(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A treatise on the law of landlord and tenant, including leases, their execution, surrender, and renewal, the parties thererto, and their reciprocal rights and obligations, the various kinds of tenancy ... &c., &c., with full references to the latest American and English cases and to relevant American and English statutes, both ancient and modern"

THE LIBRARY 

OF 

THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA 

LOS ANGELES 

SCHOOL OF LAW 



A TREATISE 

OV THE 

LAW OF LANDLOED 
AND TENANT 

INCLUDING 

LEASES, THEIR EXECUTION, SURRENDER, AND RENEWAL, 

THE PARTIES THERETO, AND THEIR RECIPROCAL 

EIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, THE VARIOUS KINDS 

OF TENANCY, THE USE AND POSSESSION OF 

THE PREMISES THE CHARACTER OF 

RENT AND THE REMEDIES FOR ITS 

RECOVERY, THE TENANT'S RIGHT 

TO FIXTURES, &c., &c. 



FULL REFERENCES TO THE LATEST AMERICAN 

AND ENGLISH CASES AND TO RELEVANT 

AMERICAN AND ENGLISH STATUTES, 

BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN 



BY 

H. C. UNDERHILL, 

OF THE New York Bar 

Author of a " Treatise on the Law 'of Evidence." a "Treatise 
on the Law of Criminal Evidence," a " Treatise on the Law of 
Wills," and of the article " Criminal Law, " in the "Cyclopedia 
of Law and Procedure." 



IN TWO VOLUMES 

VOL. 1 



CHICAGO 

T. H. FLOOD & CO. 

1909 



T 

Un V5 U 

19^9 



CJOPYRIGHT, 1909, 
BY 

HARRY C. UNDERBILL 



6TA.TE JOURNAL PRINTINQ COMPANY, 

PwWTItRH AND StiCRKOTYPKRS, 
>IAi)LHON, WLS. 






To My Wife 

MARGARET UNDERHILL, 

THESE VOLUMES 

ARE AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED 

BY THE AUTHOR 



670834 



Preface. 

Owing to the fact that there already exist many text books 
treating more or less elaborately of the topic of the reciprocal re- 
lations and rights of landlord and tenant, it appears appropriate 
in this place for the author to state some of the reasons which in 
liis opinion justify the publication of this work. This is the 
more necessary as it is reasonably certain that the plan, the the- 
ory and the merits of this work will be placed in comparison with 
the manj^ treatises on the subject which are now in the hands of 
the profession. In the first place it has seemed, to the writer that 
an}^ treatment of the relation of landlord and tenant which lost 
sight of the fact that the relationship was of a contractual char- 
acter, and that consequently the rules of the modem law regu- 
lating the subject of contract were applicable, must be at once 
insufficient and illogical. Keeping this fact in view constant 
reference has been made to the general principles of the law of 
contracts of which the rules regulating the relation of landlord 
and tenant are a part. For example, a full discussion is at- 
tempted of the rules of the construction and interpretation of 
covenants as contained in the instrument of lease. Again, such 
topics as consideration, description of the parties, subject mat- 
ter, etc., have received adequate discussion; while, on the other 
hand, very many topics which anciently were regarded bj' the 
text-book writers as of great importance, but which have become 
obsolete, either by statutory enactment or by judicial legislation, 
have, in the interest of conciseness, been w^holly or partly omit- 
ted. Thus there will be found ver\' little in these volumes of 
the law of distress for rent for the reason that, in most States of 
the Union it has been abolished. On the other hand the land- 
lord's lien for rent or advances which is altogether the creation 



VI PEEFACB. 

of statutory legislation is treated at considerable length. So, 
too, the feudal tenures and their incidents of various sorts re- 
ceive but scanty space and attention, the space which their discus- 
sion would have occupied being employed in a discussion of more 
timely topics, as for example, the negligence of the landlord in 
general and the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties 
to leases of separate flats or floors in dwelling houses. 

The author has in general endeavored to adhere closely to the 
rules and principles of law which have been enunciated by the 
courts of last resort, preferring rather to record the law as he 
has found it to exist than to state what in his opinion the law 
ought to be. Where the courts have differed in determining the 
law, he has not, as a general rule, sought to reconcile the de- 
cisions, except to point out, when necessary, the differing cir- 
cumstances under which the variant decisions were rendered. 
While the most recent cases, as being most accessible, have been 
given the preference in citation, the early American decisions 
and the English decisions, particularly those which are recog- 
nized as leading <^ases, have neither been overlooked, nor inten- 
tionally omitted. 

An attempt has been made to have the citation of cases as com- 
plete and exhaustive as possible. M^my thousand cases have 
been examined, analyzed and cited. It will be found in many 
instances that not only is the page in the report cited upon which 
the case cited begins, but that the page which contains or af- 
firms the rule of law which the case is cited to support is also 
given. Where cases have been cited from the reports of the 
National Reporter system, the official reports have also been cited 
so far as the cases have been officially reported prior to going 
to press. H. C. Underiiill. 

Borough of Brooklyn, New York. 

April, 1909. 



Table of Contents. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PARTIES TO THE LEA&E. 

§ 1. The general rule i 

2. Leases by life tenants 2 

3. Leases by life tenants under a power 3 

4. The termination of terms created by a life tenant as a 

landlord 9 

5. The validity of lease by tenants for years 8 

6. Guardianship in general 9 

7. The liability of an intruder as guardian 11 

8. The power of a guardian in socage 11 

9. The power of testamentary guardians 12 

10. The power to lease of a guardian appointed by a court 13 

11. When the permission of the court to the making of the 

lease is required 14 

12. Limitations upon the power of a guardian to lease 14 

13. The duty of the guardian to lease 15 

14. The guardian's duty to collect rents 16 

15. Formal requisites of the lease 16 

16. Covenants by guardians 17 

17. An infant's liability for rent 17 

18. The ratification of a lease made by an infant 19 

19. The invalidity of a lease made by a feme sole 19 

20. The effect of her marriage upon a lease made by a feme sole 20 

21. The invalidity of a lease made by a feme covert at the com- 

mon law 21 

22. The husband's power at common law to lease lands of the 

wife 22 

23. The right of a married woman to lease under the modern 

statutes 24 

24. The eifect of the death of the husband or wife upon a lease 

made by the wife 24 

25. The control of the husband over leases held by the wife as 

executrix 25 

26. The disposition of a term by the husband of a lessee to take 

effect at his death 20 



VIU TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

27. Leases of communitj- property 27 

28. The modern rule as to the relation of mortgagor and mort- 

gagee 28 

29. The right of the mortgagee to the rent at the common law 29 

30. The appointment and powers of a receiver in foreclosure. . 31 

31. The effect of a foreclosure upon the tenant's rights 33 

32. The right to rents of the purchaser on a sale under fore- 

closure 34 

33. The power of the Federal government to lease lands 35 

34. The validity of leases of lands owned by Indians 37 

35. Leases by aliens 41 

36. Leases to aliens 41 

37. The effect of the death of the lessee on leases for terms 

of years 41 

38. The expiration of a lease for years on the death of the 

lessee 43 

39. The liability of the personal representative of the deceased 

lessee of a term of years 44 

40. The remedies of the personal representative of the lessee. . 47 

41. The rights of an executor of a lessor 48 

42. The liability of a personal representative for rents 51 

43. The power of an administrator to lease the lands of his in- 

testate 52 

44. The power of an administrator with the will annexed to 

lease 53 

45. The general rule as to the power of executor to make leases 54 

46. A lease which is executed by one of several executors or ad- 

ministrators 54 

47. A lease by an executrix being a feme sole 55 

48. The equitable jurisdictiton over leases made by executors. 56 

48a. The power of trustees to grant leases 5G 

48b. The proper covenants in leases by trustees 58 

48c. Signature by one of two or more trustees 59 

48(i. The personal liability of the trustee 59 

CHAPTER II. 

