1749)— 993. Hornaday v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 9 Ind. 263—321, 374. Hornbeck v. American Bible Soc, 2 Sandf. Ch. 133—67. Hornterger v. Orchard, 39 Neb. 639, 58 N. W. 425—1089. Home, In re, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 736 (1885)— 2095. Home V. Boston, etc. R. R., 18 Fed. 50 —2650. Home V. Green, 52 Miss. 452 — 1220. Horner v. Carter, 11 Fed. 362, 3 Mc- Crary, 595—1438. Horner v. City of Baton Rapids, 80 N. W. 1012 (Mich.)— 2664, 2730, 2758. Horner v. Perry, 112 Fed. 906—711, 797. Horn, etc. Co. v. Ryan, 42 Minn. 196, 44 N. W. 56—1684, 1685, 1695, 1863, 1914. Hornor v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228, 23 L. Ed. 879—1976. Homor v. McDonald, 52 La. Ann. 396, 27 South. 91—2090. Horn Silver, etc. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 Sup. Ct. 403, 36 Li Ed. 164—1239. Horse, etc. Co. v. Schofleld, 9 N. Mex. 136, 49 Pac. 954-2288. Horsley v. Bell, Ambler, 769 (1778) — 556. Horsley v. Bell, 1 Bro. Ch. 101—556. Horton v. Baptist Church, 34 Vt. 309, 317—861. Horton v. Mercer, 71 Fed. 153, 18 C. C. A. 18—549, 564, 857. Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170, 75 Am. Dec. 311—913, 920, 941, 954. Horton v. State, 60 Neb. 701, 84 N. W. 87—1787, 1937. Horton V. Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513— 247, 266. Horton v. Wilder, 48 Kan. 222, 29 Pac. 566—1303, 1375. Hosack V. College of Physicians, 5 Wend. 547—1827. Hosack V. Rogers, 11 Paige, 603—1948. Hosking v. Nichols, 1 Y. & C. Ch. 478 (1842)— 654. Hospes V. Northwestern, etc. Co., 48 Minn. 174, 50 N. W. 1117, 15 L. R. A. 470, 31 Am. St. Rep. 637—33, 120, 349. Hostrup V. Madison, 1 Wall. 291, 17 L. Bd. 538—2552. Hotchin v. Kent, 8 Mich. 526—1820. Hotchkiss V. Brainerd Quarry Co., 58 Conn. 120, 19 Atl. 521—1190. Hotchkiss V. National Bank, 21 Wall. 354, 22 L. Bd. 645—2044. Hotchkiss, etc. Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 76. 15 C. C. A. 264—1018, 1122, 1834. Hotel Co. V. Wade, 97 U. S. 13, 24 L. Ed. 917—1644, 2196, 2200, 2202, 2214. Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. Jr. 319 (1808)— 45, 656, 657. Hot Springs, etc. Co. v. City of Hot Springs, 67 S. W. 761 (Ark.)— 2840. Ho Tung V. Man, etc. Co., 85 L. T. Rep. 617 (1902)— 18. Houch V. Anheuser, etc. Assoc, 88 Tex. 184, 30 S. W. 869—1055. Hough V. Smith, 37 N. Y. Misc. 363, 75 N. Y. Supp. 451—2684. Houghton V. Butler, 166 Mass. 547, 44 N. E. 624—2515. Houghton V. Hubbell, 91 Fed. 453, 33 C. C. A. 574—550. Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 317 (1880)— 330, 332, 520, 573. Houldsworth v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 263, 276 (1868)— 297, 1296, 1853, 1865. Housatonic Bank v. Martin, 42 Mass. 294, 308—1832. House V. Cooper, 30 Barb. 157—1904. House V. Houston Water-works Co., 88 Tex. 233, 31 S. W. 179, 28 L. R. A. 532 2772 House V. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42, 22 L. Bd. 42—1880. TABLE OF OASES. clxxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Household, etc. Co. t. Grant, L. R. 4 Exch. D. 216 (1879)— 190. Houseman v. Girard, etc. Assoc, 81 Pa. St. 256—1839. House of Lords in Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337 (1889)— 330. House of Lords In Dovey, etc. v. Cory (1901), A. C. 477—1172. Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134 —1147. Houss Lighting Co. v. Jones, etc. Co., 23 W. L. Bull. 137—2676. Houston V. Filer, etc. Co., 85 Fed. 757 —1961. Houston V. Houston, etc. Ry., 83 Tex. 548, 19 S. W. 127—2667, 2672, 2676. Houston V. Houston, etc. Ry., 84 Tex. 581, 19 S. W. 786—1429, 2681, 2703. Houston V. Jefferson College, 63 Pa. St. 428—1042, 1385. Houston City St. Ry. v. Storrie, 44 S. W. 693 (Tex.)— 2344. Houston, etc. Co. v. Drew, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 536, 36 S. W. 802—1879, 1926. Houston, etc. Ry. v. Bremond, 66 Tex. 159, 18 S. W. 448—545, 940. Houston, etc. R. R. v. Connor, 67 S. W. 773 (Tex.)— 953, 972. Houston, etc. R. R. v. Crawford, 31 S. W. 176 (Tex.), 28 L. R. A. 761, 53 Am. St. Rep. 752—2455. Houston, etc. Ry. v. Keller, 90 Tex. 214, 37 S. W. 1062—2515. Houston, etc. Ry. v. Norris, 41 S. W. 708 (Tex.)— 2455. Houston, etc. R. R. v. Postal Tel. etc. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 502, 45 S. "W. 179—2803. Houston, etc. R. R. v. Rust, 58 Tex. 98 —2607. Houston, etc. R. R. v. Shirley, 54 Tex. 125—1578. Houston, etc. Ry. v. Shirley, 24 S. W. 809 (Tex.)— 1583, 1586. Houston Ry. v. Van Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439—828. Hovelman v. Kansas City H. R. R., 79 Mo. 632—2113, 2666, 2681, 2687, 2698, 2700. Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620, 44 Pac. 11)77—550, 711, 1000. Hovey v. Magill, 2 Conn. 680—1817. Hovey v. Michigan, etc. Co., 124 Mich. 607, 83 N. W. 600—2828. Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 316—429, 430. Hovey's Estate, In re, 198 Pa. St. 385, 48 Atl. 311—966, 1121, 1127. Howard v. Bank of England, L. R. 19 Eq. 295 (1875)— 703. Howard v. Central, etc. Co., 123 N. C. 90, 31 S. E. 371—1658. Howard v. Corey, 126 Ala. 283, 28 South. 682—867, 986, 1014. Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238, 11 S. E. 610, 21 Am. St. Rep. 156—187, 338, 352, 390, 409. Howard v. Hull, 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 255 (1888)— 1306. Howard v. Kay, 27 L. J. (Ch.) 448 (1858)— 658. Howard v. Kentucky, etc. Ins. Co., 13 B. Mon. (Ky.) 282—400. Howard v. La Crosse, etc. R. R., Woolw. 49, 12 Fed. Cas. 641—2372. Howard v. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 7 Biss. 73, 12 Fed. Cas. 645—2340. Howard v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837, 25 L. Ed. 1081—2340. Howard v. Turner, 155 Pa. St. 349, 26 Atl. 753, 35 Am. St. Rep. 883—337. Howard County v. Booneville, etc. Bank, 108 V. S. 314, 2 Sup. Ct. 689, 27 L. Ed. 738—269. Howard County v. Paddock, 110 U. S. 384, 4 Sup. Ct. 24, 28 L. Ed. 171— 262 Howard's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. 561 (1866) —1763. Howarth v. Angle, 162 N. Y. 179, 56 N. E. 489, 47 L. R. A. 725—469. Howarth v. Angle, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 151, 57 N. Y. Supp. 187—440, 2398. Howarth v. EUwanger, 86 Fed. 54— 440, 467. Howarth v. Lombard, 175 Mass. 570, 66 N. E. 888, 49 L. R. A. 301—469, 2398. Howbeach Coal Co. v. Teague, 5 Hurlst. & N. 151 (I860)— 276, 362. Howe, In re, 1 Paige, 214 — 1591. Howe V. Barney, 45 Fed. 668 — 1686, 1876, 1878, 1890. Howe V. Boston Carpet Co., 82 Mass. 493—688. Howe V. Deuel, 43 Barb. 504—1918. Howe V. Freeman, 80 Mass. 566 — 2113, 2323, 2600. Howe V. Keeler, 27 Conn. 538 — 1806. Howe V. Morse, 174 Mass. 491, 55 N. E. 213—1078, 1362, 2159. Howe V. Raymond, 49 Atl. 854 (Conn.) —199. Howe V. St. Clair, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 101, 27 S. W. 800—2530. Howe V. Starkweather, 17 Mass. 240, 243—45, 772, 992, 994, 995. Howe T. West End St. Ry., 167 Mass. 46, 44 N. E. 386—2690. Howe, etc. Co. v. Avery, 16 Hun, 555 — 1811. Howe, etc. Co. v. Jones, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 198, 51 S. W. 24—22,^72. Howe, etc. Co. v. Sanford, etc. Co., 44 Fed. 231—1657. Howell V. Cassopolis, 35 Mich. 471 — 1211, 1222. Howell V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 51 Barb. 378—174, 603, 629, 1142, 1176, 1874. clxxxviii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Howell V. Harvey, 5 Ark. 270, 39 Am. Dec. 376—1070, 1091. Howell V. Keen, 43 Atl. 1070 (N. J.)— 1638, 1768, 2144. Howell V. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194, 5 Pac 759 460. Howeil V. Roberts, 29 Neb. 483, 45 N. W. 923—462. Howell V. Western R. R., 94 U. S. 463, 24 L. Ed. 254—2128, 2214, 2216. Howe Machine Co. v. Souder, 58 Ga. 64—72. Hower v. Weiss, etc. Co., 55 Fed. 356, 5 C. C. A. 129—973. Howland v. Edmonds, 24 N. Y. 307— 273. Hewlett V. Central Carolina, etc. Co., 56 Fed. 161—2227, Hewlett V. New York, etc. Ry., 14 Abb. N. Cas. 328—2432, 2635. Hoxie V. Small, 86 Me. 23, 29 Atl. 920— 788. Hoyer v. Ludington, 100 Wis. 441, 76 N. W. 348—1480. Hoylake Ry., In re, L. R. 9 Ch. 257, 259 (1874)— 555, 1123, 1129. Hoyle V. Plattsburgh, etc. R. R., 54 N. Y. 314, 13 Am. Rep. 595—1453, 1493, 2151, 2308, 2601. Hoyt V. American Exch. Bank, 1 Duer, " 652—1107. Hoyt V. Bridgewater, etc. Co., 6 N. J. Eq. 253, 274—1373, 1800. Hoyt V. Bunker, 50 Kan. 574, 32 Pac. 126—445. Hoyt V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 93 111. 601 —2602. Hoyt V. Latham, 143 U. S. 553, 12 Sup. Ct. 568, 36 L. Ed. 259—1855, 2167. Hoyt V. Shelden, 3 Bosw. 267—1763. Hoyt V. Southern N. E. Tel. Co., 60 Cenn. 385, 22 Atl. 957—2821. Heyt V. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320—1806, 1807, 2438. Hoyt V. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 207, 216— 19, 1751, 1763. Hubbard v. Camperdown Mills, 25 S. C. 496, 1 S. E. 5—2480. Hubbard v. Camperdown Mills, 26 S. C. 581, 2 S. E. 576—1749. Hubbard v. Chappel, 14 Ind. 601—1419. Hubbard v. Johnson County, 23 Iowa, 130—1224. Hubbard v. Long, 105 Mich. 442, 63 N. W. 644—789. 792. Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co., 87 Fed. 51, 30 C. C. A. 520—941, 1138, 1864, 1986, 2173, 2519, 2524. Hubbard v. New York, etc. Co., 14 Fed. 675—1509. Hubbard v. New York, etc. R. R., 36 Barb. 286—1992, 2043. Hubbard v. Rayre, 105 Ala. 440, 17 South. 17—781. Hubbard v. Tod, 171 U. S. 474, 19 Sup. Ct. 14, 43 L. Ed. 246—953. Hubbard v. University Bank, etc., 125- Cal. 684, 58 Pac. 297—2144. Hubbard v. Weare, 79 Iowa, 678, 44 N. W. 915—318, 328, 330, 1166, 1167, 1843. Hubbell V. Blandy, 87 Mich. 209, 49 N. W. 502, 24 Am. St. Rep. 154—943,. 1264. Hubbell V. Drexel, 11 Fed. 115—50, 941 955. Hubbell V.' Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480, 489, 490- —172, 808, 1266, 1844. Hubbell V. Syracuse, etc. Works, 42 Hun, 182—411, 2263, 2403. Hubbell V. Syracuse Ironworks, 14 N. Y. Supp. 345—2122, 2172. Hubbersty v. Manchester, etc. Ry., L. R. 2 Q. B. 471 (1867)— 1121. Hubbuck v. Helms,, 56 L. T. Rep. 232— 2096. Hubinger v. Central Trust Co. etc.,. 94 Fed. 788, 36 C. C. A. 494—2174, 2283. Hub Pub. Co. V. Richardson, 13 N. Y. Supp. 665—1698. Huddersfield Canal Ce. v. Buckley, T T. R. 36 (1796)— 553, 556. Hudleston v. Gouldbury, 10 Beav. 54T (1847)— 657. Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84 — 9, 417. Hudson V. Green Hill Seminary, US- UI. 618—1417. Hudson V. J. B. Parker, etc. Co., 173 Mass. 242, 53 N. E. 867—1758. Hudson V. Spaulding, 6 N. Y. Supp.. 877—522, 1704. Hudson V. West, 189 Pa. St. 491, 42 Atl. 190—200. Hudson, etc. Co. v. Hudson, 163 Mass. 346, 40 N. E. 109—2737. Hudson, etc. Co. v. Warner & Co., 99 Fed. 187, 39 C. C. A. 452—23, 851,. 1118. Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 161 Mass. 10, 36 N. E. 680, 42 Am, St. Rep. 379, 156 Mass. 82, 30 N. E. 465,. 32 Am. St. Rep. 434—342. Hudson River, etc. R. R. v. Hanfield,. 36 N. Y. App. Div. 605, 55 N. Y. Supp. 877—155, 2009, 2036. Hudson River Tel. Ce. v. City of Johns- town, 37 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 41, 74 N. Y. Supp. 767—2847. Hudson River Tel. Co. v. Watervliet,. etc. Ry., 135 N. Y. 393, 22 N. E. 148, 17 L. R. A. 674, 31 Am. St. Rep. 838— 2697, 2704, 2755. Hudson Telephone Co. v. Jersey City,. 49 N. J. L. 303, 8 Atl. 123, 60 Am. Rep. 619—2818. Hudspeth v. Hall, 111 Ga. 510, 36 S. E> 770—2732. TABLE OF CASES. clxxxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text ] Huey V. Macon County, 35 Fed. 481 — 2066. Huffaker v. Krieger's Assignee, 107 Ky. 200, 53 S. W. 288, 46 L. R. A. 384— 1507. Huffman v. Western, etc. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 169, 36 S. W. 306—1672. Huggins V. Milwaukee B. Co., 10 Wash. 579, 39 Pac. 152—1569. Hugh V. McRae, Chase's Dec. 466, 12 Fed. Cas. 829—2377. Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316—211, 284, 285, 290, 298, 319, 343, 346, 358, 1029, 1944. Hughes V. Chester, etc. Ry., 1 Dr. & Sm. 524, 546 (1861), 3 De G., F. & J. 352 (18613-2628. Hughes V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 531—2477. Hughes V. Craven County, 107 N. C. 598, 12 S. E. 465—266. Hughes V. Drovers', etc. Bank, 38 Atl. 936 (Md.)— 723, 726. Hughes V. Green, 84 Fed. 833, 28 C. C. A. 537—2222. Hughes V. Ladd, 69 Pac. 548 (Oreg.) — 225. Hughes V. Northern Pac. Ry., 18 Fed. 106, 9 Sawy. 313—1409, 1966. Hughes V. Oregonian Ry., 11 Oreg. 158, 2 Pac. 94 398. Hughes V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58—1271, 1277 1333 Hughes V. Settle, 36 S. W. 577 (Tenn.) 953. Hughes V. Turner, 3 Myl. & K. 666, 697 (1835)— 659. Hughes V. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 72 N. Y. 207, 210—861, 1146, 1162, 1250. Hughes-Hallett v. Indian, etc. Co., L. R. 22 Ch. D. 561 (1882)— 531. Huguenot Nat. Bank v. Studwell, 6 Daly, 13—1381. » Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galeton Cotton Mills, 94 Fed. 269, 36 C. C. A. 236— 2283, 2505. Huidekoper v. Dallas County, 3 Dill. 171, 12 Fed. Cas. 845—255. Huidekoper v. Locomotive Works, 99 U. S. 258, 25 L. Ed. 344—2442, 2450. Hule V. Allen, 87 Hun, 516, 34 N. Y. Supp. 577—912. Huiskamp v. West, 47 Fed. 236—983, 2514. Hukill V. Maysville, etc. R. R., 72 Fed. 745—2581. Hukill V. Yoder, 189 Pa. St. 233, 42 Atl. 122—990, 939. Hulbert Bros, etc.. Matter of, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 323, 57 N. Y. Supp. 38— 1641. Hulett's Case, 2 J. & H. 306 (1862) — 2030. Hulings V. Hulings Lumber Co., 38 W. Va. 351. 18 S. E. 620—1647. Hulltt, In re, 96 Fed. 785—445, 1441. Hulitt V. Bell, 85 Fed. 89—291, 443. Hull V. Burtis, 90 111. 213—450. Hull V. Glover, 126 111. 122, 18 N. E. 198—1766. Hull, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 119 (1888)— 2096. Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Ohio St. 237 — 1333. Humaston v. Telegraph Co., 20 Wall. 20, 22 L. Ed. 279—750, 2038. Humber Iron-works Co., In re, 16 Weekly Rep. 474, 667—278. Humberstone v. Chase, 2 Y. & C. Exch. 209 (1836)— 732. Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. 587, 629—1667. Humble v. Langston, 7 M. & W. 517 (1841)— 574. Humble v. Mitchell, 11 Ad. & El. 205, 208 (1839)— 45, 762. Humboldt, etc. Assoc, v. Stevens, 34 Neb. 528, 52 N. W. 568, 33 Am. St. Rep. 654—624, 1334. Humboldt Min. Co. v. American Mfg. Co., 62 Fed. 356, 10 C. C. A. 415— 2079. Humby's Case, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 215 (1859)— 571. Hume V. Commercial Bank, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 728—209. Hume V. Steele, 59 S. W. 812 (Tex.) — 708, 1266. Hume V. Winyah, etc. Canal Co,, Car- olina L. Jour. 217 — 519. Humes v. City of Fort Smith, 93 Fed. 857—1960, 2841. Humes v. Decatur Land, etc. Co., 98 Ala. 461, 13 South. 368—1937. Humes V. Proctor, 73 Hun, 265, 26 N. Y. Supp. 315—2822. Hummel v. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co., 175 Pa. St. 537, 34 Atl. 848— 2637. Hummell v. Bank of Monroe, 75 Iowa, 689, 37 N. W. 954—1835. Humphrey v. Merriam, 46 Minn. 413, 49 N. W. 199—790. Humphrey v. Patron's Mercantile As- soc, 50 Iowa, 607—1970, 1971. Humphrey v. People, 18 Hun, 393 — 1843. Humphreys v. Allen, 101 111. 490—2462. Humphreys v. Humphreys, 2 Cox, Ch. 184 (1789)— 660. Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304, 11 Sup. Ct. 779, 35 L. Ed. 473— 39, 699, 933, 1725. Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282— 497, 502. Humphreys v. Newport News, etc. Co., 33 W. Va. 135, 10 S. E. 39—1956. cxc TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pa_ges of the text.1 Humphreys v. New York, etc. R. R., 121 N. Y. 435, 24 N. B. 695—2316. Humphreys v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244, 21 L. Ed. 326—1234. Humphreys v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 37 Fed. 307—2315, 2548, 2558, 2577. Hun V. Gary, 82 N. Y. 65, 37 Am. Rep. 546—1694. Hun V. Van Dyck, 26 Hun, 567—1916. Hunnewell v. Duxbury, 154 Mass. 286, 28 N. E. 267, 13 L. R. A. 733—164, 787. Hunnewell v. Duxbury, 157 Mass. 1, 31 N. B. 700—164. Hunt, In re, 26 Fed. 739—769. Hunt V. American, etc. Co., 81 Fed. 532 —1555. Hunt V. American Grocery Co., 80 Fed. 70—1920. Hunt V. Bullock, 23 111. 320—2151, 2301, 2307, 2325. Hunt v. Columbian Ins. Co., 55 Me. 290, 92 Am. Dec. 592—2426. Hunt V. Davis, 135 Cal. 31, 66 Pac. 957 —1708. Hunt V. Gunn, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 226 (1862)— 197. Hunt V. Hewitt, 7 Exch. 236 (1852)— 1107. Hunt V. Illinois, etc. R. R., 96 Fed. 644, 37 C. C. A. 548—2445. Hunt V. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 412—360, 369. Hunt V. Laconia, etc. Ry., 68 N. H. 561, 39 Atl. 437—945. Hunt V. Memphis Gaslight Co., 95 Tenn. 136, 31 S. W. 1006—1985, 2106, 2324, 2738. Hunt V. Northwestern, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 23 (S. Dak.)— 1779. Hunt V. O'Shea, 69 N. H. 600, 45 Atl. 480—1153. Hunt V. Roosen, 91 N. W. 259—476, 2526. Hunt V. Ward, 99 Cal. 612, 34 Pac. 335, 37 Am. St. Rep. 87—482. Hunter v. French, etc. Co., 96 Iowa, 573, 65 N. W. 828—331. Hunter v. International Ry. Imp. Co., 26 Fed. 299—1957. Hunter v. Roberts, etc. Co., 83 Mich. 63, 47 N. W. 131—1157, 1158. Hunter v. Robbins. 117 Fed. 920—1454, 1786, 1937. Hunterdon County Bank v. Nassau Bank, 17 N. J. Bq. 496—1005. Hunters's Appeal, 10 Atl. 429 (Pa.) — 1208. Hunting v. Blun, 143 N. Y. 511, 38 N. E. 716—447. Hunting v. Downer, 151 Mass. 275, 23 N. E. 832—787. Huntingdon, etc. Coal Co. v. English, 86 Pa. St. 247—1250, 1256, 1260, 1262, 1263. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. Ed. 1123—461, 462, 464. Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 365, 23 N. B. 544—153, 154, 424, 1790, 1843. Huntington v. Attrill (1893), A. C. 150 —461, 462. Huntington v. Attrill, 42 Hun, 459— 154. Huntington v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 98 Fed. 459—1447, 1631, 2429. Huntington v. Mather, 2 Barb. 538 — 932. Huntington v. Palmer, 104 tJ. S. 482, 26 L. Ed. 833—1868. Huntington v. Palmer, 8 Fed. 449, 7 Sawy. 355 — 1204. Huntington v. Savings Bank, 96 U. S. 388, 24 L. Ed. 777—31. Huntington, etc. Coal Co. v. English, 86 Pa. St. 247—1250. Huntington, etc. Co. v. Schofield, 28 Ind. App. 95, 62 N. B. 106—1418. Huntington, etc. Co. v. Thornburg, 46 W. Va. 99, 33 S. B. 108—40. Hunton v. Equitable Life, etc. Soc, 45 Fed. 661—2744. Hunt's Appeal, 141 Mass. 515, 6 N. B. 554—715. Huntting v. Hartford, etc. Ry., 73 Conn. 179, 46 Atl. 824—2545, 2569. Hupfeld V. Automaton Piano Co., 66 Fed. 788—2414. Hurd V. Elizabeth, 41 N. J. L. 1—2399. Kurd V. Kelly, 78 N. Y. 588, 34 Am. Rep. 567—1604. Hurd V. Kelly, 17 Hun, 327—1604. Hurd V. N. Y. etc. Co., 167 N. Y. 89, 60 N. E. 327—1581. Hurd V. New York, etc. Co., 52 N. Y. App. Div. 467—1572, 1581. Hurd V. New York, etc. Co., 29 N. Y. • Misc. Rep. 183, 60 N. Y. Supp. 813— 1582. Hurlbut V. Carter, 21 Barb. 221—277. Hurlbut V. Marshall, 62 Wis. 590, 22 N. W. 852—1290, 1890. Hurlbut V. Root, 12 How. Pr. 511— 277. Hurlbut V. Tayler, 62 Wis. 607, 22 N. W. 855—1182. Hurley v. Hewett, 89 Me. 100, 35 AU. 1026—731. Huron, etc. Co. v. Kittleson, 4 S. D. 520, 57 N. W. 233—1835. Huron Water-works Co. v. Huron, 7 S. D. 9, 62 N. W. 975, 30 L. R. A. 848, 58 Am. St. Rep. 817—2766. Hurst V. Am. Assoc, 49 S. W. 800 (Ky.)— 1660, 1813. Hurst V. Coe. 30 W. Va. 158, 3 S. B. 564—1391. Hurt V. Hamilton, 25 Kan. 76—260, 268. TABLE OF CASES. CXCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310—496. Huse V. Ames, 104 Mo. 91, 15 S. W. 965 —1781. Hussey v. Crickitt, 3 Camp. 168 (1811) —768. Hussey v. Manufacturers,' etc. Bank, 27 Mass. 415—870, 1114. Hussey v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 98 N. C. 34, 3 S. E. 923, 2 Am. St. Rep. 312— 74, 75, 1617. Hussey Mfg. Co. v. Deering, 20 Fed. 795—1954. Hussner v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 114 N. Y. 433, 21 N. E. 1002, 11 Am. St. Rep. 679—2688, 2689. Huston's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 620, 18 Atl. 419—222, 2509. Hutchings v. Lampson, 82 Fed. 960 — 467, 485. Hutchins v. Barre, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 70 (Vt.)— 1807. Hutchins v. Byrnes, 75 Mass. 367 — 1806. Hutchins v. New England Coal Min. Co., 86 Mass. 580—460. Hutchins V. Smith, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 235—212. Hutchins v. State Bank, 53 Mass. 421, 426—45, 729, 732. Hutchinson v. American, etc. Co., 104 Fed. 182—1553, 1869, 2368. , Hutchinson t. Bidwell, 24 Or. 219, 33 Pac. 560—1489. Hutchinson v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 37 Minn. 524, 35 N. W. 433—2645. Hutchinson v. Green, 91 Mo. 367, 1 S. "W. 853—1551, 1636, 1723. Hutchinson v. Lawrence (N. Y. Supr. Ct.), N. Y. D. Reg., Feb. 8, 1887— 1075. Hutchinson v. Le Roy, 113 Fed. 202, 51 C. C. A. 159—962. Hutchinson v. Mayor, etc., 61 N. J. L. 443, 39 Atl. 642,-2674. Hutchinson v. Surrey, etc. Assoc, 11 C. B. 689 (1851)— 1713. Hutchinson v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 998—1613, 1632, 1657, 2073. Hutchinson v. Young, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 246, 80 N. Y. Supp. 259—464. Hutchinson, etc. R. R. v. Kingman County, 48 Kan. 70, 28 Pac. 1078, 15 L. R. A. 401, 30 Am. St. Rep. 273— 246. Hutchison v. Rock Hill, etc. Co., 43 S. E. 295 (S. O— 1784, 1824. Huth V. Humboldt Stamm, 61 Conn. 227, 23 Atl. 1084—1085. Hutton V. Bancroft, etc. Co., 83 Fed. 17 —648, 1906. Hutton V. Joseph Bancroft, etc. Co., 77 Fed. 481—1870. Hutton V. Scarborough, etc. Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 521 (1865)— 585, 586. Hutton V. Thompson, 3 H. L. Cas. 161 (1857)— 1709. Hutton V. Upnil, 2 H. L. Cas. 674 (1850)— 1700. Hutton V. West Cork Ry., L. R. 23 Ch. D. 654—1500. Hutt's Case, 7 Dowl. Pr. 690 (1839) — 1103. Hutzler v. Lord, 64 Md. 534, 3 Atl. 891 —574. Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392, 2 Atl. 274, 42 N. J. Bq. 139, 7 Atl. 521—1093, 1099, 1105. Hyams v. Bamberger, 10 Utah, 3, 36' Pac. 202—975, 988. Hyam's Case, 1 De G., F. & J. 75 (1860) —580. Hyatt V. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553, 15 Am. Rep. 449—36, 606, 1135, 1148, 1191, 1197. Hyatt V. Argenti, 3 Cal. 151—983. Hyatt v. McMahon, 25 Barb. 457 — 63. Hyatt V. Swivel, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. ■^ 993. Hybart v. Parker, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 209' (1858)— 1078. Hyde v. Sodus Point R. R., 53 Ala. 338, 339—2463. Hyde, etc. Co. v. Shepardson, 72 Vt. 188, 47 Atl. 826—41. Hyde Park Gas Co. v. Kerber, 5 111. App. 132—1918. Hyderabad Co., In re, 75 L. T. Rep. 23 (1896)— 611, 637. Hydes Ferry Turnp. Co. v. Davidson County, 91 Tenn. 291, 18 S. W. 626 — 2749. Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co., 168 U. S. 471, 18 Sup. Ct. 114, 42 L. Ed. 54T —1706, 2665. Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co., 80^ Fed. 839, 26 C. C. A. 175—1706, 2665. Hygeia, etc. Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co., 72 Conn. 646, 45 Atl. 957, 49 L. R. A. 147—60. Hygeia, etc. Co. v. New York, etc. Co.,. 140 N. Y. 94, 35 N. E. 417—62. Hyland v. Central Iron, etc. Co., 129 Ind. 68, 28 N. E. 308, 13 L. R. A. 515 —1215. Hyman v. Coleman, 82 Cal. 650, 23 Pac. 62, 16 Am. St. Rep. 178—477. I. lasigi v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 129 Mass. 46—867. Ida County, etc. Bank v. Seidensticker, 92 N. W. 862 (Iowa)— 1768. Idaho, etc. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 67 Pac. 318 (Idaho)— 2754, 2810. Ide V. Passumpsic, etc. R. R., 32 Vt. 297—2000, 2044, 2054. cxcu TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ihmsen's Appeal, 43 Pa. St. 431—715. Illingsworth v. Boston, etc. Co., 161 Mass. 583, 37 N. B. 778, 25 L. R. A. 552—2833. Illingworth v. De Mott, 59 N. J. Bq. 8, 45 Atl. 272—797. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Chicago, 169 111. 329, 48 N. B. 492—2693, 2808. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 122 111. 473, 13 N. E. 140—2633. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Copeland, 24 111. 332, 76 Am. Dec. 749—2641. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142, 16 Sup. Ct. 1096, 41 L. Bd. 107— 2605. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. Mattoon, 141 111. 32, 30 N. B. 773—1239. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. People, 95 111. 313—2610, 2611. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. People, 121 111. 304, 12 N. E. 670—2610. Illinois Cent. R. R. v. People, 143 111. 434, 33 N. B. 173, 19 L. R. A. 119— 25,48. Illinois, etc. Assoc, v. Plagge, 177 111. 431, 53 N. B. 76, 69 Am. St. Rep. 252 —1756, 1758. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Arkansas City, 76 Fed. 271, 22 C. C. A. 171, 34 L. R. A. 518—2759, 2762, 2765. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Arkansas City Water Co., 67 Fed. 196—2759, 2762. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. 123, 44 C. C. A. 389, 2 L. R. A. 481— 10, 1411, 2178, 2306, 2347, 2356. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Kilbourne, 76 Fed. 883,. 22 C. C. A. 599—2282. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Minton, 120 Fed. 187—2170, 2625. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Pacific Ry., 115 Cal. 285, 47 Pac. 60—2468. Illinois, etc. Bank v. Pacific Ry., 117 Cal. 332—536, 2544. Illinois, etc. Canal v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 14 111. 314—2634, 2726, 2770. Illinois, etc. Co. v. Cleveland Tel. Co., 119 Fed. 301—2843. Illinois, etc. R. R. v. Adams, 180 V. S. 28, 21 Sup. Ct. 251, 45 L. Bd. 410— 1907. Illinois, etc. R. R. v. Cook, 29 111. 237 — 373, 1031, 2547. Illinois, etc. R. R. v. Moore, 43 N. B. 364 (III.)— 2638. Illinois, etc. University" v. People, 166 111. 171, 46 N. B. 737—1402. Illinois Linen Co. v. Hough, 91 111. 63— 1499. Illinois Midland Ry. v. Barnett, 85 111. 313—269, 373. Illinois Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Marseilles Mfg. Co., 6 111. 236—40. Illinois Nat. Bank v. Baker, 128 111. 533, 21 N. E. 510, 4 L. R. A. 586— ■381, 989. Illinois River R. R. v. Beers, 27 111. 185—1030. Illinois River R. R. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654—214, 284, 353, 360, 1029, 1030. Illinois Steel Co. v. O'Donnell, 156 111. 624, 41 N. E. 185, 31 L. R. A. 265, 47 Am. St. Rep. 245—1634, 1655. Illinois Steel Co. v. Putnam, 68 Fed. 515, 15 C. C. A. 556—2298, 2429. Illinois T. & S. Bank v. Ottumwa Elec. Ry., 89 Fed. 235—2346, 2347. Illinois T. & S. Bank v. Pacific Ry., 117 Cal. 332, 49 Pac. 197—536, 1779, 1982, 1986, 1993, 2544. - Illinois T. & S. Bank v. Seattle Bl. Ry., 82 Fed. 936, 27 C. C. A. 268—2150. Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pearson, 140 111. 423, 31 N. E. 400, 16 L. R. A. 429 —59. Ilwaco, etc. Nav. Co. v. Oregon, etc. Ry., 57 Fed. 673, 6 C. C. A. 495— 2610. Imboden v. Etowah, etc. Min. Co., 70 Ga. 86—1425, 1830. Imlay v. Union Branch R. R., 26 Conn. 249, 255, 68 Am. Dec. 392—2638, 2689. Imp. Bank of China v. Bank of Hin- dustan, L. R. 6 Eq. 91 (1868)— 1278. Imperial, etc. Assoc, v. Coleman, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 558 (1873)— 1485, 1897. Imperial, etc. Assoc, v. Coleman, L. R. 6 H. L. 189 (1873)— 1463, 1485, 1497, 1897. Imperial, etc. Assoc, v. Newry, etc. Ry., 2 Ir. Rep. Bq. 524 (1868)— 2096. Imperial, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 11 Bq. 478, 491 (1870)— 2044. Imperial, etc. Co. v. Jewett, 169 N. Y. 143, 62 N. E. 167—437, 1087, 2747. Imperial, etc. Hotel Co. v. Hampson, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 1 (1882)— 1729. Imperial Gas Co. v. Clarke, 7 Bing. 95 (1830)— 1107, 1109. Imperial Hotel Co. v. Hampson, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 1 (1882)— 1918. Imperial Hotel Co. v. Hampson, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 12 (1882)— 1453. Imperial Land Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 566 (1877)— 1518. Imperial Land Co., In re, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. 298 (1870)— 1471. Imperial Land Co., In re, L. R. 11 Eq. 478 (1870)— 2098, 2099. Importers', etc. Exchange, In re, 132 N. Y. 212, 30 N. E. 401—1389. Importing, etc. Co. v. Locke, 50 Ala. 332—1423, 1951. Ince Hall, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 545 (1882)— 121, 122. Inchhald v. Western, etc. Co., 34 L. J. (C. P.) 15 (1864)— 908, 910. Independenci Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc. Ry., 72 Iowa, 535—2641. Independent Assurance Co., In re, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 54 (1850)— 436. TABLE OF CASES. CXClll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Independent, etc. College v. People, 182 111. 274, 55 N. E. 345—1402, 1405.- Independent, etc. Co. v. Anderson, 106 La. 55, 30 South. 270—1556. Independent, etc. Co. v. Anderson, 106 La. 95, 30 South. 272—741. Independent Ins. Co., In re. Holmes, 103, 13 Fed. Cas. 13—1448. Independent Order v. United Order, 94 Wis. 234, 68 N. W. 1011—1417. Independent Order, etc. v. Paine, 122 111. 625, 14 N. B. 42—1418. Inderwick v. Snell, 2 Macn. & G. 216— 1730. India Bagging Assoc, v. Keck, 14 La. Ann. 168—1047. India Mut. Ins. Co. v. Worcester, etc. R. R., 25 N. E. 975 (Mass.)— 618, 2590. Indiana v. American Express Co., 7 Biss. 227, 13 Fed. Cas. 24—1243, 1674. Indiana, etc. Co. y. McGill, 15 Ind. App. 1, 43 N. E. 464—381. Indiana, etc. Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593, 54 N. E. 407, 72 Am. St. Rep. 326—15, 506, 1426. Indiana, etc. Co. v. Robinson, 63 N. E. 797 (Ind.)— 1758. Indiana, etc. Co. v. State, 63 N. E. 220, 57 L. R. A. 761 (Ind.)— 2734. Indiana, etc. Ry. v. Attica, 56 Ind. 476 —245. Indiana, etc. R. R. v. Larrew, 130 Ind. 368, 30 N. E. 517—2332. Indiana, etc. Ry. v. McBroom, 114 Ind. 198, 15 N. E. 831—2798. Indiana, etc. R. R. v. Swannell, 157 III. 616, 41 N. E. 989, 30 L. R. A. 290— 2514. Indiana, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Phillips, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 184—1031. Indianpolis v. Central T. Co., 83 Fed. 529, 27 C. C. A. 580—2616. Indianapolis v. Indianapolis, etc. Co., 66 Ind. 396—2741. Indianapolis v. Vajen, 111 Ind. 240, 12 N. E. 311—1226. Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 120 U. S. 256, 7 Sup. Ct. 542, 30 L. Ed. 639—1774, 1796. Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. R., 26 Fed. 140—1796. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Citizens' Street R. R., 127 Ind. 369, 24 N. E. 1054, 26 N. B. 893, 8 L. R. A. 539— 2677. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10, 53 N. E. 937, 45 L. R. A. 427, 74 Am. St. Rep. 274—1046, 2650. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Ervin, 118 111. 250, 8 N. E. 862, 59 Am. Rep. 369 —2609. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Hyde, 122 Ind. 188, 23 N. B. 706—1507, 1765. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Jones, 29 Ind 465, 95 Am. Dec. 654—1584, 255Q 2551, 2590. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Juntgen, 10 111. App. 295—2620. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Lawrence- burg, 34 Ind. 304—2673. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Morgans- town, 103 111. 149—1807. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. v. Ray, 51 Ind. 269—2419. Indianapolis Furnace, etc. Co. v. Her- kimer, 46 Ind. 142—371, 496. Indianapolis Gas Co. v. Cityof Indian- apolis, 90 Fed. 196—1110, 1940. Indianapolis Gas Co. v. Indianapolis, 82 Fed. 245—2617, 2735. Indian, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 70 (1884)— 1305, 1307, 1338. Indianola R. R. v. Fryer, 56 Tex. 609 —1584. Indian River Steamboat Co. v. East Coast Transp. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 10 South. 480, 29 Am. St. Rep. 258— 2546, 2786. India Rubber Co. v. Katz, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 349, 72 N. Y. Supp. 658—1950. Ind's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 485 (1872) —529, 533, 545, 856. Industrial, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 66 S. W. 1032 (Ky.)— 60. Industrial, etc. Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 58 Fed. 732, 7 C. C. A. 471— 2335. Industrial, etc. Co. v. Texas, etc. Assoc, 72 S. W. 875 (Tex.)— 1087. Industrial, etc. Co. v. Tod, -170 N. Y. 233, 63 N-. E. 285—2522. Industrial, etc. Co. v. Tod, 52 App. Div. 195, 64 N. Y. Supp. 1093—2522. Ingalls V. Byers, 94 Ind. 134—2322. Ingalls V. Cole, 47 Me. 530, 541—477, 491. Ingersoll v. Nassau, etc. R. R., 157 N. Y. 453, 52 N. E. 545, 43 L. R. A. 236— 2698. Ingersoll, etc. Co. v. McCarthy, 16 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 162 (1858)— 179. Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454, 17 N. E. 358, 32 Hun, 377—1492, 1520, 1887. Ingles, etc. Co. v. Knoxville, etc. Co., 53 S. W. 1111—195, 301, 948, 1128. Inghs V. Great Northern Ry., 1 Macq. (Sc. App.) 112 (1852)— 293. . Inglis V. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Har- bor, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L. Ed. 617—1080, 1667. Ingraham v. National Salt Co., 72 N. Y. App. Div. 582, 74 N. Y. Supp. 388, 76 N. Y. Supp. 1016—692, 792, 830, 1053, 1253, 1324, 1533. Ingraham v. National Salt Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 646, 74 N. Y. Supp. 388—692, 830, 1053, 1324, 1533, 1899. CXCIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ingraham v. Taylor, 58 Conn. 503, 20 Atl. 601, 18 Am. St. Rep. 291—908. Ingraham v. Terry, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 572—1446. Ingwerson v. Edgecomjae, 42 Neb. 740, 60 N. W. 1032—1647. Inhabitants, etc. v. N. Y. etc. Tel. Co., 57 N. J. Bq. 123, 41 Atl. 146—2814. Inhabitants, etc. v. Suburban, etc. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 563, 44 Atl. 628—2819. Inhabitants, etc. v. Trenton, etc. Co., 27 Atl. 483 (N. J.)— 2703. Inman v. Ackroyd, etc. (1901), 1 K. B. 613—1503. Inman v. Ackroyd, 82 L. T. Rep. 621 (1900)— 1503. Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 583 — 1928, 1930. Innes v. Mitchell, 9 Ves. Jr. 212 (1803) —659. Innes & Co. Ltd., In re, 88 L. T. Rep. 123 (1903)— 1473. Innis V. Sayer, 3 Mac. & G. 606 (1851) —659. Inns, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 6 Bq. 82 (1868)— 2005, 2094. Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb (Ky.), 576, 581, 5 Am. Dec. 638 —215, 290, 292. Insurance Com'r v. United, etc. Co., 22 R. I. 377, 48 Atl. 202—1446. Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588, 24 L. Ed. 737—2221. Insurance Co. v. The "C. D. Jr.", 1 Woods, 72, 13 Fed. Cas. 65—1951. Insurance Co. v. Francis, 11 Wall. 210, 20 L. Ed. 77—1964. Insurance Co. v. McCain, 96 XJ. S. 84, 24 L. Ed. 653—1793, 1799. Insurance Co. v. Malone, 21 Wall. 152, 22 L. Ed. 593—1831. Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, 22 L. Ed. 365—1675. Insurance Press v. Montauk, etc. Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 50, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1093—111, 1112. Interior, etc. Co. v. Prasser, 84 N. W. • 833 (Wis.)- 2081. Inter-Mountain Pub. Co. t. Jack, 5 Mont. 568, 6 Pac. 20—391. Internal Imp. Fund v. Lewi^, 34 Fla. 424, 16 South. 325, 26 L. R. A. 743, 43 Am. St. Rep. 209—2062. International Bank v. Faber, 79 Fed. 919—467. International Bank v. Monteath, 39 N. Y. 297—1251. International Bank v. Faber, 86 Fed. 443, 30 C. C. A. 178—1378. International Cable Co., In re, 66 L. T. Rep. 253 (1892)— 1739. International, etc. v. Young Women's, etc. Ass'n, 194 111. 194, 62 N. B. 551, 56 L. R. A. 888—60. International, etc. Assoc. V. Walker, 88 Mich. 62, 49 N. W. 1086—366. International, etc. Assoc, v. Walker, 97 Mich. 159, 56 N. W. 344—390. International, etc. Co. v. Davis, etc. Co., 70 N. H. 118, 46 Atl. 1054—1973, 1993, 2259. International, etc. Co. v. McMorran, 73 Mich. 467, 41 N. W. 510—1837. International, etc. Co. v. Maxwell, 65 S. W. 78 (Tex.)— 2827. International, etc. R. R. v. Bremond, 53 Tex. 96—1860, 2572. International, etc. R. R. v. Cook, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 386, 41 S. W. 665— 2454. International, etc. R. R. v. Coolidge, 62 S. W. 1097 (Tex.)— 2336, 2465. International, etc. R. R. v. McCuUoch, 24 S. W. 1101 (Tex.)— 2430. International, etc. R. R. v. Moody, 71 Tex. 614, 9 S. W. 465—2581. International, etc. Ry. v. Garrett, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 540, 24 S. W. 354— 2644. International, etc. Ry. v. Ormond, 62 Tex. 274—2453. International, etc. Ry. v. State, 75 Tex. 356, 12 S. W. 685—1236, 1402, 1407. International, etc. Sop. v. Com'rs, 28 Barb. 318—68. International Fair Assoc, v. Walker, 83 Mich. 386, 47 N. W. 338—215, 291, 385. International Trust Co. v. Cartersville, etc. Water Co., 63 Fed. 341—2299, 2741. International Paper Co. v. Gazette Co., 66 N. E. 636 (Mass.)— 88. International T. Co. v. International L. & T. Co., 153 Mass. 271, 26 N. E. 693, 10 L. R. A. 758—59. International Trust Co. v. Townsend, etc. Co., 95 Fed. 850, 37 C. C. A. 396— 2357, 2377. International Trust Co. v. Union Cattle Co., 3 Wyo. 803, 31 Pac. 408, 19 L. R. A. 640—1990. International T. Co. v. United, etc. Co., 27 Colo. 246, 60 Pac. 621, 83 Am. St. Rep. 59—2465. Interior Constr. & Imp. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217, 16 Sup. Ct. 272, 40 L. Ed. 401—1958. Inter-Ocean, etc. Co. v. Associated Press, 184 111. 438, 56 N. E. 822, 48 L. R. A. 568, 75 Am. St. Rep. 184— 20, '2789. Interstate Com. Comm'rs v. B. & O. R. R., 145 U. S. 263, 275, 12 Sup. Ct. 844, 36 L. Ed. 699—2605, 2608. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 57 Fed. '948, 6 C. C. A. 653—1963, 2653. TABLE OF CASES. CXCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Interstate, etc. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc. Ry., 99 Fed. 472—2602. Interstate, etc. Ry. v. Early, 46 Kan. 197, 26 Pac. 422—2721. Interstate Nat. Bank v. O'Dwyer, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 38 S. W. 368—2292. Interstate Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co., 51 Fed. 49—1542, 1729. Intiso V. State, etc. Assoc, 53 Atl. 206 (N. J.)— 19, 1037. Investment Co. v. Eldridge, 2 Pa. Dist. 394—800, 1100. Investment Co. v. Eldridge, 175 Pa. St. 287, 34 Atl. 629—950. Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 36 Fed. 48—2462. Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 696—2477. Investment Co. etc. v. Ohio, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 378—2436. Investment Co. etc. v. Ohio, etc. Ry., 120 Fed. 873—2436. Iowa County v. Mineral Point R. R., 24 Wis. 93—2176, 2238. Iowa, etc. Co. v. American, etc. Co., 32 Fed. 735—1831. Iowa, etc. Co. v. Hoag, 132 Cal. 627, 64 Pac. 1073—2183, 2398. Iowa, etc. R. R. v. Perkins, 28 Iowa, 281—180, 188, 283, 361. Iowa, etc. Wire Co. v. Southern, etc. Wire Co., 30 Fed. 123—1537, 1946. Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa, 25, 31 Am. Rep. 140—673. Ireland v. Globe, etc. Co., 19 R. I. 180, 32 Atl. 921, 29 L. R. A. 429, 61 Am. St. Rep. 756, 20 R. I. 190, 38 Atl. 116, 38 L. R. A. 299, 21 R. I. 9, 41 Atl. 258—18, 1002, 1353, 1356, 1718. Ireland v. Hart, 86 L. T. Rep. 385 (1902)— 858. Ireland v. Palestine, etc. Co., 19 Ohio St. 369—1026, 1042. Irish Peat Co. v. Phillips, 1 Best & S. 598 (1861)— 190. Iron City Bank v. Pittsburgh, 37 Pa. St. 340—1235. Iron, etc. Mfg. Co., In re, 19 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 113 (1889)— 1493. Iron Mountain Bank v. Mercantile Bank, 4 Mo. App. 505—71, 75. Iron Mountain, etc. R. R. v. Johnson, 119 U. S. 608, 7 Sup. Ct. 339, 30 L. Ed. 504—2344. Iron Mountain R. R. v. City of Mem- phis, 96 Fed. 113. 37 C. C. A. 410— 2223, 2623, 2682, 2742, 2756, 2773. Iron R. R. v. Fink, 41 Ohio St. 321, 52 Am. Rep. 84^867, 871. Irons V. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 27 Fed. 591—571. Irons V. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 36 Fed. 843—473, 481. Irons V. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 301, 13 Fed. Cas. 100—1633, 1889. Irrigation Co. of France, In re, L. R. 6 Ch. 176 (1871)— 1279. Irvin V. Turnpike Co., 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 466, 23 Am. Dec. 53—1029. Irvine v. Angus, 93 Fed. 629, 35 C. C. A. 501—273, 761, 972. Irvine v. Forbes, 11 Barb. 587 — 1085, 1089. Irvine v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 204—1418. Irvine v. Nashville Ry., 92 111. 103, 34 Am. Rep. 116—2582. Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia, L. R. 2 App. Cas. 366 (1877)— 1296, 1825, 1862. Irvine Co. v. Bond, 74 Fed. 849—513, 1424, 1963. Irving V. Houstoun, 4 Pat. H. L. Cas. 521 (1803)— 1195. Irving, etc. Assoc, v. Watson, 67 Pac. 945 (Oreg.)— 932, 934, 976. Irwin V. Bailey, 8 Biss. 523, 13 Fed. Cas. 114—1766. Irwin V. Granite, etc. Association, 56 N. J. Eq. 244, 38 Atl. 680— 2393. Irwin V. Great S. Tel. Co., 37 La. Ann. 63—2793. Irwin V. McKechnie, 58 Minn. 145, 59 N. W. 987, 26 L. R. A. 218, 49 Am. St. Rep. 495—2418. Irwin V. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 508, 510, 4 Sup. Ct. 160, 28 L. Ed. 225 — 768, 769, 776, 777, 778. Isabella Lumber Co. v. Creditors, 48 La. Ann. 269, 19 South. 136—1635, 2380. Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230—1725, 1807, 1822. Isham V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 216 — 554, 560, 856. Isham V. Post, 141 N. Y. 100, 35 N. E. 1084, 23 L. R. A. 90, 38 Am. St. Rep. 766—648, 716, 835, 912. Island City Sav. Bank v. Sachtleben, 3 S. W. 733 (Tex.)— 1581. Isle of Wight R. Co. v. Tahourdin, L. R. 25 Ch. D. 320 (1883)— 1275, 1730. Isle Royale Land Corp. v. Osman, 76 Mich. 162, 43 N. W. 14—507, 1679, 1683. Italian Union See. v. Montedonico, 4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 22 (1884)— 1075. Ithaca Gaslight Co. v. Treman, 93 N Y. 660—1884, 2269. Ives, In re, 11 N. Y. Supp. 650, 655— 742, 751, 965. Ives V. Canby, 48 Fed. 718—651, 659. CXCVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] ives V. Smith, 3 N. Y. Supp. 645, 8 N. Y. Supp. 46—1723, 1852, 1864, 1872, 1997, 2598, 2645. Ives V. Smith, 8 N. Y. Supp. 46—1872, 2649. Ives V. Sterling, 47 Mass. 310—215. J. Jack V. Naber, 15 Iowa, 450—306. Jack V. Williams, 106 Fed. 259—2537, 2571. Jack V. Williams, 113 Fed. 823—2439, 2621. Jackson, In re, L. R. 12 Eq. 354 (1871) —45. Jackson v. Bank of Marietta, 9 Leigh (Va.), 240—1942. Jackson v. Brown, 5 Wend. 590—2108. Jackson v. Campbell, 5 Wend. 572 — 1784. Jackson v. Cherokee Medicine Co., 47 S. C. 215, 25 S. B. 51—199. Jackson v. Cocker, 4 Beav. 59 (1841) — 757, 824. Jackson v. Crown Point, etc. Co., 21 Utah, 1, 59 Pac. 238, 81 Am. St. Rep. 651—296, 1423. Jackson v. Dickinson, 88 L. T. Rep. 507 (1903)— 714. Jackson v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 359, 21 C. C. A. 394—2430. Jackson v. Foote, 12 Fed. 37, 11 Biss. 223—778. Jackson v. Hampden, 20 Me. 37—1276, 1281. Jackson v. Hathaway, 15 Johns. 447, 8 Am. Dec. 263 — 2636. Jackson v. Hayner, 12 Johns. 469 — 182. Jackson v. Hurlbut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N. B. 665, 70 Am. St. Rep. 432—2789. Jackson v. Illinois, etc. R. R., 76 Miss. 607, 24 South. 874—1795, 2646. Jackson v. Leggett, 7 Wend. 377—1944. Jackson v. Ludeling, 99 TJ. S. 513, 25 L. Ed. 460—1916, 2200, 2275. Jackson v. Ludeling, 21 Wall. 616, 625, 22 L. Bd. 492—1490, 2200. Jackson v. McLean, 36 Fed. 213 — 1454, 2031. Jackson v. McLean, 100 Mo. 130, 13 S. W. 393—2031. Jackson v. Meek, 87 Tenn. 69, 9 S. W. 225, 10 Am. St. Rep. 620—476, 569. Jackson v. Munster Bank, 13 L. R. Ir. 118 (1884)— 1275, 1327. Jackson v. Munster Bank, 15 L. R. Ir. 356 (1885)— 1695. Jackson v. Newark Plank Road Co., 31 N. J. L. 277—1150, 1153. Jackson v. New York Cent. R. R., 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 653—1506. Jackson v. Plumbe, 8 Johns. 378 — 1942. Jackson v. Pratt, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 381 —1809. Jackson v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 25 Vt. 150, 60 Am. Dec. 246—2636. ' Jackson v. Second Ave. R. R., 47 N. Y. 274, 7 Am. Rep. 448—73. Jackson v. Sligo Mfg. Co., 1 Lea (Tenn.), 210—171, 554, 57L Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469, 20 N. W. 764, 52 Am. Rep. 449—87, 161, 393. Jackson v. Traer, 16 N. W. 120—161. Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. L. 305 (1869)— 317, 539. Jackson v. Twenty-third St. Ry., 88 N. Y. 520—663. Jackson v. Van Hoesen, 4 Cowen, 325 — 1202. Jackson v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 141, 13 Fed. Cas. 257—1992. Jackson v. Walsh, 75 Md. 304, 23 Atl. 778—1037, 1291. Jackson v. Wisconsin Tel. Co., 88 Wis. 243, 60 N. W. 430, 26 L. R. A. 101— 2829. Jackson v. York, etc. R. R., 48 Me. 147 —2056, 2062. Jackson County v. Brush, 77 111. 59 — 262. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 29 Fed. 474—1869, 2061, 2202, 2236, 2279. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 65 N. B. 136, 59 L. R. A. 657 (111.)— 1795. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Walle, 105 La. 89, 29 South. 503—178, 279, 378. Jackson, etc. Ins. Co., In re, 4 Sandf. Ch. 559—1410. Jackson, etc. Ry. v. Adams, 30 South. 694 (Miss.)- 2682. Jackson, etc. R. R. v. Interstate, etc. Ry., 24 Fed. 306—2676. Jackson M. Ins. Co., In re, 4 Sandf. Ch. 559—1394. Jacksonport v. Watson, 33 Ark. 704 — 244, 251. Jacksonville, etc. Navigation Co. v. Hooper, 160 V. S. 514, 16 Sup. Ct. 379, 40 L. Ed. 515—1609, 1781, 1804, 2648. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. v. American Const. Co., 57 Fed. 66—2480. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 150 111. 480, 37 N. E. 924— 2534. Jacksonville, etc. R. R. v. Virden, 104 111. 339—258. Jacobs V. Marks, 182 U. S. 583, 21 Sup. Ct. 865, 45 L. Bd. 1241—809. Jacobs V. Miller, 15 Alb. L. J. 188 (1877)— 1345. Jacobson v. Allen, 20 Blatchf. 525, 12 Fed. 454—438. TAULE OF CASES. CXCVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Southern Bkg. etc. Co., 97 Ga. 573, 25 S. E. 171— 2072. Jacobus V. American, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 371, 77 N. Y. Supp. 898— 1529. Jacobus V. Monongahela Nat. Bank, 35 Fed. 395—996, 999. Jacoby v. S. Jacoby & Co., 103 Fed. 473—982. Jacoby v. Stephenson, etc. Co., 6 N. Y. Supp. 370—2496. Jacques v. Chambers, 2 Coll. 435 (1846) —652. Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker, 76 N. Y. 521—476, 482, 570. James, In re, 144 N. Y. 6, 38 N. E. 961 —50, 1001, 1244. James, In re, 146 N. Y. 78, 40 N. E. 876, 48 Am. St. Rep. 774—1191. James, In re, 78 Hun, 121, 28 N. Y. Supp. 992—1191. James v. Buena Ventura, etc. Syndi- cate (1896), 1 Ch. 456—626. James v. Central, etc. Co., 98 Fed. 489, 39 C. C. A. 126—1869, 2231, 2232. James v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 2 Dis- ney (Cin. Super. Ct.), 261—192, 381. James v. Cowing, 82 N. Y. 449—2501. James v. Cowing, 17 Hun, 256 — 2501. James v. Eve, 6 H. L. Cas. 335 (1873) —121, 1344, 1588, 2080. James v. May, L. R. 6 H. L. 328 (1873) —531, 575. James v. Mayrant, 4 Desaus. (S. C.) 591, 6 Am. Dec. 630—1064. James v. Milwaukee, 16 Wall. 159, 21 L. Ed. 267—250. James v. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 752, 18 L. Ed. 885—1520, 1990, 2032, 2257; 2264; 2277, 2340, 2501, 2574, 2599. James v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 46 Fed. 47—1679. James v. Western N. C. R. R., 121 N. C. 523, 28 S. B. 537, 46 L. R. A. 306— 2567. James v. Woodruff, 2 Denio, 574 — 1441. James v. Woodruff, 10 Paige, 541—1433, 1441. James v. Work, 70 Hun, 296, 24 N. Y. Supp. 149—926, 1266. James Clark Co. v. Colton, 91 Md. 195, 46 Atl. 386, 49 L. R. A. 698—1843. James, etc. Co. t. Libbey, 105 Fed. 825, 45 C. C. A. 78—457. James H. Rice Co. v. Libbey, 85 Fed. 821—467. Jameson v. Coldwell, 25 Or. 199, 35 Pac. 245—1465. Jameson v. Coldwell, 23 Or. 144, 31 Pac. 279—1462. Jameson v. People, 16 111. 257, 63 Am. Dec. 304—8. James's Case, 1 De G. M. & G. 565 (1852)— 1701. Jamieson v. Wallace, 167 111. 388, 47 N. E. 762, 59 Am. St. Rep. 302—782. Jamison v. -Harbert, 87 Iowa, 186, 54 N. W. 75—558. Jamison's Assigned Estate, 3 Pa. Dist. 217—943. Jamison's Etetate, In re, 163 Pa. St. 143, 29 Atl. 1001—943. Janes v. Fitchburg Ry., 50 Hun, 310, 3 N. Y. S. 165—2053. Janner's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 132 (1877)— 1374. Janney v. Merchants', etc. Bank, 98 Ala. 515, 13 South. 761—950. Janney v. Minneapolis, etc. Exposition, 79 Minn. 488, 82 N. W. 984, 50 L. R. A. 273—441, 1491. Jansen t. Otto Stietz, etc. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 605—1783. Jarrah, etc. Corp. v. Samuel, 87 L. T. Rep. 44 (1902)— 1986, 2136. ' Jarrah, etc. Corp. v. Samuel, 88 L. T. Rep. 106—1986, 2136. Jarrett v. Kennedy, 6 C. B. 319 (1848) —332, 340. Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., 148 N. Y. 652, 43 N. E. 68, 31 L. R. A. 776 51 Am. St. Rep. 727—645. Jarvis v. Rogers, 13 Mass. 105 — 937 958. Jarvis v. Rogers, 15 Mass. 389—962, 1248. Jasper County v. Ballou, 103 U. S. 745, 26 L. Ed. 422—256, 257. Jasper, etc. Co. v. Wallls, 123 Ala. 652, 26 South. 659—1332, 1923, 2382. Jaudon v. National City Bank, 8 Blatchf. 450, 13 Fed. Cas. 376—717, 721, 723. Jay Bridge Corp. v. Woodman, 31 Me. 573—20. Jaycox v. Cameron, 49 N. Y. 645 — 917. Jaynes, Ex parte, 70 Cal. 638, 12 Pac. 117—2844. Jaynes v. Omaha St. Ry., 53 Neb. 631, 74 N. W. 67, 39 L. R. A. 751—2691. Jeane's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 573, 11 Atl. 862, 2 Am. St. Rep. 624—644, 983. Jeanette, etc. Works v. Schall, 13 Penn. Sup. Ct. 96—215. Jeans v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. (Com. PI. Ohio)— 1530. Jefferson, In re, 35 Minn. 215, 28 N. W. 256—1068. Jefferson v. Burford, 17 S. W. 855 (Ky.)— 679. Jefferson v. Hale, 31 Ark. 286—1256. Jefferson v. Hewitt, 95 Cal. 535, 30 Pac. 772—319. Jefferson v. Hewitt, 103 Cal. 624, 37 Pac. 638—146. CXCVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Jefferson Bank v. Skelley, 1 Black, 436, 17 L. Ed. 173—1234. Jefferson, etc. Bank v. Francis, 115 Ala. 317, 23 South. 48—1875. Jefferson, etc. Bank v. Townley, 159 N. • Y. 490, 54 N. E. 74—1650. Jefferson Nat. Bank v. Texas Inv. Co., 74 Tex. 421, 12 S. W. 101—507, 522, 810, 1582, 1889. Jeffersonville v. Patterson, 26 Ind. 15, • 89 Am. Dec. 448—2063. Jeffersonville, etc. R. R. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48—2551, 2590. Jeffersonville R. R. v. Rogers, 28 Ind. 1, 7, 92 Am. Dec. 276—71, 74. Jeffersonville R. R. v. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116, 10 Am. Rep. 103—78. Jeffrey v. Moran, 101 U. S. 285, 25 L. Ed. 785—2526. Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 3 Atk. 120 (1744) — 655. Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 24 L. T. Rep. 177 (1871)— 537. Jeffries v. Lawrence, 42 Iowa, 498 — 253. Jeffries Neck Pasture v. Ipswich, 153 Mass. 42, 26 N. E. 239—68, 1943. Jefts V. York, 58 Mass. 371, 50 Am. Dec. 791—1817. Jefts V. York, 64 Mass. 392—1817. Jellenik v. Huron, etc. Co., 177 U. S. 1, 20 Sup. Ct. 559, 44 L. Ed. 647—47, 302, 831, 1388, 1516, 1937, 1959, 2042, 2228, 2269. Jellenik v. Huron, etc. Co., 82 Fed. 778 —831, 2042. Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 122 N. Y. 135, 25 N. E. 264, 9 L. R. A. 708, 19 Am. St. Rep. 482, 44 Hun, 412— 1595. Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 44 Hun, 412—778. Jenet v. Nims, 7 Colo. App. 88, 43 Pac. 147—1381. Jenkins v. Andover, 103 Mass. 94 — 250, 251. Jenkins v. Auburn City Ry., 27 N. Y. App. Div. 553, 50 N. Y. Supp. 852— 1892, 1893. Jenkins v. Baxter, 160 Pa. St. 199, 28 Atl. 682—1333. Jenkins v. Bradley, 104 "Wis. 540, 80 N. W. 1025—158, 1879, 2038, 2658. Jenkins v. Charleston, 5 S. C. 393, 23 Am. Rep. 14—1211. Jenkins v. Fowler, 63 N. H. 244—657. Jenkins v. Hammerschlag, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 209, 56 N. Y. Supp. 534— 701, 1487, 1988, 2166, 2255. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 1 Paige, 243 — 1924. Jenkins v. John Good, etc. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 573, 68 N. Y. Supp. 239— 1587, 2524. Jenkins v. Union Turnp. Co., 1 Caines' Cas. 86, 95—290, 356. Jenks v. Brewster, 96 Fed. 625—36, 1539. Jenne v. Matlack, 41 S. W. 11 (Ky.)— 1085. Jennings v. Baddeley, 3 K. & J. 78 (1856)— 1069, 1090. Jennings v. Bank of California, 79 Cal. 323, 21 Pac. 852, 5 L. R. A. 233, 12 Am. St. Rep. 145—1121, 1132. Jennings v. Broughton, 22 L. J. (Ch.> 585 (1853)— 324, 340. Jennings v. Commonwealth, 98 Fed. 80—1209. Jennings v. Hammond, L. R. 9 Q. B. 225 (1882)— 1058. Jennings v. Loeffler, i84 Pa. St. 318, 39 Atl. 214—963. Jennings v. Neville, 180 111. 270, 54 N. E. 202—664. Jennings v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 23 Fed. 569—2395. Jennings v. Rocky Bar, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 136 (Wash.)— 761, 868, 2042. Jennings, In re, 1 Ir. Ch. 654 (1851) — 362. Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 91 N. Y. 483, 492—42, 45, 606, 1146, 1147, 1152. Jerman v. Benton, 79 Mo. 148 — 1027. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 XJ. S. 734, 739, 740, 24 L. Ed. 136—1987, 1990, 2238, 2242, 2256, 2415, 2459. Jerome v. McCarter, 21 Wall. 17, 22 L. Ed. 515—2284. Jersey City v. Hudson, 13 N. J. Eq. 420—2764. Jersey City v. Jersey City, etc. R. R., 20 N. J. Eq. 360—2673. Jersey City, etc. Co. v. City of Passaic, 52 Atl. 242 (N. J.)— 2682. Jersey City, etc. Co. v. Jersey City, 46 N. J. L. 194—1210, 1215. Jersey City, etc. R. R. v. Jersey City, etc. Horse R. R., 20 N. J. Eq. 61 — 2673. Jersey City, etc. R. R. v. Jersey City, etc. R. R., 21 N. J. Eq. 550—2709. Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242—98, 1399, 2739. Jersey City Gas-Light Co. v. United Gas, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 264—1229. Jersey City Gaslight Co. v. United Gas Imp. Co., 58 Fed. 323, 7 C. C. A. 250— 1236. Jervis v. Wolferstan, L. R. 18 Eq. 18 (1874)— 531. Jessamine County v. Swigert's Adm'r, 3 S. W. 13 (Ky.)— 256. Jessop V. Ivory, 158 Pa. St. 71, 27 Atl. 840—765, 813. Jessop V. Ivory, 172 Pa. St. 44, 33 Atl. 352—765. Jessopp V. Lutwyche, 10 Exch. 614 (1854)— 777. TABLE OF CASES. CXCIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Jessopp's Case, 2 De G. & J. 638 (1858) —579. Jessup V. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 441, 13 Fed. Cas. 573—2345. Jessup V. Bridge, 11 Iowa, 572, 79 Am. Dec. 513—2303, 2306, 2325. Jessup V. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441, 36 Am. Rep. 643—459, 497, 502, 510. Jessup V. Illinois Cent. R. R., 36 Fed. 735—684. Jesup V. City Bank, etc., 14 Wis. 331 — 1770, 2145, 2198. Jesup V. Illinois Cent. R. R., 43 Fed. 483—1523, 1853, 1858, 2242, 2553, 2578. Jesup V. Wabash, etc. Ry., 44 Fed. 663 —2230, 2531. Jewelers', etc. Co. v. Jacobs, 109 Fed. 509—1597. Jewell V. Mclntyre, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 396, 70 N. Y. Supp. 826—740, 1544, 1703, 2519, 2566. Jewell V. Mclntyre, 33 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 26, 66 N. Y. Supp. 905—1544. Jewell V. Rock River Paper Co., 101 111. 57—178, 182, 377. Jewett V. Bradford, etc. Co., 45 Fed. 801—867. Jewett V. Lawrenceburgh, etc. R. R., 10 Ind. 539—233, 236, 238, 239. Jewett V. Valley Ry., 34 Ohio St. 601— 312, 344, 360, 377. Jewett V. Whitcomb, 69 Fed. 417 — 2417. Jewett Pub. Co. v. Butler, 159 Mass. 517, 34 N. E. 1087—59. J. H. Wentworth Co. v. French, 176 Mass. 442, 57 N. B. 789—1316, 1331. Johannesberg Hotel Co., In re (1891), 1 Ch. 119—88. John V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 35 Ind. 539—245, 252. John V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 2 Blackf. 367, 20 Am. Dec. 119—1417. John A. Roebling's, etc. Co. v. Mode, 1 Pennewill, 515, 43 Atl. 480 (Del.)— 1188. Johnes v. Cutwater, 55 N. J. Eq. 398, 36 Atl. 483—2179, 2238. John, etc. Co. v. Sweetzer, 10 Colo. App. 421, 51 Pac. 1012—1634. John, etc. Co. v. Woodside, 87 Md. 146, 39 Atl. 413—1116. John, etc. Land Co. v. Cooke, 44 S. W. 391 (Ky.)— 100, 134. John Hancock, etc. Co. v. Worcester, etc. R. R., 149 Mass. 214, 21 N. E. 364—1584, 2590. John Morley Bldg. Co. v. Barras (1891), 2 Ch. 386—1333. Johns V. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350—44. Johnson, Ex parte, 31 Bng. L. & Eq. 430 (1854)— 1382. Johnson, In re, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 548 (1880)— 1065. Johnson v. Akerstrom, 70 Minn. 303, 73 N. W. 147—500, 1417, 1757. Johnson v. Alabama, etc. Co., 90 Ala. 505, 8 South. 101—1794. Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R., 54 N. Y. 416, 426, 13 Am. Rep. 607—388. Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R., 40 How. Pr. 193—50, 295, 296, 379. Johnson v. Armstrong, 83 Tex. 325, 18 S. W. 594, 29 Am. St. Rep. 648—1771. Johnson. V. Atlantic, etc. Transit Co., 156 U. S. 618, 15 Sup. Ct. 520, 39 L. Ed. 556, 647—2277. Johnson v. Bridgewater Iron Mfg. Co., 80 Mass. 274—1149, 1197. Johnson v. Brooks, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 13—745, 1341. Johnson v. Bush, 3 Barb. Ch. 207— 1807. Johnson v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 58 Iowa, 537, 12 N. W. 576—2626. Johnson v. Commonwealth, 7 Dana (Ky.), 338—1217. Johnson v. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 333, 35 Atl. 291—651. Johnson v. Consolidated, etc. Min. Co., 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 413—1112. jV)hnson v. Crawfordsville, etc. R. R., 11 Ind. 280—276, 284, 310. Johnson v. Crow, 87 Pa. St. 184—1024, 1025, 2733. Johnson v. Dexter, 2 MacArthur, 530 — 977. Johnson v. Fall, 6 Cal. 359, 65 Am. Dec. 518—768. Johnson v. Gallagher, 3 De G., F. & J. 494 (1861)— 543. Johnson v. Georgia, etc. R. R., 81 Ga. 725, 8 S. E. 531—229. Johnson v. Goodyear, etc. Co., 127 Cal. 4, 59 Pac. 304, 47 L. R. A. 338, 78 Am. St. Rep. 17—1028, 1676, 2336, 2603. Johnson v. Goslett, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 569 (1857)— 1078. Johnson v. Goslett, 18 C. B. 728 (1856) —1067, 1078. Johnson v. Griswold, 177 Mass. 34, 58 N. E. 157—1379. Johnson v. Gulick, 46 Neb. 817, 65 N. W. 883, 50 Am. St. Rep. 629—328, 340, 811. Johnson v. Hanover Nat. Bank, 88 Ala. 271, 6 South. 909—1943. Johnson v. Hudson River R. R., 49 N. Y. 455—5, 1034. Johnson v. Johnson, 15 Jur. 714 (1850) —1195. Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Sim. 313 (1844) —656. Johnson v. Kessler, 76 Iowa, 411, 41 N. W. 57—521. Johnson v. Kirby, 65 Cal. 482, 4 Pac. 458—7, 222, 760, 786, 789, 868, 1254, 1255, 1531. cc TABLE OF CASKS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65, 78, 81, 86, 13 Fed. Cas. 758, 103 U. S. 800—410, 545, 581, 675, 677, 707,.858, 1177, 1357. Johnson v. Langdon, 67 Pac. 1050, 87 Am. St. Rep. 156 (Cal.)— 1097. Johnson v. Lullman, 15 Mo. App. 55 — 170, 349. Johnson v. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 46 L. J. (Ch.) 786 (1877)— 295, 298. Johnson v. Mason Lodge, etc., 106 Ky. 838, 51 S. W. 620—1625. Johnson v. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co., 94 Ga. 324, 21 S. E. 576—1042, 1983. Johnson v. Miller, 96 Fed. 271, 37 C. C. A. 471—458, 1929, 2494. Johnson v. Morgan, 68 N. Y. 494—2516. Johnson v. Mulry, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 401 —763. Johnson v. Mulvy, 51 N. Y. 634—908. Johnson v. National, etc. Assoc, 125 Ala. 465, 28 South. 2, 82 Am. St. Rep. 257—319. Johnson v. New York, etc. Co., 76 N. Y. App. Div. 564, 78 N. Y. Supp. 598— 2795. Johnson v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co., 48 Minn. 433, 51 N. W. 225, 54 Minn. 37, 55 N. W. 829—2825. Johnson v. Pensacola, etc. R. R., 9 Fla. 299—306, 1029. Johnson v. Pensacola, etc. R. R., 16 Fla. 623, 656, 26 Am. Rep. 731—2606, 2609, 2785. Johnson v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 43 S. B. 193 (Va.)— 618. Johnson v. Sage, 44 Pac. 641 (Idaho) — 1771. Johnson v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 2 Mo. App. 565—72. Johnson v. Schar, 9 S. Dak. 536, 70 N. W. 838—239. Johnson v. Somerville Dyeing, etc. Co., 81 Mass. 216—417, 532. Johnson v. Stark County, 24 111. 75 — 257, 2056, 2065. Johnson v. Southern, etc. Assoc, 99 Fed. 646—2417, 2430. Johnson v. Thompson, etc. Co., 54 Hun, 469, 7 N. Y. Supp. 716—2795. Johnson v. XJnderhill, 52 N. Y. 203-571, 574, 849, 888. Johnson v. Wabash, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 389—198, 346. Johnson v. Weed, etc. Co., 103 Wis. 291, 79 N. W. 236—1588, 1781, 2079. Johnson Co. v. Miller, 174 Pa. St. 605, 34 Atl. 316, 51 Am. St. Rep. 833— 1745, 2298. Johnson County v. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631, 24 L. Ed. 133—257, 2178. Johnson, etc. Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., 48 Fed. 195—1112. Johnson's Estate, In re, 170 Pa. St. 177, 32 Atl. 636—657. John Spry, etc. Co. v. Chappell, 184 111. 539, 56 N. E. 794—1681. Johnston v. Allls, 71 Conn. 207, 41 Atl. 816—201, 416, 530, 546. Johnson v. Consumers' Gas Co. (1898), A. C. 447—2736. Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316, 71 Am. Dec 173—9, 1805, 1814. Johnston v. Elizabeth, etc. Assoc, 104 Pa. St. 394—1419, 1829. Johnston v. Goslett, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 569 (1857)— 362. Johnston v. Gumbel, 19 South. 100 (Miss.)— 1585. Johnston v. Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 216 — 1272, 1282; 1296, 1311, 1333, 1334, 1375, 1730, 1745, 1917. Johnston v. Laflin, 103 TJ. S. 800, 804, 26 L. Ed. 532—410, 545, 581, 675, 677, 707, 848, 857, 858, 1131, 1177, 1357. Johnston v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65, 13 Fed. Cas. 758—848. Johnston v. Markle Paper Co., 153 Pa. St. 189, 25 Atl. 560, 885—89, 402. Johnston v. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 46 Neb. 480, 64 N. W; 1100—1826. Johnston v. Renton, L. R. 9 Eq. 181 (1870)— 835, 836, 839. Johnston v. Riddle, 70 Ala. 219—2304. Johnston v. Russell, 37 Cal. 670—768. Johnston v. Shortridge, 93 Mo. 227, 6 S. W. 64—1834. Johnston v. Southwestern R. R. Bank, 3 Strobh. Eq. (S. C.) 263, 295—579. Johnston v. Talley, 60 Ga. 540—1439. Johnston v. Trask, 116 N. Y. 136, 22 N. E. 377, 5 L. R. A. 630, 15 Am. St. Rep. 394—764. Johnston, etc. Co. v. Detroit, etc., 124 Mich. 115, 82 N. W. 795—518. Johnston, etc. Co. v. National Bank, 4 Okl. 17, 44 Pac. 192—75. Johnston's Appeal, 7 Atl. 167 (Pa.) — 2738. Joint-stock Coal Co., In re, L. R. 8 Eq. 146 (1869)— 1391. Joint Stock Discount Co. v. Brown, L. R. 3 Eq. 139, L. R. 8 Eq. 381, 402, 404, 405 (1869)— 201, 688, 1609, 1689, 1694, 1695. Joint-stock Discount Co.'s Case, 36 L. J. (Eq.) 150 (1867)— 1103, 1107. Joint-Stock Discount Co., Shepherd's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 564 (1866)— 1357. Jones, Ex parte, 27 L. J. Ch. 666 (1858) —294. Jones, In re, [1898] 2 Ch. 83—1090. Jones, Matter of, 172 N. Y. 575, 65 N. E. 570—1078. Jones V. Allan, 35 N. Y. Supp. 527—812. Jones V. Andrews, 58 L. T. Rep. 601 (1888)— 1104. Jones V. Arena Pub. Co., 171 Mass. 22, 50 N. E. 15—1444, 2360, 2486. TABLE OF CASES. COl [The numbers tifter the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Jones V. Aspen Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263, 40 Pac. 457, 29 L. R. A. 143, 52 Am. St. Rep. 220—496, 1422. Jones V. Atchison, etc. R. R., 150 Mass. 304, 23 N. E. 43, 5 L. R. A. 538—718. Jones V. Bank of Leadville, 10 Colo. 464, 17 Pac. 272—1386. Jones V. Bank of Tennessee, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 122, 46 Am. Dec. 540—1418. Jones V. Barlow, 62 N. Y. 202—462, 476. Jones V. Blun, 145 N. Y. 333, 39 N. E. 954—1639, 1891. Jones V. Bolles, 9 Wall. 364, 19 L. Ed. 734—802. Jones V. Boston Mill. Corp., 21 Mass. 507, 16 Am. Dec. 358—1947. Jones V. Brinley, 1 East, 1 (1800) — 45, 1252. Jones V. Brown, 171 Mass. 318, 50 N. E. 648—175, 757, 758, 1143, 1352. Jones V. Canada, etc. Ry., 46 U. C. Q. B. 250 (1881)— 2527. Jones V. Central Trust Co., 73 Fed. 568, 19 C. C. A. 569—2347. Jones V. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 14 Ind. 89—1418. Jones V. Concord, etc. R. R., 67 N. H. 119, 38 Atl. 120, 67 N. H. 234, 30 Atl. 614, 68 Am. St. Rep. 650—42, 593, 620, 621, 626, 633, 1042, 1278, 1279, 1283, 1301, 1513, 1722, 1849, 2561, 2576. Jones V. Davis, 35 Ohio St. 474, 477— 30, 42, 1209. Jones V. Dawson, 19 Ala. 672—1064. Jones V. Ellis, 68 Vt. 544, 35 Atl. 488— 1257. Jones V. Carlington, 44 S. C. 533, 22 S. E. 741—787. Jones V. Great Southern, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 477—2337. Jones V. Green, 88 N. W. 1047 (Mich.) —1532, 1915. Jones V. Guaranty, etc. Co., 101 U. S. 622, 25 L. Ed. 1030—2107, 2115. Jones V. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 2 Sup. Ct. 336, 27 L. Ed. 401—1663, 1667. Jones V. Hale, 32 Or. 465, 52 Pac. 311— 368, 1419, 1645. Jones V. Hanna, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 550, 60 S. W. 279—1488. Jones V. Harrison, 2 Exch. 52 (1848) — 1710. Jones T. Hilldale, etc. Soc, 65 S. W. 838 (Ky.)— 1276. Jones V. Hurlburt, 13 Neb. 125, 13 N. W. 5—259. Jones V. Jarman, 34 Ark. 323—402, 453, 518. Jones V. Johnson, 86 Ky. 530, 531, 6 S. W. 582—1502, 1693. Jones V. Keen, 115 Mass. 170—2473. Jones V. Kent, 80 N. Y. 585—744, 1148. Jones V. Kokomo, etc. Assoc, 77 Ind. 340—1419. Jones V. Latham, 70 Ala. 164—1017. Jones V. Littledale, 1 Nev. & P. 677 (1837)— 915. Jones V. Marks, 40 111. 313—906, 911. Jones V. Miller, 24 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 268 (1893)— 133. Jones V. Milton, etc. Turnp., 7 Ind. 547 —208, 1283. Jones V. Morrison, 31 Minn. 140, 16 N. W. 854—620, 1142, 1500, 1507. Jones V. Newhall, 115 Mass. 244, 15 Am. Rep. 97—755. Jones V. Ogle, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 192 (1872)— 1196, 1198. Jones V. Ogle, L. R. 14 Eq. 419 (1872) —1197. Jones V. Pearl Mih. Co., 20 Colo. 417, 38 Pac. 700—1269, 1599, 1881. Jones V. Peppercorne, Johns (V. C.) — 911. Jones V. Powning, 25 Nev. 399, 60 Pac. 833—741. Jones V. Rushville Nat. Gas Co., 135 Ind. 595, 35 N. B. 390—1231. Jones V. Schlapback, 81 Fed. 274 — 2416. Jones V. Scudder, 2 Cin. Super. Ct. 178 —1347. Jones V. Seligman, 81 N. Y. 190—1064, 2189. ■ ' Jones V. Sisson, 72 Mass. 288 — 285. Jones V. Smith, 69 Mass. 500—1682. Jones V. Stoddart, 67 Pac. 650 (Idaho) —1767. Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 57 N. Y. 196, 205—36, 617, 1144, 1146, 1147, 1150, 1151, 1153. Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 29 Barb. 353—1144, 1150. Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 17 How. Pr. 529—52. Jones V. Tunis, 99 Va. 220, 37 S. E. 841 —754. Jones V. Victoria, etc. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 314 (1877)— 1757. Jones V. Watties, 92 N. W. 765 (Neb.) —763. Jones V. Western, etc. Co., 67 Pac. 586 (Wash.)— 51. Jones V. Whitworth, 94 Tenn. 602, 30 S. W. 736—117, 136, 139, 159, 388. Jones V. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S. W. 486, 40 S. W. 353, 37 L. R. A. 682, 61 Am. St. R%p. 436—1724, 1779, 1813. Jones V. Wiltberger, 42 Ga. 575 — 477, 491. Jones V. Woolley, 2 Idaho, 790, 26 Pac. 120—1813. Jonesboro v. Cairo, etc. R. R., 110 U. S. • 192, 4 Sup. Ct. 67, 28 L. Ed. 116—242. Jones' Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 48 (1870) —84. 88. ceil TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Jones, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 41 Ch. D. 159—115. Jones, etc. Co. v. Arkansas, etc. Co., 38 Ark. 17—1490. Jones, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 69 Pa. St. 137—1215. Joost V. Bennett, 123 Cal. 424, 56 Pac. 43—2472. Jordan v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 74 Ala. 85, 49 Am. Rep. 800—74. Jordan v. Collins, 107 Ala. 572, IS South. 137—1557, 1748. Jordan v. Indianapolis, etc. Co., 61 N. B. 12 (Ind.)— 737, 1355, 2757. Jordan v. Taylor, 98 Fed. 643—731. Jordan v. Wells, 3 Woods, 527, 13 Fed. Cas. 1111—2453. Jordon v. Hayne, 36 Iowa, 9 — 245. Joseph V. Davis, 10 South. 830 (Ala.) —152, 390, 398. Joseph V. Raff, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 47, 81 N. Y. Supp. 546—671. Joseph Bancroft, etc. Co. v. Bloede, 106 Fed. 396, 45 C. C. A. 354, 52 L. R. A. 734—83, 683, 689, 691. Josephs V. Pebrer, 3 B. & C. 639 (1825) —1076. Joslyn V. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 329—1030, 1038. Joslyn V. St. Paul Distilling Co., 44 Minn. 183, 46 N. W. 337—817, 831. Jourdan V. Long Island R. R., 115 N. Y. 380, 22 N. E. 153—1733, 2596. Journalists' Fund, In re, 8 Phila. 272 — 16, 507. Journal Pub. Club, Matter of, 30 N. Y. Misc. 326, 63 N. Y. Supp. 465—1094, 1332, 1740. Joy V. Ft. Worth, etc. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 94, 58 S. W. 173—1852, 1910. Joy V. Jackson, etc. Co., 11 Mich. 155 — 1030, 1291. Joy V. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1, 11 Sup. Ct. 243, 34 L. Ed. 843—1841, 1842. 2595, 2637. Judah V. American, etc. Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333—210, 279, 525, 1273. Judd V. Harrington, 139 N. Y. 105, 34 N. B. 790—1050. Judson V. Rossie Galena Co., 9 Paige, 598, 38 Am. Dec. 569—402, 567, 1948. Judson V. Stonnington Min. Co., 87 N. W. 108 (Mich.)— 748, 828. Juker V. Commonwealth, 20 Pa. St. 484 —17, 19. Julia Bldg. Assoc, v. BelI«Tel. Co., 88 Mo. 258, 57 Am. Rep. 398—2793. Julian V. Central T. Co., 115 Fed. 956, 53 C. C. A. 438—2230, 2287, 2567. Junction Pass. Ry. v. Williamsport Pass. Ry., 154 Pa. St. 116, 26 Atl. 295—2678, 2695, 2703. Junction R. R. v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. 226, 20 L. Ed. 385—2016, 2036. Junction R. R. v. Cleneay, 13 Ind. 161 —1997, 2043. Junction R. R. v. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236 — 84, 234, 1748. Junkins v. Doughty Falls, etc. Dist., 39 Me. 220—1765.- Just v. State Sav. Bank, 94 N. W. "200 (Mich.)— 963, 1130, 1132. Justh V. Holiday, 2 Mackey, 346—780. Justh V. Holliday, 12 Mackey, 346, 13 Mackey, 346—771, 776, 780, 781. Jutte V. Hutchinson, 189 Pa. St. 218— 111, 1703, 1852, 2019, 2279. K. Kaeppler v. Redfield, etc. Co., 81 N. W. 907 (S. D.)— 1717. Kahaley v. Haley, 15 Wash. 678, 47 Pac. 23—742. Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph, 70 Mo. 262—1357. Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St. 195, 20 N. B. 203—780. Kaln v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458—2418, 2469. Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa, 104, 8 N. W. 772, 41 Am. Rep. 85—497. Kaiser's Succession, 48 La. Ann. 973, 20 South. 184—732. Kalamazoo, etc. Co. v. McAlister, 36 Mich. 327—1829. Kalamazoo, etc. Co. v. Sootena, 84 Mich. 194, 47 N. W. 667, 10 L. R. A. 819, 22 Am. St. Rep. 693—2649. Kalamazoo, etc. Co. v. Winans, etc. Co., 106 Mich. 193, 64 N. W. 23—1778. Kalbfleisch v. Kalbfleisch, 13 N. Y. Supp. 397 — 2438. KalkhofE v. Nelson, 60 Minn. 284, 62 N. W. 332—1444. Kamp V. Wintermute, 107 Mich. 635, 65 N. W. 570—569. Kampf V. Jones, 2 Keen, 756 (1837) — 654. Kampman v. Tarver, 87 Tex. 491, 29 S. W. 768—614. Kampmann v. Sullivan, 63 S. W. 173 (Tex.)— 2465. Kampmann v. Tarver, 29 S. W. 1144 (Tex.)— 390, 544, 630. Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha, etc. Co., 7 Blatchf. 391, 14 Fed. Cas. 108— 1415. Kanawha, etc. Co. v. Ballard, etc. Co., 43 W. Va. 721, 29 S. B. 514—2269, 2376. Kanawha, etc. R. R. v. Glen, etc. R. R., 45 W. Va. 119, 30 S. E. 86—2636, 2678. Kane, Matter of, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 566, 72 N. Y. Supp. 333—1198. TABLE OF CASES. com prhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] 3Cane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. 90, 132—1152, 1153, 1146, 1147. jCane v. Lodor, 56 N. J. Eq. 268, 38 Atl. 966—2140, 2150. Kane v. Schuylkill, etc. Co., 199 Pa. St. 198, 48 Atl. 989—1462, 1792, 1940. Kankakee v. . Y. App. Div. 35, 70 N. Y. Supp. 237— 1051. Kellogg V. Stockwell, 75 111. 68—45,. 559, 574, 888. Kellogg V. Union Co., 12 Conn. 7—1424^ Kelly, In re, 5 Fed. 846, 10 Biss. 151— 2121, 2353. Kelly V. Alabama, etc. R. R., 58 Ala, 489—2111, 2145, 2302. Kelly V. Biddle, 180 Mass. 147, 61 N. B, 821—1590. Kelly V. Browning, 113 Ala. 420, 21 South. 928—2515. Kelly V. Calhoun, 95 U. S. 710, 24 L, Ed. 544—1811. Kelly V. Clark, 21 Mont. 291, 53 Pac. 959, 42 L. R. A. 621, 69 Am. St. Rep, 668—139, 147, 168, 388. Kelly V. Fahrney, 97 Fed. 176, 38 C. C. A. 103—222, 741, 1876. Kelly V. Fargo, etc. Co., 91 N. W. 350- (S. Dak.)— 1919. Kelly V. Forty-Second Street, etc. R. R., 37 N. Y. App. Div. 500, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1096—1362, 2042, 2060, 2066, 2173^ 2516. Kelly V. Mariposa Land, etc. Co., 4- Hun, 632—1560, 1924. Kelly V. Mitchell, 98 Ky. 218, 32 S. W, 599, 33 S. W. 408—1334. Kelly V. Mountain City Club, 101 Tenn.. 286, 47 S. W. 426—2481. Kelly V. Nechanic Min. Co., 7 N. J. Eq, 579—2380. Kelly V. Newburyport, etc. R. R., 141 Mass. 496—1853. Kelly V. People's Transp. Co., 3 Or. 189' —1659, 1662. Kelner V. Baxter, L. R. 2 C. P. 174 (1866)— 216. Kelsey v. National Bank, 69 Pa. St. 426 —1789, 2646. Kelsey v. New England, etc. Ry., 60" N. J. Eq. 230, 46 Atl. 1059—1722, 1764. Kelsey v. New England, etc. Ry., 62 N. J. Eq. 742, 48 Atl. 1001—1460. Kelsey v. Northern Light Oil Co., 45- N. Y. 505—309, 314. Kelsey v. Pfaudler, etc. Co., 41 Hun, 20' —1105. Kelsey v. Pfaudler, etc. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 723—1105. Kelsey v. Sargent, 40 Hun, 150—1502,. 1507, 1909, 1910. Kemble's Estate, In re, 201 Pa. St. 523,. 51 Atl. 310—1201. Kemp V. Westbrook, 1 Ves. Sr. 27S (1749)— 971. Kempson v. Saunders, 4 Bing. 5 (1826 > . —199, 1076. TABLE OF CASES. CCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Kendall v. Bishop, 76 Mich. 634, 43 N. W. 645—1636, 2145. Kendall v. Hillsboro, etc. Road, 67 S. W. 376 (Ky.)— 40. Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. Ch. 360 (1828)— 657. Kendall v. Klapperthal Co., 202 Pa. St. 596, 52 Atl. 92—1543, 2078. Kendall v. Underhill, 8 Kan. App. 521, 56 P'ac. 544—478, 479. Kendig v. Dean, 97 U. S. 423, 24 L.. Ed. 1061-760, 868. Kenedy v. Benson, 54 Fed. 836—808. Kenfield v. Latham, 2 Cal. Leg. Rec. 235 (1879)— 923, 924. Kenicott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 452, 21 L. Ed. 319-2^42, 2050. Kenkel v. Macgill, 56 Md. 120—652. Kenmore, etc. Co., Ex parte, 50 S. C. 140, 27 S. E. 682—1577. JCennard v. Cass County, 3 Dill. 147, 14 Fed. Cas. 307 — 2065. Kennebec Co. v. Augusta Ins. Co., 72 Mass. 204—1672. Kennebec, etc. v. City of Waterville, 52 Atl. 774 (Me.).— 2770. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Jarvis, 34 Me. 360—360, 367, 379. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Kendall, 31 Me. 470—20, 219, 289, 292, 519. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Palmer, 34 Me. 366—213. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Portland, etc. R. R., 54 Me. 173—2270. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Portland, etc. R. R., 59 Me. 9—2112, 2113, 2145, 2188, 2189, 2317. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. "Waters, 34 Me. 369—306. Kennebec W. D. v. City of Waterville, 96 Me. 234, 52 Atl. 774—2771. Kennedy, Matter of, 75 N. Y. App. DIv. 188, 77 N. Y. Supp. 714—1102. Kennedy v. Baltimore Ins. Co., 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 367—1801, 1802. Kennedy v. California Sav. Bank, 97 Cal. 93, 31 Pac. 846, 33 Am. St. Rep. 163—427. Kennedy v. California Sav. Bank, 101 Cal. 495, 35 Pac, 1039, 40 Am. St. Rep. 69—685. Kennedy v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 14 Abb. N. Cas. 326—1105. Kennedy v. Crum, 26 S. W. 190 (Ky.) —2753. Kennedy v. First Nat. Bank, 115 N. C. 223, 20 S. E. 375—1201. Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 19 L. Ed. 476—433, 443, 1390, 1967. Kennedy v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 3 Fed. 97, 2 Flip. 704—2452. 2470. Kennedy v. Kennedy, 70 Hun, 257, 24 N. Y. Supp. 424—2524. Kennedy v. Lansing," 99 Mich. 518, 58 N. W. 470—2823. Kennedy v. McCloskey, 170 Pa. St. 354, 33 Atl. 117—2514. Kennedy v. Mary Lee, etc. Ry., 93 Ala. 494, 9 South. 608—992, 1213. Kennedy v. Panama, etc. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 580 (1867)— 323. Kennedy v. Porter, 109 N. Y. 526, 17 N. E. 426—709. Kennedy v. St. Paul, etc. R. R.,.2 Dill. 448, 14 Fed. Cas. 321—2459. Kennedy v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 2 Dill. 454, 14 Fed. Cas. 323—2467. Kennedy v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 5 Dill. 519, 14 Fed. Cas. 325—2459. Kenner v. Lexington, etc. Mfg. Co., 91 N. C. 421—1820. Kenner v. Whitelock, 152 Ind. 635, 53 N. E. 232—1506, 1720. Kennett v. Woodworth-M. Co., 68 N. H. ,432, 39 Atl. 585—1637. Kenney v. Ranney, 96 Mich. 617, 55 N. W. 982—2414. Kennicott v. Wayne County, 6 Biss. 138, 14 Fed. Cas. 333—2049. Kenosha City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477, 19 L. Ed. 725—244, 2065, 2066. Kenosha, etc. R. R. v. Marsh, 17 Wis. 13—1034, 1035, 1039, 1040. Kensington, The, 183 U. S. 263, 22 Sup. Ct. 102, 46 L. Ed. 190—2645, 2841. Kent V. Clark, 181 111. 237, 54 N. E. 967 —432, 523, 1617. Kent V. Deposit Bank, 91 Ky. 70, 14 S. W. 962—705. Kent V. Freehold, etc. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 493 (1868)— 336. Kent V. Freehold, etc. Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 588 (1867)— 1475. Kent V. Ginter, 23 Ind. 1—1262. Kent V. Jackson, 2 De G., M. & G. 49 (1852)— 1393, 1876. Kent V. Lake Superior, etc. Co., 144 IT. S. 75, 12 Sup. Ct. 650, 36 L. Ed. 352— 2254, 2461. Kent V. Miltenberger, 13 Mo. App. 503 —768, 778. Kent V. New York Cent. R. R., 12 N. Y. 628—430. Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159, 188—13, 19, 42, 107, 583, 585, 648, 1846, 1848, 1969, 1976. Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 17 Hun, 169—583. Kent Benefit Bldg. Soc, In re, 1 Dr. & Sm. 417 (1861)— 1664. Kent County Agr. Soc. v. Houseman, 81 Mich. 609, 46 N. W. 15—1381, 1384, 1408. Kent, etc. Syndicate, In re (1898), 1 Q. B. 754—1095, 1106. CCVl TABLE OF CASKS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick Turnp. Co., 10 Bush (Ky.), 529— 1041. Kenton, etc. Co. v. McAlpin, 5 Fed. 737 —116, 1156, 1157, 1281, 1283, 1284, 1318. Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84 Ky. 430, 1 S. W. 717—1120, 1130. Kent's Case, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 508, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 259 (1888)— 382. Kentucky Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 35, 45—65. Kentucky T. Co. v. Tliird Nat. Bank, 50 S. W. 43 (Ky.)— 2477. Kentucky Union R. R. v. Bourbon County, 85 Ky. 98, 2 S. W. 687— 253. Keogh V. McManus, 34 Hun, 521 — 2487. Keokuk v. Ft. Wayne Blec. Co., 90 Iowa, 67, 57 N. W. 689—1601, 2730. Keokuk Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242, 15 N. B. 311—1422. Keokuk, etc. Co. v. Davidson, 95 Mo. 467, 8 S. W. 545—1517, 1518. Keokuk, etc. R. R. v. County Court, 41 Fed. 305—1237. Keokuk, etc. R. R. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301, 14 Sup. Ct. 592, 38 L. Ed. 450 —1237, 1238, 2585, 2586. Keokuk, etc. R. R. v. Scotland County, 152 U. S. 318, 14 Sup. Ct. 605, 38 L. Ed. 457—1232, 2175, 2538. Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. v. Kingsland, etc. Co., 5 Okl. 32, 47 Pac. 484— 1819. Keppel V. Petersburg R. R., Chase's Dec. 167, 14 Fed. Cas. 357—840, 1141, 1152, 1154. Kerchner v. Gettys, 18 S. C. 521—736, 788, 1374, 1377. Kermode v. MacDonald, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 584 (1868)— 657. Kermode v. MacDonald, L. R. 1 Eq. 457 (1866)— 660. Kern v. Chicago, etc. Assoc, 140 III. 371, 29 N. E. 1035— 3B8. Kern v. Day, 45 La. Ann. 71, 12 South. 6—692, 1007, 1377. Kernaghan v. Williams, L. R. 6 Eq. 228 (1868)— 1607. Kernochan, In re, 104 N. Y. 618, 11 N. E. 148—1148, 1149, 1191. Kernochan v. Murray, 111 N. Y. 306, 18 N. E. 868, 2 L. R. A. 183, 7 Am. St. Rep. 744—743, 2091. Kern's Estate, In re, 176 Pa. St. 373, 35 Atl. 231—713, 845, 959. Kerp V. Michigan, etc. R. R., 14 Fed. Cas. 382—2227, 2364. Kerr, In re, 42 Barb. 119—2709. Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 N. Y. 327—1666. Kerr v. Little, 39 N. J. Eq. 83—2449. Kerr v. Middlesex Hospital, 2 De G., M. & G. 576 (1852)— 859. Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72, 37 Atl. 789, 38 L. R. A. 119, 63 Am. St. Rep. 493— 529, 543, 544. Kerridge v. Hesse, 9 Car. & P. 200 (1839)— 1699. Kerrigan v. Southern Pac. R. R., 81 Cal. 248, 22 Pac. 677—2641. Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155, 23 L. Ed. 843—2184. Kersey, etc. Co. v. Oil, etc. R. R., 12 Phila. 374—1744. Kerslake v. Brower, etc. Co., 40 Or. 44, 66 Pac. 437—1641. Kessler v. Continental, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 258—1385. Kessler v. New York, etc. R. R., 7 Lans. 63—2640. Kester v. Western Union T. Co., 108 Fed. 926—2795. Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 U. S. 659, 24 L. Ed. 868—1993, 2059. Ketchum v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 532, 14 Fed. Cas. 414—2180. Ketchum v. Pacific R. R., 4 Dill. 78, 14 Fed. Cas. 425—2120. Ketchum v. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 306, 25 L. Ed. 999—2121, 2122, 2123. Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N. Y. 96, 60 N. E. 325—212. Key City, The, 14 Wall. 653, 20 L. Ed. 896—2591. Keyes v. Bradley, 73 Iowa, 589, 35 N. W. 656—710. Key, etc.. In re W,, 86 L. T. Rep. 374 (1902)— 51, 1125. Keyling's Case, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 239 (1702)— 727. Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138, 10 Sup. Ct. 290, 33 L. Ed. 531—543, 562. Keyser v. McKissam, 2 Rawle (Pa.), 139—1740. Keystone Bridge Co. v. McCluney, 8 Mo. App. 496—170. Keystone, etc. Co. v. Bate, 187 Pa. St. 460, 41 Atl. 299—1455. Keystone, etc. Co. v. Bate, 196 Pa. St. 566, 46 Atl. 887—1758. Keystone Fuel Gas Co. v. Williamsport Gas Co., 2 Pa. Dist. 85—2737. Kickland v. Menasha, etc. Co., 68 Wis. 34, 31 N. W. 471, 60 Am. Rep. 831— 1796, 1798. Kid V. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. (S. C.) 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702—1262. Kidwelly Canal Co. v. Raby, 2 Price, 93 —215, 346. Kiely v. Smyth, 27 Grant's Ch. (Can.) 220 (1879)— 843. Kierstead v. Bennett, 93 Me. 328, 45 Atl. 42—1086. Kilbridge v. Moss, 113 Cal. 432, 45 Pac. 812, 54 Am. St. Rep. 361—765. Kilgore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N. E. 108—788. TABLE OF CASES. covn [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 Conn. 362—1820. Kilgore v. Smith, 122 Pa. St. 48, 15 Atl. 698—1678. Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546, 82 N. W. 536—381, 463, 478, 1187. Killen v. State Bank, 82 N. W. 536 (Wis.)— 1887. KlUingswortli v. Portland Trust Co., 18 Or. 351, 23 Pac. 66, 7 L. R. A. 638, 17 Am. St. Rep. 737—1605. Killmer v. Hobart, 58 How. Pr. 452— 2418. Killmer v. New York, etc. R. R., 100 N. Y. 395, 3 N. E. 293, 53 Am. Rep. 194—2606, 2610. Kilner v. jBaxter, L. R. 2 C. P. 174 (1866)— 1699. . Kilpatrick v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 38 Neb. 620, 57 N. W. 664, 41 Am. St. Rep. 741—2330. Kilpatrick v. Penrose, etc. Co., 49 Pa. St. 118, 88 Am. Dec. 497—1501. Kilton V. Providence, etc. Co., 22 R. I. 605, 48 Atl. 1039—484. Kilvert's Trusts, In re, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 170 (1871)— 67. Kimball v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 888—682, 2558, 2577. Kimball v. Billings, 55 Me. 147, 92 Am. Dec. 581—820: Kimball v. City of Cedar Rapids, 100 Fed. 802—1908, 1959, 2676, 2737, 2761, 2769, 2811. Kimball v. Goodburn, 32 Mich. 10— 2377, 2384. Kimball v. Ives, 30 Hun, 568 — 1685, 2404. Kimball v. Lakeland, 41 Fed. 289 — 246. Kimball v. New England, etc. Co., 69 N. H. 485, 45 Atl. 253—112, 135, 1321, 1339. Kimball v. New England, etc. Co., 46 N. E. 432 (Mass.)— 1503. Kimball v. Reding, 31 N. H. 35?, 64 Am. Dec. 333 — 715. Kimball v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 157 Mass. 7, 31 N. E. 697, 34 Am. St. Rep. 250— 1874. Kimball v. Union Water Co., 44 Cal. 173, 13 Am. Rep. 157—865. Kimbell v. Chicago, etc. Co., 119 Fed. 102—141, 1856, 2023. Kimber v. Barber, L." R. 8 Ch. App. 56 (1872)— 710, 926. Kimberley, etc. Min. Co., In re, 58 L. T. Rep. 305 (1888)— 861. Klmberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 530, 9 Sup. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764—94. Kimbrough v. Orr Shoe Co., 98 Ga. 537, 25 S. B. 576—952. KImmel v. Stoner, 18 Pa. St. 155— 1877. Kimmell v. Geeting, 2 Grant (Pa.) Cas. 125—1877. Kimmerle v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co., 105 Mich. 640, 63 N. W. 529—2387. Kincaid v. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548—396, 430, 447, 473, 1395. KInoaid's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 420 (1867)— 317, 335. Kindbeig v. Mudgett, 24 N. Y. Week. Dig. 229—1379. Klndel v. Beck, etc. Co., 19 Colo. 310. 35 Pac. 538, 24 L. R. A. 311—1615. Kinder v. Taylor, Coll. Partn. 917 (2d Ed., 1825), 3 L. J. Ch. 69—1076. Kinealy v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 69 Mo. 658—2681, 2695. King V. Accumulative, etc. Ass'n Co., 3 C. B. (N. S.) 151 (1857)— 436. King V. Armstrong, 50 Ohio St. 222, 34 N. B. 163—442, 443, 444, 483, 2409. King V. Barnes, 109 N. Y. 267, 16 N. E. 332—709, 1471. King V. Barnes, 113 N. Y. 655, 21 N. E. 184—863, 1319, 2379. King V. Barnes, 113 N. Y. 476, 21 N. E. 182—863, 1537, 1946. King V. Barnes, 51 Hun, 550, 4 N. Y. Supp. 247—1319, 2379. King V. Cochran, 72 Vt. 107, 47 AtL 394—438. / King V. Doane, 139 U. S. 166, 11 Sup.. Ct. 465, 35 L. Ed. 84—791. King V. Duncan, 38 Hun, 461-482, 485,. 567. King V. Dupine, 2 Atk. 603 (1744) — 992. King V. Elliott, 13 Miss. 428—83. King V. Follett, 3 Vt. 385—1146, 1197.. King V. Holland T. Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 112, 40 N. Y. Supp. 480—1588. King V. Hutton (1900), 2 Q. B. 504— 921. King V. Ilwaco, etc. Co., 1 Wash. St.. 127, 23 Pac. 924—63. King V. Madison, 17 Ind. 48 — 1217. King V. Marshall, 33 Beav. 565 (1854) —278, 699. King V. Merchants' Bxch. Co., 5 N. Y. 547—2106, 2157. King V. Merchant Tailors' Co., 2 B. & Ad. 115 (1831)— 1099. King V. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 32 Minn. 224, 225, 20 N. W. 135—2771. King V. National M. & E. Co., 4 Mont. 1, 1 Pac. 727—1682. King V. Ohio, etc. Ry., 7 Biss. 529, 14 Fed. Cas. 539 — 2624. King V. Ohio & M. Ry., 2 Fed. 36, 9' Biss. 278—597. King V. Paterson, etc. R. R., 29 N. J. L. 82, 504—1152, 1153, 1154, 1156. King V. Philadelphia Co., 154 Pa. St. 160, 26 Atl. 308, 21 L. R. A. 141, 35: Am. St. Rep. 817—1416, 2738. King V. Pony, etc. Co., 72 Pac. 309> (Mont.)— 387, 396. CCVIU TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] King V. Sarria, 69 N. Y. 24, 25 Am. Rep. 128—512. King V. Severn, etc. Ry., 2 B. & Aid. 646 (1819)— 2621. King V. Sullivan, 93 Ga. 621, 20 S. B. 76—406, 1182, 1566. King V. Talbot, 40 N. Y. 76—715. King V. Talbot, 50 Barb. 453—715. King V. Texas, etc. Ins. Co., 58 Tex. 669—985. King V. Thompson, 110 Fed. 319, 49 C. C A 59 2339 King V. Townshend, 141 N. Y. 358, 36 N. E. 513—1078. King V. Wilson, 1 Dillon, 555, 14 Fed. Cas. 563—245. King V. Wooldridge, 78 Miss. 179, 28 South. 824—1647. " Kingman v. Rome, etc. R. R., 30 Hun, 73—1894. Kingman v. Spurr, 24 Mass. 235—1084, 1358. Kingman & Co. v. Mowry, 182 111. 256, 55 N. E. 330, 74 Am. St. Rep. 169— 1578. Kingman & Co. v. Stoddard, 85 Fed. 740, 29 C. C. A. 413—812. Kingsbridge Flour Mill Co. v. Ply- mouth, etc. Co., 2 Exch. 718 (1848)— 1782. Kingsbury v. Kirwan, 77 N. Y. 612— 772, 913. Kingsbury v. Kirwin, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 451—913. Kingsbury v. Ledyard, 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 37—41, 1737, 1740. King's Case. L. R. 2 Ch. 714 (1867)— 293 King's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 714, 731 (1867)— 297. King's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 196 (1871)— 207, 529, 530, 551, 579. King's College v. McDonald, 2 Tham. 106 (Can.) 1843—1813. Kings County El. Ry., In re, 105 N. Y. 97, 13 N. E. 18—1428, 2674. Kings County El. Ry. Co., In re, 41 Hun, 425—1428. Kings, etc. R. R., In re, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 241, 39 N. Y. Supp. 1004—2664. Kingsford v. Great Western Ry., 16 C. B. (N. S.) 761 (1864)— 1103. Kingsl'ey v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Hun, 329—1891, 1946. Kingsley v. New England, etc. Ins. Co., 62 Mass. 393—21, 1824. Kingston Cotton Mill Co., In re (1896), 1 Ch. 331—1184. Kingston Cotton Mill Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 279—1694. Kinkier v. Junica, 84 Tex. 116, 19 S. W. 359—1611. Kinmonth v. Brigham, 87 Mass. 270 — 715. Kinnan v. Forty-second, etc. Ry., 140 N. Y. 183, 35 N. E. 498—823. Kinnan v. Forty-second, etc. R. R., 21 N. y. Supp. 789—638, 823. Kinnan v. Sullivan, etc., 26 App. Div. 213, 50 N. Y. Supp. 95—1116. Kinney v Crocker, 18 Wis. 74—2414, 2415, 2452. Kinsman v. Fisk, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 443, 56 N. Y. Supp. 33—744, 1346, 1443, 2091. 2445. Kinsman v. Fisk, 83 Hun, 494, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1045—134, 940, 1646. Kinsman St. Ry. v. Broadway, etc. R. R., 36 Ohio St. 239—2708. Kinston, etc. R. R. v. Stroud, 43 S. B. 913 (N. O— 2626. Kintrea's Case, 39 L. J. (Ch.) 193 (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. App. 95—580. Kinzie v. Chicago, 3 111. 187, 33 Am. Dec. 443—1804. Kip, In re, 1 Paige, 601—39, 1827. Kip V. Monroe, 29 Barb. 579—788. Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. Jr. 748 (1799)— 654. Kirk V. Bell, 16 Q. B. 290—1754. Kirk V. Nowill. 1 T. R. 118 (1786) — 289. Kirker v. Owings, 98 Fed. 499, 39 C. C. A. 132—2394, 2471, 2484. I Kirkland v. Dinsmore, 62 N. Y. 171, 20 Am. Rep. 475—2644. Kirkpatrick v. Bonsall, 72 Pa. St. 155 —768, 776, 777. Kirkpatrick v. Mehalitch, 113 Mich. 631, 71 N. W. 1077—434. Kirkpatrick v. Pope Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. 46—1109. Kirkpatrick, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 65 N. E. 913 (Ind.)— 1937. Klrksey v. Florida, etc. Co., 7 Fla. 23, 68 Am. Dec. 426—215, 290, 366. Kirkstall Brewery Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 535 (1877)— 635. Kirschmann v. Lediard, 61 Barb. 573 — 1704. Kirtley v. Holmes, 107 Fed. Rep. 1, 46 C. C. A. 102, 52 L. R. A. 738—439, 468. Kirtley's Adm'x v. Shinkle, 69 S. W. 723 (Ky.)— 788. Kisch V. Central Ry., 34 L. J. (Ch.) 545 (1865)— 316.- Kisch V. Venezuela Central Ry., 34 L. J. (Ch.) 545 (1865)— 324. Kissam v. Anderson, 145 U. S. 435, 12 Sup. Ct. 960, 36 L. Ed. 765—912, 1836. Kisseberth v. Prescott, 91 Fed. 611 — 468. Kisseberth v. Prescott, 95 Fed. 357 — 440. Kisterbock's Appeal, 51 Pa. St. 483 — 1188. TABLE 0¥ OASES. CC13 [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Kitchen v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 69 Mo. 224, 260—1492, 1860, 1864, 2501. Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 859—1886. Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. R., 78 Fed. 855—1493. Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. R., 84 Fed. 386, 28 C. C. A. 437—1651. Kittinger v. Buffalo, etc. Co., 160 N. Y. 377, 386, 54 N. E. 1081-2684. Kittow V. Liskeard Union, L. R. 10 Q. B. 7 (1874)— 1078, Kittredge v. Osgood, 161 Mass. 384, 37 N. B. 369—2325, 2412. Klaus, In re, 67 Wis. 401, 29 N. W. 582 —1355, 1356. Kleckner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176, 63 N. W. 469 — 461, 464, 498. Kleeman v. Frisbie, 63 111. 482—2050, 2052. Klein v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 514— 215, 290, 354. Klein v. East River, etc. Co., 33 N. Y. Misc. 596, 67 N. Y. Supp. 922—2062. Klein v. Funk, 82 Minn. 3, 84 N. W. 460—1658. Klein v. German Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 140, 61 S. W. 572, 86 Am. St. Rep. 183—642, 2073. Klien v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474—2386, 2452. Kline v. Bank of Tescott, 50 Kan. 91, 31 Pac. 688, 18 L. R. A. 533, 34 Am. St. Rep. 107—1816. Klopp T. Creston City, etc. Co., 34 Neb. 808, 52 N. W. 819, 33 Am. St. Rep. 666 —1954. Klopp V. Lebanon Bank, 46 Pa. St. 88 — 1126, 1133. Klosterman v. Mason, etc. R. R., 8 Wash. 281, 36 Pac. 136—1643, 2573. Kluht's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 210 (1850) —205, 543. Knapp V. PubUshers, 127 Mo. 53, 29 S. W. 885—94. Knapp V. Railroad Co., 20 Wall. 117, 22 L. Ed. 328—2179, 2190, 2202. Knapp, etc. Co. v. McCaffrey, 178 111. 107, 52 N. E. 898, 69 Am. St. Rep. 290—2789. Knapp, S. P. V. Williams, 4 Ves. Jr. 430 (1798)— 44. Kneeland v. American L. & T. Co., 136 U. S. 89, 10 Sup. Ct. 950, 34 L. Ed. 379—2282, 2312, 2357, 2441, 2449. Kneeland v. Braintree Street Ry., 167 Mass. 161, 45 N. E. 86—1507, 1970. Kneeland v. Foundry, etc. Works, 140 U. S. 592, 11 Sup. Ct. 857, 35 L. Ed. 543—2449. Kneeland v. Lawrence, 140 U. S. 209, 11 Sup. Ct. 786, 35 L. Ed. 492—2000, 2027 Kneeland v. Luce, 141 U. S. 491, 12 Sup. Ct. 32, 35 L. Ed. 830—2463. Knell V. Buffalo, 54 Hun, 80, 7 N. Y. Supp. 233—2207. Knevals v. Florida, etc. R. R., 66 Fed. 224, 13 C. C. A. 410—1877, 2317, 2321. Knickerbocker Bank, In re, 19 Barb. 602—2387. Knickerbocker, etc. Go. v. Penacook, etc. Co., 100 Fed. 814—988, 1646, 1987, 2167, 2485. Knickerbocker T. Co. v. Hard, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 463, 73 N. Y. Supp. 979— 278, 357. Knickerbocker T. Co. v. Penn, etc. Co., 62 N. J. Eqi 624, 50 Atl. 459— 2152, 2341. Knight V. Cambers, 15 C. B. 562 (1855) —777. Knight V. Fitch, 15 C. B. 566 (1855) — 777. Knight V. Norris, 13 Minn. 473 (Gil. 438)— 430. Knight T. Old Nat. Bank, 3 Cliff. 429, 14 Fed. Cas. 772—1115, 1133. Knight V. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 1 Jones, L. (N. C.) 357—2045. Knight's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 321 (1867)— 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299. Knights of Pythias v. Weller, 93 Va. 605, 25 S. E. 891—6. Knoop V. Bohmrich, 49 N. J. Eq. 82, 23 Atl. 118—310, 1912, 1934. Knopf V. First Nat. Bank, 173 111. 331, 50 N. E. 660—1228. Knott V. Raleigh, etc. R. R., 98 N. C. 73, 3 S. E. 735, 2 Am. St. Rep. 321— 70, 74, 1617, 2641. Knott V. Southern L. Ins. Co., 2 Woods, 479, 14 Fed. Cas. 785—1957. Knott End. Ry., In re (1901), 2 Ch. 8 —2370. Knottsville, etc. Co. v. Mattingly, 35 S. W. 1114 (Ky.)— 384. Knowles v. Duffy, 40 Hun, 485—153. Knowles v. Sandercoek, 107 Cal. 629, 40 Pac. 1047—202, 442, 448, 689, 852. Knowles v. Scott, L. R. [1891] 1 Ch. 717—2468. Knowlton v. Ackley, 62 Mass. 93—402, 425, 449, 1394. Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Co., 14 Blatchf. 364, 368, 14 Fed. Cas. 797— 104, 106, 154, 649. Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518, 537, 540—106, 154, 649. Knowlton v. Des Moines, etc. Co., 90 N. W. 818 (Iowa)— 2832. Knowlton v. Fitch, 52 N. Y. 288—770, 904, 909. Knox V. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610—462, 463, 485. Knox V. Bank of U. S., 26 Miss. 655— 1673. ccx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Knox V. Childersburg Land Co., 86 Ala. 180, 5 South. 578—83, 149, 373. Knox V. Eden Musee Co., 148 N. Y. 441, 42 N. E. 988, 31 L. R. A. 779, 51 Am. St. Rep. 700—645, 820, 821, 827, 843, 884, 2046. Knox V. Eden Musee, etc. Co., 74 Hun, ■ 483, 26 N. Y. Supp. 482—884, 2046. Knox V. Eden Musee, etc. Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 365, 45 N. Y. Supp. 265 ' —645. Knox V. Hyman, 67 L. T. Rep. 137 (1892)— 330. Knox V. Protection Ins. Co., 9 Conn. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 33—69. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, 16 L. Ed. 208—243, 249, 2065. Knox County v. Nichols, 14 Ohio St. 260—248. Knoxville v. Africa, 77 Fed. 501, 507, 508, 23 C. C. A. 252—503, 2170, 2537, 2663, 2664, 2669, 2670, 2671, 2678, 2693, 2695. Knoxville v. Knoxville, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 758—1031, 1034, 1586, 1982, 2569, 2571, 2578, 2582. Knoxville, etc. Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 22 Sup. Ct. 1, 46 L. Ed. 55— 2603. Knoxville, etc. R. R. v. Mayor, 98 Tenn. 1, 37 S. W. 883—193, 380, 585, 588. Knoxville Water Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Knoxville, 23 Sup. Ct. 531—2768. Knutte V. Superior Court, etc., 134 Cal. 660, 66 Pac. 875—2408. Knutter v. N. Y. etc. Co., 52 Atl. 565, 58 L. R. A. 808 (N. J.)— 2834. Kobogum V. Jackson Iron Co., 76 Mich. 498, 43 N. W. 602—83, 196, 348, 1150, 1154. Koch V. North Ave. Ry., 75 Md. 222, 23 Atl. 463, 15 L. R. A. 377—1414, 2660, 2678, 2686, 2689, 2691. Kodak Limited v. Clarke, 87 L. T. Rep. 99 (1902)— 1245, 1539. Koehler, Ex parte, 23 Fed. 529—2611. Koehler v. Black River, etc. Co., 2 Black, 715, 17 L. Ed. 339—1453, 1645, 1804, 1808, 2264. Koehler v. Brown, 31 How. Pr. 235— 1071. Koehler v. Dodge, 31 Neb. 328, 47 N. "W. 913, 28 Am. St. Rep. 518—1839. Koehler v. Hussey, 57 S. W. 241 (Ky.) 223 Koehler v. Sanders, 122 N. Y. 65, 25 N. E. 235, 9 L. R. A. 576—61. Koehler & Co. v. Relnheimer, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 49 N. Y. Supp 755— 1604, 2080. Koenig v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 27 Neb. 699, 43 N. W. 423—1541, 2629. Kohl V. Lilienthal, 81 Cal. 378, 20 Pac. 401, 22 Pac. 689, 6 L. R. A. 520—1561. Kohler v. Agassiz, 99 Cal. 9, 33 Pac. 7411 —410, 411. Kohlmetz v. Calkins, 16 N. Y. App. Div.. 518, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1031—88, 380. Kohn V. Lucas, 17 Mo. App. 29 — 399. Kokomo, etc. Ry. v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry.^ 58 N. E. 211 (Ind.)— 2431. KolfE V. St. Paul Fuel Exchange, 48^ Minn. 215, 50 N, W. 1036—1048. KoUman's, etc. Co. v. Beresford, 2' Macn. & G. 197 (1850)— 343. Kolsky V. Enslen, 103 Ala. 97, 15 South. 558—104, 765. Koons V. First Nat. Bank, 89 Ind. 178: —971, 1254. Koons V. Jeffersonville Nat. Bank, 89> Ind. 178—971, 1254. Koons V. Martin, 66 Hun, 554, 21 N. Y. Supp. 657—421. Korn V. New York El. R. R., 15 N. Y. Supp. 10—2798. Kortright v. Buffalo Com. Bank, 20" "Wend. 91—850, 938, 1131, 1246, 1247. Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668,. 26 L. Ed. 886—2066. Kossakowski v. People, 177 111. 563, 53- N. E. 115—1070, 1082. Koster v. Pain, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 443, 58 N. Y. Supp. 865—379, 1465, 1708. Kothe V. Krag, etc. Co., 20 Ind. App. 293, 50 N. E. 594—1812. ' Kountz V. Gates, 78 Wis. 415, 47 N. W. 729—1341. Kountze v. Flannagan, 19 N. Y. Supp. 33—1344, 1705, 1877. Kountze v. Kennedy, 147 N. Y. 124, 41 N. E. 414, 29 L. R. A. 360, 49 Am. St. Rep. 651—328, 792, 801, 806, 811. Kowalski v. Newark Pass. Ry., 15 N. J. L. J. 50—2826. Kraatz v. Brush Elec. L. Co., 82 Mich. 457, 46 N. W. 787—2832. Kraft V. Freeman, etc. Co., 87 N. Y. 628—1778. Kraft V. Griffon Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 29, 81 N. Y. Supp. 438—117, 161, 1874, 2024. Krakauer v. Locke, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 446, 25 S. W. 700—2336. Kramer v. Arthurs, 7 Pa. St. 165—1084, 1085. Kramer v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 5 Ohio- St. 146—2625. Kramer v. Old, 119 N. C. 1, 25 S. E. 813, 34 L. R. A. 389, 56 Am. St. Rep. 650—1535. Kraniger v. People's Bldg. See, 60 Minn. 94, 61 N. W. 904—1972. Krause v. Malaga, etc. Co., 18 Atl. 36T (N. J.)— 1648, 1652. i Krause v. Setley, 2 Phila. Rep. 32 — 772. Krauser v. Ruckel, 17 Hun, 463—430, 431. TABLE OF CASES. CCXl [The numbers after the dsish refer to the pages of the text,] Krebs v. Carlisle Bank, 2 Wall. (C. C.) 33, 14 Fed. Cas. 856—1433, 1439. Kreiger v. Shelby R. R., 84 Ky. 66— 266. Krelssel v. Distilling Co. etc., 61 N. J. Eq. 5, 47 Atl. 471—1365. Kreitzer v. Crovatt, 94 Ga. 694, 21 S. B. 585—2286. Krlder v. Western College, 31 Iowa, 547 —1780. Kriger v. Hanover Nat. Bank, 72 Miss. 462, 16 South. 351—551, 566. Kroegher v. Callvada, etc. Co., 119 Fed. 641—409, 1490, 1507, 1520, 1848. Kroenert v. Johnston, 19 Wash. 96, 52 Pac. 605—148. Krohn v. Williamson, 62 Fed. 869—99, 758, 1708. Kropholler v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 1 Mc- Crary, 299, 2 Fed. 302—2255, 2503, 2511. Krouse V. Woodward, 110 Cal. 638, 42 Pac. 1084—961, 973. Krueger v. Armitage, 58 N. J. Eq. 357, 44 Atl. 167—327, 814. Krueger v. Wisconsin Tel. Co., 106 Wis. 96, 81 N. W. 1041, 50 L. R. A. 298— 2797. Kruger v. Bank of Commerce, 123 N. C. 16, 31 S. B. 270—2426. Krumbhaar v. Griffiths, 151 Pa. St. 223, 25 Atl. 64—707, 786. Kruse v. Dusenbury, 19 N. Y. Week. Dig. (N. Y. Com. PI.)! 201—514. Kruse v. Humpert, 53 S. W. 657 (Ky.) —497. Krutz V. Paola Town Co., 20 Kan. 397— 495. Kryger v. Andrews, 65 Mich. 405, 35 N. W. 245—108, 116, 789, 1157. Kryger v. Railway, etc. Mfg. Co., 46 Minn. 500, 49 N. W. 255—1505. Kuehner v. Freeport, 143 111. 92, 32 N. B. 372, 17 L. R. A. 774—2720. Kuhl V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 101 Wis. 42, 77 N. W. 155—2689. Kuhn V. McAllister, 1 Utah, 273—808, 1248, 1255. Kuhn V. McKay, 7 Wyo. 42, 49 Pac. 473, 51 Pac. 205—747, 1257, 1264. Kuhns V. Westmoreland Bank, 2 ^atts (Pa.), 136—1125. Kullman v. Greenebaum, 92 Cal. 403, 28 Pac. 674, 27 Am. St. Rep. 150—970. Kullman v. SImmens, 104 Cal. 595, 38 Pac 362 774. Kulp V. Fleming, 65 Ohio St. 321, 62 N. E. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 611—469. Kuney v. Amazon Ins. Co., 36 Hun; 66 —1798, 2746. Kunkel v. Brown, 99 Fed. 593, 39 C. C. A. 665—468. Kunkelman v. Rentchler, 15 111. App. 271—422, 480. N Kurtz V. Philadelphia & R. R. R., 187 Pa. St. 59, 40 Atl. 988—2085, 2230, 2254, 2503, 2515. Kuser v. Wright, 52 N. J. Eq. 825, 31 Atl. 397—1377, 1739, 1746, 1754, 1823, 2142. Kyle V. Fayetteville, 75 N. C. 445 — 1221, 1222. Kyle V. Laurens R. R., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 382, 70 Am. Dec. 231—2640. Kyle V. Montgomery, 73 Ga. 337—999. Kyle V. Southern Bl. L. Co., 174 Pa. St. 570, 34 Atl. 323—2826. Kyle V. Wagner, 45 W. Va. 349, 32 S. E. 213—1644, 1896. Kynaston v. Bast India Co., 3 Swanst. 249 (1819)— 1094. La Banque d' Hochelaga v. Murray, L. R. 15 App. Cas. 414 (1890)— 1406. Lacaff V. Dutch, etc. Co., 72 Pac. 112 (Wash.)— 195. Lacaze v. Creditors, 46 La. Ann. 237, 14 South. 601—1782. Lacey v. Hill, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 921 (1873)— 924, 929. Lacey v. Hill, L. R. 18 Eq. 182 (1874) —924. Lacey v. Marshalltown, 99 Iowa, 367, 68 N. W. 726—2717. Lachrame v. Quartz Rock, etc. Min. Co., 1 H. & C..134 (1862)— 1109, 1947. Lackawanna County v. First Nat. Bank, 94 Pa. St. 221—1215. Lackawanna, etc. Co. v. Bates, 56 Fed. 737—400. Lackawanna, etc. Co. v. Farmers' Loan, etc. Co., 176 U. S. 298, 20 Sup. Ct. 363, 44 L. Bd. 475—2355. Lackland v. North Missouri R. R., 31 Mo. 180—2625. Laclede Gas L. Co. v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 78, 18 Sup. Ct. 505, 42 L. Ed. 955— 2703. Lacombe v. Forstall's Sons, 123 U. S. 562, 8 Sup. Ct. 247, 31 L. Ed. 255— 971. La Compagnie de Mayville v. Whitley (1896), 1 Ch. 788—1380. La Crosse, etc. Co. v. Goddard, 91 N. W. 225 (Wis.)— 81. La Crosse, etc. Ry. v. Higbee, 107 Wis. 389, 83 N. W. 701, 51 L. R. A. 923— 2690. La Crosse R. R. Bridge, In re, 2 Dill. 465, 14 Fed. Cas. 919—2437. Ladd V. Cartwright, 7 Or. 329—454, 492. Ladd V. Chotard, l,Ala. (O. S.) 366 — 2732. Ladd V. Foster, 31 Fed. 827, 12 Sawy. 547—2848. CCXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Ladd V. Franklin, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 59 (R. I.)— 830, 996. Ladd V. Southern, etc. Co., 53 Tex. 172—2790. Ladies', etc. Assoc. Ltd. v. Pulbrook, 81 L. T. Rep. 300 (1899), 2 Q. B. 376 (1900)— 293, 637. Lady Bryan, In re, 1 Sawy. 349, 14 Fed. Cas. 926—34. Lady Forrest, etc.. In re (1901), 1 Ch. 582—1471, 1615. Ladywell Min. Co. v. Brookes, L. R. 35 Ch. D. 400 (1887)— 1470, 1471. La Farge v. Exchange F. Ins. Co., 22 N. Y. 352—69. La Farge v. La Farge F. Ins. Co., 14 How. Pr. 26—1112. La Farge Fire Ins. Co. v. Bell, 22 Barb. 54, 61—1841. Lafayette v. Cox, 5 Ind. 38—242. Lafayetfe Bank v. State Bank, 4 Mc- Lean, 208, Fed. Cas. No. 7,987—1787. Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. 7-38— 1895, 1913. Lafayette, etc. Co. v. City of Streator, 105 Fed. 729—1056. La Fayette, etc. Corp. v. Ryland, 80 Wis. 29, 49 N. W. 157—343. Lafayette, etc. R. v. Cheeney, 87 111. 446—1500. Lafayette, etc. R. R. v. Geiger, 34 Ind. 185—245, 252. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 15 L. Ed. 451—66, 1674, 1956. La Fayette Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 30 Barb. 491—1942. Lafayette Sav. Bank v. St. Louis Stone- ware Co., 2 Mo. App. 299—1978, 2071, 2072. LafCerty's Estate, 154 Pa. St. 430, 26 Atl. 388—1307, 1318. Lafond v. Deems, 81 N. Y. 507—1071, 1090, 1604. Lafourche Police Jury, etc. v. Thibo- daux Bridge Co., 44 La. Ann. 137, 10 South. 677—2725. Lagarde v. Anniston, etc. Co., 126 Ala. 496, 28 South. 199—1517. La Grange v. State Treasurer, 24 Mich. 468—1869, 1876, 1918, 1932. La Grange, etc. Co. v. Mays, 29 Mo. 64 —309. La Grange, etc. Co. v. National Bank, 122 Mo. 154, 26 S. "W. 710, 43 Am. St. Rep'. 558—1637. La Grange, etc. R. R. v. Rainey, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 420—1385, 1393, 1415. Lagrone v. Timmerman, 46 S. C. 372, 24 S. E. 290—508. Lagunas, etc. Co. v. Schroeder & Co., 85 L. T. Rep. 22 (1901)— 1153. Lagunas, etc Co. Ltd. v. Lagunas Syndi- cate, Ltd. (1899), 2 Ch. 392—323, 1459, 1474, 1485, 1514, 1692. Lahr v. Metropolitan, etc. Ry., 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. 528—2688. Lail V. Mt. Sterling j:!. R. Co., 13 Bush (Ky.), 32—358. • Laing v. Burley, 101 111. 591—565. Laing v. Queen City Ry., 49 S. W. 136 (Tex.)— 2054, 2159. Laing v. Reed, L. R. 5 Ch. 4 (1869) — 1969. La Junta, etc. Co. v. Hess, 71 Pac. 415 (Colo.)— 2490. Lake v. Duke of Argyle, 6 Q. B. 477 (1844)— 1699, 1709. Lake v. Ocean City, 62 N. J. L. 160, 41 Atl. 427—2673, 2759. Lake County, etc. v. Dudley, 173 XT. S. 243, 19 Sup. Ct. 398, 43 L. Ed. 684— 1959, 2067, 2229. Lake Brie, etc. R. v. Bailey, 61 Fed. 494—2624. Lake Erie, etc. R. v. Griffin, 92 Ind. 487 —1578, 2535. Lake Erie, etc. R. R. t. Seneca County, 57 Fed. 945—2633. Lake, etc. Co. v. Lindeke, 66 Minn. 209, 68 N. W. 974—539: Lake, etc. R. R. v. Ziegler, 99 Fed. 114, 39 C. C. A. 431—141, 1959, 2004, 2017, 2154, 2177, 2214, 2261, 2497. Lake Koen, etc. Co. v. Klein, 65 Pac. 684 (Kan.)— 2787. Lake Manawa Ry. v. Squire, 89 Iowa, 576, 57 N. W. 307—212. Lake Ontario, etc. Bank v. Onondaga Bank, 7 Hun, 549—1386. Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, 463, 464—213, 218, 273, 284, 285, 290, 298, 342, 346, 356. Lake Ontario Shore R. R. v. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219—217, 232. Lake Roland Elev. Ry. v. Baltimore, 77 Md. 352, 26 Atl. 510, 20 L. R. A. 126—2669. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. v. Bennett, 89 Ind. 457—2620. Lake Shore, etc. R. v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 116 Ind. 578, 19 N. E. 440— 2637. Lake Shore, etc. R. v. Felton, 103 Fed. 227, 43 C. C. A. 189—2421. Lake Shore, etc. R. v. Grand Rapids, 102 Mich. 374, 60 N. W. 767, 29 L. R. A. 195—2601. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285, 19 Sup. Ct. 465, 43 L. Ed. 702— 2604. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 19 Sup.,Ct. 565, 43 L. Ed. 858 —1034, 2587, 2605, 2615. Lake Shore Nat. Bank v. Butler Col- liery Co., 51 Hun, 63, 3 N. Y. Supp. 771—1812. Lake Shore Ry. v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 30 Ohio St. 604—2602. TABLE OF CASES. CCXlll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lakeside, etc. Co. v. Crane, 80 Cal. 181, 22 Pac. 76—1426. Lakeside Paper Co. v. State, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 112, 60 N. Y. Supp. 1081— 2780. Lake Street, etc. R. R. v. Carmichael, 184 111. 348, 56 N. E. 372—1826, 2075. Lake Superior Bldg. Assoc, v. Thoitip- son, 32 Mich. 293—66. Lake Superior, etc. R. R. v. United States, 93 U. S. 442, 23 L. Ed. 965— 2639. Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87—133, 152, 153, 675. Lake View v. Rose Hill Cem. Co., 70 111. 191, 22 Am. Rep. 71—2603. Lakeview, etc. Co. v. San Antonio, etc. Co., 66 S. W. 766 (Tex.)— 1681. Lakewood Gas Co. v. Smith, 51 Atl. 152 (N. J.)— 863, 2041. Lallande v. Ingram, 19 La. Ann. 364 — 935 937. Lamar v. Allison, 101 Ga. 270, 28 S. B. 686—1164, 1438. Lamar v. Micou, 112 V. S. 452, 475, 5 Sup. Ct. 221, 28 L. Ed. 751, 114 U. S. 218, 5 Sup. Ct. 857, 29 L. Ed. 94—716, 726. Lamar, etc. Co. v. Belknap, etc. Bank, 28 Colo. 344, 64 Pac. 210—2199, 2465. Lamar Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 102 111. 41— 407. Lamb v. Anderson, 54 Iowa, 190, 3 N. W. 416, 6 N. W. 268—264. Lamb v. Bowser, 7 Biss. 315, 14 Fed. Cas. 980—1683. Lamb v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 39 Iowa, 333 — 257. Lamb v. Cecil, 25 W. Va. 288—1643. Lamb v. Lamb, 13 Bankr. Reg. 17, 14 Fed. Cas. 1016—1674. Lamb v. Laughlln, 25 W. Va. 300—1650. Lamb v. Pannell, 25 W. Va. 298—1643. Lamb v. Russel, 32 South. 916 (Miss.) —1652. Lamb v. San Pedro, etc. Co., 3 N. M. 632, 9 Pac. 525—1916. Lamb, etc. Co. v. Lamb, 119 Mich. 568, 78 N. "W. 646—759, 830, 955, 1254. Lamb, etc. Co. v. Lamb, etc. Co., 78 N. W. 1072 (Mich.)— 60. Lambert v. Lambert, 11 Ves. Jr. 607 (1806)— 656. Lambert v. Lambert, 29 L. T. (N. S.) 878 (1874)— 1197. Lambert v. Neuchatel Asphalte Co., 51 L. J. (Ch.) 882 (1882)— 1170. Lambert v. Northern Ry., 18 W. R. 180 —1512. Lambertson v. Van Boskerk, 49 How. 266, 4 Hun, 62"S— 919, 942. Lamkin v. Baldwin, etc. Co., 72 Conn. 57, 43 Atl. 593, 1042, 44 L. R. A. 786 —1579, 1756. Lamkin v. Palmer, 164 N. Y. 201, 58 N. B. 123^1552, 1556. Lamkin v. Palmer, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 255, 48 N. Y. Supp. 427—38, 42, 1533, 1552. Lamm v. Parrot, etc. Co., Ill Fed. 241 —1870. Lamm v. Port Deposit Homestead Assoc, 49 Md. 233, 33 Am. Rep. 246— 72. Lamming v. Galusha, 81 Hun, 247, 30 N. Y. Supp. 767, 151 N. Y. 648, 45 N. B. 1132—504, 1424, mZ, 2632. Lamming v. Galusha, 151 N. Y. 648, 45 N. B. 1132—504, 1424, 1613, 2632. Lamoille Valley R. R. v. Fairfield, 51 Vt. 257—242. Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 237 —2191. Lamson v. Beard, 94 Fed. 30, 36 C. C. A. 56, 45 L. R. A. 822—641, 779. Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321, 55 C. C. A. 245—579. Lamson, etc. Co. v. Russell, 112 Mass. 387—1807. Lanaux, Succession of, 46 La. Am. 1036, 15 South. 708, 25 L. R. A. 577—935. Lancashire, etc. Co. v. Greatorex, 14 L. T. Rep. 290 (1866)— 1107. Lancashire, etc. Ry. v. Gidlow, L. R. 7 H. L. Cas. 517 (1875)— 2609. Lancaster, Bx parte, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 911 (1877)— 1308. Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 570, 576, 35 N. E. 964, 24 L. R. A. 322—504, 505, 511, 1428, 1659, 1668, 1671. Lancaster v. Asheville St. Ry., 90 Fed. 129, 839—2224, 2340, 2390. Lancaster v. Knight, 74 App. Div. 255, 77 N. Y. Supp. 488—478, 1657. Lancaster Canal Nav. Co., Ex parte, 1 Dea. & Ch. 411 (1832)— 44, 45. Lancaster County v. Cheraw, etc. R. R., 28 S. C. 134, 5 S. B. 338—248. Lancaster, etc. Co. v. Murray, etc. Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 110, 47 S. W. 387— 1717. Lancaster, etc. Ry. v. Northwestern Ry., 2 K. & J. 293 (1856)— 2597. Lance's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 16, 93 Am. Dec. 722—2625, 2626. Land v. Coffman, 50 Mo. 243—1661, 1662. Landauer v. Sioux, etc. Co., 10 S. Dak. 205, 72 N. W. 467—1977. Land Credit Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. 460 (1869)— 1823. Land Credit Co. v. Permoy, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 763 (1870)— 1693. Land Credit Co. v. Fermoy, L. R. 8 Eq. 7 (1869)— 669. Land Credit Co. v. Fermoy, 17 W. R. 562—1611. CCXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Land Credit, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. 460 (1869)— 1980. Lander v. Burke, 63 N. E. 69 (Ohio)-^ 1209. Landers v. Frank, etc. Church, 97 N. Y. 119—1820. Landers v. Frank, etc. Church, 114 N. Y. 626, 21 N. B. 420—1294. Landes v. Globe, etc. Co., 73 Ga. 176 — 1879. Land, etc. Co. v. Asphalt Co., 114 Fed. 484—2492. Land, etc. Co. v. Asphalt Co., 120 Fed. 996—2492. Land, etc. Co. v. Asphalt Co., 121 Fed. 192—2195. Lalid, etc. Co. v. Asphalt Co., 121 Fed. 587—1481, 2253, 2404, 2509. Land Grant Ry. v. Coffey County, 6 Kan. 245—516, 1672. Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486, 16 S. W. 912, 24 Am. St. Rep. 403—1447, 1861. Landis v. Sea Isle, etc. Co., 53 N. J. Bq. 654, 33 Atl. 964—1484, 1496, 1613, 1688, 1865, 1878, 1888, 2270. Landis v. Western Pa. R. R., 133 Pa. St. 579, 19 Atl. 556—2512. Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Exch. 632 (1852)— 437. Lands Allotment Co., In re (1894), 1 Ch. 616—1612, 1861. Land & C. Co. v. Asphalt Co., 114 Fed. 484—2254, 2492. Lane v. Albertson, 78 N. Y. App. Dlv. 607, 79 N. Y. Supp. 947—1084, 1354. Lane v. Boston, etc. R. R., 112 Mass. 455—1830. Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 — 184, 228, 229, 238, 364, 1286, 1743. Lane v. Broughman, 17 Ohio St. 642, 93 Am. Dec. 653—2301. Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 217, 234—395, 429, 445, 451, 477. Lane v. Loughnan, 7 Vict. L. R. Bq. 19 (1881)— 1195. Lane v. Lutz, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 203— 2152. Lane v. Macon, etc. Ry., 96 Ga. 630, 24 S. E. 157—2313. Lane v. Morris, 8 Ga. 468 — 438, 451. Lane v. Morris, 10 Ga. 162—485. Lane v. Southern, etc. Assoc, 54 S. W. 329 (Tenn.)— 319. Lane v. Washington Hotel Co., 190 Pa. St. 230, 42 Atl. 697—2447. Lane v. Weymouth School Dist., 51 Mass. 462—1932. Lane v. Wheelwright, 69 Hun, 180, 23 N. Y. Supp. 576—1640. Lane v. Wheelwright, 143 N. Y. 634, 37 N. E. 826—1640. Lane's Case, 1 De G., J. & S. 504 (1863)— 546, 620. Lang V. Dougherty, 74 Tex. 226, 12 S. W. 29—37, 1642. Lang V. Lang's Ex'r, 56 N. J. Eq. 603„ 40 Atl. 278—1193. Lang V. Lang's Ex'r, 57 N. J. Eq. 325, 41 Atl. 705—1191, 1193. Lang V. Louisiana Tanning COi, 56 Fed. 675—1442. Langan v. Francklyn, 20 N. Y. Supp. 404—67, 111, 128, 176, 1279, 1307, 1372, 2565. Langan v. Iowa, etc. Constr. Co., 49 Iowa, 317—510, 523. Langdale's Trusts, L. R. 10 Eq. 39 (1870)— 658. Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. 449, 2 L. R. A. 120—681. Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. 5, 21 Blatchf. 392, 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 435—108, 164, 166, 1899. Langdon v. Hillside, etc. Co., 41 Fed. 609—1934. Langdon v. New York, etc. R. R., 9 N. Y. Supp. 245—2606. Langdon y. New York, etc. R. R., 58 Hun, 122, 11 N. Y. S. 514—2610. Langdon v. Patterson, 158 Pa. St. 476, 27 Atl. 998—1295. Langdon t. Vermont, etc. R. R., 53 Vt. 228—2494. ' Langdon v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 54 Vt. 593, 603, 613—2388, 2494. Lange v. Burke, 69 Ark. 85, 61 S. W. 165—1538, 1726. Langford v. Ottumwa W. P. Co., 59 Iowa, 283, 13 N. W. 303—398. Langhorne v. Richmond, etc. Ry., 91 Va. 369, 22 S. E. 357—2590. Langley v. Boston, etc. R. R., 76 Mass. 103—2556, 2581. Langsdale v. Bonton, 12 Ind. 467 — 1761. Langston v. Boylston, 2 Vesey, Jr. 101 (1793)— 862. Langston v. South Carolina R. R., 2 S. C. 248—2043, 2054, 2061, 2062. Lang Syne, etc. Co. v. Ross, 20 Nev. 127, 18 Pac. 358, 19 Am. St. Rep. 337 —1495. Langton v. Waite, L. R. 6 Eq. 165 (1868)— 916, 955, 958, 969. Lanier Lumber Co. v. Rees, 103 Ala. 622, 16 South. 637, 49 Am. St. Rep. 57—689, 1124. Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62, 63 S. W. 62—469. Lankershim, etc. Co. t. Herberger, 82 Cal. 600, 23 Pac. 134—291, 1128. Lankester's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 905 (1870)— 580. Lanning v. Osborne, 76 Fed. 319, 79 Fed. 657—2401, 2406, 2617, 2768, 2786. Lansing v. Lansing, etc. Ry., 109 Mich. 123, 66 N. W. 949—2717. TABLE OF CASES. ccxv [The numbers otter the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lantry v. Wallace, 182 V. S. 536, 21 Sup. Ct. 878, 45 L. Ed. 1218—340, 489, 546, 678, 803. Lantry v. Wallace, 97 Fed. 865, 38 C. C. A. 510—339. Lanyon v. Smith, 3 B. & S. 938 (1863) —1079. Lanzit v. J. W. Sefton, etc. Co., 184 111. 326, 56 N. E. 393, 75 Am. St. Rep. 171—1045. Laramee v. Tanner, 69 Minn. 156, 71 N. W. 1028—224. Lare v. Westmoreland Specialty Co., 155 Pa. St. 33, 25 Atl. 812—808. Laredo Imp. Co. v. Stevenson, 66 Fed. 633, 13 C. C. A. 661—615. Laredo v. International, etc. Co., 66 Fed. 246, 14 C. C. A. 1—2733. Larimer, etc. Ry. v. Larimer St. Ry., 137 Pa. St. 533, 20 Atl. 570—2679. Larned v Beal, 65 N. H. 184, 23 Atl. 149—500. Larocque v. Beauchemin (1897), A. C. 358—131. Larrabee v. Badger, 45 111. 440—1256. Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 155, 168 — 419, 427, 429, 475, 567, 570. Larsen v. James, 1 Colo. App. 313, 29 Pac. 183—463. Larson v. Aultman, etc. Co., 86 Wis. 281, 56 N. W. 915, 39 Am. St. Rep. 893—1950. Larwell v. Hanover Sav. Fund Soc, 40 Oliio St. 274—1969, 1970. Lasater v. Purcell, etc. Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 33, 54 S. W. 425—515. Lasher v. Stimson, 145 Pa. St. 30, 23 Atl. 552—1679. Latham v. Houston Flour Mills, 68 Tex. 127, 3 S. W. 462—1817. Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry Co., 72 L. T. Rep. 790 (1895)— 2457. Lathrop v. Junction R. R., 4 Fed. 41 — 2595, 2609. Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. 432 — 192, 380, 614. Lathrop v. McBurney, 71 Ga. 815 — 993. Lathrop v. Scioto Comm. Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.), 114, 115, 33 .Am. Dec. 481—1629, 1660, 1668, 1737, 1802, 1851, 1951. Lathrop v. Union Pac. Ry., 1 MacArth. 234—1953. Latimer v. Bard, 76 Fed. 536—444, 490, 631. Latimer v. Citizens' State Bank, 102 Iowa, 162, 71 N. W. 225—396, 397, 548, 686. Latimer v. Eddy, 46 Barb. 61—1387, 1914. Latimer v. Equitable, etc. Assoc, 78 Mo. App. 463—1183. Latimer v. Herzog, etc. Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 522, 78 N. Y. Supp. 314— 1101. Latimer v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 39 S. C. 44, 17 S. E. 258—1904. Latimer v. Union Pac. Ry., 43 Mo. 105, 97 Am. Dec. 378—1953. Latourette v. Clark, 51 N. Y. 639—1761. Latrobe v. Western Tel. Co., 74 Md. 232, 21 Atl. 686, 788—1434, 2811. Latta V. Lonsdale, 107 Fed. 585, 47 C. C. A. 1, 52 L. R. A. 479—429. Latta V. Tutton, 122 Cal. 279, 54 Pac. 844, 68 Am. St. Rep. 30—975, 980. Lauder v. Logan, 123 Pa. St. 34, 16 Atl. 44—521. Lauder v. Tillia, 117 Pa. St. 304, 11 Atl. 86—398. Lauderdale County v. Fargason, 7 Lea, 153—248. Laudman v. Entwistle, 7 Exch. 632 (1852)— 1699. Lauferty v. Wheeler, 11 Abb. N. Cas. 223—524. Laughlin v. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 64 Fed. 25—2465. Lauman v. Lebanon, etc. R. R., 30 Pa. St. 42, 72 Am. Dec. 685—1026, 1032, 1041, 1385, 1554, 1562, 1563, 2583, 2568. Lauraglenn Mills v. Ruff, 57 S. C. 53, 35 S. B. 387, 49 L. R. A. 448—479. Laurel Fork, etc. R. R. v. West Vir- ginia, etc. Co., 25 W. Va. 324—2610. Laurel Springs, etc. Co. v. Fougeray, 57 N. J. Eq. 318, 41 Atl. 694—1690. Laurel Springs Land Co. v. Fougeray, 50 N. J. Eq. 756, 26 Atl. 886—1161, 1509, 1918. Lauter v. Jarvis, etc. Co., 85 Fed. 894, 29 C. C. A. 473—1680. Law V. Alley, 29 Atl. 636 (N. H.) — 1191. Law V. Rich, 47 W. Va. 634, 35 S. E. 858—1394, 1438. Lawes' Case, 1 De G., M. & G. 421 (1852)— 545. Law, etc. Soc. v. Hogue, 37 Greg. 544, 62 Pac. 380, 63 Pac. 690—1942, 1945. Law Guarantee, etc. Soc. v. Bank of England, L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 406 (1890) —866. Lawler v. Burt, 7 Ohio St. 340—461, 463, 482. Lawrence, Ex parte, 36 L. J. (Ch.) 490 (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. App. 412—335. Lawrence v. Gebhard, 41 Barb. 575 — 1733. Lawrence v. Greenup, 97 Fed. 906, 38 C. C. A. 546—33, 1178, 1179, 1439, 2012. Lawrence v. Greenwich F. Ins. Co. 1 Paige, 587—1382, 1388, 1623, 1926. CCXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lawrence v. Hennessy, 165 Mo. 659, 65 S. W. 717—2738. Lawrence v. Holmes, etc., 45 Fed. 357 — 1839. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 42 N. H. 109 — 2048. Lawrence v. Maxwell, 58 Barb. 511, 6 Lans. 469, 53 N. Y. 19—943. Lawrence v. Maxwell, 53 N. Y. 19—957, 975. Lawrence v. Morgan's, etc. Co., 39 La. Ann. 427, 2 South. 69, 4 Am. St. Rep. 265—2599. Lawrence v. Nelson, 21 N. Y. 158—382, 479. Lawrence v. Stearns, 79 Fed. 878—1688. Lawrence County Bank v. Arndt, 69 Ark. 406, 65 S. W. 1052—1816. Lawrence, etc. Co. v. Rockbridge Co., 47 Fed. 755—2374. Lawrence's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 412 (1867)— 317. Lawrencevllle Cement Co. v. Parker, 10 N. Y. Supp. 831—1624. Lawson v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 30 Wis. 597—249, 259. Lawson v. Stanley, 15 N. Y. Supp. 707 —1880. Lawton v. Kittridge, 30 N. H. 500—784. Lawyer v. Rosebrook, 48 Hun, 453, 1 N. Y. S. 594—473. Laxon, In re, 1 Ch. 210 (1892)— 34. Laxon, In re (1892), 3 Ch. 555—542. Lay V. Austin, 25 Fla. 933, 7 South. 143 —1815. Laybourn v. Seymour, 53 Minn. 105, 54 N. W. 941, 39 Am. St. Rep. 579— 2408. Laj'ng V. A. French Spring Co., 149 Pa. St. 308, 24 Atl. 215—690. Lazare v. Allen, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 616, 47 N. Y. Supp. 340—923. L. D. Garrett Co. v. Morton, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 366, 73 N. Y. Supp. 40— 740, 791, 1390. Lea V. American Atlantic, etc. Canal Co., 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 1—1394. Lea V. Geo. M. West Co., 91 Fed. 237— 2368, 2394. Lea V. Iron, etc Co., 119 Ala. 271, 24 South. 28—16, 149, 412, 2406. Leach v. Fobes, 77 Mass. 506, 71 Am. Dec 732 753. Leach v. People, 122 111. 420, 12 N. E. 726—1737. Leader, etc. Co. v. Lowry, 9 Okla. 89, 59 Pac. 242—1941. Leadville Water Co. v. Leadville, 22 Colo. 297, 45 Pac. 362—2768. Leahy v. Lobdell, etc. Co., 80 Fed. 665, 26 C. C. A. 75—919, 988. lieake v. Philadelphia, 150 Pa. St. 643, 24 Atl. 351—2719. Leake v. Watson, 58 Conn. 332, 20 Atl. 343, 8 L. R. A. 666, 18 Am. St. Rep. 270—912. Lean v. Lean, 32 L. T. Rep. 305 (1875) —1197. Lear v. Paige, etc. Co., 42 S. W. 808 (Tenn.)— 334. Learned v. Burlington, 2 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 394—253. Leary v. Columbia River, etc. Co., 82 Fed. 775—1870, 1871, 2375. Leary y. Interstate, etc. Bank, 63 S. W. 149 (Tex.)— 1488, 1753. Lease v. Barschall, 106 Fed. 762—444. Leas Hotel Co., In re (1902), 1 Ch. 332 —2299. Leasure v. Union, etc. Ins. Co., 91 Pa. St. 491—1951. Leatherman v. Times Co., 88 Ky. 291, 11 S. W. 12, 3 L. R. A. 324, 21 Am. St. Rep. 342—1938. Leathers v. Janney, 41 La. Ann. 1120, 6 South. 884, 6 L. R. A. 661—949, 1513, 1565. Leathers v. Shipbuilders' Bank, 40 Me. 387—2430. Leavenworth v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 134 U. S. 688, 10 Sup. Ct. 708, 33 L. Ed. 1064—1458, 1525, 1863, 2558. Leavenworth v. Norton, 1 Kan. 432 — 253. Leavenworth Coal Co. v. Ratchford, 5 Kan. App. 150, 48 Pac. 927—2829. Leavenworth County v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 18 Fed. 209, 5 McCrary, 508— 1853. Leavenworth County v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 219—22, 2075, 2264, 2265, 2558, 2577. Leavenworth County v. Miller, 7 Kan. 479, 12 Am. Rep. 425—242, 243, 245, 249, 253. Leavenworth, etc. R. R. v. Douglas County, 18 Kan. 169—245, 257. Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521, 5 Barb. 9—1081, 1977, 2106. Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 1 — 845, 850, 860. Leavitt v. Oxford, etc. Co., 3 Utah, 265, 1 Pac. 356—518, 1751, 1762. Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19, 51 Am. Dec. 333—1626, 1980. Leavitt v. Pell, 27 Barb. 322—84. Leavitt v. Tylee, 1 Sandf. Ch. 207— 1081. Leavitt v. Yates, 4 Edw. Ch. 134—1081, 1627, 1733, 1744. Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 313—1661, 1662, 1809. Lebanon, etc. v. Dyckman, 57 S. W. 227 (Ky.)— 1717. Lebanon, etc. Co. v. Adair, 85 Ind. 244 —1740. TABLE OF CASES. ccxvn [The numbers after the dash refer to the p.ages of the text.] Lebanon Sav. Bank v. Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 322, 13 N. W. 145—1669. Lebby v. Ahrens, 26 S. C. 275, 2 S. E. 387—1085. Lebeck v. Ft. Payne Bank, 115 Ala. 447, 22 South. 75, 67 Am. St. Rep. 51— 1164, 1587, 2177. Le Blanc, In re, 14 Hun, 8—1152, 2304. Le Blanc, In re, 75 N. Y. 598—1152, 2304. Lecbmere Bank v. Boynton, 65 Mass. 369—1271. Le Croy v. Eastman, 10 Mod. 499 (1722)— 954. Ledoux V. La Bee, 83 Fed. 761—2343. Ledwicb v. McKim, 53 N. Y. 307—1992, 2045. Lee V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 2 Gin. Super. Ct. (Obio) 298, 306—825, 979, 999, 1117,' 1134. Lee V. Imbrie, 13 Oreg. 510, 11 Pac. 270 —239. Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalte Co., L. R. 41 Ch. D. 1, 20, 22, 24 (1889)— 1170. Lee V. Pennsylvania, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 405—2358. Lee V. Pittsburgh Coal, etc. Co., 75 N. Y. 601—1772. Lee V. Pittsburgh Coal, etc. Co., 56 How. Pr. 373—1772. Lee V. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 56 How. Pr. 375—1799. Lee V. Southern Pac. R. R., 116 Cal. 97, 47 Pac. 932, 38 L. R. A. 71, 58 Am. St. Rep. 140—2581. Lee V. Sturges, 46 Ohio, 153, 19 N. E. 560, 2 L. R. A. 556—1209. Leech v. Harris, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 571 — 1072, 1075. Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181, 19 L. Ed. 160—244. Leeds v. Atlantic City, 52 N. J. L. 332, 19 Atl. 780, 8 L. R. A. 697—1331. Leeds v. New York, etc. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 484, 72 N. Y. Supp. 250— 2829 Leeds.'etc. Co., In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 488 (1902)— 103, 315, 793, 1475. Leeds, etc. Ry. 'v. Fearnley, 4 Exch. 26 (1849)— 206. Leek's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 469 (1871)— 1467. Leep V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 75, 23 L. R. A. 264, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109—2603. Lee's Bank of Buffalo, In re, 21 N. Y. 9—1432. Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434 — 5. Le Fevre v. Matthews, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 232, 57 N. Y. Supp. 128—2415. Lefroy v. Gore, 1 Jo. & Lat. 571 (1844) —1700, 1702. Legendre v. New Orleans Brewing Assoc, 45 La. Ann. 669, 12 South. 837, 40 Am. St. Rep. 243—1095, 1097. Leggett V. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 N. Y. 283—1115, 1116, 1123. Leggett V. New Jersey, etc. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 541, 23 Am. Dec. 728—1769, 1807, 1808. Legrand v. Hampden-Sidney College, 5 Munf. (Va.) 324—1802. Legrand v. Manhattan, etc. Assoc, 80 N. Y. 638—1512. Lehigh Bridge Co. v. Lehigh Coal, etc. Co., 4 Rawle (Pa.), 8, 23, 26 Am. Dec. 111—69, 1394. Lehigh Coal, etc. Co. v. Central R. R., 43 Hun, 546—2374. Lehigh Coal, etc. Co. v. Scranton "Water Co., 6 Pa. Dist. 291—2782. Lehigh Crane Iron Co. v. Common- wealth, 55 Pa. St. 448—1136, 1231. Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Central R. R., 34 N. J. Eq. 88—2070, 2520. Lehigh, etc. "Co. v. Central R. R., 35 N. J. Eq. 379, 426, 38 N. J. Eq. 175, 41 N. J. Eq. 167, 3 Atl. 134—2406, 2432. Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Inter-County, etc. Ry., 167 Pa. St. 75, 31 Atl. 471—2683, 2684. Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 327, 16 Sup. Ct. 307, 40 L. Ed. 444— 513, 1963. Lehigh, etc. Ry. Co.'s Appeal, 129 Pa. St. 405, 18 Atl. 414, 498, 5 L. R. A. 367—1971, 1972. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Hamblen, 23 Fed. 225—59. Lehigh Valley R. R. v. McFarlan, 31 N. J. Eq. 706—2625. Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Orange Water Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 205, 7 Atl. 659— 2763. Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Penn, 145 U. S. 192, 12 Sup. Ct. 806, 36 L. Ed. 672— 1242. Lehigh Water Co.'s Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 515—2763. Lehman v. Feld, 37 Fed. 852—778. Lehman v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618, 6 South. 44—187, 386, 387, 417. Lehman v. Knapp, 48 La. Ann. 1148, 20 South. 674—434, 526, 527, 1614. Lehman v. Strassburger, 2 Woods, 554, 15 Fed. Cas. 254—776, 779. Lehman v. Tallassee Mfg. Co., 64 Ala. 567, 598, 601, 602—1984, 2043, 2049, 2106, 2245, 2307, 2364, 2482. Leif child's Case, L. R. 1 Eq. 231 (1865) —529, 1607. Leigh V. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 104 Ga. 13, 30 S. E. 381—381. Leighton v. Campbell, 17 R. I. 51, 20 Atl. 14, 9 L. R. A. 187—432, 437. Leighty v. Susquehanna, etc Tump, Co., 14 Serg. & R. 434—357. Leinkauf v. Caiman, 110 N. Y. 50, 17 N. E. 389—1801. CCXVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Leltch V. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585, 586—704, 727, 829, 832, 883, 888, 938, 1199. Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 542—671, 1193, 1194. Lellyett v. Brooks, 62 S. W. 596 (Tenn.)— 345. Leloup V. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 Sup. Ct. 1380, 32 L. Ed. 311—2839. Le Marchant v. Moore, 79 Hun, 352, 29 N. y. Supp. 484—965. Le Marchant v. Moore, 150 N. Y. 209, 44 N. B. 770—918, 965. Lemon v. Pullman, etc. Co., 52 Fed. 262—2788. Lenawee, etc. Bank v. Adrian, 66 Mich. 273, 33 N. W. 304—1216. Lengel v. American, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 19—111, 1869. L'Bngle v. Florida, etc. R. R., 14 Fla. 266—2494. Lennon, In re, 150 U. S. 393, 14 Sup. Ct. 123, 37 L. Ed. 1120—2624. Lennox, etc. Co., In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 791 (1890)- 326. Lennox Publishing Co., In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 791 (1890)— 337. Lenoir v. Linville, etc. Co., 126 N. C. 922, 36 S. B. 185, 51 L. R. A. 146— 1443. Xienoir v. Linville Imp. Co., 117 N. C. 471, 23 S. E. 442—2493. Leo V. Union Pac. Ry., 17 Fed. 273— 1297, 1895, 1906, 1913, 2108. Leo V. Union Pac. Ry., 19 Fed. 283— 1297, 1895, 1906, 1913. Leominster, etc. Co. v. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry., 3 K. & J. 654 (1857)— 1713. Leonard v. Burlington, etc. Assoc, 55 Iowa, 594, 8 N. W. 463—1791. Leonard v. Davenport, 58 How. Pr. 384 —1080. Leonard v. Faber, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 495, 65 N. Y. Supp. 391—189, 1842, 1844. Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707, 4 L. R. A. 728, 11 Am. St. Rep. 667—1341. Leonard v. Spencer, 108 N. Y. 338, 15 N. B. 397—37. ' Leonard v. Washburn, 100 Mass. 251 — r956, 2745. Leonard, etc. Co. v. Bank of America, 86 Fed. 502, 30 C. C. A. 221—1581, 2107. Leonard's Estate, In re, 95 Mich. 295, 54 N. W. 1082—41. Leonardsville Bank v. Willard, 25 N. Y. 574—370, 1417, 1418, 1944. Leonhard v. John Hope, etc. Co., 21 R. I. 449, 44 Atl. 305—994. Leonhardt v. Citizens' Bank of Ulysses, 56 Neb. 38, 76 N. W. 452—1460. Leotl Nat. Bank v. Fisher, 45 Kan. 726 26 Pac. 482—1222. Le Page Co. v. Russia Cement Co., 51 Fed. 941, 2 C. C. A. 555, 17 L. R. A. 354—1535. Le Roy v. Globe Ins. Co., 2 Edw. Ch. 637—1153, 1154, 1175. Leroy, etc. R. R. v. Sidell, 66 Fed. 27, 13 C. C. A. 308—1776, 2075, 2657. Lesassier v. Kennedy, 36 La. Ann. 539 —574. Lesher v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 302, 24 N. B. 882—235, 376. Leslie, In re, 58 N. J. L. 609, 33 Atl. 9S'4— 1338, 1372. Leslie v. Goodhue, 69 Hun, 71, 23 N. Y. Supp. 389—2291. Leslie v. Lorillard, 110 N. Y. 519, 18 N. E. 363, 1 L. R.. A. 456—1052, 1547, 1593, 1607, 1623, 2598, 2643. Leslie v. Lorillard, 31 Hun, 305—1904. Lesseps v. Architects' Co., 4 La. Ann. 316—289, 297. Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 30 N. E. 821, 34 Am. St. Rep. 556—772. Lester v. Howard Bank, 33 Md. 558, 3 Am. Rep. 211—1628. Lester v. Webb, 83 Mass. 34—1733, 1784. Lester, etc. v. Bemis, etc. Co., 74 S. W. 518 (Ark.)— 148, 688. Levant Trustees v. Parks, 10 Me. 441 — 67. Levasseur v. Mason, 63 L. T. Rep. 700 — 2427. Levasseur v. Mason (1891), 2 Q. B. 73 —2427. Level Land Co. v. Hayward, 95 Wis. 109, 69 N. W. 567—193. Levering v. Bimel, 146 Ind. 545, 45 N. B. 775—1659. Levering v. Mayor, etc., 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 553—1801, 1807. Levi V. Evans, 57 Fed. 677, 6 C. C. A. 500—208, 709, 710, 939, 1367. Levi V. Lynn, etc. R. R., 93 Mass. 300, 87 Am. Dec. 713—2715. Levick's Case, 40 L. J. (Ch.) 180 (1870)— 191. Le Vie v. Fenlon, 39 N. Y. Misc. 265, 79 N. Y. Supp. 496—756. Levins v. Peeples, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 733 (Tenn.)— 1497, 1574. Levis V. Newton, 75 Fed. 884—2740. Levlsee v. Shreveport City R. R., 27 La. Ann. 641—1506. Levita's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 36 (1867)— 190. Levitt V. Hamblet (1901), 2 K. B. 53— 916. Levy V. Abercorris, etc. Co., L. R. 37 Ch. D. 260 (1887)— 2092, 2093, 2094. Levy V. Loeb, 85 N. Y. 365—907. Levy V. Loeb, 89 N. Y. 386, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 61—907, 927. TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] CCXIX 3-ievy V. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 54 Hun, 315, 7 N. Y. Supp. 562—2744. Xievy, etc- Co. v. KaufEman, 114 Fed. 170, 52 C. C. A. 126—1836. Lewarne v. Mexican Int. Imp. Co., 38 Fed. 629—1900. Xie Warne v. Meyer, 38 Fed. 191 — 107, 509, 1882, 1890. XiBwey's Island R. R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451, 77 Am. Dec. 236—295, 298, 299, 300, 358, 363. liewis. In re, 42 Hun, 542—2207. Lewis, In re, 52 Kan. 660, 35 Pac. 287 —1924. Lewis V. American, etc. Co., 119 Fed. 391—2227, 2393, 2394, 2399. Lewis V. Bank of Kentucky, 12 Ohio, 132, 40 Am. Dec. 469—1942, 1950. Lewis V. Barbour County, 105 U. S. 739, 26 L. Ed. 993—244. Lewis V. Board of Freeholders, 28 Atl. 553 (N. J.)— 2707. Lewis V. Brainerd, 53 Vt. 510, 519— 1093, 1095, 1105. Lewis V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 49 Fed. 708 —2655. Lewis V. Clarendon, 5 Dillon, 329, 15 Fed. Cas. 474—249, 269. Lewis V. Coates, 93 Mo. 170, 5 S. W. 897—767. Liewis V. Glenn, 84 Va. 947, 6 S. E. 866 —187, 386, 1643. Ojewis V. Graham, 4 Abb. Pr. 106—934, 969, 981, 982, 984, 987. Lewis V. Hartford Mfg. Co., 56 Conn. 25, 12 Atl. 637—2147. 'Lewis V. Hillsboro, etc. Co., 23 S. W. 338 (Tex.)— 41, 342. Xewis V. Linden, etc. Co., 183 Pa. St. 248, 38 Atl. 606—2464. Lewis V. Meier, 14 Fed. 311, 4 McCrary, 286—70, 122, 1455. Lewis V. Montgomery, 145 111. 30, 33 N. E. 880—1976. Lewis V. Mott, 36 N. Y. 394—958. Lewis V. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 8 Colo. App. 368, 46 Pac. 621—1813. Xiewis V. N. Y. etc. Iron Co., N. Y. L. J., April 30, 1890—104. Lewis V. Robertson, 21 Miss. 558 — 393 Lewis V. Ryder, 13 Abb. Pr. 1—486. 'Lewis V. St. Albans, etc. Works, 50 Vt. 477—1111, 1497. Xiewis V. St. Charles County, 5 Mo. App. 225—426. Lewis r. Seifert, 116 Pa. St. 628, 11 Atl. 514, 2 Am. St. Rep. 631—2418. Xiewis V. Shreveport, 108 U. S. 282, 2 Sup. Ct. 634, 27 L. Ed. 728—242, 243. Lewis V. Switz, 74 Fed. 381—530, 545, 678. X.ewis V. Tilton, 64 Iowa, 220, 19 N. W. 911, 52 Am. Rep. 436—1085. Lewis V. United States, 92 U. S. 618, 23 L. Ed. 513—965, 1987. Lewis V. Weidenfeld, 114 Mich. 581, 72 N. "W. 604—1701, 2327. Lewis V. Wilson, 121 N. Y. 284, 24 N, E. 474—1074. Lewis, etc. Co., In re, 89 Hun, 208, 34 N. Y. Supp. 983—2396. Lewisohn Bros. v. Anaconda, etc. Co., 29 N. Y. App. Div. 552, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1089—1899. Lewiston, etc. Co. v. Asotin County, 24 Wash. 371, 64 Pac. 544—1216. Lewis's Case, 28 L. T. (N. S.) 396 (1873)— 283. Lex V. Potter, 16 Pa. St. 295—996. Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. 282, 20 L. Ed. 809—2066. Lexington, etc. Ins. Co. v. Page, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 412, 66 Am. Dec. 165— 1174, 1177, 1181, 1182. Lexington, etc. R. R. v. Bridges, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 556, 46 Am. Dec. 528— 1185. Lexington, etc. R. R. v. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311—285, 298, 299, 360, 367. Lexington, etc. R. R. v. Staples, 71 Mass. 520—299. Leyson v. Davis, 170 U. S. 36, 18 Sup. Ct. 500, 42 L. Ed. 939—664, 844, 937, 1008. Leyson v. Davis, 17 Mont. 220, 42 Pac. 775, 31 L. R. A. 429—664. Libbey v. Hodgson, 9 N. H. 394—1955. Libby v. Mt. Monadnock, etc. Co., 32 Atl. 772 (N. H.)— 115. Libby v. Mt. Monadnock, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 444, 44 Atl. 602—84, 309. Libby v. Tobey, 82 Me. 397, 19 Atl. 904 —157, 399, 434, 554. Liberty, etc. Bank v. Otter View, etc. Co., 96 Va. 352, 31 S. E. 511—179, 387. Liberty, etc. Co. v. Furbush, etc. Co., 80 Fed. 631, 26 C. C. A. 38—2337. Liberty Female College Assoc, v. Wat- kins, 70 Mo. 13—438. Licausi v. Ashworth, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 486, 79 N. Y. Supp. 631—1936. Licensed, etc. Assoc, In re, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 1 (1889)— 56, 116. Licensed Victuallers', etc. Assoc, In re, , L. R. 42 Ch. D. 1 (1889)— 116. iiieberman v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 141 111. 140, 30 N. E. 544—2659. Liebke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 22, 49 Am. Rep. 212—82, 307. Liebscher v. Kraus, 74 Wis. 387, 43 N. W. 166, 5 L. R. A. 496, 17 Am. St. Rep. 171—1815. Life Assoc, In re, 96 Mo. 632, 10 S. W. 69—2302. Life Assoc, v. Fassett, 102 111. 315— 1433, 1446. ccxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Mechanic F. Ins. Co., 7 Wend. 31—1625, 1773, 1969. Ligare v. Chicago, 139 111. 46, 28 N. B. 934, 32 Am. St. Rep. 179—2701. Liggett v. Glenn, 51 -Fed. 381, 2 C. C. A. 286—187, 189, 279, 411, 2221. Liggett V. Ladd, 17 Oreg. 89, 21 Pac. 133—1088. Lighte V. Everett F. Ins. Co., 5 Bosw. 716—1942. Lightfoot V. Creed, 8 Taunt. 268 (1818) —804. Lighthall, etc. Co., In re, 47 Hun, 258 —1293, 1305. Lightner v. Boston, etc. R. R., 15 Fed. Cas. 514—2591. Lightner's Appeal, 82 Pa. St. 301—938. Ligonier R. R. v. Williams, 35 Leg. Int. 40—231. Lillard v. Decatur, etc. Co., 36 S. W. 792 (Tex.)— 223. Lillard v. Porter, 2 Head (Tenn.), 177 —1936, 1937. Lilley v. Rankin, 55 L. T. Rep. 814 (1886)— 781. Lilly V. Cumberland County Com'rs, 69 N. C. 300—1220. Lima Gas Co. v. Lima, 4 Ohio C. C. 22 —2740. Limburger v. San Antonio, etc. Ry., 30 S. W. 533 (Tex.)— 2692. Limer v. Traders' Co., 44 W. Va. 175, 28 S. B. 730—1748. Limerick Academy v. Davis, 11 Mass. 113, 6 Am. Dec. 162—1801. Lime Rock Bank v. Macomher, 29 Me. 564—1798. Limited Inv. Assoc, v. Glendale Inv. Assoc, 99 Wis. 54, 74 N. W. 633— 1478. Lincoln v. Cambria Iron Co., 103 U. S. 412, 26 L. Ed. 518—259. Lincoln v. Carroll, 73 N. W. 173 (Minn.)— 1036. Lincoln v. Lincoln Street Ry., 77 Fed. 6.58—2417. Lincoln v. New Orleans Bxp. Co., 45 La. Ann. 729, 12 South. 937—634. Lincoln v. Wright, 23 Pa. St. 76, 62 Am. Dec. 316—286. Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529, 10 Sup. Ct. 363, 33 L. Bd. 766— 247. Lincoln, etc. Bank v. Richardson, 1 Me. 79, 10 Am. Dec. 34—8, 1030, 1291, 1448. Lincoln, etc. Co., In re, 190 Pa. St. 124, 42 Atl. 538—1437, 1566. Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Neb. 279, 62 N. W. 480—87, 184, 360. Lincoln, etc. Ry. v. City of Lincoln, 61 Neb. 109, 84 N. W. 802—2718. Lincoln Nat. Bank v, Portland, 82 Me. 99, 19 Atl. 102—2526. Llncott V. Northwood, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 260, 44 Atl. 392—89, 349. Linden, etc. Co. v. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 107 Wis. 493, 83 N. W. 851—2671, 2684, 2691, 2694. Linder v. Carpenter, 62 III. 309—1463. Linder v. Hartwell R. R., 73 Fed. 320- —2134, 2245. Linderman v. Hastings, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 488, 56 N. Y. Supp. 456 —1650, 1810. Lindsay v. First Nat. Bank, 156 U. S. 485, 15 Sup. Ct. 472, 39 L. Ed. 505— 1228. Lindsay v. Gladstone, L. R. 9 Eq. 132 (1869)— 1103. Lindsay v. Hyatt, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 97—482, 487. Lindsay, etc. Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 20 Sup. Ct. 325, 44 L. Bd. 400— 505. Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, L. R. 5 P. C. 221 (1874)— 1474, 1476, 1479. Lindsley v. Simonds, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 69—395, 486. Lingard v. Bromley, 1 Ves. & B. Ill (1812)— 1931. Lingle v. National Ins. Co., 45 Mo. 109 -^480, 1519. Link, etc. Co. v. Hughes, 174 111. 155, 51 N. B. 179—2447. Links V. Connecticut, etc. Co., 66 Conn. 277, 33 Atl. 1003—414, 2406. Linn v. Joseph, etc. Co., 59 N. J. L. 28, 35 Atl. 2—2430. Linnard's Appeal, 6 East. (Pa.) 877— 796. Linne Regis, Case of, 10 Co. 122b, 125b (1613)— 65. Linville v. Hadden, 88 Md. 594, 41 Atl. 1097, 43 L. R. A. 222—2395, 2426. Lionberger v. Broadway Sav. Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499—411. Lionberger v. Rouse, 9 Wall. 468, 19 L. Bd. 721—1221, 1227. Lionberger v. Rowse, 43 Mo. 67 — 1213. Lion, etc. Ins. Assoc, v. Tucker, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 176—520. Lippincott v. Pana, 92 HI. 24—253, 257. Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co., 25- Fed. 577—1649, 1654. Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co., 34 Fed. 570—1656. Lippitt V. American, etc. Co., 15 R. I. 141—1000. Lippitt V. American Wood Paper Co., 14 R. I. 301—1013. Liquidators, etc. v. Douglas, 32 Scot. Jur. 212 (I860)— 1694. Liscomb v. Manchester, etc. R. R., 70' N. H. 312, 48 Atl. 284—663. Lishmann's Claim, 23 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 759 (1870)— 278, 699. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lisman v. Michigan, etc. Co., 50 N. Y. App. Div. 311, 63 N. Y. Supp. 999— 2136. List V. Wheeling, 7 W. Va. 501—253. Lister v. Lister & Sons, 68 L. T. Rep. 826 (1893)— 1995, 2098. Lister v. Weelts, 60 N. J. Eq. 215, 46 Atl. 558, 61 N. J. Eq. 623, 47 Atl. 588 (N. J.)— 717, 719, 1201, 1315. Litchfield v. White, 3 Sandf. Super. 545—1694. Litchfield Bank v. Church, 29 Conn. 137—308, 334, 344, 354, 363, 364, 1944. Litchfield Bank v. Peck, 29 Conn. 384 —338. Litchfield Iron Co. v. Bennett, 7 Cow. 234—1736. Litchfield's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 141 (1850)— 541. Liter v. Ozokerite Min. Co., 7 Utah, 487, 27 Pac. 690—495, 1418. Littell T. Scranton, etc. Co., 42 Pa. St. 500—1012. Little V. Barker, 1 Hoffm. Ch. 487 (1840)— 940, 959. Little V. Dusenberry, 46 N. J. L. 614, 638, 50 Am. Ren. 445—2470. Little V. Garabrant, 90 Hun, 404, 35 N. Y. Supp. 689—11, 1164, 2013. Little V. Garabrant, 153 N. Y. 661, 48 N. B. 1105—11, 1164, 2013. Little V. O'Brien, 9 Mass. 423—389, 1626. Little V. Vanderbilt, 26 Atl. 1025 (N. J.)— 2449. Littledale,' Ex parte, 24 L. J. (Bankr.) N. S. 9—1377. Little, etc. Co. v. Federal, etc. Ry., 194 Pa. St. 144, 45 AtL 66, 75 Am. St. Rep. 690—1807, 2696. Little Falls, etc. Co. v. City of Little Falls, 74 Minn. 197, 77 N. W. 40— 2765. Littlefield v. Fitchburg R. R., 158 Mass. 1, 32 N. E. 859—2614. Little Miami, etc. R. R. v. Dayton, 23 Ohio St. 510—2633. Little River, etc. Co., In re, 92 Fed. 585 —937, 2747. Little Rock, etc. Ry. v. Hanniford, 49 Ark. 291, 5 S. W. 294—2602. Little Rock, etc. Ry. v. Huntington, 120 U. S. 160, 7 Sup. Ct. 517, 30 L. Ed. 591—2067, 2126. Little Rock, etc. Ry. v. Page, 35 Ark. 304-1649, 2319, 2324. Little Rock, etc. R. R. v. Perry, 37 Ark. 164, 191—1712. Littleton Mfg. Co. v. Parker, 14 N. H. 543—358. Little Warrior Coal Co. v. Hooper, 105 Ala. 665, 17 South. 118—2378. Litzenberger v. Jarvis, etc., 8 Utah, 15, 28 Pac. 871—2353. Livermore v. Bushnell, 5 Hun, 285 — 1341. Liverpool, etc. Assoc, In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 873 (1890)— 522, 1691, 1695, 1765. Liverpool, etc. Co. v. Clunie, 88 Fed. 160—1056. Liverpool, etc. Co. v. McNeill, 89 Fed. 131, 32 C. C. A. 173—1443. Liverpool, etc. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 9 Sup. Ct. 469, 32 L. Ed. 7S8— 2644. Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, 19 L. Ed. 1029—517, 1081, 1082, 1239, 1672. Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb. 50—358, 366. Live-Stock Assoc, etc. v. Ley, 3 N. Y. St Rep. 514—1053. Livezey v. Northern Pac. R. R., 157 Pa. St. 75, 27 Atl. 379—733. Livingston v. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. 573, 597—1022, 1085, 1089, 1297, 1382, 1549. Livingston v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 219—203. Livingston v. Rorers, 1 Caines' T. R. 583 (1804)— 212. Livingston County v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 60 Mo. 516—1234. Livingston County v. Portsmouth Bank, 128 U. S. 102, 9 Sup. Ct. IS, 32 L. Ed. 359—268. Livingstone v. Temperance, etc. Soc, 17 App. Rep. (Can.) 379 (1890)— 352. L. J. Mestler & Co. v. A. Chevalier, etc. Co., 32 South. 520 (La.)— 1589. Llano Iipp. etc. Co. v. Pacific Imp. Co., 66 Fed. 526, 13 C. C. A. 625— 1594. Lloyd, Ex parte, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 248 (1851)— 1719. Lloyd V. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 351—2389, 2436. Lloyd V. Loaring, 6 Ves. Jr. 773—1088. Lloyd V. Preston, 146 U. S. 630, 13 Sup. Ct. 131, 36 U. S. 1111—137, 552, 2008. Lloyd V. Wagner, 93 Ky. 644, 21 S. W; 334—2059. Loan Assoc, v. Stonemetz, 29 Pa. St. 534—1500. Loan Assoc, v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655; 22 L. Ed. 456—250. Loaners' Bank v. Jacoby, 10 Hun, 143 —1417. Loan, etc. Co. v. Stoddard, 89 N. W. 301 (Neb.)— 1941. Lobdell V. Stowell, 51 N. Y. 70—1262. Lobeck v. Duke, 50 Neb. 568, 70 N. W. 36—743, 2091. Lobenstine v. Union Elev. R. R., 80 Fed. 9, 25 C. C. A. 304—2689, 2794. ■ccxxu TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lock V. Queensland, etc. Co. (1896), A. C. 461—272. 1163. Xiock V. Queensland Inv. etc. Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 397—608. liock V. Venables, 27 Beav. 598 (1859) —653, 1195, 1202. Locke V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 140 N. Y. 135, 35 N. B. 578—665. Lockhart v. Craig St. Ry., 139 Pa. St. 419, 21 Atl. 26—2686, 2691, 2692. Lockhart v. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 40 Fed. 631—2537. Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76, 78, 81, 85, 18 Am. Rep. 156—36, 583, 596, 603, 608, 1135, 1162. Lock Haven Bridge Co. v. Clinton County, 157 Pa. St. 379, 27 Atl. 726— 2632, 2724. Lockie v. Mutual Union Tel. Co., 103 111. 401—2801. Locks & Canals v. Nashua, etc. R. R., 104 Mass. 1, 6 Am. Rep. 181—2625, 2638. Lockwood V. Brantley, 1 Silvern. 187, 103 N. Y. 680, 9 N. E. 37—974. Lockwood V. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 9 R. I. 308, 331, 335, 11 Am. Rep. 253— 888, 1115, 1133, 1378, 1751. Lockwood V. Thunder, etc. Co., 42 Mich. 536, 4 N. W. 292—1732. Lockwood V. Wabash R. R., 122 Mo. 86, 26 S. W. 698, 24 L. R. A. 516, 43 Am. St. Rep. 547—2689. Lockwood V. Weston, 61 Conn. 211, 23 Atl. 9—44, 1209. Loder v. New York, etc. R. R., 4 Hun, 22-2599. Lodge V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 8 Phila. 345—2626. Lodi, etc. Co. v. National, etc. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 535, 58 N. Y. Supp. 717—1571, 2274. Loeb v. Chur, 6 N. Y. Supp. 296— 2167, 2172. lioetscher v. Dillon, 93 N. W. 98 (Iowa)— 708, 710, 712. Loewenthal v. Rubber, etc. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 440, 28 Atl. 454—23, 1033, 1303. Loewer v. Harris, 57 Fed. 368, 6 C. C. A. 394—811, 1707. Loftus v. Farmers' Shipping Assoc, 8 S. D. 201, 65 N. W. 1076—1649, 1910. Logan V. McAllister, 2 Del. Ch. 176 — 8. Logan V. McCall Pub. Co., 140 N. Y. 447, 35 N. B. 655—1640, 2391. Logan V. Courtown, 13 Beav. 22 (1850) —202. Logan V. North Carolina R. R., 116 N. C. 940, 21 S. E. 959—2581. Logan V. Texas, etc. Assoc, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 490, 28 S. W. 141—1606. Logan V. Vernon, etc. R. R., 90 Ind. 552—1408, 2637. Logan V. Western, etc. R. R., 87 Ga. 533, 13 S. E. 516—1446. Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 11 Sup. Ct. 496, 35 L. Bd. 107—1595. Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 3 S. W. 122 (Ky.)— 1595. Logansport Ry. v. City of Logansport, . 114 Fed. 688—2663. Logansport & W. Va. Gas Co. v. City of Peru, 89 Fed. 185—2735. Lohman v. N. Y. & Erie R. R., 2 Sandf. Super. Ct. 39—84, 617, 1739, 1757. Lombard, etc Ry. v. Christian, 124 Pa. St. 114, 16 Atl. 628—1829. Lombard Inv. Co. v. Seaboard Mfg. Co., 74 Fed. 325—2258. Lombardo v. Case, 30 How. Pr. 117 — 913. Londesborough v. Somerville, 19 Beav. 295 (1854)— 1199, 1200. Londeslborough's Case, 4 De G., M. & G. 411 (1854)— 1616. Londhelm v. White, 67 How. Pr. 469— 1072. London v. Lynn, 1 H. Bl. 206—66. London v. Wilmington, 78 N. C. 190— 1204. London Assur. Co.'s Case, 5 De G., M. & G. 465, 481—1851. London Celluloid Co., In re, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 190 (1888)- 122, 667. London Chartered Bank, In re (1893), 3 Ch, 540—2527. London County Council v. London St. Tramways, [1894] 2 Q. B. 189, 31 Sc. L. R. 598—2710. London, etc. Assoc, v. Kelk, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 107 (1884)— 1859. London, etc. Assoc v. Wrexham, etc. Ry., L. R. 18 Eq. 566 (1874)— 2527, 2528. London, etc. Ass'n Soc. v. London, etc. Ins. Co., 11 Jur. 938 (1847)— 61. London, etc. Bank v. Aronstein, 117 Fed. 601, 54 C. C. A. 663—47, 728, 1125. London, etc. Bank v. Mitchell (1899), 2 Ch. 161—980. London, etc. Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472, 58 Pac. 164, 73 Am. St. Rep. 64 —227, 489. London, etc. Bank v. Simmons (1892), A. C. 201—2043. London, etc. Bank v. Simmons (1891), 1 Ch. 270—2043. London, etc. Bank v. Willamette, etc. Co., 80 Fed. 226—945. London, etc. Bank, Ltd., In re (1900), 1 Ch. 220—190. London, etc Bread Co., In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 224 (1890)— 1564. London, etc. Coal Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 525 (1877)— 343. TABLE OF OASES. CCXXlli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] London, etc. Co., In re, L. R. (1892) ] Ch. 639—2061. London, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 525 (1877)— 191. London, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 223 (1885)— 1278. London, etc. Co. v. London, etc. Bank, L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 535 (1888)— 811, 2048. London, etc. Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 84 Minn. 144, 86 N. W. 872—388. London, etc. Corp., In re, 73 L. T. Rep. 280 (1895)— 57. London, etc. Corp., In re, 87 L. T. Rep. 49 (1902)— 911. London, etc. Corp. Ltd., In re, 88 L. T. Rep. 194 (1903)— 167, 325, 818, 1612. London, etc. Discount Co., In re, L. R. 1 Eq. 277—1392. London, etc. P. Ins. Co., In re, L. R. 24 Ch. D. 149 (1883)— 335. London, etc. Institute, In re, 75 L. T. Rep. 658 (1896)— 2374. London, etc. Institute, In re, 76 L. T. Rep. 98 (1896)— 2374. London, etc. Ins. Co., In re, L. R. 24 Ch. D. 149 (1883)- 336. • London, etc. Ins. Co. v. Redgrave, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 524 (1858)— 362. London, etc. Inv. Corp., In re (1895), 2 Ch. 860—588, 612, 636. London, etc. Ltd., In re, 77 L. T. Rep. 146 (1897)— 56, 203, 625. London, etc. Ry. v. Evershed, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029 (1878)— 2607. London, etc. Ry. v. Evershed, 26 W. R. 863 (1878)— 2609. London, etc. Ry. v. Fairclough, 2 Man. & G. 674, 706 (1841)— 293, 295, 554, 559, 563. London, etc. Ry. v. Freeman, 2 Man. & a. 606 (1841)— 563. London, etc. Ry. v. London, etc. Ry., 4 De G. & J. 362 (1859)— 2575. London, etc. Ry. v. M'Michael, 5 Exch. '855 (1850)— 1822. London, etc. Stores, In re (1898), 2 Ch. 684—2413. London, etc. Tel. Co., In re, L. R. 9 Eq. 653 (1870)— 728. London Financial Assoc, v. Kelk, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 107—54. London Financial Assoc, v. Wrexham, etc. Ry., L. R. 18 Eq. 566 (1874) — 592. London Founder's Assoc, v. Clarke, 20 Q. B. 576 (1888)— 1358. London India Rubber Co., In re, L. R. 1 Ch. 329 (1866)— 1392. London India Rubber Co., In re, L. R. 5 Eq. 519 (1868)— 609. London Metallurgical Co., In re (1895), 1 Ch. 758—2487. London Suburban Bank, In re, L. R. 6; Ch. 641 (1871)— 1391. London Trust Co. v. Mackenzie, 68 L. T. Rep. 380 (1893)— 108, 164, 1496,. 1612, 2015. 2271. London & Gen. Bank, In re (1895), 2 Ch. 166, 673—1165, 1174, 1184, 1186,. 1187. London & Gen. Bank, In re, 72 L. T. Rep. 227, 229 (1894)— 1165, 1174,. 1184, 1186, 1187. Long v. Duluth, 49 Minn. 280, 51 N. W. 913, 32 Am. St. Rep. 547—2761. Long V. Evening News Assoc, 113- Mich. 261, 71 N. W. 492—1574. Long V. Georgia Pac. Ry., 91 Ala. 519, 8 South. 706, 24 Am. St. Rep. 931— 1421. Long V. Guelph, etc. Co., 31 C. P. Rep.. (Can.) 129 (1880)— 597. Long V. Johnson, 15 Ind. App. 498, 44 N. E. 552—816. Long V. Long, 79 Mo. 644 — 1673. Long V. New London, 9 Biss. 539, 5. Fed. 559—244. Long V. Penn. Ins. Co., 6 Pa. St. 421 — 382, 383. Long V. Stewart, 5 Ves. Jr. 800 (1801) —718. Long Branch, etc. R. R., In re, 24 N. J. Eq. 398—2380. Long Branch, etc. R. R. v. Sneden, 26^ N. J. Eq. 539—2381. Longdale Iron Co. v. Pomeroy Iron Co., 34 Fed. 448—544. Longfellow v. Barnard, 58 Neb. 612^ 79 N. W. 255, 76 Am. St. Rep. 117 —1090. Long Island, etc. Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685, 17 Sup. Ct. 718, 41 L. Ed. 1165—2770. Long Island, etc. Co. v. Columbus, etc. Ry., 65 Fed. 455—2014, 2044, 2263. Long Island Ferry Co. v. Terbell, 48 N. Y. 427—1501, 1511. Long Island R. R., Re, 143 N. Y. 67, 37" N. E. 636—1404, 1416. Long Island R. R., In re, 19 Wend. 37, 44, 32 Am. Dec. 429—21, 289, 295, 1282, 1285, 1313, 1336, 1338, 1340. Long Island Water Supply Co. v. City of Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685, 17 Sup. Ot. 718, 41 L. Ed. 1165—2759, 2761, 2770. Longley v. Amazon, etc. Co., 128 Mich. 194, 87 N. W. 209—2369. Longley v. Little, 26 Me. 162—483, 566, 1030, 1291. Longley v. Longley Stage Co., 23 Me.. 39—36. Longmont, etc. Co. v. Coffman, 11 Colo.. 551, 19 Pac. 508—1749. Looker v. Maynard, 179 V. S. 46, 21 Sup. Ct. 21, 45 L. Ed. 79—1039, 1303. <;cxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after tlie dash refer to the pages of the text.] Loomis V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 97 Fed. 755—593. Loomis V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 102 Fed. 233, 42 C. C. A. 290—588, 593, 618. Loomis V. Davenport, etc. R. R., 17 Fed. 301, 3 McCrary, 489—2330. Loomis V. Eagle Bank, 1 Disney (Ohio), 285—1840. Loomis V. Missouri, etc. Ry., 165 Mo. 469, 65 S. W. 962—1374, 1853, 1910, 1911. Loomis V. Reimers, 93 N. W. 95 (Iowa)— 954. Lopez V. Camphell, 163 N. Y. 340, 57 N. E. 501— 1G39. Lord V. Brooks, 52 N. H. 72—1191. Lord V. Copper Miners, 2 Phil. Ch. 740 (1848)— 1452. Lord V. Hartford, 175 Mass. 320—989. Lord V. Yonkers, etc. Co., 99 N. Y. 547, 2 N. E. 909—1997, 2158. Lord Belhaven's Case, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 503 (1865)— 343. I.«rd, etc. Co., In re, 7 Del. Ch. Rep. 248, 44 Atl. 775—2486. Lord Revelstoke v. Commissioners, etc. (1898), A. C. 565—2161. Lorillard, In re, 107 Fed. 677, 46 C. C. A. 553—950, 2516. Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 384—94, 104, 1715, 2090. Lorillard v. Clyde, 99 N. Y. 196, 1 N. E. 614—2090. Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 498, 25 N. E. 917, 10 L. R. A. 113—1717, 2090, 2591. Lorillard v. Clyde, 142 N. Y. 456, 465, 466, 37 N. E. 489. 24 L. R. A. 113— 1377, 1397, 1410, 1445, 2086, 2090. Lorillard v. Clyde, 15 N. Y. Supp. 809, 20 N. Y. Supp. 433—2086, 2090. Lorillard v. Clyde, 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 409—2090. Loring v. Brodie, 134 Mass. 453—721, 723, 1835. Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 311, 15 Fed. Cas. 898—2222. Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 138—721, 726. Loring v. Woodward, 41 N. H. 391— 653. Lorymer v. Smith, 1 Barn. & C. (1822) —771. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles, etc. Co., 177 U. S. 558, 20 Sup. Ct. 736, 44 L. Ed. 886—2768. Los Angeles, etc. v. Spires, 126 Cal. 541, 58 Pac. 1049—1421, 1668. Los Angeles, etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, S8 Fed. 720—2757. Los Angeles, etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 103 Fed. 711—2769. :Los Angeles, etc. Co. v. Wilshire, 135 Cal. 654, 67 Pac. 1086—2708. Losee v. BuUard, 79 N. Y. 404—437, 1395. Lothrop V. Stedman, 13 Blatchf. 134, Fed. Cas. No. 8,519, 15 Fed. Cas. 922 —1024, 1400, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1440, 1889. Lothrop V. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583 — 1432, 1889. Lottman, etc. Co. v. Houston, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 357 (Tex.)— 1568. Louhat V. Le Roy, 40 Hun, 546—1071. Louchheim v. Clawson, etc. Co., 12 Pa. Sup. Ct. 55—1443. Loud V. Pomona, etc. Co., 153 U. S. 564, 14 Sup. Ct. 928, 38 L. Ed. 822— 85. Loudenslager v. Benton, 4 Phila. 382 — 2600. Lough V. Outerbridge, 66 Hun, 103, 20 N. Y. Supp. 758—2785. Lough V. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. B. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, 42 Am. St. Rep. 712—1050, 2606, 2607, 2785. Loughborough v. McNevin, 74 Cal. 250, 14 Pac. 369, 15 Pac. 773, 5 Am. St. Rep. 435—969. Louis Bletz & Co. v. Bank of Ken- tucky, 55 S. W. 697 (Ky.)— 1579. Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 U. S. 454, 26 L. Ed. 1133—252, 254. Louisiana v. Wood, 102 U. S. 294, 26 L. Ed. 153—1914. Louisiana Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 8 La. 174—559. Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 Woods, 34, 15 Fed. Cas. 968—275, 402, 409. Louisiana State Bank v. Senecal, 13 La. 525—1840. Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 26 L. Ed. 775—251, 253, 254. Louisville v. University of Louisville, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 642—1033, 1291, 2604. Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Eisenman, 94 Ky. 83, 21 S. W. 531, 1049, 19 L. R. A. 684, 42 Am. St. Rep. 335—147, 503, 527, 154C. Louisville Bridge Co. v. Louisville, etc. Co., 51 S. W. 185 (Ky.)— 2593, 2724. Louisville City Ry. v. Louisville, 8 Bush (Ky.), 415—2716. Louisville, etc. Assoc, v. Hegan, 49 S. W. 796 (Ky.)— 1510. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Ballard, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 165—1025. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Barbour, 88 Ky. 73, 9 S. W. 516—1216. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Biddell, 66 S. W. 34 (Ky.)— 1580. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Central Pass. Ry., 95 Ky, 50, 23 S. W. 592, 44 Am. St. Rep. 203—2692. TABLE OF CASES. ccxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] iiouisville, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 49 S. W. 1069, 57 L. R. A. 33 (Ky.) — 1229. Liouisville, etc. Co. v. Cumberland, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 593— 2756,- 2837. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Cumberland, etc. Co., Ill Fed. 663—2756, 2837. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Etheridge, etc. Co., 43 S. W. 169 (Ky.)— 1635. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Kaufman, 105 Ky. 131, 48 S. W. 434—1372, 1726. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Meriwether, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13—286, 299. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Stewart, 70 S. W. 285 tKy.)- 1601. Louisville, etc. Co. v. Thomas, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 2 (Ky.)— 983. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Bowling Green Ry., 63 S. W. 4 (Ky.)— 1430, 2680. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Cauble, 46 Ind. 277—2419. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Common- wealth, 89 Ky. 531, 12 S. W. 1064— 246, 1233, 1236. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Common- wealth, 97 Ky. 675, 31 S. W. 476— 1411, 2554. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Common- wealth, 161 U. S. 677, 691, 16 Sup. Ct. 714, 40 L. Ed. 849—1411, 1554, 2554. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Common- wealth, 13 Bush (Ky.), 388, 26 Am. Rep. 205 — 76. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Davidson County Court, 1 Sneed, 637, 62 Am. Dec. 424—248. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Eakin, 100 Ky. 745, 39 S. W. 416—2132, 2402. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Eubank, 184 U. S. 27, 22 Sup. Ct. 277, 46 L. Ed. 416—2615. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Gilbert, 88 Tenn. 430, 12 S. W. 1018, 7 L. R. A. 162—2645. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. 111. Cent. R. R., 174 111. 448, 51 N. E. 824—2550, 2595. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Kentucky, 161 TJ. S. 677, 690, 691, 16 Sup. Ct. 714, 40 L. Ed. 849—681, 1028, 1411, 2555, 2569, 2577. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 22 Sup. Ct. 95, 46 L. Ed. 298—2604. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 552, 11 L. Ed. 353-3, 1948, 1951. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Louisville City Ry., 2 Duv. (Ky.) -175-2677. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. McChord, 103 Fed. 216—2613. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Neal, 29 South. 865 (Ala.)— 1905, 1912. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 224, 244, 3 Sup. Ct. 193, 27 L. Ed. 922—1238, 2537. Louisville, etc. Ry. v. Postal Tel. Co., 68 Miss. 806, 10 South. 74—2807. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. St. Rose Lit- erary Soc, 91 Ky. 395, 15 S. W. 1065 —1594, 1750. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Schmidt, 52 S. W. 835 (Ky.)— 2150, 2195, 2197, 2349, 2383, 2437, 2489. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. State, 3 Head (Tenn.), 523, 75 Am. Dec. 778—76. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. State, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 663, 795—261, 1203. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Steiner, 30 South. 741 (Ala.)— 1950. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Stewart, 56 Fed. 808, 6 C. C. A. 147—1831. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Tennessee R. R., 19 Fed. 679—2610. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Thompson, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 735—307. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Wilson, 138 U. S. 501, 11 Sup. Ct. 405, 34 L. Ed. 1023—430, 2282, 2474. Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Wright, 116 Fed. 669—1216. Louisville, etc. Ry. v. Boney, 117 Ind. 501, 20 N. E. 432, 3 L. R. A. 435— 1584, 2590, 2599. Louisville, etc. Ry. v. Carson, 151 111. 444, 38 N. E. 140—1485. Louisville, etc. Ry. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 V. S. 552, 567, 573, 19 Sup. Ct. 817, 43 L. Ed. 1081—1609, 1723, 1728, 1746, 1753, 1804, 1823, 1827, 1835, 1848, 1962, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2082, 2083, 2144, 2261, 2552, 2574, 2652. Louisville, etc. Ry. v. Louisville Trust Co., 174 V. S. 674, 19 Sup. Ct. 827, 43 L. fid. 1130—1179, 1188, 1420, 1583, 2032, 2053, 2243, 2252, 2258, 2259, 2506, 2592. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co., 84 Fed. 539, 28 C. C. A. 202—1420, 2053, 2243, 2258, 2592. Louisville Sav. Bank v. Caperton, 8 S. W. 885, 12 Am. St. Rep. 488 (Ky.) —1690. Louisville Transfer Co. v. American DIst. Telephone Co., 1 Ky. L. J. 144 —2754. Louisville Transfer Co. v. American Dist. Telephone Co., 24 Alb. L. J. 283 —2754. Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 78 Fed. 307—2422, 2664. Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 91 Fed. 699—2320. "• Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 174 U. S. 552, 567, 19 Sup. Ct. CCXXVl TABLE OF CASES. I [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] 817, 43 L. Ed. 1081—1609, 1723, 1728, 1746, 1753, 1804, 1823, 1827, 1835, 1848, 1962, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2082, 2083, 2144, 2261, 2552, 2574, 2652. Louisville -Trust Co. v. Liouisville, etc. Ry., 174 V. S. 674, 19 Sup. Ct. 827, 43 L. Ed. 113—1179, 1188, 1420, 1583, 2032, 2053, 2243, 2252, 2258, 2259, 2506, 2592. Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 75 Fed. 433, 22 C. C. A. 378— 1722, 1835, 2078, 2081, 2083, 2137, 2552, 2652. Louisville Trust Co. v. Stone, 107 Fed. 305, 46 C. C. A. 299—1204, 1871, 2605. Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 76 Fed. 296, 312, 315, 22 C. C. A. 334— 2671, 2675, 2678, 2699. Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 539, 28 C. C. A. 202— 1420, 2053, 2243, 2258, 2592. Louisville Trust Co. v. Stockton, 75 Fed. 62, 21 C. C. A. 225—1368. Louisville Underwriters, In re, 134 XJ. S. 488, 10 Sup. Ct. 587, 33 L. Ed. 991—1964. Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. 5. 1, 12 Sup. Ct. 346, 36 L. Ed. 55— 6, 1037, 1038, 1040, 1236, 1237. Louisville & N. R. R. v. Central Trust Co., 87 Fed. 500, 31 C. C. A. 89— 2355. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U S. 230, 20 Sup. Ct. 620, 44 L. Ed. 747—2581. Loutsenhizer v. Farmers', etc. Co., 5 Colo. App. 479, 39 Pac. 66—184. Love V. Anchor, etc. Co., 45 Pac. 1044 (Cal.)— 1834. Love V. Harvey, 114 Mass. 80—769. Love V. Pusey & Jones Co., 52 Atl. 542 (Del.)— 470. Love V. Wheeler, 87 Fed. 523—712. Lovejoy v. Michels, 88 Mich. 15, 49 N. W. 901, 13 L. R. A. 770—1047. Loveland v. Alvord, etc. Co., 76 Cal. 562, 18 Pac. 682—1015. Lovell V. Jacobs, 150 N. Y. 84, 44 N. E. 792—743, 860. Lovell V. Minot, 37 Mass. 116, 32 Am. Dec. 206—715, 1194. Love Mfg. Co. V. Queen City Mfg. Co., 74 Miss. 290, 20 South. 146—1657. Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 111. 417, 44 N. B. 99—424, 498. Lovett V. German Ref. Church, 12 Barb. 67—1737. Lovett V. Steam, etc. Assoc., 6 Paige, 54—1806, 1807. 1810. Low V. Blackford, 87 Fed. 392, 31 C. C. A. 15—1995, 2058, 2218. Low V. Buchanan, 94 111. 76—454. Low V. Central Pac. R. R., 52 Cal. 53, 28 Am. Rep. 629—2076. Low V. Connecticut, etc. R. R., 45 N. H. 370—1720. Low V. Connecticut, etc. Co., 46 N. H.. 284—2649. Low V. Stuaabaker, 110 Ind. 57, 10 N. E. 301—309. Low V. Edgefield, etc. R. R., 1 Head (Tenn.), 659—228, 234. Lowe V. Pioneer Threshing Co., 70 Fed. 646—673, 1530, 1920. Lowe V. Thomas, 5 De G., M. & G. 315 (1854)— 45, 657. Lowell V. Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39—250. Lowell V. Morse, 42 Mass. 473 — 67. Lowell V. Washington Co. R. R., 90 Me. 80, 37 Atl. 869—1042. Lowenberg v. Greenebaum, 99 Cal. 162, 33 Pac. 794, 21 L. R. A. 399, 37 Am. St. Rep. 42—1072. Lowe's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 589 (1870)— 564. Lowndes v. Cooch, 87 Md. 478, 39 Atl. 1045, 40 L. R. A. 380—46, 48, 662. Lowndes v. Garnett, etc. Co., 33 L. J. (Ch.) 418—1454, 1969. Lownds V. Lownds, 1 You. & Jer. 445 (1827)— 659. Lowne v. American Fire Ins. Co., 6 Paige, 482—1153. Lowry v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 46 Fed. 83—2606. Lowry v. Commercial, etc. Bank, Taney, 310, 15 Fed. Cas. 1040—727, 888, 938. Lowry v. Dillman, 59 Wis. 197, 18 N. W. 4—780, 781. Lowry v. Farmers', etc. Co., 172 N. Y. 137, 64 N. E. 796—1191. Lowry v. Inman, 46 N. Y. 119, 127— 400, 425, 449, 460, 464, 519. Lowry v. Tile, etc. Assoc, 106 Fed. 38 —1060. Lowry Banking Co. v. Empire Lumber Co., 91 Ga. 624, 17 S. E. 968—1656, 1658, 1761, 1989. Lowry, etc. Co. v. Empire, etc. Co., 91 Ga. 624—1658. Lowton V. Colchester, 2 Meriv. 395 (1817)— 1948. Luard's Case, 1 De G., F. & J. 533 (I860)— 204, 205, 543. Lubbock V. British Bank, etc. (1892), 2 Ch. 198—1172. Lubliner v. Tiffany & Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 326, 66 N. Y. Supp. 659— 1791. Lubroline Oil Co. v. Athens Savings Bank, 1(^4 Ga. 376, 30 S. E. 409— 2306. Lucas V. Bank of Darien, 3 Ala. (0. S.) 280, 321—1840. Lucas V. Bank of Georgia, 3 Ala. (0. S.) 147—1951. TABLE OF CASES. ccxxvn [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lucas V. Beach, 1 Man. & Gr. 417 (1840)— 1702. Lucas V. Coe, 86 Fed. 972 — 530. Lucas V. Friant, 111 Mich. 426, 69 N. W. 735—1492, 1659. Lucas V. Pitney, 27 N. J. L. 221—1624, 1969, 1976. Lucas V. White Line, etc. Co., 70 Iowa, 541, 30 N. W. 771, 59 Am. Rep. 449— 2071, 2079, 2080. Luce V. Manchester, etc. R. R., 63 N. H. 588, 3 Atl. 618—728. Lucky Queen Min. Co. v. Abraham, 26 Or. 282, 38 Pac. 65—1381, 1774. Ludington v. Thompson, 153 N. Y. 499, 47 N. E. 903—1439, 2456, 2490. Ludington v. Thompson, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 117, 38 N. Y. Supp. 768—2456. Ludington, etc. Co. v. City of Luding- ton, 119 Mich. 480, 78 N. W. 558— 2765. Ludlam's Estate, 13 Pa. St. 188—654, 661. Ludlow V. Hurd, 1 Disney (Ohio), 552 —2323, 2324. Luffman v. Hoy, 13 N. Y. Week. Dig. 324—906. Luling V. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 45 Barb. 510—1150, 1151. Lum V. McBwen, 56 Minn. 278, 57 N. W. 662—1463. Lum V. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277, 18 L. Ed. 743—1434. Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 31, 28 Am. Dec. 381—1668. Lumbard v. Grant, 35 N. Y. Misc. 140, 71 N. Y. Supp. 459—1072. Lumbard v. Stearns, 58 Mass. 60 — 2628. Lumberville, etc. Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 55 N. J. L. 529, 26 Atl. 711—1243. Lumpkin v. Jones, 1 Ga. 27 — 1414. Lumsden's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 31 (1868)— 205, 542, 702. Lund V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 78 Fed. 385 —2417. Lund V. Wheaton, etc. Co., 50 Minn. 36, 52 N. W. 268, 36 Am. St. Rep. 623—1006. Lund's Case, 27 Beav. 465 (1859) — 580. Lundy Granite Co., In re, 26 L. T. Rep. 673 (1872)— 1503. Lung Chung v. Northern Pac. Ry., 19 Fed. 254^1957, 1961. Lungren v. Pennell, 10 W. N. Cas. 297 (Pa.)— 1476. Luse V. Isthmus, etc. Ry., 6 Or. 125, 25 Am. Rep. 506—1770. Luther v. C. J. Luther Co., 94 N. W. 69 (Wis.)— 624, 1321. Luxton & Black Co., Matter of, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 243, 54 N. Y. Supp. 778 —429. O Lyceum v. Ellis, 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 532, 8 N. Y. Supp. 867—2005. Lycoming Co. v. Gamble, 47 Pa. St. 106, 110—31, 1208. Lycoming F. Ins. Co. v. Langley, 62 Md. 196—1951. Lycoming P. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 55 Vt. 526—1682. Lyde v. Eastern Bengal Ry., 36 Beav. 10—2643. Lydig V. Braman, 177 Mass. 212, 58 N. E. 696—764. Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 328—1470, 1477, 1479, 1480. Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 85 (1886)— 1470, 1477, 1479. Lyle V. Addicks, 62 N. J. Eq. 123, 49 Atl. 1121—760. Lyle T. Staten Island, etc. Co., 48 Atl. 783 (N. J.)— 2478. Lyman v. Boston, etc. R. R., 58 Mass. 288—2602. Lyman v. Central Vt. R. R., 59 Vt. 167, 10 Atl. 346—2414, 2415, 2452. Lyman v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 101 Fed. 636—1514, 2137, 2145, 2155, 2204, 2207, 2236, 2518. Lyman" v. National Bank, etc., 63 N. E. 923 (Mass.)— 731. Lyman v. Northern, etc. Co., 62 Fed. 891—225. Lyman v. Pratt, 66 N. B. 423 (Mass.) —1143, 1193. Lyman v. State Bank, etc., 81 N. Y.' App. Div. 367, 80 N. Y. Supp. 901 — 15, 54. Lyman v. Suburban R. R., 60 N. E. 515, 52 L. R. A. 645 (111.)— 2631, 2695. Lynch v. Eastern, etc. Ry., 57 Wis. 430, 15 N. W. 743, 825—269. Lynch v. Macdonald, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 227 (1887)— 973. Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry., 90 N. Y. 77—74. Lynch v. Murphy, 171 Mass. 307, 50' N. E. 623—785, 792. Lynchburg v. Slaughter, 75 Va. 57 — 242. Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, etc. Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 178—313. Lynde' v. Columbus, etc. Ry., 57 Fed. 993—2233. Lynde v. Winnebago County, 16 Wall. 6, 21 L. Ed. 272—1805, 2001. Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Massa- chusetts Glass Co., Ill Mass. 315 — 1601, 1796, 1800. Lyndon, etc. Co. v. Lyndon, etc. Inst., 63 Vt. 581, 22 Atl. 575, 25 Am. St. Rep. 783—1750, 1769, 1832. Lyndon Sav. Bank v. International Co., 54 Atl. 191 (Vt.)— 1825. Lyndonville Nat. Bank v. Folsom, 7 N. M. 611, 38 Pac. 253—1017. CCXXVUl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Lyne v. Siesfeld, 1 H. & N. 278 (1856) —778. Lynn v. Freemansburg, etc./ Assoc, 117 Pa. St. 1, 11 Atl. 537, 2 Am. St. Rep. 639—19. Lynne Regis, Case of, 10 Rep. 120 (1613)— 66. Lyon V. American. Screw Co., 16 R. I. 472, 17 Atl. 61—1099. Lyon V. Boston, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. 386—489. Lyon V. Culbertson, 83 111. 33, 25 Am. Rep. 349—769, 770. Lyon V. Denison, 80 Micli. 371, 45 N. W. 358, 8 L. R. A. 358—997, 1071. Lyon V. Swings, 17 Wis. 61^84. Lyon V. Jerome, 26 Wend. 485, 37 Am. Dec. 271—1762, 1766. Lyon, P. & Go. v. First Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. 120, 29 C. C. A. 45—2073. Lyons v. Chamberlain, 89 N. Y. 578— 247. Lyons v. Hodgen, 90 Ky. 280, 13 S. W. 1076—773. Lyons v. Munson, 99 U. S. 684, 25 L. Ed. 451—258. Lyons v. Orange, etc. R. R., 32 Md. I Q Q Lyon's Case, 35 Beav. 646 (1866) — 362. Lyons, etc. Co. v. People, 68 Pac. 275 (Colo.)— 1398, 1803, 2749. Lyons, etc. Co. v. Perry, etc. Co., 86 Tex. 143, 24 S. W. 16, 22 L. R. A. 802-1652.. Lyons, etc. Co. v. Perry, etc. Co., 88 Tex. 468, 27 S. W. 100—1642. Lysaght v. Lysaght (1898), 1 Ch. 115 (1897)— 1197. Lyster's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 233 (1867) —297, 1751. M. Maas V. German Sav. Bank, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 524, 77 N. Y. Supp. 256— 729. Maas V. Missouri, etc. Ry., 83 N. Y. 223—1991, 1993, 2048, 2161. Mabey v. Adams, 3 Bosw. 346—330, 331. Mabon v. Miller, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 10, 80 N. Y. Supp. 979—1454, 1686, 2404. Mabon T. Ongley, etc. Co., 156 N. Y. 196, 50 N. E. 805—2399. Mabon v. Ongley, etc. Co., 24 N. Y. App. Div. 41, 48 N. Y. Supp. 967— 2399. Mabry v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 94 Ga. 619, 21 S. E. 589—2301. Mabury v. Louisville, etc. Ferry Co., 60 Fed. 645, 9 C. C. A. 174—2732. McAden v. Mecklenburg County, 97 N. C. 355, 2 S. B. 670—1226. McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa. St. 126— 109. McAlester Mfg. Co. v. Florence, etc. Co., 128 Ala. 240, 30 South. 632—202. Macalister v. Maryland, 114 U. S. 598, 5 Sup. Ct. 1065, 24 L. Ed. 233—2122, 2303. McAllen v. Woodcock, 60 Mo. 174— 1494. McAllister v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 15 Ind. 11—310. McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S. 87, 24 L. Ed. 615—808, 1248, ^1255. McAllister v. Kuhn, 1 Utah, 273—808, 1248, 1255. McAllister v. Plant, 54 Miss. 106— 2108, 2111, 2113, 2178, 2183. MacArdell v. Olcott, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 127, 70 N. Y. Supp. 930—1929. McArthur v. Montclair Ry., 27 N. J. Bq. 77—2473. McArthur v. Seaforth, 2 Taunt. 257, 258 (1810)— 927, 1260. McArthur v. Times Printing Co., 48 Minn. 319, 51 N. W. 216, 31 Am. St. Rep. 653—1714. McAuley v. Columbus, etc. Ry., 83 111. 348—1415. McAuley V. Moody, 128 Cal. 202, 60 Pac. 778—945, 989. McAuley v. York Min. Co., 6 Cal. 80— 39, 427. Macauly v. Robinson, 18 La. Ann. 619 —291, 293. McAvity v. Lincoln Pulp, etc. Co., 82 Me. 504, 19 Atl. 102—1502. McBee v. Marietta, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 243—2338. McBride v. Farmers' Bank, 26 N. Y. 450—1951. McBride v. Hardin County, 58 Iowa, 219, 12 N. W. 247—268. McBride v. Porter, 17 Iowa, 203 — 1297. McBryan v. Universal, etc. Co., 89 N. W. 683 (Mich.)— 129, 405, 417. McBurney v. Martin, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 502—918, 919. 942. McCabe v. Goodfellow, 133 N. Y. 89, 30 N. E. 728, 17 L. R. A. 204—1086. McCabe v. O'Connor, 69 Iowa, 134, 28 N. W. 573—212. McCabe's Adm'x v. Maysville, etc. R. R., 66 S. W. 1054 (Ky.)— 2555, 2582. McCaleb v. Goodwin, 114 Ala. 615, 21 South. 967—949, 2020, 2543. McCall V. Byram Mfg. Co., 6 Conn. 428 —1377, 1736, 1737, 1741, 1938. McCall V. Hancock, 10 Fed. 8, 20 Blatohf. 344—261. McCallie v. Chattanooga, 3 Head (Tenn.), 317—259. McCallie v. Walton, 37 Ga. 611, 95 Am. Dec. 369—1634. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] McCallion v. Hibernia, etc. Soc, 70 Cal. 163, 12 Pac. 114—1071. McCallum v. Purssell Mfg. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 428—1736. MeCalmont v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 7 Fed. 386— 21U. McCandless v. Inland, etc. Co., 112 Ga. 291, 37 S. E. 419—1080, 1422, 1667. McCandless v. Inland, etc. 'Co., 115 Ga. 968, 42 S. E. 449—81, 355, 512. McCandless v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 38 S. C. 103, 16 S. E. 429, 18 L. R. A. 440—2588, 2604. McCanh v. First Nat. Bank, 112 Ind. 354, 14 N. E. 251—635. McCann v. First Nat. Bank, 131 Ind. 95, 30 N. E. 893—635. McCargo v. Crutcher, 27 Ala. 171 — 1108. McCartee v, Chambers, 6 Wend. 649, 22 Am. Dec. 556—1698. McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc, 9 Cow. 437, 451, 18 Am. Dee. 516— 1660, 1666. McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ball & B. (Ir. Ch.) 387 (1810)— 992. McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 111. 270, 31 Am. Rep. 83—369, 401, 450, 631. McCarthy v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 162 Mass. 254, 38 N. E. 435—1805. McCarthy v. Mt. Teoarte, etc. Co., Ill Cal. 328, 43 Pac. 956—1499. McCarthy v. Weare, etc. Co., 91 N. W. 33 (Minn.)— 776, M'Cartney y. Earle, 115 Fed. 462, 53 C. C. A. 392—957. McCarty v. Sellngsgrove, etc. R. R., 35 Leg. Int. 410—284. McCarty v. Sellngsgrove, etc. R. R., 87 Pa St 332 307. McCauley v. Keller, 130 Pa. St. 53, 18 Atl. 607, 17 Am. St. Rep. 758—2655.- McChord v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 183 U. S. 483, 22 Sup. Ct. 165, 46 L. Ed. 289—2615. McClanahan v. ' Ivanhoe, etc. Co., 96 Va. 124, 30 S. E. 450—328. McClaren v. Franciscus, 43 Mo. 452 — 395, 445, 566, 576. McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81—314, 317, 324, 336. McClelland v. Cragun, 54 Kan. 599, 38 Pac 776 449. McClelland v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 110 N. Y. 469, 18 N. E. 237, 1 L. R. A. 299, 6 Am. St. Rep. 397—2045, 2056, 2132 McClelland v. Whiteley, 11 Biss. 444, 15 Fed. 322 (1883)— 180, 209. McClinch v. Sturgis, 72 Me. 288—525. McCllntock V. Central Bank, 120 Mo. 127, 24 S. W. 1052—937 941 952, 1006, 1603. McCloy V. Cox, 12 Ind. App. 27, 39 N. E. 901—1257. MeCluer v. Manchester, etc. R. R., 79 Mass. 124, 74 Am. Dec. 624—2556, 2641. McClung V. Colwell, 107 Tenn. 592, 64 S. W. 890, 89 Am. St. Rep. 961—937, 976, 1007. McClung V. Embreeville, etc. Ry., 103 Tenn. 399, 52 S. W. 1001—1642, 1683. McClure v. Central Trust Co., 165 N. Y. 108, 58 N. E. 777, 53 L. R. A. 153— 332, 702, 739, 838, 915, 1119, 1471, 1697, 2162, 2173, 2523. McClure v. Law, 161 N. Y. 78, 55 N. B. 388, 76 Am. St. Rep. 262—1345, 1466, 1498. McClure v. Levy, 147 N. Y. 215, 41 N. E. 492—1519. McClure v. Oxford, 94 U. S. 429, 24 L. Ed. 129—243, 258. McClure v. Paducah, 90 Mo. App. 567— 151. McClure v. People's Freight Ry., 90 Pa. St. 269—240, 307, 1042. McClure v. Trask, 161 N. Y. 82, 55 N. B. 407—1463, 1556, 1592, 1978. McClure v. Wilson, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 274, 43 N. Y. Supp. 209—1902.^ McClure v. Wilson, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 149, 75 N. Y. Supp. 212—1345, 1466, 1754. McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 593— 430. McComb V. Barcelona, etc. Assoc, 134 N. Y. 598, 608, 31 N. B. 613—184, 1776. McComb V. Barcelona, etc Assoc, 10 N. Y. Supp. 546—35, 2138. McComb V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 19 Blatchf. 69, 7 Fed. 426—1110. McComb V. Credit Mobilier, etc. Co., 13 Phila. 468—184, 280. McComb V. Frink, 149 U. S. 629, 13 Sup. Ct. 993, 37 L. Ed. 876—208, 711. McComb V. Weaver, 11 Hun, 271— 2402. McConahy v. Centre, etc. Co., 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 426—307. McConihay v. Wright, 121 XJ. S. 201, 7 Sup. Ct. 940, 30 L. Ed. 932—1435, 2638. McConnel v. Wright, 88 L. T. Rep. 431 (1903)— 1266. McConnell v. Hamm, 16 Kan. 228—250. MeConnell v. Pedigo, 92 Ky. 465, 18 S. W. 15—2649. McCord V. Ohio, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 220—380. McCord, etc. Co. v. Doyle, 97 Fed. 22, 38 C. C. A. 34—1961. McCord, etc. Co. v. Glenn, 6 Utah, 139, 21 Pac. 500—1423. ccxxx TABLE GF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] McCormick v. Bittinger, 13 Colo. App. 170, 57 Pac. 736—1783. McCormick v. District of Columbia, i Mackey, 396—2793. McCormick v. Great Bend, etc. Co., 48 Kan. 614, 29 Pac. 1147— 214, 390. McCormick v. Knox, 105 U. g. 122, 26 L. Ed. 940—2294. McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538, 17 Sup. Ct. 433, 41 L. Ed. 817— 1609. McCormick v. Market Nat. Bank, 162 111. 100, 44 N. B. 381—1419, 1426, 1600. McCormick v. Parry, 7 Ex. 355—2112. McCormick v. Pennsylvania Cent. R. R., 49 N. Y. 303—1961. McCormick v. Stockton, etc. R. R., 130 Cal. 100, 62 Pac. 267—1774, 1813. McCormick, etc. Co. v. Hovey, 36 Oreg. 259, 59 Pac. 189—1942. McCornack v. Salem, etc. Ry., 34 Or. 543, 56 Pac. 518, 1022—2352. McCourry v. Doremus, 10 N. J. L. 245 —854, 888. McCourry v. Suydam, 10 N. J. L. 245— 888. M'Coy V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 13 Fed. 3—1957. McCoy V. Farmer, 65 ^o. 244—1434. McCoy V. Washington County, 3 Wall. Jr. 381, 15 Fed. Cas. 1341—2055, 2057. McCoy V. World's, etc. Exposition, 186 111. 356, 57 N. E. 1043, 78 Am. St. Rep. 288—203, 279, 359. 364, 365, 629. McCoy T. World's Exposition, 87 111. App. 605—363. McCracken v. Harned, 66 N. J. L. 37, 48 Atl. 513—738. McCracken v. Robison, 57 Fed. 375, 6 C. C. A. 400—13, 1461, 1462. McCraken v. Mclntyre, 1 Duv. (Can.) 479 (1877)— 171. McCray v. Junction R. R., 9 Ind. 358 — 1031, 2550, 2551, 2580. McCready v. Rumsey, 6 Duer, 574 (N. Y. Super. Ct.)— 557, 1116, 1118, 1122, 1123, 1126. McCreery v. Garvin, 39 S. C. 375, 17 S. E. 828—1756. McCroskey v. Ladd, 28 Pac. 216 (Cal.) —1806. McCruden v. Rochester Ry., 25 N. Y. Supp. 114—2822. . McCruden v. Rochester Ry., 28 N. Y. Supp. 1135—2822. McCuIloch V. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 43 L. Ed. 579—3, 1219. McCuUoch V. Norwood, 58 N. Y. B62— 1446. McCuUoh V. Smith, 44 Fed. 12—61. McCuUough V. Merchants', etc. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 217—2386. McCullough V. Moss, 5 Denio, 567, 573, 585—427, 473, 567, 1721, 1722, 1773. McCullough V. Talladega Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 376—1801. McCullough, /etc. Co. v. Nat. Bank, etc.. Ill Gl 132, 36 S. E. 465—41, 1495, 2287, 2439. McCuUy V. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 32 Pa. St. 25—209, 213, 370, 376, 377, 385, 391. McCune Min. Co. v. Adams, 35 Kan. 193, 10 Pac. 468—368. McCurdy v. Myers, 44 Pa. St. 535— 1562. McCurdy's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 290— 2137, 2147, 2150, 2160, 2198, 2212. McCutcheon v. Dittman, 164 N. Y. 355, 58 N. B. 97—982. McCutcheon v. Dittman, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 285, 48 N. Y. Supp. 360—982. M'Cutcheon v. Merz Capsule Co., 71 Fed. 787, 19 C. C. A. 108, 31 L. R. A. 415—693, 1056. McDaniels v. Flower, etc. Co., 22 Vt. 274—1281, 1286, 1292, 1316, 1805, 1806. McDermont r. Anaheim, etc. Co., 124 Cal. 112, 56 Pac. 779—629. McDermott v. Donegan, 44 Mo. 85 — 389. McDermott v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 73 Mo. 516, 39 Am. Rep. 526—1830. McDermott v. Harrison, 9 N. Y. Supp. 184—343, 803. McDermott v. Squier, 124 Mich. 523, 83 N. W. 287—116, 345, 1157. McDermott, etc. Co. v. McDermott, 69- Pac. 715 (Mont.)— 1518. McDevitt V. People's Nat. Gas Co., 160 Pa. St. 367, 28 Atl. 948—2738. McDoel V. Ohio, etc. Co., 36 S. W. 175 (Ky.)— 787. McDonald v. Charleston, etc. R. R., 93 Tenn. 281, 24 S. W. 252—1545, 2656. McDonald v. Chisholm, 131 111. 273, 23 N. E. 596—1766, 1777, 1807. McDonald v. Danahy, 196 111. 133, 63 N. B. 648—1257. M'Donald v. First, etc. Bank, 116 Fed. 1, 29, 53 C. C. A. 533—861, 998. McDonald V. Grant, N. Y. L. J., July 16, 1895, Supr. Sp. T.— 943. McDonald v. Houghton, 70 N. C. 393 — 2647. McDonald v. McKinnon, 92 Mich. 254, 52 N. W. 303—2038. McDonald v. Mackinnon, 104 Mich. 428, 62 N. W. 560—1251. McDonald v. Ross-Lewin, 29 Hun, 87 — 411, 412. TABLE OF OASES. COXXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] McDonald v. Stete, 81 Ala. 279, 2 South. 829, 60 Am. Rep. 158—2602. McDonald v. State of Nebraska, 101 Fed. 171, 41 C. C. A. 278—2401. McDonald v. Thompson, 101 Fed. 183, 41 C. C. A. 290—484. McDonald v. Thompson, 184 U. S. 71, 22 Sup. Ct. 297, 46 L. Ed. 437—484. Macdonald v. Trojan, etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 91—1567. MacDonald v. U. S., 63 Fed. 426, 12 C. C. A. 339—1981. McDonald v. Williams, 174 U. S. 397, 401, 19 Sup. Ct. 743, 43 L. Ed. 1022— 33, 393. 1178. Macdonald, etc. Co., In re (1894), 1 Ch. 89—58, 169, 173. McDonnell v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401, 5 South. 120—426, 434, 446, 448, 483, 490, 1027. M'Donnell v. Grand Canal Co., 3 Ir. Ch. Rep. (N. S.) 578 (1853)— 1895, 2584. McDonough V. Bank, 34 Tex. 309— 1715. McDonough v. Phelps, 15 How. Pr. 372 —290, 412, 459, 460. McDonough v. Webster, 68 Me. 530— 769. MacDougall v. Gardiner, L. R. 10 Qh. App. 606—1274. MacDougall v. Gardiner, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 13, 22 (1875)— 1296, 1452, 1621, 1905, 1932. McDougall V. Hazelton, etc. Co., 88 Fed. 217, 31 C. C. A. 487—983. McDougall V. Jersey, etc. Co., 2 Hem. & M. 528—1167, 1175. McDougall V. Jersey, etc. Co., 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1043—362. McDowall V. Sheehan, 129 N. Y. 200, 210, 29 N. B. 299—441, 488, 559, 573, 1373, 1376, 1507, 1740. McDowall V. Sheehan, ISi N. Y. Supp. 386—338, 488, 1507. McDowell V. Bank of Wilmington, 1 Harr. (Del.) 27—1115, 1123. McDowell V. Chicago Steel Works, 124 111. 491, 16 N. E. 834, 7 Am. St. Rep. 381—974, 983. McDowell V. Grand Canal Co., 3 Ir. Ch. (N. S.) 578 (1853)— 2575. McDowell V. McCormick, 121 Fed. 61 —2228. McDowell V. Massachusetts, etc. Co., 96 N. C. 514, 2 S. E. 351—248. McDowell V. New York, etc. R. R., 12 N. Y. St. Rep. 877—1512. McDowell's Appeal, 123 Fa. St. 381, 16 Atl. 753—939. McDufEee v. Portland, etc. R. R., 52 N. H. 430, 13 Am. Rep. 72—2607, 2609. McEacheran v. Western Transp. etc. Co., 97 Mich. 479, 56 N. W. 860—794, 814. Macedon, etc. Co. v. Lapham, 18 Barb. 312—372. Macedon, etc. Co. v. Snediker, 18 Barb. 317—232. McElhenny's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 188— 1476. McElrath, In re, 2 Dill. 460, 16 Fed. Gas. 72—2440. McElrath v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 55 Pa. St. 189—2028, 2036, 2045, 2195, 2212. McElrath v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 68 Pa. St. 37—2176. McBlree v. Darlington, 187 Pa. St. 593, 41 Atl. 456, 67 Am. St. Rep. 592 —1095, 2435. McElroy t. Carmichael, 6 Tex. 454 — 768. McElroy v. Continental Ry., 6' N. Y. Supp. 306—1955. McElroy v. Minnesota, etc. Co., 96 Wis. 317, 71 N. W. 652—1777. McElroy v. Nucleus Assoc, 131 Pa. St. 393, 18 Atl. 1063—1821. McElwee v. Chandler, 198 Pa. St. 575, 48 Atl. 475—783. McElwee Mfg. Co. v. Trowbridge, 62 Hun, 471, 17 N. Y. S. 3—1585. McEntee v. Kingston, etc. Co., 165 N. Y. 27, 58 N. E. 785—2774. McEuen v. West London Wharves, etc. Co., L. R. 6 Ch. 655 (1871)— 356, 559, 571. McEwan v. Campbell, 2 Macq. 499 (1857)— 1700. McBwen v. Montgomery, etc. Co., 5 Hill, 101—1833. McEwen v. Woods, 2 Car. & K. 330 (1846)— 928. McEwen v. Woods, 11 Q. B. 13 (1847) —911. McFadden v. Goetert, 131 Cal. 333, 63 Pac. 477—820. McFadden v. Johnson, 72 Pa. St. 335, 13 Am. Rep. 681—2799. McFadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513, 28 N. E. 874—432, 436, 492, 1085, 1286, 1299, 1338, 1864. McFadden v. May's Landing, etc. R. R., 49 N. J. Eq. 176, 22 Atl. 932— 1894, 2130, 2194, 2197, 2199. McPall V. Buckeye, etc. Assoc, 122 Cal. 468, 55 Pac. 253, 68 Am. St. Rep. 47—937, 994, 1015. McPall V. McJCeesport, etc. Co., 123 Pa. St. 259, 16 Atl. 478—739. McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Denio, 392—370, 1417, 1628. McFarland v. Lyon, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 586, 23 S. W. 554—235. McFarland v. Pierce, 47 N. B. 1 (Ind.) —2384. Macfarland v. West Side Imp. Assoc. 53 Neb. 417, 73 N. W. 736—391. ccxxxu TABLE OF CASES [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Macfarland v. West Side Imp. Assoc, 56 Neb. 277, 76 N. W. 584—364. McParlln v. First Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 868, 16 C. C. A. 46—630. McFerran v. Jones, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 219 — 993. M'Gargell " v. Hazelton Coal Co., 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 424—1738. McGarry v. Tanner, etc. Co., 21 Utah, 16, 53 Pac. 93—1735. McGary v. People, 45 N. Y. 153—64, 65. McGavic y. Cossum, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 35, 76 N. Y. Supp. 305—665. McGeary's Appeal, 6 Atl. 763 (Pa.) — 732. McGeorge v. Big Stone Gap Imp. Co., 57 Fed. 262—1594, 1849, 1904, 1920, 2133. McGhee, etc. Co. y. Hudson, 85 Tex. 587, 22 S. W. 398—2787. McGilliard v. Donaldsonville, etc. Works, 104 La. 544, 29 South. 254, 81 Am. St. Rep. 145—1923, 2387. McGinness y. Adriatic Mills, 116 Mass. 177—1829, 1830. Macginnis y. Boston, etc. Co., 119 Fed. 96, 55 C. C. A. 648—1870. McGinnis y. Smythe, 1 Silvern. 23, 4 N. B. 759—923. McGinty y. 'Athol, etc. Co., 155 Mass. 183, 29 N. B. 510—1271, 1283. McGoon V. Scales, 9 Wall. 23, 19 L. Bd. 545—1447. McGourkey y. Toledo, etc. Ry., 146 U. S. 536, 567, 13 Sup. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079—1456, 1462, 2282, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2328. McGowan y. McDonald, 111 Cal. 57, 43 Pac. 418, 52 Am. St. Rep. 149— 47*4, 1036. McGraw, In re. 111 N. Y. 66, 19 N. E. 233, 2 L. R. A. 387—1667. McGraw v. Cornell University, 45 Hun, 354—1667. McGraw v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 434—2304. McGreary v. Chandler, 58 Me. 537 — 1088. McGregor v. Covington, etc. R. R., 1 Disney (Ohio), 509—2035. MacGregor v. Dover, etc. Ry., 18 Q. B. 618 (1852)— 1701. McGregor v. Brie Ry., 35 N. J. L. 115— 1949, 2651. McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 181—584, 609, 610. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572, 4 S. W. 38, 4 Am. St. Rep. 771—509, 776, 780. McGuffey v. Humes, 85 Tenn. 26, 1 S. W. 506—1258, 1263. McGuire v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 N. Y. 208, 60 N. B. 433, 52 L. R. A. 437 —2835. McGuire y. Evans, 5 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 269—654. Machen v. Western, etc. Tel. Co., 41 S. E. 448 (S. O— 1941. McHenry v. Downer, 116 Cal. 20, '47 Pac. 779, 45 L. R. A. 737—1225. McHenry v. Duffleld, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 41—1817. McHenry v. Jewett, 90 N. Y. 58—1253, 1317, 1327. McHenry v. New York, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 130—1906. McHenry v. New York, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 65, 114—1906, 2366, 2383. McHenry's Petition, 9 Abb. N. Cas. 256 —2254. Machinists' Nat. Bank y. Dean, 124 Mass. 81—1084. Machinists' Nat. Bank v. Field, 126 Mass. 345—619, 835, 839. McHose V. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St 32—178, 186, 209, 369, 451, 452. McIIhenny v. Binz, 80 Tex. 1, 13 S. W. 655, 26 Am. St. Rep. 705—1757. Mcllquham v. Taylor (1895), 1 Ch. 53—588, 746, 1710. Mcllrath v. Snure, 22 Minn. 391 — 2301. McUroy, etc. Co. v. Dickson, 66 Ark. 327, 50 S. W. 868—1127. Mcllwaine v. Iseley, 96 Fed. Rep. 62 — 1073. Mclndoe v. St. Louis, ■ 10 Mo. 576— 1662. Mclntire v. Blakeley, 12 Atl. 325 (Pa.) —975. Mclntire v. Preston, 10 111. 48, 48 Am. Dec. 321—1624, 1812. Macintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R., 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 384 (Mich.)— 1109. Mclntyre v. McLain Ditching Assoc, 40 Ind. 104—371. Mclntyre v. Union College, 6 Paige, 239—1110, 1111. Mclntyre Poor School v. Zanesville Canal, etc. Co., 9 Ohio, 203, 34 Am. Dec. 436—1385. Mclsaac v. Northampton, etc Co., 172 Mass. 89, 51 N. E. 524, 70 Am. St. Rep. 244—2833. Mclver v. Robinson, 53 Ala. 456—1221, ■ 1225. Mack v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 869, 42 C. C. A. 67—199, 1702. Mack V. De Bardeleben, etc. Co., 90 Ala. 396, 8 South. 150, 9 L. R. A. 650—1270, 1322, 1349, 1912. McKane v. Adams, 123 N. Y. 609, 25 N. E. 1057, 20 Am. St. Rep. 785— 1073. McKay v. Beard, 20 S. C. 156 — 8. Mackay v. City, etc. of San Francisco, 128 Cal. 678, 61 Pac. 382—1208. Mackay v. Commercial Bank, L. R. 5 P. C. 394 (1874)— 72, 311, 331. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXlll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] McKay v. Elwood, 12 Wash. 579, 41 Pac 919 274 358 McKay v. Hudson, 118 Fed. 919—714, 916. Mackay v. San Francisco, 113 Cal. 392, 45 Pac. 696—1208. McKay v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., Ill Ala. 337, 19 South. 695, 31 L. R. A. 589, 56 Am. St. Rep. 59—2831. McKay's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 1 (1875) —1467, 1479. McKean v. Blddle, 181 Pa. St. 361, 37 AU. 528—29, 1075, 1137. McKee v. Grand Rapids, etc. Ry., 41 Mich. 274, 1 N. W. 873, 50 N. W. 469—2001, 2119, 2148, 2685. McKee v. Vernon County, 3 Dill. 210, 16 Fed. Cas. 188—1993, 2055. McKeen v. Northampton County, 49 Pa. St. 519, 88 Am. Dec. 515—1208. McKeesport v. McKeesport Pass. Ry., 158 Pa. St. 447, 27 Atl. 1006—2719. McKeever v. Dady, 18 N. Y. Supp. 439 —750. MacKellar, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 10 Atl. 780 (Pa.)— 1208. McKelvey v. Crockett, 18 Nev. 238, 2 Pac. 386—398. McKenney v. Bowie, 94 Me. 397, 47 Atl. 918—528, 1086, 1817. McKenney v. Haines, 63 Me. 74—1247, 1251, 1256, 1260, 1263. McKenny v. Diamond, etc. Assoc, 8 Houst. (Del.) 557, 18 Atl. 905—20, 1834. McKensey v. Edwards, 88 Ky. 272, 10 S. W. 815, 3 L. R. A. 397, 21 Am. St. Rep. 339—1817. McKenzie v. Poorman, etc., 88 Fed. Ill, 31 C. C. A. 409—1717. McKeon v. Kearney, 57 How. Pr. 349— 1080. McKeown v. Boudard, etc. Co., 74 L. T. Rep. 310, 712 (1896)— 322. Mackey v. Burns, 64 Pac. 485 (Colo.) —106, 135, 1484, 1485, 1850. McKieran v. Lenzen, 56 Cal. 61—1790. McKim V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479, 8 Atl. 130 540 555. McKim 'v. Hibbard, 142 Mass. 422, 8 N. E. 152—719. McKim V. Odom, 3 Bland Ch. 407, 417, 418, 420—3, 29, 1111, 1947. McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630, 9 Sup. Ct. 638, 32 L. Ed. 1048—70, 1676. McKinley v. Williams, 74 Fed. 94, 20 C. C. A. 312—711, 1263. McKinley, etc. Co. v. Gordon, 113 Iowa, 481, 85 N. W. 816—1671. McKinney v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 22 Ind. 99—2419. McKinney V. Postles, 54 Atl. 798 (Del.) —1085. i Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R., 32 Fed. 350—590, 601, 602, 605. Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R., 34 Fed. 582, 583—590, 601, 602, 681, 1168, 2503. McKinzie v. Kittridge, 24 U. C. (C. P.) 1 (1874)- 554. McKittrick v. Arkansas Cent. Ry., 152 U. S. 473, 14 Sup. Ct. 661, 38 L. Ed. 518—1490, 1646, 2121, 2460. Macklem v. Fales, 89 N. W. 581 (Mich.)— 1708. McKleroy v. Gadsen, etc. Co., 126 Ala. 184, 28 South. 660—1390. Mackley's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 247 (1875)— 190, 192, 380. Mack's Appeal, 7 Atl. 481 (Pa.)— 239, 385. McKusick V. O'Gorman, 69 N. W. 317 (Minn.)— 946. McKusick V. Seymour, etc. Co., 48 Minn. 158, 172, 50 N. W. 1114,. 1116— 450, 1136, 1178, 1570. Maclae v. Sutherland, 3 El. & Bl. 1, 39 (1854)— 1969. McLanahan v. Mott Co., 73 Hun, 131, 25 N. Y. Supp. 892—1981. McLane v. King, 144 U. S. 260, 12 Sup. Ct. 590, 36 L. Ed. 428—787, 1495, 2345, 2658. McLane v. Placerville, etc. R. R., 66 Cal. 606, 6 Pac. 748—2158, 2186, 2192, 2441, 2474, 2476. McLaren v. First Nat. Bank, 76 Wis. 259, 45 N. W. 223—1780. McLaren v. Fisken, 28 Grant, Ch. (Can.) 352 (1881)— 1750, 1752. McLaren v. Pennington, 1 Paige, 102 — 1432, 1433. Maelaren v. Stainton, 27 Beav. 460 (1859)— 1197. Maelaren v. Stainton, L. R. 11 Eq. 382 (1871), 3 De G., F. & J. 202 (1861) — 1197. McLaughlin v. Chadwell, 7 Heisk. (Tenn.) 389—1222, 1227. McLaughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 8 Mich. 100—178, 608, 1859. McLaughlin v. Louisville, etc. Co., 100 Ky. 173, 37 S. W. 851, 34 L. R. A. 812—41. McLaughlin v. O'Neill, 51 Pac. 243, 351 (Wyo.)— 466. McLaughlon v. Kimball, 20 Utah, 254, 58 Pac. 685, 77 Am. St. Rep. 908— 438. Maclaury v. Hart, 10 N. Y. Supp. 125 — 1746. McLean, In re, 138 N. Y. 158, 33 N. E. 821, 20 L. R. A. 389—1230. McLean, In re, 66 Hun, 122, 20 N. Y. Supp. 821—1230. McLean v. Brush, etc. Co., 9 Cin. Law Bull. 65, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 483—2797. CCXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] McLean v. Charles, etc. Co., 96 Mich. 479, 56 N. W. 68—871, 1248, 1265. McLean v. Eastman, 21 Hun, 312 — 1180, 1181. McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean, 587, 16 Fed. Cas. 264—1123, 1629. McLean v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co., 59 Pa. St. 112—601. McLean v. Stuve, 15 Mo. App. 317 — 778. McLeary v. Erie, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 3, 76 N. Y. Supp. 712— 1527, 2084. McLellan v. Detroit, etc. Works, 56 Mich. 579, 23 N. W. 321—1585, 1770, 2073. McLendon v. Anson County, 71 N. C. 38—2062. McLennan t. Bontell, 117 Mich. 544, 76 N. W. 75—1703. McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kan. App. 260, 41 Pac. 1061—499. McLeod V. Weldon, 1 New Brunswick Bq. Rep. 181 (1895)— 939. McLouth V. Hunt, 154 N. Y. 179, 48 N. E. 548, 39 L. R. A. 230—1191, 1192. McLucas V. St. Joseph, etc. R. R., 93 N. W. 928 (Neb.)— 2638. McLure v. Sherman, 70 Fed. 190—760, 763. McMahan v. Canadian, etc. Ry., 40 Or. 148, 66 Pac. 708—1795. McMahon, In re, 102 N. Y. 176, 6 N. E. 400, 55 Am. Rep. 796—1223, 1227. McMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155—418, 473, 533, 939. McMahon v. Morrison, 16 Ind. 172, 79 Am. Dec. 418—2587, 2590. McMahon v. New York, etc. R. R., 20 N. Y. 463—87. McMahon v. North Kent Ironworks (1891), 2 Ch. 148—2096. McMahon v. Second Ave. R. R., 75 N. Y. 231—2715. McManus v. Lancashire, etc. Ry., 2 H. & N. 693 (1858)— 2644. McManus v. Laughlin, 186 Pa. St. 498, 40 Atl. 992—642, 704. McMaster v. Davidson, 29 Hun, 542 — 567, 569, 570. McMaster v. State, 108 N. Y. 542, 15 N. Y. 417—2657. McMasters v. Reed, 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 36—1817, 1976, 1981. McMichael v. Inter-County St. Ry., 31 AU. 477 (Pa.)— 2693. McMillan v. Carson Hill, etc. Co., 12 Phila. 404—201. McMillan v. MaysvlUe, etc. R. R., 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 218, 61 Am. Dec. 181 —229, 232, 375. McMillen v. Boyles, 6 Iowa, 304—245. McMlllen v. Lee County, 6 Iowa, 391— 245.' McMinnville, etc. R. R. v. Huggins, 62 Tenn. 177—2432. McMuUan v. Dickinson Co., 63 Minn. 405, 65 N. W. 661, 663—930. McMullen v. Ritchie, 57 Fed. 104—951, 1877. McMullen v. Ritchie,' 64 Fed. 253, 260— 1470, 1499, 1621, 1697, 1878. McMuUin v. Leitch, 83 Cal. 239, 23 Pac. 294—2752. McMurray v. Moran, 134 U. S. 150, 10 Sup. Ct. 427, 33 L. Ed. 814—1994. 1997, 2042, 2485. McMurray v. Northern Ry., 22 Grant (U. C), 476 (1875)— 1910. MoMurrich v. Bond Head Harbor Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 333 (1852)— 853, 1114, 1250, 1259, 1263. McMurtry v. Montgomery, etc. Co., 86 Ky. 206, 5 S. W. 570—2243, 2279. McNab V. McNab, etc. Co., 133 N. Y. 687, 31 N. E. 627—1159, 1508, 1624. McNab V. McNab, etc. Co., 62 Hun, 18, 16 N. Y. Supp. 448—1159, 1508, 1624. MacNabb v. Porter, etc. Co., 44 N. Y. App. Div. 102, 60 N. Y. Supp. 694— 2390. McNary v. Bush, 35 Oreg. 114, 56 Pac. 646—2385. McNaught V. Fisher, 96 Fed. 168, 37 C. C. A. 438—215, 310. McNaughton v. McLean, 73 Mich. 250, 41 N. W. 267—995. MacNaughton v. Osgood, 114 N. Y. 574, 21 N. E. 1044—1508, 1876. MacNaughton v. Osgood, 41 Hun, 109— 1508. McNeal v. Mechanics', etc. Assoc, 40 N. J. Ea. 351, 3 Atl. 125—992, 1213. McNeal, etc. Co. v. Bullock, 174 Pa. St. 93, 34 Atl. 594—145, 2038. Macnee v. Persian Investment Corp., L. R. 44 Ch. D. 306 (1890)— 24, 509, 1607. McNeely v. Woodruff, 13 N. J. L. 352— 1274, 1319, 1339. McNeil V. Boston Chamber of Com., 154 Mass. 277, 28 N. E. 245, 13 L. R. A. 559—1765. McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 325, 334, 7 Am. Rep. 341—795, 846, 847, 849, 883, 888, 889, 938, 960, 978, 1121. McNeil V. Tenth Nat Bank, 55 Barb. 59—904, 918. McNeill V. Chicago City Ry., 61 111. 150—2681. McNeill's Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 503 (1870) —337. McNeish v. U. S. Hulless Oat Co., 57 Vt. 316—1091. McNichol V. U. S. etc. Agency, 74 Mo. 457—1955. TABLE OF OASES. CCXXXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] aicNulta V. Corn Belt Bank, 164 111. 427, 45 N. E. 954, 56 Am. St. Rep. 203—117, 198, 350, 619, 1350, 1356, 1508. .McNulta V. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 327, 12 Sup. Ct. 11, 35 L. Ed. 796—2468, 2492. -McNulta V. Lockrldge, 137 111. 270, 27 N. B. 452, 31 Am. St. Rep. 362— 2452. McNulty V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 31 N. Y. Misc. 674, 66 N. Y. Supp. 57— 2713. -Macon v. Macon Constr. Co., 94 Ga. 201, 21 S. E. 456—1207. Macon v. Western R. R., 9 Ga. 377— 2600. Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, 24 L. Ed. 889—252, 2049. -Macon, etc. R. R. v. Georgia R. R., 63 Ga. 103—2074, 2089,-2182, 2193, 2214. Macon, etc. R. R. v. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1, 11 S. E. 442, 21 Am. St. Rep. 135— 1038. Macon, etc. R. R. v. Parker, 9 Ga. 377 —2377. Macon, etc. R. R. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 —276, 282, 284, 286, 287, 291, 299, 389. -Macoun v. Erskine, etc. Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 493—909. McPhail V. Forney, 4 Wyo. 556, 35 Pac 773 2787 -McPherson v. Cox, 96 U. S. 404, 24 L. Ed. 746—2180. McPherson v. Foster, 43 Iowa, 48, 64, 65, 22 Am. Rep. 215—1548. -McQuade v. Williams, 101 Tenn. 334, 47 S. W. 427—1007. McQueen v. Middletown Mfg. Co., 16 Johns. 5—1953. "McQueen v. New, 45 N. y. App. Div. 579, 61 N. Y. Supp. 464—1639, 1891, 2405. McRae v. Russell, 12 Ired. (N. C.) 224 —354. McRee v. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 2 Jones (N. C), 186—2724. McRoberts v. Washburne, 10 Minn. 23 (Gil. 8)— 2733. "McTighe v. Keystone, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 134, 39 C. C. A. 447—2058, 2489. 'McTighe v. Macon Const. Co., 94 Ga. 306, 21 S. E. 701, 32 L. R. A. 208, 47 Am. St. Rep. 153—1420, 2034, 2234. MeVeagh v. Chicago, 49 111. 318—1213, 1225, 1230. MacVeagh v. Denver City W. W. Co., 85 Fed. 74, 29 C. C. A. 33—1896. MacVeagh v. Denver City, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 17, 46 C. C. A. 118—1881. MacVeagh v. Wild, 95 Fed. 84—426. McVickar v. Jones, 70 Fed. 754—450, 451, 459, 467, 471, 472. McVicker v. American Opera Co., 40 Fed. 861—1570. McVicker v. Cone, 21 Or. 353, 28 Pac. 7g 495 1709. McVicker'v. Ross, 55 Barb. 247—1090. McWethy v. Aurora, etc. Co., 67 N. E. 9 (111.)— 2729. McWhorter v. Lewis, 4 Ala. 198— 1817. Madden v. Penn, etc. Co., 181 Pa. St. 617, 37 Atl. 817, 38 L. R. A. 638— 1873. Madden v. Penn, etc. Co., 199 Pa. St. 454, 49 Atl. 296—1873. Maddick v. Marshall, 16 C. B. 387, 17 C. B. 829 (1864)— 1700. Maddox v. Graham, 2 Mete. (Ky.) 56 —246. Madison Ave. Bapt. Ch. v. Oliver St. Bapt. Ch., 46 N. Y. 131—1666. Madison Ave. Bapt. Ch. v. Oliver St. Bapt. Ch., 73 N. Y. 82—1916. Madison Ave. Bapt. Ch. v. Oliver St. Bapt. Church, 5 Robt. (N. Y.) 649— 1298. Madison County v. People, 58 111. 456 —245. Madison County v. Priestly, 42 Fed. 817—246. Madison County Court v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 80 Ky. 16—264. Madison, etc. Co. v. Watertown, etc. Co., 5 Wis. 173—1624. Madison, etc. Co. v. Watertown, etc. Co., 7 Wis. 59—2074, 2750. Madison, etc. R. R. v. Norwich Sav. Association, 24 Ind. 457—1978, 2074, 2083. Madrid Bank v. Pelly, L. R. 7 Eq. 442 (1869)— 1467. Maenhaut v. New Orleans, 3 Woods, 1, 16 Fed. Cas. 380—255. Magann v. Segal, 92 Fed. 252, 34 C. C. A. 323—2282, 2288. Magdalena, etc. Co., In re, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 975 (I860)— 1860. Magdalena Steam Nav. Co., In re, Johns. (Eng. Ch.) 690 (I860)— 1970. Magee v. Atkinson, 2 M. & W. 440 (1837)— 915, 926. Magee v. Badger, 30 Barb. 246 — 84. Magee v. Geneseo Academy, 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 221, 1 N. Y. Supp. 709—1388. Magee v. Mokelumne Hill, etc. Co., 5 Cal. 258—1969, 1977. Magee v. Overshiner, 150 Ind. 127, 49 N. E. 951, 40 L. R. A. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 358—2663, 2754, 2792. Magee v. Pacific Imp. Co., 98 Cal. 678, 33 Pac. 772, 35 Am. St. Rep. 199— 1599. Magill V. Kauffman, 4 Serg. & R. 317, 8 Am. Dec. 713—1759, 1801, 1827, 1828. CCXXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Magnin v. Dinsmore, 56, N. Y. 168— 2644. Magnus v. Queensland Nat. Bank, L. R. 36 Ch. D. 25—970. Magnus v. Queensland Nat. Bank, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 466—722. Magoun v. Illinois T. & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 Sup. Ct. 594, 42 L. Ed. 1037—1244. Magowan v. Groneweg, 86 N. W. 626 (S. D.)— 1553, 1567, 1779, 1786. Magowan t. Groneweg, 91 N. W. 335 (S. D.)— 1758. Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. 349, 22 Am. Rep. 47—532, 572, 578. Maguire v. Board of Revenue, 71 Ala. 401—1222. Maguire v. Halsted, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 228, 45 N. Y. Supp. 783—747, 766. Maguire's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 31 (1849)— 563, 848. Magwood V. Johnston, 1 Hill (S. C), Ch. 228—1064. Magwood V. Railroad Bank, 5 S. C. 379—725. Mahan v. Michigan Tel. Co., 93 N. W. 629 (Mich.)— 2754. Mahan v. Wood, 44 Cal. 462-198, 310, 1031. Mahaney v. Walsh, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 601, 44 N. Y. Supp. 969—52, 728, 824, 1250, 1251. Mahoney v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 63 Me. 68—2581, Mahoney v. Bernhard, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 499, 63 N. Y. Supp. 642—440, 481, 539. Mahoney v. Butte Hardware Co., 19 Mont. 377, 48 Pac. 545—1603. Mahoney v. East, etc. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 869 (1875)— 1738. Mahoney v. Holt, 19 R. I. 660, 36 Atl. 1—660. Mahoney v. Spring, etc. Co., 52 Cal. 159—2626. Mahoney Min. Co. v. Bennett, 5 Sawyer, 141, 16 Fed. Cas. 497—1530. Main v. Mills, 6 Biss. 98, 16 Fed. Cas. 506—1175, 1183, 1187. Maine v. Grand Trunk, etc. Ry., 142 U. S. 217, 12 Sup. Ct. 121, 35 L. Ed. 994—1242. Maine, etc. Co. v. City of Waterville, 93 Me. 586, 45 Atl. 830, 49 L. R. A. 294—2759. Maine, etc. Co. v. Southern, etc. Co., 92 Me. 444, 43 Atl. 24—172, 355, 389, 421, 453, 457, 490. Maine, etc. R. R. v. Maine, etc. R. R., 92 Me. 476, 43 Atl. 113—1428. Maine Stage Co. v. Longley, 14 Me. 444 —1802. Main Jellico, etc. Co. v. Lotspeich, 20 S. W. 377 (Ky.)— 1487. Maisenbacker v. Society, etc., 71 Conn_ 369, 42 Atl. 67, 71 Am. St. Rep. 213— 71. Maitland, In re, 74 L. T. Rep. 274 (1896)— 658. Maitland's Case, 4 De G., M. & G. 769- (1853)— 1378, 1766. Maitland's Case, 3 Giff. 28 (1861)— 1699. Maitland's Case, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 554 (1869)— 541, 552. Majors v. Taussig, 20 Colo. 44, 36 Pac. 816—1935, 2266. Makins v. Ibotson (1891), 1 Ch. 133 — 2374. Malay v. Mount Morris, etc. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 574, 58 N. Y. Supp.. 659—2835. Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, 88 Fed. 680—1443. Malecek v. Tower Grove, etc. Ry., 57 Mo. 17—78, 1829. Malleson v. National, e\c. Corp. (1894), 1 Ch. 200—23, 283. Mallett V. Uncle Sam, etc. Mining Co., 1 Nev. 197, 90 Am. Dec. 484 — 1737. Mallette v. Ft. Worth, etc. Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 51 S. W. 859—1643. Mallorie's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 181 (1866)— 539. Mallory v. Bradford, 1 Pa. Dist. 670 —2738. Mallory v. Hanaur Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598, 8 S. W. 396—1055. Mallory v. Kirkpatrick, 54 N. J. Eg. 50, 33 Atl." 205— 1649. Mallory v. Mallory-Wheeler Co., 61 Conn. 131. 23 Atl. 708—1508. Mallory v. Russell, 71 Iowa, 63, 32 N. W. 102, 6 Am. Rep. 776—1078. Mallory v. West Shore, etc. R. R., 35- N. Y. Super. Ct. 174—2129, 2161. Malloy V. Mallett, 6 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 345—1433. Malone v. Crescent, etc. Co., 77 Cal. 38, 18 Pac. 858—1807. Malone v. Lancaster, etc. Co., 182 Pa. St. 309, 37 Atl. 932—1605. Malone v. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 157 Pa. St. 430, 27 Atl. 756—2655. Malott V. Collinsville, etc. R. R., 108; Fed. 313, 47 C. C. A. 345—2420, 2630, 2701, 2706. Malott V. State, 64 N. E. 458 (Ind.) — 2414. Maltby v. Northwestern, etc. R. R., 16- Md. 422—203, 369. Maltby v. Reading R. R., 52 Pa. St. 140—1213, 1233. Mammoth Copperopolis, In re, 50 L. J. (Ch.) 11 (1880)— 1182, 1187. • Manchester, etc. Corp.'s Case, 22 W. R.. 41 (1873)— 534. TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXVU [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Manchester, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 645 (1880)— 2370, 2371, 2387. Manchester, etc. R. R. v. Concord R. R., 66 N. H. 100, 20 Atl. 383, 9 L. R. A. 689, 49 Am. St. Rep. 582— 2561, 2577. Manchester Loco. Works v. Truesdale, 44 Minn. 115, 46 N. W. 301, 9 L. R. A. 140—2355. Manchester Ry. v. Fisk, 33 N. H. 297 —1762. Manchester St. Ry. v. Williams, 52 Atl. 461 (N. H.)— 51, 5^1, 684, 711, 796, 798, 843, 844, 848, 885, 890, 1759. Mandell v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 111. 177, 40 N. B. 462, 27 L. R. A. 313, 45 Am. St. Rep. 124—291, 293, 361, 395, 1761. Manderson v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 379—1595, 1820, 1847. Mandevllle v. Riggs, 2 Pet. 482, 7 L. Ed. 493—437, 1087. Mandion v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 11 Roh. (La.) 177—576. Mandlebaum v. North Am. Min. Co., 4 Mich. 465—640, 821, 884. Mangels v. Donau, etc. Co., 53 Fed. 513—2202. Mangles v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 10 Sim. 519—308. Manhattan Bank v. Walker, 130 U. S. 267, 9 Sup. Ct. 519, 32 L. Ed. 959— 724, 727, 967. Manhattan Beach Co. v. Harned, 27 Fed. 484, 23 Blatchf. 494—644. Manhattan Co. t. Kaldenberg, 165 N. Y. 1, 58 N. E. 790—425, 1377, 1379. Manhattan Co. v. Lydig, 4 Johns. 377, 4 Am. Dec. 280—1797. Manhattan, etc. Co. v. Dayton, etc. Co., 55 Fed. 181—2741. Manhattan, etc. Co. v. Grant, 31 N. y. St. Rep. 254, 9 N. Y.,Supp. 942— 2846. Manhattan, etc. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A., 107 Fed. 328, 46 C. C. A. 322— 2352. Manhattan, etc. Institution v. N. Y. etc. Bank, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 147, 59 N. Y. Supp. 51—2048, 2050. Manhattan Hardware Co. v. Phalen, 128 Pa. St. 110, 18 Atl. 428—1284, 1821, 1827, 1888, 1972. Manhattan Hardware Co. v. Roland, 128 Pa. St. 119, 18 Atl. 429—1823, 1866, 2143. Manhattan L. Ins. Co. v. Forty-second, etc. R. R., 139 N. Y. 146, 34 N. E. 776—643. Manhattan Ry. v. New York Elev. Ry., 29 Hun, 309—1513, 1930. Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. N. Y. etc. Bank, 170 N. Y. 58, 62 N. E, 1079, 88 Am. St. Rep. 640—640, 721, 963, 1992, 2044, 2048, 2050, 2168. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Dayton, 59 -Fed. 327, 8 C. C. A. 140—2735, 2742. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Seattle Coal, etc. Co., 16 Wash. 499, 48 Pac. 333, 737—147, 2022, 2153. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Seattle, etc. Co., 19 Wash. 493, 53 Pac. 951—133, 147, 148, 2022, 2177, 2260, 2274, 2283. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City Cable Ry., 68 Fed. 82—2699. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City, etc. Ry., 68 Fed. 72—2333. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City, etc. Ry., 68 Fed. 82—2332. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City, etc. Ry., 76 Fed. 658—2312. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City, etc. R. R., 81 Fed. 50—2349. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Sioux City, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 559, 171 U. S. 474, 19 Sup. Ct. 14, 43 L. Ed. 246— 953. Manheim, etc. Co. v. Arndt, 31 Pa. St. 317—1031. Manistee, etc. Co. v. Commissioner of Railroads, 118 Mich. 349, 76 N. W. 633—1024, 1236. Manistee Lumber Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 143 111. 490, 32 N. E. 449—199. Manisty's Case, 17 Sol. Jour. 745 (1873)— 294. Manlove v. Burger, 38 Ind. 211 — 2410. Mann v. Anderson, 106 Ga. 818, 32 S. E. 870—1198. Mann v. Butler, 2 Barb. Ch. 362—1091, 1092. Mann v. Chandler, 9 Mass. 335—1817. Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178—114, 290,. 292, 308, 412. Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294—172, 292, 540. Mann v. Edinburgh, etc. Co. (1893), A. C. 69—1479. Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415—273, 274, 401, 404, 406, 409, 411. Mann v. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. 257—411. Mann v. People, 15 Hun, 155-1618, Mann v. Williams, 143 Mass. 394, 9 N. E. 807—739. Manneck, etc. Co. v. Manneck, 23 Xlb. L. J. 216 (1881)— 1922. Mannhardt v. Illinois, etc. Co., 90 111. . App. 315—1314. Manning v. Gasharie, 27 Ind. 399 — 436. Manning v. Mercantile T. Co., 37 N. Y. Misc. 215, 75 N. Y. Supp. 168— 1928, 2268. Manning v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 29 Fed. 838—2056, 2063. Manning v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 24 Hun, 360—606, 1144, 1148, 1152. Manning v. Schriver, 79 Md. 41, 28 Atl. 899—989. Manns v. Brookville Nat. Bank, 73 Ind. 243—44, 932, 933, 998. ■CCXXXVlll TABLE OP CASES." [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Mann's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 459 (1867)— 541, 580, 581. Mansergh v. Campbell, 3 De G. & J. 232 (1858)— 659. Mansfield, etc. R. R. v. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 223—233, 234, 2567, 2579, 2582. Mansfield, etc. R. R. v. Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241—233, 235, 372. Mansfield Iron Works v. Wilcox, 52 Pa. St. 377—450, 452. Manship v. New, etc. Assoc, 110 Fed. 845—1417. Manton v. Ray, 18 R. I. 672, 29 Atl. 998, 49 Am. St. Rep. 811—753. Manton v. Seiberling, 107 Iowa, 534, 78 N. W. 194—1635. Manufacturers', etc. Co. v. Indiana, etc. Co., 57 N. E. 912, 50 L. R. A. 768 (Ind.)— 2735. Manufacturers' Nat. Banls v. Baack, 8 Blatchf. 137, 16 Fed. Cas. 671—1967. Manufacturers' Sav. Bank v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 97 Mo. 38, 10 S. W. 865—1516. Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175, 26 L. Ed. 1034—446. Manville v. Beldin Min. Co., 17 Fed. 425, 5 McCrary, 391—1825, 1970. Manville v. Edgar, 8 Mo. App. 324 — 460. Manville v. Karst, 16 Fed. 173—477. Manville v. Lawton, 19 N. Y. Supp. 587—711, 792, 908. Manville v. Roever, 11 Mo. App. 317 — 477. Many v. Beekman, etc. Co., 9 Paige, 188—1110, nil, 1812. ■ Mapes v. Scott, 94 111. 379—1629, 16'63. Mapes V. Second Nat. Bank, 80 Pa. St. 163—1829. Mapes' Estate, In re, 12 N. Y. Supp. 9—664. Mapleton Bank v. Standrod, 71 Pac. 119 (Idaho)— 1008, 1019. Mappier v. Mortimer, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. §.)— 455, 456. Marble Co. v. Harvey, 92 Tenn. 115, 20 S. W. 427, 18 L. R. A. 252, 36 Am. St. Rep. 71—1054, 1322. Marbury v. Bhlen, 72 Md. 206, 19 Atl. 648, 20 Am. St. Rep. 467—721, 724. Marbury v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 62 Fed. 335, 10 .C. C. A. 393—689, 694, 2077, 2078, 2083, 2084. Marbury v. Stone, 160 N. Y. 701, 57 N. B. 1116—1640, 1851, 2379. Marbury v. Stone, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 352, 45 N. Y. Supp. 184—1640, 1851, 2379. March v. Eastern R. R.. 40 N. H. 5-l8, 77 Am. Dec. 732—1497, 1875, 2560, 2648. March v. Eastern R. R., 43 N. H. 515, 520—784, 1042, 1146, 1147, 2076, 2560, 2570, 2576, 2648. March v. Romare, 114 Fed. 200—2183. March v. Romare, 116 Fed. 355, 53 C. C. A. 575—2182. Marchand v. Loan, etc. Assoc, 26 La. Ann. 389—1719. Marcuse v. Gullett, etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1383, 27 South. 846—1159, 1501, 1920. Marcy v. Clark, 17 Mass. 330—429, 576. Mare v. Charles, 5 El. & B. 978 (1856) 1818. Mareck v. Minneapolis T. Co., 74 Minn. 538, 77 N. W. 428—2501. Maria Anna, etc. Co., In re, 44 L. J. (Ch.) 423 (1875)— 547. Marie v. Garrison, ^ N. Y. 14—1875, 2514. Marie v. Garrison, 13 Abb. N. Cas. 210, 234, 235—1306, 1307. Marietta, etc. R. R. v. Elliott, 10 Ohio St. 57—1031, 1032. Marine Bank v. Biays, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 338—1153. Marine Bank v. Clements, 31 N. Y. 33—1638, 1777. Marine Bank v. Ogden, 29 111. 248— 1589. Marine Bank, etc. v. Clements, 3 Bosw. 600—1773. Marine, etc. Bank v. Jauncey, 1 Barb. 486—1951. Marine Mansions Co., In re, L. R. 4 Eq. 601 (1867)— 278, 699, 2093, 2094. Mariners' Bank v. Sewall, 50 Me. 220 —1447. Marino's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 596 (1867)— 565. Marion Bond Co. v. Mexican, etc. Co., 65 N. E. 748 (Ind.)— 505, 1404, 1426. Marion County v. Harvey County, 26 Kan. 181—268. Marlon, etc. Co. v. Crescent, etc. Co., 61 N. E.*688, 87 Am. St. Rep. 257 (Ind.)— 1600. Marion, etc. Co. v. Crescent, etc. Co., 27 Ind. App. 451, 61 N. E. 688, 87 Am. St. Rep. 257—1971. Marion Phosphate Co. v. Perry, 74 Fed. 425, 20 C. C. A. 490, 33 L. R. A. 252— 1446. Marion Sav. Bank v. Dunkin, 54 Ala. 471—1628. Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138, 77 N. W. 788—539, 547. Market Nat. Bank v. Pacific Nat. Bank, 64 How. Pr. 1—1966. Market Street Bank v. Stump, 2 Mo. App. 545—1603. Market St. Ry. v. Central Ry., 51 Cal. 583—2661. Market Street Ry. v. Hellman, 109 Cal. 571, 42 Pac. 225—505, 1038, 1305, 1315, 1318, 1320, 2052, 2544, 2583, 2587, 2590. TABLE OF CASES. COXXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Markey v. Langley, 92 U. S. 142, 23 L. Ed. 701—2192. Markham v. Jaudon, 41 N. Y. 235, 241, 243—919, 923, 924, 942, 977, 981, 1262. Markoe v. Hartranft, 6 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 487—1207. Marks v. Evans, 62 Pac. 76 (Cal.)— 304, 335. 1854. Marks v. Metropolitan Stock Ex- change, 63 N. E. 410 (Mass.)— 774. Markwell's Case, 5 De G. & S. 528 (1852)— 1701. Markwood v. Southern Ry., 65 Fed. 817—1963, 2654. Marlborough Assoc, v. Peters, 179 Mass. 61, 60 N. E. 396—1382, 1786. Marlborough Branch R. R. v. Arnold, 75 Mass. 159, 69 Am. Dec. 279—188, 364. Marlborough Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 2 Conn. 579—559, 563, 854, 888, 1029. Marlor v. Texas, etc. Ry., 19 Fed. 867— 2067, 2070. Marlor v. Texas, etc. Ey., 21 Fed. 383 —2067, 2070, 2248. Marmet Co. v. Archibald, 37 W. Va. 778, 17 S. E. 299—64. Marmora, etc. Co. v. Murney, 1 C. P. Rep. (Can.) 29 (1850)— 1272. Marquand v. Federal, etc. Co., 95 Fed. 725—602, 1157, 1176, 1177. Marquand v. New York, etc. Co., 17 John. 511, 529—1371. Marquette, etc. R. R. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289—1795. Marquis of Abercorn's Case, 4 De Gr., F. & J. 78 (1862)— 180. Marrill v. Gamble, 46 Iowa, 615—650. Marrs y. Felton, 102 Fed. 775—2416. Marryatt v. Bank of England, 8 Ves. Jr. 524 (1793)— 732. Marseilles Extension Ry., In re, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 161 (1871)— 667, 1841. Marsh v. Atlanta, etc. R. R., 53 Fed. 168—2175. Marsh v. Burley, 13 Neb. 261, 13 N. W. 279—2152, 2297. Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463, 16 Fed. Cas. 800—272, 274, 402, 404, 407, 408, 409, 416, 420, 421. Marsh v. Falrbury, etc. R. R., 64 111. 414, 16 Am. Rep. 564—2647. Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676, 19 L. Ed. 1040—242, 269. Marsh t. Kaye, 168 N. Y. 196, 61 N. B. 177—454. Marsh v. Keating, 1 Bing. N. Cas. 198 (1834)— 834, 926, 1252. Marsh v. Mathias, 19 Utah, 350, 56 Pac. 1074—503. Marshall v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 16 How. 314, 14 L. Ed. 953—1949, 2646, 2647. Marshall v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 85. Va. 676, 8 S. E. 586, 2 L. R. A. 534, 17 Am. St. Rep. 84—1689. Marshall v. Glamorgan, etc. Coal Co.,. L. R. 7 Eq. 129 (1868)— 346. Marshall v. Golden Fleece, etc. Co., 16. Nev. 156—303. Marshall v. Lovelass, Cam. & N. (N> C.) 217—1088. Marshall v. Marshall, 11 Colo. App. 505, 53 Pac. 617—712, 719, 955, 973. Marshall v. National, etc. Bank, 66 L. T. Rep. 525 (1892)— 886. Marshall v. Queensborough, 1 Sim. &. S. 520 (1823)— 1760. Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9, 42 N. E. 419, 34 L. R. A. 757, 51 Am. St. Rep. 654—433, 453, 465. Marshall v. Sherman, 84 Hun, 186, 32. N. Y. Supp. 193—4165. Marshall v. South Staffordshire Tram- ways Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 36—1697,. 2110, 2211, 2369, 2576. Marshall v. South Staffordshire Tram- ways Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 236—2686. Marshall v. Thruston, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 741—778, 781. Marshall v. Western N. C. R. R., 92 N. C. 322—266, 1582, 2540. Marshall, etc. Bank v. O'Neal, 34 S. W. 344 (Tex.)— 2072. Marshall, etc. Co. v. Oren, etc. Co., 90 N. W. 618 (Iowa)— 1768. Marshall Foundry Co. v. Killian, 99 N. C. 501, 6 S. E. 680, 6 Am. St. Rep. 539—309, 393. Marshall Paper Co., In re, 95 Fed. 419 —448. Marshall's Estate, 138 Pa. St. 285, 22' Atl. 24—967. Marson v. Deither, 49 Minn. 423, 52 N. W. «8— 380, 409. Marstaller v. Mills, 143 N. Y. 398, 38.. N. E. 370—1447. Marston v. Durgin, 54 N. H. 347 — 1073. Marston y. Singapore Rattan Co., 163 Mass. 296, 39 N. E. 1113—1704. Marten v. Gibbon, 33 L. T. Rep. 561. (1875)— 1147. Marten v. Gibbon, 33 L. T. Rep. 561 (1876)— 910. Marten v. Paul, etc. Co., 99 Cal. 355, 33 Pac. 1107—333, 812, 816. Martens v. International, etc. Soc, 53" N. Y. 339, 13 Am. Rep. 529—1952. Martin, In re, 62 Hun, 557, 17 N. Y. Supp. 133—1098. Martin's Estate, In re, 56 Minn. 420, 57 N. W. 1065—452. Martin's Estate, 131 Pa. St. 638, 18: Atl. 987—766. Martin's Estate, 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 449 (Orphans' Ct. Phil. 1888)— 766.. ccxl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Martin v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 151 IT. S. 673, 14 Sup. Ct. 533, 38 L. Ed. 311—1963, 2654. Martin v. Central Iowa Ry., 59 Iowa, 411, 13 N. W. 424—66. Martin v. Citizens' Trust Co., 94 Tenn. 176, 28 S. W. 1097—2059. Martin v. Continental, etc. Ry., 14 Phila. 10—1552, 2568, 2578. Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55, 36 Pac. 368, 41 Am. St. Rep. 151—1426. Martin v. Eagle, etc. Co., 69 Pac. 216 (Or.)— 36. Martin v. Pewell, 79 Mo. 401, 412— 496, 525. Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 337, 43 N. W. 337—328, 791, 811. Martin v. Johnston Co., 25 Abb. N. Cas. 350, 12 N. Y. Supp. 844—1098. Martin v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 7 Bush (Ky.), 116—1003, 1672, 2064, 2653. Martin v. New Rochelle Waiter Co., 162 N. Y. 599, 57 N. E. 1117—1536, 1650. Martin v. New Rochelle Water Co., 11 N. Y. App. 177, 42 N. Y. Supp. 893^ 1536. Martin v. New York, etc. R. R., '36 N. J. Eq. 109—2433. Martin v. Niagara, etc. Co., 44 Hun, 130—1776, 2106. Martin v. Niagara Falls, etc. Co., 122 N. Y. 165, 25 N. E. 303—11, 35, 1607, 1608, 1735, 1776, 1780, 1827, 2072, 2081, 2106, 2138. Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R. R., 8 Pla. 370, 389, 390, 73 Am. Dec. 713—236, 1041, 1042. Martin v. Santa Cruz, etc. Co., 36 Pac. 36 •( Ariz. )— 1509. Martin v. Second, etc. Ry., 1 Amer. St. Ry. Dec. 359 (Pa.)— 2683. TVIartin v. Sedgwick, 9 Beav. 333—796. Martin v. Somerville, etc. Co., 16 Fed. Cas. 903—2049, 2199, 2219, 2515. Martin v. South, etc. Co., 94 Va. 28, 26 S. E. 591—136, 338, 406. Martin v. South, etc. Co., 97 Va. 349, 33 S. E. 600—409. Martin v. Walton, 1 McCord (S. C), 16—1845. Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7, 3 Sup. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 49—1789, 1835. Martin v. Wilson, 120 Fed. 202—490, 548, 686. Martin v. Zellerbach, 38 Cal. 300, 99 Am. Dec. 365—1584. Martindale v. Wilson-Cass Co., 134 Pa. St. 348, 19 Atl. 680, 19 Am. St. Rep. 706—1502. Martino v. Commerce P. Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 520—23. Martinsburg, etc. R. R. v. March. 114 U. S. 549, 5 Sup. Ct. 1035, 29 L. Ed. 255—2655. Martinus v. Helmuth, 2 Ves. & B. 412 (1817)— 861. Marvin v. Anderson, 111 Wis. 387, 87 N. W. 226—673, 1558, 1666, 1810. Marye v. Strouse, 5 Fed. 483, 6 Sawy. 204—909, 910, 913. Maryland v. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 105, 22 L. Ed. 713—2002. Maryland, etc. Co. v. Gettysburg, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 150—2351. Maryland P. Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 242, 267, 89 Am. Dec. 779—982, 983, 987, 1248, 1251. Mary Lee, etc. Ry. v. Knox, 110 Ala. 632, 19 South. 67—1633. Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 93 Cal. 538, 29 Pac. 126, 27 Am. St. Rep. 215 —214. Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 109 Cal. 192, 41 Pac. 1016, 50 Am. St. Rep. 34—384. Marysville Invest. Co. v. Munson, 44 Kan. 491, 24 Pac. 977—1434. Marzetti's Case, 42 L. T. Rep. 206 (1880)— 669. M. A. Seeds, etc. Co. v. Heyn, etc. Co., 57 Neb. 214, 77 N. W. 660—1637. Mashonaland Pioneers, In re, L. R. 1 Ch. 731—113. Maskelyne, etc. Ltd., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 133—2387. Mason v. Alexander, 44 Ohio St. 318, 7 N. E. 435—453, 456, 457, 481, 568, 575. Mason v. Cronk, 125 N. Y. 496, 28 N. E. 224—1616, 1890, 2092. Mason v. Davol Mills, 132 Mass. 76 — 621. Mason v. Decker, 72 N. Y. 595, 28 Am. Rep. 190—763. Mason v. Decker, 10 Jones & S. 115 — 763. Mason V. Equitable League, 77 Md. 483, 27 Atl. 171, 39 Am. St. Rep. 433— 1387, 1919. Mason v. Fischer, etc. Co., 21 South. 5 (Miss.)— 1594. Mason v. Harris, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 97 (1879)— 1526, 1897, 1905. Mason V. Henry, 152 N. Y. 529, 46 N. E. 837—1497, 1574, 1890. Mason v. Henry, 83 Hun, 546, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1068—1861. Mason V. Morin, 42 S. W. 88 (Ky.)— 117. Mason V. N. Y. Silk Mfg. Co., 27 Hun, 307—439. Mason V. Pewabic Min. Co., 133 U. S. 50, 10 Sup. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 524— 1526, 1527, 1531, 1563. Mason V. Pewabic Min. Co., 66 Fed. 391, 13 C. C. A. 532—1499, 1563, 2482. Mason v. Smith, 200 Pa. St. 270, 49 Atl. 642—709. TABLE OF CASES. ccxli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Mason v. Stevens, 92 N. W. 424 (S. D.) —506. Mason v. Wheeler, 24 N. Y. Supp. 879 — S12. Mason v. York, etc. R. R., 52 Me. 82 — 2107, 2116, 2157, 2183, 2197. Mason, etc. Co. v. Metcalfe Mfg. Co., 44 S. W. 629 (Ky.)— 1769. Masonic, etc. Assoc, v. Severson, 71 Conn. 719, 43 Atl. 192—22, 1297, 1758. Masonic, etc. Ass. Co. v. Sharpe (1892), 1 Ch. 154—1187. Masonic Temple Assoc, v. Channell, 43 Minn. 353, 45 N. W. 716—306, 364. Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 U. S. 40, 11 Sup. Ct. 889, 35 L. Ed. 628,-1242, 2838. Massachusetts, etc. Co. v. Cherokee, 42 Fed. 750—256. Massachusetts, etc. Ins. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 13 Fed. 857—2200, 2205, 2256, 2483. Massachusetts Iron Co. v. Hooper, 61 Mass. 183—1114. Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Hamil- ton, 88 Fed. 588, 32 C. C. A. 46— 2699. Massey v. Building Assoc, 22 Kan. 624—1418. Massey v. Yancey, 90 Va. 626, 19 S. E. 184—998. Massillon, etc. Co. v. Cambria, etc. Co., 59 Ohio St. 179, 52 N. E. 192—2332, 2335, 2699. Masslngberd's Settlement, In re, 60 L. T. Rep. 620 (1889)— 718. Masters v. Rossie, etc. Co., 2 Sandf. Ch. 301—404, 421, 455, 491, 1111. Masters's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 292 (1872)— 579, 580, 1358. Masterton v. Boyce, 6 N. Y. Supp. 65— 745, 906. Masury v. Arkansas National Bank, 93 Fed. 603, 35 C. C. A. 476—844, 847, 848, 885, 902, 937, 1014. Mather v. Eureka, etc. Co., 118 N. Y. 629, 23 N. B. 993, 44 Hun, 333—1511. Mather, etc. Co. v. Anderson, 76 Fed. 164, 22 C. C. A. 109—2355. Mathesius v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 96 Fed. 792—2075. Mathews v. Bank of Allendale, 38 S. B. 437 (S. O— 1387, 1911, 1923. Mathews v. Columbia Nat. Bank, etc., 77 Fed. 372, 79 Fed. 559—631. Mathews v. Dubuque Mattress Co., 87 Iowa, 246—1817. ' Mathews v. Hardt, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 570, 80 N. Y. Supp. 462—2101, 2300. Mathews v. Hardt, 37 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 653, 76 N. Y. Supp. 134—1576, 1639. Mathez v. Neidig, 72 N. Y. 100—401, 441, 450, 477, 479. Mathlas v. White S. S. Assoc, 19 Mont. 359, 48 Pac 624—1771. Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 20 S. W. 1015—101, 114, 115, 120, 136, 229, 232, 338, 380, 382, 387, 393, 403, 413, 480. Matlock V. Smith, 71 S. W. 956 (Tex.) —2493. Matson v. Alley, 141 111. 284, 31 N. B. 419—1766. Matteson v. Dent, 176 TJ. S. 521, 20 Sup. Ct. 419, 44 L. Bd. 571—538. Matteson v. Dent, 112 Iowa, 551, 84 N. W. 710—960. Matteson v. Dent, 70 Minn. 519, 75 N. W. Rep. 1041—538. Matthewman's Case, L. R. 3 Bq. 781 (1866)— 204, 543. Matthews v. Albert, 24 Md. 527—382, 421, 426, 451, 455, 479, 491, 533. Matthews v. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. 333, 32 N. B. 981, 32 Am. St. Rep. 741—20, 1073. Matthews v. Associated Press, 61 Hun, 199, 15 N. Y. Supp. 887—20. Matthews v. Board, etc. Com'rs, 106 Fed. 7—2611. Matthews v. Board of Corporation Com'rs, etc., 97 Fed. 400—1038, 2611. Matthews v. Cady, 61 N. Y. 651—748. Matthews v. Coe, 49 N. Y. 57—1263. Matthews v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. 558—631, 12V4. Matthews v. Great Northern Ry., 28 L. J. (Ch.) 375 (1859)— 591, 604, 605. Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455, 21 Atl. 1054—663. Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 1 Holmes, 396, 16 Fed. Gas. 1113— 833, 834, 850, 889, 1787. Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 1 Holmes, 396, 407, 16 Fed. Cas. 1113, 1118—847, 1787. Matthews v. Murchinson, 15 Fed. 691 —681, 2205, 2504. Matthews v. Murchison, 17 Fed. 760 — 682, 2181, 2504. Matthews v. Patterson, 16 Colo. 215, 26 Pac. 812—431. Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329, 21 Am. Rep. 425—1629. Matthews v. Theological Seminary, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 541—1672, 1674. Matthews v. Trustees, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 541—1377, 1672, 1674. Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 207, 23 Pac 1117—712, 751. Mattlson v. Dematest, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 717—1928. Matty V. Sampson, 64 N. Y. App, Div. 1, 71 N. Y. Supp. 731—482. Maturin v. Tredinnick, 2 New Repi 514 (1863)^787. ccxlii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash rater to the pages of the text.] Maturin v. Tredinnick, 4 New Rep. 15 (1864)— 815. Maturin v. Tredinnick, 2 N. R. 514 (1863), 4 N. R. 15—1476. Matusevltz v. Citizens', etc. Co., 19 Mont. 368, 48 Pac. 552—1000. Maudslay, etc. Limited, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 602—2426. Maund v. Monmouthshire Canal Co., 4 Man. & G. 452 (1842)— 74. Mauney v. High Shoals Mfg. Co., 4 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 195—66. Maunsell v. Midland, etc. Ry., 1 Hem. & M. 130 (1863)— 202, 680, 2575, 2584, 2645, 2648. Maupin v. Virginia, etc. Co., 78 Mo. 24 —1799. Mauran v. Crown, etc. Co., 23 R. I. 324, 50 Atl. 387—2478. Manx Perry, etc. Co. v. Branegan, 40 Ind. 361—1500. Maxsted v. Morris, 21 L. T. Rep. 535 (1869)— 915. Maxted v. Fowler, 94 Mich. 106 — 784, 803, 1258. Maxted v. Paine, L. R. 6 Exch. 132 (1871)— 913, 915. Maxton v. Gheen, 75 Pa. St. 166—770. Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178—409, 506, 1598, 2092. Maxwell v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 34 Fed. 286—1958. Maxwell v. Central, etc. Co., 51 W. Va. 121, 41 S. B. 125—2793. Maxwell v. Dulwich College, 1 Fonbl. Eq. 296 (1834)— 1759. Maxwell v. Foster, 41 S. B. 776 (S. C.) —972. Maxwell v. Port Tennant, etc. Co., 24 Beav. 495 (1858)— 756. Maxwell v. Willmington, etc. Co., 77 Fed. 938—2317, 2325. Maxwell v. Wilmington, etc. Co., 82 Fed. 214—2473. Maxwell v. "Wilmington, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 852—2346, 2445. Maxwell, etc. Co. v. Henderson, 12 Colo. App. 425, 56 Pac. 67—2003, 2497. Maxwell's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 585 (1874) —519. Maxwell's Trusts, In re, 1 Hem. £ M. 610 (1863)— 1197. May V. Black, 77 Wis. 101, 45 N. W. 949—466. May V. Cleland, 117 Mich. 45, 75 N. W. 129, 44 L. R. A. 163—1006. May V. Genesee, etc. Bank, 120 Mich. 330, 79 N. "W. 630—534, 712. May V. Grave, 3 De G. & Sm. 462 (1849)— 657. May V. McQuillan, 89 N. W. 45 (Mich.)— 562, 746, 844. May V. Memphis Branch R. R., 48 Ga.- 109—366, 391. May V. Printup, 59 Ga. 128 — 2227,. 2382 May V. Ullrich, 92 N. "W. 493 (Mich.) —577. Maybin v. Kirby, 4 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 105—826, 948. Maybury v. Ehlen, 72 Md. 206—724. Mayer v. Child, 47 Cal. 142—764. Mayer v. Denver, etc. R. R., 38 Fed.- 197—1880, 1882. Mayer v. Denver, etc. R. R., 41 Fed. 723—1899. Mayers v. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 283—508. Mayfield v. Alton, etc. Co., 198 111. 528,. 65 N. E. 100—2550. Mayfield v. Alton, etc. Co., 65 N. E- 100 (111.)— 1562, 2580. Mayfield v. Alton Ry., 100 111. App. 614—345. Mayhew v. West Virginia, etc. Co., 24 Fed. 205—2288. Mayhew's Case, 1 De G., M. & G. 837" (1854)— 1079. Mayhew's Case, 5 De G., M. & G. 837 (1854)— 556, 563. Maynard v. Board, etc., 84 Mich. 228,. 47 N. W. 756, 11 L. R. A. 332—1303. Maynard v. Bond, 67 Mo. 315—2422. Maynard v. Eaton, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 414 (1874)— 580. Maynard v. Fireman's, etc. Co., 3^ Cal. 49, 91 Am. Dec. 672, 47 Cal. 20r —72. Maynard v. Lumberman's Nat. Bank,. 11 Atl. 529 (Pa.)— 978. Maynard v. Tilden, 28 Fed. 688—972, 974. Maynard's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 60 (1873)— 84, 88, 163. Mayo V. Knowlton, 134 N. Y. 250, 31 N. E. 985—787, 797, 813, 815, 908, 955. Mayo V. Moritz, 151 Mass. 481, 24 N. E_ 1083—1064. Mayor v. Dry Dock, etc. R. R., 133 N. Y. 104, 30 N. E. 563, 28 Am. St. Rep. 609—2716. Mayor v. Fitch, 9 N. Y. App. Div. 452, 41 N. Y. Supp. 354—2674. Mayor, etc. v. Addicks, 7 Del. Ch. 56, 43 Atl. 297—1422, 2734, 2740. Mayor, etc. v. Bailey, 2 Denlo, 433 — 75. Mayor, etc. v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 670 (Md.)— 2757. Mayor, etc. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 21 Md. 50, 89—682, 2555, 2577, 2643. Mayor, etc. v. Baltimore & 0. R. R., 5 Gill (Md.), 288—1218. Mayor, etc. -v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Ga; 648—1220. TABLE OF CASES. coxliii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Mayor, etc. v. Holland, etc. Co., 35 Atl. 344 (N. J.)— 2814. Mayor, etc. v. House, 104 Tenn. 1, 55 S. W. 153—2823. Mayor, etc. t. Knoxville, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 758—2113. Mayor, etc. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1, 37 N. E. 494—7. Mayor, etc. v. New York, etc. R. R., 19 N. Y. Supp. 67—2717. Mayor, etc. v. New York Ferry, etc. Co., 64 N. Y. 622—1947. Mayor, etc. v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 111 N. Y. 446, 18 N. E. 618—1839. Mayor, etc. v. Third Ave. R. R., 117 N. Y. 404, 22 N. B. 755—2721. Mayor, etc. v. Troy, etc. R. R., 49 N. Y. 657—2665. Mayor, etc. v. Twenty-third Street R. Rr., 113 N. Y. 311, 21 N. E. 60—1235, 1432, 2722. Mayor, etc. v. Wylie, 43 Hun, 547 — 1821. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 166 U. S. 673, 17 Sup. Ct. 696, 41 L. Ed. 1160—2669. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Baltimore, etc. Ry., 57 Md. 31—1209, 1211, 1213, 1230. Mayor of Southampton v. Graves. 8 T. R. 590 (1800—1099, 1106, 1108. Mays V. Foster, 13 Or. 214, 10 Pac. 17— 1724. Maysville Tump. Co. v. How, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.) 426—2751. Mead v. Bunn, 32 N. Y. 274—324. Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 20—370, 1739, 1799, 1969, 1976. Mead v. New York, etc. R. R., 45 Conn. 199—1415, 2115. Mead v. Pettigrew, 11 S. Dak. 529, 78 N. W. 945—378. Meader v. Norton, 11 Wall. 442, 20 L. Ed. 184—1861. Meads v. Merchants' Bank, 25 N. Y. 143, 82 Am. Dec. 331—1797. Meads v. "Walker, Hopk. Oh. 587—192. Meads v. Wandell, 4 Saratoga Ch. Sen- tinel (N. Y.), 14—2724. Mealey v. Nickerson, 44 Minn. 430, 46 N. W. 911—1877. Mean's Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 75—410, 424, 445. Means v. Rees, 26 Fed. 210—789. Means v. Swormstedt, 32 Ind. 87, 2 Am. Rep. 330—1817. Meares v. Monroe, etc. Co., 126 N. C. 662, 36 S. E. 130—202, 548. Mears v. Moulton, 30 Md. 142—1088. Meason's Estate, In re, 4 Watts (Pa.), 341—44. Measure v. Carleton, 30 Beav. 538 (1862)— 654. P Meating v. Tigerton, etc. Co., 89 N. W. 152 (Wis.)— 1767. (Mechanics' and Working Men's Mut. Sav. Bank and Bldg. Ass'n v. Meri- den Agency Co., 24 Conn. 159—2743. Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 326—1812, 1822. Mechanics' Bank v. Heard, 37 Ga. 4(Jl —1393. Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 45 Mo. 513, 100 Am. Dec. 388—1115, 1117, 1118. Mechanics' Bank v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 N. Y. 599, 626—45, 614, 619, 639, 883, 888. Mechanics' Bank v. Schaumberg, 38 Mo. 228—1837. Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299, 7 L. Ed. 152—725, 755, 858, 867, 1839. Mechanics' Bank v. Thomas, 26 N. J. L. 181—1215. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. Mari- posa Co., 3 Rob. .(N. Y.) 395—855. Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. New York, etc. Co., 35 N. Y. 505—1979, 2072. Mechanics', etc. Assoc! v. Conover, 14 N. J. Eq. 219—931, 934, 964. * Mechanics', etc. Assoc, v. King, 83 Cal. 440, 23 Pac. 376—298, 1126. Mechanics', etc. Assoc, v. Meriden Agency Co., 24 Conn. 159—201, 687, 2743. Mechanics', etc. Bank v. Duncan, 36 S. W. 887 (Tenn.)— 781. Mechanics', etc. Bank v. Smith, 19! Johns. 115—19, 1825. Mechanics', etc. Co. v. Hall, 121 Mass. 272—220, 290, 291. Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. Burnet Mfg. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 236—1333, 1736, 1738. Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 87 Fed. 113—468, 536. Mechanics' Soc, In re, 31 La. Ann. 627—1415. Medberry v. Short, 15 N. Y. Week. Dig.. 227—1818. Medberry v. Troutman, 94 Fed. 952 — 451. Medbury v. New York, etc. R. R., 26 Barb. 564—1825. Meddaugh v. Wilson, 151 TJ. S. 333, 14 Sup. Ct. 356, 38 L. Ed. 183—2473, 2538. Medical, etc. Soc. v. Weatherly, 75 Ala. 248—1074, 1276. Medical Inst. v. Patterson, 1 Denio, 61—3. Medill V. Collier, 16 Ohio St. 599, 613— 526. Meding v. Todd, 56 N. J. Eq. 820, 41 Atl. 222—2488. ccxliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Medler v. Albuquerque, etc. Co., 6 N. M. 331, 28 Pac. 551—130, 215. Medomak Bank v. Curtis, 24 Me. 36— 1789, 1800. Medway Cotton Manuf y v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360—64, 66. Meehan v. Sharp, 151 Mass. 564, 24 N. E. 907—751. Meeker v. Sprague, 5 Wash. St. 242, 31 Pac. 628—2213, 2416. Meeker v. Winthrop Iron Co., 17 Fed. 48—1297, 1521, 1530, 2480. Mege's Case, 10 W. N. 208 (1875)— 132. Megibben v. Perin, 49 Fed. 183—755, 1726. Meier v. Kansas, etc. Ry., 5 Dill. 476, 16 Fed. Cas. 1321—2387, 2388. Meints v. East St. Louis, etc. Co., 89 111. 48—398. Meisser v. Thompson, 9 111. App. 368 — 441. Melchert v. American U. Tel. Co., 11 Fed. 193, 3 McCrary, 521—769, 778. Meldrim v. Trustees, etc., 100 Ga. 479, 28 S. E. 431—2086. Melendy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544—2414, 2452, 2453. Mtelendy v. Keen, 89 111. 395—317. Melhado v. Hamilton, 28 L. T. 578 (1873), 29 L. T. Rep. 364 (1873) — 586, 587. Melhado v. Porto Alegre, etc. Ry., L. R. 9 C. P. 503 (1874)— 1716. Melledge v. Boston Iron Co., 59 Mass. 158, 179, 51 Am. Dec. 59—64, 1757, 1759. Mellen v. Lansing, 19 Blatchf. 512, 11 Fed. 820—264. Mellen v. Moline, etc. Works, 131 U. S. 352, 9 Sup. Ct. 781, 33 L. Ed. 178— —1890, 2258. Mellish, Ex parte, 8 L. T. Rep. 47 (1863)— 1594. Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446, 22 Am. Rep. 199—309, 344, 347, 533, 940. Melvin V. Lisenby, 72 111. 63, 22 Am. Rep. 141—261. Memphis v. Adams, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 518, 24 Am. Rep. 331—1807. Memphis v. Dean, 8 Wall. 64, 19 L. Ed. 326—1904, 1929, 1933. Memphis v. Ensley, 6 Baxt. (Tenn.) 553, 32 Am. Rep. 532—1215. Memphis v. Farrington, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 539—1217. Memphis v. Home Ins. Co., 91 Tenn. 558, 19 S. W. 1042—1215. Memphis Bell Tel. Co. v. Hunt, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 456, 1 S. W. 159, 57 Am. Rep. 237—2821. Memphis B. etc. Co. v. Ward, 99 Tenn. 172, 42 S. W. 13, 63 Am. St. Rep. 825 —1642. Memphis Branch R. R. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240—358, 366, 377, 1029, 1031, 1042. Memphis City Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 186, 16 Sup. Ct. 468, 40 L. Ed. 664—6, 1023, 1219. Memphis, etc. Co. v. Williamson, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 314—1933. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581, 2 Sup. Ct. 432, 27 L. Ed. 518—2651, 2654. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Berry, 112 U. S. 609, 5 Sup. Ct. 299, 28 L. Ed. 831— 1237. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Dow, 120 U. S. 287, 7 Sup. Ct. 482, 30 L. Ed. 595— 140, 1981, 2002, 2012, 2016, 2114, 2171, 2475, 2478. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Dow, 19 Fed. 388—1969, 1970, 1981, 2012, 2107, 2110, 2114. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Glover, 78 Miss. 467, 29 South. 89—2532. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Grayson, 88 Ala. 572, 7 S5uth. 122, 16 Am. St. Rep. 69 —1849, 1929, 2544. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Hoechner, 67 Fed. 456, 14 C. C. A. 469—2453. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Railroad Com'rs, 112 U. S. 609, 5 Sup. Ct. 299, 28 L. Ed. 831—1237, 2118, 2119, 2537. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. State, 37 Ark. 632—2150, 2240. Memphis, etc. Ry. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322, 51 Am. Rep. 598—2453. Memphis, etc. Ry. v. Thompson, 24 Kan. 170—235, 236, 237, 264. Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Woods, 88 Ala. 630, 7 South. 108—684, 1322, 1903. Menacho v. Ward, 27 Fed. 529, 532, 23 Blatchf. 502—2608, 2609, 2785. Menasha v. Hazard, 102 U. S. 81, 26 L. Ed. 83—257, 268. Menasha v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 52 Wis. 414, 9 N. W. 396—1578, 2530. Mendelsohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40 Cal. 657—77, 78. Mendenhall, In re, 9 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 497, 17 Fed. Cas. 10—1083. Mendenhall v. Duluth, etc. Co., 72 Minn. 312, 75 N. W. 232—442. Mendenhall v. West Chester, etc. R. R., 36 Pa. St 145—2212, 2217. Mendham v. Losey, 2 N. J. L. 252— 1798. Mendota v. Thompson, 20 111. 197— 1394. Mendoza v. Metropolitan, etc. R. R., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 62, 62 N. Y. Supp. 580—2713. Menler v. Hooper's Tel. Works, L. R. 9 Ch. 350 (1874)— 1530. Mentz V. Cook, 108 N. Y. 504, 15 N. B. 541—248. TABLE OF CASES. ccxlv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] M. E. Patterson Memorial Church, In re, 41 Leg. Int. 253—16. Mercantile Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 7 Sup. Ct. 826, 30 L. Ed. 895— 1223, 1224, 1226. Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 161, 16 Sup. Ct. 461, 40 ,L. Ed. 656 —1219, 2119. Mercantile, etc. Bank v. Mayor, etc., 172 N. Y. 35, 64 N. E. 756—1229. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Collins Park, etc. R. R., 99 Fed. 812—2616, 2668. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Collins Park, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. 672—2632, 2709. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Florence Water Co., Ill Ala. 119, 19 South. 17— 2389. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Low, 87 Fed. 241, 30 C. C. A. 621—2524. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Mellon, 196 Pa. St. 176, 46 Atl. 308—1129, 1213. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Roanoke, etc. Ry., 109 Fed. 3—2229, 2342. , Mercantile, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 99 Fed. 485—2530. Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Southern, etc. Co., 113 Ala. 543, 21 South. 373— 2444. Mercantile, etc. Co. t. Weld, 85 Md. 685, 36 Atl. 445—1201. Mercantile Inv. etc. v. River Plate Trust, etc. Co. (1894), 1 Ch. 578— 2137, 2527. Mercantile Library Hall Co. v. Pitts- burgh Library Assoc, 173 Pa. St. 30, 33 Atl. 744—1513, 1746, 1747. Mercantile Nat. Bank, etc. v. Mayor, etc. of City of New York, 28 Fed. 776—1223. Mercantile Nat. Bank v. New York, 28 Fed. 776, 785—1224, 1227. Mercantile Nat. Bank v. New York, 121 U. S. 138, 7 Sup. Ct. 826, 30 L. Ed. 895—1224. Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Shields, 59 Fed. 952—1224, 1225. Mercantile Realty Co. v. Stetson, 94 N. W. 859 (Iowa)— 2213, 2439. Mercantile Statement Co. v. Kneal, 51 Minn. 263, 53 N. W. 632—373, 1032. Mercantile Tel. Co. v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 63 Fed. 513, 910—2812. Mercantile Trading Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. 475 (1869)— 1174, 1175, 1184. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 80 Fed. 18—2444. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co., 69 Hun, 264, 23 N. Y. Supp. 496 —701. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co., 86 Hun, 213, 33 N. Y. Supp. 252 —701, 951, 2091. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Atlantic & Pac. R. R., 70 Fed. 518—2245. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. 79 Fed. 389—2422. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 82 Fed. 360—595, 601, 2460. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 94 Fed. 722—2085. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 89 Fed. 606—2245, 2420. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 61 Fed. 372—2131, 2133, 2184. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Columbus, S. & H. R. R., 90 Fed. 148—2621. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 81 Fed. 254, 26 C. C. A. 383 —2444. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha, etc. Ry., 39 Fed., 337—2235, 2389. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha, etc. Ry., 50 Fed. 874—2460, 2462, 2464, 2467. Mercantile 'Trust Co. v. Kanawha, etc. Ry., 58 Fed. 6, 7 C. C. A. 3—2282, 2460, 2464, 2511, 2531. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kiser, 91 Ga. 636, 18 S. E. 358—2075. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamoille, etc. R. R., 16 Blatchf. 324, 17 Fed. Cas. 25—2197, 2222. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, etc. Ry-., 36 Fed. 221, 1 L. R. A. 397— 2134, 2213, 2363, 2366, 2367. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 8—2220, 2238, 2245, 2389, 2437, 2475. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 29 Fed. 732—2222. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 48 Fed. 351—2225. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Portland, etc. R. R., 10 Fed. 604—2183, 2200. Mercantile Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 71 Fed. 601—2350. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Southern, etc. Ry., 86 Fed. 711—2280, 2295, 2340. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 51 Fed. 529—2169, 2613, 2614. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Zanesville, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 342—2036. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co. v. Collins Park, etc. R. R., 101 Fed. 347—2712. Merced Bank v. Ivett, 127 Cal. 134, 59 Pac. 393—1634. Mercer v. Park, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 841 (Ky.)— 147. Mercer County v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83, 17 L. Ed. 548—243, 2000, 2027. Mercer County v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 27 Pa. St. 389—260, 262. Mercer County v. Provident, etc. T. Co., 72 Fed. 623, 19 C. C. A. 44—256. Mercers, etc. of Shrewsbury v. Hart, 1 Car. & P. 113—64. Merchant v. Western Land Assoc, 56 Minn. 327, 57 N. W. 931—1030, 1140-. ocxlvl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 35 N. Y. 412 —462, 486. Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 21 How. Pr. 366—486. Merchants' Bank v. Central Bank, 1 Ga. 418, 44 Am. Dec. 665—1790, 1800, 1820. Merchants' Bank v. Chandler, 19 "Wis. 435—473. Merchants' Bank v. Cook, 21 Mass. 405 —931. Merchants' Bank v. Goddin, 76 Va. 503—1806. Merchants' Bank v. Livingston, 74 N. Y. 223—724, 797, 1131. Merchants' Bank v. Marine Bank, 3 Gill (Md.), '96, 48 Am. Dec. 341— 1829, 1830. Merchants' Bank v. Moore, 106 Ala. 646, 17 South. 705—2360, Merchants' Bank v. Moore, 68 Minn. 468, 71 N. W. 671—2288. Merchants' Bank v. Petersburg, etc. R. R., 12 Phila. 482—2302. Merchants' Bank v. Rudolg, 5 Neb. 528 —1843. Merchants' Bank v. Shouse, 102 Pa. St. 488—1114, 1117, 1122, 1156. Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604, 19 L. Ed. 1008—1787, 1799, 1979. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Belington, etc. Co., 41 S. E. 390 (W. Va.)— 133, 149. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Eckels, 191 Pa. St. 372, 43 Atl. 245—1720. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Hervey Plow Co., 45 La. Ann. 1214, 14 South. 139 —1793. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Pennsylvania, 167 U. S. 461, 17 Sup. Ct. 829, 42 L. Ed. 236—1222. Merchants', etc. Bank v. School Dist. etc., 94 Fed. 705, 36 C. C. A. 432— 2349. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779—502. Merchants', etc. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep. 847 —2727. Merchants', etc. Co. v. Rice, 70 Iowa, 14, 29 N. W. 784—1765. Merchants', etc. Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429, 57 Pac. 468, 46 L. R. A. 142, 71 Am. St. Rep. 94—38. Merchants', etc. Line v. Waganer, 71 Ala. 581—1393, 1900, 1904. Merchants', etc. Nat. Bank v. Com- mercial, etc. Co., 49 N. Y. 635—2036. Merchants' Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry., 13 Fed. 358, 21 Blatchf. 109— 1957. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brower, 38 Tex. 230—992, 997. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 65 Fed. 932—331, 799, 951. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Chattanooga Const. Co., 53 Fed. 314—2375. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 159 Mass. 505, 34 N. E. 1083, 38 Am. St. Rep. 453—1286, 1786, 1972. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Clark, 139 N. Y. 314, 34 N. E. 910, 36 Am. St. Rep. 710—1818, 1819, 1838. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Clark, 64 Hun, 175, 19 N. Y. Supp. 136—1818. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Detroit, etc. Works, 68 Mich. 620, 36 N. W. 696— 1790. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Gaslin, 41 Minn. 552, 43 N. W. 483—1390. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Hall, 83 N. Y. 338, 38 Am. Rep. 434—947, 977. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. McDonald, 88 N. W. 492 (Neb.)— 1655. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Newton Cot- ton Mills, 115 N. C. 507, 20 S. E. 765 —1641. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Northwest- ern Mfg. Co., 48 Minn. 349, 361, 51 N. W. 117, 119—412, 463. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Pendleton, 9 N. Y. Supp. 46—501. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Penn. Steel Co., 57 N. J. L. 336, 30 Atl. 545— 2429. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Richards, 74 Mo. 77—860, 888, 937, 1018. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Robinson, 8 Utah, 256, 30 Pac. 985—195. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Richards, 6 Mo. App. 454—746, 847, 849, 860, 888, 937, 1006, 1018. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Trenholm, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 520—956. Merchants' Nat. Bank, etc. v. Fouche, 103 Ga. 851, 31 S. E. 87—292, 443. Merchants of the Staple v. Bank of England, 56 L. T. Rep. 665 (1887) — 839. Meredith v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 211, 37 Atl. 539—622, 628. Meredith v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 454, 41 Atl. 1116—622, 628. Meredith v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257, 44 Atl. 55—16, 682, 692, 1022. 1031, 1603. Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 60 N.. J. Eq. 445, 50 Atl. 1119—1022, 1031, 1603. Meredith, etc. Bank v. Marshall, 68 N. H. 417, 44 Atl. 526—946. Mergenthaler, etc. Co. v. Ridder, 65 Fed. 853—1610. Meriden Tool Co. v. Morgan, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 125 (N. Y. Super. Ct.) — 1427. TABLE OF CASES. ccxlvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Merriam, In re, 141 N. Y. 479, 36 N. B. 505—1244. Merriam v. Childs, 93 Mo. 131, 5 S. W. 615—974. Merriam v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 136 Mo. 145, 36 S. W. 630—2369, 2382. Merriam v. Victory, etc. Co., 37 Oreg. 321, 56 Pac. 75, 58 Pac. 37, 60 Pac. 997—2359. Merriclc v. Brainard, 38 Barb. 574 — 510. Merrick v. Burlington, etc. P. R. Co., 11 Iowa, 74—1802, 1822. Merrick v. Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 472 —1501. Merrick v. Reynolds, etc. Co., 101 Mass. 381—1425.' Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208—510, 514, 1674, 1949. Merrick Thread Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 115 Pa. St. 314, 8 Atl. 794— 209. Merrill v. Beaver, 46 Iowa, 646—650. Merrill v. Boston, etc. R. R., 63 N. H. 259—2619. _ Merrill v. Call, 15 Me. 428—1357. 'Merrill v. Consumers' Coal Co., 114 N. Y. 216, 21 N. E. 155—1780. Merrill v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 24 Hun, 297—2164. Merrill v. First Nat. Bank, 75 Fed. 148, 21 C. C. A. 282—1989. Merrill v. Florida, etc. Co., 60 Fed. 17 —792, 811, 814. Merrill v. Gamble, 46 Iowa, 615—650. Merrill v. Meade, 6 Kan. App. 620, 49 Pac. 787—448, 578. Merrill v. National Bank, etc., 173 TJ. S. 131, 19 Sup. Ct. 360, 43 L. Ed. 640 —965, 1988. Merrill v. Reaver, 50 Iowa, 404—373, 374, 650. lilerrill v. Suffolk Bank, 31 Me. 57, 1 Am. Rep. 649—472, 1446. Merrlmac Min. Co. v. Bagley, 14 Mich. 501—292, 556. Merrimac Mln. Co. v. Levy, 54 Pa. St. 227, 93 Am. Dec. 697—197, 211, 556, 557. Merrlman v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 64 Fed. 535, 12 C. C. A. 275—1888, 2258, 2531. Merrlman v. Maglveney, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 494—502. Merritt v. American, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 228, 235—50, 52, 831, 977, 1002, 2042, 2227. Merritt v. BrinkerhofE, 17 Johns. 306 —2778. Merritt v. Ehrman, 116 Ala. 278, 22 South. 514—783. Merritt v. Lambert, Hoffm. Ch. 166 (1840)— 1822. Merritt v. Lyon, 16 Wend. .405—2397. Merritt v. Reid, 13 N. Y. Week. Dig. 453—483. Merry, In re, 11 N. Y. App. Div. 597, 42 N. Y. Supp. 617—2475. Merry v. Mlckalls, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 733 (1872)— 905. Merryman v. Carroll, etc. Co., 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 12 (1888)— 1388. Merwin v. Hamilton, 6 Duer, 244 — 910. Merz V. Interior Conduit, etc., 87 Hun, 430, 34 N. Y. Supp. 215—1138, 2012, 2265. Merz V. Interior Conduit, etc. Co., 46 N. Y. Supp. 243—2012. Merz Capsule Co. v. U. S. Capsule Co., 67 Fed. 414—693, 1565. Mesinger v. Meslnger, etc. Co., 44 N. Y. App. Div. 26, 60 N. Y. Supp. 431 —1717. Messchaert v. Kennedy, 4 McCrary, 133, 13 Fed. 242—2197. Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. R., 36 N. J. L. 407, 37 N. J. L. 531, 13 Am. Rep. 457—2608, 2609. Messenger v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 77 Minn. 34, 79 N. W. 583—2594, 2715. Messersmith v. Sharon Savings Bank, 96 Pa. St. 440—557. Metals Constituents, Limited, In re, 86 L. T. Rep. 291 (1902)— 313. Metcalf V. American, etc. Co., 108 Fed. 909—1059, 1875, 1901. Metcalf V. American, etc. Co., 122 Fed. 115—1562. Metcalf V. First Parish, 128 Mass. 370 —655. Metcalf V. Williams, 144 Mass. 452, 11 N. B. 700—797. Metcalf v. Arnold, 110 Ala. 180, 20 South. 301, 55 Am. St. Rep. 24— 1575. Metcalfe v. Commonwealth, etc. Co.'s Receiver, 68 S. W. 1100 (Ky.) — 2343. Methodist Chapel v. Herrlck, 25 Me. 354—1756. Methodist Church v. Remington, 1 Watts (Pa.), 218, 26 Am. Dee. 61— 1661. Methodist B. Church v. Town, 49 Vt. 29—308. Methodist Bp. Church v. Tryon, 1 Denlo, 451—66. Methodist, etc. Church v. Pickett, 19 N. Y. 482—370, 1417. Methven v. Staten Island, etc. Co., 66 Fed. 113, 13 C. C. A. 362—2306. Metropolis Bank v. Jones, 8 Pet. 12, 8 L. Ed. 850—1733, 1830. Metropolitan Bank v. Godfrey, 23 111. 579—1669. ccxlviii TABLE OF CASBS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, L. R. 5 Exch. D. 319, 325 (1880)— 1479, 1859. Metropolitan Bank v. New Orleans, etc. Assoc, 51 La. Ann. 1525, 26 South. 418—2213. Metropolitan City Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 87 111. 317—2634. Metropolitan Elev. Ry. v. Kneeland, 120 N. Y. 134, 24 N. E. 381, 8 L. R. A. 253, 17 Am. St. Rep. 619—1501. Metropolitan Blev. Ry. v. Manhattan Ry., 14 Abh. N. Cas. 152—1513. Metropolitan Elev. Ry. v. Manhattan Ry., 15 Am. & Bng. R. R. Cas. 1 (1884)— 1513. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, In re (1892), 3 Ch. 1—314, 315. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 38 (1889), 64 L. T. Rep. 561 (1891, 1892), 3 Ch. 1—317. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, In re, 64 L. T. Rep. 561 (1891)— 334. Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, v. Scrim- geour (1895), 2 Q. B. 604—116. Metropolitan, etc. Co., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 671—1569. Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Columbus, etc Ry., 95 Fed. 18—1056, 2598, 2645, 2811. Metropolitan, etc Go. v. Domestic, etc. Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 568, 14 Atl. 907 —1516, 1744, 1765. Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Great, etc. Co., 82 Li. T. Rep. 451 (1900)— 2576, 2595. Metropolitan, etc Co. v. Hawkins, 4 H. & N. 146 (1859)— 1107. Metropolitan, etc. Exch. v. Chicago Board of Trade, 15 Fed. 847, 11 Biss. 531—2789. Metropolitan, etc. Ry. v. Manhattan, etc. Ry., 11 Daly (N. Y.), 377—1721, 1916, 2578. Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Commer- cial St. Bank, 104 Iowa, 682, 74 N. W. 26—2385, 2387. Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 36 Fed. 722—1359. Metropolitan R. R. v. Highland R. R., 118 Mass. 290—2707, 2711. Metropolitan Ry. v. Manhattan Ry., 15. Am. & Eng. Ry. Cas. 1 (1884) — 1723. Metropolitan R. R. v. Quincy R. R., 94 Mass. 262—2707, 2711. Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. Baltimore, 63 Md. 6—835. Metropolitan Street Ry. v. Kennedy, 82 Fed. 158, 27 C. C. A. 136—2635, 2707. Metropolitan Transit Co., In re. 111 N. Y. 588, 19 N. E. 645—9. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Columbus, etc R. R., 93 Fed. 689—2229, 2244, 2247, 2329. Metropolitan T. Co. v. Dolgeville, etc. Co., 34 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 354, 69 N. Y. Supp. 822—2238. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Dolgeville, etc. Co., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 467, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1055—2320. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Houston, etc. R. R., 90 Fed. 683—2612. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Lake Cities, etc. Ry., 100 Fed. 897—2225, 2231, 2461. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. New York, etc R. R., 45 Hun, 84—2084, 2208. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Pennsyl- vania, etc. R. R., 25 Fed. 760—2152. Metropolitan T. Co. v. Railroad, etc. Co., 108 Fed. 913—2314. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda, etc. R. R., 103 N. Y. 245, 8 N. E. 488 —2358, 2460, 2462. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda, etc R. R., 40 Hun, 80—2358. Metropolitan Trust Co. etc v. Colum- bus, etc R. R., 93 Fed. 689—1903, 2229, 2244. Metropolitan Trust Co. etc. v. Colum- bus, etc. R. R., 93 Fed. 702—2314. Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Tonawanda, etc. R. R., 43 Hun, 521—2242, 2244. Metropolitan T. & T. Co. v. Colwell L. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 489—2795. Metz V. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 58 N. Y. 61, 17 Am. Rep. 201—2118, 2536. Metzner v. Bauer, 98 Ind. 425—2399. Mexican Gulf Ry. v. Viavant, 6 Rob. (La.) 305—180, 290. Mexican Ore Co. v. Mexican, etc Co., 47 Fed. 351—1378, 1917. Meyer v. American, etc. Co., 130 Mo. 188, 32 S. "W. 300—1636. Meyer v. Bishop, 129 Cal. 204, 61 Pac. 919—200. Meyer v. Blair, 109 N. Y. 600, 17 N. B. 228, 4 Am. St. Rep. 500—764. Meyer v. Bristol, etc Co., 163 Mo. 59, 63 S. W. 96—417, 446, 472, 486, 1935. Meyer v. Construction Co., 100 TJ. S. 457, 25 L. Ed. 593—2333. Meyer v. Hornby, 101 tJ. S. 729, 25 L. Ed. 1078—2333. Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237, 324— 2117, 2118, 2159, 2308, 2318, 2323, 2325, 2326, 2368, 2463, 2543, 2588. Meyer v. Johnston, 64 Ala. 603—2308, 2436, 2543, 2588. Meyer v. Lexow, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 116, 37 N. Y. Supp. 67—2434. Meyer v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384, 392, 17 L. Ed. 564—244, 265. TABLE OF CASES. ccxlix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Meyer v. Richards, 163 U. S. 385, 16 Sup. Ct. 1148, 41 L. Ed. 199—647, 834. Meyer v. Staten Island Ry., 7 N. Y. St. Rep. 245—1530. Meyers v. Scott, 2 N. Y. Supp. 753— 1151, 1438, 1899. Meyers v. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411, Fed. Cas. No. 9,994—274. Meyers v. Valley Nat. Bank, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 34, 17 Fed. Cas. 250— 1134. Miami Exporting Co. v. Clark, 13 Ohio, 1—1630. Michigan Air Line Ry. v. Barnes, 40 Mich. 383—41. Michigan Bank r. Bldred, 9 Wall. 544, 19 L. Ed. 763—1992. Michigan Cent. R. R. v. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6—2609. Michigan Cent. R. R. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 93 N. W. 882 (Mich.)— 1780, 2535. Michigan C. R. R. v. "Wealleans, 24 S. C. of Can. (1895) 21 Ont. App. 297— 2576. Michigan, etc. Co. v. City of Benton Harbor, 121 Mich. 512, 80 N. W. 386, 47 L. R. A. 104—2755. 2815. Michigan, etc. Co. v. City . of St. Jo- seph, 121 Mich. 502, 80 N. W. 383, 47 L. R. A. 87, 80 Am. St. Rep. 520— 2756, 2815, 2844. Michigan, etc. Co. v. Lansing, etc. Co., 121 Mich. 438, 80 N. W. 281—2385. Michigan, etc. Co. v. State Bank, 111 Mich. 306, 69 N. W. 645—1132. Michigan, etc. R. R. v. BuUard, 120 Mich. 416, 79 N. W. 635—2557. Michigan, etc. R. R. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 1 Brad. (111.) 399—2151, 2309. Michigan, etc. R. R. v. Pere, etc. R. R., 128 Mich. 333, 87 N. W. 271— 2595. Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. 450, 36 L. Ed. 162—1943. Michigan State Bank v. Gardner, 81 Mass. 362—1448. Michigan Tel. Co. v. City of Charlotte, 93 Fed. 11—2604, 2818. Michigan T. Co. v. Comstock, 123 Mich. 689, 82 N. W. 527—544, 573. Michael v. Hart & Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 474—927. Michener v. Payson, 13 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 49, 17 Fed. Cas. 259—338. Michleson t. Pierce, 107 Wis. 85, 82 N. W. 707—1691. Michoud V. Girod, 4 How. 503, 11 L. Ed. 1076—1454, 1482. Mickey v. Stratton, 5 Sawyer, 475, Fed. Cas. No. 9,530—1807. Mickles v. Rochester City, etc. Bank, 11 Paige, 118, 42 Am. Dec. 103—1135, 1333, 1336, 1394, 1495. Middlehrook v. Merchants' Bank, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 295—867. Middlebrook v. Merchants' Bank, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 135—728. Middlebrooks v. Springfield F. Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 301—1961. Middle District Bank, In re, 1 Paige, 585—2408. Middleport v. .ffiltna L. Ins. Co., 82 111. 562—253. Middlesex Freeholders v. State Bank, 28 N. J. Eq. 166—2386. Middlesex Bank v. Minot, 45 Mass. 325—988. Middlesex Husbandmen, etc. v. Davis, 44 Mass. 133—8. Middlesex R. R. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 115 Mass. 347—1551, 2556. Middlesex Turnp. Corp. v. Locke, 8 Mass. 268—1031. Middlesex Turnp. Corp. v. Swan, 10 Mass. 384, 6 Am. Dec. 139—391, 519, 1031. Middleton v. McCormick, 3 N. J. L. (3d ed.) 92—67. Middleton v. Nej7 Jersey, etc. R. Co., 25 N. J. Eq. 306—2128, 2219. Middleton v. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 26 N. J. Eq. 270—2380. Middleton v. Boston, etc. R. R., 53 Conn. 351, 5 Atl. 706—592, 2529, 2545, 2579. Middletown Bank v. Magill, 5 Conn. 28, 45—427, 452, 491, 567. Middletown, etc. Bank v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 113 Fed. 587—457, 467. Mid-Kent Fruit Factory, In re (1896), 1 Ch. 567—1498. Midland, etc. Co., In re, 50 L. T. Rep. 666 (1889), 60 L. T. Rep. 666—122, 163. Midland, etc. Co. v. Citizens', etc. Bank, 26 Ind. App. 71, 59 N. B. 211— 690. Midland, etc. Ry. v. Gordon, 16 M. & W. 804 (1847)^,559, 565, 592. Midland Ry. v. Great Western Ry., L. R. 8 Ch. 841 (1873)— 2575, 2592. Midland Ry. v. Loan, etc. Co., N. Y. L. J., May 24, 1890—978. Midland Ry. v. London, etc. Ry., L. R. 2 Eq. 524—2596. Midland Ry. v. Taylor, 8 H. L. Cas. 751 (1862)— 833, 836. Midland Ry. v. Wilcox, 122 Ind. 84, 23 N. E. 506—2332. Midland Township v. Gage County, 37 Neb. 582, 56 N. W. 317—247. Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnp. Co., 11 Ohio, 273—402. ccl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnp. Co., 13 Ohio, 197—404, 491. Mifflin, etc. Co. v. Juniata County, 144 Pa. St. 365, 22 Atl. 896, 13 L. R. A. 431—2771. Mihills Mfg. Co. v. Camp, 49 Wis. 130, 5 N. W. 1—1837. Milan, etc. Co. v. Gorten, 93 Tenn. 590, 27 S. W. 971, 26 L. R. A. 135—1675. Milbank v. De Riesthal, 82 Hun, 537, 31 N. Y. Supp. 523—1826, 1891. Milbank v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 64 How. Pr. 20—683, 684, 1323, 1324, 2565. Milbank v. Welch, 74 Hun, 497, 26 N. Y. Supp. 705—1891. Milburn v. Wilson, 31 Can. S. C. Rep. 481—332. Mildenberg v. James, 31 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 607, 66 N. Y. Supp. 77—1701. Miles V. Bough, 3 Q. B. 845 (1842)— 284, 285, 286, 1297. Miles V. New, etc. Assoc, 95 Fed. 919 —2402. Miles V. New, etc. Assoc, 99 Fed. 4 — 702, 2187, 2213. Miles V. New Zealand, etc. Co., L. R. 32 Ch. D. 266 (1886)— 1123, 1132. Miles V. Postal, etc. Co., 55 S. C. 403, 33 S. E. 493—2829. Miles V. Roberts, 76" Fed. 919—2155, 2162. Miles V. Vivian, 79 Fed. 848, 25 C. C. A. 208—2155, 2162. Miles V. Woodward, 115 Cal. 308, 46 Pac. 1076—431. Milford, etc. Co. v. Brush, 10 Ohio. Ill, 36 Am. Dec. 78—65. Milford Say. Bank v. Joslyn, 55 Pac. 756 (Kan.)— 442. Milhau V. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611, 84 Am. Dec 314—2661, 2665, 2670, 2672. Military, etc. v. Savannah, etc. Ry., 105 Ga. 420, 31 S. B. 200—202, 2646. Millard v. Bailey, L. R. 1 Bq. 378 (1866)— 652. Millard v. Burley, 13 Neb. 259, 13 N. W. 278—2297. Millard v. St. Francis, etc. Academy, 8 Bradw. (111.) 341—1977. Millaudon v. New (Orleans, etc R. R., 3 Rob. (La.) 488—421. Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 38 Mass. 417, 453, 455—229, 437, 567, 1805, 1807. Milledgeville Banking Co. v. Mclntyre Alliance Store, 98 Ga. 503, 25 S. B. 567—1658. Millen v. Guerrard, 67 Ga. 284, 44 Am. Rep. 720—1195, 1197. Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558, 564, 567, 568—329, 340, 782, 807, 1267. Miller v. Berlin, 13 Blatchf. 245, 17 Fed. Cas. 306—2056, 2065. Miller v. Bradish, 69 Iowa, 278, 28 N. W. 594—634, 1167, 1174. Miller v. Carpenter, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 346, 74 N. Y. Supp. 231—939. Miller v. Carpenter, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 130, 80 N. Y. Supp. 82—939. Miller v. Chance, 3 Edw. Ch. 399 (1840)— 2106. Miller v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 480—1517, 1522. Miller v. Curtiss, 13 N. Y. Supp. 604 -r783. Miller v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 125 Mich. 171, 84 N. W. 49—2820. Miller v. Dodge, 28 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 640, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1070—2520, 2525. Miller v. Eastern, etc. Min. Co., 45 Fed. 345—1964. Miller v. English, 21 N. J. L. 317— 1292. Miller v. Ewer, 27 Me. 509, 46 Am. Dec 619—1269. Miller v. Ferry, 50 Hun, 256, 2 N. Y. Supp. 863—1001. Miller v. First Nat. Bank, 46 Ohio St. 424, 21 N. E. 860—1223. Miller v. Flemingsburg, etc. Co., 59 S. W. 512 (Ky.)— 1662, 2638. Miller v. Gates, 22 Mont. 305, 56 Pac 356—1637, 2161, 2259. Miller v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 55—427, 554, 576, 578. Miller v. Green Bay, etc. Ry., 59 Minn. 169, 60 N. W. 1006, 26 L. R. A. 443— 2593. Miller v. Hanover, etc R. R., 87 Pa. St. 95, 30 Am. Rep. 349—307, 308. Miller v. Hellbron, 58 Cal. 133—1225. Miller v. Houston, etc. Ry., 55 Fed. 366, 5 C. C. A. 134—859, 980. Miller V. Houston, etc. St. Ry., 69 Fed. 63, 16 C. C. A. 128—645. Miller v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 24 Barb. 312—620, 621, 622, 1138, 1837. Miller v. Insurance Co., 92 Tenn. 167, 21 S. W. 39, 20 L. R. A. 765—1606, 2743. Miller v. Johnston, 72 S. W. 371 (Ark.) —1945. Miller v. Lancaster, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 514—1557, 2538. Miller v. Little, 2 Beav. 259 (1840) — 653, 656. Miller V. Maloney, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 105—278. Miller v. Matthews, 87 Md. 464, 40 Atl. 176—1636. Miller v. Miles, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 103, 68 N. Y. Supp. 565—713, 797, 1251, 2517. Miller v. Murray, 17 "Colo. 408, 30 Pac. 46—1317, 1905. Miller v. Newberg, etc. Co., 31 W. Va 836, 8 S. E. 600, 13 Am. St. Rep. 903 —1447. Miller v. New York, etc. R. R., 125 N. Y. 118, 26 N. E. 35—2581. TABLE OF CASES. ccli [Tlie numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Miller v. New York, etc. R. R., 8 Abb. Pr. 431—1981, 2054. Miller v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 41 Fed. 431—1955. Miller v. Ouray, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 447 (Colo.)— 2829. Miller v. Peabody Bank, 15 W. N. Cas. 76—558. Miller v. Pine Min. Co., 2 Idaho, 1206, 31 Pac. 803, 35 Am. St. Rep. 289— 1941. , Miller v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 40 Pa. St. 237, 80 Am. Dec. 570—229, 375, 607, 608. Miller v. Porter, 53 Pa. St. 292—1661. Miller v. Preston, 4 N. M. 396, 17 Pac. 565—309. Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St. 141, 158, 24 N. B. 496—582, 583, 590, 595, 597, 598, 599, 1348, 1971, 2084. Miller v. Reynolds, 92 Hun, 400, 36 N. Y. Supp. 660—1613, 1819. Miller v. Roach, 150 Mass. 140, 22 N. B. 634, 6 L. R. A. 71—1815. Miller v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 36 Vt. 452—1814, 2111, 2148, 2178, 2307, 2308. Miller v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 40 Vt. 399, 94 Am. Dec. 414—2048, 2055, 2057, 2520. Miller v. Savage, 60 N. J. Eq. 204, 46 Atl. 632—2124. Miller v. Second, etc. Assoc, 50 Pa. St. 32—347. TVIiller v. Southern, etc. Co., 53 S. C. 364, 31 S. E. 281—2381. TVIiller v. State, 15 Wall. 478, 21 L. Ed. 98—1033, 1035, 1038. Miller v. Tod, 67 S. W. 483 (Tex.) — 508. Miller v. University, etc. Co., N. Y. L. J., Nov. 13, 1894—107. Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268, 20 L. Ed. 135—841, 996. Miller v. Waldoborough Packing Co., 88 Me. 605, 34 Atl. 527—1635. Miller V. Washington Southern Ry., 11 Wash. 414, 39 Pac. 673—672. Miller v. Wheeler, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 882 —1963, 1964. Miller v. White, 50 N. Y. 137—418, 473, 481. Miller V. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 52 Ind. 51, 64, 57 Ind. 241—211, 214, 215, 216, 277, 308, 313,. 379. Miller v. Windsor, etc. Co., 148 Pa. St. 429, 23 Atl. 1132—2771. Miller, etc. Co., In re. 111 Fed. 515— 416. :Miller's Appeal, 1 Pa. Sup. Ct. 120—348. Miller's Case, 54 L. J. (Ch.) 141 (1884) —274. Miller's Dale, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 211 (1885)— 631. Millerstown v. Fredrick, 114 Pa. St 435, 7 Atl. 156—1971. Milliken v. Dehon, 27 N. Y. 364—924, 982, 983, 984. Milliken v. Whitehouse, 49 Me. 527— 416, 471, 570. Mills V. Boyle, etc. Co., 132 Cal. 95, 64 Pac, 122—1735, 1748, 1809. Mills V. Britton, 64 Conn. 4, 29 Atl. 231, 24 L. R. A. 536—1190. • Mills V. Central R. R., 41 N. J. Eq. 1, 2 Atl. 453—1035, 1042, 1859, 2561, 2573, 2578, 2584. Mills V. Hoffman, 92 N. Y. 181—715. Mills V. Hoffman, 26 Hun, 594—715. Mills V. Hurd, 29 Fed. 410—1068, 1551, 2315. Mills V. Hurd, 32 Fed. 127—1091, 1900. Mills V. Jefferson, 20 Wis. 50—2062. Mills V. Northern Ry., L. R. 5 Ch. App. 621, 631 (1870)— 596, 1166, 1173, 1174, 1177, 1566, 1879, 1886, 1889. Mills V. Scott, 99 U. S. 25, 25 L. Ed. 294 —404, 414, 456. Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384—291, 292, 293, 294, 393. Mills V. Western Bank, 64 Mass. 22— 1627. Millsaps V. Chapman, 76 Miss. 942, 26 South. 369, 71 Am. St. Rep. 547— 1487, 1646. Millsaps V. Merchants', etc. Bank, 71 Miss. 361, 13 South. 903—11, 102, 744, 1164, 2014. Millvale v. Evergreen Ry., 131 Pa. St. 1, 18 Atl. 993, 7 L. R. A. 369—2649. Millville Traction Co. v. Goodwin, 53 N. J. Eq. 448, 32 Atl. 263—2714. Millward Cliff Cracker Co., In re, 161 Pa. St. 157, 28 Atl. 1072—1825. Milner v. Pensacola, 2 Woods, 632, 17 Fed. Cas. 407—261. Milnor v. New York, etc. R. R., 53 N. Y. 363—1672, 2641, 2654. Milroy v. Lord, 4 De G., F. & J. 264 (1862)— 757. Milroy v. Spurr Mountain, etc. Co., 43 Mich. 231, 5 N. W. 287—450, 451. Milisom, etc. Co. v. Baker, 153 N. Y. 687, 48 N. B. 1105—432. Milsom, etc. Co. v. Baker, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 581, 44 N. Y. Supp. 999— 432. Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry., 106 U. S. 286, 1 Sup. Ct. 140, 27 L. Ed. 117— 2242, 2351, 2446, 2458, 2462. Milvain v. Mather, 5 Exch. 55 (1850) —405. Milwaukee, etc. Assoc, v. Niezerowski, 95 Wis.x 129, 70 N. W. 166, 37 L. R. A. 127, 60 Am. St. Rep. 97—1055. Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. City, 95 Wis. 39, 69 N. W. 794, 36 L. R. A. 45, 60 Am. St. Rep. 81—2678. cclii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Dexter, 99 Wis. 214, 74 N. W. 976, 40 L. R. A. 837— 1472. Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Milwaukee, 87 Fed. 577—2616. Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. SchoknecM, 108 Wis. 457, 84 N. W. 838—313, 319, 366, 1732. Milwaukee, etc. Ins. Co. v. Sentinel •Co., 81 Wis. 207, 51 N. W. 440, 15 L. R. A. 627—2407. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. v. Arms, 91 XJ. S. 489, 493, 23 L. Ed. 374—77. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. v. Brooks, etc. Works, 121 XT. S. 430, 7 Sup. Ct. 1094, 30 L. Ed. 995—2446. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. v. Field, 12 Wis. 340—232, 608. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 20 Wis. 165, 88 Am. Dec. 735—2226. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 20 Wis. 174, 88 Am. Dec. 740—2298. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 17 L. Ed. 860—2281. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. t. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 17 L.. Ed. 900—2293, 2364, 2494. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. v. Soutter. 13 Wall. 517, 20 L. Ed. 543—2273. Milwaukee Steamship Co. v. Milwau kee, 83 Wis. 590, 53 N. W. 839, 18 L. R. A. 353—1229. Mimioo, etc. Co., In re, 26 Ont. Rep. 289 (1895)— 1506. Miner v. Beekman, 50 N. Y. 337—975. Miner v. Belle Isle Ice Co., 93 Mich 97—1162, 1388, 1510, 1858, 1864 1922 Miner V. New York, etc. R. R., 123 N, Y. 242, 25 N. B. 339—1436, 2587 2639. Mineral Point R. R. v. Keep, 22 111. 9, 74 Am. Dec. 124—69. Mineral Water, etc. Soc. v. Booth, L, R. 36 Ch. D. 465 (1887)— 1058. Miners' Bank v. U. S., Greene (lowj,), 553—1432. Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 99 Am. Dec. 30—1548, 155?, 1665, 1806. Minersville Borough v. Schuylkill, etc. Ry., 54 Atl. 1050, 1053 (Pa.)— 2570, 2681. Mining Co. v. Anglo,. etc. Bank, 104 U. S. 192, 26 L. Ed. 707—1736, 1777. Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 116 111. 170, 5 N. E. 370—2290. Minkler v. U. S. Sheep Co., 4 N. D. 507, 62 N. W. 594, 33 L. R. A. 546—2372. Minneapolis Assoc, v. Canfield, 121 U. S. 295, 7 Sup. Ct. 887, 30 L. Ed. 962— 987. Minneapolis, etc. Assoc, In re, 88 N.. W. 977 (Minn.)— 1437. Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Betcher, 42, Minn. 210, 44 N. W. 5—975. Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. City Bank, 66- Minn. 441, 69 N. W. 331, 38 L. R. A. 415—438. Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Crevier, 3ft. Minn. 417, 40 N. W. 507—214. Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Davis, 40 Minn. 110, 41 N. W. 1026, 3 L. R. A- 796, 12 Am. St. Rep. 701—^5, 307, 308. Minneapolis, etc Co. v. Swinburne^ Co., 66 Minn. 378, 69 N. W. 144—447. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. v. Bassett, 20' Minn. 535 (Gil. 478), 18 Am. Rep. 376—354. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. v. Gardner, 177 U. S. 332, 20 Sup. Ct. 656, 44 L. Ed. 793—2586. Minneapolis, etc. R. R. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. 900, 46 U Ed. 1151—2614. Minneapolis Harvester Works v.- Libby, 24 Minn. 327—379. Minneapolis Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 10 Sup. Ct. 473, 33 L. Ed. 985 —2613. Minneapolis Times Co. v. Nimocks, 53i Minn. 381, 55 N. W. 546—1745. Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Clark, , 47 Minn. 108, 49 N. W. 386—1778. Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage, 73- Minn. 441, 76 N. W. 195—701, 986. 1990, 2167, 2287. Minneapolis Western Ry. v. Minne- apolis, etc. Ry., 58 Minn. 128, 59 N. W. 983—2631. '/linneapolis Western Ry. v. Minne- apolis, etc. Ry., 61 Minn. 502, 63 N. W. 1035—2406, 2433, 2633. Minnehaha, etc. Assoc, In re, 53^ Minn. 423, 55 N. W. 598—275. Minnehaha, etc. Assoc, v. Legg, 50" Minn. 333, 53 N. W. 898—289, 300, 344. Minnesota v. Northern, etc. Co., 184 U. S. 199, 22 Sup. Ct 308, 46 L. Ed. 499 —695, 1897, 1898. Minnesota Cent. Ry. v. Morgan, 52' Barb. 217—914. Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall.- 609, 17 L. Ed. 886—2308. Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. 742, 18 L. Ed. 856—2256, 2308. Minnesota, etc. Co. v. Denslow, 46' Minn. 171, 48 N. W. 771—370, 511. Minnesota, etc. Co. v. Langdon, 44' Minn. 37, 46 N. W. 310—439, 1181,. 2405. Minnesota, etc. Co. v. St. Anthony, etc Co., 82 Minn. 605, 85 N. W. 520 — 2870. TABLE OF CASES. ccliii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Minor v. Beveridge, 141 N. Y. 399, 36 N. B. 404, 38 Am. St. Rep. 804—928. Minor v. Crosby, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 561, 78 N. Y. Supp. 594—1843. Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Peters, 46, 7 L. Ed. 47—308, 344, 360, 1738. Minot V. Boston Asylum, 48 Mass. 416 —67. Minot V. Curtis, 7 Mass. 441 — 64. Minot V. Mastin, 95 Fed. 734, 37 C. C. A. 234—2421. Minot V. Paine, 99 Mass. 101, 96 Am. Dec. 705—36, 1135, 1142, 1193. Minot V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 18 Wall. 206, 21 L. Ed. 888—1211, 1213. Minot V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 2 Abb. (U. S.) 323, 17 Fed. Cas. 458— 1243. Minton v. Stahlman, 96 Tenn. 98, 34 S. W. 222—1688. Mintzer v. Montgomery County, 54 Pa. St. 139—1222. Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 60 N. J. Eq. 394, 45 Atl. 611—779, 782. Mish v. Main, 81 Md. 36, 31 Atl. 799— 1488, 2407. Mississippi, etc. R. R. t. Camden, 23 Ark. 300—244. Mississippi, etc. R. R. v. Cromwell, 91 U. S. 643, 23 L. Ed. 367—1013. Mississippi, etc. R. R. v. Cross, 20 Ark. 443—306, 308, 373, 375. Mississippi, etc. R. R. v. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455—286, 298, 299, 1942. Mississippi, etc. R. R. v. Harris, 36 Miss, ir— 208, 391. Mississippi Ry. v. McDonald, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 54—2625. Miss. R. R. Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 29 L. Ed. 631—2613. Mississij)pi Valley Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 58 Miss. 896, 38 Am. Rep. 348 —2318, 2325, 2395. Mississippi Valley, etc. Ry. v. U. S. Ex- press Co.; 81 111. 534—2303. Missouri v. Murphy, 170 TJ. S. 78, 18 Sup. Ct. 505, 42 L. Ed. 955—2817. Missouri, etc. Co. v. Bushnell, 11 Neb. 192, 8 N. W. 389—1663. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Faulkner, 88 Tex. 649, 32 S. W. 883—1782. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Henrie, 5 Kan. App. 614, 46 Pac. 976—2321, 2533. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Love, 61 Kan. 433; 59 Pac. 1072—2423. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. McFadden, 89 Tex. 138, 33 S. W. 853—2454. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Porter, 112 Mo. 361, 20 S. W. 568—2771. Missouri, etc. R. R. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 10 Fed. 497, 4 Woods, 360—2653. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Union Trust Co., 156 N. Y. 592, 51 N. E. 309—2002, 2136, 2172. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Union Trust Co., 87 Hun, 377, 34 N. Y. Supp. 443— 2002, 2172. Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Wood, 52 S. W. 93 (Tex.)— 2454. Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218, 21 S. W. 488, 35 Am. St. Rep. 746—511, 512, 1572, 1669, 1741. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. ,S. 556, 16 Sup. Ct. 389, 40 L. Ed. 536—1515. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 17 Sup. Ct. 130, 41 L. Ed. 489—2603. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Richmond, 73 Tex. 568, 11 S. W. 555, 4 L. R. A. 280, 15 Am. St. Rep. 794—73. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Sidell, 67 Fed. 464, 14 C. C. A. 477—1777, 2554, 2578. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 30 Fed. 2—2597. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 319—2448. Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Tygard, 84 Mo. 264, 54 Am. Rep. 97—233, 237. Missouri Ry. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 205, 8 Sup. Ct. 1161, 32 L. Ed. 107—2605. Missouri River, etc. R. R. v. Miami County, 12 Kan. 483—1809. Missouri River R. R. v. Richards, 8 Kan. 101—1510. Mitcalfs Case, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 169 (1879)— 1467. Mitchell, Ex parte, 12 S. C. 83 — 2463. Mitchell, Matter of, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 542, 55 N. Y. Supp. 725—713, 967. Mitchell V. Amador, etc. Co., 75 Cal. 464, 17 Pac. 246—2327. Mitchell V. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117, 28 Pac. 110—39, 52, 184, 194, 211, 482, 490. Mitchell V. Burlington, 4 Wall. 270, 18 L. Ed. 350—243. Mitchell V. Colorado, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 723—1292, 1330. Mitchell V. Cline, 84 Cal. 409, 24 Pac. 164—1664. Mitchell V. Deeds, 49 111. 416, 95 Am. Dec. 621—1417, 1774. Mitchell V. Hotchkiss, 48 Conn. 9, 40 Am. Rep. 146—462. Mitchell V. Newhall, 15 M. & W. 308 (1846)— 913. Mitchell V. Raleigh, etc. Co., 129 N. C. 166, 39 S. E. 801, 55 L. R. A. 398, 85 Am. St. Rep. 735—2833. Mitchell V. Reed, 61 N. Y. 123, 19 Am. Rep. 252—1517. Mitchell V. Reynolds, 1 P. Wms. 181, 187 (1711)— 1058. Mitchell V. Rome R. R., 17 Ga. 574— 354, 1625, 1827, 1830. Mitchell V. Rubber Reclaiming Co., 24 Atl. 407 (N. J.)— 1105. ccliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Mitchell V. Taylor, 27 Oreg. 377, 41 Pac. 119—765. Mitchell V. Union, etc. Co., 45 Me. 104, 71 Am. Dec. 529—1805. Mitchell V. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 406—295, 298, 1269. Mitchell V. Vermont, etc. Co., 67 N. Y. 280—283, 296, 300, 301, 1269, 1772. Mitchell V. Wedderburn, 68 Md. 139, 11 Atl. 760—738. Mitchell's Case, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 548 (1879)— 580. Mitchell's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 363 (1870) —206, 529, 530, 542, 543, 580, 703. Mix V. Andes Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 53, 30 Am. Rep. 260—1958. Mixer's Case, 4 De G. & J. 575 (1859) — 311, 330, 334, 336. Mobile, etc. Co. v. Gass, 129 Ala. 214, 29 South. 920—1487, 1915. Mobile, etc. Co. v. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92, 12 South. 723—1366. Mobile, etc. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573, 586—1385, 1386. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Alabama, etc. Ry., 87 Ala. 501. 6 South. 404—2633. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Cbgsblll, 85 Ala. 456, 5 South. 188—1829. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Davis, 62 Miss. 271 —2489. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Franks, 41 Miss. 494—2642. Mobile, etc. Ry. v. Gilmer, 85 Ala. 422, 5 South. 138—1771, 1779. Mobile, etc. Ry. v. Humphries, 7 South. 522 (Miss.)— 724, 2524. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Kennerly, 74 Ala. 566—1235. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Moseley, 52 Miss. 127—1234. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Owen, 121 Ala. 505, 25 South. 612—1511, 1768. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc. Co., 12U Ala. 21, 24 South. 408—2803. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc. Co., 76 Miss. 731, 26 South. 370, 45 L. R. A. 223—2807. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. State, 51 Miss. 137 —2602. Mobile, etc. Ry. v. Steiner, 61 Ala. 559 —2602, 2607. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Talman, 15 Ala. 472—2114, 2123. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486, 496, 498, 14 Sup. Ct. 968, 38 L. Ed. 793—1135, 1165, 1166, 1175, 1234. Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Yandal. 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 294—210. Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. t. Cullom, 49 Ala. 558—736, 1122, 1131. Mobile ft M. Ry. v. Alabama M. Ry., 116 Ala. 51, 23 South. 57—2693. Mobile & 0. R. v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 101 Tenn. 62, 46 S. W. 571, 41 L. R. A. 403—2803, 2806. Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486, 14 Sup. Ct. 968, 38 L. Ed. 793—1234. Mobley v. Morgan, 6 Atl. 594 — 749, 1348. Moch V. Virginia F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. 696, 4 Hughes, 61—1950, 1953, 1956, 1961, 2746. Moers v. Reading, 21 Pa. St. 188—248. Moffat V. Smith, 101 Fed. 771, 41 C. C. A. 671—1570. Moffat V. Winslow, 7 Paige, 124—784, 817. Moffatt V. Farquhar, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 591 (1877)— 1350, 1355. Moffatt V. Farquhar, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 591 (1878)— 859, 1357, 1358. Moffatt V. Farquharson, 2 Bro. C. C. 338 (1788)— 1346. Moffett V. Goldsborough, 52 Fed. 560, 3 C. C. A. 202—2764. Moffltt V. Hereford, 132 Mo. 513, 34 S. W. 252—1257. Mogk V. New York, etc. Co., 78 N. Y. App. Div. 560, 79 N. Y. Supp. 685— 2829. Mogridge's Case, 58 L. T. Rep. 801 (1888)— 234. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 17 App. Cas. 25; L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 544; L. R. 23 Q. B. D. 598—1057. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor (1892), A. C. 25—2785. Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica, etc. R. R., 6 Paige, 554—2723. Mohawk, etc. R. R. v. Niles, 3 Hill, 162 —2641. Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Schenectady Bank, 151 N. Y. 665, 46 N. Erll49— 15, 1118. Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Schenectady Bank, 78 Hun, 90, 28 N. Y. Supp. 1100—15, 1118. Mohawk & Hudson R. R., In re, 19 Wend. 135—1286, 1293, 1296, 1313, 1314, 1318, 1737. Mohr V. Miesen, 47 Minn. 228, 49 N. W. 862—778. Mohr V. Minnesota Elev. Co., 40 Minn. 343, 41 N. W. 1074—476, 508. Moies V. Sprague, 9 R. I. 541—427, 428. Mokelumne Hill Min. Co. v. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 265, 424, 73 Am. Dec. 658— 39, 425, 502. Moline Plow Co. v. Carson, 72 Fed. 387, 18 C. C. A. 606—759. Moline Plow Co. v. Wilkinson, 105 Mich. 57, 62 N. W. 1119—1677. MoUer v. Keystone, etc. Co., 187 Pa. St. 553, 41 Atl. 478-1641, 1647, 1745. TABLE OF OASES. cclv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Molson's Bank v. Boardman, 47 Hun (N. Y.), 135—551. Monadnock R. R. v. Felt, 52 N. H. 379 —235. Monadnock R. R. v. Peterborough, 49 N. H. 281—260. Monarch Co. v. Bank, etc., • 44 S. "W. 956 (Ky.)— 2372. Moneypenny v. Sixth Avenue R. R., 7 Rob. 328—2701. Monk V. Graham, 8 Mod. 9 (1721)— 834. Monmouth, etc. Co. v. Central R. R. etc., 54 Atl. 140 (N. J.)— 2321, 2631, 2812. Monmouth, etc. Ins. Co. v. Lowell, 59 Me. 504—277. Monongahela v. Monongahela Blec. L. Co., 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 529, 4 Am. Blec. Cas. 53—2818. Monongahela, etc. Co. v. Pittsburg, etc. Co., 196 Pa. St. 25, 46 Atl. 99, 79 Am. St. Rep. 685—26, 691, 1605. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon, 6 Pa. St. 379, 47 Am. Dec. 474^1034. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. XT. S., 148 TJ. S. 312, 326, 328, 329, 13 Sup. Ct. 622, 37 L. Ed. 463—126, 2711, 2727, 2771. Monroe v. Fort Wayne, etc. R. R., 28 Mich. 272—358, 369. Monroe v. Peck, 3 Daly, 128 — 910. Monroe v. Smelly, 25 Tex. 586, 76 Am. Dec. 541—768. Monroe, etc. Assoc, v. Webb, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 49, 57 N. Y. Supp. 572—42, 1074, 1729. Monroe, etc. Co. v. Arnold, 108 Ga. 449, 34 S. E. 176—1647, 1748, 1774, 2145. Monroe Water Co. v. Frenchtown, 98 Mich. 431, 57 N. W. 268—2775. Monsarrat v. Mercantile T. Co., 109 Fed. 230, 48 C. C. A. 328—2357, 2450, 2642. Monsseaux v. Urquhart, 19 La. Ann. 482—1307, 1318, 1319, 1339, 1340. Montague v. Lowry, 115 Fed. 27, 52 C. C. A. 621—1060. Montana Cent. R. R. v. Helena, etc. R. R., 6 Mont. 416, 12 Pac. 916—2637. Montclair v. New York, etc. Ry., 45 N. J. Eg. 436, 18 Atl. 242—2604. Montclair, etc. Academy v. North Jersey, etc. Ry., 47 Atl. 890 (N. J.) —2697. Mont, etc. Co., In re, 34 Atl. 638 (Pa.) —2301. Montezuma, etc. Co. v. Dake, 63 Pac. 1058 (Colo.)— 1929. Montgomery v. Allen, 107 Ky. 298, 53 S. W. 813—2332, 2333. Montgomery v. Boyd, 60 N. Y. App* Div. 133, 70 N. Y. Supp. 139—2524. Montgomery v. Brush, etc. Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 12, 62 N. Y. Supp. 606— 442. Montgomery v. Bnslen, 126 Ala. 654,. 28 South. 626—2414. Montgomery v. Bveleigh, 1 McCord Ch. (S. C.) 267—1064. Montgomery v. Exchange Bank, 6 Atl.. 133 (Pa.)— 1842. Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249„ 19 N. B. 342—513. Montgomery v. McDermott, 103 Fed. 801, 43 C. C. A. 348—997, 2524. Montgomery v. Merrill, 18 Mich. 338 — 1432. Montgomery v. Montgomery, etc., 31 Ala. 76—242. Montgomery v. Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Fed. 746, 17 C. C. A. 360— 2472. Montgomery v. Phillips, 53 N. J. Bq. 203, 31 Atl. 622—1645. Montgomery v. Santa Ana, etc. Ry.„ 104 Cal. 186, 37 Pac. 786, 25 L. R. A. 654, 43 Am. St. Rep. 89—2798. Montgomery Branch Bank v. Croch* eron, 5 Ala. (N. S.) 250—1627. Montgomery County v. Schuylkill, etc. Co., 110 Pa. St. 54, 59, 20 Atl. 407— 2771. Montgomery, etc. Co. v. Lahey, 121 Ala. 131, 25 South. 1006—1854, 1862, 1893, 1905. . Montgomery, etc. R. R. v. Boring, 51 Ga. 582—1584. Montgomery, etc. Soc. v. Francis, 103. Pa. St. 378—2063. Montgomery, etc. Works v. Capital City Ins. Co., 34 South. 210 (Ala.) — 149, 1901. Montgomery R. R. v. Hurst, 9 Ala. 513 —1418, 1757. Montgomery's Appeal, 136 Pa. St. 96„ 20 Atl. 399, 9 L. R. A. 369—2699. Montgomery Southern Ry. v. Mat- thews, 77 Ala. 357, 54 Am. Rep. 60 — 311, 323, 340. Montgomery Web Co. v. Dienelt, 133' Pa. St. 585, 19 Atl. 428, 19 Am. St. Rep. 663—1570. Montpelier, etc. R. R. v. Langdon, 46 Vt. 284—235. Montreal v. Standard, etc. Co. (1897), A. C. 527—2817. Montreal, etc. Co. v. Sabiston (1899), A. C. 610—68. Montreal Tel. Co. v. Lo-vy, 27 Lower Can. Jur. 257, 283 (1883)— 1884. Montserratt Min. Co. v. Johnson, etc. Co., 141 Mo. 149, 42 S. W. 822 — 1901. Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57, 3 Am. Rep. 322—1978, 2072. Monumoi Great Beach v. Rogers, t Mass. 159—1799. Mooar v. Walker, 46 Iowa, 164 — 1020^ 676—2312, 2328, 2336, 2337. Newgass v. Atlantic, etc. Ry., 72 Fed.^ 712—2440, 2842. New Hampshire Cent. R. R. v. John- son, 30 N. H. 390, 64 Am.' Dec. 300— 219, 290, 365. New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton, 19 Fed. 73—512, 1668. New Hampshire Sav. Bank v. Richey 121 Fed. 956—1163, 1180, 1900. New Haven, etc. Co. v. Borough of Wallingford, 72 Conn. 293, 44 Atl. 235—2779, 2784. New Haven, etc. Co. v. Hayden, 107 Mass. 525—1732. New Haven, etc. Co. v. Linden Spring Co., 142 Mass. 349, 7 N. E. 773—81, 129, 461. New Haven, etc. R. R. v. Chapman, 38 Conn. 56—360. New Haven, etc. R. R. v. Chatham, 42 Conn. 465—257. New Haven Sav. Bank v. Davis, S Conn. 191—1746, 1802, 1804, 1806. New Haven T. Co. v. Doherty, 50 Atl. 887 (Conn.)— 1694. New Haven T. Co. v. GafEney, 73 Conn. 480, 47 Atl. 760—88, 114, 350. New Haven T. Co. v. Nelson, 73 Conn. 477, 47 Atl. 753—352. New Hope, etc. Co. v. Phenlx Bank, 3 N. Y. (3 Comst.) 156—1733, 1800, 1835. New Hope, etc. Co. v. Poughkeepsie- Silk Co., 25 Wend. 648—1628. New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104, 24 L. Ed. 352—1040. New Jersey v. Yard, 37 N. J. L. 228— 1040. New Jersey Cent. R. R. v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249, 5 Sup. Ct. 456, 28 L. Ed. 949— 1868, 1899. New Jersey Con. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 39 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 672, 80 N. Y. Supp. 622—702, 2164. New Jersey, etc. Bank v. Thorp, 6 Cow. 46—1951. New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Ames, 12 N. J. Bq. 507—2176. New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Camden, etc. Co., 58 N. J. L. 196, 33 Atl. 475—40. New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Security, etc. Co., 42 Atl. 746 (N. J.)— 1995, 2065, 2129, 2130, 2248. New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Traders', etc. Bank, 104 Ky. 90, 46 S. W. 677— 1002. TABLE OF CASES. cclxix \Xhe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] New Jersey, etc. Ry., In re, 29 N. J. Eq. 67—2436. New Jersey, etc. R. R. v. Jersey City, 42 N. J. L. 97—1239. New Jersey, etc. Ry. v. Strait, 35 N. v'^. L. 322—277, 283, 285, 1032, 2053. New Jersey Mid. Ry. v. "Wortendyke, 27 N. J. Eq. 658—2314. New Jersey R. R. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 39 N. J. L. 28—1424. New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S. 637, 7 Sup. Ct. 1039, 30 L. Ed. 1049—71. New Jersey Zinc Co. v. New Jersey Pranklinite Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 322, 15 N. J. Eq. 418—1560. New La Junta, etc. Co. v. Kreybill, 67 Pac. 1026 (Colo.)— 2108, 2787. New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass, etc. Co., 91 U. S. 656, 23 L. Ed. 336—396, 447. Newlands v. National, etc. Assoc, 53 L. T. Rep. 242 (1885)— 784. Newling v. Francis, 3 T. R. 189—17. New London, etc. Bank v. Brockle- bank, L. R. 21 Ch. D. 302 (1882) — 1124, 1132. New London, etc. Bank v. Ware, etc. R. R., 41 Conn. 542—2065, 2066. New London Nat. Bank v. Lake Shore, etc. Ry., 21 Ohio St. 221, 232—826, 998, 1001, 1011, 1250. Newman v. Aultman, etc. Co., 51 S. W. 198 (Tenn.)— 1836. Newman v. Avondale, 31 Week. Law Bui. 123 (Ohio)— 2818. Newman v. Bullock, 23 Colo. 217, 47 Pac. 379—1015. Newman v. Newman, 26 Beav. 218 (1858)— 657. New Mashonaland, etc. Co., In re (1892), 3 Ch. 577—1691. New Memphis, etc. Co. v. Memphis, 72 Fed. 952—2735. Newnom v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 47 S. W. 669 (Tex.)— 2834. New Oriental Bank, In re (1895), 1 Ch. 753—1444. New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 TJ. S. 371, 17 Sup. Ct. 905, 42 L. Ed. 202 —1217. New Orleans v. Graihle, 9 La. Ann. 561 —253. New Orleans v. Great Southern Tel. Co., 40 La. Ann. 41, 3 South. 533, 8 Am. St. Rep. 502—2818. New Orleans v. Houston, 119 U. S. 265, 7 Sup. Ct. 198, 30 L. Ed. 411—1214, 1217, 1432. New Orleans v. New Orleans, etc. Works, 142 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. 142, 35 L. Ed. 943—1236. New Orleans v. Savings, etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 826—1213. New Orleans Bldg. Co. v. Lawson, 11 La. 34—1774. New Orleans City R. R. v. Crescent City R. R., 12 Fed. 308—2676. New Orleans, etc. Assoc, In re, 105 La. 172, 29 South. 337—2789. New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Briggs, 27 La. Ann. 318—290. New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, 180 IT. S. 320, 21 Sup. Ct. 378, 45 L. Ed. 550—1391. New Orleans, etc. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192, 12 Sup. Ct. 406, 36 L. Ed. 121—1233, 2721. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395—71, 78. New Orleans, etc R. R. v. Board of Assessors, 32 La. Ann. 19 — 1205. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200, 24 Am. Rep. 689—78. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Canal, etc. R. R., 47 La. Ann. 1476, 17 South. 834—2712. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Delamore, 114 U. S. 501, 5 Sup. Ct. 1009, 29 L. Ed. 244—2111, 2113, 2685. New Orleans, etc R. R. v. Frank, 39 La. Ann. 707, 2 South. 310—82. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Harris, 27 Miss. 517—1031, 1032, 1297, 1385, 2558. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 74 Am. Dec 785—78. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. McDonald, 53 Miss. 240—246. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Meridian Water-Works Co., 72 Fed. 227, 18 C. C. A. 519—2772. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Mississippi College, 47 Miss. 560—2048. New Orleans, etc R. R. v. New Or- leans, 44 La. Ann. 728—2676. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. New Or- leans, 44 La. Ann. 748, 11 South. 77 — 2676, 2681. New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. New Or- leans, 44 La. Ann. 1053, 11 South. 687 —1137. New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. New Or- leans, 44 La. Ann. 1055, 11 South. 820—1137. New Orleans, etc. Ry. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42—1996, 2200, 2208, 2319, 2325. New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Southern, etc. Co., 53 Ala. 211—2803, 2806, 2809. New Orleans, etc. Ry. v. Union T. Co., 41 Fed. 717—2325. New Orleans, etc. Steamship Co. v. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 173, 26 Am. Rep. 90—202, 688. New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Ben- nett, 6 La. Ann. 457—412. cclxx TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Louisi- ana, etc. Co., 11 Fed. 277, 4 Woods, 90—2586. New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 659, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516—2734, 2739. New Orleans Nat. Bank v. Wiltz, 10 Fed. 330, 4 Woods, 43—45, 937, 1116, 1131, 1134. New Orleans R. R. v. Morgan, 10 Wall. 256, 19 L. Ed. 892—2200. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louis- iana, 185 U. S. 336, 22 Sup. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936—1397. New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674, 6 Sup. Ct. 273, 29 L. Ed. 525—2762. Newport v. Newport, etc. Co., 84 Ky. 166—2737, 2739. Newport, etc. Co. v. Douglass, 12 Bush (Ky.), 673, 712, 721—989, 1990, 2002, 2184, 2303, 2347, 2475. Newport, etc. Co. v. McDonald, etc.. Assignee, 59 S. W. 332 (Ky.)— 1680. Newport, etc. Co. v. Mims, 103 Tenn. 465, 53 S. W. 736—384, 620. Newport Mechanics' Mfg. Co. v. Star- bird, 10 N. H. 123, 34 Am. Dec. 145— 67. Newport News, etc. Co. v. Lake, 43 S. B. 566 (Va.)— 2534. Newport News, etc. Co. v. Newport News, etc. Ry., 97 Va. 19, 32 S. B. 789 —1756. New River, etc. Co. v. Seeley; 120 Fed. 193—1955. Newry, etc. Ry. v. Coombe, 3 Exch. 565, 578 (1849)— 206, 542, 703. Newry, etc. Ry. v. Edmunds, 2 Bxeh. 118—270, 287, 1123. Newry, etc. Ry. v. Moss, 14 Beav. 64 (1851)— 530, 533, 956. New Sombrero Co. v. Erlanger, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 73, 118 (1877)— 1470, 1474. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v. Er- langer, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 73 (1877) — 1476. New's Settlement, In re, 85 L. T. Rep. 174 (1901)— 718. Newton v. Belcher, 12 Q. B. 921 (1848) —1699. Newton v. Daly, 1 F. & F. 26 (1858) — 1079. Newton v. Debenture-Holders (1895), A. C. 244—700. Newton v. Eagle, etc. Co., 76 Fed. 418 —2465. Newton v. Eagle, etc. Co., 101 Fed. 149 —2108. Newton v. Fay, 92 Mass. 505 — 931, 939. Newton V. Levis, 79 Fed. 715, 25 C. C. A. 161—2170, 2670, 2732. Newton V. Porter, 69 N. Y. 133, 25 Am. Rep. 152—2048. Newton, etc. Mills v. Springs, 35 S. E. 222 (S. O— 459. New Transvaal Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 750—56, 610, 1440. Newton v. Van Dusen, 47 Minn. 437, 50 N. W. 820—222. Newton v. Wooley, 105 Fed. 541—754. Newton Hamilton Oil, etc. Co., In re, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 452—507. Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 42 Ga. 148— 1726. Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin, 74 Fed. 135, 20 C. C. A. 339, 33 L. R. A. 727—334, 339, 632, 814. New Transvaal Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 750—56, 610, 1440. New York v. Second Ave. R. R., 32 N. Y: 261—2666, 2667, 2722. New York v. Third Ave. R. R., 33 N. Y. 42—2722. New York Bank Coip'rs v. Bank of Buffalo, 6 Paige, 496—1399, 1412, 1764. New York Booking Co., In re, N. Y. L. J., April 29, 1892—509. New York Cable Co. -v. Mayor, etc., 104 N. Y. 1, 10 N. E. 332—1416. New York Central, etc. R. R. v. Metro- politan Gas Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326— 2738. New York Central, etc. R. R. v. Stokes, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 16, 1888, p. 1091— 823 New York City v. Pine, 185 U. S. 93, 22 Sup. Ct. 592, 46 L. Ed. 820—2631, 2780, 2799. New York Com. Co. v. Francis, 83 Fed. 769, 28 C. C. A. 199—1015. New York Dry Dock v. Hicks, 5 Mc- Lean, 111, 18 Fed. Cas. 151—1669, 1951. New York Elevated R. R., In re, 70 N. Y. 327, 338, 351—1034, 1035, 1414. New York, etc. Bank v. Crowell, 177 Pa. St. 313, 35 Atl. 613—496, 1088. New York, etc. Bridge Co., In re, 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. B. 1088—1429. New York, etc. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. 412—1590. New York, etc. Co., In re, 98 Fed. 711— 1631, 2757. New York, etc. Co., In re, 110 Fed. 514, 49 C. C. A. 133—2139, 2154. New York, etc. Co., In re, 23 Hun, 615 —1336. New York, etc. Co. v. Allison, 107 Fed. 179, 46 C. 0. A. 229'— 2341. New York, etc. Co. v. Beard, 80 Fed. 66 —455, 456. New York, etc. Co. v. Buffalo, etc. Co., 24 Fed. 604—1519. New York, etc. Co. v. Francis, 96 Fed. 266—706, 999 TABLE OF CASES. cclxxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] isfew York, etc. Co. v. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64 (1879)— 1626. New York, etc. Co. v. Metropolitan Inv. Co., 10 N. Y. App. Dlv. 342, 41 N. Y. Supp. 797—1821. New York, etc. Co. v. Parrott, 36 Fed. 462—1287. New York, etc. Co. v. Saratoga, etc. Co., 159 N. Y. 137, 58 N. B. 758, 45 L. R. A. 132—2302. New York, etc. Co. v. Tacoma Ry. etc. Co., 83 Fed. 365, 27 C. C. A. 550— 2352. New York, etc. Bxch. v. Chicago Board of Trade, 127 111. 153, 19 N. B. 855, 2 L. R. A. 411, 11 Am. St. Rep. 107—2789. New York, etc. Ferry Co. v. New York, 146 N. Y. 145, 40 N. E. 785— 1536. New York, etc. Mine v. Negaunee Bank, 39 Mich. 644—1789. New York, etc. R. R., In re, 46 N. Y. 546—2626. New York, etc. R. R., In re, 63 N. Y. 326—2626, 2627, 2738. New York, etc. R. R., In re> 66 N. Y. 407—2627. New York, etc. R. R., In re, 77 N. Y. 248—2626, 2634, 2786. New York, etc. R. R., In re, 5 Hun, 201—2627. New York, etc. R. R., In re, 59 Hun, 7, 8 N. Y. Supp. 290—2626. New York, etc. Ry., In re, 99 N. Y. 12, 1 N. E. 27—207, 208, 2626, 2629, 2634, 2785. New York, etc. R. R. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 36 Conn. 196—2633, 2634. New York, etc. R. R. v. Bridgeport Traction Co., 65 Conn. 410, 32 Atl. 953, 29 L. R. A. 367—2705. New York, etc. R. R. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 14 Sup. Ct. 437, 38 L. Ed. 269 —1038, 2605. New York, etc. R. R. v. Carhart, 36 Hun, 288—1112. New York, etc. R. R. T. Central, etc. T. Co., 21 Hun, 261—2804. New York, etc. R. R. v. Cook, 2 Sandf. Super. Ct. 732—39. New York, etc. R. R. v. Davies, 38 Hun, 477—969. New York, etc. R. R. v. Dixon, 114 N. Y. 80, 21 N. E. 110—1690. New York, etc. R. R. v. Fair Haven, etc. R. R., 70 Conn. 610, 40 Atl. 607, 41 Atl. 169—2698. New York, etc. R. R. v. Forty-second, etc. R. R., 50 Barb. 309 — 2635. New York, etc. R. R. v. Hammond, 132 Ind. 475, 32 N. E. 83—2323. New York, etc. R. R. v. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75—358, 362, 364. New York, etc. R. R. v. Ketchum, 27 Conn. 170—1500, 1712. New York, etc. R. R. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546, 7 Am. Rep. 385—2625, 2626, 2627. New York, etc. R. R. v. New York, 1 Hilt. 587—1798. New York, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 11 Abb. N. Cas. 386—2630. New York, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 52 Conn. 274, 284—1408, 1429, 1430, 1837, 2545, 2569. New York, etc. R. R. v. Nickals, 119 U. S. 296, 7 Sup. Ct. 209, 30 L. Ed. 363— 600, 1158, 1166. New York, etc. R. R. v. Parmalee, t Ohio C, C. Rep. 239—1435. New York, etc. R. R. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U. S. 628, 14 Sup. Ct. 952, 38 L. Ed. 854—1233, 1677. New York, etc. R. R. v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 592—648. New York, etc. R. R. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 49, 80—70, 72, 614, 638, 639, 824, 825, 888. New York, etc. R. R. v. Schuyler, 38 Barb. 534—888. New York, etc. R. R. v. Scovill, 71 Conn. 136, 41 Atl. 246, 42 L. R. A. 157, 71 Am. St. Rep. 159—2650. New York, etc. R. R. v. Van Horn, 5T N. Y. 473—356. New York, etc. R. R. v. Welsh, 143 N. Y. 411, 38 N. E. 378, 42 Am. St. Rep. 734—2629. New York, etc. Ry. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 36 Hun, 205— 2811, 2846. New York, etc. Soc. v. Varick, 13 -Johns. 38—64, 1812. New York, etc. Tel. Co. v. Bennett, 62 N. J. L. 742, 42 Atl. 759—2830. New York, etc. Tel. Co. v. Dixheimer, 11 N. J. L. J. 246, 2 Am. Blec. Cas. 302—2817. New York, etc. Telephone Co. v. Bast' Orange, 42 N. J. Bq. 490, 8 Atl. 289— 2814. New York, etc. Tel. Co. v. Jewett, 115 N. Y. 166, 21 N. B. 1036—2491. New York, etc. Tel. Co. v. Jewett, 43. Hun, 565—2491. New York, etc. T. Co. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 79 Fed. 386—2347. New York, etc. T. Co. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 97 Fed. 226—2004, 2136. New York, etc. T. Co. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 102 Fed. 382—2003, 2327, 2437, 2587. New York, etc. Tel. Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Bound Brook, 48 Atl. 1022 (N. J.) —2814. New York, etc. Works v. Smith, 4 Duer, 362 (1855)— 1393. New York Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 31 N. Y. 273—237, 312, 377. cclxxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after tlie dash refer to the pages of the text] New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ely, 5 Conn. 560, 13 Am. Dec. 100—1625, 1627. New York Firemen Ins. Co. v. Ely, 2 Cow. 678—1980. New York F. Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 2 Cow. 664—1625, 1629. New York Guaranty Co. v. Memphis, etc. Co., 107 U. S. 205, 2 Sup. Ct. 279, 27 L. Ed. 484—2298. New York Inst, for Blind v. How, 10 N. Y. 84—67. New York, L. & W. R. R., In re, 35 Hun, 220—207, 513. New York, Pa. etc. R. R. v. New York, Lake Brie, etc. R. R., 58 Fed. 268— 1444, 2444, 2493. New York Rubber Co. v. Rothery, 132 N. Y. 293, 30 N. E. 841, 28 Am. St. Rep. 575—2780. New York Security Co. v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 71 Fed. 556—2391. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Equi- table Mortgage Co., 77 Fed. 64— 1983. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Lincoln Street Ry., 74 Fed. 67—2130. New York Security, etc, Co. v. Lincoln Street Ry., 77 Fed. 525—2130, 2249. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Lom- bard Inv. Co., 65 Fed. 271—1838. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Lom- bard Inv. Co., 73 Fed. 537—966, 1989, 2487. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Sara- toga Gas, etc.- Co., 157 N. Y. 689, 51 N. E. 1092—2180, 2324. New York Security, etc. Co. v. Sara- toga Gas, etc. Co., 88 Hun, 569, 34 N. Y. Supp. 890—2180, 2324. New York State v. Roberts, 171 U. S. 658, 19 Sup. Ct. 58, 43 L. Ed. 323— 1241. New Zealand, etc. Co. v. Peacock (1894), 1 Q. B. 622—2575. New Zealand, etc. Ry., In re (1901), 2 Ch. 357—2479. Niagara, etc. Co. v. Cornell, 110 Fed. 816—1056. Niagara Falls, etc. R. R., In re, 108 N. Y. 375, 15 N. E. 429—2625, 2628. Niagara Ins. Co., In re, 1 Paige, 258 — 1390. Nlchlay's Case, 15 Jur. 420 (1851) — 1701. Nichol V. Nashville, 9 Humph. 252— 248. Nicholl V. Eberhardt Co., 61 L. T. Rep. 489 (1889)— 2527. Nicholls V. Diamond, 9 Exch. 154 (1853)— 1619. Nicholls V. Reid, 109 Cal. 630, 42 Pac. 298—706, 746. Nichols V. Ann Arbor, etc. Ry., 87 Mich. 361, 49 N. W. 538, 16 L. R. A. 371—1416, 2690, 2721. Nichols V. Burlington, etc. Co., 4 Greene (Iowa), 42—237, 240. Nichols V. Mase, 94 N. Y. 160—1673, 2054, 2309, 2323. Nichols V. Mase, 25 Hun, 640—2309. Nichols V. Minneapolis, 33 Minn. 430, 23 N. W. 868, 53 Am. Rep. 56—2826. Nichols T. Pearce, 7 Blatchf. 5, 18 Fed. Cas. 204—1610. Nichols V. Scranton Steel Co., 137 N. Y. 471, 33 N. B. 561—1794. Nichols V. Somerset, etc. R. R., 43 Me. 356—2626. Nichols V. Stevens, 123 Mo. 96, 25 S. "W. 578, 27 S. "W. 613, 45 Am. St. Rep. 514—416. Nicholson v. Great Western Ry., 5 C. B. (N. S.) 366 (1858)— 2607. Nicholson v. Great Western Ry., 1 Nev. & McN. 121 (1858)— 2608. Nicholson v. Mounsey, 15 East, 384— 1695. Nicholson v. Showalter, 83 Tex. 99, 18 S. W. 326—41. Nicholstone City Co. v. Smalley, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 210, 51 S. W. 527— 1383. Nickalls V. Eaton, 23 L. T. Rep. 689 (1871)— 574, 905. Nickalls V. Merry, L. R. 7 H. L. 530 (1875)— 541, 581, 703, 905, 913. Nickalls v. New York, etc. R. R., 15 Fed. 575, 21 Blatchf. 177—600,4158. Nickerson v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 17 Fed. 408, 3 McCrary, 455—2126, 2476. Nickerson v. English, 142 Mass. 2G'7, 8 N. E. 45—377, 663, 1483. Nickerson v. Wheeler, 118 Mass. 295— 492. Nickum v. Burckhardt, 30 Oreg. 464, 47 Pac. 788, 48 Pac. 474, 60 Am. St. Rep. 822—214, 1285. Nicolay v. St. Clair County, 3 Dill. 163, 18 Fed. Cas. 227—255. Nicoll V. New York, etc. R. R., 12 N. Y. 121—1436, 1660, 1661, 1667. Nicoll V. New York & N. J. Tel. Co., 62 N. J. L. 156, 40 Atl. 627—2800. Nicoll V. New York & N. J. Tel. Co., 62 N. J. L. 733, 42 Atl. 583, 72 Am. St. Rep. 666—2800. Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Minn. 85, 35 N. W. 577, 8 Am. St. Rep. 643—1117. Nicol's Case, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 421 (1885) —190. Nicol's Case, 3 De G. & J. 387, 420 (1858)— 319, 545, 668. Nicrosi v. Calera L. Co., 115 Ala. 429, 22 South. 147—104, 149. TABLE OF CASES. cclxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Nicrosi v. Irvine, 102 Ala. 648, 15 South. 429, 48 Am. St. Rep. 92—95, 152. Niemann v. Detroit Suburban St. Ry., 103 Mich. 256, 61 N. W. 519—2692. Nlghtingal v. Devisme, 5 Burr. 2589, 2 W. Bl. 684 (1770)— 45, 1252. Nightingale v. Milwaukee Furn. Co., 71 Fed. 234—524. Niles V. Edwards, 90 Cal. 10, 27 Pac. 159—963. Niles V. Graham, 62 N. B. 986 (Mass.) —1704. Niles V. New York, etc. R. R., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 144, 74 N. Y. Supp. 617— 1875, 1876, 1896. Niles V. N. Y. etc. R. R., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 69, 71 N. Y. Supp. 271—1528, 1875, 2268. Niles T. Shaw, 50 Ohio St. 370, 34 N. E. 162—1225. Niles, etc. Co. v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 112 Fed. 561, 50 C. C. A. 390—2358. Nimick v. Mingo Iron Works, 25 W. Va. 184—461, 464. Nimmons v. Tappan, 2 Sweeney (N. Y.), 652—1394. Nimocks v. Cape Fear Shingle Co., 110 N. C. 230, 14 S. E. 684—1648. ■ — Nims V. Mount Hermon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177, 35 N. E. 776, 22 L. R. A. 364, 39 Am. St. Rep. 467—1596, 1608, 1735, 2733. Nines v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 107 Mo. 475, 18 S. W. 26—2641. Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256—230, 307, 312. Nisbit V. Macon, etc. Co., 12 Fed. 686, 4 Woods, 464—937. Nissen v. Cramer, 104 N. C. 574, 10 S. E. 676, 6 L. R. A. 730—40. Niver v. Niver, 43 Barb. 411—1248. Nix V. Miller, 26 Colo. 203, 57 Pac. 1084 —1617, 1647, 1692, 1755. Nixon V. Brownlow, 3 H. & N. 686 (1858)— 384. Nixon V. Green, 11 Exch. 550 (1856) — 566. Nixon V. Stillwell, 52 Hun, 353, 5 N. Y. Supp. 248—2821. Noble V. Callender, 20 Ohio St. 199— 308. Noble V. Buler, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 548, 47 N. Y. Supp. 302—1378. Noble V. Gadsden, etc. Co., 31 South. 856 (Ala.)— 1389. Noble V. Turner, 69 Md. 519, 16 Atl. 124—1009. Noble V. Vincennes, 42 Ind. 125 — 261. Noble, etc. Co. v. Mt. Pleasant, etc. Inst., 12 Utah, 213, 42 Pac. 869— 1650. Noblesville, etc. Co. v. Loehr, 124 Ind. 79, 24 N. E. 579—1732. Nockles V. Crosby, 3 Barn. & C. 814 (1825)— 199, 200, 1076, 1709, 1710. Noel V. Drake, 28 Kan. 265, 42 Am. Rep. 162—1346. Noesen v. Port Washington, 37 Wis. 168—263, 1031. Nolan V. Annabella Gold Mln. Co., 6 Wyatt, W. & A'B. 38 (1869)— 295. Nolan V. Hazen, 44 Minn. 478, 47 N. W. 155—452, 457. Noll V. Archer-Pancoast Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 414, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1007— 1605. Noll V. Chattanooga Co., 38 S. W. 287 (Tenn.)— 1580. Noll V. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 32 Iowa, 66 —2637. Non-Electric, etc. Co. v. Peabody, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 247, 47 N. Y. Supp. 677 —346. Noonan v. Ilsley, 17 Wis. 314, 84 Am. Dec. 742—1250, 1256, 1260, 1263. Norbury's Case, 5 De G. & S. 423 (1852)— 1701. Norcross, etc. Co. v. Summerour, 114 Ga. 156, 39 S. E. 870—216. Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Commonwealth, 114 Pa. St. 256, 6 Atl. 45—1240. Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Cottrell, 83 Va. 512, 3 S. E. 123—1955. Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Pendleton, 156 U. S. 667, 15 Sup. Ct. 413, 39 L. Ed. 574—2585. Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Penn, 136 U. S. 114, 10 Sup. Ct. 958, 34 L. Ed. 394— 1242. Norman v. Mitchell, 5 De G., M. & G. 648 (1854)— 302, 384. Norris v. Cottle, 2 H. L. Cas. 647 (1850)— 1700. Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L. Ed. 210—464. Norris v. Dalns, 52 Ohio St. 215, 39 N. E. 660, 49 Am. St. Rep. 716—1815. Norris v. Harrison, 2 Madd. 268 (1817) —1195, 1196. Norris v. Irish Land Co., 8 EI. & B. 512 (1857)— 858, 866. Norris v. Johnson, 34 Md. 485 — 426, 427, 451, 455. Norris v. Smith vllle, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 164—1393. Norris v. Trustees, etc., 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 7—1033, 1291, 2604. Norris v. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 492 — 460, 1027. Norristown v. Norristown Pass. Ry., 148 Pa. St. 87, 23 Atl. 1060—2719. North V. Forest, 15 Conn. 400 — 762. North V. Philips, 89 Pa. St. 250—770, 775, 776, 779, 1250, 1256, 1260, 1262, 1263. North V. Platte County, 29 Neb. 447, 45 N. W. 692, 26 Am. St. 395—249. cclxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] North V. State, 107 Ind. 356, 8 N. E. 159—1396. Nortli American Building Assoc, v. Sutton, 35 Pa. St. 463, 78 Am. Dec. 349—1247, 1250, 1263. North American, etc. Assoc, v. Bentley, 19 L. J. (Q. B.) 427 (1850)— 555. North American, etc. Co. v. R. E. Mc- Math, etc. Co., 116 Fed. 169, 54 C. C. A. 27—2655. North American, etc. Co. v. Watkins, 109 Fed. 101, 48 C. C. A. 254—1622, 1918, 2384. North American T. Co. v. Colonial, etc. Co., 83 Fed. 796, 28 C. C. A. 88— 1581. North American Rice Co., Matter of, N. Y. L. J., April 23, 1902—1332. Northampton Bank v. Allen, 10 Mass. 284—1625. Northampton Bank v. Pepoon, 11 Mass. 288—1724, 1732, 1762, 1799. Northampton County v. Easton Pass. Ry., 148 Pa. St. 282, 23 Atl. 895— 2721. Northampton Nat. Bank v. Kidder, 106 N. Y. 221, 12 N. E. 577, 60 Am. Rep. 443—2045, 2056. North Australian, etc. Co., In re (1892), 1 Ch. 322—1468. North Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. North Avenue Ry., 75 Md. 247, 23 Atl. 470— 2678, 2712. North Beach, etc. R. R.'s Appeal, 32 Cal. 499—2670, 2720. North Carolina R. R. v. Leach, 4 Jones, L. (N. C.) 340—308, 313. North Cheshire, etc. Co. v. Manchester, etc. Co. (1899), A. C. 83—60. Northeastern R. R. v. Rodrigues, 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 278—210, 321. Northeastern Ry. v. Jackson, 19 W. R. 198 (1870)— 1500. Northeast, etc. R. R., Ex parte, 37 Ala. 679—400, 1027. Northern Assam Tea Co., In re, L. R. 10 Eq. 458 (1870)— 1130, 1133, 2095. Northern Bank, etc. v. Stone, 88 Fed. 413—1040. Northern Central Ry. v. Common- wealth, 90 Pa. St. 300—2753. Northern Central R. Co. v. Maryland, 187 U. S. 258, 23 Sup. Ct. 62—2586. Northern, etc. Co., In re, 63 L. T. Rep. 369 (1890)— 191. Northerif, etc. Co. v. Young, 12 Fed. 809, 11 Biss. 331—2262. Northern, etc. Ry. v. Doherty, 100 Wis. 39, 75 N. W. 1079—2588. Northern, etc. Ry. v. Harrisburg, etc. Ry., 177 Pa. St. 142, 35 Atl. 624— 2706. Northern, etc. Ry. v. Hopkins, 87 Fed. 505—2474. Northern, etc. Ry. v. Maryland, 187 U_ S. 258, 23 Sup. Ct. 62—1238, 2585, 2586. Northern, etc. R. R. v. Walworth, 19a Pa. St. 207, 44 Atl. 253, 74 Am. St. Rep. 683—682, 758. Northern Liberties Bank v. Cresson,, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 306—1739, 1825. Northern Nat. Bank v. Arnold, 187 Pa. St. 356, 40 Atl. 794—781. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Dustin, 142 U.. ^S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. 283, 35 L. Ed. 1092. —2622. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Heflin, 83 Fed.. 93, 27 C. C. A. 460—2430. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Lamont, eS' Fed. 23, 16 C. C. A. 364—2351. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Murray, 87 Fed, 648, 31 C. C. A. 183—2698, 2798, 2799. Northern Pac. Ry. v. Raymond, 5 Dak. 356, 40 N. W. 538, 1 L. R. A. 732— 1243. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Roberts, 42 Fed. 734—249. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Smith, 171 U. S. 260, 271, 18 Sup. Ct. 794, 43 L. Ed. 157—2630, 2798. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Spokane, 56. Fed. 915—2650. Northern Pac. R. R. v. Territory, 3 Wash. T. 303, 13 Pac. 604—2621. Northern Ry. v. Carpentier, 13 How. Pr. 222—1248. Northern R. R. v. Concord, etc. R. R., 27 N. H. 183—2633. Northern R. R. v. Miller, 10 Barb. 26fr —219, 290, 291, 1021, 1035, 1038, 1432. Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 7 Biss. 45, 52, 18 Fed. Cas. 362, 365— 1669. Northern Trust Co. v. Columbia, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 936—100, 2006, 2248, 2276, 2277, 2484. Northern Trust Co. v. Snyder, 113 Wis. 516, 89 N. W. 460—1910. North, etc. Assoc, v. First Nat. Bank, 79 Wis. 31, 47 N. W. 300, 11 L. R. A. 845—1970. North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103 Wis. 492, 79 N. W. 785, 45 L. R. A. 174—17, 282, 285, 1281. North, etc. Co. v. Higgins (1899), A. C. 263—1718. North, etc. R. R. v. Spullock, 88 Ga. 283, 14 S. E. 478—271. North, etc. Rolling-stock Ca v. People, 147 111. 234, 35 N. B. 608, 24 L. R. A. 462—511, 1374, 1401, 1405. Northey v. Johnson, 19 L. T. (0. S.> 104—1079. North Hudson, etc. Assoc, v. Childs, 82 Wis. 460, 476, 477, 52 N. W. 600, 33 Am. St. Rep. 57—1609. 1<'8V lfi92, 1748. TABLE OF CASES. cclxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] North Hudson, etc. Ry. v. Hoboken, 41 N. J. L. 71—2722. North Jersey, etc. Ry. v. Inhabitants, etc., 58 N. J. Eq. 83, 43 Atl. 53—2682. North Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. London County Council, 72 L. T. Rep. 586 (1895)— 2710. North Missouri R. R. v. Akers, 4 Kan. 453, 96 Am. Dec. 183—1961. North Missouri R. R. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 46, 22 L. Ed. 287—1234, 1235. North Missouri R. R. v. Winkler, 29 Mo. 318—229, 233. North Pac. Ry. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47 — 2612. North Pennsylvania, etc. R. R. v. Adams, 54 Pa. St. 94, 93 Am. Dec. 677—2062. North Point C. Irr. Co. v. Utah, etc. Co., 16 Utah, 246, 58 Pac. 168, 40 L. R. A. 851, 67 Am. St. Rep. 607— 2787. North River Bank, In re, 60 Hun, 91, 14 N. Y. Supp. 261—2424. North River Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 262, 274—1840. Northrop v. Bushnell, 38 Conn. 498 — 114. Northrop v. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246—854, 1015. Northrop v. Newton, etc. Turnp. Co., 3 Conn. 544, 552—848, 854, 888, 1144. Northrup v. Buffington, 171 Mass. 468, 51 N. E. 7—779. Northrup v. Mississippi Val. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 435, 4 Am. Rep. 337—1828. North Shore, etc. Perry Co., In re, 63 Barb. 556—1314, 1318. Northside Ry. v. Worthington, 88 Tex. 562, 30 S. W. 1055, 53 Am. St. Rep. 778—1982, 2022, 2053, 2110. North Star, etc. Co. v. Stebbins, 2 S. D. 74, 48 N. W. 833—1597. North State, etc. Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151, 20 Atl. 1039—303, 1874. Northumberland Co. Bank v. Byer, 60 Pa. St. 436—66. North Ward Nat. Bank v. Newark, 39 N. J. L. 380—1205, 1213, 1222, 1226. North Ward Nat. Bank v. Newark, 40 N. J. L. 558—1228. North West Electric Co. v. Walsh, 29 Canada S. C. Rep. 33 (1898)— 102. Northwestern College v. Schwagler, 37 Iowa, 577—63. Northwestern Dist. Co. v. Brant, 69 111. 658, 18 Am. Rep. 631—64. Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 76 Minn. 334, 79 N. W. 315— 1660, 2755, 2804, 2805. Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Lannlng, 83 Minn. 19 85 N. W. 823—199, 372, 1709. E Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Lee, 102 Wis. 428, 78 N. W. 584—1775, Northwestern, etc. Co. v. O'Brien, 75 Minn. 335, 77 N. W. 989—1602. Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Shaw, 37 Wis. 655, 19 Am. Rep. 781—1606. Northwestern, etc. Ins. Co. v. Cotton, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 22—143, 2008. Northwestern, etc. Ins. Co. v. Cotton, etc. Co., 70 Fed. 155—125. Northwestern, etc. Ins. Co. v. Overholt, 4 Dill. 287, 18 Fed. Cas. 403—1669, 1679. Northwestern Land Assoc, v. Grady, 33 South. -874 (Ala.)— 1902. Northwestern Ry. v. McMichael, 6 Bxch. 273 (1851)— 283. Northwestern Tel. Co. v. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140, 83 N. W. 527, 86 N. W. 69, 53 L. R. A. 175—2847. Northwest, etc. Ry., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 882—609. North-west Transp. Co. v. Beatty, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 589 (1887)— 1350, 1525. Northwood, etc. Co. v. Pray, 67 N. H. 435, 32 Atl. 770—220. Norton v. Alabama Nat. Bank, 102 Ala. 420, 14 South. 872—1633. Norton v. Blinn, 39 Ohio St. 145—779, 780. "Norton v. Bohart, 105 Mo. 615, 16 S. W. 598—803. Norton v. Brownsville, 129 U. S. 479, 9 Sup. Ct. 322, 32 L. Ed. 774—254. Norton v. Dyersburg, 127 U. S. 160, 8 Sup. Ct. 1111, 32 L. Ed. 85—265. Norton v. Florence, etc. Co., 26 W. R. 123 (1877)— 2096. Norton v. Hodges, 100 Mass. 241—517. Norton v. Kellogg, 41 Fed. 452—1858. Norton v. Nevills, 174 Mass. 243, 54 N. E. 537—714, 796. Norton v. Norton, 43 Ohio St. 509, 3 N. B. 348—999. Norton v. Peck, 3 Wis. 714—241. Norton v. Salisbury Town Clerk, 4 C. B. 32 (1846)— 1280. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 6 Sup. Ct. 1121, 30 L. Ed. 178— 262. Norton v. Walkill, etc. R. R., 42 How. Pr. 228—1435. Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 618—2732. Norwegian Titanic Iron Co., 35 Beav. 223 (1865)— 1410. Norwich y. Norfolk Ry., 4 EI. & BL 397 (1855)— 2649. Norwich, etc. Co., In re, 22 Beav. 143 (1856)— 1821. Norwich, etc. Co. v. Hockaday, 89 Va. 557, 16 S. E. 877—186, 198, 358, 1040. I^orwich, etc. Navigation v. Theobald, 1 Moody & M. 151—362. cclxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Norwich Gas, etc. Co. v. Norwich, etc. Co., 25 Conn. 19—1024, 2737, 2739. Norwich Ins. Soc, In re, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 693—520. Norwood, In re, 32 Hun, 196—1446. Norwood, Ex parte, 3 Biss. 504, 18 Fed. Gas. 452—2399. Norwood, etc. Co. v. Andrews, 71 Miss. 641, 16 South. 263—1602. Nott V. Clews, 14 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 437—107, 164. Nourse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. 490, 8 Am. Dec. 606—954. Nourse v. Prime, 7 Johns. Ch. 69, 11 Am. Dec. 403—954. Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Connell, 88 Hun, 254, 34 N. Y. Supp. 717—476. Noxham v. Grant (1899), 1 Q. B. 480 (1900); 1 Q. B. 88^1188. Noyes v. Blakeman, 6 N. Y. 567—1064. Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286—755, 1347. Noyes v. Rich, 52 Me. 115—2302, 2303, 2423. Noyes v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 27 Vt. 110—2640. Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420—746, 748, 770, 848, 888, 954. Nugent V. Boston, etc. R. R., 80 Me. 62, 12 Atl. 797, 6 Am. St. Rep. 151— 2581. Nugent V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 2 Disney (Ohio), 302—323. Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241, 22 L. Ed. 83—257, 262, 268, 1040, 2547, 2580. Nulton V. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425, 6 N. W. 685, 37 Am. Rep. 213—181, 211, 215. Nunemacher v. Louisville, 98 Ky. 334, 32 S. W. 1091—1456. Nunnally v. Strause, 94 Va. 255, 26 S. B. 580—2375. Nunnemacher v. Poss, 92 N. W. 375 (Wis.)— 1819. Nutbrown v. Thornton, 10 Ves. Jr. 160 (1804)— 755. Nute V. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Co., 72 Mass. 174—21. Nutter V. Lexington, etc. R. R., 72 Mass. 85—629. Nutting V. Boardman, 43 Ga. 598 — 732 Nutting V. Hill, 71 Ga. 557—1418. Nutting V. Thomason, 46 Ga. 34—732. Nutting V. Thommasson, 57 Ga. 418 — 731. Nyce's Estate, In re, 5 Watts & S. 254, 40 Am. Dec. 498—715. Nyce's Estate, In re, 40 Am. Dec. 515, notes — 716. Nye V. Storer, 168 Mass. 53, 46 N. B. 402—1458, 1489, 1524, 1525, 1863. Nyman v. Berry, 3 Wash. St. 734, 29 Pac. 557—1643. Nysewander v. Lowman, 124 'Ind. 584, 24 N. E. 355—751, 784. 0. Oades v. Marsh, 111 Mich. 168, 69 N. W. 251—658. Oakbank Oil Co. v. Crum, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 65 (1882)— 1150. Oakbank Oil Co. v. Krum, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 65 (1882)- 42. Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484, 28 Atl. 973, 23 L. R. A. 639, 49 Am. St. Rep. 784—511, 1054. Oakes v. Cattaragus Water Co., 143 N. Y. 430, 38 N. E. 461, 26 L. R. A. 544 —1050, 1711, 1715, 1793. Oakes v. Myers, 68 Fed. 807—2343. Oakes v. Oakes, 9 Hare, 666 (1852)— 658. Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. 325, 342 (1867)— 24, 314, 321, 325, 336, 384, 573. Oak, etc. Co. v. Foster, 7 N. M. 650, 41 Pac. 522—1783. Oakland C. S. Bank v. State Bank, 113 Mich. 284, 71 N. W. 453, 67 Am. St. Rep. 463—1131. Oakland, etc. Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 118 Fed. 239, 55 C. C. A. 93— 168L Oakland R. v. Keenan, 56 Pa. St. 198— 2600. Oakland R. R. v. Oakland, etc. R. R., 45 Cal. 365, 13 Am. Rep. 181—2544, 2577, 2678, 2680, 2701. Oaks V. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 177, 51 N. Y. Supp. 775—765. O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer, 106 Ala. 205, 227, 17 South. 525, 28 L. R. A. 707, 54 Am. St. Rep. 31—33, 139, 1633. O'Beirne v. Allegheny, etc. R. R., 151 N. Y. 372, 45 N. B. 873—2208, 2299. O'Beirne v. Bullis, 158 N. Y. 466, 53 N. E. 211—1610, 1996, 2209. O'Beirne v. Bullis, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 545, 38 N. Y. Supp. 4—2209. Obery v. Lander, 179 Mass. 125, 60 N. E. 378—737, 750. O'Brien v. Blaut, 17 N. Y: App. Div. 288, 45 N. Y. Supp. 217—1686. O'Brien v. Browning, 11 Hun, 179— 2207. O'Brien v. Champlain, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 338—1544, 2657. O'Brien v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 53 Barb. 568—615. O'Brien v. Fitzgerald, 143 N. Y. 377, 38 N. E. 371, 150 N. Y. 572, 44 N. B. 1126—1685, 1686. TABLE OF OASES. cclxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] O'Brien v. Mayor, etc., 139 N. Y. 543, 35 N. E. 323—2655. O'Brien v. Mechanics', etc. Ins. Co., 56 N. Y. 52—996. O'Brien v. O'Connell, 7 Hun, 228—1904. O'Brien v. Shaw's Flat, etc. Co., 10 Cal. 343—1953. Occidental, etc. Assoc, v. Sullivan, 62 Cal. 394—295. Ocean, etc. Co. v. Wilder, 107 Ga. 220, 33 S. E. 179—2410. 2453. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Portsmouth Marine Ry., 44 Mass. 420—1952. Ocean Nat. Bank v. Carll, 7 Hun, 237 —2430. Ochiltree v. Railroad Co., 21 Wall. 249, 22 L. Ed. 546—427, 634, 1026. O'Connor v. Current River R. R., Ill Mo. 185, 20 S. W. 16—2334. O'Connor v. Irvine, 74 Cal. 435, 16 Pac. 236—745, 755. O'Connor v. Knoxville Hotel Co., 93 Terin. 708, 28 S. W. 308—1386. O'Connor v. North Truckee Ditch Co., 17 Nev. 245, 30 Pac. 882—37. O'Connor v. Witherby, 111 Cal. 523, 44 Pac. 227—443, 572, 573. O'Connor, etc. Co. v. Coosa Furnace Co., 95 Ala. 614, 10 South. 290, 36 Am. St. Rep. 251—1888. Odd Fellows v. Bank of Sturgis^ 42 Mich. 461, 4 N. W. 158—1784. Odd Fellows Hall Co. v. Glazier, 5 Harr. (Del.) 172—220. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 356, 16 Atl. 606—731. Odell V. Odell, 92 Mass. 1—1660. O'Donald v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 14 Ind.- 259—238, 1942. O'Donnell v. C. R. Johns Co., 76 Tex. 362, 13 S. W. 376—63. Oelbermann v. N. Y. etc. Ry., 77 Hun, 332^ 29 N. Y. Supp. 54S— 682, 684, 1322. Oelricks v. Ford, 23 How. 49, 16 L. Bd. 534—914. O'Flaherty v. Nassau, etc. R. R., 34 N. Y. App. Div. 74, 54 N. Y. Supp. 96 —2828. Ogden v. Alexander, 140 N. Y. 356, 35 N. E. 638—2335. Ogden V. Daviess County, 102 U. S. 634, 26 L. Ed. 263—243. Ogden V. Lathrop, 65 N. Y. 158—955, 985. Ogden V. Murray, 39 N. Y. 202—1500, 1665. Ogden V. St. Joseph, 90 Me. 522, 3 S. W. 25—1208. Ogden City v. Bear Lake, etc. Co., 18 Utah, 279, 55 Pac. 385—2472. Ogden City Ry. v. Ogden City, 7 Utah, 207, 26 Pac. 288—2677. Ogden Clay Co. v. Harvey, 9 Utah, 497, 35 Pac. 510—368. Ogdensburg, etc. R. R. v. Wooley, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 398—356. Ogdensburgh Bank v. Van Rensselaer, 6 Hill, 240—1936. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. v. Frost, 21 Barb. 541—203, 290, 291, 356. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 4 Hun, 712, 63 N. Y. 176— 1400. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. v. Wooley, 3 Abb. Ct. of App. Dec. 398 (1864)— 84. Ogilvie V. Currie, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 541 (1868)— 318, 327, 336, 809. Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380, 16 L. Bd. 349—116, 274, 334, 338, 399, 402, 403, 407, 409. Ogle V. Knipe, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 692 (1869)— 45. Ogle V. Knipe, L. R. 8 Bq. 434 (1869) —657. Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 605, 26 L. Bd. 1186—279, 1932. O'Gorman v. Sabin, 62 Minn. 46, 64 N. W. 84—2291. O'Hare v. Second Nat. Bank, 77 Pa. St. 96—678, 1626. O'Herron v. Gray, 168 Mass. 573, 47 N. B. 429, 40 L. R. A. 498, 60 Am. St. Rep. 411—727, 820, 968. Ohio V. Prank, 103 U. S. 697, 26 L. Ed. 531—2061. Ohio V. Neff, 52 Ohio St. 375, 40 N. E. 720, 28 L. R. A. 409— 1024,, 1033. Ohio V. Railway Co., 53 Ohio St. 189, 41 N. B. 205—1406. Ohio Central R. R. v. Central T. Co., 133 U. S. 83, 10 Sup. Ct. 235, 33 L. Ed. 561—2280. Ohio College v. Rosenthal, 45 Ohio St. 183, 12 N. B. 665—607. Ohio, etc. Co. v. State, 49 Ohio St. 668, 32 N. E. 933—1366, 1380, 1730. Ohio, etc. College v. Higgins, 16 Ohio St. 20—213. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Anderson, 10 111. App. 313—2453. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Cramer, 23 Ind. 490 83, 240, 271. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Davis, 23 Ind. 553, 85 Am. Dec. 477—2453. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Dunbar, 20 111. 623, 71 Am. Dec. 291—2581. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Fitch, 20 Ind. 498— 2419. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 5 Am. L. R. (N. S.) 733—2567. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. McPherson, 35 Mo. 13, 86 Am. Dec. 128—1270, 1741, 2138. Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Quier, 16 Ind. 440 — 1955. cclxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Weber, 96 111. 443— 31, 1233, 2651.' Ohio, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 295, 17 L. Ed. 130—2, 2650, 2654. Ohio, etc. Ry. v. People, 120 111. 200, 11 N. B. 347—2622. Ohio, etc. Ry. v. People, 123 111. 467, 14 N. E. 874—1037, 1270, 1374, 2587, 2652. Ohio, etc. Ry. v. Russell, 115 111. 52, 3 N. E. 561—2454. Ohio, etc. Trust Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L. Ed. 997—1235. Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunnemacher, 15 Ind. 294—2, 621, 622. Ohio Life, etc. Co., In re, 9 Ohio, 291— 1625. Ohio L. Ins. Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 1, 23, 53 Am. Dec. 742—426, 1627, 2647. Oil City, etc. Co. v. Porter, 99 Ky. 254, 35 S. W. 643—322. Oil Creek, etc. R. R. v. Pennsylvania Transp. Co., 83 Pa. St. 160—2649. Okell V. Charles, 34 L. T. Rep. 822 (1876)— 1817. Olcott V. Bolton, 50 Neb. 779, 70 N. W. 366—811. Olcott V. Bynum, 17 Wall. 44, 21 L. Ed. 570—2216. Olcott V. Headrick, 141 U. S. 543, 12 Sup. Ct. 81, 35 L. Ed. 851—2489. Olcott V. International, etc. R. R., 28 S. W. 728 (Tex.)— 2572. Olcott V. Rice, 69 Fed. 199, 16 C. C. A. 186—2300, 2317. Olcott V. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 21 L. Ed. 382—244, 245, 2627. Olcott V. Tioga R. R., 20 N. Y. 210, 75 Am. Dec. 393—69. Olcott V. Tioga R. R., 27 N. Y. 546, 558, 84 Am. Dec. 298—1764, 1777, ISOi, 1812, 1817, 1978, 1980, 2594. Olcott V. Tioga R. R., 40 Barb. 179 — 1978. Oldaore v. Butler, 116 Ala. 652, 23 South. 3—997. Old Colony, etc. Co. v. Allentown, etc. Co., 192 Pa. St. 596, 44 Atl. 319— 2018, 2212, 2256, 2699. Old Colony, etc. Co. v. Atlanta Ry., 100 Fed. 798—1960, 2174. Old Colony R. R. v. Evans, 72 Mass. 25, 66 Am. Dec. 394—1660. Old Colony R, R. v. Rockland, etc. St. Ry., 161 Mass. 416, 37 N. B. 370— 2705. Old Colony R. R. v. Tripp, 147 Mass. 35, 17 N. B. 89, 9 Am. St. Rep. 661— 2649. Old Colony T. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39—2204, 2616, 2675. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Dubugue, etc. Co., 89 Fed. 794—814, 2251, 2540. Old Colony T. Co. v. Great, etc. Co., 178 Mass. 92, 59 N. E. 673—2234, 2237. Old Colony T. Co. v. Great, etc. Co., 63 N. B. 945 (Mass.)— 2284, 2285, 2290. Oldham v. Bank, 85 N. C. 240—1629. Oldham v. Mt. Sterling Imp. Co., 103 Ky. 529, 45 S. W. 779— 313, 374, 1387. Oldknow V. Walnwright, 2 Burr. 1017 (1760)— 1752. Old Second Nat. Bank v. Williams, 112 Mich. 564, 71 N. W. 150—952, 1020. Oldtown Bank v. Houlton, 21 Me. 501, 507—40, 1830. Oldtown, etc. R. R. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571—364, 366, 1030, 1036, 1944. O'Leary v. Board of Education, 93 N. Y. 1, 45 Am. Rep. 156—1828. Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 41 Md. 583—178, 193, 354. Olery v. Brown, 51 How. Pr. 92—1071. Oleson V. Bank of Tacoma, 15 Wash. 148, 45 Pac. 734—1643. Oleson V. Green Bay, etc., 36 Wis. 383 —249. Oliphant v. Woodburn, etc. Co., 63 Iowa, 332, 19 N. W. 212—93, 1684. Oliver v. Gilmore, 52 Fed. 562—1057. Oliver v. Governor, etc. (1901), 1 Ch. 652—838, 915. Oliver v. Governor & Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 248 (1902)— 725, 835, 838, 915. Oliver v. Liverpool, etc. Ins. Co., 100 Mass. 531, 539—517, 518, 1081, 1082, 1239, 1672. Oliver v. Rahway, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 460 (N. J.)— 673, 1484, 1848. Oliver v. Walter, etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 771—1956. Oliver V. Washington Mills, 93 Mass. 268—1211. Oliver Lee's Bank, In re, 21 N. Y. 9— 1036, 1432. Oliver's Estate, 136 Pa. St. 43, 20 Atl. 527, 9 L. R. A. 421, 20 Am. St. Rep. 894—1190. Olmstead v. Distilling, etc. Co., 67 Fed. 24—2378, 2490. Olmstead v. Distilling, etc. Co., 73 Fed. 44—1056, 1438, 2286, 2378, 2505. Olmstead v. Vance, etc. Co., 63 N. B. 634 (111.)— 378. Olney v. Chadsey, 7 R. I. 224—1769, 1843. Olney v. Conanicut Land Co., 16 R. I. 597, 18 Atl. 181, 5 L. R. A. 361, 2T Am. St. Rep. 767—1656. Olpherts v. Smith, 54 N. Y. App. DiT. 514, 66 N. Y. Supp. 976-2470. Olsen V. Homestead, etc. Co., 87 Tex. 368, 28 S. W. 944—1140. TABLE OF OASES. cclxxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Olson V. Cook, 57 Minn. 552, 59 N. W. 635—569. Olson V. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267, 69 N. W. 904—337, 488, 490, 631, 2475. Olympia, Limited, In re (1898), 2 Ch. 153—1472. Olyphant v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 22 Fed. 179—2360. Olyphant v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 23 Fed. 465—2242, 2244. Olyphant v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 28 Fed. 729—2345, 2348. Olyphant, etc. Co. v. Borough of Oly- phant, 196 Pa. St. 553, 46 Atl. 896— 1430. Omaha, etc. Co. v. Burns, 49 Neb. 229, 68 N. W. 492—1779. Omaha, etc. Ry. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 108 Mo. 298, 18 S. W. 1101—2326. Omaha;, etc. Ry. v. Whitney, 94 N. W. 513 (Neb.)— 2631. Omaha H. Ry. v. Cable, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 324—2677. Omaha L. L. Assoc, v. Connell, 55 Neb. 396, 75 N. W. 827—22, 518, 1089. O'Mahony v. Belmont, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 380—2389. O'Meara v. North American Min. Co., 2 Nev. 112—196, 1256, 1263. Ommanney v. Butcher, 1 Turn. & R. 260, 272 (1823)— 657. Omnium, etc. Co. v. North American T. Co., 68 Pac. 1089 (Kan.)— 1671. Gmo V. Bernart, 108 Mich. 43, 65 N. W. 622—225, 270, 492, 743. O'Neal V. King, 3 Jones, L. (N. C.) 517—235. Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 21 N. Y. 490—1627, 1980. O'Neil V. Dry Dock* etc. R. R., 129 N. Y. 125, 29 N. E. 84, 26 Am. St. Rep. 512—2713. O'Neill V. Whigham, 87 Pa. St. 394— 975, 978. Onondaga Trust, etc. Co. v. Price, 87 N. Y. 542—659, 661, 1251. Onslow's Case, 55 L. T. Rep. 612 (1881)— 180. Onslow's Case, 58 L. T. Rep. 824 (1887)— 180. Onstott V. People, 123 111. 489, 15 N. E. 34—260. Ontario Commercial, etc. Bank v. Con- coran, 6 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 527 (1884)— 515. Ontario, etc. Assoc, v. Leys, 23 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 496 (1893)— 566. Ontario Ex. & Trans. Co., In re, 21 App. Rep. (Can.) 646—120. Ontario Salt Co. v. Merchants' Salt Co., 18 Grant (IT. C.) Ch. 540, 551— 1058, 1805. Ontario State Bank v. Tibbits, 80 Cal. 68. 22 Pac. 66—1680. Onward Bldg. Soc, In re (1891), 2 Q. B. 463—2435. Ooregum, etc. Co. v. Roper (1892); A. C. 125—121. Opdyke v. Marble. 44 Barb. 64 — 1107, 1108. Opdyke v. Pacific R. R., 3 Dill. 55, 18 Fed. Cas. 744—2076. Opelika v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 211—244. Opera, In re (1891), 3 Ch. 260—2094. Op. Atty. Gen. (Pa.), 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 197 (1891)— 544. Opinion of Attorney-General of Texas (1887), 2 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 433—516. Opinion of the Judges, In re, 28 S. E. (N. C.) 18—1032. Opinion of Justices, 3 Binney (Pa.), 595, 626—1661. Opinion of the Justices, In re, 66 N. H. 629, 33 Atl. 1076—2613, 2640, 2710. Oppenheim v. Waterbury, 86 Hun, 122, 33 N. Y. Supp. 183—929. Orange, etc. R. R. v. Fulvey, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 366—1256. Order of Iron Hall v. Baker, 134 Ind. 293, 33 N. B. 1128, 20 L. R. A. 210— 1925, 2374. Ord, Ex parte, 2 Mont. & A. 724 (1835)— 550. Ording v. Burnett, 178 111. 28, 52 N. E. . 851—2248. Oregon v. Jennings, 119 TJ. S. 74, 7 Sup. Ct. 124, 30 L. Ed. 323—264. Oregon Cascade R. R. v. Baily, 3 Or. 164—2626, 2627. Oregon' Cent. R. R. v. Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161—340, 359, 370. Oregon, etc. Co. v. Balfour, 90 Fed. 295, 33 C. C. A. 57—2538. Oregon, etc. Co. v. Hilmers, 20 Fed. 717—922, 956, 957. Oregon, etc. Co. v. Schmidt, 60 S. W. 530 (Ky.)— 1454, 1786. Oregon, etc. Inv. Co. v. Rathbun, 5 Sawyer, 32, 18 Fed. Cas. 764 — 1677. Oregon, etc. R. R. v. Forrest, 128 N. Y. 83, 28 N. E. 137—2037. Oregon, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc. Co. of Idaho, 111 Fed. 842, 49 C. C. A. 663 —1541, 2629, 2806, 2807. Oregonian Ry. v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 22 Fed. 245, 10 Sawy. 464, 23 Fed. 232—512, 1418, 1942. Oregon Ry. v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 28 Fed. 505—1751. Oregon Ry. etc. Co. v. Oregonian Ry., 130 U. S. 1, 25, 9 Sup. Ct. 409, 32 L. Ed. 837—15, 512, 1609, 2568, 2571, 2575, 2577. Oregon Short Line, etc. Ry. v. Dwaco, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 611—2786. O'Reilly v. Bard, 105 Pa. St. 569—424, 491. cclxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Organized Labor Hall v. Gebert, 48 N. J. Eq. 393, 22 Atl. 578—1077. Oriental, etc. Co. v. Barclay, 64 S. W. 80 (Tex.)— 1544. Oriental, etc. Co. v. Briggs, 4 De G., F. & J. 191 (1861)— 756. Oriental, etc. Steam Co. v. Briggs, 2 Johns. & H. 625—755. Orleans v. Piatt, 99 U. S. 676, 25 L. Ed. 404—258. Orleans, etc. Ry. v. Jefferson, etc. Ry., 51 La. Ann. 1605, 26 South. 278— 2634. Orman v. English, etc. Inv. Trust, 61 Fed. 38, 9 C. C. A. 356—2101, 2153. Ormerod's Case, 25 W. R. 765 — 1467. Ormsby v. Budd, 72 Iowa, 80, 33 N. W. 457—790. Ormsby v. Vermont Copper Mln. Co., 56 N. Y. 623—302, J256, 1263, 1269, 1270, 1741. Ornamental, etc. Woodwork Co. v. Brown, 2 Hurl. & C. 63 (1863)— 362. Orne's Estate, In re, 192 Pa. St. 626, 44 Atl. 287—731,-1201. Oro, etc. Co. v. Kaiser, 4 Colo. App. 219, 35 Pac. 677—1793. Orono V. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am. Dec. 81—1944. O'Rourke v. Wahl, 109 Fed. 276, 48 C. C. A. 360—2050. Oroville, etc. R. R. v. Supervisors, 37 Cal. 354—1415. Orpen, In re, 32 L. J. (Ch.) 633 (1863) —668. Orr V. Bigelow, 14 N. Y. 556, 20 Barb. 21—207, 540, 1355. Orr V. Bracken County, 81 Ky. 593 — 1034. Orf, etc. Co. v. Reno Water Co., 17 Nev. 166, 30 Pac. 695—1377, 1552. Orr, etc. Co. v. Thompson, 36 S. W. 1129 (Tex.)— 1642. Orr, etc. Co. v. Thompson, 89 Tex. 501 —1642. Ortigosa v. Brown, 47 L. J. (Ch.) 168 (1878)— 847, 855, 886, 961. Ortmann v. Fletcher, 117 Mich. 501, 76 N. W. 63—746. Ortt V. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 36 Minn. 396, 31 N. W. 519—2641. Orvis V. Curtiss, 157 N. Y. 657. 52 N. E. 690, 68 Am. St. Rep. 810—708. Orvis V. Warner & Co., 75 N. Y. App. Div. 463, 78 N. Y. Supp. 328—643, 1772, 1794. Orynski v. Loustaunan, 15 S. W. 674 (Tex.)— 365. Osage Valley, etc. R. R. v. Morgan County Court, 53 Mo. 156—246. Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. Ed. 204—1967. Osborn v. Crosby, 63 N. H. 583—213, 1087. Osborn v. Montelac Park, 153 N. Y. 672, 48 N. B. 1106—12, 2013. Osborn v. Montelac Park, 89 Hun, 167, 35 N. Y. Supp. 610—12, 20l3. Osborne, Ex parte, 15 Jur. 72 (1851) — 1699. Osborne v. Adams County, 109 U. S. 1, 3 Sup. Ct. 150, 27 L. Ed. 835; 106 U. S. 181, 1 Sup. Ct. 168, 27 L. Ed. 129 —250. Osborne v. McAlpine, 4 Redf. (N. Y.) 1—655. Osborne v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 147 XJ. S. 248, 13 Sup. Ct. 299, 37 L. Ed. 155— 2689, 2691, 2692. Osborne v. Monks, 21 S. W. 101 (Ky.) —1491, 1859. Osborne v. State, 33 Fla. 162, 14 South. 588, 25 L. R. A. 120, 39 Am. St. Rep. 99—1243, 2728. Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 633, 658 —1809. Osborne, etc. Co. v. Croome, 77 N. Y. 629^1378. Osborne, etc. Co. v. Croome, 14 Hun, 164—1378. Osgood V. Bauder, 75 Iowa, 550, 39 N. W. 887, 1 L. R. A. 655—772. Osgood V. King, 42 Iowa, 478—93, 154, 161, 164, 393. Osgood V. Laytin, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 521, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 1—393, 1177, 1181, 1184, 2404. Osgood V. Laytin, 48 Barb. 463 — 1177, 2404. , Osgood V. Maguire, 61 N. Y. 524— 1924, 2425. Osgood V. Manhattan Co., 3 Cow. 612, 15 Am. Dec. 304—1830. Osgood V. Ogden, 4 Keyes, 70—382, 2408. Oskaloosa Agricultural Works v. Park- hurst, 54 Iowa, 357, 6 N. W. 547— 362. Oskaloosa Water Co. v. Oskaloosa, 84 Iowa,' 407, 51 N. W. 18, 15 L. R. A. 296—2775. Ossipee Hosiery, etc. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295-368, 370, 1971. Osterberg v. Union Trust Co., 93 XJ. S. 424, 23 L. Ed. 964—1241, 2530, 2535. Ostrom V. Greene, 161 N. Y. 353, 55 N. E. 919—1081, 1082, 1288, 1295, 1298, 1380, 1731. Oswald V. Minneapolis Times Co., 65 Minn. 249, 68 N. W. 15—435, 442, 472, 557, 995, 1972. Oswald V. St. Paul, etc. Pub. Co., 60 Minn. 82, 61 N. W. 902—1660. Oswego, etc. Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1 Barb. Ch. 547—2724. Oswego Starch Factory v. Dolloway, 21 N. Y. 449 (I860)— 1210. TABLE OF CASKS. cclxxxi [The nambeiB after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Otis V. CuUum, 92 U. S. 447, 23 L. Ed. 496—1993. Otis V. Gardner, 105 111. 436—796, 850, 888, 938, 960. Otis V. Harrison, 36 Barb. 210 — 1628. Otis V. Parker, 23 Sup. Ct. 168—773. Otis Co. V. Ware, 74 Mass. 509—68. Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger, 107 Fed. 131—1059. Otoe County v. Baldwin, 111 U. S. 1, 4 Sup. Ct. 265, 28 L. Ed. 331—259. Ottawa V. Carey, 108 TJ. S. 110, 2 Sup. Ct. 361, 27 L. Ed. 669-241, 242, 243, 250. Ottawa, etc. Co. v. Murray, 15 111. 336 —2147. Ottawa, etc. R. R. v. Black, 79 111. 262 —373, 2548, 2580, 2582. Ottawa, etc. R. R. v. Hall, 1 111. App. 612—194. Ottawa Glass Co. v. McCaleb, 81 111. 556—1203, 1211, 1213. Otter V. Brevoort, etc. Co., 50 Barb. 247, 256—94, 133. Otto V. Journeymen Tailors' Union, 75 Cal. 308, 17 Pac. 217, 7 Am. St. Rep. 156^1073. Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. Dane, 95 111. 203—60. Ottos, etc. Mines, In re (1893), 1 Ch. 618—644, 855. Ottumwa, etc. Co. v. Stodghill, 103 Iowa, 437, 72 N. W. 669—1016. Ouachita, etc. Co. v. Aiken, 16 Fed. 890, 4 Woods, 208—2786. Ouderkirk v. Central National Bank, 119 N. Y. 263, 23 N. E. 875—948. Outterson v. Fonda Lake Paper Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 980—1507, 1760. Overall v. Louisville, etc. Co., 47 S. W. 442 (Ky.)— 2833. Overend, etc. Co. v. Gibb, L. R. 5 H. L. 480 (1872)— 1694. Overholt v. Old, etc. Co., 98 Va. 654, 37 S. E. 307—2484. Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., 46 Fed. 577—1963, 1964. Overstreet v. Citizens' Bank, 72 Pac. 379 (Oki.)— 2791. Overton v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 10 Fed. 866, 3 McCrary, 436—1921, 2368. Overton Bridge Co. v. Means, 33 Neb. 857, 51 N. W. 240, 29 Am. St. Rep. 514—2725. Overweg, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 209—912, 924. Owen V. Campbell, 100 Mich. 34, 58 N. W. 603—718. Owen V. Chains, 5 C. B. 115 (1848) — 1709. Owen V. Kellogg, 56 Hun, 455, 10 N. Y. Supp. 75—2489. Owen V. Marshall, 69 Wis. 486—517. Owen V. Ogilvie, etc. Co., 32 N. Y. App. Div. 465, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1033—73. Owen V. Potter, 115 Mich. 556, 73 N. W. 977—2084, 2087, 2089, 2214, 2243. Owen V. Purdy, 12 Ohio St. 73—1026, 1042. Owen V. Routh, 14 C. B. 327 (1854) — 1261. Owen V. Shepard, 59 Fed. 746, 8 C. C. A. 244—499, 1944. Owen V. Smith, 31 Barb. 641—1433, 1434. Owen V. Whitaker, 20 N. J. Eq. 122— 1333. Owen County v. Morgan, 59 S. W. 18 (Ky.)— 2205. Owen, etc. Co., In re, 21 Out. Rep. (Can.) 349 (1891)— 121, 174. Owens, In re, Ir. Rep. 7 Eq. 235, 424 (1873)— 1467. Owens v. Boyd, etc. Co., 95 Va. 560, 28 S. E. 950—331. Owens V. Hastings, 18 Kan. 446 — 2301. Owens V. Missionary Soc, 14 N. Y. 380, 67 Am. Dec. 160—1079. Owensboro v. Owensboro, etc. R. R., 40 S. W. 916 (Ky.)— 2702, 2715. Owensboro, etc. Co. v. Bliss, 31 South. 81 (Ala.)— 501. Owensboro Nat. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 19 Sup. Ct. 537, 43 L. Ed. 850—1220. Owenton, etc. Turnp, Co. v. Smith, 13 S. W. 426 (Ky.)— 372, 507, 1042. Owings V. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420, 424, 5 L. Ed. 124—1756, 1761. Owingsville, etc. Co. v. Bondurarit's Adm'r, 54 S. W. 718 (Ky.)— 381, 1155. Owsley V. Montgomery, etc. R. R., 37 Ala. 560—74. Oxford Building, etc. Soc, In re, 55 L. T. Rep. 598 (1886)— 1184. Oxford, etc. Soc, In re, 55 L. T. Rep. 598 (1886)— 1187. Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley, 46 Ala. 98—1969, 1976. Oxford Turnp. Co. v. Bunnel, 6 Conn. 552—888, 938, 1015. Oyster v. Short, 177 Pa. St. 601, 35 Atl. 711— 1135,. 1445. Pabst, etc. Co. v. City of Terre Haute, 98 Fed. 330—2839. Pabst, etc. Co. v. Montana, etc. Co., 19 Mont. 294, 48 Pac. 234—742, 952, 1257. Pacific Bank v. De Ro, 37 Cal. 538—63. Pacific Bank v. Stone, 121 Cal. 202, 53 Pac. 634—1774. eclxxxii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pacific, etc. Co. v. Allen, 109 Fed. 515, 48 C. C. A. 521—2383. Pacific, etc. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 118 Fed. 746—2674. Pacific, etc. Co. v. James St. Const. Co., 68 Fed. 966, 16 C. C. A. 68— 2337. Paci-flc, etc. Co. v. Whitbeck, 63 Kan. 102, 64 Pac. 984, 88 Am. St. Rep. 229 —482. Pacific, etc. Mill v. Dayton, etc. Ry., 5 Fed. 852, 7 Sawy. 61—1775, 2146. Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. 310—1243. Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. Rep. 102— 1045. Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon, 107 Cal. 447, 40 Pac. 542—346. Pacific M. Tel. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Bridge Co., 36 Kan. 118, 12 Pac. 560 2813 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Baton, 141 U. S. 227, 11 Sup. Ct. 984, 35 L. Ed. 702— 195, 196, 380, 629. Pacific Nat. Bank, etc. v. Pierce County, 20 Wasli. 675, 56 Pac. 936— 1215. Pacific Postal Tel. Co. v. Irvine, 49 Fed. 113—2798. Pacific Postal Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 Fed. 493—2809. Pacific R. R. V. Atlantic & P. R. R., 20 Fed. 277—2087. Pacific Ry. v. Cutting, 27 Fed. 638— 1182, 1438, 1439, 1927. Pacific R. R. V. Hughes, 22 Mo. 291, 64 Am. Dec. 265—1041. Pacific R. R. V. Ketchum, 95 XJ. S. 1, 24 L. Ed. 347—2382. Pacific R. R. V. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289, 25 L. Ed. 932—2280, 2501. Pacific R. R. V. Leavenworth, 1 Dill. 393, 18 Fed. Gas. 953—2673. Pacific R. R. V. Maguire, 20 "Wall. 36, 22 L. Ed. 282—1234. Pacific R. R. V. Missouri Pac. R. R., Ill V. S. 505, 4 Sup. Ct. 583, 28 L. Ed. 498—1832, 1850, 1865, 1869, 2262. Pacific R. R. V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 23 Fed. 565—2651. Pacific R. R. V. Renshaw, 18 Mo. 210— 1030. Pacific R. R. V. Seely, 45 Mo. 212, 100 Am. Dec. 369—1603, 1661. Pacific R. R. V. Thomas, 19 Kan. 257. 1795. Pacific Ry. v. "Wade, 91 Cal. 449, 27 Pac. 768, 13 L. R. A. 754, 25 Am. St. Rep. 201—2709. Pacific R. R. of Mo. v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 12 Fed. 641, 2 McCrary, 227— 1865, 1869, 2262. Pacific R. R. Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 2, 5 Sup. Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319— 1966. Pacific Trust Co. v. Dorsey, 72 Cal. 55, 12 Pac. 49—84, 146. Packard v. Jefferson County, 2 Colo. 338—258. Packard, etc. Co. v. Laev, 100 "Wis. 644, 76 N. "W. 596—1020. Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 "Wall. 528, 22 L. Ed. 406—1830. Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. Ed. 377—2786. Paddack v. Staley, 13 Colo. App. 363, 58 Pac. 363—2430. Paddock v. Fletcher, 42 Vt. 389—329. Padstow, etc. Assoc, In re, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 137 (1882)— 1069. Paducah, etc. Co. v. Hays, 24 S. W. 237 (Ky.)— 1464, 1507. Paducah, etc. Co. v. Mulholland, 24 S. "W. 624 (Ky.)— 1464. Paducah, etc. R. R. v. Parks, 86 Tenn. 554, 8 S. "W. 842—229, 379. Page V. Austin, 10 S. C. Rep. (Can.) 132 (1884)— 633, 649. Page V. Burnstine, 102 U. S. 664, 26 L. Ed. 268—2746. Page V. Contoocook Valley R. R., 21 N. H. 438—41. Page V. Edmunds, 23 Sup. Ct. 200— 1072. Page V. Fall River, etc. R. R., 31 Fed. 257—1784. Page V. Fowler, 39 Cal. 412, 2 Am. Rep. 462—1262. Page V. Heineberg, 40 "Vt. 81, 94 Am. Dec. 378—1659, 1660. Page V. International, etc. Trust, 68 L. T. Rep. 435 (1893)— 700. Page V. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. Jr. 463 (1812)— 658, 660. Page V. Shainwald, 169 N. Y. 246, 62 N. B. 356, 57 L. R. A. 173—747. Paige V. Smith, 99 Mass. 395—2418, 2452. Paine v. Electric, etc. Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 477, 72 N. Y. Supp. 279— 2832. Paine v. Hutchinson, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 388 (1868)— 858. Paine v. Hutchinson, L. R. 2 Eq. 257 (1866)— 755. Paine v. Hutchinson, L. R. 3 Eq. 257 (1866)— 575, 916. Paine v. Irwin, 16 Hun, 390—1483. Paine v. Lake Brie, etc. R. R., 31 Ind. 283—1455, 1557, 2538, 2551, 2590. Paine v. Loeb, 96 Fed. 164, 37 C. C. A. 434—714, 740, 915. Paine v. Stewart, 33 Conn. 516—447, 451, 460, 486, 576, 578. Paine v. "Warren, S3 Fed. 357—1106. TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Paine v. Wright, 6 McLean, 395, 18 Fed. Cas. 1010—1204. Painesvllle, etc. R. R. v. King, 17 Ohio St. 534—608, 1162. Pairpoint Mfg. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 161 Pa. St. 17—1641. Palestine, etc. Co. v. Palestine, 91 Tex. 540, 44 S. W. 814, 40 L. R. A. 203— 2228, 2774. Palfrey v. Paulding, 7 La. Ann. 363— 8, 636, 1027. Palmer v. Bank, etc., 72 Minn. 266, 75 N. W. 380—481, 633. Palmer v. Clark, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 25— 2371, 2410. Palmer v. Conly, 4 Denio, 377—464. Palmer v. CypresS Hill Cemetery, 122 N. Y. 429, 25 N. E. 983—1495, 1604. Palmer v. Forbes, 23 111. 301—2152, 2301, 2307. Palmer v. George W. Hutchison Gro- cery Co., 11 South. 789 (Miss.) — 1636. Palmer v. Hawes, 73 Wis. 46, 40 N. W. 676—978, 979, 1904. Palmer v. Larchmont Electric Co., 6 N. Y. App. 12, 39 N. Y. Supp. 522— 2796. Palmer t. Larchmont, etc. Co., 158 N. Y. 231, 52 N. E. 1092, 43 L. R. A. 672 —2729. Palmer v. Lawrence, 3 Sandf. 161—178, 1629. Palmer v. McMahon, 133 XJ. S. 660, 10 Sup. Ct. 324, 33 L. Ed. 772—1222. Palmer v. Pennsylvania Co., 35 Huu, 369—1955. Palmer v. Ridge Min. Co., 34 Pa. St. 288—557. Palmer v. Stephens, 1 Denio, 471 — 1976. Palmer v. Van Santvoord, 153 N. Y. 612, 47 N. B. 915, 38 L. R. A. 402— 429. Palmer v. Woods, 149 111. 146, 35 N. E. 1122—455, 458, 485, 1930. Palmer v. Yates, 3 Sandf. 137—1764. Palys V. Jewett, 30 N. J. Bq. 604—2453. Palys V. Jewett, 32 N. J. Eq. 302—2453. Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529, 2 Sup. Ct. 704, 27 L. Ed. 424—257. Pana v. Lippincott, 2 111. App. 466 — 255. Panama, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. 318 (1870)— 2093, 2094, 2095, 2097, 2159. Panama, etc. Tel. Co. v. India Rubber, etc. Tel. Works Co., L. R. 10 Ch. App. 515 (1875)— 1456. Pangbum t. American Vault, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 504 (Pa.)— 1651, 2287, 2492. Panhandle Nat. Bank v. Emery, 78 Tex. 498, 15 S. W. 23—1177, 1570, 1771. Pape V. Capital Bank, 20 Kan. 440, 27 Am. Rep. 183—1418. Paphro, etc. Co. v. Baty, 69 N. H. 453, 43 Atl. 623—1792. Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elev. R. R., 128 N. Y. 436, 28 N. E. 518, 13 L. R. A. 401, 26 Am. St. Rep. 486— 2690. Paradise v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 5 La. Ann. 710—2426. Paragon Paper Co. v. State, 19 Ind. App. 314, 49 N. E. 600—76. Parberry. v. Woodson Sheep Co., 18 Mont. 317, 45 Pac. 278—179, 545, 940, 980. Parbury's Case. 3 De G. & Sm. 43 (1849)— 335. Parfltt V. Furguson, 159 N. Y. Ill, 53 N. E. 707—2737. Paris V. Norway Water Co., 85 Me. 330, 27 Atl. 143, 21 L. R. A. 525, 35 Am. St. Rep. 371—2775. Paris V. Paris, 10 Ves. Jr. 185 (1804) — 1195. Parish v. New York, etc. Exchange, 169 N. Y. 34, 61 N. E. 977, 56 L. R. A. 149—22, 1033, 1072. Parish v. Parish, 32 Beav. 207 (1863) —753. Parish v. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494—2106, 2301, 2321, 2643. Park V. Grant Locomotive Works, 40 . N. J. Eq. 114, 3 Atl. 162—1158, 1162, 1166, 2497. Park V. Kribs, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 60 S. W. 905—340. Park V. Modern, etc. of America, 181 111. 214, 54 N. E. 932—251, 1031, 1710, 1714. Park V. Musgrave, 2 Thomp. & C. 571— 925, 964, 968, 973. Park V. Natl. etc. Assoc, 175 N. Y. 1, 67 N. E. 136—1050. Park V. New York, etc. R. R., 64 Fed. 190—699, 2436. Park V. New York, Lake Erie, etc. R. R., 57 Fed. 799—2446. Park V. New York, Lake Erie, etc. R. R., 70 Fed. 641—2203. Park V. Petroleum Co., 25 W. Va. 108 — . 1933. Park V. Petroleum Co., 26 W. Va. 486— 1933. Park V. Spaulding, 10 Hun, 128—1071. Park V. Whitney, 148 Mass. 278, 19 N. E. 161—738. Park V. Zwart, 92 Iowa, 37, 60 N. W. 220—503. Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U. S. 337, 15 Sup. Ct. 891, 39 L. Ed. 1008—5, 425, 462. Parke v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 44 Pa. St. 422—1955. cclxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Parke, etc. Co. v. Terra Haute, etc. Co., 129 Ind. 73, 26 N. E. 884—1163, 1572. Parker, Ex parte, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 685 (1867)— 580, 581. Parker v. Adams, 38 N. Y. Misc. 325, 77 N. Y. Supp. 861—279. Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252, 34 S. W. 209, 31 L. R. A. 706— 1394, 1539, 1725. Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388, 36 Am. Dec. 717—2402. Parker v. Carolina, etc. Bank, 53 S. C. 583, 31 S. E. 673, 69 Am. St. Rep. 888—427, 448, 455, 479, 571, 2140. Parker v. Crole, 5 Bing. 63 (1828) — 911. Parker v. Elmira, etc. R. R., 165 N. Y. 274, 59 N. B. 81—2287, 2537, 2563. Parker v. Glover, 42 N. J. Eq. 559, 9 Atl. 217—718. Parker v. Great Western Ry., 7 Man. & G. 253 (1844)— 2609. Parker v. Kett, 1 Ld. Raym. 658—1737, 1738. Parker v. McKenna, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 96 (1874)— 1494. Parker v. McQuesten, 32 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 273 (1872)— 801. Parker v. Mason, 8 R. I. 427—1142, 1175, 1195. Parker v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 33 ' Fed. 693—2319, 2323. Parker v. Nickerson, 112 Mass. 195 — 1483, 1494. Parker v. Nickerson, 137 Mass. 487 — 1517. Parker v. Northern, etc. R. R., 33 Mich. 23—193, 214. Parker v. Otis, 130 Cal. 322, 62 Pac. 571, 927—774. Parker v. Robinson, 71 Fed. 256, 18 C. G. A. 36—539. Parker v. Scogin, 11 La. Ann. 629 — 246. Parker v. Sun Ins. Co., 42 La. Ann. 1172, 8 South. 618—996, 1213, 1221. Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213, 81 Am. Dec. 385—238, 321. Parker v. Washoe Mfg. Co., 49 N. J. L. 465, 9 Atl. 682—1807, 1808. Parker Mills v. Commissioners, 23 N. Y. 242—1240. Park, etc. Co. v. Kelly Axe Mfg. Co., 49 Fed. 618, 1 C. C. A. 395—1821. Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 86 Fed. 742, 30 C. C. A. 409—641, 2071. Parkhurst v. Mexican S. R. R., 102 111. App. 507—168. Parkhurst v. Northern, etc. R. R., 19 Md. 472, 81 Am. Dec. 648—2304. Parkhurst, etc. Co. v. Wilkinson Co., 54 S. W. 58 (Tenn.)— 1642, 2481. Parkin v. Fry, 2 Car. & P. 311 (1826> —1702. Parkinson v. Parker, 85 Pa. St. 313 — 1810. Parkinson v. West End,- etc. Ry., 173- Mass. 446, 53 N. E. 891—618, 2589. Parks V. Automatic, etc. Co., 14 N. Y.. St. Rep. 710—1150. Parks V. Automatic, etc. Co., 14 Daly,. 424—1146. Parks V. Bvansville, etc. R. R., 23 Ind. 567—238. Parks V. Heman, 7 Mo. App. 14 — 274. Parks V. Mockenhaupt, 133 Cal. 424, 65 Pac. 875—731, 1252. Parks Bros. & Co. v. Branch & Co., 55- S. W. 305 (Tenn.)— 2426. Parmley v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 3 Dill. 13, 25, 18 Fed. Cas. 1223, 1226—1204. Parmly v. Tenth Ward Bank, 3 Bdw.. Ch. 395—1081. Parr v. Spartanburg, etc. R. R., 43 S. C. 197, 20 S.,E. 1003, 49 Am. St. Rep.. 826—2455. Parrott v. Byers, 40 Cal. 614—1879, 1880, 1910. Parrott V. Colby, 6 Hun, 55—476, 570. Parrott v. Colby, 71 N. Y. 597—476,. 570. Parrott v. Lawrence, 2 Dill. 332, 18. Fed. Cas. 1234—2724. Parrott v. Thacher, 26 Mass. 426—914. Parrott v. Worsfold, 1 Jac. & W. 574 (1820)— 654, 656. Parry v. Citizens' Water Works Co.,- 59 Hun, 196, 13 N. Y. S. 471—2780. Parsons v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 167 U. S.. 447, 17 Sup. Ct. 887, 42 L. Ed. 231— 2606. Parsons v. East, etc. Co., 108 111. 380 — 1241. Parsons v. Greenville, etc. R. R., 1- Hughes, 279, 18 Fed. Cas. 1255— 2222. Parsons v. Hayes, 14 Abb. N. Cas. 419' (N. Y. Super. Ct.)— 107. Parsons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434, 25 L.- Ed. 457—1992. Parsons v. Johnson, 28 N. Y. App. Dlv. 1, 50 N. Y. Supp. 780—807, 1266. Parsons v. Joseph, 92 Ala. 403, 8 South. 788—108, 110, 152, 1851, 1913. Parsons v. Martin, 77 Mass. Ill — 906,. 913, 1247. Parsons v. Robinson, 122 V. S. 112, T Sup. Ct. 1153, 30 L. Ed. 1122—2282. Parsons v. Robinson, 133 N. Y. 537, 30- N. E. 1148—744. Parsons v. Robinson, 59 N. Y. Super.- Ct. 546, 15 N. Y. Supp. 138—744. Parsons v. Spooner, 5 Hare, 102 — 1699. Parsons v. Tacoma, etc. Co., 25 Wash. 492, 67 Pac. 765—689, 1323, 1522,. 1529. 1551. TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Parsons v. Winslow, 16 Mass. 361 — 1194. Parsons's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 656 (1869) —206, 541. Partridge t. Badger, 25 Barb. 146 — 187, 1738, 1784, 1969, 1978. Partridge v. Davis, 20 Vt. 499—2082. Partridge v. Forsyth, 29 Ala. 200 — 914. Partridge v. Partridge, Gas. t. Talb. 226 (1736)- 655, 661. Paschall v. Whltsell, 11 Ala. 472—399, 1439. Passage v. Dansville, etc. R. R., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 182, 58 N. Y. Supp. 770 —2230, 2458. Passmore v. Mott, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 201— 1817. Pasteur, etc. Co. v. Burkey, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 54 S. W. 804—1675. Patent Pile Co., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 83 (1870)— 2106. Paterson v. Gas, etc. Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 476, 74 L. T. Rep. 280—2440, 2734. Paterson, etc. Horse R. R. v. Paterson, 24 N. J. Eq. 158—2673, 2698, 2717. Paterson, etc. R. R. v. Passaic, 54 N. J. L. 340, 23 Atl. 945—2720. paterson Ry. v. Grundy, 51 N. J. Eq. 213, 26 Ati. 788—2690, 2702, 2703, 2704. Pa ton V. Northern Pac. R. R., 85 Fed. 838—2508: Paton V. Sheppard, 10 Sim. 186 (1839) —1197. Patrick v. Reynolds, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 727 (1857)— 1700. Pattberg v. Lewis, etc. Bros., 55 N. J. Eq. 604, 38 Atl. 205—1989, 2484. Patterson v. Baker, 34 How. Pr. 180— 460. Patterson v. Bank of B. Columbia, 26 Oreg. 509, 38 Pac. 817—224. Patterson v. Brown, etc. Co., 3 Colo. App. 511, 34 Pac. 769—297. Patterson v. Collier, 113 Mich. 12, 71 N. W. 327, 63 Am. St. Rep. 440—227. Patterson v. Farmington, etc. Ry., Ill Fed. 262—760. Patterson v. Franklin, 176 Pa. St. 612, 35 Atl. 205—181, 504, 523. Patterson v. Hempfield R. R., 1 W. N. Cas. 127 (Pa.)— 2476. Patterson v. Lennig, 118 Pa. St. 571, 12 Atl. 679—719. Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519, 1 Sup. Ct. 432, 27 L. Ed. 265—402, 404, 454, 455, 492. Patterson v. Lynde, 112 111. 196—395, 447, 471, 2399. Patterson v. Mississippi, etc. Boom Co., 3 Dill. 465, 18 Fed. Cas. 1328— 2627, 2786. Patterson v. Plummer, 10 N. Dak. 95, 86 N. W. 111—752, 1257. Patterson v. Portland, etc. Works, 35 Or. 96, 56 Pac. 407—1488, 1554. Patterson v. Robinson, 116 N. Y. 193, 22 N. E. 372—1772. Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 84, 42 N. W. 926, 4 L. R. A. 745, 16 Am. St. Rep. 671—434, 439, 446, 452. Patterson v. Thompson, 86 Fed. 85 — 463. Patterson v. Tide Water Pipe Com- pany, 12 Weekly Notes Cases, 452 — 689. Patterson v. Wade, 115 Fed. 770, 53 C. C. A. 1—463, 1187. Patterson v. Wyomissing Mfg. Co., 40- Pa. St. 117—445, 451. Patterson's Appeal, 16 Rep. (Pa.) 59- —776. Pattison v. Syracuse Nat. Bank, 80 N. Y. 82, 36 Am. Rep. 582—1597, 1603, 1797. Pattison v. Yuba County, 13 Cal. 175 — 253. Patto'n V. McDonald, 54 Atl. 356 (Pa.) —524, 1577. Patty V. Hillsboro, etc. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 224, 23 S. W. 336—204, 342, 689. Paul V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 44 Fed. 513—2651. Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. Ed. 357—1672, 1674, 1676. Paulding v. Chrome Steel Co., 94 N. Y. 334—1639. Pauling V. London, etc. Ry., 8 Exch. 868 (1853)— 1803. Paulino v. Portuguese Ben. Assoc, 18 R. I. 165, 26 Atl. 36, 20 L. R. A. 272— 62, 1091. Paulsen v. Van Steenbergh, 65 How. Pr. 342—1889. Pauly V. Coronado Beach Co., 56 Fed. 428—689. Pauly V. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8, 40 Pac. 29, 48 Am. St. Rep. 98—1783. Pauly V. State, etc. Co., 165 TJ. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 465, 41 L. Ed. 844—532, 533, 534, 550, 577. Pauly V. Wilson, 57 Fed. 548—958. Pawle's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 497 (1869)— 337. Paxon V. Talmage, 87 Mo. 13—399. Paxson V. Cunningham, 63 Fed. 132, 11 C. C. A. 111—2422. Paxton, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 21 Neb. 621, 33 N. W. 271, 59 Am. Rep. 852—1715. Payne v. Baldwin, 11 Miss. 661—1625, 2603. Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88, 55 Am. Dec. 74—291, 387. Payne v. Commercial Bank, 14 Miss. 24—979, 1789. Payne v. Cork Co., 1 Ch. 308—18, 1561. cclxxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refet^^ the pages of the text.] Payne v. East, etc. Co., 33 South. 739 (La.)— 1938. Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339, 341, 35 Am. Rep. 80—43, 45, 50, 379, 1248. Payne v. New South, etc. Co., 10 Exch. 283 (1854)— 1713. Payne v. Western, etc. R. R., 13 Lea (Tenn.), 507, 49 Am. Rep. 666—72. Payne's Case, L. R. 9 Bq. 223 (1869) — 580, 1358. Payson v. Stoever, 2 Dill. 427, 19 Fed. Gas. 27—416, 620. Payson v. Withers, 5 Biss. 269, 19 Fed. Cas. 29—310, 388, 459, 620, 1030, 1291. Peabody v. Eastern Methodist Soc, 87 Mass. 540—1079. Peabody v. Flint, 88 Mass. 52—1530, 1860. Peabody v. New England, etc. Co., 184 111. 625, 56 N. B. 957, 75 Am. St. Rep. 195—2413. Peabody v. Westerly Water-works, 20 R. I. 176, 37 Atl. 807—1031, 1558. Peacock v. Pittsburg, etc. Works, 52 Ga. 417—2469. Peake v. Wabash R. R., 18 111. 88—284, 287. Peale v. Phipps, 14 How. 368, 14 L. E^. 459—2416. Pearce v. Billings, 10 R. I. 102—655, 656. Pearce v. Madison, etc. R. R., 21 How. 441, 16 L. Ed. 184—1032, 1971, 2552, 2643. Pearly v. Smith, 3 Atk. 260 (1745) — 1197. , Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 161 U. S. 646, 666, 671—6, 695, 697, 1023, 1027, 1028, 1038, 1237, 2555, 2558, 2601. Pearsall v. Western U. Tel. Co.. 124 N. Y. 256, 26 N. E. 534, 21 Am. St. Rep. 662—927, 1844. Pearsall v. Western Union Tel. Co., 44 Hun, 532—1844. Pearson v. Bank of England, 2 Bro. Ch. 529 (1789)— 732. Pearson v. Concord R. R., 62 N. H. 537 —680, 693, 1516. Pearson v. London, etc. Ry., 14 Sim. 541 (1845)— 593, 626. Pearson v. Scott, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 198 (1878)— 911. Pearson's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 222, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 336 (1877)— 1467, 1479. Pearson's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. 309 (1872) —352. Pearson's Case, 3 De G., M. & G. 241 (1852)— 1701. Peatman v. Centerville, etc. Co., 100 Iowa, 245, 69 N. W. 541—1920, 1974. Peavey v^ Greenfield, 64 N. H. 284, 9 Atl. 722—1226. Peck V. Bank of America, 16 R. I. 710, 19 Atl. 369, 7 L. R. A. 826—733. Peck V. Coalfield Co., 11 Bradw. (111.) 88—84. Peck V. Cooper, 112 111. 192, 54 Am. Rep. 231—1617. Peck V. Doran, etc. Co., 57 Hun, 343, 10 N. Y. S. 401—768, 780, 1604. Peck V. Elliott, 79 Fed. 10, 24 C. C. A. 425, 38 L. R. A. 616—138, 414, 615, 631. Peck V. Ellis, 2 Johns. Ch. 131—1931. Peck V. Miller, 39 Mich. 594—430. Peck V. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 22 Hun, 129—1984. Peck V. New York, etc. Ry., 85 N. Y. 246—1984, 1990, 2248, 2254. Peck V. Providence Gas Co., 17 R. I. 275, 21 Atl. 543, 23 Atl. 967, 15 L. R. A. 643—724, 732, 733. Peck V. Schenectady Ry., 170 N. Y. 298, 63 N. E. 357—2688, 2795. Peck V. Schenectady Ry., 67 N. Y. App. Div. 359, 73 N. Y. Supp. 794—2688, 2795. Peck Bros. etc. Co. v. Peck Bros. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 291—68. Peck, etc. Co. v. Stratton, 95 Fed. 741-»- 788. Peckham v. Hendren, 76 Ind. 47 — 1843. Peckham v. Ketchum, 5 Bosw. 506— 910, 913. Peckham v. Newton, 15 R. I. 321, 4 Atl. 758—717. Peckham v. North Parish, 33 Mass. 274, 286—1952. Peckham v. Smith, 9 How. Pr. 436— 631. Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 83 N. Y. 40, 38 Am. Rep. 392—1149, 1152, 1155. Peddell v. Gwyn, 1 Hurl. & N. 590 (1857), 26 L. J. (Exch.) 199—436. Peddicord v. Baltimore, etc. Ry., 34 Md. 463—2750. Peebles, In re, 2 Hughes, 394, 19 Fed. Cas. 94—1122, 1128. Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Co., 77 N. C. 233, 24 Am. Rep. 447—70, 72, 330. Peed V. Millikan, 79 Ind. 86—245. Peek V. Derry, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 541 (1888)— 330. Peek V. Detroit, etc. Works, 29 Mich. 313—1760, 1828. Peek V. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377, 390, 391, 398 (1873)— 316, 329, 335, 798, 801, 804, 811. Peekskill, etc. R. R. v. Peekskill, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 94, 47 N. Y. Supp. 305— 2682. Peel V. Thomas, 15 C. B. 714 (1855) —1079. Peel's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 674 (1867) —317, 335. TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Peet V. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 South. 711, 57 Am. St. Rep. 45—779. Pegge V. Neath Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 508 —2370. Pegge V. Neath, etc. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 183—1984, 2040. Peik V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 94 U. S. 164, 24 Li. Ed. 97—2204, 2610. Peirce v. Burroughs, 58 N. H. 302— 1191. Peirce v. Chism, 23 Ind. App. 505, 55 N. E. 795, 77 Am. St. Rep. 441—2414. Peirce v. Jersey Waterworks Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 209 (1870)— 362. Peirce v. Morse-Oliver, etc. Co., 94 Me. 406, 47 Atl. 914—1748. Peirce v. New Orleans Building Co., 9 La. 397, 404, 29 Am. Dec. 448—1382. Peirce v. Partridge, 44 Mass. 44 — 37. Peirce v. Somersworth, 10 N. H. 369 — 1932 Peirce V. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 693, 24 C. C. A. 280—2236, 2424. Pekin v. Reynolds, 31 111. 529, 83 Am. Dec. 244—2063. Pellatt's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 527 (1867)— 88, 190, 232. Pelletier v. Greenville, etc. Co., 123 N. C. 596, 31 S. E. 383, 68 Am. St. Rep. 821—2421. Pell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 11 — 84, 88, 163. Pelton V. Bast Cleveland R. R., 22 Weekly Law Bull. 67 (Cleveland)- 2698. Pelton V. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143, 25 L. Ed. 901—1227, 1228. Pelton V. Northern Transp. Co., 37 Ohio St. 450—1230. Pelton V. Place, 71 Vt. 430, 46 Atl. 63— 1088. Pelton V. San Jacinto Lumber Co., 113 Cal. 21, 45 Pac. 12—227. Pelton V. Spider Lake, etc. Co., 94 N. W. 293 (Wis.)— 2072. Peltz V. Supreme, etc. Union, 19 Atl. 668 (N. J.)— 509. Pembina, etc. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650—1240, 1672, 1674. Penberthy, etc. Co. v. Lee, 120 Mich. 174, 78 N. W. 1074—60. Pencille v. State, etc. Co., 74 Minn. 67, 76 N. W. 1026, 73 Am. St. Rep. 326— 1910. Pender v. Lushington, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 70 (1877)— 1314, 1342, 1350, 1894. Pendergast v. Bank of Stockton, 2 Sawyer, 108, 19 Fed. Cas. 135—1115, 1117. Pendergast v. Yandes, 124 Ind. 159, 24 N. E. 724, 8 L. R. A. 849—430. Pendery v. Carleton, 87 Fed. 41, 30 C. C. A. 510—196, 1557, 2038, 2544. Pendleton v. Empire, etc. Co., 19 N. Y. 13—1511. Pendleton v. Lutz, 78 Miss. 322, 29 South. 164, 51 L. R. A. 649—2416. Pendleton County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 297, 20 L. Ed. 579—258. Pendleton, etc. Co., In re, 24 Or. 330, 33 Pac. 544—1605, 1814. Pendleton Mfg. Co. v. Mahanna, 18 Pac. 563 (Or.)- 320, 2039. Penfield v. Dawson, etc. Co., 57 Neb. 231, 77 N. W. 672—147, 168. Penfield v. Skinner, 11 Vt. 296—1071. Peninsular Bank v. Hammer, 14 Mich. 208—1787. Peninsular Iron Co. v. Bells, 68 Fed. 24, 15 C. C. A. 189—2168, 2525. Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 631, 7 Sup. Ct. 1010, 30 L. Bd'. 1020— 1869. Peninsular Ry. v. Duncan, 28 Mich. 130 —35, 192, 215. Peninsular Ry. v. Howard, 20 Mich. IS —41. Peninsular Sav. Bank v. Black Flag, etc. Co., 105 Mich. 535, 63 N. W. 514— 129. Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251, 7 Sup. Ct. 906, 30 L. Bd. 915—2346. Penn v. Fogler, 182 111. 76, 55 N. B. 192 —716. Penney, Ex parte, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 446 (1872)— 1358. Pennlman v. Briggs, 1 Hopk. Ch. ZOOf (1824)— 397, 448. Pennington v. Baehr, 4.8 Cal. 565—2055. Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood, 141 Mass. 145, 7 N. B. 22—1718. Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117, 16 L. Ed. 436—2064, 2106, 2323, 2324, 2600. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565—1953. Pennsylvania Bank v. Reed, 1 Watts- & S. (Pa.) 101—1733, 1789, 1800. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware, etc. Canal Co., 31 N. Y. 91—2726. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Delaware, etc. Canal Co., l.Keyes (N. Y.), 72— 2726. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson, 94 Pa. St. 302, 39 Am. Rep. 785—2777. Pennsylvania Co. v. Bauerle, 143 111. 459, 33 N. E. 166—2160, 2196. Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chicago, 181 111. 289, 54 N. E. 825, 53 L. R. A. 223—2650. Pennsylvania Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248, 29 Am. Dec. 543— 1800, 2641. Pennsylvania Co. v. Ellett, 132 111. 654, 24 N. B. 559—2582. Pennsylvania Co. v. Franklin Ins. Co., 181 Pa. St. 40, 37 Atl. 191, 37 L. R. A. 780—837. ■cclxxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 55 Fed. 131, 134, 5 C. C. A. 53— 2365, 2378. Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 66 Fed. 421, 13 C. C. A. 550— 2455. Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 93 Fed. 60, 35 C. C. A. 202—2351, 2478. Pennsylvania Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 153 Pa. St. 160, 25 Atl. 1043— 836, 1263. Pennsylvania Co. v. Sloan, 1 111. App. 364—512. Pennsylvania Co. v. Wentz, 37 Ohio St. 333—2604. Pennsylvania Co. etc. v. Common- wealth, 15 Atl. 456 (Pa.)— 1216. Pennsylvania Co. etc. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry;, 93 Fed. 60, 35 C. C. A. 202— 2351, 2478. Pennsylvania Co. etc. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 69 Fed. 482—2214. Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 "Wall. 190, 20 L. Ed. 550—1038. Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Heiss, 141 111. 35, 31 N. B. 138, 33 Am. St. Rep. 273 —2322. Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Pure-Oil Co., 195 Pa. St. 388, 46 Atl. 3—1551, 1792. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R. v. Harkins, 149 Pa.' St. 121, 24 Atl. 175—2591. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R. v. Leuffer, 84 Pa. St. 168, 24 Am. Rep. 189—430. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 5 Minn. 36 (Gil. 22)— 1086. Pennsylvania M. L. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 168 U. S. 685, 18 Sup. Ct. 223, 42 L. Ed. 626—2204. Pennsylvania Nat. Gas Co. v. Cook, 123 Pa. St. 170, 16 Atl. 762—1805. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Allegheny, etc. R. R., 42 Fed. 82—2089, 2284. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Allegheny, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 139—2089, 2216, 2218. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Angel, 41 N. J. Eq. 316, 7 Atl. 432, 56 Am. Rep. 1— 75. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 60 Md. 263—2639. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Braddock, etc. Ry., 152 Pa. St. 116, 25 Atl. 780— 2706. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Canal Com'rs, 21 Pa. St. 9—3. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Commonwealth, 7 Atl. 368, 373 (Pa.)— 683, 695, 697. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Commonwealth, 7 Atl. 374—683. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Freeport, 138 Pa. St. 91, 20 Atl. 940—2637. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Glenwood, etc. Ry., 184 Pa. St. 227, 39 Atl. 80—2707. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Greensburg, etc. Ry., 176 Pa. St. 559, 35 Atl. 122, 36 L. R. A. 839—2699, 2707. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Keokuk, etc. Co., 131 U. S. 371, 384, 389, 9 Sup. Ct. 770, 33 L. Ed. 157—1548, 1609. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Miller, 132 U. S. 75, 10 Sup. Ct. 34, 33 L. Ed. 267— 1023. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Montgomery, etc. Ry., 167 Pa. St. 62, 31 Atl. 468, 27 L. R. A. 766, 46 Am. St. Rep. 659—2691. Pennsylvania R. R. v. National Ry., 23 N. J. Eq. 441—2628. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Pemherton, etc. R. R., 28 N. J. Eq. 388—2089. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Pennsylvania Co. etc., 54 Atl. 783 (Pa.)— 702, 1316. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. St. 189—242, 248, 251. . Pennsylvania R. R. v. Raiordan, 119 Pa. St. 577, 13 Atl. 324, 4 Am. St. Rep. 670—2645. Pennsylvania R. R. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 118 U. S. 290, 309, 6 Sup. Ct. 1094, 30 L. Ed. 83—15, 2078, 2548, 2552, 2575, 2577, 2578, 2653, 2654. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Turtle Creek, etc. Ry., 179 Pa. St. 584, 36 Atl. 348 —2683. Pennsylvania R. R. v. Vandiver, 42 Pa. St. 365; 369, 82 Am. Dec. 520—73, 1802. Pennsylvania R. R.'s Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 80—845, 849. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Potts Lum- ber Co., 63 Fed. 11, 11 C. C. A. 11— 2331. Pennsylvania Tel. Co., In re, 48 N. J. Eq. 91, 20 Atl. 846, 27 Am. St. Rep. 462—2841. Pennsylvania Tel. Co. v. Varnau, 15 Atl. 624 (Pa.)— 2828. Pennsylvania Transp. Co.'s Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 576—1578, 2513, 2530. Penobscot, etc. Co. v. Bartlett, 78 Mass. 244, 71 Am. Dec. 753—184, 220, 360, 367, 394. Penobscot, etc. Corp. v. Lamson, 16 Me. 224, 33 Am. Dec. 656—8, 1271, 1393, 1424. Penobscot, etc. R. R. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587—232, 233, 236, 282, 1738, 1944. Penobscot R. R. v. Dummer, 40 Me. 172, 63 Am. Dec. 654—214, 282, 287, 364. Penobscot R. R. v. White, 41 Me. 512, 66 Am. Dec. 257—364. Penrose v. Chaitraix, 106 La. 250, 30 South. 718—1217. Pensacola, etc. R. R. v. State, 25 Fla. 310, 5 South. 833. 3 L. R. A. 661— 2614. TABLE OF CASES. colxxxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pensacola Gas Co. v. Provisional Mu- nicipality, 33 Fla. 322, 14 South. 826 —2740. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. Ed. 708— 1675, 2805, 2813. Pensyl's Appeal, 15 Atl. 719 (Pa.) — 716. Penticost v. Ley, 2 Jac. & W. 207 (1820) —658. Pentz V. Citizens', etc. Co., 35 Md. 73 — 289. Pentz V. Hawley, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 122—414, 420. Pen-y-Van Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 477 (1877)— 1392. People V. , 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 439 —2645. People V. Albany, 11 Wend. 539, 27 Am. Dec. 95—76. People V. Albany Assessors, 40 N. Y. 154—1068. People V. Albany, etc. R. R., 24 N. Y. 261, 82 Am. Dec. 295—2620. People V. Albany, etc. R. R., 57 N. Y. 161, 171—1332. People V. Albany, etc. R. R., 77 N. Y. 232—1408, 2565, 2577. People V. Albany, etc. R. R., 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 290—1921. People V. Albany, etc. R. R., 55 Barb. 344, 371, 373, 383, 386—133, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1299, 1310, 1319, 1326, 1329, 1331, 1336, 1343, 1374, 1375, 1918. People V. Albany Med. Coll., 26 Hun, 348—1747. People V. Albany Med. Coll., 89 N. Y. 635—1747. People V. American Bell Tel. Co., 117 N. Y. 241, 244, 255, 22 N. E. 1057— 694, 1239, 1537, 1540. People V. American, etc. Co., 172 N. Y. 371, 65 N. B. 200—1444, 2487. People V. American, etc. Co., 31 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 617, 64 N. Y. Supp. 916— 1102. People V. American Institute, 44 How. Pr. 468—22. People V. Anderson, etc. Co., 76 Cal. 190, 18 Pac. 308—1435. People V. Anglo-American, etc. Assoc, 169 N. Y. 606, 62 N. E. 1099—1619. People V. Anglo-American, etc. Assoc, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 389, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1054—1560, 2438, 2499. People V. Anglo-American, etc. Assoc, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 9, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1021—1619, 1687, 1866, 2409, 2499. People V. Assessors, 2 Hun, 583 — 1227. People V. Assessors, 29 How. Pr. 371 —1224. People V. Assessors, etc, 76 N. Y. 202— 1210. People V. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 616, 620—2, 1081. People V. Athintie, etc. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 336—2440. People V. Atlantic, etc. Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 84—2440. People V. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 125 N. Y. 513, 26 N. E. 622— 1408, 2 714. People V. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 57 Hun, 378, 10 N. Y. Supp. 907—2714. People V. Babcock, 16 Hun, 313—2727. People V. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269, 32 N. E. 54, 17 L. R. A. 737—99, 1412, 1550, 1551. People V. Ballard, 136 N. Y. 639, 32 N. E. 611—1550, 1551. People V. Bank of Niagara, 6 Cow. 196 —1402. People V. Barker, 139 N. Y. 55, 34 N. E. 722—1240. People V. Barker, 140 N. Y. 437, 35 N. E. 657, 23 L. R. A. 785—68. People V. Barker, 141 N. Y. 118, 35 N. E. 1073—1240. People V. Barker, 141 N. Y. 196, 36 N. B. 184—1240. People V. Barker, 141 N. Y. 251, 36 N. B. 196—11, 1141, 1164, 1231, 1437, 1566. People V. Barnard, 110 N. Y. 548, 18 N. E. 354—2672. People V. Barnett, 91 111. 422—374, 2412. People V. Barrett, 18 Hun, 206 — 256. People V. Barton, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 581, 71 N. Y. Supp. 933—3. People V. Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 128, 138, 13 Am. Rep. 480—247, 249, 259, 266. People V. Batchelor, 22 N. Y. 128—1287. People V. Beigler, Hill & D. Supp. 133 (1843)— 1944. People V. Beveridge Brewing Co., 91 Hun, 313, 36 N. Y. Supp. 525—429. People V. Blackhurst, 11 N. Y. Supp. 675—1807. People V. Board of Assessors, 39 N. Y. 81—2741. People V. Board of Assessors, 76 N. Y. 202—1139. People V. Board of Railroad Com'rs, 160 N. Y. 202, 210, 54 N. E. 697— 2664. People V. Bogart, 45 Cal. 73—1402. People V. Boston, etc. R. R., 70 N. Y. 569—2603, 2622. People V. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517—5. 1429. People V. Bowen, ,30 Barb. 24—5, 1429. People V. Bradley, 39 111. 130—1210, 1224. People V. Brandis Mfg.. Co., N. Y. L. J., Dec. 11, 1889—865. People V. Brewster, 4 Wend. 498 — 1628. People V. Broadway R. R.. 126 N. Y. 29, 26 N. B. 961—1407, 2683. ccxo TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 89 N. Y. 75, 84—2119, 2564. 2571, 2700. People V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 172 N. Y. 90, 64 N. E. 788—2622. People V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 549, 75 N. Y. Supp. 202 —2622. People V. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. B. 670, 682, 5 L. R. A. 559, 15 Am. St. Rep. 460—2786. People V. Bufealo, etc. Co., 131 N. Y. 140, 29 N. B. 947, 15 L. R. A. 240— 1397. People V. Campbell, 138 N. Y. 543, 34 N. B. 370, 20 L. R. A. 453—1230. People V. Campbell, 139 N. Y. 68, 34 N. B. 753—1240. People V. Campbell, 144 N. Y. 166, 38 N. B. 990—1604. People T. Central/ etc. Co., 192 111. 307, 61 N. B. 428, 85 Am. St. Rep. 338— 2756. People V. Central N. Y. Tel. etc. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 17, 58 N. Y. Supp. 221 • —2754, 2842. People V. Central Pac. R. R., 83 Cal. 393, 23 Pac. 303—1941. People V. Chambers, 42 Cal. 201—355. People V. Chapman, 66 111. 137—261. People V. Chicago Board of Trade, 45 111. 112—1075. People V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 130 111. 175, 22 N. B. 857—2622. People V. Chicago Gas T. Co., 130 111. 268, 22 N. B. 798, 8 L. R. A. 497, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319—4, 15, 689, 1046, 1406. People V. Chicago L. S. Bxchange, 170 111. 556, 48 N. B. 1062, 39 L. R. A. 373, 62 Am. St. Rep. 404—1045. People V. City Bank, 7 Colo. 226, 3 Pac. 214—1409. , People V. City Court Justices, 11 N. Y. Supp. 773—1956. People V. Clark, N. Y. L. J., May 28, 1891—76. People V. Clute, 50 N. Y. 451, 10 Am. Rep. 508—1340. People V. Coffey, 66 Hun, 160, 21 N. Y. Supp. 34—2718. People V. Coleman, 121 N. Y. 542, 25 N. E. 51—1236. People V. Coleman, 126 N. Y. 433, 27 N. E. 818, 12 L. R. A. 762—31. People V. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 279, 31 N. B. 96, 16 L. R. A. 183—517, 1082, 1086. People V. Coleman, 41 Hun, 344 — 1228. People V. College of California, 38 Cal. 166—1436. ' People V. Colorado, etc. R. R., 42 Fed. 638—2544, 2621. People V. Commercial A. L. Ins. Co., 154 N. Y. 95, 47 N. B. 968—1443. People V. Com'rs, 4 Wall. 244, 256, IS L. Ed. 344—1220, 1223, 1225. People V. Com'rs, 95 N. Y. 554—1210. People V. Comts, 5 Hun, 200—1210. People V. Com'rs, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 242, 81 N. Y. Supp. 20—356. People V. Commissioners, etc., 67 N. Y. 516—1223. People V. Commissioners of Taxes, 94 U. S. 415, 24 Li. Ed. 164—1223. People V. Commissioners of Taxes, 32 Barb. 509—1220. People V. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 192—1220. People V. Commissioners of Taxes, 4 Hun, 595—1210. People V. Commissioners of Taxes, S Hun, 536—1223. People V. Conklin, 5 Hun, 452—1921. People V. Conklin, 7 Hun, 188—1300,. 1752. People V. Cook, 110 N. Y. 443, 18 N. E. 113—2118, 2540. People V. Coon, 25 Cal. 635—244, 266. People V. Cornell, 47 Barb. 329—1094. People V. Crawford, 68 Hun, 547, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1025—1098. People V. Crissey, 91 N. Y. 616—1303. People v. Crockett, 9 Cal. 112—866, 1114, 1115, 1119. People V. Crossley, 69 111. 195—17, 19, 1305. People V. Cummings, 72 N. Y. 433— 1274, 1277. People V. Dashaway Assoc, 84 Cal. 114, 24 Pac. 277, 12 L. R. A. 117— 1402. People v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574 — 1210. People V. Deehan, 153 N. Y. 528, 47 N. B. 787—2740. People V. De GraUw, 133 N. Y. 254, 30 N. E. 1006—1410, 1435, 2753. People V. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202—246. Peopla V. Detroit, etc. Co., 90 N. W. 687 (Mich.)— 1398, 2753. People V. Detroit, etc. Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735, 9 L. R. A. 722 —75. People V. Devin, 17 111. 84—1312. People V. Dispensary, etc. Soc, 7 Lans, 3Q4 1399 People V. Dolan, 36 N. Y. 59—1220. People V. Dolan, 126 N. Y. 166, 27 N. B. 269, 12 L. R. A. 251—2845. People V. Dutcher, 56 111. 144—255. People V. Badie, 133 N. Y. 573, 30 N. E. 1147—1098, 1101. People V. Badie, 63 Hun, 320, 18 N. Y. Supp. 53—1098, 1101. People V. Eastman, 25 Cal. 603—1233. People V. Baton, 100 Mich. 208, 59 N. W. 145, 24 L. R. A. 721—2793. TABLE OF CASES. COXCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People V. Bel River, etc. R. R., 98 Cal. 665, 33 Pac. 728—2650. People V. Elmore, 35 Cal. 653—1015, 1017. People V. England, 27 Hun, 139 — 1617. People V. Equitable Trust Co., 96 N. Y. 387—1233, 1240. People V. Equity Gas Light Co., 141 N. Y. 232, 36 N. E. 194—1406, 1410, 1413, 1429, 2742. People V. Erie Medical Soc, 32 N. Y. 187—1074. People V. Erie Ry., 54 How. Pr. 59— 2446. People V. Fairbury, 51 111. 149—1275. People V. Farnham, 35 111. 562—8. People V. Ferguson, 38 N. Y. 89—1210. People V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 153 111. 25, 38 N. E. 752, 26 L. R. A. 295—511, 1671. People V. Fire Underwriters, 7 Hun, 248—1075. People V. Fishklll, etc. Co., 27 Barb. 445—1414. People V. Fleming, 59 Hun, 518, 13 N. Y. Supp. 715—1300, 1340. People V. Flint, 64 Cal. 49, 28 Pac. 495 —1406. People V. Formosa, 131 N. Y. 478, 30 N. E. 492, 27 Am. St. Rep. 612—2743. People V. Fort Edward, 70 N. Y. 28— 252. People V. Fort Wayne, etc. Ry., 92 Mich. 522, 52 N. W. 1010, 16 L. R. A. 752—2686. People V. Franklin, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 129—250, 260. People V. Garrahan, 154 N. Y. 769, 49 N. E. 1102—818. People V. Garrahan, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 347, 46 N. Y. Supp. 497—818. People V. General Electric Ry., 172 111. 129, 50 N. E. 158—1410, 2664. People V. Gilon, 126 N. Y. 147, 27 N. B. 232 2720 People V. Gilon, 58 Hun, 76, 11 N. Y. Supp. 439—2720. People V. Globe, etc. Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 174—1443. People V. Goss, etc. Mfg. Co., 99 111. 355—866, 994. People V. Governors of Albany Hos- pital, 61 Barb. 397—1274. People V. Granite, etc. Assoc, 161 N. Y. 492, 55 N. B. 1053—2392. People V. Green, 58 N. Y. 295—1731. People V. Griffin, 38 How. Pr. 475 — 821. People V. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 317—507. People V. Harp, 67 111. 62—261. People V. Hart, 11 N. Y. Supp. 670, 673—1275. People V. Hatch, 1 T. & C. 113—261. S People V. Hektograph Co., 10 Abb. N. Cas. 358—1392. People V. Henshaw, 61 Barb. 409—247. People V. Hillsdale, etc. Tiirnp. Co., 2 Johns. 190—1402. People V. Hitchcock, 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 134—262. People V. Holden, 82 111. 93—235, 236, 264, 265. People V. Home, etc. Co., Ill Mich. 405, 69 N. W. 653—62. People V. Home Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 328 — 1210, 1231. People V. Horn, etc. Co., 105 N. Y. 76, 11 N. E. 155—1240. People V. Howard, 50 Mich. 239—1674, 1683. People V. Hudson River Telephone Co., 19 Abb. N. Cas. 466—2842. People v. Hughitt, 5 Lans. 89—260. People V. Hulbert, 59 Barb. 446—260. People V. Hulburt, 46 N. Y. 110—256. People V. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 9 Am. Rep. 103—241. People V. Hutton, 18 Hun, 116—256. People V.' Jackson, etc. P. R. Co., 9 Mich. 285—1409. People V. James, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 412, 39 N. Y. Supp. 313—1393. People V. John, etc. Co., 42 Hun, 484 — 2424. People V. Kankakee Improvement Co., 103 111. 491—1399, 1402, 1403, 1409. People V. Keese, 27 Hun, 483—1299. People V. Kenney, 96 N. Y. 294—1303. People V. Kent County Judge, 38 Mich. 351—1108. People V. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188—2688. People V. Kingston, etc. Co., 23 "Wend. 193, 35 Am. Dec. 551—1409, 1415. People V. Kip, 4 Cow. 382—19, 1307, 1312, 1349. People V. Knickerbocker, etc. In^. Co., 106 N. Y. 619, 13 N. E. 447—2412. People V. Knickerbocker, etc. Ins. Co., 31 Hun, 622—2479. People V. Knickerbocker T. Co., 38 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 446, 77 N. Y. Supp. 1000—1100, 1103. People V. Knight, 174 N. Y. 475, 67 N E. 65—1230. People V. Laenna, 67 111. 65 — 256. People V. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 11 Hun, 1—1097, 1098, 1101, 1105, 1106 1107. People V. Leonard, 106 Cal. 302, 39' Pac. 617—1424. People V. Logan County, 63 111. 374, 387—254, 255, 374. People V. Long Island R. R., 134 N. Y 506, 31 N. B. 873—2604. People V. Los Angeles, etc. Ry., 91 Cal. 338, 27 Pac. 673—1414, 2704. ccxcu TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People V. Louisville, etc. R. R., 120 III. 48, 10 N. E. 657—265, 2621. People V. Lowe, 117 N. Y. 175, 22 N. E. 1016—1092, 1402. People V. McDonough, 28 Misc. Rep. 652, 60 N. Y. Supp. 45—1376. People V. McLane, 62 Cal. 616—2484. People V. McLean, 80 N. Y. 254—1210. People V. McLean, 17 Hun, 204—1230, 1240. People V. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 352, 380—1414. People V. Manhattan Gas Co., 45 Barb. 136—2734. People V. Mann, 75 N. Y. 484, 31 Am. Rep. 482—1618. People V. Mauran, 5 Denio, 389—1662, 1668. People V. Mayor, etc., 20 How. Pr. 144 —2662. People V. Mechanics' Aid Soc, 22 Mich. 86—1074. People V. Mercantile, etc. Co., 65 N. Y. App. Div. 306, 72 N. Y. Supp. 858— 1446. People V. Merchants' Bank, 35 Hun, 97 —2166. People V. Merchants', etc. Bank, 78 N. Y. 269, 34 Am. Rep. 532—1152. People V. Metropolitan Elev. Ry., 26 Hun, 82—1513, 1723, 2578. People V. Metropolitan & T. Co., 31 Hun, 596—2796. People V. Milk Exchange, 133 N. Y. 565, 30 N. E. 850—1410. People V. Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267, 39 N. B. 1062, 27 L. R. A. 437. 45 Am. St. Rep. 609—1050. People V. Miller, 114 N. Y. 636, 21 N. E. 1120—865, 1119, 1131. People V. Miller, 39 Hun, 557, 563— 865, 1119, 1131. People V. Mitchell, 45 Barb. 208—247. People V. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 551—247. People V. Montecito Water Co., 97 Cal. 276, 32 Pac. 236, 33 Am. St. Rep. 172 —1406. People V. Moore, 1 Idaho, 504—1223. People V. Morris, 13 Wend. 325 — 241. People V. Mott, 1 How. Pr. 247—1105. People V. Mount Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256, 40 Pac. 391—15. People V. Mulholland, 82 N. Y. 324, 37 Am. Rep. 568—2603. People V. Musical, etc. Union, 118 N. Y. 101. 23 N. E. 129—1074. People V. Mutual, etc. Co., 74 N. Y. 434 —1112. People V. Nash, 111 N. Y. 310, 315— 1308. People V. Nassau Perry Co., 86 Hun, 128, 33 N. Y. Supp. 244—1103. People V. National Sav. Bank. 129 111. 618, 22 N. E. 288—98, 359, 1409, 1428, People V. National Sav. Bank, 11 N B. 170 (111.)— 98, 359, 1409, 1428. People V. National Trust Co., 82 N. Y 284—1436, 1444. People V. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477—507. People V. Newton, 112 N. Y. 396, 19 N E. 831, 3 L. R. A. 174-2703. People V. Newton, 48 Hun, 477, 1 N. Y Supp. 197—2703. People V. New York Ben. Soc, 3 Hun 361—1074. People V. New York Comm. Assoc, 18 Abb. Pr. 271—1075. People V. New York Cotton Exch., 8 Hun, 216—1074, 1075. People V. New York, etc. Asylum, 122 N. Y. 190, 25 N. E. 241, 10 L. R. A. 381—1331. People V. New York, etc. Asylum, 7 N Y. St. Rep. 277—1753. Poeple V. New York, etc. Co., 92 N. Y. 487—1210. People V. New York, etc. Co., 34 N. Y. Misc. 326, 69 N. Y. Supp. 775—1094, 1332, 1375. People V. New York, etc. R. R., 74 N. Y. 302—76. People V. New York, etc. R. R., 104 N. Y. 58, 9 N. E. 858, 58 Am. Rep. 484— 2622. People V. New York, etc. R. R., 129 N. Y. 474, 29 N. B. 959, 15 L. R. A. 82— , 1233. People V. New York, etc. R. R., 28 Hun, 543, 553, 558—2620. People V. New York Produce Exch., 149 N. Y. 401, 44 N. E. 84—1073. People V. Niagara County, 4 Hill, 20 — 1081. People V. Northern Pac R. R., 50 N.~Y. Super. Ct. 456—1097, 1105. People V. Northern R. R., 42 N. Y. 217 —1373, 2540. People V. North River, etc. Co., 121 N. Y. 582, 619, 623, 24 N. E. 834, 9 L. R. A. 33, 18 Am. St. Rep. 843—696, 1044, 1049, 1067, 1361, 1397, 1588, 1728. People V. Oakland County Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282—1399, 1415. People V. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 64, 18 N. E. 692, 2 L. R. A. 255, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684—1308, 1433, 1435, 1436, 2120, 2379, 2564, 2576, 2577, 2639, 2670, 2671, 2672.- People V. O'Brien, 45 Hun (N. Y.), 519 2379 People V. Oldtown, 88 111. 202—260. People V. Oliver, 1 T. & C. 570—260, 261. People V. Ottawa, etc. Co., 115 111. 281, 3 N. E. 413—1414, 1415. People V. Pacific Mall S. S. Co., 50 Barb. 280—1098, 1104, 1105, 1108. TABLE OF CASES. CCXClll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People V. Pangburn, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 456, 38 N. Y. Supp. 217—1293. People V. Parker, 141 N. Y. 251, 36 N. B. 196—1164. People V. Parker Vein Coal Co., 10 How. Pr. 543—619, 639, 864. People V. Paton, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 195— 1098, 1105. People V. Paton, 5 N. Y. St. 316—859. People V. Peck, 62 Barb. 545—260. People V. Peck, 11 Wend. 604, 27 Am. Dec. 104—1285, 1295. People V. Pendleton, 64 N. Y. 622— 1917. People V. Philadelphia Fire Assoc, 92 N. Y. 311, 44 Am. Rep. 380—513, 1672, 1674. People V. Phillips, 1 Denio, 388—19, 1340, 1349. People V. Phoenix Bank, 24 Wend. 431, 35 Am. Dec. 634—1415. People V. Plalnfleld, etc. Co., 105 Mich. 9, 62 N. W. 998—1398, 2753. People T. Potter, 35 Cal. 110—65. People V. Preston, 140 N. Y. 549, 35 N. B. 979, 24 L. R. A. 57—584. People V. Produce, etc. Co., 53 N. Y. App. Div. 93, 65 N. Y. Supp. 926— 1101. People V. Pueblo County, 2 Colo. 360 — 244. People V. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 175 111. 125, 51 N. B. 664—689, 1397, ,.1593, 1665. People V. Reilly, 38 Hun, 429—1094. People V. Remington, 109 N. Y. 631, 16 N. E. 680—430. People T. Remington, 121 N. Y. 328, 24 N. B. 793, 8 L. R. A. 458—965. People V. Remington, 126 N. Y. 654, 27 N. E. 853—2447. People V. Remington, 126 N. Y. 679, 28 N. E. 249—2487. People V. Remington, 45 Hun, 329 — 430. People V. Remington, 45 Hun, 347 — 2424, 2453. People V. Remington, 59 Hun, 282, 12 N. Y. Supp. 824, 14 N. Y. Supp. 98— 2447. People V. Remington, 59 Hun, 307, 12 N. Y. Supp. 829—2487. People V. Rensselaer, etc. R. R., 15 Wend. 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33—1405. People V. Rice, 138 N. Y. 151, 33 N. B. 846—505, 2776. People V. Richards, 99 N. Y. 620, 1 N. E. 258—1094. People V. Robinson, 64 Cal. 373, 1 Pac. 156—1312, 1338. People V. Rome, etc. R. R., 103 N. Y. 95, 8 N. E. 369—265, 2621. People V. Rose, 188 111. 268, 59 N. E. 432—506. People V. Rosensteln, etc. Co., 131 Cal. 153, 63 Pac. 163—1401. People V. Royalton, etc. Turnp. Co., 11 Vt. 431—1399. People V. Runkel, 9 Johns. 147, 156— 65, 1394. People V. Saint Pranciscus Ben. Soc, 24 How. Pr. 216-1074. People V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 44 Hun, 552—1097. People V. St. Nicholas Bank, 151 N. Y. 592, 45 N. B. 1129—1444. People V. St. Nicholas Bank, 76 Hun, 522, 28 N. Y. Supp. 114—2409, 2434. People V. Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400—246, 250. People V. San Francisco Public Stock Exchange, 33 Pac. 785 (Cal.)— 1401. People V. San Francisco Sav. Union, 72 Cal. 199, 13 Pac. 498—1174. People V. Santa Anna, 67 111. 57 — 256. People V. Sawyer, 52 N. Y. 296—261. People V. Schoonmaker, 63 Barb. 44-69. People V. Security, etc. Co., 23 Hun, 597 —2424. People V. Selfridge, 52 Cal. 331—525. People V. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251, 34 N. B. 785, 23 L. R. A. 221, 36 Am. St. Rep. 690—1050. People V. Sherman, 133 N. Y. 349, 354, 31 N. E. 107—77. People V. Sierra, etc. Co., 39 Cal. 511, 514—64. People v. Simonson, 126 N. Y. 299, 27 N. E. 380—1667. People V. Simonson, 61 Hun, 338, 16 N. Y. Supp. 118—1336. People V. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595—2627. People V. Smith, 45 N. Y. 772—256, 260. People V. Soldiers' Home, etc., 95 111. 561—1234. People V. Spencer, 55 N. Y. 1 — 247. People V. Squire, 145 U. S. 175, 12 Sup. Ct. 880, 36 L. Ed. 666—2731, 2846. People V. Squire, 107 N. Y. 593, 14 N. E. 820, 1 Am. St. Rep. 893—2846. People V. Stanford, 77 Cal. 360, 18 Pac. 85, 19 Pac. 693, 2 L. R. A. 92—1402, 1405. People V. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499 —246,. 253. People V. State Treasurer, 24 Mich. 468—1869, 1876, 1930, 1932. People V. Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 111. 457—18, 101, 144. People V. Stockton, etc. R. R., 45 Cal. 306, 13 Am. Rep. 178—185, 355. People V. Stockton, etc. Soc, 133 Cal. 611, 65 Pac. 1078, 85 Am. St. Rep. 225—1663. People V. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263 59 Am. Dec. 536—1917, 1946, 2665. People V. Suburban R. R., 178 m. 594 53 N. E. 349, 49 L. R. A. 650—2675. CCXOIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People V. Suffern, 68 N. Y. 321—256. People V. Sutter St. Ry., 117 Cal. 604, 49 Pac. 736—1408, 2680. People V. Tax Commissioners, 2 Black, 620, 17 L. Ed. 451—44. People V. Tax Commissioners, etc., 23 N. Y. 192, 220—44. People V. Third Ave. K. R., 112 N. Y. 396, 400, 401, 19 N. E. 831, 3 L. R. A. 174—2659. People V. Thompson, 32 Hun, 93 — 2795. People V. Thompson, 21 Wend. 235 — 1409. People V. Throop, 12 Wend. 181, 183— 19, 1094, 1102, 1105, 1108. People V. Tlbbits, 4 Cow. 358—1307, 1314, 1330. People V. Troy, etc. Co., 82 Hun, 303, 31 N. Y. Supp. 337^2412. People V. Trustees, etc., 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 675, 72 N. Y. Supp. 350—2816. People V. Tuthill, 31 N. Y. 550—1339. People V. Twaddell, 18 Hun, 427, 432— 619, 1283, 1305, 1382, 1737. People V. Ulster, etc. R. R., 128 N. Y. 240, 28 N. B. 635—1406, 1408, 1410. People V. Union Pac. etc. Ry., 20 Colo. 186, 37 Pac. 610—2605. People V. U. S. Mercantile Rep. Co., 20 Ahb. N. Cas. 192—1105, 1113. People V. Universal, etc. Co., 30 Hun, 142—2445. People V. Universal, etc. Ins. Co., 42 Hun, 616—2485. People V. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 357, 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243—15, 68, 140S. People V. Van Valkenburgh, 63 Barb. 105—260. People V. Volcano, etc. Co., 100 Cal. 87, 34 Pac. 522—1406, 2753. People V. Wagner, 1 T. & C. 221—261. People V. Walker, 2 Abb. Pr. 421—1751. People V. Walker, 9 Mich. 328—1098, 1099, 1103. People V. Wall Street Bank, 39 Hun, 525—1228. People V. Washington, etc. Bank, 6 Cow. 212—1402. People V. Watertown, 1 Hill, 616 — 2, 1081. People V. Weaver, 100 U. S. 539, 543, 25 L. Ed. 705—1220, 1221, 1226. . People V. Webster, 10 Wend. 554—1374. People V. Weigley, 155 111. 491, 40 N. E. 300—1387. People V. Wemple, 117 N. Y. 136, 22 N. E. 1046, 6 L. R. A. 303—1082. People V. Wemple, 131 N. Y. 64, 29 N. E. 1002, 27 Am. St. Rep. 542—1239. People V. Wemple, 133 N. Y. 323, 31 N. E. 238—1239. People V. Wemple, 150 N. Y. 46, 50, 44 N. E. 787—31. People V. White, 11 Barb. 26—1435. People V. Williamsburgh, etc. Co., 47 N. Y. 586—1415. People V. Winans, "9 N. Y. Supp. 249— 1275, 1745. People V. Wren, 5 111. 269—1394. People, etc. v. American, etc. Co., TO N. Y. App. Div. 579, 75 N. Y. Supp. 563—2274, 2283, 2482, 2487. People, etc. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 25 Colo. 202, 54 Pac. 626—2787. People, etc. v. Goldstein, 37 N. Y. App.. Div. 550, 56 N. Y. Supp. 306—1094, 1101. People, etc. v. Knight, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 333, 73 N. Y. Supp. 745—1230. People, etc. v. Most, 36 N. Y. Misc. 139, 73 N. Y. Supp. 220—766, 2091. People, etc. v. New York C. & H. R. R. R., 156 N. Y. 570, 51 N. E. 312—2808. People, etc. v. New York, etc. Co., 38. N. Y. App. Div. 413, 56 N. Y. Supp. 364—2757. People, etc. v. Roberts, 156 N. Y. 585— 1170. People, etc. v. Roberts, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 21, 58 App. Div. 254—635, 1175, 1433. People, etc. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 176 111. 512, 52 N. E. 292—595, 2622. People's Bank v. Exchange Bank, 43 S. E. 269 (Ga.)— 1124, 1132, 1133. People's Bank v. Gridley, 91 111. 457— 847, 888, 1009. People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344, 349, 44 Am. Rep. 112—45, 50, 639, 644, 645, 647. People's Bank v. St. Anthony's, etc. Church, 109 N. Y. 512, 17 N. E. 408— 1749, 1772. People's Brewing Co. v. Boebinger, 40 La. Ann. 277, 4 South. 82—189. People's, etc. Assoc, v. Berlin, 201 Pa. St. 1, 50 Atl. 308, 88 Am. St. Rep. 764—1681, 2035. People's, etc. Assoc, v. Furey, 47 N. J. Eq. 410, 20 Atl. 890—286. People's, etc. Bank v. Marye, 107 Fed. 570—1229. People's, etc. Bank v. San Francisco Super. Ct., 104 Cal. 649, 38 Pac. 452, 29 L. R. A. 844, 43 Am. St. Rep. 147— 1305. People's, etc. Co. v. City of Chicago, 114 Fed. 384—2617, 2736. People's, etc. Co. v. '76 Land, etc. Co., 44 Pac. 176 (Cal.)— 1424. People's, etc. Ry v. Union, etc. Co., 3 Pa. Dist. 717—2708. People's Perry Co. v. Balch, 74 Mass. 303, 312—215, 235, 361. People's Inv. Co. v. Crawford, 45 S. W. 738 (Tex.)— 1921. People's Live-Stock Ins. Co., In re, 56 Minn 180, 57 N. W. 468—555. TABLE OF OASES. ccxcv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] People's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westcott, 80 Mass. 440—276, 1278. People's Nat. Bank v. Cleveland, 44 S. E. 20 (Ga.)— 761, 830. People's Nat. Bank v. Wheedon, 42 S. E. 91 (Ga.)— 953. People's Pass. R. R. v. Memphis, 16 S. W. 973 (Tenn.)— 2661. People's Pass. Ry. v. Baldwin, 37 Leg. Int. 424—2702. People's R. R., In re, 112 N. Y. 578, 20 N. E. 367—2679. People's R. R. v. Memphis R.. R., 10 Wall. 38, 19 L. Ed. 844—2660, 2661. People's Ry. v. Grand Ave. Ry., 149 Mo. 245, 50 S. W. 829—2709. People's Sav. Bank v. Collins, 27 Conn. 142—1419. People's Sav. Bank v. Colorado, etc. Co., 8 Colo. App. 354, 46 Pac. 620— 1498. People's Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Berks & Dauphin T. etc. Co., 23 C. C. Rep. 401—2750. People's Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Berks & Dauphin T. etc. Co., 199 Pa. St. 411, 49 Atl. 284—2750, 2813. Peoria, etc. v. Hickey, 110 Iowa, 276, 81 N. W. 473, 80 Am. St. Rep. 296— 2440, 2471. Peoria, etc. R. R. v. Elting, 17 111. 429— 290, 1029, 1030. Peoria, etc. R. R. v. Peoria, etc. R. R., 66 111. 174—2634. Peoria, etc. R. -R. v. Preston, 35 Iowa, 115—358, 1029. Peoria, etc. R. R. v. Thompson, 103 111. 187—143, 2017, 2051, 2236. Peoria, etc. Ry. v. Central T. Co., 83 Fed. 910—2437. Peoria, etc. Ry. v. Coal, etc. Co., 68 111. 489—2547. Peoria, etc. Ry. v. Coster, 97 Fed. 519— 2519. Pepper v. Chambers, 7 Excl». 226 (1852)— 1107. Peppercorne v. Clench, 26 L. T. Rep. 656 (1872)— 906. Peppin V. Cooper, 2 B. & Aid. 431 (1819)— 1737. Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568, 585, 587 —616, 619, 1733, 1763. Percy v. Millaudon, 8 Mart. (La.) 68 —1693. Perdicaris v. Charleston Gaslight Co., Chase's Dec. 435, 19 Fed. Cas. 217— 648, 840. Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465, 16 L. Ed. 701—1660. Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86, 3 C. C. A. 443—750. Perin v. Parker, 126 111. 201, 18 N. E. 747, 2 L. R. A. 336, 9 Am. St. Rep. 571—923. Perine v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 48 Minn. 82, 50 N. W. 1022—1088, 1426, 1941. Perkins v. Bradley, 24 Vt. 66—1784. Perkins v. Church, 31 Barb. 84—395, 446. Perkins v. Deptford, etc. Co., 13 Sim. 277 (1843)— 2096. Perkins v. Huntington, 19 N. Y. Supp. 71—527, 2346. Perkins v. Locke, 27 S. W. 783 (Tex.) 2038 Perkins v. Lyons, 111 Iowa, 192, 82 N. W. 486—854, 1016. Perkins v. Maysville, etc. Assoc, 10 S. W. 659 (Ky.)— 73. Perkins v. Missouri, etc. R. R., 55 Mo. 201—78. Perkins v. Portland, etc. R. R., 47 Me. 573, 74 Am. Dec. 507—2640, 2670. Perkins v. Port Washington, 37 Wis. 177—263. Perkins v. Rouss, 78 Miss. 343, 29 South. 92—524. Perkins v. Sanders, 56 Miss. 733 — 8, 360, 441. Perkins v. Savage, 15 Wend. 412 — 191, 207. Perkins v. Siegfried's Adm'r, 97 Va. 444, 34 S. E. 64—1088. Perkins v. Union, etc. Co., 94 Mass. 273—216, 347. Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co., 4 Cow. 645—1739, 1760, 1799, 1802, 2746. Perkins v. Watson, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 173—1629. Perkiomen, etc. Co. v. Dyer, 187 Pa. St. 470, 41 Atl. 326—179. Perrln v. Granger, 30 Vt. 595—289, 295. Perrine v. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 9 How. 172, 13 L. Ed. 92—7, 1548. Perrine v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 22 Ala. 575—1129. Perrine v. Ransom, etc. Co., 60 N. Y. App. Div. 32, 69 N. Y. Supp. 698— 1939. Perris, etc. Dlst. v. Thompson, 116 Fed. 832, 54 C. C. A. 336—1943. Perry v. Barnett, L. R. 15 Q. B. D. 388 (1885)— 913. Perry v. Godbe, 82 Fed. 141—2412. Perry v. Hale, 143 Mass. 540, 10 N. E. 174—332, 507, 799. Perry v. Johnston, 95 Fed. 322 — 490. Perry v. Keene, 56 N. H. 514 — 247. Perry v. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 44 Ark. 383—1713. Perry v. Maxwell, 2 Dev. Eq. (N. C ) 488—653. Perry v. Pearson, 135 111. 218, 25 N. B. 636—706, 707, 791, 813, 1648, 1849. Perry v. Round Lake, etc. Assoc, 22 Hun, 293—3. CCXCVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Perry v. Simpson, etc. Co., 37 Conn. 520—1780, 1781. Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. 418 — 405, 426, 448, 451, 455, 492. Perry v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 93 Ala. 364, 9 South. 217—110, 1333, 1455, 1750. Perry v. Western, etc. R. R., 129 N. C. 333, 40 S. B. 191—2581. Perryman v. Wolffe, 93 Ala. 290, 9 South. 148—770. Perry's Case, 34 L. T. Rep. 716 (1876)— 1695. Persch v. Qulggle, 57 Pa. St. 247—796. Persch v. Simmons, 3 N. Y. Supp. 783 —401. Person v. Civer, 29 How. Pr. 432— 1248, Person v. Leary, 126 N. C. 504, 36 S. B. 35—2410. Person v. Warren R. R., 32 N. J. L. 441—1241. Persons v. Gardner, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 490, 56 N. Y. Supp. 822, 59 N. Y. Supp. 463—441, 1026. Persse v. Atlantic, etc. Tunnel Co., 5 Colo. App. 117, 37 Pac. 951—1990. Persse, etc. Works v. Willett, 1 Rob. (J^. Y.) 131—1425. Peru Iron Co., Bx parte, 7 Cow. 540 — 1661. Peruvian Guano Co., In re (1894), 3 Ch. 690—1178. Peruvian Ry., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. 617 (1867)— 1841, 1978. Peruvian Rys. Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 322 (1869)— 189, 190. Peter v. Farrel, etc. Co., 53 Ohio St. 534, 42 N. B. 690—449. Peter v. Union, etc. Co., 56 Ohio St. 181, 46 N. E. 894—119, 578. Peterborough R. R. v. Nashua, etc. R. R., 59 N. H. 385—940. Peters v. Fort Madison Const. Co., 72 Iowa, 405, 34 N. W. 190—1569. Peters v. Poster, 56 Hun, 607, 10 N. Y. Supp. 389—433, 444. Peters v. Grim, 149 Pa. St. 163, 24 Atl. 192, 34 Am. St. Rep. 599—779. Peters v. Heyward, Cro. Jac. 682 (1624)— 1252. Peters v. Lincoln, etc. R. R., 12 Fed. 513, 2 McCrary, 275—310, 2560, 2578. Peters v. Lincoln, etc. R. R., 14 Fed. 319, 4 McCrary, 269—310, 2560, 2578. Peters v. Nashville Sav. Bank, 86 Tenn. 224, 6 S. W. 133—975. Peters v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 23 Mo. 107—2602. Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. Dellatorre, 70 Fed. 643, 7 C. C. A. 310—2478, 2489. Petersburg Sav. etc. Co. v. Lumsden, 75 Va. 327, 340—1121, 1123, 1126. Peterson v. Brabrook, etc. Co., 150 111. 290, 37 N. E. 242—1634. Peterson v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 80 Iowa, 92, 45 N. W. 573—2645. Peterson v. Illinois Land, etc. Co., 6 111. App. 257—675. Peterson v. New York, 17 N. Y. 449— 1800. Peterson v. People's, etc. Assoc, 124 Mich. 573, 83 N. W. 606—316. Peterson v. Sinclair, 83 Pa. St. 250 — 398 Petill'on V. Hippie, 90 111. 420, 32 Am. Rep. 31—768. Peto V. Brighton, etc. Ry., 1 H. & M. 468 (1863)— 759, 2040. Petre v. Eastern, etc. Ry., 1 Ry. Cas. 462 (1838)— 1713, 1714. Petre v. Petre, 14 Beav. 197 (1851)— 660. Petrie v. Coulter, 10 Okl. 257, 61 Pac. 1058—384. Petrie v. Guelph, etc. Co., 11 S. C. Rep. (Can.) 450—812. Petrie v. Hannay, 3 T. R. 418 (1789)— 780, 1341. Petrie v. Wright, 6 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 647—1798. Petrolia Mfg. Co. v. Jenkins, 29 N. Y. App. Div. 403, 51 N. Y. Supp. 1028— 1857. Pettibone v. Lake View, etc. Co., 134 Cal. 227, 66 Pac. 218—1794. Pettibone v. McGraw, 6 Mich. 441 — 456. Pettibone v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 14a Mass. 411, 19 N. E. 337, 1 L. R. A. 787—2100. Pettingill v. Androscoggin, etc. R. R., 51 Me. 370—2304. Pettis V. Atkins, 60 111. 454—499, 1084. Pettit V. Stuttgart, etc. Institute, 67 Ark. 430, 55 S. 'W. 485—36, 1660. Petty V. Hayden, 88 N. W. 339 (Iowa) —1945. Peveril, etc. Ltd., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 122—18. Pew V. First Nat. Bank, 130 Mass. 391 —1505. Pewabic Min. Co. v. Mason, 145 IT. S. 349, 12 Sup. Ct. 887, 36 L. Ed. 732— 989, 1534, 2286, 2288, 2501. Peychaud v. Hood, 23 La. Ann. 732 — 308. Peychaud v. Lane, 24 La. Ann. 404 — 389 Pfaff V. Gruen, 69 S. W. 405 (Mo.)— 470. Pfeifer v. Sheboygan, etc. R- R-, 18 Wis. 155, 86 Am. Dec. 751—2322. Pfeiffer v. Lansberg Brake Co., 44 Mo. App. 59—1500. Pfister V. Milwaukee Electric Ry., 83 Wis. 86, 53 N. W. 27—1985, 2197. TABLE OF CASES. CCXCVU [The numbers after tlie dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pfohl v. Simpson, 74 N. Y. 137—401,. 455, 457, 491. Phelan v. Ganebln, 5 Colo. 14—2418, 2423. Phelan v. Hazard, 5 Dill. 45, 19 Fed. Cas. 429—125. Phelan v. State, 76 Ala. 49—1094. Phelps V. American, etc. Assoc, 121 Mich. 343, 80 N. W. 120—335, 1073. Phelps V. Elliott, 29 Fed. 53—1998. Phelps V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 26 Conn. 269—36, 1147, 1149. Phelps V. Lyle, 10 Ad. & E. 113—1380. Phelps V. Simons, 159 Mass. 415, 34 N. E. 657, 38 Am. St. Rep. 430—708. Phene v. Gillan, 5 Hare, 1 (1845)— 757. Phene v. Gillan, 5 Hare, 111 (1845) —531. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz, 80 Fed. 337, 25 C. C. A. 453—2401. Phenix Nat. Bank v. Cleveland Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 873—2031, 2257. Philadelphia v. Empire, etc. Ry., 3 Brewst. 547—570, 2662, 2703, 2717, 2719. Philadelphia v. Empire Pass. Ry., 177 Pa. St. 382, 35 Atl.. 721—2719. Philadelphia v. Hestonville R. R., 177 Pa. St. 371, 35 Atl. 718—2719. Philadelphia v. McManes, 175 Pa. St. 28, 34 Atl. 331—2697. Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hospital, 134 Pa. St. 171, 19 Atl. 490—1025, 1236. Philadelphia v. Philadelphia, etc. Ry., 177 Pa. St. 379, 35 Atl. 720—2719. Philadelphia v. Postal, etc. Co., 21 N. Y. Supp. 556—2840. Philadelphia v. Ridge Ave. etc. Ry., 102 Pa. St. 190—31. Philadelphia v. Ridge Ave. Pass. Ry., 143 Pa. St. 444, 22 Atl. 695—2718. Philadelphia v. Spring Garden, etc. Co., 161 Pa. St. 522, 28 Atl. 1067— 2719. Philadelphia v. Thirteenth, etc. Ry., 169 Pa. St. 269, 33 Atl. 126—2719. Philadelphia v. Western Union Tel. Co., 40 Fed. 615—2840. Philadelphia Bapt. Assoc, v. Hart, 4 Wheat. 1, 4 L. Ed. 499—1080. Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Daube, 71 Fed. 583—2443. Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, 7 Sup. Ct. 1118, 30 L. Ed. 1200—1243. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., In re, 14 Phila. 501—2372. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., In re, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 25, 36 Am. D^c. 202— 2662. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Bowers, 4 Houst. (Del.) 506—2611. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364, 35 Atl. 716—234, 306. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329, 70 Am. Dec. 128—178, 208, 335, 1154, 1156. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 14 L. Ed. 502—70. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318—83, 232, 233, 235, 282, 352, 357. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Johnson, 54 Pa. St. 127—2053, 2065, 2195. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Knight, 124 Pa. St. 58, 16 Atl. 492—2062, 2075, 2076. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Larkin, 47 Md. 155, 28 Am. Rep. 455—77. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Lewis, 33 Pa. St. 33, 75 Am. Dec. 574—1979, 1981, 1982, 2027, 2028, 2036. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Love, 125 Pa. St. 488, 17 Atl. 455—2496. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Maryland, 10 How. 376, 13 L. Ed. 461 — 1237, 2585. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 210, 16 L. Ed. 73—70, 71, 72, 75, 78, 340. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 105 Pa. St. 195—2062. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Stichter, 11 W. N. Cas. 325—2067. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Stichter, 21 Am. L. Reg. 713 (Pa.)— 1969, 2067. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Wilmington, etc. Ry., 38 Atl. 1067 (Del.)— 2691, 2706. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Woelpper, 64 Pa. St. 366, 3 Am. Rep. 596— 2064, 2323, 2324, 2325. Philadelphia, etc. Ry.'s Appeal, 102 Pa. St. 123, 125—1024, 1025, 2677, 2695, 2710. Philadelphia Fire Assoc, v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Sup. Ct. 108,. 30 L. Ed. 342—1241. Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249—1628, 1673. Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Smith, 195 Pa. St. 38, 45 Atl. 655—838. Philadelphia Steam Supply Co. v. Phil- adelphia, 41 Leg. Int. 252—2740. Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co.'s Appeal 16 Atl. 734 (Pa.)— 1190. Philadelphia Warehouse Co. v. Annis- ton Pipe Works, 106 Ala. 357, 18 South. 43—966. Philadelphia & M. Ry., In re, 187 Pa St. 123, 40 Atl. 967—1428. Philadelphia & W. R. R. v. State 10 How. 376, 13 L. Ed. 461—1218. Philes V. Hickles, 18 Pac. 595 (Ariz.) —2039. CCXCVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Phillppi V. Philippe, 115 U. S. 151, 5 Sup. Ct. 1181, 29 L. Ed. 336—1861. Philipsburg v. Central Pa. Tel. etc. Co., 22 Wkly. Notes Gas. 572—2675. Philler v. Yardley, 62 Fed. 645, 649, 10 C. C. A. 562, 25 L. R. A. 824—958. Phillips V. Albany, 28 Wis. 340—249, 259. Phillips V. Blatchford, 137 Mass. 510— 1076, 1091. Phillips V. Burlington Library Co., 141 Pa. St. 462, 21 Atl. 640, 23 Am. St. Rep. 304—1961. Phillips V. Campbell, 43 N. Y. 271— 1784, 1793. Phillips V. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 219—83, 363, 364. Phillips V. Eastern R. R., 138 Mass. 122, 135—592, 1143, 1166, 1348, 2175. Phillips V. Ives, 1 Rawle, 36—768. Phillips V. Knox County Ins. Co., 20 Ohio, 174—39. Phillips V. Mason, 66 Hun, 580, 21 N. Y. Supp. 842—765. Phillips V. Moir, 69 111. 155—911, 914. Phillips V. Postal Tel. etc. Co., 130 N. C. 513, 41 S. B. 1022, 89 Am. St. Rep. 868—2796, 2802. Phillips V. Providence, etc. Co., 21 R. I. 302, 43 Atl. 598, 45 L. R. A. 560— 1529, 1555. Phillips v. Southern, etc. R. R., 60 S. W. 941 (Ky.)— 2116, 2185, 2250, 2268, 2340. Phillips V. Therasson, 11 Hun, 141— 485, 567, 569. Phillips V. Wlckham, 1 Paige, 590— 1294, 1305, 1394. Phillips V. "Winslow, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 431, 68 Am. Dec. 729—2114, 2308, 2323, 2325. Phillips V. Wortendyke, 31 Hun, 192— 1617. Phillips Academy v. King, 12 Mass. 546—1591. Phlllipsburg, etc. Co. v. Inhabitants, etc., 49 Atl. 445 (N.. J.)— 2730. Phillipsburgh Bank v. Lackawanna R. R., 27 N. J. L. 206—2653. Phlllipsburg Water Co. v. Citizens' Water Co., 189 Pa. St. 23, 41 Atl. 979—2783. Phillips, etc. Co. v. Whitney, 109 Ala. 645, 20 South. 333—1793. Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 56 Fed. 273—1419, 2137, 2194, 2378, 2493, 2651. Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 62 Fed. 678, 771—694, 1541, 2060, 2137, 2449, 2492, 2546, 2586. Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 63 Fed. 922—2337. Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 98 Fed. 776—2474, 2477. Phinizy v. Murray, 83 Ga. 747, 10 S. E. 358, 6 L. R. A. 426, 20 Am. St. Rep. 342—1147. Phinney v. Trustees, etc., 88 Md. 633, 42 Atl. 58—1038. Phipps V. Jones, 20 Pa. St. 260, 59 Am. Dec. 708—1087. Phipps V. Sharps, 142 Pa. St. 597, 21 Atl. 901—766. Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Keystone Bridge Co., 142 N. Y. 425, 37 N. E. 562— 1050. Phoenix, etc. Co., In re, 2 J. & H. 441 (1862)— 2743. Phoenix, etc. Co., In re, 48 L. T. Rep. 260 (1883)— 1295. Phoenix, etc. Go. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 6 Hun, 293—178, 181, 272, 273, 306, 308, 370, 3*^6, 411, 564, 2412. Phoenix, etc. Co. v. N. Y. S. & T. Co., 83 Fed. 757, 28 C. C. A. 76—2327. Phoenix, etc. Co. v. North River, etc. Co., 33 Hun, 156—1926, 2390, 2413. Phoenix, etc. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 XT. S. 174, 16 Sup. Ct. 471, 40 L. Ed. 660—7, 1219, 2119. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush (Ky.), 68, 96 Am. Dec. 331— 1672. Phoenix Iron Co. v. Commonwealth, 113 Pa. St. 563, 6 Atl. 75, 105 Pa. St. 111—1096. Phoenix Life Assoc. Co., In re, 2 J. & H. 441 (1862)— 1296. Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 300—272, 273, 306, 308, 370, 376, 411, 564, 2412. Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 6 Hun, 293—306, 308, 564, 2412. Phosphate, etc. Co. v. Green, L. R. 7 G. P. 43 (1871)— 297, 353, 1853. Phosphate of Lime Co., In re, 24 L. T. 932 (1871)— 277. Phosphate of Lime Co. v. Green, L. R. 7 G. P. 43 (1871)— 1296. Phosphate Sewage Go. v. Hartmont, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 394 (1877)— 1468, 1476, 1479. Physlck V. Baker, 53 N. J. Bq. 673, 33 Atl. 815—160, 2024. Picard v. East Tennessee, etc. R. R., 130 U. S. 637, 9 Sup. Ct. 640, 32 L. Ed. 1051—1238, 2537. Pickering v. Appleby, 1 Com. Rep. 353 (1721)— 762. Pickering v. Cease, 79 111. 328—772. Pickering v. Demerritt, 100 Mass. 416 —907, 926. Pickering v. Hastings, 56 Neb. 201, 76 N. W. 587—453. Pickering v. Ilfraeombe Ry., 37 L. J. (C. P.) 118 (1868)— 278, 699. Pickering v. Stephenson, L, R. 14 Eq. 322 (1872)— 1550, 2480. TABLE OF CASES. CCXCIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pickering v. Templeton, 2 Mo. App. 424, 425—114, 319, 344, 375. Pickering v. Townsend, 118 Ala. 351, 23 South. 703—149, 2360. Pickering's Claim, L. R. 6 Ch. 525 (1871)— 1815. Pickett V. Abney, 84 Tex. 645, 19 S. W. 859—1396, 1759. Plckford V. Grand Junction Ry., 10 M. & W. 399 (1842)— 2609. Pidgeon v. Burslem, 3 Exch. 465 (1849)— 778. Pier V. George, 86 N. Y. Supp. 613— 462. Pier V. Hanmore, 86 N. Y. 95—462. Pleratt v. Young, 49 S. W. 964 (Ky.) —1694. Pierce v. Ayer, 88 Me. 100, 33 Atl. 777 —2187. Pierce v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 150, 155—28, 1302. Pierce v. Crompton, 13 R. I. 312 — 1641, 1673, 1676. Pierce v. Drew, 136 Mass. 75, 49 Am. Rep. 7—2792. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484, 512— 2106, 2112, 2117, 2177, 2323, 2325, 2328, 2342. Pierce v. Equitable Life Assoc. Soc, 145 Mass. 56, 12 N. E. 858, 1 Am. St. Rep. 433—1144, 2745. Pierce v. Peagans, 39 Fed. 587—2221. Pierce v. Hacke, 1 Pa. Dlst. Rep. 517 — 501. Pierce v. Jersey, etc. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 209 (1870)— 1713. Pierce v. Jones. 24 Ind. App. 286, 56 N. B. 683—2397. Pierce v. Kearney, 5 Hill, 82—39. Pierce v. Milwaukee Construction Co., 38 Wis. 253—405, 406, 454, 456. Pierce v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 24 Wis. 551, 1 Am. Rep. 203—2114, 2330. Pierce v. North Carolina R. R., 124 N. C. 83, 32 S. E. 399, 44 L. R. A. 163— 2581. Pierce v. Topeka, etc. Co., 60 Kan. 164, 55 Pac. 853—479. .Pierson, Matter of, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 215, 60 N. Y. Supp. 671—1102, 1592, 1622. . Pierson, Matter of, 28 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 726, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1003—1102, 1592. Pierson v. Bank of Washington, 3 Cranch, C. C. 363, 19 Fed. Cas. 671— 1122, 1127. Pierson v. Cronk, 13 N. Y. Supp. 845— 1616, 1890. Pierson v. McCurdy, 100 N. Y. 608, 2 N. E. 615—677, 687, 1861, 1915, 2743. Pierson v. McCurdy, 33 Hun, 520 — 677, 687, 1861, 1915, 2743. Tierson v. Morgan, 20 Abb. N. Cas. 428 (N. Y.)— 1861. Pietsch V. Krause, 112 Wis. 418, 88 N. W. 223—1474. - Pietsch V. Krause, 93 N. W. 9 (Wis.) —50, 51, 157, 302, 817, 1482, 1902. Pigg V. Stacey, 49 S. W. 1065 (Ky.) — 1758. Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. R., 68 Me. 445 —271, 277, 280, 287, 366, 367. Pike County v. Rowland, 94 Pa. St. 238—1744, 1745. Pike's Peak, etc. Co. v. Colorado Springs, 44 C. C. A. 333, 105 Fed. 1— 1024, 2668, 2669, 2730, 2757, 2773. Pilcher v. Sioux City, etc. Co., 12 S. Dak. 52, 80 N. W. 151—2186, 2225. Pillow V. Roberts, 13 How. 472, 14 L. Ed. 228—1806. Pim's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 11 (1849) — 206, 208, 993. Pinch V. Anthony, 90 Mass. 536—2115. Pine V. Western, etc. Bank, 63 Kan. 462, 65 Pac. 690—481, 560, 1567. Pinedo v. Germanla, etc. Co., N. Y. D. Reg., July 29, 1885 (Supreme Court) —805. Pine, etc. Co. v. Lafayette, etc. Works, 53 Fed. 853—2413. Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 22 L. Ed. 227—246. Pine River Bank v. Hodsdon, 46 N. H. 114—354. Pingree v. Michigan, etc. Co., 11^ Mich. 314, 76 N. W. 635, 53 L. R. A. 274—1038, 2589, 2613. Pingree v. Mutual, etc. Co., 107 Mich. 156, 65 N. W. 6—2736. Pingry v. Washburn, 1 Aiken (Vt.), 264, 15 Am. Dec. 676—1042, 2646, 2647. Plnkerton v. Manchester, etc. R. R., 42 N. H. 424—854, 938, 939, 1009, 1246, 1250, 1256, 1260, 1263. Plnkerton v. Pennsylvania, etc. Co., 193 Pa. St. 229, 44 Atl. 284—1423, 2569, 2570, 2581. Plnkett v. Wright, 2 Hare, 120 (1842) —719, 1114. Plnkus v. Minneapolis Linen Mills, 65 Minn. 40, 67 N. W. 643—688, 1857. Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 144, 22 Sup. Ct. 52, 46 L. Ed. 125—424, 460. Pinney v. Nevills, 86 Fed. 97—1003. Pinto Silver Min. Co., In re, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 273 (1878)— 1860. Pioneer, etc. Co. v. Baker, 20 Fed. 4 — 1897. Pioneer Fuel Co. v. St. Peter, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 386, 67 N. W. 217—576. Pioneer Paper Co., In re, 36 How. Pr. 111—1319, 1337. Pioneer's, etc. Syndicate, In re, 68 L. T. Rep. 163 (1893)— 113. Pipe V. Bateman, 1 Iowa, 369 — 1071, 1088, 1090. ccc TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Piscataqua Bridge v. New Hampshire Bridge, 7 N. H. 35, ■63---2723. Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491—290, 306, 310, 355. Pitcher v. Chicago Board of Trade, 121 111. 412, 13 N. E. 187—1074. Pitchford v. Davis, 5 Mees. & "W. 2 — 362, 365, 1089. Pitkin V. Cowen, 91 Fed. 599—2416. Pitman, Ex parte, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 707 (1879)— 1969, 2095. Pitman v. Chicago, etc. Co., 67 S. W. 946 (Mo.)— 1655. Pitman v. Kintner, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 250, 33 Am. Dec. 461—1817, 1976. Bitot V. Johnson, 33 La. Ann. 1286— 937, 938, 1007, 1116. Pitt V. Kellogg, 11 N. Y. Supp. 526— 1706. Pitts V. Lancaster Mills, 54 Mass. 156— 2778. Pitts V. New Mammoth, etc. Co., 23 Utah, 623, 65 Pac. 1076—2385. Pitts V. Steele, etc. Co., 75 Mo. App. 221—1717. Pitts V. Temple, 2 Mass. 538—1286. Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillin, 119 N. Y. 46, 23 N. E. 530, 7 L. R. A. 46 ' —1051, 1053. Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillin, 53 Hun, 67, 6 N. Y. Supp. 433—1053. Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Foster, 59 Pa. St. 365—1844. Pittsburg, etc. Assoc, v. Swan, 51 Pac. 583 (Kan.)— 211. Pittsburg, etc. Co. v. Quintrell, 91 Tenn. 693, 20 S. W. 248—1715. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. v. Allegheny County, 63 Pa. St. 126, 79 Pa. St. 210 —267, 599, 608. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. v. Rothschild, 4 Cent. 107 (Pa.)— 2591. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. v. Southwest, etc. R. R., 77 Pa. St. 173—2602. Pittsburg, etc. R. R.'s Appeal, 4 Atl. 385 (Pa.)— 1973. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. v. Dodd, 72 S. W. 822 (Ky.)— 1513, 1528, 1855, 2725. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. B. 582, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301—2605. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Ruby, 38 Ind. 294, 313, 10 Am. Rep. 111—1833. Pittsburgh, etc. v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 189 Pa. St. 479, 42 Atl. 142—1073. Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Otterson, 4 W. N. Cas. 545—557. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Allegheny County, 79 Pa. St. 210—267, 608. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Altoona, etc. R. R., 196 Pa. St. 452, 46 Atl. 431— 1592, 2570. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Applegate, 21 W. Va. 172—186, 354. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Biggar, 34 Pa- st. 455—229, 231. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Bruce, 102 Pa. St. 23—28. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Byers, 32 Pa. St. 22, 72 Am. Dec. 770—376, 385. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146—271, 557, 558, 1115, 1122,. 1123, 1124, 1131. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. t. Common- wealth, 104 Pa. St. 583—2753. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Common- wealth, 29 Alb. L. J. 237—2752. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340—179, 188, 214, 216, 220, 279,.. 1031. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Graham, 36 Pa. St. 77—385. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Hazen, 84 111. 36, 25 Am. Rep. 422—2620. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Jones, 111 Pa. St. 204, 2 Atl. 410, 56 Am. Rep. 260— 2733. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Patterson, 107 Pa. St. 461, 464—2771. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Plummer, 37 Pa. St. 413—385. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Point Bridge- Co., 165 Pa. St. 37, 30 Atl. 511, 26 L R. A. 323—2707, 2725. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Rothschild, 4 Cent. Rep. 107—146, 2018, 2233, 2264. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 54—230, 231, 234, 239, 317, 1771. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Woodrow, 3 Phila. 271—231. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Garrett, 50 Ohio- St. 405, 34 N. E. 493—2583. ■ Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188, 32 Am. Rep. 63—2620. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Hood, 94 Fed.- 618, 36 C. C. A. 423—2664. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Kain, 35 Ind. 291—2581. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Keokuk, etc. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371, 9 Sup. Ct. 770, 33 L. Ed. 157—1778, 2548, 2568, 2570. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Long. Island L. & T. Co., 172 U. S. 493, 19 Sup. Ct. 238, 43 L. Ed. 528—1993, 2004, 2014, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2049, 2130, 2154, 2231, 2263, 2290. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Lynde, 55 Ohio- St. 23, 44 N. B. 596—1993, 2004, 2042, 2043, 2045, 2049, 2130, 2154, 2231,. 2290. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Marshall, 85 Pa. St. 187-2243, 2338. , Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Pittsburgh, etc R. R., 159 Pa. St. 331, 28 Atl. 155— 2638. TABLE OF CASES. CCCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Reese, 118 Pa. St. 355, 12 Atl. 362—1770. Pittsburg Min. Co. v. Spooner, 74 Wis. 307, 42 N. W. 259, 17 Am. St. Rep. 149—1479. Pitzman v. Freeburg, 92 111. 111—253. Pixley V. Boynton, 79 111. 351—772, 776. Pixley V. Roanoke, etc. Co., 75 Va. 320 —1411. Piza V. Butler, 90 Hun, 254, 35 N. Y. Supp. 721—1924. Place V. People, 192 111. 160, 61 N. B. 354—1331, 1741. Placke V. Union, etc. R. R., 140 Mo. 634, 41 S. W. 915—2690. Plainview v. Winona, etc. R. R., 36 Minn. 505, 32 N. W. 745—252. Plankinton v. Hildebrand, 89 Wis. 209, 61 N. W. 839—976, 977. Plankinton Bank, In re, 87 Wis. 378, 58 N. W. 784—1838. Plank's Tavern Co. v. Burkhard, 87 Mich. 182, 49 N. W. 562—342. Plant V. Macon, etc. Co., 103 Ga. 666, 30 S. B. 567—1554. Planters' Bank v. Bivingsville Cotton Mfg. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 95—428. Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 4 Sm. & M. (12 Miss.) 75, 43 Am. Dec. 470—1630, 1799, 1800. Planters' Bank v. State, 15 Miss. 163— 1402. Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 21 L. Ed. 473—1627. Planters' Bank v. Whittle, 78 Va. 737 —1643, 1654. Planters', etc. Bank v. Andrews, 17 Ala. (0. S.) 404—69. Planters', etc. Bank v. Leavens, 4 Ala. (N. S.) 753—1019. Planters' etc. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159—502. Planters', etc. Co. v. Assessor, 41 La. Ann. 1137, 6 South. 809—1232. Planters', etc. Co. v. Olmstead, 78 Ga. 586, 3 S. E. 647—1791. Planters', etc. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Selma Sav. Bank, 63 Ala. 585—853, 888, 1116, 1117, 1122, 1123, 1126. Planters' Ins. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 193, 16 Sup. Ct. 466, 40 L. Ed. 667 —1219, 1272. Planters' Ins. Co. v. Wicks, 4 S. W. 172 (Tenn.)— 1582. Plaquemines, etc. Co. v. Buck, 52 N. J. Bq. 219, 27 Atl. 1094—1469. Plaskynaston, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 542 (1883)— 121, 122. Plate Glass Univ. Inc. Co. v. Sunley, 8 El. & Bl. 47 (1857)— 343, 373. Piatt, In re, 1 Ben. 534, 19 Fed. Cas. 815—1390. Piatt v. Adrlance, 90 Fed. 772—444, 2400. . Piatt V. Archer, 9 Blatchf. 559, 19 Fed. Cas. 822—1958. Piatt V. Ashman, 32 Hun, 230—1446. Piatt V. Birmingham Axle Co., 41 Conn. 255—828, 1132, 1834. Piatt V. Colvin, 50 Ohio St. 703, 36 N. E. 735—1088. Piatt V. Hawkins, 43 Conn. 139—704. Piatt V. Hungerford, 116 Fed. 771—485. Piatt V. Jones, 96 N. Y. 24—1072. Piatt V. Larter, 94 Fed. 610—468, 471. 479, 484. Piatt V. Massachusetts, etc. Co., 103 Fed. 705—1869. Piatt V. New York, etc. Ry., 153 N. Y. 670, 48 N. B. 1106—2153. Piatt V. New York, etc. Ry., 170 N. Y. 451, 63 N. E. 532—2305, 2470, 2485. Piatt V. New York, etc. Ry., 9 N. Y. App. Div. 87, 41 N. Y. Supp. 42— 2153. Piatt V. N. Y. etc. R. R., 63 N. Y. App. Div. 401, 71 N. Y. Supp. 913—2396. Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 54 Fed. 569—2389. Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 65 Fed. 872—2373, 2493, 2503. Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 84 Fed. 535, 28 C. C. A. 488—2441. Piatt v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 115 Fed. 842—2460. Piatt V. Union Pacific R. R., 99 U. S. 48, 57, 25 L. Ed. 424—2110, 2112. 2158. Platte, etc. Co. v. Dowell, 17 Colo. 376, 30 Pac. 68—2727. Platte Valley Bank v. Harding, 1 Neb. 461—1425. Plattevllle v. Galena, etc. R. R., 43- Wis. 493—263. Plant V. Billings-Drew Co., 127 Mich. 11, 86 N. W. 399—1575. Playa, etc. Co. v. Gage, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 69 N. Y. Supp. 702—133, 222. 740, 1362. Pleasants v. Southern Ry., 93 Fed. 93. 35 C. C. A. 226—2481. Plemmons v. Southern Imp. Co., 108 N. C. 614, 13 S. E. 188—1936. Plimpton V. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 592, 599. 602—42, 50, 885, 890, 992, 1002, 1003. Plitt V. Cox, 43 Pa. St. 486—1435. Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise, 48 Kan. 484, 29 Pac. 699—561, 852. Plumb V. Campbell, 129 111. 101, 18 N. E. 790—739. Plumbe V. Neild, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 529 (I860)— 1195. Plummer v. Struby, etc. Co., 23 Colo. 190, 47 Pac. 294—1423. Plymouth v. Chestnut Hill, etc. Ry., 168 Pa. St. 181, 32 Atl. 19—2681. Plymouth v. Painter, 17 Conn. 588, 44 Am. Dec. 574—1737. oecii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Plymouth Bank v. Bank of Norfolk, 27 Mass. 454—1018, 1116. Hlymouth R. R. v. Colwell, 39 Pa. St. 337, 80 Am. Dec. 526—2725. Plympton Min. Co. v. Wilkins, 17 Weekly N. 66—315. Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry, 113 U. S. 322, 5 Sup. Ct. 525, 28 L. Ed. 1003— 1487, 1860, 1933. Pocahontas, etc. Co. v. Henderson, etc. Co., 118 N. C. 232, 24 S. B. 22—2335. Pocantico, etc. Co. v. Bird, 130 N. Y. 249, 29 N. B. 246—2763, 2784. Poche V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1287, 27 South. 797—1778. Pochelu V. Kemper, 14 La. Ann. 308, 74 Am. Dec. 433—526. Pocock V. Reddlngton, 5 Ves. Jr. 794 (1801)— 718. Point Pleasant, etc. Co. v. Borough of Bay Head, 62 N. J. Bq. 296, 49 Atl. 1108—2695, 2729, 2801, 2816. Pokork, etc. Co. v. Zizkovsky, 42 Neb. 64, 60 N. W. 358—28. Poland V. Lamoille, etc. R. R., 52 Vt. 144, 177—2100, 2121, 2189, 2307. Polar Star Lodge v. Polar Star Lodge, 16 La. Ann. 53—1386, 1594. Poley V. Lacert, 35 Oreg. 166, 58 Pac. 37—37, 1619. Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. R., 123 N. Y. 502, 26 N. B. 31—2053, 2591. Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. R., 50 Hun, 397, 3 N. Y. Supp. 327—2053. Polhemus v. Holland T. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 93, 45 Atl. 534—1873, 2163. Polhemus v. Holland T. Co., 61 N. J. Bq. 654, 47 Atl. 417—1873, 1988, 2163. Police Jury v. McDonough, 8 La. Ann. 341—246. Pollard V. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520, 22 L. Ed. 376—402, 404, 449, 453, 455. Pollard V. First Nat. Bank, 47 Kan. 406, 28 Pac. 202—1152, 1231. Pollard V. Maddox, 28 Ala. 321—2111, 2119. Pollard V. Pleasant Hill, 3 Dill. 195, 19 Fed. Cas. 944—2002. Pollard V. Reardon, 65 Fed. 848, 13 C. C. A. 171—883. Pollard V. State, 65 Ala. 628—1225. Polleys V. Ocean Ins. Co., 14 Me. 141 — 1827, 1830. Pollitz V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 53 Fed. 210—2176, 2497. Pollock V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 157 U. S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759—1245, 1498, 1550, 1934. Pollock V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 158 U. S. 601, 15 Sup. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108—1245, 1934. Pollock V. National Bank, 7 N. Y. 274, 57 Am. Dec. 520—836. Pollock V. Pollock, L. R. 18 Eq. 329 (1874)— 1198. Pollock V. Stables, 12 Q. B. 765 (1848) Q]_Q Q^O 029 Pollock' V. Shultze, 1 Hun, 320—1512. Pomeroy v. New York, etc. Co., 48 Atl. 395 (N. J.)— 2025, 2143, 2145. Pomeroy v. New York, etc. R. R., 4 Blatchf. 120, 19 Fed. Cas. 965—1953. Ponca Mill Co. v. Mikesell, 55 Neb. 98, 75 N. W. 46—1910, 1916, 1926. Ponchartrain R. R. v. Helrne, 2 La. Ann. 129—1834. Pond V. Cooke, 45 Conn. 126, 29 Am. Rep. 668—2427. Pond V. Framingham, etc. Co., 130 Mass. 194—1889, 2374. Pond V. Vermont Valley R. R., 12 Blatchf. 280, 19 Fed. Cas. 976-1868, 1910. Pondir v. New York, etc. R. R., 72 Hun, 384, 25 N. Y. Supp. 560—1528, 1910. Pontchartrain R. R. v. Paulding, 11 La. 41, 30 Am. Dec. 708—1689. Pontiac, etc. Co. v. Hilton, 69 Mich. 115, 36 N. W. 739—1424. Pbntiac Township v. Cobb, 104 Mich. 395, 62 N. W. 554—2752. Pontius, In re, 26 Hun, 232—1438, 2380. Poock V. Lafayette Bldg. Assoc, 71 Ind. 357—1625. Pool V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 7 Tex. Civ. App. 334, 27 S. W. 744—2463. Pool V. Simmons, 134 Cal. 621, 66 Pac. 872—2733. Poole V. Falls Road, etc. Ry., 88 Md. 533, 41 Atl. 1069—2693. Poole T. Middleton, 29 Beav. 646 (1861) —736, 753, 756, 1358. Poole V. West Point, etc. Assoc, 30 Fed. 513—630, 789, 1791. Poole's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 322 (1878) —272, 383. Pooley V. Budd, 14 Beav. 34, 43, 44 (1851)— 756. Pooley Hall Colliery Co., In re, 21 L. T. (N. S.) 690 (1869)— 1972. Pooley Hall, etc. Co., In re, 18 W. R. 201 (1869)— 2094. Pope V. Brandon, 3 Ala. (0. S.) 401, 20 Am. Dec. 49—1633. Pope V. Lake County, 51 Fed. 769—380, 2552, 2580. Pope V. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286—408, 451, 456. Pope V. Louisville, etc. Ry., 173 U. S. 573, 19 Sup. Ct. 500, 43 L. Ed. 814— 2401. Pope v. Terre Haute, etc. Co., 87 N. Y. 137—1954. Popper V. Supreme Council, 61 N. Y. App. Dlv. 405, 70 N. Y. Supp. 637— 2390. TABLE OF CASES. CCCUl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Port V. Russell, 36 Ind. 60, 10 Am. Rep. 5—1454. Portage City, etc. Co. v. City of Port- age, 102 Fed. 769—1959, 2538, 2767. Portage County v. Wisconsin Cent. R. R., 121 Mass. 460—246. Portal V. Emmons, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 664, 667 (1876)— 1376. Port Edwards, etc. Ry. v. Arpin, 80 Wis. 214, 49 N. W. 828—359, 390, 1021, 1030. Porter v.' Androscoggin R. R., 37 Me. 349—1805. Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410 —39, 705, 1837. Porter v. Beacon Constr. Co., 154 Pa, St. 8, 26 Atl. 216-^272, 608. Porter v. Blair, 83 Fed. 104—1706. Porter v. Buckfield Branch R. R., 32 Me. 539—2040. Porter v. Carpenter, 65 N. H. 650, 23 Atl. 523—230. Porter v. Lassen County, etc. Co., 127 Cal. 261, 59 Pac. 563—1486, 1754, 2146. Porter v. Metropolitan El. R. R., 120 N. Y. 284, 24 N. B. 454—2698, 2799. Porter v. Parks, 49 N. Y. 564—912, 959. Porter v. Pittsburg, etc. Co., 120 U. S. 649, 670, 672, 7 Sup. Ct. 741, 30 L. Ed. 830—1462, 1530, 2026, 2344. Porter v. Pittsburg Steel Co., 122 U. S. 267, 7 Sup. Ct. 1206, 30 L. Ed. 1210— 2294, 2339, 2344. Porter v. Raymond, 53 N. H. 519 — 235, 237. Porter v. Robinson, 30 Hun, 209—1281, 1286, 1743. Porter v. Rockford, etc. R. R., 76 111. 561—1205, 1206, 1208. Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 13 Sup. Ct. 1008, 37 L. Ed. 815—1899, 2406. Porter v. Sawyer, 1 Harr. (Del.) 517 — 768. Porter v. Sherman, etc. Co., 36 Neb. 271, 54 N. W. 424—498. Porter v. Viets, 1 Biss. 177, 19 Fed. Cas. 1077—776. Porter v. Winona, etc. Co., 78 Minn. 210, 80 N. W. 965—642. Porter v. Wormser, 94 N. Y. 431, 450— 764, 907, 909. Port Gibson v. Moore, 21 Miss. 157 — 1433, 1578. Port Huron, etc. Ry. v. St. Clair Circuit Judge, 31 Mich. 456—1921, 2383. Port Jefferson Bank v. Darling, 91 Hun, 236, 36 N. Y. Supp. 153—1423. Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. Y. 550—1837. Port Jervis, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 132 N. Y. 439, 30 N. E. 855—2564. ! Portland Bank v. Storer, 7 Mass. 433 — 1625. Portland Dry Dock, etc. Co. v. Trustees of Portland, 12 B. Mon. (Ky.) 77— 1393. Portland, etc. Co. v. Bobb, 88 Ky. 226,. 10 S. W. 794—501, 1416. Portland, etc. Co. v. State, 135 Ind. 54,, 34 N. B. 818, 21 L. R. A. 639—2734. Portland, etc. R. R. v. Deefing, 78 Me. 61, 2 Atl. 670, 57 Am. Rep. 784—2602. Portland, etc. R. R. v. Graham, 52 Mass. 1 — 295. Portland, etc. R. R. v. Grand, etc. R. R., 46 Me. 69—2602. Portland, etc. R. R. v. Hartford, 58 Me. 23—237, 263 Portland, etc. R. R. v. Spillman, 23 Or. 587, 32 Pac. 688—359, 363, 365. Portneuf, etc. v. Western Loan, etc. Co., 59 Pac. 362 (Idaho)— 2154. Port of Mobile v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 84 Ala. 115, 4 South. 106, 5 Am. St. Rep. 342—2667. Port Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Staten Island, etc. R. R., 144 N. Y. 445, 39 N. B. 392—2706. Port Royal, etc. Ry. v. King, 93 Ga. 63, 19 S. E. 809, 24 L. R. A. 730— 2393. Port Royal R. R. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523—1874, 2650, 2652. Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, 10- Mass. 91—1951. Port Townsend Nat. Bank v. Port Townsend, etc. Co., 6 Wash. 597, 34 Pac. 597—1008. Portuguese, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 160 (1889)— 1750, 1752. Portuguese, etc. Mines, In re (1891), 3 Ch. 28—180. Portuguese, etc. Mines, In re, L. R. 42' Ch. D. 160 (1889)— 189, 1743. Portuguese, etc. Mines, In re, L. R. 45- Ch. D. 16 (1890)— 190, 1744, 1752. Post V. Beacon, etc! Co., 84 Fed. 371, 28 C. C. A. 431—1567, 1852, 2555, Post V. Emmett, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 477, 58 N. Y. Supp. 129—862, 929, 972. Post V. Pulaski County, 49 Fed. 628, 1 C. C. A. 405—243. Post V. Simmons, 9 N. Y. Supp. 112 — 973. Post V. Southern Ry., 103 Tenn. 184, 52 S. W. 301, 306, 55 L. R. A. 481— 1054, 2594, 2642, 2643, 2844. Post V. Supervisors, 105 TJ. S. 667, 25- L. Ed. 1204—242. Post V. Toledo, etc. R. R., 144 Mass. 341, 11 N. E. 540, 59 Am. Rep. 86— 457, 470, 1095, 1111. Postage Stamp, etc. Co., In re (1892) 3 Ch. 566—1468. CCCIV TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Postal, etc. Co. V. City of Richmond, 99 Va. 102, 37 S. E. 789—2841. Postal, etc. Co. v. Cleveland, etc. Co., 94 Fed. 234—2629, 2632, 2804, 2806. Postal, etc. Co. v. Baton, 170 111. 513, 49 N. E. 365^ 39 L. R. A. 722, 62 Am. St. Rep. 390—2693, 2794, 2798. Postal, etc. Co. v. Farmville, etc. R. R., 96 Va. 661, 32 S. B. 468—2804. Postal, etc. Co. v. Jones, 32 South. 500 (Ala.)— 2828. Postal, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, etc. R. R., 49 La. Ann. 1270, 22 South. 219— 2807. Postal, etc. Co. v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 54 S. W. 727 (Ky.)— 2805. Postal, etc. Co. v. Morgan's, etc. R. R., 49 La. Ann. 58, 21 South. 183—2804. Postal, etc. Co. v. Oregon, etc. Co., 104 Fed. 623—2806. Postal, etc. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 114 Fed. 787—1541, 2805, 2806. Postal, etc. Co. v. Vane, 80 Fed. 961, 26 C. C. A. 342—2345, 2457. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 15 Sup. Ct. 268, 39 L. Ed. 311 —1242, 2838. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 71 Miss. 555, 14 South. 36, 42 Am. St. Rep. 476—2838. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482, 15 Sup. Ct. 192, 39 L. Ed. 231—1958. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Alabama, etc. Ry., 68 Miss. 314, 8 South. 375—2807. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 79 Md. 502, 29 Atl. 819, 24 .L. R. A. 161— 2840. Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692, 14 Sup. Ct. 1094, 38 L. Ed. 871—1242, 2839, 2841. Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Charleston, 56 Fed. 419—2839. Postal Tel. Co. v. Bruen, 39 N. Y. Supp. 220—2796. Postal Tel. etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 66 N. E. 919 (Ind.)— 2804. Postal Tel. etc. Co. v. Oregon, etc. R. R., 23 Utah, 474, 65 Pac. 735—1541, 2805, 2806. Postal Tel. etc. Co. v. Southern Ry., 89 Fed. 190—2805. Postal Tel. etc. Co. v. Southern Ry., 90 Fed. 30—2803. Postlewaite v. Port Phillip, etc. Co., L. R. 43 Ch. D. 452, 552 (1889)— 1564, 2528. Postmaster-General v. Corporation of London, 78 L. T. Rep. 120 (1898) — 2676. Potomac Mfg. Co. v. Bvans, 84 Va. 717, 6 S. E. 2—2248. Pott V. Flather, 5 Railw. & Can. Cas. 85 (1847)— 1256, 1260. Pott V. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535, 36 Atl. 592, 35 L. R. A. 392, 57 Am. St. Rep. 415—1545. Pott V. Turner, 6 Ring. 702, 706 (1830) —903. Potter V. Baker, 13 Beav. 273 (1851) — 659. Potter V. Bank of Ithaca, 5 Hill, 490, 7 Hill, 530—1624. Potter V. Collis, 156 N. Y. 16, 50 N. E. 413—2660. Potter V. Dear, 95 Cal. 578, 30 Pac. 777 —408. Potter V. Necedah, etc. Co., 105 Wis. 25, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118—85, 115, 131, 635, 1266. Potter V. New York Inf. Asylum, 44 Hun, 367—1774, 1787. Potter V. Rio Arriba, etc. Co., 4 N. M. 322, 17 Pac. 609—1669. Potter V. Stevens Machine Co., 127 Mass. 592, 34 Am. Rep. 428—442, 449. Potter V. Thornton, 7 R. I. 252—1660. Potteries, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 67 (1869)— 59L Potteries, etc. Ry. v. Minor, L. R. 6 Ch. 621 (1871)— 2096. Potter's Appeal, 56 Conn. 1, 12 Atl. 513, 7 Am. St. Rep. 272—716. Potts V. New Jersey Arms, etc. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 395, 516—2380. Potts V. St. Paul, etc. Assoc, 84 Minn. 217, 87 N. W. 604—486. Potts V. Wallace, 146 TJ. S. 689, 13 Sup. Ct. 196, 36 L. Ed. 1135—272, 350, 1769. Potts V. Wallace, 32 Fed. 272—380. Potts V. Warwich, etc. Co., Kay, 142 (1853)— 2600, 2726. Pottsville V. People's Ry., 148 Pa. St. 175, 23 Atl. 900—2703. Potvin V. Denney Hotel Co., 26 Wash. 309, 66 Pac. 376—1492, 1887. Poughkeepsie, etc. Co., In re, 108 N. Y. 483, 15 N. E. 601—2724. Poughkeepsie, etc. Co. v. Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150—218, 1030. Pound, In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 137 (1889) —2097. Powder River Cattle Co. v. Custer County, 9 Mont. 145, 22 Pac. 383— 1680. Powder River, etc. Co. v. Lamb, 38 Neb. 339, 56 N. W. 1019—1793. Powell V. Adams, 98 Mo. 598, 12 S. W. 295 gi3 Powell V. Blair, 133 Pa. St. 550, 19 Atl. 559—940, 2107. Powell V. Conover, 75 Hun, 11, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1028—1766, 1842. Powell V. Dawson, 45 W. Va. 780, 32 S. E. 214—32, 508. Powell V. Jessopp, 18 C. B. 336 (1856) —767, 1079. TABLE OF CASES. CCCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Powell V. London & Prov. Bank (1893), 1 Ch. 610, 2 Ch. 555—722. Powell V. Macon, etc. R. R., 92 Ga. 209, 17 S. B. 1027—2704. Powell V. McCord, 121 111. 330, 12 N. E. 262—776. Powell V. Murray, 157 N. Y. 717, 53 N. E. 1130—82, 155, 1614. Powell V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. Dlv. 273, 38 N. Y. Supp. 233—82, 155, 1614. Powell V. Newburgh, 19 Johns. 284 — 1798. Powell V. North Missouri R. R., 42 Mo. 63—1434, 2587. ' Powell V. Oregonian Ry., 36 Fed. 726, 13 Sawy. 535, 2 L. R. A. 270—438. Powell V. Oregonian Ry., 38 Fed. 187, 13 Sawy. 543, 3 L. R. A. 201—417, 420, 438, 483, 1393. Powell V. Pennsylvania R. R., 32 Pa. St. 414, 75 Am. Dec. 564—2644. Powell V. Waldron, 89 N. Y. 328, 42 Am. Rep. 301—1072. Powell V. Willamette Valley R. R., 15 Or. 393, 15 Pac. 663—540, 1520. Power V. Cassidy, 79 N. Y. 602, 35 Am. Rep. 550—1063. Power V. O'Conner, 19 W. R. 923 (1871) —1931. Powers V. Blue, etc. Assoc, 86 Fed. 705—1729, 2223. Powers V. Inferior Court of Dougherty County, 23 Ga. 65—244. Powers V. Knapp, 158 N. Y. 733, 53 N. E. 1131—127. Powers V. Knapp, '85 Hun, 38, 32 N. Y. Supp. 622—127. Powers V. Knapp, 71 Hun, 371, 25 N. Y. Supp. 19—218, 571, 573. Powers V. Schlicht, etc. Co., 23 N. Y. App. Div. 380, 48 N. Y. Supp. 237— 1773. Powis V. Harding, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 533 (1857)— 336, 856. Powies V. Page, 3 C. B. 16, 24, 81 — 1840. Prall V. Hamil, 28 N. J. Eq. 66—731. Prall V. Tilt, 27 N. J. Eq. 393, 28 N. J. Eq. 479—727, 731, 732. Prall V. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 479—727, 850. Prairie Lodge v. Smith, 58 Miss. 301 — 1978. Prater, In re, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 481 (1888)— 657. Prather v. Western Union Tel. Co., 89 Ind. 501-^2802. Pratt V. American Bell Teleph. Co., 141 Mass. 225, 5 N. E. 307, 55 Am. Rep. 465—621, 772. Pratt V. Bacon, 27 Mass. 123—1878. Pratt V. Boody, 55 N. J. Eq. 175, 35 Atl. 1113—768. Pratt V. Boston, etc. R. R., 126 Mass. 443—619, 836, 837. Pratt V. Dwelling, etc. Ins. Co., 130 N. Y. 206, 29 N. B. 117—1495. Pratt V. Eaton, 79 N. Y. 449—1628. Pratt V. Finkle, 99 Ga. 616, 25 S. E. 941—1698. Pratt V. Goswell, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 706 (1861)— 1107. Pratt V. Hutchinson, 15 Bast, 511 (1812)— 1076. Pratt V. Jewett, 75 Mass. 34—1386. Pratt V. Machinists' Nat. Bank, 123 Mass. 110— 619. Pratt V. Meriden Cutlery Co., 35 Conn. 36—1105. Pratt V. Munson, 84 N. Y. 582—2526. Pratt V. Nixon, 91 Ala. 192, 8 South. 761—2256. Pratt V. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 Wis. 406, 62 N. W. 84—1585, 1792. Pratt V. Pratt, 33 Conn. 446—1160, 1162. Pratt V. Prouty, 104 Iowa, 419, 73 N. W. 1035, 65 Am. St. Rep. 472—738. Pratt V. Short, 79 N. Y. 437, 35 Am. Rep. 531—1624, 1627. Pratt y. Taunton Copper Mfg. Co., 123 Mass. 110, 25 Am. Rep. 37—836. Pratt V. Trustees, etc., 88 Md. 610, 42 Atl. 51—1666. Pratt V. Wilcox Mfg. Co., 64 Fed. 589 —1535. Pratte v. Enslow, 46 W. Va. 527, 33 S. E. 322—1158, 2090. Pray v. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430—762. Pray v. Todd, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 391, 75 N. Y. Supp. 947—1102, 1882. Pray's Appeal, 34 Pa. St. 100—715. Preachers' Aid Soc. v. Rich, 45 Me. 552 —67, 1071. Preble, v. Greenleaf, 61 N. E. 808 (Mass.) — 724. Precious, etc. Soc. v. Elsythe, 102 Tenn. 40, 50 S. W. 759—65, 1803. Premier C. Mfg. Co., In re, 70 Conn. 473, 39 Atl. 800—2492. Premier Steel Co. v. Yandes, 139 Ind. 307, 38 N. B. 849—2477. Prendergast v. Turton, 1 Y. & C. (Ch.) 98 (1841)— 297, 303. Prentice V. Geiger, 74 N. Y. 341—2778. Prentice v. U. S. etc. Steamship Co., 78 Fed. 106—398, 1574. Prentiss v. Cleveland Tel. Co., 32 W. L. Bull. 13 (Ohio)— 2847. Prentiss, etc. Co. v. Godchaux, 66 Fed. 234, 13 C. C. A. 420—1762, 1779, 1808, 2146. Prentiss, etc. Co. v. Whitman, etc. Co., 88 Md. 240, 41 Atl. 49—2395. Presbyterian Church v. Cooper, 112 N. Y. 517, 20 N. E. 352, 3 L. R. A. 468, 8 Am. St. Rep. 767—212. Presbyterian Cong. v. Carlisle Bank, 5 Pa. St. 345—858, 1115, 1130, 1248. OCCTl TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Presbyterian Soc. v. Auburn, etc. R. R., 3 Hill, 567—28. Presbyterian Soc. v. Beach, 74 N. Y. 72 212 Prescott V. Haughey, 65 Fed. 653—331, 1611. Prescott V. Hixon, 22 Ind. App. 139, 53 N. B. 391, 72 Am. St. Rep. 291— 1816. President, etc. v. Myers, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 12, 9 Am. Dec. 402—1807. President, etc. ,v. United, etc. Co., 93 Md. 138, 48 Atl. 723—2696, 2750. President, etc. v. Village of Canandai- gua, 96 Fed. 449—2760. Press V. Duncan, 100 Iowa, 355, 69 N. W. 543—777. Pressed, etc. Co. v. Eastern Ry. etc., 121 Fed. 609—2656. Press Printing Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 51 N. J. L. 75, 16 Atl. 173 —508. Prest V. Cole, 67 N. E. 246 (Mass.) — 749. Preston v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 36 Fed. 54, 1 L. R. A. 140—137, 437, 2008. Preston v. Cutter, 64 N. H. 461, 13 Atl. 874—1788. Preston v. Fire Extinguisher Mfg. Co., 36 Fed. 721—1958. Preston v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 2 Rail. Cas. 335—308. Preston v. Grand- Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327 (1840)— 201, 280, 1452, 1875. Preston v. Liverpool, etc. Ry., 5 H. L. Cas. 605 (1856), 17 Beav. 114, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 586 (1851)— 1714, 2648. Preston v. Loughran, 58 Hun, 210, 12 N. Y. Supp. 313—1645, 2412. Preston v. Marquette County, etc. Bank, 81 N. W. 920 (Mich.)— 1788. Preston v. Melville, 16 Sim. 163 (1848) —1195, 1196. Preston v. Missouri, etc. Co., 51 Mo. 43 1760. Preston v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 93 N. W. 136 (Neb.)— 2071. Preston v. Pangburn, N. Y. L. J., March 7, 1892—1002. Preston v. Preston, 95 U. S. 200, 24 L. Ed. 494—1861. Preston v. Southwick, 115 N. Y. 139, 21 N. E. 1031—2323. Preston v. Tumbridge, etc. Ltd., 88 L. T. Rep. 53—2302, 2395. Preston Nat. Bank v. George T. Smith, etc. Co., 84 Mich. 364, 47 N. W. 502— 1777. Prettyman v. Tazewell County, 19 111. 406, 71 Am. Dec. 230—244, 253, 260. Prewitt V. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176, 17 S. W. 356, 36 Am. St. Rep. 586—707, ' 809. Price v. Anderson, 15 Sim. 473 (1847> -1195, 1196. Price V. Dime Sav. Bank, 124 111. 317, 15 N. E. 754, 7 Am. St. Rep. 367— 946. Price V. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 58—277, 1751. Price V. Great Western, etc. Ry., 16 M. 6 W. 244 (1847)— 2061, 2096. Price V. Grover, 40 Md. 102 — 954. Price V. Holcomb, 89 Iowa, 123, 56 N. W. 407—1311, 1385, 1495, 1534, 1554, 2039. Price V. Hurley, 51 Atl. 339 (Pa.)— 809. Price V. Minot, 107 Mass. 49—755, 772. Price V. Morning, etc. Co., 83 Mo. App. 470—1145. Price V. Pine Mountain, etc. Co., 32 S. W. 267 (Ky.)— 673. Price V. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 34 111. 13, 36—194. Price V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.), 107—44. Price V. Whitney, 28 Fed. 297—571. Price V. Yates, 19 Fed. Cas. 1322—463. Price's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 421 — 520. Price & Brown's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 146 (1850)— 532. Pridham v. Weddlngton, 74 Tex. 354, 12 S. W. 49—783. Priest V. Essex Hat Mfg. Co., 115 Mass. 380—395, 425, 1186. Priest V. Glenn, 51 Fed. 400, 2 C. C. A. 305—390, 386, 555. Priest V. Glenn, 51 Fed. 405, 2 C. C. A. 311—386, 387. Priest V. White, 89 Mo. 609, 1 S. W. 361—109, 138, 330, 1877. Prime's Estate, N. Y. L. J., March 6, 1891—1191. Prime's Estate, In re, 136 N. Y. 347, 362, 32 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R. A. 713— 1670. Primrose v. Western U. Tel. Co., 154 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct. 1098, 38 L. Ed. 883- 2644, 2841. Prince v. Lynch, 38 Cal. 528, 99 Am. Dec. 427—475. Prince v. Quincy, 105 111. 138, 215, 44 Am. Rep. 785—2765. Prince, etc. Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 68 Minn. 121, 70 N. W. 1079—1132. Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's, etc. Co., 51 Hun, 443, 4 N. Y. Supp. 348—1946. Prince of Wales Ass'n Co. v. Harding, El., Bl. & E. 183 (1857)— 1822, 1824. Princess of Reuss v. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 (1871)— 1392. Princeton Bank v. Crozer, 22 N. J. L. 383, 53 Am. Dec. 254—994. Princeton MIn. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 7 Mont. 530, 19 Pac. 210—1669. Prindle v. Washington L. Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 614, 44 N. B. 1120—2523. TABLE OF CASES. CCCVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Prindle v. Washington L. Ins. Co., 73 Hun, 448, 26 N. Y. Supp. 474—1762, 2523. Pringle v. Eltringham, etc. Co., 49 La. Ann. 301, 21 South. 515—1386. Printing, etc. Co. v. Brantingham, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 280, 79 N. Y. Supp. 190—831. Printing House v. Trustees, 104 U. S. 711, 26 L. Ed. 902—1033. Pritchitt V. Nashville Trust Co., 96 Tenn. 472, 36 S. W. 1064, 33 L. R. A. 856—1192. Proctor V. San Antonio, etc. Ry., 62 S. W. 938 (Tex.)— 1580. Proctor V. Sidney, etc. Co., 8 N. Y. App. Div. 42, 40 N. Y. Supp. 454—1389, 1948. Proctor, etc. Co. v. Finley, 98 Ky. 405, 33 S. W. 188—1292, 1301, 1344. Produce, etc. Co. v. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577, 58 N. E. 162—1825, 1834. Proffitt V. Wye Valley Ry., 64 L. T. Rep. 669 (1891)— 2116, 2306, 2600. Pronik v. Spirits, etc. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97, 42 Atl. 586—592, 611, 1022, 1033. Prospect, etc. R. R., In re, 67 N. Y. 371—2565, 2569. Prosper, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 7 Ch. 286 (1872)— 1079. Prosser V. First Nat. Bank, 106 N. Y. 677, 13 N. B. 287—799. Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Osgood, 93 111. 69—172, 940, 1247. Prothro v. Mlnden Sem., 2 La. Ann. 939—1760. Prout V. Chisholm, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 54, 47 N. Y. Supp. 376—912. Prouty V. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 52 N. Y. 363—592, 2587. Prouty V. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 85 N. Y. 273—1874. Prouty V. Michigan, etc. R. R., 1 Hun, 655—603, 605, 606, 1874, 2207. Prouty V. Prouty, etc. Co., 155 Pa. St. 112, 25 Atl. 1001—535, 2472. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514, 7 L. Ed. 939—1218, 1234. Providence, etc. Co. v. Kent, etc. Co., 19 R. I. 561, 35 Atl. 152—342, 1574. Providence, etc. R. R., In re, 17 R. I. 324, 21 Atl. 965—2633. Providence, etc. R. R. v. Wright, 2 R. I. 459, 464—1215. Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R. I. 21, 55 Am. Dec. 621—2670, 2741. Providence Steam, etc. Co. v. Connell, 86 Hun, 319, 33 N. Y. Supp. 482— 476. Provident, etc. Co. v. Wilson, 25 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 53 (1866)— 283. Provident, etc. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 5 Sup. Ct. 1104, 29 L. Ed. 261- 1961. T Provident Inst. v. Boston, 101 Mass. 575, 3 Am. Rep. 407—1222, 1223. Provident Inst. v. Gardiner, 4 R. I. 484 —1215. Provident Sav. Inst. v. Jackson Place, etc. Rink, 52 Mo. 552, 557—426, 576, 1027. Provincial, etc. Co. v. Shaw, 9 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 553 (I860)— 557. Provincial Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 19 U. C. (Q. B.) 533—554. Provisional Municipality v. Northrup, 66 Fed. 689, 14 C. C. A. 59—2344. Provost V. Morgan's, etc. R. R., 42 La. Ann. 809, 8 South. 584—1080, 1421. Provost V. New Chester Water Co., 162 Pa. St. 275, 29 Atl. 914—2758. Pruyn v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 367—2061. Pruyne v. Adams, etc. Co., 155 N. Y. 629, 49 N. B. 1103—1811, 1983. Pruyne v. Adams Furniture, etc. Co., 92 Hun, 214, 36 N. Y. Supp. 361—1811, 1983. Pueblo, etc. Co. v. Allison, 70 Pac. 424 (Colo.)— 2459. Puget Sound, etc. R. R. v. Ouellette, 7 Wash. 265, 34 Pac. 929—211, 290. Pugh V. Fairmont, etc. Co., 112 IT. S. 238, 5 Sup. Ct. 131, 28 L. Ed. 684— 2064. Pugh V. Sharman's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 566 (1872)— 204, 209, 552. Pugh's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 566 (1872) — 580. Pulbrook V. Richmond, etc. Mining Co., L. R. 9 Ch. D. 610" (1878)— 1373, 1377. Pulford V. Detroit Fire Dep't, 31 Mich. 458—19. Pullan V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 4 Biss. 35, 20 Fed. Cas. 32—2115, 2117, 2158, 2159, 2166, 2303, 2307, 2308, 2309, 2364, 2438. Pullan V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 5 Biss. 237, 247, 20 Fed. Cas. 38—2303. Pullis V. Pullis Bros. etc. Co., 157 Mo. 565, 57 S. W. 1095—2123. Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. 10—1886, 1890. Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328, 24 L. Bd. 818—113, 532, 556, 630, 631, 1942, 1944. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co., 65 Fed. 158—2568. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. R., 11 Fed. 634, 3 McCrary, 645—683. Pullman's Car Co. v. Penn, 141 U. S. 18, 11 Sup. Ct. 876, 35 L. Ed. 613— 1242. Pullman's, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 171 U. S. 138, 18 Sup. St. 808, 43 L. Ed. 108—1596, 2568, 2577, 2788. CCCVIU TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. American L. & T. Co., 84 Fed. 18, 28 C. C. A. 263—2352. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 115 U. S. 587, 6 Sup. Ct. 194, 29 L. Ed. 499—683, 2586. Pulsford V. Rioliards, 17 Beav. 87 (1853)— 307, 322. Pulsifer v. Greene, 52 Atl. 921 (Me.)— 470, 485. Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 20 L. Ed. 557—2632. Pumphrey v. Threadgill, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 184, 28 S. W. 450—2119, 2738. Purcell V. British, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 465—1962. Purchase v. New York Exch. Bank, 3 Rob. (N. Y.O 164—706, 829, 855, 863, 888 Purdey's Case, 16 "W. R. 660 (1868) — 355. Purdom v. Ontario, etc. Deb. Co., 22 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 597 (1892)— 1311, 2140. Purdy V. Erie R. R., 162 N. Y. 42, 56 N. E. 508, 48 L. R. A. 669—2605. Purse V. Snaplin, 1 Atk. 414 (1737) — 655. Purser v. Eagle Lake, etc. Co., Ill Cal. 139, 43 Pac. 523—1733, 1762, 2146. Purton V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 3 La. Ann. 1932—1441. Pusey V. New Jersey R. R., 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 434—2014. Put-in-Bay, etc. Co. v. Ryan, 181 U. S. 409, 21 Sup. Ct. 709, 45 L. Ed. 927— 2228. Putnam v. Gunning, 162 Mass. 552, 39 N. E. 347—1508, 1913. Putnam v. Hutchison, 4 Can. App. 273, 45 Pac. 931—345, 636. Putnam v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 61 Fed. 440—2127, 2197, 2215, 2368, 2373, 2374. Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Blss. 365, 385, 20 Fed. Cas. 79, 86—208, 231, 393. Putnam v. Ruch, 54 Fed. 216—1428, 1896. Putnam v. Ruch, 56 Fed. 416—1904, 2790. Putnam v. Sweet, 1 Chand. (Wis.) 286, 334—1330. Putnam, etc. Bank v. Heal, 54 Fed. 577 —2405. Pyles v. Furniture Co., 30 W. Va. 123, 2 S. E. 909—1643. Pyle Works, In re (1891), 1 Ch. 173— 1645, 2116. Pyle Works, In re, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 534 (1890)— 277. Pynchon v. Day, 118 111. 9, 7 N. E. 65 —1104. Pyper v. Salt Lake, etc. Assoc, 20 Utah, 9, 57 Pac. 533—1500. Pyrolusite, etc. Co., In re, 29 Hun, 429 —1390. Q. Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. Co., 77 N. Y. App. Div. 168, 78 N. Y. Supp. 1019— 1808. Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, 1 N. E. 476, 52 Am. Rep. 662—830. Quay v. Presidio, etc. R. R., 82 Cal. 1, 22 Pac. 925—712, 845. Quebrada Ry. etc. Co., In re, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 363 (1889)— 611. Quae Drug Co. v. Plant, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 87, 67 N. Y. Supp. 10—12, 1577, 1776, 2013. Queen v. Bradford Nav. Co., 6 Best & S. 631—76. Queen, The, v. Eastern Counties Ry., 10 Ad. & El. 531 (1839)— 1410. Queen v. General Cemetery Co., 6 Bl. & B. 415 (1856)— 855. Queen v. Grand Canal, 1 Ir. L. R. 337 (1839)— 1105. Queen v. Grand Junction Ry., 4 Q. B. 18, 37—2639. Queen, The, v. Lancashire, etc. Ry., 1 El. & Bl. 228 (1852)— 1410. Queen v. Ledgard, 1 Q. B. 616 (1841)— 275. Queen v. Londonderry, etc. Ry., 13 Q. B. 998 (1849)— 270, 1124. Queen v. London, etc. Ry., 1 Q. B. 558, 591—2639. Queen v. United, etc. Tel. Co., 31 L. J. Mag. Cas. 166, 9 Cox, Cr. Cas. 137, 174 —2819. Queen v. Victoria Park Co., 1 Q. B. 288 (1841)— 275. Queenan v. Palmer, 117 111. 619. 7 N. E. 470, 613—454, 460. Queen City, etc. Co. v. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356, 30 S. W. 163—499, 1718. Queen City, etc. Co. v. McAden, 42 S. E. 575 (N. O— 313. Queen Ins. Co. v. State, 86 Tex. 250, 24 S. W. 397, 22 L. R. A. 483—1055, 1413, 2747. Queensbury v. Culver, 19 Wall. 83, 22 L. Ed. 100—244, 247, 249. Queen's College v. Sutton, 12 Sim. 521 (1842)— 654. Queen's Hotel, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 792 —2479. Queensland, etc. Co., In re, 58 L. T. Rep. 878 (1888); (1891) 1 Ch. 636; (1898) 1 Ch. 219—398. 2427. Quick V. Lemon, 105 111. 578—215, 474. Quill V. Empire, etc. Co., 92 Hun, 539, 34 N. Y. Supp. 470, 37 N. Y; Supp. 1149—2826. TABLE OF CAS?:S. CCCIX [The numbei's after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Quill V. Empire State, etc. Co., 159 N. Y. 1, 53 N. E. 679—2826. Quin V. Earle, 95 Fed. 728—2420. iQulnby v. Vermont Central, etc., 23 Vt. 387—2636. Quincey v. White, 63 N. Y. 370, 383— 1341. Quincey v. Young, 5 Daly, 327—1341. Quincy v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 94 111. 537—2327, 2671, 2685. Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241, 7 Sup. Ct. 520, 30 L. Ed. 624—1868, 1877, 1906, 1933. Quincy, etc. Co. v. Hood, 77 111. 68— 1833. Quincy, etc. R. R. t. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82, 103, 12 Sup. Ct. 787, 36 L. Ed. 632—2350, 2376, 2447. Quincy, etc. R. R. v. Morris, 84 111. 410—245. Quincy ' R. R. Bridge Co. v. Adams County, 88 111. 615—1205, 1233, 2650, 2651. Quiner v. Marblehead Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476—706, 846, 1357. Quinlan v. Houston, etc. Ry., 89 Tex. 356, 34 S. W. 738—9. Quinn v. Safe-Deposit, etc. Co., 93 Md. 285, 48 Atl. 835—1191. K. Rabe v. Dunlap, 51 N. J. Eq. 40, 25 Atl. 959—1042, 1858, 2562. Racine County Bank v. Ayers, 12 Wis. 512—233, 608. Racine, etc. Co. v. Joliet, etc. Co., 27 Fed. 367, 375—1832. Racine, etc. R. R. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 49 111. 331, 346, 349, 95 Am. Dec. 595—1418, 1419, 1801, 2279, 2501, 2587, 2651. Radebaugh v. Tacoma, etc. R. R., 8 Wash. 570, 36 Pac. 460—2151. Rae V. Grand Trunk Ry., 14 Fed. 401 —1675. Raeder v. Bensberg, 6 Mo. App. 445 —430. Raegener v. Brockway, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 166, 68 N. Y. Supp. 712—342. Raegener v. Hubbard, 167 N. Y. 301, 60 N. E. 633—371, 1417. Raegner v. McDougall, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 231, 53 N. Y. Supp. 484—357. RafCerty v. Bank of Jersey City, 33 N. J. L. 368—1425. Rafferty v. Buftalo, etc. Co., 37 N. Y. App. Div. 618, 56 N. Y. Supp. 288— 155, 692, 1051, 2009, 2735. Rafferty v. Central Traction Co., 147 Pa. St. 579. 23 Atl. 884, 30 Am. St. Rep. 763—2686, 2691, 2699, 2705. Rafferty v. Donnelly, 197 Pa. St. 423, 47 Atl. 202—1879, 1881. Ragan v. Aiken, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 609, 42 Am. Rep. 684—2607. Ragland v. Broadnax, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 401—596. Ragland v. McPall, 137 111. 81, 27 N. E. 75—1652, 1654. Rahm v. King Bridge Manufactory, 16 Kan. 277— 1799,, 2080. Rahn Township v. Tamaqua, etc. Ry., 167 Pa. St. 84, 31 Atl. 472—2683, 2701. Raht V. Atrill, 106 N. Y. 423, 13 N. E. 282, 60 Am. Rep. 456—2360, 2432, 2462, 2466. Raht V. Sevier Mining, etc. Co., 18 Utah, 290, 54 Pac. 889—303. Railroad v. Schutte, 103 V. S. 118, 26 L. Ed. 327—2121. Railroad v. Soutter, 13 Wall. 517, 20 L. Ed. 543—2002. Railroad Commission Cases, 116 V. S. 307, 6 Sup. Ct. 334, 29 L. Ed. 631— 2610, 2614. Railroad Commission Cases, 20 Fed. 270—2614. Railroad Com'rs v. Oregon, etc. Co., 17 Or. 65, 19 Pac. 702, 2 L. R. A, 195—2614. Railroad Com'rs v. Portland, etc. R. R., 63 Me. 269, 277, 18 Am. Rep. 208—2, 2602, 2603. Railroad Com'rs v. Symus Grocer Co., 53 Kan. 207, 35 Pac. 217—2614. Railroad Companies v. Schutte, 103 U. S. 118, 144, 26 L. Ed. 327—2026, 2028, 2263. Railroad Co. v. Bradleys, 7 Wall. 575, 19 L. Ed. 274—2192, 2489. Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748, 18 L. Ed. 859—2245. Railroad Co. v. Commissioners, 103 U. S. 1, 26 L. Ed. 395—1234. Railroad Co. v. Falconer, 103 U. S. 821, 26 L. Ed. 471—250, 254, 264. Railroad Cos. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 698, 24 L. Ed. 1091—1234. Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359, 25 L. Ed. 185—1237, 25S6. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65, 20 L. Ed. 354—2652. Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 IT. S. 168, 24 L. Ed. 423—1954. Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392, 415, 19 L. Ed. 117—1177, 1583, 1666, 2043, 2074, 2083, 2184, 2243, 2257, 2506, 2507, ,2508, 2524. Railroad Co. 'v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262, 19 L. Ed. 88—1233. Railroad Co. v. James, 6 Wall. 750, 18 L. Ed. 854—2307, 2309, 2340. Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5, 26 L. Ed. 643—2653. ' cccx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Railroad Co. v. Maine, 96 U. S. 499 (1877), 24 L,. Ed. 836—1040, 1236, 2585. Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 318, 324, 21 L. Ed. 297—2640, 2642, 2644. Railroad Co. v. Otoe County, 1 Dillon, 338, Fed. Cas. No. 2,667—244. Railroad Co. v. Otoe County, 16 Wall. 667, 21 L. Ed. 375—244, 247. Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 300, 21 L. Ed. 179—1219. Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584, 22 L. Ed. 173—2610. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 48 Ohio St. 219, 31 N. B. 743—445, 472, 568, 595. Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 17 L. Ed. 900—2293. Railroad Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405, 23 L. Ed. 136—2282. Railroad Co. v. Telegraph Co., 38 Ohio St. 24—2802. Railroad Co. v. Vance, 96 XJ. S. 450, 24 L. Ed. 752—1233. Railroad Co. v. White, 10 S. C. 155— 199. Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 722, 8 Sawy. 238—1229. Railway Companies v. Keokuk, etc. Co., 131 U. S. 371, 9 Sup. Ct. 770, 33 L. Ed. 157—2724. Railway Co. v. Allerton, 18 Wall. 233, 18 L. Ed. 233—619. Railway Co. v. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463, 25 L. Ed. 438—1932, 2636. Railway Co. v. Furnace Co., 49 Ohio St. 102, 30 N. E. 616—30, 2612. Railway Co. v. Jewett, 37 Ohio St. 649 —2383. Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 IT. S. 258, 24 L. Ed. 693—2640. Railway Co. v. Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 528, 25 L. Ed. 912—1235. Railway Co. v. Pratt, 89 U. S. 123, 22 L Ed. 827—2640. Railway Co. v. Sprague, 103 U. S. 756, 26 L. Ed. 554—1996, 2028, 2045, 2128. Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 283, 20 L. Ed. 571—1963, 2654. Railway Equip, etc. Co. v. Lincoln Nat. Bank, 82 Hun, 8, 31 N. Y. Supp. 44— 1790. Railway, etc. Co., In re (1899), 1 Ch. 108—119, 352. Railway, etc. Pub. Co., In re, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 98 (1889)— 122. Railway, etc. Pub. Co., In re, 68 L. T. Rep. 649 (1893)— 118. Railway, etc. Pub. Co., -In re, 71 L. T. Rep. 682 (1894)— 122. Railway Imp. Co., In re, 42 L. T. Rep. 206 (1880)— 1693. Railway Sleepers Supply Co., In re, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 204 (1885)— 1280. Rainey v. Laing, 58 Barb. 453 — 1667. Rainey v. Maas, 51 Fed. 580—1964. Raisbeck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 444—502, 1396. Raleigh v. Fitzpatrick, 43 N. J. Eq. 501, 11 Atl. 1—1490. Raleigh, etc. Ry. v. Glendon, etc. Co., 112 N. C. 661, 17 S. E. 77—2634. Raleigh, etc. R. R. v. Reid, 64 N. C. 155—1218. Raleigh, etc R. R. v.. Wake County Com'rs, 87 N. C. 414—1213. Raley v. Victor Co., 90 N. W. 973 (Minn.)— 1511. Ralls County v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 728, 26 L. Ed. 957—252, 254, 259. Ralph V. Shiawassee Circuit Judge, 100 Mich. 164, 58 N. W. 837—1925, 2179, 2369. Ralston v. Bank of California, 112 Cal. 208, 44 Pac. 476—679, 871, 1130, 1250, 1264. Ralston v. Washington, etc. Ry., 65 Fed. 557—2387. Ramsdell v. National, etc. Co., 104 Fed. 16—1110. Ramsden v. Boston, etc. R. R., 104 Mass. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 200—70, 73. Ramsey v. Erie Ry., 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 156—1622, 1879. Ramsey v. Erie Ry., 38 How. Pr. 193, 216—617. Ramsey v. Gould, 57 Barb. 398—1894, 1910. Ramsey v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313, 22 S. W. 719—317, 339. Ramsey v. Tod, 69 S. W. 133 (Tex.)— 505. Ramsgate, etc. Co. v. Montefiore, L. R. 1 Exch. 109 (1886)— 189, 190. Ramskill v. Edwards, L. R. 31 Ch. D. lOO (1885)— 1931. Ramwell's Case, 50 L. J. (Ch.) 827 (1881)— 134. ^and V. Columbia Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. 520—490. Rand v. Columbia Nat. Bank, etc., 94 Fed. 349, 36 C. C. A. 292—633. Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass. 461, 474, 15 Am. Rep. 121—1135, 1142, 1193, 1194. Rand v. Upper Locks and Canals, 3 Day (Conn.), 441—1953. Rand v. Whipple, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 62, 75 N. Y. Supp. 740—710, 758. Rand v. White Mountains R. R., 40 N. jj 170 288 398 Rand v. Wiley, 70 Iowa, 110, 29 N. W. 814—278, 752. Rand v. Wilmington, etc. R. R., H Phila. 502—2328. Randall v. Albany City Nat. Bank, 1 N. Y. St. 592—927, 1256, 1263. Randall v. Dudley, 111 Mich. 437, 69 N. W. 729—1726. TABLE OF OASES. CCCXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Randall v. Elwell, 52 N. Y. 521, 11 Am. Rep. 747—2151, 2308. Randall v. Evening News Assoc, 97 Mich. 136, 56 N. W. 361—77. Randall v. Rhode Island, etc. Co., 20 R. I. 625, 40 Atl. 763—643. Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. 60, 65, 10 Am. Dec. 193—1798, 1801, 1802, 1817. Randolph v. Board, etc., 63 N. J. L. 155, 41 Atl. 960—2694. Randolph v. East Birmingham Land Co., 104 Ala. 355, 16 South. 126, 53 Am. St. Rep. 64—716. Randolph v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 91 Tex. 605, 44 S. W. 70—2336. Randolph v. Larned, 27 N. J. Eq. 557 — 2380, 2599. Randolph v. Middleton, 26 N. J. Eq. 543 —2128, 2219. Randolph v. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 28 N. J. Eq. 49—2124, 2317. Randolph v. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457, 467, 10 Sup. Ct. 655, 34 L. Ed. 200—998, 999, 1013. Randolph v. State, 82 Ala. 527, 2 South. 714, 60 Am. Rep. 761—1094. Randolph v. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 11 Phila. 502, 20 Fed. Cas. 264—2114, 2197, 2235. Randolph County v. Post, 93 U. S. 502, 23 L. Ed. 957—252. Randt, etc. Co. v. New Balkis, etc. Lim., 85 L. T. Rep. 780 (1902)— 134, 301. Randt, etc. Co. v. Wainwright (1901), 1 Ch. 184—301, 1350. Ranger v. Champion, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 61—1109. Ranger v. Champion, etc. Co., 52 Fed. 609, 611—1908, 1921. Ranger v. Great Western Ry. Co., 5 H. L. Cas. 72, 86—70, 72, 311. Ranger v. Great Western Ry., 4 De G. & J. 74 (1859)— 1109. Hanger v. Thalman, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 5, 72 N. Y. Supp. 451—2291, 2519. Ranger v. Thalmann, 39 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 420, 80 N. Y. Supp. 19—2291. Hanken v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 98 Fed. 479—2690. Rankin v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 23 Sup. Ct. 553—533. Rankin v. Hop, etc. Co., 20 L. T. Rep. 207 (1869)— 239. Rankin v. McCullough, 12 Barb. 103— 985. Rankin v. Newark, etc. Assoc, 64 N. J. L. 265, 45 Atl. 622—1039, 1350. Rankine v. Elliott, 16 N. Y. 377—411, 412. Ransom v. Citizens' Ry., 104 Mo. 375, 16 S. W. 416—2687, 2702. Ransom v. Stonington, etc Bank, 13 N. J. Eq. 212—1805, 1939. Ransome v. Eastern Counties Ry., 1 Nev. & McN. 63, 71, 155 (1857, 1860) ; 1 C. B. (N. S.) 437 (1857)— 2607, 2608. Raphael v. Bank of England, 17 C. B. 161 (1855)— 2048. Rapid, etc. Co., In re, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 530, 44 N. Y. Supp. 539—1298. Rapley v. Klugh, 40 S. C. 134, 18 S. E. 680—1842. Rappleye, Matter of, 43 App. Div. 84, 59 N. Y. Supp. 338—1100. Raritan v. Port Reading R. R., 49 N. J. Eq. 11, 23 Atl. 127—2707. Raritan R. R. v. Delaware, etc Canal Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 546, 570—2628. Rashdall v. Ford, L. R. 2 Eq. 750 (1866)— 1619, 1975. Ratcliffl V. Davis, Yelv. 178 (1611) — 962. Ratcliff V. Mendelssohn, 87 L. T. Rep. 422 (1902)— 921. RatclifEe v. Davis, 1 Bulst. 29 (1611) — .958. Ratcliffe v. Pulaski, etc. Co., 69 Ark. 264, 63 S. W. 70—2749. Rathbone v. Parkersburg Gas Co., 31 W. Va. 798, 8 S. B. 570—1905. Rathbome v. Hatch, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 115, 80 N. Y. Supp. 347—929. Rathbun v. Northern, etc. Ry., 50 N. Y. 656—2035. Rathbun v. Snow, 123 N. Y. 343, 25 N. E. 379, 10 L. R. A. 355—1579, 1717, 1794, 1826. Rathburn v. Jones, 47 S. C. 206, 25 S. E. 214—979. ' Raton, etc. Co. v. Raton, 174 U. S. 360, 19 Sup. Ct. 719, 43 L. Ed. 1005—2767. Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411, 19 Sup. Ct. 719, 43 L. Ed. 1005—2838. Raub V. Blairstown Creamery Assoc, 56 N. J. L. 262, 28 Atl. 384—1769. Ravenswood, etc. Ry. v. Woodyard, 46 W. Va. 558, 33 S. B. 285—1504. Rawley v. Home, 3 Ring. 2 (1825) — 1845. Rawlings v. Hall, 1 Car. & P. 11—781, 912. Rawlings v. New Memphis, etc. Co., 60 S. W. 206 (Tenn.)— 1491, 1514, 1646, 1804, 1984, 2127. Rawlins v. Wickham, 3 De G. & J. 304 (1858)— 327. Ray V. Dillingham, 41 S. W. 188 (Tex.) —2455. Ray V. Foster, 53 S. W. 54 (Tex.) — 1614, 1662. Ray V. Powers, 134 Mass. 22—492, 1085. Ray County v. Vansycle, 96 U. S. 675, 24 L. Ed. 800—252, 254. Raymond v. Brodbelt, 5 Ves. Jr. 199 (1800)— 656. cccxu TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Raymond v. Clark, 46 Conn. 129—2320, 2323. Raymond V. Colton, 104 Fed. 219, 43 C. C. A. 501—763, 1163, 1345, 1864, 2013. Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447, 9 N. W. 525, 41 Am. Rep. 170—1341. Raymond v. Palmer, 41 La. Ann. 425, 6 South. 692, 17 Am. St. Rep. 398— 987, 1859. Raymond v. San Gabriel, etc. Co., 53 Fed. 883, 4 C. C. A. 89—333. Read v. BufEman, 79 Cal. 77, 21 Pac. 555, 12 Am. St. Rep. 131—1782. Read v. City, etc. Ry., 115 Ga. 366, 41 S. B. 629—2830. Read v. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co., 93 Tenn. 482, 27 S. W. 660—713, 968. Read v. Jaudon, 35 How. Pr. 303—906. Read v. Joannon, L. R. 25 Q. B. D. 300 (1890)— 2094. Read v. Lambert, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 428—921. Read v. Memphis, etc. Co., 64 S. W. 769 (Tenn.)— 2477, 2480. Read v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545—277, 1763. Reade v. Pacific, etc. Assoc, 40 Or. 60, 66 Pac. 443—1977. Readfield, etc. Co. v. Cyr, 95 Me. 287, 49 Atl. 1047—2755, 2845. Reading v. Consumers' Gas Co., 41 Leg. Int. 428—2740. Reading v. Wedder, 66 111. 80—269. Reading Industrial Mfg. Co. v. GraefE, 64 Pa. St. 395—431. Reading Iron Works, In re, 149 Pa. St. t82, 24 Atl. 202—196, 869. Reading Trust Co. v. Reading Iron Works, 137 Pa. St. 282, 21 Atl. 169, 170—1120, 1136, 1178, 1202, 1262, 2517. Ready v. Smith, 70 S. W. 484 (Mo.) — 1492, 1886, 1888. Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 tJ. S. 362, 14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014—2169, 2612. Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. B. 575, 62 N. E. 701— 598. Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 62 N. B. 701 (Ind.)— 1652, 1971. Real Estate, etc. Co. v. Bird, 90 Md. 229, 44 Atl. 1048—620, 622, 864, 867, 890. Real Estate Trust Co. etc. v. New Eng- land L. & T. Co., 93 Fed. 701—2100. Ream v. Hamilton, 15 Mo. App. 577 — 778. Reaveley's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 550 (1848)— 206. Reavely, Ex parte, 1 Hall & Tw. 118 (1849)— 206. Recamier Mfg. Co. v. Seymour, 5 N. Y. Supp. 648—1774, 1934. Rece V. Newport News, etc. Co., 32 W. Va. 164, 9 S. B. 212, 3 L. R. A. 572— 1675. Reciprocity Bank, In re, 22 N. Y. 9, 17 —204, 533, 543, 546, 549, 581, 631, 678 1036. Rector v. Hartford Deposit Co., 190 111. 380, 60 N. B. 528—1600, 1662. Redding v. Godwin, 44 Minn. 355, 46 N. W. 563—1258, 1265. Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056—783. Reddington v. Mariposa, etc. Co., 19 Hun, 405—1955. Redditt v. Singer, etc. Co., 124 N. C. 100, 32 S. E. 392—73. Red, etc. Club v. Red, etc. Club, 108 Iowa, 105, 78 N. W. 803—60, 1091. Tledfleld v. Wickham, L. R. 13 App. Cas. 467 (1888)— 2599. Reding t. Anderson, 72 Iowa, 498, 34 N. W. 300—1086. Redington v. Cornwell, 90 Cal. 49, 27 Pac. 40—477, 492. Redkey, etc. Co. v. Orr, 27 Ind. App. 1, 60 N. E. 16—23, 518, 519, 2734. Redlands, etc. Co. v. Redlands, 121 Cal. 365, 53 Pac. 843—2768. Redmond v. Dickerson, 9 N. J. Eq. 507 —1483. Redmond v. Enfield Mfg. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 332—1874. Redmond v. Hoge, 3 Hun, 171—2391. Red River Bridge Co. v. Clarksville, 1 Sneed (Tenn.), 176, 60 Am. Dec. 143 —2633. Red River, etc. Co. v. Smith, 7 N. Dak. 236, 74 N. W. 194—1835. Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 1 Sup. Ct. 434, 27 L. Bd. 251—255, 264. Red Wing Hotel Co. v. Friedrich, 26 Minn. 112, 1 N. W. 827—377. Reed v. Atlantic & P. R. R., 85 Fed. gg2 2087 Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 4 S. E. 587— 2417. Reed v. Bank of Newburgh, 6 Paige, 337—1308. Reed v. Boston Machine Co., 141 Mass, 454, 5 N. E. 852—607, 649. Reed v. Bradley, 17 111. 321—1634, 1807. Reed v. City of Anoka, 85 Minn. 294, 88 N. W. 981—2742, 2765. Reed v. Copeland, 50 Conn. 472, 47 Am. Rep. 663—663. Reed v. Hayt, 109 N. Y. 659, 17 N. E. 418—83, 87, 617, 1501, 1744. Reed v. Hayt, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 121— 83, 87, 617, 1501, 1744. Reed v. Head, 88 Mass. 174—1194. 1197. Reed v. Helols, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 1057 (N. J.)— 351, 598, 1650, 1823. 2249. Reed v. Home Sav. Bank, 130 Mass. 443, 39 Am. Rep. 468—74. TABLE OF OASES. CCCXIU [The ntinibers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Reed v. Johnson, 27 Wash. 42, 67 Pac. 381, 57 L. R. A. 404—1463, 2645. Reed v. Jones, 6 Wis. 680—1327. Reed v. Loosemore, 197 Pa. St. 261, 48 AU. 20—75. Reed v. Peper, etc. Co., 2 Mo. App. 82 — 2648. Reed v. Richmond Street R. R., 50 Ind. 2^2 182 371 Reed v. Schmidt, 72 S. W. 367 (Ky.) — 2509, 2513. Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 46 Neb. 168, 64 N. W. 701—1584. • Reed's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 565, 16 Atl. 100—145, 1973, 1993, 2018,-2345. Rees V. Conococheague Bank, 5 Rand. (Va.) 326, 16 Am. Dec. 755—1625, 1942. Rees V. Fernie, 13 W. R. 6 (1864)— 780. Rees V. Pellow, 97 Fed. 167, 38 C. C. A. 94—737, 1355. Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 14 Md. 271, 284, 74 Am. Dec. 536—1115, 1118, 1123, 1124, 1126, 1127. Reese v. Bank of Montgomery, 31 Pa. St. 78, 72 Am. Dec. 726—620, 623, , 624, 628, 1151. Reese River, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 (1869); L. R. 2 Ch. 604; L. R. 2 Eq. 264; 36 L. J. (Ch.) 385— 314, 316, 323, 325, 337. Reeve v. Dennett, 141 Mass. 207, 6 N. E. 378—789. Reeve v. Dennett, 145 Mass. 23, 11 N. E. 938—108, 785. Reeve v. First Nat. Bank, 54 N. J. L. 208, 23 Atl. 853, 16 L. R. A. 143, 33 Am. St. Rep. 675—1816. Reeve v. Harris, 50 S. W. 658 (Tenn.) —1511. Reeves v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 152 Pa. St. 153, 25 Atl. 516—2704. Reeves v. Scully, Walk. (Mich.) 248 — 2051. Reformed, etc. Church v. Brown, 17 How. Pr. 287—218. Reg. v. Aberdare Canal Co., 14 Q. B. 854 (1850)— 1280. Reg. V. Carnatic Ry., L. R. 8 Q. B. 299 (1873)— 543. Reg. V. Great Western Ry., 69 L,. T. 572 —2622. Reg. V. Justices of Shropshire,. 8 Ad. & B. 173 (1838)— 1280. Reg. V. Longton Gas Co., 29 L. J. Mag. Cas. 118—2734. Reg. V. Saddlers' Co., 10 W. R. 87 (1861)— 1099, 1108. Reg. V. Train, 31 L. J. Mag. Cas. 169— 2664. Reg. V. Wilts, etc. Canal Nav., 29 L. T. Rep. 922 (1874)— 1101, 1103. Regents', etc. Co., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 43 (1876)— 2005, 2098, Regents', etc. Co., In re, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 411, 427 (1875)— 1990, 2346, 2432. 2457. Regents', etc. Co., In re, 2 W. N. 79 (1867)— 17, 1752. Regents^ etc. Co., In re, 24 W. R. 687 (1876J— 1984, 2016. Regina v. Aldham, etc. Soc, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 365—1274. Regina v. Arnaud, 9 Q. B. 806 (1846) —69. Regina v. Birmingham, etc. Ry., 9 Car. & P. 469 (1840)— 1946. Regina v. Brown, 7 Cox, Cr. Cas. 442 — 818. Regina v. Carnatic Ry., 42 L. J. (Q. B.) 169 (1873)— 703. Regina v. Carnatic Ry., L. R. 8 Q. B. 299 (1873)— 866. Regina v. Cronmlre, 54 L. T. Rep. 580 (1886)— 911. Regina v. Esdaile, 1 F. & F. 213 (1858) —818. Regina v. Government, etc. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 422 (1878)— 1306. Regina v. Grand Canal, 1 Ir. L. R. 337 (1839)— 1107. Regina v. Great North, etc. Ry., 9 Q. B. 315—76. Regina v. Grimshaw, 10 Q. B. 747 (1847)— 1287. Regina v. Gurney, 11 Cox, Cr. Cas. 414 —818. Regina v. Legard, 1 Q. B. 616 (1841) —400. Regina v. Liverpool, etc. Ry^, 21 L. J. (Q. B.) 284 (1852)— 865, 868. Regina v. London, etc. Docks Co., 44 L. J. (Q. B.) 4 (1874)— 1107. Regina v. Manchester, 7 El. & B. 453 (1857)— 76. Regina v. Mariquita, etc. Min. Co., 1 El. & El. 289 (1858)— 1104. Regina v. Nash, 2 Den. Cr. C. 493 — 646. Regina v. Saddlers' Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 404 (1863)— 19. Regina v. Victoria Park Co., 1 Q. B. "288 (1841)— 400. Regina v. Wilts, etc. Canal Nav., 29 L. T. Rep. 922 (1874)— 1097. Regina v. Wing, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 80 (1855)— 1123. Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wis. 136, 85 N. W. 315—183, 204, 239, 307, 349, 457, 458, 489. Rehberg v. Tontine Surety Co., 91 N. W. 132 (Mich.)— 1580. Reichmann v. Manhattan Co., 26 Hun, 433—1112. Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel Co., 106 111. 439—36, 80, 492, 1394, 1652, 1715, 1741. Reid V. Allan, 4 Bxch. 326 (1849); 19 L. J. (Exch.) 39—436. CCCXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Reid V. Bank of Mobile, 70 Ala. 199— 1984, 2044. Reid V. Caldwell, 110 Ga. 481, 35 S. B. 684—793, 974, 988. Reid V. Caldwell, 114 Ga. 676, 40 S. E. 712—974, 1251. Reid V. Eatonton Mfg. Co., 40 Ga. 98, 2 Am. Dec. 563—519, 1174. Reid V. Kreling's Sons' Co., 125 Cal. 117, 57 Pac. 773—524, 1577. Reid V. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 94 Va. 117, 26 S. E. 428, 36 L. R. A. 274, 64 Am. St. Rep. 708—2690. Reid V. Northwestern R. R., 32 Pa. St. 257—1947. Reid's Case, 24 Beav. 318 (1857)— 206, 541. Reiff V. Western, etc. Tel. Co., 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 441—1383. Reiff V. Western Union Tel. Co., N. Y. D. Reg., Aug. 23, 1887—1884. Reifsnider v. American, etc. Co., 45 Fed. 433—1960. Reiger v. Beaufort, 70 N. C. 319—261. Reigner v. Spang, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 237, 39 N. Y. Supp. 127—713, 1249. Reille v. Reid, 28 Ont. Rep. 497 (1897) —1577. Reilly v. Freeman, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 560, 37 N. Y. Supp. 570—710. Reilly v. Oglebay, 25 W. Va. 36, 43— 1280, 1382, 1487. Reilly v. Penn. etc. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 459, 44 Atl. 161—2219. Reilly v. Philadelphia, etc. Ry., 109 Fed. 349—1961. Reimer, etc. Co. v. Rosenberger. 40 Leg. Ing. 381—558. Reimers v. Seatco Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 573, 17 C. C. A. 228, 30 L. R. A. 364— 1950. Reinach v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 58 Fed. 33—2202, 2225, 2520. Reinach v. Meyer, 55 How. Pr. 283 — 2496. Reineman v. Covington, etc. R. R., 7 Neb. 310—247. Reiner v, Crawford, 23 Wash. 669, 63 Pac. 516, 83 Am. St. Rep. 848—741. Reinhard v. Virginia, etc. Co., 107 Mo. 616, 18 S. W. 17, 28 Am. St. Rep. 441 —501, 1421. Relnhart v. Augusta, etc. Co., 94 Fed. 901, 36 C. C. A. 541—2450. Reining v. New York, etc. R. R., 128 N. Y. 157, 163, 28 N. E. 640, 14 L. R. j^ ^33 2688 Reis v. Rohde, 34 Hun, 161—1334. Reisert v. City of New York, 174 N. Y. 196, 66 N. E. 731—2763. Reiss, Matter of, 30 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 234, 62 N. Y. Supp. 145—1102. Reitenbaugh v. Ludwick, 31 Pa. St. 131, 141—1262. Relfe v. Life Ins. Co., 11 Mo. App. 374 —1213. Reliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sawyer, 160 Mass. 413, 36 N. B. 59—1682. Relley v. Campbell, 134 Cal. 175, 66 Pac. 220—1742, 2142. Rembert v. South Carolina Ry., 31 S. C. 309, 9 S. B. 968-1943. Remfrey v. Butler, 1 E., B. & B. 887 (1858)— 916. Remington v. King, 11 Abb. Pr. 278 — 479. Remington v. Samana Bay Co., 140 Mass. 494, 5 N. B. 292—397. Remington, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, etc. Co., 56 Fed. 287—2224. Remington, etc. Co. v. Watson, 49 La. Ann. 1296, 22 South. 355—2470. Remington Paper Co. v. London Assur. Corp., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 218, 43 N. Y. Supp. 431—1783. Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 581, 6 L. Ed. 166—914. Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Bxch. 292 (1850) —1700. Rennie v. Wynn, 4 Bxch. 691 (1849) — 1700. Rennyson v. Reifsnyder, 1 Pa. Dist. Rep. 758—750. Reno, etc. Co. v. Culver, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 129, 69 N. Y. Supp. 969—49, 102, 649. Renshaw v. Creditors, 40 La. Ann. 37, 3 South. 403—978. Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Barton, 16 N. Y. 457—290, 356. Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Wetsel, 21 Barb. 56—290, 360, 377. Rensselaer, etc. R. R. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137—1661, 2625, 2626, 2627. Rensselaer, etc. R. R. v. Miller, 47 Vt. 146—2476. Renville, Matter of, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 37, 61 N. Y. Supp. 549—1073, 2843. Reorganized Church, etc. v. Church of Christ, 60 Fed. 937—1077, 1671. Republican, etc. Mines v. Brown, 58 Fed. 644, 7 C. C. A. 412, 24 L. R. A. 776—18, 1392, 1558. Republic Ins. Co., In re, 3 Biss. 452, 20 Fed. Cas. 544—373, 374, 546, 677, 2743. Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Pollak, 75 111. 292—1215. Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 135 111.' 150, 167, 172, 25 N. E. 680, 12 L. R. A. 328—345, 413, 415, 670. Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 106 Fed. 337—1301, 1755, 1766. Renter v. Electric Tel. Co., 6 El. & B. 341 (1856)— 1820. Reuter v. Telegraph Co., 6 El. & Bl. 341—2842. Revere v. Boston, 123 Mass. 375—1207. TABLE OF OASES. CCCXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] . Hevere v. Boston, etc. Co., 32 Mass. 35j^ 1393 Hex V. Amery, 2 T. R. 515, 531 (1788) , 1393 Rex V. Ashwell, 12 Bast, 22 (1810) — 17, 23. Rex V. Babb, 3 T. R. 579 (1790)— 1106. Rex V. Bank of England, 2 B. & Aid. 620 (1819)— 1096, 1158. Rex V. Bank of England, 2 Doug. 524 (1780)— 865, 1246, 1247. Rex V. Bedford Level, 6 Bast, 356, 368 (1805)— 1736, 1737, 1738. Rex V. Birmingham Canal, 2 W. Bl. 708 (1780)— 1409. Rex V. Buckingham, 8 B. & C. 375 (1828)— 1109. "Rex V. Capper, 5 Price (Exch.), 217 (1817)— 45. Rex V. Carlisle, 1 Stra. 385 (1720) — 1744. Rex V. Chetwynd, 7 Barn. & C. 695 (1828)— 1285. Rex V. Clear, 4 Barn. & C. 899 (1825) —1096, 1103. Rex V. Coopers' Co., 7 T. R. 543 (1798) -21. Rex v. Dodd, 9 Bast, 516—1076. Rex V. Doncaster, 2 Burr. 738 (1759) — 1278. Rex V. Gardner, Cowp. 79 (1774)— 68. Rex V. Gray, 8 Mod. 358 (1825)— 1393. Rex V. Head, 4 Burr. 2515, 2521 (1770) —17, 19, 1349.^ Rex v. Hill, 4 riSrn. & C. 426 (1825)— 1276. Rex V. Hipswell, 8 B. & C. 466 (1828) —1846. Rex V. Hostmen, 2 Stra. 1223 (1745) — 1099, 1106. Rex V. Hughes, 7 B. & C. 708—9. Rex V. Katherlne Dock Co., 4 B. & Ad. 360 (1832)— 275. Rex V. Langhorn, 4 Ad. & El. 538 (1836); 6 Nev. & M. 203 (1836) — 1276. Hex V. Liverpool, 2 Burr. 723, 732 (1759)— 1075, 1278. Rex V. London Assur. Co., 5 B. & Aid. 899 (1822)— 1096. Rex V. London Assur. Co., 1 Dowl. & R. 510 (1822)— 865. Rex V. Miller, 6 T. R. 268 (1795) — 1752. Rex V. St. John Maddermarket, 6 East, 182—1252. Rex V. St. Katherine Dock Co., 4 B. & Ad. 360 (1832)— 400. Rex V. Spencer, 3 Burr, 1827, 1837 (1766)— 17, 19, 1349. Rex V. Stratton, 1 Campb. 549 (1809) —1076. Rex V. Tappenden, 3 Bast, 186 (1802) —21. Rex V. Theodorick, 8 Bast, 543 (1807) —1279, 1285. Rex V. Travannion, 2 Chitty, 366 — 1109. Rex V. Trevenen, 2 B. & Aid. 339 (1819)— 1296. Rex V. Vice Chancellor, 3 Burr. 1647 (1765)— 1809. Rex V. Webb, 14 Bast, 406 (1811)— 1076. Rex V. Westwood, 4 B. & C. 781—9. Rex V. Westwood, 7 Bing. 1 (1830) —17. Rex V. Wilts, etc. Canal Nav., 3 Ad. & EL 477 (1835)— 1103. Rex V. Winstanley, 8 Price, 180 (1820) —44. Rex V. Worcester, etc. Nav. Co., 1 Man. & R. 529 (1828)— 865. Reyburn v. Consumers', etc. Co., 29 Fed. 561—2360. Reynell v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. 517 (1846)— 1071, 1700. Reynolds v. Bank of Mt. Vernon, 158 N. Y. 740, 53 N. B. 1131—1120, 1158, 1646. Reynolds v. Bank of Mt. Vernon, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 62, 39 N. Y. Supp. 623— 1120, 1158, 1646. Reynolds v. Bridenthal, 57 Neb. 280, 77 N. W. 658—988, 1334. Reynolds v. Cridge, 1 Pa. Dist. 693 — 1395. Reynolds v. Feliciana Steamboat Co., 17 La. 397—428, 452. Reynolds v. Gallihar, etc. Co., 19 Nova Scotia Rep. 466—515. Reynolds v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 143 Ind. 579, 40 N. E. 410—2085. Reynolds v. Manhattan T. Co., 83 Fed. 593, 27 C. C. A. 620—1993, 2173, 2334, 2656. Reynolds v. Myers, 51 Vt. 444 — 739, 1944. Reynolds v. Scriber, 69 Pac. 48 (Oreg.) 763. Reynolds v. Simpson, 74 Ga. 454—, 1599. Reynolds v. Smith, 60 Neb. 197, 82 N. W. 627—1652. Reynolds v. Stark County, 5 Ohio, 204 —1665. Reynolds v. Touzalin Imp. Co., 62 Neb. 236, 87 N. W. 24—797, 830, 962, 1253. Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Eacock, 61 N. E. 732 (Ind.)— 2349. Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Martin, 42 S. E. 796 (Ga.)— 1919. Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Merchants', etc. Bank, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 67 N. Y. Supp. 397—641. Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Monroe, 45 La. Ann. 1024, 13 South. 400—246. CCCXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.J R. Frank Williams Co. v. U. S. etc. Co., 38 Atl. 990 (Md.)— 1940. Rhawn v. Edge Hill, etc. Co., 201 Pa. St. 637, 51 Atl. 360—26, 945, 1986. Rhey v. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 27 Pa. St. 261—183, 207, 215. RMnelander v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 172 N. y. 519, 65 N. B. 499—1996, , 2135, 2162, 2165. Rhlnelander v. National City Bank, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 11, 55 N. Y. Supp. 229—962. Rhode Island, etc. Co. v. Moulton, 82 Fed. 979—569. Rhode Island, etc. Works v. Conti- nental T. Co., 108 Fed. 5, 47 C. C. A. 147—2358. Rhodes v. Hilllgoss, 16 Ind. App. 478, 45 N. E. 666—2397. Rhodes v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 66 Fed, 512, 13 C. C. A. 612. 34 L. R. A. 742 —467. Rhodes v. Webb, 24 Minn. 292 — 1770. Rhoner v. First Nat. Bank, 14 Hun, 126—1966. Rhorer v. Middlesboro, etc. Co., 44 S. W. 448 (Ky.)— 2080. Rhos, etc. Co., In re, 17 W. R. 343 (1868)— 2098. Ribon V. Railroad Cos., 16 Wall. 446. 21 L. Ed. 367—1897, 2254, 2255, 2262. 2503. Ricaud v. Tyson, 78 Fed. 561—539. Rice V. Durham Co., 91 Fed. 433— 2416. Rice V. Gilbert, 173 111. 348. 50 N. E. 1087—1009. Rice V. Howard, 69 Pac. 77 (Cal.) — 434, 461. Rice V. Jerome, 97 Fed. 719, 38 C. C. A. 388—2342. Rice V. Merrimack Hosiery Co., 56 N, H. 114—470. Rice V. National Bank, 126 Mass. 300— 1396. Rice V. Peninsular Club. 52 Mich. 87, 17 N. W. 708—1724, 1732, 1798. Rice V. Rockefeller, 134 N. Y. 174. 31 N. E. 907, 17 L. R. A. 237, 30 Am. St. Rep. 658—859, 867, 868, 1050, 1406. Rice V. Rockefeller, 56 Hun, 516, 9 N. Y. Supp. 866—867, 1406. Rice V. Rockefeller, N. Y. Daily Reg., May 29, 1888—859. Rice V. Rockefeller, Supr. Ct. Sp. T., N. Y. L. X, April 26, 1894—1051. Rice V. Rock Island, etc. R. R., 21 111. 93—369, 1030. Rice V. St. Paul, etc. R. R.. 24 Minn. 464—2183, 2186. Rice V. Winslow, 62 N. E. 1057 (Mass.) 774. Rice V. Winslow, 65 N. E. 366 (Mass.> —774. Rice County Com'rs v. Citizens' Nat^ Bank, 23 Minn. 280—1226. Rice's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 168, 204 — 1476, 1530, 1984, 2115. Rich V. State Nat. Bank, 7 Neb. 201, 26- Am. Rep. 382—196, 1780. Richards v. Attleborough Nat. Bank, 148 Mass. 187, 19 N. E. 353, 1 L. E A. 781—1738. Richards v. Brice, 3 N. Y. Supp. 941. (Com. PI,)— 477. Richards v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 1 Hughes, 28, 20 Fed. Cas. 692—2201,. 2203, 2239, 2242, 2386. Richards v. Donagho, 66 111. 73—253. Richards v. Farmers', etc. Inst., 154 Pa. St. 449, 26 Atl. 210, 35 Am. St. Rep. 848—1738. Richards v. Haliday, 92 Fed. 798— 1653. Richards v. Halliday, 112 Fed. 86, 50' C. C. A. 133—1631, 2271. Richards v. Home, etc. Assoc, L. R. 6 C. P. 591 (1871)— 190. Richards v. Kinsley, 14 Daly (N. Y.),. 334—383. Richards v. Merrimack, etc. R. R., 4* N. H. 127—1800, 2106, 2113, 2179, 2183. Richards v. Minn. Sav. Bank, 75 Minn.. 196, 77 N. W. 822—509. Richards v. New Hampshire Ins. Co... 43 N. H. 263— 1637, 1656, 1693. Richards v. Overseers (1896), 2 Oh. 212—2343. Richards v. People, 81 111. 551—2386, 2422. Richards v. Rock Rapids, 31 Fed. 505- —1223. 1226. Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 162. 163—430. 441, 532, 571. Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43' N. W. 1102, 6 L. R. A. 457—1047, 1166. Richardson v. Chicago, etc. Co., 63' Pac. 74 (Cal.)— 104, 421. Richardson v. City of St. Albans, 72" Vt. 1, 47 Atl. 100—1217. Richardson "v. Clinton, etc. Co., 64 N. E. 400 (Mass.)— 1872, 1919. Richardson v. Emmett. 170 N. Y. 412,. 63 N. B, 440—663, 664. Richardson v. Emmett, 61 N. Y. App- Div. 205. 70 N. Y. Supp. 546—664, 835. Richardson v. Graham, 45 W. Va. 134, 30 S. E. 92—84, 1472. Richardson v. Green, 133 U. S, 30, 47,. 10 Sup. Ct. 280, 33 L. Ed. 516—117,. 1518. 1520, 1646, 1997. Richardson v. Kelly, 85 111. 491— 76S, TABLE OF CASES. cccxvn [The nambers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Richardson v. Loree, 94 Fed. 375, 36 C. C. A. 301—2254. Richardson v. Massachusetts, etc. As- soc, 131 Mass. 174—1659, 1660. Richardson v. Merritt, 74 Minn. 354, 77 N. W. 234, 407, 968—88, 381. Richardson v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 102 Fed. 780, 42 C. C. A. 619, 52 L. R. A. 67—2349, 2420. Richardson v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 102 Fed. 785, 43 Ci C. A. 583—2349, 2420. Richardson v. Norfolk, etc. Co., 37 W. Va. 641, 17 S. E. 195—2337. Richardson v. Olivier, 105 Fed. 277, 44 C. C. A. 468, 53 L. R. A. 113—36. Richardson v. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128—496, 505. Richardson v. Richardson, 75 Me. 570, 46 Am. Rep. 428—1191. Richardson v. Sibley, 93 Mass. 65, 87 Am. Dec. 700—2107, 2110, 2556. Richardson v. Swift, 7 Houst. (Del.) 137, 30 Atl. 781—1100. Richardson v. Treasure, etc. Co., 23 Utah, 366, 65 Pac. 74—162. Richardson v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 44 Vt 613—607, 1159, 1160, 1283, 2651. Richardson v. Wallace, 39 S. C. 216, 17 S. E. 725—1441. " Richardson v. Watson, 51 La. Ann. 1390, 26 South. 422—1836. Richardson v. Williamson, L. R. 6 Q. B. 276 (1871)— 1975. Richardson, etc. Co. v. Richardson, etc. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp. 52—61. Richardson's Case, L. R. 19 Eq. 588 (1875)— 206, 541, 552, 580. Riche V. Ashbury, etc. Co., Ii. R. 7 H. L. 653 (1875), L. R. 9 Exch. 224 (1874)— 2646. Richelieu Hotel Co. v. International, etc. Co., 140 111. 248, 29 N. E. 1044, 33 Am. St. Rep. 234—202, 214. Rlcheson v. People, 115 ill. 450, 5 N. E. 121—254. Richland County v. People, 3 lU. App. 210—258. Richmond v. Daniel, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 385—1207, 1211. Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27, 58, 7 Sup. Ct. 788, 30 1.. Ed. 864—433, 474, 481, 487, 537, 561, 571, 576, 1862. Richmond v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 604—1235. Richmond v. Scott, 48 Ind. 568—1227. Richmond v. Southern, etc. Co., 174 U. S. 761, 772, 19 Sup. Ct. 778, 43 L. Ed. 1162—2755, 2801. Richmond v. Union Steamboat Co., 87 N. T. 240—914. Richmond, etc. Coal Co., In re. 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 31 (Phila.)— 509. Richmond, etc. Co. v. Brown, 97 Va. 26, 32 S. E. 775—2622, 2715. Richmond, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc., 119 Fed. 709—1598. Richmond, etc. Co. v. Middletown, 59 N. Y. 228—2741. Richmond, etc. Co. v. Richmond, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 82—2763, Richmond, etc. Co. v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 68 Fed. 105, 15 C. C. A. 289, 34 L. R. A. 625—1537, 2333, 2348. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Alamance Co., 84 N. C. 504—1206. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Louisa R. R., 13 How. 71, 14 L. Ed. 55—2633, 2639. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481, 10 S. E. 749, 6 L. R. A. 849— 2645. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521, 24 L. Ed. 734—2673. Richmond, etc. Ry. v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 96 Va. 670, 32 S. E. 787—2705. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Snead, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 354, 100 Am. Dec. 670— 1813, 1976. Richmond, etc. R. R. v. Trammel, 53 Fed. 196—2614. Richmond, etc. Works v. Moragne, 119 Ala. 80, 24 South. 834—1818. Richmond Retail Coal Co., In re, 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 31 (Phila.)— 1054. Richmond's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 96 (1849)— 545, 668. Richmond's Case, 4 Kay & J. 305 (1858)— 294, 343. Richmondville Mfg. Co. v. Prall, 9 Conn. 487—47, 856, 1015. Richter v. Frank. 41 Fed. 859—764, 772. Richter v. Henningsan, 110 Cal. 530, 42 Pac. 1077—434, 492, 527. Richter v. Jerome, 123 U. S. 233, 8 Sup. Ct 106, 31 t. Ed. 132—2176, 2503. Ricker v. American Loan, etc. Co., 140 Mass. 346, 5 N. E. 284—1068, 2315. Ricker v. Collins, 81 Tex. 662, 17 S. W. 378—2655. Rickerson, etc. Co. v. Farrell, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 554, 23 C. C. A. 302—119, 120 136, 1649. Ricketson v. Galligan, 89 Wis. 394, N. W. 87—1418. Ricketts v. Birmingham St. Ry., Ala. 600, 5 South. 353—1829. Ricketts v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., W. Va. 433, 10 S. E. 801, 7 L. R. 354, 25 Am. St. Rep. 901-2581. Ricord v. Central Pacific R. R., 15 Nev 167—74, 2646. 62 85 33 A. Richmond, etc. Assoc, v. Clarke, 61 Me. Riddell v. Harmony Fire Co. 8 Phila. 351—184, 371. J 310—1075. CCCXVlll TABLE OF CA.SES. P?he numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Riddle v. Bedford, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 386, 392—1737, 1740. Riddle v. New York, etc. R. R., 39 Fed. 290—1958. Riddle v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 1 Pittsb. (Pa.) 158—248. Ridenour v. Mayo, 40 Ohio St. 9—497, 1085. Rider v. Bagley, 84 N. Y. 461—2303. Rider v. Fritchey, 49 Ohio St. 285, 30 N. E. 692, 15 L. R. A. 513—425, 438, 576. Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. Jr. 360 (1805) —662. Rider v. Morrison, 54 Md. 429—343, 576. Rider v. Vrooman, 12 Hun, 299—2303. Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach, 97 N. Y. 378—1344, 1590, 1592, 1604. Ridge Ave. Pass. Ry. v. Philadelphia, 181 Pa. St. 592, 37 Atl. 910—2721. Ridgefield, etc. R. R. v. Brush, 43 Conn. 86—233, 306, 307, 308, 364. Ridgefield, etc. R. R. v. Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375—239. Ridgely v. Dobson, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 118—1071. Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 256, 14 Am. Dec. 681— 1733, 1969, 1979. Ridley v. Plymouth, etc. Co., 2 Exch. 711 (1848)— 1751, 1782. Ridpath v. Sans Poll, etc. Co., 26 Wash. 427, 67 Pac. 229—1095, 1920. Riesner v. Gulf, etc. Ry., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S. W. 53, 33 L. R. A. 171, 59 Am. St. Rep. 84—2227. Riesterer v. Horton, etc. Co., 160 Mo. 141, 61 S. W. 238—633, 1283, 2139. Rigdon V. Walcott, 141 111. 649, 31 N. E. 158—815. Rigg V. Reading, etc. Ry., 191 Pa. St. 298, 43 Atl. 212—757, 1352. Riggs V. Commercial, etc. Ins. Co., 125 N. Y. 7, 25 N. E. 1058, 10 L. R. A. 684, 21 Am. St. Rep. 716—39. Riggs V. Cragg, 89 N. Y. 479—1191. Riggs V. Cragg, 26 Hun, 89—1191. Riggs V. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R., 16 Fed. 804—2028, 2046, 2165. Riggs V. Swann, 3 Cranch, C. C. 183, 20 Fed. Gas. 788—437, 1087. Riker v. Alsop, 27 Fed. 251—2500, 2513. Riker v. New York, etc. R. R., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 357, 72 N. Y. Supp. 168— 2835. RikhofC V. Brown's, etc. Machine Co., 68 Ind. 388—279, 293, 371. Riley v. Albany Sav. Bank, 36 Hun, 513—1796. Riley v. Hampshire County Nat. Bank, 164 Mass. 482, 41 N. E. 679—939. Riley v. Packington, L. R. 2 C. P. 536 (1867)— 1698. Riley v. Rochester, 9 N Y. 64 — 1660, 1663. Riley v. Treanor, 25 S. W. 1054 (Tex.) —320, 765. Rinesmith v. People's Freight Ry., 90 Pa. St. 262—307. Ring V. Johnson County, 6 Iowa, 265 — 2065. Ringler v. Jetter, 35 N. Y. Misc. 750, 72 N. Y. Srfpp. 362—761. Ringo V. Biscoe, 13 Ark. 563—1634. Ripley v. Evans, 87 Mich. 217, 49 N. W. 504—471. Ripley v. Sampson, 27 Mass. 371 — 425, 937. Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 50, 17 S. W. 1043—194, 515, 523, 870. Rio Grande, etc. Ry. v. Telluride, etc. Co., 63 Pac. 995 (Utah)— 1680. Rio Grande W. Ry. v. Telluride, etc. Co., 16 Utah, 125, 51 Pac. Rep. 146— 2587. Rippe v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 23 Minn. 18, 23—2771. Rische v. Texas, etc. Co., 66 S. W. 324 (Tex.)— 2692. Risk V. Kansas Trust, etc. Co., 58 Fed. 45—2422. Risley v. Howell, 57 Fed. 544—246. Risley v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 62 N. Y. 240, 248—1455, 1773. Risley v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 1 Hun, 202—1773. Ritchie v. Burke, 109 Fed. 16—946, 1987. Ritchie v. McMullen, 79 Fed. 522, 533, 535, 551, 25 C. C. A. 50—791, 951, 952, 976, 990, 1511, 1532, 1877, 1987. Ritchie v. Vermillion Min. Co., 1 Ont. L. Rep. 654 (1901)— 1559. Ritso's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 774 (1877) —190. Ritter v. Cushman, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 294 —924. Ritterband v. Baggett, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 67—1072. Ritterband v, Baggett, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 556—21. Rittenhouse v. Winch, 11 N. Y. Supp. 122—1526, 2139. Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Dawsons, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 19, 46 Am. Dec. 183—675. River Dun. Nav. Co. v. North Midland Ry., 1 Ry. Cas. 135, 153 (1838) — 1917. Rivers v. Oak, etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 762, 27 South. 118—1149. Riverton Ferry Co. v. McKeesport, etc. Co., 179 Pa. St. 466, 36 Atl. 186— 2733. Riverton Water Co. v. Hummel, 175 Pa. St. 575, 34 Atl. 851—193, 348, 2042. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the test.] Rives V. Dudley, 3 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 126, 67 Am. Dec. 231—1667. Rives V. Montgomery, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 92—276, 308, 313, 373. Rivington's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 10 (1876)— 2746. Roach V. Burgess, 62 S. W. 803 (Tex.) —338, 675. Roake v. American T. & T. Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 35, 2 Atl. 618—2793. Roan V. Winn. 93 Mo. 503, 4 S. W. 736—675, 1650. Roanoke Investment Co. v. Kansas, etc. Ry., 108 Mo. 50, 17 S. W. 1000— 2638. Roanoke St. Ry. v. Hicks, 96 Va. 510, 32 S. E. 295—1110. Robb V. Carnegie, 145 Pa. St. 338, 22 Atl. 649, 14 L. R. A. 329, 27 Am. St. Rep. 694—2777. Robbins v. Butler, 24 111. 387, 426— 1070, 1089. Robbins v. Waldo Lodge, 78 Me. 565, 7 Atl. 540—1090. Robert, etc. Min. Co. v. Omaha, etc. Co., 16 Colo. 118, 26 Pac. 326—1794. Roberts, Ex parte, 2 Macn. & G. 192 (1850)— 1699, 1700. Roberts v. Berdell, 52 N. Y. 644, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 177—1248. Roberts v. Cobb, 103 N. Y. 600, 9 N. B. 500—212. Roberts v. Demlng, etc. Co., Ill N. C. 432, 16 S. B. 415—1821. Roberts v. Denver, etc. R. R., 8 Colo. App. 504, 46 Pac. 880—2064. Roberts v. Easton, 19 Ohio St. 78— 2698 Roberts v. Hill, 23 Fed. 311, 23 Blatchf. 191—1632. Roberts v. Hill, 24 Fed. 571, 23 Blatchf. 312—1632. Roberts v. Missouri, etc. Co., 166 Mo. 370, 66 S. W. 155—2834. Roberts v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 32 Miss. 373—236, 283. Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. R., 158 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 756, 39 L. Ed. 873— 2630, 2798. Roberts v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 77 Wis. 589, 46 N. W. 800, 20 Am. St. Rep. 143—2825. Roberts' Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 84 — 664. Roberts' Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 407—1090, 1190. Roberts' Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 205. 2 Macn. & G. 192 (1850)— 233, 239. Roberts Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 62 Minn. 337, 64 N. W. 827—1698. Robertson v. Buffalo, etc. Bank, 40 Neb. 235, 58 N. W. 715—1594. Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243— 1591. Robertson v. National Steamship Co., 139 N. Y. 416, 34 N. B. 1053— 2642. Robertson v. Parks, 76 Md. 118—320,. 790. Robertson v. Rockford, 21 III. 451— 245, 251. Robertson v. Staed, 135 Mo. 135, 36. S. W. 610, 33 L. R. A. 203, 58 Am. St. Rep. 569—2398. Robertson v. Sully, 157 N. Y. 624, 52. N. B. 668—946, 979, 1129. Robertson v. Sully, 2 N. Y. App. Div.. 152, 37 N. Y. Supp. 935—946, 979. Robeson v. Central R. R., 76 Hun, 444,. 28 N. Y. Supp. 104—1950. Robins v, Embry, 1 Sm. & M. Ch..' (Miss.) 207, 258—1636. Robinson v. Adams, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 20, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1098—722. Robinson v. Addison, 2 Beav. 515 (1840)— 655. Robinson v. Alabama, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 268—2476. Robinson v. Alabama, etc. Co., 89 Fed. 218—2283. Robinson v. Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co., 6T Fed. 189—2283. Robinson v. Alabama Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. 12—2179, 2194. Robinson v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 66 Pa. St. 160—2318, 2423. Robinson v. Bank of Attica, 21 N. Y. 406—1638, 1891. Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65,. 109—266, 409, 477, 491. Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Gal. 379—244, 266, 435. Robinson v. Centenary, etc., 54 Atl.. 416 (N. J.)— 2656. Robinson v. Chartered Bank, L. R. 1 Bq. 32 (1865)— 1358. Robinson v. Dickey, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 70, 36 S. W. 499—339, 815. Robinson v. Dolores, etc. Co., 2 Colo. App. 17, 29 Pac. 750—105, 1655. Robinson v. Bdinboro Academy, 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 107—215. Robinson v. Fitchburg, etc. R. R., 73' Mass. 92—1830. Robinson v. Guaranty T. Co., 51 N. Y. App. Div. 134, 64 N. Y. Supp. 525 — 2267, 2278. Robinson v. Hall, 59 Fed. 648—1374, 1685, 1688, 2404. Robinson v. Hall, 63 Fed. 222, 12 C. C. A. 674—1688. Robinson v. Huidekoper, 98 Ga. 306, 25 S. B. 440—2424. Robinson v. Hunt, 4 Beav. 450 (1841) —659. Robinson v. Hurley, 11 Iowa, 410, 79" Am. Dec. 497—937, 975, 977. cccxx TABLE OF CASKS. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the te^.] Robinson v. Iron Ry., 135 U. S. 522, 531, 10 Sup. Ct. 907, 34 L. Ed. 276— 2254, 2255, 2504, 2514. Robinson v. Jewett, 116 N. Y. 40, 22 N. E. 224—1483, 1518. Robinson v. Jewett, 14 N. Y. St. Rep. 223—1483. Robinson v. Lamb, 126 N. C. '492, 36 S. E. 29—1024, 2724. Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 337—1434. Robinson v. Mollett, L. R. 7 H. L. 802, 818, 826 (1875), L. R. 7 0. P. 84, L. R. 5 C. P. 646—909, 913, 929. Robinson v. Newberne Nat. Bank, 81 N. Y. 385, 37 Am. Rep. 508—1633. Robinson v. New Berne Nat. Bank, 95 N. Y. 637—857, 1005, 1011, 1018, 1144, 1146, 1154, 1250. Robinson v. Norris, 6 Hun (N. Y.), 233 —910. Robinson v. Norris, 51 How. Pr. 442 — 910, 914, 923. Robinson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625, 2 L. R. A. 636—1951. Robinson v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 28 Fed. 340—2503. Robinson v. Piedmont Marble Co., 75 Fed. 91—2149, 2247. Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 32 Pa. St. 334, 72 Am. Dec. 792—308, 344. Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222, 24 Am. Dec. 212—1452, 1611. Robinson v. Southern, etc. Bank, 180 V. S. 295, 21 Sup. Ct. 383, 45 L. Ed. 536—534, 535, 548, 559, 686, 988. Robinson v. Southern Pac. Co., 105 Cal. 526, 38 Pac. 94, 722, 28 L. R. A. 773 —41. Robinson v. Spaulding, etc. Co., 72 Cal. 32, 13 Pac. 65—134, 289, 992. Robinson v. Turrentine, 59 Fed. 554 — 544. . Robinson v. W. Virginia L. Co., 90 Fed. 770—1869, 1895. Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 380— 1974, 2116. R,obinson, etc. Co. v. De Bautte, 50 La. Ann. 1281, 23 South. 865—1556. Robinson's Case, 6 De Or., M. & G. 572 (1856)— 537. Robira v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 45 La. Ann. 1368, 14 South. 214—2713. Robison v. Beall, 26 Ga. 17—670. Robison v. McCracken, 52 Fed. 726— 1461. Robotham v. Prudential Ins. Co., 53 Atl. 842 (N. J.)— 687, 693, 698, 1324, 1325, 1391, 1514, 1530, 1533. Robson V. Dodds, L. R. 8 Eq. 301 (1869)— 1895. Robson V. Smith (1895), 2 Ch. 118— 2097. Roby V. New, York, etc. R. R., 142 N. Y. 176, 180, 36 N. E. 1053—2636, 2638, 2803. Roby v. Smith, 131 Ind. 342, 30 N. B. 1093, 15 L. R. A. 792, 31 Am. St. Rep. 439—2160. Roby V. Title, etc. T. Co., 166 111. 336, 46 N. E. 1110—2387. Roby V. Yates, 70 Hun, 35, 23 N. Y. Supp. 1108—2638. Rochdale Canal Co. v. King, 2 Sim. (N. S.) 78 (1851)— 1860. Roche V. Coleman, 42 S. W. 739 (Ky.) —340. Roche T. Ladd, 83 Mass. 436—1682. Rochester v. Alfred Bank, 13 Wis. 432, 80 Am. Dec. 746—249. Rochester v. Barnes, 26 Barb. 657 — 1027. Rochester v. Bronson, 41 How. Pr. 78 —1922. Rochester, etc. Co., In re, 40 Hun, 172, 175—1301, 1330. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Browne, 55 N. Y. App. Dlv. 444, 66 N. Y. Supp. 867— 1758. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Paviour, 164 N. Y. 281, 58 N. E. 114, 52 L. R. A. 790 —641. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Phlneas C. Joel, , 41 N. Y. App. Div. 43, 58 N. Y. Supp. 346—2602, 2751. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Raymond, 158 N. Y. 576, 53 N. E. 507, 47 L. R. A. 246—554, 1130. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Raymond, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 600, 39 N. Y. Supp. 145 —576. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Roe, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 366, 40 N. Y. Supp. 72—170, 217. Rochester, etc. R. R., In re, 110 N. Y. 119, 17 N. E. 678—201, 2634. Rochester, etc. Ry., In re, 45 Hun, 126 —202. Rochester, etc. R. R., In re, 50 Hun, 29, 2 N. Y. Supp. 457—231. Rochester, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 110 N. Y. 128, 17 N. E. 680— 2636. Rochester, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 48 Hun, 190—1946. Rochester Ins. Co. v. Martin, 13 Minn. 59 (Gil. 54)— 15. Rochester Sav. Bank v. Averell, 96 N. Y. 467, 472—2107, 2138. Rochester Water Com'rs, In re, 66 N. Y. 413—2770. Rock V. Nichols. 85 Mass. 342—772, 1018. Rock Creek v. Strong, 96 U. S. 271, 24 L. Ed. 815—244. Rockefeller v. Merrltt, 76 Fed. 909. 22 C. C. A. 608, 35 L. R. A. 633—792, 1265. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Hockford, etc. Groc. Co. v. Standard, etc. Co., 175 111. 89, 51 N. E. 642, 67 Am. St. Rep. 205—1658. Rockford, etc. R. R. v. Sage, 65 111. 328, 16 Am. Rep. 587—1506, 1712. B.ockford, etc. R. R. v. Schunick, 65 111. 223—182. Rockford v. Canton, etc. Soc, 19 N. E. 710; 129 111. 440, 21 N. B. 794, 2 L. R. A. 420—2744. ilockingham, etc. Co. v. Burlingame, 67 N. H. 301, 31 Atl. 23—220. Hockland, etc. Co. v. Sewall, 80 Me. 400, 14 Atl. 939—358. ■Rockland "Water Co. v. Camden, etc. Co., 80 Me. 544, 15 Atl. 785, 1 L. R. A. 388—2763. Rock River Bank v. Sherwood, 10 Wis. 174, 78 Am. Dec. 669—1630. Rockville, etc. Bank v. Citizens', etc. Co., 72 Conn. 576, 45 Atl. 361—642, 2004, 2154. Rockville, etc. Co. v. Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C. 449, 20 Fed. Cas. 1080 —186, 187, 369. Rockville, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Maxwell, 2 Cranch, C. C. 451, 20 Fed. Cas. 1079—294. Rockwell V. Elkhorn Bank, 13 Wis. 653—1822, 1969, 1976. Rockwell V. Merwin, 45 N. Y. 166 — 2397. Rockwell V. Portland Sav. Bank, 31 Or. 431, 50 Pac. 566—2493. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank v. Bliss, 89 N. Y. 338—396, 397, 450, 471. Rodbourn v. Utica, etc. R. R., 28 Hun, 369—2491. Rodemacher v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R., 41 Iowa, 301, 20 Am. Rep. 592—2602. Rodgers v. Adriatic F. Ins. Co., 87 Hun, 384, 34 N. Y. Supp. 323—1446. Tlodney v. Southern R. R. Assoc, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 564—1511, 1512. Roebling v. Trenton, etc. R. R., 58 N. J. L. 666, 34 Atl. 1090, 33 L. R. A. 129—2690. Boebling's Sons Co. v. Butler, 112 Cal. 677, 45 Pac. 6—459. Roehm V. Horst, 178 V. S. 1, 20 Sup. Ct. 780, 44 L. Ed. 953—2657. Hogan V. Illinois, etc. Bank. 93 111. App. 39—168, 558. Rogan V. Watertown, 30 Wis. 259 — 249. Rogers, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 530—1737. Tlogers, Ex parte, L. R. 15 Oh. D. 207 (1880)— 777. Rogers, In re, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 428, 435, 48 N. Y. Supp. 175—1441. Tlogers, Matter of, 161 N. Y. 108, 112, 55 N. E. 393—31, 1161, 1192, 1441. Rogers's Case, L.. R. 3 Ch. App. 633. 637 (1868)— 190, 240. I Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 654, 18 L. Ed. 79—243. Rogers v. Burr, 97 Ga. 10, 25 S. E. 339 —226, 767, 2091. Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 31 S. B. 438, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50—179, 764, 767, 2090. Rogers v. Chambers, 112 Ga. 258, 37 S. E. 429—2090. Rogers v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 6 Abb. N. Cas. 253—2048. Rogers v. Citizens', etc. Bank, 93 Md. 613, 49 Atl. 843—599, 966, 2490. Rogers v. Danby Univ. Soc, 19 Vt. 187 —37. Rogers v. Decker, 131 N. Y. 490, 30 N. E. 571—462. Rogers v. Dexter, etc. R. R., 85 Me. 372, 27 Atl. 257, 21 L. R. A. 528— 430. Rogers v. Galloway P. College, 64 Ark. • 627, 44 S. W. 454, 39 L. R. A. 636— 212. Rogers v. Gould, 6 Hun, 229—767, 919. Rogers v. Gross, 67 Minn. 224, 69 N. W. 894—120. Rogers v. Haines, 96 Ala. 586, 11 South. 651—2399. Rogers v. Haines, 103 Ala. 198, 15 South. 606—2398. Rogers v. Hastings, etc. Ry., 22 Minn. 25—1506. Rogers v. Huntingdon Bank, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 77-1115, 1118, 1122, 1123, 1126. Rogers v. Jewell, etc. Co., 184 111. 574, 56 N. E. 1017—2074. Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. 237, 19 Am. Dec. 493—19. Rogers v. Lafayette Agri. Works, 52 Ind. 296—1875, 1910, 1917. Rogers v. Marriott, 59 Neb. 759, 82 N. W. 21—779. Rogers v. Michigan, etc. R. R., 28 Barb. 539—810. Rogers v. Nashville, etc. Ry., 91 Fed. - 299, 33 C. C. A. 517—1324, 1527, 1598, 1880, 1908, 2119, 2555, 2571. Rogers v. New Jersey Ins. Co., 8 N. J. Bci. 167—1005, 1012. Rogers v. New York, etc. Land Co., 134 N. Y. 197, 211, 32 N. E. 27—591, 1138, 1586, 1715, 1839, 2540. Rogers v. Oxford, etc. Ry., 2 De G. & J. 662 (1858)— 1892. Rogers v. Pell, 154 N. Y. 518, 49 N. E. 75—1640, 1649, 1722, 1760. Rogers v. Phelps, 9 N. Y. Supp. 886— 1138. Rogers v. Riley, 80 Fed. 759—2398. Rogers v. Rogers, etc. Co., 62 N. J. Eg. Ill, 50 Atl. 10—2286, 2288, 2439. Rogers v. Rogers, etc. Co., 49 Atl. 833 (N. J.)— 2288. CCCXXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the test.] Rogers v. Southern, etc. Co., 21 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 51 S. W. 26—1643. Rogers v. Van Nortwick, 45 Fed. 513 — 760,. 817, 1254. Rogers v. Van Nortwick, 87 Wis. 414, 58 N. W. 757—761. Rogers v. Wendell, 54 Hun, 540, 7 N. Y. Supp. 781, 8 N. Y. Supp. 515— 2469. Rogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598—1064, 2191 2499 2537. Rogers v. Wiley, 131 N. Y. 527, 30 N. E. 5g2 922 923 Rogers v. Wiley, 14 N. Y. Supp. 622— 923. Rogers, etc. Co. v. Fergus, 180 U. S. 624, 21 Sup. Ct. 490, 45 L. Ed. 702— 2618, 2768, 2769. Rogers, etc. Co. v. Fergus, 178 111. 571,. 53 N. E. 363—2618, 2768. Rogers, etc. Co. v. Simmons, 155 Mass. 259, 29 N. E. 580—1679. Rogers, etc. Co. v. Union, etc. Co., 134 Mass. 31—1812. Rogers, etc. Works v. Southern R. R., 34 Fed. 278—2075. Rogers Locomotive, etc. Works v. Kel- ley, 88 N. Y. 234—2060. Rogers Locomotive, etc. Works v. Kel- ley, 19 Hun, 399—2060. Rogers Locomotive Works v. Lewis, 4 Dill. 158, 20 Fed. Cas. 1134—2311. Rohrbacher v. Kleebauer, 119 Cal. 260, 51 Pac. 341—816. Roland v. Lancaster, etc. Bank, 135 Pa. St. 598, 19 Atl. 951—971. Rollins V. Clay, 33 Me. 132—1394, 1550. Rollins V. Shaver, etc. Co., 80 Iowa, 380, 45 N. W. 1037, 20 Am. St. Rep. 427—677, 1635, 1654, 1752. Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 N. Y. 309— 1262. Roman v. Dimmick, 115 Ala. 233, 22 South. 109—149, 2020. Roman v. Dimmick, 123 Ala. 366, 26 South. 214—149, 2020. Roman v. Fry, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 634—541. Roman v. Woolfolk, 98 Ala. 219, 13 South. 212—1905. Roman, etc. Asylum v. Emmons, 3 Bradf. (N. Y.) 144—657. Romare v. Broken, etc. Co., 114 Fefl. 194—2368. Rome, etc. R. R. v. Ontario, etc. R. R., 16 Hun, 445—1584. Rome, etc. R. R. v. Sibert, 97 Ala. 393, 12 South. 69—2285, 2322, 2358. Romeo v. Chapman, 2 Mich. 179 — 67. Rommerdahl v. Jackson, 102 Wis. 444, 78 N. W. 742—933, 1084, 1359. Rood V. Railway, etc. Assoc, 31 Fed. 62—1071. Rood V. Whorton, 67 Fed. 434—169. Rood V. Whorton, 74 Fed. 118, 20 C C. A. 332—169. Roofing, etc. Assoc, In re, 200 Pa. St. Ill, 49 Atl. 894—506. Roosa V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 28 N. Y. Misc. 387, 59 N. Y. Supp. 664—2595. Roosevelt Hospital v. Mayor of New York, 84 N. Y. 108—1239. Root V. Godard, 3 McLean, 102, 20 Fed. Cas. 1159—1820, 1980. Root V. Great Western R. R., 45 N. Y. 524—2640. Root V. Long Island R. R., 114 N. Y. 300, 21 N. E. 403, 4 L. R. A. 331, 11 Am. St. Rep. 643—2606. Root V. Merrlam, 27 Fed. 909—781. Root V. Olcott, 115 N. Y. 635, 21 N. E. 1116—1787. Root V. Olcott, 42 Hun, 536—1787. Root V. Sinnock; 120 111. 350, 11 N. E. 339, 60 Am. Rep. 558—426, 427, 569. Root V. Sweeney, 12 S. Dak. 43, 80 N. W. 149—1442, 2398. Root V. Wallace, 4 McLean, 8, 20 Fed. Cas. 1167—1627, 1820, 1?|0. Roots V. Williamson, L. R. 38 Ch. D. 485 (1888)— 722, 885. Rorke v. San Francisco Stock, etc. Board, 99 Cal. 196, 33 Pac. 881— 1072. Rorke v. Thomas, 56 N. Y. 559, 565— 481, 1136, 1186, 1437, 1566. Rose V. Barclay, 191 Pa. St. 594—174, 788, 868, 1142, 1144, 1148. Rose V. Brideport, 17 Conn. 243—2063. Rose V. Foord, 96 Cal. 152, 30 Pac. 1114 —752, 761. Rose V. San Antonio, etc. R. R., 31 Tex. 49—342. Rose V. Turnpike Co., 3 Watts (Pa.), 46—1394. Roseboom v. Whittaker, 132 111. 81, 23 N. E. 339—1653. Rosemond v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 62 Minn. 374, 64 N. W. 925—1791. Rosenback v. Salt Springs Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. 495, 506—289, 1116, 1134. Rosenbaum v. United States, etc. Co., 60 N. J. L. 294, 37 Atl. 595—1444. Rosenbaum v. United States, etc. Co., 61 N. J. L. 543, 40 Atl. 591—1444. Rosenberg v. Weekes, 67 Tex. 578, 4 S. W. 899—1223. Rosenfield v. Peoria, etc Ry., 103 Ind. 121, 2 N. E. 344, 53 Am. Rep. 500— 2644. Rosenkrans v. Lafayette, etc. R. R., 18 Fed. 513—618. Rosenstock v. Tormey, 32 Md. 169, 3 Am. Rep. 125—910, 913. Rosenthal v. Madison, etc. Co., 10 Ind. 358—63. Rosevelt v. Brown, II N. Y. 148, 152— 35, 532, 569. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXlll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text ] Rosewarne v. Billing, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 316 (1863)— 778. Ross V. Bank of Gold Hill, 20 Nev. 191, 19 Pac. 243—294, 389. Ross V. Borer, 2 John. & H. 469 — 659. Ross V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 77 111. 127, 134—1030. Ross V. Crockett, 14 La. Ann. 811 — 1747. Ross V. Estates Investment Co., L. R, 3 Ch. App. 682 (1868)— 314, 316. Ross V. Heckman, 84 Fed. 6 — 2225, 2418. Ross V. Kelly, 36 Minn. 38, 29 N. W. 591, 31 N. W. 219—94. Ross V. Lafayette, etc. R. R., 6 Ind. 297 — 272, 282, 284. • Ross V. Ross, 25 Ga. 297—1019. Ross V. Southwestern R. R., 53 Ga. 514, 532—727, 888. Ross V. Union Pacific Ry., Woolw. 26, 32 (1863), 20 Fed. Cas. 1245, 1247— 753, 759. Ross, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 72 Fed. 957—339, 410, 415, 615. Rossie Iron Works v. Westbrook, 59 Hun, 345, 13 N. Y. Supp. 141—3, 29. Rossiter v. Rossiter, 8 Wend. 494, 24 Am. Dec. 62 — 1976. Rossman v. Seaver, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 603, 58 N. Y. Supp. 677—1639. Rotch V. French, 176 Mass. 1, 56 N. B. 893, 79 Am. St. Rep. 292—2091. Rothchild v. Grand Trunk Ry., 19 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 53, 10 N. Y. Supp. 36— 1941. Rothchild v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 113 Fed. 476, 51 C. C. A. 310—681, 1527, 2268, 2505, 2571. Rothenberger v. Glick, " 22 Ind. App. 288, 52 N. E. 811—212. Rotherham, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 25 Ch. D. 103 (1883)— 1713. Rothmiller v. Stein, 143 N. Y. 581, 38 N. E. 718, 26 L. R. A. 148—787, 793, 806, 1611. Rothschild v. Grand Trunk Ry., 14 N. Y. Supp. 807—1942. Rothschild v. Rio Grande, etc. Ry., 59 Hun, 454, 13 N. Y. Supp. 361—2053, 2591. Rothwell V. Robinson, 39 Minn. 1, 38 N. W. 772, 12 Am. St. Rep! 608— 1911. Rothwell V. Robinson, 44 Minn. 538, 47 N. W. 255—1555. Rough V. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48—1680, 1722. Round Lake Assoc, v. Kellogg, 141 N. Y. 348, 36 N. E. 326—1764. Rounds V. McCormick, 114 111. 252, 29 N. E. 684—454. Roundtree v. Smith, 108 tJ. S. 269, 2 Sup. Ct. 630, 27 L. Ed. 722— 7«9. U Rouse V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 46 Ohio St. 493, 22 N. E. 293, 5 L. R. A. 378, 15 Am. St. Rep. 644—1641. Rouse, etc. Co. v. Detroit, etc. Co., Ill Mich. 251, 69 N. W. 511, 38 L. R. A. 794—84, 412, 1083. Rowe V. Leuthold, 101 Wis. 242, 77 N. W. 153—1647. Rowe V. Matteson, 7 N. J. Eq. 131 — 861. Rowe V. New York, etc. Co., 66 N. J. L. 19, 48 Atl. 523—2830. Rowell, Matter of, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 323, 61 N. Y. Supp. 382—708. Rowell V. Janvrin, 151 N. Y. 60, 45 N. B. 398—459. Rowland v. Apothecaries' Co., 47 Conn. 384—1979. Rowland v. Meader Furniture Co., 38 Ohio St. 269—369, 389. Rowland's Case, 42 L. T. Rep. 785 (1880)— 163, 173. Rowley's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 150, 9 Atl. 328—195, 207. Roxbury v. Central Vt. R. R., 60 Vt. 121, 14 Atl. 92—2388, 2414. Roy V. Henderson, 31 South. 457 (Ala.) —2732. Roy V. Scott, etc. Co., 11 Wash. 399, 39 Pac. 679—1515. Royal Bank v. Grand, etc. R. R,, 100 Mass. 445, 97 Am. Dec. 115—1805, 1806, 1809. Royal Bank v. Grand Junction R. R., 125 Mass. 490—1860. Royal Bank of India's Case, L. R. 7 Eq. 91 (1868); L. R. 4 Ch. App. 252 (1869)— 21, 23, 201, 532, 685, 686. Royal British Bank v. Turquand. 5 El. & B. 248 (1855)— 1824. Royal British Bank v. Turquand, 6 El, & B. 327 (1856)— 1822. Royal Exch. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 11 W. R. 592 (1863)— 915. Royal Ins. Co. v. Watson (1897), A. C. 1—1173. Royalton v. Royalton Turnp. Co., 14 Vt. 311—1820. Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc. Ry., 113 Fed. 531—2439, 2621. Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc. Ry., 120 Fed. 11—2461. Rozecrans Gold Mining Co. v. Morey, 111 Cal. 114, 43 Pac. 585—1375, 1378. Rozet V. McClellan, 48 111. 345, 95 Am. Dec. 551—975, 978. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788. 19 L. Ed. 566—1136. Rubey v. Shaln, 54 Mo. 207—250. Rubino v. Pressed, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 1050 (N. J.)— 692, 1623. Ruby v. Abyssinian Soc, 15 Me. 306 — 1799, 1830. CCCXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ruby, etc. Co. v. Gurley, 17 Colo. 199, 29 Pac. 668—1716. Ruby, etc. Co. v. Prentice, 25 Colo. 4, 52 Pac. 210—1505. Ruchizky v. De HaYen, 97 Pa. St. 202 —541, 770, 775, 779, 905. Rueker v. Morgan, 122 Ala. 308, 25 South. 242—761, 831, 870. Ruckert v. Grand, etc. Ry., 163 Mo. 260, 63 S. W. 814—2690. Rudd V. Robinson, 126 N. Y. 113, 26 N. B. 1046, 12 L. R. A. 473, 22 Am. St. Rep. 816—1484, 1648, 1842. Rudd V. Robinson, 54 Hun, 339, 7 N. Y. Supp. 535—1484, 1648. Rudge V. Bowman, L. R. 3 Q. B. 689 (1868)— 788. Rudolf V. Winters, 7 Neb. 125—781. Rudolph V. Southern Ben. League, 23 Abb. N. C. 199, 7 N. Y. Supp. 135— 1091, 1293. RufHn V. Orange County Com'rs, 69 N. C. 498—1220. Ruffner v. Welton, etc. Co., 36 W. Va. 244, 15 S. E. 48—1808. Rugely V. Robinson, 19 Ala. 404 — 547. Rugg V. Commercial Union Tel. Co., 66 Vt. 208, 28 Atl. 1036—2794. Ruggles V. Brock, 6 Hun, 164—338, 370, 411. Ruggles V. Fond du Lac, 53 Wis. 436, 10 N. W. 565—1225. Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 2 Sup. Ct. 832, 27 L. Ed. 812—2610. Ruggles V. Illinois, 91 111. 256—2610. Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R., 91 Fed. 5, 33 C. C. A. 299—2318, 2450. Ruland v. Canfleld Pub. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 913—1956. Rule V. Omega, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 326, 67 N. W. 60—397. Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 194 (1877)— 54, 886. Rumbough v. Southern Imp. Co., 106 N. C. 461, 11 S. B. 528—1781. Rummel v. Butler County, 93 Fed. 304 —267, 1587, 2154, 2177, 2250, 2279. Rumney v. Detroit, etc. Co., 116 Mich. 640, 74 N. W. 1043—1920. Rumney v. Detroit, etc. Co., 89 N. W. 573 (Mich.)— 1156. Rumsey v. Berry, 65 Me. 570 — 779. Rumsey v. Lentz, 59 Ohio St. 189, 52 N. B. 189—990. Rumsey v. New York, etc. R. R., 203 Pa. St. 579, 53 Atl. 495 (Pa.)— 753, 1458, 1873, 2030, 2588. Rumsey v. People's Ry., 154 Mo. 215, 55 S. W. 615—2129, 2184, 2254,, 2285, 2511. Rumsey Mfg. Co. v. Kaime, 73 S. W. 470 (Mo.)— 150. Runge V. Franklin, 72 Tex. 585, 10 S W. 721, 3 L. R. A. 417, 13 Am. St. Rep. 833—1453. Runner v. Dwigglns, 147 Ind. 238, 46 N. E. 580, 36 L. R. A. 645—441. Runyan v. Coster, 14 Pet. 122, 129, 10 L. Bd. 382—1661, 1663, 1668, 1671, 1672. Ruohs V. Jarvls, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 513— 2179. Ruohs V. Third Nat. Bank, 94 Tenn. 57, 28 S. W. 303—647, 791. Rural, etc. Co. v. Wildes, 54 N. J. Bq. 668, 35 Atl. 896—129, 1320. Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619, 7 South. 384—272. Rush V. First Nat. Bank, 71 Fed. 102, 17 C. C. A. 627—969, 987, 989. Rush's Estate, 12 Pa. St. 375—715. Rushville v. Rushville Nat. Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. B. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321 —2735, 2736, 2740. Rushville Gas Co. v. Rushville, 121 Ind. 206, 23 N. B. 72, 6 L. R. A. 315, 16 Am. St. Rep. 388—1752. Rushville, etc. Co. v. Irvln, 27 Ind. App. 62, 59 N. B. 327—2754, ^842. Rusling V. Moses, 47 Atl. 1054 (N. J.) —1848. Rusling V. Union, etc. Co., 158 N. Y. 737, 53" N. B. 1131—1805, 2066. Rusling V. Union Pipe, etc. Co., 5 N. Y. App. Div. 448, 39 N. Y. Supp. 216— 1805, 2066. Russ V. Pennsylvania, etcT^Co., 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 109 (Pa.)— 2797. Russ V. Pennsylvania Telephone Co., 3 Pa. Dist. 654—2692. Russell V. Alabama Midland Ry., 94 Ga. 510, 20 g. B. 350—310, 390. Russell V. Allen, 107 U. S. 163, 2 Sup. Ct. 327, 27 L. Ed. 397—1667. Russell V. American, etc. Co.^ 62 N. E. 751 (Mass.)— 795, 1009. Russell V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 251—220. Russell V. East Anglian, etc. Ry., 3 Macn. & G. 104 (1850)— 2096, 2423. RusBBl! V. Easterbrook, 71 Conn. 50, 40 Atl. 905—560, 565. Russell V. Hooker, 67 Conn. 24, 34 Atl. 711, 35 L. R. A. 495—730. Russell V. Loring, 85 Mass. 121—1200. Russell V. McLellan, 31 Mass. 63, 69-9, 525, 1394, 1395, 1726. Russell V. Manhattan Ry., N. Y. D. Reg. Dec. 8, 1887—1112. Russell V. Pacific Ry., 113 Cal. 258, 45 Pac. 323, 34 L. R. A. 747—399, 466. Russell V. Post, 138 U. S. 425, 11 Sup. Ct. 353, 34 L. Bd. 1009—1574. Russell V. Rock, etc. Co., 184 Pa. St. 102, 39 Atl. 21—622, 624, 1532. Russell V. Temple (Mass. 1798), 3 Dane, Abr. 108, 110—41 TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Russell V. Texas, etc. Ry., 68 Tex. 646, 5 S. W. 686—1660. Russell V. Wakefield, etc. Co., L. R. 20 Eq. 474 (1875)— 1898, 1913, 2648. Russell, etc. Co. v. Hammond, etc. Co., 89 N. W. 590 (Mich.)— 1131. Russell's Case, 15 Sol. Jour. 790 (1871) —539. Russian Spratts, Lim., In re (1898), 2 Ch. 149—699. Rust V. United Water-Works Co., 70 Fed. 129, 17 C. C. A. 16—2412, 2429. Rust-Owen L. Co. v. Wellman, 10 S. Dak. 122, 72 N. W. 89—525. Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Or. 218, 29 Pac. 546, 17 L. R. A. 549, 29 Am. St. Rep. 596—523. Rutherford v. Massachusetts Mut. Ins. Co., 45 Fed. 712—983. Rutherford v. Pennsylvania Mid. R. R., 178 Pa. St. 38, 35 Atl. 926—2461. Rutland, etc. Co. v. Bates, 68 Vt. 579, 35 Atl. 480, 54 Am. St. Rep. 904— 1455, 1457, 1463. Rutland, etc. Co. v. Marble City, etc. Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 Atl. 635, 20 L. R. A. 82i, 36 Am. St. Rep. 868—2731. Rutland, etc. R. R. v. Lincoln, 29 Vt. • 206—209. Rutland, etc. R. R. v. Proctor, 29 Vt, 93, 95—1666, 2643. Rutland, etc. R. R. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536, 545—277, 281, 283, 284, 286, 287, 290, 291, 295, 296, 298, 299, 363, 587, 1029. Rutland R. R. v. Haven, 62 Vt. ^9, 19 Atl. 769—647, 1247. Rutledge, Ex parte, 1 Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 65, 14 Am. Dec. 696—1198. Rutten V. Union Pac. Ry., 17 Fed. 480 —2000, 2054, 2069, 2129. Rutter V. Tallis, 5 Sandf. 610—2423. Ruttman v. Hoyt, N. Y. L. J., July 19, 1890—759. Rutz V. Esler, etc. Mfg. Co., 3 111. App. 83—312, 377. Ryan v. Com'rs, 30 Kan. 185, 2 Pac. 156 —1214. Ryan v. Cudahy, 157 111. 108, 41 N. E. 760, 49 L. R. A. 353, 48 Am. St. Rep. 305—1072. Ryan v. Dunlop, 17 111. 40, 63 Am. Dec. 334—1789. Ryan v. Hays, 62 Tex. 42—2453, 2536. Ryan v. Leavenworth, etc. Ry., 21 Kan. 365, 403—682, 1146, 1455, 1853. Ryan v. McLane, 91 Md. 175—753, 754, 1345, 1366. Ryan v. Martin, 91 N. C. 464—65. Ryan v. Ray, 33 Alb. L. J. 321 (Ind.) — 1898. Ryan v. Seaboard, etc. R. R., 83 Fed. 889—761, 831, 1001, 1254, 2042. Ryan v. Seaboard, etc. R. R., 89 Fed. 385, 397—1328, 1368. Ryan v. Williams, 100 Fed. 172, 177— 681, 1488, 1917, 2573, 2583. Ryder v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 516, 521—197, 343, 347, 354, 584, 1150, 1328. Ryder v. Bushwick R. R., 134 N. Y. 83, 31 N. E. 251—640, 1765. Ryder v. Bushwick R. R., 10 N. Y. Supp. 748—870. Ryers v. Tuska, 14 N. Y. Supp. 926— 763. Ryerson v. Steere, 114 Mich. 352, 72 N. W. 131—1956. Ryland v. Commercial, etc. Bank, 127 Cal. 525, 59 Pac. 989—482. Ryland v. Hollinger, 117 Fed. 216, 54 C. C. A. 248—525, 1819. Rylander v. Sheffield, 108 Ga. Ill, 34 S. B. 348—1658. Ryle V. Ryle, 41 N. J. Eq. 582, 7 Atl. 484—788, 990. Ryman v. Gerlach, 153 Pa. St. 197, 25 Atl. 1031, 26 Atl. 302—795, 917. S. Sabin v. Bank of Woodstock, 21 Vt. 353—711, 1000, 1017, 1115, 1126. Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co., 25 Or. 15, 34 Pac. 692, 42 Am. St. Rep. 756— 1641, 1656, 2115. Sabine, etc. Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170, 40 S. W. 837—1590. Sachs V. Ashby & Co., 88 L. T. Rep. 393 (1903)— 954. Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Blake, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 225—383, 460, 480. Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Codd, 18 N. Y. 240—1627. Sacramento Bank v. Pacific Bank, 124 Cal. 147, 56 Pac. 787, 45 L. R. A. 863, 71 Am. St. Rep. 36—442, 478, 966, 2486. Sacramento, etc. R. R. v. Superior Ct., 55 Cal. 453—2186. Saddle River v. Colfax, 6 N. J. Law, 115—1798. Saddle River v. Garfield W. Co., 32 Atl. 978 (N. J.)— 2674. Sadler v. Lee, 6 Beav. 324 (1843) — 1251, 1260. Sadler v. Nicholson, 26 S. E. 893 (S. O— 487. Sadler's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 36 (1840^ —205, 543, 856. Safety, etc. Co. v. Baltimore, 74 Fed. 363, 20 C. 0. A. 453—1596, 1597. Safety, etc. Co. v. Smith, 65 111. 309— 1712. Saffold v. Barnes, 39 Miss. 399—310, 338 Safford v. People, 85 111. 558—2412. CCCXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Saftord v. Wyckofe, 4 Hill, 442—1627, 1819 1978 Sage, In re,' 70 N. Y. 220—1097, 1101, 1105, 1108, 2650, 2651. Sage, In re, 11 Hun, 1—1101. Sage V. Central R. R., 93 U. S. 412, 23 L. Ed. 933—2176. Sage V. Central R. R., 96 U. S. 712, 24 L. Ed. 641—2282, 2284. Sage V. Central R. R., 99 U. S. 334, 25 L. Ed. 394—2188, 2499, 2511, 2513. Sage V. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241, 41 N. E. 513—1093, 1457, 1524, 1863, 1910. Sage V. Culver, 71 Hun, 42, 24 N. Y. Supp. 514—1093, 1457. Sage V. Dillard, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 340, 357—1037, 1291. Sage V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 125 TJ. S, 361, 8 Sup. Ct. 887, 31 L. Ed. 694— 2304, 2305, 2364, 2371, 2372. Sage V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 18 Fed. 571, 5 McCrary, 643—2221, 2372. Sager, etc. Co. v. Smith, 45 N. Y. App. Dlv. 358, 60 N. Y. Supp. 849-2470. Sage's Case, 70 N. Y. 221—1108. Saginaw v. Swift E. L. Co., 113 Mich. 660, 72 N. W. 6—2839. Saginaw, etc. Co. v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. 529—2667, 2736. Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 466, 499 —113, 218, 274, 290, 1177. Sahlgard v. Kennedy, 2 J'ed. 295, 1 Mc- Crary, 291—2165, 2509. Saint V. Wheeler, etc. Co., 95 Ala. 362, 10 South. 539, 36 Am. St. Rep. 210— 1832. St. Albans v. National Car Co., 57 Vt. 68—1211, 1213. St. Andrews Bay Land Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Fla. 192, 54 Am. Dec. 340—1802. St. Cecelia's Academy v. Hardin, 78 Ga. 39, 3 S. E. 305—1940. St. Charles, etc. R. R. v. Assessors, 31 La. Ann. 852—1206. St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 1 Sup. Ct. 354, 27 L. Ed. 222—1952, 1954. St. Clair v. Rutledge, 92 N. "W. 234 (Wis.)- 1776. St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Mittlestadt, 43 Minn. 91, 44 N. W. 1079—624, 1494. St. George, etc. Co. v. Fritz, 48 N. Y. App. Dlv. 233, 62 N. Y. Supp. 775— 490, 1381. St. Helen Mill Co., In re, 3 Sawy. 88, 21 Fed. Cas. 161—1749, 2142. St. James' Church v. Church of Re- deemer, 45 Barb. 356 — 1513. St. James Club, In re, 2 De G., M. & G. 383 (1852)— 1071. St. James's Parish v. Newburyport, etc. R. R., 141 Mass. 500, 6 N. E. 749— 1785, 1801, 1809, 1977. St. Joe, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 10 Colo. App. 339, 50 Pac. 1055—642, 1516, 1645. St. John V. Erie Ry., 22 Wall. 136, 137, 22 L. Ed. 743—591, 595, 596, 1165. St. John V. Erie Ry., 10 Blatchf. 271, 279, 21 Fed. Cas. 167—595, 596, 1165. St. John, etc. Co. v. Cornwell, 52 Kan. 712, 35 Pac. 785—1798. St. Johns V. Steinmetz, 18 Pa. St. 273 —1807, 1810. St. Johns Mfg. Co. v. Munger, 106 Mich. 90, 64 N. W. 3, 29 L. R. A. 63, 58 Am. St. Rep. 468—313. St. Joseph V. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 39 Mo. 476—1234. St. Joseph V. Rogers, 16 Wall. 644, 21 L. Ed. 328—260, 261. St. Joseph V. Saville, 39 Mo. 460—2643. St. Joseph, etc. Co. v. Globe, etc. Co., 59 N. E. 995 (Ind.)— 1821. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Buchanan County Court, 39 Mo. 485—246. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 105, 12 Sup. Ct. 795, 36 L. Ed. 690—2447. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Ryan, 11 Kan. 602, 15 Am. Rep. 357—2647. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. St Louis, etc. Ry., 135 Mo. 173, 36 S. W. 602, 33 L. R. A. 607—2559. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557, 17 S. W. 581—6, 8. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 19 Kan. 225—2419. St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. Hedwig's Church (Del.), 50 Atl. 535—1977. St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. Hedwig's Church (Del.), 53 Atl. 353—1972. St. Joseph U. D. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., 89 Fed. 648, 32 C. C. A. 284 —2328, 2534, 2593. St. Lawrence, etc. R. R., In re, 133 N. Y. 270, 278, 31 N. E. 218—35, 2626. St. Lawrence Steamboat Co., In re, 44 N. J. L. 529, 540—1307, 1310, 1316, 1337, 1389, 1340, 1373. St. Louis V. Alexander, 23 Mo. 483, 528, 531—246, 1654. St. Louis V. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 622, 10 S. W. 197, 2 L. R. A. 278, 9 Am. St. Rep. 370—2819. St. Louis V. Risley, 28 Mo. 415, 75 Am. Dec. 131—1807. St. Louis V. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 70 Mo. 69, 98—1558, 2741. St. Louis V. St. Louis R. R.. 89 Mo. 44, 1 S. W. 305, 58 Am. Rep. 82— 2716. St. Louis V. Shields, 62 Mo. 247—1417. St. Louis V. Western, etc. Co., 148 U. S. 92, 101, 13 Sup. Ct. 485, 37 L. Ed. 380 —2665, 2814, 2840. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXVU [The numters after tjie dash refer to the pages of the text-l St. Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U. S. 465, 13 Sup. Ct. 990, 37 L. Ed. 810—2840. St. Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 166 U. S. 388, 17 Sup. Ct. 608, 41 L. Ed. 1044—2840. St. Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 Fed. 59—2840. St. Louis V. Western Union Tel. Co., 63 Fed. 68, 73—2816, 2840. St. Louis Breweries, Ltd. v. Apthorpe, 79 L. T. Rep. 551 (1898)— 1537. St. Louis, etc. Assoc, v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555—369: St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Boswortn, 73 Fed. 897, 20 C. C. A. 100—2306, 2549. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Consolidated, etc. Co., 32 Fed. 802—1957. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Harbine, 2 Mo. App. 134—1027. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Hilbert, 24 Mo. App. 338—673. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Illinois, 185 U. S. 203, 22 Sup. Ct. 616, 46 L. Ed. 872— 2604. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Jackson, 5 Cent. L. J. 317—1477. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Sandoval, etc. Co., Ill 111. 32—2385, 2395, 2431. St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Sandoval, etc. Co., 116 111. 170, 5 N. B. 370—293, 1850, 2503. St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co. v. Cohen, 9 Mo. 416—1953. St. Louis, etc. Loan Assoc, v. Augustin, 2 Mo. App. 123—1394, 1764. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Belleville City Ry., 158 111. 390, 41 N. B. 916—1431, 2634. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Berry, 113 U. S. 465, 5 Sup. Ct. 529, 28 L. Ed. 1055— 1237, 2586. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v Chenault, 36 Kan. 51, 12 Pac. 303—1520. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. City of Kirk- wood, 60 S. W. 110, 53 L. R. A. 300 (Mo.)— 2700. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Cleveland, etc. Ry., 125 U. S. 658, 673, 8 Sup. Ct. 1011, 31 L. Bd. 832—2357, 2446. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Dalby, 19 111. 353—74. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Dewees, 23 Fed. 519—2381, 2637. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 279—236, 237. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Foltz, 52 Fed. 627—2629. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Grove, 39 Kan. 731, 18 Pac. 958—1792. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Hill, 14 III. App. 579—2609. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Kerr, 153 111. 182, 38 N. E. 638—2332. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Kirkpatrick, 52 Kan. 104, 34 Pac. 400—1545, 1590. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Lewright, 113 Mo. 660, 21 S. W. 210—2629. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Loftin, 30 Ark. 693, 709—30. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Mathers, 71 111. 592, 22 Am. Rep. 122—2647. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Miller, 43 111. 199—2532. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. O'Hara, 177 111. 525, 52 N. E. 734, 53 N. E. 118—1501, 2356. St Louis, etc. R. R. v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 173 111. 508, 51 N. E. 382— 2806. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Southwestern, etc. Tel. Co., 121 Fed. 276—2803. St. .Louis, etc. R. R. v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 145 U. S. 393, 402-405, 12 Sup. Ct. 953, 36 L. Ed. 748—1847, 1855, 1860, 2548, 2551, 2552, 2570, 2573, 2578. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 33 Fed. 440—1860, 2551. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Tiernan, 37 Kan. 606, 15 Pac. 544—101, 1485, 1500. St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230, 36 S. W. 357, 658, 33 L. R. A. 341—2472. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Continental T. Co., Ill Fed. 669, 49 C. C. A. 529— 2356. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 657, 15 Sup. Ct. 484, 39 L. Ed. 567—2612. St. Louis, etc; Ry. v. Hannibal Union • Depot Co., 125 Mo. 82, 28 S. W. 483— 2634. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Jackson, 95 Fed. 560, 37 C. C. A. 165—2532. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. James, 161 U. S. 545, 16 Sup. Ct. 621, 40 L. Ed. 802— 1962, 1963, 2654. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Knott, 54 Ark. 424, 16 S. W. 9—2656. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Lyle, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 753, 26 S. W. 264—2336. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Mathews, 75 Tex. 92, 12 S. W. 976—2336. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Neel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 963—2594. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Paul, 64 Ark. 83, 40 S. W. 705, 37 L. R. A. 504, 62 Am. St. Rep. 154—2603. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Ryan, 56 Ark. 245, 19 S. W. 839—2612. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Weakly, 50 Ark. 397, 8 S. W. 134, 7 Am. St. Rep. 104— 2641. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Whitley, 77 Tex. 126, 13 S. W. 853—1962. St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Williams, 53 Ark. 58, 13 S. W. 796—1538, 3,725. CCCXXVIU TABLE -OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to th,e pages of the text.] St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Wilson, 114 IT. S. 60, 5 Sup. Ct. 738, 29 L. Ed. 66— 760, 1012. St. Louis Hospital Assoc, v. Williams, 19 Mo. 609—67. St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Allen, 5 Fed. . 551, 2 McCrary, 92—1967. St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Papin, 4 Dill. 29, 21 Fed. Cas. 203—1212, 1223, 1225. St. Louis P. Ins. Co. v. Goodfellow, 9 Mo. 149—847, 1115, 1117, 1118, 1123, 1131. St. Louis R. R. V. Northwestern, etc. Ry., 2 Mo. App. 69—1415. St. Louis R. R. V. Southern Ry, 105 Mo. 577, 16 S. W. 960—2673, 2710. St. Louis Stamping Co. v. Quinby, 5 Ban. & Ard. 275—1609. St. Louis T. Co. V. Des Moines, etc. Ry., 101 Fed. 632—2033, 2259, 2508. St. Louis Trust Co. v. Riley, 70 Fed. 32, 16 C. C. A. 610, 30 L. R. A. 456—2361. St. Luke's Church, In re, 41 Leg. Int. 74—16. St. Luke's Church v. Matthews, 4 Des- saus. (S. C.) 578, 6 Am. Dec. 619— 1737. St. Marylebone Banking Co., In re, 3 De G. & Sm. 21 (1849)— 545. St. Mary's- Bank v. St. John, 25 Ala. 566—1737. St. Mary's Church, In re, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 517—1033. St. Mary's Church v. Cagger, 6 Barb. 576—1759. St. Mary's, etc. Assoc, v. Lynch, 64 N. H. 213, 9 Atl. 98—1278. St. Nicholas, The, 49 Fed. 671— 24W. St. Patrick's, etc. v. Byrne, 59 N. J. Bq. 26, 44 Atl. 716—60, 1332. St. Paul V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 45 Minn. 387, 48 N. W. 17—1950. St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Minnesota, etc. R. R., 47 Minn. 154, 49 N. W. 646, 13 L. R. A. 415—627, 2593. St. Paul, etc. Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142, 21 Sup. Ct. 575, 45 L. Ed. 788— 2668, 2736. St. Paul, etc. R. R. v. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297 (Gil. 224)— 2118. St. Paul, etc. R. R. v. Robbins, 23 Minn. 439—87, 213, 380. St. Paul, etc. Ry. v. Sage, 49 Fed. 315, 1 C. C. A. 256—1858. St. Paul, etc. Ry. v. Todd County, 142 U. S. 282, 12 Sup. Ct. 281, 35 L. Ed. 1014—1236. St. Paul, etc. R. R. v. U. S., 112 U. S. 733, 5 Sup. Ct. 366, 28 L. Ed. 861— 2447. St Paul, etc. Ry. v. Western, etc. Co., 118 Fed. 497, 55 C. C. A. 263—2808, 2810, 2811, 2845. St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Life Ins. etc. Co., 71 Minn. 123, 73 N. W. 713—1129. St. Paul Trust Co. v. St. Paul Globe Pub. Co., 60 Minn. 105, 61 N. W. 813 —1556. St. Philip's Church v. Zion, etc. Church, 23 S. C. 297—1433. St. Regis, etc. Co. v. Hotchkiss, 45 Atl. 11 (Conn.)— 1756, 1795. St. Romes v. Levee, etc. Co., 127 U. S. 614, 8 Sup. Ct. 1335, 32 L. Ed. 289 —714, 726, 797, 814, 1254. St. Tammany Water-works v. New Orleans Water-works, 120 U. S. 64, 7 Sup. Ct. 405, 30 L. Ed. 563—2762. Salaman v. Warner, 64 L. T. Rep. 598 (1891); 65 L. T. Rep. 132 (1891) — 905, 1341. Sale, etc. Co., In re, 77 L. T. Rep. 681 (1897); 78 L. T. Rep. 368 (1898) — 1470, 1482, 1859. Sale, etc. Gardens, Ltd., 78 L. T. Rep. 368, 77 L. T. Rep. 681 (1898)— 1467. Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank, 17 Mass. 1, 30, 9 Am. Dec. 111—1594, 1801. Salem, etc. Co. v. Lake Superior, etc. Mines, 112 Fed. 239, 50 C. C. A. 213— 1485, 1763. Salem Iron, etc. Co. v. Danvers, 10 Mass. 514—1215. Salem Mill-dam Corp. v. Ropes, 23 Mass. 23, 26 Mass. 187, 19 Am. Dec. 363—200, 209, 358, 359, 363, 614, 637. Salfleld V. Sutter, etc. Co., 94 Cal. 546, 29 Pac. 1105—1734. Salina, etc. Bank v. Prescott, 60 Kan. 490, 57 Pac. 121—1514. Salisbury v. Binghamton Pub. Co., 85 Hun, 99, 32 N. Y. Supp. 652—404, 459, 1928, 2371. Salisbury v. Black's Adm'r, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 293, 14 Am. Dec. 279-386. Salisbury v. Metropolitan Ry., 38 L. J. (Ch.) 249 (1869)— 608, 1175, 1894. Salisbury v. Metropolitan Ry., 22 L. T. Rep. 839 (1870)— 1185, 1187. Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 115—722, 723, 861, 1145, 1155, 1156. Salladin v. Mitchell, 42 Neb. 859, 61 N. W. 127—2409. Salmon v. Hamborough Co., 1 Cas. in Ch. 204 (1671)-i-393, 402, 1947. Salmon v. Richardson, 30 Conn. 360, 79 Am. Dec. 255—799. Salomon v. Salomon, etc. Co. (1897), A. C. 22—27, 504, 1540. Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 339, 353, 377 (1850)— 680, 1900, 2574, 2645. Saloy V. Hibernia Nat. Bank. 39 La. Ann. 90, 1 South. 657—798, 960. Salt Creek Val. Tump. Co. v. Parks, 50 Ohio St. 568, 35 N. E. 304, 28 L. R. A. 769—1399, 2753. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Salt, etc. Co. V. Hlckey, 36 Pac. 171 (Ariz.)— 1263. Salt Lake City v. HoUister, 118 U. S. 256, 263, 6 Sup. Ct. 1055—30 L. Ed. 176—70, 1548, 1609, 1914. Salt Lake, etc. Bank v. Golding, 2 Utah, 1—1220. Salt Lake, etc. Bank v. Hendrickson, 40 N. J. L. 52—425, 470, 518. Salt Lake, etc. Co. v. Mammoth Min. Co., 6 Utah, 351, 23 Pac. 760—1734. Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Tlntlc Mill- ing Co., 13 Utah, 423, 45 Pac. 200— 162, 396. Saltmarsh v. Planters', etc. Bank, 17 Ala. 761—1446. Saltmarsh v. SpauMing, 147 Mass. 224, 17 N. E. 316—514, 1491, 1673, 1741, 2138, 2141, 2142. Salton V. New Beeston, etc. Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 43—1446. Saltsman v. Shults, 14 Hun, 256—1090. Samainego v. Stiles, 20 Pac. 607 — 396. Sampson v. Bowdoinham, etc. Corp., 36 Me. 78—8, 1277, 1738, 1749. Sampson v. Camperdown Cotton Mills, 82 Fed. 833—771. Sampson v. Fox, 109 Ala. 662, 19 South. 896, 55 Am. St. Rep. 950—978, 1580. Sampson v. Shaw, 101 Mass. 145, 3 Am. Rep. 327—769, 1341. Samuel v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 400, 418, 600, 21 Fed. Cas. 306—17, 37, 1744, 1825, 1896, 2147, 2192, 2264. Samuel, etc. Co. v. Illinois, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 64, 24 South. 604—27, 504, 1540. Samuels v. Evening Mail Assoc, 75 N. Y. 604, 9 Hun, 288—78. San Antonio v. Gould, 34 Tex. 49—248. San Antonio v. Jones, 28 Tex. 10—248. San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Tex. 405—248, 2063. San Antonio, etc. Co. v. State, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 118, 54 S. W. 289—1055. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. Busch, 21 S. W. 164 (Tex.)— 2038, 2039. San Aptonio, etc. R. R. v. Davis, 30 S. W. 693 (Tex.)— 2380. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. Ruhy, 80 Tex. 172, 15 S. W. 1040—2412. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. San Antonio, etc. R. R., 60 S. W. 338 (Tex.)— 1456, 1653, 1915. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 93 Tex. 313, 55 S. W. 117, 49 L. R. A. 459, 77 Am. St. Rep. 884— 2755. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. Southwestern Tel. etc. Co., 56 S. "W. 201 (Tex.) — 2755, 2807. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. State, 90 Tex. 520, 39 S. W. 926, 35 L. R. A. 662, 59 Am. St. Rep. 834—2621, .2714. San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. Wilson, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 178, 23 S. W. 282—1262, 2040. San Antonio St. Ry. v. Adams, 25 S. W. 639, 87 Tex. 125, 26 S. W. 1040—101, 139. San Benito County v. Southern Pac. R. R., 77 Cal. 518, 19 Pac. 827—1241. San Bernardino, etc. Bank v. Andre- son, 32 Pac. 168 (Cal.)— 1818. San Bernardino Inv. Co. v. Merrill, 108 Cal. 490, 41 Pac. 487—298, 360. Sanborn v. Benedict, 78 111. 309—772. Sanborn v. LefCerts, 58 N. Y. 179—37, 441, 1381. Sandberg v. Victor, etc. Co., 24 Utah, 1, 66 Pac. 360—1792. San Buenaventura, etc. Co. v. Vassault, 50 Cal. 534—1276, 1277. Sanders v. Chartrand, 59 S. W. 95 (Mo.)— 1782. Sanderson v. .^tna, etc. Co., 34 Ohio St. 442—348. Sanderson v. Tlnkham, etc. Co., 83 Iowa, 446, 49 N. W. 1034—1748. Sanderson's Case, 3 De G. & S. 66 (1849)— 556. Sanderson's Patents Assoc, In re, L. R. 12 Bq. 188 (1871)— 1392. Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 260—312, 326. Sandford v. Norton, 14 Vt. 228—2082. Sandford v. Railroad Co., 24 Pa. St. 378, 64 Am. Dec. 667—1893, 2728. San Diego v. San Diego, etc. R. R., 44 Cal. 106—1516. San Diego, etc. Co. v. Frame, 70 Pac. 295 (Cal.)— 1079, 1421, 1717. San Diego, etc Co. v. Jasper, 23 Sup. Ct. 571—2618, 2786. San Diego, etc. Co. v. Jasper, 89 Fed. 274—2618. San Diego, etc. Co. v. Jasper, 110 Fed. 702—2618. San Diego, etc. Co. v. National City, 74 Fed. 79—2786. San Diego, etc. Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. 804, 43 L. Ed. 1154—2617, 2769, 2786. San Diego, etc. Co. v. Neale, 78 Cal. 63, 69, 71, 20 Pac. 372, 3 L. R. A. 83— 2771. San Diego, etc. R. R. v. Pacific Beach Co., 112 Cal. 53, 44 Pac 333, 33 L. R. A. 788—1513. San Diego W. Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac 633, 38 L. R. A. 460, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261—2768. San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego Flume Co., 108 Cal. 549, 41 Pac. 495, 29 L. R. A. 839—1044, 1590, 1762, 2764. Sandman v. Seaman, 156 N. Y. 668, 50 N. E. 1122—1694. cccxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Sandon v. Hooper, 6 Beav. 246 (1S43) —2431. Sands v. Greeley, 88 Fed. 130, 31 C. C. A. 424—2391, 2488. Sands v. Greeley, etc. Co., 80 Fed. 195— 2253, 2391. Sands v. Greeley & Co., S3 Fed. 772— 2481, 2488. Sands v. Klmbark, 39 Barb. 108, 120— 453 Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239—298. Sandusky Coal Co. v. Walker, 27 Ont. (Can.) 677 (1896)— 1698. Sandy River Bank v. Merchants', etc. Bank, 1 Bias. 146, 21 Fed. Cas. 356— 1789. Sandy River R. R. v. Stubbs, 77 Me. 594, 2 Atl. 9—1518. Sanford v. Gregg, 58 Fed. 620—1081. Sanford v. Supervisors of New York, 15 How. Pr. 172—1082. Sanford, etc. Co. v. Howe, etc. Co., 157 U. S. 312, 318, 15 Sup. Ct. 621, 39 L. Ed. 713—1650, 1657. San Francisco v. Flood, 64 Cal. 504, 2 Pac. 264—1209. San Francisco v. Fry, 63 Gal. 470 — 1209. San Francisco v. Mackey, 21 Fed. 539 — 1214. San Francisco v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 Cal. 140, 31 Pac. 10, 17 L. R. A. 301—2838. San Francisco, etc. R. R. v. Bee, 48 Cal. 398—1572, 1575. San Francisco, etc. R. R. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367—2627. San Francisco Water Co. v. Pattee, 86 Cal. 623, 25 Pac. 135—1496. San Gabriel, etc. Water Co. v. Dennis, 34 Pac. 441 (Cal.)— 556. Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 60, 23 L. Ed. 220—30, 80, 113, 169, 178, 209, 215, 274, 338, 379, 393, 402, 409, 416, 545. Sanitary Carbon Co., In re, 12 W. N. 223 (1877)— 1298. Sanitary, etc. Assoc, In re (1900), 2 Cb. 289—2478. San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher. 101 Cal. 70, 35 Pac. 349—181, 211, 214, 290, 379, 1293. San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Stanislaus County, 113 Fed. 930—1038, 2618, 2787. San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. West, 94 Cal. 399, 29 Pac. 785—214. San Jose, etc. Bank v. Sierra, etc. Co., 63 Cal. 179-1740. San Jose Sav, Bank v. Pharis, 58 Cal. 380—477. Sankey Brook Coal Co., In re, L. R. 8 Eq. 721, L. R. 10 Eq. 381—277, 278. San Luis Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal. 168, 48 Pac. 1075—2766. San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R, R., 8 Sawyer, 238, 279, 13 Fed. 722—70, 1033, 1433. San Pedro, etc. Co. v. Reynolds, 121 Cal. 74, 53 Pac. 410—1692. Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buena- ventura, 56 Fed. 339—2758. Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buena- ventura, 65 Fed. 323, 324—1455, 2759. Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad, 118 U. S. 396, 6 Sup. Ct. 1132, 30 L. Ed. 118— 1229. Santa Clara Co. v. Railroad, 18 Fed. 385—1229. Santa Clara, etc. Co., In re, N. Y. Dally Reg., June 19, 1888—1374. Santa Clara, etc. Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387, 18 Pac. 391, 9 Am. St. Rep. 211— 1045. Santa Clara Min. Assoc, v. Meredith, 49 Md. 389, 33 Am. Rep. 264—1506, 1507. Santa Cruz R. R. v. Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106—358, 384. Santa Cruz R. R. v. Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193, 3 Pac. 661, 802—520, 1969. Santa Eulalia S. Min. Co., In re, 4 N. Y. Supp. 173, 174—1374, 1738. Santa Pe Electric Co. v. Hitchcock, 9 , N. Mex. 156, 50 Pac. 332—1515. Santa Rosa, etc. Bank v. Barnett, 125 Cal. 407, 58 Pac. 85—487* Santa Rosa, etc. R. R. v. Central St. Ry., 112 Cal. 436, 44 Pac. 733—1431, 2682. Santa Rose, etc. R. R. v. Central St. Ry. (Cal.), 38 Pac. 986—2663, 2669, 2680, 2695. Sanxey v. Iowa City Glass Co., 63 Iowa, 707, 17 N. W. 429—2500. Sappington v. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 37 Ark. 23—1579. Saranac, etc. R. R. v. Arnold, 167 N. Y. 368, 60 N. E. 647—189, 1164, 1545, 1726, 1842, 1940, 2014. Saratoga, etc. Co. v. Hazard, 121 N. Y. 677, 24 N. E. 1095—1248, 1998. Saratoga, etc. Co. v. Hazard, 55 Hun, 251, 7 N. Y. Supp. 844—1248, 1998. Sargent, Ex parte, L. R. 17 Eq. 273 (1874)— 847, 862, 886, 956, 960, 962, 1358. Sargent v. Boston, etc. R. R., 115 Mass. 416—2728. Sargent v. Chapman, 12 Colo; App. 529, 56 Pac. 194—1809. Sargent v. Essex, etc. Ry., 26 Mass. 202—847, 1010, 1131. Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 25 Mass. 90, 19 Am. Dec. 306—19, 44, 706, 736, 772, 847, 853, 858, 1018, 1019, 1114, TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] 1116, 1122, 1156, 1246, 1256, 1263, 1355. Sargent v. Kansas Mid. R. R., 48 Kan. 672, 29 Pac. 1063—1465, 2036, 2037. Sargent v. Stetson, 63 N. E. 929 (Mass.)— 478. Sargent v. Webster, 54 Mass. 497, 46 Am. Dec. 143—1286, 1636, 1652, 1751, 1753. Sarmiento v. Davis, etc. Co., 105 Mich. 300, 63 N. W. 205, 55 Am. St. Rep. 446—1792, 1805. Sauerhering v. Iron Ridge, etc. R. R., 25 Wis. 447—258. Saugatuck Bridge Co. v. Westport, 39 Conn. 337, 348—191. Saulsbury v. Lady Ensley, etc. R. R., 110 Ala. 585, 20 South. 72—2475. Saunders v. Bluefleld Waterworks, etc. Co., 58 Fed. 133—2630. Saunders v. Memphis, etc. Co., 101 Tenn. 206, 47 S. W. 155—2630, 2798. Saunders v. Sioux City Nursery, 6 Utah, 431, 24 Pac. 532—1941. Saunders v. Sun, etc. Co. (1894), 1 Ch. 537—62. Saunders v. United States, etc. Co., 25 Wash. 475, 65 Pac. 782—85, 2038. Saunders's Case, 2 De G., J. & S. 101 (1864)— 529. ■Savage v. Ball, 17 N. J. Eq. 142—130, 1310, 1311. Savage v. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561, 28 Atl. 414—317, 326, 339. Savage v. Medbury, 19 N. Y. 32—273. Savage v. Miller, 56 N. J. Eq. 432, 36 Atl. 578, 39 Atl. 665—1649, 1659, 1739, 1823, 2143. Savage v. Russell, 84 Ala. 103, 4 South. 235—1945. Savage v. Walshe, 26 Ala. 619—1385. Savage Mfg. Co. v. Armstrong, 17 Me. 34, 35 Am. Dec. 227—1951. Savannah v. Hancock, 91 Mo. 54, 3 S. W. 215—2673. Savannah v. Vernon Shell Road Co., 88 Ga. 342, 14 S. E. 610—2751. Savannah C. Mills v. Cunningham, 100 Ga. 468, 28 S. E. 435—1378. Savannah, etc. Co. v. Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281, 33 S. E. 908—597. Savannah, etc. R. R. v. Lancaster, 62 Ala. 555—1806, 2000, 2044, 2049, 2111, 2145, 2185, 2248, 2253. Savannah, etc. R. R. v. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602—2662. Savannah, etc. Ry. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry., 79 Fed. 35, 24 C. C. A. 437— 2356. Savannah, etc. Ry. v. Postal, etc. Co., 112 Ga. 941, 38 S. E. 353—2803. ■Savannah, etc. Ry. v. Postal, etc. Co., 113 Ga. 916, 39 S. E. 399—2803. Savannah, etc. Ry. v. Postal, etc. Co., 115 Ga. 554, 42 S. E. 1—2803. Savannah, etc. Ry. v. Pritchard, 77 Ga. 412, 1 S. E. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 92—2641. Savin v. Hoylake Ry., L. R. 1 Exch. 9 (1865)— 1714. Savings & T. Co. v. Bear Valley, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 693—1556, 1907, 2108, 2238. Savings & T. Co. etc. v. Bear Valley, etc. Co., 93 Fed. 339—2340, 2360, 2395, 2486. Savings Assoc, v. O'Brien, 51 Hun, 45, 3 N. Y. Supp. 764—442, 451, 459, 462, 464. Savings Bank v. Bates, 8 Conn. 505 — 1634. Savings Bank v. Creswell, 100 U. S. 630, 25 L. Ed. 713—2338. Savings Bank v. Nashua, 46 N. H. 389 —1216. Savings Bank, etc. v. Central Co., 122 Cal. 28, 54 Pac. 273—1818. Savings, etc. Co. v. Bear, etc. Co., 89 Fed. 32—2339. Sawyer v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 119 Fed. 252—2087, 2538. Sawyer v. Dubuque Printing Co., 77 Iowa, 242, 42 N. W. 300—1560. Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 620, 621, 21 L. Ed. 731—32, 350, 381, 392, 393, 404, 416. Sawyer v. Methodist Ep. Soc, 18 Vt. 405—37. Sawyer v. Taggart, 14 Bush (Ky.), 727 —770, 771, 779. Sawyer v. Winnegance Mill Co., 26 Me. 122—1818. Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 7 Exch. 207 (1872)— 1108. Saxton V. Texas, etc. R. R., 4 N. M. 201, 16 Pac. 179—1805. Sayler v. Simpson, 45 Ohio St. 141, 12 N. E. 181—1575. Sayler v. Simpson, 46 Ohio St. 510, 24 N. E. 596—1575, 1641. Sayler v. Simpson, 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 195—130, 1575, 1641. Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342, 5 Atl. 497 —529, 539, 544, 547, 570. Sayles v. Blane, 19 L. J. (Q. B.) 19 (1849)— 559, 575. Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8 — 462, 632, 634, 1317. Sayles v. Garrett, 110 U. S. 288, 4 Sup. Ct. 90, 28 L. Ed. 149—442. Sayles v. White, 18 N. Y. App. Div. 590, 46 N. Y. Supp. 194—1685, 1876. Saylor v. Commonwealth, etc. Co., 38 Or. 204. 62 Pac. 652—416, 417. Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 631, 6 South. 45 —390. CCCXXXll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text.] Sayward v. Houghton, 82 Cal. 628, 23 Pac. 120—760. Scadden, etc. Co. v. Scadden, 121 Cal. 33, 53 Pac: 440—89. Scadding v. Lorant, 3 H. L. Cas. 418 (1851)— 1287. Scales V. Irwin, 34 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 545 (1874)— 350. Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U. S. 362, 23 L. Ed. 483—382. Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 43 Md. 203—284, 287. Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 132—306. Scarlett v. Ward, 52 N. J. Eq. 197, 210, 27 Atl. 820—694, 821, 835, 1372. Scarritt v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 148 Mo. 676, 50 S. W. 905—2637. Scarth v. Chadwick, 14 Jur. 300 (1850) —1928. Scase V. Gillette-Herzog Mfg. Co., 55 Minn. 349, 57 N. W. 58—1136. Schaake v. Eagle, etc. Co., 135 Cal. 472, 63 Pac. 1025, 67 Pac. 759—1573. Schaefer, Matter of, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 378, 73 N. Y. Supp. 57—1137, 1231, 1504. • Schaefer v. Scott, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 438, 57 N. Y. Supp. 1035—1772. Schaeffer v. Bonham, 95 111. 368—260. Schaeffer v. Missouri, etc. Co., 46 Mo. 248—178, 379. Schall V. Bowman, 62 111. 321—253. Schalucky v. Field, 124 111. 617, 16 N. E. 904, 7 Am. St. Rep. 399—482. Schanck v. Morris, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 658 —335. Schantz v. Oakman, 163 N. Y. 148, 57 N. B. 288—743, 1371, 1705. Schantz v. Oakman, 10 App. Div. 151, 41 N. Y. Supp. 746—1707. Scharf v. Warrem-Scharf, etc. Co., 5 N. Y. App. Div. 439, 38 N. Y. Supp. 197 —1878. Schaub v. Welded, etc. Co., 90 N. "W. 335 (Mich.)— 408. Scheffer v. National Life Ins. Co., 25 Minn. 534—1967. Schell V. Barton, 198 Pa. St. 600, 48 Atl. 813, 82 Am. St. Rep. 820—728. Schell V. Deperven, 198 Pa. St. 591, 48 Atl. 815—728, 733, 967. Schell V. Deperven, 198 Pa. St. 600, 48 Atl. 813, 82 Am. St. Rep. 820—967. Schenck v. Andrews, 57 N. Y. 133—152. Schenck v. Dart, 22 N. Y. 420—661. Schenck v. Ingraham, 4 Hun, 67 — 2474. Schenck v. Mercer, etc. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 447—1833. Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102, 107, 113—213, 285, 298, 360, 370, 555, 1030, 1284, 1285. Schepeler v. Eisner, 3 Daly, 11—928. Scherk v. Montgomery, 33 South. SOT (Miss.)— 866. Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 N. Y. 93 — 2034. Schetter v. Southern, etc. Co., 19 Or.. 192, 24 Pac. 25—1793. Schiffer v. Trustees, 87 Fed. 166—467, 484, 486. Schild V. Central, etc. R. R., 133 N. Y. 446, 31 N. E. 327, 28 Am. St. Rep. 658- —2715. Schillinger, etc. Co. v. Arnott, 14 N. Y. Supp. 326—1942. Schilling, etc. Co. v. Schneider, 110 Mo. 83, 19 S. W. 67—12, 105, 1850,. 2012. Schindelholz v. CuUum, 55 Fed. 885, & C. C. A. 293—2425. Schlaudecker's Appeal, 14 Atl. 229- (Pa.)— 383. Schleider v. Dielman, 44 La. Ann. 462, 10 South. 934—1572. Schlesinger v. Kansas City, etc. Ry.,. 152 TJ. S. 444, 14 Sup. Ct. 647, 38 L. Ed. 507—2321, 2559, 2580, 2631. Schloss V. Montgomery Trade Co., 87 Ala. 411, 6 South. 360, 13 Am. St. Rep. 51—360, 372. Schluter v. Bowery, etc. Bank, 117 N. Y. 129, 22 N. E. 572, 5 L. R. A. 541,. 15 Am. St. Rep. 494—729. Schmid v. New York, etc. R. R., 32 Hun, 335—2536. Schmidlapp v. La Confiance Ins. Co.,. 71 Ga. 246—1955. Schmidt v. Abraham Lincoln Lodge, 84 Ky. 490, 2 S. W. 156—1071. Schmidt v. Coney Island, etc. R. R., 26: N. Y. App. Div. 391, 49 N. Y. Supp. 777—2824. Schmidt v. Gayner, 59 Minn. 303, 61 N. W. 333, 62 N. W. 265—2470. Schmidt v. Gunther, 5 Daly, 452—1090. Schmidt v. Hennepin, etc. Co., 35 Minn. 511, 29 N. W. 200—1123. Schmidt v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 177" V. S. 230, 20 Sup. Ct. 620, 44 L. Ed. 747—2087, 2208, 2209, 2554, 2581. Schmidt v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 95 Ky. 289, 25 S. W. 494, 26 S. W. 547—2306. Schmidt v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 99 Ky. 143, 35 S. W. 135, 36 S. W. 168— 2208, 2581. Schmidt v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 101 Ky. 441, 41 S. W. 1015—2087, 2209.. 2554. Schmidt v. Market, etc. Ry., 90 Cal. 37, 27 Pac. 61—2720. Schmidt v. Mitchell, 98 Ky. 218, 32 S.. W. 599, 33 S. W. 408—1926, 2247, 2S90 Schmidt v. Mitchell, 101 Ky. 570, 41 S. W. 929, 72 Am. St. Rep. 427—1305,. 1307, 1308, 1318, 1340, 1374, 1375. TABLE OF OASES. CCCXXXlll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Schmidt, etc. Co. v. Mahoney, 60 Neb. 20, 82 N. W. 99—1442, 1951. Schneider v. Turner, 130 111. 28, 22 N. B. 497, 6 L. R. A. 164—772. Schneitman v. Noble, 75 Iowa, 120, 39 N. W. 224, 9 Am. St. Rep. 467-1789. Schoefleld, etc. Co. v. Schoefield, 71 Conn. 1, 40 Atl. 1046—1474. Schoelfield v. Redfern, 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 (1863)— 1197. Schoening v. Schwenk, 112 Iowa, 733, 84 N. W. 916—1503, 1911. Schofleld V. Goodrich, etc. Co., 98 Fed. 271, 39 C. C. A. 76—548, 686, 1598. Schofleld V. Union Bank, 2 Cranch, C. C. 115, Fed. Cas. No. 12,475—1316. Schoharie Valley R. R. Case, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 394—1312, 1313, 1318, 1336, 1338. Scholefield v. Redfern, 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 (1863)— 1195, 1197, 1200. Scholefield's Case, 17 W. N. 22 (1882) —1693. Scholey v. Venezuela Central Ry., L. R. 9 Bq. 266 (1868)— 324, 333. Scholfield V. Union Bank, 2 Cranch, C. C. 115, 21 Fed. Cas. 723—1317, 1327. SchoUenberger, Ex parte, 96 U. S. 369, 24 L. Bd. 853—1957. School District v. Gibbs, 56 Mass. 39— 1339, 1737. School District v. Griner, 8 Kan. 224— 66, 67. School District, etc. v. De Weese, 100 Fed. 705—71. Schorestene v. Iselin, 69 Hun, 250, 23 N. Y. Supp. 577—2515, 2517. Schout V. Conkey, etc. Assoc, 156 N. Y. 668, 50 N. B. 1122—1694. Schout V. Conkey, etc. Assoc, 87 Hun, 568, 32 N. Y. Supp. 713, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1147—1694. Schrader v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 67, 10 Sup. Ct. 238, 33 L. Bd. 564—472. Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Co., 29 Or. 1, 43 Pac. 719—1720. Schricker v. Ridings, 65 Mo. 208—427. Schroder's Case, L.-R. 11 Bq. Cas. 131— 88 82 132 Sehroed'er v. Young, 161 U. S. 334, 16 Sup. Ct. 512, 40 L. Ed. 721—2288. Schuetz V. German, etc. Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 163, 47 N. Y. Supp. 500— 303. Schufeldt V. Smith, 131 Mo. 280, 31 S. W. 1039, 29 L. R. A. 830, 52 Am. St. Rep. 628—1655. Schulenburg, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 129 Mo. 455, 31 S. W. 796— 2692. Schultz V. O'Rourke, 18 Mont. 418, 45 Pac. 634—766. Schultze V. Van Doren, 53 Atl. 815 (N. J.)— 1753, 1824, 2197. Schuman v. Seymour, 24 N. J. Bq. 143 —1749. Schurr v. New York, etc. Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 454—1597. Schuyler County v. People, 25 111. 181— 245. ^chuyler County v. Thomas, 98 U. S. 169, 25 L. Ed. 88—252, 268. Schuyler, etc. Co., In re, 136 N. Y. 169, 32 N. E. 623, 20 L. R. A. 391—2226, 2394, 2395, 2416. Schuyler's, etc. Co., In re, 154 U. S. 256, 14 Sup. Ct. 1019, 38 L. Ed. 981— 2394, 2395, 2415. Schuyler's, etc. Co., In re, 64 Hun, 384, 19 N. Y. Supp. 565—2395. Schuylerville Nat. Bank v. Van Der- Verker, 74 N. Y. 234—1084. Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Thoburn, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 411—2799. Schwab V. Frisco, etc. Co., 21 Utah, 258, 60 Pac 940—296, 1740. Schwartlng v. Van Wie, etc. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 282, 74 N. Y. Supp. 747— 74, 1791. Schwartz v. Duss, 187 U. S. 8, 23 Sup. Ct. 4—1071, 1091. Schwartz v. Duss, 93 Fed. 528 — 1071. Schwartz v. Keystone Oil Co., 153 Pa. St. 283, 25 Atl. 1018—2433. Schwartz v. State, 61 Ohio St. 497 56 N. E. 201—1303, 1304. Schwarzwaelder v. German, etc. Ins. Co., 59 N. J. Bq. 589, 44 Atl. 769— 1551, 2744. Schweitzer v. Bonn, 55 N. J. Bq. 107, 31 Atl. 24—718. Schwenck v. Naylor, 102 N. Y. 683, 7 N. B. 788—805. Schwind v. Boyce, 51 Atl. 45 (Md.) — 939. Scipio V. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 25 L. Ed. 1037—244, 247. Scofleld V. Blackmarr, 4 Atl. 208 (Pa.) —777. Scofleld V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry., 43 Ohio St. 571, 3 N. B. 907, 54 Am. Rep. 846 —2608, 2609, 2785. Scofleld V. State Nat. Bank, etc., 97 Fed. 282, 38 C. C. A. 179—1598. Scotland CJounty v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 65 Mo. 123—1218. Scotland County v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682, 24 L. Bd. 219—252, 254, 268. Scott V. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499, 13 Sup. Ct. 148, 36 L. Ed. 1059—2408. Scott V. Baltimore, etc R. R., 93 Md 475, 49 Atl. 327—588, 589. Scott V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 52 Barb 45—1141, 1153, 1154. Scott V. Clinton, etc. R. R., 6 Blss. 529 21 Fed. Cas. 820—2189, 2309. CCCXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Scott V. Colburn, 26 Beav. 276 (1858) —1997, 2107. Scott V. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 513 (1832)— 1694. Scott V. Detroit, etc. Soc, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 119—508. Scott V. Deweese, 181 U. S. 202, 21 Sup. Ct. 585, 45 L. Ed. 822—338, 630, 803. Scott V. Dixon, 29 L. J. (Ex.) 62, note (1859)— 316, 798, 801. Scott V. Eagle Fire Co., 7 Paige, 198— 1162, 1174, 1185. Scott V. Elmore, 10 Hun, 68—2395. Scott V. Embury, L. R. 2 C. P. 255 (1867)— 1699. Scott V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 69 Fed. 17, 16 C. C. A. 358—2317, 2377. Scott V. Grand Trunk Ry., 51 N. Y. 655 —2581. Scott V. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75—993, 998. Scott V. Izon, 34 Beav. 434 (1865) — 1062. Scott V. Latimer, 89 Fed. 843, 33 C. C. A. 1—338, 630. Scott V. Middletown, etc. R. R., 86 N. Y. 200—1760, 1778. Scott V. Pequonnock Nat. Bank, 15 Fed. 494, 21 Blatchf. 203—47, 847, 1008. Scott V. Rainer, etc. Ry., 13 Wash. 108, 42 Pac. 531—2442. Scott V. Rogers, 31 N. Y. 676—1262. Scott V. Scott, 68 N. H. 7, 38 Atl. 567— 793, 1350. Scott V. Snyder, etc. Co., 67 L. T. Rep. 104 (1892)— 315. Scott V. Texas, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 225— 1965. Scott V. Texas, etc. Ry., 94 Fed. 340, 36 C. C. A. 282—2631. Scott V. Windham, 73 Miss. 76, 16 South. 206—398. Scott, etc. V. Godfrey (1901), 2 K. B. 726—916. Scottish, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 413 (1883)— 1754. Scottish N. E. Ry. v. Stewart, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 382, 414 (1859)— 1409. Scottish Petroleum Co., In re, L. R. 23 Ch. D. 413 (1883)— 326. Scovel V. Roosevelt, 5 Redf. 121—1191, 1200. Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 26 L. Ed. 968—93, 100, 104, 113, 120, 124, 273, 275, 382, 388, 409, 614, 638, 639, 649. Scoville V. Canfield, 14 Johns. 338, 7 Am. Dec. 467—460. Scranton, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 154, 15 Atl. 446, 1 L. R. A. 285, 9 Am. St. Rep. 79—2731, 2736. Scranton, etc. Co. v. Northern, etc. Co., 192 Pa. St. 80, 43 Atl. 470, 73 Am. St. Rep. 798—2633. Scranton Traction Co. v. Schlichter, 202 Pa. St. 6, 51 Atl. 353—1087, 2748. Screven v. Clark, 48 Ga. 41—2397. Screwmen's Benev. Assoc, v. Benson, 76 Tex. 552, 13 S. W. 379—1073. Scribner v. Flagg, etc. Co., 175 Mass. 536, 56 N. E. 603—1775. Scripps V. Crawford, 123 Mich. 173, 81 N. W. 1098—1578. Scripture v. Prancestown Soapstone Co., 50 N. H. 571—827, 888, 1010, 1017. Scruggs V. Cotterill, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 583, 73 N. Y. Supp. 882—738, 757, 1355. Scruggs V. Scottish Mortgage Co., 54 Ark. 566, 16 S. W. 563—1681. Seaboard, etc. Bank v. Slater, 105 Fed. 179—142. Seaboard, etc. Bank v. Slater, 117 Fed. 1002—117, 125. Seaboard, etc. Co., Matter of, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 283, 74 N. Y. Supp. 15— 2816. Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 Sup. Ct. 683, 38 L. Ed. 553—1136. Seacord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun, 579, 9 N. Y. Supp. 46—501, 1086. Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins, 8 Paige, 565— 2402. Seal V. Puget Sound, etc. Co., 5 Wash. St. 422, 32 Pac. 214—1735. Seale v. Baker, 70 Tex. 283, 7 S. W. 742, 8 Am. St. Rep. 592—317. Seaman v. Enterprise F. & M. Ins. Co., 18 Fed. 250, 5 McCrary, 558—39. Seaman v. Low, 4 Bosw. 337 — 785. Searight v. Payne, 6 Lea (Tenn.), 283 —81, 1605. Searight v. Payne, 2 Tenn. Ch. 175— 525. Searing v. Searing, 9 Paige, 283 — 1146. Searles v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 621, 21 Fed. Cas. 929—2193, 2239, 2383. Sears v. King's, etc. R. R., 152 Mass. 151, 25 N. E. 98, 9 L. R. A. 117—1759 Sears v. Kings, etc. Ry., 156 Mass. 440, 31 N. E. 490—164. Searsburgh Turnp. Co. v. Cutler, 6 Vt 315—41. Seashore House, etc. v. City of Atlantic City, 48 Atl. 242 (N. J.)— 32, 1239, 1663. Seaton v. Grant, L. R. 2 Ch. 459 (1867) —1884, 1893, 1928. Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa, 145, 81 N. W. 225—498, 503. Seattle, etc. Bank v. Pratt, 111 Fed. 841, 49 C. C. A. 662^484. Seattle, etc. Ry., In re, 61 Fed. 541— 2442. TABLE OF CASES. cccxxxv LThe numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Seattle, etc. Ry. v. tfnion Trust Co., 79 Fed. 179, 24 C. C. A. 512—2218, 2280. Seattle T. Co. v. Pitner, 18 Wash. 401, 51 Pac. 1084—84, 272. Seaver v. Coburn, 64 Mass. 324—1818. Seaverns v. Presbyterian, etc., 173 111. 414, 50 N. E. 1079, 64 Am. St. Rep. 125—1835. Sebastian v. Booneville, etc. Co., 56 S. W. 810 (Ky.)— 1086. Secombe v. Railroad Co., 23 Wall. 108, 23 L. Ed. 67—2627. Second Ave. R. R. v. Mehrback, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 267—1773. Second, etc. Bank v. Midland, etc. Co., 155 Ind. 581, 58 N. E. 833—1813. Second, etc. Ry. v. Green, etc. Ry., 3 Pbila. 430—2709. Second Nat. Bank v. Curtiss, 153 N. Y. 681, 48 N. E. 1107—834, 845. Second Nat. Bank v. Curtiss, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 508, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1028— 834, 845. Second Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. 50, 76 N. W. 504—1008. Second Nat. Bank v. Hall, 35 Ohio St. 158—460, 511, 523. Second Nat. Bank v. Howe, 40 Minn. 390, 42 N. W. 200. 12 Am. St. Rep. 744—1835. Second Nat. Bank v. Lovell, 2 Cin. (Ohio) 397—511. Second Nat. Bank v. Martin, 82 Iowa, 442, 48 N. W. 735—1812. Second Nat. Bank v. National State Bank, 10 Bush (Ky.), 367—1134. Second Ward Sav. Bank v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 587, 69 N. W. 359—1214. Secor V. Singleton, 35 Fed. 376, 41 Fed. 725—1204, 1878. Secord v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 7 Biss. 513, 21 Fed. Cas. 968—2624. Secretary of State v. National, etc. Co., 86 N. W. 124 (Mich.)— 1674. Securities, etc. Corp. v. Brighton Al- hambra, 68 L. T. Rep. 249 (1893) — 2457. Security Bank v. Klngsland, 5 N. Dak. 263, 65 N. W. 697—1783. Security Co. v. Bennington, etc. Assoc, 70 Vt. 201, 40 Atl. 43—1711. Security Co. v. Hartford, 61 Conn. 89, 23 Atl. 699—31. Security State Bank v. Raine, 31 Neb. 517, 48 N. W. 262—235. Security T. Co. v. Dodd, Mead & Co., 173 U. S. 624, 19 Sup. Ct. 545, 43 L. Ed. 835—1632, 2426. Sedalia, etc. Ry. v. Abell, 17 Mo. App. 645—360. Sedalia, etc. Ry. v. Wllkerson, 83 Mo. 235—346. Seddon v. Rosenbaum, 85 Va. 928, 9 S. B. 326, 3 L. R. A. 337—738, 763. Seddon v. Virginia, etc. Co., 3Q Fed. 6, 1 L. R. A. 108—328. Sedgwick v. Macy, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 49 N. Y. Supp. 154—954. Sedgwick City Bank v. Sedgwick Mill- ing, etc. Co., 59 Kan. 654, 54 Pac. 681 —478. Sedgwick County v. Bailey, 11 Kan. 631 —267. See v. Heppenheimer, 55 N. J. Eq. 240, 36 Atl. 966—160, 1902, 2025, 2263. Seeber v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 7T Fed. 957—1598, 2081. Seeber v. People's, etc. Assoc, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 312. 55 N. Y. Supp. 364 — 317, 517. Seeberger v. McCormlck, 178 111. 404, 53 N. E. 340—523, 1701. Seeley v. New York, etc. Bank, 8 Daly, 400—635, 1175. Seeley v. New York, etc. Bank, 78 N. Y. 608—635, 1175. Seeley v. New York, etc. Bank, Thomp- son Nat. Bank. Cas. 804—1175. Seeley v. San Jose, etc. Co., 59 Cal. 22 —1790, 1796, 1933. Seeligson v. Brown, 61 Tex. 114—999, 1007. Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 52. Minn. 148, 246, 53 N. W. 1134, 20 L. R. A. 535, 38 Am. St. Rep. 530—2134, 2186, 2199, 2213, 2388. Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 58 Minn. 39, 59 N. W. 822— 2067,' 2443. Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 58^ Minn. 58, 57 N. W. 1068—2479. Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry., 5S Minn. 65, 59 N. W. 826—2477. Seighortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172—1090. Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 332—615. Seller v. Union, etc. Co., 50 W. Va. 208, 40 S. E. 547—2450. Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76 — 646, 647. Seizer v. Mali, 41 N. Y. 619—646, 647. Seizer v. Mall, 11 Abb. Pr. 129—646. Self-Acting, etc. Co., In re, 54 L. T. Rep. 676 (1886)— 180. Seligman v. Prince (1895), 2 Ch. 61T —1587. Seligman v. Rogers, 113 Mo. 642, 21 S. W. 94—908, 1258. Seligman v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 22- Fed. 39—1001, 1006, 1017. Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549, 50 N. E. 246, 40 L. R. A. 589—1721. Sellers v. Phoenix Iron Co., 13 Fed.^ 20—1510. Selley v. American, etc. Co., 93 N. W. 590 (Iowa)— 1381, 1759. Sells V. Rosedale, etc. Co., 72 Miss. 690 17 South. 236—1636, 1653. CCCXXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Selma, etc. Co. v. Harris. 31 S. 508 (Ala.)— 1017. Selma, etc. R. R., Ex parte, 45 Ala. 696, 6 Am. Rep. 722 — 244. Selma, etc. R. R. v. Anderson, 51 Miss. 829—323, 340, 358. Selma, etc. R. R. v. Rountree, 7 Ala. (N. S.) 670—354. Selma, etc. R. R. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787, 39 Am. Dec. 344—197, 213, 215, 290, 346, 1739. Selwyn v. Harrison, 2 Johns. & H. 334 —1065. Sample v. Bank of British Columbia, 5 Sawyer, 88, 21 Fed. Cas. 1063— 1677. Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245, 6 South. 46, 9 South. 265, 24 Am. St. Rep. 894 —188, 386. Semple's Estate, In re, 189 Pa. St. 385, 42 Atl. 28—730. Seneca County Bank v. Neass, 5 Denio, 329, 337—1834, 1835. Senn v. Levy, 63 S. W. 776 (Ky.)— 7, 425, 481. Senour, etc. Co. v. Church, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294, 84 N. W. 109—425, 1614. Senour Mfg. Co. v. Clarke, 96 Wis. 469, 71 N. W. 883—1540. Sentell v. Hewitt, 50 La. Ann. 3, 22 South. 970—435, 502. Septimus Parsonage & Co., In re (1901), 2 Ch. 424—1309. Sercomb v. Catlin, 128 111. 556, 21 N. E. 606, 15 Am. St. Rep. 147—1947, 2427. Serrao v. Noel, 15 Q. B. Div. 549 — 2173. Serrell v. Derbyshire, etc. Ry., 9 C. B. 811 (1850)— 1813. Seton V. Slade, 7 Ves. 265, 276 (1802) — 1799. Seven Hickory v. Ellery, 103 TJ. S. 423, 26 L. Ed. 435—244. Seventeenth, etc. Bank v. Webster, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 228, 73 N. Y. Supp. 648—1865. Seventh Nat. Bank v. Shenandoah Iron Co., 35 Fed. 436—2331, 2336, 2360. Severn, etc. Ry., In re (1896), 1 Ch. 559—1155. Severson v. Bimetallic, etc. Co., 18 Mont. 13, 44 Pac. 79—1506. Sewall V. Bralnerd, 38 Vt. 364—2057, 2065. Sewall V. Chamberlain, 82 Mass. 581 — 1441. Sewall V. Eastern R. R., 63 Mass. 5 — 619, 626, 628. Sewall V. Lancaster Bank, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 285—1118, 1122, 1126, 1249. Seward v. Rising Sun, 79 Ind. 351—44, 1208, 1209. Sewell v. Boston Water-power, etc. R. R., 86 Mass. 277, 81 Am. Dec. 701— 833, 836, 839, 884. Sewell V. Cape May, etc. R. R., 30 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 155—2380. Sewell V. East, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 717, 25 Atl. 929—1555. Sewell v. Nelson, 67 S. W. 985 (Ky.)— 788, 1707, 2539. Sewell's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 131 (1868)— 620, 631, 637, 639. Sewickley, etc. Co., In re, 47 Atl. 944 (Pa.)— 2470. Seybell v. National Currency Bank, 54 . N. Y. 288, 13 Am. Rep. 583—2048. • Seybert v. Pittsburg, 1 Wall. 272, 17 L. Ed. 553—243, 265. Seymour, In re, 83 Mich. 496, 47 N. W. 321—1769. Seymour v. Bridge, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 460 (1885)— 913. Seymour v. Canandaigua, etc. R. R., 25 Barb. 284—2319, 2321, 2323, 2326. Seymour v. Detroit Copper, etc. Mills, 56 Mich. 117, 22 N. W. 317, 23 N. W. 186—1345. Seymour v. Hendee, 54 Fed. 563 (Vt.) —936. Seymour v. Ives, 46 Conn. 109—1256, 1263, 1264. Seymour v. Jefferson, 74 N. W. 149 (Minn.)— 88, 238, 381. Seymour v. Slide, etc. Mines, 153 U. S. 523, 14 Sup. Ct. 847, 38 L. Ed. 807— 1671. Seymour v. Spring Forest Cem. Assoc, 144 N. Y. 333, 39 N. E. 365, 26 L. R. A. 859—1520, 1542, 1608, 1715, 1734, 2011. Seymour v. Spring Forest Cem. Assoc, 19 N. Y. Supp. 941—1982. Seymour v. Spring Forest Cem. Assoc, 157 N. Y. 697, 51 N. E. 1094—127, 1608, 1715, 1734, 1982, 2011. Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134—217, 273, 274, 409, 412, 459. Shaaber's Appeal, 17 Atl. 209 (Pa.) — 1861. Shackamaxon Bank v. Disston, 2 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 62 (Pa.)— 385. Shackamaxon Bank v. Dougherty, 20 W. N. Cas. 297 (1887)— 385. Shackelford v. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 37 Miss. 202—1507. Shaokell v. Chorlton (1895), 1 Ch. 378 —1444. Shackleford v. Dangerfleld, L. R. 3 C. P. 407 (1868)— 63, 281, 282. 285, 287. Shackleton v. Allen, etc. Church, 25 Mont. 421, 65 Pac. 428—1814. Shadewald v. White, 74 Minn. 208, 77 N. W. 42—2287, 2434. Shadford v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 89 N. W. 960 (Mich.)— 1581, 2558, 2589, 2701. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXXXVII [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text.] iShafer Iron Co. v. Iron County Circuit Judge, 88 Mich. 464, 50 N. W. 389— 1956. Shafter v. Hahn, 111 N. C. 1, 15 S. E. 1033—1814. Shafener v. Jeffries, 18 Mo. 512—229. .Shales v. Seignoret, 1 Ld. Raym. 440 (1700)— 770. Shamburg v. Abbott, 112 Pa. St. 6, 4 Atl. 518—1086. Shamokin v. Shamokin Street Ry., 178 Pa. St. 128, 35 Atl. 862—2719, 2721. Shamokin Valley, etc. R. R. v. Liver- more, 47 Pa. St. 465, 86 Am. Dec. 552—2317, 2321, 2325. Shanklin v. Gray, 111 Cal. 88, 43 Pac. 399—431. Shannon v. Stevenson, 173 Pa. St. 419, 34 Atl. 218—85, 145, 1505. Shappard v. Cage, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 206, 46 S. W. 839—1491. Sharp V. Bawes, 2 Q. B. D. 26 (1876) — 1726. Sharp V. Stalker, 52 Atl. 1120 (N. J.) —776. Sharp V. Warren, 9 Price (Bng.), 131 — 1089. Sharp & James's Case, 1 De G., M. & • G. 565 (1852)— 1701. Sharpe v. Belles, 61 Pa. St. 69, 100 Am. Dec. 618—1817. Sharpe v. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 87 Ala. 644, 7 South. 106—970, 988, 990, 1247. Sharpe v. Dawes, 2 Q. B. D. 26 (1876) —1298. Sharpless v. Mayor, 21 Pa. St. 147, 59 Am. Dec. 759—201, 242, 248, 249. Sharpley v.~ Louth, etc. Ry., L. R. 2 Ch. D. 663 (1876)— 365. Shattuck V. American Cement Co., 54 Atl. 785 (Pa.)— 52, 713, 849, 961. Shattuck V. Robbins, 68 N. H. 565, 44 Atl. 694—211, 306, 319. Shaughnessy v. Chase, 7 N. Y. St. Rep. 293—1147, 1150, 1248, 1251. Shavalier v. Grand Rapids, etc. Co., 87 N. W. 212 (Mich.)— 1781. Shaver v. Bear River, etc. Co., 10 Cal. 396—1796, 1801. Shaver v. Hardin, 82 Iowa, 378, 48 N. W. 68—2145. Shaw, Ex parte, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 463 (1877)— 796. Shaw V. Bentley, etc. Co., 68 L. T. Rep. 812 (1893)— 56, 181. Shaw V. Bill, 95 TJ. S. 10, 11, 24 L. Ed. 333—2054, 2247, 2309, 2323. Shaw V. Boylan, 16 Ind. 384—517. Shaw V. Campbell, etc. Co., 15 S. W. 245 (Ky.)— 1032, 2750. Shaw V. Clark, 49 Mich. 384, 13 N. W. 786, 43 Am. Rep. 474—1840. Shaw V. Davis, 78 Md. 308, 28 Atl. 619, 23 L. R. A. 294—1524, 2556. Shaw V. Dennis, 10 111. 405—244. Shaw V. Fisher, 2 De G. & Sm. 11 (1848) ; 5 De G., M. & G. 596 (1855) —574, 575, 755, 858. Shaw V. Gilbert, 111 "Wis. 165, 86 N. "W. 188—329, 1143. Shaw V. Holland (1900), 2 Ch. 305— 211, 624, 1261. Shaw V. Holland, 15 M. & W. 136, 145 —750, 1256, 1260, 1261. Shaw V. Monson, etc. Co., 96 Me. 41, 51 Atl. 285—980, 993. Shaw V. Norfolk County R. R., 71 Mass. 162—1800, 2106, 2113, 2178, 2184, 2186, 2211. Shaw V. Norfolk County R. R., 82 Mass. 407—1578. Shaw V. Port Philip, etc. Min. Co., L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 103 (1884)— 643. Shaw V. Quincy Min. Co., 145 TJ. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935, 36 L. Ed. 768—1963, 1964. Shaw V. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 605, 25 L. Ed. 757—2176, 2184, 2255, 2461, 2503. Shaw V. Robinson, etc. Co., 50 Neb. 403, 69 N. W. 947—1637. Shaw V. Rowley, 5 Eng. Ry. & Can. Cas. 47—1123. Shaw V. Rowley, 16 M. & W. 810 (1847)— 575, 747. Shaw V. Saranac, etc. Co., 144 N. Y. 220, 39 N. E. 73—968, 1987, 1994, .2486. Shaw V. Saranac Horse Nail Co., 78 Hun, 7, 29 N. Y. Supp. 254—442, 1994, 2486. Shaw V. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 97 Am. Dec. 107, 1 Am; Rep. 115—721, 723, 884, 888, 914, 959. Shawhan v. Zinn, 79 Ky. 300—1898, 1933. Shawmut Bank v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 31 Vt. 491—2643. Shawmut Sugar Co. v. Hampden Mut. Ins. Co., 78 Mass. 540—67. Shay V. Tuolumne, etc. Co., 6 Cal. 74 — 1724. Shayne v. Evening Post, etc. Co., 168 N. Y. 70, 61 N. E. 115, 55 L. R. A. 777, 85 Am. St. Rep. 654—1443, 1446. Shea V. Mabry, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 319 — 1690, 2648. Sheafe v. Larimer, 79 Fed. 921 — 337 440. Sheaff's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 403—2304. Shearer v. Peale, etc. Co., 9 Ind. App. 282, 36 N. E. 455—1941. Shears v. Jacob, L. R. 1 C. P. 513 (1866)— 2108. Sheets. In re, etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1337 —2287. CCOXXXVIU TABLE- OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Sheffield v. Barclay, 87 L. T. Rep. 479 (1902)— 835. Sheffield v. Central Union Tel. Co., 36 Fed. 164—2824. Sheffield v. Mitchell, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 266, 52 N. Y. Supp. 925—1585. Sheffield, etc. Gas Co. v. Harrison, 17 Beav. 294 (1853)— 757. Sheffield, etc. Ry. v. Newman, 77 Fed. 787, 23 C. C. A. 459—2464. Sheffield, etc. Ry. v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574 (1841)— 283, 562, 848. Sheffield, etc. Soc. v. Aizlewood, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 412 (1889)— 1691. Sheffield Gas, etc. Co. v. Harrison, 17 Beav. 294 (1853)— 756. Sheffield Nickel Co. v. Unwin, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 214 (1877)- 2074. Shelby v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 143 111. 385, 32 N. B. 438—1662. Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 Ohio St. 450— 1675. Shelby County v. Union, etc. Bank, 161 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 558, 40 L. Ed. 650—1219. Shelby County Court v. Cumberland, etc. R. R., 8 Bush (Ky.), 209—246. Shelby County, etc. Co. v. Shelbyville Trustees, 91 Ky. 578, 16 S. W. 460— 1232. Shelby R. R. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 12 Bush (Ky.), 62—1278, 1280, 1282. Shelbyville, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Barnes, 42 Ind. 498—1031, 2551. Shelbyville Water Co. v. People, 140 111. 545, 30 N. E. 678, 16 L. R. A, 505 2732 2775 Sheldon v. Chappell, 47 Hun, 59—1591. Sheldon v. Western Union Tel. Co., 51 Hun, 591, 4 N. Y. Supp. 526—2828. Sheldon v. Western Union Tel. Co., 121 N. Y. 697, 24 N. B. 1099—2828. Sheldon, etc. Co. v. Bickemeyer, etc. Co., 90 N. Y. 607—1551, 1860, 1864. ' Sheldon, etc. Co. v. Eickmeyer, etc. Co., 56 How. Pr. 70—1550. Shellenberger v. Patterson, 168 Pa. St. 30—179, 625, 628, 1740. Shelley, In re, 34 L. J. (Bankr.) 6— 938 Shellington v. Howland, 53 N. Y. 371 —395, 396, 447, 450, 486, 559, 571. Shelmerdine v. Welsh, 47 Leg. Int. 26 (Phila. Com. PI.)— 1326, 1366, 1369. Shelton v. Healy, 50 Atl. 742 (Conn.) —784. Shenandoah Valley R. R. v. Griffith, 76 Va. 913—1004, 1121. Shepard v. Stockham, 45 Kan. 244, 25 Pac. 559—756, 1147. Shepherd v. Gillespie. L. R. 5 Eq. 293 (1867)— 755, 915, 916. Shepherd v. Johnson, 2 East, 211 (1802)— 1261. Shepherd's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 15 (1866)— 57L Shepherd's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 564 (1866) —1357. Shepley v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 55 Me. 395, 407—1800, 2111, 2113, 2186. Sheppard v. Murphy, Ir. Rep. 2 Eq. 544 (1868)— 914. Sheppard v. Murphy, 16 W. R. 948 (1868)— 913, 917. Sheppard v. Oxenford, 1 K. & J. 491 (1855)— 1076, 1710. Sheppard v. Scinde, etc. Ry., 56 L. T. Rep. 180, 57 L. T. Rep. 585 (1887), 60 L. T. Rep. 641 (1889)— 1439. Sheppard's, etc. Co., In re, 70 L. T. Rep. 3 (1893)— 609, 1440. Sheridan v. Sheridan, etc. Co., 38 Hun, 396—1464, 1927. Sheridan, etc. Co. v. Chatham Nat. Bank, 52 Hun, 575, 5 N. Y. Supp. 529—1733. Sheridan, etc. Light Co. v. Chatham Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 517, 28 N. E. 467—1763. Sheridan, etc. Works v. Marion T. Co., 157 Ind. 292, 61 N. B. 666, 87 Am. St. Rep. 207—1911, 1922. Sheriff v. Lowndes, 16 Md. 357—1032, 1291, 2604. Sherlock v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 142 Mo. 172, 43 S. W. 629, 64 Am. St. Rep. 551—2693. Sherlock v. Winnetka, 68 111. 530— 2006. Sherman v. American Stove Co., 85 Mich. 169, 48 N. W. 535—327. Sherman v. Beacon, etc. Co., 58 Hun, 143, 11 N. Y. Supp. 369—1111, 1937. Sherman V. Clark, 4 Nev. 138, 97 Am. Dec. 516—648. Sherman v. Connecticut River Bridge, 11 Mass. 338—66. ('Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59—1780, 1800, 1805, 1814. Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black. 587, 17 L. Ed. 163—1036. Sherman v. Wells, 28 Barb. 403—2727. Sherman, etc. Co. v. Drake, 91 N. W. 512 (Neb.)— 2788. Sherman, etc. Co. v. Fletcher, 46 Kan. 524, 26 Pac. 951—1594. Sherman, etc. Co. v. Morris, 43 Kan. 282, 23 Pac. 569, 19 Am. St. Rep. 134 —16, 20, 1596, 1777, 1807. Sherman, etc. Co. v. Russell, 46 Kan. 382, 26 Pac. 715—1594. Sherrard v. Sherrard, 3 Atk. 502 (1747) —1197. Sherwood v. American Bible Soc, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 227, 1 Keyes, 561— 1080, 1660, 1669, 1670. Sherwood v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 94 Vt. 291, 26 S. E. 943—2348, 2623. TABLE OF OASES. CCCXXXIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Sherwood v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 12 How. Pr. 136—402, 455. Sherwood v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 195 111. 112, 62 N. B. 835, 88 Am. St. Rep. 183—186, 530, 560. Sherwood v. Meadow Valley Min. Co., 50 Gal. 412—821, 884. Sherwood v. Tradesman's Nat. Bank, 16 N. Y. W. Dig. 522—762. Shewalter v. Pirner, 55 Mo. 218—1662, 1806. Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329, 44 N. B. 48, 57 Am. St. Rep. 230—193, 232, 320, 363. Shickell v. Berryville, etc. Co., 99 Va. 88, 37 S. B. 813—401, 1504. Shickle v. "Watts, 94 Mo. 410, 7 S. "W. 274—151, 179, 381, 397, 401, 481. Shiel V. Patrick, 59 Fed. 992, 8 C. C. A. 440—1876. Shield, In re, 53 L. T. 5—665. Shields, Ex parte, Ir. R. 7 Eq. 264 (1873)— 325. Shields v. Casey, 155 Pa. St. 253, 25 Atl. 619, 35 Am. St. Rep. 879— 544. Shields t. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 Tenn. 123, 28 S. W. 668, 26 L,. R. A. 509, 45 Am. St. Rep. 700—159, 499, 1716. Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, 15 Sup. Ct. 570, 39 L. Ed. 660—2224. Shields v. Hohart, 72 S. W. 669 (Mo.) —150, 382, 1164, 1656. Shields v. Hobart, 72 S. W. 675 (Mo.) —1492. Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319, 24 L. Ed. ' 357—1035, 1038, 2585, 2610. Shields v. Union, etc. Ins. Co., 119 N. C. 380, 25 S. E. 951—1949. Shillaher v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68, 24 L. Ed. 967—2192. Shinkle v. Vickery, 156 Mo. 1, 55 S. W. 456—754. Shinney v. North American, etc. Co., 97 Fed. 9—2392, 2417. Ship V. Crosskill, L. R. 10 Bq. 73 (1870)— 317, 320, 330, 1041. Shipherd v. Cohen, N. Y. D. Reg., Jan. 26, 1888—1113. Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank, 10 Johns. 484—864. Shipley v. Terra Haute, 74 Ind. 297— 266. Shipman v. ..^tna Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 245—706, 938. Shipman's Case, L. R. 5 Bq. 219 (1868) 562. Shipp V. Williams, 62 Fed. 4, 10 C. C. A. 247—2202. Shipper v. Pennsylvania R. R., 47 Pa. St. 338—2607. Ship's Case, 2 De G., J. & S. 544 (1865) —384. V , Shiras v. Bwing, 48 Kan. 170, 29 Pac. 320—2764. Shirk V. La Payette, 52 Fed. 857—2160. Shirk V. Sheridan, 10 Kan. App. 463, 62 Pac. 436—954. Shirley v. Waco Tap Ry., 78 Tex. 131, 10 S. W. 543—2658. Shively v. Eureka, etc. Co!, 129 Cal. 293, 61 Pac. 939—292, 520, 1935. Shockley v. Fisher, 75 Mo. 498—274, 415, 1636. Shoe, etc. Co. v. Western Nat. Bank, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 5^8, 75 N. Y. Supp. 627—1785. Shoemaker v. National Mechanics' Bank, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 416, 1 Hughes, 101, 21 Fed. Cas. 1331—686, 1626. Shoemaker v. National Mech. Bank, 31 Md. 396, 100 Am. Dec 73—678. Shoemaker v. Washburn, etc. Co., 97 Wis. 585, 73 N. W. 333—346, 616, 673. Shoe & Leather Assoc, v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 385—1107. ShoU V. German Coal Co., 118 111. 427, 10 N. E. 199, 59 Am. Rep. 379—2628. Shorer v. Times, etc. Co., 119 N. Y. 483, 23 N. E. 979—1940. Short V. Medberry, 29 Hun, 39 — 431. Short V. Post, 58 N. J. Eq. 130, 42 Atl. 569—160, 2025, 2035. Short V. Stevenson, 63 Pa. St. 95 — 1476. Shorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 517, 529^2633, 2752. Shortridge v. Bosanquet, 16 Beav. 84 (1852), 4 Bxch. 699 (1850)— 564, 1357. Short's Estate, In re, 16 Pa. St. 63 — 1208. Shortz V. TJnangst, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 45—1382. Shotwell V. McKown, 5 N. J. L. 828— 1802. Shotwell V. Mali, 38 Barb. 445, 469 — 646, 647. Shoun V. Armstrong, 59 S. W. 790 (Tenn.)— 507. Showalter v. Laredo Imp. Co., 83 Tex. 162, 18 S. W. 491—400, 413. Shrewsbury v. North, etc. Ry., L. R. 1 Bq. 593 (1865)— 1714. Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire- Ry., 35 L. J. (Ch.) 166 (1865)— 1547. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. v. London, etc. Ry., 14 Jur. 921, 2 M. & G. 324 (1850), 17 Q. B. D. 652 (1851), 3 M. & G. 70 (1850), 16 Beav. 441 (1852), 4 De G., M. & G. 115 (1853), 6 H. L. Cas. 113 (1857)— 2596. Shriver v. Stevens, 12 Pa. St. 258 — 1795. Shropshire v. Behrens, 77 Tex. 275, 13 S. W. 1043—1803. occxl TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the 4ash refer to the pages ot the text.] Shropshire Union, etc. Co. v. Reg.. L. R. 7 H. L. 496, 509 (1875)— 722, 825, 886. Shuey v. A^air, 24 Wash. 378, 64 Pac. 536—440. Shuey v. Holmes, 20 Wash. 13, 54 Pac. 540—545, 676, 2408. Shuey v. Holmes, 22 Wash. 193, 60 Pac. 402—378. Shufeldt V. Carver, 8 111. App. 545— 1026. Shufeldt V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367, 40 S. W. 887—1585. Shumaker v. Davidson, 87 N. W. 441 (Iowa)— 1576. ShurtlefC v. Wlscasset, 74 Me. 130— 264. Shurtz V. Schoolcraft, etc. R. R., 9 Mich. 269—191, 210, 358. Shuster v. Jones, 58 S. W. 595 (Ky.) — 699, 933, 963. Shute V. Keyser, 29 Pac. 386 (Ariz.)— 1946. Shuttleworth v. Greaves, 4 Myl. & Cr. 35 (1838)— 653, 659. Slas V. Consolidated, etc. Co., 73 Vt. 35, 50 Atl. 554—1732, 2834. Sias V. Lowell, etc. Ry., 179 Mass. 343, 60 N. E. 974—2832. Sibbald v. Bethlehem Iron Co., 83 N. Y. 378, 384, 38 Am. Rep. 441—903, 908, 910. . Sibell V. Remsen, 33 N. Y. 95—1638. Sibley v. Minton, 27 L. J. (Ch.) 53 (1858)— 1070. Sibley v. Mobile, 3 Woods, 535, 22 Fed. Cas. 57—244, 255. Sibley v. Penobscot, etc. Assoc, 93 Me. 399, 45 Atl. 293—3. Sibley v. Perry, 7 Ves. Jr. 522 (1802) — 656. Sibley v. Quinisigamond Nat. Bank, 133 Mass. 515—47, 848, 888, 1008. Sibson v. Hamilton & Rourke Co., 21 Wash. 362, 58 Pac. 219—2453. Sicardl v. Keystone Oil Co., 149 Pa. St. 148, 24 Atl. 163—1653. Slchell, Ex parte, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 187 (1851)— 1701. Sichell's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. 119 (1867) —563. Sickels V. Anderson, 63 Mich. 421, 30 N. W. 78—278. Sickles V. Richardson, 23 Hun, 559 — 979, 987, 1997, 2254. Siddall, In re, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 1 (1885)— 1065, 1066. Sidell V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 78 Fed. 724 —1497, 1572, 1888. Sidney's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 228 (1871) —191. Sldway v. Missouri, etc. Co., 101 Fed. ! 481—1387, 1869, 1920. Sidway v. Missouri, etc. Co., 116 Fed. 381—1870, 1946. Siebe v. Joshua, etc. Works, 86 Cal. 390, 25 Pac. 14—1775. Siegel v. Andrews & Co., 181 111. 350, 54 N. E. 1008—115, 144, 352. Sieghortner v. Weissenborn, 20 N. J. Eq. 172—1070, 1090. Siegman v. Maloney, 51 Atl. 1003 (N. J.)— 812, 1186. Siegman v. Maloney, 54 Atl. 405 (N. J.)— 1913. Sierra Nevada, etc. Co. v. Sears, 10 Nev. 346—823, 830. Sigua, etc. Co. v. Brown, 171 N. Y. 488, 64 N. B. 194—189, 413, 556, 1113, 1 1844, 2431. Sigua, etc. Co. v. Greene, 88 Fed. 207 —581. - Sigua, etc. Co. v. Greene, 104 Fed. 854, 44 C. C. A. 221—188. Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 143, 45 N. Y. Supp. 989—397. Sigua Iron Co. v. Clark, 77 Fed. 496 — 214. Sigua Iron Co. v. Greene, 88 Fed. 207, 31 C. C. A. 477—556, 581. Silk Mfg. Co. V. Campbell, 27 N. J. L. 539—1932. Silkstone Fall Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 38 (1875)— 1277. Sillcocks V. Gallaudet, 66 Hun, 522, 21 N. Y. Supp. 552—921. Silliman v. Fredericksburg, etc. R. R., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 119—1409, 1429, 2036, 2052, 2120. Silloway v. Columbia Ins. Co., 74 Mass. 199—1952. Silsby V. Strong, 38 Or. 36, 62 Pac. 633 —1739, 2143. Silva V. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 307—1773. Silver Bow County v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306, 12 Pac. 688—1226. Silver, etc. Co. v. North, etc. Co., 119 N. C. 417, 25 S. E. 954, 122 N. C. 542, 29 S. E. 940—1641. Silver Hook Road v. Greene, 12 R. I. 164—277, 1763. Silver Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. 370—513, 1625, 1662, 1668, 1950. Silverthorn v. Warren R. R., 33 N. J. L. 173—1241. Silvis v. Ely, 3 Watts £ S. (Pa.) 420 —41. Simm V. Anglo-Amer. Tel. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 188 (1879)— 639, 835. Simmons v. Brooks, 159 Mass. 219, 34 N. B. 175—1363. Simmons v. Burlington, etc. Ry., 159 TJ. S. 278, 16 Sup. Ct. 1, 40 L. Ed. 150—2028, 2067, 2236, 2240, 2281, 2292, 2294. TABLE OF CASES. cccxli [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Simmons v. Dent, 16 Mo. App. 288 — 544. Simmons v. Hill, 96 Mo. 679, 10 S. W. 61, 2 L. R. A. 476—557. Simmons v. London Joint Stock Bank (1891), 1 Ch. 270—886, 932, 1261. Simmons v. Norfolk, etc. Steamboat Co., 113 N. C. 147, 18 S. E. 117, 22 L. R. A. 677, 37 Am. St. Rep. 614—516, 1401. :Simmons v. Sisson, 26 N. Y. 264—37, 488. Simmons v. Taylor, 38 Fed. 682—2002, 2028, 2067, 2236, 2240, 2292, 2294. Simmons v. Taylor, 106 Tenn. 729, 63 S. W. 1123—159, 1892, 2397. Simmons v. Toledo, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 539—2690, 2697. Simmons v. Troy Ironworks, 92 Ala. 427, 9 South. 160—1597. Simmons v. Vallance, 4 Bro. Ch. 346 (1793)— 655. Simmons v. Worthington, 170 Mass. 203, 49 N. E. 114—2557. Simmons, etc. Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 239, 35 L. Ed. 1063— 1838. Simon v. Sevier Assoc, 54 Ark. 58, 14 S. W. 1101—1743. Slmonds v. East Windsor, etc. Ry., 73 Conn. 513, 48 Atl. 210—740, 1271, 2545, 2701. Simons v. First Nat. Bank, 93 N. Y. 269—1629. Simons v. Southwestern R. R. Bank, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 270—721, 723. Simons v. Vulcan, etc. Co., 61 Pa. St. 202, 100 Am. Dec. 628—39, 1469. Simonson v. New York City Ins. Co., 141 N. Y. 12, 35 N. E. 969, 25 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 90—1499, 1512, 2746. Simonson v. Spencer, 15 Wend. 548 — 428, 441, 450. Simonton v. Citizens', etc. Co., 67 S. W. 530 (Tex.)— 2824. Simonton v. Sibley, 122 XT. S. 220, 7 Sup. Ct. 1351, 30 L. Ed. 1225—978, 1068. Simpkins v. Low, 54 N. Y. 179—1258. Simpson, Matter of, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 562, 55 N. Y. Supp. 697—966, 1989. Simpson v. Denlson, 10 Hare, 51, 54 (1852)— 1031, 2075, 2574, 2584. Simpson v. Jersey City, etc. Co., 165 N. Y. 193, 58 N. E. 896, 55 L. R. A. 796—50, 885, 890, 996, 1003. Simpson v. Jersey City, etc. Co., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 17, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1033 —996, 1003. Simpson v. MlUsaps, 31 South. 912 (Miss.)— 1200. Simpson v. Moore, 30 Barb. 637 — 1142, 1191. Simpson v. Palaca Theatre, 69 L. T. Rep. 70 (1893)— 610, 2527. Simpson v. Reynolds, 71 Mo. 594—398. Simpson v. South Carolina, etc. Co., 59 S. C. 195, 37 S. E. 18, 225—22. Simpson v. Union Stock, etc. Co., 110 Fed. 799—1871. Simpson v. Westminster, etc. Co., 8 H. L. Cas. 712 (I860)— 1550, 1593, 1607. Simpson's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 184 (1869)— 88. Simrall v. Williamson, 35 S. W. 632 (Ky.)— 786. Sims v. Bonner, 16 N. Y. Supp. 801— 1005. Sims V. New York College of Dentistry, 108 N. Y. 661, 15 N. E. 445—1254. Sims V. Petaluma, etc. Co., 131 Cal. 656, 63 Pac. 1011—1456. Sims V. Street R. R., 37 Ohio St. 556— 203, 623, 1494. Sims V. Tyrer, 26 S. E. 508 (Va.) — 1707. Sincer v. Alverson, 51 La. Ann. 955, 25 South. 650—1923. Sinclair v. Dwight, 9 N. Y. App. Div. 297, 41 N. Y. Supp. 193—576, 578. Sinclair v. Fuller, 158 N. Y. 607, 53 N. E. 510—490, 576, 578, 1376, 1377. Sinclair v. Gray, 9 Fla. 71 — 1109. Sinclair v. Weekes, 41 S. W. 107 (Tex.) —979. Singer v. Given, 61 Iowa, 93, 15 N. W. 858—393. Singer v. Hutchinson, 183 IlL 606, 56 N. B. 388, 75 Am. St. Rep. 133—1181, 1571. Singer v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 6 Mo. App. 427—2075, 2147. Singer v. Salt Lake City, etc. Co., 17 Utah, 143, 53 Pac. 1024, 70 Am. St. Rep. 773—1643, 1741, 1743, 1745, 1748. Singer, etc. Co. v. Barnard, etc. Co., 113 Iowa, 664, 83 N. W. 725—2012, 2256, 2257. Singer, etc. Co. v. Carpenter, 125 111. 117, 17 N. E. 761—1575. Singer, etc. Co. v. Hutchinson, 176 111. 48, 51 N. B. 622—1442. Singer, etc. Co. v. Peck, 9 S. D. 29, 67 N. W. 947—522. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Belgart, 84 Ala. 519, 4 South. 400—1798. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 64 Ind. 548 —1678. Singer Mfg. Co. v. County Com'rs, 139 Mass. 266, 1 N. E. 419—1240. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Elizabeth, 42 N. J. L. 249—257. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Hardee, 4 N. M. 175, 16 Pac. 605—1680. Singer Mfg. Co. v. McCoUock, 24 Fed. 667—2236. ccexlii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 33 Fed. 121 i 229 Singer's Case, 4 W. N. 206 (1869)— 668. Singleton v. Southwestern R. R., 70 Ga. 464, 48 Am. Rep. 574—2581. Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 719, 720, 25 L. Ed. 496—1027, 1033, 1036, 1038, 1432, 2609. Sinking-Pund Com'rs v. Green, etc. Co., 79 Ky. 73—1037. Sinnott v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 81 Wis. 95, 50 N. W. 1097—2690. Sinnott v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 105 Tua,. 705, 30 South. 233—664. Sioux City, etc. Co. v. Trust Co., 173 U. S. 99, 19 Sup. Ct. 341, 43 L. Ed. 628—1436, 1736, 1972, 2145, 2148, 2158, 2236, 2241, 2341, 2553. Sioux City, etc. Co. v. Trust Co., 82 Fed. 124—1436, 1736, 1972, 2145, 2148, 2158, 2236, 2241, 2340. Sioux City, etc. Ry. v. Manhattan T. Co., 92 Fed. 428, 34 C. C. A. 431— 143, 973, 1991, 2020, 2249, 2485. Sioux City St. Ry. v. Sioux City, 138 U. S. 98, 11 Sup. Ct. 226, 34 L. Ed. 898, 78 Iowa, 367, 43 N. W. 224—2717, 2718. Sioux City St. Ry. v. Sioux City, 78 Iowa, 742, 39 N. W. 498—2602. Sioux City Term. R. R. v. Trust Co., 82 Fed. 124, 27 C. C. A. 73—2553. Sioux Falls, etc. Bank v. Lien, 85 N. W. 924 (S. Dak.)— 946. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. Swenson, 48 Fed. 621—1223. Sipes V. Seymour, 44" Fed. 326—1707. Sipperly v. Stewart, 50 Barb. 62, 68— 914. Sistare v. Best, 88 N. Y. 527, 533—686, 694, 904. Sitgreaves v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 49 Pa. St. 359—844, 977. Sixth Avenue R. R. t. Kerr, 72 N. T. 330—2709. Skaneateles, etc. Co. T. Skaneateles, 184 V. S. 354, 22 Sup. Ct. 400, 46 L. Ed. 585—2761. Skaneateles, etc. Co. v. Village of Skaneateles, 161 N. Y. 154, 55 N. E. 562, 46 L. R. A. 687—2760, 2761. Skegness, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 41 Ch. D. 215 (1888)— 1711, 1713. Skelton v. Wood, 71 L. T. Rep. 616 (1894)— 909. Skiddy v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 3 Hughes, 320, 334, 337, 341, 350, 355, 356, 357, 360, 365, 381, 22 Fed. Cas. 274, 288—598, 1995, 2002, 2058, 2123, 2184, 2213, 2239, 2240, 2253, 2279, 2353, 2363, 2467, 2512. Skiff V. Stoddard, 63 Conn. 198, 26 Atl. 874, 28 Atl. 104, 21 L. R. A. 102—919, 921, 922, 941, 943, 954, 965. Skillman's Estate, In re, 9 N. Y. Supp. 469—1191. Skinner v. City of London M. Ins. Corp., L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 882 (1885) —870, 1120, 1265. Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. 513, 537, 10 Am. Dec. 286—437, 1070, 1085, 1089, 1371. Skinner v. Fort Wayne, etc. R. R., 58. Fed. 55—858, 942. Skinner v. Fort Wayne, etc. R. R., 99 Fed. 465—2322, 2342, 2631, 2685, 2812. Skinner v. Garnett, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 735—2603. Skinner v. Maxwell, 68 N. C. 400 — 2423. Skinner v. Smith, 134 N. Y. 240, 31 N. E. 911—104, 346, 1163, 1555, 1654. Skinner v. Smith, 56 Hun, 437, 10 N. Y. Supp. 81—1163. Skinner v. Walter, etc. Co., 140 N. Y.. 217, 35 N. E. 491, 37 Am. St. Rep. 540—1766. Skirm v. Eastern, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Bq. 179, 40 Atl. 769—1587, 1638. Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler, 49 Me. 315 —565, 571, 993, 1009. Skowhegan, etc. R. R. v. Kinsman, 7T Me. 370—359. Skrainka v. Allen, 7 Mo. App. 434, 7ff. Mo. 384—114, 117, 1178, 2006. Skrainka y. Sharringhausen, 8 Mo. App. 522—1048. Slack V. Maysville, etc. R. R., 13 B. Mon. 1—246, 249, 253, 259. Slack V. Northwestern, etc. Bank, 103' Wis. 57, 79 N. W. 51, 74 Am. St. Rep. 841—1527, 1653. Slade V. Talbot, 65 N. E. 374 (Mass.) —660. Slark V. Highgate Archway Co., 5- Taunt. 792 (1814)— 1627. Slater's Case, 35 Beav. 391 (1866) — 573, 580. Slater Woolen Co. v. Lamb, 143 Mass. 420, 9 N. E. 823—1602. Slattery v. St. Louis, etc. Co., - 91 Mo. 217, 4 S. W. 79, 60 Am. Rep. 245 — 1557, 1897, 1932, 2538. Slattery v. Schwannecke, 118 N. Y.- 543, 23 N. E. 922—1833. Slattery v. Schwannecke, 44 Hun, 75 — 1833. Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 767—1672, 1674. Slaughter v. La Compagnie, etc., 113' Fed. 21—2845. Slavens v. Cook Drug Co., 128 Mo. 341, 30 S. W. 1025—1636. Slaymaker v. Bank of Gettysburg, 10- Pa. St. 373—45, 704, 708, 992. Slaytor-Jennings Co. v. Specialty, etc, Co., 54 Atl. 247 (N. J.)— 1683, 1952.- TABLK OF CASES. cccxliii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Slee V. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456, 10 Am. Dec. 273—114, 294, 379, 397, 416, 448, 517, 1385, 1394, 1395. Slee V. Bloom, 20 Johns. 669—416, 418, 473. Slee V. Bloom, 5 Johns. Ch. 366, 382— 416, 418, 441, 1394. Slee V. International Bank, 17 L. T. Rep. 425 (1867)— 1357. Sleech v. Thorlngton, 2 Ves. Sr. 560 (1754)— 655. Sleeper v. Goodwin, 67 Wis. 577, 31 N. W. 335—430, 447, 454, 483, 532, 1036. Sleeper v. Norris, 59 Kan. 555, 53 Pac. 757—448. Slemmons v. Thompson, 23 Oreg. 215, 31 Pac. 514—866. Slide, etc. Mines v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 509, 520, 14 Sup. Ct. 842, 38 L. Ed. 802—89, 1665, 1718, 2040. Slingshy v. Granger, 7 H. L. Gas. 273 (1859)— 658. Slipher v. Barhart, 83 Ind. 173—236, 238, 379. Sloan V. Central Iowa Ry., 62 Iowa, 728, 16 N. W. 331—2536. Sloan V. Kansas City, etc. Bank, 158 Mo. 431, 57 S. W. 1056—1788. Sloan V. Pacific R. R., 61 Mo. 24, 21 Am. Rep. 397 — 2611. Sloane v. People's El. Ry., 7 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 84—2663. Slocum V. Head, 105 Wis. 431, 81 N. W. 673, 50 L. R. A. 324—524. Slocum V. Providence Steam, etc. Co., 10 R. I. 112—369. Sloman v. Bank of England, 14 Sim. 475 (1845)— 301, 833, 836. Sly V. Palo, etc. Co., 68 Pac. 871 (Wash.)— 1942. Small V. Elliott, 12 S. D. 570, 82 N. W. 92, 76 Am. St. Rep. 630—1816, 2088. Small V. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 N. T. 330—291, 300, 303. Small V. Minneapolis, etc. Co., 45 Minn. 264, 47 N. W. 797—1551. Small V. Minneapolis, etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 456—1552, 1874, 1897. Small V. Saloy, 42 La. Ann. 183, 7 South. 450—990. Small V. Smith, 14 S. D. 621, 86 N. W. 649, 86 Am. St. Rep. 808—2399. Smallhouse v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 2 Mont. 443—430. Smead v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R., 11 Ind. 104—1041, 1980, 2071, 2083. Smelser v. Wayne, etc. Turnp. Co., 82 Ind. 417—1417, 1425. Smith, Matter of, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 340. 72 N. Y. Supp. 1062—626, 716, 1143, 1199. Smith, In re (1896). 2 Ch. 590—714. Smith V. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564, 31 L. Ed. 508—2602. Smith V. Alabama, etc. Ass'n, 123 Ala. 538, 26 South. 232—102, 596, 1157, 1163. Smith V. Alvord, 63 Barb. 415—1674, 1741. Smith V. Allison, 23 Ind. 366—237. Smith V. American Coal Co., 7 Lans. 317—824, 829, 888, 1005, 1012, 1144. Smith V. American Nat. Bank, 89 Fed. 832, 32 C. C. A. 368—713, 960. Smith V. Anderson, 57 Hun, 72, 10 N. Y. Supp. 278—1772. Smith T. Anderson, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 188, 27 S. W. 775—971. Smith V. Anderson, L. R. 15 Ch. D. 247 (1880)— 1061, 1065, 1068, 1069, 1453. Smith V. Atchison, etc. R. R., 64 Fed. 272—1304. Smith V. Baker, 42 Hun, 504—703. Smith V. Bangs, 15 111. 399—192. Smith V. Bank, etc. Scotia, 8 S. C. Rep. (Can.) 558 (1883)— 1357, Smith V. Bank of New England, 54 Atl. 385 (N. H.)— 1781, 2162. Smith V. Bank of Scotland, 1 Dow, P. C. 272 (1841)— 1799. Smith V. Bank of Victoria, 41 L. J. (P. C.) 34 (1872)— 1493. Smith V. Bierce, 104 La. 96, 28 South. 905—1353. Smith V. Board, etc. Co., 38 Conn. 208 1833 Smith V. BoUes, 132 U. S. 125, 10 Sup. Ct. 39, 33 L. Ed. 279—1265. Smith V. Bourbon County, 127 U. S. 105, 8 Sup. Ct. 1043, 32 L. Ed. 73— 266. Smith V. Bouvier, 70 Pa. St. 325—768, 771, 906. Smith V. Bradt Printing Co., 97 Tenn. 351, 37 S. W. 10—1642. Smith V. Bulkley, 70 Pac. 958 (Colo.) —1911, 1930. Smith V. Burley, 9 N. H. 423—1216. Smith V. Burton, 59 Vt. 408, 10 Atl. 536—212. Smith V. Central, etc. Tel. Co., 2 Ohio Cir. Ct. 259, 2 Am. Elec. Cas. 237— 2796. Smith' V. Central Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650, 662—66. Smith V. Chadwick, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 187 (1884)— 315. Smith V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 18 Wis. 17 —1578, 2119, 2506, 2530. Smith V. City of Brooklyn, 160 N. Y. 357, 54 N. E. 787, 45 L. R. A. 664— 2763. Smith V. City of Rochester, 104 N. Y. 674—2782. Smith V. City of Rochester, 38 Hun, 612—2782. cccxliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Smith V. City of Rocliester, 92 N. Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393—2779. Smith V. Clark County, 54 Mo. 58—246, 252, 2057. Smith V. Coale, 34 Leg. Int. 58—977. Smith V. Colorado F. Ins. Co., 14 Fed. 399, 4 McCrary, 583—497. Smith v. Co-operative, etc. Assoc, 12 Daly, 304—1793. Smith V. Cork, etc. Ry., Ir. Rep. 3 Eg. 356 (1869), Ir. Rep. 5 Eg. 65 (1870) —588, 602, 604, 605. Smith T. Cornelius, 41 W. Va. 59, 23 S. E. 599, 30 L. R. A. 747—1396. Smith V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 30 La. Ann. 1378—45, 825, 829, 847, 1007, 1011. Smith V. Danzig, 64 How. Pr. 320 — 1378. Smith V. Delaware, etc. Co., 51 Atl. 464 (N. J.)— 2793. Smith V. Dickinson, 100 Wis. 574, 76 N. W. 766—421. Smith V. Dorn, 96 Cal. 73, 30 Pac. 1024 —1743, 1910. Smith V. Downey, 8 Ind. App. 179, 34 N. E. 823, 35 N. E. 568, 52 Am. St. Rep. 467—1002. Smith V. Duffy, 57 N. J. L. 679, 32 Atl. 371—1266. Smith V. Eastern R. R., 124 Mass. 154 —2303. Smith V. Eastwood, etc. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331, 43 Atl. 567—5, 1022, 1434, 1593, 2583. Smith V. Ely, etc. Co., 79 Miss. 266, 30 South. 653—2384. Smith V. Erb, 4 Gill (Md.), 437—1737. Smith V. Eureka Flour Mills Co., 6 Cal. 1—1969, 1976. Smith V. Exeter, 37 N. H. 556—1208, 1210. Smith V. Fagan,17 Cal. 178—1493. Smith V. Ferracute, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 231 (N. J.)— 600. Smith T. Ferries, etc. Ry., 51 Pac. 710 (Cal.)— 146, 1456, 1512, 1524, 1883, 1974, 2140, 2544. Smith V. First Nat. Bank, 17 Mich. 479 —1224. Smith V. Flint, etc. Ry., 46 Mich. 258, 9 N. W. 273—2415. Smith V. Florida, etc. R. R., 43 Fed. 731—2028. Smith V. Fond du Lac, 8 Fed. 289, 10 Biss. 418—261. Smith V. Forty-nine and Fifty-six Quartz Min. Co., 14 Cal. 242—932, 993. Smith V. Franklin Park, etc. Co., 168 Mass. 345, 47 N. E. 409—621. Smith V. Geo. T. Smith, etc. Co., 119 Mich. 11, 77 N. "W. 308—1887.' Smith V. Gillen, 52 Ark. 442, 12 S. W, 1073— (371. Smith V. Gold & Stock Tel. Co., 42 Hun, 454—2842. Smith V. Goldsworthy, 4 Q. B. 430' (1843)— 637. Smith V. Gower, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 17— 377, 1394, 1395. Smith V. Hall, 103 Iowa, 95, 72 N. W. 427—2637. Smith T. Hall, 67 N. Y. 48—925, 971,. 1251. Smith V. Heath, 4 Daly, 123—910. Smith V. Heidecker, 39 Mo. 157—389. Smith V. Hollett, 34 Ind. 519—277. Smith V. Hooper, 51 Atl. 844 (Md.)— 1201. Smith V. Huckahee, 53 Ala. 191-402,. 453, 454, 491, 518. Smith v. Hull Glass Co., 8 C. B. 668^ (1849), 11 C. B. 897, 925 (1852)— 1799. Smith T. Hurd, 53 Mass. 371, 46 Am, Dec. 690—1186, 1876, 1883. Smith V. 111. etc. R. R. (N. Y. Super.. Ct, 1865)— 1992. Smith V. Indiana, etc. Ry., 12 Ind. 61 —284. Smith V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry., 63 N. E. 849 (Ind.)— 6. Smith V. Johnson, 3 H. & N. 222 (1858) —1732, 1980. Smith v. Johnson, 57 Ohio St. 486, 49 N. E. 693—414. Smith T. Lake Shore, etc. Ry., 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328—1034, 2587. Smith V. Lansing, 22 N. Y. 520—1493. Smith V. Law, 21 N. Y. 296—1287, 1744, 1969, 1976. Smith V. Lawson, 18 W. Va. 212, 227,. 228, 41 Am. Rep. 688—1770, 1787. Smith v. Lee, 77 Fed. 779, 84 Fed. 55T —960, 985. , Smith V. Little, 67 Ind. 549—1678. Smith V. Lockwood, 1 Code Rep. (N. S.) 319—1088. Smith V. Long Island R. R., 102 N. Y. 190, 6 N. E. 397—1510. Smith V. Los Angeles, etc. Assoc, 7^ Cal. 289, 20 Pac. 677, 12 Am. St. Rep. 53—1651. Smith V. Los Angeles Superior Court,. 97 Cal. 348, 32 Pac 322—2374. Smith V. Lowell Meeting-House, 25 Mass. 178—1801. Smith V. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, 25 L. Ed. 637—699. Smith V. McNamara, 15 Hun, 446 — 2418. Smith V. Maine Boys Tunnel Co., 18 Cal. 111—303. Smith V. Manhattan Ins. Co., 4 Hun, 127—2488. TABLE OF OASES. cccxlv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Smith V. Martin, 67 Pac. 779 (Gal.)— 109, 171. Smith V. Martin, 135 Cal. 247, 47 Pac. 779—146, 787. Smith V. Martin, etc. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 285—1825. Smith V. Miss. etc. R. B., 14 Miss. 179 —1418, 1625. Slnith V. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 96 Mass. 336—1953. Smith V. Nashville, etc. R. R., 91 Tenn. 221, 18 S. W. 546—702, 722, 734. Smith V. Natchez, etc. Co., 2 Miss. 479, 492—1757. Smith V. Nelson, 18 Vt. 511—23. Smith V. New Hampshire T. Co., 68 N. H. 424, 41 Atl. 674—2100. Smith V. New Hartford Waterworks, 73 Conn. 626, 48 Atl. 754—1719, 1735. Smith v. New York, etc. Co., 18 Abb. Pr. 419, 435—1550. Smith V. North American Min. Co., 1 Nev. 423—618, 863, 870. Smith V. Northampton Bank, 58 Mass. 1—992, '1147. Smith V. Pacific Bank, 70 Pac. 184 (Cal.)— 1496. Smith V. Parker, 148 Ind. 127, 45 N. E. 770—789, 1706. Smith V. Poor, 40 Me. 415, 3 Ware, 148, 22 Fed. Cas. 627, 63 Am. Dec. 672— 1155, 1247, 1685, 1878. Smith V. Prattville, etc. Co., 29 Ala. 503—1158. Smith V. Prior, 58 Minn. 247, 59 N. "W. 1016—139. Smith V. Proctor, 130 N. Y. 319, 29 N. E. 312, 14 L. R. A. 403—1299. Smith V. Putnam, 61 N. H. 632—1499, 1650. Smith V. Rathbun, 22 Hun, 150—1611, 1687, 1900. Smith V. Reading Pass. Ry., 2 Pa. Dist. 490—2570. Smith V. Reese River Co., Ii. R. 2 Ea. 264 (1866)— 323, 325. Smith V. Rude, etc. Co., 131 Ind. 150, 30 N. E. 947—1231. Smith V. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139, 20 L. Ed. 102—2049. Smith V. St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 727—2746. Smith V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 151 Mo. ■391, 52 S. W. 378, 48 L. R. A. 368— 2414. Smith V. San Francisco, etc. Ry., 115 Cal. 584, 47 Pac. 582, 35 L. R. A. 309, 56 Am. St. Rep. 119—549, 1307, 1311, 1315, 1343. Smith V. Savin, 141 N. Y. 315, 36 N. E. 338—845, 914, 939, 958, 964, 971, 1260. Smith V. Savin, 69 Hun, 311, 23 N. Y. Supp. 568—964, 971. Smith V. Savin, 9 N. Y. Supp. 106— 964 971. Smith V. Seattle, etc. Ry., 72 Hun, 202, 25 N. Y. Supp. 368—1465, 1719. Smith V. Second Nat. Bank, 169 N. Y. 467, 62 N. E. 577—728. Smith V. Sheeley, 12 Wall. 358, 20 L. Ed. 430—1420, 1660, 1663. Smith V. Silver Valley Min. Co., 64 Md. 85, 20 Atl. 1032, 54 Am. Rep. 760 —9, 302, 1269, 1270. Smith v. Sioux, etc. Co., 109 Iowa, 51, 79 N. W. 457—2422. Smith V. Skeary, 47 Conn. 47—1634, 1655. Smith V. Smith, 62 111. 492—1781, 1810. Smith V. Smith, 117 Mass. 72—1771. Smith V. Smith, 3 Desauss. (S. C.) 557 —1075. Smith V. Smith, etc. Co., 125 Mich. 234, 84 N. W. 144—1466, 1487, 1561, 1614, 1882, 1940. Smith V. Sorby, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 552 (1875)— 1479. Smith V. Southeastern Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640—71. Smith V. South Royalton Bank, 32 Vt. 341, 76 Am. Dec. 179—1839. Smith V. Standard, etc. Co., 19 Fed. 826, 21 Blatchf. 184—1610. Smith V. State, 140 Ind. 343—1405. Smith V. Tallapoosa County, 2 Woods, 574, 22 Fed. Cas. 682—2064. Smith V. Tallassee Plank-road Co., 30 Ala. 650—64, 66, 285, 309, 314, 354, 372. Smith V. Thompson, 94 Mich. 381, 54 N. W. 168—808. Smith V. Tracy, 36 N. Y. 79—803. Smith V. Traders' Nat. Bank, 74 Tex. 457, 12 S. W. 113—1020. Smith V. Traders' Nat. Bank, 82 Tex. 368, 17 S. W. 779—941, 946, 1258. Smith V. Virgin, 33 Me. 148—1069, 1088, 1090. Smith V. Walkerville, etc. Co., 23 App. Rep. (Can.) 95—825. Smith, V. Washington, etc. R. R., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 617—2478. Smith V. Weed S. Machine Co., 26 Ohio St. 562—1950. Smith V. Wells,- 20 How. Pr. 158— 1921. Smith V. Wells, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 37,5 — 2445, 2534, 2728. Smith V. Wells, etc. Co., 148 Ind. 333, 46 N. E. 1000—1635, 1779. Smith V. Westerly, 19 R. I. 437, 35 Atl. 526—2762. Smith V. Western Union Tel. Co., 84 Ky. 664, 2 S. W. 483—2842. Smith V. Woodville, etc. Co., 66 Cal. 398, 5 Pac. 688—1501. cccxlvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Smith Charities v. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272, 31 N. E. 1058—1774. Smith-Dimmick, etc. Co. v. Teague, 119 Ala. 385, 24 South. 4—2373. Smith, etc. Co. v. McGroarty, 136 TJ. S. 237, 10 Sup. Ct. 1017, 34 Lr. Ed. 346—1630, 1641. Smith's Estate, 140 Pa. St. 344, 21 Atl. 438, 23 Am. St. 'Rep. 237—1190. Smlthson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. 593— 2401. Smoot V. Heim, 1 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 208— 996. Smouse v. Ball, 1 Grant (Pa.), 397 — 975. Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 18 Sup. Ct. 418, 42 L. Ed. 819—1934, 2612. Smyth V. Burns, 25 Miss. 422 — 716. Smyth V. Darley, 2 H. L. Cas. 789— 1276, 1744. Smythe v. Scott, 124 Ind. 183, 24 N. E. 685—1941. Sneath v. Valley Gold (1893), 1 Ch. 477—2097, 2136, 2527. Snell V. Chicago, 152 V. S. 191, 14 Sup. Ct. 489, 38 L. Ed. 408—2549, 2749. Snell V. Chicago, 133 111. 413,^24 N. E. 532, 8 L. R. A. 858—7, 10, 1385, 1414, 2548, 2549, 2749, 2752, 2753. Snell V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 60 Ohio St. 256, 54 N. E. 270—42, 1936. Snell V. Clinton, etc. Co., 63 N. B. 1082, 58 L. R. A. 284 (111.)— 2728. Snell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 22 (1869) —191, 293, 344, 669. Snlder's Sons Co. v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 8 South. 658, 11 L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. Rep. 887—502. Snively v. Loomis Coal Co., 69 Fed. 204 —2359. Snoddy v. American Nat. Bank, 88 Tenn. 573, 13 S. W. 127, 7 L. R. A. 705, 17 Am. St. Rep. 918—773. Snook V. Georgia Imp. Co., 83 Ga. 61, 9 S. E. 1104—1032, 1040. Snouffer v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 105 Iowa, 681, 75 N. W. 501—2771. Snow v. Alley, 144 Mass. 546, 11 N. E. 764, 59 Am. Rep. 119—222. Snow V. Boston, etc. Co., 158 Mass. 325, 33 N. B. 588—1856. Snow V. Church, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 108, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1072—1347, 1509. Snow V. Indiana, etc. R. R., 109 Ind. 422, 9 N. E. 702—2641. Snow V. Russell Coe, etc. Co., 58 Hun, 134, 11 N. Y. Supp. 492—1512. 2298. Snow V. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 179—1076, 1088. Snow V. Wlnslow, 54 Iowa, 200, 6 N. "W. 191—2462. Snyder, Matter of, 29 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 1, 59 N. Y. Supp. 993—1588, 1990, 2074. Snyder v. Foster, 73 Fed. 136, 19 C. C. A. 406—564. Snyder v. Lindsey, 157 N. Y. 616, 52 N. E. 592—1089. Snyder v. McComb, 39 Fed. 292—718. Snyder v. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 462, 81 Am. Dec. 415—1420. Snyder v. Tunitas Petrol. Co., 72 Cal. 194, 13 Pac. 479—670. Snyder Bros. v. Bailey, 46 N. E. 452 (111.)— 1766. Snyder, etc. Co., In re, 68 L. T. Rep. 210 (1893)— 335. Soby V. People, 134 111. 66, 25 N. E. 109—772. Soclete, etc. v. Mackintosh, 5 Utah, 568, 18 Pac. 363—1812. Soclete, etc. v. Mackintosh, 7 Utah, 35, 24 Pac. 669—1813. Soclete Fonciere v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304, 10 Sup. Ct. 823, 34 L. Ed. 208— 1964. Societe Generale v. Tramways Union Co., L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 424—822, 826, 846, 1132. Societe Generale v. Walker, L. R. 11 App. Cas. (H. L.) 20 (1885)— 822, 826, 847, 855. Society, etc. v. Colegrove, 49 Atl. 902 (Conn.)— 1190. Society for Propagating Gospel v. Paw- let, 4 Pet. 480, 7 L. Ed. 927—1944. Society for Propagating of Gospel v. Young, 2 N. H. 310—64, 67. Society for Propagation of Gospel V. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 483, 484— 1405. Society for Savings v. New London, 29 Conn. 174—244, 260, 262, 269, 2043. Society for Visitation, etc. v. Meyer, 52 Pa. St. 125, 131, 91 Am. Dec. 139— 1075. Society of Prac. Knowl. v. Abbott, 2 Beav. 559 (1840)— 101. Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. v. Hamlin, 24 Hun, 390—185. Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. v. Lapham, 43 Hun, 314—375. Solomon v. Bates, 118 N. C. 311, 24 S. B. 478, 54 Am. St. Rep. 725—1689. Solomon v. First Nat. Bank, 72 Miss. 854, 17 South. 383—1156. Solomon v. Penoyar, 89 Mich. 11, 50 N. W. 644^1611. Solomon v. Schneider & Co., 56 Neb. 680, -77 N. W. 65—1946. Solomon Co. v. Barber, 58 Kan. 419, 49 Pac. 524—670, 1721, 2014, 2073. Solomons v. American, etc. Assoc, 116 Fed. 676—2487. Solomon's Lodge v. Montmoclln, 58 Ga. 547, 548—1807, 1810. Solon V. Wllllamsburgh Sav. Bank, 114 N. Y. 122, 21 N. B. 168—247, 248. TABLE OF OASES. cccxlvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Somerset, etc. Co.'s Receiver v. Adams, 72 S. W. 1125 (Ky.)— 179, 192. Somerset, etc. R. R. v. Gushing, 45 Me. 524—366, 367, 615, 638. Somerset R. R. v. Clarke, 61 Me. 379— 366. Somerset Ry. v. Pierce, 88 Me. 86, 33 Atl. 772—2187. Somerville's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 266 (1871)— 581. Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 71, 18 N. E. 687, 5 L. R. A. 432, 10 Am. St. Rep. 23—769. Sons of Progress, In re, 14 W. N. Cas. 31—62. Soper V. BufEalo, etc. R. R., 19 Barb. 310—1827, 1830. Sorchan v. Mayo, 50 N. J. Eq. 288, 23 Atl. 479—2388. Souder v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 156 Pa. St. 374, 27 Atl. 293—704. Souhegan, etc. Factory v. McConihe, 7 N. H. 309—66, 67. South African, etc. Co., In re, 74 L. T. Rep. 769 (1896) ; 77 L. T. Rep. 377— 181, 748. South African Territories, Ltd., v. Wallington (1897), 1 Q. B. 692— 1984. Southall V. British, etc. Assoc, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 614 (1871)— 1463, 2745. Southampton Dock Co. v. Richards, 2 Rallw. Cas. 215, 234 (1840); 1 Man. & Gr. 448—282, 1297. South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach, 69 Md. 395, 16 Atl. 117, 1 L. R. A. 507— 40, 1804. South Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Kirby, 89 Md. 52, 42 Atl. 913—2286, 2439. South Baptist Church v. Clapp, 18 Barb. 35—1805. South Bay, etc. Co. v. Gray, 30 Me. 547 —290, 369, 521, 1036, 1944. South Beach, etc. R. R., In re, 119 N. Y. 141, 23 N. E. 486—2701. 'South Bend, etc. Co. v. George, etc. Co., 97 Wis. 230, 72 N. W. 749—1615, 1644. South Bend, etc. Co. v. George C. Cribb Co., 81 N. W. 675 (Wis.)— 1571. South Bend, etc. Co. v. Pierre F. & M. Ins. Co., 4 S. D. 173, 56 N. W. 98— 412, 1891, 2371, 2406. South Branch Ry. v. Long's Adm'r, 43 W. Va. 131, 27 S. E. 297—187. South Carolina v. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 56 Fed. 333—1323, 1403, 1958. South Carolina Bank v. Hammond, 1 Rich. L. (S. C.) 281—1822. South Carolina,''etc. R. R. v. American, etc. Co., 43 S. E. 970 (S. C.)— 2803. South Carolina, etc. R. R. v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 107 Ga. 164, 33 S. E. 36— 1589, 2547. South Carolina, etc. R. R. v. Carolina, etc. Ry., 93 Fed. 543, 35 C. C. A. 423 —2438, 2448, 2570. South Carolina Mfg. Co. v. Bank of South Carolina, 6 Rich. Bq. (S. C.) 227—387, 420. South Carolina R. R., In re, 11 Chic. Leg. N. 8—2364. South Carolina R. R. v. People's Sav. Inst., 64 Ga. 18—2301. South Covington, etc. Ry. v. Berry, 93 Ky. 43, 18 S. W. 1026, 15 L. R. A. 604, 40 Am. St. Rep. 161—2716. South Covington, etc. Ry. v. Gest, 34 Fed. 628—2059, 2060. South Durham Brewery Co., In re, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 261 (1885)— 583. South Durham Iron Co. v. Shaw, 14 W. N. 159 (1879)— 1475, 1479. South Eastern Ry. v. European, etc. Tel. Co., 9 Exch., 363—2812. South Eastern Ry. v. Hebblewhite, 12 A. & E. 497 (1840)— 287. Southerland v. Fremont, 107 N. C. 565, 12 S. E. 237—221, 225. Southerland v. Lake Superior, etc. R. R., 53 Ala. 338—2459. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Constantine, 61 Fed. 61, 9 C. C. A. 359—2820. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19. South. 1, 31 L. R. A. 193, 55 Am. St. Rep. 930—2820. Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. Lynch, 95 Ga. 529, 20 S. B. 500—2828. Southern /Boulevard R. R. v. People's Traction Co., 5 N. Y. App. Div. 330, 39 N. Y. Supp. 266—2674. Southern Cal. Colony Assoc, v. Busta- mente, 52 Cal. 192—1807, 1809. Southern California, etc. Co. v. Union L. & T. Co., 64 Fed. 450, 12 C. C. A. 215—2150, 2477. Southern Cal. Ry. v. Rutherford, 62 Fed. 796—2624. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wemple, 44 Fed. 24—1240. Southern Counties Dep. Bank v. Boaler, 73 L. T. Rep. 155 (1895) — 1607. Southern Development Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 212, 24 C. C. A. 497—2352. Southern Development Co. v. Houston, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. 344—1946, 2520. Southern, etc. Assoc, v. Carey, 117 Fed. 325—1543, 1609. Southern, etc. Assoc, v. Casa, etc. Co., 29 South. 654 (Ala.)— 2139. Southern, etc. Assoc, v. Gillespie, 121 Ala. 295, 25 South. 564—1939. Southern, etc. Bank v. Rider, 73 L. T. Rep. 374 (1895)— 1273, 1753. Southern, etc. Co. v. City of Richmond, 98 Fed. 671—1040, 2669, 2756. cccxlviii TABLE OF CASES, [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Southern, etc. Co. v. City of Richmond, 103 Fed. 31—2673, 2815. Southern, etc. Co. v. Clements, 98 Va. 1, 34 S. B. 951—2836. Southern, etc. Co. v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 105 Ga. 487, 33 S. B. 639—1026, 1115. Southern, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 116 Fed. 756—2839. Southern, etc. Co. v. Flatten, 93 Fed. 936, 36 C. C. A. 46—71. Southern, etc. Co. t. Stone, 73 S. W. 453 (Mo.)— 2724. • Southern, etc. R. R. v. Stevens, 87 Pa. St. 190—1029. Southern Exp. Co. t. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264, 22 L. Bd. 556—2644. Southern Bxp. Co. v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 8 Fed. 799, 2 McCrary, 570—2728. Southern Exp. Co. v. Newhy, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783—2727. Southern Hotel Co. v. Newman, 30 Mo. 118—347. Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co., 88 Fed. 659—2727. Southern Kansas, etc. R. R. v. Towner, 41 Kan. 72, 21 Pae. 221—245, 1541, 1728. Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 4 Pla. 359, 378—763. Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Pla. 110, 58 Am. Dec. 448—^4, 354. Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202, 13 Sup. Ct. 44, 36 L. Bd. 942— 1675. Southern Pac. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs, 71 Fed. 437, 78 Fed. 236—2204, 2612, 2614. Southern Pac. R. R. v. Doyle, 8 Sawyer, 60, 11 Fed. 253—2158. Southern Pac. R. R. v. Orton, 6 Sawy. 157, 181, 32 Fed. 457, 470—1662. Southern Pac. Ry. v. Bsquibel, 4 N. Mex. 337, 20 Pac. 109—2563. Southern Plank-road Co. v. Hixon, 5 Ind. 165—1074. Southern Ry. v. Atlanta, etc. Co., Ill Ga. 679, 36 S. E. 873, 51 L. R. A. 125 —2690, 2705. Southern Ry. v. Carnegie, etc. Co., 176 U. S. 257, 20 Sup. Ct. 347, 44 L. Ed. 458—2355, 2532. Southern Ry. v. Chapman, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 424, 54 C. C. A. 598—2356. Southern Ry. v. City of Memphis, 97 Fed. 819, 38 C. C. A. 498—2667. Southern Ry. v. Ensign, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 417, 54 C. C. A. 591—2356. Southern Ry. v. Franklin, etc. R. R., 96 Va. 693, 32 S. B. 485, 44 L. R. A. 297—2085, 2573, 2621. Southern Ry. v. North Car. etc. Com., 104 Fed. 700—1112. Southern Ry. v. North Carolina R. R., 81 Fed. 595—35, 267, 2567. Southern Ry. v. Postal Tel. etc. Co., 93: Fed. 393,. 35 C. C. A. 366—2808. Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 23 Sup. Ct> 713—1962. Southern Ry. Co. v. Gregg, 43 S. E. 570 (Va.)— 2322. South, etc. Co. V. Highland, etc. Co.,. 119 Ala. 105, 24 South. 114^2700. South, etc. Co. V. Wallington (1898), A. C. 309; (1897) 1 Q. B. 692—754. South, etc. Co. V. Wallington, 78 L. T. Rep. 426 (1898)— 753, 1984. South, etc. Nat. Bank v. La Grange,. etc. Co., 40 S. W. 328 (Tex.)— 2071. South, etc. R. R. v. Chappell, 61 Ala. 527—70. South, etc. R. R. v. Highland, etc. R. R., 98 Ala. 400, 13 South. 682, 39 Am. St. Rep. 74—2596, 2712. South, etc. Ry. v. Calumet, etc. Ry.,. 171 111. 391, 49 N. B. 576—2703. South, etc. Ry. v. Second Ave. etc. Ry.,. 191 Pa. St. 492, 43 AU. 346—1527, 1541, 1728, 2593, 2708. Southgate v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 6t Mo. 89— 1792. South Georgia, etc. R. R. v. Ayres, 56- Ga. 230—373, 379, 1926. South Hetton Coal Co. v. Northeastern News Assoc. (1894), 1 Q. B. 133—73. South Joplin Land Co. v. Case, 104 Mo. 572, 16 S. W. 390—1472. South London, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 324 (1888)— 580. Southmayd v. Russ, 3 Conn. 52—427,. 429, 446, 474, 567. South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wis. 614, 88 N. W. 583, 58 L. R. A. 82—538, 560. South Mountain Consol. Min. Co., In re, 7 Sawy. 30, 5 Fed. 403—94, 116. South Mountain, etc. Co., In re, 7' Sawy. 30, 5 Fed. 403—94, 379, 393. South Mountain, etc. Co., In re, 14 Fed. , 347, 8 Sawy. 366—94. South Nashville Street R. R. v. Mor- row, 87 Tenn. 406, 11 S. W. 348, 2 L. R. A. 853—1209. South Omaha, etc. Co. v. Vocasek, 62" Neb. 710, 87 N. W. 536—2829. South Pasadena v. Los Angeles Term.- Ry., 109 Cal. 315, 41 Pac. 1093—2675. Southport, etc. Banking Co., In re, L. R. 31 Ch. D. 121 (1885)— 88. South School Dist. v. Blakeslee, 13- Conn. 227. 235—59, 64, 1279, 1286,. 1291. South Spring, etc. Co. v. Amador, etc. Co., 145 U. S. 300, 12 Sup. Ct. 921, 36' L. Ed. 712—1534. South Staffordshire Ry. v. Burnside, 5- Bxch. 129 (1850)— 299. South Texas Nat. Bank v. Texas, 70 S.- W. 768 (Tex.)— 1007. TABLE OF CASES. cccxlix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] South Wales Ry. v. Redmond, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 675 (1861)— 71, 2643. Southwestern, etc. Co. v. Ingrando, 65 S. W. 1085 (Tex.)— 2825. Southwestern, -etc. Ry. v. Hays, 63 Ark. 355, 38 S. W. 665—2217, 2237, 2289. Southwestern, etc. Ry. v. Martin, 57 Ark. 355, 21 S. W. 465—1153. Southwestern, etc. Tel. Co. v. Crank, 27 S. W. 38 (Tex.)— 2828. Southwestern R. R. v. Papot, 67 Ga. 675, 690, 693—681, 783, 1151. Southwestern R. R. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356—69. Southwestern R. R. v. Southern, etc. Tel. Co., 46 Ga. 43, 12 Am. Rep. 585— 2803. Southwestern R. R. v. Thomason, 40 Ga. 408—44, 733. Southwestern R. R. Bank v. Douglas, 2 Spears (S. C), 329—948. Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Woughter, 56 Ark. 206, 19 S. W. 575—2835. Southwestern Tel. etc. Co. v. Gulf, etc. Ry., 52 S. "W. 106 (Tex.)— 2807. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Robin- don, 50 Fed. 810, 1 C. C. A. 684, 16 L. R. A. 545—2831. Southwest, etc. Co. v. City of Joplin, 113 Fed. 817—2730. Southwest, etc. Co. v. City of Joplin, 101 Fed. 23—2730. Southwest Nat. Gas Co. v. Fayette . Fuel Gas Co., 145 Pa. St. 13, 23 Atl. 224—1903. Southwick V. First Nat. Bank, 7 Hun, 96—1966. Southworth v. Stamping Ground Tump. Co., 91 Ky. 485, 16 S. "W. 139 —2748. South Yorkshire, etc. Co. v. Great Northern Ry., 9 Bxch. 55 (1853) — 2594. Sovereign, etc. Co., In re (1892), 3 Ch. 279—668. Sovereign L. Ass'n Co., In re. L. R. 42 Ch. D. 540 (1889)— 1550. Sowles V. National U. Bank, 82 Fed. 139, 696—997, 2482. Sowles V. Soule, 59 Vt. 131, 7 Atl. 715— 1213. Sowles V. "Welden Nat. Bank, 61 Vt. 375, 17 Atl. 791—780. Sowles V. Witters, 39 Fed. 403—479, 704. Sowles V. Witters, 40 Fed. 413—479. Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. Cas. 171, 197 (1868)— 178, 294, 297, 343, 353, 1296, 1853. Spackman's Case, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 207 ' (1865)— 294. Spader v. Mural, etc. Mfg. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 18, 20 Atl. 378—1443, 2348. Spalding v. Bank of Muskingum, 12 Ohio, 544—1630. Spalding v. Paine, 81 Ky. 416—933. Spalding v. Susquehanna County Bank, 9 Pa. St. 28—1828, 1830. Spangler v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 42 Fed. 305—1965. Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 21 111. 276—270, 271, 282, 284, 287. Spargo's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 407 (18^3)— 81, 88, 163. Sparhawk v. Union Pass, ify., 54 Pa. St. 401, 452, 453—1605, 1894. Sparhawk v. Yerkes, 142 U. S. 1, 12 Sup. Ct. 104, 35 L. Ed. 915—1072. Sparks v. Dispatch Transfer Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S. W. 417, 12 L. R. A. 714, 24 Am. St. Rep. 351—1778, 1813. Sparks v. Dunbar, 102 Ga. 129, 29 S. E. 295—2332. Sparks v. Liverpool Water-works, 13 Ves. 428 (1807)— 303. Sparks v. Lower Payette Ditch Co., 2 Idaho, 1030, 29 Pac. 134—520. Sparks v. Weedon, 21 Md. 156—660. Sparks v. Woodstock, etc. Co., 87 Ala. 294, 6 South. 195—502. Sparks, etc. Co. v. Town of Newton, 60 N. J. Eq. 399, 45 Atl. 596—2783. Sparks Mfg. Co. v. Town of Newton, 57 N. J. Eq. 367, 41 Atl. 385—2783, 2784. Sparling v. Parker, 9 Beav. 450 (1846) —44, 1079. Sparrow v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 7 Ind. 369—2550, 2579. Spartanburg, etc. R. R. v. De Graffen- reid, 12 Rich. L. (S. C.) 675, 78 Am. Dec. 476—233, 240. Spartanburg, etc. R. R. v. Ezell, 14 S. C. 281—354. Spaulding v. North Milwaukee, etc. Co., 106 Wis. 481, 81 N. W. 1064— 1472, 1482, 1879. Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20, 23, 28 Am. Dec. 513—35, 219, 379, 1663. Spear v. Grant, 16 Mass. 9—393, 402, 1180. Spear v. Hart, 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 420— 1148, 1152. Spear v. Ladd, 11 Mass. 94—1724, 1732. Specht v. Bookhout, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 443, 37 S. W. 193—1642. Special Bank Com'rs v. Franklin Inst., 11 R. I. 557—2472, 2473. Speckert v. German Nat. Bank, 98 Fed. 151, 38 C. C. A. 682—2412. Speight V. Gaunt, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 1 (1883)— 716. Speir, Matter of, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 14)0, 74 N. Y. Supp. 555—822. Speirs v. Union, etc. Co., 174 Mass. 175, . 54 N. E. 497—1802. ■cccl TABLE or OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Speiser v. Merchants' Exchange Bank, 110 Wis. 506, 86 N. W. 243—2474, 2483. Spellier, etc. Co. v. Geiger, 147 Pa. St. 399, 23 Atl. 547—1842. Spellier, etc. Co. v. Leedopi, 149 Pa. St. 185, 24 Atl. 197—359. Spellissy v. Cook, etc. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 283, 68 N. Y. Supp. 995— 713, 726. Spelman v. Gold, etc. Co., 26 Mont. 76, 66 Pac. 597—1795. Spence v. Coleman (1901), 2 K. B. 199 —1441. Spence v. Mobile, etc. Ry., 79 Ala. 576, 587—1996, 2006, 2046, 2050, 2122, 2125, 2543. Spencer v. Clarke, 1 N. Y. Supp. 533— 1916. Spencer v. James, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 327, 31 S. "W. 540, 43 -S. "W. 556-862-, 1000. Spencer v. Johnston, 58 Neb. 44, 78 N. W. 482—804. Spencer V. McClean, 20 Ind. App. 626, 50 N. E. 769, 67 Am. St. Rep. 271— 223. Spencer v. World's Columbian Exposi- tion, 163 111. 117, 45 N. B. 250—2446. Spence's Case, 17 Beav. 203 (1853)— 539. Spense v. Iowa Valley Constr. Co., 36 Iowa, 407—518. Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11, 24, 10 Am. Rep. 684—1689, 1694. Sperry v. Johnson, 11 Ohio, 452 — 240. Speyer v. Colgate, 4 Hun, 622—911, 927. Spies V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 30 Fed. 397—2201. Spies V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 40 Fed. 34, 6 L. R. A. 565—1913, 2069, 2273. Spiller V. Paris, etc. Co., L. R. 7 Ch. D. 368 (1878)— 1716. Spilman v. Mendenhall, 57 N. W. 468 (Minn.)— 414, 439. Spires v. Urbahn, 124 Cal. 110, 56 Pac. 794-2697. Spitzel V. Chinese Corporation, 80 L. T. Rep. 347 (1899)^1350. S. P. Knapp V. Williams, 4 Ves. Jr. 430 (1798)— 44. Split Rock, etc., In re, 128 N. Y. 408, 28 N. E. 506—2679. Spofford V. Boston, etc. R. R., 128 Mass. 326—2609. Spokane, etc. Co. v. Loy, 21 Wash. 501, 58 Pac. 672, 60 Pac. 1119—1943. Spokane Falls Gas L. Co. v. St. Paul Ry. (MSS. Wash. 1899)— 2697. Spokane St. Ry. v. Spokane, 5 Wash. 634, 32 Pac. 456—2713, 2720. Spokane St. Ry. v. Spokane Falls, 46 Fed. 322—2681. Spokane St. Ry. v. Spokane Palls, 6 Wash. 521, 33 Pac. 1072—2700, 2704. Spokes V. Grosvenor Hotel Co. (1897), 2 Q. B. 124—1896. Sponsler's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 95—655. Spooner v. Bay St. Louis Synd., 47 Minn. 464, 50 N. W. 601—413. Spooner v. Browning, 78 L. T. Rep. 98—907. Spooner v. Holmes, 102 Mass. 503, 3 Am. Rep. 491—2048, 2055, 2066. Spooner v. Phillips, 62 Conn. 62, 24 Atl. 524, 16 L. R. A. 461—1190. Spottiswoode's Case, 6 De G., M. & 6. 345 (1855)— 1702. Sprague, In re, 22 R. I. 413, 48 Atl. 383 —204, 717. Sprague v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. 173, 22 Fed. Cas. 960—723, 830. Sprague v. Fletcher, 69 Vt. 69, 37 Atl. 239, 37 L. R. A. 840—1214, 1248. Sprague v. Hartford, etc. R. R., 5 R. I. 233—2651. Sprague v. Illinois River R. R., 19 111. 174—1029, 1030, 2547, 2580. Sprague v. Nat. Bank of America, 172 111. 149, 50 N. E. 19, 42 L. R. A. 606, 64 Am. St. Rep. 17—135, 136, 144, 167, 171, 471. Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421, 70 Am. Dec. 424—2191. Sprague v. Stickney, 52 Me. 592—2304. Sprague Nat. Bank v. Erie R. R., 22 N. Y. App. Div. 526, 48 N. Y. Supp. 65— 2240. Spreckles v. Nevada Bank, 113 Cal. 272, 45 Pac. 329, 33 L. R. A. 459, 54 Am. St. Rep. 348—937, 942, 1317. Sprigg V. Commonwealth, etc. Co., 119 Fed. 434—2173. Spring V. Bowery Nat. Bank, 63 Hun, 505, 18 N. Y. Supp. 574—2410. Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49, 26 L. Ed. 347—94, 104, 106, 154, 649. Springer v. Chicago, etc. Co., 66 N. B. 850 (111.)— 1663. Spring, etc. Bank v. Hurlings, etc. Co., 32 W. Va. 357, 9 S. E. 243, 3 L. R. A. 583—1667, 1814. Springfield v. Connecticut River R. R., 58 Mass. 63—2633, 2634. Springfield v. Smith, 40 S. W. 757, 37 L. R. A. 446, 60 Am. St. Rep. 569 (Mo.)— 2721. Springfield, etc. Co. v. Bank of Bates- ville, 68 Ark. 234, 57 S. W. 257—1012, 1127. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Keese- ville, 148 N. Y. 46, 42 N. E. 405, 30 L. R. A. 660. 51 Am. St. Rep. 667— 2772. Springfield Ry. v. Springfield, 85 Mo. 674—2665. TABLE OF CASES. cccli [The niunbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Springfield Street Ry. v. Sleeper, 121 Mass. 29—235. Sprlngport v. Teutonia Sav. Bank, 84 N. Y. 403—247, 261. Spring Valley Water Works, In re, 17 Cal. 132—502. Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735, 21 L. R. A. 416—2775. Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 434—1944. Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 61 Cal. 3—1035. Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 1046, 6 L. R. A. 756, 16 Am. St. Rep. 116—2767. Spring Valley Water Works v. Schott- ler, 110 U. S. 347, 352, 4 Sup. Ct. 48, 28 L. Ed. 173—1034, 1038, 2613, 2767. Spring Valley Water Works v. Schott- ler, 62 Cal. 69—118, 1209. Sproule V. Bouch, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 635 (1885)— 1196, 1197. Spurgeon v. Santa Ana, etc. Co., 120 Cal. 71, 52 Pac. 140, 39 L. R. A. 701— 301, 868, 2788. Spurlock V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 90 Mo. 199, 2 S. W. 219—266. Spurlock V. Pacific R. R., 61 Mo. 319— 1115, 1117, 1123. Spyker v. Spence, 8 Ala. 333—1828. Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co., 42 Fed. 729—1858, 1909. Squire v. New York, etc. R. R., 98 Mass. 239, 93 Am. Dec. 162—2644. Squires v. Thompson, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 552, 76 N. Y. Supp. 734—328. Stace's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 682 (1869)— 88. Stackpole v. Seymour, 127 Mass. 104 — 865. Stafford v. American Mills Co., 13 R. I. 310—1948. Stafford v. Bolton, 1 Bos. & P. 40—66. Stafford v. Horton, 1 Bro. Ch. 482 (1785)— 656. Stafford v. Produce, etc. Co., 61 Ohio St. 160, 55 N. E. 162, 76 Am. St. Rep. 371—52, 589, 1121, 1133. Stafford Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 47 Conn. 443—505. Staffordshire Gas, etc. Co., In re, 66 L. T. Rep. 48 (1891)— 190. Staffordshire Gas, etc. Co., In re, 66 L. T. Rep. 413 (1892)— 1739. Stahlberger v. New Hartford Leather Co., 92 Hun, 245, 36 N. Y. Supp. 708— 1793. Stahn V. Catawba Mills, 53 S. C. 519, 31 S. E. 498—1615, 1910. Stainback v. Fernley, 9 Sim. 556 (1839)— 810. Stainback v. Junk, etc. Co., 98 Tenn. 306, 39 S. W. 530—1734, 2147, 2148. Stall V. Catskill Bank, 18 Wend. 466— 40. Stallcup V. National Bank, 15 N. Y. St. Rep. 39—1773. Stamford Bank v. Benedict, 15 Conn. 437, 445—1802. Stamford Bank v. Ferris, 17 Conn. 259 —997. Standard, etc. Bank v. Garfield, etc. Banlt, 56 N. Y. App. Div. 43, 67 N. Y.. Supp. 472—1640. Standard, etc. Co. v. Byers, 71 Pac. 766 (Wash.)— 1335. Standard, etc. Co. v. Excelsior, etc. Co.,. 32 South. 221 (La.)— 1652. Standard, etc. Co. v. Jones, 64 Ohio St> 147, 59 N. E. 885—1928. Standard, etc. Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co.,. 44 App. Div. 121, 60 N. Y. Supp. 739— 1772. Standard, etc. Co. v. Windham Nat. Bank, 71 Conn. 668, 42 Atl. 1006— 1784. Standard Mfg. Co., In re (1891), 1 Ch. 627—2094. Standard Oil Co. v. Commonwealth, 62' S. W. 897 (Ky.)— 59. Standard Oil Co. v. Scofield, 16 Abb. N. Cas. 372—1588. Standen v. New Rochelle Water Co., 91 Hun, 272, 36 N. Y. Supp. 92—2781. Standing v. Browning, L. R. 27 Ch. D. 341—662, 708. Standley v. Hendrie, etc. Co., 27 Colo. 331, 61 Pac. 600-2461. Stanford v. City, etc., 131 Cal. 34, 63^ Pac. 145—46, 1208, 1210. Stang's Appeal, 10 W. N. Cas. 409— 408. Stanhope's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 161 (1865)— 289, 294. Staniland v. Willott, 3 Macn. £ G. 664 (1850)— 664. Stanley, Ex parte, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 535. (1864)— 277. Stanley v. Chester, etc. Ry., 1 Ry. Cas. 58, 9 Sim. 264, 3 Myl. & C. 773 (1838) —1713, 1714. Stanley v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., IS' Ohio St. 552—2594. Stanley v. Luse, 36 Oreg. 25, 32, 33, 58 Pac. 75—1482, 1486, 1487, 1730, 1755, 1922. Stanley v. Sheffield, etc. Co., 83 Ala. 260, 4 South. 34—1770. Stanley v. Stanley, 26 Me. 191 — 571, 1026. Stanley v. Supervisors, 121 IT. S. 535„ 7 Sup. Ct. 1234, 30 L. Ed. 1000; 105 U. S. 305, 26 L. Ed. 1044—1220, 1225„ 1227. ccclii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 506, 22 Fed. Cas. 1065—2466, 2467, 2470. Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 523, 22 Fed. Cas. 1070—1975, 1993, 1995, 2043. Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R. R., 31 Fed. 585—2467. Stanton v. Allen, 5 Denio, 434, 49 Am. Dec. 282—1052. .Stanton v. Baird, etc. Co., 32 South. 299 (Ala.)— 1829. Stanton v. Camp, 4 Barb. 274—1817. Stanton v. Collier, 3 EI. & Bl. 274 (1854)— 970. Stanton v. Bmbry, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed 983 2221 Stanton v. King, 69 N. Y. 609—1065. Stanton v. King, 8 Hun, 4—1065. Stanton v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 15 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 296, 2 N. Y. Supp. 298— 1900, 2500. Stanton v. New York, etc. R. R., 59 Conn. 272, 22 Atl. 300, 21 Am. St. Rep. 110—1715, 1720. ■Stanton v. Small, 3 Sandf. 230—770. Stanton v. Wilkeson, 8 Ben. 357, 22 Fed. Cas. 1074—438. : Stanton v. Wilson, 2 Hill, 153—218. Stanton Iron Co., In re, 21 Beav. 164 (1855)— 1065. Stan wood v. Stanwood, 17 Mass. 57 — 704. Staple V. Bank of England, 56 L. T. Rep. 665 (1887)— 839. Stapleford Colliery Co., In re, 49 L. J: (Ch.) 253 (1880)— 1464. Staples V. Eastman, etc. Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 303—604. Staples V. Gould, 9 N. Y. 520—773. Stapylton v. Thaggard, 91 Fed. 93, 33 C. C. A. 353—1221. Starbuck v. Housatonic R. R., 83 Hun, 534, 32 N. Y. Supp. 87—1503. Starbuck v. Mercantile Trust Co., 60 Conn. 553, 24 Atl. 32-»-1359. Star Co. V. Andrews, 58 N. Y. Super. ' Ct. 188, 9 N. Y. Supp. 731—2138. Star F. Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 41 N Y. Super. Ct. 267—987. ^tarln v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439—3-47, 259, 265. Staring v. Western Union Tel. Co., 11 N. Y. Supp. 817—2826. Stark V. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 341—397, 412, 414. ■ Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery Co., 34 Vt. 144—1784, 1971, 2080. Starkweather v. American Blbl§ Soc, 72 111. 50, 22 Am. Rep. 133—1670. Starr v. Camden, etc. R. R., 24 N. J. L. 592—2635. - Starr v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 110 Fed. 8 — 2230. Starr v. Gregory, etc. Co., 6 Mont. 485, 13 Pac. 195—1796. Starrett v. Rockland F. & M. Ins. Co., 65 Me. 374—216. State V. Accommodation Bank, 26 La. Ann. 288—1038. State V. Ackerman, 51 Ohio St. 163, 37 N. E. 828, 24 L. R. A. 298—1077. State V. Adams, 44 Mo. 570—1037, 1075. State V. Adams, etc. Co., 66 Minn. 271, 68. N. W. 1085, 38 L. R. A. 225— 1088. State V. Allen, 104 La. 301, 29 South. 114—1112. State V. American Cotton Oil Trust, 40 La. Ann. 8, 3 South. 409—98. State V. American, etc. Assoc, 64 Minn. 349, 67 N. W. 1—1411. State V. American, etc. Co., 69 Pac. 563 (Kan.)— 1407, 1675. State V. American, etc. Co., 43 N. J. L. 381—2800, 2813. State V. Anderson, 67 N. E. 207 (Ind.) —15, 20, 1291, 1348. State V. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550, 63 N. W. 746—2574, 2721, 2729, 2739. State V. Anderson, 97 Wis. 114, 72 N. W. 386—2574, 2729, 2739. State V. Armour Packing Co., 73 S. W. 645 (Mo.)— 1048, 1404, 1831. State V. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 60 S. W. 91, 51 L. R. A. 151, 81 Am. St. Rep. 368—2789. State V. Atchison, etc. R. R., 24 Neb. 143, 38 N. W. 43, 8 Am. St. Rep. 164— 98, 147, 1398, 1408, 2559, 2577. State V. Atchison, etc. Ry., 77 Fed. 339, 341, 343—1967. State V. Atchison & N. R. Co., 38 Neb. 437, 57 N. W. 20—2560. ' State V. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46, 79 Am. Dec. 405—84, 1041, 1399, 1560, 2587. State V. Baker, 88 N. W. 124 (Neb.)— 2817. State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 6 Gill (Md.), 363, 387—1137, 1142, 1150, 11^1, 1153, 1154, 1158, 2012. State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 48 Md. 49—1218. State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 77 Md. 489, 26 Atl. 865—2590. State V. Bank, etc., 70 Minn. 398, 73 N. W. 153, 68 Am. St. Rep. 538—532. State V. Bank of Charleston, 2 McMuU. (S. C.) 439, 39 Am. Dec. 135—1415. State v. Bank of Commerce, 53 Fed. 735—1218. State V. Bank of Commerce, 95 Tenn. 221, 31 S. W. 993—3, 1217. State V. Bank of Hemingford, 58 Neb. 818, 80 N. W. 50—1593. State V. Bank of Louisiana, 6 La. 746 — 1158. TABLE OF CASES. cocliii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. Bank of Maryland, 6 Gill & J. 205, 219, 26 Am. Dec. 561—1635, 2119. State V. Bank of New England, 55 Minn. 139, 56 N. W. 575—2380. State V. Bank of Ogallala, 90 N. W. 961 (Neb.)— 636. State V. Bank of South Carolina, 1 Spears, L. (S. C.) 433—1399. State V. Barron, 57 N. H. 498—1400. State V. Barron, 58 N. H. 370—1394, 1402. State V. Bates, 2 Harr. (Del.) 18—1666. State V. Beck, 81 Ind. 500, 501—180, 503, 1400, 1408, 2753. State V. Bell, 34 Ohio St. 194—2684, 2698. State V. Bell Telephone Co., 23 Fed. 539—2754, 2842. State V. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 296, 38 Am. Rep. 583—66, 67, 2754, 2842. State V. Bentley, 23 N. J. L. 532—1215, 1217. State V. Bergen Neck Ry., 53 N. J. L. 108, 20 Atl. 762—1414. State V. Bergenthal, 72 Wis. 314, 39 | N. W. 566—1097. State V. Berry, 52 N. J. L. 308, 19 Atl. 665-1239. State V. Bienville Oil Works, 28 La. Ann. 204—1099, 1103, 1104. State V. Bissell, 4 Greene, 328—245. State V. Bonnell, 35 Ohio St. 10, 15, 17 —1275, 1287, 1291. State V. Boston, etc. Co., 22 Mont. 220, 56 Pac. 219—1730, 1922. State V. Boston, etc. Co., 22 Mont. 241, 56 Pac. 281—1922. State V. Boston, etc. R. R., 25 Vt. 433— 1668. State V. Bradford, 32 Vt. 50—3. State V. Branin, 23 N. J. L. 484 — 1215,i 1217; State V. Brassfield, 67 Mo. 331—261. State V. Brice, 7 Ohio, 82—1730. State V. Brown, 64 Md. 199, 1 Atl. 54, 6 Atl. 172—2027, 2036, 2265. State V. Brown, 73 Md. 484, 21 Atl. 374—2193. State V. Brown, etc. Mfg. Co., 18 R. I. 16, 25 Atl. 246, 17 L. R. A. 856—1038, 2603. State V. Brownstown, etc. Co., 120 Ind. 337, 22 N. E. 316—1395. State V. Buckeye, etc. Co., 61 Ohio St. 520, 56 N. E. 464—1053. State T. Building Assoc, 36 Ohio St. 258—1403. State V. Bull, 16 Conn. 179—9, 1429. State V. Burnell, 80 N. W. 460 (Wis.) —2706. State V. Butler, 86 Tenn. 614, 8 S. W. 586—687, 1235, 2743. State V. Cannon, etc. Assoc, 67 Minn. 14, 69 N. W. 621—1410. State V. Cape May, 58 N. J. L. 565, 34 Atl. 397—2695, 2702. State V. Cape May, 59 N. J. L. 393, 36 Atl. 679, 36 L. R. A. 656—2716. State V. Cape May, 59 N. J. L. 396, 36 Atl. 696, 36 L. R. A. 653—2716. State V. Capital City Water Co., 102 Ala. 231, 14 South. 652—1399, 2774. State V. Carpenter, 51 Ohio St. 83, 37 N. E. 261, 46 Am. St. Rep. 556— 866, 869, 1257. State V. Carteret Club, 40 N. J. L. 295 —1074. State V. Catron, 118 Mo. 280, 24 S. W. 439—527. State V. Central, etc. Assoc, 29 Ohio St. 399—496, 1399, 2747. State V. Central, etc. Ry., 109 Ga. 716, 35 S. B. 37, 48 L. R. A. 351—683, 2547. State V. Central N. J. Tel. Co., 53 N. J. L. 341, 21 Atl. 460, 11 L. R. A. 664— 2755. State V. Chamber of Commerce, 77 Minn. 308, 79 N. W. 1026—1072. State V. Chamber of Commerce, 20 Wis. 63—1072, 1074, 1075., State V. Charleston County, 10 Rich. L. 491—248. State V. Chehalis Superior Court, 8 Wash. 210, 35 Pac 1087, 25 L. R. A. 354—2396. State V. Cheraw, etc R. R., 16 S. C. 524—30, 593, 866. State V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 38 Minn. 281, 37 N. W. 782—2614. State V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 89 Mo. 523, 14 S. W. 522—2537. State V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 4 S. D. 261, 56 N. W. 894, 46 Am. St. Rep. 783— 1941. State V. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 18 Ohio St. 262—1400, 2735, 2736. State V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 47 Ohio St. 130, 23 N. E. 928—1407, 2609. State V. Circuit Court, 98 Wis. 143, 73 N. W. 788—2376. State V. Citizens' Bank, 52 La. Ann. 1086, 27 South. 709—1239, 2841. State V. Citizens' Bank, etc., 51 La. Ann. 426, 25 South. 318—1094, 1103. State V. Citizens' Tel. Co., 61 S. C. 83, 39 S. E. 257—2754. State V. City of New Orleans, 106 La. 469, 31 South. 55—2440. State V. City of Sheboygan, 111 Wis. 23, 86 N. W. 657—2673, 2755, 2815. State V. City of Spokane, 24 Wash. 53. 63 Pac 1116—2816. State V. Clancy, 20 Mont. 284, 50 Pac. 852—1920, 2383. State V. Clark, 23 Minn. 422—246, 265. cccliv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. Cobb, 64 Ala. 127, 158—1975, 1992, 2043, 2045, 2082, 2090. State V. Collectors, 25 N. J. L. 315— 1238. State V. Columbus, etc. Co., 2 Sneed (Tenn.), 254—1402. State V. Columbus Gas, etc. Co., 34 Ohio St. 572, 32 Am. Rep. 390—2734, 2735, 2736. State V. Commercial Bank, 6 Sm. & M. (14 Miss.) 218, 45 Am. Dec. 280— 1402, 1789. State V. Commercial Bank, 21 Miss. 569, "53 Am. Dec. 106—1402, 1410, 1636. State V. Commercial Bank, 33 Miss. 474—1399. State V. Commissioners, 23 N. J. L. 510—1238. State V. Commissioners of Taxation, 37 N. J. Lu 240—1235. State V. Common Council, 71 N. W. 86 (Wis.)— 248. State V. Comptroller, 54 N. J. L. 135, 23 Atl. 122—1137, 1231. State V. Concord, etc. R. R., 62 N. H. 375—2597. State V. Conklin, 34 Wis. 21—21. State V. Constantine, 42 Ohio St. 437, 51 Am. Rep. 833—1303. State V. Consumers', etc. Co., 61 N. E. 674, 55 L. R. A. 245 (Ind.)— 2734. State V. Cook, 71 S. W. 829 (Mo.) — 1673, 2802. State V. Corkins, 123 Mo. 56, 27 S. W. 363—509. State V. Corrigan St. Ry., 85 Mo. 263, 274, 282, 55 Am. Rep. 361—2660, 2666, 2719. State V. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 11 Neb. 354, 9 N. W. 563—1399, 2733. State V. Cowen, 83 Md. 549, 35 Atl. 161, 354, 581—2067. State V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 24 La. Ann. 318—196, 346. State V. Cronah, 23 Nev. 437, 49 Pac. 41—1287, 1295, 1310, 1314, 1331, 1332. State V. Curtis, 9 Nev. 325—21, 1737, 1740, 1751, 1753, 1754. State V. Dallas County Court, 72 Mo. 329—254, 259. State V. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40 — 9. State V. Dayton, etc. Co., 64 Ohio St. 272, 60 N. E. 291—1411, 2700. State V. Debenture, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1874, 26 South. 600—360, 1398. State V. Delaware, etc. Co., 47 Fed. 633 —2753, 2S42. State V. Delaware, etc. R. R., 30 N. J. L. 473—2654. State V. Denham, 71 Pac. 196 .(Wash.) —2403. State V. Dillon, 125 Ind. 65, 25 N. E. 136—1752. State V. District Court, 15 Mont. 324, 39 Pac. 316, 27 L. R. A. 392, 48 Am. St. Rep. 6^2—1926. State V. District Court, 21 Mont. 155, 53 Pac. 272, 69 Am. St. Rep. 645— 2386. State V. Dodge City, etc. Ry., 53 Kan. 377, 36 Pac. 747, 42 Am. St. Rep. 295. —2620. State V. Dreany, 69 Pac. 182 (Kan.) — 1046. State V. Dry Fork R. R., 50 W. Va. 235, 40 S. E. 447—1941. State V. Duff, 80 Wis. 13, 49 N. W. 23— 2752. • State V. Duluth St. Ry., 76 Minn. 96, 78 N. W. 1032, 57 L. R. A. 63— 2721. State V. East Cleveland, etc. Ry., 6 Ohio C. C. 318—2684. State V. East Cleveland R. R., 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 318—2671. State V. East Fifth St. Ry., 140 Mo. 539, 41 S. W. 955, 38 L. R. A. 218, 62 Am. St. Rep. 742—1408, 2682. State V. Edgefield, etc. R. R., 6 Lea (Tenn.), 353—2450. State V. Edwards, 86 Me. 102, 29 Atl. 947, 25 L. R. A. 504, 41 Am. St. Rep. 528—2790. State V. Egg Harbor City, 55 N. J. L. 245, 26 Atl. 89—2695, 2758. State V. Einstein, 46 N. J. L. 479— 1094. State V. E. Jersey Tel. & Tel. Co., 61 N. J. L. 136, 38 Atl. 752—2673. State V. Elizabeth, 58 N. J. L. 619, 34 Atl. 146, 32 L. R. A. 170—2716. State V. Ellis, 45 La. Ann. 1418, 14 South. 308—2225. State V. Equitable L. etc. Co., 142 Mo. 325, 41 S. W. 916—1402, 1406. State V. Essex Bank, 8 Vt. 489—1399, 1404. State V. Fagan, 42 Conn. 32—1299. State V. Farmer, 7 Ohio C. C. 429— 1100. State V. Farmers', etc. Co., 81 Tex. 530, 17 S. W. 60—99, 2260, 2496. State V. Farrier, 47 N. J. L. 383, 1 Atl. 751—1738. State V. Farrier, 48 N. J. L. 613, 7 Atl. 881—1738. State V. Farris, 45 Mo. 183—1330. State V. Felton, 52 N. J. L. 161, 19 Atl. 123—1784, 1833. State V. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560, 568—35, 855, 1310, 1313, 1373. State V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 113 Iowa, 439, 85 N. W. 638—1438. State V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 39 Minn. 538, 41 N. W. 108—1407, 1674. ' State V. Firemen's, etc. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 52 S. W. 595, 45 L. R. A. 363—1048. TABLE OF CASES. ccclv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. First Nat. Bank, 89 Ind. 302— 47, 866, 888, 937, 938, 1008, 1012, 1016. State V. First Nat. Bank, 2 S. D. 568, 51 N. W. 587—76. State V. Flad; 23 Mo. App. 185—2674, 2818 State V. FlaveU, 24 N. J. L. 370—1204. State V. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S. W. 758—1406. State V. Florida, etc. R. R., 15 Fla. 690 —2121. State V. Foley, 31 Iowa, 527, 7 Am. Rep.' 166—2713. State V. Fosdick, 21 La. Ann. 434— 1240, 1674. State V. Fourth, etc. Co., 15 N. H. 162, 41 Am. Dec. 690—1414. State V. Franklin Bank, 10 Ohio, 91, 97—672, 1231. State V. Fremont, etc. R. R., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118—2614. State V. Fremont, etc. R. R., 23 Neb. 117, 36 N. W. 305—2614. State V. Garroutte, 67 Mo. 445—267. State V. Georgia Med. Soc, 38 Ga. 608, 95 Am. Dec. 408—1075. State V. German, etc. Bank, 70 N. W. 221 (Neb.)— 413. State V. German Sav. Bank, 91 N. W. 414 (Neb.)— 490. State V. Glenn, 18 Nev. 34, 1 Pac. 186— 2318. State V. Glucose, etc. Co., 91 N. W. 794 (Iowa)— 1943. State y. Godwinsville, etc. Co., 44 N. J. L. 496—1415. State V. Godwinsville, etc. Co., 49 N. J. L. 266, 10 Atl. 666, 60 Am. Rep. 611 —76. State V. Goshen, 14 Ohio St. 569—248. State V. Grand Lodge, 53 N. J. L. 536, 22 Atl. 63—1073. State V. Granville, etc. Soc, 11 Ohio, 1—1625. State V. Great Works Milling Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am. Dec. 38—76. State V. Green, 37 Ohio St. 227—1300. State V. Greene County, 54 Mo. 540 — 246, 268. State V. Greer, 78 Mo. 188—1303. State V. Guaranty, etc. Co., 73 Fed. 914 —99, 2247, 2260, 2261. State V. Guerrero, 12 Nev. 105—865. State V. Guttenberg, 38 N. J. L. 419— 253 State V. Hahlb, 18 R. I. 558, 30 Atl. 462—1424. State V. Halght, 31 N. J. L. 399—1222. State V. Hamilton, 5 Ind. 310—1205. State V. Hamilton, 47 Ohio St. 52, 23 N. E. 935—2737. State V. Hancock, 2 Pennewill (Del.), 252, 45 Atl. 851—6. VV State V. Hancock County, 11 Ohio St. 183, 12 Ohio St. 596—248, 262, 264. State V. Hannibal, etc. Co., 138 Mo. 332, 39 S. W. 910, 36 L. R. A. 457— 2752. State V. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 37 Mo. 265—1208, 1215. State V. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 101 Mo. 136, 13 S. W. 505—247, 1236. State V. Hare, 121 Ind. 308, 23 N. B. 145—2748. State V. Hart, 31 N. J. L. 434—1222. , State V. Hartford, etc. R. R., 29 Conn. 538—2620, 2645. State V. Haun, 7 Kan. App. 509, 54 Pac. 130—1028, 2336, 2603. State V. Haun, 61 Kan. 146, 59 Pac. ' 340, 47 L. R. A. 369—1028, 1676, 2336, 2603. State V. Haven, 59 Vt. 399, 9 Atl. 841— 837. State V. Hays, 50 Mo. 34, 11 Am. Rep. 402—2002. State V. Helena, 'etc. Co., 22 Mont. 391, 56 Pac. 685, 44 L. R. A. 692—2715. State V. Heppenheimer, 58 N. J. L. 633, 34 Atl. 1061, 32 L. R. A. 643— 1217. State V. Hogan, 163 Mo. 43, 63 S. W. 378—150, 1397. State V. Holladay, 72 Mo. 499—261. 266. State V. Holmes, 60 Neb. 39, 82 N. W. 109—1935, 2266, 2439. State V. Home, etc. Union, 63 Ohio St. 547, 59 N. E. 220— 506i State V. Home St. Ry., 43 Neb. 830, 62 N. W. 225—2714. State V. Horan, 22 Wash. 197, 60 Pac. 135—1730. State V. How, 1 Mich. 512—508. State V. Hudson Land Co., 19 Wash. 85, 52 Pac. 574, 40 L. R. A. 430— 1546, 1665. State V. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594—1350. State y. Hygeia, etc. College, 60 Ohio St. 122, 54 N. E. 86—1605. State V. International Inv. Co., 88 Wis. 512, 60 N. W. 796, 43 Am. St. Rep. 920—508. State v. Iowa Cent. Ry., 83 Iowa, 720, 50 N. W. 280—2537, 2553, 2576. State V. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 15 Fla. 201, 280—1921, 2389, 2390. State V. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 16' Fla. 708—2121. State V. Jacksonville St. R. R., 29 Fla. 590, 10 South. 590—2662, 2720. State V. Janesville St. Ry., 87 Wis. 72, 57 N. W. 970, 22 L. R. A. 759, 41 Am. St. Rep. 23—2716. State V. Janesville Water Co., 92 Wis. 496, 501, 66 N. W. 512, 32 L. R. A. 391—98, 1401, 2260, 2775. occlvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. Jefferson Turnp. Co., 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 305—208, 335. State V. Jersey C^ty] 25 N. J. L. 309— 2625. State V. Jersey City, 27 N. J. L. 493— 1765. State V. Jennings, 48 Wis. 549, 4 N. W. 641—263. State V. Johnson, 103 "Wis. 591, 79 N. W. 1081, 51 L. R. A. 33—2387. State V. Keokuk, etc. R. R., 99 Mo. 30, 12 S. W. 290. 6 L. R. A. 222—1237, 2588. State V. Kidd, 125 Ala. 413, 28 South. 480—1209. State V. Kill Buck Turnp. Co., 38 Ind. 71—1402. State V. Kingan, 51 Ind. 142—1408. * State V. King County Super. Ct, 13 Wash. 607, 43 Pac. 887, 46 Pac. 342— 933 977 State' V. kinloch Tel. Co., 67 S. W. 684 (Mo.)— 2754. State V. Kokomo, 108 Ind. 74, 8 N. E. 718—261. State V. Kupferle, 44 Mo. 154, 100 Am. Dec. 265—1331. State V. Laclede Gaslight Co., 102 Mo. 472, 14 S. W. 974, 15 S. W. 383, 22 Am. St. Rep. 789—2672, 2684, 2735, 2740. State V. Ladies of Sacred Heart, 99 Mo. 533, 12 S. W. 293, 6 L. R. A. 84— 1385. State V. Lake City, 25 Minn. 404—268. State V. Lancaster County, 6 Neb. 214 — 254. State V. Lathrop, 10 La. Ann. 398, 402 —1240, 1674. State V. Lebanon, etc. Co., 61 S. W. 1096 (Tenn.)— 1025, 2751. State V. Leete, 16 Nev. 242, 250—888, 1311. State V. Lefflngwell, 54 Mo. 458—241. State V. Lehre, 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 234, 325—192, 207, 1296, 1331, 1338, 1339. State V. Lesueur, 145 Mo. 322, 46 S. W. 1075—2589. State V. Lime, 23 Minn. 521—265. State V. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562, 46 S. W. 593—1603. State V. Linn Co., 44 Mo. 504—246. State V. Louisiana, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1795, 26 South. 592—85, 99, 350, 522, 1398, 1982, 2747. State V. Ludwig, 106 Wis. 226, 82 N. W. 158—1928. State V. Lusitanian, etc. Soc, 15 La. Ann. 73—1075. State V. McBride, 105 Mo. 265, 15 S. W. 72—1448, 2535. State V. McDaniel. 22 Ohio St. 354, 367, 368—681, 1311, 1323, 1331, 1340, 1348, 1373. State V. McFarland, 35 S. W. 1007 (Tenn.)— 2476. State V. McGee, 88 N. W. 115 (So. Dak.)— 2389. State V. McGrath, 86 Mo. 241—633. State V. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S. W. 29—60. State V. Mclver, 2 S. C. 25—857, 859, 862, 866. State V. Macon County Court, 41 Mo. 453—246, 254, 259. State V. Madison Street Ry., 72 Wis. 612, 40 N. W. 487, 1 L. R. A. 771— 1399. State T. Manchester, etc. R. R., 69 N. H. 35, 38 Atl. 736—2619. State V. Manchester, etc. R. R,, 70 N. H. 421, 48 Atl. 1103—1164, 2619. State T. Manhattan, etc. Co., 149 Mo. 181, 50 S. W. 321—1655, 1746, 1804. State V. Mansfield, 23 N. J. L. 510, 57 Am. Dec. 409—1660, 1661. State V. Marietta, etc. R. R., 35 Ohio St. 154—2484. State V. May hew, 2 Gill (Md.), 487— 1211. State V. Mayor, etc., 61 N. J. L. 443, 39 Atl. 643—2697. State V. Mayor, etc., 3 Duer, 119, 123— 2660, 2674. State V. Merchant, 37 Ohio St. 251— 619, 1394, 1395, 2587. State V. Merchants' Bank, 160 Mo. 640, 61 S. W. 676—1214. State V. Merchants', etc. Co., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 254—1412. State V. Merchants', etc. Trust Co., 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 235—1405. State V. Metz, 32 N. J. L. 199—2651. State V. Mexican, etc. Ry., 3 Rob. (La.) 513—2320, 2325. State V. Miller, 54 Kan. 244, 38 Pac. 269—2412. State V. Miller, 50 Mo. 129—2666. State V. Miller, 66 Mo. 329—2666. State V. Miller, 30 N. J. L. 368, 86 Am, Dec. 188—1235. State V. Milwaukee Chamber of Com- merce, 47 Wis. 670, 3 N. W. 760— 1074. State V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 29 Wis. 454, 9 Am. Rep. 598—2736. State V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 45 Wis. 579, 590, 592—3, 1401. State V. Minnesota Cent. Ry., 36 Minn: 246, 30 N. W. 816—1408. State V. Minnesota, etc. Co,, 40 Minn. 213, 41 N. W. 1020, 3 L. R. A. 510— 98, 671, 1400. State V, Missouri Pac. R. R., 29 Neb. 550, 45 N. W. 785—2609. State V. Mitchell, 104 Tenn. 336, 343, 58 S. W. 365—42, 1394, 1642, 1904, 2486. TABLE OF CASES. ccclvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] «tate V. Mobile, etc. R. R., 59 Ala. 321— 2607. State V. Montana Ry., 21 Mont. 221, 53 Pac. 623, 45 L. R. A. 271—2559. ■State V. Montclalr Ry., 35 N. J. L. 328— 2633. State V. Montegudo, 48 La. Ann. 1417, 20 South. 911—1937. •State V. Moore, 19 Ala. 514—1405. State V. Moore, 69 N. H. 99, 39 Atl. 584—646, 821. State V. Morgan, 28 La. Ann. 482 — 2110. State T. Morgan's, etc. Co., 106 La. 513, 31 South. 115—1727. State V. Morris, 73 Tex. 435, 11 S. "W. 392—1415, 2774. • State V. Morris, etc. R. R., 23 N. J. L. 360, 367—70, 76. State V. Morristown, 93 Tenn. 239, 24 S. W. 13—256, 384. State V. Morristown Fire Assoc, 23 N. J. L. 195—30, 517. State V. Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 217—76. State V. Murphy, 170 U. S. 78—2729. State V. Murphy, 130 Mo. 10, 31 S. "W. 594, 31 L. R. A. 798, 18 Sup. Ct. 505, 42 L. Ed. 955—2729. State V. Nathans, 49 S. C. 199, 27 S. E. 52—2228. State V. National Biscuit Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 241—1098, 1106. ' State V. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Neb. 700, 46 N. W. 155—1048. •State V. Nebraska, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 763 (Neb.)— 1401. State V. Nebraska Savings Bank, 40 Neb. 342, 58 N. W. 976—966, 1989. State V. Nebraska Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126, 22 N. W. 237, 52 Am. Rep. 404—2754, 2842. State V. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88, 39 N. E. 22, 26 L. R. A. 317—2716. State V. Nemaha County, 7 Kan. 542 — 245 State V. Newark, 25 N. J. L. 315—1660, 1661. State V. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 62, 23 Atl. ]_29 2763. State V. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 102, 23 Atl. 284—2705, 2819. State V. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 309, 30 Atl. 528—2703. State V. New Haven, etc. Co., 37 Conn. 153—2622. State V. New Haven, etc. Co., 43 Conn. 351—2605. State V. Newman, 51 La. Ann. 833, 25 South. 408, 72 Am. St. Rep. 476—691, 1323. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1556, 22 South. 815—1097. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1827, 26 South. 586—85, 98, 350, 522, 1398, 1981, 2747. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 529—1399. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 31 South. 395 (La.)— 1397, 2775. State V. ■ New Orleans, etc. Co., 32 South. 102 (La.)— 508, 1438. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., S3 South. 81 (La.)— 1404, 2646. State V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 30 La. Ann. 308—826, 1145. State V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 51 La. Ann. 909, 25 South. 465—822. State V. New Orleans, etc. R. R., 4 Rob. (La.) 231—2320. State V. New Orleans Gas Light Co., 25 La. Ann. 413—822. State V. New Orleans Traction Co., 48 La. Ann. 567, 19 South. 565—2721. State V. Nonconnah Turnp. Co., 17 S. W. 128 (Tenn.)— 1408. State V. North American, etc. Co., 105 La. 379, 29 South. 910—1102, 1937. State V. North American, etc. Co., 31 So. Rep. 172, 87 Am. St. Rep. 309 (La.)— 18, 1101. State V. Northern Pac. R. R., 75 Fed. 333—2417. State V. Northern, etc. R. R., 18 Md. 193, 218—2306, 2308, 2323, 2651. State V. North Louisiana, etc. R. R., 34 La. Ann. 947—647, 784. State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189—1432, 2602. State V. Oberlin Building Assoc, 35 Ohio St. 258—673. State V. Old Town Bridge Corp., 85 Me. 17, 26 Atl. 947—1403, 1431, 2725. State V. Omaha, etc. Bridge Co., 91 Iowa, 517, 60 N. W. 121—1401, 2717. State V. Osawkee, 14 Kan. 418, 19 Am. Rep. 99—250. State V. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435, 61 Am. Dec. 671—21. State V. O. & M. Ry., 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 415—1366. State V. Pacific, etc. Co., 21 Wash. 451, 58 Pac. 584, 47 L. R. A. 208—1103. State V. Park, etc. Lumber Co., 58 Minn. 330, 59 N. W. 1048, 49 Am. St. Rep. 516—516, 1401. State V. Passaic, etc. Soc, 54 N. J. L. 260, 23 Atl. 680—76. State V. Paterson, etc. Turnp. Co., 21 N J. L. 9—1396. State V. Pawtucket, etc. Corp., 8 R. I. 182, 94 Am. Dec 123—1399. State V. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 31 S. W. 797, 33 L. R. A. 576—5. State V. Pennsylvania, etc. Canal Co 23 Ohio St. 121—1399, 2727. State V. People's Bldg. etc. Assoc, 43 N. J. L. 389—865. ccclviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. People's, etc. Assoc, 42 Ohio St. 579—1399, 1403, 1748, 2747. State V. Perkins, 90 Mo. App. 603— 1750. State V. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 472— 248, 251, 253. State V. Pettineli, 10 Nev. 141—1272, 1274, 1286, 1295, 1296, 1313. State V. Petway, 2 Jones, Bq. (N. C.) QQg 1218 state V. Phillips, 79 Me. 506, 11 Atl. 274—1287. State V. Phipps, 50 Kan. 609, 31 Pac. 1097, 18 L. R. A. 657, 34 Am. St. Rep. 152—1046. State v: Pipher, 28 Kan. 128—1410. State V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 50 Ohio St. 239, 33 N. E. 1051—7, 1665. State V. Portage City, etc. Co., 107 Wis. 441, 83 N. W. 697—8, 68, 1398, 2775. State V. Porter, 113 Ind. 79, 14 N. B. 883—1751. State V. Portland, etc. Co., 153 Ind. 483, 53 N. B. 1089, 53 L. R. A. 413, , 74 Am. St. Rep. 314—1046, .1403, 2734. State V. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 56 Fed. 333—681, 2841. State V. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 79 Fed. 397—1590, 2570. State V. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 45 S. C. 413, 23 S. B. 363—2462. State V. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 45 S. C. 464, 23 S. B. 380—2462. State V. Port Royal, etc. tly., 45 S. C. 470, 23 S. B. S83— 681, 1334, 1400. State V. Powell, 101 Iowa, 382, 70 N. W.- 592—1745. State V. Probate Court, 66 Minn. 246, 68 N. W. 1063—538. State V. Quintard, 80 Fed. 829, 26 C. C. A. 165—2252, 2348. State V. Railroad Co., 17 Neb. 647, 24 N. W. 329, 52 Am. Rep. 424—2609. State V. Railway Co., 40 Ohio St. 504— 1407. State V. Railroad Co., 9 Rich. L. (S. C.) 247, 67 Am. Dec. 551—2622. State V. Railroad Com'rs, 41 N. J. L. 235—2343. State V. Ramsey, 54 N. J. L. 546, 24 Atl. 445—1209. State V. Ramsey County Dist. Ct., 26 Minn. 233, 2 N. W. 698—1961. State V. Real Bstate Bank, 5 Ark. 595, 41 Am. Dec. 109—1408. State V. Red River, etc. Co., 69 Minn. 131, 72 N. W. 60—2470. State V. Reid, 125 Mo. 43, 28 S. W. 172 —69, 508. State V. Rice, 65 Ala. 83—1628. State V. Rives, 5 Ired. L. (N..C.) 297— 1394, 1433, 1435, 2599. State V. Robinson, 57 Md. 486—1201. State V. Roggen, 22 Neb. 118, 34 N. W. 108—256. State V. Rohlffs, 19 Atl. 1099 (N. J.)— 1318. State V. Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155—865. State V. Ross, 122 Mo. 435, 25 S. W. 947, 23 L. R. A. 534—2376. State V. St. Louis, 145 Mo. 551, 46 S. W. 981, 42 L. B. A. 113—2789, 2847. State V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 21 Mo. App. 526—865. State V. Saline County Court, 51 Mo. 350, 11 Am. Rep. 454—242. State V. Sattley, 131 Mo. 464, 33 S. W. 41—1257. State V. Schlitz, etc. Co., 104 Tenn. 715, 59 S. W. 1033, 78 Am. St. Rep. 941—1054, 1414, 1672. State V. Scott, 22 Neb. 628, 36 N. W. 1 21 2629 state V. Scougal, 3 S. D. 55, 51 N. W. 858, 15 L. R. A. 477, 44 Am. St. Rep. 756—2791. State V. Seaboard, etc. R. R., 52 Fed. 450—1231. State V. Security Bank, 2 S. D. 538, 51 N. W. 337—76. State V. Seneca County Bank, 5 Ohio St. 171—1408. State V. Sherman, 22 Ohio St. 411— 433, 2119, 2567, 2587. State V. Shippers', etc. Co., 69 S. W. 58 (Tex.) 1055. State V. Sibley, 25 Minn. 387—9, 1041. State V. Simmons, 70 Miss. 485, 12 South. 477—1223, 1236. State V. Sioux City, etc. R. R., 7 Neb. 357, 374—2620. State V. Smalley, 7 Ohio C. C. 400— 1291. State V. Smiley, 69 Pac. 199 (Kan.)— 1046. State V. Smith, 58 Minn. 35, 59 N. W. 545, 25 L. R. A. 759—2716. State V. Smith, 15 Oreg. 98, 114, 118, 14 Pac. 814, 15 Pac. 137, 386—941, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1340, 1373, 1743. State V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266—209, 616, 623, 679, 1319, 1321. State V. Societe Republicaine, etc., 9' Mo. App. 114—1410. State V. Somerby, 42 Minn. 55, 43 N. W. 689—1407. State V. Southern, etc. Assoc, 31 South. 375 (Ala.)— 1407. State V. Southern, etc. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1822, 28 South. 372—1413, 1601, 2646. State V. Southern, etc. Co., 32 South. 174 (La.)— 822. State V. Southern Minn. R. R., IS Minn. 40 (Gil. 21)— 2623. State V. Southern Ry., 48 S. C. 49, 25 S. E. 982—1680, 2630. TABLE OF CASES. ccclix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State V. Spartanburg, C. etc. R. R., 51 S. C. 129, 28 S. E. -145—1431. State V. Spokane, etc. Ry., 19 Wash. 518, 53 Pac. 719, 41 L. R. A. 515, 67 Am. St. Rep. 739—2621. State V. Standard, etc. Assoc, 38 Ohio St. 281—1399, 2747. State V. Standard Oil Co., 61 Neb. 28, 84 N. W. 413, 87 Am. St. Rep. 449— 1048, 1109, 1674. State V. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 30 N. E. 279, 15 L. R. A. 145, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541—27, 696, 1044, 1053, 1407. State V. State Board, 61 N. J. L. 461, 39 Atl. 638—1230. State V. Stockley, 45 Ohio St. 304, 13 N. E. 279—1303. State V. Stone, 118 Mo. 388, 24 S. W. 164, 25 L. R. A. 243, 40 Am. St. Rep. 388—2743. State V. Sullivan County Court, 51 Mo. 522—246, 254, 259. State V. Superior Court, 71 Pac. 1095 (Wash.)— 2491. State V. Superior Court, 15 Wash. 668, 47 Pac. 31, 37 L. R. A. Ill, 55 Am. St. Rep. 907—2379. State V. Superior Court, etc., 81 N. W. 1046, 48 L. R. A. 819 (Wis.)— 2684. State V. Superior Court, etc., 20 Wash. 545, 56 Pac. 35, 45 L. R. A. 177— 2368. State V. Swearingen, 12 Ga. 23—1373. State V. Talty, 139 Mo. 379, 40 S. W. 942 2435. State V. Taylor, 55 Ohio St. 61, 44 N. E. 513—1024. State V. Thomas, 26 N. J. L. 181— 1213. State V. Thompson, 27 Mo. 365, 369— 1300. State V. Tlmken, 48 N. J. L. 87, 2 Atl. 783 (1886)— 106, 865. State V. Tombeckbee Bank, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 30—1400. State V. Topeka, etc. Co., 60 Pac. 337 (Kan.)— 2119, 2554, 2766. State V. Topeka Water Co., 59 Kan. 151, 52 Pac. 422—516, 1401. State V. Travellers' Ins. Co., 70 Conn. 590, 40 Atl. 465, 66 Am. St. Rep. 138 —1212. State V. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79—2679. State V. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 132, 20 Atl. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 410—2716. State V. Trenton, 54 N. J. L. 92, 23 Atl. 281—2692, 2705, 2819. State V. Tudor, 5 Day (Conn.), 329, 5 Am. Dec. 162—1305. State V. Tunis, 23 N. J. L. 546—1216. State V. Turnpike Co., 46 Atl. (N. J.) 569—2748. State V. Union, etc. Bank, 103 Iowa, 549, 70 N. W. 752, 72 N. W. 1076— 440, 471. State V. Union Merchants' Exchange, 2 Mo. App. 96—21. State V. Union Township, 8 Ohio St. 394—248. State T. United, etc. R. R., 43 N. J. L. 110—2626. State V. United States, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 87, 83 N. W. 465, 50 L. R. A. 667, 83 Am. St. Rep. 366—1082, 2728. State V. Urbana, etc. Co., 14 Ohio, 6— 1627. State V. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St. 590— 2567, 2573, 2577. State V. Wabaunsee County, 36 Kan. 180, 12 Pac. 942—256. State V. Wapello County, 13 Iowa, 388 —245. State V. Warren Foundry, etc. Co., 32 N. J. L. 439—865, 993, 998, 1013. State V. Washington, etc. Co., 76 . Miss. 449, 24 South. 877—1432. State V. Washington Social Lib. Co., 11 Ohio, 96—1625. State V. Webb, 97 Ala. Ill, 12 South. 377, 38 Am. St. Rep. 151—98, 1398. State V. Webb, 110 Ala. 214, 20 South. 462—6, 98, 99, 151, 1414. State V. Western, etc. Co., 40 Kan. 96, 19 Pac. 349, 10 Am. St. Rep. 166— 1556. State V. Western, etc. Ins. Co., 47 Ohio St. 167, 24 N. E. 392, 8 L. R. A. 129—1407. State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 73 Me. 518—1240. State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 165 Mo. 502, 65 S. W. 775—1242, 2839. State V. Western Union Tel. Co., 113 N. C. 213, 18 S. E. 389, 22 L. R. A. 570—2819. State V. West, etc. Ry., 34 Wis. 197, 36 Wis. 466—1407. State V. West Side Ry., 146 Mo. 155, 47 S. W. 959—2674. State V. White, 69 S. W. 684 (Mo.)— 76. State V. Whited, etc., 104 La. 125, 28 South. 922—737, 1102. State V. White's, etc. Co., 3 Tenn. Ch. 164—1396. State V. Whitesides, 30 S. C. 579, 9 S. B. 661, 3 L. R. A. 777—248. State V. Woodrufe, etc. Co., 114 Ind. 155, 15 JC. B. 814—1243. State V. Woram, 6 Hill, 33, 40 Am. Dec. 378^69. 1604, 2075. State V. Wright, 10 Nev. 167—1274. State V. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 9 N. W. 737—252. State Bank v. Bell, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 127—1802. ccclx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] State Bank v. Comegys, 12 Ala. 772, 46 Am. Dec. 278—1739. 1799. State Bank v. Cox, 11 Rich. Bq. (S. C.) 344—796. State Bank v. Domestic, etc. Co., 99 Va. 411, 39 S. E. 141, 86 Am. St. Rep. 891—2465. State Bank v. Gates, 114 Iowa, 323, 86 N. "W. 311—792. State Bank v. Gill, 23 Hun, 410—993. State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 14 L. Ed. 977—1021, 1023, 1204. State Bank v. Richmond, 79 Va. 113— 1205. State Bank v. State, 1 BlatcM. (Ind.) 267, 282—1399, 1433. State Bank Bldg. Co. v. Pierce, 92 Iowa, 668, 61 N. W. 426—287, 368. State Bank, etc. v. Carr, 41 S. E. 876 (N. O— 1945. State Board v. Morris, etc. R. R., 49 N. J. L. 193, 7 Atl. 826—1234. State Board of Agriculture v. Citizens' Street Ry., 47 Ind. 407, 17 Am. Rep. 702—2079. State, etc. v. A. F. Shapleigh, etc. Co., 147 Mo. 366, 48 S. W. 927—1584. State, etc. v. Port Royal, etc. Ry., 89 Fed. 565—2435. State, etc. Bank v. Fanning, etc. Co., 92 N. W. 712 (Iowa)— 2433, 2471. State, etc. Co. v. De La Vergne, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 468, 44 C. C. A. 556— 2232, 2420. State, etc. Co.. v. Turner, 111 Iowa, 664, 82 N. "W. 1029, 53 L. R. A. 136— 136. State, etc. Ins. Co., In re, 11 "W. Rep. 746 (1863)— 2744. State, etc. Ins. Co. v. San Francisco Super. Ct, 101 Cal. 135, 35 Pac. 549— 1387, 2380. State Finance Co. v. Commonwealth, etc. Co., 69 Minn. 219, 72 N. W. 68— 2058. State F. Ins. Co., In re, 1 Hem. & M. 457 (1863), 1 De G., J. & S. 634, 36 L. J. (Ch.) 634, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 436, 1 N. R. 510 (V. C. W., 1863)— 436, 1505. State F. Ins. Co., In re, 11 W. R. 746 (1863)— 1889. State Ins. Co., In re, 14 Fed. 28, 11 Biss. 310—116, 345, 635, 636, 1027. State Ins. Co. v. Gennett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 82, 100—860, 861, 938, 1018. State Ins. Co. v. Redmond, 3 Fed. 764, 1 McCrary, 308—355. State Ins. Co. v. Sax, 2 Tenn. Ch. 507 —938, 1007. State Ins. Co. v. Waterhouse, 78 Iowa, 674, 43 N. W. 611—1956. State Line R. R.'s Appeal, 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 139 (Pa.)— 1880. State Nat. Bank v. Say ward, 86 Fed. 45—466. State Nat. Bank v. Sayward, 91 Fed. 443, 33 C. C. A. 564—466. State Nat. Bank v. Union Nat. Bank, 168 111. 519, 48 N. E. 82—1634, 1736,. 1741, 2138, 2148. Staten Island, etc. Club v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 321, 58 N. Y. Supp. 460—2061, 2168. Staten Island, etc. R. R., In re, 37 Hun, 422—356. Staten Island, etc. R. R., In re, 38 Hun, 381—356. Staten Island, etc. R. R. v. Hinchliffe,. 170 N. Y. 473, 63 N. B. 545—424. Staten Island, etc. R. R. v. Staten Island, etc. R. R., 34 N. Y. App. Div. 181, 54 N. Y. Supp. 598—2676, 2712. Staten Island R. T. Co., In re, 103 N. Y. 251, 8 N. E. 548—2626. State of Louisiana v. American Cotton Oil Trust, 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 509— 1063. State of Minnesota v. Central Trust Co. etc., 94 Fed. 244, 36 C. C. A. 214 —2343. State of Minnesota v. Duluth, etc. R. R., 97 Fed. 353—2157. State of Nebraska v. First Nat. Bank, 88 Fed. 947—1598. State of Wyoming Syndicate, In re (1901), 2 Ch. 431—1273. State R. R. Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 23 L. Bd. 663—1229. State Savings Assoc, v. Kellogg, 52' Mo. 583—396, 447, 448, 486. State Say. Assoc, v. Kellogg, 63 Mo, 540—477. State Sav. Bank v. Johnson, 18 Mont. 440, 45 Pac. 662, 33 L. R. A. 552, 55 Am. St. Rep. 591—463. State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 21 L. Bd. 179—1211, 1233. State Treasurer v. Auditor-General, 46 Mich. 224, 9 N. W. 258—1233. State Trust Co. v. Casino Co., 5 N. Y. App. Div. 381, 39 N. Y. Supp. 258— 2153, 2263, 2299. State Trust Co. v. Casino Co., 19 N. Y. App. Div. 344, 46 N. Y. Supp. 492— 2153, 2263, 2299. State Trust Co. v. Duluth, 70 Minn. 257, 73 N. W. 249—2774. State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 110 Fed. 10—2229. State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R., 120 Fed. 398—2152, 2259, 2300, 2305. State Trust Co. v. National, etc. Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. 575—2221, 2387. Statham v. Brighton, etc. Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 189—162. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Staver, etc. Co. v. Blake, 111 Micli. 282, 69 N. W. 508, 38 L. R. A. 798— 527. Steacy t. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 5 Dill. 348, 22 Fed. Cas. 1142—80, 170, 171. Steamboat Co. v. McCutcheon, 13 Pa. St. 13—1660, 1662. Steam Engine Co. v. Hubbard, 101 U. S. 188, 25 L. Ed. 786—462. Steam, etc. Co. v. Scott, 157 Mo. 520, , 57 S. W. 1076—150. Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb. 378, 382, 384—1625. Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 1 Sup. Ct. 58, 27 L. Ed. 87— 1964. Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron, 52 Pa. St. 280—1114, 1117. Stearic Acid Co., In re, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 1066—1278. Stearns v. Allen, 25 Hun, 558 — 1817. Stearns v. Lawrence, 83 Fed. 738, 28 C. C. A. 66—1686, 1690. Stearns v. Marsh, 4 Denio, 227, 47 Am. Dec. 248—977, 981. Stearns v. Sopris, 4 Colo. App; 191, 35 Pac. 281—358. Stears, Ex parte, Johns. V.-C. 480 — 1378. Stebbins v. Leowolf, 57 Mass. 137, 143 —773, 777. Stebbins v. Merritt, 64 Mass. 27—1272, 1276, 1281, 1283, 1285, 1292, 1757, 1805. Stebbins v. Perry County, 167 111. 567, 47 N. E. 1048—201, 259, 1906, 1916. Stebbins v. Phcenix Fire Ins. Co., 3 Paige, 350—888, 1115, 1118, 1121, 1124, 1125. Stebbins v. Scott, 172 Mass. 356, 52 N. E. 535—488, 538. Stedman v. City of Berlin, 97 Wis. 505, 73 N. W. 57—502, 2758, 2765. Stedman v. Bveleth, 47 Mass. 114— 396, 431. Steele v. Harmer, 14 M. & W. 831 (1845)— 1978. , Steele v. Oswego, etc. Co., 15 Wend. 266—1812. Steele v. Sturges, 5 Abb. Pr. 442—2433. Steele, etc. Co. v. Laurens, etc. Co., 24 S. E. 755 (Ga.)— 2378. Steel, etc. Co. v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 163 Mass. 252, 39 N. E. 1021— 1636. Steel, etc. Co. v. Muskegon, etc. Co., 98 Mich. 616, 57 N. W. 817—2415. Steel Lumber Co. v. Laurens Lumber Co., 98 Ga. 329, 24 S. E. 755—1599, 1921, 2373. Steelman v. Baker. 53 N. J. Eg. 672, 33 Atl. 815—160, 2024. Steelman v. Weiskittel 88 Md. 519, 42 Atl. 216—987. Steers Case, 49 L. J. (Ch.) 176 (1879) —326. Steelton t. East Harrisburg Passen- ger Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 667—2696, 2750. Steenerson v. Great Northern Ry., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N. W. 713—2613. Steers v. Kinsey, 68 Ark. 360, 58 S. W. 1050—1811. Steers v. Lashley, 6 T. R. 61 (1794) — 781. Steffins V. Gurney, 61 Kan. 292, 59 Pac. 725—471. Steger v. Davis, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 23, 27 S. W. 1068—16, 1849, 1859, 1865. Stegmann v. O'Connor, 81 L. T. Rep. 627 (1900)— 2655. Steiilel v. Tolhurst, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 521, 73 N. Y. Supp. 1034—1027. Stein V. Bienville, etc. Co., 141 U. S. 67, 11 Sup. Ct. 892, 35 L. Ed. 622— 2762. Stein V. Bienville, etc. Co., 34 Fed. 145 —2762. Stein v. Howard, 65 Cal. 616, 4 Pac. 662—146, 629. Stein V. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591—244. Steinback v. Diepenbrock, 158 N. Y. 24, 52 N. E. 662, 44 L. R. A. 417, 70 Am. St. Rep. 424—2747. Steiner v. First, etc. Bank, 127 Ala. 595, 29 South. 65—990, 1020. Steiner v. Parsons, 103 Ala. 215, 13 South. 771—1912. Steiner v. Steiner, etc. Co., 120 Ala. 128, 26 South. 494—2073. Steiner's Appeal, 27 Pa. St. 313 — 2107, 2110. Steinhauer v. Colmar, 11 Colo. App. 494, 55 Pac. 291—2412. Stelnke v. Loofbourow, 17 Utah, 252, 54 Pac. 120—438. Steinke v. Yetzer, 108 Iowa, 512, 79 N. W. 286—36, 224, 1635, 1787. Steinmetz v. Versailles, etc. Turnp. Co., 57 Ind. 457—276, 277. Steinway, Matter of, 159 N. Y. 251, 53 N. E. 1103, 45 L. R. A. 461—1094, 1096, 1100, 1106. Steinway, In re, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 70 52 N. Y. Supp. 343—1094, 1100. Steinway v. Steinway, 157 N. Y. 710 53 N. E. 1132—1299, 1864. Steinway v. Steinway, 163 N. Y. 183, 57 N. E. 312—1299, 1864. Steinway v. Steinway, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 301, 37 N. Y. Supp. 742—1299, 1864. Stenger v. Tharp, 94 N. W. 402 (S. D.) —2788. Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 480 — 924 983, 984. Stephens v. Benton, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 112 —1975. ccclxii TABLE. OF CASES. [The numbers after the clash refer to the pages of the text.] Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. 642—413, 444. Stephens v. De Medina, 4 Q. B. 422 (1843)— 747. Stephens v. Follett, 43 Fed. 842—562, 633. Stephens v. Fox, 83 N. Y. 313, 317— 401, 416, 419, 473. Stephens v. Fox, 17 Hun, 435—401. Stephens v. James, 77 Ga. 139, 3 S. E. 160—1064. Stephens v. Mysore, etc. Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 221 (1902)— 1595. Stephens v. Overstolz, 43 Fed. 771 — 433. Stephens v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 47 Fed. 530, 14 L. R. A. 184—1962, 2654. Stephens, etc. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 8 Ben. 502, 22 Fed. Cas. 1301 —2848. Stephenson, Ex parte, 15 L. R. Ir. 51 (1885)— 121. . Stephenson v. Dowson, 3 Beav. 342 (1840)— 655. Stephenson v. New York, etc. R. R., 2 Duer, 341—1795. Stephenson, v. Vokes, 27, Ont. Rep. (Can.) 691—621, 1313, 1381, 1731. Stephenson's Case, 45 L. J. (Ch.) 488 , (1876)— 180. Sterett v. Denver, etc. Ry., 17 Hun, 316 —1955. Sterling v. Jaudon, 48 Barb. 459 — 923, 983. Sterling v. Marietta Co., 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 179—1830. Sterling v. Wilkinson, 83 Va. 791, 3 S. E. 533—662. Sterling's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 35, 2 Atl. 105, 56 Am. Rep. 246—2738. Sterling Wrench Co. v. Amstutz, 50 Ohio'St. 484, 34 N. E. 794—223. Stern v. McKee, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 142, 75 N. Y. Supp. 157—384, 1703. Stern v. Wisconsin Cent. R. R., 1 Fed. 555—2188, 2198. Sternberg v. State, 36 Neb. 307, 54 N. W. 553, 19 L. R. A. 570—2716.- Sternberg v. Wolff, 56 N. J. Eq. 555, 42 Atl. 1078—1387, 1923, 1927. Sternberg v. Wolff, 56 N. J. Bq. 389, 39 Atl. 397, 39 L. R. A. 762, 67 Am. St. Rep. 494—1387, 1923. Sternberger v. Bernheimer, 121 N. Y. 194, 24 N. B. 311—910. Sterne v. Atherton, 7 Kan. App. 20, 51 Pac. 791—433. Sterrett v. Philadelphia, etc. Tel. Co., 18 W. N. Cas. 77—2842. Stetson V. Bangor, 56 Me. 274—1207, 1220. Stetson V. City Bank, etc., 2 Ohio St. 167—1447. Stetson V. City Bank of New Orleans, 12 Ohio St. 577—1447. Stetson V. Northern Investment Co.. 104 Iowa, 393, 73 N. W. 869—1484, 1740, 1857. Stettauer v. New York, etc. Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 46, 6 Atl. 303—1099, 1110. Steubenville, etc. R. R. v. North Town- ship, 1 Ohio St. 105—248. Stevedores' Beneficial Assoc, In re, 14 Phila. 130—16. Stevtns V. Anson, 73 Me. 489—246. Stevens v. Borough, etc., 62 N. J. L. 167, 40 Atl. 688—2740. Stevens v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 31 Barb. 590, 596—2323. Stevens v. Carp River Iron Co., 57 Mich. 427, 24 N. W. 160—1946. Stevens v. Central Nat. Bank, 144 N. Y. 50, 39 N. B. 68—2206, 2233, 2292. Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458-236. Stevens v. Davison, 1-8 Gratt. (Va.) 819, 98 Am. Dec. 692—17, 1925, 2573, 2578. Stevens v. Eden Meetlng-House Soc, 12 Vt. 688—1272, 1274, 1280. Stevens v. Erie Ry., 21 N. J. Eq. 259— 2625. Stevens v. Great Western Ry., 52 L. T. Rep. 324 (1885)— 2644. Stevens v. Hertzler, 109 Ala. 423, 19 South. 838—742. Stevens v. Hill, 29 Me. 133—1733, 1762. Stevens v. Hurlbut Bank, 31 Conn. 146 —926, 970, 982, 983, 984, 1247. Stevens v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 3 Fed. 673, 2 Flip. 715—2121. Stevens v. Mid-Hants, etc. Ry., L. R. 8 Ch. App. 1064 (1873)— 591, 2527, 2528. Stevens v. Midland Counties Ry., 10 Exch. 352 (1854)— 75. Stevens v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 106 Fed. 771, 45 C. C. A. 611—1527, 1869, 1917, 2559, 2583. Stevens v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 Blatchf. 104, 23 Fed. Cas. 21—2343. Stevens v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 Blatchf. 412, 23 Fed. Cas. 22—2057, 2058. Stevens v. Overstoltz, 43 Fed. 465—462. Stevens v. Phosnlx Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 149—511, 1956, 1966. Stevens v. Pratt, 101 111. 206—1629, 1673. Stevens v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 29 Vt. 545—1022, 1024, 1031, 1041, 1893, 1904, 2646. Stevens v. South Devon Ry., 9 Hare, 313, ,326—587, 591, 602, 604, 1167. Stevens v. South, etc. Co., 14 Utah, 232, 47 Pac. 81—1902, 1926. Stevens v. Union T. Co., 57 Hun, 498, 11 N. Y. Supp. 268—2200. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Stevens v. Watson, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 302—2034, 2319, 2323, 2324. Stevens v. Wilson, 18 N. J. Eq. 447— 756. Stevens County v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 36 Minn. 467, 31 N. 'W. 942—1237. Stevenson v. Marble, 84 Fed. 23—783, 2000. Stevenson v. Polk, 71 Iowa, 278, 32 N. W. 340—1064. ^Steward Mfg. Co. v. Steward, 70 S. W. 808 (Tenn.)— 1494. Stewart v. Austin, L. R. 3 Bq. 299— 1041. Stewart v. Belt, 19 South. 957 (Miss.) —1926. rStewart v. Cauty, 8 M. & W. 160 (1841) 737, 750, 908, 926, 1256. Stewart v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 5 Fed. 149, 4 Hughes, 47—2069, ' 2368. Stewart v. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 1 Fed. 361, 4 Hughes, 41—2200. Stewart v. Chicago General St. Ry., 166 III. 61, 46 N. B. 765—2689. Stewart v. Drake, 46 N. Y. 449—923, 924, 927. Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329—1869. Stewart v. Erie, etc. Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372 (Gil. 348)— 1847, 1865, 2596, 2640. Stewart v. Evans, 9 S. Ct. Sess. Cas. 810—537. Stewart v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 53 Md. 564—732, 1201. ■Stewart v. Gould, 8 Wash. 367, 36 Pac. 277—1652. Stewart v. Harmon, 98 Fed. 190—2416. Stewart v. Huntington, 124 N. Y. 127, 26 N. E. 289—742.' Stewart v. Huntington Bank, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 267, 269, 14 Am. Dec. 628 —1827, 1828, 1830. Stewart v. Jones, 40 Mo. 140—2599. •Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505, 26 L. Bd. 866—2049. •Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604—411, 421, 428, 446, 454, 491. Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. R., 38 N. J. L. 505—1459, 1669, 2608. Stewart v. Mahoney Min. Co., 54 Cal. 149—1315. ' Stewart v. Marion, etc. Co., 155 Ind. 174, 57 N. B. 911—1181, 2405. Stewart v. National Union Bank, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 424, 23 Fed. Cas. 68— 678, 1626. Stewart v. Phelps, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 91, 75 N. Y. Supp. 526—1199, 1200. Stewart v. Pierce, 89 N. W. 234 (Iowa) —758, 1343, 1438, 1539. Stewart v. Polk County, 30 Iowa, 9, 1 Am. Rep. 238—245. Stewart v. Robinson, 115 N. Y. 328, 22 N. B. 160, 163, 5 L. R. A. 410—1065. Stewart v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 41 Fed. 736—126, 1512, 1826, 2009, 2276. Stewart v. Schall, 65 Md. 289, 4 Atl. 399, 57 Am. Rep. 327—778. Stewart v. Village of Ashtabula, 98 Fed. 516—2682. Stewart v. Walla Walla, etc. Co., 1 Wash. St. 521, 20 Pac. 605—554, 852, Stewart v. Walterboro, etc. Ry., 41 S. E. 827 (S. O— 2591. Stewart v. Wheeling, etc. Ry., 53 Ohio St. 151, 41 N. E. 247, 29 L. R. A. 438—2241. Stewart v. Wisconsin Cent. Co., 89 Fed. 617—2705. Stewart v. Wisconsin, etc. R. R., 95 Fed. 577—2356. Stewart v. Wisconsin, etc. Ry., 117 Fed. 782—2292, 2531. Stewart's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 410, 6 Atl. 321—718. Stewart's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 511 (1866)— 294. Stewart's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. 574 (1866) —317, 334, 384. Stewart, etc. Co. v. British, etc. Assoc, 79 L. T. Rep. 494 (1898)— 2134. Stewart, etc. Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 28 Neb. 39, 44 N. W. 47—2334. Stewart, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 291—2507. Stickle V. Liberty, etc. Co., 32 Atl. 708 (N. J.)— 1603. Stickney v. Adler, 91 Ala. 198, 8 South. 568—705. Stiefel V. New York Novelty Co., 14 N. Y. App. Div. 371, 43 N. Y. Supp. 1012 —2405. Stieffel V. Tolhurst, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 521—424. Stiles V. Cardiff Steam Nav. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 310 (1864)— 74. Stiles V. Laurel, etc. Co., 47 W. Va. 838, 35 S. B. 986—1447. Stiles V. Western R. R., 49 Mass. 44, 41 Am. Dec. 486—1830. Stilphen v. Ware, 45 Cal. 110—387, 476, 482. Stinchfield v. Little, 1 Me. 231, 10 Am. Dec. 65—1804, 1818. Stinson v. Thornton, 56 Ga. 377 — 722, 723. Stock, Ex parte, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 731 (1864)— 180, 1373. Stockbridge v. Beckwith, 6 Del. Ch. 72, 33 Atl. 620—2398. Stockdale v. South Sea Co., Barn. Ch. 363 (1740)— 725. Stocken's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 412 (1867)— 294, 296. Stocken's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 6 (1867); 5 Eq. 6 (1867)— 279, 292, 293. ccclxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Stocker v. Wedderburn, 3 K. & J. 393 (1857)— 756. Stockholders v. Supervisors, 88 Va. 293, 13 S. B. 407—1212. Stockley v. Thomas, 89 Md. 663, 43 Atl. 766—1087, 2390, 2746. Stocks, Ex parte, 22 L. J. (Ch.) 218 (1853)— 1699. Stocks's Case, 22 L. J. (Ch.) 218 (1852)— 1701. Stockton V. American, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Bq. 352, 36 Atl. 971—99, 514, 1049, 1413. Stockton V. Atlantic Highlands, etc. Ry., 53 N. J. Bq. 418, 32 Atl. 680— 2694. Stockton V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 32 Fed. 9—512. Stockton V. Central R. R. of N. J., 50 N. J. Eq. 52, 24 Atl. 964, 17 L.' R. A. 97—1412, 2562. Stockton V. Central R. R. of N. J., 50 N. J. Bq. 489, 25 Atl. 942—1049, 2597. Stockton V. Harmon, 32 Fla. 312, 13 South. 833—1918. Stockton V. North Jersey St. Ry., 54 N. J. Bq. 263, 34 Atl. 688—2694. * Stockton V. Russell, 54 Fed. 224, 4 C. C. A. 300—748, 1328. Stockton, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 101 (1875)— 1123. Stockton, etc. R. R. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147—244. Stockton, etc. Water Board v. Kirk- leatham, etc. Board (1893), A. C. 444 —2771. Stockton, etc. Works v. Houser, 109 Cal. 1, 41 Pac. 809—114, 146, 1747. Stockton Sav. Bank v. Staples, 98 Cal. 189, 32 Pac. 936—1660. Stockwell V. St. Louis Mer. C. Co., 9 Mo. App. 133—856. Stoddard v. Decatur, etc. Co., 184 111. 53, 56 N. B. 327—198, 622, 754, 1854, 2497. Stoddard v. Lum, 159 N. Y. 265, 53 N. B. 1108, 45 L. R. A. 551, 70 Am. St. Rep. 541—415. Stoddard v. Port Tobacco Parish, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 227—1724. Stoddard v. Shetucket Foundry Co., 34 Conn. 542—84, 86, 1151, 1153, 1155. Stoker v. Schwab, 1 N. Y. Supp. 425— 1421. Stokes V. Detrick, 75 Md. 256, 23 Atl. 846—1552, 1810, 2115. Stokes V. Foote, 172 N. Y. 327, 65 N. B. 176—743. Stokes V. Hoffman House, 167 N. Y. 554, 60 N. B. 667, 53 L. R. A. 870— 2395, 2447. Stokes V. Lebanon, etc. Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241—220, 290, 292. Stokes V. Mackay, 147 N. Y. 223, 41 N: B. 496—747. Stokes V. New Jersey, etc. Co., 46 N. J, L. 237—1770. Stokes -v. Phelps Mission, 47 Hun, 570' —1513. Stokes V. Scbtt County, 10 Iowa, 166— 245. Stokes V. Stickney, 96 N. Y. 323—462.. Stokes V. Stokes, N. Y. L. J., Nov. 15, 1892, p. 375—974. Stokes V. Stokes, 148 N. Y. 708, 43 N. E. 211—759. Stokes V. Stokes, 91 Hun, 605, 36 N. Y. Supp. 350—1646, 1927. Stolze V. Manitowoc, etc. Co., 100 Wis. 208, 75 N. W. 987—1395. Stone V. Cartwright, 6 T. R. 411 (1795)— 1695. Stone V. Chisolm, 113 U. S. 302, 5 Sup. Ct. 497, 28 L. Ed. 991—456. Stone V. City, etc. Bank, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 282 (1877)— 336. Stone V. Dodge, 96 Mich. 514, 56 N. W. 75, 21 L. R. A. 280—2409. Stone V. Bast Berkshire Cohg. Soc, 14 Vt. 86-66, 1801. Stone V. Framingham, 109 Mass. 303— 1394. Stone V. Great Western Oil Co., 41 IlL 85—214, 282. Stone V. Hackett, 78 Mass. 227—662. Stone V. Illinois Central R. R., 116 U. S. 347, 6 Sup. Ct. 348, 388, 1191, 29- L. Ed. 636—1674. Stone V. Kellogg, 165 111. 192, 46 N. E. 222, 56 Am. St. Rep. 240—1093, 1097. Stone V. Marsh, 6 B. & C. 551 (1827)— 834. Stone V. Omaha, etc. Co., 61 Neb. 834, 86 N. W. 468—2481. Stone V. Reed, 152 Mass. 179, 25 N. B. 49—1145, 1181, 1570. Stone V. Wiggin, 46 Mass. 316—396. Stone V. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181, 24 L.. Ed. 102—2610. Stonebridge v. Perkins, 141 N. Y. 1, 35 N. E. 980—1640, 2405. Stoneham Branch R. R. v. Gould, 68^ Mass. 277—300, 348, 358. Stoney v. American, etc. Ins. Co., 11 Paige, 635 — 1978. Stoops V. Greensburgh, etc. Co., 10 Ind. 47—369. Storm V. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. 495, 511—992. Storrer, In re, 63 Fed. 564—2844. Storrow v. Texas, etc. Assoc, 87 Fed. 612, 31 C. C. A. 139—591, 601. Storrs V. Flint, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 498- —1065. Storrs V. Pensacola, etc. R. R., 29 Fla. 617, 11 South. 226—2614. TABLE OF OASES. ccclxv [The numbers after tlie dash refer to tlie pages of the text.] Story V. Furman, 25 N. Y. 214, 221, 222 —428, 454, 1027. Story V. Jersey City, etc. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 13, 84 Am. Dec. 134—1041. Story V. New York El. R. R., 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146—2688. Story V. Salomon, 71 N. Y. 420—770, 772, 904. Stough V. Ponca Mill Co., 54 Neb. 500, 74 N. W.. 868—1656, 2029. Stourbridge Canal v. Wheeley, 2 Barn. & Ad. 792 (1831)— 1548, 2724. Stout V. Hubbell, 104 Iowa, 499, 73 N. W. 1060—162. Stout V. Lye, 103 U. S. 66, 26 L. Ed. 428—2230, 2243. Stout V. Sioux City, etc. R. R., 8 Fed. 794, 3 McCrary, 1—1949, 2652. Stout V. Yeager Milling Co., 13 Fed. 802, 4 MeCrary, 486—1654. Stout V. Zullck, 48 N. J. L. 599, 7 Atl. 362—503. Stoutlmore v. Clarlf, 70 Mo. 471—1418. Stover V. Flack, 30 N. Y. 64, 41 Barb. 162—207, 421, 533, 540, 708, 764. Stover V. Flack, 41 Barb. 162—533, 708. Stow V. Wyse, 7 Conn. 214, 18 Am. Dec. 99—1276, 1281. Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397—3, 216. Stowe V. Merserve, 13 N. H. 46—1010. Stowell V. Stowell, 45 Mich. 364, 8 N. W. 70—233. Stowers v. Postal Tel. etc. Co., 68 Miss. 559, 9 South. 356, 12 L. R. A. 864, 24 Am. St. Rep. 290—2794. Stoystown, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Graver, 45 Pa. St. 386—1732, 1748. Stradley v. Pailthrop, 96 Mich. 287, 55 N. W. 807—2267. Straffon's Case, 1 De G., M. & G. 576 (1852)— 537, 563, 564. Strafford Nat. Bank v. Dover, 58 N. H. 316—1226. Straine v. Bradford, etc. Co., 88 Fed. 571—2222, 2412. Strait V. National Harrow Co., 51 Fed. 819—1057. Strait V. National Harrow Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 224—1052. Straker v. Wilson, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 503 (1871)— 1195. Strang v. Montgomery, etc. R. R., 3 Woods, 613, 23 Fed. Cas. 218—2535. Strang v. Richmond, etc. R. Co., 101 Fed. 511—2040. Strang v. Richmond R. R., 93 Fed. 71 —976, 2657. Strange v. Houston, etc. R. R., 53 Tex. 162—795, 824, 825. Stranton Iron, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 16 Eq. 559 (1873)— 1350, 1357. Strapp V. Bull, etc. Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 1 —2457. Strasburg R. R. v. Echternacht, 21 Pa. St. 220, 60 Am. Dec. 49—216, 755. Stratford v. Jones, 97 N. Y. 586—925, 981. StratfoTrd, etc. Ry. v. Stratton, 2 B. & Ad. 519—283. Stratton v. Allen, 16 N. J. Eq. 229— 1649. Stratton v. European, etc. Ry., 74 Me. 422—2190, 2536. Stratton v. European, etc. Ry., 76 Me. 269—2190. Straus V. Chicago Glycerine Co., 46 Hun, 216—1950, 2746. Straus V. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St. 59 —1625, 1976. Strause v. ^tna, etc. Co., 126 N. C. 223, 35 S. B. 471, 48 L. R. A. 452— 1950. Strawbridge v. Clamond Tel. Co., 195 Pa. St. lis, 45 Atl. 677—1109. Straw, etc. Co. v. Kilbourne, etc. Co., 80 Minn. 125, 83 N. W. 36—458, 1026. Stray v. Russell, 1 El. & El. 888 (1859)— 913, 916, 928. Streatham, etc. Co., In re (1897), 1 Ch. 15—2095. Street v. Maryland Central Ry., 58 Fed. 47—1925. Street v. Maryland Cent. Ry., 59 Fed. 25, 47—2359, 2460, 2463, 2492. Street v. Morgan, L. R. 4 Exch. 384 (1869)— 917. Streeten v. Robinson, 102 Cal. 542, 36 Pac. 946—1782. Streeter v. Sumner, 31 N. H. 542—547. Streight v. Junk, 59 Fed. 321, 8 C. C. A. 137—1856, 1886, 1909, 2205. Streit V. Citizens' F. Ins. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 21, 31—1105. Stribbling v. Bank of Valley, 5 Rand. (Va.) 132—135. Strick V. Swansea Canal, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 245 (1864)— 2607,'2608. Strickland v. Leggett, 21 N. Y. Supp. 356—961. Strickland v. Railroad Co. (Miss.), 1 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) 225— 246. Strickland v. Symons, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 245 (1884)— 1065. Strieby v. Clinton, etc. Co., 29 Atl. 589 (N. J.)— 1575. String V. Camden, etc. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 227, 40 Atl. 774—2750, 2751. Stringer, Ex parte, L. R. 9 Q. B. D. 436 (1882)— 1122. Stritesky v.- Cedar Rapids, 98 Iowa, 373, 67 N. W. 271—2721. Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co., 164 N. Y. 303, 320, 58 N. E. 142, 51 L. R. A. 687. 79 Am. St. Rep. 643—2776, 2777, 2779, 2782. cccLxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text] Stroh V. City of Detroit, 90 N. W. 1029 (Mich.)— 1215. Strohl V. Seattle, etc. Bank, 25 Wash. 28, 64 Pac. 916—1646. Stromeyer v. Combes, 2 N. T. Supp. 232—1896. Strong V. Broolilyn Crosstown R. R., 93 N. Y. 426, 435—634, 636, 1175. Strong V. Carlyle Press (1893), 1 Ch. 268—2374. Strong V. McCagg, 55 Wis. 624, 13 N. W. 895—1387, 1412. Strong V. National, etc. Assoc, 45 N. Y. 718—925. Strong V. Smith, 15 Hun, 222—1313, 1317, 1336, 1337. Strong V. Southwestern, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 546 (Tex.)— 333, 391. Strong V. Southworth, 8 Ben. 331, Fed. Cas. No. 13,545—443. Strong V. Wheaton, 38 Barb. 616—418, 450, 452, 461, 473. Stroud V. Lawson (1898), 2 Q. B. 44— 808, 1186, 1188, 1900. Stroudsburg v. Stroudsburg Pass. R. R., 2 Pa. Dist. 35—2662, 2702. Stroudsburg v. Wilkes-Barre, etc. R. R., 2 Pa. Dist. 507—2694. Strouse v. Sylvester, 66 Pac. 660 (Cal.) —1503. ' Strout V. Natoma W. & M. Co., 9 Cal. 78—938, 1015. Strunk v. Owen, 199 Pa. St. 75, 78, 48 Atl. 888—1615, 1692. Struthers v. .Drexel, 122 U. S. 487; 7 Sup. Ct. 1293, 30 L. Ed. 1216—750. Stryker, In re, 158 N. Y. 526, 53 N. E. 525, 70 Am. St. Rep. 489—429, 2335. Stryker, In re, 73 Hun, 327, 26 N. Y. Supp. 209—429, 2335. Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. Y. 50, 32 Am. Rep. 262—430. Stuart V. Bank of Staplehurst, 57 Neb. 569, 78 N. W. 298—800, 1610. Stuart V. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78, 10 Sup. Ct. 242, 33 L. Ed. 568—2474. Stuart V. Gay, 127 U. S. 518, 8 Sup. Ct. 1279, 32 L. Ed. 191-2288.' Stuart V. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 18 Sup. Ct. 274, 42 L. Ed. 639—577. Stuart V. Hayden, 72 Fed; 402, 18 C. C. A. 618-573, 577, 807, 811, 814. Stuart V. James, etc. Co., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 294—2208. Stuart V. Mechanics', etc. Bank, 19 Johns. 