CORPORATION LEASES. 

9 49. The common law power of corporations to grant leases. ... 61 

50. 'i'he common law rule as to the power of a coriwration to 

become a lessee 62 

51. The form of corporation leases 63 

52. The necessity for seal on a corporation lease 64 

53. By what officer a corporation lease should be executed G.'j 

54. The period for which a corporation lease may run 60 

55. When leases are ultra vires 68 

56. The effect of the dissolution of a corporation upon an exist- 

ing lease 70 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. IX 

57. The power of municipal corporation to grant leases 71 

58. A municipal corporation as a tenant 73 

59. Ultra vires leases by municipal corporations 76 

60. Leases of park grounds by municipal corporation 77 

CHAPTER III. 
LEASES BY JOINT OWNERS. 

§ 01. Leases by joint tenants and tenants in common distin- 
guished 80 

62. Tenancy in common 81 

63. The relation of landlord and tenants among tenants in com- 

mon 82 

64. Tenants in common as lessors 84 

65. Actions by tenants in common to recover rent 87 

C6. Effect of a lease by joint owners 88 

67. The right of joint tenants to the rent 89 

68. The liability of joint lessees for rent 91 

69. The liability for rent of co-partners in business 92 

CHAPTER IV. 

LEASES BY AGENTS. 

^ 70. The agent's authority to lease must be strictly pursued. ... 94 

70. The apparent authority of the agent 90 

72. Lease under seal made by an agent 97 

73. An agent's authority in writing under the statute of frauds 99 

74. The ratification of a lease executed by an agent without au- 

thority from the principal 100 

75. The fraud and false representations by an agent 102 

76. The authority of an agent to accept possession on abandan- 

ment by the tenant 102 

77. The power of an agent appointed to manage property 103 

78. Where the agent renders himself personally liable 105 

79. Undisclosed principal where a lease is under seal 108 

CHAPTER V. 

THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 

§ 80. What may be leased 110 

81. A lease of land held adversely Ill 

82. Leases of public land 112 

S3. The lease of land or houses with chattels to be used there- 
with 113 



I TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

S4. Lease of surplus waters of canals 116 

85. Leases by a tenant in dower or curtesy 118 

86. Agricultural- leases in New York 118 

87. The ix)wer to lease a homestead 121 

88. The lease of a portion of a homestead 123 

89. The mode of the execution of a lease of a homestead 124 

CHAPTER YI. 

TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 

§ 90. The origin of tenancy from year to year 127 

91. The continuity of the several yearly periods 128 

92. The use of express language in creating a tenancy from 

year to year 129 

93. The character of the cultivation of the land as determining 

the period of the tenancy 151 

94. The payment of a yearly rent as creating a tenancy from 

year to year 133 

95. The effect of the death of either party upon a tenancy from 

year to year 136 

96. The rule as to repairs by a tenant from year to year 137 

97. A tenancy from year to year created by a tenant holding 

over 139 

98. Rebutting the presumption which arises on a tenant hold- 

ing over 141 

99. The modification of the terms of the original lease as 

against a tenant holding over 142 

100. Holding over excused when it is caused by the action of the 

board of health 14-5 

101. Statutory modification of the rule that a holding over 

creates a tenancy from year to year 146 

102. Tenancies from year to year created by leases void under 

the statute of frauds 146 

103. Tenancies from year to year arising from defective and un- 

executed leases 148 

104. The necessary incidents of a tenancy from year to year. . 149 
10.5. Tenancies from month to month. How created 150 

106. Tenancy from month to month by holding over 152 

107. The commencement of a monthly period 153 

108. The conversion of tenancies from month to month into 

tenancies from year to year 153 

109. The statutory rules creating a tenancy from month to 

month by holding over 153 

1 10. Tonanoies from week to week 154 

111. The necessity of notice to quit at common law 155 

112. The length of time required by the notice to quit 158 

113. The length of the notice to quit in weekly and monthly 

tenancies 160 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 

114. Statutory regulation of the notice to quit 161 

115. The necessity and the sufficiency of a notice to quit in the 

case of tenancy from month to month 1C3 

116. The statutory regulation of the notice to quit in tenancies 

from month to month 163 

117. Notice to quit when required by the express terms of the 

lease 164 

118. The form and the character of the notice to quit 165 

119. The construction of the language of the notice to quit 167 

120. To whom notice must be given 168 

121. By whom the notice to quit must be given 170 

122. The date upon which the period stated in the notice must 

terminate 172 

123. The necessity of personal service of the notice to quit 173 

124. A notice to quit given by an agent 17& 

125. Waiver of defects in the notice to quit 176 

126. Waiver of a notice to quit by a subsequent notice 176: 

127. The effect of a notice to quit 177 

128. The withdrawal of a notice to quit 178 

129. The waiver of a notice to quit by the receipt of rent 178 

130. When a notice to quit may be dispensed with by a surren- 

der ISO 

131. A disavowal of the landlord's title by the tenant may dis- 

pense with giving a notice to quit by the landlord 182 



CHAPTER VII. 

TENANCY AT WILL. 

133. The definition of an estate at will 186 

134. A reservation of rent is not necessary to create a tenancy 

at will 186 

135. The liability of a tenant at will for rent 187 

136. Tenancy at will by express agreement 188 

137. The mere occupation of the land by the permission of the 

owner 189 

138. Leases of an uncertain duration 190 

139. Entry under an agreement for a lease 192 

140. Tenancy at will created by a defective or unexecuted lease. 194 

141. Leases void under the statute of frauds 195 

142. The vendee of the land having gone into possession under 

a contract to buy 197 

143. Tenancy at will by holding over 201 

144. The occupancy of the premises incident to the employment 

of the occupant 202 

145. The judgment debtor holding over after sale under execu- 

tion 204 

b 



Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

146. The lessee of a judgment debtor holding over after the sale 

under the execution 204 

147. The determination of the will. In general 205 

148. The termination of a tenancy at will by the death of either 

party to it 206 

149. The partition of the demised premises by tenants in com- 

mon 207 

150. Termination of the tenancy by the surrender and abandon- 

ment of the premises 208 

151. The termination of a tenancy at will by the landlord's 

alienation of the premises 208 

152. Denial of the title of the landlord by a tenant at will 211 

153. The tenancy at will may be determined by the giving of a 

new lease 213 

154. The entry of the landlord on the land as terminating the 

tenancy 214 

155. Notice to quit when required in tenancies at will at com- 

mon law 216 

156. Notice to quit and demand of possession as terminating a 

tenancy at will 218 

157. Statutory notice required to terminate a tenancy at will . . . 218 

158. The termination of the period of notice 221 

159. The commission of waste by a tenant at will 222 

160. The assignability of the tenant's interest in an estate at 

will 223 

161. The right of a tenant at will to recover damages for an in- 

jury to the land 224 



CHAPTER VIII. 

TENANCY AT SUFFERANCE. 

162. The definition of a tenancy at sufferance 226 

163. A tenancy at sufferance arising on the termination of a 

tenancy at will 227 

164. A tenancy at sufferance by holding over 228 

165. The grantor in possession after the delivery of his deed. . 230 

166. A servant or agent in the possession of his employer's land 

after the contract is at an end 231 

167. Mortgagor in possession after sale or condition broken... 232 

168. When an undertenant becomes a tenant at sufferance 233 

169. Necessary for notice to quit 234 

170. Right of a tenant at sufferance to lease 235 

171. The liability of a tenant at sufferance to pay rent 235 

172. Action of trespass by the landlord against the tenant at 

sufferance 237 



T^VBLE OF CONTENTS. Xlll 

CHAPTER IX. 

WHAT CONTRACTS ARE LEASES, 

§ 173. The definition of a lease 240 

174. Leases in reversion. Interesse termini 241 

175. Formal and technical language unnecessary 242 

176. Words proper to create a lease 244 

177. Whether a writing is a lease or an agreement to make a 

lease 246 

178. Question for court or jury 250 

179. The intention of the parties 2.jO 

180. The assent of the parties to a lease 251 

181. The consideration for the lease 254 

182. Some circumstances which tend to show an instrument is 

a lease 255 

183. No presumption of tenancy from possession alone 257 

184. The length of a term in an agreement to make a lease 258 

185. The term as stated in the lease 260 

186. Entry into possession as indicating a lease 2G1 

187. The presumption of an existing tenancy from the payment 

of money by the occupant to the owner 262 

188. The necessity for the payment of rent 263 

189. The i)erformance of a cont'.act to execute and deliver a 

lease 264 

190. The specific performance of an agreement to make a lease. . 2G5 

191. The measure of damages for a breach of an agreement to 

make a lease 267 

192. Letters constituting agreement to make a lease 268 

193. A lease distinguished from a license 269 

194. Agreement permitting the cutting of timber 273 

195. The possession of a tenant under a void lease 275 

196. A lease with an agreement to sell the premises 276 

197. Lease or mortgage 277 

198. The lease of space in a department store 280 

199. A lease distinguished from a contract to furnish board and 

lodging 281 

200. Agreement to board and care for the owner of land 2S3 

201. An entry upon land of another under an option to purchase 

from him 284 

201a. The mortgagee of the tenant's chattels in possession 284 

202. Future lease of an unfinished building 2SG 

203. Mortgagor or his tenant and a purchaser at a sale under 

foreclosure 287 

204. Contracts for advertisin-:? space 288 

205. A purchaser of a crop on an execution sale 290 

206. The judgment debtor holding over after a sale on an exe- 

tion 291 



XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

207. Whether an instrument is a lease or a partnership agree- 

ment 291 

208. Contracts for steam heating and for steam and water 

power 293 

209. Miscellaneous cases 297 

210. Whether occupant of premises is servant or tenant 299 

211. The intention of the parties 300 

212. Illustrations of the rule 302 

213. The character of the posssession of the premises as de- 

termining whether an occupant is a servant or a tenant 302 

214. The power of the master to remove his servant from the 

premises 305 

215. Contract of hiring by a religious society 305 

216. A public officer as a tenant of a county 306 

217. A servant holding over after his employment is at an end. 307 

218. The right of third parties 307 

219. The distinction between cropers and tenants 308 

220. The ownership of the crop 311 

221. The duties and the rights of the landlord and tenant. . . . 313 

222. The remedies of the parties 315 

223. Relation of landlord and tenant not presumed between 

vendor and vendee 316 

224. The default or the refusal of either party to perform 318 

225. An express agreement of the vendee to pay rent 319 

226. The entry of a vendee under a parol agreement to purchase 322 

227. The vendor of land continuing in possession after his con- 

veyance of the title 322 

CHAPTER X. 

THE FORM AND EXECUTION OF LEASES. 

§ 228. The scope of this chapter 325 

229. The formal requisites of a lease 325 

230. General rules of the law of contracts as to signatures 326 

231. The signature to a lease by the tenant only 327 

232. The signature by the lessor only 328 

233. The signature to a lease affixed by a surety 330 

234. The necessity for and the form of seals 331 

235. The attestation of leases 3S2 

236. The necessity for an acknowledgment 334 

237. The description of the premises 336 

238. The description of the parties 340 

239. The date of the lease 342 

240. The date of the commencement of the term 343 

241. The necessity of the delivery of the lease 348 

242. The acceptance of a lease 351 

243. The necessity for the entry of the tenant 354 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. XV 

24^. The date upon which the lease expires 355 

245. The reversion in the lessor 357 

246. The approval of the lease by the attorneys for the parties 357 

247. The responsibility of the tenant 360 

248. A failure to read the lease 361 

249. A mistake in the execution of a lease 362 

250. The usual and customary covenants and provisions 364 

251. Leases executed in duplicate and counterpart 366 

252. The mode of proving a written lease 367 

253. Term expiring on the happening of a contingent event. . , . 368 

254. Leases terminable on the sale of the premises 371 

255. The option of the lessee to terminate the lease 373 

256. Measure of the damages for a failure to execute a lease. . 377 

257. The effect of the statute of frauds on leases 378 

258. Contracts concerning an interest in land 379 

259. Extensions and renewals of leases 383 

260. Leases by parol which are void under the statute 384 

261. The character of the writing 386 

262. Effect of performance in taking the lease out of the stat- 

ute 388 

263. The recording of leases 389 

264. The construction of the statutes requiring the record of 

leases 391 

265. The effect of recording a lease upon the rights of a subse- 

quent lessee 393 

266. The effect of the record as notice 394 

267. As against the creditors of the lessor and persons claim- 

ing under him 394 

268. The effect of recording a lease which is not required to be 

recorded 395 

CHAPTER XI. 
THE PROPERTY WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE LEASE. 

270. The scope of this chapter 396 

271. Property included 397 

272. The privileges of a tenant of a part of a building 400 

273. Description of leased premises by street number 402 

274. Elxclusive right of the lessee of a hotel to use a particular 

name 404 

275. The tenant's right to light and air coming through his 

front and rear windows 405 

276. Rights as to the use of light and air as between the pro- 

prietors of adjoining premises 409 

277. The right of a tenant to use outside walls 412 

278. The use of roof for advertising purposes 415 

279. Tenant's right to show windows 415 



XVI T/BLE OF CONTENTS. 

280. Easements of egress and ingress 416 

281. Tenant's right to use of stairways and halls 419 

282. The right to use an elevator 424 

283. Electric light as an appurtenant 426 

284. Easement of water supply 426 

285. The riparian rights of the lessee 430 

286. Right of the tenant to accretion 433 

287. Ice forming on land demised 434 

288. Lease of a mill or of a mill privilege 437 

289. Action for damages for the violation of an easement 439 

290. The protection of the tenant's easements by an injunction 440 

291. Construction of the word "appurtenances." The general 

rule 442 

292. Things which have been held not to pass as appurte- 

nances 446 

293. Meaning of the word "half." 451 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEASES. 

§ 294. "What law governs 452 

295. The construction of the language of written leases 453 

296. The lease construed by the conduct of the parties 455 

297. Writings shall be construed together 457 

298. Merger in lease of all preliminary conversations 457 

299. The meaning of technical terms in a lease 459 

300. When parol evidence is received in the case of leases 459 

301. When parol evidence is not received in the case of leases. . 463 

302. Parol evidence of custom to aid in the construction of a 

lease 465 

303. The modification of the lease by the parties 466 

CHAPTER XIII. 

FRAUD AND DURESS IN PROCURING THE LEASBL 

§ 304. General rules as to duress and fraud in relation to con- 
tracts 46S 

305. The effect of delay 409 

306. Fraud In the procurement of a lease 470 

307. The cancellation of the lease for duress or inadequacy of 

the consideration 472 

308. Leases between persons occupying confidential relations 

with the lessee 474 

309. The elements which must co-exist in the case of fraud. . . 475 

310. The fraud of the tenant 479 

311. The tenant who has been defrauded need not abandon the 

premises 480 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xvii 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ATTORNMENT OF THE TENANT. 