496, 501—41. Stuart V. New York Herald Co., 73 N. Y. App. Div. 459, 77 N. Y. Supp. 216— 1942. Stuart V. Valley R. R., 32 Gratt. 146— 185, 191, 347, 354. Studdert v. Grosvenor, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 528—1306, 1594. Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U. S. 259, 22 Sup. Ct. 463, 46 L. Ed. 528—443. Studebaker, etc. Co. v. Montgomery, 74 Mo. 101—1418. Studley, Ex parte, 14 Jur. 539 (1850)— 1701. StuflBebeam v. De Lashmutt, 83 Fed. 449—573, 815. Stufflebeam v. De Lashmutt, 101 Fed. 367—809. Stupart V. Arrowsmith, 3 Sm. & G. 176 (1855)— 1392. Sturdevant v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 62 Neb. 472, 87 N. W. 156—1788, 2072. Sturge V. Eastern Union Ry., 7 De G., M. & G. 158—584, 591, 604. Sturgeon Bay, etc. Co. v. Leatham, 164 111. 239, 45 N. B. 422—2726. Sturges V. Carter, 114 U. S. 511, 5 Sup. Ct. 1014, 29 L. Ed. 240—1208. Sturges V. Chicago Board of Trade, 86 IIU 441—1075. Sturges V. Keith, 57 111. 451, 11 Am. Rep. 28—1248, 1256, 1259, 1263. Sturges V. Knapp, 31 Vt. 1, 55, 59— 2164, 2189. Sturges V. Knapp, 36 Vt. 439—2190. Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246, 251, 23 Fed. Cas. 311—93, 95, 108, 110, 301, 557, 785, 995, 2034. Sturges V. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384— 1181, 1380. Sturgis V. Crescent, etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 470—1378, 1938. Sturgis V. Drew, 11 Hun, 136, 73 N. Y. 384—1380. Sturgis V. Knapp, 33 Vt. 486—2190. Sturtevant v. National, etc. Works, 88 Fed. 613, 32 C. C. A. 57—535. Sturtevant-Larrabee Co. v. Mast, etc. Co., 66 Minn. 437, 69 N. W. 324—1901. Stutz V. Handley, 41 Fed. 531, 538—118, 178, 309, 383, 396, 500, 559, 633, 1270, 1282, 1425. Stutzer, In re, 26 Hun, 481—1200. Stuyvesant v. Pearsall, 15 Barb. 244 — 2662. Sub-Marine Tel. Co. v. Dickson, 15 C. B. N. S. 759 (1864)— 2848. Suburban, etc. Co. r. Inhabitants, etc., 41 Atl. 865 (N. J.)— 2672, 2730. Suburban Hotel Co., In re, L. R. 2 Ch. 737 (1867)— 1391. Suburban Light, etc. Co. v. Boston, 153 Mass. 200, 26 N. E. 447, 10 L. R. A. 497—2814. Suburban R. R. v. Balkwill, 63 N. B. 389 (111.)— 2656. Suburban R. R. v. Metropolitan, etc. R. R., 193 111. 217, 61 N. E. 1090—2633, 2804. Suburban R. T. Co. v. New York, 128 N. Y. 510, 28 N. E. 525—2678. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Sudlow V. Dutch Rhenish Ry., 21 Beav. 43 (1855)— 303. Sugden v. Alsbury, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 237 (1890)— 1196. Sugg V. Farmers', etc. Assoc, 63 S. W. 226 (Tenn.)— 457. Sulivan v. Mitcalfe, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 455 (1880)— 315. Sullivan v. Barnard, 81 Fed. 886— 2417. Sullivan v. Beck, 79 Fed. 200—1677. Sullivan v. Campbell, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 271—436, 1090. Sullivan v. Haskin, 70 Vt. 487, 41 Atl. 437—2174, 2500, 2513. Sullivan v. Louisville; etc. R. R., 128 Ala. 77, 30 South. 528—1831. Sullivan v. Pa'rkes, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 21, 74 N. Y. Supp. 787—1360. Sullivan v. Portland, etc. R. R., 94 U. S. 806, 811, 24 L. Ed. 324, 4 Cliff. 512, Fed. Cas. No. 13,596, 23 Fed. Cas. 351 —1395, 1860, 1862, 2002, 2189, 2278, 2348. Sullivan v. Sullivan Timber Co., 103 Ala. 371, 15 South. 941, 25 L. R. A. 543—1682. Sullivan v. Swain, 96 Fed. 259—2400. Sully's Case, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 16 (1886) —1713. Sulphur Springs, etc. Ry. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 2 Tex. Civ. App. 650, 22 S. W. 107, 23 S. W. 1012—1429, 2639. Summerfield v. Pritchard, 17 Beav. 9 (1853)— 1103. Summerlin v. Fronteriza, etc. Co., 41 Fed. 249—745, 759, 808, 1707, 1711, 2039. Summers v. Glenwood, etc. Co., 86 Ni W. 749 (S. D.)— 1461, 1571, 1745. Summers v. Sleeth, 45 Ind. 598— 379. Sumner v. City of Gloversville, 35 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 523, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1088 —2781. Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & M. 105, 23 Fed. Cas. 384—202, 417, 471, 688, 1598, 1625. Sumner v. Stewart, 69 Pa. St. 321—914. Sumrall v. Commercial Bldg. etc., 50 S. W. 69, 44 L. R. A. 659 (Ky.)— 585, 609. Sumrall v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 27—9, 1041. Sumter County v. National Bank, 62 Ala. 464, 34 Am. Rep. 30—1225. Sunapee v. Rastman, 32 N. H. 470—66. Sunderland Marine Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 16 Q. B. 925, 20 L. J. (Q. B.) 417— 436. Sun, etc. Assoc, v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642, 22 Sup. Ct. 240, 46 L. Ed. 366—1791. Sun, etc. Co. v. Frost, 64 Pac. 435 (Ariz.)— 1705. Sunflower Oil Co. v. "Wilson, 142 U. S. 1x3, 12 Sup. Ct. 235, 35 L. Ed. 1025— 2442. Sun Mut. Ins. Co.. v. Mississippi, etc Co., 14 Fed. 699, 4 McCrary, 636— 1941. Sunset, etc. Co. v. City of Medford, 115 Fed. 202—2839. Supervisors v. Kennicott, 103 U. S.. 554, 26 L. Ed. 486—2284. Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772, 18- L. Ed. 556—257. Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 305, 317, 26 L. Ed. 1044, 121 U. S. 535— 1220, 1225, 1226, 1227. Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. 327, 15 Pac. 691, 3 Am. St. Rep. 586— 1015. Supreme Lodge, etc. v. Knight, 117 Ind. 489, 20 N. B. 479, 3 L. R. A. 409 —22. Susquehanna, etc. Co. v. Bonham, 9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 27, 42 Am. Dec. 315 —2110, 2725. Susquehanna, etc. Co. v. General Ins. Co., 3 Md. 305, 56 Am. Dec 740 — 1738, 2107. Susquehanna, etc. Co. v. People, 15 Wend. 267—76. Susquehanna Ins. Co. v. Perrin, 7 Watts &S. (Pa.) 348—1825. Sussex R. R. v. Morris, etc. R. R., 19 N. J. Eq. 13—2596. Sutherland v. Lake Superior, etc. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 459—2239, 2242, 2245. Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93, 100— 614, 615, 620. Sutherland-Innes Co. v. Village of Evart, 86 Fed. Rep. 597, 30 C. C. A. 305—251. SutlifE V. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 24 Ohio St. 147—617. Sutton V. Bank of England, 1 Car. & P. 193 (1824)— 855. Sutton V. Dudley, 193 Pa. 194, 44 Atl. 438—1577. Sutton V. English, etc. Co., 87 L. T. Rep. 438 (1902)— 859, 862, 1374. Sutton V. Great Western Ry., 3 H. & C. 800 (1865)— 2609. Sutton V. Tatham, 10 Ad. & El. 27 (1839)— 914, 928. Sutton Manufacturing Co. v. Hutchin- son, 63 Fed. 496, 11 C. C. A. 320— 1513, 1652. Sutton's Case. 3 De G. & Sm. 262 (1850)— 421. Sutton's Hospital, 10 Coke's Rep. 1, 32 —2. Suydam v. Jenkins, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 614—1263. Suydam v. Morris Canal, etc. Co., 6: Hill, 217—1624. ccclxviii TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Swain v. West Philadelphia Pass. Ry., cited in Re Kisterbock, 127 Pa. St. 616, 18 Atl. 381, 14 Am. St. Rep. 868— 644. Swan, Ex parte, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 400 (1859)— 833, 836, 839. Swan V. Burnham, 49 Atl. 93 (N. H.) — 482. Swan V. Mathre, 72 N. W. 522 (Iowa) . —319. Swan V. North British, etc. Co., 7 H. & N. 603 (1862)— 833, 836, 839, 1247. Swan V. Watertown F. Ins. Co., 96 Pa. St. 37—1678. Swan V. Williams, 2 Mich. 427—2627. Swancoat v. Remsen, 78 Fed. 592 — 435. Swan, etc. Co. v. Frank, 148 U. S. 603, 611, 13 Sup. Ct. 691, 37 L. Ed. 577— 1384, 1571. Swan, etc. Co. v. Frank, 39 Fed. 456— 1182. Swann v. Baxter, 36 N. Y. Misc. 233, 73 N. Y. Supp. 336—925. Swann v. Clark, 110 U. S. 602, 4 Sup. Ct. 241, 28 Li. Ed. 256—2467. Swann v. Mutual, etc. Assoc, 100 Fed. 922—1957. Swann v. Wright, 110 U. S. 590, 4 Sup. Ct. 235, 28 L. Ed. 252—2338, 2535. Swansea Dock Co. v. Levien. 20 L. J. (Ex.) 447 (1851)— 276, 1280. Swansea Vale Ry. v. Budd, L. R. 2 Eq. 274 (1866)— 1109. Swartout v. Michigan, etc. R. R., 24 Mich. 389—229, 230, 363, 368, 379. Swarts V. Cohen, 11 Ind. App. 20, 38 N. E. 536—1814. Swasey v. American Bible Soc, 57 Me. 523—1071. Swasey v. Emerson, 168 Mass. 118, 46 N. E. 426, 60 Am. St. Rep. 368—1777. Swatara R. R. v. Brune, 6 Gill (Md.), 41—307. Swazey v. Choate Mfg. Co., 48 N. H. 200—195. Swazey v. North Carolina R. R., 1 Hughes, 17, 23 Fed. Cas. 518—2121. Swearlngen v. Sewickley, etc. Co., 198 Pa. St. 68, 47 Atl. 941, 53 L. R. A. 471—385. Sweatland v. Illinois, etc. Tel. Co., 27 Iowa, 433, 1 Am. Rep. 285—1830. Sweeney v. Bank of Montreal, 5 Can. Law T. 503 (1885)— 721. Sweeney v. Sturgis, 24 Hun, 162—1111, 1941. Sweeny v. Sugar Ref. Co., 30 W. Va. 443, 4 S. E. 431, 8 Am. St. Rep. 88— 1516. Sweet V. Hurlbut, 51 Barb. 312—243, 247. Sweet V. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19, 22 N. B. 276, 15 Am. St. Rep. 376—2655. Sweeting v. Pearce, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 449 (1859)— 914, 917. Sweney v. Talcott, 85 Iowa, 103, 52 N. W. 106—498, 522. Swentzel v. Franklin, etc. Co., 168 Mo. 272, 67 S. W. 596—1492, 1657, 1759, 1887. Swentzel v. Penn Bank, 147 Pa. St. 140, 23 Atl. 405, 415. 15 L. R. A. 305, 30 Am. St. Rep. 718—1690. Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324 (1869) —294, 296, 300, 301. Swepson v. Exchange, etc. Bank, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 713—1652. Swett V. Stark, 31 Fed. 858—2051. Swift, In re, 105 Fed. 493—920, 944. Swift, In re, 108 Fed.'212— 962. Swift, In re, 114 Fed. 94T— 1260. Swift V. Beers, 3 Denio, 70—1626. Swift V. Jewsbury, L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 (1874)— 196. Swift V. Richardson, 7 Houst. (Del.) 388, 32 Atl. 143, 40 Am. St. Rep. 127— 1099. Swift V. Smith, 102 TJ. S. 442, 444, 26 L. Ed. 193—2050. Swift V. Smith, 65 Md. 428, 5 Atl. 534, 57 Am. Rep. 336—11, 12, 1163, 1725, 1726, 2013, 2073, 2273. Swift's, etc. Works v. Johnson, 26 Fed. 828—2395. Swift & Co. V. Dyer-Veatch Co., 28 Ind. App. 1, 62 N. E. 70—1656, 1657. Swift & Co. V. Dyer-Veatch Co., 60 N. E. 169 (Ind.)— 1658. Swigert, In re, 119 111. 83, 6 N. E. 469— 1238. Swim V. Wilson, 90 Cal. 126, 27 Pac. 33, 13 L. R. A. 605, 25 Am. St. Rep. 110—820, 916. Swing V. B^ntley, etc. Co., 45 W. Va. 283, 31 S. E. 925—2411. Swing V. White River Lumber Co., 91 Wis. 517, 65 N. W. 174—2398. Swope V. Villard, 61 Fed. 417—1899, 1909. Sword V. Wickersham, 29 Kan. 746— 1420. Sykes v. Beadon, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 170 (1879)— 1061. Sykes v. Holloway, 81 Fed. 432—577. Sykes v. People, 132 111. 32, 23 N. E. 391—62, 65. Sykes v. St. Cloud, 60 Minn. 442, 62 N. W. 613—2773. Sykes's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. Cas. 255 (1871)— 272, 280. Sylvester v. Downer, 20 Vt. 355, 49 Am. Dec. 786—2082. Symmes v. Union Trust Co., 60 Fed. 830—1613, 1623, 1849, 1851, 1895, 1915, 2505, 2510. Symonds v. Lewis, 94 Me. 501, 48 Atl, 121—1647. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Symon's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 298 (1870)— 206, 542, 581. Synott V. Cumberland, etc. Assoc, 117 Fed. 379, 54 C. C. A. 553—583, 585, 591, 594, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1306. Synott V. Cummings, 116 Fed. 40—708, 794, 1533, 1557. Syracuse, etc. R. R., In re, 91 N. Y. 1 — 107, 1338, 1850, 2275. Syracuse, etc. R. R. v. Gere, 4 Hun, 392—313, 356. Syracuse, etc. Ry. v. Salt Springs, etc. Bank, 28 N. Y. Misc. 619, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1066—968. Syracuse Sav. Bank v. Seneca Falls, 86 N. Y. 317—263. Syracuse Sav. Bank v. Seneca Falls, 21 Hun (N. Y.), 304—260. Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167, 22 N. B. 381, 5 L. R. A. 546—2761. Taber v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 15 Ind. 459—2063, 2108, 2112. Taber v. Royal, etc. Co., 124 Ala. 681, 26 South. 252—1389, 1445, 2373. Tabler v. Anglo-American Assoc, 32 S. W. 602 (Ky.)— 179. Tabler v. Sheffield, etc. Co., 87 Ala. 305, 6 South. 196—1829. Tabor v. Commercial Nat. Bank. 62 Fed. 383, 10 C. C. A. 429—472. Tabor v. Goss, etc Co., 11 Colo. 419, 18 Pac 537—445. Tabor, etc. Ry. v. McCormick, 90 Iowa, 446, 57 N. "W. 949—236, 306. Tacoma, etc. Co. v. Tacoma, 14 Wash. 700, 44 Pac 106—2730. Tafft V. Presidio, etc. R. R., 22 Pac. 485—713, 845, 1833. Taftt V. Presidio, etc. R. R., 84 Cal. 131, 24 Pac 436, 11 L. R. A. 125, 18 Am. St. Rep. 166—713, 825, 844, 845, 1833. Taft V. Brewster, 9 Johns. 334, 6 Am. Dec 280—1818. Taft V. Chapman, 50 N. Y. 445—912. Taft V. Harrison, 10 Hare, 489—1358. Taft V. Hartford, etc. R. R., 8 R. I. 310, 353, 335, 5 Am. Rep. 575—582, 583, 595, 596, 603. Taft V. Myerscough, 64 N. B. 711 (111.) —787. Taft V. Pullen, 90 N. W. 329 (Mich.)— 2410. Taft T. Ward, 106 Mass. 518—464, 1085. Taft V. Warde, 111 Mass. 518—1085. Taggard v. Curtenius, 15 Wend. 155 — 975. Taggart v. Newport St. Ry., 16 R. I. 668, 19 Atl. 326, 7 L. R. A. 205— 2691. Taggart v. Western Md. R. R., 24 Md. " 563, 595, 89 Am. Dec 760—228, 233, 234, 235, 355, 371, 386, 1030. Tait's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 795 (1867) — 317, 335. Talbot V. Dent, 9 B. Mon. 526—246. Talbot V. Hudson, 82 Mass. 417—2627. Talbot V. Scripps, 31 Mich. 268—1904. Talbot's Case, 5 De G. & Sm. 386, 21 L. J. (Ch.) 846—436. Talbott T. Silver Bow Co., 139 U. S 438, 11 Sup. Ct. 594, 35 L. Bd. 210— 1223 Talcott V. Olcott Mfg. Co., 11 ' N. Y. Week. Dig. 141—1506, 1511. Talcott V. Pine Grove, 1 Flip. (U. S.) 120, 23 Fed. Cas. 652—246. Talladega Ins. Co. v. Landers, 43 Ala 115—8. Talladega Ins. Co. v. Peacock, 67 Ala. 253—1786, 2107. Tallassee, etc. Co., In re, 64 Ala. 567, 596—2302. Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron Co., 4 Barb. 382—383, 404, 479. Talmadge v. Sanitary, etc. Co., 31 N. Y. App. Div. 498, 52 N. Y. Supp. 139 —312, 316. Tallman v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 45 Fed. 156—1961. Tallman v. Butler County, 12 Iowa, 531 —1211. Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328, 347—201, 685, 1081, 1626. Talmage v. Third State Bank, 91 N. Y. 531—796. Talman v. Rochester City Bank, 18 Barb. 123—1625. Talty- v. Freedman's Sav. etc. Co., 93 U. S. 321, 23 L. Bd. 886—958, 959. Tama Water-power Co. v. Hopkins, 79" Iowa, 653, 44 N. W. 797—238, 382, 386, 401, 588. Tampa, etc. R. R., In re, 168 U. S. 583, 18 Sup. Ct. 177, 42 L. Ed. 589—2279, 2384. Tanner v. Gregory, 71 Wis. 490, 37 N. W. 830—868. Tanner v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 180 Mass. 572, 62 N. E. 993—2833. Tanner v. Tanner, 11 Beav. 69 (1848) — 653. Tanner's Case, 5 De G. & S. 182 (1852) —1699. Tantum v. Arnold, 42 N. J. Eq. 60, 6 Atl. 316—779, 781. Tappan v. Bailey, 45 Mass. 529 — 1085, 1089. Tappan v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499, 22 L. Ed. 189—1211, 1222, 1228. Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46—369, 502. Tarbox v. Gorman, 31 Minn. 62, 16 N. W. 466—1844. ccclxx TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Tarleton v.- Baker, 18 Vt. 9, 44 Am. Dec. 358—769. Tarpey v. Deseret Salt Co., 5 Utah, 494, 17 Pac. 631—1670. Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. C), 520—215, 290, 369. . Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 374— 172. Tate V. Bates, 118 N. C. 287, 24 S. B. 482, 54 Am. St. Rep. 719—1689. Tate V. Security T. Co., 52 Atl. 313 (N. J.)— 1836. Tatem v. Wright, 23 N. J. L. 429—1240, 1676. Taunton v. Royal Ins. Co., 2 Hem. & M. 135—2744. Taunton v. Sheriff of Warwickshire (1895), 1 Ch. 734, 2 Ch. 319—2097. Taurine Co., In re, L. R. 25 Ch. D. 118 (1883)— 579. Taussig V. Glenn, 51 Fed. 409, 2 C. C. A. 314—187. , Taussig V. Hart, 49 N. Y. 301, 58 N. Y. 425—909, 919, 924, 926, 955. Taussig V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 166 Mo. 28, 65 S. W. 969, 89 Am. St. Rep. 674—1506, 1720. Tax Cases, 12 G. & J. (Md.) 117—1215, 1218. Taxpayers of Kingston, Ex parte, 40 How. Pr. 444—247. Taxpayers of Milan v. Tennessee, etc. R. R., 11 Lea, 329—248. Tayler v. Great Indian, etc. Ry., 4 De G. & J. 559, 573 (1859)— 846, 913. Taylor, In re, 147 N. Y. 713, 42 N. E. 726—728. Taylor, In re, 81 L. T. Rep. 812 (1900) —719, 725. Taylor v. Agricultural Assoc, 68 Ala. ■ 229— i765, 1814, 1969. Taylor v. Albermarle, etc. Co., 105 N. C. 484, 10 S. E. 897—1786. Taylor v. Alliance Trust Co., 71 Miss. 694, 15 South. 121—1669. Taylor v. Ashton, 11 M. & W. 401 (1843)— 320. Taylor v. Atlantic, etc. Ry., 55 How. Pr. 275—2002, 2161, 2496. Taylor v. Atlantic R. R., 57 How. Pr. 9, 26—2234, 2535. Taylor v. Bailey, 169 111. 181, 48 N. E. 200—914, 928. Taylor v. Blair, 59 Hun, 347, 13 N. Y. Supp. 154—765. Taylor v. Branham, 35 Pla. 297, 17 South. 552, 39 L. R. A. 362, 48 Am. St. Rep. 249— B16, 1269. Taylor v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 4 Dill. 570, 23 Fed. Cas. 737—2312, 2330, 2333. Taylor v. Calloway, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 461, 27 S. W. 934—1835. Taylor v. Cheever, 72 Mass. 146—978. Taylor v. Chichester, etc. Ry., L. R. 4- H. L. 628 (1870), L. R. 2 Bxch. 356, 378 (1867)— 1547, 1548, 1663, 1847, 1862. Taylor v. Columbian Ins. Co., 96 Mass. 353—2425. Taylor v. Coon, 79 Wis. 76, 48 N. W. 123—221. Taylor v. Cuban, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 437 —1918. Taylor v. Decatur, etc. Co., 112 Fed.. 449—1387, 1919. Taylor v. Fanning, 91 N. W. 269 (Minn.)— 1651. Taylor v. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80—238. Taylor v. Grand Trunk Ry., 48 N. H. 304, 2 Am. Rep. 229—78. Taylor v. Granite State Prov. Assoc, 136 N. Y. 343, 32 N. E. 992, 32 Am, St. Rep. 749—1954. Taylor v. Griswold, 14 N. J. L. 222, 223, 27 Am. Dec 33—19, 1274, 1301, 1305. Taylor v. Heggie, 83 N. C. 244—1805. Taylor v. Holmes, 127 XJ. S. 489, 8 Sup. Ct. 1192, 32 L. Ed. 179—1904, 1913. Taylor v. Hughes, 2 Jones & Lat. (Ir. Ch.) 24, 25 (1844)— 186, 562, 563, 667. Taylor v. Hutton, 43 Barb. 195—1730. Taylor v. Iflll, 1 N. R. 566. V. C. W. (1863)— 556, 1088. Taylor v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 89 Fed. 119—1962. Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600 (1743)— 993. Taylor v. Ketchum, 35 How. Pr. 289, 5 Rob. (N. Y.) 507—924, 954. Taylor v. Life Assoc, 13 Fed. 493— 239L Taylor v. Mayor, etc. (1898), 1 Q. B. 186—2725. Taylor v. Miami, etc. Co., 5 Ohio, 162, 22 Am. Dec. 785—1321, 1898. Taylor v. Miami, etc. Co., 6 Ohio, 176, 223—672, 1321. Taylor v. Midland Ry., 29 L. J. (Ch.) 731 (I860)— 833, 836. Taylor v. Mitchell, 80 Minn. 492, 83 N. W. 418—1647, 2405. Taylor v. Mutual, etc. Assoc, 97 Va. 60, 33 S. E. 385, 45 L. R. A. 621—1873. Taylor v. Newberne, 2 Jones Eq. 141, 64 Am. Dec 566—248. Taylor v. North, 79 Wis. 86, 48 N. W. 126—221. Taylor v. North Star, etc. Co., 79 Cal. 285, 21 Pac 753—303, 1561, 1865. Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., T Fed. 377—2351, 2460. Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., ^ Fed. 381—1274, 2386. Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 7 Fed. 386—111, 2067, 2264. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages o£ the text] Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 9 Fed. 1—2440, 2456. Taylor v. Portsmouth, etc., 91 Me. 193, 39 Atl. 560, 64 Am. St. Rep. 216— 2691, 2792. Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Myl. & C. 134 (1838)— 1517, 1875. Taylor v. Seiter, 65 N. E. 433 (111.) — 1575. Taylor v. South, etc. R. R., 13 Fed. 152, 4 Woods, 575—113, 586, 648, 1853, 1855, 1861, 2070. Taylor v. Stray, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 175 (1857)— 913, 928. Taylor v. Supervisors, 86 Va. 506, 10 S. E. 433—1032. Taylor v. Taylor, L. R. 10 Bq. 477 (1870)— 537. Taylor v. Union Pac. Ry., 122 Fed. — —1897. Taylor v. Walker, 117 Fed. 737—125, 141. Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S. 60, 26 L. Ed. 1008—244, 246. Taylor County Court v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 35 Fed. 161—681, 1658. Taylor, etc.. In re, 192 Pa. St. 304, 43 Atl. 973, 73 Am. St. Rep. 812—769. Taylor, etc. Co. v. Wood, 119 Fed. 966— 1779. Taylor & Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 122 Fed. 147—1324, 1622. Taymouth v. Koeshler, 35 Mich. 22— 1749, 1760. Tazewell County v. Farmers', etc. Co., 12 Fed. 752—1910, 2268. Teachout v. Des Moines, etc. Ry., 75 Iowa, 722, 38 N. W. 145—2661, 2677. Teachout v. Van Hoesen, 76 Iowa, 113, 40 N. W. 96, 1 L. R. A. 664, 14 Am. St. Rep. 206—786, 1481. .Teal V. Walker, 111 U. S. 242, 4 Sup. Ct. 420, 28 L. Ed. 415—2299. Teall V. Consolidated, etc. Co., 119 N. Y. 654, 23 N. E. 985—1734. Teasdale's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 54 (1873)— 297, 344, 638, 667, 669. Tecumseh, etc. Bank v. McGee, 61 Neb. 709, 85 N. W. 949—40. Tecumseh, etc. Bank v. Russell, 50 Neb. 277, 69 N. W. 763—685, 813. Tecumseh Nat. Bank v. Best, 50 Neb. 518, 70 N. W. 41—1580. Tees Bottle Co., In re, 33 L. T. Rep. 834 (1876)— 847. Teitig V. Boseman, 12 Mont. 404, 31 Pac. 371—1637, 1750, 2150. Telegram, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. B. 445, 44 L. R. A. 159, 70 Am. St. Rep. 280—76. Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, 97 V. S. 369, 24 L. Ed. 1047—836, 839, 858. Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067—1675, 2838. X Telegraph Co. v. Wilt, 1 Phila, 270— 2817. Telegraph Const. Co., In re, L. R. 10 Bq. 384 (1870)— 636, 1027, 1177. Telephone Co. v. Turner, 88 Teun. 265, 12 S. W. 544—1949. Telford v. Oslin, 99 Ga. 507, 27 S. E. 747—225. Telford, etc. Co. v. Gerhab, 13 Atl. 90 (Pa.)— 1005, 1247. Telluride, etc. Co. v. Rio Grande, etc. Co., 23 Sup. Ct. 178—1677. Tempel v. Dodge, 89 Tex. 69, 32 S. W. 514, 33 S. W. 222—1764. Temperance, etc. Assoc, v- Home, etc. Society, 187 Pa. St. 38, 40 Atl. 1100 —2569, 2744. Tempest v. Kilner, 2 C. B. 300 (1845), 3 C. B. 249 (1846)— 197, 750, 762, 1256, 1260. Temple v. Lemon, 112 111. 51 — 358. Temple, etc. Ry. v. Hellman, 103 Cal. 634, 37 Pac. 630—1594, 2714. Temple Grove Seminary v. Cramer, 98 N. Y. 121—1235, 1604. Templin v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 73 Iowa, 548, 35 N. W. 634—1769. Ten Broeck v. Winn, etc. Co., 20 Mo. App. 19—1825. Tench v. Great Western Ry., 32 U. C. Q. B. 452 (1872)— 73. Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, etc. R. R., 74 Mich. 226, 41 N. W. 905, 3 L. R. A. 378, 16 Am. St. Rep. 633—1506. Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, etc. R. R., 114 Mich. 494, 72 N. W. 362—104, 2008, 2237, 2352, 2482. Tenison v. Patton, 64 S. W. 810 (Tex.> —1488, 1866. Tenison v. Patton, 67 S. W. 92 (Tex.> —1468. Tennant v. Appleby, 41 Atl. 110 (N. J.)— 1653. Tennant v. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 615 (1879)— 325, 337. Tennant v. Dudley, 68 Hun, 225, 22 N. Y. Supp. 876—2746. Tennant v. Dudley, 144 N. Y. 504, 39 N. E. 644—2746. Tennant v. Stoney, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 222, 243, 44 Am. Dec. 213—1064. Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank, L.. R. 4 App. Cas. 615 (1879)— 337, 573. Tennessee v. Davis, 50 How. Pr. 447 — 1789. Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 TJ. S. 139, 6 Sup. Ct. 649, 29 L. Ed. 833—1217, 2586. Tennessee v. Whitworth, 22 Fed. 75 — 1217. Tennessee v. Whitworth, 22 Fe'd. 81 — 1217. Tennessee Bond Cases, 114 U. S. 663, 5 Sup. Ct. 974, 29 L. Ed. 281—2121. ccclxxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Ayers, 43 S. W. 744 (Tenn.)— 138,8, 1884. Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 93 Ala. 324, 9 South. 395—2785. Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Massey, 56 S. W. 35 (Tenn.)— 15, 503, 507, 526, 1619. Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. East Alabama, etc. Ry., 73 Ala. 426—2115. Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Taylor, 102 Ala. 224, 14 South. 379—2637. Tennessee Ice Co. v. Raine, 64 S. W. 29 (Tenn.)— 1606, 2421. Tennessee River Transp. Co. v. Kava- naugh, 101 Ala. 1, 13 South. 283— 1794. Tenney v. Ballard, etc. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 144, 43 S. W. 296—1574. Tenney ,v. Foote, 95 111. 99—778, 780, 781. Tenney v. Foote, 4 111. App. 594—770, 778, 780, 781. Tenney v. Lumber Co., 43 N. H. 350— 1805, 1811. Tenney v. New England Protection Union, 37 Vt. 64—1073. Terbell v. Lee, 40 Fed. 40—2262, 2291, 2504. Terhune v. Midland R. R., 38 N. J. Eq. 423—1898. Terhune v. Parrott, 59 N. J. L. 16, 35 Atl. 4—1819. Terhune v. Skinner, 45 N. J. Eq. 344, 19 Atl. 377—1577. Terre, etc. R. R. v. Rodel, 89 Ind. 128, 46 Am. Rep. 164—2797. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. v. Cox, 102 Fed. 825, 42 C. C. A. 654—2087, 2349, 2445, 2553. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. v. State, 65 N. B. 401 (Ind.)— 1155, 2620. Terre Haute, etc. Ry. v. Harrison, 96 Fed. 907 (1899)— 2290, 2533. Terre Haute & I. R. R. v. Harrison, 88 Fed. 913, 32 C. C. A. 130—1598, 2552. Terrell, In re, 51 Fed. 213—1059. Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 289, 22 L. Ed. 634—2240, 2291. Terrell v. Branch Bank at Mobile, 12 Ala. 502—1840. Terrell v. Georgia, etc. Co., 41 S. E. 262 (Ga.)— 866. Terrell v. Hutton, 4 H. L. Cas. 1091 (1854)— 1714. Terrell's Case, 2 Sim. (N. S.) 126 (1851)— 1719. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, 51, 3 L. Ed. 650—1410. Terry v. Anderson, 95 XJ. S. 628, 24 L. Ed. 365—395, 397, 483. Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. 777—387, 441, 492. Terry v. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 93 Ala. 599, 9 South. 299, 30 Am. St. Rep. 87—985. 987, 1112. Terry v. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 99 Ala. 566, 13 South. 149—909, 989. Terry v. Calnan, 13 S. C. 220—460, 482. Terry v. Eagle Lock Co., 47 Conn. 141 —620, 625, 1143. Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216, 25 L. Ed. 864^402, 404, 451, 453, 454, 455, 518. Terry v. McLure, 103 U. S. 442, 26 L. Ed. 403—482, 483, 485, 487. Terry v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156, 23 L. Ed. 537—396, 455, 482, 483. Tevis V. Hammersmith, 66 N. E. 79 (Ind.)— 1910. Texarkana, etc. Ry. v. Bemls, etc. Co., 67 Ark. 542, 55 S. W. 944—1776. Texarkana G. & E. Light Co. v. Orr, 59 Ark. 215, 27 S. W. 66, 43 Am. St. Rep. 30—2831. Texas Brewing Co. v. Templeman, 90 Tex. 277, 38 S. W. 27—1055. Texas, etc. Assoc, v. Dublin, etc. Co., 38 S. W. 404 (Tex.)— 1569. Texas, etc. Assoc, v. Storrow, 92 Fed. 5, 34 C. C. A. 182—591, 1918, 2373. Texas, etc. Co. v. Worsham, 76 Tex. 556, 13 S. W. 384—1676. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Bailey, 83 Tex. 19, 18 S. W. 481—2455. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Bledsoe, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 88, 20 S. W. 1135—2454. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Boyd, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 205, 24 S. W. 1086—2454. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Cox, 145 XJ. S. 593, 12 Sup. Ct. 905, 36 L. Ed. 829—2401, 2413, 2419, 2468. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Davis, 93 Tex. 378, 54 S. W. 381, 55 S. W. 562—1675, 1779, 1808. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Donovan, 86 Tex. 378, 25 S. W. 10—2454. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Gelger, 79 Tex. 13, 15 S. W. 214—2454. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Gentry, 69 Tex. 625, 8 S. W. 98—1258, 1756, 2039, 2123, 2140. Texas, etc. R. R. v. Gulf, etc. Ry., 54 S. W. 1031 (Tex.)— 2623. Texas, etc. R. R. v. Jackson, 85 Tex. 605, 22 S. W. 1030—1447. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 14 Sup. Ct. 250, 38 L. Ed. 81— 2232. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Marlor, 123 U. S. 687, 8 Sup. Ct. 311, 31 L. Ed. 303—2070. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393, 10 Sup. Ct. 846, 34 L. Ed. 385— 265. Texas, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc' Co., 52 S. W. 108 (Tex.)— 2807. Texas, etc. R. R. v. Robards, 60 Tex. 545, 48 Am. Rep. 268—2646. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Southern Pac. Ry-, 41 La. Ann. 970, 6 South. 888, 17 Am. St. Rep. 445—1047, 2597. TABLE OF CASES. coclxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Texas, etc. R. R. v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 57 S. W. 312 (Tex.)— 2807. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Watson, 24 S. W. 952 (Tex.)— 2455. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Watson, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 555, 36 S. W. 290—2491. Texas, etc. Ry. v. Watts, 18 S. W. 312 (Tex.)— 2455. Texas Pac. Ry. v. Johnson, 151 XJ. S. 81, 14 Sup. Ct. 250, 38 L. Ed. 81— 2454. Texas Pac. Ry. v. Johnson, 76 Tex. 421, 13 S. W. 463, 18 Am. St. Rep. 60— 2454. Texas Pac. Ry. v. White, 82 Tex. 543, 18 S. W. 478—2455. Texas Printing, etc. Co. v. Smith, 14 S. W. 1074 (Tex.)— 198. Texas Trunk Ry. v. State, 83 Tex. 1, 18 S. W. 199—2227. Texas Western Ry. v. Gentry, 69 Tex. 625—1258. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Bloom, 164 U. S. 636, 17 Sup. Ct. 216, 41 L. Ed. 580— 2454. Texas & Pac. R. R. v. Bloom, 60 Fed. ' ' 979, 9 C. C. A. 300—2454. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Gay, 86 Tex. 571, 26 S. W. 599, 25 L. R. A. 52—2393. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Scott, 77 Fed. 726, 23 C. 0. A. 424, 37 L. R. A. 94— 2631. Thacher v. King, 156 Mass. 490, 31 N. B. 648—404, 432, 441, 445. Thacker v. Hardy, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 685 (1878)— 770, 771, 772. Thackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499, 7 Sup. Ct. 311, 30 L,. Ed. 486—710. Thallhimer v. BrinckerhofE, 4 Wend. 394, 21 Am. Dec. 155—1830. Thames, etc. Ry. v. Rose, 4 Man. & G. 552 (1842)— 1754. Thames Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon, 6 B. & C. 341 (1827)— 35, 179. Thatcher v. Salomon, 64 Pac. 368 (Colo.)— 432. Thatcher v. West River Nat. Bank, 19 Mich. 196—66. Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. 234, 11 Sup. Ct. 987, 35 L. Ed. 711—196, 380. Thayer v. Humphreys, 69 Hun, 343, 23 N. Y. Supp. 531—403. Thayer v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 27 Mass. 325, 326—1756, 1757. Thayer v. Nehalem Mill Co., 31 Or. 437, 51 Pac. 202—1792, 1805. Thayer v. New England Lithog. Co., 108 Mass. 523—471. Thayer v. Tyler, 76 Mass. 164—1956, 2745. 'Thayer v. Union Tool Co., 70 Mass. 75 —441. Thayer v. Wathen, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 382, 44 S. W. 906—58, 148, 2521. Theatrical Trust, In re (1895), 1 Ch. 771—132, 137. Thebus v. Smiley, 110 111. 316^382, 457, 477, 479, 491, 572. Thielens v. Dialogue, 19 Atl. 970 (N. J.)— 973. Thigpen v. Mississippi Cent. R. E., 32 Miss. 347—215, 234, 308. Thilmany v. Iowa, etc. Co., 108 Iowa, 357, 79 N. W. 261, 75 Am. St. Rep. 259—1613, 1813, 2081. Third Ave. R. R., In re, 121 N. Y. 536, 24 N. E. 951, 9 L. R. A. 124—2704. Third Ave. R. R. v. New York El. R. R., Super. Ct. N. Y. Daily Reg., July 14, 1887—2636. Third Avenue Sav. Bank v. Dimock, 24 N. J. Eq. 26—2106. Third Nat. Bank v. Angell, 18 R. I. 1, 29 Atl. 500—457. Third Nat. Bank v. Boyd, 44 Md. 47, 22 Am. Rep. 35—1256. Third Nat. Bank v. Eastern R. R., 122 Mass. 240—1990. Third Nat. Bank v. Elliott, 114 N. Y. 622, 21 N. E. 416—1487. Third Nat. Bank v. Elliott, 42 Hun, 121—1487. Third Nat. Bank v. Harrison, 8 Fed. 721, 3 McCrary, 162—1967. Third Nat. Bank v. Harrison, 10 Fed. 243, 3 McCrary, 316—770, 781, 1841. Third Nat. Bank v. Marine Lumber Co., 44 Minn. 65, 46 N. W. 145—1778. Third St. etc. Ry. v. Lewis, 79 Fed. 196, 24 C. C. A. 482—2243, 2245, 2462. Thirteenth, etc. Ry. v. Southern Pass. Ry., 3 Pa. Dist. 337—2677. Thorn V. Pittard, 62 Fed. 232, 10 C. C. A. 352—2452. Thomas v. Brownville, etc. Co., 2 Fed. 877, 1 McCrary, 392—1455. Thomas v. Brownville, etc. R. R., 109 U. S. 522, 3 Sup. Ct. 315, 27 L. Ed. 1018—1455, 2026, 2029, 2265. Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105, 21 Pac. 1019—70, 1546, 1664, 1676. Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 62 Fed. 17—2434. Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 62 Fed. 803—2624. Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 91 Fed. 195—2235, 2310, 2351, 2485. Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 91 Fed. 202—2306, 2485. Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry., 93 Fed. 587—1234, 2555. Thomas v. Citizens', etc. Ry., 1 Am. St. Ry. Dec. 299 < Pa.)— 191. Thomas v. Citizens' Horse Ry., 104 111. 462—2106, 2137, 2138, 2147. Thomas v. City of Glasgow Bank, 6 Scotch Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 607 (1879)— 205, 544. ccclxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Thomas v. City of Grand Junction, 13 Colo. App. 80, 56 Pac. 665—2760. Thomas v. Clark, 18 C. B. 662 (1856)— 1078. Thomas v. Coffin, 62 Fed. 665, 10 C. C. A. 582—941, 990. Thomas v. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 92 Fed. 422, 34 C. C. A. 428—221. Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9, 70, 104 — 2, 10, 64, 1081. Thomas v. East Tennessee, etc. Ry., 60 ;' Fed. 7—2448. Thomas v. EUmaker, 1 Pars. Sel. Eq. Cas. 98—1071. Thomas v. Evans, 9 Sc. Ct. of Sess. Cas. (3d ser.) 810—537. Thomas v. Gregg, 78 Md. 545, 28 Atl. 565, 23 L. R. A. 294—1191, 1198. Thomas v. Hale, 82 Minn. 423, 85 N. W. 156—2415. Thomas v. Hobler, 3 De G., F. & J. 199 (1861)— 1914. Thomas v. Hobler, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 125 (1862)— 1900. Thomas v. Merchants' Bank, 9 Paige, 216—1954, 2426. Thomas v. Musical, etc. Union, 121 N. Y. 45, 24 N. E. 24, 8 L.. R. A. 175— 20, 1073. Thomas v. Mutual Protective Union, 49 Hun, 171, 2 N. Y. Supp. 195 —20. Thomas v. New York, etc. Ry., 139 N. Y. 163, 34 N. E. 877—2070. Thomas v. New York, etc. Ry., 19 N. Y. Supp. 766—2070. Thomas v. Peoria, etc. Ry., 36 Fed. 808—1516, 2442. Thomas v. Placerville, etc. Co., 65 Cal. 600, 4 Pac. 641—1953. Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. Ti. 25 L. Ed. 950—15, 1914, 2562, 2575 2577. Thomas v. San Diego College Co., Ill Cal. 358, 43 Pac. 965—2284. Thomas v. Sternheimer, 29 Md. 268— 1256. Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183, 14 Pac. 545—1519. Thomas v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 63 Fed, 200—2644. Thomas v. Western Car Co., 149 U. S. 95, 13 Sup. Ct. 824, 37 L. Ed. 663— 2355. Thomas v. Western Union Tel. Co., 100 Mass. 156—2826. Thomas, etc. Sons, In re, 77 L. T. Rep. 521 (1897)— 239. Thomas, etc. Sons, Ltd., In re (1897), 1 Ch. 406—1392. Thomas, etc. & Sons, Ltd., In re, 76 L. T. Rep. 100 (1897)— 66. Thoraason v. Grace, etc. Church, 113 Cal. 558, 45 Pac. 838—1782. Thomas's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 579 (1849)— 536, 537. Thomas's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 437 (1872) —294, 296, 343, 669. Thompson, In re, 33 Barb. 334—1590. Thompson, Matter of, 85 Hun, 438, 32 N. Y. Supp. 897—2781, 2782. Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176—1584. Thompson v. Alger, 53 Mass. 428—763, 773. Thompson v. Bell, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. 536 —1796. Thompson v. Bemis Paper Co., 127 Mass. 595—1178. Thompson v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 619 —1064. Thompson v. Candor, 60 111. 244—1420. Thompson v. Cummings, 68 Ga. 124^ 780. Thompson v. Des Moines, etc. Park, 84 N. W. 678 (Iowa)— 1782. Thompson v. EUenz, 58 Minn. 301, 59 N. W. 1023—2126. Thompson v. Brie R. R., 45 N. Y. 468— 603, 605. Thompson v. Erie Ry., 9 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 212, 230—1107, 1113. Thompson v. Erie Ry., 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 188 (N. Y. Super. Ct.)— 599. Thompson v. Erie Ry., 42 How. Pr. 68 —1982. Thompson v. German Ins. Co., 76 Fed. 892—444, 487, 579. Thompson v. German Ins. Co., 77 Fed. 258—386, 444, 579. Thompson v. Greeley, 107 Mo. 577, IT S. W. 962—1626, 2404. Thompson v. Gross, 106 Wis. 34, 81 N. W. 1061—489. Thompson v. Guion, 5 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 113—370, 1026, 1031. Thompson v. HoUaday, 15 Oreg. 34, 14 Pac 725 932 Thompson v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93, 22 South. 632—1149. Thompson v. Huron Lumber Co., i Wash. St. 600, 30 Pac. 741, 31 Pac. 35—1448, 1643, 2258, 2403. Thompson V. Jewell, 43 Mich. 240, 5 N. W. 274—451. Thompson v. Kelly, 2 Ohio St. 647— 248, 251. Thompson v. Knight, 74 N. Y. App. Dlv. 316, 77 N. Y. Supp. 599—100. Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Iowa, 239 — 1860, 1969, 1979, 2081, 2106. Thompson v. Lord Clanmorris (1900),. 1 Ch. 718—336. Thompson v. McKee, 5 Dak. 172, 37 N. W. 367—1789. Thompson v. Meisser, 108 111. 359 — 420, 429, 441, 477, 480. Thompson v. Moxey, 47 N. J. Eq. 538, 20 Atl. 854—671. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the. text.] Thompson v. Natchez, etc. Co., 68 Miss. 423—2137, 2367. Thompson v. New York, etc. R. R., 3 Sandf. Ch. 625—2723. Thompson v. Northern, etc. Ry., 93 Fed. 384, 35 C. C. A. 357—2532. Thompson v. Page, 42 Mass. 565 — 215. Thompson v. Patrick, 4 Watts (Pa.), 414—957. Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. R., 19 Atl. 622—2690. Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. R., 14 Atl. 897 (N. J.)— 2690. Thompson v. People, 21 Wend. 235— 1409. Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. 537— 1409. Thompson v. Perrine, 103 U. S. 806, 26 L. Ed. 612—256. Thompson v. Peru, 29 Ind. 305—245, 253. Thompson v. Pittston, 59 Me. 545 — 251. Thompson v. Pool, 70 Fed. 725—444. Thompson v. Port Huron, 27 Mich. 320 —246. Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 7 Pac. 68, 3 Am. St. Rep. 797— 209, 274, 368, 377, 387, 394, 405. Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 171, 7 Pac. 870, 3 Am. St. Rep. 881— 209, 368, 377, 387, 394, 405. Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 242, 9 Pac. 121, 3 Am. St. Rep. 883— 209, 274, 368, 377, 387, 394, 405. Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 291, 9 Pac. 882—209, 368, 377, 387, 394, 405. Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 293, 9 Pac. 883—209, 368, 377, 387, 394, 405. Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 146 V. S. 240, 13 Sup. Ct. 66, 36 L. Ed. 956—1991. Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 113 N. Y. 325, 21 N. E. 57—969, 1252. Thompson v. Schenectady Ry., 119 Fed. 634—2281, 2440. Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dill. 508, 23 Fed. Cas. 1088—2413, 2415, 2452, 2470. Thompson v. Stanley, 147 N. Y. 713, 42 N. E. 726—728, 1880. Thompson v. Stanley, 20 N. Y. Supp. 317—1877, 1878, 1880. Thompson v. Stanley. 73 Hun, 248, 25 N. Y. Supp. 890—728, 1880. Thompson v. SwOope, 24 Pa. St. 474 — 1670. Thompson v. Tammany Soc, 17 Hun, 305—1075. Thompson v. Texas, etc. Cattle Co., 24 S. W. 856 (Tex.)— 1950. Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99—722, 954, 955, 961, 971, 1262. I Thompson v. Trustees, etc. Corp. (1895). 2 Ch. 454—1607. Thompson v. Universal, etc. Co., 1 Exch. 694 (1848)— 1978. Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214, 12 Am. Rep. 243—2, 1670, 1671. Thompson v. West, 59 Neb. 677, 82 N. W. 13, 49 L. R. A. 337—1669, 1742. Thompson v. White, etc. R. R., 132 U. S. 68, 10 Sup. Ct. 29, 33 L. Ed. 256— 2323, 2324, 2345. Thompson v. Williams, 76 Cal. 153, 18 Pac. 153, 3 Am. St. Rep. 187—1744. Thompson v. Young, 2 Ohio, 334—1799. Thompson Co. v. Brook, 14 N. Y. Supp. 370—1512, 1711. Thompson Co. v. Queen City Cycle Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 522, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1049—2376. Thompson's Estate, In re, 11 W. N. Cas. 482 (1882)— 1190. Thomson, Succession of, 46 La. Ann. 1074, 15 South. 379—211, 214, 288, 292, 421. Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank (1893), A. C. 282—912. Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B. & C. 78 (1829)— 915. Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327, 18 L. Ed. 177—242, 243, 259, 2056. 2065. Thomson v. Lord Clanmorrls (1900), 1 Ch. 718—463. Thomson v. Lord Clanmorrls (1899), 2 Ch. 523—329. Thomson v. McGregor, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 197—2483. Thomson v. Trustees (1895), 2 Ch. 454 —675. Thomson, etc. Co. v. Murray, 60 N. J. L. 20, 37 Atl. 443—402, 434. Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Capi- tol Electric Co., 56 Fed. 849—642, 2047, 2052. Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Capitol Elec. Co., 65 Fed. 341, 12 C. C. A. 643 —1986, 2006, 2252. Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Simon 20 Oreg. 60, 25 Pac. 147, 10 L. R. A. 251, 23 Am. St. Rep. 86—2701. Thomson-Houston, etc. Co. v. Dallas, etc. Co., 54 Fed. 1001, 5 C. C. A. 11— 143. Thomson's Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 36—1190, 1197. Thomson's Case, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 525 (1865)— 88. Thomson's Estate, 153 Pa. St. 332 26 Atl. 652, 653—1190. Thorington v. Gould, 59 Ala. 461 — 1737 1807. Thornburgh v. Newcastle, etc. R. R., 14 Ind. 499—306, 320, 366. ccolxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the test. Thorndike v. Locke, 98 Mass. 340 — 764. Thorne v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 80 Pa. St. ite, 21 Am. Rep. 89—1683. Thorington v. Gould, 59 Ala. 461— 1737, 1807. Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa, 198, 52 N. W. 190—498, 522, 1974. Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459 — 395, 485. Thornton v. Marginal Freight Ry., 123 Mass. 32—1448. Thornton v. Martin, 42 S. E. 348 (Ga.) —869, 978, 982, 984. Thornton v. National Bxch. Bank, 71 Mo. 221—1629. Thornton v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 45 How. Pr. 416—745, 1341. Thornton v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 6 N. Y. Week. Dig. 309—745, 1341. Thornton v. Wabash Ry., 81 N. Y. 462— 1395, 2512. Thorp V. WoodhuU, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411— 51, 83, 195, 356, 854, 936. Thorpe v. Hughes, 3 Myl. & C. 742 (1838)— 327. Thorpe v. Rutland, etc. R. R., 27 Vt. 140, 62 Am. Dec. 625—1023, 2602. Thouron v. East, etc. Ry., 38 Fed. 673 —1869, 1928. Thouron v. East Tennessee, etc. Ry., 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 77 (Tenn.)— 1516, 2571, 2577, 2578. Thrasher v. Pike County R. R., 25 111. 393—215, 216. Throop V. Hatch Lithog. Co., 125 N. Y. 530, 26 N. E. 742—1639, 1650. Throughgood's Case, 2 Coke, Rep. 9 (1584)— 182. Thruston v. Big Stone, etc. Co., 86 Fed. 484—2245. Thum V. Pingree, 21 Utah, 348, 61 Pac. 18—2426. Thum V. Pyke, 66 Pac. 157 (Idaho)— 1939, 2428. Thunder Hill Min. Co., In re, 4 British Columbia Rep. 61—114. Thurber v. Crump, 86 Ky. 408, 6 S. W. 145—745, 1007. Thurber v. Thompson, 21 Hun, 472— 154. Thurman v. Cherokee R. R., 56 Ga. 376 —2453. Thurn v. Alta Tel. Co., 15 Cal. 472, 474 —2841. Thurston v. Duffy, 38 Hun, 327—153. Thweatt v. Bank of Hopkinsville, 81 Ky. 1—1663. Tibbals v. Mount Olympus Water Co., 10 Wash. 329, 38 Pac. 1120—1760. Tibbets v. West, etc. Ry., 153 111. 147, 38 N. E. 664—2697. Tichenor v. Williams, etc. Co., 42 S. B. 505 (Ga.)— 395, 412. Ticonic, etc. Co. v. Lang, 63 Me. 480 — 208, 233, 237, 362. Tidewater Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 55, 18 N. J. Ea. 518, 90 Am. Dec. 634 —2627. Tlerney v. Parker, 58 N. J. Eq. 117, 44 Atl. 151—338. Tiessen v. Henderson (1899), 1 Ch. 861—1280. Tiffany v. U. S. Co., 67 How. Pr. 73— 2795. Tiffin Glass Co. v. Stoehr, 54 Ohio, 157, 43 N. E. 279—1443. Tifft V. Porter, 8 N. Y. 516, 520—653, 655. Tift, In re, 11 Fed. 463—1946. Tift V. Quaker City Nat. Bank, 141 Pa. St. 550, 21 Atl. 660—1710. Tilden v. Green, 130 N. Y. 29, 47, 28 N. E. 880, 14 L. R. A. 33, 27 Am. St. Rep. 487—1080, 1667. Tileston v. Newell, 13 Mass. 406—1724. Tilkey v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 83 Ga. 757, 10 S. B. 448—741, 1567, 2039. Tilley v. Cook County, 103 U. S. 155, 26 L. Ed. 374—914. Tilley v. Coykendall, 172 N. Y. 587, 65 N. E. 574—511, 1543. Tilley V. Coykendall, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 92, 74 N. Y. Supp. 631—1538, 1579. Tillinghast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. 46—631. Tillinghast v. Carr, 82 Fed. 298—685. Tillinghast v. Troy, etc. R. R., 121 N. Y. 649, 24 N. E. 1091—2185, 2197, 2221, 2253. Tillinghast v. Troy, etc. R. R., 48 Hun, 420, 1 N. Y. Supp. 243—2185, 2197, 2221, 2253. Tillson V. Downing, 45 Neb. 549, 63 N. W. 836—1656. Tilsonburg, etc. Co. v. Goodrich, 8 Ont. 565 (1885)— 185, 187, 1342. Timberlake v. Shippers' Compress Co., 72 Miss. 323, 16 South. 530—1144. Times, etc. Co. v. Carlisle, 94 Fed. 762, 36 C. C. A. 475—73, 77. Times, etc. Co. v. Given, 106 Fed. 253— 226, 1544. Timlow V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 99 Pa. St. 284—28. Timpson v. Allen, 149 N. Y. 513, 44 N. E. 171—907. Tindall v. Wescott, 113 Ga. 1114, 39 S. E. 450, 55 L. R. A. 225—2471. Tlngley V. Bellingham, etc. Co., 5 Wash. St. 644, 32 Pac. 737, 33 Pac. 1055—1735, 1814. Tinker v. Van Dyke, 1 Flippln, 521, 532, 23 Fed. Cas. 1297, 1301—460. Tinkler's Estate, In re, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 456 (1875)— 1197. Tinsley's Case, 10 Fed. 248—778. Tioga R. R. v. Blossburg. etc. R. R., 29 Wall. 137, 22 L. Ed. 331—1674. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Tlpling V. Pexall, 2 Bulst. 233 (1613) —3. Tippecanoe County v. La Fayette, etc. R. R., 50 Ind. 85—2, 1910, 1911, 2573, 2576, 2647. Tippecanoe County v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509—707, 786. Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 595, 596 — 44, 1818. Tipton County v. Locomotive Works, 103 U. S. 523, 26 L. Ed. 340—268, 269. Tlsdale v. Harris, 37 Mass. 9—762. Tissot V. Great Southern Tel. & Tel. Co., 39 La. Ann. 996, 3 South. 261, 4 Am. St. Rep. 248— 2s21. Titcomb V. Kennebec, e?tc. Co., 79 Me. 315, 9 Atl. 732—1436, 2745. Titcomb v. Union M. & F. Ins. Co., 8 Mass. 326—994, 995, 1118. Titus V. Cairo, etc. R. R., 37 N. J. L. 98—1732, 1768, 1770. Titus V. Cortelyou, 1 Barb. 444—1104. Titus V. Ginheimer, 27 111. 462—2307. Titus V. Great Western Tump., 61 N. Y. 237—51, 639. Titus V. Great Western Turnp., 5 Lans. 250—639. Titus V. Maybee, 25 111. 257—2307. Titus V. Poole, 145 N. Y. 414, 40 N. E. 228—647, 785, 1267. Titus V. Poole, 73 Hun, 383, 26 N. Y. Supp. 451—647, 785, 1267. Titusville, etc. Dissolution, 8 Pa. Sup. Ct. 304, 309—1294. Tobacco Pipe Makers v. WoodrofEe, 7 B. & C. 838—19. Tobey v. Hakes, 54 Conn. 274, 7 Atl. 551, 1 Am. St. Rep. 114—865. Tobey v. Robinson, 99 111. 222, 228— 93, 106, 222, 793, 1348. Tobey v. Russell, 9 R. I. 58—411. Tobln Canning Co. v. Eraser, -81 Tex. 407, 17 S. W. 25—1493. Tobin V. Roaring, etc. R. R., 86 Fed. 1020—1769. Tockerson v. Chapin, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 16—808, 1255. Tod V. Kentucky, etc. Ry., 52 Fed. 241 —2333. Tod V. Kentucky, etc. Co., 57 Fed. 47— 689, 1609, 1989, 2077, 2083, 2333. Todd, In re, 112 Fed. 315—920. Todd T. Diamond State Iron Co., 8 Houst. (Del.) 372, 14 Atl. 27—737, 861. Todd V. Emly, 8 M. & W. 505 (1841)— 1071. Todd V. Taft, 89 Mass. 371—753. Todd County v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 38 Minn. 163, 36 N. W. 109—1237. Tolchester, etc. Co. v. Steinmeier, 72 Md. 313, 20 Atl. 188, 8 L. R. A. 846— 74. Toledo Con. etc. Ry. v. Toledo El. etc. Ry., 6 Ohio Cir. Ct. 362—2708, 2709. Toledo Consol. St. Ry. v. Toledo Elec. St. Ry., 50 Ohio St. 603, 36 N. E. 312 —2709. Toledo, etc. Co. v. Glen, etc. Co., 55 Ohio St. 217, 45 N. E. 197—1681. Toledo, etc. Co. v. Thomas, 33 W. Va. 566, 11 S. E. 37, 25 Am. St. Rep. 925— 1953. Toledo, etc. Ry. v. Beggs, 85 111. 80, 28 Am. Rep. 613—2413. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 497, 508, 531, 36 C. C. A. 155—119, 125, 130, 136, 141, 156, 583, 589, 594, 597, 1417, 1420, 1441, 1460, 1544, 1646, 2009, 20^11, 2017, 2021, 2023, 2203, 2220, 2228, 2269, 2273, 2486, 2550, 2568, 2573, 2576, 2579, 2592. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Elliott, 76 111. 67— 2610. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Hamilton, 134 U. S. 296, 304, 10 Sup. Ct. 546, 33 L. Ed. 905—1538, 2300, 2337, 2345. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Hinsdale, 45 Ohio St. 556, 15 N. E. 665—236. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Johnson, 49 Mich. 148—372, 1417. Toledo, etc. Ry. v. Pennsylvania Co., '54 Fed. 730, 19 L. R. A. 387—2624. Toledo, etc. Ry. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 746. 19 L. R. A. 395—2624. Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Prince, 50 111. 26 —1795. Toledo, etc. Ry. v. Rodrigues. 47 111. 188, 95 Am. Dec. 484—1795. Toler V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry., 67 Fed. 168, 178, 181—699, 934, 986, 1315, 1894, 2132, 2134, 2164, 2215, 2216, 2218, 2248, 2252, 2270, 2284, 2289, 2293, 2484. Tolerton, etc. Co. v. Barck, 84 Minn. 497, 88 N. W. 19—1678. Toll-Bridge Co. v. Betsworth, 30 Conn. 380—1830. Toll Bridge Co. v. Osborn, 35 Conn. 7— 1215, 1238. ToUe V. Owensboro, etc. R. R., 64 S. W. 455 (Ky.)— 2230. ToUeson v. People's Sav. Bank, 85 Ga. 171, 11 S. E. 599—2402. Tom V. First Society, etc., 19 Wend. 25 —1938. Tombigbee R. R. v. Kneeland, 4 How. 16, 11 L. Ed. 855—1951. Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 596, 43 S. W. 896-980, 1007. Tomblin v. Callen, 69 Iowa, 229, 28 N. W. 573—777. Tom Boy, etc. Co. v. Green, 11 Colo. App. 447, 53 Pac. 845—942, 946, 975. ccclxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Tome V. King, 64 Md. 166, 21 Atl. 279— 2473, 2481. Tome y. Parkersburg Branch R. R., 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 540—639, 644, 645. Tompkins v. Sperry, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 254 (Md.)— 1283, 1472, 1518, 1533. Tomkinson v. Balkis Consol. Co. (1891), 2 Q. B. 614—870. Tomkinson v. South Eastern Ry., L. R. 35 Ch. D. 675 (1887)— 2079, 2646. Tomlin v. Tonica, etc. R. R., 23 111. 429, 436—286. Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460, 21 L. Ed. 189—1234, 1237, 2585. Tomlinson v. Bricklayers' tjnion, 87 Ind. 308—1552. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346, 14 N. E. 137, 1 Am. St. Rep. 464—655, 657. 661. Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 "Wall. 454, 21 L. Ed. 204—1040, 1236. Tomlinson v. Miller, 7 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 364—764. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 9 Beav. 459 (1823)— 44. Tommey v. Spartanburg, etc. R. R., 4 Hughes, 640, 7 Fed. 429—2335, 2346. Tompkins v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 102 Ga. 436, 30 S. E. 992—2546, 2590. Tompkins v. Blakey, 49 Atl. Ill (N. H.)— 469. Tompkins v. Butterfield, 25 Fed. 556— 1792. Tompkins v. Compton, 93 Ga. 520, 21 S. E. 79—2546, 2685. Tompkins v. Craig, 93 Fed. 885—452. Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc. Ry., 125 U. S. 109, 8 Sup. Ct. 762, 31 L. Ed. 615—2121. Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc. Ry., 15 Fed. 6—2116, 2121, 2122, 2303. Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc. Ry., 18 Fed. 344, 5 McCrary, 597—2121. Tompkins v-: Little Rock, etc. Ry., 21 Fed. 370—2121. Tompkins v. MacLeod, 96 Fed. 927— 2416. Tompkins v. Sheehan, 158 N. Y. 617, 53 N. E. 502—763. Tompkins Co. v. Catawaba Mills, 82 Fed. 780—2199, 2375. Tompkins Co. v. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. 37—2477. Tonawanda, etc. R. R. v. New York, etc. R. R., 42 Hun, 496—1348, 2597. Toner v. Fulkerson, 125 Ind. 224, 25 N. E. 218—434, 517. Tonica, etc. R. R. v. Stein, 21 111. 96— 194, 307. Tooke, Ex parte, 6 Bng. Ry. & Can. Cas. 1 (1849)— 1123. Tootle V. Singer, 88 N. W. 446 (Iowa) —1671. Topeka v. Topeka Water Co., 49 Pac. 79 (Kan.)— 2774. Topeka Bridge Co. v. Cummings, 3 Kan. 55—358. Topeka Co. v. Oklahoma Co., 7 Okl. 220 54 Pac. 455—1758. Topeka, etc. Assoc, v. Martin, 39 Kan. 750, 18 Pac. 941—1798. Topeka, etc. Co. v. March, 61 Pac. 876 (Kan.)— 1791. Topeka, etc. Co. v. Remington, etc. Co., 57 Pac. 504 (Kan.)— 1795. Topeka Mfg. Co. v. Hale, 39 Kan. 23, 17 Pac. 601—309, 346, 559. Topham v. Greenside, etc. Co., L. R. 37 Ch. D. 281 (1887)— 2092, 2094. Topliffi, In re, 114 Fed. 323—920. Toplift V. McKendree, 88 Mich. 148, 50 N. W. 109—737. Toplitz V. Bauer, 161 N. Y. 325, 55 N. B. 1059—984, 985. Toponce t. Corlnne, etc. Co., 6 Utah, 439, 24 Pac. 534—1512. Toppan V. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 1 Flip. 74, 24 Fed. Cas. 56—2081. Topping V. Bickford, 86 Mass. 120— 1802. Torbett V. Godwin, 62 Hun, 407, 17 N. Y. Supp. 46—431. Torbock v. Lord Westbury, 87 L. T. Rep. 165 (1902)— 1279, 1503. Toronto, etc. Co. v. Blake, 2 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 175—1273, 1321, 1334, 1754. Toronto, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 64 Hun, 1, 18 N. Y. Supp. 593—718. Torras v. Raeburn, 108 Ga. 345, 33 S. E. 989—186, 369, 1756. Torrent F. Eng. Co. v. Mobile, 101 Ala. 559, 14 South. 557—1660. Torrey v. Baker, 83 Mass. 120—1382. Torrey v. Bank of Orleans, 9 Paige, 649 —909, 1494. Torva, etc. Syndicate v. Kelly (1900), A. C. 612—49, 1697. Totten V. Tison, 54 Ga. 139—582, 599. Totterdell v. Fareham Brick Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 674 (1866)— 1764. Toucey v. Bowen, 1 Blss. 81, 24 Fed. Cas. 70—445, 447. Touche V. Metropolitan, etc. Co., L. R. 6 Ch. 671, 4 De G., M. & G. 465 (1871) —1714. Tourine Co., In re, L. R. 25 Ch. D. 118 (1883)— 1764. Tourtelot v. Finke, 87 Fed. 840—538. Tourtelot v. Stolteben, 101 Fed. 362— 534. Tourtelot v. Whlthead, 84 N. W. 8 (Dak.)— 686, 1776. Towar v. Hale, 46 Barb. 361—1079. Towers v. Stevens, etc. Co., 83 Minn. 243, 86 N. W. 88—1767. Towers, etc. Co. v. Inman, 96 Ga. 506, 23 S. E. 418—1599. TABLE OF OASES. ccclxxis [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Towle V. American Bldg. etc. Soc, 60 Fed. 131—1925, 2378. Town V. Bank of River Raisin, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 530—1393. Towne v. Rice, 122 Mass. 67, 73—2050. Townes v. Nichols, 73 Me. 515—865. Town of Bristol v. Bristol, etc. Water- works, 23 R. I. 274, 49 Atl. 974—2771. Town of Eastchester v. N. Y. etc. Co., 30 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 571, 63 N. Y. Supp. 1032—2672. Town of Hinckley v. Kettle, etc. R. R., 70 Minn. 105, 72 N. W. 835—269. Town of Hinckley v. Kettle River R. R., 80 Minn. 32, 82 N. W. 1088—473. Town of Kirkwood v. Meramec, etc. Co., 94 Mo. App. 637, 68 S. W. 761— 2761, 2765, 2811. Town of Mason v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 51 W. Va. 183, 41 S. B. 418—2667. Town of Mt. Morris v. Thomas, 158 N. Y. 450, 53 N. E. 214—710, 939. Townsend, In re, 39 N. Y. 171—1669, 2626, 2629. Townsend v. Colorado Fuel, etc. Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 314, 44 N. Y. Supp. 849—2085. •Townsend v. Felthousen, 156 N. Y. 618, 51 N. E. 279—808. Townsend v. Fulton, etc. Co., 17 Colo. 142, 29 Pac. 453—2788. 'Townsend v. Goewey, 19 Wend. 424, 32 Am. Dec. 514—1076, 1085, 1087. -Townsend v. Jarman (1900), 2 Ch. 69S —66, 1437. Townsend v. Martin, 7 Hare, 471 (1849)— 654. Townsend v. Michigan, etc. R. R., 101 Fed. 757, 42 C. C. A. 570—2637. ■Townsend v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 159 U. S. 21, 15 Sup. Ct. 997, 40 L. Ed. 61— 1573, 2503. Townsend v. U. S. Trust Co., 3 Redf. 220—1200. Townsend's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 148 (1871)— 190. ■Townshend, In re, 18 N. Y. Supp. 905 — 1307. Townshend v. Gray, 62 Vt. 373, 19 Atl. 635, 8 L. R. A. 112—1606. Township, etc. v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 90 N. W. 42 (Mich.)— 2714. Township of Hamtramck v. Rapid Ry., 81 N. W. 337 (Mich.)-'2665. Townsley v. Bankers', etc. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 232, 67 N. Y. Supp. 664— 1309, 1792. Traction Co. v. Board of Public Works, 56 N. J. L. 431, 29 Atl. 163—1456, 2684. Tracy v. Guthrie, etc. Soc, 47 Iowa, 27 —1764, 1765, 1796. Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. Y. 162, 67 Am. Dec. 132—678, 685, 1626. Tracy v. Talmage, 18 Barb. 456 — 1081. Tracy v. Yates, 18 Barb. 152—567, 569. 570. Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickers, L. R. 16 Eq. 303 (1873)— 1623. Traders', etc. Bank v. Lawrence, etc. Co., 96 N. C. 298, 3 S. E. 363—2335. Traders', etc. Bank v. Washington, etc. Co., 22 Wash. 467, 61 Pac. 152—227, 559. Traders', etc. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 142 Mass. 403, 8 N. E. 134—38, 1144, 1436, 2745. Traders' Nat. Bank v. Lawrence Mfg. Co., 96 N. C. 298, 3 S. B. 363—2016. Traders' Nat. Bank v. Manufacturing Co., 100 N. C. 345, 5 S. E. 81—2149. Traders' Nat. Bank v. Smith, 22 S. W. 1056 (Tex.)— 223, 1838. Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Car Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634, 32 S. W. 1097, 31 L. R. A. 593, 49 Am. St. Rep. 943—30, 424, 1642, 1748. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Manhattan Lumber Co., 18 N. Y. Supp. 920— 1772. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Young, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 109, 44 N. Y. Supp. 297 —1575. TrafEord v. Boehm, 3 Atk. 440 (1746) —714. Train v. Marshall, etc. Co., 62 N. E. 967 (Mass.)— 425, 445. Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691, 2 Sup. Ct. 732, 27 L. Ed. 584—2786. Tranter v. Hibberd, 56 S. W. 169 (Ky.) —746. Tranton, etc. Co. v. Woodruff, 2 N. J. Bq. 117—1835. Traphagen v. Sagar, 63 Minn. 317, 65 N. W. 633—379, 788. Trapp V. Fidelity Nat. Bank, 101 Ky. 485, 41 S. W. 577—1841. Trask v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 124 U. S. 515, 8 Sup. Ct. 574, 31 L. Ed. 521—2028, 2046, 2263. Trask v. -Maguire, 18 Wall. 391, 21 L. Ed. 938—1204, 1205. Trask V. Peekskill Plow Works, 6 Hun, 236—1564, 2583. Travellers', etc. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364, 22 Sup. Ct. 673, 46 L. Ed. 949—1214. Travelers', etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 99 Fed. 663, 40 C. C. A. 58, 49 L. R. A. 123—256. Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Pricke, 99 Wis. 367, 74 N. W. 372, 78 N. W. 407, 41 L. R. A. 557—1950, 2066. Traver v. Eighth Ave. R. R., 4 Abb. Dec. 422—66. Travers v. Kansas Pac. Ry., 63 Mo. 421—78. ccclxxx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Travers v. Leopold, 124 111. 431, 16 N. E. 902—939. Travis v. Standard, etc. Ins. Co., 86 Mich. 288, 49 N. "W. 140—74. Treadwell v. Clark, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 473, 77 N. Y. Supp. 350—972, 975. Treadwell v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 73 Mass. 393, 66 Am. Dec. 490—1385, 1563. Treadwell v. United, etc. Co., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 613, 62 N. Y. Supp. 708— 1386, 1437, 1529, 1551. Treasurer v. Commercial Coal Min. Co., 23 Cal. 390—753. Treat v. Hiles, 68 Wis. 344, 32 N. W. 517, 60 Am. Rep. 858—1079. Treat v. Pennsylvania, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 60 (Pa.)— 1510, 1924. Treat v. White, 181 TJ. S. 264, 21 Sup. Ct. 611, 45 L. Ed. 853—904. Trebilcock v. Big, etc. Co., 9 S. Dak. 206, 68 N. W. 330—1657. Trebilcock v. Wilson, 12 Wall. 687— 2002. Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & W. 461 (1840)— 365, 1079. Tregear v. Etiwanda Water Co., 76 Cal. 537, 18 Pac. 658, 9 Am. St. Rep. 245 —933. Tremain v. Guardian, etc. Ins. Co., 11 Hun, 286—1928. Trench, etc. Co., Ltd., In re (1900), 1 Ch. 408—1280, 1297. Trent v. Sherlock, 24 Mont. 255, 61 Pac. 650—1774, 1795. Trent v. Sherlock, 26 Mont. 85, 66 Pac. 700—1795. Ttent, etc. Co. v. Marshall, 10 U. C. C. P. 329, 336 (1861)— 67. Trenton Bkg. Co. v. Haverstick, 11 N. J. L. 171— 69. Trenton, etc. Co. v. Oliphant, 56 N. J. Eq. 680, 39 Atl. 923—1049. Trenton, etc. Co. v. Olyphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507, 43 Atl. 723, 46 L. R. A. 255, 78 Am. St. Rep. 612—1049. Trenton, etc. Co. v. Woodruff, 2 N. J. Eq. 117—1835. Trenton, etc. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. 576—768. Trenton, etc. Ry., In re, 47 Atl. 819 (N. J.)— 2563, 2700. Trenton, etc. R. R. v. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 132, 20 Atl. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 410— 2716. Trenton, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 55 N. J. Eq. 273, 37 Atl. 476—176. Trester v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 23 Neb. 242, 36 N. W. 502—2629. Trevor v. Whitworth, L. R. 12 App. Cas. 409 (H. L., 1887)— 667. Triesler v. Wilson, 89 Md. 169, 42 Atl. 926—1293. Trimble v. American, etc. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 340, 48 Atl. 912—1048, 1110, 1161, 1534, 1592, 1603, 1622, 1691, 1864,. 1884, 1913, 1914. Trimble v. Exchange Bank, 62 S. W. 1027 (Ky.)— 332, 1610. Trimble v. Reid, 97 Ky. 713, 31 S. W. • 861—804. Trimble v. Reid, 41 S. W. 319 (Ky.)— « 801, 804. Trimble v. Vandegrift, 7 Houst. 451, 32 Atl. 632—1006. Trimble v. Ward, 97 Ky. 748, 31 S. W. 864—799. Trimmer v. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R., 36 N. J. Eq. 411—1917. Trinder v. Trinder, L. R. 1 Eq. 695 (1866)— 656, 658. Trinity Church v. Hall, 22 Conn. 125 —63. Tripp V. Appleman, 35 Fed. 19—574. Tripp V. New, etc. Co., 137 Mass. 499— 1829. Tripp V. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 400, 43 N. W. 60—1636. Tripp V. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 45- Minn. 383, 48 N. W. 4—1636, 1757. Trippe v. Huncheon, 82 Ind. 307—474. Trisconl v. Winship, 43 La. Ann. 45, 9- South. 29, 26 Am. St. Rep. 175—1047,. 1611. Troendle v. Vaa Nortwick, 98 Fed. 785, 39 C. C. A. 286—110, 972. Trotier v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 180 111. 471, 54 N. E. 487—2696. Trott V. Sarchett, 10 Ohio St. 241—236, 239 Trott V. Warren, 11 Me. 227—8, 1766,. 1800. Troup V. Horbach, 53 Neb. 795, 74 N, W. 326—147, 171. Troup V. Horbach, 57 Neb. 644, 78 N.. W. 286—171. Troup's Case, 29 Beav. 353 (1860) — 1970. Trova, etc. Syndicate v. Kelly (1900), A. C. 612—49. Trowbridge v. Scudder, 65 Mass. 83 — 523. . - Troy V. Morse, 22 Wash. 280, 60 Pac. 648—1578. Troy, etc. Ins. Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Wis, 20—1830, 1833. Troy, etc. R. R. v. Boston, etc. R. R., 86 N. Y. 107—2564, 2576, 2636. Troy, etc. R. R. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581, 600—187, 290, 373, 1030, 1034, 1394. Troy, etc. R. R. v. McChesney, 21 Wend. 296—290, 1739. Troy, etc. R. R. v. Newton, 74 Mass. 596—87, 362, 364. 366. Troy, etc. R. R. v. Tlbblts, 18 Barb. 297" —191. 218, 230, 231, 290, 608. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxxi [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Troy, etc. R. R. v. Warren, 18 Barb. 310—207, 209. Troy Iron, etc. Factory v. Corning, 45 Barb. 231—1073. Troy Min. Co. v. White, 10 S. Dak. 475, 74 N. W. 236, 42 L. R. A. 549—1742. Troy Water Co. v. Borough of Troy, 200 Pa. St. 453, 50 Atl. 259—2760. True V. Niagara, etc. R. R., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 383, 75 N. Y. Supp. 216— 2835. Truesdell v. Chumar, 75 Hun, 416, 27 N. Y. Supp. 87—473, 1829. Trundy v. Hartford, etc. Co., 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 312—1732. Trust Co. V. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525, 26 N. B. 110—1617. Trust Co. etc. v. State, 109 Ga. 736, 35 S. B. 323, 48 L. R. A. 520—692, 1411, 2547. Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527, 26 L. Ed. 1157—2281, 2472, 2476, 2479, 2480. Trustees, etc. v. State Board of Com'rs, 55 N. J. L. 436, 27 Atl. 809—2846. Trustees of Bminence v. Deposit Bank, 12 Bush (Ky.), 538—1222. Trustees of Geneva v. Brush Blectric Co., 50 Hun, 581, 3 N. Y. Supp. 595— 2823. Trust & Deposit Co. v. Spartanburg, etc. Co., 91 Fed. 324—2364. Trust & Deposit Co. etc.- v. Spartan- burg, etc. Co., 97 Fed. 409—2481, 2482, 2523. Tryon v. White, etc. Co., 62 Conn. 161, 25 Atl. 712, 20 L. R. A. 291—1733. Tschumi v. Hills, 6 Kan. App. 549, 51 Pac. 619—637. Tuchband v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 115 N. Y. 437, 22 N. E. 360—1954. Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe R. R., 11 Leigh (Va.), 42, 36 Am. Dec. 374 —2726. Tuckahoe, etc. Ry. v. Baker, 49 N. J. Eq. 581, 25 Atl. 402—2381. Tuckasegee Min. Co. v. Goodhue, 118 N. C. 981, 24 S. E. 797—1270. Tucker v. Aiken, 7 N. H. 113—1206. Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527, 572, 22 L. Ed. 805—2112. Tucker v. Oilman, 121 N. Y. 189, 24 N. E. 302—554. Tucker v. Gilman, 45 Hun, 193—410. Tucker v. Russell, 82 Fed. 263 — 267, 1032, 1305, 1730. Tucker v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 59 Ark. 81, 26 S. W. 375—2332. Tucker v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 54 Mo. 177—1795. Tucker v. Wilson, 5 Bro. Pari. Cas. 193 (1714); 1 P. Wms. 261—977. Tucker, etc. Co. v. Fairbanks, 98 Mass. 101—1818. Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 N. Y. 297, 88 Am. Dec. 386—343. Tucker's Case, 41 L. J. Ch. 157 (1871) —190. Tufts V. Volkening, 122 Mo. 631, 27 S. W. 522—1000. Tug, etc. Co. V. Brigel, 86 Fed. 818, 30 C. C. A. 415—2203, 2238, 2241. Tug River, etc. Co. v. Brigel, 70 Fed. ' 647, 17 C. C. A. 367—2201. Tulare, etc. Bank v. Talbot, 131 Cal. 45, 63 Pac. 172—193, 347. Tulare, etc. Dist. v. Kaweah, etc. Co., 44 Pac. 662 (Cal.)— 135, 298, 615, 679, 1557. Tulley V. Tranor, 53 Cal. 274—1262. Tulleys v. Keller, 45 Neb. 220, 63 N. W. 388—1498, 2168. Tumacacori, In re, L. R. 17 Eq. 534 (1874)— 1391. Tunesma v. Schuttler, 114 111. 156, 28 N. E. 605—454. Tunis V. Hestonville, etc. R. R., 149 Pa. St. 70, 24 Atl. 88, 15 L. R. A. 665— 1307, 1318, 1319, 1335. Tunis V. Hetsonville, etc. Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 207—1318, 1319. Tunison v. Detroit, etc. Co., 73 Mich. 452, 41 N. W. 502—1797. Turcott V. Yazoo, etc. R. R., 101 Tenn. 102, 45 S. W. 1067, 40 L. R. A. 768, 70 Am. St. Rep. 661—1950. Turgeau v. Brady, 24 La. Ann. 348 — 2383. Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. ^. 418, 24 L. Ed. 437—186, 187. Turnbull v. Prentiss Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 387, 21 N. W. 375—404. Turnbull v. West Riding, etc. Co., 70 L. T. Rep. 92 (1894)— 1461. Turner v. Bailey, 12 Wash. 634, 42 Pac. 115—148. Turner v. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649, 38 Am. Rep. 801—337. Turner v. Grobe, 44 S. W. 898 (Tex.), 24 Tex. Civ. App. 554, 59 S. W. 583— 326. Turner v. Hannibal, etc. R. R., 74 Mo. 602—2454. Turner v. Indianapolis, etc. Ry., 8 Biss. 315, 24 Fed. Cas. 366—2286, 2287, 2353. Turner v. Indianapolis, etc. Ry., 8 Biss. 380, 24 Fed. Cas. 367—2219, 2236, 2238, 2286, 2287. Turner v. Indianapolis, etc. Ry., 8 Biss. 527, 24 Fed. Cas. 372—2393, 2441. Turner v. Jackson, 63 S. W. 511 (Tenn.)— 1261, 2517. Turner v. Kingston, etc. Co., 106 Tenn. 1, 58 S. W. 854—1803, 1814, 2146, 2149. Turner v. Kingston, "etc. Co., 59 S. W 410—1803, 1814. 2149. ccclxxxii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Turner v. Moy, 32 L. T. Rep. 56 (1875) —753, 759. Turner v. North Beach, etc. R. R., 34 Cal. 594—77, 78. Turner v. Ontonagon, etc. Co., 77 Mich. 603, 43 N. W. 1062—1077. Turner v. Peoria, etc. R. R., 95 111. 134, 35 Am Rep. 144—2466. Turner v. Turner, 21 L. J. (Ch.) 843 (1852)— 657. Turner v. Woodson County, 27 Kan. 314 —245. Turner's Case, 7 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 448 (1884)— 194. Turnpike Co. v. Brown, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 462—2750. Turnpike Co. v. Davidson County, 3 Tenn. Ch. 396—1415, 2751. Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U. S. 63, 24 L. Ed. 651—1435, 2752. Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210, 18 L. Ed. 180—1399, 2753. Turquand v. Marshall, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 376 (1869)— 1185, 1690. Tuscaloosa, etc. Co. v. Perry, 85 Ala. 158, 4 South. 635—309. Tuscaloosa Mfg. Co. v. Cox, 68 Ala. 71 —1622. Tuskaloosa, etc. Assoc, v. Green, 48 Ala. 346—1448. Tussaud V. Tussaud, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 678 (1890)— 61. Tuthill, etc. Co. v. Shaver, etc. Co., 35 Fed. 644—1828. Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 90 Iowa, 331, 57 N. W. 853—162, 418, 532, 556. Tuttle, Matter of, v. Iron Nat. Bank, 170 N. Y. 9, 62 N. E. 761—1100. Tuttle V. Batchelder, etc. Co., 170 Mass. 315, 49 N. E. 640—671, 816, 1353, 1564. Tuttle V. Brush, etc. 111. Co., 50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 464—2796. Tuttle V. Michigan, etc. R. R., 35 Mich. 247—373, 1032, 1277, 1280, 1281, 2557. Tuttle V. National Bank, 161 111. 497, 44 N. B. 984, 34 L. R. A. 750—466. Tuttle V. Walton, 1 Ga. 43—1116, 1117, 1118, 1126, 1132. Tutwiler v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 89 Ala. 391. 7 South. 398—290, 1897, 1901, 1926. Tweedy v. Bogart, 56 Conn. 419, 15 Atl. 374—1002, 1003. Twelfth, etc. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 142 Pa. St. 580, 21 Atl. 902, 989 —2634. * Twelfth St. Market Co. v. Jackson, 102 Pa. St. 269, 273—1750, 1770. Twelfth Ward Bank v. Samuels, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 168, 75 N. Y. Supp. 561 —952. Twin Creek, etc. Co. v. Lancaster, 79 Ky. 552—213, 215. Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marhury, 91 U. S. 587, 23 L. Ed. 328—1490, 1644, 1854 1861. Twist v. City of Rochester, 37 N. Y App. Div. 307, 55 N. Y. Supp. 850— 2824. Twrcross V. Grant, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 469 541 (1877)— 315, 1470, 1475. Tylee v. Yates, 3 Earb. 222—1626. Tyler, In re, 149 U. S. 164, 13 Sup. Ct. 785, 37 L. Ed. 689—2343, 2419. Tyler v. Beacher, 44 Vt. 648, 8 Am. Rep. 398—2627. Tyler v. Hamilton, 62 Fed. 187—1489, 2241, 2291, 2407. Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. 340, 36 L. Ed. 82—317, 326, 790, 809. Tyne, etc. Assoc, v. Brown, 74 L. T. Rep. 283 (1896)— 1382. Tyng V. Clarke, 9 Hun, 269—473. Tyng V. Commercial Warehouse Co., 58 N. Y. 308—1629. Tyrrell v. Bank of London, 10 H. L. Cas. 26 (1862)— 1464, 1470, 1477. Tyrrell v. Washburn, 88 Mass. 466— 1085, 1088. Tysen v. Wabash Ry., 8 Biss. 247, 24 Fed. Cas. 479—2365. Tysen v. Wabash Ry., 11 Biss. 510, 15 Fed. Cas. 763—1586, 1983, 2052, 2117, 2590. Tyson v. Halifax, 51 Pa. St. 9—251. Tyson v. Virginia, etc. R. R., 1 Hughes, 80, 24 Fed. Cas. 493—1898. u. Ubben v. Binnian, 182 111. 508, 55 N. E. 552—765, 1357. Ueland v. Haugan, 70 Minn. 349, 73 N. W. 169—440. Uline V. New York, etc. R. R., 101 N. Y. 98, 4 N. E. 536, 54 Am. Rep. 661— 2688, 2721. Ulmer v. Maine, etc. Co., 93 Me. 324, 45 Atl. 40—1336, 1387, 1904, 1920. Ulrich V. New York, etc. R. R., 108 N. Y. 80, 15 N. E. 60, 2 Am. St. Rep. 369 —2645. Ulster, etc. Inst. v. Fourth Nat. BanK, 8 N. Y. Supp. 162-712. Ulster Ry. v. Banbridge, etc. Ry., Ir. L. R. 2 Eq. 190 (1868)- 1645, 1969. Umfrid v. Brooks, 14 Wash. 675, 45 Pac 310 749. Umsted v. Busidrk, 17 Ohio St. 113— 402, 404, 406, 421, 438, 456. 491. Una V. Newark, etc. Inst., 46 Atl. 660 (N. J.)— 2409. Uncanoonuck, etc. Co. v. Orr, 67 N. H. 541, 41 Atl. 665—2630, 2800. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxxiii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Uncas Nat. Bank v. Rith, 23 Wis. 339— 2114. Unckles v. Colgate, 148 N. Y. 529, 43 N. E. 59—1050. Underground R. R. v. City of New York, 116 Fed. 952—1428. Underbill v. Gibson, 2 N. H. 352, 9 Am. Dec. 82—1618. Underbill v. Santa Barbara, etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300, 28 Pac. 1049—1807, 1814, 1826, 1972, 1976, 2149. Underwood v. London Music Hall (1901), 2 Cb. 309—588. Underwood v. New York, etc. R. R., 17 How. Pr. 537—1151. Underwood Lbr. Co. v. Pelican Boom Co., 76 Wis. 76, 45 N. W. 18—2786. Union Agri. etc. Assoc, v. Mill, 31 Iowa, 95—1030. Union Bank v. City, 94 Va. 316, 26 S. B. 821—1207. Union Bank v. Ellicott, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 363—1551. Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 8 L. Ed. 60—1940. Union Bank v. Jacobs, 6 Humpb. (Tenn.) 515—1969, 1976. Union Bank v. Keim, 52 N. Y. App. Div. 135, 64 N. Y. Supp. 1070—432. Union Bank v. Knapp, 20 Mass. 96, 15 Am. Dec. 181—1757. Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wbeat. 390, 4 L. Ed. 269—888, 1115, 1118, 1122, 1123, 1129. Union Bank v. McDonough, 5 La. 63 — 192. Union Bank v. Owen, 4 Humpb. (Tenn.) 338—40. Union Bank v. Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 324, 392, 413, 425—17, 22, 1739, 1759, 1799, 1802. Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 490, 500—45, 1211, 1217. Union Bank v. Wando Min. etc. Co., 17 S. C. 339—474. Union Brancb R. R. v. Bast Tennes- see, etc. R. R., 14 Ga. 327—2629. Union Bridge Co. v. Troy, etc. R. R., 7 Lans. 240—1806, 1807, 2566. Union Canal Co. v. Gilfillin, 93 Pa. St. 95—2529. Union Canal Co. v. Loyd, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 393, 398—1832, 1844. Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Wbart. (Pa.) 410, 30 Am. Dec. 212—1408. Union Cattle Co. v. International Trust Co., 149 Mass. 492, 21 N. B. 962— 978, 1987, 2043, 2044. Union Cement Co. v. Noble, 15 Fed. 502—1941. Union Compress Co. v. Douglass, 60 Ark. 591, 31 S. W. 455—1511. Union Depot Co. v. Cbicago, etc. Ry., 113 Mo. 213, 20 S. W. 792—2593. Union Depot Railroad v. Soutbern Ry.. Co., lOS Mo. 562, 16 S. W. 920 — 2710. Union, etc. Bank v. Farrington, 13 Lea. (Tenn.), 333—941. Union, etc. Bank v. Mills, 103 Wis. 39,. 79 N. W. 20—2472. Union, etc. Bank v. Scott, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 65, 66 N. Y. Supp. 145—490, 1270,. 1294, 1378. Union, etc. Bank v. State, etc. Bank^ 155 Mo. 95, 55 S. W. 989, 78 Am. St. Rep; 560—1725, 1741, 2141. Union, etc. Co., In re, L. R. 42 Cb. D. 513 (1889)— 638. Union, etc. Co. v. Connelly, 99 Fed. 354 —1059. Union, etc. Co. v. Robinson, 79 Fed. 420, 24 C. C. A. 650—1815. Union, etc. Co. v. Rocky Mountain. Nat. Bank, 96 U. S. 640. 24 L. Ed. 648—1796. Union, etc. Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 1 Colo. 531—1626, 1790. Union, etc. Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat.- Bank, 2 Colo. 248—1969, 1970. Union, etc. Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. 565—1722, 1757,. 1796. Union, etc. Co. v. Soutbern, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 840—1285, 1984, 2019, 2022,. 2029, 2044, 2046, 2151, 2263. Union, etc. Co. v. Tbomas, 46 Ind. 44 — 1677. Union, etc. Co. v. Wrigbt, 58 S. W. 755,, 52 L. R. A. 469 (Tenn.)— 1591. Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. Keyser, 32 N. H. 313, 64 Am. Dec. 375—1628. Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. McMillen, 24 , Obio St. 67—1683. Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. Union, etc. Co., 37 Fed. 286, 3 L. R. A. 90—2129, 2215,, 2246, 2248, 2293, 2369. Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. Wbite, 106 111. 67—1824. Union, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry.,. 163 U. S. 564, 592, 16 Sup. Ct. 1173,, 41 L. Ed. 265—26, 1435, 1545, 1763, 2592, 2594, 2595. Union, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 5t Fed. 309, 2 C. C. A. 174—1763. Union Ferry Co., In re, 98 N. Y. 139 — 2733. Union Gold Min. Co. v. Bank, 2 Colc 226—1806, 1807, 1808. - Union Hardware Co. v. Plume, etc. Co., 58 Conn. 219, 20 Atl. 455—1596. Union Hill Silver Co., In re, 22 L. T. Rep. 400 (1870)— 1281, 1286. Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee. 79 N. Y.. 454, 35 Am. Rep. 536— 20i, 203, 209,, 232, 233, 375, 1030. Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 15 Hun, 371, —375. ■coclxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the tert.] Union Ins. Co., In re, 22 Wend. 591 — 1275, 1290, 1299, 1300. Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Blss. 327, 24 Fed. Cas. 583—462, 1027. Union Locks & Canals v. Towne, 1 N. H. 44, 8 Am. Dec. 32—1031, 1042. Union L. & T. Co. v. Southern Cal. etc. Co., 49 Fed. 267—2344, 2720. Union L. & T. Co. v. Southern Cali- fornia, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 840—142. Union L. & T. Co. v. Southern, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 106—2481. Union Mfg. Co. v. Pitkin, 14 Conn. 174 —1802. Union Mut. etc. Ins. Co. v. White, 106 111.. 67— 1766, 1,824. Union Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Keyser, 32 N. H. 313—19. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Frear Stone Mfg. Co., 97 111. 537, 37 Am. Rep. 129 —100, 114, 309, 393. Union Nat. Bank v. Byram, 131 111. 92, 22 N. E. 842—43, 997. Union Nat. Bank v. Carr, 15 Fed. 438, 5 McCrary, 71—770. Union Nat. Bank v. Chicago, 3 Biss. 82, 24 Fed. Cas. 615—1228. Union Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 76 Mo. 439— 678, 784. Union Nat. Bank v. Louisville, etc. Ry., 145 111. 208, 34 N. E. 135—1630. Union Nat. Bank v. Miller, 15 Fed. 703 —1967. Union Nat. Bank v. Wheeler, 60 N. Y. 612—2035. Union Nat. Bank, etc. v. Hill, 148 Mo. 380, 49 S. W. 1012, 71 Am. St. Rep. 615—1694. Union Pac. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 163 U. S. 564, 583, 592, 593, 16 Sup. Ct. 1207, 4 L. Ed. 282—26, 2592, 2594, 2595. Union Pac. Ry. v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 51 Fed. 309, 2 C. C. A. 174—1807, 1282, 1546, 1726, 1727, 1735, 1763, 2596. Union Pacific R. R. v. Colorado, etc. Co., 69 Pac. 564 (Colo.)— 1541, 2806. Union Pac. R. R. v. Credit Mobilier, 135 Mass. 367—1457, 1516. Union Pac. R. R. v. Durant, 3 Dill. 343, 24 Fed. Cas. 628—1463. Union Pac. R. R. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343, 23 L. Ed. 428—2620. Union Pac. Ry. v. Leavenworth, etc. Ry., 29 Fed: 728—2635. Union Pac. R. R. v. McComb, 1 Fed. 799, 17 Blatchf. 510—1966. Union Pac. Ry. v. Schiff, 74 Fed. 674— 964. Union Pac. Ry. v. Schiff, 78 Fed. 216 — 964. Union Pac. R. R. v. Smith, 23 Kan. 745 —250. Union Pac. R. R. v. U. S., 99 U. S. 402, 25 L. Ed. 274—1173. Union Pac. Ry. v. U. S., 59 Fed. 813, 824, 8 C. C. A. 282—2170, 2586, 2620, 2844, 2845. Union R. R. v. Dull, 124 U. S. 173, 8 Sup. Ct. 433, 31 L. Ed. 417—1457. Union Ry. v. Sneed, 99 Tenn. 1, 41 S. W. 364, 47 S. W. 89—633. Union Rubber Co. v. Hibbard, 6 Up. Can. (C. P.) 77 (1855)— 515. Union Sav. Assoc, v. Seligman, 92 Mo. 635, 15 S. W. 630, 1 Am. St. Rep. 776 —533, 940. Union Screw Co. v. American Screw Co., 11 R. I. 569—1148. Union Screw Co. v. American Screw Co., 13 R. I. 673—1148. Union St. Ry. v. City of Saginaw, 115 Mich. 300, 73 N. W. 243—2369. Union St. Ry. v. Hazleton, etc. Ry., 3 Pa. Disti 785—2664. Union St. Ry. v. Snow, 113 Mich. G94, 71 N. W. 1073—2682. Union Trust Co. v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 87 Fed. 530—2393. Union Trust Co. v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 8 N. M. 327, 43 Pac. 701—2809, 2812. Union Trust Co. v. Chattanooga, etc. Ry., 101 Tenn. 297, 47 S. W. 422— 2134. Union Trust Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 7 Fed. 513—2466. Union Trust Co. v. Illinois, etc. Ry., 117 U. S. 434, 467, 6 Sup. Ct. 809, 29 L. Ed. 963—2351, 2357, 2371, 2458, 2463, 2467, 2549, 2577. Union Trust Co. v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 26 Fed. 485—2070, 2132, 2293. Union Trust Co. v. Monticello, etc. R. R., 63 N. Y. 311, 20 Am. Rep. 541— 2057, 2059. Union Trust Co. v. Morrison, 125 U. S. 591, 608, 609, 8 Sup. Ct. 1004, 31 L. Ed. 825—2126, 2176, 2297, 2308, 2324, 2347, 2601. Union Trust Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 17 Weekly Law Bui. 176 (Ohio) —156, 1982, 2021, 2026, 2052, 2109, 2262. Union Trust Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 18 Weekl. L. Bui. (Ohio)— 2109. Union Trust Co. v. Rochester, etc. R. R., 29 Fed. 609—2258, 2591, 2651. Union Trust Co. v. Rockford, etc. R. R., 6 Biss. 197. 24 Fed. Cas. 704— 2227. Union Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 4 Dill. 114,.24 Fed. Cas. 706—2363. Union Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 5 Dill. 1, 24 Fed. Cas. 710—2121, 2214, 2216. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxxv [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Union Trust Co. v. Souther, 107 U. S. 591, 2 Sup. Ct. 295, 27 L. Ed. 488— 2352. Union Trust Co. v. Southern Nav. Co., 130 U. S. 565, 9 Sup. Ct. 606, 32 L. Ed. 1043—2172. Union Trust Co. v. Walker, 107 U. S. 596, 2 Sup. Ct. 299, 27 L. Ed. 490— 2353. . Union Trust Co. etc. v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 189 Pa. St. 263, 42 Atl. 129— 1973, 2277. Union Turnpike v. Jenkins, 1 Caines, 381, 391—356, 1820. Union Water Co. v. Kean, 52 N. J. Eq. Ill, 27 Atl. 1015—353, 1271, 1333. Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co., 22 Gal. 620—1625, 2106. United Elec. Securities Co. v. Louisiana Elect. Light Co., 68 Fed. 673, 675—95, 108, 1895, 1918. United Elect. Securities Co. v. Louisi- ana Elec. Light Co., 71 Fed. 615— 2731. United El. Ry. v. Shilton, 89 Tenn. 423, 14 S. W. 863—2831. United, etc. Assoc, v. Benshlmol, 130 Mass. 325—1432. United, etc. Co., In re, 22 R. I. 108, 46 Atl. 273—2343. United, etc. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co., 147 U. S. 431, 13 Sup. Ct. 396. 37 L. Ed. 231—13, 688, 1163, 1566, 2015, 2231, ■ 2256, 2324, 2328. United, etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 11 Colo. App. 225, 53 Pac. 511—2058. United, etc. Co. v. Omaha, etc. Co., 164 N. Y. 41, 58 N. E. 58—1361, 2521. United, etc. Co. v. Vary, 152 N. Y. 121, 46 N. E. 312—448. United Fire Assoc, v. Benseman, 4 W. \ N. Cas. (Pa.) 1—17. United Lines, etc. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co., 147 U. S. 431, 13 Sup. Ct. 396, 37 L. Ed. 231—13, 688, 1163, 1566, 2015, 2231, 2256, 2324, 2328. United Growers Co. v. Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 47 N. Y. Supp. 906—273, 344, 369, 1378, 1746, 1760. United L. T. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co., 147 U. S. 431, 13 Sup. Ct. 396, 37, L. Ed. 23—13, 1566, 2015, 2231, 2256, 2324, 2328, 2844, 2845. United Mines Co. *v. Hatcher, 79 Fed. 517, 25 C. C. A. 46—1539, 2338. United Service Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 707 (1870)— 343, 669. United Service Co., In re, L. R. 7 Eq. 76 (1868)— 1392. United Soc. v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 456—346. United Society, etc. v. Underwood, 9 Bush (Ky.), 609, 15 Am. Rep. 731— 1693. United States v. Agler, 62 Fed. 824 — 2624. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392, 6 L. Ed. 502—68. United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 29 Fed. 17—1957. United States v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 7 Ajn. L. Reg. (N. S.) 757, 24 Fed. Cas. 972—77. United Sta'tes v. Barry, 36 Fed. 246 — 1350. United States v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655, 2 Sup. Ct. 512, 27 L. Ed. 520—678. United States v. Britton, 108 U. S. 192, 2 Sup. Ct. 525, 27 L. Ed. 703—678. United States v. Britton, 108 U. S. 199, 2 Sup. Ct. 531, 27 L. Ed. 698—818. United States v. Central Pac. R. R., 99 U. S. 449 (1878), 25 L. Ed. 287—1173. United States v. Central Pac. R. R., 138 U. S. 84, 11 Sup. Ct. 285, 34 L. Ed. 895—11,73. United States v. Chesapeake, etc. Co., 105 Fed. 93—1060. United States v. City Bank of Colum- bus, 21 How. 356, 16 L. Ed. 130— 1788. United States v. Clune, 62 Fed. 798— 2624. United States v. Coal, etc. Assoc, 85 Fed. 252—1058. United States v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Cranch, C. C. 266—1319. United States v. Cutts, 1 Sumn. 133, 25 Fed. Cas. 745—845, 849, 888. 937, 938. United States v. Debs, 63 Fed. 436— 2624. United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724— 2624. United States v. Distillery, 43 Fed. 846 —38, 69, 77. United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 15 Sup. Ct. 249, 39 L. Ed. 325 —696, 1058. United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. 801— 2624. United States v. Elliott, 64 Fed. 27— 2624. United States v. Flint, etc. Ry., 95 Fed. 551, 37 C. C. A. 156—2213. United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192—69, 1671. United States v. Globe Works, 7 Fed. 530—1180. United States v. Haggerty, 116 Fed. 510 —2170, 2624.^ United States v. Hopkins, 82 Fed. 529 — 1057. United States v. Hunter, 15 Fed. 712 — 2844. United States v. Insurance Companies, 22 Wall. 99, 22 L. Ed. 816—1944, 1951. United States v. Jefferson County 5 Dill. 310, 26 Fed. Cas. 597—255. ccclxxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] United States v. Jellico, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 432, 12 L. R. A. 753—1059. United States v. J. Kelso Co:, 86 Fed. 304—76. United States v. Joint, etc. Assoc, 171 U. S. 505, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259 —1055, 2598. United States v. Kane, 23 Fed. 748— 2624. United States v. Kansas Pac. Ry., 99 U. S. 455, 25 L,. Ed. 289—1173. United States v. La Compagnle, etc. Telegraphlques, 77 Fed. 495—2847. United States v. Louisville, etc. Canal Co., 4 Dill. 601, 26 Fed. Cas. 1002— 1319, 2384, 2726. United States v. McKelden, 11 Mac- Arthur & M. 162 (D. O— 1276, 1285, 1287. United States v. Maslch, 44 Fed. 10— 237L United States v. Means, 42 Fed. 599— 35. United States v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 6 Fed. 237—1947. United States v. Nelson, 52 Fed. 646— 1059. United States v. New Orleans, 2 Woods, 230, 27 Fed. Cas. 131—244. United States t. New Orleans R. R., 12 Wall. 362, 20 L. Ed. 434—2311, 2323, 2328, 2330, 2342. United States v. Northern Pacific R. R., 120 Fed. 546—2804, 2812, 2843. United States v. Northern Securities Co., 120 Fed. 720, 721—695, 1059, 2558. United States v. Patterson, 55 Fed. 605—1059. United States v. Patterson, 59 Fed. 280 —1059. United States v. Railroad Bridge Co., 6 McLean, 517, 27 Fed. Cas. 686— 2634. United States v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 322, 21 L. Ed. 597—1213, 1217. United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 8 Sup. Ct. 850, 31 L. Ed. 747—1410. United States v. San Pedro, etc. Co., 4 N. M. 225, 17 Pac. 337—1837. United States v. Sioux City, etc. R. R., 99 U. S. 491, 25 L. Ed. 292—1173. United States v. Southern, etc. R. R., 117 Fed. 544—2051. United States v. Southern Pac. R. R., 45 Fed. 596—1434. United States v. Southern Pac. R. R., 49 Fed. 297—1964. United States v. Stanford, 161 U. S. 412, 16 Sup. Ct. 578, 40 L. Ed. 751— 5. 425, 433, 435, 517, 1036, 2123, 2125. United States v. Stanford, 69 Fed. 25— 433, 1036, 2125. United States v. Stanford, 70 Fed. 346 17 C. C. A. 143—435. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc, 166 U. S. 290, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 41 L. Ed. 1007—28, 1058, 2598. United States v. Trinidad Coal, etc. Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. 57, 34 L. Ed. 640—2, 1664. United States v. Union Pac. R. R., 91 U. S. 72, 23 L. Ed. 224—2122. United States v. Union Pacific- R. R., 98 U. S. 569, 612, 617, 25 L. Ed. 143— 1413. United States v. Union Pac. Ry., 160 U. S. 1, 16 Sup. Ct. 190, 40 L. Ed. 319—1412, 2170, 2809, 2810, 2812, 2844. United States v. Union Pac. R. R., 4 Dill. 479, 28 Fed. Cas. 345—2620. United States v. Vaughan, 3 Binn. 394. 5 Am. Dec 375—847, 888, 1005. United States v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 Fed. 28, 37, 42—1412, 2543, 2802, 2812, 2844. United States v. Wolters, 46 Fed. 509— 69, 1205. United States Bank v. Dana, 6 Pet. 51, 8 L. Ed. 316—1733. United States Bank v. Dandrldge, 12 Wheat. 64, 95, 113, 6 L. Ed. 552-1739, 1759, 1789, 1820. United States Bank v. Lyon County, 46 Fed. 514—1998. United States Bank v. Lyon County, 48 Fed. 632—810. United States Bank r. Stearns, 15 Wend. 314—1942, 1943. United States Chemical Co. v. Provi- dent Chemical Co., 64 Fed. 946—1056. United States Electric, etc. Co. v. State, 79 Md. 63, 28 Atl. 768—1215. United States, etc. Agency, In re, 115 N. Y. 176, 21 N. E. 1034—63. United States, etc. Co., In re, 60 N. J. Eq. 514, 43 Atl. 673—2343. United States, etc Co. v. American, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 891, 37 C. C. A. 599— 1631. United States, etc Co. v. Davies, 2 Kan. App. 611, 42 Pac 590—188, 376. United States, etc. Co., Gallegos, 89 Fed. 769, 32 C. C. A. 470—1966. United States, etc. Co. v. Isaacs, 23 Ind. App. 533,. 55 N. E. 832—1582, 2588. United States, etc. Co. v. McClure, 70 Pac 543 (Oreg.)— 1945, 2108. United States, etc Co. v. Mulr, 115 Fed. 264, 53 C. C. A. 56—1768. United States, etc Co. v. Spencer, 46 W. Va. 590, 33 S. E. 342—1939. United States, etc. Corp. v. Portland Hospital, 40 Oreg. 523, 64 Pac. 644, 67 Pac 194, 56 L. R. A. 627—2450. United States Exp. Co. v. Backman, 28 Ohio St. 144—2727. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxxvii [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] United States Express Co. v. Hender- son, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426—1112. United States Express Co. v. Lucas, 36 Ind. 361—1679. United States Ice, etc. Co. v. Eeed, 2 How. Pr. (N. S.) 253—1508, 1859. United States Ilium. Co. v. Grant, 55 Hun, 222, 7 N. Y. Supp. 788—2846. United States Ilium. Co. v. Hess, 3 N. Y. Supp. 777—2846. United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 3 Md. Ch. 381 (1851)— 1837. United States Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 7 Biss. 30, 28 Fed. Cas. 816—1683. United States Mortgage Co., In re, 83 Hun, 572, 32 N. Y. Supp. 11—62. United States Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 93 111. 483—1629. United States Mortgage Co. v. Gross, 7 Cent. L. J. 226—1670. United States Mortgage Co. v. Sperry, 138 U. S. 313, 11 Sup. Ct. 321, 34 L. Ed. 969—1629. United States Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. 296, 24 C. C. A. 597— 1777. United States Rolling Stock Co., In re, 55 How. Pr. 286—2234, 2463. United States Rolling-Stock Co., In re, 57 How. Pr. 16—2234, 2651. United States Rolling-Stock Co. v. At- lantic, etc. R. R., 34 Ohio St. 450, 32 Am. Rep. 380—1514. United States Rubber Co. v. American, etc. Co., 181 U. S. 434, 21 Sup. Ct. 670, 45 L. Ed. 938—1631, 2003, 2249, 2292, 2329, 2511, 2512. United States Rubber Co. v. American, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 891, 37 C. C. A. 599— 1631. United States Trust Co. v. Brady, 20 Barb. 119—3, 1628. United States Trust Co. v. Harris, 2 Bosw. 75, 91—678, 2409. United States Trust Co. t. Lee, 73 111. 142, 24 Am. Rep. 236—1670. United States Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 88 Fed. 140, 3 C. C. A. 427 —2445, 2544. United States Trust Co. v. New York, etc. R. R., 101 N. Y. 478, 5 N. E. 316— 1387, 2473. United States Trust Co. v. New York, etc. Ry., 25 Fed. 797—2353, 2392. United States Trust Co. v. New York, etc. Ry., 25 Fed. 800—2358. United States Trust Co. v. New York, etc. Ry., 35 Hun, 341—2366. United States Trust Co. v. Omaha, etc. Ry., 63 Fed. 737—2434. United States Trust Co. v. United States F. Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 199, 200, 224, 226—426, 532, 545, 572, 678. 1036. T United States Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 150 U. S. 287, 14 Sup. Ct. 86, 37 L. Ed. 1085—2305, 2351, 2376, 2447. United States Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry., 32 Fed. 480—2317. United States Trust Co. v. Wabash Ry., 38 Fed. 891—2309. United States Trust Co. v. Western Contract Co., 81 Fed. 454, 26 C. C. A. 472—2037, 2092. United States Vinegar Co. v. Foehren- bach, 148 N. Y. 58, 42 N. B. 403—203, 363, 374, 1050, 1945. United States Vinegar Co. v. Foehren- bach, 74 Hun, 435, 26 N. Y. Supp. 632 —1945. United States Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, 143 N. Y. 537, 38 N. E. 729—1050. United States Vinegar Co. v. Spamer, 143 N. Y. 676, 38 N. E. 731—2412. United States Waterworks v. Du Bois, 176 Pa. St. 439, 35 Atl. 251—2773. United Water-works Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 82 Fed. 144, 27 C. C. A. 92— 2060. United Workmen v. Graham, 96 Iowa, 592, 65 N. W. 837, 31 L. R. A. 133— 62. Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636— 191, 497. Universal, etc. Co. v. Stoneburner, 113 Fed. 251, 51 C. C. A. 208—1907. Universal, etc. Exchange v. Strachan (1896), A. C. 166—775. Universal F. Ins. Co. v. Tabor, 16 Colo. 531, 27 Pac. 890—402, 409. Universal Stock Exch. v. Stevens, 66 L. T. Rep. 612 (1892)— 768. University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, 25 L. Ed. 387—1234. University, etc. v. Emmert, 108 Iowa, 5.00, 79 N. W. 285—40. University o"f Maryland v. Williams, & G. & J. (Md.) 365, 31 Am. Dec. 72— 1432. Unthank v. Henry County Tump. Co., 6 Ind. 125—286. UpfiU's Case,- 2 H. L. Cas. 674—1700, 1701. Upham V. Barbour, 65 Minn. 364, 68 N. W. 42—957. Upper Alloways Creek v. String, 10 N> J. L. 323—67. Upper Miss. Transp. Co. v. Whittaker, 16 Wis. 220—1955. Upper San Joaquin Canal Co. v. Roach, 78 Cal. 552, 21 Pac. 304—326. Upson, etc. R. R. v. Sharman, 37 Ga. 644—2546, 2577. Upton V. Burnham, 3 Biss. 431, 520, 28 Fed. Cas. 833—113, 379, 555, 560, 857, 858. Upton V. Englehart, 3 Dill. 496, 28 Fed Cas. 835—321, 324, 325, 340. ccclxxxviii TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Upton V. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 417, 425, 28 Fed. Cas. 839—113, 367, 393, 416, 556. Upton V. Hubbard, 28 Conn. 274, 73 Am. Dec. 670—2425. Upton V. Jackson, 1 Flip. C. C. 413, 28 Fed. Cas. 844—631, 1042. Upton V. Trlbilcock, 91 U. S. 45, 23 L. Ed. 203—113, 115, 167, 169, 178, 211, 309, 321, 338, 379, 416. Urner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 316, 43 Atl. 810—339, 375, 1485. Uruguay, etc. Ry., In re, L. R. 11 Ch. D. 372 (1879)— 1392. Usher v. Raymond Skate Co., 163 Mass. 1, 39 N. E. 416—1783, 2071. Usher v. Van Vranken, 48 N. Y. App. Dlv. 413, 63 N.Y. Supp. 104—960, 970. Utah, etc. Co. v. Keith, 18 Utah, 464, 56 Pac. 155—1080, 1667. Utah, etc. R. R. v. Utah, etc. Ry., 110 Fed. 879—1430, 2636, 2678, 2838. Utica V. Churchill, 33 N. Y. 161—1220. Utica V. Utica Telephone Co., 24 N. Y. App. Div. 361, 48 N. Y. Supp. 916— 2817. Utica, etc. Co., In re, 154 N. Y. 268, 48 N. E. 521—1772. 2590, 2591. Utica, etc. R. R. v. Brinkerhoff, 21 "Wend. 139, 34 Am. Dec. 220—212. Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood, 4 Wend. 652—1627. Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296 —40, 1627. Utica Ins. Co. v. Kip, 8 Cow. 20—1627. Utica Ins. Co. v. Scott, 19 Johns. 1 — 1627. Utica Ins. Co. v. Tilman, 1 Wend. 555 —1944. Utley V. Clark-Gardner, etc. Co., 4 Colo. 369—1677. Utley V. Hill, 155 Mo. 232, 55 S. W. 1091, 49 L. R. A. 323, 78 Am. St. Rep. 569—331. Y. Vail V. Hamilton, 85 N. Y. 453—679, 1320, 2138, 2263. Vail V. Jameson, 41 N. J. Eq. 648, 7 Atl. 520—1638. Vail V. Reynolds, 118 N. Y. 297, 23 N. E. 301—802, 1257, 1267. Vail V. Rice, 5 N. Y. 155—914. Val Blatz, etc. Co. v. Walsh, 84 Fed, 5—2225. Vale Mills y. Spalding, 62 N. H. 605— 566. Valentine v. Berrien, etc. Co., 87 N. W. 370 (Mich.)— 197, 803, 1531. Valk V. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 179—84, 219. Vallance, Ex parte, 2 Deacon, 354 (1837)— 45. Valle V. Ziegler, 84 Mo. 214—1210, 1215. Valley Bank, etc. Inst. v. Sewing Soc. 28 Kan. 423—1395. Valley Nat. Bank v. Crowell, 148 Pa. St. 284, 23 Atl. 1068, 33 Am. St. Rep. ■ 824—941. Valley Ry. v. Lake Erie Iron Co., 46 Ohio St. 44, 18 N. E. 486, 1 L. R. A. 412—688. Valp, Ex parte, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 289 (1872)— 1470. Van Aerman v. McCune, 32 Hun, 316— 1090. Van Aernam v. Bleistein, 102 N. Y. 355 7 N. B. 537—72, 1090. Van Allen, In re, 37 Barb. 231—2408. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, 584, 598, 18 L. Ed. 229—43, 50, 1220, 1224. Van Allen v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 7 Bosw. 515—184, 196, 280, 617. Van Amburgh v. Baker, 81 N. Y. 46— 1378. Van Antwerp v. Linton, 157 N. Y. 716, 53 N. E. 1133—527, 1612. Van Antwerp v. Linton, 89 Hun, 417, 35 N. Y. Supp. 318—527, 1612. Vanatta v. State Bank. 9 Ohio St. 27— 1628. Van Blarcom v. Broadway Bank, 9 Bosw. 532—938. Van Blarcom v. Dager, 31 N. J. Eq. 783—1200. Van Brocklin v. Queen, etc. Co., 19 Wash. 552, 53 Pac. 822—672. Vance v. Brie Ry., 32 N. J. L. 334, 90 Am. Dec. 665—71, 74. Vance v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 1 Blackt 80—1942. Vance v. McNabb, etc. Co., 48 S. W. 235 (Tenn.)— 1570. Vance v. McNab, etc. Co., 92 Tenn. 47, 20 S. W. 424—1569. Vance v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 4 Lea (Tenn.), 385—1689. Vance v. Tourne, 13 La. 225—929. Vance, etc. Co. v. Bentley, 92 111. App. 287—378. Van Cise v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 4 Dak. 485, 33 N. W. 897—1017, 1019. Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 Mo. 109, 44 S. W. 743, 42 L. R. A. 593—151, 168. Van Cott V. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535— 87, 126, 154, 166, 473, 2007. Van Cott V. Van Brunt, 2 Abb. N. Cas. 283, 297—473. Vandall v. South San Francisco Dock Co., 40 Cal. 83—1599. Van Dam v. Tapscott, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 36, 57 N. Y. Supp. 534—197^ 740. Vandeburgh v. Broadway Ry., 29 Hun, 348, 355—1300, 1313, 1336, 1339. TABLE OF CASES. ccclxxxix [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Van Denmark v. Barous, 52 Kan. 779, 35 Pac. 798—568. Vanderbilt v. Bennett, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 193—1308, 1359. Vanderbilt v. Central R. R., 43 N. J. Eq. 669, 688, 12 Atl. 188—2432, 2453, 2470. Vanderheyden v. Mallory, 1 N. Y. 452 — 704. Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 140 N. Y. 563, 35 N. B. 932, 24 L. R. A. 548, 37 Am. St. Rep. 601—1640. Vanderveer v. Asbury Park, etc. Ry., 82 Fed. 355—1457, 2024, 2259, 2697. Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85 Va. 9, 6 S. E. 806—187, 386, 415. Van Dlemen's Land Co. v. Cockrell, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 732—299. Van Doren v. Olden, 19 N. J. Eq. 176, 97 Am. Dec. 650—1191. Van Dresser v. Oregon, etc. Nav. Co., 48 Fed. 202—1967. Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616— 2408. Van Dyck y. McQuade, 86 N. Y. 38, 47— 152, 1166, '1694. Van Dyke v. Stout, 8 N. J. Eq. 333 — 193 Vane v. Cobbold, 1 Exch. 798 (1848)— 322, 1710. Vane v. Newcombe, 132 U. S. 220, 10 Sup. Ct. 60, 33 L. Ed. 310—430, 2332, 2345, 2845. Van Gestel v. Van Gestel Electric Street Car Co. (N. Y. L. J., July S, 1890)— 133. Van Hook t. Somerville, etc. Co., 5 N. J. Eq. 137, 169—1757. Van Hook v. Whitlock, 3 Paige, 409 — 450, 454, 487. Vanhom v. Corcoran, 127 Pa. St. 255, 18 Atl. 16, 4 L. R. A. 386—497. Vanhorn v. Gilbough (Pa.), 21 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 176, note— 913. Van Home v. Newark Passenger Ry., 48 N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl. 1034— 2686. Van Hostrup v. Madison, 1 Wall. 291, 1.7 L. Ed. 538—243. Van Keuren v. Central R. R., 38 N. J. L. 165—2318. Van Kirk v. Adler, 111 Ala. 104, 20 South. 336—2268. Van Leuven v. First Nat. Bank, 54 N. Y. 671—1812. Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. J. L. 403, 20 Atl. 53—500. Van Ness v. Fisher, 5 Lans. 236—1070, 1091. Van Norman v. Central Car, etc. Co., 41 Mich> 166, 49 N. W. 925—1154. Van Norman v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 45 Mich. 204, 7 N. W. 796—991, 993, 998. Van Patten v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 81 Fed. 545—2606. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701, 712, 75 N. W. 874—15, 351, 387, 402, 404, 405, 406, 420, 421, 425, 437, 506. Van Pelt v. Strickland, 60 Kan. 584, 57 Pac. 498—479. Van Pelt v. TJ. S. Met. Spring, etc. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 325, 331—402. Van Rensselaer v. Aiken, 44 N. Y. 126 —212. Van Riper, Ex parte, 20 Wend. 614— 459, 460. Van Sandau v. Moore, 1 Russ. 441, 457 —518, 1082. Vansands v. Middlesex County Bank, 26 Conn. 144—888, 1117, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1126. Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119—67. Van Shaick v. Ramsey, 90 Hun, 550, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1006—969. Van Siclen v. Bartol, 95 Fed. 793 — 2519. Van Siclen v. Jamaica, etc. Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 61 N. Y. Supp. 210— 2820. Van Slyke v. State, 23 Wis. 655—1224. Van Steenberg v. Parsil, etc. Co., 34 Atl. 135 (N. J.)— 1638, 2325. Van Steuben v. Central R. R., 178 Pa. St. 367, 35 Atl. 992, 34 L. R. A. 577— 2569. Vantine v. Morse, 104 Mass. 275 — 999. Van Valkenburgh v. Thomasville, etc. R. R., 4 N. Y. Supp. 782—1457. Van Vleet v. Jones, 75 Hun, 340, 26 N. Y. Supp. 1082—153. Van Voorhis v. Rea, 153 Pa. St. 19, 25 Atl. 800—943. Van Wagenen v. Clark, 22 Hun, 497 — 410. Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. S. 228, 242, 6 Sup. Ct. 22, 29 L. Ed. 384—311, 1889, 1996, 2207, 2208. Van Wickle v. Camden, etc. R. R., 14 N. J. L. 162—2625. Vany v. Toledo, etc. Ry., 67 Fed. 379 — 2417. Varnum v. Hart, 119 N. Y. 101, 23 N. E. 183—1891. Varwig v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 54 Ohio St. 455, 44 N. E. 92—2698. Vatable v. New York, etc. R. R., 96 N. Y. 49, 57—303, 1395, 2512, 2526. Vatable v. New York, etc. R. R., 11 Abb. N. Cas. 133—2526. Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 288, 10 Am. Rep. 29—1418. Vaughan v. Wood, 1 M. & K. 403—973. Vaughn v. Comet, etc. Co., 21 Colo. 54, 39 Pac. 422—1578. Vaughn, etc. Co. v. Lighthouse, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 138, 71 N. Y. Supp. 799 —1681. cccxo TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Vaught V. Ohio, etc. Co., 49 S. W. 426 (Ky.)— 1745. Vaupell V. Woodward, 2 Sandf. Ch. 143 —763, 947, 976, '2116. Vawter v. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593, 602— 762. Vawter v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 14 Ind. 174 —379. Veatch v. American L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 471, 25 C. C. A. 39—2381. Veatch v. American L. & T. Co., 84 Fed. 274, 28 C. C. A. 384—2305. Veazey v. Allen, 173 N. Y. 359, 66 N. E. 103—744, 908, 1342. Veazie v. Mayo, 45 Me. 560—2602. Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156—462. Veeder v. Lima, 19 Wis. 280—249. Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295—394, 631, 634. Veeder v. Mudgett, 27 Hun, 519—481. Veiller v. Brown, 18 Hun, 571—571, 576. Venango County v. Oil City St. Ry., 3 Pa. Dist. 546—2707. Venango Nat. Bank v. Taylor, 56 Pa. St. 14—1633. " Venezuela Central Ry. v. Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. App. 99, 113, 114 (1867) — 311, 315, 321, 322, 324, 335, 336. Vennard v. McConnell, 93 Mass. 555, 562—1639. Venner v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 28 Fed. 581, 584, 589, 591—107, 682, 1029, 1030, 1894, 1895, 2554. Venner v. Denver, etc. Co., 15 Colo. App. 495, 63 Pac. 1061—1954, 2248, 2280, 2290. Venner v. Farmers', etc. T. Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 271, 66 N. Y. Supp. 773 —1894. Venner v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 90 Fed. 348,- 33 C. C. A. 688—2058, 2339, 2539. Venner v. Fitzgerald, 91 Fed. 335— 2518. Venner Co. v. United States, etc. Corp., 116 Fed. 1012—674, 1037. Vent V. Duluth, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 307, 67 N. W. 70—181, 233, 351, 671. Ventura, etc. Ry. v. Collins, 46 Pac. 287 (Cal.)— 177, 211. Ventura, etc. Ry. v. Hartman, 116 Cal. 260, 48 Pac, 65—271, 361. Vercoutere v^ Golden State Land Co., 116 Cal. 410, 48 Pac. 375—18, 351, 670. Vermilye v. Adams Exp. Co., 21 Wall. 138, 22 L. Ed. 609—914, 2045. Vermllyea v. Fulton Bank, 1 Paige, 37—1111, 1940. Vermilye's Case, 43 N. J. Eq. 146, 10 Atl. 605—911. Vermont Central R. R. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30—84, 86, 354. Vermont, etc. Co. v. Declez, etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579, 67 Pac. 1057, 56 L. R. A. 728, 87 Am. St. Rep. 143—114, 169, 560, 856. Vermont, etc. R. R. v. Vermont Cent. R. R., 34 Vt. 1, 46—1042, 2318, 2328. 2572. Vermont, etc. R. R. v. Vermont Cent. R. R., 46 Vt. 792—2385, 2387, 2428. Vermont, etc. R. R. v. Vermont, etc. R. R., 50 Vt. 500, 557, 558, 594—2280, 2387, 2463, 2494. Verner v. General, etc. Trust (1894), 2 Ch. 239, 266—1170, 1172. Vernon, In re, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 202, 40 Atl. 60—1314. Vernon v. Manhattan Co.,. 17 Wend. 524—1845. Vernon v. Manhattan Co., 22 Wend. 183—1845. Vernon Soc. v. Hills, 6 Cow. 23, 16 Am. Dec. 429—389, 1737. Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 1 Edw. Ch. 84—674, 1387, 1924. Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins Co., 2 Paige, 438—1936, 1947. Vestry, etc. v. County of London, etc. Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 474—2730. Veuve Monier, etc. Co., In re (1896), 2 Ch. 525—536. Vica, etc. R, R. v. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 560, 24 Pac. 145—1808. Vick V. Lane, 56 Miss. 681—406, 407. Vick V. La Rochelle, 57 Miss. 602—348. Vickers, Ex parte, 56 L. T. Rep. 815 (1887)— 315. Vicksburg, etc. Co. v. Citizens' Tel. Co., 79 Miss. 341, 30 South. 725, 89 Am. St. Rep. 656—1571. Vicksburg, etc. Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65, 22 Sup. Ct. 585, 46 L. Ed. 808 —2618, 2762. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. McCutchen, 52 Miss. 645—2600. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. McKean, 12 La. An. 638—314, 354, 372. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. McKeen, 14 La. An. 724—555. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, 7 Sup. Ct. 172, 30 L. Ed. 2QQ 1831 Victor, etc. Co. v. Bloede, 84 Md. 129, 34 Atl. 1127, 33 L. R. A. 107, 57 Am. St. Rep. 373—1356. Victor, etc. Co. v. National Bank, 15 Utah, 391, 49 Pac. 826—1838. Victor G. Bloede Co. etc. v. Joseph Bancroft, etc. Co., 98 Fed. 175—1108. Victoria, etc. Co. v. Eraser, 2 Colo. App. 14, 29 Pac. 667—1793. Victoria Steamboats, In re (1897), 1 Ch. 158—2098, 2375. , Vidal V. Girard, 2 How. 127, 187, 11 L. Ed. 205—1591, 1664. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Vigers v. Pike, 8 CI. & F. 562, 650 (1840)— 1860. Vlgllancla, The, 68 Fed. 781—2005, 2140. Vila V. Grand Island, etc. Co., 94 N. W. 136 (Neb.)— 2379. Vilas V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 17 Wis. 497—2119, 2530. VUas V. Page, 106 N. Y. 439, 465, 13 N. B. 743—1582, 1841, 2151, 2338, 2456, 2459, 2469, 2530. Vilas V. Reynolds, 6 Wis. 214—1814. Vimbos Limited, In re (1900), 1 Ch. 470—2472. Vinal V. Continental, etc. Co., 32 Fed. 345—1442. Vinas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 27 La. An. 367—70, 72. Vincent v. Bamford, 1 Jones & S. 506, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 252—429. Vincent v. Snoqualmie Mill Co., 7 Wash. 566, 35 Pac. 396—1643, 2145. Vinton's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 434, 44 Am. Rep. 116—1190. Virginia Development Co. v. Crozer Iron Co., 90 Va. 126, 17 S. E. 806, 44 Am. St. Rep. 893—2336. Virginia, etc. Co. v. Bristol Land Co., 88 Fed. 134—2343, 2421. Virginia, etc. Co. v. Central R. R. etc. Co., 170 U. S. 355, 18 Sup. Ct. 657, 42 L. Ed. 1068—2355. Virginia, etc. Co. v. Hale, 93 Ala. 542, 9 South. 256—1110. Virginia, etc. Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 12 N. T. Supp. 529—2012. Virginia, etc. Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 Pac. 398, 37 L. R. A. 711— 2752. Virginia, etc. Nav. Co. v. United States, Taney, 418, 28 Fed. Cas. 1229—67. Virginia, etc. R. R. v. Lyon County, 6 Nev. 68—235. Virginia, etc. Ry. v. Washington, 86 Va. 629, 10 S. B. 927, 7 L. R. A. 344— 258L Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt, 90 Va. 533, 19 S. E. 168, 44 Am. St. Rep. 939— 313, 336. Visalia, etc. Co. v. Sims, 104 Cal. 326, 37 Pac. 1042, 43 Am. St. Rep. 105— 2739. Visalia, etc. R. R. v. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632, 43 Pac. 10, 52 Am. St. Rep. 136—555, 556. Vivian v. Mortlock, 21 Beav. 252 (1855) —660. Vivian & Co., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 654— 2098 Vliet v. Simanton, 63 N. J. L. 458, 43 Atl. 738—524, 1818. Voight V. Dregge, 97 Mich. 322, 56 N. W. 557—445, 569. Volger V. Ray, 131 Mass. 439—1084. VoUans v. Fletcher, 1 Bxch. 20 (1847) —199, 1709. Von Auw v. Chicago Toy, etc. Co., 70 Fed. 939—1889. Von Cotzhausen v. H. W. Johns, etc. Co., 76 N. W. 622 (Wis.)— 2591. Von Glahn v. De Rosset, 81 N. C. 467— 1448. Von Hesse v. Mackaye, 121 N. Y. 694, 24 N. B. 1099—1003, 1997. Von Hesse v. Mackaye, 55 Hun, 365, 8 N. Y. Supp. 894—1003, 1997. Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 18 L. Ed. 403—243. Von Schmidt v. Bourn, 50 Cal. 616— 1249, 1252. Von Schmidt v. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55 —407, 1090, 1385. Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wall. 16, 21 L. Ed. 268—704. Voorhees v. Indianapolis, etc. Co., 140 Ind. 220, 39 N. E. 738—2407. Voorhees v. Receiver of Bank, 19 Ohio, 463—368. Voorhis v. Terhune, 50 N. J. L. 147, 13 Atl. 391, 7 Am. St. Rep. 781—994. Vorheis v. People's, etc. Soc, 86 Mich. 31, 48 N. W. 1087—1954. Voris V. McCredy, 16 How. Pr. 87—907. Vosbeck v. Kellogg, 78 Minn. 176, 80 N. W. 957—2826. Vose V. Bronson, 6 Wall. 452, 18 L. Ed. 846—1975, 2184. Vose V. Cowdrey, 49 N. Y. 336—2513. Vose V. Florida R. R., 50 N. Y. 369— 983, 1991. Vose V. Grant, 15 Mass. 505—393, 1180. Vose V. Reed, 1 Woods, 647, 28 Fed. Cas. 1298—2365. Vought V. Columbus, etc. R. R., 58 Ohio St. 123, 50 N. B. 442—2638. Vought V. Eastern Bldg. etc. Assoc, 172 N. Y. 508, 65 N. B. 496—1604. Vowell V. Thompson, 3 Cranch, 428, 28 Fed. Cas. 1308—933, 1317. Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627 —505. Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., 29 N. J. Bq. 188—179, 311, 328, 331. Vulcan Iron Works, In re, Law Times (1885), 61—163, 173. "W. Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Central T. Co., 22 Fed. 138, 142—2214, 2219, 2242. Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Central Trust Co., 22 Fed. 269—2438. Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Central Trust Co., 22 Fed. 272—2376, 2388. Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Central T. Co., 23 Fed. 513—2203, 2220, 2376. CCOXCll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Ham, 114 U. S. 587, 5 Sup. Ct. 1081, 29 L. Ed. 235—1586, 1587, 1983, 2117, 2586. Wabash, etc. Ry. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 7 Sup. Ct. 4, 30 L. Ed. 244—2613. Wabash, etc. R. R. v. Jaggerman, 115 111. 407, 4 N. B. 641—2644. Wabash, etc. R. R. v. Peyton, 106 111. 534, 46 Am. Rep. 705—2582. Wabash R. R. v. Dyketaan, 133 Ind. 56, 32 N. E. 823—2383. Wabash R. R. v. Hannahan, 121 Fed. 563—2624. Wachovia L. & T. Co. v. Forbes, 120 N. C. 355, 27 S. E. 43—790, 990. Waehsmuth v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 96 Mich. 426, 56 N. W. 9, 21 L. R. A. 278—74. Waco, etc. R. R. v. Shirley, 45 Tex. 355 —2123. Waddell-Entz Co., In re, 67 Conn. 324, 35 Atl. 257—1634, 1987, 1989. Waddill V. Alabama, etc. R. R., 35 Ala. 323—1625. Waddy, etc. Co. v. Davis, etc. Co., 103 Ky. 579, 45 S. W. 895—216, 2333. Wade V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 149 XT. S. 327, 13 Sup. Ct. 892, 37 L. Ed. 755— 1990, 2330. Wadesboro, etc. Co. v. Burns, 114 N. C. 353, 19 S. E. 238—368. Wadsworth v. Duncan, 164 111. 360, 45 N. E. 132—1084, 1359. Wadsworth v. Laurie, 164 111. 42, 45 N. E. 435—530, 549, 1084, 1359. Wadsworth v. St. Croix County, 4 Fed. 378—263. Wadsworth v. Supervisors, 102 TJ. S. 534, 26 L. Ed. 221—254. Wagar v. Stone, 36 Mich. 364—2369. Wager v. Troy, etc. R. R., 25 N. Y. 526 —2797, 2798. Waggaman v. Nutt, 88 Md. 265, 41 Atl. 154—741, 1366. Waggoner, etc. Co. v. Ziegler, etc. Co., 128 Mo. 473, 31 S. W. 28—1658. Wagner v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 58 Pac. 1018 (Kan.)— 2588. Wagner v. Brinkerhoff, 123 Ala. 516, 26 South: 117—1813. Wagner v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R., 69 N. Y. App. Dlv. 349, 74 N. Y. Supp. 809— 2832. Wagner v. Hildebrand, 187 Pa. St. 136, 41 Atl. 34—770. Wagner v. Marple, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 505, 31 S. W. 691—937, 1571. Wagner v. Swift's, etc. Works, 26 S. W. 720 (Ky.)— 2286. Wagner Free Institute v. Philadelphia, 132 Pa. St. 612, 19 Atl. 297, 19 Am. St. Rep. 613—1038, 1236. Wagoner v. Loomis, 37 Ohio St. 571 — 1227. Wagstaff V. Wagstaff, L. R. 8 Eq. 229 (1869)— 656. Wahlig V. Standard, etc. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 739—1783. Wainwright v. Tiffiny, 13 N. Y. Civ. Pro. 222—1112. Wainwright v. Weske, 82 Cal. 193, 23 Pac. 12—815. Wait V. Nashua, etc. Assoc, 66 N. H. 581, 23 Atl. 77, 14 L. R. A. 356, 49 Am. St. Rep. 630—1769. Wait V. Smith, 92 111. 385—21. Waite V. Combes, 5 De G. & S. 676 (1852)— 657. Waite V. Dowley, 94 U. S. 527, 24 L. Ed. 181—1221. Waite V. Mining Co., 36 Vt. 18—1736. Waite V. Whorwood, 2 Atk. 159—718. Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 N. Y. 213, 217— 429, 430, 431, 540, 549, 554. Wakefield Bank v. Truesdell, 55 Barb. 602—1787. Wakefield, etc. Co., In re (1892), 3 Ch. 165—1440. Wakefield, etc. Co. v. New England T. Co., 175 Mass. 478. 56 N. E. 703—, 2004, 2174, 2513. Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27, 30, 35, 10 Am. Rep. 551—521, 805. Wakeman v. Wheeler, etc. Mfg. Co., 101 N. Y. 205, 4 N. E. 264, 54 Am. Rep. 676—2657. Wakeman v. Wilbur, 147 N. Y. 657, 42 N. E. 341—2694. Walburn v. Chenault, 43 Kan. 352, 23 Pac. 657—136. Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 M. & K. 61 (1832)— 1076. Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 Myl. & K. 61 (1833)— 1107, 1108. Waldele v. New York C. etc. R. R., 95 N. Y. 274, 47 Am. Rep. 41—1830. Walden Nat. Bank v. Birch, 130 N. Y. 221, 29 N. E. 127, 14 L. R. A. 211— 678. Waldo V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 14 Wis. 575—316, 327. Waldoborough v. Knox, etc. R. R., 84 Me. 469, 24 Atl. 942—2555. Wales v. Pacific, etc. Co., 130 Cal. 521, 62 Pac. 932, 1120—2827. Wales V. Stetson, 2 Mass. 143, 3 Am. Dec. 39—1022. Walker v. Anglo-American, etc. Co., 72 Hun, 334, 341, 25 N. Y. Supp. 432— 322, 784, 1478. Walker v. Bamberger, 17 Utah, 239, 54 Pac. 108—738, 862. Walker v. Bartlett, 18 C. B. 845 (1856) —574, 767. Walker v. Bartlett, 36 Eng. L. & Bq. 369 (1856)— 847. Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14, 8 Am. Rep. 24, 1 Cin. 121—248, 251, 252. TABLE OP CASES. CCCXClll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Walker v. Continental Ins. Co., 2 Utah, 231—1955. Walker v. Grain, 17 Barb. 119, 131— 404. Walker v. Detroit Transit Ry., 47 Mich. 338, 347, 11 N. W. 187—51, 694, 849, 867, 889. Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 — 191, 192, 203, 1325. Walker v. Elmore's, etc. Co., 85 L. T. Rep. 767—2132. Walker v. Flemming, 70 N. C. 483— 1736. Walker v. Granite Bank, 19 Abb. Pr. 111—1113. Walker v. Granite Bank, 44 Barb. 39— 1107. Walker v. Johnson, 17 App. Gas. Dist. of Col. 144—20, 1305. Walker v. Joseph, etc. Co., 47 N. J. Eg. 342, 20 Atl. 885—544, 662, 704. Walker v. Lewis, 49 Tex. 123—427, 518. Walker v. Mackie, 4 Russ. Ch. 76 (1827)— 659. Walker v. Mad River, etc. R. R., 8 Ohio, 38—1622. Walker v. Miller, 59 Fed. 869, 8 C. C. A. 331—1632. Walker v. Milne, 11 Beav. 507 (1849) — 44. Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 34 Miss. 245—210, 319, 324. Walker v. Ogden, 1 Hiss. 287, 29 Fed. Cas. 41 (1859)^300, 303. Walker v. People, 192 111. 106, 61 N. E. 489—1244, 1259. Walker v. Quincy, etc. Ry., 28 Fed. 734 —2474. Walker v. Southeastern Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 (1870)— 71, 75. Walker v. Springfield, 94 111. 364—1672. Walker v. Wait, 50 Vt. 668—1091. Walker v. Walker, 68 N. H. 407, 39 Atl. 432—1191, 1199. Walker v. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 26 S. C. 80, 1 S. E. 366—1798, 1825. Walker's Case, 8 De G., M. & G. 607 (1856)— 1616. Walker's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 30—571. Wall V. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 95 Fed. 398, 37 C. C. A. 129—1952. Wall V. London, etc. Corporation (1899), 1 Ch. 550—1299. Wall V. London, etc. Corporation (1898), 2 Ch. 469—1295, 1296, 2588. Wall V. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 168 Mass. 282, 46 N. B. 1062—774. Wall V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27, 62 Pac. 386— 1080, 1422. " Wall V. Niagara, etc. Co., 20 Utah, 474, 59 Pac. 399—1716. Wall V. Old Colony, etc. Trust Co., 174 Mass. 340, 54 N. E. 846—706, 795, 1254. Wall V. Schneider, 59 Wis. 352, 18 N. W. 443, 48 Am. Rep. 520—770, 776. Wall V. Thomas, 41 Fed. 620—1057. Wall V. Tomlinson, 16 Ves. Jr. 413 (1810)— 704. Wall V. Young, 54 N. J. Bq. 24, 33 Atl. 526—2488. Wallace v. Ann Arbor, etc. Ry., 121 Mich. 588, 80 N. W. 572—1579, 2557, 2580, 2714. Wallace v. Bacon, 86 Fed. 553—339, 815. Wallace v. Berdell, 24 Hun, 379—979. Wallace v. Carpenter Electric, etc. Co., 70 Minn. 321, 73 N. W. 189, 68 Am. St. Rep. 530—159. Wallace "v. First Parish, etc., 109 Mass. 263—1760. Wallace v. Hood, 89 Fed. 11—339, 489, 678, 803. Wallace v. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 89 Tenn. 630, 15 S. W. 448, 24 Am. St. Rep. 625 —1691, 1842, 1861, 1878, 1908, 1909. Wallace v. Long Island R. R., 12 Hun, 460—1516, 2566, 2577. Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146, 154, 24 L. Ed. 895—6, 63, 1419, 2076, 2366, 2458. Wallace t. Oceanic, etc. Co., 25 Wash. 143, 64 Pac. 938—1460. Wallace v. Pierce- Wallace, etc. Co., 101 Iowa, 313, 70 N. W. 216, 38 L. R. A. 122, 63 Am. St. Rep. 389—1387, 1920. Wallace v. Townsend, 43 Ohio St. 537, 3 N. B. 601, 54 Am. Rep. 829—196, 346. Wallace v. Walsh, 125 N. Y. 26, 36, 25 N. E. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 166—24, 1380, 1738, 1745, 1754. Wallachs v. Robinson, etc. Co., 50 Neb. 469, 70 N. W. 52—1637. Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Wa- ter Co., 172 U. S. 1, 19 Sup. Ct. 77, 43 L. Ed. 341—1959, 2760, 2762, 2764. Walla Walla Water Co. v. Walla Walla, 60 Fed. 957—2762. Waller v. Bank of Kentucky, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 201—1801. Waller v. Hamer, 69 Pac. 185 (Kan.)— 454. Waller v. State, 144 N. Y. 579, 39 N. E. 680—2777. Waller v. Thomas, 42 How. Pr. 337— 1071. Wallerstein v. Brvin, 112 Fed. 124, 50 C. C. A. 129—1589. Walling V. Miller, 108 N. Y. 173, 15 N. B. 65, 2 Am. St. Rep. 400—2396. Wallingford Mfg. Co. v. Fox, 12 Vt. 304—216, 277. Walls V. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464, 10 Am. Rep. 407—914. Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Myl. & C. 619 (1840)— 1875, 1934. CCCXOIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Walmsley v. Rent Guarantee Co., 29 Grant Ch. (Can.) 484 (1881)— 1607. Walnut V. Wade, 103 U. S. 683, 26 L. Ed. 526—259, 261, 262, 2055, 2062, 2064. Walradt v. Maynard, 3 Barb. 584—1154. Walsenburg Water Co. v. Moore, 5 Colo. App. 144," 38 Pac. 60—1380, 1722. Walser v. Memphis, etc. R. R., 19 Fed. 152—406. Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. 415, 21 Blatcht 130—395, 396, 406. Walsh V. Barton, 24 Ohio St. 28, 41— 1809, 2316, 2319. Walsh V. Goulden, 90 N. W. 406 (Mich.)— 708. Walsh V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 6 Fed. 797—406. Walsh V. Memphis, etc. R. R., 2 Mc- Crary, 156—406. Walsh V. New York, etc. Bridge, 96 N. Y. 427—3. Walsh V. Press Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 333, 62 N. Y. Supp 833—1096, 1109, 1927. Walsh V. Seager, 1 N. Y. St. 189— 327. Walsh V. Sexton, 55 Barb. 251—663. Walsh V. Stille, 2 Pars. Sel. Cas. (Pa.) 17—721, 723. Walsh V. Union Bank, 5 Quebec L. R. 298 (1879)— 581. Walstab v. Spottiswoode, 15 M. & W. 501 (1846)— 1709. Walter v. Merced, etc. Assoc, 126 Cal. 582, 59 Pac. 136—178, 384, 405. Walter A. Wood, etc. Co. v. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270, 271, 23 Am. Rep. 641— 1678, 1679. Walter, etc. Co. v. Jefferson, 57 Minn. 456, 59 N. W. 532—381. Walter, etc. Co. v. Robbins, 56 Minn. 48, 57 N. W. 317—287, 379. Walters v. Anglo-American, etc. Co., 50 Fed. 316—2377, 2384, 2491, 2494. Walters v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 104 Fed. 377—1542, 1567, 1962, 2560, 2652. Walters v. Comer, 79 Ga. 796, 5 S. E. 292—781. Walters v. Western, etc. R. R., 68 Fed. 1002—2343. Walters v. Western, etc. R. R., 69 Fed. 706—2475. Walters's Case, 3 -De G. & Sm. 149 (1850)— 563, 856. Walters's Second Case, 3 Be G. & Sm. 244 (1850)— 294, 545, 546, 668. Waltham Bank v. Waltham, 51 Mass. 334—1206. Walton, Ex parte, 26 L. J. (Ch.) 545 (1857)— 857. Walton V. Coe, 110 N. Y. 109, 17 N. E. 676—447, 450. Walton V. Grand, etc. Co., 56 Hun, 211 9 N. Y. S. 375—2463. Walton V. Oliver, 49 Kan. 107, 30 Pac. 172, 33 Am. St. Rep. 355—523. Walton V. Riley, 85 Ky. 413, 421, 3 S. W. 605—500, 1423, 1425. Walton V. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. 258, 11 Am. Dec. 456—652, 653, 661. Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98— 369, 1273. Walworth, etc. Bank v. Farmers', etc. Trust Co., 14 Wis. 325—1770. Walworth, etc. Bank v. Farmers', etc. Co., 16 Wis. 629—1781. Wamsley v. H. L. Horton Co., 77 Hun, 317; 28 N. Y. Supp. 423—742. Wamsley v. Horton, 12 N. Y. App. Div. 312, 42 N. Y. Supp. 767—1446. Wamsley v. Horton, 153 N. Y. 687, 48 N. E. 1107—1446. Wandsworth Board, etc. v. United Tele- phone Co., L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 904— 2814. Wandsworth, etc. Co. v. Wright, 18 W. R. 728 (1870)— 1333. Wangerien v. Aspell, 47 Ohio St. 250, 24 N. E. 405—349. Wanneker v. Hitchcock, 38 Fed. 383 — 1314, 1319. Wannell v. Kern, 57 Mo. 478—790. Wapello County v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 44 Iowa, 585—245, 267. Ward T. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co., 71 N. Y. 81, 27 Am. Rep. 10—2825. Ward V. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24—1709. Ward T. Connecticut, etc. Co., 71 Conn. 345, 41 Atl. 1057, 42 L. R. A. 706, 71 Am. St. Rep. 207—2428. Ward V. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445, 1 S. W. 846—1507, 1517, 1518. Ward V. Davis, 3 Sandf. 502—1078. Ward V. Farwell, 97 111. 593—1399, 1400, 2747. Ward V. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 593—274, 275, 366, 401, 409. Ward V. Johnson, 95 111. 215—1599, 2099 Ward V. Joslin, 186 U. S. 142, 22 Sup. Ct. 807, 46 L. Ed. 1093—474, 489, 1619, 2081. Ward V. Joslin, 100 Fed. 676—474, 489, 576, 2081. Ward V. Joslin, 105 Fed. 224, 44 C. C. A. 456—1619. Ward V. K-itchep, 30 N. J. Eq. 31—715, 718. Ward V. Londesborough, 12 C. B. 252 (1852)— 199, 1709. Ward V. Pacific, etc. Co., 135 Cal. 235, 67 Pac. 124—2398. Ward V. Royal Exchange, etc. Co., 58 L. T. Rep. 174 (1887)— 2095. Ward V. Salem St. Ry., 108 Mass. 332— 1483. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Ward V. San Diego, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 665—2406, 2617, 2768. "Ward V. Sea Ins. Co., 7 Paige, 294 — 1386, 1389. Ward V. Sittingbourne, etc. Ry., L. R. 9 Ch. 488 (1874)— 1175, 1178, 1901. Ward V. Society, etc., 28 Eng. Ch. (1 Collier) 370 (1844)— 1385. Ward V. Society of Attornies, 1 Coll. 370 (1844)— 1386. Ward V. Southeastern Ry., 2 El. & El. 812 (I860)— 703, 863. Ward V. Trimble, 44 S. W. 450 (Ky.) — 800. Ward V. Van Duser, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 162—910. Ward V. Vosburgh, 31 Fed. 12—769, 772, 776, 777. Ward and Garfit's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 189 (1867)- 565. Wards, In re, 2 Johns. & H. 191—718. Warden v. Union, etc. R. R., 103 U. S. 651, 26 L. Ed. 509—1457, 1463, 1523, 2029, 2263. Warden v. Union, etc. R. R., 4 DUl. 330, 29 Fed. Cas. 211—2029. Wardner, etc. Co. v. Jack, 82 Iowa, 435, 48 N. W. 729—497, 1600. Wardrobe v. California Stage Co., 7 Cal. 118, 68 Am. Dec. 231—77. Ward's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 226 (1866)— 565. Ward's Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 659 (1870) — 190. Ware v. Bazemore, 58 Ga. 316 — 1904. W^are v. Galveston City Co., 146 U. S. 102, 13 Sup. Ct. 33, 36 L. Ed. 904— 710, 870. Ware v. Grand Junction Water Works, 2 Russ. & M. 470 (1831)— 1041. Ware v. Hamilton, etc. Co., 92 Ala. 145, 9 South. 136—1682. Ware v. Hooper, 98 Fed. 160—931. Ware v. McCandlish, 11 Leigh (Va.), 595 (1841)— 1196. Warfield v. Marshall, etc. Co., 72 Iowa, 666, 34 N. W. 467, 2 Am. St. Rep. 263 —1516, 1645, 1973. Waring v. Cahawba Co., 2 Bay (S. C), 109—36. Warner, In re, 82 Mich. 624, 47 N. W. 102—1577. Warner v. Bates, 75 Wis. 278, 43 N. W. 957—805. Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103, 123, 124—2, 1081. Warner t. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N. W. 179—783, 1267. Warner v. Callender, 20 Ohio St. 190 — 402, 405, 456. Warner v. Hopkins, 111 Pa. St. 328, 2 Atl. 83, 56 Am. Rep. 266—1685, 1889, 2404. Warner v. Imbeau, 63 Kan. 415, 65 Pac. 648—2430. Warner v. McMullin, 131 Pa. St. 370; 18 Atl. 1056—1877. Warner v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 112 Fed. 114—73, 1797. Warner v. Mower, 11 Vt. 385, 390, 393— 1275, 1277, 1279, 1287, 1643, 1822. Warner v. Penoyer, 82 Fed. 181—1691. Warner v. Penoyer, 91 Fed. 587, 33 C. C. A. 222, 44 L. R. A. 761—1688. Warner v. Rising Fawn Iron Co., 3 Woods, 514, 29 Fed. Cas. 261—2060, 2063, 2065, 2365. Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775, 26 L. Ed. 924—2746. Warren v. Bigelow Blue Stone Co., 74 Hun. 304, 26 N. Y. Supp. 649—1734, 1859. Warren v. Brandon Mfg. Co., cited in Cheever v. Meyer, 52 Vt. 75—1017. Warren v. Davenport F. Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 464, 7 Am. Rep. 160—39. Warren v. First Nat. Bank, 149 111. 9, 38 N. B. 122, 25 L. R. A. 746—1634. Warren v. Hewitt, 45 Ga. 501—778. Warren v. King, 108 U. S. 389, 2 Sup. Ct. 789, 27 L. Ed. 769—596, 597, 1166. Warren v. Ocean Ins. Co., 16 Me. 439, 33 Am. Dec. 674—1739. Warren v. Para Rubber Shoe Co., 166 Mass. 97, 44 N. E. 112—1856, 1912, 1913. Warren v. Postlethwaite, 2 Coll. Ch. 116 (1845)— 659. Warren v. Robinson, 70 Pac. 989 (Utah)— 1851. Warren v. Robinson, 19 Utah, 289, 57 Pac. 287, 75 Am. St. Rep. 734-1694. Warren Gaslight Co. v. Pennsylvania Gas Co., 161 Pa. St. 510, 29 Atl. 101— 2737. Warren Mfg. Co. v. ^tna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501, 29 Fed. Cas. 294—1676. Warren's Estate, In re, 11 N. Y. Supp. 787—1191. Warrington v. Ball, 90 Fed. 464, 33 C. C. A. 609—472. Warsaw, etc. Co. v. Village of Warsaw, 161 N. Y. 176, 55 N. E. 486—2761. Warwick R. R. v. Cady, 11 R. I. 131— 358, 366. Wasatch Min. Co. v. Jennings, 5 Utah, 243, "385, 15 Pac. 243—1453, 1493. Waseca Co. Bank v. McKenna, 32 Minn. 468, 21 N. W. 556—1228. Washburn v. Interstate Inv. Co., 26 Oreg. 436, 36 Pac. 533, 38 Pac. 620— 225. Washburn v. National, etc. Co., 81 Fed. 17, 26 C. C. A. 312—84, 104. Washburn Mill Co. v. Bartlett, 3 N. D. 138, 54 N. W. 544—1679. CCCXCVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Washington v. Emery, 4 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 32—716, 717. Washington v. Northern Securities Co>, 185 U. S. 254, 22 Sup. Ct. 623, 46 L. Ed. 897—696. Washington v. Raleigh, etc. R. R., 101 N. C. 239, 7 S. E. 789, 1 L. R. A. 830— 2641. Washington Bank v. Lewis, 39 Mass. 24 —1732, 1840. Washington Bank v. Palmer, 2 Sandf. Super. Ct. 686—39. Washington Ben. Soc. v. Bacher, 20 Pa. St. 425—1075. Washington Bridge Co. v. State, 18 Conn. 53—2724. Washington, etc. Assoc, v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319, 63 Pac. 489, 58 L. R. A. 816, 84 Am. St. Rep. 793—1419. Washington, etc. Bank v. Fletcher, 55 N. Y. App. Dlv. 580, 67 N. Y. Supp. 365—2519. Washington, etc. Co., In re (1893), 3 Ch. 95—1650. Washington, etc. Co. v. Alladio Cafe Co., 68 Pac. 444 (Wash.)— 1643. Washington, etc. Co. v. California, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 20, 52 C. C. A. 614— 2535. Washington, etc. Co. v. Dimmick, etc., 41 N. Y. App. Div. 596, 58 N. Y. Supp. 682—1332. Washington, etc. R. R., In re, 115 N. Y. 442, 22 N. E. 356—2659, 2700. Washington, etc. R. R. v. Alexandria, etc. R. R., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 592, 616, 622, 100 Am. Dec. 710—2180, 2192, 2501. Washington, etc. R. R. v. Southern, etc. R. R., 55 Md. 153—2284, 2491. Washington, etc. T. Co. v. State, 19 Md. 239—1399, 2753. Washington Gas L. Co. v. Lansden, 172 U. S. 534, 19 Sup. Ct. 296, 43 L. Ed. 543—1791. Washington Ins. Co. v. Price, 1 Hopk. Ch. 1 (1823)— 41. Washington Mill Co. v. Sprague Lum- ber Co., 52 Pac. 1067 (Wash.)— 2014. Washington Nat. Bank v. Pierce, 6 Wash. 491, 33 Pac. 972, 36 Am. St. Rep. 174—1837. Washington Sav. Bank v. Butchers', etc. Bank, 130 Mo. 155, 31 S. W. 761 —383, 544. Washington Turnpike v. Cullen, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 517, 521—1820. Wasmer v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 80 N. Y. 212, 36 Am. Rep. 608—2582. Wason V. Buzzell, 63 N. E. 909 (Mass.) —1332, 1873. Wasson v. Indianapolis Nat. Bank, 107 Ind. 206, 8 N. B. 97—1221, 1223, 1225. Waterbury, In re, 8 Paige, 380 — 1946. Waterbury v. Merchants' Union Exp. Co., 50 Barb. 157, 177—1069, 1082, 1089, 1091, 1387, 1892, 1918. Waterford, etc. Ry. v. Dalbiac, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 455 (1851)— 362. Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149, 19i L. K. A. 403—2624. Waterhouse v. Jamieson, L. R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 29, 37 (1870)— 121, 169, 171. Waterhouse v. London, etc. Hy., 41 L. T. Rep. 553 (1879)— 640, 835. Waterlow v. Sharp, L. R. 8 Eq. 501 (1869)— 1980. Waterman v. Buckland, 1 Mo. App. 45- —769. Waterman v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 189' 111. 658, 29 N. E. 689, 15 L. R. A. 418, 32 Am. St. Rep. 228—1502, 1752. Waterman v. Sprague Mfg. Co., 55 Conn. 554, 12 Atl. 240—1634. Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R., 74 Mass. 433—607, 608. Waters v. Gilbert, 56 Mass. 27—1757. Waters v. Union T. Co., 89 N. W. 687 (Mich.)— 212. Waters, etc. Oil Co. v. State, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 1, 44 S. W. 936—1055. Waters-Pierce, etc. Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 20 Sup. Ct. 518, 44 L. Ed. 657— 1060, 1672. Watertown Nat. Bank v. Landon, 45 N. Y. 410—1083. Water Valley Mfg. Co. v. Seaman, 53; Miss. 655—299, 317, 354. Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364—2627. Watjen v. Green, 48 N. J. Eq. 322, 21 Atl. 1028—272, 1981. Watkin v. West Philadelphia Pass. Ry., 1 Pa. Dist. 463—2693, 2704. Watkins, Ex parte, 1 Mont. & A. 689; 2 Mont. & A. 348 (1835)— 550. Watkins v. Dorsett, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 530—993. Watkins v. Eames, 63 Mass. 537—212. Watkins v. Lawrence Nat. Bank, 51 Kan. 254, 32 Pac. 914—1390, 2374. Watkins v. North American, etc. Co., 31 South. 683 (La.)— 1872, 1923. Watkins v. Watkins, etc. Co., 11 N. Y. App. Div. 517, 43 N. Y. Supp. 41— 1877. Watkins, etc. Co. v. Elliott, 62 Pac. 1004, 84 Am. St. Rep. 385 (Kan.)— 1961. Watson V. Albany, etc. Ry., Ill Ga. 10, 36 S. E. 324—1426. Watson V. Bennett, 12 Barb. 196—1802. Watson V. Bonfils, 116 Fed. 157, 53 C. C. A. 535—685, 1539, 1543, 1727. Watson V. City of Huron, 97 Fed. 449, 38 C. C. A. 264—883. Watson V. Eales, 23 Beav. 294 (1856> —298, 557. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXCVll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Watson V. Earl Charlemont, 12 Q. B. 856 (1848)— 331. Watson V. Pairnaont, etc. Ry., 49 W. Va. 528, 39 S. B. 193—2663, 2694. Watson V. Le Grand, etc. Co., 177 111. 203, 52 N. B. 317—1391, 1411, 1892. Watson V. Miller, 11 W. N. 18 (1876) —915. Watson V. Spratley, 28 Bng. L. & Eq. 507 (1854)— 44, 45. Watson V. Spratley, 10 Exch. 222 (1854)- 767, 1079. Watson V. U. S. Sugar Ref., 68 Fed. 769, 15 C. C. A. 662—1901. Watson Seminary v. Pike Co. Court, 149 Mo. 5t 50 S. W. 880, 45 L. R. A. 675—6, 1039. Watt V. Railroad, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 418 —2205. Watterson v. Masterson, 15 Wash. 511, 46 Pac. 1041—440. Watts V. Bucknall, 87 L. T. Rep. 428 (1902)— 315, 318. Watts V. Equitable, etc. Assoc, 82 N. W. 441 (Iowa)— 1601, 2744. Watts V. Gantt, 42 Neb. 869, 61 N. W. 104-1663. Watts V. Salter, 10 C. B. 477 (1850) — 362, 1710. Watts V. Southern Bell, etc. Co., 40 S. E. 107 (Va.)— 2824. Watts V. Stevenson, 165 Mass. 518, 43 N. E. 497—787. Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370—202, 1605, 1689, 1861, 1864, 2108. Waugh V. Beck, 114 Pa. St. 422, 6 Atl. 923, 60 Am. Rep. 354—780. Waukon, etc. R. R. v. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121—211, 272. Wausau, etc. Co. v. Plumer, 35 Wis. 274 —37. Waverley, etc. Lim., In re (1898), 1 Ch. 699—2354. Way V. American, etc. Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 263, 47 Atl. 44—83, 112, 624, 1321, 1326, 1422. Waycross, etc. R. R. v. OfEerman, etc. R. R., 109 Ga. 827, 35 S. E. 275—1538. Waymlre v. San Francisco, etc. Ry., 112 Cal. 646, 44 Pac. 1086—2269, 2276. Wayne, etc. Co. v. Schuylkill, etc. Ry., 191 Pa. St. 90, 43 Atl. 135—1786. Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons, 129 Ind. 368, 27 N. E. 487—1509, 1910, 1924. Wayne Pike Co. v. State, 134 Ind. 672, 34 N. E. 440—1405, 2413. Waynesville Nat. Bank v. Irons, 8 Fed. 1—1837. Wear v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 24 III. 593—233, 237, 284. Weare v. Gove, 44 N. H. 196—1618. Weatherbe v. Whitney, 30 Nova Scotia, 49, 104 (1897)— 102, 332, 1701. I Weatherby v. Saxony, etc. Co., 29 Atl. 326 (N. J.)— 430. Weatherford, etc. R. R. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350, 24 S. W. 795, 40 Am. St. Rep. 837—1716, 1720. Weatherford, etc. R. R. v. Granger, 22 S. W. 70 (Tex.)— 1720. Weatherly v. Capital, etc. Co., 115 Ala. 156, 22 South. 140—1435, 2774. Weaver v. Harden, 49 N. Y. 286, 288— 796, 883, 889. Weaver v. Cone, 174 Pa. St. 104, 34 Atl. 551—786, 807. Weaver v. Field, 16 Fed. 22, 4 Woods, 152—2221. Weaver v. Huntingdon, etc. Coal Co., 50 Pa. St. 314—996. Weaver v. Kelly, 92 Fed. 417, 34 C. C. A. 423—2400. Weaver v. Shriver, 79 Md. 530, 30 Atl. 189—794, 1266. Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 77 Md. 92, 26 Atl. 113, 39 Am. St. Rep. 396— 235, 240, 353, 379, 380, 763. Webb V. Burlington, 28 Vt. 188—1200, 1208. Webb V. Challoner, 2 Fost. & F. 120 (I860)— 907. Webb V. Barle, L. R. 20 Eq. 556 (1875) —591, 604. Webb V. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 11 S. C. 396, 32 Am. Rep. 479—724, 727. Webb V. Heme Bay Com'rs, L. R. 5 Q. B. 642 (1870)— 1627, 1820, 2095. Webb V. Lafayette County, 67 Mo. 353 —261. Webb V. London, etc. Ry., 1 De G., M. & G. 521 (1852), 9 Hare, 129—1701. Webb V. Ridgely, 38 Md. 364—1349. Webb V. Rockefeller, 71 Pac. 283 (Kan.)— 1492, 1650, 2157. Webb V. Shropshire Ry. (1893), 3 Ch. 307—162, 1739, 2005. Webb V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 9 Fed. 793, 20 Blatchf. 218—2197. Webb V. Weatherhead, 17 How. 576, 15 L. Ed. 35—1079. Webber v. Hovey, 108 Mich. 49, 65 N. W. 619—386. Webber v. Townley, 43 Mich. 534, 5 N. W. 971, 38 Am. Rep. 197—1094. Weber v. Bullock, 19 Colo. 214, 35 Pac. 183—566, 1015, 1018. Weber v. Fickey, 47 Md. 196—52, 405, 441. Weber v. Fickey, 52 Md. 501, 516—307, 856. Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank, 50 Fed. 735—1972, 2080. Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 208, 12 C. C. A. 93—1972. Weber v. Supreme Tent, etc., 172 N. Y. 490, 65 N. E. 258—19. Webster v. Bowers, 104 Fed. 627—441. CCCXCVlll TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Webster v. Cambridge Female Sem- inary, 78 Md. 193, 28 Atl. 25—1030. Webster v. Grand Trunk Ry., 3 L. Can. Jur. 148 (1859); 2 L. Can. Jur. 291— 1247, 1255. Webster v. Hale, 8 Ves. Jr. 410 (1803) —653. Webster v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 116 Mo. 114, 119, 120, 22 S. W. 474—2771. Webster v. Sturges, 7 111. App. 560— 770, 778, 780. Webster v. Turner, 12 Hun, 264—1385, 1393. Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, 71, 23 L. Ed. 384—113, 169, 211, 338, 370, 416, 555, 556, 572, 857. Webster v. Whitworth, 63 S. W. 290 (Tenn.)— 1994. Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. 73, 31 Atl. 824, 28 L. R. A. 510—1667. Webster's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 741 (1866) —384. Webster's Case, 32 L. J. (Ch.) 135 (1862)— 297. Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90, 12 C. C. A. 56, 26 L. R. A. 470—523. Weckler v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Md. 581, 20 Am. Rep. 95—905. Weed V. Central, etc. Ry., 100 Fed. 162, 40 C. C. A. 319—2479. Weed V. Little Falls, etc. Co., 31 Minn. 154, 16 N. W. 851—1851. Weed V. Snow, 3 McLean, 265, 29 Fed. Cas. 572—1626, 1980. Weedon v. Granite, etc. Assoc, 59 S. W. 758 (Ky.)— 2392. Weekes v. State, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 357, 63 N. Y. Supp. 203—2780. Weekes's Case, 17 L. R. (Ir.) 239 (1885)— 667. Weeks v. Esler, 143 N. Y. 374, 38 N. E. 377—1977. Weeks v. Esler, 68 Hun, 518, 23 N. Y. Supp. 54—1977. Weeks v. Love, 50 N. Y. 568—450, 455, 491. Weeks v. Parsons, 176 Mass. 570, 58 N. E. 157—224, 1494. Weeks v. Propert, L. R. 8 C. P. 427 (1873)— 161^, 1975. Weeks v. Silver Islet, etc. Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1—289, 303, 518. Weeks v. Weeks, 106 N. Y. 626, 13 N. E. 96—2437. Weems v. Georgia, etc. R. R., 84 Ga. 356, 11 S. E. 503—318. Weems v. Georgia, etc. R. R., 88 Ga. 303, 14 S. E. 583—314. Weetjen v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 4 Hun, 529—2205, 2325. Weetjen v. Vlbbard, 5 Hun, 265—1490, 2198, 2205. Wehner v. Lagerfelt, 66 S. W. 221 (Tex.)— 2831. Wehrhane v. Nashville,* etc. R. R., 4 N. Y. St. 541—684, 1780. Wehrman v. Reakirt, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio) 230—395, 428, 445, 449, 571, 576. Weidenfeld v. Allegheny, etc. R. R., 47 Fed. 11—1903. Weidenfeld v. Sugar, etc. R. R., 48 Fed. 615—1763, 1934, 2628. Weidenger v. Spruance, 101 111. 278 — 1026. Weidon v. Brush Electric Light Co., 73 Mich. 268, 41 N. W. Rep. 269— 2836. Weigand v. Alliance Supply Co., 44 W. Va. 133, 28 S. E. 803—1395. Weight V. Liverpool, etc. Co., 30 La. Ann. 1186—1953. Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256, 26 L. Ed. 392—245, 253. Weigley v. Coal Oil Co., 5 Phila. 67— 431. Weihl V. Atlanta, etc. Co., 89 Ga. 297, 15 S. E. 282—1658, 2396. Weikersheim's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 831 (1873)— 532, 706. Weinburgh v. Union, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 640, 37 Atl. 1026—1283, 1298, 1301. Weinhard v. Commercial, etc. Bank, 68 Pac. 806 (Or.)- 443. Weinhenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325, 42 Atl. 245, 45 L. R. A. 446—1106. Weinman v. Wilkinsburg, etc. Ry., 118 Pa. St. 192, 12 Atl. 288—562. Weir v. Barnett, L. R. 3 Exch. D. 32 (1877)— 331, 807, 1616. Weir v. Barnett, L. R. 3 Exch. D. 32, 238 (1878)— 1695. Weir V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 940 —1096, 1110, 1898, 1903. Weir V. Bell, L. R. 3 Exch. D. 238 (1878)— 331, 1616. Weir V. Iron, etc. Co., 27 Colo. 385, 61 Pac. 619—2126, 2127. Weir V. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 18 Minn. 155 (Gil. 139)— 2627. Weisbrod v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 21 Wis. 602—2797. Weiscopt V. Newman, 65 S. W. 808 (Ky.)— 963. Weislger v. Richmond Ice Mach. Co., 90 Va. 795, 20 S. E. 361—813. Weismer v. Douglas, 64 N. Y. 91, 21 Am. Rep. 586—250. Weiss v. Mauch Chunk Iron Co., 58 Pa. St. 295—87, 215, 431. Weiss V. Musical, etc. Union, 189 Pa. St. 446. 42 Atl. 118, 69 Am. St. Rep. 820—1074. Welch, In re, 108 Fed. 367—2341. TABLE OF CASES. CCCXCIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Welch V. Importers', etc. Bank, 122 N. Y. 177, 25 N. E. 269—34, 501, 527, 1395, 1426, 1461, 1754, 1887, 1888, 2138. Welch V. Old Dominion, etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Supp. 174—1269, 1427, 1429, 1552. Welch V. Phelps, etc. Co., 89 Tex. 653, 36 S. W. 71—1055. Welch V. Post, 99 111. 471—242. Welch V. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143, 7 Am. Rep. 423—2044, 2046. Welch V. Sargent, 127 Cal. 72, 59 Pac. 319—381, 405, 418, 421, 422, 577, 966. Welch V. Welch, 60 S. W. 409 (Ky.) — 762, 1001. Weld V. Bangor, 59 Me. 416—1212. Weld V. Barker, 153 Pa. St. 465, 26 Atl. 239—765. Welden Nat. Bank v. Smith, 86 Fed. - 398, 30 C. C. A. 133—2087, 2209. Welfley v. Shenandoah, etc. Co., 83 Va. 768, 3 S. E. 376—63. Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 480, 24 Am. Dec. 51—1425. Weller t. Pace Tobacco Co., 25 N. Y. Week. Dig. 531—867, 1353, 1361. Weller v. Pace Tobacco Co., 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. (5 N. Y. Sup. Ct., 1888)— 1005. Wellersburg, etc. Co. v. Hoffman, 9 Md. 559—192. Wellersburg, etc. Co. v. Young, 12 Md. 476—178. Welles V. Cowels, 2 Conn. 567—44. Welles V. Graves, 41 Fed. 459—433. Welles V. Larrabee, 36 Fed. 866, 2 L. R. A. 471—530, 533. Welles V. Stout, 38 Fed. 807—480. Welling V. Ivoroyd Mfg. Co., 162 N. Y. 599, 57 N. E. 1128—1650. Welling V. Ivoroyd Mfg. Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 116, 44 N. Y. Supp. 374— 1650. Wellington, etc. R. R. v. Cashie, etc. Co., 114 N. C. 690, 19 S. E. 646—1416. Wellman v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 83 Mich. 592, 47 N. W. 489—2612, 2614. Wellman v. Howland Coal, etc. Works, 19 Fed. 51—406. Wellman, etc. v. Ciancimino, etc. Co., N. Y. L. X, May 13, 1890—1337. Wells V. Abernethy, 5 Conn. 222 — 1256. Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157, 48 Pac. 1090, 37 L. R. A. 619, 59 Am. St. Rep. 162—18, 435, 437. Wells V. Gates, 18 Barb. 554—1070, 1085, 1086. Wells V. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 442, 64 N. W. 69—31, 100, 196, 517. Wells V. McGeoch, 71 Wis.' 196, 35 N. W. 769--782. Wells V. Monihan, 129 N. Y. 161, 29 N. B. 232—1091. Wells V. Northern Pac. Ry., 23 Fed. 469, 10 Sawy. 441—2728. Wells V. Northern T. Co., 63 N. E. 136 (111.)— 107, 144, 2017, 2036, 2275,^ 2285, 2700. Wells V. Oregon, etc. Ry., 18 Fed. 667, 9 Sawy. 426—2728. Wells V. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 15 Fed. 561, 567, 8 Sawy. 600—58, 63, 2728. Wells V. Price, 56 Pac. 266 (Idaho) — 996. Wells V. Rahway, etc. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 402—1751, 1757. Wells V. Robb, 43 JKan. 201, 23 Pac. 148 ggg 1086 Wells V. Rodgers, 50 Mich. 294, 15 N. W. 462, 44 Mich. 411, 6 N. W. 860— 277, 278. Wells V. Rodgers, 60 Mich. 525, 27 N. W. 671—1286. Wells V. Southern Minn. Ry., 1 Fed. 270, 1 McCrary, 18—430, 2333. Wells V. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625, 26 L. Ed. 122—242, 246, 259. Wellsborough v. New York, etc. R. R., 76 N. Y. 182—260. Wellsborough, etc. Co. v. Griffin, 57 Pa. St. 417—2118, 2536, 2537, 2749. Wells Co. V. Avon Mills, 118 Fed. 190' —549, 1422, 1785. Wells, etc. Co. v. Enright, 127 Cal. 669, 60 Pac. 439, 49 L. R. A. 647—488, 1767. Wells, etc. Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry.,. 23 Fed. 469, 10 Sawy. 441—508. Wells, etc. Co. v. Walker, 9 New Hex. 456, 54 Pac. 875—948. Wells, etc. Co. v. Welter, 15 Nev. 276 — 906. Welsbach, etc. Co. v. New, etc. Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 1—1111. Welsh V. Borough, 186 Pa. St. 578, 40- Atl. 784—2760, 2763. Welsh V. Plumas County, 94 Cal. 368, 29 Pac. 720—10, 2748. Welsh V. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 25 Minn. 314—2061, 2062, 2063. Welton V. Saffery (1897), A. C. 299— 121, 610, 1440. Wemple v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 120 III. 196, 11 N. B. 906—379. Wenger v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 105 Fed. 796—2510. Wenger v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 114 Fed. 34, 51 C. C. A. 660—2507. Wenk V. City of New York, 171 N. Y. 607, 64 N. E. 509—2684. Wenlock v. River Dee Co.. L. R. 10- App. Cas. 354 (1885)— 1972. Wenlock v. River Dee Co., L. R. 38 Ch. D. 534 (1888)— 2095. Wenstrom, etc. Co. v. Purnell, 75 Md. 113, 23 Atl. 134—340. Wentz V. Lowe, 3 Atl. 878 (Pa.)— 497^ X3CC0 TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wenzel v. Palmetto, etc. Co., 48 S. C. 80, 26 S. B. 1—1921. Werfelman v. Manhattan R. R., 11 N. Y. Supp. 66—2798. "Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. 769—1649, 2406, 2413. Wert V. Crawfordsville, etc. Co., 19 Ind. 242—318. Wescott V. Mitchell, 95 Me. 377, 50 Atl. 21—737. Wescott V. Mulvane, 58 Fed. 305, 7 C. C. A. 242—760. "Wesson v. Chapman, 76 Hun, 592, 28 N. Y. Supp. 192-2887, 2460. "Wesson v. Chapman, 77 Hun, 144, 28 N. Y. Supp. 431—2456. "West, Ex parte, 56 L. T. Rep. 622 (1887)— 324, 3'33. "West V. Averill, etc. Co., 109 Iowa, 488, 80 N. "W. 555—870, 747. "West V. Camden, 135 U. S. 507, 10 Sup. Ct. 838, 34 L. Ed. 254—1346. "West V. Carolina L. Ins. Co., 31 Ark. 476—83, 1394, 1417. West V. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19, 21 Pac. 1123—214, 215, 359, 505. West V. Demme, 128 Mich. 11, 87 N. W. 95—1705. "West V. Eureka Imp. Co., 40 Minn. 394, 42 N. W. 87—1941. West V. Huiskamp, 63 Fed. 749, 11 C. C. A. 401—983, 2514. West V. Madison County Agrlc. Board, 82 111. 205—2106, 2108. West V. People, 137 111. 189, 27 N. E. 34, 34 N. E. 254—646. West V. Wentworth, 3 Cow. 82—1260. West V. West, etc. Co., 9 N. Y. St. Rep. 255—1648. West Bank of Scotland v. Baird, 11 Ct. of Sess. Cas. 96-121—1740. West Boston Sav. Bank v. Thompson, 124 Mass. 506—1841. West Branch Bank v. Armstrong, 40 Pa. St. 278—1118, 1123, 1126, 1133. TVest Branch Bank v. Chester, 11 Pa. St. 282, 51 Am. Dec. 547—2064, 2217. West Branch, etc. Co.'s Appeal, *81 Pa. St. 19—796, 1250, 1259. Westbury v. Twigg (1892), 1 Q. B. 77 —2413. West Chester v. Apple. 35 Pa. St. 284, 78 Am. Dec. 336—2823. "West Chester, etc. R. R. v. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321—588, 594, 603, 606, 1153. West Coast, etc. Co. v. Wulff, 133 Cal. 315, 65 Pac. 622, 85 Am. St. Rep. 171 —1015. West Cornwall Ry. v. Mowatt, 12 Jur., pt. 1, 407 (1848)— 96, 103. West Cornwall Ry. v. Mowatt, 15 Q. B. 521 (1850)— 178. Westcott V. Fargo, 61 N. Y. 542, 19 Am. Rep. 300—1085, 1090. Westcott V. Minnesota Min. Co., 23 Mich. 145—289. West Cumberland, etc. Co., In re (1893), 1 Ch. 713—2396. West Devon, etc. Mine, In re, L. R. 27 Ch. D. 106 (1884)— 1098, 1103, 1107. West End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne, 97 Va. 734, 34 S. B. 900—319, 324, 334, 336, 355, 363, 384. West End, etc. Co. v. Nash, 41 S. E. 182 (W. Va.)— 318, 385, 1473. Westerfield v. Radde, 7 Daly, 326—1773. Westerly Water Works v. Westerly, 75 Fed. 181—2760, 2761. Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 1 H. L. (Sc.) 145 (1867)— 782, 1476. Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 1 Sc. App. 145 (1867)— 72, 311, 316, 317, 329, 330, 335. Western Bank v. Gilstrap, 45 Mo. 419 —1787. Western Bank t. Mills, 61 Mass. 539— , 1627. Western Bank of Scotland v. Tallman, 17 Wis. 530—84, 87. Western Boatmen's Benev. Assoc, v. Kribben, 48 Mo. 37—1624. Western Cottage Organ Co. v. Reddish, 51 Iowa, 55, 49 N. W. 1048—1624. Western, etc. Assoc, v. Starkey, 84 Mich. 76, 47 N. W. 604, 11 L. R. A. 503, 22 Am. St. Rep. 686—1047. Westeril, etc. Bank v. Reckless, 96 Fed, 70—453, 468, 1026. Western, etc. Co., In re (1897), 1 Ch 617, 75 L. T. Rep. 648—1187. Western, etc. Co. v. Cousley, 72 111. 531 —1712. Western, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 47 Pac. 721 (N. M.)— 1801. Western, etc. Co. v. Franklin, etc. Co., 70 N. H. 37, 47 Atl. 616—2837. Western, etc. Co. v. Los Angeles, etc. Co., 76 Fed. 178—2837. Western, etc. Co. v. Peytona, etc. Coal Co., 8 W. Va. 406—2341. Western, etc. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 Sup. Ct. 1054, 41 L. Ed. 49— 2838. Western, etc. Hospital v. Mercantile, etc. Co., 189 Pa. St. 269, 42 Atl. 183— 2064. Western, etc. Ry. v. Buffalo, etc. Ry., 193 Pa. St. 127, 44 Atl. 242—1605. Western, etc. R. R. v. Drew, 3 Woods, 692, 29 Fed. Cas. 744, 747—2028, 2049, 2121, 2330, 2540. Western, etc. R. R. v. Exposition Cot- ton Mills, 81 Ga. 522, 7 S. B. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102—2645. Western, etc. R. R. v. Franklin Bank, 60 Md. 36—1979. Western, etc. R. R. v. Roberson, 61 Fed. 592, 9 C. C. A. 646—1963, 2654. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Western, etc. R. R.'s Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 399—1408. "Western, etc. Tel. Co. v. Mississippi R. R., 74 Miss. 80, 21 South. 15—2819. Western, etc. Tel. Co. v. Myatt, 98 Fed. 335—2819. Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455, 72 N. W. 657— 170, 281, 488, 493, 548, 616, 1742. Western Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. 346, 14 Sup. Ct. 572, 38 L. Ed. 470—634, 1771, 1787, 1788, 1970, 2791. Western Nat. Bank v. Lawrence, 117 Mich. 669, 76 N. W. 105—469. Western N. C. R. R. v. Rollins, 82 N. C. 523—1582. Western Pa. R. R. v. Johnson, 59 Pa. St. 290—2322. Western Paving, etc. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. R., 128 Ind. 525, 26 N. E. 188, 28 N. E. 88, 10 L. R. A. 770, 25 Am. St. Rep. 462—2718, 2720. Western R. R. v. Avery, 64 N. C. 491— 386. Western R. R. v. Babcock, 47 Mass. 346—1799. Western R. R. v. Bayne, 75 N. Y. 1— 1773. Western R. R. v. Bayne, 11 Hun, 166— 1773. Western R. R. v. Nolan, 48 NT Y. 513— 2199, 2205. Western Transp. Co. v. Scheu, 19 N. Y. 408—1230. Western Union, etc. Co. y. Call Pub. Co., 58 Neb. 192, 78 N. W. 519— 2843. Western Union, etc. Co. v. Krueger, 64 N. E. 635 (Ind.)— 2792. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 132 U. S. 472, 10 Sup. Ct. 161, 33 L. Ed. 409—1242, 2838. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama, 80 Ala. 273, 60 Am. Rep. 99—2838. Western U. Tel. Co. v. American, etc. Tel. Co., 9 Biss. 72, 29 Fed. Cas. 790 —2534, 2806, 2809. Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Union Tel. Co., 65 Ga. 160, 38 Am. Rep. 781—2809. Western U. T. Co. v. American Bell Tel. Co., 105 Fed. 684—1542. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R., 178 U. S. 239, 20 Sup. Ct. 867, 44 L. Ed. 1052—1960, 2808. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R., 90 Fed. 379, 33 C. C. A. 113— 2240, 2808, 2811. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic, etc. Tel. Co., 7 Biss. 367, 29 Fed. Cas. 791 —2420, 2534, 2809. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co., 5 Nev. 102—2813. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co., 26 Fed. 55, 23 Blatchf. 419—1828. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blerhaus, 8 Ind. App. 563, 36 N. B. 161—2844. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Borough of New Hope, 187 U. S. 419, 23 Sup. Ct. 204—2839. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 37, 50 C. C. A. 106— 2437, 2477. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Boston Safe D. & T. Co., 87 Fed. 788—2437. Western Union Tel. Co. v. BuUard, 67 Vt. 272, 31 Atl. 286—2794. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burgess, 108 Fed. 26, 47 C. C. A. 168—2835. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burlington, etc. R. R., 11 Fed. 1, 3 McCrary, 130 —2325, 2328, 2810, 2845, 2846. Western Union Tel. Co. v. B. & O. Tel. Co., 19 Fed. 660—2809. Western Union Tel. Co. v. B. & O. Tel. Co., 22 Fed. 133—2809. Western Union Tel. Co. v. B. & 0. Tel. Co., 23 Fed. 12—2809. Western Union T. Co. v. Call, etc. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765—2842. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 44 Neb. 326, 62 N. W. 506, 27 L. R. A. 622, 48 Am. St. Rep. 729—2842. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Carver, 74 ^. W. 55 (Tex.)— 2808. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Champlain, etc. L. Co., 14 Cin. Law Bull. 327, 1 Am. Elec. Cas. 822—2837. Western Union T. Co. v. Charleston, 56 Fed. 419—2841. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 86 111. 246, 29 Am. Rep. 28— 2809. Western Union, etc. Co. v. City of To- ledo, 103 Fed. 746—2818. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 91 U. S. 495, 23 L. Ed. 377—2836. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eyser, 2 Colo. 141—70, 78, 2836. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fremont, 39 Neb. 692, 58 N. W. 415, 26 L. R. A. 698—2840. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Guernsey, etc. Co., 46 Mo. App. 120—2837. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Inman, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 85—2849. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Inman, etc. Co., 59 Fed. 365, 8 C. C. A. 152— 2849. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. R., 1 Colo. Law Reporter, 77, 4 Fed. 284—2810. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Levi, 47 Ind. 552—2825. ccccu TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lieb, 76 111. 172—1243. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Massa- chusetts, 125 U. S: 530, 8 Sup. Ct. 961, 31 L. Ed. 790—1243, 2813, 2838, 2841. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521—1243, 1672, 1676. Western Union T. Co. v. Nelson, 82 Md. 293, 33 Atl. 763, 31 L. R. A. 572, 51 Am. St. Rep. 464—2830. Western Union Tel. Co. v. New York, 38 Fed. 552, 3 L. R. A. 449—2604, 2846. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. 1126, 30 L. Ed. 1187—2838. Western Union T. Co. v.' Penn. R. R., 120 Fed. 362—2804, 2805, 2806. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsyl- vania R. R., 120 Fed. 981—2806. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsyl- vania R. R., 123 Fed. 33 — 2805, 2806. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Philadel- phia, 22 W. N. Cas. 39—2840. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rich, 19 Kan. 517, 27 Am. Rep. 159—2648, 2802, 2821. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Rogers, 42 N. J. Eq. 311, 11 Atl. 13—2813. Western Union Tel. Co. v. St. Joseph, etc. R. R., 3 Fed. 430, 1 McCrary, 565 —2810. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Satterfield, 34 111. App. 386, 2 Am. Blec. Cas. 296 —2821. Western Union T. Co. v. Smith, 64 Ohio St. 106, 59 N. E. 890—2822. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1, 16 Sup. Ct. 1054, 41 L. Ed. 49 1241, 2838. Western Union T. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry., 3 Fed'. 1, 4, 1 McCrary, 418—15, 2810. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pae. Ry., 3 Fed. 423, 1 McCrary, 558— 2810. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry., 3 Fed. 721, 729, 1 McCrary, 581 —496, 1464. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Western £ Atl. R. R., 91 U. S. 283, 23 L. Ed. 350 —2810. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Williams, 86 Va. 696, 11 S. E. 106, 8 L. R. A. 429, 19 Am. St. Rep. 908—2797. West, etc. Bank v. Kitson, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 360 (1884)— 1619. West, etc. Co. v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 121 Fed. 645—2610, 2786. West, etc. Co. v. Rose, 76 Miss. 61, 23 South. 629—1499. West, etc. Ry. v. Mowatt, 12 Jur., pt. 1, 407 (1848)— 103. West, etc. Ry. v. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 186 Pa. St. 459, 40 Atl. 787—2638, 2679. ■ West, etc. Sav. Bank v. Ford, 27 Conn. 282, 71 Am. Dec. 66—1419. Westfield Bank v. Cornen, 37 N. Y. 320, 93 Am. Dec. 573—1840. Westheider v. Wabash R. R., 115 Fed. 840—1966, 2653. Westhoeffer v. Lebanon, etc. St. Ry., 163 Pa. St. 54, 29 Atl. 873—2692. Westinghouse v. German Nat. Bank, etc., 188 Pa. St. 630, 41 Atl. 734—960. Westinghouse v. German, etc. Bank, 196 Pa. St. 249, 46 Atl. 380—798, 961. Westinghouse, etc. Co. v. New Platz, etc. Co., 32 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 132, 65 N. Y. Supp. 644—2313. West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden, etc. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 452, 29 Atl. 333, 53 N. J. Eq. 163, 35 Atl. 49—1748, 2663, 2676, 2678. West Koshkonong Cong. v. Ottesen, 80 Wis. 62, 49 N. W. 24—1274. West London Commercial Bank v. Kit- son, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 157 (1883), L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 360, 363 (1884)— 1975, 1978. West Missouri, etc. Co. v. Kansas City, etc. Ry., 161 Mo. 595, 61 S. W. 847—1423, 1668. Westmoreland Bank v. Klingensmith, 7 Watts (Pa.), 523—1830. Westmoreland, etc. Co., In re (1893), ' 2 Ch. 612—1466. West Nashville, etc. Co. v. Nashville Sav. Bank, 86 Tenn. 252, 6 S. W. 340, 6 Am. St. Rep. 835—170. Weston, In re, 86 L. T. Rep. 551 (1902) —664. Weston v. Bear River, etc. Co., 5 Cal. 186, 63 Am. Dec. 117—938, 1014, 1132. Weston v. Bear River, etc. Co;, 6 Cal. 425—938, 1014, 1017. Weston V. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 7 L. Ed. 481—44, 1219. Weston V. Citizens', letc. Bank, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 145, 71 N. Y. Supp. 827 —1952. Weston v. Columbus Southern Ry., 90 Ga. 289, 15 S. E. 773—320. Weston V. Foster, 48 Mass. 297—2636. Weston V. Goldstein, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 661, 57 N. Y. Supp. 311—757, 830, 869, 1253, 1352, 1361. Weston V. Ives, 97 N. Y. 222—1072. Weston V. Jordan, 168 Mass. 401, 47 N. B. 133—955. Weston V. New Guston, etc. Co., 60 L. T. Rep. 805 (1889), 62 L. T. Rep. 275 (1889), 64 L. T. Rep. 815 (1891)— 1564, 2528. Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 20 (1868) — 564, 579, 1114. TABLE OF OASES. CCCClll [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 20, SO (1868)— 580, 1357. Weston's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 614 (1870)— 206, 541 581. Weston's Case, L7 R. 10 Ch. D. 579 (1879)— 1467. West Philadelphia Canal Co. v. Innes, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 198—555, 557. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507, 12 L. Ed. 535—2632, 2633, 2724. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 16 Vt. 446—2633. Westropp V. Solomon, 8 C. B. 345 (1849)— 910, 913. West St. Louis Sav. Bank v. Shawnee County Banlc, 95 V. S. 557, 24 L. Ed. 490—1788, 1789, 2071. West St. Louis Sav. Bank v. Shawnee, etc. Bank, 3 Dill. 403, 29 Fed. Cas. 831—1789. West Salem Land Co. v. Montgomery Land Co., 89 Va. 192, 15 S. E. 524— 1780. West Side, etc. Co. v. Connecticut, etc. Co., 186 III. 156, 57 N. E. 839—1427, 1808, 1809, 1940. West Springfield v. West Springfield Aqueduct Co., 167 Mass. 128, 44 N. B. 1063—1602, 2770. West Virginia, etc. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 40 S. E. 591, 56 L. R. A. 804, 88 Am. St. Rep. 895 (W. Va.)— 75. West Virginia Transp. Co. v. Volcanic Oil, etc. Co., 5 W. Va. 382—2786. West Winsted Sav. Bank v. Ford, 27 Conn. 282, 71 Am. Dec. 66—1419, 1944. Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501— 129, 163, 308, 395, 404, 406. Wetmore v. C. A. Wetmore Co., 113 Cal. 321, 45 Pac. 679—226, 1512. Wetmore v. Parker, 52 N. Y. 450—1666. Wetmore v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 5 Dill. 531, Fed. Cas. No. 7,707, 3 Fed. 177, 1 McCrary, 466—2184, 2255, 2500, 2509, 2513. Wetumpka v. Wetumpka Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 611—256. Wetumpka, etc. Co. v. Kidd, 124 Ala. 242, 27 South. 431—1014. Wetumpka, etc. R.- R. v. Bingham, 5 Ala. (N. S.) 657—9. Weyer v. Second Nat. Bank, 57 Ind. . 198, 208—44, 732, 733, 883, 888. Weyeth, etc. Co. v. James, etc. Co., 15 Utah, 110, 47 Pac. 604—1643. Weymouth v. Roselius, 36 La. Ann. 527 —2222. Weymouth, etc. Co., In re (1891), 1 Ch. 66—1440. Whalen v. Stephens, 193 III. 121, 61 N. E. 921—690. Whaley Bridge, etc. Co. v. Green, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 109 (1879)— 1475, 1479. Z Whaley Bridge, etc. Co. v. Green, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. Ill (1879)— 1470. Wharton v. Winch, 140 N. Y. 287, 35 N. E. 589—2657. Wheal BuUer Consols, In re, L. R. 38 Ch. D. 42 (1888)— 180. Wheat V. Bank of Louisville, 5 S. W. 305 (Ky.)— 1770. Wheatcroft's Case, 29 L. T. 324 (1873) —239, 240, 344. Wheatland v. Taylor, 29 Hun, 70— 256. Wheatley v. Sllkstone, etc. Co., L. R. 29 Ch. D. 715 (1885)— 2095. Wheaton v. Rampacker, 3 Wyo. 441, 26 Pac. 912 767. Wheeler, In re,'2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 361, 363—619, 621, 633, 1293, 1294, 1305, 1375. Wheeler v. Aiken County, etc. Bank, 75 Fed. 781—1688. Wheeler v. Faurot, 37 Ohio St. 26^ 568, 570, 571, 575. Wheeler v. Friend, 22 Tex. 683—768. Wheeler v. Frontier Bank, 23 Me. 308 —1026. Wheeler v. Home, etc. Bank, 188 HI. 34, 58 N. E. 598, 80 Am. St. Rep. 161 —642. Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353, 359, 362—51, 178, 379, 383, 394, 409, 426, 479, 481. Wheeler v. Miller, 24 Hun, 541, 90 N. Y. 353—379, 418, 419, 473. Wheeler v. Mineral, etc. Co., 71 Pac. 1101 (Col.)— 133, 209. Wheeler v. Newbould, 16 N. Y. 392— 983. Wheeler v. New Haven Wire Co., IS Atl. 393—684. Wheeler v. Northwestern Sleigh Co., S9 Fed. 347—1148. Wheeler v. Perry, 18 N. H. 307—1191. Wheeler v. Pullman Iron, etc. Co., 143 111. 197, 32 N. B. 420, 17 L. R. A. 818—1297, 1388, 1531. Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc. R. R.,. 31 Cal. 46, 89 Am. Dec. 147—2640,. 2643. Wheeler v. Thayer, 121 Ind. 64, 22 N. B. 972—413. Wheeler v. Walton, etc. Co., 65 Fed.. 720—2396. Wheeler v. Walton, etc. Co., 72 Fed. 966 —966. Wheeler, etc. Co. v. Boyce, 36 Kan. 350, 13 Pac. 609, 59 Am. Rep. 571—74. Wheeler, etc. Co. v. Everett Land Co., 14 Wash. 630, 45 Pac. 316—1606, 2080. Wheeling v. Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 90, 29 Fed. Cas. 914—1934, 2654. Wheeling, etc. Ry. v. Cochran, 68 Fed. 141, 15 C. C. A. 321—2409. CCCCIV TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wheeling, etc. Ry. v. Reymann, etc. Co., 90 Fed. 189, 32 C. C. A. 571— 2322 Wheelock v. Kost, 77 111. 296—367, 532. Wheelock v. Moulton, 15 Vt. 519—44, 1725. Wheelwright v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 50 Fed. 709—2201. Wheelwright v. St. Louis, etc. Transp. Co., 56 Fed. 164—1739, 1990, 2134, 2179. Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N. Y. 469, 19 Am. Rep. 202—906, 911, 1258. Wheless v. Second Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 469, 25 Am. Rep. 783—71, 74, 75. Whelpley v. Erie Ry., 6 Blatchf. 271, 29 Fed. Cas. 918—650. Whetstone v. Crane, etc. Co., 1 Kan. App. 320, 41 Pac. 211—523, 1701. Whightsel v. Felton, 95 Fed. 923—2445. Whipple V. Parker, 29 Mich. 369, 380— 1083. Whitaker v. Eighth, etc. R. R., 51 N. Y. 295—2713. Whitaker v. Grujnmond, 68 Mich. 249, 36 N. W: 62—352. Whitaker v. Hartford, etc. R. R., 8 R. I. 47, 86 Am. Dec. 614, 5 Am. Rep. 547—2063. Whitaker v. Smith, 81 N. C. 340, 31 Am. Rep. 503—480. Whitbeck v. Mercantile, etc. Bank, 127 U. S. 193, 8 Sup. Ct. 1121, 32 L. Ed. ■yi^ 1225. Whitbeck v. N. Y. C. R. R., 36 Barb. 644—2821. Whitby V. Harrison, 18 U. C. Q. B. 603 (1859)— 67. Whitcher v. Holland Water Works Co., 142 N. Y. 626, 37 N. E. 565—2796. Whitcomb v. Lockerby, 59 N. W. 495 (Minn.)— 1331. White, Ex parte, 2 S. C. 469—2003. White V. Barber, 123 U. S. 392, 8 Sup. Ct. 221, 31 L. Ed. 243—771, 780. White V. Baxter, 71 N. Y. 254—910. White V. Blum, 4 Neb. 555—401, 427. White V. Boreing, 45 S. W. 242 (Ky.)— 1437. White V. Boyce, 21 Fed. 228—815. White V. Brownell, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 162, 193—1070. White V. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329—1072. White V. Campbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38— 1418,1433. White V. Carmarthen, etc. Ry., 1 Hem. & M. 786 (1863)— 1875, 1970. White V. Crosby, 51 S. W. 350 (Tex.) — 216. White V. Crow, 17 Fed. 98, 5 McCrary, 310—1946. White V. Drew, 56 How. Pr. 53—763. White V. Elgin, etc. Co., 108 Iowa, 522, 79 N. W. 283—1767. White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36, 15 Sup. Ct. 1018, 40 L. Ed. 67—2400. White V. Franklin B&nk, 39 Mass. 181— 1627, 1628. White V. Geraerdt, 1 Edw. Ch. 340 (1832)— 1948. White V. Green, 105 Iowa, 176, 74 N. W. 928—162, 167, 555, 568. White V. Greene, 70 N. W. 182—162, 167, 568. White V. How, 3 McLean, 291, 29 Fed. Cas. 1019—1979. White V. Howard, 38 Conn. 342—1666, 1670. White V. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144—1080, 1666, 167'0, 1671. White V. Kahn, 103 Ala. 308, 15 South. 595—182, 310. White V. Keokuk, etc. R. R., 52 Iowa, 97, 2 N. W. 1016—2340. White V. Marguardt, 70 N. W. 193 (Iowa)— 548, 688. White V. Marquardt & Sons, 105 Iowa, 145, 74 N. W. 930—548, 552, 690. White V. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 643, 35 Atl. 695, 34 L. R. A. 567—2760. White V. Mount Pleasant Mills Corp., 172 Mass. 462, 52 N. E. 632—206, 1560. White V. New Bedford, etc. Corp., 178 Mass. 20, 59 N. E. 642—703, 1580. White V. New York, etc. Soc, 45 Hun, 580—1308. White V. Northwestern, etc. R. R., 113 N. C. 610, 18 S. E. 330, 22 L. R. A. 627, 37 Am. 639—2689. White V. Pecos, etc. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 45 S. W. 207—1539, 1590. White V. Price, 108 N. Y. 661, 15 N. E. 427, 39 Hun, 394—731, 867, 1251, 1254. White V. Price, 39 Hun, 394—723, 732, 867, 1251, 1254. White v. Rankin, 90 Ala. 541, 8 South. 118—550, 1013. White V. Rice, 112 Mich. 403, 70 N. W. 1024—1591. White V. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150—746, 847, 888, 929, 1256. White V. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 300—755. White V. Sheppard, 41 N. Y. App. Dlv. 113, 58 N. Y. Supp. 563—1734, 2146. White V. Smith, 54 N. Y. 522—770, 904, 926, 1262, 1263. White V. State, 69 Ind. 273—69. White V. Syracuse, etc. R. R., 14 Barb. 559—682, 1038. White V. Thomas, etc. Co., 52 N. J. Bq. 178, 28 Atl. 75—1365. White V. Vermont, etc. R. R.. 21 How. 575, 16 L. Ed. 221—1992, 2042. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] White V. Westport Cotton Mfg. Co., 18 Mass. 220, 11 Am. Dec. 168—1800. White V. Whitney, etc. Co., 60 S. C. 254, 38 S. E. 456—2777. White V. Winchester, 23 Mass. 48—655, 660. White V. Wood, 129 N. Y. 527, 29 N. E. 835, 142 N. Y. 656, 37 N. E. 108—110, 615, 2520. White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 155 N. Y. 475, 50 N. E. 289—153. White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 167 N. Y. 158, 60 N. E. 422—167, 173, 478, 558. White, etc. Co. v. Jones, 86 Hun, 57, 34 N. Y. Supp. 203—155. White, etc. Co. v. Pettes, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 864—1483, 1654. White, etc. R. R. v. White, etc. R. R., 50 N. H. 50—1395, 2261. White Hall, etc. R. R. v. Myers, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 34—306, 1038. Whitehaven, etc. Co. v. Reed, 54 L. T. Rep. 360—646. Whitehead v. Buffalo, etc. Ry., 18 How. Pr. 230—1953. Whitehead v. Hamilton Rubber Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 78, 27 Atl. 897—1742. Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67, 58 Pac. 376—302, 1335, 1336, 1365, 1881, 1900, 1910. Whitehead v. Vineyard, 50 Mo. 30 — 2122, 2325. Whitehead v. Whitehead, L. R. 16 Bq. 528 (1873)— 1198. Whitehill v. Jacobs, 75 Wis. 474, 44 N. W. 630—136. Whitehouse, In re, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 595 (1878)— 382. Whitehouse v. Moore, 13 Abb. Pr. 142 —910, 913. Whitehouse v. Sprague, 7 Atl. 17 (Me.) —1085, 1092. Whitehouse's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 790 (1867)— 317, 335. Whiteley v. Central Trust Co., 76 Fed. 74, 77, 22 C. C. A. 67, 34 L. R. A. 303 —2347, 2359. Whiteley's Case, 60 L. T. Rep. 807 (1889)— 344, 349. White Mountains R. R. v. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124, 147—219, 290, 307, 309, 344, 366. White Mountains R. R. v. White Moun- tains R. R., 50 N. H. 50—2261. White Oak, etc. v. Murray, 145 Mo. 622, 47 S. W. 501—1080, 1667. White River Lumber Co. v. South- western Imp. Assoc, 55 Ark. 625, 18 S. W. 1055—1679. White River Turnp. Co. v. Vermont Cent. R. R.,- 21 Vt. 590—2752. White's Bank v. Toledo, etc. Ins. Co., 12 Ohio St. 601—1125, 1624. White's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 157 (1850) 205 543. White's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 86 (1866) — 564, 571. Whitesell v. Northampton County, 49 Pa. St. 526—1208. White's, etc. Co. v. Davidson County, 3 Tenn. Ch. 396—1415, 2751. Whitesides v. Hunt, 97 Ind. 191, 203, 49 Am. Rep. 441—770, 776, 778. White Water, etc. Co. v. Vallette, 21 How. 414, 424, 16 L. Ed. 154—1665, 1800, 2009, 2016, 2101, 2106, 2113, 2123, 2159. Whitewright v. American Tel. etc. Co., N. Y. Daily Reg., Aug. 6, 1886 (Su- perior Ct.)— 835. Whitfield V. Southeastern Ry., El: B. & E. 115 (1858)— 71, 73. Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 145, 46 Am. Rep. 131—1817. Whiting, In re, 150 N. Y. 27, 44 N. E. 715, 34 L. R. A. 232, 55 Am. St. Rep. 640—1244. Whiting V. Elmira, etc. Assoc, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 349, 61 N. Y. Supp. 27— 1088, 1876. Whiting V. Hovey, 13 Ont. App. 7 (1886)— 24, 1634. Whiting V. Potter, 2 Fed. 517, 18 Blatchf. 165—257. Whiting V. Price, 172 Mass. 240, 51 N. E. 1084, 70 Am. St. Rep. 262—785. Whiting V. Sheboygan, etc. R. R., 25 Wis. 167, 3 Am. Rep. 30—249. Whiting V. Village of New Baltimore, 127 Mich. 66, 86 N. W. 406—2682. Whiting V. Wellington, 10 Fed. 810— 1762. Whitley Partners, In re, L. R. 32 Ch. D. 337 (1886)— 207. Whitlock V. Seaboard Nat. Bank, 29 N. Y. Misc. 84, 60 N. Y. Supp. 611—921, 962. Whitman v. Bowden, 27 S. C. 53, 2 S. E. 630—1089, 1455, 1863. Whitman v. Citizens' Bank, llO Fed. 503, 49 C. C. A. 122—468, 480, 484, 1430. Whitman v. Granite Church, 24 Me. 236 —186, 188, 1757. Whitman v. Holmes, etc. Co., 33 N. Y. Misc. 47, 68 N. Y. Supp. 167—1872. Whitman v. National Bank, 83 Fed. 288, 28 C. C. A. 404—451, 472. Whitman v. Oxford, etc. Bank, 176 U. S. 559, 20 Sup. Ct. 477, 44 L. Ed. 587 —467. Whitman v. Porter, 107 Mass. 522 — 383, 1085. Whitman Gold, etc. Co. v. Baker, 3 Nev. 386—1669. Whitney v. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 44 Me. 362, 69 Am. Dec. 103—2581. CCCCVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Whitney v. Butler, 118 U. S. 655, 7 Sup. Ct. 61, 30 L. Ed. 266—564, 571. Whitney v. Fairbanks, 54 Fed. 985— 810, 1900, 1908. Whitney v. Hanover Nat. Bank, 71 Miss. 1009, 15 South. 33, 23 L. R. A. 531—2376. Whitney v. Leominster Sav. Bank, 141 Mass. 85, 6 N. E. 551—1602. Whitney v. Madison, 23 Ind. 331—1205, 1224. Whitney v. Mayo, 15 III. 251—1875. Whitney v. Mayor, etc., 28 Barb. 233 — 2662. Whitney v. New York, etc. R. R., 32 Hun, 164—700, 2324, 2389, 2599. Whitney v. Page (N. Y. Supreme Ct.), Daily Register, March 31, 1885—574. Whitney v. Peay, 24 Ark. 22—2028. Whitney v. Phoenix, 4 Redf. 180—1191, 1199. Whitney v. Pugh, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 316, 68 N. Y. Supp. 992—432, 449. Whitney v. Ragsdale, 33 Ind. 107, 5 Am. Rep. 185—1211. Whitney v. South, etc. Co., 39 Me. 316— 1792, 1798. Whitney v. Union Trust Co., 65 N. Y. 576—1800, 1806, 1807, 1820, 2148, 2256. Whitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392, 25 L. Ed. 1050-495, 500, 1715, 1817. Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62, 20 Am. Rep. 504—473, 1547, 1604, 1608. Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker, 41 Fed. 402—1226, 1228. Whiton V. Batchelder, etc. Corp., 179 Mass. 169, 60 N. E. 483—671, 741, 1352, 1354, 1564, 2584. Whiton V. Spring, 74 N. Y. 621—1381. Whittaker v. Amwell Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Bq. 400, 29 Atl. 203—1168, 1187, 1638, 1655, 1742. Whittaker v. Belvidere, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eg. 674, 38 Atl. 289—2200, 2293. Whlttemore v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 26 Fed. 819—1895. Whlttemore v. Beekman, 2 Dem. 275 (1883)— 1200. Whlttemore v. Kent Scientific Insti- tute, 87 N. W. 623 (Mich.)- 1511. Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 76 Mass. 582, 71 Am. Dec. 681—1588. Whittingham v. Schofield's Trustee, 67 S. W. 846 (Ky.)— 1201. Whittle V. Vanderbllt, etc. Co., 83 Fed. 48—1838. Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N. Y. 571— 2270. Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 456— 66, 378. Whitman v. Watkln, 78 L. T. Rep. 188 (1898)— 682, 1611, 1861, 1894. Whitwell V. Warner, 20 Vt. 425, 444— 492, 1654, 1699, 1791, 1798, 1800. Wichita, etc. Co. v. State, 80 Tex. 684 16 S. W. 649—1664. Wichita, etc. Ry. v. Quinn, 57 Kan. 737 48 Pac. 132—2321, 2631, 2801. Wichita Nat. Bank v. Smith, 72 Fed- 568, 19 C. C. A. 42—2417. Wickens v. Evans, 3 Y. & J. 318 (1829) ^—1058. Wickersham v. Brlttan, 93 Cal. 34, 28 Pac. 792, 29 Pac. 51, 15 L. R. A. 106— 1337. Wickersham v. Chicago, etc. Co., 18 Kan. 481, 26 Am. Rep. 784—1833. Wickersham v. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 17, 28 Pac. 788—1379, 1453, 1508, 1610, 1875, 1910. Wickersham v. Crittenden, 103 Cal. 582, 37 Pac. 513—2480. Wickersham v. Crittenden, 106 Cal. 327, 39 Pac. 602—1508. Wickersham v. Crittenden, 106 Cal. 329, 39 Pac. 603-1337, 2480. Wickersham v. Crittenden, 110 Cal. 332, 42 Pac. 893—1508. Wickersham v. Murphy, 93 Cal. 41, 28 Pac. 793—1337. Wickersham v. Ricker, 58 Fed. 282, 7 C. C. A. 222—2288. WIckes V. Adirondack Co., 2 Hun, 112 — 2043. Wickham v. Hull, 60 Fed. 326—536. Wick Nat. Bank v. Union Nat. Bank, 62 Ohio St. 446, 57 N. E. 320, 78 Am. St. Rep. 734 — 568. Wicks V. Hatch, 62 N. Y. 535—923, 983 986 Wicks V. Monihan, 130 N. Y. 232, 29 N. E. 139, 14 L. R. A. 243—1091. WIdener v. Railroad, 1 W. N. Cas. 472 (Pa.)— 2063. Wiechers v. Central Trust Co., 80 Hun, 576, 30 N. Y. Supp. 595—838, 2168. Wiener, etc. Co., In re, 96 Fed. 949— 416. Wiestling v. Warthin, 1 Ind. App. 217, 27 N. B. 576—2745. Wigan v. Fowler, 1 Starkie, 459—1627. Wlgfield V. Potter, 45 L. T. Rep. 612 (1882)— 1061, 1065. Wiggin V. Freewill, etc. Church, 49 Mass. 301, 312—1276, 1286, 1287. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Bast St. Louis, etc. Ry., 107 111. 450—2661. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio, etc. Ry., 142 U. S. 396, 12 Sup. Ct. 188, 35 L. Ed. 1055—2593. Wight V. Shelby R. R., 16 B. Men. (Ky.) 4, 63 Am. Dec. 522—194, 308, 312, 321, 354. Wight V. Springfield, etc. R. R., HT Mass. 226, 19 Am. Rep. 412—1373. Wight V. Wood, 85 N. Y. 402—744. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCVU [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] WIgton V. Bosler, 102 Fed. 70 — 467, 2398. Wilbur V. Lynde, 49 Cal. 290, 19 Am. Rep. C45— 1645. Wilbur T. New York, etc. Co., 58 N. Y. Super. Ct. 539, 12 N. Y. Supp. 456— 1711. Wilbur V. Stockholders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178, 29 Fed. Cas. 1189—271, 274, 401, 402, 403, 406, 409. Wilbur V. Stoepel, 82 Mich. 344, 46 N. W. 724, 21 Am. St. Rep. 568—767, 1346, 1523. Wilbur V. Trenton, etc. Ry., 57 N. J. L. 212, 31 Atl. 238—2716. Wilby V. West Cornwall Ry., 2 H. & N. 703 (1858)— 2640. Wilcox V. Blckel, 11 Neb. 154, 8 N. W. 436—1910. Wilcox V. National, etc. Bank, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 466, 73 N. Y. Supp. 900— 2394. Wilcox V. Toledo, etc. R. R., 43 Mich. 584, 5 N. W. 1003—1418. Wilcox V. Trenton, etc. Co., 53 Atl. 474 (N. J.)— 594. Wilcox C. & S. Co. V. Mosher, 114 Mich. 64, 72 N. W. 117—447. Wilcox, etc. Co., In re, 70 Conn. 220, 39 Atl. 163—2153, 2407. Wild V. Bank, 3 Mason, 505, 29 Fed. Cas. 1215—1787. Wild V. Davenport, 48 N. J. L. 129, 7 Atl. 295, 57 Am. Rep. 552—1064. Wild V. Passamaquoddy Bank,- 3 Ma- son, 505, 29 Fed. Cas. 1215—1738. WUday v. Sandys, L. R. 7 Eq. 455 (1869)— 1195. Wilde V. Gibson, 1 H. L. Cas. 623 (1848)— 1853. Wilder v. Shea, 13 Bush (Ky.), 128— 2303. Wilder v. Virginia, etc. Co., 46 Fed. 676 —1870. Wildes V. Robinson, 50 N. Y. App. Div. 192, 63 N. Y. Supp. 811—752, 1259. Wildes V. Rural Homestead Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 452, 32 Atl. 676—129, 1320. Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. 174 (1803) —45, 704. Wilds v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 102 N. Y. 410, 7 N. E. 290—2136, 2211. Wildy V. Mid-Hants Ry., 16 W. R. 409 (1868)— 2093, 2095. Wiles V. Suydam, 64 N. Y. 173, 176— 427, 450, 456, 462, 463, 485. Wiley V. Athol, 150 Mass. 426, 23 N. E. 311, 6 L. R. A. 342—1762. Wiley V. Board of Education, 11 Minn. 371 (Gil. 268)— 1814. Wilgus V. Germain, 72 Fed. 773, 19 C. C. A. 188—37, 1610. Wilkes-Barre v. Wyoming, etc. Soc, 134 Pa. St. 616, 19 Atl. 809—2124. Wilkes Barre, etc. Bank v. Wilkes Barre, 148 Pa. St. 601, 24 Atl. Ill— 31, 1239. Wilkieiv. Rochester, etc. Ry., 12 Hun, 242—1904, 1924. Wilkins v. Thorne, 60 Md. 253—303, 1874. Wilkinson v. Anglo-Californian, etc. Co., 18 Q. B. 728 (1852)— 190. Wilkinson v. Bauerle, 41 N. J. Eq. 635, 7 Atl. 514—1490, 1637, 1638, 1648. Wilkinson v. Bertock, 111 Ga. 187, 36 S. B. 623—381. Wilkinson v. Culver, 25 Fed. 639, 23 Blatchf. 416—2401. Wilkinson v. Delaware, etc. R. R., 22 Fed. 353—2653. Wilkinson v. Dodd, 40 N. J. Eq. 123, 3 Atl. 360—1931. Wilkinson v. Fleming, 30 111. 353— 2190. Wilkinson v. Lloyd, 7 Q. B. 27 (1845) —748. Wilkinson v. Providence Bank, 3 R. I. 22—865. Wilkinson v. Washington T. Co., 102 Fed. 28, 42 C. C. A. 140—2474. Wilkinson's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 536 (1867)— 317, 335. Will V. Edison, etc. Co., 50 Atl. 161, 86 Am. St. Rep. 732 (Pa.)— 2832. Willamette, etc. Co. v. Bank, etc., 119 U. S. 191, 7 Sup. Ct. 187, 30 L. Ed. 384—2113. Willamette, etc. Co. v. Williams, 1 Oreg. 112—1953. Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus, 4 Oreg. 261-360. Willamette Valley, The, 66 Fed. 565, 13 C. C. A. 635—2422. Willard v. Denise, 50 N. J. Bq..482, 26 Atl. 29, 35 Am. St. Rep. 788—1832, 1838. Willard v. Holmes, 142 N. Y. 492, 37 N. E. 480—74, 1613, 2073. Willard v. Pike, 59 Vt. 202, 9 Atl. 907— 1207. Willard v. White, 56 Hun, 581, 10 N. Y. Supp. 170—917, 964. Willcocks, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 402, 410, 17 Am. Dec. 525—1292, 1310, 1316, 1336, 1751, 1752. Willey V. Parratt, 3 Exch. 211 (1848) —1710. William H. Bailey, The, l03 Fed. 799— 2848. William H. Bailey, The, 100 Fed. 115— 2848. William H. Bailey, The, 111 Fed. 1006, 50 C. C. A. 76—2848. William Rogers Mfg. Co. v. R. W. Rog- ers Co., 66 Fed. 56—62. Williams, Ex parte, 17 S. C. 396—2386. Williams, Ex parte, 18 S. C. 289—1983. CCCCVUl TABLE OF CASES.. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Williams v. American Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. 376, 29 C. C. A. 203—536, 939. Williams v. Archer, 5 C. B. 318 (1847) —1252, 1256, 1261. Williams v. Bank of Commerce, 71 Miss. 858, 16 South. 238, 42 Am. St. Rep. 503—1678. Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7'Wend. 539, 540, 542—508, 1088, 1417. Williams v. Boice, 38 N. J. Bq. 364— 1182, 1187. Williams v. Benet, 34 S. C. 112, 13 S. E. Williams v. Brewster, 93 N. W. 479 (Wis.)— 84. Williams v. Carr, 80 N. C. 294—779. Williams v. Cheney, 69 Mass. 215 — 1682, 1786. Williams v. Chester, etc. R. R., 15 Jur. 828 (1850)— 1782. Williams v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 153 Mo. 487, 54 S. W. 689—2655. Williams v. Citizens', etc. Co., 153 Ind. 496, 55 N. B. 425—371, 433. Williams v. Citizens', etc. Co., 25 Ind. App. 351, 57 N. E. 581—372, 506. Williams v. Citizens' Ry., 130 Ind. 71, 29 N. E. 408, 15 L. R. A. 64, 30 Am. St. Rep. 201—2704. Williams v. City, etc. Ry., 41 Fed. 556— 2690, 2691, 2692. Williams v. Colby, 6 N. Y. Supp. 459— 1577. Williams v. College Corner, etc. Co., 45 Ind. 170—1105. Williams v. Colonial Bank, L. R. 38 Ch. D. 388 (1888)— 885. Williams v. Creswell, 51 Miss. 817 — 1672, 1951. Williams v. Duanesburgh, 66 N. Y. 129 —247. Williams v. Duck River, etc. R. R., 9 Baxt. 488—248. Williams v. Evans, 87 Ala. 725, 6 South. 702, 6 L. R. A. 218—149, 558, 742. Williams v. Farmers' & Drovers' Bank, 49 S. W. 183 (Ky.)— 204. Williams v. Fullerton, 20 Vt. 346—1155. Williams v. Gaylord, 186 U. S. 157, 22 Sup. Ct. 798, 46 L. Ed. 1102—1673,2141. Williams v. Gaylord, 102 Fed. 372, 42 C. C. A. 401—2141. Williams v. German, etc. Ins. Co., 68 111. 387—1747. Williams v. Gllman, 3 Me. 276—914. Williams v. Gold Hill, etc. Co., 96 Fed. 454—1673, 2139, 2141. Williams v. Great Western Ry., 3 H. & N. 869 (1858)— 41. Williams v. Gregg, 2 Strobh. Eq. (S. C.) 297—1693. Williams v. Hall, 65 Ind. 129—245. Williams v. Halliard, 38 N. J. Eq. 373, 383—1861. Williams v. Hanna, 40 Ind. 535—559, 567, 749. Williams v. Harris, 198 111. 501, 64 N. E. 988—1816. Williams v. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076, 17 South. 496, 49 Am. St. Rep. 394— 496. Williams v. Hintermeister, 26 Fed. 889 —1946. Williams v. Louisiana, etc. Power Co., 43 La. Ann. 295, 8 South. 938-2828. Williams v. Lowe, 4 Neb. 382, 398— 1114. Williams v. McDonald, 37 N. J. Eq. 409, 42 N. J. Eq. 392, 7 Atl. 866— 1626, 1689. Williams v. McKay, 40 N. J. Bq. 189, 53 Am. Rep. 775—1694. Williams v. McKay, 46 N. J. Bq. 25, 18 Atl. 824—1626, 1690. Williams v. Magee, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 513, 78 N. Y. Supp. 550—714, 2517. Williams v. Mechanics' Bank, 5 Blatchf. 59, 29 Fed. Cas. 1376—888, 938, 1008. Williams v. Meyer, 41 Hun, 545—273, 387. Williams v. Missouri, etc. Ry., 3 Dill. 267, 29 Fed. Cas. 1377—1966. Williams v. Montgomery, 148 N. Y. 519, 526, 43 N. B. 57—1202, 1354, 1360, 1370. Williams v. Montgomery, 68 Hun, 416, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1033—1354, 1360. Williams v. Montgomery, 74 Hun, 425, 26 N. Y. Supp. 703—1354, 1360. Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684, 4 Sup. Ct. 638, 28 L. Ed. 559—2185, 2472, 2474, 2475, 2476. Williams v. Nail, 55 S. W. 706 (Ky.)— 1036. Williams v. Page, 24 Beav. 654 (1857) —199, 1710. Williams v. Parker, 136 Mass. 204—607. Williams v. Patrick, 177 Mass. 160, 58 N. B. 583—747. Williams v. Patrons of Husbandry, 23 Mo. App. 132—1654. Williams v. Peel River, etc. Co., 55 L. T. Rep. 689 (1886)— 1252, 1260. Williams v. People, 132 111. 574, 24 N. B. 647—254. Williams v. Plgott, 2 Exch. 201 (1848) —1700. Williams v. Plgott, 5 Ry. & Can. Cas. 544 (1848)^1700. Williams v. Planters' Ins. Co., 57 Miss. 759, 34, Am. Rep. 494—71, 75. Williams v. Prince of Wales Ins. Co., 23 Beav. 338 (1875)— 1103, 1107, 1108. Williams v. Quebrada Ry. etc. Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 751—1108. Williams v. Reynolds, 7 Ind. 622—993. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCIX [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the textj Williams v. Riley, 34 N. J. Eq. 398— 1626. Williams v. Roberts, 88 111. 11—259. Williams v. St. George, etc. Co., 2 De G. & J. 547 (1858)— 1714. Williams v. Salmond, 2 Kay & J. 463 (1856)— 199, 200, 1710. Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418, 428, 451—619, 674, 679, 1109. Williams v. Searcy, 94 Ala. 360, 10 South. 632—150, 741. Williams v. Smith, 6 Cow. 166—41. Williams v. Supervisors of Albany, 122 U. S. 154, 7 Sup. Ct. 1244, 30 L. Ed. 1088—1225. Williams v. Taylor, 120 N. Y. 244, 24 N. B. 288-133, 273, 387, 752. Williams v. Traphagen, 38 N. J. Eq. 57 —382. Williams v. Turner, 88 N. W. 668 (Neb.)— 1655. Williams v. Uncompahgre Canal Co., 13 Colo. 469, 22 Pac. 806—1815. Williams y. United States Trust Co., 133 N. Y. 660, 31 N. B. 29—983, 985. Williams v. United States Trust Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 502—985. Williams v. Waiters, 54 Atl. 767 (Md.) —351, 418, 1027. Williams y. Weaver, 75 N. Y. 30—1221. Williams v. West Asheville, etc. Ry., 126 N. C. 918, 36 S. B. 189—2361. Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 N. Y. 162, 188, 191—30, 174, 1142, 1158, 1166. Williams v. Wingo, 177 U. S. 601, 20 Sup. Ct. 793, 44 L. Ed. 906—1024, 2733. Williamsburg Sav. Bank v. Solon, 136 N. Y. 465, 32 N. E. 1058—2062. Williams' Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 576— 530, 551, 579. Williams' Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 225 (1869) —580. Williamson, Ex parte, L. R. 5 Ch. 309 (1869)— 1392. Williamson v. American Bank, 109 Fed. 36—444. Williamson v. American Bank, 115 Fed. 793, 52 C. C. A. 1-443. Williamson v. Eastern, etc. Assoc, 54 S. C. 582, 32 S. E. 765, 71 Am. St. Rep. 822—351, 1605. Williamson v. Gordon, etc. Ry., 40 Atl. 933 (Del.)-J.428. Williamson v. Kokomo, etc. Assoc, 89 Ind. 389—1419, 1420.. Williamson v. Krohn, 66 Fed. 655, 13 C. C. A. 668—99, 758, 760, 1254, 1708. Williamson v. Mason, 12 Hun, 97 — 796, 905. Williamson v. New Albany, etc. R. R., 1 Biss. 198, 30 Fed. Cas. 12—2195, 2285, 2304, 2323, 2365, 2367. Williamson v. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 25 N. J. Eq. 13—2253. Williamson v. New Jersey, etc. R. R., 26 N. J. Bq. 398—932. Williamson v. New Jersey Southern R. R., 28 N. J. Eq. 277, 279, 300—1538, 2000, 2151, 2300, 2307, 2328, 2331, 2337. Williamson v. New Jersey Southern R. R., 29 N. J. Bq. 311, 318—1538, 2000, 2151, 2300, 2328, 2331. Williamson v. Smoot, 7 Mart. (La.) 31, 12 Am. Dec. 494—992. Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294 —430. Williamson v. Washington, etc. R. R., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 624—2307. Williamsport Gas Co. v. Plnkerton, 95 Pa. St. 62—2065. Willink V. Morris Canal, etc. Co., 4 N. J. Bq. 377—2325, 2328, 2413. Willis V. Chapman, 68 Vt. 459, 35 Atl. 459—1091. Willis V. Erie City, etc. Ry., 188 Pa. St. 56, 41 Atl. 307—2702. Willis V. Erie Tel. & T. Co., 37 Minn. 347, 34 N. W. 337—2793. Willis V. Fry, ]3 Phila. 33—639. Willis V. Greiner, 26 S. W. 858 (Tex.) —1077. Willis V. International, etc. Co., 52 Atl. 5 (Pa.)— 2658. Willis V. JefCeris, 51 Atl. 1110 (N. J.) —756. Willis V. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140, 50 N. W. 1110, 16 L. R. A. 281, 31 Am. St. Rep. 626—426, 433, 475, 476. Willis V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 6 W. N. Cas. 461—639, 645. Willis V. Plaskett, 4 Beav. 208 (1841) — 657. Willis V. St. Paul Sanitation Co., 53 Minn. 370, 55 N. W. 550—1778. Willis V. Toledo, etc. Ry., 72 Mich. 160, 40 N. W. 20&— 1797. Williston V. Michigan, etc. R. R., 95 Mass. 400—587, 596, 605, 1177, 1874. Willitts V. Waite, 25 N. Y. 577—2425. Willoughby v. Chicago, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 656, 25 Atl. 277—692, 1049, 1896, 1929. Willoughby v. Comstock, 3 Hill, 389— 982, 985, 1081. Willoughby v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 80 Minn. 432, 83 N. W. 377—538. Wills V. Fisher, 112 N. C. 529, 17 S. B. 73—737. Wills V. Murray, 4 Exch. 843 (1850)— 856, 1744, 1746. Wills V. Porter, 132 Cal. 516, 64 Pac. 896—1646, 1651, 1857. Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 409, 419, 427, 30 Fed. Cas. 73—2189, 2196, 2198, 2223, 2235, 2363, 2654. ccccx TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc. Ry., 2 Woods, 447, 455, 30 Fed. Cas. 80—2128, 2200, 2217, 2235. Wilmer v. McNamara & Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 245—1172. Wilmington City Ry. y. Wilmington, etc. Ry., 46 Atl. 12 (Del.)— 1040, 1426, 2598, 2669, 2713. Wilmington, etc. Co. v. Burnett, 123 N. C. 210, 31 S. E. 602—2339. Wilmington, etc. R. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 U. S. 279, 13 Sup. Ct. 72, 36 L. Ed. 972—1234. Wilmington, etc R. R.i v. Alsbrook, 110 N. C. 137, 14 S. E. 652—1237. Wilmington, etc. R. R. v. Downward, 14 Atl. 720 (Del.)— 1557, 2540. Wilmington, etc. Ry. v. People's Ry., 47 Atl. 245 (Del.)— 1040, 2669. Wilmington, etc. R. R. v. Reid, 64 N. C. 226—1218. Wilmington, etc. R. R. v. Thompson, 7 Jones, L. (N. C.) 387—369. Wilmington, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Bush, 1 Harr. 44—1006. Wilmington R. R. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264, 20 L. Ed. 568—1023, 1024, 1204, 1218, 1234, 1238, 2118. Wilmington & W. R. R. v. Board, etc., 90 Fed. 33—2613. Wilmott V. London Celluloid Co., L. R. 34 Ch. D. 147 (1886)- 2095. Wilson, Ex parte, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 45 (1872)— 541. Wilson V. Academy of Music, 43 Leg. Int. 86—1305. Wilson V. Aeolian Co., 64 N. Y. App. Div. 337, 72 N. Y. Supp. 150—1572. Wilson V. American Acad, of Music, 43 Leg. Int. 86—17. Wilson V. Atlantic, etc. R. R., 2 Fed. 459—827, 867. Wilson V. Baker, 52 Iowa, 423, 3 N. W. 481—66. • Wilson V. Bank of Montgomery County, 29 Pa. St. 537—620, 626. Wilson V. Barney, 5 Hun, 257—2490. Wilson V. Bicknell, 170 Mass. 259, 49 N. E. 113—766. Wilson V. Black-Bird Creek M. Co., 2 Pet. 251, 7 L. Ed. 412—2625. Wilson V. Book, 13 Wash. 676, 43 Pac. 939—440, 445. Wilson V. Boyce, 92 U. S. 320, 23 L. Ed. 608—2122, 2317. Wilson V. Brownsmith, 9 Ves. Jr. 180 (1803)— 655. Wilson V. California Wine Co., 95 Mich. 117, 54 N. W. 643—408, 1938. Wilson V. Caneadea, 15 Hun, 218 — 256. Wilson V. Carter, etc. Co., 46 W. Va. 469, 33 S. E. 249—1589. Wilson V. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. 590— 733, 1314, 1385, 1393, 1530, 1534. Wilson V. Cunningham, 67 Pac. 118 (Utah)— 939. Wilson V. Curzon, 15 M. & W. 532 (1847)— 1702. Wilson V. Fite, 46 S. W. 1056 (Tenn.) —1816, 1817. Wilson V. Furness Ry., L. R. 9 Bq. 27 (1869)— 2649. Wilson V. Gaines, 103 U. S. 417, 26 L. Ed. 401—1238. Wilson V. Great Southern T. & T. Co., 41 La. Ann. 1041, 6 South. 781—2829. Wilson V. Griess, 90 N. W. 866 (Neb.) —1812. Wilson V. Harman, 2 Ves. Sr. 672 (1755)— 1197. Wilson V. Hundley, 96 Va. 96, 30 S. E. 492, 70 Am. St. Rep. 837—334, 378. Wilson V. Jones, L. R. 2 Ex. 129—39. Wilson V. Keating, 27 Beav. 121, 4 De G. & J. 588 (1859)— 756. Wilson V. Keating, 7 W. R. 484 (1859) —755. Wilson V. Keels, 54 S. C. 545, 32 S. B. 307, 71 Am. St. Rep. 783—2426. Wilson V. Kiesel, 164 IT. S. 248, 17 Sup. Ct. 124, 41 L. Ed. 422—402. Wilson V. Kiesel, 9 Utah, 397, 35 Pac. 488—406, 418. Wilson V. King's, etc. R. R., 114 N. Y. 487, 21 N. E. 1015—1715, 1796. Wilson V. Leary, 120 N. C. 90, 26 S. E. 630, 38 L. R. A. 240, 58 Am. St. Rep. 778—1434. Wilson V. Little, 2 N. Y. 443, 448, 450, 51 Am. Dec. 307—45, 932, 934, 939, 981, 983, 984, 1261. Wilson V. Maddison, 2 Y. & C. Ch. 372 (1843)— 659. Wilson V. Martin-Wilson, etc. Co., 149 Mass. 24, 20 N. E. 318—1954. Wilson V. Mathews, 24 Barb. 295—1260. Wilson V. Mechanical, etc. Co., 170 N. Y. 542, 63 N. E. 550—1581, 2592. Wilson V. Merchants', etc. Co., 98 Fed. 688, 39 C. C. A. 231—533. Wilson V. Metropolitan El. Ry., 120 N. Y. 145, 24 N. E. 384, 17 Am. St. Rep. 625—641, 1773. Wilson V. Miers, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 348 (1861)— 1607. Wilson V. Muskegon, etc. Ry., 93 N. W. 1059 (Mich.)— 2631. Wilson V. Parvin, 119 Fed. 652—585, 591, 596. Wilson V. Pauly, 72 Fed. 129, 18 C. C. A. 475—1779. Wilson V. Pittsburgh, etc. Coal Co., 43 Pa. St. 424—416, 419, 471, 475. Wilson V. Roots, 119 111. 379, 10 N. B. 204—748. Wilson V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 108 Mo. 588. 18 S. W. 286, 32 Am. St. Rep. 624 —399, 1017. TABLE or CASES. CCCCXl [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wilson V. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 120 Mo. 45, 25 S. W. 527, 759—139. "Wilson V. Salamanca, 99 U. S. 499, 25 L. Ed. 330—268, 2579. "Wilson V. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338—399. Wilson V. Seligman, 36 Fed. 154—399. Wilson V. Seymour, 76 Fed. 678, 22 C. C. A. 477—803, 2329. Wilson V. Shreveport, 29 La. Ann. 673 —246. Wilson V. Southern Ry., 36 S. B. 701 (S. O— 1675, 1962. Wilson V. Stanhope, 2 Coll. 627 (1846) —1710. Wilson V. Stevens, 129 Ala. 630, 29 South. 678, 87 Am. St. Rep. 86—1614, 1654. Wilson V. Tesson, 12 Ind. 285—526, 1432, 1448. Wilson V. Trenton, etc. Ry., 56 N. J. Eq. 783, 40 Atl. 597—1719, 2562. Wilson v. Welch, 157 Mass. 77, 31 N. E. 712—2167, 2172, 2384, 2385, 2411. Wilson V. Wills Valley R. R.,- 33 Ga. 466—284, 1029. Wilson V. Wilson, 6 Scott, 540 (1838) — 1380. Wilson V. Wilson-Rogers, 181 Pa. St. 80, 37 Atl. 117—642. Wilson V. Whitaker, 49 Pa. St. 114— 1262, 1265. Wilson Cotton Mills v. C. C. Randle- man, etc. Mills, 115 N. C. 475, 21 S. B. 431—504, 526. Wilson County v. Nat. Bank, 103 U. S. 770, 26 L. Ed. 488—248, 1967. Wilson's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 344, 56 Am. Rep. 214—1198. Wilson's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 240 (1869) — 206, 542. Wilson's Case, L. R. 12 Eq. 521 (1871) —1973. Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. (N. S.) 962 (1869)— 190. Wilt V. Reed, etc. Co., 187 Pa. St. 424, 41 Atl. 317—2403. Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256, 3 Am. Rep. 585—1142, 1190. Wlltz V. Peters, 4 La. Ann. 339—1338. Winans v. Gihbs, etc. Mfg. Co., 48 Kan. 777, 30 Pac. 163—2399. Winans v. Hassey, 48 Cal. 634—913. Winch V. Birkenhead, etc. Ry., 5 De G. & Sm. 562 (1852)— 1897, 2574. Winch T. Birkenhead, etc. Ry., 16 Jur. 1035 (1852)— 1550, 1905. Winchester v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 4 Md. 231, 239—1837. Winchester v. Howard, 136 Cal. 432, 64 Pac. 692, 69 Pac. 77, 89 Am. St. Rep. 153—425. Winchester v. Mabury, 122 Cal. 522, 55 Pac. 393—453. Winchester v. Nutter, 52 N. H. 507, 13 Am. Rep. 93—769. Winchester, etc. Co. v. Croxton, 98 Ky. 739, 34 S. W. 518, 33 L. R. A. 177— 2751. Winchester, etc. Co. v. Wlckliffe, 100 Ky. 531, 38 S. W. 866, 66 Am. St. Rep. 356—1154. Winchester, etc. R. R. v. Colfelt, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 777—2599. Winchester, etc. Tump. Co. v. Vimont, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 1—2110. Winchester's Estate, In re, 133 Cal. 271, 65 Pac. 475, 54 L. R. A. 281— 1079. Wincock v. Turpin, 96 111. 135 — 402, 421. Windham, etc. Inst. v. Sprague, 43 Vt. 502—424, 449, 452, 518. WindmuUer v. Standard, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 491—1324, 1445, 1533, 2092. WindmuUer v. Standard, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 748—1391, 1445, 1533, 2092. Windfam v. French, 151 Mass. 547, 24 N. E. 914, 8 L. R. A. 750—166, 787. Windsor, Ex parte, 3 Story, C. C. 411, 30 Fed. Cas. 312—1156. Windsor v. Hallett, 97 111. 204—258, 262. Windsor Blec. Light Co. v. Tandy, 66 Vt. 248, 29 Atl. 248, 44 Am. St. Rep. 838—220. Windsor Glass Co. v. Carnegie Co., 54 Atl. 329 (Pa.)— 2628. Wineburgh v. United States, etc. Co., 173 Mass. 60, 53 N. E. 145, 73 Am. St. Rep. 261—1872, 1897. Winfield v. Peel, 12 L. J. (N. S. Q. B.) 102 (1842)— 396. Winfield Water Co. v. Winfield, 51 Kan. 104, 33 Pac. 714—2772. Wing V. Charleroi, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 817—720, 1488, 1614, 1618. Wing V. Harvey, 5 De G., M. & G. 265 —1833. Wing V. Holland T. Co., 5 N. Y. Supp. 384—937. Wing V. Slater, 19 R. I. 597, 35 Atl. 302, 33 L. R. A. 566—424, 431. Wingate v. Orchard, 75 Fed. 241, 21 C. C. A. 315—444, 479. Winget V. Quincy Bldg. etc. Assoc, 128 111. 67, 21 N. E. 12—320, 1417. Wingfield v. Barton, 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 355—396. Winkler v. Magdeburg, 100 Wis. 421, 76 N. W. 332—975. Winn V. Macon, 21 Ga. 275—244. Winn V. Wabash R. R., 118 Fed. 55— 1966, 2653. Winne v. Ulster, etc. Inst, 37 Hun, 349—1839. WInnepiseogee, etc. Co. v. Gilford, 67 N. H. 514, 35 Atl. 945—1232. ccccxu TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] "Winnipeg St. Ry. v. Winnipeg Elec. St. Hy. (1894), A. C. 615—2677. Winona, etc. R. R. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99—2610. Winona, etc. Ry. v. Watertown, 4 S. D. 323, 56 N. W. 1077—2635. Winona Lumber Co. v. Church, 6 S. D. 498, 62 N. W. 107—1085. Winona Wagon Co. v. Bull, 108 Cal. 1, 40 Pac. 1077—475. Winslow V. Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390, 4 Atl. 250, 55 Am. Rep. 122—829, 1002, 1003. Winslow V. Harriman Iron Co., 42 S. W. 698 (Tenn.)— 936, 937. Winsor, Ex parte, 3 Story, 411, 30 Fed. Cas. 312—276, 405. Winsor v. Bailey, 55 N. H. 218—1875, 1893, 1900. Winsor, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 52 Fed. 716—2606. Wlnsted, etc. Co. v. New Britain, etc. Co., 69 Conn. 565, 37 Atl. 688—1785. Winston v. Dorset Pipe, etc. Co., 129 111. 64, 21 N. B. 514, 4 L. R. A. 507— 349. Winston v. Tennessee, etc. R. R., 1 Baxt. 60—248. Winter v. Baldwin, 89 Ala. 483, 7 South. 734—1098. Winter v. Belmont Min. Co., 53 Cal. 428—820. Winter v. Montgomery, 65 Ala. 403 — 259, 263. Winter v. Montgomery, etc. Co., 89 Ala. 544, 7 South. 773—722, 821, 840. Winter v. Muscogee R. R., 11 Ga. 438 —287, 1029, 1031. Winterfield v. Cream City B. Co., 96 Wis. 239, 71 N. W. 101—1606. Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. 508, 521 —358, 412, 415, 633. Winters v. Drake, 102 Fed. 545—2416. Winters v. Hub Min. Co., 57 Fed. 287— 1711. Winters v. King, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 80, 64 N. Y. Supp. 496—2532. Winthrop, etc. Bank v. Minneapolis, etc. Co., 77 Minn. 329, 79 N. W. 1010 —227, 446, 2091. Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180, 3 Sup. Ct. Ill, 27 L. Ed. 898— 1297. Winton v. Little, 94 Pa. St. 64—1629. Wintrlngham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 580—172. Winward v. Lincoln, 51 Atl. 106 (R. I.) —774, 776. Wirth V. Postal, etc. Co., 5 Am. Elec. Cas. 184, 7 Ohio Clr. Ct. 290 (Ohio)— 2797. Wisconsin, etc. Bank v. Lehigh, etc. Co., 64 Fed. 497—1656. Wisconsin, etc. Bank v. Mann, 100 Wis 596, 76 N. W. 777—224. Wisconsin, etc. Bank v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. Ill, 69 N. W. 354, 60 Am. St. Rep. 86—223. Wisconsin, etc. R. R. v. Wisconsin, etc. Co., 71 Wis. 94, 36 N. W. 837—2158. Wisconsin, etc. School v. Clark County^ 103 Wis. 651, 79 N. W. 422—251. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Oshkosh, 62 Wis. 32, 21 N. W. 828—2755, 2816, 2819, 2840. Wise V. Perpetual, etc. Co., 87 L. T. Rep. 569 (1902)— 493, 1072. Wise V. Wise Co., 153 N. Y. 507, 47 N.. B. 788—2343. Wiser v. Lawler, 189 U. S. 260, 23 Sup. Ct. 624—332, 793, 1479. Wiser v. Lawler, 62 Pac. 695 (Ariz.)- 1481. Wishard v. Hansen & Co., 99 Iowa, 307, 68 N. W. 691, 61 Am. St. Rep. 238— 161, 168, 576. Wisner v. Delhi, etc. Co., 46 La. Ann.. 1223, 15 South. 690—105, 1849. Wiswall V. Greenville, etc. R. R., S- Jones Bq. (N. C.) 183—2750. Wiswall V. Sampson, 14 How. 52, 14 L. Ed. 322—2423. Witcher v. Holland Water Co., 66 Hun, 619, 20 N. Y. Supp. 560—2796. Witham v. Cohen, 100 Ga. 670, 28 S. B. 505—1313, 1347. Witherbee v. Witherbee, 55 N. Y. App, Div. 151, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1039—2492. Witherhead v. Allen, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 628—473. Witherhead v. Allen, 28 Barb. 661—427. Witherhead v. Allen, 3 Keyes, 562 — 1085. Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 15 L. Ed. 816—2632. Withers v. Edwards, 62 S. W. 795— 1346. Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle (Pa.), 359—1699. Witmer's Appeal, 15 Atl. 428 (Pa.) — 1483. Witte v. Derby Pishing Co., 2 Conn. 260—1798, 1820. Witter v. Grand Rapids, etc. Co., 78' Wis. 543, 47 N. W. 729—1734, 2107. Witter V. Mississippi, etc. R. R., 20" Ark. 463—1029, 1031. Witters v. Globe Sav. Bank, 171 Mass. 425, 50 N. E. 932—2429. Witters V. Sowles, 25 Fed. 168—537,. 547, 661. Witters v. Sowles, 31 Fed. 1—1184, 1693. Witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed. 130—479, 537, 569. Witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed. 762—1835. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCXlll [The numbers after the dash refer .to the pages of the text.] Witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed. 767—204, 433, 544. Witters V. Sowles, 35 Fed. 640, 1 L. R. A. 64—544. Witters v. Sowles, 38 Fed. 700—544. Witters v. Sowles, 43 Fed. 405—433. Witts V. Steere, 13 Ves. Jr. 363 (1807) —1195, 1196. W. Key, etc.. In re, 86 L. T. Rep. 374 (1902)— 51, 1125. Woerishoffer, In re, 75 Fed. 335, 21 C. C. A. 375—2449. Woerishoffer v. North River Const. Co., 99 N. Y. 398, 2 N. B. 47—2425. Woerz V. Schumacher, 37 N. Y. App. Div. 374, 56 N. Y. Supp. 8—1687, 2409. Wolcott V. Heath, 78 111. 433—772. Wolf V. Davenport, etc. R. R., 93 Iowa, 218, 61 N. W. 847—1782. Wolf V. Nat. Bank of Illinois, 178 111. 85, 52 N. B. 896—765, 768, 2431. Wolf V. Pennsylvania R. R., 195 Pa. St. 91, 45 Atl. 936—1527, 1856, 1913. Wolfe V. Erie Tel. & Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 320—2824. Wolfe V. Pierce, 23 Ind. App. 591, 55 N. E. 872—1939, 2416. Wolfe V. Simmons, 75 Miss. 539, 23 South. 586—1889. Wolfe V. Underwood, 91 Ala. 523, 8 South. 774—28. Wolfe V. Underwood, 96 Ala. 329, 11 South. 344—1110, 1159. Wolfe V. Underwood, 97 Ala. 375, 12 South. 234—1318. Wolff V. Lockwood, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 569, 75 N. Y. Supp. 605—925, 944. Wolff V. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358, -26 L. Ed. 395—255. Wolford V. Crystal Lake Cem. Assoc, 54 Minn. 440, 56 N. W. 56—2110, 2789. Wolters V. Henningsan, 114 Cal. 433, 46 Pac. 277—421; 492, 527. Wolverton v. George, etc. Co., 157 111. 485, 42 N. E. 49—446. Women's, etc. Union v. Taylor, 8 Colo. 75, 5 Pac. 826—1733. Wonderly v. Booth. 36 N. J. L. 250— 514. Wonson v. Fenno, 129 Mass. 405 — 759. W'ontner v. Shairp, 4 C. B. 404 (1847) —334, 362, 365. Wood V. Argyle, 6 M. & Gr. 928 (1844) —1699. Wood V. Auburn, 87 Me. 287, 32 Atl. 906, 29 L. R. A. 376—2757. Wood V. Bedford, etc. R. R., 8 Phila. 94—2110, 2568, 2576. Wood V. Boney, 21 Atl. 574 (N. J.)— 1741, 2654. Wood V. Chicago, etc. R. R., 39 Fed. 52—2655. Wood V. City of Mobile, 107 Fed. 846, 47 C. C. A. 9—2638. Wood V. City of Seattle, 23 Wash. 1,. 62 Pac. 135, 52 L. R. A. 369—2671, 2684. Wood V. Consolidated, etc. Co., 36 Fed, 538—1991, 2056, 2062, 2128, 2129. Wood V. Coosa, etc. R. R., 32 Ga. 273— 187, 188, 355, 370. Wood V. Corry, etc. Co., 44 Fed. 146,. 12 L. R. A. 168—104, 142, 1284, 1850, 2019, 2261, 2276. Wood V. Draper, 24 Barb. 187—1087, 1204. Wood V. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 28 Fed. 910—2171, 2509, 2530. Wood V. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308, SO' Fed. Cas. 435—32, 393, 408, 1177, 1182, 1433, 1434. Wood V. Finch, 2 F. & F. 447 (1861)— 1071. Wood V. Friendship, etc., 106 Ky. 424, 50 S. W. 836—1417. Wood V. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260, 77 Am. Dec. 259—2293, 2600. Wood V. Guarantee, etc. Co., 128 U. S. 416, 9 Sup. Ct. 131, 32 L. Ed. 472— 2060, 2345, 2360. Wood V. Hayes, 81 Mass. 375—943, 957. Wood V. Jefferson County Bank, 9 Cow. 194—1944. Wood V. Lary, 124 N. Y. 83, 26 N. E. 338—13, 603, 2011. Wood V. Lary, 47 Hun, 550—603, 2012. Wood V. Lost Lake, etc. Co., 23 Or. 20, 23 Pac. 848, 37 Am. St. Rep. 651— 1502. Wood V. McCardell, etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 433, 24 Atl. 228—2334. Wood V. Manchester, etc. Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 522, 63 N. Y. Supp. 427, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1150—740, 1346, 1507. Wood V. Meyer, 7 Soruth. 359 (Miss.)— 2107. Wood v. New York, etc. R. R., 70 Fed. 741—2354. Wood V. New York & N. B. R. R.. 61 Fed. 236—2403. Wood V. Oregon Development Co., 55 Fed. 901—2179, 2387. Wood V. Oxford, 97 N. C. 227, 2 S. E. 653—248. Wood V. Perkins, 57 Fed. 258—761. Wood V. Sidney, etc. Co., 92 Hun, 22, 37 N. Y. Supp. 885—1889. Wood V. Union, etc. Assoc, 63 Wis. 9, 22 N. W. 756—648. Wood V. Whelen, 93 111. 153—1715, 1807, 1809, 2106, 2137, 2147, 2342. Wood V. Whitehead, etc. Co., 165 N. Y. 545, 59 N. B. 357—1049. Wood V. Wiley, etc. Co., 56 Conn. 87, 13 Atl. 137—1423, 1750. CCCCXIV TABLE OF OASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the t^zt.] Wood V. Woad, L. R. 9 Exch. 190 (1874)— 1075. Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc. R. R., 72 Fed. 371—142, 1734, 2018, 2147, 2234, 2237. Woodbury v. McClurg, 78 Miss. 831, 29 South. 514—506, 692. Woodbury v. Nevada Southern Ry., 115 Cal. 85, 46 Pac. 862—2268. Woodbury, etc. Co. v. Loudenslager, 55 N. J. Bq. 78, 35 Atl. 436—1471, 1475. Woodbury Granite Co. v. Mulliken, 66 Vt. 465, 30 Atl. 28—226, 1786. Woodcock V. First Nat. Bank, 113 Mich. 236, 71 N. W. 477—691. Woodd, In re, 82 L. T. Rep. 504 (1900) 921. Woodfail's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 63 (1849)— 80. Woodfork v. Union Bank, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 488—9, 1028. Woodhaven Bank v. Brooklyn, etc. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 489, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1023—1756. Woodhouse v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 54 Pa. St. 307—1027. Woodhouse v. Crescent Mut. Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 238—797. Wood Hydraulic, etc. v. King, 45 Ga. 34—1741. Woodman v. York, etc. R. R., 45 Me. 207—2303. Woodman v. York, etc. R. R., 50 Me. 549—1805. Woodroof V. Howes, 88 Cal. 184, 26 Pac. 111—670, 1487, 1532, 1897, 1916. Woodrough, etc. Co.- v. Witte, 89 Wis. 537, 62 N. W. 518—64. Woodruff V. Dubuque, etc. R. R., 30 Fed. 91-1308, 1359. Woodruff V. Brie Ry., 93 N. Y. 609— 2424, 2443, 2446, 2564. Woodruff V. Harris, 11 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 490 (1854)— 1009. Woodruff V. Harris, 11 U. C. (Q. B.) 490 (1854)— 1018. Woodruff V. Jewett, 115 N. Y. 267, 22 N. E. 156—2469, 2491.^ Woodruff V. Jewett, 37 Hun, 205— 2469, 2491. Woodruff V. McDonald, 33 Ark. 97— 185, 786. Woodruff V. New York, etc. R. R., 129 N. Y. 27, 29 N. B. 251—2475, 2480. Woodruff V. Rochester, etc. R. R., 108 N. Y. 39, 14 N. E. 832—1797, 2656. Woodruff V. Trapnall, 10 How. 190, 13 L. Ed. 383—1027. Woodruff V. Wentworth, 133 Mass. 309 —1346. Woodruff, etc. Iron Works v. Chitten- den, 4 Bosw. 406—442, 477. Woodruff's Estate, Tucker, 58—1191. Woods V. De Figaniere, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 681—1108. Woods V. Greensboro, etc. Co., 54 Atl. 470 (Pa.)— 2802. Woods V. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 386, 17 L. Ed. 122—244, 2027, 2028. Woods V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 99 Pa. St. 101—2243. Woods V. Wicks, 7 Lea (Tenn.), 40— 460, 518. Woods V. Woodson, 100 Fed. 515, 40 C. C. A. 525—2177, 2228. Wood's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 379, 390— 727, 889, 960, 962, 966. Wood's Case, L. R. 15 Eq. 236 (1873) —234. Wood's Claim, 30 L. J. Ch. 373 (1861) —132. Woods, etc. V. Bradley, etc., 55 Iowa, 168, 7 N. W. 484, 39 Am. Rep. 170— 2844. Woods, etc. Co., In re, 62 L. T. Rep. 760 (1890)— 1502. Woods, etc. Co. v. Brady, 39 N. Y. Misc. 79, 78 N. Y. Supp. 203—221. Woodside v. Grafflin. 91 Md. 422, 46 Atl. 968—713, 968. Woodson V. Murdock, 22 Wall. 351, 22 L. Ed. 716—2120, 2122. Woodson V. State, 69 Ark. 521, 65 S. W. 465—1028, 1673, 2601. Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond, etc. Co., 129 U. S. 643, 9 Sup. Ct. 402, 32 L. Ed. 819—233, 1460. Woodward v. Arlington, etc. Co., 44 Atl. 620 (Del.)— 1935, 2413. Woodward v. Central, etc. Ry., 62 N. E. 1051 (Mass.)— 1024, 2533. Woodworth v. Blair, 112 U. S. 8, 5 Sup. Ct. 6, 28 L. Ed. 615—2242. Woodworth v. Bowles, 61 Kan. 569, 60 Pac. 331—433, 441, 1026. Woplaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 (1859)— 293. Woolfolk V. January, 131 Mo. 620, 33 S. W. 432—80, 104, 151, 2276. Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 (1859)— 293, 295, 296, 297. Woblmer v. Toby, 10 Q. B. 691 (1847) —1709. Woolsey v. Independent Order, etc., 1 Am. & Bug. Corp. Cas. 172 (1883)— 1075. Woolverton v. Taylor, 132 111. 197, 23 N. B. 1007, 22 Am. St. Rep. 521—463. Woolwick V. Forest, 2 N. J. L. 115—67. Woonsocket Union R. R. v. Sherman, 8 R. I. 564—238. Wooster v. Nevills, 73 Cal. 58, 14 Pac. 390—790. Wooster v. Sage, 67 N. Y. 67—813. Wooster v. Sage, 6 Hun, 285—813. Wooster v. Trowbridge, 115 Fed. 722— 2409. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCXV [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] ■Wooten V. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 128 N. C. 119, 38 S. B. 298, 56 L. R. A. 615—707, 725, 734, 1201, 1247. Worcester v. Norwich, etc. R. R., 109 Mass. 103—1035, 1038, 2602. Worcester, etc. Co., In re, 3 De G., M. & G. 180—436. Worcester, etc. R. R. v. Hinds, 62 Mass. 110—366. Worcester Turnp. Co. v. Wlllard, 5 Mass. 80, 4 Am. Bee. 39—215, 219, 290. Work V. Bennett, 70 Pa. St. 484—957, 969, 1262. Work V. Ogden, N. Y. L. J., May 20, Work V. Tibbits, 87 Hun, 352, 34 N. Y. Supp. 308—953. Work V. Welsh, 160 111. 468, 43 N. E. 719—238. Workingmen's Banking Co. v. Rauten- berg, 103 111. 460, 42 Am. Rep. 26— 1628. Workman v. Southern, etc. R. R., 129 Cal. 536, 62 Pac. 185, 316—2702. World, etc. Co. v. Hamilton-Kenwood, etc. Co., 123 Mich. 620, 82 N. W. 528 —106. World's Fair, etc. Co. v. Gasch, 162 111. 402, 44 N. E. 724—353. Woronleki v. Pairskiego, 50 Atl. (Conn.) 562—65, 1809. Worrall v. Harford, 8 Ves. Jr. 4 (1802) —1064. Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb. 210—35, 559, 571. Worrell, Appeal of, 23 Pa. St. 44—715. Worrell's Appeal, 9 Pa. St. 508—715. Wortendyke v. Salladin, 45 Neb. 755, 64 N. W. 215—1651. Worth v. Ashe County, 90 N. C. 409— 1209. Worth V. Commissioners, 82 N. C. 420, 33 Am. Rep. 692, 90 N. C. 409—1208. Worth V. Wharton, 122 N. C. 376, 29 S. E. 370—414. Worthen v. Griffith, 59 Ark. 562, 28 S. W. 286, 43 Am. St. Rep. 50—1658. Worth, etc. Co. v. Bingham, 116 Fed. 785, 54 C. C. A. 119—1305, 1391, 1526, 1907, 1919. Worthington v. Griesser, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 203, 79 N. Y. Supp. 52—499. Worthington v. Schuylkill, etc. Ry., 195 Pa. St. 211, 45 Atl. 927—1768. Worthington v. Sebastian, 25 Ohio St. 1—1208. Worthington v. Tormey, 34 Md. 182 — 923, 982. Wotton, Matter of, 59 N. Y. App. Div. 584, 69 N. Y. Supp. 753—717, 718. Woven Tape Skirt Co., In re, 8 Hun, 508—1434. Wragg, In re (1897), 1 Ch. 796—131. Wrexham, etc. Ry., In re (1900), 1 Ch. 261—2482. Wrexham, etc. Ry., In re (1900), 2 Ch. 436—2449. Wrexham, etc. Ry., In re (1898), 2 Ch. 663, [1899] 1 Ch. 205, (1899) 1 Ch. 400—2346. Wright V. Bank of Metropolis, 110 N. Y. 237, 18 N. E. 79, 1 L. R. A. 289, 6 Am. St. Rep. 356—1260. Wright V. Bishop, 88 111. 302—253. Wright V. Bundy, 11 Ind. 398, 404— 1740, 2138, 2148. Wright V. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 76, 33 N. J. Eq. 277—2748. Wright V. Central California, etc. Wa- ter Co., 67 Cal. 532, 8 Pac. 70—1303, 1337. Wright V. Commonwealth, 109 Pa. St. 560, 2 Atl. 794—1290, 1300, 1302. Wright V. Cudahy, 168 111. 86, 48 N. B. 39—779. Wright V. Buless, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 136, 34 S. W. 302—1642. Wright V. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Bq. 392, 28 Atl. 719—1377, 1739, 1746, 1754, 1823, 2142, 2143. Wright V. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324, 21 N. E. 907, 12 Am. St. Rep. 412—1600, 1970, 2015. Wright V. Kentucky, etc. Ry., 117 TJ. S. 72, 6 Sup. Ct. 697, 29 L. Ed. 821— 2298, 2344. Wright V. Knoxville, etc. Co., 59 S. W. 677 (Tenn.)— 224, 2472. Wright V. Lanckton, 36 Mass. 288 — 1802. Wright V. Lee, 2 S. D. 596, 51 N. W. 706—511, 1270, 1642, 1724, 1810. Wright V. Lee, 4 S. Dak. 237, 55 N. W. 931—1680. Wright V. McCormack, 17 Ohio St. 86, 95—404, 438, 445, 446, 453, 491. Wright V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 25 Wis. 46—2530. 2574. Wright V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 95- Wis. 29, 69 N. W. 791, 36 L. R. A. 47, 60 Am. St. Rep. 74—2574, 2679, 2683. Wright V. Ohio, etc. R. R., 1 Disney (Ohio), 465—2057. Wright V. Oroville Min. Co., 40 Cal. 20^ ■^2270. Wright v. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. St. 204, 47 Am. Rep. 701—688. Wright V. Sheldon, 53 Atl. 59—711, 1511. Wright V. Stelz, 27 Ind. 338—1205, 1224. Wright V. Tuckett, 1 Johns. & H. 266 — 653, 1148, 1197, 1202. Wright V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 66 Mass. 68—607. Wright V. White, 136 Mass. 470—1194. CCCOXVl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Wright V. Woodcock, 86 Me. 113, 29 Atl. 953, 25 L. R. A. 499—2766. Wright V. Wynocltie Iron Co., 48 N. J. Eq. 29, 21 Atl. 862—2334, 2337. Wright, etc. Co. v. Hixon, 105 Wis. 153, 80 N. W. 1110, 1135—1115, 1118, 1126, 1131. Wright's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 425—639, 640, 642, 784. Wright's Case, L. R. 12 Eq. 331, 335, 345 (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 55 (1871)— 325, 336, 344, 1277. Wrysgan Co., In re, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 215 (1859)— 1079. Wrysgan, etc. Co., In re, 28 L. J. (Ch.) 894 (1859)— 1078. Wuesthoff V. Germania, etc. Ins. Co., 107 N. y. 591, 14 N. B. 608—729. Wullenwaber v. Dunigan, 30 Neb. 877, 47 N. W. 420, 13 L. R. A. 811—265, 310. Wurtzburger v. Anniston Rolling Mills, 94 Ala. 640, 10 South. 129—308. Wyandotte, etc. Co. v. City of Wyan- dotte, 124 Mich. 43, 82 N. W. 821— 1422, 2730. Wyant v. Central, etc. Co., 123 Mich. 51, 81 N. W. 928, 47 L. R. A. 497, 81 Am. St. Rep. 155—2820. Wyatt V. Larimer, etc. Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906—2788. 'Wyatt V. Ohio, etc. R. R., 10 111. App. 289—2453. Wych V. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310, 311 (1734)— nil. Wyckoff V. Vlcary, 75 Hun, 409, 27 N. Y. Supp. 103—1705. Wyckoff, etc. Co. v. Wagner, etc. Co., 99 Fed. 158—1056. Wyeth V. Renz-Bowles Co., 66 S. W. 825 (Ky.)— 1442, 1584, 1717. Wylde V. Northern R. R., 53 N. Y. 156 —2581, .2641. Wylie V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 41 Fed. 623 —1992. Wylie V. Speyer, 62 How. Pr. 107— 2056. Wylly V. Collins, 9 Ga. 223—1064. Wyman v. American Powder Co., 62 Mass. 168, 182—80, 195, 438, 1246, 1256, 1259. Wyman v. Eaton, 107 Iowa, 214, 77 N. W. 865, 43 L. R. A. 695, 70 Am.'St. Rep. 193—348, 554, 2398. Wyman v. Fiske, 85 Mass. 238, 80 Am. Dec. 66—772, 778, 780. Wyman v. Hallowell, etc. Bank, 14 Mass. 58, 7 Am. Dec. 194—1829. Wyman v. National Bank, 51 Neb. 636, 71 N. W. 277—226. Wyman v. Penobscot, etc. R. R., 46 Me. 162—2581. Wyman v. Williams, 52 Neb. 833, 73 N. W. 285—409, 414. Wyman v. Williams, 53 Neb. 670, 74 N. W. 48, 52 Neb. 833, 73 N. W. 285— 383, 414, 1647. Wynkoop v. Seal, 64 Pa. St. 361—910. Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & Sm. 310 (1849)— 575, 755, 756, 858, 915. Wynne's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. 1002 (1873) —2746. Wyoming Fair Assoc, v. Talbott, 3 Wyo. 244, 21 Pac. 700—1012. Wyscaver v. Atkinson, 37 Ohio St. 80 — 251. Xenia Nat. Bank v. Stewart, 107 U. S. 676, 2 Sup. Ct. 778, 27 L. Ed. 592— 1134. Yakima Nat. Bank v. Knipe, 6 Wash. 348, 33 Pac. 834—1944. Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 64 Conn. 101, 29 Atl. 303, 25 L. R. A. 90, 42 Am. St. Rep. 159—1464, 1470. Yanish v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 64 Minn. 175, 66 N. W. 198—1636. Yardley v. Clothier, 51 Fed. 506, 2 0. C. A. 349, 17 L. R. A. 462—2409. Yardley v. Wilgus, 56 Fed. 965—549. Yates V. JMadden, 3 Mac. & G. 532 (1857)— 659. Yates V. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y. 526— 1435. Yazoo, etc. Ry. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 240, 45 L. Ed. 395—1238, 2586, 2588. Yazoo, etc. Ry. v. Adams, 77 Miss. 194, 24 South. 200, 317, 28 South. 956— 1238. Yazoo, etc. R. R. v. Levee Com'rs, 37 Fed. 24—1235. Yeager v. Scranton, etc. Bank, 14 Weekly N. Cas. 296—274. Yeager v. Wallace, 44 Pa. St. 294—2402, 2410. Yeaton v. Eagle, etc. Co., 4 Wash. St. 183, 29 Pac. 1051—672. Yeaton v. U. S., 5 Cranch, 281, 3 L. Ed. 101—464. Yeiser v. United States, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 340, 46 C. C. A. 567, 52 L. R. A. 724—103, 1476. Yelland's Case, 5 De G. & Sm. 395 (1852)— 856, 857. Yellow, etc. Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fed. 39, 48 C. C. A. 204—1465. Yellow Jacket, etc. Co. v. Stevenson, 5 Nev. 224—1771, 1780, 1841. Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Wood County, 81 Wis. 554, 51 N. W. 1004, 17 L. R. A. 92—2786. TABLE OF CASES. CCCCXVU [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Yeoland Consols, In re, 58 L. T. Rep. 922 (1888)— 543. Yerkes v. Salomon, IL Hun, 471—772, 776, 780. Yetts V. Norfolk Ry., 3 De G. & Sm. 293 (1849)— 280, 2647. Yoakum v. Richards, 24 S. W. 308 (Tex.)— 2354. Yonkers, etc. Co. v. Jones, 30 N. Y. App. Dlv. 316, 51 N. Y. Supp. 973— 378. Yonkers, etc. Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334, 51 N. Y. Supp. 969— 219, 384. York V. Passaic, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 471— 760. York Co. V. Central R. R., 3 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 170—2644. York County v. Small, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) 315—1737. York, etc. R. R., In re, 50 Me. 552— 2157, 2159, 2183. York, etc. Ry. v. Hudson, 16 Beav. 485 (1853)— 1494, 2648. York, etc. R. R. v. Pratt, 40 Me. 447— 359. York, etc. Ry. v. The Queen, 1 El. & BI. 858 (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 178— 1409. York, etc. R. R. v. Ritchie, 40 Me. 425 —295, 1763. York, etc. R. R. v. Winans, 17 How. 30, 15 L. Ed. 27—2581. York Glass Co., In re, 60 L. T. Rep. 744 (1889)— 668. York Park Bldg. Assoc, v. Barnes, 39 Neb. 834, 58 N. W. 440—101, 179, 1711. York Tramways Co. v. Willows, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 685 (1882)— 287. Yorkville Bank v. Henry, etc. Co., 80 N. Y. App. Div. 578, 80 N. Y. Supp. 839—1379. Yorkville Bank v. Zeltner B. Co., 80 N. Y. App. Dlv. 578, 80 N. Y. Supp. 839—1378. Youghiogheny Bridge Co. v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 201 Pa. St. 457, 51 Atl. 115 —2634, 2724. Youghiogheny Shaft Co. v. Evans, 72 Pa. St. 331—425, 449. Youmans v. Minn. etc. Trust Co., 67 Fed. 282—1949. Young, Ex parte, 6 Biss. 53, 30 Fed. Cas. 828—770, 776, 777, 780. Young V. Alhambra Min. Co., 71 Fed. 810—1910. Young V. Clarendon, 132 V. S. 340, 10 Sup. Ct. 107, 33 L. Ed. 356—255. Young V. Dexter, 18 Fed. 201, 208— 1938. Young v. Drake, 8 Hun, 61—1893, 1910. Young v. Eames, 78 N. Y. Anp. Div. 229, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1068—1074. Young V. Erie Iron Co., 65 Minn. Ill, 31 N. W. 814—129, 169, 173. Young V. Farwell, 139 111. 326, 28 N. E. 845—466. Young V. Fox, 37 Fed. 385—790. Young V. Glendenning, 194 Pa. St. 550, 45 Atl. 364—769. Young V. Harrison, 6 Ga. 130—2724. Young V. Improvement, etc. Assoc, 48 W. Va. 512, 38 S. B. 670—1644, 1727. Young V. Inhabitants of Yarmouth, 75 Mass. 386—2823. Young V. M'Kay, 50 Fed. 394—560. Young V. Montgomery, etc. R. R., 2 Woods, 606, 30 Fed. Cas. 850—2002, 2076, 2121, 2122, 2157, 2184, 2242, 2386, 2388. Young V. Moses, 53 Ga. 628—1438. Young V. New York, etc. Steamship Co., 10 Abb. Pr. 229—406. Young V. Northern, etc. Iron Co., 13 Fed. 806, 9 Biss. 300—2302. Young V. Providence, etc. Co., 150 Mass. 550, 23 N. E. 579—1949. Young V. Rollins, 85 N. C. 485—1582. Young V. Rondout, etc. Co., 129 N. Y. 57, 29 N. E. 83—1253, 1917, 2564. Young V. Rosenbaum, 39 Cal. 646—427, 429, 446. Young V. South African, etc. Syndi- cate (1896), 2 Ch. 268—1279, 1295. Young V. South Tredegar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189, 2 S. W. 202, 4 Am. St. Rep. 752—1002, 1004. Young V. Stevenson, 180 111. 608, 54 N. E. 562, 72 Am. St. 236—1891, 2408. Young V. Toledo, etc R. R., 76 Mich. 485, 43 N. W. 632—1285, 2557, 2578. Young V. Vough, 23 N. J. Eq. 325— 1116, 1124, 1130, 1133. Young V. Wempe, 46 Fed. 354—444. Young, etc. Co. v. Young, etc. Co., 72 Fed. 62—504, 1536, 1838. Younglove v. Lime Co., 49 Ohio St. 663, 33 N. B. 234—483. Younglove v. Steinman, 80 Cal. 375, 22 Pac. 189—520. Youngman v. Elmira, etc. R. R., 65 Pa. St. 278—2125, 2195, 2318, 2599. Young Reversible, etc. Co. v. Young Locknut Co., 72 Fed. 62—1838. Youngs V. Perry, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 247, 59 N. Y. Supp. 19—1813. Youngstown, etc. Co. v. White's Adm'r, 49 S. W. 36 (Ky.)— 1955. Younkin v. Collier, 47 Fed. 571—699, 934, 1020. Youtsey v. Hoffman, 108 Fed. 693— 1870, 1892, 2404, 2409, 2486. Yuengling Brewing Co., In re, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 223, 49 N. Y. Supp. 12— 1446. Yule V. Bishop, 133 Cal. 574, 65 Pac. 1094—568. CCCCXVUl TABLE OF CASES. [The numbers after the dash refer to the pages of the text.] Zabel V. New State, etc. Co., 127 Mich. 402, 86 N. W. 949—116, 1719. Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc. R. R., 23 How. 381, 395, 400, 16 L. Ed. 488— 155, 243, 682, 1278, '1822, 1860, 1885, 2021, 2074, 2076. Zabriskie v. Hackensack, etc. R. R., 18 N. J. Bq. 178, 90 Am. Dec. 617— 1024, 1029, 1035, 1038, 1042, 1385, 1859. Zacher v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 593, 45 C. C. A. 480—2429. Zacher v. Fidelity Trust, etc. Co., 59 S. W. 493 (Ky.)— 2429. Zachry v. Nolan, 66 Fed. 467, 14 0. C. A. 253—935, 1150, 1319. Zack V. Pennsylvania R. R., 25 Pa. St. 394—2625. Zalesky v. Iowa, etc. Co., 102 Iowa, 512, 70 N. "W. 187, 71 N. W. 433—1761. Zambrino v. Galveston, etc. Ry., 38 Fed. 449—1958. Zanesville v. Gas Light Co., 47 Ohio St. 1, 23 N. B. 55—2735. Zanesville, etc. Co. v. Zanesville, 47 Ohio St. 35, 23 N. B. 60—2735. Zang V. Adams, 23 Colo. 408, 48 Pac. 509, 58 Am. St. Rep. 249—313, 334. Zang V. Wyant, 25 Colo. 551, 56 Pac. 565, 71 Am. St. Rep. 145—187, 428, 441, 448, 458, 473, 480. Zebley v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 139 N. Y. 461, 34 N. E. 1067—1863, 1916, 1930, 2500. Zehren v. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 99 Wis. 83, 74 N. W. 538, 41 L. R. A. 575, 67 Am. St. Rep. 844—2691. Zellerbach v. Allenberg, 99 Cal. 57, 33 Pac. 786—951, 976, 980, 1160, 1507. Zeltner v. Zeltner, etc. Co., 174 N. Y. 247, 66 N. E. 810—1379, 1924, 2381. Ziegler v. Hoagland, 52 Hun, 385, 5 N. Y. Supp. 305—1509. Ziegler v. Lake Street Elevated R. R., 69 Fed. 176. 182—624, 1343, 1515, 1533. Ziegler v. Lake Street Elev. R. R. 76 Fed. 662—1909. Zieverink v. Kemper, 50 Ohio St. 208 34 N. B. 250—439. Zihlman v.> Cumberland Glass Co., 74 Md. 303, 22 Atl. 271-1758. Zimmele v. American, etc. Co., 1 N. Y App. Div. 327, 37 N. Y. Supp. 183— 811, 814. Zimmele v. American, etc. Co., 21 N Y. Supp. 846—815. Zimmer v. Brooklyn Sub. Ry., 6 N. Y. Supp. 316—1443. Zimmer v. Schleehauf, 115 Mass. 52— 438. Zimmer v. State, 30 Ark. 680—2587, 2604. Zimmerman v. Carpenter, 84 Fed. 747 —538, 579. Zimmerman v. Heil, 86 Hun, 114, 33 N. Y. Supp. 391—906. Zimmerman v. Jewett, 19 Abb. N. Cas. 459—1361. Zimmerman v. Union Canal Co., 1 W. & S. (Pa.) 346—2799. Zimpleman v. Stamps, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 129, 51 S. W. 341—1811. Zinc, etc. Co. v. First, etc. Bank, 103 Wis. 125, 79 N. W. 229, 74 Am. St. Rep. 845—71, 158, 1457, 1618. Zinn V. Baxter, 65 Ohio St. 341, 62 N. B. 327—1614, 1875, 1881. Zlon Church v. St. Peter's Church, 5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 215—1941. Zion, etc. Assoc, v. Mayo, 22 Mont. 100, 55 Pac. 915—1675, 1951. Zirkel v. Joliet Opera House Co., 79 111. 334—101, 350. Zoedone Co., In re, 60 L. T. Rep. 383 (1889)— 106, 122. Zopfl V. Postal T. C. Co., 60 Fed. 987, 9 C. C. A. 308—2826. Zuccani v. Nacupal, etc. Co., 61 L. T. Rep. 176 (1889), 60 L. T. Rep. 23 (1888)— 2513. Zulick V. Markham, 6 Daly, 129—796, 820, 961. Zulueta's Claim, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 444 (1870)— 546, 667, 668, 669. THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS HAVING A CAPITAL STOCK. PAET I. ISSUE OF AND LIABILITY ON STOCK. CHAPTEE L DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OP CORPORATIONS. 1. 2. 2a. 3. Definition of corporation. Definition of charters, general and special — Definition of franchise. Acceptance of a charter by the corporation arises from merely acting under it, and a want of formal acceptance is no de- fense to actions on its con- tracts. A private corporation may be- c o m e accommodation i n- dorser, distribute its assets, is- sue its notes, stock, or bonds below par or for no considera- tion whatsoever, give away its assets, or may mortgage its property for the personal ben- efit of a part or all of its stock- holders or oflScers; provided, always, that all the stockhold- ers assent, and provided that corporate creditors are not in- jured, and provided that no , statute forbids such acts. The doctrine of ultra vires is no longer held to forbid such acts by a private corporation under such circumstances — Powers, express and implied. The certificate of incorporation under the general act cannot legally contain any powers, restrictions, or provisions ex- cept those called for by the statute. 4a. By-laws of a corporation. 5. Mistakes, irregularities, and ille- galities in becoming incorpo- rated. (1) 1 4 § 6. "Dummy "corporations — Fraud- ulent corporations — Courts may ignore the corporate ex- istence in order to do justice — Corporations as distinguished from partnerships. 7. Classes of corporations and the class considered herein. 8. Corporations having a capital stock — Definition of capital stock. 9. Is the capital stock a trust fund for the benefit of corporate creditors ? 10. Definitions of corporator, sub- scriber, shareholder, stock- holder, and officer. 11. Relation of stockholders towards the corporation. 13. Shares of stock defined — What law governs — Common stock — Preferred stock — De- ferred stock — Overissued stock — Special stock. ' 13. Certificates of stock. 14 Definition of bond, mortgage, deed of trust, debenture, arti- cles of association, memo- randa of association, scrip, certificate book, transfer book, stock ledger, underwriting, founders' shares. 15. Name of a corporation. 15o. Statutes which apply to " per- sons " are generally construed to apply to corporations. 156. Torts committed by corpora- tions — Exemplary damages — Indictment. §1-J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS, [oh. I. § 1. Definition of corporation. — A corporation is aa artificial person, like the state. It is a distinct existence — an existence separate from that of its stockholders and directors. Chief Justice Marshall, in the Dartmouth College Case in 1819, followed the language of Lord Coke in 1613, and defined a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contem- plation of law."^ 1 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Lord Coke in the case of Buttons Hospital (10 Coke's Rep. 1, 38), decided in 1613, defined a corporation as follows and said: "A corporation aggregate of many is invisible, immortal, and rests only in intendment and consideration of the law. They can't commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommunicate, for they have no souls, neither can they appear in person, but by attorney. A corporation aggregate of many can't do fealty, for an invisible body can neither be in person nor swear; it is not sub- ject to imbecilities or death of the natural body and divers other cases." William M. Evarts used the following language in regard to corporations: "Now, what is the absolutely indis- pensable element in the constitution of corporations ? It is, in the first place, that they should be immortal, as it was expressed in the old formula — that is, that the death of no member aifected them. The next, that the will of the majority was the will of the corpora- tion; that it was so as by necessity and for utility. For, a combination that threw members of corporations to- gether, without determining that there never could be but one will, did not make a corporation, in the sense of a personality. The other was that the individual members, in their estates and their property, no longer consti- tuted any part of the corporation's lia- bilities, but that the corporate property was the whole fund of responsibility." In the case of Andrews Bros. Ca v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 585 (1898), the coui't held that the only essential idea of a corporation is that it has "the capacity to exist and act within the powers granted, as a legal entity, apart from the Individual or in- dividuals who constitute its members." The supreme court of the United States has said that " an incorporated company is an association of individ- uals, acting as a single person and by their corporate name; " and again, "Pri- vate corporations are but associations of individuals united for some common purpose, and permitted by the law to use a common name, and to change its members without a dissolution of the association." U. S.- v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. 160 (1890). In Re Gibbs' Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59 (1893), a corporation is defined as fol- lows: "A corporation is an artificial person created by law as the represent- ative of those persons, natural or arti- ficial, who contribute to, or become holders of shares in, the property in- trusted to it for a common purpose. As it is the creature of positive law, its rights, powers, and duties are prescribed by the law." The following cases give definitions of a corporation : Ohio Ins. Ca v. Nunne- macher, 15 Ind. 395 (1860); Ohio, etc. R R. Co. V. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 295 (1861), per Taney, C. J.; Tippecanoe County V. Lafayette, etc. R R., 50 Ind. 85, 108 (1875); Railroad Com'rs v. Port- land, etc. R. R., 63 Me. 269, 377 (1872); Thompson v. Watei-s, 25 Mich. 314, 223 (1873); Baltimore, etc R. R. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 330 (1883); People V, Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill, 616, 620 (1841); Thomas v. Dakin, 23 Wend. 9, 70, 104 (1839); Warner v. CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEK OF COKPOEATIONS. [§1- A corporation can be created by or under legislative enactment, and by that alone.' No particular form pi words is requisite to create a corporation.^ The domicile, residence, and citizenship of a corporation are in the stftte where it is incorporated.' Beers, 33 Wend. 103, 123, 134 (1840); Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 2 Cranoh, 137, 167 (1804); Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61, 88 (1809), per Marshall, C. J.; Louisville, etc. B. R. v. Letson, 8 How. 497, 552 (1844); 3 Kent, Com. 268; State V. Milwaukee, etc. By., 45 Wis, 579, 593 (1878). In Tipling v. Pexall, 3 Bulst. 233 (1618), "the opinion of Manwood, Chief Baron, was this, as touching corpora- tions: that they are invisible, immortal, and that they have no soul. A corpo- ration is a body aggregate; none can create souls but God; but the king creates them, and therefore they have no souls." It is well to state here that a joint- stock corporation and a joint-stock association are essentially different. Both have a capital stock, and both are managed by boards of officers and meetings of the stockholders. But a joint-stock company is unincorporated, is not a distinct entity, and is but a partnership. See ch. XXIX, infra. 1 Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga. 80 (1853); U. S. Trust Co. v. Brady, 30 Barb. 119 (1855); Pennsylvania R. R % Canal Com'rs, 31 Pa. St. 9 (1853); Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397 (1874); Hoadley u Essex County, 105 Mass. 519 (1870); State V. Bradford, 32 Vt. 50 (1859); McKim v. Odom, 3 Bland, Ch. (Md.) 407, 417 (1829). In England certain colleges have power to create corporations. No such power exists in this country. Medical Inst. V. Patterson, 1 Deni^, 61 (1845). Congress has constitutional power to incorporate a bank. McCuUoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (181 9). Congress may incorporate interstate railroads. California v. Pacific R. R., 137 U. S. 1, 39 <1888). 2 Denton v. Jackson, 2 John. Ch. 320 (1817). Yet a! statute which seems to create a corporation may be construed not to have that effect. See Walsh v. New York, etc. Bridge, 96 N. Y. 437 (1884), holding that the trustees of the Brooklyn bridge are not a corporation, but that the property belongs to the two cities of New York and Brooklyn. A charter is legal, even though no maximum capital stock is fixed. State V. Bank of Commerce, 95Tenn.331 (1895). A board of levee inspectors created by act of the legislature may be a cor- poration, although not expressly de- clared so to be by the act itself. Board, etc. V. Crittenden, 94 Fed. Rep. 613 (1899). A special statute incorporating a lum- ber association creates a corporation, even thougt some of the usual corporate powers are not conferred. Sibley v. Penobscot, etc. Assoc, 93 Me. 399 (1899). "To create a corporation no precise words are necessary. " People v. Barton, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 581 (1901^ 'American, etc. Co. u Johnson, 60 Fed. Rep. 503 (1893)i The domicile of a corporation is entirely distinct from the personal domicile of its officers or stock- holders. Perry v. Round Lake, etc. Assoc., 33 Hun, 393 (1880); Rossie Iron Works 1). Westbrook, 59 Hun, 345 (1891). See also cases in ch. XLV, infra, where the jurisdiction of the federal courts was at issua If the chief office of the corporation is not otherwise fixed it will be held to be the place where the stockholders are requested to meet. Such office cannot be changed by the general officers with- out action on the part of the stockhold- ers or directors. Friok Co. v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 86 Fed. Rep. 725 (1898). § 2.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [oH. I. The Romans seem to have originated the idea of a corporation. The genius of that people for conquest and government led natu- rally, as with the English-speaking races, to industrial organization and new modes of business on a large scale. The Eoman corpora- tion was much the same as the corporation of modern times.\ § 2. Definition of charters, general and special — Definition of franchises. — A charter is the instrument which creates the corpora- tion. It formerly was granted by the king. Later it was granted by an act of the legislature — a separate act being passed for each charter. At present the constitutions of many of the states require tjiat in all possible cases the legislature shall pass general acts whereby, by the simple filing of a prescribed instrument, persons may form a corporation without applying to the legislature at all. These general acts specify the contents of the instrument to be filed, and specify also the powers of the corporation. A charter is special where a special act of the legislature creates the corporation. A charter is under the general act when it consists of a certificate of incorporation filed with the public authorities in accordance with a general act of the legislature allowing corporations to be formed in that manner. The charter of a company formed under the gen- eral law consists bot only of its articles of association, but also of the general statutes of the state under- which the organization takes place.^ The general laws of the state apply to a corporation organized under a special act so far only as the former are consist- 1 Professor Rudolph Sohm, in his In- veritable masterpiece of juristic inge- stitutes of Eoman Law, says, pp. 104- nuity in discovering the notion of a col- 106: '• In Roman law, the property of a lective person ; in clearly grasping, and corporation is the sole property of the distinguishing from its members, the collective whole; and the debts of a collective whole as the ideal unity of corporation are the sole debts of the the members bound together by the collective whole. . . . It represents corporate constitution; in raising this a kind of ideal private person, an in- whole to the rank of a person (a juristio dependent subject capable of holding person, namely), and in securing it a property, totally distinct from all previ- place in private law as an independent ouslyexistingpersons, including its own subject of proprietary capacity stand- members. It possesses, as such, rights ing on the same footing as other private and liabilities of its own. It leads its persons." own life, as it were, quite unaffected by 2 People v. Chicago Gas T. Ca, 130 111. any change of members. It stands apart 268(1889). as a separate subject or proprietary ca- "Corporations organized under th& pacity, and, in contemplation of law, as general law are vested with the powers a stranger to its own members. The conferred by the general act, and those collective whole, as such, can hold prop- contemplated by the certificate, and erty; its property, therefore, is, as far such incidental powers with respect to as its members are concerned, another's the general and special powers as are property, its debts another's debts. . . . necessary, in the sense of convenient, Roman law contrived to accomplish a reasonable, and proper." EUerman v. 4 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [§2. ent with the latter.^ Thus where Congress granted to a Califor- nia corporation certain moneys, and took corporation bonds there- for, it being the clear intent of Congress, as shown by the statutes, to treat such California corporation as a part of a general plan for the building of a railroad through many states, the statutory liabil- ity of all stockholders in California corporations does not apply to such debt.^ A general statute reserving to the state the right to Chicago Junction, etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217 (1891). Under the general act the charter consists of a certificate of incorpora- tion and the provisions of the general act. Bixler v. Summerfield, 195 HI. 147 (1902). The charter of a company- formed under a general statute consists of such statute and of the articles of incorporation. Bent v. TJnderdown, 156 Ind. 516 (1901). Where the statutes in ex- istence at the time of incorporation pro- vide for the extension of corporate charters, a stockholders cannot prevent the corporation from extending its ex- istence in accordance with such statutes. Smith V. Eastwood, etc Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331 (1899). A corporation may enjoin the secretary of state from taking its cer- tificate of incorporation out of the state, even though he proposes to prove perjury by the officers in swearing to the certificate. Delaware, etc. Co. v. Layton, 50 Atl. Rep. 378 (Del 1901). 1 A provision of the general statutes imposing a personal liability upon di- rectors of a corporation is not incorpo- rated into a special charter by a clause declaring that that corporation shall possess all the general powers and priv- ileges and be subject to all the liabil- ities conferred and imposed upon cor- porations organized under the general act. Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U. S. 337 (1895). The provisions o^ the gen- eral statutes jelative to corporations are not applicable to a special charter so far as the provisions of the special charter seem to be inconsistent with those of the general statutes. See People V. Bo wen, 80 Barb. 24 (1859); aflf'd on other points, 21 N. Y. 517 (1860); also Hollis V. Drew, etc. Seminary, 95 N. Y. 166, 173 (1884); Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434 (1875); Clarkson v. Hudson River R. R.. 12 N. Y. 304 (1855); John- son V. Hudson River R R., 49 N. Y. 455 (1872); Burroughs v. BrinkerhofiF, 68 N. Y. 259 (1877). The duration of a corporation is twenty years, although its special char- ter provides for " perpetual succession," where a general act provides for twenty years' duration. State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468 (1895). In New York the legislature is to de- cide whether a special or general incor- poration law shall be enacted. People r. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 517 (1860); Be Gil- bert El. Ry., 70 N. Y. 361 (1.877). A charter cannot be sold, mortgaged, or assigned, although the property and power to operate the property may be. See § 790, infra. In Citizens' Bank v. Parish of Or- leans, 54 Fed. Rep. 73 (1893), the court held that the acceptance by the cor- poration of an act which compelled the corporation to accept the terms of a new constitution did not have that effect. In Citizens' St. R R. v. Memphis, 53 Fed. Rep. 715 (1893), the court held that a charter granted without the reserved right to amend or repeal did not be- come subject to the right to amend or repeal, although it had entered into a consolidation after a constitutional provision was passed reserving this right in all cases. The consolidation was held not to have dissolved the old corporation. Cf. § 897, infrcu 2 United States v. Stanford, 161 U. a 412 (1896X §2.] DEFINITIONS AND NATtJEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [CH. amend or repeal charters is a part of all special charters there- after passed, even though not expressly made a part thereof.^ Al- though a special charter gives the right to a railroad corporation to consolidate with other roads, yet a subsequent general statute may take away this power except so far as the same has been al- ready exercised.* A special charter existing at the time of a con- stitutional amendment prohibiting future special charters may nevertheless be amended thereafter.' Where a special charter is 1 Citizens' Sav. Bank, etc. v. Owens- boro, 173 U. S. 636, 644 (1899). A gen- eral statute reserving the right to alter, amend or repeal charters applies to all subsequent special charters not ex- pressly excepted from its effect. Wat- son Seminary v. Pike Co. Court, 149 Mo. 57 (1899). A general statute reserving the power to amend or repeal charters is a part of all special charters passed subsequently. GriflBn v, Kentucky Ins. Co., 8 Bush (Ky.), 592 (1868); approved in Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. a 1 (1893). See also § 640, notes, infra. * Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 161 U. S. 646 (1896). Mr. Justice Brown's opinion in this case contains a clear exposition of the law on this subject and on the various and far-reaching ap- plications and restrictions of the Dart- mouth College case. The general statutes are a part of the charter, and a subsequent repeal of a part of the general statutes does not affect the corporation unless the stat- ute expressly so provides. Knights of Pythias v. Weller, 93 Va. 605 (1896). 3 Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 (1877). A constitutional provision against spe- cial grants does not prevent the amend- ment of the whole charter where such amendment merely regulates powers already possessed by the corporation, or merely gives power to consolidate with another corporation. Bohraer v, HofCen, 161 N. Y. 390, 409, 411 (1900). As to a special renewal of a charter exist- ing prior to a constitutional provision prohibiting special charters, see In re Application of Bank of Commerce, 153 6 Ind. 460 (1899). A constitutional pro- vision requiring incorporation under general laws only does not, prevent a grant of street rights to a previous existing corporation. Smith v. Indian- apolis, etc. Ey., 63 N. E. Rep. 849 (Ind. 1902). A constitutional provision against special charters does not prevent the legislature curing defects in the organ- ization of a corporation under a general act. State v. Webb, 110 Ala. 214 (1896). Where ^y an amendment an insur- ance charter is changed into a banking charter, an exemption from taxation may be lost thereby by reason of a con- stitutional provision enacted after the original charter was granted, but be- fore the amendment was granted. Memphis City Bank v. Tennessee, ' 161 U. S. 186 (1896X Although a constitutional provision requires incorporations under general acts, if at all, yet an old charter exist- ing prior to the constitutional provis- ion may be amended by the legislature after such constitutional provision. Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R. R, 88 Me. 440 (1891). An old special charter may be amended although a new constitution forbids the grant of special charters. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Shambaugh, 106 Mo, 557 (1891). A constitutional pro- vision against the legislature granting special charters does not render invalid a special charter granted prior to that time, even though the actual organiza- tion of the company wa? after that time. State v. Hancock, 2 Pennewill (Del.), 252 (1899). A corporation amend- CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOKATIONS. [§a. granted, and nothing is prescribed as to its duration, it is perpet- ual.i The state creates the corporation upon the application of indi- viduals, who are called incorporators. The incorporators then or- ganize the corporation. The functions of the incorporators there- upon cease, and stockholders proceed to contribute the capital and elect directors. The directors then start and continue to keep in operation the powers of the corporation. It is a general rule that " every public grant of property or of privileges or franchises, if ambiguous, is to be construed against the grantee and in favor of the public," and especially so as re- gards corporations organized under general laws.^ For this reason it is held that the words " franchises, rights, and privileges " do not necessarily include an exemption from taxation.' On the other hand, a corporation chartered to exist only a limited number of years may take the fee to real estate,* accept a street franchise for a Ipnger period than its own charter exists,* and enter into a con- tract which cannot be fully performed during the corporate exist- ence.* A corporation as well as an individual may waive the ob- jection that a statute is unconstitutional.' The word " franchise " has been construed to mean the entire property, tangible and in- tangible, when so intended, in a taxation statute.^ ing its charter in accordance with a new statute thereby subjects its stock- holders to a statutory liability provided for in such new statute. Senn v. Levy, 63 S. W. Rep. 776 (Ky. 1901), 1 See § 628, infra. A corporation whose charter is not expressly limited as to duration is perpetual. Snell v. Chicago, 133 111. 413 (1890). 2 Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's Car Co., 139 U. S. 34, 49 (1891). " Any am- biguity in the terms of the grant must operate against the corporation and in favor of the public, and the corporation can claim nothing that is not clearly given by the law." Perrine v. Chesa- peake, etc. Co., 9 How. 173 (1850). 'Phoenix, etc. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 174 (1896). In State v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R, 50 Ohio St. 339 (1893), a fran- chise is said to be, " as defined by Kent, a particular privilege conferred by the grant of the government and vested in individuals, or, as defined by Black- stone, a branch of the king's preroga- tive subsisting in the hands of a sub- jeqt. 3 Kent, Com. 458; 3 BL Com. 37." A corporate franchise may mean either the power to act as a corporation or may mean the right which a corpo- ration has to operate a franchise, such as a railroad's right of way. The for- mer is not property. It is not an ele- ment of value in estimating the value of the majority of the stock. Johnson V. Kirby, 65 Cal. 482 (1884). ' It is -not an asset. A bank franchise does not pass to its assignee for the benefit of cred- itors, and the court will deny his appli- cation to sell it. Fietsam v. Hay, 133 111. 393 (1887). For various definitions of franchise, see Wait, Insolv. Corp., § 13. « See § 641, infra. ^ See § 641, infra. 8 See § 641, infra. '> Mayor, etc. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1 (1894), a case where the title of the act did not meet the constitu- tional requirements. 'Adams, etc. Co. v. Kentucky, 166 2a.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [oh. § 2a. Acceptunce of a charter iy the corporation arises from merely acting under it, and a want of formal acceptaiice is no defense to actions oii its contracts. — It is an old principle of law that individuals cannot be compelled by the state to accept a charter to act as a private corporation. Accordingly an acceptance of the charter by them is necessary to the actual existence of the corporation. But there is no rigid rule of law requiring them to indicate such acceptance in a formal manner. Any acts which prove an intent on the part of the corporators to proceed under the charter is a sufficient acceptance of it. It has been frequently held that an acceptance may be shown by proof that corporate meetings and elections have been held and other corporate acts entered into. Mere user of the right to act as a corporation is sufficient.^ U. S. 171 (1897). In the case of State v. Portage City, etc. Co., 107 Wis. 441 (1900), the court stated that a contract between a city and a water-works com- pany, giving to the latter the right to use the streets for its water pipes, was a franchise, and that quo warranto would lie to forfeit such franchise for failure to supply water, in accordance with its terms. 1 Acceptance of a charter is suffi- ciently shown by user under it. Dema^ rest V. Flack, 138 N. Y. 205 (1891); Am- eriscoggin Bridge v. Bragg, 11 N. H. 102 (1840); Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 11 Vt. 302 (1839); Talladega Ins. Co. v. Landers, 43 Ala. 115, 136 (1869); Bland- ford School Dist V. Gibbs, 56 Mass. 39 (1848)j Gleaves v. Brick Church Turnp. Co., 1 Sneed(Tenn.),^91 (1853): Perkins V. Sanders, 56 Miss. 733 (1879); Mutual F. Ins. Co. V. Stokes, 9 Phila. 80 (1873); Penobscot Boom Corp. u Lamson, 16 Me. 334 (1839); Sampson v. Bowdoin- ham, etc. Corp., 36 Me. 78 (1853); Lin- coln, etc. Bank v. Richardson, 1 Me. 79 (1820); Bow V. Allenstown, 84 N. a 851, 372 (1857); Jameson v. People, 16 111. 357 (1855); Covington v. Covington, etc. Co., 10 Bush (Ky.), 69 (1878); People v. Farnham, 35 111. 563 (1864); Middlesex Husbandmen, etc. v, Davis, 44 Mass. 133 (1841); Commonwealths. Bakeman, 105 Mass. 53 (1870); Palfrey v. Pauld- ing, 7 La. Ann. 363 (1852); Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. C. 324 (1894); Trot v. War- ren, 11 Me. 237 (1834). As to the accept- ance of a charter, see also the digest of cases in 13 Am. R. R. & Corp. Rep., pp. 460-466. Building a part of the road is an acceptance of a special charter. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557 (1891). Acceptance is sufficient where the grantees afterwards apply for an amendment to the charter. Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R. R, 83 Ma 440 (1891); and see cases in §§ 183- 186, infra, holding that a subscriber cannot defeat an action to collect his subscription by alleging informalities in organization. Formerly it was cus- tomary at the first meeting of the cor- poration to pass a formal vote accept- ing the charter. This, however, is not necessary. The fact of holding the meeting is a sufficient acceptance. See same cases; also, Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Ca, 71 Ga. 106 (1883), where a charter granted in 1868 was not acted on until 1877. It was held that the application for a charter con- stituted an acceptance in advance. McKay v. Beard, 30 S. C. 156 (1883), hold- ing that an acceptance existed though no meeting at all for organization was held, but the corporation proceeded to business; Logan v. McAllister, 3 Del. Ch. 176 (1858), holding that irregulari- 8 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [§3. § 3. J. private corporation may 'become accommodation indorser, distribute its assets, issue its notes, stocTc, or bonds below par or for no consideration whatsoever, give away its assets, or ma/y mortgage its property for the personal benefit of a part or all of its stocTchold- ers or officers, provided always that all the stockholders assent, and provided that corporate creditors are not injured, and provided that no statute forbids such acts. The doctrine of ultra vires is no longer held to forbid such acts by a private corporation under such circumstances — Powers, express and implied. — The powers of the corporation are given by the charter, and these powers are express or implied. ties in organization are immaterial; Russell V. MoLellan, 31 Mass. 63 (1833), where no notice was given of the first meeting, and a stockholder sued for a dissc^utioD of the company as a copartnership. The best evidence pos- sible of the acceptance should be given. Hudson v. Carman, 41 Me. 84 (1856). Where subscription books are opened and then abandoned, and ten years later are secretly re-opened and subscriptions taken without giving the statutory notice to the public that they may subscribe, the charter is forfeit- abla State v. Bull, 16 Conn. 179 (1844). So, also, where a new charter is granted to an existing corporation, and it continues to act, the jury are to say whether the corporation continued under the old charter or accepted the new one. Hammond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1 (1879). As regards the acceptance of a charter amendment by simply acting under it, see State v. Sibley, 35 Minn. 387 (1879); Sumrall v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 27 (1867); Rex v. Hughes, 7 B. & C. 708 (1838), a municipal corpora- tion case; Bangor, etc. E. R. v. Smith, 47 Me. 34 (1859); Lyons v. Orange, etc. R. R., 32 Md. 18 (1869); Wetumpka, etc. R. R. V. Bingham, 5 Ala. (N. S.) 657 (1843 ', and many cases in ch. XXVIH and § 503, infra. Failure to organize under a special charter until after a constitutional amendment prohibiting special charters is fatal to it. State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40 (1861). In Texas it 9 is a sufScient acceptance of a special charter to organize under it, but if the organization does not take place until after the constitution is changed, the special .charter is subject to the amended constitution. Quinlan v. Houston, etc. Ry., 89 Tex. 356 (1896). Acceptance must be in toto or not at all. Rex V. Westwood, 4 B. & C. 781 (1835). A corporation cannot accept part -of a special charter and reject the rest. lie Metropolitan Transit Co., Ill N. Y. 588 (1889). A person cannot be compelled to act as a corporator in a private corporation. Ellis v. Marshall, 2 Mass. 269 (1807X Hence his accept- ance must be proved by user at least. Coffin V. Collins, 17 Me. 440 (1840). Or- ganizing out of the state may not be legal, yet it suffices for an acceptance of the charter. Heath v. Silverthorn, etc. Co., 39 Wis. 146 (1875). A special charter must be accepted before the corporation exists, and such acceptance cannot be at a meeting held out of the state. Hence a bill by a stockholder to set aside a forfeiture of his stock was dismissed by the court. Smith v. Silver Valley Min. Co., 64 Md.85 (1885). Acceptance of a new charter is not nec- essarily an abandonment of the old one. Johnston v. Crawley, 35 Ga. 316 (1858); Woodfork v. Union Bank, 8 Coldw. (Tenn.) 488 (1866). Acceptance of the charter is not implied by accepting the benefits, but performing none of the burdens imposed, as where a toll road §3.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOHATIONS. [CH. I. The express powers are those which are expressly specified in the charter or the statutes under which the corporation was incor- porated. The implied powers of a corporation are those which naturally arise from the nature of the business. Thus, a corporation has im- plied power to buy, hold, and sell necessary real estate and other property in its corporate name; to sue and be sued in that name; to do business in its corporate name without rendering its stock- holders liable as partners for its debts ; to govern its officers, agents, and business by by-laws; to issue transferable certificates of stock to its stockholders; to have its business managed by directors in- stead of by the stockholders as in a partnership; to continue business although its stockholders die or sell their stock; to borrow money and give bills, notes, and acceptances; to issue negotiable bonds; to assign for the benefit of creditors; and, except in quasi-public corporations, such as railroads, to give a mortgage.' was established over a highway. Welsh V. Plumas County, 94 Cal. 368 (1892). Where a stock corporation has received no stock subscription and issued no stock, it cannot maintain a suit. As- pen, etc. Co. V. Aspen, 5 Colo. App. 13 (1894). iThe definition of a corporation throws some light upon its nature, but a still clearer idea is obtained by con- sidering the inherent powers of corpora- tions. 1 Blackstone's Com. 475, says that the inseparable incidents or powers of all corporations aggregate are: (1) To have perpetual succession ; (2) to sue or be sued, and grant or receive by the corporate name; (3) to purchase and hold lands and chattels; (4) to have a common seal; (5) to make by-laws. Chancellor Kent, in 2 Com. 378, n., adds: (6) the power to expel members. 1 Kyd, Corp. 13, 69, 70, has a different sum- mary of incidents. See also 3 Kent, Com. 377. The greatest and most vital features of modern corporations, however, — features that have become prominent since those authors wrote, and the fea- tures that have rendered possible the universal use and great achievements of corporations, — are two in number: (1) The limited liabil i ty conferred, by im- 10 plication, by the granting of a charter; (3) the right of the corporation to issue certificates of stock and the right of the members to transfer them. It has been said that the essence of a corporation consists of a capacity (1) to have perpetual succession under a spe- cial name and in an artificial form; (3) to taSe and grant property, contract obligations, sue and be sued, by its cor- porate name as an individual; and (3) to receive and enjoy in common grants of privileges and immunities. Thomas V. Dakin, 23 Wend. 1, 71 (1839). The supreme court of Illinois, speaking of the above, says: " The first two describe the franchises which belong to the cor- porators; the last those which belong to the corporation." Snell v. Chicago, 133 111. 413 (1890). A corporation is not bound to exercise all the powers con- tained in its charter. Illinois, etc Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. Eep. 133 (1900). A water-power corporation organized under a special act of the legislature by which the various owners of riparian rights and of the dam and of the water power therefrom became interested in such company, no stock being issued, but each owner of water-power being entitled to one vote, cannot maintain suit against a city for diverting the OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§ 3. The theory of a corporation is that it has no powers except those expressly given or necessarily implied. But this theory is no longer strictly applied to private corporations. A private corporation may exercise many extraordinary powers, provided all of its stock- holders assent and none of its creditors are injured. There is no one to complain except the state, and, the business being entirely private, the state does not interfere. Thus, fifty years ago the courts would summarily have declared it illegal for a business corporation to become an accommodation indorser of commer- cial paper. But to-day there is no rule of public policy which prohibits a private corporation having a capital stock from becom- ing the accommodation indorser of commercial paper, provided such indorsement is made with the knowledge and assent of all the directors and stockholders, and provided corporate creditors are paid.* Unless some statute prohibits, or a stockholder or creditor ob- jects, a corporation may declare a dividend out of its capital stock.^ A corporation may execute its note for the personal indebtedness of its sole stockholder, and no one but the creditors of the corpo- ration can complain.^ A mortgage given by the corporation for the personal benefit of a part or all of the stockholders is legal, if all the stockholders assent.^ Bonds of a corporation may be issued waterwhere the title to the water rights poses, irrespective of the corporation, was not vested in the corporation, the all the stockholders knowing thereof business of the corporation being to and assenting thereto, a policy of in- maintain the dam and raceways and surance belonging to one of them is his, reserve the water-power, the expense even though the premiums were paid being paid by assessment. Elgin, etc. out of the corporate profits, it being Co. V. City of Elgin, 194 IlL 476 (1902). shown that all this was done while the 1 Quoted and approved in Murphy v. corporation was solvent, and that no Arkansas, etc. Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 723, 727 rights of creditors then intervened, and (1899); Martin v. Niagara Falls, etc. that all the debts represented by the re- Co., 123 N. Y. 165 (1890). See also § 774, ceiver arose subsequently. Little v. infra. Garabrant, 90 Hun, 404 (1895); ail'd, 2 A statutory liability for dividends 153 N. Y. 661 (1897). On a sale of all paid out of the capital stock abrogates its assets, a corporation may distribute all common-law liability, and if such the proceeds. See § 671, infra, statute does not prohibit such dividends ' Millsaps n Merchants', etc. Bank, tliey may be declared and paid subject 71 Miss. 361 (1893). to such liability. People v. Barker, 141 < Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. 438 (1886), is N. Y. 251 (1894). The Penal Code of in point. In that case a person had New York prohibits such a dividend, purchased all the stock of a corpora- Penal Code, § 594. On this subject, see tion and paid for it by notes secured by also §§ 535, 546, 548, 671, infra. Where a mortgage of the corporation on all of a few persons own all the stock of a its property. The corporation became company and use the profits for per- insolvent. A general creditor of the sonal expenses and miscellaneous pur- corporation attacked the mortgage, but 11 ^3.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [oh. I. at any price which may be agreed upon,^ and stock may be issued at less than par or even given away, provided all the stockholders assent,^ or do not object within a reasonable time,' and provided corporate jsreditors are not injured.* And even as to the latter, only those corporate creditors can object who become such after the watered stock was issued." A corporation may sell all its property and distribute the pro- ceeds among its stockholders, if all its stockholders assent,^ or may the court held that it was legal and could be enforced by the person to whom the notes were given. The court said: "A man can certainly do what he pleases with his own property, if he does not thereby prejudice any of the rights of subsisting creditors. It does not appear that any existing cred- itors were injuriously affected thereby." In the case of First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Winchester, 119 Ala. 168 (1898), where a private corporation had but four stockholders, and two of them bought the stock of the other two and paid therefor by notes signed by them and the corporation and secured by mort- gage on the corporate property, the court held that the note was not en- forcible against the corporation, but held that the mortgage was legal as against subsequent creditors, mortga- gees and purchasers from the corpora- tion who took with notice of the facts. Approving Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. 428 (1886). Where an individual who owes a debt transfers property to a corpora- tion, and later the corporation with the consent of all the stockholders and creditors gives a bill of sale of certain property to pay such debt, the corpora- tion itself cannot subsequently com- plain. Quee Drug Co. v. Plant, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 87 (1900). Again, where three persons own all the stock of a company, two of them may buy the stock of the third and give the company's notes in partial payment of the same. The transaction is legal, inasmuch as no one is injured and all consent. Neither subsequent purchasers of the stock, nor those who become stockholders after the notes are paid, nor stockholders who consent to the arrangement, can complain of it. Schilling, etc. Ca v. Schneider, 110 Mo. 83 (1892). An im- provement corporation may legally give a mortgage to secure the personal debt of its president, if none of the stock- holders or the existing creditors object. Osborn v. Montelac Park, 89 Hun, 167 (1895); aff'd, 153 N. Y. 672. In Ger- mania, etc. Co. v. Boynton, 71 Fed. Eep. 797 (1896), however, it was held that even though every stockholder and di- rector acquiesces in corporate bonds being issued to secure the private debt of an officer, yet that a party receiving such bonds with notice could not en- force them. 1 See § 766, infra. 2§g 88, 39, infra. Where all the stockholders unite in the issue of wa- tered stock to the president for his own use, and assent to a contract between him and the company, the corporation itself cannot subsequently complain. Arkansas, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc. Co., 13 Colo. 587 (1889). An agreement be- tween a corporation and subscribers for its stock that only a certain portion of the par value of the stock shall be collected by the corporation is binding upon the corporation, but not upon the corporate creditors, unless such agree- ment was made a part of the recorded articles of incorporation. Bent v. Un- derdown, 156 Ind. 516 (1901). 3 See oh. XhlV, infra. 4§§42, 43, m/ra- 5 § 42, infra. e See §§ 670, 671, infra. 12 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOKATIONS. [§ 3;- gell the corporate property and take in payment purchase-money mortgage bonds to be distributed among the stockholders.^ A bond dividend is legal ^ as well as a stock dividend.' The corporation may also, by consent of all, give away corporate assets,* and in a great variety of ways by Avhich directors and corporate officers make a personal profit out of the corporation, a profit,, which is fraudulent and illegal if any stockholder objects,' is legal and is upheld by the courts if all the stockholders assent ' or dO' not object.'' In other words, the question is, who has been damaged? The state is not damaged and cannot enjoin the act;' neither can a stockholder who assents or delays after knowledge of the act;' nor can the purchaser or transferee of stock which assented to the act; '" nor can a corporate creditor who is sure to be paid, or whose debt is not due, or who has not yet recovered judgment; " nor can the corporation itself.'^ If no one is injured no one can complain. If there is no damage there can be no suit. The theoretical idea that the act is ultra vires or that the corporation has exceeded its powers or has violated some shadowy principle of public policy is being rapidly abandoned, and the courts are basing their decisions on the logical principle of damage suffered or threatened. The old theory of a corporation was that it could not legally do- anything in excess of its express and implied powers. But the modern view is that a private corporation may, if all its stockhold- ers assent and if creditors are paid. Public policy does not require business corporations to confine themselves strictly within the limits of the words of their charter.'' ' United Lines Tel. Co. v. Boston, etc. '^ gg 35^ ggg, infra. As to public cor- Ca, 147 U. S. 431 (1893). See also § 766, porations,— as, for instance, a rail- infra. road,— the rule, of course, is different. 2 Wood V. Lary, 134 N. T. 83 (1891). See §§ 892-894, infra. ' See § 536, infra. is The New York court of appeals < See §§ 766, 774, infra. said in Kent v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 'See g§ 647-663, infra, for illustra- N. Y. 159. 186 (1879): "A bank has no tiops. Thus, where the directors own authority from the state to engage in all the stock of a corporation, the usual benevolent enterprises; and a subscrip- rules preventing a director from con- tion, though formally made, for a chari- tracting with the coi'poration do not table object would be out of its powers; apply. McCraoken v. Robison, 57 Fed. but it would Hot be otherwise an ille- Rep. 375 (1893). gal act; yet if every stockholder did * See §§ 647-663, infra. expressly assent to such an application ' See ch. XLl V, infra. of the corporate funds, though it would 8 See §§ 37, 633, 635, infra, still be in one sense ultra vires, no- ^ See § 39 and ch. XLIV, infra. wrong would be done, no public inter- '"See §§ 40, 730, infra. est harmed; and no stockholder could '' See §§ 735, 863, infra, object, or claim that there was an in- 13 § 4.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. I. In the case of railroad corporations public policy does intervene and does limit the implied powers. A railroad company has no implied power to sell, lease, or mortgage its road, or to charge such rates for service as it sees fit, or to charge one man more than another for the same service.' Yet even here the old doctrine is breaking down. The New York court of appeals has recently drawn the line between its decisions and the decisions of the su- preme court of the United States, and has held that where a con- tract of a corporation is not immoral, and is not expressly prohib- ited hy its charter, and has been performed by one of the parties thereto, the court will compel the other party to do substantial justice.^ § 4. The certificate of incorporation under the general act cannot legally contain any powers, restrictions, or provisions except those called for ly the statute. — Frequently the incorporators desire to o^ain more powers than the statute specifies, or to restrict unal- terably some of the powers possessed by the corporation, or to reg- ulate in some unalterable way the business of the company. For the purpose of doing so they insert in the certificate of incorpora- tion under the general act special provisions not called for by the act which authorizes the incorporation. The law is clear that the articles of association of a corporation organized under a general act are allowed to contain only those matters and statements which are required by the statute itself. The incorporators are not at liberty to insert additional provisions and regulations. If such additional provisions and regulations are inserted they are void. The law does not recognize them. They do not constitute a part of the charter, but are rejected as surplus- age and extraneous matter. If the articles of association contain the matters required by the statute and also contain additional matters, the former are sufiSoient to sustain the charter, and the additional matter does not vitiate the legitimate part of the articles, fringement of his rights, and have re- court said: "The courts in this state di^ss or protection. Such an act, though from an early day, commencing as far beyond the power given by the char- bacli as the Utica insurance cases, have ter, unless expressly prohibited, if con- sought to regulate and restrict the firmed by the stockholders could not defense of ultra vires so as to make it be avoided by any of them to the harm consistent with the obligations of jus- of third persons. This arises from the tice." See also Augusta, etc. R. R v. principle that the trust for stockhold- City Council, 100 Ga. 701 (1897). The ers is not of a public nature.'' See also old rule of ultra vires has been changed § 774, infra. so that now only the state or a party ' See oh. LIII, infra. interested in the corporation can com- 2 Bath Gaslight Ca v. Claflfy, 151 N. Y. plain. Farwell Ga v. Wolf, 96 Wis. 10 S4, 29-31, 33, 34, 37 (1896), where the (1897). 14 CH. I-J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§i- but the additional matter is disregarded by the law as though it had not been written. All of the decisions hold that any state- ments of restrictions inserted in the articles of association, outside of the statements required by the general act allowing the incorpo- ration, are unauthorized and void.^ 'Quoted and approved in Indiana, etc. Co. V. Ogle, 23 Ind. App. 593 (1899); Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546 (1856); Oregon Ry. etc. Co. V. Oregonian By., 130 U. S. 1, 25 (1889); Albright v. Lafayette, etc. Assoc, 102 Pa. St 411 (1883); Becket v. Uniontown, etc. Assoc, 88 Pa. St. 211 (1878); Gran- gers', etc Ins. Co. v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325 (1883); Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71 (1879); Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc R. R., 118 U. S. 290, 307 (1886): Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 111. 197 (1874); Rochester Ins. Co. v. Martin, 13 Minn. 59 (1868); Western Union T. Co. V. Union Pac Ry., 8 Fed. Rep. 1, 4 (1880); Ancient, etc. Club v. Miller, 7 Lans. 413 (1873); People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 358 (1818), 67 N. E. Rep. 207. A provision in the articles of incor- poration, filed under the general act, is void, where such provision attempts to exempt the stockholders from liability to corporate creditors on their unpaid subscriptions. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). " In corporations formed under gen- eral laws it is no objection that the articles of association contain pro- visions not authorized by the act. If unauthorized provisions are added, all acts done in pursuance of such will be void; but until the corporation is pro- ceeded against for an abuse of its fran- chises, its rights as a corporation will not be affected by such unauthorized powers." Commonwealth v. Yetter, 190 Pa. St. 488, 495 (1899; The fact that a certificate of incorpo- ration includes a purpose for which in- corporation is not provided for by the statute does not invalidate the charter nor render the stockholders personally liable, there being other purposes in the certificate which are authorized. Ten- nessee, etc. Co. V. Massey, 56 S. W. Rep. 35 (Tenn. 1899). A provision cannot be included in a charter under the general act, whereby stockholders are to vote according to their stock. Commonwealth v. Con- over, 10 Phila. 55 (1873). Where in addition to the articles of incorporation the statute provides for articles of association, the corporation may in the latter provide for a lien on the stock. Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Sche- nectady Bank, 78 Hun, 90 (1894); aflf'd, 151 N. Y. 665. C/.81 N. Y. App. Biv. 367. Where the statute allows the incor- porators to include special provisions in their articles of incorporation, and a lien right is inserted, and the certifi- cate 8f stock on its face refers to the articles of association, a purchaser of a certificate buys subject to such lien. Gibbs V. Long Island Bank, 83 Hun, 92 (1894); afi^'d, 151 N. Y. 657. If a charter contains purposes, some of which are legal and some illegal, it is good to the estent of the former. Galveston Land & Imp. Co. v. Perkins, 26 S. W. Rep. 256 (Tex. 1894). A provision in the charter of a manu- facturing company organized under the general law, that it may buy, etc., a railroad, does not invalidate the charter, even though it cannot exercise such a power. People v. Mount Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256 (1895). For many de- cisions on this subject, see ch. XIII, §§ 231-284, notes, infra. In incorporating under the general act no powers can be placed in the articles of incorporation except such powers as the general act authorizes. People v. Chicago Gas T. Co., 130 111. 268 (1889). Where a land company is incofpo- 15 §4<^.J DEFINITIONS AND NATDEE OF COKPOEATIONS. [CH. I. In New York and ISTew Jersey and under the National Banking Act the statutes expressly allow the insertion of special provisions in the articles of incorporation, and a broad public policy certainly favors such provisions, inasmuch as thereby the stockholders may restrict the powers of the board of directors and otherwise regu- late the corporation. The certificate of incorporation may, however, provide that the business shall be two or more of the kinds of business which are au- thorized by the statute.' The fact that a charter authorizes a cor- poration to do business at a certain place outside of the state does not prevent its doing business in other. states.* § ia. By-laws of a corporation. — According to Blackstone, one of the important features of a corporation is the power to make by-laws. A by-law is a permanent rule of action, in accordance with which the corporate affairs are to be conducted. A by-law differs from a resolution in that a resolution applies to a single act of the corporation, while a by-law is a permanent and continuing rule, which is to be applied on all future occasions.' The power to rated under the general act, and the general act does not provide for any statement in the articles of association as regards the amount of debts which the corporation may incur, a provision inserted in the articles of association that " the indebtedness of the company shall not exceed $500 at any one time " is not a part of the charter. The pro- vision is at the most merely a by-law. The court said: "We think that the limitation of $500 in the charter of the corporation cannot be regarded of any more force than a by-law." Sherman, etc. Co. V. Morris, 43 Kan. 382 (1890). A provision in the charter that the stock shall be divided in a certain way is binding upon the corporation so far as it is concerned, and upon the parties thereto, but may be contradicted by other evidence of what the agreement really was. Bates v. Wilson, 14 Cola 140 (1890). Provisions for internal management should not appear in a charter. Re Stevedores' Beneficial Assoc, 14 Phila. Rep. 130 (1880); Be M. E. Patterson Memorial Church, 41 Leg. Int. 353 (1884); Be St. Luke's Church, 41 Leg. Int. 74 16 (1884); Be Central Democratic Assoc, 46 Leg. Int. 380 (1889); Booz's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 593 (1885). Where stock is issued for real estate at an overvalua- tion, the parties receiving the stock are liable for the difference, and it is no defense that the charter showed that the stock was to be so issued for the real estate. Lea v. Iron, etc. Co., 119 Ala. 271 (1898). Of. ch. Ill, infra, and Bent V. Underdown, 156 Ind. 516 (1901). 1 Bird V. Daggett, 97 Mass. 494 (1867). A statement in the articles of incorpo- ration that the company may carry on such business as it thinks to be for the benefit of the stockholders is void. Ee Crown Bank, L. E. 44 Ch. D. 634 (1890). See also § 336, infra. Charters for enumerated objects " and other purposes " will be rejected. Be Journalists' Fund, 8 Phila. 273(1871). So as to mining for "minerals." Be Glen wood Co., 6 Pa Co. Ct. Eep^ 575 (1889). * Meredith v. New Jersey, eta Ca, 59 N. J. Bq. 357 (1899); affd, 60 N. J. Eq. 445 (1900). 'Quoted and approved in Steger «. Davis, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 33 (1894). " A CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUBE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [§4«. make by-laws is always stated to be one of the essential incidents and rights of a corporation. This power exists at common law. Frequently, however, it is giuen by the charter or statutes.^ By-laws are to be made by the stockholders in meeting assembled. The stockholders have few functions to perform, and this right to make by-laws is an essential and important one. The directors have no inherent power to make by-laws.^ But the stockholders may delegate to the directors the power to make by-laws.' Fre- quently the charter confers this power upon the directors.* by-law is a permanent and continu- ing rule for the gOTernment of the cor- poration and its officers." North, etc. Co. V. Bishop, 103 Wis. 492 (1899). 1 People V. Crossley, 69 111. 195 (1873); Kearney v. Andrews, 10 N. J. Bq. 70 (1854); Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 29 (1817); Jukeru Com- monwealth, 20 Pa. St. 484 (1853); New- ling V. Francis, 3 T. R 189 (1789), the last two cases holding that at common law the corporation may make by-laws regulating elections. 2 The board of directors have no power to adopt the by-laws unless the statute expressly gives them that power. North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103 Wis. 492 (1899); Morton, etc. Co. v. Wy- song, 51 Ind. 4 (1875), holding that a by-law made by the directors is void; Carroll v. Mullanphy Sav. Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249 (1880); Brinkerhoff, etc. Co. v. Home Lumber Ca, 118 Mo. 447 (1893), holding that a by-law made by the di- rectors restricting the right to sell stock is void. A by-law may arise by custom. Union Bank v. Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 324 (1827). See Re Regents', etc. Co., 2 W. N. 79 (1867). See also Rex v. Head, 4 Burr. 2515 (1770), where Lord Mansfield said "that the body at large had no power to make by-laws, because that power is, by the charter, given to the common council, consisting of the mayor and aldermen; and the common council could not by a by-law take away from the body at large the right of election which the charter had vested in the whole body." Unless au- thorized bv the charter the board of (2) directors have no power to make by- laws, nor to alter, amend, or repeal the same (United Fire Assoc, v. Benseman, 4 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 1-tl1877); but when charter authority to enact by-laws is conferred upon the board of directors, they may validly adopt a by-law au- thorizing voting by proxy at all meet- ings of the corporation (Wilson v. American Acad, of Music, 43 Leg. Int. 86 — 1886); and even in the absence of authority the affirmations and acqui- escence of a member may estop him from questioning the mode in which the by-laws have been enacted (Morri- son V. Dorsey, 48 Md. 461 — 1877). »Rex w.Spencer,3 Burr. 1827, 1837(1766), where Lord Mansfield said that, " where the power of making by-laws is in the body at large, they may delegate their rights to a select body." See also, in an association, Heintzelman v. Druids' Re- lief Assoc, 38 Minn. 138 (1888). Al- though the stockholders authorize the directors to make by-laws, yet the di- rectors cannot change or act contrary to a by-law made by the stockholders. Stevens v. Davison, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 819 (1868). The by-laws cannot delegate to the directors the exclusive right to make by-laws. Alters v. Journeymen, etc. A6S00.J 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272 (1902). City officials having power to elect new burgesses may delegate that power. Rex V. Westwood, 7 Bing. 1 (1830). So, also, as to the election of aldermen. Rex V. Ashwell, 12 East, 22 (1810). * See also Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124 (1845); Sam- uel V. HoUaday, Woolw. 400 (1869); a c. 17 § 4«.J. DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOBATIONS. [CH. Where the statute states for what purpose by-laws may be passed, none others can be passed.' Where the by-laws conflict with the charter, the charter prevails.' By-laws must be reasonable; they must not interfere with the vested and substantial rights of the stockholders ; and they must not be contrary to public policy or the established law of the land. This general rule, however, can be understood only by a study of the cases themselves, a collection of which is given in the notes.' 31 Fed. Cas.306; Commonwealth'^ Gill, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 328 (1838). A by-law made by the stockholders instead of by the directors as prescribed by charter is nevertheless binding as to past acts on participating stockholders. People V. Sterling Mfg. Co., 83 111. 457 (1876). 1 Ireland v. Globe, etc. Co., 19 E. 1. 180 (1895). See s. a, 20 E. I. 190; 21 R I. 9. 2 Republican, etc. Mines v. Bi-own, 58 Fed. Eep. 6U (1898). ' It is legal for a corporation to enact a by-law requiring stockholders to pay a small fee on making transfers of their stock upon the corporate books. Giesen V. London, etc. Mortg. Co., 103 Fed. Rep. 584 (1900). Even though a by-law con- fers upon the general manager, among other powers, the " general and exclu- sive charge and management of the business of the company," nevertheless the by-law is not void as a whole, and until the general manager illegally ex- ercises power the courts will not inter- fere. Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y, 287 (1899). A by-law, even though passed upon the organization of the company, cannot legally provide that upon a sale of the company's property for stock in another company the stock going to dissenting stockholders might be sold in such manner as the old company thought fit, and the proceeds paid over to the dissenting stockholder, where the statute provided that the interest of dissenting stockholders should be as- certained by arbitration. Payne v. Cork Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 30a Where by the by- laws salaries are to be fiixed by the board of directors, and the salary of the 18 president is not fixed until a year has expired, and is then reduced from $35,000 for the present year to $10,500 on account of personal hostility to him, the execution of the by-law was unrea- sonable, and the court fixed the amount at $17,500. Banigan v. United States, etc. Co., 33 R L 453 (1901). A by-law or provision in the certificate of incorpo- ration to the effect that differences be- tween the corporation and its stock- holders shall be arbitrated is not bind- ing. State V. North American, etc. Co., 31 S. Rep. 173 (La. 1902). Even though the by-laws have to be recorded, yet if they are not recorded they are binding on the stockholders if they have been accepted and acted upon for many years. Ho Tung v. Man, etc. Ca, 85 L. T. Rep. 617 (1903). The by-laws cannot modify the articles of incorporation in any of the particulars required by stat- ute to be stated in the articles of incor- poration. Guinness v. Land Corp., L. R, 33 Ch. D. 349 (1882). A by-law may give the corporation a lien on stock for debts due it from the stockholders. See ch. XXXI, infra. But cannot give the corporation the right to forfeit stock for non-payment of calls. See ch. VIII, infra. A by-law allowing a stockholder to return his stock to the corporation at a fixed value is illegal. Vercoutere V. Golden State Land Co., 116 Cal. 410 (1897). A by-law cannot release stock- holders from their statutory liability. Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157 (1897). A by-law prohibiting a stockholder from applying for dissolution in accordance with the statute is invalid. Re Peveril, etc., Ltd., [1898] 1 Ch. 123. By-laws may CH. I.j DEFINITIONS AND NATFEE OF CORPOKATIONS. [§4«. A by-law, recited on the face of a certificate of stock, to the effect that a stockholder will not sell his stock without first offer- regulate the manner of voting. Com- monwealth V. Woelper, 3 Serg. & R. 30 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUKE OF- COEPOEATIONS. [§ from the amount of property possessed by the corporation. Oc- casionally it happens that, under the terms of statutes relating to taxation which have been drawn without regard to the technical meaning of words, the courts will construe the capital stock to mean all the actual property of the corporation.^ But this is for the purpose of carrying out the intent of the statute, and is not the real meaning of the term. The capital stock of a corporation re- mains fixed, although the actual property of the corporation may fluctuate widely in value, and may be diminished by losses or in creased by gains. The term "stock" has been used at times to indicate the same thing as capital stock.^ Generally, however, it means shares of stock, and in this sense it is used in this treatise. The words capital and profits, as used in connection with life estates and remainders in stocks, have a different meaning from what they have in determining the right of a corporation to declare dividends. In passing upon the relative interests of a remainderman and life tenant in shares of stock and the dividends therefrom, the courts will sometimes include in capital stock, extensions, improvements, plant and working capital which have been obtained from past prof- its and not from subscriptions to the capital stock.' Where a stock corporation has received no stock subscription and issued no stock "The capital of a corporation is the property or means which the corpora- tion owns, and it may vary in amount, while the capital stock is fixed, and represents the interests of the stock- holders, and is their property.'" Wells V. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 443 (1895). A savings bank corporation may be formed without any capital stock, the profits going to depositors. Huntington v. Savings Bank, 96 U. S. 388 (1877). Such is the statute law of New York. For a definition of capital stock, see People V. Coleman, 126 N. Y. 433 (1891). " Capital stock of a corporation is a different thing from shares of stock. Lycoming Co. v. Gamble, 47 Pa. St. 106, 110 (1864). The capital stock represents the property and assets of the company, which may consist in whole or in part of real estate. The certificates or shares of stock are the evidence of an interest which the holder has in the corporation, and it is well settled that this interest is personal property." 31 Wilkes Barre, etc. Bank v. Wilkes Barre, 148 Pa. St. 601 (1893). Where the charter gives power to borrow not exceeding one-half of the capital stock, capital stock means the paid-in capital stock and not the capi- tal stock as stated in the charter. Commonwealth v. Lehigh Avenue Ry., 139 Pa. St. 405 (1889). 1 Quoted and approved in Henderson Bridge Co. u Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 638 (1895); Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Weber, 96 111. 443 (1880); Philadelphia v. Ridge Ava etc. Ry., 102 Pa. St. 190 (1883); Se- curity Co, V. Hartford, 61 Conn. 89 (1891). In New York the words "capi- tal stock " as used in the tax laws are construed to mean actual property and not share capital. People v. Coleman, 136 N. Y. 433 (1891); People w Wemple, 150 N. Y. 46, 50 (1896). 2 See g 13, infra. 3 Matter of Rogers, 161 N. Y. 108 (1899), the court saying: ".What then is capitq.1 and what is profits? In a manufactur- ing business a plant is of first import- §9-] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [CH. I. it cannot maintain a suit.' A corporation has no power to issue stock unless expressly authorized so to do.' And authority in a charter to a cemetery corporation to do all things incident to a cor- poration does not give power to issue stock. Hence an election by so-called stockholders is not legal.' A stock corporation cannot be formed under the laws of West Virginia to promote religion by aiding in the support of Baptist ministers and in the erection of churches.* It is legal for a corporation to hold property in excess of the amount of its capital stock.' § 9. Is the capital stocic a trust fund for the henefit of corporate creditors f — ■ In 1824 Mr. Justice Story, in a celebrated case/ origi- nated and announced the doctrine that the capital stock of a corpo- ration is a trust fund, so far as corporate creditors are concerned, and should be protected and administered as a trust fund by courts of equity. This doctrine was supposed to have been adopted by the supreme court of the United States,' and by the courts of nearly every state of the Union. On this doctrine rest the decisions that ance, and as the business increases an enlargement thereof, with the neces- sary tools, fixtures and machinery, is one of the things to which the earnings of the company may properly be de- Toted. This must be deemed to be fairly within the contemplation of the tes- tator in creating the trusts with the capital stock of this company. After the plant there arises a necessity for raw material and labor to manufacture it. This requires what is usually termed a working capital, and it, of necessity, varies in amount depending upon the magnitude of the business. It must, therefore, also have been within the contemplation of the testator that a reasonable amount would be retained by the directors for this purpose." 1 Aspen, etc. Co. v. Aspen, 5 Cola App. IS (1894). Even though a gas company issues stock without the consent of a state board, as required by statute, yet this is no defense to a tax levied on the corporation based on the amount of its capital stock, including such stock. Attorney-General v. Massachusetts, etc. Co., 60 N. E. Rep. 389 (Mass. 1901). Under the Montana statutes, even though no organization meetings of the stock- holders and directors are held, yet a deed of property to the corporation may be valid. Morrison v. Clark, 24 Mont. 515 (1900). 2 Cooke V. Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 315 (1899), involving a cemetery corpora- tion. 3 Cooke V. Marshall, 196 Pa. St. 20O (1900). Under a general act authorizing incorporation for purposes other than profit, a cemetery cannot be organized for profit, and hence the incorporators are not entitled to moneys received from the sale of lots, but are bound to use such moneys to improve the property. Brown v. Maplewood, etc. Assoc, 89 N. W. Rep. 872 (Minn. 1903). < Powell V. Dawson, 45 W. Va. 780 (1899). 5 Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280 (1844). Where a corpo- ration owns property in excess of an amount specified and limited by the charter, an exemption from taxation does not apply to such excess. Seashore House, etc. v. City of Atlantic City, 48 Atl. Rep. 243 (N. J. 1900). "Wood V. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308 (1824); s. C 30 Fed. Cas. 435. 'Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall 610, &20 (1873). 32 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COKPOEATIONS. [§9- unpaid subscriptions for stock cannot be evaded by release, cancel- lation, or fraudulent transfer j^ that the holders of " watered " stock issued for cash at less than par or for property at an overvaluation are liable to corporate creditors ; ^ that dividends paid from the capital stock may be recovered back;' and that a corporation cannot use its capital stock to purchase outstanding shares of its capital stock.* In 1893, however, the supreme court of the United States passed again upon this theory of the capital stock being a trust fund, and decided that, if there be any trust at all, it is rather a trust in the administration after possession by the court than a trust attaching to the property itself.' This conclusion does not change the law as to subscriptions, " watered stock," dividends and purchases of stock, 1 See g§ 199, 353, 263, infra. ' See §g 42, 46, infra. ' See § 548, infra. < See § 312, infra. *The court said: "While it is true language has been frequently used to the effect that the assets of a corpora- tion are a trust fund held by a corpora- tion for the benefit of creditors, this has not been to convey the idea that there is a dirfect and express trust at- tached to the property. ... In other words, and that is the idea which under- lies all these expressions in reference to 'trust' in connection with the prop- erty of a corporation, the corporation is an entity, distinct from its stock- holders as from its creditors. Solvent, it holds its property as any individual holds his, free from the touch of a cred- itor who has acquired no lien ; free also from the touch of a stockholder who, though equitably interested in, has no legal right to, the property. Becoming insolvent, the equitable interest of the stockholders in the property, together with their conditional liability to the creditors, places the property in a con- dition of trust, first, for the creditors, and then for the stockholders. What- ever of trust there is arises from the peculiar and diverse equitable rights of the stockholders as against the corpo- ration in its property and their con- ditional liability to its creditors. It is rather a trust in the administration of (3) 33 the assets after possession by a court of equity than a trust attaching to the property, as such, for the direct benefit of either creditor or stockholder." Hol- lins V. Brierfield, etc. Co., 150 U. S. 371, 381, 383 (1893). To the same effect, see O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer, 106 Ala. 205, 227 (1894): Hospes v. Northwestern, etc. Co., 48 Minn. 174 (1892). " When a corporation is solvent, the theory that its capital is a' trust fund upon which there is any lien for the payment of its debts has in fact very little foundation. No general creditor has any lien upon the fund under such circumstances, and the right of the cor- poration to deal with its property is absolute so long as it does not violate its charter or the law applicable to such corporation." McDonald v. Williams, 174 U. S. 397, 401 (1899). A solvent corporation does not hold its property in trust for its creditors, even though it is in process of liquida- tion, and hence a partial distribution of the assets of a bank to the stock- holders during liquidation, when the Jjank was solvent and retained suffi- cient assets to pay its liabilities, cannot be recovered back subsequently by the receiver in an action at law, although it turned out that the remaining assets were not sufficient to pay all liabilities, no bad faith being involved. Lawrence V. Greenup, 97 Fed. Rep. 906 (1899). ■' As between the corporation and its §10.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [oh. I. as mentioned above. It changes only the theory or reasoning upon which that law is based. In this respect the supreme court is in harmony with the English decisions. The trust-fund theory does not exist in England. It is purely an American doctrine. The fact is that the trust-fund theory has beclouded rather than clari- fied the subject. For instance, on account of this theory some of the courts have fallen into error and held that when a corporation is insolvent it cannot prefer one creditor as against another. The trust-fund theory may well be superseded by the fact that the capital stock of a corporation is like the capital of a business man, and that just as he cannot, as against his creditors, give it away or forgive the debts of those who owe him, so a corporation cannot, as against its creditors, release subscriptions, give away its assets to its stockholders by way of dividends, or buy its own stock with funds which, upon insolvency, belong to its creditors instead of its stockholders. § 10. Definitions of corporator, subscriber, shareholder, stoclc- holder, and officer. — A corporator is one of those to whom a char- ter is granted, or of those who file a certificate of incorporation under a general incorporating statute.' A subscriber is one who has agreed to take stock from the corporation on the original issue creditors, the corporation does not hold its property in trust for its creditors in an/other sense than does an individual debtor, and that, until a court takes charge of the property of an insolvent corporation, it has the same colitrol over its property that an individual would have over its property under like circumstances." Nappanee, etc. Co. v. Reid, etc. Co., 60 N. E. Eep. 1068 (Ind. 1901). The agreement of a corporation to pay a specified sum of money, with the provision that it shall not Vie charge- able against a certain part of the capital stock, can be enforced in equity only, inasmuch as an accounting is involved. Heflin, eto. Co. v. Hilton, 134 Ala. 365 (1899). 1 Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1, 11 (1879), the court saying: "Corporators exist before stockholders, and do not exist with them. When stockholders come in, corporators cease to be." Of. Re Lady Bryan, 1 Sawy. 349 (1870); S. a, 14 Fed. Cas. 936. In Pennsylvania, 34 under a peculiar statute, it has been held thatthe incorporators thereof need not be subscribers. See Densmore Oil Co. V. Densmore, 64 Pa. St. 43, 54 (1870). It has frequently been held that where a statute authorizes persons to form a corporation, although the stat- ute does not, in express terms, say that they must be of full age, yet it is im- plied that they shall be of full age. Ee Globe, etc. Assoc., 63 Hun, 863 (1892); aff'd, 135 N. Y. 380. Of. Be Laxon, [1893] 1 Ch. 210 (1893). A married woman is not at common law qualified to aqt as an incorporator nor as treasurer. 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 197. A corporation is legally organized although the incorporators are not stockholders as required by statute. "Welch V. Importers', etc. Bank, 122 N. Y. 177 (1890). An incorporator need not be a stock- holder unless the statutes so require., Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545 (1898). OH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [§11- of such stock.' A shareholder in this country means the same thing as a stockholder, and the terms are used interchangeably to indicate one who owns stock in a corporation and has been accepted as a stockholder by the corporation.^ " The stockholders are the equitable owners of the corporate property." ' A stockholder does not stand in the attitude of a partner towards the corporation. A director is an " officer," and a paying teller may be one within the meaning of a criminal statute.* An attorney is an officer of the company and may verify a petition in condemnation proceedings.' § 11. llelation of stoclcliolders towards tlie corporation. — A cor- poration may contract with- its stockholders to the same extent and in the same manner that it may with any other persons.* Where a state is a stockholder in a railroad corporation, its rights are no different from those of a private individual who is a stockholder.' iBusey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15 (1871); Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20, 23 (1835). In the Thames Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon, 6 B. & C. 341 (1827), the word "subscriber" is elaborately defined, and it is held to mean only such per- sons as have entered into an express contract to take up a certain definite number of shares. See also a definition at some length by Cooley, J., in Pen- insular Ry. V. Duncan, 38 Mich. 130 (1873). Subscribers are stockholders, al- though no certificates have been issued to them and no payments made. Mc- Comb V. Barcelona, etc. Assoc, 10 N. Y. Supp. 546 (1890). A " subscription " for stock is differ- ent from a "sale." A "subscription" applies to an original issue. Bates v. Great Western TeL Ca, 134 111. 536 <1890). 2 See Rosevelt v. Brown, 11 N. Y. 148, 152 (1854); State v- Ferris, 42 Conn. 560 (1875); Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624 (1844); Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb. 310 (1849). Where the registered holder is merely a nominal holder he will not be entitled to special privileges, such as free admission to a place of amuse- ment. Academy of Music's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 510 (1885). A person is held to be a stockholder, although no certificate has been issued to him. See § 192, infra. Moreover, he may be held to be a stockholder, al- though he has sold and transferred his certificate of stock, if such transfer has not been recorded on the corporate stock-book. See ch. XV, infra. 3 Martin v, Niagara, etc. Co., 133 N. Y. 165 (1890). * United States v. Means, 42 Fed. Rep. 599 (1890). A director is an ofiicer under a stat- ute making officers liable for debts in certain cases. Brand v. Godwin, 8 N. Y. Supp. 339 (1890). The president and directors are "officers" within the meaning of a criminal statute. Com- monwealth V. Wyman, 49 Mass. 247 (1844). So, also, of the treasurer. Com- monwealth V. Tuokerman, 76 Mass. 173 (1857). In certain cases an "officer " is construed to mean merely an agent and not a director. So held in regard to appointing a receiver of a foreign corporation. Moran v. Alvas, etc. Co., N. Y. Law J., Dec. 5, 1891. * Matter of St. Lawrence, etc. E. R., 133 N. Y. 270, 278 (1892). » Hartford, etc. R. R v. Kennedy, 13 Conn. 499, 509 (1838): Gordon v. Pres- ton, 1 Watts (Pa.), 385 (1833); Central R. R. V. Claghorn, 1 Speers' Eq. (S. C.) 545, 563 (1844). Although a stockholder pur- TSouthern Ry. v. North Carolina R. R., 81 Fed. Rep. 595 (1897). See also § 99, infra 85 pl-J DEriNITKjNS AND NiTUEE OF CORPOEATIONS. £CH. A stockholder, as a creditor of the corporation, maj' obtain secu- rity for his debt to the exclusion of other creditors.^ A stockholder has no legal title to the property or profits of the corporation until a dividend is declared, or a division made on the dissolution of the corporation.^ Although a deed of a corporation provides that in a certain contingency the land " should revert to the stockholders, their heirs and assigns," yet such reversion is to the corporation and not to the stockholders.' A stockholder may sue the corporation or be sued by it, both at law and in equity.* chases corporate property at a tax sale, this does not constitute payment of the taxes in favor of the mortgagee of the property. Jenks v. Brewster, 96 Fed. Rep. 625 (1899). An insolvent individ- ual who owes a bank may convey land to the bank for the benefit of its depositors; and the doctrine that indi- vidual assets must be applied to indi- vidual debts before being applied to partnership debts does not apply, even though he owns one-half of the stock of the bank. Steinke v. Yetzer, 108 Iowa, 513 (1899). Thus, where one subscribed for stock and paid for it by mortgages payable at times mutually agreed upon between the parties, " this was merely a mode of payment. . . . He stands in two capacities: one as debtor to the associa- tion, one as stockholder in it. These capacities are independent of each other." Ely v. Sprague, 1 Clarke, Ch, (N. Y.) 351 (1840); Longley v. Longley Stage Co., 33 Me. 39 (1843), holding that where a creditor consented, as a stock- holder, to the reorganization of the company which had become indebted to him under the former organization, he had not thereby forfeited his right to recover from the newly-organized corporation, to which he had become a subscriber; American Bank v. Baker, 45 Mass. 164, 176 (1843), holding that a corporation vote to compromise certain securities to the detriment of a mem- ber who was also a creditor could not be regarded as consented to by him in his absence. ' Reich wald v. Commercial Hotel Co., 106 111. 439 (1883). See also § 692, infra. A stockholder may also be a creditor and may take security the same as any- other creditor, but the transaction must > be free from fraud, actual or construct- ive. Moore v. Universal, etc. Co., 133 Mich. 48 (1899). A stockholder in a bank may recover back a deposit fraud- ulently received by the bank from him, the same as any other creditor, where he did not know of the insolvency- Richardson V. Olivier, 105 Fed. Rep. 377 (1900). A stockholder having a claim on real estate owned by the corpora- tion may maintain his rights as against a mortgagee of the corporation, where- the stockholder took no part in author- izing the mortgage, and the mortgagee- took with notica Martin v. Eagle, etc. Co., 69 Pac. Rep. 316 (Oreg. 1903). 2 Hyatt V. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553 (1874); Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R, 57 N. Y. 196 (1874); Brundage v. Brundage, 1 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 82 (1873); Goodwin V. Hardy, 57 Me. 143 (1869): Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101 (1868); Granger v.. Bassett, 98 Mass. 462 (1868); Phelps v. Farmers', eta Bank, 26 Conn. 269 (1857); Burroughs v. North Carolina R. R, 67 N. C. 376 (1872); Curry v. Woodward, 44 Ala. 305 (1870); Lockhart v. Van Al styne, 31 Mich. 76, 78 (1875). See also oh. XXXII. » Pettit V. Stuttgart, etc. Institute, 67 Ark. 430 (1900). < Waring v. Cahawba Co., 3 Bay (S. C), 109 (1797), where this right of a stock- holder was the question directly in liti- OH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOBATIONS. [§11- The stockholder is not liable for the debts of the corporation,^ except so- far as his subscription price is unpaid,^ and except where a statute renders hitn liable.' The admissions or declarations of stockholders do not bind the corporation; * nor do the admissions of;one stockholder bind another stockholder; ' nor do the admissions of the corporation always bind a stockholder.* Notice to individual stockholders is not notice to the corporation, and their knowledge of facts is not notice of those facts to the cor- poration.'' Service of process on a stockholder is not service on the corporation.^ A judgment against a corporation as to the infringe- ment of a patent is not binding on the stockholders in subsequent suits against them, even though they were present at the trial and testified.' gation; Rogers v. Dan by Univ. Soc, 19 Vt. 187 (1847); Culbertson v. Wabash Nav. Co., 4 McLean, 544; S. C, 6 Fed. Cas. 944 (1849); Peirce v. Partridge, 44 Mass. 44 (1841); Barnstead v. Empire Min. Co., 5 Cal. 299 (1855); Ex parte Booker, 18 Ark. 338 (1857); Sanborn v. Lefferts, 58 N. Y. 179 (1874); Cary v. Schoharie, etc. Co., 3 Hun, 110 (1874); Wausau, etc. Co. v. Plumer, 35 Wis. ^74 (1874); Sawyer v. Methodist Ep. Soc, 18 Vt. 405 (1846); Dunstani). Imperial, etc. Co., 3 B. & Ad. 135 (1833): Gifford v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 10 N. J. Eq. 171 (1854); Samuel v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 400, 418; s. c, 31 Fed. Cas. 306 (1869). A stockholder may collect his debt the same as other creditors. Lang v. Dough- erty, 74 Tex. 326 (1889). See also O'Con- nor V. North Truckee Ditch Co., 17Nev. 84.5 (1883). A grantor of land to a cor- poration may insist on his vendor's lien even though he is also a stock- holder. Biggs V. BUiston Dev. Co., 93 Va. 404 (1896). A stockholder who is also a (^rector may nevertheless sue to compel his cor- poration to abate a nuisance. Leonard V. Spencer, 108 N. Y. 838 (1888). A stock- holder may sue the corporation for an injury done to him by the company by reason of the acts of other stockhold- ers, such as diverting the water from an irrigation canal. O'Connor v. North Truckee Ditch Co., 17 Nev. 345 (1883). 1 See §§ 341, 343, infra. Stockholders are not personally liable for corporate debts. Gorder v. Connor, 56 Neb. 781 (1898). A stockholder is not personally liable for a tort of the corporation in diverting water. Foley v. Lacert, 35 Oreg. 166 (1899). 2 See chs. XI and III, infra. ' See ch. XII, infra. The charter of a stock corporation organized under the general act in Minnesota may limit the stockholders to Norwegians, but if the corporation allows other persons to become members, such other persons cannot aVoid the statutory liability by that defense. Blien v. Rand, 77 Minn. 110 (1899). *See§736, in/m. 5 Simmons v. Sisson, 36 N. Y. 364 (1863). ' A stockholder in a corporation that is carrying on a patent litigation is not bound by its admissions as affecting subsequent litigations. American, etc. Co. V. Phoenix, etc. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 639 (1903). '' See % 727, infra. 8 See g 753, infra. 9 Wilgus V. Germain, 73 Fed. Rep. 773 (.1896). 37 §11-J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COftPOEATIONS. [CH. I. A stockholder in an insurance company has the same rights as has a stockholder in any other corporation.' The stockholder is an individual, distinct from the corporation in its contracts and transaction of business.^ The mere fact that he is a stockholder does not make him an agent to contract for it or bind it by his acts.' It is legal for a person who is endeavoring to purchase all the property of a corporation to pay a stockholder for consenting thereto.* One person may own all the stock, and yet the existence, rela- tions and business methods of the corporation continue.' The stockholders, assembled together in a corporate meeting, have the powers to elect officers ; make by-laws ; increase or reduce the capital stock, if the statute permits ; authorize auxiliary or funda- mental changes in the charter, if constitutional ; and perform a few other acts for and in behalf of the corporation. But there their powers cease. The making of corporate contracts; the manage- ment of corporate business ; the employment and direction of agents; the bringing or defending of suits, and all the infinite details of corporate management, are under the control of the directors and their agents. The stockholders have no power herein, either indi- vidually or in meeting assembled.* 1 Thus, a stockholder in an insurance company, conducted on both the stock and the mutual-insurance plan, is en- titled to all the rights in the guaranty accumulations that a stockholder in any other corporation has in the corpo- rate assets. Traders', eta Ins. Co. v. Brown, 142 Mass. 403 (1886). 2 Where a statute forbids contracts in restraint of a person carrying on a trade or business except where he sells a good will, a contract for the sale of stock with an agreement not to engage in the business carried on by the cor- poration is not enforoible as to the lat- ter part o| the contract. Merchants', etc Co. V. Sterling, 134 Cal. 439 (1899). 3 See §§ 708, etc., infra. Where the law permits punishment or confiscation of property, but not both, the conviction of a stockholder for violation of the internal revenue law prevents a confiscation of the corpora- tion property. U. S. v. Distillery, 43 Fed. Rep. 846 (1890). Damages may be recovered by a cor poration for a fraud practiced upon it, even though an agent of the corpora- tion, who aided in the perpetration of the fraud, was a stockholder in the oor- poratipn. Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. Cin- cinnati, etc. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 671 (1891). A company is not liable for the contract of a person who makes a construction contract with it, even though that per- son is the principal stockholder and dominates and controls the action of the corporation. Although other stock- holders, bondholders or the corporation itself might question such a contract, yet subcontractors cannot. Central Trust Co. V. Bridges, 57 Fed. Rep. 753 (1893). *Lamkin v. Palmer, 24 N. T. App Div. 255 (1897). 5 See §§ 709, etc., infra. 6 See §713, infra, " The property of a corporation is not subject to the control of individual members, whether acting separately or jointly. They can neither incumber nor transferthat property, norauthorize 88 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§11- A stockholder is chargeable with notice of entries made upon the corporate books, if they were made in his presence and he presum- ably assented thereto.' A stockholder in a corporation which does not properly insure its property has an insurable interest in the property, and he may recover upon a policy thereon, taken in his own name, for an amount which, added to the company's insurance, would cover his interest.^ At common law the stockholder, on account of his interest in the corporation, was not a competent witness for the corporation in a suit in which the corporation was a party.' In some states, others to do so. The corporatioa — the porate debts and liabilities stand in the artificial being created — holds the property, and alone can mortgage or transfer it; and the corporation acts only through its oflScers, subject to the conditions prescribed by law." Hum- phreys V. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304 (1891). 1 See § 737, in/ra- 2 Warren v. Davenport F. Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 464 (1871), distinguishing Phillips V. Knox County Ins. Co., 80 Ohio, 174 (1851). Of. Seaman v. Enterprise F. & M. Ins. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 250 (1888). See Greenhood, Pub. Policy, 255; Angell, Fire & L. Ins., ch. XI, and cases cited. A stockholder has an insurable in- terest in the property of the corpora- tion. Riggs V. Commercial, eta Ins. Co., 135 N. T. 7 (1890). A stockholder may insure his interest. "Wilson v. Jones, L, R. 3 Ex. 129 (1867). 3 Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt 410 (1847); McAuley v. York Mia Co., 6 CaL 80 (1856). See cases in next note. In Pierce v. Kearney, 5 Hill, 83 (1843), a stockholder was held incompetent to testify that the defendant, in an ac- tion to enforce a statutory liability of stockholders, was a stockholder. Com- pare, however, lie Kip, 1 Paige, 601 (1829), involving the testimony of a cor- porator and pew-holder in a church corporation; Mokelumne, etc. Co. i\ Woodbury, 14 Cal. 365 (1859), in which, in passing upon the competency of a stockholder as a witness, the court held that '• members of a corporation who are answerable personally for the cor- 89 same position, in relation to the credit- ors of the corporation, as if they were conducting their business as a com- mon partnership." To same effect, Mitchell V. Beokman, 64 Cal. 117 (1888). The president, though a stockholder, is a competent witness for the com- pany if he is willing to testify, where his private interest is greater than his stockholder interest. Church v. Ster- ling, 16 Conn. 388 (1844). A stockholder who knowingly trans- fers his stock but expects to get it back is not a competent witness for a corpo- ration. Bank of Michigan v. Gray, 1 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 422 (1841). A stockholder in a company which is a creditor of a party to a suit may • testify in behalf of the latter. Simons V. Vulcan, etc. Co., 61 Pa. St. 202 (1869). The purchase by a bank of its own stock, in order to enable the stock- holder to testify for it, was upheld, though its charter prohibited it from purchasing goods, etc. Farmers', etc. Bank*t7. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131 (1846). Washington Bank?;. Palmer, 2 Sandf. Super. Ct. 686 (1850), and New York, etc. R. R. V. Cook, 2 Sandf. Super. Ct. 732 (1850), are both to the effect that a stockholder is not a party to the ac- tion, nor a person for whose immediate benefit it is prosecuted, within the meaning of the code. He is therefore a competent witness. A stockholder who has nothing to do § ll-l DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OP COEPOEATIONS. [oh. however, this rule has been changed by statute; and in others it is easily evaded by a formal transfer of the certificate of stock to an- other person.^ An officer of the bank who was present at the time a deposit was made, but who sold his stock and severed his connec- tion with the bank long before litigation arose thereon, may be a witness in the case as to the transaction with the deceased depos- itary.^ A party claiming a contract with a corporation cannot tes- tify that he made it with the agent of the corporation, if the agent is dead at the time of the trial.' A stockholder is incompetent to serve as a judge in a case where the corporation is a party,* with the negotiation of a corporate contract may testify although the other party is dead and the statute pro- hibits the living party in interest from testifying. Banking, etc. Co. v. Rood, 133 Mo. 256 (1896). The oflBcers or directors of a corpora- tion may testify in its behalf although a statute says that in actions where one party is dead the other party shall not testify. New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Camden, etc. Co., 58 N. J. L. 196 (1895). A stockholder need not testify against his corporation. Bank of Old- town V. Houlton, 21 Me., 501 (1842). A stockholder, under the New York statute, cannot testify to a personal communication between the corpora- tion and a deceased person. Keller v. "West, etc. Co., 39 Hun, 348 (1886). A witness who is agent of a corpora- tion, the latter being a party to the suit, is entitled to the same privilege as to libelous statements made by him as witness that a party has. Nissen v. Cramer, 104 N. C. 574 (1889). The sec- retary of a corporation is not an inter- ested witness in a suit brought by a corporation. University, etc. v. Em- mert, 108 Iowa, 500 (1899). The plaintiff in a suit against a cor- poration may offer a stockholder as a witness. Hart v. New Orleans, etc. E. R., 1 Am. St. Ry. Deo. 4 (La., 1841). 1 That a transfer will render the trans- ferrer competent, see Illinois Mut. F. Ins. Co. V. Marseilles Mfg. Co., 6 111. 236 (1844); Union Bank v. Owen, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 838 (1843); Bell v. Hull, etc. Ry., 6 M. & W. 699 (1840); 1 Greenleafs Evi- dence, § 439. He is competent though the transfer has not been registered. Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 3 Cow. 770 (1834); Gilbert v. Manchester, etc. Co., 11 Wend. 637 (1834); Delaware, etc. R. R. V. Irick, 33 N. J. L. 331 (1853); and although he expects to buy it back; but there must be no agreement expressly to that effect. Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296 (1839); Stall v. Catskill Bank, 18 Wend. 466 (1837). Contra, Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co., 3 Story, 433 (1843); s. C, 5 Fed. Cas. 235. ^Tecumseh, etc. Bank v. McGee, 61 Neb. 709 (1901). Under the West Vir- ginia statute the directors and stock- holders of a corporation cannot testify as to a personal transaction between a deceased person and the corporation, unless the representatives and heirs tes- tify as to the same. Huntington, etc. Co. V. Thornburg, 46 W. Va. 99 (1899). 3 Florida, eta Co. v. Usina, 111 Ga. 697 (1900). As to a lost deed to a corpora- tion, a stockholder may testify that he saw it, although he may not be allowed to testify as to what the grantor did, the latter being dead. Kendall v. Hills- boro, etc. Road, 67 S. W. Rep. 376 (Ky., 1903). A parol contract with a corpora- tion may be proved although the director with whom it was made is dead. South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach, 69 Md. 395 (1888). * Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, 3 R L. Cas. 759 (1853), where the lord chancellor was a stockholder in the de- fendant company, and had aflSrmed a 40 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATlONS. [§ 11- neither is he qualified to act as a juror.^ A contract be- tween a corporation and a city may be illegal by reason of the fact that the aldermen who voted for the contract are decree by the vice-chancellor in the case. The House of Lords reversed the decision on this ground. Cooley, Const. Lim., pp. *410, *411; Washington Ins. Co. V. Price, 1 Hopk. Ch. 1 (1823), Chan- cellor Sandford therein refusing to follow Chancellor Kent in Stuart v. Mechanics', etc. Bank, 19 Johns. 496, 501 (1822). In Peninsular Ry. v. How- ard, 20 Mich. 18 (1870), the court said; -" It is not a matter of discretion with the judge or other person acting in a judicial capacity, nor is it left to his ■own sense of propriety or decency; but the principle forbids him to act in such ■capacity at all when he is thus inter- ested, or when he may possibly be sub- ject to this limitation." Even though a judge is related to some of the stock- holders, yet if the parties know the fact and do not promptly object they cannot afterwards object. Buena Vista, etc. Bank v. Grier, 114 Ga. 398 (1901). A judge cannot sit in a case involving the validity of bonds owned by a bank in ■which he is a stockholder. Adams v. Minor, 121 Gal. 372 (1898). After a judge has sold his stock in a corporation he is competent to sit in a case in which that coi'poration is a party. Matter of Brook- lyn El. R. R., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 321 (1898). The fact that both the judge and the plaintiff are stockholders in an •outside company does not disqualify the judge. Hyde, etc. Co. v. Shepardson, 72 Vt. 188 (1900). A judge is not incom- petent by reason of the fact that he is a stockholder in a trust company that is guardian of a party whose sanity is being tried. In re Leonard's Estate, 95 Mich. 295 (1893). In New York the stat- ute prevents an interested judge from sitting. See Cregin v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R, 19 Hun, 349 (1879). Being related to a stockholder does not disqualify. Searsburgh Turnp. Co. v. Cutler, 6 Vt. 41 315 (1834). A judge may hear a case although he is a cousin of one of the stockholders of one of the parties. Rob- inson V. Southern Pac. Co., 105 Cal. 526 (1895). A judge is not disqualified merely be- cause he formerly owned stock. Nich- olson V. Showalter, 83 Tex. 99 (1893). A judge who is a brother-in-law of a stock- holder and president of a corporation is qualified to try a case in whi ch the cor- poration is a party. Lewis v. Hillsboro, etc. CA, 23 S. W. Rep. 338 (Tex. 1893). A commissioner, appointed by the court to sell the assets of a company, cannot sell to a bank in which he is a stock- holder and director, irrespective of whether the sale and price were fair. McCnllpugh, etc. Co. v. Nat. Bank, etc., Ill Ga. 133 (1900). 1 Page V. Contoocook Valley R. R., 21 N. H. 438 (1850); Peninsular R. R. v. Howard, 30 Mich. 18 (1870); Fleeson v. Savage S. M. Co., 3 Nev. 157 (1867); Sil- vis V. Ely, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 420 (1842); McLaughlin v. Louisville, etc. Co., 100 Ky. 173 (1896). Cf. Williams v. Smith, 6 Cow. 166 (1836). The incompetency extends to the son of a stockholder. Georgia R. K v. Hart, 60 Ga. 550 (1878). A person donating to the railroad is in- competent to serve in condemnation proceedings. Michigan Air Line Ry. v. Barnes, 40 Mich. 383 (1879). But the fact that the corporation is interested in a subsequent case on the same facts does not render the stockholder incom- petent. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. R. R., 57 Mass. 35 (1849). Objection to competency must be raised at the trial. It cannot be raised for the first time by motion for a new trial. Williams v. Great Western Ry., 3 H. & N. 869 (1858). The fact that a juror and plaintiff are both stockholders in the same corpora- § 12.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [OH. I. stockholders.^ A stockholder cannot bring suit to enforce the or- dinary claims of the corporation.^ The directors control such mat- ters and decide whether a suit shall be brought, prosecuted or com- promised.' Sometimes the stockholder is allowed to intervene in the suit, however,* and there are certain cases involving fraud on the part of the directors or ultra vires acts where the stockholder may sue in behalf of the corporation.' A stockholder or director of an insolvent corporation is competent and qualified to act as its receiver or assignee.* A director need not necessarily be a stock- holder, unless a statute or the charter expressly so provides.'' In corporations having a capital stock no power of expulsion can be exercised unless expressly conferred by the charter or by stat- ute.^ It is doubtful whether a stock corporation can impose a fine upon the stockholders for a violation of its by-laws.' § 12. Shares of stock defined — What law governs — Common stock — Preferred stock — Deferred stock — Overissued stock — Spe- , cial stock. — A share of stock may be defined as a right which its owner has in the management, profits and ultimate assets of the corporation.^" By the court of appeals of New York it is said that " the right which a shareholder in a corporation has, by reason of his ownership of shares, is a right to participate according to the amount of his stock in the surplus profits of the corporation on a division, and ultimately, on its dissolution, in the assets remaining after payment of its debts." " tion is no cause for challenge in a suit ' See § 633, infra, not involving the corporation. Brittain 8 gag gg 504^ 710^ infra, V. Allen, 1 Dev. L. (N. C.) 120 (1829). 9 Monroe, etc. Assoc v. Webb, 40 N. A juror is qualified although his wife Y. App. Div, 49 (1899). See § 4o, supra. is related to a stockholder. Butler v. i" Quoted and approved in Jones v. Glens Falls, etc. R R., 121 N. Y. 113 Concord, etc. R. R, 67 N. H. 119 (1891): (1890). In Ohio a person litigating with s. C, 67 N. H. 234 (1893); Lamkin r. a corporation may have a change of Palmer, 24 N. Y. App. Div. 255 (1897), venue when the corporation has more and in American, eta Ca v. State thap fifty stockholders at its principal Board, 56 N. J. L. 389 (1894). See also office in the county where the litigation Oakbank Oil Co. v. Krum, L. R 8 App. is pending, if the party swears that he Cas. 65 (1882); State v. Mitchell, 104 does not think he can obtain a fair and Tenn. 336 (1899). impartial trial in that county, and " Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 592, five credible persons residing in the 599 (1883); Hall v. Henderson, 126 Ala. county sustain his application. Snell v. 449 (1899). To the same effect see Bur- Cincinnati,eta.Ry., 60 Ohio St 256(1899). rail v. Bushwick R R, 75 N. Y. 211, . 1 See § 913, m/m. 216(1878); Kent v. Quicksilver Min. Ca, 2 See § 750. 78 N. Y. 159 (1879); Jermain v. Lake 8 See § 750. Shore, eta R R, 91 N. Y. 483, 493 (1883)5 4 See §750. Field v. Pierce, 103 Mas* 253, 261 6 See chs. XXXIX, XL and XLV. (1869); Jones v. Davis, 35 Ohio St. 474, 6 See § 864, infra. 477 (1880); Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio 43 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF OOEPOBATIONS. [§12^ It is said that the rights which a share of stock secures to its owner are the rights " to meet at stockholders' meetings, to partici- pate in the profits of the business, and to require that the corpo- rate property and funds shall not be diverted from their original purpose." ' In England a share means the same as it does in this country ; but the word " stock " there signifies a number of paid-up shares, so united that the owner may divide it and transfer it in large or small quantities, irrespective of the number and par value of the shares which have been thus merged into " stock." ^ St. 28, 35 (1880); Bent v. Hart, 10 Mo. App. U3 (1881); Harrison u Vines, 46 Tex. 15,21 (1876); Brightwell u Mallory, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 196 (1836); Barksdale V. Finney, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 338,357 (1858); Van Allen v. Assessors, 8 Wall. 573, 584 (1865); Union Nat. Bank v. Byram, 131 111. 93 (1889). "The interest of each stockholder consists in the right to a proportionate part of the profits whenever dividends are declared by the corporation during its existence under its charter, and to a like proportion of the property re- maining, upon the termination or dis- solution of the corporation, after pay- ment of its debts." Gribbons v. Mahon, 136 U. a 549 (1890). Chief Justice Shaw, by way of a definition of a share of stock, says: "The right is, strictly speaking, a right to participate, in a certain proportion, in the immunities and benefits of the corporation; to vote in the choice of their oflBcers, and the management of their concerns; to share in the divi- dends of profits, and to receive an ali- quot part of the proceeds of the capi- tal on winding up and terminating the active existence and operations of the corporation." Fisher v. Essex Bank, 71 Mass. 373, 378 (1855). Of. Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R I. 165 (1837). 1 Forbes v. Memphis, etc. B. R, 3 Woods, 323, 331 (1873); s. C, 9 Fed. Cas. 408. Of. Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339 (1880). Mr. Justice Sharswood says: " A share of stock is an incorporeal, intangible thing. It is a right to a certain proportion of the capital stock of a corporation — never realized ex- cept upon the dissolution and winding up of the corporation, — with the right to receive, in the meantime, such prof- its as may be made and declared in the shape of dividends." Neiler v. Kel- ley, 69 Pa. St. 403, 407 (1871). See also Bridgman v. Keokuk, 73 Iowa, 43 (1887). 2 Morrioe v. Aylmer, L. R 7 H. L. 717 (1875), says: " Shares are not necessarily converted into stock as soon as they are paid up: they may exist either as paid up or as not paid-up shares. But, as regards stock, that can only exist in the paid-up state. . . . There is a certain extent of change, as well as consolidation, in these paid-up shares. They are changed from ordinary shares in this respect, that they are no longer incapable of being subdivided." Stock is " a fund or capital which is capable of being divided into and held in any irregular amount Thus, the ordi- nary government funds (consols, new threes, etc.) are called ' stocks,' because a person can buy them in any amount (such as £99 19s. lid as well as £100). A share or debenture, on the other hand, is of a fixed amount (such as £10, £50. £100), and is incapable of subdivis- ion or consolidation." Rapalje & L. Law Diet. 1224. Shares may be con- verted by the company into stock, so as to enable theirholders to dispose of them in small or irregular amounts. Hurrell & Hyde, Joint-Stock Com- panies, 47. 43 §12.] DEFINITIONS AND NATFEE OF COEPOKATIONS. [oh. The term "stock" has also been used at times to indicate the same thing as capital stock.' It has been well settled that shares of stock are personalty and not realty. A share of stock is not real estate, has nothing to give it the character of real estate, is not land, nor an hereditament, nor an interest in any of them.^ In some of the earlier cases, upon the theory, perhaps, that the shareholders had a direct interest in the tangible property of the corporation, shares were held to be real estate where the corporate property consisted wholly or chiefly of'realty.' 1 Burr V. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551, 556. ■(I860): People v. Tax Commissioners, etc., 23 N. Y. 192, 220 (1861); Bailey v. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 604, 637 (1874). Formerly government bonds were called "stock," both in England and in this country. People v. Tax Commis- sioners, 2 Black, 620 (1862); Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 (1829); Cavanagh, Law of Money Securities (2d ed.), 488- 494. This use of the term still prevails in England, but is generally obsolete in this country, although the securities of the city of New York are still called "stock.'' In tax statutes, " stock " may be de- fined to mean shares of stock. Look- wood V. Weston, 61 Conn. 211 (1891). See also § 8, supra. 2Bligh V. Brent, 2 Younge & C. (Exch.) 268 (1837); Edwards v. Hall, 6 De G., M. & G. 74 (1855); Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 M. & W. 432 (1838); Ex parte Lancaster Canal Nav. Co., 1 Dea. <& Ch. 411 (1833); Watson v. Spratley, 28 Eng. L. & Eq. 507 (1854). In Allen V. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 163, 173 (1864), Mr. Justice Dillon says: "Mr. Williams treats of shares in corporations as 'in- corpo^•eal, personal property' — a very neat and accurate designation. Wms. Pers. Prop. [*191J." See also Johns v. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350 (1853), Thurman, J.: Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. L 165 (1837); Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321, 325 (1876); Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 595, 596 <1808), Parsons, C. J.; Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 25 Mass. 90 (1829); Weyer v. Second Nat. Bank, 57 Ind. 198 <1877); Manns v. Brook ville Nat. Bank, 73 Ind. 243 (1881); Seward v. Rising Sun, 79 Ind. 351 (1881); Southwestern R. R. «. Thomason, 40 Ga. 408 (1869). Of. Wheelook v. Moulton, 15 Vt. 519 (1843); Russell v. Temple (Mass. 1798), 3 Dane, Abr. 108, 110. Water rights represented by shares of stock in a water company ai-e personal property. George v. Robison, 23 Utah, 79 (1901). Stock is personal property, although the property of the corporation is mostly real estate. ChampoUion v. Corbin, 51 Atl. Rep. 674 (N. H. 1901). 8 Price V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.), 107 (1838): Copeland v. Copeland, 7 Bush, 349 (1870). But as soon as this latter decision was handed down, the legisla- ture passed an act declaring shares of stock in Kentucky to be personal property. In Meason's Estate, 4 Watts (Pa.), 341 (1835), there is to be found a tendency to hold shares in a toll-bridge, real estate. Turnpike stock was held to be realty in Welles v. Cowels, 3 Conn. 567 (1818); S. P., Knapp v. Will- iams, 4 Ves. Jr. 430, note (1798). So of canal shares. Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 9 Beav. 459 (1833). Of. Buckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr. 652 (1795); Dry- butter V. Bartholomew, 3 P. Wms. 127 (1723); Rex v. Winstanley, 8 Price, 180 (1820). Contra, Walker v. Milne, 11 Beav. 507 (1849). See also Sparling v. Parker, 9 Beav. 450 (1846); Myers v. Perrigal, 18 L. J. (Ch.) 185 (1849); s. c, 31 L. J. |C. P.) 217 (1852); Ashton v. Langdale, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 80 (1851), and an interesting discussion of the question in 3 Dane, Abr. 108 et seq. 44 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOKATIONS. [§12. But as a result of all the authorities it is clearly settled that shares of stock are to be regarded as personalty,' a view which has frequently found expression in declaratory statutes both in Eng- land ^ and the various states of the Union. Stock, though personalty, is not a chattel;' it is rather a chose in action,* or, as some older authorities declare, property in the nature of a chose in action.* It is, moreover, of such a nature that it cannot ordinarily, either by act of the law or act of its owner, be taken into tangible posses- sion, although, of course, its representative — the certificate of stock — may be.* It is an English doctrine that shares of stock are not " goods,, wares or merchandise," as those terms are to be understood in con- struing that section of the statute of frauds which requires deliv- ery, payment or memorandum in writing ®f a sale thereof.' In this country, however, the courts have taken the opposite view.^ Furthermore, it is said that shares are not money,' nor are they security for money,'" nor a credit." 1 See cases cited supra. Also, an essay on Stock, its Nature and Trans- fer, 7 South. L. Rev. (N. S.) 430 (1881). 2 41 Geo. III., ch. 3 ; Watson v. Sprat- ley, 28 Eng. L. & Eq. 507 (1854): Ex parte Vallance, 2 Deacon, 354 (1837); Ex parte Lancaster Canal Nav. Co., 1 Dea. & Ch. 411 (1832). 3 Rex V. Capper, 5 Price (Exoh.), 217 (1817). * A share of stock is a chose in action. Attorney-General v. New York, etc. Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205; aff'd, H. of L., [1899] A. C. 63; Harrold v. Plenty, [1901] 3 Ch. 314 " Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. 174 (1803); Howe v. Starkweather, 17 Mass. 240, 343 (1831); Hutchins v. State Bank, 53 Mass. 431, 436 (1847); Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 490, 500 (1836); Allen V. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 163, 173 (1864); Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 E. I. 165 (1837); Slayraaker u Bank of Gettys- burg, 10 Pa. St. 373 (1849) ; Denton v. Livingston, 9 Johns. 96 (1813); Chesa- peake, etc. R R. ». Paine, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 503, 506 (1877); Barksdale v. Fin- ney, 14 Gratt. (Va.) 338, 357 (1858); Fisher v. Essex Bank, 71 Mass. 873, 377 (1855); People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa, St. 344, 349 (1883); Humble v. Mitchell, 11 Ad. & El. 205, 208 (1839). Of. Kel- logg V. Stockwell, 75 III. 68 (1874); In re Jackson, L, R. 13 Eq. 354 (1871). See also Atty. Gen. v. New York, etc. Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205; aff'd, [1899] A. C. 63. " Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. R. R., 91 N. Y. 483, 493 (1883); Neiler v. Kelley,. 69 Pa. St. 408, 407 (1871); Payne v. El- liot, 54 Cal. 339, 841 (1880). ' See §§ 339, 340, infra. 8 See §§ 339, 340, infra. 9 Nightingal v. Devisme, 5 Burr. 3589;. a c, 2 W. Bl. 684 (1770); Jones v. Brin- ley, 1 East, 1 (1800); Douglas v. Con- greve, 1 Keen, 410 (1836); Gosden v.. Dotterill, 1 My. & K. 56 (1832); Lowe v. Thomas, 5 De G., M. & G. 315 (1854) r Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. 819 (1808). i»Ogle V. Knipe, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 693 (1869); Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86- (1871); Wilson v. Little.3 N. Y. 443 (1849); Mechanics' Bank v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 N. Y. 599, 636 (1856). "New Orleans, etc. Assoc, v. Wiltz,. 10 Fed. Rep. 330 (1881). See also Smith V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 30 La. Ann.. 1378 (1878). 45 §12.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [oh. Shares of stock, being in the nature of a chose in action, are, at coirimon law, not subject to attachment or levy of execution;' but most of the states have enacted statutes which have changed this rule. This species of property may be made subject to taxation;' and for purposes of taxation it exists apart from the corporation, the corporate property, the corporate franchises and the capital stock. The issue of stock means the issue of the certificates.' In most of the states, and in the federal courts, trover lies for the conversion of stock. In Pennsylvania, however, a contrary rule prevails, although conversion is held to lie in reference to certifi- cates of stock.* Justice Story, in his Conflict of Laws, says that questions relat- ing to shares of stock are to be determined by the law of the state of the corporation.* As regards the taxation of stock, however, the stock may follow the domicile of the stockholder, and may be taxed in accordance with the law of the domicile of such stock-, holde";* or for purposes of taxation, and especially inheritance taxes, it may exist where the corporation is incorporated.'' In ref- erence to sales of stock it would seem that the law of the forum or of the place of making or the place of performing, the contract should govern as between the parties to the contract, but as to the duty of the corporation relative to transfers, the law of the state iSeech. XXVIl 2 See oh. XXXIV. ' See § 13, infra. * See ch. XXXV. 5 Story, Confl. Laws (8th ed.), §883. And see the discussion of this subject in Black v. Zaoharie, 8 How. 483 (1845). As to the situs of stock see article in 45 Alb. L. J. 880; Glenn v. Garth. 147 TJ. S. 360 (1893); Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533 (1890); Morris v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 628 (1888); also Lowndes v. Cooch, 87 Md. 478 (1898); Atfy. Gen. v. New York, etc. Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205; afl'd, H. of L. [1899] A. C. 63. "See ch. XXXIV. The situs of stock for the purposes of taxation may be where the owner of the stock resides. Stanford v. City, etc., 131 Cal. 34 (1900). The case of Glenn v. Clabaugh, 65 Md. 65 (1886), holds that the insolvent laws of Maryland cannot discharge a Mary- land subscriber to a Virginia corpora- tion. ' ' See oh. XXXIV, infra. In the ogse of Attorney-General v. N. Y. Breweries Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205: aff'd, H. of L. [1899] A. C. 63, the court, in holding that an English corporation was liable for an inheritance tax on shares of stock which it had allowed to be trans- ferred on its books by American exec- utors of the estate of a deceased Ameri- can owning such stock, said: "The American will, as regards these Eng- lish assets, had no validity whatever in this country, nor had the American executors any right under it to receive the testatorjs' assets here. Until they had taken out representation to their testator in this country, they were pure strangers to the English assets. This American will, to the knowledge of all parties, was never to come into opera- tion as a will in this country: the American executors were never to be- come executors in this country, it being the express intention of all parties that they should not." 46 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPORATIONS. [§12. wherein the corporation was organized should govern.' Legal pro- ceedings against the stock may be initiated at the domicile of the corporation.* A claimant of stock in a corporation may institute suit at the place where the company is incorporated for the pur- pose of obtaining possession of the stock, even though the holders of the stock are non-residents and are brought into the case only by publication and substituted service. The court acquires juris- diction over the defendants.' Especially is this the case where the certificates are within the jurisdiction.* A person to whom a cor- poration issues stock is not bound by any prior contracts of the corporation in regard to that stock where he took the stock with- out notice of such contracts.' In regard to shares of stock owned by married women, the pay- ment of dividends is governed by the law of the domicile of the corporation.* It would seem that as to transfers of stock by her the law of her domicile should govern as between her and the party with whom she deals, but that the duty of the corporation as to transfers is according to the law of the state wherein the cor- poration is organized.'' A legacy of stock may be governed by the • See ch. XXII. An executor is enti- tled to have stock belonging to the es- tate transferred into his own name as executor, and the corporation is liable in damages for refusal to make such transfer, even though the corporation lias a lien on the stock for a debt owed it by the decedent. Under the statutes of California this rule applies to an alien corporation doing business in that state, the statutes of the state requir- ing such corporations to make trans- fers in that state. It applies even though the statutes of Great Britain forbid transfers of stock " without ad- ministration upon such property under the laws of England and Great Brit- ain." London, etc. Bank v, Aronstein, 117 Fed. Rep. 601 (1908). 2 See ch. XXVII, and §§ 363, 364, in- fra; and, in general, see Eichmond- ville Mfg. Co. V. Prall, 9 Conn. 487 (1833); Black v. Zaoharie, 3 How. 483 (1845); Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616 (1874). As regards na- tional banks, see Scott v. Fequonnock Nat. Bank, 15 Fed. Rep. 494 (1883); Con- tinental Nat. Bank v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 47 12 Rep. 351 (1881); s. C 7 Fed. Rep. 369; Dickinson v. Central Nat Bank. 129 Mass. 279 (1880); Sibley v. Quinsiga- mond Nat. Bank, 183 Mass. 515 (1882); State V. First Nat Bank, 89 Ind. 302 (1883). ' Stock is located where the corpora- tion is incorporated, and a non-resident stockholder may file a bill in the United States court in the district where the corporation was organized to set aside an illegal forfeiture of the stock for non-payment of assessments, and in such suit he may bring in non-resident defendants by substituted service. Jel- lenikt). Huron, etc. Co., 177 U. S. 1 (1899). A careful discussion of the sitits of stock will be found in the case of Mat- ter of Bronson, 150 N. Y. 1, 17, 24 (1896). * See § 363, infra. ' Angle V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 94 Fed. Rep. 717 (1899). See also § 766c, infra. s See § 538, infra. ' See on this subject Story on Conflict of Laws, 8th ed., §§ 146, etc., and §g 433, 159 and 186. Where the husband and •wife reside in Tennessee and the wife holds stock in an Alabama corporation, § 12.] DEFINITIONS AND NATTJEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [OH. I. law of the state where the testator resided.' A transfer of stock belonging to an estate must comply with the laws of the state wherein the corporation is incorporated.^ A guardian's sale of stock is governed by the law of the state of the guardianship,' so far as the party dealing with the guardian is concerned, but as to the corporation the same rule should apply as in the case of transfers by married women. Stock held in pledge may be sold in accordance with the law of the state where the pledge exists.^ As regards the common-law and statutory liability of a stock- holder on his stock, the law of the forum as well as the law of the domicile of the corporation has to be considered.' The capital stock of a corporation may be either common or pre- ferred. By common stock is meant that stock which entitles the owners of it to an equal ^^-o rata division of profits, if an}' there be; one stockholder or class of stockholders having no advantage, pri- oritj' or preference over any other shareholder or class of stock- holders in the division. "By joref erred stock is meant stock which entitles its owners to dividends out of the net profits before or in preference to the holders of the common stock. Common stock entitles the owner to pro rata dividends equally with all other holders of the stock except preferred stockholders; while preferred stock entitles the owner to a priority in dividends. By deferred stock or londs is meant stock or bonds the payment the law of Tennessee governs as to the Minnesota stockholder in a California right of the husband to appropriate to corporation sells the stock, yet if a his own use the stock so owned by the local administrator has been appointed wife. Birminghara.etc. Ca v. Hume, 121 in California the sale and transfer by Ala. 168 (1899). See also § 319, infra. The the Minnesota executor is not good, in- question of whether a married woman asmuch as by the California statutes may assign a life insurance policy is personal property descends to the heirs governed by the law of the state where the same as real estate. Moreover, the the woman resides, and not by the law situs of the stock is where the corpora- of the state where the insurance com- tion exists. Murphy v. Grouse, 135 Cal. pany is incorporated. Mutual, etc. Co. 14 (1901). of New York v. Allen, 138 Mass. 24 3 gee § 328, infra. (1884). See also Brick v. Campbell, 123 * Where an Oregon corporation N. Y. 337, 345 (1890). pledges its bonds in California to se- 1 Where stock in a Maryland bank is cure notes payable in California, the owned by a citizen of Delaware, the law law of California applies as to the of Delaware governs a legacy of such mode of selling such bonds on default stock. Lowndes v. Cooch, 87 Md. 478 of the pledgor. Morris, etc. v. East (1898). Side Ry., 104 Fed. Rep. 409 (1900), revg. 2 See S§ 327, 330, infra. Even though 95 Fed. Rep. 13. a Minnesota executor of a deceased 'Seechs.XI and XIL 48 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND HATUEE OF CORPORATIONS. [§ 13. of dividends or interest upon which is expressly postponed until some other class of stockholders are paid a dividend, or until some certain obligation or liability of the corporation is satisfiei^ By overissued or spurious stock is meant stock issued in excess of the full amount of capital stock authorized by the charter of the corporation.^ Such stock is void even though issued in good faith. In Massachusetts some classes of corporations issue what is there known as special stock. This is a peculiar kind of stock, essentially local in character, provided for by statute, and unknown before the year 1855. Its characteristics are that it is limited in amount to two-fifths of the actual capital; it is subject to redemption by the corporation at par after a fixed time, to be specified in the cer- tificate; the corporation is bound to pay a fixed half-yearly sum or dividend upon it as a debt; the holders of it are in no event liable for the debts of the corporation beyond the amount of their stock, and the issue of special stock makes all the general stockholders liable for ail debts and contracts of the corporation until the spe- cial stock is fully redeemed.' The " fiotation " of a property means a sale thereof at a profit to a substantial company.* § 13. Certificates of stock. — A certificate of stock is from one point of view a mere muniment of title, like a title deed. It is not the stock itself, but evidence of the ownership of the stock; that is to say, it is a written acknowledgment by the corporation of the interest of the stockholder in the corporate property and fran- chises;' it operates to transfer nothing from the corporation to the 1 See §§ 367, 773, infra. THIS IS TO certify that of street, 2 See S^ 391-298 infra. London, E. C, is the Registered Holder of One j„ , -v-w-T •' f Thousand Ordinary Shares of £1 each, Nos. bee on. A V 1, tnfra. lis, 761 to 114,760, inclusive, in the Company, * Torva, etc. Syndicate v. Kelly, [1900] Limited, subject to the Regulations of the said A. C. 613. Company, and that the said Shares are fully SHiggins v. Lansingh, 154 IlL 301 Paidup- GIVEN under the Common Seal of the Com- (1895). An American form of a certificate of stock is so common it need not be given j § i I pany this day of , 189-. t hera The English form is different. (Seal.) .5} The following is a specimen: — . Secretary. B „ .wv» -.ri^c ,1 -J J- u ^° transfer of aU or any portion of these No. 80O7. 1000 fully paad ordmaiy shares, ^j,^^^^ ^ ^ registered without the production The Company, Lmuted. of this certificate. Incorporated under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890. In the case of Reno, etc. Co. v. Culver, CAPITAL, £200,000. 60 N. Y. App. Div. 129 (1901), it was held 112,000 seven per c^t^prS^^nce shares of£l '^^* ^ corporation does not have any each, 80,000 ordinary shares of £1 each, and COmmon-law power to issue certificates 400 founders' shares of £20 each. of stock, but that such right must be (4) 49 §13.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [CH. stockholder, but merely affords to the latter evidence of his rights.' It should be clearly understood that the certificate is not the stock, but merely written evidence of the ownership of stock.^ Accord- ingly it follows that shares of stock have no "ear-marks" — that one share cannot be distinguished from another share, — but that it is only the certificates which are distinguishable one from the other by their numbers and in other ways.' The certificate, there- fore, has value in itself as evidence, but apart from the shares which it represents it is utterly worthless.* It is a convenient voucher, which the stockholder has a right to receive if he asks for it.^ It represents the stock sufficiently, however, to carry the stock when the certificate itself is attached or sold on execution.* One element statutory. This can hardly be said to be good law. 1 Approved in the case of Nelson v, Owen, 113 Ala. 378 (1896). 2Hawley v. Brumagim, 83 CaL 394 (1867); Campbell v. Morgan, i Bradw. (111.) 100 (1879); People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344 (1883); Hubbell v. Drexel, 11 Fed. Rep. 115 (1883); Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, 598 (1865); Burr V. Wilcox, 33 N. Y. 551 (1860); Birming- ham Nat. Bank v, Roden, 97 Ala. 404 (1893). "Stock is one thing, and certifi- cates another. The former is the sub- stance, and the latter is the evidence of it." Hawley v. Brumagim, 33 Cal. 394 (1867). The fact that certificates of stock in foreign corporations are in New York state does not render them subject to taxation in that state. JRe James, 144 N. Y. 6 (1894). 