312. Attornment defined 482 

313. Payment of rent as constituting attornment 483 

314. The necessity for the landlord's consent to the attornment 484 

315. The effect of the statute of Anne upon attornment 485 

316. The tenant's attornment to a mortgagee or purchaser at 

foreclosure 486 

317. The statutory rights of the grantee of the reversion 488 

318. The grantee's right to collect rent 491 

319. The extent of the rights of the grantor after his convey- 

ance 494 

320. The obligations of a grantee to tenants in possession 496 

321. The notice to the tenant of the sale of the reversion 498 

322. The effect of a sale of the reversion under a decree or 

judgment 500 

CHAPTER XV. 

THE NATURE AND INCIDENTS OF RENT. 

323. Rent. Definition and genei-al characteristics 504 

324. Various kinds of rent distinguished 506 

325. Whether rent may be reserved out of personal property. . 509 

326. The payment of rent as evidence of tenancy 511 

327. The certainty of rent 512 

328. Rent to become due on the happening of some future event 513 

329. Rent payable in services 514 

330. Rent payable in specific articles 515 

331. The express covenant to pay rent 518 

332. A covenant to pay rent may be implied 518 

333. When rent is due 522 

334. Rent which is made payable in advance 524 

335. The place for the payment of the rent 527 

336. To whom rent should be paid 529 

337. Rent made payable to persons other than the landlord. , . . 532 

338. Rent payable in instalments 534 

339. The tender of the rent by the lessee 536 

340. Apportionment of rent between successive landlords 538 

341. Apportionment among the several assignees of the lessor. 541 

342. Apportionment among the assignees of the lessee 543 

343. The liability of testamentary trustees for rent 544 

344. The payment of rent by an under-tenant to the original 

lessor 544 

345. Payment of rent by note, check or draft 546 



XVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

346. Receipts for rent. When conclusive and presumption of 

payment therefrom 549 

347. The application of rental payments 551 

348. The necessity of a demand for the payment of rent 553 

349. The reduction of the rent by the landlord during the term 554 

350. Increase of rent on re-hiring or during the term 558 

351 The jurisdiction of the courts in an action to recover rent 558 

352. The form and nature of the lessor's remedy to recover 

rent 559 

353. Recovery by the landlord of rent where the tenant has 

never taken possession 561 

354. Joinder of cause of action for rent 562 

355. Recoupment, counterclaims and set off, by a lessee in an 

action to recover the rent 562 

356. Notice to produce the lease in an action to collect rent. . . 566 

357. Payment of rent during occupation. The meaning of the 

word "occupy." 566 

358. The appraisal of the rent on the renewal of the lease 567 

359. The manner of the appraisal 568 

360. The result of a failure to fix the rent 569 

361. The power of the court to make or to review an appraisal 

of rent 570 

362. The basis of the action for use and occupation 572 

363. The title of the landlord 575 

364. The occupation must be proved 578 

365. Against whom action for use and occupation can be main- 

tained 578 

366. Parol evidence to prove use and occupation 5S0 

367. Defenses in an action for use and occupation 582 

368. Pleading in an action for use and occupation 582 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE SECURITY FOR THE RENT. 

3C9. Deposit by the lessee as a security for payment of rent. . 583 

370. The tenant's right to the return of his deposit 585 

371. Deposit made by a tenant with landlord on contract to 

make a lease 587 

372. The general rule as to liquidated damages 588 

373. Chattel mortgage to secure the payment of the rent 589 

374. Construction of an agreement to give security 5!)1 

375. When the principal and surety on a lease may be sued 

jointly 591 

376. General rule as to the liability of the grantor 592 

377. Surety's liability upon a renewal of lease 593 

378. The discharge or release of the surety 594 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX 

CHAPTER XVII. 
THE COVENANTS OF THE LEASE. 

§ 379. Definitions and general conditions 599 

380. The language by which, a covenant is created 6a2 

381. The construction of covenants in leases G04 

382. What are the usual and proper covenants GOG 

383. Whether covenants are joint or several 608 

384. Dependent and independent covenants GIO 

385. The enforcements of negative covenants 611 

386. The liability of the i>arties to a covenant and of their as- 

signee GlU 

387. Covenants running with the land 614 

388. The liability of the personal representatives of the coven- 

antor 619 

389. Covenants and conditions distinguished 619 

390. Whether conditions are subsequent or precedent 623 

391. The construction of a provision for a forfeiture 625 

392. The enforcement of a forfeiture after a tenant has become 

a vendee 627 

393. The necessity for the notice of a forfeiture 628 

394. The effect of a forfeiture upon the, lease 629 

395. The effect in general of failure to pay rent 632 

396. The necessity for a demand by the lessor in order to work 

a forfeiture 633 

397. Waiver of demand for the rent 635 

398. The entry of the landlord for the purpose of reletting. . . . 636 

399. Demand for payment of the rent; when and how made by 

the landlord G37 

400. Who may exercise the right to re-enter 639 

401. The lessee cannot take advantage of a forfeiture 641 

402. The waiver of a forfeiture by the lessor 644 

403. The rent received after a forfeiture 646 

404. The payment of the rent to a landlord after an action of 

ejectment or other action by a landlord for the posses- 
sion 650 

405. Waiver may be implied from other facts than the accep- 

tance of the rent 653 

406. When the payment of subsequent rent does not waive a 

forfeiture 655 

407. Waiver by silence and delay 656 

408. The waiver of a continuous breach of a condition 659 

409. A forfeiture caused by a breach of a covenant to repair.. 661 

410. The effect of a tender of rent 663 

411. Relief against forfeiture at common law 664 

412. Equitable relief against forfeiture 665 



XX T.VBLE OF CONTENTS, 

CHAPTER XVin. 

THE RIGHTS OP THE TENANT TO POSSESSION- 

§ 413. The tenant's right to possession of the premises 671 

414. The lease of an unfinished building 674 

415. The entry of the tenant before the commencement of the 

term 676 

416. The remedy of the lessee for the failure of the lessor to 

give him the possession 676 

417. Unlawful detainer against the occupant 677 

418. The rights of the landlord against third persons during 

the term 678 

419. The landlord's remedy for the diversion of natural waters 6S3 

420. The right of the landlord to timber severed during the 

term 684 

421. The tenant's right to bring an action of trespass against a 

stranger 685 

422. The right of a lessor at will to maintain trespass 688 

423. The delivery of the possession of a part of the premises. . 691 

424. Placing "to let" signs upon the premises 692 

425. The evidence and the pleadings 69S 

426. The measure of the tenant's damages for a failure by the 

landlord to deliver possession 693 

427. The covenant of quiet enjoyment, when implied 697 

428. "What constitutes a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoy- 

ment 699 

429. Liability on the covenant for the acts of strangers 700 

430. The foreclosure of a mortgage as a breach of the covenant 701 

431. Election of remedies by the tenant 702 

. 432. The measure of damages for the breach of a covenant of 

quiet enjoyment 702 

433. The rights of the parties to the lease as against one who 

nxaintains a nuisance 704 

CHAPTER XIX. 
THE TENANT'S WASTE. 

§ 434. Definition of "waste." 706 

435. The common-law rule as to waste by tenants 708 

436. The implied covenant by a lessee not to commit voluntary 

waste 709 

437. The opening of mines by a tenant 710 

438. Leases made without impeachment of waste 711 

439. Alterations by the tenant constituting voluntary waste... 712 

440. Waste by a tenant of farm land 714 

441. The rule in Maryland as to waste by a tenant 719 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xxi 

442. Persons liable for waste 720 

443. Tenant's liability for waste committed by others 721 

444. Waste committed by a sub-tenant 722 

445. The landlord's remedy by injunction 723 

446. The remedy by an action for damages 725 

447. The waiver of the right of the landlord to sue for waste. . 726 

CHAPTER XX. 

THE USE OF THE PREMISES BY THE TENANT. 

§ 448. The general rule as to the use of the premises by the 

tenant 729 

449. A covenant restraining use to one purpose does not prevent 

use for other proper purposes 732 

450. A covenant restricting the premises to use as a private 

dwelling or residence 736 

451. Covenants against carrying on trade or business in the 

premises 738 

452. Covenants against particular trades 740 

453. Covenants by the lessor against carrjing on competing 

business 741 

454. Covenants forbidding the use of the premises for offensive 

trades 746 

455. Covenants against the sale of liquors on the premises.... 748 

456. The use of the premises by the lessee for hotel purposes.. 749 

457. Restrictions as to the exhibition of advertising signs by 

the tenants 752 

458. Leases by organizations conducting camp meeting grounds 753 

459. The restriction of the occupancy of the premises to partic- 

ular persons 755 

4C0. Injunction by the landlord to restrain a prohibited use of 

the premises by the tenant 756 

461. The implied covenant by a farm tenant for good hus- 
bandry 759 

462.- Evidence to prove what is good husbandry 762 

463. Covenants regulating the use and cultivation of a farm by 

the tenant - 762 

464. A covenant In a lease of a fann to consume all fodder on 

the land 763 

465. An injunction to restrain the breach of a covenant in a 

lease of a farm 764 

466. Estoppel on the landlord to recover for improper use of 

premises 765 

467. The obligation of the assigns and sub-tenants under cove- 

nants of the lessee restricting the use of the premises. . . 767 

468. Storage of combustibles in the premises 771 

469. The lease of premises for use as a house of prostitution.. 771 



Xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

470. Leases of premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors 773 

471. The use of the premises as a gambling house 775 

472. The knowledge of the lessor that the premises are to he 

used for an immoral or illegal purpose 776 

473. The leasing of premises for immoral purposes a crime.. 777 

474. Criminal liability of the landloi*d 779 

475. The construction of a statute providing for the equitable 

jurisdiction of leases for gambling purposes 779 



CHAPTER XXI. 

THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS OF THE 
PARTIES AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE PREMISES. 

§ 477. The fitness of the premises 782 

478. The distinction between unfurnished and furnished dwel- 

lings and rooms 784 

479. Fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment of defects 788 

480. The responsibility of the landlord for a nuisance 792 

481. The drainage of surface water 794 

482. Contagious diseases 795 

483. Defective plumbing and water supply 796 

484. The joint liability for nuisance of the lessor and lessee. . . . 798 

485. The repairs of that portion of the premises which is in 

the exclusive control of the lessor 799 

486. The negligence of the landlord in making repairs 801 

487. The landlord's liability in the case of apartment buildings 

and flats 803 

488. Knowledge or notice of the defects by the landlord 804 

489. The liability of the landlord for the condition of the out- 

side walls, roofs and cornices 806 

490. The responsibility for injuries caused by ice and snow fall- 

ing from the roof 808 

491. Falling sign under the control of the landlord 809 

492. The landlord's duty to light halls and stairways 810 

493. The landlord's liability for halls and stairways 812 

494. The landlord's liability for the condition of elevators used 

by the tenants and others 817 

495. Use of common hallways or stairs by a tenant is not con- 

tributory negligence 822 

490. Snow and ice accumulating in pas.sage ways 822 

497. The common use by the tenants of a yard of an apartment 

house 823 

498. Defective coal hole covers and cellar gratings 824 

499. The use of gas, natural or artificial, by the landlord 828 

500. Negligence in the care of steam heating apparatus and 

chimneys 829 

501. The negligence of the landlord as regards falling ceilings. 831 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xxiii 

502. The landlord's liability to a member of a lodge which is his 

tenant 832 

503. The contributory negligence of the tenant 833 

504. Repairs by the landlord or his agent before or after the 

accident 835 

505. The liability of a tenant for negligence 836 

506. Liability of tenants to one another for negligence 837 

507. The liability for damages to a tenant on a lower floor by 

the overloading of an upper floor 839 

508. Injuries caused by overflow of water on upper floor 839 

509. The tenant's liability for fire 843 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE DUTIES OF THE PARTIES TO REPAIR. 

5 510. The respective duties of the parties to the lease to make 

repairs 846 

511. No implied covenant by the landlord to repair 847 

512. Statutory provisions imposing the duty to repair on the 

landlord 851 

513. Repairs and alterations in compliance with municipal reg- 

ulations 853 

514. The landlord's promise to repair made during the term 855 

515. The landlord's liability on his covenant to repair, 857 

516. The landlord's right to notice of the necessity for repairs 860 

517. The lessor's right of entry on the premises to make re- 

pairs 862 

518. The negligence of the landlord in voluntarily making re- 

pairs 804 

519. Repairs by the landlord as a condition precedent to the oc- 

cupation of the premises and payment of rent by the 
tenant 867 

520. A covenant by the landlord to repair farm fences 869 

521. The landlord's covenant to keep an elevator in constant re- 

pair 871 

522. The landlord's covenant to rebuild 871 

523. The lessor's liability to the servants of a lessee 872 

524. The landlord's liability to the tenant for repairs made by 

the latter 873 

525. The remedies of a tenant for the failure of his landlord to 

repair 876 

526. Measure of damages on breach of a covenant by the lessor 

to repair 878 

527. The lessor's defense 880 

528. A covenant to repair— What is includes SSI 

529. Covenants to repair run with the land SS4 

530. The construction of a covenant to keep in repair by a ten- 

ant 885 



XXIV TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

■ 531. Notice by the landlord to the tenant to repair 889 

532. The extent of the tenant's express obligation to repair... . 891 

533. The tenant's covenant to return premises in condition as 

he received them 892 

534. When an action on a covenant to surrender in good condi- 

tion or good repair accrues 897 

535. The exception of ordinary wear and tear 899 

536. The construction of the phrase "damages by the elements." 900 

537. Exception in covenant of accident or inevitable accident. . 902 

538. The tenant's covenant to deliver up a farm in good condi- 

tion 905 

539. The making of alterations by a tenant may be a breach of 

of a covenant to repair 907 

540. Repairs to be approved by the landlord 908 

541. The right of the landlord to recover from a tenant who 

has agreed to make repairs 909 

542. Covenants by the lessee to erect improvements 909 

543. The tenant's conditional covenants to repair 911 

544. The character of the building erected by the lessee 912 

545. The rights of a sub-tenant under a covenant to repair made 

by the original lessor 913 

546. The measure of damages for the lessee's failure to repair 

or leave premises in good condition 913 

547. Evidence in actions on covenants to repair 914 

548. Rules of pleadings 915 

549. The duty of the landlord to build and repair fire escapes. . 915 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE ESTOPPEL TO DENY THE TITLE. 