3 Hubbell V. Drexel, 11 Fed. Rep. 115 (1883). See also § 469, infra. < Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339 (1880). " But in the business world such obliga- tions or securities are treated as some- thing more than mere muniments of title. They are daily bought and sold like ordinary chattels, they may be hy- pothecated or pledged, they have an in- herent market value, and, while differ- ing in some respects from chattels, they are generally classified as personal prop- erty." Merritt v. American, etc. Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 338, 335 (1897). 5 Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R., 40 How. Pr. 193 (1870). Of. Arnold v. Suf- folk Bank, 37 Barb. 434 (1857), a case in which the distinction between a re- fusal on the part of a corporation to is- sue a certificate in a certain form and a refusal to recognize the owner of shares as owner — a denial of his prop- erty in the stock — is clearly drawn. The supreme court of Indiana has noted the distinction to the effect that a certificate is not the title, but only evidence of the title, to shares. The court says: "The certificate did not constitute the title to the stock, . . . In legal contemplation the certificate was merely an additional and conven- ient evidence of the ownership of the stock." Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Pearce, 38 Ind. 503 (1867). See 93 N. W. Rep. 9. 6 See § 485, infra. The New York court of appeals has recently held that where certificates of stock issued by a New Jersey corporation are within the state of New York, an attachment may be levied upon them and the interest of the owner or pledgor therein sold, such certificates being a property right within the state. Simpson v. Jersey City, eta Co., 165 N. Y. 193 (1900), the court distinguishing the case of Plimp- ton V. Bigelow, 93 N. Y. 593 (1883), on the ground that the certificates of stock in that case were not within the state. The court said: "Certificates of stock are treated by business men as prop- erty for all practical purposes. They are sold in the market and they are transferred as collateral security for 50 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§13. of its value to the stockholder is that it \b prima facie evidence of his title.' A certificate of stock need not be under seal.^ A certificate of stock is not necessary to the complete ownership of the stock ; ' nor is payment of the subscription necessary thereto.* But the corporation is bound, upon demand, to issue certificates of stock to its stockholders;* and, if it refuses, the stockholder may bring suit in equity to compel its issuance;' or he may sue it in an action at law for damages.' The corporation in transferring stock to the trustee in bankruptcy of a stockholder has no right to write on the face of the certificate that it is subject to a lien belonging to the corporation, even though such lien exists, all other certifi- cates of stock not having any such writing on them.* When cer- tificates are executed by a part only of the ofiicers required by law to sign them, they may be void.' But a certificate issued to an officer of the corporation who is a stockholder, although the certificate is signed by that officer, is valid.'" It is not essen- tial to the existence of the corporation that certificates of stock be issued." Without a certificate the stockholder has a complete power to transfer his stock,'^ to receive dividends," and to vote,'* loaDS, and they are used in various ways as property. They pass by delivery from hand to hand and they are the subject of larceny." 1 Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24 (1860); Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 (1873); Walker v. Detroit Transit Ey., 47 Mich. 338 (1882). 2 Halstead v. Dodge, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 169 (1884). There is no common-law rule requiring certificates of stock to have the corporate seal placed upon them. Coddington v. Bailroad, 103 U. S. 409 (1880), dictum. Revenue stamps omitted by oversight from certificates of stock may be affixed at any time. Jones V. Western, etc. Co., 67 Pac. Rep. -586 (Wash., 1902). If the certificate is not signed by the president and is not under seal, a pur- chaser must take notice of facts con- tained in the corporate books relative to such stock. Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 23 (1889). . 3 Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. T. 353 (1883); Burr V. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551, 555 (1860); Thorp V. Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411 <1844). * Wheeler u. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353 (1882). s See § 61, infra, 6 See § 61, infra. ' See § 61, infra. » JJe W. Key, etc., 86 L. T. Rep. 374 (1903). ^Holbrook v. Fauquier, etc. Co., 3 Cranoh, C. C. 425 (1829); s. a, 13 Fed. Cas. 822. See g§ 293, 365, infra. 11 Titus V. Great Western Turnp. Road, 61 N. Y. 237 (1874). 11 Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94 (1819); Burr v. Wilcox, 32 N. Y. 551 (1860). See also 93 N. W. Rep. 9.' 12 First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575 (1877); National Bank v. Watson- town Bank, 105 U. S. 217(1881). Cf. Brigham v. Mead, 93 Mass. 345 (1865). A subscription of stock may be as- signed, even though only a part of the subscription has been called for and paid, and even though no certificate of stock had ever been issued. Such as- signment may be oral.. Manchester St. By. V. Williams, 53 Atl. Rep. 461 (N. H. 1902). IS Ellis V. Essex Merrimack Bridge, 19 Mass. 243 (1824). "Beckett v. Houston, 33 Ind. 393 (1869). 51 § 13.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPORATIONS. [cH. I. and he is individually liable as a stockholder.' A certificate of stock may be a valid subject of a donatio causa mortis, of a legacy, a contract of sale, a pledge, or a gift.^ Under the English statute an issue of stock by a corporation has reference only to the issue of the certificates, and means an original putting out of the shares.* In New York, making out and mailing the certificates has been held to constitute a due issue thereof.* And in Maryland, the stub of a book from which certificates have been detached is evidence of their regular issue.' Stock is issued, so far as taxation is con- cerned, when it is subscribed for." Certificates of stock are not negotiable instruments. They have sometimes been said to have a quasi-negotiability, but this phrase- ology throws little light upon the real character of the transfera- bility of stock. It may be said in general that by the operation of the law of estoppel the purchaser of a certificate of stock, in good faith and for value, may take it free from many claims of previous holders which would be allowed to come in, in the case of a sale of an ordinary chose in action.' A forged transfer of a certificate of stock conveys no title.- By reason of certificates of stock having many elements of nego- tiability, a pledge of the certificates may be enforced by suit in a state where the certificates are deposited.' A provision in a certifi- cate of stock to the effect that the corporation shall have a lien on the stock for debts due to the corporation from the registered stockholder may be valid and enforceable, even though neither the statutes of the state nor the charter nor the by-laws nor the pro- ceedings of the directors or stockholders provide for such a lien. It is sufiicient that the certificate of stock was the one used by the corporation.*," Stock may be transferred without a transfer of the certificate, and if the transferrer afterwards transfers the certificate to another party he is liable to the first transferee." 1 Agricultural Bank v. Wilson, 34 Me. » See g§ 365-370, infrct. 273(1844); Mitchell v. Beokman, 64 CaL 'Certificates of stock represent the 117 (1888). stock itself suflSciently to sustain a suit 2 See ch. XVIIl commenced by substituted service for ' East Qloucestershire Ry. v. Bartholo- the purpose of establishing a lien, even mew, L. R 3 Exch. 15 (1867); Bush's though the corporation is located in an- Case, L. R 9 Ch. App. 554 (1874). other state. Merritt v. American, etc.- * Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R R, 17 Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 228 (1897). Cf. % 485, How. Pr. 539 (1859X Cf. § 13, supra. infra. , * Weber v. Fickey, 47 Md. 196 (1877). i» Stafford v. Produce, etc. Ca, 61 Ohio » American, etc Ca v. State Board, 56 St 160 (1899). See also ch. X-XXI, infrcu. N. J. L. 889 (1894). " Mahaney v. Walsh, 16 N. Y. App.. 7 See ch. XXIV; 54 Atl. Rep. 785. Div. 601 (1897). See § 358, infra. 53 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATTJEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [§ 14. § 14. Definition of land, mortgage, deed of trust, debenture, ar- ticles of association, memoranda of association, scrip, certificate hoolc, transfer iooTt, stock ledger, underwriting, founders' shares. — A bond of a corporation is an instrument executed under tiie seal of the corporation, acknowledging the loan and agreeing to pay the same upon terms set forth therein. A coupon bond is one that has coupons attached, usually in the form of promissory notes to pay an amount of money equal to the annual or semi-annual interest on the bond.* A registered bond is one whose negotiability is temporarily withdrawn by a writing on the bond that it belongs to a specified person, and by a registry to that effect at an office speci- fied by the company. A mortgage given by a corporation may be similar to the ordi- nary mortgage given by an individual. But usually a corporate mortgage is made in the form of a mort- gage deed of trust. Such a deed of trust is a mortgage to a trustee for bondholders, the bonds being secured by the mortgage deed of trust. The trustee may be an individual, but generally is a trust company. Where the mortgage is to secure a large number of bonds, it is almost necessary that a deed of trust be used. Other- wise the mortgage would run to the bondholders, who are con- stantly changing, and many of whom are soon unknown to the cor- poration mortgagor. Moreover in foreclosing such a mortgage serious difficulties would arise. Hence, where a corporation gives a mortgage to secure bonds, this mortgage is made in the form of a deed of trust. The word " debenture " has no definite legal meaning, except that it always means a debt. It may be applied to any promise or secu- rity of the company to pay money. It may be a mere promise to pay, or a covenant under seal to pay, or a mortgage or charge under the seal of the company.^ lA coupon bond is payable to the which interest is collected by the bearer. It may be bought and sold with- holder. out formality as freely as any kind of Printed on the same sheet with the property and without indorsements of bond is a series of coupons or small oer- any kind. Owing to the freedom of trans- tificates of interest due, which are so fer, coupon bonds are usually preferred designed that one is cut off at each in- by persons who expect to hold them terest period. Each coupon bears the but a short time. Their disadvantage number of the bond and shows the date for the person who wishes to make a of the coupon's maturity. The holder permanent investment lies in the dan- of a coupon bond, at each interest pe- ger that they might be lost or stolen, riod, detaches the coupon due that day in which case the loss to the owner and collects it. The coupons may be would be as complete as would be the collected through any bank, loss of a bank note. The coupon bonds ^ See also § 776, infra. take their name from the method by 53 § 14:.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOBATIONS. [CH. I. " Debenture stock " is an English term. It does not mean shares of stock, as in America, but means an English bond, an absolute obligation of the corporation to pay principal and interest at fixed times. It is the English form of bond, and may or may not be se- cured by a mortgage. A holder of debenture stock is generally given a certificate by the corporation, similar in many respects to a certificate of shares of stock, except that the former represents a portion of a lump debt, while the latter represents a portion of the capital stock.^ In this country practically the same kind of security is issued by giving to a bondholder, in exchange for coupon bonds, a certificate entitling him, and him alone, to a speci- fied sum and interest in the meantime. The United States gov- ernment issues such a certificate and calls it a registered bond. An American mortgage may be so drawn as to secure both Amer- ican bonds and English debenture stock, with suitable provisions for the exchange of bonds for debenture stock.^ In England articles of association are similar to by-laws, and are for the regulation and management of the corporation. Memoranda of association are the same as the American articles of incorporation required to be filed under general statutes for in- corporation.' In England scrimp is a written acknowledgment by a corporation that {he holder will be entitled to certain shares of stock and a cer- tificate therefor when the unpaid instalments on such shares are all paid in. It is a negotiable instrument.* 'Lindley, Company Law, p. 195. See perpetual." Jordan & Brown on Joint- also § 777, infra. "Debenture stock is Stock Companies (20th ed.), p. 138. of the same nature as ordinary debent- * See § 777, infra. ures, except that instead of each bond '"Deed of settlement" is a term securing a definite amount the whole that was used in England, prior to 1862, sum secured is treated as a single stock, to indicate the same as the modern and bonds are issued declaring the articles of association and memoranda holder to be entitled to a definite sum, of association. See Burrows v. Smith, part of this stock. This sum is not 10 N. Y. 550, 556 (1853); Rapalje &L. necessarily a round sum, but may be Law Diet. 361; London Financial Assoa for any number of pounds, and may v. Kelk, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 107 (1881); Guin- inolude fractions of a pound unless ness v. Land Corporation, L. R 22 Ch. express limitation is made in that re- D. 349 (1888), 81 N. Y. App. Div. 367. spect. The debenture stock may be * Goodwin v. Robarts, L. R. 1 App. repayable at a fixed date, or may be ir- Cas. 476 (1876); Rum ball v. Metropolitan redeemable, according to the deed Bank, L. R 2 Q. B. D. 194 (1877). creating it, and may be secured in any In this country scrip generally means manner in which a debenture may be a kind of dividend: e. gr., land scrip divi- secured. The loans of the large rail- dend entitling the holder to take so way companies are almost invariably much land; and a scrip dividend en- in the form of stock, and are usually titling the holder to future dividends 54 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [§14- The certificate hook of a corporation contains tlie printed, litho- graphed or engraved certificates of stock, which are filled out and signed by the proper officers and then delivered to the stockhold- ers. A stub in the book, opposite each certificate, states the name, amount, date, etc., of the certificate which is issued. When the certificate is returned, upon a transfer to a new person, it is can- celed and attached to the old stub. On the back of the certificate a blank form for a transfer of the stock represented by it is given. The transfer hooh is for the purpose of keeping a record of trans- fers of stock. The entries in it correspond to the transfers on the backs of the canceled certificates of stock. The entries in the transfer book are generally made by a clerk as attorney in fact for the transferrer. The form of transfer on the back of the certificate contains such a power of attorney. Transfer books are kept by all important corporations and yet their necessity and utility may well be doubted.' The stock ledger contains a statement of how much stock the past and present stockholders have owned or now own." the same as stock receives, but without the voting privilege of stock. See oh. XXXII, infra. 1 See g 388, infra. Probably the trans- fer book and the power of attorney on the back of certificates of stock and the provision in the certificate of stock that it can be transferred on the books of the company only in person or by duly authorized attorney might be abolished -without harm. In these days a sale and assignment of the certificate of stock should be suflBcient to warrant a corpo- ration making a transfer on its corpo- rate books upon the presentation of the old certificate so assigned. The fact is that the transfer on the transfer book is a mere repetition of the transfer on the back of the certificate of stock, and as the stock ledger can be posted di- rectly from the canceled certificates of stock, the transfer book might well be abolished. A stock journal might be convenient to show daily transfers. Cer- tificate of stock book, stock journal and ledger would then correspond to day- book, journal and ledger in ordinary book-keeping. Butinthesedays,whenit is the rule to issue certificates of stock, an d a transfer thereof transfers the equi- table title to the stock itself in all the states, and the legal title in most of the states, every legal and equitable right can be preserved as well without a trans- fer book and power of attorney as with them. The practical result would be the saving of transfer books and much bookkeeping. Many small corporations even now have only a certificate of stock book. See § a82, infra. Of course where the statutes of a state, as in New Jersey, require the keeping of a trans- fer book, the above suggestions could not be adopted. - " The keeping of a stock book, in which the original issue and all subse- quent transfers must be entered, en- ables the holder or purchaser to trace his shares back to the original issue by the numbers of the different certifi- cates, and thus identify the shares upon which any assessment has been made, and enables him to ascertain with cer- tainty, in connection with the other records of the corporation relating to assessments and delinquent sales, whether his shares are free from liens or liability in favor of the corporation, and in the same manner enables the corporation to enforce its delinquent 55 §14-J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF OOEPORATIONS. [oh. Underwriting means an agreement, made before the shares are brought before the public, that in the event of the public not taking all the shares or the number mentioned in the agreement, the un- derwriter will take the shares which the public do not take.* Founders'' sha/res are shares which take the profits after certain dividends are paid on the other shares. They are a sort of deferred stock.^ They are issued to the founders or promoters of the enter- prise. They are unknown in America. In England they often acquire a great value, and eo enormous have been the profits of some of the trust and investment companies that their founders' assessment vipon the shares liable there- for, no matter how many transfers have been made subsequent to the assess- ment; each transferee taking the legal title, but subject to the assessment, just as the grantee of the legal title to land takes it subject to all valid recorded liens." Craig v. Hesperia, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 7 (1896). See also § 383, infra. It may be added that the stock ledger also enables the corporation to ascertain quickly who is entitled to vote and on how much stock; also who is entitled to dividends and on how much stock. It is not necessary for the corporation to keep either a transfer book or a stock ledger. See § 883, infra. 1 Underwriting "means an agreement entered into before the shares are brought before the public, that in the event of the public not taking up the whole of them or the number men- tioned in the agreement, the under- writer will take an allotment of such part of the shares as the public has not applied for.'' The underwriter is liable on the stock. Re Licensed, etc. Assoc, L. R. 43 Ch. D. 1 (1889J. During the past iive years underwrit- ing agreements have become quite com- mon in the United States. Where an "underwriter" agrees to subscribe for whatever the public do not take, and authorizes another to make the subscription for him, he is bound by the -subscription. Shaw v. Bentley, etc. Co., 68 L. T. Rep. 812 (1898); also Re Bentley, etc. Co., 69 L. T. Rep. 204 (1893). An underwriter's contract is given in full in Re Hannan's, etc. Co., 75 L. T. Rep. 45 (1896). See also § 53, infra. 2 In the case Re New Transvaal Co., [1896] 3 Ch. 750, the founders' shares had the following rights: "The profits of the company in each year shall ... be applicable first in or towards payment of a dividend of eight per cent, on the amount of the ordinary shares, and the surplus, if any, shall ... be divided as follows, viz: one-fifth part thereof among the hold- ers of founders' shares, and the remain- ing four-fifths thereof among the hold- ers of ordinary shares in proportion to the amounts for the time being paid up thereon." In Re London, etc., Ltd., 77 L. T. Rep. 146 (1897), there were one hundred and twenty founders' shares of £10 each and twelve thousand ordinary shares of £10 each. The founders' shares were entitled to half of any dividend which might remain after paying ten per cent, on the ordinary shares. The di- rectors allotted to themselves eighty of these founders' shares and the court upheld the allotment. The prospectus stated that each person taking fifty or- dinary shares would be entitled to take one of the founders' shares. The di- rectors caused the fifty ordinary shares for each of the eighty founders' shares to be taken by others. A scheme by which founders' shares are to be ex- changed for ordinary stock at the rate of one hundred shares of the latter for each share of the former is ultra vires 60 CH. !•] BEFINITI0N8 AND NATURE OF COEPOKATIONS. [§1^- shares, which divide the surplus after payment of a moderate maxi- mum dividend on the ordinary shares, are worth almost fabulous sums of monev.' There seems to be but little difference between aud illegal, and will not be sanctioned . by the court. Be Development Co. etc., 86 L. T. Rep. 333 (1903). 1 For instance, the founders' shares in The Trustees, Executors and Securities Insurance Company have been quoted on the market at something like seven thousand five hundred per cent, of their par value. The following article in the Finan- cial News of London of June 8, 1890, is interesting if not particularly edifying: " In a considerable proportion of the new en- terprises which are being brought out, either the prospectus is accompanied by a list of found- ers, or it invites subscriptions of ordinary capital by offering the inducement of a proportionate allotment of founders' shares. The very name of founder has come to have an opulent ring about it, . . . and in the case of the most recent issue, that of the Empire of India Cor- poration, the fortunate possessors of the few £10 founders' shares have already seen them worked up in the market to a premium of £500. No wonder, then, that securities of this class are regarded with a covetous eye. To be the lucky holder seems a very good substitute for possess- ing the philosopher's stone or the magic wand of the eastern genii, by means of which gold could be produced at will. In no other Idnd of investment regulated by limited-Uability prin- ciples have such profitable results been obtained. For a comparatively small outlay there is the prospect of a return ' exceeding the dreams of avarice,' and although all founders' shares do not turn out El Doradoes, yet their infinite pos- sibilities of ' unearned increment ' give them a special degree of fascination, and tempt persons who would scornfully hold aloof from any ordi- nary scheme of company promotion to lend their names in return for the allotment of one or two founders' shares. , . . There can be no question that the investing public attach a good deal of importance to the list of founders. They see a number of names of gentlemen of social position, possibly of financial . eminence, and they jump to the conclusion that the taking up of the founders' shares by these persons im- plies a sort of assurance on their part of the respectability and bona fides of the promotion. The founders themselves, probably, have never looked at the matter quite in that light. They must, however, confess that the privilege of holding these specially-favored shares is not 57 conferred with an altogether disinterested ob- ject. Promoters want to get good names on the prospectus, and this is one of the expedients by which they accomplish their end. ... It is quite understood in many — perhaps in a ma- jority of— cases that it is their personal influ- ence which is being purchased by the grant of an exclusive privilege. To that extent they do undoubtedly further and encourage the interests of the promoters. Sometimes they undertake for each f otmders' share to place a certain num- ber of ordinary shares — in other words, to * guarantee a subscription.' " Founders' shares resemble preferred stock in that the amount of dividends payable thereon depends in each case upon the terms of the agreement under which the shares are issued. The dividends going to the founders' shares may be great or small, and may be more or less fixed or contingent, just as the original incorporators may determine. The nature of founders' shares and the variable character of the rights con- ferred thereby are illustrated in the case iSe London, etc. Corp., 78 L. T. Rep. 380 (1895), the charter containing the fol- lowing provisions: " (6) There snail first be paid out of the net profits of the company in each year to the hold- ers of the preferred shares a cumulative prefer- ential dividend, at a rate not exceeding £5 per cent, per annum on the amount paid up thereon for the time being, (c) There shall, in the next place, be paid out of the net profits of the com- pany to the holders of ordinary shares a divi- dend at the rate of seven per cent, per annum on the amount paid up thereon for the time being. (cJ) After these payments, and provid- ing for the further remuneration of the du'ect- ors, one moiety shall belong to the holders of founders' shares, and the residue shall belong to the holders of ordinary shares." . . . " The founders' shares shall entitle the hold- ers thereof to such dividends and other interest in the prdfits of the company as is defined by the memorandum and articles of association; but, except in the case of liquidation, they shall not entitle the holders thereof to any share in the capital of the company beyond the actual amoimt paid up or duly credited as paid up upon them." . " In any winding up of the company the hold- §15.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. I. founders' shares, as related to common stock, and common stock as related to preferred stook.^ Founders' shares are often given as a gift to eminent persons who consent to act as directors and to be held out to the public as such. The word "securities" means bonds, certificates of stock and other evidences of debt or of property.^ § 15. The name of a corporation. — A corporation has an exist- ence distinct from that of the individuals constituting it. Hence, for the purposes of identification and continuity, it is essential that the corporation have a name. " The name is an indispensable part of the constitution of every corporation, the knot of its combina- tion, as it has been called, without which it cannot perform its cor- porate functions."' The corporate name is usually the choice of the incorporators, and is specified in the creating instrument. By this name it takes and grants property, sues and is sued,. and does all corporate acts.* era of founders' shares sh&ll be entitled (as be- tween themselves and holdera of preferred and ordinary shares) to one moiety of any assets of the company remaining after the payment and discharge of the debts and liabilities of the com- pany, and the repayment to the holders of pre- ferred and ordinary shares of the amount paid up or credited as paid up on such shares, to- gether with the costs of winding up; provided always that in the division of any reserve fund under this clause the founders shall be entitled to one moiety of any portion of such reserve fimd arising from the issue of any shares in the company at a premium, but as to any other re- serve fund shall only be entitled to one moiety of such reserve fund up to twenty per cent, of the subscribed capital, and no more." See also Be Macdonald, etc. Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 89. 1 Fisher v. Black, etc. Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 174 2 Thayer v. Wathen, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 388 (1897). Cf. g 305; 71 Pao. Rep. 273. ' Fort, etc. Assoc, v. Model, etc. Assoc, 159 Pa, St., 308 (1893). *Viner's Abr., Corporation; Bacon's Abr., Corporation; 1 Bl. Com. 475, 476; Glass V. Tipton, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 376 (1869). Where the name signed to a bond begins with the word "The" and ends with the word " Company ," the law presumes that it is a corporation. Allen V. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175 (1900). Statutes relative to corporations usu- 58 ally prescribe, expressly or by implica- tion, that the articles of incorporation shall specify the name assumed by the corporation. In Wells v. Oregon Ry. e,to. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. 561, 567 (1883), it is said that the statute might create a corporation without any special des- ignation, although some description would be necessary, and then it might subsequently acquire a name. Corpo- rations are required both at common law and by the statutes of all the states to have names. Glass v. Tipton, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 376 (1869). The corpo- rate name has been variously spoken of as " the very being of the constitu- tion," " the knot of their combination," " as the name of baptism," " the sub- stance and essence of it." The form of the name is sometimes prescribed by statute, as that it Khali begin with "The " and end with " company," "cor- poration," "association," or "society." Colo. Gen. Laws, 1877, pp. 143, 144. See also Conn. Gen. Stat. 1888, § 1905. In Hammond v. Hastings, 134 U. S. 401 (1890), the name of the corporation was "George H. Hammond & Company." The court held that even if this name on the certificate of stock did not give notice that it was a corporation, yet OH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATDEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [§15. The right of a corporation to the exclusive use of its chosen name is recognized by statute in many states. Moreover, it is usually pro- tected by the courts, independently of any statute.' that a lien on the stock was sufiBoient. Where the name of an individual is the same as that of a corporation of which he is president, parol evidence may show that the signature to an instrument was the signature of the company and not of the individual. Hall V. Ochs, 34 K Y. App. Div. 103 (1898). A judgment in favor of a cor- poration named " B. F. Avery & Sons " should be indexed under the letter A, and not under the letter Bi inas- much as individual names are in- dexed in that way. B. F. Avery & Sons V. Texas, etc. Agency, 62 S. W. Rep. 798 (Tex. 1901). School districts erected under a general law, which does not require the designation of a name, may acquire such for the pur- poses of suits and other corporate acts by usage. South School Dist. v. Blakes- lee, 13 Conn. 227 (1839). The West Virginia Code, 1S91, p. 508, § 11, pre- scribes that "no joint-stock company shall adopt the same name which is being used at the time by another cor- poration of this state." N. T. Laws, 1895, ch. 672, prohibits the selection of a name sufficiently resemblin.rr an- other as to deceive. See also Mo. Rev. St. 1889, §§ 2496, 2768.' An author cannot repudiate his contract with a corporation, although the corporation has the same name as a person who has fled from a criminal prosecution. Jew- ett Pub. Co. V. Butler, 159 Mass. 517 (1893). Under the Pennsylvania stat- ute a concern cannot use the name " University" unless authorized so to do in a particular way. Common- wealth V. Banks, 198 Pa. St. 397 (1901). The Kentucky statute, requiring the corporate name to be painted on signs at the principal places of business in the state, does not sustain an indictment for failure to print the name on the principal place of business in a speci- fied city. Such a statute does not apply to every place of business of the corpo- ration. Standard Oil Co. v. Common- wealth, 63 S. W. Rep. 897 (Ky. 1901). •Thus, it is said that a corporate name legally acquired should be pro- tected upon the same principle and to the same extent that individuals are protected in the use of trade-marks. Holmes, etc. v. Holmes, etc. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 293 (1870). The corporate name is a trade-mark from the neces- sity of the thing, and upon every con- sideration of private justice and pub- lic policy deserves the same con- sideration and protection from a court of equity. The case of an encroach- ment is analogous to if not stronger than that of a piracy upon an estab- lished trade-mark. Newby v. Oregon Cent. Ry., Deady, 609, 616 (1869); s. C, 18 Fed. Cas. 38. Of. Goodyear's India Rubber, etc. Co. w Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 (1888). State ofBcials can- not be enjoined from allowing a domes- tic corporation to take the name that a foreign corporation has, even though a fraud is worked thereby. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Hamblen, 23 Fed. Rep. 285 (1885). In Massachusetts, by statute, a foreign corporation doing a banking, loan, trust or investment busi- ness in the state cannot use the same name as or a similar name to a domes- tic corporation. International T. Co. V. International L. & T. Co., 153 Mass. 271 (1891). A corporation may take a name which an old corporation is about to take by change of name. Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pearson, 140 III, 423 (1892). A foreign corporation cannot prevent a domestic corporation from us- ing the same name, where the latter was incorporated first, even though the public may be misled. In this case a party sold out to individuals, but did not sell any trade-marks. He then in- 59 §15.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. I. The matter of protecting the use of a corporate name is intrin- sically of equitable cognizance, as the injured party seldom if ever has an adequate and complete remedy at law. To prevent the continuance of such a wrong equity will interfere, and at the suit of the injured party will grant an injunction.' coi-porated a company under the name of the trade-mark. Hazelton Boiler Co. V. Hazelton, etc, Co., 142 IlL 494 (1893). A person who owns all the stock of a corporation which has the same name that he has, and sells such stock, can- not prevent the continuation of, the use of that name. Geo. T. Stagg Co. v. E. H. Taylor, etc., 68 S. W. Rep. 862 (Ky. 1902). 1 Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. Dane, 95 111. 203 (1880). A Pennsylvania corporation having the name American Clay Man- ufacturing Company may enjoin a New Jersey corporation having the same name from doing business in Pennsyl- Tania, even though the latter company has registered its certificate with the secretary of state, as provided by stat- ute, and even though no fraud is in- volved. American, etc. Co. v. Ameri- can, etc, Co., 198 Pa. St. 189 (1901). Injunction lies at the instance of a cor- poration against another corporation using its name, inasmuch as the name may stand as a trade-mark. St. Pat- rick's, etc. u Byrne, 59 N. J. Eq. 26 <1899). A company having a trade-mark on the use of the words " Hygeia Water " may enjoin another company from using those words, but cannot enjoin them from using the word " Hygeia " in connection with the word "ice." Hygeia, etc. Co. v. Hygeia Ice Co., 72 Conn. 646 (1900). In the case of Lamb, «tc. Co. V. Lamb, etc. Co., 78 N. W. Kep. 1072 (Mich. 1899), the court enjoined a domestic corporation using the name "Lamb Glove & Mitten Company," where it interfered with the business of another corporation having the name " Lamb Knit-Goods Company.' ' See also Penberthy, etc. Co. v. Lee, 120 Mich. 174 (1899). In the case of Red, etc. Club V. Red, etc. Club, .108 Iowa, 105 (1899), the court enjoined an Iowa corpo- ration from taking as its corporate name a name already used by an Illinois corpo- ration, the latter having issued a book under that name. A corporation having the name " The Young Women's Chris- tian Association " may enjoin a new cor- poration from usingthe name " Interna- tional Committee of the Young Wo- men's Christian Association.'' Interna- tional, etc. V. Young Women's, etc. Ass'n, 194 111. 194 (1901). The "Indus- trial.Mutual Deposit Company " cannot prevent a corporation using the name " Central Mutual Deposit Company." Industrial, etc. Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 66 S. W. Rep. 1032 (Ky. 1902). Even an un- incorporated association may enjoin a corporation from taking its name where injury is shown. Aiello v. Montecalfo, 21 R. L 496 (1899). A company having the name "The Manchester Brewery Company" may enjoin another com- pany from using the name " The North Cheshire and Manchester Brewery Com- pany." North Cheshire, etc. Co. v. Man- chester, etc. Co., [1899] A. C. 83. Equity will always interfere where the same name has been wrongfully appropri- ated. Where only a similar name is used, it is usually held that some actual damage, past, present or imminent, must be shown. A corporation will be protected in its name as a trade-mark. Often so by statute. State v. McGratli, 92 Mo. 355 (1887). A corporation may enjoin another corporation from taking and using its name. Farmers' L. & T, Co. V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 44 (1888). The use of any particular name by a corporation will not be en- joined unless it be clearly proven that the complainant will suffer injury. CH. 1.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF C0EP0BATI0N8. [§15. The New York court of appeals stated the law on this subject as- follows : " In respect to corporate names the same rule applies as to the names of firms or individuals, and an injunction lies to restrain the Drummond Tobacco Co. v. Handle, 114 111. 413 (1885); London, etc. Ass. Soc. v. London, etc. Ins. Co., 11 Jur. 938 (1847); Newby v. Oregon Cent. Ry., Deady, 609, 616(1869); s. C, 18 Fed. Cas. 38; Holmes, etc. V. Holmes, etc. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 295 (1870), where the language of the court is as follows: "The ground on which courts of equity afford relief in this class of cases is the injury to the party {iggrieved, and the imposition upon the public by causing them to be- lieve that the goods of one man or firm are the production of another. The ex- istence of these consequences does not necessarily depend upon the question whether fraud or an evil intent does or does not exist. The quo animo, therefore, would seem to be an imma- terial inquiry." A New York corpora- tion, " Goodyear Rubber Co.," cannot enjoin a Connecticut corporation from using substantially the same name. Goodyear's India Rubber, etc. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598 (1888), reversing 21 Fed. Rep. 276 (1884). Of. Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Boston Rubber Co., 149 Mass. 436 (1889). The corpw'ate name is not a franchise, even though, it is a trade-mark. Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton, etc. Co., 137 111. 231 (1891). A benevolent corporation cannot object to a subsequent corpora- tion's assuming a somewhat similar name. American, etc. Clans v. Mer- rill, 151 Mass. 558 (1890). The words " employers' liability," used in the name of an insurance company, may be used in the name of another insurance com- pany, both companies being foreign corporations. Employers', etc. Corp. v. Employers', etc. Co., 10 N. Y. Siipp. 845 (1890). A oorporatioil of Nebraska, "The Nebraska Loan & Trust Company," can- not enjoin another Nebraska corpora- 61 tion, the " Nebraska Loan & Trust Com- pany," from using that name. The name is too general for a trade-mark, and the location of the companies in different cities prevents confusion of business. Nebraska Loan, etc. Co. v. Nine, 27 Neb. 507 (1889). Technically this decision may be correct, but when such a fraud is sustained by the courts it is time for the legislature to enact the usual law against one corporation assuming the name of a prior corpo- ration. The corporate name " Richard- son & Boynton Company " does not prevent another company using the name " Richardson & Morgan Com- pany." Richardson, etc. Co. v. Rich- ardson, etc. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp. 53 (1889). If a corporation wrongfully refuses to accept watch movements with its nam© thereon, the manufacturer may sell them with that name on. McCuUoh V. Smith, 44 Fed. Rep. 13 (1890). The "International Banking Company" cannot prevent another concern using the name the "International Bank." Koehler v. Sanders, 182 N. Y. 65 (1890). Where a company has a well estab- lished and known business, and a per- son having the same name attempts to incorporate under his name and carry on the same business, although he was never in the business before, he will b© restrained. Tussaud v. Tussaud, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 678 (1890). While there may be " nothing in the adoption of a name which is borne by another which in- fracts any known law " [Me Baptist Church, 3 Haz. Pa. Reg. 235 (1828); s. c, 1 Haz. Pa. Reg. 75), yet approval of the proposed articles of incorporation will generally be withheld if the name con- flicts with that of an existing corpora- tion. Re First Presbyterian Church of Harrisburg, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 340 (1858); §15.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [oh. I. simulation and use by one corporation of the name of a prior cor- poration wiiich tends to create confusion and to enable the latter corporation to obtain, by reason of the similarity of names, the business of the prior one. The courts interfere in these cases, not on the ground that the state may not affix such corporate names as it may elect to the entities it creates, but to prevent fraud, act- ual or constructive." ' A corporation has neither the right nor the power to change the corporate name originally selected unless it is allowed so to do by the laws under which it has been created, or by the consent of the authority from which its charter is derived.' Re Sons of Progress, 14 W. N. Cas. 31 <1883). 1 Higgins Ca v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 463 (1895). ' Where a corporation selects its name in order to get another company's busi- ness, it is no defense that the name of the former is the name of its chief stockholder. William Rogers Mfg. Ca V. R W. Rogers Co., 66 Fed. Rep. 56 (1895). The court will not authorize a cor- poration to change its name, where in- jury will result to another corporation, or an imposition or deceit will result by reason of the confusion of the names. Be U. S. Mortgage Ca, 83 Hun, 573 <1895). A name is protected like a trade- mark, but five years' delay in complain- ing is fatal. Moreover a seceding part of an unincorporated association can- not by incorporation obtain the exclu- sive right to the old name. United Workmen v. Graham, 96 Iowa, 593 <1896). The " Sun Life Assurance Society " of England cannot restrain the "Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada " from doing business in England, there being no actual fraud practiced or at- tempted; but the latter company must not abbreviate its name so as to mis- lead the public. Saunders v. Sun, eta Ca, [1894] 1 Cli. 587. The Elgin Butter Company cannot object to another company using the 63 name the Elgin Creamery Company. Elgin Butter Ca v. Elgin Creamery Co., 155 111. 137 (1895). The Home Life Insurance Company, a new York corporation, cannot pre- vent a Michigan corporation from or- ganizing under the name The Home Life Assurance Company. People w Home, eta Ca, 111 Mich. 405 (1897). A committee appointed by a volun- tary association to obtain a charter may incorporate in the name of the voluntary association, and the associa- tion cannot enjoin the use of such name. Paulino v. Portuguese Ben. Assoa, 18 R. I. 165 (1893). Although the name of a domestic corporation is very similar to that of an existing domestic corporation, yet where there is no evidence that the lat- ter company knew of the former, and no sufficient proof that any one is de- ceived, the court may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, refuse to enjoin the latter corporation from using the name — the name of the first company being the Hygeia Water Ice Company, and of the latter the New York Hygeia Ice Company, Limited, Hygeia, etc. Ca V. New York, eta Ca, 140 N. Y. 94 (1893). A corporation cannot change its name unless allowed by statute so to da Sykes V. People, 133 IlL 38 (1890); Bel- lows V. Hallowell, eta Bank, 2 Mason, 31 (1819); s. C 3 Fed. Cas. 144. ' In the case of voluntary religious OH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [§15. While a corporation cannot change its corporate name, it may nevertheless become known by another name, through usage; and the courts have frequently treated acts done and contracts entered societies constituted under general laws, without a special act of incorpora- tion and without an established name, names are purely arbitrary, and changes therein do not at all affect their iden- tity. Trinity Church v. Hall, 22 Conn. 125 (1853); Cahill v. Bigger, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 211 (1848). So the identity and rights of a municipal corporation are not affected by a change of its name. Girard v. Philadelphia, 7 Wall 1 (1868). The power is sometimes given by the legislature to the courts to change the name of any corporation within their jurisdiction upon proper notice being given to the auditor-general; and this applies to religious corporations. Re First Presbyterian Oh., Ill Pa. St 156 (1885). A reorganization, with change of name, under a statute, does not affect fixed or running obligations. Hyatt v. McMahon, 25 Barb. 457 (1857;; City Na- tional Bank v. Phelps, 16 Hun, 158 (1878); reversed on another point, 86 N. T. 484 As to a change of name under the New York statute, see Re U. S. etc. Agency, 115 N. Y. 176 (1889). A judgment in the new name which a cofporation has taken by proceedings imder a statute is valid, although such proceedings to change the name were not regular. King V. Ilwaco, eta Co., 1 Wash. St. 137 (1890). An irregularand ineffectual attempt to change the name of a corporation does not affect its charter. O'Donnell v. C. R. Johns Co., 76 Tex. 363 (1890). In some states it is provided in the general laws that the corporate name may be changed by a resolution of the stock- holders or of the directors, properly filed and recorded. Ma Rev. St 1883, ch. 46, § 6; Tenn. Code, 1896, § 2028; Shackelford, eta Co. v. Dangerfield, L. E. 8 C. P. 407 (1868), under the English Companies Act. Similar provision is sometimes made in special acta Morris V. St Paul, etc. Ry., 19 Minn. 528 (1873); Attorney-General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94 106 (1884). Or the change may be di- rectly made by the special act. Wallace V. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146, 154 (1877); Alex- ander V. Berney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90, 93(1877). Of. Pacific Bank v. De Ro, 37 Cal. 538 (1869). Or the original special act of incorporation may provide for a change by an order of the directors approved by the stockholders. Wells v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. 561 (1883). If the legislature changes the name of a corporation without altering its pow- ers or identity, it does not affect a con. troversy between the company and third parties. Rosenthal «. Madison, etc. Co., 10 Ind. 358 (1858). As to the right of the corporation to maintain an action on a note executed to it in the old name, see Northwestern College v. Schwagler, 37 Iowa, 577 (1873). A grant to a church in a particular name is ndi lost by a subsequent change of name. Cahill V. Bigger, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 311 (1848). Where a railroad company was authorized by special act to change its name or the names of its branches, and did change the name of one branch and of itself in the management of such branch, held, that for the purpose of suits its original name remained un- changed. Morris v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 19 Minn. 528 (1873). The change of a cor- poration's name does not affect its real estate contracts. Welfley v. Shenan- doah, etc. Co., 83 Va. 768 (1887). Nor an obligation on a bond. West v. Carolina L. Ins. Ca, 31 Ark. 478 (1876). A guar- antee to pay for goods thereafter deliv- ered by Crane Bros. Manufacturing Company cannot be enforced by the company, where it changed its name to Crane Company before the goods were delivered. Crane Ca v. Specht, 89 Neb, 138 (1894). 63 §15.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [CH. into by corporations under -another name, as having been done or entered into by it under its true name.^ Modern law has departed from the strict rules of the common law as to the use of the corporate name. As corporations are now able to contract almost as freely as "natural persons, it is held that a departure from the strict name of a corporation will not avoid its contract if its identity substantially appears; and an ambiguity may, under proper averments, be explained by parol.^ A deed to 1 Society for Propagating Gospel v. Young, 2 N. H. 310 (1820). Where two insurance corporations in issuing a pol- icy use a name to designate both of them they may be sued under that name. Ferry v. Cincinnati Underwrit- ers, 111 Mich. 261 (1896). An assign- ment by a corporation in a name which it has adopted but not recorded as re- quired by statute is good. Wood- rough, etc. Co. V. Witte, 89 Wis. 537 (1895). In McGary v. People, 45 N. Y. 153 (1871), it is held (three justices dissenting) that a misnomer of the corporation owner of the property in an indictment for arson is fatal. See also, in general, Smith v. Tallassee, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 650, 664 (1857); South School District v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn. 227 (1839); Minot v. Curtis, 7 Mass. 441 (1811), where the court, in using the language, " We know not why corporations may not be known by several names as well as individuals," evidently had in mind certain classes of corporations and societies. Identity may be a ques- tion of fact for the jury. Dutch West India Co. v. Van Moses, 1 Stra. 612 (1725). An assignment of a claim against a corporation need not accu- rately describe its nama Adler v. Kan- sas City, etc. R. R., 92 Mo. 243 (1887). A corporation is bound by an abbreviated nama People v. Sierra, etc. Co., 39 Cal. 511, 514 (1870). There is a distinc- tion in some of the old cases to the ef- fect that corporations by prescription may have several names, while with charter corporations it is otherwisa Anonymous (2), 3 Salk. 102 (1703); Mer- cers, etc. of Shrewsbury v. Hart, 1 Car. & P. 118 (1823); Hammond v. Shepard, 29 How. Pr. 188. 191 (1865); Thomas v. Dakin, 32 Wend. 9, 73 (1839); Melledge V. Boston Iron Co., 59 Mass. 158, 175 (1849); Medway Cotton Manuf'y v. Ad- ams, 10 Mass. 360 (1813); Alexander v. Berney, 28 N. J. Eq. 90 (1877), holding that a corporation, through its retain- ing the use of its original name after the passage of an amendatory act changing it, regained, so to speak, its original name, and could be sued and be proceeded against in bankruptcy by it Where the company signs a contract under an assumed name the contract may be enforced against it Marmet Co. V. Archibald, 37 W. Va. 778 (1893). In Cincinnati Cooperage Co. v. Bate, 96 Ky. 356 (1894), the remarkable conclu- sion was reached that where a corpo- ration changed its name and used the new name without complying with the statute the stockholders were liable as partners. '' Haag V. County Com'rs, 34 Fed. Rep. 778 (1888); Berks, etc. Road u. Myers, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 12, 17 (1820); Boisgerard V. New York Banking Ca, 2Sandf. Ch. 33 (1844); Hammond v. Shepard, 29 How. Pr. 188 (1865); GiflEord v. Rockett 121 Mass. 431 (1877); Melledge v. Bos- ton Iron Ca, 59 Mass. 158, 175 (1849); Medway Cotton Manufy v. Adams, 10 Mass. 360 (1813); Commercial Bank v. French, 88 Mass. 486 (1839); Hascall v. Life Assoa, 5 Hun, 151 (1875); afi'd, 66 N. Y. 616; Conro t'. Port Henry Iron Ca, 13 BarU 37, 55 (1851); Northwestern Dist Co. V. Brant 69 IlL 658 (1873). Cf. New York African Soo. v. Varick, 13 Johna 38 (1816); Mott v. Hicks, 1 Cow. 64 OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATTJEE OF OOKPOEATIONS. [§15. a corporation is valid although the corporate name as set forth in the deed is not correct.' Where a corporation has been enjoined 513 (1833); Brockway v. Allen, 17 Wend. 40 (1837). Although by error land is deeded to a corporation not by its right name but by a name which another corporation has. yet the latter company does not take title. Clarke v. Milligan, 58 Minn. 413 (1894). The omission of part of the corporate name in the as- signment of a mortgage by a corpora- tion is immaterial. Chilton v. Brooks, 71 Md. 445 (1889). Although the name used in a contract is different from the corporate name, yet if the identity is clear the contract is enforceable. Has- selman v. Japanese, etc. Co., 3 Ind. App. 180 (1891). There is a line of cases where corporations draw or accept bills or make deeds in another name merely as a convenient mode of doing the special act of business, and they are held liable although the corporate name is not mentioned. In such cases they are to^e sued in their true name. Culpeper Agric. etc. Soc. v. Digges, 6 Eand. (Va.) 165 (1838); Milford, etc. Co. V. Brush, 10 Ohio, 111 (1840); Eyan v. Martin, 91 N. C. 464 (1884); Asheville Division v. Aston, 92 N. C. 578 (1885); Clement v. Lathrop, 18 Fed. Rep. 885 (1884); Bridgeford v. Hall, 18 La. Ann. 211, 218 (1866); Brock Dist. Council v. Bowen, 7 U. C. Q. B. 471 (1850). A misnomer has been held material in the following cases: Where a corpora- tion is required by statute to act for its own benefit, as in collecting assess- ments for benefit to land from its pro- posed road. Glass v. Tipton, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 376 (1869). In an indictment for arson. McGary v. People, 45 N. Y. 153 (1871). Where the name in a. fl. fa, was different from that by which the corporation was sued and judgment had. Bradford v. Water Lot Co., 58 Ga. 280 (1877). Cf. Ga. Code, § 3636. A variation will not in general invalidate a deed, grant, or lease by or to a corpo- ration when the true name can be col- lected from the instrument or is shown by proper averments. 2 Kent, Com. 392; Bacon, Abr., Corporation; Ken- tucky Seminary v. Wallace, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 35, 45 (1854); Clarke v. Potter County, 1 Pa. St. 159 (1845); Douglass V. Mobile Branch Bank, 19 Ala. 659 (1851); Culpeper Agric. etc. Soc. v. Dig- ges, 6 Eand. (Va.) 165 (1828); 1 Kyd, Corp. 286, 288; Com. Dig., Pleader, 3 B. 3; Case of Linne Eegis, 10 Co. 1226, 125b (1613); Ayray's Case, 11 Co. 18& (1612). At common law a substantial variance between the name of the party injured as laid in the indictment and as given in evidence was fatal; and it was so held in New York, in a case involving a misnomer of the corporate owner of the property. McGary v. People, 45 N. Y. 153 (1871), three judges dissent- ing; Sykes v. People, 132 111. 33 (1890). But this rule is modified in some juris- dictions, as by the Penal Code of Cali- fornia, section 956. See People v. Pot- ter, 35 Cal. 110 (1868). Cf. N. Y. Code Grim. Proc, § 381. Cf, also, People v. Eunkel, 9 Johns. 147, 156 (1812). A slight variation in documentary evidence "Of a national bank's corpo- rate existence which does not go to 1 Precious, etc' Soc. v. Elsythe, 102 Tenn, 40 (1899). A deed to a religious corporation is good although the name is not correctly stated in the deed. Church of Christ v. Christian Church, 193 111. 144 (1901). A mistake in writ- ing the name of the corporation in a mortgage is immaterial. Woronieki v. (5) 65 Pairskiego, 50 Atl. Rep. 563 (Conn. 1901). But a mortgage indexed as " Scandinavian Congregational Chiirch, Trustees of," is not notice of the actual mortgage given by the " Scandinavian Free Church." Congregational, etc. Soc. V. Scandinavian Free Church, 34 Wash. 438 (1901). Cf 118 Fed. Rep. 892. §15.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOEPOEATIONS. [oh. from using its name this is cause for a dissolution, at the instance of the stockholders.^ Upon dissolution a company may sell its trade name.^ raise a doubt of the identity is to be disregarded. Thatcher v. West River Nat. Bank, 19 Mich. 196 (1869). -'A corporation may sue or be sued only by its corporate nama" Iowa Rev., § 1151; Iowa Code, § 1059. " It is immaterial what name it does its business under. A corporate name is that which is adopted in the articles of incorporation^ If the name is changed it must be done by changing the articles of incorpora- tion." Where a corporation sued on an agreement, and alleged a due and legal change of name between the time of the execution and the suit, it was held such change must be proved by the ar- ticles and not by testimony of the secre- tary. Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Keisel, 43 Iowa, 39 (1876). A suit brought against the Bell Telephone Company is sustain- able though the corporate name is the American Bell Telephone Company. State V. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 296 (1880). When the corporate name has once correctly appeared it is gener- ally not necessary that it should be completely stated at every recurrence in a pleading. Antipaeda Bapt. Ch. v. Mulford, 8 N. J. L. 183 (1835); London v. Lynn, 1 a BL 206 (1789); Stafford v. Bolton, 1 Bos. & P. 40 (1797); Case ot Lynne Regis, 10 Rep. 130 (1613). In an action or special proceeding brought by or against a corporation the defendant is deemed to have waived any mistake in the statement of the corporate name unless the misnomer is pleaded in the answer or other pleading in the defend- ant's behalf. N. T. Code Civ. Pro., § 1777. So generally a misnomer is not ground for a nonsuit and must be pleaded in abatement. Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 456 (1878); Bank of Utioa V. Smalley, 3 Cow. 770 (1824); Methodist Ep. Church v. Tryon, 1 Denio, 451 (1845); Lake Superior Bldg. Assoc. V. Thompson, 82 Mich. 298(1875); North- umberland Co. Bank v. Eyer, 60 Pa. St. 436 (1869); Wilson v. Baker, 52 Iowa, 423 (1879); Medway Cotton Manuf'y v. Adams, 10 Mass, 360(1813); Gilbert v. Nantucket Bank, 5 Mass. 97 (1809); State V. Bell Telephone Co., 86 Ohio St. 296 (1880); Sunapee V. Rastman, 33 N. a 470 (1855); Burnham v. Strafford Co. Sav. Bank, 5 N. tt 446 (1831); School District V. Griner, 8 Kan. 324 (1871). Misnomer is pleadable in abatement, but not in bar. Baltimore, etc, R. R. v. Fifth Bapt. Church, 137 'U, S. 568 (1891). Proceed- ings for perpetuating testimony are not admissible when only the letters "C, B. & Q. R R Co." are used to designate defendant. Accola v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 70 Iowa, 185 (1886). Cf. Martin v. Cen- tral Iowa Ry., 59 Iowa, 411 (1883); Stone V. East Berkshire Cong. Soc, 14 Vt 86 (1842); Souhegan, eta Factory v. Mc- Conihe, 7 N. a 309 (1834); Bank of Me- tropolis V. Orme, 8 Gill (Md.), 443 (1845); Gray v. Monongahela Nav. Co., 2 Watts & a (Pa.) 156 (1841); Stafford v. Bolton, 1 Bos. & P. 40 (1797); Beene v. Cahawba, eta R R, 3 Ala. (N. S.) 660 (1843); La- fayette Ins. Co. V. French, 18 How. 405 (1855). Of. Brittain v. Newland, 2 Dev. & B. (N. C.) L. 363 (1837); Traver v. Eighth Ave. R. R, 4 Abb. Dea 432 (1867); Mauney v. High Shoals Mfg. Ca, i Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 195 (1845). A mistake in setting out the name of a corpora- tion party in a pleading may be cor- rected by amendment. Smith v. Cen- tral Plank-road Co., 30 Ala, 650, 663 (1857); BuUard v. Nantucket Bank, 5 Mass. 99 (1809); Sherman v. Conne'oti- cut River Bridge, 11 Mass 338 (1814); Brittain v. Newland, 3 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 1 Re Thomas, eta & Sons, Ltd., 76 L. T. Rep. 100 (1897). 'Townsend v. Jarman, [1900] 2 Ch. 66 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NAT0EE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§15. The sale of a business of a corporation which does not specific- ally transfer the trade name and good will does not enable a L. 363 (1837). Or if manifestly immate- rial no objection will be allowed. Bal- timore Marine Bank v. Biays, 4 Hai-. & J. (Md.) 338 (1818). And judgment will not be arrested. Coulter v. Western Theol. Seminary, 29 Md. 69 (1868). Where a corporate name is established it is usually held that suits must be brought and defended in such name. Romeo v. Chapman, 3 Mich. 179 (1851). In the case of a misnomer in a devise the courts are very liberal in permitting the identity of the corporation to be otherwise shown. Deaf and Dumb Inst. V. Norwood, Busb. (N. C.) Eq. 65 (1852); First Parish in Sutton v. Cole, 20 Mass. 232 (1825); Minot v. Boston Asylum, 48 Mass. 416 (1844); St. Louis Hospital Assoc. V. Williams, 19 Mo. 609 (1854); Preachers' Aid Soc. v. Rich, 45 Me. 552 <1858i; Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119 (1852); New York Inst, for Blind t'. How, 10 N. Y. 84 (1854); Domestic, etc. Soc's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 425 (1858); Cresson's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 437 (1858); Newell's Appeal, S4 Pa. St 197 (1855); Chapin v. Winchester School Dist.. 35 N. H. 445 (1857); Button v. American Tract Soc, 33 Vt. 336 (1851); Hornbeok v. Ameri- can Bible Soc, 2 Sandf. Ch. 133 (1844); Attorney-General v. Rye, 7 Taunt. 546 (1817); General Lying-in Hospital v. Knight, 21 L. J. Ch. 537 (1851); Re Kil- vert's Trusts, L. R 7 Ch. App. 170 (1871); Jarman, Wills, 326. Where a corporation voluntarily lippears under a wrong name it becomes a party in such name and may not object to a decree for want of process against it. Virginia, etc. Nav. Cc V. United States, Taney, 418 (1840); s c, 28 Fed. Gas. 1339; State v. Bell Teleph. Co., 36 Ohio St. 296 (1880); School District v. Griner, 8 Kan. 334 (4871). So, in general, whenever, for any pur- pose, a corporation is described, a slight variance will not be held material. Bur- dine V. Grand Lodge, 37 Ala. 478 (1861); 3ouhegan, etc. Factory v, McConihe, 7 N. H. 309 (1834). In the case of a mis- nomer in a notice required by statute to be given as a condition precedent to an action where there was no possibility of anybody being misled. Pollock, C. B., said: "For the credit of Westminster Hall we ought to refuse this rule." Eastham v. Blackburn Ry., 33 L. J. Exch. 199 (1854). See also feruce County v. Cromar, 23 L. J. Exch. 331, 327 (1863); Trent, etc Co. v. Marshall, 10 U. C. C. P. 329, 336 (1861); Hawkins v. Munici- pal Council, etc, 2 U. C. C. P. 72, 121 (1853); Whitby v. Harrison, 18 TJ. C. Q. B. 603 (1859); Croydon Hospital v. Far- ley, 6 Taunt 467 (1816); Doe v. Miller, 1 B. & Aid. 699 (1818); Hagerstown Turnp. Co. v. Creeger, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 133 (1820); Hoboken Bldg. Assoc v. Martin, 13 N. J. Eq. 427 (1861); Upper Alloways Creek v. String, 10 N. J. L. 333 (1839); Wool wick v. Forest, 3 N. J. L. 115 (1806); Middleton v. McCormick, 3 N. J. L. (3d ed.) 93 (1809); Granville Charitable Assoc, v. Baldwin, 43 Mass. 859 (1840); Lowell v. Morse, 43 Mass. 478 (1840); Shawmut Sugar Co. v. Hampden Mut Ins. Co., 78 Mass. 540 (1859); Le- vant Trustees v. Parks, 10 Me. 441 (1833); Newport Mechanics' Mfg. Co. v. Star- bird, 10 N. H. 138 (1839); Society for Propagating Gospel v. Young, 3 N. H. 310 (1830); Delaware, etc R. R. v. Iriok, 23 N. J. L. 331 (1852). Although a no- tice of a corporate meeting, and proxies given for a corporate meeting, add to the name of the corporation the place where it is located, this is immaterial. Langan v. Francklyn, 20 N. Y. Supp. 404 (1893). A corporation may be liable on a contract which it enters into in a name other than its corporate name. Neff V. Covington, etc. Co., 55 S. W. Rep. 697 (Ky. 1900). A misnomer of a cor- poration defendant can be raised by a plea in abatement only. Gillespie v. Planters', etc. Ca, 76 Miss. 406 (1899). 67 § roa.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOKATIONS. [CH. I. purchaser of the business from the corporation to claim such trade name.^ A corporation may take the name of a partnership which it buys out.' Where, on a judicial sale, the name and good will is in- cluded in the sale, the reorganized company may protect such name by injunction.' § 15a. Statutes wMch apply to "persons" are generally con- strued to apply to corporations. — The word "person" includes a corporation, when it is clear that such was the legislative intent.* Thus, a statute authorizing persons to obtain a discharge from their debts upon going through certain insolvency proceedings ap- plies to a corporation, and it may obtain such a discharge.^ A stat- ute prohibiting " persons " from engaging in banking applies not only to natural persons but also to corporations.^ A corporation is subject to a statute which prescribes that a " person " shall be sub- ject to a penalty;' or that the United States shall be a preferred creditor ; ^ or that all " inhabitants " or " residents " shall pay taxes ; * 1 Cutter V. Gudebrod, etc. Co., 44 N. Y. App. Div. 605 (1899). Where a com- pany is in difficulties and an agree- ment is made by which creditors are given the right to sell all the assets in case the business does not succeed within a certain time, and they do so, the purchaser has no right to organize a corporation having the same -name as the old corporation, unless that was a part of the original agreement, and not even a majority of the stockholders have a right to vote to allow such use of the name, unless there is a new consideration therefor. Armington v. Palmer, 31 R. 1. 109 (1898). Even though a company having the name of "Sabis- ton Lithographic and Publishing Com- pany " sells out its business and good will to another company, yet the lat- ter cannot pi-event a brother of the managing director of the former doing business under the name "Sabiston Lithographing and Publishing Com- pany," it not appearing that he held himself out as the successor of the old company. Montreal, etc. Co. v. Sabis- ton, [1899] A. C, 610. 2 Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, etc Trust Co., 101 Tenn, 545 (1898). ' Peck Brothers, etc. Co. v. Peck Bros. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 291 (1902). * State V. Portage City, etc. Ca, 107 Wis. 441 (1900). 6 Barth v. Backus, 140 N. Y. 230 (1893). '' People V. Utica Ins. Ca, 15 Johns. 858 (1818). A corporation may be a " person " within the meaning of the words of a statute. Jeffries Neck Past- ure V. Ipswich, 153 Mass. 42 (1891). A statute authorizing tax commissioners to reduce an assessment, and to extend the time for applying therefor in case of illness, eta, applies to corporations, and, if the officers are absent or ill, the corporation is entitled to further timew People V. Barker. 140 N. Y. 437 (1893). 'U. a V. Amedy, 11 WHIat. 392(1826). Contra, Androscoggin, etc. Co. v. Bethel, etc. Co., 64 Me. 441 (1874); Cumberland, etc. Corp. V. Portland, 56 Me. 77 (1868). SBeaston v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Pet. 103 (1838). Contra, Commonwealth v. Phoenix Bank, 52 Mass. 129 (1846). 9 Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61 (1809); Rex w Gardner, Cowp. 79 (1774); Otis Ca v. Ware, 74 Mass. 509 (1857) : International, etc. Soa v. Com'rs, 28 Barb. 318 (1858); Baldwin v. Minis- terial Fund, 37 Me. 369 (1854); Cortis v. 68 CH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§ 15a. or that testimony shall be admitted as against certain "persons;"* or that "persons" may do certain acts in regard to promissory notes ; "- or shall be guilty of a misdemeanor ; ' or that a local court shall have jurisdiction ; * or that property may be attached ; ^ or that " persons " shall be liable for damages for injuries which result in death ; * or in case of injury by a dam ; ' or a statute which allows "owners" of vessels to obtain a registry;* or gives a mechanic's lien to " persons; "' or that renders persons liable for misrepresent- ing the responsibility of another party.'" A trust company is not a bank within the meaning of a criminal statute." Stockholders are liable for taxes levied on a distillery, where the statute levies the tax on " persons interested in the use of the distillery." '^ A foreign corporation is a " person " outside of the state as regards the statute of limitations." But a foreign corporation is not a "resident" within the chattel mortgage act; " nor is a domestic corporation a " resident taxpayer," so as to be counted in voting municipal aid to railroads ; '* nor is a state a person, and as such entitled to take by devise.'* A preference to laborers does not include a corporation, especially where the latter's claim is for printing and binding Kent "Water Works, 7 B. & C. 314 (1827). Contra, Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Hartford, 3 Conn. 15 (1819). •La Farge v. Exchange F. Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 853 (I860): estate r. Woram, 6 Hill, 33 (1843). s White V. State. 69 Ind. 373 (1879). * Brown v. Mayor, etc., 66 N. Y. 385 (1876): Bristol v. Chicago, etc. E. R., 15 111. 436 (1854); Bank of North America V. Chicago, etc. R E., 83 111. 493 (1876); Eslava r. Ames Plow Ca, 47 Ala. 384 (1872). 5 Knox V. Protection Ins. Co., 9 Conn. 430 (1833); Mineral Point R. R. v. Keep, 23 III 9 (1859); Trenton Bkg. Co. v. Haverstick, 11 N. J. L. 171 (1829); Bushel r. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 173 (1837); Planters', etc. Bank V. Andrews, 17 Ala. (O. S.) 404 (1838). Or garnished. Brauser v. New England, etc. Ins. Co., 31 Wis. 506 (1867). 'Southwestern R. R. v. Paulk, 34 Ga. 356 (1858). 7 Lehigh Bridge v. Lehigh Coal & Nav. Co., 4 Eawle (Pa.), 8 (1833). 8 Regina v. Arnaud, 9 Q. B. 806 (1846). 69 9 Chapman ix Brewer, 48 Neb. 890 (1895). i» Hirst V. West, etc. Co., [1901] 3 K. B. 560. » State V. Reid, 135 Mo. 43 (1894). 12 0. S. V. Welters, 46 Fed. Rep. 509 (1891); U. S. V. Distillery, 43 Fed. Rep. 846 (1890). Where the law permits punishment or confiscation of property, but not both, the conviction of a stock- holder for violation of the internal revenue law prevents a confiscation of the corporation property. U. S. v. Dis- tillery, 43 Fed. Rep. 846 (1890). 13 Olcott V. Tioga R E., 20 N. Y. 210 (1859); Blossburg, etc. R R u Tioga E. R, 5 Blatchf. 387 (1867); a C, 3 Fed. Cas. 735. Contra, Connecticut, etc. Ins. Co. V. Duerson, 38 Gratt. (Va.) 630 (1877), where it had an agent in the state to accept service. " Cook V. Hager, 3 Colo. 386 (1877). 15 People V. Schoonmaker, 63 Barb. 44 (1871). Cf. Crafford v. Warwick Coun- ty, 87 Va. 110. 16 Re Fox, 53 N. Y. 530 (1873); TJ. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315 (1876). § 165-J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [oh. books.' A corporation is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the federal constitution ; ^ but is a " person " within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.' Although a state cannot give a pref- erence to its own citizens as against citizens of another state in the distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation, yet as against corporations of other states such preference may be given.* § 155. Torts committed iy corporations — Exemplary damages — Indictment. — After much discussion the general rule is now firmly established that corporations cannot make defense to actions in tort by claiming that the acts by which the wrongs have been committed are not within the corporate powers conferred upon them.* A corporation is liable at common law for torts committed 1 In re Barr-Dinwiddie, etc. Co., 4S Atl. Rep. 575 (N. J. 1899). 2 See § 697, infra. Cf. McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630 (1889); Thomas V. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105 (1889). 8 San Mateo County v. Southern Pa- cific R. R, IS Fed. Rep. 733 (1883). < Blake v. McGlung, 173 U. & 339 (1898> ' National Bank v. Graham, 100 TJ. S. 699, 709 (1879), where a bank was held in damages for the loss, occasioned by the gross negligence of its agents, of a spe- cial deposit which it had received with the knowledge and acquiescence of its oflBcers and directors; Baltimore, etc. R. R w Fifth Baptist Ch., 108 U. S. 817 (1883), for maintaining a nuisance; Philadelphia, etc. R R t). Quigley, 31 How. 303, 310 (1858), for libel published by the board of directors, Campbell, J., saying: "For acts done by the agents of a corporation, either in contractu or in delicto, in the course of its business and of their employment, the corpora- tion is responsible as an individual is re- sponsible under similar circumstances." This rule was directly afSrmed and ap- plied to a municipal corporation in Salt Lake City v. HoUister, 118 U. S. 356 (1886). See New York, etc. R R u. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 (1865); State v. Morris, etc. R R, 33 N. J. L. 360, 367 (1853), and cases cited; Brokaw v. New Jersey R R & T. Co., 83 N. J. L. 328 (1867), an action for assault and battery 70 (ejecting a passenger); Ramsden v. Bos- ton, etc. R R, 104 Mass. 117 (1870), as- sault and battery (seizing property for fare); Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Ca, 77 N. C. 333 (1877), a case of deceit and fraudulent representations made by agents; Chicago, etc. R R v. Davis, 86 111. 30 (1877), trespass, see infra; Vinas V. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Ca, 37 La. Ann, 867 (1875), slander and libel sanctioned by a corporation ; Western Union TeL Co. V. Eyser, 3 Colo. 141 (1873), injury to person; Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 83 Conn. 530 (1853), vexatious suit; South, etc. R R u Chappell, 61 Ala. 537 (1878), injury to person; Hays V. Houston, etc. R R, 46 Tex. 373 (1876), expulsion from train; Fishkill Sav. Inst V. Fishkill Nat. Bank, 80 N. Y. 163 (1880), conversion of bonds by cashier; Ranger V. Great Western Ry. Co., 5 H. L. Gas. 73, 86 (1854)! Lewis v. Meier, 14 Fed. Rep. 311 (1883); Philadelphia, etc. R R V. Derby, 14 How. 468 (1853). injury to person in a collision caused by the neg- ligence of employees; Hussey v. Nor- folk, etc. R R, 98 N. C. 34 (1887), mali- cious prosecution and false imprison- ment, the court saying: "These artifi- cial persons have become so numerous, and entered so largely into the every- day transactions of life, that it has be- come the policy of the law to subject them, as far as practicable, to the same civil liability for wrongful acts as at- tach to natural persons;" Denver, etc. OH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COKPOEATIONS. [§ 155. by its servants or agents precisely as a natural person would be.^ Thus where the president of a bank is acting as the agent of a per- son and sells to the latter securities of the bank by means of false representations, the bank is liable, even though the purchaser did not know that the sale was in behalf of the bank.^ Even where it is necessary to prove a fraudulent or malicious intent, it is held, by the great weight of modern authority, that the fraud or malice of the authorized agents of ^ corporation may be imputed to the corporation itself.' Although a corporation may not strictly be guilty of deceit, yet Ry. V. Harris, 122 U. S. 597 (1887), as- sault and battery; New Jersey Steam- boat Co. V. Brookett, 121 U. S. 637 (1887), undue violence by employee; New Or- leans, etc. R. R. V. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 (1866). A railroad which has engaged in transporting passengers by^a steam- boat cannot defeat an action for negli- gence by asserting that the use of the steamboat by it was ultra vires. Gru- ber V. Washington, etc. R R, 92 N. C. 1 (1885); South Wales Ry. v. Redmond, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 675 (1861). Contra, Gunn V. Central R R, 74 Ga. 509 (1885), where a railroad was held not responsible for a tort (an injury to the person) commit- ted by a firm in which it had become, although illegally, a partner. A bank which as pledge^ causes by its state- ments a party to purchase the stock held in pledge may be held liable in damages if such statements were false. Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 98 Fed. Rep. 562 (1899). Where a national bank and two of the directors of a cor- poration are secretly interested in the profit made by selling property to a corporation for stock, the corporation may hold them liable for such profit. The defense of rittra vires on the part of the bank is not good. Zinc, etc. Co. V. First, etc. Bank, 103 Wis. 125 (1839). A corporation may be held liable for false representations in a prospectus issued by it to sell stock of another corporation. Such a cause of action is assignable. Benedict v. Guardian T. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Dlv, 302 (1901). A bank is not chargeable with the acts of its cashier who is the agent of another party and as such agent transfers the funds of that party into his own name. School District, etc. v. De Weese, 100 Fed. Rep. 705 (1900). An incorporated society which gives a ball is not liable for the act of its floor manager in eject- ing a person from the room. Maisen- backer v. Society, etc., 71 Conn. 369 (1899). 1 Southern, etc. Co. v. Flatten, 93 Fed. Rep. 936 (1899). 2 Carr v. National Bank & L. Co., 167 N. Y. 375 (1901). ' National Exch. Co. wDrew, 2 Macq. H. L. Cas. 103 (1855); New Brunswick, etc. Ry. V. Conybeare, 9 H. L. Cas. 711, 740 (1863); Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R 2 Exch. 259 (1867); Philadelphia, etc. R. R ■». Quigley, 21 How. 203 (1858); Whitfield v. South- eastern Ry., El.. B. & E. 115 (1858); Vance v. Erie Ry., 32 N. J. L. 334 (1867); Copley V. Grover, eta Co., 2 Woods, 494 (1875); s. C, 6 Fed. Cas. 517; Goodspeed V. East Haddam Bank, 22 Conn. 530 (1853); Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290(1878); Wheless v. Second Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 469 (1872); Will- iams V. Planters' Ins. Co., 57 Miss. 759 (1880); Iron Mountain Bank v. Mercan- tile Bank, 4 Mo. App. 505 (1877); Ed- wards V. Midland Ry., L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 287(1880); Jefferson ville R R. «. Rogers, 38 Tnd. 1, 7 (1867). Cf. Walker v. South- eastern Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 (1870); Smith V. Southeastern Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 (1870). 71 § 155.J DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. I. it is held liable for damages resulting from the false and fraudu- lent representations of its agents.^ A corporation may be held liable in damages for a libel;'' or iMaokay v. Commercial Bank, L. R 5 P. O. 394 (1874), in which a bank was held liable in damages for the act of its cashier in sending a telegram purport- ing to be from an individual by means of which other parties were induced to accept bills of exchange in which the bank was interested; Banger v. Great Western Ry., 5 H. K Cas. 73, 86 (1854), Lord Chancellor Cranworth saying: " If the agents employed conduct them- selves fraudulently, so that if they had been acting for private employers the persons for whom they were acting would have been affected by their fraud, the same principles must prevail where the principal under whom the agent acts is a corporation; " Barwick V. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Exch. 359 (1867), where a bank was held liable for false representations of its manager as to the credit of an individ- ual; Erie City Iron Works v. Barber, 106 Pa. St. 125 (1884), where a manu- facturing company was held in dam- ages' for the deceit of its agent in know- ingly selling a defective boiler and representing it as sound and safe; Pee- bles V. Patapsco Guano Co., 77 N. C. 333 (1877), involving representations of au agent that a spurious article was genu- ine; Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131 (1885), where, an officer of a bank le- ceiving a deposit after he kn«w the bank was insolvent and its paper pro- tested, it was held to be a deceit which justified a rescission of the contract and a recovery of the deposit; New York, etc. R. R. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 (1865), involving an issue of false cer- tificates of stock; Butler v. Watkins, 13 Wall. 456 (1871), where an agent of a corporation, by pretending to negotiate for the purchase of a patent, succeeded in keeping the patented article out of the market. The corporation was held liable in damages; Candy w Globe Rub- ber Co., 37 N. J. Eq. 175 (1883), where a sale to a corporation made upon false representations of its officers as to its solvency and prosperity was rescinded; Fogg V. GrifiSn, 84 Mass. 1 (1861), where, in an action upon premium notes, a de- fense that they had been procured through false and fraudulent represen- tations by an agent of the company as to the amount of capital stock paid in was held good. See also Etting v. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat. 59 (1826); Lamm v. Port Deposit Homestead Assoc, 49 Md. 238 (1878); Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290 (1878); Western Bank v. Ad- die, L. R. 1 Sc. 145 (1867). and S§ 139, 140, 157, infra. 2 Philadelphia, eta R. R. v. Quig- ley, 21 How. 302 (1858), where the court held that the publication of a li- belous letter received in evidence by a committee of investigation in a bound volume of its transactions, by author- ity of the board of directors of a rail- road company, constituted a sufficient ground for an action for libel against the corporation ; Van Aernam v. Bleis- tein, 102 N. Y. 355 (1886); Howe Machine Co. V. Souder, 58 Ga. 64 (1877), where the publication of libelous matter was caused by an agent within the scope of his authority; Maynard v. Fireman's, etc. Co., 34 Cal 49 (1867); s. C, 47 CaL 307 (1873); Johnson v. St. Louis Dispatch Ca, 3 Mo. App. 565 (1876); Fogg v. Bos- ton, etc. R. R., 148 Mass. 513 (1889); Van Aernam v. Bleistein, 102 N. Y. 355 (1886), holding that a joint-stock association under the New York statute is liable to an action for libel ; Payne v. Western, etc. R R., 13 Lea (Tenn.), 507 (1884); Evening Journal Assoc, v. MoDetmott, 44 N. J. L. 430 (1883); Detroit Daily Post Co. V. McArthur, 16 Mich. 447 (1868); Aldrioh v. Press Printing Ca, 9 Minn. 133 (1864); Hewett v. Pioneer- Press Co, 33 Minn. 178 (1876); Vinas v. 72 CH. I.J DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF OOKPOKATIONS. [§ 15J. for slander;' for assault and battery committed by its officers, agents or servants in executing the rules and regulations or orders of the corporation;^ for damages for arrest and false imprison- Merohants' Mut. Ins. Ca, 27 La. Ann. 367 (1875); Whitfield v. Southeastern Ry., EL, B. & E. 115 (1858); Tench v. Great Western Ry., 32 U. C. Q. B. 452 ■(1872^ In Brennan v. Tracy, 8 Mo. App^ 540 (1876), it was said that a corporation may be guilty of a criminal libeL A corporation is not liable for the mal- ice of its agent for publishing a libel unless the corporation authorized the libel or ratified it or did something from which such authority or ratifica- tion may be implied. Warner ■;;. Mis- souri, etc. Ry., 112 Fed. Rep. 114 (1901). An alleged libel is not proved by show- ing that the manager of a corporation •dictated to a stenographer the alleged libelous matter, even though the ste- nographer wrote it out and mailed it. This is not sufficient to prove publica- tion. Owen V. Ogilvie, eta Co., 32 N. T. App. Div. 465 (1898). A newspaper corporation may be liable for exem- plary damages in an action of libel by its agents acting within the scope of their duty and authority. Times, etc. Co. V. Carlisle, 94 Fed. Rep. 768 (1899). A railroad may be held liable for a libel by its division agent in reporting causes of discharge of employees to other agents. Bacon v. Michigan Cent. R. R.. ■66 Mich. 166 (1887). A corporation was bald liable for a libel in Missouri Pac. Ey. V. Richmond, 78 Tex. 568 (1889). Stockholders and ofiicers are not liable for a libel published by the corporation unless they aided or advised its publi- -cation or their duties were such that the law would charge them as agents in the publication or circulation. Belo V. FuUer, 84 Tex. 450 (1893). A corpo- ration may bring suit for libel. South Hetton Coal Co. v. Northeastern News Assoc, [1894] 1 q. B. 138. 1 A corporatipn is not liable for slan- der on the part of i^s agent in settling with a sub-agent Redditt v. Singer, etc. Co.. 124 N. C. 100 (1899). A corpo- ration formed to furnish private watch- men cannot maintain an action for slander against a person who states that one of its employees has been guilty of a crime, inasmuch as this is not in direct relation to the business of the corporation. Brayton v. Cleveland, etc. Ca, 63 Ohio St. 83 (1900). A corpo- ration is not liable for a slander by its president as to the right of a person to sell goods. Perkins v. MaysviJle, eta Assoa, 10 S. W. Rep. 659 (Ky. 1889). 2 Brokaw v. New Jersey R. R. & T. Ca, 32 N. J. L. 828 (1867), for eject- ing a passenger from a train, and in such action an individual may be joined as a defendant with the cor- poration; Hewett V. Swift, 85 Mass. 420 (1863), for using undue force in re- moving a minor from a freight depot under an order of the president direct- ing employees to keep boys out of the depot; Denver, etc. Ry. v. Harris, 123 U. S. 597 (1887), where forcible posses- sion was taken of a railroad; Ramsden V. Boston, eta R. R, 104 Mass. 117 (1870), involving an assault by a conductor in seizing property to secure payment of fare. And see Frost v. Domestic S. M. Co., 138 Mass. 563 (1882); Jackson v. Second Ave. R R, 47 N. Y. 274 (1873), holding tbat if an illegal fare be de- manded by a conductor any force used in ejecting a passenger renders the rail- way company liable for an assault and battery; Pennsylvania R R u Vandiver. 42 Pa. St. 365 (1863), for ejecting a pas- senger and thereby causing his death; Moore v. Fitchburg R R, 70 Mass. 465 (1855), where, in an action for assault in ejecting from a train, there being a verdict against the corporation but in favor of the conductor, the joinder of the defendants was held not to be a 73 § 155.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUKE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. I. ment ; ' knowingly keeping a dangerous animal ; ^ a vexatious civil suit;' for trespass quare clausum f regit; ^ for malicious prosecution;* ground of exception by the corporation; Chicago, etc. R. R. tt Williams, 55 IlL 185 (1870), for preventing a colored •woman from entering a car set apart for ladies; Jefferson ville R. E. u Rogers, 28 Ind. 1 (1867); St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Dalby, 19 III 353 (1857), holding that in Illinois the proper remedy is trespass. 1 Owsley u Montgomery, etc. R. R., 37 Ala. 560 (1861); Wheeler, etc. Co. u Boyce, 36 Kan. 350 (1887); American Exp. Co. V. Patterson, 73 Ind. 430 (4881); Lynch v. Metropolitan El. Ry., 90 N. Y. 77 (1883); Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290 (1878). A corporation carry- ing on a department store may be liable for punitive damages for the acts of its chief executive ofiScers in illegally ar- resting an employee. Bingham v. Lip- man, etc. Co., 67 Pac. Rep. 98 (Oreg. 1901). Where the president and manager and attorney of the company illegally cause the arrest of an employee for embez- zling corporate funds, the corporation may be held liable for malicious prose- cution. Schwarting v. Van Wie, etc. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 283 (1902). See also Hussey v. Norfolk Southern R R., 98 N. C. 34 (1887), in which the question of agency was left to the jury. A cor- poration is not liable for an arrest by a special policeman appointed by the gov- ernor at its request and for its protec- tion, even though the arrest was made at the request of an officer of the com- pany, the policeman acting merely in the exercise of his common-law powers as an officer, and not as a duly author- ized agent of the company. Tolchester, etc. Co. V. Steinmeier, 72 Md. 313 (1890). A corporation is not necessarily liable for a false imprisonment instigated by its state agent, where the plaintiff fails to show the agency, and the agent testi- fies that he acted individually. Travis V. Standard, etc. Ins. Co., 86 Mich. 288 (1891). See also Gillett v. Missouri Val- ley R. R., 55 Mo. 315 (1874), overruled in Boogher v. Life Assoc, 75 Mo. 819 (1882). Although the gate-keeper of a turnpike company causes a person to be arrested for defrauding the company of tolls, yet the company cannot be held liable for false imprisonment. Baltimore, etc. T. Road V. Green, 86 Md. 161 (1897). A bank may be held liable in damages for malicious intent in arresting an alder- man who had introduced a privileged resolution which the bank claimed was libelous. Wachsmuth v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 96 Mich. 426 (1893). 2 Stiles V. Cardiff Steam Nav. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 310 (1864); but in this case the action failed for want of proof that the dangerous character of the animal was known toanyonewhose knowledge could, in point of law, be that of the corporation. SQoodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 23 Conn. 530 (1853); Wheless v. Second Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 469 (1872). See 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 478. * Maund V. Monmouthshire Canal Co., 4 Man. & G. 453 (1843), where the tres- pass consisted in breaking and enter- ing canal locks and carrying away barges by an agent acting within the scope of his authority. Chicago, etc R. R. V. Davis, 86 HI. 20 (1870); Dater v. Troy, etc R. R., 2 Hill. 629 (1843). s Willard v. Holmes, etc, 142 N. Y. 493 (1894); Vance v. Erie Ry., 33 N. J. L. 334 (1867); Reed v. Home Sav. Bank, 130 Mass. 443 (1881); Ricord v. Central Pacific R. R., 15 Nev. 167 (1880), holding that prosecution of criminal offenders is one of the privileges of railroad cor- porations, and therefore they are liable for malicious prosecutions; Morton v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 84 Hun, 366 (1884); Jordan u Alabama, etc R R., 74 Ala. 85 (1883), overruling Owsley v. Montgomery, etc. E. R, 37 Ala. 560 (1861); Boogher v. Life Assoc, of Amer- ica, 75 Mo. 319 (1882), overruling Gillett V. Missouri V. R R, 53 Ma 315 (1874)-, 74 CH. I.j DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [§ 155. for a nuisance;^ for conversion;' and for a conspiracy.' A cor- poration may be guilty of a criminal libel and may be punished Copley V. Grover, etc. Co., 2 Woods, 494 (1875); s. a, 6 Fed. Cas. 517; Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290 (1878); Williams v. Planters' Ins. Co., 57 Miss. 759 (1880); Iron Mountain Bank v. Mercantile Bank, 4 Mo. App. 505 (1877). See also Brennan v. Tracy, 3 Mo. App. 540 (1876); Wheless v. Second Nat. Bank, 1 Baxt (Tenn.) 469 (1873); Phila- delphia, etc. R. R. V. Quigley, 31 How. 203 (1858). A corporation may be sued for malicious prosecution in that it caused a person to be indicted. Feigh- ner v. Delaney, 31 Ind. App. 36 (1898). A corporation may be liable for a ma- licious prosecution instituted by its superintendent, and the fact that the attorney for the corporation conducted the proceedings, and that the superin tendent had no personal interest therein, and that the costs were not paid by him, is evidence that the cor- poration instituted the proceedings. Reed v. Loosemore, 197 Pa. St. 261 (1900). An action lies against a corporation for malicious prosecution. Cornfordu Carl- ton Bank, 81 L. T. Rep, 415 (1899), afE'g 80 L. T. Rep. 131. In the English case of Stevens v. Midland Counties Ry., 10 Exch. 353 (1854), where the power to sue a corporation for malicious prosecution was questioned, Lord Alderson was of opinion that there was no such power. See Walker v. Southeastern Ry., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 (1870). where it was held that the action would not lie because the act out of which the case origi- nated was not within the scope of the authority of the servant who commit- ted it. And in Henderson v. Midland Ry., 20 W. R. 23 (1871), and Abrath v. Northeastern Ry., L. R. 11 App. Cas. 347 (1886), Lord Bramwell, in dissent- ing opinions, insisted that corporations aggregate cannot be liable for ma- licious prosecution, because they are incapable of malice or motiva In 75 Hussey v. Norfolk, etc. R. R., 98 N. C. 84 (1887), it was held that a corporation is liable for a malicious prosecution jointly with the oflSoer who instituted the prosecution. No allegation of his authority to act is necessary. A cor- poration is not liable for malicious prosecution in instituting criminal pro- ceedings where it acted on the advice of counsel. Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Brown, 57 Kan. 785 (1897). 1 Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Fifth Baptist Ch., 108 U. S. 817 (1883); Pennsylvania R R. V. Angel, 41 N. J. Eq. 816 (1886). " The directors and officers are the per- sons primarily responsible, and there- fore the proper ones to be prosecuted " for a nuisance carried on by the cor- poration. The corporation itself can also be prosecuted and fined. People v. Detroit, etc. Works, 82 Mich. 471 (1890). 2 Beach v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cow. 485 (1837); Mayor, etc. v. Bailey, 3 Denio, 433 (1845), holding that an action of trespass or trover or an action on the case for malfeasance lies against a cor- poration; Chestnut Hill, etc. Co. v. Rutter, 4 Serg. & R (Pa.) 6 (1818), hold- ing that trespass on the case lies against a corporation for stopping a water- course. See also ch. XXXV. 3 Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Stand- ard Oil Co., 106 N. Y. 669 (1887), aff'g 42 Hun, 153. Where a bank agrees with a partnership tliat the partnership shall buy goods and give a chattel mortgage to the bank, and then that the bank foreclose and' resell the goods and give two-thirds of the profits to the copartnership, a creditor of the part- nership who is thus defrauded may hold the bank liable. Johnston, etc. Co. V. National Bank, 4 Okl. 17 (1896). A corporation may be held liable for conspiracy. West Virginia, etc. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 40 S. E. Rep. 591 (W. Va.). § 155.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF COEPOEATIONS. [CH. therefor by a fine.^ A corporation may be guilty of the Crime of violating the eight-hour law, and may be fined therefor.^ Since corporations are not in themselves capable of an evil intent, they can be indicted only for such offenses as arise from misfeasance — such as a nuisance;' or obstructing a road.* Or for non-feasance — such as an omission to perform a legal duty or obligation.' " The 1 Telegram, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth, 172 Mass. 894 (1899), a case where a newspaper corporation was fined for publishing such a report of a case as to prevent a fair trial. 2 United States v. J. Kelso Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 304 (1898). 3 Commonwealth v. New Bedford Bridge, 68 Mass. 339 (1854), erecting a bridge over a navigable stream; Com- monwealth V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 70 Mass. 38 (1855), obstructing a highway by embankment; State v. Morris, etc. R. R., 23 N. J. L. 360 (1853), obstructing a highway by a building and trains; Louisville, etc. R. R. v. State, 3 Head (Tenn.), 523 (1859), obstruction by a cut across a street; Susquehanna, etc. Co. V. People, 15 Wend. 367 (1836), suffer- ing a turnpike to be and remain out of repair; People v. Albany, 11 Wend. 539 <1884), neglecting to excavate and cleanse a basin, whereby the water be- came corrupted and a nuisance; Regina V. Great North, etc. Ry., 9 Q. B. 315 (1846), obstruction by a cut across a highway; Queen v. Bradford Nav. Co., 6 Best & S. 631 (1865), permitting water in the canal to become foul. Contra, State V. Great Works Milling Co., 20 Me. 41 (1841). A corporation may be indicted for keeping a disorderly house. State v. Passaic, etc. Soc, 54 N. J. L. 260 (1892). A corporation may be indicted for an offense which is punish- able by fine. Commonwealth v. Pulaski County, etc. Assoc, 92 Ky. 197 (1891). A corporation may be indicted. State V. Security Bank, 2 8. D. 588 (1892). A corporation may be indicted for main- taining a nuisance, and judgment may be given on default. Commonwealth V. Lehigh Valley R: R., 165 Pa. St. 162 76 (1895). As to the indictment of a cor- poration in Indiana for maintaining a nuisance, see Paragon Paper Co. v. State, 19 Ind. App. 314 (1898). < State V. White, 69 S. W. Rep. 684 (Mo. 1902). ^A national bank may be indicted for violating the state usury laws. State V. First Nat. Bank, 3 8. D. 568 (1898). An indictment of the directors of the New York & New Haven R. R. Ca f or an accident due to not using steam heat in cars as required by statute failed in People v. Clark, N. Y. L. J., May 28, 1891; Commonwealth v. Cen- tral Bridge Corp., 66 Mass. 242 (1853), for not keeping a bridge properly lighted at night, its charter requiring it to be kept in "good, safe and passable re- pair;" Louisville, etc. R. R. v. (Common- wealth, 13 Bush (Ky.), 388 (1877), involv- ing a failure to give warning signals at highway crossings; Regina v. Manches- ter, 7 El. & B. 453 (1857), where there was a failure of a city to repair streets; Stateu Murfreesboro,ll Humph. (Tenn.) 217 (1850), to same effect; People v. New York, eta R R., 74 N. Y. 303 (1878), sustaining an indictment for failure to repair a highway; Susque- hanna, etc. Co. V. People, 15 Wend. 267 (1836), for failure to repair a plank- road. An indictment lies against a turnpike company for failure to repair its road. State v. Godwinsville, etc. Co., 49 N. J. L. 266 (1887); Mower v. Lei- cester, 9 Mass. 247 (1812), holding that an indictment may lie when there is no action at common law for damages sustained through defects in a high- way. In Brennan v. Tracy, 3 Mo. App. 540 (1876), it was said that a corpora- tion may be the subject of a criminal OH. I.] DEFINITIONS AND NATUEE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [§ 155^ corporation as such, the technical legal entity, cannot suffer im- prisonment for a crime, but those who represent it and act for it as its officers and agents can."^ An officer in executing a bail process against a corporation cannot arrest the corporation and is not authorized to arrest the officers.^ Upon the question whether or not corporations are liable m ex- emplary or punitive damages for wrongs maliciously committed by their agents when acting in the line of their duty, the authorities- are far from uniform. In one line of cases the courts adhere to the ordinary rule that a principal cannot be held for more than the actual damage resulting from the acts of his agent or for those im- mediately and necessarily growing out of them, and therefore refuse to allow exemplary damages.' In other oases it is held that if it appears that injury has resulted through the wilful misconduct of employees, or through such a reckless indifference to the rights of others as amounts to an intentional violation of them, punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded.* In still another class of cases the liability for exemplary damages is made to depend upon libel. It has been held that a statute subjeoting railroads to indictment and fine for loss of life on account of the negligence or carelessness of the pro- prietors or their servants is constitu- tional. Boston, etc. B. R. v. State, 32 N. H. 315 (1855). A corporation may be indicted for failing to use revenue stamps. U. S. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 7 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 757 (1868); s. C.,24 Fed. Cas. 972. A corporation cannot be indicted for a crime, but its particu- lar, members may be. Anonymoas, 18 Mod. 559 (1701). A corporation may be indicted. See 4 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, pp. 367, etc. A corporation may be enjoined from doing criminal acts, such as promoting prize-fighting, and a receiver may be put in. Columbian Ath. Club V. State, 143 Ind. 98 (1895). 1 People V. Sherman, 133 N. Y. 349, 354 (1892). Where the law permits punish- ment or confiscation of property, but not both, the conviction of a stock- holder for violation of the internal rev- enue law prevents a confiscation of the corporate property. U. S. v. Distiller^, 43 Fed. Rep. 846 (1890). 2 Hall, etc. Co. v. Barnes, 43 S. E. Rep. 276 (Ga. 1903). 77 3 Detroit Daily Post Co. v. Mc Arthur,. 16 Mich. 447 (1868); Great Western Ry. V. Miller, 19 Mich. 305 (1869); Wardrobe V. California Stage Co., 7 Cal. 118(1857); Mendelsohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40^ Cal. 657 (1871); Turner v. North Beach, etc. R. R., 34^Cal. 594 (1868); Hill v. New Orleans, etc. R R., 11 La. Ann. 393 (1856); Hays v. Houston, etc. R. R., 46 Tex. 273 (1876); Ackerson v. Erie Ry., 38 N. J. L. 854 (1867); Doss v. Missouri, etc. R. R., 59 Mo. 37 (1875), holding that no exemplary damages- may be awarded unless the act com- plained of be wanton or malicious. In a suit against a corporation for libel its wealth cannot be shown, and the mal- ice of a stockholder is not admissible.. Randall v. Evening News Assoc, 97 Mich. 136 (1893). A newspaper corpora- tion may be liable for exemplary dam- ages in an action of libel by its agents acting within the scope of their duty and authority. Times, etc. Co. v. Car- lisle, 94 Fed. Rep. 763 (1899). * Denver, etc. Ry. v. Harris, 133 U. S^ 597, 610 (1887); Milwaukee, etc. Ry. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489, 493 (1875); Phila- delphia, etc. R. R. V. Larkin, 47 Md. 155- (1877); Baltimore, etc. Turn p. Rd. v. § 155.] DEFINITIONS AND NATURE OF C0EP0EATI0N8. [CH. I. the authority of the servant or agent who commits the wrong; the corporation being liable if the agent acted under the express direc- tion of the corporation or of the oflBcer representing it, or if the wrongful act was afterwards ratified either expressly or impliedly.' Boone, 45 Md. 344 (1876); Philadelphia, ping place. Arkansas Const. Co. v. etc. R. R V. Quigley, 21 How. 303, 214 (1858); New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Hursi 36 Miss. 660 (1859); Beale v. Railway 1 Dill. 568 (1871); S. C, 3 Fed. Cas. 1110; Samuels v. Evening Mail Assoc, 75 N. Y. 604 (1878), reversing s. C, 9 Hun, 288 (1876), where a libel had been published ; New Orleans, etc. R. R. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200 (1876), where the conduct of the conductor of a train in not properly protecting a passenger from the assault of employees of the road and the failure of the road to discharge or punish the assailants was held to justify a verdict for exemplary damages; Jefferson ville R. R. V. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116 (1871), it be- ing held that exemplary damages may be awarded for a wrongful expulsion from a train without harsh or unneces- sary force, on account of the time, place and circumstances of the act. Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry., 57 Me. 202 (1869), where exemplary damages were awarded because a railroad company had retained in service a brakeman after knowledge of his gross assault upon a passenger; Taylor v. Grand Trunk Ry., 48 N. H. 304 (1869); Bel- knap V. Boston, etc. R. R., 49 N. H. 358 (1870), holding that in estimating ex- emplary damages the condition and circumstances of the defendant may be material and are to be considered; Caldwell V. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 47 N. Y. 382 (1872); Cleghorn v. New York, etc. li. R., 56 N. Y. 44 (1874). Ex- emplary damages cannot be recovered from a railroad construction company on account of the construction train carrying an employee beyond his stop' Eugene, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 601 (1899). 1 Hagan v. Providence, etc. R. R., 3 R. I. 88 (1854); Nashville, etc. R. R. u. Starnes, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 52 (1871), where exemplary damages were refused be- cause it did not appear that the com- pany, after knowing the reckless char- acter of its agent, retained him in its employment; Bass v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 43 Wis. 654 (1877); Cleghorn v. New York, etc. R. R., 56 N. Y. 44 (1874); Men- delsohn V. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40 Cal. 657 (1871); Turner v. North Beach, etc. R. R, 34 Cal. 594 (1868); Perkins v. Mis- souri, etc. R. R, 55 Mo. 201 (1874); Ma- leoek V. Tower Grove, etc. Ry., 57 Mo. 17 (1874), where the language of the super- intendent of a street railway admitting and justifying an assault by a driver was held to bind the company; Travers V. Kansas Pao. Ry., 63 Mo. 431 (1876), holding that authority of the agent sufficient to warrant exemplary dam- ages may be inferred from the general scope of his duty; Galveston, etc. Ry. v.t Donahue, 56 Tex. 163(1883); Goddard u Grand Trunk Ry., 57 Me. 203 (1869). See also Ackerson v. Erie Ry., 32 N. J. L. 354 (1867X In some states the distinc- tion between corporations and natural persons as to liability for exemplary damages is entirely obliterated, and cor- porations are held to be equally liable with individuals and to the same ex- tent. New Orleans, etc. R R v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395 (1866); Atlantic, etc. Ry. v. Dunn, 19 Ohio St 162 (1869); Western Union TeL Oa v. Eyser, 2 Colo. 141 (1878). 78 CHAPTEH II. STOCK MAY BE ISSUED LEGALLY FOR MONEY OR PROPERTY, OR BY A STOCK DIVIDEND. 16. Different methods of issuing stock. 17. First method: Issue by money sub- scription. 18. Second method: Issue for prop- erty, labor or construction work. 19. When such subscriptions are not legal 20. What property may be received. 21. Payment in property as a favor, not as a contract right. 23, Sale of stock for property. I 33. English statutes governing issue of stock for property. Performance of contr'act to pay in property — Obligation of the cor- poration to issue the stock. Third method : Issue by stock divi- dend. 26. Pledge of stock by a corporation. 37. Issue of stock for partnership prop- erty, or the property of another corporation. 24. 25, § 16. Methods of issuing stock.— There are in general three meth- ods of issuing stocli. It may be issued, first, by means of subscrip- tions, payable in cash, the subscription being made in writing, or by acts equivalent thereto.' Second, the issue may be by means of subscriptions, payable in labor, property, or both. Third, the issue may be by a stock dividend. § 17. First method: Issue hy money subscription. — An issue of stock by means of a subscription, payable in cash, is the most simple and safe method of issuing stock. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, an ordinary subscription for stock is deemed a cash subscription, and payment in money may be enforced. The sub- scription contract is generally made by a writing duly signed by the subscriber. The writing itself is contained in books opened by the corporation or by commissioners appointed in conformity with a statute, or it is made without formality on subscription lists or separate sheets of paper. A subscription, payable in cash, may arise also from the mere acts or declarations of a party. A person having assumed the position of a subscriber or stockholder is frequently held to be bound as such. Any act or declaration, sufficient to indicate an intent on the part of the person to be a subscriber, and an acceptance by the corpo- ration of the person as such, is equivalent to a written subscrip- tion, and the person is bound as a subscriber.' § 18. Second method: Issue for property, labor or construction worlt. — The issue of stock for labor, property, contract work, or any valuable consideration other than money, has given rise to 1 See § 52, infra. 79 «See§53,in/ra. §1S.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [CH. II. much controversy and litigation. In England a long line of decis- ions, under the Companies Act, has established the principle that stock need not necessarily be paid for in cash, but that it may be paid for in money's worth.' Such, also, was the rule at common law.^ The well-established rule now is that a subscription for stock, payable by its terms in property or labor, or both, is a good and legal subscription. If the property is taken at a valuation made without fraud, the payment is as effectual and valid as though made in cash to the same amount. An issue of stock for property is one which finds support, not only in the decisions, but in the 1 See many cases in § 46, infra; Steaoy ■d. Little Rook, etc. R R, 5 Dill. 348, 376 (1876); s. C, 22 Fed. Cas. 1142, 1153. 2 Stock may be issued in payment for property or labor, or both. Farwell v. Great West. Tel. Co.. 161 111. 523 (1896); Woolfolk V. January, 131 Mo. 630 (1895); Foster v. Belcher's, etc. Co., 118 Mo. 238 (1893); Woodf all's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 63 (1849). Stock may be issued for property. Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jones- boro, etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545 (1898); Burkinshaw v. Nioholls, L. R 8 App. Cas. 1004, 1013 (1878), where, payment having been made in property, the court said: " If there had been no stat- utory enactment forbidding a transac- tion of that kind, it is a transaction which might be perfectly valid." Cf. dictum in Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 60 (1875). " It is not now questioned that a corporation may issue its stock by way of payment in the purchase of property. This is on the principle that there is no need for the roundabout process of first issuing the stock for money, and then paying the money for the property. But it is necessary that the property so taken be considered reasonably worth the par value of the stock paid for it." Chouteau v. Dean, 7 Mo. App. 210 (1879); Wyman v. Amer- ican Powder Co., 62 Mass. 168 (1851); Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel Ca, 106 111. 439 (1883); Hayden v. Atlanta Cotton Factory, 61 Ga. 233 (1878). " Whatever may have been formerly held, it is now established that sub- scriptions to corporate stock need not, in the absence of statutory provisions reqnii'ing it, be paid for in cash. The principle is now generally accepted, both in England and America, that any property which the corporation is authorized to purchase, or which is necessary for the purposes of its legiti- mate business, may be received in pay- ment for its stock. Any payment, whether it be in money or money's worth, so that it be made in good faith, will give the shares so paid for the status of paid-up stock. In the language of Lord Justice Giflfard, in Drummond's Case, L. R 4 Ch. App. 778 (1869): 'If a man contracts to take shares he must pay for them, to use a homely phrase, in meal or in malt; he must either pay in money or in money's worth. If he pays in one or the other that will be a satisfaction.' . . . The contract to receive in payment the letters-patent, plows, material, and uther assets of its predecessor, Unthank & Coffin, was therefore not ultra vires." Coffin V. Ransdell, 110 Ind. 417 (1887), holding, also, that payment for stock by transferring to the corporation the property and assets of a partnership was legal, provided that a fair valua- tion was placed upon the property so conveyed. If such property is over- valued, the dangers incurred thereby are various. Garrett v, Kansas City Coal Min. Co.. 113 Mo. 330 (1892), ap- proving the above statement of law. See also oh. III. OH. II.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [§18. daily practice of corporations,' and the law does not compel the corporation and the subscriber to go through the useless form of a payment by the corporation to the subscriber of the value of the property, and an immediate repayment of the same money by the subscriber to the corporation on his subscription.^ It is to be borne in mind, however, that a corporation has no power to issue stock unless expressly authorized so to do.' There is some doubt as to whether an oral agreement of the cor- porate agents that a subscription may be paid in property is bind- ing upon the corporation. Under the well-established rule that parol evidence will not be allowed to add to or vary a written agreement, it has been held that such an oral agreement with the agent cannot be admitted in evidence.* When, however, the parol agreement is made subsequently to the act of subscribing, and is supported by a sufficient consideration, it is valid and enforceable.* Under a statute requiring stock to be paid for in cash or in prop- erty it has been held that stock cannot be issued for services ren- dered prior to the incorporation.' A statutory provision that a certain percentage of the capital stock must be paid in before business is commenced is satisfied by turn- ing in property.' 1 Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 508, 544 (1878); a C, 9 Fed. Cas. 437, 441. * American Tube, etc. Co. v. Hays, 165 Pa. St. 489 (1895); Searight v. Payne, 6 Lea (Tenn.), 283 (1880); Brant V. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 (1883); Spargo's Case, L. E. 8 Ch. App. 407, 413 (1873); Ashue- lot Boot, etc. Co. V. Hpit. 56 N. H. 548 (1876). Payment in property by sub- scribers was held not allowable in Neuse River Nav. Co. v. Com'rs of New- bern, 7 Jones, L. (N. C.) 375 (1859); also Henry v. Vermillibn, etc. R. R., 17 Ohio, 187 (1843), although the latter case seems to involve an oral agreement to allow such payment, and to have been decided on that ground. There is a long line of cases sustaining the valid- ity of an issue of stock for money's worth instead of money itself. They are given in this and the following chapter. So well established has this principle of law become, that the few cases holding to the contrary can no longer be considered good law. " That in the absence of fraud an agreement (6) ' 81 may ordinarily be made by which stockholders can be allowed to pay for their shares in patents, mines or other property, to which it is not easy to as- sign a determinate value, appears to be well settled." New Haven, etc. Co. v. Linden Spring Co., 143 Mass. 349 (1886). 3 Cooke V. Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 315 (1899), involving a cemetery corpora- tion. , 4 See § 137, infra. s See §137, infra. " Herbert v. Duryea, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 478 (1898). ' Fq,rgason t). Oxford, etc. Ca, 78 Miss. 65 (1909). A statute requiring twenty per cent, of the capital stock to be paid in is satisfied by payment in property or labor. La Crosse, etc. Co. v. Goddard, 91 N. W. Kep. 335 (Wis. 1903). Where ten per cent, of the capital stock must be paid in before business is commenced, payment may be in property. McCandless v. Inland, etc. Co., 43 S. B. Rep. 449 (Ga. 1903). §§ 19, 20.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [OH. II. § 19. When such subscriptions are not legal. — A subscription payable by its terms in labor or property is in the nature of a con- ditional subscription. Accordingly, in certain states, where a per- centage or fixed amount of the capital stock must be subscribed for before a charter can be obtained, and where, by the decisions of the courts, such preliminary subscriptions must be absolute and un- conditional, a subscription payable by its terms in labor or property, being conditional to that extent, cannot form a part of the sub- scriptions preliminary to incorporation.' In such states, however, subscriptions to the remainder of the capital stock, the part sub- scribed after the charter has been obtained, may be conditional, and may, by their terms, be payable in property or labor.^ On the ground that subscriptions payable in property or labor are condi- tional, it has been held also that a subscription payable in labor or property is not to be counted in ascertaining whether the full capi- tal stock has been subscribed,' in order to enforce other subscrip- tions for stock. An ultra vires purchase of property may be in- sufficient as a consideration for the issue of stock.* § 20. What property may he received. — A corporation may re- ceive in payment of its shares of stock any property which it may lawfully purchas,e,° and, in general, may receive any consideration which is suitable and applicable to the purposes for which the cor- poration was organized.' A railroad corporation may receive pay- 1 See §§ 79, 180, infra. need not be in cash, but may be in 2 See § 82, infra. whatever, considering the situation of ' See § 180, infra. the corporation, represents to that cor- * In Powell V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. poration a fair, just, lawful, and needed Div. 873 (1896), afif'd, 157 N. Y. 717, where equivalent for the money subscribed" a company, formed to manufacture Liebke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 22 (1883). Pay- electric appliances and plant, issued ment in newspaper advertising of the stock in payment for a license to sell enterprise upheld in this case. The the product of a foreign corporation, it subscription may, by its terms, be pay- was held that the parties so receiving able in plank for a plank-road company, the stock were liable thereon under the and the subscriber is a stockholder be- New York statute as not being paid-up fore payment is completed. Haywood, stock, such contract being ultra vires, etc. Co. v. Byyan, 6 Jones, L. (N. C.) 83 6 Brant v. Ehlen, ' 59 Md. 1 (1883); (1858). Payment in Confederate bonds American Silk Works v. Salomon, 4 redeemable in cotton upheld. Schroder's Hun, 135 (1875). Case, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 131 (1870). So, In Louisiana the general act for in- also, payment in stock in a coal corpo- corporation prescribes that the articles ration carrying on a supplementary of incorporation shall state the time business. East New York, etc. E. R «. when and the manner in which the Lighthall, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 407 (1868). Pay- stock shall be paid for. See New Or- ment by a patent-right is legal. Ed- leans, etc. R. R, V. Frank, 39 La. Ann. wards v. Bringier Sugar Extracting 707(1887). Co., 37 La. Am. 118(1875). It is no ob- » " Payment of stock subscriptions jection to the validity of the issue of ^3 CH. II.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [§20. ment in contract work, in right of way, or in any kind of material or labor applicable to its construction.* A manufacturing corpo- ration may receive payment in the good-will of a business or the stock for patents that the corporation selling the patents was not legally in- corporated. Way V. American, etc. Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 263 (1900). Payment may be by canceling a debt of the company past due. Carr v. Le Fevre, 37 Pa. St. 413 (1856). Or not yet due. Apple- yard's Case, 49 L. J. (Ch.) 390 (1880). A company may issue stock in exchange for bonds of another corporation where the former corporation owns the equity of the property, subject to the mort- gage securing the bonds. . Bee be v. Richmond, etc. Co., 3 N. Y. App. Div. 334 (1896). A company organized to manufacture, bleach and dye cottons has power to issue its stock in exchange for and payment of stock in a dyeing corporation which had been organized by the consulting chemist of the former company for the purpose of exchang- ing the stock as above set forth. Joseph Bancroft, etc. Co. v. Bloede, 106 Fed. Rep. 396 (1901). Payment, however, to a bank in its own currency was not upheld, it being statutory that only specie could be received. King v. El- liott, 13 Miss. 438 (1845). Payment by check cannot be objected to by another subscriber. Thorp v. WoodhuU, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411 (1844). Stock may be issued to the president in payment of past sal- ary and debts. Reed v. Hayt, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 131 (1884); afif'd, 109 N. Y. 659. Where stock is issued to a city by a street railway company in pay- ment for its street rights, a provis- ion in the grant of the street rights that in case the company became in- debted the city should have a lien on the company's franchise and property does not give the city a lien in prefer- ence to creditors of the company, but only in preference to other stockhold- ers. Guaranty, etc. Co. v. Galveston, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. Rep. 811 (1901). 1 " We can see no objection whatever to a railroad company issuing stock and taking in payment materials or labor or land necessary for its road." Clark V. Farrington, 11 Wis. 306 (1860). As to payment in stock for construc- tion work, see also Wood, Railways, § 383. " The corporation had a right to accept payment of stock in labor or ma- terials, in damages which the company were liable to pay, or in any other lia- bility of the company, provided these transactions were, entered into and car- ried out in good faith." Philadelphia, etc. R. R. V. Hickman, 38 Pa. St. 318 ( 1857); Bedford County v. Nashville, etc. Ry., 14 Lea (Tenn.), 535 (1884), holding, also, that thirty years' delay in de- manding the stock is no bar to the right To the same effect, payment being in services, Kobogum v. Jackson Iron Co., 76 Mich. 498 (1889). Payment may be in cross-ties. Ohio, etc. R R. V. Cramer, 33 Ind. 490 (1864). Or in real estate and services. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. V. Clarkson, 7 Ind. 595 (1856). Or in services and materials. Phillips v. Covington Bridge Co., 3 Meto. (Ky.) 319 (1859). Or by construction of the road. See § 18. One railroad having power to consolidate with another may, in payment therefor, issue stock to the contractors who are constructing the latter. Branch v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468 (1883). A corporation may agree to give |5,000 of stock to one who will borrow $15,000 for it. Arapahoe, etc. Co. V. Stevens, 13 Colo. 534 (1889). A contract that subscriptions shall be payable in land is illegal by statute in Alabama, but after subscription pay- ment in land may be allowed. Knox V. Childersburg Land Co., 86 Ala. 180 (1888). §20.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [CH. II. stock in trade.* Laud may be taken in payment when the corpo- ration would be allowed to purchase the same.^ Promissory notes may also be taken, under the corporate power to give credit and extend the time of payment of debts.' But a bank may have no power 1 Pell's Case, L R. 5 Ch. App. 11 (1869). Stock may be issued for the good-will of a business, and a person who has taken part in the transaction cannot afterwards complain. Washburn v. National, etc. Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 17 (1897). 2Goodin v. Kvans, 18 Ohio St. 150 (1868); Cincinnati, etc. R R. u. Clark- son, 7 Ind. 595 (1856); Peck v. Coalfield Ca, 11 Bradw. (HI.) 88 (1883); Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 (1883); Jones's Case,L. R 6 Ch. App. 48 (1870); Maynard's Case, L. R 9 Ch. App. 60 (1873); Dayton, etc. R. R u Hatch, 1 Disney (Ohio), 84 (1855); Carr v. Le Fevre, 37 Pa. St. 413 (1856); Lohman v. N. Y. &Erie R R, 3 Sandf. Super. Ct. 39 (1848). In Fore- man V. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 508, 544 (1878), s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 437,441, the court said: " Argument to show that the transac- tion of issuing the stock in payment for the mineral land would have been valid . . ■ is scarcely necessary." In Indiana formal acceptance by the directors is necessary. State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46 (1861); Junction R R. v. Reeve, 15 Ind. 336 (1860). A corpora- tion receiving a deed of land in pay- ment of a stock subscription is protected in its title to the land the same as any other bona fide purchaser of it would be against a former vendor's lien for the purchase-money. Frenkel v. Hud- son, 82 Ala. 158 (1887). A subscriber for stock may show that payment therefor was by the conveyance of land or an interest in land. Libby v. Mt. Monadnock, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 444 (1896). A corporation owing a party for a tract of land may issue stock in can- cellation of the debt. Richardson v. Graham, 45 W, Va. 184 (1898). ' Stoddard v. Shetucket Foundry Co., 34 Conn. 543 (1868); Ogdensburgh, etc. R R «. Wooley, 8 Abb. Ct. of App. Deo. 898 (1864); Magee v. Badger, 30 Barb. 346 (1859); Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 IIU 490 (1863); Vermont Central R. R v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 (1848): Hardy v. Mer- riweather, 14 Ind. 203 (1860); Pacific Trust Co. V. Dorsey, 73 CaL 55 (1887). In Wisconsin a corporation may accept in payment of stock a note secured by a mortgage on real estate. Clark v. Far- rington, 11 Wis. 306 (1860); Blunt v. Walker, 11 Wis.. 334 (1860); Cornell a Hichens, 11 Wis. 353 (1860); Lyon v. Swings, 17 Wis. 61 (1868); Andrews K. Hart, 17 Wis. 297 (1863); Western Bank of Scotland v. Tallman, 17 Wis, 530 (1863). In Tennessee payment in notes is not upheld, but the subscriber is to be ctedited with the amount col- lected on such notes. Moses v. Oooee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 398 (1878). In New York the payment of a subscrip- tion by one's own note is prohibited by statute. Payment by bond and mortgage was upheld in Valk v. Cran- dall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 179 (1843), and in Leavitt v. Pell, 37 Barb. 322 (1858). As to payment by note, see §§ 173-175, infra. But a worthless note is not pay- ment so far as corporate creditors are concerned. Bouton v. Dement, 133 IlL 143 (1887). A company authorized by statute to sell stock for cash may sell it for the bonds of the vendee, and may enforce the bonds. Southern Life Ins. Co. V. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110 (1853). Sub- scriptions may be paid by notes, espe- cially where the corporation sells the notes. Rouse, etc. Co. v. Detroit, etc. Co., 1 11 Mich. 251 (1 896). A note given in pay- ment for a subscription does not bear interest unless the note itself so pro- vides, especially where no call on the subscription has been mada Seattle- T. Ca V. Pitner, 18 Wash. 401 (1898). C/. 93 N. W. Rep. 479. 84 CH. n.] METHODS OF ISStnNG STOCK. [§21. to accept the subscriber's notes in payment of a subscription to its stock, and the directors are personally liable for so doing, unless the notes were good or the directors had reasonable cause to believe they were good.^ Fully paid-up stock may be issued by an irrigation com- pany in payment for pipe lines, wells and ditches.^ It is legal for a corporation to issue stock as fully paid to a person in considera- tion of his leaving an employment in which he is engaged and of assuming the presidency of the corporation.' Services rendered by a director after he had subscribed for stock are a good considera- tion in payment therefor, in accordance with an agreement to that effect.* A person to whom a corporation issues full-paid stock in settlement ©f a claim is not bound by any prior contracts of the corporation in regard to that stock where he took the stock with- out notice of the contracts.^ § 21. Payment in property as a favor, not as a contract right- — There is an important distinction to be made between payments in J Coddington v. Canaday, 157 Ind. 243 (1901). A note given in payment of tlie subscription price of stock in a national bank may be enforced by the receiver, and it is no defense that tlie president had agreed that the stock might be re- turned and the note canceled. Atwa- ter V. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277 (1899). Where the directors upon an increase of the capital stock issue a part of the stock for worthless notes, the directors upon. the bank becoming insolvent are liable to the receiver for the par value of such stock, unless they can shov? the stock could not have been otherwise issued or sold. Cockrell v. Abeles, 86 Fed. Rep. 505 (1898). In the case of State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1827 (1899), the subscribers to the stock of a debenture company paid ninety- five per cent, of their subscription by borrowing that amount from the com- pany on their notes, and thereupon full- paid stock was issued to them, although the statute prohibited the issue of stock until paid for. The state brought suit to set aside the charter and liquidate the company. The court held that under the constitution of Louisiana the incorporation was illegal. The court held also that the charter was illegal, in that the debentures issued were for- 85 feited if deferred payments were not made, and that they provided for can- cellation at fifty per cent, on the amount paid, and that they were redeemable in numerical order in six years, and that it would be impossible for the company to pay them. The same conclusion was reached in State v. Louisiana, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1795 (1899). 2 Loud y. Pomona, etc. Co., 153 U. S. 564, 582 (1894). 'Shannon v. Stevenson, 173 Pa. St. 418 (1896). A corporation in order to retain the services of employees to be rendered thereafter may issue stock at eighty -five cents in cash, the remaining fifteen cents to be paid for by such serv- ices. Potter V. Necedah, etc. Co., 105" Wis. 25 (1899). *Doak V. Stahlman, 58 S. W. Eep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). A corporation may agree to issue stock to a person in pay- ment for services in procuring a loan for the corporation and guaranteeing payment of the sama If the corpora- tion refuses to perform, the person may obtain damages to the amount of the actual value of the stock. Saunders v. United States, etc. Ca, 25 Wash. 475 (1901). 5 Angle V. Chicago, etc. Ey., 94 Fed, Eep. 717 (1899). See also § 766c, infra. §21.J METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [oh. II. property, where the subscription itself, by its terms, allows such payment, and a payment in property, which is allowed, as a matter of favor, by the corporation, the subscription itself being silent as to the mode of payment.^ The latter class of transactions has been uniformly upheld, except when positively prohibited by statute, and payment has even been held to be valid, although the statute required it to be in money or in cash.^ A subscription is payable in cash unless there is a contract by which it is to be paid in labor or property.' "Where a person subscribes for stock and afterwards payment is made in property at a gross overvaluation, the court may hold him liable for the difference between the actual value of the property and the par value of the stock, even though the com- pany went through the form of canceling the subscription and issuing the stock as an original issue for property.* Where stock 1 Many of the oases which apparently are cases of subscriptions, wherein the subscriber has expressly stipulated that he may pay in property or labor, will be found, on close examination, to be absolute subscriptions payable in cash. Afterwards the corporation, although not obliged so to do, accepts property or labor instead of the cash. This kind of transaction is almost universally up- held by the courts when entered into and carried out in good faith. Such payment is upheld even in opposition to the express terms of a statute re- quiring payment in cash. See § 28. Many of the American cases, also, are plainly cases in which payment in prop- erty was allowed by the corporation, not as a right but as a matter of favor. The courts uphold such agreements be- cause they are similar to offsets of ac- counts, and the delays, uncertainties, special privileges, and other objections to subscriptions payable in terms in property and labor are obviated. See Ashuelot Boot, etc. Co. v. Hoit, 56 N. H. 548 (1876); Stoddard v. Shetucket Foundry Co., 34 Conn. 543 (1868), where the court said, " that the defendants could have insisted upon the plaintiff's payment for his stock in cash is unquestionable." See also Vermont Central R. R.|u. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 (1848); Boston, etc. R. R. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873). A pub- 86 soription may be made and then by another contract be paid by a lease of a railroad. Coe v. East, etc. R R., 52 Fed. Rep. 531 (1893). Even where, by statute, railroad corporations must re- quire payment in cash of a certain per- centage of the subscription at the time of subscribing, the courts hold that the percentage may be paid by property actually received. Beach v. Suiith, 30 N. Y. 116 (1864), where payment was by services rendered. The court said: "Was it necessary, for any purpose, that the ceremony of paying money by the company to the defendant, and by the defendant of the same money back again, should be gone through with? It seems to me not." 2 See p. 88, note 2. 3 Farwell v. Great West. Tel. Co., 161 111. 523 (1896). A subscriber for one share of stock is liable thereon although afterwards a contractor to whom stock is issued for property transfers to the former one full-paid share of stock to fulfill the subscription. Dalton, etc. Co. V. Dalton, 66 L. T. Rep. 704 (1892). ♦Hebberd v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18 (1896). Even after sub- scriptions to stock have been made, payable in cash, the company may re- ceive land from a third party in pay- ment of the balance due on such sub- scriptions, and such payment will be OH. II.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [§ 22. *is subscribed for, although thereafter it is agreed that the subscrip- tion shall be paid by the transfer of property, yet if no actual trans- fer is made, a subscriber may be liable, even though he understood that the property had been actually transferred.' § 22. Sale of stoch for property. — The issue of stock for prop- erty, labor or contract work need not necessarily be accompanied with the formality of a subscription.^ Frequently the issue is spoken of as a sale of the stock for the property received in paj^- ment. Sometimes the issue is by means of a contract, whereby, upon the completion of certain work, the party is to be entitled to the stock. The New York court of appeals stated the law clearly when it said, in respect to such issues, that " the right of the offi- cers of a railroad corporation to enter into an agreement to build its road and pay for the construction of the same in stock or bonds cannot be seriously questioned, and contracts of this description are frequently made for such a purpose." ' It is doubtful, however, whether any clearness of ideas is obr tained, under any circumstances, by calling an original issue of stock a sale of stock. Such a transaction is not a sale of stock. A sale of stock means a transfer of stock after the stock has been is- sued, or an agreement to transfer the same. Original issues of stock which are occasionally spoken of as being sales of stock might better be considered as informal subscriptions arising by the , acts or declarations of the parties, and payable in property.* sufficient, even though the land turns of contract work, the court said: "We out to have been overvalued. Carr v. have seen no case which recognizes a Le Fevre, 37 Pa. St. 413 (1856). Cf. g§ 169, difference between those stockholders etc., infra. who become such in pursuance of a 1 Crowley v. Walton, 50 Atl. Rep. 385 written agreement and those who be- (R. I. 1901). come such by the mere acceptance of 2 A charter provision authorizing the stock issued to them." opening of stock subscription books ^ Van Cott r. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535 does not amount to a prohibition (1880). See also Eppes v. Mississippi, etc. against any other mode of becoming a R. R., 35 Ala. 33 (1859); Boody v. Rut- stockholder. "If a railroad company land, etc. R. R., 3 Blatchf. 35 (1853); could sell its stock for the right of s. c., 3 Fed. Cas. 857; s. C, 24 Vt. 660; way, for lands for depot purposes, for Troy, etc. R. R. v. Newton, 74 Mass. 596 iron, or anything essential to the ac- (1857); McMahon v. New York, etc. R. oomplishment of its purpose, it might R., 20 N. Y. 463 (1859), construing such do so." It is a legal issue of stock with- a contract. An agreement to buy stock out subscription. Western Bank of was held to be a subscription to stock Scotland v. Tallman, 17 Wis. 530 (1863). in Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Neb. See also Clark v. Farrington, 11 Wis. 279 (1895). 306 (1860); Reed v. Bayt, 51 N. Y. Super. * See Weiss v. Mauch Chunk Iron Co., Ct. 121 (1884); 'aff'd, 109 N. Y. 659. In 58 Pa. St. 395 (1868); St. Paul, etc. R. R. Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469 (1884), v. Robbins, 33 Minn. 439 (1877); Clark stock having been issued in payment v. Continental Improvement Co., 57 87 §23.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [oh. II. § 23. English statutes on issues of stock for property. — In Eng- land the payment for stock in property, labor or contract work is regulated largely by act of parliament. The statute requires that payment shall be in cash, unless the contract allowing payment in property is registered at a specified public registry.' Neverthe- less, even where no registry is made, the courts have held that a payment in property at its real value is equivalent to payment in cash, where the property has been actually delivered.^ Such a pay- ment in property, however, is as a matter of favor, and not as a matter of right.' It is to be distinguished from the payment in Ind. 135 (1877). In the case of Seymour V. Jefferson, 74 N. W. Rep. 149 (Minn. 1898), the court held that a contract to take stock from the corporation was a subscription and not a sale of stock. There is no difference between a sub- scription of stock and a sale of stock. Richardson v. Merritt, 74 Minn. 354 (1899). A so-called sale of stock, being the original issue thereof, is equivalent to an original subscription therefor. New Haven T. Co. v. Gaffney, 73 Conn. 480 (1901). In the case of Kohlmetz v. Calkins, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 518 (1897), the court held that a sale of stock was an executory contract to take the stock, and that a tender of the certificate might be necessary before suit. 1 Companies Act, Amendment 1867, 80 and 31 Vict, ch. 131, § 35. 2 Under this statute three classes of cases of unregistered contracts arise: First, where payment is actually made in property, if fairly made, it is upheld, under the principles laid down in sec- tion 16. See Jones' Case, L. E. 6 Ch. App. 48 (1870); Maynard's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 60 (1873); payment by coll- iery, Re Bagglan Hall Colliery Co., L. R. 5 Ch. App. 346 (1870); Drummond's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 772 (1869); Schroder's Case, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 131 (1870); Pell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 11 (1869); by services. Ex parte Clarke, L. R. 7 Eq. 550 (1869). The amounts on each side must be payable presently and in cash. Fothergill's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 370 (1873); so that the transaction is in the nature of a set-off. Forbes's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 370 (1870); Be Johannesberg Hotel Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 119. Conveyance of a lease held to be a good payment. Spargo's Case, L. R, 8 Ch. App. 407 (1873). Where the par- ties fail to register their contract as re- quired by law, they are liable on the stock to the full par value thereof in cash, but may set off a debt due to them from the company. lie Johannesberg Hotel Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 119, following Spargo's Case. A second class of un- registered agreements to take pay in property turn upon the question whether the agreement that payment shall be in property is a condition prece- dent or subsequent to the subscription. If the condition is precedent, and must be performed before the subscription can be enforced, none of the parties are bound, even though the corporation be- comes insolvent. Pellatt's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 537 (1867); Staoe's Case, L. E, 4 Ch. App. 683 (1869); Simpson's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 184 (1869). The third class is where the contract to pay in property is construed to be a condition subsequent. The condition being sub- sequent the party must pay; and if the corporation becomes insolvent, he must pay in cash. Elkington's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App 511 (1867); Bridger's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 305 (1870); Thom- son's Case, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 535 (1865); Ee Southport, etc. Banking Ca, L. R, 31 Ch. D. 131 (1885).- See. also g§ 78, 80, infra. Cf. 66 N. E. Rep. 643 and 636. ' See § 31, supra. OH. II.] METHODS OF ISStTING STOCK. [§24 property which the subscriber may not yet have made, but has a right to make in the future. § 24. Performance of contract of payment in property — Obliga- tion of the corporation to issue tJie stoch. — Subscriptions payable in property are not subject to calls, and a demand for the property must be made by the corporation.^ Upon failure of the subscriber to furnish the property, or upon insolvency of the corporation, such subscriptions become payable in cash.^ A corporation may compel specific performance of a contract for a deed of land in consideration of the issue of stock, such contract having been made by the promoters and accepted by the corporation.' A payment of part of the subscription in cash does not waive the right of the subscriber to pay the balance in property.* The stock may be issued to a contractor before his work in pay- ment therefor has been completed.* If the corporation prevents the completion of the contract or refuses to fulfill, the contractor may hold it liable for damages or may have specific performance.® A contract by which a party turns in land in exchange for stock may be such as to give him a vendor's lien on such land in case the scheme is not carried out.'' i See % 89, infra. 2 See § 89, infra. Although property which is deeded to a corporation in payment for stock is really subject to a mortgage which is not mentioned in the deed, the grantor is not liable on covenant of title where another piece of property was also deeded as com- pensation for the amount of the mort- gage. Johnston v. Markle Paper Co. 153 Pa. St. 189 (1893). Where a person subscribes for stock payable by* its terms in wages, and the directors pay such subscription in full and take the wages, but before the stock is fully paid for by him the corporation becomes insolv- ent, he cannot recover back the part al- ready paid out of his wages. Lincott V. Northwood, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 260 (1895). ^Scadden, etc. Co. v. Scadden, 121 Cal. 38 (1898). An agreement of several parties to sell their property to a corporation in exchange for stock of the latter, the amount of stock going to each to be de- termined by arbitrators, will not be 89 specifically enforced where the arbitrar tors have fixed the value in an illegal way. Any party may withdraw from such a contract prior to the time when it has been signed by alL Consolidated, etc. Co. V. Nash, 85 N. W. Eep. 485 (Wis. 1901). * See § 89, infra. 5 See § 766e, infra. *See § 766c, infra. Where various properties are transferred to a coal com- pany for stock, on the further under- standing that all moneys already ex- pended on such properties should be repaid in bonds of a railway to be guar- anteed by the coal company, but such distribution of bonds is never made on account of the impossibility of such a guarantee being legally made, one of the parties who turned in his property may hold the coal company liable in damages for the amount of money ex- pended by him on the property before turning it in for stock. Crown, etc. Co. V. Thomas, 177 111. 584 (1898). 7 Slide, etc. Mines v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 509, 530 (1894); 53 Atl. Rep. 560. §§ 25-27.] METHODS OF ISSUING STOCK. [OH. II., § 25. Third method of issue: By stock dividend. — The third method of issuing stock is by a stock dividend. It is allowable when an amount of cash or property equal to the amount of the par value of the stock so divided is added to the capital stock of the corporation. A stock dividend can be made only when the whole of the capital stock has not been issued, or when it has been increased. An issue of stock by a stock dividend is prohibited by constitutional or legislative enactment in some states. In England it has been a question of doubt whether stockholders can be com- pelled to accept a dividend of stock. These questions, however, are discussed elsewhere.^ § 36. Pledge of stock hy a corporation. — It is now settled that a corporation may pledge its unissued stock to secure the debts of the corporation.^ It is also clear that, for non-payment of the debts so secured, the pledgee may sell the stock ; ' and such sale is legal even though the stock -does not sell for its full par value."* § 27. Issue of stock for partnership property or the property of another corporation. — A copartnership may, of course, sell its stock to a corporation and take shares of stock in payment. But if the partnership is in a failing condition at the time of the transfer, the creditors of the firm may in some cases disregard the sale and levy an execution on the property itself.^ The same rules apply to a sale by one company to another.' 1 See § 51, and ch. XXXII, infra. 5 This subject and the numerous com- 2 See § 465, infra. plicated questions connected with it are ' See § 476, infra, considered in ch. XL, infra, * See § 465, note. « See ch. XL. 90 CHAPTEK III. "WATERED" STOCK.— STOCK ISSUED ILLEGALLY FOR MONEY, PROP- ERTY, OR BY A STOCK DIVIDEND. IT IS THEN CALLED " WATERED " OR FICTITIOUSLY PAID-UP STOCK A. NATURE OF WATERED STOCK. § 88. Definition and nature of "wa- tered" or fictitiously paid-up stock. 29. Methods of issuing " watered " stock. 30. Dicta in r^ard to such issues. 31. Fictitious stock may be void- able. B. WATERED STOCK ISSUED FOR CASH. 32. First method of issue: By discount in cash. 83,34 Dangers attending this method. C. WATERED STOCK ISSUED FOR PROP- ERTY OR CONSTRUCTION WORK WHICH IS OVERVALUED. 35. Second method: Issue of stock for property taken at an over- valuation. D. WHO MAT COMPLAIN AND AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT MAY BE MADK 36. Liability on " watered " stock, and who may enforce it. 37. Who may complain of an issue of stock as " paid up " when it has not been fully paid? — The state. 38. Right of the corporation itself to complain. 39. Stockholders participating in the act cannot complain. 40. Transferees of participating stock- holders may complain, when? 41. Stockholders dissenting at the time of the issue may com- plain. § 42. Corporate creditors as complain- ants where the issue is for money. 43. Corporate creditors as complain- ants where the issue is for prop- erty or construction work. 44 Who is liable, and the character of the liability — Liability of the corporation. 45. Liability of persons to whom stock is issued for cash at less than par. 46, 47. Liability of persons to whom stock is issued for property taken by the corporation at an overvaluation — Liability of such persons under various con- stitutional provisions in Penn- sylvania, Illinois, California, Nebraska, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, Col- orado, and other states, and un- der statutory provisions in New York, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Indiana, New Jersey, Washington and Iowa — Treasury stock. 48. Liability of the oiScers of the corporation. 49. Liability of the persons purchas- ing the stock with notice. 50. Liability of the hona fide trans- ferees without notice. E. ISSUE OF WATERED STOCK BY A STOCK DIVIDEND. 51. Third method: Issue by stock dividends. F. ISSUE OF WATERED STOCK ON A CON- SOLIDATION. 51a. Fourth method: Issue by a con- solidation of companies. A. NATUEE OF WATEEED STOCK. § 28. Definition and nature of " tvatered" or fictitiously paid-up stock. — Watered stock or fictitiously paid-up stock is stock which is issued as fully paid-up stock, when in fact the whole amount of the par value thereof has not been paid in. All stock which has 91 § 29.] "watered" stock. [oh. in. been issued as paid-up stock, but the full par value of which has not been paid into the corporation in money or money's worth, is watered to the extent that the par value exceeds the value actually paid in. "Watered stock is, accordingly, stock which purports to represent, but does not represent, in good faith, money paid into the treasury of the company, or money's worth actually contributed to the capital of the concern. The issue of shares of stock as " paid up," when in fact they are not paid up, gives rise to some of the most complicated questions connected with the law of corporations. A share of stock is sup- posed, in theory, to represent its par value in money or money's worth paid in or to be paid in to the corporation. Accordingly when it is issued as paid up, it is bought and sold in the open market on the supposition that it is full-paid stock.' Upon this basis, trans- actions in paid-up stock, involving millions of dollar^ are of daily occurrence in the commercial centers of the country. The fact is, however, that where stock is issued in payment for property, the actual value of the property is rarely equal to the par value of the stock issued for it. Especially is this the case with the great in- dustrial corporations. Hence it becomes important to know what liability is attached to such stock; who is liable; to whom the lia- bility arises, and when the liability may be enforced. § 29. Methods of issuing " watered " stock. — There are four dif- ferent ways in which watered stock is issued : First, by the issue of certificates of stock for an amount of money less than the par value of the stock, although the certificates assert on their face that the full value has been paid in ; second, for jproperiy or construdlion wark taken at an overvaluation; third, by a stock dividend, the equivalent par value of which has not been added to the capital stock; and fourth, by consolidation under a statute. Each of these four methods may be the means of issuing stock which has been paid up in good faith. Each, also, is available for the issue of 1 The reasons why the par value of value it is either a deception and fraud stock is required by the law to be turned upon the public, or an evidence that in to the corporation are stated by the theoriginal value of the corporate prop- supreme court of the United States in erty has become depreciated. . . . Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 488 If it be once admitted that a corpora- (1891), as follows: tion may issue stocic without receiving " The stock of a corporation is sup- a consideration therefor, and where it posed to stand in the place of actual does not represent actual or substituted property of substantial value, and as value in corporate assets, there is ap- being a convenient method of repre- parently no limit to the extent to senting the interest of each stock- which the original stock may be holder in such property, and to the ex- ' watered,' except the caprice of the tent to which it fails to represent such stockholders." 93 OH. in.] 'wateeed" stock, [§30. " watered " stock. The second method particularly — that of tak- ing property at an overvaluation — is well calculated to conceal the fictitious character of the issue, and to accomplish the purposes- of the participants. Where a corporation has acquired shares of its own paid-up capital stock, either by purchase or by forfeiture for non-payment of calls,, it may legally re-issue and sell the same at less than the par value thereof.^ § 30. Dicta in regard to such issues. — There have been various, opinions, generally dicta, as to the character of stock issued as paid up, when in fact it has not been paid for. The customary expres- sion is that such' an issue is a fraud upon the law and upon the public and upon the stockholders ; or that it is against public policy ; or is a fraud on subsequent purchasers of the stock so issued.^ The law now is, however, that an issue of stock as full paid-up stock,, under an agreement that the full par value shall not be paid, is not necessarily a fraudulent transaction, but that as between the par- ties thereto it is a legal and valid agreement, and violates no prin- ciple of public policy.' The explanation of this is, as will be shown hereafter, that such issues are open to attack in some cases and in other cases not. It 1 See § 46, infra. 2 In Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. T. 537, 534 (1880), the court said in a dictum: "It is not claimed, and covild not be claimed, that the corporation or its directors could create any valid stock by issuing the same . without any consideration. issue of paid-up shares at less than their par value is a fraud upon the- creditors.'' sin Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 153 (1881), the court said: "It is con- ceded to have been the contract be- tween him and the company that he The directors assuming to issue stock should never be called upon to pay any in that way would perpetrate a wrong further assessments upon it [the stock].. upon the corporation and its stockhold- ers, and a fraud upon every person who took such stock as full-paid stock, rely- ing upon the appearances, and deceived thereby." In thecase of Sturges v. Stet- son, 1 Biss. 246, 858 (1858); S. C, 23 Fed. Cas. 311, 314, the court said: "The sub- scription of stock by plaintiff, for less than the price of the shares fixed by the charter, was void, as against law and the power of the directors." See also Ex parte Daniell, 1 De G. & J. 372 (1857) ; Oliphant v. Woodburn, etc. Co., 63 Iowa, 333 (1884); Tobey v. Robinson, 99 111. 333, 228 (1881); Osgood v. King, 43 Iowa, 478 (1876). In Coleman v. Howe, 154 IlL 458 (1895), the court said: "The 93 The same contract was made with all the other shareholders, and the fact was known to all. As between them, and the company this was a perfectly valid agreement. It was not forbidden by the charter or by any law or public policy."' In Re Ambrose, etc. Co., L. R 14 Ch. D. 390, 394, 395 (1880), where paid- up stock was issued for property taken at a gross overvaluation, the court said: " It seems to me impossible to say that, however wrong the transaction was in respect to other persons, there was any- thing wrong as between the company^ and the vendors." In Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. Rep. 785 (1881), the court held that it was only as a fraud upon future- §30.] "WATERED" STOCK. [oh. III. depends altogether on who complains of the issue and against whom complaint is made. The issue may be fraudulent as to one party while it is free from fraud as to another party. The general statement of law that watered stock is illegal throws little light upon the important questions of the rights, risks and lia- bilities growing out of such issues of stock. The stockholder and the practitioner wish to know whether such stock is void or is void- able, or is valid. They wish to know, also, what are the rights and remedies of the various parties involved. If the stock is valid, then the question arises whether any one is liable for that part of the par value which has not been paid, and also who may bring suit to enforce that liability. It is well settled that watered stock is not illegal and void.,per se, unless it is declared to be void by constitutional or statutory pro- visions. Nearly all the cases assume this to be the rule, and do not discuss it. Even when a constitution or statute declares such stock to be void, it is rarely possible to apply the statutory law. A few cases speak of such stock as being void, but, inasmuch as the reme- dies given in those cases were remedies for the rescission of con- tracts for fraud, they do not establish the proposition that the issue creditors that exception could be taken to an issue of stock at a discount. In Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 384 (1881), the court held it legal for the parties, as between themselves, to issue paid-up stock for property taken at a valuation agreed upon between themselves. The court said: " If it had appeared that the organization of the corporation in this way was a device to defraud the public, by putting valueless stock on the market, having an apparent basis only, a different question would be pre- sented."' See also Otter v. Brevoort, etc. Co., 50 Barb. 347, 356 (1867), dictum; Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49, 58 (1880), dictum. There have been various dicta in the cases and text-books that the issue of " watered " stock by mining compa- nies is a customary, and hence legal, issue. There is no reason, however, why stock issued for a mine should be issued more recklessly than stock issued for a patent right. The case generally cited as holding 94 that mining companies may legally issue watered stock is Re South Moun- tain Consol. Min. Co., 7 Sawy. 30 (1881); s. C, 5 Fed. Rep. 403. In this case, how- ever, it is stated that corporate creditors were protected " by the personal liabil- ity of each stockholder for hispro rata share of the indebtedness of the corpo- ration." Aff'd, 14 Fed. Rep. 347 (1883). Under the Minnesota statute author- izing mining corporations to sell their unissued stock as the corporation might see iit, and providing that if issued thus, as paid up, no further liability should exist, the sale of shares of a par value of $2 for six cents exempts the purchaser from further liability to any one, in- cluding corporate creditors. Ross v. Kelly, 36 Minn. 38 (1887). See, in gen- eral, Kimberly v. Arms, 139 U. S. 513, 530 (1889). A distribution of increased capital stock for no consideration what- soever seems to have been sustained in Knapp V. Publishers, 137 Mo. 53 (1895), there being no creditors and all the stockholders assenting. OH. III.] " WATERED " STOQK. [§ 31. was void absolutely.* Thus, & lonafide purchaser of stock issued without consideration in violation of the constitution and statutes of Louisiana may nevertheless have a status to enjoin illegal acts of the directors.^ § 31. Fictitious stock may he voidable. — Is stock voidable when fraudulently issued as paid up ? There are few cases on this ques- tion, but the courts hold that such issues of stock may be avoided by a withdrawal of the issue and a cancellation of the certificates. Thus, a court of equity, on the application of a dissenting stock- holder, has decreed that stock falsely issued as paid-up stock should be delivered up to the corporation for cancellation.' Where, how- ever, the stock has passed into the hands of lonaflde purchasers for value, such purchasers are entitled to retain the stock. Some cases intimate that the stock fictitiously issued may be canceled, except a part whose par value would equal the amount actually paid in by the persons receiving it.* Many cases hold also that the trans- action is in the nature of a fraudulent contract, and that it may be rescinded for fraud ; in which case the stock would have to be re- turned to the corporation. So far as the right of the corporation to issue stock below par is concerned, the courts have frequently held that the issue is an ultra vires act.' But an ultra vires act is not always void abso- 1 Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 346 (1858) ; 436 (1875). In this case it was admitted s. c, 33 Fed. Cas. 311;|Fosdick'W. Sturges, that ttie stock was Issued gratuitously 1 Biss. 355 (1858); S. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 501; and for the purpose of enabling the con- Gilman, eta R. R. v. Kelly, 77 111. 426 struotion company to own a majority (1875); Campbell v. Morgan, 4 Bradw. of the stock, thereby controlling the (III.) 100 (1879). The stock is voidable corporation. rather than void even in Alabamaunder * Sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246, 354 a constitutional prohibition. Nicrosi?;. (1858); s. C, S3 Fed. Cas. 311, 315. The Irvine, 103 Ala. 648 (1893). See also § 47. court said, in a dictum, that stock taken Even though a citizen of Massachusetts at less than par, with knowledge, is subscribes and receives stock in a New subject to the right of other stockhold- Hampshire corporation at sixty per ers, being such at the time of its issue, cent, of its par value, and even though " to have it reduced to the charter value such stock has been declared void by a of the shares. This would take from court in New Hampshire as being con- him nearly one-third of his shares." In trary to the statute, yet the subscriber Fosdiok v. Sturges, 1 Biss. 355 (1858), cannot recover back the money paid if s. C, 9 Fed. Cas. 501, the court says there be has delayed eight years after the can be no question that this remedy is issue of stock before bringing suit. Hal- available. lett V. New England, etc. Co., 105 Fed. *Fisk v. Chicago, etc. R. R., 53 Barb. Rep. 317 (1900). 518 (1868), where the court says: "It is 2 United Elect Sec. Co. v. Louisiana . not a question of good faith, or of hon- Elect L. Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 673 (1895). est intention, or of wise policy, or skil- ' Grilman, etc. R R. «. Kelly, 77 111. fui or discreet management on the part 95 §§ 32-34. J "wateeed" stock. [ch. hi. lutely, and it is voidable only at the instance of persons standing iti a certain relation towards the act. Who can avoid the act will be explained hereafter. B. WATEEED STOCK ISSUED FOE CASH. § 32. Fi/rst mefhod of issue: By discount in cash. — As already stated, paid-up stock 'may be improperly issued in four different methods: by part cash payment; by taking property at an over- valuation; by an invalid stock dividend; and by consolidation. An issue of paid-up stock for cash, upon payment of only part of the par value of the stock, is not often made, inasmuch as the real nature of the transaction is readily discovered and easily remedied. Sometimes the corporation makes the issue under a contract with those receiving it that no more than a certain percentage of the par value will be called for. Again, a release is sometimes made by a resolution of the directors or stockholders, after subscriptions have been made and partly paid, discharging the subscribers from any further liability on such subscriptions. The proceedings are generally spread upon the corporate records; certificates are is- sued, asserting on their face that they are paid up ; and all inquiries at the corporate office are answered by a substantiation of that as- sertion. §§ 33, 34. Bangers attending this method. — There are various dangers and liabilities growing out of such a transaction. The stock is liable to be canceled.' The person to whom it was issued,^ or his transferee with notice,' or the corporate officers participat- ing in the act,^ may, under certain circumstances, each be held liable personally for the unpaid par value of the stock. They may be liable to the corporation itself,^ or to the corporate creditors,* or to honafide transferees of the stock.' A honafide transferee of such stock, however, is not liable.' of the directors. It is a question of than its par valua In Bunn's Case, 3 power." In West Cornwall Ey. v. Mow- De G., F. & J. 275, 295 (I860), It is held att, 12 Jur., pt 1, 407 (1848), the court to be " beyond the functions and in ex- sustained a demurrer to a bill for spe- cess of the powers" of the directors, cifio performance of a contract to take ' See § 31, swpra, shares from the corporation at a dis- ^gee §§ 46, 47, 167, infra. count, the court holding that the con- 'See § 49, infra. tract was ultra vires. In Ex parte * See § 48, infra. Daniell, 1 De G. & J. 372 (1857), the « See § 38, m/ro. court says: "It was very properly ad- «See § 42, infra. mitted . . . that the directors of ' See g 40, infra. the company had no power to pass the ' See § 50, infra. resolution " issuing the stock for less 96 OH. ni.] " WATBEED " STOCK. [§§ 35-37. 0. "WATEEED STOCK ISSUED FOE PEOPEETY OE CONSTEUCTION WOEK WHICH IS OVEEVALUED. § 36. Second metliod: Issue of stock for property talceti at an over- valuation. — A second method of issuing stock as paid up, when it is not actually paid up, is by its issue for property taken at an overvaluation. This method is the most frequently employed, the most difficult to prove, and the least easy to remedy. A large amount of litigation and confusion has been experienced in determining the principles of law which should govern such transactions. The questions which have perplexed the courts were, first, what consti- tutes an overvaluation sufficient to invalidate the contract; second, what remedy should be applied when the contract was invalid. It is now well settled that in order to invalidate an issue of stock which is issued for property taken at an overvaluation, it must be shown not only that there was an overvaluation, but also that such overvaluation was intentional and fraudulent.^ Moreover, it does not follow that because the issue was invalid the holders of the stock are liable thereon.^ The better riile is that in such a case rescission is the only remedy, the property being returned to the stockholder and the stock returned to the corporation.' The property is not to be considered as overvalued merely be- cause, subsequently, it turns out to be so. The various circum- stances under which the valuation was made should be considered in determining the hona fides of the transaction.* D. WHO MAT COMPLAIN AND AGAINST WHOM COMPLAINT MAT BE MADE. § 36. LiaMlity on " watered " stoclc, and who may enforce it. — When it has been established that the overvaluation of the prop- erty taken in payment for stock was intentional and fraudulent, the questions then arise, what liability has been incurred, who is liable, and what is the remedy ? The clearest method of investi- gating and presenting the law in answer to these questions is by considering, first, who may complain of the transaction — who- may be the party plaintiff or complainant; second, who is liable in such a transaction — who is to be made the defendant. Incident- ally also there arise questions as to the extent of that liability, and the remedy to be applied. § 37. Who may complain of an issue of stoclc as "paid up," when it has not leen fully paid f — The state. — As already stated, the issue of stock as paid up, when not actually paid up, is an act ultra. '.Quoted and approved in Kelley v. 2 gge § 46, infra. Fletcher, 94 Tenn. 1 (1894). See also ' See § 46, infra. ^ e§ 46, 47, infra, and 119 Fed. Rep. 203. * See §S 46, 47, infra. (7) 97 §37.] [CH. III. vires of the corporation. The commission of ultra vires acts by a corporation, to the detriment of the public, renders its charter lia- ble to forfeiture, at the instance of the state. The issue of fictitiously paid-up stock, with a view to defrauding the public, Taa,y constitute a misuse of the corporate rights and privileges. In such a case it has been held that the state might forfeit the charter of the corporation, and that a palpable case of fraud would justify such forfeiture.' 1 Under the statutes of Alabama in reference to watered stock, 'guo war- ranto lies where one million dollars of stock is issued for the possibility of patents to be thereafter granted. In such quo warranto proceedings stock- holders need not be made parties. State V. Webb, 97 Ala. Ill (1893). The Pennsylvania statute against railway companies issuing stock ex- cept for cash at par applies to street railroads, and the attorney-general by the statute is obliged to enforce the statute whenever any stockholder or two reputable citizens make out a prima facie case. Cheetham v. Mc- Cormick, 178 Pa. St. 186 (1896). Ih Holman v. State, etc., 105 Ind. 569 (1886), the state caused a charter to be forfeited because the subscribers for stock were insolvent at the time of subscribing, thereby perpetrating a fraud on the public. See also State v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 24 Neb. 143 (1888); State V. Webb, 97 Ala. Ill (1892); s. c, 110 Ala. 314 (1896). The case of Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (1878), was overruled by National Docks Ry. V. Central R. R., 32 N. J. Eq. 755 (1880), according to Elizabethtown G. L. Co. V. Green, 48 N. J. Eq. 118 (1890); aff'd, 49 N. J. Eq. 339 (1892). The state may bring an action to for- feit a charter where the corporation commences business before the full capital stock is subscribed. People v. National Sav. Bank, 11 N. E. Rep. 170 (III, 1887); affirmed on rehearing, 129 111. 618 (1889). In State v. Janesville Water Co., 93 Wis. 496 (1896), the court refused leave to the attorney-general to bring suit to forfeit the charter of a water-works company although it was alleged that watered stock and bonds had been is- sued, it being shown in opposition that there had been eight years' delay. Quo warranto does not lie against a corporation merely because it issues its stock below par. State v. Minnesota, etc. Co., 40 Minn. 213 (1889). The state cannot enjoin private par- ties from dealing in " watered " stock. State V. American Cotton Oil Trust, 40 La. Ann. 8 (1888); People v. National Sav. Bank, 11 N. E. Rep. 170 (111. 1887); affirmed on rehearing, 129 111. 618 (1889). See also Columbus, etc. R. R. v. Burke, 20 W;eek. L. Bull. ,287 (Ohio, 1888), and § 766, infra, where the prolonged litiga- tion in New York and Ohio over that transaction is explained. Quo warranto failed in Common- wealth V. Central P. Ry., 52 Pa. St. 506 (1866), where a large amount of "wa- tered" stock had been issued. In the case of State v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1837 (1899), the subscribers to the stock of a debenture company paid ninety-five per cent, of their sub- scription by borrowing that amount from tte company on their notes, and thereupon full-paid stock was issued to them, although the statute prohibited the issue of stock until paid for. The state brought suit to set aside the char- ter and liquidate the company. The court held that under the constitution of Louisiana the incorporation was ille- gal. The court held also that the char- ter was illegal, in that the debentures issued were forfeited if deferred pay- CH. III.J 'wateeed" stock. [§38. Moreover, when a corporation is guilty of an ultra vires act, and such act is detrimental to the interests of the public, it is possible that the attorney-general may file an information for the purpose of stopping such act.' Such a proceeding, however, is difficult to maintain. An injunction does not lie at the instance of the state against a corporation doing business", on the ground that its stock was not properly issued and that there was no intent to do any busi- ness within the state or to have an office therein.'' § 38. Bightof the corporation itself to complain. — The corporation itself, after issuing its stock as paid-up stock, and declaring it so to be, cannot subsequently repudiate that declaration and agreement and proceed to collect, either from the person receiving the stock or his transferee, the unpaid part of the par value. It is estopped from so doing.' ments were not made, and that they provided for cancellation at fifty per cent, on the amount paid and that they were redeemable in numerical order in six years and that it would be impossi- ble for the company to pay them. The same conclusion was reached in State V. Louisiana, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1795 (1899). See 53 Atl. Rep. 755. 1 See § 635, infra. The state will not be allowed to in- tervene in a foreclosure suit for the purpose of preventing it on the ground that the bonds are illegal and void, and that on a re-organization a greater is- sue will be made. State v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 81 Tex. 530 (1891). Concerning the power of the state to object to an ultra vires act of a private corporation by any proceeding other than quo warranto, see People v. Bal- lard, 134 N.Y. 269(1892). 2 Stockton V. American, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 353 (1897). A state cannot file and sustain a bill to declare void watered stock and bonds, and enjoin a foreclosure sale, and to have the prop- erty sold, and the proceeds applied to the moneys actually expended by the corporation. " The state has no author- ity to protect such private rights by suit.'" State v. Guaranty, etc. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 914 (1896). A statute author- izing a corporation to reduce its cap- 99 ital stock waives informalities in its incorporation, and such waiver may extend to an illegal issue of watered stock. State v. Webb, 110 Ala. 314 (1896). s Whatever may be the rights of cred- itors, it is settled law that the corpora- tion itself cannot repudiate its issue of stock as full paid and " proceed to col- lect either from the party receiving the stock, or his transferee, the unpaid part of the par value." Dickerman v. Northern T. Co., 176 U. S. 181, 203 (1900); First Nat. Bank v. Gustin, etc. Co., 42 Minn. 327 (1890). Where a bridge corporation issues all its stock and bonds to a construc- tion company, the stock having been first subscribed for by the promoters, a contract between the construction company and the promoter.s, by which the latter take the profits and such of the stock as is not used, is legal, so far as the bridge company is concerned. The court will enfoyce the contract for the division of the stock. Even a set- tlement made without knowledge and a year's delay are not fatal Krohn v. Williamson, 62 Fed. Eep. 869 (1894); affirmed sub nam. Williamson v. Krohn, 66 Fed. Rep. 655 (1895). Where stock is issued for property, neither the corporation nor a discon- tented stockholder can hold the party §3S.] ■ WATERED STOCK. [CH. III. "Where, however, actual fraud enters into a transaction, whereby- stock is issued for property at an overvaluation, then the corpora- tion is not estopped from having the agreement set aside. The receiving the stock liable for any fur- ther payments, even though the prop- erty was overvalued. A corporate cred- itor might possibly stand in a diflferent position. The court said: "Whatever may have been in fact the value of the property turned over to the company for its stock, the company agreed to take it for the stock. The persons in- terested were the stockholders, and there was no dissent on the part of any person concerned from what was then done. Neither any person then hold- ing stack, nor any, person who after- wards became a stockholder by assign- ment from one who then held stock, can now make complaint, on behalf of the corporation, as against the fairness of that transaction. This I take to be the settled law on that subject." North- ern Trust Co. V. Columbia, etc. Co., 75 Fed. Rep. 938 (1896); afE'd, 80 Fed. Eep. 450, and 176 U. S. 181. The corporation cannot complain that the stock was issued for property taken at an overvaluation. Wells v. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 44S (1895). Land which cost $100,000 and upon which only $33,333 had been paid, the remainder being secured by a purchase- money mortgage, was sold to a corpo- ration organized for that purpose for $500,000 of stock: in other words, the $33,333 equity of redemption of the land was turned in for $500,000 of stock. The holders of the stock then donated $300,000 thereof to the treasury to be sold to pay ofiE the mortgage for $66,666. The company borrowed money to make a partial payment on the mortgage and then brought suit against a stock- holder on the theory that the stock was not paid up. The court held that the suit would not lie. John, etc. Land Co. V. Cooke, 44 S. W. Rep. S»l (Ky. 1898). Even though a corporation is- sued stock for cash at about fifty cents 100 on the dollar, nevertheless, if it agreed with the subscriber that he need pay no more, neither the corporation nor its receiver can collect the balance. Thompson v. Knight, 74 N. Y. App. Div. 316 (1903). Even though a corporation accepts a note instead of cash in payment for a subscription, in violation of the statute which provides that only money, labor done or property actually received shall be accepted in payment for stocks and bonds, yet a bank which discounted such note for a corporation may hold the corporation liable thereon. First Nat. Bank v. Cornell, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 437 (1896). In the case of Sooville v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (1881), the court said, in a dic- tum: "No call could have been made by the company under its agreement with the stockholders, unless to pay its creditors. . . . The shares were is- sued as full paid, on a fair understand- ing, and that bound the company." The issue had been at a discount. See also Union, etc. Co. v. Frear, etc. Co., 97 111. 537 (1881), dictum. In the case of Gran- ite Roofing Co. V. Michael, 54 Md. 65 (1880), stock was issued as paid up for cash, although not actually paid. The corporation passed under the control of purchasers of the stock, who caused the corporation to sue the original sub- scribers for the unpaid par value of the stock. The court said: " Wliile the law may reject, as illegal and fraudulent, that which the parties have agreed upon, ... it will not arbitrarily in- corporate, in lieu thereof, terms in the contract to which the parties have never assented." In the case of Be Am- brose Lake, etc. Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390 (1880), where all the stockholders ac- quiesced and there were no creditors' rights involved, the court held that the corporation could not hold the directors CH. in.J '■wateebd" stock. [§38. person receiving the stock may then be compelled to return the stock or its market value, and take back that which he gave to the corporation for it. But the corporation cannot hold him liable liable for the profits made by them. In Zirkel v. Joliet Opera House Co., 79 111. 334 (1875), the corporation had released the subscriber after the subscription had been made. The release being with- out consideration, and not a contract, was held void, and the corporation was allowed to recover. See also San Anto- nio St. Ry. V. Adams, 87 Tex. 135 (1894), rev'g 25 S. W. Rep. 639. An agreement by promoters that certain stock need not be paid for is not binding on the corporation, and it may collect. York Park Bldg. Assoc, v. Barnes, 39 Neb. 834 <1894). The case of Society of Prac. Knowl. V. Abbott, 2 Beav. 559 (1840), was distinguished in Be British, etc. Box Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 467 (1881), the latter case holding that no one is liable on fictitiously paid-up stock where all acquiesced and there was no intent to bring in new stockholders. This was held to be the rule even though new stockholders were subsequently brought in. In the case of Harrison v. Union Pac. Ry., 13 Fed. Rep. 522 (1883), where plaintiff sued to recover on bonds guar- antied by the defendant, the court said: " The intention of the Arkansas Valley Railway Company was to sell the stock to Harrison for less than its par value; i. e., to give him |15,000 in stock,, twenty bonds of the company, guaran- tied by the Kansas Pacific Company, and the Clay county bonds, all for §15,000 in cash. There is nothing in the statutes of Colorado, where the corpo- ration was created, to forbid the sale of stock at less than par; nor was Harri- son forbidden to purchase the stock by reason of the fact that he was already a stockholder and director in the Kan- sas Pacific Railway Company. The transaction was therefore valid as be- tween the corporation and Harrison, whatever the right of the creditors of 101 the corporation as against Harrison .maybe." In St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Tiernan, 87 Kan. 606 (1887), it was held that an issue of $3,600,000 of stock and the pay- ment of $200,000 to directors for an old road-bed which cost them $15,000 Was legal, since all the stockholders and di- rectors, except a few nominal holders of stock, were fully informed of the facts, and no other stockholders came in until several months subsequently. The corporation was held to be estopped from complaining. See also Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. Rep. 785 (1881); Be Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. Rep. 384 (1883). Of. People V. Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 111. 457 (1876). As to receivers, see Mathis v. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1893). A corporation cannot hold the direct- ors liable on stock which the corpora- tion issued to them for services, at five cents on the dollar, in lieu of salary, where all the stockholders assented thereto, such stock so i.ssued to them being treasury stock; that is, stock which was issued for property as full paid and then donated to the corporate treasury. The evidence showed that the stock represented a patent-right and was purely speculative, and had no market value. Divine v. Universal, etc. Co., 38 S. W. Rep. 93 (Tenn. 1896). Where all the stockholders unite in the issue of watered stock to the presi- dent for his own use, and assent to a contract between him and the company, the corporation itself cannot subse- quently complain. Arkansas, etc. Co. V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 13 Colo. 587 (1889). Cf. People v. Sterling, etc. Co., 82 111. 457 (1876), holding that the cor- poration may refuse to allow a transfer of watered stock. Although the incorporators of a New Jersey company have contracted to issue sixty per cent, of its stock to a per- §38.] 'WATEKED ' STOCK. [CH. III. for the par value of the stock.' The promoters of a company may so act as to put themselves into a fiduciary relationship towards the corporation and, in such cases, may be held liable to the corpo- ration for all profits made by them.'' son for two patents, yet the board of di- corporation for his individual indebted- rectors, after the company is organized may refuse to carry out the agreement, one patent being worthless and the other not having been perfected. The court said: " To justify a corporation in issuing stock under our act for property purchased, there should be an approxi- mation, at least, in true value of the thing purchased to the amount of the stock which it is supposed it repre- sents." Edgerton i\ Electric, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 354, 361 (1893). An agree- ment of the corporation with a stock- holder to pay to him in dividends the amount he pays for the stock cannot be enforced as an obligation of the corpo- ration. Smith V. Alabama, etc. Ass'n, 133 Ala. 538 (1899). Where a statute de- clares that stock issued for money or labor or property estimated at less than its true money value, actually received, equal to the par value of the stock, shall be void, and the secretary issues to himself and the president some stock for no considei'ation, and then sells such stock, the bondsmen for such secretary are not liable on account of such issue of stock, there being no suffi- cient allegation that the purchasers re- lied on the certificates, and were inno- cent of their general character, and that they exercised ordinary care. First Ave., etc. Co. v. Parker, 111 Wis. 1 (1901). A corporation cannot maintain a suit for the cancellation of illegally issued certificates of stock unless it alleges that it had the right to issue certificates of stock and that the certificates com- plained of will injure the corporation or its bona flde stockholders in some way. Reno, etc, Co. v. Culver, 60 N. Y. App Div. 139 (1901). Where the sole owner of the stock of a c*rporation executes the note of the ness, no one but the creditors of the corporation can complain. Millsaps v. Merchants', etc. Bank, 71 Miss. 361 (1893). See also § 3, supra. In Canada it has been held that even though stock was issued at twenty cents on the dol- lar, and purports to be paid-up stock, yet the corporation may levy assess- ments upon it and forfeit the stock for non-payment. North West Electric Co. V. Walsh, 39 Canada S. C. Rep. 33(1898). In Nova Scotia, where a subscriber sues a promoter for damages for fraud in ob- taining for himself stock and bonds illegally, the suit must be by the corpo- ration, or by the stockholder for its ben- efit if the corporation refuses to sue. Weatherbe v. Whitney, 30 Nova Scotia Rep. 49 (1897). Such claim cannot be joined with a personal claim for services rendered, etc. Weatherbe u Whitney, 80 Nova Scotia Rep. 104 (1897). 1 See g§ 46, 47, infra. '' See § 651, infra. Where promoters obtain an option on property for $75,000 and organize a company for 1100,000 capital stock, and as directors of the company, with other friendly directors, purchase the option for $100,000 and sell $75,000 of the stock at par and thereby have the remaining $35,000 of stock as profit, and the pur- chasers of the $75,000 of stock supposed that the actual price paid was $100,000, the corporation may compel such pro- moters to return and cancel the $35,000 of stock, and it is immaterial that the property was worth $100,000, the actual facts not having been disclosed to the corporation or its stockholders. The court said: "The promoter of a com- pany stands in the relation of a trustee to it and tho.se who become subscribers to its stock so long as he maintains the 103 OH. III.J •wateeed" stock. [§39. The corporation has also a remedy herein against its directors who issued the stock either fraudulently or in an ultra vires man- ■ ^ This liability is similar to their general liability to the cor- ner.^ poration for fraudulent, negligent or ultra vires acts on their part.' The measure of thejr liability herein is not the par value of the stock, less the value actually received therefor by the corporation, but it is the actual or market value of the stock, less the property or cash actually received by the corporation on the stock so issued. It has been held that the corporation cannot, in a court of equity, compel a person, who agreed to take stock at a discount, to carry out the contract, inasmuch as it is ultra vires? Where the corporation contracts to issue stock to a contractor for work to be done in the future, and such work is not completed, various complications arise. This subject, however, is considered elsewhere.* § 39. Stoclcholders participating in the act cannot complain. — Stockholders in a corporation, who participate or aid in the issue of paid-up stock, upon payment of less than its par value, or who power of control over it." Yeiser v. United States, etc. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 340 (1901). See 87 L. T. Rep. 488. Where promoters pay out less than §30,000 to secure options on land and then sell the options to a corporation f6r $700,000 of stock of the latter, the corporation assuming the purchase price of the land, and then issue a pro- spectus w hioh is misleading and does not state the facts about the issue of stock, and the corporation becomes insolvent, they are liable to the corporation for the fair market value of the stock at the time the stock was issued, or as soon thereafter as it had a market value. The liability is not for unpaid stock, but for fraud as promoters in making a secret profit in services and not making a full disclosure to the stockholders. The promoters owe a duty to future stockholders. The land need not be tendered hack. The pro- moters are to be credited with their actual disbursements and to be charged with the fair market value of the stock, with interest, and also with dividends. The suit should be brought by the cor- poration itself and not by its receiver, according to the Massachusetts decis- ions. Hayward v. Leeson, 57 N. E. Rep. 656 (Mass. 1900). Where the promoters paid to a person who is to act as chair- man of the directors, and his firm who underwrote 10,000 shares, a commission of 12,000 shares, the court held that 10.000 of the 13,000 was for the use of his name and only 2,000 shares for the commission, and hence he was liable, at the instance of an investor in the stock, to pay to the corporation the difference between the am6unt paid for the stock and its actual value the day after an allotment, the transaction not being fully disclosed in the prospec- tus. A clause in the prospectus that there " may " be various trade contracts and business arrangements and under- writers agreements, followed by the usual waiver as to them, does not apply to such a contract, inasmuch as the word " may " was misleading. Cackett v. Keswick, 85 L. T. Rep. 14 (1901); aff'd, 87 L. T. Rep. 11 (1902). 1 See § 48. 2 See Part IV. 3 West, rtc. Ry. v. Mowatt, 13 Jur., pt. I, 407 (1848). * See § 766c, ipfra. 103 §39.] "wateeed" stock. [oh. iti. have knowledge of the act and acquiesce therein, cannot afterwards complain of the transaction, either in their own behalf as stock- holders or creditors or in behalf of the corporation. They are bound by estoppel or acquiescence." 1 Where, by agreeraerit of all the stockholders, stock is issued to them at less than par, one of them cannot as a creditor of the company compel the others to pay for the stock in full. Richardson v. Chicago, etc. Co., 63 Pac. Rep. 74 (Cal. 1900). Although $1,500,000 of stock, issued as fully paid, and 11,500,000 in bonds are issued for the construction of a work which costs less than $1,500,000, yet an attorney who took part in the transaction cannot, as a creditor of the corporation, claim that the stock was not fully paid. Ten Eyck V. Pontiao, etc. R. R., 114 Mich. 494 (1897); 131 Fed. Rep. 720. A promoter who takes part in selling property to the corporation for stock, the par value of which is five times the amount paid by the promoters for the property, and who afterwards becomes a director and then sells his stock and becomes a creditor of the corporation, cannot hold the stockholders liable for the difference between its par value and the value of the property. Niorosi V. Calera L. Co., 115 Ala. 429 (1896). Where $59,000 of stock and $20,000 of bonds are issued for a gas plant worth $34,000 besides the franchise, a judg- ment creditor cannot hold the stock- holders liable on the stock where he himself is a stockholder and no charge of fraud is made. Woolfolk v. January, 131 Mo. 620 (1895). Stock may be issued for the good-will of a business, and a person who has taken part in the transaction cannot afterwards complain. Washburn v. National, etc. Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 17 (1897). In Be Gold Co., L. R. 11 Ch. D. 701, 712 (1879), the court says: " It could not be a fraud upon, or a wrong to, the existing shareholders, because every one of them was a party to the trans- action." See also Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (1881); Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 384 (1881); Hall v. Brooklyn El. R. R., N. Y. L. J., April 30, 1892; Kolsky v. Enslen, 103 Ala. 97 (1894). But in the case of Knowlton w. Congress, etc. Co., 14 Blatchf. 364, 868 (1877); S. G, 14 Fed. Cas. 797, the court said in a dictum: " Can there be any doubt that, up to the time of the abandonment of the scheme by the defendant, the plaintiff could have resorted to a court of equity and restrained further proceedings and va- cated the proceedings already taken? The cases are numerous where courts of equity have interfered to prevent the consummation of a wrong, upon the motion of a party who was instru- mental in its inception." Affirmed, Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49 (1880). The issue of stock in that case was held to be absolutely void by stat- ute. A participating stockholder cannot complain, even though he or his as- signee is a corporate creditor. Calla- nan v. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193 (1889); Lewis V. N. Y. etc. Iron Co., N. Y. L. J., April 30, 1890. A purchaser of stock that has voted for an issue of " watered " bonds and stock is estopped from complaining, even though the issue was prohibited by the constitution of the state (Penn- sylvania). Wood V. Corry, etc. Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 146 (1890). A purchaser of stock who voted in favor of a re-organization scheme can- not object to the scheme as being wKra vires, there being nothing illegal per se in it. HoUins v. St. Paul, etc. R. R., 9 N. Y. Supp. 909 (1889). In the case of Skinner v. Smith, 134 N. Y. 240 (1892), $40,000 of stock was is- sued for letters patent. Afterwards, with the consent of all the stockhold- ers, the transaction was rescinded, the 104 CH, III.J "•watered" stock. [§39. So also as to the parties who actually receive the stock at less than its par value. They are not allowed to repudiate the trans- action and recover from the corporation the money they may have stock being returned and the patents that they cannot be voted at a meeting retransferred. A license to manufact- ure under the patents was then trans- ferred to the company for $350,000 in stock. The court found that the trans- action was in good faith and with no intent to defraud future stockholders, and that the license was an adequate consideration for the stock. The court held that there was nothing illegal in the transaction. A stockholder cannot have a receiver appointed and mortgages set aside, where all the stock is "water,'' even though the controlling party has made the mortgages to himself and is about to sell the assets of the company to an- other company controlled by himself, and has levied an assessment on the stock of the old company in order to sell out the stock. Robinson v. Dolores, etfc. Co., 3 Colo. App. 17 (1893). A person to whom watered stock has been issued as full-paid stock is not such a bona fide stockholder as may oompel a creditor to return bonds which were illegally issued. The stock is void under the Wisconsin statutes. Hinck- ley V. Pfister, 83 Wi& 64 (1893). A conditional sale of stock, the con- dition being that the sale shall be com- plete for fifty cents on the dollar, when the stock 'is worth par, is valid. Until the stock is worth par no further sum is recoverable by a creditor who as a stockholder participated. Callanan V. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193 (1889). A person who buys stock in a com- pany, knowing that the stock was is- sued without consideration, cannot compel another stockholder to return his stock to the company for cancella- tion or to account for dividends. Clark V. American Coal Co., 86 Iowa, 436 (1893). A stockholder who, as secretary, signed certificates of stock cannot claim they were watered stock and hence called to ratify a sale of property to a director. Wisner v. Delhi, etc. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1333 (1894). Where three persons own all the stock of a company, two of them may buy the stock of the third and give the company's notes in partial payment for the same. The transaction is legal in- asmuch as no one is injured and all consent. Neither subsequent purchas- ers of the stock, nor those who become stockholders after the notes are paid, nor stockholders who consent to the arrangement, can complain of it. Schilling, etc. Co. v. Schneider, 110 Mo. 83 (1893). See also g 766, infra. Where about one-half of the capital stock is issued as full-paid stock for property, the real value of which is one-quarter of the par value of the stock, and then subsequently the re- maining stock is sold for cash at one- quarter of its par value, the remaining seventy-five cents on the dollar cannot be collected from the parties to whom the stock was issued for cash, as be- tween the stockholders and the corpo- ration, it having been agreed at the time of the issue, that the stock should be full-paid and non-assessable. Green V. Abietine, etc. Co., 96 Cal. 333 (1893). Even though the statutes of Virginia provide that stock shall not be issued at less than par, yet as between the corporation and its stockholders stock may be issued at less than par, the stockholder remaining liable to corpo- rate creditors for the difference. A stockholder is not debarred from suing another stockholder in regard to the stock merely because the stock was is- sued in this manner. The court said: " In the absence of a statute inflicting a penalty of some sort for issuing or receiving, as fully paid and non-assess- able, shares for which less than their 105 §39.] •watered" stock. [CH. III. already paid thereon.* Where the stockholders participating in the issue use the stock to rob a railroad and bribe a judge, and then disagree among themselves, the courts will not aid one as against the others." face value had been paid, or prohibit- ing its being done, we are not aware of any general principle which holds such a transaction to be fraudulent, or of moral turpitude, so as to prevent a party to such an act from having any standing in a court of equity. The penalty is that the stockholders to whom such shares are issued may be called upon, not, indeed, to pay their entire par value, but so much thereof as may be required to pay those cred- itors who had a right to look to the capital stock as a fund for the payment of their debts. Agreements not to re- quire payment for stocks issued have been regarded by the courts not as questions affected by public policy, but as questions between debtor and cred- itor, as to which each is controlled by the ordinary rules of law." Barcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. Rep. 783 (1898). The fact that a bank is a stockholder in a corporation which issued stock for property at an overvaluation does not compel such bank as a creditor of the corporation to resort to its collateral before sharing in the general assets. World, etc. Co. v. Hamilton-Kenwood, etc. Co., 123 Mich. 620 (1900). Even though directors sell property to the corporation in exchange for treasury stock which is issued to them at twelve and a half cents on a dollar, yet if they oflfer to allow all the stock- holders to purchase their proportion of the stock at that price, and they all take the stock excepting one director, the latter cannot object to the trans- action where he had himself moved that the stock be so issued. Mackey v. Burns. 64 Pac. Rep. 485 (Colo. 1901). 1 Even though a citizen of Massachu- setts subscribes and receives stock in a New Hampshire corporation at sixty 106 per cent, of its par value, and even though such stock has been declared void by a court in New Hampshire as being contrary to the statute, yet the subscriber cannot recover back the money paid if he has delayed eight years after the issue of stock before bringing suit. Hallett v. New Eng'and, etc. Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 217 (1900). The case of Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co., 59 Wis. 655 (1884), holds that a partici- pating subscriber cannot withdraw and recover back sums already paid. See also GoflE V. Hawkeye, etc. Co., 62 Iowa, 691 (1883). Knowlton i\ Congress, eta Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518, 537 (1874), holds the same, the court saying: "Such par- ties are left in the position they have placed themselves." The latter case was decided otherwise in the federal courts, — (Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Spring Co., 14 Blatchf. 364 (1877); s. c, 14 Fed. Cas. 797, and Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49 (1880),— it being there held that a I'eoovery might be had where others are repaid. A person to whom stock is issued for cash at a dis- count may sue to have his subscription canceled. Re Zoedone Co., 60 L. T. Rep. 383 (1889). Mandamus will not' issue to compel the issue of stock at a discount, in per- formance of a resolution by the stock- holders that such issue shall be made. Equity will not aid the fraud. State V. Timken, 48 N. J. L. 87 (1886). 2 Tobey v. Robinson, 99 111. 222 (1881). Although a stockholder has transferred certain stock to the president to be used to bribe governmental oflBcials in obtaining a renewal of governmental contracts with the corporation, yet the stockholder may recover back the stock, it not having been used for that pur- pose. Mulvane v. O'Brien, 58 Kan. 463- en. III.] ■WATEEED STOCK. [§40. § 40. Transferees of participating stockholders may complain, n-hen? — JJ^Tot only the participating and acquiescing stockholders, but also their transferees, are bound by the participation or acqui- escence. The transferee cannot claim to have greater rights than his transferrer, as regards a general remedy invalidating the whole transaction. He cannot bring suit in behalf of the corporation and other stockholders against the party or parties participating in the issue; inasmuch as his own title is tainted with the same fraud.* (1897). The courts will not aid a stock- holder as against directors' breaches of trust, where the business is illegal and the stock fictitious and " watered," Le Warne v. Meyer, 38 Fed. Rep. 191 (1889). Where an option to buy mining lands is sold to a Missouri corporation for $1,000,000 of stock, the promoters pay- ing practically nothing, the act is ille- gal under the Kansas constitution, and a suit by one of them against the cor- poration to obtain his share of the stock will faij. GaiTett v. Kansas, etc. Min. Co., 113Mo. 330 (1893). Where "watered" stock is issued to directors and then by common consent an assessment is levied on such stock, an agreement of one of them to cancel his stock is bind- injured, transferees of such stock can- not complain on the foreclosure of the mortgage securing the bonds. Wells v. Northern T. Co., 63 N. E. Rep. 136 (111. 1902). A purchaser at public auction of stock that has been issued below par cannot complain of the issue. Fraser. etc. Min. Co. v. Gallagher, 5 British Co- lumbia Rep. 82 (1895). A purchaser of stock issued to a contractor for work cannot attack the issue on the ground that it was watered stock, even though the contractors immediately sell a part of the stock and bonds at the rate of ninety cents on the dollar for the bonds, with nearly an equal amount of stock thrown in. Drake v. New York, etc. Co., 26 N. Y. App. 499 (1898). A bona ing on him and his transferees who took fide purchaser of tainted stock stands in with knowledge. Hill v. Atoka, etc. Min. Co., 134 Mo. 153 (1894). 1 See §§ 730, 735. infra; Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 111. 301 (1895); Parsons v. Hayes, 14 Abb. N. Cas. 419 (N. Y. Super. Ct., 1883); Nott v. Clews, 14 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 437 (1888); Ffooks v. South- western Ry., 1 Sm. & G. 143 (1853); Re British, etc. Box Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 467 (1881), holding that new stock also is bound; Flagler, etc. Co. v. Flagler, 19 Fed. Rep. 468 (1884); Re Syracuse, etc. R. R., 91 N. Y. 1 (1883): Kent v. Quick- silver Min. Co.. 78 N. Y. 159, 188 (1879); Callanan v. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193 (1889); Venner v. Atchison, etc. R. R., 38 Fed. Rep. 581, 591 (18861. Even though bonds and stock are issued for the con- struction of a road, the face value of which is twice the cost of the road, yet if all the stockholders consented and none of the creditors then existing are 107 no better position than his transferrer. Miller v. University, etc. Co., N. Y. L. J., Nov. 13, 1894. Even though a party ac- quires all the stock of a corporation amounting to $1,500,000, and then through dummy • directors issues §3,500,000 additionalstock andS4,000,000 of mortgage bonds to himself, and then proceeds to sell the stock and bonds to the public, yet a person who purchases some of the stock cannot file a bill in equity against the corporation to set aside the transaction and to ascertain what part of his stock is legal. His remedy is at law for damages, or he may repudiate and recover back his money. " It is elementary that the court is possessed of no power to make a new contract between parties entirely distinct and different from the contract that they have entered into." Church V. Citizens' Street R. R., 78 Fed. Rep. §40.] "wateeed" stock. [CH. III. Nor can he bring an action against the corporation.^ But the trans- feree is by no means without a remedy. It is a fraud on the vendee of stock to sell him as paid-up stock that which is notpaid up, al- though issued as paid up, the vendor having participated in the issue.^ He may bring an action for damages against those who, 536 (1897). The purchaser of stock which was issued to directors cannot complain that the directors were guilty of fraud in the issue. Barr v. New York, , etc. R. R., 125 N. Y. 263 (1891). See also Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5 (1883). Contra. Parsons v. Joseph, 92 Ala. 403 (1891). In Foster v. Seymour, 23 Fed. Rep. 65 (1885), an issue of stock for prop- erty at an overvaluation is distinctly held to be no fraud upon the corpora- tion, nor upon the stockholders, all of whom participated. "A purchaser of the stock would not be injured by the transaction unless he paid more for it than it was worth ; and every purchaser would stand upon the pai'ticular cir- cumstances of his purchase." A suit against the guilty parties who were the directors, to compel them to account for a fraudulent disposition of corporate property, will not lie. The fraud is not corporate ; it is personal. See also §g 705- 707. ''As a general proposition, the purchaser of stock in a corporation is not allowed to attack the acts and man- agement of the company prior to the acquisition of his stock." United Elect. Sec. Co. V. Louisiana Elect. Light Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 673(1895). But in London Trust Co. V. Mackenzie, 68 L. T. Rep. 880 (1893), the court said: " I think there is no authority for the general proposi- tion ,that an ordinary transferee of shares in a limited company is affected by the fact that his transferrer had knowledge which would have disabled him from suing." See 119 Fed. Rep. 203. iln Re Gold Co.. L. R, 11 Ch. D. 701 (1879), the court said: "It was not a wrong done by the company or to the company." In Re Ambrose Lake, etc. Min. Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390, 397 (1880), the court says: "There would be no liability on the part of the company as such." -'Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246 (1858); s. c, 23 Fed. Cas. 311, holding that the vendee is not liable on a note given in payment thereof; Fosdiok v. Sturges, 1 Biss. 255 (1858): S. a, 9 Fed. Cas. 501, holding that the vendee may recover back money paid; Reeve v. Dennett, 145 Mass. 33 (1887), where the capital of $1,000,000 was issued for a worthless patent; holding also that the misrep- resentations may invalidate also a sec- ond and subsequent purchase of stock, even though in the meantime the ven- dee has become a director in the cor- poration. It is a question for the jury whether fraud exists in the sale of stock, repre- sented to be paid up, when part of the payments had been by dividends from the corporation. Kryger v. Andrews, 65 Mich. 405 (1887). A purchaser of stock issued to a con- tractor for work cannot attack the is- sue on the ground that it was watered stock, even though the contractors im- mediately sell a part of the stock and bonds at the rate of ninety cents on the dollar for the bonds, with nearly an equal amount of stock thrown in. Drake v. New York, etc. Co., 26 N. Y. App. Div. 499 (1898). In the case of Reeve v. Dennett, 145 Mass. 33 (1887), where the capital of $1,000,000 was issued for a worthless patent, the court held that misrepre- sentations inducing a purchase of stock may invalidate also a second and sub- sequent purchase of stock, even though in the meantime the vendee has be- come a director in the corporation. Even though the agent of a corpora- tion represents to it that a party owns 108 OH. ni.J ' WATERED " STOCK. [§4a. knowing the facts, induced him to purchase, or those who made it possible for the fraud to be practiced, or who actually assisted in, perpetrating the fraud upon him.^ The transferee has other remedies. If the transfer to him was from one of the participants, he may rescind the transf^ and certain property and will sell it to the corporation for $7,500 in bonds and $:J0,000 in stock, and the purchase is made on those terms, and the vendor keeps the bonds and gives the stock to such agent, and the agent sells a por- tion of the stocjs to a bona fide pur- chasei', yet the latter cannot rescind the sale on the ground of fraud. Fou- shee V. Snyder, 54 S. W. Rep. 730 (Ky. 1900). A person wlio deeds land in ex- change for stock which is represented to be full-paid may have the sale re- scinded where only $3 a share had been paid in on the stock. Coolidge v. Rhodes, 64 N. E. Rep. 1074 (111. 1903). 1 The leading case on this principle of law is Cross v. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr. 347 (1858), argued by eminent counsel and decided by learned judges. A bona fide purchaser in open market, from an innocent holder of stock issued as paid 'ip for property taken at an overvalua- Mon, sued a director, being also an original^tockholder. for damages. The court in its decision said: "When a party projects and publicly promul- gates the scheme of a joint-stock com- pany; when he causes the usual books to be opened, and allows or causes the inscription of a person as an owner of an interest to a definite amount and value therein, which is false within his own knowledge; when he embodies such false statements in a certificate of this right directly issued and of the same effect as if signed by himself; when he accompanies that certificate by a written power authorizing a trans- fer at large by the party to whom he has given the certificate; when that representation induces an innocent per- son to advance his money, — the de- fendant's own individual act has cre- ated the privity of contract, . . . and he must be held responsible to any one who lias been deceived." See alsa § 350, infra. The plaintiff must prove that a rep- resentation was made that the stock was paid up, and that he relied thereon,. ^ and that the representation was false and fraudulent. McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa. St. 136 (1868); Priest v. White, 89 Mo. 609 (1886). The court, in In re Ambrose Lake, etc. Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390, 397 (1880), said that the transferee has a remedy against the person who, in any way, made the misrepresentations to him. Re Gold Co., L. R. 11 Ch. D. 701, 713, 714 (1879), is to the same effect. In Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 537 (1880), the plaintiff, being under contract to receive paid-up stock from defendants, received such, and afterwai'ds discov- ered that its par value had not been paid in to the corporation. The court held that he could recover damages from the defendant for the fraud. Where after incorporation and before a business is turned over the owner of the business gets money of an incorpo- rator and delivers a certificate of full- paid stock in payment, although the stock has never been paid up, the for- mer is not a debtor to the latter, al- though the business is never turned over to the company. Re Frye, 75 Hun, 403 (1894). A suit by the pur- chaser of stock for damages for fraud, in that the stock had been fraudu- lently paid up by property conveyed to the corporation at an overvaluation, is barred by the statute of limitations ap- plicable to, frauds. Smith v. Martin, 6T Pao. Rep. 779 (Cal. 1901). 109 §41.j 'WATEEED ' STOCK. [CH. III. recover back the price paid by him ; ^ or, if the contract of pur- chase is not yet completed, he may refuse to take the stock.^ § 41. Stocliliolders dissenting at the time of the issue may com- plain. — Stockholders, being such when an issue of paid-up stock is improperly made, and not assenting to or acquiescing in it, may bring suit in a court of equity to annul and set aside the whole transaction.' The court has power to cancel the issue.* "Where 1 Fosdick V. Sturgess, 1 Biss. 255(1858); s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 501. In this case the certificate was brought into court to be disposed of as the court should direct. See also § 350, infra. 2 Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 846, 253 (1858); s. c, 23 Fed. Cas. 311, 314, the court holding that an action for the price of such stock is in the nature of a bill in equity for the specific per- formance of a contract, and the de- fendant may defeat it by avoiding the contract altogether, although the cer- tificates have been transferred to him. To same effect, Coolidge v. Goddard, 77 Me. 579 (1885). Even though the stat- utes of a state require stock to be is- sued at par, yet where property has been turned in for stpck at a gross overvaluation, the court will not pre- sume that the price to be paid by the vendee of stock to the vendor of such stock is par. Troendle v. Van Nort- wick, 98 Fed. Rep. 785 (1900). 3 In Fisk V. Chicago, etc. R R., 53 Barb. 513 (1868), the court enjoined any transfer of the stock, and appointed a receiver to receive what the corpora tion had realized from the stock, and to use the funds in retiring the stock and paying damages caused thereby. In Sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246, 254 (1858); s. c, 23 Fed. Cas. 311, 314, and Fosdick v. Sturges, 1 Biss. 255, 259 (1858); s. C, 9 Fed. Cas. 501, 503, the court in dicta said that the issue could be withdrawn, leaving with the guilty parties so much stock as the money paid by them would equal the par value of. _ The federal court in New * Campbell v. Morgan, 4 Bradw. (111.) 100 (1879). A court of equity has power to decree the return and cancellation of certificates of stock fraudulently is- sued. Gibson v. Thornton, 112 Ga. 328 (1900). A dissenting stockholder may cause an issue of stock to be canceled where it was issued for land at five times its real value, and then the capital stock was doubled and the increase issued for nothing. Parsons v. Joseph, 92 Ala. 403 (1891). A dissenting stockholder may cause to be canceled certain stock which was issued without consideration to a con- struction company in whiqh the direct- ors are interested. Gilman, etc. R. H, V. Kelly, 77 111. 426 (1875). Where the president, in order to get control of the corporation, causes a meeting of the board of directors to 110 vote stock in payment for services and property whose value is much less than ■ the par value of the stock, the stock being voted to outside parties, but thereafter secretly transferred to the president, a stockholder may compel him to return the stock to the corpora- tion for cancellation. Such an issue is also illegal by the statutory law of the state in Alabama. Perry v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 98 Ala. 364 (1891). The issue of new stock by the corpo- ration cannot be enjoined where neither the corporation nor any of its directors are parties to the action. White v. Wood, 139 N. Y. 527 (1892). A distribu- tion gratis of stock among the stock- holders has been held to be an unau- thorized reduction of the capital stock, and it will be ordered to be returned. Holmes v. Newcastle, etc. Co., L. R. 1 Ch. D. 683 (1875). CH. III.] "watered" stock. [§41. directors issue new stock to their friends at leSs than par and without offering it to the existing stockholders, the object being to control a coming election, the election will be enjoined and Jersey has no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a Pennsylvania stockholder in a New Jersey corporation to enjoin the latter and its directors who are residents of still another state from is- suing stock on an alleged illegal con- tract. Lengel v. American, etc. Co., 110 Fed. Rep. 19 (1901). A stockholder who brings a suit against parties who have received from the corporation §3,000,000 of stock for $10,000 worth of patents may examine the defendants before trial in order to prove what the patents ^ere worth. Insurance Press v. Mon- tauk, etc. Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 50 <1902). Where the statute authorizing consolidation specifies that the consoli- dated capital stock shall not be more than the " fair aggregate value " of the property, a stockholder may enjoin a consolidation whose capital stock is far in excess of a fair value of the prop- erty. Langan v. Franoklyn, 20 N. Y. Supp. 404 (1893). Stockholders may restrain the issue of deferred " bonds," i. e. irredeemable bonds entitling the holder to interest after a certain dividend is paid to the stockholders, it being merely a scheme to issue stock below par. Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R, 7 Fed. Rep. 886 (1881). Compare § 763, infra. A mi- nority stockholder cannot enjoin the company from issuing its stock in pay- ment for the stock of other similar companies on the ground that the price to be paid is excessive and that three of the directors are interested as stock- holders in the other companies, where he does not prove that the price is excess- ive, and it appears that the stock- holders will have to approve the trans- action before the directors can issue the stock, and it appears also that the plaintiff owns but a very small amount of the stock. Geer v. Amalgamated, etc. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 364 (1901). Where 111 the chief promoter of a proposed manu- facturing corporation obtains dona- tions from property owners to the pro- posed corporation on his agreement that $75,000 of stock should be sub- scribed for within a certain time and then proceeds to organize the company, he himself subscribing for $35,000 of the stock, and the corporation then purchases certain worthless patents and agency contracts and issues there- for 163,330 of full-paid stock, including the $25,000 subscribed for by him, and afterwards the corporation collects $4,000 of such donations and borrows money from such promoter and gives him a mortgage therefor, his mortgage is not good as against the parties who donated the $4,000. Moore v. Universal, etc. Co., 133 Mich. 48 (1899). A person induced to subscribe for stock on the representation of the president that the other stockholders had paid for their stock in full may defend against the subscription on the ground that the other stockholders had not and were not to pay anything for their stock. Alabama, etc. Works v. Dallas, 137 Ala. 518 (1900). A party who has invested $15,000 in obtaining a bridge franchise, and for plans and specifications, and who transfers the same to another party on an agreement of the latter to organ- ize a corporation to build the bridge and to give to the former $13,000 out of $80,000 preferred stock, the common stock to be such sum as the latter may desire, may object to the latter causing the corporation to issue $95,000 in bonds, $80j000 in preferred stock, and $60,000 in common stock for building tlie bridge at a cost of $71,000; but if the former takes his |15,000 preferred stock and keeps it for six years, he cannot then complain. Jutte v. Hutchinson, 189 Pa. St. S18 (1899). A stockholder may enjoin the issue of stock for prop- § 41-1 ■ WATERED " STOCK. [CH. III. the issue set aslde.^ A stockholder in a New Jersey corporation may bring suit in the New York state courts to compel persons holding a majority of the stock to return to the corporation for cancellation a large amount of stock which was issued to them illegally and without consideration, but the legality of such issue will not be determined by the statutes of New York.^ The dissent- ing stockholders' rights and remedies herein, in their scope and details, are similar to the rights and remedies of stockholders in other cases of ultra vires acts or fraud to the injury of the corpo- ration — a subject fully treated in the fourth part of this work.' A suit to determine what stock is watered stock and also to set aside transactions by which the corporate property has been misapplied is multifarious.* Laches is a bar to a dissenting stockholder's suit.' erty at an overvaluation. Dean v. Bald- win, 99 111. App. 582 (1903). 1 Way V. American, etc. Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 263 (1900). See also g 614, infra. Dissenting stockholders may file a bill to obtain a cancellation of stock issued in payment for patents to engage in business outside of the territory de- scribed in the charter, the real purpose being to obtain the vote on the stock. Kimball v. New England, etc. Co., 69 N. H. 485 (1899). Where unissued shares of the par value of 11. each are worth about il. each and a portion thereof are offered to the stockholders at Zl. 10s. each, and an option on the balance is given to underwriters at the same price in consideration of the underwriters agreeing to take such of the stock as is offered to the stockholders and is not taken by the latter, a minority stock- holder may enjoin the carrying out of such option to the underwriters, it being in violation of the English stat- ute prohibiting the payment of a com- mission for underwriting subscriptions. Burrows v. Matabele, etc. Co., [1901] 3 Ch. 23. 2 Ernst V. Rutherford, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. App. Div. 388 (1899). 3 See ch. XL, infra. * Church V. Citizens' Street E. R., 78 Fed. Rep, 526 (1897). Subscribers to stock may rescind the same on the ground that promoters, who sold prop- 112 erty to the company, had misrepre- sented the character of the property. This suit may be in equity and is not multifarious, although the relief de- manded is a cancellation of the sale of the property and for damages against the vendors and co-conspirators, and also for rescission of the subscription. Such a suit lies, although the sub- scribers paid in only $150,000 of cash for $450,000 of stock. Rule 94 of the federal courts does not apply to such a case. Barcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. Rep. 783 (1898). 5 Where the directors sell unissued stock at a discount to a party who re- sells part of it to a director, other stock- holders cannot, ten years afterwards, hold him liabla Keeney v. Converse, 99 Mich. 316 (1894). Where a worthless equity of redemp- tion in land is turned in for stock and then the stock is pledged with the mort- gagee of the land, and then "scrip" is taken from the corporation by the parties pledging the stock, this scrip reciting that it represented the equity of the right to the certificates of stock when the mortgage was paid off, such scrip is valid and may be sold, even though it was issued without consid- eration, it having been treated as valid fqr twenty years. Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 111. 301 (1895). Laches on the part o'f the dissenting CH. III.] " WATERED " STOCK. [§ 42. A dissenting stockholder cannot obtain a dissolution of the com- pany on the ground that stock has been issued at a discount for cash.^ § 42. Corporate creditors as complainants ivhere the issue is for money. — According to well-established rules of law in America, corporate creditors may object to certain transactions, which, as between the corporation and its stockholders and third persons, may be valid and binding. This right of corporate creditors is firmly established in law. It is based on the contract, express or implied, that a subscription for or taking of stock creates an obligation to pay for the same at par, except as to parties who have expressly or impliedly waived this obligation. Where stock is issued for property the above principle of law does not afford much protection to corporate creditors, inasmuch as the prevailing rule is that even though the property is overvalued, yet that rescis- sion is the only remedy, the stock being returned and canceled and the property returned to the vendor.^ That subject is considered else- where; the subject now under consideration being an issue of stock for cash at less than its par value. The law is well settled that although an issue of stock is for cash, under an agreement that only part of the par value need be paid, yet that corporate credit- ors may compel the persons receiving the stock to pay the unpaid par value.' The fact that the corporation issued the stock as fully stockholder will bar his remedy. Tay- contract whereby stockholders are to lor V. South, eta R. R., 13 Fed. Rep. 153 pay but part of the par value of their (1883). stock to the corporation, " though bind- Thirty years' delay on the part of a ing on the company, is a fraud in dissenting stockholder is fatal. Fostey law on its creditors, which they can set V. Belcher's, etc. Co., 118 Mo. 238 (1893). aside; when their rights intervene and See also ch. XLIV, infra. their claims are to be satisfied, the 1 Re Pioneers', etc. Syndicate, 68 L. stockholders can be required to pay T. Rep. 163 (1893); Re Gold Co., L. R. 11 theirstook in full." Upton v. Tribilcock, Ch. D. 701 (1879); Morrison v. Globe 91 D. S. 45 (1875), is the first of a series Panorama Co., 28 Fed. Rep. 817 (1886); of cases growing out of the failure of Re Mashonaland Pioneers, L. R 1 Ch. the Great Western Insurance Company 731 (1893). of Illinois. The other cases are Sanger 2 See § 46. infra. v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Webster v. 'The leading case on this point is Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875); Chubb v. Up- Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 466, 499 ton, 95 U. S. 665 (1877); Pullman v. Up- (1846), where the court said : " The de- ton, 96 D. S. 828 (1877); Hawley v. Upton, fendant being liable by force of his 102 U. 8.814(1880); Upton r. Burnham, subscription for the stock, the resolu- 8 Biss. 431 (1873); s. c, 8 Biss. 520; s. c, tion of the directors . , . not to 28 Fed. Cas. 831, and Upton v. -Hans- make any further calls upon the shares brough, 3 Biss. 417 (1873); s. c, 28 Fed> was unavailing to discharge his obli- Cas. 839; Great Western Tel. Co. v. Gray, gation in respect of the association and 122 111. 630 (1887). This series of cases es- its creditors." In Scovill u Thayer, 105 tablished for the federal courts the rule U. S. 143 (1881), the court said that a given above. A stockholder may file a 8 113 §42.] "watered" stock. [oh. III. paid does not prevent creditors holding liable for the unpaid par value the person to whom it viras issued.^ A resolution by a corporation that upon the stockholders paying in a portion of the par value of the stock the capital shall be deemed bill in equity to reTiew an assessment obtained by a receiver of an insolvent corporation vrhere the claim upon ■which the receivership is based and all the proceedings subseq'uent thereto are permeated vs^ith fraud. Farwell v. Great West. Tel. Co.. 161 III. 522 (1896), re- vievi?ing in full the twenty years liti- gation growing out of the Insolvency of the Great Western Telegraph Com- pany. Even though there is no writ- ten contract of subscription, but the stock is issued on an oral agreement that the parties taking it should pay only twenty cents on a doUai*. yet this is a subscription, and not a sale, and on the insolvency of the corporation the parties are liable for the remaining eighty cents on a dollar. Vermont, etc. Co. V. Deolez, etc. Co., 67 Pac. Rep. 1057 (Cal. 1903). An original issue of stock at fifty per cent, of its par value does not prevent a receiver of the corpora- tion collecting the remaining fifty per cent. New Haven T. Co. ■;;. Gaflfney, 47 Atl. Rep. 760 (Conn. 1901). Where stock is issued for cash at less than par, the party receiving it is liable to corporate creditors for the difference. lie Thun- der Hill Min. Co., 4 British Columbia Rep. 61 (1895). Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. Rep. 785 (1881), gives a full review of the American and English doctrine herein. See also Be Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. Rep. 334 (1883); Union, etc. Ins. Co. V. Frear Stone Mfg. Co., 97 111. 537 (1881); Hickljng v. Wilson, 104 111. 54 (1882); Northrop y. Bushnell, 38 Conn. 498 (1871); Eyerman v. Krieokhaus, 7 Mo. App. 455 (1879); Skrainka v. Allen, 7 Mo. App. 434 (1879); Pickerings Tem- pleton, 2 Mo. App. 424 (1876); Christen- sen V. Eno, 21 Weekly Dig. 202 (1885); Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 (1850); Myers v. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bank. Reg. 411 (1874): S.C., 17 Fed. Cas. 1118. Although the statutes authorize the directors to dispose of the capital stock at any time remaining unpaid in such manner as the by-laws may prescribe, yet this does not authorize the issue of stock for cash at less than par. Mathis v. Prid- ham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). A resolution discharging stockhold-, ers from all liability on stock after thirty per cent, of the par value has been paid, and then suffering a forfeit- ure of the stock, is void, so far as cor- porate creditors are concerned. Slee V. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456 (1832). Where the directors of an insurance company issue to themselves all the stock at one-third of its par value, and upon an increase of the capital vote to themselves, for services in selling the increase, one share for every two shares sold, they are liable upon corporate in- solvency for the unpaid par value of the first issue, and the par value of the stock received as compensation. Their transferee with notice was held liable. Freeman v. Stine, 15 Phila- 37 (1881). An agreement between a corporation and subscribers for its stock that only a certain portion of the par value of the stock shall be collected by the corpora- tion is binding upon the corporation, but not upon the corporate creditors, unless such agreement was made a part of the recorded articles of incorpora- tion, under the Indiana statutes. Bent V. TJnderdown, 156 Ind. 516 (1901). Where stock is issued for property, but at an agreed price of fifty cents on the dollar for the stock, the certificates of stock not purporting to be full paid, the party is liable to corporate creditors for the other fifty cents on the dollar. Stock- ton, etc. Co. V. Houser, 109 Cal. 1 (1895). 1 Dickerman v. Northern T. Co., 176 U. S. 181, 208 (1900). 114 OH. III.] "WATERED" STOCK. [§42. to be fully paid is wholly ineffectual as against the creditors of the company.' But after subscriptions to stocli have been made, pay- able in cash, the company' may receive land from a third party in payment of the balance due on such subscriptions, and such pay- ment may be sufiBcient, even though the land turns out to have been overvalued.^ A corporation in order to retain the services of em- ployees to be rendered thereafter may issue stock at eighty-five cents in cash, the remaining fifteen cents to be paid for by such services.' Such a transaction is the same as issuing stock for prop- erty, services being property in that connection.* A representation of the corporate agents to the person receiving the stock, that full payment will not be required, is immaterial, and constitutes no de- fense.' 1 " It is the settled doctrine of this court that the trust arising in favor of creditors by subscriptions to the stock of a corporation cannot be defeated by a simulated payment of such subscrip- tion, nor by any device shortof an actual payment in good faith. And while any settlement or satisfaction of such sub- scription may be good as between the corporation and the stockholders, it is unavailing as against the claims of the creditors. Nothing that was said in the recent cases of Clark v. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 (1891): Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118 (1891); or Handley t>. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 (1891), was intended to overrule or qualify in any way the wholesome prin- ciple adopted by this court in the ear- lier cases, especially as applied to the original subscribers to stock. The later cases were only intended to draw a line beyond which the court was unwilling to go in a£Sxing a liability upon those who had purchased stock of the corpo- ration, or had taken it in good faith in satisfaction of their demands.'' Cam- den V. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104 (1892); Mathis V. Pridiiam, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892); Libby v. Mt. Monadnock, etc. Co., 32 AtL Eep. 772 (N. H. 1894); Nenny v. Waddill, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 344 (1894)i Persons taking stock from the corpo- ration for cash at forty cents on the dollar cannot avoid liability to corpo- rate creditors for the remaining sixty cents by setting up that unknown to 115 them the stock had previously been is- sued to a contractor for work to be done, and that he appointed the corpo- ration his agent to sell the stock at forty cents on the dollar. The subscription to the stock was an original subscrip- tion and bound them. Bates v. Great Western Tel. Co., 134111. 536 (1890). Where property is sold to the com- pany for stock and cash, the cash may by the terms of the sale be applied in payment of other subscriptions. Re Jones, etc. Co., L. R. 41 Ch. D. 159 (1889). Where stock is issued for cash at fifty cents on the dollar by a corporation, corporate creditors may compel the stockholders to pay the remaining fifty cents. Guer'ney i\ Moore, 131 Mo. 650 (1895); Barron v. BurrUl, 86 Me. 66 (1893). 2 Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St 413 (1856> In the case of Siegel v. Andrews & Co., 181 111. 350 (1899), where the purchasers of a patent right for $15,000 organized a corporation and personally subscribed for $100,000 of its stock and subse- quently paid therefor by turning in the patent right, the court held that each stockholder was liable for the par value of his stock less fifteen per cent., and that a judgment creditor might sue any one or more of the stockholders. ' Potter V. Necedah, etc. Ca, 105 Wis. 25 (1899). * See § 20, supra. 5 Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 §42.] "WATEEED" STOCK. [CH. III. In order to enforce a liability where stock is issued as full-paid stock for cash at less than the par value, it is not necessary to prove that fraud entered into the transaction, since there is no possibility of mistaken judgment as to the value of the cash received in pay- ment.^ " Treasury stock," however, may be sold below par.^ Par- tially paid-up stock may be made fully paid-up stock by applying profits thereto instead of declaring dividends.' But a payment of the subscription price by what purports to be a dividend or distri- bution of profits is invalid as against creditors, where such profits- do not exist.^ It is legal for the company to pay a cash commission to a person who procures subscriptions, even though that commission is de- ducted from the subscription price.' Where one company sells property to another company, the con- sideration may be stock of the latter company and also a right on (1875); OgUvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. subscribers for stock in partial payment 380 (1859)^ iFlinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. Rep. 785 (1881). It has been held that the custom of the country will exempt stoclsholders from liability on stock issued as paid up when it was not paid up. Such a decision, however, is inconsistent with the great weight of authority, and must be considered poor law. iJe South Mountain, etc. Co., 7 Saw- yer. 30 (1881); s. C, 5 Fed. Rep. 403. In this case it is stated that corporate cred- itors were protected " by the personal liability of each shareholder for his 'pro rata share of the indebtedness of the corporation." See comments on this case, supra, § 30. The English rule is now the same as the American. See g 42, supra. Where the capital stock is reduced, and subscribers cancel unpaid subscrip- tions and take paid-up stock to the ex- tent of their payments on the old stock, old corporate creditors may hold them liable on the former. Re State Ins. Co, 14 Fed. Rep. 28 (1882). 2 See g 46, infra. 'Kryger v. Andrews, 65 Mich. 405 (1887); Kenton, etc. Co. v. McAlpin, 5 Fed. Rep. 737 (1880). See also § 170, infra. A bonus paid by citizens may be used by for their stock, unless the bonus was made directly to the corporation. Mc- Dermott v. Squier, 124 Mich. 523 (1900). « Gager v. Paul, 111 Wis. 638 (1901). 8 In Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, v, Scrimgeour, [1895] 2 Q. B. 604, a com- mission of five shillings per share on preferred stock and sixpence per share on common stock paid to brokers was held to be legal although the practical result was the issue of stock below par. A corporation may legally agree to pay to a person a commission of ten per cent, in stock on all subscriptions, to stock which he obtains. Zabel v.. New State, etc. Co., 86 N. W. Rep. 949 (Mich. 1901). A corporation may agree to give> $5,000 of stock to one who will borrow $15,000 for it. Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens, 13 Colo. 534 (1889). A commission of fifteen per cent, may be paid by the company to those who agree to take all the stock not sub- scribed for by the publia Jte Licensed Victuallers', etc. Assoc, L. R. 42 Ch. D. 1 (1889). Stock for $59,800 issued to a person, as a commission for selling $85,000 of bonds does not necessarily render him liable, there being no subscription by him. Unless fraudulent overvaluation. 116 CH. in.J "wateeed" stock. [§42. the part of stockholders in the former company to subscribe for stock in the latter company below par.^ Where stock is given by the company gratuitously as a " bonus " to persons who are in- duced thereby to purchase the bonds of the company, it has been held that such persons are liable to corporate creditors for the par value of such stock ;^ but in New York a different rule prevails and the stockholder is not liable.' is proven he is not liable, and, even if liable, is liable only for the mai-ket value of the stock. Jones v. Whit worth, 94 Tenn. 602 (1895). In McNulta v. Corn Belt Bank, 164 111. 437 (1897), the president sued to re- In Maine it was held that where property purchased by individuals for $6,666.67 was turned in to the corpora- tion for $240,000 of full-paid stock, the stockholders are liable on the stock as though the subscription price had not been paid. This decision was made under the, statute that property shall be taken " at a bona fide and fair valu- ation thereof." In this case a part of the stock was turned back as treasury stock and sold at a small figure. The court expressly stated that its decision was based on the statute and that alone. 156 OH. III.J [§ 47. In Wisconsin the statute prohibits the issue of stock at less than par, and prohibits the issue of bonds at less than seventy -five cents on the dollar.' Libby v. Tobey, 82 Me. 397 (1890). The liability of subscribers for stock under the Maine statutes where the stock is not properly paid up cannot be enforced in the federal courts by a suit in equity, even though the statutes of Maine au- thorize such a suit. Alderson v. Dole, 74 Fed. Eep. 39 (1896). Under the stat- utes of Maine a corporate creditor was able, to the extent of his claim, to re- cover from a person to whom stock was issued for property the difference be- tween the par value of the stock and the actual value of the property, even though such property was taken in good faith. It was held that the creditors were entitled to go behind even the hon- est opinion of the parties as to the value of the property. Such liability may be enforced by the creditors or by assignees appointed by the court, but such liability is secondary and can be enforced only after the corporate assets have been exhausted and the exact de- ficiency ascertained. Gillin v. Sawyer, 93 Me. 151 (1899). iThe Wisconsin statute that bonds should not be issued for less than sev- enty-five per cent of their par value does not apply to a transaction where old bonds are placed under a new mortgage and the holders of the old bonds receive new bonds in lieu thereof. Mowry v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 38 (1896). Under the Wisconsin statute, if an issue of stock as collateral for a debt of the company is illegal, the stock is void, and the holder thereof is not lia- ble to corporate creditors who were not especially misled by his conduct. An- drews V. National, etc. Works, 76 Fed. Rep. 166 (1896). Of. 93 N. W. Eep. 9. Bonds issued by a corporation as col- lateral for a debt will not be ordered to be canceled because issued in violation of the state statute requiring payment in money or property of a certain per- centage of their face value, unless the money received by the company upon the pledge of the bonds had been re- paid or otherwise secured. Andrews v. National, etc. Works, 76 Fed. Eep. 166 (i8-;i). V nder this statute stockholders who- paid for their stock by turning in min- ing property known to them to be worth only one-tenth of the par value of the stock are liable for the remain- ing nine-tenths of the par value to corporate creditors. The question of whether the creditors knew all the facts is a matter to be set up in defense. Gogetic Inv. Co. v. Iron Chief Min. Co., 78 Wis. 437 (1891). Where a statute declares that stock issued for money or labor or property estimated at less than its true money value, actually received, equal to the par value of the stock, shall be void, and the secretary issues to himself and the president some stock for no con- sideration, and then sells such stock, the bondsmen for such secretary are not liable on account of such issue of stock, there being no sufficient allega- tion that the purchasers relied on the certificates and were innocent of their general character and that they exer- cised ordinary care. First Ave. etc. Co. V. Parker, 111 Wis. 1 (1901). Where a person owns land subject to a mort- gage for its full value, and transfers his equity to a new corporation for $700,000, the fact that the board of di- rectors had authorized the purchase of the laud for $1,000,000 of stock does not prove that $700,000 of stock was le- gally issued for such equity. Heinze V. South, etc. Co., 109 Wis. 99 (1901). Where parties who suppose they own a timber tract worth $500,000 sell the same to a corporation for $500,000 full- paid stock, and it afterwards transpires 157 %m 'WATEEED" STOCK. [CH. III. A statute prohibiting the sale of stock below par does not prevent the corporation from pledging it, and a sale of the stock by the pledgee below its par value is legal.'^^ Minnesota also has a statute on this subject,* and in Tennessee, that their title is defective as to a part of the property, and the oorporation in order to perfect the title pays out ^215,000, although the stock actually issued for that part of the property was only $55,000, the parties to whom the stock was so issued are liable only for the $55,000, especially where a settle- ment has been made with some of them on that basis. A contract between the original parties by which some guar- anteed others against liability on ac- count of any defects in the title cannot be enforced by the corporation, and hence cannot be made the basis of the measure of damages. On the other hand, the parties receiving the $55,000 of stock cannot return it and avoid lia- bility on the ground that the consider- ation for the issue of the stock had failed. If the stockholders are few in number the court may decree payment directly to the stockholders who com- plain and directly to such of the stock- holders who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the $55,000. Jen- kins V. Bradley, 104 Wis. 540 (1899). Where a national bank and two of the directors are secretly interested in the profit made by selling property to a cor- poration for stock the corporation may hold them liable for such profit. The defense of ultra vires on the part of the bank is not good. Zinc, etc. Co. v. First, etc. Bank, 103 Wis. 125 (1899). Where promoters purchase a saw-mill plant for $80,000, and pay therefor in a purchase-money mortgage, and then :sell the equity of redemption to a cor- poration for $60,000 of stock, the corpo- ration assuming the $20,000 mortgage, it is for the jury to say whether the property was fraudulently and substan- tially overvalued for the purpose of imposing on the business public, and if ;S0, such promoters are liable to corpo- rate creditors, but if not, they are not liable even though the equity of re- demption was not worth the par value of the stock. National Bank v. Illinois, etc. Lumber Co., 101 Wis. 247 (1898). 1 See § 465, infra. 2 In the case of Brown v. Duluth, etc. Ey., 53 Fed. Rep. 889 (1893), the court refused to enjoin an issue of stock and refused to cancel stock already issued, although $900,000 of bonds and $945,000 of stock were issued for construction work which cost $580,000. The court so held, although the statute required the stock to be fully paid, and prohibited issues except for property actually re- ceived. The plaintiff, however, was a holder who purchased with full knowl- edge of the facts. The court said: "This statute was not intended to prevent or interfere with the usual method of rais- ing money to build railroads or for any legitimate corporate purpose. It is not to be construed as obstructive to the extent of restricting and hampering corporations in their internal manage- ment, and embarrass them in procuring means to carry out the legitimate pur- poses of the corporation; and unless it appears that, under the guise of build- ing its road, bonds and stock of the de- fendant company are to be issued and put upon the market fraudulently that do not and are not intended to repre- sent money and property, this corpora- tion is not prohibited from entering into a real transaction based upon a present consideration, and having refer- ence to legitimate corporate purposes." The court also said that " such a pro- vision does not necessarily indicate a purpose to make the validity of every issue of stock or bonds by a corporation depend upon the inquiry whether the money, property, or labor actually re- ceived therefor was of equal value in 158 OH. III.] "watered" stock. [§47. by statute, the property received must be "at a fair valuation."' In Nevy Jersey there is a statute applicable to stock in railroad the market with the stock or bonds so issued." In First Nat. Bank v. Gustin, etc. Co., 42 Minn. 327 (1890), there is a dictum to the effect that in certain cases bona fide creditors may enforce payment of the difference between par value of the stock and the real value of the property turned in as payment for it in full. In Minnesota it is held that where stock is issued for property materially overvalued, to the knowledge of the contracting parties, the stockholders are liable to subsequent corporate credit- ors (who became such without notice) for the difference between the par value of the stock and the real value of the property. Hastings Malting Co. v. Iron Range Brewing Co., 65 Minn. 28 (1896). In this case the property received was worth 118,000 and was paid for by the issue of $30,000 par value of stock. A person purchasing stock issued for cash at less than par is liable thereon if he purchased with knowledge of the facts, even though the stock purports to be paid up. The statute of Minnesota which apparently authorized the issue of stock at less than par was construed away by the court and the issue of stock at less than par declared illegal. Hence, where a company issues $400,000 of stock for $5,000 and a license to manufacture and sell machinery under certain patents, the entire value of the latter being not more than $130,000, the issue is fraudulent and the stockholders are liable for the $370,000 diflEerenoe. Wallace v. Carpenter Electric, etc. Co., 70 Minn. 321 (1897). 1 Under the Tennessee statutes that only cash or land " at a fair valuation " shall be received in payment for stock, the fact that the land was overvalued is insufficient. There must be proof of an "overvaluation which was inten- tionally fraudulent, or which was so gross as to be constructively fraudu- lent, as against corporate creditors." Jones u Whitworth, 94 Tenu. 602 (1895). Where land is bought for $125,000, and $35,000 thereof is paid, and then the land is conveyed to a corporation, subject to the $90,000 lien, for $250,000 of stock, this amounts to turning out $350,000 of stock for an equity that cost $35,000. Nevertheless, the stock- holders are not liable unless overvalua- tion is alleged and proved. Shields v. Clifton Hill Laud Co., 94 Tenn. 133 (1894). To same effect, Kelley v. Fletcher, 94 Tenn. 1 (1894). A receiver must obtain special permission from the court be- fore commencing suit against directors for negligence and against stockhold- ers to hold them liable on stock issued in payment for property at an alleged overvaluation. Simmons v. Taylor, 106 Tenn. 729 (1901). In a suit by the re- ceiver of an insolvent street railway company to hold a construction com- pany liable on stock which, together with bonds, was issued for the con- struction of a street railway, the claim being that there was no consideration received for the stock, the bill in equity must allege that the construction com- pany had power to acquire such stock'. If such stock was issued and received as full-paid stock the construction com- pany is not liable thereon, even though $63,750 of stock and $95,000 in notes secured by bonds were issued for con- struction work costing but $95,000. Doak V. Stahlman, 58 S. W. Rep. 741 . (Tenn. 1899). A corporation cannot hold the directors liable on stock which the corporation issued to them for services, being taken by the directors at five cents on the dollar in lieu of salary, where all the stockholders as- sented thereto, such stock so issued to them being treasury stock, that is, stock which was issued for property as full paid and then donated to the cor- porate treasury. The evidence showed 159 §47.] ■WATERED" STOCK. [CH. III. corporations.* In New Jersey, at the instance of a dissenting stockholder, a court in equity has power to review the judgment of the board of directors in valuing property which the company is that the stock represented a patent- right and was purely speculative and had no market value. Divine v. Univer- sal, etc. Co., 38 8. W. Rep. 93 (Tenn. 1896). 1 A railroad mortgage in New Jersey is n6t valid if it exceeds the amount of cash paid in on its capital stock. The mortgage, however, may be made in advance of construction. Where $900,000 of bonds and $900,000 of stock are issued to a contractor for work cost- ing only $900,000, the bonds are invalid, except in bona fide bands. On a bill filed by the receiver to cancel the mort- gage the court so decreed, upon condi- tion, however, that bona fide holders were first paid the amounts they paid for their bonds. Various parties' rights were passed on by the court. Direct- ors and other participating parties hold- ing bonds were allowed nothing. Baker v. Guarantee, etc. Co., 31 AtL Rep. 174 (N. J. 1895). On appeal the court held that where the statutes pro- bibib debts in excess of the capital stock actually paid in, the excessive bonds in the hands of a director can- not be enforced. Steelman v. Baker, 53 N, J. Eq. 673 (1896). But where one issue of bonds was legal and a second issue was illegal, a director holding bonds of the first issue may enforce them. Physiok v. Baker, 53 N. J. Eq. 673 (1896). A bill in equity is not multifarious . when filed by a receiver of an insolv- ent corporation against the stockhold- ers and bondholders, alleging that some of them as owners of a large num- ber of paper mills, and others as pro- moters of the same, caused them to be conveyed to the corporation for bonds and preferred stock and common stock, the par value of all of which was much greater than the actual value of the property so conveyed, even though such bill asks that the claims of the 160 bondholders be reduced to the amount actually paid for the' bonds, and that the stockholders be held liable for such part of the par value as was not fairly paid for by the property, and even though such bill asks that the pro- moters be held liable on loss due to stock and bonds which passed into bona fide hands. See v. Heppenheimer, 55 N. J. Eq 240 (1897); aff'd, 56 N. J. Eq. 453. This same transaction was involved in the case of Dickerman v. North- ern T. Co., 176 U. S. 181 (1900), and the court there held that the mortgage was legal and could be enforced, yet the court intimated that the promoters could be held personally liable. Where a person subscribes for stock and afterwards payment is made in property at a gross overvaluation, the court may hold him liable for the dif- ference between the actual value of the property and the par value of the stock, even though the company went through the form of canceling the sub- scription and issuing the stock as an original issue for property. Hebberd V. Southwestern, eta Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18 (1896). In the case of Short v. Post, 58 N. J. Eq. 130 (1899), where two mort- gages and a large amount of stock were issued by a corporation for property worth no more than the first mortgage, and the receiver of the corporation de- fended against such first mortgage on the ground that the mortgage was usurious, because some of the stock had been given to the mortgagee with- out consideration, the court held the defense not good under the facts in that case. Although the incorporators of a New Jersey company have contracted to issue sixty per cent, of its stock to a person for two patents, yet the board of directors after the company is organ- ized may refuse to carry out the OH. III.] "wateeed" stook. [§47. about to purchase and pay for in increased capital stock, but after the stock has been issued the judgment of the directors is conclu- sive.' And there is a statute in lowa^ on this subject of watered stock. agreement, one patent being worthless and the other not having been per- fected. The court said: "To justify a corporation in issuing stock under our act for property purcliased, there should be an approximation, at least, in true value of the thing purchased to the amount of the stock which it is supposed it represents." Edgerton v. Electric, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 354, 861 (1892). See 53 Atl. Rep. 601. As to the common law in New Jer- sey, see § 46, supra; 83 N. Y. App. Div. 39. 1 Donald v. American, etc. Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 739 (1901), rev'g 61 N. J. Eq. 45& 2 In Osgood V. King, 43 Iowa, 478 (1876), where stock was issued for land grossly overvalued, the court held the vendor liable for the par value of the stock less the actual value of the land. The person receiving the stock was a director at the time. In Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469 (1884), overruling s. C, 16 N. W. Rep. 130 (1884), the stock was not issiied to the construction company for the pur- pose of constructing the corporate works, but was issued after the con- struction was finished, and a cash debt was due them, which was paid by an issue of the stock to pay that debt al- ready due. . The supreme court of the United States, in Clark v. Bever, 139 TJ. S. 96 (1891), refused to follow the decision in Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469 (1884). Both of tliese cases grew out of the same transaction. In Chisholm v. Forny, 65 Iowa, 338 (1884), where full-paid stook was issued for a patent-right, in good faith, but the patent-right subsequently turned out to be worthless, the stockholders were held liable to corporate creditors as though no payment had been made. (11) 161 Where $100,000 of stock was issued for patents worth $16,000, and $50,000 of the stock was transferred by the patentees to a trustee for all the stock- holders, a subscriber for $1,500 of stock, who pays the company therefor $500, is liable to corporate creditors for $1,000, even though the $1,500 of stock was a part of the $50,000 of stock that the inventors retained and directed the company to issue to defendant. The defendant was not a bona fide sub- scriber or transferee, but was one of the promoters and was president of the company. Fraud cannot be alleged in defense. Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460 (1889). In the following case a very peculiar device was successful. Stock was is- sued conditionally that its issue be complete and binding when it became worth par, and that the price then to be paid for it to the company should be fifty cents on the dollar. The stock was issued and partly paid for, but never reached par in value. Held, that a participating stockholder, who was also a creditor, could not, nor could his assignee, enforce any liability. Callan an V. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193 (1889). Where land is sold to a corporation in exchange for stook, the actual value of the land being only thirty-six per cent, of the par value of the stock, the holders of the stock are liable for the remaining sixty-four per cent, to cor- porate creditors. Wishard v. Hansen & Co., 99 Iowa, 307 (1896). In the case of National Park Bank v. Peavey, 64 Fed. Rep. 913 (1894), the court refers to the Iowa decisions on this,£ubject of fictitiously paid-up stock as being based upon the Iowa statutes, and held that a corporate creditor might enforce the liability in an action §4Y.] "wateeed" stock. [oh. Ill, In England, in 1863, the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act ' prohibited the issue of new stock for a price less than its par value. An amendment thereto in 1869 ^ struck out this prohibition, and gave power to the directors to issue stock on such terms and con- ditions as they saw flt. The Kail way Companies Act ' of 1867 is to the same effect. In England the issue of stock for property or services is largely regulated by statute. On account of the many frauds perpetrated upon the public by the issue of stock for property taken at a gross overvaluation, parliament, in 1867, passed an act requiring all con- tracts whereby stock was issued for property or services to be pub- licly registered, under penalty of the payment'being void.* Difficulty at law as allowed by the Iowa stat- ute. In Iowa the court considers the value of the property, and credits on the stock only the actual value, and holds the stockholders and transferees with notice liable for the difference, even though the stock was issued as full- paid. Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 90 Iowa, 331 (1894). In White v. Greene, 70 N. W. Rep. 183 (Iowa, 1897), aff'd, 105 Iowa, 176 (1898), the court held the stockholder liable on stock where $120,000 of stock had been issued for property which had just been purchased for $30,000. Where $55,000, par value, of stock is issued for land worth $8,000, a creditor of the corporation may hold the party receiving the stock liable for the re- maining $47,000, as the owner of stock unpaid for to that amount, and it is immaterial that the articles of incor- poration recited that that amount of stock would be issued for the specified land. Stout v. Hubbell, 104 Iowa, 499 (1898). There is a statute also in Utah. Where parties supposed that certain lands were public lands of the United States and open to patent, and they quitclaimed the same to a corporation in payment for stock, and it turns out that the lands had been previously patented by other parties, the former are liable on the stock to corporate 163 creditors. Henderson v. Turngren, 9 Utah, 433 (1894). Where mining claims which are worthless are conveyed to a company for $300,000 of paid-up stock, the stock is ijot paid up, and the parties receiv- ing the stock are liable for the par value thereof to corporate creditors. Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Tintic Mill- ing Co., 13 Utah, 433 (1896). Stock- holders are not personally liable on stock issued as full paid to the amount of $35,000 for mining claims which were reasonably estimated to be worth that sum. Richardson v. Treasure, etc. Co., 33 Utah, 366 (1901). 1 See 26 & 37 Vict., ch. 118, § 31. 2 See 83 & 33 Vict., oh. 48, § 5. ' See 30 & 81 Vict., ch. 137, § 37. See also Webb v. Shropshire Ry., [1893] 3 Ch. 307, where the issue was at a dis- count of sixty per cent, under a statute. Also Statham v. Brighton, etc. Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 189, where stock was issued for cash at less than par. < 30 & 31 Viot., oh. 131, § 35. " Every share in any company shall be deemed and taken to have been issued and to be held subject to the payment of the whole amount thereof in cash, unless the same shall have been otherwise de- termined by a contract duly made, in writing, and filed with the registrar of joint-stock companies at or before the issue of such shares." Where the stock- holders apply long after incorporation OH. III. j " WATERED " STOCK. [§ 48. then arose as to what was the status and liability of a person re- ceiving stock for property, in case the contract therefor was not publicly registered, as required by act of parliament. The courts finally decided that, if the suras due reciprocally were expressly off- set, then that the stock was to be deemed paid for, notwithstanding the statute.* But a mere general understanding that the property is payment for the stock is insufiicient. The prohibition in the stat- ute then applies, and payment in cash will have to be made upon a winding up.^ The point decided by these cases seems to have been misapprehended in a few American cases.' Frequently actions herein are against corporate oflQcers who di- rectly or indirectly receive the stock. This class of cases is consid- ered in the next section. § 48. Liability of the officers of the corporation. — There is great diflBculty in defining clearly and accurately the liability of the cor- porate ofiicers herein. This-is because the officers may have com- mitted an tdtra vi?'es or fraudulent act; or may have participated in the profits as promoters; or may have received a gift of part of the stock from the parties to whom they issued it. There are few cases holding a director liable for loss to the cor- poration where an issue of its stock for money or property less in value than the par value of the stock has been made. Such an ac- tion would be similar in its character to the numerous cases against directors for their frauds and ultra vires acts.* for leave to file with the public register side on that account, and those accounti the contract whereby stock is issued are settled by both parties, it is exactly for property, the court will require the same thing as if the sums due on them first to provide for existing debts, both sides had been paid." See also Re Darlington Forge Co., L, R. 34 Ch. Maynard's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 60 D. 523 (1887). (1873); Re Vulcan Iron Works, Law A mere vote of stock to a director in Times, May, 1885, p. 61. compensation for his services does not 2 Dent's Case, L. R. 15 Eq. Cas. 407 render him liable thereon for failure to (1873) ; Fothergill's Case, L. R. 8 Ch.JApp. register the contract, unless he knows 370 (1873); Crickmer's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. of the entry of his name as holder of App. 614 (1875); Rowland's Case, 43 L. the shares or accepts certificates for the T. Eep. 785 (1880). A person taking same. Arnot's Case, L. R. 36 Ch. D. 703 stock at a discount for property over- (1887). valued inay withdraw. Re Midland, 1 Pell's Case, L. R 5 Ch. App. 11 (1869); etc. Co., 60 L. T. Rep. 666 (1889). EiK parte Clark, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 550 3 gee Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. <1869); Re British Farmers', etc. Co., L. 501 (1883). R. 7 Ch. Div. 533 (1878). See also § 38. 4 gee Part IV. Where the directors In Spargo's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 407 issue stock to a mini|ig expert at ninety (1873), the court said: "If parties ac- cents on the dollar in consideration of count with each other, and sums are an examination and report by him, stated to be due on one side, and sums they are liable to the company for the to an equal amounfdue on the other remaining ten cents on the dollar, but 163 §48.] ' WATERED ' STOCK. [oh. III. In a suit of this character, however, against an officer of the cor- poration, he is liable not for the par value of the stock, less the value of the property or labor received therefor, but at the most lie can be held liable only for the market value of the stock, less the value of the labor or property received by the corporation.' not ^r surplus value which the stock afterwards acquired. Hirsche v. Sims, 71 L. T. Rep. 357 (1894). Although none of the stockholders and creditors of a company which is in diflSculties object to a new issue of bonds and stock for contract work, a part of the bonks and stock being then given to the stockholders and bond- holders as a bonus, yet where the in- tention is to have outside people invest in the bonds and stock of the company the scheme is illegal. Innocent pur- chasers of the stock may hold the di- rectors who did the act liable for the stock and bonds thus given as a bonus. London Trust Co. v. Mackenzie, 68 L. T. Rep. 380 (1893). A statement filed with the state com- missioner as required by statute, in re- gard to the amount of the paid-up stock, is not such a representation as will sus- tain an action for damages for fraudu- lent representations inducing a person to take the notes of the company. Hun- newell v, Duxbury, 154 Mass. 286 (1891)i In an action by a treasurer for pay for bis services it is no defense that the corporation, with a capital fixed at $1,000,000, had $50,000 paid In in cash to comply with the statute, and then the remaining capital stock, $950,000, together with the cash so paid in, were issued for two patents, and that the treasurer checked out therefdr the said $50,000, being the part unexpended at that time. Sears v. Kings, etc. Ry., 156 Mass. 440 (1892). The fact that the corporate officers have filed a false statement as to the amount of paid-up capital stock will not sustain an action for damages for fraud in inducing a party to take the notes of the corporation. Representa- tions as to the. credit of a corporation must be in writing in order to be ac- tionable under the Masachusetts stat- ute. Hunnewell v. Duxbury, 157 Mass. 1 (1892). The statute of limitations runs against an action, by taxpayers against the officers and promoters of a railroad to which municipal aid was voted, to compel them to account for watered stock and bonds and to cause the stock, bonds, and mortgage to be canceled. Allen it. Wisconsin, etc. Ry., 90 Iowa, 473 (1894). Directors may be personally liable for illegally issuing stock and afterwards paying to the stockholders a portion of the price received by the corporation for bonds and stock, the stock being contributed by the stock- holders, but they are not liable jointly for money so paid to each of them sep- arately as stockholders. Great "West- ern, etc. Co. V. Harris' Estate, 111 Fed. Rep. 38 (1901). 1 In the case of Continental TeL Ca V. Nelson, 49 N. Y. Super. Ot. 197 (1883), the president was sued by the corpora- tion itself for issuing stock in payment of labor, the par value of the stock being worth over twice the value of the labor. The court held that he was liable only for the actual market value of the stock in excess of the value of the labor, and submitted the question to the jury. See also Nott v. Clews, 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 437 (1883), overruling a demurrer. In this case, however, the diuBCtors had received part of the stock as a gift. See also Osgood v. King, 42 Iowa, 478 (1876); but see Flagler, etc. Co. V. Flagler, 19 Fed. Rep. 468 (1884); Lang- don V. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5 (1883); s. c,, in state court, 14 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 435 (1883> A corporation cannot refuse to 164 OH. III.] " WATERED " STOCK. [§ 4:8. Where the directors of a bank upon an increase of the capital stock issue a part of the stock for worthless notes, they are liable, upon the bank becoming insolvent, to the receiver for the par value of such stock, unless they can show the stock could not have been otherwise issued or sold.^ Where, however, the directors receive % part of the stock them- selves either by its issue directly to themselves, or by being secret partners with those to whom it is issued, or by a gift to them from the parties to whom it is issued, then the directors may be com- pelled to account to the corporation for the stock actually received by themselves. In such a case, howeverj^ the directors, as such, can- not be made liable on the capital stock issued to third persons and still retained by them. The directors are liable only to the extent that they themselves received stock. This liability arises from the principle of law that a director must account to his corporation for any secret gift that may be made to him by persons contracting with the corporation, and must account also for profits made by his secret participation in contracts between the corporation and third persons.^ In such cases the director is liable to the corpora- tion or its creditors, not for the par value of the stock received by him, but for the actual value of the stock, or for the profit or price which he received therefor.^ A director is disqualified from being transfer stock on the ground that the overvalued, and he transferred a part of vendor fraudulently induced the com- the stock to a director, De Ruvigne, the pany to issue the stock to him where court said: "If the company attempt the company has been guilty of laches to make the appellant [director] a con- in not seeking a remedy before the tributory, and they allege fraud in the transfer. The vendee in this case was a original agreement by which he was to director. American, etc. Co. v. Bayless, take the shares, they must either throw 91 Ky. 94 (1891). over the agreement altogether or they iCookrill V. Abeles, 86 Fed. Rep. 505 must take it altogether; they cannot (1898). adopt it as to one part and reject it as 2 See §§ 649, 650, and cases in notes to the rest." The court said the di- thereto. rector could be held liable for breach ' In Carling's Case, L. R 1 Ch. B. 115 of trust and be made to pay to the cor- (1875), where the person receiving stock poration the selling value of the shares; for property taken at an overvaluation and since some of the stock was sold at gave part of it to a corporate director, par, he was chargeable with the par the court held that the corporation value of the stock so received by him. could demand of the director either the In Anderson's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. D. 75, stock or the profit realized by him, or 94 (1877), the com-t held that, if shares the profits thereby lost by the corpora- were improperly issued to a director at tion, but could not compel him to pay a discount, the contract might be set the full par value of the stock. In Be aside and the consideration returned, Ruvigne's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. B; 306 (1877), or the profits realized by him might be where shares of stock were issued as recovered. In Currie's Case, 3 Be G., J. paid up to a person for services palpably & S. 367 (1863), where shares were taken 165 §48.] ■ WATEKED " STOCK. [oh. hi. interested in a construction contract with the company;' but if all the then existing stockholders assent thereto, and creditors are not injured, such a transaction is legal.'^ There is still another class of cases, in which a director acts also as a promoter of the company and receives stock for his services. He then is liable to account to the corporation therefor, not only as a director, but also as a promoter.' Another class of cases may exist where the directors vote stock to themselves in payment for their services to the company.* Whether the directors are liable herein to purchasers of stock or to corporate creditors in -an action for deceit is an open question.* both directly and indirectly by the cor- porate officers for property and services grossly overvalued, the court held that the transaction might be undone alto- gether for fraud, but there was no lia- bility on their part to contribute any- thing on the shares. The only remedy is to set aside the transaction and re- cover the profits thereof. Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5 (1883); S. C, 14 Abb. N. O. (N. T.) 435, holds that the di- rectors are not liable to the corporation for the par value of the stock issued to their dummy for property and then transferred to themselves. See also § 650, infra, and cases in notes. In the case of Re Ambrose Lake, etc. Co., L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390 (1880), it was held that where all the stockholders acqui- esced, and there were no creditors' rights involved, the corporation cannot recover from its directors profits "real- ized by them from shares issued to them as paid up in consideration of property taken at a gross overvaluation. The corporation was held to be in no posi- tion to complain. In Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 83 N. Y. 535 (1880), where the facts were very much the same as in the preceding case, the court said (p. 541) : " If the defendant [director and president] had realized a sum beyond the amount actually expended, there might have been, perhaps, some ground for claiming that the arrangement should inure to and for the benefit of the company." See §§ 649, 662, infra. 166 2 See §g 39, 663, 735, and oh. XLIV. ' See the important case of Chandler V. Bacon, 80 Fed. Rep. 538 (1887); also, § 651, infra, and cases cited. In Iowa, where " watered " stock is given as a gift by the patentees to a promoter, who afterwards became the first presi- dent of the company, he is liable to corporate creditors for all the " water " there is in the stock. Boulton Carbon Co. V. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460 (1889). * See § 657, infra. 5 See §§ 157, 158, 355, infra.^ A sale or pledge of stock stamped "non-assessable," when in fact it was not legally paid up, renders liable for false representations the president and secretary who made such sale or pledge, and who knew that it was not paid-up stock. Windram v. French, 151 Mass. 547 (1890). In Bartholomew v. Bentley, 15 Ohio, 659 (1846), certain persons incorporated a bank, incurred large debts, then sold their stock to the bank and left the creditors nothing. A creditor brought an action on the case for fraud. The court sustained the action, and said: " If the defendants, with the design to defraud the public generally, have knowingly combined together and held forth false and deceptive colors, and done acts which were wrong, and have thereby injured the plaintiff, they must make him whole by responding to the full extent of that injury; and they cannot place between him and justice, with any success, the charter of the CH. III.] " WATEEED " STOCK. [§49. The officers of the corporation who participate in the issue of stock as paid up, when it has not been fully paid, are liable to per- sons purchasing such stock for damage thereby suffered.^ In Mas- sachusetts, by statute, corporate officers are made liable for corpo- rate debts, if they issue stock for property at an unfair valuation of the latter.^ § 49. Liability of the persons purchasing the stock with, notice. — It seems to be generally assumed, as a matter of course, that per- sons purchasing stock with notice that it had not been paid up, al- though in fact it had been issued as paid up, are liable on such stock to the same extent that their transferrers were liable.^ In German Bank of Wooster, whether it be valid or void, forfeited or in esse. Neither a good nor a bad thing may be falsely used for purposes of deception and made a scapegoat for responsibil- ity. Nor is it material that there should have been an intention to de- fraud the plaintiff in particular. If ^ there was a general design to defraud all such as could be defrauded by tak- ing their paper issues, it is suiScient, and the plaintiff may maintain his suit, provided he has taken the paper and suffers from the fraud. . . . The act incorporating the president and directors of the German Bank of Wooster, admitting it to be in force, conferred no authority upon any per- son to hold out false colors to deceive the public, no authority to issue bills without thQ means of redeeming them ; and those who combined to use it for the purposes of swindling acted for themselves rather than as agents of the bank." See 88 L. T. Rep. 194. Creditors of a corporation cannot hold the directors liable for fraud, de- ceit, etc., in forming a sham corpora- tion, when no misrepresentations can be traced to them. Mere statements as to the amount of capital stock are in- sufficient. Brackett v. Griswold, 113 N. Y. 454 (1889). 1 Gross V. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr.' 347 (1858) ; Re Gold Co., L. R. 11 Ch. D. 701 (1879). 2 Stats. 1875, ch. 177, § 3; 65 N. E. Rep. 901. 3 Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875). In Coleman v. Howe, 154 III 458 (1895), the court said: "Where a person purchasing stock issued as paid up has notice that it has not been paid, his liability is the same as that of the party who transferred it to him." But they are not liable if any prior owner was bona fide and without notice. Bar- row's Case, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 433 (1880). A transferee of " watered " stock taking with notice is liable the same as his transferrer. Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460 (1889); White v. Greene, 70 N. W. Rep. 1^3 (Iowa, 1897), afif'd, 105 Iowa, 176 (1898); Sprague v. National Bank of America. 173 111. 149 (1898). A purchaser of stock which purports to be fully paid, but which he knows is not fully paid, is liable to cor- porate creditors for the balance unpaid. Foote V. Illinois, etc. Bank, 63 N. E. Rep. 834 (111. 1903). Where a person, to whom stock is issued for property at a fraudulent overvaluation, purchases other stock of the same kind, he is liable not only on the stock originally issued to him but also on the stock so purchased by him, even though the stock on its face states that it is " full paid and non-assessable.'' Higgins v, Illinois, etc. Bank, 193 III. 894 (1901). A purchaser of stock in a New York corporation is liable on the statutory liability of stockholders in that state where stock has been issued for prop- erty at an intentional overvaluation. White, etc. Co. v. Jones, 167 N. Y. 158 (1901). A transferee of stock tak- 167 §50.] "wateebd" stock. [CH. III. Illinois the transferrer of stock is liable secondarily on stock issued for property taken at a fraudulent overvaluation, the transferee being primarily liable.' § 60. Liability of the lona fide transferees without notice. — A tonafide purchaser for value and without notice of stock issued by ing with knowledge that the stock was issued for property at a fraudulent overvaluation is liable thereon under the constitution and statutes of Mon- tana and the liability is enforceable to pay damages for torts of the company. Kelly V. Clark, 31 Mont. 291 (1898). In the case of Fouohe v. Merchants', eto^ Bank, 110 Ga. 827 (1900), where $50,000 of stock was issued in payment for cer- tain bonds and property and the bonds were never delivered and the property that was delivered was worth $2,500, the court held the stock was not full paid, even though the certificate recited that it was full paid and non-assessable, and the court held that the stock- holders and transferees with notice were liable on such stock. Where the facts are known and it is a question of law, a purchaser cannot claim to be a bona fide purchaser. Eogan v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 93 111. App. 39 (1900). In Maine it is held that the trans- feree of stock issued as paid up is not liable to a corporate creditor thereon, even though the transferrer did not pay the corporation for the stock, and even though the transferee knew that fact. Morgan v. Rowland, 89 Me. 484 (1897). Under the statutes of Maine a transferee of stock is not liable, even though the stock was issued for prop- erty at a fraudulent overvaluation. Dunn V. Howe, 96 Fed. Rep. 160 (1899). Where $100,000 of the stock of an Illinois corporation is issued to parties who agree to turn in a patent therefor, and the patent is never turned in, and in fact turns out to be of no value, the parties receiving the stock with notice are liable thereon to bona fide corpo- rate creditors, even though such stock recites on its face that it is fully paid. Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 Mo. 109 (1898), Where the certificate of stock states on its face that it is "fully paid up" and yet that it is subject to assessment for certain purposes, the bolder is bound to investigate. Wishard v. Han- sen, etc. Co., 99 Iowa, 307 (1896). In the case •of Gilkie, etc. Co. v. Daw- son, etc. Co., 46 Neb. 333 (1895), where $240,000 par value of stock was issued for an equity in land, such equity being worth only $20,000, the court held that the transaction was fraudu- lent per se, and the holders of the stock were liable for the difference between its par value and the $20,000; and the court also held that the transferees taking with full knowledge of the facts were also liable. In the case, however, of Penfield v. Dawson, etc. Co., 37 Neb. 231 (1898), this same transaction came again before the court and the court practically overruled the latter case and held that the stockholders were not liable, the lower court having held that they had acted in good faith and without any attempt to defraud the corporation. 1 Florsheim v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 192 111. 383 (1901); Eogan v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 93 111. App. 39 (1900). It has been held by a lower court in Illi- nois, that even though stock has been issued for property at an overvalua- tion, yet, if the person receiving the stock has transferred it in good faith and the transfer has been recorded on the books, the transferrer is no longer liable. Parkhurst v. Mexican S. B. E., 103 IlL App. 507 (1902). A person to whom stock is issued for property and who transfers the same while the corporation is solvent cannot be held liable on such stock, even though the property was taken on an overvalua- tion. Cole V, Adams, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 168 CH. III.J STOCK. [§ 50. a corporation as paid up cannot be held liable on such stock in any way, either to the corporation, corporate creditors, or other persons, even though the stock was not actually paid up as represented. ' Such a purchaser has a right to rely on the representations of the corporation that the stock is paid up. DiiSculty sometimes arises, however, in determining what will constitute a sufficient represen- tation that the stock is paid up. A representation by the cor- porate agents that the full par value will not be required is insuffi- cient.* The word " non-assessable," stamped or printed or written on the face (fi the certificate, is not a sufficient representation that the stock is paid up, so as to protect a honafide purchaser thereof, where the certificate also shows that only twenty per cent, has been paid thereon.^ Where, however, a statement is made on the face of the certifi- cate that it is paid-up stock, the "bona fide purchaser of the certifi- cate need not inquire further, but may rely on that representation, and is protected thereby against liability.^ 507 (1898). A mere oral notice by a third party that a stockholder had transferred his stock to a designated person does not relieve the former from his liability on the subscription, no for- mal transfer having been made, the stock having been issued at twenty cents on a dollar. Vermont, etc. Co. v. Declez, etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579 (1902). 1 Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875); Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875). 2 Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, 71 (1875); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. 8. 56 (1875). A statement in the margin of the certificate of stock that the shares are $100 each is a part of the certifi- cate, and if the body of the certificate states that $50 have been paid on each share, the holder has notice that the stock is not full paid. Fish v. Gilbert, 73 Conn. 377 (1900). 'Young v. Erie Iron Co., 65 Mich. Ill (1887); JJe Macdonald, etc. Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 89; Albitztigui v, Guadalupe, etc. Co., 92 Tenn. 598 (1893). One who pur- chases in good faith, in the open mar- ket, stock of a corporation which pur- ports, on the face of the certificates, to be full paid and non-assessable, is not liable for assessments on such stock, though in fact it had not been fully paid. Rood v. Whorton, 67 Fed. Rep. 484 (1895): s. C, 74 Fed. Rep. 118 (1896). In Coleman v. Howe, 154 111. 458 (1895), the court said: "A purchaser or as- signee of stock which has not been fully paid does not become liable to the cor- porate creditors for the unpaid balance, where the stock has been issued as fully paid, and he has acquired the same in good faith, and without notice that it has not been fully paid." In Water- house V. Jamieson, L. R. 3 H. L. (Sc.) 29 (1870), where the stock was purchased in open market, the court said: " Here the appellant is a bona fide holder of shares upon which, no doubt, there was a false statement made by the com- pany, of which he had no knowledge, and as to which he was under no ob- ligation to inquire, and therefore he cannot be subjected to liability by having imputed to him a knowledge of the falsehood." In Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 (1883), the court sSiid: "Where shares are issued by the company to the subscriber as full-paid shares, and are sold by the subscriber as such, there is no ground on which a promise can be implied, on the part of the purchaser without notice, to be answerable either to the company or to its creditors, 169 § 50.] [CH. III. "Fully paid-up shares " mean "shares upon which the whole amount that could be called had been called up." ^ If the corpora- tion states to a person about to buy stock that it is full paid, and he purchases it, he cannot be held liable on an unpaid subscription.* A purchaser of stock is entitled to rely on statements in the cor- porate books that the stock is paid up.' The law goes still further, and holds that where a person in open market, in good faith and without notice, purchases certificates, such stock is to be deemed " paid up " in his hands, and he is protected as a honafide purchaser, even though there is nothing on the face of the certificates stating that they are paid up.* This can now be laid down as the estab- lished rule. It is based on sound public policy, favoring, as it does, the transfer of personal property, and the g'wasi-negotiability of stock, and discountenancing secret liens and constructive notice. A purchaser in open market of stock represented to be paid up should the representations on the faith of which he purchased prove to be false. He could not be held liable on the ground of contract, because he never agreed to purchase any other shares tlian full-paid shares; and if it be said that the shares were fraudulently issued, he could not be held liable on the ground of fraud, because he was in no sense a party, to the fraud." In Steaoy v. Little Rock, etc. R. R., 5 Dill. 348 (1879); s. c, 33 Fed. Cas. 1143, Judge Dillon examined, at considerable length, the reasons of the rule protect- ing bona fide purchasers of stock issued as paid up, and sustained the rule itself. See also Burkinshaw v. Nicolls, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004 (1878). One case, My- ers V. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411 (1874); s. C, 17 Fed. Cas. 1118, lays down a different doctrine. The court says: "The assignee of shares can be in no better condition than the assignor. . . . The question is simply whether the stock has been really paid in full to the corporation. The assignee may have paid for it to the assignors, and may have relied on the representations of the latter, and of officers of the com- pany, that the shares bought were fully paid, yet creditors are not bound thereby; and if the stock was not fully paid, the holder is liable to creditors for the amount remaining unpaid." This case must be considered poor law. Where the charter and the certificates of stock provide that the stock shall be subject to assessment to pay a certain mortgage, it is immaterial that the stock states on its face that it is paid up. Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). iBloomenthal v. Ford, [1897] A. C. 156. 2 Rochester, etc. Co. v. Roe, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 866 (1896). s Erskine v. Lowenstein, 11 Mo. App. 595 (1881). * Keystone Bridge Co. v. MoCluney, 8 Mo. App. 496 (1880); Foreman v. Bige- low, 4 Cliff, 508 (1878); s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 437, as explained in 8 Mo. App. 496; Johnson v. LuUman, 15 Mo. App. 55 (1884), where the court says: " If any presumption of fact arises Trom the face of a stock certificate in customary form, as was the one in this case, it is that the stock ... is fully paid for." See also Erskine v, Loewenstein, 88 Mo. 301 (1884); Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry., 27 Fed. Rep. 250 (1886). If a certificate of stock is silent on its face as to whether it is full paid or not, a bona flde purchaser is protected in considering it full-paid stock. West Nashville, etc. Co. v. Nashville Sav. 170 CH. III.j "watered" stock. [§50. by a statement to that effect on the certificate is presumed to be a bona fide purchaser. Hence there has arisen the well-established rule, both in America and England, that a lonafide purchaser for value, and without notice, .of stock issued as paid up, is not liable for any part of the par value which may not have been paid.^ In Bank. 86 Tenn. 253 (1888). Cf. Burkin- shaw V. NicoUs, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004, 1017 (1878). In Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 (1882), the court says: " The purchaser is not bound to suspect fraud where everything seems fair. . . . Any other doctrine would virtually destroy the transferable nature of such shares and paralyze the whole of the dealings in the stock of corporations." A party purchasing a certificate of stock which does not state whether it is paid up or not.may assume that it is paid up, and will be protected in that assumption. Du Pont v. Tilden, 42 Fed. Rep. 87 (1890). An inquiry by a purchaser of stock of corporate officers, as to whether it was full-paid stock, must be made to officers having authority to speak for the corporation. Browning v. Hinkle, 48 Minn. 544 (1892). See also § 257, infra. 1 Sprague v. Nat. Bank of America, 172 111. 149 (1898). A suit by the re- ceiver of a corporation to hold the , transferees of stock liable for the par value of such stock on the ground that it had been fraudulently issued with- out consideration must allege that the transferees purchased the stock with notice of the fraud or were not holders for value. The presumption is that they were not guilty of the fraud and were holders for value. Finletter u Appleton, 195 Pa. St. 349 (1900). Even though stock was issued for property taken at an overvaluation, yet such stock in the hands of a bona fide pur- chaser is valid, notwithstanding the constitutional provision in California against such an issue. Smith v. Mar- tin, 67 Pao. Rep. 77ff (Cal. 1901). A pur- chaser of stock which has been issued for property taken at an overvaluation is not liable thereon where he took without knowledge of such overvalua- tion. Hence, a purchaser of treasury stock at fifty cents on the dollar is not liable for the remaining fifty cents, even though it turned out that origi- nally the stock was issued for property taken at an overvaluation, such pur- chaser having no knowledge of such overvaluation. This is the rule, even in Misseuri, where the court goes to the extreme length in holding parties liable for stock issued for property taken at an overvaluation. Berry v. Rood, 67 S. W. Rep. 644 (Mo. 1902). A bo7ia fide purchaser of watered stock is not liable thereon. Frazer, etc. Min. Co. V. Gallagher, 5 British Columbia Rep. 83 (1895); Be Concession Trust, [1896] 2 Ch. 757; Troup v. Horbach, 53 Neb. 795 (1898); s. a, 57 Neb. 644 (1899). In Se British Farmers', etc. Co., L. R 7 Ch. D. 533 (1878); afE'd, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004 (1880), the court held that, if the bona fide purchaser were not pro- tected, " no person buying shares in the market as paid-up shares would be safe, for he would get upthing more than a certificate to show they were paid up. . . . Obviously such a construction would destroy the transferable nature of shares altogether." See also Fore- man V. Bigelow, 4 Clifl'. 508 (1878); s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 427; McCraken v. Mclntyre, 1 Duv. (Can.) 479 (1877); Steacy v. Little Rock, etc. R R, 5 Dill. 348 (1879); s. C, 22 Fed. Cas. 1142; Jackson v. Sligo, etc. Co., 1 Lea (Tenn.), 210 (1878); Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 (1882); Waterhouse v. Jamieson, L. R 2 H. L. (So.) 29 (1870). Cf. Crickmer's Case, L. R 10 Ch. App. 614 (1875). Contra, Myers v. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411 (1874); s. C, 17 Fed. Cas. 1118. A bona fide purchaser of stock in the open market is not lia- 171 §51.J "watered" stock. [CH. III. a case where parties receiving stock and bonds from the corpora- tion in payment for property sold the bonds with a bonus of stock, the supreme court of the United States held that the purchasers were not necessarily purchasers with notice.' ■" ble on the stock to corporate credit- ors, although it was issued for cash at less than par, the certificate of stock reciting on its face that it was fully paid up. The court held the party to be a bonaflde purchaser, although he knew that the company had issued stock at a discount, but did not know the purchaser of Wisconsin railroad stock sued his vendor for damages for deceit on the ground, among others, that the stock had been issued ficti- tiously as paid up, the court said: "It is unnecessary to determine whether the corporation was authorized by its charter to sell its stock at less than that the stock which he purchased was par, or whether, in so selling, its offl- a part of such stock issued at a dis- count. He was not bound to inquire of the company. Re New Chile & Co., 68 L. T. Rep. 15 (1892). It is immate- rial that the payment in stock issued as paid up turns out to have been value- less. The boria fide purchaser is pro- tected, and the corporation must allow registry by him. Protection Life Ins. Co. V. Osgood, 93 111. 69 (1879). In Win- tringham v. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 580 (1881), the court held that a bona fide purchaser of stock, which he piurohased supposing it to be paid up, is not liable fo» the unpaid par value. The stock was issued by a bank, evidently on a cash subscription. This case practically ■overrules Mann v. Currie, 3 Barb. 294 <184:8). The general railroad act of New York (Laws I85O, oh. 140, § 10) pre- scribed that each stockholder should be liable " to an amount equal to the amount unpaid on the stock held by him." In Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364, 374 (1876), the court held that under this statute, " as between a stockholder and a creditor, it is wholly immaterial whether he was a bona fide and inno- cent purchaser of stock which the ven- dor assured him had been paid." This remark was, it seems, a dictum, and, being by an inferior court, is doubtful as an authority. The representation, moreover, was not on the face of the certificate, nor was it made by the cor- poration. In tlie case of Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480, 489 (1873), where 173 cers did not violate their duty. The plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser, and, being such, acquired a valid title to the stock transferred to him." Where the foreclosure of a mortgage is con- tested on the ground that bonds and stock were issued largely in excess of the value of the property, and on the ground that the parties who turned in their property for stock were defrauded by the promoters, the court said in re- gard to the bonds: "We are clearly of opinion that, so far as they were pur- chased for a valuable consideration by innocent holders, they are not subject to the set-off claimed. The question whether, sa far as they are held by parties cognizant of the alleged fraud, they are subject to a set-off, is not one which properly arises in this case, where the bonds must be treated as an entirety, but is a defense applicable to each individual bondholder." Dicker- man V. Northern T. Co., 176 U. S. 181, 306 (1900). A purchaser of stock in the market is not liable under the Maine statute relative to the value of prop- erty which is sold to the corporation in payment for stock, and the original party to whom the stock is issued is only liable to make payment up to par as to debts contracted while he was owner. Maine, etc. Co. v. Southern, eta Co., 92 Me. 444 (1899). 1 Diokerman v. Northern T. Co., 176 TJ. S. 181, 303 (1900), the court saying: "It is true that these parties, in dis- CH. III.j ' WATEEED " STOCK. [§51. But even a iona fide purchaser of what purported to be full-paid stock in a corporation was liable on the double liability attached to stock, under the former New York statute, where the stock was issued for property taken at an overvaluation and no certificate of payment had been filed as required by the statute.^ The liabil- ity of the transferrer of stock issued for property at an overvalua- tion is considered elsewhere.^ Where a subscriber who has not yet taken out his certificate of stock instructs the corporation to issue the certificates to a desig- nated transferee, the latter is not held to be the original allottee of that stock; and, even though the stock was irregularly issued as paid-up stock, he can claim to be a iona fide transferee without notice.' E. ISSUE OF WATERED STOCK BY A STOCK DIVIDEND. § 51. Thvrd method: Issue ly stock dividends. — The third method of issuing fictitiously paid-up stock is by a wrongful use of the power to make stock dividends. It seems to be generally conceded that if the capital stock and the actual property of the corporation are not increased to the extent of the par value of the stock dis- posing of the bonds, allowed to each purchaser of a one-thousand-dollar bond, two hundred dollars of preferred and four hundred of common stock, but they did not seem to have profited by this themselves. And if it were necessary to the negotiation of the bonds to give a bonus in stock, it can- not be considered in the light of a mere donation. Nor, if it were done in good faith, would it necessarily afford a ground of complaint to dis- senting stockholders. Certainly, if this bonus were received in ignorance of the fraud practised upon the original mill owners, and simply as an inducement to take the bonds, the dissenting stock- holders could not compel the bond- holders to submit to a deduction from their bonds of the par value of the stock received as a bonus, particularly in view of the fact that the stock might turn out to be worthless." ilf, however, after the issue of the stock further sums of money were paid in by the stockholders equal to the dif- ference between the par value of the stock and the value of the property, the liability ceased as to subseqiJent cred- itors. White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 167 N. Y. 158 (1901). 2 See § 49, supra. 3 Young V. Erie Iron Co., 65 Mich. Ill (1887); Carling's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 115 (1875). A bona fide purchaser of certifi- cates of stock, which recite on their face that they are fully paid up, is pro- tected even though the vendor was the party to whom the stock was issued ait a discount, and even though he caused the corporation to issue the stock directly from the corporation to such purchaser. iJe Building, etc. Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 100. Nominees of a person to whom full-paid stock is to be issued, same as transferees, are not liable, though the original issue was to them. Re Maodonald, etc. Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 89. See also § 63, infra. Of. Rowland's Case, 42 L. T. Rep. 785 (1880); Re British Farmers', etc. Co., 13 Weekly Notes, 81 (1878); Re Vulcan Iron Works, Law Times, 1885, p. 61. 173 51.J "watered" stock. [CH. iir. tributed as a dividend, then that the issue of stock by such dividend is irregular, and under certain circumstances fraudulent.^ Where the directors of a national bank place a fictitious value on the as- sets of the bank, in order to declare a stock dividend, such directors are liable for the par value of the stock to the receiver of the bank for the benefit of its creditors, unless the directors show that the stock could not have been otherwise issued or sold.* A stock divi- dend may take the shape of an issue of stock for cash at less than the par value.' In some of the states stock dividends are prohibited by constitu- tional or statutory provisions.* 1 In Williams v. Western Union Tel, Co., 93 N. Y. 163 (1883), the court (p. 189) said that a stock dividend "could be declared by a corporation without vio- lating its letter, its spirit, or its pur- pose. . . . There is no public policy -which, in all cases, condemns such divi- dends. . . . No harm is done to any person, provided the dividend is not a mere inflation of the stock of the com- pany, vpith no corresponding values to ansvcer to the stock distributed. . . . So long as every dollar of stock issued by a corporation is represented by a dollar of property, no harm can result to individuals or the public from dis- i;ributing the stock to the stockholders.'' Hovrell V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 51 Barb. 378 (1868), is to the same effect. In Bailey V. Railroad Co., 33 Wall. 604 (1874), the court (p. 635) said that net earnings, however expended or invested, belong " to the stockholders, and may be dis- tributed, as they may direct, in divi- dends of stock . . . or by a sale of property." See also ch. XXXII, infra. Where the company is under obliga- tions to issue stock to represent interest ■on subscriptions until dividends are de- clared, a stock dividend does not stop the interest. Hardin County v. Louisville, etc. R. R., 93 Ky. 412 (1891). In the case of Rose V. Barclay, 191 Pa. St. 594 (1899), the val idity of a stock dividend whereby a gas company having $300,000 capital stock distributed $800,000 additional capital stock among its stockholders as a stock dividend to represent the en- hanced value of the property was not questioned. A stock dividend was sus- tained in Cole v. Adams, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 507 (1898), to the extent that such dividend represented profits which had been used in the property but not to the extent that such dividends repre- sented a rise in the value of the prop- erty of the company. A scheme by which founders' shares are to be ex- changed for ordinary stock at the rate of one hundred shares of the latter for each share of the former Is ultra vires and illegal, and will not be sanctioned by the court. Re Development Co. etc., 86 L. T. Rep. 338 (1903). 2 Cookrill V. Abeles, 86 Fed. Rep. 505 (1898). A stock dividend is not in itself injurious to the corporation or its credit- ors, and the creditors cannot complain of it, and hold the stockholders liable thereon, but a subsequent gratuitous issue of stock to stockholders, a part of which they then contribute to go with a sale of bonds by the corporation, a portion of the price therefor to be paid to the stockholders, is illegal, and such proportion so paid to the stockholders may be recovered back by bondholders upon the corporation becoming insolv- ent. Great Western, etc. Ca v. Harris' Estate, 111 Fed. Repw 38 (1901). ' Re Owen, etc. Co,, 31 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 349 (1891). 4111. Const., art XI, § 13. In Wis- consin by statute. R. S. 1878, g 1753, amended by ch. 93, Laws 1881. In Mas- sachusetts railway corporations are by 174 CH. III.] " WATERED " STOCK. [§ 51a. The decided tendency of the law, however, is to sustain and even encourage stock dividends, where they are regularly and legally made by adding to the property representing the capital stock fur- ther property to represent the stock dividend. By such an act the responsibility of the corporation is increased, creditors are more secure, inasmuch as there is more property to respond to their claims, and the stockholders have increased their investment by adding the profits to the capital stock instead of distributing them by a cash dividend. ' § 51a. Fourth method: Issue ty consolidation of two or more com- imnies or hy sale of one company to another. — A fourth method of issuing watered stock is by the consolidation of two or more cor- porations or by the sale of all the property and assets of one cor- poration to another. The latter method, the sale of one com- pany's assets to another company in consideration of the full-paid stock of the latter, is but a method of issuing stock for property, a subject already fully treated.^ A dissenting stockholder in a solvent corporation may object to the sale of all the corporate property to another corporation in exchange for the stock of the latter.^ Where, however, all the stockholders consent to such a sale, and corporate creditors are not injured, such a sale is legal without express legislative authority therefor, if the corporation is a private corporation, and such a sale is legal, even if the corpora- tion is a g'wasi-public corporation, such as a railroad, if there is ex- press legislative authority for the sale. In making the sale, it is quite usual for the buying corporation to issue to the selling cor- poration full-paid stock of the former to an amount several times larger than the outstanding capital stock of the latter. This stock is then distributed among the stockholders of the selling corpora- tion. Sometimes the stock is issued by the buying corporation di- statute prohibited from declaring a issue of new stock for cash at par. Jones stock dividend except by authority of v. Brown, 171 Mass. 318 (1898). the general court. Mass. Pub. Stat., If the tangible property of the cor- ch. 113, § 61. It has been held not a poration is actually in excess of the par violation of this statute for a railway value of the capital stock, then a stock company to distribute among its stock- dividend to the extent of that excess holders, without the assent of the gen- would, it seems, be legal ; but the pro- eral court, shares of its own stock which ceedings to declare the stock dividend it had purchased from the common- must show these facts, or the dividend wealth, when it had legislative au- will be enjoined. Fitzpatrick v. Dis- thority for such purchase and distribu- patch Pub. Co., 83 Ala. 604 (1887). The tion. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. court changed the reasoning of its R R, 143 Mass. 146 (1886). See § 387, opinion as reported in 2 So. Rep. 737. infra. In Massachusetts a stock divi- i See §g 85-50, swpra. dend is practically declared by a large ^ gee § 670, infra, cash dividend and simultaneously the 175 § 51a.] "wateebd" stock. [CH. III. rectly to the stockholders of the selling corporation, in exchange for the old stock, the property at the same time being transferred to the buying corporation. Such a mode of sale is legal and has been held to be substantially equivalent to a consolidation.' A consolidation differs from a sale in that by a consolidation the old corporations are dissolved and a new corporation comes into existence, whereas in a sale one corporation buys the property of another. A consolidation, from one point of view, is a sale of the assets of two or more existing corporations to a new corporation. A consolidation is often resorted to in the case of railroads, street railways, gas companies, electric light companies, water-works companies and similar companies, under legislative authority, as a means of watering the stock of the corporations which are consol- idated. Such a watering of stock is legal and is rarely attacked. There are instances in which by such a consolidation stock has been increased fourteen-fold, and yet the legality of the consolidation not questioned.^ 1 Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Ashling, 160 IH. 373 (1895). 2 See instances in the notes to j? 893, infra. In tlie case of City of Allegheny v. Pittsburg, eto. Ey. Co., 179 Pa. St. 414 (1897), it appears that upon the con- solidation of street railways involved in that case eight shares of the stock of the consolidated company were issued for one share of stock of the constit- uent companies. The court held that such an issue of stock was not such a dividend as entitled the state to levy a tax thereon. In the case of City of Allegheny v. Federal Street, eto. Ry. Co., 179 Pa. St. 434 (1896), upon the consolidation of three street railway companies the con- solidated company issued ten shares of its stock for each share in one of the constituent companies, and two shares for each share of another of the con- stituent companies, and one share for each share in the third constituent company. The court held in this case also that such issue of consolidated stock was not a dividend subject to taxation under the Pennsylvania law. In the case of Trenton, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 55 N. J. Eq. 378 (1897), upon a consolidation of street railways in- volved in that case fourteen shares of the consolidated stock were issued for each share of stock in one of the con- stituent companies. The court did not question the legality of the transac- tion, but passed merely upon the ques- tion whether certain old stockholders were entitled to anything more than the fourteen shares for one. Where the statute authorizing con- solidation specifies that the consol- idated capital stock shall not be more than the " fair aggregate value " of the property, a stockholder may enjoin a consolidation whose capital stock is far in excess of a fair value of the property. Langan v. Francklyn, 30 N. Y. Supp. 404 (1893). 176 CHAPTEK IT. METHOD OF SUBSCRIBING — PARTIES TO SUBSCRIPTIONS - TO ENFORCE SUBSCRIPTIONS. -ACTION A. METHODS OF SUBSCEIBING. § 53. Generally no formalities neces- sary. 53. Informalities, irregularities, and mistakes in subscriptions. 5t Various defenses to subscriptions. 55. Proof of subscription. 56. The English rule. 57. Subscriptions taken by commis- sioners. 58. Subscriptions in excess of the cap- ital stock. 59. Subscriptions and organization where there is a special charter and no commissioners are pro- vided for. 60. Subscriptions delivered in es- crow. 61. Liability of corporation for re- fusal to issue a certificate of stock. 68. Substitution of subscribers before the incorporation, change in the proposed enterjjrise, and alterations in subscription pa-, per. 63. Right to recover money advanced on shares upon a failure to or- ganize the company. B. WHO IS COMPETENT TO SUBSCRIBE FOE STOCK. 64. Corporations generally not. 65. Commissioners, directors, part- ners, etc., as subscribers. 66. Married women as subscribers. . 67. Infant as subscriber. 68. Agent as subscriber. 69. Subscriptions taken by an unau- thorized agent of corporation'. 70. Unissued or increased capital stock — Right to subscribe therefor. a AN ACTION LIES TO COLLECT SITB- SCEIPTIONS. 71. A subscription implies a promise to pay, which is enforceable without proof of any particular consideration. 73. Such is the rule for subscriptions before incorporation as well as thoseafter — Acceptance of the subscription — Withdrawal — Subscriptions for the benefit of contractors." 78. The New York rule. 74 In New England an express prom- ise or express statute is neces- sai-y to support an action to col- lect subscriptions. 75. Professor Collin's rules on this subject. 76. Stockholders' agreements to guar- antee company debts and stock- holders' contracts for the bene- fit of the corporation. § 52. Generally no formalities necessary. — A contract of sub- scription for shares of stock in an incorporated company may be entered into in various ways. Whenever an intent to become a subscriber is manifested, the courts incline, without particular ref- erence to formality, to hold that the contract of subscription sub- sists. It is, as in the case of other contracts, very much a question, of intent. Formal rules are for the most part disregarded.' And in general a contract of subscription may be made in any way in which other contracts may be made.'* Any agreement by which 1 Quoted and approved in Ventura, etc. Ry. V. Collins, 46 Pac. Rep. 387 (Cal. 1896). (13) 177 2 Blunt V. Walker, 11 Wis. 334, 349 (I860). §52.] SUBSOEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. IV. a person shows an intention to become a stockholder is suflRcient to bind both him and the corporation.^ When one accepts or as- sumes the position and duties and claims the right and privileges and emoluments of a stockholder, and the corporation accepts or acquiesces therein, such person is estopped to deny that he is a sub- scriber, even though' there may have been something irregular or defective in the form or manner of his subscription, or there may have been no formal subscription at all.' Merely accepting and holding a certificate of stock is sufficient to constitute one a stockholder.' 1 Quoted and approved in Greenbrier, etc. Exposition v. Ooheltree, 44 W. Va. 626 (1898); Fry v. Lexington, etc. R. R., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314 (1859); Wellersburg, etc Co. V. Young, 12 Md. 476 (1858); Gill V. Kentucky, etc. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635 (1870); Oler v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 41 Md. 583 (1874); SohaefiEer v. Missouri, etc Co., 46 Mo. 248 (1870). A director ■who authorizes and consents to the entry of his name as a subscriber to stock for a certain amount cannot thereafter avoid the liability on the ground that he did not actually sign the subscription. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Walle, 105 La. 89 (1900). 2 Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875) Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875) Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353 (1882) Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 (1849); Dorris v. French, 4 Hun, 292 (1875); Boston, etc R. R. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873); Ex parte Besley, 2 Mac & G. 176 (1850); Clark v. Farring- ton, 11 Wis. 306 (1860); Jewell v. Rock River Paper Co., 101 111. 57 (1881); Haynes v. Brown, 86 N. H. 545 (1858); Chaffln V. Cummings, 87 Me. 76 (1858); Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94 (1819); Griswold v. Seligman, 72 Mo. 110 (1880); Boggs v. Olcott, 40 111. 303 (1866); Musgiave v. Morrison, 54 Md. 161 (1880); Phoenix, etc Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 (1876); s. a, 6 Hun, 393 (1875); Palmer V. Lawrence, 3 Sandf. 161 (1849); Phila- delphia, etc R. R. V. Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 829 (1857); Cheltenham, etc Ry. v. Daniel, 2 Q. B. 281 (1841); West Corn- wall Ry. V. Mowatt, 15 Q. B. 521 (1850). And see the dissenting opinion of Lord St. Leonards in Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 8 H. L. Cas. 171, 197 (1868); Harrison V. Heathorn, 6 Man. & G. 81 (1843); Ness V. Angas, 3 Exch. 805 (1849); Ness V. Armstrong, 4 Exch. 21 (1849); Moss V. Steam Gondola Co., 17 C. B. 180 (1855); Bailey v. Universal, etc Assoc, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 557 (1857). The mere acts of interested parties by which certain leases in lands are turned in to the cor- poration, it being understood that pay- ment for the property and services was to be a certain amount of stock, may constitute stockh eldership, al- though no formal record is made of the transaction and agreement, and al- though no certificates of stock are is- sued to anybody. Holland v. Duluth, etc Ca, 65 Minn. 834 (1896). Where stock is taken and paid for, it is Imma- terial that there was no formal sub- scription therefor. Anderson v. Scott, 49 Atl. Rep. 568 (N. H. 1901). The ab- sence of records being suflBciently ac- counted for to make parol evidence admissible, defendant's attendance at meetings of the corporation and his acting as president were accounted competent proof of his being a stock- holder. Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H. 545 (1858). ' Quoted and approved in Walter v. Merced, etc Assoc, 186 Cal. 582 (1899); Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875); McLaughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 8 Mich. 100 (1860); Stutz v. Haldeman,41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890); Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66, 73 (1893). See also McHose v. 178 OH. IV.] SUBSCRIPTIONS METHOD, PAET1E8, ETC. [§52. There have been various dicta to the effect that a subscription cannot be entered into by parol,' but the later and better opinion is that such a subscription is va,lid and binding.* Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 33 (1863); Clark v. Continental Imp. Co., 57 Ind. 135 (1877). A person taking stock from a corpora- tion on its original issue is liable with- out subscription, Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 (1888). A person who receives a certificate of stock from a company in order to enable it to organize, and immediately transfers it back to the company, is not liable on such stock as an offset to claims which he has as a creditor of the corporation. Parberry V. Woodson Sheep Co., 18 Mont. 317 (1896). A person is liable on stock which he accepts from a corporation in Maine, even though he did not actu- ally subscribe therefor. Dunn v. Howe, 96 Fed. Eep. 160 (1899). 1 Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gazzam, 33 Pa. St. 340 (1858). In this case an at- tempt was made to make defendant liable upon his signature to a paper by which the signers agreed to subscribe for stock in a railroad company, but the signatures were shown to have been copies and not originals. Vree- land V. New Jersey Stone Co., 39 N. J. Eq. 188 (1878). The decision was on the question of fraud in inducing de- fendant to take the stock. Thames Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon, 6 B. & C. 341 (1837), holding that one who had sub- scribed a preliminary paper and had paid the sum required in advance, but who had not signed the contract re- ferred to in an act of parliament, was not a subscriber within the meaning of that act See also § 339, infra. Fanning v. Insurance Co., 37 Ohio St. 339 (1881), was a suit upon a note se- cured by a mortgage claimed to have been given in payment for stock. The proof showed that defendant verbally agreed with a canvasser to take the stock, but did not sign any subscrip- tion book or other contract, and never received certificates of stock. Held, 179 that there was no subscription and no sufficient consideration for the note. Galveston Hotel v. Bolton, 46 Tex. 633 (1877). In this case defendant had signed an informal paper as a subscrip- tion for stock, and had offered excuses for not paying the fii'st call, asking for time, etc. The informal paper was lost, and defendant's name did not appear on the company's books in any capac- ity. After the organization of the company he acknowledged to its sec- retary his obligation to pay the call. Held, that he was not a stockholder liable to calls. The oral statement of the stockholder that he would take a certain amount of stock is not sufficient authority to a corporation to enter his name for that amount. Ingersoll, etc. Co. v. Mc- Carthy, 16 Q. B. Eep. (Can.) 163 (1858). 2 Perkiomen, etc. Co. v. Dyer, 187 Pa. St. 470 (1898); Liberty, etc. Bank v. Ot- ter View, etc. Co., 96 Va. 353 (1898); Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 433 (1898). Where a person present at a corporate meeting directed the secretary to sub- scribe certain stock, and the secretary did so on a loose sheet of paper, the court held the subscriber bound; also that the corporate records reciting the facts were competent to show accept- ance, though recorded subsequently. Colfax Hotel Co. v. Lyon, 69 Iowa, 683 (1886). A verbal subscription suffices. The statute of frauds does not apply. Bullock V. Falmouth, etc. Co., 85 Ky. 184 (1887). A verbal subscription for stock was upheld in Tabler v. Anglo- American Assoc, 33 S. W. Rep. 603 (Ky. 1895); Shellenberger v. Patterson, 168 Pa, St. 30 (1895), and York Park Bldg. Assoc. V. Barnes, 39 Neb. 834 (1894). Where a person orally tells a director that he will subscribe a speci- fied amount of stock, and gives a check in part payment, he is liable as a stock- §62.] SUBSCRIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIB8, ETC. [oh. IV. It has been held that, where a director is required to be a stock- holder, the act of serving as a director is an implied subscription for stock to the amount required in order to be a director.' But a contrary rule now exists.^ A subscription in a small pocket memorandum book has been held sufficient to bind the subscriber.' So, a subscription on a single sheet of paper may be binding,* even though the charter pro- vides for the opening of books.* A signature to the certificate re- holder. Cookney's Case, 3 De G. & J. 170 (1858). And see also various oases in the notes herein, involving somewhat similar facts. Of. 72 S, W. Rep. 1125. 1 See Harward's Case, L. E. 13 Eq. 80 (1871); Stephenson's Case, 45 L. J. (Ch.) 488 (1876); Re British & A. Tel. Co., L. R 14 Eq. 816 (1872); Re Empire Ass. Corp., L. R. 6'Ch. App. 469 (1871). Where one accepts the office of di- rector without owning the required number of shares of stock, and is in consequence under obligation to qual- ify himself by taking stock, he is not obliged to take the stock from the com- pany, but may purchase or procure the shares as he is able in the open market or at private sale. Brown's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App, 103 (1878); Karuth's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. 506 (1875). Where shares are allotted to a di- rector in order to qualify him, he is lia- ble upon said shares upon the winding up, even though he did not know of the allotment, and even though he had acquired other qualification shares. Re Portuguese, etc. Mines, [1891] 3 Ch. 38. ^Re Moore Bros. & Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 637; Onslow's Case, 55 L. T. Rep. 613 (1881); afiE'd, 58 L. T. Rep. 834 (1887), and cases cited; Ese parte Cammell, [1894] 1 Ch. 528. And see summary in Healey's Company Law and Pr. 185, 139. But a director is liable upon qual- ification shares upon a winding up of the company, even though he has never held any shares, where the charter pro- vides that serving as a director shall constitute a contract to pay for quali- fication shares. Re Anglo-Austrian, etc. Union, [1893] 3 Ch. 158. 180 The common-law rule that a director is not liable to the amount of qualifica- tion shares which he is required by statute to have, but which he does not have, is not applicable to directors in national banks. Finn v. Brown, 143 U. S. 56 (1891). Hamley's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 705 (1877), holds that a director who was. not qualified did not by acting ren- der himself liable to creditors to the amount of qualification stock. The court, in a dictum, said: "He never- was a director, and he never will be a director, as far as that election is con- cerned," although of course his acts as a director may bind the company as to- third persons. See sXso Ex paHe Stock, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 731 (1864). Resignation releases the liability. Re Self- Acting, etc. Ca, 54 L. T. Rep. 676 (1886); Marquis of Abercorn's Case, 4 De a, F. & J. 78 (1863); Re Wheal Bul- ler Consols, L. R. 88 Ch. D. 42 (1888). See also ch. XXXVII, infra. "Can a director part with his quali- fication shares ? " See on this subject. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 99. 3 Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 394 (1883); Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R R^ 18 Ind. 68 (1862). Contra, McClelland V. Whiteley, 15 Fed. Rep. 323 (1883). The full christian name need not be be subscribed. State v. Beck, 81 Ind. 501 (1882). *Iowa, etc. R R v. Perkins, 28 Iowa^ 281 (1869); Hamilton, etc, Ca v. Rice,. 7 Barb. 157 (1849). Cf. Bucher v. Dills- burg, eta R R, 76 Pa. St. 806 (1874); Hawley v. Upton, 103 U. S. 314 (1830). ° Mexican Gulf Ry. v. Viavant, 6 Rob. CH. IV.] 6UBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIE8, ETC. [§ 52. quired by statute to be filed in order to obtain the charter of incor- poration, with the number of shares placed opposite to the signature, is a sufficient subscription to bind both the corporation and the subscriber.^ But the assignee of a corporation cannot sue its incor- porators for ten per cent, of the capital stock on the ground that they had sworn that ten per cent, had been paid in in order to obtain the charter, when in fact it had not been paid in.^ Where an " underwriter " agrees to subscribe for whatever the public do not take, and authorizes another to make the subscription for him, he is bound by the subscription.' A company may give a person an option to subscribe for shares of stock in the company. If the company sells its assets before such option is exercised, the party holding the option may exercise it and sue for damages. The price at which the company sold its assets is the basis of the damage.* (La.) 305 (1843); Ashtabula, etc. KR. v. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 828 (1864). I Phoenix, etc. Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 (1876); s. C, 6 Hun, 293; Nulton v. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425 (1880); Herries v. Wesley, 13 Hun, 492 (1878). The certia- cate of incorporation signed by an indi- vidual with the words "350 shares" is a subscription if so intended. Dupee v. Chicago, etc. Co., 117 Fed. Rep. 40 (1903). Where the statute provides that the persons signing the articles of incorpo- ration shall set opposite their names the amount of their subscription, a sub- scriber who complies therewith, but does not acknowledge the articles as required by the statute. Is not bound by his subscription so far at least as the articles are concerned. Coppage v. Hutton, 134 Ind. 401 (1890). It is not necessary thatthe subscription be to the articles of incorporation. San Joaquin, etc. Co. V. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 (1894). A failure to acknowledge the articles of incorporation is a good defense to a subscriber to them who is sued upon his subscription. Greenbrier Ind. Ex- position V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738 (1893). 2 Patterson v. Franklin, 176 Pa. St. 612 (1896). 'Shaw V. Bentley, 68 L. T. Rep. 813 (1893); also Re Henry Bentley, 69 L. T. Rep. 204 (1893). An underwriters' agreement to subscribe if called upon so to do does not render them liable on a winding up if they vt'ere not so called upon. Re Harvey's Oyster Co., [1894] 3 Ch, 474. The offer of a party to take such stock as may not be taken by the public when offered for subscription may be accepted after the public sub- scriptions are closed. Especially is this the case where the underwriter after- wards practically accepted the stock. Re Hemp, etc. Co., [1896] 3 Ch. 131. An underwriter's contract is given in full in Re Hannan's, etc. Co., 75 L. T. Rep. 45 (1896). An offer to underwrite such stock as is not subscribed for by the public must be accepted by the com- pany prior to the offer to the public in order to be binding upon the person making the offer. Re Consort, etc. Mines, [1897] 1 Ch. 575. See also § 14, supra, * Re South African, etc. Co., 74 L. T. Eep. 769 (1896); aff'd, 77 L. T. Rep. 377. Instead of subscribing for stock a party may make a contract with a corpora- tion to take the stock with the right to return it and receive back the purchase price within a certain time. Such a con- tract is legal, and the stock may be re- turned and the money recovered if corporate creditors' rights do not inter- vene. Vent V. Duluth, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 181 §53.] SUBSCEIPTIONS • — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [CH. IV. § 53. Informalities, irregularities and mistaTces in siibscriptions. — But a subscription to an incomplete copy of the articles of associa- tion will not bind the subscriber ; ^ and again, a subscription paper in which the names of directors were left blank has been held not enforceable against a subscriber after the blank has been filled with- out his consent or concurrence.^ Equity will not, however, in the absence of fraud, relieve a subscriber merely upon the ground that be by mistake subscribed for more stock than he intended, in a case where he suffered the corporation to act upon the faith of his sub- scription.' But if one signs an agreement to subscribe, on a sub- scription paper, entirely misunderstanding the nature of the con- tract he is entering into, his subscription must, on general princi- ples, be treated as null and void for want of mutual consent. Cases of this nature may arise without involving the question of fraud.* 307 (1896). In the case of Brown v. St. Paul, etc. Works, 63 Minn. 90 (1895), an agreement of a corporation with a sub- scriber for stock to take back the stock at a certain time and refund the money if the subscriber so wished was upheld. 1 Dutchess, etc. E. R. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397 (1874). 2 Dutchess, etc. E. R. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397 (1874), the court saying: "A signature to an incomplete paper, want- ing in any substantial particular, when no delegation of authority is conferred to supply the defect, does not bind the signer without further assent on his part to the completion of the instru- ment." To same effect. Consols Ins. Assoc. V. Newall, 3 Fost. & F. 180(1862), where the number of shares was left in blank. See also Eakright v. Logans- port, etc., 18 Ind. 404 (1859). In this case the charter required that directors should be named in the articles of asso- ciation. The adoption of the articles at the time of electing directors was held to be a substantial compliance with the charter, the requirement being consid- ered as only directory. But where an actual subscription is made, with a view of iniluenoing other subscriptions, but the number of shares to be taken is left blank, so that the sub- scription itself might be subsequently withdrawn, it was held that the corpo- rate agents might fill up the blank, and thereby bind the subscriber. Jewell v. Rock River, etc. Co., 101 111. 57(1881). The case of Clark v. Continental Imp. Co., 57 Ind. 135 (1877), held that an agreement to pay in instalments a cer- tain sum to a contractor as the work progressed, in consideration of stocks to be delivered by the corporation, after full payment has been made in this way, was not a subscription to capital stock, and that the maker of such an agreement was not a subscriber. 3 Diman v. Providence, etc. R. R, 5 R. I. 130 (1858). Where, with a view to* organizing a corporation, various par- ties sign a subscription list on the oral agreement that they might change the amount of their subscriptions, and one who signed for $5,000 notified the chief promoter that he wanted but $2,500, and the corporation, when organized, made calls on him for only $3,500, a corporate creditor cannot hold him for more. White V. Kahn, 108 Ala. 308 (1894). * Jackson v. Hayner, 13 Johns. 469 (1815); Throughgood's Case, 3 Coke, Rep. 9 (1584); Foster v. Mackinnon, L, R. 4 C. P. 704 (1869); Rockford, etc. E. R. V. Schunick, 65 111. 233 (1873),— not stock cases, but sustaining the general principle. Reed v, Richmond Street R. R., 50 Ind. 843 (1875). In this case the statute 183 OH. IV-.J STJBSOEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§53. Questions relative to the withdrawal of a subscriber, after sub- scription, are considered elsewhere.^ If the business of the incorporation is illegal, the subscription, of course, cannot be enforced.^ Many cases are given in the notes which will throw some light on the various principles of law as applicable to the facts in actions to collect subscriptions.' authorizing the organization of street railway companies required that the articles of association should, among other things, state the number of direct- ors and their names. Neither of these requirements was .observed; and in an action to recover a subscription the court held the subscription void, say- ing: "If one of these requirements can be dispensed with, or held to be directory merely, we do not see where we are to stop. The case of Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R R., 13 Ind. 404 (1859), went as far in this direction as we are willing to go." 1 See § 169, infra. A subscriber may show that he was assured that he might withdraw from the subscription if he wished after consulting with an- other person, and that he actually did so withdraw. Ada, etc. Assoc, v. Mears, 133 Mich. 470 (1900). Even though two persons signed the articles of incorpora- tion as incorporators and as subscribers of stock, on condition that the articles would not be used unless a certain other party signed, and even though the latter party did not sign and the articles were filed and the stock subse- quently tendered to such signers, which they refused, yet if they took no steps to remove their names as subscribers from the books they are liable as stock- holders to corporate creditors on a stat- utory liability. Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wis. 136 (1901). 2 Seech. XIII. Notes given in the purchase of stock in a corporation whose sole business is to carry on an infringing telephone business are without consideration and void. Clemshire v. Boone County Bank, 53 Ark. 513 (1890). 'Boggs V. Olcott, 40 111. 303 (1866), holding that the payment of calls by one whose name appears to a subscrip- tion to the stock of a corporation is an admission that his signature and sub- scription were authorized and binding upon him. To same effect is Musgrave V. Morrison, 54 Md. 161 (1880): Rhey ?;. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 37 Pa. St 361 (1856), in which a promise to subscribe for a certain amount of stock for the pur- pose of inducing the company to adopt a certain route was held enforceable, though no formal subscription ever was made; Hawley v. Upton, 103 U. S. 314 (1880), where, the paper issued being a bond in consideration of shares re- ceived, but which were in fact never issued, the signer was held to be a stockholder. In Qayuga Lake R. R. v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 (1876), where the arti- cles of association were defective in not distinctly stating the termini of the road nor the counties through which it passed, it was held that such defect could not avail the defendant in an action for a balance of an unpaid subscription. Gorrissen's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 507 (1873), in which the per- son agreeing to place stock was held not liable as a stockholder. Boston, etc. R. R. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873), in which the railroad was not divided into sections as contemplated by the subscription paper, the change, however, being a merely formal irregu- larity. In an old case in Massachusetts it was held that a statement, made at a public meeting of the corporation, by one of the stockholders, that he would spend half his estate, or enough of it to make the enterprise undertaken by the corporation a success, did not 183 §54.J SUBSOEIPTIONS - ETC. [CH. IV, § 54. Yarious defenses to siibscriptions. — There are various de- fenses to the validity and enforceability of a subscription which have been treated of elsewhere. Thus, a subscriber to the cap- render him liable for a failure to do so. Andover, etc. Corp. v. Hay, 7 Mass. 103 (1810). A subpcription by various parties to a cheese factory to be incorporated, the number of shares being placed opposite the names, binds the subscribers only to the extent of the shares so placed oppo- site their names. Davis, etc. Co. v. Jones, 66 Fed. Rep. 184 (1895). A subscription contract prior to incorporation may be such that the subscribers are liable sev- erally to the amount of their subscrip- tions. Davis V. Bavenna Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471 (1896). A subscription prior to incorporation will not be construed as rendering each subscriber liable for the whole, even though the subscription speaks of a joint liability, it being clear that such was not the intent of the sub- scribers. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Graham, 78 Fed. Rep. 83 (1896). A subscriber who places opposite his signature the figures $1,000 is bound, although he does not write the number of shares taken. Columbus Land Co. v. McNally, 173 Pa. St. 158 (1895). An agreement to buy stock was held to be a subscription to stock in Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Neb. 379 (1895). An indefinite agree- ment to subscribe, running to trustees. Is not enforceable, no corporate name, capital stock, or incorporators' being named. Loutsenhizer v. Farmers', etc Co., 5 Colo. App. 479 (1895). The validity of a subscription depends upon the law of the state creating the corporation, unless payment is to be made elsewhere. Penobscot, etc. Co. v. Bartlett, 78 Mass. 244 (1858). Burlington, etc. Ry. v. Palmer, 43 Iowa, 383 (1875), was an action upon a subscription note to a railroad, which, by agreement, was not to be delivered until a right of way had been secured, when a contract should be executed by the railroad to construct an extension upon certain conditions, neld, that the fact that the contract last referred to did not contain one of the conditions, which had, however, been complied with, did not constitute a defense to the action. In Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 (1863), one who had subscribed in an irregular way, but had acted as a stock- holder and accepted the office of di- rector, was held to have waived all objection to the form of his subscrip- tion. To same effect, Danbuiy, etc. E. R. V. Wilson, 33 Conn. 485 (1853). The fact that a subscription paper does not correctly designate the termini of a railroad already built is no defense to a subscriber. Cayuga Lake R. R v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 (1 876). The legislature cannot make a person a subscriber in opposition to his will. Richmond, etc. Assoc. V. Clarke, 61 Me. 851 (1873). One who never subscribes in writing for stock, nor assumes the position or rights of a stockholder, but gives a bond to repay the subscription price, which is loaned to him, is not liable on the bond. Butler University v. Sooonover, 114 Ind. 381 (1888). It is a question of fact and of contract whether a party loaned money to the company or was a subscriber to the stock. MoComb v. Barcelona, etc. Assoc, 134 N. Y. 598 (1892). Where the corporation contracts with the subscriber to give him indefinite time in which to pay for his stock the subscription is void. McComb v. Credit Mobilier, etc. Co., 13 Phila. 468 (1878); Van Allen v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 7 Bosw. 515 (1861). It is otherwise when only a reasonable credit is given. Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 (1883). The fact that the subscriptions to various subscription lists of the same character are cut off from the headings and pasted under one heading does not 184 CH. IT.] SUBS0KIPTI0N8 METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§ 54. ital stock of an incorporated compan}'^ is, in general, bound to know the legal effect of his subscription; and false and even fraud- ulent representations made to him at the time of taking his sub- release the subscribers. It is not a mutilation. Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. v. Hamlin, 24 Hun, 390 (1881). Subscrip- tions need not be on one paper, but may be on various papers. Anderson v. Scott, 49 Atl. Rep. 568 (N. H. 1901). Charlotte, etc. v. Blakely, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) 245 (1848). In this case one who subscribed a paper agreeing to take certain railroad stock "provided the road comes to Columbia," but did not sign the subscription books when opened, was held not to be a stock- holder. Erie, etc. R. R. v. Owen, 33 Barb. 616 (1860). In this case it is said that there are two modes in which a person, un- der the general railroad act of the state of New York, may become a stockholder in a railroad corporation, viz. : by subscribing the articles of as- sociation, and becoming a member of the corporation as the act provides (§§ 1 and 2), or by subscribing to the capital stock, in the book opened by the directors, after the corporation is in existence; and that no one who has only signed the articles of association, before the corporation came into being, is a corporator or member of the cor- poration, unless the articles so signed by him have been duly filed in the office of the secretary of state, as re- quired by the statuta It is doubtful whether this can be considered good law. This case is distinguished in Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Clark, 22 Hun, 359, 362 (1880). afl'd, 87 N. Y. 294, and Sodus, etc. R. R. v. Hamlin, 24 Hun, 390, 394 (1881). Although the statute provides for subscription books, yet a subscription on a subscription paper will be valid. Ashtabula, etc. R. R. v. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328 (1864), Brownlee v. Ohio, etc R. R., 18 Ind. 68 (1862); Buffalo, etc. R. R. V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 (1882); Hamil- 185 ton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 (1849); People V. Stockton, etc. R. R, 45 Cal. 306 (1873); Stuart v. Valley R. R., 32 Gratt. 146 (1879). Especially where a loose sheet is subsequently put into a volume and made part of the records of the corporation. Woodruff v. Mc- Donald, 33 Ark. 97 (1878). Ex parte Besley, 2 Mac. & G. 176 (1850), in which the defendant was held to be a subscriber and liable to creditors of a railway, although he had not signed any subscription paper or book, but had attended meetings of the provisional committee as a mem- ber thereof, and had paid small assess- ments ordered by it. Carlisle v. Saginaw, etc. R. R., 27 Mich. 315 (1873). Where the law re- quired subscriptions to be made "in the manner to be provided by its by- laws," a subscription made before such by-laws were adopted was declared to be void. New Brunswick, etc. Co. v. Mug- geridge, 4 Hurl. & N. 160 (1859). De- , f endant had agreed in writing to accept shares he desired to subscribe for, and had paid the sum required in advance, but he did not sign the articles of asso- ciation subsequently sent to him for his signature. In an action for calls he was held not to be a shareholder, although his name had been placed as such upon the company's register. The decision rested upon a clause in the Joint-Stock Companies Act, 1856, to the effect that no person shall be deemed to have accepted any share unless his acceptance be in writing. Tilsonburg, etc. Co. v. Goodrich, 8 Ont. 565 (1885), which was an action for calls on shares. " The defendant " (although one of the projectors and original subscribers) " was not a party to the petition, and he is not by the terms of the [general] statute a mem- § 55.] 8DBSCEIPTI0NS — METHOD, PAETIKS, ETC. [CH. IV scription as to the legal eifect of his contract of subscription are not suflBcient to release him.' Parol conditions or agree- ments in reference to subscriptions which are absolute on their face are generally not sustained.^ Where the certificate of in- corporation varies materially from the preliminary subscription agreement, the subscriber is released.' The right of a stockholder to withdraw from his subscription is discussed elsewhere in this volume.'' And many other defenses which have been raised to defeat actions for the collection of subscriptions are considered else- where.' § 55. Proof of subscription. — It is presumptive evidence that one is a subscriber or stockholder when his name appears on the books of the company in either of these capacities.^ And so also ber of the company, and he has done nothing since the patent, by attending meetings or otherwise, which can have relation to his agreement to take stock." The court with regret held that he was not a stockholder. 1 See § 196, infra. 2 See ch. IX, infra. A defendant, it is said, however, who is sued on a sub- scription absolute, may show that he agreed orally to subscribe condition- ally, and placed his name on blank paper, and that the secretary of the corporation subsequently, without his knowledge, subscribed the name un- conditionally to a subscription paper. See § 137, infra. And it is held that when a corporation invites and accepts subscriptions as a loan, to be repaid in full and the subscription canceled, it cannot repudiate such a contract and treat the subscription so induced as absolute. See § 247, n., infra. A party sued upon a subscription for stock may show that a letter accompanied the subscription to the effect that he would pay a certain part in cash, which had been done, and pay the balance out of his monthly accounts with the cor- poration. Elliott V. New York, etc. Co., 73 Hun, 519 (1893). s Greenbrier, etc. Exposition v. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738 (1893). A change in the plan of organization so as to have a larger capital stock than was origi- nally intended releases a subscriber. Norwich, etc. Co. v. Hockaday, 89 Va. 557 (1893). See also § 194, infra. « See §§ 167-170, m/m. « See ch. X. * Quoted and approved in Terras v. Raeburn, 108 Ga. 345 (1899). The ap- pearance of a person's name as a stock holder on the corporate books is prima facie evidence that he owns the stock. Sherwood v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 195 111. 113 (1903). An entry in the stock book of a national bank is evidence of stock- holdership in an action to enforce the statutory liability. Brown v. Ellis, 103 Fed. Rep. 834 (1900). The corporate stock book, containing a list of the stockholders, the number of shares owned by each, the amounts paid and due, and containing defendant's name among others, is suflSoient evidence of a balance due on unpaid subscription. Glenn v. Orr, 96 N. C. 418 (1887); Turn- bull V. Payson, 95 U. S. 418 (1877); Hoag- land V. Bell, 36 Barb. 57 (1861): Hamil- ton, etc. Ca V. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 (1849); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Applegate, 21 W. Va. 172 (1882); Taylor v. Hughes, 2 Jones & tat. (Ir. Ch.) 24, 55 (1844); Mo- Hose V. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 33 (1863). Cf Coffin V. Collins, 17 Me. 440 (1840); Whitman v. Granite Church, 24 Me. 236 (1844); Rockville, etc. Turnp. u Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C. 449 (1824); S. a, 20 Fed. Cas. 1080; Mudgett v. Horrell, 186 OH. IV. J SUBSOKIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§55. it is said that the commissioners' books are prima facie evidence of the subscriptions found in them,^ and likewise as to the original subscription paper.^ And again, entries in the proper books by commissioners duly "^ appointed to take subscriptions are evidence 33 Cal. 35 (1867). Or when a certificate the suhsoriber on the corporate books has been issued to him, which he pro- may be fatal to proving stockholder- duces. Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. ship by the books. Where the subscrip- R. R., 84 N. Y. 157 (1881); Agricultural "tion is denied, the best evidence is the Bank v. Burr, 34 Me. 356 (1844); Van- subscription itself; and until it is ac- counted for, the stock ledger is inadmis- sible in evidence. If the action is on the written subscription, recovery can be on that alone. Taussig v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 409 (1893). Where there is no law authorizing a paper containing the subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation to be filed in the office of the secretary of state, a copy thereof, certified under the seal of the secretary of state, is not admissible as evidence in a suit by the corporation to charge the defendant as stockholder. Troy, etc. R. R. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581, 600 (1854); Tilsonburg, etc. Co. V. Goodrich, 8 Ont. 565 (1885). Cf. Bouchaud v. Dias, 3 Denio, 388_ (1846) ; Dick V. Balch, 8 Peters, 80 (1884.) Stockholdership is proved by the stockholders' book which by statute is made presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated, and by the testi- mony of a corporate officer that the persons therein named are stockholders and that they took part in stockholders' meetings. Zang v. Wyant, 25 Colo. 551 (1898). Where it is proved that the de- fendant is a stockholder, the books of the-company may be used to prove the amount of stock he held, but such books are not sufficient to prove that he was a stockholder. The law of the forum governs as to this. National Express, etc. Co. v. Morris, 15 App. Cas. Dist. of Col. 363 (1899). iRockvlUe, etc. Co. v. Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C. 449 (1834); s. a, 30 Fed. Cas. 1080; Wood v. Coosa, etc. R, R., 83 Ga, 373 (1861). 