§ 550. The general rule as to the tenant's estoppel 920 

551. Necessity for the surrender of the possession by the tenant 922 

552. When the surrender of the premises by the tenant is un- 

necessary 923 

553. The tenant not having received possession is not estopped 924 

554. After an eviction there is no estoppel 926 

555. A lease obtained by fraud or mistake 927 

556. Misrepresentation by the lessor of his title 930 

557. A tenant is not estopped as to a stranger 931 

558. No estoppel where leases are illegal or contrary to public 

policy 932 

559. The tenant may show the expiration of the landlord's title 934 

560. In what action the estoppel may be pleaded 937 

561. To what matters the estoppel extends 939 

562. The estoppel is applicable to a tenancy at will 940 

563. In whose favor the estoppel will operate 940 

564. Upon whom the estoppel is binding 943 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV 

565. The rights of a person obtaining the possession by collu- 

sion 947 

566. The estoppel as to sub-tenants 948 

567. The vendee, in possession as a tenant is estopped 949 

568. The tenant holding over 950 

569. The tenant not estopped as to land of his landlord not in- 

cluded in the case 951 

570. Leases created by estoppel 952 

571. The general rule as to the purchase of outstanding encum- 

brances by the tenant 953 

572. The purchase by a tenant of a tax title to the premises. . 954 

573. The general rule as to the adverse possession of the land- 

lord 957 

574. Tacking possession of several tenants 960 

575. Encroachments by a tenant on the land of strangers to the 

lease 961 

576. The creation of easements by the lessee 963 

577. The effect of a disclaimer by the tenant 964 

578. The attornment of a tenant to a stranger 967 

579. What constitutes an actual ouster by the tenant 968 

580. What constitutes adverse possession by the tenant as 

against his landlord 971 

581. The right of the landlord to become a party in an action 

of ejectment against his tenant -^973 

582. When a landlord of a tenant who is a defendant in eject- 

ment may be ousted 975 

582a. The operation of a judgment in ejectment upon the tenants 

of the defendant 976 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

THE OPTION OF A TENANT TO PURCHASE THE PREMISES. 

583. The tenant's option to purchase — General considerations.. 977 

584. The irrevocable character of an option 980 

585. The mutuality of the option 981 

586. The purchase price to be paid by the lessee 983 

587. The option to purchase in the tenant, if not otherwise dis- 

posed of, or at price offered by any other person 986 

588. The time within which the option must be exercised 987 

589. The performance of conditions precedent by the lessee 991 

590. The necessity for notice by the lessee to the lessor 993 

591. The effect of the exercise of the option 994 

592. TATien the lessee's option to purchase passes to his assignee 996 

593. The passing of the right of an election from the lessor 

to the lessee 999 

594. The disposition of the insurance money when premises 

are destroyed during the term 999 



XXvi TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

595. Equitable relief in the cases of options to purchase — Rem- 
edy of the tenant by specific performance 1000 

597. Damage for the breach of a covenant to permit the lessee 

to purchase the premises 1003 

CHAPTER XXV. 

THE TAXES AND INSURANCE. 

§ 598. The liability of the lessor for taxes 1005 

599. The taxation increased by the tenant's improvements 1007 

COO. The landlord's liability for water rates 1008 

601. The construction of a covenant to pay taxes 1012 

C02. Covenant to pay taxes not one of indemnity 1013 

603. The time of the levy, assessment or payment 1014 

604. The time for the payment of the taxes 1016 

605. Mode of the payment of the taxes by the lessee 1017 

606. The validity of the taxes 1017 

607. The exemption of the premises from taxation 1018 

608. The aportionment of taxes between lessor and lessee 1019 

609. The liability of an assignee or an undertenant to pay the 

taxes 1020 

610. Extent of the assignee's liability for the taxes 1021 

611. Whether a covenant to pay taxes binds the lessee to pay 

assessments for local improvements 1022 

612. The lessee's covenant to pay assessments 1026 

613. The payment of the taxes by the mortgagee of the leasehold 1030 

614. The forfeiture of the lease for a breach of a condition or a 

covenant by the lessee to pay the taxes 1031 

615. Equitable relief from forfeiture for non-payment of taxes 

by the tenant 1033 

616. The landlord's lien for unpaid taxes 1033 

617. The measure of the landlord's damages for the lessee's de 

fault in paying the taxes 1034 

618. Personal liability to a judgment for taxes 1034 

619. The tenant's covenant to insure 1035 

620. The tenant's covenant to pay increased insurance 1037 

621. Forfeiture in case of a breach of covenant to insure 1038 

622. "When the covenant to insure runs with the land 1040 

623. The measure of the damages for a failure to insure 1041 

CIIArTER XXVI. 

THE ASSIGN ' ' NT OP THE IJ5ASE. 

§ 624. The general rule as to tenant's power to assign or sublet. . 1044 
625. Statutes requiring the consent of the landlord to the ten- 
ant's assignment or subletting 104G 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVii 

626. Sublease and assignment distinguished 1047 

627. What constitutes an assignment or a sublease 1050 

628. Whether a prohibition of assignment or subletting is a 

condition or a covenant 1054 

629. The form of the consent of the lessor to an assignment or 

underletting 1056 

630. A waiver of a breach not to assign 1057 

631. The effect of an assignment by the lessee for the benefit of 

creditors 1060 

632. Covenant not to assign except to a person of responsibility 

and respectability 1063 

633. The effect of an involuntary assignment 1065 

634. Who may take advantage of a breach of a covenant not to 

assign 106? 

635. The presumption of an assignment from a stranger being 

in possession of the premises 1068 

636. Agreements to assign leases 1070 

637. The formal requisites of an assignment of a lease 1072 

638. The validity of an assignment 1074 

639. The knowledge of the contents of the lease by the assignee 1074 

640. The implied warranty of the title by the assignor of the 



lease 



1076 



641. The assignee's rights as against the lessor 1078 

642. The assignee's liability upon the covenants of the lease. . . 1079 

643. The rights of the landlord to distrain after the assignment 

by the tenant lOgg 

644. The liability of the assignee to his assignor 1084 

645. The assignee's liability to the lessor for the rent 10S5 

646. The liability of the assignee not In possession for rent 1087 

647. Express covenants in the assignment 1088 

648. The assignee's covenants to indemnify the assignor 1089 

649. The effect of an assignment by the assignee 1090 

The liability of the assignor for the rent after an assign- 



650 



ment 



1092 



651. The liabilities and rights of an undertenant as regards 

the original lessor 2095 

652. The knowledge by an undertenant of the covenants and 

agreements which are binding on his lessor 1098 

653. The nature and operation of a mortgage of the lease 1099 

654. The assignment of a lease as security 1103 

655. The renewal of a lease for the benefit of a mortgagee 1103 

656. The liability of an equitable mortgagee or assignee to the 

lessor 1104 

657. The recording assignments of leases 1107 

658. The recording of mortgages of leasholds 1108 

659. The assignment of subsequently accruing rents as distinct 

from the assignment of the reversion 1111 

660. The rights and remedies of an assignee of the rents against 

the tenant 1114 



c 



XXVlll TABLE OF CONTENTS, 

661. The f oiin of an assignment of rents 1117 

662. Priorities between the assignee of the rent and the as- 

signee of the reversion 1118 

663. The duty of the assignee for creditors to lease the real 

property over which he has control 1118 

664. The liability of the estate of a bankrupt lessee for the rent 1119 

665. The acceptance of a lease by a trustee in bankruptcy 1120 

66G. The duties of a receiver as a tenant 1122 

667. The powers and duties of a receiver as a landlord 1123 

668. The rights of a receiver in foreclosure to the rent 1126 

CHAPTER XXVII. 
THT EVICTION OP THE TENANT. 