2 Partridge v. Badger, 35 Barb, 146 (1857). derwerken v. Glenn, 85 Va. 9 (1888); Lewis V. Glenn, 84 Va. 947 (1888). The appearance of a person's name on the stock book of a corporation raises a presumption that he subscribed. South Branch Ry. v. Long's Adm'r, 43 W. Va. 131 (1897). The stock book and a subscription list are sufficient to prove stockholder- ship in the absence of rebuttal testi- mony. Glenn v. Liggett, 47 Fed. Rep. 473 (1891). But entries in the cash book are not admissible, nor the report of the treasurer of the corporation. GJenn V. Liggett, 47 Fed. Rep. 473 (1891). Where the name of an individual ap- pears upon the stock book of a corpo- ration as a stockholder, the presump- tion is that he is regularly and lawfully the holder and owner of the stock, and, in the absence of evidence that the stock has come to him by transfer, Hiat he was regularly a subscriber. Turn- bull V. Payson, 95 U. S. 418 (1877). If a person appears upon the books as a stockholder, the presumption is raised that he is a stockholder, and en- tries in the stock book are admissible to raise such presumption. Holland v. Duluth, etc. Co., 65 Minn. 334 (1896). The stock books are sufficient to prove stockholdership if the name con- tained therein is the same as defend- ant's and was entered as his name. Liggett D. Glenn, 51 Fed. R^p. 381 (1893). Cf. Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 338 (1890). The books of the corporation are prima facie evidence of stockholder- ship. Lehman v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618 (1889). A mistake in entering the name of 187 §55.] StJBSOEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [oh. IV. against the subscribers.' So corporate books to which a subscrip- tion has been transferred by authority of the subscriber are evi- dence of the subscription,^ and also the books that contain the original subscriptions.' Entries on the stock ledger and corporate books are competent evidence of an issue of stock to a person.* There are recent decis- ions, however, to the effect that entries in the books of a corpora- tion showing the transfer of stock to a certain person, and pay- ments by him thereon, are not prima facie evidence that he is a stockholder in a suit to charge him as a stockholder of the corpo- ration.' The presumption that one is a stockholder, arising from the fact of his name being found in the stock and transfer boak, may be met by proof to the contrary.* Creditors of a corporation are presumed to have relied upon the books as to who are stock- holders.' In order to let in secondary evidence of a subscription, there must be proof of an original subscription and of the loss of the book or paper, or the absence of the original paper satisfactorily accounted for.* Where a person is show^n to be a stockholder, the 1 Wood V. Coosa, etc. R. R, 33 Ga. 373 <1861). 2 Iowa, etc. R. R. v. Perkins, 38 Iowa, 281 (1869); Hawley u. Upton, 103 U. S. 314 (1880), a case where the party had no knowledge of the transfer, but was held liable. Of. Whitman v. Granite Church, 24 Me. 336 (1844). 3 Marlborough Branch R. R. u Ar- nold, 75 Mass. 159 (1858). Cf. Mudgett V. Horrell, 33 Cal. 25 (1867). The subscription books are prima facie evidence of stookholdership. Sem- ple V, Glenn, 91 Ala. 345 (1891). In enforcing a subscription, stook- holdership may be proven by showing the name on the subscription list and proving payment of several assess- ments. Glenn v. McAllister, 46 Fed. Rep. 883 (1891). Stookholdership may be proved by admissions of the stockholder and the testimony of the treasurer, and by the record book purporting to contain copies of the original minutes, where the stock book could not be found. Congdon v. Winsor, 17 R. I. 236 (1891). 4 Chapman v. Porter, 69 N. Y. 276 (1877). 6 Carey v. Williams, 79 Fed. Rep. 906 188 (1897), the court reviewing the author- ities. The fact that a person's name appears on the books of a corporation as a stockholder is not sufGcient evi- dence upon which to charge him as a stockholder, and he may show that the stock was transferred to him before it should have been transferred under his contract of purchase. Sigua, etc. Co. v. Greene, 104 Fed. Rep. 854(1900). Stook- holdership cannot be proved by books of the corporation other than the stock subscription book signed by the subscriber. Hinsdale Sav. Bank v. New Hampshire Bkg. Co., 59 Kan. 716 (1898). 6 Mudgett V. Horrell, 33 Cal. 25 (1867). Gf. Brewers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Burger, 10 Hun, 56 (1877). The mere fact that a party is registered on corporate books as a subscriber for stock is insufficient where it is shown that the party did not subscribe and never authorized any subscription. Chapman v. Virginia, etc. Co., 96 Va. 177 (1898). 'United States, etc. Ca v. Davies, 3 Kan. App. 611 (1895). Gf Mudgett u Horell, 33 Cal. 35 (1867), and § 360, infra, 8 Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gazzam, 33 Pa, St. 340 (1858); Grafi v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 31 Pa. St. 489 (1858). See also CH. IV.] STJBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [§56. books of the company are admissible to prove how much has been paid on his stook.^ The books of the corporation are evidence in a suit against a stock- holder on a call, even though the entries are not proved to be cor- rect by the person actually making them.^ As against the officers of the company it may be proved by the books of the company that they had converted Jo their own use the funds of the company illegally.' § 56. The English rule. — In England the contract of subscrip- tion for shares^is entered into in a somewhat more technical or for- mal manner. An application, in the first instance, is made in writ- ing for a specified number of shares, which application is held to be a mere offer, open for acceptance by the corporation for only a limited time.* If the application be accepted, the corporation for- mally allots to the applicant the desired number of shares, and gives him a notice of the allotment. The notice is of the essence of the contract. An allotment without notice is not sufficient to- bind the applicant as a contributory or a stockholder.^ If the no- Hays V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 38 Pa. St. 81 (1860). A contract between the defendant, who is sued as a stockholder, and his attorney, relative to defending the action, is inadmissible to prove stookholdership. Liggett v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 381 (1893); Dorsheimer v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 404 (1893). A cor- poration may; by suit, compel its agents to deliver up subscription lists, or in lieu thereof be liable themselves on the subscriptions. People's Brewing Co. V. Bcebinger, 40 La. Ann. 377 (1888). 1 Fish V. Smith, 73 Conn. 377 (1900). 2Sigua, etc. Co. v. Brown, 171 N. Y. 488 (1903). In a suit by a receiver of a national bank to recover back dividends illegally paid, the books of the bank are competent evidence to prove the acts of the corporation and its financial con- dition, except as to dealings between the corporation and the defendant. Hayden v. Williams, 96 Fed. Rep. 279 (1899). ' Saranac, etc. R. R. v. Arnold, 167 N. Y. 368 (1901). A director may be proved to be such by the minute book of the corporation, but general entries upon the ledger of the corporation do not charge a director with notice thereof. 189 unless it it is proved that he had access to the ledger or control over it. Leon- ard V. Faber, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 495 (1900), the court stating that corporate books, such as the stock book and min- ute books containing records in which third parties are not interested, are evi- dence of the facts set forth in them both in favor and against the corpora- tion, but that account books showing transactions between the corporation •and third persons are similar to account books of other parties and are admis- sible only as admissions by the corpora- tion. See also § 737, infra. * Ramsgate, etc. Go. v. Montefiore, L, R. 1 Exoh. 109 (1886); He Bowron, L. R. 5 Eq. 428 (1868), and the cases generally cited, infra, in this section. A subscriber may withdraw before allotment by a legally convened meet- ing of the directors. Re Portuguese, eta Mines, L.R 43 Ch. D. 160 (1889). But not where the allotment is made irreg- ularly before, but regularly confirmed after, the withdrawal. Be Portuguese, etc. Mines, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 16 (1890). sHebbs's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 9 (1867); Gunn's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 40 (1867); Re Peruvian Eys. Ca, L. R. 4 Ch. App. § 56.] SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [oh. IV. tice of allotment is sent by mail, the allottee becomes bound from the time of posting the letter, whether he received it or not.' And if the allottee knew of the fact of the allotment, and especially if he acted or suffered others to act upon the assumption that he was a shareholder, a formal notification may be unnecessary to bind him.^ The application being in the nature of an ofifer or a proposi- tion may be withdrawn at any time before it has been regularly accepted, and it must be accepted within a reasonable time, or the party making it cannot be held bound;' anJl although the applica- tion should be in writing, the withdrawal of it may be oral.* It seems to be well settled in England, that, in order to make the con- tract to take up shares completely binding, there must be the ap- plication in writing, the allotment of the shares to the applicant, and a communication to him of notice of the allotment.* 333 (1869); Pellatt's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 637 (1867); Ward's Case, L. E. 10 Eq. 659 (1870); Harris's Case, L. E. 7 Ch. App. 587 (1873); Household, etc. Co. v. Grant, L. R. 4 Exoh. D. 316 (1879). The mere act of signing the memorandum of association does not make one a stockholder. Mackley's Case, L. R 1 Ch. D. 347 (1875). A mere allotment without an entry of the name on the stock register does not render the per- son liable as a stockholder. Nicol's Case, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 431 (1885). Nor is one a stockholder unless h^ signs the deed of settlement. Irish Peat Co. v. Phillips, 1 Best & S. 598 (1861). Nor will a certificate be issued till then. Wilkinson v. Anglo-Californian, etc. Co. 18 Q. B. 738 (1853). Although an allotment of stock may be illegal by reason of notice not hav- ing been given of a directors' meeting, yet the allotment] may be confirmed by a subsequent legally called meeting. Re Portuguese, etc. Mines, L. R. 45 Ch. D. 16 (1890). 1 Harris's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 587 <1873); Household, etc. Co. v. Grant, L. R 4 Exch. D. 316 (1879); Townsend's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 148 (1871). But see Hebbs's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 9 (1867). Con- tra, British, etc. Tel. Co. v. Colson, L. R € Exoh. 108 (1871); Be Constantinople, etc. Co., L. R. 11 Eq. 86 (1870). Where the party to whom the stock is allotted does not reply to the letter informing him of the allotment, he is not bound. Be Staffordshire Gas, etc. Co., 66 L. T. Rep. 48 (1891). ^Levita's Case, L. E. 3 Ch. App. 36 (1867);' Be Peruvian Eys. Co., L. E. 4 Ch, App. 333 (1869); Richards v. Home, etc. Assoc L. R. 6 C. P. 591 (1871). s Ward's Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 659 (1870); Best's Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 650 (1865); Ramsgate, eta Co. v. Montefiore, L. E. 1 Exch. 109 (1866); Chapman's Case, L. E. 2 Eq. 567 (1866); Eitso's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 774 (1877); Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. (N. S.) 962 (1869); Pellatt's Case, L. R 3 Ch. App. 527 (1867). A notice of with- drawal of an application for stock is effective when received by the secre- tary at the company's oflSce. Be Lon- don, etc. Bank, Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 220. i Wilson's Case, 30 L. T. (N. S.) 963 (1869). An application for shares in a company may be verbally withdrawn before allotment. Be Brewery Assets Corp., [1894] 3 Ch. 273. 6 Adams's Case, L. R 18 Eq. 474 (1872); Hebbs's Case, L. R 4 Eq. 9 (1867); Pel- latt's Case, L. R 3 Ch. App. 537 (1867); Eoger's Case, L. R 3 Ch. App. 633, 687 (1868); Tucker's Case, 41 L. J. Ch. 157 (1871). Of. Bloxam's Case, 33 Beav 529 (1864), distinguished in Pellatt's Case, supra. But under the Companies Act 190 CH. IV.] SUBSCKIPTI0N3 METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [§57. § 57. Subscriptions talcen hy commissioners. — Although the stat- ute provides for subscription either by an original subscription to the articles of association, or, after the incorporation, by a subscrip- tion in books to be opened by commissioners, nevertheless it has been held, that a subscription in some other way is binding.' The commissioners may themselves be subscribers to the stock,^ but they can have no priority of right to subscribe over others, and no sub- scriptions can lawfully be taken with closed doors. The books must be open, and the public must have an opportunity to sub- scribe.' The commissioners have only such general powers as are necessary to validate the subscriptions to the stock. Their au- of 1862, § 23, the decisions are uniform that whenever one signs the memoran- dum of association he becomes a stock- holder, and must be put on the list of contributories, although no shares may- have been allottedjio him. Re London, etc. Co., L. R. 5 Ch. D. 525 (1877); Evans's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 427 (1867); Sid- ney's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 228 (1871); Lev- ick's Case, 40 L. J. (Ch.) 180 (1870); Hall's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 707 (1870), distinguishing Snell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 22 (1869). An allotment tp a per- son who has not applied for shares is not binding. Be Northern, etc. Co., 63 L. T. Rep. 369 (1890.) 1 Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 (1882); Stuart v. Valley R. R., 32 Gratt (Va.) 146 (1879). Contra, Troy, etc. R. R. V. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297 (1854); Parker v. Northern, etc. R. R., 33 Mich. 23 (1875); Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636 (1862); Shurtz v. Schoolcraft, etc. R. R., 9 Mich. 369 (1861). But when the statutes provide for commissioners, it is said they must all be present in order to do legally the judicial duties assigned to them. Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 (1839). It is said that in the taking of subscriptions the commis- sioners act ministerially, but in the distribution or allotment of shares they act judicially; and that a distribution of shares by commissioners not sufiS- cient in number to constitute a legal board is void. Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 (1839). 191 It has been held that the commis- sioners may limit the amount of stock which any one subscriber may take, and will, in a proper case, be sustained therein on grounds of public policy, al- though the power so to act is not spe- cifically conferred upon them by stat- ute. Brower v. Passenger By., 3 Phila. 161 (1858). And accordingly fictitious subscriptions for the purpose of evad- ing such a limitation of the amount of stock to be taken by a single subscriber are illegal and void. Perkins v. Sav- age, 15 Wend. 412 (1836). Commission- ers to take subscriptions may refuse to allow one person to subscribe for half of the stock, and may refuse to accept a subscription from a person as trustea Thomas v. Citizens', etc. Ry., 1 Am. St. Ey. Dec 299 (Pa. 1858). 2 Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 (1833). 'Brower v. Passenger Ry., 8 Phila. 161 (1858). When the amount of the subscription is not limited, the com- missioners, in the absence of other ex- press provision, may usually decide when enough stock has been subscribed, and their decision is practically con- clusive as an exercise of discretion. Saugatuok Bridge Co. v. Westport, 39 Conn. 337, 348 (1872). Their failure to take the statutory oath will not invali- date the subscriptions taken by them, if they are in other essential respects regular. EoUman v. Williamsport, etc. Co., ? G. & J. (Md.) 463 (1888). § 58.] SDBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIES, ETO. [oh. IV. thority and functions cease upon the organization of the corpora- tion.' § 58. Sulscriptions in excess of the capital stock. — In general, after the full amount of stock provided for in the act of incorpo- ration has been subscribed, any further subscriptions are void.' Where, by statute, the commissioners do not properly apportion stock, in cases involving an excess of subscriptions, an aggrieved subscriber may apply to a court of equity for relief.^ But, after the organization of the corporation, the duty to appor- tion the stock, if there has been an oversubscription, belongs to the corporation and not to the commissioners.* And, in the absence of statutory authority, the commissioners, even before organization, have no general power, if they receive excessive subscriptions, to reduce proportionally all the subscriptions and apportion the stock. It is their only duty to take subscriptions up to the full amount of 1 James v. Cincinnati, etc. E. R., 3 (1853). Cf. BuiTalo, etc. R. R. v. Dudley, Disney (Cin. Super. Ct.), 261 (1838); Peninsular Ry. v. Duncan, 28 Mich. 130 (1873); Hardenburgh v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 3 N. J. Eq. 68 (1834); Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 (1833); Crocker V. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 (1839); Wellers- burg, etc. Co. v. Hoffman, 9 Md. 559 (1856); Smith v. Bangs, 15 111. 399 (1854); State V. Lehre, 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 234 (1854). The corporation may by suit sej aside illegal subscriptions — the subscribers not being qualified. Union Banku Mo- Donough, 5 La. 63 (1833). 2 Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. 432 (1866); Maokley's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 247 (1875). Cf. 72 S. W. Rep. 1125. •'Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 (1833); Meads w Walker, Hopk. Ch. 587 (1825). Of. Haight v. Day, 1 Johns. Ch. 18 (1814). Where an apportionment is provided for in the event of an excess of sub- scriptions, it is said that the contract of subscription is not complete until the apportionment is made; that there can be neither stockholders nor corpo- ration prior to the apportionment. Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 (1833); Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend, 211 (1839); Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 14 N. Y. 336, 346 (1856). Where a resolution was passed by a board of directors, entitling a promoter to have a certain number of shares al- lotted to him, and the available shares had been disposed of before his bill for specific performance was filed, held, he had no ground for coming into equity. Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R.2 Ch. A pp. 77, 87 (1866). estate V. Lehre, 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 234 (1854), where an application for man- damus to compel commissioners to re- apportion stock agreeably to the char- ter of a company, and for quo vxirranto against officers claimed to have been illegally elected, was refused, the ap- pellate court holding that the commis sioners had no power to re-apportion stock after the subscribers had become a body corporate. In Smith "v. Bangs, 15 111. 399 (1854), after the commission- ers had closed the subscription books and called a meeting, at which direct- ors were chosen, they reopened the books to receive further subscriptions. On the application of one of the direct- ors they were restrained by injunction, tfie court holding that their powers were at an end. 192 CH, lY.] SUBSCRIPTIONS METHOD, PAKTIES, ETC. [§59. the prescribed capital, and to refuse anything beyond that.' Neither can the corporation, if it has issued the full amount of the stock, recover on subscriptions in excess. The subscriber acquires no title by such a subscription, and corporate creditors can enforce no lia- bility thereon.- Where a corporation takes subscriptions for more stock than it can issue, it cannot make calls on the stock until after the stock has been apportioned.' A subscriber for stock cannot be compelled to accept shares previously and lawfully issued to another subscriber.* "Where a person has subscribed for stock, but the cor- poration finds it has issued all of its stock, it cannot compel such subscriber to take preferred stock instead.* If a corporation has already issued its entire stock to other parties, it cannot collect on a subscription made before such issue of the entire stock to other parties.' It is no defense that the stock of a proposed corporation was oversubscribed.' § 59. Siibscriptions and organization where there is a special charter and no commissioners are provided for. — This subject is considered elsewhere.' i.Van Dyke v. Stout, 8 N. J. Eq. 333 (1850;. 2 Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. T. 550 (1858); Oler V. Baltimore, etc. E. R., 41 Md. 583 (1874). See also § 193, infra. When the corporation has accepted subscrip- tions in excess of the capital stock, cor- porate oflScers cannot buy in shares of the stock at a discount and then re- issue them to provide for the oversub- scription, charging the corporation par for the stock bought in, and thereby realizing a profit to themselves individ- ually on the transaction. East New York, etc. R. R. v. Elmore, 5 Hun, 314 (1875). A subscriber for stock who has given his note in payment may file a bill in equity to compel the corporation to recognize him as a stockholder, where the corporation denies that he is a stockholder and has issued all its stock to other parties who took vyith notica It is unnecessary to bring into the suit the other parties who actually have the stock, the'stock having been held by the company as collateral se- curity. Morey v. Fish, etc. Ca, 84 N. W. Rep. 863 (Wis. 1901). Where, after a subscription for stock is made, the company contracts to issue all its stock to a contractor in payment for work, and thereupon the subscriber gives up bis stock to the company and it is issued to the contractor, the subscriber is not-liable on such stock, even though the contractor does not fulfill, and even though the subscriber caused the con- tract with the contractor to be made. Riverton Water Co. v. Hummel, 175 Pa. St. 575 (1896). See also §§ 168, 169, 766e, infra. 3 Bristol, etc. Ca v. Tilton, 70 N. H. 339 (1900).. ^Knoxville, etc. R. E. u. M'a,f3^9& Tenn. t- (1896). A subscriber forstock is not released by.the fact that in or- ganizing, in order to make up thg^fuU capital stock, one of the subsisribers- subscribed for the balance which he supposed was not taken, but which it turned out had been taken. Tulare,, etc. Bank v. Talbot, 131 Gal. 45 (1900). ^Knoxville, etc. R. R. v. Mayor, 98- Tenn. 1 (1896). * Level Land Ca v. Hay ward, 95 Wis. 109 (1896). ' Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329 (1896)i 8 See ch. XXXVI, infra. (18) 193 §§ 60, 61.] SUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [CH. IV. § 60. Subscriptions delivered in escrow. — Subscriptions for shares may be made and delivered in escrow to an agent of tlie corpora- tion who is engaged in taking subscriptions,^ or to a director of the corporation,^ or to a commissioner.' The depositary can deliver it up only on performance of the condition.* So, also, a subscriber may show by parol an agreement with an agent of the corporation that his subscription to blank paper should not be a subscription until he had seen and approved the heading of the subscription paper.' § 61. Liability of the corporation for refusal to issue a certificate of stocTi. — The corporation is bound, upon demand, to deliver to a stockholder a certificate of stock representing his interest in the corporation.^ If it refuses to issue the certificate the stockholder 1 Cass V. Pittsburg, etc. Ey., 80 Pa. St. 31 (1875). It is a good defense, even as against a receiver, that the subscriber delivered the subscription to the can- vasser to hold until the former investi- gated, and that he at once investigated and forbade the delivery of the sub- scription. Great Western T. Co. v. Loe- wenthal, 154 111. 361 (1894). 2 Ottawa, etc. R. R. v. Hall, 1 111. App. 613 (1878). 3 Cass V. Pittsburg, etc. Ry., 80 Pa. St. 31 (1875); Ottawa, etc. R R. v. Hall, 1 Bradw. (Ill) 613 (1878). Of. Price v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R., 34 111. 13, 36 (1864). Contra, Wight v. Shelby R. R., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 4 (1855). 4 Ottawa, etc. R. R. v. Hall, 1 Bradw_ (III.) 613 (1878). It is competent to show' by parol that a subscription was deliv- ered in escrow. Ottawa, etc. R. R. v. Hall, 1 Bradw. (111.) 613 (1878). Cf. Ton- ica, etc. R R. u. Stein, 31 111. 96 (1859). A subscription for stock may be deliv- ered in escrow, and is not enforceable unless the conditions of such delivery are complied with. Oilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 334 (1 897). A subscription to be delivered to the company in case the subscriber became a director is not en- forceable if he was not made a director. Turner's Case, 7 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 448 (1884). An oral condition that the sub- scription list was not to be delivered except by the defendant's consent was upheld in Davis v. Kneale, 97 Mich^ 73 (1893). ^Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R. E., 76 Pa. St. 806 (1874). A subscriber cannot defend against a note to pay the sub- scription on the ground that he deliv- ered it to an agent of the corporation with instructions not to deliver it to the corporation until other stockholders gave similar notes. Hardin v. Sweeney, 14 Wash. 139 (1896). *The subscriber may compel the cor- poration to issue a certificate to him. Buffalo, etc. R. R. u. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336, 347(1856); Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 (1883); National Bank v. Wat- sontown Bank, 105 U. S. 317 (1881); Fletcher v. McGill, 110 Ind. 395 (1887); Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 83 Tex. 50 (1891). A valid certificate may be Issued out of the state in which the corporation exists. Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 (1873). The failure of the corporation to issue a certificate is no defense to an action to collect the subscription. See § 193, infra. As to whether a company is obliged at common law to Issue certificates of stock, see an article in 6 Juridical Re- view (Eng.), 58. It has been held in Maryland that a subscriber to the increased capital stock of the company is not entitled to a cer- 194 CH. IV.J SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§61. may bring suit in equity to compel its issuance,' or he may recover of the corporation in assuinpsit the value of the stock at the time of the demand.^ Where a corporation refuses to isSue the stock to a subscriber, he, may file a bill in the alternative to compel the issue of the stock or the payment of its value v?ith damages.' tificate until he has paid for the stock in full, and suoh subscriber is not en- titled to the rights of a stockholder un- til he has paid in full. The court stated that sucli stockholders are not entitled to dividends equally with other stock- holders. The basis of the decision was nied, and who is excluded from the benefit of free gas as given to other stockholders, may maintain a suit in equity to establish her rights as a stock- holder, and if she subscribed for the stock and was recognized by the corpo- ration as a stockholder, her rights can- the difference between original stock " not be denied, although no certificate and increased stock. The court re- fused to compel the corporation to issue a certificate. Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Harableton, 77 Md. 341 (1893). A stat- ute authorizing the issue of certificates of stock when it is fully paid up does not prevent the issue of such certifi- cates before it is fully paid up. Green V. Abietine Med. Co., 96 Cal. 323 (1892). It has been held in Tennessee that where stock is only partly paid, and the cor- poration issues a certificate reciting on its face how much is still due, and the holder pledges it, and no transfer to the pledgee is made on the corporate books, the corporation can have a sale of the stock for non-payment of the balance remaining due, but such proportion of the proceeds will be paid to the pledgee as the amount already paid on the stock bears to the par value of the stock. In- gles, etc. Co. V. Knoxville, etc. Co., 53 a W. Rep. 1111 (Tenn. 1899). Where a prospective corporate oflBcer issues certificates of stock in the pros- pective corporation, a person who loans money on such stock as collateral se- curity may hold suoh officer liable for issuing the stock before the corporation was organized. Merchants' Nat. Bank •y. Robison, 8 Utah, 256 (1892). 1 Rowley's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 150 <1887). See also g§ 337, 338, 391, infra. Of. Thorp u Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411 (1844). A stockholder in a natural-gas company whose stockholdership is de- was ever issued to her and she never paid for the stock. Gowdy, etc. Co. v. Pattison, 64 N. E. Rep. 485 (Ind. 1903). If in organizing and issuingthe stock the amount to be issued for the prop- erty is not what the contract. calls for, the vendor may compel a specific per- formance. Bailey v. Champlain, etc. Co., 77 Wis. 453 (1890). See also § 34, supra; 73 Pac. Rep. 113. 2 " A subscriber for shares of stock, in case the contract of subscription was regularly entered into, may, if the cor- poration refuse to issue him a certifi- cate, have his action in equity for spe- cific performance, or he may recover of the corporation, in assumpsit, the value of the shares at the time of the demand." Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Roden, 97 Ala- 404 (1893), quoting the text. Wyman v. American Powder Co., 63 Mass. 168 (1851); Chester Glass Co. v. Dew9y, 16 Mass. 94 (1819). But to enti- tle one to recover back money advanced to a corporation for shares, upon the ground of a failure to issue the certifi- cate, the subscriber must, before suit, rescind the contract and demand the money. Swazey v. Choate Mfg. Co., 48 N. H. 300 (1868). See also Pacific Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 337 (1891). 3 And if, during the pendency of the suit, the company becomes insolvent, the court can give him damages pay- able pro rata out of the assets of the 495 §61.j SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIE8, ETC. [oh. IV. A subscriber to the increased capital stools who has actually paid part of the price cannot recover back the money, upon corporate insolvency, on the ground that no certificate was issued.' The fact that the corporation has not issued a certificate to a stockholder for thirty years, and that he has not insisted on his right as such, is no bar to his suit to establish his stockholdership.^ In case the full capital stock has been issued, then, of course, specific performance of an agreement to issue more stock cannot be had.' A person to whom a corporation issues full-paid stock in corporation. Re Reading Iron Works, 149 Pa. St. 183 (1892). In an action by a subscriber for stock to compel the corporation to deliver stock, the directors are proper but not necessary parties. Wells v. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 443 (1895). In England it seems that directors are not individually liable to subscrib- ers for the breach by the corporation of its agreement to issue stock. Fer- guson V. Wilson, L, R 8 Ch. Ai^ 77 (1866). But see also Swift v. Jewsbury, L. R. 9 Q. B. 301 (1874); Betts v. De Vitre, L. R. 3 Ch. 439, 441 (1868); Hen- derson v. Laoon, L. R. 5 Eq. 349 (1867); Eaglesfield v. Londonderry, I* R. 4 Ch, D. 698 (1876). 1 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 837 (1891); Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. 234 (1891); Butler v. Eaton, 141 U.a 340 (1891). 2 Bedford County v, Nashville, etc. Ry., 14 Lea (Tenn.), 535 (1884); Kobo- gum V. Jackson Iron Co., 76 Mich. 498 (1889). 3 Finley, etc. Ca v. Kurtz, 84 Mich. 89- (1876); Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 77 (1866). Where a person sells property to a corporation to be paid for in stock and the oorpoi-ation issues all its stock to other parties, he may hold the corporation liable in dam- ages. Pendery v. Carleton, 87 Fed. Rep. 41 (1898). Where a bank contracted to give a person a certain amount of stock if he would do business with it, and he did so, the bank is liable in damages for refusal to deliver the stock. Rich V. State Nat. Bank, 7 Neb. 201 (1878). 196 In a suit against a corporation to com- pel it to issue stock to the plaintiff or else pay the value thereof, the proper form in judgment is an order to issue the stock. A money judgment should be entered only after proof of the cor- poration's failure to comply with the main order. Consolidated, etc. Ca v. Huff, 63 Kan. 405 (1901). For the re- fusal of the corporation to issue origi- nal stock to a subscriber, the measure of damages is the difference between the price contracted for and the market value on the day when the issue ought to have been made. Van Allen v. Il- linois Cent. R. R., 7 Bosw. 515 (1861). For another rule as to the measure of damages, and one more in favor of the plaintiff, see Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 838 (1872); and also ch. XXXV, infra.- In Louisiana the universal legatee rnay pay for, and de- mand| the certificate of stock subscribed for by his ancestor. The executor has no power to cancel the subscription, and the stock cannot be appropriated by a subsequent subscriber, who sub- scribed for it by consentof the execu- tor. State V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 84 La. Ann. 318 (1873). Of. Wallace v. Townsend, 43 Ohio St, 537 (1885). If a mistake has been made by which the certificates and stock have been issued to the wrong person, a court of equity will remedy it. O'Meara v. North American Min. Co., 8 Nev. 118 (1866). A subscriber for stock who has given his note in payment may file a bill in equity to compel the corporation to recognize him as a stockholder, where CH. IT.J SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [§62. settlement of a claim is not bound by any prior contracts of the corporation in regard to that stock where he took the stock with- out notice of the contracts.* The liability of a corporation to issue stock to the subscribers thereof does not necessarily devolve upon another corporation which succeeds to its debts, liabilities and fran- chises.^ § 62. Substitution of stockholders before the incorporation — Change in the proposed enterprise — Alteration of the subscription paper. — There has been some controversy as to the legality of one person being substituted for another as a subscriber before the in- corporation and issue of the stock. If the facts are such that a cancellation of the subscription is legal, then doubtless the sub- stitution is legal.* But where such is not the case, then it would seem that the substitution is merely a transfer of the stock, and the transferrer, in that case, should be liable, but only to the same extent as in other cases of transfer of stock.* Where the subscriber causes the stock to be issued to another person, and the latter pays the corporation therefor, the former's liability is discharged.^ In California it is held that no substitution of stockholders is legal; but the weight of authority clearly sustains a contrary rule.* If the corporation is duly formed, the vendor may compel the the corporation denies that he is a ' See §§ 167-170, infra, on cancella- stockholder and has issued all its stock tion. See also Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. to otlfer parties who took with notice, and it is unnecessary to bring into the suit other parties who actually have the stock, the stock having been held by the company as collateral security. Moray v. Fish, etc. Co., 84 N. W. Rep. 862 (Wis. 1901). ' Angle V. Chicago, etc. Ry., 94 Fed. Eep. 717 (1899). See also § 766c, infra. 2 Conant v. National Ice Co., 40 N. Y. Sup. Ct 83 (1875). A subscriber for stock who has paid ten per cent, can- not sue a consolidated company, into which his company has been merged, for a certificate, even though the ar- ticles of consolidation provide for the issue of one share of the latter com- pany for every two shares of the old company, unless he has first demanded the certificate and has offered to pay the remaining ninety per cent., or asks for a certificate of stock not paid up. Babcooktt Schuylkill, etc. R. R., 133 N. Y. 420 (1892). Cf. § 671, infra. 390 (1873), and dictum in Ryder v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 516, 531 (1851). Cf. Selma, etc. R. R. u. Tijpton, 5 Ala, 787 (1843), to the effect that a subscriber cannot withdraw. i See ch. XV. ' Be Glory Paper Mills, [1894] 3 Ch. 473. See also § 50, supra. 6 Valentine u Berrien, etc. Co., 87 N, W. Rep. 370 (Mich. 1901); Baltimore, etc. Ey. V. Sewell, 35 Md. 238 (1873); Tempest v. Kilner, 3 C. B. 349 (1846); Hunt V. Gunn, 13 C, B. (N. S.) 326 (1862); Merrimao Minn. Co. v. Levy, 54 Pa. St. 337 (1867). Contra, Hawkins v. Mans- field, etc. Co., 53 Cal. 518 (1877); Morri- son V. Gold Mountain, etc. Co., 53 Cal, 306 (1877); Coleman v. Spencer, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 197 (1839). See also Chater v. San Francisco, etc. Co., 19 Cal. 319 (1861). A sale of stock in a company to be or- ganized is legal. Van Dam v, Tapscott, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 36 (1899). A substitution of stockholders after 197 §62.] SUBSCKIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [oh. it. vendee to pay for the subscription transferred, and may collect a note given in payment.^ A material change in the character of the enterprise, the capital stock, or purpose of the proposed company releases those who do not assent thereto.^ Where articles are materially altered without the consent of all the subscribers, after their subscription and before the complete organization of the company, such articles are not binding upon the non-consenting subscribers.' But it is no defense that the sub- scriptions of other parties were erased and that such parties were released by the board of directors.* A subscription to be paid for when the directors find other parties who will agree to purchase the stock from the subscriber is illegal as an attempt to release a subscriber.' The mere erasure of a subscription will not of itself prevent a recovery upon it.^ organization by canceling some sub- scriptions and filling in others is illegal. There should be a transfer. Cartwright V. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). A suit lies to compel a corporation to issue stock in accordance with a contract for construction work. Citi- zens', etc. Assoc. V. Belleville, etc. R. R., 117 Fed. Rep. 109 (1903). See also on this subject, § 169 and § 50. 1 Mahan v. Wood, 44 Cal. 463 (1872). Where an insolvent corporation which has never issued any oertiBcates of stock resolves by a vote of its stock- holders to apply its assets to the extent of their value to the payment of the debts and that new stock be issued to the stockholders upon their paying therefor in full, and one stockholder sells his interest intheoriginal stock and the purchaser for seven years does not complain, he cannot, after the cor- poration has become prosperous, claim that he is entitled to the old stock or any interest in the corporation. Stod- dard V. Decatur, etc. Co., 184 111. 53 (1900). 2 See §§ 194, 603, infra. 'Burrows v. Smith, ION. Y. 550 (1853); Norwich Lock Mfg. Co. v. Hookaday, 89 Va. 557 (1893); Greenbrier Ind. Ex- position V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738 (1893). An alteration in the subscription ar- 198 tides is no defense unless fraudulently made or to the injury of defendant. Armsti'ong v. Danahy, 75 Hun, 405 (1894). See also § 197, infra. An alteration of a subscription list by a subscription being changed and another name substituted releases other subscribers who signed before the alteration. Texas Printing, etc. Co. V. Smith, 14 S. W. Rep. 1074 (Tex. 1889). A change in the subscription by several of the subscribers, but not in- creasing the liability of the others, does not release the others. An in- crease in the capital upon incorporation does not release. Gibbons v. Grinsel, 79 Wis. 365 (1891). * Bristol, etc. Co. v. Selliez, 175 Pa. St. 18 (1896)i See also g 191, infra. 'McNulta V. Corn, etc. Bank, 164 111. 437 (1897). 6 Johnson v. Wabash, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 389 (1861). And where one took a book for subscriptions from an agent of the corporation, and subscribed himself and persuaded others to sub- scribe, and kept the book some months, but finally, because of a difference with the agent about the payment for his services, cut his name out of the book and returned it to the company, it was held, in an action by the com- OH. IV.] SUBSCRIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§63. § 63. Bight to recover iack money advanced on shares upon a failure to organize the company. — "Where one has advanced money in good faith to the promoters of a company, as a deposit or assess- ment upon stock subscribed for to be subsequently issued, and the enterprise contemplated by the proposed incorporation is aban- doned, or the company for any reason fails to be incorporated, such subscriber may recover back the money so advanced.' A note given for stock in a company to be formed, but which never is formed, cannot be collected, except by a lona fide purchaser.'^ Where several owners of riparian rights and lands agree to organ- ize a company and transfer their property to it for stock, and a few of them make such transfer and the others refuse to do so, the former may have the transfers made by them canceled.* Where a corporation receives money in payment for increased capital stock to be issued and never increases its stock, and the money has pany for the amount of his subscrip- tion, that he was bound thereon just as though he had left his name on the list of subscribera Greer v. Chartiers Ry., 96 Pa. St. 391 (1880); Railroad Co. V. White, 10 S. C. 155 (1878). It has been held, however, in New York, that where the statutory cer- tificate required by law to be filed in order to obtain incorporation remains in the hands of a subsoribei', a sub- scriber may erase or modifiy his sub- scription as he sees fit, even though he had previously induced others to subscribe. Burt v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 518 (1857). A stockholder who erases his signa- ture from a subscription list without authority cannot, as a corporate cred- itor, enforce such subscription list against other stockholders, he having illegally altered the agreement. Jack- son V. Cherokee Medicine Co., 47 S. C. 315 (1896). 1 Nockels V. Crosby, 3 Barn. & C. 814 (1825); Ward v. Londesborough, 18 C. B. 253 (1852); Ashpitel u Sercombe, 5 Exch. 147 (1850); Williams v. Salmond,2 Kay & J. 463 (1856); Chaplin v. Clarke, 4 Exch. 403 (1849). Cf. Vollans v. Fletcher, 1 Exoh. 20 (1847); Grand Trunk, etc. Ey. v. Brodie, 9 Hare, 823 (1853); Kemson v. Saunders, 4 Bing. 5 (1836), where a vendee recovered from his vendor money paid for stock in a company which was never organized. And see also Williams v. Page, 24 Beav. 654 (1857). "A bill in equity lies to recover back money paid on a ' bubble. ' " Colt w Woollaston, 2 P. Wms. 154 (1723); Green v. Barrett, 1 Sim. 45 (1826). See also the " Bubble Act," 6 Gea I., oh. 18; also g 705, etc., infra. Where a subscriber for stock pays for the stock before the company is organ- ized, he may recover back the money if the company is not organized. Brad- ford V. Harris, 77 Md. 153 (1893). Where promoters agree to sell stock in a proposed corporation upon a tender of the price by a certain day, such ten- der need not be made if the company is not organized. The proposed pur- chaser may recover back the consider- ation. Manistee Lumber Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 143 111. 490 (1892). 2 Howe V. Raymond, 49 Atl. Rep. 854 (Conn. 1901). A note given to pay for stock in a corporation to be organized cannot be enforced by the payee where the corporation has not been formed. Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Lanning, 83 Minn. 19 (1901). 3 Mack V. Consolidated, etc, Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 869 (1900). 199 § 64.J S0BSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [CH. IV. been used in the business and the corporation becomes insolvent, the subscriber is not entitled to repayment in preference to other creditors.' There is a difference of opinion as to whether a subscriber is obliged to submit to the deduction of any part of the amountpaid in by him for, the payment of the expenses incurred by the promoters in attempting the incorporation. In Pennsylvania it is held that a person who advances money for stock in a corporation to be organ- ized by the defendants may recover it back if the corporation is not organized within a reasonable time, and it is no defense that the defendants used the money in developing patents and endeav- oring to form the corporation.- In California, on the other hand, it is held that a party to a plan to form a corporation, who pays in money before incorporation, with full knowledge of the fact that it is to be spent, cannot recover it back on the ground that the company was finally not incorporated,' and the other cases seem to be to the same effect.* Questions relative to the liability of promoters for debts incurred prior to incorporation,^ and the validity of contracts with irregu- larly or incompletely incorporated or organized companies,* are considered elsewhere. B. WHO IS COMPETENT TO SUBSCRIBE FOE STOCK. § 64. Corporations generally not. — Upon general common-law principles, any one who is competent to enter into ordinary con- tracts may make a valid subscription for stock in an incorporated company. A subscription for stock is a contract ; and, in general, any one who may contract may subscribe. The corporation itself, however, cannot be a subscriber to its own stock.' Where such a iBiroher v. Walther, 163 Mo. 461 with a capital stock of 73,500 shares, of (1901). the par value of $100 each, and six dif- 2 Hudson V. West, 189 Pa. St. 491 ferent persons subscribed for one share (1899). each, and one person then subscribed 'Meyerw. Bishop, 139 CaL 304(1900). fortheoorporation as follows: "Oregon < Williams v. Salmond, 2 Kay & J. Central Railroad Company, by Gr. L. 463(1856); Ashpitelu Seroombe, 5Exoh. Woods, Chairman, seventy thousand 147 (1850). The subscriber is liable for shares, seven million dollars," it was his proportion of the necessary expenses, held that this subscription was void, preliminary to the incorporation and and that the corporation could not be organization of the company. Salem created by such subscriptions. Holla- Mill-dam Corp. V. Ropes, 28 Mass. 23 day v. Elliott, 8 Oreg. 84(1879). See. (1837). Contra, Nockels v. Crosby, 8 also g 251, infrcu And again it has been Barn. & C. 814 (1835). held that where the directors of a com- «See g§ 705-707, infra. pany, in order to make up the required ^ See § 637, infra. amount of capital stock, subscribed as ' Thus, where a number of individuals trustees for the corporation itself, they attempted to organize a corporation are liable for calls on the amount so 200 CH. IV.J SUB8CEIPTION8 — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [§64. subscription is made in the name of a trustee for the corporation, the trustee is personally liable thereon to corporate creditors.^ Mu- nicipal corporations may lawfully subscribe for the stock of private corporations when authorized by statute so to do.^ Where a mu- nicipality has subscribed for stock illegally, any other stockholder may bring suit to have the subscription canceled.' It is not ec(ually clear that, one private corporation may subscribe for the gtbck in another such corporation. On the contrary, such subscriptions are ultra vires and void unless clearly within the ordinary objects and business of the subscribing corporation. A bank cannot law- fully subscribe for stock in a railroad corporation.* A railroad subscribed. In the same case a bill by a member of the corporation on behalf of himself and all the other members except the defendants, praying that this transaction, although it bad been sanctioned unanimously at a meeting of the company, might be declared fraudulent and void, was sustained, al- though some of the members, on be- half of whom the bill was filed, had been present and voted at that meet- ing. Pi-eston V. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 337 (1840). Where the unissued stock of a com- pany (upqn its reorganization on the expiration of its charter) is issued to the president as trustee to sell from time to time and to turn over the pro- ceeds of the sales to the company, the fact that he gives the company a note for the same signed by him as "Trustee for Bank" does not render him liable on such note upon the bank becoming insolvent. Neptune v. Pax- ton, 15 Ind. App. 284 (1896). Stockholders cannot defeat their lia- bility on stock by setting up that they subscribed on behalf of the corporation itself, and on the secret agreement that they should not be held liable. Barto V. Nix, 15 Wash. 563 (1896); Denny Hotel Co. V. Schram, 6 Wash. 184 (1893). In Allibone v. Hager, 46 Pa St. 48 <1863), the court held it no defense to an action by a creditor of a corpora- tion that defendants had subscribed for stock in their own names, but really as agents for the corporation itself. 201 1 Johnston v. Allia, 71 Conn. 207(1898). 2 Sharpless v. Mayor, etc., 21 Pa. St. 147 (1853), and the long train of decis- ions following. The matter of munici- pal subscriptions is fully considered in chapter VI. 'Stebbins v. Perry County, 167 IlL 567 (1897). * Nassau Bank v. Jones, 95 N. Y. 115 (1884), holding that the bank could not recover the profits on such subscription which was made in the name of its agent; nor for stock in any other cor- poration, the business of which is wholly other than banking. Franklin Co. V. Jjewiston Sav. Inst, 68 Me. 48 (1877); Mechanics', etc. Bank v. Meriden Agency Co., 24 Conn. 159 (1855); Tal- mage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328 (1852). Cf. First Nat. Bank v. National Exch. Bank, 93 U. S, 132 (1875); and see Royal Bank of India's Case, L. E. 4 Ch. App. 253 (1869); Joint-stock Dist. Ca v. Brown, L. R. 8 Eq. 381 (1869); Berry tJ. Yates, 34 Barb. 199 (1857), holding that one in- surance company cannot subscribe to another. For a failure of proof to show that a corporation was a subscriber for stock, see McMillan v. Carson Hill, etc. Co., 13 Phila. 404 (1878). An owner of land cannot defeat its condemnation by showing that a corporation sub- scribed to part of the capital of the corporation seeking to obtain the land. Re Rochester, etc. R. R., 110 N. Y. 119 (1888); Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 434 (1880). See also §§ 314-317, infra. §64.] SUBSCRIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [OH. IV. corporation cannot subscribe for shares of stock in another rail- road company;' nor can a dry-dock company be held liable upon a subscription for stock in a steamship company;' nor can a manu- facturing company legally subscribe to the stock of a bank for the purpose of carrying on the banking business.' A fire insurance company has no power to subscribe for stock in a projected bank^ not yet organized, even though the statute gives it power to invest in stocks.* A furniture manufacturing company is not liable on a statutory liability on stock which it has subscribed and paid for in a hotel company.^ A land improvement company has no power to subscribe for stock in other companies and such a subscription can- not be enforced.* An improvement company owning lands may subscribe to the stock of a railroad company in order to bring about the construction of the railroad running through such lands.' Where a corporation owning land becomes a stockholder in a. building as,sociation and gives a mortgage in connection therewith, the mortgage is valid, even though the corporation was hot author- ized to subscribe for stook.^ All such contracts are, in general, ultra vires and, not enforceable.' A construction company, how- ever, is presumed to have power to subscribe for the stock of a railroad which it is building."* A railroad company has no power to donate its funds to a fair." A hotel company may subscribe to- a military encampment enterprise.^' It is no defense to an action on a subscription that a part of the subscriptions*were made by ' Maunsell v. Midland, etc. Ry., 1 Hem. 8 Meares v. Monroe, eta Co., 36 S. E, & M. 130 (1863). One railroad company Rep. 130 (N. C. 1900). has no implied power to subscribe to 9 gee Part IV, on wHra wre^ contracts the capital of another, and cannot do in general. so indirectly by having individuals !•> Re Rochester, etc, Ry., 45 Hun, 126- subscribe and then indemnifying the (1887). In a suit by the receiver of an individuals. Logan v. Courtown, 18 insolvent street railv^ay company to Beav. 22 (1850); and see ch. XIX. hold a construction company liable on 2 New Orleans, etc. Steamship Co. v. stock which, together with bonds, was Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 173 issued for the construction of a street (1876). Subscription by one corporation railway, the claim beingthat there was to the stock of another. Mulqueeney no consideration received for the stock, V. Shaw, 50 La. Ann. 1060 (1898). the bill in equity must allege that the 3 Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & M. construction company had power to 105 (1847): s. c, 23 Fed. Cas. 384. acquire such stock. Doak v. Stahlman, 4 Commercial F. Ins. Co. v. Board of 58 S. W. Rep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). Revenue, 99 Ala. 1 (1892). n See §§ 681, 775, 909, infra. A rail- 5 Knowles v. Sandercook, 107 Cal. 629 road company has no power to sub- (1895). See ch. XIV on this subject. scribe to the stock of a military asso- " MoAlester Mfg. Co. v. Florence, etc. oiation. Military, etc. v. Savannah, Co., 128 Ala. 240 (1901). etc. Ry., 105 Ga. 420 (1898). 7 Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 (1875). 12 Richelieu Hotel Ca v. Internar tional, etc. Co., 140 111. 248 (1892). 202 CH. IV.] BUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES. ETC, [§65. corporations and were not enforceable. Only the state can raise that objection.* Where one corporation subscribes for stock in an- other corporation and pays for such stock, and dividends are de- clared by the latter, it cannot refuse to pay the dividends to the former on the ground that the former had no power to subscribe for the stock.2 § 65. Commissioners, directors, partners, etc., as suhscrihers. — Commissioners may be subscribers to the capital stock.' So, also, may directors and corporate officers subscribe; and it has been held that a director, in the absence of fraud or fraudulent in- tent, may subscribe for the whole of the unsubscribed stock in his own name and for his own benefit.^ But a stockholder who was not present at a stockholders' meeting is not bound by the ratifica- tion by such meeting of the issue of a large amount of the original capital stock to the directors themselves, who were illegally elected, but who thereby acquire control of the company.' A partner, if the act be within the scope of the partnership business, may bind his firm by a subscription in the firm name.* But if it is not within 1 U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. y. 58 (1895). The fact that cor- porations subscribed for stock of an exposition company without charter authority so to do is no defense to another stockholder who stood by without objecting and who does not prove that such subscriptions were not paid. McCoy v. World's, etc. Exposi- tion, 186 111. 356 (1900), 93 N. W. Rep. 225. ^Bigbee, etc. Co. v. Mojre, 121 Ala. 379(1899). ' Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 (1833). < Sims V. Street R. R., 37 Ohio St. 566 (1882). But see §§ 70, 286, 614. But neither the commissioners (Brower v. Passenger Ry., 3 Phila. 161 — 1858), nor any original stockholder (Curry u. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270 — 1867), have any priority of right over the other subscribers, or the public generally, in the matter of subscription for stock. s Morris w Stevens, 178 Pa. St. 563 (1897> Where the stockholders arepres- L. T. Rep. 146 (1897), there were one hundred and twenty founders' shares of £10 each and twelve thousand ordi- nary shares of £10 each. The founders' shares were entitled to half of any divi- dend which might remain after paying ten per cent, on the ordinary shares. The directors allotted to themselves eighty of these founders' shares, and the court upheld the allotment. The prospectus stated that each person tak- ing fifty ordinary shares would be enti- tled to take one of the founders' shares. The directors caused the fifty ordinary shares for each of the eighty founders' shares to be taken by others. " Maltby v. Northwestern, etc. R. R, 16 Md. 422 (1860); Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541 (1856); Union Hotel Co. V. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 545 (1880). Otherwise if it is not within the partner- ship business. Livingston v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 219 (1858). Where partners are stockholders, and all stockholders join as sureties to notes ent and only one objects to the issue of to aid the corporation, one partner may unissued stock to a director, whereby bind the firm by signing its name also he acquires control, such issue is legal, as surety. Morse i\ Hagenah, 68 Wis. Christopher v. Noxon, 4 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 603 (1887). A member of a mercantile 672 (1883). In Re London, etc. Ltd., 77 firm cannot bind the firm by a subscrip- 203 § 66.'] SUBS0EIPTI0N8 — METHOD, PAETIES, ETO. [OH. IV. the scope of the partnership business, the person so signing is liable personally; and whether or not the subscription was within the scope of the partnership business may be a question for the jury.' Even though stock is issued in the name of two persons who are partners, yet if it had nothing to do with the partnership, each is liable for one-half of the subscription, that being their proportion- ate interest.^ Trustees of an estate, and having express power to sell the same, may transfer the property to a corporation in ex- change for the stock of the latter.' § 66. Married women as subscribers. — At common law a mar- ried woman could not subscribe for stock, and any person subscrib- ing in her name wa,s himself personally liable on the subscription.* But now, in England, and generally in the United States by stat- ute, a married woman may bind her separate estate by such sub- scription ; ' and when it appears that the contract was with the wife, having been made directly and solely with her, the husband is not bound.* The recourse of the corporation or the corporate creditors is, in such a case, to her separate estate only.'' At com- mon law a married woman, eve-n though she owned a majority of the stock of a corporation, could not bind herself to pay its debts, and even under the New Jersey statute she does not obtain any- thing for the use of her separable estate, suflBcient to sustain such a promise.' A married woman is bound under the statutes of Ken- tucky on a note which she signs, even though the money goes to a corporation in which she is a stockholder.' tion to the capital stock of a milling * Fugh & Shaiman's Case, L. R 13 corporation. Patty r. Hillsbprq, etc. Co., Eq. 566 (1873). 4 Tex; Civ. App. 224 (1893). ' 6 Witters v. Sowles, 33 Fed. Eep. 767 1 Morse v. Hagenah, 68 Wis. 603 (1887). (1887) ; Matthewmao's Case, L. R 3 Eq. Even though persons subscribe for 781 (1866); Luard's Case, 1 De Gr.,F. & stock on the understanding that it is J. 533 (1860); Butler v. Cumpston, L, R for a firm in which they are members, 7 Eq. 16 (1868); Be Reciprocity Bank, yet if the firm is not bound they are 23 N. Y. 9(1860). See g§250, 319, infra. personally bound. Rehbein v. Rahr, ^j^ngas's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 560 109 Wis. 136 (1901). (1849); Dalton v. Midland, eta Ry., 13 2 Morse v. Pacific Ry., 191 111. 856 C. B. 474 (1853); Ness w Angas, SExch. (1901); aff'd, 191 111. 371. Where a firm 805 (1849). See also Luard's Case, 1 De or partnership becomes a subscriber in Q., F. & J. 533 (1860). the copartnership name, corporate cred- ' Biggart v. City of Glasgow Bank, 6 itors may have execution against any Scotch Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 470 one of the partners. The partnership (1879); Matthew man's Case, L, R 3 Eq. subscription is not a defense of which 781 (1866). any single partner can avail himself to 8 Allen v. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 477 (1899). escape liability. Bray v. Seligman, 75 9 Williams v. Farmers' & Drovers' Mo. 31 (1881). Bank, 49 a W. Rep. 188 (Ky. 1899). s In re Sprague, 48 Atl. Rep. 383 (R L 1901). 304 OH. IV.] STIBSCEIPTI0N8 METHOD, PAETIE8, ETC. [§67. In England a husband has been held liable on his wife's subscrip- tion to the capital stock of an incorporated company, the sub- scription having been made before marriage.' § 67. Infant as subscriber.— A subscription for stock by an in- fant is a contract to be governed by the general rules of law that apply to the contracts of infants generally. In general, the sub- scription of an Infant is voidable rather than void. He may re- pudiate it at majority, and thereby entirely escape liability, or he may ratify it, and thereby become as fully bound as though the subscription had been made after majority.^ Accordingly it is a 1 Burlinson's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 18 (1849), where the hiisband was held lia- ble, although be had not fulfilled the conditions of the deed of settlement entitling him to become a member, but had only received dividends on the wife's shares. Luard's Case, 1 De G„ F. & J. 533 (1860), holding that where a woman, being a registered owner of stocks before mar- riage, attempted to deed them in trust so as to exclude the husband, but the trustees did not accept, and they con- tinued in her name until the liquida- tion of the company, the husband should be placed with the wife on the list of contributories. White's Case, 8 De G. & Sm. 157 (1850), was decided on special facts under the terms of a deed of settlement which regulated the rights of the hus- band and wife to shares in her name. In this case a restricted liability for a limited time was imposed upon the husband, he having done some -acts in relation to the shares, but not sufficient to constitute an entire acceptance. Sadler's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 36 (1849), holding the husband liable when the shares came to the wife by legacy be- fore marriage, although neither she nor the husband paid the covenanted calls, received any dividends, or other- wise acted as members. Kluht's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 210 (1850), where the husband was held liable for losses during, but not for losses before and after, the coverture. He had not complied with necessary preliminaries 20: for becoming a member, although he had done some acts in relation to the shares of the wife. A husband is liable upon a legacy of stock to the wife during coverture, where it appeared that the stock had been transferred to her, and the trans- fer duly accepted by her and her hus- band, and that she only had signed the dividend warrants and drawn the divi- dends, the proceeds being applied to- ordinary household expenses. Thomas V. City of Glasgow Bank, 6 Scotch Ct. of Sess. Cas. (4th ser.) 607 (1879). ^ Lumsden's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 31 (1868), where an infant transferred shares after coming of afe, and did not attempt to repudiate his remaining shares until four months after the winding-up order, being nine months after his majority. He was held to have affirmed his holding. Ebbett's Case, L. R 5 Ch. App. 303 (1870), where a holding for fourteen months after majority without repu- diating the shares was held to be an acquiescence, though the shareholder had never acted as such. Baker's Case, L. R. 7 Ch, App. 115- (1871), where a company was in pro- cess of being wound up, when an in- fant, holding shares as trustee, attained his majority, and he promptly repudi- ated the shares when the notice of a. call was sent him four months -after- wards. Subsequently he, by letter,, authorized the official liquidator to use his name in proceedings against the- cestui que trust. Held, that by the- §67.] S0BSOEIPTION8 — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [CH. IV. settled rule that, where one subscribes for shares in the name of an infant, he is liable personally to the corporation or the corporate creditors on the subscription.^ An infant's subscription must be repudiated within a reasonable time after coming of age or he will be held to have ratified it.^ A minor who has subscribed and paid for stock in a corporation, which corporation was afterwards merged in another corporation for stock of the latter, cannot recover back his money from the second corporation.' Even though by the terras of a subscription agreement it is to be binding only upon so much money being subscribed and some of the money subscribed letter he had not retracted his repudia- tion of the shares. In Mitchell's Case, L. R 9 Eq. 363 (1870), an infant holding shares as trus- tee, who took no steps to repudiate them for two years after coming of Age, was held to be a contributory. . In Wilson's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 240 <1869), an infant holding shares in a bank, who came of age after the wind- ing-up order was made, was held not -to be a contributory, though he had made no formal repudiation, but had mot done any act of acquiescence, ex- cept that his solicitors, acting for him and others, had opposed an order for a call. In Hart's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 513 (1868), where notice of intention to put the name of a female infant upon the list •of oontributories of a corporation in process of being wound up was served during infancy, and more than two years after her majority a summons for a call was made, when she applied to have her name removed from the list, it was held she was not precluded by the delay. In Pirn's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 11 .(1849), where a son, who, aftej: the death of his father, discovered that shares had been taken in his own name, was held not be a contributory, although, at the request of an officer of the company, he had surrendered the shares for exchange for others. See §g 250, 818, infra. 1 Weston's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 614 <1870); Richardson's Case, L. R. 19 Eq. 588 (1875); Reaveley's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 550 (1848); Reid's Case, 24Beav. 318 (1857); Ex parte Reavely, 1 Hall& Tw. 118 (1849). So also a person is liable who transfers stock to an infant. Cap- per's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 458(1868); Castello's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 504 (1869); Symons's Case, L. R 5 Ch. App. 298 (1870); Curtis's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 455 (1868). 2 Dublin, etc. Ry. v. Black, 7 Railw. & Can. Cas. 484 (1852); s. a, 8 Exch. 181. Infancy is a personal defense. Beards- ley V. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201 (1884). Where an infant allows his name to re- main on the register after he becomes of age, he thereby ratifies his subscrip- tion. Cork, etc. Ry. v. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935 (1847). A court will not presume that an infant subscriber has avoided his contract; and hence a defense of infancy, in an action on a subscription, without allegation of avoidance, is in- effectual, and the plaintiff may have judgment. Leeds, etc. Ry. v. Fearnley, 4 Exch. 26 (1849). But it has been held that repudiation before coming of age avoids the contract of subscription ab initio; and hence a plea of infancy and of repudiation while an infant, and of notice to the company that the stock was at their disposal, is a good defense to an action on a subscription. Newry, etc. Ry. V. Coombe, 3 Exch. 565 (1849). See also Parsons's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 656 (1869). 8 White V. Mount Pleasant Mills Corp., 172 Masa 462 (1899). OH. IV.] SUBSCRIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§68. is by minors, this is no defense to the adult subscribers, since the minors subscribing are bound after their majority, unless they plead infancy as a defense.' § 68. Sul)SGri])tion ly agent— A valid subscription may, of course, be made through an agent.^ "Where a person subscribes for stock 1 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Higginbotham, 29 S. Rep. 79 (Miss. 1901). 2 Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. 161 <1880); Burr v. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 561 (1860); Rhey v. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 27 Pa. St. 261 (1856); Be New York, etc. Ry., 99 N. Y. 13 (1885), aflf'g 35 Hun, 320; Re Whitley Partners, L. R. 33 Ch. D. 337 (1886). Where bonds are purchased by one for several, they are liable to contribute therefor. Musgrave v. Buck- ley, 114 N. Y. 506 (1889). If both the principal and agent are incorporators, and the agent subscribes, in his own name, the principal cannot claim the stock, inasmuch as he has sworn in the articles of incorporation that all the incorporators were bona fide subscribers. Rowley's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 150 (1887). A subscription by one of several heirs in the name of the " estate " is not binding on any of the heirs where a statute requires such subscription to be several. Troy, etc. R, R. v. Warren, 18 Barb. 310 (1854). Davidson v. Grange, 4 Grant's Ch. (U. Can.) 377 (1854). In this case a sub- scription by an agent in his own name was held to constitute him a trustee for his principals. State V. Lehre, 7 Rich. L. (S. C.) 234 (1854), holding that a statute forbidding any person from subscribing for shares In the name of another person did not exclude a subscription by an agent for his principal. Cox's Case, 4 De G., J. & S. 58 (1863), was decided under the Companies Act, but the court was inclined to think the result would have been the same independent of that statute. It was there held that where a subscriber, in addition to his own shares, had caused a large number to be registered in the 207 names of mere nominees for him, in order to delude the public as to the number of members, he was rightly placed on the list of contributories for all the shares when the company was wound up. This case was distin- guished in King's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 196 (1871). On this question of "dummies," see oh. XIV. See also brief in 15 Ohio St. 382. If such subscriptions are prohibited by the corporate charter, the principal cannot recover back money which he has given to the agent to subscribe. Perkins v. Savage, 15 Wend. 413 (1886). Mere authority to an agent to sub- scribe is not a subscription in itself. Grangers' Market Co. v. Vinson, 6 Oreg. 173 (1876). Also, New Brunswick, etc. Co. V. Muggeridge, 4 Hurl. & N. 160 (1859). In New York it is a penal offense for a person to subscribe for another who does not intend to pay, or to subscribe in the name of a fictitious person. N. Y. Penal Code, § 590. Where one subscribes for stock in his own name, in pursuance of a verbal agreement between himself and an- other that the stock should belong to them jointly, and that be should hold it on joint account, and, the company subsequently becoming insolvent, the stockholders are called on to contribute an amount equal to their stock, it was held, in New York, that the nominal owner of the stock might have contri- bution from the joint owner. Stover V. Flack, 30 N. Y. 64 (1864), In Orr v. Bigelow, 14 N. Y. 556 (1856), the parties had covenanted that plaintiffs should subscribe for stock, pay ten per cent, thereon, and then assign it to defend- ant, who engaged to indemnify them §C8.] S0BSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. IV.' in the name of another as trustee, he may maintain an action to compel the trustee to account for the subscription and to turn it over upon payment being made.' A claim that a person who took stock did so as trustee or agent for the benefit of another person is a claim which can be proved by oral testimony, but must be clearly proved and must be founded on a sufficient consideration. " Loose, vague, and indefinite expressions are insufficient to create such a trust. The intention must be evinced with clearness and certainty." ^ The subscriptions of the original incorporators may be made by an agent.' But no person can be made a subscriber to the capital stock of a corporation, and besubjected to the liabilities of a subscriber, by a subscription in his name, made by another without authority, but assuming to act as hisEigent. Such a sub- scription is not binding on the principa,l.* Such an unauthorized subscription, however, may be adopted and ratified by the person in whose name it was made without warrant of authority, in such a way as to make it valid and binding.' A person subscribing for from further liability. Defendant re- fused to take the shares, and the cor- poration I'Bcovered judgment against plaintiffs for the balance of the sub- scription. In this action plaintiffs had judgment against defendant upon the covenant, the measure of damages being held to be the balance paid by them, and not that sum less the market value of the stock. A state subscrib- ing through its officers is bound by their acts as directors. State v. Jeffer- son Turnp. Co., 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 305 (1842). iMcComb V. Frink, 149 U. S. 629 (1893). Tn Colt v. Clapp, 127 Mass. 476 (1879), where one who had verbally agreed to purchase stock for the joint benefit of himself and others refused to divide the stock, he was held ac- countable to the others for their re- spective shares of dividends paid there- on in actions for money had and re- ceived. See also § 821, infra. 2 Levi V. Evans, 57 Fed. Rep. 677 (1893). 3iJe New York, etc. Ry., 99 N. Y. 12 (1885). * Ticonic, etc. Co. v. Lang, 63 Me. 480 (18(4); Pim's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 11 (1849); Henessey's Case, 3 De Q. & Sm. 191 (1850;; Ex parte Hall, 1 Maon. & G. 307 (1849); Drover w Evans, 59 Ind. 454 (1877), holding that where an agent to make a subscription exceeds his authority the principal is not bound by it. Of. Chapman & Barker's Case, L. B. 3 Eq. 361 (1867). And this is equally the rule when it is sought to charge one by such a subscription, not in bis individual capacity, but only in the capacity of trustee for another. Ex parte Hall, 1 Macn. & G. 307 (1849). 5 Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. 161 (1880); Mississippi, etc. R. R. u. Harris, 36 Miss. 17 (1858), where the defendant promised to pay; Jones v. Milton, etc. Ca, 7 Ind. 547 (1856), where the princi- pal subscribed over again ; Philadelphia, etc. R R u. Cowell, 28 Pa. St 329 (1857), where the defendant' acquiesced for seven years; Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365 (1869); s. 0., 20 Fed. Oaa. 79, where the city ratified. What acts or omissions, short of ex- press ratification, will in law suffice to bind one upon such a subscription, is, in general, a question for the jury. Philadelphia, etc. R R w Cowell, 28 Pa. St 339 (1857). Of. Fox v. Clifton, 6 OH. IV.J StTBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETO. [§69. stock as agent for another, and in that other's name, but without authority, thereby becomes himself a subscriber in place of the person whose name he signs, or his unauthorized subscription may subject him to an action for damages.* A person who subscribes for stock through another-as agent may be held liable as an origi- nal subscriber, the subscription having been made in his name." Where a bank desires to subscribe to the stock of a trust company, but cannot legally do so, and its directors give their note in pay- ment, they are liable on the note to the receiver of the trust com- pany.' § 69. Subscriptions taken ty an unauthorized agent of the cor- poration. — A subscription taken by a person who has no authority from the corporation to take subscriptions is not in general enforce- Bing. 776 (1830). It is held that silence to be the rule in Tennessee and else- or failure to object to the subscription for a considerable time after knowl- edge of it is "brought to the subscriber is evidence of a ratification. McHose V. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 32 (1863); Thomp- son V. Eeno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 242, 291, 293 (1885); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875). Contra, Hume v. Com- mercial Bank, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 728 (1882). And giving a proxy to vote the stock may be sufiScient to ratify such a sub- scription. McCuUy V. Pittsburgh, etc, R. R., 33 Pa. St. 25 (1858). Contra, Mc- Clelland V. Whiteley, 11 Biss. 444 (1883). But a mere declaration to strangers, by the person in whose name the sub- scription had been made, that he had taken that amount of stock, is not a ratification of the subscription. Rut- land, etc. IL IL V. Lincoln, 39 Vt. 306 (1857). And even the fact that one whose name had been in this way put down as a subscriber was a director in the corporation was held not to imply knowledge that his name was on the books as a subscriber. Hallmark's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 329 (1878). Cf. Fox v. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776 (1830). But as a rule it is believed that accepting the office of a director would, in this coun- try, be held a sufficient ratification of such a subscription, in the absence of any other. This is expressly declared 14 209 where. Moses v. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 898 (1878); Danbury, etc. R. R. V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435 (1853). Cf. Fry V. Lexington, etc. R. R, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 314 (1859). Contra, Hume v. Commer- cial Bank, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 728 (1883). But where an agent takes stock as agent, on condition that it is to be sub- mitted to the principal, and, "if ap- proved, to be taken out in the purchase of thread," the principal is not bound where he declines to accept, even though he did not notify the corpora- tion of his refusal. Merrick Thread Co. V. Philadelphia, etc. Co., 115 Pa. St. 314 (1887). 1 Salem Mill-dam Corp. v. Ropes, 26 Mass. 187 (1839). In some jurisdictions it is held that by such a subscription the subscriber makes himself personally liable as a subscriber. Union Hotel Co. V. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 454(1880); State V. Smith, 48 Vt. 366 (1876). See also Troy, etc. R R v. Warren, 18 Barb. 310 (1854); Pugh & Sharman's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 566 (1872); McHose v. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 33; Thompson v. Reno, etc. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 243, 291, 293 (1885); § 249, infra. 2 Evans v. Texas, etc. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 326 (1893), 71 Pac. Rep. 1101. 'Adams v. Kennedy, 34 Atl.-Rep. 659 (Pa. 1896). § 70.J SUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. IV. able.' But it has been held that such a subscription may, by ac- ceptance and ratification on the part of the corporation, be validated, and the subscriber made liable as though the subscription had been regularly taken.^ § TO. Unissued or increased capital stoch — Eight to subscrile therefor. — Where the whole capital stock -or a part of the author- ized capital stock is offered for subscription, and a part only of the amount so offered is subscribed for, the remainder of the stock so offered may be offered by the directors to any person, at a fair price not less than par, even though that person is a director in the company. But where only a part of the authorized capi- tal stock has been offered and issued, and subsequently it is resolved to issue more of the authorized capital, or where the capital stock is increased under the statutes, and the increase is about to be issued, then a different rule prevails. Every existing stockholder then has the right to subscribe at par for such a proportion of the stock to be issued as his old holdings bear to the amount of stock then outstanding.' Any other rule would enable the parties in control to seize the new stock, in some cases for gain because the stock is worth more than par, and in other cases so as to acquire increased votes at a coming election. In either case this would work a fraud on the other stockholders.* It is legal for a company in taking a subscription to stock to give the subscriber an option to take other shares within a certain time at par.^ Sometimes a por- tion of the new stock is sold at the same price to parties who agree to take such stock as the stockholders do not take, but this is often 1 Essex Turnp. Corp. v. Collins, 8 the stock so issued, and, if they have Mass. 398(1811); Shiirtz v. Schoolcraft, sold it, may be enjoined from voting etc. R. R., 9 Mich. 269 (1861); Carlisle v. other stock equal in amount to the stock Saginaw, etc. R. R., 27 Mich. 315 (1873). so sold by them. The existing stook- Oontra, Northeastern R. R. v. Rod- holders are entitled to subscribe for rigues, 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 378 (1857). their proportion of the unissued origi- 2 Walker D. Mobile, etc. R. E., 34 Miss, nal capital stock. Morris v. Stevens, 245 (1857); Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Yan- 178 Pa. St. 563 (1897). dal, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 394 (1858); Judah Where, long after the company has V. American, etc. Co., 4 Ind. 333 (1853). commenced to do business, it has dis- 'See §§ 886, 614, 653, infra. posed of its property and is ready to de- < See § 286, infra, and § 65, supra, clare a five hundred per cent, dividend. Where de facto directors, immediately the directors issue to themselves at par after the election, order an issue of a that part of the original capital stock large amount of the original unissued vrhich never had been issued, it is a capital stock of the company, and most fraud on the remaining stockholders, of it is taken by one of their number, Arkansas, etc. Soc. v. Eiohholtz, 45 Kan. who thereby acquires a majority of the 164 (1891). stock of the company, and subsequently 'Hilder v. Dexter, 87 L. T. Rep. 311 the election is declared illegal, such di- (1903). rectors may be enjoined from voting 210 CH, lY.J SCBSCEIPTI0N8 — METHUD, PARTIES, ETC. [§'71. only an ingenious device to deprive the stockholders of their right to subscribe for their full proportion of the new stock and is illegal.' Where directors have issued stock to themselves at a price less than the market price they may be held liable, at the instance of a stock- holder suing for the benefit of the corporation, for, the difference between the price they paid and the price of the stock when it was issued to them.^ Where the directors cause treasury stock to be sold to themselves at less than its real value and for the purpose of carrying an election, the court will set the transfer aside as fraudulent.' 0. AN ACTION LIES TO COLLECT StrBSOEIPTIONS. § 71. J. suiscription for shares implies a promise to pay for (hem, and this promise sustains an action to collect, without proof of any particular consideration.* — ^This rule of law is sustained by the great weight of authority. The signing of the subscription paper is an implied promise to pay the subscription.' There have been various opinions of the courts as to the consider- iSee § 286, infra. Where unissued shares of the par value of 11 each are worth about 4Z. each, and a portion thereof are offered to the stockholders at 21 10s. each, and an option on the balance is given to underwriters at the same price in consideration of the un- derwriters agreeing to take such of the stock as is offered to the stockholders and is not taken by the latter, a minor- ity stockholder may enjoin the carry- ing out of such option to the under- writers, it being in violation of the English statute prohibiting the pay- mentof a commission for underwriting subscriptions. Burrows v. Hatabele, «tc. Co., [1901] 3 Ch. 33. ^ The highest market price since that day for small amounts of stock is no basis for the measure of damages. Shaw V. Holland, [1900] 2 Ch. 305. SHilles V. Parrish, 14 N. J. Eq. 380 <1863). * Quoted and approved in Ventura, «tc. Ry. V. Collins, 46 Pac. Eepi 387 (Cal. 1896); San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 (1894); Succession of Thom- son, 46 La. Ann. 1074 (1894), and Puget Sound, etc. R. R. i;. Ouellette, 7 Wash. 265 (1893). See also § 203, infra; Pitts- burg, etc. Assoc. V. Swan, 51 Pac. Rep. 583 (Kan. 1897); 189 U. S. 221 (1903). 6 Upton V. Tribilcock, 91Cr. S. 45 (1875) Hawley v. Upton, 103 U. S. 314 (1880) Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875) American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398(1902); Carnahanu Camp- bell, 63 N. E. Rep. 384 (Ind. 1903); Waukon, etc. R R r. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 131 (1878); Nulton v. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425 (1880); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 52 Ind. 51 (1875); Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 (1883); Merrimac Min. Co. v. Levy, 54 Pa. St. 227 (1867); Beene v. Cahawba, etc. R R, 3 Ala. 660 (1843): Fry V, Lexington, etc. R R., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314 (1859); Gill v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635 (1870) ; Mount Ster- ling, etc. Co. V. Little, 14 Bush (Ky.), 429 (1879); Chase v. East Tenn. R R, 5 Lea (Tenn.), 415 (1880). Even though the corporation has the power to forfeit the shares for non-payment. Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870); Dexter, etc. Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich. 91 (1854). Where a subscriber agrees in writing to pay, suit may be brought without first selling his stock to pay the assessment. Shattuck v. Robbins, 68 N. H. 565 (1896). It is sufficient to 211 §n.j SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [oh. IX. ation supporting this implied promise which sustains an action to collect the subscription. It has been held that the right to mem- bership in the proposed corporation, and the probable advantages allege that the defendant holds stock which has never been paid up. The defense that the defendant did not subscribe for the stock or did not agree to pay for it or that he is not liable must be set up in the answer. Atlantic T. Co. v. Osgood, 116 Fed. Rep. 1019 (1902). As to enforceability of subscriptions, not for stock, but as a gift to enter- prises, see Rogers v. Galloway F. Col- lege, 64 Ark. 627 (1898); Smith v. Burton, 59 Vt. 408 (1887); McCabe v. O'Connor, 69 Iowa, 134 (1886); Broadbent v. John- son, 2 Idaho, 300 (1887), where subscrip- tion was to a railroad; Cans v. Reimen- snyder, 2 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 425, note; Grand Lodge v. Farnham, 70 Cal. 158 (1886); Roberts u Cobb, 103 N. Y. 600 (1886); Utica„etc. R. R. v. BrinckerhofiE, 21 Wend. 139 (1839); Watkins wEames, 68 Mass. 537 (1852). See also Davis v. Smith Am. Organ Co., 117 Mass. 456 (1875) ; Presbyterian Church v. Cooper, 112 N. Y. 517 (1889) ; Cottage, etc. Church V. Kendall, 121 Mass. 529 (1877); Living- ston V. Rogers, 1 Caines' T. R 583 (1804); Hamilton College v. Stewart, 1 N. Y. 581 (1848); Van Rensselaer v. Aiken, 44 N. Y. 126 (1870); Presbyterian Soc. v. Beach, 74 N. Y. 72 (1878); Hutchins v. Smith, 46 Barb. 235 (1865); Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 23 Mass. 427 (1828). Although a note given as a contribu- tion for the founding of a college is not enforcible merely on the ground that others had contributed, yet it is en- forcible if certain acts or services are to be performed and they are per- formed. Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N. Y. 96 (1901). Subscription to a church. Waters v. Union T. Co., 89 N. W. Rep. 687 (Mich. 1902). A promise to con- tribute towards the purchase of a site for a church is binding and may be en- forced. First, etc. Church v. Pungs, 126 Mich. 670 (1901). A subscription to build a church cannot be withdrawn after it is delivered, but any conditions in such subscription must be complied with. Rothenberger v, Glick, 22 Ind. App. 288 (1899). A church subscription payable to a committee may be en- forced by a part of the subscribers suing for the benefit of all, under the Wisconsin statute. Hodges v. Nalty, 104 Wis. 464 (1899). A subscriber or donator of money to a factory cannot prevent its moving away if it is a losing enterprise. Ayres V. Button, 87 Mich. 528 (1891). A subscription to a church may be enforced by the bishop in whose name the title is taken, he being one of those to whom it is payable. Egan v. Bona- cum, 38 Neb. 577 (1894). A subscription for stock may be changed to a dona- tion. Lake Manawa Ry. v. Squire, 89 Iowa, 576 (1894). Difficulty was experienced in the form of contract for subscriptions for a proposed World's Fair corporation in 1889. The form adopted was as follows: " The undersigned, in consideration of iiie ad- Tantages whicli will result to us respectively from concert of action, and of other good causes and considerations, and the efforts to be made by Samuel D. Babcock [giving names], to procure the subscriptions hereinafter provided' for, and the organization of a corporation to control and manage such exposition, do agree, each for himself, to pay to the said Samuel D. Babcock and his associates hereinabove named, or at their request, to said corporation, the re- spective amounts set opposite our names upon the following terms and conditions, to wit: " Such subscription shall not be binding until such corporation shall be organized. "No subscription shall be binding until the said Samuel D. Babcock and his associates above named shall have succeeded in obtaining subscriptions hereto to the amount of at least 15,000,000. " Such subscription shall be a preliminary or guarantee fund to be paid in instalments of not more than one-fourth of their respective amoimts at any one time, upon calls for the same, made at intervals of not less than three 212 OH. IT.] ETIBSCEirTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§71. to be derived from membership in the company, constitute thp con- sideration.' It has been held, also, that the stock to be received and the prob- able dividends thereon constitute the consideration.' montbs Toj the said Samuel D. Babuock and bis associates, or, If they shall so determine, by the said corporation; and when such subscriptions shall be fully paid, certificates shall be issued entitling each subscriber to share ratably with all other subscribers to the capital stock of such corporation hi all assets and fvmds that re- main after the conclusion of the exposition, the closing of all its accounts, the payment of all its liabilities of every nature, and the liquidation of all its expenses, ' In no event shall the subscribers to this fund be liable for any debts or obligations growing out of this subscription or of said ex- position, except to the extent of their several subscriptions, and the certificates to be issued ^all be in such form as to avoid any claim for personal liabihty. " The money paid by said subscribers shall be expended by said corporation only for the pur- poses of said exposition. " Calls for payment of subscriptions shall be on not less than ten days^ notice to be sent by mail to the address given opposite the name of each subscriber, any other notice being hereby ■expressly waived. " Samuel D. Babcock and his associates here- inabove named having been thus contracted with by the subscribers because of their having been selected as a finance committee aforesaid in aid of the aforesaid exposition, it is hereby further agreed that all stipulations in the agreement made dependent upon the action of said Babcock and his associates shall be con- sidered as fully met by the action of the ma- jority of them; and in case of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, such vacancy may be filled by their survivors." 1 Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451(1857); Osborn t>. Crosby, 63 N. H. 583 (1885); Bullock v. Fal- mouth, etc. Co., 85 Ky. 184 (1887). "It is well settled," said Hand, J., in Fort Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. 567 (1854), " that a subscription to the capi- tal stock of any company, from the membership of which a shareholder may derive pecuniary advantage, gives to the subscriber such an interest as will support a promise to pay for the shares. Such an enterprise is a com- bination of means for mutual profit, and is in no sense a gift or promise without consideration." In another case it is said that " the advantages to be derived from being a member of such a company, and of the conse- quent right to participate in the pe- cuniary dividends, is a positive benefit; and where the agreement secures that advantage to the subscriber, on the organization of the company, the ob- jection of a want of consideration can- not be made with success." Hamilton, eta Co. V. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 (1849), adopted by Brown, J., in Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. u Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, 463 (1857). 2 Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102, 107 (1854); Bish v. Brad- ford, 17 Ind. 490 (1861): New Albany, etc. R. R V. Fields, 10 Ind. 187 (1858); Fry V. Lexington, etc. R. R., S Meto. (Ky.) 314 (1859); Selma, etc. R. R. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787 (1843); Danbury, etc R. R. r. Wilson, 23 Conn. 435 (1853); East Tennessee, etc. R. R r. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567 (1858). And again, that the prior proceedings and acts of the parties are a legal basis for the promise to pay; also that the partial execution of the purpose designed by the charter is a sufficient considera- tion. Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Palmer, 84 Me. 366 (1852); Amherst Academy V. Cowls, 23 Mass. 427 (1828); Ohio, etc. College V. Higgins, 16 Ohio St. 20 (1864). Of. McCully V. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 32 Pa. St. 25 (1858). In Minnesota the implied promise to issue the stock is declared to be the consideration for the promise to pay for it. St. Paul, etc. R. R V. Robbins, 23 Minn. 439 (1877). And in Kentucky it is held that the promise by each of the subscribers is a sufficient consideration for the prom- ises of" the others. Twin Creek, eta Ca V. Lancaster, 79 Ky. 553 (1881). 213 §Y2.] SUBSCRIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. IV. And, again, it has been held that a consideration is conclusively implied from the fact of subscription itself; that it is implied by law ; and that the law thereby creates a duty and liability to pay for the stock.' The particular motive of a subscriber inducing him to subscribe is immaterial. The consideration which exists in law cannot be allowed to be governed by the ideas of the subscriber.^ The as- signee of a subscription may enforce it.' The remedy of a corpo- ration to collect subscriptions is not in equity, even though the defense will be that the board of directors released the subscription and the company claims that such release was fraudulent.* In a suit by an alien corporation to collect unpaid calls, the statutes under which the corporation is formed may be proved by the tes- timony of an English solicitor who produces copies of such stat- utes.^ » % 72. Such is the rule for subscriptions before incorporation as well as those after — Acceptance of the subscription — Withdrawal — Subscriptions for the benefit of contractors. — That a subscription for stock implies a promise to pay for it, even though the subscrip- tion was before incorporation, is the rule sustained by the great weight of authority.* It has been held, also, that the corporation 1 East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Gam- mon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567 (1858). 2 Illinois River E. R. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654 (1858); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 53 Ind. 51,64(1875); Andover, etc. Corp. V. Gould, 6 Mass. 40, 44 (1809); Parker u. Northern Central, etc. R. R., 33 Mich. 33 (1875). 'See § 111, infra. In Pennsylvania a statute which authorized a corpora- tion to transfer a subscription from one enterprise to another has been held un- constitutional. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340 (1858). * Sigua Iron Co. v. Clark, 77 Fed. Rep. 496 (1896). 6 Nashua, etc. Bank v. Anglo-Ameri- can, etc. Co., J89 U. a 331 (1903). As to the various facts which should be proved in a suit to collect an unpaid call, see Nashua, etc. Bank v. Anglo- American, etc. Co., 108 Fed, Rep. 764 (1901), and especially the dissenting opinion. See also § 130, infra. In suing on a subscription to a foreign corpora- tion, the statutes governing such for- eign corporation may be proved by a copy testified to by a witness who has examined and compared the copy with the original. Anglo-American, etc. Co. V. Dyer, 64 N. E. Rep. 416 (Mass. 1908). See also § 753. infra. 6 Richelieu Hotel Co. v. International, etc. Co., 140 111. 348 (1893); San Joaquin, etc. Co. V. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 (1894): Branch v. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573 (1895); Nickum v. Burckhardt, 30 Oreg. 464 (1897); Succession ot Thom- son, 46 La. Ann. 1074 (1894); West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19(1889); Marysville. etc. Co. V. Johnson, 93 Cal. 538 (1892); San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. West, 94 Cal. 399 (1892); MoCormiok v. Great Bend, etc. Co., 48 Kan. 614(1893); Minneapolis, etc. Co. V. Crevier, 39 Minn. 417 (1888); Penobscot R. R. d. Dummer, 40 Me. 172 (1855) ; Athol, etc. Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass. 471 (1875); Ashuelot, etc. Co. v. Hoit, 56 N. H. 548 (1876); Cross «. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54 (1855); Griswold v. Peoria University. 36 111. 41 (1861); Stone V. Great Western Oil Co.", 41 111. 85 (1866); 314 OH. IV.] STJBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§72. may bring an action at law for damages against a subscriber to a preliminary subscription list who refuses to take and pay for the stock ; 1 and that the measure of damages for such a breach of con- tract to subscribe for stock is the difference between the par and market value of the stock involved.^ It has been held that a cor- City Hotel v. Dickinson, 72 Mass. 586 (1856); Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R, 16 Ind. 375 (1861); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 63 Ind. 51(1875); Peninsular R. R V. Duncan. 38 Mich. 130 (1873); Essex Bridge Co. v. Tuttle, 3 Vt. 393 (1830); Kirksey v. Florida, etc Co., 7 Fla. 23 (1857); Beene v. Cahawba, etc. R R, 3 Ala. 600 (1843); Selma, etc. R R v. Tip- ton, 5 Ala. 787 (1843); Hartford, etc. R R V. Kennedy, 12 Conn. 499 (1838); Thig- pen V. Mississippi Cent. R. R, 32 Miss. 347 (1856); Gill v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635(1870); Instonew Frank- fort Bridge Co., 3 Bibb (Ky.), 576 (1813): Cucullu V. Union Ins. Co., 3 Rob. (La.) 573 (1848); Nulton v. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 435 (1880); Worcester Turnp. Co. v. Wil- lard, 5 Mass. 80 (1809); Twin Creek, etc. Co. V. Lancaster, 79 Ky. 553(1881); Min- neapolis, etc. Co. V. Davis, 40 Minn. 110 (1889). Of. Thompson v. Page, 42 Mass. 565 (1840); Ives v. Sterling, 47 Mass. 310 (1843); Robinson n Edinboro Academy, 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 107(1861); Edinboro' Academy v. Robinson, 37 Pa. St. 210 (1860); People's Ferry Co. v. Balch, 74 Mass. 303 (1857); Chater v. San Fran- cisco, etc. Co., 19 Cal. 319 (1861); Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. C), 520 (1835); Klein v. Alton, etc. R R, 13 111. 514(1851); Banetu. Alton, eto.R. R, 13 111. 504 (1851); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Kidwelly Canal Co. v. Raby, 3 Price, 93 (1816) >• Weiss v. Mauoh Chunk Iron Co., 58 Pa. St. ^5 (1868). A corporation upon accepting a subscrip- tion made before its incorporation may collect such subscription. McNaught v. Fisher, 96 Fed. Rep. 168 (1899). A sub- scription to a corporation to be organ- ized is enforceable by the corporation. Auburn, etc. Assoc, v. Hill, 113 Cal. 383 (1896), aff'g 33 Pac. Rep. 587 (Cal. 1893). The corporation may collect a subscrip- tion to its stock obtained prior to the in- corporation, the subscriber having at- tended meetings and acquiesced in expenditures. International Fair Assoc. V. Walker, 83 Mich. 386 (1890). A sub- scription before incorporation is en- forceable, where defendant paiij, for one or more shares after incorporation. Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88 (1887). Where a subscriber before incorpora- tion is offered the stock by the corpo- ration on certain conditions which he refuses, he is not liable as a stockholder. Medler v. Albuquerque, etc. Co., 6 New Mex. 331 (1893). A subscription with an express promise to pay to an agent specified upon the incorporation of the company is collectible by him. West V. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19 (1889). A sub- scription agreement prior to incorpora- tion to purchase certain property owned by an individual binds the subscribers individually, although such individual Indorsed on the back of the contract a statement that the subscribers were not personally liable. Neither is an oral agreement to that effect any defense. Carnahan v. Campbell, 59 N. E. Rep. 1054 (lud. 1901). A corporation may sue on a subscription made before in- corporation ; and where parties " agreed to subscribe " certain stock and pay for the same, this is a sufficient subscrip- tion. Jeanette, etc. Works v. Schall, 13 Penn. Sup. Ct. 96 (1900). 1 Quick V. Lemon, 105 111. 578 (1883); Thrasher v. Pike County R R, 25 111. 393 (1861); Rhey v. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 37 Pa. St. 361 (1856); Mt. Sterling, etc. Co. V. Little, 14 Bush (Ky.), 429 (1879). 2 Thrasher v. Pike Co. etc. R R, 85 111. 393 (1861). 215 §72.] SUBSOEIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [CH. IV. poration may defeat a subscriber's action for stock by proving that it never accepted his subscription.' But no formal acceptance by the corporation is necessary in order to enforce a subscription.^ The right of a subscriber to withdraw from his subscription is con- sidered elsewhere.' A subscription by various parties to a cheese, factory to be incorporated, the number of shares being placed op- posite the names, binds the subscribers only to the extent of the shares so placed opposite their names.* A subscription before in- corporation, such subscription being for the benefit of a contractor who was building the plant, may be enforced by the latter.' 1 A subscriber for stock is not a stock- holder until the company accepts the subscription. Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wis. 145 (1897); Starrett v. Rockland F. & M. Ins. Co., 65 Me. 374 (1876). 2Strasburg R. R. v. Eohternaoht, 21 Pa. St. 220 (1853); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 52 Ind. 51 (1875); Thrasher v. Pike County R. R., 25 111. 893 (1861); Mount Sterling, etc. Co. v. Little, 14 Bush (Ky.), 439 (1879); California, etc. Co. V. Schafer, 57 CaL 396 (1881); Char- lotte, etc. R. R. V. Blakely, 3 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 245 (1848); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. V. Gazzam, 33 Pa. St. 340 (1858); Wal- lingford Mfg. Co. v. Fox, 12 Vt. 304 (1840); Stowe v. Flagg,72 111. 397 (1874); Goff V. Winchester College, 6 Bush (Ky.), 443 (1869); Perkins v. Union,, etc. Ca, 94 Mass. 273 (1866); Dayton, etc. Co. V. Coy, 13 Ohio St. 84 (1861). See also various cases in the first part of this chapter, and Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 18 Ind. 68 (1862); Kelner v. Baxter, L. R. 2 C. P. 174 (1866). A person is not a stockholder where he offers to sell land for stock, and the corporation ac- cepts the offer, but does not notify him. Cozart V. Herndon, 114 N. C. 252 (1894). Delivery of the subscription is neces- sary in Texas. White v. Crosby, 51 S. W, Rep. 350 (Tex. 1899). As to the de- fense that the enterprise was aban- doned, see § 189, infra. 'See § 169, infra. * Da%'is, etc. Co. v. Jones, 66 Fed. Rep. 134 (1895). A subscription contract prior to incorporation may be such that the subscribers are liable severally to 216 the amount of their subscriptions. Da- vis V. Ravenna Creamery Co., 48 Neb. 471 (1896). A subscription prior to in- corporation will not be construed as rendering each subscriber liable for the wrhole, even though the subscrip- tion speaks of a joint liability, it being clear that'such was not the intent of the subscribers. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Graham, 78 Fed. Rep. 83 (1896). Where a subscription list states that each sub- soi-iber shall be liable only for the amount subscribed by him, the con- tract is several and not joint. Waddy, etc. Co. V. Davis, etc. Ca, 103 Ky. 579 (1898). A subscription agreement signed by various parties to pay the amount set opposite their respective names to- wards a creamery is several and not joint. Cornish v. West, 83 Mina 107 (1901X 6 Davis, etc. Co; v. Dickson, 58 S. W. Rep. 337 (Tenn. 1899). And no tender of the stock need be made before suit. Davis, etc. Ca v. Caigle, 53 S. W. Rep. 240 (Tenn. 1899). A preliminary sub- scription may be payable to individu- als, who are to do certain work, until incorporation, when payment for the work is to b^ made by the corporation. Norcross, eta Co. v. Summerour, 114 Ga. 156 (1901). A subscription agree- ment prior to incorporation, in which the parties state the number of shares taken, and in which they agree to pay the contractors, who are parties to the contract, a specified sum, is a joint un- dertaking on the subscribers' part. The contractors may hold them liable OH. IV.J SUBS0EIPTI0N8 — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§T3. § 73. The New York rule.— New York presents decisions on vari- ous sides of this subject. In that state the rule is rigidly applied that liability is enforced only when a contract to pay is proved. This contract may be express or implied. New York, however, is not inclined to imply the contract. Thus, a purchaser of bonds from the company who takes a bonus of stock without paying for it is not under any implied contract to pay for it.' A person who receives stock from the corporation at less than par, without any written agreement whatsoever in regard thereto, is not liable at common law for any further sums. "The liability is everywhere made to depend upon contract." ^ A person to whom stock is trans- ferred without his knowledge is not liable thereon.' An agreement of various persons with each other to subscribe for stock cannot be enforced by the corporation.* And where the statute prescribes the method of subscription, a subscription made in another way cannot be enforced.^ as partners, the agreement not limit- ing their liability to the number of shares taken by each. An immaterial alteration after a part have signed does not release any one. The agreement of the contractors to hold each subscriber liable only on bis subscription if he would pay that is without considera- tion and void. Any subscriber could expressly limit his liability to his sub- scription. Davis V. Shafer, 50 Fed. Rep. 764 (1893). 1 Even though a corporation in selling its mortgage bonds makes a gift to the purchaser of a bonus of stock which has not been paid up, yet neither the corporation nor a judgment creditor of the corporation can claim subsequently that a person receiving such stock is liable thereon. There is no contract imposing any such liability. Christen- sen V. Eno, 106 N, Y. 97 (1887). ' Com- pare § 43, supra. -Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134 (1863). 3 A stockholder's liability on stock rests solely upon a promise to pay, ex- press or implied. If no express promise is claimed, and it appears that the party never accepted the position of stock- holder, but that it was put upon him without authority and against his will, 217 and that upon,learning of it he repudi- ated it, he cannot be held liable. So held where stock was transferred to a party. Glenn v. Garth, 133 N. Y. 18 (1893), A promise, express or implied, must be proved in order to enforce a subscription. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Roe, 7 N. Y. App. Div. 366 (1896). * A person signed the following agree- ment: "We, the undersigned, citizens of Unionville and vicinity, pledge our- selves to subscribe for and take stock in and for the construction of the Lake Ontario Shore Railroad to the amount set opposite our names respectively, on condition said road be located and built through or north of the village of Unionville in Parma." It seems that the railroad company was in existence at the time of the subscription. The company became insolvent and its property was sold and the purchaser built the road. The court held that the insolvent company could not enforce the above subscription, inasmuch as it was not a party to it, and that as to the company the contract was without con- sideration and there was no proof that the contract was for its benefit. Lake Ontario Shore R. R. v. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219 (1880). 5 Where the statute prescribes that §73.] STJBSCEIPTIONS ■ -METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [oh. IV. On the other hand, a direct subscription to " take " stock may be enforced by the corporation, even though such subscription was made prior to the incorporation.' An agreement reading, " the the subscribers for stock shall subscribe the articles of incorpor'ation, a person who, prior to incorporation, subscribes for stock and agrees to pay for It, but does not sign the articles of incorpora- tion, cannot be held liable by the cor- poration on his subscription. Pough- keepsie, etc. Co. v. Griffin, 34 N. Y. 150 (1861); Troy, etc. R E. w Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297 (1854). A person who signs the certificate of organization, acts as director, indorses other certificates of stock, and declares himself to be a stockholder, may or may not be liable as a stockholder. Where, in addition thereto, he signed an agreement with other corporators to take and pay for certain stock, he is liable as a stockholder, even though a subscription by itself would not consti- tute a contract with the company. Powers V. Knapp, 71 Hun, 371 (1893). * Where a person, with others, prior to incorporation, signs his name in a memorandum book containing an agreement that, "in consideration of and for the purpose of becoming stock- holders in " the B. & J. R. R. Co., they "do hereby subscribe and take the number of shares ... of the capi- tal stock of said company, set opposite [their] respective names,'' and they agree to pay therefor " as required by said company," and where such person after incorporation pays two calls on the stock, he is liable for the remainder. Buffalo, etc. E. R. v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 394 (1883). Where a person prior to the incorpo- ration of a company signs a paper as follows: "We, the subscribers, agree to take the number of shares by us sub- scribed," etc., and after his name writes the words " twenty shares," the corpo- ration, after organization, may enforce the subscription. Buffalo, etc. B. R. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 (1856). 218 Where there is subscribed to the articles of incorporation a subscription contract by which subscribers agree to take the number of shares set opposite their respective names, and the corpo- ration is subsequently organized and becomes insolvent, a subscriber to such subscription contract is liable on such subscription for the number of shares specified. Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 466 (1846). Where a statute requires that sub- scribers to the articles of incorporation shall sign for the number of shares they take in the company, a person who so signs cannot, prior to the filing of the articles, withdraw. The corpo- ration after it is organized may enforce his subscription. Lake Ont-ario, etc. B. R. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (1857). A person who, prior to incorporation, signs at the foot of the articles of in- corporation a writing by which he agrees to pay to the directors the sums which he might from time to time be required to pay on his subscription is liable to the corporation after it is or- ganized. Stanton v. Wilson, 2 Hill, 153 (1841). " It has been repeatedly decided that a subscription made before a corpora- tion was in esse, with a view to a fut- ure incorporation, was binding, and that corporation, subsequently organ- ized, could sustain an action upon it." Reformed, etc. Church v. Brown, 17 How. Pr. 287 (1859). Where a person signed an instru- ment stating that, for value received, he promised to pay two individuals named a specified sum, for the purpose of building a plank road between two points named, and authorized them to transfer such subscription to a corpo- ration thereafter to be formed for that purpose; and a corporation was after- vrards organized to construct the road CH. IV.J SCBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§74. undersigned hereby subscribe for the number of shares set opposite our names," may be enforced by the corporation when it is formed.^ A subscription made to the corporation itself after incorporation is of course enforcible by it.** § 74. In New England a siibscription for stock cannot he enforced unless the sulscriber expressly 'promised to pay, or the charter ex- pressly obligated him to do so. — Such is the rule in Xew England. It grew out of the peculiar charters of the early turnpike compa- nies, which had shares of stock not limited in amount, but indefinite, so that, as a result, if a subscriber were liable at all, he was liable for the whole capital stock, except so far as it had already been paid in by himself and others. Consequently, inasmuch as these charters gave to the corporation the right to forfeit stock for non- payment of subscriptions, the courts held that an action to collect did not lie, and that the remedy by forfeiture was the only rem- edy of the corporation.' This rule has become firmly established in the New England states, and still prevails in its application to all classes of corporations.* A subscriber who merely agrees to and the subscription transferred to it, in an action by the corporation to re- cover the amount, held, that the defend- ant was liabla Eastern Plank Boad Ca V. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546 (1856). Where a person, prior to incorpora- tion, signs a subscription contract which should have been attached to the incorporation papers but was not, but afterwards, the corporation having been organized in good faith but not in compliance with the statute, he trans- fers a mortgage in payment of his sub- scription, and still lat^ the incorpora- tion is made legal by new papers, and he does not sign, yet if he paid the in- terest on the mortgage after all this he is liable on the subscription. Valk v. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. 179 (1843). The written agreement of a sub- scriber " to take the shares by him sub- scribed " is sufficient to sustain an ac- tion against him by the judgment creditor of the corporation. Spear v. Crawford. 14 Wend. 20 (1835); Cole v. Ryan, 53 Barb. 168 (1868). A person subscribing to the capital st-ock of a bank incorporated in New Jersey must pay the subscription to •the bank, even though the subscription 319 did not contain an express promise to pay. Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 485 (1865). 1 Yonkers, etc. Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334 (1898). 2 A person who, after the incorpora- tion of the company, subscribes for its stock in writing, and in such writing agrees to pay for the same, may be held liable thereon by the corporation. Dutchess Cotton Mfy. v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238 (1817); Highland Turnpike v. M'Kean, 11 Johns. 98 (1814); Goshen, etc. Road v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 218 (1812); Fort Edward, etc. Ca v. Payne, 17 Barb. 567 (1854); Northern R. R. u Miller, 10 Barb. 260 (1851). 'Worcester, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Willard, 5 Mass. 80 (1809); Andover, etc. Turnp. Corp. V. Gould, 6 Mass. 40 (1809); New Bedford, etc. Turnp. Corp. v. Adams, 8 Mass. 138 (1811); Essex Turnp. Corp. V. Collins, 8 Mass. 292 (1811); Franklin Glass Co. V. White, 14 Mass. 286 (1817). * Kennebec, etc. R. R. v. Kendall, 31 Ma 470 (1850); Belfast, etc. Ry. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561 (1871); New Hampshire Cent. R. R u Johnson, 80 N. H. 890 (1855); White Mountains R, R. w Eastman, 34 N. H. 124 (1856); Essev, etc. Ca v. Tuttle, 2 Vt 393 (1830); Connecticut, etc. R. R. § T5.] SUBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. IV. " take " a certain amount of stock is not liable on his subscription, at least not until a sale of the stock has been had under the statu- tory power to sell.' But suit lies if there is an express promise to pay.2 The supreme court of "Vermont, however, has refused to follow the rule laid down in Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, and holds that where a party subscribes for stock he may be sued on the subscription, even though he did not expressly promise to pay.' Where a stockholder applies for stock and authorizes the in- sertion of his name in the charter of a foreign corporation, the charter containing the provision that the subscriptions may be col lected by suit, such a suit will lie.* § 75. Professor Oollin's rules on this subject.— Frofessor Collin, of the Cornell Law School, states the law on this subject as follows: " The following propositions are given as the substantially har- monious net result of much confusion in cases and text-books. Eambling remarks may be found contrary to each proposition, but very few reported cases have been decided contrary to any one of these propositions upon the facts coming within it, and I believe every proposition can be sustained in any state or federal court: " (a) A preliminary agreement to form a corporation and take stock therein is not a contract by the subscribers with each other, and cannot be enforced by one or more against any other, but only by the corporation. " (b) Such an agreement, not made as a step authorized by statute in the process of forming the corporation, is a mere offer to the V. Bailey, 24 Vfc. 465 (1852); Atlantic burgh, etc. R. K v. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. Cotton Mills V. Abbott. 63 Mass. 433 840 (1858). <1852); Katama, etc. Co. v. Jernegan, 126 i Rockingham, etc. Co. v. Burlingame, Mass. 155 (1879); Boston, etc. R. R. v. 67 N. H. 301 (1892> Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873); Buck- 2 Northwood, etc. Ca u Pray, 67 N. H. field, etc. R. R. v. Irish, 39 Me, 44 (1854); 435 (1893). Russell V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 251 (1881). 3 Windsor Elec. Light Co. u Tandy, 66 Of. Odd Fellows Hall Co. v. Glazier, 5 Vt.348 (1894). Harr. (Del.) 173 (1849); Stokes v. Leba- When "Neither the general laws nor non, etc. Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241 the act by which the plaintiffs were in- <1845) ; City Hotel v. Dickinson, 72 Mass. corporated, nor any by-laws of the cora- 586(1856); Belfast, etc. R. R. i;.Cottrell, pany, created any forfeiture of the 66 Me. 185 (1876) ; Katama Land Co. v, shares for the non-payment of the as- Holley, 129 Mass. 540(1880); Mechanics', sessment, ... the legal eflfeot of etc. Co. V. Hall, 121 Mass. 273 (1876). In his (defendant's) subscribing for the Maine an agreement to " take and fill " stock is to render him liable in assump- a number of shares has been held equiv- sit, even where there is no express alent to an express promise to pay for promise to pay." Essex, etc. Co. v. Tut- them. Buokfield, etc. R. R v. Irish, 39 tie, 2 Vt. 393 (1880). Me. 44 (1854); Penobscot, etc. E. U. v. * Anglo-American, etc. Ca w Dyer, 64 Bartlett, 78 Mass. 244 (1858); Pitts- N. E. Rep. 416 (Mass. 1902). 330 CH. IV.J SUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAKTIES, ETC. [§ V6, corporation not yet in existence, and is revocable by any subscriber until the birth of the corporation, which operates as an acceptance of the oifer, and thereafter the subscription, if not previously re- voked, is irrevocable and may be enforced by the corporation. " (c) Such an agreement, made as a step authorized by statute in the process of forming the corporation, is made valid by the' statute, and is binding upon each subscriber from the time of sign- ing, and is irrevocable thereafter, but can be enforced only by the corporation. "(d) An agreement to pay money to trustees, to be by them paid to a corporation thereafter to be created, the trustees to return to the subscribers stock in the corporation accordingly, is a valid con- tract betAveen the subscribers and the trustees. " (e) The distinction made between a present subscription and an agreement to subscribe to the stock of a corporation thereafter to be created is unsound in principle, and disappears as mere dicta upon a thorough sifting of the cases.' " (f) The damages recoverable by the corporation upon a sub- scription is the amount of the subscription ; and all discussion of any other measure of damages, such as difference between par and market value of stock subscribed, arises from a misconception of the situation, and disappears from the net result of the authorities." § 76. Stockholders^ agreements to guarantee company debts and stockholders' contracts for the benefit of the corporation. — An agree- ment of stockholders to be responsible for future debts of the cor- poration can be enforced, but the corporation and all the parties are to be made parties defendant.^ Where the stockholders enter into a contract by which they give a certain amount of their stock to a person who agrees to do cer- 1 Quoted and approved in Woods, etc. Southerland v. Fremont, 107 N. C. 565- Co. V. Brady, 39 N. Y. Misc. 79 (1902). (1890). 2 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Hannon, 14 An agreement of stockholders that Fed. Eep. 593 (188B). If the plaintiff is if a creditor of the corporation will re- one of the parties to the agreement his lease certain security they will give remedy is in equity. Farmers' Nat. other security or that the debt will ba Bank v. Hannan, 4 Fed. Rep. 613 (1880). paid is a contract of guaranty and not An agreement of stockholders to in- an original undertaking. Home Nat. demnify, protect, and save harmless in Bank v. Waterman, 184 111, 461 (1890), proportion to their stock other stock- An agreement whereby one corporation holders who sign corporate notes, con- borrows money from the stockholders strued, and the remedy explained, of another corporation, and agrees to Taylor v. Coon, 79 Wis. 76 (1891); Tay- repay the same, is enforcible by such, lor V. North, 79 Wis. 86 (1891). stockholders in an action at law and Stockholders who sign corporate the remedy is not in equity. Thomas- notes are co-sureties and not guarantors. V. Council Blufis, etc. Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 433 (1899). 231 §76.] SUBSCRIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [CH. 17. tain work for the corporation ia consideration of the stock, the remedy for a breach of contract on his part is an action for dam- ages, unless bv the contract the stock was to be returned in case of n on-perf or man ce.^ A stockholder may hold liable in damages a person who has- broken his agreement to loan money to the corporation, the consid- eration of such agreement having been furnished by the stockholder. But if the agreement did not provide for any particular duration of the loan, only nominal damages can be recovered.^ It has been held that a stockholder's agreement to pay a corpo- rate debt is not void under the statute of frauds, even though it is ■oral;' but in England it is held that a director's verbal agree- 1 Gillett V. Bowen, 23 Fed. Rep. 635 (1885). See also § 663, infra. If the ac- tion is to recover back the stock, the corporation is a proper party in order to obtain a transfer. Johnson v. Kirby, 65 Cal. 482 (1884). See also, in general, Cates V. Sparkman, 73 Tex. 619 (1889). For the construction of a contract by which the owners of all the stock of a mining company turned it over in pledge to parties who would furnish the money to carry on the mine, see Newton v. Van Dusen, 47 Minn. 437 (1891). For the construction of an agree- ment whereby a stock and bond holder deposits all his stock and bonds as security to another person who ad- vances money to carry on the business, see Huston's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 620 (1889). Where a stockholder, owning a majority of the stock, transfers it to a person under a contract by the latter to do certain work for the corporation, and make a loan to the former, and re» tain the former as president, but the stockholder endeavors to sell out to an- other party, his bill in equity to set aside the transfer as obtained by fraud will fail. Healey v. Loveridge, 73 Md. 220 (1890). Where, for the purpose of forwarding a corporate enterprise, one of its chief promoters contracts to give and sell to a third person certain bonds, etc., if the latter will do certain acts, the former cannot, after part perform- ance by the latter, rescind and recover back the bonds, etc., unless he recom- penses the latter for his part perform- ance; nor can he rescind at all unless he can recompense the latter. His remedy is for damages. So though de- fendant is charged with fraud in re- fusing complete performanca Snow v. Alley, 144 Mass. 546 (1887). Where the stockholders transfer a portion of their stock to one of their number to be dis- posed of by him for the interests of the company and to raise money to carry on business, he may use a portion of the same to reimburse one of the stock- holders for stock which the latter used in the interest of the company. Playa etc. Co. V. Gage, 60 N. Y. A pp. Div. 1 (1901). A contract whereby a stock- holder delivei's certain stock for money to be paid to the corporation, the money to be repaid out of dividends and in other ways, and the stock then to be returned, is a conditional sale and not a loan to the corporation. Crimp V. McCormick Const. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 856 (1896). Where stockholders con- tribute a part of their stock to one of their number to use in robbing a rail- road and bribing a judge, and he uses only a part of it for that purpose, he cannot be compelled by the others to distribute among them the balance. The court will leave the parties where it finds them. Tobey v. Robinson, 99 N. Y. 333 (1881). Compare § 39, supra. 2 Kelly V. Fahrney, 97 Fed. Rep. 176 (1899). 3 Emerson v. Slater, 32 How. 38 (1859). 323 OH. IV.J SUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PARTIES, ETC. [§76. raent to indorse paper of the corporation is void by the statute of frauds.^ Where the solvent stockholders agree that they will severally contribute to raise a fund to pay the corporate liabilities, the agree- ment is valid and enforceable, and each must contribute in the proportion that the number of shares held by him bears to the number of shares held by all those who entered into such agree- ment.^ A bond given by stockholders for the payment of notes to 1 Harbourg, etc. Co. v. Martin, 86 L. T. Rep. 505 (1903). Contra, Andover Free Schools V. Flint, 54 Mass. 539 (1847). 2 Sterling Wrench Co. v. Amstutz, 50 Ohio St. 484 (1893). A contract by which several stockholders each agreed to pay loans made by certain persons to the corporation is a several contract and may be enforced against each without joining the others. Dornan v. Swift, 1 Pennewill (Del.), 457 (1898). Where the stockholders authorize the receiver of an insolvent bank to borrow money to pay debts of the company, each of said stockholders to be liable therefor in proportion to his holdings of stock, a person so loaning the money to the re- ceiver on the faith of such agreement may bring suit against them and all may be joined without joining the bank or the receiver. Hanover, etc. Bank v, Cooke, 137 N. C. 467 (1900). Where six stockholders, in order to enable the cor- poration to borrow money, agree that one of them shall indorse the company's note for the full amount, and that the other five shall each give their note for one-sixth of the amount to the corpora- tion and that the corporation shall in- dorse the five notes to the one who indorsed the company's note for the full amount, which was sold to an out- sider, the obligors in such notes for one- sixth each are guarantors or sureties to the one who indorsed the note for the full amount, and hence his renewal of the principal note does not release them. Koehler v. Hussey, 57 S. W. Eep. 241 (Ky. 1900). Where one stockholder agrees with the others that he will ad- vance money to pay the debts of the corporation and that all the stockhold- ers shall contribute pro rata, he may maintain an action against them for such contribution. Davidson v. Gretna, etc. Bank, 59 Neb. 63 (1899). The agreement of the stockholders to secure the directors for becoming sure- ties for corporate loans is a several and not a joint obligation, if the obligation is so drawn, and the obligation is orig- inal and not a collateral obligation of svu-etyship. Spencer v. McLean, 80 Ind. App. 636 (1898). A contract by which stockholders agreed to turn in proportionately the notes of the company as a contribution to the company was construed in Trad- ers' Nat. Bank v. Smith, 32 S. W. Eep. 1056 (Tex. 1893). A corporation may enforce an agree- ment of the stockholders to contribute to the payment of the debts. Lillard v. Decatur, etc. Co., 36 S. W. Rep. 793 (Tex. 1896). Where the solvency of a bank is ques- tioned, and the directors give tljeir ac- commodation notes to the bank to give it credit, such notes are enforceable. Dykman v. Keeney, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 610 (1896). In Wisconsin, etc. Bank v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. Ill (1896), the court held that a guaranty by the stockholders of the debts, each of the guarantors agreeing to pay the proportion which his stock held to the whole capital stock, ren- dered each stockholder liable for all the debts, it appearing that some of the signers did not hold any of the stock, A bank may accept a deed of real es- tate from a stockholder and director to 333 §76.] StJBSCEIPTIONS METHOD, PAETIES, ETO. [CH. IV. a specified amount to be issued by the corporation within a specified time is enforcible even though one of the bondsmen dies during- that time and notes are issued thereafter.* Where directors are joint indorsers of corporate notes, and one of theiji buys the prop- erty at public sale in good faith and pays the notes, he may sue the others for contribution and need not account for profits he made in such purchase.^ A stockholder who voluntarily pays more than par for his stock cannot compel the company to repay to him the excess, even though other stockholders paid only par, it being shown that the parties originally agreed on the payments as made.' Where ' notes are given by the directors instead of the corporation, they are practically sureties, the lender having insisted that the transaction be that way, but all the parties knowing that it was for the benefit of make good an impairment of the capital for the use of her separable estate suf- stock, it being agreed that compensa- tion therefor should be paid from future profits. Brown v. Bradford, 103 Iowa, 378 (1897). Where certain stockholders agree to pay a proportion of the corporate debts if the other solvent stockholders sign, a partial payment by the former does not prevent their defending against the agreement on the ground that other solvent stockholders have not signed. Brady v. Eliot, 181 Pa. St. 359 (1897). A subscription to pay pro rata the losses of a specific public enterprise was construed in Laramee v. Tanner, 69 Minn. 156 (1897). As to accommodation notes given by the stockholders to the corporation and the withdrawal of one, see Patterson v. Bank of B. Columbia, 26 Oreg. 509 (1895). The fact that a stockholder guaranteed the payment of a corporate note does not make him liable to the corporation itself. Wright v. Knoxville, etc. Co., 59 8. W. Rep. 677 (Tenn. 1900). As against a receiver notes given as a contribution to the corporation may be shown to have been given upon conditions. Catt V. Olivier, 98 Va. 580 (1900). At common law a married woman, even though she owns a majority of the stock of a cor- poration, cannot bind herself to pay its debts, and even under the New Jersey statute she does not obtain anything ficient to sustain such promise. Allen V. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 377 (1899). An agreement of one stockholder to pay interest on the money invested by the others is binding. The contract may be equivalent to a purchase-money mortgage and may entitle the holders to a foreclosure. Near v. Donnelly, 80 Mich. 130 (1890). In the case of Wis- consin, etc. Bank v. Mann, 100 Wis. 596 (1898), a guarantee by stockholders was declared not enforceable because it did not correctly state the oral agreement leading up to it. Where the president of a bank, in order to aid its credit, deeds land to the bank to secure the depositors, the bank has power to mort- gage such land, and the mortgagee is protected even though the proceeds are misapplied. Steinke v. Yetzer, 108 Iowa, 513 (1899). An insolvent individual who owes a bank may convey land to the bank for the benefit of its depositors, and the doctrine that individual assets must be applied to individual debts be- fore being applied to partnership debts does not apply, even though he own& one-half of the stock of the bank. Steinke v. Yetzer, 108 Iowa, 512 (1899). 1 Home, etc. Bank v. Hosie, 119 Mich. 116 (1898). 2 Weeks v. Parsons, 176 Mass. 570 (1900). » Esgen V. Smith, 113 Iowa, 35 (1901). 334 CH. IV.J SUBSCEIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [§76. the corporation.! A corporate creditor cannot enforce a person's agreement to pay the corporate debts and take stock in payment.^ A subscription agreement signed by various parties to pay the amount set opposite their respective names, towards a creamery, is several and not joint.' An agreement of stockholders that if a creditor of the corpora- tion will release certain security they will give other security, or that the debt will be paid, is a contract of guaranty and not an original undertaking.'' Where the stockholders loan money to the company to be repaid out of the first net earnings, no repayment will be ordered where the company becomes insolvent and the court distributes the as- sets.' 1 Hughes V. Ladd, 69 Pac. Rep. 548 (Oreg. 1903). 2 Washburn v. Interstate In v. Co., 26 Oreg. 436 (1894). But where the corpo- ration assigns claims to its president upon his guaranty that he will pay therefrom certain corporate debts, such guaranty may be enforced by such cred- itors. Telford v. Oslin, 99 Ga. 507 (1896). 3 Cornish v. West, 82 Minn. 107 (1901). See also § 78, supra. A subscription agreement prior to incorporation, -in which the parties state the number of shares taken, and in which they agree to pay the contractors, who are parties to the 'contract, a specified sum, is a joint undertaking on the subscribers' part. The contractors may hold them liable as partners, the agreement not limiting their liability to the number or shares taken by each. An imma- terial alteration after a part have signed does not release any one. The agree- ment of the contractors to hold each subscriber liable only on his subscrip- tion if he would pay that is without consideration and void. Any subscri- ber could expressly limit his liability to his subscription. Davis v. Shafer, 50 Fed. Rep. 764 (1893). See Doud v. Na- tional Park Bank, 54 Fed. Rep. 846 (1893). Cf. Davis, etc. Co. v. Barber, 51 Fed. Rep. 148 (1893); Conrad v. La Rue, 53 Mich. 83(1883). *Home Nat Bank t;. Waterman, 134 (15) 335 III. 461 (1890). Stockholders who sign corporate notes are co-sureties and not guarantors. Southerland v. Fremont, 107 N. C. 565 (1890). Where the stockholders guarantee the debts of the company, no notice of the acceptance of the guaranty, when acted on, need be given. Doud v. Na- tional Park Bank, 54 Fed. Rep. 846 (1893). Where the vendors of stock guarantee that the stock shall be non-assessable until they have advanced $30,000, a stockholder who is held liable on a stat- utory liability may hold the guarantors liable if they have not paid the $30,000. Omo V. Bernart, 108 Mich. 43 (1895). ' Lyman v. Northern, etc. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 891 (1894). Where a purchaser of stock agrees to and does advance money to the corporation to make it financially strong, the amount to be re- paid when the company is in condition to repay it, he cannot thereafter, when the corporation becomes insolvent, undo the transaction and obtain a prefer- ence for such advances. Hart v. Globe Ins. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 307 (1883). Where the directors of a corporation, in order to restore the capital stock which has been impaired, agree that one of them shall give his note to the corporation and that the others shall be responsible for their proportionate part of the note, the note to be retired out of the earn- ings of the company, and the maker of §76.] SUBSCKIPTIONS — METHOD, PAETIES, ETC. [oh. IV. "Where stockholders voluntarily assess themselves, to relieve the corporation from pecuniary embarrassment, or for the better- ment of their stock, whatever may be the occasion of the assess- ment, the advances thus made are not debts against, but assets of, the corporation." ^ Where the vendor agrees by contract with the vendee, and accepted by the company, that he, the vendor, will for five years give his personal supervision to the business of the company, he, the vendor, cannot recover compensation from the company for such services.^ The agreement of the purchaser of the majority of the note pays it, he may recover from the others their part of the same. Crane v. Bayley, 126 Mich. 833 (1901). Where a purchaser of stock agrees to and does advance money to the corpo- ration to make it financially strong, the amount to be repaid when the company is in condition to repay it, he cannot thereafter, when the corporation be- comes insolvent, undo the transaction and obtain a preference for such ad- vances. Hart V. Globe Ins. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. 307 (1882). iBrodriok v. Brown, 69 Fed. Rep. 497 (1895). Where a person owns the entire capital stock of a corporation and con- tributes money to it by reason of its capital stock being impaired, and then sells all the stock, he cannot claim that the corporation owes him the money so contributed, such money having been charged by him on the books to profit and loss. Times, etc. Co. v. Given, 106 Fed. Rep. 353 (1900). A fund raised by the stockholders for the benefit of the creditors and de- posited in the bank may be used by the company to pay a debt due to the bank, the bank having no notice of the trust character of the fund. Wyman v. Na- tional Bank, 51 Neb. 636 (1897). Where the owner of oil lands agrees to convey them to a corporation for stock, and to give one-half of the stock to another party, who pays the vendor five thousand dollars and pays to the corporation twenty-five thousand dol- lars, tha twenty-five thousand dollars is not to be credited as a payment by the vendor on an assessment on his stock. Hardee v. Sunset Oil Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 51 (1898). A stockholder who vol- untarily guarantees or assumes a debt of the corporation cannot, in case he is compelled to pay, claim contribution from the other stockholders. Gorder V. Connor, 56 Neb. 781 (1898), Where subscribers for stock loaned' money to the company on condition that it be repaid to them through a trus- tee, and repayment is made to the trus- tee, a corporate creditor can attack the transaction only by a bill in equity. Baltimore, etc. B. R. v. Kensington Land Co., 175 Pa. St. 95 (1896). Where the chief stockholder has paid a corpo- rate debt by giving his own notes there- for, an4 subsequently the corporation again assumes the debt, the transaction is legal as against subsequent creditors of the corporation. Fernald v. High- land Hall Co., 59 Kan, 534 (1898). 2 Wetmore v. C. A. Wetmore Co., 113 Cal. 331 (1896). The fact that a vendor of personalty said he would not sell to the corporation, but would to the di- rectors, does^not make them liable if the sale was to the corporation. Wood- bury Granite Co. v. Mulliken, 66 Vt. 465 (1894). Where certain stockholders agree with a subscriber for stock that he shall receive certain dividends and that they will take his stock if he desires after three years, he has a reasonable time after the three years to exercise his right to sell to them.^ Rogers v. Burr, 97 Ga. 10 (1895). 226 CH. IV.J SUBSOKIPTIONS ■ -METHOD, PAKTIES, ETC. [§76. the stock that he will indemnify and save harmless the vendors from the liabilities of the company does not render the vendee liable to the creditors of the company,' nor to the corporation.^ The agree- ment of vendors of stock to protect the vendee against the paj'- ment of existing claims of a corporation is not enforcible until payment is actually made.' Where the stockholders personally guarantee the debts of the corporation they are liable on the guar- anty and also on any statutory liability attached to their stock.^ Where the statute provides for raising funds for a mutual insur- ance company by assessments, the bond of the directors to advance a certain sum to the company as needed is ultra vires and unen- forceable.^ An alteration of a corporate note after stockholders have signed as sureties releases the stockholders.' Stockholders' contracts relative to treasury stock ' and for the sale of stock ^ are considered elsewhere. 1 Traders', etc. Bank v. Washington, etc. Co., 83 Wash. 467 (1900). Of. § 673, infra. 2 A corporation cannot enforce a promise made by a stockholder to a purchaser of his stock that he, the vendor, would pay the corporate debts. Oerman St. Bank v. Northwestei-n, etc. Co., 104 Iowa, 717 (1898). 'Cochran v. Selling, 36 Oreg. 333 <1899). 4 London, etc. Bank v. Parrott, 135 CaL 473 (1899). As to contribution where stockholders who are sureties on a note are also liable as stockholders for the same debt, see Myers v. Sierra Val. etc. Assoc, 133 Gal. 669 (1898). Where a stockholder has guaranteed the bonds of a corporation and allowed the mort- gage to cover some of his own property and the corporation becomes insolvent, •other stockholders when sued on their statutory liability cannot set up that this guaranty and mortgage should first be exhausted before they are held liable. Winthrop, etc. Bank v. Minneapolis, etc. -Co., 77 Minn. 339 (1899). SGoss V. Peters, 98 Mich. 113 (1893). Where the condition to a particular subscription is that |50,000 be sub- scribed, the verbal guaranty of an in- dividual that the |50,000 would be sub- scribed is not a compliance with the condition. Branch v. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573 (1895). "Pelton V. San Jacinto Lumber Co., 113 Cal. 31 (1896). A modification of the contract between the subscribers and a contractor does not release the former where they accept the work upon the completion of the contract. Gibbons v. Ellis, 83 Wis. 434 (1893). An agreement of stockholders that certain corporate notes will be paid is released by taking new notes from the corpora- tion extending the debt. Home Nat. Bank v. Waterman, 134 111. 461 (1891). A note made by the stockholders for the benefit of the corporation may be barred by the statute of limitations, even though the corporation has made partial payments. Patterson v. Collier, 113 Mich. 13 (1897). ' See § 46, supra, 8 See § 334, in/ro. 827 CHAPTER y. CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONa 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. Definition. Conditions precedent and condi- tions subsequent. Conditional subscriptions in New- York and Pennsylvania before incorporation. In New York such subscription is void; in Pennsylvania the con- dition is void. Oral conditions are void. 83. Conditional subscriptions after in- corporation. 83. What may be the condition. 84 Acceptance by the corporation is necessary — Withdrawal. 85. Construction of the condition, 86, 87. Performance of the condition. 88. Waiver. 89. Notice and calls on conditional subscriptions. § 77. Definition of conditional subscription. — A conditional sub- scription is one on which payment can be enforced by the corpo- ration only after the occurrence or after the performance by the corporation of certain things specified in the subscription itself.' Oral agreements made with the subscriber to the effect that pay- ment will not be required except on certain events or contingencies are sometimes spoken of as conditions to the subscription, but more properly are mere variations of a written contract, and are treated elsewhere.* § 78. Conditions precedent and conditions subsequent. — A condi- tional subscription is also to be distinguished from a subscription on a condition subsequent. A subscription on a condition subse- quent contains a contract between the corporation and the sub- scriber, whereby the corporation agrees to do some act. It thereby combines two contracts: one the contract of subscription, the other an ordinary contract of the corporation to perform the specified acts.' The subscription is valid and enforceable whether the con- • A conditional subscription has often been spoken of as "a continuing offer which is final and absolute when ac- cepted." Taggart v. Western Md. R. R. 34 Md. .563,595 (1866); Ashtabula, etc. R. R V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 338 (1864); Lowe V. Edgefield, etc. R. R., 1 Head (Tenn.), 659 (1858). 2 See ch. IX; also § 81, infra. ' Thus, adding to a subscription the words, "to be expended between Con- necticut river and the east line of the state," has been held to form a con- 238 tract to that effect, but not to make the subscription conditional. Lane v. Brainerd, 80 Conn. 565 (1863); Hender- son, etc. R. R. V. Leavell, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 358 (1855). So, also, of words re- quiring a certain location or route to- be adopted. Henderson, etc. R. R. v. Leavell, 16 R Mon. (Ky.) 858 (1855); the- court saying, however, that if the route is laid out otherwise, before payment,, probably the subscriber would be dis- charged; if changed after payment, it could be enjoined. Laches will bar the CH. V.J CONDITIONAL 8UBSCEIPTI0NS. [§78. dftions are performed or not.^ The condition subsequent is the same as a separate collateral contract between the corporation and the subscriber, for breach of which an action for damages is the remedy.^ The distinction between such a contract and the ordi- right to such an Injunction. Chapman V. Mad River, etc. E. R., 6 Ohio St. 119 (1856). A more frequent requirement is a certain location of the route, and also the construction of a part or the whole of the road. The first require- ment is construed to be a condition precedent, the secoad a condition sub- sequent, since the payment of the sub- scription itself is necessary to carry out the requirement. Chamberlain v. Paines- ville, etc. R. E., 15 Ohio St. 325 (1864); Belfast, etc. Ry. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561, 576 (1871); North Missouri R. R. u Winkler, 39 Mo. 318 (1860); Bucksport, etc. R. R. V. Brewer, 67 Me. 295 (1877); McMillan v. Maysville, etc. R. R., 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 218 (1854); Swartout v. Michi- gan, etc. R. R., 24 Mich. 389 (1872), where Judge Cooley says: "It is only reason- able to infer that they would have ex- pressed that intent more clearly, and would have indicated with definiteness what stage the work should reach, be- fore their liability should become fixed." So also in Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 40 Pa. St. 337 (1861), where the court says: "It is a most extraordinary de- fense, for it presupposes that the com- pany were to build their road without money, and to deliver it, a finished work, to the stock subscribers, who were then to pay their subscriptions." In Pittsburgh, etc. E. R v. Biggar, 84 Pa. St. 455 (1859), a condition " provided the road goes within half a mile of Florence," was held to be a condition subsequent. A condition that altera- tions shall be ordered only by a vote of the directors is a condition subsequent. Bucksport & B. R R. v. Buck, 68 Me. 81 (1878). So also of a condition that com- missioners should be appointed to see thai other conditions are complied with. Shaflfner v. Jeffries, 18 Mo. 513 (1853). And a condition that the money sub- 239 scribed shall be expended on a certain part of the road. Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 (1862). A condition that a depot shall be established at a certain place is a condition subsequent. Pa- ducah, etc. R. R v. Parks, 86 Tenn. 554 (1888). A condition that bonds will be issued as a " bonus " to a stockholder is void. It is a condition subsequent. The subscription is enforceable. Mor- row V. Nashville, etc. Co., 87 Tenn. 263 (1889). Condition construed to be sub- sequent. Johnson v. Georgia, etc. R R, 81 Ga. 725 (1888). For the English cases on conditions precedent and subse- quent to subscriptions for stock, see ch. II, supra. lA condition subsequent "will not defeat an action for the recovery of the money, notwithstanding it had not been performed when the action was commenced." Belfast, etc. Ry. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561 (1872). " A failure to perform an independent stipulation, not amounting to a condition prece- dent, though it subject the party fail- ing to damages, does not excuse the party on the other side from the per- formance of all stipulations on his part." Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 38 Mass. 417, 437 (1839). 2 The subscriber is left to the ordi- nary remedies for breaches of con- tracts. A subscriber cannot avoid payment as against a corporate creditor although the subscription was on condition that, if the subscription exceeded one-half the cost of a certain building, only so much of the subscription should be called for as would equal that half. The subscriber cannot forfeit what he has paid and refuse to pay the re- mainder. Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1893). A condition that the subscriptions §§ T9, 80.] CONDITIONAL SUBSCEirXIONS. [CH. V. nary conditional subscriptions — that is, subscriptions on conditiohs precedent — is sometimes difficult to determine. The supreme court of Maine has said that the question whether a condition in a sub- scription " be precedent or subsequent is a question purely of intent, and the intention must be determined by considering not only the words of the particular clause, but also the language of the whole contract, as well as the nature of the act required and the subject- matter to which it relates." ' The courts, in accordance with well- established rules, favor conditions subsequent.^ § 79. In New YorTc and Pennsylvania conditional subscriptio7is are not allowed in subscriptions to obtain incorporation. — In Sew York and Pennsylvania it is held that subscriptions taken for the purpose of complying with a statute which grants a charter only upon a certain amount of stock being subscribed cannot be condi- tional, but must be absolute.' § 80. In New York the subscription is void; in Pennsylvania the condition is void. — The Sew York and Pennsylvania cases differ, however, in regard to the effect of a conditional subscrip- tion 'to stooli before and for the purpose of incorporation. In New when collected shall be used to build factories which should be leased was enforced in Porter v. Carpenter, 65 N. H. 650 (1874). A consolidated company is not liable to a subscriber to stock of the original company for removing the shops of the company from a certain place, although the subscription was conditional upon the shops being located there. Eliza- bethtown v. Chesapeake, etc. R. B., 94 Ky. 377 (1893). Where several persons subscribed on condition that the payee do certain things, and the payee commits a breach of contract, each of the subscribers may sue separately on the breach, and may recover back the amount paid. Batsell V. St. Louis, etc. Ry., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 580 (1893). See also § 97, infra. ' Bucksport, etc. R. R. «■ Brewer, 67 Me. 295 (1877). "The situation and re- lation of the parties to each other, the object sought to be attained, and the subject-matter to which the agreement relates, are material , . . and indis- pensable aids " in deciding whether the condition be precedent or subsequent. 280 Chamberlain v. Fainesville, etc. R, R, 15 Ohio St. 225 (1864). 2 Chamberlain v. Painesville, etcR. R, 15 Ohio St. 225 (1864) ; Swartout v. Mich- igan, etc. R. R., 24 Mich. 389 (1872). '"A subscription to the stock of a public corporation, made before letters patent are issued and an organization effected, must be considered absolute and unqualified, and any condition at- tached thereto void. Commissioners have no authority to receive conditional subscriptions.-' Boyd v. Peach Bottom Ry., 90 Pa. St. 169 (1879). " Any other rule would lead to the procurement from the commonwealth of valuable charters without any absolute capital for their support, and thus give rise to a system of speculation and fraud which would be intolerable." Caley v. Phila- delphia, etc. R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363 (1876). See also Erie, etc. Co. v. Brown, 25 Pa. St. 156 (1855); Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256 (1871); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. V. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 54 (1861); Trdy, etc. R. R. u Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297 (1854). That conditional subscriptions are not to be counted in ascertaining whether the whole capital stock has CH. v.] CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. [§§ 81, 82. York the whole subscription is void absolutely. It is as though not made, and cannot be enforced either by the corporation or by the would-be subscriber.' In Pennsylvania a different rule pre- vails. The condition is void, but the subscription itself is treated as an absolute unconditional subscription, and may be enforced by the corporation.' § 81. Oral conditions are void. — Under the general rule of evi- dence that a written agreement cannot be varied or added to by parol evidence, it is not competent for a subscriber to stock to al- lege that he is but a conditional subscriber.' The condition must be inserted in the writing in order to be effectual. Where, how- ever, the parol agreement or condition is made subsequently to the making of the contract, and upon a sufficient consideration, it has been upheld.* § 82. Conditional subscriptions after incorporation are valid. — A conditional subscription to stock, taken and accepted by a corpo- ration after its incorporation, is legal and valid by the common law of all the states. In Pennsylvania the legality of such condi- tional subscriptions is clearly declared and sustained." In New been subscribed, which must be shown before another absolute subscriber can be made liable, see § 180, infra. Conditional subscriptions made pre- vious to and for the purpose of incorpo- ration were upheld in Chamberlain v, Painesville, etc. R. E., 15 Ohio St. 225 (1864). • Troy, etc. R. R. v, Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297 (1854); Re Rochester, etc. R. R., 50 Hun, 29 (1888), where the subscription was to be paid in land, Under the New York statute a con- ditional subscription, payable one-half when the rails had been laid and one- half when the road goes into operation, is void and cannot be collected. Gen- eral Elec. Co. V. Wightman, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 118 (1896). See also p. 88, note 2, supra. 2 " Where one subscribes to the stock of a public corporation prior to the procurement of its charter, such sub- scription is to be regarded as absolute and unqualified, and any condition attached thereto is void." Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363 (1876). " The subscription is valid and binding, and the condition null and void." Boyd v. Peach Bottom Ry., 90 Pa. St. 169 (1879). To the same effect see Bedford R. E. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 89 (1864); Bavington v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 84 Pa. St. 358 (1859); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. V. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455 (1859); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Woodrow, 3 Phila. 271 (1858). The subscription it- self, however, is not binding if it is not reported by the commissioners and used to obtain the charter. Ligonier R. R. V. Williams, 35 TLeg. Int. 40 (1878). In the federal courts, Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390, 396 (1872), favors the Pennsylvania rule, while Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, 385 (1869); S. C, 20 Fed. Cas. 79, 86, favors the New York rule. In both cases the opin- ions are dicta. See also Ellison v. Mo- bile, etc. R. R., 36 Miss. 572 (1858). See also p. 88, note 2, supra. 3 See §§ 137, 138, infra. 4 See §§ 137, 138, infra, '"It is no longer to be doubted that an incorporated company, after it has obtained its letters patent and effected its organization, may receive condi- tional subscriptions to its stock.". Pitts- burgh, etc. R. R. V. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 231 §83.] CONDITIONAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [CH. York, also, conditional subscriptions have been upheld,' but not where the condition is one that affects the route of a turnpike or railroad company. In other states the legality of such subscrip- tions is rarely questioned, but is generally assume'd to be admitted.^ § 83. What condition may ie attached to a subscription. — Any condition which can be legally performed or complied with by the corporation may be the condition to a subscription for stock.' The condition may be that payment shall be in labor or materials; * it may require the expenditure of the subscription on a particular part of the enterprise;^ it may stipulate that a certain amount or the whole of the capital stock shall be subscribed before calls are 54 (1861); Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. E., 80 Pa. St. 363 (1876); Philadelphia, «tc. R. R. V. HiokmSin, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857). After incorporation conditional subscriptions may be received, al- though the letters patent have not been issued and cannot be until ten per cent, of the capital stock is sub- scribed. Tbe conditional subscription cannot, however, form any part of such percentage. Hanover, etc. R. R. v. Hal- deman, 83 Pa. St. 36 (1876). ' Ordinary conditional subscriptions were treated as vah'd in Union Hotel Co. V. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 454 (1880); Bur- rows V. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 (1853); Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Nathan, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 239 (1829). But the condi- tion that a particular location of the proposed road should be adopted has been held to be contrary to public policy, since improper means would thereby influence the question of loca- tion. Butternuts, etc. Tump. Co. v. North, 1 Hill, 518 (1841); Fort Edward, etc. Co. V. Payne, 15 N. Y. 583 (1857); Macedon, etc. Co. v. Snediker, 18 Barb. 317 (1854); dictum in Dix v. Shaver, 14 Hun, 392 (1878). However, in Lake On- tario, etc. R R. V. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219 (1880), a condition of this kind was in- volved, and no objection was made to its validity. Subscriptions conditional, in that payment is to be permitted in property, labor, or contract for con- struction, have been repeatedly passed upon in New York and upheld. See ch. II, supra, 2 " Except in New York, conditional subscriptions, in the absence of a spe- cial prohibition, so far as we have ob- ■ served, have been sustained as author- ized and not in conflict with public policy." Ashtabula, etc. R. R. «. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 828 (1864). See also § 97, infra; New Albany, etc. R. R. u Mc- Cormick, 10 Ind. 499 (1858); Shick v. Citizens' Enterprise Ca, 15 Ind. App. 329 (1896); McMillan v. Maysville, etc. R. R., 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 218 (1854); Day- ton, etc. R. R. w Hatch, 1 Disney (Ohio), 84 (1855). A conditional sub- scription to the stock of a railroad company is legal. Baltimore, etc. R E. V. Pumphrey, 74 Md. 86 (1891). Condi- tional subscriptions may be received. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276 (1890). If the condition is ultra vires of the corporation, the subscription is not enforceable, there having been bo performance. Pellatt's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 527 (1867). s The subscriber " may agree to take and pay for the stock absolutely or upon such conditions as he may choose to incorporate into his subscription." Penobscot, etc. R. R. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587 (1855); Mathis v. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). < See ch. II, supra. 6 Milwaukee, etc. R R. v. Field, 13 Wis. 840 (1860); Hanover Junction, etc. R R. V. Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 86 (1876). 283 OH. V.J CONDITIONAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [§83. made on the subscriptions; ' or it may limit the time within which certain things specified therein must be done.^ Instead of subscrib- ing for stock a party may make a contract with a corporation to take the stock with the right to return it and receive back the pur- chase price within a certain time. Such a contract is legal, and the stock may be returned and the money recovered if corporate creditors' rights do not intervene.' In most states the condition to a subscription may require the route of a railroad to be located on a particular line.* In New York such a conditional subscription has been held to be void, on the ground of public policy, inasmuch as the discretion of the directors, in laying out the route, would thereby be influenced by considerations other than those of a purely public nature." 1 Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857); Penobscot, etc. R. R, V. Dunn, 39 Me. 587 (1855); Hanover Junction, etc. R. R v. Haldeman, 83 Pa. St. 36 (1876); Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 454 <1880). Even though the charter allowed the com- mencement of business upon the sub- scription of a less sum. Ridgefield, etc. R. R. V. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 (1875). 2 Ticonio Water Power, etc. Co. v. Lang, 63 Me. 480 (1874), holding also that time herein is of the essence of the contract. See also Morris Canal, etc. Co. V. Nathan, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 339 {1839). A condition that the road should be finished within a certain time, and that notice thereof should be given in a certain way, was involved in Garner V. Hall, 114 Ala. 167 (1896). See also § 87, infra. 3 Vent V, Duluth, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 307 (1896). Cf. § 170, infra. * Fisher v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 7 Ind. 407 (1856); Connecticut, etc. R. R. V. Baxter, 33 Vt. 805 (1860); Cumberland Valley R. R. v. Baab, 9 Watts (Pa.), 458 (1840); Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Shearer, 10 Ind. 344 (1858); Jewett v. Lawrence- burgh, etc. R. R., 10 Ind. 539 (1858); Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Tygard, 84.Mo. 364 <1884); Wear v. Jacksonville, etc. R. R., 24 111, 593 (1860); Taggart v. Western Md. R. R., 24 Md. 563 (1866); Racine County Bank v. Ayers, 13 Wis. 518 233 (I860;. See also Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R, 80 Pa. St. 368 (1876). Location may be required to be subject to the approval of the subscriber. Roberts's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 205 (1850); aff'd. 3 Macn. & G. 193. See also Mansfield, etc. R. R. V. Brown, 36 Ohio St. 333 (1875); Mansfield, etc. R. R. v. Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241 (1875); Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc. R. R., 15 Ohio St. 235 (1864); North Missouri R. R. v. Winkler, 39 Mo. 318 (1860); Spartanburg, etc. R. R. V. De Graffenreid, 12 Rich. L. (S. C.) 675 (1860); Des Moines Valley R. E. v. Graff, 37 Iowa, 99 (1869). A subscrip- tion or note, not for stock, but absolutely as a gift to the corporation, in consid- eratign of a particular route being adopted, has been upheld. Stowell v. Stowell, 45 Mich. 364 (1881); First Nat. Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402 (1878). A subscription or donation to a rail- road, conditional on the location of a depot, is enforceable by the company. Berryman v. Cincinnati Southern Ry., 14 Bush (Ky.), 755 (1879). See § 650, infra. A construction company, under contract to construct a road by the shortest route, cannot collect a sum promised by a third person for a de- flection of the route. Woodstock Iron Co. V. Richmond, etc, Co., 139 U. S. 643 (1889). 5 See § 83, n., supra. §84.] CONDITIONAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [cn. V. In general, however, subscriptions to the capital stock of a cor- poration may be conditional as to the time, manner, or means of payment, or in any other way not prohibited by statute, or the rules of public policy, and not beyond the powers of the corpora- tion to comply with.' § 84. Acceptance iy the corporation is necessary. — The accept- ance by the corporation of a conditional subscription is necessary to the formation of a contract.^ Until such acceptance the condi- tional subscription is but a continuing offer. After acceptance the subscriber is bound, until performance of the condition by the cor- poration, to await such performance; he cannot withdraw the con- ditional subscription after it has been accepted. A conditional subscription cannot be revoked after the condition has been ful- filled.' It seems, however, that if the performance of the condition is delayed unreasonably by the corporation, the conditional sub- scriber will be thereby released from his obligation.* 1 Conditions inconsistent with the charter are void. Thigpen v. Missis- sippi Cent. R. E., 38 Miss. 347 (1856). The conditions which may be legally made to a subscription are practically limited only by the pow^er of the corpo- ration to contract. A few of the con- ditions which have been passed upon by the courts have been given. Many minor ones are involved in the cases and present a great variety of con- ditions, corresponding, as they do, to the wishes and motives of individuals subscribing to the stock of the different kinds of joint-stock corporations. The condition of a subscription may be that the subscriber be made district manager. Mogridge's Case, 58 L. T. Eep. 801 (1888). 2 Junction R R v. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236 (1860), where the subscription was pay- able in land. See also Gait v. Swain, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 633 (1853). ""When the offer was accepted the minds of the parties met and the contract was com- plete. . . , The acceptance by the plaintiff constituted a sufficient legal consideration for the engagement on the part of the defendants." Taggart V. Western Md. R. R„ 24 Md. 563 (1866). By the entry of the subscription on the corporate record an acceptance is im- 234 plied. New Albany, etc. R R v, Mc- Cormick, 10 Ind. 499 (1858). Acceptance by the president of the corporation, and a subsequent ratification by the di- rectors of all his acts, are sufficient. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R v. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 54 (1861). The delivery and accept- ance may be proved by parol. Mans- field, etc. R R u. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 233 (1875). Where it is delivered in es- crow to the agent of the corporation, there can be no acceptance of it by the corporation, so long as such delivery continues. Cass i\ Pittsburg, etc. Ry., 80 Pa. St. 31 (1875). It may be revoked while still in the hands of a person acting as corporate agent without au- thority. Lowe V. Edgefield, etc. E. R. 1 Head (Tenn.), 659 (1858). See also §§ 72, 167. The subscribers cannot withdraw unless there is unreasonable delay. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276 (1890). 3 Philadelphia, etc. R R. w Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364 (1896). ^ Where, the condition not being per- formed, the subscriber notifies the sec- retary of his withdrawal from the sub- scription, he is released. Wood's Case, L. R 15 Eq. 236 (1873). -The objection to a continuing offer, that it suspends indefinitely the liability of the oondi- OH. T.] CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. [§§ 85, 86. § 85. Construction of conditional sulscrijition. — Conditional sub- scriptions, like other contracts, are to be construed reasonably and according to the intent of the parties, as indicated by the language used in the contract.' The circumstances under which the subscrip- tion was made are also to be taken into consideration.^ If two in- terpretations are possible, that which facilitates the enterprise is preferred to that which retards it.' If the meaning is ambiguous, it is for the jury to say what the interpretation is to be.* § 86. Performance of the condition.— A condition to a subscrip- tion for stock must be performed or complied with before the sub- scriber can be compelled to pay such subscription.* A substantial performance of the condition is sufiBcient.^ A failure to perform is tlonal subscribers, is sufficiently an- swered by tlie consideration that all such offers are subject to retraction, and may be recalled if their acceptance is unreasonably defeiTed." Taggart v. Western Md. R R., 24 Md. 563 (1866); Mansfield, etc. E. R v. Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241 (1875), which holds that the question of acceptance is immaterial where performance of the condition has been completed by the corporation. 1 The whole contract is " to be taken together, and to have a reasonable con- struction according to the intent of the parties.'' People's Ferry Co. t\ Balch, 74 Mass. 303, 312 (1857). "The language was chosen by them to express their mutual intent, and such construction must be given thereto as will carry into effect that mutual understanding. . . . We are to ascertain what the parties understood and intended by this language, and may not deviate there- from, whether that contract, as so in- terpreted, be wise or unwise for either party.'' Memphis, etc. Ry. v. Thomp- son, 24 Kan. 170 (1880). 2 "The contract must be interpreted by the lightof the circumstances which existed at the time it was made, and not of those which arose afterwards." Monadnock R. R r. Felt, 52 N. H. 379 (1872); Detroit, etc. R. R. v. Starnes, 88 Mich. 698 (1878). 'Ashtabula, etc. R R w Smith, 15 Ohio St 328 (1864). * Connecticut R R v. Baxter, 32 Vt. 805 (1860). 'Porter v. Raymond, 53 N. H. 519 (1873); Monadnock R. R v. Felt, 52 N. H. 379 (1872); Montpelier, etc. R R v. Langdon, 46 Vt. 284 (1873); Ashtabula, etc. R R D. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328 (1864); Philadelphia, etc. R R. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857); Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 (1853); McFarland v. Lyon, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 586 (1893). " Upon the performance of the condition by the promisee the contract is clothed with a valid consideration, which relates back, and the promise at once becomes obliga- tory." Des Moines Valley R R. v. Graff, 27 Iowa, 99 (1869). Upon fulfillment of the condition that a certain amount be subscribed, the subscription may be col- lected. Security State Bank v. Raine, 31 Neb. 517 (1891). A contract ©f sub- scription to a railroad company when certain things are done by it is collect- ible when these things hare been done. Lesher v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 303 (1890). A conditional subscription may be enforced after the condition has been performed. Webb v. Baltimore, etc R R, 77 Md. 93 (1893). 6 Hall V. Sims, 106 Ala. 561 (1895); O'Neal V. King, 3 Jones, L. (N. C.) 517 (1856). See also Virginia, etc. R R v. Lyon County, 6 Nev. 68 (1870); Spring- field Street Ry. v. Sleeper, 121 Mass. 29 (1876); People v. Holden, 83 111. 93 (1876). Performance must be within a 235 '■] CONDITIONAL S0BSCEIPTIONS. [CH. V. not excused by reason of unforeseen difficulties arising from floods and natural causes.' A conditional subscriber is not a stockholder or member of the corporation until after the condition is performed.^ Whether or not the condition has been performed is a question of fact.' Performance may be proved by parol or by the records of the corporation.* reasonable time. Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458 (1876). Subscription on ex- press condition that it shall be payable only in case the whole amount is sub- scribed cannot be collected, where the whole amount was made up by includ- ing the subscriptions of married women who had not paid. Hahn's Appeal, 7 Atl. Rep. 483 (Pa. 1886). Condition that subscription shall be payable only when a sum deemed sufficient by the directors has been subscribed is not ■fulfilled when the directors fixed a sum and then later reduced the sum to the amount subscribed. Only uncon- ditional subscriptions are to be counted. If performance turns on a writing, the question is for the court. Brand v. Lawrenceville Branch E. R, 77 Ga. 506 {1887). Reasonable performance is all that is required. Thus, the comple- tion of a blast furnace, as a condition, is .satisfied by completion by the lessee. Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886). A condition that the company shall construct a road from and to specified points is not fulfilled by the construc- tion of part of the way and running over another railroad for the remainder of the distance. Brown v. Dibble, 65 Mich. 520 (1887). Contra, People v. Holden, 82 111. 93 (1876). In the case of Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R. R., 8 Fla. 370, 390 (1859), it is stated, in a dictum, that a strict compliance is necessary. But see Branham v. Record, 43 Ind. 181 (1873). The question of whether the fulfillment of the condition was in good faith and not merely temporary may be for the jury. Tabor, etc. Ry. v. Mc- Cormick, 90 Iowa, 446 (1894). A sub- sci'iption to an enterprise, conditional upon the performance of that enter- prise by certain named parties and a conveyance of the results to a corpora- tion, may be enforced by such parties upon due performance. Brewer u. Stone, 77 Mass. 338 (185^). A subscription to a railroad, conditional upon its com- pleting the road, is not enforceable by a consolidated company which suc- ceeds to and completes the road. To- ledo, etc. R. R. u Hinsdale, 45 Ohio St. 556 (1888). Substantial compliance with the condition is sufficient. Cravens v. Eagle, etc. Co., 130 Ind. 6 (1889). Where a subscription is on condition that the railroad company subscribe, to the stock of a blast furnace company, a purchase of the furnace company stock by the railroad company is not a compliance with the condition prece- dent. Echols V. Bristol, 90 Va. 165 (1893). A note given on condition that 'Memphis, etc. Ry. v. Thompson, 24 Kan. 170 (1880). 2 Chase v. Sycamore, etc. R. R., 38 111. 215 (1865); Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. 173 (1882); Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Shearer, 10 Ind. 244 (1858); Ashtabula, etc. E. R. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 338 (1864). ^ Je wett V. Lawrenceburgh, etc. R. R., 10 Ind. 539 (1858). And is a question for the jury. St. Louis, eta R. R. v. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 379 (1870). *By parol. St. Louis, etc. R E. v. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 379 (1870> By corpo- rate records. Penobscot, etc. R. R v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587 (1855). Performance must be alleged in the complaint or declaration. Trott v. Sarchett, 10 Ohio St. 341 (1859); Roberts v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 33 Misa. 373 (1856); Henderson, etc. KK V. Leavell, 16 B. Moa (Ky.) 358 (1855). 336 CH. v.] CONDITIONAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [§87. § 87. "Where the condition is that the work shall be begun, con- tracted for, or completed within a certain time, time is of the essence of the contract, and any failure to perform within the time so specified defeats the subscription.' A condition that the road shall be " permanently " located on a specified route is satisfied by the adoption of that route by the directors.'' Where the question of whether performance has been completed rests in the decision of the directors, their conclusion cannot be questioned, unless fraud or bad faith is proved.' A condition that the subscription shall be applied to a particular portion of the road is satisfied by the com- pletion of that portion.'' Any fraud on the part of the corporation in the performance of the condition may be shown by parol.^ All of several conditions must be performed before calls are made.^ But if one part, of the subscription be free from condition, that part may be collected independently.'' Where there are differ- ent conditions for different instalments, compliance with the first. a road be built into a town is not col- lectible if only a branch of that road was built into the town. Gulf. etc. Ey. V. Pittman, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 167 (1893). It is no defense that the condition was that the subscriber should have a con- tract and that after he commenced work the company stopped the work. Cook V. Hopkinsville, eta Co., 33 S. W. Rep 748 (Ky. 1895). Where the con- dition to a particular subscription is that $50,000 be subscribed, the verbal guaranty of an individual that the $50,000 would be subscribed is not a compliance with the condition. Branch V. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573 (1895). 1 Burlington, etc. R. E. v. Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555 (1864), per Dillon, J. ; Freeman V. Matlock, 67 Ind. 99 (1879); Memphis, etc. Ey. V. Thompson, 34 Kan. 170 (1880); Portland, etc. R. E. v. Hartford, 58 Me. 33 (1870). An agreement to pay a corpo- ration a certain sum if it builds and starts a factory within a certain time is not collectible if the contract is not fulfilled within that time. Bohn Mfg. Co. V. Lewis, 45 Minn. 164 (1891). If the directors certify that the condition was performed within the specified time, the subscriber may prove the falsity of their certificate. Morris Canal, etc. Co. V. Nathan, 3 Hall (N. Y.), 239 (1839). Upon the failure of the corporation to- comply with the condition the subscrip- tion ceases to have any vitality " by it» own limitation." Ticonic Water-power,, etc. Co. V. Lang, 63 Me. 480 (1874). In Missouri Pao. Ry. v. Tygard, 84 Mo. 364 (1884), however, a completion of the road within a reasonable time after the timesppcifiedin the condition was held, to be a substantial performance, and sufficient, the grading having been completed in the specified time. See also Moore v. Campbell, 111 Ind. 338- (1887), where the condition was inserted, in a promissory note. 2 Smith V. Allison, 33 Ind. 366 (1864); and see cases in § 78, supra. So also a condition that the road shall cross an- other at a certain point is satisfied by its being so located. Wear v. Jackson- ville, etc. E. E., 34 111. 593 (1860). 3 Cass V. Pittsburg, etc. Ry., 80 Pa. St. 81 (1875). ^Nichols V. Burlington, etc. Co., 4 Greene (Iowa), 42 (1853). 5 New York Kxchange Co. v. De Wolf,. 81 N. Y. 373 (1865). 6 Porter v. Raymond, 53 N. H. 519 (1873). 'St. Louis, etc. E. R. v. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 379 (1870). 337 § 88.] CONDITIONAL SDBSOEIPTIONS. [CH. V. condition entitles the company to'the instalment, even though the second condition is not complied with.^ Where, after part pay- ment by the conditional subscriber, the corporate plans are changed, so that the condition is not complied with, the money, it has been held, may be recovered.^ Where a stock subscription is payable ^when the road is finished the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such road is actually finished.' § 88. Waiver of the condition. — A conditional subscriber to the stock of a corporation may waive the condition and performance thereof, and thus become liable on his subscription, as though it had been originally an absolute one. The waiver may be by an oral statement or agreement of the subscriber.^ Certain acts of the subscriber have been held to indicate an intent to waive a condition to the subscription, and to be equivalent to a direct waiver. Thus, acting as a director,^ or as president of the corporation,^ paying the whole of the subscription,' giving an absolute promissory note with- out conditions in payment of the subscription,^ have each been held to constitute a waiver of the condition to a subscription. Where the condition of a proposition to donate land to a corporation is that a certain amount of stock should be subscribed by responsible parties, the fact that a part of the subscriptions was not by respon- sible parties cannot be set up, where the party himself subscribed and had not paid.' Mere silence may be a waiver;" but payment of . 1 Coos Bay, etc. v. Dixon, 30 Oreg. 584 provided for, and he becomes a director (1897). and acts as such for several years, he is 2 Jewett V. Lawrenoeburgh, etc. R. R., liable on such stock to corporate cred- 10 Ind. 539 (1858). iters, as though it were a subscription 8 The transfer of its cars by a ferry, for common stock. Tama Water-power pending the construction of a bridge, is Co. v. Hopkins, 79 Iowa, 653 (1890). not a completion of the road, even " Dayton, etc. R. R. v. Hatch, 1 Disney though the directors have declared it (Ohio), 84 (1855). finished before such bridge was com- ' Parks v. Evansville, etc. R. R, 23 Ind. pleted. Garner v. Hall, 133 Ala. 231 567 (1864). <1899). 8 Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc, R < Hanover Junction, etc. R. R. u R., 15 Ohio St. 325(1864); Slipher uEar- Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 86 (1876). See also hart, 83 Ind. 173 (1883); Evansville, eta Woonsocket Union R. R. v. Sherman, 8 R. R. v. Dunn, 17 Ind. 603 (1861); Keller E. I. 564 (1867). A municipality may w Johnson, 11 Ind. 337(1858); O'Donald waive conditions which it makes to its v. Evansville, etc. R R, 14 Ind. 359 subscription. Graves v. Saline County, (1860). But not where the note was 161 U. S. 359 (1896). Conditions may be given by reason of false representations waived by tTie acts of the subscribe!", that the condition has been complied Seymour v. Jefferson, 74 N. W. Rep. 149 with. Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213 Amend, to Const, 1857, § 7, art. II; Pennsyilvania R. R. v. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. St. 189 (1864). * Const., art VIII, § 6; Walker v. Cin- cinnati, 31 Ohio Stat. 14 (1871); Cass v. Dillon, 3 Ohio St. 607 (1853); State v. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 473 (1863); Thompson v. Kelly, 3 Ohio St. 647 (1853) ; Wyscaver v. Atkinson, 37 Ohio St. 80 (1881). 5 Const. 1870; Concord v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 93 U. S. 625 (1875); Louisville V. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469 (1881); Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 563 (1880); Fairfield v. Gallatin County. 100 U. S. 47(1879); Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Piuckney, 74 111. 377 (1874); Moultrie County V. Rockingham, etc. Bank, 92 U. S. 681 (1875); Robertson v. Rockford, 31 111. 451 (1859). The constitutional prohibition in Illinois against lending credit applies to the state only, and not to counties or cities. 251 §92.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. [CH. VI. New York,' Indiana,'' Missouri,' Mississippi,* and in some other states.' In general it will be found that these constitutional pro- visions forbid in terms any subscription or lending of credit by any municipality in the state, or by the state itself, to any com- pany, association, or corporation whatsoever. Sometimes the pro- hibition is absolute, and at other times two-thirds or a majority of the qualified electors of the municipality must vote to render such aid. The constitutional or statutory provisions which prohibit municipal subscriptions are construed to be prospective only, un- less they contain express words making them retroactive.* This principle is frequently applied when the constitutional enactment 1 Amend. Const., Jan. 1, 1875; People V. Fort Edward, 70 N. Y. 28 ( 1877) ; Dodge V. Platte County, 83 N. Y. 318 (1880), re- versing s. C, 16 Hun, 285. i! Const., art. X, § 10; Lafayette, etc. E. E. V. Geiger, 34 Ind. 185 (1870); John V. Cincinnati, etc. R E., 35 Ind. 539 (1871); Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 33 How. (U. S.) 364 (1859); Brocaw v. Gibson County, 73 Ind. 543 (1881). 2 Const, art. XI, § 14; Schuyler County V. Thomas, 98 U. S. 169 (1878); Smith v. Clark County, 54 Mo. 58 (1873): Macon County V. Shores, 97 U. S. 273 (1877); Eay County v. Vansycle, 96 U. S. 675 (1877); Scotland County u. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682 (1876). < Const., art XII, g 14; Calhoun County u Galbraith, 99 XJ. S. 314(1878); Hayes v. Holly Springs, 114 U. S. 120 (1885); Grenada County v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 861 (1884). Of. State v. Young, 39 Minn. 474(1881). Where municipal-aid bonds were issued under an unconsti- tutional statute, but are enforced by the United States courts in favor of bonajide holders, the municipality may recover back from the railroad com- pany or its successor the amounts so paid to such bonajide holders. Plain- view V. Winona, etc. E. E., 36 Minn. 505 (1887). In Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St 14 (1871), the building of the Cincinnati Southern Eailway by the city of Cincinnati was held legal, not- withstanding the state constitution for- bade the legislature from authorizing any city, etc., becoming a "stockholder 258 in any joint-stock company, corporar tion, or association whatever." 5 Where the statutes limit the amount of debt which a county may incur in aid of railroads, and aid is voted to the full amount, subsequent aid is void. Chicago, etc. E. E. w Osage County, 38 Kan. 597 (1888). s Moultrie County v. Eockingham, etc. Bank, 92 U. S. 631 (1875); Grenada County V. Brogden, 118 U. S. 861 (1884); Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47 (1879); Eandolph County v. Post 93 U. S. 503 (1876); Ealls County w Doug- lass, 105 U. S. 728 (1881); Henry County V. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619 (1877), holding that when authority had been granted to a county in Missouri to subscribe, the power was not subject to a consti- tutional amendment requiring the as- sent of two-thirds of the voters of the county; Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585 (1879), following and approving last case; Callaway County v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567 (1876), to same efifect, same constitution; Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 U. "S. 454 (1881),< to same effect, same constitution; Durkee v. Board of Liq- uidation, 103 D. S. 646 (1880); Howard County V. Paddock, 110 U. S. 384 (1884); Dallas County v. McKenzie, 110 U. S. 686 (1884). The legislature cannot after the adoption of a constitutional amendment prohibiting municipalities from voting aid, remedy defects in votes taken before the amendment was adopted. Katzenberger v. Aberdeen, 131 U. S. 173 (1887); decker v. Hughes, CH. TI.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [§93. is passed after a municipal subscription is voted, but before it is actually completed.' It has been held that a provision restricting the power of a state to make subscriptions in aid of railroads cannot be construed so as to prohibit the municipal subdivisions of the state from subscrib- ing.^ And a restriction as to the power of a county will not be- held applicable to a city.' School districts have no power to sub- scribe to the stock of a railroad, and bonds issued to pay such a. subscription are void.* § 93. Change in the state constitution or the general statutory laws after the municipal corporation has voted to subscrihe. — Con- stitutional provisions or general statutes prohibiting municipal cor- porations from subscribing to the stock of other corporations, or 68 111. 33 (1873), holding that, where a -'Pattison v. Yuba County, 13 Cal. 175 new state constitution has been adopted, the old one governs as to bonds issued under its authority, though not actually issued until after the adoption of the new one; Moultrie County v. Fairfield, 105 U. S. 370 (1881), holding that where a donation in aid of a railroad had been voted by a county before the adoption of the new constitution of Illinois, bonds to pay it might be issued after its adoption. In Louisville v. Savings Bank. 104 U. S. 469 (1881), it was held that the court would even take cog- nizance of the fractions of a day in order to do justice in such a case. Schall V. Bowman, 63 111. 331 (1873); Richards v. Donagho, 66 111. 73 (1873) Wright V. Bishop, 88 111. 303 (1878). Contra, Jeffries v. Lawrence, 43 Iowa, 498 (1876); Falconer v. Buffalo, etc. R R., 69 N. Y. 491 (1877); List v. Wheel- ing, 7 W. Va. 501 (1874). Of. Hayes v. Holly Springs, 114 U. S. 130 (1885); Henderson v. Jackson County, 3 Mc- Crary, 615 (1881). ^ For cases involving a construction of the Illinois constitution and its effects . on previous donations, see Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47 (1879); Chicago, etc. R. R i7. Pinckney, 74 111. 377 (1874); Lippincott v. Pana, 93 111. 34 (1879); Middleportu ^tna L. Ins. Co., 82 111. 563 (1876X Cf. Moultrie County V. Fairfield, 105 U. S. 370 (1881); Enfield V. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680 (1887). 253 (1859); New Orleans v. Graihle, 9 La. Ann. 561 (1854); Slack u Maysville, etc. R R, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.)l (1853); Leaven- worth County V. Miller, 7 Kan. 479 (1871) ; Pretty man v. Tazewell County, 19 111. 406 (1858). The courts are inclined to- hold that a limit on the rate of taxa- tion that a city may levy does not apply to a tax in aid of municipal subscrip- tions to railroads. Cf. People v. State- Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499 (1871); Pitzman V. Freeburg, 93 111. Ill (1879). 3 Thompson v. Peru, 39 Ind. 305 (1868); Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74 (1857). The statute may prescribe that the aid voted shall not bind property outside of a town in the county, unless the residents outside of the town vote in favor of it. Kentucky Union R R v. Bourbon County, 85 Ky. 98 (1887); Dillon, Mun.. Corp., § 163, citing Butz v. Muscatine, 8 WalL 575 (1869); Learned u. Burlington,, 3 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 394 (1863), and n.; Leavenworth v. Norton, 1 Kan. 433" (1863); Burnes v. Atchison, 3 Kan. 454 (1864). And see Commonwealth v. Pitts- burgh, 34 Pa. St. 496 (1859); Amey v. Allegheny City, 34 How. (U. S.) 364^ (1860); State v. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 472 (1863); Cumberland v. Magruder, 34 Md. 381(1871); Assessors!'. Commission- ers, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 333 (1869) ; State v. Guttenberg, 38 N. J. L. 419 (1876). ^Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 356- (1880). §93.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [CH. VI. from lending their credit thereto, are, as already stated,* prospective in their application. That which a corporation has the constitutional or statutory right to do, and which it has done in pursuance) of that right or author- ity, cannot be affected or undone by subsequent constitutional change or amendment, or by the passage of general statutes. This is a fundamental rule of constitutional law.^ If, however, a pop- ular vote does not give the company proposed to be benefited a vested right to the subscription by the municipality, and if, until the subscription is actually made, the contract is unexecuted, and therefore obligatory upon neither party, there is ground for hold- ing that a constitutional prohibition, taking effect after the elec- tion, but before the subscription is made pursuant to authority con- ferred by the popular vote, will be sufficient to invalidate the sub- scription. This was the view taken by the supreme court of the United States in the case of Aspinwall v. Commissioners of the County of Daviess,* and approved in some later cases.* There are 1 § 93, supra. 2 See, in regard to the Illinois constitu- tion, Clay County v. Society for Sav- ings, 104 U. S. 579 (1881); People v. Lo- gan County, 63 111. 374 (1873); Moultrie County V. Rockingham, etc. Sav. BanI:, 93 U. S. 631 (1875); Louisville u. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469 (1881); Choisser v. People, 140 111. 31 (1893). See also Nel- son V. Haywood County, 87 Tenn. 781 (1889). An irregular vote to issue bonds before a constitutional provision is en- acted cannot be legalized by legislative act afterwards. Williams v. People, 133 III. 574 (1890). Where the original subscription was conditional, the con- dition cannot be waived after a constitutional provision prohibiting these subsci'iptions has been passed. Eicheson v. People, 115 111. 450 (1886). To the same effect, with regard to the constitution of 1875 of Nebraska, see State V. Lancaster County, 6 Neb. 314 (1877); and as to constitution of Mis- souri of 1865, see Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 U. S. 454 (1881); Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585 (1879); Scotland County v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 683 (1876); Ray County V. Vansyole, 96 U. S. 675 (1877); Calla- way County r. Foster, 93 U. S. 567 (1876); Ralls County v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 738 (1881), in which bonds issued under a city charter without a popular vote were held valid notwithstanding the provisions of a constitution adopted afterwards, but in force when the bonds -were issued, required a submis- sion of such matters to a vote; State v. Macon County Court, 41 Mo. 453 (1867), to the same effect; State v. Sullivan County Court, 51 Mo. 533 (1873), to the same effect. Cf. State v. Dallas County Court, 73 Mo. 339 (1880), where a later statute was held to have taken away the power under a former one. A statute passed subsequently to a con- stitutional prohibition may legalize an irregular subscription made before the prohibition. BoUes v. Brimfield, 120 U. S. 759 (1887). The repeal of the act authorizing a tax for municipal aid be- fore any money has been expended by the railroad, excepting a small sum for surveys, prevents a lessee of the rail- road enforcing payment when the taxes were not assigned to the lessee. Barthel v. Meader, 73 Iowa, 125 (1887). 3 23 How. 364 (1859). * Norton v. Brownsville, 129 U. S. 479 (1889); Wadsworth v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 534 (1880). See also Railroad Co. V. Falconer, 103 U. S. 831 (1880); Ger- 354 CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [§94. cases of authority, however, in favor of the rule that, after the corporation has, by a popular vote at an election lawfully held, voted to subscribe for stock, subsequent changes of the constitution or the general statutes will not affect the right of the municipality to go on and complete the contract, to make the formal subscrip- tion, and to issue the bonds or levy the special tax to pay the oalls.^ After a subscription is made, any act of the legislature restricting or abridging the taxing power so as to deprive the municipality of the power to pay the bonds is unconstitutional and void.^ § 94. Statutory formalities must le substantially complied with.— A substantial compliance with the formalities prescribed by a stat- ute authorizing a municipal subscription to stock is all that the law requires; but such a compliance is requisite to the validity thereof.' Where the statute authorizing municipal-aid bonds requires that the man Sav. Bank v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 536 (1888); Eddy v. People, 127 111. 438 (1889). ' United States v. Jefferson County, 5 Dill. 310 (1878); s. C, 26 Fed. Cas. 597; Maenhaut v. New Orleans, 3 Woods, 1 (1876); s. c, 16 Fed. Cas. 380; Sibley u Mobile, 3 Woods. 535 (1876); s. c, 23 Fed. Cas. 57; Nioolay v. St. Clair County, 3 Dill. 163 (1874); s. C, 18 Fed. Cas. 227; Huidekoper v. Dallas County, 3 Dill. 171 (1875); s. C, 13 Fed. Cas. 845. Of. Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596 (1882), and cases in note 2, p. 254. 2 Wolff V. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 (1880). Cf. Edwards v. Williamson, 70 Ala. 145 (1881); Hays v. Dowis, 75 Mo. 250 (1881). 3 Bonds issued by municipalities to aid railroads are valid only when issued in compliance w|ith the statute author- izing them. Young v. Clarendon, 132 U. S. 340 (1889); Hoff v. Jasper County, 110 U. S. 53 (1884), following the ruling in Anthony v. Jasper County, 101 U. S. 693 (1879), where it was held that a bona fide holder of bonds could not maintain an action on bonds not regis- tered with the state auditor as required by statute; Bissell v. Spring Valley, 110 U. S. 162 (1884), holding that when a statute required bonds to be attested by the county clerk under the seal of the county, bonds issued without his signature were not valid; Hamlin v. I^eadville, 6 Neb. 227 (1877), holding that a vote authorizing a subscription gives no power to make a donation; Cairo, etc. R. R. v. Sparta, 77 111. 505 (1875), where bonds were authorized by a vote upon a proposition that they should run twenty yea.Ts, when the stat- ute submitted a proposition to be voted upon for bonds to run not exceeding ten years, the court refused to compel the city to issue them; Mustard v. Hoppess, 69 Ind. 324 (1879), where an election, and a tax voted and levied in pursuance of it, were held not invali- dated on account of a canvass of the votes which was not entirely regular; People V. Dutcher, 56 111. 144 (1870), holding that when the statute does not prescribe a mode of election it should be held in accordance with the law of the organization of the municipality; People V. Logan County, ^3 111. 374 (1873). This case was an application for mandamus to compel a subscription. A demurrer to an answer alleging that the vote in favor of subscription was obtained by fraudulent votes with the knowledge of the corporation to be benefited was overruled ; Pana v. Lippin- cott, 3 111. App. 466 (1877), where a vote taken at a special town meeting, whep the statute required it to be taken at a regular meeting, was held not to confer 255 §94.] MUNICIPAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. ICH. VI, road should be constructed before the bonds are good, a purchaser is bound to take notice of that fact.' A city having power to issue its bonds for stock in a domestic railroad corporation is not thereby given power to issue bonds for stock in a foreign corporation.^ If the statute requires the profile and estimates to be made before municipal aid is given, a subsequent variation releases the sub- scription.' But not every failure to observe all the formalities prescribed by authority to subscribe; Peoples. Smith, statute, to a corporation to construct 45 N.'Y. 773 (1871), holding that, when the acjt requires a petition of taxpayers, the power is personal to them and, cannot be exercised by an agent; Wetumpka v. Wetumpka Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 61 1 (1879), holding that a judgment on bonds issued by a municipality is conclusive upon it as to the validity of the bonds and as to all defenses which might have been urged against it at law; but in a bill in equity to enforce a statutory trust by which the property, etc., of the municipality was pledged to pay them, it may show that the bonds were issued in violation of the conditions of the statute; Munson v. Lyons, 12 Blatohf. 539 (1875); s. c, 17 Fed. Cas. 1003, holding that an objection which would be good in a direct review of the proceedings — as here, that the petition of taxpayers gave the authori- ties no jurisdiction — may be of no avail as against bona fide holders of bonds; Thompson v. Pferrine, 103 U. S. 806 (1880); Jasper County v. Ballon, 103 U. S. 745 (1880), and Massachusetts, etc. ^Co, V. Cherokee, 43 Fed. Rep. 750 (1890), holding that a subsequent statute may correct errors. See also Carroll County V. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 (1884); Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U.S. 543 (1883); Buchanan V. Litchfield, 103 U. S. 378 (1880); People V. Hulburt, 46 N. Y. 110 (1871); People V. Suflfern, 68 N. Y. 321 (1877); Wilson V. Caneadea, 15 Hun, 318 (1878); Angel v. Hume, 17 Hun, 374 (1879); People v. Hutton, 18 Hun, 116 (1879); People V. Barrett, 18 Hun, 206 (1879); Wheat- land V. Taylor, 39 Hun, 70 (1883). A municipal subscription, authorized by locks and dams, and duly made, cannot be enforced to pay for repairing old looks and dams. Jessamine County v. Swigert's Adm'r, 8 S. W. Rep. 18 (Ky. 1887). Where judgment is taken by default the facts alleged cannot be dis- puted in the mandamus proceedings. Harshman v. Knox County, 132 U. S. 306 (1887). A vote of municipal aid is void if the grantee is in the alternative. State V. Roggen, 33 Neb. 118 (1887). In Kansas a taxpayer cannot enjoin the board from declaring the vote on mu- nicipal aid. He must wait and enjoin the subscription. State v. Wabaunsee County, 36 Kan. 180 (1887); People v. Santa Anna, 67 111. 57 (1873), where an election was held illegal because held without a registration of voters as re- quired by law; People v. Laenna, 67 111. 65 (1873), a similar case; Chicago, etc. R. R. V. Mallory, 101 111. 583 (1882), where an election presided over by one mod- erator with one clerk, when the law re- quired three judges and two clerks, was held void, conferring no authority upon a town to issue bonds. Municipal bonds issued without the order of the grand jury, as required by statute, are not collectible by an owner who does not show that he -is a bona fide holder. Friok V. Mercer County, 138 Pa. St 52.? (1891). 1 Mercer County v. Provident, eta T, Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 633 (1896). 2 Travelers', etc. Ca v. Mayor, eta, 99 Fed. Rep. 663 (1900). 3 State V. Morristown, 93 Tenn. 339 (1893). 356 CH. VI.J MUNICIPAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [§94. the statute is sufficient to invalidate a subscription. When the omission is a matter of form more than of substance, it will not in- validate the subscription.' Many of these defenses, however, are defeated by the fact that the municipality is estopped from setting up the illegality, there having been long delay, or the recitals on the bonds themselves having represented that the legal formalities were duly observed.^ 1 Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529 (1882), holding that the fact that an election was irregularly conducted could not avail as a defense to bonds in the hands of a bona fide holder, the court refusing to follow the ruliiig of the Illinois su- preme court in Lippincott v. Pana, 93 111. 24 (1879), which declared the bonds void; Johnson County v. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631 (1876), where the court said: " Defects, irregularities, or informalities which do not affect the result of the vote do not afifect its validity; " Bel- fast, etc. E. E. V. Brooks, 60 Me. 568 (1872), where a call for a town meeting " to see if the town will loan its credit to aid in the construction " of a rail- road named was held to give reason- able notice that a proposition to sub- scribe for its stock would be acted upon ; Draper v. Springport, 104 U. S. 501 (1881), in which the absence of a seal was held not to affect the right of a bona fide holder to recover upon bonds issued in payment of a subscription; Clarke v. Hancock County, 37 111. 305 (1862), where the informality consisted in submitting two propositions by one vote, and it was held not to invalidate bonds in the hands of bona fide holders; Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 WalL 772 (1866), where bonds issued under a vote ordered by a " county court," instead of by the " board of supervisors," were held valid because taxes had been levied and interest paid upon them by the proper authorities for nine years before the claim was made that they were void. Cf. Jasper County v. Bal- lon, 103 U. S. 745 (1880); Pana v. Bow- ler, 107 TJ. S. 529 (1882); Johnson v. Stark County, 34 111. 75 (1860); Singer 17 257 Mfg. Ca V. Elizabeth, 42 N. J. L. 249 (1880); New Haven, etc. E. R.v, Chat- ham, 42 Conn. 465 (1875), where a vote which should have been by ballot was taken by division of the house, and no objection was made thereto until a railroad had in good faith issued bonds which were to be guaranteed by the town. 2 Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241 (1873), is the leading case. It holds that the delivery of the municipal bonds to the railroad in exchange for the stock, together with the levy of a tax to pay the interest on the bonds, and the act of the municipality in voting as a share- holder, estop it from denying the le- gality of the subscription. Menasha v. Hazard, 103 U. S. 81 (1880), where bonds were issued to be valid when it was certified on them that certain condi- tions had been perfotraed. Such a cer- tificate was held to estop the town from denying their validity; Whiting t;. Potter, 2 Fed. Eep. 517 (1880), in which it was held that retaining railroad stock received for bonds, and paying interest on the bonds for a long time, estopped a municipality from question- ing their validity, such acts being a direct ratification of the issue; Lamb V. Burlington, etc. E. E., 39 Iowa, 333 (1874), holding that voting a tax in aid of a railroad, and remaining silent for a year, during which the road was com- pleted upon the faith of the tax, and until the benefits accruing from the completion were realized, estopped a township from denying the validity of the tax; Leavenworth, etc. E. E. v. Douglas County, 18 Kan. 169 (1877,i, where the failure of a railroad to com- §94.] MUNICIPAL SUBS0EIPTI0N8. [CH. VI. A iona fide holder of a municipal bond issued on payment of a subscription to stock need not inquire as to whether the bonds were issued upon the petition of two-thirds of the freeholders, in- asmuch as the recitals in the bonds to that effect will protect hira.' The meeting must be duly called and by the proper officer;^ the notice of the meeting must be duly posted for the full time pro- vided in the act.^ Where a municipality has subscribed for stock ply with the condlfions of an agree- ment by which it was to receive bonds was a matter of public knowledge, and the county issuing the bonds made no objection, but paid interest on the bonds for years. These circumstances were considered a ratification of the acts of the county oflScers in issuing them; Lyons v. Munson, 99 U. S. 684 (1878), holding that where, under the act of New Yofk, the county judge de- cides upon an application of taxpayers, his judgment, recited in the bonds, can- not be attacked by the town in an ac- tion on bonds by a bona fide holder, and the town is estopped to deny their va- lidity on that account: Hackett v. Ot- tawa, 99 U. S. 86 (1878), holding that, when bonds purport on their face to have been issued to provide for a loan for municipal purposes, the city is es- topped from setting up against an inno- cent purchaser for value that they were void because the proceeds were appro- priated to other purposes — as for a do- nation to a private corporation. Pen- dleton County V. Amy, 13 Wall. 297 (1871), holding that where the issue of bonds by county officers, without pre- vious fulfillment of conditions, would be a misdemeanor, the presumption is that the conditions were fulfilled; and the receiving of stock in payment and holding it for seventeen years woi-k an estoppel; First Nat. Bank v. Wolcott, 19 Blatchf. 370 (1881), where the re- taining of stock received for bonds, and paying interest on the bonds, was held, as against bona fide holders, to be a ratification of the act of commissioners in issuing them, the recital on them being that they were issued in pursu- 258 ance of a certain statute; Block d. Com- missioners, 99 U. S. 686 (1878), in which a county was held estopped from as- serting that a majority of the electors had not voted in favor of the issue of bonds, the bonds having been issued three years after the vote was declared and recorded; Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 (1883), holding that a re- cital in a bond that it is authorized by a particular statute does not estop the municipality from setting up that it was not authorized by a proper major- ity of voters, — in this case two-thirds. See also Amey v. Allegheny City, 24 How. 364 (1860); Cagwin v. Hancock, 84 N. Y. 532 (1881), rev'g s. a, 22 Hun, 201; Orleans u Piatt, 99 U. S. 676 (1878). 1 Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U. S. 484 (1896). 2 Windsor v. Hallett, 97 111. 204 (1880); Richland County v. People, 3 IlL App. 210 (1878); Jacksonville, etc. R B. v. Virden, 104 111. 339 (1882); Bowling Green, etc. R. E. i;. Warren County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.), 711 (1874). But see Sauerhering v. Iron Ridge, etc. E. R, 25 Wis. 447 (1870): Athens County V. Baltimore, etc. R. R, 37 Ohio St. 305 (1881). SMcClure v. Oxford, 94 U. S. 439 (1876); Harding v. Rockford. etc. R. R, 65 111. 90 (1872), where. bonds were held invalid because the notice of election was posted less than thirty days, as re- quired by law; Packard v. Jefferson County, 2 Colo. 338 (1874), holding that a change in the proposition to vote bonds which is in eflfect a new propo- sition cannot be legally voted upon at an election already called, there not being suflaoient time remaining be- CH. VI.] MUNICIPAL SIJBSCEIPTIONS. [§96. illegally, any other stockholder may bring suit to have the sub- scription canceled.^ §95. Suhnission to popular vote. — "While the legislature may authorize a municipality to make a subscription to tiie stock of a railway or other corporation without submitting the question to a vote of the people,^ it has the power to direct that the question shall be so submitted. Such an act does not amount to a delega- tion of legislative powers.' When it is provided that a subscrip- fore the election to give the required notice; Anderson County v. Beal, 113 U. S. 227 (1884), holding that, if the bonds on their face recite that they were issued in pursuance of a vote held on a certain day, the statement is equivalent to one that the vote was regular in form as to prior notice, and the municipal corporation is es- topped from showing that it was held without proper notice in an action by a bona fide holder; George v. Oxford, 16 Kan. 72 (1876), holding that when an election authorizing the issue of bonds was held upon insufficient notice, and the facts appeared upon the face of the bonds, the bonds were void; Will- iams V. Roberts, 88 111. 11 (1878), where an election called by twelve voters in- stead of twenty, as required, upon a ten days' notice, where the statute re- quired twenty days, was held a nullity. See also Wells v. Pontotoc County, 102 U. S. 635 (1880); Lincoln v. Cambria Iron Co., 103 U. S. 413 (1880). But where the notice was required by the statute to be "posted by the town clerk or supervisors," it was held that this did not require a posting by these offi- cers in person, but that it was sufS- cient if they procured others to post the notice. Phillips v. Albany, 28 Wis. 340 (1871); Lawson v. Milwaukee, etc. Ry., 80 Wis. 597 (1873); Jones v. Hurl- burt, 13 Neb. 135 (1882). 1 Stebbins v. Perry County, 167 IlL 567 (1897). 2 Otoe County v. Baldwin, 111 U. S. 1 (1883); Thomson v. Lee County. 3 Wall. 837(1865); Ralls County v. Douglass, 105 U. a 738 (1881); State v. Macon 259 County Court, 41 Mo. 453 (1867); State V. Sullivan County Court, 51 Mo. 523 (1873). Cf. State v. Dallas County Court, 72 Mo. 329 (1880); McCallie v. Chatta- nooga, 3 Head (Tenn.), 317 (1859); Chi- cago, etc. R. R. V. Aurora, 99 111. 205 (1881); Burr v. Chariton Co., 2 McCrary, 603 (1880). In this case a charter of a railroad authorized it to receive sub- scriptions from counties without a vote of the people. Bonds so issued were held valid though a prior special act required a vote of taxpayers as a con- dition precedent to such subscriptions, sstarin v. Genoa, 33 N. Y. 439 (1861); Gould- 1). Sterling, 33 N. Y. 456 (1861); Bank of Rome v. Rome, 18 N. Y. 88 (1S58); s. C, 19 N. Y. 30 (1859); People V. Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 138, 138 (1873); Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 177, 192 (1874); Hobart v. Butte County, 17 Cal. 23 (1860); Slack v. Maysville, etc. R. R., 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 1 (1852); Winter V. Montgomery, 65 Ala. 403 (1880). In Harrington v. Plainview, 37 Minn. 224 (1880), it is held that where a submis- sion to the people is provided for, it must be to legal voters of the munici- pality, and cannot lawfully be confined to resident taxpayers, whether legal voters or not. Cf. Babcock v. Helena, 34 Ark. 499 (1879); Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683 (1880). Again, where a popular vote, taken in accordance with a statute, authorized a subscription to a desig- nated railway, and the bonds were issued to a consolidated road including the first — these facts appearing on the face of the bond,— the invalidity of the transaction was held to appear on the face of it. Bates County v. Winters, 97 §95.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [oh. vr. tion can be made only upon the petition of a certain proportion of the legal voters,^ there must be a substantial compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the act.^ When the enabling act provides for municipal aid to railways and other quasi-public enterprises upon the assent of a majority or two-thirds of the legal voters of the town or county, this is con- strued universally to mean that the measure is to be approved by a majority or a two-thirds vote, as the case may be; that is to say, by a majority or two-thirds of the voters who vote at the election called for the purpose, and not two-thirds or a majority of all the U. S. 83 (1877). Cf. Chicot County v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164 (1880); Sohaeflfer v. Bonham, 95 111. 368 (1880). But where a town is authorized to subscribe not exceeding a certain sum to a designated railroad, several subscriptions made at different times and authorized by as many elections, the aggregate not ex- ceeding the amount named in the act, are valid. Empire v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 87 (1879). See also Hurt v. Ham- ilton, 25 Kan. 76 (1881): Society for Sav- ings V. New London, 39 Conn. 174 (1860); First Nat. Bank v. Concord, 50 Vt. 257 (1877). 'J7. gf.,inNewYork. Peoples. Hulbert, 59 Barb. 446 (1871); People v. Peck, 62 Barb. 545 (1873); People v. Oliver, 1 T. & C. 570 (1873); People v. Hughitt, 5 Lans. 89 (1871); People v. Franklin, 5 Lans. 139 (1871); People v. Smith, 45 N. Y. 773 (1871); Wellsborough u New York, etc. E. R, 76 N. Y. 183 (1879). Cf. St. Joseph V. Eogers, 16 Wall. 644 (1873); Syracuse Sav. Bank v. Senaoa Falls, 21 Hun (N. Y.), 304 (1880) ; Paris v. Reynolds, 70 Ind. 359 (1880). 2 People V. Smith, 45 N. Y. 772 (1871); Craig V. Andes, 93 N. Y. 405 (1883); Peo- ple V. Oldtown, 88 III 202 (1878). If the statute requires a written application by ten legal voters before the clerk should call an election, such applica- tion is necessary to the validity of the election, and without proof of it the municipality cannot be compelled to issue bonds. Monadnook R. R. v. Peter- borough, 49 N. H. 281 (1870), holding that a town cannot delegate its power to authorize subscriptions to a com- mittee ; and a statute requiring the vote of " two-thirds of the legal voters pres- ent and voting at " the meeting must be strictly obeyed. Mercer County v, Pittsburgh, etc. E. R, 37 Pa. St. 389 (1856), in which a statute designated the grand jury of a county to decide upon a subscription. It was held that the grand jury could not delegate the power so conferred to county commis- sioners, and that the commissioners could only subscribe in accordance with the decision of the grand jury. Where tlie municipal bonds recite that the vote was on an application of fifty vot- ers, where the statute required that the application should be by voters and taxpayers, held, that the bonds were void, where the application was not by taxpayers. Gilson v. Dayton, 123 U. S. 59 (1887). Municipal bonds issued on a vote of a minority of the voters, instead of a majority, as required by the stat- ute, in aid of a railroad, are void. On- stott V. People, 133 111. 489 (1888). Id Prettyman v. Tazewell County, 19 111. 406, 414 (1858), a case of subscription by a county to railroad stock, a taxpayer waited four months before alleging fraud in the election. Held equivalent to acquiescence, and too late. See also People V. Van Valkenburgh, 63 Barb. 105 (1872); Evansville, etc. R R w Evans- ville, 15 Ind. 395 (1860); Chicago, etc. R R u Mallory, 101 111. 583 (1882). For the manner in Indiana of contesting an election, see Goddard v. Stockman, 74 Ind. 400 (1881). 260 CH, YI.] MUNICIPAL 8UBS0EIPTI0NS. [§95. qualified electors in the territory. Those who fail to vote against the measure are not considered nor counted as having the power to vote.i The legislature may render effective a prior vote of a municipal- ity, taken without statutory authority, in aid of a railroad. If the state coui'ts vary in their decisions on municipal aid to railroads the federal court will decide upon its own judgment.^ The fact that the proposition to vote aid is defeated at one election does not pre- 1 Cass County v. Johnston, 95 U. S. 360 (1877): Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 (1884); Cass County v. Jordan, 95 U. S. 373 (1877); Hawkins v. Carroll County, 50 Miss. 735 (1874); Louisville, «tc. R. E. V. State, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 663 (1875); State v. Brassfield, 67 Mo. 331 (1878); Webb v. Lafayette County, 67 Mo. 353 (1878); People v. Harp, 67 III. 63 <1873). Contra, People v. Chapman, 66 11). 137 (1873). Cf. Dunnovan v. Green, 57 111. 63 (1870), holding that a statute which authorizes a subscription, pro- vided a majority of votes are in favor of it, means a majority of votes oast, not a majority of all voters; Culver v. Fort Edward, 8 Hun, 340 (1876), holding that if the statute requires a vote of the majority of taxable inhabitants, the consent of a majority who attended the meeting is not sufficient; Walnut V. Wade, 103 U. S. 683 (1879), holding that "inhabitants," as used in an en- abling act, meant legal voters; St. Joseph V. Rogers, 16 Wall. 644 (1873), where a law of Illinois, requiring a vote of " a majority of the legal voters of any township " in one section, and a majority " voting at such election," was construed to mean a majority of those voting at the election; People v. Oliver, 1 T. & C. 570 (1873), holding that " taxpayers " includes all persons whose names are on the assessment roll as such, though wrongfully taxed — as non-residents; Milner v. Pensacola, 3 Woods, 633 (1875); s. C, 17 Fed. Cas. 407, where a statute required the " con- sent of a majority of the corporation composing " the city. A defense to an action on the bonds by an innocent 361 holder, that only a minority of citizens voted, was held not good; Melvin v. Lisenby, 73 111. 63 (1874), holding that the presumption is that the vote cast at an election held according to law is the vote of the whole number of legal voters; Reiger v. Beaufort, 70 N. C. 319 (1874), where a majority of votes cast at an election was held su£Scient under a statute requiring a majority of the voters qualified to vote, although a majority of all the voters of the town did not vote. If the petition must be signed by a majority of freeholders, minors and married women, etc., are to be counted. State v. Kokomo, 108 Ind. 74 (1886). See also Cagwin v. Han- cock, 84 N. Y. 533 (1881). And for a contrary rule, well argued out, see Harshman v. Bates County, 93 IT. S. 569 (1875) [overruled, however, in Casa County V. Johnson, 95 U. S. 360 (1877)], and the dissenting opinions of Miller and Bradley, JJ., in Cass County v. Johnston, 95 V. S. 360, 370 (1877). As to the right of a voter or signer to re- voke his consent once granted, see Springport v. Teutonia Sav. Bank, 84 N. Y. 403 (1881); People v. Sawyer, 53 N. Y. 396 (1873); People v. Wagner, 1 T. & C. 331 (1873); People v. Hatch, 1 T. & C. 113 (1873). Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Dorset, 16 Blatchf. 62 (1879); s. C, 9 Fed. Cas. 98; Noble v. Vincennes, 43 Ind. 135 (1873); and see Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, 105 U. S. 408 (1881). 2 Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356 (1886). Cf. State v. Holladay, 73 Mo. 499 (1880); Smith v. Fond du Lac, 8 Fed. Rep. 389 (1881); McCall v. Hancock, 10 Fed. Rep. 8 (1883). §96.] MTJNICIPAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [CH. VI. vent the calling of another election to submit the question again.' Nor does a vote of aid to one railroad prevent a subsequent vote of aid to another railroad.^ § 96. What officer or agent of the municipality may maJce the con- tract of suhscription. — In the absence of any express provision in the enabling act, the proper persons to execute the contract of sub- scription for a municipal corporation are those whose duty it is to ex- ecute other contracts for and in the name of the municipality. A sub- scription is a contract, to be executed in the ordinary way in which any other contract may properly be made. But the act authoriz- ing the subscription frequently provides by whom and in what man- ner the contract shall be executed. When this is the case the pro- visions of the statute are to be strictly complied with.' It has been held that, in order to constitute a valid municipal subscription to the stock of a railway company, it is not necessary that there be an actual act of subscribing.* 1 Calhoun County v. Galbraith, 99 XJ. S. 314 (1878); Society for Savings v. New- London, 29 Conn. 174 (1860). 2 Chicot County v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164 (1880). 3 Walnut V. "Wade, ^03 U. S. 683 (1880) ; Douglas V. Niantic Sav. Bank, 97 111. 238 (1881); Windsor v. Hallett, 97 IlL 204 (1880). The commissioners cannot bind the municipality by a modification of the subscription voted by it. Bell v. Railroad Co., 4 Wall. 598 (1866). A sub- scription for a municipality by officers in a supposed ofiEce which does not con- stitutionally exist is void. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425 (1886). So, for example, where the act provides for the appointment of a board of commis- sioners to make the subscription, they only are competent to make it; they are for this purpose the agents of the municipality for which they act; they may insert conditions into the contract which, unless repudiated by the corpo- ration, are valid, and will bind all par- ties concerned; their powers are to be exercised jointly, and therein all must act — a majority not being sufficient by their act to bind the municipality; their acts when once fully performed are final and binding, and cannot be recalled or revoked. Danville v. Mont- pelier, etc. R. R., 43 Vt. 144 (1870). Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Arlington, 16 Blatchf. 57 (1879); s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 95; First Nat Bank v. Concord, 50 Vt. 257 (1877); Peo- ple V. Hitchcock, 2 T. & C. (N. T.) 134 (1873); State v. Hancock County, 11 Ohio St. 183 (1860); s. a, 12 Ohio St 596. Cf. Jackson County v. Brush, 77 111. 59 (1875); Kankakee v. Mtna. Life Ins. Co., 106' U. S. 668 (1882); Bissell v. Spring Valley, 110 U. S. 162 (1884); He Bradner, 87 N. Y. 171 (1881). If the of- ficers or agents of a municipality have a discretion with reference to the sub- scription, to make it or not, as they may think best under the circum- stances, their exercise of that discre- tion is final and cannot be reviewed or questioned. Mercer County v. Pitts- burgh, eta R. R., 27 Pa. St 389 (1856). Cf. Falconer v. Buffalo, etc R R., 69 N. Y. 491 (1877); First Nat Bank v. Con- cord, 50 Vt 257 (1877). * Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall 241 (1873), holding, also, that a resolution by a duly authorized board of agents, de- claring a subscription made, is, upon the acceptance of the subscription in that shape by the railway company, and a notice to the municipality of the ac- ceptance, a good and binding subscrip- tion, although there was no subscription 262 CH. VI.J MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. [§97. But the vote of the taxpayers or inhabitants, as the case may be, is not a subscription, nor does it amount to a subscription ; nor does it in general vest in the company for whose proposed benefit the vote was taken a right to have a subscription m^de.^ It has been held that the officers authorized to make the sub- scription have a certain amount of discretion in fixing the terms of payment.'^ § 97. Municipal subscriptions may he conditional. — A municipal corporation may annex to its subscription any condition that an individual subscriber might lawfully prescribe, and may, in conse- quence, make the payment of the subscription depend upon the performance thereof.' Moreover, a municipal corporation is en- made in the books of the company. To same effect see Moultrie County v. Rock- ingham, etc. Bank, 93 U. S. 631 (1875); Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585 (1879). Cf. State v. Jennings, 48 Wis. 549 (1879). The board whose duty it is to make the subscription may do so through the county clerk. Chicago, etc. R R u. Stafford County, 36 Kan. 121 (1887). The bonds, if signed on Sunday, will be invalid, although the signature is by the proper officer. De Forth v. Wisconsin, etc. R R, 53 Wis. 320 (1881); Bank of Statesville v. Statesville, 84 N. C. 169 (1881), where an omission of com- missioners to sign bonds was held not fatal, the requirement being directory. ' Cum berland, etc. R R v. Barren County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.), 604(1874); Bates County v. Winters, 97 U. S. 83 (1877). A mere vote of the municipal- ity is not a subscription. If the road is foreclosed before subscription, and the conditions of the subscriptions are not fully complied with, no suit lies to collect. Hamilton County v. State, 115 Ind. 64(1888); Bates County u. Winters, 97 U. S. 83 (1877), holding that where, after an election in favor of making a subscription, the county court made an order for a subscription, and its agent reported that the railroad company had no stock-books, for which, and other reasons, he did not make the subscrip- tion, it was held that these acts were not final and self-executing, and did not constitute a subscription. Wads- 268 worth V. St. Croix County, 4 Fed. Rep. 378 (1880). 2 Syracuse Sav. Bank v. Seneca Falls, 86 N. Y. 317 (1881), where it was held that after regular proceedings had been taken to bond a town, the com- missioners, under the law, had a right to make the bonds payable at one time or at different times. Winter v. Mont- gomery. 65 Ala. 403 (1880), where a vote authorized the issue of bonds to an amount not exceeding $1,000,000, and it was held that the corporate authorities had discretionary power to issue them for a less amount. ^Brocaw v. Gibson County, 73 Ind. 543 (1881); Portland, etc. R R v. Hart- ford, 58 Me. 23 (1870). A municipality authorized to vote a subscription to the stock of a railroad company may impose conditions that shops be built in the town. Casey v. People, 133 111. 546 (1890); Chicago, etc. R R u Aurora, 99 la 205 (1881), holding that if, of two conditions, one is legal and the other unauthorized, and they are severable, the illegal one may be rejected and the bonds issued held good as to the other; Noesen v. Port Washington, 37 Wis. 168 (1875); Perkins v. Port Wash- ington, 37 Wis. 177 (1875); Platteville V. Galena, etc. R R, 43 Wis. 493 (1878), holding that, where a town accepted a written proposition from a railroad company, the terms and construction of it were not allowed to be modified by reason of representations made by §97J MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. [CH. TI. titled to the benefit of any implied conditions to which an individ- ual subscriber would be entitled.' Where a condition precedent has not been fulfilled the subscrip- tion is not enforceable, and bonds issued in payment will be invalid even in the hands of bona fide holders; as, for example, where the location of a railway in a certain place is the condition, and the lo- cation is not made as required by the condition.^ But if it be a condition subsequent, as where a town subscribed for stock in a railway company upon condition that the road should " be built through the town on the line as run by the engineer, with a suit- able depot for the convenience of the public," a failure to perform is not a defense to an action to collect assessments.' the company to the voters before the supply all the wants of the public, election; Foote v. Mount Pleasant, 1 McCrary, 101 (1878); s. c, 9 Fed. Cas. 368. In this case the proceeds of city bonds issued in payment of a subscrip- tion to a railroad were to be expended within the county limits. It was held that, as between the city and the road or its assignees with notice, the bonds could not be enforced if no part of the proceeds had been so expended. Atch- ison, etc. R. R u. Phillips County, 25 Kan. 361 (1881). Cf. Memphis, etc. Ry. V. Thompson, 24 Kan. 170 (1880); Red Rock V. Henry, 106 U. S. 596 (1882); Shurtleff i;. Wiscasset, 74 Me. 130 (1883); State V. Hancock Co., 11 Ohio St. 183 (1860). In this case commissioners who were authorized to subscribe for stock in a railroad to run through their county and to issue bonds therefor, and who had subspribed for the stock, were allowed, as against a proceeding to compel them to issue bonds, to set up the defense that the road had not been located in their county. A cer- tificate of the municipal authorities that the condition has been complied with renders the bonds issued 9a that certificate -calid and enforceable, though the certificate was a fraud on the municipality. Oregon v, Jennings, 119 U. S. 74 (1886); People v. Holden, 83 III. 93 (1876). In this case the comple- tion of a road, except about one mile, and the operation of its trains for that distance over another road so as to 264 were held a substantial compliance with a condition requiring its comple- tion. Hodgman v. St. Paul, etc. Ry., 33 Minn. 153 (1876), holding that a condi- tion calling for the completion of a road to a certain point did not require the building oPa bridge across a river, other facilities for crossing it being provided. See also on conditional sub- scriptions, Concord v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 93 U. S. 635 (1875); Railroad Co. V. Falconer, 103 U. S. 831 (1880); oh. V, suxrra. In Madison County Court v. Richmond, etc. R. R., 80 Kyi 16 (1882), it is held that, while a county may make such conditions as may seem proper to it before submitting the question of a subscription to a popular vote, the county court cannot, after the vote is taken, require other condi- tions, or alter those already imposed, or by a second election change the terms of the contract of subscription as originally made and entered into. See also Carroll County v. Smith, HI U. S. 556 (1884). 1 Lamb v. Anderson, 54 Iowa, 190 (1880). 2 Mellen v. Lansing, 19 Blatohf. 513 (1881); Chicago, etc. R R v. Marseilles, 84111. 145 (1876); Bucksport, etc. R R. V. Brewer, 67 Me. 395 (1877). 8 Belfast, etc. R R v. Brooks, 60 Me. 568 (1873). Cf. Chicago, etc. R R u Schewe, 45 Iowa, 79 (1876). As to a subsequent breach of a condition at- OH. VI.J MtTNICIPAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [§98. § 98. Wlien may a munici2)al siiiscription le paid in "bonds in- stead of money? — The express power of a municipality to sub- scribe for stock does not authorize it to issue negotiable bonds therefor.^ But where a municipal corporation is authorized to subscribe to the stock of a railway or other corporation, or to lend its credit thereto, and to issue bonds to that end, it may, in the ex- ercise of its proper discretion, instead of selling the bonds and apply- ing the proceeds to the payment of the subscription, deliver the bonds themselves to the railway company in exchange for an equiva- lent amount of stock.^ In New York a contrary view prevails, and there is force in the New York argument that only thus can the full par value of the bonds be realized for the purposes of the enterprise.' taohed to the subscription, see People (1888). Even though a municipal cor- V. Rome, etc. E. R., 103 N. Y. 95 (1886). A contract to keep certain shops, etc., permanently in a place, in considera- tion of local aid, may be disregarded by the railroad after many years, when its terminus changes, etc. Texas, etc. Ey. V. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393 (1890). Lessees of the purchaser of a railroad purchased at foreclosure sale are not bound by the contract of the first rail- road company, made with municipali- ties voting aid, in reference to depots. People V. Louisville, etc. E. E., 130 111. 48 (1887). See also People v. Holden, 82 111. 93 (1876); Hodgman v. St. Paul, etc. R, E, 23 Minn. 153 (1876); State v. Clark, 33 Minn. 422 (1877); State v. Lime. 23 Minn. 521 (1877). See also g 78, supra. In New York it is held that, where a town imposes, as a condition precedent to its subscription, that the road be lo- cated and constructed through the town, the commissioners have no power to accept any agreement from the com- pany or any substitute in lieu of full compliance. Falconer v. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 69 N. Y. 491 (1877). Where the agent of the railroad represented that a depot was to be constructed at a cer- tain place, a failure to so construct is good ground for enjoining the issue of municipal-aid bonds. WuUenwaber v. Dunigan, 30 Neb. 877 (1890). Of. ch. IX, infra. As to the right to revoke a consent by popular vote, see § 94, supra. 1 Norton v. Dyersburg, 137 U. S. 160 265 poration be authorized by statute to subscribe to the stock of a railroad, yet it cannot issue its negotiable bonds to pay such subscription, there being no statutory authority for the issue of such bonds. Hill v. Memphis, 134 U. S. 198 (1890). Of. Seybert v. Pittsburg, 1 Wall. 272 (1863); Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa. St. 278 (1861); Con- cord u Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 92 U. S. 635 (1875). Statutory authority to raise money by tax and appropriate it to aid of a railroad does not authorize the issue of bonds by the municipality therefor. Concord v. Eobinson, 131 U. S. 165 (1887). 2 Meyer v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384, 392 (1863); Evansville, etc. E. R. «. Evans- ville, 15 Ind. 895 (1860): Curtis v. But- ler County, 34 How. (U. S.) 435 (1860); Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 33 How. 364 (1859), where, before the authorized subscription was made, a new consti- tution was adopted making such sub- scriptions void unless paid in cash; held, that bonds issued to pay a sub- scription made after the new consti- tution was adopted were void. Where a town issues bonds instead of paying money, as required by statute, and the bonds are declared void, the holder is not subrogated to the right of the rail- road to the money itself. Mtna Life Ins. Co. V. Middleport, 124 U. S. 584 (1888). sStarin v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439 (1861); Bank of Rome v. Rome, 19 N. Y. 20 §99.] MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS, [CH. VI. § 99. A municipal corporation as a stockholder. — When a mu- nicipal corporation subscribes to the stock of a railroad company, it becomes a stockholder in just the same sense as any individual subscriber; is entitled to the same rights, privileges, and emolu- ments; and is subject to the same burdens of duty and liability as other holders of the stock.' (1859); Horton v. Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513 (1877); People v. BatchellOr, 53 N. Y. 128, 136 (1873), where the court says that if the bonds were turned overtothe railroad the latter would sell them for what they would bring, which would generally.be less than par. A sale of mu- nicipal bonds at less than par in viola- tion of the statute renders the bonds il- legal. Citizens', etc. Bank v. Town of Greenburg,31N. Y.Misc. Rep. 428(190n). For decisions to the effect that, at com- mon law, a municipal corporation can- not sell its bonds at less than par, see Neuse River Nav. Co. v. Ne wbern, 7 Jones, L. (N. C.) 275 (1859); Dan. Neg. Inst. (3d ed.), § 1533; Armstrong County v. Brin- ton, 47 Pa. St. 367 (1864): Gould v. Ster- ling, 23 N. Y. 456, 460 (1861). It is ap- parent that, if bonds are sold below par, the rate of interest is thereby in- creased, and the rate of interest is gen- erally fixed by the statute authorizing the issue of the bonds. 'Shipley u. Terre Haute, 74 Ind. 297 (1881); Kreiger v. Shelby R. R., 84 Ky. 66 (1866); Gray v. State, 72 Ind. 567 (1880); 1 Dan. Neg. Inst, § 436; Mur- ray V. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432 (1877). See also Curran v. State, 15 How. 304 (1853); Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65 (1855); Bank of U. S. v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 (1824); Morgan County V. Thomas, 76 111. 120 (1875); State V. Holladay, 72 Mo. 499 (1880); Marshall v. Western N. C. R. R., 92 N. C. 322 (1885); Morgan County v. Allen, 103 U. S. 498 (1880), holding that the cred- itors of an insolvent corporation may enforce the liability of municipal cor- porations upon their bonds; Robinson V. Bid well, 22 Cal. 379 (1863); People v. 266 Coon, 25 Cal. 635 (1864), holding that the individual members of a munici- pal corporation have no such interest in stock in a railroad subscribed for by it as will disable the legislature from authorizing it to compromise with the railroad. A foreclosure of the rail- road on a mortgage closes out the stock which a municipality has therein. Spurlock V. Missouri Pac. Ry., 90 Mo. 199 (1886). See also § 890. A judg- ment creditor may reach a municipal subscription payable in bonds by man- damus, after acquiring the company's right thereto. Smith v. Bourbon County, 127 U. S. 105 (1888). A muni ci- pality as a stockholder may assent to the sale of the railroad by the corpora- tion to another reorganized corporation. Foster v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry., 47 Fed, Rep. 369 (1891). A municipality's stock in a corporation cannot be reached by a judgment creditor of the municipal- ity except by proving that the sub- scription was legal. Hughes v. Craven County, 107 N. C. 598 (1890). Where stock in a railroad is owned by a part of a county, that part becomes a mu- nicipality for the purpose of owning and voting the stock. Hancock v^ Louisville, etc. R. R., 145 U. S. 409 (1893). Execution or garnishee process can- not be levied on stock held by an in- dividual as trustee, where the debt is his individual debt, nor can it be levied on the dividends from such stock. So held where stock was owned by a city in trust for the citizens. Hitchcock v. GalvestonWharf Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 263 (1880). Where a municipality is the vendor of land to a corporation and brings suit CH. VI.J MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. [§§ 100, 101. This doctrine is established as an unquestioned rule of law by the long line of cases, both in the state and federal courts, which involve the validity of municipal bonds issued in aid of railroad or other corporations. Where a state is a stockholder in a railroad corporation, its rights are no different from those of a private in- dividual who is a stockholder.^ Hence, where a state is a stock- holder, and by statute is entitled to a certain vote at elections, a subsequent statute cannot give to the state a larger vote.^ § 100. A municipality may enforce delivery of stock to itself in a proper case.^ Under the same circumstances and conditions, and to the same extent, as any other subscriber, a municipal corpora- tion may compel a railway or other corporation to deliver to it stock to which the subscribers in general are entitled. Whatever would prevent an individual subscriber from enforcing such deliv- ery will equally prevent a municipality in a like case.^ A munici- pal corporation, as a subscriber, is in no better position than an individual subscriber in this respecf § 101. Division of the municipality after the suiscription. — There is a line of cases in the reports of some of the western states which deals with the questions which have grown out of the subdivision of towns and counties in those states, after a donation or subscrip- tion has been made to some railroad or other corporation, and be- fore the bonds have been issued, or before they have become due and payable. It is, of course, not competent for the legislature so to divide a municipality as to release all or any part of it from the obligation of any contract into which the whole had previously entered.^ to set aside the transfer as fraudulent corporation, the court will not grant it and illegal, and joins the three trustees any relief. Ruminel v. Butler County, of a mortgage of the corporation as par- 93 Fed. Rep. 304 (1899). ties def ftidant and serves them by pub- ' Southern R}'. v. North Carolina R. R., lication, and, two of the trastees having 81 Fed. Rep. 595 (1897). A county bold- died, causes successors to be appointed ing stock in a railroad corporation holds by the court and obtains decree against it the same as any other stockholder, the corporation, and the trustees of the Adams v. Natchez, etc. R. R, 76 Miss. mortgage canceling their title to the 714 (1899). land, the decree is effective; and even 2 Tucker v. Russell, 82 Fed. Rep. 363 though the mortgage is afterwards fore- (1897). closed the purchaser at such sale takes 8 Wapello County v. Burlington, etc. no title to such land, he having delayed R. R., 44 Iowa, 585 (1876). In this case thirty years before attacking such de- the stock was to be issued only when cree. Bump v. Butler County, 93 Fed. , fully paid. Rep. 290 (1899). On the other hand, < Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Allegheny where a municipality delays for thirty County, 79 Pa. St. 210 (1875). Of. State years in complaining of fraud and ille- v. Garroutte, 67 Mo. 445 (1878). gality whereby it conveyed land to a 5 Sedgwick County v. Bailey, 11 Kan 267 §§ 102, 103.] MUNICIPAL SUBSOEIPTIONS. [oh. VI. When a town or county is divided, or some part of it annexed to some other town or county, after the undivided municipality has voted a subscription, and it is provided in the act by which the division is accomplished that each part shall remain liable for the previous municipal indebtedness, such, provision is held to mean nothing more than that, as concerns the subscription voted, each part is liable for its proportion only of the debt according to the valuation of the property of the undivided municipality at the time the vote was taken.^ This rule, however, cannot affect the credit- or's right to hold liable the whole of the old municipality. §§ 102, 103. Consolidation of companies after the municipal aid is toted. — "When the company proposed to be benefited unites or is consolidated with another company or companies of a similar char- acter, after the aid of a municipality has been voted and before the subscription has been paid — the company having before the elec- tion the right to consolidate, — the bonds may lawfully be issued to or sold for the benefit of the new or consolidated company.' "When, however, the consolidation works such a fundamental change 631 (1873). Cf. state v. Lake City, 25 Minn. 404 (1879); Marion County v. Har- vey County, 26 Kan. 181 (1881); Hender- son V. Jackson County, 12 Fed. Eep. 676 (1881). 1 Hurt V. Hamilton, 25 K^n. 76 (1881). See also Eagle v. Beard, 88 Ark. 497 (1878), holding that, in the absence of statutory provisiou, the detached part of a county is released from liability for the debts of the county; but the legislature m^^y apportion the debt be- tween the old and the new counties; McBride v. Hardin County, 58 Iowa, 219 (1882), holding that a county is not re- sponsible for expenses incurred by one of the townships comprising it in vot- ing taxes in aid of a railroad. 2 Livingston County i\ Portsmouth Bank, 128 TJ. S. 102 (1888); New Buffalo V. Iron Co., 105 U. S. 78 (1881); Bates County V. Winters, 97 U. S. 83 (1877); Scotland County v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682(1876); East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801 (1876); Wilson v. Salamanca. 99 U. S. 499 (1878); Empire v. Darling- ton, 101 U. S. 87 (1879). holding that, where stock in a railroad had been sub- scribed for by a township under statu- tory authority, an additional subscrip- tion after it \yas consolidated with an- other road and under a new name was valid. Menasha v. Hazard, 102 U. S. 81 (1880); Barter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562 (1880), holding that where township records showed that bonds were di- rected to be issued and delivered to a consolidated company, although the act authorizing them and the vote under it contemplated the issue to one of the consolidated companies, the township was estopped to deny their validity. Tipton County t'. Locomotive Works, 103 U. S. 523 (1880); State v. Greene County, 54 Mo. 540 (1874^ Mount Vernon v. Hovey, 52 Ind. 563 (1876). See also Nugent v. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241 (1873); Cantillon v. Dubuque, etc. Ry., 78 Iowa, 48 (1889); Henry County v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619 (1877). In this case a railroad company had, after the sub- scription, transferred its franchises to another company. In a suit upon the bonds, paid for the stock, in the hands of an innocent purchaser, the bonds were upheld. Schuyler County ■". Thomas, 98 U. S. 169 (1878). Cf. Harsh- man V. Bates County, 92 U. S. 569 (1875X A municipal aid cannot be enforced where the railroad company sells all its 68 CH. VI.J MTJHICIPAL SnBSCEIPTIONS, [§ 103. in the constitution and purpose of the original corporation that in- dividual subscribers are thereby released, a subscription by the municipality will be invalidated,^ but otherwise not.'-* Municipal bonds voted and delivered to a corporation under a changed name are of course not invalidated by such change.' Where a railroad company has received local aid and afterwards removes its tracks,, it is liable to the municipality for the aid so rendered.* property to another company. Cantillon V. Dubuque, etc R E., 35 J^f. W. Rep. 620 (Iowa, 1887). 1 Lynch v. Eastern, etc. Ry., 57 Wis. 430(1883); Harshman v. Bates County, 92 V. S. 569 (1875), will hardly be fol- lowed. It does not accord with the current decisions. See Crooks v. State, 4 N. E. Rep. 589 (Ind. 1886). Where a railroad has consolidated with another before a municipal subscription to the former has actually been made, such subscription cannot be enforced. Ed- wards i\ Bates County, 117 Fed. Rep. 536 (1902). 2 Atchison, etc. R. R w Phillips County, 25 Kan. 261 (1881); Society for Savings v. New London, 39 Conn. 174 (1860). In this last case the new com- pany was substantially the same as the one to which the subscription was made. The court held the issue of the bonds to the new company valid; Illi- nois, eta Ry. v. Barnett, 85 111. 313 (1877), holding that the legal purchase of another road will not invalidate sub- scriptions; Howard County v, Boone- ville, etc Bank, 108 U. S. 314 (1883), hold- ing that the defense, after paying inter- est for several years, that the road con- structed was not the one to whose stock the subscription was authorized, was not good, it appearing that it was a branch of the road referred to in the act. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa. St. 278 (1861); Lewis v. Clarendon, 5 Dillon, 839 (1878); s. c 15 Fed, Cas. 474; Chickaming u Carpenter, 106 U. S, 663 (1883). A subsequent consolidation of a company with another does not release the municipality from its obli- gation to deliver the bonds. Morrill v^ Smith County, 89 Tex. 539 (1896). 3 Reading v. Wedder, 66 111. 80 (1873); Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa- st. 378.(1861). In Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676 (1870), where the- legislature so amended the charter of a railway company as to divide the road into three divisions, and each division was made a new company, so that there- were three distinct corporations in place of the original corporation, it was held by the federal supreme court, that a subscription of stock and issue of county bonds, authorized by a popu- lar vote to be made to the original corporation, could not legally be made- to one of the three new corporations. Consolidation with another railroad is no defense to the county, where the statute authorizing it existed at the- time of the county vote. Chicago, etc R R V. Stafford County, 36 Kan. 131 (1887); Tipton County, etc. v. Locomo- tive, etc, 103 U. S. 523 (1880), holding that if a municipal corporation con- sents to a consolidation of roads it is es- topped from denying the validity of its bonds in the hands of a bona fide holder. < Town of Hinckley v. Kettle, etc R R., 70 Minn. 105 (1897). See also note 3,. p. 264j supra. 269 CHAPTEE VII. CALLS. 104. Definition of call. 105. Call is generally necessary. 106. When a call is unnecessary — Payment in advance. 107. In New York no call is required. 108. In case of corporate insolvency no call is necessary. 109. Who has authority to make calls. 110. Calls by directors. 111. Assignment of subscriptions by corporation before or after call. 112. Interest runs from the time the call is due. § 113. Stockholder cannot question ad- visability of call. 114. Calls must be impartial and uni- form. 115. Method of making calls — No formalities necessary. 116. Time, place, amount, and per- son to whom payable. 117. Notice of calls — Cases holding it not necessary. 118. Notice of calls — Cases holding it necessary. 119. Methods of serving notice of calls. 120. Demand, waiver, pleadings, etc. §104. Definition of call. — -A "call" may be defined to be an official declaration, by the proper corporate authorities, that the whole or a specified part of the subscriptions to the capital stock is required to be paid.' The term, however, is used with different meanings, and may refer to the resolution of the ofiicials that a part or the whole of the subscription must be paid, or to the reso- lution and notification thereof, or the combination of facts making the parties called on liable to an action for the non-payment of the money called.^ An assessment is a term often used to desig- nate the same thing as a call, but sometimes refers to payments sought to be recovered from the stockholders, above and in ?fi- difion to the par value of the stock.' An instalment is one of ths several part payments into which a single call may be divided. 1 Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. E. R., 45 N. J. L. 363 (1883 1, holding also that a direction by the directors to the presi- dent to collect the subscriptions is a call. In Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 21 111. 376 (1859). a call or assessment is rather vaguely defined as " a rating or fixing of the proportion, by the board of directors, which every subscriber is to pay of his subscription, when noti- fied of it and when called on." Newry, etc. Ry. V. Edmunds, 2 Exch. 118 (1848), holds that a call is an application to 270 each stockholder for a proportion of his share. 2 Quoted and approved in Germania Iron Min. Co. v. King, 94 Wis. 439 (1896). See also Queen v. Londonderry, etc. By., 18 Q. B. 998 (1849). In Ambergate, etc. Ry. V. Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 (1849), it is said " the word ' call ' is capable of three meanings: it may either mean the reso- lution, or its notification, or the time when it becomes payable. It must mean either one of these three." ' Quoted and approved in Omo v. Bern- art, 108 Mich. 48 (1895). CH. VII.] CALLS. [§§ 105, 106. § 105. Call is generally necessary.— As a general rule a call must be made in order to render a subscription or any part thereof due and payable to the corporation. A contract of subscription is a promise to pay; but, unlike other contracts to pay money, the pay- ment is to be only at such times, and in such part payments, as may be designated by the corporate authorities in a formal decla- ration known as a "call.''^ In other words, the subscription is a debt payable at a future time.^ The time when it shall be paid is indefinite until fixed by a call. § 106. When a call is unnecessary — Payment in advance. — If, however, a subscription contains a promise to pay upon a certain •"No action can be maintained against a stockholder for an instalment on his subscription until the board has di- rected the call to be made." Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 III. 504 (1851); Spang- ler V. Indiana, etc. Ry.. 21 111. 276 (1859); Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 45 N. J. L. 363 (1883); Ventura, etc. Ry. v. Hartman, 116 Cal. 260 (1897). In Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. I'Anson, 43 N. J. L. 10 (1880); aff'd, 43 N. J. L. 443 (1881), the court said a subscription for stock " im- ports an agreement not to pay at once the whole sum representing the value of the shares subscribed for, but a stip- ulation to pay such sum when called for by the directors in amounts duly as- sessed." And in Bank of South Aus- tralia V. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. App. 265 (1875), the court said: "The com- pany has no absolute right, and the shareholder is under no absolute liabil- ity to pay. The right only arises if and when calls are made by the directors. . . . The due making of the call by the resolution of a board of directors is an essential condition precedent." To the same effect, see Wilbur v. Stock- holders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178 (1878); s. a, 39 Fed. Cas. 1189. Where, by stat- ute or charter, payment is to be in such manner and proportion and times as the directors may order, there can be no suit to collect until after a call. Gris- sell's Case, L. R 1 Ch. App. 528, 535 (1866); Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Rowley, 9 Fla. SOS (1861). Even where the stock 271 is fraudulently issued as paid up, in pay- ment for property, and the transaction is impeached for fraud, a call is neces- sary before the subscription can be en- forced. Granite Roofing Co. v. Michael, 54 Md. 65 (1880). Where, however, for failure to furnish the property due on a subscription, a suit for damages is brought by the corporation, no call need precede such suit. An allegation of a general demand suffices. Cheraw, etc. R R v. Garland, 14 S. C. 63 (1880); Ohio, etc. R R. V. Cramer, 33 Ind. 490 (1864). A call is not applicable to stock which was subscribed for after the call was made. Pike v. Bangor, etc. R R.. 68 Me. 445 (1878). A subscription payable "in such instalments and at such times as may be decided by a majority of the stockholders or board of directors," etc., is not collectible until the instalments and times have been so fixed. North, etc. R R V. Spullock, 88 Ga. 383 (1893). A call must be alleged where the sub- scription liability is set up by the de- fendant company as a set-off. Holt v. Holt, etc. Co., 79 Fed. Rep. 597 (1897). Uncalled subscriptions are not a debt. They become a debt only after a call has been made. Alexander v. Auto- matic, etc. Co., [1899] 3 Ch. 303; rev'd on another point in [1900] 3' Ch. 56. 2 The subscription "is a present debt, payable at a future day." Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. V. Clarke, 39 Pa. St. 146 (1857). The subscription " creates a debt, but the debt does not accrue due until a § 106.] OALLS. [CH. VII. day, no call is necessary ; but the subscriber is bound to pay, at all events, upon the day named.^ So, also, if by statute or the charter the subscription becomes payable at a certain specified time, a call is thereby dispensed with, and is not required.^ A stockholder, on the other hand, is not obliged to wait for a call even when entitled to it. He may pay at any time.' Where stockholders advance money in prepayment of calls, the company may pay them interest on the same up to the time that the call is due, even though such interest is paid out of the capital.* A note given in payment for a subscription does not bear interest unless the note itself so pro- vides, especially where no call on the subscription has been made.* Where the pledgor files a bill to redeem and the pledgee claims that the stock is sold and not pledged, and the court decides that the transaction was a pledge and decrees the amount to be paid by the pledgor to redeem, and the pledgee then appeals and pays as- sessments on the stock, pending the appeal, the pledgee may call is made." Grissell's Case, L. E. 1 Ch. App. 528, 535 (1866). In Re China Steamship, etc;. Co., 38 L. J. (Ch.) 512 (1869), the court said : "The moment the call is made it is a debt due in every respect," although it cannot be col- lected by suit until later. 1 Estell V. Knightstown, etc. Tump. Co., 41 Ind. 174(1872); New Albany, etc. R. R V. Pickens, 5 Ind. 247 (1854); Ross V. Lafayette, etc. R. R, 6 Ind. 297 (1855); Breedlove v. Martinsville, etc. R R., 12 Ind. 114 (1859); Waukon, etc. R. R. v. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121 (1878). Where a subscriber gives a note in payment of the subscription the assignee of the cor- poration may enforce the note, although no calls have been made on subscrip- tions. Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619 (1889). ^ Phcenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. y. 294 (1876). 3 Marsh u. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); s. a, 16 Fed. Gas. 800; Poole's Case. L. R 9 Ch. D. 322 (1878). But if such payment is by the directors them- selves, and it is immediately repaid to them for fees, the corporation being insolvent, the transaction will be set aside. Sykes's Case, L. R 13 Eq. Cas. 255 (1871). So, also, a payment in ad- vance, on an agreement that such pay- ment shall be only a loan if the corpo- ration is successful, but shall be a payment of the subscription if the cor- poration becomes insolvent, is held to be a loan, though insolvency occurs. Barge's Case, L. R 5 Eq. Cas. 420 (1868). Frequently a subscription is paid, be- fore a call, by applying to its payment money due the subscriber from the corporation. Adamson's Case, L. B. 18 Eq. Cas. 670 (1874). A subscription for bonds, the amount being payable on call, may be paid at on«e and the bonds demanded. Watjen v. Green, 48 N. J. Eq. 322(1891). A stockholder who offers to pay his subscription in full, which offer is declined by the corporation, is not thereby released from his obliga- tion if he continues to act as a stock- holder. Potts V. Wallace, 146 U. S. 689 (1892). * Lock V. Queensland, etc. Co., [1896] A. C. 461. Where the purchase price of stock is to be in ten equal payments, and interest is to be allowed if payment is made in advance, the interest may be collected. Porter v. Beacon Constr. Co., 154 Pa. St 8 (1893). 5 Seattle T. Ca v. Pitner, 18 Wash. 401 (1898). 272 OH. Til.] CALLS. [§§ 107, 108. recover back such assessments from the pledgor, even though the judgment was affirmed on appeal.^ § 107. New Torlc rule. — In New York it seems that a peculiar rule prevails. In that state there is a tendency to hold that no call is necessary before suit is brought on a subscription for stock. The subscriber's obligation to pay, and the time and manner of pay- ment, must be sought for in the contract itself. Unless the con- tract provides for calls, the subscription is payable absolutely and at once, or as soon as the corporation is duly organized.^ Accord- ingly, in an action brought to collect a subscription, it is not neces- sary to allege that a call has been made, unless the terms of the subscription or the provisions of the corporate charter expressly provide for calls. These rules, however, seem not to have been directly passed upon by the highest court in New York, and cannot be considered as clearly established in that state.' § 108. In case of corporate insolvency no call is necessary. — ' When a corporation becomes insolvent, and there exist subscrip- tions which have not been fully paid in, the directors frequently neglect or refuse to make the calls necessary for the purpose of paying the corporate debts. In such cases a court of equity will disregard the formality of a call, and will order the unpaid sub- scriptions to be paid to a receiver for the benefit of the corporate creditors.* The courts very properly hold that it is not discretion- 1 Irvine v. Angus, 93 Fed. Rep. 629 V.Edmonds, 24 N. Y. 307 (1862); Will- (1899). iams v. Taylor, 120 N. Y. 244 (1890), * Lake Ontario, etc. E. R. v. Mason, rev'g Williams v. Meyer, 41 Hun, 545. 16 N. Y. 451 (1857); Phoenix Warehous- 3 These rules seem to be peculiar to ing Co. V. Badger. 67 N. Y. 294, 300 New York. The decisions in some of (1876). In the former case, however, the other states hold, however, that no calls were made and notice given by notice of calls is necessary. See § 117, advertisement in a newspaper. In the infrci. Practically, such a rule is latter case, by the terms of the charter, equivalent to requiring no call at all, all subscriptions were due at the time since in both cases collection is made when suit was commenced. Hence, in only by direction of the directors or both cases, the statements in reference other officers, and in both cases the to calls have the appearance of dicta, subscriber need not be informed of In Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850), it such directions. No notice of a call was held that a receiver could not col- need be given before enforcing the lect uncalled subscriptions, since " the same. United Growers Co. v. Eisner, only condition upon which he (the sub- 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1 (1897). scriber) could have been made liable ^"Itis well settled that when stock to the corporation was by regular calls is subscribed to be paid upon call of made in pursuance of the charter." the company, and the company refuses See also Bouton v. Dry Dock, etc. Co., or neglects to make the call, a court of 4 E. D. Smith, 420 (1855); Seymour v. equity may itself make the call, if the Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134 (1862): Savage v. interests of the creditors require it." Medbury. 19 N. Y. 32 (1859); Howland Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (1881)- 18 273 § 108.] CALLS. [CH. VII. ary with the directors to say whether the company's debts shall be paid or not. And this is the rule even though the statute provides that Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93 (1882); Glenn v. Sample, 80 Ala. 199 (1885). "A company call is but a step in the pro- cess of collection, and a court of equity may pursue its own mode of collection, so that no injustice is done to the debtor." Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879). No call is necessary before stockholders are liable to creditors on their unpaid subscription, even though the charter provides for a call. Hill v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 134 U. S. 515 (1890): Carnahan v. Campbell, 68 N. E. Eep. 384 (Ind. 1903). See also Myers v. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411 (1874); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Wilbur V. Stockholders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178 (1879); s. a, 29 Fed. Cas. 1189. Where the corporation, being indebted, has the power to call, and does not choose to exercise it, equity at the in- stance of creditors will exercise it. Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); s. c 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Boeppler V. Menown, 17 Mo. App. 447 (1885); Adler v. Milwaukee, etc. Mfg. Co,, 13 Wis. 57 (1860); Glenn v. Dodge, 3 Cent. Rep. 283 (1885); Great Western Tel. Co. V. Gray, 122 111. 630 (1887); Ward v. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 598 (1844); Miller's Case, 54 L. J. (Ch.) 141 (1884); Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. R., 17 Ohio, 187 (1848); Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 23 How. 380 (1859); Curry v. Wood- ward, 53 Ala. 871 (1875); Chandler v. Keith, 42 Iowa, 99 (1875); Shockley r?. Fisher, 75 Mo. 498 (1882). The filing of the bill in the suit in equity is equiva- lent to a call. Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879); Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 108, 245 (1885). See also Yeager v. Scranton, etc. Bank, 14 Weekly N. Cas. 296 (1884). It is settled law that a decree in a chancery suit is equivalent to a call. Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 353 (1886). If the court orde^ that notice of the call be given, the re- ceiver cannot collect by suit unless such notice is given. Franklin Sav- ings Bank v. Fatzinger, 4 AtL Rep. 913 (Pa. 1886,1. Where the whole of the unpaid subscriptions are needed to pay corporate debts, no assessment, even by the court, is necessary. But, unless the evidence clearly shows such neces- sity, it is for the jury to say whether the whole unpaid subscription shall be paid. Citizens', etc. Co. v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 564 (1887), citing cases. See § 207, infra. Where an assignment is made by the corporation for the benefit of creditors, the statute of limitations begins to run within a reasonable time, even if no call is made. Glenn v. Dorsheimer, 34 Fed. Rep. 536 (1885). Of. § 195, infra. In Missouri it has been held that there can be no garnishment of an unpaid subscription until after a call has been made. Parks v. Heman, 7 Mo. App. 14 (1879). In New York there are a few dicta to the effect that calls by the directors are necessary be- fore unpaid subscriptions can be en- forced for the benefit of corporate creditors. Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134 (1862): Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850). But the prevailing rule is sustained in Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf: Ch. 466 (1846), where the court says: "The articles, it is true, in effect require that calls should be made by the directors, and probably the associa- tion could not maintain an action at law until such calls were regularly made; but that does not impair the remedy in behalf of the receiver." An assignee for the benefit of creditors of a corporation may collect a subscrip- tion without any call. McKay v. El- wood, 12 Wash. 579 (1895). Where by a decree a company is ordered to pay the subscriptions to its stock to one of its creditors, the attorney for the com- pany who collects the subscriptions cannot retain them for his fees. Gray V. Overby, 37 8. W. Rep. 159 (Ky. 74 CH. VII.J CALLS. [§ 108. calls shall be made by the directors.' A call may be made by the court, and its discretion in that respect cannot be contested.^ There has been some doubt as to whether the writ of mandamus would lie to compel the directors to make the call;^ but the author- ities seem to hold that the writ will not lie for this purpose. The usual procedure to collect unpaid subscriptions is an order of a court of equity made in a suit brought by corporate creditors for the purpose of applying corporate assets to corporate debts.* The court may direct the receiver to make a call instead of the court making the call itself directly.^ Where, at the instance of the at- torney-general, a bank has been declared insolvent and the trans- action of further business enjoined, an assessment on the stock lev- ied before the decree, but payable after the decree, cannot be en- forced by the bank.^ 1896). No call is necessary where a corporate creditor files a bill to reach unpaid subscriptions. Adamant Mfg. Co. V. Wallace, 16 Wash. 614 (1897). 1 Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 353 (1886); ■Crawford v. Rohrer; 59 Md. 599 (1888). Contra. Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 Woods, 34 (1877); s. c, 15 Fed. Cas. 968, where the charter prescribed that •calls should be only by a three-fourths •vote of the stockholders. ^Re Minnehaha, etc. Assoc, 53 Minn. 433 (1893). 8"A chancellor will compel the di- rectors to make the calls required by the charter whenever his aid is invoked by creditors or the representative of •creditors." Germantown Pasa Ry. v. Fitler, 60 Pa, St. 124 (1869). The three English cases usuallj' cited on this point do not hold that a mandamus lies herein. Queen v. Victoria Park Co., 1 Q. B. 388 (1841); Queen v. Ledgard, 1 Q. B. 616 (1841); Rex v. Katharine Dock Co., 4B. & Ad. 360 (1832). In the case of Dalton, etc. R. R. V. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191 (1876), the court held that a mandam/us was unnecessary, on the ground that the remedy by bill was easier and more complete, and that justice would be better administered in this way by an account of all the corporate debts, and ^f all liabilities of solvent stockholders, taken by a master in chancery. In Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879), the court says a mandamus " can avail only when there are directors. The remedy in equity is more complete." In Ward V. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 593 (1844), the court refused a mandamus because it would enforce the collection of only a few debts, whereas the rem- edy in equity would enforce all propor- tionately. * " Under such circumstances, before there is any obligation upon the stock- holder te pay without an assessment and call by the company, there must be some order of a court of competent ju- risdiction, or, at the very least, some au- thorized demand upon him for pay- ment." Scovill V. Thayer, 105 XJ. 8. 148 (1881). In bankruptcy, it seems, the as- signee, by succeeding to all the rights of the corporation, may make a call and enforce it. Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879). See also g§ 203, 307, infra. At common law a court of equity could not make calls for benefit of corporate creditors. Dictum, Grain's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 307, 333 (1875). « Falk V. Whitman, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 396 (1897). " Bank of National City v. Johnson, 133 Cal. 185 (1901). 375 §§ 109, 110.] CALLS. [CH, VII. § 109. WJio lias authority to malce calls. — A call, in order to be legal and enforceable, must be made by the proper corporate au- thorities. Generally, the power to make calls is vested in the di- rectors or in the stockholders at large. Unless the charter or a statute makes provision therefor, the question as to who shall make calls is a question of internal arrangement. If no provision what- ever is made for the exercise of the power, it devolves upon the di- rectors, on the general principle that they alone have power to manage and superintend the financial matters of the corporation and to exercise all corporate powers, except those required to be exercised at corporate meetings.' Even though the statute author- izes calls by the stockholders, yet the directors also have the same power.^ §110. Calls ty directors. — Where the power to make calls is vested in the directors, a call made by those who are directors de facto will be upheld.' The directors, in whom the power to make calls 1 Budd V. Multnomah St. Ry., 15 Oreg. 413 (1887). The directors may make calls "as they may do all things, except such as are to be done by the share- holders at a general meeting." Amber- gate, etc. Ry. V. Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 (1849). 2 Ambergate, etc. Ry. v. Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 (1849). In Ex parte Winsor, 3 Story, 411 (1844); s. c, 30 Fed. Cas. 312, it was held, however, that where the char- ter gave to the corporation the power to assess stock it must be exercised ex- clusively by the stockholders in meet- ing assembled. On the other hand, in Rives V. Montgomery, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 93 (1857), the court held that stockhold- ers who by charter have power to make calls may delegate that power to the directors. See also Healey on Com- panies, 3d ed., p. 125. ' " An illegal election of directors cannot be set up in resistance of the payment of stock, but would be a case for a quo warranto to oust the illegally elected directors." 'Eakrlght v. Logans- port, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 404 (1859); John- son V. Crawfordsville, etc. R. R., 11 Ind. 280 (1858); Fairf eld County Turnp. Co. V. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173 (1889); Steinmetz V. Versailles, etc. Turnp. Co., 57 Ind. 457 (1877); Macon, etc. K R. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876); Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Turnp. Co., 67 Ind. 334 (1879). In People's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westcott, 80 Mass. 440 (1860), however, a call by directors elected at a, meeting held without notice was declared invalid and not enforceable. A call may be en- joined on the ground that the directors, were illegally elected. Moses v. Tomp- kins, 84 Ala. 613 (1888). A call cannot be enjoined on the ground that the de facto board is not a de jure board. Chandler v. Sheep, etc. Co., 15, Utah, 434 (1897). In England the courts will in- quire into the right of directors to their oflBce, in cases involving the validity of calls. Swansea Dock Co. v. Levien, 20 L. J. (Ex.) 447 (1851). If the directors, were not legally elected, their calls and forfeitures of stock based thereon will be set aside. Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. MoLister, L. R 1 App. Cas. 39 (1875). See Healey on Companies, 3d ed., p. 126.. If the corporate organization was not regular, and the directors were not le gaily elected, their call is not enforce- able. Howbeaoh Coal Co. v. Teague 5 Hurlst. & N. 151 (1860). Directors, elected at a meeting called on thirteen days' notice instead of fourteen as re- quired by statute may make oalls,. where their election has been confirmed. 376 CH. VII.] CALLS. [§ 111. is vested, cannot delegate their authority.' It is a power the exer- cise of which involves a discretion which cannot be exercised by others. A call by a minority meeting of the directors, no quorum being present, is void.^ § 111. Assignment of siibscriptions ly corporation iefore or after call. — The unpaid and uncalled subscriptions for stock cannot be mortgaged or sold by the corporation. If the transfer by the di- rectors were allowed, " the consequence would be that the discretion which they are bound to exercise would be wholly defeated and put an end to." ' The power of making calls, being a discretionary one, cannot be transferred to other parties. The transfer is void. by a subsequent annual general meet- New Jersey Midland Ry. v. Strait, 35 ing. Briton, etc. Assoc, v. Jones, 61 L. T. Rep. 384 (1889). I Rutland, etc. R R. d. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863), the court saying: "When a charter requires the directors to do some specific act, there seems to be a stronger reason why they should be held incapable of delegating such authority than when mere general powers are conferred on them." See also Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 504 (1851); Pike V. Bangor, etc. R R., 68 Me. 445 (1878); Re Bolt & Iron Co., 10 Pr. R. (Can.) 434 (1884); Silver Hook Road v. Greene, 13 R. I. 164 (1878), where it was delegated to the treasurer; Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. V. Chase, 56 N. H. 341 (1876), citing authorities; Monmouth, etc. Ins. Co. v. Lowell, 59 Me. 504 (1871). But where the power is delegated and exercised, the call may be ratified by the directors, and will then be valid. Read v. Memphis Gayoso Gas Ca, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545 (1872); Rutland, etc. R. R. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863). Although the directors cannot delegate the power to make a call, yet theymay delegate the power "to determine the amount of some of the instalments, and to designate the times of payment." Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 504 (1851). It is not necessary to allege that the directors were duly elected. Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 53 Ind. 51 (1875); Steinmetz v. Versailles, etc. Turnp. Co., 57 Ind. 457 (1887). But proof must te given that the prober authorities made the call. 277 N. J. L. 322 (1872). 2 Price V. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 58 (1859); Hamilton v. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R., 18 Ind. 347 (1859); Bottomley's Case, L. R. 16 Ch. D, 681 (1880). But may be confirmed by a quorum. Be Phosphate of Lime Co., 24 L. T. 933 (1871). ^Ex parte Stanley, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 535 (1864); Re Sankey Brook Coal Co., L. R. 10 Eq. 381 (1870). To the same effect, see New Jersey Midland Ry. v. Strait, 35 N. J. L. 332 (1872); Wells v. Rodgers, 50 Mich. 394 (1883); s. C, 44 Mich. 411 (1886), involving the consolidation of two railroads. See also Crooks v. State, 4N. E. Rep. 589 (Ind. 1866); Wallingford Mfg. Co. V. Fox, 12 Vt. 304 (1840); Bank of South Australia v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. App. 265 (1875); Hurlbut v. Root, 13 How. Pr. 511 (1855); Hill v. Reid, 16 Barb. 280 (1853); Hurlbut v. Carter, 21 Barb. 221 (1855). Cf. Smith v. Hollett, 34 Ind. 519 (1870), where the subscrip- tion was not for stock, but as a bonus. The articles of incorporation of a com- pany may authorize a mortgage on un- paid and uncalled subscriptions. Re Pyle Works, L. R. 44 Ch. D. 534 (1890). A transfer of the "business and prop- erty" of a corporation does not carry unpaid subscriptions. Bank of China v. Morse, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 435, 445(1899); aflC'd, 168 N. Y. 458. Where subscrip- tions are with the consent of the sub- scribers pledged to secure a debt of the corporation, the pledgee may enforce lll.J CALLS. [CH. VIL The subscribers are bound to pay their subscriptions, only when, in the opinion of the proper corporate authorities, or of a court of equity, the money is needed for corporate purposes. This power of ascertaining and determining the extent of the corporate needs, being a discretionary power, cannot be transferred or delegated to others. A different rule prevails, however, after a call has been made but not yet collected. An assignment of the amount already called is legal and valid.' It has been held in Connecticut that the right to collect unpaid subscriptions may be sold by an insolvent corporation.^ The usual railroad mortgage does not cover sub- scriptions for stock in the sense of preventing the corporation from collecting them.' Statutory power to transfer the business and property of a corporation does not authorize a transfer of its unpaid subscriptions.^ In Pennsylvania a statute which authorized a cor- the subscriptions although the ten per cent, required by the statute to be paid at the time of the subscription was not paid. Knickerbocker T. Co. v. Hard, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 463 (1903). 1 Re Humber Iron-works Co., 16 Weekly Rep. 474, 667 (1868); Wells v. Eodgers, 50 Mich. 294 (1883); Miller v. Malony, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 105 (1843), where the call was assigned to the contractor who owed the subscriber for work done ; Downie v. Hoover, 12 Wis. 174 (1860); Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451 (1869), where, however, it is not clear that a call had been made. A call which had been determined upon, but not defi- nitely made, may be transferred if it is afterwards duly made by the directors. iSe Sankey Brook Coal Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 731 (1870)." See s. 0., L. R. 10 Eq. 381. As to the enforcement of a subscription by a- subsequently created corporation formed by consolidation, see ch. LIII. A mortgage on all the land, property, and effects of the corporation does not include uncalled subscriptions. King V. Marshall, 33 Beav. 565 (1854). Cf. Re Marine Mansions Co., L. R. 4 Eq. 601 (1867); Re British Prov. L. Ins. Co., 4 De G., J. & 8. 407 (1864); Gardner v. London, etc. Ry. Co., L. E. 3 Ch. 301, 315 (1867); Pickering u Ilfracombe Ey., 37 L. J. (C. P.) 118(1868) ; Lishmann's Claim, 278 23 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 759 (1870). Where a company has assigned unpaid subscrip- tions, the company itself may not be able to collect them. Clark v. Sigua, etc. Co., 81 Fed. Rep. 310 (1897). An as- signee of unpaid subscriptions may assign to still another. Rand v. Wiley, 70 Iowa, 110 (1886). As to the right of one road built on the line of an aban- doned road to recover on a private do- nation to the latter, see Sickeisc. Ander- son, 63 Mich. 421 (1886). The assignee of the right of a corporation to collect a subscription may collect it the same as the corporation could. Chattanooga, etc. R. R. V. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599 (1896). A subscriber is liable although the com- pany under its charter sells its railroad to another company, the subscription being payable to the company and its assigns. The subscriber is entitled to stock in the successor company, Chat- tanooga, eta R. R. v. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599 (1896). Where a corporation assigns a subscription for stock, the receiver of the corporation is not a necessary party to a suit to collect the subscription. Coler V. Grainger County, 74 Fed. Rep. 16 (1896). 2 Fish V. Smith, 73 Conn. 377 (1900). 3 See § 852, infra. * Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458 (1901). CH. Yll.] CALLS. 112, 113,- poration to transfer a subscription from one enterprise to another has been held unconstitutional.' § 112. Interest runs from the time the call is due. — A subscriber who has failed to pay a call when it becomes due, according to its terms, is properly chargeable with interest from the time of the de- fault.^ Where subscriptions, by their terras, are paj'able monthly, they bear interest from the date when they become due, so far as creditors are concerned.' §113. Stockholders cannot question advisability of call. — The necessity or advisability of making a call is a matter which rests exclusively within the discretion of the corporate authorities who have power to make the call.'' A stockholder, when sued upon an unpaid call, caanot set up in defense that there was no occasion or use for the money. Whether made b}'' the court or by the direct- ors the call is conclusive evidence of the necessity therefor unless directh' attacked and set aside by judicial proceedings.^ The call, however, must be for the bona fide purpose of raising money for cor- porate purposes. It must not be for the purpose of enabling the • Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. atO (1858). 2 McCoy V. World's, etc. Exposition, 186 111. 356 (1900); Gould v. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298 (1877); RikhofiE v. Brown's, etc. Machine Co., 68 Ind. 388 (1879); Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 678 (1876). See also Burr v. Wilcox, 32 N. Y. 551 (1860), and Parker v. Adams, 38 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 335 (1903). Cf. Stooken's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 6 (1867); Cleveland v. Burnham, 55 Wis. 598 (1883). In Liggett v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 381 (1892), interest was allowed only from the date of suit and not from the date of the call. Cf. Hambleton v. Glenn, 73 Md. 331 (1890). Interest on the instalment cannot be recovered if no notice of the call was given. Amer- ican Pastoral Co. v. Gurney, 61 Fed. Rep. 41 (1894). Interest is dueonly from the day the subscriber was placed in default. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Walle, 39 S, Rep. 503 (La. 1900). Interest is al- lowed from the date of the decree fix- ing the liability on the particular stock- holders. Florsheim v. Illinois, etc. Bank, 61 N. E. Rep. 491 (111. 1901). 'Hawkins v. Citizens', etc. Co., 38 Oreg. 544 (1901). * The question of the necessity for the call " was a matter for the determina- tion of the board of directors." Chou- teau Ins. Co. V. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286 (1881). "The question whether those necessi- ties demanded the payment of the money was for the directprs." Judah V. American, etc. Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333 (1853); Budd v. Multnomah St. Ry., 15 Oreg. 413 (1887). One cannot object to a call on the ground that the motives of the directors were wrong. Oglesby V. Attrili, 105 U. S. 605 (1881). , 5 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 XJ. S. 339 (1896). It is no defense that the call is unnecessary. American Al- kali Co. V. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398 (1903). A call is presumed to have been regularly made, and it need not be proved that the corporation needed the money. Nashua, etc. Bank v. Anglo- American, etc. Co., 189 U.S. 331(1903). Necessity or advisability of a call cannot be questioned by the stock- holders. Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav. Bank, 90 N. W. Rep. 994 (Neb. 1903). The necessity or wisdom of a call can- not be questioned by the stockholder in the absence of fraud. Anglo-American, etc. Co. V. Dyer, 64 N. E. Rep. 416 (Mass. 1903). 379 § 114.J CALLS. [CH. VII. stockholders to use the money to the detriment of the creditors of the failing corporation.^ Moreover, a court of equity will set aside calls and payments made and managed with a view to discharging the stockholders' liability and preventing the proceeds from being applied to the general corporate debts. If the purpose of a call is illegal, the call cannot be collected.^ Equity, however, will not in- terfere with a call merely because the money received may be di- verted by the directors to an act or enterprise beyond the powers of the corporation.' The corporation cannot contract to postpone indefinitely a call.* To allow such postponement would be unjust to corporate creditors and other stockholders. § 114. Calls must le impartial and uniform. — A call cannot be made so as to affect a part only of the subscribers. It must be made on all alike or it will be void.' The courts will not allow the di- rectors of a company so to proceed as to require some stockholders to pay calls, and not to require others to do the same. Any such xitterapt will be promptly set aside and rectified.^ If, however. iHabershon's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 286 (1868). Thus, where the amount paid in is immediately paid out to the di- rectors for fees, the transaction is fraudulent, and is set aside. Sykes's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. Cas. 255 (1872). On the other hand, the directors cannot de- lay calls in order to enable themselves to transfer their stock and avoid liabil- ities. Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 559 (1870); Preston v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327 (1840). 2 Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458 (1901). 3 In the case of Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry., 12 Beav. 433 (1850), the court said it is not within the jurisdiction of courts "to take the accounts and make the inquiries necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether, under the cir- cumstances to which the company is reduced, and in a continuing concern, it is proper, in the dne management of the affairs of the company, to raise money by way of calls from the share- holders." Corporate meetings are the places for such complaints. See also Yetts V. Norfolk Ry., 3 De G. & Sm. 293 (1849). < McComb V. Credit Mobilier, 13 Phlla. 468 (1878); Van Allen v. Illinois Cent. R. R., 7 Bosw. 515 (1861) — the last case holding, however, that this principle does not prevent the issue of bonds con- vertible into stock whenever the stock- holder desires. 6 Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. R., 68 Me. 445 (1878). A suit to collect thirty five per cent, of a subscription fails where other subscribers have paid but two per cent. Great Western Tel. Ca v. Burnham, 79 Wis. 47 (1891); Bowen v. Kuehn, 79 Wis. 53 (1891). « Preston v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327 (1840). The New York courts refused to hold a New York stockholder in an English corporation liable for his unpaid subscription where under a plan of reorganization, sanc- tioned by the English courts, in accord- ance with English law, the amount collected is to go to the reorganized company, while other stockholders need not pay their subscriptions if they take part in the reorganized company and pay a small sum, especially where, if all the stockholders paid in full, the amount would be more than necessary to pay the debts, Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458 (1901). Even though it is legal under the statutes of England to pro- vide that no calls shall be made on cer- 280 CH. TII.J CALLS. [§ 115. some stockholders have already contributed more than others, the new' call may equalize the contributions.' § 115. Method of malting calls — No formalities necessary.— There are no prescribed or established rules stating how a call shall be made by the corporate authorities empowered to make it. Any act or resolution which in a court of law would prove a clear offi- cial intent to render due and payable a part or all of the unpaid subscriptions seems to be sufficient.^ A mere street conversation, however, between the directors, by which they " agree " that sub- scriptions shall be called, is not a sufficient call.' The call need not indicate when, or to whom, or where, payment is required to be made.* These are to be stated in the notice of the call.^ Mere irregularities-are disregarded, and will not invalidate the call.* The substantial fact must exist that the proper corporate officers voted or declared that payment be required. Hence the elements of a tain sliares, except upon a winding up, the place of payment nor the person to yet where the directors are the sub- scribers for such shares and do not fully inform other subscribers of the situa- tion, they may be compelled at the in- stance of a stookholSer to pay at the same time that the others pay, even though there was no actual fraud, the parties having acted in good faith. Alexander v. Automatic, etc. Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 56, rev'g [1899] 3 Ch. 303. If di- rectors use their power to make calls oppressively, they will be restrained. Cannon v. Trask, L. R. 20 Eq. 669 (1875). As where the object is to disqualify from voting those who cannot pay. Anglo, etc. Bank v. Baragnon, 45 L. T. 363 (1881). 1 Brockway v. Gadsden, etc. Co., 103 Ala. 620 (1894). 2 Budd V. Multnomah St. Ry., 15 Oreg. 413 (1887); Citizens', etc. Ins. Co. v. Sort- well, 93 Mass. 110, 113 (1865). ' Branch v. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573 (1895). * Quoted and approved in Germania Iron Min. Co. v. King, 94 Wis. 439(1896); Fox V. Allensville, etc. Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 (1874); Andrews v. Ohio. etc. E. R., 14 Ind. 169 (1860). In the case of Great North, etc. Ry. v. Biddulph, 7 M. & W. 343 (1840), Baron Parke held that the resolution for a call need not state 281 whom it was payabla Compare Rut- land, etc. R. R. V. Thrall, 85 Vt. 536 (1863), to the effect that the place must be stated. A call made in a new name, legally assumed by the corporation, is binding on subscribers who knew of the change of name. Shackleford v. Dan- gerfield, L. R. 3 C. P. 407 (1868). A call need not name any time, place, or per- son to whom payment must be made. Unless otherwise specified the call is payable on demand at the oflSoe of the company and to an officer authorized to receive payment. Western Imp. Co. V. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). ^ Quoted and approved in American Pastoral Co. v. Gurney, 61 Fed. Rep. 41 (1894), where the omission in the call to state where and to whom the call was payable was held not fatal, even though the charter seemed to require those facts to be stated; and holding also that it is sufficient if the notice of the call states those facts. ^Irregularities are no defense. The remedy is to revoke or set aside the call. " Calls in fact made, means that if made, and notice be given, ... a party shall not wait to take advantage of any irregularity at the trial." Re British Sugar Ref. Co.. 3 K. & J. 408 § lie.] CALLS. [CH. VU. call seem to be that it shall be by the proper persons acting offi- cially ; and that a resolution, susceptible of legal proof,^ be passed that a certain amount, either the whole or part,^ of the subscrip- tions for stock shall be paid in. If the statute prescribes the form of the call this form must be followed.' A call which prescribes that payment may be in cash or by land contract is too indefinite to sustain a suit, inasmuch as it does not prescribe the terms upon which the land contracts will be received and does not state at whose option payment may be so made.^ The validity of a call by an English corporation is determined by English law so far as for- malities are concerned,* but not where it violates settled principles of the common law.* § 116. Time, place, amount, and person to wliom payable. — The time and place and person to whom calls are to be paid need not necessarily be designated or fixed by the persons authorized to make the call.' These are duties which may be performed by other (1857); Southampton Dock Co. v. Rich- ards, 2 Railw. Cas. 215, 234 (1840); s. G, 1 Man...& Gr. 448. See also Shackleford V. Dangerfield,L. R. 3 C. P. 407 (1868). An error in the call may be corrected and cured by a subsequent call made after the first liability accrued but before suit. Philadelphia, etc. R R. v. Hick- man, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857). A director who participated in making the call cannot set up informalities for the pur- pose of defeating it. Hays v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 38 Pa, St. 81 (1860). Payment and acquiescence in informality as toone call waives it as to another call. Macon, etc, R. R. V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876). 1 A call by the directors is valid al- though no entry of the resolution is made in the minutes of the directors' meeting. Hays v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 38 Pa. St. 81 (1860). An entry of the resolution, made by the secretary in the book containing the minutes, is sufficient. Fox v. Allensville, etc. Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 (1874). An authorized subsequent call is competent proof of the validity of a previous call. Baving- ton V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 34 Pa. St. 358 (1859). The corporate books are competent to prove both the call and the mode of payment. Bavington v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 34 Pa. St. 358 282 (1859); Comfort v. Leland, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 81 (1837). 2 The call may be for the whole sub- scription. Foxt). Allensville, eta Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 (1874). May be for the whole or for part. Haun v. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 103 (1870); Stone v. Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 85 (1866); Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R. E., 21 111. 276 (1859); Ross v. Lafayette, etc. R R, 6 Ind. 297 (1855). Even though it be expressly provided that only a certain sum shall be assessed at one time, yet several as- sessments, each one not in excess of the stated sum, may be ordered by a single vote. Penobscot R R v. Duminer, 40' Me. 173 (1855); Penobscot, etc. R R u Dunn, 39 Ma 587 (1855). 3 Germania Iron Min. Co. v. King, 94 "Wis. 439 (1896). < North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103 Wis. 498 (1899), the court saying in regard tO' a call, " the chief requisites are that it should be impartial and uniform, and sufficiently definite to enable the stock- holder to comply vyith its require- ments." 5 American Pastoral Ca v. Gurney, 61 Fed. Rep. 41 (1894). « Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y- 458 (1901). ■'See § 115, note 4, supra. The direct- CH. VII.] CALLS. [§ 11'^' officers of the corporation, and frequently either the president or treasurer of the corporation performs this work. The time of pay- ment should be reasonable,' as also should be the place. A pro- vision in the by-laws that the subscriptions should be called in at certain times only may be modified. A company cannot contract not to alter its by-laws.'' If no place or person to i-eceive payment is designated, it is to be paid to the treasurer at his office.' The amount called need not be made payable in one sura at one time, but may be made due in instalments.* § 117. Notice of calls — Cases holding it not necessary. — There is a wide and irreconcilable difference of opinion among the authori- ties on the question whether notice of a call must be given to a stockholder before suit can be brought for the collection of a call. Frequently either the charter, or a statute, or the by-laws of the corporation, require notice to be given ; and in such cases notice is, of course, necessary, in order to sustain suit.^ But where there is ors themselves may fix the time, place, and manner of payment, even at a meet- ing subsequent to the meeting ordering a call. The call may be prospective. The directors may order that on a cer- tain date a call payable at a later date shall be mada Sheffield, etc. Ry. v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574 (1841). The subscription itself may regulate the time of payment. New Jersey Midland Ry. r. Strait, 35 N. J. L. 323 (1873) ; Roberts V. Mobile, etc. R. R., 33 Miss. 373 (1856). Even though the statute provides other- wise. Iowa, .eta R. R. v. Perkins, 38 Iowa, 281 (1869). 1 Fairfield County Turnp. Co. v. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173 (1839). The time between payments of instalments is entirely within the discretion of the directors, there being no provision regulating the subject. Hall v. United States Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.), 484 (1847). ^Malleson v. National, etc. Corp., [1894J 1 Ch. 200. ^A resolution of the directors that the instalments should be paid in "at the times therein designated imports that payments should be made to the treasurer, who is the proper and only officer to receive and keep the moneys of the corporation." Danbury, etc. R. R. V. Wilson, 23 Conn. 435 (1853). As to 383 a tender to the president, see Mitchell V. Vermont, etc. Co., 67 N. Y. 280 (1876). Directors in making a call should specify the place of payment. Provi- dent, etc. Co. V. Wilson, 25 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 53 (1866). * Northwestern Ry. v. MoMichael, 6 Exch. 273 (1851); Birkenhead, etc. Ry. V. Webster, 6 Exch. 277 (1851); Amber- gate, etc. Ry. V. Nordliffe, 6 Exch. 639 (1851), not following Stratford, etc. Ry. V. Stratton, 3 B. & Ad. 519 (1831). In Birkenhead, etc. Ry. v. Webster, as re- ported in 6 Exch. 277 (1851), the court says: "We are unanimously of opinion that a call payable by instalments is good, although debt will not lie for one instalment until all the instalments are due and payable." In Hays v. Pitts- burgh, etc. R. R., 38 Pa. St. 81 (I860', the court held that the directors by one resolution could call in the balance of the subscriptions, making the call pay- able in instalments, due at different times. To the same effect, see Rutland, etc. R. R. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863); Lewis's Case, 28 L. T. (N. S.) 396 (1873). 'In many of the states there exist statutes, very similaij in their terms, that notice shall be given of calls, and that in case of non payment the stock may be forfeited. These statutes have § 118.] CALLS, [CH. VII. no provision in the charter, or statute, or by-laws, or subscription itself, prescribing that notice of calls shall be given to the stock- holders, the weight of authority holds that no notice is necessary, and that an action to collect the call may be maintained without averring or proving such a notice.' § 118. Notice of calls — Cases Iwlding it necessary.— There is, however, strong authority for the rule that notice of calls must be given before suit is brought for their collection.^ The reason for this rule seems to accord with sound legal principles and with busi- ness expediency. It is a well-established principle of law that, when the facts or circumstances upon which the performance of received different interpretations in different states. The usual construc- tion is that the notice required therein refers only to the forfeiture proceed- ings, and does not necessitate notice before bringing a suit at law for the collection of the call. Smith v. Indiana, ■etc. Ey., 13 Ind. 61 (1859); Lake Ontario, etc. R. E. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, 464 (1857). In other states such a statute is construed to require notice before suit. Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870);, Granite Roofing Co. v. Michael, 54 Md. 65 (1880); Dexter, eta Co. V. Millerd, 3 Mich. 91 (1854). Illinois River R. E. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654 (1858), holds that a statute regulating notice of calls does not release the stockholder. 1 Wilson V. Wills Valley R. R, 38 Ga. 460(1863); EppesD. Mississippi, etc. E. R., 35 Ala. 33 (1859); Grubb v. Mahoning Nav. Co., 14 Pa. St. 302 (1850); Gray v. Mouongahela Nav. Co., 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 156 (1841); Grubbs v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R, 50 Ala. 398 (1873); Eakright v. Lo- gansport, etc. R. R, 13 Ind. 404 (1859; Johnson V. Crawfordsville, etc. E. E., 11 Ind. 280 (1858); New Albany, etc. E. E. V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499 (1858); Fisher V. Evansville, etc. E. E., 7 In'd. 407 (1856); Eoss V. Lafayette, etc. R. R, 6 Ind. 297 (1855); Hill v. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341 (1884); Smith V. Indiana, etc. Ry., 12 Ind. 61 (1859). In the last case the court said: " These decisions rest upon the ground that the contract to pay by instalments is in effect a promise to pay on demand, and that the demand involved in the suit itself was alone sufficient." Notice of calls is required by the Pennsylva- nia railroad act. McCarty v. Selings- grove, etc. R R, 35 Leg. Int 410 (1878). In New York, since no call is necessary, no notice is necessary. Cf. Macon, etc. R R. V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876 . 2 Wear v. Jacksonville, etc. R R, 24 III. 593 (1860); Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 21 111. 276 (1859). Cf. Peake v. Wabash R R, 18 IlL 88 (1856), holding that notice is unnecessary. In the case of Carlisle v. Cahawba,etc. R R, 4 Ala. (N. S.) 70 (1842), the court says that no- tice must be given, since " the times, amount of instalments, and manner of payment were all to be prescribed by the president and directors of the cor- poration, depended upon their volition and action, and consequently were more properly within their knowledga" See also Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 43 Md. 203 (1875); Essex Bridge Ca v. Tuttle, 3 Vt. 893 (1830); Rutland, etc. R R. V. Thrall, 35 Vt 536 (1863); Miles V. Bough, 3 Q. B. 845(1842); Edinburgh, etc. Ry. V. Hebblewhite, 6 M. & W. 707 (1840); Alabama, etc. R R «. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508 (1861). In Hughes v. Antie- tam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870), the court says: "To say that it [notice] is unnecessary, because the subscribers, who may be living in different parts of the country, and perhaps the state, are presumed in law to know all that is done by the directory, seems to us to be raising a presumption against the truth itself." 284 CH. vn.J CALLS. [§ 119- a contract depends lie more particularly in the knowledge of the promisee than the promisor, the former must give the latter notice. Hence it would seem that since a subscription is not due abso- lutely, but only on call, and the time, place and amount of the call is fixed by persons other than the subscribers, the better and more reasonable rule would be that notice of the call should be required and must be given. § 1 19. Metlioth of serving notice of calls. — The manner and mode of giving notice has given rise to some controversy. Unless pro- vision is expressly otherwise, the notice must be given by handing to the subscriber a written notice, or by informing him orally that the call has been made, giving the amount, time, place, and per- son to whom payment is to be made.* Where the notice is served, not personally, but by mail, the notice is effective only in case it is actually received.^ Whether it was so received is a question for the jury.' A publication of a notice in a newspaper is not bind- ing and effectual unless it be proved that the subscriber who is sued actually read the notice as published.* A personal notice is sufficient, although the charter, statute, or by-laws provide for 1 The notice need not be written. Verbal notification suffices. Smith v. Tallassee, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 650, 666 (1857). Notice to pay to the treasurer sufficiently indicates the place of pay- ment. It is understood to be at his offica Muskingum, etc. Co. v. Ward, 13 Ohio, 120 (1844). Contra, Dexter, etc. Ca V. Millerd, 3 Mich. 91 (1854). It must be proved to have been signed by authorized persons. Miles v. Bough, 3 Q. B. 845 (1842). Notice to various par- ties in the neighborhood is not suffi- cient. New Jersey Midland Ry. i'. Strait, 35 N. J. L. 322 (1872). No par- ticular form of notice is necessary. The only question is " whether the notice gives the shareholder to understand that a call has been made, and that he is required to pay the amount on a given day." Shackelford v. Danger- field, L. R. 8 C. P. 407 (1868)l 2 " Constructive notice by the mail is not a personal notice, although in some cases, by express statutory provision, it is sufficient to bind parties." Hughes i: Antietam Mfg. Ca, 34 Md. 316 (1870> Notice of a call for the payment of a subscription must be served person- ally and service by mail is insufficient, unless the by-laws authorize service in that manner. North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103 Wis. 492 (1899). 3 A notice of a call may be by mail. If the subscriber denies that he re- ceived it, the question is for the jury. Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R R, 4& N. J. L. 363 (1888). Only the person actually mailing the notice can testify to that fact. Jones u Sisson, 72 Mass. 288 (1856). Cf. 189 U. S. 221 (1903). * In Alabama, etc. R R v. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508 (1861), the court says such a. mode of notice "might be attended with irreparable injury to innocent parties." See also dictum in Lake Oq- tario, etc. R R u. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (1857). In Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 (1854), where the charter prescribed notice by publica- tion or by mail, a director who aided in giving the notices was held to have had personal notice and to be bound. "Personal service of due notice is- clearly more advantageous to the de- fendant than either an advertisement in a newspaper or a notice sent by mail." See also Lexington, etc R R V. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311 (1847). See also § 180, infra. Notice in a news- 285 § 119-] 0ALL8. [CH. vri. notice by publication.' An express promise of the subscriber to pay a call which has been already made is presumptive evidence that he had notice of that call.^ Notice by publication, given under the authority of a statute, charter, or by-law, must strictly comply with the provisions prescribed as to the time and formali- ties.' It has been held in England that after a stockholder is dead and the company has knowledge of that fact, notice of an assess- ment on his stock cannot be served so as to bind his estate; neither paper is not good notice unless the stat- ute so prescribes. People's, etc. Assoc. V. Furey, 47 N. J. Eq. 410 (1890). In the case of Lincoln v. Wright, 33 Pa. St. 76 — 1854 (not a corj oration case). Judge Jeremiah Black said that a notice by publication in a newspaper was no notice unless actually read by the person charged with the notice. "It must be proved that he read it; otherwise it is no stronger than proof that the fact was orally and publicly uttered at a place where he was not ■present." On the other hand, in Hall V. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.), 484 (1847), notice of a call by newspaper was held sufiHcient. The court said: ''There is no proportionate object attained for the great inconvenience, labor, and ex- pense incident to 'personal notice.' The substitution of such newspaper publications in lieu of personal notice has so long been an universal usage, and of' a notoriety equal to that of the publication of newspapers themselves, that the custom of doing so has become a part of the law of the land." See also Louisville, etc. Co. v. Meriwether, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13 (1844), to the same ■efifect, and dictum in Danbury, etc. R R. V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435, 455 (1853), and §§ 130, 131, 727, infra. 1 In the case of Mississippi, etc. B. R. V. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455 (1859), the statute prescribed sixty days' notice by publi- •oation. Actual pei-sonal notice was given, and no publication was had. The court sustained the notice and said: "One of the criterions by which to determine whether the require- ments of a statute are imperative or merely directory is that those acts which are of the essence of the thing required to be done are imperative, while those which are not of the es- sence are directory. . . . The giving of sixty days' notice is imperative and must be strictly complied with, be- cause it is of the essence of the thing required to be done; the mode of doing so is directory, because not of the es- sence, and may be either by publica- tion in the manner prescribed by the charter or by actual personal notice." Cf., semble, in Tomlin v. Tonioa, etc. R R, 23 111. 429, 436 (1860). 2 Miles u. Bough, 3 Q. B. 845 (1843); Fairfleld County Tump. ,Co. v. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173 (1839). 3 Where twenty days' notice was re- quired, proof of sending notice is insuf- ficient. The time of sending must be proved. Cole v. Joliet Opera House Co., 79 111. 96 (1875). Notice by publi- cation " at least sixty days " is satisfied by one publication sixty days or more before the time of payment. Muskin- gum, etc. Co. V. Ward, 13 Ohio, 120 (1844); Fox v. Allensville, eta Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 (1874). Fifty-nine days is insuflScient where sixty days is pre- scribed. Macon, etc. R R v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876). The printed notice must be put in evidence. Rutland, etc R R V. Thrall. 85 Vt. 536 (1863). A copy of the first insertion and the testimony of the publisher that the other insertions were duly made are prima facie evi- dence of publication. Unthank v. Henry County Turnp. Co., 6 Ind. 185 (1855). The secretary of the corpora- tion cannot, by a certificate, prove pub- lication of notica Tomlin v. Tonioa, etc. R R, 23 111. 439 (1860). 286 OH. VII.J CALLS. [§ 120. can a notice threatening forfeiture of his stock for non-payment. Neither can the notice be served upon the executors.' § 120. Demand, waiver, pleadings, etc.— After notice has been given, no demand is necessary before bringing a suit to collect the subscription.^ The subscriber may, by his acts or express agree- ment, waive the call itself, or informalities in its making, or notice thereof.' It is immaterial that other shareholders have had no no- tice of the call.* The proof of calls and of notice, when required, must be clear and complete.^ The pleadings in an action on calls must allege the various facts which complete the obligation of the subscriber to pay.^ 'Allen V. GoldReefs, etc., [1899] 2 Ch. 40. 2 Penobscot R. R. v. Dumraer, 40 Me. 173 (1855); Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490 (1863); Winter v. Muscogee E. R, 11 Ga. 438 (1852). Cf. Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R. R, 21 111. 276 (1859), holding that one demand made for several assess- ments suffices. 'State Bank Bldg. Co. v. Pierce, 92 Iowa, 668 (1894); Macon, etc. R. R. v. Vason. 57 Ga. 314 (1876). Payment of part of a subscription is no waiver of the right to have a call made for the balance before payment. Grosse Isle Hotel Co. V. I'Anson, 43 N. J. L. 442 (1881). The vote of a city to pay a call is no waiver of its invalidity. Pike v. Bangor, etc. R R, 68 Me. 445 (1878). The waiver must be clearly proved. Rutland, etc. R R v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863). A director participating in a call cannot object thereto. York Tram- ways Co. V. Willows, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 685 (1882). Where a subscriber, upon receiving notice of a call, denies that he is a stockholder, he thereby waives further notice. Cass v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 80 Pa. St. 31 (1875). * Newry, etc. Ry. v. Edmunds, 2 Exch. 118 (1848); Shackleford v. Dangerfield, L. R. 3 C. P. 407 (1868). 5 Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 43 Md. 203 (1875). This case holds also that calls may be proved by reading extracts from the minutes of tlie directora' meet- ings, without putting the books in evi- dence. Where a meeting of the board of directors could not authorize suit to collect assessments because the assess- ments were not yet due, an adjourned meeting of that meeting cannot author- ize such suit, all of the directors not being present at the adjourned meeting and no new notice thereof having been given. Bank of National City v. John- ston, 133 Cal. 185 (1901). 6 The company must allege that the instalments are all due and payable, where several are sued on. Bethel, etc. Co. V. Bean, 58 Me. 89 (1870). At com- mon law the count set out in the dec- laration should be not on the contract of subscription, but in indebitatus as- sumpsit for calls or instalments due. Peake v. Wabash R. R, 18 111. 88 (1856). For the customary averments, see Span g- ler V. Indiana, etc. R. R., 21 111. 276 (1859). For the defendants' pleading, see South Eastern Ry. v. Hebblewhite, 12 A. & E. 497 (1840). The call and notice may be pleaded in general language in the com- plaint. Waltei', etc. Co. v. Robbins, 56 Minn. 48 (1893). In a suit by a corpora- tion to collect a call the corporation need not allege that the defendant was a stockholder when the call became due, and need not allege any agreement by the defendant to pay the call. Amer- ican Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 898 (1902). It is sufficient to allege that the defendant holds stock which has never been paid up. The defense that the defendant did not subscribe for the stock or did not agree to pay for it, or that he is not liable, must be set up in the answer. Atlantic T. Co. v, Osgood, 116 Fed. Rep. 1019 (1903). As to the proofs, see gg 55, 72, supra. 287 CHAPTEE VIII. FORFEITURE OF SHARES FOR NON-PAYMENT. 121. The various remedies. 133-133. The remedy by forfeiture and sale of stock is by statu- tory authority only. 134 The remedy by forfeiture is cumulative. 135-136. Forfeiture relieves the stock- holder whose shares are for- feited from liability to the cor- poration. 127-128. The same rule prevails as to corporate creditors. 139. Statutory formalities and gen- eral method of forfeiture. 130. Notice in cases of forfeiture. 131. Notice is not the same thing as forfeiture. 133. Tender, by stockholder, before forfeiture. 133. Surplus after valid forfeiture belongs to the corporation — Purchase by the corporation — Liability of the purchaser of forfeited stock. 134. Equity will relieve a stockholder from an unauthorized forfeit ure — Action at law for dam- ages. §121. The various remedies. — When a subscriber fails or re- fuses to pay for the shares of stock for which he has subscribed, the corporation generally has several methods of enforcing the contract. First, there is the common-law action to collect the sub- scription as a debt. This remedy always exists, except in a few states where it is available only when the subscription itself or the charter creates a liability to pay.^ The corporation may sue on the subscription, obtain judgment, and then proceed to sell the stock under an execution levied to collect the judgment.^ Second, the corporation may bring an action at law for breach of contract, the measure of damages being the difference between the value of the stock at the price which the subscriber was to pay and the market value at the date of the refusal to pay.' A third and very important remedy is that of forfeiture. It is the subject of this chapter. It is effected in one of two ways: the forfeiture may be by a strict foreclosure of the stockholder's stock — that is, the tak- ing of his stock by the corporation itself ;• or it may be by a pub- lic sale of the stock for non-payment of the subscription.* §§ 122, 123. The remedy iy puhlic sale of stocic is hy statutory authority only. — In addition to the remedy of an action at law to compel payment of a subscription for stock, there frequently is given to the corporation the right to sell the subscriber's stock for ' See § 74, supra, 3 Rand v. White Mountains R. R.j 40 2 Chase v. East Tenn. etc. R R., 5 N. H. 79 (1860). Lea (Tenn.), 415 (1880). < Quoted and approved in Thomson's Succession, 46 La. Ann. 1074 (1894). 288 CH. V1II.J FOKFEITUEE OF STOCK. [§ 124. non-payment of his subscription and apply the proceeds to the pay- ment of that subscription. This is -what is generally known &s a forfeiture of the stock. It is not a common-law remedy, and, con- sequently, can be resorted to by the corporation only when power to make the sale is given to the corporation by statute or by the act of incorporatioa.^ It has been held, however, that the right to for- feit may, however, be created by the consent of the stockholders, and be indorsed on the certificates of stock.^ The authority to forfeit shares for non-payment of the subscrip- tion cannot be created by a by-law.' Such a forfeiture would be wholly void, and transfers based thereon would confer no rights upon the transferee.* § 124. The remedy "by forfeiture is cumulative. — Frequently when a corporation is authorized by statute to forfeit shares for non-payment of the subscription, the question arises whether the statutory remedy of forfeiture is exclusive, thereby preventing a resort t© the common-law remedy of an action of assumpsit on the contract. It is the well-established rule that it does not. A grant iWestcott V. Minnesota Min. Co., 23 (1837); s. c„ 33 Am. Dec. 429; Kirk v. Mich. 145 (1871); Minnehaha, etc. Assoc. V. Legg, 50 Minn. 833 (1893); Budd v. Multnomah St. Ry., 15 Oreg. 418 (1887). In the last case the statute gave the corporation power to make by-laws for forfeiture of stock. There being no by- law, a forfeiture was attempted by a resolution of the board of directors. Held, this could not be done. Barton's Case, 4 De G. & J. 46 (1859), is similar and stronger, as public notices and ad- vertisements were made of the threat- ened forfeiture. Perrin v. Granger, 30 Vt. 595 (1858); Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 (1858); Stanhope's Case. L. R. 1 Ch. App. 161 (1865). In Kelk's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 107 (1869), the forfeiture was provided for in deed of settlement, and hence regular. If the corporation pur- chases at forfeiture sale, as it may by statute in California, execution against the corporation cannot be levied on such stock. Robinson v. Spaulding, etc. Co., 73 Cal. 33 (1887). 2 Weeks v. Silver Islet, etc. Co., 55 N, Y. Super. Ct. 1 (1887). See also § 522, infra. SiJe Long Island R. R., 19 Wend. 37 19 389 Nowill, 1 T. R 118 (1786). Of. Kenne- bec, etc. R. R. V. Kendall, 31 Me. 470 (1850); Rosenback v. Salt Springs Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. 495, 506 (1868). 4 Re Long Island R. R, 19 Wend. 37 (1887). Yet, where such a power was conferred by a by-law adopted at a meeting of the stockholders, a stock- holder whose stock has been declared forfeited under the by-law, and who is shown to have assented to the by-law, will not be heard to question the valid- ity of the forfeiture. He is estopped. Lesseps v. Architects' Co., 4 La. Ann. 816 (1849), The corporation cannot, by a by-law, forfeit shares temporarily, until penalties or fines shall have been paid. Adley v. Reeves, 3 Maule & S. 53 (1813), by LordEUenborough. Cf Cartan V. Father Matthew, etc. Soc, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 20 (1869); Pentz v. Citizens', etc. Co., 35 Md. 73 (1871). But only the stockholder can object to a forfeiture on the ground that it is by by-law. Detweiler v. Breckenkamp, 83 Mo. 45 (1884). C/. §g 181, 184, in/m. As to the effect of acquiescence or waiver by the stockholder, see §§ 129, 134, infra. § 124.] FOBFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. VIII. of the power to declare a forfeiture of the shares of a subscriber for non-payment of calls does not, by implication, deprive the corpora- tion of its option of remedies; and the corporation may, in its dis- cretion, upon the failure of the subscriber to pay for his stock, either proceed against him by suit to collect the unpaid calls, or may for- feit his shares of stock. The corporation, by such a statute, is given its choice of remedies, and may pursue either. The remedy by for- feiture is additional. In legal language the remedy by forfeiture is cumulative.^ i Quoted and approved in Apierican Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398 (1903); San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 (1894); Denver Chamber, etc. v. Green, 8 Colo. App. 420 (1896); Atlantic Dynamite Co. v. Andrews, 97 Mich. 466 (1893); Puget Sound, etc. R E. v. Ouellette, 7 Wash. 265 (1893); Delaware, etc. Canal v. San- som, 1 Bin. (Pa.) 70 (1803); Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co., 3 Bibb (Ky.), 576 (1813); Eensselaer, etc. Co. v. Barton, 16 N. Y. 457, note (1854); Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (1857); Buf- falo, etc. E. E. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 (1856); Tutwiler v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 89 Ala. 891 (1890); Harlsem Canal Co. v. Seixas, 2 Hall (N. Y. Super. Ct.), 504 (1839); Fort Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. 567 (1854); Rensselaer, etc. Co. V. Wetsel, 31 Barb. 56 (1855); Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Cb. 466 (1846); Troy, etc. E. R. V. McChesney, 21 Wend. 396 (1839); Herkimer Mfg. Co. v. Small, 31 Wend. 373 (1839); Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R V. Frost, 31 Barb. 541 (1856); Northern E. E. v. Miller, 10 Barb. 260 (1851); Troy, etc. E. R. u Tibbits, 18 Barb 297 (1854); Troy, etc. E. E. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581 (1854); Jenkins v. Union Turnp. Co.. 1 Caines' Cas. 86, 95 (1804); Goshen, etc. Co. v. Hurtin, 9 Johns. 317 (1812); MoDonough u Phelps, 15 How. Pr. 372(1856); Freeman u Win- chester, 18 Miss. 577 (1848); Hartford, etc. E. R. V. Kennedy, 12 Conn. 499 (1838); Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 (1850); Connecticut, etc. E. E. v. Bailey, 34 Vt. 465 (1858); Rutland, etc. E. R. w Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863); New Hamp- shire, etc. R. R. V. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390 (1855); White Mountains R. R v. Eastman, 84 N. H. 124, 147 (1856); Pisca- taqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 (1859); Hightower v. Thornton, 8 6a. 486, 502 (1850); Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870); Beene v. Cahawba, etc. R. R, 3 Ala. (N. S.) 660 (1843) ; Selma, etc. R R v. Tipton, 5 Ala. (N. S.) 787 (1843): Gratz v. Redd, 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 178 (1843); Boston, etc. R R u Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873). [Com- pare with this case Worcester Turnp. Corp. V. Willard, 5 Mass. 80 (1809); An- dover. etc. Co. v. Gould, 6 Mass. 40 (1809); New Bedford, etc. Corp. v. Adams, 8 Mass. 138 (1811); City Hotel v. Dickin- son, 72 Mass. 586 (1856); Mechanics', etc. Co. V. Hall, 121 Mass. 272 (1876).] Mex- ican Gulf Ry. V. Viavant, 6 Rob. (La.) 305 (1843); New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Briggs, 27 La. Ann. 318 (1875); Green- ville, etc. R R. V. Cathcart, 4 Rich. L (S. C.) 89 (1850); Klein v. Alton, etc. R R, 13 111. 514(1851); Peoria, etc. E. R v. Elting, 17 111. 489 (1856); Kirksey v. Florida, etc. Co., 7 Fla. 23 (1857); Tar Eiver Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. C), 520 (1825); Stokes v. Lebanon, etc. Ca, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241 (1845); South Bay, etc. Co. V. Gray, 30 Me. 547 (1849); Frank- lin Glass Co. V. Alexander, 2 N, H 380 (1821); s. C, 9 Am. Dec. 92, and note, pp. 96-104. Even though by the statutes under which an English corporation is- organized the company has a lien on the stock for unpaid assessments and may forfeit the stock for non-payment, yet this does not prevent a suit to col- lect the assessment. Nashua, etc. Bank 390 CH. VIII.J FOEFEITTJEE OF STOCK. [§§ 135, 126. It is to be borne in mind, however, that in the New England states the right to forfeit stock for non-payment of assessments does not imply a right in the corporation to sue for such assessments. The latter right does not exist at all unless it is given by statute or by the express promise of the subscriber.^ But where both remedies €xist, the corporation has its election which remedy to pursue.^ An assessment levied by stockholders upon themselves in a na- tional bank in accordance with the order of the comptroller cannot be collected by suit, inasmuch as a remedy is given by the act of congress, such remedy being a sale of the stock itself.' §§ 125, 126. Forfeiture relieves the stockholder whose shares are forfeited from liability to the corporation. — Although a corporation having the right to declare a forfeiture of shares for non-payment of calls may generallj'^, at its option, either forfeit the stock or bring an action to collect the amount due, it does not follow that it can forfeit the stock and then bring an action for the unpaid calls, or any part thereof that may remain unsatisfied by the for- feiture. The corporation, when a stockholder is in default, may pursue either the one remedy or the other, in its discretion; but it cannot forfeit the stock and afterwards sue at law. The first rem- edy, when exercised, excludes the second.* In order, however, to V. Anglo-American, etc. Co., 189 U. S. .281 (1903J. A subscriber for stock ■cannot avoid liability to the corporation by setting up that the corporation has a lien on the stock therefor and may ■enforce it. Lankershim, etc. Co. v. Her- berger, 83 Cal. 600 (1890). The corpora- tion may sue for the whole subscription .and need not sue merely for the de- ficiency that would result from selling the stock. International, etc. Assoc, v. Walker, 83 Mich. 386 (1890). For a learned discussion of the general ques- tion how far the jurisdiction of a court ■of equity may be affected by statutes conferring similar jurisdiction upon the ■courts of law, — an inquiry germane to the matter of the present section, — see note to Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88 (1851), in 55 Am. Dec. 74, 77. • See § 74, supra. 2 See §§125, 126, infra. 3 Hulitt V. Bell, 85 Fed. Rep. 89 (1898). * Small V. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 N. Y. 330 (1849), reversing Herkimer Mfg. Co. -V. Small, 21 Wend. 373 (1839); s. C, 2 Hill, 127 (1841); Northern R. R v. Mil- ler, 10 Barb. 360, 371 (1851); Ogdens- burgh, etc. R. R. v. Fi'ost, 21 Barb. 541 (1856); Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 38k (1869); Maoauly v. Robinson, 18 La. Ana 619 (1866): Allen v. Montgomery R. R. 11 Ala. 437 (1847); Athol, etc. R. R. t Prescott, 1 10 Mass. 213 (1873) ; Mechanics, etc. Co. V. Hall, 121 Mass. 272 (1876> With these later Massachusetts cases compare Andover, etc. Co. v. Gould, 6 Mass. 40 (1809); Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14 Mass. 286 (1817); Rutland, etc. R. R V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863); Macon, etc. R. R V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876); Ashton ii. Burbank, 2 Dill. 435 (1873); S. C, 2 Fed. Cas. 36. A mere by-law cannot give to the corporation power to collect by suit from the stockholder after a forfeiture of the stock for non- payment has been made. Mandell v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 111. 177 (18S5). Where stock in a national bank is sold on ac- count of a stockholder failing to pay the assessment levied upon it under • section 5305 of the United States Ee- 391 § 126.] FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. VIII. bar the remedy of an action on the contract, the forfeiture must be complete and actual. Consequently, a mere threat that a for- feiture will be made if the call be not paid on or before a day named, or an unsuccessful attempt to sell the stock, will not be sufficient to bar the action.' So long as the stockholder's right to the shares and to the immunities and emoluments attached thereto remains, his obligation to pay is not extinguished.^ Under the California statute which renders stockholders personally liable for an_ assess- ment on their stock after the stock has been advertised for sale, the stockholders are not liable before such stock has been adver- tised for sale.' There is, however,- a line of cases in which a contrary rule is sus- tained. In these cases it is held that the forfeiture of shares of stock is like the foreclosure of a mortgage ; and that, just as a mortgagee may have judgment against the mortgagor for a deficiency, so may a corporation have its action of assumpsit against a subscriber whose stock, having been forfeited, has failed to sell for enough to pay bis entire indebtedness to the corporation on the subscription.* This rule is held to apply equally to original subscribers or their transferees; and any stockholder is liable, under this rule, for the balance due upon assessments, after deducting the amount realized at the forfeiture sale.^ It has been held that a by-law cannot render vised statutes, the sale is illegal unless ton & H. (Va.) 94 (1855); Mann v. Cur- the stock brings the amount of the as- rie, 3 Barb. 294 (1848). It is sometimes sessment. Merchants' Nat. Bank, etc. v. so provided expressly by statute or by Fouche,' 103 Ga. 851 (1898). the charter of the company. Brocken- 1 See cases cited supra and § 131, brough v. James River, eta Co., 1 Pat- infra. ton & H. (Va.) 94 (1855); Danbury, etc- 2 Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co., 3 E. R. u. Wilson, 23 Conn. 435, 456 (1853)? Bibb (Ky.), 576, 581 (1813). Of. Buffalo, Great Northern Ry. v. Kennedy, 4 Exch. etc. R. R. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336, 347 417 (1849); Mann v. Cooke, 30 Conn. 178- (1856). It has been held, also, that an (1850). But see Athol, eta R. R. w Pres- action to collect a subscription, when cott, 110 Mass. 313 (1873); Kennebec,, prosecuted to judgment, is a bar to the etc. R. R. i>. Kendall, 31 Me. 470 (1850); remedy by forfeiture. Giles v. Hutt, 3 Allen v. Montgomery R. R, 11 Ala. 437 Exch. 18 (1848). (1847); Stokes v. Lebanon, etc. Ca, 6 3 Shively r. Eureka, eta Col, 189 CaL Humph. (Tenn.) 341 (1845); Mills v. 393 (1900); Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 (1869). Or that < Carson v. Arctic Min. Co., 5 Mich, any stockholder whose shares shall 388 (1858); Danbury, etc. R. R. v. Wil- have been forfeited for non-payment of son, 38 Conn. 435 (1858). assessments' shall nevertheless be liable ^Merrimac Min. Co. v. Bagley, 14 to pay to the company all calls owing Mich. 501 (1866). Quoted and approved on such shares at the time of the for- in Thomson's Succession, 48 La. Ann. feitura This seems to be a common 1074 (1894). Cf. Hartford, eta R. R. v. provision in the articles of association Kennedy, 13 Conn. 499(1838); Brocken- of English companies. Creyke's Case, brough V. James River, eta Co., 1 Pat- L. R. 5 Ch. App. 68 (1869); Stooken's- 393 CH, VIII.J FOEFEITDEE OF STOCK. [§§ 127, 128. subscribers liable for any deficiency left on the sale of the stock upon non-payment of calls.' In England the certificate of incorpo- ration may provide that a stockholder whose stock has been for- feited for non-payment of calls shall be liable for calls unpaid before forfeiture.^ The common-law rule in England seems to be the same as in the United States.' §§ 127, 128. The same rule prevails as to corporate creditors. — In the absence of fraud and collusion it is a settled rule that, where a corporation has authority to declare a forfeiture of stock for non- payment of calls, and a forfeiture is regularly declared, such formal declaration puts an end to the liability of the stockholder, and cor- porate creditors cannot subsequently hold such an expelled or re- leased stockholder liable.* This is the rule even though the debt was contracted by the company before the stock was forfeited.* The same principle of law that prevents the corporation from suing on a subscription after the stock has been forfeited prevents the corporate creditors also from doing the same. But, on the other hand, inasmuch as fraud vitiates all acts into which it enters, a forfeiture of stock by collusion between a stockholder and the Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 6 (1867). But in such a case interest is not collectible. Stock- en's Case, L. E. 5 Eq. 6 (1867). It is otherwise in ordinary defaults. Gould V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298 (1877); EikhofiE v. Brown, etc. Co., 68 Ind. 388 (1879). Where forfeited stock is re-issued for cash at par, corporate creditors have no claim against the first subscriber. First, etc. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., 191 111. 128 (1901). 1 Mandel v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 111. 177, 186 (1895). Contra, Elizabeth, etc. Mills V. Dunstan, 121 N. C. 12 (1897). 2 Ladies'.etc. Assoc. Ltd. v. Pulbrook,81 L.T. Rep. 300 (1899) ; aflf'd, [1900] 2 Q.B. 376. 8 Such, also, seems to be the rule in England. King's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. 714 (1867); Knight's Case, L. E. 2 Ch. 321 (1867); Snell's Case, L. R 5 Ch. 32 (1869). By statute in England the right to for- feit and the right to sue may be exer- cised together; and shares may be for- feited for non-payment of calls, whether those calls have been sued for or not. Great Northern Ey. v. Kennedy, 4 Exch. 417 (1849); Inglis v. Great North- ern Ry., 1 Macq. (Sc. App.) 113 (1853). But there is a line of cases in England 393 where, by the terms of the deeds of settlement, only an option is given to sue or to forfeit, and it is then held that the corporation is concluded by its election. Inglis v. Great Northern Ry., supra, where, notwithstanding the forfeiture and cancellation of shares and the issue of new ones, the right to recover in an action for calls was held to remain unimpaired in the company. See also Birmingham, etc. Ey. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 256 (1841); Edinburgh, etc. Ry. V. Hebblewhite, 6 M. & W. 707 (1840); London, etc. Ry. v. Fairclough, 2 Man. & Gr. 674 (1841). 4 Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 884 (1869); Allen V. Montgomery R. E., 11 Ala. 437, 450 (1847); Macauly v. Eobinson, 18 La. Ann. 619 (1866); Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 (1859); Ex parte Beres- ford, 3 Macn. & G. 197 (1850); Kelk's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 107 (1869); Dawes's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 333 (1868); Snell's Case, L. E. 5 Ch. App. 23 (1869). Nor, on the other hand, can the stockholder claim, after the forfeiture, any of the rights of stockholdership. St. Louis, etc. Co. V. Sandoval, etc. Co., 116 111. 170 (1886). 5 Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 (1869). § 129.] FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. VIII. board of directors of the corporation will not release hira from lia- bility to contribute in the event of the insolvency of the company.' In such a case tlie creditors may invoke the interposition of a court of equity to preve&t the consummation of an inchoate forfeiture, or to set aside one already accomplished.^ ' Hence, it is well settled that the power of forfeiture cannot lawfully be exercised for the purpose of enabling members to escape from their liability on their stock, either to the corporation or its creditors.' A stockholder, by mere abandonment of his shares, cannot forfeit them himself, and thus, by his own act, discharge himself from his obligation on the subscription.* §129. Statutory formalities and general metJiod of forfeiture. — The general method of forfeiting stock for non-payment of calls is usually prescribed in detail by the statute authorizing the forfeit- ure. In the earlier cases there may be observed some tendency to 'Slee V. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456 (1822); Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 (1869); Walter's Second Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 344 (1850); Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305 (1858); Spackman's Case, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 307 (1885); Stanhope's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 161 (1866); Stewart's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 511 (1866); Gower's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 77 (1868). ^Germantown, etc. Ry. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 134 (1869). See also Grand Rap- ids Sav. Bank v. Warren, 53 Mich. 557 (1884). The fact that the corporation might have forfeited the stock but in fact did not is no defense as against the corporate creditors. If a transaction between' a shareholder and the direct- ors is irregular, but is alleged to have been acquiesced in, it is incumbent upon the stockholder to support such allegation by showing that the transac- tion was fully made known to the gen- eral body of the stockholders. Spack- man's Case, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 207 (1865). A stockholder* whose stock is for- feited in a building association for non- payment of dues, as authorized by the charter, cannot recover back the money paid by him. Freeman v, Ottawa, etc. Assoc., 114 111. 183 (1885). 3 Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 171 (1868); Stanhope's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 161 (1866); Richmond's Case, 4 Kay & J. 305 (1858); Manisty's Case, 17 Sol. Jour. 745 (1873); Gower's Case, L. R 6 Eq. 77 (1868); Ex parte Jones, 37 L. J. Ch. 666 (1858); Hall's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 707 (1870); Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 (1869). Of. Dixon v. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606 (1873); Belhaven's Case, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 572 (1865); s. C, 13 L. T. (N. S.) 595 (1865); Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 (1858); Garden Gully, etc. Co. V. MoLister, L. R 1 App. Cas. 39 (1875); Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 334 (1869); Chouteau v. Dean, 7 Mo. App. 311 (1879). Of. Bedford R. R. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 (1864). Forfeiture cannot be for the benefit of the stockholder. Common v. McArthur, 29 Canada S. C. Rep. 339 (1898). ^Rockville, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Max- well, 3 Cranch, C. C. 451 (1834); s. C, 30 Fed. Cas. 1079. For sundry illustrations of what will or will not justify a for- feiture, see, particularly, Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324 (1869); Stocken's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 413 (1867); Kelk's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 107 (1869); Thomas's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 437 (1872). It is no defense that defendant supposed he could pay the balance of his subscrip- tion or have a forfeiture of the stock at his option. Ross v. Bank of Gold Hill, 20 Nev. 191 (1888). 394 CH. VIH.] rOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [§ 129. hold that a substantial, in distinction from a strict, compliance with the requirements of the statute is all that is necessary to a valid forfeiture.' But in later cases, English^ and American,^ it is plainly declared, and it may be taken as a settled rule, that the validity of the forfeiture and sale of the stock of a subscriber in arrears depends upon a strict and formal compliance with the re- quirements of the enabling statute.* Thus, a sale of the stock at private sale, when a sale by public auction was prescribed, has been held to invalidate the forfeiture.^ There must be a properly constituted board of directors to declare a ' Catchpole v. Ambergate, etc. Ry., 1 El. & B. Ill (1852); Nolan v. Annabella Gold Min. Co., 6 Wyatt, W. & A'B. (Australian Cts. of Mines), 38 (1869). Of. Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 (1859); Knight's Case, L. R. 3Ch. App. 321 (1867). 2 Clark V. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 (1858); Johnson v. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 46 L. J. (Ch.) 786 (1877). Cf. Knight's Case, K R 3 Ch. App. 821 (1867); Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39 (1875); London, eto. Ry. v. Fair- clough, 3 Man. & G. 674 (1841). In Eng- land a forfeiture may be made after a call, and before the call is due. The call is " owing " from the time when it is made. Faure, eto. Co. v. Phillipart, 58 L. T. Rep. 525 (1888), where the for- feiture was made on two calls, one past due and one not yet due. ' Portland, eto. R. R. v. Graham, 53 Mas.?. 1 (Shaw, C. J., 1846); German town, etc. Ry. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 (1869); Eastern Plank-road v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. 155 (1855); York, eto. R. R. v. Ritchie, 40 Me. 435 (1855); Lewey's Island R. R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860); Downing u Potts, 28 N. J. L. 66 (1851); Re Long Island R R., 19 Wend. 37 (1837); Mitchell v. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 406 (1876); Occidental, etc. Assoc, v. Sullivan, 63 Cal. 394 (1883). Cf. Johnson v. Albany, etc. R R, 40 How. Pr. 193 (1870); Rut- land, etc. R R w Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863); Perrin v. Granger, 30 Vt. 595 (1858). A forfeiture of stock by sale at public auction for failure to pay assess- ments, made before the amount of stock required by statute to be subscribed before the assessment can be levied has been subscribed, may be set aside by a suit in equity, and the statute of limita- tions applicable to suits to set aside for- feitures on the ground of irregularities does not apply. A pledgee of the stock may maintain such a suit. Herbert, etc. Bank v. Bank of Orland,133 Cal. 64 (1901). In forfeiting stock every condi- tion precedent must be strictly and literally complied with. Where an irregular forfeiture is made in 1878, and is discovered by the stockholder in 1885, he need not take active remedies, but may wait and claim a share in the assets upon distribution. Where notice of calls must be published in two cities before forfeiture, publication in one city only is insufficient. Morris v. Met- alline Land Co., 164 Pa. St. 326 (1894). A corporation cannot sell stock for fail- ure to pay calls where the by-laws .do not provide the mode of sale, and where the statute authorizing such sale pre- scribes that it shall be in accordance with the by-laws. Clise Inv. Co. v. Washington Sav. Bank, 18 Wash. 8 (1897). * Garden Gully, eto. Co. v. McLister, L. R 1 App. Cas. 39 (1875); German- town, etc. Ry. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. ' St. 134 (1869), 71 Pac. Rep. 865. 5 Lewey's Island R. R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860). As to what is, in gen- eral, sufficient to satisfy the require- ments of the rule that powers of for- feiture are to be construed strictly and 295 § 129.] FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. VIII. forfeiture of stock.^ It is held, in general, that, in the absence of statutory provisions as to order or details, the mode of forfeiture must be reasonable and just.^ The forfeiture may be regularly effected by a resolution of the board of directors, ordering a sale of all stock on which assessments shall remain unpaid at a day named in the future.' exercised or pursued strictly, see Giles V. Hutt, 3 Exch. 18 (1848); Catchpole v. Ambergate, etc. Ry., 1 El. & B. Ill (1852); Birmingham, etc. Ry. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 256 (18411; Graham v. Van Die- men's Land Co., 1 Hurl. & N. 541 (1856); Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324 (1869); Stooken's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 413 (1867); Kelk's Case, L. R. 9Eq. 107 (1869): Thomas's Case, L. R. 18 Bq. 437 (1872); Gower's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. 77 (1868). It has, however, been held in an English case — Knight's Case, L, R. 2 Ch. App. 321 (1867) — that, when it is a matter of mei-e form rather than of substance that has not been strictly followed in proceedings to forfeit shares, the for- feiture will not necessairily be thereby invalidated. ' Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39, 55 (1875). A stock- holder may enjoin a forfeiture on the ground that the directors were illegally elected. Moses v. Tompkins, 84 Ala. 613 (1888). A stockholder cannot enjoin the sale of his stock for non-payment of an assessment on the ground that an amendment to the charter increasing the number from seven to nine had not been filed with the secretary of state, as required by statute, it being shown that at corporate meetings he had voted for nine directors and had ac- cepted certificates of stock signed by the president and secretary elected by nine directors. Jackson v. Crown Point, etc. Co., 21 Utah, 1 (1899). In a suit brought by a stockholder to set aside a sale of the stock for non-payment of an assessment, the court may investigate the legality of the title of the directors to their ofiioe, and if they have not taken an oath as i-equired by statute the assessment made by them is illegal. Schwab V. Frisco, etc. Co., 31 Utah, 358 (1900). ^ Rutland, etc. R. R w Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1868); Mitchell v. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 67 N. Y. 280 (1876). 3 Rutland, etc. R. R v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863). See also Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 (1859). Under such a resolution a sale of the stock is not nec- essary to complete the forfeiture, where the effect of the forfeiture is to release the stockholder from any future lia- bility, and where he is not entitled to the surplus, if any there be, after sale. Rutland, etc. R. R. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863). It is, however, said elsewhere that a general resolution, not specify- ing the stock which is forfeited, but merely assuming to forfeit any and all stock whose owners are in arrears, does not effect a valid forfeiture. Johnson V. Albany, etc. R R, 40 How. Pr. 193 (1870). When, after default made in the payment of assessments, notice is given by the corporation that the shares of owners in arrears will be for- feited unless full payment of what is due be made by a day named, there is a presumption that the subsequent pro- ceedings of the company looking to perfecting the forfeiture are valid and regular. Knight's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 321 (1867), holding that where, by the articles of association, provision is made for forfeiture by resolution with notice upon default, the court will as- sume that the requisite steps have been taken to make a valid forfeiture, even though it does not appear that such resolution was passed or that notice was sent. The notice is a notice that the forfeiture has already been de- OH. VIII.] FOEFBITUBE OF STOCK. [§ 129. After forfeiting the stock the company cannot disregard the for- feiture and hold the stockholder liable as a stockholder on the ground that its proceedings were irregular.^ It is a well-estab- lished rule, also, that a forfeiture of shares, where the forfeiture was irregular or defective in its form, is not void, but voidable, and that, by subsequent knowledge and acquiescence, the stockholder and the company are alike estopped to deny its validity.^ Under clared, not that it will be made on further default. That notice is a con- dition precedent. ' Patterson v. Brown, etc. Co., 3 Colo. App. 511 (1893). In Austin's Case, 24 L. T. (N. S.) 933 <1871), it is said that a corporation, after forfeiting shares, cannot set the forfeiture aside, and hold the owner liable as a subscriber, on the ground that the notice given him was irregu- lar. It is for the subscriber alone to raise that objection to the validity of the forfeiture: also 88 L. T. Rep. 56. 2 King's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 714, 731 <1867;; Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437(1859); Webster's Case, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 135 (1863); Knight's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 331 (1867); Kelk's Case, L. R 9 Eq. 107 (1869); Austin's Case, 24 L. T. (N. S.) 833 (1871); Prendergast v. Turton, 1 Y. & C. (Ch.) 98 (1841). Cf. Lyster"s Case, L. R. 4Eq, 238 (1867); Teasdale's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 54 (1873); Phosphate, «tc. Co. V. Green, L. R. 7 C. P. 43 (1871). Here the company had power to forfeit shares for non-payment and to compro- mise debts, but were prohibited from purchasing their own shares. The trans- action in issue was held to be such a purchase, and hence ultra vires, but the members were estopped by knowledge and acquiescence. In this case it was also said that, to show assent and ac- quiescence in such a case, it is not neces- sary or possible to prove the acquies- cence of each individual stockholder. It is enough to show circumstances which are reasonably calculated to satisfy the court or a jury that the thing to be ratified came to the knowledge of all who chose to inquire, all having full opportunity and means of inquiry. Houldsworth v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 263 (1868); Spackman v. Evans, L. R, 3 H. L. 171 (1868). Here the terms of the with- drawal were not in accoi-dance with the deed of settlement, and it was held after years that the party was still liable as a contributor. In Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R 3 H. L. 349 (1868), a member withdrawing under a like arrangement was held not liable on the double ground of lapse of time and a clear presumption of knowledge and acquiescence. In Houldsworth v. Evans, L. R 3 H. L. 263 (1868), an irregularity in the condition of withdrawal was held substantial and the transaction ultra vires. (One lord dissented, on the ground that years of acquiescence retrospect- ively sanctioned it.) In Brotherhood's Case, 31 Beav. 365 (1863), dissentient members were allowed to wjthdraw, by resolution, upon terms which were cer- tainly wZira vires. The master of the rolls said that the transaction might have been set aside at the time; but all parties having had full knowledge, and having acquiesced for more than twelve years, the court would not, after such a lapse of time, touch the transaction. In Les- seps V. Architects' Co., 4 La. Ann. 316 (1849), the court regarded a general ac- quiescence in a by-law for a forfeiture, itself ultra vires, as a matter of con- tract, and refused equitable relief. Cf. Lindley on Companies, p. 533, where the author says: "If there i^ power to forfeit, and the shares intended to be forfeited are treated by the company and the shareholders as forfeited, the company will be precluded from after- wards insisting that no forfeiture ever 297 § 130.] FOKFEITUEE OF STOCK. [oh. VIII.. the California code a corporation may by suit foreclose a lien which it has on its stock.^ § 130. Notice in cases of forfeiture. — A notice to the delinquent subscriber that his shares will be forfeited at a day named is gen- erally requisite to effect a forfeiture. The subscriber is entitled to full knowledge of the fact that, unless he pays up within a specified time, he will lose his stock. The requirements of the statute or charter, with respect to the contents of the notice, and the length of time which is to elapse between the notice and the forfeiture, must all be strictly complied with.^ It is accordingly held that the notice must state correctly the amount due for non-payment of which the stock is to be forfeited.' The time, also, within which payment is to be made must be accurately stated,^ and also the place took place." Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39, 55 (1875), holding that mere laches does not, of itself, disentitle the holder of shares to equitable relief against an invalid dec- laration of forfeiture. 72 Pac. Rep. 541. 1 Mechanics', etc. Assoc v. King, 83 CaL 440 (1890). Where the statute au- thorizes a suit after publication of the intent to forfeit by sale, such suit can- not be brought before such publication. San Bernardino Inv. Co. v. Merrill, 108 CaL 490 (1895). A sale by a corporation of all its property does not entitle the vendee to stock in the corporation •which the corporation itself has pur- chased on a sale for a delinquent assess- ment and not re-issued. Tulare, etc. Dist. V. Kaweah, etc. Co., 44 Pac. Rep. 662 (Cal. 1896). - Heaston v. Cincinnati; etc. R. R., 16 Ind. 875 (1861); Lewey's Island R R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860); Rutland, etc. R. R V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536, 546 (1863); Lake Ontario, etc. R. R v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (1857); Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239 (1863): Mississippi, etc. R R V. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455 (1859); Hughes v. Antietam, etc. Co., 84 Md. 317 (1870); Johnson u Lyttle's Iron Agency, 46 L. J. (Ch.) 786 (1877); Cockerell v. Van Die- men's Land Co., 26 L. J. (C. P.) 203 (1857); Watson V. Eales, 23 Beav, 294 (1856). Cf. Eppes V. Mississippi, etc. R R, 35 Ala. 33 (1859); Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 (1854); Hartem Canal Co. v. Seixas, 3 Hall (N. Y), 504 (1829): Mitchell v. Vermont Min. Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 406 (1876); New Albany, etc. R R «. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499 (1858). Cf. Lexington, etc. R R u. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311 (1847), where' notice, provided for by a by-law, was held not a condition precedent, but only directory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. Knight's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 321 (1867), is sometimes wrongly cited, for the reason that there are two notices provided for: (1) notice that forfeiture will be made on default at future time, and (2) notice after for- feiture that it has been made. The former is essential, the latter not 3 So where the notice stated that un- less the amount of a certain call, to- gether with lawful interest from the date of the call, was paid on or before a certain day, the shares would be liable to forfeiture, it was held that, as inter- est was only payable from the day fixed for payment, and not from the date of the call, the notice was irregular, and that a forfeiture founded on a non- compliance with such a notice was bad. Johnson v. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 46 L J. (Ch.) 786 (1877X * A notice that the stock will be for- feited "on Monday, the 9th," when in point of fact the 9th comes on Friday, is not a sufficient notice. Watson v. Eales, 33 Beav. 394 (1856). 298 OH. VIII.J FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [§ 131. where the sale is to be made.' The mode of giving notice of a con- templated forfeiture of stock is generally specified in the statute authorizing the forfeiture.^ In England it is held that after a stock- holder is dead and the company has knowledge of that fact, notice of an assessment on his stock cannot be served so as to bind his estate; neither can a notice threatening forfeiture of his stock for non-payment. Neither can the notice be served upon the execu- tors.^ § 131. Notice is not the same thing as forfeiture. — A notice of a probable or certain forfeiture in the future, or a threat of forfeiture, is not forfeiture, and does not become forfeiture merely by non- payment of the call or assessment within the time specified in the notice.* A forfeiture is void if declared for the non-payment of 1 Accordingly, a notice in all other respects regular, which does not state the place of sale, is insufficient, al- though it names the day of sale, and the auctioneer, who was and had long been an auctioneer in the place at which the notice was dated. Lexington, etc. R R V. Staples, 71 Mass. 520 (1855). In the absence of a statutory provision as to time, it is said that three days' notice of the time and place of the sale of shares for non-payment of assessments is too short and unreasonable, whei'e the owner of the shares lives at a dis- tance in another state. Lexington, etc. R R u Staples, 71 Mass. 520 (1855). In Eutland, etc. R R w Thrall, 33 Vt 536 (1863), a thirty days' notice is said to be suflBcient and reasonable. And where the charter provided that notice of an assessment should be given to the sub- scriber thirty days before the order of the directors to sell the shares, a notice thirty days before the sale was held in- sufficient Lewey's Island R R u. Bol- ton, 48 Ma 451 (1860); Louisville, eta Co. V. Meriwether, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13 (1844). A printed notice in designated newspapers, published in cities where the subscribers reside, is good notice of a call. Louisville, etc. Tump. Co. v. Meriwether, 5 B. Mon. 13 (1844). - In Mississippi, eta R R. v. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455 (1859), it is said that the mode of giving a notice in these cases is di- rectory rather than mandatory, and 299 that where the charter provided that notice be given in certain news- papers, a personal notice would be suf- ficient. See also Knight's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 321 (1867). So where a by-law provided for notice by letter, it was held that personal notice sufficed. Lex- ington, etc. R R u. Chandler, 54 Mass. 811 (1847). But see Lewey's Island R R V. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860). In gen- eral, as to the effect of a notice left at one's residence or place of business, but which never reaches the person for whom it is intended, see Cookerell v. Van Diemen's Land Ca, 26 L. J. (C. P.) 203 (1857); & c. aff'd, sub nom. Van Die- men's Land Co. v. Cockerell, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 732. Cf. Birmingham, eta Ry. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 236 (18411; Graham v. Van Diemen's Land ( o,, 1 Hurl. & N. 541 (1856). See also South Stafford- shire Ey, V. Burnside, 5 Exch. 129 (1850), and § 119, supra. 3 Allen V. Gold Reefs, eta, [1899] 2 Ch. 40. * Macon, etc. R. R v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 (1876); Bigg's Case, L. R 1 Eq. 309 (1865); Cockerell v. Van Diemen's Land (3o., 26 L. J. (C. P.) 203 (1837); Water Valley Mfg. Co. V. Seaman, 53 Miss. 655 (1876), where only a threat was made. Cf. g 125, supra. But see Knight's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 321 (1867). In Knighfs Case it was further provided that the declaration of forfeiture should be at once entered in the register. Jkitry §§ 132, 133.] FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. Till. assessments, when all or any one of the assessments were illegal ■or unauthorized.' § 132; Tender, ly stockholder, hefore forfeiture. — Where the amount due on a subscription for non-payment of which a forfeit- ure is about to take place is tendered to the proper officer of the corporation at any time before the sale actually takes place,^ the forfeiture is not valid. This rule is just, since, while protect- ing the corporation and the public, it relieves the stockholder from the hardship of a harsh and sumtaary remedy. § 133. Surplus, after valid forfeiture, ielongs to the corpora- tion — Purchase iy the corporation — Liability of the purcliaser of forfeited stock. — Upon a sale of the stock forfeited, if the amount realized is more than the debt due the corporation, the surplus be- longs to the corporation.' The purchaser at the forfeiture sale, if was duly made of the date of the for- feiture, but not of the declaration itself. All essentials being regular, and there being no strict requirement of a writ- ten resolution, the court held the for- feiture valid because the entry of for- feiture could not have been properly made without a resolution of the direct- ors, which would hence be assumed. Cf. Birmingham, etc. Ry. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 356 (1841). A mere declaration of forfeiture is not sufficient to effect it, and is no bar to an action on the sub- scription. Minnehaha, etc. Assoc, v. Legg, 50 Minn. 833 (1892). A resolution of forfeiture does not constitute forfeit- ure, and is no bar to an action. Hays V. Franklin, etc. Co., 35 Neb. 511 (1893). In Walker v. Ogden, 1 Biss. 287 (1859); S. C, 29 Fed. Gas. 41, where the articles of a private joint-stock company pro- vided for a forfeiture, but in no express mode, and a forfeiture was declared of certain shares which thereafter re- mained undistributed. No rights of third parties were vested in conse- quence; and the court of equity, never favoring forfeitures, decreed that upon payment of the whole amount due, principal and interest, the complainant should be allowed to redeem his stock. The court did not rule, but was 'f in. clined to the opinion," that " the mere declaration of the trustees " could not " have the effect to foreclose all Walk- er's interest," and " that a judicial de- cree of foreclosure upon a bill filed by the trustee was necessary in order to bar his right to redeem his stock." 1 Stoneham Branch R. R. v. Gould, 68 Mass. 277 (1854); Lewey's Island R. R. V. Bolton, 48 Ma 451 (1860). 2 Mitchell V. Vermont Copper Min. Co., 67 N. Y. 380 (1876); Sweny v. Smith, L. E. 7 Eq. 824 (1869). In Sweny V. Smith a bill was filed to annul the forfeiture, which was made because the tender (although in time and place) was accompanied by a protest. Held, the protest did not vitiate the tender. 8 Small V. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 3 N. Y. 830 ( 1849); Great Northern Ry. v. Ken- nedy, 4 Exch. 417, 426 (1849), by Rolfe, B. (ruling oh the language of a special act): "It is clear that the declaration of forfeiture is in the nature of a mort- gage. The company are not to sell more of the shares than will be suffi- cient, as nearly as can be ascertained, to pay the arrears of calls, together with interest and expenses; and if there be any surplus, it is to be paid to the defaulter, who has a right to re- deem at the last moment before sale. That shows that the forfeited shares are a security only until payment." Gf. Freeman v. Harwood, 49 Me. 195, 198 (1859), dictum. In Tennessee it is held that where stock is only partly paid and the corporation issues a certificate 300 CH. VIII.] rOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [§ 134. the stock has been only partially paid for, must pay the instal- ments due and to come due, and if he fail to make these payments the stock must be sold again.i It seems, however, that if the cor- poration purchases the stock itself, it may resell the stock at any price it pleases; ^ but in England it has been held that shares which have been forfeited after being partially paid for can be reissued only at a price equal to the unpaid subscription price or a sum in excess thereof.' And even though the purchaser of forfeited stock may not be liable for unpaid calls, yet under the charter he may be un- able to vote such stock unless he pays such unpad calls.'' Even though the charter of an irrigation company provides that no one shall hold stock except an owner of land to the amount of one acre for each share of stock held by him, yet where the stock is sold for non-payment of assessments the purchaser at such sale is en- titled to a transfer on the corporate books although he owns no land. The purchaser may file a bill in equity to determine his- rights.^ Where, by statute, bank stock may be sold for non-pay- ment of assessments, levied upon it to restore the capital stock, the price at which it is sold belongs to the stockholder and not to the bank.* § 134. Equity will relieve a stockliolder from an unatitJiorized forfeiture — Action at law for damages. — The stockholder him- self, as well as a corporate creditor, may, in a proper case, invoke the aid of a court of chancery when his stock has been forfeited in an unauthorized or unlawful manner. Usually, in such a case,, the stockholder may, by bill in equity, obtain a decree annulling the forfeiture.' Where an illegal assessment has been made, and reciting on its face how much is still New Balkie, 'etc. Lim., 85 L. T. Rep- due, and the holder pledges it, and no 780 (1902); aflf'd, 88 id. 189. transfer to the pledgee is made on the ^ gge § 46, supra. corporate books, the corporation can ' Morrison v. Trustees, etc., 79 L. T. have a sale of the stock for non-pay- Rep. 605 (1898). ment of the balance remaining due, * Randt, etc. Co. u. Wainwright, [1901] but such proportion of the proceeds 1 Ch. 184. will be paid to the pledgee as the * The court found it unnecessary to amount already paid on the stock bears pass on the question as to whether such to the par value of the stock. Ingles, a restriction as to the stock is legal, etc. Co. V. Knoxville, etc. Co., 53 S. W. Spurgeon v. Santa Ana, etc. Co., ISO- Rep. 1111 (Tenn. 1899). Cal. 71 (1898). 1 Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 346, 251 ^ Chicago T. & T. Co. v. State Bank,. (1858); S. C, 33 Fed. Cas. 311. Where 86 Fed. Rep. 863 (1898): 131 id. 58. stock is forfeited and sold at a price ' Sweny v. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 834- which does not give the company the (1869); Mitchell u Vermont Copper Min. full par value of the subscription price Co., 67 N. Y. 380 (1876); Adley v. Whit- of the stock, the purchaser is liable stable Co., 17 Ves. 315 (1810, by Lord for the unpaid part. Randt, etc. Co. v. Eldon) ; Sloman v. Bank of England, 14 301 § 134-.] FOEFEITUEE OF STOCK. [CH. VIII. the stock is about to be sold, a stockholder may enjoin the sale and cause the assessment to be set aside.' Where the directors of a cor- poration have misappropriated the funds of the company, created fraudulent debts, levied assessments upon the stock, caused the stock to be forfeited for non-payment, and judgment to be entered on said debts and the property to be sold out, a stockholder may file a bill to set aside all the transactions and to compel the directors to account and to wind up the company.^ Where the corporation refuses to allow a stockholder to examine the books in order that he might ascerlfein whether he wished to continue to make pay- ments on his stock, a forfeiture by the corporation for refusal to make such payments will be set aside, and such a forfeiture, even before it is set aside, is not a bar to the stockholder's suit to restrain illegal acts on the part of the corporation.^ But where a person's stock has been sold for failure to pay an assessment, he cannot maintain a suit in behalf of the corporation against the directors for misconduct, even thought such misconduct caused the assess- ment to be levied.* An assessment upon stock levied by a board of directors illegally elected, and a sale of the stock thereunder, does not put an end to the stockholder's suit to oust such board of ■directors and to set aside such assessment and to set aside contracts made by such board. The complaint is not multifarious.^ A stock- holder may obtain an injunction against the forfeiture where the Sim. 475 (1845); Norman v. Mitchell, 5 not be set aside if the organization De G., M. & G. 648 (1854). Thus, a for- meeting of the company was illegal, feiture of shares for non-payment of having been held out of the state, inas- calls, declared at a meeting held out of much as the corporation does not le- the state in which the company was gaily exist. Smith «. Silver Valley Min. incorporated, the meeting being in con- Co., 64 Md. 85 (1885). sequence an unlawful meeting, may i Green v. Abietine Medical Co., 96 be set aside upon a proper application Cal. 332 (1893). Injunction lies against to a court of chancery at any time the sale of stock by a corporation for within the period prescribed by the non-payment of assessments which statute of limitations for bringing an were levied on the stock after the full action for conversion. Ormsby v. Ver- par value thereon had been paid in, mont Copper Min. Co., 56 N. Y. 623 where such assessments were so levied (1874). An injunction will not be by virtue of a statute which is -unoon- granted to restrain the sale of stock stitutional. Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Mof- for non-payment of assessments, though fitt, 58 Neb. 643 (1899). notice thereof was illegal, where the 2 Jellenik v. Huron, etc. Ca, 177 U. S. plaintiff does not offer to pay the calls. 1 (1899). Burham v. San Francisco, etc. Co., 76 ^Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assoc, 164 Cal. 26 (1888). See also Burham v. San N. Y. 557 (1900), rev'g 18 App. Div. 548. Francisco, etc. Co., 76 Cal. 24 (1888). * Hanna v. People's Nat. Bank, 76 N. Forfeiture may be enjoined. Moore v. Y. App. 334 (1903). New Jersey Lighterage Co., 5 N. Y. 6 whitehead v. Sweet, 136 Cal. 67 «upp. 193 (1889). The forfeiture will (1899). Cf. 93 N. W. Rep. 9. 303 CH. VIII.] FOEFEITITRE OF STOCK. [§ 134. books of the company are in confusion and the stockholder makes out a prima facie case that the company owes him more than the amount due on his subscription.' So, also, equity will sometimes set aside a forfeiture where a for- feiture was declared for non-payment of calls, which, it was shown, were not paid because the stockholder had died, and no adminis- trator had been appointed before the time for payment had fully elapsed.^ A corporation cannot single out the stock of one stock- holder and proceed to sell it for non-payment of assessments, where other stockholders are also in arrears.^ But it seems that the weight of authority is to the efiPect that a forfeiture of stock, lawful and reg- ular, for non-payment of assessments, is one of those forfeitures from which equity will not afford relief except in very exceptional cases.* When the stockholder has lost his shares by an irregular or unlawful forfeiture, his suit should be for the recovery of his stock, and not for an undivided interest in the property of the com- pany.' The suit to set aside the forfeiture must be brought in the state where the corporation is incorporated.* Acquiescence or delay, as we have seen, on the part of the stockholder, will usually bar his right in a court of equity to have the forfeiture set aside.'' 1 Schuetz V. German, etc. Co., 31 N. Y. App. Div. 163 (1897). ^ Glass V. Hope, 16 Grant (Up. Can. Ch.), 420 (1869). Cf. Walker v. Ogden, 1 Biss. 287 (1859); s. c, S9 Fed. Gas. 41. 3 Hardee v. Sunset Oil Co., 56 Fed. Eep. 51 (1893). ^Sparks v. Liverpool Water- works, 13 Ves. 438 (1807); Prendergast v. Tur- ton, 1 y. & C. (Ch.) 98 (1841); German- town, etc. By. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 (1869); Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 456 (1882). Equity will not relieve where, on the reorganization of a company, old stockholders fail to exercise their op- tions for securing new shares before the expiration of a fixed time limit. Va ta- ble V. New York, etc. R. R., 96 N. Y. 49, 57 (1884). Equity will not relieve from such forfeiture, because to do so would, it is said, be in contravention of the di- rect expression of the legislative will. Small V. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 3 N. Y. 330, 340 (1849). Neither can a stockholder liave a forfeiture set aside merely be- cause the calls which he refused to pay were for the purpose of paying debts which the company would not have owed but for the previous misappropria- tion of the corporate funds by the trustees. Marshall v. Golden Fleece, etc. Co., 16 Nev. 156, 179 (1881); Weeks V. Silver Islet, etc. Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1 (1887); Taylor v. North Star, etc. Co., 79 Cal. 385 (1889). s Smith V. Maine Boys Tunnel Co., 18 Cal. Ill (1861). 6 North State, etc. Co. v. Field, 64 Md. 151 (1885) ; Sudlow v. Dutch Khenish Ey., 21 Beav. 43 (1855). See Wilkins iJ.Thorne, 60 Md. 253 (1883). The courts of Mary- land will not issue a mandamus to com- pel a foreign corporation to annul a forfeiture of stock. This is a matter to be litigated in the courts of the state creating the corporation. North State, etc. Co. V. Field, 64 Md. 151 (1885). ' See § 139, supra. Even though a forfeiture of stock under the statute is irregularly and illegally made, yet, if for three years, the stockholder ac- quiesces therein with knowledge, he cannot, after the stock has become val- uable, have the sale set aside. Kaht v. 303 § 134.] rOEFEITUKE OF STOCK, [CH. Till. If the forfeiture is irregular the party deprived of his stock may collect damages.' Sevier Mining, etc. Co., 18 Utah, 290 (1898). A forfeiture of stock by sale at public auction for failure to pay assess- ments, made before the amount of stock required by statute to be subscribed be- fore the assessment can be levied has been subscribed, may be set aside by a suit in equity, and the statute of limita- tions applicable to suits to set aside for- feitures on the ground of irregularities does not apply, A pledgee of the stock may maintain such a suit. Herbert, etc. Bank v. Bank of Orland, 133 Cal. 64 (1901). Where a suit to set aside a for- feiture of stock by the corporation, on the ground of fraud, is compromised, the same stockholder cannot, eight years thereafter, file another suit to set aside the assessment on the ground of frauds unknown to him when the first suit was compromised. Marks v. Evans, 63 Pao. Eep. 76 (CaL 1900). A stock- holder who has paid assessments with- out objection cannot attack a forfeiture of the stock by the corporation for non-payment of subsequent similar as- sessments on the ground that the as- sessments were illegal. Boll v. Camp, 93 N. W. Rep. 703 (Iowa, 1903). 1 Re New Chile, etc. Co., L. R. 45 Ch. D. 598 (1890). A corporation is liable in damages for selling the stock of a stock- holder for non-payment of dues where such sale was irregular and illegal, being contrary to the requirements of the by- laws, even though the corporation buys the stock itself at such sale. The fact that a surplus realized at the sale is sent to the stockholder by check and is received by him does not bar his rem- edy, he being in ignorance of the ille- gality. Allen V. American Building, etc. Assoc, 49 Minn. 544 (1892). 304 CHAPTER IX. DEFENSE OF PAROL AGREEMENTS AND FRAUDULENT REPRESENTA- ' TIONS INDUCING SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR STOCK. § 135. The subject 136. Definitions. 137, 138. Oral agreements and exec- utory contracts. 139, 140. Corporations are charge- able with the fraudulent repre- sentations of their agents. 141. The misrepresentations must be by the authorized agents. 143. Misrepresentations at public meetings. 148. Misrepresentations by prospect- uses. 144. Misrepresentations by reports. 145. Whatmisrepresentationsamount to a fraud. 146. Immaterial misrepresentations. 147. Statements as to questions of law. 148. Misrepresentations by suppres- sion of the trutli. §149. 150. 151. Misrepresentations without knowledge of their falsity. Subscribers not bound to investi- gate. Subscription not void, but void- able. 158. Remedies. 153. Remedy by rescission without legal proceedings. 154. Remedy by defense to action for calls. 155. 156. Remedy by bill in equity. 157, 158. Remedy by action at law for deceit. 159. Remedy by action for money had and received. 160. Ratification as a bar. 161. 163. Laches as a bar. 163, 164. Corporate insolvency as a bar. 165. Necessary allegations, etc. § 135. The subject. — Parol agreements and fraudulent represen- tations inducing subscriptions to stock have been a prolific source of litigation both in this country and in England. As a defense to actions brought for the collection of subscriptions, and as the basis of suits in equity to set aside subscriptions and compel a repay- ment of money already paid on such subscriptions, the agreements and representations made to induce persons to subscribe for stock have given, rise to intricate principles of law peculiar to this sub- ject. § 136. Definitions. — A parol agreement includes all representa- tions and stipulations made before or at the time of subscribing, but not included in the written subscription, whereby the corpora- tion is to do something or refrain from doing something in the future. A fraudulent representation, on the other hand, is a state- ment as to past acts or existing facts, or the omission of such a statement, which amounts to a fraud on one who, relying thereon, subscribes to the stock of the company. Difficulty sometimes arises in determining whether a statement by a corporate agent inducing a subscription is merely a parol agreement or is a fraudulent rep- resentation. This question is one which must be decided first of (30) • 305 § 137.] [CH. IX. all ; since the rules of law applicable to parol agreements, as a de- fense to an action on a subscription, differ greatly from those appli- cable to fraudulent representations. § 137. Oral agreements and executory contracts. — Where a sub- scription contract is absolute on its face, it is well settled, both in equity and at law, that parol evidence of previous or contemporane- ous negotiations, stipulations, terms, or agreements is not admissible to vary, or add to the contract, except for the purpose of proving that the parties, at the time of consummating the agreement, in- tended and understood that such terms and stipulations would be incorporated in the contract, but omitted the same by accident, fraud or mistake.^ This rule, forbidding the introduction of parol iPisoataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 (1859); Kennebec, etc. R. R. «. Waters, 34 Me. 360 (1853); Tabor, etc. Ry. V. McCormiok, 90 Iowa, 446 (1894); Nebraska, etc. Assoc, v. Townley, 46 Neb. 893 (1896); Cincinnati, etc. R. R. v. Pearce, 28 Ind. 502 (1867): Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 132 (1876); Dill V. Wabash Valley R. R., 21 111. 91 (1859); East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567 (1858) Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 503 (1878) Jack V. Naber, 15 Iowa, 450 (1863) Thornburgh v. Newcastle, etc. E. R., 14 Ind. 499 (1860); Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa, 387 (1863), holding that it is im- material that the agent acted in good faith; Johnson v. Penaacola, etc. R. R., 9 Fla. 299 (1860); Mississippi, etc. R. E. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 (1859); Ridgefield, etc. R. R. V. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 (1875); Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 6 Hun, 293 (1875); afl'd, 67 N. Y. 294; White Hall, etc. R. R. ■;;. Myers, 16 Abb Pr. (N. S.) 34 (1872). But see Brewers' F. Ins. Co. V. Burger, 10 Hun, 56 (1877), holding that where the original sub- scription contract is verbal and com- plete, and a part only of it is afterwards reduced to writing, it is competent to prove the whole agreement. Cf. Eigh- mie V. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 (1885); Emmettu Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 564(1896). Parol agreements with the agent who procured the subscription are not ad- missible. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Conway, 177 Pa. St. 364 (1896). An oral condition to a subscription cannot be set up. Masonic Temple Assoc, v. Channell, 43 Minn. 353 (1890). An oral statement that the subscriptions would be col- lected only after connection had been made with a certain place is no defense. Anderson v. Middle, etc. R. R., 91 Tenn. 44 (1891). Parol agreements cannot be added to the written contrai;t. Shat- tuck V. Robbins, 68 N. H. 565 (1896). Where a subscription is absolute upon its face the subscribers' liability cannot be changed by other contemporaneous agreements as between tliem and cred- itors who had no notice of such agree- ments. "Creditors are entitled to the full benefit of the stockholder's con- tract as he has made and published it in subscribing, executing and filing his subscription to the stock of the cor- poration.'' Moore v. Universal, etc. Co., 122 Mich. 48 (1899). Where a stock- holder has agreed to sell and deposit in a trust company 720 shares, but only deposited 687 shares, and the vendee has on his part deposited the purchase price with the trust company to be paid on the delivery of the 720 shares, the vendor cannot rescind on the ground that there was a contemporaneous oral understanding that 687 shares would be sufficient. Dady v. O'Rourke, 173 N. Y. 447 (1902). In Georgia, under section 3808 o£ the code, where the subscription does not 306 CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 137. evidence to explain, contradict or vary a written instrument, ap- plies to a subscription contract for stock in a corporation. N^either party is permitted to prove a different contract from that ex- pressed in the written instrument. Under the rule, not even a separate written contemporaneous contract is admissible to change the subscription contract.' purport to contain the whole contract, parol evidence is admissible. Hendrix V. Academy of Music, 73 Ga. 437 (1884). In Pennsylvania the case of McClure V. People's, etc. Ry., 90 Pa. St. 269 (1879), sustains the general rule, and excludes a parol agreement or condition allow- ing payment in property. But Eine- smith V. People's Freight Ry., 90 Pa. St. 263 (1879); Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R R, 80 Pa. St. 363 (1876); Miller v. Hanover, etc. R R, 87 Pa. St 95 (1878); and McCarty v. Selinsgrove, etc. R R, 87 Pa. St. 332 (1878), allow parol evidence to contradict the subscription contract where it is shown that but for the parol agreement the subscription would not have been made; the last two cases saying, however, that the evidence is inadmissible if other stockholders are interested in opposition to such parol agreement. This unusual rule probably has its origin in an old English case (Pulsford V. Richards, 17 Beav. 87 — 1853), which holds that a representation is to be considered fraudulent when, if the real truth had been stated, it is rea- sonable to believe the plaintiff would not have entered into the contract. A parol agreement that part payment in contract labor should be allowed was held to be void, inasmuch as it varied the terms of a written agreement. Ridgefield, etc. R. R v. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 (1875X Contra, Louisville, etc. R. R u Thompson, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 735 (1857); McConahy v. Centre, etc Co., 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 426 (1830), followed in Swatara R R u Brune, 6 Gill (Md.), 41 (1847); overruled by Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St 256 (1871). See also Weber v. Fickey, 53 Md. 501 (1879); Liebke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 33 (1883). A parol condition that others were to sign is not admissibla Minneapolis, etc. Co. V. Davis, 40 Minn. 110 (1889). Even though two persons signed the articles of incorporation as incorporators and as subscribers of stock, on condition that the articles would not be used un- less a certain other party signed, and even though the latter party did not sign and the articles were filed and the stock subsequently tendered to such signers, which they refused, yet if they took no steps to remove their names as subscribers from the books they are liable as stockholders to corporate cred- itors on a statutory liability. Rehbein V. Rahr, 109 Wis. 136 (1901). But it has been held that a parol agreement herein, made after the subscription, and on a new consideration, is valid. Pitts- burgh, eta R R u. Stewart, 41 Pa^St 54 (1861). See also Tonica, etc. R. R v. Stein, 31 111. 96 (1859). Cf. Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R R, 76 Pa. St 306 (1874); Brewers' F. Ins. Co. v. Burger, 10 Hun, 56 (1877). An action for damages for breach of contract lies against the cor- poration if the agreement amounts to a condition subsequent. See ch. V, supra. i Quoted and approved in Beals v. Buffalo, etc. Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 589, 593 (1900). In this case the court held that as against corporate creditors a subscriber cannot evade his liability by showing a separate agreement be- tween himself and the corporation to the effect that the stock was to be de- livered to him at a future time, and that in the meantime he was to ad- vance money to the corporation to the amount of the par value of the stock to be repaid to him out of contracts. See also Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R R, 18 Ind. 68 (1862); White Mountains R R. 307 § 138.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMBNT, ETC. [CH. IX. § 138. Thus, an oral agreement that a certain location will be adopted,' or that payment may be made in a certain way or at a certain time,^ or that the subscription shall be merely nominal, for the purpose of inducing others to subscribe,' or that the subscription V. Eastman, 34 N. H. 134 (1856). See also § 191, infra. A party sued upon a subscription for stock may show that a letter accompanied the subscription to the effect that he would pay a certain part in cash, which had been done, and pay the balance out of his monthly ac- counts with the corporation. Elliott v. New York Endowment Co., 73 Hun, 519 (1893). 1 North Carolina E. E. w Leach, 4 Jones, L. (N. C.) 340 (1857); Wight v. Shelby R R., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 4 (1855); Ellison V. Mobile, etc. R R, 36 Miss. 573 (1858); Mississippi, etc. R R v. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 (1859); Evans ville, etc. R R v. Posey, 13 Ind. 363 (1859); Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 404 (1859); Carlisle v. Evansville, etc. R. R., 13 Ind. 477 (1859); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 53 Ind. 51 (1875); s. C, 57 Ind. 341 (1877); Miller v. Hanover, etc. R R, 87 Pa. St. 95 (1878); Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa, 387 (1863); Braddock v. Phila- delphia, etc. R R, 45 N. J. L. 363 (1883); Keller v. Johnson, 11 Ind. 337 (1858), holding it immaterial that fraud was actually intended. Contra, Rives v. Montgomery, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 92 (1857). Representations of an agent ^that the road will be built between the termini laid down in the charter are I'epresen- tations relative to the future, and are not fraudulent though not carried out. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 376 (1890). 2 Noble V. Callender, 20 Ohio St. 199 (1870); Henry w Vermillion, etc. R R, 17 Ohio, 187 (1848); Methodist E. Church V. Town, 49 Vt. 29 (1876) ; Ridgefleld, etc. R R V. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 (1875); Thig- pen V, Mississippi Central R R, 33 Miss. 347 (1856). A lawyer who subscribes for stock on an oral agreement that he should pay in' services is nevertheless liable on the stock to corporate credit- 303 ors where the services have not yet been performed. Caston's Case, 7 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 448 (1884). .Even though sub- scribers claim that their stock was to- be paid for by dividends, yet such an agreement is no defense as against, creditors. Hawkins v. Citizens', etc. Co., 38 Oreg. 544 (1901), 3 Downie v. White, 12 Wis. 176 (1860); Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501 (1882); Centre, etc. Co. v. McConaby, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 140 (1827); Phoenix. Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 6 Hun, 393- (1875); aff'd, 67 N. Y. 394; Peychaud v. Hood, 38 La. Ann. 783(1871); Cleveland Iron Co. V. Ennor, 12 Am. & Eng. Corp.. Cas. 88 (111. 1886); Robinson v. Pitts- burgh, etc. R. R, 32 Pa. St. 334 (1858); GraflE v. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 31 Pa. St. 489 (1858); Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 17a (1849); Connecticut, etc. RR w Bailey, 24 Vt. 465 (1853); Davidson's Case,3De- G. & S. 31 (1849), holding it to be a fraud on other subscribers, without requiring- proof that there were such; Bridger's Case, L. E. 9 Eq. 74 (1869); New Albany, etc. R R V. Slaughter, 10 Ind. 218(1858);. Blodgett V. Morrill, 30 Vt 509 (1848);. Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Peters, 46 (1828); Bates v. Lewis, 3 Ohio St. 459 (1854); Litchfield Bank v. Church, 39 Conn. 137 (1860); Mangles v. Grand Col- lier Dock Co., 10 Sim. 519 (1840); Pres- ton V. Grand Collier Dock Co., 3 Rail. Cas. 333 (1840) : Choteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd,. 74 Mo. 286 (1881). These oases hold that parol agreements are void as a fraud on corporate creditors and on other sub- scribers, and that the subscription is en- forceable absolutely. It is no defense that there was a prior or contempora- neous oral agreement that the stock was not to be issued and the subscriber not to be held liabla Wurtzburger V. Anniston Rolling Mills, 94 Ala. 640 (1891). It is no defense that another €H. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [8 138. shall be in fact only a pledge of stock by the corporation to the subscriber, or that the stock may be surrendered,' or that certain property would be purchased by the corporation,^ or that the sub- scriber might keep his stock, but should not be liable for the full par value thereof,' or that payment would not be demanded until certain work had been completed,* or that the money would be ap- plied to a particular part of the road,' or that a certain part of the road would be completed within a certain tirae,^ or that the road would be extended to a certain point,' or other parol conditions,^ or party had promised the stockholder that the former would pay for the stock. Williams V. Benet, 34 S. C. 113 (1891). A person sued as a subscriber cannot set up that he Subscribed at the solicitation ■of another person who agreed to take the subscription off his hands at once. Stutz V. Handley, 41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890); reversed on other grounds, Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417. 1 Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 <1875); White Mountains R. R. v. East- man, 84 N. H. 124 (1856). Of. §§ 247, 465, infra. Or that the subscriber be re- leased. Gill V. Balis, 72 Mo. 424(1880). 2 Kelsey v. Northern Light Oil Co., 45 N. Y. 505 (1871). i^Custar V. Titusville Gas, etc. Co., 63 Pa. St. 381 (1869); Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Frear Stone Mfg. Co., 97 111. 537 (1881); Upton u Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875). * La Grange, etc. Co. v. Mays, 39 Mo. 64 (1859); Clem v. Newcastle, etc. R. R, 9 Ind. 488 (1857), holding that such a promise is contradictory of the legal effect of the subscription; Cincinnati, €tc. R. R. V. Pearce, 28 Ind. 502 (1867). A call on a subscription cannot be en- joined on the ground that it is in viola- tion of a parol agreement of the pro- moters as to calls. Christopher v. Noxon, 4 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 673 (1883). 5 Smith V. Tallassee, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 650 (1857). An action to rescind the purchase of stock lies where the money paid therefor was to be applied to a cer- tain purpose, but was not so applied, but the receiver will not be directed to give up the money. Moore v. Robertson, 25 Abb. N. C. 173 (1890). 6 Blair v. Buttolph, 73 Iowa, 31 (1887). 7 Low V. Studabaker, 110 Ind. 57 (1887). Oral promises and statements that the road would be constructed on a certain route are no defense to a written sub- scription. Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Warthen, 98 Ga. 599 (1896). 8 Topeka Mfg. Co. v. Hale, 39 Kan. 23 (1888); Marshall Foundry Co.u Killian, 99 N. C. 501 (1888). A subscriber for stock may show that payment therefor was by the conveyance of land or an interest in land. Libby v. Mt. Monad- nock, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 444 (1896). Where stock is subscribed for, although thereafter it is agreed that the subscrip- tion shall be paid by the transfer of property, yet, if no actual transfer is made, a subscriber may be liable, even though he understood that the property had been actually transferred. Crowley V. Walton, 50 Atl. Rep. 385 (R. L 1901). An oral agreement that only one-half of the subscription need be taken and paid for is not legal. Gathright v. Oil City, etc. Co., 56 S. W. Rep. 163 (Ky. 1900). A subscriber may show that he was as- sured that he might withdraw from the subscription if he wished after consult- ing with another person, and that he actually did so withdraw. Ada, etc. Assoc. V. Mears, 123 Mich. 470 (1900). Parol evidence is inadmissible to add to a condition of a conditional subscrip- tion. Miller v. "treston, 4 N. M. 396 (1888). An oral agreement to take stock in pay- ment of a note is no defense to the note. The corporation must pay it- Tuscaloosa, etc. Co. v. Perry, 85 Ala. 158 (1888). Where the agent of the railroad 809 § 138.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. executory contracts, — are held to be no defense to an action to collect the subscription.^ Where, for the purpose of obtaining a subscription, a promise was made in behalf of the corporation that a branch road would be built, it was held that this promise was but an expression of an existing intention which was liable to be changed, and was no defense.^ It was also held that a promise which, if carried out, would necessitate an ultra vires act by the corporation, is not binding, and is no defense.' A person who ob- tains subscriptions for stock is npt personally liable for the failure of the corporation to carry out special terms of the subscription agreement, and a subsequent guaranty that such terras will be car- ried out is not enforceable, there being no new consideration.* represented that a depot would be con- structed at a certain place, a failure to so construct is good ground for enjoin- ing the issue of municipal-aid bonds. WuUenwaber v. Dunigan, 30 Neb. 877 (1890). An oral contract that the sub- scriber was to be allowed to pay in property is good as against other stock- holders who assented thereto, but such contract must be clearly proven. Knoop V. Bohmriph, 49 N. J. Eq. 82 (1891). Where a note is given in payment for stock, and recites on its face that it is for value received, parol evidence is not admissible to show that the sale was on condition that the stock would after- wards pay a certain dividend, and in case su6h dividend was not paid the note was not to be paid. Dinkier v. Baer, 93 Ga. 433 (1893). It is no defense to a railroad stock subscription that de- fendant was to receive stock in a con- struction company, or that the control would not change hands, or that the company has sold all its property. Rus- sell V. Alabama Midland Ry., 94 Ga. 510 (1894). Where, with a view to organiz- ing a corporation, various parties sign asubscription list on the oral agreement that they might change the amount of their subscriptions, and one who signed for $5,000 notified the chief promoter that he wanted but $8,500, and the cor- poration, when organized, made calls on him for only $8,500, a corporate cred- itor cannot hold him for more. White 810 V. Kahn, 103 Ala. 308 (1894).. Where the capital stock proposed is stated, it is no defense that an attempt was made to increase it and that the subscriber sup- posed it was to be increased. Glenn v. Hunt, 130 Mo. 330 (1894). 1 Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 (1859); Grossman v. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., 36 Pa. St. 69 (1856); New Albany, eta R. R. v. Fields, 10 Ind. 187 (1858); East Tennessee, etc. R R. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 507 (1858); Saffold V. Barnes. 39 Miss. 899 (1860); Payson v. Withers, 5 Hiss. 369 (1873); S. a, 19 Fed. Cas. 39; Goif v. Hawkeye Pump, etc. Co., 68 Iowa, 691 (1884); Gor- with V. Culver, 69 111. 503 (1878). Contra, Mahan v. Wood, 44 Cal. 468 (1873), where the par value of the shares was not what was promised. 2 McAllister v. Indianapolis, etc. R R, 15 Ind. 11 (1860). It is no defense that the subscribers were told that branch oflSces would be established and that they had not been. Guarantee, etC/. Co. V. Mayer, 141 Pa. St. 511 (1891). 3 Johnson v. Crawfordsville, etc. R R, 11 Ind. 380 (1858), where aid from another railroad was promised; Peters V. Lincoln, etc. R R, 14 Fed. Rep. 319 (1883), where an ultra vires lease was promised; Baile v, Calvert, etc. Soo,, 47 Md. 117 (1877). ^McNaught V. Fisher, 96 Fed. Rep. 168 (1899). The subscriber's remedy may be against the person who made CH. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§§ 139, 140. § 139. Corporations are cliargeable with flie fraudulent represen- tations of their agents. — At an early day in England it was held in a number of cases that corporations were not bound by the frauds of their agents in obtaining subscriptions to stock.' This doctrine rested on the theory that the corporation gave the agent no power or authority to commit a fraud, and that, consequently, the fraud rendered the agent liable personally, but did not release or affect the subscription. § 140. The modern doctrine, however, both in this country and in England, has completely exploded the theory that corporations are not chargeable with the frauds of their agents in taking sub- scriptions. The well-established rule now is that a corporation cannot claim or retain the benefit of a subscription which has been obtained through the fraud of its agents. The misrepresentations are not regarded as having actually been made by the corporation, but the corporation is not allowed to retain the benefit of the con- tract growing out of them, being liable to the extent that it has profited by such misrepresentations.^ The question of the author- ity jof the agent taking the subscription is immaterial herein. It matters not whether he had any authority, or exceeded his author- ity, or concealed its limitations.^ The corporation cannot claim the agreement which has not been kept. Felgate's Case, 2 De G., J. & S. 456 (1865). 1 Dodgson's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 85 (1849); Bernard's Case, 5 De G. & Sm. 283(1852); Gibson's Case, 2 De G. & J. 275 (1858) ; Holt's Case, 23 Beav. 48 (1856) ; Felgate's Case, 2 De G., J. & S. 456 (1865); Mixer's Case, 4 De G. & J. 575 (1859), where a prospectus was issued by the directors; Ayre's Case, 25 Beav. 513 (1858), the court holding that the corpo- ration is bound by the misrepresenta- tion only where it expressly authorized the particular statement made. Cf. Barry v. Croskey, 2 Johns. & Hem. 1 (1861). 2 Western Bank v. Ad die, L. R 1 So. App. 145 (1867); National Exchange Co. V. Drew, 32 Eng. L. & Eq. 1 (1855); -Hen- derson V. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. 249 (1867); Ex parte Ginger, 5 Ir. Ch. 174 (1856); Montgomery Southern Ry. v. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357 (1884). The principles gov- erning these contracts are the same as the principles governing contracts be- tween private individuals. Venezuela Central Ry. v. Kisch, L. K. 2 H. L. App. 99 (1867); Anderson v. Newcastle, etc. R. R, 13 Ind. 376 (1859); Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co, 29 N. J. Eq. 138 (1878); Ranger v. Great Western Ry., 5 H. L. Cas. 72 (1854); Mackay v. Com- mercial Bank, L. R 5 P. C. 394 (1874). As regards representations in reference to bonds secured by mortgage and the right of a purchaser of bonds to com- plain, see Van Weel v. Winston, 115 IT. S. 238 (1885), and § 830, infra. 3 Where subscriptions were obtained by fraudulent statements of the offi- cers, the corporation cannot defend against a bill to rescind by setting up that it was not bound by such repre- sentations. Garrison v. Technic, etc. Works, 55 N. J. Eq. 708 (1897); Crump V. U. S. Min. Co., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 353 (1851). Provided, of course, that the misrepresentations were made by per- sons legally connected with the taking of the subscription. An agent to ob- tain subscriptions may use the ordi- nary means of accomplishing the ob- 311 § 141.J DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. the benefits of his fraud without assuming also the representations which procured those benefits. Parol evidence is admissible to show the fraud, since it does not vary or contradict the contract, but shows that no contract Avas legally entered into.' § 141. The misrepresentations must he ty authorized agents. — False representations by persons who do not act as intermediaries between the corporation and the subscriber in forming the con- tract cannot bind the corporation nor affect the subscription. They are statements of outside parties.^ The subscriber may have his ac- tion for damages against such persons for deceit, but he cannot charge the corporation with their misrepresentations. Sometimes, also, the misrepresentations even of persons connected with the corporation do not bind the corporation, inasmuch as their powers are purely statutory, or have nothing to do with the taking of sub- scriptions. Thus, while there has been considerable controversy in this country over the question of fraudulent representations by commissioners having statutory powers to take subscriptions, it is well settled that the subscriber is bound to know that the commis- sioners have no power to make representations, and that the cor- poration is not bound thereby.' A subscriber cannot rescind on jeot of his appointment, such as repre- senting the location and quality of the lands, and the like. Sandford v. Handy, 23 Wend. 360 (1840). See also Nelson v. Cowing, 6 Hill, 336 (1844). A suit in equity lies to rescind where the agent obtaining the subscription falsely rep- resented the amount of stock already subscribed and also the names of the subscribers and also the contracts in immediate prospect. It is immaterial that no express authority was given by the corporation to the agent to make such representations. Talmadge v. San- itary, etc. Co., 31 N. y. App. Div. 498 (1898). A national bank which sells securities to a person by means of mis- representations of its president as to the character of the securities, and by means of a breach of trust on his part, is liable for the money so paid to it. Carr v. National Bank, etc., 43 N. Y. App. Div. 10 (1899). False representa- tions of a person obtaining subscrip- tions is a defense, even though the per- son was not authorized to obtain sub- scriptions. Anderson v. Scott, 70 N. H. 350 (1900). See s. a, 70 N. K 534, and § 156, supra. 1 New York Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 31 N. Y. 273 (1865). In Pennsylvania the peculiar rule prevails that the agent's misrepresentations affect the subscription, and are a defense only when the agent actually had or reason- ably appeared to have authority to make representations. Custar v. Titus- ville Gas, etc. Co., 63 Pa. St. 381 (1869) This was the ancient English doctrine long since abandoned. 2 Cunningham v. Edgefield, etc R R, 2 Head (Tenn.), 23 (1858); Jewett v. Valley Ry., 34 Ohio St 601 (1878). The representations made to him by other subscribers or outsiders are immaterial herein. His remedy is against them personally. Duranty's Case, 26 Beav. 268 (1858); Ex parte Frowd, 30 L. J. (Ch.) 332 (1861). 3 Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256 (1871); Bavington t). Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. 34 Pa. St. 358 (1859); Wight V. Shelby R R, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 4(1855); Rutz V. Esler, etc. Mfg. Co., 3 111. App. 312 OH. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 141. the ground of misrepresentations made by a promoter.^ So, also, it has been held that the representations by the president of the corporation do not bind it where he had no authority to take sub- scriptions.^ A director has no power, unless specially authorized, to bind the company by a representation.' In Indiana it is held that an agent taking subscriptions before the incorporation of the company cannot bind it by his misrepresentations.* Misrepresen- tations of promoters are no defense.* A committee appointed at a public meeting to solicit subscriptions to a proposed corporation do not bind the corporation by their representations, and a sub- scriber cannot defend on the ground of false statements made by the committee.* If there is conflicting testimony as to the author- 83 (1878); Syracuse, etc. R R v. Gere, 4 Hun, 392 (1875); North Carolina R R V. Leach, 4 Jones, L. (N. C.) 340 (1857)i 1 Ee Metals Constituents, Limited, 86 L. T. Rep. 291 (1902). 2 Crump V. U. S. Min. Co., 7 Gratt. (■Va.)853 (1851); Rives v. Montgomery, •etc. Co., 30 Ala. 93 (1857). In all such cases, however, if the corporation ac- cepts a subscription taken by an un- authorized agent, it cannot retain the subscription and repudiate the repre- sentations. It must assume both or neither. A company is bound by a fraudulent statement made by its pres- ident. Zang V. Adams, 23 Colo. 408 (1897). Material false representations by the president and agent are a good defense to an action on the subscrip- ■tion. Queen City, etc. Co. v. McAden, 42 S. E. Rep. 575 (N. C. 1902;. 3 Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Schoknecht, 108 Wis. 457 (1901). Representations and declarations of a director to pro- cure a bonus from the citizens of a town are ratified by the acceptance of the bonus by the company. Gulf, etc. Ry. V. Pittman, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 167 (1893). * Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 57 Ind. 241 (1877). In Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, etc. Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 178, the court laid down the following rules as to who <30uld bind the company by represen- tations: (1) Where the misrepresenta- tions are made by the directors, or other the general agents of the com- pany entitled to act, and acting on its behalf; (2) where the misrepresenta- tions are made by a special agent of the company while acting within the scope of his authority; (3) where the company can be held affected, before the contract is complete, with the knowledge that it is induced by mis- representations; (4) where the contract is made on the basis of certain repre- sentations, whether the particulars of those representations were known to the company or not, and it turns out that some of those representations were material and untrue. The court held that a promoter who was not acting for the company did not bind the company by his statements. A stockholder may rescind his sub- scription where he was induced to subscribe by a promoter who realized a secret profit from his option on the sale of land to the corporation, the pro- moter representing that others were the vendors of the land. Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt, 90 Va. 533 (1894). s Oldham v. Mt. Sterling Imp. Co., 103 Ky. 529 (1898). This subject of the lia- bility of the corporation for the acts of the promoters is fully considered in § 707, mfra. 6 St. Johns Mfg. Co. v. Munger, 106 Mich. 90 (1895). 313 §§ 142, 143.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. ity and status of the agent, the question is to be submitted to the jury.' § 142. Corporation not hound ly misrepresentations of officers at apuMic meeting. — There is a difference of opinion among the au- thorities as to whether fraudulent representations made by one or more of the company's oificers, at a public meeting called to pro- mot© the procuring of subscriptions, are chargeable against the cor- poration where such representations were not expressly authorized by the corporation. In New York, Iowa, Alabama and Louisiana such misrepresentations do not bind the corporation.^ In Georgia and Wisconsin, on the other hand, such fraudulent representations are held to be admissible in evidence.' The former rule seems to accord most with the modern tendency of the decisions, which go very far towards the enforcement of subscriptions after corporate fcreditors and other subscribers have become interested in the en- terprise. § 143. The misrepresentations may arise ly prospectuses. — A prospectus issued by the authority" of the directors or the stock- holders of a corporation may be relied upon by a person in subscrib- ing for stock; and if the prospectus contains a false representation, and the subscription is made by reason thereof, such representation is binding upon the corporation.* In this class of corporate instra- 1 Kelsey v. Northern Light Oil Ca, 45 N. y. 505 (1871); Crump v. U. S. Min. Co., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 353 (1851). 2 Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 (1856); First Nat. Ban"k v. Hur- ford, 29 Iowa, 579 (1870); Smith v. Tal- laasee, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 650 (1857), on the ground of a want of authority, which the subscriber is bound to know; Vioksburpj, etc. R. R. v. McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638 (1857), on the ground that, if the rule were otherwise, " there will be very little security to those who loan money or render assistance to institu- tions of this kind." ' Atlanta, etc. R R. ■«. Hodnett, 36 Ga. 669(1867); McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81(1869). The question of representa- tions at a public meeting was sub- mitted to the jury in Weeras v. Geor- gia, etc. R. R., 88 Ga. 303 (1892). * Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L, App. 325 (1867); Re Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, [1892] 3 Ch. 1; Ross v. Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 682 (1868): Reese River, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 (1869); Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 (1865): Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. 249 (1867). In England it is enacted, by section 38 of the Companies Act, 1867: " Every prospectus of a com- pany, and every notice inviting persons to subscribe for shares in any joint- stock company, shall specify the dates- and the names of the parties to any contract entered into by the company, or the promoters, directors, or trustees thereof, before the issue of such pros- pectus or notice, whether subject to adoption by the directors or the com- pany, or otherwise; and any prospectus or notice not specifying the same shall be deemed fraudulent on the part of the promoters, directors, and ofiBcers of the company knowingly issuing the same, as regards any person taking shares in the company on the faith of such prospectus, unless he shall have- had notice of such contract" For the application of this important statute. 314 OH. IX.j DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§§ 143.. ments, however, it is held that some high coloring and even ex- aggeration is allowable. " In an advertisement of this description some allowance must always be made for the sanguine expectations of the promoters of the adventure; and no prudent man will accept the prospects which are always held out by the originators of every new scheme without considerable abatement."^ So, also, if the language used in the prospectus admits of two meanings, the sub- scriber relying on it must ascertain which meaning is intended.^ Unless the representation distinctly refers to what is actually ex- isting at the time, it must be taken to represent what will result when the enterprise is carried out, and will then be merely an ex- pression of opinion. Nevertheless a subscriber may have rescission where the prospectus is not an honest, candid, straightforward docu- ment, but suggests that which is untrue and is in a high degree mis- leading.' If the general impression given by a prospectus is false and fraudulent, it is immaterial that no specific statement taken by itself is false.* A subscriber can have rescission of his subscrip-. tion on the ground that false representations were contained in a prospectus issued before the company was formed, where the com- pany afterwards approves of such prospectus.' At common law an underwriter cannot obtain damages on the ground that the prospec- tus did not state all the facts, where he does not prove that he re- lied on the prospectus.* see Gover's Case. L. R. 20 Eq. 114 (1875); Davidson v. TuUoch, 3 Maoq. 783 (1860); Ai-kwright v. Newbold, L. E. 17 Ch. D. 301 (1881); Twyoross v. Grant, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 469 (1877); Emma Silver Min. Co. V. Lewis, L. R. 4 C. P. D. 396 (1879): Bagnall v. Carlton, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 371 (1877); Plympton Min. Co. v. Wilkins, 17 Weekly N. 66 (1882); Sulivan v. Mit- calfe, L, R. .5 C. P. D. 455 (1880); Cornell V. Hay, L. R 8 C. P. 328 (1873). But a prospectus containing statements based upon a report of the vendor of property to the corporation, which ' report _is ad- pended to the prospectus, is no ground for rescission, even though the repprt is totally false. All the stockholders and the company relied equally thereon. Ex parte Vickers, 56 L. T. Rep. 8x5 (5.887). Several subscribers who have been induced by the same misrepre- sentations contained in a prospectus to subscribe for stock may join in a suit in equity for the benefit of themselves and others similarly deceived, to set *side their subscriptions. Bosher v. Richmond, etc. Co., 89 Va. 455 (1892). See also § 156, infra. 1 Venezuela Central Ry. v. Kiscli, L. R. 2 H. L. App. 99, 113 (1867). 2 Smith V. Chadwick, L. R. 9 App. Gas. 187 (1884); Hallows v. Fernie, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 467, 476 (1868), where the court say: "If [the words] may be con- strued in a different manner by dif- ferent minds, it will be impossible to test the truth of any one man's asser- tion that he understood them in the sense in which they involved a misrep- resentation." See also §§ 352, 353, infra. 3 Scott V. Snyder, etc. Co., 67 L. T. Rep. 104 (1892). 4 Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss, [1896] A. C. 373; Watts v. Bucknall, 87 L. T. Rep. 438 (1902); Be Leeds, etc., 87 L. T. Rep. 488 (1902). As to promoter's liability, see § 651, infra. 5 Be Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, [1893] 3 Ch. 1. "Baty V. Keswick, 85 L. T. Rep. 18 (1901). 815 §§ 144, 145.] DKFENSE OF PAROL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. § 144. Or 'by reports. — So, also, a report made by the corporate ofBcers to the stockholders may be relied on by one who contem- plates subscribing for stock.' The corporation cannot say that such reports were intended for the stockholders alone. The law holds that the report is known, and is intended to be known, to all persons who contemplate becoming stockholders, and is the same as though published to the world.^ A subscriber has a right also to rely on printed statements of the company given to him by the agent to induce him to subscribe.' § 145. Misre])resentations amounting to fraudulent representa- tions. — Any false statement by the authorized agents of a corpora- tion in regard to the past or present status of the corporate enter- prise or material matters connected therewith, whereby subscrip- tions are obtained, is a fraudulent representation. Thus, a false statement that a certain amount of stock had been subscribed for;* or that certain property had been purchased;' 1 Western Bank v. Addie, L. B. 1 Sc. person had subscribed for stock when App. Cas. 145 (1867); New Brunswick, etc. Ry. V. Conybeare, 9 H. L. Cas. 711 (1863). 2 National Exoh. Co. v. Drew, 33 Eng. L. & Eq. 1 (1855): Scott v. Dixon, 29 L. J. (Ex.) 62, n.; explained and adopted in Peek v. Gurney, L. E. 6 H. L. 377 <1873X ' Peterson v. People's, etc. Assoc, 124 Mich. 573 (1900). * Ross V. Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 682 (1868): Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. 249 (1867). A suit in equity lies to rescind where the agent obtaining the subscription falsely rep- resented the amount of stock already subscribed and also the names of the subscribers and also the contracts in immediate, prospect. It is immaterial that no express authority was given by the corporation to the agent to make such representations. Talmadge V. Sanitary, etc. Co., 31 N. Y. App. Div. 498 (1898). A statement that £200,000 had been subscribed, when in fact owners of property had contracted to convey the same to the company for £300,000 of stock, is a material misrep- resentation. Avnison v. Smith, 59 L. T. Rep. 627 (1888); aff'd, [1889] 41 Ch. D. 348. It is fraud to state that a certain 316 in fact his stock was given to him. It is not fraudulent that the mine on whichxthe stock is sold would not pay for mining. A bill in equity lies to can- cel a conveyance of land to pay for the stock. Coles V. Kennedy, 81 Iowa, 360 (1890). 5 Waldo V. Chicago, etc. R. R, 14 Wis. 575 (1861); Ross v. Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 682 (1868). Or that the property contained valuable mines in full operation, and with large daily return%, Reese River, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 (1869). A representa- tion that a certain patent-right owned by the company had been tested and found to be valuable, held not a mis- representation, although it turns out to be worthless. Denton v. Macneil, L. R. 2 Eq. 352 (1866). A representation in good faith that title to land was good when in fact it was bad is not a mis- representation. New Brunswick, etc. Ry. V. Conybeare, 9 H. L. Cas. 711 (1863). But a misrepresentation that a govern- ment guaranty had been obtained is material. Kisch v. Central Ry., 34 L. J. (Ch.) 545 (1865). It is fraud to state that the company has purchased prop- erty when in fact it h^s merely pur- chased an option which the promoters CH. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAEOJL AGREEMENT, ETC. [§ 145. that the corporate property is unincumbered ; Hhat the corporation is solvent and prosperous;- that other stockholders had paid for their stock the same price; ' that the company was a honajtde cor- poration and not a mere " dumm}'; "* that the directors have sub- scribed for stock; ^ that certain individuals are directors;^ or as to- the nature of the business to be undertaken ; ' or, in England, where the memoranda or articles of association are different from th& prospectus;' or that work on the enterprise had reached a certain had. and which they turned in at an extravagant figure. Savage v. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 (1894). Where the secretary and treasurer represent that §50,000 have been paid in, and that a niill had been bought and paid for, and such representations were false, the sub- scriber may have the subscription set aside and may recover back the land and money which he has turned over to the corporation. Kamsey v. Thomp- son Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313 (1893). iMcClellantJ. Scott, 24 Wis. 81 (1869); Water Valley Mfg. Co. v. Seaman, 53 Miss. 655 (1876). 2 Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79 (1892); Bell's Case, 23 Beav. 85 (1856); Melendy V. Keen, 89 \\\. 395 (1878); Western Bank v. Addie, L. R 1 Sc. App. Cas. 145 (1867); Deppen v. German, etc. Co., 70 S. W. Rep. 868 (Ky. 1902). Not so, how- ever, where the directors honestly fig- ured in debts which afterwards turned out to be bad. Jackson v. Turquand, L. R 4 H. L. 305 (1869). Directors were held liable to depositors for fraudulent representations as to the bank's solv- ency in Seale v. Baker, 70 Tex. 283 (1888). ^A person induced to subscribe for stock on the representation of the presi- dent that the other stockholders had paid for their stock in full may defend against the subscription on the gi'ound that the other stockholders had not and were not to pay anything for their stock. Alabama, etc. Works v. Dallas, 127 Ala. 518 (1900). * Money paid on a subscription to the stock of a New Jersey corporation may be recovered back, it being shown that such New Jersey corporation was merely a dummy corporation to enable a New York corpoi-ation to do business- in New Jensey without making a de- posit required by the statutes of New Jersey, and it being also shown that it. was falsely represented that the New Jersey company was a hona fide cor- poration. Seeber v. People's, etc. Assoc, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 313 (1899). 5 Henderson v. Lacon, L. B. 5 Eq. 349 (1867). 6 Blake's Case, 84 Beav. 639 (1865); Munsters Case, 14 W. R 957 (1866). Persons who have accepted are direct- ors, although without the qualification, shares. Hallows v. Fernie, L. R 8 Ch> App. 467 (1868). A misrepresentation as to the directors is ground for repudi- ating the subscription. Re Metropol- itan, etc. Assoc, 63 L. T. Rep. 38 (1889)-,. 64 L. T. Rep. 561 (1891); [1892J 3 Ch. 1. 7 Blackburn's Case, 3 Drew. 409 (1856). A person who has agreed to turn in. property for stock may have the con- tract annulled on the ground that fraudulent representations were made- about the process of manufacture by the corporation. Kelley v. Owens, 30 Pac. Rep. 596 (Cal. 1893). 8 Downes v. Ship, L. R 8 H. L. 343 (1868); Ex parte Briggs, K R 1 Eq. 483 (1866); Peel's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 674 (1867); Lawrence's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 412 (1867); Kincaid's Case, L. R 2 Ch. App. 420 (1867); Wilkinson's Case, L. R 3 Ch. App. 536 (1867); Stewart's Case, L. R 1 Ch. 574 1866); Whitehouse's- Case, L. R 3 Eq. 790 (1867); Tait's Case, L. R 8 Eq. 795 (1867); Re Cachar Ca, - 36 L. J. (Ch.) 490 (1867): Ship v. Cross- kill, L. R 10 Eq. Cas. 73 (1870). 317 § 145.] DEFENSE QF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. stage of completion;^ or that a certain price had been paid for property when in fact a large part of the price went to promot- ers;^ or that the objects of the enterprise set forth in the subscrip- tion contract were of a certain nature, the subscriber not reading or hearing, and not being able to read, the contract,' or other ma- terial misstatements of fact,* have been held to constitute a fraudu- lent representation, entitling the subscriber induced thereby to subscribe to the remedies provided for him by law in such cases. In all these cases, however, the distinction between statements rel- 1 Ogilvie V. Currle, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 541 (1868); Ashley's Case, L. R 9 Eq. Cas. 263 (1870). False representations that sufBcient funds were at hand to build a specified part of the road, being a different part from that which the de- fendant required by liis subscription to be completed before payment, are im- material. Blair v. Buttolph, 73 Iowa, 31 (1887). ' Capel V. Sim's, etc. Co., 58 L. T. Rep. S07 (1888). A misrepresentation by the president that he had paid |3o,000 for property and had turned it in to the corporation for that amount, when in fact he had paid only $12,000 for the property, and a misrepresentation that other stockholders had paid in full for their stock, are material misrepresenta- tions. Alabama, etc. Works v. Dallas, 127 Ala. 513 (1900). Where promoters hav- ing an option on land obtain subsoi-ibers to the stock of a proposed corporation on a prospectus stating that the land was worth $250,000 and that it would only cost $175,000, and it turns out that the promoters realized a secret profit of $30,000 from the $175,000, a sub- scriber to the stock is not bound to pay unless he has ratified the transaction with full knowledge of the facts, even though the facts do not come to his knowledge for a long time. West. End, etc. Co. V. Nash, 41 S. E. Rep. 183 (W. Va. 1903). See also §§ 705-707, infra. 3 Wert V. Crawfordsville, etc. Co., 19 Ind. 243 (1863). * See § 350, infra. A representation that only $8,000 of stock and $13,000 bonds per mile would be issued is fraudulent where $12,000 of stock and $15,000 of bonds per mile have already been issued. Weems v. Georgia, etc. E. R., 84 Ga. 356 (1890). A statement of assets that include not only separate items for moving, exhibiting, etc., the aggregate value of the buildings being given also, but also outstanding ac- counts with no deductions for bad debts; accrued interest with no allowance for interest on liabilities; expenses of per- fecting a machine, the latter not yet being a success; and money paid for expenses, it being also included in the value of the property, — is a false state- ment and sustains an action. Hubbard V. Weare, 79 Iowa, 678 (1890). Where the promoters paid to a person who is to act as chairman of «the directors, and his firm who underwrote 10,000 shares, a commission of 12,000 shares, the court held that 10,000 of the 12,000 was for the use of his name and only 2,000 shares for the commission, and hence he was liable, at the instance of an investor in the stock, to pay to the corporation the difference between the amount paid for the stock and its act- ual value the day after an allotment, the transaction not being fully dis- closed in the prospectus. A clause in the prospectus that there "may" be various trade contracts and business arrangements and underwriters' agree- ments, followed by the usual waiver as to them, does not apply to such a con- tract, inasmuch as the word "may" was misleading. Cackett v. Keswick, 85 L. T. Rep. 14 (1901); aflf'd, 87 L. T. Rep. 11 (1903); Watts v. Bucknall, 87 L. T. Rep. 438 (1903). 318 «H. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMBNT, ETC. [§ U6. ative to the prospects and capabilities of the enterprise, and state- ments specifically specifying what does or does not exist, must be carefully borne in mind. The former are matters of opinion ; the latter are material representations, and are fraudulent if false.^ § li6. Misrepresentations that are insufficient. — It is not every misrepresentation that enables a subscriber to set up that he was in- duced to subscribe by fraud. Mere matters of opinion as to whether the enterprise can be completed, or when it will be completed, or the prospects of profits, cannot be misrepresentations. The subscriber is bound to know that these are all matters of mere conjecture.^ Thus, 1 Whether the statement ^^fers to a " possibility or a contingency, or an in- tention," or to an existing fact, is a question sometimes for the jury, some- times for the judge; generally the lat- ter. All the statements, together with the circumstances and history of the matter, are to be considered in decid- ing whether a misrepresentation was made. It is sufficient if the subscriber relied partly on the misrepresentation. He need not have relied on it exclu- sively. Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, L. R a9 Ch. D. 459 (1885). See also Niool's Case, 3 De G. & J. 387, 480 (1858). A statement that the subscriptions are to be used entirely to purchase and im- prove real estate is a good defense if a part is actually used afterwards to pay promoters West End, etc. Co. v. Clai- borne, 97 Va. 734(1900). The subscriber may, by contract, waive his right to rely on a representation. Brownlie v. Campbell, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 935 (1880). Cf. Greenwood v. Leather, etc. Co. Ltd., [1900J 1 Ch. 421. 2 Swan V. Mathre, 73 N. W. Rep. 533 (Iowa, 1897); Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 18 Ind. 68 (1863); Pickering v. Tem- pleton, 3 Mo. App. 434 (1876); Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870); Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203 (1860); Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. R., 14 Ind. 169 (1860); Bish v. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490 (1861); Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. R., 34 Miss. 245 (1857); Coil v. Pittsburgh Female College, 40 Pa. St. 439* (1861). Statements as to when the road would be completed are not such representa- tions as will avoid a subscription for stock. JeflCerson v. Hewitt, 95 Cal. 535 (1892). Calculations of the company that stock will pay certain dividends do not constitute false representations. Lane v. Southern, etc. Assoc, 54 S. W. Rep. 339 (Tenn. 1899). A statement that the stock would be worth par within a certain time is not sufficient to avoid a subscription. Johnson v. National, etc. Assoc., 125 Ala. 465 (1900). A represen- tation that a certain plant will be erected is not a misrepresentation. Mil- waukee, etc. Co. V. Schoknecht, 108 Wis. 457 (1901). A statement that the com- pany intended to buy a certain news- paper and was to have associated press news is not fraudulent, even if not car- ried out, it being merely an opinion or a statement as to a future event. Shat- tuck V. Robbins, 68 N. H. 565 (1896). A statement in a prospectus that the en- tire preferred stock must be subscribed and paid for does not authorize rescis- sion on the ground that all of it was not taken, nor does a statement that it has been all taken, such statement being made after the party had subscribed. Bartol V. Walton, etc. Co., 93 Fed. Rep, 13 (1899). The fact that statements as to the affairs of the company are not filed as required by statute does not amount to fraud in the sale of stock; nor do representations that the stock will pay twenty per cent, dividends amount to fraud. The question as to validity of stock, having once been lit- igated, cannot be again raised in an ac- tion for deceit in the sale of the stock. 319 § 146.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. an honest mistake of judgment, on the part of the directors, as to the collectibility of certain debts, whereby a company represented to be solvent turns out to be insolvent, is not a fraudulent representation. So, also, of a representation as to the value of a patent-right, which, it was stated, would be tested further. On the othei? hand, a state- ment made with the intent to defraud the subscriber, but without that effect, is immaterial; mere intent is insufficient.^ A misstate- ment as to the contents of the subscription contract which the sub- scriber signs is immaterial, where he can read but does not.^ And where false representations are made, but before the subscription is completed the representations are made good by intervening events, the subscribers cannot complain.' Misrepresentations made to others to induce them to buy the stock are immaterial, where no sale resulted therefrom and no fraud was actually perpetrated.* The mere act of conspiracy is not suf- ficient to sustain the action unless dam- age is shown. Robertson v. Parks, 76 Md. 118 (1893). Representations that the stock would be a good investment and pay dividends, etc., constitute no defense. Weston v. Columbus Southern Ry., 90 Ga. 289 (1892). Statements that the business will be profitable, etc., are mere "trade talk," and not fraud. Riley V. Treanor, 35 S. W. Rep. 1054 (Tex. 1894). In the cases, however, of Gerhard v. Bates, 10 Jur. 1097 (1853), and Taylor v. Ashton, 11 M. & W. 401 (1843), it was held that a false guaranty of the pro- moters that a certain dividend would result from the enterprise constituted a false representation. Re National, etc. Fuel Co., 4 Drew. 539 (1859), held that one sued as a contributory cannot plead fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the company, although it was arranged between the directors and shareholders that certain shares (of which these were a part) should have a preference." A statement as to the pur- pose for which the proceeds of bonds will be used by the company is imma- terial. A bondholder cannot rescind. Banque, etc. v. Brown, 34 Fed. Rep. 162, 198(1888). See also § 830, mfm. Stock may be issued before payment by ma- chinery is made. An action by another stockholder for cancellation of the 830 stock on the ground of fraud fails un- less there is clear proof that the person agreed that the machinery would suc- ceed. Pendleton Mfg. Co. v. Mahanna, 18 Pao. Rep. 563 (Oreg. 1888). See Win- get V. Quincy, etc. Assoc, 128 111. 67 (1889). A false statement as to the pur- poses of a proposed corporation is held not to be material in Indiana. Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329 (1896). 1 Keller v. Johnson, 11 Ind. 337 (1858); Cunningham v. Edgefield, etc. R. R, 2 Head *(Tenn.), 23 (1858), Even though the agent of a corporation represents to it that a party owns certain property and will sell it to the corporation for $7,500 in bonds and $30,000 in stock, and the purchase is made on those terms, and the vfendor keeps the bonds and gives the stock to such agent, and the agent sells a portion of the stock to a bona fide purchaser, yet the latter can- not rescind the sale on the ground of fraud. Foushee v. Snyder, 54 S. W. Rep. 730 (Ky. 1900). - Thornburgh v. Newcastle, etc. R R., 14 Ind. 499 (1860). 3 Ship V. Crosskill, L. R. 10 Eq. 73 (1870). * Darling v. Klock, 33 N. Y. App. Div. 270 (1898). A subscriber to stock in an unincorporated association is not re- lieved from liability, even though some CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§§ HI, 148. Frauds of the directors which are not the subject of a representa- tion are not to be remedied by the principles of law governing the subject of false representations.^ § 147. Statements as to .questions oflaiv. — Where a subscription is obtained by a false representation as to the legal effect of the subscription contract, or of corporate rights or liabilities, the sub- scriber has no remedy. He is bound to take notice of the law.^ Thus, a misrepresentation as to the extent to which the subscriber would be liable on his stock,^ or that he may allow his stock to be forfeited,* or that payment would not be demanded until the enter- prise was partly or wholly completed,' is a statement as to the law. It states that something can be done which the law pro- hibits from being done. § 148. Misrepresentation may le by suppression of the truth. — The misrepresentation entitling the subscriber to his remedies may consist in the suppression of what is true as well as in the asser- tion of what is false.^ "Where any statement is made at all, it must be a fair and full statement of all the material facts. The corporate authorities, in issuing a prospectus, " are bound to state everything with strict and scrupulous accuracy, and not only to abstain from stating as facts that which is not so, but to omit no one fact within their knowledge, the existence of which might in of the subscriptions necessary to make * Northeastern R R. v. Rodrigues, 10 up the amount required by the sub- Rich. (S. C.) L. 378 (1857). scription paper were forgeries and oth- ^ clem v. Newcastle, etc. R. R„ 9 Ind. ers obtained by false representations, if 488 (1857); New Albany, etc. R. R. v. it be shown that the association ac- Fields, 10 Ind. 187 (1858). For repre- cepted the building to construct which sentation as to the route, see Ellison v. it was formed. Haney, etc. Co. v. Adaza, Mobile, etc. R. R., 36 Miss. 573 (1858'); etc. Co., 108 Iowa, 313 (1899). Wight v. Shelby R. E., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) ' Hornaday v. Indiana, etc. Ry., 9 Ind. 4 (1855). 363(1857); Heymann i7. European, etc. *"No misstatement or concealment Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 154 (1868). of any material facts or circumstances 2 Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 313 (1863). ought to be permitted. . . . The ' Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 suppression of a fact will often amount (1875), where the representation was to a misrepresentation.'' Venezuela that only a certain percentage could be Central Ry. v. Kisch, L. R 3 H. L. App. called for. In Upton v. Englehart, 8 99, 113, 114 (1867). In Oakes v. Tur- Dill. 496 (1874); s. C, 38 Fed. Cas. 835, quand, L. R. 3 H. L. Cas. 335, 343(1867), this representation was held to be a the court say the prospectus is ob- defense, where it was made in one jectionable, " not that it does not state state with reference to the laws of an- the truth as far as it goes, but that it other state. See also Accidental, etc. conceals most material facts with Ins. Corp. V. Davis, 15 L. T. 183 (1866), which the public ought to have been where it was represented that further made acquainted, the very conceal - calls were not contemplated. ment of which gives to the truth which is told the character of falsehood," (31) 331 § 149.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. TCH. ly. any degree affect the nature or extent or quality of the privileges and advantages which the prospectus holds out as inducements to take shares.'" A prospectus need not state all the facts, but it must state facts the omission of which would render the prospectus, as it stands, misleading.^ Thus, an omission to state that a verjr large sum had been paid for property, the merits of which were fully set forth, has been held to be equivalent to a fraudulent rep- resentation.' On the other hand, a failure to state that large sums were paid to the directors to induce them to act as such was held not to be a fraudulent omission.* Where a prospectus contained a ma- terial misrepresentation which induced a person to subscribe, he may maintain a suit to rescind the subscription, even though the prospectus stated that there were certain contracts not mentioned in the prospectus and that the subscribers would be held to have had notice of the same, and even though the subscription contract contained a provision that the subscriber had notice of that which in fact was concealed from him.* § 149. Misrepresentation may he iy statements made without Jcnowledge of their falsity.— Statements need not be intentionally false in order to amount to a fraudulent representation.* A false 1 New Br-unswick, etc. Ry. v. Mugger- idge, 1 Dr. & Sm. 363, 381 (1860). State- ments that a large part of the capital stock had been taken by the parties themselves, and that the parties them- selves would continue the management of the concern, the concealment of the fact that a large quantity of the stock was to be issued for the good- will of the business, and statements leading to the conclusion that all subscribers for stock stood on an equal footing, constitute material misrepresentations, and will sustain a rescission of the subscription if untrue. Such statements and con- cealments made to agents or brokers who are selling stock are the same as though maide to the subscribers for the stock. Walker v. Anglo-American, etc. Co., 73 Hun, 334, 341 (1893). It is no de- fense that the party taking the sub- scription concealed the fact that the charter was to allow the company to subscribe for stock in other companies, the subscription being made before the incorporation. Oil City, etc. Co. v. Porter, 99 Ky. 254 (1896). ^McKeown v. Boudard, etc. Co., 74 833 L. T. Eep. 713 (1896), aflf'g 74 L. T. Rep 310. 8 Venezuela Central Ey. v. Kisch, L. E. 3 H. L. App. 99 (1867). In Cover's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 183 (1875), under different circumstances, the contrary was held. * Heymann v. European Central Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. 154 (1868). A disclosure need not be made that stock had been given to the directors and promoters in payment for services. Pulsford v. Rich- ards, 17 Beav. 87 (1853). Nor as to the amount of stock already subscribed. Vane v. Cobbold, 1 Exch. 798 (1848). 5 The misrepresentation in this in- stance was a misleading and ambigu- ous statement, and also the non-disclos- ure of an agreement to which the promoter was a party, such agreement not relating to the formation of the company or his subscription to its stock. The court rescinded the subscription and held the directors personally liable for loss sustained by the subscriber. Greenwood v. Leather, etc. Co. Ltd., [1900J 1 Ch. 431. ' Corfiorate agents, making represen- CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETO. [§ 150. statement, made in good faith but in ignorance, is, in a legal point of view, the same as an assertion which the party knew to be untrue.' A misrepresentation as to patents may be fraudulent in law, even though the party believed the statement to be true.^ Money paid on a subscription induced by a material misrepresentation may be recov- ered back, even though the misrepresentation was innocently made.' Thus, where the promoters stated that a certain part of the plant was in full operation, yet if there was no fraud, and that part of the plant was put in operation soon afterwards, the court, instead of setting aside the sale, gave damages for the delay. Misrepresenta- tions, although not fraudulent, were held to be sufficient ground for relief.* A prospectus issued by the directors, representing the corpo- rate property as containing valuable mines, all of which was in good faith, but false, is the same as though the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity. Where, however, the statement in good faith was that the corporation had a government contract, which, upon litigation, was found to be untrue, the representation was held not to be fraudulent.^ § 150. Subscriber is not bound to investigate the truth of represen- tations. — If a subscriber has used reasonable caution and judg- tations in order to obtain subscriptions, are bound to know the truth or falsity of such statements. Reese River, etc. Co. V. Smith, L. R. 4 a L. 64 (1869), aff'g Smith V. Reese River Co., L. R 3 Eq. 264 (1866); Glamorganshire Iron, etc. Co. V. Irvine, 4 F. & F. 947 (1866), apply- ing the same rule at law. The English <:ase of Kennedy w. Panama, etc. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 580 (1867), holds, however, that " where there has been an inno- cent misrepresentation or misappre- hension, it does not authorize a rescis- -sion, unless it is such as to show that there is a complete difference in sub- stance between what was supposed to be and what was taken, so as to consti- iute a failure of consideration," and that to hold otherwise would be to make a warranty out of the represen- tation. In Edgington v. Fitzmauiice, L. R. 29 Ch. D. 459 (1885), the court say that astateraent of fact, which the per- son making does not know the truth of, is, " in the eye of the law, a fraudulent statement as much as if the persona making it had known it to be false." Jn this country the cases seem to favor a diflFerent rule. The party making the representations must be proven "to have had a fraudulent purpose in con- templation, or at least to have 'known that the statements were untrue." Nu- gent V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R., S Disney (Ohio), 303 (1858); Selma, etc. R R. tJ. Anderson, 51 Miss. 839 (1876); Cunning- ham V. Edgefield, etc. R R., 3 Head (Tenn.), 23 (1858). See also Chitty, Con- tracts, 12th ed., p. 692 et seq., and Mont- gomery Southern Ry. v. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357 (1884). The, vigorous case of Henderson v.' Railroad Co., 17 Tex 560 (1856), effectively presents the opposite view; and see §§ 156, 356, infra. See also 1 Story, Eq. Jur., § 193; Story, Agency, §g 127, 135, 137, 453. 1 Reese River, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 (1869). 2 Foulks, etc. Co. v. Thies, 65Pac. Rep. 373 (Nev. 1901). 8 Be Glubb, [1900] 1 Ch. 354 * Lagunas, etc. Co. Ltd. v. Lagunas Syndicate, Ltd., [1899] 3 Ch. 393. s Kennedy v. Panama, etc. Co., L. R 3 Q. B. 580 (1867). 333 § 151.J DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [OH. IX. ment in accepting the statements of corporate agents, it is no an- swer to his claim that he was induced to subscribe by fraudulent representations, to say that by proper inquiry he might have learned the truth, or by more vigilance he might have discovered the de- ception.' Where the representations are by a prospectus, he is not obliged to examine documents referred to, even though such exam- ination would have shown the falsity of the representations.^ It is- not incumbent upon him to institute inquiries, and to suspect fraud wh^ all seems fair. But where the means of information are open equally to both parties, the subscriber has no right to rely upon the representations of the corporate agent, unless the latter dissuades the subscriber from investigation.^ So, also, where the subscriber reads several documents, he cannot rely on representa- tions in one which are corrected and limited by statements in the others, even though he claims to have overlooked such corrections.* Even though false representations were made, yet, if the parties before subscribing have an agent investigate the statements made, they cannot afterwards complain.* § 151. Subscriptions induced hy fraudulent representations are- not void, iut only voidable. — The principle of law that fraud viti- ates all contracts applies to a contract of subscription, but this prin- ciple means, not that the contract is \o\Aj>er se from the formation 1 New Brunswick, etc. Ry. v. Mugge- resentation is clearly stated to be that, ridge, 1 Dr. & Sm. 363 (1860); Upton v. "every contracting party has an abso- Englehart, 3 Dill. 496 (1874); s. c, 38 lute right to rely on the express state- Fed. Cas. 835; Venezuela Central Ry. v. ment of an existing fact, the truth of Kisch, L. R. 3 H. L. App. 99 (1867); Ex which is known to the opposite party^ parte West, 56 L. T. Rep. 633 (1887). Cf. and unknown to him, as the basis of a Hallows V. Fernie, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 467 mutual engagement; and he is under (1868). See also § 731, infra. The sub- no obligation to investigate and verify scriber is not bound to investigate the statements to the truth of which the- truth of statements which the other other party to the contract, with full party, with full knowledge of the facts means of knowledge, has deliberately makes. MoClellan v. Scott, 34 Wis. 81 pledged his faith." Mead v. Bunn, 33- (1869). False statements as to who are N. Y. 374 (1865). the other subscribers are no defense ^ Jennings v. Broughton, 33 L. J. (Ch.) where the subscriber has opportunity 585 (1853); Walker v. Mobile, etc. R E.,. to ascertain the facts. Haskell v. Worth- 84 Miss. 345 (1857). No rescission can be ington, 94 Mo. 560 (1888). A subscriber had, if the subscriber had full oppor- is not bound to suspect fraud. West tunity to inform himself and neglected End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne, 97 Va. 734 to do so. Chicago, etc. Ca v. Summer- (1900). our, 101 Ga. 830 (1897> - Kisch V. Venezuela Central Ry., 34 « Soholey v. Venezuela Central Ry.^ L. J. (Ch.) 545 (1865); Venezuela Central L. R. 9 Eq. 366, n. (1868), Ry. V. Kisch, L. R. 3 H. L. App. 99 6 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Higginbotham^ (1867). In New York the general prin- 29 S. Rep. 79 (Miss. 1901)i ciple of law governing cases of misrep- 334 CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAROL AGREEMENT, ETO. [§§ 152, 153. of the contract, but that the contract is voidable, at the option or election of the person defrauded.' Until such election is exercised, the contract is enforceable by both or either of the. parties. Hence a subscription to stock, obtained by fraudulent representations, is not void from the time when it was made, nor is it void until it is ratified and confirmed by the defrauded subscriber, but it is valid until it is expressly rescinded and repudiated by the subscriber.^ This principle is important in determining the method of rescission, and particularly the time within which a rescission must be made. § 152.'Reniedies of a subscriber induced to subscribe by fraudu- lent representations. — There are, in general, five different reme- dies which are open to a subscriber induced to subscribe by fraud. He may, upon discovering the fraud, rescind the subscription by notification to the corporate authorities, without taking legal pro- ceedings; or he may wait until sued upon the subscription, and then set up the fraud as a defense to the action at law; or he may file a bill in equity to restrain such suits at law, and to set aside the subscription contract, and also, if he wishes, to recover back payments already made on the subscription; or he may bring an action at law against the parties fraudulently inducing the sub- scription, and recover damages for the deceit ; or he may sue for money had and received. An officer who, by false and fraudulent statements, induces parties to subscribe and pay for shares of stock may be criminally liable for obtaining money under false pre- tenses, even though the money was paid to the corporation and not to him.' § 153. Rescission without legal proceedings. — It is the duty and the right of directors, without waiting for a bill in equity or other legal proceedings, to revoke a subscription contract, and remove from the stockholders' list the name of a subscriber who reason- ably proves thaJ; he was induced to subscribe by fraudulent repre- sentations chargeable to the corporation, and who requests a rescission of the subscription."* The directors are not bound to make a hopeless defense. It is an ordinary business act within the powers of the directors, arid their discretion is not to be con- •Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. (1871); S. c, L. R. 7 Ch. 55 (1871); App. 335 (1867); Upton v. Englehart, 3 Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 (1865); Reese Dill. 496 (1874); s. c, 28 Fed. Cas. 835; Elver, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. E. 4 H. L. 64 Reese River, eta Co. v. Smith, L, R. 4 (1869), affirming Smith v. Reese River H. L. 64 (1869). Co., L. R. 3 Eq. 264 (1866); Re Etna Ins. 2 Tennant v. City of Glasgow Bank, Co., Ex parte Shiels, Ir. R 7 Eq. 264 L. R. 4 App. Cas. 615 (1879). (1873); Bath's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 334 'Commonwealth v. Langley, 169 (1878). See also Fox's Case, L. R, 5 Eq. Mass. 89 (1897). See 88 L. T. Rep. 194 118 (1868). * Wright's Case, L. R. 12 Eq 331 325 §§ 154, 155.] [CH. IX. trolled unless unreasonably exercised. Where, upon such a de- mand being made by the subscriber, the directors refuse to dissolve the subscription contract, the subscriber need not always resort to a bill in equity to have the contract set aside for fraud.^ A mere notification to the corporation is generally sufficient.^ § 154. False representation as a defense to an action at law for calls. — The most common remedy of a subscriber induced by fraud to subscribe is to wait until the corporation brings suit to collect the subscriptions, and then to set up the fraud as a defense. !N"early all of the cases in this country are cases where this remedy has been adopted.' A transferee of stock cannot set up the defense that the transferrer was induced by fraud to subscribe.* § 155. Remedy iy Mil in equity. — This is the fairest, safest and most complete remedy that the subscriber has. It is a decisive no- tice to the corporation and all third parties not to rely upon the subscription in question. It avoids the risk of future corporate insolvency. It is the customary, and it seems favorite, remedy in England, and has been clearly upheld in this country.^ It ena- iln England mere repucUation, not followed by anything more, is insuffi- cient. Be Scottish Petroleum Co., L. R. 23 Ch. D. 413 (1883), where the directors refused to allow the rescission. Re Len- nox, etc. Co., 63 L. T. Rep. 791 (1890). See also Hare's Case, L. R 4 Ch. 508 (1869); Steel's Case, 49 L. J. (Ch.) 176 (1879). 2 It is not necessary for a subscriber ■who has been induced to subscribe by fraudulent misrepresentations to file a bill to have his subscription rescinded. A notice to the company that he re- scinds the subscriptions, giving the reasons therefor, is sufficient. Savage V. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 (1894), pointing out the fact also that the English de- cisions on this subject are controlled by the English statute. ' " It is a good answer at common law to an action for calls that the defend- ant was induced to become the holder of the shares by the fraud of the plaint- iffs." Bwlch-y-plwm Lead M, Co. v. Baynes, 86 L. J. (Ex.) 183 (1867); De- posit, etc. Co. V. Ayscough, 6 El. & B. 761 (1856), where the defense failed be- cause it did not state that the defend- ant had renounced any benefits; Sand- 336 ford V. Handy, 38 Wend. 260 (1840). Of. Upper San Joaquin Canal Co. v. Roach, 78 Cal. 552 (1889), holding that this de- fense must be set up by way of coun- terclaim for damages on account of misrepresentations where a note had been given and the stock not returned. A subscriber may defend against notes indorsed by him, in payment of his subscription, on the ground of fraud inducing the subscription. Turner v. Grobe, 44 S. W. Rep. 898 (Tex. 1898). See S. C, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 554 (1900). * Berryville, etc. Cp. v. Lewis, 19 S. E, Rep. 781 (Va. 1894). 5 Where a person is induced to sub- scribe for stock on the fraudulent rep- resentations of the president that the company is in a prosperous condition, the person may file a bill in equity to recover back the money; and equity has jurisdiction on the grounds of dis- covery, account, fraud, misrepresenta- tion and concealment. Both the com- pany and the president individually were made defendants and held liable. Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79 (1892), A person induced by fraud to subscribe for stock may bring an equitable action to procure a rescission of the contract, a CH. IX.J DEi-ENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 156. bles the subscriber to set aside the contract, to enjoin actions at law for calls, and to recover back payments made before discovery of the fraud.' § 156. The complainant in a bill in equity to set aside a subscrip- tion obtained by fraud cannot sue in behalf of himself and others who may wish to come in. But several subscribers, defrauded in the same way, may join in the bill as co-coraplainants.^ Fraudulent intent need not be proved. Scienter is not the essence of the cancellation of her subscription, and the removal of the name from the stock books. The statute of limitations does not begin to run until the fraud is dis- covered. Bosley v. National Machine Co., 133 N. Y. 550 (1890): s. c, 6 N. Y. Supp. 4 (1889); Banque Franco-Egyp- tienne v. Brown, 34 Fed. Rep. 162, 198 (1888); Waldo v. Chicago, etc. R, R.. 14 Wis. 575 (1861); Henderson v. Railroad Co., 17 Tex. 560(1856); Ravi^lins v. Wick- ham, 3 De G. & J. 804 (1858). A court of equity has jurisdiction to cancel a subscription to stock on the ground of fraud, and it is not necessary that the subscriber resort to an action of deceit. Negley v. Hagerstown, etc. Co., 86 Md. 693 (1898). And see the various English cases in this chapter. Se also § 356, infra. In the case of Krueger v. Armi- tage, 58 N. J. Eq. 857 (1899), the court of chancery held that the remedy of a stockholder for fraud inducing him to buy stock was at law alone, where the vendee after discovering the fraud in- stituted insolvency proceedings against the corporation as a stockholder and also delayed in filing his bill for rescis- sion. 1 But the injunction to restrain the action at law will not be granted if the subscriber delays until the case is about to be tried. Thorpe v. Hughes, 8 Myl. & C. 742 (1838). And where the stock has been fully paid, and no injury can come from the delay, equity will not sustain the subscriber's bill to compel repayment, but will send him to a court of law, where a jury may pass upon the question of fraud. Askew's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. 664 (1874). Equity, However, un- 327 questionably has concurrent jurisdic- tion if it cares to exercise it. Hill v. Lane, L. R. 11 Eq. 315 (1870), criticising Ogil vie V. Currie, 87 L. J. (Ch.) 541 (1868). See also g 856, infra. And will enjoin the collection of the subscription pend- ing the suit. Walsh v. Seager, 1 N. Y. St. Rep. 189 (1886), holding, however, that the equitable action will not be enjoined merely because the corpora- tion subsequently becomes insolvent, and a receiver is appointed. 2 Several subscribers who have been induced by the same misrepresentations contained in a prospectus to subscribe for stock may join in a suit in equity for the benefit of themselves and others similarly deceived, to set aside their subscriptions. Bosher v. Richmond, etc. Co., 89 Va. 455 (1892). Several stock- holders may join in filing a bill to re- scind a subscription for stock on the ground that they were induced to sub- scribe by false representations that the corporation had a certain amount of paid-up capital, was out of debt and doing a profitable business, and that the subscribers would be employed. The corporation may be enjoined from transferring its assets in the meantime, and may be compelled to pay back the money paid by complainants. Sherman V. American Stove Co., 85 Mich. 169 (1891). A plaintiff may upon the trial be compelled to elect whether he sues to told the promoters liable for fraud, or whether he sues in behalf of all stockholders and for the benefit of the corporation. Brewster v. Hatch, 123 N. Y. 349 (1890). Several stockholders may join in one bill to rescind their sub- § 156.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [oh. IX. action.' A vendee may often have relief in equity by reason of misrepresentation based upon mistake or innboent misstatements, where the common-law action of deceit would require much more stringent proof.^ The corporation is to be a defendant, and if merely a cancellation of the subscription and an injunction against suits at law are sought, the corporation, it seems, may be the sole defendant. A court of equitj'' in these actions will give complete relief by decreeing that the directors guilty of the fraud shall re- fund to the subscriber payments made by him before discovering the fraud.' This relief dispenses with an action at law for dam- ages for deceit, and when sought for in the bill in equity the guilty directors must be made parties. The bill is not multifarious by reason of its containing prayers for these various kinds of relief.* spriptions for fraud, even though the fraud practiced on one differed from that on others. Carey v. Coffee, etc. Co., 20 S. E. Eep. 778 (Va. 1894). A transferee of the shares cannot bring the suit. The fraud is personal to the original sub- scriber. Duranty's Case, 26 Beav. 268 (1858). 1 See § 356, infra, and § 149, supra. 2Kountze v. Kennedy, 147 N. Y. 124 (1895); Arkwright v. Newbold, L. R 17 Ch. D. 301 (1881). A suit in equity lies to rescind a sale of stock induced by fraudulent representations. Intent to defraud need not be proved. Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 337 (1889); Freer v. Den- ton, 61 N. Y. 492 (1875); Johnson v. Gu- liok, 46 Neb. 817 (1896). Actual intent to defraud need not be shown in a suit in equity to rescind. As to vrhether in such a suit similar frauds practiced on others can be shown in evidence, see § 165, infra. It has been held by the United States court that, to author- ize rescission, the representations must be proven to have been false and made with a fraudulent intent, and that the same were relied on. Bartol v. Walton, etc. Co., 93 Fed. Eep. 13 (1899). i" Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188 (1878). Where sub- scribers bring suit to set aside subscrip- tions and for repayment thereof, for fraud, and join the directors as co- defendants, the directors are not nom- inal parties. Seddon v. Virginia, etc. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 6 (1888). If the suit is in equity for damages, intent must be shown. Hubbard v. Weare, 79 Iowa, 678 (1890). As incidental to the cancella- tion of a subscription, the subscriber may recover assessments already paid and any other disbursements legally made. McClanahan v. Ivanhoe, etc. Co., 96 Va. 124 (1898). A person in- duced to purchase stock by false state- ments published by the directors may hold tlie directors liable either at law or in equity. In the suit in equity, fraudulent intent need not be proved, and the damage may be the difference between the stock as represented to be and the amount realized on distribution by the receiver. Squiers v. Thompson, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 552 (1902). See also Edwards v. Mich. etc. Co., 92 N. W. Eep. 491. * Nor is it multifarious because it joins such a visit with one by the cor- poration to compel the directors to ac- count to the corporation for the same fraud. Ashmead v. Colby, 26 Conn. 287 (1857). Subscribers to stock may re- scind the same on the ground that pro- moters who sold property to the com- pany had misrepresented the character of the property. This suit may be in equity and is not multifarious, although the relief demanded is a canoellation of the sale of the property and for damages against the vendors and co- conspirators, and also for rescission of 338 CH. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETC. [§ 157. § 157. Bemedy 'by an action at law for deceit. — An action at law for damages for deceit lies at the instance of a subscriber for stock, fraudulently induced to subscribe, against the persons guilty of the fraud.i The fraudulent representation, however, which must be proved to sustain this action must be a more intentional fraud than the one which suffices to rescind the contract. The subscriber must prove that a material false representation was made by the defend- ant; that the defendant recklessly made it or knew the representa- tion to be false; that the plaintiff subscribed by reason, partially at least, of that representation, and that he was thereby injured.^ The the subscription. Such a suit lies, al- though the subscribers paid in only $150,000 of cash for |450,000 of stock. Rule 94 of the federal courts does not apply to such a casa Barcus v. Gates, S9 Fed. Eep. 783 (1898). 1 Clarke v. Dickson, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 453 (1859); Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558 (1876); Paddock v. Fletcher, 42 Vt. 389 (1869). In England the liability of the directors herein is enforced generally in connection with a suit in equity, and as a part of the equitable decree. This is under a statute. WesternBank v. Addie, L. R. 1 Sc. App. Cas. 145 (1867). A false affirmation, made by the defendant with intent to defraud the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff receives damage, is the ground of an action upon the case in the nature of deceit. In such an ac- tion it is not necessary that the defend- ant should be benefited by the deceit, or that he should collude with the per- son thus benefited. 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. (Sth Am. ed.), pp. 330, etc., as applicable to misrepresentations inducing sub- scriptions. Brewster v. Hatch, 10 Abb. N. Cas. 400 (1881); afl'd, 132 N. Y. 349 (1890), sustains an action by subscribers for stock, for damages, for false repre- sentations by promoters as to the real cost of property purchased by the lat- ter for the corporation. See also § 651, infra. There is no remedy at law or in equity against the estate of a de- ceased director herein except for prop- erty received by him. Peek?;. Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377 (1873). Subscribers to debentures may recover back the dif- ference between the actual value of the debentures and the price paid. Arnison V. Smith, 59 L. T. Rep. 637 (1888); aff'd, L. R. 40 Ch. D. 567 (1889). Where the president misrepresents the condition of the company to a person and thereby induces the latter to extend credit to the company, the president is person- ally liable in damages to him. Shaw V. Gilbert, 111 Wis. 165 (1901). In Eng- land recourse against directors by a stockholder who was fraudulently in- duced to subscribe is given by statute. Thomson v. Lord Clanmorris, [1899] 3 Ch. 533. 2 In the important case of Derry v. Peek, L. R. 14 App. Cas. 337 (1889), the House of Lords decided that in order to sustain an action of deceit there must be proof of fraud, and nothing short of that will suflSce. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false statement has been made (1) knowingly ; (3) without belief in its truth; (3) reck- lessly. But if a man make a false statement honestly believing it to be true, it is not sufiicient to support an action of deceit to show that he had no reasonable grounds for his belief. The directors of a tramway company issued a prospectus in which they stated that they were authorized to use steam power, and that by this means a great saving in working would be effected. At the time of making this statement they had not in fact obtained authority to use steam power, but they honestly believed that they would obtain it as a matter of course. Held (reversing the 839 § 157.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [oh. IX. gist of the action is fraudulent intent.' It cannot be maintained against the corporation, because the corporation, though liable to refund fraudulently acquired property, is not capable of a fraudu- lent intent.^ It has been held, however, that a subscriber, when sued judgment of the court below, Peek v. Derry, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 541 — 1888), that they were not liable in an action of de- ceit brought by a shareholder who had been induced to apply for shares by the statement in the prospectus. Hence it was held that in an action for deceit by a misrepresentation in a prospectus as to the net profit on the capital em ployed, the action being against one who was a promoter, and also one of the vendors, and whose name appeared in the prospectus, and who became a director, the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant's statement was un- true; (2) that it was dishonest; (3) that he believed it to be untrue. See also Glasieru Rolls, L. R. 43 Ch. D. 436 (1889), following the House of Lords in Derry V. Peek, L. E. 14 App. Cas. 337 (1889). See also Ship v. Crosskill, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. 73 (1870). To sustain an action for deceit the plaintiff must show "that the defendants intended that people should act on the statements, that the statements are untrue in fact, and that the defendants knew them to be un- true, or made them under such circum- stances that the court must conclude that they were careless whether they were true or not; " also tliat the state- ments were relied upon, acted on, and damage sustained. Edgington v. Fitz- maurice, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 459 (1885). Re- liance on the misrepresentations must be shown. Priest v. White, 89 Mo. 609 (1886). ' Scienter is fixed on the directors, making them liable in damages upon proof of incorrect representations, known to them to be incoiTect, know- ingly stated by them, and acted on by the plaintiff subscriber. Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 349 (1867); Car- gill V. Bower, L. R. 10 Ch. D. 503 (1878). See also Bale v. Cleland, 4 P. & F. 117 (1864); and see p. 166, n. 5, supra. There must be an allegation of knowledge and intent to deceive on their part. " Falsely and fraudulently represented " does not properly plead tlie scienter. Mabey v. Adams, 3 Bosw 346 (1858). In case the representations are not fraudulent as against the corporation, they are not sufficient to entitle the subscriber to recover from the directors. Heymann V. European Cent. Ey., L. R 7 Eq. 154 (1868). A subscriber for stock may hold the president liable for false represen- tations made by the latter toother per- sons with an intent that the plaintiff be induced to act upon them. The false representations of the president that a dividend had been earned bind him, where he paid close attention to its af- fairs, and where such dividend was made on an improper and untrue state- ment of assets and liabilities. It must be proven that the defendant president knew that the representations were false, but this may be proven by infer- ence. A stockholder who is induced to make still further subscriptions by rea- son of misrepresentations of an officer may hold him liable. Hubbard v. Weare, 79 Iowa, 678 (1890). The directors are per- sonally liable in an action for deceit where a prospectus falsely states that guaranteed dividends were secured by a deposit of certain securities, and a per- son subscribes for stock relying upon such statements. Knox v. Hayman, 67 L. T. Rep. 137 (1893). 2 Mixer's Case, 4 De G. & J. 575 (1859); Duranty's Case. 36 Beav. 268 (1858): Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 1 So. App. Cas. 145 (1867); Abrath v. Northeastern Ry., L. R. 11 App. Cas. 247 (1886); Houlds- worth V. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 317 (1880); Benjamin, Sales (Bennett's ed. 1888), § 467a. See also 156, supra. Contra, Peebles v. Pa- 3S0 CH. IX.] [§ 158- upon a subscription, may set off damages due to misrepresentations inducing him to subscribe, made by an agent of the corporation in obtaining the subscription.' § 158. The directors are not liable to an action for deceit by rea- son of the frauds of their agents,^ nor is an innocent director liable for the fraudulent representations of his co-directors — not even though the evidences of their fraud were entered on the corporate books, there being no ground for suspicion on his part.' The di- rectors of a bank are not personally liable in a common-lavsr action of deceit for false statements as to the condition of the bank, unless it is shown that they knew the statements to be false. They are not liable if they in good faith relied upon details furnished by clerks.* A director cannot be held liable for false representations con- tained in the articles of association, which were made before he became a director.* But a director who stands by and allows a co-director to make the false representations is equally chargeable with the injury done thereby.^ The false representations support- ing an action for deceit may have been by corporate reports or prospectuses, or by personal statements.'' Promoters who make tapsco Guano Co., 77 N. C. 233 (1877); Barwioku. English Joint Stock Bank, L. E. 3 Exch. 259 (1867); Maokay v. Com- mercial Bank, L. E. 5 P. C. 394 (1874), noVstock cases, but distinctly holding that a corporation is liable to an action for damages for deceit. Where, how- ever, the old corporation organizes a new corporation, and has the latter build a competing road on a new line, a stockholder of the old who contrib- uted lands, etc.. may have an action for damages against it. Chapman v. Mad Eiver, etc. E. R., 6 Ohio St. 119 (1856). A person loaning money to an individual and taking bank stock as collateral security cannot hold the bank liable in an action for damges for de- ceit on the ground that its published statements were false and fraudulent, and that he relied on those statements. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 65 Fed. Eep. 933 (1895). See also article in 1 Ey. & Corp. L. J. 133; Buffalo, etc. Co. V. Standard Oil Co., 43 Hun, 153 (1886); also § 44. Where a subscriber is told that his money goes to the corporation when in factit is divided among the pro- moters, he may sue the corporation for fraudulent representations, even though he has settled with the promo- ters, he not being aware of the fraud at the time of such settlement. Hunter v. French, etc. Co., 96 Iowa, 573 (1896). 1 Owens V. Boyd, etc. Co., 95 Va. 560 (1898). 2 Weir V. Barnett, L. R. 3 Exch. D. 33 (1877); Weir v. Bell, L. E. 8 Exch. D. 238 (1878); Eaglesfield' v. Londonderry (H. L.), 26 W. E. 540 (1878). See also Cargill V. Bower, L. E. 10 Ch. D. 503 (1878); Watson v. Earl Charlemont, 12 Q. B. 856 (1848); Arthur v. Griswold, 55- N. Y. 400 (1874). 3 Re Denham, L. E. 25 Ch. D. 752 (1883). ■•Utley V. Hill, 155 Mo. 332 (1900). Cf. g 703, infra. 5Mabey v. Adams, 3 Bosw. 346 (1858). cVreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188 (1878). 'For a complaint seeking to hold na- tional-bank directors liable for the loss of money deposited, the deposit being induced by erroneous and fraudulent advertisements and reports as to the condition of the bank, see Prescott v. Haughey, 65 Fed. Eep. 653 (1895). 831 § 159.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGREEMENT, ETC. [CE. IX. fraudulent representations as to their profits may be held person- ally responsible.' Where a prospectus, offering for sale trustee's transferable certificates, states that such certificates represent stock deposited with the trustee, the stock being in an English corpora- tion, the trustee is personally liable if it turns out that the English corporation had a prior lien on the stock to the full extent of its A'alue.^ The president of a bank, who has been held liable in dam- ages for deceit in inducing a person to purchase stock from the bank, cannot compel the bank to reimburse him on the ground that the bank had obtained the benefit of the act.' Promoters may be liable for misrepresentations of their agent in obtaining subscrip- tions.* The question of the liability of promoters, generally, is considered elsewhere.* § 159. Remedy iy action for money had and received. — Where a subscriber pays his subscription in part or wholly, and afterwards discovers that the representations whereby he was induced to sub- scribe were fraudulent, he may bring an action at law for money had and received, and recover back from the corporation the money so received.* 1 See § 705, infra. In Franey v. War- ner, 96 Wis. 222 (1897), where promoters purchased land for $33,727 and sold it to the corporation for $45,000 without divulging the profit, the court held that a stockholder could not rescind his sub- scription, inasmuch as the corporation was innocent, but that he might have a judgment against the promoters for his pro rata share of the profit. See also Franey v. Wauwatosa Park Co., 99 Wis. 40 (1898). 2 The trustee was bound to take no- tice of the lien created by the by-laws of the English corporation. The rule of caveat emptor has been relaxed so as to create an implied warranty of title on the part of the seller. Even though the trustee acted as agent, yet, the principal not being disclosed, the trustee is liable. MoClure v. Central Trust Co., 165 N. Y. 108 (1900). 3 Trimble v. Exchange Bank, 62 S. W. Rep. 1027 (Ky. 1901). i Milburn v. Wilson, 31 Can. S. C. Rep. 481 (1901). Cf. 189 U. S. 260. 5 See § 651, infra. In Nova Scotia, where a subscriber sues a promoter for damages for fraud in obtaining for him- self stock and bonds illegally, the suit must be by the corporation, or by the stockholder if the corporation refuses to sue. Weatherbe v. Whitney, 30 Nova Scotia Rep. 49 (1897). Such claim can- not be joined with a personal claim for services rendered, etc. Weatherbe v. Whitney, 30 Nova Scotia Rep. 104 (1897). 6 Grangers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 61 Ga. 561 (1878); Hamilton v. Grangers', eta Ins. Co., 67 Ga. 145 (1881). But the sub- scriber cannot retain the stock and also sue. Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 317 (1880). See Jarrett v. Kennedy, 6 C. B. 319 (1848), where assumpsit for money had and re- ceived, brought against the directors to compel them to repay money paid on a subscription obtained by fraud, was sus- tained, without involving the question of a fraudulent intent. See Bruce v. Nickerson, 141 Mass. 403 (1886). The action for money had and received cannot be brought against other stock- holders for the fraud of a promoter. Perry v. Hale, 143 Mass. 540 (1887). 333 CH. IX.j DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGREEMENT, ETO. [§ 160. § 160. Batification as a 'bar to the subscriber'' s remedies. — A sub- scription contract obtained by fraudulent representations may cease to be voidable and may become absolutely binding by acts of rati- fication. Any act of the subscriber, inconsistent with an intention to disaffirm the contract, will constitute a ratification of the sub- scription and a waiver of the right to avoid it by reason of fraud, provided the subscriber knew of the fraud at the time of such rati- fying act. Thus, where the subscriber, after knowledge of the fraud, receives dividends, sells part of the stock,' instructs his broker to sell,- participates in the meetings,' pays calls,* or, in general, ac- 1 But a sale of a part of the stock be- fore the subscriber discovers the fraud is no bar to a rescission as to the rest. Ex parte West, 56 L. T. Rep. 633 (1887). A subscriber to stock cannot rescind for fraud, when he has had the stock transferred to his infant children, unless their right thereto is also tendered back. Francis v. New York, etc. E. R., 108 N. Y. 93 (1888). 2 Ex parte Briggs, L. R. 1 Eq. 483 (1866). ' Harrison v. Heathorn, 6 Man. & G. 81 (1848); ChafiSn v. Cummings, 37 Me. 76 (1858). A subscriber who acts as di- rector and manager, and purchases lots from the company, cannot rescind his subscription on the ground that certain newspaper articles prepared by himself and others contain misrepresentations. Raymond v. San Gabriel, etc. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 883 (1893). Where the de- frauded party to whom stock has been issued for land does not rescind promptly, but acts as director and allows improvements to be made on the land, he cannot rescind at all. Foley v. Holtry, 41 Neb. 563 (1894). A person may defeat notes given for stock which he was induced fraudulently to pur- chase from the corporation, even though he became and remained cash- ier for the corporation for over a year after the sale and before he set up the defense, and was a director and voted the stock. He did not necessarily learn the facts from occupying these positions, nor from the fact that he made official reports of the condition of the company- He was not bound to investigate. He tendered the stock back as soon as he discovered the facts. Especially do- these rules apply where no creditors or other stockholdei's' rights have inter- vened. National Bank v. Taylor, 5 S. D. 99 (1894), A person cannot rescind for fraud a purchase of stock from the cor- poration itself, where, subsequently to- discovering the fraud,, he attended a stockholders' meeting and voted to as- sess the stock, and afterwards attended another stockholders' meeting and paid the assessment. Marten v. Paul, etc. Co.,. 99 Cal. 355 (1893). See also § 356, infra. * Scholey v. Venezuela Central Ry., L> R. 9 Eq. 366, n. (1870). But not where he paid under compulsion, Ayre's Case, 25 Beav. 513 (1858). A payment of a call on a subscription is not a waiver of the de- fense that the corporation has been formed for different purposes than were represented by the promoters at the time of the subscription, where the sub- scriber did not know that fact when he paid. Strong v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 38 S. W. Rep. 546 (Tex. 1896). A partial payment with full knowledge is a waiver. lie Dunlop-Truffault, etc. Co., 75 L. T. Rep. 385 (1896). Where a sub- scriber, with knowledge of the facts^ pays a call and waits a year, he is- bound. Asoetelyn, etc. Co. v. Smith, 10 Penn. Sup. Ct. 61 (1899). If a subscriber pays an instalment on his stock or par- ticipates in a meeting after incorpora- tion, he cannot afterwards set up that 333 161.J DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. cepts any corporate benefit or continues to act as a stockholder,' he will be held to have waived all objections to the fraud, and to have ratified the subscription contract. A subscriber who for three years was an active director cannot rescind on the ground that fraudulent representations were made to him, nor can other sub- scribers rescind who subscribed through him as agent.^ Where the subscriber, after discovering the fraud, serves as a director for two months and sues the president personally for the fraud, he can- not rescind as to the purchase.^ But mere attendance at a stock- holders' meeting is insufficient.* And a provision in a contract of subscription to the stock of the company, whereby the subscriber waives notice of all contracts between the promoters and the com- pany, is not binding on the stockholder, if such waiver is tricky and fraudulent.^ § 1 61. Ladies as a Mr to the subscriber's remedies. — Where a subscriber for stock, who was induced to subscribe by fraud, neg- lects for an unreasonable time after the discovery of the fraud to have his subscription canceled, and, in the meantime, the interests the charter did not correspond with the prospectus. West End, etc. Co. v. Clai- borne, 97 Va. 734 (1900). 1 Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 33 How. 380 (1859); Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 (1877); Litchfield Bank v. Church, 39 Conn. 137 (I860) ; Centre, etc.Turnp. Co. v. McConaby, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 140 (1837); Mixer's Case, 4 De G. & J. 575 (1859). Waiver of one misrepresentation is not a waiver of others. Ex parte Hale, 55 L. T. Rep. 670 (1886). The question of whether the subscriber has been guilty of laches may be submitted to the jury. Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin, 74 Fed. Rep. 135 (1896). Where a party is in- duced to subscribe by fraud and gives u note in payment, he can defend against the note on that ground, even though two months have elapsed since he discovered the fraud. He does not waive fraud by the fact that he united with others to buy the company's prop- erty. Zang V. Adams, 23 Colo. 408 (1897). The fraud may be waived. Wilson v. Hundley, 96 Va. 96 (1898). 2 American, etc. Assoc, v. Rainbolt, 48 Neb. 434 (1896). 3 Lear v. Paige, etc. Co., 43 8. W. Rep. 808(Tenn. 1897). * Stewart's Case, L. R 1 Ch. App. 574 (1866): Wontner v. Shairp, 4 C. B. 404 (1847); Re Metropolitan, etc. Assoc, 64 L. T. Rep. 561 (1891). 5 Where a prospectus contained a material misrepresentation which in- duced a person -to subscribe, he may maintain a suit to rescind the subscrip- tion, even though the prospectus stated that there were certain contracts not mentioned in the prospectus and that the subscribers would be held to have had notice of the same, and even though the subscription contract con- tains a provision that the subscriber has notice of that which in fact is con- cealed from him. The misrepresenta- tion in this instance was a misleading and ambiguous statement, and also the non-disclosure of an agreement to which the promoter was a party, such agreement not relating to the forma- tion of the company or his subscription to its stock. The court rescinded the subscription and held the directors per- sonally liable for loss sustained by the subscriber. Greenwood v. Leather, etc. Co. Ltd., [1900J 1 Ch. 431. See also p. 318, note 4, supra. 334 CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAJROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 161. of third persons become involved, and would be injured hy the can- cellation of such subscription, the subscriber's laches is a bar to relief, and a court of equity will refuse to set aside the subscrip- tion.^ Equity does not allow the subscriber to say, " I will abide by the company if successful, and I will leave the company if it fails."* Immediately upon receiving information of the fraud, it is his duty to decide whether he will rescind the contract or waive the fraud.' Nevertheless delay is not fatal, unless circumstances and third parties' rights have so changed or been acquired that the rescission would be inequitable. Consequently, the decision of each case depends largely on the facts of the case. Thus, it has been held that a delay of one,^ three,* four," or six months,'' or of two,^ three,' or six'" years, was fatal under the circumstances of the case, while, under different facts, a delay of two months," or even seven iCity Bank v. Bartlett, 71 Ga. 797 <1883). Such delay is also a bar in an action at law. Schanck v. Morris, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 658 (1868). But it is no bar that other subscribers may have been induced to subscribe by reason of this subscription. Western Bank v. Addie, L. R 1 So. App. Cas. 145 (1867). Cf. Parbury's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 43 (1849). 2 Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 263 (1870); Re London, etc. F. Ins. Co., L. R. 24 Ch. D. 149 (1883). See also g 356, infra. 3 Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329 (1857), where there was a de- lay of seven years; Heymann v. Euro- pean Central Ry., L. R. 7 Eq. 154 (1868); Peek V. Gurney, L. R 6 H. L. 377 (1873). The last case overrules Bagshaw v. Sey- mour, 18 C. B. 903 (1856), and Bedford v. Bagshaw, 4 H. & N. 538 (1859). *Taite's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 795 (1867), "the delay evidently being to see which course would be most profitable. 5 Heymann v. European Central Ry., L. R. 7 Eq, 154 (1868). ^ Ex parte Lawrence, 36 L. J. (Ch.) 490 (1867); s. C, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 412. ' Whitehouse's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 790 (1867). 8 Farrar v. Wal ker, 8 DilL 506, n. (1875) ; S. G, 8 Fed. Cas. 1076; Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 263 (1870); Peel's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 674 (1867); Kincaid's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 420 (1867); Wilkinson's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 536 (1867). 8 State V. Jefferson Turnp. Co., 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 305 (1842). i« Denton v. Macneil, L. R. 2 Eq. 353 (1866). Four years' delay in complain- ing of the fraud inducing the purchase, after knowledge thereof, is fatal. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. v. Butler, 83 Iowa, 124 (1891). Where one stockholder who has been fraudulently induced to subscribe for stock awaits the result of an action by another stockholder brought to rescind his subscription on the same ground, the delay being nearly three years, and then commences suit for the same purpose only after a meeting has been called for a winding up, he is guilty of laches, and his remedy is barred. Re Snyder, etc. Co., 68 L. T. Rep. 210 (1893). Several years' delay is a bar to rescission for fraud. Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assoc, 63 N. Y. App. Div. 507 (1901). Where a suit to set aside a forfeiture of stock by the corporation, on the ground of fraud, is compromised, the same stockholder cannot eight years thereafter file another suit to set aside the assessment on the ground of frauds unknown to him when the first suit was compromised. Marks v. Evans, 63 Pac. Rep. 76 (Cal. 1900). Delay for seven years in complaining of a fraud is a bar. Phelps v. American, etc. Assoc, 121 Mich. 343 (1899). '1 Venezuela Central Ry. v. Kisch, L. R 2 H. L. App. 99 (1867). 335 §§ 162, 163.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [pa. IX. years,^ was held not to be a bar. A suit by one signer of a reor- ganization agreement, however, to enforce it, prevents laches being charged against other signers, who do not commence suit until a long time subsequently.^ Acquiescence or affirmance does not bind the stockholder if induced by a reasonable expectation on his part that the fraud would be remedied.' In the remedies by actions at law the statute of limitations governs, and, by analogy, courts of equity are inclined to follow the same period, unless there are equi- table reasons to the contrary. In a suit against a director for fraud in inducing subscription, the statute of limitations begins to run from the time of subscription, and the liability is not a penalty, even though the liability is made statutory.'' § 162. The date from which laches begins to run is the time when the subscriber is first chargeable with notice that a fraud has been perpetrated upon him. Mere suspicions or random statements heard in public or in stockholders' meetings do not necessarily con- stitute notice.^ But after a subscriber's suspicions are reasonably aroused, it is his duty to investigate at once.^ The corporation has the burden of proof in asserting that the subscriber had notice and was guilty of laches.'' The House of Lords in England has recently held that where a subscriber sets up fraud as a defense to an action for calls, he need not show repudiation since he discovered th& fraud. On the contrary, the company must show that he adhered to the contract after his knowledge of the fraud.' § 163. Corporate insolvency as a iar to the suhscriier's rem- edies. — In England the principle has become well established that, after the statutory proceedings for winding up a corporation by reason of corporate insolvency have been commenced, a subscriber cannot rescind his subscription on account of fraud.' He is too late. It matters not that he did not discover the fraud until after the 1 McClellan v. Scott, 24 "Wig. 81 (1869). 8 Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss, [1896] A. G. 2 Cox V. Stokes, 156 N. Y. 491 (1898). 273. s West End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne, 97 » Wright's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 331 (1871);. Va. 784 (1900). Kent v. Freehold, etc. Co., L. E. 3 Ch., ^Thompsonw Lord Clanmorris, [1900] App. 493 (1868); Henderson u Royal 1 Ch. 718. British Bank, 7 EI. & BL 356 (1857);. 5 Venezuela Central R3'. v. Kisch, Powis v. Harding,! C. B. (N. S.) 533- L. R 2 H. L. App. 99 (1867). (1857); Daniel v. Royal British Bank, 1 SQgilvie v. Currie, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 541 Hurlst. & N. 681 (1857);.Oakes v. Tur- (1867); Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Bq. 263 quand, L. E. 3 H. L. App. 335 (1867); (1870); Bosley v. National Machine Co., Mixer's Case, 4 De G. & J. 575 (1859); 133 N. Y. 550 (1890). Clarke v. Dickson, 37 L. J. (Q. B.) 223- ' Quoted and approved in Virginia (1858). So, also, where there is a volun- Land Co. v. Haupt, 90 Va. 533 (1894) ; tary winding up by reason of corporate Be London, etc. Ins. Co., L. R. 24 Ch. D. insolvency. Stone v. City, etc. Bank, 149 (1883). L. R. 3 C. P. D. 282 (1877); Collins w- 336 OH. IX.] DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 164. winding up has coramenced. The rights of corporate creditors prevail, then, over the equities of the subscriber.^ If, however, he instituted proceedings to rescind the contract before the winding up was commenced, he may be released, although the proceedings are not completed until after such winding up.^ So, also, where there are several similar cases, and by agreement with the corpo- rate solicitors all the cases are to follow a test case, this agreement prevails, although a winding up is commenced before the test case is fully decided.' § 164. In this country the effect of corporate insolvency upon the right of a subscriber to rescind his contract for fraud has not been passed upon so often as in England. The decisions, however, clearly hold that corporate insolvency is, as a rule, a bar to such rescission.* The supreme court of the United States has held that City, etc. Bank, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 389 (1877). But not if the proceedings for rescission were commenced in good faith and in ignorance of the winding- up proceedings. Hall v. Old Talargooh MiD. Co., L. R 3 Ch. D. 749 (1876). 1 Turner v. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649 (1880). 2 Reese River, etc Ca v. Smith, L. R 4 H. L. 64 (1869); affirming L. R 3 Ch. 604; L. R. 3 Eq. 364; reversing 36 L. J. (Ch.) 385. Where a subscriber is sued on the subscription and he interposes the defense of misrepresentations, the defense, if proved, is good, even though ten days after interposing his defense suit to wind up the company is com- menced. Re General Railway Syndi- cate, [1900] 1 Ch. 365; rev'g [1899] 1 Ch. 770. A subscriber is liable on a wind- ing up although he had repudiated the subscription long before on the ground of fraud, and understood that his name had been dropped. Se Len- nox PublishiAg Co., 63 L. T. Rep. 791 (1890). If the party institutes legal proceedings to cancel his subscription on the ground of fraud, prior to the commencement of the winding-up pro- ceedings, the insolvency of the com- pany is no bar. Cocksedge v. Metro- politan, etc. Assoc, 64 L. T. Rep. 836 (1891); aff'd, 65 I* T. Rep. 433 (1891), The highest court in England in one (S3) case intimated that corporate insolv- ency is a bar to rescission of a subscrip- tion for fraud, even though a winding up has not been commenced. Tennent V. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 615 (1879).' See also Burgess's Case, L. R 15 Ch. D. 507 (1880). But the fact that the company is unable to meet its engagements at the time of rescission is no bar if the subscriber is ignorant thereof. Ex parte Carling, 56L.T. Rep. 115(1887). 8 Pawle's Case, L. R 4 Ch. App. 497 (1869); McNiell's Case, L. R 10 Eq. 503 (1870). But mere attendance at the meeting where such stipulation is made is sufEcient The subscriber must plainly indicate an intention to abide by the test case. Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Eq 363 (1870). * Approved in Howard v. Turner, 155 Pa, St. 349 (1893), holding that after the corporation has become insolvent and a receiver appointed, it is too late for a party to avoid his subscription on the ground of fraud. Fraud on the part of the officers in inducing the purchase is no defense to the statutory liability after the company becomes insolvent and passes into a receiver's hands. Bissell v. Heath, 98 Mich. 472 (1894). After insolvency it is too late to rescind. Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 367 (1897); Sheaf e v. Larimer, 79 337 § 164.J DEFENSE OF PAEOL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [CH. IX. a subscriber to the stock of- a national bank cannot, after the bank has become insolvent, avoid his statutory liability on the stock by the defense that he was induced, by fraudulent representations of the bank and its oflBcers, to become a stockholder.' Neverthe- Fed. Rep. 921 (1897). Delay in rescind- ing for a year and a half, with knowl- edge, is fatal where the corporation has become insolvent in the meantime. Hilliard v. Allegheny, etc. Co., 173 Pa. St. 1 (1896). After the company becomes insolv- ent, and two and a half years have elapsed since the subscription, and dur- ing this time the means of discovering the fraud were open to the subscriber, the subscriber cannot rescind for fraud. Martin v. South, etc. Co., 94 Va. 88 (1896); Ruggles V. Brock, 6 Hun, 164 (1875); Safifold V. Barnes, 39 Miss. 399 (1860). Afterthe corporation becomes insolvent a subscriber cannot repudiate for fraud. DuflSeld V. Barnum, etc. Works, 64 Mich. 293 (1887). After a bank has become insolvent the statutory liability of a stockholder cannot be avoided by the defense of fraud in obtaining his sub- scription four years prior thereto. Foster, V. Row, 120 Mich. 1 (1899). A stock^ holder who delays two and one-half years in bringing suit to cancel a sub- scription for fraud, and in the meantime has served as director and the com- pany has become insolvent, is barred from relief. Moreover, a receiver of a bank is a necessary party to such a suit by a stockholder to cancel his subscrip- tion for fraud, and a suit against him for that purpose, without leave of court, will be dismissed. Earle v. Humphrey, 121 Mich. 518 (1899). A subscriber who for three years after learning of the facts, delays Jn bringing a suit for re- scission cannot then maintain a suit against the receiver of the corporation. Tierney v. Parker, 58 N. J. Eq. 117 (1899). A parol agreement that the stock should be paid for in a certain way is no de- fense after the corporation becomes insolvent. Roach v. Burgess, 62 S. W. Rep. 803 (Tex. 1901). Cf. Litchfield 338 Bank v. Peck, 39 Conn. 384 (1860). Fraud is no defense as against creditors. Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892); McDowall v. Sheehan, 13 N. Y. Supp. 386 (1891). Nor after insolvency. Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238 (1890). See also § 861, infra. An action to rescind the purchase of stock lies where the money paid therefor was to be applied to a certain purpose, but was not so applied, but the receiver will not be di- rected to give up the money. Moore v. Robertson, 25 Abb. N. Cas. 173 (1890). In the bankruptcy courts, under the former bankruptcy law, it was held that insolvency was a bar to the defense of fraud inducing a subscription to stock. Farrar v. Walker, 13 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 83 (1875); s. c, 8 Fed. Cas. 1076: Michener v. Payson, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 49 (1875); s. c, 17 Fed. Cas. 259. 1 Scott I'. Deweese, 181 U. S. 203 (1901). In Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665, 667 (1877), the court says it has often been held that the defense of false and fraudulent representations will not pre- vail against a receiver, especially where there has not been a prompt discovery of the fraud, followed by a repudiation; citing Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875); Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380 (1859). After a national bank be- comes insolvent it is too late for a stock- holder to rescind a subscription on the ground of fraud occurring many years prior thereto. Scott v. Latimer, 89 Fed. Rep. 843 (1898). After the insolvency of a national bank a stockholder can- not avoid liability on the ground that he was induced to subscribe by fraud, unless he shows that there are no cred- itors who became such while he was a registered stockholder; neither can he set up a counter-claim for damages due CH. IX.J DEFENSE OF PAROL AGEEEMENT, ETC. [§ 164: less, there are strong American cases to the effect that the insolv- ency of the corporation and the appointment of a receiver do not always bar the right of a subscriber to rescind his subscription on the ground of fraudulent representations.' And even after the corporation passes into an assignee's hands a stockholder fraudu- lently induced by the president to take stock by misrepresenta- to the fraud. Lantry v. Wallace, 97 Fed. Rep. 865 (1899). Although a sub- scriber to national bank stock ;nay have the subscription rescinded for fraud, even after the bank lias passed into a receiver's hE|,nds, yet he must show diligence and must show that the creditors of the bank did not become such vchile he held the stock. Wal- lace V. Bacon, 86 Fed. Rep. 553 (1898). It is too late after proceedings to wind up have been commenced, the court hold- ing, however, that in the case at bar the defendant might easily have dis- covered the fraud prior to the insolv- ency. Ross, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 957 (1896). A pur- chaser of national bank stock from the bank itself cannot, after the bank has passed into the hands of a receiver, de- fend against the statutory liability on the ground of fraud inducing him to purchase unless he proves acts of dili- gence which negative any charge of negligence, and also proves that no debt was created nor credit given the bank after he became such stockholder. Wallace v. Hood, 89 Fed. Rep. 11 (1898). A person seeking to rescind after the •corporation becomes insolvent must show that he used due diligence after discovering the fraud. Bartol v. Wal- ton, etc. Co., 93 Fed. Rep. 13 (1899;. 1 Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin, 74 Fed. Rep. 135 (1896), aflf'g Newbegin v. Newton, Nat Bank, 66 Fed. Rep. 701, where the subscriber subscribed in May, 1890, and the bank failed in No- vember, and the subscriber at once in- stituted proceedings for rescission, and in May, 1891, filed a bill for that pur- pose and then withdrew the suit on a proposed reorganization, and then in i^^ovember, 1891, started the suit again. and in December, 1893, the bank failed again. The court held that the suit might succeed, the subscriber not hav- ing taken any part in the management and having been a non-resident, and no large corporate indebtedness having been incurred in the meantime. , Where a subscriber subscribes in August, discovers the fraudulent mis- representations in November, serves notice on the company in January that he repudiates the subscription, an ac- tion in behalf of corporate creditors against him to collect fails, the com- pany having assigned in April. Savage V. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 (1894); Ramsey V. Thompson Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313 (1893), holding that even after insolv- ency the subscription may be repudi- ated for fraud. Where a stockholder in an insolvent corporation sets up fraud as a defense, it is for the jury to say whether he rescinded within a rea- sonable time after the discovery of the fraud. Urner v. SoUenberger, 89 Md. 316 (1899). Even after corporate insolvency fraud is a defense to an action on a subscription, where there is no proof that any debts were incurred by the corporation after such subscription was made. Beal v. Dillon, 5 Kan. App. 37 (1896). Even after a receiver is ap- pointed of a bank, a person who was induced to buy stock of the bank by fraudulent statements that the stock was worth par can rescind by suit. Robinson v. Dickey, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 70 (1896). Even though the corporation has become insolvent, yet a subscriber may rescind on the ground that it was misrepresented to him that the com- pany was solvent, especially where only two months have intervened and 339 § 165.] DEFENSE OF PAROL AGREEMENT, ETO. [oh. IX. tions as to the condition of the company may sue the company for damages and join the assignee.* § 165. Essential allegations in legal proceedings to remedy a fraud inducing subscription. — The essential allegations, especially in a suit in equity^ necessarily vary according to the peculiar facts of each case. Yet there are certain elements common to all the cases. It is necessary to allege that a material misrepresentation of a ques- tion of fact was made, setting out fully the fact misrepresented ; that the person making the misrepresentation thereby bound the corporation; and that, upon discovery of the fraud, he immediately disaffirmed the contract.' The bill must set out in full the facts justifying rescission.' That the representation was false cannot be proved by statements made by the directors in stockholders' meet- ings.* The burden of proving that the representation was false, and that the subscriber relied thereon, is upon the subscriber.' In New York, proof of other similar contemporaneous frauds is ad- missible.' In a suit at law brought by the receiver of a national bank against a stockholder on his statutory liability, he cannot set up fraud on the part of the bank in inducing him to subscribe. That defense, if good at all, is available only by a suit in equity. Neither can the defendant set up a counter-claim for the money so paid by him for the stock.' the stockholder has not been guilty of laches. Park v. Kribs, 84 Tex. Civ. App. 650 (1900), 73 S. W. Rep. 437. 1 Dorsey Mach. Ca v. McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 545 (1894). * Quoted and approved in Armstrong V. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276 (1890); Bwlch-y-plwm L. M. Co. v. Baynes, 36 L. J. (Ex.) 183 (1867); Deposit, etc. Co. V. Ayscough, 6 El. & B. 761 (1856); Up- ton V. Englehart, 3 Dill. 496 (1874); s. 0., 88 Fed. Cas. 835; Hallows v. Fernie, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 467 (1868); Selma, etc R. B. V. Anderson, 51 Miss. 829 (1876),— the last case holding it necessary to allege also that the fact misrepresented was not a charter matter. Carey v. Cincin- nati, etc. R. R., 5 Iowa, 357 (1857), in- dicates that an allegation that the cer- tificates are brought into court for dis- posal is proper. See also Oregon Cent. R, R. V. Sooggin, S Oreg. 161 (1869); Gil- flUan V. Mawhinney, 149 Mass. 364 (1889). 3 Bartol V. Walton, etc. Ca, 93 Fed. Rep. 13 (1899> *Jte Devala, etc. Ca, L. R, 33 Ch. D. 340 593 (1883). Of. Philadelphia, eta R. R. V. Quigley, 31 How. 203 (1858). Contra^ Jarrett v. Kennedy, 6 C. R 319 (1848). 6 Jennings v. Broughton, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 585 (1853). A subscription will not be- decreed to be canceled unless the proof of fraudulent representations is very clear, especially where the subscription contained special terms in writing. Wenstrom, eta Co. v. Purnell, 75 Md. 113. (1891). 6 Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558 (1876'. In Alabama it is not admissible. Mont- gomery Southern By. v. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357 (1884). Fraudulent representa- tions to others made about the same time are not admissible as evidence. Roche V. Coleman, 43 S. W. Rep. 739' (Ky. 1897); Johnson v. Gulick, 46 Neb. 817 (1896). Proof of similar frauds on others is not admissible where it is ad- mitted that the representations were- made but denied that they were false. Anderson v. Scott, 49 Atl. Rep, 668 (N. H. 1901). See also note 1, p 811. 1 Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 536 (1901). CHAPTEE X. MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES TO SUBSCRIPTIONS FOE CAPITAL STOCK. § 166, Defenses to subscriptions not fa- vored by the courts. 167-170. Release, withdrawal, sur- render, cancellation, rescis- sion, or substitution — Sub- scription revocable by its terms — Payment by dividend. 171. Compromise. 173-175. Non-payment of percentage required by statute. 176-181. Full capital stock not sub- scribed. 182. Capital stock not definitely re- solved upon. 183-186. Irregular incorporation. 187. Ultra vires acts. § 188. Fraud and mismanagement of directors. 189. Delay and abandonment of en- terprise. 190. Failure of corporate enterprise. 191. Secret agreement as to liability — Other subscribers released. 193. No certificates of stock issued. 193. Set-off and counter-claim. 194. Modification of the plan and scope of the enterprise after subscription. 195. Statute of limitations. 196. Ignorance or mistake. 197. Miscellaneous defenses. 198. Waiver of defenses. § 166. Defenses to siibscriptions not favored hy the courts. — In the early days of corporate enterprises, especially of railroads, the subscribers to stock rarely realized a profit from their investment, but, on the contrary, lost the whole amount of the subscription which they had made. These subscriptions were generally not called in until after corporate insolvency had occurred. Then the reluctance of the subscriber to pay a subscription from which there was no hope of a return led him to set up all possible defenses to defeat any action for the collection of the amount due from him. Some of these defenses were just, and have been sustained ; but most of them have not been allowed. On the theory that, having taken the chances of large gains, the subscriber took also the risk of total loss, and that the hardship of the subscriber was not equal to the superior equities and rights of corporate creditors, the courts have uniformly discountenanced such defenses, and have rigidly enforced the subscriber's liability. § 167. Release, withdrawal, surrender, cancellation, rescission, or substitution — Subscription revocable by its terms — Payment by dividend.— These terms are frequently used as synonymous, al- though technically they have different meanings. The term release, especially, has led to considerable confusion. It has been applied to cases where the subscriber withdraws his subscription, the con- tract not yet having been closed; second, to cases where the sub- scriber retains his stock, but is not required to pay the full par value thereof; third, to cases where the subscription contract is dissolved 341 § 168.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. by mutual agreement. A subscriber may withdraw from his sub- scription if the withdrawal is prior to the incorporation. Notice of the withdrawal may be verbal, and may be given to the chief party in the enterprise, who afterwards is made president.^ The term rescission is more properly applied to a case of fraud- ulent representations.^ Probably the term cancellation describes most accurately the dissolution of a subscription contract by the mutual consent of all parties concerned.' § 168. A subscription contract, like any other contract, may be waived, canceled, or dissolved by the mutual consent of all the parties interested. The interested parties are the subscriber him- 1 Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 161 Mass. 10 (1894); s. C, 156 Mass. 83 (1892). A subscription prior to organiza- tion may be withdrawn at any time prior to organization and acceptance. Bryant's, etc. Co. v. Felt, 87 Me. 334(1895). The agreement of a creditor of a corpo- ration to take stock in a proposed re- organized company may be revoked by the creditor at any time before actual performance. Providence, etc. Co. v. Kent, etc. Co., 19 R. I. 561 (1896). A per- son may withdraw from a voluntary subscription at any time before the full amount is subscribed or liabilities in- curred or the organization perfected. Lewis w Hillsboro, etc. Co., 33 S. W. Rep. 888 (Tex. 1898). A subscriber to stock may withdraw his subscription before the organization thereof, before the ex- penditure of any money, and witli the consent of the payee. - Patty v. Hills- boro, etc. Co., 4 Tex. Civ. App. 334 (1893). An underwriter cannot withdraw where the party to whom he gave the power to underwrite for him had an interest in the contract being carried out. Re Hannan's, etc. Co., [1896] 3 Ch. 643. A subscriber may withdraw at any time prior to the filing of the articles of in- corporation. Auburn, etc. Works v. ShuHz, 143 Pa. St. 356 (1891); Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. R. R., 78 Pa. St. 465 (1875). A person giving a capital stock note to a proposed insurance company may withdraw therefrom prior to the incor- poration of the company where the in- corporation was delayed fifteen months and it was represented to the subscriber that the note had been lost. Raegener V. Brockway, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 166 (1901). Prior to incorporation a sub- scriber may withdraw, especially if his subscription was informal and was merely to see what could be done. Plank's Tavern Co. v. Burkhard, 87 Mich. 183 (1891). In Pennsylvania a subscriber for stock may withdraw at any time before the charter is applied for. Munoy, , etc. Co. V. De La Green, 13 Atl. Rep. 747 (Pa. 1888). See also Cook v. Chittenden, 35 Fed. Rep. 544 (1885), allowing a with- drawal where no others have subscribed in reliance thereon, nor creditors' debts incurred; Gulf, etc. Ry. v. Neely, 64 Tex. 344 (1885), holding that there can be no withdrawal after an acceptance by the corporation. Of. Tilsonburg, etc. Co. V. Goodrich, 8 Ontario (Q. B. D.), 565 (1885) ; Rose v. San Antonio, etc. R R, 31 Tex. 49 (1868); Lake Ontario, etc. R R. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, 463 (1857). See also GafiE v. Flesher, 88 Ohio. St. 107 (1877); and §§ 56, 72, 84, supra. z See ch. IX. 'For a definition of the words "sur- render "and " cancellation," see Green's Brice's Ultra Vires i3d ed.', 181, 189; Re Dronfield, etc. Co., L. R. 17 Cli. D. 76 (1880); Cohille's Case, 48 L. J. (Ch.) 633 (1879). Cancellation cannot be ob- jected to on the ground that it reduces the capital stock. It no more reduces the capital stock than a forfeiture does. Re Dronfield, etc. Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 76 (1880). 343 OH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 168. self, the other stockholders, and the corporate creditors existing at the time of the cancellation. Frequently the directors of the cor- poration attempt to usurp this right and power of the general stockholders. The well-established rule, however, is that corpo- rate directors have no power to agree with a subscriber that his subscription shall be canceled, unless such power is given to them by charter or statute or the by-laws of the corporation.^ The can- iln the case of Bedford E. R. v. Bow- ser, 48 Pa. St. 29 (1864), where, just be- fore the expiration of their office, the directors fraudulently released part of the subscribers, the court said: "It is is an abuse of their trust, wholly unauthorized, and at war with the design of the charter, to single out some of the stock subscribers and re- lease them from their liability. No such authority in them has ever been recognized." To same effect, Braddook, etc. Ey. V. Bily, 11 Penn. Sup. Ct. 144 (1899). The directors have no power to release a subscriber nor to allow him to make additional conditions to his subscription. La Fayette, etc. Corp. v. Ryland, 80 Wis. 29 (1891). To the same effect. Eider v. Morrison, 54 Md. 439 (1880): Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870); Eyder v. Alton, etc. E. R, 13 111. 516 (1851); Tuokerman v. Brown, 38 N. Y. 297 (1865); Re Esparto Trading Co., L. R. 12 Ch. D. 191 (1879); Re United Service Co., L. E. 5 Ch. App. 707 (1870); Re London, etc. Coal Co., L. R. 5 Ch. D. 525 (1877); Re Argyle, etc. Co., 54 L. T. Eep. 233 (1885); Ex parte Fletcher, 37 L. J. (Ch.) 49 (1867; Addi- son's Case, L. E. 5 Ch. 294 (1870); Spack- man v. Evans, L. R. 8 H. L. 171 (1868). But see Thomas's Case, L. R, 13 Eq. 437 (1873), where the directors had power to " enter into, alter, rescind, or aban- don contracts; " Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305 (1858), holding that power to forfeit does not give power to cancel; Adams's Case, L. E 13 Eq. 474 (1873), holding that power to compromise gives no power to cancel, the vice- chancellor saying: "It would be put- ting into the hands of directors an almost unlimited power. ... It might happen in cases where it would be impossible to fix fraud on them.'' A cancellation of shares is void, and the subscriber is liable, though ten years have elapsed. Re Argyle, etc. Co., 54 L. T. Rep. 333 (1885). Of. Plate Glass Univ. Ins. Co. v. Sunley, 8 El. & Bl. 47 (1857); KoUman's, etc. Co. v. Beresford, 2 Macn. & G. 197 (1850); Lord Bel haven's Case, 34 L. J. (Ch.) 503 (1865); Ex parte Blake, 84 L. J. (Ch.) 278 (1865); Fox's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 118 (1868); Dixon's Case, L. E 5 Ch. App. 79 (1869), rev'd on another point, L. R. 5 H. L. 606 (1872); Burt v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 518 (1857); Gregory v. Lamb, 16 Neb. 205 (1884); Erskine v. Peck, 83 Mo. 465 (1884) See also § 153, supra. The directors may release a subscrip- tion payable in property, part of which has been delivered. Nettles v. Marco, 33 S. C. 47 (1890). Before organization a subscriber probatbly can be released by the promoters and his subscription canceled, but after organization the of- ficers have no power to release him and take other subscriptions in his stead. Nothing but a transfer is then available. The officers cannot repay to him the amount paid in by him. He is and remains liable. Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). A sub- scription which has been fraudulently obtained may be canceled by the direct- ors, and, after four years' acquiescence by the corporation, corporate creditors cannot attack it. McDermott v. Har- rison, 9 N. Y. Supp. 184 (1890-. The ex- press power of the directors to do all things "conducive to the attainment of the objects " for which it was estab- 343 § 168.] MISOELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. cellation of a subscription differs little from a purchase by the cor- poration of shares of its own stock. The rules of law governing such a transaction are stated elsewhere.' lished does not enable them to agree to a cancellation. Be Dronfield, etc. Co., L. R. 17 Ch. D. 76 (1880). As against corporate creditors a subscrip- tion cannot be canceled, although the work in which the subscription is due can no longer be done. Wheatcroft's Case, 29 L. T. 334 (1873). Sometimes the directors agree in advance to re- lease or cancel a part or all of the sub- scriber's contract. Such agreements are void, not only as ultra vires, but as frauds on other subscribera Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 (1875); Robin- son V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 83 Pa. St. 384 (1858); Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. 46, 65 (1838); Jewett v. Valley Ry., 34 Ohio St. 601 (1878); White Mountains R. R, v. Eastman, 34 K. E. 124 (1856). See also Pickering v. Tem- pleton, 3 Mo. App. 425 (1876); Downie V. White, 13 Wis. 176 (1860); Blodgett V. Morrill, 30 Vt. 509 (1848); Davidson's Case, 3 De G. & S. 31 (1849); Bridger's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 74 (1869); Litchfield Bank v. Church, 29 Conn. 137 (1860). Where, however, the issue itself is wKra vires, being fictitious paid-up stock, the directors may agree to a cancellation. Barnett's Case, L. R. 18 Eq. 507 (1874). Or in the case of an ultra vires stock dividend. HoUingshead v. Woodward, 35 Hun, 410 (1885); afif'd, 107 N. Y. 96 (1887). They may cancel it for mistake in registering the wrong person. Ex parte Keightley, 9 Weekly Notes, 18, 47 (1874). See Hartley's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. 157 (1875). The agreement of a stockholder to surrender his stock in liquidation of an unpaid assessment is without consideration and does not bind a purchaser of the certificate. Hill V. Atoka Coal Co., 21 S. W. Rep. 608 (Mo. 1893). The directors have no power to cancel a subscription, or any part of it, except upon the consent of all the stockholders. Gathright v. Oil City, etc. Co., 56 S. W. Rep. 163 (Ky. 1900). The president has no authority to release a subscription, and moreover any release must have a sufiicient con- sideration. United Growers Co. v. Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1 (1897). The secretary cannot accept a surrender and cancellation of the subscription. Minnehaha, etc. Assoc, v. Legg, 50 Minn. 338 (1893). In England an express power given by the articles of associa- tion of the corporation may authorize cancellation by the directors. Colville's Case, 48 L. J. (Ch.) 683 (1879) ; Snell's Case, L. E. 5 Ch. 23 (1869); Wright's Case, L. R 13 Eq. 331 (1871), reversed in L. R 7 Ch. App. 55 (1871); Teasdale's Case, L R. 9 Ch. 54 (1873): Whiteley's Case, 60 L. T. Rep. 807 (1889). Healey, Com- panies' Law & Pr. (3d Eng. ed.), p. 110, says: "There is no inherent power in directors to accept a surrender of shares, nor is the acceptance of a sur- render a matter lying between the majority and minority. Every share- holder must expressly ... or im- pliedly join in the release; though a company may be precluded by knowl- edge and acquiescence from disputing the validity of the surrender." Citing many cases, and discussing what con- stitutes notice and acquiescence. iSee g§ 251, 309, 310, etc., infra. A plan whereby the corporation takes back the stock and issues certificates of indebtedness for it is invalid as against creditors. The latter are entitled to the assets in preference to the former. Heggie v. People's Building, etc. Assoc, 107 N. C. 581 (1890). In England a sur- render of a stock subscription is legal only when a forfeiture of the same would be legal, and is the same as a purchase by the company of its own stock, and hence is illegal, and the sub- scriber still remains liable. Bellerby t'. Rowland, etc. Co., [1903] 3 Ch. 14. A 844 CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 168. It is legal for a corporation, by common consent, to issue to its stockholders full-paid stock to the amount of cash actually paid in on a larger subscription, the first subscription being canceled, pro- vided arrangement is made before debts are incurred.^ Where a person owns partly paid-up stock, the company may agree that the amount already paid shall be applied on a part of the stock, thereby making that part fully paid-up stock. A transferee of such paid-up stock is not liable thereon, even though he took title with full knowledge of the facts.^ The payment of a subscription in whole or in part by a dividend is considered elsewhere.' cancellation and repayment is illegal. Mayfleld v. Alton Ry., 100 111. App. 614 (1901). 1 Hill V. Silvey, 81 Ga. 500 (1889). A stockholder objecting to partially-paid stock being called in and fall-paid stock being issued to the amount already paid up should file a bill for an injunction. It is no defense to the collection of the amount already called on the stock first issued. American Alkali Co. v. Camp- bell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398 (1903). Where a corporation has allowed a subscriber to cancel his subscription, neither the cor- poration nor its assignee can afterwards enforce the subscription, even though corporatfrcreditors might do so. Hence, where the stockholders had paid sixty per cent, of their subscription, and sub- sequently full-paid stock for the sixty per cent, was issued and the remaining forty per cent, canceled, the assignee for the benefit of the creditors of the ■corporation cannot collect the remain- ing forty per cent. Lellyett v. Brooks, 63 S. W. Rep. 596 (Tenn. 1901). Where the capital stock is reduced, and sub- scribers cancel unpaid subscriptions, and take paid-up stock to the extent of their payments on the old stock, old corporate creditors may hold them lia- ble on the former. Re State Ins. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 28 (1882). It is legal for the corporation to make an agreement with stockholders whereby the latter surrender their stock upon which they have paid twenty per cent, and receive full-paid stock to the amount of twenty per cent, of the stock surrendered. A receiver cannot attack this agreement even in behalf of cred- itors. Republic L. Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 135 111. 150 (1890). Although the direct ors cannot, yet the stockholders, by unanimous consent, may allow sub- scriptions to be reduced one-half by can- cellation of one-half, creditors' rights not intervening. Glenn v. Hatchett, 91 Ala. 316 (1890). 2 Neelon v. Thorold, 33 S. C. of Can- ada, 390 (1893), rev'g 18 App. R. 658, and aff'g 20 O. R. 86. Where calls to the amount of fifty per cent, have been paid, the president cannot agree with a stockholder that he should be released from one-half of his subscription and take full-paid stock for the remainder. Fuches V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 10 Ont. (Can.) 497 (1886). A subscriber for $1,000 of stock who' pays in |200, being twenty per cent., and then transfers $200 of full- paid stock to another, is still liable for the remaining $800. It is immaterial that the old certificates, showing that twenty per cent, had been paid, were returned to the corporation, and only $200 of stock re-issued. This does not amount to a reduction of the stock to twenty per cent Putnam v. Hutchison, 4 Kan. App. 378 (1896). 3 See § 544, infra. A bonus paid by citizens may be used by subscribers for stock to make a partial payment on their stock, unless the bonus was made directly to the corporation. McDer- mott V. Squier, 124 Mich. 523 (1900). 345 § 169.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. § 169. A subscriber for stock in a corporation cannot obtain a cancellation of his subscription except by the unanimous consent of the other subscribers.' Even a majority of the stockholders cannot withdraw and refuse to proceed.^ By unanimous consent, how- ever, of the stockholders a subscription may be canceled, and a sub- sequent creditor of the corporation cannot complain.' A surrender may mean a giving up of partly paid stock by way of donation.* 1 Kidwelly Canal Co. v. Raby, 2 Price, 93 (1816); Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 431, 463 (1857); Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316 (1870); Johnson v. Wabash, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 389 (1861); United Soo. v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 456 (1839); Bishop's Fund v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 476 (1829); Selma, etc. R. R. V. Tipton, 5 Ala. (N. S.) 787 (1843); Chicago, etc. Co. v. Summerour, 101 Ga. 8^0 (1897). A subscription for capital stock of a corporation cannot be can- celed without the consent of all the stockholders, except for fraud or mis- take. Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon, 107 Cal. 447 (1895). Where a person subscribes for stock, and then an oral arrangement is made with the other stockholders, by which the former is to be released and the latter are to carry on the business, and the latter then sell their stock after assigning to one of their number certain corporate assets, including the subscription above named, such sub- scription cannot be enforced. Cusick v. Bartlett, 91 Me. 153 (1898). Where there are only five stockholders and no cred- itors, and no business has been done, the five may release each other from their subscriptions, and one of them who subsequently obtains control of the association cannot cause the corpora- tion to enforce such subscriptions. Non- Electric, etc. Co. V. Peabody, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 247 (1897). The plea in de- fense need not allege that the other stockholders assented to the cancella- tion. Gelpcke v. Blake, 19 Iowa, 263 (1865). A subscriber cannot withdraw except with the consent of all the per- sons who have subscribed. Chicago, etc. Co. V. Lyon, 10 Okl. 704 (1901). Where, however, by the articles of as- sociation, acts of the directors ratified at stockholders' meetings were to be valid, a cancellation so ratified is legal, and the unanimous consent is not nee- % essary. Marshall v. Glamorgan, etc. Coal Co., L. R. 7 Eq. 129 (1868). Where property is sold to a corporation for stock, and other stockholders are dis- satisfied, the bargain may be rescinded. The stockholder will then no longer be liable. Morgan v. Lewis, ,46 Ohio St. I (1888). Cancellation is a question of fact, If there is no record of it, and the stockholder continues to act, he is bound. Topeka Mfg. Co. v. Hale, 89 Kan. 23 (1888). An offer or agreement to subscribe is revoked by death, where it has not yet been accepted by the cor- poration. Wallace v. Townsend, 43' Ohio St. 537 (188.5); Sedalia, etc. Ry. v. Wilkerson, 83 Mo. 235 (1884). The com- pany may be compelled to issue a cer- tificate to one who acquires his inter- est by the death of the original sub- scriber. State V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 24 La. Ann. 318 (1872). 2Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15 (1871). 'Shoemaker v. Washburn, etc. Co., 97 Wis. 585 (1897). Cf, § 42, mpra. In the case of Skinner v. Smith, 134 N. Y. 240 (1892), $40,000 of stock was issued for letters patent. Afterwards, with the consent of all the stockholders, the * A surrender of partly paid stock by land, inasmuch as it amounts to a pur- a subscriber, even though made with- chase by a company of its own stock, out repayment to him of the amount Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. Co. (1901), 3 he has already paid, is illegal in Eng- Ch. 265, 346 OH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 169. The consent of all the other stockholders need not be express. If the means of notice are sufficient, so as to raise a clear presump- tion of knowledge and acquiescence, and the arrangement is left unimpeached by any one for many years, no objection can be made. The stockholders are bound by the cancellation.^ But where a subscription has been canceled, and calls already paid are refunded without the consent of the other stockholders, any stockholder may, by a bill in equity, have the money refunded to the corporation, and the subscriber made liable upon his canceled subscription.^ Moreover, the directors are personally liable to the corporation for loss occasioned by their improper cancellation of subscriptions.' "When, however, a subscriber fails to pay his subscription or exer- cise his rights, it has been held that the corporation may take his subscription as abandoned and allow others to fill it.* An altera- tion, however, of the subscription list by substitution of different stockholders may release dissenting stockholders.' Frequently there is a substitution of one subscriber for another, either by way of a subscriber directing that his stock be issued to some other party,* or by a subscriber selling and transferring his interest to another party.' Where a subscription is canceled by agreement between a corporation and the subscriber and the stock is then issued to others transaction was rescinded, the stock being returned and the patents re-trans- ferred. A license to manufacture under the patents was then transferred to the company for $350,000 in stock. The court found that the transaction was in good faith and with no intent to de- fraud future stockholders, and that the license was an adequate consideration for the stock. The court held that there was nothing illegal in the trans- action. 1 Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 H. L. 249 (1868). So also where the corpora- tion retains the benefits of a cancella- tion, no objection can be made. Miller V. Second, etc. Assoc, 50 Pa. Sfc. 32 (1865). Proof of cancellation need not necessarily be by the corporate records; it may be proved by evidence that the subscriber " was not regarded by him- self or by the company as a stock- holder." Stuart V. Valley E. R., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 146 (1879). The cancella- tion or release of a subscription may arise by the acquiescence of the stock- holders and need not be by a formal action. Tulare, etc. Bank u Talbot, 131 Cal. 45 (1900). 2 Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 (1875). ^Hodgkinson v. National, etc. Ins. Co., 26 Beav. 473 (1859); Bank of St. Mary's v. St. John, 25 Ala. 566 (1854). The subscriber, also, may set up this defense. Southern Hotel Co. v. New- man, 30 Mo. 118 (1860). ^Perkins v. Union, etc. Co., 94 Mass. 273 (1866). Cancellation may be by the substitution of another person for the subscriber at the latter's request. This occurs where regular transfer is not yet possible. The signature of the fii'st subscriber must be erased and that of his substitute inserted. Otherwise the substitution fails. Ryder v. Alton, etc. R. E., 13 111. 516 (1851). And see § 62, supra. 5 See §§ 53, 63, supra. 6 See § 50, supra. ' See g 63, supra. 347 § 170.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X and fully paid for, the first subscribers are no longer liable, even though the statute provides that stockholders should be liable until the stock is fully paid for.^ Where a subscription is not paid, and the stock is transferred to the corporation as " treasury stock " and then sold below par, the purchaser is liable for the unpaid par value.^ Where a subscription for stock is paid, the stockholder is entitled to his stock and past dividends, although for thirty years he has slept on his rights.' § 170. A cancellation of a subscription, to the detriment of cor- porate creditors, may be impeached by the latter and set aside.* 1 First, etc. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., 191 111. 138 (1901). A Nebraska receiver of a Nebraska corporation will not be allowed to bring suit in the Iowa courts to enforce the subscription liability of citizens of Iowa to the stock of a Ne- braska corporation, where there is no equity in the claim, the fact being that payment for the stock had been made by notes, and afterwards upon a transfer of the stock these notes had been can- celed and notes of the transferee taken in exchange therefor. Wyman v. Eaton 107 Iowa, 214 (1899). Where, after a •subscription for stock is made, the company contracts to issue all its stock to a contractor in payment for work, and thereupon the subscriber gives up his stock to the company and it is is- sued to the contractor, the subscriber is not liable on such stock, even though the contractor does not fulfill, and even though the subscriber caused the con- tract with the contractor to be made. Eiverton Water Co. v. Hummel, 175 Pa. St. 575 (1896). 2 Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264 (1890). ' Where, in 1845, an Indian chief dis- closed an iron mine under promise of being compensated, and the officers of the unincorporated company gave him a paper recognizing his right to twelve thirty-one one-hundredths interest, and after incorporation in 1848 eighteen full-paid shares of stock were set aside for the Indians, and twelve of such shares correspond to the twelve thirty- one one-hundredths interest, the de" soendants of the chief are entitled to the stock, although neither he nor they made any claim thereto until 1877. Back profits may also be recovered. The statute of limitations is no bar. A new corporation assuming the pi'operty and liabilities of the old one is liable. "Kobogum V. Jackson Iron Co., 76 Mich. 498 (1889). To same effect, Bedford County V. Nashville, etc. E. R., 14 Lea (Tenn.', 525(1884). * One who is a corporate creditor be- fore the cancellation is made may ob- ject to it. Vick V. La Rochelle, 57 Miss. 602 (1880); Miller's Appeal, 1 Pa. Sup. Ct. 130 (1881), in which stock in an in- surance company was subscribed for in order to enable the company to undergo an examination by the commissioner, a dividend being paid on it during their holding, and the notes given in payment being published as assets. It was held that although, after the emer- gency had passed, the stock was taken back by the company and the notes canceled, the subscribers were liable to its creditors, the transaction being looked upon as a fraud upon them. Cancellation by withdrawal is not legal as against corporate creditors existing at the time of the withdrawal, even though all the stockholders assent thereto. Farnsworth v. Eobbins, 36 Minn. 869 (1887). Where a corporation takes land in payment for stock, then rescinds, and twelve months afterwards becomes insolvent, and no complaint is made for sixteen^months after the re- scission, their action is binding. San- derson V. JEtna, etc. Co., 34 Ohio St. 443 348 CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ no. Especially is this the rule when the cancellation is made after the corporation has become insolvent.' In the United States courts it is established that the governing officers of a corporation cannot, by agreement or other transaction with the stockholder, release the latter from his obligation to pay, to the prejudice of its credit- ors, except by fair and honest dealing, and for a valuable consid- eration.^ A payment in full for stock, followed by an immediate- (1879). So, also, if the debt was Incurred after the cancellation. Johnson v. Lull- man, 15 Mo. App. 55 (1884); Erskine v. Peck, 13 Mo. App. 280 (1883); Winston V. Dorset Pipe, etc. Qp., 129 111. 64 (1889). The plea in defense, it has been held, need not allege that"there were no cor- porate creditors at the time of the can- cellation. Gelpoke v, Blake, 19 Iowa, 263 (1865). In England a diflEerent rule prevails. "If the company could not question it, neither can a creditor; for he can obtain nothing but what the company can get from the sharehold- ers." Se Dronfielil, etc. Co., L. R 17 Ch. D. 76 (1880). A bona fide cancella- tion of a subscription is valid, and cor- porate creditors cannot have it set aside. Wangerien v. Aspell, 47 Ohio St. 250 (1890). Where the directors rescind a subscription at the request of the sub- scriber, he cannot be made liable five years later. Whiteley's Case, 60 L. T. Eep. 807 (1889). Subscribers whose stock is taken back by the corporation are not liable thereon either at common law or by statute relative to transfers. Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264 (1890). A fraudu- lent release by a corporation of an un- paid subscription to an increase in the capital stock of a corporation is void even against a debt arising before the increase. Carter v. Union Printing Co., 54 Ark. 576 (1891). This case holds also that a corporate creditor may object to the corporation releasing a stockholder from his stock and repaying to him the subscription which he has paid in. The " trust fund " theory is denied in Hospes V. Northwestern Mfg. Co., 48 Minn. 174 (1893). As against a corporate creditor, a subscriber for stock before incorporar 349 tion cannot withdraw after incorpora- tion, even with the consent of other stockholders. Balfour v. Baker City Gas Co., 27 Oreg. 300 (1895). In Harmon V. Hunt, 116 N. C. 678 (1895), corporate creditors held subscribers liable, al- though the latter had been allowed to withdraw soon after the organization. Where a person subscribes for stock payable by its terms in wages, and the directors pay such subscription in full and take the wages, but before the stock is fully paid for by him the cor- poration becomes insolvent, he cannot recover back the part already paid out of his wages. Lincott v. North wood, etc. Co., 68 N. H. 260 (1895). Even though two persons signed the articles of in- corporation as incorporators and as sub- scribers of stock, on condition that the articles would not be used unless a cer- tain other party signed, and even though the latter party did not sign, and the articles were filed and the stock subse- quently tendered to such signers, which they refused, yet if they took no steps to remove their names as subscribers from the books they are liable as stock- holders to corporate creditors on a statu- tory liability. Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wis. 136 (1901). Even though a sub- scriber for stock surrenders it, yet he is liable thereon, even to subsequent cred- itors of the corporation. Chrisman, etc. Co. V. Independence, etc. Co., 68 S. W. Eep. 1036 (Mo. 1902). Cf. S§ 43, 46, supra. 1 Choteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286 (1881); Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo. 424 (1880), holding, also, that it is immate- rial that enough subscriptions remain to pay the corporate debts. 2 " The governing officers of a corpo- § ITO.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. loan of part or all of the purchase price by the corporation back to the subscriber, is a fraud as to creditors and will be set aside.' The agreement of the corporation that a subscriber for its stock may return it " after six months " if he wishes, holds good for a reasonable time after the six months but not for several years.^ But a subscription to be paid for when the directors find other par- ties who will agree to purchase the stock from the subscriber is illegal as an attempt to release a subscriber.' Instead of subscrib- ration cannot, by agreement or other transaction with the stockholder, re- lease the latter from his obligation to pay, to the prejudice of its creditors, except by fair and honest dealing and for a valuable consideration." Potts v. Wallace, 146 U. S. 689 (1893); Burke v. :Smith,16 Wall. 390 (1872); New Albany V. Burke, 11 Wall. 96 (1870). So, also, in Illinois. See Zirkel v. Joliet Opera House Co., 79 111. 334 (1875). An ar- rangement by which a subscriber for stock paid the money into the treasury, and this money is then paid out for property, and the parties receiving the money then return it to the subscriber, is not valid. The subscriber is liable to pay over again. Scales v. Irwin, 34 Q. B. Rep. (Can.) 545 (1874). 1 Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 (1873). In the case of State v. New Orleans, etc. Co. 51 La. Ann. 1837 (1899), the sub- scribers to the stock of a debenture company paid ninety-five per cent, of their subscription by borrowing that amount from the company on their notes, and thereupon full-paid stock was issued to them, although the statute pro- hibited the issue of stock until paid for. The state brought suit to set aside the charter and liquidate the company. The court held that under the constitution of Louisiana the incorporation was il- legal. The court held also that the charter was illegal, in that the deben- iares issued were forfeited if deferred payments were not made, and that they provided for cancellation at fifty per cent, on the amount paid, and that they were redeemable in numerical order in six years, and that it would be impossible 350 for the company to pay them. The same conclusion was reached in State V. Louisiana, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1795 (1899). A corporation cannot give a mortgage to a subscriber as security for the amount paid in by the latter on his subscription for stock. Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. Eq. 691 (1897). 2 New Haven T. Co. v. Gaffney, 73 Conn. 480 (1901). In the case of Browne V. St. Paul, etc. Works, 63 Minn. 90 (1895), an agreement of a corporation with a subscriber for stock to take back the stock at a certain time and refund the money if the subscriber so wished was upheld. A corporation is bound by the agree- ment of its agent that a person taking stock in the corporation and giving his note in payment may return the stock at any time and be released from pay- ment. Bank of Lyons v. Demmon, Bill & D. Supp. (N. Y.) 398 (1844). Inasmuch as a corporation has power to buy its own .stock it may take a sub- scription for stock at par and agree to repurchase the stock, no creditors or stockholders objecting thereto. Free- mont Carriage, etc. Co. v. Thomsen, 91 N. W. Eep. 376 (Neb. 1902). Where a subscriber pays his subscription and immediately the money is repaid to him by the corporation in purchase of his stock the trasaction is illegal as against creditors. Henderson v. Hall, 33 S. Rep. 840 (Ala. 1900). 3 McNulta V. Corn Belt Bank, 164 111. 437 (1897). Stockholders cannot defeat their liability on stock by setting up that they subscribed in behalf of the corporation itself, and on the secret CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ lYO. ing for stock a party may make a contract with a corporation to take the stock with the right to return it and receive back the purchase price within a certain time. Such a contract is legal, and the stock may be returned and the money recovered if corpo- rate creditors' rights do not intervene.' A by-law allowing a stockholder to return his stock to the corporation at a fixed value is illegal.^ An oral agreement that only one-half of the subscription need be taken and paid for is not legal.' But an agreement between a cor- poration and subscribers for its stock that only a certain portion of the par value of the stock shall be collected by the corporation is bind- ing upon the corporation, although not upon the corporate creditors, unless by statute such agreement may be made a part of the recorded articles of incorporation.'' A contract between a corporation and a stockholder by which the stockholder is to be repaid before credit- ors of the corporation are paid is contrary to public policy and void.* A building association which has obtained a subscription on an ultra vires agreement as to repayment is liable in a suit at law for the money so paid to it." A provision in articles of incor- poration filed under a general incorporating act is void, where such provision attempts to exempt the stockholders from liability to cor- porate creditors on their unpaid subscriptions.' A creditor of a company who takes its stock as fully paid up stock in payment of his debt, the debt, however, being less than the par value of the stock, is liable for the unpaid par va;lue of such stock in case the company becomes insolvent. But on the other hand, the company agreement that they should not be held though the corporation afterwards be- liable. Barto v. Nix, 15 Wash. 563 came insolvent. Barrow v. Smith, 109 <1896). Ga. 767 (1900). See 54 Atl. Rep. 767. ' Vent V. Duluth, etc. Co., 64 Minn. * Guaranty, etc. Co. v. Galveston, etc. 307 (1896). A difiEerent rule exists, how- R. R., 107 Fed. Rep. 311 (1901). A sub- ever, where such agreement is secret scriptlon agreement prior to incorpora- and gives one stockholder an unfair tion to purchase certain property owned advantage over others. See § 191, tn/ra. by an individual binds the subscribers ^Vercoutere v. Golden State Land individually, although such individual Co., 116 Cal. 410 (1897). indorsed on the back of the contract a 3 Gathright v. Oil City, etc. Co., 56 statement that the subscribers were S. W. Rep. 163 (Ky. 1900). not personally liable. Neither is an oral < Bent V. Hnderdown, 156 Ind. 516 agreement to that effect any defense. (1901). See also § 38, supra, and § 191, Carnahan v. Campbell, 59 N. E. Rep. infra. A subscriber of money to a cor- 1054 (Ind. 1901): 53 Atl. Rep. 1057. poration, for which the subscriber is to * Williamson v. Eastern, etc. Assoc, receive " stock, bonds, or other security 54 S. C. 583 (1899). as may be determined " by the board of ' Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 directors, is entitled to bonds if the (1898). board of directors have so ordered, even 351 § 171.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. not having fulfilled its contract in giving him fnlly-paid stock he may off set the same amount as the amount still due him from the company.' Where a person subscribes for stock and afterwards payment is made in property at a gross overvaluation, the court may hold him liable for the difference between the actual value of the property and the par value of the stock, even though the com- pany went through the form of canceling the subscription and issu- ing the stock as an original issue for property.^ A secret agreement by which a subscriber may cancel his subscription may be ob- jected to by other subscribers or by corporate creditors.' § ITl. Compromise. — A compromise differs from a cancellation in that the subscriber pays to the corporation a part of the sub- scription price in order to be released from the balance. The stock is delivered back to the corporation. The corporate authorities — generally the directors — have power to compromise any corporate debt; and if, in the collection of subscriptions, there is reasonable doubt as to the liability of 'the subscriber,* or if the subscriber is insolvent, the corporation may compromise the liability and release a part for the purpose of securing the residue. All that is required is good faith.^ It has been held that a receiver cannot compromise ^Be Railway, etc. Co., [1899] 1 Ch, 108. that anything is due to the company on In the case of Siegel v. Andrews & Co., 181 111. 350 (1899), where the purchasers of a patent right for $15,000 organized a corporation and personally subscribed for $100,000 of its stock, and subse- quently paid therefor by turning in the patent right, the court held that each stockholder was liable for the par value of his stock less fifteen per cent., and that a judgment creditor might sue any one or more of the stockholders. See ch. Ill on this subject of payment by property. In a suit to enforce the liability on watered stock, there may be set off the amount coming to the stockholder on bonds of the company, especially where the stockholder is insolvent. Hebberd V, Southwestern, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq_ 18 (1896). 2 Hebberd v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18 (1896). » See § 191, infra. * Bath's Case, L. R.8 Oh. D. 334 (1878); Belhaven's Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 41 (1865). Where a stockholder denies his stock and the matter is compro- mised in good faith, a receiver of the corporation cannot collect anything further on the stock. New Haven T. Co. V. Nelson, 78 Conn. 477 (1901). An unaccepted ofifer of compromise is no defense, and compromises with other stockholders are no defensa Howard V. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238 (1890). 5 Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857). Power may be given by statute. Pearson's Case, L. K. 7 Ch. 809 (1872), holding that, under the English statute, the court may allow, but cannot compel, a receiver to com- promise. Where a stockholder denies his liability, and the directors compro- mise with him by reducing the amount of his subscription, the compromise is binding on all partiea Whitaker v. Grummond, 68 Mich. 249 (1888). The 3ompany may compromise, but can- not do so by canceling a part only of the subscription. Livingstone «. Temperance, etc. Soc, 17 App. Rep. (Can.) 879 (1890). A stockholder who- 352 CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§§ 172, 173. a subscription; nor can a court of equity give him power so to do, unless all the stockholders are parties to the equitable suit in con- nection with which the receiver is appointed.' A compromise where there is no controversy is a misnomer. The case is then one of re- lease and depends on the power of the directors or stockholders to make it.^ § 172. Non-payment of a percentage required iy statiite. — The charter or statute governing a corporation often prescribes that each subscriber to the capital stock shall, at the time of subscribing, pay to the corporation a fixed sum or a specified proportion of the subscription. These statutes vary somewhat in their provisions, some declaring the subscription to be void unless the percentage is paid, others merely prescribing that it shall be paid. In the actual taking of the subscriptions it frequently happens that the subscriber has not the ready money requisite, and is allowed to subscribe without paying the same. When an attempt is made to collect such a subscription, the subscriber, if the enterprise has resulted disastrously, sets up the defense that he did not pay the statutory percentage, and that the subscription is void and not en- forceable. A long list of cases, dating from the early litigation over railroads, has turned upon this defense. In some of the states the defense has been held insufficient; in others a contrary rule prevails; and in still others, first one rule and then the other has been adopted. § 173. The decided weight of authority and the most carefully considered cases hold that a subscriber for stock cannot escape the responsibilities of a stockholder by showing that he never paid the percentage or fixed amount required by the charter or statute to be paid at the time of subscribing.' He will not thus be permitted settles with a corporation for a less ditioB, which remaining unfulfilled, a sum than the amount due, just before compromise was made permitting the garnishee process is commenced against withdrawal of the subscriber. Held, him, cannot defeat the process in this after two appeals, that directors had manner. World's Fair, eta Co. t'. Gasch, power to enter into such a compromise,. 163 IlL 403 fl896). and the subscriber was not held in th& 1 Chandler v. Brown, 77 111. 333 (1875). winding up. The fact that the court authorized the ' Quoted and approved in Union receiver to compromise with some of Water Co. v. Kean, 53 N. J. Eq. Ill the. stockholders is no defense toothers. (1898); Webb v. Baltimore, etc. R. E., Hambletonv. Glenn, 73 Md. 331 (1890). 77 Md. 93 (1893); Illinois River R. R. v. See also ch. LI, infra. Zimmer, 30 111. 654 (1858), holding that 2 Phosphate, etc. Ca v. Green, L. R. 7 the commissioners may waive payment. CL P. 43 (1871); Spackman v. Evans, L. The court said: "This indulgence is a R. 3 H. L. 171, 188, 331 (1868). In Dizon most ungracious defense, which should V. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606 (1873), the not be allowed unless it is strictly re- subscription was made upon a con- quired by some inflexible rule of law ; " (33) 353 § 173.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [ca. X. to take advantage of his own wrong and default to the prejudice of others. In some instances the percentage was paid in notes ' or Haywood, etc. Co. v. Bryan, 6 Jones, L. (N. C.) 82 (1858), the court saying: "It would be a strange rule which would allow him to take advantage of the other stockholders' forbearance and his own neglect; " Pittsburgh, etc. E. R. v. Applegate, 31 W. Va. 172 (1882), declar- ing that the statute is " to ensure good faith, and to avoid shams in enter- prises that so vitally affect the public," but not to change the liability of stock- holders to corporations ;Minneapolis,etc. Ey. V. Bassett, 20 Minn. 535 (1874), where the court said of the statute: " While it confers upon plaintiff the right to in- sist upon the payment, it does not make the successful exercise of this right in- dispensable to the validity of the sub- scription; " Water Valley Mfg. Co. v. Seaman, 53 Miss. 655 (1876), where the requirement was provided for in the subscription itself ; Barrington i;. Missis- sippi Cent. R. R., 32 Miss. 370 (1856), where payment was made before the subscription. See also Vioksburg, eta R. R. V. McKean, 13 La. Ann. 638 (1857); Bibb V. Hall, 101 Afe. 79 (1893); Albright V. Texas, etc. R. R., 8 New Mex. 110 (1895); see S. a, 8 New Mex. 423 (1896); Wight V. Shelby R. R., 16 B. Mon. (Ky.), 4 (1855); Smith v. Tallassee Plank-road Co., 30 Ala. 650 (1857); Mitchell v. Rome E. R., 17 Ga. .574 (1855); Henry v. Ver- million, etc. R. R., 17 Ohio, 187 (1848); Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc. R. E., 15 Ohio St 225 (1864); Napier v. Poe, 13 Ga. 170 (1852); Fiser v. Mississippi, etc. E R., 33 Miss. 359 (1856) ; Ryder v. Alton, eta R. R., 13 IlL 516 (1851), where the subscriber was one of the commission- ers; Klein v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 514 (1851), where payment was made before the subscription books were closed; Stuart V. Valley E E, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 146 (1879) ; Southern L. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110 (1853); Selma, etc. E. E v. Rountree, 7 Ala. (N. S.) 670 (1845); Spar- tanburg, etc. R R V. Ezell, 14 S. 0. 381 (1880), where a few subscribers paid in more than their percentage, and enough to make up for those not paying; Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. R, 41 Md. 583(1874), where the percentage was " payable," the court saying that this merely made it "due and collectible," like a call. To the same effect, Ashtabula, etc. R R v. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328 (1864). Payment by the subscriber's agent is sufficient. Litchfield Bank v. Church, 39 Conn. 137 (1860). The following cases hold that non-payment of the required percent- age is a good defense: Charlotte, etc. 1 Vermont Cent. R R v. Clayes, 31 Vt. 30 (1848). A bond so given is col- lectible, as it would be if given to carry out a parol contract for the sale of land void by the statute of frauds. McRae v. Russell, 13 Ired. (N. C.) 324 (1851), the court saying that the statute was meant "to protect real stockhold- ers from , . . men of straw. It was, moreover, meant to protect men from the consequences of making such sub- scriptions, under the influence of mo- mentary excitements, which they could not fulfill." The statute made the sub- sci-iption void. In the case of Home Stock Ins. Co. V. Sherwood, 73 Mo. 461 (1880), payment by note and mortgage was sustained. Hayne v. Beauohamp, IS Miss. 515 (1846), holds that the pay- ment by note amounted to an informal subscription, the statutory subscription being void. Pine River Bank v. Hods- don, 46 N. H. 114 (1865). In Alabama it is held that a subscriber may set up that the company was not legally or- ganized, in that twenty per cent., which the statute required to be paid before incorporation, had been paid in checks which were not to be presented for payment and had not been presented. Haas u Hall, 111 Ala. 442 (1895). 854 CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 1T3. checks' instead of cash; in others, payment in cash was made at some period subsequent to the act of subscribing ; " in still others, no payment at all was made on the subscription, and suit was brought for the whole amount.' A statutory provision that a cer- tain percentage_ of the capital stock must be paid in before busi- ness is commenced is satisfied by turning in property.* Where the directors commence business before ten per cent, of the capital is paid in as required by statute, the directors are personally liable as agents transacting business without authority from the princi- pal.* In England a failure to pay such a percentage is held not to affect the liability of the subscriber, but to restrict his right of transferring his stock.* E. R. V. Blakely, 3 Strobh. L. (S. C.) 245 (1848); State Ins. Co. v. Redmond, 1 Mc- Crary, 308 (1880). The requirement herein was by by-law. People v. Cham- bers, 42 Cal. 201 (1871), holding a check to be insufficient; Farmers', etc. Bank V. Nelson, 13 Md. 35 (1857); Taggart v. Western Md. R. R., 24 Md. 568, 588 (1866) ; Wood V. Coosa, etc. R. R., 82 Ga. 273 (1861), the statute prescribing that the subscription should be " void." A pro- vision that only ten per cent, of the stock shall be paid up until certain con- tingencies arise is strictly construed by the courts. Burlington v. Burlington Water Co., 86 Iowa, 266 (1892). It is no defense that the corporation com- menced business before twenty-flve per cent, of its capital stock had been paid in as required by the charter. Nauga- tuck Water Co. v. Nichols, 58 Conn. 403 (1890). It is no defense that the corpo- ration commenced business before one- 'half of its capital stock had been paid in according to the charter. Maine, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 93 Me. 444 (1899). A purchaser of land from a cor- poration mayobject to the title on the ground that the corporation took title before a certain amount of its capital stock had been obtained, as required by statute. Globe Realty Co. v. Whit- ney, 30 S. Rep. 745 (La. 1901). • People V. Stockton, etc. R. R., 45 Cal. 306 (1873), there being funds in the bank to meet it. 2 Payment of a judgment, in an ac- tion for one call, estops the subscriber from setting up this defense. Hall v. Selma, etc. R. R., 6 Ala. (N. S.) 741 (1844). Although the statute requires that a certain percentage of subscriptions shall be paid upon incorporation, yet one subscriber may pay the proportion of others. Beattys v. Town of Solon, 64 Hun, 120 (1892); aff'd, 136 N. Y. 662. ' Quoted and approved in West End, etc. Co. v. Caliborne, 97 Va. 734 (1900). In Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 (1859), the requirement was by by-law, not by charter. The sub- scription was to be void for nob-pay- ment. The court thought otherwise. The effect of non-payment is that "it is due and liable to be called for at any time — payable on demand, whenever needed by the corporation.'' Green- ville, etc. R. R V. Woodsides, 5 Rich. L, (S. C.) 145 (1851), where the subscriber also voted the stock. * Fargason v. Oxford, etc. Co., 78 Miss. 65 (1900); Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116 (1864), aff'g 28 Barb. 254. Where ten per cent, of the capital stock must be paid in before business is commenced, payment may be in property. McCand- less V. Inland, etc. Co., 42 S. E. Rep. 449 (Ga. 1902). » Farmers's, etc. Co. v. Floyd, 47 Ohio St. 525 (1890). See also § 243, infra. * East Gloucestershire Ry. v. Bar- tholomew, L. R. 3 Exch. 15 (1867); Pur- 855 § 174.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. § 174. In New Tork there has been doubt and a strong tendency to change the rule laid down at an early day by the court. The case of Jenkins v. The Union Turnpike Company, in 1804,^ de- cided that a failure by the subscriber to pay a required percentage at the time of subscribing was a good defense to an action on the subscription. This decision has been distinguished, questioned, and doubted by the courts.^ The New York court of appeals, how- ever, has held that if the subscriber merely signs the subscription •contract and does not pay the percentage, he may thereby defeat his liability on such subscription.' On the other hand, a lower court in dey's Case, 16 W. R. 660 (1868); Mc- Euen V. West London, etc. Co., L. E. 6 Ch. App. 655 (1871)— the statute stat- ing that the stock should not " issue " oj " vest " until one-fifth should be paid. See also Morton's Case, L. B. 16 Eq. 104 (1873). 1 1 Caines's Cas. 86, reversing Union . Tump. Ca v. Jenkins, 1 Caines's Kep. 381. See 81 N, Y. App. Div. 248. 2 Highland Turnp. Co. v, McKean, 11 Johns. 98 (1814), the court saying: "It is a little diflBoult to ascertain the point upon which the court of errors grounded their decision." A subscriber, who is also the commissioner, need not pay the required percentage to himself. In Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 (1839), payment in checks was held not to be good, they evidently not having been given in good faith. The court said: "Receiving an occasional check might have been a fair substitute." Thorp V. WoodhuU, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411 (1844), sustains the validity of a bond and mortgage in payment of a sub- scription in which the percentage had been paid by a worthless check. East- ern Plank Road Co. v. Vaiighan, 14 N. Y. 546 (1856), holds it not to be nec- essary "that each subscriber should pay five per cent, upon his subscription, but only that five per cent, on the amount of the stock subscribed should be actually paid " by some one. To the same effect. Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (1857). the court saying that the object was "to ensure the organization of real sub- stantial companies in good faith, ani- mated by an honest purpose, and hav- ing some degree of ability at least to undertake the proposed improvement." In the case of Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Barton, 16 N. Y. 457, n. (1854), the court, in speaking of the decision in Jenkins V. Union T. Co., say: "It may well be doubted whether the reasoning upon which it was based is sound, and whether, were the question to be again directly presented, this court would feel bound to follow it.'' Black River, etc. R R. V. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 (1862), holds that " the subscription one day, with payment the next, would satisfy the statute, and so would actual pay- ment at any period after subscription with intent to effectuate and complete the subscription." See also Beach v. Smith, as stated ill 30 N. Y. 119 (1864); Ogdensburg, etc. R. R. v. Wooley, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 398 (1864). Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116 (1864), affirming s. a, 28 Barb. 254, holds that payment in serv- ices performed under a contract with the company suffices. Excelsior, eta Co. V. Stayner, .85 Hun, 91 (1881), holds that payment by check, on which pay- ment is stopped, is insufficient. Syra- cuse, etc. R. R. u. Gere, 4 Hun, 392 (1875), sustains a suit by the corpora- tion to collect such a check. See also Ogdensburg, etc. R R i;. Frost, 21 Barb. 541 (1856). A certified check is good payment. lie Staten Island, etc. R R, 37 Hun, 488 (1885); Se Staten Island, etc. R. R., 88 Hun, 381 (1885> » New York, etc. R. R v. Van Horn, 356 CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§§ 175, 176. New York has recently held that it is no defense that an amount specified by statute was not paid in before commencing business.^ § 175. In Pennsylvania a similar state of doubt has existed. The case of Hibernia Turnpike Co. v. Henderson,^ in 1822, decided that a failure by the commissioners taking subscriptions to stock to require payment of the statutory percentage made the subscrip- tion void and not enforceable. Later decisions do not overthrow the rigid rule, but distinguish and practically destroy it by holding that this defense is barred by a subsequent statute curing the de- fect; ' or by a waiver in attending corporate meetings and voting; * or by transferring the shares ; ' or that the provision applies only to subscriptions taken by the commissioners;* or, under the act of 1868, that the percentage must be paid on subscriptions after, but not on those before, incorporation;^ or that the requirement does not apply to a conditional subscription;' or that it is waived by any acts indicating an intent to be bound as a stockholder.' § 176. Failure of the corporation to ohtam suicriptions to the ex- tent of the full capital stock. — It is an implied part of a contract of subscription that the contract is to be binding and enforceable against the subscriber only after the full capital stock of the cor- 57 N. Y. 473 (1874), holding also that a subsequent statute cannot cure such omission to pay, and thereby render the subscriber liabla Even though a cor- poration accepts a note instead of cash in payment for a subscription, in viola- tion of the statute, which provides that only money, labor done or property act- ually received shall be accepted in pay- ment for stocks and bonds, yet a bank which discounted such note for a cor- poration may hold the corporation lia- ble thereon. First Nat. Bank v. Cornell, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 427 (1896). 1 Raegenerw. McDougall, 38 N. Y. App. Div. 231 (1898). Where subscriptions are with the consent of the subscribers pledged to secure a debt of the corpora- tion, the pledgee may enforce the sub- scriptions, although the ten per cent, required by the statute to be paid at the time of the subscription was not paid. Knickerbocker T. Co. v. Hard, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 463 (1902). 2 8 Serg. & E. 219. See also Leighty v. Susquehanna, etc. Turnpk Co., 14 Serg. & R. 434 (1826). 3 Clark V. Monongahela Nav. Co., 10 Watts (Pa.), 364 (1840). * Erie, etc. Ry. v. Brown, 25 Pa. St. 156 (1855), the court saying: "There is no merit in such a defense. . . . The subscriber himself is under the highest moral obligation faithfully to perform the promise he has distinctly made." In Commonwealth v. West Chester R. R, 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 200 (1855), the court held that failure to pay the per- centage did not render the charter for- feitable. ' Everhart v. West Chester, etc. R. R., 28 Pa. St. 339 (1857). 8 Philadelphia, etc. R. R v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 (1857). Contra, under the act of 1868. See Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R R, 76 Pa. St. 306 (1874). 1 Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. R R, 78 Pa. St. 465 (1875), 8 Hanover, etc. R R v. Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 36 (1876). 9 Boyd V. Peach Bottom Ry., 90 Pa. St. 169 (1879), holding, however, that payment cannot be by promissory note although a demand note. 857 176.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. poration has been subscribed. This condition precedent to the liability of the subscriber need not be expressed in the corporate charter nor the subscription itself. It arises by implication from the just and reasonable understanding of a subscriber that he is to be aided by other subscriptions. This rule is supported also by public policy, in that corporate creditors have a right to rely upon a belief that the full capital stock of the corporation has been sub- scribed.' If the corporation commences business before the full 1 The leading case on this defense is Salem Mill-dam Corp. v. Ropes, 23 Mass. 23 (1827), and 26 Mass. 187 (1829). In Livesey v. Omaha Hotel, 5 Neb. 50 (1876), Judge Redfieldin the brief says: " This rule has been held inflexible in all oases both for the security of the pub- lic and also of the subscribers; " Shurtz V. Schoolcraft, etc. R R., 9 Mich. 269 (1861);AnvilMin.Co.'y. Sherman, 74 Wis. 226 (1889); New York, etc. R. E. v. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75 (1873); Hale v. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1 (1884); Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560 (1888); Halsey Fire Engine Co. V. Donovan, 57 Mich. 318 (1885); Peoria, etc. E. R, u Preston, 35 Iowa, 115 (1873), the court saying that this is the rule, "unless a contrary intention appears, expressly or by implication, either in the charter or the contract of subscriptions; " Stoneham Branch R. R. V. Gould, 68 Mass. 277 (1854), the court saying: "This is no arbitrary rule; it is founded on a plain dictate of justice, and the strict principles regulating the obligation of ooutracts; " Bray v. Far- well, 81 N. Y. 600, 608 (1880), where the court said that the directors " had no authority to go on with insufficient means, and thus wreck the company ; " Selma, etc. R. R. v. Anderson, 51 Miss. 829 (1876): Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 816, 333 (1870); Topeka Bridge Co. v, Cummings, 3 Kan. 55 (1864); AUman v. Havana, etc. R. R., 88111. 521 (1878); Temple v. Lemon, 113 111. 51 (1884); Littleton Mfg. Co. v. Par- ker, 14 N. H. 543 (1844); Hendrix v. Academy of Music, 73 Ga. 437 (1884); Stearns v. Sopris, 4 Colo. App. 191 (1894); Norwich Lock Mfg. Co. v. Hookaday, 358 89 Va. 557 (1893); Contoocook Valley R. R. V. Barker, 33 N. H. 363 (1855); New- buryport Bridge v. Story, 23 Mass. 45, note (1827); Belfast, etc. R. R v. Cot- trell, 66 Ma 185 (1876); Rockland, eta Co. V. Sewall, 80 Me. 400 (1888); Mem- phis Branch R R v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240 (1876); Fox v. Allensville, etc. Turnp. Co., 46 Ind..31 (1874); Hain v. North- western, etc. Co,, 41 Ind. 196 (1872), hold- ing also that the corporation in suing must aver that the full capital stock has been subscribed; Central Turnp. Corp. V. Valentine, 37 Mass. 142 (1880), holding also that the corporation has the burden of proving subscriptions for the full capital stock; Warwick R R V. Cady, 11 R L 131 (1875), where the charter said that the capital stock should not exceed a specified sum; Fry V. Lexington, etc. R R, 2 Met. (Ky.) 314 (1859), holding also that the corporation must aver full subscription; Lewey's Island R R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860). Lail V. Mt. Sterling C. R Co., 13 Bush (Ky.), 32 (1877), holds that the corpora- tion need not aver full subscriptions. To same effect, McKay v. Elwood, 12 Wash. 579 (1895). Of. Monroe v. Fort Wayne, etc. R R, 28 Mich. 273 (1878). Where, also, the corporation is incor- porated with a less capital stock than was proposed when the defendant sub- scribed, he is not bound by the subscrip- tion. Santa Cruz R R w Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106 (1878). Subscribers are not lia- ble until the whole amount is subscribed. They may recover back what they have paid. Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. Rep. 508 (1889). A full subscription is not necessary if the subscriptions are CH, X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 1T6. capital stock is subscribed, the state may bring an action for the forfeiture of its charter.' A subscriber is liable for his proportion of the necessary expenses, preliminary to the incorporation and organization of the company.''' It is no defense that increased capital stock was not fully subscribed for.' Where a corporation payable to an agent and nothing is said about full subscription. West v. Craw- ford, 80 Cal. 19 (1889). A stockholder may defend on the ground that the amount required by the subscription list to be subscribed shall be subscribed before he is held liable, especially where misrepresentations are made as to the amount which had been subsci-ibed when the defendant subscribed. The question is one for the jury. Spellier, etc. Ca V. Leedom, 149 Pa. St. 185 (1892). When the capital is in creased after the defendant subscribed he cannot insist on the subscription of the capital stock as increased. Port Edwards, etc. Ey. v. Arpin, 80 Wis. 214 (1891). See § 288, infra. Subscription of the full capital was held necessary in Exposition, etc. Co. V. Canal, etc. Ey., 42 La. Ann. 370 (1890). The question must be clearly raised by the findings, otherwise it will not be considered on appeal. Arthur V. Clarke, 46 Minn. 491 (1891). Where stockholders proceed to business before the minimum capital prescribed by statute is subscribed and before the requisite amount is paid in, they are liable to corporate creditors for such minimum capital. The Tjreditors may sue them and the corporation in the same action. Bwns v. Beck, etc. Co., 83 Ga. 471 (1889). The defense of non-full subscriptions is available against cred- itors of the corporation. Exposition, etc. Co. V. Canal, etc. Ey., 42 La. Ann. 370 (1890). The text above was approved in Portland, etc. E. E. v. Spillman, 23 Oreg. 587 (1893), and Denny Hotel Co. V. Schram, 6 Wash. St. 1 34 (1893). A few cases seem to hold a contrary doctrine. Newcastle, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Bell, 8 Blaokf. (Ind.) 584 (1847); Oregon Cent. KKv. Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161(1869); York, etc. R. R V. Pratt, 40 Me. 447 (1855); Cheraw, etc. R E. v. White, 10 S. C. 155 (1878). See also Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665, 668 (1877), probably a dictum. In the case of Skowhegan, etc. E. R v. Kinsman, 77 Ma 370 (1885), the court seem to hold that, where there is in the subscription an express promise to pay, it is enforceable even though the whole capital stock is not subscribed. If such a condition is expected, the court says it must be inserted in the subscription. It has been held that, where a subscrip- tion is made before incorporation, on a paper not fixing the capital stock, a failure to secure full subscription to the capital stock as fixed in the charter is no defense. Belton Compress Co. v. Saunders, 70 Tex. 699 (1887). That the full capital stock was not subscribed constitutes no defense where a creditor sues, see Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. E. E, 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891). A subscriber to a dairy project is bound to pay, even though the entire capital stock of a corporation to which the dairy is to be transferred is not subscribed, the sub- scription being not to the proposed cor- poration but to the builders of the dairy. Ada, etc. Assoc, v. Mears, 123 Mich. 470 (1900). 1 People V. National Sav. Bank, 11 N. E. Eep. 170 (111., 1889); aff'd, 129 III 618 (1889). 2 Salem Mill-dam Corp. v. Eopes, 23 Mass. 23 (1827). Of. § 63, supra. 3 McCoy V. World's, etc. Exposition, 186 111. 356 (1900). Where, by the charter, there are two hundred shares and only eleven are subscribed, and then the charter is amended, increasing the shares to two hundred and fifty thousand and decreasing the par value thereof, this is not an increase of the capital stock within the rule that such increase need not be wholly subscribed 859 § 177.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. is authorized to commence business only when a specified amount of stock has beeii subscribed, and'it does commence business prior to such subscription being made, the state may file a bill to forfeit its charter.' But, even though a company has commenced business be- fore its capital stock is subscribed in good faith, as required by statute, yet its contracts cannot be attacked on that ground.^ § 177. The act of incorporation may, of course, vary the above rules. Thus, it is well established that,- where the charter author- izes the organization of the company, and the commencement of corporate work after a certain amount of the capital stock has been subscribed, such a charter provision is equivalent to an express au- thority to the corpbration to call in the subscriptions as soon as this organization is effected and the specified subscriptions obtained.' in order to hold the subscribers liable. Gettysburg, etc. Bank v. Brown, 52 Atl. Rep. 975 (Md. 1902). 1 State V. Debenture, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1874 (1899). 2 City of Spokane v. Amsterdamsch Trustees. 23 Wash, 172 (1900). 8 Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 103 (1854); Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Wetsel, 31 Barb. 56 (1855); Hamilton, etc. Co. V. Rice, 7 Barb. 157, 166 (1849); Sedalia, etc. Ry. v. Abell, 17 Mo. App. 645 (1885); Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Neb. 379 (1895); Perkins v. Sanders, 56 Miss. 733 (1879): Hunt v. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 413 (1873), the court saying that otherwise there would be no propriety in allowing the organiza- tion before the full capital was sub- scribed; Hoagland v. Cincinnati, etc. R R., 18 Ind. 453 (1863); Hanover, etc. R. R. V. Haldeman, 83 Pa. St. 36 (1876); Penobscot, etc. R. E. v. Bartlett, 78 Mass. 344 (1858), holding so, even though no contracts for building the road were to be made until a larger subscription was obtained; Boston, etc. R. R. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 (1873); Minor V. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. 46 (1838); New Haven, etc. R R. v. Chapman, 88 Conn. 56 (1871); Illinois River R R. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654 (1858); Lexington, etc. R. R. V. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311 (1847); Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus, 4 Greg. 361 (1873); Jewett v. Valley Ry., 34 Ohio St. 601 (1878). A vigorous case to the contrary is Gal- veston Hotel Co. V. Bolton, 46 Tex. 633 (1877). The court said: "There were good reasons for organizing the com- pany to be found in the increased facility of thereby raising the subscrip- tion to the amount fixed for the capital stock, and of other preliminary prep- arations for the execution of the work, when the subscription should reach that amount." A contrary rule " would render nugatory the most important provision of the charter, which is the amount of its capital stock." When the capital stock is to be fixed by the corpoi'ation between two limits, the subscription of the full amount as fixed is a subscription of the full capital stock. Kennebec, etc. R R «. Jarvis, 34 Me. 360 (1853). There need not be a full subscription where the statutes/ authorize an organization as soon as one-half is subscribed. Astoria, etc R R V. Hill, 20 Greg. 177 (1890). The stat- utes may allow the corporation to pro- ceed with business and collect subscrip- tions before the full capital stock is subscribed. Sohloss v. Montgomery Trade Ca, 87 Ala. 411 (1889). Where calls may be made after one-quarter of the stock has been subscribed, the com- plaint must allege subscriptions to that amount. San Bernardino Inv. Co. v. Merrill, 108 CaL 490 (1895). Where the 360 CH. X.j MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§§ 178, 1Y9. Subscriptions to the full amount of the capital stock are held not to be necessary. The defense is not good. § 178. Where a subscription specifies how much of the capital stock must be subscribed before payment may be enforced, such specifications are legal and effective, and until they are fully com- plied with the subscriber is not liable.' A subscription of this kind is a conditional subscription.' A condition that the subscrip- tion shall be payable only when sufficient subscriptions for the •corporate purpose have been secured has been held to require funds sufficient to put the enterprise in full operation.' On the other hand, a subscription to pay " when required " renders the subscrib- ers liable before the full capital stock is subscribed.* § 179. In England statutory provisions have almost entirely •displaced the common-law rule. The principle that a subscriber is not liable until the full capital stock has been subscribed is recog- nized as having been the original rule at law. An eminent Eng- lish authority says that, in all the cases in which the subscribers were held bound, they "had entered into a contract which pre- •cluded them from maintaining that the subscription of the whole of the originally proposed capital was an express or implied condi- tion to their becoming shareholders." The English courts seem to have no clearly defined rule in this matter, but allow each case to turn largely on its own facts; releasing the subscriber if the dis- crepancy in the subscriptions is very large, and holding him liable statute allows a call after twenty-five entire capital stock has not been sub- per cent, has been subscribed, the full scribed. Anglo-American, etc. Co. v. subsoriptiA of this twenty-five per Dyer, 64 N. E. Rep. 416 (Mass. 1902). Or- cent. is necessary. Ventura, etc. Ry. v. ganization authorized where " $200 to Hartman, 116 Cal. 360 (1897). Full sub- any one mile " has been subscribed is ;Scription is unnecessary where the satisfied by a $200 subscription in gen- charter allows the commencement of eral. Fitch v. Poplar Flat, etc. Co., 13 business " as soon as the directors think S. W. Rep. 791 (Ky. 1890). Where the fit." Mandel v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 III. subscription list or articles of assooia- 177 (1895). tion signed by defendant expressly pro- 1 Where, by its terms, it is not to be vide for the commencement of business ■binding until a certain amount is sub- before the full capital is subscribed, the scribed, it is enforceable when that defense is waived. Arkadelphia Cotton amount is secured, although less than Mills v. Trimble, 54 Ark. 316 (1891). the full capital stock. Bucksport, etc. ^ gee ch. V, supra. R R. u Buck, 65 Me. 536(1876). See also 3 People's Ferry Co. v. Baloh, 74 Iowa, etc. R. R. v. Perkins, 38 Iowa, 281 Mass. 308 (1857), the court holding that (1869). Where the by-laws provide that funds for the land, structures and boats the first issue of stock shall be one-half must be in hand before the defendant -of the authorized capital stock, a sub- becomes liable. ^soriber who has agreed to such by-laws * Cheraw, etc. R. R. t>. Garland, 14 S. •cannot defend on the ground that the C. 63 (1880). 361 §180.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. if it is small, or if he in any way has aided the company in begin- ning business.' § 180. Some difficulty has been experienced in determining what subscriptions shall be counted in ascertaining whether the full cap- ital stock has been subscribed. Conditional subscriptions, the con- dition to which has not yet been performed by the corporation, are clearly not to be counted among the rest, since such subscriptiona mav never become enforceable.^ 1 Norwich, etc. Navigation v. Theo- bald, 1 Moody & M. 151 (1828), required full subscription in accordance with a statute. Fox v. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776 (1830), the earliest common-law Eng- lish base on this subject, holds that the subscriber is not liable to corporate creditors unless the full capital stock has been subscribed. Pitchford v. Davis, 5 Mees. & W. 2 (1839), also fully agrees with the rule that prevails in this country. Wontner v. Shairp, i C. B. 404 (1847), sustained a recovery of amounts paid on a subscription, under misrepresentations that the whole stock had been subscribed. Waterf ord, etc. Ry. V. Dalbiao, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 455 (1851), refused to allow the defense, since the charter allowed the corpora- tion to purchase land before the full capital stock was subscribed. Watts V. Salter, 10 C. B. 477 (1850), holds the same, the subscriber having aided in the incorporation, and given the di- rectors power to proceed. Galvanized Jron Co. V. Westoby, 21 L. J. Exch. 3U3 (1853), per B. Parke, says that at com- mon law the subscriber is not liable unless the full capital stock is sub- scribed. Contra, Lyon's Case, 35 Beav. 646 (1866). Johnston v. Goslett, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 569 (1857), makes the directors liable to the subscriber for his deposit when they so proceed. London, etc. Ins. Co. V. Redgrave, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 524 (1858), holds the subscriber liable, he having aided in the incorporation. Or- namental, etc. Woodwork Co. v. Brown, 2 Hurl. & C. 63 (1863), holds the sub- scriber liable under the statute of 19 and 20 Vict., oh. 47, similar to the Amer- ican statutes. See also McDougall v, Jersey, etc. Co., 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1043 (1864). Peirce v. Jersey Waterworks Ca, L. R. 5 Exch. 209 (1870), required a cer- tain amount to be subscribed, the charter itself so prescribing. Elder v. New Zealand, etc. Co., 30 L. T, Rep. 285 (1874), the most important case on this subject, holds that, where the direct- ors are about to proceed with only one- fourteenth of the capital stock sub- scribed, a subscriber may apply to the- court and have his name removed from the subscribers' list. . The court say that the case of McDougall v. Jersey, etc. Co., 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1043 (1864), would have been decided otherwise had not two-thirds of the stock in that cas& been subscribed. See also Howbeach Coal Co. V. Teague, 5 Hurlst. & N. 151 (1860); dictum in Be Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch.- 654 (1851). 2 Troy, etc. R. R w. Newton, 74 Mass. 596 (1857), the condition being that the subscriber be allowed to pay in con- struction work; Oskaloosa Agricultural Works V. Parkhurst, 54 Iowa, 357 (1880); Brand v. Lawrenoeville, etc. R. R., 7T Ga. 506 (1887); New York, etc. R. R «. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75 (1872); Cabot, etc. Bridge v. Chapin, 60 Mass. 50 (1850)^ where a subscription payable in other stock at par, when the market value was less, was not counted; Ticonio, etc. Co. V. Lang, 63 Me. 480 (1874). Sub- scriptions payable in property are not to be counted in ascertaining whether the full capital stock is subscribed. California, etc. Co. v. Russell, 88 Cal. &77 (1891), holding, also, that an agent's unauthorized subscription is not to be- 362 CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 180. The subscriptions of married women, infants, or persons of un- sound mind are to be excluded from the count.^ So, also, the sub- scriptions of insolvents are excluded, unless at the time of subscrib- ing they were apparently able to pay the subscription.* It is no defense to an action on a subscription that a part of the subscrip- tions were made by corporations and were not enforceable. Only the state can raise that objection.' Considerable difference of opinion exists as to whether subscriptions payable by their terms in labor or materials or contract work are to be included in the counted, even though subsequently ratified by the principal. Conditional subscriptions, the condition of which cannot be fulfilled until after incorpo- ration, are not to be counted in ascer- taining whether the requisite capital stock has been subscribed. Portland, etc. B.B.V. Spillman, 23 Oreg. 587 (1893). A subscription on condition that inter- est shall be paid is counted. Rutland, etc. R. R. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 (1863). Cf. Greenville, etc. E. R. v. Coleman, 5 Rich. Law (S.C.), 118 (1851). Invalid sub- scriptions are not counted. Belfast, etc. R R. V. Cottrell, 66 Me. 185 (1876). Cf. Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line R. R., 24 Mich. 389 (1873) ; § 79, supra, and note 1, p. 364, infra. 1 Phillips V. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 319 (1859), holding that subscriptions of infants, married women, or insolvents are not to be counted unless already paid in. Fic- titiously paid-up stock, and stock con- vertible into corporate bonds, were counted. See also Hahn's Appeal, 7 Atl. Rep. 483 (Pa. 1886), excluding sub- scriptions of married women. Cf. Litchfield Bank v. Church, 29 Conn. 187 (1860). Payment of part with knowl- edge that a married woman's subscrip- tion was counted is a waiver. Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886). It is held in Mississippi, however, that even though by the terms of a subscription agreement it is to be binding only upon so much money being subscribed, and some of the money subscribed is by minors, this is no defense to the adult subscribers, since the minors subscrib- ing are bound after their majority, un- less they plead infancy as a defense. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Higginbotham, 29 S. Rep. 79 (Miss. 1901). 2 Lewey's Island R. R. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451 (1860); Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Brooks, 60 Ma 568 (1872); Denny tlotel Co. V. Schram, 6 Wash. St. 134 (1893). The subsequent failure of some of the subscribers is immaterial. Salem Mill- dam Corp. V. Ropes, 26 Mass. 187 (1829). Where the subscriber is worth only $5,400 and subscribes for $64,000 of stock, he is apparently unable to pay. Denny Hotel Co. v. Schram, 6 Wash. 134 (1893). A corporation need not al- lege that the subscription^ making up the capital stock were all by solvent people. Shick v. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329 (1896). The fact that the company is unable to collect the minimum subscription required by the charter is no defense unless bad faith in taking the subscription is shown. West End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne; 97 Va. 734 (1900). 3 U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 58 (1895). Contra, Berry v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199 (1857). The defense that part of the subscriptions were by another corporation and illegal, and hence that the full capital stock was not subscribed, is not good as to sub- scribers who have paid part with knowl- edge. Cole V. Satsop R. R., 9 Wash. 487 (1894^. A subscriber cannot defend on the ground that a corporation had sub- scribed for some of the stock ultra vires. McCoy V. World's Exposition, 87 IlL App. 605 (1899). 363 § 181.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. count.^ It has been held that the necessity of employing this method of carrying out many modern corporate enterprises requires that such subscriptions should be counted if the contract is made in good faith and the contractors are reasonably responsible men.^ The weight of authority, however, holds otherwise. The records of the corporation are sufficient and competent evidence that the full capital stocii has been subscribed.' The directors and stockholders are not liable for corporate debts merely because they commenced business before the capital stock was subscribed unless fraud or a violation of the statutes is in- volved.* § 181. A subscriber may waive the defense that the full capital stock of the corporation has not been subscribed. This waiver may be either express or implied from the acts or declarations of the subscriber.' Many different facts have been passed upon by 1 They certainly are not counted where the contractor failed to complete the work. New York, etc. R. R v. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75 (1872); Troy, etc. R R. v. Newton, 74 Mass. 596 (1857), the court saying: "The receipt of the stock by them depended entirely upon a contin- gency, as the contractors might fail to do the work, and so no stock be earned; " Oldtown, etc. R. R. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571 (1855), where the contract work was not completed. In the case of Ridgefield, etc. R. R. v. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 (1875), such subscriptions were counted, the contract for payment in work being parol, and not allowed to vary the 'apparently absolute subscrip- tion. See also note 3, p. 362, supra. 2 Phillips V. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 2 Meto. (Ky.) 319 (1859). 8 Quoted and approved in McCoy v. World's Exposition, 186 III. 356 (1900). Penobscot R. R. u. Dummer, 40 Me. 172 (1855-); Penobscot R. R. v. White, 41 Me. 512 (1856). Unless proof be introduced to destroy tlieir effect. A call is notice that the full amount has been sub- scribed. Harlsem Canal Co. v. Selxas, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 504 (1829); Hartem Canal Co. V. Spear, 3 Hall (N. Y.), 510 (1829): Litchfield Bank v. Church, 39 Conn. 137 ;1860), holding that the certificate of the commissioners that the full stock 364 had been subscribed would not be ques- tioned, even though they had counted married women's subscriptions. To same effect, see Lane v. Braiuard, 80 Conn. 565 (1863); Marlborough Branch R. R. V. Arnold, 75 Mass. 159 (1857). If the corporate records are destroyed or lost there should be other clear evi- dence. Central Turnp. Corp. v. Valen- tine, 27 Mass. 143 (1830). 4See g 843, in/m. . 5 Macfarland v. West Side Imp. Assoc, 56 Neb. 277 (1898); Emmitt v. Spring- field, eta R. R., 31 Ohio St. 33 (1876); Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476 (1872); Masonic Temple Assoa v. Channell, 43 Minn. 353 (1890). In Anderson v. Mid- dle, etc. R. R., 91 Tenn. 44 (1891), a spe- cial agreement was held to be a waiver of the full capital being subscribed, but not as to those who had not signed the agreement. A subscriber by paying calls may waive objections to the full capital stock being subscribed. Cali- fornia, etc. Hotel Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 130 (1893). The whole capital stock must be subscribed before the subscriptions are enforced, unless the subscription contract provides other- wise. A subscriber may waive this, and the question of waiver is for the jury. Hards v. Platte Valley, etc. Ca, 35 Neb. 263 (1893). Where the sub- CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 181. the courts, and held either to constitute or not to constitute a waiver of this defense. Thus, it has been held to amount to a waiver for the subscriber to act as a director, attend meetings, and contract corporate debts;' or to pay assessments for several years, ■vith full knowledge of all the facts ;^ or to write to the directors, requiring them to call a meeting ; ' or to participate as a stockholder and committeeman for several months; * or to act as president of the corporation.' The fact that certain other corporations sub- scribed for stock of an exposition company, without charter author- ity so to do, is no defense to another stockholder who stood by without objecting and who does not prove that such subscriptions were not paid.^ But a subscriber does not waive this defense by paying a deposit;' or by attending a meeting; ^ or by participating; scribers have induced a contractor to proceed on the theory that the full cap- ital has been subscribed, it is no de- fense that one subscription was invalid. Gibbons v. Ellis, 83 Wis. 434 (1892). iHager v. Cleveland. 36 Md. 476 (1872). A defendant waives the de- fense that the full capital stock was not subscribed where he serves as a director, is present when calls are made, votes in favor of buying a build- ing lot, serves on committees, prepares plans, etc. Auburn, etc. Assoc, v. Hill, 32 Pac. Rep. 587 (Cal. 1893); afiE'd in 113 Cal. 382 (1896). 2 Morrison v. Dorsey, 48 Md. 461 (1877). This defense is not waived by pay- ment of calls in ignorance of the facts, where the statute requires a full sub- scription before business is commenced. Birge v. Browning, 11 Wash. 249 (1895). 8 Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & W. 461 (1840), holding it to be evidence of waiver. * Sharpley v. Louth, etc. Ry., L. R. 3 Ch. D. 663 (1876). A stockholder who receives and retains a certificate for in- creased stock cannot, after corporate insolvency, set up that the full increased capital was not subscribed. Butler v. Aspinwall, 33 Fed. Rep. 217 (1887); aff'd, 133 U. S. 599. See also § 288, infra. By organizing and proceeding, stockhold- ers waive the defense that the full cap- ital stock was not subscribed. Dalle- mand v. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank, 74 Cal.. 598 (1888). 8 Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 503 (1873).. s McCoy V. World's, etc. Exposition, 186 111. 356 (1900). A subscriber to stock in an unincorporated association is not relieved from liability, even though some of the subscriptions necessary to- make up the amount required by the subscription paper were forgeries and others obtained by false representations,, if it be shown that the association ac- cepted the building to construct which it was formed. Haney, etc. Co. v. Adaza,. etc. Co., 108 Iowa, 313 (1899). 'Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2- (1839). 8 Wontner v. Shairp, 4 C. B. 404 (1847); New Hampshire R R. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390 (1855); Orynski v. Loustaunan, 15 S. W. Rep. 674 (Tex. 1890), holding that this defense is not waived by at- tending a corporate meeting, the sub- scriber not knowing all the facts; nor is it waived by paying part of the sub- scription. Power in the directors to- make calls when they see fit does not destroy this defense. A subscriber who- attends meetings and participates in the organization waives the defense that the full capital stock has not been subscribed; but if he does so without knowledge of the fact that the full cap- ital stock has not been subscribed, he- does not waive such defense. Portland. 365 § 182.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES [CH. •in preliminary work and paying a statutory percentage required to be paid at the time of subscribing ; ' or by paying assessments for ■surveys.^ The presumption is that the amount required by statute to be subscribed before any call can be made has been subscribed, where suit is brought on a subscription.' § 182. Failure to fix definitely the capital stock, where the amount is left in the discretion of the corporation. — ' Sometimes corporate •charters, especially in the New England states, are granted without specifying the exact amount of the capital stock, but either fixing the outside limit or allowing the corporate authorities to fix it be- tween certain spe cified limits. Where the charter leaves the amount of the capital stock indefinite, it is the duty of the proper corpo- rate authorities to determine what it shall be; and no subscriber -can be held liable on his subscription until such determination is made.'' After the capital stock is once fixed, there seems to be no rule preventing its being varied subsequently, provided the speci- fied charter limits are observed.* It has been held that even sub- .scriptions to the amount of the lowest limit allowed by the charter are insufiicient, unless that limit has been designated by the corpo- ■etc. E. R w Spillman, 23 Oreg. 587 (1893); International, etc. Assoc, v. Walker, 88 Mich. 62 (1891), holding that -attendance at a meeting and voting are not necessarily a ■waiver. A person who acts as a stockholder cannot raise the defense that the full capital stock ■was not subscribed. Doak v. Stahlman, -58 S. W. Rep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). 1 Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb. 50 (1876); Oldtown, etc. R. R. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571 (1855), where as an officer the subscriber aided in preliminary ■work. This case goes further, and holds that there can be no waiver under any state of facts, but that the full capital stock is necessary. Acts and facts pri6r to the signing of the subscription do not constitute a waiver. Curry Hotel Co. V. Mullins, 93 Mich. 318 (1892). 2 Memphis Branch R. R, i\ Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240 (1876). Atlantic Cotton Mills .V. Abbott, 63 Mass. 423(1858), holds that paying assessments and attempting to iiransfer is not a waiver. May v. Mem- phis Branch R R, 48 Ga. 109 (1873), holds that paying an assessment with inotioe of this defense is a waiver of it. ' Mil^waukee, etc. Ca v. Schokneoht, 108 "Wis. 457 (1901). < Worcester, etc. R R v. Hinds, 63 Mass. 110 (1851); Troy R R u Newton, 74 Mass. 596 (1857); Pike v. Bangor, etc. R. R, 68 Me. 445 (1878): Somerset R R V. Clarke. 61 Me. 379 (1873). Contra, Warwick R R v. Cady, 11 R I. 131 (1875); City Hotel v. Dickinson, 72 Mass. 586 (1856). In the case of Kirk§ey v. Florida, etc. Co., 7 Fla. 33 (1857), it was held that the corporate charter need not mention any capital stock or shares of stock, and yet subscriptions may be taken and enforced. In the case of Ward V. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 593 (1844), where the chairter al- lowed the capital stock to vary from $5,000 to $50,000, it was assumed that the subscriptions were enforceable, al- though no fixed capital stock had been settled upon. In White Mountains R R. V. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124 (1856), the charter allowed assessments when the lower limit of the capital stock was reached. 6 Somerset, etc. R R ti. Gushing, 45 Me. 534 (1858); Troy, etc. R R o. New- 366 ■OH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§§ 183, 184. rate authorities as the amount of the capital stock.^ After the capital stock is so determined, the full amount thereof must be subscribed before any subscriber is liable.^ It is not necessary that the amount ■of the capital stock be fixed by formal declaration of the corporate authorities. It may be done by acts equivalent thereto. Thus, a resolution to close the books on a given day,^ or limiting the time ■of subscription and then closing the subscription books,* or voting that a certain amount of stock in addition to existing subscriptions shall be issued,' are the same as, and are equivalent to, an express resolution that the capital stock shall be the amount of subscrip- tions thus taken. § 183. Irregular incorporation of the company. — Under the laws -of most of the states, charters of incorporation are obtained by com- plying with the provisions of what are called general incorporat- ing acts. Usually these acts provide that a specified number of persons, by filing at a public registry a certificate setting out cer- tain facts, may thereby form a corporation for the purposes named in such certificate. The various steps to be taken, and the contents of each certificate, are prescribed by the statute. It frequently happens, however, that in the formation of a corporation under the ;statute some part of the proceeding, through inadvertence or mis- take, is not strictly complied with. The same thing happens, also, under a special act incorporating a certain company, and requiring it to perform specified things in order to render the incorporation complete. These defects may render the corporate charter forfeit- able at the instance of the state. Accordingly the question has arisen whether such defects in the process of becoming incorporated are a good and sufficient defense to an action by the corporation to collect subscriptions to its stock. § 184. When an action is brought to collect a subscription, either ■directly or indirectly for the benefit of corporate creditors, it is well established that the subscribers cannot defeat such action by the defense that the corporation was not an incorporation, by rea- son of its not having fuUy complied with the terms of the statute providing for such an incorporation.* Not only is the subscriber estopped, by the act of subscribing, from setting up this defense, ton. 74 Mass. 596 (1857) — dicta, however, * Buoksport, etc. E. B. v. Buck, 65 in both of these cases. Me. 536 (1876). ' Pike V. Bangor, etc. R E., 68 Me. 445 spenobscot, etc. E. E. «. Bartlett, 78 ■<1878). Mass. 244 (1858). 2 Somerset, etc. E. R. v. Gushing, 45 SHickling v. Wilson, 104 111. 54 (1882); Me. 524 (1858). C/. Kennebec, etc. E. R. Wheelock v. Kost, 77 IlL 296 (1875); V. Jarvis, 34 Me. 360 (18.52). Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 (1876); Upton 'Lexington, etc. E. E. v. Chandler, 54 v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 417 (1873); s. C. M^ss. 311 (1847). 28 Fed. Cas. 839, the court saying: "I 367 § 185.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. but he is bound also by the rule that the existence of a corporation cannot be inquired into except by a direct proceeding in behalf of the state. It is suificient that the corporation exists de facto. If, however, there is no authority of law, whatsoever, for such a cor- poration, the members are liable as partners.' § 185. As between the corporation itself and the subscribers there is more difficulty and doubt in determining the rule. The great weight of authority lays down the broad rule that "where there is a corporation de facto, with no want of legislative power to its due and legal existence; where it is proceeding in the per- formance of corporate functions, and the public are dealing with it on the supposition that it is what it professes to be ; and the questions suggested are only whether there has been exact regular- ity and strict compliance with the provisions of the law relating to incorporation, — it is plainly a dictate alike of justice and of public policy, that, in controversies between the de facto corporation and those who have entered into contract relations with it, as corpo- rators or otherwise, such questions should not be suffered to be raised."^ This, doubtless, is the common law, although a care- understand the rule to be well settled that, where papers having color of com- pliance with the statutes have been filed with the proper state oflBcers and meet tWeir approval, but are in fact so defective as to be incapable of support- ing the corporation as against the state, they are, as against a subscriber to its capital, held sufficient to constitute a corporation de facto, if supported by- proof of user; " Clarke v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46 (1874); Voorhees v. Receiver of Bank, 19 Ohio, 463 (1850); Ossipee Hosiery, etc. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295 (1874); McCune Min. Co. v. Adams, 35 Kan. 193 (1886); Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R, 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891); Hause v. Mannheimer, 67 Minn. 194 (1897); State Bank Bldg. Co. v. Peiroe, 93 Iowa, 668 (1894); American ^Homestead Co. v. Linigan, 46 La. Ann. 1118 (1893); Ogden Clay Co. V. Harvey, 9 Utah, 497 (1894). An incorporator and subscriber cannot set up irregular incorporation as a de- fense. Wadesboro, etc. Ca v. Burns, 114 N. C. 353 (1894). Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 243, 291, 293 (1885), says : " The certificate is made for the benefit of the public, not for the 368 corporation or its stockholders. Those who participated in the incorporation of this bank, and, by a certificate made in pursuance of the statute, announced the amount of its capital stock, cannot,, as against the creditors of the corpora- tion, contradict their own certificate. '^ The creditors of a consolidated company may enforce subscriptions to the stock of the constituent companies, and the irregularity of the incorporation of the consolidated company is no defense. Hamilton v. Clarion, etc R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891). See also ch. XHL A subscriber who is sued by a receiver of the corporation on a subscription cannot set up the defense that the pur- pose of the corporation was illegal, in that it involved a drawing for distribu- tion among the stockholders of lots of unequal valua Cardwell v. Kelly, 95 Va. 570 ( 1898). As against its mortgage the corporation cannot set up the de- fense that it was not legally organized, in that no stock was ever subscribed for. Jones v. Hale, 32 Greg. 465 (1898). 1 See ch. XHL 2 Cooley, J., in Swartwout «. Michi- gan Air Line R. R, 24 Mich. 880 (1872) j CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 185. fully considered case in Missouri held to the contrary, and allowed a subscriber who had not done more than merely subscribe to set up this defense against the corporation, no creditor's rights being American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398 (1903); Terras v. Raeburn, 108 Ga. 345 (1899); Fish v. Smith, 73 Conn. 377 (1900); Harris v. Gateway, etc Co., 138 Ala. 652 (1901). An im- portant case on this subject is Tar River Nav. Ca v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. C), 520 (1825), where the court say that "even where it is shown that such charter has been granted upon a pre- cedent condition, and persons are found in the quiet possession and exercise of those corporate rights, as against all but the sovereign the precedent condi- tion sliall be taken as performed." In this case the subscriber had partici- pated in corporate meetings. Wil- mington, etc. R. R v. Thompson, 7 Jones, L. (N. C.) 387 (1860); Brookville, etc. Co. V. McCarty, 8 Ind. 392 (1856), holding also that the subscriber cannot set up that the corporation had for- feited its charter for misuser and non- user; Central, etc. Assoc, v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120 (1881), where the court say: "Whoever contracts with a corporation having a de facto existence, the reputation of a legal corporation, in the actual exercise of corporate powers and franchises, is estopped from denying the legality of the existence of the corporation, or in- quiring into irregularities attending its formation, to defeat the contract, or to avoid the liability he has voluntarily and deliberately incurred." It also holds that a subsequent statute curing the defect is constitutional and effect- ive; Appleton Mut F. Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 87 Mass. 446 (1863), the court saying that where •' persons were found, with the consent and under the authority of the designated corporators, and with- out objection on the part of the sover- eign power, actually exercising the corporate powers and claiming and using the franchise, they constituted (34) a corporation de facto; and the lawful- ness of their organization cannot be impeached collaterally in an action to recover an assessment;" McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 111. 270 (1878), holding that the defense is not allowable, even though the statute creating the corpo- ration was unconstitutional. See St. Louis, etc. Assoa v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555 (1882); Slocum v. Providence Steam, etc. Co., 10 R I. 112 (1871); Mc- Hose V. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 32 (1863); Tarbell v. Page, 24 III. 46 (1860), where no certificate was filed; Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98 (1867); Hanover, etc. R. R. w Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 36 (1876), holding that non-user rendering the charter forfeitable is no defense; Rowland v. Header Furniture Co., 38 Ohio St. 269 (1882), holding that actual judgment of forfeiture is no defense; South Bay, etc. v. Gray, 30 Me. 547 (1849); Danbury, etc. R. R i'. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435 (1853); United Growers Co. V. Eisner, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 1 (1897), where the subscriber acted as a di- rector; Central Plank Road Co. v. Clemens. 16 Mo. 359 (1853); Maltby v. Northwestern Va. R R. 16 Md. 422 (1860), where the subscriber had al- ready paid calls; Cromford, etc. Ry. v. Laoey, 3 Y. & J. 80 (1829), where incor- poration was obtaine-i by a false repre- sentation to parliament; Rock ville, etc. Co. V. Van Ness, 3 Cranch. C. C. 449 (1834); s. C, 30 Fed. Cas. 1080, where the subscriber had taken part in an election; Monroe v. Fort Wayne, etc. R R, 28 Mich. 372 (1873), where only three instead of five signed the certificate; Rice V. Rock Island, etc. R R, 21 111. 93 (1859); Hunt v. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 413 (1873), where the subscriber acted as director; Home Stock Ins. Co. V. Sherwood, 72 Mo. 461 (1880); Evans- ville, etc. R R v. Evansville, 15 Ind. 395 (1860); Stoops v. Greensburgh, etc. Co., 369 § 186.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. involved ; and the court declared that all the cases denying the de- fense were cases where the subscriber had acquiesced, " either by the payment of part of the subscription or by becoming a director, 10 Ind. 47 (1857); Centre, etc. Tump. Ca V. McConaby, 16 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 140 (1837), and cases in oh. XXXVIII on this subject; Gill v. Kentucky, etc. Min. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 635 (1871); Wood V. Coosa, etc. R. R, 32 Ga. 373 (1861); Eager w Cleveland, 36 Md. 476 (1873); East Pasoagoula Hotel Co. v. West, 13 La. Ann. 545 (1858). See also Oregon Cent. R. R. i% Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161 (1869), holding, under a statute, that the sub- scription may be sued on before the or- ganization is completed. It is no de- fense that the corporation was organized on a fourteen-day notice instead of fif- teen days. Ossipee Hosiery, etc. Co. V. Canney, 54 N. H. 395 (1874). Stock- holders, when sued on their statutory liability, cannot impeach the organiza- tion of the company. Aultman v. Wad- dle, 40 Kan. 195 (1888). The subscriber cannot set up that the charter was un- constitutional. Dows V. Naper, 91 III. 44 (1878). In New York the first case is Dutch- ess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis, 14 Johns. 338 (1817); then came Schenec- tady, etc. Co. n Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 103 (1854); Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119 (1859); Methodist, etc. Church v. Pick- ett, 19 N. Y. 482 (1859), where the court said it is sufiScient for the corporation tobede facto. "Two things are nec- essary . , in order to establish the existence of a corporation de facto, viz. : (1) The existence of a charter, or some law under which a corporation with the powers assumed might lawfully be cre- ated; and (3) a user, by the party to the suit, of the rights claimed ts be conferred by such charter or law. . . . The rule established by law as well as by reason is, that parties recognizing the existence of corporations by deal- ing with them have no right to object to any irregularity in their organiza- tion." Black River, etc. R. R. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 (1863); Leonardsville Bank V. Willard, 35 N. Y. 574 (1863): Buffalo, etc. R. R. V. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 (1863); As- pinwall V. Saoohi, 57 N. Y. 331 (1874); Dorris V. French, 4 Hun, 293 (1875). Not, however, where, at the time of signing the articles, the names of the directors, required to be inserted, were not in- serted. Dutchess, etc. R. R. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397 (1874); Cayuga Lake R. R. V. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 (1876); Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 (1876) ; De Witt v. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518 (1877), admitting the defense on the ground that there was no user of a cor- porate franchise; Ruggles v. Brock, 6 Hun, 164 (1875); Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 30(1857); Abbott u. Aspinwall, 36 Barb. 303 (1857); Childs v. Smith, 55 Barb. 45 (1869); and see Childs u Smith, 46 N. Y. 34 (1871); McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Ca, 4 Denio, 392 (1847). This is also the rule in the federal courts. Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875); Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 (1877). Contra, Thompson v. Guion, 5 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 113 (1859). Cf. Katama Land Co. v. HoUey, 139 Mass. 540 (1880). The lapse of the charter, by limita- tion of time within which work must be commenced, is a good defense. Mo- CuUy V. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 32 Pa- st. 25 (1858). Subscribers to increased capital stock cannot escape liability therefor by setting up that the notice of increase was not published as re- quired by statute. Handley v. Stutz, 1 39 U. S. 417 (1891). See also § 388, infra. A subscriber to stock in a West Vir- ginia corporation doing all its business in Minnesota cannot set up in defense that the company was not legally inr corporated, or that the plaintiff is not a corporation, he having participated in its incorporation. Minnesota, etc. Co. V. Denslow, 46 Minn. 171 (1891). It is no defense that the charter was not 370 CH. X.] MISOBLLANEOBS DEFENSES. [§ 186. or by attending meetings of stockholders, or by any other act in- dicating an acquiescence in the validity of his subscription." ' § 186. There is a different class of cases in which a subscriber for stock is allowed to make the defense that the corporation has not been regularly and legally incorporated. "Where the subscriber made his contract of subscription previous to and in anticipation of the incorporation, and does not, by his subsequent acts, acquiesce in the mode of incorporation, he may set up that the corporation has not been incorporated, and that he is not liable. The rule that a person contracting with a corporation recognizes thereby its ca- pacity to contract, and cannot afterwards deny it in that trans- action, does not apply to one who subscribes before incorporation. He may insist upon the organization of a regular and legal corpo- ration.' registered in all the counties through which the road runs. Anderson v. Mid- dle, etc. R. R, 91 Tenn. 44 (1891). Con- cerning the question of who can com- plain x>f mistakes, irregularities, and illegalities in the corporation, see § 5, supra. Where the general railroad act provides that unless work is commenced within two yeai's the charter shall be void, a subscriber for stock prior to incorporation may set up the defense that two years have elapsed and the charter is void. By waters v. Paris, etc. Ry., 73 Tex. 624 (1889). A subscriber cannot deny the incorporation of the company when sued on a note given for his subscription. Columbia Electric Co. V. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463 (1891). A note given to be applied in payment of a subscription in a company to be formed has been held to be good, even though the corporation was not legally formed, an attempt at incorporation having been made.. Smith -«?. Gillen, 53 Ark. 448 (1890). The validity of the in- corporation of an insurance company cannot be questioned by a person who has given to it a capital stock note. Raegener v. Hubbard, 167 N. Y. 301 (1901). A constitutional provision that "dues from corporations, other than banking, shall be secured by such indi- vidual liability of the corporators, or other means, as may be prescribed by 871 law," does not render unconstitutional a general statute for incorporation which does not prescribe any statutory liability of stockholders, and hence that defense is not available to a subscriber who is sued on bis subscription. Wil- liams t<. Citizens', etc. Co., 153 Ind. 496 (1899). The question of who may question the legality or regularity of the Incor- poration has given rise to much litiga- tion and is fully considered elsewhere. See § 637, infra. So also is the ques- tion of whether stockholders may be held liable as partners by creditors of the corporation by reason of defective or unauthorized incorporation. See §§ 331-236, infra. 1 Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126 (1874). See 54 Atl. Rep. 665. . 2 Dorrisi7. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463 (1875); RikhofE V. Brown's, etc. Co., 68 Ind. 388 (1879) ; Indianapolis Furnace, etc. Ca v. Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142 (1874); Nelson v. Blakey, 47 Ind. 38 (1874); Mclntyre v. McLain Ditching Assoc, 40 Ind. 104 (1873); Richmond Factory Assoc, v. Clarke, 61 Me. 351 (1873); Reed v. Rich- mond Street R. R., 50 Ind. 342 (1875); Taggart v. Western Md. R. R., 34 Md. 563 (1866), the court saying: "The pre- ponderance of authority in favor of a strict compliance with the_ provisions of the charter, in cases of subscription prior to the organization of the com- § 187.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. § 187. Ultra vires acts of tJie directors of the corporation. — A subscriber for stock in a corporation cannot defeat an action to collect such subscription by the defense that the directors or the corporation itself have done corporate acts which are beyond the corporate powers.' There are other remedies open to the sub- scriber. He may either enjoin such ulti'a vires acts, or may have them set aside if already accomplished.^ This defense is clearly pany, is such as is not to be disre- garded." Of. Buffalo, etcR. R. v. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157 (1859). A subscriber for stock prior to incorporation may de- feat the subscription by the defense that the company has not been legally incorporated. Capps v. Hastings, etc. Co., 40 Neb. 470 (1894). A note given to pay for stock in a corporation to be organized cannot be enforced by the payee where the corporation has not been formed. Northwestern, etc. Co. V. Lanning, 83 Minn. 19 (1901). See also § 63, supra. Under the Indiana statute authorizing a corporation for manufacturing or various other pur- poses, a corporation cannot be formed for several of these purposes, and hence a subscription made before incorpora- tion cannot be enforced by a company organized for several objects. Will- iams V. Citizens', etc. Co., 25 lud. App. 351 (1900). In suing on a subscription made prior to incorporation the cor- poration must allege in detail that it complied with the statutory steps to become a corporation. Brooksville E. R. V. Byron, 50 S. W. Rep. 530 (Ky, 1899). A failure to acknowledge the articles of incorporation is a good de- fense to a subscriber to them who is sued upon his subscription. Green- brier Ind. Exposition v. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 788 (1893). The "records, books, and minutes '■' of a corporation are suf- ticient evidence of its incorporation. Glenn v. Orr, 96 N. C. 413 (1887). A subscriber may deny that a consoli- dated company which succeeds his own was legally incorporated. Mans- field, etc. R R. V. Stout, 36 Ohio St. 241 (1875); Brown v. Dibble, 65 Mich. 530 373 (1887). In suing on an original sub- scription the corporation must allege that it has been duly incorporated. The payment of part of the subscription is no waiver of the defense. Schloss v. Montgomery Trade Co., 87 Ala. 411 (1889). Indeflniteness in the statement of the objects of incorporation is no- defense. Owenton, etc. Co. v. Smith, 13 S. W. Rep. 436 (Ky. 1890). 1 Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co.. 130 Ind. 6(1889); First Municipality of New Orleans v. Orleans Theatre Co., 3 Rob. (La,) 209 (1843); Hannibal, etc. Co. V. Menefee, 35 Mo. 547 (1857); Vicks- burg, etc. R. R. v. McKean, 12 La Ann. 638 (1857); Smith uTallassee, etc. P.B. Co., 30 Ala. 650 (1857); City Hotel v. Dickinson, 72 Mass. 586 (1856); Court- right V. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 (187.S); Hammett v. Little Rock, etc. R. R, 20' Ark. 204 (1859). In Macedon, etc. Co. V. Lapham, 18 Barb. 313 (1854), however, an ultra vires extension of the line was held to be a good defense. A subscriber cannot set up that the corporation has not complied with the provisions of its charter. Toledo, eta R. R. v. John- son, 49 Mich. 148 (188S). Ultra vires. acts and no notice of meetings are not good defenses. Cartwright v. Dickin- son, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). If a manufac- turing corporation does not locate its works in the place prescribed by its articles of incorporation, a subscriber to stock may withdraw his subscrip- tion. Auburn, etc. Works v. Shultz, 143 Pa. St. 256 (1891). 2 "The stockholder has his remedy by injunction; not to enjoin the col- lection of calls due upon his stock, but to restrain the corporation from tha OH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 187. distinguishable from the common defense of amendments to the charter, by the fact that the acts here complained of have no sanc- tion from the legislative authorities.' Thus, it has been held that a subscriber cannot defeat an action to collect his subscription by showing that the corporation has, without authority of law, and in excess of its powers, executed a lease or sale of the road ; ^ or illegally issued its bonds ; ' or purchased shares of its own stock,* or the stock of another corporation;* or changed the loca- tion or route of the road.^ The last instance, especiall}', has been a frequent defense, but it has been uniformly discountenanced by the courts where the change in the route was made, not by an amendment to the charter, but by the arbitrary, unauthorized act of the corporate authorities. "Where an insurance company, having authority to sell its property, proceeds to sell to another company which has no authority to buy, the transaction is illegal, and a stockholder in the former who agrees to take stock in the latter in exchange for his old stock is not bound to carry out the transac- partioular violation or abuse of its char- 79 111.363(1875); Illinois Midland Ry. ter complained of." Mississippi, etc. v. Barnett, 8.5 111. 313 (1877). See also R. R. V. Cross, 30 Ark. 448 (1859). See Tuttle v. Michigan, etc. R. R, 35 Mich, also Illinois, etc. R R v. Cook, 29 111. 247 (1877); Troy, etc. R. R v. Kerr, 17 237 (1862). In Ex parte Booker, 18 Ark. Barb. 581 (1854). Or the whole of a 338 (1857), an application for an injunc- business. Plate Glass Univ. Ins. Co. v. tion to restrain the corporation from Sunley, 8 El. & Bl. 47 (1857). But see enforcing the payment of a subsorip- South Georgia, etc. R. R v. Ayres, 56 tion, on the ground that the corpora- Ga. 230 (1876). tion had committed ultra vires acts, ' Merrill v. Reaver, 50 Iowa, 404 was refused. And see also ch. 2XVIII, (1879). infra. * Re Republic Ins. Co., 8 Biss. 453 1 Caley v. Philadelphia R R, 80 Pa. (1873); s. c, 30 Fed. Cas. 544. St. 363 (1876;. A change in the law be- * Chetlain v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 86 tween the time of making a subscrip- III. 330 (1877). tion and the obtaining of the charter ^ Central P. R. Co. v. Clemens, 16 may release or render illegal the sub- Mo. 359 (1852); Mississippi, etc. R R. v, scriptions. Knox v. Childersburg Land Cross, 30 Ark. 443 (1859). Of. Rives v. Co., 86 Ala. 180 (1889;. Where the stat- Montgomery, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 92 (1857). utes under which the company is or- Where, however, the terminus was ganized allow the objects of the com- made two thousand feet away from the pany to be changed on a vote of the location designated by charter, this fact stockholders, a dissenting stockholder was held to constitute prima facie a is not released from his subscription by good defense. Chartiers R R v. Hodg- such change. Mercantile Statement ens, 77 Pa. St 187 (1874). See also § 82, Co. V. Kneal, 51 Minn. 263 (1893). For supra. A change in the route under the principles of law herein relative to statutes existing before the incorpora- amendmetts to the charter, see g 503, tion does not release subscribers. Arm- eta, infra. strong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276 '' Hays V. Ottawa, etc. R R, 61 111. (1890). 432 (1871); Ottawa, etc. R R «. Black, 873 § 188.] MISOELLANEODS DEFENSES. [CH. X. tion.^ It is no defense to an action to enforce a subscription that after incorporation the company proceeded to form an illegal com- bination of competitors in trade.^ The New York courts, however, have refused to hold a New York stockholder in an English corpo- ration liable for his unpaid subscription, where under a plan of re- organization, sanctioned by the English courts, in accordance with English law, the amount collected is to go to a reorganized com- pany, while other stockholders need not pay their subscriptions if they take part in the reorganized company and pay a small sum ; especially where, if all the stockholders paid in full, the amount would be more than necessary to pay the debts.' § 188. Frauds and mismanagement of directors. — This defense is very similar to the preceding one, and is governed by the same rules of law. A stockholder cannot defeat an action to collect his subscription by the defense that the corporate affairs have been managed fraudulently or recklessly or negligently.* The stock- holder's remedies for such evils are of a different nature. For fraud he may bring the guilty parties to an accounting;^ for mis- management his only remedy is the corporate elections. In no case has he been allowed to escape liability on his subscription by reason thereof. Thus, it is no defense that the corporate authorities fraud- ulently placed an overvaluation on property purchased by them for the corporation ; * nor that they have made a fraudulent contract with a construction company,' or that the insolvency of the com- pany is due to debts incurred in buying land from the directors, ' Dougan's Case, 88 L. T. Rep. 60 (1873); directors and corporate officers is not a aff'd, 8 Ch. App. 540 (1873). valid defense herein. Be Republic Ins, 2TJ. S. Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbaoh, Co., 3 Biss. 453 (1878); s. C, 20 Fed. Cas. 148 N. Y. 58 (1895). 544. 8 Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. ' See ch. XXXIX. In Hodgkinson v. 458(1901). . National, etc. Ins. Co., 26 Beav. 473 ^People w Barnett, 91 III 432(1879); (1859), equity restrained the enforce- Chetlain v. Republic L. Ins. Co., 86 111. ment of calls already made, by reason 220(1877); Glenn v. Rosborough, 48 S. C. of the fraud of the directors; but it 872 (1896) ; Merrill v. Reaver, 50 Iowa, was conceded in this case that the sub- . 404 (1879). Depreciation of the stock by scriber was still liable on his subsorip- reason of mismanagement is no defense, tion. People V. Barnett, 91 111. 422 (1879). It SHornaday v. Indiana, etc. R. R., 9 is no defense that the funds of the com- Ind. 263 (1857); Dorris v. French, 4 Hun, pany have been wasted. Cook v. Hop- 293 (1875), where a patent-right was kinsville, etc. Co., 33 S. W. Rep. 748 (Ky. purchased by the directors from them- 1895). Mere mismanagement is no de- selves, for the corporation, at an ex- fense. Hards v. Platte, etc. Co., 46 Neb. orbitant price. 709 (1896); Oldham v. Mt. Sterling Imp. ' People v. Logan County, 63 IlL 874» Co., 45 S. W. Rep. 779 (Ky. 1898). Fraud 387 (1872)w and mismanagement on the part of the 374 OH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 189. such contract being voidable instead of void, and being subject to the ratification of the majority of the stockholders.^ § 189. Delay and abandonment oftlie enterprise. — As a, general rule, it is no defense to an action on a subscription to allege that the enterprise has been unduly delayed.^ The defense frequently is that there has been a non-user of the corporate franchises.'' It is, however, a well-established principle that non-user of corporate franchises can be complained of only by the state or in the name of the state.* Hence, a subscriber has been held not to be dis- charged by the fact that the corporation was engaged thirteen years in completing the enterprise — a turnpike.' Nor does a tem- porary abandonment of the work release the subscriber.^ But when the corporate work was not commenced for nine years, and in the meantime the subscriber had acted on the supposition of an aban- donment and had sold property which the road was expected to benefit, he was held not liable on the subscription.' Where a per- lUrner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 316 (1899). But where the chief promoter of a proposed manufacturing corpora- tions obtains donations from property owners to the proposed corporation on his agreement that $75,000 of stock should be subscribed for within a cer- tain time, and then proceeds to organ- ize the company, he himself subscrib- ing for $35,000 of the stock, and the corporation then purchases certain worthless patents and agency contracts, and issues therefor $63,250 of full-paid stock, including the $25,000 subscribed for by him, and afterwards the corpo- ration collects $4,000 of such donations, and borrows money from such pro- moter and gives him a mortgage there- for, his mortgage is not good as against the parties who donated the $4,000. Moore v. Universal, etc. Co., 122 Mich. 48 (1899). •^ Pickering v. Templeton, 2 Mo. App. 424(1876); Milleru Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 40 Pa. St. 237 (1861), where there was a delay of two and a half years, the court saying: "Until it can be shown how railroads can be built without money, no such defense as is here set up can prevail; "-First Nat. Bank u. Hurford, 29 Iowa, 579 (1870), where there was a delay in the performance of a condition subsequent to the subscription. See also Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N. T. 454 (1880); reversing 15 Hun, 371. Boyle's Case, 54 L. J. (Ch.) 550 (1885), holds that after a winding-up has commenced there can be no withdrawal; but the court in a dictum clearly says that an unreasonable delay in organizing will authorize a withdrawal by the sub- scriber. But where the charter has lapsed by reason of not complying with its terms, the stockholder is not liabla Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. v. Lapham, 43 Hun, 314 (1887). 3 Mississippi, etc. R. R. v. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 (1855); Hammett v. Little Rock, etc. R. R, 30 Ark. 204 (1859). *See % 637, infra, ' Gibson v. Columbia, etc. Co., 18 Ohio St. 396 (1868). " McMillan v. Maysville, etc. R. R., 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 318 (1854). ' Fountain Ferry Tump. Co. v. Jewell, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 140 (1848). A note in payment of a subscription, payable by its terms after the road had been par- tially completed, is not enforceable where the enterprise was abandoned and fourteen years afterwards was re- vived and the road built. Blake v. Brown, 80 Iowa, 277 (1890). 875 § 189.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFEI^SES. [oh. son signs an agreement to subscribe, but for three years after in- corporation the agreement is never acted upon and no stock is ever- issued to him or assessment made upon him, he is not liable on such subscription to creditors.' An abandonment of part of the enter- prise, however, is no defense.^ A subscriber cannot defeat the subscription by the fact that the corporation has not completed, and has no intention of completing, the road in its entirety ; ' nor by the fact that the road has been sold under foreclosure.* In Pennsylvania a failure on the part of the corporation to make a call for the subscription within six years, the statutory time of limitations on the collection of parol debts, is held to constitute an abandonment of the subscription, and to be a good defense.* If the corporation is insolvent, and the subscrip- tion is needed to pay corporate creditors, abandonment cannot be set up.* ' United States, etc. Co. v. Davies, 2 Kan. App. 611 (1895). Where a person signs an agreement in October, 1893, " to take " certain preferred stocli in a proposed corporation, but the corpora- tion is not fully organized until June, 1894, the delay in accepting the con- tract is unreasonable and the corpora- tion cannot enforce the subscription. Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432 (1896), An indefinite agreement of a person to take stock in a water com- pany to be organized cannot be en- forced by a corporation which has ob- tained a charter but has never held an organization meeting nor taken sub- scriptions to stock. Nemaha, etc. Co. v. Settle, 54 Kan. 434 (1894). In Harrison Nat. Bank v. Votaw, 51 Kan. 363 (1893), the creditors of a corporation failed to enforce subscriptions made prior to the incorporation, there being evidence of an intent to abandon the original sub- scriptions and to obtain others. 2 Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. Co., 7 Fla. 265 (1857). It is no defense that the company had abandoned a part of its business nor that the company was or- ganized for the sole benefit of the char- ter members. Dallas, etc. Mills v. Clan- cey, 15 S. W. Rep. 194 (Tex. 1891). Where a company is organized to work gold mines in a specified place, as well as elsewhere, and the company actually works mines elsewhere, but not in the specified place, the main purpose of the company is not carried out and a disso- lution may be had. Re Coolgardie, eta Mines, 76 L. T. 269 (1897). s Buffalo, etc. R. R. t). Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 (1882), aff'g 32 Hun, 359. It is no defense that the road has not been fully completed. Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 276 (1890): Lesherw Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 302 (1890). * Buffalo, etc. R. R. v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 (1882), aff'g 22 Hun, 359. •' Pittsburgh, etc. R R. w Byers, 33 Pa. St. 22 (1858). The same rule is stated less broadly in McCully v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 32 Pa. St. 25 (1858), where the court says: " If the delay was not satis- factorily accounted for, subscribers would be at liberty, after that lapse of time, to consider the enterprise aban- doned." In this case an actual aban- donment and return of subscription money to other subscribers was held to release all the subscribers. In Delaware, etc. R R. w. Rowland, 9 Atl. Rep. 939 (Pa. 1887), it was submitted to the jury whether the subscriber had been re- leased by an abanddnment of the enter- prise. See also § 195, infra. Cf. § 638, infra, where the charter lapsed. 6 Phcenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 376 CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§§ 190, 191. § 190. Failure of the corporate enterprise. — The entire failure of the enterprise and the insolvency of the corporation constitute no defense to an action on calls.' This defense would seem on the face of it to be frivolous, and yet is occasionally set up. Under the American doctrine a subscription is enforceable most of all when it is needed to pay corporate creditors. This defense is closely al- lied to those that precede, and differs little from the defense of abandonment of the enterprise. § 191. Secret agreement as to liaMlity — Siihscriptions of other subscribers released or canceled, or on special terms. — It is no de- fense for one subscriber, when sued upon his subscription, to allege that the subscriptions of others have been canceled, or that secret and more favorable terms were given to them than to him. If there has been a legal cancellation of other subscriptions the de- fendant cannot complain.^ If he has the same right to a cancella- tion he may obtain it by a suit for that purpose.* A secret agree- ment of the corporation with certain subscribers to stock, whereby they are to be released from payment, or to have some other ad- vantage not common to all the subscribers, is no defense to a sub- scriber who was not promised the same advantages.* In fact secret 67 N. Y. 294 (1876); Smith v. Gower, 3 Duv. (Ky.) 17 (1865); Hardy v. Merri- weather, 14 Ind. 203 (1860); and see the defense in § 190, infra. iBish V. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490 (1861); Morgan County v. Thomas, 76 111. 120, 141 (1875); Four-Mile Valley R. R. v. Bailey, 18 Ohio St 208 (1868). Assess- ments are collectible though the work is not completed. Red Wmg Hotel Co. V. Priedrich, 26 Minn. 113 (1879). See Buffalo, etc, R R v.- Gifford, 87 N. T. 394 (1882), afE'g 22 Hun, 359. 2 Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Wetsel, 31 Barb. 56 (1855). If, however, the can- cellation is on account of an abandon- ment of the enterprise, any other sub- scriber, when sued subsequently on his subscription, may set up such abandon- ment and cancellation and thereby de- feat the action. McCuUy v. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 32 Pa. St. 25 (1858). 'Crawford County v. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 33 Pa. St. 141 (1858). * Anderson v. Newcastle, etc. R. R, 12 Ind. 376 (1859); Jewett v. Valley Ry., 34 Ohio St. 601 (1878); Agricultural, etc. Ins. Co. V. Fitzgerald, 15 Jur. 489 (185.0); Memphis Branch R. R. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240 (1876); Hall v. Selma, etc. R. R, 6 Ala. (N. S.) 74(1844;; Connecticut, etc. R R. V. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465 (1852); Jewell V. Rock River Paper Co., 101 111. 57 (1881); Berry v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199 (1857); Niokerson v. English, 142 Mass. 267 (1886). In Galena, etc. R R v. Ennor, 116 111. 55 (1886), the court said: " Such secret agreement was fraudulent as to the other subscribers, and was void and of no avail, and the subscription is to be regarded as a valid one for the amount subscribed." See also Thomp- son V. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 243, 291, 293 (1885). The subscriber has the burden of proof that other subscrip- tions are colorable and fictitious. Hay- den V. Atlanta Cotton Factory, 61 Ga. 233 (1878). The case of Rutz v. Esler, etc. Mfg. Co., 3 111. App. 83 (1878),.is con- trary to the general rula The case of New York Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 81 N. Y. 273 (1865), reversing 5 Bosw. 593, holds that a subscriber may defeat an action on his subscription by showing 377 § 191.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. agreements to release are void, and the subscribers receiving them are liable on their subscriptions absolutely, as though no special advantages had been promised.' Being so, a subscriber, though he did not participate therein, cannot complain. It is no defense that the subscription of another person has been marked "canceled," where there is no proof that defendant subscribed on the faith of such other subscription.^ The fact that the corporation has for- feited the stock of other subscribers, and has compromised with still others, is no defense to a subscriber sued for calls.' So, also, that other subscriptions were unauthor. ized and not enforceable. 1 Quoted and approved in Armstrong V. Danahy, 75 Hun, 405 (1894). A note given in payment of the subscription price of stock in a national bank m^y be enforced by the receiver, and it is no defense that the president had agreed that the stock might be returned and the note canceled. Atvrater v. Strom- berg, 75 Minn. 277 (1899). A director cannot defeat a note given in payment of a subscription by the defense that there was a secret agreement that he should not pay. Shuey v. Holmes, 23 Wash. 193 (1900). A secret agreement to release a subscriber does not release others, inasmuch as the agreement is invalid. Wilson v. Hundley, 96 Va. 96 (1898). A person who subscribes for stock in a bank and gives his note in payment therefor cannot defeat the note on the ground that the president agreed that it need not be paid. Mead V. Pettigrew, 11 S. Dak. 529 (1899). A secret agreement between the sub- scriber and the directors that he shall not be called upon to pay is illegal. Jackson, etc. Co. v. Walle, 29 S. Kep. 503 (La. 1900). As against corijorate credit- ors a subscriber cannot evade his lia- bility by showing a separate agreement between himself and the corporation to the effect that the stock was to be de- livered to him at a future time and that in the meantime he was to advance money to the corporation to the amount of the par value of the stock to be re- paid to him out of contracts. Beals v. Buffalo, etc, Co., 49 N. Y. App. Div. 589 (1900). A secret written agreement whereby a subscriber is to pay when so disposed is fraudulent and void. Yonk- ers, etc. Co. v. Jones, 30 N. Y. App. Div, 316 (1898). Even though it is legal under the statutes of England to pro- vide that no calls shall be made on certain shares, except upon a winding up,^yet where the directors are the sub- scribers for such shares and do not fully inform other subscribers of the situa- tion, they may be compelled at the in- stance of a stockholder to pay at the same time that the others pay, even though there was no actual fraud, the parties having acted in good faith. Alexander v. Automatic, etc. Co., [1900]. 2 Ch. 56, rev'g [1899] 3 Ch. 302. A secret agreement of a corporation to a stockholder that it will take back his stock at the end of two years at a ten per cent, advance is void as to creditors. Olmstead v. "Vance, etc. Co., 63 N. E. Eep. 634 (111. 1902); Vance, etc. Co. v. Bentley, 92 111. App. 287 (1900). See also § 137 and § 170, supra. 2 Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 436 (1878). It is no defense that the sub- scriptions of other parties were erased and that such parties were released by the board of directors. Bristol, etc Ca V. Selliez, 175 Pa. St. 18 (1896). 'Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. Ca, 7 Fla. 365 (1857). It is no defense that other unpaid subscriptions have been compromised, where it appears that even if no compromise had been made the entire subscriptions would have been insufficient to pay all the debt^ Bennett v. Glenn, 55 Fed. Eep. 956 (1893). 378 OB. X.] MISCELLAXEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 193. the failure of another subscriber to pay the percentage required by statute is not a defense.* Where several subscribers refused to take their stock, and finally, to induce them to do so, a party agrees secretly with one of them to purchase his holdings, such an agree- ment may be enforced.* §192. Failure of the corporation to tender a certificate. — It is no defense to an action on a subscription to allege that the corpora- tion has not delivered or tendered to the defendant the certificate of stock to which he is entitled.' The certificate is merely the 1 Swartwont v. Michigan Air Line R R, 24 Mich. 389 (1872). ^Traphagen v. Sagar, 63 Minn. 317 (1895). A contract whereby a party -who is about to sell his business to a corporation to be organized agrees secretly to give $5,000 of stock to a party who agrees to subscribe openly for |5,000 of the stock is not enforoible, it appearing that the party who was thus to get the extra stock objected to the amount of stock to be issued to the vendor and withdrew his objection only upon this agreement, and it appearing also that he afterwards became a di- rector and voted to purchase the prop- erty at the price , demanded by the vendor. Koster v. Fain, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 443 (1899). 'Burru Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551 (1860), afif'g6Bosw. 198; Chandler?;. Northern Cross R R, 18 III. 190 (1856); Webb v. Baltimore, etc. R R, 77 Md. 92 (1893); Holland v. Duluth, eta Co., 65 Minn. 834 (1896); Walter, etc. Co. v. Robbins, 56 Minu. 48 (1893); San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 (1894); Nebraska Exp. Assoc. V. Townley, 46 Neb. 893 (1896); Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66(1893): Glenn v. Rosborough, 48 S. C. 373 (1896); Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 53 Ind. 51 (1875); New Albany, etc. R R v. Mc- Cormick, 10 Ind. 499 (1858); Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. 173 (1882); Paducah, eta R R V. Parks, 86 Tenn. 554 (1888); Heas- ton V. Cincinnati, etc. R R, 16 Ind. 275 (1861); Kennebec, etc. R R w Jarvis, 34 Ma 360 (1853); Chaffln v. Cummings, 37 Ma 76 (1853). In behalf of corporate "creditors, where the corporation is in- solvent, a person is often held to be a stockholder although no certificate has . been issued to him, and the ordinary indicia of stockholdership do not indi- cate that he is a stockholder. Sanger V. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875); Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456 (1823); Dorris v. French. 4 Hun, 293 (1875); Hamilton, etc. Co. V. Rice, 7 Barb. 157, 167 (1849); Clark V. Farrington, 11 Wis. 306, 327 (1860); Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H. 545, 563 (1858); Chaffln i-. Cummings, 37 Me. 76, 83 (1853); Griswold v. Seligman, 73 Mo. 110 (1880); Boggs v. Olcott, 40 111. 303 (1866); Be South Mountain, etc. Co., 7 Sawy. 30 (1881); Upton v. Burnham, 3 Biss. 431 (1873); s. c, 28 Fed. Cas. 831; Johnson v. Albany, etc. R R., 40 How. Pr. 193 (1870); Payne v. Elliot, 54 Cal. 339 (1880). The subscriber may stipu- late otherwise in his subscription. Sum- mers V. Sleeth, 45 Ind. 598 (1874). In general, see also Schaefifer v. Missouri Home Ins. Co., 46 Mo. 248 (1870); South Georgia, etc. R R t;. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230 (1876); Vawter v. Ohio, etc. R R, 14 Ind. 174 (1860); Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20 (1835); Chester Glass Ca v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94 (1819); Fulgam v. Macon, etc. R R, 44 Ga. 597 (1872); Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Libby, 34 Minn. 337 (1877); Blyth's Case, L. R 4 Ch. D. 140 (1876); Agricultural Bank V. Burr, 34 Ma 356 (1844); Hawloiy v. Upton, 103 U. S. 314 (1880); Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353 (1882), aff'g 24 Hun, 541; AVemple v. St. Louis, etc. R R, 130 111. 196 (1887> A tender of a certificate of stock is unnecessary, except where •9 § 192.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. stockholder's evidence of title to his stock. It is not the stock itself, but only a convenient representative of it. He would be a full stockholder, with all the rights of one, even if the certificates ■were never issued at all.' Consequently, since it is for him to de- mand the certificate when he wishes it, and not for the corporation to tender it, it is no defense for him to allege that he has never re- ceived the paper representative of his stock. The corporation must, however, be in a position to issue such certificate.^ If certificates for the whole capital stock have already been issued, the defendant subscriber, by this fact, may defeat the action to collect his subscrip- tion.' It has also been held that the plaintifl' corporation must the stock is sold on an executory con- tract, instead of being subscribed for. Kohlmetz v. Calkins, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 518 (1897). The case of Clark v. Con- tinental Imp. Co., 57 Ind. 135 (1877), holds that, where the action is for the ■whole subscription or the last instal- ments, a tender of the certificate, on ■condition of payment, is necessary. St. Paul, etc, R. R. v. Robbins, 33 Minn. 439 <1877), holds that a tender is necessary where the issue is of preferred stock, after the whole original capital stock has been issued. Where a subscriber has tendered his subscription and de- manded a certificate and is refused, a receiver cannot, upon insolvency of the company, hold him liable. Potts v. Wal- lace, 33 Fed. Kep. 373 (1887). A cer- tificate of stock need not be tendered before suit is brought. Webb v. Balti- more, etc. R. R., 77 Md. 98 (1893); As- toria, etc. R. R, v.. Hill, 30 Greg. 177 (1890); California, etc. Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 130 (1893); Columbia Electric Co. I'. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463 (1891); Dallas, etc. Mills V. Clancey, 15 S. W. Rep. 194 (Tex. 1891); Marson v. Deither, 49 Minn. 433 (1898). A subscriber to the increased capital stock who has actually paid part of the price cannot recover back the money upon the corporate insolvency on the ground that no certificate was issued. Pacific Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 327 (1891); Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. 334 (1891) ; Butler v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 340 (1891). A consolidated company claiming a subscription made to one of the constituent companies must prove a tender of the stock. Pope v. Lake County, 51 Fed. Rep. 769 (1892). A cor- poration cannot be compelled by the subscriber for stock to issue a certifi- cate therefor before it has been fully paid up, the stock being a part of the increased capital stock. Baltimore, etc. Ry. V. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 (1893). The issue of certificates of stock is not necessary to render the subscriber lia- ble. Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1893). In suing on a subscrip- tion a corporation need not prove that it had authority to issue stock. Atlan- tic, etc. Co. V. Kreusler, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 268 (1899). It is no defense that a certificate has not been issued to the subscriber. Beals v. Buffalo, etc. Ca, 49 N. Y. App. Div. 589 (1900). Cf. § 61, supra, and § 373, infra. 1 Fulgam V. Macon, etc. R. R., 44 Ga. 597 (1878). The issuing of a certificate is not necessary to constitute stockhold- ership. Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). 2 McCord V. Ohio, etc. R. R,, 13 Ind. 220 (1859). ' Quoted and approved in Knoxville, ete. R. R. u Mayor, 98 Tenn. 1 (1896); Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 (1853). See also § 58, supra. The stockholder may set up that the corporation had no stock to oiler him. Lathrop v. Knee- land, 46 Barb. 432 (1866). Cf. Mackley's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 247 (1875). Even though a corporation has contracted to sell all its stock to another party, yet a 880 OH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 193. aver a readiness and willingness to deliver the certificate of stock. '^ The duty of a corporation to issue certificates of stock is consid- ered elsewhere.^ "Where a corporation receives money in payment for increased capital stock to be issued and never increases its stock, and the money has been used in the business and the corpo- ration becomes insolvent, the subscriber is not entitled to repay- ment in preference to other creditors.^ § 193. Set-off and coxinUr-claim. — It seems to be well established that, when a corporation has become insolvent, and the subscrip- tions for stock are being enforced for the benefit of corporate cred- itors, a subscriber cannot, in the suit brought to collect his subscrip- tion, set up a counter-claim or set-off.* This rule is founded in subscriber is liable if the corporation has arranged to issue tlie stock to him upon payment. Leigh v. Chattanooga, etc. R. R., 104 Ga. 13 (1898). 1 James v, Cincinnati, etc. R. R., 3 Disney (Ohio), 361 (1858). The corpora- tion, in suing for the subscription, should allege a readiness and willing- ness to deliver the certificates of stock upon payment. Walter, etc. Co. v. Jef- ferson, 57 Minn. 456 (1894). A tender of the stock is not necessary where the corporation alleges that it is ready and willing to issue the stock. Seymour v. Jefferson, 74 N. W. Rep. 149 (Minn. 1898). 2 See § 61, supra. It has been held in Maryland that a subscriber to the in- creased capital stock of a company is not entitled to a certificate until he has paid for the stock in full, and such sub- scriber is not entitled to the rights of a stockholder until he has paid in full. The court stated that such stockholders are not entitled to dividends equally with other stockholders. The basis of the decision was the difference between original stock and increased stock. The court refused to compel the corporation to issue a certificate. Baltimore, etc, Ry. V. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 (1893). A subscriber for stock who has given his note in payment may file a bill in equity to compel the corporation to recognize him as a stockholder, where the corpo- ration denies that he is a stockholder, and has issued all its stock to other par- ties who took with notice. It is unnec- essary to bring into the suit the other parties who actually have the stock, the stock having been held by the com- pany as collateral security. Morey v^ Fish, etc. Co., 108 Wis. 530 (1901). See also g .58, supra, and § 766c, infra. Even though a person subscribes for stock in a turnpike company in 1857 and does not claim the stock or dividends, and after seven years does not attend meet- ings or pay any attention to his interest, and dies in 1868, nevertheless his repre- sentatives may collect the dividends due on the stock and may claim the stock. The statute of limitations is no bar if the company has never 'notified him' that his right to the stock is disputed. Owingsville, etc. Co. v. Bondurant's Adm'r, 54 S. W. Rep. 718 (Ky. 1900). 3 Bircher v. Walther,163 Mo. 461 (1901). 4 Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417 (1891) y Welch V. Sargent, 137 Cal. 73 (1899);. Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546 (1900); Richardson v. Merritt, 74 Minn. 354 (1899); Efird v. Piedmont, etc. Co., 55 S. C. 78 (1899); Wilkinson v. Bertock, 111 Ga. 187 (1900); Colorado, etc. Co. v.. Sedalia, etc. Co., 13 Colo. App. 474 (1899); Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 (1873)-, Shiokle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 (1888); Gov- ernment, etc. Co. V. Dempsey, 50 L. J. (Q. B.) 199 (1881). Quoted and approved in Indiana, etc.- Co. v. McGill, 15 Ind. App. 1 (1896), holding, however, that money due to a subscriber by the con- tract under which the stock was issued may be offset. The leading case in Eng- 381 § 193.] ^IISOELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. equity and public policy. The stockholder is not deprived of his remedy for the debt due him from the corporation, but he is obliged to proceed in the same manner, and is allowed to participate land on this subject is Grissell's Case, L. E. 1 Ch. App. 528 (1866), where the court said: "If a set-off were allowed against a call, it would have the effect of withdrawing altogether from the creditors part of the funds applicable to the payment of their debts.'' See also Black's Case, L. R 8 Ch. App. 254 (1872); Gill's Case, L. R. 12 Ch. D. 755 (1879); Calisher's Case, L. R 5 Eq. 314 (1868); Barnett's Case, L. R 19 Eq. 449 (1875); iJe ' Whitehouse, L. R 9 Ch. D. 595 (1878), disapproving Brighton Ar- cade Co. V. Dowling, L. R 3 C. P. 175 (1868). See also Matthews v. Albert, 24 Md. 527 (1866). Garnet, etc. Min. Co. v. Sutton, 3 B. & S. 321 (1863), allowing set-off, was based on a statute repealed by Companies Act, 1862. See Hillier v. Allegheny Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Pa. St 470 (1846); Long v. Penn Ins. Co., 6 Pa. St. 431 (1847). Cf. Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U. S. 363 (1875); Osgood v. Ogden, 4 Keyes, 70 (1868); Lawrence v. Nelson, 31 N. Y. 158 (1860). Cf. 73 S. W. Rep. 669. A subscriber cannot set off against hjs unpaid subscription a judgment lien where there are prior liens which would take the money due on his subscription if he should first pay it in. Nor, on the other hand, if there are other debts of the company, will the obligation of the company to the stockholders be can- celed by the company's offsetting the subscription against the debt, unless the subscriber is insolvent. Gilchrist V. Helena, etc. R R, 49 Fed. Rep. 519 (1892); Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460 (1889). In this case the learned court refers to § 227d (1st ed.) of this work, and dissents from the statement of law there laid down. It will be no- ticed, however, that § 337d stated the law as to set-off in cases of statutory liability of stockholders. The right of set-off in cases of subscription liability of stockholders is stated in this work in § 193, supra, and the law as there laid down agrees with the decision in the above case — a case of subscription lia- bility. Where set-off is a good defense to the action of a creditor who is also a stockholder and is liable, it is a good defense as against the assignee of his claim. CaUanan v. Windsor, 78 Iowa, 193 (1889). Unpaid salaries voted to its oflScers by an insolvent corporation which has never made any profits can- not be offset as against the stockhold- ers' liability to creditors. Burns v. Beck, etc. Co., 83 Ga. 471 (1889). A set-off is not allowed. Hoby v. Birch, 62 L. T. Rep. 404 (1890), reviewing the various contradictory decisions. No set-off is allowed as regards subscription liabil- ity. Tama Water-Power Co. v. Hop- kins, 79 Iowa, 653 (1890). In a suit in equity by a receiver against all the stockholders, individual stockholders cannot plead in set-off debts due from the corporation. Bausman v. Kinnear, 79 Fed. Rep. 173 (1897); Mathis v. Pi-id- ham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). In Sco- vill V. Thayer, 105 U. 8. 143, 153 (1881), the court said : " It is a general rule that a holder of claims against an insolvent corporation cannot set them off against his liability for an assessment on his stock in the corporation in a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy." To same ef- fect, Thebus v. Smiley, 110 111. 316 (1884); Williams v. Traphagen, 38 N. J. Eq. 57 (1884). Payment of subscriptions in ad- vance of calls, by turning in a debt thereon, is not payment upon corporate insolvency and winding-up. Kent's Case, L. R 37 Ch. D. 508; s. C, L. R 39 Ch. D. 259 (1888). Cf. Healey, Law & Pr. of Companies (3d ed.), 129, 130, 611, 834^836. Creditors who are stockhold- ers cannot claim any part of the assets until their unpaid subscription is paid, but may claim their part before it is certain that any of the statutory iiabil- CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 194- in the final corporate assets to the same extent and at the same time as other creditors.^ "Where, however, payment of a subscription is demanded or en- forced for the benefit of the corporation itself, and not for corpo- rate creditors, it is competent for the subscriber to set up, in de- fense of the action, a set-off or counter-claim.^ In New York it has been established that, where a corporate creditor brings an action at law to enforce an unpaid subscription, the subscriber may set up, in defense to the action, a set-off or counter-claim consisting of a debt due from the corporation to him, but that such a defense is not allowable in a suit in equity.' The distinction is based on the fact that a general accounting of all corporate debts and assets is possible by the latter remedy, but is impossible in the action at law.* § 194. Modification of the plan and scope of the enterprise after subscription. — A material modification of the plan of a proposed corporation, so that the actual charter differs essentially from the corporation as contemplated by the subscription contract signed before incorporation, releases such of the subscribers as object thereto. Such also is the rule where the charter materially varies ity will be required. Schlaudecker's Appeal, 14 Atl. Rep. 229 (Pa. 1888). A counter-claim which the company had against a creditor, but which has been adjudicated against it, cannot be set up by stockholders when they are sued on their subscriptions. Stutz v. Handley, 41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890); reversed on other grounds, 139 U. 8. 417. A sub- scriber sued on his subscription may set off a debt due from the company to him. Appleton v. Turnbull, 84 Me. 73 (1891). Set-oflE of a debt by defendant against the corporate creditor is good, even in an equitable suit, if only one creditor has come into the suit. Wash- ington Sa V. Ban k w Butchers', etc. Bank, 130 Mo. 155 (1895). An insolvent corpo- ration cannot give a preference to a di- rector by offsetting against his subscrip- tion a debt due to him. Wyman v. Will- iams, 53 Neb. 670 (1898). Concerning set-off as against the statutory liability of stockholders, see § 325, infra. 1 Grissell's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 528 (1866). Cf. Long v. Penn Ins. Co., 6 Pa. St. 431 (1847). ^Barnett's Case, L. R. 19 Eq. 449 (1875); Bausman v. Denny, 73 Fed. Rep. 69 (1896). Where a corporate creditor is suing the corporation, a stockholder cannot intervene in a suit and set up a counter-claim or set-off due from such corporate creditor to such intervening stockholder^ Gallagher v. Germania Brewing Co., 53 Minn. 214 (1893). 3 Richards v. Kinsley, 14 Daly (N. Y.), 334 (1887), where the rule is clearly laid down; also, Christensen v. Colby, 43 Hun, 362 (1887). In both of these oases the rule is based on analogous decision! in regard to the stockholder's statu- tory liabilities. ' See § 325, infra,. ^Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron Co., 4 Barb. 383 (1848). In Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353 (1882), the stockholder's subscription and statutory liability combined weresuflScient to pay his own and the other debts involved in the case. See Sackett's Harbor Bank v, Blake, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 335 (1851); Grose v. Hilt, 36 Me. 23 (1853); Whit- man V. Porter, 107 Mass. 533 (1871), a joint-stock company case; Poole's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 333 (1878). Of. Eastman V. Crosby, 90 Mass. 306 (1864). 383 § 195.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. the plan as laid down in the prospectus. Various illustrations of these principles of law are given in the notes below.' § 195. Statute of limitations. — After a call has been made, and the subscription or a part of the subscription is-thereby rendered 1 A subscription prior to incorpora- tion, the object of the incorporation having been stated to be to acquire certain patents, is not enforceable where the corporation is actually or- ganized for that purpose, and also to do a manufacturing business. Stern v. McKee, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 143 (1903). Wliere, prior to incorporation, a per- son agrees to take stock in a corpora- tion to furnish incandescent electric lighting, a corporation to furnish elec- tricity and power cannot enforce his subscription. Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 109 Cal. 198 (1895], Where the charter varies from the subscrip- tion paper in that the capital stock is doubled and the objects changed, a sub- scriber is not bound, even though he de- lays several months in repudiating the contract. Baker v. Fort Worth Board of Trade, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 560 (1894). A subscription to a joint-stock associa- tion or partnership cannot be enforced by a corporation subsequently organ- ized. Krottsville, etc. Co. v. Mattingly, 35 S. W. Rep. 1114 (Ky. 1896). The omis- sion from the charter of minor details contained in the subscription prior to incorporation does not release the sub- scriber. Petrie v. Coulter, 10 Okl. 257 (1900). A change in the name is im- material. Yonkers, etc. Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 834 (1898). Where a sub- scription contract before incorporation provides for a capital of $80,000, the subscription cannot be enforced if the company is actually incorporated for $85,000. Newport, etc. Co. v. Mims, 108 Tenn. 465 (1899). The fact that the subscription paper provided that the corporation should expire in 1910, whereas by the charter it was to ex- pire in 1919, is no defensa Green- brier, etc. Exposition v. Ooheltree, 44 W. Va. 626 (1898). Where the cor- poration is incorporated with a less capital stock than was proposed when the defendant subscribed, he is not bound by the subscription. Santa Cruz R. R. V. Schwartz, 58 Cal. 106 (1878). After six years and after the corporation has become insolvent it is too late for a subscriber to claim that the charter differed from the subscrip- tion agreement. Walter v. Merced, etc. Assoc, 126 CaL 583 (1899). If the statute requires the profile and esti- mates to be made before municipal aid is given, a subsequent variation re- leases the subscription. State v. Mor- ristown, 98 Tenn. 839 (1893). After a winding-up has commenced there can be no release herein. Cakes v. Tiir- quand, L. R. 2 H. L. 325 (1867). A sub- scription to stock is enforceable sev- erally although signed by several. A change in it by several of the subscrib- ers does not release the others. An in- crease in the capital upon incorporar tion does not release. Gibbons v. Grin- sel, 79 Wis. 365 (1891). In England cases arise releasing the subscriber when the memoranda of as- sociation vary from the prospectus. Stewart's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 574 (1866); Webster's Case, L. R. 2 Eq. 741 (1866); Ship's Case, 3 De G., J. & a 544 (1865); Downes v. Ship, L. R 3 H. L. 343 (1868). Cf. Nixon v. Brownlow, 3 H. & N. 686 (1858); Norman v. Mitchell, 5 De G., M. & G. 648 (1854). See also Dorris v. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463 (1875). If a subscriber pays an instalment on his stock or participates in a meeting after incorppration, he cannot after- wards set up that the charter did not correspond with the prospectus. West End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne, 97 Va. 734 (1900). It is no defense that a greater capital stock is provided for in the charter than in the preliminary agree- 384 CH. X.J MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 195- due and payable, the statute of limitations begins to run. Diffi- culty, however, arises in determining whether the statute begins to run before the call is made. In Pennsylvania the courts hold that the call must be made before six years have elapsed after the call is possible; otherwise the right of collection is ,barred.^ But the better rule, and the one supported by the weight of authority, ment, nor that the subscriptions have not all been paid in, where the defend- ant acquiesced in all this by attending meetings and voting. International, etc. Assoa v. Walker, 83 Mich. 386 (1890). As to the alteration of the subscrip- tion list itself, see § 62, supra. A subscription to a corporation to be organized to purchase, improve, and sell land in a certain city is not en- forceable where the corporation was afterwards actually formed to pur- chase and sell land anywhere and also to do many other things. West End, etc. Co. V. Nash, 41 S. E, Eep 183 (W. Va. 1903). Where the statute author- izes incorporation for producing and selling electricity, and the certificate of incorporation includes this as well as manufacturing and selling electrical appliances, apparatus and supplies, the corporation is not a de jure coi-pora- tion, and hence insu£5cient to sup- port an action by one promoter against another on a contract of the latter to convey land to a corporation to be formed and to take stock in payment, especially where the full capital stock of such corporation had not been sub- scribed for. Burk v. Mead, 64 N. E. Eep. 880 (Ind. 1903). 1 McCully V. Pittsburgh, etc. R E., 33 Pa. St 25 (1858); Pittsburgh, etc. R. E. V. Byers, 33 Pa. St. 23 (1858); Pitts- burgh, etc. R R. V. Graham, 36 Pa. St. 77(1859); Shackamaxon Bank v. Diss- ton, 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 63 (Pa. 1887). Cf. Pittsburgh, etc. R R. i;. Plummer, 37 Pa. St 413 (1860). A contrary rule seems to have been followed in Mack's Appeal, 7 Atl. Rep. 481 (1886). The statute runs against the liability of subscribers from the time of the sub- scription, where no call is made before the statute becomes a bar. Ha,milton V. Clarion, etc. R R, 144 Pa St. 34 (1891). And it is now held in Penn- sylvania that the statute of limitations runs against an unpaid subscription from the date of the assignment by the corporation for the benefit of creditors, and not from the time of a call. Frank- lin Sav. Bank v. Bridges, 8 Atl. Eep. 611 (Pa. 1887). Cf. AUibone v. Hagar, 46 Pa. St 48 (1863), where a plea of the statute of limitations in a suit for un- paid subscriptions was not allowed, be- cause by statute the liability of stock- holders continued until the whole capital was paid in. The statute of limitations begins to run against un- paid subscriptions upon the company making an assignment for the benefit of creditors, even though no call was made. Swearingen v. Sewickley, etc. Ca, 198 Pa. St 68 (1901). In Shacka- maxon Bank v. Dougherty, 20 W. N. Cas.- 297 (1887), it was held that a mere delay of six years in making calls barred all recovery, and obviously the bar of the statute was applied when no action was brought for six years after assessment made, or six years after the corporation assigned for the bene- fit of its creditors. The statute of lim- itations begins to run when the sub- scription is made, even though a call is not made until long afterwards. Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 83 Iowa, 430 (1891). A decision of a state court that the statute of limitations runs against a subscription from the time the subscription is made does not involve any federal question. Great Western TeL Co. v. Purdy, 163 U. S. 339 (1896), applying the Iowa stat- ute of limitations. See also § 189, supra. (35) 385 § iy5.j MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [oh. X. is that the statute of limitations begins to run on a subscription for stock only after a call has been made and is due.' It has been held that where the statute is a bar against the corporation it is a 1 The statute of limitations runs only from the time of a call. Glenn v. Mar- bury, 145 U. S. 499 (1893); Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319 (1889); Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533 (1890); Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245 (1891); Lehman v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618 (1889): Glenn v. Priest, 48 Fed. Rep. 19 (1891); Priest v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 405 (1892); Fitzgerald's Estate V. Union Sav. Bank, 90 N. W. Rep. 994 (Neb. 1902). The tour years' statute of limitations in Nebraska be- gins to run against an assessment of the comptroller on national-bank stock from the time the assessment is due, and the same length of time will be a bar to a suit in equity even as against the party who transferred the stock to an irresponsible person in order to avoid liability. Thompson v. German ins. Co.. 77 Fed. Rep. 258 (1896). Where by statute the assignor is liable, the statute of limitations does not com- mence to run until there has been a call. Priest v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 400 (1892); Taggart v. Western Md. R. R., 24 Md. 563 (1866); Western R. R. v. Avery, 64 N. C. 491 (1870); Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93 (1882); Baltimore, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Barnes, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 57 (1823); Salisbury v. Black's Adm'r, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 293 (1835), where, however, no call was necessary; Curry V. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371 (1875); Glenn V. Soule, 22 Fed. Rep. 417 (1884): Glenn V. Foote, 86 Fed. Rep. 824 (1888); Great Western Tel. Co. v. Gray, 122 111. 630 (1887). Cf. § 225, infra; Glenn v. How- ard, 81 Ga. 383 (1889). If a subscrip- tion is conditional, the statute of lim- itations runs only from the time of performance. Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886). Where a stock sub- scription is payable when the road is finished, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such road is actually finished, and the transfer of its cars by a ferry, pending the con- struction of a bridge, is not a comple- tion of the road, even though the di- rectors have declared it finished before such bridge was completed. Garner V. Hall, 122 Ala. 221 (1899). Where the only proof of subscription is the char- ter, which states the names of the stock- holders and the number of shares held by each, the statute of limitations be- gins to run from the time of signing the charter. Harris v. Gateway, etc. Co., 128 Ala. 652 (1901). Merely author- izing a receiver to collect subscriptions, held not a call sufficient to set the stat- ute of limitations running. Glenn v. Macon, 82 Fed. Rep. 7 (1887). Where the statute prescribes that the receiver shall collect subscriptions at once, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as he is appointed. Webber v. Hovey, 108 Mich. 49 (1895). The stat- ute of limitations begins to run on un- paid subscriptions frona the dissolution of the corporation. Garesche v. Lewis, 93 Mo. 197 (1887). The statute of lim- itations runs against unpaid subscrip- tions only from the time of a call by the court, not from the time of an as- signment to a trustee. Vanderwerken V. Glenn, 85 Va. 9 (1888); Lewis v. Glenn, 84 Va. 947 (1888). The state stat- ute of limitations as to executors and estates will be applied by the federal courts to suits by a receiver for the enforcement of a stockholder's liability in a national bank. Butler v. Poole, 44 Fed. Rep. 586 (1890). Although the stat- ute of limitations bars the action by the creditor against the corporation, yet if a lien exists by trust deed, the debt may be enforced against unpaid subscriptions. Hambleton v. Glenn, 9 S. E. Rep. 129 (Va. 1889). If the stock- holder is a non-resident the statute of limitations does not run. Tama, etc. Co. V. Hopkins, 79 Iowa, 653 (1890). The CH. X.j MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 195. bar against corporate creditors.^ In New York it has been held that, inasmuch as the corporate creditor's right to enforce the un- paid subscription accrues only after judgment against the corpo- ration is obtained, the statute of limitations runs only from the date of such judgment.^ In Virginia it is held that the statute of limita- tions begins to run from the time the decree is entered that the sub- scriptions be paid to a receiver.' Courts of equity will generally apply the same period of limitation as at law, unless there are special and equitable reasons for doing otherwise.* After one creditor statute of limitations is no bar. Leh- man V. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618 (1889). The statute of limitation^ does not begin to run as against creditors until they have exhausted their remedy against the company, and have established the amount due from the stockholders and necessary to pay the debt. Mathis v. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). The statute of limitations begins to run only from the date of a call, even though long prior thereto the defend- ant said he would not take his stock. lie Haggart, eta Co., 19 App. Rep. (Can.) 582 (1892). 1 Stilpben v. Ware, 45 Cal. 110 (1872); Davidson v. Eankin, 34 Cal. 503 (1868), in probate matters: Hamilton ■;;. Clar- ion, etc. R. R, 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891); Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 242, 291, 293 (1885); South Carolina Mfg. Co. v. Bank of South Carolina, 6 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 227 (1854); First National Bank v. Greene, 64 Iowa, 445 (1884). Where the statute of limitations is a bar to the corporation collecting unpaid subscriptions it is equally a bar as against corporate cred- itors. Hawkins v. Donnerberg, 66 Pao. Rep. 691 (Greg. 1901 ). The statute appli- cable to written contracts applies, al- though the subscription is partly in writing. Falmouth, etc. Co. v. Shaw- han, 107 Ind. 47 (1886). It is well to suggest here that the creditor, before enforcing this liability, must first ob- tain judgment against the corporation. See g 200, infra. The corporation can defeat the action against it by setting up the statute of limitations, if suffi- cient time has elapsed. If the corpora- tion fails to set up that defense, the stockholder may set it up in behalf of the corporation when he is sued. Such, at least, is the rule in some jurisdic- tions. See § 209, infra. The statute of limitations, by commencing to run against one call, does not thereby com- mence to run against the whole sub- scription. Dorsheiraer v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 404 (1892); Priest v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 405 (1892). 2 Christensen v. Quintard, 36 Hun, 384 (1885); Christensen v. Colby, 48 Hun, 362 (1887). See also § 225, infra, notes. Cf. Williams v. Taylor, 120 N. Y. 244 (1890), rev'g Williams v. Meyer, 41 Hun, 545, involving a sale of treas- ury stock. The statute of limita- tions begins to run upon the return of execution unsatisfied. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). Where a demand note is given in payment of a subscription the statute of limitations does not begin to run until demand of payment is made or the corporation becomes insolvent. Crofootu Thatcher, 19 Utah, 212 (1899), 72 Pac. Rep. 309. 'Liberty, etc. Bank v. Otter View, etc. Co., 96 Va. 352 (1898). ^Bank of United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574 (1836). In Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88 (1851), and High- tower?;. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486 (1850), how- ever, it was held that the statute of limitations has no application by anal- ogy to the equitable actions to collect subscriptions. In Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. Rep. 777 (1884), the court said, in a similar case: "In ad- 887 § 196.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. X. has filed a bill for a receiver and to collect unpaid subscriptions, the statute of limitations ceases to run from that date as against other creditors who subsequently come into the suit.' Where a subscriber defeats even a part of the action on his subscription by set- ting up the statute of limitations, he cannot claim the stock, at least unless he pays the part which was barred by the statute.^ Liability on stock issued for property at an overvaluation Commences only upon insolvency of I the corporation. Hence the statute of limita- tions runs from that date.' Questions relative to the right of a. stockholder to set up the defense that the creditor's claim against the corporation is barred by the statute of limitation are considered elsewhere.* § 196. Ignorance or mistake. — It is no defense to an action for a subscription that the subscriber at the time of subscribing was ignorant of the actual condition of the corporation.' Nor is it a justing equitable rights, courts of equity will never allow the statute of limitations to have a manifestly inequi- table and unjust operation.'' In Soovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 155 (1881), a case in equity, the court said: "Before there is any obligation upon the stock- holder to pay without an assessment and call by the company, there must be some order of a court of compe- tent jurisdiction, or, at the very least, some authorized demand upon him for payment. And it is clear the statute of limitations does not begin to run in his favor until such order or demand; " citing cases. A decree of a court of equity that the subscription be paid is equivalent to a call, and the statute commences to run. Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 353 (1886). An assignment by the corporation for the benefit of cred- itors starts the statute within a reason- able time thereafter. Glenn v. Dors- heimer, 24 Fed. Rep. 536 (1885); Glenn V. Priest, 28 Fed. Rep. 907 (1886). For an explanation of the origin of the Glenn cases, see Baltimore, etc. R. R. V. Glenn, 28 Md. 287 (1867). Where a decree is made assessing the stock- holders on their subscriptions, the statute of limitations begins to run from the entry of the decree. Glenn v. McAllister, 46 Fed. Rep. 883 (1891). 1 Dunne v. Portland, etc. Ry., 65 Pac. Rep. 1052 (Oreg. 1901). As regards the en- forcement of the stockholder's subscrip- tion liability, the statute of limitations does not run against the creditors' claims after such creditors have inter- vened in a suit brought by one creditor to sequestrate the property of the cor- poration and enforce the subscription liabilities. London, etc. Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 84 Minn. 144 (1901). See also g§ 46, 225. 2 Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R., 54 N. Y. 416, 426 (1873), where the court said: " The claim of the plaintiff is not sup- ported by any principle that should give it any consideration in either a court of law or equity. The statute of limitations never paid a debt, although it barred a remedy.'' 3 Jones V. Whitworth, 94 Tenn. 602 (1895), holding also that the time may be shorter as to deceased stockholders. The statute of limitations does not be- gin to run against the liability of a stockholder on stock fraudulently is- sued for property at an overvaluation until the corporate creditor has reduced his claim to a judgment. Kelly v. Clark, 21 Mont. 291 (1898). See also §§ 46, 47, supra. < See g§ 209, 224, 750, infra. sPayson v. Withers, 5 Biss. 269 (1873)^ CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 197. defense that he was ignorant of the legal effect of the subscription contract which he signed.' § 197. Miscellaneous defenses. — A subscriber cannot defeat an action for the collection of his subscription by alleging that the charter was obtained in bad faith ;^ or that, where a corporate creditor is enforcing payment, such creditor is also a director of the corporation;^ or that other subscribers have paid their sub- scriptions in Confederate money;* or that he has- paid the Sub- scription by note instead of by cash, as required by the charter ; * or that tihe promoters sold to the corporation a patent-right at an overvaluation;* or that the officers were illegally elected;'' or that an illegal by-law prevents his voting until calls are paid;* or that, by the charter, the whole capital stock should have been paid in before the commencement of business, which was not done;^ or that the corporation has been ousted from its franchises; '" or that the plaintiff is only an assignee of the company's rights.^' A ma- terial alteration, however, in a subscription contract is a good de- fense unless the corporation proves it to have been made without its knowledge or procurement.'^ He may also defend on the ground that the call is for the purpose of^ an unfair and illegal re- organization.'^ A person who has been discharged under the bank- rupt act is not liable on subscriptions made previous to his applica- s. C, 19 Fed. Cas. 29. See also § 350, « McDermott v. Donegan, 44 Mo. 85 infra. (1869). 1 New Albany, etc. R. E. v. Fields, 10 " Gafl v. Flesher, 33 Ohio St, 107 (1877); Ind. 187 (1858); Clem v. Newcastle, etc. Eowland v. Header Furniture Co., 38 E. E. 9 Ind. 488 (1857). See also cases Ohio St. 269 (1882). It is no defense in §§ 53, 147, supra. that the corporation commenced busi- 2 Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. E R, 78 ness before one-half of its capital stock Pa. St. 465 (1875); Smith v. Heidecker, had been paid in according to the char- 39 Mo. 157 (1866). Or illegally changed, ter. Maine, etc. Co. v. Southern, etc. Peyohaud v. Lane^ 24 La. Ann. 404 Co. 92 Me. 444 (1899). (1872). >i See § 111, mpra. ' Chouteau Ins. Go. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. i^ Bery v. Marietta, etc. Ey.. 26 Ohio 286 (1881). St. 673 (1875). Of. Ellison v. Mobile, etc. ^Macon, etc.E.E.uVason, 57Ga. 314 E R, 36 Miss. 572 (1858). See also § 62, <1876). supra. 5 Little V. O'Brien, 9 Mass. 423 (1812). i^ in the case of Bank of China v. 6 Dorris v. French, 4 Hun, 292 (1875). Morse, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 435 (1899), See also oh. Ill and notes. where a New York subscriber to stock ' Vernon Soc. v. Hills, 6 Cow. 23 In an English corporation was sued by (1826). See also § 110, supra. It is no the company for the amount of such defense that the trustees werenot stock- subscription, such company having holders, as required by statute. Eoss been reorganized under the peculiar V. Bank of Gold Hill, 20 Nev. 191 (1888). English statutes, the court refused to * Chandler v. Northern Cross E. R, enforce the liability on the ground that 18 111. 190 (1856> the funds were not for the purpose of 389 § 198.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [CH. tion in bankruptcy.' The defenses that the corporate charter has been amended by the legislature without the consent of the de- fendant subscriber;' that an assignee of a corporation has the sole right, as a general rule, to collect subscriptions ; ' that the stock- holder did not know the legal effect of his subscription;* and that the charter differs from the terms of the subscription contract, — are considered elsewhere.' Various other defenses are referred to in the note below.^ § 198. Waiver of defenses. — A subscriber to stock in a corpora- tion may waive any defense he may have to the subscription. The waiver may be express, or it may arise by implication from the acts and declarations of the subscriber. Thus, taking part in cor- porate meetings,' or the payment of a call, with full knowledge of paying debts of the old corporation, but were partially for the purposes of the new corporation, which the New York subscriber did not become inter- ested in and had no notice thereof, and on the further ground that the reor- ganization scheme was practically a sale by the old company to the new company. Aff'd, 168 N. Y. 458. 1 Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. Rep. 10 (1889); but see Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 631 (1889). A discharge in bankruptcy of a subscriber for stock is a bar to a suit to enforce the subscription where the company became insolvent before such bankruptcy. Carey v. Mayer, 79 Fed. Rep. 926 (1897). The bankruptcy act does not release an applicant there- under from liability for calls made after his release in bankruptcy. Glenn v. Howard, 65 Md. 40 (1886). 2 See ch. XXVIII, infra. ' See § 111, supra, and § 853, infra. * See § 147, supra. 5 See § 194, supra, § 503, note, infra, and oh. IX •> Change of name is no defense. How- ard V. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238 (1890). A change of name during organization is no de- fense. Priest V. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 400 (1893). A slight change in the name as incorporated is no defense. Joseph V. Davis, 10 S, Rep. 830 (Ala. 1893). A slight change in the name is no defense where the subscriber has already paid assessments. McCormioku Great Bend etc. Co., 48 Kan. 614 (1893). An increase of the capital stock as allowed by the charter does not release subscribers. Port Edwards, etc. Ry. v. Arpin, 80 Wis. 214 (1891). It is no defense to a sub- scription that the subscriber did not read the paper. Stutz v. Handley, 41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890); reversed on other grounds, 139 U. S. 417. Although a cor- poration has taken more subscriptions than its capital stock and has issued certificates therefor, yet this does not release subscribers up to the correct amount. Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). It is no defense to a railroad stock subscription that defend- ant was to receive stock in a construc- tion company, or that the control would not change hands, or that the company has sold all its property. Russell v. Al- abama Midland Ry., 94 Ga. 510 (1894). A sale under statutes existing at the time of subscription is valid and does not release the subscriber. Armstrong V. Karshner, 47 Ohio St. 376 (1890 >. See also § 325, infra. ' Kampmann v. Tarver, 39 S. W. Rep. 1144 (Tex. 1895). The court may sub- mit to the jury whether the defendant knew that the whole capital stock was not subscribed when he attended meet- ings and voted. International, etc, Assoc. V. Walker, 97 Mich. 159 (1893). A subscriber who takes part in the 890 CH. X.] MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSES. [§ 198. the defense, are held to be a waiver ; ^ and any act indicating a clear intent to abide by or accept or pass over an objection which the subscriber might make will be held to be a waiver.- business of the company cannot defend on the ground that a statute had not been complied with in paying in twenty per cent in cash. Canfleld v. Gregory, 66 Conn. 9 (1895). I Mississippi, etc. R R. u Harris, 36 Miss. 17 (1858); Inter-Mountain Pub. Ca V. Jack, 5 Mont 568 (1885); Hamil- ton I'. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co., 67 Ga. 145 (1881J. A subscriber by taking part in the organization and paying part of the subscription waives objections to the irregular incorporation of the com- pany. Greenbrier, etc. Exp. v. Squires, 40 W. Va. 307 (1895). A payment of a call on a subscription is not a waiver of the defense that the corporation has been formed for different purposes than were represented by the promoters at the time of the subscription, where the subscriber did not know that fact when he paid. Strong i7. Southwestern, etc. Ca, 38 & W. Rep. 546 (Tex. 1896). Partial payment of the subscription in ignorance of the fact that one of the other subscribers was incompetent to subscribe is not a waiver of the defense. Denny Hotel Ca v. Gilmore, 6 Wash. 152 (1893). The complaint need not allege that the full capital stock has been subscribed, where it alleges that the subscriber had paid several instal- ments and had received a dividend. Duluth Inv. Ca v. De "Witt, 63 Minn. 538 (1896). - See May v. Memphis Branch R. R., 48 Ga. 109 (1873); Middlesex Tump. Corp. V. Swan, 10 Mass. 384 (1813); Mc- CuUy V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 33 Pa. St 25 (1858). Participating in benefits with knowledge is a waiver. Detroit, etc. Club V. Fitzgerald, 109 Mich, 670 (1896). The defense that the full capi- tal stock has not been subscribed may be waived, and where the treasurer collects from others he cannot set up such defense himself. Macfarland v. West Side Imp. Assoc, 58 Neb. 417 (1898). See also §§ 160, 161, supra, and oh.XIJV. 391 CHAPTEE XL THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY TO CORPORATE CREDITORS UPON UNPAID SUBSCRIPTIONS. § 199. Unpaid subscriptions a fund for the benefit of creditors — Con- struction of the liability. Can be reached only after judg- ment against the corporation, and execution returned unsat- isfied. The renaedy by garnishment or attachment, or by notice to the stockholder. The remedy by mandamus. 203. The remedy by action at law. 204. The remedy by bill in equity. 205. 206. Parties to the bill in equity. 200. 201. 202. 207. A court of equity may make a call. Receivers and assignees for the benefit of creditors — Their du- ties, powers, and liabilities as to shares not paid up. The judgment against the corpo- ration impeachable only for fraud or want of jurisdiction. Defenses available against cor- porate creditors in actions to compel payment of balances of subscriptions. 211. Contribution. 208. 209. 210. § 199. Unpaid subscriptions a fund for the benefit of creditors — Construction of the liability. — The capital or capital stock of a cor- poration is the aggregate of the par value of all the shares into which the capital is divided upon the incorporation ; it is the fund or resource with which the corporation is enabled to act and trans- act its business, and upon the faith of which persons give credit to the corporation and become corporate creditors. The public, in dealing with a corporation, assumes that its actual capital, in money or money's worth, is equal to the capital stock which it purports to have, unless it has been impaired by business losses. The public has a right to assume that the capital stock has been or will be fully paid up, if it be necessary in order to meet corporate liabil- ities. Accordingly, the American courts go very far to protect corporate creditors, and in this country it is a well-settled doctrine that unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock constitute, upon the insolvency of the corporation, a fund for the benefit of the credit- ors of the corporation. The United States courts formerly looked upon the capital stock as a trust fund for the benefit of corporate creditors,^ but the more recent decisions eliminate any trust feature 1 " Though it be a doctrine of modern date," says Mr. Justice Miller in Sawyer V. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 620 (1873), " we think it now well established that the capital stock of a corporation, especially its unpaid subscriptions, is a trust fund for the benefit of the general creditors 393 of the corporation. And when we con- sider the rapid development of corpo- rations as instrumentalities of the com- mercial and business world in the last few years, with the corresponding ne- cessity of adapting legal principles to the new and varying exigencies of this CH. XI.] SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOKATE OEEDITOES. [§ 199. from the capital stock.^ There are three methods by which stock- holders seek to avoid their liability to corporate creditors: first, by a cancellation or withdrawal from the contract;^ second, by a release from their obligation to pay the full par value of the stock ; ' third, by a transfer of the stock.* In each of these cases, however, a court of equity does its utmost to protect the corporate creditors, and a rigid scrutiny will be made in the interest of creditors into every transaction of such a nature.' In construing the liability of business, it is no solid objection to such a principle that it is modern, for the occasion for it could not sooner have arisen." This seems to be a distinctively American doctrine. It is not known to the English law, and was first clearly announced by Mr. Justice Story in Wood V. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308 (1824); s. c, 30 Fed. Cas. 435. See also the cases of Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486 (1850); •Germantown Pass. Ey. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 (1869); Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. 599 (1882); Lewis v. Robertson, 21 Miss. 558 (1850); Bunn's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49 (1884); Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 (1853); Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 (1884); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Morgan County v. Allen, 103 U. S. 498 (1880): Osgood v. Laytin, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), Sai (1867); s. C, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 1. Cf. Vose v. Grant, 15 Mass. 505 (1819); Spear v. Grant, 16 Mass. 9 (1819); Baker v. Atlas Bank, 50 Mass. 182 (1845); Osgood v. King, 42 Iowa, 478 (1876); Chisholm v. Forny, ■65 Iowa, 333 (1884); Jackson v. Traer, ■64 Iowa, 469 (1884); Gillet v. Moody, 5 Barb. 185, 189 (1849); Mills v. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384, 389 (1869); Morgan v. New York, etc. R. R., 10 Paige, Ch. 290 (1843): Salmon v. Hamborough Co., 1 Cas. in Ch. 204 (1671); Nevitt v. Bank of Port ■Gibson, 14 Miss. 513 (1846). As to the trust-fund theory, however, see § 9, tupra. 1 "When a corporation is solvent, the theory that its capital is a trust fund upon which there is any lien for the payment of its debts has in fact very little foundation. No general creditor has any lien upon the fund under such circumstances, and the right of the cor- poration to deal with its property is ab- solute, so long as it does not violate its charter or the law applicable to such corporation." McDonald v. Williams, 174 U. S. 397, 401 (1899). 2 See g§ 167-170, supra. 'See g§ 167-170, and ch. Ill, supra. * See ch. XV, supra. 5 Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 (1873); Morgan County v. Allen, 103 TJ. S. 498 (1880); Chouteau v. Dean, 7 Mo. App. 210 (1879) ; Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo. 424 (1880) ; Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365 (Ind. 1869); s. o., 20 Fed. Cas. 79; Re South Mountain, etc. Co., 7 Sawyer, 30 (1881); s. c, 5 Fed. Rep. 403; Union Mut. L. Ins. Co. V. Frear Stone Mfg. Co., 97 111. 537 (1881); Singer v. Given, 61 Iowa, 93 (1883); Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469 (1884); Mathis v. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892); Chisholm v. Forny, 65 Iowa, 333 (1884). In one case it is said that it is not within the in- genuity of man to devise a scheme to prevent courts of equity from enforc- ing the payment of unpaid subscrip- tions to capital stock for the benefit of corporate creditors. Upton v. Hans- brough, 3 Biss. 417, 425 (1873); s. c, 28 Fed. Cas. 839. A fraudulent device by which a stockholder pays his subscrip- tion by a note, and subsequently ob- tains the note at a large discount, may be valid as against the company, but will be set aside as regards corporate creditors. Bouton v. Dement, 123 111. 142 (1887). ' A subscriber cannot pay for his stock .by purchasing full-paid stock and having this substituted for his subscription. Marshall Foundry 393 § 200.] SCBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOKATB CEEDITORS, [CH. XI. stockholders on an unpaid subscription, the court will follow the decisions of the state which created the corporation.^ An alien corporation may sue a stockholder in the courts of the state where he resides on a foreign unpaid subscription.^ § 200. Can be reached only after judgment against tJie corpora- tion and execution returned unsatisfied. — ^ Unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock are not the primary or regular fund for the pay- ment of corporate debts. Persons transacting business with the corporation look to the corporation itself for the payment of their debts. Credit is given to the corporation, not to the stockholders, and it is the natural order of business that the creditors of the cor- poration are to be paid by the corporation from funds in the cor- porate treasury. Ordinarily, corporate creditors have no knowledge or concern about the subscription list, and as to whether subscrip- tions are unpaid or partially paid. So long as the corporation meets its obligations in the ordinary course of business, corporate creditors have no need to concern themselves about unpaid sub- scriptions to the stock. But when the corporation is in default and embarrassed, or for any reason fails to pay its debts, then its cred- itors have rights with reference to such unpaid subscriptions. They then have the right to know whether all the subscriptions for stock Co. u Killian, 99 N. C. 501 (1888). The 244(1858). C/. Bank of China u Morse, stockholder's liability in this respect is not confined in general to the original capital stock, but it attaches, upon an authorized increase of the capital, to such increase. Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. a 665 (1877). See also Delano v. Butler (Pacific Nat. Bank Cases), 118 U. S. 634 (1886). The filing of the stat- utory certificate declaring that the whole amount of the capital stock has been paid in is not conclusive of the fact, and will not prevent proof to the contrary. Barre Nat. Bank v. Hing- ham Mfg. Co., 137 Mass. 563 (1879); Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353 (1883); Veeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295 (1884); Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 242. 291, 293 (1885). The ques- tion whether a stockholder may limit or entirely do away with his liabilitj', by an express contract to that effect with corporate creditors, is considered elsewhere. See § 216, iij/ra. 1 Glenn v. Liggett, 135 U. 8. 533 (1890); Penobscot, etc. Co. v. Bartlett, 78 Mass. 168 N. Y. 458 {1901). See also § 223^ infra. The supreme court of the United States will not reverse a judgment of the court of appeals of New York, al- though the court of appeals, in passing upon the liability of stockholders, re- fused to follow the law of Virginia, where the corporation had been incor- porated, the stockholders against whom suit was brought being residents of New York. Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360 (1893). Subscribers to stock are- liable according to the law of the state incorporating the company, and not according to the law of the state where the subscribers reside. A subscriber to stock in a Virginia corporation is liable by statute although he has trans- ferred his stock. Morris v. Glenn. 87 Ala. 628 (1888). 2 Anglo-American, etc. Ca v. Dyer, 64 N. B. Rep. 416 (Mass. 1902). The subbcrip- tion liability of an Illinois stoo kholderin a Scottish corporation may be enforced in Illinois, and the extent of the liabil- 394 CH. XI.J SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 200. have been fully paid in, and, if not, they have the right to compel such payment.' It accordingly becomes important to know at what point, in their efforts to collect what is due them, corporate creditors may cease to pursue the corporation and proceed directly against its de- linquent stockholders. The well-established rule upon this point is that a corporate creditor's suit to enforce payment of unpaid subscriptions can be properly brought only after a judgment at law has been obtained against the corporation^ and an execution returned unsatisfied.^ This rule is of such importance that by statute, in many of the states, a creditor's right to proceed against a stockholder on his unpaid subscription is allowed only after the remedy against the corporation itself has been exhausted.' By this is meant that judgment shall have been duly recovered against the ity will be determined by the laws of Scotland. Mandel v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 111. 177 (1895). 1 Quoted and approved in Tichenor v. Williams, etc. Co., 42 S. E. Rep. 505 (Ga. 1903). 2 Bank of United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574 (1836); Walser ■«. Selig- man, 13 Fed. Eep. 415 (1883); Wether- bee V. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501 (1883); Cutrightu Stanford, 81 111. 340 (1876); Baxter v. Moses, 77 Me. 465 (1885); Terry V. Anderson, 95 U. S. 638, 636 (1877); Cleveland v. Burnham, 55 Wis. 598 (1883): Freelandtt McCullough, 1 Denio, 414 (1845); Bayliss v. Swift, 40 Iowa, 648 (1875). The suit is to be brought for this purpose in the courts of the state where the corporation exists. Barclay V. Talman, 4 Edw. Ch. 138 (1843); Mur- ray V. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb. 140, 147 (1863); Bank of Virginia v. Adams, 1 Pars. Eq. 534 (1850); Patterson v. Lynde, 113 111. 196 (1884); Harris v. Pullman. 84 111. 30, 35 (1876). See also § 319, infra. Cf. Claflin v. McDermott, 13 Fed. Rep. 375 (1882). Simple contract creditors of a corpo- ration, vphose claims have not been re- duced to judgment, and who have no express lien on its property, have no standing in a federal court of equity to collect unpaid subscriptions and apply the same to the payment of their debts, even though they allege that an exist ing mortgage on the property is fraud- ulent, and that the company is insolv- ent, and a bill of foreclosure of the mortgage is going on. They might under certain conditions iiltervene. Hollins V. Brierfield Coal, etc. Co., 150 U. S. 371 (1893). The federal courts will not even follow a state statute author- izing such a suit, nor dges the fact that the foreclosure suit is in the federal court give jurisdiction of the creditor's suit. Hollins v. Brierfield Coal, etc. Co., 150 U. S. 371 (1893). The return of execution unsatisfied is necessary. Al- bright V. Texas, 8 New Mex. 423 (1896). 3 Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459 (1858); Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 317 (1854); Mc- Claren v. Francisous, 43 Mo. 453 (1869); New England Com. Bank v. Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. 1 154 (1859); Priest ,v. Essex Mfg. Co., 115 Mass. 380 (1874); Cambridge Water-works v. Somerville Dyeing, etc. Co., 86 Mass. 339 (1863); Lindsley v. Simonds, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 69 (1866); Blake v. Hinkle, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 318 (1836); Shellington v. How- land, 53 N. Y. 371 (1873); Wehrman v. Reakirt, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio), 330 (1871) ; Dauchyr. Brown, 34 Vt. 197 (1853) ; Drinkwater v. Portland Marine Ry., 18 Me. 35 (1841); Handy v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 334 (1883); Burch v. Taylor, 1 Wash. St. 345 (1890); Baines v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 581 (1891). Cf. Perkins v. Church, 31 Barb. 84 (1859). 395 § 200.] SUBSCEIPTIONS AND OOEPOEATE CEEDITOES, [CH. XI. corporation, and execution issued and regularly returned unsatis- fied. Nothing short of that exhausts the remedy against the cor- poration.i The corporate funds are the corporate creditors' primary re- source, even where the liability of the individual stockholder is declared to be primary, like that of an original contractor or partner.^ Where, however, the corporation has been adjudged a bankrupt, the remedy against the corporation need not first be exhausted.* Such, also, has been held to be the rule where the cor- poration is notoriously insolvent,^ or has been formally dissolved.' 1 Rooky Mountain Nat Bank v. Bliss, 89 N. Y. 338 (1882); 72 Pac. Rep. 309. In England a scire /aeias is a neces- sary preliminary, unless there is some statutory enactment to the contrary. Bartlett v. Pentland, 1 B. & Ad. 704 (1831); Clowes v. Brettell, 10 M. & W. 506 (1842); Wingfield v. Barton, 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 355 (1842); Winfield v. Peel, 12 L. J. (N. S., q. B.) 102 (1843). In a suit by a corporate creditor against a cor- poration to obtain judgment before suing stockholders on their liability, the stockholders are not allowed to come in as parties. Hambleton v. Glenn, 9 S. E. Rep. 129 (Va. 1889). Proof that a creditor has exhausted his legal remedy against the corporation is shown by the judgment and an execu- tion thereon returned unsatisfied. Evi- dence that the company owns a large amount of personal property besides its road and franchise is inadmissible. Baines v. Babcook, 95 Cal. 581 (1891). 2 Stone V. Wiggin, 46 Mass. 316 (1842); Stedman v. Eveleth, 47 Mass. 114 (1843). 3 State Savings Assoc, v. Kellogg, 52 Mo. 583 (1873); Dryden v. Kellogg, 2 Mo. App. 87(1876); Shellington v. Howland, 53 N. Y. 371 (1873). Of. Ansonia Brass, etc. Co. V. New Lamp Chimney Co., 53 N. Y. 133 (1873); s. c. afE'd, New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass, etc. Co., 91 U. S, 656 (1875); Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. Rep. 415 (1882). Contra, Birm- ingham Nat. Bank ix Mosser, 14 Hun, 605 (1878); Fourth Nat. Bank v. Franck- lyn, 180 U. S. 747 (1887). See § 319, in/ra. < Hodges V. Silver Hill Min. Co_ 9 Oreg. 300 (1881); Terry v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156 (1875); Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515, 533 (1845); Stutz v. Handley, 41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890) ; reversed on other grounds, 139 U. S. 417;" Salt Lake Hard- ware Co. V. Tintio Milling Co., 13 Utah, 423 (1896). See also Hollingshead v. Woodward, 107 N. Y. 96 (1887). It has been held that the right of action ac- crues to the creditor whenever it is clear that the corporation has no property from which the claim can be paid. A judgment is not necessary for the be- ginning of an action against the stock- holder, though it may be necessary as evidence in such an action to determine the measure of damages. First Nat. Bank v. Greene, 64 Iowa, 445 (1884). Cf. Cleveland u Marine Bank, 17 Wis. 545. (1863). A creditor of an insolvent cor- poration may bring a creditor's bill against the assignee for the benefit of creditors of a subscri ber, even though no judgment against the corporation had been obtained and no other stockhold- ers are made co-defendants. Samain- ego V. Stiles, 20 Pac. Rep. 607 (Ariz. 1889). A creditor must first exhaust his remedy against the corporation unless he proves it insolvent. Fletcher v. Bank of Lonoke, 69 S. W. Rep. 580 (Ark. 1902). 5 Approved in Latimer v. Citizens' State Bank, 102 Iowa, 163 (1897); Kin- caid V. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548 (1875). As to what is sufficient to dissolve a cor- poration for this purpose, see Kinoaid v. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548 (1875). Under a statute requiring dissolution of the cor- poration before corporate creditors can CH. XI.] SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOKATE CEEDITORS. [§ 201.. A bill in equity lies to enforce the subscription liability of a stock- holder in a foreign corporation. ISTo judgment against the corpo- ration need be obtained in the state where sach suit is brought, if judgment has been obtained and execution returned unsatisfied where the corporation exists, and it is shown that the company has. no property and service cannot be made in the state upon the com- pany.' The bill in equity must show that the remedy against the corporation has been exhausted.^ §'201. The remedy hy garnishment or attachment or iy notice to the stockholder. — There are various remedies which corporate cred- itors may employ to enforce the payment of partially paid up sub- scriptions. Among these is that of garnishment. Thus, where a subscription hafs been called in, in part or wholly, and has not been reach unpaid subscriptions, the corpo- ration is deemed to be dissolved .when it has ceased to exercise its proper func- tions, is without funds, and is indebted. Penniman v. Briggs, 1 Hopk. Ch. 300 (1834); Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456 (1833); Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbot- son, 84 Wend. 473, 479 (1840). Of. Terry V. Anderson, 95 U. S. 638 (1877). Rem- ington V. Samana Bay Co., 140 Mass. 494 (1886), holds that the judgment herein against the corporation is void if the cor- poration has been dissolved. See g 642, infra. It has been said that corporate creditors need not await the collection by the corporation of doubtful claims, but may compel the payment of their claims by the stockholders and let the latter take the risk and delay. " Cred- itors," says the supreme court of Ten- nessee, "will not be required to wait the collection of doubtful claims or claims in litigation. The stockholders m ust pay promptly, and take upon them- selves the onus of delay and risk as to all such claims." Moses v. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 398, 413 (1878). See also Stark V. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 841, 843 (1854). General creditors may also reach unpaid subscriptions, although another corporate creditor has a mort- gage lien on the corporate property, rights, privileges, and franchises. Dean V. Biggs, 25 Hun, 133 (1881). See also §,^ 219, 853, infra. 897 1 Rule I'. Omega, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 336- (1896). See also note 3, p. 395. Unless such proof is given, judgment in the state where suit is brought must be- shown. National Tube Works v. Ballou, 146 U. S. 517 (1893); s. a, 43 Fed. Rep. 749; Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank v. Bliss, 89 N. Y. 388 (1883). In this case it is held that a proceeding in rem, affecting- only the property of the corporation attached, and execution against that property, is not what the rule requires; and again, that the recovery of a judg- ment and issue of execution in another state is not a compliance with the rule, but that a judgment in and execution issued out of a court of the state where- the statute is in force is necessary. To the same effect, see Brice v. Munro, 5 Can. Law T. 180, Ont. High Ct. of Just.,. Q. B. Div. (1885), in which case it is held, that an execution issued and returned in Quebec is not ^uflBcient as against a company incorporated and existing in Ontario. Contra, Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 (1888). The subscription lia- bility may be enforced in another state. Latimer v. Citizens' State -Bank, 103- Iowa, 162 (1897): Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, 19 N. Y. App. Div. 148 (1897).. See also §§ 208, 338, infra. 2 Doak V. Stahlman, 58 S.#W. Rep. 741. (Tenn. 1899). § 201.J SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATB CEEDITOES. [oh. XI. paid by the subscriber, it is, at least to the extent of such calls, an asset of the corporation, and, like other assets, is subject to garnish- ment at the instance of a corporate creditor.^ But this remedy is not available to reach that part of the unpaid subscription for which calls have not been made.^ In a garnishment 1 Kern v. Chicago, etc. Assoc, 140 III. 371 (1893); Bohrer u Adair, 61 Neb. 824 (1901); Joseph u Davis, 10 S. Rep. 830 (Ala. 1893): Meints v. East St. Louis, etc. Co., 89 111. 48 (1878); Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67 Mo. 678 (1878); Simp- son V. Reynolds, 71 Mo. 594 (1880); FauU V. Alaska, etc. Min. Co., 8 Sawyer, 430 (1883); Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371 <1875); Bingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403 (1843); Hays v. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., 90 Pa. St. 621 (1882). Cf. Rand v. "White Mountains R. ,R., 40 N. H. 79 <1860); Brown v. Union Ins. Co., 3 La. Ann. 177 (1848); Scott v. Windham, 73 Miss. 76 (1894); Dean v. Biggs, 35 Hun, 132 (1881). The creditor of a corpora- tion may garnishee a person owing such corporation on a subscription for ..stock, even though such corporation has sold- its assets to another corpora- tion. Prentice v. U. S. etc. Steamship Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 106 (1897). An attach- ment of unpaid subscriptions due to a foreign corporation will be stayed where sequestration proceedings are commenced, but the priority of the at- tachment creditor will be preserved. Se Queensland, etc. Co., 58 L. T. Rep. 878 (1888). See s. c, [1893] 1 Ch. 219. Where garnishee process lies at the in- stance of a judgment creditor to collect unpaid subscriptions, a suit in equity will not lie. Henderson v. Hall, 32 S. Eep. 840 (Ala. 1900). ^ Quoted and approved ir^ Bohrer v. Adair, 61 Neb. 834 (1901); Bingham V. Rushing, 5 Ala. 403 (1843); Brown v. Union Ins. Co., 3 La. Ann. 177 (1848); Bunn's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49 (1884). See also Coalfield Co. v. Peck, 98 111. 139 (1881). In Nevada the right of garnish- ment in a case where calls had not been made was expressly denied. Mo- Kelvey v. Crockett, 18 Nev. 338 (1884). 398 Cf. Meints v. East St. Louis, etc. Co., 89 111. 48 (1878); Hughes u Oregonian Ry., 11 Greg. 158 (1883); Peterson v. Sinclair, 83 Pa. St. 250 (1877); Langford v. Ot- tumwa W. P. Co., 59 Iowa, 283 (1883); Chandler v. Siddle, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 236 (1874); S. C, 5 Fed. Cas. 459. In New York there is no process of garnish- ment, but instead thereof an attach- ment is allowed. Under an attach- ment against a foreign corporation not chartered by the United States, the sheriff may levy upon the sums remain- ing unpaid upon a subscription to the capital stock of the corporation, the gnbscriber being within the county and having property therein; "or upon one or more shares of stock therein held by such a person, or transferred by him for the purpose of avoiding payment thereof." N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, § 646. See also Cooper v. Adel, eta Co., 123 N. C. 463 (1898). It has also been held that a corpo- rate creditor, by an execution against tjjie corporation, may reach an unpaid subscription, though no call has been made. lie Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. Rep.- 334 (1883); s. C, 30 Fed. Rep. 674 (1884); CuouUu v. Union Ins. Co., 3 Rob. (La.) 571 (1843). Cf. Bunn's Ap- peal, 105 Pa. St. 49 (1884); and see Han- nah V. Moberly Bank, 67 Mo. 678 (1878). But this is a somewhat questionable rule, and the remedy proposed by it is probably very seldom invoked. For the remedy in Pennsylvania, where by stat- ute, after execution returned unsatis- fied against the corporation, on order of the court, execution issues against the stockholders, see Lauder v. Tillia, 117 Pa. St. 304 (1887). Bank of Virginia V. Adams, 1 Pars. Sel. Cas. 534 (1850), holding that a court of equity in Penn- sylvania has no jurisdiction, to compel CH. XI.] SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 201. suit against a corporation and a stockholder to reach an unpaid subscription the stockholder may contest the validity of the claim against the corporation, even though the corporation has defaulted in the suit.' The California courts will not enforce the subscrip- tion liability of stockholders in an Illinois corporation where the Illinois statutes prescribe that the remedy may be by garnishment.^ Attachment lies against resident subscribers to stock in a foreign corporation, the subscription price not having been fully paid.' Still another remedy is often given by statute. The statute may provide that, after the remedj' is exhausted against ,the corporation, the stockholders may by summons be brought into that same suit and compelled to pay.^ stockholders of a foreign corporation residing there to pay a subscription to its stock on the application of its cred- itors. As regards the statutory remedy of a creditor in enforcing an unpaid subscription in Maine, see Libjpy v. Tobey. 82 Me. 397 (1890). In the case of Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 23 How. 380 (1859), the court said: "The creditors of the corporation are seeking satisfaction out of the assets of the company to which the defend- ants are debtors. If the debts attached are sufficient to pay their demands the creditors need look no further. They are not bound to settle up all the af- fairs of this corporation, and the equi- ties between its various stockholders or partners, corporators, or debtors." If a corporation has been dissolved, gar- nishee process does not lie against a stockholder at the instance of a corpo- rate creditor to reach an unpaid sub- scription. Paschall v. Whitsell, 11 Ala. 473 (1847). 1 Doak V. Stahlman, 58 S. W. Rep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). 2 Russell V. Pacific Ry., 118 CaL 258 (1896). See also Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97 (1887). 3 Cooper V. Atlel, etc. Co., 123 N. C. 463 (1898). ■* A state statute may provide that a judgment creditor of a corporation may summon in a stockholder who has not paid his subscription and compel him to pay such subscription to such judgment creditor. Hill v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 134 U. S. 515 (1890>. Where the stockholder's liability at- taches upon a notice served upon him, the creditor who first serves the notice acquires a prior right to collect. Wells V. Robb, 43 Kan. 301 (1890). Although the stockholder's subscription liability may be enforced by levy of execution against his property on a judgment against the corporation, "after suffi- cient notice," yet notice to a non-resi- dent stockholder by publication is not sufficient. Wilson v. St. Louis, etc Ry., 108 Mo. 588 (1891). Where the statutory mode. of collecting subscrip- tions is by motion based on a judgment against the corporation, notice of the motion being given to the stockholder, such notice is not good when served out of the state on a non-resident. A judgment based on such notice is not good. Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41 (1892), afl"g 36 Fed. Rep. 154. In Mis- souri it is held that "a proceeding by motion for execution against a stock- holder of an insolvent corporation is in no sense the institution of an independ- ent suit, but a mere supplementary proceeding in aid of the execution against the corporation." Kohn v. Lucas, 17 Mo. App. 29 (1885); Paxon v. Talmage, 87 Mo. 13 (1885). A proceed- ing under the Missouri statute after judgment against the corporation to collect stockholders' subscription liabil- ity after a mere notice may be removed 899 §§ 202, 203.] SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [CH. XI. § 202. The remedy ly mandamus. — It is doubtful whether corpo- rate creditors may, in this country, have recourse to the writ of ma/)idamus to compel the ofiBcers of the corporation to make a call for the purpose of raising money to meet corporate obliga- tions.^ In the English courts a mandamus is sometimes awarded in these cases.^ But in this country the question of calls is not usually of much importance in such cases. The corporation is generally in- solvent; a bill is filed in a court of equity to collect and distribute all the assets, and calls on the subscriptions are made by the court itself.' § 203. The remedy ly action at law. — Another remedy is by an action at law. It has been held that unpaid subscriptions, after call, may be enforced by an action at law brought directly by the creditor against the delinquent subscriber, and that in such an into the federal court. Lackawanna, etc. Co. V. Bates, 56 Fed. Rep. 737 (1893)., The statutory remedy of issuing execution against stockholders for their unpaid subscriptions on a judg- ment against the corporation ceases when a receiver is appointed. Sho- walter v. Laredo Imp. Co., 83 Tex. 162 (1892). In England this plan has been tried and was unsatisfactory. Credit- ors, when they could not obtain satis- faction from companies, singled out some unfortunate stockholder, and compelled him to pay the whole amount for which judgment had been recov- ered. This course was in the highest degree unfair; and parliament was in- duced, when legislating on joint-stock companies in 1856, to leave out all those clauses, found in the preceding acts, enabling creditors to execute judgments against 'individual stock- holders, and to provide, instead, that creditors should have the power, upon non-payment of the debts due to them from the company, to cause it to be vFOund up. The same view prevailed when the acts relating to joint-stock companies were remodeled ih 1862. Consequently, a creditor of a company registered under the Companies Act, 1862, can only execute a judgment 6b- 400 tained against the company by pro- ceeding against the corporate property, and, if necessary, by having recourse to a petition for winding up the company. In Lowry v. Inraan, 46 N. T. 119 (1871), a charter permitting the property of stockholders to be taken upon execu- tion on a judgment against the corpo- ration, and providing that such stock- holders may use the same powers against others to enforce contribution, was held not to create such a general individual liability as would sustain a personal action. The legislature may modify a sum- mary remedy to collect subscriptions. Ex parte Northeast, etc. R R, 37 Ala. 679 (1861); Howard v. Kentucky, etc. Ins. Co., 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 282 (1852). A statutory remedy of one state is not available in another state. Christen- sen V. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97 (1887). 1 Dalton, etc. R R u. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191 (1876); Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 215 (1879). Cf. CucuUu v. Union Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 571; 573 (1843); Allen u Montgomery R R, 11 Ala. 437 (1847). 2 Regina v. Victoria Park Co., 1 Q. B. 288 (1841); Regina v. Ledgard, 1 Q. R 616 (1841); Rex v. St. Katherine Dock Ca, 4 B. & Ad. 360 (1833). 5 See § 108, supra. CH. XI.j SUBSCKIPTIONS AND COEPOEA.TE CEEDITOES. [§ 204. action each subscriber is liable, not. for his proportionate share, but to the full extent of his unpaid subscription.' The tendency of the law, however, is to do away with this rem- edy, and to compel the creditor in all cases to seek his remedy in a court of equity. This tendency is in accord with the best interests of corporate creditors and stockholders and the prevention of a multiplicity of suits.^ § 204. The remedy hy Mil in equity. — The remedy most usually adopted by corporate creditors to obtain the payment of their claims against the corporation from the unpaid balances of subscriptions due the corporation by the subscribers to the capital stock is a bill in equity. This is in the nature of a creditor's bill, reaching the equitable assets of the principal debtor. It is the most effectual, simple, and just remedy, and is not only the favorite remedy of the courts, but is generally resorted to by the corporate creditors them- selves.' Some of the courts have even gone to the extent of hold- 1 Bank of United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574 (1836); Allen v. Mont- gomery R R., 11 Ala. 437 (1847); Persch V. Simmons, 3 N. Y. Supp. 783 (1889). An action to recover unpaid subscrip- tions may be at law. FauU v. Alaska, etc. Min. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 657 (1888); Tama Water-Power Co. v. Hopkins, 79 Iowa, 653 (1890); Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Inv. Co., 96 Iowa, 147 (1895); Wil- bur V. Stockholders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178 (1878); s. C, 29 Fed. Cas. 1189; White V. Blum, 4 Neb. 555 (1876); McCarthys Lavasche, 89 IIL 270 (1878); Freeman v. Winchester, 18 Miss. 577 (1848). Contra, Griffith V. Mangam, 73 N. Y. 611 (1878). Cf. Glenn v. Lancaster, 109 N. Y. 641 (1888). Concerning the pleadings in a suit at law to collect subscriptions, see Glenn v. Sumner, 183 IT. S. 153 (1889). A suit by contractors against subscribers for stock in a company must be against each separately and not against all in one suit Davis v. McMillan, 18 Ind. App. 424 (1895). See also §§ 208, 220, 223, infra. A subscription paper, "We agree to X)ay," is several and not joint. A suit against all the subscribers will fail. Davis, etc. Co. v. Barber, 51 Fed. Rep. 148 (1892). Cf. § 76, supra. The legislature may by statute make a court of law the sole forum in which to collect unpaid subscriptions. Shickell V. Berryville, etc. Co., 99 Va. 88 (1901). Under the Iowa statute authorizing a corporate creditor to sue a stockholder on an unpaid subscription, the suit may be brought in the federal court in New York to enforce such liability, and such suit may be at law under such statute. Atlantic T. Co. v. Osgood, 116 Fed. Rep. 1019 (1903\ 2 See § 204, mfra. 3 Pfohl V. Simpson, 74 N. Y. 137 (1878); Mathez v. Neidig, 72 N. Y. 100 (1878); Dayton v.. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435 (1865); Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850); Steph- ens V. Fox, 88 N. Y. 313 (1881); s. c, 17 Hun, 435; Griffith v. Mangam, 73 N. Y. 611 (1878); Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97, 100 (1887); Ward v. Griswoldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 593 (1844); Bank of United States v. Dallam, 4 Dana (Ky.), 574 (1836); Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 (1888); Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. 599^ (1882); High tower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486 (1850); Hightower v. Mustian, 8 Ga. 506 (1850); Dal ton, etc. R R. u McDan- iel, 56 Ga. 191 (1876); Germantown Pass. Ry. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 (1869); Adler V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 13 Wis. 57 (I860); Gianella v. Bigelow, 96 Wis. 185 (1897); Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371 (1875); (26) 401 § 204.] SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COKPOEATE CEEDITOES. [oh. XI. ing a bill in equity to be the exclusive remedy for the corporate creditor in these cases.' Occasionally, also, statutes are enacted prescribing that a creditor who seeks to apply such assets to the Allen V. Montgomery R. R, 11 Ala. 437 (1847); Wincook v. Turpin, 96 111. 135 (1880); Hickling v. Wilson, 104 111. 54 (1882); Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. R., 17 Ohio, 187 (1848); Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnp. Co., 11 Ohio, 273 (1842); Jud- son V. Rossie Galena Co., 9 Paige, 598 (1842); Van Peltu U. S. Met, Spring, etc. Co., 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 325, 331 (1872). [Compare with this case Sherwood V. Buffalo, etc. R. R., 12 How. Pr. 137 (1855), and Hammond v. Hudson River, etc. Co., n How. Pr. 29, 33 (1854).] Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); S. c, 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Louisiana Paper Co. V. Waples, 3 Woods, 84 (1877); S. C, 15 Fed. Cas. 968; FauU v. Alaska, etc. Min. Co., 8 Sawyer, 420 (1883); Holmes V. Sherwood, 16 Fed. Rep. 735 (1881); Chandler v. Siddle, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 286 (1874); s. 0., 5 Fed. Cas. 459; Myers V. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411 (1874); s. G, 17 Fed. Cas. 1118; Wilbur v. Stock- holders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178 (1878); s. C, 29 Fed. Cas. 1189; Harmon v. Page, 62 Cal. 448 (1882); Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 23 How. 380 (1859); Sanger v. Up- ton, 91 U. S. 56, 60 (1875); Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. 8. 205 (1879); Salmon v. Hamborough Co., 1 Cas. in Ch. (Eng.) 304 (1671); Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S 519 (1883), saying that "no one cred- itor can assume that he alone is en- titled to what any stockholder owes, and sue at law so as to appropriate it exclusively to himself." A bill in equity may be filed in the federal courts to collect unpaid subscriptions and apply them to the payment of claims of claimants who are corporate creditors. If the sums due the original complain- ants amount to more than $3,000, the court has jurisdiction. If the aggre- gate collections are more than $5,000, an appeal lies. Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366 (1890). In determining the jurisdiction of the federal court in suits to enforce a stockholder's subscription liability, the aggregate liability of all the stockholders who are joined as de- fendants is not considered, but the separate liability is considered. Wil- son V. Kiesel, 164 U. S. 248 (1896). In Ohio it has been held that an action for unpaid assessments on subscription for stock might be joined in an ac- tion on the statutory liability of stock- holders. Warner v. Callender, 20 Ohio St. 190 (1870). A bill in equity is the proper remedy. Johnston v. Markle Paper Co., 153 Pa. St. 189 (1893); Baines V. Babcook, 95 Cal. 581 (1892). A bill may 1 Thomson, etc. Co. v. Murray, 37 Atl. Rep. 443 (N. J. 1897); Van Pelt v. Gard- ner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898); Jones n Jarman, 34 Ark. 323 (1879); Harris u First Parish, 40 Mass. 112 (1839); Knowlton v. Ackley, 63 Mass. 93 (1851); Eriokson v. Nesmith, 81 Mass. 331 (1860); Smith v. Hucka- bee, 53 Ala. 191 (1875); Umsted v. Bus- kirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520 (1874); Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216 (1879). Cf. Spear V. Grant, 16 Mass. 9 (1819): Hodges v. Silver Hill Min. Co., 9 Oreg. 200 (1881). The remedy is in equity alone. Hamil- ton V. Clarion, etc. R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891); Burch v. Taylor, 1 Wash. St. 245 403 (1890); Universal F. Ins. Co. v. Tabor, 16 Colo. 531 (1891). It seems to be well settled that, in the United States courts, unpaid subscriptions can be reached by a corporate creditor in a court of equity only. Brown v. Fisk, 23 Fed. Rep. 238 (1885). In Bunn's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49 (1884), the supreme court of Pennsyl- vania clearly held that upon corporate insolvency no creditor can sue at law for the application of unpaid subscrip- tions to his debt. His remedy is in equity alone. As to discovering the names of stockholders, see Hippie v. Five Mile, etc. Co., 3 Atl. Rep. 682 (N. J. Eq. 1886); also, § 519, infra. CH. XI.J SUBSCEIPTIONS AND OOEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 205. payment of his claim can do so only by a suit in equity.^ The right to proceed by a suit in equity herein has been held to exist, even where the general equitable remedy by creditor's bill has been abolished by statute.^ Where stock has been issued as full paid without any money or property being paid therefor, a judgment creditor's remedy is in equity and not at law.' § 205. Parties to the Mil in equity — Parties plaintiff. — A cor- porate creditor who seeks in this way to obtain payment of his claim for the unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of the cor- poration should file his bill on behalf of himself and such other be filed by a judgment creditor whose execution has been returned unsatisfied to enjoin executions, have a receiver appointed, have subscriptions collected, etc. Ballin v. Loeb, 78 Wis. 404 (1890). In an action to enforce the liability of stockholders in a foreign corporation the plaintiff may examine the defend- ant before trial in order to frame his complaint. Thayer v. Humphreys, 69 Hun, 343 (1898). A judgment creditor of a corporation with an execution re- turned unsatisfied may file a bill against a stockholder to reach an unpaid sub- scription of the latter and to reach cor- porate property which was illegally conveyed to him. Hall v. Henderson, 114 Ala. 601 (1896). A corporate cred- itor, where the corporate property has been exhausted, may file a bill in the nature of a creditor's bill to collect un- paid subscriptions. The suit may be against one subscriber. But the bill must be so framed that other creditors may come in. Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. R. R., 49 Fed. Rep. 519 (1892). The fund realized from the suit in equity is dis- tributed ratably among all the cred- itors. Matbis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). The capital stock is not a trust fund for the benefit of credit- ors, and hence a court of equity has no jurisdiction on that/ ground to col- lect unpaid subscriptions. Henderson V. Hall, 32 S. Rep. 840 (Ala. 1900). iHadleyu Russell, 40 N. H. 109 (1860). 2 Adler v. Milwaukee, etc. Mfg. Co., 13 Wis. 57 (1860). The equitable jurisdic- tion herein seems to have been based on various grounds. See Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 178 (1878); s. c, 29 Fed. Cas. 1189. In one case the bill in equity has been held to' be in the nature of an eqilitable attach- ment in which the subscribers are in effect called on to answer as garnishee of the principal debtor. Ogilvie v. Knox: Ins. Co., 32 How. 380 (1859). In prac- tice a receiver is usually appointed, the amount of the corporate debts and the amount necessary to be contributed by the holders of shares not paid up are ascertained by proof, or through a ref- eree and master's report, and then there is a final decree affording, so far as the aspets admit, adequate relief, and, in any event, proportional relief to all parties. Dalton, etc. R. R. v. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191 (1876). 3 First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 69 Fed. Rep. 455 (1895). A judgment creditor's bill is multifarious where it asks to hold the defendant liable on a subscription for stock, and as an officer for causing the corporation to buy its own stock, and as an outsider for obtaining real es- tate of the company without considerat tion, and as an outsider misrepresenting the condition of the company. First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 75 Fed. Rep. 154 (1896). The liability of subscribers for stock under the Maine statutes, where the stock is not properly paid up, can- not be enforced in the federal courts by a suit in equity, even though the stat- utes of Maine authorize such a suit. Alderson v. Dole, 74 Fed. Rep. 29 (1896). .408 § 205.] SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEBDITOES. [CH. XI. creditors as may wish to come in.^ The general rule is that such a suit is and should be for the benefit of any or all creditors who elect to come in as parties complainant, and establish their debts according to the course and practice of a court of chancery.'' While the bill must be so framed as to permit other creditors, if they elect, to come in and be made parties to the suit, it is in no way neces- sary to join them as parties. The other creditors are proper but not necessary parties.' « Several creditors, however, cannot bring 1 Handley t>. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366 (1890); First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 75 Fed. Rep. 154 (1896); Crease v. Baboock, 51 Mass. 525 (1846); Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. Rep. 725 (1881); Sawyer u.»Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 (1873); Mills v. Scott, 99 U. S. 35 (1878); Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519 (1883). A creditor's suit to collect unpaid subscriptions must not only be in equity but must be for the benefit of all creditors. Bickley v. Schlag, 46 N. J. Eq. 583 (1890); Van Pelt t). Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). 2 Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501 (1883); Coleman v. White, 14 "Wis. 700 (1862); Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 14 Wis. 705, n. (1862); Morgan v. New York, etc. R R., 10 Paige, 290 (1843); Masters V. Rossie Lead Min. Co., 2 Sandf. Ch. 301 (1845); Mann u Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850); Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Crease v. Babcook, 51 Mass. 525 (1846); Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520 (1874); Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216 (1879). Any creditor has a right to come in, establish his claim, and share pro rata in the distribution of the assets, even though the bill was not filed for the benefit of such as should choose to come in and share the expense. Turn- bull V. Prentiss Lumber Co., 55 Mich. 387 (1884). See also Tallmadge v. Fish- kill Iron Co., 4 Barb. 382, 393 (1848); Walker w Crain, 17 Barb. 119, 131 (1853). In consequence thereof no one creditor can, by superior diligence in filing a bill, obtain a preference over other creditors in i-espect of the unpaid bal- ances of subscriptions. See the cases in preceding note. There is, however, an early case in the Ohio reports which seems to recognize such a preference.. Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnp. Co., 13 Ohio, 197 (1844). See Adler v. Milwau- kee, etc. Co., 13 Wis. 57 (1860); Wright V. McCormack, 17 Ohio St. 86 (1866). There must be an account taken of the amount of debts, assets, and unpaid capital, and a decree for an assessment of the amount due by each stockholder. Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88 (1887).. Otherwise it is for the jury to say whether the whole of the unpaid sub- scriptions are needed to pay corporate debts. Citizens', etc. Co. v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 564 (1887). The pleadings may be of such a nature that the trial must be at law. Glenn v. Lancaster,. 109 N. Y. 641 (1888). In California it is held that a judgment creditor's suit in behalf of himself and other creditors is not in behalf of simple creditors. Where the judgment retains the cause for other judgment creditors who may come in and make a proper showing.^ this refers only to judgment creditors then existing. Several judgment cred- itors may join in the suit in equity. A prior judgment in favor of another creditor is not evidence of the liability of the stockholders, Baines v. West- Coast Lumber Co., 104 Cal. 1 (1894). But see Thatcher v. King. 156 Mass. 490' (1892). As to the form of a decree in a creditor's action, and as to the right of a creditor to discontinue a suit brought in behalf of himself and other creditors,, see Salisbury v. Bingham ton Pub. Co., 85 Hun, 99 (1895), and § 223, infra. 'Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); S. C.,' 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Crease u.^ Baboock, 51 Mass. 535 (1846); Hatch u 404 CH. XI.J SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATB OEEDITOES. [§ 205. separate suits of this nature. They must all join in one proceed- ing.i Where the suit is in equity in behalf of all the creditors, the judgment cannot be in behalf of the plaintiff only, if it appears that there are other creditors.^ A stockholder who is also a creditor may file a bill as a creditor to reach unpaid subscriptions. He must, however, pay his own subscription in fuU.^ The stockholders need Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879). Cf. Adler V. Milwaukee, etc. Co., 13 Wis. 57 (1860). One creditor cannot maintain a suit in liis behalf alone, but the suit must be in behalf of all corporate creditors and against all stockholders who have not paid. A receiver will be appointed. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). A judgment creditor may commence a suit in equity against a stockholder to collect his unpaid subscription without joining other stockholders, and even though no account has been taken of the indebtedness of the company. Cooper V. Adel, etc. Co., 187 N. C. 319 (1900). In California the bill by a cor- porate creditor may be against one or more stockholders, but the fund is dis- tributed among all creditors. Welch v. Sargent, 127 Cal. 7S (1899). A corporate creditor's Tight to recover does not de- pend on other debts of the corporation, and no accounting is nece.ssary, and it is not necessary to join all stockholders as parties defendant. Walter v. Merced, «tc. Assoc, 126 Cal. 588 (1899). A judg- ment creditor may maintain a suit in equity to reach unpaid subscriptions, and need not allege that it is in behalf of all creditors and that other creditors may apply to come in. McBryan v. Universal, etc. Co.. 89 N. W. Rep. 683 (Mich. 1903). A creditor may file a bill in equity in his own behalf alone against some of the stockholders to collect their unpaid subscriptions. HarrelH". Blount, 112 Ga. 711 (1901). Corporate creditor suing need not join all the corporate creditors as co-complainants nor all the .stockholders liable as defendants. Cor- nell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886). Other creditors may come in on a bill by a creditor to collect unpaid subscrip- tions. Bailey v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R, 139 Pa. St. 213 (1891). 1 Crease v. Babcock, 51 Mass. 525 (1846). But see Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. 418 (1874). And an action to compel the payment of an unpaid subscription may be joined by a creditor with an action to enforce a statutory liability. Warner v. Callender, 30 Ohio St. 190 (1870). Accordingly, where a bill is filed, on behalf of all the creditors who choose to come in, against all the stockholders in default, the courts will enjoin a separate creditor's suit. Pierce 4!. Milwaukee Construction Co., 38 Wis. 853 (1875). Cf. Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700 (1863); Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 14 Wis. 705, n. (1863); Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 18 Wis. 490 (1864). 2 Hallett V. Metropolitan, etc. Co.. 69 N. Y. App. Div. 258 (1903). 3 Bickley v. Schlag, 46 N. J. Eq. 533 (1890); Bissit v. Kentucky River Nav. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. 353 (1883), and the valuable note; Thompson v. Reno Sav- ings Bank, 19 Nev. 103, 171, 343, 291, 293 (1885). Cf. Hogg's Appeal, 88 Pa. St. 195(1878); Calhoun u Steam Ferry Boat, 27 Int. Rev. Reo. 273 (1881), in which case if is held he cannot sue the corporation. But see Mil vain v. Mather, 5 Exch. 55 (1850), in which it is held that a corporation sued by a stock- holder may set off any amount due by him on calls. Cf. Ex parte Winsor, 3 Story, 411 (1844); s. c, 30 Fed. Cas. 313; Weber v. Fickey, 47 Md. 196 (1877), holding that a stockholder who is also a creditor and who has not fully paid his subscription cannot recover from another stockholder the full amount of his claim. Emmert v. Smith, 40 Md. 405 §2Q6.] StJBSCEIPTIONS AND CORPOEATE CEEDITOES. [CH. XI. not wait to be made parties defendant to a creditors' bill before moving for contribution, but may, in a proper case, before a suit in the nature of a creditors' bill is filed against them by cred- itors of the corporation, file a bill in equity upon their own account, making the corporation a party, to enforce the payment of unpaid balances of subscription, for the payment of corporate indebtedness, and for contribution.^ § 206. Parties defendant. — The defendants to such a suit should be the corporation itself,^ and all from whom an unpaid subscrip- tion is due, except such as are unknown or insolvent, or beyond the jurisdiction.' 123 (1874), to same effect. A stock- holder cannot file a bill to compel others to pay in their subscriptions where he has not paid his own. Holton v. Wal- lace, 66 Fed. Rep. 409 (1895). A stock- holder who is also a creditor may en- force, the liability, but he must pay his proportion. Wilson v. Kiesel, 9 Utah, 397 (1894). 1 Fiery v. Eramert, 36 Md. 464 (1872). 2 The corporation is ordinarily a necessary party. Mann v. Pentz, 8 N. Y. 415 (1850); Cooper v. Adel, etc. Co., 132 N. C. 463 (1898); Walsh v. Memphis, etc. E. E., 3 McCrary, 156 (1881); s. C, 6 Fed. Eep. 797; S. c. sub nom. Walser V. Memphis, etc. R R., 19 Fed. Eep. 153 (1883); Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Bankr. Reg. 178 (1878): S. 0., 29 Fed. Cas. 1189; Wetherbee v. Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501 (1883); First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 6 Fed. Eep. 215 (1879); BrinckerhofiE v. Brown, 7 Johns. Ch. 317 (1833). But see, contra, Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898); Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. Eep. 415 (1882), a well-consid- ered case, and Wellman v. Howland Coal, etc. Works, 19 Fed. Eep. 51 (1884). In the former of these cases the court says: "SuflScient reasons for not mak- ing it (the corporation) a party are found in the fact that it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court, and also in the fact that it is practically defunct." In the case last cited it was held that, where a corporation is without prop- erty or officers or place of business, it need not be made a party of record. The corporation is a necessary party defendant in an action by corporate creditors to collect unpaid subscrip- tions. Service upon it by publication is insufficient King v. Sullivan, 93 Ga. 621 (1894); Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). 3 Hadley v. Eussell, 40 N. H. 109 (1860); Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 (1866); Pierce v. Milwaukee Construction Co., 38 Wis. 253 (1875); Coleman v. White, 14 Wis. 700 (1863); Carpenter v. Marine Bank, 14 Wis. 705, n. (1863); Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Mann V. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850); Griffith v. Mangam, 73 N. Y. 611 (1878); Vick v. Lane, 56 Miss. 681 (1879); Walsh v. Memphis, etc. E. E., 3 McCrary, 156 (1881); S. a, 6 Fed. Eep. 797; s. c. sub. nom. Walser v. Memphis, etc. R. R, 19 Fed. Eep. 153 (1883). A suit must be in equity and all stockholders and creditors within the jurisdiction must be brought in. Van PeU, v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898> Of. Young v. New York, etc. Steamship Co., 10 Abb. Pr. 339 (1860), holding that judgment cred- itors are not proper parties defendant without showing why they were not made parties plaintiffi The bill should contain an appropriate allegation as to the stockholders unknown, insolvent, or out of the jurisdiction, and a prayer that, upon discovery, they be made parties when possibla Bogardus v. Eosendale Mfg. Co., 7 N. Y. 147 (1852). It is not necessary to join all the stock- holders. Martin v. South, etc. Co., 94 406 CH. XI.J SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 206. The stockholders against whom the bill is filed may, however, it seems, when all are not made parties, file a cross-bill, obtain a discovery of the remaining delinquent stockholders, bring them in Va. 38 (1896). See also cases in note 2, p. 404, supra. "Where the attempt is to reach the liability of the stockhold- ers on their subscriptions to capital stock, all the solvent stockholders within the jurisdiction must be joined, except where this will be excused upon an allegation that the number is too great." Vick v. Lane. 56 Miss. 681, 684 (1879). But on the other hand, with respect to the matter of joining all the solvent stockholders who are in arrears as parties defendant to the bill, pro- vided they are within the jurisdiction, we find a line of authorities in support of the proposition that all such stook- holdex's are not always necessary par- ties to the bill; that such a suit may properly be brought against one, or any, of the delinquent stockholders as well as against all; and that a bill will not be held defective merely because it fails to include all the delinquent stockholders as parties defendant. Ogil- vie V. Knox Ins. Co., 38 How. 380 (1859); Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879); Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); S. C, 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Holmes V. Sherwood, 16 Fed. Rep. 735 (1881) Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 98 (1882) Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y. 587 (1874) Brundage v. Monumental, etc. Min. Co. 12 Oreg. 323 (1885). Of. Von Schmidt V. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55 (1850); Lamar Ins. Co. V. Guliok, 103 111. 41 (1883). Any other rule would place upon the cred- itor a burden which would be unjust and perhaps destructive of the rem- edy itself. In Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879), there was a bill to compel payment of a debt out of the unpaid subscription of a single stockholder. It was not sought to wind up the com- pany. It being urged that a creditor of an insolvent corporation is not at liberty to proceed against one or more delinquent subscribers to recover the amount of his debt, without an account being taken of other indebtedness, and without bringing in all the stock- holders for contribution, the court, by Mr. Justice Strong, said: "The liability of a subscriber for the capital stock of a company is several and not joint. By his subscription each becomes a several debtor to the company, as much so as if he had given his promissory note for the amount of his subscription. At law, certainly, his subscription may be enforced*against him without join- der of other subscribers, and in equity his liability does not cease to be sev- eral. A creditor's bill merely subro- gates the creditor to the place of the debtor, and garnishes the debt due to the indebted corporation. It does not change the character of the debt at- tached or garnished. It may be that, if the object of the bill is to wind up the affairs of this corporation, all the stockholders, at least so far as they can be ascertained, should be made parties, that complete justice may be done by equalizing the burdens, and in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits. But this is no such case. The rhost that can be said is that the presence of all the stockholders might be convenient, not that it is necessary. When the only object of a bill is to obtain pay- ment of a judgment against a corpora- tion out of its credits or intangible prop- erty, that is, out of its unpaid stock, there is not the same reason for requir- ing all the stockholders to be made de- fendants. Cf. Bonewitz v. Van Wert County Bank, 41 Ohio St. 78 (1884), where it was held error to give judgment against the defendants properly before the court, when the return of the sum- mons vs:as entirely silent as to two of the defendauts. As to when bills brought by creditors in these cases are and are not multifarious, see Allen v. Montgom- 407 § 207.] •SrBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEKDITOES. [oh. XI. as parties, and thus enforce contribution.^ If all the parties who are liable have not been brouo^ht before the court, it has been held that those who are defendants of record cannot be charged with liability which should fall upon those who are absent, unless it be shown that the absentees are insolvent or beyond the jurisdiction of the court.^ This, however, can hardly be considered sound law.' § 207. A court of equity may make a call. — It is well settled that, when stock is subscribed to be paid in upon call by the corpo- rate authorities, and the company neglects or refuses to make such calls as are necessary to raise funds to meet the just corporate ob- ligations, a court of equity will itself make the necessary calls if the interests of the creditors require it.* The court will, in behalf of the creditors, do what it is the duty of the corporation to do in ery R. E., 11 Ala. 437 (1847)^ Cambridge Waterwoi-ks v. Somerville Dyeing, etc. Co., 80 Mass. 193 (1800), where the lia- bility of some of the defendants was as directors and of others as stockhold- ers, and the bill was held to be multi- farious; Barre Nat. Bank v. Hingham Mfg. Co., 137 Mass. 563 (1879); Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286 (1874); Dead- erick v. Wilson, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108 (1874). Executors of a deceased stock- holder may be joined with other stock- holders as defendants where the suit is in equity. Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891). A creditor's bill filed to collect the unpaid subscrip- tions of stockholders will be dismissed where only a few of the stockholders are made party defendants and no alle- gation is made showing clearly and in detail that the other stockholders can- not be reached and brought in. Duns- ton V. Hoptonic Co., 83 Mich. 372 (1890). An insolvent stockholder is not a nec- essary party to a suit by corporate creditors to collect subscriptions. Wil- son V. California Wine Co., 95 Mioh. 117 (1893). All the stockholders need not be joined as defendants. Baines V. Babcock, 95 Cal. 581 (1892); Gibbons V. Grinsel, 79 Wis. 365 (1891). A stock- holder may be held liable on a sub- scription, although the corporation is not made a party defendant and other stockholders are not joined. A court of equity has jurisdiction. Potter v. Dear, 95 Cal. 578 (1892). In Michigan, by statute, stockholders may be joined as parties defendant in a judgment creditors suit, in order to collect un- paid subscriptions. Schaub v. Welded, etc. Co., 90 N. W. Rep. 335 (Mich. 1902). 1 Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 (1879). In the original bill itself there may properly be a prayer, when some of the delinquent stockholders are unknown, for a discovery, in order that such un- known stockholders may be made parties by amendment. Hippie v. Five- Mile, etc. Imp. Co., 3 Atl. Rep. 683 (N. J. 1886); Bogardus v. Rosendale Mfg. Ca, 7N. Y. 147 (1852); Morgan v. New York, etc. R. R.. 10 Paige, 390 (1843). 2 Wood V. Dummer, 8 Mason, 308 (1834); s. G, 30 Fed. Cas: 435. But see Marsh w Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); s. C 16 Fed. Cas. 800. Cf. Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 (1866). Contra, Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886), citing Stang's Appeal, 10 W. N. Cas. 409 (1881). When there are delinquent stockholders beyond the jurisdiction, the stockholders who have been sued and compelled to pay more than their due proportion must look to them for contribution. Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. Rep. 735 (1881). See also § 308, infra. 3See § 211, m/»"a- * See § 108, supra. 408 CH. XI.] StTBSCEIPTIONS AND OOEPOEATE CKEDITOES. [§ 2or. respect of calls.^ And the court may make the call although the statute says calls shall be made by the trustees, directors, or man- agers.^ The court may direct the receiver to make a call instead of the court making the call itself directly.' A receiver may col- lect a call made by the directors.* A call, whether made by the court or by the directors, is conclusive evidence of the necessity therefor, unless directly attacked and set aside by judicial proceed- ings.' A stockholder may file a bill in equity to review an assess- 1 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329 (1896); Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 155 (1881); Hatch v. Dana, 101 V. a 205, 214 (1879); Curry v. Wood- ward, 53 Ala. 371 (1875); Wilbur v. Stockholders, 18 Nat. Bankr. Eeg. 178 (1878); s. c, 89 Fed. Cas. 1189; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463(1871); s. C, 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Myers v. Seeley, 10 Nat. Bankr. Reg. 411 (1874); s. C, 17 Fed. Cas. 1118: Henry u Vermillion, etc. R R., 17 Ohio, 187 (1848); Robinson v. Bank of Darien. 18 Ga. 65 (1855); Ward v. Gris- ■woldville Mfg. Co., 16 Conn. 593 (1844); Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 (1875); Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 (1877); •Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93 (1882). Cf. Germantown Pass. Ry. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. «t. 124 (1869); Chandler v. Keith, 42 Iowa, 99 (1875); Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850); Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380 (1859); Adler v. Milwaukee; «tc. Co., 13 Wis. 57 (1860); Armstrong V. Danahy, 75 Hun, 405 (1894). And see Seymour v. Sturgess, 36 N. Y. 134(1862); Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 358 (1882). The court itself may make a call. Mar- son V. Deither, 49 Minn. 423 (1892). A call is necessary, or the equivalent, where the receiver sues. Chandler v. Siddle, 3 Dill. 477 (1874); s. c, 5 Fed. Cas. 459. No call is necessary where creditors file a bill to reach unpaid sub- scriptions. Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34 (1891). Non-resident stockholders are bound by the decree ■of the court levying the assessment. Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238 (1890). Where the statute requires twenty days' notice to stockholders before calls ■are made, creditors must give this no- tice before claiming and collecting the unpaid subscription. Universal F. Ins. Co. V. Tabor, 16 Colo. 531 (1891 ). In a suit by creditors to collect unpaid sub- scriptions the court may levy an as- sessment and direct execution for col- lection of the same. The court may also subsequently levy another assess- ment. The Virginia statute of 1897 re- quiring collection to be at law did not apply to pending proceedings. Martin V. South, etc. Co., 97 Va. 349 (1899). ^.Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. 599 (1882). Cf. Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 3.53 (1886). A call may be made in behalf of corporate creditors although the company had contracted with the stockholders not to call in the subscrip- tions until a later date. lie Cordova, etc. Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 580. Where, how- ever, it was provided by the charter of the corporation that all calls are to be made only upon a three-fourths vote of the stockholders, it was held that a call by the court was irregular. Loui- siana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 Woods, 34 (1877); s. c, 15 Fed. Cas. 968. 119 Fed. 641. 3 Falk V. Whitman, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 396 (1897). See also § 208, infra. A receiver may make calls when so di- rected by the court. Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. Rep. 178 (1898). The court may direct the receiver to collect unpaid subscriptions without requiring an as- sessment and demand of payment. Carnahan v. Campbell, 59 N. E. Rep. 1054 (Ind. 1901). 4Wyman v. Williams, 52 Neb. 833 (1897). See also ($ 208. infra. 5 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329 (1896). Although a court in 409 § 208.] SUBSCKIPTIONS AND COKPOEATE CEEDITOKS. [CH. XI. ment made by a receiver of an insolvent corporation where the claim upon which the receivership is based and all the prooeedings subsequent thereto are permeated with fraud.' No call is neces- sary if the corporation is insolvent.^ The question of whether in- terest on the call may be collected is considered elsewhere/ as is- also the question of the form of the judgment against each stock- holder.^ § 208. Seceivers and assignees for theienefit of creditors — Their duties, powers, and liabilities as to unpaid subscriptions. — When a corporation becomes insolvent, with corporate creditors on the one hand pressing their claims, and subscriptions to the capital stock wholly or partially uncollected on the other hand, it is usual to place the assets of the company, including the claims against de- linquent stockholders, in the hands of a third person for the bene- fit of all concerned. Such a person may be an assignee under state insolvent laws, a receiver, or an assignee for the benefit of creditors. A receiver in such a case may be defined to be a third person appointed by a court of equity to act as the representative alike of creditors and stockholders for the purpose of collecting the corporate assets and paying the corporate debts.^ It is the right and duty of such a receiver to collect the unpaid subscrip- tions, so far as may be necessary, for the purpose of paying the corporate debts in full.* Virginia, where a company is inoorpo- 73 Fed. Rep. 957 (1896). An assessment rated, levies, at the instance of a cor- by a board of directors or a decree in porate creditor, an assessment upon the chancery is not necessary to sustain an stock larger than is necessary to pay attachment by a receiver to collect the- the debts, yet the courts of another unpaid subscriptions of non-residents, state will not inquire into the propri- Kohler v. Agassiz, 99 Cal. 9 (1893). See- ety of the amount of the assessment, also § 108, supra. Furnald v. Glenn, 56 Fed. Rep. 373 s See § 112, supra. (1893). Where the court has assessed * See % 211, irifra. the stockholders, the necessity of the * Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65 (1878)r- assessment cannot be contested. Cum- s. C, 13 Fed. Cas. 758; afiE'd, 103 U. S. berland, etc. Co. v. Clinton Hill, etc. 800 (1880). Co., 57 N, J. Eq. 687 (1899). The decree « Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435 (1865); appointing the receiver and fixing the Nathan v. Whitlook, 9 Paige, 158 (1841)^ amount of assessment is conclusive on Means's Appeal, 85 Pa. St 75 (1877); stockholders. Castleman v. Temple- Dorris «. French, 4 Hun, 393(1875); Van man, 87 Md. 546 (1898). Wagenen v. Clark, 33 Hun, 497 (1880);. 1 Farwell v. Great Western Tel. Co., Frank v. Morrison, 58 Md. 483 (1888); 161 111. 533 (1896), reviewing in full the Chandler v. Brown, 77 111. 833 (1875); twenty years' litigation growing out of Calkins v. Atkinson, 3 Lans. 13 (1870)^ the insolvency of the Great Western Dalton, etc. R. R. v. McDaniel, 56 Ga. Telegraph Company. C/. Furnald v. 191 (1876); Berry v. Rood, 67 S. W. Rep. Glenn, 64 Fed. Rep. 49 (1894). 644 (Mo. 1902); Campbell v. Chapman, 2 Ross, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 81 S. Rep. 101 (Miss. 1903). Cf. Tucker 410 CH. XI. j STJBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 208. As long as the authority of the receiver exists, a creditor cannot directly bring suit against delinquent stockholders, but the receiver V. Gilman, 45 Hun, 193 (1887); Tobey v. Russell, 9 R I. 58 (1868); Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604 (1877); Clarke v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46 (1877); Phoenix "Ware- housing Co. V. Badger, 67 N. Y. 394 (1876). See also § 869, infra. A re- ceiver may sue to collect calls which became due before his appointment. Basting v. Ankeny, 64 Minn. 133 (1896). See also § 207, supra. A receiver of the corporation may levy an attach- ment to collect the unpaid subscrip- tions of non-residents. Kohler v. Agas- siz, 99 Cal. 9 (1893). An assignee for benefit of creditors of an insolvent cor- poration may enforce unpaid subscrip- tions. Chamberlain v. Bromberg, 83 Ala. 576 (1888). As incidental to the receiver's power to collect unpaid bal- ances of subscription, it is held that he may, as an ofHcer of the court, make calls for the amount dua Hall v. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.), 484 (1847); Ran- kine v. Elliott, 16 N. Y. 877 (1857). Lion- berger v. Broadway Sav. Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499 (1881), holds that an assignee for benefit of creditors may, by a bill in equity, compel the directors of the insolvent corporation to make an as- sessment upon the capital stock, pay- able to him; such a suit is not affected by the fact that certain creditors are proceeding against the stockholders by motion under the statute, since the proceeding by motion is cumulative merely and not exclusive. Chandler v. Keith, 43 Iowa, 99 (1875), holds that a stockholder who had paid all regular assessments could not be called upon by the receiver, in an action at law, to pay the i-emainder of his subscription until a general call is made upon the stockholders for the amount as-sessed upon their shares, and this call should be preceded by the fact that losses have been sustained by the corporation, showing a necessity for an assessment and call upon the stockholders. A re- ceiver represents the corporation, its stockholders and creditors. Hubbell v. Syracuse, etc. Works, 42 Hun, 183 (1888). " The receiver represents the creditors as well as all other parties interested in the corporation." A subscriber sued by him on the subscription cannot set up fraudulent representations induc- ing him to subscribe. Ruggles v. Brock, 6 Hun, 164 (1875). See also § 164, supra. A receiver may cause to be assessed and may collect assessments on par- ties liable therefor to pay insurance losses. McDonald v. Ross-Lewin, 39 Hun, 87 (1883). An order that the re- ceiver may collect the unpaid .subscrip- tions is not a " call,"'but merely gives authority. Liggett v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 381 (1892). The statute of limita- tions runs only from the time when the court makes a call. An action at com- mon law on subscriptions must be in the company's name, and not in the name of the assignee of the companJ^ Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U. S. 499 (1892). Under the English Railway Companies Act of 1867, § 4, a receiver has no such power. Re Birmingham, etc. Ry., L. R. 18 Ch. D. 155 (1881). In New York, by statute, the receiver may sue. See Day- ton V. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435 (1865); and see, previous to the statute, Mann v. Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415 (1850), reversing 3 Sandf. Ch. 257. The receiver cannot enforce the subscription where the defendant had transferred his stock and been dis- charged by the corporation. Cutting v. Damerel, 88 N. Y. 410 (1883). In regard to the power of the receiver to enforce the statutory liability, see ^ 318, infra. The receiver of a foreign corporation, duly empowered to sue at home, may sue resident stockholders for the bal- ances due the company, provided the corporation itself could have done so if it had remained solvent. Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435 (1865), a case where a receiver appointed by the court of 411 § 208.] SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [CH. XI. may be compelled to act in the matter at the instance of creditors.^ Although a receiver has been appointed by the United States court in Pennsylvania of the assets of a West Virginia corporation, the corporation may sue in New York to recover an unpaid subscrip- chancery in New Jersey was held com- petent to maintain a suit of this nature in New York against a citizen thereof; Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 (1850). See also McDonough v. Phelps, 15 How. Pr. 372 (1856) ; Seymour v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134 (1862'. After a transfer, the trans- ferrer is not liable to the receiver any more than he would have been to the corporation. Billings v. Robinson, 94 N. Y. 415 (1884), affirming 28 Hun, 122 (1882). See ch. XV, infra. As to the power of the court to give a receiver power to compromise claims upon un- paid subscriptions, see Chandler v. Brown, 77 III. 388 (1875), also §§ 167-171, supra, and § 810, infra. A receiver can- not enforce subscriptions which the corporation could not enforce. Winters V. Armstrong, 37 Fed. Rep. 508 (1889). The receiver may sell the subscription at auction and the subscriber may buy it. Dean v. Biggs, 25 Hun, 122 (1881); Castleman v. Templeman, 87 Md. 546 (1898). A receiver in a foreclosure suit cannot collect unpaid subscriptions. Lea V. Iron, etc. Co., 119 Ala. 271 (1898). Even though a receiver is in charge, yet if all the debts are paid the court will not authorize him to collect unpaid sub- scriptions, notwithstanding existing contracts may call for further money later. Tichenor v. Williams, etc. Co., 42 S. E. Rep. 505 (Ga. 1902). The failure of a receiver to notify a subscriber to pay his unpaid subscription is immate- rial, even though ordered by the court, inasmuch as that defense may be set up in the answer and payment made and the defendant relieved from costs. Berry V. Rood, 67 S. W. Rep. 644 (Mo. 1903). 1 After a receiver has, been appointed, a creditor cannot institute proceedings to collect unpaid subscriptions. Rouse, etc. Co. V. Detroit, etc. Co., HI Mich. 251 (1896). After a receiver has been ap- pointed, he alone can collect the un- paid subscriptions. Big Creek Stone Co. V. Seward, 144 Ind. 205 (1895). A creditor who has caused a receiver to be appointed and directed to collect subscriptions cannot himself bring suit for such collection. Castleman v. Templeman, 87 Md. 546 (1898). Where a receiver has been appointed, he alone can bring an action to compel stock- holders to refund corporate moneys which they have taken after paying in the same on their subscriptions. South Bend, etc. Co. v. Pierre F. & M. Ins. Co., 4 So. Dak. 173 (1893). It is the receiver s duty to act promptly and vigilantly in the collection of the assets, and to com- pel payment of balances due by sub- scribers on unpaid stock, if such a course is necessary to meet the demands of creditors. If the receiver fails to do his duty in this respect the creditors may compel him to act, inasmuch as they cannot act directly themselves. Gas Light, etc. Co. v. Haynes, 7 La. Ann, 114 (1852); New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Bennett, 6 La. Ann. 457 (1851); Stark v. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 341 (1854); Atwood V. Rhode Island Agrio. Bank, 1 R I. 376 (1850); Rankine v. Elliott, 16 N. Y. 377 (1857), holding that when a receiver of an insolvent railroad is appointed in an action in behalf of all its creditors, the right to proceed for the collection of unpaid subscriptions vests in him, and a judgment creditor will be enjoined from proceeding against a stockholder in an action begun after the order was made, but before the appointment is perfected. While the receiver is in charge, a corporate creditor cannot sue to enforce a stockholder's liability on an unpaid subscription. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Northwestern Mfg. Co., 48 Minn. 361 (1893). In Indiana a creditor of a manufac- 412 CH. XI.J SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEBITOES. [§ 208. tion and may continue the suit although subsequently an ancillary receiver is appointed in New York.' A receiver appointed in one state may sue a stockholder in another state on an unpaid subscription.^ Before the court authorizes a receiver to collect unpaid subscriptions there must be a judicial ascertainment of the corporate debts.' No judgment is necessary against the cor- turing corporation may collect his debt from unpaid subscriptions through a receiver, and in that way only. Wheeler v. Thayer, 121 Ind. 64 (1889). The United States district court has jurisdiction of an action by the re- ceiver of an insolvent national bank to collect assessments on stock. Stephens V. Bernays, U Fed. Rep. 643 (1890). A receiver may cause to be assessed and may collect assessments on parties liable therefor to pay insurance losses. McDonald v. Eoss-Lewin, 29 Hun, 87 (1883). Where a receiver is appointed to take charge of " the property " he may sue to collect unpaid subscriptions. Showalter v. Laredo Imp. Co., 83 Tex. 163 (1892). In a judgment creditor's suit for sequestration and a receiver, both the corporation and a stockholder liable on his subscription being made partieSj the receiver may have judg- ment against a stockholder. Spooner V. Bay St. Louis Synd., 47 Minn. 464 (1891). Although some fraudulent claims have been allowed in the court which appointed the receiver and made the calls, yet a stockholder who is sued in another state cannot enjoin the col- lection of the judgment on that ground. Foote V. Glenn, 52 Fed. Rep. 539 (1892). Although the statute of limitations is a bar unless the court allows creditors to be substituted in place of a receiver who has brought suits to enforce the liability of stockholders and is held not to have had authority to do so, yet such substitution will not be granted. Fair- banks V. Farwell,141 111. 354 (1893). See also § 232, infra. The position of the receiver as regards the collection of subscriptions is stated in Republic Life Ins. Co. V. Swigert, 135 IlL 150, 167, 173 (1890). The court referred to and con- sidered many authorities. Where the bonds are invalid a receiver appointed in the foreclosure suit has no power to collect subscriptions. Farmers' L. & T. Co. r. San Diego, etc. Co., 49, Fed. Rep. 188 (1892). A receiver may collect the unpaid par value of stock issued for cash at less than par, even though the corporation agreed with the stockhold- ers that no more than the amount al- ready paid should ever be required. Such an agreement does not bind the receiver in so far as it is necessary for him to collect the money to pay cred- itors. Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). See 54 Atl. Rep. 450. ' Sigua, etc. Co. v. Brown, 171 N. Y. 488 (1902). Where ^at the instance of the attorney-general a bank has been declared insolvent and the transaction of further business enjoined, an assess- ment on the stock levied before the de- cree, but payable after the decree, can- not be enforced by the bank. Bank of National City v. Johnston, 133 Cal. 185 (1901). 2 Fish V. Smith, 73 Conn. 377 (1900). A Virginia receiver of a Virginia cor- poration may sue in Maryland in the name of the corporation to collect un- paid subscriptions of Maryland stock- holders, it appearing that no harm is thereby done to Maryland creditors. Castleman v. Templeman, 87 Md. 546 (1898). 3 State V. German, etc. Bank, 70 N. W. Rep. 321 (Neb. 1897). A receiver cannot bring suit to collect subscriptions until the corporate debts have been ascer- tained and the corporate property ex- hausted, but unpaid calls made by th» directors may be collected by the re- 413 § 208.] S0BSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [CH. XI. poration in a suit by a receiver against directors for calls which had been made by the directors.' The court may direct a receiver to make a call instead of the court making the call itself directly.^ A receiver may collect a call made by the directors.' Where a receiver fails to allege that his suit to collect subscriptions was authorized by the court, his action will fail.* "Where the receiver refuses to collect the subscriptions, the remedy of the creditor is to apply for the removal of the receiver,' or a creditor may in- tervene and proceed himself.^ But a creditor cannot sue to reach subscriptions for stock, unless the receiver refuses to sue.' The re- ceiver's suit to collect unpaid subscriptions maybe at law' or in equity.' A receiver, with the authority of the court, may accept oeiver as a part of the corporate assets. Wyman v. Williams, 53 Neb. 670 (1898); s. C, 52 Neb. 833 (1897). In a receiver's suit at law to collect subscriptions, his allegation that all the subscriptions were neoessai-y to pay the debts will raise a presumption that the court as- certained such to be the fact before the suit was commenced. Worth v. Wharton, 123 N. C. 376 (1898). It has been held that a receiver may collect unpaid balances due on subscriptions, although the other corporate assets have not been collected and the amount of the liabilities is undetermined. Stark V. Burke, 9 La. Ann. 341 (1854). And that if, on the final settlement, there is a surplus, it is to be returned pro rata to the shareholders who have paid in full. Pentz V. Hawley, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 23 (1845). But the more modern and better rule is that a receiver has no authority to call upon a subscriber for his unpaid balance until the court have determined the amount of the corporate indebtedness and fixed definitely the liability of each share of the stock. Chandler v. Keith, 43 Iowa, 99 (1875). See also Mills v. Scott, 99 U. S. 25 (1878). 1 Wyman v. Williams, 53 Neb. 833 <1897). 2 See § 307, supra. 3 See §207, supra. 4Qainey v. Gilson, 149 Ind. 58 (1897). * Links V. Connecticut, etc. Co., 66 Conn. 377 (1895). 414 "Spilman v. Mendenhall, 57 N. W. Rep. 468 (Minn. 1894). 7 First Nat. Bank v. Dovetail, etc. Co., 143 Ind. 534 (1896). A creditor cannot maintain a bill to collect unpaid sub- scriptions where a receiver is in charge. Morgan v. Gibian, 41 S. E. Rep. 495 (Ga 1903). 8 Where a court of equity makes a call and directs the receiver to collect, his remedy is at law and not in equity. Barkalow v. Totten, 53 N. J. Eq. 573 (1895). The receiver may sue each stockholder separately at law. His ap- pointment cannot be questioned. Elder- kin V. Peterson, 8 Wash. 674 (1894). A suit by the receiver to collect is at law and not in equity. Smith v. Johnson, 57 Ohio St. 486 (1898). 9 A receiver of an insolvent corpora- tion appointed by a federal court may file a bill in the United States court to collect unpaid subscriptions. Bausman V. Denny, 73 Fed. Rep. 69 (1896). See 79 id. 173. The receiver may file a petition in connection with the main suit, and by this petition bring in the stockhold- ers and compel them to pay their sub- scriptions. Peck V. Elliott, 79 Fed. Eep. 10 (1897). The enforcement of the lia- bility of a subscriber to the stock of ar corporation by an auxiliary suit in equity, brought by the receiver of the corporation appointed in a creditors' suit instituted upon its insolvency, does not infringe the constitutional right of OH. XI.] SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COKPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 208. an offer of a number of stockholders to compromise all the claims against them for unpaid subscriptions for a specified sum, even though some of such subscriptions can be collected in full and others not at all, the compromise being a fair one.' There has been considerable controversy as to whether a stock- holder who is sued by a receiver on a subscription may set up de- fenses which were good as against the corporation, but which are no longer good as against corporate creditors. The question is theoretically difficult because the receiver represents the corpora- tion as well as corporate creditors. Practically, however, a receiver- ship means insolvency and the final elimination of the corporation, and the just rule seems to be that defenses which are not good as against corporate creditors are not good as against a receiver of an insolvent corporation.^ An assignee for the benefit of the creditors of a corporation, like a receiver, represents both the corporation and the creditors, and should collect unpaid subscriptions.' An Illinois assignee for the benefit of creditors of an insolvent Illinois corporation may file a bill in equity in a New York court to collect the subscription liability of New York stockholders in such Illinois corporation.* such subscriber to a trial by jury. Eoss- Meehan, etc. Ck>. v. Southern, etc. Co., T3 Fed. Rep. 957 (1896). 1 Morrison v. Lincoln, etc. Co., 89 N. W. Rep. 996 (Neb. 1903). See also § 171, supra, and § 232, infra. 2 Cole V. Satsop, etc. R R, 9 Wash. 487 (1894). Cf. Republic L. Ins. Co. r. Swig- ert. 1.35 111. 150 (1890); Winters v. Arm- strong, 37 Fed. Rep. 508, 521 (1889). ■sShockley u. Fisher, 75 Mo. 498(1883); Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85 Va. 9 (1888); Beal V. Dillon, 5 Kan. A pp. 27 (1896). Cf. Germantown Pass. Ry. v. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 (1869); Eppright v. Nickerson, 78 Mo. 482 (1883), holding that an insolvent corporation may include in an assign- ment for the benefit of its creditors the liability of its stockholders for unpaid stock for which no call has been made. An action at common law on subscrip- tions must be in the company's name and not in the name of the assignee of the company. Glenn v. Marbury, 145 IT, S. 499 (1893)l An assignee of the cor- ' poration for the benefit of. creditors may sua Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). An assignment for the benefit of creditors, made by order of a directors' meeting at which three di- rectors were present and the other two were not notified, is invalid and no bar to a creditor's action to collect unpaid subscriptions. Doernbecher v. Colum- bia, etc. Co., 31 Oreg. 573 (1893). It has been held that the assignee cannot sue to set aside a fraudulent device by which a stockholder has escaped pay- ment of his subscription. Bouton v. Dement, 123 111. 142 (1887). Where the corporation has been dissolved, and its assets distributed, and its trustees dis- charged by a decree of court, a creditor who was a party to the suit cannot afterward maintain a bill against the trustees to reach unpaid subscriptions. Chavent v. Schefer, 59 Fed. Rep. 231 (1894). 4 Stoddard v. Lum, 159 N. Y. 265 (1899), A trustee in insolvency may collect unpaid subscriptions without any order from the court. In a: suit the trustee need not allege what the amount is needed to pay the debts, but may prove 415 § 209.] SIIBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATB CKEDITOES. [CH. XI. A trustee in bankruptcy may collect unpaid subscriptions by a suit in equity, and the statutory liability of the directors is not considered as an asset in estimating the amount necessary to be collected from the stockholders.^ § 209. The judgment against the corporation impeachable only for fraud or want of jurisdiction. — That a judgment conclusively settles all matters of controversy involved in the suit, so far as parties or their privies are concerned, excepting where it may be impeached for fraud or M?ant of jurisdiction, is well-established law.^ When, therefore, a corporate creditor has obtained judg- ment against the corporation, and execution is returned unsatisfied, and he then proceeds to enforce his remedy against the holders of stock not paid up, the question arises whether the stockholders may set up in defense matters which the corporation might have set up or did set up to defeat the creditor's claim against the cor- poration. It has been strenuously insisted that they might. This was Chancellor Kent's contention in the case of Slee v. Bloom ;^ but the authorities have firmly established the rule that, in the absence of fraud and collusion, judgments against the corporation, if the court had jurisdiction, are conclusive against the stockholders, as to the validity and amount of the creditor's claim.* Thus, it is held that the same upon the trial. Johnston v. Morgan, County v. Allen, 103 U. S. 498 AUis, 71 Conn. 207 (1898). An assignee (1880). of an insolvent corporation in Maine ^ Quoted and approved in Saylor v. may collect unpaid subscriptions with- Commonwealth, etc. Co., 38 Oreg. 304 out any assessment by the court where (1900). the deficiency is equal to the unpaid ^5 Johns. Oh. 366(1820); reversed by 19 stock. Dunn v. Howe, 96 Fed. Rep. 160 Johns. 456, 473 (1823). (1899). ^Slee v. Bloom, 20 Johns. 669(1832); lira re Crystal, etc. Co., 96 Fed. Eep. Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319 (1889); 945 (1899). A creditor who is also a Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. R, 17 Ohio, holder of unpaid stock will not be al- 187 (1848); Hampson v. Weare, 4 Iowa, lowed to prove his claim in bankruptcy 13 (1856); Milliken v. Whitehouse, 49 until he has paid his unpaid subscrip- Me. 537 (1860); Wilson v. Pittsburgh, tion. In re Wiener, etc. Co., 96 Fed. etc. Coal Co., 43 Pa. St. 434(1863); Bank Rep. 949 (1899). A court of bankruptcy of Wooster v. Stevens, 1 Ohio St. 338 may collect unpaid subscriptions. In re (1853); Stephens v. Fox, 83 N. Y. 313 Miller, etc. Co., Ill Fed. Rep. 515 (1901); (1881); Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 631 (1873); 463 (1871); S. C, 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Grund Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 (1875); v. Tucker, 5 Kan. 70 (1869); Bissit v. Sanger t). Upton, 91 U. S. 56(1875); Web- Kentucky, etc. Nav. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. ster V. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875); Chubb 358, and note, p. 860 (1883); Hawes v. V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 (1877); Payson v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. Stoever, 3 Dill. 437 (1873); s. c, 19 Fed. 385 (1869); Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo. Cas. 37; Upton v. Hansbrough^ 3 Biss. 96(1894): Hawkins u. Citizens', etc. Co., 417 (1873); s. a, 28 Fed. Cas. 839. Cf. 38 Oreg. 544 (1901); Cole v. Adams, 19 416 CH. XI.J SDBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATB CEEDITOES. [§ 209. the stockholder cannot take advantage, in the suit against him, of a defect in the service of process upon the corporation in the orig- Tex. Civ. App. 507 (1898). " A stock- holder of a corporation is so far a privy to a judgment against the corporation that he cannot attaclic the judgment in any collateral proceeding." National Foundry, etc. Works v. Oconto Water Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 1006 (1895); Bigelow, Estop., 129, 4th ed. : Freeman, Judgm., § 177. 3d ed. So, also, in actions to en- force statutoiy liability of stockholders, a judgment against the corporation is equally conclusive. See § 224, infra. Cf. Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84 (1856), holding that the judgment obtained may not be conclusive evidence of- the organization and existence of the cor- poration, and if denied they must be proved. The stockholder may, of course, set up that he is not a stockholder, and other similar defenses, such as are specified in ch. X, supra. See §§ 210, 224, infra, Johnson v. Somerville, etc. Co., 81 Mass. 216(1860); Glenn n Springs, 26 Fed. Rep. 494 (1885); Powell v. Ore- gonian Ry., 38 Fed. Rep. 187 (1889); Bar- ron V. Paine, 88 Me. 312 (1891). Stock- holders will not be allowed to intervene in a suit brought by a creditor against the corporation itself, even though they wish to set up the statute of limitations, and even though the directors had di- rected the company's lawyer to admit the allegations of the complaint, and even though the company is insolvent, and the stockholders are liable on the stock, no fraud being shown. Meyer V. Bristol, etc. Co., 163 Mo. 59 (1901). The decree of the court where the cor- poration is located is conclusive as to whether service was properly made on the corporation, such service being on two directors and the cashier. The de- cree is also conclusive that no laches existed in bringing suit; that the stat- ute of limitations was no bar to the decree; that the court had authority to make the assessment; that the change in the corporate name did not discharge the stockholders' liability; and that the trustee, Glenn, might sue the stock- holders. Lehman v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618 (1889). The judgment against the cor- poration is conclusive, and it cannot be shown that it arose on a contract which was ultra vires. Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & M. 105 (1847); s. C, 23 Fed. Cas. 384; Baines v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 581 (1893). Stockholders cannot attack the debts upon which the judgment was obtained. Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. 351 (1890). And it is no defense that the judgment against the corporation was obtained by collusion with one of the directors. Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. 351 (1890). In Chestnut v. Pennell, 92 111. 55 (1879), it was held that a decree against the corporation is not admissi- ble in evidence against a stockholder who was not a party to the bill or de- cree, actually or constructively, and that in such a case proof of the liability of the corporation to the creditor should be given. A stockholder's suit on his unpaid subscription to pay a judgment against the corporation may attack the judgment on the ground that it is based on a fraudulent claim. Saylor v. Com- monwealth, etc. Co., 38 Greg. 204(1900). In a garnishment suit against a corpo- ration and a stockholder to reach an unpaid subscription, the stockholder may contest the validity of the claim against the corporation, even though the corporation has defaulted in the suit. Doak v. Stahlman, 58 S. W. Rep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). In a suit by a judg- ment creditor to enforce a liability for stock issued for property at an over- valuation, a stockholder may attack the judgment against the corporation on the ground that it was on a claim for propertj purchased, which property had been taken back by the vendor. MoBryan v. Universal, etc. Co., 89 N. W. Rep. 688 (Mich. 1902). The suit may be on the judgment against the corpora- (27) 417 § 209.] SCBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOBATE CEEDITOES. [cH. xr. inal suit. His remedy in snch a case is by a direct proceeding.' A stockholder sued on his liability cannot file a bill in another court to enjoin the suit on the ground that the decree establishing the indebtedness of the corporation was fraudulent.^ His remedy is in the same court, the. suit being still pending.' Nor can the judgment be attacked on the ground that the judgment was ob- tained in the federal court by one to whom the claim was trans- ferred in order to give jurisdiction.* In New York, as stated above, the conclusiveness of the judgment in these cases has been much questioned.^ In a very recent case the New York court tion, and not on the original claim. Henderson v. Turngren, 9 Utah, 433 (1894). The judgment is not conclusive where it was for an excessive amount and was entered by consent of the presi- dent, who had an interest in the judg- ment Wilson V. Kiesel, 9 Utah, 397 (1894). Cf. Castleman v. Templeman, 87 Md. 546 (1898). A judgment by the corporation against a stockholder is conclusive in a suit by a corporate cred- itor to obtain the benefit of such judg- ment. Welch V. Sargent, 127 Cal. 73 (1899). See 54 Atl. Rep. 767. 1 Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35 (1854). The stockholder sued on his subscrip- tion may set up that the judgment against the corporation was obtained by service on one who had ceased to be an oiScer. Beardsley v. Johnson, 121 N. Y. 234 (1890). Cf. Wheeler v. Miller, 34 Hun, 541 (1881). 2p'urnald v. Glenn, 64 Fed. Rep. 49 (1894). 3 See Farwell v. Great Western Tel. Co., 161 III. 533 (1896); Great Western Tel. Co. V. Purdy, 163 U. S. 339 (1896); also g§ 839, 848, infra. ^Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 90 Iowa, 331 (1894). 5 New York is practically the only state where this question presents any difficulty, and the confusion which there reigns is largely due to the fail- ure to distinguish between cases of liability for unpaid subscriptions and liabilities created by statute. In some of the oases the meaning of the court is not clear, and often the question did not come up directly for decision. The general rule was originally stated es- sentially as in the text, by Spencer, C. J., in Sleie v. Bloom, 30 Johns. 669 (1833), reversing s. c, 5 Johns. Ch. 366 (1831). This was followed by Moss v. Oakley, 3 Hill, 365 (1842). Moss v. MoCuUough, 5 Hill, 131 (1843), started a new theory, that the case was the ordinary one of principal and surety, and hence a judg- ment against the corporation was not even prima facie evidence against the stockholder. Although this ruling was overturned on the final determination (S. G, 7 Barb. 379 — 1849), it was fol- lowed in Strong v. Wheaton, 38 Barb. 616 (1861). In Belmont v. Coleman, 21 N. Y. 96 (1860), on appeal from 1 Bosw. 188, three justices affirmed the ruling below that the judgment was prima facie evidence, while the other four re- fused to commit themselves to that doctrine. Conklin v. Furman, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 161 (1865), accepts the orig- inal rule as stated by Spencer, C. J. Then follow two later cases, Miller v. White, 50 N. Y. 137 (1873),. and McMa- hon V. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155 (1872), which reject that rule in strong terms. But both these cases are easily distinguish- able on the principle stated supra. They were suits to enforce a statutory penalty against trustees for failure to file a certain report. It may be said, then, that, after all, the New York rule, in the cases really covered by the lan- guage of the text, differs comparar tively little from the general law. The courts, under the influence of some of 418 CH. XI.J SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 210. of appeals has held that a judgment obtained in England against an American stockholder in an English corporation for an unpaid call, the stockholder not having been served in England, i's not en- forcible in the United States.' Where the stockholders are liable only on a particular class of corporate debts, or to certain classes of creditors only, the court will not reject evidence tending to show that the debt recovered belongs or does not belong to the class on which the stockholder is liable.^ § 210. Defenses available against corporate creditors in actions to compel payment of balances of subscriptions. — There are, of course, certain defenses which subscribers may set up when actions are brought against them on behalf of corporate creditors. These defenses are to a certain extent the same as those which may be set up to defeat an action by the corporation to enforce the subscrip- tion.* But both in England and in this country the courts do not favor such defenses, especially after the corporation has become in- solvent. Moreover, there are many defenses which might defeat an action by the corporation, but which do not prevent the corpo- rate creditor from enforcing the subscription.* A creditor may, by the earlier decisions, hesitate to accept the rule of conclusiveness; but the court of appeals has used this language: " The creditor thus claims through the corporation, and to entitle him to this statutory subrogation or transfer he need only show that he is a creditor. If "he shows this fact by evidence which is binding and conclusive against the corporation, such evidence should be competent against the stockholder to establish the title of the creditor to succeed to the rights of the corporation. A judgment against the corporation, being the highest evidence against it, should be as effectual to pass its title to the fund in question as a deed or any other form of transfer." Stephens V. Fox, 83 N. Y. 313, 317 (1881). Cf. Wheeler v. Miller, 84 Hun, 541 (1881); also § 224, infra. IBank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458 (1901). A judgment obtained in England by the liquidators of an Eng- lish ' corporation against a New York subscriber to the stock, no personal service having been made upon such subscriber, is not enforoible as a judg- ment in New York, althqugh such judgment may be legal in England under the statutes in force at the time the subscription was made. Anderson V. Haddon, 33 Hun, 435 (1884). A judg- ment rendered in Massachusetts against a resident of Nebraska holding the lat- ter liable as a stockholder, without serv- ice upon him or appearance by him, cannot be enforced in Nebraska. The judgment of the Massachusetts court is conclusive only as to the amount of debts of the company and the neces- sity of making an assessment. Com- . monwealth, etc. Co. v. Hayden, 85 N. W. Rep. 443 (Neb. 1901), rev'g 60 Neb. 636. 2 Wilson V. Pittsburgh, etc. Coal Co., 43 Pa. St. 424 (1862); Conant v. Van Schaiok, 24 Barb. 87 (1857); Larrabee v. Baldwin, 85 Cal. 155 (1868). 3 See ch. X. 4 Such as fraud on the part of the cor- poration, induciilg a subscription. See' §§ 163, 164, supra. An arrangement en- tered into between the corporation- and' its stockholders, for the purpose of de- feating the claims of creditors, in' pur- suance of which the Stockholders are' allowed, after it is ascertained that the 419 § 211.] SUBSCRIPTION AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [CH. XI. express contract, waive his right to compel stockholders to pay their unpaid subscriptions.' The unpaid subscription may be collected in payment of damages for a tort the same as for a contract debt.'^ § 211. ContriMition. — Corporate creditors compelling stockhold- ers to pay their subscriptions are under no obligation to see that the payments made by the subscribers are proportionally equal.' A court of chancery will compel subscribers to pay in full the amount of their unpaid subscriptions if the corporate indebtedness make it necessary, leaving them to seek contribution from the other stockholders.* The rule, however, is well settled that a stockholder corporation is insolvent, to buy in de- preciated and repudiated claims against the company, and thus to extinguish their indebtedness for stock subscribed, is held fraudulent and void. Good-win V. McGehee, 15 Ala. 233 (1849); Thomp- son V. Meisser, 108 111. 359 (1884). Prom- inent among these defenses is the de- fense that the corporation contracted with the defendant that his stock should be deemed fully paid-up stock, although in fact the full par value had never been paid. See ch. III. It is sui^cient to allege that the defendant holds stock which has never been paid up. The defense that the defendant did not sub- scribe for the stock or did not agree to pay for it, or that he is not liable, must be set up in the answer. Atlantic T. Co. V. Osgood, 116 Fed. Rep. 1019 (1902). 1 Bush V. Robinson, 95 Ky. 493 (1894). See also § 216, infra, 2 Powell V. Oregonian Ry., 36 Fed. Rep. 736 (1888); S. C, 38 Fed. Rep. 187. In Maine this rule is declared by statute. Grindle v. Stone, 78 Me. 176 (1886). Fbr many other defenses, see ch. XII, where defenses were set up to defeat the stat- utory liability. As to the statute of lim- itations, see § 195, supra. spentz V. Hawley, 1 Barb. Ch. 122 (1845). Of. § 206, supra. iPentz V. Hawley, 1 Barb. Ch. 133 (1845); Evans u Coventry, 35 L. J. Ch. 489 (1856); Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); a a, 16 Fed. Cas. 800. The execution should be against each stock- holder for his proportionate part of the- debts, interest and cost, with a subse- quent execution for such part of such debts as turn out to be uncollectible from other subscribers. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). Where all the assets have been exhausted and the unpaid debts amount to more than all the unpaid subscriptions, judg- ment may be obtained against each subscriber for his full liability. Carna- han V. Campbell, 59 N. E. Rep. 1054 (Ind. 1901). As to whether solvent stock- holders are required to make up, for the benefit of creditors, the deficiency of defaulting or insolvent subscribers to the full amount of the former's own unpaid subscriptions, see South Caro- lina Mfg. Co. V. Bank of South Carolina, 6 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 337 (1854). But actual subscribers are not liable for th^t part of the capital stock which was never subscribed. Evans v. Coventry, 35 L. J. Ch. 489 (1856), and § 248, infra. It is no defense to show that notes were gwen in payment of subscriptions, or that notes by insolvent persons were pro- cured to be given, when it appears that nothing was ever realized from the notes. Nathan v. Whitlook, 9 Paige, Ch. 152 (1841). When it is made to ap- pear by proof that some of the stock- holders are insolvent, the solvent must pay the proportion of the insolvent, tO' be apportioned among them according to and up to the amount of their stock subscribed and unpaid. Hodges v. Sil- ver Hill Min. Co., 9 Dreg. 300 (1881). All of the stockholders who are defendants- 430 CH, XL] SUBSCEIPTIONS AND COEPOEATE CEEDITOES. [§ 311. who has been compelled to pay more than his proportion of the debts of the company may maintain an action against his co-stockholders for contribution.' A stockholder who is com- pelled to pay a tax levied by the government on liquor distilled by the corporation may have contribution from the other stock- holders.^ Contribution may properly be enforced in the corporate creditor's suit. It is largely for this purpose that all -the delinquent stock- holders may be and should be made parties defendant.' Even •will have judgment entered against them for their full liability, and they must seek contribution themselves. Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. E., 144 Pa. St. 34 (■1891). In Maine it is held that stockholders' ratable liability is not in- creased by reason of the fact that some of the stockholders are insolvent or be- yond the reach of process. Maine, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 93 Me. 444 (1899). A creditor having collateral must first exhaust that before holding the stockholders liable on their sub- scription lia^bility, there being other creditors. Welch v. Sargent, 127 Cal. 73 (1899). But see § 473, infra. The stockholders' liability may be enforced by a corporate creditor, even though the corporation has given collateral secu- rity to such creditor. Dawson v. Shol- ley, 4 Kan. App. 367 (1896). 1 Wincock v. Turpin, 96 111. 135 (1880); Bennison v. McConnell, 56 Neb. 46 (1898); Van Peltu Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 <1898): Millaudon v. New Orleans, etc. E. R, 3 Rob. (La.) 488 (1843); Thomson's Succession, 46 La. Ann. 1074 (1894); Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463 (1871); s. c, 16 Fed. Cas. 800; Holmes v. Sher- wood, 16 Fed. Rep. 735 (1881); Umsted V. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Mat- thews V. Albert, 24 Md. 537 (1866); Stew- art V. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604 (1877); Hadley V. Russell, 40 N. H. 109 (1860); Ericksou V. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 (1866); Masters V. Rossie Lead Min. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 301 (1845); Aspinwall v. Torrance, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 381 (1870); Stover u Flack, 30 N. Y. 64 (1864); Farrow v. Bivings, 13 Rich. Eq. (S. C.)25 (1866); Allen w Fair- banks, 45 Fed. Rep. 445 (1891). Cf. An- drews V. Callender, 30 Masa 484 (1833); Gray v. Coffin, 63 Mass. 193 (1853); Sut- ton's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 363 (1850). In Pennsylvania the right to contribution is said to be purely statutory. Brinham V. Wellersburg Coal Co., 47 Pa. St. 43 (1864). A liability for contribution on subscriptions does not cease upon the death of the stockholders. Allen v, Fairbanl^, 40 Fed. Rep. 188 (1889). The remedy of one stockholder against an- other for contribution is in equity and not at law. Koons v. Martin, 66 Hun, 554 (1893). A stockholder may have contribution. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). See also § 337, infra. 2 Wolters V. Henningsan, 114 Cal. 433 (1896). 3N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, §§ 1791-1794; Masters v. Rossie Lead Min. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 301 (1845); Holmes v. Sher- wood, 3 McCrary, 405 (1881); Hadley v. Russell, 40 N. H. 109 (1860); Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Hodges V. Silver Hill Min. Co., 9 Oreg. 300 (1881). In a suit for contribution between guarantors of the company's note, lia- bilities on stock cannot be adjusted un- less all solvent stockholders are made parties. Smith v. Dickinson, 100 Wis. 574 (1898). In a judgment creditors' suit to collect unpaid subscriptions, the court may, in the judgment, order con- tribution as between the Stockholders where some of the stockholders are also creditors. Richardson v. Chicago, etc. Co., 63 Pac. Rep. 74 (Cal. 1900> 421 § 211.J SUBSOEIPTIONS AND COEPOBATE CEEDITOES. [oh. XI. though several creditors join in a suit against one stockholder, a re- lease by one of them does not affect the others.' 1 Welch V. Sargent, 127 Cal. 73 (1899). A voluntary payment to one creditor is no release, under the Calif ornia statute, but the stockholder is entitled to come in as a creditor to the extent of such payment. Welch v. Sargent, 127 Cal. 72 (1899). It is no defense that judgr ment against the defendant stockholder for the full amount of his liability has been recovered by other creditors, and that he settled the same at a discount. Kunkelman v. Bentchler, IS IlL App. 271 (1884). 432 CHAPTEE XII. STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS TO CORPORATE CRED- ITORS. A. EXTENT OP THE LIABILITY. g§ 213, 313. statutory liability in gen- eral — Constitutionality. 214 The liability is strictly construed and limited. 215. Particular statutes construed as to the extent of the liability. 216. Waiver by corporate creditors of their statutory rights against stockholders. 217. Statutory liability not enforce- able to pay damages recov- ered against the corporation in tort. B. ENFOECEMENT OF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY. 218. The statutory liability can be enforced by corporate credit- ors only — Stockholders and directors as creditors — Re- ceivers — National banks. 219. Judgment, execution, etc., against the corporation, a con- dition precedent to the right to enforce the statutory liabil- ity. 220. Difficulty in determining whether the creditor's remedy is at law or in equity — Spe- cial remedies. 321. The remedy at law. 222. The remedy in equity. 223. Enforcement of the statutory liability by means of courts in other states — Penal liabili- ties — Construction of liabil- ity created by another state. 224 How far the judgment against the corporation is conclusive of the creditor's claim. 325. Stockholder's miscellaneous de- fenses against his statutory liability. (a) Defenseof release, exten- sion, and renewal. (b) Defense of liability al- ready paid. (c) Defense of set-off. (d) Defense as to interest. (e) Defense of costs. (/) Defense of statute of limitations. (g) Other defenses. 226. Priority among creditors. 227-229. Contribution among stock- holders. A. EXTENT OF THE LIABILITY. §§ 212, 213. Statutory liability in general — Constitutionality.-^ Probably the most characteristic feature of a corporate existence is the fact that, by being a corporation, its stockholders are liable only for the par value of the stock held by them, and when that is once paid in money or property there is no further liability. This exemption from liability need not be declared in the charter, but arises from the very fact of incorporation. For this reason legis- latures are very careful, in giving joint-stock companies special powers, to distinctly declare that the company shall not thereby become a corporation. The very fact of incorporation by itself re- leases subscribers for stock from all liability for corporate debts, except to the extent of their unpaid subscriptions. The state legis- latures, however, in many instances, desire to increase the liability of stockholders to corporate creditors. Accordingly, statutes are 423 § 214.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES^ [CH. XII. passed expressly declari&g that the stockholders shall be liable for a specified sum, in addition to their unpaid subscriptions. This is called the statutory liability of stockholders. It rarely exists as regards stockholders in railroad corporations, but frequently exists in the case of manufacturing and various other corporations, and nearly always exists as against stockholders in banks. This additional liability may be imposed by the state constitu- tion, or by the charter, or by a general statute. A state may, by its statutes, impose a personal liability on the stockholders of a foreign corporation that does business in such state, to the extent at least that its business is done in that state, especially where the charter provided for the carrying on of the principal part of the business in such state.^ A statute imposing additional liability upon the stockholders cannot be repealed so as to affect those who were corporate creditors previous to the repeal.^ Where a stat- utory liability is imposed by a provision existing at the time of the creation of the corpoi'ation, there is no doubt of its constitutional- ity. But where the liability is created by a statute or constitu- tional provision enacted after the corporation was incorporated, then there arise difficult questions of constitutional validity. A full discussion, however, of the constitutionality of such a statute is considered elsewhere.' A statute rendering directors liable may apply to rent becoming due thereafter on a lease made before the passage of such statute.* § 214. This liability is strictly construed and limited.^ — Inas- much as all statutes creating an additional liability on the part of stockholders are in derogation of the common law, they are t» be strictly construed. They are a wide departure from established rules, and, though supposed to be founded on considerations of pub- lic policy and general convenience, are not to be extended beyond the plain intent of the words of the statute.^ A statute imposing such a liability is not construed to apply to existing corporations 1 Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 144 (1901). < Stieflfel v. Tolhurst, 67 N. Y. App. A statutory liability of a director in a Div. 531 (19021. foreign corporation, doing business in ^ Wing v. Slater, 19 R. I. 597 (1896); New York, for failure to file the report Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Knoxville Car required by the New York statutes, was Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634 (1895). sustained in Staten Island, etc. R. R. v. 6 Gray v. Coffin, 63 Mass. 193 (1852); Hinohlifife, 170 N. Y. 473 (1903). O'Reilly v. Bard, 105 Pa. St. 569 (1884); 2 See § 497, infra. Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 (1879); Means's , 3 See § 497, m/m. It is constitutional Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 75 (1877); Dane t'. for the legislature, at the time of enact- Dane Mfg. Co., 80 Mass. 488 (1860); ing a general incorporating act, to pro- Chamberlin v. Huguenot Mfg. Co., 118 vide for an extra liability of directors Mass. 533 (1875); Grose v. Hilt, 36 Me. who make false reports. Huntington 23 (1853); Coffin v. Rich, 45 Me. 507 V Attrill, 118 N. Y. 365 (1890). (1858); Windham Provident Inst. v. 434 CH. XII.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [§ 2M. unless the statute expresslj' so provides.' Hence, a provision of the general statutes imposing a personal liability upon directors of a corporation is not incorporated into a special charter by a clause declaring that that corporation shall possess all the general powers and privileges and be subject to all the liabilities conferred and imposed upon corporations organized under the general act.^ And where congress granted to a California corporation certain moneys, and took corporation bonds therefor, it being the clear intent of -congress, as shown by the statutes,- to treat such California corpora- tion as a part of a general plan for the building of a railroad through many states, the statutory liability of all stockholders in California corporations does not apply to such a debt.' A statute rendering directors liable for not filing reports is highly penal and is strictly construed.* Sprague, 43 Vt. 508 (1871); Dauohy v. Brown, 34 Vt. 197 (1852): Moyer v. Penn- sylvania Slate Cq., 71 Pa. St. 293 (1872); Youghiogheny Shaft Co. v. Evans, 73 Pa. St. 831 (1872); Diven v. Lee, 36 N. Y. 502 (1867); Lowry v. In man, 46 N. Y. 119 (1871); Salt Lake City Nat. Bank v. Hendrickson, 40 N. J. L. 53 (1878). Cf. Priest V. Essex Hat Mfg. Co., 115 Mass. 580 (1874); Ripley v. Sampson, 27 Mass. 371 (1830); Knowlton v. Ackley, 62 Mass. 93 (1851); Bassett v. St. Albans Hotel Co., 47 Vt. 813 (1875); Davidson V. Rankin, 34 Cal. 503 (1868); Mokelumne Hill, etc. Co. V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 265 (1859); Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Co., 57 Vt. 332 (1885). A contrary rule seems to have been adopted in Carver v. Brain- tree Mfg. Co., 2 Story, 432 (1843); s. c, 5 Fed. Cas. 235, where liability for debts ■contracted during membership was held to include " dues owing." Also in Rider v. Fritchey, 49 Ohio St. 285 (1892); Freeland v. McCullough, 1 Denio, 414 (1845). The liability is strictly con- straed and "courts will not hunt ex- cuses to carry it beyond the plain provisions of the statute." Foster v. Row, 120 Mich. 1 (1899), A statutory liability of stockholders in corpora- tions, except manufacturing corpora- tions, does not apply to a manufactur- ing corporation, even though it has ■engaged in a non-manufacturing busi- ness without authority from its char- ter. Senour, etc. Co. v. Church, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294 (1900). A corporation amending its charter in accordance with a new statute thereby subjects its stockholders to a statutory liability provided for in such new statute. Senn V. Levy, 63 S. W. Rep. 776 (Ky. 1901). The constitution of the state of Ne- braska is construed to forbid the im- position of any statutory liability ex- cept in the case of banks. Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). ' See § 2, supra, § 497, infra. 2 Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U. S. 337 (1895). 3 United States v. Stanford, 161 U. S. 413 (1896). < Manhattan Co. v. Kaldenberg, 165 N. Y. 1 (1900). The constitutional pro- vision in California rendering direct- ors liable for moneys misappropriated is highly penal and will be strictly con- strued, inasmuch as it renders an honest official liable for the embezzlements of a dishonest official. Winchesters. How- ard, 136 Cal. 433 (1902). In the case of Train v. Marshall, etc. Co., 62 N. E. Rep. 967 (Mass. 1902), being a suit to enforce the statutory liability of directors, the court held that a judgment against the corporation after it had been discharged in bankruptcy was not sufficient to sat- isfy the statute, and the court said: "the liability is a statutory liability, and we perceive no clear indication of 425 § 210.J STATDTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. § 215. Particular statutes construed. — The character, nature and extent of the liability imposed by constitutional provisions or by statute upon stockholders, in addition to their common-law liability, vary, of course, widely, and the extent of the liability created by each statute will depend entirely upon the particular words of the statute itself.' Occasionally, however, a provision imposing addi- tional liability is found to be substantially repeated in the statutes of many states. Such is the case with the provision that stockhold- ers shall be liable " to an amount equal to their stock." This is con- strued to impose a double liability.^ When it has been enforced. policy that should carry it beyond the conditions precedent in the form in which they are expressed." Bonds se- cured by a mortgage are debts within the meaning of the New York statute making the directors personally liable for failure to file annual reports. Mor- gan V. Hedstrom, 164 N. Y. 324 (1900). The court will not allow an amend- ment of a bill in -equity to enforce a highly penal liability of directors where a demurrer has been sustained and there has been long delay. Boston, etc. Co. V. Parr, 98 Fed. Rep. 483 (1899). Lia- bility for debts contracted by officers while officers does not apply todebts ex- isting when they became officers. Bag- ley, etc. Co. V.' Lenning, 61 N. Y. App. Hiv.26 (1901). Under the Indiana statute making directors in certain corpora- tions liable for "all damages "resulting frrom failure to make certain reports unliquidated as well as liquidated damages are included. The plaintiffs claimed in this case that they were damaged, in that by the failure to make reports they believed that the company was solvent. MacVeagh v. Wild, 95 Fed. Rep. 84(1899). A court has no power to extend the time within which, by stat- ute, directors must file a certificate or else be personally liable for the debts. Cannon v. Brecbenridge, etc. Co., 69 Pac. Rep. 269 (Colo. 1903). See also note 1, p. 431, infra. 1 Root v.. Sinnook, 120 111. 350 (1887), citing many cases; Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353, 359 (1882); U. S. Trust Co. V. U. S. F. Ins. Co., 18 N. Y. 199, 218 426 (1858); Ohio L. InsL Co. v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 1, 23 (1850); Lewis V. St. Charles County, 5 Mo. App. 225 (1878). Cf. Briggs v. Penniman, 8 Cow. 387 (1826); Bank of Poughkeepsie V. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473 (1840). 2 A liability "to an amount equal to the amount of stock'held by them re- spectively " has been construed to create the double liability. Booth v. Campbell, 37 Md. 522 (1872); Matthews V. Albert, 24 Md. 527 (1866); Norris v. Johnson, 34 Md. 485 (1871): Eager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476, 491 (1873). The former constitutional provision in Ala- bama that stockholders were " liable to the extent of their stock" meant a double liability. McDonnell v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401 (1888). To same effect, Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140 (1883). A liability of stockhold- ers for " double " the amount of their stock means a liability once for the unpaid subscriptions and then an ad- ditional liability of twice the par value of the stock, making a triple lia- bility altogether. Dreisbach v. Price, 133 Pa. St. 560(1890). A liability "equally and ratably to the extent of their re- spective shares of stock" does not authorize a judgment against one for any more than his proportion. Buenz V. Cook, 15 Colo. 38 (1890). The consti- tution of Missouri formerly contained a provision, now repealed, imposing a double liability. Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. 418 (1874); Provident Sav. Inst. v. Jackson Place, etc. Rink, 52 Mo. 553 (1873). A provision in the constitution CH. XII.] STA.TUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 215. each share of stock will have been paid for twice — once on the sub- scription and once on the statutory liability. Under a statute providing that " each stockholder shall be indi- vidually and personally liable for his proportion of all the debts and liabilities of the company contracted or incurred, . . . for the recovery of which joint or several actions may be . . . prosecuted," it has been held that the liability of the stockholders , is substantially that of partners, but may be enforced at law.' A of 1875, taken from an amendment of 1870, that " in no case shall any stock- holder be individually liable in any amount over and above the amount of the stock owned by him," was con- strued in Schricker v. Ridings, 65 Mo. 208 (1877), to limit liability to unpaid subscriptions. But see Miller v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 55 (1873); Ochiltree v. Railroad Co., 31 Wall, 249 (1874). A statute imposing a lia- bility to the amount of the stock has been held in Texas to be merely declar- atory of the subscription liability. Walker v. Lewis, 49 Tex. 133 (1878). A liability "to the amount of what re- mains unpaid upon his subscription to the capital stock " is declaratory and creates no liability beyond the subscrip- tion price. Burch v. Taylor, 1 Wash. St. 245 (1890); Root v. Sinnock, 120 111. 350 (1887). In Massachusetts, by statute, stockholders in manufacturing; corpo- rations are liable as tenants in common to creditors to the extent of the capital stock until it has been divided into shares. Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- leum Co., 101 Mass. 385 (1869); S. C, 111 Mass. 200 (1872). Of. Burnap v. Haskins Steam Engine Co., 137 Mass. 586 (1879); Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476 (1873); Norris v. Johnson, 34 Md. 485 (1871). 'Davidson v. Rankin, 84 Cal. 503 (1868). Cf. Young v. Bosenbaum, 39 Cal. 646 (1870); Larrabee v. Baldwin, 35 Cal. 155 (1868); McAuley v. York Min. Co., 6 Cal. 80 (1856); Adkins v. Thornton, 19 Ga. 335 (1856) [this case is frequently misoited, owing to a mis- print in the original report, as Dozier w Thornton]; Branch v. Baker, 53 Ga. 503 (1874); Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160 (1873); Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 1 (1830). Cf. Fuller v. Ledden, 87 111. 313 (1877); Brown v. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St. 678 (1881). The constitutional and statutory liability of stockholders in California is a con- tract obligation, and may be enforced by attachment Kennedy v. California Sav. Bank, 97 Cal. 93 (1893). The liabil- ity of a stockholder in a California bank for his proportion of a corporate debt was enforced at law in Barling v. Bank of British North America, 50 Fed. Rep. 360 (1893). See also, in general, Southmayd v. Russ, 3 Conn. 53 (1819); Middletown Bank v. Magill, 5 Conn. 28,45 (1833); Deming v. Bull, 10 Conn. 409 (1835); Conant v. Van Schaiok, 24 Barb. 87 (1857); Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. 327 (1829); Moss v. Oakley, 3 Hill, 365 (1843); Harger v. McCullough, SDenio, 119 (1846); MoCuUoughu. Moss, 5 Denio, 567 (1846); Corning v. McCul- lough, 1 N. Y. 47(1847); Moss v. Averell. 10 N. Y. 449 (1853); Wiles v. Suydam, 64 N. Y. 173, 176 (1876); Conklin v. Fur- man, 57 Barb. 484 (1865); Abbott v. Aspinwall, 36 Barb. 303 (1857); Erick- son V. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 (1866); White V. Blum, 4 Neb. 555 (1876); New England Com. Bank v. Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. I. 154 (1859); Moies v. Sprague, 9 R. I. 541 (1870); Witherhead V. Allen, 28 Barb. 661 (1859); Parker v. Carolina Sav. Bank, 53 S. C. 583 (1898). The statutory liability of stockholders in a Colorado corporation " in double the amount of the par value of the stock owned by them, respectively," is a triple liability; in other words, is a 437 215.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [CH. XIL general joint and several liability for all the corporate debts makes the stockholders liable as partners, as though there had been no incorporation.! Under the provisions of the constitution and stat- utes of Ohio, and of other states, it is held that while the under- taking of the stockholder is not primary, and is to be resorted to only in case of the insolvency of the corporation, still the liability, when it does properly arise, is essentially that of partners.' This class of cases holds that, unless the statute prescribes otherwise, the comraon-law rules as to the liability of partners, and the rem- edies for enforcing that liability, apply to the statutory liability of stockholders in incorporated companies.' double liability in addition to the sub- scription liability. Zang v. Wyant, 35 Colo. 551 (1898). 1 Planters' Bank v. Bivingsville Cot- ton Mfg. Co., 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 95(1856). ^And that although the stated ex- tent of the stockholder's liability, as provided by the statute, cannot be ex- ceeded, still, up to the full measure of his liability, he may be charged, although it be shown that, if other solvent stock- holders had contributed their full pro- portion, it would not be necessary for him to pay. Wehrman v. Reakirt, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio), 830 (1871); Brown V. Hitchcock, 36 Ohio St. 678 (1881); Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Ohio St. 897 (1889). This case holds also that a stockholder in Ohio " is liable to credit- ors of the corporation for such poi'tion only of the debts existing while he held the stock and remaining due (not in excess of the amount of stock as- signed), as will be equal to the propor- tion which the capital stock assigned by him bears to the entire capital stock held by solvent stockholders, liable in respect of the same debts, who are within the jurisdiction, to be ascer- tained at the time judgment is ren- dered." Cf. Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604(1877); Crease u Babcock, 51 Mass. 535 (1846). In Wisconsin stockholders in banking corporations are liable by statute as original and principal debt- ors, substantially as though they were partners, except, as in Ohio, that the 438 responsibility of each is limited to a sum equal to his shares of stock. Cole- man V. White, 14 Wis. 700 (1863). 3 Story V. Furman, 35 N. Y. 314, 221, 232 (1862); New England Com. Bank v. Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. 1. 154, 189 (1859) ; Moies v. Sprague, 9 R I. 541 (1870). It is sometimes held that a general statutory liability means a liability on the part of the stockholder only in the proportion which his interest bears to the total indebtedness of the corpora- tion. Boyd V. Hall, 56 Ga. 563 (1876); Reynolds v. Feliciana Steamboat Co., 17 La. Rep. 397 (1841). In such a case, where the stockholders are jointly and severally personally liable for debts con- tracted by the corporation, which it cannot or does not pay, in proportion to the number of shares they own, it seems to be settled that they are to be held principal debtors and not mere sureties for the corporation. Harger v. MoCuUough, 2 Denio, 119 (1846); Corn- ing V. McCullough. 1 N. Y. 47 (1847), the court saying that the stockholders stand towards the creditors "on the same ground and under the same re- sponsibility ... as they would if unincorporated have stood; " Moss v. Averell, 10 N. Y. 449 (1853); Simonson V. Spencer, 15 Wend. 548 (1836), sus- taining the action for debt; Bailey v. Banoker, 3 Hill, 188 (1843), holding also that a creditor must sue a stockholder upon the original demand and not upon the judgment against the company; OH. XII.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 215. A very common statutory liability is that which makes stock- holders liable for debts due from the corporation to its servants or laborers. There has been difficulty in determining what persons are to be classed as servants, but the courts are not inclined to give a broad application to the word.' Southmayd v. Euss, 3 Conn. 53 (1819), holding that, since the liability is orig- inal, scire facias will not lie against a stockholder, but he must be sued as if there were no incorporation; Marcy v. Clark, 17 Mass. 380 (1821). In Michigan it is held that they are sureties. Hanson v. Donkersley, 37 Mich. 184 (1877). Cf. Grand Eapids Sav. Bank v. Warren, 53 Mich. 557 (1884). It has been held that they are not sureties for each other. Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 217, 384 (1854); Crease v. Babcock, 51 Mass. 525 (1846). Cf. Larrabee v. Baldwin, 85 Cal. 155 (1868). This seems to be the rule, in general, as to all statutory liability. Young V. Rosenbaum, 89 Cal. 646 (1870); Eriokson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H 871 (1866); Thompson v. Meisser, 108 111. 359 (1884). 1 It may be stated as the rule, that only those who perform menial or man- ual services are within the class con- templated in the statute; "that he who performs them must be of a class whose mentibers usually look to the reward of a day's labor or service for immediate or present support, from whom the company does not expect credit, and to whom its future ability to pay is of no consequence." Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 N. Y. 213, 217 (1882). Cf Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 333 (1875). This over- rules some of the earlier New York cases, e. g., Vincent i\ Bamford, 1 Jones & S. 506 (1871); s. c, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 353, which held an engineer and fore- man, who sometimes also acted as su- perintendent, to be a servant within the meaning of the rule; Harris u. Norvell, 1 Abb. N. Cas. 137 (1876), which held a reporter employed by a newspaper com- pany, and a city or assistant editor, if not an officer of the company, to be a servant; Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 Eob. (N. Y.) 316 (1865), holding an overseer and book-keeper within the protection of the act. The word "employees" in- cludes salesmen on salaries. Palmer V. Van Santvoord, 153 N. Y. 613 (1897). An attorney is not an employee within the statute making stockholders per- sonally liable for debts to laborers, serv- ants, or employees. Bristor v. Smith, 158 N. Y. 157 (1899). An attorney of a railroad company is not a laborer or employee entitled to a preference, under- the Arkansas statute. Latta v. Lons- dale, 107 Fed. Rep. 585 (1901). A pref- erence given by statute to the wages of employees, etc., does not apply to clerks, book-keepers, superintendents, shop foremen, and draftsmen. Matter of Stryker, 158 N. Y. 526 (1899). A super- intendent of a mine is not a laborer, servant, or operative. Cocking v. Ward, 48 S. W. Rep. 387 (Tenn. 1898). A pref- erence to laborers does not include a corporation, especially where the lat- ter's claim is for printing and binding books. In re Barr-Dinwiddie, etc. Co., 43 Atl. Rep. 575 (N. J. 1899). A salesr man who is paid partly in cash and partly by commissions may be an em- ployee. Matter of Luxton & Black Co., 35 N. Y. App. Div. 243 (1898). A gen- eral manager is not a workman within the meaning of the bankruptcy act. In re Grubbs- Wiley, etc. Co., 96 Fed. Rep. 183 (1899). A book-keeper is an " employee," that word being of a wider meaning than "laborex's and opera- tives." People V. Beveridge Brewing Co., 91 Hun, 313 (1895). Book-keepers,, superintendents, and foremen paid by the month are not employees, opera- tives, and laborers entitled to prior pay- ment under the New York statute. Re Stryker, 73 Hun, 327 (1893); aff'd, 158 N. Y. 536 (1899). The president is not a " workman or employee " in the sense- 429 § 215.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDKES. [oh. XII.' Many of the states have statutes rendering stockholders or di- rectors liable to creditors unless certain reports or certificates are of the New Jersey statute giving a preference. Weatherby v. Saxony, etc. Co., 29 Atl. Eep. 326 (N. J. 1894). The salary of a general traveling agent is not a debt " owing for labor " and is not entitled to a preference. Clark's Ap- peal, 100 Mich. 448 (1894). A master- mechanic and superintendent of works is a servant or laborer. Sleeper v. Good- win, 67 Wis. 577 (1887). A superintend- ent of laborers is a "laborer" himself. Pendergast v. Yandes, 124 Ind. 159 (1890). An expert employed to adjust and start the machinery is entitled to the statutory lien for "labor." Black's Appeal, 83 Mich. 513 (1890). A travel- ing salesman is a '• clerk" within the meaning of the statute rendering stock- holders liable for debts to "clerks,'' etc. Hand v. Cole, 88 Tenn. 400 (1890). The following employees have been held not to be servants or laborei-s within the protection of the rule: The secretary of a manufacturing company. Coffin V. Reynolds, 37 N. Y. 640 (1868), overrul- ing Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 163 (1864), and perhaps Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294 (1867), which is the case of a civil engineer and trav- eling agent at a fixed salary. A civil engineer. Pennsylvania, etc. R. R. v. Leuffer, 84 Pa. St 168 (1877). Contra, •Conant v. Van Sohaiok, 24 Barb. 87 (1857). Cf. Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294 (1867). A consulting engi- neer. Ericsson v. Brown, 38 Barb. 390 (1862). An assistant chief engineer. Brookway v. Innes, 39 Mich. 47 (1878). Cf. Peck V. Miller, 39 Mich. 594 (1878). An overseer on a plantation. Whitaker V. Smith, 81 N. C. 340 (1879). Contra, Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 316 (1865). A contractor. Rogers v. Dex- ter, etc. R. R, 85 Me. 372 (1893); Bout- well V. Townsend, 37 Barb. 205 (1860); Aikin v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482 (1862); Balch V. New York, etc. R. R., 46 N. Y. 531 (1871); Atcherson v. Troy. etc. R. R., 6 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 339 (1856). Cf. Kent V. New York Cent E- R-. 13 N. Y. 628 (1855); McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 593 (1854). An agent of a mining cor- poration employed to take charge of its mines in a foreign country. Hill v. Spencer, 61 N. Y. 374 (1874); Dean v. De Wolf, 16 Hun, 186 (1878); Krauser v. Ruckel, 17 Hun, 463 (1879). A book- keeper and general manager. Wake- field V. Fargo, 90 N. Y. 313 (1882). A superintendent. Kincaid'r. Dwinelle, 59 N. Y. 548 (1875). Cf Gordon v. Jen- nings, L. R. 9 Q. B. D. 45 (1882). And compare also Gurney v. Atlantic, etc. Ry., 58 N. Y. 358 (1874). Counsel is not an "employee." Louisville, etc. R. R. V. Wilson, 138 IT. S. 501 (1891). A con- tractor is not an employee under the Indiana statute. Vane v. Newcombe, 103 U. S. 220 (1889). A statutory pref- erence to servants and employees gives no preference to the secretary. Wells V. Southern Minn. Ry., 1 Fed. Eep. 270 (1880). In general, only manual or menial laborers are protected by the statute. Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 233 (1875); People v. Remington, 45 Hun, 339 (1887); aflE'd, 109 N. Y. 631. Cf. Heebner v. Chave, 5 Pa. St. 115 (1847); Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162 (1873). Under the mechanic's lien laws of the several states, a wider meaning has been given to the word "laborers." These cases are frequently confused with the statutes considered herein. Stryker v. Cassidy, 76 N. Y. 50 (1879); Mutual Benefit L. Ins. Co. v. Rowand, 36 N. J. Eq. 389 (1875); Bank of Pennsyl- vania V. Gries, 35 Pa. St. 433 (1860); Arnold! v. Gouin, 22 Grant, Ch. (Up. Can.) 314 (1875): Mulligan v. Mulligan, 18 La. Ann. 20 (1866); Knight v. Norris, 13 Minn. 473 (1868); Raederv. Bensberg, 6 Mo. App. 445 (1879); Foushee v. Grigsby, 13 Bush (Ky.), 75 (1876); Smallhouseu Kentuokj-, etc. Co., 2 Mont 443 (1876); Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304 (1876). 430 CH. Xn.] STATUTOKT LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 215. filed,^ and the statutes often impose a personal liability on the The mere fact that one does some manual labor incidental to his position as manager or foreman or superintend- ent will not constitute him a laborer within the intent of these statutes. Krauser v. Ruckel. 17 Hun, 463 (1879); Ericsson v. Brown, 38 Barb. 890 (1862). Cf. Wakefieid v. Fargo, 90 N. T. 218 (1882). But where a foreman did so much manual labor that it was not a mere incident of his foremansliip, it was held that he might recover as a laborer. Short v. Medberry, 39 Hun, 39 (1883). For construction of the Pennsyl- vania liability for labor and supplies, see Weiss v. Mauch Chunk Iron Co., 58 Pa. St. 295 (1868); Reading Industrial Mfg Co. V. Graeflf, 64 Pa. St. 395 (1870); Meyer v. Pennsylvania Slate Co., 71 Pa. St. 298 (1872), where a statute imposing liability for debts due workmen, etc., and materials furnished was construed not to include debts for hauling, re- pairing wagons, lumber for erecting machinery, powder for blasting, etc.; Weigley v. Coal Oil Co., 5 Phila. 67 (i862). A claim against stockholders on their statutory liability to laborers is assignabla Day v. Vinson, 78 Wis. 198 (1890). A laborer having recourse by statute against stockholders may as- sign his rights. Day v. Buckingham, 87 Wis. 215 (1894). The liability for debts to laborers applies to such debts though due to non-residents. Clokus r. HoUister Min. Co., 92 Wis. 325 (1896). A person having a claim against a •director on a liability of the latter, created by statute, may assign that claim, and the assignee may enforce it. Bedford v. Sherman, 68 Hun, 317 (1893). 1 As to whether this liability is a penal liability, see § 223, infra. Such a lia- bility is strictly construed. See § 214, supra. Cases on statutes of this char- acter are given throughout this chapter. The following cases may also aid in giving an idea of this kind of liability: Under a statute rendering the stock- holders liable to corporate creditors to the extent of the unpaid portion of the par value of their stock, unless a true statement of the affairs of the company is made annually, the stockholders are so liable if the statement which is filed is a false statement. Congdon v. Winsor, 17 R. I. 336 (1891), refusing to follow Stedman v. Eveleth, 47 Mass. 114 (1843). There is no debt existing for goods bought until the goods are delivered, under the Rhode Island statute making the stockholders liable for failure to file a report. Wing v. Slater, 19 R. I. 597 (1896). Directors are not liable by statute requiring an annual report, where such report is filed, even though it be false. If the statute makes them liable for knowingly making a false report, knowledge must be averred. Matthews v. Patterson, 16 Colo. 215 (1891). This statutory liability of di- rectors for failure to file reports is not avoided by the fact that the bompany is insolvent and has gone out of busi- ness. Gahs V. Switzer, 9 Mont. 408 (1890). The California statute, allowing any stockholder to collect $1,000 from the directors in a mining company if they fail to post a balauce sheet monthly, was construed in Ball v. Tolman, 119 Cal. 358 (1897). Where the directors of a mining corporation are liable for $1,000 unless they file weekly reports of the receipts, disbursements, number of employees, and wages, no damage need be proved by a stockholder in suing for the $1,000. Shanklin v. Gray, 111 Cal. 88 (1896); Miles v. Woodward, 115 Cal. 308 (1896). A statutory liability of of- ficers for a false report applies only to debts created after the false report is made. Torbett v. Godwin, 62 Hun, 407 (1891). The statutory liability of direct^ ors for corporate debts, where they fail to give notices of the debts of the com- pany, is not available to any creditors except those giving credit after the dr- rectorsshould havegiyennotice. Gordef 431 § 215.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [CH. XII. directors for making loans in excess of the capital stock.' A liabil- ity imposed by a constitution may or may not be self-executing without any statutory provision, according to the wording of the V. Plattsmouth Canning Co., 36 Neb. 548 (1893). " Wilful neglect " or refusal does not arise from mere neglect of a director under a statute calling for an annual report. Gennert v. Ives, 102 Mich. 547 (1894). Where a water-works company issues $197,000 of stock and $150,000 of bonds for work which is worth only the amount of the bonds, the Indiana statute rendering directors per- sonally liable for not causing the capital stock to be paid up within eighteen months is applicable. The court said, "the plan of the promoters, stockhold- ers and directors of the company was to build a water- works without capital and without risk of expense to them- selves," and that by taking all the stock and all the bonds they left the corpora- tion where it was unable to pay any other debts, either by the sale of stock or bonds. Brown v. Glow, 63 N. E. Rep. 1006 (Ind. 1903). In Illinois by statute the directors are personally' liable for debts incurred before all •' stock named in the articles of incorporation shall be subscribed in good faith." Kentu. Clark, 181 111. 237 (1899). The Illinois statute I'endering a director personally liable for the debts of a corporation where the incorporating act is not complied with in certain particulars was applied in Edwards v. Armour, etc. Co., 190 111. 467 (1901). Under the former New York law a director was liable for debts contracted after he became a director where no report had been filed before he became such director and no report was filed after he became a director. Union Bank V. Keim, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 135 (1900). As to the statute in Colorado rendering the directors liable for the debts where they fail to file specified reports, see Thatcher v. Salomon, 64 Paa Rep. 368 (Cola 1901). In Minnesota by statute directors who participate in an ultra vires act are liable for all debts there- after contracted, even though they go 433 out of office. Citizens' State Bank v. Story, etc. Co., 84 Minn. 408 (1901). See also n. 4, p. 485, supra; 65 N. E. Rep. 901. ' Where directors are liable for cor- porate debts in excess of the subscribed capital stock, the capital stock includes that paid for by property as well as in cash. Moore v. Lent, 81 Cat 502 (1889). In enforcing a liability of directors for debts in excess of the capital, a cred- itor must sue for the benefit of all, and can recover only a proportion of the excess over such capital stock. Ander- son V. Speers, 21 Hun, 568 (1880). A di- rector cannot enforce a statutory liabil- ity of the directors for debts contracted by the corporation in excess of the capital stock, the directors.being liable "jointly and severally" by statute; but such debt due to the director is counted. Thacher v. King, 156 Mass. 490 (1893). Where the constitution of an unincorporated association limits the debts and the directors incur a larger amount of debts, the directors cannot obtain contribution from the stockholders. McFadden v. Leeka, 48 ©hio St. 513 (1891). The liability of di- rectors in New York for excessive debts can be enforced only in a suit in which all the directors are joined. Milsom, eto. Co. V. Baker, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 581 (1897); aff'd, 153 N. Y. 687. Where creditors are enjoined from suing the corporation they need not obtain a judgment against the corporation be- fore suing to hold directors personally liable by statute, by reason of the debts exceeding the paid-up capital stock. Whitney v. Pugh, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 316 (1901). The statutory liability of stockholders for a failure to file a cer- tificate that the capital stock has been fully paid, and the statutory liability of directors for debts in excess of the capital stock, do not apply to a judg- ment in an action of tort. Leighton v. Campbell, 17 R I. 51 (1890). As to the OH. XII.] STATUTOBT LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 215. constitutional provision itself. ^ An increase or reduction of the capital stock leads often to complications in addition to the usual liability of directors of a national banlt ers' L. & T. Co. v. Funk, 49 Neb. 353 for loans in excess of the amount al- lowed by law, see Witters v. Sowles, 43 Fed. Rep. 405 (1890); Stephens v. Over- stolz, 43 Fed. Rep. 771 (1890). The liability of directors under the National Banking Act for loans to separate per- sons of amounts in excess of one-tenth of the capital stock can be enforced only in a court of equity. Welles v. Graves, 41 Fed. Rep. 459 (1890); Peters V. Foster, 56 Hun, 607 (1890). As re- gards the remedy under the National Bank Act, see also Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498 (1869); Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 (1876), and Act of June 30, 1876, ch. 44; Witters v. Sowles, 33 Fed. Rep. 767 (1887); Richmond v. Irons, 181 U. S. 37 (1887), as to joinder of causes of action. See 66 N. E. Rep. 563. 1 A constitutional liability may not be enforceable where no statute has been passed to enforce it; as, for ex- ample, the provision that "dues from corporations shall be secured by indi- vidual liability of the stockholders to an additional amount equal to the stock owned by each stockholder, and such other means as shall be provided by law." Morley v. Thayer, 3 Fed. Rep. 787 (1880). Dnder the Ohio constitu- tional provision imposing a liability on stockholders, a general act authorizing incorporations must contain a provis- ion to that effect or the act will be void. State u Sherman, 33 Ohio St. 411 (1873). A constitutional provision that stockholders shall be liable to the ex- tent of their stock is self-executing and applies to all corporations. Willis V. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140 (1893). The Kansas constitution is self-enforcing as to stockholder's liability. Sterne v. Atherton, 7 Kan. App. 30 (1897); Fow- ler V. Lamson, 146 111, 472 (1893). The Nebraska constitutional provision im- posing a double liability on stockhold- ers in banks is self-executing. Farm- (28) 433 (1896). The New York constitutional provision imposing a double liability on stockholders is not self-executing. Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9 (1895). The constitutional liability of stock- holders in California is not self-execut- ing. A statute which applies it "in proportion " to the amount of stock held by each stockholder is too vague for enforcement. United States v. Stan- ford, 69 Fed. Rep. 35 (1895); aff'd, 161 U. S. 412. The term "self-executing," as applied to a constitution imposing ii liability on stockholders, refers to whether the provision is enforceable without a specific remedy being cre- ated. Eau Claire, etc. Bank v. Benson, 106 Wis. 624 (1900). The Kansas con- stitutional liability of stockholders is not self-executing. Woodworth v. Bowles, 61 Kan. 569 (1900). A consti- tutional provision that " dues from cor- porations, other than banking, shall be secured by such individual liability of the corporators, or other means, as may be prescribed by law," does not render unconstitutional a general statute for incorporation which does not prescribe any statutory liability of stockholders, and hence that defense is not available to a subscriber who is sued on his sub- scription. Williams v. Citizens', etc. Co., 153 Ind. 496 (1899). A constitu- tional provision making the directors liable for moneys misappropriated by officers during their term of office is self-executing, and they are liable for using the funds to purchase worthless paper from a bank which they wish to keep going. The liability is not penal, inasmuch as it is not a punishment, but a compensation for a loss. A cred- itor who became such after the misap- propriation may maintain a suit as well as one before, and he need not bring a suit in behalf of all, nor first obtain a judgment against the corporation. § 215.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [oh. XII. ones incident to the statutory liability.^ Various decisions on the liability of stockholders and directors under particular statutes are given in the notes belovv.^ Rice V. Howard, 69 Pao. Rep. 77 (Cal. 1903). ' See §§ 288, 389, infra, concerning this subject. 2 Under the Illinois statute making directors liable for debts before the statute is complied with as to inooi-po- ration, and the issue by the secretary of state of a certificate of completed organization and recording of the same in the county where the principal of- fice is, the directors are liable if such certificate is not so recorded. Liabil- ity may be enforced even by a corpo- rate creditor who has filed his claim with an assignee of the corporation for the benefit of its creditors. Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 111. 417 (1896). The United States statute making every person mterested in a still of liquors liable for the tax thereon renders the stockholders of the distilling corpora- tion liable, and one who pays the tax may have contribution from the others. Richter v, Henningsan, 110 Cal. 530 (1895). A statute may require the word "limited " to be a part of the corporate name, and may render the stockholders personally liable for omitting bhe same. Lehman v. Knapp, 48 La. Ann. 1148 (1896). The liability of stockholders under the Michigan statute, relative to goods sold, is applied in Eirkpatrick V. Mehalitch, 113 Mich. 631 (1897). There is no statutory liability of stockholders in ordinary corporations in New Jersey. Thomson, etc. Co. v. Murray, 60 N. J. L. SO (1897). Under the Iowa statutes the stockholders are liable as . partners where the certificate of incorporation failed to state the highest amount of indebtedness which the company might incur. Heuer v. Carmichael, 83 Iowa, 388 (1891). " Dues " include insurance policies. McDonnell v, Alabama, etc. Ins, Co., 85 Ala. 40l" (1888). The case of Austin V. Berlin, 13 Colo. 198 (1889), holds that new directors are not liable for the statutory delinquencies of the old. A debt contracted in the midst of acts for which directors are liable by statute is contracted " after such viola- tion." Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 84 (1889). In Maine, by statute, stock- holders were formerly liable as sub- scribers if their stock was paid for by property taken at an overvaluation. Libby v. Tobey, 83 Me. 397 (1890). Under the Iowa statute rendering oflScers, eta, liable for diversion of funds, a policy- holder may recover, where a consoli- dation with another company has been made and plaintiS was excluded from the new company. Grayson v. Will- oughby, 78 Iowa, 83 (1889). A complaint to enforce a stockholder's liability for labor done in the construction. of the road is not good if it omits the allega- tion as to the construction of the road. Toner v. Fulkerson, 135 Ind. 224 (1890). Where stockholders are liable for debts other than mortgage debts, an agree- ment of the company to pay another company's mortgage debt is not a mort- gage debt of its own such as would ex- empt its stockholders from liability. Barron v. Paine, 83 Me. 312 (1891). Where the constitution renders the stockholders liable doubly except in manufacturing and mechanical cor- porations, a statute exempting from liability the stockholders in companies engaged in dealing in mineral lands is unconstitutional. Anderson v. Ander- son Iron Co., 65 Minn. 381 (1896). The double liability in Minnesota on all stockholders excepting corporations en- gaged in manufacturing or mechanical business does not apply to a mining corporation, that being a mechanical business. Cowling v. Zenith Iron Co., 65 Minn. 363 (1896). The constitutional liability of stockholders applies if a part of the business as set forth in the 484 CH. xn.J STATUTORY LIABILITY OF 8TO0KHOLDEES. [§ 216. It remains to add that this class of statutes, except in the case of banks, have on the whole proved signal failures. They drive cor- porations from a state, are rarely relied upon by creditors, and are productive of interminable litigation. § 216. Waiver hy corporate creditors of their statutory rights against stockholders. — A corporate creditor may, by express con- tract, when the debt is incurred, waive his right to collect, from the stockholder, debts which the corporation fails to pay.' And charter consists of mercantile business. Tiie objection that all stockholders and ■creditors are not joined must be raised by answer. Densmore v. Shepard, 46 Minn. 54 (1891). Where stockholders are liable unless the corporation is a manufacturing corporation, they are liable if the corporation is to manu- facture and "deal" in certain articles. Commercial Bank v. Azotine, etc. Co., 66 Minn. 413 (1896); afl'd, 69 Minn. 232 (1897). The Minnesota statutory lia- bility, being absolute, will not be con- strued as a proportionate liability only (First Nat. Bank v. Winona Plow Co., 58 Minn. 167 — 1894), where the stock- holders not made parties are shown to be insolvent, dead, or beyond the reach •of process. Clarke v. Cold Spring, etc. Co., 58 Minn. 16 (1894). The statutory liability of officers of corporations in Minnesota for any " unfaithfulness " means " unfaithfulness " to the creditor who is suing. This suit may be at law. Ii"irst Nat. Bank v. Harper, 61 Minn. 375 ■(1895). Where stockholders in manu- facturing corporations are not liable, but in other companies are liable, under a statute, yet, if the charter authorizes other business than manufacturing, they are liable although only the manu- facturing business is pursued. Arthur V. Willius, 44 Minn. 409 (1890). ' Quoted and approved in Bush v. Rob- inson, 95 Ky. 493 (1894), (a case of waiver of recourse to unpaid subscriptions); Robinson v. Bidwell, 33 Cal. 879 (1863); French v. Tesohemaker, 34 Cal. 518 (1864): Basshor v. Forbes, 36 Md. 154 (1373); Brown v. Eastern Slate Co., 134 Mass. 590 (1883), where the waiver was 485 oral. The written agreement of the vendor of property to the corporation that the subscribers for stock are not to be personally liable therefor is a good defense against their subscription liability, so far as it is to be used to pay that debt, even though such agree- ment is made prior to incorporation. Carnahan v. Campbell, 63 N. E. Rep. 384 (Ind. 1903). A corporate creditor's agree- ment that stockholders should not be individually liable on a debt does not relieve directors from their statutory liability, and the court intimated that it would not have been legal if it had relieved the directors from their liabil- ity. Swancoat v. Remsen, 78 Fed. Rep. 593 (1897). An oral agreement prior to incorporation that the stockholders should not be personally liable is not binding on the creditors. Oswald v. Minneapolis Times Co., 65 Minn. 349 (1896). In United States v. Stanford, 70 Fed. Rep. 346 (1895); aflf'd, 161 U. S. 412, the court held that the complainant had by its acts waived the statutory liabilityof a stockholder in a California corporation. Corporate creditors may waive the stockholders' statutory lia- bility. Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157 (1897). A partnership may, by contract with a party with whom it is dealing, limit the liability of the partners. Sen- tell V. Hewitt, 50 La. Ann. 3 (1898). Where the party loaning money to the association agrees orally to rely on it alone, he cannot afterwards hold its oflScers liable. Elwell v. Tatum, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 397 (1893). The agreement of a corporation to pay a specified sum of money, with the provision that it shall § 216.] STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDBES. [oh. XII. the corporation in its contracts with third persons may, it is held in England, lawfully stipulate for the exemption of its members from the liability imposed upon them by statute in the event of the insolvency of the corporation.^ It has been held to be competent for any one dealing with the company to contract to hold the stockholders responsible to only a limited extent, to no extent at all, or to any specified extent mut- ually agreed upon.^ A by-law cannot release stockholders from not be chargeable against a certain part of the capital stock, can be en- forced in equity only, inasmuch as an accounting is involved. Heflin, etc. Co. V. Hilton, 124 Ala. 365 (1899). 1 Re Athenaeum L. Ass. Soc, 3 De G. & J. 660 (1859); Halket v. Merchant Traders', etc. Assoc, 13 Q. B. 960 (1849); Durham's Case, 4 Kay & J. 517 (1858). Of. Shelford, Joint-stock Companies (Sd London ed.), 4, Where the agree- ment limits the liability of members to the unpaid part of their stock, a stock- holder who is also a creditor cannot collect in excess of this par value. So also -with a bank, one of whose mem- bers is a stockholder. In re Worcester, etc. Co., 3 De G., M. & G. 180 (1853). Al- though the subscribei's themselves may stipulate with each other for such a restricted liability, nothing is more clear than that, as to the i-eat of the vyorld, each stockholder is liable for the whole amount of the debts of the com. pany. Nor will notice that a stipula- tion of this kind has been entered into between the stockholders prevent a creditor from holding each of them lia- ble to the full extent of his demand. See Greenwood's Case, 8 De G., M. & G. 459 (1854); Re State Fire Ins. Co., 1 N. R. 510 (V.-C. W., 1863). 2 Re State F. ins. Ca, 1 Hem. & M, 457 (1868); S. a, 1 De G., J. & S. 684; 36 L. J. (Ch.) 684; 34 L. J. (Ch.) 436; Has- sell V. Merchant Traders' Assoc, 4 Exch, 535 (1849); Talbot's Case, 5 De G. & Sm. 886 (1852); s. C, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 84a See also Reid v. Allan, 4 Exch. 326 (1849); S. c, 19 L. J. (Exch.) 89. And compare Re Independent Assurance Co., 1 Sim. ' (N. S.) 54(1850); Sunderland Marine Ins. Ca V. Kearney, 16 Q. B. 925 (1851); s. C, 30 L. J. (Q. B.) 417; Peddell v. Gwyn, 1 Hurl. & N. 590 (1857); & 0., 26 L. J. (Exch.) 199; Gordon v. Sea F. & I* Ass. Soc, 1 Hurl. & N. 599 (1857); s. 0., 26 L. J. (Exch.) 202. And see Hess v. Werts, 4Serg. & R. (Pa.) 336, 361 (1818); King V. Accumulative, etc Ass. Co., 3 C. B. (N. a.) 151 (1857). Cf. Hallett v. Dow- dall, 18 Q. B. (N. S.) 2 (1853). The mere fact that the articles of association of an unincorporated company provide against personal liability is no defense, even though the contracts say that they are subject to the provisions in such articles. Sullivan v. Campbell, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 371 (1839); Hess v. Werts, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 356 (1818); Greenwood's Case, 3 De G., M. & G. 459 (1854). They are liable, even though their articles of association provided otherwise. Man- ning V. Gasharie, 27 Ind. 399 (1866). The unincorporated association is a part- nership " and subject to the rules gov- erning that branch of the law." But- if the by-laws limit the amount of debts- which the directors may incur, and they exceed it, they cannot have con- tribution from non-assenting stock- holders. McFadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio- St. 513 (1891). The same rule prevails in an ordinary copartnership. Brom- ley V. Elliot, 38 N. H. 387 (1859). Direct- ors are bound to know of the restric- tion and have no recourse to the stock- holders; nor does a firm in which a di- rector is a member. Re Worcester Corn Exch. Co., 3 De G., M. & G. 180- (1853). A contract that promoters shall not be personally liable binds an en- 436 OH. XII.] STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. .[§ 21T. their statutory liability.^ The underwriters of an unincorporated Lloyds insurance association may be liable personally on its policies, even though by the terms of the policy each underwriter assumed only his proportionate part of the loss, where that provision is not prominently set forth. The rule is that the members of an associa- tion may contract against personal liability, but the notice to that effect must be so plain and fair that the person contracting with the association knew of it, or it was his own fault that he did not know of it.' § 217. Statutory^ Mability not enforceable to pay damages recov- ered against the corporation in tort. — The statutory liability im- posed upon the stockholders in corporations is a liability exclu- sively for debts and demands accruing against the corporation by reason of its contracts. It cannot, therefore, be enforced to pay damages recovered against the corporation in an action in tort.' gineer. Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Exoh. 633 (1853). Where promoters stipulate that they shall not be liable, the party who tacitly assents to that condition is bound. Giles v. Smith, 11 Jur. 334 (1847). See also ch. XLIII, infra; 3 Kent, Com. 37; Story, Partn., § 164. A contrary doctrine seems to have pre- vailed in Davis v. Beverly, 3 Cranch, C. C. (U. S.) 35 (1811); s. C, 7 Fed. Gas. 113; Riggs V. Swann, 8 Cranch, O. C. 188 (1827); S. C, 30 Fed. Gas. 788; reversed on another point by Mandeville v. Riggs, 3 Pet. 483 (1839). The exemption from liability must be clearly proved. Skinner v. Dayton, 19 Johns. 518, 537 (1833). A stipulation against holding stockholders liable has been held to re- fer to statutory liability and not to the subscription liability. Preston v. Cincin- nati, etc. R. R, 36 Fed. Rep. 54 (1888). A provision in an insurance policy that the directors shall not be liable, al- though the statute makes tnem liable, is not good. Greene v. Walton, 59 Hun, 102, 618 (1891). 1 Wells V. Black, 117 Gal. 157 (1897). A provision inserted in a certificate of incorporation under the Nebraska stat- utes limiting the liability of the stock- holders so that they are not oven liable for the subscription price is void. Van Pelt V. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701 (1898). ' Imperial, eta Ca V. Jewett, 169 N. Y. 143 (1901). 'Heacook v. Sherman, 14 Wend. 58 (1835). In this case the stockholders in a company which owned a bridge, and against which a judgment had been recovered for damages because the bridge was out of repair, were held not to be liable upon such a demand, since the act imposing a personal lia- bility upon them contemplated a lia- bility only for demands arising ex con- tractu. In general, the word " debt," as used in statutes imposing a personal liability upon stockholders, is construed to include only liabilities arising ex contractu, and not to include liability for damages recovered against the cor- poration in actions sounding in tort. Child V. Boston, etc. Iron Works, 137 Mass. 516 (1884), where a judgment for infringement of patent was not en- forced; Leighton v. Campbell, 17 R. I. 51 (1890); Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 38 Mass. 417, 455 (1839), sustaining an unliquidated claim for damages; Dry- den V. Kellogg, 3 Mo. App 87 (1876), en- forcing a judgment for breach of war- ranty of title; Doolittle v. Marsh, 11 Neb. 343 (1881); Esmond v. BuUard, 16 Hun, 65 (1878); & c. aff'd sub nom. Losee v. Bullard, 79 N. Y. 404 (1880); Archer v. Rose, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 364 (1871) ; 437 § 218.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STO0KHOLDEE8. [oh. XII. B. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIABILITY. § 218. The statutory liaMlity can he enforced hy corporate cred- itors only — StocMolders and directors as creditors — Receivers — National hanhs. — The statutory liability of the stockholder is cre- ated exclusively for the benefit of corporate creditors. It is not to be numbered among the assets of the corporation, and the corporation has no right to or interest in it.' It cannot enforce it by an assess- ment upon the stockholders.^ Nor can the corporation, upon the insolvency, assign it to a trustee for the benefit of creditors.' It is a liability running directly and immediately from the stockholders to the corporate creditors.* Accordingly, a receiver of an insolvent corporation has no power to enforce such a liability as this; ^ but in Cable V. MoCune, 26 Mo. 371 (1858), de- feating a judgment for damages for loss of a steamboat; Bohn v. Brown, 33 Mich. 357, 263 (1876), refusing to enforce herein a judgment against a common carrier for negligence. Gf. Stanton v. Wllkeson, 8 Ben. 357 (1876); s. o., 23 Fed. Cas. 1074; Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 453 (1885); Carver v. Brain tree Mfg. Co., 3 Story, 433, 448 (184a); s. o., 6 Fed. Cas. 235; Wyman v. American Powder Co., 63 Mass. 168, 183 (1851); Zimmer v. Schleehauf, 115 Mass. 53 (1874). But the stockholders' subscrip- tion liability may be enforced to pay damages arising from torts. Powell v. Oregonian Ey., 36 Fed. Eep. 736 (1888); 38 Fed. Rep. 187. The word " dues," as contained in the Ohio constitution, ren- dering stockholders individually liable, renders them liable not only on con- tracts of the corporation, but on torts committed by the corporation. Eider V. Fritchey, 49 Ohio St. 285 (1892). " Dues " include corporate liability for personal injuries. Flenniken v. Mar- shall, 43 S. C. 80 (1895). Under the Kansas statute stockholders are liable only on debts and dues, and not for damages for a tort. Brown v. Trail, 89 Fed. Rep. 641 (1898). 1 Quoted and approved in Colton v. Mayer, 90 Md. 711 (1900). 2Umsted v. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Liberty Female College Assoc. V. Watkins, 70 Mo. 13 (1879). 3 Wright V. McCormack, 17 Ohio St. 86,95 (1866); Dutcher v. Marine Nat. Bank, 13 Blatchf. 435 (1875); s.C.,8Fed. Cas. 152. See also Cuykendall v. Corn- ing, 88 N. Y. 129 (1882). « Bristol, tt Sandford, 13 Blatchf. 341 (1874); s. c, 4 Fed. Cas. 163; Lane v. Morris, 8 Ga. 468 (1850); Arenz v. Weir, 89 111. 25 (1878). This was an action by a judgment creditor against a stock- holder after a distribution of corporate assets by a receiver. The creditor was held to stand "on an independent plat- form, above that of the receiver, hav- ing no concern with the corporation, and the stockholder is bound, under the law, to answer to him." 5 Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis, 166 Mass. 414 (1896); Colton v. Mayer, 90 Md. 711 (1900); Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 97 Fed. Rep. 297 (1899); King v. Cochran, 72 Vt. 107 (1900); Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. City Bank, 66 Minn. 441 (1896); Billings v. Robinson, 94 N. Y. 415 (1884); Farns- worth V. Wood, 91 N. Y. 308(1883); Cuy- kendall V. Corning, 88 N. Y. 129 (1882); Arenz v. Weir, 89 111. 25 (1878); Jacob- son V. Allen, 20 Blatchf. 525 (1882); Cut- ting V. Damerel, 88 N. Y. 410 (1882); Bauer v. Piatt, 73 Hun, 336 (1893); Steinke v. Loofbourow, 17 Utah, 253 (1898); McLaughlin v. Kimball, 30 Utah, 354 (1899). Cf. Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203(1873); Attorney-General u. Guard- ian, etc. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 272 (1879). A 438 OH. XII.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 218. many of the states, in order to avoid a multiplicity of suits, and conflict of interest and collusive settlements and doubt as to the remedy, statutes have been passed authorizing receivers to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders.^ Where by a statute every receiver cannot enforce the statutory liability except at the instance of the creditors and of tlie court after the corporate assets have been exhausted and the creditors' claims fixed. Ham- ilton, etc. Bank v. American, etc. Co., 92 N. W. Rep. 189 (Neb. 1903). A receiver appointed under the general equity powers of the court, and not under a statutory povcer, in the state vphere the corporation exists, to enforce the stock- holders' statutory liability, cannot maintain a suit at law in another ju- risdiction against a non-resident stock- holder. Hilliker v. Hale, 117 Fed. Rep. 220 (1902). The appointment of a re- ceiver of a corporation does not prevent creditors from enforcing the directors' liability. Patterson v. Stewart, 41 Minn. 84 (1889). But see Minnesota; etc. Mfg. Co. V. Langdon, 44 Minn. 37 (1890). At common law the statutory liability cannot be enforced in the receivership proceedings. The creditor must insti- tute an independent suit. Spilman v. Mendenhall, 57 N. W. Rep. 468 (Minn. 1894). The creditor may proceed to judgment though a receiver has been appointed. Mason v. N. Y. Silk Mfg. Co., 27 Hun, 307 (1882). In Farmers' L. & T. Co. V. Funk, 49 Neb. 353 (1896), the court intimated that a receiver could bring the suit where the liability is for the benefit of all the creditors ratably. In Cushing v. Perot, 175 Pa. St. 66 (1896), the court held that a re- ceiver and not a corporate creditor was the proper party to enforce the statu- tory liability. In a later decision the court held that a suit to enforce the liability of a stockholder in a Kansas corporation need not be brought by a receiver, but (following the decision of the supreme court of Kansas) might be brought by a creditor. Ball v. Ander- son, 196 Pa. St. 86 (1900). Even though the receiver does not file a bill to enforce the statutory liability until more than six years after his appointment, yet the statute of limitations may not be a bar. Andrews v. Bacon, 38 Fed. Rep. 777 (1889). See 188 U. S. 56 (1903). 1 The Ohio statutory liability may be enforced in the United States court in Kentucky against a Kentucky stock- holder where it is shown that the Ohio stockholders have been assessed to the full amount of their liability, and that the corporation is insolvent, and that the liabilities of the corporation exceed its assets, together with the stockhold- ers' liability; and where, under the statutes of Ohio, a receiver may enforce the liability, such receiver may main- tain such suits in the United States courts in other states for that purpose. Kirtley v. Holmes, 107 Fed. Rep. 1 (1901). A receiver of a Kansas corpora- tion cannot maintain a suit in the United States court in New York against a New York stockholder to en- force his statutory liability, unless the receiver has first brought suit in Kan- sas and the amount of the liability of all resident stockholders has been fixed, such being the requirement of the Kan- sas statute, and there being no common- law right of the receiver to institute such suit. Evans v. Nellis, 187 U. S. 271 (1902). The court may authorize a re- ceiver to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders under the Ohio statute. Zieverink v. Kemper, 50 Ohio St. 208 (1893). In the case of Hale v. Harden, 89 Fed. Rep. 383 (1898), where the receiver appointed by a court in Minnesota brought suit in the United States court in Massachusetts to enforce the statu- tory liability of a Massachusetts stock- holder in a Minnesota corporation, the court held that the suit would not lie at the. instance of such a receiver. In 439 § 218.] STATDTOBT LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEKS. [CH. XII. creditor has the right to bring suit to enforce the stockholders' lia- bility, a subsequent statute taking away this right and giving it to a holders ia a Washington bank may, under the statutes, be enforced by a re- ceiver, and the order of the court fixing the amount of liability is binding on all stockholders. Howarth v. EU- wanger, 86 Fed. Eep. 54 (1898). In Washington the statutory liability of stockholders in banks can be enforced only by a receiver. Watterson v. Mas- terson, 15 Wash. 511 (1896); Wilson v. Book, 13 Wash. 676 (1896). A receiver can enforce the statutory liability of stockholders in a Washington bank, in- asmuch as the statutes so provide. It is no defense that the stockholder was induced to subscribe by fraud. Sheafe V. Larimer, 79 Fed. Eep. 921 (1897). Under the Washington statute, after the statutory liability of stockholders has been determined by a decree of the court, a receiver may bring a suit at law against any stockholder to enforce his liability. Shuey v. Adair, 34 Wash. 378 (1901). A receiver appointed in Washington of an insolvent state bank in that state may bring suit in the New York courts to enforce the statutory liability of a New Tork stockholder in such bank, it appearing that no New York creditor of such bank will be prejudiced thereby. Howarth u. Angle, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 151 (1899). Even though a receiver is entitled to enforce the statutory liability, yet where an as- sessment has been levied for the full amount of the liability, the remedy of the receiver is at law and not in equity. Hale V. Allison, 103 Fed. Rep. 790 (1900). In New York by statute the receiver is now the only person who can enforce the statutory liability of stockholders in state banks, unless he refuses to do so. Ch. 441, L. 1897. A statute tliat a receiver may enforce the statutory liability does not prevent suit by a cred- itor who commences suit before the re- ceiver is appointed. Mahoney v. Bern- hard, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 499 (1899). the case of Hale v. Harden, 95 Fed. Rep. 747 (1899), a receiver appointed by a Minnesota court was held to have power to enforce the statutory liability of Massachusetts stockholders in a Min- nesota corporation. By the statutes of Kansas of 1899, the receiver is given the sole power to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders. Kisseberth V. Prescott, 95 Fed. Rep. 357 (1899). A judgment creditor may enforce the statutory liability of a stockholder in a Kansas corporation, although a re- ceiver is in charge. Brown v. Trail, 89 Fed. Rep. 641 (1898). In Michigan by statute the receiver of an insolvent bank may enforce the stockholders' statutory liability, and the order of the court stating the amount necessary to so collect is binding on the stock- holders and the court need not wait until the assets are exhausted before enforcing the same. Foster v. Row, J 30 Mich. 1 (1899). In Minnesota now, by statute, a receiver may enforce the stat- utory liability. Ueland v. Haugan, 70 Minn. 349 (1897). And a creditor will not be allowed to sue except by leave of the court. Anderson v. Seymour, 70 Minn. 358 (1897). Under the Minnesota statute the receiver may join with creditors in enforcing the liability. Finney v. Guy, -106 Wis. 356 (1900). A receiver may enforce the statutory lia- bility of stockholders in a bank organ- ized under the Iowa statutes. State v. Union, etc. Bank, 103 Iowa, 549 (1897), holding also that any matter deter- mined at the time of the assessment can- not be disputed by the stockholder. In Georgia the receiver of an insolvent state bank may enforce the statutory liability of stockholders and the corpo- ration need not be joined in his suit. Moore v. Ripley, 106 Ga. 556 (1899). Where a receiver is enforcing the statutory lia- bility a creditor will not be allowed to interfere. Brown v. Brink, 57 Neb. 606 (1899). The statutory liability of stock- 440 CH. XII.J STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [§ 218. receiver is unconstitutional.^ An assignee of an insolvent corporation for the benefit of its creditors cannot enforce the statutory liability of stockholders.'^ An agent selected by the stockholders of an insolv- ent national bank to wind up the bank cannot enforce the statutory liability.' It has been held that the statutory liability of stockholders can- not be enforced by the directors as "creditors."* It is uncertain whether a stockholder, who is also a creditor of the corporation, may bring an action at law against his co-stock- holders to enforce a statutory liability. In Massachusetts,* Illinois,* and New York '' the rule is settled that such an action cannot be 1 Woodworth v. Bowles, 61 Kan. 569 <1900). The Kansas statute ot 1889, re- pealing the old method of enforcing the stockholders' statutory liability and providing that the receiver shall en- force the liability, is unconstitutional as against creditors whose claims arose prior to &uoh statute. Evans v. Nellis, 101 Fed. Rep. 920 (1900); afif'd, 187 U. S. 271 (1902). A statute authorizing a re- ceiver to enforce the statutory liability does not prevent a creditor enforcing that liability on a contract existing at the time of the passage of the statute. Webster v. Bovrers, 104 Fed. Rep. 627 (1900). The legislature may authorize the liability to be enforced by a re- ceiver, even in corporations which have passed into a receiver's hands prior to the enactment of the statute. Persons V. Gardner, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 490 (1899). 2 Runner v. Dwiggins, 147 Ind. 338 <1897). An assignee of an insolvent cor- poration in Colorado cannot enforce the statutory liability of stockholders. Zang V. Wyant, 35 Colo. 551 (1898). 'Church V. Ayer, 80 Fed. Rep. 543 <1897). < McDowall V. Sheehan, 139 N. Y. 300 (1891). A director who is a creditor cannot in certain cases share with the other creditors and prove a claim due to him from the corporation. Neither can such claim be proved where it be- longs to a firm or company of which the director was a member, or to the assignee of such firm er company. Thaoher v. King, 156 Mass. 490 (1893). A director may enforce his claim as a cred- itor. Janney v. Minneapolis, etc. Expo- sition, 79 Minn. 488 (1900). * Thayer v. Union Tool Co., 70 Mass. 75 (1855). 6 Meisser v. Thompson, 9 111. App, 368 (1881); s. c, Thompson v. Meisser, 108 111. 359 (1884). 7 Mathez v. Neidig, 73 N. Y. 100 (1878) ; Clark V. Myers, 11 Hun, 608 (1877); Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188 (1843) (overruling upon this point Simonson u Spencer, 15 Wend. 548 — 1836); Beers v. Waterbury, 8 Bosw. 396 (1861); Richard- son V. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 163 (1864); Doming v. Puleston, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 331 (1871). Cf. Sanborn v. Leflferts, 58 N. Y. 179 (1874); Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458 (1858). To same effect, Per- kins V. Sanders, 56 Miss. 733 (1879). Cf. Slee V. Bloom, 5 Johns. Ch. 866, 382 (1831); Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. Rep. 777 (1884); Weber v. Fickey, 47 Md. 196 (1877). See also Emmert v. Smith, 40 Md. 123 (1874); HoUister v. Hol- lister Bank, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 367 (1865). In this case stockholders of an insolvent bank, after paying the judgments had against them to enforce their individual liabilities, turned around and asked to be made, to the extent of those judg- ments, creditors of the bank, and thus entitled to participate pro rata with other creditors. Held, nothing is to be repaid to the stockholders until all the debts of the bank arepaid. Anassignee of a stockholder's claim against the 441 § 218.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. maintained. In those jurisdictions the only remedy for such a creditor in such a case is by a bill in equity for contribution.' But in Pennsylvania,'^ Maine/ Minnesota,* and California,^ the rule is. otherwise, and it is no objection to the creditor's action that he is himself also a stockholder.^ Where an insolvent bank in the hands- of a receiver is indebted to a stockholder, and the stockholder is also insolvent, the court will not allow such stockholder to partici- pate in the distribution of the assets, but will ofifset his interest in the assets against his statutory liability on the stock, even though the stockholder has assigned to another his interest in the assets.' corporation may enforce the statutory liability of other stockholders where he is the assignee also of the claim from a creditor who is not a stockholder. Mont- gomery V. Brush, etc. Co., 48 N. Y. App. Div. 18 (1900). A. creditor who is also a stockholder cannot sue to enforce the statutory liability of another stock- holder unless he has paid his own lia- bility. Milford Sav. Bank v. Joslyn, 55 ■ Pao. Rep. 756 (Kan. 1898). Where a creditor who is also a stockholder seeks to enforce a statutory liability, he is en- titled, not to the entire amount claimed by him as creditor, bnt only to contri- bution, and his bill in equity must be based on that theory. Cooking v. Ward, 48 S. W. Rep. 387 (Tenn. 1898). 1 But see Potter v. Stevens Machine Co., 127 Mass. 593 (1879); Savings Assoc. V. ©'Brien, 51 Hun, 45 (1889), and § al8, infra. ^Brinham v. Wellersburg Coal Co., 47 Pa. St. 43 (1864). 3 Fowler v. Robinson, 31 Me. 189 (1850). 4 Oswald V. MinneapohsTimes Co., 65 Minn. 349 (1896); Mendenhallu. Duluth, etc. Co., 73 Minn. 313 (1898). 6 Brown v. Merrill, 107 Cal. 446(1895); Knowles v. Sandercook, 107 Cal. 639 (1895). 6 In a suit in equity to enforce stock- holders' statutory liability, a plea that the decedent of one of the complain- ants was also a stockholder, and no o^er to pay his liability had been made, is not a good plea. Newberry v. Robin- son, 41 Fed. Rep. 458 (1890). In New York it seems that the assignee of a judgment may bring the suit to enforce the statutory liability, though the as- signee be a stockholder. Woodruff, etc. Iron Works v. Chittenden, 4 Bosw. 406 (1859). See also Garrett v. Sayles, 1 Fed. Rep. 371 (1880); aff'd, 110 U. S. 388; Potter V. Stevens Machine Co., 137 Mass. 593 (1879). A judgment creditor of a Kansas corporation may enforce the- statutory liability of a stockholder therein, even though the former is a stockholder himself, but he can enforce the liability only for a balance due after deducting from the claim his own liability. Brown v. Trail, 89 Fed. Rep. 641 (1898). A stockholder who has paid his statutory liability is not subrogated to the claims so paid, and hence cannot, participate in any dividends from the corporate assets. Sacramento Bank v. Pac. Bank, 134 Cal. 147 (1899). As to the purchase of claims or judgments by the stockholders, see also § 325 (e), infra. 7 King V. Armstrong, 50 Ohio St. 333- (1893). Where a stockholder is also a creditor, the court will offset his lia- bility against his claims so far as possi- ble. Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 (1896). Where by the charter the stock- holders are liable for all debts, and they buy some of the company's bonds, the remaining bonds will be paid first out outof the proceeds of foreclosure. Shaw V. Saranao, etc. Co., 78 Hun, 7 (1894): aff'd on another point in 144 N. Y. 330. The receiver cannot set off a stockhold- er's statutory liability or debts against 443 OH. XII.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 218. Stockholders in national banks are subject to a double liability. Not only that, but if at any time the capital stock of the bank be- comes diminished by losses, the comptroller of the currency may compel the stockholders to either discontinue business or assess themselves to replace the loss.' An assessment levied by stock- holders in a national bank upon themselves, in accordance with the order of the comptroller, cannot be collected by suit, inasmuch as a remedy is given by the act of Congress, such remedy being a sale of the stock itself.^ The double liability of stockholders in national banks is fixed by an order of the comptroller of the currency, and under the national bank act the comptroller of the currency has absolute authority to direct at what time, and to what extent, the stock- holders' statutory liability shall be enforced.' Successive assess- ments may be made on national bank stockholders upon the insolv- ency of the bank, not exceeding in amount the par value of the stock.^ The receiver of a national bank is the proper person to a claim by a party whose money was deposited in the stockholder's name. Fisher v. Knight, 61 Fed. Rep. 491 (1894). 1 See U. S. Rev. Stat., § 5305. Where stock in a national bank is sold on ac- count of a stockholder failing to pay the assessment levied upon it under section 5205 of the United States Re- vised Statutes, the sale is illegal unless the stock brings the amount of the as- sessment. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Fouche, 103 Ga. 851 (1898). 2 Hulitt V. Bell, 85 Fed. Rep. 89 (1898). The directors cannot assess the stock- holders and require them to pay under section 5205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Weinhard v. Com- mercial, etc. Bank, 68 Pao. Rep. 806 (Oreg. 1903). 8 King V. Armstrong, 50 Ohio St. 233 (1893). The comptroller in assessing, national bank stock need not have any previous judicial ascertainment of the necessity therefor. Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684 (1897). It is for him to determine whether, and to what ex- tent, the statutory liability of the stockholders shall be enforced. Casey V. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 (1876); Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498 (1869); Strong v. South worth, 8 Ben. 331 (1875); National Bank v. Case, 99 U. S. 628 (1878). The decision of the comptroller as to the amount of assessments on stockholders in a national bank is conclusive. De Weese v. Smith, 97 Fed. Rep. 309 (1899); Aid rich v. Campbell, 97 Fed. Rep. 663 (1899). A voluntary assessment of the stockholders by themselves does not affect or decrease this statutory liabil- ity. Delano v. Butler, 118 U. S. 634 (1886). It is no defense to an assess- ment levied by the comptroller on a stockholder in a national bank that the full amount of the asse.ssment will probably not be required to 'pay the debts. O'Connor v. Witherby, 111 Cal. 523 (1896). As to the procedure for en- forcing the liability of stockholders in a national bank, see Williamson . v. American Bank, 115 Fed. Rep. 793 (1902). gage by an insolvent stockholder in an insolvent corporation to one of the cor- porate creditors is a preference to the extent of the. stockholder's liability for corporate debts. Gatch v. Fitch, 34 Fed. Rep. 566 (1888). Ingalls v. Cole, 47 Me. 530, 541 (1860), holds that the mere 477 § 225.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. (c) Set-off. — Closely related to the defense of payment already made is the defense that the defendant stockholder has claims against the corporation, and that he is to be credited to that amount as a set-off. It has been held that, where the statute creates a fund out of which the creditors are to be paid ratably, then the stockholder cannot set oflf an indebtedness of the corporation to him. He must pay in what the statute requires, and then prove his claim against the corporation like any other creditor.' But where the stock- pendency of suits is not a defense for a stockholder in a later action, unless the prior claims have been legally es- tablished and his liability exhausted. A stockholder who has paid his statu- tory liability is not subrogated to the claims so paid and hence cannot par- ticipate in any dividends from the cor- porate assets. Sacramento Bank v. Pa- cific Bank, 124 Cal. 147 (1899;. Even though a corporate creditor has real- ized a part of his debt under the stock- holder's statutory liability, yet he may participate in the assets of the coi-pora- tion as though no part of his debt had been paid. Sacramento Bank v. Pacific Bank, 134 Cal. 147 (1899). - Even a bona fide purchaser of what purports to be full-paid stock in a corporation is liable on the double liability attached to the stock, under the New York statute, where the stock was issued for prop- erty taken at an overvaluation and no certificate of payment has been filed, as required by the statuta If, however, after the issue of the stock further sums ■of money were paid in by the stockhold- ers equal to the difference between the par value of the stock and the value of the property, the liability ceases as to subsequent creditors. White, Corbin & Co. V. Jones, 167 N. Y. 158 (1901). If the stockholders of an insolvent bank vol- untarily pay in to the assignees of the bank, for the benefit of its creditors, the amounts of their statutory liability, their liability is thereby discharged. Kil- len V. Barnes, 106 Wis. 546 (1900). Before he is actually brought into the suit a stockholder may discharge his liability 478 by paying a creditor to the amount of his liability. Munson v. Warren, 65 Pac. Rep. 323 (Kan. 1901). A stockholder may discharge Jiis liability by paying one of the debts to an amount equal to his lia- bility. Sedgwick City Bank v. Sedg- wick Milling, etc. Co., 59 Kan. 654(1898). A bona fide payment by a stockholder to a corporate creditor of an amount equal to his statutory liability is a de- fense to such liability, the payment having been made in good faith before process was served upon him. Camp- bell V. Reese, 56 Pac. Rep. 543 (Kan. 1899). This is the rule even though pay- ment was made by turning over prop- erty. Kendall v. TTnderhill, 8 Kaa App. 531 (1899). The defendant is entitled to credit for the amount of corporate debts voluntarily paid by him in good faith or paid by him on execution. Musgrave v. Glen Elder, etc. Assoc, 5 Kan. App. 393 (1897). As against the statutory liability the stockholder may set up that he has paid a note for which the company was liable and ask to have it deducted, Sargent v. Stetson, 63 N. E. Rep. 929 (Mass. 1903). Even though the president has personally given se- curity for a loan to a coiporation the lender may obtain a judgment against the corporation, and even though by agreement the security is sold and the money deposited as security for the judgment, this does not constitute pay- ment so far as the statutory liability of stockholders is concerned. Lan- caster w Knight, 74 App. Div. 355 (1903). 1 Quoted and approved in Cahill v. Original, etc. Assoc, 50 Atl. Rep. 1044 OH. XII.] STATCTORV LIABIUTT OF STOCK.HOLDEES. [§ 225. holder's liability by statute is immediate and personal and several, and any creditor may sue any stockholder, then the stockholder may set off a debt, owing to him from the corporation, when he is sued by a corporate creditor.' In a suit at law in the United States court to enforce the statutory liability of New York stock- holders in a Kansas corporation, an equitable set-off is not al- lowed under the practice of that court.* A stockholder sued on his {Md. 1902); Be Empire City Bank, 18 N. Y. 199. 327(1858); Matthews v. Al- bert, 34 Md. 527 (1866); Briggs v. Corn- well, 9 Daly (N. Y.), 436 (1881); Hobart w Gould, 8 Fed. Rep. 57 (1881); Hillier V. Allegheny Mut. Ins. Ca, 3 Pa. St. 470 (1846); Lawrence i\ Nelson. 21 N. Y. 158 <1860); Thebus v. Smiley, 110 111. 816 (1884): Witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed. Rep. 130 (1887); Ball Elect Light Co. r. Child, 68 Conn. 522 (1897^; Burgetu Robinson, 113 Fed. Rep. 669 (1903); Hale v. Calder, 113 Fed. Rep. 670 (1903); Parker v. Caro- lina Sav. Bank, 53 a C. 588 (1898). No «et-ofiE is allowed against the statutory liability where such liability is en- forced by an action at law. Laura- glenn Mills v. Ruff, 57 S. C. 53 (1900). See also Clapp v. Wright, 31 Hun, 340 (1880); Buchanan v. Meisser. 105 111. 638 (1883). A holder of stock in a national bank is not entitled to offset against an assessment ordered by the comptroller upon his stock the amount of bis de- posits at the time the bank became in- solvent Wingate v. Orchard, 75 Fed. Eepk 341 (1896); First Nat Bank v. Rig- gins, 32 a R Rep. 801 (N. C. 1899). 'Quoted and approved in Fidelity, «ta Ca V. Mechanics' Sav. Bank, 97 Fed. Repk 297 (1899); Mathez v. Neidig, 73 N. Y. 100 (1878); Agate v. Sands, 73 N. Y. 630 (1878); Christensen v. Colby, 43 Hun, 362 (1887); Tallmadge v. Fish- kill Iron Ca, 4 Barb. 383 (1848); Boyd v. Hall, 56 Ga. 563 (1876); Hood v. French, 37 Fla. 117 (1896); Remington v. King, 11 Abb. Pr. 278 (1858); Pierce v. Topeka, «taCa,60 Kan. 164 (1899); KendaU u Un- derbill, 8 Kan. App. 531 (1899). Where the stockholder offsets a debt due from him to the corporation he may be compelled to assign to the judgment creditor who has brought suit against him the debt so offset against the statutory liability. Van Pelt v. Strickland, 60 Kan. 584 (1899). A stockholder may offset a debt due to him from the corporation, and may also show that the plaintiff has collected his claim in whole or in part from other stockholders. Ball v. Anderson, 196 Pa. St. 86 (1900). Where the supreme court of the state in which the compan3' is incorporated holds that a stockholder may set off against his statutory liability a debt due to him from the corporation, the courts of other states will follow this decision in enforcing a statutory liability arising in that stata Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Me- chanics' Sav. Bank, 97 Fed. Rep. 297 (1899). "The courts of New York, Penn- sylvania, Georgia, Missouri, Florida and Kansas hold the doctrine that the stockholder is entitled to the equitable set-off, while, on the other hand, the courts of Virginia, West Virginia, Illi- nois and some other states assert the very opposite doctrine." Cahill v. Original, etc. Assoc, 50 Atl. Rep. 1044 (Md. 1902), allowing set-off. Cf. Wheeler V. MiUar, 90 N. Y. 353, 363 (1883). Where a stockholder is liable by statute and is also a creditor of the insolvent cor- poration, the court will order a set-off. Sowles V. Witters, 40 Fed. Rep. 413 (1889). Cf. s. C, 39 Fed. Rep. 403. See also Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa, 460 (1889), and a criticism on this case in § 193, n., supra. The defendant may set off a corporate indebtedness due to himself. Musgrave v. Glen Elder, eta Assoa, 6 Kan. App. 893 (1897). 2 Piatt V. Larter, 94 Fed. Rep. 610 (1899). A stockholder's claim against 479 § 225.] STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES [CH. XII. statutory liability cannot offset judgments which he has purchased against the corporation, except to the extent of the amount that he paid for them.^ ((Z) Interest. — A stockholder is not liable for interest on the amount for which the statute makes him answerable, and when he -pays the principal sum the whole liability is discharged;^ but where he contests the liability and suit is brought, interest on the amount of the corporation should not be set up as a counter-claim, but should be filed in response to the notice to file claims. A guaranty for the corporation which has been liquidated by the stockholder giving his own note is not a good claim against the corporation on his part, un- less he has paid such note. Helm v. Smith-Fee Ca, 76 Minn. 328 (1899). 1 A stockholder cannot himself buy in claims at a discount, and then set them off at their face value in an ac- tion to enforce his statutory liability to creditors. Gauch v. Harrison, 13 111. App. 457 (1883). See also Thompson v. Meisser, 108 111. 359 (1884); Diven v. Phelps, 34 Barb. 234 (1861). Set-off by a purchased judgment was allowed in American, etc. Go. v. Brower, 32 S. Rep. 906 (Miss. 1902). A stockholder can de- feat his statutory liability by offsetting judgments against the corporation, pur- chased by himself, but only to the ex- tent that he paid for the judgments. Lingle v: National Ins. Co., 45 Mo. 109 (1869)'; Holland v. Heyman, 60 Ga. 174 (1878). Payment of judgments at a discount is no exhaustion of the lia- bility, though the judgments at full value would have exhausted it. Kun- kelman v. Rentohler, 15 111. App. 271 (1884). The stockholder cannot pur- chase claims against the corporation at a discount and set them off, but can set them off for the amount paid by him for them, even though they are purchased in an agent's name. Abbey V. Long, 44 Kan. 688 (1890). A stock- holder who is also a director and is sued on his statutoi'y liability as a stockholder cannot set off a judgment against the insolvent company, which judgment he purchased for a nominal sum. Bulkley v. Whitcomb, 131 N. Y. 107 (1890). The' stockholder's right to set off his claim against the corpora- tion in defense to an action against him to enforce his statutory liability may sometimes be a matter of bona fides. Boyd v. Hall, 56 Ga. 563 (1876) Belcher v. "Wilcox, 40 Ga. 391 (1869) Thompson v. Meisser, 108 111. 359 (1884) Buchanan v. Meisser, 105 111. 638 (1883); Welles v. Stout, 38 Fed. Rep. 807 (1889). A stockholder may set off obligations of the corporation which he purchased before it became insolvent, but not after it became insolvent. Broadway, eta Bank ?'. Baker, 176 Mass. 394 (1900). A set-off is good only in case a stockholder owned the set-off at the time of the commencement of the suit. In case the stockholder pur- chased a claim after the insolvency of the corporation he may set off only the amount he paid for the claim. Brown V. Trail, 89 Fed. Rep. 641 (1898). For cases where the stockholder brings ac- tion as a corporate creditor, see g§ 193, 198, 218, supra. 2 Mungerw. Jacobson,99 111. 349 (1881); Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Blake, 3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 225 (1849); Cole v. Butler, 43 Ma 401 (1857). See Grand Rapids Sav. Bank v. Warren, 53 Mich. 557 (1884); Cleveland v. Burnham, 64 Wis. 847 (1885); Mathis v. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58 (1892). Interest on the judg- ment against the corporation may be recovered from the stockholders. Whit- man V. Citizens' Bank, 110 Fed. Rep. 508 (1901). Interest on the debt may be recovered. Zang v. Wyant, 35 Colo. 551 (1898). See 54 Atl. Rep. 453. 480 CH. XII.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [§ 225. his liability is collectible from the time the suit to enforce is com- menced.^ (e) Costs. — Where it is a condition precedent to the action against the stockholder that a judgment be recovered against the corporation, it would seem proper that the stockholder's statutory liability should apply to the entire judgment, including the costs of obtaining that judgment, provided, of course, the limit of his liability is not passed. There are decisions to the effect that a judgment against the stockholder does not include any part of the costs of the proceeding against the corporation,'' but the weight of authority and argument is to the contrary.' 1 Handy v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 334 (1882); Burr V. Wilcox, 23 N. Y. 551 (1860). To same effect, Mason v. Alexander, 44 Ohio St. 318 (1886). Of. Casey v. Galli, 94 U. a 673 (1876); Richmond v. Irons, 131 U. S. 37 (1887). Where a referee computed the interest on the plaintifiE's claim from the date on which it be- came due from the company instead of from the day the suit against the stock- holder was commenced, it appearing that the indebtedness was less than the amount of the stockholder's liability, and that the allowance of interest did not swell it beyond that limit, the court of appeals held such a computation no error. Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353, 363 (1882). Interest on the judgment is allowed in a suit to enforce a stock- holder's liability. Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 (1888). Interest is allowed from the day when the referee ascertains and reports the debts of the corporation. National Com. Bank v. McDonnell, 93 Ala. 387 (1891). Interest on a stock- holder's liability will be allowed from the commencement of the action. Pine V. Western, etc. Bank, 63 Kan. 463 (1901). Interest should be allowed from the date of the commencement of suit against the stockholder. Senn v. Levy, 63 S. W. Rep. 776 (Ky. 1901). Interest is allowed on the stockholder's liability from the time that judgment is ren- dered against him. Palmer v. Bank, etc., 72 Minn. 266 (1898). Interest is not allowed on the par value of the stock. Mahoney v. Bernhard, 45 N. Y. App. Div. 499 (1899). The statutory liability on national bank stock bears interest from the date of the assessment by the comptroller. Davis' Estate v. Watkins, 56 Neb. 288 (1898). 2 Bailey v. Bancker, 3 Hill, 188 (1842); Richmond v. Irons, 131 U. S. 37 (1887); Eorke v. Thomas, 56 N. Y. 559, 565 (1874); Miller v. White, 50 N. Y. 137 (1873). Of. Veeder v. Mudgett, 37 Hun, 519 (1882). ' Grand Rapids Sav. Bank v. Warren, 52 Mich. 557 (1884), a case where the judgment is held to be conclusive as against the stockholder. A judgment for costs against a corporation may be enforced against the director's statu- tory liability. Allen v. Clark, 108 N. Y. 269 (1888). Costs may be collected against stockholders in suits to enforce this liability. Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat Bank, 36 Fed. Rep. 843 (1888), hold- ing that a creditor enforcing the stock- holders' liability in behalf of himself and other creditors may have his costs. The receiver's expenses may also be 'recovered, except that the statutory liability shall not be exceeded. Harper V. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 (1896). Where the creditor sues the corporation first without being obliged so to do, and then sues the director on his statutory liability, the director cannot be held for the costs included in the judgment against the 'corporation, the suit against the corporation being unnecessary. Green v. Easton, 74 Hun, 329 (1893). The attorney of a creditor who inter- (31) 481 § 225.J STATUTOEr LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [CH. XII. (/) Statute of limitations. — Where the liability of the stock- holder is immediate and primary, and not contingent on the ob- taining of a judgment against the corporation, it is clear that the statute of limitations begins to run in favorof the stockholder when the debt matures against the corporation.' venes in order to enforce a stockhold- er's liability and then settles is not en- titled to payment of his fees out of the funds in the hands of the receiver. Dwinellw. Badger, 74 Minn. 405(1898). A creditor who prosecutes a suit to en- force the liability is entitled to reim- bursement for his reasonable expenses out of the sum realized. Helm v. Smith- Fee Co., 79 Minn. 297 (1900). The costs of the judgment against the corpora- tion may be included in the amount collected from the directors for failure to file a report as required by statute, the statute making them liable for all debts. Matty v. Sampson, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 1 (1901). ' Quoted and approved in Boyd v. Mutual Fire Assoc, 90 N. W. Eep. 1086 (Wis. 1903); Davidsons Rankin, 34 Cal. 503 (1868); Lindsay u Hyatt, 4 Ed w. Ch. (N. Y.) 97 (1843); Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171 (1877); Conklin v. Furman, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 161 (1865); Sohalucky v. Field, 124 ill. 617 (1888). Compare Carrol V. Green, 93 U. S. 509 ( 1875) ; Terry v. Tub- man, 93 U. S. 1 56 (1875) ; Terry v. McLure, 103 XT. S. 443 (1880); Corning v. McCul- lough, 1 N. Y. 47 (1847); Jagger Iron Co. V. Walker, 76 N. Y. 521 (1879). See also Terry v. Calnan, 13 S. C. 320 (1879); Lawler v. Burt, 7 Ohio St. 340 (1857); King V. Duncan, 38 Hun, 461 (1886); Stilphen v. Ware, 45 Cal. 110 (1873), holding that, under the California statute of limitations, the three years begin to run from the time tbe debt was due, and is not extended by a judg- ment obtained against the corporation. The statute of limitations begins to run against a bank stockholder's statutory liability from the closing of the doors of the bank. It begins to run against the oorporatioQ and stockholders at the same time. Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal. 117 (1883). Where the statute of limitations runs from the creation of the liability, it commences when a note is given and not when it becomes due. Hunt V. Ward, 99 Cal. 613(1893). Where the suit against the stockholders must be brought within three years after the liability is created, the date of a note governs. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Pacific, etc. Co., 103 Cal. 594 (1894). The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the payment by a surety for a corporate debt and not from the date of the original obliga- tion. Eyiand v. Commercial, etc. Bank, 127 Cal. 525 (1900). The state statute of limitations as to executors and estates will be applied by the federal courts to suits by a receiver for the enforcement of a stockholder's liability in a national bank. Butler v. Poole, 44 Fed. Rep. 586 (1890); J'he stockholder's statutory lia- bility dates from and is based upon the original debt created by the corpora- tion and not from or upon the judg- ment against the corporation. New- berry V. Robinson, 41 Fed. Eep. 458 (1890). The statute of limitations be- gins to run under the Kansas statute a year after the company sxispends busi- ness. First, etc. Bank v. King, 60 Kan. 733 (1899). Where a stockholder's statu- tory liability is practically that of a surety, the statute of limitations begins to run in behalf of the stockholders when it begins to run in behalf of the corporation. Pacific, etc. Co. v. Whit- beck, 63 Kan. 103 (1901). A statutory liability of directors for debts in excess of a certain amount attaches when such a debt is incurred, and the statute of limitations then begins to run. Such liability exists although the creditor knew that his debt was in excess of the statutory limit. Swan v. Burnham, 49 483 CH. XII.j STATDTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 225. But when the creditor must first obtain a judgment against the corporation and sue out an execution, which must be duly returned wholly or partially unsatisfied before the cause of action arises against the stockholder on his statutory liability, then the statute of limitations commences to run upon the return of the execution.' Atl. Rep. 93 (N. H. 1901). An action based on the notes is not on the debt for which the notes were givea Grif- fith V. Green, 13 N. Y. Supp. 470 (1891). The statute of limitations under the Ohio law begins to run against the stockholder's liability from the time when the corporation makes an assign- ment for the benejfit of creditors, even though no judgment has been obtained by the creditor. Barrick v. Gilford, 47 Ohio St. 180 (1890). The statute of lim- itations does not begin to run until the execution is returned unsatisfied or the corporate property is put in process of application to the payment of the cor- porate debts, as upon dissolution, or bankruptcy, or appointment of a re- ceiver, or assignment for the benefit of creditors. Bronson v. Schneider, 49 Ohio St. 438 (1893); King v. Armstrong, 50 Ohio St. 233 (1893); Younglove v. Lime Co., 49 Ohio St. 663 (1893), the lat- ter case holding also that the appoint- ment of a receiver for the purpose of carrying on the business did not set the statute running. In a suit by one cred- itor for the benefit of all, other credit- ors may come in, although the statute of limitations would be a bar against a sep- arate suit by them. Barrick v. Giflord, 47 Ohio St. 180 (1890). See also §§ 333, 325 (a), supra, and § 359, notes, infra. 1 Handy v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 334 (1882); Merritt v. Reid, 13 N. Y. Week. Dig. 453 (1883); Longley v. Little, 26 Me. 163 (1846). The statute of limitations does not begin to run against the claim un- til the return of the execution unsatis- fied in Kansaa Bank of North Amer- ica V. Rindge, 57 Fed. Rep. 279 (1893). In Terry v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156 (1875), where the charter of a bank contained a provision making the stockholders individually liable for the ultimate re- demption of its bills, the liability of the stockholders was held to arise, and hence the statute of limitations to commence to run in their favor, upon the open and notorious insolvency of the bank. So, likewise, where stock- holders were made individually liable " upon the failure of the bank," it was held that, the liability arising upon the failure, the statute of limitations began to run at that time. Carroll v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, 511 (1875). To the same effect is Baker v. Atlas Bank, 50 Mass. 182 (1845); Terry v. McLure, 103 U. S. 443 (1880); Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171 (1877). The case of Terry v. An- derson, 95 U. S. 638 (1877), sustains the constitutionality of a statute shorten- ing the statute of limitations herein. The case Re Bank of Sing Sing, 32 Hun, 463 (1884); affirmed in 96 N. Y. 673, held that twenty years' delay by receiver in making report bars any assessment on stockholders. A statute of limitations running from the time of dissolution of the company is not set running by corporate insolvency and cessation of business. Sleeper v. Goodwin, 67 Wis. 577 (1887). Of. § 195, supra. The stat- ute of limitations begins to run only from the time when the creditor's right to sue the stockholders begins. Mc- Donell V. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401(1888); Powell v. Oregonian Ry., 38 Fed. Rep. 187 (1889). The statute of limitations runs from dissolution' even though judgment against the corpora- tion is obtained subsequently. Cottrell V. Manlove, 58 Kan. 405 (1897). As to the statute of limitations, see also 28 Am. L. Reg. 518. Where the statute of limitations begins to run from the time when an execution is issued against the corporation, it begins to run when such execution could have been issued. 483 225.] STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [oh. XII, As to national banks, the statute of limitations does not run against the statutory liability of a stockholder until the comptroller has levied the assessment.^ The liability of a citizen of Nebraska as a stockholder in a national bank located in Nebraska is barred by the four-years statute of limitations of Nebraska applicable to con- tracts not in writing and to a liability created by statute.^ Where suit is brought in one state to enforce the statutory liabil- ity of stockholders in a corporation organized in another state, the siatute of limitations of the state wherein suit is brought applies,' un- Fox V. First, etc. Bank, 9 Kan. App. 18 (1899). The statutory liability of stock- holders in manufacturing corporations in Bhode Island is contractual, and the statute of limitations applicable to penalties does not apply. Such statute begins to run only after a creditor has exhausted his remedy against the cor- poration. A distribution of the cor- porate assets by a committee of the stockholders does not start the statute of limitations running afresh. Kilton V. Providence, etc. Co., 32 R. L 605 (1901). 1 De Weese v. Smith, 97 Fed. Eep. 309 (1899); Aldrioh v. Yates, 95 Fed. Rep. 78 (1899). 2 McDonald v. Thompson, 184 U. S. 71 (1903), aff'g 101 Fed. Rep. 183 (1900). A state statute of limitations relative to unwritten contracts applies to a stock- holder's statutory liability in a national bank. Aldrioh v. McClaine, 106 Fed. Rep. 791 (1901). The liability of a stockholder in a national bank is gov- erned by the statute of limitations in the state where suit is brought, and such right does not accrue until the receiver is authorized to bring suit by the receiver fixing the time of payment and the expiration of such time. Such a liability is not contractual, but is created by law, and hence a statute specially applicable to causes of action created by law applies. Aldrioh v. Skinner, 98 I'ed. Rep. 375 (1899); Aid- rich V. McClaine, 98 Fed. Rep. 378 (1899). 3 The statute of limitations of the state wherein the suit is brought may be applied to the statutory liability of stockholders in a Kansas corporation,. Schiffer w Trustees, 87 Fed. Rep. 166 (1898). In a suit in New York to en- force the statutory liability of a New York stockholder in a Kansas corpora- tion the New York three-years statute of limitations applies. Seattle, etc. Bank v. Pratt, 111 Fed. Rep. 841 (1901). The New York three-years statute of limitations relative to the statutory liability of stockholders in certain cor- porations applies to a suit brought in the United States circuit court, in the New York district, to enforce the stat- utory liability of a citizen of New York in a Kansas mortgage company. Hobbs p. National Bank, etc., 96 Fed. Rep. 896 (1899). In the enforcement of a Kansas liability against a New York stock- holder the New York statute of limita- tions of two years, applicable to stock- holders' liability in New York corpora- tions, does not apply. Piatt v. Larter, 94 Fed. Rep. 610 (1899). Where there is no special statute of limitations ap- plicable to a statutory liability the law of the forum governs. Whitman «. Citizens' Bank, 110 Fed. Rep. 503 (1901). In the case of Dexter v. Edmands, 89 Fed. Rep. 467 (1898), the court enforced in Massachusetts the Kansas liability, and held that the judgment returnedun- satisfled in Kansas was suflBoient in Mas- sachusetts, and held also that the statute of limitations in Massachusetts, and not the statute of limitations in Kansas, ap- plied to such a suit in Massachusetts. In a suit to enforce in Maryland the statutory liability of a stockholder in a. 484 CH, XII.J STATUTORY LIABILITT OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 225. less there was a special statute applicable to that liability in the state that created it.' It is a general rule of law that the" statute of limitations applicable to any ordinary action to enforce a con- tract is the one applicable to the action to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders in incorporated companies.^ Accordingly, the suit must usually be commenced within six years after the cause of action has accrued.' Where suit may be brought against a stockholder at any time after the corporation Georgia corporation the Maryland stat- ute of limitations does not apply if the ■charter creating liability prescribed a different statute of limitations. Bruns- wick, etc. Co. V. National Bank, etc., 99 Fed. Rep. 635 (1900), rev'g 88 Fed. Rep. 607. In a suit in the federal court in New York state to enforce the statu- tory liability of a New York stock- holder in a Kansas corporation, the New York statute of limitations appli- cable to a statutory liability applies. Piatt V. Hungerford, 116 Fed. Rep. 771 <1902). See also § 233, notes, supra. 1 The Kansas statutory liability is contractual, and hence may be enforced in Maine against a Maine stockholder without joining other stockholders as parties defendant in the suit. If the Kansas statute creating the liability prescribes a special limitation as an en- forcement, such limitation applies in Maine, but the general statute of limit- ations of Kansas is not applicable. Pul- sifer V. Greene, 53 Atl. Rep. 931 (Me. 1903). ' 2 Green v. Beckman, 59 Gal. 545 (1881); Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 47 (1847); Wiles v. Suydam, 64 N. Y. 173, 176 (1876); Baker v. Atlas Bank,, .50 Mass. 183 (1845); Commonwealth v. Cochituate Bank, 85 Mass. 43 (1861); N. Y. Code Civ. Proc, g 383. The ten-years statute of limitations applies in Illinois on certificates of deposit or bank pass- books. Palmer v. Woods, 149 111. 146 <1894). The liability of an Illinois stock- holder in a Kansas corporation for the debts of the corporation begins to run from the time he became a stockholder and expires in five years. Hutchings V. Lampson, 83 Fed. Kep. 960 (1897). ' See citations in the preceding note; also Phillips v. Therasson, 11 Hun, 141 (1877), holding that where by statute the capital must be paid in within two years upon pain of dissolution, and im- poses liability upon stockholders for the debts of the corporation until the capital is fully paid, the statute of limitations begins to run at the expira- tion of the two years allowed for pay- ing the capital. Under the New York Manufacturing Act relative to the two- years statute of limitations to a stock- holder's statutory liability, it begins to run upon the dissolution of the corpo- ration. The creditor must sue within that time. Hollingshead v. Woodward, 107 N. Y. 96 (1887); King v. Duncan, 38 Hun, 461 (1886), holding that under that statute the creditor is not required to delay his suit until the two years has expired; Knox v. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610 (1880); Hawkins v. Furnace Co., 40 Ohio St. 507 (1884). In South Carolina, under the statute of limitations in that state, such an action must be begun within four years. Carrol v. Green, 93 U. S. 509 (1875); Terry v. McLure, 103 U. S. 442 (1880). In some of the older cases it is held that an obligation, such as this, 'to pay money, arising under a statute, is a debt by specialty, and ac- cordingly that it is barred only by a lapse of twenty years. Bullard v. Bell, I Mafeon, 348, 289 (1817, by Judge Story); S. c, 4 Fed. Cas. 635; Thornton v. Lane, II Ga. 459 (1852); Lane v. Morris, 10 Ga. 162 (1851). But see this view condemned in Carrol v. Green, 92 U. S. 509, 515 (1875), in an opinion by Justice Swayne, construing the South Carolina statute of 1712. Cf. Green v. Beckman, 59 CaL 485 § 225.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. has been adjudged insolvent, the statute of limitation commences to run from that date.' Where the transferrer is liable for one year after a transfer, this liability applies only to debts created be- fore the transfer. An action to enforce a liability against him may be brought within six years after the debt against the corporation matures.^ The giving of renewal notes by the corporation does not operate to prevent the running of the statutory limitation upon stockholders' liability for the original indebtedness.' It has been held that the stockholder will not be allowed to intervene in the suit against the corporation, in order to set up the defense of the statute of limitations.* If a statutory liability be held to be a penalty, then of course it will be held to come within that provision of the statute of limita- tions which provides for actions to enforce penalties.* 545 (1881), construing Cal. Code Civ. Proa, g 359; Andrews v. Bacon, 38 Fed. Rep. 777 (1889). Sometimes there is a provision that the action must have been commenced by the creditor against the corporation within a given limited time after the maturity of the debt, in order to hold the stockholder on his statutory liability. Shillington V. Howland, 53 N. Y. 371 (1873); Bir- mingham Nat. Bank v. Mosser, 14 Hun, 605 (1878); Lindsley v. Simonds, 2 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 69 (1866). Cf. State Sav. Assoc. V. Kellogg, 53 Mo. 58a (1873). See also Freeland v. McCuUough, 1 Denio, 414, 423 (1845); Merchants' Bank v. Bliss, 21 How. Pr. 366 (1861); aff'd, 35 N. Y. 412 (1866); Lewis v. Ryder, 13 Abb. Pr. 1 (1861); Cuykendall v. Douglas, 19 Hun, 577 (1880); Moore v. Boyd, 74 Cal. 167 (1887). Frequently, also, there is a limitation applicable particularly to transfers of stock. Paine v. Stewart, 33 Conn. 516 (1883). In this case a stat- ute of Minnesota imposing liability upon stockholders while they were such, and for one year thereafter, was held, in an action in Connecticut, not to be operative against one who had not been a stockholder for more than a year before the action was brought. In New York this limitation is two years. See Handy v. Draper, 89 N. Y. 834 (1883), and ch. XV, infra. See also Sohififer v. Trustees, 87 Fed. Rep. 166 (1898). 1 Hilliker v. Hale, 117 Fed. Rep. 220 (1902). Under the Minnesota statute, the statute of limitations does not begin to run in behalf of stockholders until the court has adjudicated the de- ficiency to be paid by the stockholders. Hale V. Cushman, 51 Atl. Rep. 874 (Me. 1903). ^ Harper v. Carroll, 62 Minn. 152 (1895). If the creditor's claim is not baiTed at the time he commences suit against the corporation it is not barred as against stockholders who were subse- quently assessed to pay his judgment. Potts V. St, Paul, etc. Assoc, 84 Minn. 217 (1901\ 'Close V. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145 (1898). See also § 225 (a), supra. * Stockholders will not be allowed to intervene in a suit brought by a creditor against the corporation itself, even though they wish to set up the statute of limitations, and even though the directors had directed the company's lawyer to admit the allegations of the complaint, and even though the com- pany is insolvent, and the stockholders are liable on the stock, no fraud being shown. Meyer v. Bristol, etc. Co.. 163 Mo. 59 (1901). Cf. % 750, infra. 5 As to whether the liability is a pen- alty, see § 223, mpra. An action against 486 CH. XII.] STATDTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 225. The statute of limitations ceases to run upen the commencement of a judgment creditor's suit, at least as against creditors who after- wards come into that suit.^ But a receiver of an insolvent bank has no right to continue a suit brought by a creditor to enforce the statu- tory liability of stockholders where such creditor has made a settle- ment and agreed to discontinue the suit, even though the receiver was a party to the action and even though b}' such discontinuance the statute of limitations is a bar to other suits.^ In general, whatever the statute may be, it is the rule that a lapse of time sufficient to constitute a bar at law will in equity be given the same effect; in other words, in these cases there is the same statute of limitations both at law and in equity.' The legislature cannot, after a statutory liability has been incurred, extend the period of the statute of limitations applicable to it.* A statute shortening the statute of limitations applicable to the common-law liability of a director in a national bank for vio- lating the national bank act is in tort, being an action on the case, and the state statute of limitations applies. Cockrill V. Butler, 78 Fed. Rep. 679 (1897). Where the directors default for two successive years in filing a required report, a liability therefor on a claim existing before the first default arises the first year, and the statute runs against it from that tima Colorado, etc. Co. V. Lenhart, 6 Colo. App. 511 (1895). 1 Richmond^ Irons, 121 U. S. 27 (1887); Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 99 N. Y. 185, 194 (1885); Barrick v. GiflEord, 47 Ohio St. 180 (1890). Even though the receiver does not file a bill to enforce the statu- tory liability until more than six years after his appointment, yet the statute of limitations may not be a bar. Andrews v. Bacon, 38 Fed. Rep. 777 (1889). After one creditor has filed a bill for a receiver and to collect unpaid subscriptions, etc., the statute of limita- tions ceases to run from that date as against other creditors who subse- quently come into the suit. Dunne v. Portland, etc. Ry., 65 Pac. Rep. 1052 (Oreg. 1901). The state statute of limita- tions runs against the stockholder's lia- bility in a national bank from the day when the assessment levied by the comptroller becomes payable, and this statute is a bar both in law and in equity. Thompson v. German Ins. Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 892 (1896). 2Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, 157 N. Y. 166 (1898). As to discontinuance of a suit after the statute of limitations has run against other creditors, see also g§ 222, 748. 'Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson, 24 Wend. 473 (1840); Carrol v. Green, 92 U. S. 509 (1875); Baker v. Atlas Bank, 50 Mass. 182 (1845); Lindsay v. Hyatt, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 97 (1842); Van Hook V. Whitlock, 3 Paige, 409 (1882); Com- monwealth V. Cochituate Bank, 85 Mass. 42 (1861); Terry v. McLure, 103 IT. S. 442 (1880). When the statute pre- scribes the limitation, there is of course no controversy. Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 79 (1863). Laches is no defense. Sad- ler V. Nicholson, 26 S. E. Rep. 893 (S. C. 1897). The statute of limitations appli- cable to a suit at law applies to a suit in equity to enforce the liability. Hale V. Coffin, 114 Fed. Rep. 567 (1902). 4 Close V. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145 (1898). The liability of stockholders created by the constitution in California may be made subject to a three-years statute of limitations. Santa Rosa, etc. Bank V. Barnett, 125 Cal. 407 (1899). 487 225.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEBS. [CH. XIL directors is unconstitutional as to existing liabilities if the short- ened period does not give a reasonable time after it takes effect for the commencement of suits on existing causes of action.^ A stockholder may waive the defense of the statute of limitations.^ (g) Other defenses. — The liability of solvent stockholders is not extended beyond the limit fixed by statute, even though other stockholders are insolvent.' A petition in bankruptcy by a stock- holder is no bar to the enforcement of his liability, unless the cor- porate creditor was a party to the bankruptcy proceeding.* The admissions of one stockholder cannot bind another stockholder herein.* Various other defenses are considered in the notes below.' 1 Gilbert v. Aokerman, 159 N. Y. 118 (1899). 2 The agreement of the president of a bank who has had entire charge of the bank, that if a creditor will not sue for six months to enforce the liability of the bank as a stockholder the bank will not set up the statute of limita- tions, is legal. Wells, etc. Co. v. En- right, 127 Cal. 669 (1900). An executor has no power to waive a short statute of limitations applicable to the statu- tory liability on stock in a Kansas cor- poration. Stebbins v. Scott, 173 Mass. 356 (1899). 'Crease v. Babcock, 51 Mass.' 535 (1846). See also, under the National Bank Act, United States v. Knox, 108 U. S. 432 (1880). 4 Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Mosser, 14 Hun, 605 (1878). Of. % 197, notes, supra. 5 Simmons v. Sisson, 26 N. Y. 364 (1863). 6 The court will not authorize the re- ceiver of a national bank to compro- mise with the stockholders on their liability, even though more can be re- alized thereby, the stockholders having fraudulently conveyed away their prop- erty in order to avoid liability. Re Cali- fornia Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. Rep. 38 (1892). The defendant cannot set up that he intended his subscription as a gift, where he received and retained the certificate. McDowall v. Sheehan, 13 N. Y. Supp. 386 (1891) (reversed on an- other point, 129 N. Y. 200). Under the 488 California statute it seems that a mere subscriber for stock is not liable where he did not fulfill the subscription Bank of Yolo v. Weaver, 31 Pac, Rep 160 (Cal. 1892). It is no defense that the stockholder was fraudulently in- duced by another party to purchase his stock from that party. Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267 (1897). Where the judgment against stockholders on their statutory liability states the amount of stock held by each, the enforcement of such judgment cannot be carried out so as to impose upon any stockholder more than on the amount of stock held by him as specified in such judgment Baltimore, etc. R R. u Smith, 54 Ohio St. 563 (1896). Fraud in the purchase of the stock is no defense. See § 261, infra. A de facto director cannot de- fend against a statutory liability of di- rectors on the ground that he did not hold sufiicient stock to qualify .himself to be a director. Donnelly v. Pancoast, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 323 (1897). In assess- ing stock to raise a fixed amount of money, no assessment is levied upon stock held by the corporation itself. Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). A stock- holder cannot avoid a statutory liabil- ity on the ground that the stock was given to him for nothing by the corpo- ration. Hallett V. Metropolitan, etc. Co., 85 N. Y. Miso. Rep. 659 (1901). It is no defense that the creditor is se- cured by a mortgage. Knowles v. San- dercock, 107 Cal. 639 (1895). In Teiines- CH. XII.] STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 225. In a suit at law brought by the receiver of a national bank against a stooliholder on his statutory liability, he cannot set up fraud on the part of the bank in inducing him to subscribe. That defense, if good ' at all, is available only by a suit in equity. Neither can the defendant set up a counter-claim for the money so paid by him for the stock.' Where a guaranty by a loan and trust company is ultra vires, the statutory liability of stockholders cannot be enforced to pay such guaranty, even though the courts of the state where the corporation existed have held that ultra vires is no defense where the benefit •of the guaranty has been received.^ see a corporate creditor having secu- rity for his debt cannot enforce the stockholder's statutory liability. Al- bitztiqui v. Guadalupe, etc. Co., 93 Tenn. 598 (1893). Where the stockhold- ers personally guaranty the debts of the corporation, they are liable on the guaranty and also on any statutory lia- bility attached to their stock. Lo»don, •etc. Bank v. Parrott, 135 Cal. 472 (1899). An agreement by the stockholders of An insolvent bank that they will pay to the bank certain amounts to make' good any deficiency in the assets of the bank, such payments to be applied on their statutory liability, is valid and may be enforced by the receiver. Thompson v. Gross, 106 Wis. 34 (1900). A stockholder in an insolvent national bank cannot defend against the double liability on the ground that the origi- nal stock -wsls not fully paid. Wallace V. Hood, 89 Fed. Rep. 11 (1898). A holder ■of over-issued stock is not liable on the statutory liability. Lyon v. Boston, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. Rep. 386 (1901). The charter of a stock corporation organ- ized under the general act in Minne- sota may limit the stockholders to Nor- wegians: but if the corporation allows ■other persons to become members, such other persons cannot avoid the statu- tory liability by that defense. Blien v. Rand, 77 Minn. 110 (1899). Even though two persons signed the articles of in- corporation as incorporators and as subscribers of stock, on condition that 'the articles would not be used unless a 489 certain other party signed, and even though the latter party did not sign and the articles were filed and the stock subsequently tendered to such signers, which they refused, yet, if they took no steps to remove their names as subscribers from the books, they are liable as stockholders to cor- porate creditors on a statutory liabil- ity. Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wis. 136 (1901). iLantry v. Wallace, 183 U. S. 536 (1901). See also §§ 163, 164. supra. 2 A New Hampshire stockholder in a Kansas corporation may defend against a statutory liability on the stock on the ground that the plaintiff's claim against the corporation is an ultra vires guar- antee, even though the state court may have decided such guaranty to be valid. Ward V. Joslin, 186 U. S. 143 (1903), aff'g 100 Fed. Rep. 676. Where the stock- holders have not authorized the issue of bonds as required by statute, the statutory liability of the stockholders cannot be enforced to pay such bonds. Boyd V. Heron, 135 Cal. 458 (1899). The statutory liability of stockholders in a Kansas corporation does not apply to a guarantee made by the ofBcers of the corporation without authority and without the knowledge of the stock- holders. Ward V. Joslin, 100 Fed. Rep. 676 (1 900). It is no defense that the cor- poration had committed an ultra vires act in buying out another corporation ; nor that other stockholders had not paid for their stock in full, such unpaid portion being insufficient to pay the § 225.] STATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. Where a corporate creditor agrees with some of the stockholders that a judgment obtained in a suit against contesting stockholders shall be a judgment as to stockholders not contesting, a judgment of the supreme court holding the stockholders not liable is within the terms of such agreement, although the lower court held the stockholders liable.' The invalidity of the incorporation is no defense.' A holder of increased capital stock of a national bank cannot de- feat the statutory liability on the ground that the increase was irregularly made and was fraudulently made, in that the directors issued it to themselves without paying therefor.' A director who acts as such cannot defend against his statutory liability on the ground that he was irregularly elected.* Where by statute a receiver may compromise doubtful debts upon the approval of the court, he may compromise the statutory liability of stockholders.* debts; nor that no certificates of stock had been issued. Mitchell u Beckman, 64-CaI. 117(1883); 120 Fed. Rep. 203. 1 Perry v. Johnston, 95 Fed. Rep. 323 (1899). 2 Davis' Estate v. Watkins, 56 Neb. 888 (1898). It is no defense that the corpo- ration commenced business before one- half of its capital stock had been paid in according to the charter. Maine, etc. Co. V. Southern, etc. Co., 93 Me. 444 (1899). Stockholders of a corpoi'ation cannot avoid a statutory liability on the ground that the charter was unconsti- tutional, such charter being an act of consolidation. Gardner v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 73 Minn. 517 (1898). Stock- holders cannot set up that their corpo- ration was not authorized by law. Mc- Donnell V. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401 (1888); National Com. Bank v. McDonnell, 93 Ala. 387 (1891). A corpo- ration is not liable on a contract of its promoters to pay for drawings, plans, etc. Hence, although by statute stock- holders are personally liable on corpo- rate contracts if the corporation com- mences business before one-half of its capital is subscribed and twenty per cent, is paid in, they are not liable on such a contract. BufBngton v. Bardon, 80 Wis. 635 (1891). See also §§ 183-186^ supra. ^Lltiraer v. Bard, 76 Fed. Rep. 536 (1896). Increased capital stock is legal, although it was issued to a person wha was treasurer of a city and paid for the stock out of the city funds, the corpo- ration not knowing thereof. Olson v. State Bank, 67 Minn. 367 (1897). A per- son who subscribes for increased capital stock, but receives original stock and holds it for several years, cannot then avoid an assessment levied thereon by the comptrollei'. Rand v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. Rep. 530 (1898). * Union, etc. Bank v. Scott, 53 N. "S. App. Div. 65 (1900). A hold-over director is liable on a statutory liability, and the fact that he was a director may be proved by the corporate books. St George, etc. Co. v. Fritz, 48 N. Y. App. Div. 333 (1900). Where a director must- be a stockholder, and there is a statu- tory liability attached to the director- ship, the director may transfer his stock in order to cease to be a director and in< order to avoid such liability. Sinclair V. Fuller, 158 N. Y. 607 (1899). 5 State V. German Sav: Bank, 91 N. W. Rep. 414 (Neb. 1902). As to compromise,. see also g§ 171, 30a 490 CH. XII.J STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEKS. [§§ 226-229. § 226. Priority among creditors. — When the creditor is entitled to maintain an action at law against an individual stockholder for the enforcement of a statutory liability, in order to collect a claim against the corporation, it has been held that the creditor first Buing any stockholder is entitled to priority in enforcing his claim as against that particular stockholder. The diligent creditor is entitled to the payment of his claim, although other creditors are thereby deprived of payment.* The right to a priority, however, in these cases, is in general one of questionable propriety, and the courts are not inclined to favor it.^ And one creditor may, at the instance of the rest, be restrained from' the prosecution of his in- dividual suit where it is in prejudice of the equal rights of all the others." §§ 227-229. Contribution among stockholders. — Upon general principles of equity, where a stockholder has been held liable, under the provisions of a statute, for a debt of the corporation of which he is a member, he may maintain an action against his co-stock- holders for contribution.* Where the stockholders' statutory lia- iCole V. Butler, 43 Me. 401 (1857), holding, also, that the rights of a cred- itor who moves first cannot be affected by the fact that another creditor, pur- suing a shorter remedy, obtains judg- ment before him. Ingalls v. Cole, 47 Me. 530, 541 (1860); Jones v. Wiltberger, 42 Ga. 575 (1871); Eobinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65, 108 (1855); Thebus v. Smiley, 110 111. 316 (1884). Cf. Weeks V. Love, 50 N. T. 568 (1873); Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnp. Co., 13 Ohio, 197 (1844). See also § 335 (6), supra. 2 Wright V. MoCormack, 17 Ohio St. 86 (1866), holding that, if part of the creditors institute an action to enforce the liability of all, no creditor can ac- quire priority or institute a separate suit on his own behalf. Smith v. Huokabee, 53 Ala. 191 (1875); Chicago v. Hall. 103 111. 342 (1882), holdingthat if a suit at law by a creditor against a stockholder be enjoined by other creditors who seek to enforce the liability for the benefit of all tbd creditors, and the stockhold- ers discharge their liability, the cred- itor so enjoined has no prior lien upon the fund, 'Eames v. Doris, 103 111. 850 (1883); Pfohl V. Simpson, 74 N. Y. 137 (1878). Cf. Garrison v. Howe, 17 N. Y. 458 (1858). See also § 233, supra. * Quoted and approved in Hinshaw v. Austin, 67 Pac. Rep. 883 (Kan. 1902); Aspinwallu Sacchi, 57 N. Y. 331 (1874); Stewart v. Lay, 45 Iowa, 604 (1877); Um- sted V. Buskirk, 17 Ohio St. 113 (1866); Matthews v. Albert, 3^ Md. 527 (1866); Hadley v. Russell, 40 N. H. 109, 113 (1860); Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 N. H. 371 (1866); Gray v. Coffin, 63 Mass. 198 (1852); Middletown Bank v. Magill, 5 Conn. 28, 61 (1823); Brinhamu Wellers- burg Coal Co., 47 Pa. St. 43 (1864); Mas- ters V. Rossie Lead Min. Co., 2 Sandf. Ch. 301 (1845); Farrow v. Bivings, 13 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 25(1866); Clark v. Myers, 11 Hun, 608 (1877), holding that the action cannot be against one only; O'Reilly v. Bard, 105 Pa. St. 569 (1884), holding that a stockholder who pays a judgment against the corporation is confined to the remedy provided in the act, and in this case could not maintain assumpsit for contribution againstother stockholders who were not parties to the judgment. As to the Pennsylvania statutory method of obtaining contri- 491 § 229.] STATUTOET LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XII. bility is enforced by a suit in equity, contribution is of course enforced, in that suit, so far as the parties can be found within the jurisdiction.* Where the constitution of an unincorporated associa- tion limits the debts, and the directors incur a larger amount of debts, the directors cannot obtain contribution from the stockhold- ers.^ Even though the trustees of a club have been obliged to pay bution, see also Brinham v. Wellers- burg Coal Co., 47 Pa. St. 43 (1864). Stock- holders seeking to enforce contribution from a co-stockholder in a foreign cor- poration must show that he, the plaint- iff, is legally liable. Eastman v. Crosby, 90 Mass. 206 (1864). See also Ladd v. Cart Wright, 7 Oreg. 339 (1879); Patter- son V. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519 (1883). A stockholder, it is said, being also a cred- itor of the corporation, may make use of whatever advantage his position as stockholder gives him to secure the payment of his claim, even to the ex- clusion of other creditors who are not stockholders. Whitwell v. Warner, 30 Vt. 435, 444 (1848); Reichwald v. Com- mercial Hotel Co., 106 III. 439 (1883), holding that the securing of a large debt to a stockholder for money ad- vanced, by means of a deed of real prop- erty, with agreement that it should be considered security, was not fraudulent. See also Bristol Milling, etc. Co. v. Pro- basco, 64 Ind. 406 (1878); Terry u. Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. Rep. 777 (1884). See also g 336, supra, to the effect that a stockholder sued at law may enjoin the suit and bring all parties into a suit in equity. An officer paying the stat- utory liability may have contribution. Nickerson v, Wheeler, 118 Mass. 295 (1875). Of. Ray v. Powers, 134 Mass. 23 (1883); Hartman v. Valley Ins. Co;, 33 Gratt. (Va.) 242 (1879); Chandler v. Brown, 77 111. 333 (1875); Bronson v. Wil- mington, etc. Ins. Co., 85 N. 0.411(1881); Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. 418 (1874). A stockholder and director who pays his liability under the California statute may have contribution from other stockholders. Redington v. Cornwell, 492 90 Cal. 49 (1891). As to the mode of en- forcing contribution under the Califor- nia statutes, see Myers v. Sierra Val. etc. Assoc., 122 Cal. 669 (1898). A stock- holder who has been compelled to pay a statutory liability may have contri- bution from other stockholders. But where he pays before the creditor ob- tained judgment against the company, then, in order to obtain contribution, he must show that the company was insolvent and had no assets. Ewing v. Stultz, 9 Ind. App. 1 (1894). The United States statute making every person in- terested in a still of liquors liable for the tax thereon renders the stockhold- ers of the distilling corporation liable, and one who pays the tax may have contribution from the others. Riohter V. Henningsan, 110 Cal. 580 (1895); Wel- ters V. Henningsan, 114 Cal. 433 (1896). Where the vendors of stock guarantee that the stock shall be non-assessable until they have advanced $30,000, a stockholder who is held liable on a statutory liability may hold the guar- antors liable if they have not paid the $30,000. Omo V. Bernart, 108 Mich. 43 (1895). 1 Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Ohio St. 397 (1889). In Guerney v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650 (1895), it was held that a stockholder who has paid more than his debt need not file a bill for contribution, but may pursue any or all of the remedies that are open to the other creditors. Con- tribution may be enforced in the suit in equity by which the liability is en- forced. Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn. 487 (1896). 2 McFadden v. Leeka, 48 Ohio St. 513 (1891). Where the articles of incorpo- CH. xn.J BTATUTOEY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 229. the debts of the club, yet they cannot collect from the members.' In assessing stock to raise a fixed amount of money, no assessment is levied upon stock held by the corporation itself.^ ration provide that the indebtedness shall notexceeda certainsum, but debts are contracted in excess of the limit, and, the corporation being insolvent, the officer who contracted the debt pays it off out of his own individual funds, he cannot claim' contribution un- less the debt in excess of the limit was contracted by the unanimous assent of the stockholders. Haldeman v. Ainslie, 82 Ky. 395 (1884); 173 N. Y. 455. 1 Wise V. Perpetual, etc. Co., 87 L. T. Rep. 569 (1902), the court saying: " Clubs are associations of a peculiar nature. They are societies the members of which are perpetually changing. They are not partnerships?; they are not as- sociations for gain; and the feature which distinguishes them from other- societies is that no member as such be- comes liable to pay to the funds of the society or to anyone else any money be- yond the subscriptions required by the- rules of the club to be paid so long as- he remains a member. It is upon this, fundamental condition not usually ex- pressed, but understood by everyone,, that clubs are formed; and this dis- tinguishing feature has been often judi- cially recognized." 2 Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). 498 CHAPTER XIII. LIABILITY- OF STOCKHOLDERS WHERE THE SUPPOSED INCORPORA- TION DOES NOT PROTECT THEM, AND FOR ASSESSMENTS BE- YOND THE PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK. § S30. Different liabilities of a stock- holder. 231-234. Liability as partners by rea- son of defective incorpora- tion. 235. Extent of the liability. 236. Liability as partners by reason of unauthorized incorpora- tion. §§237-240. Liability as partners by reason of the fact that the corporation is incorporated in one state but does all its business in another state. 341, 242. Assessments in excess of par value of stock. 243. Miscellaneous cases of liability. § 230. Different liaMlities of a stockholder on Ms stoch. — A stockholder may be said to be liable on his stock in three different ways. First, he is liable to the corporation and corporate creditors until the full par value of his stock has been paid.^ Second, he may have an additional liability imposed upon him by statute.^ Third, it may happen that by some accident, mistake, or neglect the supposed corporation was never duly incorporated, or for some other reason the members become liable as partners in a copartnership; or it may be within the power of the corporation to assess the stock- holder for sums over and above and in addition to the par value of the stock. This third kind of liability is unusual in its charac- ter, and is the subject of this chapter. § 231. Liability as partners iy reason of material defects in becoming incorporated. — The general incorporating statutes under which a corporation is usually formed provide for the taking of certain steps, generally the making and filing with the state, and also with the local authorities, a certificate signed by the corpora- tors, and containing a statement of the business, of the capital stock, and other facts material to the organization of the corporation. Occasionally it happens that this certificate is not fully made out, as required by the statute, or is not filed, or some other step prescribed by law is not complied with. The corporation is then not duly incorporated, and the state, by quo warranto, may oust it from its user of corporate franchises. But it is a very different question as to whether a private individual may take advantage of I See chs. XI and III, supra. 494 2 See ch. XII, supra. CH. XIII.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§§ 232, 233. such facts, and claim that the supposed corporation is not a corpo- ration, but only a partnership. § 232. Who may question tlie regularity of acts in hecoming in- corporated. — As already explained,^ a subscriber for stock in a corporation cannot, when sued for calls on his stock, set up that the corporation was not duly incorporated.^ He is estopped from so doing. Nor can a stockholder, who has funds of the corpo- ration in his hands, defeat an action by the corporation therefor by setting up that the corporation was not duly incorporated.* And, in general, a party contracting to pay money to a corporation, or to transfer property to it as a corporation, cannot avoid the obli- gation of that contract by alleging the fact that the corporation was not duly incorporated, if it be proved that such a corporation might have been organized under the statutes, and that the sup- posed corporation attempted to so organize and proceeded to trans- act business.* The corporation itself cannot set up the defense that it was irregularly incorporated,' not even though it is a foreign corporation.* A corporation is not allowed to avoid its contracts on such grounds.' The question of who may attack the legality of the organization of a corporation arises often where a corporation sues upon a note or other obligation, or brings suit to foreclose a mortgage or has suit brought against it on its notes, or for a fore- closure. In such cases the established rule is that the legality of the corporation cannot be called in question.' § 233. Corporate creditors cannot hold stockholders liable as partners hy reason of irregularities, mistakes, or omissions in the incorporation of a de facto corporation. — There are many cases to the effect that a corporate creditor seeking to enforce the payment of his debt may ignore the existence of the corporation, and may proceed against the supposed stockholders as partners, by prov- ing that the prescribed method bf becoming incorporated was not complied with by the company in question. For instance, it has been held that where the articles of association were signed, but not filed until some time subsequently, debts contracted in the interim might be collected from the stockholders as partners.' So, ' See §§ 183-186, supra. * See g 637, infra. 2 Buffalo, etc. R. R v. Gary, 26 N. Y. ^See § 637, infra. 75 (1863.) A member of a mutual in- ^ Liter v. Ozokerite Min. Co., 7 Utah, surance company cannot, when sued 487 (1891). for an assessment, set up that the ar- ' See § 637, infra. tides of incorporation did not comply * See § 637, infra. with the statute. Gilman v. Druse, 111 9 Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 IlL 197 (1874) ; Wis. 400 (1901). MoVicker v. Cone, SI Greg. 358 (1891). 8 See Krutz v. Paola Town Co., 20 See also Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co., Kan. 397 (1878). See also § 637, infra. 41 N. J. Eq. 338 (1886). Contra, Whit- 495 § 233.] PAETNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [CH. XIIL also, a total failure to file or record the certificate or articles of incorporation has been held to render the members liable as part- ners ; ' as also an omission of the members to sign and publish the ney v. Wymau, 101 U. S. 392 (1879); Corey v. Morrill, 61 Vt 698 (1889). 1 Field V. Cooks, 16 La. Ann. 153 (1861); Abbott v. Omaha Smelting Co., 4 Neb. 416 (1876): Garnett v. Richard- son, 35 Ark. 144 (1879); Ferris v. Thaw, 73 Mo. 446(1880); Colemani!. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 (1881); Martin v. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401, 410 (1883). Failure to record the certificate in the county recorder's office as required by statute renders the stockholders liable as partners, even to persons who did not know of the incor- poration. Such persons are not given notice by the fact that their note was signed by the company by a certain person as treasurer. New York, etc. Bank v. Crowell, 177 Fa. St. 313 (1896). Failure to file the certificate of organi- zation with the county recorded, as re- quired by statute, is fatal, even though the charter has been issued by the state. The stockholders are liable as partners to one who did work, even though after the work was finished he took a corporate note therefor. Guck- ert f. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 303 (1893). A creditor who seeks to hold stockholders liable as partners on the ground that no corporation exists must prove that the apparent corporation is not a cor- poration. He must prove the manner of organization by means of the part- nership agreement, or whatever agree- ment exists, or that the concern held itself out as a partnership. Re Gibb's Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59 (1893). Failure in the articles to state the number of shares taken, and failure to publish as required by statute, render the stock- holders liable as partners. Williams V. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076 (1895). In Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310 (1874), corporate officers were held personally liable on a promissory note signed by them as officers, where the certificate was not filed as required. In Richard- son V. Pitts, 71 Mo. 138 (1879), the same officers were held to be entitled to con- tribution from other members of the supposed corporation. Of. Blanohard V. Kaull, 44 Cal. 440 (1873); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pacific Ry., 3- Fed. Rep. 731, 739 (1880). In Garnett V. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144 (1879), the court held stockholders liable as part- ners until the certificate was filed with the secretary of state. Cf. Harrod iv Hamer, 33 Wis. 163 (1873), where th& statute effected an incorporation with- out filing, but prohibited organization until after the articles were filed. The filing of the certificate in the county clerk's office, as required by statute, is essential to incorporation. Childs V. Hurd, 33 W. Va. 66 (1889, In Bigelow v. Gregory, 78 111. 197 (1874), the court held that there was no cor- poration until the certificate was filed,, and that a creditor might recover from a stockholder as a partner. In Indian- apolis Furnace, etc. Co. v. Herkimer, 46 Ind. 143 (1874), the court held that there was no corporation until the- certificate was filed, and that a sub- soriber to the articles who had agreed to pay the corporation his dues when it was organized could successfully resist its suit until the certificate was filed. In State v. Central, etc Assoc, 39 Ohio St. 399 (1876), the court ousted an asso- ciation whose notice of acceptance to- the state was indefinite and ambiguous.- Where the articles must be filed with the secretary of state and a fee paid in order to form a corporation, a transfer of property before this is done does not convey title to the corporation. The- transferrer's creditors may attach the property. Jones v. Aspen Hardware Co., 31 Cola 363 (1895). Failure to file a copy of the constitution of a society as required by statute renders the mem- bers liable personally, even though the 496 OH. XIII.J PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 233. articles of association*/ or an indefinite statement of where the principal place of business of the corporation is to be.^ In Iowa and Nebraska statutes make the stockholders liable if the incor- poration was irregular,' while in Illinois the directors are made lia- artioles of incorporation were filed. Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wis. 641 (1897). The directors of a company not legally organized are personally liable for its debt to a creditor, even though the lat- ter has obtained judgment on a me- chanic's lien as against the supposed corporation. Kruse v. Humpert, 53 S. W. Rep. 657 (Ky. 1899). 1 Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636 (1863); Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa, 104 (1881), where the articles were not properly signed and acknowl- edged. This case also disapproves the decision in Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 383 (1880). In enforcing this partnership liability, the assumed cor- poration is not to be made a party de- fendant with the members thereof. Smith V. Colorado F. Ins. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 399 (1883). 2 Harris v. McGregor, 39 Cal. 134 (1865). The case of Chafife v. Ludeling, 27 La Ann. 607 (1875), says: "Obligors are bound, not by the style which they give to themselves, but by the con- sequences which they incur by reason of their acts. It matters not what they choose to call themselves." See also National Union Bank v. Landon, 45 N. Y. 410, 414 (1871); Ridenour v. Mayo, 40 Ohio St. 9 (1883). Cf. Wentz V. Lowe, 3 Atl. Rep. 878 .(Pa. 1886). An individual may enforce a contract which he makes for himself but in the name " The National Associated Press, James H. Goodsell, President." Good- sell V. Western Union Tel. Ca, 130 N. Y. 430 (1892). Corporate cred- itors may attack the validity of the corporate organization. Empire Mills i\ Alston Grocery Co., 15 S. W. Rep. 505 (Tex. 1891). An insufficient state- ment in the papers to be filed as to the property which is turned in for stock renders the stockholders liable as part- OS) ners. Vanhorn v. Corcoran, 137 Pa. St. 255 (1889). 3 In Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 61 Iowa, 121 (1883), the court held that publishing the articles which did not contain all the requirements of the statutory notice was insufficient, and stockholders were liable as partners. In Iowa stockholders are liable as part- ners, by statute, if the incorporation is not regular. Eisfeld v. Ken worth, 50 Iowa, 389 (1879). In First Nat. Bank v. Davies, 43 Iowa, 434 (1876), the court held that, where the state waived no- tice by permitting the filing to be made with its secretary .within ninety days, vested rights accrued which would not be affected by failure to file within that time. See also Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 441 (1880). Under the Iowa statutes the stockholders are liable as partners where the certificate of incorporation failed to state the highest amount of indebtedness which the company might incur. Heuer v. Carmichael, 83 Iowa, 288 (1891). Al- though the articles are not recorded as required by statute, yet as between themselves the parties are stockholders and not partners. Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa, 23 (1890). Under the Iowa stat- utes an insufficient incorporation of the plaintiff foreign corporation is not put in issue by a denial of incorpora- tion. The deficiency must be specific- ally alleged. Wardner, etc. Co. v. Jack, 83 Iowa, 435 (1891). In an action against individual stockholders to charge their property with a judgment rendered against the corporation, the plaintiff is not estopped to allege de- fects in the organization by reason of having recognized the corporation in dealing with it and in bringing suit against it as such. Heuer v. Carmi- chael, 83 Iowa, 288 (1891). Failure to 497 § 233.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [cH. XIII. ble.' The question of whether a person, dealing with what he rea- sonably supposed to be a copartnership, but which really was a cor- coraplete the publication as required by statute does not render the stock- holders liable under the Iowa statute to a creditor who entered into his con- tract before the time allowed for pub- lication had expired. Thornton v. Bal- com, 85 Iowa, 198 (1893). Although the statute requires the articles to state the amount of indebtedness which may be incurred, the articles may fix the amount, -with the right to the stockholders to increase it up to the statutory limit. Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa, 198 (1893).' The fact that the ■whole capital stock is not subscribed is not a failure to comply with the law relative to organizations so as to render the stockholders liable as partners under the Iowa statute. Sweney v. Talcott, 85 Iowa, 103 (1892). Where a de facto corporation incurs debts, and subsequently a new corporation, legally organized, takes over the business and assumes the debts, the creditors of the de facto corporation may hold the lat- ter corporation liable. Calumet Paper Co. V. Stotts Inv. Co., 96 Iowa. 147 (1895). Even though a statute makes the stockholders personally liable for failure to comply with the formalities of incorporation, yet creditors who are incorporators are estopped from en- forcing this liability. Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa, 145 (1899). Stockholders are liable personally under the Iowa stat- ute where the certificate of incorpo- ration is published in a weekly news- paper in a small town sixty miles dis- tant from the place of business of the corporation, which is in a city having daily papers, the statute prescribing that the publication shall be as conven- ient as practicable to the principal place of business. Berkson v. Anderson, 87 N. W. Eep. 403 (Iowa, 1901). .Although the statute renders stockholders liable as partners unless there has been a sub- stantial compliance with the statute relative to organization, yet the courts are not inclined to liberally construe and apply such liability. Porter v. Sherman, etc. Co., 36 Neb. 371 (1893). Failure to publish the charter as re- quired by statute does not render the stockholders individually liable. Kleck- ner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176 (1895). Failure to file the articles of incorporation with the secretary of state, and the fact that the debts exceed the amount specified in the charter, and failure to publish notice of the debts of the cor- poration as required by law, do not ren- der the stockholders personally liable on notes which were given by the cor- poration in the corporate name, espe- cially whei'e> judgment was first ob- tained against the corporation on the notes. Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 49 Neb. 109 (1896). A person contracting with a corporation as such cannot hold the stockholders personally liable on the ground that the company did not publish notice of its incorporation as required by statute, nor have its cap- ital stock subscribed at a certain time nor paid for, and on the ground that it failed to post a copy of its by-laws and to make statements as required by statute, and to keep a record book or stock book. Hogue v. Capital Nat Bank, 47 Neb. 929 (1896). 1 Under the Illinois statute making directors liable for debts before the statute is complied with as to incorpo- ration, and the issue, by the secretary of state, of a certificate of completed organization and recording of the same in the county where the principal of- fice is, the directors are liable if such certificate is not so recorded. The liability may be enforced even by a corporate creditor who has filed his claim with an assignee of the corpora- tion for the benefit of its creditors. Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 111. 417 (1896). The Illinois statute rendering 498 OH. XIII.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 234. poration, may hold the parties liable personally, is considered else- where.' The mere assumption of corporate powers,-without any attempt at incorporation, cannot, of course, exempt the members from full liability as partners.^ " And a mere feigned compliance with the laws of the state of which it is claimed a corporation is a citizen " is not sufficient.' Yet, even though the stockholders are liable as partners because the articles were not properly acknowl- edged, the legislature may cure the defect and thus destroy any cause of action then existing.* § 234. Notwithstanding the above decisions, the great weight of authority has clearly established the rule that, where a supposed corporation is doing business as a de facto corporation, the stock- holders cannot be held liable as partners, although there have been irregularities, omissions, or mistakes in incorporating or organizing the company. The corporation is a de facto corporation where there is a law authorizing such a corporation and where the com- pany has made an effort to organize under the law and is transact- ing business in a corporate name.' This rule applies to claims based on tort the same as to those based on contract.* It must be admitted that this conclusion of the law is reasonable and just. There is no reason why parties who have dealt with a corporation as a corporation should afterwards be allowed to claim more than they originally bargained for, and to hold the stockhold- a director personally liable for the v. Whittemore, 63 Ark. 339 (1896). debts of a corporation where the incor- Where no effort has been made to in- porating act is not complied with in cer- corporate, all are liable as partners. tain particulars was applied in Ed- McLennan v. Hopkins, 3 Kan. App. 360 wards v. Armour, etc. Co., 190 111. 467 (1895), a case where it was supposed by {1901). all that a corporation existed. Where ' See S 343, infra. no certificate is filed with the secretary 2 Pettis V. Atkins, 60 III 454 (1871); of state, no stock issued, no record book, J'uller V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 33 (1874). and no real effort to perfect a corpora- 3 Owen V. Shepard, 59 Fed. Rep. 746 tion, the members are liable individ- <1894), holding that, where the stock- ually. Queen, etc. Co. v. Crawford, 137 holders are sued as individuals for the Mo. 356 (1895). Persons seeking to or- debts of the company, it is for them to ganize under a certificate of incorpora^ prove that the corporation existed. The tion, having a capital less than required testimony of two persons that they by law, are liable as partners, especially complied with the laws and got a char- where they have abandoned such incor- ter is insufScient, it appearing that the poration. In re Browne, etc. Co., 106 law required at least three incorpora- La. 486 (1901); 77 N. Y. App. Div. 303. tors. The charter itself is the best evi- * Shields v. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 dance. Persons transacting business Tenn. 133 (1894). ■without incorporation are liable as 5 gee cases in notes below; also § 185, partners, even though they do so in the supra, note. name of a corporation which has as- ^ Demarest v. Flack, 33 N. Y. St. Rep. signed all its property to them. Forbes 675; aff'd, 138 N. Y. 305 (1891). 499 § 234.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [CH. XIIT. ers personally liable. Eecent cases have so settled the law beyond reasonable doubt.^ I Whitney v. Wyman, 101 F. S. 393 (1879). The members of a supposed cor- poration are not liable individually on a loan of money made to it, even though it v?as irregularly incorporated. Ear- ned V. Beal, 65 N. H. 184 (1889). A stock- holder who is also a creditor of a sup- posed corporation cannot hold the other stockholders liable as partners on the ground that the articles of incorpora- tion were not properly acknowledged and executed in duplicate and filed in the oflBce of the secretary of state, in addition to filing in the county clerk's office as required by statute. Doty v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60 (1900). " Where there is a statute authorizing the crea- tion of a corporation, an attempt to comply with the statute, and an actual exercise of corporate functions, the ex- istence of the corporation can only be destroyed by a direct proceeding." Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486 (1891). After a party has recovered judgment against a corporation, as such, and ob- tained the appointment of a receiver therefor, he cannot in the same suit deny its corporate entity, and seek to hold the stockholders thereof liable as partners. First Nat. Bank v. Dovetail, etc. Co., 143 Ind. 534 (1896). Where a man has acted as director of a company he cannot afterwards sue the stock- holders to hold them liable as partners on the ground that the certificate of organization was not filed for record as required by statute, and he cannot hold them liable, although the statute ren- ders them liable where the provisions of the statute are not complied with. Curtis V. Meeker, 63 111. App. 49 (1895); aff'd, 169 111. 333 (1897). In the case of Johnson v, Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303 (1897), the court held that the individ- ual defendants were not liable as part- ners, although they were doing busi- ness under the name of " Schulin, Lin- den, Lindberg, & Co.," and although 500 -the articlesof incorporation were signed by only five members, whereas the stat- ute required seven, and although the certificate of incorporation was not re- corded, although it was filed. It seems, however, that the plaintiffs knew that the defendants were acting as a corpo- ration. Where the articles were filed with the county clerk on November 9 1886, and goods were purchased of plaintiff soon after, and the articles were not filed with the secretary of state until August 17, 1887, the plaint- iff cannot ignore the corporation and hold the parties liable as partners. The plaintiff made the contract supposing he was dealing with a corporation. Vanneman v. Young, 53 N. J. L. 403 (1890). Where the statute authorizes seven or more " pei'sons " to incorporate a railroad company, the word "per- sons " does not require the incorpora- tors to be residents. The incorporation is legal although three of the seven in- corporators ai'e.non-residents. Central R. R. V. Pennsylvania R. R., 31 N. J. Eq. 475 (1879). Under the Colorado statute requiring the certificate to set forth by whom the corporate affairs shall be conducted, a provision that they shall be conducted by the president, vice- president, and attorney, instead of pro- viding for directors, is insufiioient The corporation is only de facto, but an in- corporator and a vendor of property to it cannot question the incorporation. Bates V. Wilson, 14 Colo. 140 (1890). Though the provision in the Kentucky statutes requiring publication of the charter is not complied with, yet the corporation is valid and complete, ex- cept that the state may proceed to annul the charter. No other party can raise the objection. Stutz v. Handley, 41 Fed. Rep. 531 (1890) (reversed on other grounds, 139 U. S. 417); Walton v. Riley, 85 Ky. 413, 421 (1887), overruling Heinig V. Adams, etc. Mfg. Co., 81 Ky. 300 OH. XIII.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 234. In England the remarkable conclusion was reached in the lower courts that where the owner of a business incorporates a company for the purpose of carrying on the business, the incorporators being (1883). Failure to file the articles with the secretary of state is not fatal. Port- Jand, etc. Turnp. Co. v. Bobb,88 Ky.326 U889). Incorporators are not person- ally liable, even though they do not publish the articles as required by stat- ute. Clark V. Richardson, 31 S. W. Rep. 878 (Ky. 1895). In proving incorpora- tion it is not necessary to prove publi- cation as required by statute. Brown V. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508 (1889). Although there are less stockholders and less di- rectors than the statute or charter re- quire, yet the acts of these are sufficient to sustain obligations incurred by the corporation with third persons. Welch V. Importers', etc. Bank, 123 N. Y. 177 (1890). The grantor of land cannot claim that the grantee was unincorporated and not qualified to hold land, the in- corporation being only partially com- pleted. Reinhard v. Virginia, etc. Co., 107 Mo. 616 (1891). The failure to specify the term of existence is not fatal where the general act limits the time. Al- bright V. Lafayette, etc. Assoc, 102 Pa. St. 411, 423 (1883); Becket v. Uniontown, €tc. Assoc, 88 Pa. St. 211 (1878). In Seacord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun, 579 (1890), there wag no pretense of any at- tempt to incorporate the bank, and yet the stockholders were held not liable. See s. c. suh nom. Merchants' Nat. Bank V. Pendleton, 9 N. Y. Supp. 46 (1890). In Christian v. Bowman, 49 Minn. 99 (1892), where there was a failure to file the proper aflSdavit of publication, the di- rectors were held personally liable for debts, but the court stated that if the case had been properly tried a different conclusion might have been reached. One who takes part in organizing the company "cannot hold its members lia- ble as partners on the ground that it was irregularly organized. Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 147 Pa. St. Ill (1892). Nor can one to whom he assigns a leasehold. Egbert v. Kimberly, 146 Pa. St 96 (1893). Where a creditor of a bank sues the stockholders as part- ners, the burden of proof is on him to prove that no corporation existed, it being shown that the bank always acted as a corporation and held itself out as such and was supposed so to be by the stockholders. Hallstead v. Coleman, 148 Pa. St. 353 (1891). A failure to re- cord the articles with the local regis- ter's office, as required by statute, does not render the stockholders personally liable. Pierce v. Hacke, 1 Pa. Dist. Rep. 517 (1893). Although a majority of the incorporators assume to be residents, but are not, and the charter is forfeited, yet stockholders who become such after incorporation and without knowledge of the fraud cannot be held liable as partners. American Salt Co. v. Heiden- heimer, 80 Tex. 344 (1891). A stock- holder cannot sustain a bill in equity to have the de facto going corporation wound up as a partnership by proving that the articles were not filed in the office of the recorder of deeds for the county, nor by proof that his subscrip- tion was not in good faith. " The gen- eral rule is that one who deals with a corporation as existing de facto is es- topped to deny that, as against it, it has been legally organized." Bushnell V. Consolidated, etc Co., 138 111. 67 (1891). Stockholders of a de facto corpo- ration are not liable as partners merely because the probate judge has not re- corded the certificate of incorporation, and the subscription to the stock and issued the certificate of incorporation as required by statute. Owensboro, etc. Co. V. Bliss, 81 S. Rep. 81 (Ala. 1901). A failure to organize does not render the stockholders liable as partners, business having been carried on without organ- ization after the filing of the papers. Cory V. Lee, 93 Ala. 468 (1891). The fail- 501 234.J PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OP STOOKHOLDEES. [CH. XIIL merely the nominees of the owner of the business, which is to be sold to the corporation, the business being transferred to the cor- poration in payment for its stock, the corporate entity would be lire to insert in the certificate a pro- vision as to the residences of the persons does not render the stockholders liable as partners. The defendant in this case alleged that it was a corporation de facto, and that plaintiff sold goods to and contracted with defendant as a cor- poration, knowing that it was doing business as such. The contract was made with it in its corporate name and capacity. Snider's Sons Co. v. Troy, 91 Ala. 324 (1890), 54 Atl. Rep. 121. In Alabama the stockholders are not liable for the debts, merely because the articles of incorporation do not specify the instalments by which the unpaid capital stock shall be paid in. Boiling V. he Grand, 87 Ala. 483 (1889).. Where a corporation has been author- ized by a judge as provided by statute, but no certificate has been issued, the corporation is sufficiently formed to de- feat the plea of nul iiel corporation. Sparks v. Woodstock, etc. Co., 87 Ala. 394 (1889). if proof is given by plaintiff that a copartnership existed and the defense is that it was a corporation, the defendant must prove that fact. Al- though the company had a president and secretary, this in itself does not raise a presumption of a corporation. Clark V. Jones, 87 Ala. 474 (1889). Fail- ure to file the articles of association with the county clerk, as required by statute, does not render the stockhold- ers liable as partners. Granby, etc. Co. V. Richards, 95 Mo. 106 (1888). A private citizen cannot contest the validity of a grant by a city to a water-works com- pany. Stedman v. City of Berlin, 97 Wis. 505 (1897). A person who contracts with a corporation, knowing that it claims to be a corporation, and knowing that there was a stipulation for a lim- ited liability, cannot. hold the parties liable as partners. Sentell v. Hewitt, 50 La. Ann. 3 (1898). A promoter and or- 503 ganizer of a corporation cannot sue a stockholder on the ground that the in- corporation was not in compliance with the statute and hence that it is a partnership. Anderson v. Thompson, 51 La. Ann. 727 (1899). Where the cer- tificate or articles are to be filed both with the state and the local authorities, a failure as to the former does not ren- der the stockholders liable as partners, provided the articles or certificate are filed with the local authorities. Moke- lumne Hill Min. Co. v. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424 (1859);Raisbeck v. Oesterricher, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 444 (1878); Cross v. Pinck- neyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54 (1855> The creditor cannot sue the directors for damages for a fraudulent conspiracy herein, especially when he was in- formed that the corporation had been irregularly incorporated. Nelson v. Lul- ing, 63 N. y. 645 (1875). A statement of the location of the " place of business" is a sufficient statement of the " princi- pal place of business." Ee Spring Val- ley Water-works, 17 Cal. 133 (1860). ^ That a failure to file the certificate with the secretary of state does not invali- date the corporation, see Tarbell v. Page, 34 III. 46 (1860). See, also, to same effect. Planters', etc. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159 (1883); Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282 (1880); Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. Rep. 197 (1884); Mer- riman v. Magiveney, 13 Heisk. (Tenn.) 494 (1873); Merchants', eta Bank v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779 (1878); Jessup v. Car- negie, 80 N. Y. 441 (1880), applying an Iowa decision to an Iowa case, First Nat. Bank v. Davies, 43 Iowa, 424 (1876). In Holmes v. Gilliland, 41 Barb. 568 (1864), the court held that failure to give notice to the community by publi- cation does not make the stockholders partners. In De Witt v. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518 (1877), where no certificate was filed owing to an abandonment of OH. XIII.] PARTNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 234. disregarded in case of the insolvency of the corporation, and the party so selling his business to the corporation and carrying it on would be held personally responsible for all the debts of the cor- the enterprise, it was held that a subse- quent filing of it could not render liable one of the original promoters who took no part in the filing of the articles of association, although his name was at- tached thereto. Stockholders are not personally liable on the ground thatthe certificate- of incorporation was not properly executed and acknowledged. Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Massey, 56 S. W. Rep. 35 (Tenn. 1899), the court holding that a person who contracts with a de facto corporation is estopped from de- nying its existence and from holding the incorporators liable as partners on the contract. A charter is valid, even though the register of deeds in copying the charter, as required by statute, did not accurately copy the seal of the state attached thereto. Carpenter v. Frazer, 102 Tenn. 463 (1899). The general rule is that stockholders are not personally liable for informalities, etc. Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa, 145 (1899). A creditor who has filed his claim with the assignee of a corporation cannot afterwards claim that it was not a corporation and that the stockholders are individually liable, even though the court has de- cided that it was not a corporation. Clausen v. Head, 110 Wis. 405 (1901). A person who sells land to a supposed cor- poration and takes a purchase-money mortgage in partial payment cannot enforce the statutory liability of stock- holders, where the corporation was never substantially organized, such mortgagee being fully cognizant of all the facts. Coleu. Great Bend, etc. Co., 54 Pac. Rep. 920 (Kan. 1898). Where a cer- tificate of incorporation is prepared and filed and the company is organized and for eleven years transacts business, one of the stockholders cannot maintain a suit to have the corporation adjudged not to be a corporation on the ground that the certificate of incorporation did not contain all the statements required by the statute. Marsh v. Mathias, 19 Utah, 350 (1899). Where the charter re- quires a statement of the limit of debts not exceeding two-thirds of the capital stock, it suflSces to state that the debt shall not exceed such two-thirds. Park V. Zwart, 92 Iowa, 37 (1894). The articles of incorporation are legal even though the subscribers designate their Chris- tian names by initials instead of full name. State v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500 (1883). Where the statute authorizes incoi'po- ration by " any number of persons," one alone cannot organize a company. Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Eisenman, 94 Ky. 88 (1893). Where the statute requires the charter to state the initial terminus and the end of the terminus, and gen- eral route, the charter cannot definitely describe one route and conclude with a general statement that it covers " all the streets of the city, then or there- after to be established." Knoxville v. Africa, 77 Fed. Rep. 501 (1896). The omission of an immaterial part of the acknowledgment by an incorporator, and the omission of a certificate of no- taryship, do not render the incorpora- tors liable as partners. Stout v. Zulick, 48 N. J. L. 599 (1886). An incorporator may sign by making his mark. Board, etc. Church v. Campbell, 48 La. Ann. 1543 (1896). An infant cannot be an incorporator. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Townsend, 13 Ont. App. Rep. (Can.) 534 (1886). Stockholders cannot be held liable as partners on the ground of illegal incorporation, where there is a law authorizing incorporation for that purpose, and an attempt was made to organize thereunder, and there was user. Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 53 Minn. 239 (1893). Although the statutes re- quire the directors to be residents of the state, nevertheless, even- though the directors are non-residents, the incorpo- 503 § 235.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [cH. XIII. poration, on the theory that the corporation was merely his agent. This decision was severely criticised, and an appeal was taken to the House of Lords, where the judgment of the lower courts was unanimously reversed.' § 235. Extent of the liability by reason of deficient incorporation. Even in those cases where stockholders have been held personally liable on account of deficient incorporation, the mere fact that an attempted incorporation has failed does not necessarily render all the participants therein liable absolutely for all the debts of the concern. At the most, each is liable only in case he would be liable if the original plan had been to form a partnership. If he was not ration is valid, and the corporation is not dissolved, nor are the stockholders aiable as partners. Demarest v. Flack, 138 N. Y. 205 (1891). The fact that a •corporation has not filed its certificate of incorporation in the proper county clerk's office does not prevent its bring- ing suit, its certificate having been properly filed with the secretary of stata Young, etc. Co. v. Young, etc. Co., 72 Fed. Rep. 62 (1896). Failure to insert in the articles of incorporation the number of shares taken by each does not render the stockholders liable. Wilson Cotton Mills v. C. C. Eandle- man, etc. Mills, 115 N. C. 475 (1894). Ir- regularities in the organization of a New Jersey corporation cannot be in- quired into in the courts of another state, a charter having been issued to the company in the state where it was organized. Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576 (1894). A director is not personally liable in damages to a property owner over whose premises the company's road runs without war- rant. Lamming v. Galusha, 81 Hun, 247 (1894); aff'd, 151 N. Y. 648, where it was also claimed that the incorporation had been insufficient. For a detailed digest of the decisions on what mayand what must be stated in certificates of incor- poration, and what informalities will be fatal, and what meaning is given to the usual provisions of general statutes for incorporation, see 12 Am. R. R. & Corp. Cases, pp. 474-523. The assignee of a corporation cannot sue its incorpo- rators for ten per cent, of the capital stock, on the ground that they had sworn that ten per cent, had been paid in in order to obtain the charter, when in fact it had not been paid in. Patter- son V. Franklin, 176 Pa. St. 613 (1896). A creditor who deals with a corporation as a corporation cannot hold the stock- holders liable as partners. American, etc. Co. V. Bulkley, 107 Mich. 447 (1895). A creditor who deals with a corporation as such cannot hold its stockholders liable as partners on the ground that its organization was a fraudulent de- vice to obtain credit for a copartner- ship, especially in a suit for the fore- closure of a corporate mortgaga Gow V. Collin, etc. Co., 109 Mich. 45 (1896). As to irregularities in the organization meetings of the stockholders and di- rectors, see § 343, infra. 1 Salomon v. Salomon, etc. Co., [1897] A. C. 23, rev'g Broderip v. Salomon, etc. Co., [1895J 2 Ch. 323. See also Munkit- triok V. Perryman, 74 L. T. Rep. 149 (1896), where the court held that two partners might incorporate and that they would not thereafter be person- ally liable on the contracts of the com- pany. The court, however, intimated that if both of the partners and tlie corporation had been before the court a different conclusion might have been reached. The supreme court of Louisi- ana has held that in such a case the corporate existence will be ignored. Samuel, etc. Co. v. Illinois, etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 64 (1898). 504 «H. XIII.J PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 236. a member when the debt was cqntracted, he cannot be held liable on that particular debt.' One case goes still further, and holds that one who becomes a member subsequently to the attempted in- corporation, but takes no part in the organization or management of the company, cannot be held liable for its debts.^ § 236. Liability as partners iy reason of fact that corporations cannot he organized for the business involved.— The general incor- porating acts common to most of the states usually specify the par- ticular kinds of business for the prosecution of which corporations may be formed thereunder. It follows that no business can be carried on by persons, as a corporation, under the incorporating act, unless that particular business is specified therein. Many de- cisions on what kinds of business are included in the words used in various statutes of the different states are given in the notes below.' The fact that a certificate of incorporation includes a 1 Fuller V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 (1874). See also § 508, infra. In a "suit against stockholders as partners, the defend- ants may require the joinder of their associates. De Witt v. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518 (1877). 2 Stafford Nat. Bank v. Palmer, 47 Conn. 443 (1880). Cf. Richardson v. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128 (1879). 'Thus, where a rifle club attempted incorporation under the statute allow- ing incorporation for "literary, scien- tific, and charitable purposes," the members were held individually liable for damages to the widow of a man who was killed by a bear which the club was keeping. Vredenburg v. Be- han, 33 La. Ann. 627 (1881). See also Olen V. Breard, 35 La. Ann. 875 (1883). Many business purposes may be speci- fied in one charter. Bird v. Daggett, 97 Mass. 494 (1867). Several objects may be included in the same articles of incorporation. West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19 (1889). Where the general act authorizes incorporation for manufact- uring gas "or" manufacturing elec- tricity, a company may be organized for both of these purposes. People v. Rice, 138 N. Y. 151 (1893). Even though the certificate of incorporation recites several purposes where the statute al- lows but one purpose, yet a corporation 505 exists and may be held liable as such. Marion Bond Co. v. Mexican, etc. Co., 65 N. E. Rep. 748 (Ind. 1902). Under a statute authorizing incorporation for purposes mentioned in several succeed- ing sections, a corporation cannot be organized for purposes in two of those sections. Ram.sey v. Tod, 69 S. W. Rep. 133 (Tex. 1902). Where the charter authorizes incor- poration to improve and sell lands, a company may be organized to buy, sell and improve land. Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 570 (1894). Where cox-porations may be formed for any legal purposes they may be formed to buy and sell stocks or land. Market St. Ry. v. Hellraan, 109 Cal. 571 (1895). A bank cannot incor- porate under an act for "any species of trade or commerce." Bank of Cali- fornia V. Collins, 7 Hun, 336 (1876). Where the statutes of a state or terri- tory do not provide for the incorpora- tion of banks, an attempted incorpora- tion of a bank thereunder is void, and the incorporators are liable as partners for the debts. Davis v. Stevens, 104 Fed. Rep. 235 (1900). A statute author- izing incorporation for "other lawful business" will be liberally construed, and includes the business of booming logs. Lindsay, eta Co. v. Mullen, 176 § 236.] PAETNBESHIP LIABILITY OF STO0KHOLDEE8. [CH. XIII. purpose for which incorporation is not provided for by the statute does not invalidate the charter nor render the stockholders person- U. S. 136 (1900). Under a statute au- thorizing incorporation for the promo- tion of "trade and commerce," a com- pany may be organized to promote the welfare and interests of persons en- gaged in metal working. In re Roof- ing, etc. Assoc, 300 Pa. St. Ill (1901). Where the statute prescribes that com- panies organized for profit must be or- ganized under a certain statute, a com- pany organized for the purpose of deal- ing in real estate must be organized under that statute. State v. Home, etc. Union, 63 Ohio St. 547 (1900). So, also, as to a corporation organized for business purposes. People v. Rose, 188 111. 368 (1900). The general incorpo- rating law of Massachusetts, which does not allow incorporation for manu- facturing liquor, does not prevent in- corporation for selling liquor, and hence a foreign corporation may sell liquor in that state. Enterprise, etc. Co. V. Grimes, 173 Mass. 253 (1899). Under a statute authorizing incorpora- tion of railroads to carry freight and passengers, a railroad to carry passen- gers only cannot be organized. Chi- cago, etc. Ry. V. Oshkosh, etc. Ry., 107 Wis. 192 (1900). Under the statute au- thorizing corporations for any lawful " business '' or " pursuit," a corporation may be formed to guaranty the bonds of an educational institution, and at any rate the stockholders in such cor- poration cannot question the power of the corporation to make such guar- anty. Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. Rep. 178 (1898). Even though a charter has been taken out for water-works and also electric light purposes, although the statutes do not authorize the com- bining of those two businesses in one corporation, yet a contract made by the city with such corporation to pay certain hydrant and electric-light rent- als may be enforced, inasmuch as the contract is valid, even if the corporar tion be considered but a partnership. Cunningham v. City of Cleveland, 98 Fed. Rep. 657 (1899). A provision in- serted in a certificate of incorporation under the Nebraska statutes limiting the liability of the stockholders so that they are not even liable for the subscription price is void. Van Peltu. Gardner, 54 Neb. 713 (1898). See also g 4, supra. A corporation to deal in bonds cannot be organized under a statute authorizing the formation of corporations to deal in merchandise and conduct mercantile operations. Such a corporation is not even a de facto corporation, inasmuch as such a de jure corporation is impossible under such a statute. Hence such a corpo- ration cannot bring suit as a corpora- tion. Indiana, etc. Co. v. Ogle, 23 Ind. App. 593 (1899). Under the Indiana statute authorizing a corporation for manufacturing or various other pur- poses, a corporation cannot be formed for several of theise purposes, and hence a subscription made before incorpora- tion cannot be enforced by a company organized for several objects. Will- iams V. Citizens', etc. Co., 35 Ind. App. 351 (1900). A laundry business is not a mechanical business. In re Fuller Co., 79 Miun. 414 (1900). Under the Missis- sippi statutes a corporation cannot be organized to deal in the stock of other corporations. Woodbury v. MoClurg, 78 Miss. 831 (1901). Even though the statutes do not authorize the forma- tion of a corporation for banking pur- poses, yet if a subsequent statute does so authorize and legalizes prior at- tempted incorporations upon their fil- ing a certificate, the stockholders are not liable as partners, even though such certificate has not been filed. Mason v. Stevens, 92 N. W. Rep. 434 (S. D. 1903). A statement in the arti- cles of incorporation that the com- pany may carry on such business as it 506 OH. XIII.J FARTNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 236. ally liable, there being other purposes in the certificate which are authorized.* If a general incorporating act is unconstitutional, all thinks to be for the benefit of the stockholders is void. Re Crown Bank, L.R 44 Ch. D. 634 (1890). Charters for enumerated objects " and other pur- poses " will be rejected. Re Journalists' Fund, 8 Phila. 273 (1871). So as to min- ing for " minerals." Re Glenwood Co., 6 Pa. Co. Ct. Eep. 575 (1889). A purchaser of stock from one of the supposed stock- holders cannot recover back the pur- chase price from all of such stock- holders. His remedy is other than this. Perry v. Hale, 143 Mass. 540 (1887). An application for a charter for "the min- ing for and manufacturing of oil and gas " is too general and indefinite to be granted. An application should ex- press singleness of purpose, but two pursuits may be combined when kin- dred and cognate. Op. Atty. Gen., Re Newton Hamilton, Oil etc. Co., 10 Pa. Co. Ct. Eep. 452. A mercantile busi- ness may be incorporated under a stat- ute authorizing the incorporation of "industrial business." Bashford, etc. Co. V. Agua, eta Co., 85 Pao. Rep. 983 (Ariz. 1894). Under the words "or other lawful business," in the general incorporating statute, a company may be organized to buy and sell real estata Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508 (1889). Indefl- niteness in the statement of the object of incorporation is no defense. Owen- ton, etc. Tump. Co. v. Smith, 18 S. "W. Rep, 436 (Ky. 1890). A company may incorporate to buy, sell, and deal "in real estate, live-stock, bonds, securities, and other properties of all kinds, on its own account and for commission, in the United States and elsewhere," under the Texas statute authorizing incorpo- ration for purposes of "mutual profit or benefit.'' Jefferson Nat. Bank v. Texas Inv. Co., 74 Tex. 421 (1889). A constitutional prohibition against the incorporation of any church does not prevent the incorporation of the "Gen- eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States." Guthrie V. Guthrie, 10 S. E. Rep. 327 (Va. 1889). A corporation for mining and trading cannot be organized under an act for mining. Isle Royale Land Corp. v. Os- man, 76 Mich. 162 (1889). A medical college cannot be incorporated under an act to incorporate benevolent, char- itable, scientific, and missionary soci- eties. People V. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 31T (1884). A mutual reliance society can- not be incorporated under an act for incorporating benevolent, charitable, scientific, and missionary societies. People V. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477 (1871). Where the statute authorizes incorpo- ration for producing and selling elec- tricity, and the certificate of incorpora- tion includes this as well as manufact- uring and selling electrical appliances, apparatus and supplies, the corporation is not a de jure corporation, and hence insuflBcient to support an action by one promoter against another on a contract of the latter to convey land to a cor- poration to be formed and to takestook in payment, especially where the full capital stock of such corporation had not been subscribed for. Burk v. Mead, 64 N. E. Rep. 880 (Ind. 1902). The sec- retary of state cannot be compelled to 1 Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Massey, 56 S. W. Rep, 35 (Tenn. 1899). Even though the certificate of incorporation includes powers which the statute does not au- thorize, yet this does not render the corporation void and the stockholders liable as partners, especially where the creditor had obtained a judgment against the corporation as a corpora- tion. Shoun V. Armstrong, 59 S. W. Rep. 790 (Tenn. 1900). See also S? 4, supra. If a charter contains purposes, some of which are legal and some ille- gal, it is good to the extent of the for- mer. Galveston Land & Imp. Co. v. Perkins, 26 S. W. Rep. 256 (Tex. 1894). 507 § 236.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [oh. XIII. supposed corporations formed thereunder are merely partnerships and the members are liable as partners.* If the business itself, for accept the certificate of incorporation for growing, selling and purchasing rice and other agricultural products under a statute organizing a corpora- tion for growing, selling and purchas- ing seeds, plants, etc., for agricultural purposes. Miller v. Tod, 67 S. W. Rep. 483 (Tex. 1902). After the state has caused a charter to be declared illegal, the duty of the state is finished, and a receiver will not be appointed, all the debts having been paid and all the parties in interest being satisfied, the stockholders having been declared per- sonally liable the same as in a copart- nership. State V. New Orleans, etc. Co., 33 S. Rep. 103 (La. 1903). The va- lidity of the charter of a school incor- porated as a joint-stock incorporation cannot be tested in quo warranto pro- ceedings brought to determine the rights of parties claiming to be trus- tees. Commonwealth v. Yetter, 190 Pa. St. 488 (1899). Under a general act authorizing incorporation for purposes other than profit, a cemetery cannot be organized for profit, and hence the incorporators are not entitled to mon- eys received from the sale of lots, but are bound to use such moneys to im- prove the property. Brown v. Maple- wood, etc. Assoc, 89 N. W. Rep. 872 (Minn. 1902). A stock co:'poration can- not be formed under the laws of West Virginia to promote religion by aiding in the support of Baptist ministers and in the erection of churches, etc. Powell V. Dawson, 45 W. Va. 780 (1899). "Any other lawful purpose" does not include mutual contribution and aid, and the encouragement of frugality, etc. State v. International Inv. Co., 88 Wis. 512 (1894). A trust company is not a bank within the meaning of a criminal statute. State i\ Reid, 125 Mo. 43 (1894). Express business is an "industrial pursuit,"' as used in the federal statute allowing incorporation in territories. Wells, etc. Ca v. Northern Pac. Ry., 23 Fed. Rep. 469 (1881). A mercantile enterprise may be incorporated under an act authorizing incorporation for any "industrial or productive inter- est." Carver Merc. Co. v. Hulme, 7 Mont. 566 (1888). An elevator company cannot incorporate under a manufact- uring company act. Mohr v. Minne- sota Elev. Co., 40 Minn. 343 (1889). Printing and publishing a newspaper Is not a manufacturing business. Press Printing Co. V. State Board of Assess- ors, 51 N. J. L. 75 (1888). Under an act authorizing incorporations for " trade,"' an incorporation for buying and selling land will be sustained. Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 53 Minn. 339 (1893). Where the genei-al incorporating act does not provide for the incorporation of railroad or banking corporations under it, a corporation organized under it to buy and sell railroad stock and bonds and to lease railroads and opei'- ate and aid them is void. Clarke v. Central R R, 50 Fed. Rep. 338 (1892). But see s. c. sub nam. Clarke v. Rich- mond, etc. Ry., 62 Fed. Rep. 338 (1894). 1 Eaton V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579 (1889). There may be a question as to the va- lidity of the law itself allowing the in- corporation. Williams v. Bank of Mich- igan, 7 Wend. 539 (1831); State v. How, 1 Mich. 512 (1846); Chenango Bridge Co. V. Paige, 88 N. Y. 178, 190 (1880). As to a corporation incorporated by a state as a state, before it was adm itted to the Union, see Mayers v. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 283 (1851). Persons acting as agents for a corporation which does not exist are personally liable, even though they acted in good faith. La- grone v. Timmerman, 46 S. C. 372 (1895), a case where one corporation undertook to grant a charter to another corpora- tion. Contra, Scott v. Detroit, etc. See, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 119 (1843). A stock- 508 CH. XIII.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 236. which a corporation is attempted, is illegal, the charter is no pro- tection.' Frequently certain kinds of business are not mentioned in the act, for the reason that it is not deemed wise public policy to allow a limited liability in that class of business, such as con- struction companies for the building of railroads.^ Accordingly, holder wlio has given a mortgage to legalizes and regulates race tracks. Re New York Booking Co., N. Y. L. J., April 39, 1893. It is no defense to a sub- scription for stock as against a receivei' that the real object of the corporation was to promote selling pools on horse racing and gambling. Augir v. Ryan, 63 Minn. 373 (1896). Under a statute authorizing incorporation "for pecun- iary profit or gain," persons may incor- porate to issue bonds to be paid for by purchasers thereof in monthly instal- ments and to be redeemed as might be prescribed and to sell and dispose of such bonds. State v. Corkins, 133 Mo. 56 (1894). The courts will refuse a char- ter to a company whose business is to- be " to promote the business of such re- tail coal dealers as become members thereof and to protect them," etc., the intent being to combine the retail coal dealers. Re Richmond, etc. Coal Co., 9 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 31 (Phila. 1890). Per- sons incorporated for the purpose of doing a grain-gambling business have been held jointly and severally liabla for money obtained from a customer. The corporate character does not pro- tect them. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572 (1887). A sub- scriber who is sued by a receiver of the corporation on a subscription can- not set up the defense that the purpose^ of the corporation was illegal, in that it involved a drawing for distribution among' the stockholders of lots of un- equal value Cardwell v. Kelly, 95 Va. 570 (1898). '^ It has been held, however, that, under the general act for the incorporation of companies for constructing and operat- ing a railroad, a company for the con- struction alone of the road may be in- corporated. " That there can be a rail- road company which does nothing but. the corporation cannot defeat the same on the ground that the charter was un- constitutional. Building, eta Assoc, v. Chamberlain, 4 S. D. 371 (1898). A cred- itor who has dealt with a bank as a cor- poration cannot afterwards claim that the stockholders are liable as partners by reason of the charter being uncon- stitutional. Richards v. Minn. Sav. Bank, 75 Minn. 196 (1899). See also § 637, infra. 1 Edwards v. Mich. etc. Co., 93 N. W. Rep. 491 (Mich. 1903). Notes given in the purchase of stock in a corporation whose sole business is to carry on an infringing telephone business are without consid- eration and void. Clemshire v. Boone County Bank, 53 Ark. 513 (1890). Where a scheme involving a lapse of member- ship and rights is organized under theact authorizing the organization of benevo- lent and charitable institutions, a court of equity will enjoin the continuance of business and will wind it up, the of- ficers being guilty of illegal conduct. Peltz V. Supreme, eta Union, 19 Atl. Rep. 668 (N. J. 1890). Where a com- pany is organized for an illegal purpose, i. e., a, lottery, and its capital stock is issued without consideration, a person buying stock with notice of the facts cannot maintain a bill for an injunc- tion against the issue of preferred stock and for a receiver. Le Warne v. Meyer, 38 Fed. Rep. 191 (1889). The organiza- tion of a company to carry on the lot- tery business in foreign countries was held legal in Macnee v. Persian Inv. Corp., L. R. 44 Ch. D. 306 (1890). Of. Le Warne v. Meyer, 38 Fed. Rep. 191 (1889). The secretary of state will not be com- pelled to accept articles of incorpora- tion for bookmaking, — i. e., gambling on races, — even though the statute 509 § 231] PAETNKESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [cH. XIII. where the business for which incorporation is sought is not within the classes of business mentioned in the act itself, the attempted in- corporation is void and the participants are liable as copartners. § 237. Liability as j)artners hy reason of the fact that the corpo- ration is incorporated in one state, hut does all its business in an- other state. — By the comity of states the rule has become well es- tablished that a corporation organized under the laws of a state may transact business beyond the borders of that state.' A broad and liberal view of this comity of states and the interests of business was taken by the New York court of appeals in the cases of Deraarest v. Flack,^ and Merrick v. Van Santvoord,' where the court refused to hold the stockholders liable as partners, although the companies were clearly organized for the purpose of doing all construct the road, and a railroad com- pany which does nothing but oper- ate the constructed road, cannot be doubted. It is not essential to the idea of a railroad company that it should both construct and operate a railway." First Nat. Bank of Davenport v. Da vies, 43 Iowa, 434 (1876), followed in Jessup V. Carnegie, 80 N. "X. 441 (1880); Langan V. Iowa, etc. Constr. Co., 49 Iowa, 317 (1878). 1 " It is very true that a corporation can have no legal existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it is created. . . . But although it must live and have its being in that state only, yet it does not by any means follow that its existence there will not be recognized in other places; and its residence in one state creates no insu- perable objection to its power of con- tracting in another." Taney, Ch. J., in Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 588 (1839). 2 It is legal for citizens of New York to take out a charter in West Virginia, ■even though all the corporate business is to be transacted in New York. The stockholders are not liable as partners. Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205 (1891). The court said (p. 217): " If in any par- ticular case it is thought by those inter- ested in the matter that the business can be done in our own state and by our own citizens with greater facility under the form of a foreign corporation than under that of a domestic one, there is no public policy which forbids its transaction under such form.'" Af- firming Demarest v. Flack, 11 N. Y. Supp. 83 (1890). 3 Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208 (1866). reversing Merrick v. Brain- ard, 38 Barb. 574 (1860), where, although a Connecticut corporation did all its corporate business and performed all its corporate acts in New York except the holding of elections, yet the court, in a well-considered and ably-written opinion, held that the corporation did not thereby lose its corporate character, and that its members were not liable as partners, saying: " We thinkthe recog- nition, in our state, of the rights hith- erto conceded in our courts to foreign corporations is neither injurious to our interests, repugnant to our policy, nor opposed to the spirit of our legislation. . It would be neither provident nor just to inaugurate a rule which would unsettle the security of corporate property and rights, and exclude others from the enjoyment here of privileges which have always been accorded to us abroad. ... A corporation is an artificial being, and has no dwelling, either in its oflBce, its warehouses, its depots, or its ships. . . . The grant of franchises without restriction is equivalent to a specific authority to ex- 510 OH. XIII.J PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [§237 of their business outside of the state wherein they took out their charters. This rule of law has been sustained by the courts of Ohio also, and is established by the great weight of authority.' ercise them wherever the company might find it convenient or profitable, whether within or without the limits of the state of Connecticut." A New Jersey corporation is legally organized even though all of its incorporators, with one exception, are citizens and residents of New York state. Lancaster V, Amsterdam Imp. Co., 14.0 N. Y. 576 (1894). 1 Although parties incorporate in Kentucky, by reason of the greater liberality of the Kentucky corporation statutes, and although the corporation does all its business in Ohio, neverthe- less its corporate charter is recognized, and the stockholders are not liable as partners on a corporate note. Second Nat. Bank v. Lovell, 3 Gin. (Ohio), 397 (1873); Second Nat. Bank v. Hall, 35 Ohio St. 158 (1878), the court holding it to be no fraud on the Ohio laws for a corporation oi-ganized under the laws of Kentucky to do all its business in Ohio, even though thereby the stock- holders escape a personal liability. A party contracting with a foreign cor- poration to pay it in oil from land as- signed by it to him cannot defeat the suit of the corporation by alleging that it was incorporated in another state to do all its business in the state, and thereby was guilty of a fraud. New- burg Petroleum Co. v. Weare, 27 Ohio St. 813 (1875). A corporation may be organized in one state and do all of its business in another state. Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 318 <1893). Citizens of Rhode Island may incorporate a company in Kentucky for the purpose of doing business in Rhode Island. Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R L 484 (1894). In People v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 153 111. 35 (1894), it was held that, in the absence of an ex- press prohibitory statute, a corporation legally organized under the laws of an- other state to do a multiform insurance business may do such business in Illi- nois, although such a corporation could not be organized under the laws of Illi- nois. See also Danforth v. Penny, 44 Mass. 564 (1843). A judgment against a West Virginia corporation cannot be enforced against the president, even though it is alleged that the corpora- tion was a myth and did not exist, and that its organization had not been kept up and that the president was the real owner and carried on the business. The remedy is an original suit against him. Tilley v. Coykendall, 173 N. Y. 587 (1903). A subscriber to stock in a West Virginia corporation doing all its business in Minnesota cannot set up that the company was not legally in- corporated, and cannot set up that the plaintiff is not a corporation, he having participated in its incorporation. Min- nesota, etc. Co. V. Denslow, 46 Minn. 171 (1891). In Wright v. Lee, 3 S. D. 596 (1893), it appears that a Minnesota cor- poration did all its business in South Dakota. The court held this to be legal. See also Atchison, etc. R. R. v. Fletcher, 35 Kan. 336, 343, 344 (1886). Concerning the legality, purpose, and effect of per- sons incorporating in one state with the intention of doing all of the corporate business in another state, see an article in 35 Am. Law Rev. 353, criticising the law as laid down above, and another article in 36 Am. Law Rev. 343, com- mending the law as laid down above. Bateman v. Service, L. R. 6 App. Cas. 396 (1881); Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 149 (1869). A charter will not be forfeited merely because the corpo- ration was incorporated in one state and all its officers and stockholders re- side in another state; nor because it keeps its books out of the state in vio- lation of a statute. North, etc. Stock Co. V. People, 147 111. 334 (1893). A oor- 511 § 23Y.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOOKHOLDEES. [CH. XIII. Although a bill in equity sets forth that a corporation is merely a pretended corporation as a part of a fraudulent scheme, and is really nothing but a partnership, nevertheless, if such corporation poration of one state "lawfully may, as they often actually do, remove their officers, agents, offices, and effects into another sovereignty, and there exercise their functions and franchises." Penn- sylvania Co. V. Sloan, 1 III. App. 364 (1878). A Connecticut corporation may hold land in New Hampshire, although it does little or no business In Connec- ticut. New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton, 19 Fed. Rep. 73 (1884). 'A cor- poration may sell its products in any state and collect notes given in pay- ment. Hall V. Tanner, etc. Co., 91 Ala. 363 (1890). " Comity between the states authorizes a corporation to exercise its charter powers within another state, but it does not permit the exercise of a power where the policy of that state, distinctly marked by legislative enact- ments or constitutional provision, for- bids it." In this case the consolidation of competing lines of railway was in- volved. Clarke v. Central E. R, 50 Fed. Rep. 338 (1893). See s. c. sub nom. Clarke v. Richmond, etc. Ry., 63 Fed. Rep. 328 (1894). A limited partnership formed under the laws of Spain will be recognized and upheld by o£ir courts. King V. Sarria, 69 N. Y. 24 (1877), where the court discusses the comity of states. See also Missouri Lead Min. Co. v. Rein- hard, 114 Mo. 318 (1893), where a Mis- souri corporation sold all its property to an English corporation. In Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 353 (1879), in- volving the question whether a foreign corporation could, by bequest, take land in Illinois, the court said: " In harmony with the general law of comity obtain- ing among the states composing the Union, the presumption should be in- dulged that a corporation of one state, not forbidden by the law of its being, may exercise within any other state the general powers conferred by its own charter, unless it is prohibited 512 from so doing, either in the direct en- actments of the latter state, or by its public policy, to be deduced from the general course of legislation or from the settled adju(|ications of its highest court." See also Oregonian Ry. v. Ore- gon Ry. & Nav. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 333 (1885), where the plaintiff, an English corporation, did all its business in Ore- gon; reversed on another point, 130 U. S. 1 (1889). A corporation " may do business in all places where its charter allows and the local laws do not for- bid." Canada Southern Ry. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527 (1883). See also Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55 (1879), holding that a Pennsylvania corporation au- thorized to purchase land in states and territories west of the Mississippi may purchase land in Colorado, and such purchase is valid, where no statute of Colorado prohibits it. And see Stock- ton V. Baltimore, etc. R R., 33 Fed. Rep. 9 (1887). Even though a corporation has its real and actual place of business outside of the state for portions of the year, yet this does not invalidate its in- corporation. Hastings v. Anacortes, etc. Co., 69 Pac. Rep. 776 (Wash. 1903). Even though a corporation intends to do all its business in one county, it may fix its principal place of business in its charter in another county. McCand- less V. Inland, etc. Co., 115 Ga. 968 (1903). In HoUis V. Drew TheoL Sem., 95 N. Y. 166 (1884), the court said, as to foreign corporations, that the courts could not exclude them from doing business in the state. " Unless the legislature for- bids, they can come here as freely as natural persons and exercise here all the powers conferred upon them by their charters, subject to the same lim- itations imposed upon natural persons; that is, they oan do no acts in violation of our laws or of our policy. But, un- less prohibited by law, they oan do OH. Xin.] PAETNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [§ 238. has an existing charter, it exists as a corporation, sufliciently at least to determine the right of the federal courts to entertain juris- diction of a case.' But where property is transferred to a non- resident corporation for the sole purpose of enabling the parties to litigate a claim in the United States courts, the United States courts will refuse to take jurisdiction.^ § 238. There are a few decisions refusing to recognize such incor- porations. In Massachusetts it has been held that where a citizen of Massachusetts incorporates a company in ISTew Hampshire, and states in the certificate of incorporation that the chief place of business is in a city in New Hampshire, and that he and his asso- ciates are jointly interested, the corporation is to be held fraudulent and void upon proof being given that all the business was carried on in Massachusetts, and that the associates were "dummies," having one share of stock each.' In New Jersey, at an early day, it was held that a corporation could not become incorporated under the laws of New York for the purpose of carrying on all its corporate transactions in the state here, within the limits of their char- tered powers, precisely what domestic corporations could do." See also Bard V. Poole, 13 N. Y. 495 (1855); Mumford V. American Life, etc. Co., 4 N. T. 463, 483 (1851); Re New Tork, L. &W. R. R., 35 Hun, 220 (1885). In People v. Fire Assoc., 93 N. Y. 311 (1883), the court, in holding that the state may prohibit a foreign insurance company from doing business within its borders unless a cer- tain tax was paid, said: "The right of a state to exclude foreign corporations is perfectly settled and not open to de- bata Out of comity between the states has grown a right founded upon im- plied consent. Where a state does not forbid, or its public policy, as evidenced by its statutes, is not infringed, a for- eign corporation may transact business within its boundaries, and be entitled to the protection of its laws." As was said by Chancellor Kent in SiWer Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. 370 (1820), in reference to allowing foreign corpo- rations to sue in our courts, such a policy is demanded by comity, since otherwise they might say: " What race of men is this, from whose shores we are excluded V " 1 Empire Coal, etc. Co. v. Empire Min. etc. Co., 150 U. S. 159 (1893). In Irvine Co. V. Bond, 74 Fed. Eep. 849 (1896), an owner of land in California incorpo- rated a company under the laws of West Virginia and transferred to it, in payment for stock, certain portions of his land. He owned all the stock, and caused one share each to be issued to his lawyer, his wife, and three em- ployees. The court held that the corpo- ration was legal so far as the jurisdic- tion of the United States court was concerned. 2 Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U. S. 827 (1895). 3 Montgomery ■;;. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249 (1889). In this case the holder of a note- signed in the corporate name, and given for goods sold, sued a stockholder for the price of the goods. The court sus- tained the suit and said: "The appar- ent corporation was not a corporation. . . . The defendant's pretended asso- ciates were associates only in name; he alone was interested in the enterprise. The articles of agreement were recorded in Nashua [N. H.], and stated that the business was to be carried on there; but it was not in fact carried on there, (33) 513 § 238.] PAETNERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDBKS. [OH. XIIL of New Jersey.^ The stockholders were held to be merely partners. Likewise it was held that where a corporation was incorporated to do business in a certain city in the state, but actually did all its business in another city of that state, the incorporation was a fraud upon the law, and the company was the same as though unincor- porated.^ In these days, however, when New Jersey is the favorite resort for the class of corporations now under consideration, the laws of that state having been framed especially for the purpose of attracting them, it is not at all probable that the old decisions in that state on this subject would be adhered to.' In Texas it has been held that its citizens are liable as partners and was not intended to be. This is not a case where there has been a de- fective organization of a corporation which has a legal existence under a valid charter. Here there was no cor- poration. . . . The business was [de- fendant's] personal business, which he transacted under that name." Cf. Salt- marsh V. Spaulding, 147 Mass. 324(1888). 1 The corporation " cannot be recog- nized by any court in New Jersey as a legally constituted corporation, nor be dealt with as such. If it can be, what need is there of any general or special law in our state ? Individuals desirous of carrying on any manufacturing business may go into the city of New York, organize under the general laws of that state, erect all their manufact- uring establishments here, and, under their assumed name, transact their business, not only free from all personal responsibility, but under cover of a corporation not amenable to our laws." Hill V. Beach, 13 N. J. Eq. 31 (1858). 2 The corporation was incorporated to do business in Trenton, but actually transacted all its business in Jersey City. The court said: "The doctrine that the organization cannot be in- quired into collaterally has no appli- cation as the case stands, because the charter does not fit this company, and was not intended for it." Wonderly v. Booth, 36 N. J. L. 350 (1873). This doc- trine was followed in a New York case in a lower court, the facts being that a New Jersey corporation had no office or place of business in New Jersey, and did no business there, but transacted its business in New York. " It was not an existing corporation within the meaning of the statute of New Jersey, under which it purports to have been incorporated. . . . It was a fraud upon the laws of New Jersey and cannot screen defendants and its organizers from personal responsibility as partners for contracts made in New York under the assumed name." Kruse v. Dusen- bury, 19 N. Y. Week. Dig. (N. Y. Com. PI.) 201 (1884). This last case seems to have been decided without noticing Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208 (1866), and the case certainly is not the law of New York. In the case of Coler V. Tacoma, etc. Co., 53 Atl. Rep. 680 (N. J. 1903), it appears that a New Jersey cor- poration owned and operated a street railway in the state of Washington. 3 An injunction does not lie at the in- stance of the state against a corpora- tion doing business on the ground that its stock was not properly issued and that there was no intent to do any busi- ness within the state or to have an office therein. Stockton v. American, etc Co.. 55 N. J. Eq. 352 (1897). Chief Jus- tice Beasley, in Erie Ry. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531, 544 (1864), said: "A stat- ute that should abolish the rule of comity, and should refuse a recognition of foreign corporations, would, it is con- ceived, have this effect and no more, i, e,, 514 CH. XIII.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§§ 239, 240. where they incorporate in another state to carry on a mercantile business in Texas, the legislature of Texas having substantially for- bidden incorporation for that purpose.' In Canada, also, at an early day, the same rule seems to have been laid down.^ §§ 239, 240. There certainly is a limjt beyond which the courts will not go. In order that contracts may be upheld and the cor- porate character be sustained, it is necessary that both the state to convert the foreign corporators, as to the state enacting the supposed law, into a partnership of individuals." ' Stockholders are liable as partners in Texas, on business done in Texas, ■where they organized a corporation in Iowa to do a mercantile business, the laws of Texas not authorizing incorpo- ration for that purpose. Empire Mills V. Alston Grocery Co., 15 S. W. Rep. 200 (Tex. 1891). It appeared in this case, however, that the legislature had ex- pressly declared the policy of the state by repealing a statute that authorized incorporation for mercantile purposes. See s. c, 15 S. W. Rep. 505, on rehear- ing. The fact that the company is do- ing all its business in another state does not release the company from its obligation to issue certificates of stock to its stockholders. Rio Grande Cattle Co. V. Burns, 82 Tex. 50 (1891). Where a Colorado corporation has power, among other things, to deal in real es- tate, its purchases of land in Texas cannot be questioned by any one ex- cept the state, even though Texas did not allow incorporation for that pur- pose Galveston, etc. Co. v. Perkins, 26 S. W. Rep. 256 (1894). Where the char- ter need not state the principal place of business within the state the charter is legal, although it states that the business is to be carried on in certain other states. Seattle v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 131 (1899)i Because a corporation does business outside of the state wherein it is incorporated It will not be presumed that it does no business within such state. Lasater v. Purqell, etc. Ca, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 83 (1899). ^ In Canada it has been held that no state can validly authorize a body cor- porate to transact business out of its own territory. Bank of Montreal v. Bathune, 4 Up. Can. (Q. B.) (O. S.) 841 (1882); Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. v. West- man, 8 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 487 (1852); Union Rubber Co. v. Hibbard, 6 Up. Can. (C. P.) 77 (1855). If carefully ex- amined, these cases decide that a cor- poration formed to carry on a particu- lar business in one country exceeds its powers if it carries on a similar busi- ness out of that country. At the same time the judges who decided those cases based their judgments on sup- posed grounds of international law. The iirst case mentioned above held that a bank chartered in Lower Can- ada has no power to discount a note in Upper Canada and sue upon the same, but may recover for money had and received. In the case of Genesee Mut. Ins. Co. V. Westman, 8 Up. Can. (Q. B.) 487 (1852), the court held that a New York corporation had no right or power to enter into any contract at all or transact any business in a corporate capacity in that province. In Rey- nolds V. Gallihar, etc. Co., 19 Nova Sco- tia Rep. 466 (1886), it appears that a Massachusetts corporation owned a mine in Nova Scotia. The decision was concerning an attachment, and the le- gality of the company's acts was not questioned. A foreign corporation may hold personal property in Ontario. Commercial, etc. Bank v. Concoran, 6 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 527 (1884). 515 § 240.] PAETKERSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [cH. XIII. creating the corporation and the corporation so created shall have acted in good faith in conferring and taking the corporate privi- leges. Thus, where a corporation was incorporated by the legis- lature of Pennsylvania, and authorized to do business anywhere but in that state, the courts of Kansas refused to recognize its cor- porate character.' The cOmity of states does not prevail to that extent. So also, where parties take out a charter in Tennessee, but, instead of holding their organization meetings in Tennessee, hold them in Florida, where they do all their business, they are liable in Florida as partners.' In Minnesota it is held that it may be good ground for the forfeiture of the charter that the corpora- tion is intended solely for business in another state.' "Where a dummy corporation is solely to avoid making a deposit required by statute, a subscriber may refuse to pay his subscription.^ 1 Land Grant Ry. v. Coffey County, 6 Kan. 245 (1870), the court saying: " No rule of comity will allow one state to spawn corporations, and send them forth into other states to be nurtured and do business there, when said first- mentioned state will not allow them to do business within its own boundaries." And see Opinion of Attorney-General of Texas (1887), 2 Ey. & Corp. L J. 433, to the effect that a Scotch corporation, authorized to purchase land anywhere excepting at home, cannot hold lands in Texas. 2 Taylor v. Branham, 35 Fla. 397 (1895). The dicta in this decision as to the liability of stockholders in foreign cor- porations doing business in Florida are startling, to say the least. Where a charter is taken out in one state and the organization meetings are held in another state, the presumption is that DO corporation is organized, and unless proof is given that the statutes of the first-named state authorized the hold- ing of the organization meeting in an- other state, the stockholders are liable as partners. Duke v. Taylor, 87 Fla. 64 (1896). See also § 589, infra. ' In State v. Park, eta Co., 58 Minn, 330 (1894), the court forfeited the char- ter of a company that had been incor- porated in Minnesota for the purpose evidently of doing all its business in 516 "Wisconsin. The charter was forfeited on the ground that the company had not complied with the statute, in hav- ing its place of business, and keeping its books, within the state. The court also approved of a decision in Wiscon- sin to the effect that at common law a charter may be forfeited where the- corporation keeps its principal ofiBce, books, and records out of the state tO' such an extent that it is impossible for the state and its courts to have full jurisdiction and visitorial power over the corporation. Where a corporation removes all its offices from the state, a stockholder may apply, under a statute^ for a dissolution on the ground of an abuse of powers. Simmons v. Norfolk, etc Steamboat Co., 113 N. C. 147 (1893). In Kansas the charter of a corporation may be forfeited at the instance of the- state, if the corporation fails to keep its general office and the office of its treas- urer within the state, in accordance with the terms of the statutes. State v.. Topeka Water Co., 59 Kan. 151 (1898). * Money paid on a subscription to the- stock of a New Jersey corporation may be recovered back, it being shown that such New Jersey corporation was merely a dummy corporation to enable a New York corporation to do business in New Jersey without making a de- posit required by the statutes of New CH. Xni.J PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 241. § 241. Assessments hy the corporation in excess of the par value of the stock — StocTtholders are not liable therefor. — It is a principle of law, coeval with the existence of corporations having a capital stock, that, unless the corporate charter or a constitutional statute provides otherwise, a stockholder, the full par value of whose stock has been paid in, is not liable for and cannot be made to pay any sums in addition thereto.' The mere legislative act of creating a corpo- Jersey, and it being also shown that it ■was falsely represented that the New Jersey was a bona fide corporation. Seeber v. People's, etc. Assoc, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 313 (1899). 1 Great Falls, etc. E. R. v. Copp, 38 N. H. 124 (1859); State v. Morristown Fire Assoc, 23 N. J. L. 195 (1851); Mor- ley V. Thayer, 3 Fed. Rep. 737 (1880); Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 (1879); Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456. 473 (1822); Shaw V. Boylan, 16 Ind. 384 (1861); Coffin v. Rich, 45 Me. 507, §11 (1858); Gray v. Coffin, 63 Mass. 193, 199 (1853); French V. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 518, 540 (1864); Norton v. Hodges, 100 Mass. 341 (1868); Buenz v. Cook, 15 Colo. 38 (1890). " The personal liability of stockholders for the debts of the corporation arises only from statute." United States v. Stan- ford, 161 U. S. 413, 439 (1896). Stocb- holders are not liable at common law over and above the stock itself. Wells V. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 443 (1895). " The creation of the corporation neces- sarily destroys the common-law liabil- ity of the individual members for its debts." People v. Coleman, 133 N. Y. 379 (1893). ' "After the full par value of the stock subscribed for has been paid, the common-law liability of the stockholder, both as respects the cor- poration and its creditors, is at an end." Toner v. Fulkerson, 135 Ind. 334 (1890). Stockholders are not personally liable for corporate debts. Gorder v. Con- nor, 56 Neb. 781 (1898). The chief stockholders cannot be held liable for the corporate debts on the theory of a "general understanding" that they would be responsible. The corporation alone is liable. Circulars, bill-heads, letters, etc, Tised in the business and containing the corporation's name are admissible to show that the business was conducted in the corporate name and on the corporate responsibility. Butte Hardware Co. v. Wallace, 59 Conn. 336 (1890). The individual stock- holders of a corporation are not liable fflr the debts of the corporation, and an attachment against it cannot be levied on their property. Owen v. Marshall, 69 Wis. 486 (1891). The holders of full- paid stock cannot be assessed on such stock, even under a reorganization agreement of a majority of the stock- holders. Where, however, for four years the stockholder does not object, and then applies for a transfer of his stock, a court of equity may refuse to grant the transfer and may give him damages for the value of his stock at the time of the demand of transfer, together with interest. Gresham i: Island City Sav. Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 52 (1893). Stockholders are not liable for services rendered to the company, even though they induce the party to render such services. Davidson v. Westchester, etc Cc, 99 N. Y. 558 (1885); Oliver v. Liverpool, etc. Ins. Co., 100 Mass. 531, 539 (1868), holding that, in order to prevent this limited liability, the English parliament expressly de- clared joint-stock companies not to be incorporations. Moore v. New Jersey, ,etc Co., 5 N. Y. Supp. 193 (1889); Myers v. Irwin, 2 Serg. & R (Pa.) 368, 371 (1816), the court saying: "The personal responsibility of the stockholder is in- consistent with the nature of a body corporate: " Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massa- chusetts, 10 Wall 565, 576 (1879); New 517 § 241.J PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. [cH. XIII. ration produces by implication tliis limited liability of its members. For this reason the statutes regulating joint-stock companies are fre- quently careful to state that nothing therein contained shall give such companies the character of corporations.' The older text- England Com. Bank v. Newport Steam Factory, 6 E. I. 188 (1859); Walker v. Lewis, 49 Tex. 133 (1878); Green v. Beckman, 59 Cal. 545 (1881); Jones v. Jarman, 34 Ark, 333 (1879); Windham Prov. Inst. V. Sprague, 43 Vt. 503 (1871); Woods V. Wicks, 7 Lea (Tenn.), 40 (1881), on the ground that the corporate creditor contracts not witl) the stock- holders, but with the corporation; Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 316 (1879), the court saying: " The individual liability of stockholders in a corporation is al- ways a creature of statuta It does not exist at common law; " Smith v. Huckabee, 53 Ala. 191 (1875), where the court said: "Immunity from such lia- bility is one of the inducements which has led to the multiplication of private corporations, and caused them to super- sede, to a great extent, in hazardous enterprises, or enterprises requiring large capital, partnerships; " Spense v. Iowa Valley Constr. Co., 36 Iowa, 407 (1873), the court saying: "It is one of the distinguishing features of incor- porations that the individual property of its members may be exempt from liability for corporate debts. Herein consists the great superiority of a cor- poration over a partnership or an un- incorporated joint-stock company; " Salt Lake City Nat. Bank v. Hendrick- son, 40 N. J. L. 53 (1878); Van Sandau V. Moore, 1 Russ. Ch. 441, 457 (1836); Atwood V. Rhode Island Agrio. Bank, 1 R L 376 (1850), the court saying: " At common law the stockholders in a corporation are not liable individually for the ' corporate debts. The capital stock is the fund to which alone the creditors must resort, unless in cases of fraud." The case of Atlantic De Laine Co. V. Mason, 5 R, L 463 (1858), holds that the payment of one invalid assess- ment is no waiver of the right to object to another. Cf. Field v. Pierce. 103 Mass. 353 (1869). If the stockholders voluntarily contribute to the corporate treasury in order to make it a success, such gifts are not corporate debts and cannot be recovered back. Bidwell v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry., 114 Pa. St. 535 (1887); Leavitt v. Oxford, etc. Co., 3 Utah, 265 (1883). A corporation has no power to levy an assessment. Duluth Clubu McDonald, 74 Minn. 354 (1898). Although a law library corporation has a capital stock which is fully paid, yet a by-law may assess annual dues upon the members. Omaha L. L. Assoc, v. Connell, 55 Neb. 396 (1898). Even though the by-laws provide for annual dues, yet this does not enable a creditor to file a bill to compel the directors to levy annual dues sufficient to pay his debt, the capital stock having been fully paid in. Johnston, etc. Co. v. Detroit, etc., 134 Mich. 115 (1900). fiven though the by-laws of a natural-gas company provide that stockholders shall have gas free, yet such by-law may be changed so as to authorize the company to charge a uniform price to the stockholders for gas. Redkey, etc. Ca V. Orr, 37 Ind." App. 1 (1901). A by- law of a corporation, organized to own and maintain a hunting park, may authorize assessments on the stock to pay any annual deficiency, and such by-law is binding on stockholders, who accept the certificate of stock which on its face refers to the by-law. The by-law is valid as a contract, even though it is not valid as a by-law. Blue Mountain, eta Assoc, v. Borrowe, 31 Atl. Rep. 670 (N. H. 1901). See also § 4a, supra, 1 Oliver v. Liverpool, etc. Ins. Co., 100 Mass. 581, 539 (1868). And seech. XXIX, infra, Cf. Omaha, etc. Assoc, v. Con- nell, 55 Neb. 396 (1898). 518 CH, XIII.] PAETNEKSHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 242, books and the earlier reports did not fully appreciate the impor- tance of this principle of law. Of such importance is it that it would seem to be the great and distinguishing characteristic of cor- porations, and not a subsidiary or unimportant one. For many years it seems to have been assumed rather than adjudicated.' In the early turnpike company cases of Kew England a contrary rule appears to have been assumed, and the subscriber appears to have been open to assessments indefinitely, except that he might refuse to pay, and thus enable the company to forfeit his stock.^ Such companies, however, liad no fixed par value of their stock. At pres- ent the rule of non-liability at common law, beyond the par value of the stock, is established beyond question, and forms the chief in- ducement in the formation of the many corporations of the day. The question ©f what tlie legal effect is where all the stockholders voluntarily assess themselves is considered elsewhere.' § 242. Attempts have been made in various ways to authorize the assessment of stockholders for amounts after the par value of their stock has been paid in. Such efforts have generally failed^ It cannot be done by a majority vote of the stockholders, nor of the directors, nor by a by-law.^ The liability is sometimes provided iln the case of Carr v. Iglehart, 3 Ohio St 457 (1854), the court took coun- sel to task for questioning this prin- ciple of law. For an opinion that at common law the stockholders were lia- ble for all corporate debts, see Har- vard Law Rev., Nov. 1888, p. 160. 2 Middlesex Turnp. Co. v. Swan, 10 Mass. 384 (1813). ' See § 76, supra. " Where stockhold- ers voluntarily assess themselves, to relieve the corporation from pecuniary- embarrassment, or for the betterment of their stock, whatever may be the oc- casion of the assessment, the advances thus made are not debts against, but assets of, the corporation." Brodriok V. Brown, 69 Fed. Rep. 497 (1895). ' Quoted and approved in Redkey, etc. Co. V. Orr, 27Ind. App. 1 (1901), holding also that a stockholder may enjoin the corporation from enforcing any such assessment. Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68 (1868): Andover Free Schools v. Flint, 54 Mass. 539 (1847); Kennebec, etc. R. E. V. Kendall, 31 Me. 470 (1850); Reid«. Eatonton Mfg. Co., 40 Ga. 98 (1869). In the first-mentioned case the defendant subscribed to such a by-law, among other by-laws, when he subscribed for stock. Placing the words "individual property of stockholders liable " on the face of corporate obligations has no effect in itself. Stockholders are liable only as prescribed by law. Lowry v. Inman, 46 N. Y. 119 (1871). An agree- ment of a vendee of stock with the vendor to pay the corporate debts is not enforceable by corporate creditors. Andover Free Schools v. Flint, 54 Mass. 539, 543 (1847;. But the agreement is enforceable if made directly with cred- itors. Maxwell's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. 585 (1874). By consent of the stockholders each share may be subject to further assessment; and, when this agreement is printed on the certificates, the pur- chaser is bound by it. Weeks v. Silver, etc. Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1 (1887)! The case, however, of Hume v. Winyah, etc. Canal Co., Carolina L. Jour. 217, held, at an early day, that where a corpora- tion, not professing to have any fixed capital, made a by-law by which each 519 § 242.] PARTNERSHIP I-IABILITT OF STOCKHOLDERS. [CH. XIII. for in the statutes under which the corporation was originally or- ganized.' Often the statutes authorize either a limited liability- corporation or one with unlimited liability, as the incorporators may desire. Such is the case in New York ^ and in England.' An American stockholder in an English corporation is liable to assessments upon his stock where such assessment has been levied of the corporators was bound to con- tribute equally or ratably to all ex- penses incurred, the corporators were liable personally. See Gresham v. Island City Sav. Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 52 (1893). iln California, under sections 331, 333 of the Civil Code, a corporation may assess its members to any extent "for the purpose of paying expenses, conducting business, or paying debts." Santa Cruz R. E. v. Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193 (1884). In California all shares of stock are assessable, even though they have once been fully paid. Green v. Abietine Med. Co., 96 Cal. 322 (1892). Under the California statute which renders stockholders personally liable for an assessment on their stock after the stock has been advertised for sale, the stockholders are not liable before such stock has been advertised for sale. Shively v. Eureka, etc. Co., 129 Cal. 293 ( 1 900). For a f uither decision under the California statute that an assessment may be made on stock for "paying ex- penses, conducting business, or pay- ing debts." Code, § 331, see Young- love V. Steinman, 80 Cal. 375 (1889). In Utah, by statute, stockholders may be assessed on their stock, even after the stock has been paid up, the assessment being for working expenses. Gary v. York Min. Co., 9 Utah, 464 (1894). In Vermont it is held that under a charter provision that " if at any time the capi- tal stock paid into said corporation shall be impaired by losses or otherwise, the directors shall forthwith repair the same by assessment," a receiver was not allowed to assess, since the pro- vision is only to prevent a continuance of business with an impaired capital. 520 Dewey v. St. Albans Trust Ca, 57 Vt. 332 (1885). In Pennsylvania it is held that, though the corporation has power to assess beyond the par value of the stock, yet such power may be restricted by by-law. Price's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 421 (1884). In Texas it is possible to form a corporation wherein assess- ments may be made on members ratably to any amount for corporate purposes. Guadalupe, etc. Assoc, v. West, 70 Tex. 391 (1888) — a live-stock-protecting cor- poration. In Idaho it is held that the statutory provisions rendering stock- holders jointly and severally liable for debts authorize the directors to levy assessments to pay for improvements already made. Sparks v. Lower Payette Ditch Co., 2 Idaho, 1030 (1892). 2 L. 1892, ch. 691. ' In England " the liability of a share- holder in a corporate body is deter- mined by the conditions of incorpo- ration. Without express provision, no member of a corporate body is indi- vidually liable for the corporate debts. A company may be registered under the Companies Act, 1862, with limited or unlimited liability; according to the nature of such registration a share- holder will be liable to contribute, re- spectively, the unpaid amount on his shares, or to the extent of the com- pany's guaranty, or in definitely. " Cava- nagh, Money Securities (2d ed.), 494, citing Lion, etq, Ins. Assoc, v. Tucker, L. E. 12 Q. B. D. 176 (1883); Be Norwich Ins. Soc, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 693 (1880); Re City of Glasgow Bank, L. E. 4 App. Cas. 337, 550, 567, 581, 583, 598, 607, 615, 624, 632 (1879); Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Bank, L, R 5 Appt Gas. 317 (1880). CH. XIII.] PAETNEESHIP LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDEES. [§ 243. in accordance with the English statutes, even though the stock originally was fully paid.^ A statute which authorizes an additional assessment upon ex- isting paid-up stock is unconstitutional.^ But where the state has reserved the power to alter, repeal, or amend the charter, it may authorize the corporation to levy assessments on its stockholders, in addition to the subscription of their stock. The reasoning of this rule is clear. The limited liability is a part of the corporate privileges conferred. A right to repeal the franchises includes the right to repeal in part or altogether the franchise or privilege of limited liability. On such grounds, laws of this character, how- ever harsh in their operation, are upheld as constitutional.' § 243. Miscellaneous cases of liaMlity or non-liability. — It has been held, on grounds of public policy, that although a corpo- ration is advertised as having a capital stock of a fixed amount, the stockholders and directors are not liable personally, even though subscriptions have not been taken to that amount. They are not liable either for the untaken stock, or on the ground of false rep- resentations, since the capital stock is understood to represent what the corporation hopes to obtain in subscriptions.* Even 1 Giesen v. London, etc. Mortg. Co., 102 Fed. Rep. 584 (1900). Cf. Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458 (1901). 2 Enterprise, eta Co. v. MofRtt, 58 Neb. ■643 (1899). 3 Gardner v. Hope Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 194 (1869); South Bay, etc. Co. v. Gray, 30 Me. 547 (1849> See also §§ 280, 497, infra. * First Nat. Bank v. Almy, 117 Mass. 476 (1875); Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27, 30 (1872), Evans v. Coventry, 25 L. J. Compare Zu- lueta's Claim, L. R 5 Cti. App. 444 (1870) ; Addison's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 394 (1870). Subscribers whose stock is taken back by the corporation may be liable thereon at common law or by statute relative to transfers. Ailing v. Wenzel, 183 111. 364 (1890). See g§ 167- 171, supra. Sometimes, by agreement between discontented stockholders and the di- rectors of the corporation, transfers are made by such shareholders as desire to be released from their obligation as stockholders to nominees of the cor- poration, with the intent thereby to relieve themselves from liability upon the stock. In such cases it is held that the action of the directors in permit- ting or sanctioning such a transfer was ultra vires, and that in consequence the transferrer is still liable. Morgan's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 750 (1849), Bennett's Case, 5 De G., M. & G. 284 (1854); Ad-' dison's Case, L. R 5 Ch. App. 394 (1870); Nathan v. Whitlock, 9 Paige, 152 (1841). See also §g 353, 309, 310, infra. ' Crea,se v. Babcock, 51 Mass. 535, 556 (1846). Where a corporation uses its profits to buy its own stock, the remain- ing stockholders are not liable on the statutory liability attaching to the stock so purchased by the oorpcwation. Moon, etc. Co. v. Waxahachie, etc. Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 103 (1896); aff'd, 89 Tex. 511 (1896). In Re Republic Ins. Co., 3 Biss. 452 (1873); s. a, 20 Fed. Cas. 644, where the insolvent corporation had, some three years previously, when the corporation was solvent, purchased stock of various stockholders and still held it, the court held that these old stockholders were not liable for the unpaid subscription price thereof. * Johnston v. Allia, 71 Conn. 207 (1898). See also § 64, supra. 6 Lantry v. Wallace, 183 U. S. 536 (1901). 646 CH. XIV.J LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETO. [§ 252. all calls made upon the stock after the death of the testator.^ He must also pay all calls voted before, but not due and payable in the regular course of business until after, the testator's death.' The •estate is not liable on a statutory liability where the stock is trans- ferred to the life tenant.^ It has been held that an assignee of the estate of a bankrupt is not liable, personally or as assignee, upon the bankrupt's shares of stock, unless he accepts the same. He is not bound, as assignee, to accept as part of the estate property of this nature, when it is of an onerous or unprofitable character.^ Upon the death of one who is joint owner with another or others of shares of stock, the liability thereon attaches only to the surviv- ing owners, and the estate of the deceased owner cannot be charged.' Where stock stands in the name of two persons they are presumed to be tenants in common, each holding one-half and each is liable for one-half of the statutory liability attached to such stock.' Where a firm holds stock and the corporation becomes insolvent, 1 Day V. Day, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 365 (1860), €f. Witters v. Sowles, 25 Fed. Rep. 168 (1885). See also § 348, supra. 2Addams v. Feriok, 26 Beav. 384 (1859). For a more complete statement of the law relative to legacies of stock, see ch. XVIII, infra. 3 Blaokmore v. Woodward, 71 Fed. Eep. 331 (1895). See also § 348, supra. * American File Co. v. Garrett, 110 U. S. 388 (1883); Amory v. Lawrence, 3 Cliff. 533 (1873); s. c, 1 Fed. Cas. 778; and see Rugely v. Robinson, 19 Ala. 404 (1851); Streeter v. Sumner, 31 N. H. 543 (1855); Ex parte Davis, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 463 (1876); Furdoonjee's Case, L. R 3 Ch. D. 368 (1876), holding that the liabil- ity upon shares, not being a debt prov- able in insolvency procedings, is not barred by the order of discharge. As to this, ef. note 1, p. 390, supra. An as- signee for the benefit of creditors of a stockholder in a national bank may be liable for an assessment levied upon such stock, the bank having become insolvent. Graham v, Piatt, 65 Pac. Rep. 30 (Colo. 1901). An assignee for the benefit of creditors is not liable -where the stock has not been transferred to him, but the estate may be liable. Hilltt Graham, 11 Colo. App. 536 (1898). Where a stockholder makes an assign- ment for the benefit of creditors and the stock is assigned to the assignee, and afterwards the corporation becomes insolvent, th'e assignee is not liable on the statutory liability on the stock, but any claims which the assignee holds against the corporation will be offset against such liability. Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138 (1898). Where a cor- poration itself assigned shares of its own stock to an assignee for the benefit of corporate creditors, it was held that the assignee was not liable, personally or as assignee, thereon. Re City Terminus Hotel Co., L, R. 14 Eq. 10 (1873). In Rhode Island one who makes an assignment for the benefit of credit- ors is thereby released from liability on stock, even though the transfer has not been recorded in the corporate booka Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 343 (1886). 6ite Maria Anna, etc. Co., 44 L. J, (Ch.) 433(1875); Hill's Case, L.R 30 Eq. 585 (1875). « Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138 (1898). 547 § 252.] LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETC. [CH. XIV. the statutory liability on the stock is a claim against the partner- ship assets.* Where a national bank invests its money in the stock of a sav- ings bank the investment is ultra vires, and even though the savings bank becomes insolvent, the national bank is not liable on the stat- utory liability attached to such savings bank stock, notwithstanding the national bank received dividends on the stock.'* So also where a national bank invests its money in the stock of another national bank the investment is ultra vires and the former bank is not liable on such stock, even though the latter bank becomes insolvent.' In Iowa there is a line of authorities holding corporations liable under such circumstances.* 1 Barton, etc. Bank v, Atkins, 72 Vt. S3 (1899). 2 California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 363 (1897). It is illegal for a national bank to purchase stock in a savings bank,' and hence a national bank is not liable by reason of the statutory liabil- ity attached to such stock in the sav- ings bank. Chemical Nat. Bank v. Havermale, 130 Cal. 601 (1898). 2 Concord First National Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U. S. 364 (1899), rev'g First National Bank v. Hawkins, 79 Fed. Rep. 51, and 83 Fed. Rep. 301. Prior to this decision the following de- cisions were made by lower courts. A state bank may be held liable on the statutory liability on national bank stock which the former has purchased, even though the purchase is vltra vires. Citizens' State Bank v. Hawkins, 71 Fed. Rep. 369 (1896). So also as to an insurance company holding such stock. Cooper Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, 71 Fed. Rep. 373 (1896). A state bank has no power to purchase stock in a national bank as an investment, and hence is not liable on such stock in case the national bank becomes insolvent. Schofield v. Good- rich, etc. Co., 98 Fed. Rep. 371 (1899). In the case of Robinson v. Southern, etc. Bank, 180 U. S. 395 (1901), the court approved the decisions iti Baker v. Old National Bank, 86 Fed. Rep. 1006, and 101 Fed. Rep. 391, holding that where stock in one national bank stands in the name of a person as cashier of 548 another national bank, the latter may show that it held the stock only as collateral security, and hence is not lia- ble thereon. Cf. 120 Fed. Rep. 203. < A national bank is liable on stock of a corporation organized for improv- ing real estate. Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). A jewelry coi-poration that has sold goods and taken in payment stock of a park corporation cannot avoid liability on said stock on the ground that it had no power to acquire it. White V. Marquardt, 70 N. W. Rep. 193 (Iowa, 1897). A company organized to deal in jewelry and which takes stock of another company in exchange for its merchandise and then sells the stock cannot avoid liability on such stock by the plea of vMra vires. White v. Mar- quardt & Sons, 105 Iowa, 145 (1898). A bank may buy the stock of another bank under the express power of the former to discount securities, and as a stockholder is liable on the stock. Lati- mer v. Citizens' State Bank, 102 Iowa,. 163 (1897). Where a corporation owning land becomes a stockholder in a build- ing association and gives a mortgage in connection therewith, the mortgage- is valid, even though the corporation was not authorized to subscribe for stock, Meares v. Monroe, etc. Co., 126. N. C. 663 (1900). The secretary and treasurer of a cotton trading company has no power to subscribe in the name- of the company for stock in a cottons CH. XIV.] LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETC. [§ 253. § 253. The use of " dummies " and transfers to nominal and fictitious persons. — Frequently it happens that persons purchasing or subscribing for stock do not wish to take the stock in their own names, inasmuch as they thereby incur liability, or make known to the public the fact that they are stockholders. Accordingly, it is the custom in such cases to have the stock taken or purchased in the names of other persons. These latter are called " dummies." ^ The law is well settled that such a "dummy " is liable on the stock to the corporation and corporate creditors to the same extent that he would be if he were the real owner of the stock.'' Where stock stands in the name of a person as " trustee," he is liable thereon even though he is acting merely as the agent of another person.' Where a person buys certificates of stock in a national bank, the certificates being indorsed in blank, and the bank makes a memo- randum in the certificate of stock book that it had been transferred to him, and sends him dividends, he is liable thereon, although no transfer of the certificate is made on the corporate books, and although he bought the stock for the cashier of the bank and was merely a nominal holder. He is not such a trustee as is exempt from liability under the national bank act.* Although stock stands in the name of a person who is not the real owner, yet, where judgment has been taken against the real owner, the nominal holder cannot be held liable.' Both the real owner of stock and the nominal holder of record of stock, or either of them, may be held liable, however, on the unpaid subscription . price of such stock.* The real owner of stock is liable to repay to manufacturing company. Wells Co. v. fer, and had paid the dividends to the Avon Mills, 118 Fed. Rep, 190 (1903). transferrer. As director be was bound 1 The cases in this section refer to the to know. Brown v. Finn, 34 Fed. Eep. use of "dummies" without the real 134(1888). owner appearing at all on the corporate ' Wadsworth v. Laurie, 164 111. 43 books as a stockholder. These oases (1896). See also § 249, supra, differ from those whefe stock is trans- * Horton v. Mercer, 71 Fed. Rep. 153 f erred by a stockholder from himself to (1895). Where the statute prescribes a "dummy" or to an irresponsible per- that only bona fide stockholders shall son. See §§ 363-266, infra. vote, a stockholder of record who is 2 Wakefield v. Fargo^ 90 N. Y. 218 really a dummy for the real owner, in (1883); Re Reciprocity Bank, 23 N. Y. 9 order to enable the latter to avoid the (1860); Barrett's Case, 4 De G., J. & S. statutory liability, cannot vote. Smith 416 (1864); Bugg's Case, 3 Dr. & Sm, 453 v. San Francisco, etc. Ry., 115 Cal. 584 (1865). Cf. Fox V. Clifton, 6 Bing. 776 (1897). (1830). A transfer of stock on the books » Yardley v. Wilgus, 56 Fed. Rep. 965 to a director renders him liable on the (1893). statutory liability, even though the 6Dunn v. Howe, 107 Fed. Rep. 849 transfer was to render him eligible for (1901). office, and he was unaware of the trans- 549 § 253.] LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETC. [CH. XIV. his "dummy" any sum of money which the latter has paid to the corporation or the corporate creditors.' An attachment against the " dummy " may take the stock in those states where an attachment takes precedence over an unregistered transfer of the certificate of stock ;^ but the prevailing rule in most of the states is to the con- trary.' The law relative to the use of dummies is in many respects similar to the law where stock stands in the name of an agent — a subject considered elsewhere.* A difficult question arises when an attempt is made to hold the real owner of the stock liable to the corporation or corporate creditors. It is established law, however, that where a person purchases stock in a national bank, but bas it transferred, not to himself, but to another person, a " dummy," the real owner of the stock is liable thereon, although he never appears on the cor- porate books as a stockholder.' ' This is the rule whether the relation of the real owner be considered that of a principal towards an agent (see § 349, supra), or that of a cestui que trust towards a trustee (see g 245, supra). Where the " dummy " dies, and his rep- resentatives claim the stock, and they pay the real owner a small sum in set- tlement, the compromise will be up- held. Antoine v. Smith, 40 La. Ann. 560 (1888); Where the " dummy " dies and is insolvent, the stock cannot be reclaimed by the real owner. Hirsch V. Norton, 115 Ind. 341 (1888). Stock held in the name of a " dummy " is sub- ject to his debts, even though he noti- fied the secretary of the company that he held it in trust. Ex parte Ord, 3 Mont. & A. 724 (1835); Ex parte Wat- kins, 2 Mont. & A. 348 (1835), reversing 1 Mont. & A. 689. 2 White V. Rankin, 90 Ala. 541 (1890), Cf. Mowry v. Hawkins, 57 Conn. 453 (1889). See also § 490, tn/ra. Where the real owner of stock turns it over to his agent or trustee to look after the stock, the stock itself being put in the name of the agent or trustee as absolute owner, and the stock is subsequently attached for a debt of such agent or trustee and sold thereunder, the real owner of the stock may hold the agent or trustee liable for the value of the stock. Long delay is not a bar so long as the agent does not deny the agency or trusteeshipt Hovey v. Bradbury, 112 CaL 630 (1896). 'See oh. XXVIL infra. *See § 349, supra. ' Where the real owner of stock in a national bank transfers it to an- other person, or causes it to be placed in the name of another person to avoid the liability to creditors under the na<- tional bank act, such real owner may be held liable on such stock. Pauley V. State, etc. Co., 165 U. S. 606 (1897); Dunn V. Howe, 107 Fed. Eep. 849 (1901). The real owner of stock in a national bank is liable thereon, although the stock has never stood in bis name on the books of the bank, but has stood in the name of a dummy for him. Hough- ton V. Hubbell, 91 Fed. Rep. 453 (1899); Davis V. Stevens, 17 Blatchf. 259 (1879); S. a, 7 Fed. Cas. 177, where the question was " whether, in an action at law by a receiver of the bank, the real owner of stock in a national bank, standing by his procurement in the name of an- other, and never havingbeen in his oien name on the books, can be charged as a shareholder with the statutory liability for debts ? " Jleld, that the real owner is liable. "Every principal is respon- sible for the obligations of his agency. The debt of the agent is the debt of the 550 OH. XIV.j LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETC. [§ 253. In England a directly contrary rule prevails.* In America the relation of the real owner to the " dummy " is held to be that of principal and agent, and the principal is held liable, on the ground that an undisclosed principal is liable on the contracts of his agent. In England the real owner of the stock is looked upon as a cestui que trust, and hence is not liable. Where the real owner of all the stock of a company, none of which has been paid up, holds the same in the name of a person who is prac- tically a dummy, and the real owner holds the stock as " pledgee," he is liable on the subscription price, even though the stock stands in his name on the corporate books as " pledgee." " A stockholder cannot escape liability by the use of the name of a dummy." ^ Under the Ohio statute the word " stockholders " applies to persons principal, and always recoverable from the principal." See also, to same effect, Case V. Small, 10 Fed. Rep. 732 (1881), and cases in note 1, p. 540, supra. Where a subscription is by "C. F. White, as trustee," he being merely an agent, the undisclosed principals may be held liable thereon. Cole v. Satsop, etc. Co., 9 Wash. 487 (1894). A person obtaining stock through another and paying calls on it is liable on the subscription. Kri- ger V. Hanover Nat. Bank, 73 Miss. 462 (1894). The real owner of stock is like- wise liable where he transfers it from his own name to that of an irrespon- sible person. §§ 263-266, infra. An un- disclosed owner of stock, standing in the name of another as trustee, is lia- ble on the statutory liability. Borland u Haven, 37 Fed. Rep. 894(1888); Cas- tleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 1 (1830), holding that one who subscribed for stock in the name of an infant for the purpose of avoiding responsibility, and who enjoyed the benefits of the stock, was individually responsible as a stockholder for debts of the corpo- ration. A person subscribing for stock in the name of another, without the knowledge of the latter, is liable him- self thereon. Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 73 (1893). 1 King's Case, L. R. 6 Oh. App. 196 (1871), where the court says it does not know upon what ground a court, " set- ting aside a transaction as fraudulent, is able to make a new contract for per- sons which they have never made themselves." Cox's Case, 4 De G., J. & S. 53 (1863), is distinguished on the ground that Cox had agreed to take certain shares, and the decision was in the nature of specific performance. In Cox's Case, also, he had, by the use of " dummies,'" entrapped the public into believing that many persons were in- vesting. In Williams's Case, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 576 (1875), where a purchaser of shares had them transferred to one of his employees, the real owner was held not liable thereon. In the case Ex parte Bugg, 2 Dr. & Sm. 453 (1865), a similar conclusion was arrived at, the court saying that the relation between the real owner and the " dummy " was that of cestui que trust and trustee. Such, also, is the rule laid down in Fenwlck's Case, 1 De G. & Sm. 557 (1849), where the purchaser had the stock transferred into the name of the " dummy " as "trustee." A person who subscribes for stock in a Canadian corporation in the name of another, a "dummy," is not liable for the unpaid subscription. Mol- son's Bank v. Boardman, 47 Hun (N. Y.), 135 (1888). That a cestui que trust is not liable on stock held by his trustee, see g§ 245, 246, supra. See also cases in note 1, p. 533. 2 National Foundry, etc. Works v. 551 § 253.] LIABILITY OF PLEDGEES, AGENTS, ETC. [CH. XIV. owning stock in the name of another, as well as to persons appear- ing on the corporate books as stockholders.' A transfer to a fictitious person is void, and leaves all parties as they were.^ Where the real owner was formerly the registered stockholder, but has transferred his stock to an irresponsible person, a class of cases is found which is considered elsewhere.' Oconto Water Co., 68 Fed. Rep. 1006 (1895). See also § 349, supra. The owner of a certificate of stock not paid up is liable thereon to corporate creditors al- though such owner never appeared as such on the corporate books. White v. Marquardt- & Sons, 105 Iowa, 145 (1898). 1 Lloyd V. Preston, 146 U. S. 630 (1892); White V. Marquardt & Sons, 105 Iowa, 145 (1898). 2 Arthur v. Midland Ry., 3 Kay & J. 204 (1857). See Pugh & Sharman's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 566 (1872), where the trans- fer was to a married woman, but the court treated it as a transfer to a fic- titious person. In Muskingum, etc. Co. V. Ward, 13 Ohio, 130 (1844), where the transfer was made to a fictitious per- son, the court held that the transaction was a mere nullity, and that it could not be regarded as an abandonment of the stock. So where one purchased, or assumed to purchase, shares for an in- fant, and gave the name of the infant but did not disclose the infancy, it was held that by such a transaction the purchaser did not become liable upon the shares, nor was the vendor released. Maitland's Case, 38 L. J. (Ch.) 554 (1869). See also Richardson's Case, Ia R. 19 Eq. 588 (1875). > See §§ 263-266, infra. 553 CHAPTER XY. LIABILITY AS AFFECTED BY TRANSFERa 354, The subject herein. 255. Liability of the transferrer on unpaid subscriptions after reg- istry. Liability of the transferee on un- paid subscriptions after regis- try. Knowledge that the shares are not fully paid up, how far im- putable to a transferee. 258. Liability on subscription after transfer but before registry — Irregular and attempted trans- fers. 256. 257. 259. Does the statutory liability at tach when the corporate debt is contracted, or is due, or is sued upon? 260. Transferrer's statutory liability after transfer but before reg istry. 261. The transferee's statutory liabil ity. 262. Liability of transferee to trans ferrer. 263-266. A transfer to a "dummjr" or to an insolvent person in order to escape liability. § 254. Tlie sniject herein. — When shares of stock are transferred from one owner to another, it at once becomes an important matter to determine who is liable upon unpaid subscriptions, and who is liable on a liability imposed by statute. = The difficulty is increased by the rule of law that no transfer is complete until it is duly en- tered or recorded on the books of the corporation. The complica- tion is usually greatest in cases involving the question of statutory liability, since generally each case turns more or less upon the par- ticular words of the statute by which the liability is imposed. There are, however, many rules which are general in their charac- ter and application, governing the liability of stockholders as affected by transfer, and these are the subject of this chapter. § 255. Liability of the transferrer on unpaid subscriptions after registry. — Transfers of shares may be made at any time after the contract of subscription is made, and before any part or after a part or the whole of the subscription price has been paid. The well- established and general rule of law is, that where a stockholder makes an absolute transfer of his stock in good faith, and the trans- fer is duly recorded on the corporate books, the transferrer is thereby wholly discharged from all further liability upon the uncalled sub- scription price of the stock.' 1 Huddersfield Canal Co. v. Buckley, 7 T. R, 36 (1796), by Lord Kenyon; Gil- more V. Banb of Cincinnati, 8 Ohio, 62, 71 (1837); Eflrd v. Piedmont, etc. Ca, 55 S. C. 78 (1899); Cole v. Adams, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 507 (1898). After transfer on the books the transferrer is no longer liable for the subscription price even 553 § 255. J teansfereer's and teansfekee's liability. [oh. XV. A stockholder has a right to sell his stock and have it transferred on the corporate books, although there are unpaid calls due on the stock at the time of transfer, and for refusal to transfer he may sue for conversion.' A transferrer may be released, although the cor- porate officers enter the transfer against a protest.^ The trans- though the corporation has a lien on the stock by statute," the transfer having been allowed by the officers of the cor- poration. Rochester, etc. Co. v. Ray- mond, 158 N. Y. 576 (1899). A trans- ferrer is not liable on an unpaid sub- scription. " A transfer of stock made in good faith, and at a time when the corporation is a going and solvent con- cern, and which is entered upon the books, would certainlyrelieve the trans- ferrer from all of the responsibilities which attached to him as a stock- holder." Tucker v. Oilman, 131 N. Y. 189 (1890) ; Billings v. Robinson, 94 N. Y. 415 (1884), affirming s, c, 28 Hun, 123 (1883); Wakefield v. Fargo, 90 N. Y. 313 (1883); Cowles v. Cromwell. 35 Barb. 413 (1857); Cole v. Ryan, 52 Barb. 168 (1868); Isham V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 216 (1872); Stewart v. Walla Walla, etc. Co., 1 Wash. St. 521 (1889); Miller v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 55 (1873); Allen V. Montgomery R. R., 11 Ala. 437, 451. (1847); Haynes v. Palmer, 13 La. Ann. 340 (1858); Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 20 (1868); MoKinzie v. Kittridge, 34 U. C. (C. P.) 1 (1874). The mere fact that the transferrer, after the registry, paid a call, does not estop him from denying his liability for subsequent calls. Pro- vinbial Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 19 U. C. (Q. B.) 533 (1860). It is not necessary to the validity of the transfer that there should be a consideration moving from transferee to transferrer; and so, where one gives his share away absolutely and in good faith, the same rule as to liabil- ity prevails. Be Europeaa Bank. Mas- ter's Case, 41 L. J. (Ch.) 501 (1873). Neither does it alter the rule that no certificates of stock have been issued. In such a case the transferee becomes liable on the stock, and the transferrer's liability is at an end. Burke v. Smitli, 16 Wall. 390 (1872); Brigham v. Mead, 93 Mass. 345 (1865). See also First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575, 583 (1877); Isham V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 316 (1872). As regards the rule where the transfer is made before the corporation is organized, see g 62, supra. After a transfer and registry the transferrer is not liable on the subscription. Libby V. Tobey,83 Me. 397(1890). In California railroad stock cannot be issued until it is fully paid up. Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15 (1869). Upon a valid transfer the transferrer is released, not only upon his liability for unpaid subscrip- tions, but also as to all the existing debts of the corporation. Jackson v. Sligo Mfg. Co., 1 Lea (Tenn.), 210 (1878); Allen V. Montgomery R. R., 11 Ala. 437 (1847). A Nebraska receiver of a Ne- braska corporation will not be allowed to bring suit in the Iowa courts to en- force the subscription liability of citi- zens of Iowa to the stock of a Nebraska corporation, where there is no equity in the claim, the fact being that payment for the stock had been made by notes, and afterwards upon a transfer of the stock these notes had been canceled and notes of the transferee taken in ex- change therefor. Wyman v. Eaton, 107 Iowa, 214 (1899). A person to whom stock is issued for property and who transfers the same while the corpora- tion is solvent cannot be held liable on such stock, even though the property was taken on an overvaluation. Cole V. Adams, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 507 (1898). But see § 49, supra, 1 Craig V. Hesperia, etc. Ca, 113 Cal. 7 (1896). On this subject, see also g§ 520, 521, infra. 2 London, etc. Ry. v. Fairclough, 2 554 CH. XV.] tkansfeeeee's and teansfeeee's liability. [§ ^55. ferrer, however, is liable for calls payable before the registry is made,' and for calls made before, but payable after, the registry.^ Frequently the statutes of the state change these common-law rules and provide that both the transferrer and transferee shall be liable.* Although the company may allow a transfer of stock after liquida- tion proceedings have been commenced, yet the transferrer is not thereby released from his subscription liability.* An agreement between the transferrer and transferee of stock that the former Man. & G. 674, 706 (1841); Upton v. Burnham, 3 Biss. 520 (1873); s. C, 28 Fed. Cas. 833; Webster V. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875). In a proceeding in equity a transferee will be compelled to pay calls made after transfer of the certifi- cate and before registry of the same. Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 (1875X 'Vioksburg, etc. E.. R. v. McKeen, 14 La. Ann. 724 (1859). The transferrer is liable where the transfer was made on the books after the asse.ssment on the stock had been made. Visalia, etc. R. R. V. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632 (1895), and cases in this section generally, and § 258, infra. 2 A transfer after a call, but before it is due, does not relieve the vendor from liability thereon, even though the stock is actually transferred %i the books. American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 118 Fed. Rep. 398 (1903); North American, etc. Assoc. V. Bentley, 19 L. J. (Q. B.) 427 (1850); Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 103, 113 (1854). Con- tra, West Philadelphia Canal Co. v. Innes, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 198 (1838). But this case was decided on the ground that the transferee had not accepted the stock, and could not be held liable by the corporation. Cf. Aylesbury Ry. V. Mount, 4 M^n. & a. 651 (1842), re- versing 5 Scott, N. R. 137; Be Hoylake Ry., L. R. 9 Ch. 257 (1874). 'Under the Nebraska constitution both the transferrer and transferee are liable for the unpaid subscription price to corporate creditors. Com'l Nat. Bank V. Gibson, 37 Neb. 750 (1893). Where both transferrer and transferee are lia- ble by statute, one may be sued after the other has been. Glenn v. Hunt, 120 Mo. 330 (1894). In Virginia, see Glenn V. Scott, 38 Fed. Rep. 804 (1866); McKim V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479 (1887); Glenn v. Foote, 36 Fed. Rep. 834 (1888); Priest v. Glenn, 51 Fed. Rep. 400 (1893); Hamil- ton V. Glenn, 85 Va. 901 (1889). Sub- scribers to stock are liable according to the law of the state incorporating the company, and not according to the law of the state where the subscribers re- sida A subscriber to stock in a Vir- ginia corporation is liable by statute although he has transferred his stock. Morris v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 628 (1888). In Maryland the ordinary statutory pro- vision holding stockholders liable until the capital stock is fully paid in is held to render the stockholder liable, even though he has transferred his shares. Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476 (1873). Where the statute makes the trans- ferrer liable for the unpaid subscription in case the transfer is to defraud cor- porate creditors, another statute mak- ing transferrers liable if the transferees do not pay is construed to apply only to cases of fraudulent transfer. Re Peo- ple's Live-stock Ins. Co., 56 Minn. 180 (1894). Under the statutes of Iowa the transferrer of stock continues to be lia- ble on the subscription price to credit- ors who were such at the time of the transfer. White v. Green, 105 Iowa, 176 (1898). ?ection, it was held that they were not liable as stockholders be- cause they had not elected to be regis- tered as stockholders. When a person purchases shares of a company, he, as between himself and other stockhold- ers, takes those shares with all the rights and liabilities attaching to them, so that his co-stockholders have a per- fect right to insist upon his contribut- ing with them towards the liquidation of debts contracted before he joined the company. Taylor v. IflU, 1 N. R 566 (1863), V.-C. W.; Cape's Case, 2 De a, M. & G. 562 (1852); Mayhew's' Case, 5 De G., M. & G. 837 (1854). See, too. Horsley v. Bell, Ambl. 769 (1778), cited in 1 Bro. Ch. 101, n. Sanderson's Case, 3 De G. & S. 66 (1849), cannot be re- garded as correct on this point. See Henderson v. Sanderson, 3 H L. Ca& 698 (1853). 556 OH. XV.] teansfeeeee's and teansfeeee's liability. [§ 256. it is issued to the vendor, the subscription price being unpaid to the corporation, and thg vendor transfers the stock on the books of the corporation, and the vendee acquiesce therein, the latter is^ liable on the subscription.^ A person who buys stock at an execution sale thereof and takes the sheriff's certificate therefor, and presents the same to a corpo- ration for transfer, thereby becomes a stockholder to the extent at least of being liable for any unpaid part of the subscription price of such stock.^ In some of the states the liability of the transferee is regulated by statute, and where, by statute or a by-law of the corporation, no valid transfer can be made while there are calls due and unpaid, it is held that a transfer without such payment will not render the transferee liable thereon.' In Pennsylvania, after considerable doubt and conflict, it has been clearly stated by the supreme court that the transferee of stock is liable on the unpaid subscrip- tion.^ 1 The question of whether the vendee acquiesced may be a question for the jury. The mere fact that his name appeared on the books as a stockholder is not sufficient. Greene v. Sigua, etc. Co., 88 Fed. Rep. 207 (1898). 2 Basting v. Northern Trust Co., 61 Minn. 307 (1895). And is also liable on the statutory liability attaching to such stock. Oswald v. Minneapolis Times Co., 65 Minn. 249 (1896). A dic- tum in Sturges v. Stetson. 1 Biss. 246 (1858); s. a, 23 Fed.- Oas. 811, says that the purchaser at execution sale is lia- ble on an unpaid subscription the same as his debtor was. A person who buys stock at an execution sale, after it has already been pledged for its full value to others and a transfer to them made, is not liable for calls on the stock, even though such pledgees transferred it to him without his knowledge. Simmons V. Hill, 96 Mo. 679 (1898). 'Watson V. Eales, 23 Beav. 294(1856); McCready v. Rumsey, 6 Duer, 574 (N. Y. Super. Ct., 1857), was a case under a prohibition against transfer in a bank organized under the New York General Banking Act of 1838. Ee Bachman, 12 Nat Bankr. Keg. 223 (1876); s. C, 2 Fed. Cas. 310, was a case where the corporation had a lien on the stock. < Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88 (1887)^ Citizens', etc. Co. v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 564 (1887), where, however, the transferee directly contracted to pay. Compare West Philadelphia Canal Co> V. Innes, 3 Whart. (Pa. 198 (1838); Ault- man's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 505 (1881)j Bunn's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49 (1884); Palmer v. Ridge Min. Co., 34 Pa. St. 28& (1859); Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Otterson,^ 4 W. N. Cas. 545 (1877); Delaware Canal Co. V. Sansom, 1 Binn. (Pa.) 70 (1803); Merrimao Min. Co. v. Levy, 54 Pa. St. 287 (1867). And, in general, as regards the Pennsylvania General Railroad Act of Feb. 19, 1849, see Pittsburgb, etc. R. R V. Clarke, 29 Pa. St 146 (1857); Graff V. Pittsbvirgh, etc. R. R., 31 Pa. St. 489- (1858). Of. Franks Oil Co. v. McCleary, 63 Pa. St. 317 (1869), holding that the transferee in a mining company is not liable. Messersmith v. Sharon Savings- Bank, 96 Pa. St 440 (1880), to same ef- fect; and see Aultman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St 505 (1881), involving an Ohio corpo- ration; Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Otter- son, 4 W. N. Cas. 545 (1878); Provincial, eta Ca v. Shaw, 19 Q. B. Rep. (Can.> 557 § 257.] TEANSFEEEEr's'AND TEANSFEEEb's liability, [cH. XV. § 257. Knoivledge that the stock is not fully paid up, how far imputable to a transferee. — The question whether the purchaser of stock is bound to take notice that the stock he purchases is not fully paid for is a serious and complicated one. The better opin- ion, and the one most in accord with the usages and demands of trade, is that, where one buys stock in open market, in good faith, and without notice that the subscription price thereof has not been paid up, such a purchaser cannot be held liable to pay the unpaid bal- ance of subscription.^ But where a person, to whom stock is issued for property at a fraudulent overvaluation, purchases other stock of the same kind, he is liable not only on the stock originally issued to him but also on the stock so purchased by him, even though the ■stock on its face states that it is "full-paid and non-assessable."'' 633 (I860); Miller v. Peabody Bank, 15 W. N. Cas. 76 (1883); Eeiraer, etc. Co. v. Kosenberger, 40 Leg. Int. 381 (1888); Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Clarke, 39 Pa. St. 153 (1857). 1 Certificates of stock have become such important factors in trade and credit, and general investment by all classes, that the law is steadily tending towards the complete protection of a bona .fide purchaser of them in open market, and without notice of facts which will decrease the apparent value of the stock. The constant tendency of the courts to increase the negotia- bility of certificates of stock will prob- ably establish the rule that the pur- chaser in good faith of a certificate of stock is not liable on any unpaid sub- scription price thereof, unless such lia- bility is stated on the face of the cer- tificate itself. Indeed, even now this may be said to be the established rule. See § 50, supra. Where a member has not paid for his stock in full and sells it as though it was full paid, he must refund to the transferee the balance which the transferee is obliged to pay. Jamison v. Harbert, 87 Io"Wa, 186 (1893). But where a subscription is not paid, and the stock is transferred to the cor- poration as "treasury stock" and then sold below par, the purchaser is liable for the unpaid par value. Ailing v. Wenzel, 133 111. 364 (1890). A contract by a corporation that it will issue its stock for one-fifth of its par value is void under the Alabama constitutional prohibition. The subscriber having sold his contract to another person cannot collect on such sala Williams v. Ev- ans, 87 Ala. 735 (1889). A transferee of stock, the certificates reciting on the face thereof that a certain amount is still due, is liable therefor. Glenn v. Porter, 73 Fed. Rep. 275 (1896). 2 Higgins V. Illinois, eta Bank, 193 111. 394 (1901). In Illinois the transferrer of stock is liable secondarily on stock is- sued for property taken at a fraudulent overvaluation, the transferee being pri- marily liable. Florsheim v. Illinois, eta Bank, 93 111. App. 297 (1901); aff'd, 193 111. 382; Rogan v. Illinois, eta Bank, 93 111. App. 39 (1900). Even a bona fide purchaser of what purports to be full- paid stock in a corporation is liable on the double liability attached to the stock, under the New York statute, where the stock was issued for prop- erty taken at an overvaluation and no certificate of payment has been filed, as required by the statute. If, however, after the issue of the stock, further sums of money were paid in by the stockholders equal to the difference between the par value of the stock and the value of the property, the liabiUty ceases as to subsequent creditors. White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 167 N. T. 158 (1901). 558 OH. xv.j teansfeeeee's and teansfeeee's liabililt. [§ 258. § 258. Liability on subscripti A receiver of a national bank may sue in the federal courts to ascer- tain and fix the liability on stock which has been transferred to avoid liability where the amount involved is over $2,000. Thompson v. German, etc. Co., 76 Fed. Eep. 893 (1896). 2 A person who has transferred his stock in an insolvent corporation for the purpose of avoiding the statutory liability may be held liable on such lia- bility, even in an action at law, and the fraudulent transfer may be shown in such an action. Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. Eep. 331 (1903). ^Zimmerman v. Carpenter, 84 Fed. Eep. 747 (1898). * Thompson v. German, etc. Co., 77 Fed. Eep. 258 (1896). 5De Pass's Case, 4 De G. & J. 544 <1859); Weston's Case, L. R 4 Ch. App. ^0 (1868); Harrison's Case, L. E 6 Ch. App. 386 (1871); Masters's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. Appi 393 (1873); Hakim's Case, L. E. 7 Ch. App. 396, n. (1869); Bishop's Case, •L. R 7 Ch. App. 396, n. (1869); Will- iams's Case, L. E. 1 Ch. D. 576 (1875); King's Case, L. E. 6 Ch. App. 196 (1871); Chynoweth's Case, L. R 15 Ch. D. 13 (1880); Jessopp's Case, 3 De G. & J. 638 (1858); Be Taurine Co., L. R 25 Ch. D. 118 (1883); Moore v. McLaren, 11 U. C. (C. P.) 534 (1863); Battle's Case, 39 L. J. (Ch.) 391 (1870). Cf. Bunn's Case, 3 De G., F- & J- 275 (1860). Thus, in De Pass's Case, 4 De G. & J. 544 (1859), the facts were that De Pass, owning two hundred and fifty shares of stock in the Mexican & South American Company, for which he had paid £1,750, upon learning that the concern was involved handed the certificate to his clerk, with- out having previously spoken to him of the matter, saying that he might have the stock for a sovereign, which the clerk instantly paid, and at the same time accepted the shares. In about three weeks this clerk sold the shares to another person in the employ of De Pass. Upon the winding up of the company, which was ordered within a few days after the sale by De Pass to his clerk, although it was shown that the shares at the time of that sale were .worth considerably more than a sover- eign, still, inasmuch as the transaction appeared to have been absolute, al- though confessedly made to escape pos- sible liability, it was held that the 579 § 266.] TEANSFEEEEe's and TEANSFEEEE's liability. [cH. XV. there exists a secret trust in favor of Ihe transferrer, so that as be- tween the parties there has been no lonafide transfer, but the ob- ject is to secure the stock to the transferrer in the event that the concern becomes prosperous, and to leave them to the transferee if there is a winding up, the transferrer's name will be put in the list of contributories, and the pretended transfer be whoUj' ignored.* The right to transfer shares in England seems to exist up to the time the company is ordered to be wound up and the business is suspended.^ But after that time Che right is gone, and it is the duty of the management to refuse to allow a transfer.' Any col- lusion between the stockholders and the directors to evade the rules governing transfers, for the purpose of evading liability, will invalidate a transfer.* Persons to whom shares have been transfer might stand, and that De Pass Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 905, n. (1870); Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 559' (1870). Of. Mitchell's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 363 (1870); Slater's Case, 35 Beav. 391 (1866); Castellan v. Hobson, L. R lO Eq. 47 (1870); Maynard v. Eaton, L. R 9 Ch. App. 414 (1874); Colquhoun v. Courtenay, 43 L. J. (Ch.) 338 (1874) j Richardson's Case, L. R 19 Eq. 588 (1875)l 2De-^Pass's Case, 4 De G. & J. 544 (1859), and the cases generally in the preceding notes. ' Mitchell's Case, L. R. 4 App. Cas.. 548 (1879); Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 30, 30(1868); Ex parte Parker, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 685 (1867); Chappell's- Case, L. R. 6 Ch. 903 (1871). See also § 873, infra. In this country directors have in general no power to refuse or prevent transfers, such as inheres in the- boards of management in English com- panies. See § 633, infra, < Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177(1863); Ben- nett's Case, 5 De G., M. & G. 384 (1854). A director will not be allowed to make- use of his position as director to trans- fer his stock, and thus escape charge- ability upon it Hunt's Case, 33 Beav. 55 (1856). Nor will a stockholder be allowed to relieve himself, when he learns of the probable insolvency of the concern, by inducing the directors, to postpone their application for an order to wind up until he have time to- transfer his shares to a pauper or other was not liable in respect to the shares after the date of the sale to the clerk. In Masters's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 393 (1873), a transfer of two hundred and eighty shares of stock on which £15 per share had been paid, for a nominal con- sideration, to an irresponsible son-in- law of the transferrer, the transfer being made only for the purpose of es- caping liability upon the shares, was held to discharge the transfegrrer. A transfer by a director in a failing cor- poration to avoid liability is void. Re South London, etc Co., L. R. 39 Ch. D. 324 (1888). 1 Budd's Case, 3 De G., F. & J. 397 (1861); Payne's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 333 (1869); Kintrea's Case, 39 L. J. (CK.) 193 (1869); s. a, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 95; Chinnock's Case, Johns. (Eng. Ch.) 714 (1860); Costello's Case, 3 De G. R & J. 303 (1860); Hyam's Case, 1 De G., F. & J. 75 (1859); Lund's Case, 37 Beav. 465 (1859); Ex parte Bennett, 18 Beav. 339(1854); Daniell's Case, 33 Beav. 43 (1856); Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177 (1863); Hunt's Case, 83 Beav. 55 (1856); Bank of Michigan v. Gray, 1 U. C. (Q. B.) 433 (1834); Cox's Case, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 145 (1864); Williams's Case, L. R 9 Eq. 335, n. (1869); Capper's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 458 (1868); Hann's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 459, n. (1867); Ex parte Hat- ton, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 340 (1863); Pugh's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 566 (1873); Lankester's 580 CH. xv.J teansfeeeee's and teansfeeee's liability. [§ 266. transferred without their knowledge or assent are not estopped, when the knowledge is brought to them, from repudiating and de- nying the stockholdership.' irresponsible person. Ex parte Parker, L. R 2 Ch. App. 685 (1867); Gilbert's Case, K R 5 Ch. App. 559 (1870); Al- lin's Case, 16 Eq. 449 (1873). And a di- rector who transfers shares standing in his name to a person already hold- ing all the shares any one person is allowed to hold will not thereby escape liability. Ex parte Brown, 19 Beav. 97 (1854). In general, moreover, a transferrer is not exempt from liabil- ity by reason of a transfer, unless the transferee has the present capacity to assume the liability. Nickalls v. Merry, L. R 7 H. L. 530 (1875); Brown V. Black, L. R 8 Ch. App. 939 (1873); Mann's Case, L. R 3 Ch. App. 459, n. (1867). Cf. Johnson v. Laflin, 5 DilL 65, 81 (1878); s. C, 13 Fed. Cas. 758, 764; aff'd, 103 U. a 800 (1880); Re Reciproc- ity Bank, 33 N. Y. 9 (1860). Accord- ingly a transfer to an infant for the purpose of escaping liability is futile. Symons's Case, L. R 5 Ch. App. 398 (1870); Weston's Case, L. R 5 Ch. 614 (1870); Curtis's Case, L. R 6 Eq. 455 (1868); Castello's Case, L. R 8 Eq. 504 (1869); Walsh v. Union Bank, 5 Quebec L. R 398 (1879). 1 Birch's Case, 2 De G. & J. 10 (1857) Fox's Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 465 (1863) Higgs's Case, 2 Hem. & M. 657 (1865) Somerville's Case, L. R 6 Ch. App. 266 (1871). Of. Bullock V. Chapman, 3 De G. & Sm. 311 (1848). And see also Be Reciprocity Bank, 23 N. Y. 9 (1860). Sigua, etc. Co. v. Greene, 88 Fed. Rep. 207 (1898). A colorable transfer, as has appeared, will not operate to discharge the transferrer where shares were col- lusively assigned to a servant for the purpose of evading liability. Hence when the servant, upon the concern becoming solvent, attempted to claim the shares as though the transfer had been out and out, the court having previously decided against the bona fides of the transaction, it was held that the owner was entitled to a dec- laration that the servant held the shares in trust for him. Colquhoun v. Courtenay, 48 L. J. (Ch.) 338 (1874). As to a transfer made in ignorance of the fact that a winding up has been com- menced, see Emmerson's Case, L. R 1 Ch. App. 433 (1866). 581 CHAPTER XYI. ISSUE OF PREFERRED STOCK AND STOCK UPON WHICH- INTEREST IS GUARANTEED. i 367. What is preferred stock. 868. When may a corporation issue preferred stock ? 269, 270. Rights of preferred stock- holders — Amount of prefer- ence — Voting — Subsequent leases, consolidations, etc. 271. Preferred stockholders are not creditors — Dividends can be only from profits — Mortgages securing preferred stock. 272. What are net profits applicable to preferred dividends — The preferred stockholder's remedy to enforce a dividend. § 273, 274. Arrears of preferred stock, to vrhat extent payable subse- quently — Remedies to enforce payment of arrears, Rights of the assignee or trans- feree of preferred stock in ar- rears of dividends. "Special stock" in Massachu- setts. Interest-bearing stocks. Rights of preferred stockholders on dissolution and on a reduc- tion of the capital stock. 275. 276. 277. 278. § 267. What is preferred stock. — By preferred stock is to be under- stood stock which entitles the holder to receive dividends from the earnings of the company before the common stock is paid a divi- dend from such earnings.' In other words, it is stock entitled to dividends from the income or earnings of the corporation before any other dividend is paid.^ The relation of debtor and creditor does not exist between the preferred stockholders and the corpora- tion, and the right to a preferred or guaranteed dividend is not a debt until the dividend is declared. A dividend is money paid out of profits by a corporation to its stockholders. A preferred divi- dend is nothing more than that wTiich is paid to one class of stock- holders in priority to that to be paid to another class.' Guaranteed 1 Totten V. Tison, 54 Ga. 139 (1875). 2 Chaffee v. Rutland R. R., 55 Vt. 110 (1882). s Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Belfast, 77 Me. 445 (1885); Taft v. Hartford, etc. R R., 8 R. L 310, 333 (1866); Chafifee v. Rut- land, etc. R. R., 55 Vt. 110 (1882). A preferred dividend has also been de- fined as " substantially interest charge- able exclusively on profits." Henry v. Great Northern Ry., 1 De G. & J. 606 637 (1857); Crawford v. North Eastern, etc. R. R., 3 Jur. (N. S.) 1093 (1856). The preferred stockholder is one who may say, " Nobody shall have any portion of the profits of the company until I have been paid my dividend." Henry v. Great Northern Ry., 4 Kay & J. 1, 33 (1857); aff'd, 1 De G. & J. 606. A pre- ferred dividend is said to be "a pledge of the funds legally applicable to the purposes of a dividend." Taft v. Hart- ford, etc. R. R., 8 R. I 310, 335 (1866). "Payment of dividends to preferred stockholders differs from such payment to the holders of common stock only in that they are entitled to dividends in priority to any dividends upon the common stock.'' Miller v. Rattermau, 47 Ohio St. 141, 158 (1890). 582 OH. XVI.J PEEFKEEED STOCK. [§ 268. stock is the same thing as preferred stock,^ except of course where one corporation guarantees dividends on the stock of another cor- poration.2 Founders' shares are a species of preferred or deferred stock, peculiar to England.' § 268. When may a corporation issue preferred stoclc f — Upon the incorporation of a company the incorporators and stockholders may agree that a part of the stock shall be preferred stock. This is generally done by a by-law or resolutions. It is undoubtedly legal, since there is no rule of public policy that forbids it, and it amounts only to a contract of the stockholders as to how they shall divide the profits among themselves.* iTaft V. Hartford, etc. E. E., 8 R. 1. 310, 333, 335 (1866); Field v. Lamson, etc. Co., 162 Mass. 388 (1894); Henry v. Great Northern Ry., 4 Kay & J. 1, 13, 21 (1857) ; aff'd, 1 De G. & J. 606; Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76 (1875). A guaran- teed dividend differs in nothing from a preferred dividend. Miller v. Ratter- man, 47 Ohio St. 141 (1890> Cf. Board- man V. Lake Shore, etc. Ey., 84 N. T. 157, 174 (1881), holding that the word "guaranteed" made the dividends cumulativa See §§ 273, 274, infra. ^ See §715, infra. 'See g 14, supra. * Coltraine v. Blake, 113 Fed. Rep. 785 (1902); Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. K E., 78 Fed. Rep. 664 (1897); Hazelhurst v. Sa- vannah, etc. R. R., 43Ga. 13 (1871); Syn- nott V. Cumberland, etc. Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 379 (1902). In the case of Toledo, etc. E. R v. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. Rep. 497, 531 (1899), the court said, in regard to the legality of issuing preferred stock where the statutes were silent on the subject, "such an agreement is nothing more than a con- tract between stockholders as to how they shall divide the corporate prop- erty and profits, and, if not prohibited, is clearly within the general powers of such corporators. It is difficult to see how such an arrangement is of the slightest consequence to the public, or to creditors of the corporation. It does not withdraw the property from the demands of creditors, and provides only for the division among those who are the beneficial owners of the corporate property, after the payment of corpo- rate obligations." The case Be South Durham Brewery Co., L. R. 31 Ch. D. 261 (1885), clearly fields that, although the charter and statutes are silent on the subject, yet that the by-laws may provide for the issue of preferred stock, and, this provision being in the original by-laws, a stockholder cannot enjoin a subsequent issue of the stock; approv- ing Harrison v, Mexican Ry., L. E 19 Eq. 358 (1875). Judge Cooley, in the case of Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76, 81, 85 (1875), said, in reference to the issues of preferred stock, even though the issues are not provided for by charter or statute, " there can be no reasonable objection to them if they are entered into with full knowledge on the part of all eoncerned. . . . The guaranty, properly construed, is not void, but unobjectionable." In Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879), affirming 17 Hun, 169, the court said: "We know nothing in the constitution or the law that inhibits a corporation from beginning its corpo- rate action by classifying the shares in its capital stock, with peculiar privi- leges to one share over another, and thus offering its stock to the public for subscriptions thereto. No rights are got until a subscription is made. Each subscriber would know for what class of stock he put down his name, and what right he got when he thus be- came a stockholder. There need be no 533 § 268.] PEEFEEKED STOCK. [CH. XVI. But after the corporation has been organized, with common stock only, and the stock issued in whole or in part, and business com- menced and money invested in stock, it is then too late to make the unissued stock preferred stock, or to increase the capital stock and issue preferred stock, unless all the stockholders assent thereto, deception or mistake; there would be BO trenching upon rights previously ac- quired; no contract, express or implied, would be broken or impaired." The same question has recently arisen in the United States courts, and the court there held that a stockholder who par- ticipated in the issue cannot, after two years, when the corporation is insolv- ent, say that the statutes of the state authorized the issue of common stock only. Banigan v. Bard, 134 U. S. 291 (1890), aflE'g Bard v. Banigan, 39 Fed. Rep. 13. Although the banking law of New York provides only for instalment stock for building associations, yet the parties interested may provide for pre- paid and income stock as well as instal- ment stock. People v. Preston, 140 N. Y. 549 (1894). Preferred stock may be issued without statutory authority. Havemeyer v. Bordeaux Co., 8 Nat. Corp. Rep. 127 (111. C. C, 1894). After the lapse of twenty years, the creation of preferred stock cannot be attacked by a stockholder. Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 III. 301 (1895). A corporate creditor cannot object to the issue of preferred stock so long as it is fully paid for, even though such stock was made preferred stock by agreement of the stockholders and not in accordance with any statute. First, etc. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., 191 lU. 138 (1901). The highest author- ity in England, Lindley on Companies (Eng. 1903), p. 550, says: "Shares con- ferring on their holders preferential or additional rights not enjoyed by the holders of other shares are called pref- erence shares. They can only be cre- ated when the authority to create them is given by statute or charter, or by agreement between all parties inter- ested." If, however, authority to issue them is given by a company's memo- 584 randum of association, or by its articles of association as originally framed, pref- erence shares may be issued. If all assent the issue is legaL Se Bridge- water Nav. Co., L. R. 39 Ch. D. 1 (1888); McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N. J. Bq. 181 (1880). In Bates v. Androscog- gin, etc. R. R., 49 Me. 491 (1860), preferred stock was issued by unanimous con- sent, but without express statutory authority. Preferred stock was issued without statutory authority in Gordon V. Richmond, etc. R. R., 78 Va. 501 (1884). In Sturge v. Eastern Union Ry., 7 De G., M. & G. 158 (1855), the court declined to pass upon the question whether, at common law, it was legal for a corporation to issue preferred stock. In England a stock dividend of preferred stock may be enjoined by any stockholder, inasmuch as any stock dividend may be objected to. In Amer- ica the rule is different. See ch. XXXII, infra. Where a person bought new preference stock of a railway company which both he and the directors bona fide believed the company had power to issue, but which, in truth, it had not, it was held that he had no remedy against them, for there was nothing more than a common mistake of law. Eaglesfield v. Londonderry, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 698 (1876). It is no defense to a sub- scription for stock that the company had secretly agreed with certain sub- scribers to give them a preferred divi- dend. Such .an agreement is void as regards another subscriber who did not assent thereto. Ryder v. Alton, etc. R. R., 13 111. 516 (1851). In the case of Big- bee, etc. Co. V. Moore, 131 Ala. 379 (1899), the court sustained a by-law whereby stockholders in a steamboat company each put a boat into the service of the companv and each was to draw divi- OH. XVI.] PEEFEEEED STOCK. [§ 268. or a statute authorizes such issue. It would be a breach of contract to issue preferred stock then, inasmuch as the existing stockholders invested their money on the basis of common stock only. Hence a dissenting stockholder may enjoin the corporation, the directors, and the majority of stockholders from issuing preferred stock in such a case.^ dends on his stock only so long as his boat remained fit for service, such divL dend to cease upon the boat becoming unfit for service until it was repaired by the owner. Even though the pref- erence given by preferred stock is Ille- gal, yet the stock itself may be valid as common stock. For wood w. Eubank, 50 S. W. Rep. 255 (Ky. 1899). Preferred stock is not legal in building associa- tions. Sumrall v. Commercial Bldg. etc., 50 S. W. Eep. 69 (Ky. 1899); For- wood V. Eubank, 50 S. W. Rep. 253 (Ky. 1899). Contra, 119 Fed. Rep. 652. Where a joint-stock association having §13,000,000 surplus invested in securi- ties, issues its bonds to the amount of $12,000,000 to its stockholders as a divi- dend in place of distributing such secu- rities or the proceeds thereof, the inter- est on the bonds to be paid only from the income from the securities after paying the debts, such bonds do not be- long to a life tenant, but belong to the remaindermen. D'Ooge v. Leeds, 176 Mass. 558 ',1900), the court saying: " If this company had been a corporation, and had wished to make a dividend of preferred stock to its shareholders, it would have done it in just this way. There has been no dividend of any money or property among the share- holders. There has been merely a change of the form of the ownership in the property by dividing it into two classes, and by making a different provision in regard to dividends for each class, and by giving one class a preference over the other in its right to the assets on final liquidation. Not a dollar's worth of the property of the company is taken out of the business, or changed in its relation to the business. . . . It is plain that the action of the company was like making a dividend of pre- ferred stock. It was a more formal capi- talization of earnings which previously had been capitalized in substance and effect." A gorporation by the action of its board of directors and consent of all its stockholders may agree that a certain percentage of its profits shall be paid annually to a person for services al- ready rendered by him. In a suit by him to enforce such agreement and asking an injunction against any sales of stock, except with notice of such agreement, stockholders are necessary parties defendant. Such an agreement is not an exclusion of future boards of directors from the management of the company. Dupignao v. Bernstrom, 76 N. Y. App. Div. 105 (1902). 1 Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879). After common stock has been issued, no provision having been made at the time for the issue of pre- ferred stock, and there being no charter provision authorizing the issue of pre- ferred stock, aay stockholder can object to an issue of preferred stock, Knox- ville, eta R. R ii. Knoxville, 98 Tenn. 1 (1896). Compare Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361, overruling Hutton V. Scarborough, etc. Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 531 (1865). In the case of Moss v. Syers, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 711 (1863), the court, at the instance of dissenting stockholders, en- joined the issue of preferred stock which was not provided for by the charter or by the original agreement of the stockholders. A pledgee of a cer- tificate of stock is not bound by a sub- sequent agreement of all the stockhold- ers to surrender to the corporation a part of their stock, which part is then to be considered preferred stock and is 585 § 268.] PEEFEEBED STOCK. [oh. XVI, So also a common stockholder may object where preferred and common stock are already issued and an attempt is made to issue second preferred.' But the dissenting stockholder must mote quickly in the matter. If he delays in bringing his suit, so that the interested parties are justified in believing that he acquiesces in the issue, and the issue itself is made, his remedy is barred. His injunction suit will fail.^ Where the statutes of the state authorize the issue of preferred stock, or where the by-laws contemplate a future issue of such stock, its issue will be legal, even though some of the stockholders object.* Preferred stock may be issued subsequently to the issue of the common, and against the dissent of the minority stockholders. to be sold by the corporation for the purpose of paying corporate debts. Although all the other stock has had this agreement stamped on the certifi- cates, yet the corporation cannot insist that the purchaser of the stock so pledged shall allow the same agreement to be stamped on the new certificates issued to such purchaser. The court will order a transfer free from the agreement. Campbell v. American Zy- lonite Co., 122 N. Y. 455 (1890> A pre- liminary injunction against the issue of preferred stock in order to raise cap- ital for an old corporation was refused in Fielden v. Lancashire, etc. Ey., 3 De G. & Sm. 531 (1848), because only five stockholders dissented, but the court expressly refused to declare the issue a legal cne. 1 Melhado v. Hamilton, 28 L. T. Rep. 578 (1873); aflSrmed. £T L. T. Eep. 364 2 A stockholder who is an officer of the company, who is active in having pre- ferred stock issued, subscribes for it, pays for it, takes his certificate therefor, votes upon it, and induces others to take it, cannot after two years, when the corpo- ration is insolvent, say that the statutes of the state authorize the issue of com- mon stock only. Banigan v. Bard, 134 U. S. 391 (1890),aflf'g Bard v. Banigan, 39 Fed. Eep. 13. In Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361, where preferred stock had been issued in 1865 upon an increase of the capital stock, although neither the charter nor the by-laws authorized any preferences, the court held that the issue was legal, and overruled Hutton V. Scarborough, etc. Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 521 (1865); rev'g Andrews v. Gas Meter Co.,. 75 L. T. Eep. 267. The court has refused relief where there was a delay of four years, Kent v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879): or ten years, Taylor v. South, etc. E. E., 13 Fed. Eep. 152(1882). Delays in raising the question of the- validity of an issue of preferred stock, ad vantages having accrued in the mean- cime to the corporation and the stock- holders, have been held such acquies- cence as will bar the right of a stock- holder to object. Acceptance of the preferred stock and dividends thereon also bars the right to challenge the legality of the issue. Branch v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468 (1882). Preferred stock may, by unanimous consent, be issued, although the statutes are silent con- cerning it. When issued after the first issue of stock has been made, it may he prevented by a dissenting stockholder;^ yet delay on the part of the latter will bar his objection. Hazlehurst v. Savan- nah, etc. E. E., 43 Ga, 13 (1871). But see Moss v. Syers, 33 L. J. (Ch.) 711 (1863). 'If the by-laws provide that any in- creased capital may be made in such manner and with rules, regulations, privileges, and conditions as a meeting of the stockholders might determine, preferred stock may be issued on an increase of the capital stock. Harrison V. Mexican Ey., L. E. 19 Eq. 858 (1875). 586 OH. XTI.] PBEFEEKED STOCK. [§ 268. where the legislature amends the charter and provides for the issue of preferred stock. Such an amendment is considered incidental and is constitutional.' But where the articles of incorporation specify the amount of preferred and common stock, and also state that further stock may be issued, this increased stock must be common stock, and cannot be second preferred stock, even though the by-laws provide that it may be issued on such conditions as the corporation may deter- mine.^ Nevertheless the articles of incorporation may be so drawn as to allow subsequent issues of preferred stock.' Thus, where the certificate of incorporation provides for preferred and common stock, with the further provision that additional stock may be is- sued at any time with such priority of dividends and generally on such terms as the company might determine from time to time. 1 Everhart v. West Chester, etc. E. R., 28 Pa. St. 339 (1857), holding that a charter amendment authorizing the issue was legal; Rutland, etc. E. R. v. the court held that the company, upon increasing its capital stock, might, by a majority vote of its stockholders, make such increased capital preferred Thrall, 35 Vt 586, 545 (1863), to same stock, calling for a certain dividend, effect, and holding that a common stockholder could not defeat his sub- scription on this ground; Williston v, Michigan, etc R. R.,95 Mass. 400 (1866); Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270 (1867); Covington v. Covington, eta Bridge Co., 10 Bush (Ky.), 69 (1874), where the dissenting stockholder did not object until after the preferred stock had been issued and dividends paid upon it. In Covington, etc. Bridge Co. v. Sar- gent, 1 Cin. Super. Ct. (Ohio), 354 (1871), there is an intimation that such a stat- ute is unconstitutional, and the court held that statutory power to issue a certain amount of preferred stock did not authorize an issue of partly pre- ferred and partly common. This de- cision may well be questioned. In Eng- land an act of parliament may author- ize such an issua Stevens v. South Devon Ry., 9 Hare, 318 (1851). In one case the legality of the issue of pre- ferred stock under a statute was put upon the ground, not of the right to borrow money, but upon the ground of a right to raise funds by sale of stock. Chaffee v. Rutland, etc. B. R., 55 Vt. 110. (1883). In the case of Eichbaum v. Chi- cago Grain Elevators, [1891] 3 Ch. 459, 587 with no rights in surplus profits beyond that dividend, and might give to com- mon stockholders the right to exchange their common stock for such preferred. ^Melhado v. Hamilton, 28 L. T. Rep. 578; affirmed, 29 L. T. Rep. 364 (1873), the court saying: "If they could issue one share they could issue a thousand, and if at seven per cent, they might issue them at seventy per cent., and thus, at a general meeting, they might pass resolutions which would have the effect of utterly annihilating the inter- ests of the ordinary shareholders." 3The following is a charter provision in an English corporation: Any o£ the original shares for the time being unissued, and any new shares from time to time to be created, may from time to time be issued! with any such guarantee or any such right of j preference, whether in respect of dividend or of repayment of capital, or both, or any such other special privilege or advantage over any shares previously issued, or then about to be issued (other than shares issued with a preference), or at such a premium, or with such deferred rights as compared with any shares previously issued, or then about to be issued, or subject to any- such conditions or provisions, and with any such right or without any right of voting, and gener- ally on such terms as the company may from time to time by special resolution determine. § 269.] PEEFEEEED STOCK. [OH. XVI. new preferred stock, ranking equally with the original preferred stock, may be issued.' Although the issue of preferred stock is not regularly authorized, yet the issue may be subsequently ratified by a stockholders' meeting.^ A subscriber to preferred stock may be liable on the subscrip- tion, although no preferred stock can be issued, where he continues to act as a stockholder.' A person who loans money to be repaid in such stock may recover it back if the stock cannot be issued.* Where a person has subscribed for stock, but the corporation finds it has issued all of its stock, it cannot compel such subscriber to take preferred stock instead.* An agreement to deliver stock in a company to be formed, nothing being said as to any preferred stock," is not fulfilled by delivering common stock, where there is preferred stock issued also.* A provision in a bond that the holder might exchange it for preferred stock at any time within ten days after a dividend is declared, lapses where the holder does not make the demand until several months after the bonds become due.' § 269. Bights of preferred stoclcliolders — Amount of preference — Voting — Subsequent leases, consolidations, etc. — The rights, powers, and privileges of preferred stockholders depend largely on the terms upon which the preferred stock is issued. Such stock takes a multiplicity of forms, according to the desire and ingenuity of the stockholders and the necessities of the corporation itself. The percentage of preferred dividend is always fixed at the time of the issue. It is a matter of contract.' Negotiations and con- versations prior to the issue of preferred stock, such issue being 1 Underwood v. London Music Hall, ' Loomls v. Chicago, etc. Ey., 102 [1901] 3 Ch. 309. Fed. Rep. 233 (1900). ^Re London, etc. Inv. Corp., [1895] 2 8 Quoted and approved in Scott v. Ch. 860. Baltimore, etc. R. H., 93 Md. 475 (1901). > Where a person subscribes for pre- The amount of preference, and ferred stock, but no preferred stock is -whether cumulative or not, is all a provided for, and he becomes a director matter of contract. Smith v. Cork, and acts as such for several years, he is etc. Ry., Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 356 (1869). The liable on such stock to corporate cred- amount of preference may be deter- itors as though it were a subscription mined by the by-Jaws, and the provis- for common stock. Tama, etc. Co. v. ions of such by-laws constitute a con- Hopkins, 79 Iowa, 653 (1890). tract. Belfast, etc. R. R. v. Belfast, 77 * Where a corporation borrows money Me. 445 (1885). Cf. West Chester, etc. and agrees to repay it in preferred R. E. v, Jackson, 77 Pa St. 321 (1875). In Stock, but has no power to issue the this case the preferred stock to be re- preferred stock, the party paying the deemed by payment of the par value money may recover it back, Anthony and a sum which, with dividends and V. Household, etc. Co., 16 R. L 571 (1889). interest already paid, should amount " Knoxville, eta R. E. v. Knoxville, to eight per cent, per annum from the 98 Tenn. 1 (1896). time of its purchase from the compflny, " Mcllquham v. Taylor, [1895] 1 Ch. 53. was declared to be a contract which 588 OH. XTI.J PKEFEEEED STOCK. [§ 269. by written agreement, are not admissible to show the intent of the parties as to the rights of such preferred stock, but evidence of the situation and the objects and purposes of the agreement and the agreement itself, and the resolutions authorizing the issue, are admissible under an allegation that the certificates of preferred stock do not contain the whole agreement.' The extent of the preference may be determined from the certificate of preferred stock itself, if there is no other evidence, it being shown that the corporation acquiesced in such certificate.^ The preferred dividends may be made cumulative or non-cumulative. If nothing is speci- fied in respect to this, then the law makes the preferred dividends cumulative.' It would seem that unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, preferred stockholders participate in the sur- plus profits remaining after the preferred dividend has been de- clared on the preferred and an equal dividend on the common stock.* -It has been held, however, in Maryland that where pre- ferred stock is entitled to dividends " up to, but not exceeding, four per cent., before any dividends shall be set apart or paid on the common stock," such preferred stock is not entitled to dividends in excess of four per cent., even though a larger dividend than four per cent, is paid on the common stock, and even though the pre- ferred dividends are non-cumulative.' entitled its holder to his dividends be- fore dividends were paid on the com- mon stock. 1 Scott V. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 93 Md. 475 (1901). 2 Toledo, eta R. R. v. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. Rep. 497 (1899). The provision in a certificate of stock to the effect that the corporation shall have a lien on the stock for debts due to the corporation from the registered stockholder may be valid and enforci- ble, even though neither the Statutes of the state nor the charter nor the by- laws nor the proceedings of the di- rectors or stockholders provide for such a lien. It is sufficient that the certificate of stock was the one used by the corporation. Stafford v. Prod- uce, etc. Co., 61 Ohio St. 160 (1899). 8Seeg§ 373, 374, in/ra. *See §§ 373, 274, infra. The follow- ing form provides against such a re- sult: The preferred stock of this company shall be entitled to dividends at the rate of six per centum per annum, prior to the payment of any dividends upon the common stock, and such dividends upon the preferred stock shall be cumulative. The preferred stock shall not be entitled to any dividends in excess of said six per cent, and arrears thereof. The following provision gives a preference and also gives the preferred stockholders an interest in the remain- ing profits for each year: The common stock is not to receive dividends for any year unless per cent, be first paid for that year on the existing $ of preferred capital stock; but when per cent, is paid for any year on the whole combined common and preferred capital stock, further dividends for that year are to be paid on all without distinc- tion. 'Scott V. Baltimore, etc. E. R., 93 Md. 475 (1901), citing the above section. In this case the reasoning of the court went still further and was to the effect that preferred stock is never entitled to dividends in excess of the amount specified, even though the dividends are non -cumulative. Theoretically it it is difficult to justify this conclusion, but practically it is true that the in- 589 §269. PEEFEEEED STOCK. [oh. XVI. "Where the preferred stockholders are entitled to participate in all dividends paid after their preferred dividend is' paid, they are entitled to participate in a dividend of scrip, similar to a stock dividend, and representing accumulated profits which have been used for betterments.^ The disposition of the surplus profits after the regular dividends have been paid may be a matter of contract.^ Preferred stockholders are entitled to vote at elections and to exercise the various rights of stockholders the same as common stockholders, unless this right is expressly withheld from them by the terms under which the stock is issued.' vesting public assume and understand specify that, after certain dividends that preferred stock is never entitled to more than its specified and fixed dividends, even though the certificate is silent as to further dividends, in case a higher dividend is paid'on the common stock. A share of stock is a share of stock, whether preferred or common. A share of preferred stock has all the rights of a share of com- mon stock, except as expressly re- stricted by the terms under which it is issued. Logically there would seem to be nothing in the words "preferred dividend " restricting the preferred stock to that dividend, after an equal dividend had been paid on the com- mon stock, and certainly not after any arrears or equal dividends had been made up and paid on the common stock. There is nothing in the word " preferred " which restricts or cuts down the rights which at common law are inherent in all stock. It is settled law that upon dissolution the pre- ferred stock shares pro rata with the common stock, in the distribution of the assets after payment of debts, even though such assets are in excess of the par value of both kinds of ^tock. The same rule would seem to apply to a distribution of profits in ex- cess of the full preferred dividend, and of an equal dividend on the commo'h stock. However, the question may still be considered an open one. 1 Gordon's Ex'rs v. Richmond, etc. R. JR., 78 Va. 501 (1884). 2 Where the articles of incorporation 590 have been paid on both the preferred and common stock, one-fifth of the sur- plus shall go to the preferred stock, the company cannot devote such surplus to redeeming of shares. Ashbury v. Watson, L. R. 30 Ch. D. 376 (1885). If a stockholder, by accepting the bene- fits, assents to a change in the privi- leges which pertain to his stock, he cannot afterwards object thereto. Compton V. The Chelsea, 13 N. Y. Supp. 722 (1891); aff'd, 138 N. Y. 537 (1891). A pledgee of a certificate of stock is not bound by an agreement of all the stockholders to surrender to the corpo- ration a part of their stock, which part is to be then considered preferred stock and is to be sold by the corpora- tion for the purpose of paying corpo- rate debts. Although all the other stock has had this agreement stamped on the certificates, yet the corporation cannot insist that the purchaser of the stock so pledged shall ^Uow the same agreement to be stamped on the new certificate issued to such purchaser. The court will order a transfer free from the agreement. Campbell v. American Zylonite Co., 123 N. Y. 455 (1890). 'Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St 141 (1890), where the right to vote was expressly withheld. In Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R., 33 Fed. Rep. 350 (1887); S. C 34 Fed. Rep. 583 (1888), it appeared that the common stockholders were by contract deprived of their right to vote for a specified tima In Re Bar- A provision in a railroad bond that at any time within ten days after a dividend becomes payable the holder of the bond might surrender it and de- mand full paid preferred stock in exchange therefor, does not continue beyond the time when the bond becomes due. Loomis v. Chicago, etc. Ry., 97 Fed. Rep. 755 (1899); aflf'd, 102 Fed. Eep. 233 (1900). See also § 288, infra. * In retiring such preferred stock the corporation may issue additional com- (38) 593 § 270.] PEEFEKEED STOCK. [CH. XVI. Dividends on the preferred stock must be on all of that class, even though some of it has been exchanged for preferred stock bearing a lower dividend.^ By the consent of both preferred and common stockholders all the stock may be made common, unless, of course, the charter provides otherwise.^ From a decree refusing leave to a preiferred stockholder to in- tervene and become a party to a foreclosure suit no appeal lies.' Preferred stockholders in a railroad may file a bill in a federal court to enjoin the railroad from obeying a state statute requiring the railroad to sell mileage books at two cents a mile, such rate mon stock to the holders of the old common stock without giving . any rights to the holders of preferred stock. Moreover, even if the preferred stock- holders had a right to a part of the new common stock, yet the remedy is not an injunction, but a suit at law for damages. Even though such preferred stock is retired for cash, yet a holder of preferred stock cannot object that this impairs the capital of the company, inasmuch as he ceases to have an in- terest in the company. Such stock may be retired by a vote of the direct- ors without a vote of the stockholders. Hackett v. Northern, etc. R. R., 36 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 583 (1901). See also § 271, infra. 1 Although the preferred stock is partly taken back by the company and new preferred stock of the same amount, bearing a less dividend, is issued in exchange, yet this does not enable the company to declare a divi- dend on the part not exchanged, and on that alone. It must declare on all. Coey V. Belfast, etc. Ry., Ir. Rep. 2 C. L. 112 (1866). If part of the preferred stockholders surrender their stock for new common stock on a reorganization without foreclosure, such stoclj is can- celed, and holders not so surrendering their stock are entitled to arrears of dividends out of the first net profits, without allowing such surrendered stock to participate therein. West Chester, etc. R. R. v. Jackson, 77 Pa, St. 821 (1875). In this case there was a 504 special act providing for the issue of preferred stock, and afterwards an- other for the issue of consolidated stock. A dividend having been declared, a holder of the preferred stock, who had declined to accept the consolidated, washeld "entitled to receive just what the company agreed to pay when the money was obtained." ^Synnott v. Cumberland, etc. Assoc, 117 Fed. Rep. 379 (1902), holding also that where a proxy votes in favor of making all the stock common stock, the stockholder himself, if he wishes to object, must do so promptly. A scheme by which founders' shares are to be ex- changed for ordinary stock at the rat6 of one hundred shares of the latter for each share of the former, is ultra vires and illegal, and will not be sanctioned by the court. Se Development Company, etc., 86 L. T. Rep. 333 (1903). A corporar tio n may agree to cancel cumulative preferred stock and issue in exchange therefor non-cumulative preferred stock and give an interest-bearing scrip for arrears of dividends. A non- assenting preferred stockholder need not accept the proposition, but, on the other hand, cannot prevent others ac- cepting it, provided the interest on the scrip is paid only pro rata with pay- ments to him. The common stock- holders cannot object. Wilcox v. Trenton, etc. Ca, 53 Atl. Rep. 474 (N. J. 1903). 8 Toledo, etc R. R. v. Continental Trust Ca, 95 Fed. Rep. 497 (1899)^ CH. XVI.J PREFERRED STOCK. [§ 271. being in violation of a charter provision giving to the directors the power to fix rates subject to revision by the supremfe court.^ Preferred stockholders are subject to a statutory liability the same as common stockholders.^ § 271. Preferred stockholders are not creditors — Dividends can he only from profits — Mortgages securing preferred stock. — For- merly it was a matter of doubt and discussion whether or not a pre- ferred stockholder had any rights as a creditor of the company or was confined to his rights as a stockholder. The law is now clearly settled that a preferred stockholder is not a corporate creditor.' The preferred stockholder is but a stockholder with a right to have his dividend paid before dividends on the common stock are paid, and he is not entitled to any dividend until the corporation has funds which are properly applicable to the payment of divi- dends. A contract that dividends shall be paid on the preferred stock whether any profits are made or not would be contrary to public policy and void. An agreement to pay dividends absolutely and at all events — from the profits when there are any, and from 1 Ball V. Rutland R. R., 93 Fed. Rep. 513 (1899). 2 Railroad Co. v. Smith, 48 Oliio St. 319 (1891). ' A preferred stockholder is not a creditor and cannot be made such. Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R, 78 Fed. Rep. 664(1897). In ascertaining whether a corporation is solvent the preferred stock is not to be considered a debt. People, etc. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R., 176 III. 512 (1898). Preferred stockholders have no lien prior to the obligation of the company to pay the interest on its mortgage bonds. Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R., 83 Fed. Rep. 360 <1897). The House of Lords in England have clearly laid down the rule that preferred stockholders are not credit- ors. Birch V. Cropper, 14 App. Cas. 525 <1889). The same doctrine is expressed in Belfast, etc. R. R. u. Belfast, 77 Me. 445 (1885). A very full, clear, and learned discussion of the essential dif- ferences between a preferred stock- holder and a creditor of a corporation is to be found in Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St. 141 (1890), a case wherein the preferred stockholder was secured by a mortgage and was deprived of the right to vote at corporate elections. In Field V. Lamson, etc. Co., 162 Mass. 388 (1894), it was held that, even though the statute authorized the corporation to guarantee dividends on its stock, nevertheless that the dividends could be paid only out of the net profits. Taft v. Hartford, etc. R R, 8 R I. 310 (1866); Chaffee v. Rutland, etc. R R, 55 Vt. 110, 129 (1882), the court saying: "The claim is that he is also a creditor, with all the rights pertaining to that relar tion. Against this claim are the terms of the charter, the presumptions of law, and the usual course of business." In this case certificates issued for "scrip dividends" or "preferred guaranteed stock " were convertible into mortgage bonds. The company having refused to convert them, it was held that gen- eral assumpsit for the amount of the certificates would lie, and that the suit could be brought in the name of the holder for value. St. John v. Erie Ry., 10 Blatchf. 371 (1872); s. C, 21 Fed. Cas. 167; s. 0., 22 Wall 136. See also 138 Mass. 132. 595 § 271.J PEEFEREED STOCK. [CH. XVI. the capital when there are not — is an undertaking which is con- trary to law, atld is void.' Public policy condemns with emphasis any such undertaking on the part of a corporation as to its pre- ferred or guaranteed stock. A preferred stockholder is liable to corporate creditors for illegal dividends paid on his stock, the same common stockholder is.^ Dividends on preferred stock are as a payable only out of the net earnings of the company.' The (jues- lAn agreement of the corporation ■with a stockholder to pay to him in dividends the amount he pays for the stock cannot he enforced as an obliga- tion of the corporation. Smith v. Ala- bama, etc. Assoc, 133 Ala. 538 (1899). Dividends on preferred stock cannot be paid out of the capital stock. Daven- port V. Lines, 72 Conn. 118 (1899). A contract between a corporation and a stockholder, by which the stockholder is to be repaid before creditors of the corporation are paid is contrary to pub- lic policy and void. Guaranty, etc. Co., V. Galveston, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. Rep. 811 (1901), 119 Fed. Rep. 652; 122 id. 40. 2 American, etc. Co. v. Eddy, 89 N. W. Rep. 952 (Mich. 1902). 3 Taft V. Hartford, etc. R R, 8 R 1 310(1866); Lookhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76 (1875); Chaffee i). Rutland, etc. R R, 55 Vt. 110 (1883); Warren v. King, 108 U. S. 389 (1883); Crawford v. North- eastern, etc. Ry., 8 Jur. (N. S.) 1093 (1856); Elkins v. Camden, etc. R R, 36 N. J. Eq. 283 (1882); Belfast, etc. R R V. Belfast, 77 Me. 445 (1885), and the cases supra. Dividends may be de- clared on preferred stock where the net earnings since the issue of the stock are sufficient, even though prior to such is- sue the capital stock had been impaired. Cotting V. New York, etc. R. R, 54 Conn. 156 (1886). See also § 546, infra. In Mills V. Northern Ry., L. R 5 Ch. App. 631 (1870), where a corporation, being in arrears in the payment of preferred stock dividends, and being at the same time largely indebted, proposed to ap- •propriate a portion of its capital and to borrow further sums upon debentures for the purpose of paying such preferred dividends, it was held, in a suit by the creditors to prevent such acti&n, that inasmuch as the appropriation of the capital was justified on the ground that an equivalent portion of the rev- enue had been used for capital purposes, and the proposed loan was within the company's borrowing power, an in- junction could not be granted. In Guinness v. Land Corporation, L. R 33 Ch. D. 349 (1883), the court de- clared illegal a provision for the pay- ment of preferred dividends out of the capital stock. Interest on debts, even those incurred after the preferred stock was issued, and rent on leases, in- cluding those taken after such issue, must be paid before dividends are de- clared on the preferred stock. St. John V. Erie Ry* 33 Wall. 137 (1874), affirming 10 Blatchf. 371 (1872); s. C, 31 Fed. Cas. 167, defining also the meaning of net profits. In the case of Williston v. Michigan Southern, etc. R R, 55 Mass. 400 (1866), the court held that preferred and guaranteed stock in a Michigan and Indiana corporation was not en- titled to dividends unless there were net profits. Preferred dividends may be paid out of the gross earnings where the statute evidently so intended. Gor- don V. Richmond, etc. R R, 78 Va. 501 (1884). See also Ragland v. Broadnax, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 401 (1877), where the court upheld the charge of guaranteed dividends on the gross receipts. That was the case of a debt converted into- guaranteed stock. The debt would have borne, if it had not been converted into stock, interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, whether they were net earnings or not The court held 596 CH. XVI.J PEEFEEEED STOCK. [§ 271. tion of what constitutes net earnings is considered elsewhere.' A subscriber for preferred stock cannot rescind the subscription on the ground that the stock contains a provision that the company shall buy it back at a certain time at par and interest. Such a provision is invalid, but does not invalidate -the stock itself.' Occasionally a mortgage is given by the corporation to secure the payment of dividends on preferred stock, and to give it a pref- erence in payment over subsequent debts of the corporation upon insolvency or dissolution. It is difficult .to see how such a mort- gage would be legal unless it has been issued under express statu- tory authority. The courts have no power to give the stockhold- ers a preference over creditors, even though the preferred stock is by its terms to be a lien on the property.' A mortgage given to that the guaranty of three per cent, dividend on the whole stock, which formerly belonged to the state, was simply the six per cent, interest upon the debt which was converted into stock; and it also held that it was chargeable, in accordance with the stock might be withdrawn before the full discharge of all corporate debts, the device would be contrary to the nature of capital stock, opposed to pub- lic policy, and void as to creditors af- fected thereby." A corporation can- not, in the absence of statutory plain provisions of the statute, upon the authority, make its preferred stock a gross receipts. Guaranteed dividends can be paid only from net profits. Mil- ler V. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St. 141 (1890). 1 See ch. XXXII, infra. 2 Long V. Guelph, etc. Co., 31 C. P. Rep. (Can.) 129 (1880). However, where a corporation has power to borrow and also to issue preferred stock, and does issue certificates which provide for payment of the par value thereof at the end of two years, such certificates may constitute a debt instead of pre- ferred stock, even though they are drawn in the form of preferred stock. Savannah, etc. Ca v, Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281 (1899). ' Quoted and "heartily concurred " in, in Black v. Hobart T. Co., 53 Atl! Eep. 826 {N. J. 1902). In Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R., 78 Fed. Rep. 664 (1897), where the pre- ferred stock provided that no debt ex- cept the first mortgage debt should come lien upon its property; nor can an agreement between the subscribers to the stock of the corporation make such stock a lien on its property, as against bondholders or general creditors with- out notice of such agreement. Conti- nental Trust Co. V. Toledo, etc. R E., 72 Fed. Rep. 93 (1896); aff'd in Toledo, etc. R R. u Continental Ti-ust Co., 95 Fed. Eep. 497 (1899). Preferred stock which is " to be and remain a first claim upon the property of the corporation after its indebtedness " has no lien ahead of presenter future debts of the company. King V. Ohio & M. Ey., 2 Fed. Eep. 36 (1880). See also Warren v. King, 108 U. S. 389 (1882), the court holding that although the certificates of preferred stock provided that it should "be and remain a first claim upon the property of the corporation after its Indebted- ness," etc., and although in foreclosure in ahead of preferred stock, the court proceedings the preferred stockholders said: "If the purpose in providing for asked to have their stock declared a these peculiar shares was to arrange lien prior to a subsequent mortgage, matters so that, under any circum- yet the court refused the application stances, a part of the principal of the declaring that they had priority over 597 § 271.J PEEFEEEED STOCK. [CH. XVI. repay to preferred stockholders the amount they have invested in their stock as well as to secure regular creditors of the company is invalid altogether.^ Nevertheless, a mortgage to secure preferred stock and divi- dends thereon has been- upheld in a few cases.^ In other cases, that which was called preferred stock was nothing more than income bonds with a voting power.' It is of course within the power of the common stock only. It has been held, however, that where preferred stock is issued, reciting that it is a lien on all the property of the corporation after the first mortgage, the lien will be upheld by the court as against sub- sequent mortgages and general credit- ors, although such lien was not secured by any mortgage, the trustees in the subsequent deed of trust having known of and acquiesced in the priority of the preferred-stock lien, and the deed itself having recognized it. This bound the bondholders. Skiddy v. Atlantic, etc. E. R., 3 Hughes, 330, 355 (1879); & C, 33 Fed. Gas. 374, 388. Where stock is issued to a city by a street railway company in payment for its street rights, a provision in the grant of the street rights that in case the company became indebted the city should have a lien on the company's franchise and property does not give the city a lien in preference to creditors of the com- pany, but only in preference to other stockholders. Guaranty, eta Co. v. Galveston, etc. R. R., 107 Fed. Rep. 311 (1901); 53 Atl. Rep. 1057. 1 Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623 (1901). A mortgage byan insolvent corporation for the benefit of the pre- ferred stockholders and also creditors of the company is fraudulent and void so far as it is for the benefit of the pre- ferred stockholders, t"he statute pre- scribing that the debts should be paid in preference to any payment on the preferred stock, and if only those cred- itors were entitled to the benefit there- of who accepted it, the whole mortgage is void. Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, eta, 157 Ind. 633 (1901). * Although the power of a railroad to borrow be limited, yet preferred stock may be issued secured by a mort- gage, where the power to mortgage has been given, . and such preferred stock may be deprived of the power to vote. Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Ohio St. 141 (1890). A deed of trust given by a corporation upon its lands to secure the performance of an undertaking of the company to pay dividends on pre- ferred stock which was about to be is- sued, and also ultimately to pay for the stock itself, is a mortgage. Where the corporation's equity of redemption has been sold, the receiver of the cor- poration takes nothing. Fitch v. Weth- erbee, 110 111. 475 (1884). In Davis v. Second Univ. Meeting-house, 49 Mass, 331 (1844), the stock, by a by-law, was declared to be entitled to redemption when the holder moved from the town. The court upheld and enforced the contract. In Gordon v, Richmond, etc. R. R., 78 Va. 501 (1884), a mortgage had been given to secure the payment of the par value and dividends of pre- ferred stock. The case involved a distri- bution of profits and not a foreclosure of the mortgage, but the court said that the mortgage was legal. 'Burt V. Rattle, 31 Ohio St. 116 (1876), turned upon a general "Act to authorize manufacturing corporations to issue preferred stock." Where such stock was issued certifying that the corporation guaranteed the holders certain dividends not exceeding legal rates, and the final payment of the certificates at a specified time, it being provided that such preferred stock might be converted into common 598 OH. XVI.] PEEFEEEBD STOCK. [§ 271. the legislature to prescribe that preferred stock thereafter to be issued by a corporation shall be a lien on the property and fran- chises of the company with a priority over any subsequent mort- gage.' A preferred stockholder is in no better position to enjoin the corporation from giving a mortgage than a common stockholder.^ Where bonds are deposited as collateral security for preferred stock, it has been held that the corporation may call in, redeem, and cancel the stock in exchange for the bonds;' but it would seem that this can be done only upon a legal reduction of the cap- ital stock. By its certificate of incorporation a New Jersey corpo- ration may have power to purchase and retire part or all of its preferred stock, and to issue in payment therefor its bonds, or to sell its bonds and use the proceeds to retire such preferred stock, or it may purchase and hold such stock for re-issue.* stock, and the corporation issued its in Maryland preferred stock may be a bond and mortgage to a trustee to se- lien. Rogers, etc. Co. v. Citizens', etc cure such certificates, it was held that Bank, 93 Md. 613 (1901). holders of the so-called preferred ^pj-gferred stockholders cannot pre- stock did not become stockholders and vent the corporation giving a consoli- members, but creditors of the corpora- dated mortgage to secure past and tion, so that, on the winding up of the future debts. " Holders of preferred company's affairs, they had a lien upon stock have no special control over the the mortgage property superior to that corporation or its management. . . . of general creditors and assignees. " A The corporation is in no sense the mortgage creditor, although denomi- trustee for the holders of preferred nated a 'preferred stockholder,' is a stock. Its duty is to each alike ac- mortgage creditor nevertheless, and in- cording to the conditions attached to terest is not changed into a ' dividend' the stock of each." Thompson v. Erie by calling it a dividend." It was a Ey., 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 188 (N, Y. Supr. self-evident misnomer in the act. So Ct., 1871). also under a statute. See Pittsburg, ' Totten v. Tison, 54 Ga. 139 (1875). etc. R. E. V. Allegheny County, 63 Pa. St. Where preferred stock is merged into 126 (1869). Compare s. a, 79 Pa. St. 210. bonds, the common stockholders can- In Miller v. Eatterman, 47 Ohio St. not defeat the enforcing of the bonds. 141 (1890), the court held that the fact Havemeyer v. Bordeaux Co., 8 Nat. that a mortgage had been given to Corp. Rep. 127 (111. C. C, 1894). Even secure the payment of preferred div- though the directors have sold pre- idends does not prevent such stock from ferred stock held by them to the eor- beingoonsideredstookinsteadof adebt. poration and taken its notes therefor 'Such a preference will be upheld, when the corporation was insolvent, but does not create a lien on fire insur- yet a receiver should not be appointed ance money for loss sustained nor on at the instance of a stockholder, merchandise manufactured for sale, The remedy is an injunction and ao- nor on book accounts representing counting. Empire Hotel Co. v. Main, such sales, nor on rents due to the cor- 98 Ga. 176 (1896). poration. Heller v. National, etc. Bank, In this case the decision was that, when a preferred stockholder is en- titled to share pro rata with holders of common stock in dividends over and above the preference, his remedy is not by an action at law against the corpo- ration, but by suit in equity. In an action by a preferred stockholder in behalf of himself and others to enjoin the payment of dividends to common stockholders before the arrears of pre- ferred dividends are paid, he need not join all the common stockholders as parties defendant. Smith v. Cork, etc. Ry., Ir. Rep. 3 Eq. 356 (1869); Prouty v, Michigan, etc. R.~R., 1 Hun, 655 (1874), where an injunction was granted to restrain the declaring of dividends or making other disposition of the funds of the corporation until arrears on preferred stock should be paid: Thomp- son V. Erie, etc. R. R., 45 N. Y. 468 (1871), involving an action to "en- force the declaration and payment of a dividend; " Barnard v. Vermont, etc., 89 Mass. 513 (1863), holding that where certificates for an intended dividend had been issued payable at a future time when the company should be able to pay them, the final decision as to when the company is able to pay does- not rest with the directors but with the court. Where the common stock- holders In a reorganized company claim that the preferred stockholders are de- frauding them, a preliminary injunc- tion will not be ordered unless immi- nent danger is shown. Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R R., 33 Fed. Rep. 350 (1887). Where dividends have been paid oa the common stock, a preferred stock- 605 §§ 276, 276.] PKEFEEEBD STOCK. [CH. XVI. But an action at law will lie if dividends have already been de- clared and paid to the common stockholders in violation of the rights of the preferred stockholders.^ When the arrears and dividends of preferred stock are recover- able, the interest on such arrears may be recovered from the time when moneys sufficient to pay the arrears were unlawfully used to pay dividends on the common stock instead of being used to pay the arrears on the preferred stock.^ § 275. Bights of the assignee or transferee of preferred stocic in arrears of dividends. — The transferee or assignee of preferred stock stands, in respect to arrears of dividends, in the shoes of his as- signor or transferrer. The undeclared arrears of dividends pass to him in the transfer of the stock, unless by the terms of the transfer the arrears are expressly separated from the stock itself and reserved to the transferrer.' An assignment of preferred stock carries with it all arrears of dividends, and a subsequent assign- ment of arrears by the transferrer conveys nothing.* § 276. " Special stock " in Massachusetts. — In Massachusetts in- corporated companies are permitted by statute* to issue a peculiar kind of stock, known as " special stock." It is something essen- tially different from preferred stock.^ Its chief characteristics are that it is limited in amount to two-fifths of the actual capital; it is subject to redemption by the corporation at par after a fixed time, to be expressed in the certificate; the corporation is bound to holder, as plaintiff, by offering in evi- plaintiff preferred stoolsholder the dence his certificate of stock and show- same dividend that it has given to ing that no dividends have been paid, others. makes out a. prima facie case entitling 2 Boardman v. Lake Shore, eta E. R, him to dividends and arrears. Board- 84 N. Y. 157 (1881); Proutya;. Michigan, man v. Lake Shore, etc. R R, 84 N. Y. etc. R R, 1 Hun, 655 (1874). See Adams 157 (1881). V. Fort Plain Bank, 36 N. Y. 255 (1867). 1 If dividends are declared and paid Contra, Corry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry., on the common stock, before paying 39 Beav. 263 (1860). Cf. ch. XXXII, the arrears of dividends on the pre- infra. f erred stock, the holders of the latter s Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. Ky., 91 may collect such arrears by an action N. Y. 483 (1883); Boardman v. Lake at law in assumpsit. West Chester, Shore, etc. Ry., 84 N. Y. 157 (1881); Hy- eto. R. R V. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 331 att v. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553 (1874); Man- (1875). In the case of Bates v. Andro- ning v. Quicksilver Min. Co., 34 Hud, sooggin, etc. R R, 49 Me. 491 (1860), an 360 (1881). action of debt for past-due dividends < Manning v. Quicksilver Min. Ca, 34 was sustained, although such dividends Hun, 360 (1881). had not been declared, they having » Stats. 1855, cK 390; 1870, oh. 334, been earned. Coey v. Belfast, etc. Ry., p§ 35, 39, cl. 4; Pub. Stats., ch. 106, §§ 43, Ir. Rep. 3 C. L, 113 (1866), holding that 61, ol. 3. an action at law will lie against a rail- ^ American Tube Works v. Boston way company for not giving to the Machine Ca, 189 Mass. 5 (1885). 606 OH. XTI.] PEEFEREEI) STOCK. [§ m. pay a fixed half-yearly sum, or dividend, upon it as a debt; the holders of it are in no event liable for the debts of the corporation beyond their stock, and the issue of this special stock makes all the general stockholders liable for all debts and contracts of the corpo- ration until the special stock is fully redeemed.' Special stock can be issued only by a vote of three-fourths of the general stockholders of the company at a meeting duly called for that purpose.^ The guarantee of dividends of special stock in Massachusetts is an ab- solute one, and not in any degree conditional upon the earning of sufficient profits by the corporation.' § 277. Interest-iearing stochs. — Occasionally, instead of issuing preferred stock, a corporation issues ordinary common stock, together with a promise that the corporation will pay interest thereon. Such a promise is generally lawful, and may be enforced as a contract in the nature of an agreement to pay a dividend.* It is a lawful con- tract, however, only when it is to be interpreted as requiring pay- ment from profits alone.* Any contract on the part of a corpora- tion to pay interest or dividends to its stockholders, without refer- i The statutes cited supra; American Tube Works v. Boston Machine Co., 139 Mass. 5 (1885). 2 Stats. 1870, oh. 334, §35. And the corporation must have a clerk, who is sworn, and who acts as recorder at such meeting. Stats. 1870, ch. 324, §§ 15, 18; Pub. Stats., ch. 106, §g 33, 26. See also Reed v. Boston Machine Co., 141 Mass. 454 (1886). This special stock is declared to be "a peculiar kind of stock, distinctly provided for by stat- ute; " and it is important that the marked distinction between preferred stock, as usually understood, and spe- cial stock, as authorized by the stat- utes cited in the notes, be kept plainly in view. American Tube Works v. Bos- ton Machine Co., 189 Mass. 5 (1885). It was held, in accordance with this view, in the case last cited, that a vote of a corporation to issue special stock. showed that more than three-fourths of the stockholders wei'e present at the meeting, that therefore three-fourths or more voted for the issue of special stock; and that a holder of special stock which is illegally issued cannot, by estoppel or otherwise, become a member of the corporation in respect of such shares. 3 Williams v. Parker, 136 Mass. 204 (1884). See also Allen v. Herrick, 81 Mass. 874 (1860). * Barnard v. Vermont, eto. E. E., 89 Mass. 513 (1868). s Richardson v. Vermont, eto. E. R., 44 Vt. 613 (1873); Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 40 Pa. St. 237 (1861); Cun- ningham V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 78 Mass. 411 (1859); City of Ohio v. Cleve- land, etc. R. R., 6 Ohio St. 489 (1856); Wright V. Vermont, etc. R. R., 66 Mass. 68 (1853); Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R., at a meeting called to consider whether 74 Mass. 433 (1857); Barnard v. Ver the corporation will issue preferred stock, is invalid; that a vote to issue special stock is invalid if the record of the meeting fails to show that three- fourths of the general stockholders voted for such issue; that the court mont, etc. R. R, 89 Mass. 512 (1863). In Ohio College v. Rosenthal, 45 Ohio St. 183 (1887), where certificates of stock bearing interest were issued by a cor- poration which merely owned real estate, which was not organized for will not presume, because the record profit, never made any profit, never ex- 607 § 277.], PEEFEEEED STOCK. [CH. XTI. ence to the ability of the company to pay them out of its earnings, is not enforceable unless sufficient profits exist to make such pay- ment.' Moreover, the directors or corporate ofiHcers paying inter- est on stock out of the capital stock are jointly and severally liable to refund the amounts so paid out.^ It has been held that a rail- road company may lawfully receive subscriptions to its capital stock upon the condition to pay interest thereon as soon as the amount of the subscription shall have been paid in, and until com- pletion of the road, or of some part thereof, or until the road shall have been put in operation,' but stipulated interest on stock cannot become a debt payable absolutely.* The right of a subscriber drawing interest on his stock to participate in elections and general corporate meetings, and to exercise generally the rights of a stock- holder, is the same as that of other stockholders.' Where stock- holders advance money in prepayment of calls, the company may pay them interest on the same up to the time that the call is due, even though such interest is paid out of capital.* peoted to, and had existed for forty years, a suit by a stockholder to collect interest failed. 1 Painesville, etc. R. R. v. King, 17 Ohio St. 534 (1867); Pittsburg, etc. R. E. V. Allegheny County, 79 Pa. St. 210 (1875); Pittsburg, etc. R. R. u. Alle- gheny County, 63 Pa. St. 126 (1869); Lookhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76 (1875); Troy, etc. K. K v. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297 (1854); Salisbury v. Metropol- itan Ry., 38 L. J. (Ch.) 249 (1869); Re National, etc. Co., L. R. 10 Ch. D. 118 (1878). Cf. Bard well v. Sheffield Water- works Co., L. R. 14 Eq. 517 (1872). In City of Ohio v. Cleveland, etc. R R., 6 Ohio St. 489 (1856), interest payable by stock dividends was ailowed by statute. A subscriber to stock which by its terms is to draw interest cannot defeat the subscription on the ground that the provision as to interest is ille- gal. Evansville, etc. R. R v. Evans- ville, 15 Ind. 395 (1860). In McLaugh- lin V. Detroit, etc. Ry., 8 Mich. 100 (1860), a railroad company issued stock bearing interest. The court sustained itb The stock called for interest in- stead of dividends. Bonds were ten- dered to the stockholder in payment of such "interest." He declined the tender and sued for the interest money. The court sustained his suit. No ques- tion was raised as to paying such " in- terest " irrespective of profits. - Re National, eta Ca, L. R 10 Ch. D. 118 (1878). See also § 550, infra. 3 Milwaukee, etc. R R v. Field, 12 Wis. 340(1860); Racine County Bank d. Ayers, 13 Wis. 512 (1860); Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R R, 40 Pa. St. 237 (1861); Waterman v. Troy, etc. R R, 74 Mass. 433 (1857). * Barnard v. Vermont, eta R R, 89 Mass. 513 (1863). The relation of debtor and creditor is created to the extent of the interest stipulated for. McLaughlin V. Detroit, etc. Ry., 8 Mich. 100 (186U). i) McLaughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry., 8 Mich. 100 (1860). °Lock V. Queensland Inv. etc Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 397. A construction com- pany owning the stock of a gas com- pany, upon selling such stock, on pay- ments to be made in instalments, may agree to allow interest on the instal- ments paid in advance. Hetfield v. Addicks, 154 Pa. St. 1 (1898); Porter o. Beacon Con. Co., 154 Pa. St. 8 (1893). 608 CH. XVI.] PEEFEEEED STOCK. [§ 278. § 278. EigTits of preferred stockholders on dissolution and on a reduction of the capital stoclc. — Upon the dissolution of a corpora- tion, and the distribution of its assets among the stockholders after the payment of the corporate indebtedness, it is the settled rule of law that, in the absence of any provision in the statutes, by-laws, certificate of stock, or contract under which the preferred stock was issued to the contrary, preferred stockholders have no priority over common stockholders. Their stock was preferred in respect of dividends, and not in reference to the capital stock. The assets of the corporation are to be distributed as though the preferred stock had been common stock. The preferred stockholder in the dis- tribution becomes a common stockholder.^ Thus, where the pre- ferred stock is not preferred as to assets, and a reorganization is had by selling out the property of the company to a new company 1 Coltrane v. Baltimore, etc. Assoc, guaranteed dividends is stated in Gor- 110 Fed. Rep. 281, 388 (1901); Re North- west, etc. Ey., [1900] 3 Ch. 882. Pre- ferred stock is not preferred as to as- sets where there is no provision to that effect, even though there is a provision that such stock is to mature and be payable seven years after the first payment on the subscription price has been paid. Sumrall v. Commercial Bldg. etc., 50 S. W. Rep^ 69 (Ky. 1899); Forwood V. Eubank, 50 S. W. Rep. 355 (Ky. 1899). The House of Lords has held that, upon the dissolution of a cor- poration having preferred stock and common stock, the surplus assets, after repayment of the paid-up capital, the common stock not having been paid up, is divisible among all the stockholders, common and preferred, in proportion to their holdings. Birch v. Cropper, 14 'App. Gas. 535 (1889), reversing the court below. See also Re London In- dia Rubber Co., L. R 5 Eq. 519 (1868); Re Bridgewater Nav. Co., L. R. 39 Ch. D. 1 (1888), a case where there was a large surplus; McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 181 (1880), a dictum, the court holding, however, that under the statutes of the state the preferred stockholders had a preference as to as- sets also, the statute providing for a division of the surplus after payment to preferred stockholders. Stock with don V. Richmond, etc. R. R., 78 Va. 601 (1884;, to give a preference as to divi- dends, but not of the assets on a wind- ing up. Upon dissolution the court may and will call in unpaid subscrip- tions, where this is necessary in order to make a proper distribution. Re Sheppard's, etc. Co., 70 L. T. Rep. 3 (1893). In Griffith v. Paget, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 511 (1877); s. C, L. R. 5 Ch. D. 894, it was held that where the company is dissolved by a consolidation with an- other company under a statute, the stockholders of the old being entitled to exchange their stock for stock in the new, the preferred stock is not entitled to preferred stock in the new. On a winding up, if it turns out that the profits had been systematically overes- timated for a number of years, thereby depriving common stockholders of the dividends, an account should be taken and such dividends should be paid. Re Bridgewater Nav. Co., [1S91J 3 Ch. 317. See also S. c, [1891] 1 Ch. 155. A contest between the preferred and common stockholders as to who shall be entitled to the surplus will not be decided in a foreclosure suit, but the surplus will be paid to the corporation for distribution. Continental Trust Co. V. Toledo, etc. R. E., 86 Fed. Rep. 939 (1898). (39) 609 § 278.] PEEFEEEBD STOCK. [OH. XVI. for preferred and common stock in the new company, this pre- ferred and common stock of the new company must be distributed ratably among both the common and preferred stockholders of the old company. A preferred stockholder in the old cannot be given the preferred stock in the new. A common stockholder may en- join such a distribution. He is entitled to his share of the new preferred.' But where a railroad may, by statute, consolidate with another railroad on such terms as a majority of the stockholders approve, the terms may be that four preferred shares in the old shall receive five preferred shares in the new, and two shares of common in the old shall receive one preferred share in the new. It is not such a dissolution as entitles the common to share equally with the preferred.^ Where profits have been earned and prop- erly entered as profits on the corporation books they belong to the stockholders, even though thereafter the corporation becomes in- solvent and is wound up before such profits are declared to be dividends. The creditors of the corporation are entitled to the corpus of the estate, but not to any profits. If there is preferred stock such profits go to that stock,' but the rule may be different where the directors had power to create a reserve fund.* Where a preference as to capital has been expressly contracted for,* or is given by a statute,* the preferred stock is, of course, pre- ferred as to assets also. If the capital stock is reduced, the preferred stock is reduced proportionately with the common, unless the preferred stock is 1 Simpson v. Palace Theater, 69 L. T. stock there may be a provision that Eep. 70 (1893). See also § 370, supra. any amounts which have to be paid to 2 Hale V. Cheshire K. R., 161 'Mass. corporate creditors on the winding up 443 (1894). shall be paid by the common stock- 3 Bishop V. Smyrna, etc. Ey., [1895] 3 holders. Welton v. Saffery, [1897] A. C. Oh. 265. 399. The preference may, by express * Where a company, having preferred agreement, be made to give a prefer- and common stock, sells its assets, ex- ence to capital as well as to profits, oepting the profits of the previous year, Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R R., 78 Fed. these profits do not belong to the pre- Rep. 664 (1897). Founders' shares are ferred stockholders, no dividend thereon one species of preferred or deferred having been declared, even though the stock. See § 14, supra. Where, on dis- preferred stock was in arrears as to divi- solution, the founders' shares were to dends, the board of directors having full have one-flfth of the surplus assets, the power to use profits for a reserve fund words " surplus assets " are construed and the company having had losses in to be the assets remaining after paying prior years. The amount will be passed the debts and also paying back what- to assets for final distribution. Re ever the stockholders had originally Criohton's Oil Oo., 84 L. T. Rep. 864 paid in. Re New Transvaal Ca, [1896] (1901); afi'd, 86 L. T. Rep. 787 (1902). 2 Oh. 750, 86 Fed. Rep^ 929. 5 Re Bangor, etc. Slate Oo., L. R. 30 « McGregor v. Home Ins. Ca, 83 N. J. Eq. 59 (1875). In the issue of preferred Eq. 181 (1880). 610 OH. XVI.J PEEFEEEED STOCK. [§ 278. preferred as to assets as well as dividends.' Where the preferred stock was to have five per cent, and the common stock seven per cent., and the remaining profits were to go equally to the common stock and to founders' shares, and a reduction of capital is made by reason of losses, the reduction may be made by canceling the 1 When the capital stock is reduced by decreasing the par value of the stock, the preferred stock may he re- duced equally with the rest. Re Bar- row, etc. Co., L. R. 39 Ch. D. 58S (1888). Where, in consequence of losses, the capital stock is reduced, as allowed by the charter, by reducing the par value of the stock one-half, the pre- feiTed stock as well as the common is reduced one-half. Bannatyne v. Di- rect, etc. Co., L. E. 34 Ch. D. 287 (1886). National Dwelling Soc, Lim., 78 L. T. Eep. 144 (1898), by unanimous consent, upon the reduction of the capital stock of a company having both preferred and common stock, the capital stock having become impaired, all the stock became common stock, the preferred (stockholders reducing their holdings three-fifths and the common stock- holders reducing their holdings nine- tenths. A holder of preferred stock may prevent a reduction of the pre- But not where the preferred stock is ferred dividend by an amendment of preferred as to assets as well as divi- dends, unless all the preferred stock- holders assent thereto. Be Quebrada Ry., etc. Co., L. E. 40 Ch. D. 363 (1889). Where a company has not issued or has acquired some of its stock, it may reduce its capital stock by canceling the part owned by it, although it is all preferred, or all common, or a part of both. Re Gatling Gun, L. R. 43 Ch. D. 638 (1890). Where there is both common and preferred stock, it is legal for the company to reduce the common stock without reducing the preferred. Re Agricultural Hotel Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 396. Under the English statutes, where the capital stock consists of stock and de- ferred stock, the former being prac- tically preferred stock and the latter common stock, a reduction of the whole capital stock may be effected, with the consent of the common stockholders, by canceling a part of the common stock and having the remainder be- come preferred stock (in other words, by wiping out all preferences), even though some of the preferred stock- the certificate of incorporation, even though the statutes of the state at the time of the organization of the com- pany authorized the certificate of in- corporation to be amended by a cer- tain vote. Such reduction may be enjoined. Pronik v. Spirits, etc. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97 (1899). Where the property of the corporation consists of a mine and it has been largely worked out, and the corporation applies to the court to sanc- tion a reduction of both preferred and common stock by canceling one-half, the court will refuse where it is shown that a large sum had been passed to a reserve fund and profit and loss. Re Barrow, etc. Co., Ltd., 85 L. T. Rep. 493 (1901). Under the English statute requir- ing the consent of the court to a reduc- tion of capital stock, the court will, on protestjof preferred stockholders, refuse a reduction of all classes of stock to the extent of one-half of their face value, where the only ground for the reduc- tion is that the property is not worth the entire capital stock, and a pre- ferred stockholder shows that the holders objected, there being originally good will and reserve fund have not no preferences as to assets. Be Hyde- been taken into consideration, and that rabad Co., 75 L. T. Rep; 23 (1896). In the scheme is for the purpose of prac- 611 § 278.] PEEFEEEED STOOK. [oh. XVI. founders' shares and part of the contmon stock.' The subject of reducing the capital stock by purchasing and retiring a part of the preferred stock is considered elsewhere.^ tically reducing the dividend on the preferred stock. Barrow, etc. Co., [1900] 2 Cli. 846. Even tbough^there are differ- ent classes of stock, a reduction of the capital may be made on a different basis from the basis specified as applicable upon a dissolution and winding up. Be Credit Assurance, eta Corp^, 87 L. T. Rep. 216 (1903). 1 Be London, eta Inv. Corp, [1895] 3 Ch. 860, the court saying that, " where there are different classes of shares, the loss on a reduction ought to fall on those who would have to bear it if there were a winding up." 2 See § 371, supra. 613 CHAPTEE XYII. IKCREASE AND REDUCTION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK AND OVER- ISSUED STOCK § S79. Introductory. A. LEGAL INCREASE OE REDUCTION OF CAPITAL STOCK. 280. Power of the legislatiu'e to au- thorize an increase or reduc- tion. 381. Power of the corporation to in- crease or reduce the capital stock. 282. Effect of purchase by a corpo- ration of shares of its own stocl^ S83. The issue of bonds convertible into stock. 284 Power of a court to direct an in- crease or reduction. 285. Stockholders, not directors, should authorize the increase. 286. Prior right of the old stock- holders to buy the new stock. 287. Issue of an increase of stock by a stock dividend. 288. Liability of the stockholder upon an increase of the capi- tal stock — Irregularities in in- creasing the stock. 289. Rights and liabilities of the stockholder upon a reduction of the capital stock. § 290. Changes in the number or par value of the stock, R ILLEGAL INCREASE OF STOCK, BEING OVERISSUED STOCK. 291. Unauthorized increase of stock may amount to overissued stock. 292. Overissued stock is absolutely void. 293. Liability of the corporation on overissued stock — Who is a bona fide holder. 294. Defenses of the corporation to such actions. 395. Personal liability of the officers of the corporation on over- issued stock. 296. Liability of the vendor of over- issued stock. 297. Equity will enjoin voting, trans- ferring, and dividends on such stock, and will adjust the rights of all parties. 298. Subscriber's right to defeat a subscription to overissued stock, and to recover back money paid thereon. § 2Y9. Introductory. — The capital stock of all incorporated com- panies is generally fixed by the charters which give them an exist- ence. Frequently, however, in the progress of the corporate en- terprise, it happens that the capital stock is found to be too small or too large for the demands of the business, and there is a desire to change it. This change can be made lawfully only under cer- tain conditions and limitations. These are the subject of this chap- ter. A. LEGAL INOEBASE OK EEDUOTION OP CAPITAL STOCK. § 280. Power of the legislature to authorize an increase or reduc- tion. — It is clearly constitutional for the legislature, upon grant- ing a charter, to fix the capital stock and to authorize the corpora- tion to increase or decrease that capital stock. But where the leg- 613 § 281.J INOEEASE, EEDUCTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [OH. XVII. islature did not authorize the corporation to vary its capital stock, it is a serious question whether, as against a dissenting stockholder, the capital stock may be subsequently changed, even under the au- thority of a legislative enactment. The better and prevailing opin- ion is that it may be; that the statute authorizing the change is constitutional; and that the increase or reduction is valid.^ A different conclusion may be reached, however, as regards the rights of creditors of the corporation. It is clear that the legisla- ture cannot constitutionally authorize a reduction of the capital stock in prejudice of their rights as to an existing corporate in- debtedness.^ § 281. Powenof the corporation to increase or reduce the capital st^ch. — In the absence of express authority from the state, a cor- poration has no power whatsoever to increase or reduce the amount of its stock, and any attempt upon the part of the corporation, either by the corporate officers or by the stockholders, to do so is wholly illegal and void.' Accordingly it is not competent for a corporation having a fixed capital stock, and being without legisla- tive authority to change it, to reduce that capital to the amount actually paid in.* Where the attempted increase or reduction of the stock is not authorized by the charter, not even the unanimous assent and agreement of all the parties concerned will legalize it.* A subscriber for stock may defeat an action on his subscription by the defense that the stock subscribed for is part of an increase • See ch. XXVIII, infra, on this sub- * Droitwioh Patent Salt Co. v. Cur- ject. « zon, L. R. 3 Exch. 35, 43 (1867). 2 See oh. XXVIIT, in/ra. * Quoted and approved in Cooke v. s Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 148 Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 315 (1899). See (1881); Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. § 393, infra. Where a corporation 93, 100 (1884); New York, eta R. R. v. having power to increase its capital Schuyler, 34 N, Y. 30 (1865); Mechanics' $100,000, increases it $1,100,000, the Bank v. New York, etc. R. R., 13 N. Y. whole increase is void, and subscribers 599 (1856); Grangers', etc. Ins. Co. v. to it are not liable thereon to corporate Kamper, 73 Ala. 335 (1883); Moses v. creditors. Kampman u Tarver, 87 Tex. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 398 (1878); 491 (1895). The purchasers of stock Ferris v. Ludlow, 7 Ind. 517 (1856); which they suppose is the original cap- Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. 433 (1866); ital stock, but which is really increased Salem Mill-Dam Corp. v. Ropes, 33 Mass. capital stock, cannot sustain a bill to 33 (1837). Parker, O, J., in the case cancel the original capital stook, even last cited, says that, if a corporation is though the latter is held by the parties "created with a fund limited by the who issued the increased stock, with- aot, it cannot enlarge or diminish that out amending the charter as required fund but by license from the legisla- by statute. Byers v. Rollins, 18 Colo, ture." 33 (1889> 614 OH. XVn.J INCREASE, EEDUanON, ETC. OF STOCK. [§ 282. of stock which the statutes do not allow to be made.' Where there is no statutory authority for the increase, and an attempted increase is made under a by-law, a subscriber for the increased capital stock is not liable even to corporate creditors, although he acted as a stockholder.'' A different rule prevails, however, where the increase of capital stock is authorized by charter or statute, but is informally made. In such a case the increase is valid as against all parties excepting the state which created the corporation.' Where the statutes do not fix or limit the capital stock, and give the corporation power to fix it by by-law, the capital stock may be increased from time to time by amending the by-law.* An authority to reduce the number of shares cannot be inferred from the authority to increase, and a reduction with no other warrant of authority than a right to increase will be held void.* If the charter of the corporation provides that the capital stock shall not be less than a specified sum, nor greater than another specified sum, the corporation may commence business with less than the latter sum, and afterwards increase the capital until the limit is reached.* An injunction is the proper remedy to prevent an illegal increase or reduction of the capital stock of a corporation. But an injunc- tion against the issue of new stock by a foreign corporation will be dissolved where the courts of the state where the corporation was created decide such issue of stock to be legal.' §282. JEJffect of purchase hy a corporation of shares of its own stock. — If a corporation has power to reduce its capital stock, it may do so by purchasing and retiring a portion of its shares.* 1 Laredo Imp. Co. v. Stevenson, 66 that then, if the number fixed is greater Fed. Eep. 633 (1895). than the number taken, it may be re- 2Eoss-Mehan, etc. Co. v. Southern, duced subsequently, etc. Co.. 73 Fed. Eep. 957 (1896). See 'O'Brien v. Chicago, etc. R E., 53 also g 298, infra. Barb. 568 (1868). An increase of the ' See § 288, infra. capital stock without warrant of au- *Peck V. Elliott, 79 Fed. Eep. 10 thority is called an overissue of stock — (1897). a subject fully considered in the •' Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 succeeding sections of this chapter. (1884); Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co., 24 The issue of new stock by the corpora- Fed. Eep. 332 (1885). tion cannot be enjoined where neither 6 Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Masa 864 the corporation nor any of its direct- (1807): Somerset, etc. R R. v. Gushing, ors are parties to the action. White v. 45 Me. 524 (1858). In the case last cited Wood, 139 N. Y. 537 (1893). it is held that, where the number of ^ Quoted and approved in Tulare, etc. shares is not fixed by charter, the di Dist. v. Kaweah, etc. Co., 44 Pac. Eep. rectors or stockholders must fix it be- 663 (Cal. 1896). The corporation may fore an assessment can be levied, and purchase its own stock from a part of 615 § 282.] INCREASE, EEDUOTION, ETC. OF STOCKS. [CH. XVII. Whether the purchase by a corporation of its own stock will oper- ate to diminish the capital stock is a question of intention. If a reduction is authorized by charter or by statute, and the formalities of making the reduction have been complied with, and the proper corporate authorities purchase for the corporation shares of its own stock and consider the capital stock thereby reduced, the law holds that a reduction of the capital stock is thereby made. But if any of these elements are wanting, then no reduction is effected, and the corporation may at any time sell and re-issue the stock. Hence a mere transfer of stock to the corporation, whether the corporation assumes to buy the stock or the stockholders simply to surrender it, will in no case constitute a reduction, when no formal reduction of the capital stock is made. Even if the stockholder is held to be released by such a transfer, still the stock survives and subsists. The corporation is merely the holder of it, and may sell and re- issue it at any time.' the stockholders as a means of reducing its capital stock. British, etc. Corp. v. Couper, [1894] A. C. 399. Where a cor- poration uses its profits to buy its own stock, the remaining stockholders are not liable on the statutory liability at- taching to the stock so purchased by the corporation. Moon, etc. Co. v. Waxa- haohie, etc. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 103 (1896); afif'd, 89 Tex. 511 (1896); State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 (1876), dictum. So also City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507 (1858). Contra, Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 262 (1875). Where a company has not issued or has acquired some of its stock, it may reduce its capital stock by canceling the part owned by it, although it is all preferred, or all common, or part of both. Re Gatling Gun, L. E. 43 Ch. D. 628 (1890). • The purchase by a corporation of its own stock does not necessarily de- crease the capital stock. " It might or might not have that effect, at the op- tion of the company, and would re- quire, I think, some manifestation of such an intent to produce that result." Such stock may be re-issued at any time. City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507 (1858). Where a corporation has power to reduce its capital stock it may pur- chase from one of its stockholders his 616 stock and give him in payment there- for his pro rata share of the assets of the corporation, the corporation being solvent. This amounts to a reduction of the capital stock, and a subsequent creditor of the corporation cannot com- plain. Shoemaker v. Washburn, eta Co., 97 Wis. 585 (1897). In Louisiana the purchase by a corporation of its own stock cancels the stock until re- issue. If, however, in the re-issue the corporation gives away the stock, the parties receiving it are liable to subsequent corporate creditors. No formal contract of subscription is nec- essary, but the mere taking of the stock is sufficient to render them liabla Belknap v. Adams, 49 La. Ann. 1350 (1897). A purchase by the corporation itself does not amount to a reduction of the capital stock. Western Imp. Co. V. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa, 455 (1897). See § 313, infra, and Hartridge V. Rockwell, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 260 (1838). In an early case a transfer to the corporation seems to have been re- garded as a reduction of the capital stock pro tanto. Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568, 587 (1833). It is important to note in this connection that the pur- chase of its own stock by a corporation is an act not permited at all in Eng- CH. XVII.] INCEEASE, EEDUOTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [§ 283. § 283. The issue of ionds convertible into stocJc.— Where the charter of a railroad corporation authorizes the issue of bonds, convertible at the option of the holder into stock, such an issue may be made, even though, if the bonds were converted into stock, the capital stock would thereby be increased beyond the amount fixed by the charter. The statute or charter authorizing such an issue of bonds is held to thereby authorize, by necessary implica- tion, the right to increase the capital stock to the extent required in the fulfillment of the contract to allow the bonds to be con- verted into stock.' The issue of a bond convertible into stock must comply with the rules regulating the issue of stock.^ The holder of the bonds may demand stock therefor at any time ; and even though the demand is made just before a dividend is declared, he is entitled to the stock and dividend.' A provision in a bond, however, that the holder might exchange it for preferred stock at any time within ten days after a dividend was declared, lapses where the holder land, and not permitted in this country ■when corporate creditors' rights would be prejudiced thereby. See §§ 309-312, infra. It was held in New England, €tc. Ins. Co. V. Phillips, 141 Mass. 535 <1886), that a purchase by a corporation , of certificates of indebtedness effects a cancellation, even though the certifi- cates have a voting power. An unin- corporated association may purchase its own stock, and the question of whether a reduction of the capital stock is thereby efiEeoted is a question of inten- tion. Booth V. Dodge,^ 60 N. Y. App. Div. 33 (1901). 1 Belmont v. Erie R. E., 53 Barb. 637, ■669 (1869); Ramsey v. Erie By., 38 How. Pr. 193, 216 (1869). When bonds are ■convertible by their terms into stock, bnt the company has no stock, specific performance will not be decreed, but damages given. Chaflfee v. Middlesex R. R., 146 Mass. 234 (1888). Where the stock of a land corporation is convert- ible into land, a stockholder may en- force the change by bill in equity. Franco-Texan Land Co. v. Bousselet, 70 Tex. 423 (1888). The bonds may pro- vide that the holder may take pertain lots of land in satisfaction thereof. Chicago, eta Land Co. v. Peck, 112 111. 408 (1885). 2 Where a corporation has power to increase its capital stock, it may issue bonds at fifty per cent, of their par value, convertible into stock upon payment of the other fifty per cent. Van Allen v. Illinois Central R R., 7 Bo§w. 515 (1861). 8 Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R., 57 N. y. 196 (1874). Where bonds are con- vertible into stock, a bondholder is en- titled to stock equal in par value to the par value of his bonds, but is not en- titled, in addition thereto, to past stock dividends declared on such stock. Sut- liflf V. Cleveland, etc. R. R, 24 Ohio St. 147 (1873). In a suit by holders of bonds convertible into stock against the cor- poration for refusal to allow such con- version, the plaintiffs must allege that they still hold the bonds. Denney v. Cleveland, etc. R. R, 28 Ohio St. 108 (1875). A corporation with authority to increase its capital stock may law- fully issue new stock and receive in payment therefor the bonds of the cor- poration. Lohman v. New York, etc. R R, 3 Sandf. (N. Y. Super. Ct.) 39 (1848); Reed v. Hayt, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 121 (1884); aflE'd, 109 N. Y. 659. 617 § 284.J INCEEASE, REDUCTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [CH. XVII. does not make the demand until several months after the bonds become due.' An option to convert stock into bonds must be exercised within a reasonable time if the option itself contains no limit.^ Where bonds are convertible into stock, the holder may demand conversion into the stock of a new consolidated corporation that has assumed all the claims and liabilities of the old.' But where a bondholder is not entitled by the terms of his bond to convert it into stock, and a subsequent statute prescribes that it may be con- verted into stock, but such conversion is not made and the com- pany consolidates with another company, the right to so convert the bonds into stock is lost.* § 284. The ]}Ower of a court to direct an increase or reduction. — The courts have no power, by mandate or decree or in any other manner, to effect an increase or reduction of the capital stock of a corporation. Hence, where the whole capital stock has been issued, and the corporation, by reason of its misconduct or mistakes, is bound to issue new certificates to the owner of the stock or pay him damages, the court can give judgment for damages only. It cannot order the corporation to issue stock, since to do so would be to direct an overissue.^ 1 Loomis V. Chicago, etc. Ey., 103 Fed. Rep. 333 (1900.) See 43 S. E. Rep. 193. 2Catlin V. Green, ISO N. Y. 441 (1890). Where the Subscribers for stock have an option to exchange their stock for bonds of the company, and fail to exer- cise that option for nine years, when the company has passed into the hands of a receiver and the stock become worthless, the right is gone. The op- tion, not being limited in time, must be exercised within a reasonable time. Catlin V. Green, 130 N. Y. 441 (1890). ' Day V. Worcester, etc. R. R, 151 Mass. ;.803 (1890). When by statute the consolidated company is liable for the contracts of the old companies, it must issue stock in exchange for bonds of the old company which were converti- ble into stock. India Mut. Ins. Co. v. Worcester, etc. R. R., 25 N. E. Rep. 975 (Mass. 1890). Where a bondholder has a right to convert his bonds into stock,- a consolidation cannot deprive him of that right until after he has been noti- fied of the intended consolidation and given an opportunity to exercise his rights. Rosenkrans v. Lafayette, etc. R. E., 18 Fed. Rep. 513 (1883). In Cayley ' V. Cobourg, etc. Co., 14 Grant's Oh. Rep^ (Can.) 571 (1868), where the bondholders of a railroad company had a right to convert their bonds into stock, it was held that a consolidation authorized by statute did not destroy this right of the bondholders, but that the consolidated company must issue the stock in ex- change for the bonds. * Parkinson v. West End, etc. Ry., 17» Mass. 446 (1899), the court intimating further that the right of a bondholder to convert his bonds into stock is lost upon the dissolution of the company. 6 " When a corporation has issued certificates of stock (which are valid and not void) to the full extent of all the shares which by law and the con- stitution of the company it may issue, no court can order the issuance of other shares, because in that respect the powers of the corporation have been exhausted." Smith v. North Araer- 618 OH. XVII.] INCEEASE, EEDUOTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [§ 285. In Massachusetts a later and better rule prevails, to the effect, that the corporation in such a case may be compelled to issue the stock, and in order to prevent an illegal overissue it must purchase an equal amount of stock in the market.' "Where corporate officers enter into a contract to pay for services or property wholly or partially in stock of the corporation, a court will not, after the whole amount of the stock has been issued, de- cree a specific performance of the contract, but the aggrieved party is remitted to his action for damages.^ § 285. Stockholders, not directors, shoiild authorize the increase. An increase or reduction of the capital stock of a corporation is such a fundamental change in its affairs that, although it has been duly authorized by act of the legislature or by the charter of in- corporation, it cannot lawfully be effected merely by the act or as- sent of the board of directors,' but must be authorized by the ioan Min. Co., 1 Nev. 423 (1865); "Will- iams V. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418 (1851); Mechanics' Bank v. New York, etc. E. E., 13 N. Y. 599 (1856); Sewall v. Eastern E. R, 68 Mass. 5 (1851); Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364 (1807). See also § 388, infra. In an action for the conversion of stock, the question of an increase or reduction not being in- volved, it was said that "to require a new issue of the stock might, in oases like this, where shares have gone into the hands of innocent purchasers, in- volve an overissue of stock, which would be illegal." Baker v. Wasson, 59 Tex. 140 (1883); s. C, 53 Tex. 150 (1880). 'This rule, with an equitable adjust- ment of tlie conflicting interests of all the parties, where an owner of stock was deprived of it by forgery, was es- tablished by the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts in the case of Ma- chinists' Nat. Bank v. Field, 136 Mass. 345 (1879). See also Pratt v. Machinists' Nat. Bank, 133 Mass. 110 (1877); Pratt V. Boston, etc. E. E., 136 Mass. 443 (1879); and Boston, etc. R. E. v. Eich- ardson, 135 Mass. 473 (1883), each of the three cases growing out of the same transaction. See also § 337, infra. 2Finley, etc. Co. v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89 (1876). In this case the court said 619 that, where the capital stock may be increased by vote of the stockholders, " it certainly could not be within the implied powers of any corporate ofi5_- cer to obligate the corporation to any such increase, and thus indirectly do what the law permits to be done only by the body of corporators specially convened for the purposa" In actions against corporations for conversion of stock, the relief demanded is usually in the alternative, being either for an issue of a certificate of stock, or dam- ages in lieu thereof. 3 Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568, 585 (1833); Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444 (1871); Finley, etc. Co. v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89 (1876): Crandall v. Lincoln, 53 Conn. 73, 99 (1884); People v. Parker Vein Coal Co., 10 How. Pr. 543 (1854). See also Railway Co. v. AUerton, 18 Wall. 233 (1873). It is for the stock- holders to increase the capital stock, and a contract of the directors in ref- erence to making an increase is not enforceable. McNulta v. Corn Belt Bank, 164 III. 427 ( 1897). Cf Chicago V. Joney, 60 111. 383 (1871); Be Wheeler, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 861 (1866); People u Twaddell, 18 Hun, 437, 432 (1879); State V. Merchant, 37 Ohio St, 251 (1881). See also §§ 708, etc., infra. § 286.] ETC. OF STOCK. [oh. XVII. stockholders at a corporate meeting.' "Where, however, the direct- ors have made the change and the stockholders have acquiesced therein, they are as fully bound as though the increase or reduction had been expressly authorized at a corporate meeting. The stock- holders' assent to the change may be shown as conclusively by their conduct and acquiescence as by a formal vote.^ The power to increase the capital stock may be vested in the directors.' Although the. stockholders have regularly voted to increase the capital stock, in pursuance of legislative authority, still, inasmuch as the increase is not accomplished until the stock is actually issued, the vote may be reconsidered in a lawful manner at any time before the stock is finally issued.* The courts will not inquire into the necessity of an increase.^ § 286. Prior right of the old stockholders to huy the new stock. — "When the capital stock of a corporation is increased by the issue of new stock, each holder of the original stock has a right to offer to subscribe for and to demand from the corporation such a proportion of the new stock as the number of shares already oWned by him bears to the whole number of shares before the increase. This pre-emptive right of the stockholder in respect to new stock is well recognized.^ Even though in anticipation of an increase of 1 Quoted and approved in Newport, etc. Co. V. Mimms, 103 Tenn. 465 (1899). '' Sewell's Case, L. E. 3 Ch. App. 131 (1868); Lane's Case, 1 De G., J. & S. 504 (1863); Payson v. Stoever, 3 Dill. 437 (1873); s. C, 19 Fed. Cas. 37. See also oh. XLVII,tn/Ta, relative to mortgages; but see also g 388, infra. An allegation of ratification must not be in general terms, but must set out specifically the facts constituting the ratification. Eidman v. Bowman, 58 III. 444 (1871). An amendment of the charter which allows the dii-ectors instead of the stockholders to authorize an increase of the capital is not such a fundamen- tal change in the constitution of the corporation as will operate to release non-assenting stockholders from the obligation of their stock. Payson v. Withers, 5 Biss. 369 (1873); s. c, 19 Fed. Cas. 39; Payson v. Stoever, 3 Dill. 437; S. o., 19 Fed. Cas. 37. 8 Sutherland u Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 (1884). Their resolution that " the cap- ital stock of this company be and the 630 same is hereby increased to " is sufficient to effect the increase. Suth- erland V. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 (1884). < Terry v. Eagle Lock Ca, 47 Conn. 141 (1879). In this case the court said: " It cannot be said that the capital is actually increased until the new stock is subscribed for, at least. Until then there is an element of uncertainty about it. It may never be taken. It is very clear that the vote to increase is not per se an increase." 5 Jones V. Concord, eta R. R., 67 N. H. 119(1891); s. c, 67N. H., 884. 6 Quoted and approved in Electric Co. V. Edison, etc Co., 300 Pa. St. 516 (1901); Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364 (1807); Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444 (1871); Reese v. Bank of Mont- gomery, 81 Pa. St 78 (1855); Jones v. Morrison, 81 Minn. 140 (1883); Bank of Montgomery v. Reese, 36 Pa. St. 143 (1856); Real Estate, etc. Ca v. Bird, 90 Md. 339 (1899). Cf. Curry u Scott, 5^ Pa. St. 370 (1867); Miller v. Illinois Cent. R.-R., 24 Barb. 313 (1857); Wilson v. CH. XVII.] INOEEASB, EEDUCTIONj ETC. OF STOCK. [§ 286. the capital stock the stockholders agree among themselves to waive their prior right to subscribe for such increased capital stock, yet a lonafide purchaser of a certificate of stock prior to such increase is not bound by such agreement and may claim h.ispro rata share Bank of Montgpmery County, 29 Pa. St. 537 (1857); Mason v. Da vol Mills. 132 Mass. 76 (1882). In Massachusetts this right is prescribed in the statutes. Pub. Stats. (1883), oh. 106, § 37; oh. 113, § 58. In Massachusetts increased capital, if worth more than par, must in certain cases, by statute, be sold at public auc- tion. See Attorney-General v. Boston, etc. R. R, 109 Mass. 99 (1871). Where the statute requires that such of the increased capital stock as is not taken by the stockholders shall be sold at pub- lic auction, tiie words of the statute as to the manner of sale must be strictly followed. Smith v. Franklin Park, etc. Co., 168 Mass. 845 (1897). A sale of shares of the original capital stock car- ries with it as an incident the right which the vendor had previously ac- quired by subscription to shares of in- creased capital stock. Baltimore, etc. Ry. V. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 (1893); Biddle's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 378 (1883), in which the option to subscribe for new stock was sold by an executor; Pratt v. American Bell Tel. Co., 141 Mass. 325 (1886), where one who held notes con- vertible into stock at a future time sought to establish his right as a stock- holder to an equitable share of an in- crease of capital stock to which stock- holders had a first right to subscribe upon favorable terms. The court held that the suit could not be maintained, on the ground that until he bad con- verted the notes into stock he had no rights as a stockholder; Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunnemache.r, 15 Ind. 294 (1860), where the charter varied the rule ; Re Wheeler, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 361, 863 (1866), in which it was said that, if new stock is not apportioned among old stockhold- ers, it should be sold at public sale to the highest bidder, so that all may share in the gains arising from its sale. A pledgee of stock is not entitled to- this right to take up new stock. The right belongs to the pledgor. Miller v.. Illinois Cent. R. R., 34 Barb. 313 (1857), holding also that a stockholder who holds a receipt from a corporation for money payable on demand in cash, or, at his option, in new .stock when issued, has no interest in such stock as a stock- holder until he has elected to take it instead of the cash. Preferred stock is entitled to subscribe for its propor- tionate part of new stock the same as the common stock, even though the preferred stock is limited absolutely as to dividends. Jones v. Concord, etc. R> R, 67 N. H. 119 (1891); s. C.,67 N. H. 234. Where a corporation is authorized to issue preferred stock it may attach such conditions thereto as it deems best. One of the conditions may be that the corporation may retire the- stock at par within a certain time. In retiring such preferred stock the cor- poration may issue additional common, stock to the holders of the old common stock without giving any rights to the holders of preferred stock. Moreover, even if the preferred stockholders had a right to a part of the new common stock, yet the remedy is not an injunc- tion but a suit at law for damages. Even though such preferred stock is re- tired for cash, yet a holder of preferred stock cannot object that this impairs the capital of the company, inasmuch as he ceases to have an interest in the company. Such stock may be retired by a vote of the directors without a vote of the stockholders. Haokett r. Northern, etc. R, R., 36 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 583 (1901). The stockholders, in increas- ing the capital stock, may prescribe the mode of issue. Stephenson v. Yokes, 37 Ont. Rep. (Can.) 691 (1896). A stock- holder may enjoin the company from 631 § 286.] INCBEASEj EEDUCTION, ETC. OF STOCK, [CH. XVII. of the increased capital stock at par.' It has been held, however, that where the statute provides for the issue of stock in payment for property, increased capital stock may be so issued without the same being first offered to existing stockholders.^ A contract by which a person who has promoted the organization of a company is to have a certain percentage of the capital stock and five per selling to the highest bidder, on sealed bids, increased capital stock, especially where the new stock might change the control of the company. The court said "that the tendency of such method is to defeat or greatly impair the right of the majority stockholders to obtain their fair and ratable proportion of the new stock at a fair and reasonable price." Electric Co. v. Edison, etc. Co., 200 Pa. St. 516 (1901). An incorporator is not entitled to the increased stock as a gratuity; he must pay for it. Brown V. Florida Southern Ey., 19 Fla. 472 (1882). A stockholder in a national bank which consolidates with another national bank, as allowed by act of con- gress, cannot object that a part of the increased capital stock is issued to the stockholders in the other bank, instead of being ofiEered to the stockholders in his bank, inasmuch as the consolidation •created a new corporation. Bonnet v. First Nat. Bank, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 613 (1900). 1 Real Estate, etc. Co. v. Bird, 90 Md. 229 (1899). In New York it is said that the executory purchaser of shares of the original stock is not entitled to the pro- portionate amount of new stock on an increase of the capital. Miller v. Illinois ■Cent. R E,, 24 Barb. 313 (1857). Where the purchaser of a certificate of stock applies to the corporation for a transfer prior to the time when the right to sub- scribe for increased capital stock ac- crues and the corporation refuses to make the transfer, he may sue for his .proportion of the increased capital stock and obtain it. The time of the increase of the capital stock is the time when such increase has been voted, in accord- ance with the charter. Real Estate, etc. Co. V. Bird, 90 Md. 229 (1899). Where an insolvent corporation which has never issued any certificates of stock resolves by a vote of its stockholders to apply its assets to the extent of their value to the payment of fche debts, and that new stock be issued to the stockholders upon their paying therefor in full, and one stockholder sells bis interest in the original stock, and the purchaser for seven years does not complain, he can- not, after the corporation has become prosperous, claim that he is entitled to the old stock or any interest in the cor- poration. Stoddard v. Decatur, etc. Ca, 184 III. 53 (1900). 2 Meredith v. New Jersey, etc, Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 311 (1897); aff'd, 56 N. J. Eq. 454 Although a person holds a majority of the stock and causes his friends to be made directors, 'yet he may sell prop- erty to the corporation and take stock in payment, if the transaction is a fair one. Russell v. Rook, etc. Co., 184 Pa. St. 102 (1898). In this case, however, the point that other stockholders had been deprived of their pre-emptive right was not raised, the question being whether the directors committed any fraud in issuing the new stock. In an early Indiana decision it is said to be the law that where, in the charter, di- I'ectors are given full power to effect an increase of the capital stock " on such terms and conditions and in such man- ner as to them shall seem best, "they may authorize the increase without the consent of the stockholders; that as to such increase there is no pre-emptive right, and that, accordingly, the newly- issued shares may be disposed of as the directors determine. Ohio Ins, Ca v. Nunnemacher, 15 Ind. 394(1860). 632 CH. XVII.J INCREASE, EEDDOTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [§ 2S6. cent, of any increase of the capital stock, such contract being with the corporation itself, is legal, and may be enforced as to such in- crease.^ A minority stockholder cannot enjoin the company from issuing its stock in payment for the stock of other similar compa- nies on the ground that the price to be paid is excessive and that three of the directors are interested as stockholders in the other companies, where he does not prove that the price is excessive, and it appears that the stockholders will have to approve the transac- tion before the directors can issue the stock, and it appears also that the plaintiff owns but a very small amount of stock.^ Again, the general rule applies only when the capital is actually increased, and not to a re-issue of any portion of the original stock.' It ap- plies, however, to such part of the original capital stock as is issued long after business has been commenced by the company.'' Espe- cially is this the rule where the directors issue such new stock to themselves or their friends in order to control an election or make a profit.' Nevertheless, although a person holds a majority of the 1 His V. Edison El. L. Co., 10 N. Y. App. Div. 75 (1896), and 27 N. Y. App. Div. 248; aff'd, 163 N. Y. 573. ^Geer v. Amalgamated, etc. Co., 49 Atl. Rep. 159 (N. J. 1901). 'State V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 (1876); Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlt. {Ga.) 260 (1828); Curry w Soott, 54 Pa. St. 270 (1869), in which Reese v. Bank ■of Montgomery, 81 Pa. St. 78 (1855), was said to decide " nothing more than that imtaken stock is held by the corpora- tion in trust for the corporators, and must be disposed of for the benefit of all;" and it was held that a stock- holder has no greater right than a stranger to subscribe to original stock untaken. Of. Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444 (1871); Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364 (1807). See also §§ 65, 70, ■supra, and §§ 614, 658, infra. A con- tract of a corporation that a patentee shall have a certain percentage of any increase of stock does not apply to the capital stock of a consolidated com- pany, although the former corporation is one of those making up the consoli- dation. Einstein v. Rochester, etc. Ca, 146 N. Y. 46 (1895). The case of Hirsoh & Co. V. Burns, 74 L. T. Rep. 769 (1897), was aflSrmed in 77 L. T. Rep. 377, to the effect that a person having an option to purchase the unissued stock of a company has a claim for damage in case the company sells the business of the company to another company with- out protecting such option. Treasury stock, when sold, need not be offered proportionately to the stockholders. Crosby v. Stratton, 68 Pac. Rep. 130 (Colo. 1902). . Strong, 75 N. Y. 591 (1878). Where stock is treated as canceled by all parties, including the holder, a subsequent transferee of the certificates from him cannot hold the company liable, unless the transferee is a holder in good faith for value. Miller v. Houston, etc. St. Ry., 69 Fed. Rep. 63 (1895). The liability of the corporation to a bona fide holder of overissued stock cannot be avoided by a receiver purchasing and canceling an equal amount of valid stock. Archer v. Dunham, 89 Hun, 387 (1895). 1 Cincinnati, etc. Ey. v. Citizens' Nat Bank, 56 Ohio St. 351 (1897). 2 George Whiteohurch, Ltd. v, Cava- nagh, 85 L. T. Rep. 349 (1901). 3 Willis V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R, 6 W. N. Cas. 461 (1878); People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344(1883). * People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344 (1883); Willis v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R., 6 W. N. Cas. 461 (1878); Tome v. Park- ersburgh Branch R. R, 39 Md. 36 (1873). It is, however, a condition precedent to maintaining such an action that the holder of the overissued stock discharge any lien upon it which would have 645 §§ 294, 295.] INCREASE, REDUCTION, ETC. OF STOCK, [oH. XVII. § 294. Defenses of the corporation to such, actions. — It frequently happens that an overissue of stock is made without a strict com- pliance with the formalities of an issue of genuine stock. Gener- ally, certificates of stock must, according to the by-laws of the cor- poration, be signed by certain specifie4 corporate officers. Accord- ingly, when action is brought against a corporation on overissued stock, the defense is sometimes set up that the certificates were not signed by the proper officers, or were not issued with the usual for- malities, and consequently that, the purchaser having had notice of the infirmity, the corporation is not liable. Such a defense is not favored by the courts.^ Where, however, the charter provides that certificates of stock shall be signed by the president, directors, and treasurer, fraudulent overissues signed by the president and treasurer alone are not sufficient to charge the corporation.^ § 295. Personal liability of the officers of the corporation on over- issued stocli. — The officers of a corporation who take part in the issue of overissued stock are liable in tort, both to the immediate purchaser from them of spurious stock falsely and fraudulently cer- tified by them,, and also to any subsequent purchaser buying upon the faith of the false certificate, and sustaining damage thereby.* There may be a joint action against the corporation and the cor- porate agents issuing the stock, or a separate action against either.* properly attached to genuine stock un- 10 M. & W. 309 (1842). By statute in der the same conditions. Mount Holly many of the states and in England Paper Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St 513 (1883), such forgeries are made a special crim- 1 See § 293, supra. inal offense, Regina v. Nash, 2 Den. Cr, 2Holbrook v. Fauquier, etc. Tump. 0. 493 (1852); N. Y. Pen. Code, § 591. Co., 3 Cranoh, C. C, 425 (1829) ; s. G, 12 Concerning the requirements of an in- Fed. Cas. 323. See also cases in notes dictment for issuing fraudulent stock, to § 293, supra. see West v. People, 137 111. 189 (1891), A SBruff V. Mali, 36 N, Y. 200 (1867); criminal statute against fraudulently Seizer v. Mali, 41 N. Y. 619 (1869), re- issuing stock does not apply to a trans- versing s. c, 33 Barb. 76 (1860); 11 Abb, action -where the treasurer obtained a Pr. 139; Cazeaux v. Mali, 35 Barb. 578 certificate which he as an individual (1857), And the holder of genuine had pledged, and after obtaining it can- stock has an action against them for celed it as treasurer and issued a new the depreciation of its value by reason certificate to himself in place thereof, of the overissue. Shotwell v. Mali, 38 State v. Moore, 69 N, H. 99 (1896). Barb. 445 (1862). A person receiving ^Bruff v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200 (1867). stock from the directors of a corpora- And when the action is against the of- tion, in pledge for a loan to it, they fleers responsible for the fraudulent knowing that the stock was overissued, overissue, if the evidence shows that may sue the directors for damages in the entire capital stock of the oom- an action for deceit. Whitehaven, etc. pany had been issued prior to the dates Co. V. Reed, 54 L. T. Rep. 360 (1886); of the certificates purchased or held National Exch, Bank v. Sibley, 71 Ga. by the plaintiff, and if it appears that 736 (1883). See also Daly v. Thompson, the defendants prior thereto had, as of- 646 OH. XVII.] INCREASEj KEDUCTION, ETC. OF STOOK. [§ 296. Moreover, the corporation may sue in assumpsit its treasurer, Avho has illegally issued excessive stock and converted the proceeds to his own use.' § 296. Liability of the vendor of overissued stock.— In the absence of fraud the purchaser of overissued and .spurious stock cannot hold his vendor liable thereon. The lonafde vendor can be held to warrant only his own title to the shares, not the right of the corpo- ration to issue them. If he came by them honestly and sells them in good faith, there is no recourse to him, even though they turn out to be spurious.2 The supreme court of the United States holds, however, that a purchaser without notice of a forged bond may re- cover back the price paid by him to the vendor, even though the vendor was himself a ionafide purchaser and without notice of the illegality of the bond. There is an implied warranty of identity of the thing sold.' A broker is not responsible where he in good faith loans his customers money in compliance with his authority, on certificates of stock as collateral, even though they turn out to be forged, provided he was not guilty of negligence.* ficers of the corporation, issued spuri- ous certificates of stock, then there is a presumption of law that the cer- tificates in controversy are false and fraudulent, and the burden is upon the defendants to show that these particu- lar certificates were issued, either upon the surrender of certificates of genuine stock, or upon the transfer on the books of the company of such stock — facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the corporate officers. Shotwell v. Mali, 38 Barb. 445, 469 (1863), a well- considered case; Bruff v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 300 (1867). 1 Rutland E. R. v. Haven, 63 Vt. 39 (1889). See also Brooklyn Crosstown R. R. V. Strong, 75 N. Y. 591 (1878). 2 State V. North Louisiana, eta R. R., 84 La. Ann. 947 (1883); People's Bank V. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344 (1883); Seizer v. Mali, 41 N. Y. 619 (1869), reversing 83 Barb. 76 (1860). In Titus v. Poole, 73 Hun, 383 (1893), there is a dictum that the vendor of a certificate of stock im- pliedly warrants the genuineness there- of; aflf'd on the ground of an express warranty in 145 N. Y. 414 3 Meyer v. Richards, 168 U. S. 385 (1896). The court said (p. 405): " Both in England and in the United States the doctrine is universally recognized that where commercial paper is sold with- out indorsement or without express as- sumption of liability on the paper itself, the contract of sale and the obligations which arise from it, as between vendor and vendee, are governed by the com- mon law, relating to the sale of goods and chattels. So, also, the undoubted rule is that in such a sale the obligation of the vendor is not restricted to the mere question of forgery vel non, but depends upon whether he has delivered that which he contracted to sell, this rule being designated, in England, as a condition of the principal contract, as to the essence and substance of the thing agreed to be sold, and in this country being generally termed an im- plied warranty of identity of the thing sold." In Tennessee it has been held that a sale of bonds is not revocable even though the bonds are invalid and the vendor innocently stated that they were valid. Ruohs v. Third Nat. Bank, 94 Tenn. 57 (1894). * The question of negligence is a ques- tion for the jury, and the burden of proof is on the broker. The broker is 647 § 297.] mCEEASE, EEDUCTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [oh. XTII. § 297. JEquity will enjoin voting, transferring, or dividends on such stock, and will adjust the rights of all parties. — A court of equity will, upon a proper application, grant an injunction to prevent the transfer of illegally-issued stock, or the payment of dividends thereon, or the voting of the pretended owners of such stocks.' The most effectual remedy in these cases is a suit in equity, in- stituted by the corporation, whereby, in one proceeding, the rights and liabilities of all persons concerned with the overissue of the stock are fully and finally determined and adjudicated, and the overissued stock itself is retired and destroyed. Such a proceed- ing is in the nature of a bill to quiet title, or to remove a cloud from the title of the genuine stock. Spurious or overissued stock, issued by corporate officers having the apparent authority, and outstanding in the hands of numerous holders, is a cloud upon the title to the genuine stock. It is a cloud which a court of equity will remove; and a suit to that end may be commenced, either by the corporation ^ or by the stockholders themselves in their own behalf, where the corporation fails or refuses to institute it.' not bound to present the certificates to the company for verification. Isham v. Post, 141 N. Y. 100 (1894). As to the liability of brokers for the forgery of their employees in delivering spurious stock to a customer, see Andrews v. Clark, 73 Md. 396 (1890). Compare g 366, infra. See also g 453, infra. 1 Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879). In this case, four years after preferred stock had been issued, the common stockholders brought suit to have the preferred stock canceled, on the ground that the corporation had no power to issue such preferred stock, ex- cept by unanimous consent of the stock- holders. The case involved not an over- issue of stock, but an issue of preferred stock after the common stock had al- ready been issued. The court held that the suit could have been maintained, if the stockholders had not been guilty of laches. And where a corporate officer issues illegal and unauthorized stock, he may be enjoined from allow- ing a transfer of it if proof is given of its illegal character and of a proposed transfer. Sherman v. Clark, 4 Nev. 138 (1869). See 93 N. W. Rep 997. 2 New York, etc. E. R u. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 593 (1858). In this celebrated liti- gation $3,000,000 of overissued stock had been issued and had passed into the hands of many holders, most of whom were bona fide holders. Many suits were instituted against the corpo- ration by the holders of these certifi- cates, some claiming that they were stockholders, and others that they were either stockholders or had a cause of action against the corporation for their losses. Thereupon the corporation it- self filed a bill in equity against all of the alleged owners or holders of this 'Quoted and approved in Button v. Bancroft, etc. Co., 83 Fed. Eep. 17 (1897); Dewing v. Perdioaries, 96 U. a 193 (1877), aflf'g Perdioaris v. Charleston Gaslight Co., Chase's Deo. 435 (1869); s. c, 19 Fed. Cas. 317; Wood v. Union, eta Assoc, 63 Wis. 9 (1885). Cf. Taylor 648 V. South, etc. R. R., 13 Fed. Eep. 153 (1882), where the subscriber acquiesced ten years. The court denied any re- lief. In an action to cancel illegally increased stock the plaintiff must offer to surrender the part held by himself. Byers V. Eollins, 13 Cola 23 (1889). CH. XYII.J INOEEASE, EEDUOTION, ETC. OF STOCK. [§ A court of equity has power to decree the return and cancella- tion of certificates of stock fraudulently issued.' § 298. Sulscriler^s right to defeat a subscription to overissued stock, and to recover lack money paid thereon. — In addition to the remedy in equity, the holder of overissued stock has the further right at law to defeat an action on his subscription therefor ; and that, too, even though he knew it to be overissued at the time the subscription was made. There can be no estoppel in such a case ; and not even creditors can enforce any liability on spurious or overissued stocks, inasmuch as the corporation could not perform its part of the contract and issue the stock.^ "Where also a sub- scriber has paid an instalment on his subscription, although he knew when he made the subscription and .paid the money that it was an illegal and unauthorized issue, he may rescind, and recover back what he has paid.' Nevertheless, although a corporation has taken more subscriptions than its capital stock and has issued cer- tificates therefor, yet this does not release subscribers up to the correct amount.* In Iowa it has been held that payment of a note given for overissued stock cannot be enforced where the consideration was expressed in the note to be the stock of the overissued stock, and prayed that the certificates might be ordered delivered up and canceled, and all law suits stayed or enjoined or consolidated with this main suit. The court sustained the bill and said (pp. 603, 603) that the corpora- tion is "the organ through which the shareholders are to be heard when legal wrongs are to be redressed or equitable remedies are to be invoked. If, there- fore, I have been successful in showing that the fraudulent certificates of stock are instruments of such annoyance and vexation, in depressing values and dis- turbing the fair enjoyment of rights, that they ought not to be allowed to stand, then this suit by the corporation rests firmly upon that branch of equity jurisdiction which includes the cancel- lation of such instruments." A suit to determine what stock is watered (alleged to be overissued stock), and also to set aside transactions by which the corpo- rate property has been misapplied, is multifarious. Church v. Citizens' Street E. R., 78 Fed. Rep. 536 (1897). 1 Gibson v. Thornton, 113 Ga 338 (1900). A corporation cannot maintain a suit for the cancellation of illegally issued certificates of stock unless it al- leges that it had the right to issue cer- tificates of stock and that the certifi- cates complained of will injure the cor- poration or its bona flde stockholders in some way. Reno, etc. Co. v. Culver, 60 N. T. App. Div. 129 (1901). 2 Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (1881); Page V. Austin, 10 Can. Sup. Ct. 133 (1884); Clark v. Turner, 73 Ga. 1 (1884). 'Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Co., 14 Blatchf. 364 (1877); & 0., 14 Fed. Cas. 797; afE'd, Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 V. S. 49 (1880); Reed v. Boston Machine Co., 141 Mass. 454 (1886). See the dis- senting opinion of Dwight, Com'r, in Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Co., 57 N. Y. 518, 540 (1874). This case, however, was not strictly a case of overissued stock. A different class of cases exists where an increase of capital stock is author- ized, but is irregularly made. A sub- scriber is then liable. See § 388, supra. * Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476 (1890). § 298.] INOEEASE, EEDUOTION, ETC. OP STOCK. [CH. XVII. corporation to which the note was given, and the directors sub- sequently made an illegal and unauthorized increase in the stock, the maker of the note having had notice that a large amount of illegal stock had been issued, and that the illegal and valid stock could not be distinguished.* But it is held that one who subscribes for overissued stock, hona fide, upon discovering that the stock is spurious cannot have a receiver appointed, pending an inquiry into the legality of the stock, to the end that, in case the stock is judicially declared invalid, such subscriber may re- cover back from the corporation the money so paid for the spuri- ous stock, where the money received by the company had not been kept separate from its general funds, and could not be traced and identified.^ A holder of overissued stock is not liable on the statutory liability.' 1 Merrill V. Gamble, 40 Iowa, 615(1877); though when the transfer of the stookto Merrill v. Beaver, 46 Iowa, 646 (1877); them was made the old certificates were Merrill v. Beaver, 50 Iowa, 404 (1879). not canceled, but were abstracted by a 2 Whelpley v. Erie Ry., 6 Blatchf. 271 corporate officer and hypothecated by (1868); S. C, 39 Fed. Cas. 918. him, thereby creating an overissue. 8 Burt V. Richmond, 107 Fed. Rep. 387 Burt v. Bailey, 73 Fed. Rep. 693 (1896). (1901). The holders of stock cannot es- See also § 881, sviigra. cape the statutory liability thereon, even 650 PAET II. TRANSFERS OF STOCK. CHAPTER XYIII. LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK 399. Deflnitlons of general, speolflc, and demonstrative legacies of stock. 300, 301. Importance of the difference between general and specific legacies. 303, 303. Legacies of stock are con- strued to be general if the lan- guage will permit. § 304, 305. Amount of stock conveyed by certain legacies. 306. Ademption or revocation of a legacy of stock, and abate- ment. Duty of executor as regards spe- cific or general legacies. Gifts of stoot 807. 308. §299. D^nitions of general, specific, and demonstrative legacies ofstocJc— A general legacy of stock is a legacy whereby it becomes the duty of the executor or administrator to give to or procure for the legatee a certain amount of stock, as indicated by the will, there being nothing in the will itself to indicate that the legacy is to be satisfied from stock actually owned by the testator. A spe- cific legacy of stock arises when the testator, iii his will, directs or clearly indicates that the legacy is to be satisfied from stock which he owns. A demonstrative legacy of stock is the same as a gen- eral legacy, except that it is to be purchased from a particular fund of the estate. Demonstrative legacies of stock are of little impor- tance as compared with the other two kinds.' § 300. Importance of the difference hetiveen general and specific legacies. — It is frequently of the greatest importance whether as legacy be a general or a specific one. A large number of decisions,) running back for nearly two hundred years, have been made inf 1 That a legacy of stock may be de- monstrative, see Ives v. Canby, 48 Fed. Rep. 718 (1891). That legacies of stock may be demonstrative has been as- sumed by the cases. In the case, how- ever, of Eckfeldt's Estate, 7 W. N. Cas. 19 (1879), the court says that a legacy of stock " may be either specific or gen- eral, according to the circumstances. It is never demonstrative. A demon- strative legacy is always pecuniary — differing, however, from an ordinary legacy in being referred to a particular fund or source of payment." A bequest to a wife of " the sum of $8,000 invested in stocks, the interest to be paid to her during her life," is a demonstrative leg- acy. Johnson v. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 338 (1896). 651 § 301.J LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [oH. XVIII. endeavoring to lay down rules on this subject. The complica^ons, contradictions, inconsistent decisions, and doubt that have arisen from the inherent difficulties of the subject are frequently adverted to and deplored by successive generations of judges. The importance of determining whether a legacy of stock is gen- eral or specific rests in the fact that if it is specific it is entitled to certain advantages, and, on the other hand, is exposed to certain perils, while, if it is general, it is without those advantages, but is also free from the perils. The advantages of a specific legacy of stock are that debts of the estate are to be paid from other funds; the specific legacy passes, though other legacies fail partially or wholly by reason of deficiencies in the estate; and the specific leg- atee is entitled to all dividends declared after the testator's death, instead of losing the first year's dividends, as in case of a general legacy of stock. General legacies of stock have none of these ad- vantages. On the other hand, a specific legacy of stock is open to the great danger of being revoked by the acts of the testator, and frequently so when the testator has no intention of revoking the legacy.^ This revocation, arising by implication from the acts of the testator — such as selling the stock bequeathed, or using it in any way inconsistent with the idea of its passing under the will — is a danger that does not exist if the legacy is a general one, since gen- eral legacies of stock may be carried out by the executor's pur- chasing the stock for the purpose of the legacy. § 301. If a specific legacy will apply equally to paid-up stock and to stock not paid up, the legatee may take the former.^ If the 1 Kenkel v. Maogill, 56 Md. 120 (1880), Sm. 204 (1860), the difference between the court saying: "If the legacy is to a speoiflo and demonstrative legacy is be considered specific, then, in the thus described: "The points of differ- «vent of the testator's parting with ence between specific and demonstra- the thing or property bequeathed, or tive legacies are these: A specific leg- if from any cause it should be lost or acy is not liable to abatement for the destroyed, the legacy fails. Then, payment of debts, but a demonstrative again, such legacies are not liable to legacy is liable to abate when it be- abatement with general legacies, nor comes a general legacy by reason of are they liable to contribution towards the failure of the fund out of which it the payment of debts." Where evi- is payable A specific legacy is liable dently the intent was to give specific to ademption, but a demonstrative leg- bonds, it was so decreed. Davies v. acy is not. A specific legacy, if of Fowler, L. R. 16 Eq. 308 (1873); Walton stock, carries with it the dividends V. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. 257 (1823); which accrue from the death of the Jacques v. Chambers, 2 Coll, 485 (1846), testator, while a demonstrative legacy holding also that the legatee may select does not carry Interest from the testa- his stock from different classes, but that tor's death." he must pay calls on the stock due at ^ Millard v. Bailey, L. E. 1 Eq. 378 the time of the testator's death, but (1.866); Jacques w. Chambers, 3 Coll. 435 not paid. In MuUins v. Smith, 1 Dr. & (1846). 653 CH. XVIH.J LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [§ 302. testator has made payments on the stock before calls have been made, the legatee is entitled to the benefit.^ If there is both a '• specific and a general legacy of the same stock, the specific is to be first satisfied.^ The specific legatee takes all the dividends on the stock.' It has been held, however, that a dividend declared before but payable after the testator's death belongs to the estate.^ The general legatee takes only the dividends payable twelve months after the testator's death.^ The specific legatee takes the stock, al- though there witl then be no property left to pay pecuniary lega- cies.* However, he can have only so much stock of that kind as the testator dies possessed of;' and if the latter dies possessed of none, the specific legatee takes none.' The specific legatee does not take dividends declared and due before the testator's death, al- though such dividends have not been collected.' § 302. Legacies of stock are construed to he general if the lan- guage will permit. — It is the policy of courts of justice to uphold and carry out a legacy, and implied revocations are not looked upon with favor. Accordingly, in order to avoid the danger of ademption, to which specific legacies are subject, the rule has be- come established that general legacies are to be favored by the courts; and, if there is doubt as to whether a legacy be specific or general, it will be construed to be of the latter kind.'" Where, however, the intent of the testator clearly was to give particular stock owned by him, the court will declare the legacy to be a specific one. Thus, where the testator gives the legacy of stock by describing it as " my " stock, the legacy is a specific one." 1 Tanner v. Tanner, 11 Beav. 69 (1848). (1860); Furley v. Hyder, 43 L. J. (Ch.) 2 Barton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. Jr. 461 (1800). 626 (1873). SLoring v. Woodward, 41 N. H. 391 5 Webster u Hale, 8 Ves. Jr. 410 (1803). (1860), holding also that parol evidence « Drinkwater v. Falconer, 3 Ves. Sr. cannot show a contrary intent of the 623 (1755). testator. Where by a will certain speci- ' Gordon v. Duff, 38 Beav. 519 (1860); fied insurance stocks are bequeathed Ashton v. Ashton, 3 P. Wms. 384 (1735). as a trust for subsequent distribution 8 Evans v. Tripp, 6 Mad. 91 (1821). among certain legatees, the legacy is ^perry v. Maxwell, 3 Dev. Eq. (N. C.) specific and the trustee is entitled to 488 (1834). dividends declared after the testator's " Davies v. Fowler, L. E. 16 Eq. 308 death. Connecticut, etc. Co. v. HoUis- (1873); Tifft v. Porter, 8 N. Y, 616, 530 ter, 50 Atl. Rep. 750 (Conn. 1901). (1853); Eckfeldt's Estate, 7 W. N. Cas, < De Gendre v. Kent, L. R. 4 Eq. 383 (Pa.) 19 (1879). (1867). Of. Brown v. Collins, L. E. 13 i' Walton v. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. 358 Eq. 586, 594 (1871); Lock v. Venables, 37 (1838); Loring v. Woodward, 41 N. H. Beav. 598 (1859). See also Cogswell v. 391 (1860); Shuttleworth v. Greaves, 4 Cogswell, 3 Edw. Ch. 231 (1834); Aber- MyL & Cr. 35 (1838); Miller v. Little, 3 crombiet). Riddle. 3 Md. Ch. 330 (1850); Beav. 359 (1840); Hayes v. Hayes, 1 Wright V. Tuckett, 1 Johns. & H. 366 Keen, 97 (1836); Brainerd v, Cowdrey, 653 § 302.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [CH. XVIII. So also where the phrase " standing in my name " ' is used, or '" which I hold ; " ' or a direction is given to make up the specified amount from the general fund if the testator does not hold enough ; ' or the testator describes the stock as " now lying in the three per cents.;"* or uses the word "such;"' or makes a legacy of stock out of a quantity of stock;* or in another part of the will speaks of the stock as that of which the testatrix may be possessed;' or where, after several legacies, all apparently general, the testator bequeaths the remaining stock "standing in my name," — the 16 Conn. 1 (1843). The omission of the word " my " does not neoessai'ily make the legacy a general one. Avelyn v. Ward, 1 Ves. Sr. 420 (1749). The word "my" does not, however, have the same significance in its application to a legacy of an annuity as it has to a legacy of stock. Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. Jr. 748 (1799). In the case of Parrott v. Worsfold. 1 Jao. & W. 574 (1830), a leg- acy of " all my stock that I may be possessed of at my decease " was held to be general, since there was no " in- dividual thing given." Bequests in different sums to different legatees of " my " stocks and bonds at their par value, not describing them particularly, are general legacies. They are not void for uncertainty. Be Hadden's Will, '9 N. Y. Supp. 453 (1888). 1 Ludlam's Estate, 13 Pa. St. 188 (1850); Gordon v. Dufif, 28 Beav. 519 (1860); Kampf v. Jones, 3 Keen, 756 (1837). Where, however, other parts of the will indicate that the legacy was general, it was held to be general. See Auther v. Auther, 13 Sim. 433 (1843), holding also that though, by the delay of the executor beyond a year in pur- chasing the stock, it rises, the legatee is entitled to the same amount as if it had been bought at the right time, Fidelity, etc. Co-'s Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 498 (1885). 2 Blackstone v. Blackstone, 3 Watts (Pa.), 335 (1834). 'Townsend v. Martin, 7 Hare, 471 (1849), holding that such a legacy is specific and not demonstrative. Mc- Guire v. Evans, 5 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 269 (1848), however, holds that a legacy of stock, to take effect in case other leg- acies do not absorb that stock, is de- monstrative; also that in case of leg- acies of the same stock to two different persons, each takes a moiety. The cases of MuUins v. Smith, 1 Dr. & 8m. 204 (1860); Fontaine v. Tyler. 9 Price, Exch, 94 (1821); and Queen's College v. Sutton, 13 Sim. 531 (1843), hold that such a legacy is specific if the testator leaves stock enough, but is general if he does not leave enough. « Morley v. Bird, 8 Ves. Jr. 628 (1798), holding that if the executor has sold the stock the legatees may hold him liable for its value one year after the testator's death. 6 Davies v. Fowler, L. R. 16 Eq. 308 (1873), the court saying that a legacy is specific when a meting out or divid- ing is evidently intended. 6 Hosking v. Nicholls, 1 Y. & C. Ch. 478 (1843). And if the administrator has paid the dividends to another, he is personally liable. A legacy of " ten shares of the stock of the W. & N. R Co. " is a specific legacy, where a subse- quent clause bequeaths, " the balance of my stock as per my stock book." Harvard Unitarian Soa v. Tufts, 151 Mass. 76 (1890). 'Measure v. Carleton, 80 Beav. 538 (1863). This case also holds that, if an exact partition of the stock is impos- sible, enough will be sold to render ii possibles 664 CH. XVIII.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [§ 303. effect of all these is that the legacies are specific.^ A legacy of all the dividends, interest, and proceeds from stock is a specific legacy, even though the testator did not own such stock at the time he made the will.* There has been some difference of opinion as to whether the fact that the testator, at the time of making the will, possessed an equal or greater amount of stock than that bequeathed, and of the same kind, is to be taken as evidencing an intent to make the legacy specific. The weight of authority holds that such a fact is not to be taken into consideration, and that if the words of the legacy make it general, it cannot be construed to be specific simply because by an examination of the testator's effects he is found to have possessed stock similar to that described in the will.' § 303. The most common form of a general bequest of stock is where the testator merely bequeaths a specified number of shares of a specified kind to the legatees, without any further words in- dicating that he then held or expected to hold the stock be- queathed.* A direction to the executors to invest a certain sum in 1 Sleeoh v. Thorington, 2 Ves. 8r. 560 (1754). A legacy of all of several articles is specific. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346 (1887). '^ Stephenson v. Dowson, 3 Beav. 343 (1840). See also Fidelity Trust Co.'s Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 493 (1885). 'Robinson v. Addison, 3 Beav. 515 (1840), the court holding that the legacy was general, and saying the testator "in eflfeot gave such an indefinite sum of money as would suffice to purchase so many shares as he had given;" Davis V. Cain, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 304 (1840); Bronsdon v. Winter, Ambl. 56 (1738); Simmons v. Vallance, 4 Bro. Ch. 346 (1793); Bishop of Peterborough v. Mortlock, 1 Bro. Ch. 565 (1784); Boys V. Williams, 3 Russ. & M. 689 (1831); Partridge v. Partridge, Cas. t. Talb. 336 (1736); Tifft v. Porter, 8 N. Y. 516 (1853), where the court said: "The mere possession by the testator, at the date of his will, of stock of equal or larger amount than the legacy, will not of itself make the bequest specific; " Os- borne V. Mc Alpine, 4 Redf. (N. Y.) 1 (1878); Eokfeldt's Estate, 7 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 19 (1879); Sponsler's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 95 (1884), where the court also held that a codicil repeating a general legacy of stock will entitle the legatee to both legacies. In Massachusetts a doctrine contrary to that stated in the text prevails. See White v. Winchester, 33 Mass. 48 (1827); Metcalf v. First Parish, 138 Mass. 370 (1880). To same effect, Cuthbert v. Cuthbert, 3 Yeates (Pa.), 486 (1803); Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 3 Atk. 130 (1744). * Wilson V. Brownsmith, 9 Ves. Jr. 180 (1803), holding also that, if there is not enough of such "stock among the testator's assets, the deficiency must be purchased for the legatea Pearce v. Billings, 10 R. 1 103 (1871), the court saying that the evident intent of the testator was "to have the stock men- tioned purchased for the legatees by his executor, or to have the legatees furnished with the means to purchase the stock for themselves." The value of the stocks one year after the testa- tor's death is the amount to be paid to the legatees. In the case of Purse v. Snaplin, 1 Atk. 414 (1737), where two legacies of stock of £5,000 each were given, and the testator had but £5,000 of stock, the court held that the gen-, eral estate must purchase £5,000 of the same stock. 655 § 304.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [oh. XVIII. specified stock for the benefit of the legatee is a general legacy.^ So, also, where the executors are directed to transfer to the legatee certain stock.* A legacy of the residue of the testator's stock has been held to be a general legacy.' A legacy to be paid " out of the four per cents " is general.* A codicil which is general in form is held to be such, although it is but an increase of a previous leg- acy which is specific, and which is revoked by the codicil." § 304. Amount of stock conveyed "by certain legacies. — A legacy of " one hundred pounds, long annuities," has been held to mean, not that the legatee is entitled to an annual income from the estate of one hundred pounds, but that he was entitled to have that amount invested for him.* A will reciting the amount of stock held by the testatrix, and bequeathing it, or. so much as should be standing in her name at her death, does not give to the legatee stock acquired after the making of the will and before the death of the testatrix.' A bequest of stock " that I possess " is held to mean stock possessed by the testator at the time of making the will.8 1 Raymond v. Brodbelt, 5 Ves. Jr. 199 (1800). 2 Lambert v. Lambert, 11 Vea Jr. 607 (1806); Sibley v. Perry, 7 Ves. Jr. 533 (1803), the court saying a legacy is not specific "without something marking the specific thing — the very corpus; without describing it as standing in his name, or by the expression of ' my stock,' etc." 3 Parrott v. Worsfold, 1 Jac. & W. 574 (1830). Contra, Bethune v. Kennedy, 1 Myl. & C. 114 (1835). * Deane v. Test, 9 Ves. Jr. 146 (1803). ti Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Sim. 313 (1844). •i Att'y Gen. v. Grote, 3 Kuss. & M. 699 (1837); Fonnereau v. Poyntz, 1 Bro. Oh. 473 (1785). See Pearce v. Billings, 10 R. I. 103 (1871). Contra, Stafford v. Horton, 1 Bro. Ch, 483 (1785). See also g 560, infra. 'Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. Jr. 819 (1808). So, also, of a legacy of "the whole of my stock in the Housatonio Bank, amounting to $6,000." The leg- atee does not take stock subsequently acquired. Foote's Appeal, 39 Mass. 399 (1839); Douglas v. Douglas, Kay, 404 (1854). The case of Fidelity Trust Ca's 656 Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 493 (1885), states that at common law a specific legacy of stock spoke from the death of the testa- tor, and that the English wills act of 1838, and the Pennsylvania act of 1879 were but declaratory in that respect. If the testator, in making a specified be- quest of stock, speaks of the stock as " now standing in my name," the stat- ute does not apply, and the bequest speaks from the date of the will. In Mil- ler V. Little, 3 Beav. 359 (1840), thetesta^ tor gave one share to each child him surviving. He then had eight shares and seven children. At his death he had ten shares and eleven children. Only the eight shares were held to pass. sCookran v. Cookran, 14 Sim. 348 (1844). This rule is sometimes changed by statute. See, in England, § 34, Wills Act (1 Vict., o. 36), applied in Trinder v. Trinder, L. a 1 Eq. 695 (1866), and Good- lad V. Burnett, 1 K & J. 341 (1855); Hepburn v. Skirving, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 651 (1858); Wagstaff v. Wagstaff, L. R. 8Eq. 339 (1869); Bothamley v. Sherson, L. R. 30 Eq. 304 (1875), and preceding note A legacy of bank stock conveys all stock deposited in bank, there being no CH. XVIII.J LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [§ 305. § 305. There has been some controversy and doubt as to whether a legacy of the testator's " money " would give to the legatee the testator's stock in a corporation. The weight of authority holds that it does not.^ Nor will shares of stock belong to a legatee to whom the testator has given, by a last will and testament, his "se- curitiesfor money ;"^ or "furniture . . with all claims or demands of whatever nature,"' or "every other article," * or "goods," ' or "money and effects;'" but they will pass under a bequest of the " personal estate," ' or " residue of money," * or " chattels." ^ " Gas stock to the extent of six thousand dollars " means six thousand dollars at par." If the testator, in describing the stock bequeathed, has very clearly made a mistake in the description, the legacy will be held to apply to the stock intended to be bequeathed. Thus, where the testator has "City Bank" stock, but bequeaths "Me- chanics' Bank " stock, and the intent was to bequeath the former, the court will render a decree to that effect.*^ Where, subsequently shares of bank stock owned by the tes- tator. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346 (1887). A will may bequeath not only the stock standing in the name of the testatrix, but also certificates of stock owned by her but standing in the name of others. Angell v. Springfield Home, 157 Mass. 341 (1893). 1 MuUins V. Smith, 1 Dr. & Sm. 304 (1860); Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. Jr. 319 (1808); Lowe v. Thomas, Kay, 369 (1854), aflSrming 5 De G., M. & G. 315 (1854); Gosden v. Dotterill, 1 Myl. & K. 56 (1838) ; Hudleston v. Gouldsbury, 10 Beav. 547 (1847); Douglas v. Congreve, 1 Keen, 410, 434 (1836) ; Willis v. Plaskett, 4 Beav. 308 (1841); Ogle v. Knipe, L. R. 8 Eq. 434 (1869); Ommanney v. Butcher, 1 Turn. & R. 360, 373 (1833), holding also that a bequest of stock for an indefinite char- ity fails; Beck v. McGillis, 9 Barb. 35, 59 (1850). Contra, Waite v. Combes, 5 De G. & S. 676 (1852); Chapman v. Rey- nolds, 38 Beav. 331 (1860), where the tes- tator had no property but stock; Bes- coby V. Pack, 1 Sim. & Stu. 500 (1833), holding that the words "securities for money" will pass the "funds," but not deciding as to stock in private corpora- tions; Newman v. Newman, 26 Beav. 318 (1858), where the legacy was of "sur- plus money;" Jenkins v. Fowler, 63 N. •'All my money" may Be Buller, 74 L. T. Rep. H. 344 (1884). include stock. 406 (1896). 2 Turner v. Turner, 31 L. J. (Ch.) 843 (1853). See also Bescoby v. Pack, 1 Sim. & Stu. 500 (1833). SDelamater's Estate, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 862 (1836). 4 Collier V. Squire, 3 Russ. 467 (1837). 'Cowling V. Cowling, 86 Beav. 449 (1859). Contra, Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. Ch. 360 (1828). Stock passes under a legacy of " my property at R.'s bank,'' the certificates being there. lie Prater, L. R 37 Ch. D. 481 (1888). 6Borton v. Dunbar, 30 L. J. (Ch.) 8 (1860). "Ready money" covers uncol- lected dividends. May v. Grave, 3 De G. & Sm. 463 (1849). ■'Kermode v. Macdonald, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 584 (1868). 8 Dowson V. Gaskoin, 3 Keen, 14 (1837); Fulkeron v. Chitty, 4 Jones, Eq. (N. C.) 344 (1858). 9 Kendall v. Kendall, 4 Russ. Ch. 360 (1838). WBe Johnson's Estate, 170 Pa. St. 177 (1895). 11 Roman, etc. Asylum v. Emmons, 3 Bradf. (N. Y.) 144 (1855); Dooru. Geary, 1 Ves. Sr. 255 (1749), holding that a be- quest of "East India stock " will apply (43) 657 § 305.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [CH. XVIII. -to the making of the will, and before the. death of the testator, the stock bequeathed is changed in its character by operation of law, the legatee will nevertheless be entitled to the stock in its new form.' In England, where " shares " corresponds to the American "stock," but "stock" is a term applicable to a paid-up interest, which, like a bank deposit, may be used in large or small quan- tities, a bequest of "shares" does not pass "stock" if there be any "shares" to which the legacy may apply .^ The words " funds " or " public funds '.' will include long annuities ; ' and " foreign funds " means securities guaranteed by foreign governments ; * but " funds " will not include bank stock,^ nor East India stock." A legacy of "securities" does not carry shares of stock.' An unconditional bequest of the dividends of stock is a bequest of the stock itself.' But a bequest of a specific sum to be paid from stock does not be- to bank stock, when the testator had the latter but none of the former. See also Trinder v. Trinder, L. R. 1 Eq. 695 (1866), where a legacy of " Great West- ern Railway " stock was held to apply to the stock of a road absorbed by the Great Western Railway; Oakes v. Oakes, 9 Hare, 666 (1852), where a be- quest of " shares " was held to apply to "stock;" Gallini v. Noble, 3 Mer. Ch. 691 (1810); Penticost v. Ley, 2 Jac. & W. 207 (1820); Clark v. Atkins, 90 N. C. 629 (1884), where "bank stock" was held to pass bonds, A palpable mistake of the testator in describing a legacy of bonds will be corrected by the court. Holt V. Jex, 48 Hun, 528 (1888). A leg- iicy of "12 shares in the steam barge J." may be shown to be twelve shares in the corporation owning the steam barge J., and may be shown to intend shares worth $1,000 each, even though the par value of the shares is only $50 each, but the testator considered them as of $1,000 par value each. Oades v. Marsh, 111 Mich. 168 (1896). A legacy of " £400 invested in the B. Company " means 400 shares in that company, the testator having five hundred shares of £1 each and the shares being worth £1 10s, each. Re Buller, 74 L. T. Rep. 406 (1896). ' See p. 661, note 3, infra. 2 Oakes w. Oakes, 9 Hare, 666 (1852). •Howard v. Kay, 27 L. J. (Ch.) 448 (1858). 4 Ellis V. Eden, 23 Beav. 548 (1857); Cadett V. Earle, JL R. 5 Ch. D. 710 (1877), properly holding that New York and Ohio are foreign governments. Cf. Langdale's Trusts, L. R. 10 Eq. 89 (1870), relative to French railway seouritiea 6 Slingsby v. Granger, 7 H. L. Cas. 273 (1859). 6 Brown v. Brown, 4 K & J. 704(1858). ' Re Maitland, 74 L. T. Rep. 274 (1896). ' A bequest of dividends and income to an institution as a permanent fund is an absolute gift of the stock. An- gell V, Springfield Home, 157 Mass. 241 (1892); Collier r. Collier, 3 Ohio St. 869 (1854) ; Haig v. Swainey. 1 Sim. & Stu. 487 (1823) ; Page v. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. Jr. 463 (1812); Fox v. Carr, 16 Hun, 566 (1879), involving a similar question. Cf. Blann v. Bell, 3 De G., M. & G. 775 (1852), holding that this rule applies only to the " funds," but not to stock in pri- vate corporations. A legacy of stock to A., "the dividends derived from the same to be paid to her by B., whom I name as trustee for said stocks and bonds, as said dividends may accrue from time to time," passes complete title to the legatee. No trust exists. Arnold's Appeal, 6 Atl. Rep. 751 (Pa. 1886). CH. XTIII.J LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [§ 306. queath the stock itself, although amounting to a charge upon it.' A bequest of stock to a legatee " to draw the income arising there- from during her life-time, and at her death to dispose of the same as she shall see fit," vests the title to the stock when it is set apart, in the legatee, even though the executors are directed to collect and pay to her the dividends.^- A bequest of the " rest and residue after deducting " certain specific legacies of stock includes those legacies, if they have lapsed by reason of the death of the lega- tees.' A general bequest of stock applies to partly-paid as well as to full-paid stock.'* Legacies may be made of stock over which the testator has the power of appointment,' and a will may provide for an annuity to be derived from stock.* In all these cases the inten- tion of the testator is the " pole star " of the courts. § 306. Ademption or revocation of a legacy of stock, and alate- ment. — The ademption -of a legacy is a revocation of that legacy in part or wholly, not by an express revocation in the will, but by the acts of the testator. Consequently, an ademption applies only to specific legacies.' An ademption of a specific legacy of stock 1 Wilson V. Maddison, 2 Y. & C. Ch. Jr. 391 (1803); iJe Gratwiqk's Trusts, L. 372 (1843). ^Onondaga Trust, etc. Ca v. Price, 87 N. Y. 543 (1882). 3 Carter v. Taggart, 16 Sim. 428 (1848); Shuttleworth v. Greaves^ 4 Myl. & Or. 35 (1838), holding that a legacy of stock lapses as to those dying before the tes- tator, though it is given to them, "their executors, administrators, and assigns." < Emery v. Wason, 107 Mass. 507 (1871). This case holds also that, where a call on the stock becomes due the day after the testator died, it was the duty of the executor to pay it from tlie general fund. Where a will be- queaths one hundred and forty shares of a certain stock and the testatrix ^dies leaving two hundred and eighty shares of that stock, forty of which are paid up and two hundred and forty not paid, the one hundred and forty must be taken from the two hun- dred and forty. Be Cheadle, [1900] 2 Ch. 620. "See Re David's Trusts, 1 Johns. 495 <1859); Innis v. Sayer, 3 Mao. & G. 606 (1851); Lownds V. Lownds, 1 You. & Jer. 445 (1827); Nannock v. Horton, 7 Ves. R. 1 Eq. 177 (1865); Warren v. Postle- thwaite, 2 ColL Ch. 116 (1845); Walker V. Maokie, 4 Russ. Ch. 76 (1827), disap- proved in Hughes v. Turner, 3 Myl. & K 666, 697 (1835). ' As to the construction of different provisions in wills, where an annuity on stock is created, see Innes v. Mitch- ell, 9 Ves. Jr. 212 (1803); Kerr v. Mid- dlesex Hospital, 2 De G., M. & G. 576 (1853); Ross v. Borer, 2 John. & H. 4G9 (1862); Yates v. Maddan, 3 Mac. & G. 532 (1857); Blewitt v. Roberts, Craig & P. 274 (1841); Potter v. Baker, 13 Beav. 373 (1851); Robinson v. Hunt, 4 Beav. 450 (1841); Hedges v. Harpur, 3 De G. & J. 139 (1858); Evans v. Jones, 3 Coll. Ch. 516 (1846); Manserghu. Campbell, 3 De G. & J. 332 (1858). 'A bequest of |2,000 of certain bonds is demonstrative and not specific and not adeemed where the testator had $10,000 of such bonds and sold them. Ives V. Canby, 48 Fed. Rep. 718 (1891). A legacy of stocks aggregating two thousand two hundred shares "now owned by me and standing in my name on the books of " the company is not specific, so as to be subject to ademp- 659 § 306.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [CH. XVIII. generally arises by a sale of the stock by the testator. If the spe- cific stock bequeathed is not owned by the testator at the time of his death, the legal conclusion is that the specific legacy is adeemed, and the legatee takes nothing.^ A sale of the stock by the testator after the will is made revokes or adeems the legacy, and it is as if never made.^ A codicil giving all the " personal estate " to another is a revocation of a bequest of stock in the original will.' Where the testator specifies the amount of his stock, the specific legatees of it abate proportionately with the residuary legatee, if upon his death it is insufiicient.* The rule is otherwise if no mention is made of what amount of stock he owns.' "Where the testator by his will gives two hundred shares of stock to a legatee, but has only one hundred shares when he dies, the legatee takes such one hundred shares and no more.* Where the testator in his will gives away thirty-six shares of stock, but he only had thirty-one shares, and at the time of his death he only had twenty-five shares, the executor is bound to purchase eleven shares, the legacy being a gen- eral one of so many shares of stock.' If the general property of the testator is exhausted in the payment of the debts of the estate,, specific legacies of stock abate proportionately, with other specific legacies.' A specific legacy of stock is not adeemed by a change in the stock produced by an act of the government. Thus, where the government buys the stock, a specific legatee takes the compen- tion, although in the meantime the tes- 457 (1866); afSrmed, L. R. 3 Ch. App. tator has sold three thousand and fifty- 584 (1868). seven shares out of three thousand two * Elwes v. Causton, 30 Beav. 554 (1862), hundred and fifty-seven. Mahoney v. following Page v. Leapingwell, 18 Ves. Holt, 19 R. I. 660 (1896). 463 (1812). iFord V. Ford, 23 N. H. 213 (1851), al- spetre v. Petre, 14 Beav. 197 (1851); though not a stock case, says in regard De Lisle v. Hodges, L. R. 17 Eq. 440- to this branch of the law: "It is now (1874); Vivian v. Mortlock, 21 Beav. 252 established in England that the only (1855). The debts of the estate may be question is whether the specific thing directed to be paid from the residue of remains at the death of the testator, the stock. Choatv. Yeatea, 1 Jac. & W. and that the intention to adeem will 102 (1819). not be considered beyond the expres- *■ New Albany, etc. Co. v. Powell, 64- sions in the will. . . . The weight N. E. Rep. 640 (Ind. 1902). of American authority is in favor of the 'Slade v. Talbot, 65 N, E. Rep. 374 English rule." 94 N. W. Rep. 444. (Mass. 1902). 2 Ashburner v. Maoguire, 3 Bro. Ch. « Sparks v. Weedon, 21 Md. 156 (1864). 108 (1786) ; White v. Winchester, 23 Mass. When general legacies of stock abate- 48 (1827); Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 proportionately with other general Cox, Ch. 184 (1789); Hayes v, Hayes, 1 legacies, the stock is estimated at its Keen, 97 (1836); Blackstone v. Black- value twelve months after the testator's stone, 3 Watts (Pa.), 335 (1834). death. Blackshaw v. Rogers (1780)^ 3 Kermode v. Macdonald, L. R. 1 Eq. cited in 4 Bro. Ch. 349. 660 CH. XTIII.] LEGACIES AND GIFl'S OF STOCK. [§ 307. satioa if it has not yet been collected by the testator,' but not if it has been collected and used by the latter.'' A change by law of the funds into funds bearing a lower rate of interest does not adeem a specific legacy of it,' even though the testator sells the former and buys the latter kind of funds.* A specific legacy of stock by Sifeine covert, who had the power to bequeath it, is not adeemed by the fact that she had the stock transferred into her own name after the death of her husband.' A specific legacy which has been adeemed is not revived by a republication of the will after the ademption.* § 307. Duty of executor or administrator as regards a specific or general legacy of stock. — Where a legacy of stock is made, it is the duty of the executor or administrator to carry into effect the wishes of the testator by turning over to the legatee the stock bequeathed, if the legacy be specific; or, if the legacy be general, by either set- ting aside for the legatee the required amount of stock from the testator's effects, or purchasing the same for the legatee. The spe- cific legacy of stock vests in the legatee as soon as the executor is satisfied that the general fund will pay the debts of the estate and consents to such vesting. When once given the consent of the executor is irrevocable, andonly a court of chancery can reach the stock and subject it to the testator's debts.'' The liability of the 1 Walton V. Walton, 7 Johns. Ch. 358 N. Y. 543 (1883>; Hill v. Eookingham (1823). Bank, 44 N. H. 567 (1863), holding that 2 Ludlam's Estate, 13 Pa. St. 188(1850). the legatee should sue the corporation ' Brown v. McGuire, 1 Beatty, Ir. Ch. at law for refusing transfer, where the 358 (1839). But a legacy of stock in parties interested in the will assent; an incorporated unlimited company and in equity, if both the corporation which, after the making of the will, is and such parties do not assent. A de- incorporated as a limited company, and cree of a probate court that the legacy the value of the stock changed, which of stock shall be turned over to the change the testator acccepts, fails, legatee cannot be required by the cor- whether considered as a specific legacy poration. Under the Vermont statute adeemed or a general legacy impossible it is the duty of the executor to trans- of fulfillment. Re Gray, L. R. 36 Ch. D. fer stock to the residuary legatee. Wit- 205 (1887). ters v. Sowles, 35 Fed. Eep. 168 (1885). * Partridge v. Partridge, Cas. t. Talb. As regards sales of stock by an exeou- 336 (1736). Roper, Legacies, p. 831, 3d tor, see § 839, infra. If stock speoific- ed. (1848), is inclined to the opinion ally bequeathed is not given to the that a specific legacy of stock is not legatee, but is used for other purposes, revived by a purchase of similar stock the other legatees must make good its after a sale of the stock bequeathed. value. Tomlinson v. Bury, 145 Mass. 346 "Dicgwell u Askew, 1 Cox, Ch. 437 (1887). Executors in New York are not (1788). entitled to commissions on transfers of s Harvard Unitarian Soc. v. Tufts, stock specifically bequeathed. Schenck 151 Mass. 76 (1890). v. Dart, 33 N. Y. 420 (1860). A legacy ' Onondaga Trust, etc. Co, v. Price, 87 may be paid by the stock of the de- 661 § 308.] LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK. [oh. XVIIT, legatee to pay calls on the stock is discussed elsewhere.' Where stock in a Maryland bank is owned by a citizen of Delaware, the law of Delaware governs a legacy of such stock.^ ■ § 308. Gifts of stock. — Shares of stock in a corporation may be the subject of a gift. No formal method of completing the gift is necessary. A formal instrument of transfer, duly delivered to an agent with directions to deliver to the donee, vests title in the donee, though no certificates are transferred.' A gift of stock, vested by a due transfer into the name of the donee, cannot be re- voked by the donor.* In order to constitute a gift a perfectly clear intent so to do must be proved.' A gift of stock may be made by delivering to the donee the certificates indorsed in blank on the back thereof.^ Where the gift is made in gratitude for care ors of the former, that he intended the stock as a gift to the latter. Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. Jr. 360 (1805). A gift of stock to take efifect only upon the death of the donor is not absolute, and is sub- ject to the payment of his debts exist- ing at the time of his death. Sterling V. Wilkinson, 83 Va. 791 (1887). A gift of stock whereby the owner makes him- self a trustee of it for his donee is com- plete, and a recognition of the trust in his will does not render the stock a part of his estate, subject to the dower right of his wife. Dickerson's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 198 (1887); Stone v. Haokett, 78 Mass. 827 (1858). Although a person buys stock as trustee, and charges the price on his books against his daughters and credits them with dividends, yet if he sold the stock and used the money the stock was not an advancement to them. Herkimer v. McGregor, 126 Ind. 247 (1890). Where a stockholder trans- fers the certificate on the back to a person and leaves it in his own safe- deposit box, and writes a letter to such person directing him to distribute it among a list of charitable corporations, but no list is attached, the latter takes no title, and the executors may compel him to transfer the certificate to them. Bliss V. Fosdick, 76 Hun, 508 (1894). 6 Coffey V. Coffey, 179 111. 283 (1899). In Maryland it is held that a mere transfer of the certificates of stock, without a registry on the corporate cedent at a valuation agreed upon. Chase v. Burritt, 14 Atl. Eep. 212 (Conn. 1888). 1 See § 560, infra. 2 Lowndes w Coooh, 87 Md. 478 (1898). s De Caumont v. Bogert, 36 Hun, 382 (1885), treating also a gift as an ad- vancement. See S. C, Re Morgan, 104 N. Y. 74 (1887). In England, under the statutes, it is held that a gift of stock does not vest in the donee until regis- try on the corporate books. Nanney V. Morgan, L. E. 35 Ch. D. 598 (1887). Where a person buys stock through a broker on the stock exchange, and the day before his death gives to the broker his wife's name as transferee, the gift to her is complete, although he died before the transfers were executed. Bull V. Smith, 84 L. T. Rep. 835 (1901), * Standing v. Bowring, L. E. 27 Ch. D. 341 (1884), where the donor transferred into the joint names of donor and donee, and afterwards attempted to dispose of the whole stock. A gift of stock fully made and accepted cannot be retracted. Walker v. Joseph, etc. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 342 (1890). A father who takes stock in the name of a son in order to qualify him as a director, and takes back the certificates, does not thereby make a gift of the stock. Re Gooch, 62 L. T. Rep. 384 (1890); 94 N. W. Rep. 729. 'Where, however, the stock is pur- chased by one in the name of another, it may be shown, as against the credit- 663 OH. xvin.J LEGACIES AND GIFTS OF STOCK, [§ 308. to be bestowed on another, the gift will fail upon the death of the donee, it it is proved that the stock had not been fully and finally delirered.' A gift of the dividends on stock is a gift of the stock Itself.''' A gift of stock by one legatee to another, in the belief that the testator so intended the stock to be disposed of, cannot be revoked after an instrument of transfer is signed and actual trans- fer made, even though it is afterwards found that the testator had l no such intent.' A stockholder who has transferred his stock into • the joint names of himself and his wife cannot dispose of his inter- est by a last will and testament. It passes to the wife as the sur- vivor.* A gift of stock causa mortis may be made by a mere de- livery of the certificate to the donee.' So, also^ the delivery and book, is incomplete as a gift, and can- not be enforced against the personal representatives of the deceased donor. Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. v. Mali, 65 Md. 93 (1886). The delivery of a certifi- cate of stock by a husband to his wife with intent to give the stock to her may constitute a complete gift, even though the stock is not transferred by him on the back for several years there- after. First Nat. Bank v. Holland, 39 S. E. Rop. 126 (Va. 1901). Where the owner of stock signs the transfer on the back and fills in the name of a per son and afterwards dies, and the per- son to whom it is transferred is in pos- session of the certificate and claims that the stock was given to her, such possession is prima facie evidence of a gift and delivery. Liscomb v. Man- chester, etc. R. R., 70 N. U. 312 (1900). Under the New York statute, prohibit- ing testimony by an interested party as to conversations with a deceased party, a person claiming stock by gift cannot so prove deliveiy by the de- ceased person. Richardson v. Emmett, 170 N. Y. 413 (1903). 1 Jackson v. Twenty-third St. Ry., 88 N. Y. 530 (1883). When a gift of stock is made in accordance with an agree- ment to compensate the donee for tak- ing care of the donor, a delivery of the certificate without any transfer suf- fices. Reed v, Copeland, 50 Conn, 473 (1883). But the contract to make the gift must not be in opposition to pub- lic policy, nor in fraud of the rights of other stockholders. Nickerson v. Eng- lish, 142 Mass. 267 (1886)i 2 See § 305, supra. 'Delamater's Estate, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 363 (1836). f its business." A purchaser of stock which has assented to the corporation purchasing its own stock cannot complain. Where by stat- ute the preferred stock shall not exceed two-thirds of the capital stock paid in for cash or property, a preferred stock- holder cannot question the value of property received in payment for the preferred stock in a suit instituted by him to enjoin the corporation purchas- ing its own stock, as allowed by statute, where the assets, less the debts, equal the preferred stock outstanding. Hodge V. United States Steel Corp., 53 Atl. Rep. 601 (N. J. 1903). This decision was re- versed on other points in 54 Atl. Eep. 1 (1903). See 54 Atl. Rep. 460. iThe court, however, enjoined the company from transferring nearly all of its property to a few stockholders in purchase of their stock, but refused to appoint ' a receiver. Lowe v. Pioneer Threshing Ca, 70 Fed. Rep. 646 (1895). 2 Thus, in German Sav. Bank v. Wulfe- kuhler, 19 Kan. 60 (1877), the bank was insolvent when the stock was purchased by it. The purchase was declared ille- gal In Bent v. Hart, 10 Mo. App. 143 (1881), the corporation did not purchase its own stock. The stock was purchased by another corporation, and the trans- action was sustained. In St. Louis, etc. Ca V. Hilbert, 24 Ma App. 338 (1887), the stock purchased by the corporation was not paid-up stock. In State v. Oberlin Building Assoa, 35 Ohio St. 358 (1880), the peculiar purposes and articles of association of a building association governed the decision. In Barton v. Port Jackson, etc. Co., 17 Barb. 397 (1854), the company mortgaged its road in order to raise money to buy the stock. Where a corporation buys shares of its own stock from one of its stockholders, it may repudiate the transaction and defend a suit by the stockholder on a note given for the stock. The court said that such a purchase should not be to the advantage of a few favored stock- holders, to the injury of the great body of them. Price v. Pine Mountain, etc. Ca, 33 S. W. Rep. 367 (Ky. 1895)i In Crandall v. Lincoln, 53 Conn. 73, 99, 100 (1884), where stock was bought for the corporation by a corporate agent, the latter was held liable to the receiver of the corpor^ion for the money so ex- pended. The court said: "The statute forbidding the company to make divi- dends payable from the stock, and to loan money upon a pledge of its stock, by necessary implication forbids the company from purchasing its stock. . . . As a rule, to which there are few, if any, exceptions, when a stock- (43) 673 § 311.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. tare may authorize a corporation to reduce its capital stock and issue bonds in exchange for such part of the capital stock as is re- tired, especially where the original charter authorized the corpora- tion to decrease its capital stock by purchasing its own stock. ^ All of the American courts coincide in the view that a corporation may take shares of its own stock in payment of or security for antecedent debts due to the corporation.' A corporation may take holder conveys his stock to the com- pany and receives in return a portion of the capital, he holds the money so received subject to the superior equities of creditors." A party who loans money to a corporation knowing that the money is to be used by the company to buy shares of its own capital stock can- not cjoUect his debt, the act being ultra vires. Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, 8 S. D. 119 (1895). A by-law that a land company will accept its stock in pay- ment for land will not sustain a suit for specific performance brought by a pur- chaser of land who wishes to pay in stock, the by-law having been practi- cally disregarded. Kelley v. York, etc. Co., 9-1 Me. 374 (1900). A corporation has no power to traffic in its own stock. Herring v. Ruskin, ate. Assoc, 52 S. W. Eep. 337 (Tenn. 1899). iVenner Co. v. United States, etc. Corp., 116 Fed. Eep. 1013 (1903). By its certificate of incorporation a New Jer- sey corporation may have power to purchase and retire part or all of its preferred stock, and to issue in pay- ment therefor its bonds or to sell its bonds and use the proceeds to retire such preferred stock, or it may pur- chase and hold such stock for re-issue. The offer to purchase must be made pro rata to all the preferred stockholders. Under the reserved righft to amend, alter, or repeal charters, the rights of stockholders among themselves cannot be impaired, except as required by pub- lic Interests; but, while it is true that tbe charter constitutes a contract be- tween the stockholders, yet under this reserved power the legislature may au- thorize existing corporations to pur- chase and retire preferred stock and issue in lieu thereof mortgage bonds, such amendment being construed to be in behalf of the public interest. Where a corporation has charter authority to retire its preferred stock and issue mortgage bonds in lieu thereof, on a vote of the directors and stockholders, a minority stockholder cannot enjoin such action on the ground that it would be disastrous in its effect on the corporation. Berger v. United States Steel Corp., 53 Atl. Rep. 68 (N. J. 1903). 2 The leading case is City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507 (1858), where a cor- poration received $133,000 of its own stock in payment of debts due the cor- poration, the court saying it is " not aware of any common-law principle which forbids it." See also Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 1 Edw. Ch. 84 (1831); Chillicothe, etc. Bank v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431 (1856); S. C.,'5 Fed. Cas. 632, where tt)e stock was taken in payment of a debt due the corporation. In Williams V. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md, Ch. 418, 451 (1851), the debtor who had given stock to a corporation in payment of a debt was allowed to deny the amount of the debt and to take back the stock upon payment of the amount actually due. A company may receive its own stock in satisfaction of a debt where it is necessary in order to protect the cor- poration from loss. Barto v. Nix, 15 Wash. 563 (1896). Where a bank desires to take its own stock from one of its debtors in payment of the debt, and in order to do so one of its directors takes the stock and gives his note to the bank on the understanding that he is not to be liable thereon, a receiver 674 CH. XIX.] ■WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 311. its own stock by way of gift ' or bequest.^ Inasmuch as a corpo- ration has power to buy its own stocli, it may take a subscription for stock at par, and agree to repurchase the stock, no creditors or stockholders objecting thereto.' The objection usually made to allowing a corporation to purchase its own stock is that thereby the corporate funds are expended and no property is received by the corporation, except the right to resell. This objection is merely a limit to the power of the corpo- ration to purchase. In Illinois, the state where the right of the corporation to make such purchases is most clearly and decisively established, the collateral principle that such purchases are to be declared illegal and voidable at the instance of corporate creditors who are injured thereby is distinctly stated and rigidly applied.* If the corporation is insolvent at the time of the purchase, it is clearly an invalid transaction, and will be set aside.' The rule of the bank may enforce the note. At- water v. Smith, 73 Minn. 507 (1898). A college corporation may, while solv- ent, receive its own stock in payment of a debt. Eoach v. Burgess, 63 8. W. Rep. 803 (Tex. 1901). 1 Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87 (1883). where its legality was as- sumed. A corporation which holds stock in another corporation may agree to surrender a part of such stock in order to enable the latter company to proceed with its business, and such sur- render is not ultra vires. Thomson?;. Trustees, [1895] 2 Ch. 454 See also § 46, ch. Ill, supra. 2Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Dawsons, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 19 (1846). • s Preemont Carriage, etc. Co. v. Thorasen, 91 N. W. Eep. 376 (Neb. 1903). Cf. §§ 167-170, siipro. * Clapp V. Peterson, 104 111. 26 (1883); Peterson v. Illinois Land, etc. Ca, 6 111. App. 257 (1880). Where a corporation is insolvent and a stockholder knows that fact, he cannot sell his stock to holder, not knowing that his vendee buys for the corporation, is not liable. Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65 (1878); s. C, 13 Fed. Cas. 758: afE'd, 103 U. S. 800. ' Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 263 (1875); Alexander v. Eelfe, 74 Mo. 495 (1881). A purchase by an in- solvent bank of shares of its own stock from one who had just resigned as vice- president is illegal, and he cannot col- lect a certificate of indebtedness given him therefor. JJe Columbian Bank, 147 Pa. St. 428(1892). So also of a sale by the president even though he held the stock as executor of an estate. lie Colum- bian Bank, 147 Pa. St. 433 (1893). Where amanufacturingcompany, four months before it is adjudged insolvent and a receiver appointed, purchases shares of its own stock and gives its note in pay- ment, such note cannot be enforced against the corporation, there being no proof that there were any net profits at the time of the transaction. Hamor V. Taylo», etc. Co., 84 Fed. Rep. 392 (1897); Roan v. Winn, 93 Mo. 503 (1887). the corporation in exchange for oorpo- Where a corporation which has no rate property, and he will be compelled by the court, in behalf of then existing creditors, to return the property. Com- mercial Nat. Bank v. Burch, 141 111. 519 <1893); Butler, etc. Co. v. Robbins, 151 la 588 (1894). But the selling stock- profits on hand issues its bonds in pay- ment for its stock, the party so receiv- ing the bonds cannot enforce them, but on the contrary remains liable for the unpaid subscription price of the stock, it not having been properly issued as 675 § 311.] WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. goes still further, and declares that if a corporation, by a purchase of shares of its own capital stock, thereby reduces its actual assets below its capital stock and debts, or if the actual assets at that time are less than the capital stock and debts, such purchase may be set aside, and the guilty corporate officers, as well as the vendor of the stock, may be rendered liable thereon at the instance of a cor- porate creditor.' Where bonds are issued to the stockholders for paid-up stock, and he not being a bona fide holder. Hebberd v. Southwestern, etc. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18 (1896). Where a corporation uses its assets to buy its own stock, corporate creditors may fol- low such assets. Henderson v. Hall, 33 S. Rep. 840 (Ala. 1900). An insolvent corporation cannot purchase shares of its own stock. Adams, etc. Co. v. Dey- ette, 5 S. D. 418 (1894). Where a corpo- ration is in process of dissolution the directors have no power to use the cor- porate funds to purchase shares of its stock. Augsburg Land, etc. Co. v. Pep- per, 95 Va. 92 (1897). ^ A stockholder who sells his stoek to the corporation itself, the latter being insolvent, may be compelled to restore the consideration received by him. Buck V. Ross, 68 Conn. 39 (1896), quoting and approving the text herein. A re- ceiver of an insolvent bank may file a bin in equity to compel its president and another bank to payback the price of stock in the insolvent bank which the insolvent bank, through the instru- mentality of its president, who was also cashier of the other bank, had purchased of the other bank on the eve of the in- solvency of the former. Bridgens v. Dollar Sav. Bank, 66 Fed. Rep. 9 (1895). Even though a receiver is in charge, yet a judgment creditor may iile a bill to compel a stockholder to pay back an illegal dividend and also to account for property transferred to him by the cor- poration for a portion of his stock, the receiver being made a party defendant. Bowker v. Hill, 115 Fed. Rep. 538 (1879). A corporation having no surplus profits cannot purchase shares of its own stock, and where a director sells his stock ostensibly to the president, but really to the corporation itself, a judgment creditor of the corporation may compel him to refund the price, even though the director took in payment the notes of the president, which notes were afterwards paid by the checks of the corporation, the books of the company showing that the purchase as originally made was in fact for the corporation. Hall V. Henderson, 136 Ala. 449 (1900). Where a bank illegally holds its own stock and induces a person to take it and give his own note therefor, on the understanding that such note is merely for the accommodation of the bank and is not to be collected, a receiver of the bank cannot enforce the note, unless it is shown that the bank is insolvent or that debts exist. Shuey v. Holmes, 30 Wash. 13 (1898). Where the treasurer uses the funds of the corporation to pay for stock in the corporation itself, which he and other stockholders have pur- chased, he may be compelled, upon cor- porate insolvency, to refund the money, even though he took the funds from the treasury with the consent of all the stockholders. Be Brookway Mfg. Co,, 89 Me. 131 (1896). Fraser v. Ritchie, 8 111. App. 554 (1881), holds that the right of the corporation to purchase its own stock is subject to certain restrictions, " one of which is that it shall not be done at such time and in such manner as to take away the security upon which the creditors of the corporation have the right to rely for the payment of their claims; or, in other words, so as not to diminish the fund created for their benefit. Each case must there- fore depend upon and be determined by 676 OH. XIX.] "WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 312. their stock, such bonds will be paid only after other creditors have been paid.' Subject to the above conditions, not even a dissenting stockholder can complain of lihe purchase by a corporation of shares of its own stock. ^ Although a company buys its own stock from a stockholder, subsequent creditors cannot complain.' § 312. Frequently statutes are passed expressly prohibiting a cor- poration from purchasing shares of its own stock. The national banks in this country are prohibited from so doing by the statutes of the federal government.* In New York, by statute, certain cor- its own facts and circumstances." See also Gillet v. Moody, 3 N. T. 479 (1850). Where directors and stockholders de- sire to sell the enterprise, and do so by paying for their stock out of the corpo- rate funds, and then reinsuring all risks in another company, and turning over everything to the latter, a receiver of the company so sold out may hold a director liable for moneys so paid out. Guild u. Parker, 43 N. J. L. 430 (1881). A receiver of a corporation seeking to set aside a purchase of stock by the corpo- ration itself must tender back the stock before suing to recover the money. Pierson v. McCurdy, 33 Hun, 530 (1884); aflE'd, 100 N. Y. 60& In Re Republic In- surance Co., 3 Biss. 453 (1873); s. C, 30 Fed. Gas. 544, where the insolvent cor- poration had, some three years pre- viously, when the corporation was solvent, purchased stock of various stockholders and still held it, the court held that these old stockholders were not liable for the unpaid subscription price thereof. In Farnsworth v. Bob- bins, 36 Minn. 369 (1887), the receiver of an insolvent company recovered from a stockholder whose stock the company had purchased. A scheme whereby the corporation takes back the stock and issues certificates of indebtedness for it is invalid as against creditors. The lat- ter are entitled to the assets in prefer- ence to the former. Heggie v. People's, etc. Assoc, 107 N. C. 581 (1890). Al- though a company buys its own stock from a stockholder, subsequent credit- ors cannot complain. Rollins v. Shaver, etc. Ca, 80 Iowa, 380 (1890). Where a corporation uses its profits to buy its own stock, the remaining stockholders are not liable on the statutory liability attaching to the stock so purchased by the corporation. Moon, etc. Ca v. Wax- ahachie, etc. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 103 (1896); aflE'd, 89 Tex. 511 (1896). Even though the directors have sold preferred stock held by them to the corporation and taken its notes therefor when the corporation was insolvent, yet a re- ceiver should not be appointed at the instance of a stockholder. The remedy is an injunction and accounting. Em- pire Hotel Ca v. Main, 98 Ga. 176 (1896). A judgment creditor's bill is multifari- ous where it asks to hold the defendant liable on a subscription for stock, and as an oflScer for causing the corporation to buy its own stock, and as an out- sider for obtaining real estate of the company without consideration, and as an outsider misrepresenting the con- dition of the company. First Nat. Bank V. Peavey, 75 Fed. Rep. 154 (1896). iJn re Estate, etc., 53 Atl. Rep. 58 (Pa. 1903). ^^Dupee V. Boston Water-Power Co., 114 Mass. 37 (1873). See § 388 as to the power of a corporation to purchase stock in order to reduce its capital stock. ' Rollins II. Shaver, etc. Co., 80 Iowa, 380 (1890). 1 People V. Pullman's Palace Car Ca, 175 lU. 135 (1898). 2 In a suit by the receiver of an insolv- ent street railway company to hold a (44) ei construction company liable on stock which, together with bonds, was issued for the construction of a street railway, the claim being that there was no con- sideration received for the stock, the bill in equity must allege that the con- struction company had power to ac- quire such stock. Doak v. Stahlman, 58 S. W. Rep. 741 (Tenn. 1899). Of. § 64, swpra. 'Marbury v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 335 (1894), holding also that it is not necessary that an actual con- solidation be made (aS'g, on this point, Tod V. Kentucky, eta Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 47). If the guaranty is within the power of the company, and no stock- holder objects, it is not necessary to show that it was beneficial to the stock- holders, nor to show any special consid- eration, other than the money paid for the securities having the guaranty. Marbury v. Kentucky, eta Ca, 63 Fed. Rep. 335(1894). A land company may pur- chase the stock uf a railroad company when the power to do bo is expressly stated in a special charter of the former company. Tod v. Kentucky, etc. Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 47 (1893). A corporation organized to buy, improve, and sell a certain piece of land has no power to subscribe for stock in a manufacturing; corporation. Pauly v. Coronado Beach Ca, 56 Fed. Rep. 438 (1893). < German- American, eta Assoc, v. Droge, 14 Ind. App. 691 (1895). 5 People V. Chicago Gas T. Co., 130 111. 368 (1889). § 316.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. A steel spring company naay use its surplus earnings to purchase shares of stock in an iron and steel company for the purpose of purchasing steel cheaply from the latter company, especially where there is a combination, which has put up the price of steeLV A trust company may have power to hold as trustee and vote the majority of the stock of a railroad system.^ It is not every one who may complain. A stockholder, who par- ticipated, cannot.' Neither may the purchasing corporation itself in most instances.* Where a corporation owns stock in another corporation and sells it and takes a note in payment, it is no de- fense to a suit on the note to set up the ultra vires of the above act/ 1 Layng v. A. French Spring Co., 149 Pa. St. 308 (1898). 2 Clarke v. Richmond, etc. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 8S8 (1894), dismissing the bill in- volved in Clarke v. Central R. R etc. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 338 (1893). 3 Where the owner of all the stock of two mining corporations assigns the stock of the first to the second and then has the second corporation turn over the stock of the first corporation to a partnership in which he is in- terested, he cannot afterwards attack the transaction on the ground that the second corporation had no power to take the stock of the first corporation. Whalen v. Stephens, 198 IlL 131 (1901). Where an iron manufacturing concern owns an iron manufacturing plant and stocks in an ore company and a rail- way company and a steamboat com- pany and other corporations, and also a farm, and by consent of all the partners the firm is transformed into a corpora- tion which takes all the property, in- cluding the stocks and the farm, one of the participants cannot afterwards complain that it was illegal for the cor- poration to acquire such stocks and the farm. Burden v. Burden, 159 N. T. Rep. 387 (1899). * See § 681, infra. Although a hard- ware corporation has no power to be- come a stockholder in and borrower from a building association, yet if it does so it cannot repudiate a mortgage which it gave in connection with the transaction. Bowman v, Foster, etc. 690 Co., 94 Fed. Rep. 592 (1899). An opera house company which has taken stock in a building association, in order to obtain a loan, cannot repudiate the loan on the ground that it was not au- thorized to take such stock. Blue, eta Co. V. Mercantile, etc. Assoc, 58 Pac. Rep. 761 (Kan. 1898). A company or- ganized to deal in jewelry and which takes stock of another company in ex- change for its merchandise and then sells the stock cannot avoid liability on such stock by the plea of ultra vires. White V. Marquardt & Sons, 105 Iowa, 145 (1898). Where by statute one corpora- tion cannot purchase stock in another corporation, except by unanimous con- sent of the stockholders, a note given by the corporation in payment for stock purchased without such consent cannot be enforced. Midland, etc. Co. v. Citi- zens', etc. Bank, 36 Ind. App. 71 (1901). A corporation may defend against an ultra vires purchase of stock by it and may recover back money paid there- for. Guarantee, etc. Co. v. Moore, 35 N. Y. App. Div. 421 (1898). * Holmes, etc. Co. v. Holmes, etc. Co., 53 Hun, 53 (1889); afE'd, 137 N. T. 253. See also § 312, supra. Even though a corporation has no power to purchase stocks, yet if stocks are sold to it in payment for its own stock, the pur- chase is legal as against everybody ex- cepting the state, and especially as against parties who participated in the act Burden v. Burden, 8 N. Y. App. Div. 160 (1896); afif'd, 159 N. Y. 287 (1899). OH. XIX.j WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 316. In a suit by a bridge company against a street railway for tolls, in accordance with a contract, 'the street railway cannot set up that all the stock of the bridge company has been purchased by the city and that the purchase was ultra vires} A water-works company's charter will not be forfeited because another com- pany has purchased a majority of its stock and illegally placed a mortgage upon its property.^ Where one corporation subscribes for stock in another corporation and pays for such stock, and divi- dends are declared, the latter cannot refuse to pay the dividends to the former on the ground that the former had no power to sub- scribe for the stock.' If the statutes do not prohibit one corporation buying the stock of another, and such a purchase is made by a corporation and subsequently the statutes expressly allow such purchase, the pur- chase will not be held void as against public policy, and may be held to have been legalized, even though of doubtful validity at the time of purchase.* In a few extreme instances it has been held that one company may be enjoined from voting stock in a rival corporation where such ownership of stock is illegal and controls the second corporation, and such control will be inequitably used." Where the statutes of a state authorize incorporation for any Even though it be illegal for an irriga- tion company to subscribe for the stock of a land company, yet where it does so subscribe and turns in property in payment, and the stock is taken in the name of its secretary individually and not as secretary, the company may compel him to turn over the stock, even though he has pledged it for his per- sonal debt, the pledgee, however, hav- fatal to the suit. Oullen v. Coal Creek, etc. Co., 48 S. W. Rep. 693 (Tenn. 1897). 1 Monongahela, etc. Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 196 Pa. St. 25 (1900). 2 Commonwealth v. Punxsutawney, etc. Ca, 197 Pa. St. 569 (1901). 'Bigbee, etc. Co. v. Moore, 131 Ala. 379 (1899). In Louisiana it is 'held that where one corporation acquires stock in another corporation without author- ing taken with knowledge of all the ity so to do, the former may collect the facts. Bear River, etc. Co. v. Hanley, 15 Utah, 506 (1897). Where a gas com- pany buys the stock of an electric light company and gives a mortgage upon its property as security for the payment of the purchase price, and this mortgage passes into the hands o£ another person, such last-named person cannot rescind the transaction on the ground that it was ultra vires. Wood- cock V. First Nat. Bank, 113 Mich. 336 (1897). Nine years' delay on the part of a minority stockholder in complaining of the act of the directors in causing the corporation to purchase stock upon which they received a secret profit is dividends on such stock and may sell it, but cannot vote it, and hence that directors elected by such vote may be ousted by quo warranto proceedings. State V. Newman, 51 La. Ann. 833 (1899.) As to voting, see § 615, infra. * Joseph Bancroft, etc. Co. v. Bloede, 106 Fed. Rep. 396 (1901). See also § 315, supra, on this point. 6 See § 315, supra; also § 615, infra. Where a consolidation is effected by one company buying all the stock of another company, and just before the transaction is completed the company whose stock is thus sold issues a divi- dend of interest-bearing securities in 691 § 316.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. legal purpose, incorporation can be had for buying and selling shares of stock in other corporations.^ Under a statute authoriz- ing the stockholders by an amended certificate to change the ob- jects of the corporation, the certificate may be amended so as to give a corporation power to purchase stock in other corporations.* order to defraud the purchasing oom- pauy, the latter may, by a bill in equity, have such securities canceled. Bailey v. Citizens' Gas, etc. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 196 (1876). 1 A stockholder in the corporation cannot enjoin it from purchasing stock in accordance with its articles of in- corporation. WiUoughby v. Chicago, etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 656 (189S). A mi- nority stockholder cannot enjoin the company from issuing its stock in pay- ment for the stock of other similar companies on the ground that the price to be paid is excessive and that three of the directors are interested as stockholders in the other companies, vyhere he does not prove that the price is excessive, and it appears that the stockholders vyill have to approve the transaction before the directors can issue the stock, and it appears also that the plairftiffl owns but a very small amount of the stock. Geer v. Amalgamated, etc. Co., 49 AtL Eep. 159 (N. J. 1901). A corporation organized to deal in the stock of a stock-yard corporation and hold personal and real estate may buy competing stock yards; also buy the stock of a contemplated competing company; also buy, guar- anty, and sell the bonds of such compet- ing company; also pay money to settle suits against the first-named stock- yard company, and to bind stock-yard men not to erect competing yards for a specified term of years, within a cer- tain territory; and may sell any or all of the above property and right to the first-named company. Ellerman v. Chicago, etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217 (1891). It is not for a creditor of the vendor of stock to raise the question whether the vendee — a corporation — had power to purchase the stock. 692 Kern v. Day, 45 La. Ann. 71 (1893). The provision in the constitution of Geor- gia against the legislature authorizing any corporation to purchase the stock of another corporation does not apply except in oases where such purchase lessens competition; and hence does dot prevent a trust company being given the power to purchase the stock of street railway companies, and hence such purchase cannot be enjoined at the instance of the state. Trust Co. etc. V. State, 109 Ga. 736 (1900). The statute of New York prohibiting the issue of stock at less than par, and of bonds at less than their fair market value, does not prohibit the issue of stock and bonds by a gas company in payment for the stock and bonda of a competing gas company, even though a high value is placed upon the franchise of such competing com- pany as a part of the purchase price. Such a transaction is not ille- gal on the ground of creating a mo- nopoly, nor is it ultra vires, provided the charter of the first company al- lowed it to purchase stock and bonds,, as provided in the New York statutes. Eafferty v. Buffalo, etc. Co., 37 N. Y. App. Div. 618 (1899). A stockholder cannot maintain a suit against the cor- poration to enjoin other stockholders^ from selling their stock to a second corporation, such second corporation and the other stockholders not being parties to the suit. Ingraham v. Na- tional Salt Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. Eep. 646 (1902); aff'd, 72 N. Y. App. Div. 582. As to corporations organized to deal in the stock of other corporations, see 53 Atl. Eep. 1050; 54 id. 418; 78 Miss.. 831. 2 Meredith v. New Jersey, etc. Ca, 5ft N. J. Eq. 257 (1899). OH. XIX. j WHO MAY BUY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 316. Where a statute authorizes one corporation to " invest " in the stock of another corporation, this, by implication, prevents the for- mer from purchasing the stock of the latter for the purpose of con- trol, such purpose not being to " invest." ^ Keligious and charitable and other corporations, not for profit, have, it seems, implied power to invest their funds in stock of other corporations.^ There has been some controversy whether one corporation could sell all its property to another corporation, taking pay in stock of the latter, and dividing such stock among the stockholders of the selling corporation. The weight of authority holds that such a transaction is legal if all the stockholders assent, but may be pre- vented by any stockholder of the former corporation.' Where a corporation owns stock in the name of a trustee for the corporation, it is obliged to indemnify such trustee for calls paid by him.* The 1 Robotham v. Prudential Ins. Ca, 53 Atl. Rep. 842 (N. J. 1903), holding, also, that where an insurance company has power to invest in the stock of another company which has paid dividends for five years, the fact that the latter com- pany increases its stock does not extend the time for five years more. 2 Pearson v. Concord R. R., 62 N. H. 537 (1883). In this case the court said (p. 549): "Certain classes of corpora- tions, such as religious and charitable corporations, and corporations for lit- erary purposes, may rightfully invest their moneys in the stock of other cor- porations. The power, if not expressly mentioned in their charters, is neces- sarily implied, for the preservation of the funds with which such institutions are endowed, and to render their funds productive." To same effect, Hodges V. New England Screw Co., 1 R. L 812 <1850). 3 See § 671, infra. Although a corpo- ration is authorized by its charter " to take stock " in other corporations, this does not authorize it to se\\ all its prop- erty to another corporation in payment for stock of that corporation to be dis- tributed among the stockholders of the vendor corporation. Elyton Land Co. V. Dowdell, 113 Ala. 177 (1896). In M'Cutcheon v, Merz Capsule Co., 71 Fed. 693 Rep. 787 (1896), several corporations agreed to turn over their property to one corporation and to take stock and bonds in payment, the price to be there- after fixed by appraisers. After the stock was issued one of the companies withdrew, and the court held that the company withdrawing could file a bill to cancel the agreement on the ground that the company had no power to hold stock in other corporations. A Michi- gan capsule company has no right or power to sell all its property to a New Jersey capsule company — a combina- tion company — in exchange for or payment of stock of such New Jersey company. The agreement so to do can- not be enforced, even though every stockholder assented to it. Merz Cap- sule Co. V. U. S. Capsule Co., 67 Fed. Bep. 414 (1895). « Goodson's Claim, 38 W. R. 760 (1880). Where one company takes shares of stock in another company and puts such stock in the name of its treasurer and president as " trustees for the stock- holders of the A. Co.,'' and the treasurer afterwards sells the stock and converts the money to his own use, he may be compelled to account for the same. Murray v. Aiken, etc. Co., 37 S. C. 468 (1893). § 317.] WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [OH. XIX. stock owned by a corporation may be sold by its general business agent and financial manager and representative, he having appar- ent power to sell, and the governing body not objecting.' The plan of having one " parent " company own a majority of the stock of many subsidiary companies is legal where the parent company has power to own stocks such as those of the subsidiary companies.* Where one corporation owns all the stock of another corporation, the court may ignore the existence of the latter.' This whole sub- ject of the power of one corporation to huy the stock of another corporation is much the same as the question of the power of one to subscribe to the stock of another, a subject fully considered else- where.* § 317. Stockholding corporations, known as "Jiolding corpora- tions" — Mortgages hy stoclcliolding corporations. — During the past three years there has sprung into existence a new kind of corporar tion, namely, a corporation organized not to do business itself, but to purchase and hold the stock of other corporations, in order to secure harmony of control. Formerly the same result was brought about by an actual consolidation of the various corporations, or a sale of the property of one to the other. "When, however, these transactions became gigantic in their magnitude, as in the instance of the United States Steel Corporation, involving one and one-half billion dollars and a great 'number of corporations, it became clear that the old plan of a direct consolidation or sale was impracticable. 1 Walker v. Detroit Transit Ey., 47 N. Y. 341, 344, 355 (1889). A land corn- Mich. 388 (1882). See also Sistare v. Best, pany has no power to sell property to a 88 N. T. 527 (1882). That the corporate minor or branch company and take treasurer may sell the stock, see Holden stock in payment, but in order to set it V. Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 138 Mass. 48 aside all parties interested must be (1884). Where an agent of a corporation made parties to the suit. Marbury v. purchases, without authority, stock in Kentucky, etc. Co., 63 Fed. Rep. 335 another company, and sells one of the (1894). Where a parent company, own- shares to a person in order to enable ing the stock of branch companies, the latter to qualify as a dii-ector in passes into a receiver's hands, and the such company, the person receiving the latter expends money in operating one one share is protected in his title, and of the branch companies, he cannot re- the first-named corporation cannot com- cover it as against a mortgagee of the pel him to give it up, even though the branch company. The rule is otherwise agent had no power to sell, the pur- as to necessary improvements. Cou- chaser having purchased in good faith, pons paid by the receiver on bonds Hence his acts as a director are valid, issued by the branch road rank next Scarlett v. Ward, 63 N, J. £q. 197 after the bonds and other coupons are (1893). paid. Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R., 63 2 For a careful and clear statement of Fed. Rep. 771 (1894). the plan of having a parent company ^ See § 6,lsupra, and § 663, infra, own stock in subsidiary company, see * See § ,64, supra. People V, American Bell Tel Ca, 117 694 CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 317. It was impracticable because these corporations were organized in different states, and the statutes of some of these states did not au- thorize a direct consolidation or sale. It was also impracticable because in such a vast body of stockholders there were many minor- ity stockholders, who, for profit or principle, would institute injunc- tion suits against a consolidation or sale. Accordingly, the plan was devised of organizing a corporation for the purpose of owning and holding lat least a majority of the stock of the various corpo- rations, which it was desirable to unite. The most notable ex- amples of this kind of incorporation are the Northern Securities Company and the United States Steel Corporation, the former being organized to retain permanently a majority, at least, of the stock of the 'Northern Pacific Railroad Company and the Great Northern Railroad Company, and the latter being designed to ac- quire a majority at least of the stock of a large number of iron and steel and coal corporations. Certain diflBculties, however, have been met in carrying out this plan of a stockholding corporation. The reason and object of such a corporation is one thing, but its legality is another thing. The principle of law that one corporation has no inherent power to purchase the stock of another corporation ' is not applicable, inas- much as it is easy to insert in a certificate of incorporation an ex- press power to purchase, hold and dispose of the stock of other cor- porations; and under the laws of the state of New Jersey and some other states it is permissible to organize a corporation for that purpose. There are other legal difficulties, however, which are not so easily disposed of. The law will not always allow to be done in- directly that which the law prohibits directly. For instance, where it is illegal for two competing railroads to consolidate, the law will not allow one of them to purchase the stock of the other.* Nor will it allow one of them to guaranty the bonds of the other in consideration of the stock of the latter being held for the benefit of the stockholders of the former.* Hence, when the Northern Securities Company acquired a majority of the stock of the Great Northern Railroad Company and of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company in 1901, the United States government attacked it, and the court held that under the Anti-Trust Act of congress of 1890 it is illegal for a corporation to hold a majority of the stock of two competing interstate railroad corporations.* 1 See g§ 314-316, supra. 'United States v. Northern Secu- zPennRR u. Commonwealth, 7 Atl. rities Co., 120 Fed. Eep. 720 (1908). Rep. 368 (Pa. 1886). Minnesota (State of) v. Northern Se- 3 Pearsall v. Great Northern Railroad, curities Co., 184 U. S. 199 (1902), 161 U. S. 671 (1896). was a suit to enjoin the Northern 695 § 317.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [OH. XIX. The same difficnlties arise where a stockholding corporation is organized to purchase and hold the stock of competing manufactur- ing corporations. It was held by the supreme court of the United • States that the American Sugar Refining Company had not vio- lated the anti-trust act of congress of July 2, 1890, even though it had purchased the stock of four other sugar refining companies, and had thereby acquired almost the complete control of the man- ufacture of refining sugar in the United States;* but, as pointed out in another case,^ the bill in equity did not bring out the fact that the sugar so refined was transported into different states, and hence was interstate commerce. The decisions are clear that it is illegal for individuals as trustees to hold a majority of the stock of competing manufacturing corporations, where the purpose and re- sult is to prevent competition.' Equally so, it is quite likely that the court would hold it to be illegal for a corporation to hold such stock for the same purpose and with the same result. No attack was made on the United States Steel Corporation on this ground, and it is quite likely that any such attack would have failed, inas- much as that corporation did not take in or seek to take in all the competing plants, and its chief purpose seems to have been-tfl com- bine the mining and transportation branches of the business with the manufacturing branch, with a view to an increased output at a lower cost and price. It may be said, therefore, that a stockholding corporation is legal and unobjectionable, except where, by its purchases of stock, it violates a statutory or common-law prohibition against the suppres- sion of competition.* In the case of railroads this objection arises Securities Company from acquiring, supreme court of the United States by owning or voting a majority of the the state of Washington against the capital stock of the Great Northern Northern Securities Company, the Railway Company and the Northern Great Northern Railway Company and Pacific Railway Company, two com- the Northern Pacific Railway Com- peting railroad corporations of that pany, to declare illegal the holding by state. The court held that it would not the first-named company of a majority entertain the suit for the reason that of the stock of the two last-named com- the two railway companies were not panies. made parties, and no relief would be 'United States v. RCEnight Co., 156 granted by a court of equity affecting U. S. 1 (1895), absent persons materially interested, *Gibbs v. McNeeley, llSFed. Rep. 120 and no amendment would be allowed, (1903), inasmuch as it would bring them in as ' People v. North River, etc. Co., 121 parties and would destroy the jurisdio> N. Y. 583 (1890) ; State v. Standard Oil tion of the court. In the case of Wash- Ca, 49 Ohio St. 137 (1892); also various ington V. Northern Securities Co., 185 cases in ch. XXIX, infra. Cf. 54 Atl. U. S. 254 (1902), a- bill was filed in the Rep. 570. * See note 1, p. 692, supra, 696 CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 317. where a stockholding corporation owns a majority of the stock of competing railroads.^ In the case of industrial corporations this objection may arise where competition is thereby stifled and production limited and prices increased. It is to be borne in mind also that the mere fact that a corpora- tion is a separate entity, and is to be considered the same as an in- dividual who holds stock in two competing corporations, is not conclusive on that point. The courts have power to ignore the corporate existence, when such existence merely serves to conceal the truth .^ There is another principle of law to be noted. There are decis- ions to the effect that where one corporation is illegally holding stock in another corporation, it may be enjoined from voting such stock at elections. The better rule is that such an injunction will not lie, unless an actual fraud or illegal act is being perpetrated other than the mere illegality of the corporation holding the stock, but the law on this subject is not as yet fully settled, and this is one of the dangers of these stockholding corporations.' Finally, attention is called to the principle of law that the owner of the majority 6f the stock of a corporation is under certain legal obligations towards the mmority stockholders. This obligation 1 In the case of Pearsall v. Great Nortli- property, carries with it the legal right ernR.R.,161U.S.646,671(1896),thecourt to sell, and contended that the owners -said: "Doubtless these stockholders of the shares of the South Pennsylvania ■could lawfully acquire by individual Railroad Company could not legally be purchases a majority, or even the whole restrained from so doing, and that an in- ■of the stock of the reorganized com- junction against the purchaser would pany, and thus possibly obtain its ulti- have this elfect. We do not think the mate control; but the companies would principle applies to this case. We are still remain separate corporations with not called upon to express any opinion as no interests, as such, in common. This, to the right of individual shareholders to though possi ble, would not be altogether sell their several shares bona fide in the feasible, and would require consider- open market. This, so far as they are con- able time for its accomplishment. In cerned, is an intended sale in combina- a few years the two companies might, tion, for the express purpose of ena- by sales of the stock, so acquired, be- bling them to abandon the rights and come completely dissevered, and the duties conferred and imposed upon interests of the stockholders of each them by the act incorporating the com- company thus become antagonistic." pany, and of putting the control of their In the case of Pennsylvania B. R. v. Com- corporation into the hands of its rivaL .monwealth,7Atl. Rep. 368, 373(Pa. 1886), This is an act contrary to the public the court said: "During the argument policy of the state, which they have no counsel invoked the aid of the un- right to do." doubted general principle that the own- ^ geg § 663, infra. «rship of shares of stock, as of other ' On this subject see 615, infra. 697 § 317.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. may not go to the extent of a trusteeship, except under unusual circumstances.^ A court of equity, however, will scrutinize carefully any acts of the corporation which are for the benefit of the majority stockhold- ers to the detriment of the minority stockholders, and will enjoin or set aside such acts at the instance of minority stockholders where actual fraud is involved.^ An able New Jersey court has recently held that a scheme whereby an insurance company purchased^ a majority of the stock of, a trust company, and the trust company purchased a majority of the stock of an insurance company, was illegal, and would be set aside at the instance of a dissenting stockholder, inasmuch as it resulted in self-perpetuating boards of directors, without the re- sponsibility which would exist if those directors represented their own stock; and the court pointed out that the "Voting Trust Cases " in New Jersey had established the principle of law that agreements which sever the ownership of stock from the voting power are, in man}'^ instances, a violation of another principle of law, that "every stockholder is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of every other stockholder in the management of the affairs of the corporation."' Mortgages are often given by a stockholding company, the certifi,- cates of stock being deposited with the trustee of the mortgage, inor- 1 For instance, see Farmers' L. & T. pany No. 3 all but $1,400,000. and trans- Co. V. New York, etc. Ry., 150 N. Y. 410, fer that to a new company. This pro- 434 (1896). cess may go on until the power of the 2 For instances, see g 663, infra. A whole chain of corporations is vested in temporary receiver will not be appointed the holder of a few thousand dollars of of a corporation, whose only assets con- stock in the ultimate company, and the sist of stock in various gas companies, same chain can be used for an unlimited which stocks have been mortgaged by number of companies." In reply to this- the former company, where all charges the court said that such a situation, if of fraud and mismanagement are de- it should arise, might lead to the fol- nied. Brady w Bay State, etc. Co., 106 lowingquestions: ''First. Whether the Fed. Rep. 584 (1901). holders of the $4,900,000 of stock could ^Robotham v. Prudential Ins. Ca, 53 not disfranchise the new irresponsible Atl. Rep. 842 (N. J. 1903). The counsel adventurers who assumed to wield the in this case claimed that the following votingpowerof the $5,100,000 of stock, — situation was legal: " One man con- disfranchise this stock until the bene- trols a company of $10,000,000 capital flcial owners of it should take control He may form a new company with a of their own property and use its voting capital of $5,100,000, to hold a majority power. Second. Whether the actual, of the stock. He may then sell all but beneficial owners of the $5,100,000 of $2,600,000 of the stock in company No. stock could not break through the 2, and transfer his remaining stock chain of corporate fictions which sep- to a new company with a capital of arated them from their property, and $2,600,000. He may then sell to com- dictate how its voting power should be CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 317. der that the stock itself may be covered by the mortgage. This would seem to be more of a pledge than a mortgage ; ' and of course the dif- ference is important, where the certificates of stock are not actually trans ferred and delivered to the trustee of the mortgage. "Where a railroadcompany owns shares of stock in an elevator company, such stock is not subject to the general mortgage executed by the rail- road company, the stock never having been delivered to the trus- tee, and not being specifically mentioned in the mortgage itself.^ But bonds and stocks held by as railroad company at the time exercised. Third. Whether it would tioned in such specifications. Smith v. not be the duty oi' the attorney-general of the state to take proceedings to dis- solve the holding companies, as an abuse of corporate franchises, — as a fraud upon the extremely liberal pro- visions of our corporate act, which, however, permit the incorporation of companies only for a ' lawful purpose.' " As to " voting trusts " see § 623, infra. 1 See § 464, infra. Where stock is " mortgaged " and delivered to the trus- tee of the mortgage, this is a mortgage and not a pledga Toler v. East Ten- nessee, eta Ey., 67 Fed. Rep. 168, 178 (1894). Inasmuch as a mortgage on shares of stock is not a recordable in- strument the record thereof does not operate as constructive notica Shus- ter ti. Jones, 58 S. W. Rep. 595 (Ky. 1900). 2 Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304 (1891). In Park v. New Tork, eta R. R., 64 Fed. Rep. 190 (1894), the court declined to decide whether a general mortgage on all property, real, personal, and mixed, attached to stocks owned and held by a mortgagor, as against a subsequent mortgage, expressly cov- ering the stocks. The court merely ordered the receivers to pay the cou- pons on the latter mortgage bonds. See § 464, infra. A general mortgage does not prevent the corporation from receiving and disposing of municipal bonds given in aid of the railroad. A mortgage on all property now owned or hereafter to be acquired, followed by a specification of the various kinds of property, does not cover municipal- aid bonds when they were not men- MoCuUough, 104 U. S. 35 (1881). It does not cover municipal bonds given in payment of subscriptions. Morgan County V. Thomas, 76 111. 130 (1875). A chattel mortgage does not include shares of stock, although broad enough in its terms to do so, where both parties testify that it was not the intent to in- clude the stock, and the mortgagee al- lowed the mortgagor's assignee to take away the stock. Tounkin v. Collier, 47 Fed. Rep. 571 (1891). Somewhat similar to this is the principle of law that a mortgage on the railroad and property pertaining to it, and on the property, etc. of the railroad, does not cover unpaid subscriptions. Dean v. Biggs, 35 Hun, 123 (1881). The uncalled subscriptions to stock are not covered by debentures unless specifically men- tioned. Be Russian Spratts, Lira., [1898] 3 Ch. 149. A mortgage on all the land, property and effects of the cor- poration dofes not include uncalled sub- scriptions. Pickering v. llfracombe Ry., 37 L. J. (C. P.) 118 (1868); Lishman's Claim, 23 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 759 (1870); King V. Marshall, 38 Beav. 565 (1864). Cf. lie Marine Mansions Co., L. R 4 Eq, 601 (1867); Re British, eta Soa, 4 De G., J. & S. 407 (1864); Gardner v. London, eta Ry., L. R 3 Ch. 201, 315 (1867). As to whether subscriptions may be mortgaged, see § 111, supra. A mortgage drawn in the usual terms does not cover a subscription for stock. General Eleo. Co. v. Wightman, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 118 (1896). A debenture may be made a lien on uncalled subscrip- 699 § 317.] WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK, [cH. XIX. when foreclosure is commenced and a receiver is put in possession are subject to the mortgage.' Where a mortgage covers bonds to be thereafter delivered, and instead of such delivery the mortgagor deposits the bonds as security with the United States Government and then makes another mortgage covering such bonds, the first mortgage is entitled to the bonds upon their being released by the United States Government, even though such bonds are delivered under the second mortgage, unless the bonds or the notes secured by them under the second mortgage have passed into Jowa^^ hands.* Generally, however, the particular stocks and bonds which are covered by the mortgage are delivered to the trustee of the mort- gage.' A mortgage on shares of stock does not prevent the corporation controlled by such stock from issuing a mortgage on its property, and it is no breach of trust for the trustee of the first mortgage to be thQ trustee of the second mortgage, where the first mortgage does not prohibit such second mo'rtgage, the stock, by the terms of the mortgage, remaining in the name of the mortgagor.* In this class of mortgages by stockholding companies, complica- tion sometimes arise as to the rights, duties and obligations of the trustee of the mortgage. Thus where stock is deposited with one trust company as additional security for a mortgage given to an- other trust company, and upon default the former company refuses to deliver the stock, and the latter trust company then commences a suit in equity to compel the former trust company to deliver the stock, and during that suit the stock declines in value, a bondholder secured by such mortgage cannot hold liable the trust company holding the stock on account of the decline in value, inasmuch as the suit in equity determined all questions, including the amount of damage.* tions. Newton v. Debenture-Holders, porting to cover municipal bonds not [1895] A. C. 244 The word "assets "in yet delivered by a municipality does a mortgage may be construed to cover not sustain a suit by the trustee against uncalled subscriptions. Page v. Inter- such municipality to obtain such bonds, national, etc. Trust, 68 L. T. Eep. 435 upon foreclosure of the mortgage. (1898). A transfer of the " business and Farmers' L. & T. Cq. v. Board of Sup'rs, property " of a corporation does not etc., 93 Fed. Rep. 579 (1899). carry unpaid subscriptions. Bank of 3 See S 776, infra; also § 464. China v. Morse, 44 N. Y. App. Div. 435, < Gasquet v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 445(1899); aflE'd, 168 N. Y. 458. Eep. 343 (1896); Central Trust Co. v. 1 Herring v. New York, etc. R. R. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414, 423 (1891). 105 N. Y. 340 (1887). See also Whitney 5 Bracken v. Atlantic T. Co., 167 N. Y. V. New York, etc. R. R, 32 Hun, 164 510 (1901). Where a corporation guar- (1884). antees certain bonds, and a person 2 Ceatral T. Co. v. West India, etc. Co., holding stock of the company indorses 169 N. Y. 314 (1901). A mortgage pur- on the guaranty that he holds the 700 CH. XIX.j ■WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 317. On the other hand, although a trust company is a pledgee of bonds- for the benefit of many notes of the pledgor in the hands of many holders, and the trust company, after notice by mail to the holders of the notes, is authorized by the court to sell the bonds at ten cents- on the dollar, yet a holder of the notes may thereafter question the good faith of the trust company in making such sale.^ Bondholders cannot sustain a bill in equity to remove a trustee who holds the stock of various gas companies as collateral security for the payment of their bonds, even though such trustee has voted such stock in favor of directors who have made improvident con- tracts in which such directors were personally interested, it appear- ing that by the terms of the trust agreement the trustee was to vote such stock as the pledgors directed, until default on the bonds,. stock to secure the performance of the guaranty, he cannot afterwards claim that he has a prior lieu as pledgee of the stock. Mercantile Ti-ust Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co., 86 Hun. 313 (1895). Where the pledge is deposited with a third party, the pledgor and pledgee may modify their agreement as to the pledge. The depositary of the pledge cannot act upon a provision in the orig- inal agreement I'elative to an inde- pendent and outside transaction, and in an action by the pledgee to realize on the stock cannot set up that by rea- son of the modified agreement between the pledgor and pledgee the depositary in its outside transaction has suffered damage. Mercantile Trust Co. v. At- lantic Trust Co., 69 Hun, 264 (1893). For subsequent phases of this litigation, see Bracken ■;;. Atlantic Trust Co., 167 N. Y. 510 (1901). 1 Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage, 73 Minn. 441 (1898). Where a corporation owns all of its bonds, excepting a few held by one holder, such bonds being secured by a pledge of securities, and requests the trustee holding the securi- ties to sell the same, which the trustee does at an insuflBcient price, the corpo- ration itself being the buyer, and the single outside holder of bonds not being notified in time to protect his interests, he may either follow his securities or may hold the trustee liable. And even though he accepted a small sum in set- tlement fx'om the trustee, yet if that settlement was caused by misrepre- sentations as to the value of the securi- ties, he is not bound by them. Other holders of the bonds who have turned, them into the corporation on an agree- ment to take an exchange of new bonds secured by the same securities- will also be allowed to participate the same as a bondholder who did not turn in his bonds. Anthony v. Campbell, 112 Fed. Eep. 212(1901). Where trustees hold stock as security for various debts of various parties, the stock to be sold if the debts are not paid, it is illegal for one of the trustees to resign and for th& remaining trustees to sell the stock in a way calculated not to bring its full value, and for the resigning trustee to- purchase the same at a very low price for the benefit of himself and the other trustees. The sale will be set aside. Jenkins v. Hammersohlag, 38 N. Y. App.. Div. 209 (1899). Where a prospectus, offering for sale trustees' transferable certificates, states that such certificates represent stock deposited with the- trustee, the stock being in an English corporation, the trustee is personally liable if it turns out that the English corporation had a prior lien on the stock to the full extent of its value. The trustee was bound to take notice of th& lien created by the by-laws of the- 701 § 318. J WHO MAY BUY AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. and it not being shown that the trustee knew that such default had been made.' Where a pledge of stock is deposited with a third party, ac- cording to the contract of pledge, such third party need not be joined in a suit by the pledgor against the pledgee to redeem.'^ A pledgee has power to have the stock transferred on the cor- porate books, and if it has agreed to hold certain stock as security for a third person's note and fails to obtain a proper transfer, it is liable in some cases.' § 318. Infants as purchasers of stock. — An infant is incompetent to purchase shares of stock. Most cases of this class arise upon a winding up of the corporation, when the infant is placed upon the list of contributories, and, in defense, infancy is set up.* An in- fant's purchase or sale of stock is voidable and not void.* Thjs seems to be the rule finally arrived at by the English courts, after some hesitation and difference of opinion. The transfer is similar to a deed, and passes an interest to the infant even when coupled with a liability, if it be for his benefit to accept it.* Conse(]nently an infant, upon coming of age, is bound to elect whether he will affirm or disaffirm a purchase of stock made by him while yet an infant.' He may disaffirm while still an infant, and is then not English corporation. The rule of caveat emptor has been relaxed so as to create an implied warranty of title on the part of the seller. Even though the trustee acted as agent, yet, the principal not being disclosed, the trustee is liable. McClure v. Central Trust Co., 165 N. Y. 108 (1900). See also § 763, infra. I Moreover, such removal will be de- nied when the trust agreement itself provides for the I'emoval of the trustee by vote in writing of one-third in inter- est of the bondholders at a meeting called for that purpose, and no reason is shown for disregarding this mode of changing the trustee. Dillaway v. Bos- ton, etc. Co., 174 Mass. 80 (1899). A tem- porary receiver will not be appointed of a corporation, whose only assets consist of stock in various gas compa- nies, which stocks have been mortgaged by the former company, where all charges of fraud and mismanagement are denied. Brady v. Bay State, etc. Co., 106 Fed. Rep, 584 (1901). 2Baeok v. Meinken, 33 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 371 (1900). The trustee of a mort- gage who holds security under the mortgage is a proper party to a suit in equity to wind up the insolvent mort- gagor, and if such trustee is ordered by the court to turn over the securities to a receiver the trustee is entitled to in- tervene and have its rights determined. Miles V. New, etc. Assoc, 99 Fed. Rep. 4 (1900). See 54 Atl. Rep. 783. 3 First Nat. Bank v. Park, 91 N. W. Rep. 826 (Iowa. 1902). Cf. 39 N. Y. Misc. 673. See also Cornell's Appeal, 114 Pa. St. 153 (1886), and §S 66, 250, 308, supra, and § 538, infra. The wife's stock, standing in her name at the time of and after marriage, is not subject to her husband's debts. Cockrane v. Cham- bers, AmbL 79, n. (1825). In Connecti- cut it is held that the wife is not liable in assumpsit to her husband's credit- ors, to whom she has pledged her stock, although she subsequently pledges it to another. An express promise to pay on her part is necessary. Piatt v. Hawkins, 43 Conn. 139 (1879). A mar- ried woman may give away or pledge her stock. Walker v. Joseph, etc. Ca, 47 N. J. Eq. 342 (1890). A wife who al- lows stock bought with her money to stand for several years in her husband's name, in order to give him credit, is CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BOY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 320. even though it allows a registry on his ordinary signature and transfer.* An assignee in bankruptcy or for the benefit of credit- ors takes only the interest and equitable rights of his assignor. A estopped from asserting her ownership as against his creditors. Hamlen r. Bennett, 53 N. J. Eq. 70 (1893). At com- mon law a married woman, even though she owns a majority of the stock of a corporation, cannot bind herself to pay its debts, and even un- der the New Jersey statute she does not obtain anything for the use of her separable estate sufficient to sustain such promise. Allen v. Beebe, 63 N. J. L. 377 (1899). Where a husband who is about to use his wife's bonds with- out her consent executes in the pres- ence of a witness an assignment to her of certain stocks of his own, the cer- tificates of the same being attached thereto, to secure her from loss, by rea- son of his use of her securities, and this paper is found on his deatli in his tin box with the stocks, it amounts to a declara- tion of trust and is legal, even though thereafter he amended it by substitut- ing other securities. Collins v. Steuart, 58 N. J. Eq. 393 (1899). Curtis v. Steever, 36 N. J. L. 304 (1873), clearly and properly holds that the wife's stock, held by her as her separate es- tate, is not subject to her husband's debts. A certificate issued to the hus- band as trustee of the wife constitutes her separate estate, where he pays the dividends to her. In Kentucky a resi- dent married woman's power of attor- ney to convey stock is void. Bank of Louisville v. Gray, 84 Ky. 565 (1886). Where a husband uses his wife's money to purchase stock and takes title in his own name, but considers himself trus- tee for her, a creditor of the husband, who at the time of incurring the debt knew that the latter held the stock of his wife, cannot subject it to the pay- ment of the debt. Porter v. Bank of Rutland, 19 Vt. 410 (1847). Although a corporation errs in allowing a wife to transfer her stock to her husband, yet the statute of limitations runs against her right of action from the time of the transfer. Chase v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 44 La. Ann. 69 (1891). In Ken- tucky, by statute, a wife's bank stock goes to her heirs, and not to her hus- band, upon her decease. Kent v. De- posit Bank, 91 Ky. 70 (1890), A person taking stock from a person in whose name it stands cannot hold the same as against the latter's wife, whei-e the stock belonged to her separate estate and was so known to be by the per- son taking it. Stickney v. Adler, 91 Ala. 198 (1890). At common law the husband may appropriate stock stand- ing in the name of his wife and maj' sign her name on the back of the certificate and pledge the same for his debts. Birmingham, etc. Co. v. Hume, 131 Ala. 168 (1899). It appears in this case that the wife actually signed her own name on the back of the certificates and delivered the same to her husband to pledge for his debts. A married woman cannot claim stock as against a bona fide pledgee from her husband where the stock stood in his name, even though she paid for the stock and supposed it had been issued in her name. Anderson v. Waco State Bank, 93 Tex. 506 (1899). A bona fide pledgee of stock held by a. married woman and transferred in blank by her is protected even though she made the transfer under duress and coercion on the part of her hus- band, especially where the statutes authorize a woman to transfer her stock without the husband joining in such transfer. Bryan v. Montandon, 55 Pac. Rep. 650 (Idaho, 1898). •Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 14 Md. 299 (1859). A sale of stock is not easily set aside on the ground of mental inca- (45) 705 § 320.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. previous unrecorded transfer of the insolvent's stock is protected.' A partner may accept stock as collateral security for a loan from the firm,^ and may sell and transfer partnership stock.^ A tenant for life, unless restrained by conditions, may sell his interest in stock." The question of the rights of a life tenant as to the certificate of stock itself is considered elsewhere.^ pacity on the part of the vendor. Perry V. Pearson, 135 111. 318 (1890). The ques- tion of whether the vendor of stock vras of sound mind is largely a questioi;i for a jury. Doheny v. Lacy, 168 N. Y. 213 (1901). Fraudulent representations made to a person of feeble mind were held sufficient for a cancellation in De Frees v. Carr, 8 Utah, 488 (1893). 1 Dickinson v. Central Nat. Bank, 129 Mass. 279(1880); Purchase u New York Exch. Bank, 3 Rob, (N. Y.) 164 (1865). Contra, Shipman v. JEAxia, Ins. Co., 29 Conn, 245 (1860), where the previous transferee delayed unreasonably in claiming ownership of the stock. 2 Weikersheim's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 831 (1873). 3 Quiner v. Marblehead Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476 (1813). Cf. Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 25 Mass. 90 (1829). Compare also Comstook v. Buchanan, 57 Barb. 137 (1864), where the stock stood in both partners' names. Stock may belong to a partnership, although standing in the individual names of the partners in order to make them stockholders. Fairfield v. Phillips, 83 Iowa, 571 (1891). Where one of several associates engaged in the common en- terprise of building railroads, in many of which he owned stocks, bonds, etc., dies, and his executor, with the assist- ance of experts, etc., makes a settle- ment with the other associates, such settlement is binding although such other associates did hot impart all the knowledge or information they might have given. The subsequent rise in value of some of the securities is im- material. Colton V. Stanford, 83 Cal. 851 (1890). Where stock is issued to two persons in their individual names, one of them cannot sell and transfer it, even though it was acquired in the partnership law business. The law is different as to a partner in a trading copartnership. Moynahan v. Prentiss, 10 Colo. App. 295 (1897). Where a firm contracts to sell stock, and then one of the members of the firm dies, a tender of certificates standing in the names of the individual members of the firm, and not signed in blank, is not a sufS- cient tender. NichoUs v. Reid, 109 Cal. 630 (1895). Where a person holds land for himself and a partner, and trans- fers the same to a corpoi'ation for stock, and conceals all the facts from his partner, the latter may recover the value of his share of the stock, and the measure of the vjilue is the highest value between the day of receiving the stock and the day when the plaintiff received notice thereof. Morris v. Wood, 35 S. W. Rep. 1013 (Tenn. 1896). Even though a partnership allows stock owned by it to stand on the books of the company in the name of one of the partners, yet an attachment against him and levied on such stock does not give the attaching creditor priority over the rights of the partnership. New York, etc. Co. v. Francis, 96 Fed. Rep. 266 (1899). A bill in equity filed by a partner to hold his copartners and third persons liable for a misappropria- tion of stock owned by the firm cannot be sustained where it is not alleged that the third persons knew of such misappropriation at the time of such misappropriation. Wall v. Old Colony, etc. Trust Co., 174 Mass. 340 (1899). *See§560, infra. I* See § 560, infra. In a suit by a re- mainderman to recover from a corpo- 706 en, xix.j WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. 320. A director of the corporation itself may buy and sell its stock like any other individual. The information which he has of the affairs of the corporation, whereby he is enabled to buy or sell at an advantage over the person with whom he deals, does not affect the validity of the transaction. He is entitled to the benefit of his facilities for inf9rmation. There is no confidential relation be- tween him and a stockholder, so far as a sale of the stock between them is concerned ; and, so long as he remains silent and does not actively mislead the person with whom he deals, the transaction •cannot be set aside for fraud.' ration the value of stock which the •corporation had transferred to the hfe tenant absolutely and which had been lost, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the death of the life tenant, even though the trust was cre- ated in 1854 and the life tenant died in 1898. Wooten v. Wilmington, etc. R. R, 128 N. C. 119 (1901). 1 Tippecanoe County v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509 (1873); Carpenter v. Danforth, 52 Barb. 581 (1868). This case was dis- approved by the commentator to Story's Eq. Jur. (13th ed.) 2296, note, but the disapprovel is omitted in the 13th ed. See also Grant v. Attrill, 11 Fed. Rep. 469 (1882), where the sale was in- duced by threat of assessments. See also Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65, 83 (1878); S. c, 13 Fed. Cas. 758, 765; aff'd, 103 U. S. 800 (1880); Deaderick v. Wil- son, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108 (1874); Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 559 (1870); Alex- ander u, Rollins, 14 Mo. App. 109 (1883); aff'd, 84 Mo. 657; § 850, infra. In New York, by statute, a director is prohib- ited from selling stock " short." Laws 1893, ch. 692. Where the president of a, company advises a stockholder to sell his stock at a certain price to a certain person, and the sale is made, the presi- dent is liable for the difference between that price and the market price, where the person purchased as the secret agent of the president. Fisher v. Bud- long, 10 R I. 525 (1873). A director may buy stock from a stockholder at less than its real value, and there is no fraudin the fact that the director knew the real value while the stockholder did not. Crowell v. Jackson, 53 N. J. L. 656 (1891); Haarstiok v. Fox, 9 Utah, 110 (1893). Where the president sells stock for $120 per share after he has in- dorsed a false statement of the com- pany's affairs, the stock being really worth but $70 per share, the vendee may have the sale rescinded. Prewitt V. Trimble, 92 Ky. 176 (1891). It would be " inequitable to permit the directors of a corporation to so manage its busi- ness, or to so deal with its property, as to lessen the value of its stock for the purpose of pui-chasing such stock for themselves at a low figure." But this relation does not exist between one director and another director. Perry V. Pearson, 135 111. 218 (1890). The ven- dor of stock to the secretary of the com- pany cannot rescind on the ground of fraud, the secretary having, at the time of the sale, given all the information which he had concerning the company. No confidential or fiduciary relation exists between such parties. Krumb- haar v. Griffiths, 151 Pa. St. 223 (1893). See also § 350, infra. Trustees under a reorganization who are to hold a ma- jority of tha stock and vote the same for five years, unless they decide to dis- tribute the same before that time, are not precluded from selling stock owned by themselves individually, and the fact that they sell their own stock is no ground for compelling a distribu- tion of the remaining stock. Haines v. 707 § 320.] WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. It is illegal for the directors to issue to themselves, in exclusion of others, such part of the original or increased capital stock as has not been already issued, the issue being for the purpose of con- trolling an election and making a profit.^ Where the various stock- holders of a corporation join in a contract for the sale of their stock, but secretly one of them receives a bonus from the purchaser, the others may compel him to account therefor proportionately.^ A joint owner of stock cannot transfer the interest of the other joint owner where the stock is registered in the name of both.* On the death of one, the survivor takes title to the whole stock.* Where stock is purchased by a person in his own name, but for him- self and another, the latter is a part owner and has rights and liabil- ities as such.' A partnership or joint ownership of stocks between Kinderhook, etc. Ey., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 154(1898). The president of a cor- poration may, of course, sell stock owned by himself, even though the cor- poration has been newly formed and the stock is of doubtful value. Matter of Eowell, 45 N. Y. App Div. 833 (1899). If a director misrepresents the finan- cial condition of the company and thus induces a stockholder to sell his stock to him, he is liable to the vendor for the difference between the actual value of the stock and the price paid. Hume v. Steele, 59 S. W. Rep. 813 (Tex. 1900). In a sale of stock by a director a misstate- ment made by him in good faith, as to the property owned by the corporation, does not render him liable in an action for deceit. Boddy v. Henry, 113 Iowa, 462 (1901). A director may buy all the stock of all the stockholders and sell the same to a new corporation at a profit. Walsh v. Goulden, 90 N. W. Rep. 406 (Mich. 1903). 1 See § 70, supra. ^Synotfcu. Curamings, 130 Fed. Rep. 84 (1903); 93 N. W. Rep. 723. ' Standing v. Browning, L. R. 37 Ch. D. 341 (1884); Comstock w Buchanan, 57 Barb. 127 (1864). Where stock is de- vised to husband and wife jointly, the assignee of the husband's interest is entitled only to his share of the divi- dends during life, and if the wife sur- vives the husband the stock goes to her. Phelps V. Simons, 159 Mass. 415 (1893). But if the other joint owner dies first, the previous transfer of the survivor is effective and conveys the whole. Slay- maker V. Bank of Gettysburg, 10 Pa. St. 373 (1849). Where two persons own stock in common, replevin will not lie by one as against the other for his part of the stock unless there was a con- version. Barrowcliffe v. Cummins, 66 Hun, 1 (1893). 4 Garriok v. Taylor, 39 Beav. 79 (1860); Hill's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. 585 (1874). 5 Stover V. Flack, 41 Barb. 163 (1863); Loetscher v. Dillon, 93 N. W. Rep 98 (Iowa, 1903). An agreement between two parties by which, on their joint order or the order of a particular one of them, a certain stock might be bought or sold at any time in amount, not to exceed a specified amount at any one time, each of them to advance certain specified pro- portions of the necessarj' money, the profits to be divided equally, and one of the parties guaranteeing to the other that the profits should amount to a cer- tain sum, is in the nature of a partner- ship and not of a loan, and hence the- statute against usury does not apply to- it, Orvis V. Curtiss, 157 N. Y. 657 (1899). Where several parties buy and sell a. certain stock in the name of one of themselves and close the deal, a sub- sequent purchase of the same stock by that one does not inure to their com- 708 CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 320. two persons may be shown by the acts and contracts of the parties, and by the fact that the property clearly owned by them in common mon benefit. Kennedy v. Porter, 109 N. Y. 526 (1888). Although tliree stock- holders do, by an instrument similar to a, bill of sale, sell their stock to a fourth stockholder " for and during the period of six months, ... in trust for the use and benefit of the grantors," with power to sell the same on certain terms, yet this instrument is not a sale or trust agreement, but is merely a power of attorney. It does not prevent the fourth stockholder from selling his own stock on such terms as he chooses, even though he does not sell the stock of the others, it not appearing that the sale of his stock prevented his selling the stock of the others. The instrument conferred merely at most " only a dry legal title for the mere purpose of sale, and with the power of sale carefully circum- scribed." Levi V. Evans, 57 Fed. Eep. 677 (1893). A syndicate operation was involved in Hogg v. Hoag, 107 Fed. Rep. 807 (1901), where certain stocks and property were transferred to a trustee who issued certificates therefor to the members of the syndicate. A part of the subscribers did not pay and the vendor of the property took the trus- tee's certificates of such non-paying subscribers, and on the death of the trustee a bill was filed to have the court substitute a new trustee, and one of the subscribers filed a cross-bill for an ac- counting. The court decreed a winding up of the syndicate and appointed a re- ceiver. The court held that a partial payment made to the vendor of the stocks was legal, even though all the property was not conveyed to the trus- tee, as contemplated, and that the ven- dor's acceptance of the certificates of non-paying subscribers obligated him to pay therefor, although such trustee's certificates had become worthless, the transaction being in connection with the Oregon Pacific Railroad Company. The court said that the syndicate was 709 is substance, though not technically, a joint-stock company. Where a person holds stock under an agreement with another that after the profits have re- paid the cost of the stock, the further profits should be divided equally be- tween them, such agreement is binding upon a person who buys such stock with notice of the agreement. Morris V. Shepard, 53 Atl. Rep. 173 (N. J. 1903). Where several parties agree to purchase land in the name of a corporation in exchange for stock to be taken in the name of one of them, the others may compel the latter to account for the stock. King v. Barnes, 109 N. Y. 267 (1888). See also § 2.53, supra. Where several parties buy a certificate of stock in fixed proportions, and the certificate is taken by one for the benefit of all, he is a bailee for the others and not a ven- dor. Coquard v. Wernse, 100 Mo. 137 (1890). In a joint operation in stocks no bill for an accounting will lie where by mutual consent the joint operation was ended, and one sold his stock, while the other held his. Keller v. Swartz, 137 Pa. St. 65 (1890). Four years' delay on the part of the president to claim that he was entitled to a half interest in certain stock which a creditor of the corporation had purchased will not sustain his claim which was based upon a general talk to that effect. Mason V. Smith, 200 Pa. St. 270 (1901). An agent, employed to conduct a joint adventure, who has been sued by his principals for the profits, cannot file a bill in equity for an accounting and distribution of the funds on the ground that he was entitled to an interest in such profits. Conger v. Judson, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 131 (1903). A bill in equity for an ac- counting does not lie at the instance of a party who claims that in consider- ation of newspaper work the defendants agreed to carry five hundred shares of stock for him in connection with a pool § 321.J WHO MAY BOX AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. was used in the acquisition of other property.' The statute of frauds does not apply to such an arrangement.^ Adrunlcen person's sale of stock may be set aside if an undue advantage was taken.* Laches may be a bar to a suit brought by the claimant of stock against the corporation for allowing transfers of the same in fraud of his rights.'' § 321. Sales, purchases, and transfers iy agents. — A claim that a person purchased stock as trustee or agent to pay for and carry the same for the benefit of another person is a claim which can be proved by oral testimony, but must be clearly proved, and must be founded on a suflQcient consideration. "Loose, vague, and indefinite expressions are insufficient to create such a trust. The intention must be evinced with clearness and certainty."^ Stock may be purchased through an agent, and in making such a purchase the agent is not permitted to make a secret profit, even though he acts without compensation.* Where an agent conceals from his prin- whioh had been formed. Black v. Van- derbilt, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 16 (1903). Where it is agreed between two brothers that one shall buystock in a corporation on their joint account, r.nd this is done, and the one purchasing charges his brother with the cost of his portion of the stock, and this account is accepted, a suit in equity lies to obtain the stock .upon payment therefor, the corporation being a close corporation. Rand v. Whipple, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 63 (1903). Where a person has a one-third interest in certain stock issued to another per- son, and the company is reorganized, and is then reorganized a second time, the former person may compel the latter person to account for the stock finally received, on the basis of a part- nership in the stock. Reilly v. Free- man, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 560 (1896). Where one party loans money to another party to buy stock in a certain com- pany, such stock to be delivered to the former party in pledge, and the latter party uses the stock for another pur- pose, the loan of the money is not a mere loan, but the money is impressed with a trust, and this trust follows the stock as against non-bona fide holders. Barnard v. Hawks, HI N. C. 3S3 (1893). See also g§ 331, 633; 93 N. W. Eep. 1 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 363 (1891). See also § 831, infra. 2^ee § 339, infra. ' A sale of stock by a drunken per- son for an insufficient consideration will be set aside; and if, without his fault, he is unable to restore the amount received, it will be provided for in the final decree. Thaokrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499 (1886). * Ware v. Galveston City Co., 146 U. S. 102 (1892). 5 Levi V. Evans, 57 Fed. Rep. 677 (1893). An absolute transfer of stock may be shown to have been in trust only, the stock to be returned, upon the termi- nation of a lease. Town of Mt. Morris V. Thomas, 158 N. Y. 450 (1899). See also § 465, infra, and § 330, supra. •> Kimber v. Barber, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 56 (1878), holding that, where a person offers to buy for another, stock at a certain price, but buys it at a less price and keeps the difference, he is liable to the vendee for his gains. Keyes v. Bradley, 73 Iowa, 589 (1887). Where an agent is entitled to all that land is sold for above $50,000, and a sale is made for $10,000 cash and $44,000 in stock, par value, he must prove what the stock was worth. He cannot assume that it was worth par. Anderson v. Avis, 03 710 CH. XIX.] WHO MAY BOY AND SBLL STOCK, [§ 321. cipal the amount of stock received by the agent for property, and keeps a part of the stock, the principal may hold hira liable for the highest market value of the stock reached between the act and a reasonable time after discovery of the act by the principal.' The real owner of stock may compel the nominal owner to transfer the stock to hira.^ The corporation may disregard the nominal holder and allow the real owner to sell and transfer the stook.^ An agent cannot keep stock on the ground that his principal had no power to purchase it.* "Where an owner of stock turns it over to his agent to look after the stock, the stock itself being put in the name of the agent as absolute owner, and the stock is subsequently attached for a debt of such agent, and sold, thereunder, the real owner of the stock may hold the agent liable for the value of the stoclc. Long delay is not a bar so long as the agent does not deny the agency.* Fed. Rep. 227 (1894). An agent may of coarse be held liable for misrepresent- ing the price which he received on the sale of stock and for retaining the dif- ference. Horner v. Perry, 113 Fed. Rep. 906 (1901). The cashier of a bank cannot collect money for his services while collecting the dividends and coupons of a depositor and stockholder in a bank, where there was no agree- ment to pay. Wright v. Sheldon, 53 A tl. Rep. 59 (R. 1. 1 902) ; 93 N. W. Rep. 732. iMcEinley v. Williams, 74 Fed. Rep. 94 (1896'. A settlement between a principal and his agent is no bar to a subsequent suit by the principal against the agent for conversion of stock where the principal was not aware of the facts when he made the settlement. Ballard v. Beveridge, 171 N. Y. 194 (1902). Where an agent or broker is employed to buy stock for a "pool," and agrees to do so for a compensation consisting of a part of the profits, he is liable in damages for fraud if he charges the "pool" more than the stock cost him. Manville v, Lawton, 19 N. Y. Supp. 587 (1893). '^ Colquhoun v. Courtenay, 48 L. J. (Ch.) 338 (1874). Where a person sub- scribes for stock iathe name of another as trustee, he may maintain an action to compel the trustee to account for the subscription and to turn it over upon 711 payment being made. McCombu. Frink, 149 U. S. 629 (1893). s Sabin v. Bank of Woodstock, 21 Vt. 353(1849), holding also that the nominal holder is not protected, although he subsequently becomes the real owner of the stock. * Where a street railway company employs a person as its agent to pur- chase a majority of the stock of another street railway company, and he does so, and the former pays him for the stock and for his services, he cannot refuse to deli ver the stock on the ground that the company had no power to pur- chase, or on the ground that it had passed no resolutions authorizing him to purchase, and the former may re- cover the stock from a transferee with notice from the agent. Manchester St. Ry. V. Williams, 52 Atl. Rep. 461 (N. H. 1903). SHovey v. Bradbury, 112 Cal. 620 (1896). Where one of the partners in a firm organized to locate, develop and operate mines does not turn into the firm a mine located by him, but trans- fers the same to a corporation for stock, and the other partners delay for two years after knowledge thereof, before filing a bill claiming an interest in the stock, and in the meantime the corpo- ration has expended money and the stock may have passed into other hands. § 321.J WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. Where a person turns over stock and bonds to another in order that the latter may act for the former in carrying out a reorganiza- tion, the former may file a bill against the latter for an account, and need not resort to an action at law.^ The relation of an agent towards his principal in the purchase, sale, or holding of stock ex- ists where a " dummy " is used to shield the real owner from liabil- ity on the stock.^ A stockholder may of course sell stock through an agent.' But power to sell does not give power to pledge.* the court will refuse relief on the ground that the firm evidently intended to deny any obligation if the mine turned out to be worthless, but to claim an in- terest if it turned out to be valuable. Curtis V. Lakin, 94 Fed. Eep. 251 (1899). 1 Benedict v. Moore, 76 Fed. Eep. 473 (1896). Where an agent with whom stock is deposited transferred in blank causes the same to be transferred to himself on the books of the company, and then hypothecates the same, and afterwards dies, the real owner of the stock may claim other stock in the same corporation "which such agent had at the time of his death. The identity of the certificates is immaterial. Mar- shall V. Marshall, 11 Colo. App. 505 (1898). The real owner of stock may compel his agent or trustee to account for such stock. Love v. Wheeler, 87 Fed. Rep. .523 (1898); 93 N. W. Rep. 98, 2 See § 253, supra. A colorable trans- fer will not operate to discharge the transferrer where shares were collu- sively assigned to a servant for the pur- pose of evading liability. Hence, when the servant, upon the concern becoming solvent, attempted to claim the shares as though the transfer had been out and out, the court having previously decided against the bona fides of the transaction, it was held that the owner was entitled to a declaration that the servant held the shares in trust for him. Co'quhoun v. Courtenay, 29 L. T. Rep. 877 (1874). Where a pledgee directs its agent to cause the stock to be trans- ferred into the name of the pledgee "as pledgee," but the agent takes a new certificate running to the pledgee as 713 absolute owner, the pledgee is not lia- ble on the stock to corporate creditors, it being shown that the pledgee did not know of such issue of the new certifi- cate; and especially is this the case where the pledgee is a bank which had authority to take stock in pledge, but not to purchase it absolutely. May v. Genesee, etc. Bank, 120 Mich. 380 (1899). ' See ch. XXV, infra, on stock-brokers. A person may assign stock to another with discretionary power to sell at any time the latter thinks best, and pay the former's creditors therefrom. Neilson's Appeal, 13 Atl. Rep. 943 (Pa. 1888). Where an agent to sell stock is to have any excess of price over a sum named to him by the vendor, and the agent finds a customer at an advanced price and the vendor refuses to sell, the agent may recover such profit as he lost thereby. Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 207 (1890). An agent authorized to sell stock may sell part of it. Ulster, etc. Inst. V. Fourth Nat. Bank, 8 N. Y. Supp. 163 (1889). See also various decisions in § 375, infra. < See §§ 336, 351, infra. A stockhold- er's power of attorney to his agent, " to exchange old issues or certificates [of stock] and receive new issues or certifi- cates in lieu thereof," does not author- ize the agent to sell or pledge the stock. The corporation is liable for allowing a transfer to a third person on such au- thority. Quay V. Presidio, etc. R. R., 82 Cal. 1 (1889). Where a person gives to another a general power of attorney, covering the sale and transfer of all stocks, etc., the attorney cannot, by de- livering up the certificate therefor to CH. XIX.J WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 321. Where an agent writes the stockholder's name on the back of the certificate of stock, and disposes of it without authority, he is guilty of conversion and may be arrested.' Where an agent wrongfully repledges the stock belonging to his principal and then assigns for the benefit of creditors, and his assignee obtains repossession of the stock by realizing on other securities which were pledged with it, the original owner of the stock may reclaim it.^ An agent's written authority to transfer stock is revoked by death.' But where stovric is transferred to a trustee to sell with the stock of other persons, the trustee's power of sale is not revoked by the death of the traas- ferrer.* The principal and most difficult questions connected with an agency herein arise where the owner of stock indorses it in blank, and places it in the hands of an agent, and the agent, in violation of his orders, then sells the stock to a lonafide purchaser. The law is clear that the honafide purchaser is protected in his ownership of the stock.^ But a person buying stock from an agent, with knowl- edge that the latter is acting as agent, is bound to inquire into the scope of his authority, and if the agent is authorized only to sell for cash, his agreement to sell on time cannot be enforced by the the corporation, transfer the stock of his principal into his own name. The corporation is bound to inquire further. TaflEt V. Presidio, etc. R. R, 84 Cal. 131 (1890), rev'g 22 Pac. Rep. 485 (1889). Power of an agent to sell does not give him power to pledge for his own use; and where the corporation with knowl- edge of the facts allows a transfer it is liable to the owner. Read v. Cumber- land Tel. etc. Co., 93 Tenn. 483 (1894). 1 Reigner v. Spang. 5 N. Y. App. Div. 387 (1896). Where a stockholder in an insolvent corporation turns over his stock to another person to deposit un- der a. reorganization agreement, the latter agreeing to pay the assessment on the stock and to deliver to the stock- holder the new securities upon repay- ment of such assessment, and he refuses so to do thereafter, he is guilty of a con- version and of a fraud upon the stock- holder. Miller v. Miles, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 103 (1901). Where the owner of stock and bonds turns them over to a trust company to sell as it should deem best and return one-half of the pro- 713 ceeds, and the trust company, in viola- tion of the trust, pledges them for a past-due debt, the remedy of the owner against the pledgee is not for conver- sion but for an accounting. Smith v. American Nat. Bank, 89 Fed. Rep. 833 (1898). 2Woodside v. Grafflin, 91 Md. 423 (1900). 3jRe Kern's Estate, 176 Pa. St. 373 (1896). Where a certificate of stock runs to a person as attorney for another person and the latter dies, the attor- ney cannot compel the corporation to transfer the stock on his signature as attorney, unless the executor of the estate also joins in the ti'ansfer. Spel- lissy V. Cook, etc. Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 283 (1901). The express power of an agent to sell securities is revoked by the death of the principal, and if he sells thereafter he is liable tor damages in conversion. Matter of Mitchell, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 542 (1899). Ann. 1046 (1887). Where stock is transferred to a trustee by the executors, the cor- poration knowing of the trust, and the- corporation subsequently allows the trustee to transfer the stock to third persons, the corporation is liable to the- cestui que trust if such last-mentioned transfer is fraudulent and in breach of trust. Maybury v. Ehlen, 72 Md. 306 (1890). If the will gives the executrix power to sell the stock, the corporation, is protected in allowing transfers by the executrix and trustee, even though it did not know the contents of the- will. Although the transfer is to a bank, the corporation is not bound to- know that the transfer is a pledge and not a sale. Peck v. Providence Gas- Co., 17 R. I. 375 (1891). Where, upon reorganization, the committee issues transferable certificates exchangeable- into stock of the new corporation when it is formed, the new corporation is- liable for allowing an exchange by a pei'son to whom a trustee has illegally transferred the certificates issued to- him. Mobile, etc. Ry. v. Humphries, 7" a Rep. 332 (Miss. 1890). Where trus- tees under a will hold registered bonds,, the registration being to them as trus- tees, it is illegal for the corporation to- allow one of them to transfer such ];egistered bonds, and the corporation is liable for the same if such transfer is. 734 CH, XIX. J WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 327. transfer, and the trustee had no power to make it, the corporation is liable to the cestui que trust. The fact that the certificate runs to the holder as " trustee " is suflBcient notice to the corporation.^ Notice to a board of directors is notice to all subsequent boards.^ The corporation is bound to see that the sale by the trustee is made in accordance with the terms of the trust. Thus, it is liable if it permits a sale and transfer by one trustee when there are two trus- tees ; and a general power of attorney by the other trustee author- izing sales will not protect the corporation in its registry of a trans- fer signed by one only.' It is liable for allowing an illegal registry of a trustee's transfer, when the trust is for an unmarried woman, to take effect when she shall marry.* If there are several oestuis que trustyi\xe corporation is liable for allowing one of them to trans- fer the whole interest in the stock, where by mistake of the cor- poration the stock had been registered in the name of that one, and not in the name of the trustee.^ If, however, the cestui que trust is guilty of laches in taking steps to obtain his rights, the cor- poration is discharged." The remedy of the cestui que trust is in in breach of trust on the part of the trustees. Cooper v. Illinois, etc. R. R, as N. Y. App. Div. 23 (1899). In this case the bonds had been registered in the name of the executor of the estate, who, upon his death, was succeeded by two trustees, and one of these trustees caused the corporation to transfer the bonds from the name of such executor to bearer. The court held, however, that a broker who sells the bonds is not liable, although he knew that the bonds were registered in the name of the executor prior to the transfer thereof to bearer. Where stock is specifically bequeathed in trust for a certain person during her life and then for her children, and the corporation allows the executor to transfer the stock to the trustee, as trustee for the life tenant only, and afterwards allows the trustee to transfer the stock to hona fide hands, the corporation is liable for allowing the second transfer. Wooten V. Wilmington, etc. R. R., 138 N. C. 119 (1901). See also § 560, infra. 1 See § 335, supra. In the case of Stockdale v. South Sea Co., Barn. Ch. 363 (1740), the court said, however: "These great companies are only to 735 consider the person in whose name the stock is standing, unless the trust of that stock is declared in their books." - Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 399 (1838). 3 Bohlen's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 804, 313 (1874). Nor where the signatures of the other trustees are forged by one. Cottam V. Eastern Counties Ry., 1 Johns. & H. 343 (1860). In England one executor or trustee cannot assign rail- way stock. All must join. Barton v. North Staffordshire Ry., L. R. 88 Ch. D. 458 (1888). Cf. Re Taylor, 81 L. T. Rep. 813 (1900). Where stock stands in the name of two trustees, and one signs a transfer and the signature of the other trustee is forged thereto, a stock broker who caused the corporation to make a transfer thereunder is liable to the corporation, even though he acted in good faith. Oliver v. Governor & Co., 86 L. T. Rep. 348 (1903). ^Magwood V. Railroad Bank, 5 S. C, 379 (1874). 5 Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wayman, 5 Gill (Md.), 336 (1847). s Albert v. Baltimore Sav. Bank, 1 Md. Ch. 407 (1849); afl'd, 2 Md. 159 (1853). § 328.] "WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. equity, not at law.^ A waiver of former breaches of trust is no waiver of the one complained of, and a judgment against the trustee him- self is no bar to the suit against the corporation, except to the ex- tent that satisfaction had been obtained.^ The corporation may- be compelled by the court to purchase an equal amount of stock and register it for the benefit of the cestui que trusi.^ Neither the corporation which allows a transfer by a trustee nor a purchaser from the trustee of shares of stock need look to the application by the trustee of the purchase price. All that they are required to investigate is the power to transfer.* Where a certificate of stock runs to a person as attorney for another person and the latter dies, the attorney cannot compel the corporation to transfer the stock on his signature as attorney, unless the executor of the estate also joins in the transfer.* § 328. Sales of^tock iy a guardian. — At common law a guard- ian may sell the personal property belonging to him as guardian without obtaining any special license or authority, and a honafide purchaser from him of such property is protected, and is entitled to the property, even though the guardian misappropriates the pro- ceeds of the sale.^ This rule applies to shares of stock.' In most of the states, however, statutes have been passed requiring guard- ians to obtain the consent of a court before selling the personal property of his ward.^ If such a statutory permission to sell is re- quired, and the vendee of stock has notice that his vendor sells as 1 Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 'Lamar v. Micou, 113 U. S. 453, 475 138 (1878). In a suit by a stockholder (1884), the court saying: " He had the to hold a corporation liable for his stock authority, as guardian, without any Gr- and dividends, by reason of its allow- der of court, to sell personal property ing a transfer by an unauthorized agent of his ward in his own possession, and of the stooltholder, the subsequent own- to reinvest the proceeds." See also ers of the stock are not necessary par- Bank of Virginia v. Craig, 6 Leigh (Va.), ties. The defense of prescription may 399, 433 (1835), to the same effect, and prevail. St. Romes v. Levee, etc. Ca, holding that the corporation is not liable 127 U. S. 614 (1888). for a breach of trust by the guardian in '-' Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. selling the stock. The court said: "If 138 (1878). the guardian defrauds his ward, his 3 Bohlen's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 304 (1874). sureties are responsible; if the pur- See also § 384, supra. chaser combines in the fraud, he too is 4 Hughes V. Drovers', etc. Bank, 38 chargeable; but the bank cannot inter- Atl. Rep. 936 (Md. 1897) ; also § 336, supra, fere and arrest the transfer of its stock 5 Spellissy v. Cook, etc. Co., 58 N. Y. by the legal holder of the scrip upon App. Div. 283 (1901). such pretenses. It would trammel and * Field V. Schieffelin, 7 Johns, Ch. 150 embarrass such transactions so as to (1823) ; Ellis D. Essex Merrimack Bridge, impede materially that transferable 19 Mass. 243 (1834), holding that a bona character which is one of the most val- fide purchaser from the guardian of a uable attributes of stock." person non compos mentis is protected. 8 Mass. Eev. Stat., oh. 79, § 21, 726 CH. XIX.J WHO MAT BUY AND SELL STOCK. [§ 329. guardian, the vendee is bound to see that the requisite permission to sell has been given.^ A person taking a certificate of stock run- ning to a guardian and indorsed by him in blank must inquire into the authority of the guardian to dispose of the stock, and he must examine the proceedings of the court authorizing the sale and see that the proceedings are in accordance with the statute.^ An order of the court allowing the guardian to sell is not authority to him to pledge the stock, and the pledgee is bound to take notice of that fact.' Where stock is sold by a foreign guardian according to the laws of the state of the guardianship, title passes and the purchaser is protected.* § 329. Sales of stock hy an executor or administrator. — It is the duty of an executor or administrator of an estate to collect the assets, pay the debts, and distribute the remainder according to the provision of the will or of the statute of distribution.' In order to pay the debts the executor may sell the personal property of the estate. Accordingly, the rule has become established that the purchaser of personal property from an executor or administrator is not bound to ascertain whether the sale is necessary in order to pay the debts of the estate, nor to see that the proceeds of the sale are applied to the debts. If he buys in good faith and for value, he is protected. These rules are applicable to an executor's or ad- ministrator's sales of stock.' One of several executors may pledge 1 Atkinson v. Atkinson, 90 Mass. 15 apply to tlie payment of a certain (1864). amount chargeable by the will to the 2 0'Herron v. Gray, 168 Mass. 573 estate annually; Wood's Appeal, 93 Pa. (1897). St. 379 (1880), holding that a bona fide 3 Webb V. Graniteville Mfg. Co., 11 transferee of the executor's transferee S. C. 396 (1878). See also Manhattan is protected, although the latter would Bank v. Walker, 130 U. S. 367 (1889); not have been; and this even though and § 326, supra. The authority of a the executor's transferee was aware guardian given by the court to sell whence his title came. The court held stock does not authorize him to pledge that letters of administration are al- the stock. O'Herron v. Qra,j, 168 Mass. ways evidence of power to sell, and 573 (1897). that an executorship differed widely * Eoss V. Southwestern R. E., 53 Ga. from a trusteeship as regards the right 514 (1874). to sell; Prall v. Tilt, 37 N. J. Eq. 398 sKeyling's Case, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 339 (1876); aflE'd, 28 N. J. Eq. 479 (1877), (1703), holding that, where the executor where the will authorized advances to holds the stock for several years and it the sons, and they represented to the declines in value, he is chargeable with transferee that the stock was so ad- its value one year after the death of the vanced to them by the executor; Lowry testator. v. Commercial, etc. Bank, Taney, 310 6 Leitch V. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585 (1873), (1848); S. c, 15 Fed. Cas. 1040. In this holding that the bona fide transferee is case the purchaser had no knowledge protected, although the executors had or notice that the transferrer sold the previously set aside the same stock to stock as an executor; Clark v. South 737 § 329.] WHO MAY BUY AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX. stock owned by the estate and the pledgee will be protected, there being no suspicious circumstances. The power of an execu- tor to pledge is as broad as his power to sell.^ The fact that stock is specifically bequeathed to the executors as trustees does not pre- vent the executors selling or pledging such stock. The pledgee or purchaser is protected and need not inquire into the necessity of the sale or pledge.^ An executor is entitled to have stock be- longing to the estate transferred into his own name as executor, in order that he may conveniently vote it and draw dividends.' The executors in the state of the decedent may transfer the stock of the estate, and convey a title which the purchaser of the certificate may require the corporation to recognize, although the corpora- tion itself is domiciled in another state;* but the administrator Smith V. Second Nat. Bank, 169 N. Y. 467 (1903). See also § 474, infra. 2Schell V. Barton, 198 Pa. St. 600 (1901); Sohell v. Deperven, 198 Pa. St. 591 (1901). An executor ma}- transfer the stock to pay the decedent's debts, although it is bequeathed for life with remainder over. Franklin v. Bank of England, 1 Euss. 575 (1826). See § 474 2 The corporation is liable in dam- ages for refusal to make such transfer, even though the corporation has a lien on the stock for a debt owed it by the decedent. Under the statutes of Cali- fornia this rule applies to an alien cor- poration doing business in that state, the statutes of the ^tate requiring such cor- porations to make transfers in that state. It applies even though the statutes of Great Britain forbid transfers of stock "without administrr.tion upon such property under the laws of England and Great Britain." London, etc. Bank V. Aronstein, 117 Fed. Rep. 601 (1902). * Middlebrook v. Merchants' Bank, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 135 (1866); Luce v. Man- chester, etc. R. R., 63 N. H. 588 (1886); Hobbs V. Western Nat. Bank, 12 Fed. Cas. 265 (1880). An executor or ad- ministrator may transfer stock in a foreign corporation without taking out letters in the state incorporating the company. Re Cape May, etc. Co., 16 Atl. Rep. 191 (N. J. 1889). In Maryland there is a statute prohibiting such transfers except in a certain way. See Metropolitan Gas Co., 54 L. J. (Ch.) 259 (1884), sustaining a sale of stock by an administratrix of an administrator; Re London, etc. Tel. Co., L. R. 9 Eq. 653 (1870), sustaining the title of a bona fide purchaser from the executrix as against an assignee in bankruptcy of the de- ceased, the assignee having delayed his application for five years. An admin- istrator is justified in selling stock when he fears a decline in its value, but he must be free from motives of self-interest. Fluck i\ Ijake, 54 N. J. Eq. 638 (1896). An executor may trans- fer stock of the estate by signing his individual name to the transfer. Ma-: haney v. "Walsh, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 001 (1897). A person is not such a stock- holder as can maintain a suit against directors for fraud, where his stock has been transferred to another, nor can he maintain his suit on the ground that he owns a certificate of stock standing in the name of another and transferred in blank on the back, such transfer be- ing signed by the administratrix of the stockholder of record, no proof being given of the administratrix's being such or of having executed the trans- fer. Thompson v. Stanley, 73 Hun, 248 (1893); afi'd, 147 N. Y. 713. iSchell V. Barton, 198 Pa. St. 600 (1901); Schell v. Deperven, 198 Pa. St, 591 (1901). An executor has power to pledge a bond owned by the estate, and the pledgee, if bona fide, is protected. 728 CH. xix.] WHO MAT BUT AJSTD SELL STOCK. [§ 329. or executor cannot compel the corporation to allow the transfer, inasmuch as a foreign administrator or executor has no standing in court.' So also as regards executors appointed in jurisdictions out of the United States.^ The rule is different in California, where by statute stock descends to the heirs,' and the rule may be different where an inheritance tax is a lien on the stock and has not been paid.* Under the collateral inheritance tax statutes, the corpora- tion may be liable for the tax if it allows a transfer without pay- Rev. Code, 1888, art. 93, § 79. Although ■a foreign administrator cannot bring suit on a claim, yet he may assign the ■claim and the assignee may bring suit. Maas V. Gesy man Sav. Bank, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 524 (1903). To the effect that it is legal to pay a debt or deliver per- sonal property to a foreign executor, administrator, or guardian, see Schluter V. Bowery, etc. Bank, 117 N. Y. 129 <1889); Wuesthoff w Germania, etc. Ins. Co., 107 N. Y. 591 (1888). Of. Graves v. Shaw, 53 N. E. Rep. 873 (Mass. 1899). 1 Hutching v. State Bank, 53 Mass. 431 (1847). A foreign executor cannot compel a corporation to transfer stock, inasmuch as he cannot as executor maintain an action at law or in equity in the state. Matter of Fitch, 160 N. Y. S7, 95 (1899). 2 Alfonso's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 347 (1872), holding that, in Pennsylvania, exec- utors of a decedent, whose domicile was in Cuba, have no authority, under let- ters testamentary in Cuba, to transfer stock in a Pennsylvania corporation. The court said: " Domestic creditors, legatees, or next of kin should not be sent abroad in quest of property to an- swer their claims, when the decedent left property within the jurisdiction of the state that can be applied to meet their demands." Under the statutes of Pennsylvania an English executor or the executor of an executor of the es- tate of an English stockholder in a Pennsylvania corporation may, after filing in Pennsylvania an authenticated copy of the will, transfer shares of stock standing in the name of the deceased in a Pennsylvania corporation without taking out letters of administration in Pennsylvania. Grimes v. Pennsylvania R. R, 189 Pa. St. 619 (1899). Where a person resident in England purchases certificates of stock in a French corpo- ration, and fails to have the certificates transferred on the books, an adminis- tration on such certificates may be taken out in EnglaneJ, In the Goods of Agnese, [1900], P. 60. ' Even though a Minnesota executor of a deceased Minnesota stockholder in a California corporation sells the stock, yet if a local administrator has been appointed in California the sale and transfer by the Minnesota executor is not good, inasmuch as by the Call fornia statutes personal property de- scends to the heirs the same as reaT estate. Moreover, the situs of the stock is where the corporation exists. Mur- phy V. Grouse, 185 Cal. 14 (1901). * Under the Massachusetts statute im- posing a tax on inheritances, stock owned by a citizen of New York in a Massachusetts corporation is subject to such tax, and even though the New York executor has transferred such stock, yet upon ancillary administra- tion being taken out in Massachusetts the title of the New York executor is subordinate to the title of the ancillary administration. The court said that the statute assumed that in such cases a local administrator or executor would be appointed. Greeves v. Shaw, 178 Mass. 205 (1899). Stock in a consoli- dated interstate railroad holding a charter in Massachusetts and also in New York is subject to the Massachu- setts inheritance tax. Moody v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 375 (1899). 729 329.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [oh. XIX, ment of the tax by the estate.* An executor'who sells stock without authority is liable for the loss to the estate thereby at that time, but i s not liable for profits made by himself subsequently in dealing in that stock.^ An executor may pledge estate stock at his bank on a represen- tation that the money is to be used for the estate, and the bank will be protected, although the note given by the executor is re- newed several times, and the proceeds of the transaction were passed to the executor's private account.' So, also, a honafide pur- chaser of stock from a life tenant, to whom the administrator im- properly transferred it, is protected. The remainderman's remedy is on the administrator's bond.* But a pledge of stock by an exec- utor does not protect the pledgee, where the pledgee does not rely on the executor's power, but requires other ineffectual precautions to be taken.* Where the transferee of the executor knows that the transaction is not for the benefit of the estate, but is a breach 1 In Atty. Gen. v. New York, etc. Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 205; aff'd, H. of L., [1899] A. C. 63, the court, in holding that an English corporation was liable for an inheritance tax on shares of stock which it had allowed to be transferred on its books by American executors of the estate of a deceased American owning such stock, said: "The American will, as regards these English assets, had no validity whatever in this country, nor had the American executors any right under it to receive the testator's assets here. Until they had taken out repre- sentation to their testator in this coun- try, they were pure strangers to the English assets. This American will, to the knowledge of all parties, was never to come into operation as a will in this country; the American executors'were never to become executors in this coun- try, it being the express intention of all parties that they should not." 2 Hiller v. Ladd, 85 Fed. Eep. 703 (1898). If the administrator sells to himself through "dummies," he may be com- pelled to disgorge. Carter v. Good, 57 Hun, 116 (1890). Even though an exec- utor sells for $30,000 stock which he had inventoried at a higher price, yet he is not liable for the difference if the sale was in good faith. In re Semple's Es- tate, 189 Pa. St. 385 (1899). 8 Goodwin v. American Nat. Bank, 48 Conn. 550 (1881); Gottberg v. U. S. Nat Bank, 13 N. Y. Supp. 841 (1890), where the bonds were even registered in the names of both executors and were pledged by ona Under the English act, where shares are registered in the names of two executors jointly, the signature of both to a transfer is neces- sary, and the company is liable if it permits a transfer by one. Barton v. London, etc. Ry.,63 L. T. Eep. 164 (1889). *Keeney v. Globe Mill Co., 39 Conn. 145 (1872). Where by the will of a resi- dent of New York, duly probated in New York, two of the executors being residents of New York, stock is given to one person in trust for another in a Connecticut corporation, such trustee cannot bring suit in the Connecticut courts to compel the executors to trans- fer the stock to him, even though an- cillary letters have been taken out in Connecticut and one of the executors was a resident of Connecticut, and even ■ though the trustee had attached divi- dends in Connecticut. Russell v. Hooker, 67 Conn. 24 (1895). Moore v. American, etc. Co., 115 N. Y. 651 730 CH. XIX.J WHO MAY BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 329. of trust, he is not protected.' Where distribution is made in kind, a party who petitioned for distribution of the "property" cannot object on the ground that the property should have been sold and the money distributed.^ Replevin lies by an administrator to re- cover a certificate of stock which he had illegally pledged as ad- ministrator.' "Where the executor, who is also the life tenant, wrongfully pledges the stock, his executor may rightfully use the funds of his estate to redeem such stock.* A residuary legatee can- not file a bill in equity to set aside a sale of stock by the executors in compliance with a contract of sale made by the deceased, the administration of the estate not yet being terminated. His remedy is in the probate court.' Sometimes statutes are found requiring executors, when selling personal property of the estate, to sell the same at public auction. When such a statute exists, a purchaser at private sale is not a honafide purchaser, and is not protected, and is liable for the stock and for the dividends paid thereon after his purchase.* The hona fide transferee of such a purchaser, how- pledge. Bell V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 131 - Pa. St 318 (1890). Where an executor pledges, for his personal debt, stock be- longing to the estate, in breach of trust, the pledgee is not protected, even though the corporation issue(| a new certificate to the pledgee, by mistake, as absolute owner, and he cannot hold the corporation liable for retaining the new certificate upon its being deliv- ered for transfer to a purchaser with notice. Davis v. National, etc. Bank, 50 Atl. Rep. 530 (R. I. 1901). Where an executor pledges stock and bonds of the estate to a bank, the bank is pro- tected, even though thereafter the ex- ecutor checks out the money to his own order, and even though the loan was in form to the executor personally, it being understood that it was for the benefit of the estate. Lyman v. Na- tional Bank, etc., 63 N. E. Rep. 923 (Mass. 1902). 2 Hurley v. Hewett, 89 Me. 100 (1896). 3 Parks V. Mockenhaupt, 133 Cal. 424 (1901). iln re Orne's Estate, 192 Pa. St. 63ft (1899). 5 Jordan v. Taylor, 98 Fed. Rep. 643 (1899). « Nutting V. Thomasson, 57 Ga. 418 (1876), the court saying also that fac- 1 Prall V. Hamil, 28 N. J. Eq. 66 (1877). The facts in this case differed from those in Prall v. Tilt, 27 N. J. Eq. 393 (1876), in that the transferee knew that the stock was still owned by the execu- trix. A suit in equity lies to set aside an illegal sale of stock by an executor. White V. Price, 108 N. Y. 661 (1888); S. c, 39 Hun, 394 (1886), the court say- ing: " A person who takes title from an executor in payment of the executor's personal debt is not a purchaser in good faith, and acquires no rights over the prior title or equities of other per- sons." Also, that a purchaser, buying with knowledge that the right of the executor to sell is denied and is being contested, is not a bona fide holder. Of. Keane v. Robarts, 4 Madd. Ch. 332 (1819), where it was held that, where the executor did business through an agent, the application of the proceeds from the sale of the stock to the run- ning account between the executor and his agent was legal. A pledgee with notice of stock pledged by an executor in breach of his duty may be compelled to give up the stock. Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank's Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 356 (1889). A pledgee who takes with knowledge that the executor is giving the pledge -in breach of trust cannot foreclose the 731 § 330.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. ever, is protected.' An executor may have the duties of a trustee to perform, and then become subject to the rules governing trus- tees in their transfers of stock.^ § 330. Duty and liability of the corporation in sales ly executors or administrators. — There has been great diflBculty in ascertain- ing the rights and duties of the corporation in allowing and refus- ing to allow a registry on the corporate books of a sale of stock by an executor or administrator. The Bank of England, at an early day, assumed the power to refuse to allow a registry of an exec- utor's transfer of stock that had been specifically bequeathed, un- less the executor satisfied the bank that the sale was necessary to pay the debts of the estate. The courts, however, compelled it to allow registry without investigating specific legacies or the appli- cation of the proceeds of the sale.^ In this country the same rule prevails.* The cases of Lowry v. Commercial & Farmers' Bank of Baltimore,^ and Stewart v. Firemen's Ins. Co.," clearly establish tors or brokers acting for third persons are 'also liable; Nutting v. Boardman, 43 Ga. 598 (1871), holding that the ad- ministrator's bondsmen are not proper parties to the suit; Weyer i\ Second Nat. Bank, 57 Ind. 198 (1877), holding the purchaser liable. If the executor uses the proceeds of sales of stock for his own personal purposes, he is liable for the dividends declared after such sales up to the time of accounting, and for the market value of the stock at the time of accounting. A person tak- ing stock from him veith knowledge of the breach of trust is also liable. Mc- Geary's Appeal, 6 Atl. Rep. 763 (Pa. 1886). Gradual sales by the executors at a private sale will be sustained where a public sale would have de- pressed the value of the stocks, and no public sale was requested by the par- ties interested. Kaiser's Succession, 48 La. Ann. 973 (1896). 1 Nutting V. Thomason, 46 Ga. 34 <1873). 2 White V. Price, 39 Hun, 394 (1886); Prall V. Tilt, 37 N. J. Eq, 393 (1876). See also § 330, infra. 3 Pearson v. Bank of England, 2 Bro. Ch. 539 (1789); Bank of England v. Mof- fat, 3 Bro. Ch. 360 (1791); Hartga v. Bank of England, 3 Ves. Jr. 55 (1796); Bank of England v. Parsons, 5 Ves. Jr. 733 665 (1800); Bank of England v. Lunn, 15 Ves. Jr. 568 (1809); Austin v. Bank of England, 8 Ves. Jr. 523 (1803); Mar- ryatt v. Bank of England, 8 Ves. Jr. 524, n. (1793); Ayns worth v. Bank of Eng- land, 8 Ves. Jr. 524, n. (1793); Franklin V. Bank of England, 1 Russ. Ch. 575 (1836); Churchill v. Bank of England, 11 M. & W. 323 (1843); Humberstone v. Chase, 3 Y. & C. Exch. 209 (1836), where the executor represented that the spe- cific legatee had died. It is " necessary " and proper for executors to unregister registered bonds before selling them. Re Gasquoine, [1894] 1 Ch. 470. * Bayard v. Farmers,' etc. Bank, 53 Pa. St. 333 (1866). Where the execu- trix has power given by the will to apply the stock to her own use in case of need, the corporation is not bound to ascertain whether such a state of need exists. Hutohins v. State Bank, 53 Mass. 421 (1847). See also Peoku Provi- dence Gas Co., 17 R. I." 275 (1893). 5 Taney, 310 (1848); s. C, 15 Fed. Cas. 1040. The court said: "The bank not only enabled the executor to perpetrate the wrong by permitting the transfer, but co-operated in it by certifying that the title of transferee was good. Jus- tice, therefore, requires that it should bear the loss.'' 6 58 Md. 564 (1880), holding also that CH. XIX.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [§ 330. the rule that, where the corporation has reasonable notice of the fact that the executor is committing a breach of trust, such notice arising from the fact that the transfer is made several years after the estate should have been wound up, the corporation is under ob- ligation to refuse to allow a registry of the transfer; and, having allowed it, the corporation is liable to the parties injured thereby. While a corporation may, under ordinary circumstances, allow an executor or administrator to register a transfer of stock from him- self to a purchaser from him, yet, when so long a time has elapsed between the taking out of letters and the transfer that the executor has become practically a trustee, then the purchaser and the corpo- ration must use the same precautions as in sales by a trustee.' Where, by statute, executors' sales are to be at public auction, the corporation is bound to ascertain whether the statute was complied with, and is liable for allowing a registry when the sale was a pri- vate one.^ In general, a corporation has a right to assume that the the corporation was bound to take no- tice of tlie contents of the will. Where the executors ask for a transfer of stock, but the company refuses on the ground that they have no power to transfer the same, and afterwards the executors declare in writing that the stock does not belong to the estate, the executors cannot hold the corporation liable for refusing to make the transfer as stated abova Livezey v. Northern Pac. E. E., 157 Pa. St. 75 (1893). 1 Where an executor holds stock for nine years and then sells it in breach of trust, the purchaser is bound to take notice. The executorship becomes a trusteeship. Peck v. Bank of America, 16 R. I. 710 (1890). Where an executrix has power by the will to sell stock held in trust for heirs, the corporation is not liable for a transfer by her in breach of trust, the corporation having no knowl- edge thereof. The fact that the stock is transferred to banks which have no power to purchase is not notice to the corporation. The executorship in this case was merged into a trusteeship. Peck V. Providence Gas Co., 17 R. I. 875 (1893). Where stock is specifically be- queathed to an executor as trustee, and five years thereafter the executor is discharged, but continues as trustee. 733 and two years thereafter he fraudu- lently pledges the stock as executor, the pledgee is not protected, since the- lapse of time was sufficient to put him on inquiry. Sohell v. Deperven, 198 Pa. St. 591 (1901). See also § 339, supra. 2 Weyer v. Second Nat. Bank, 57 Ind. 198 (1877). A contrary view seems to be held in Southwestern R. R. v. Thom- ason, 40 Ga. 408 (1869). In Indiana, where an administrator cannot sell per- sonal property except in a certain way^ the corporation is liable to the estate if it allows a transfer of stock on its books under a sale by the administrator who has not complied with the law. The purchaser, however, who does not see- the old certificates, but takes new cer- tificates issued by the corporation, is protected. Citizens' Street Ry. v. Rob- bins, 138 Ind. 449 (1891). A sale of stock by an executor at private sale was sus- tained in Wilson v. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. 590 (1870), although the statute de- clares that executors should be liable- for double the appraised value of the property if they sold at private sale. la Citizens' Street R. R. v. Robbins, 144 Ind. 671 (1896), the administratrix had illegally sold stock to a party, who then caused the corporation to sell all its^ property to another corporation. A sub- § 330.] WHO MAT BUT AND SELL STOCK. [CH. XIX. executor is transferring the stock for the purposes of the estate. It is not obliged to inquire into the purposes of the parties, nor to in- vestigate whether the transaction is in good faith or is fraudulent,' nor to examine the will.^ "Where, however, the stock is specifically bequeathed, and the executor transfers the stock to a life tenant absolutely, the corporation, being chargeable with notice of the terms of the will, may be liable to the remainderman.' Where a decree directs the transfer of certain stock in the distribution of an estate and the corporation makes such transfer, and thereafter the decree is reversed on appeal, the executors may bring suit to have the transfer canceled. The suit is properly in equity.* sequent administrator sued to set aside the sale of the corporate property or for damages. The court held that, inas- much as the purchasing corporation had expressly assumed the liabilities of the vendor corporation, it must pay for the value of the stock, inasmuch as the vendor corporation was liable for allow- ing the transfer. 1 Crocker v. Old Colony R. R., 137 Mass. 417 (1884). See also Carter v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 71 Me. 448 (1880); Goodwin v, American Nat. Bank, 48 Conn. 550 (1881). ^ Although the administrator trans- fers the stock to the " heirs and distrib- utees," the corporation is protected in issuing absolute certificates to such distributees, and is not bound to learn or know of a will to the effect that the distributee bad only a life interest. Smith V. Nashville, etc. B. B., 91 Tenn. 221 (1892), the corporation in this case having had no actual notice of the ex- istence of a will. 'See § 560, infra, and Wooten v. Wilmington, etc. R R, 138 N. C. 119 (1901).