§ 669. The scope of this chapter 1128 

670. Eviction defined and classified 1129 

671. Trespass and eviction distinguished 1131 

672. The necessity of a legal possession in the tenant 1134 

673. The intention of the landlord 1135 

674. Actual eviction 1137 

675. An action by the landlord to recover possession 1137 

676. Constructive eviction arising from the interference with 

the tenant's beneficial use of the premises 1138 

677. Illustrations of constructive eviction 1140 

678. The lessor's failure to heat the premises properly 1142 

679. The deprivation of easements 1145 

680. The loss of the use of an elevator 1147 

681. Shutting off water supply 1148 

682. Presence of vermin and noxious smells 1149 

683. The failure of the landlord to repair 1150 

684. The interference by the landlord with sub-tenants 1154 

685. The entry of the landlord to rebuild or to repair 1154 

686. Use of adjoining lots 1117 

687. The acts of strangers are not usually an eviction 1160 

688. The acts of the municipal or public authorities 1162 

689. Whether annoyances caused by other tenants are an evic- 

tion 1165 

690. Objectionable occupancy of adjoining premises by peimis- 

sion of the landlord 1167 

691. The actions of a servant or agent of the landlord 1169 

692. An eviction by a paramount title 1171 

693. The leasing ot the premises to a stranger 1175 

694. An abandonment of the premises by a tenant 1175 

695. The eviction of a tenant from a part of the premises.... 1177 
69G. The demand and refusal of restoration to possession 1182 

697. The effect of an eviction 1182 

698. The measure of the damages for an eviction 1184 

699. Limitation on an action for an eviction 1187 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xxix 

700. Equitable jurisdiction to restrain an eviction 1188 

701. The right of the landlord to a bill of particulars 1189 

702. The landlord's failure to deliver possession 1190 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

THE SURRENDER OF THE LEASE. 

703. Tlie surrender of a lease defined ; 1192 

704. The surrender of a written lease; when required to be in 

writing 1193 

705. The language of a surrender in writing 119G 

706. Surrender by implication or operation of law 1198 

707. The execution of a new lease by the parties to the old lease 

as a surrender 1200 

708. Setting aside a surrender in writing as obtained by fraud. . 1204 

709. The effect of a surrender on the undertenant 120.5 

710. The delivery of the keys as evidence of a surrender 1206 

711. The surrender of a portion of the premises 1211 

712. The acceptance of an assignee of the lease as a new tenant 1211 

713. The effect of a re-letting by a landlord to a stranger 1213 

714. A surrender by or to an agent of the landlord, or the tenant 1218 

715. A surrender by a tenant becoming a vendee 1219 

716. Payment to be made by the landlord on a surrender 1220 

717. A new lease made with undertenants 1221 

718. The possession of the premises in the lessee is necessary 

for a valid surrender 1221 

719. The assent of the lessor to the surrender 1222 

720. The tenant in possession after a delivery of the keys 1223 

721. A surrender made by joint lessees 1224 

722. To whom a surrender must be made 1225 

723. A surrender upon a condition 1226 

724. The consideration for an agreement in writing to surren- 

der 1226 

725. The merger of the term with the reversion 1228 

726. The doctrine of merger is applicable only to concurrent es- 

tates 1232 

727. When a merger does not take place 1233 

728. The resumption of the possession by a landlord as an ac- 

ceptance of a surrender 1234 

729. The destruction of the written lease 1237 

730. The effect of a surrender upon the lease 1238 

CHAPTER XXIX. 
THE DUTIES OF THE PARTIES AS REGARDS FIXTURES. 

732. The topic of fixtures generally 1242 

733. Common law as to chattels annexed 1243 

734. General rules for determining what are fixtures 1245 



XXX TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

735. The intention of the parties to the lease 1247 

736. The modem rule as to trade fixtures 1249 

738. Machinery and mechanical apparatuses as trade fixtures. . 1254 

739. Domestic fixtures 1256 

740. Farming fixtures belonging to tenants 1258 

741. Personal property which is held by a tenant under a condi- 

tional bill of sale 1261 

742. Chattels used by a tenant in improving or repairing the 

premises 1261 

743. The injury to the premises by the removal 1262 

744. The necessity for removing fixtures during the term 1264 

745. Exception to the rule that fixtures must be removed during 

the term 1268 

746. Appraisal or arbitration to determine the value of fixtures. 1271 

747. Meaning of end of the term 1275 

748. The lessor's option to renew or pay for the lessee's improve- 

ments 1276 

749. A landlord's agreement to pay for the fixtures and improve- 

ments of the tenant 1277 

750. Compensation to the lessee for his improvements in case of 

the sale of premises 1279 

751. The meaning of the word "improvements" 1280 

752. The lessor's covenant to pay for improvements runs with 

the land 1283 

753. Conditions precedent to the right of the tenant to remove 

structures erected by him 1285 

754. The taking of a new lease by the tenant 1286 

755. Covenants which give the landlord a lien for his rent on 

biuldings of a tenant 1290 

756. The lessee's lien for the value of his improvements 1291 

757. Improvements by the landlord prior to the entry of the 

tenant 1293 

758. The rights of an assignee or mortgagee of the tenant 1293 

759. The tenant's sale of his fixtures when within statute of 

frauds 1295 

760. The rights of an assignee and mortgagee of the landlord. . . 1295 

761. The liability of a landlord for personal property of his 

tenant left on the premises at the expiration of the lease ]299 

762. The remedies of the parties 1299 

703. The measure of damages to the tenant for the conversion 

of his chattels by the landlord 1301 

764. The measure of the damages for tiie breach of the land- 

lord's covenant to make improvements 1302 

765. The proof of a custom in respect to fixtures 1303 

766. The right of a tenant who has covenanted lo surrender in 

good condition to remove his improvemnts 130?. 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. XXXI 

CHAPTER XXX. 

THE TENANT'S EMBLEMENTS. 

§ 7C7. Emblements defined; the right of the tenant to emblements 1305 
768. The determination of an uncertain term by the act of the 

tenant 1308 

7G9. The tenant's right to remove crops where his term is cer- 
tain 1311 

770. The proof of custom in relation to the tenant's crops 1313 

771. The distinction between emblements and the cost of pre- 

paring the land 1315 

772. The right of the incoming tenant to growing crops 1315 

773. The tenant's title to the crops during the term 1317 

774. Title to crops after severance during the term 1321 

775. A covenant by the tenant not to remove crops 1321 

776. The rights of a sub-tenant to emblements 1322 

777. The right of a purchaser of a growing crop 1323 

778. Title to crops as against mortgagee and purchaser at a fore- 

closure sale 1324 

779. The knowledge by a tenant of an action to foreclose his 

landlord's title 1326 

780. Title to crops as against judgment creditors 1327 

781. The tenant's title to an increase of live stock on the prem- 

ises 1329 

782. The effect on emblements of the forfeiture of a lease by the 

breach of a condition 1330 

782o. The right of an outgoing tenant to the manure made on a 

farm 1331 

783. The right to manure which was made on non-agricultural 

land 1334 

784. The tenant's covenant as to the disposal of the manure. . . 1334 

785. Trees growing upon the soil during the tenancy 1335 

786. The remedy of the landlord 1337 

787. The criminal element in the tenant removing a crop 1338 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PREMISES DURING THE TERM. 

§ 788. Effect of destruction of the premises by fire on tenant's lia- 
bility to pay rent 1339 

789. The destruction of the premises which are a floor or apart- 

ment 1342 

790. The tenant's right to equitable relief 1344 

791. The surrender of the premises by the tenant 1346 

792. The construction of express exceptions to the common law 

rule 1348 

793. The effect of a covenant by the landlord to repair or build 1349 



XXXll TABLE OP CONTENTS. 

794. The destruction of the premises occurring before the entry 

by the tenant 1351 

795. Deprivation of use of the premises by casualties of war 1352 

796. General rules which are observed in construing the statute 135S 

797. What constitutes unfitness for occupancy under the New 

York statute 1354 

798. The accrual of the rents 1357 

799. Negligence or fault of the tenant 1358 

800. The destruotion must be sudden and unexpected to bring 

the case under the statute 1359 

801. Waiver of the statutes by the parties 1360 

CHAPTER XXXII. 

THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE. 

802. The scope of the chapter 1361 

803. The extension of a lease and a renewal distinguished.... 1362 

804. The unilateral character of a covenant for a renewal 1365 

805. Stipulations to renew. When they are void for uncertainty 1367 

806. The terms and covenants necessary to be inserted in the re- 

newal lease 1308 

807. The invalidity of a clause permitting indefinite renewals. . 1373 

808. Time when an option for a renewal of a lease must be exer- 

cised 1376 

809. The necessity for and the character of notice 1377 

810. The specific performance of a covenant to renew 1382 

811. Waiver by the lessee of his privilege to renew 1385 

812. Conditions precedent to a renewal 1388 

813. Waiver of a breach of a covenant in the old lease 1389 

814. The rent of a renewal to be determined by appraisal 1389 

815. The covenant to renew runs with the land 1391 

815a. The tenant's equitable right to a reversal 1892 

816. The right of the personal representative of the lessee to a 

renewal 1393 

817. The exclusive option in the landlord to renew the lease. . . . 1393 

818. Option of renewing le^se or paying for tenant's improve- 

ments 1394 

819. A renewal by an endoisement on the lease 1395 

CHAPTER XXXIII. 

THE LIEN OF THE LANDLORD FOR RENT AND ADVANCES. 

820. General rules as to liens by statute 1400 

821. When the relationship of landlord and tenant must be 

proved 1402 

822. Lien for rent created by the lease 1403 

823. The construction of liens created by the lease 1405 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXX ill 

824. When the lien first attaches 1408 

825. The necessity for filing or recording 140!) 

826. The assignability of a landlord's lien 1410 

827. The nature of the indebtedness 1413 

828. What will constitute an adva-ncement to the tenant within 

the statute 1415 

829. To what property the statutory lien attaches 1419 

830. The inclusion in the landlord's lien of the goods of sub- 

tenants 1423 

831. The ownership and possession of the property subject to 

a lien 1424 

832. The removal and sale of the property which is subject to 

the lien 1425 

833. The distinction between the common law and equitable 

doctrines regarding liens on after acquired property 1426 

834. The liability of bona fide purchasers for value of a crop.. 1429 

835. Priorities between liens of the landlord and liens of chat- 

tel mortgagees 1433 

836. The renewal of a lease giving a lien which is prior to a 

mortgage 1436 

837. The priority of the landlord's lien over the claims of third 

persons for supplies 1437 

838. Priorities as between the landlord's lien and the lien of an 

attaching creditor 1439 

839. General rule as to the landlord's priority over an execu- 

tion creditor 1440 

840. The extent of the priority of the landlord's lien over that 

of an execution creditor 1442 

841. Priority of a factor's lien over that of a landlord 1445 

842. Exemption from execution 1446 

843. The subordination of mechanics' liens to rent liens 1447 

844. The subordination of the title of a vendor on condition 1448 

845. The taking of additional security for the rent as a waiver 

of the lien 1449 

846. The waiver of lien by the landlord by" conduct generally. .1450 

847. The waiver of the lien by an agent _,...1453 

848. The termination of the lien 1454 

849. The remedy of the landlord against one purchasing prop- 

erty subject to his lien 1455 

850. Action by the landlord in conversion or assumpsit 1457 

851. The statutory mode of enforcing a lien 1459 

852. The remedy of the purchaser of chattels subject to the 

lien, against the tenant 1461 

853. Injunction to protect the lien of the landlord 1431 

854. Grounds for granting an attachment 1464 

855. The effect of an attachment 1466 

85B. The cumulative character of the remedy by attachment 1466 

857. What property may be attached by the landlord 1467 



Table of Cases Cited. 



[EEFEEENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Abadie r. Berges (41 La. Ann. 

281), 1165, 1378. 
Abby V. Billups (35 Miss. 618), 63, 

882,892. 
Abby V. Shiner (5 Tex. Civ. App. 

287), 578. 
Abbey, etc. Ass'n v. Welland (48 

Cal. 614), 111. 
Abbott V. Boswortb (36 Ohio St. 

605), 335. 
Abbott V. Cromartie (72 N. C. 

292), 929. 
Abbott V, Parsons (3 Burr. 1807), 

1201. 
Abbott V. Seventy-six Land & Wa- 
ter Co. (87 Cal. 323), 1370. 
Abercrombie v. Redpath (1 Iowa, 

111), nil. 
Abeel v. Radcliffe (13 Johns. (N. 

Y.) 297), 561, 1367. 
Aberdeen Coal Co. v. Evansville 

(14 Ind. App. 621), 1235. 
Abingdon v. Butler (2 Cox, 260), 

473. 
Abington v. Steinberg (86 Mo. 

App. 639), 1460. 
Abraham v. Nicrosi (87 Ala. 173), 

1422,1457. 
Abraham v. Tape (60 Md. 317), 

1080. 
Abrams v. Sheehan (40 Md. 446), 

1117,1434. 
Abrams v, Taylor (24 111. 102), 

549. 
Abrams v. Watson (59 Ala. 524), 

564, 666, 669, 687, 697, 700. 



Academy of Music v. Hackett (2 

Hilt. (N. Y.) 217), 638. 
Accidental D. Ins. Co. v. Mac- 

Kenzie (5 L. T. 20), 926. 
Accles V. Mills (67 L. J. P. C. 25 

[1898] A. C. 360), 617. 
Ackland v. Lutley (9 Ad. & E. 

879), 347. 
Acocks V. Phillips (5 Hon. 183), 

634. 
Acquackanonk Water Co. v. Wat- 
son (29 N. J. Eq. 366), 431. 
Acton V. Blundell (12 M. & W. 348, 

349), 432. 
Adair v. Bogle (20 Iowa, 238), 695. 
Adams, In re (124 Fed. Rep. 142), 

1120. 
Adams v. Adams (4 Watts (Pa.) 

160), 49. 
Adams v. Bigelow (128 Mass. 365), 

539. 
Adams v. Brevieton (3 H. & J. 

(Md.) 124), 717. 
Adams v. Burke (21 R. I. 126), 

1093. 
Adams v. Cairns (85 L. T. 10), 

155. 
Adams v. Clark r2 W. N. C. (Pa.) 

429), 748. 
Adams v. Cohoes (127 N. Y. 175), 

156, 158, 181. 
Adams v. Fletcher (17 R. I. 127), 

828. 
Adams v. Gibney (4 M. & P. 491), 

606. 
Adams v. Goddard (48 Me. 212), 

1040, 1205, 1294, 1301. 



XXXVl 



T.iBLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Adams v. Kensington Vestry (54 

L. J. Ch. 87), 996. 
Adams v. McKesson's Ex. (53 Pa. 

St. 81), 308. 
Adams v. Medsker (25 W. Va. 127), 

342. 
Adams v. Power (52 Miss. 828), 

100. 
Adams v. Smith (19 Nev. 259), 

1100,1306. 
Adams v. State (87 Ala. 89), 311. 
Adams v. Werner (120 Mich. 432), 

1131,1156. 
Aderholds v. Blumenthal (95 Ala. 

66), 1432. 
Adler v. Lowenstein (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 492), 489. 
Adler v. Mendelson (74 Wis. 464), 

1224. 
Adriance v. Hafkemeyer (39 Mo. 

134), 558. 
Adsit V. Kaufman (121 Fed. Rep. 

355), 573. 
Agar V. Winslow (123 Cal. 587), 

1136,1142. 
Agard v. King (Cro. Eliz. 775), 

130. 
Agate V. Lowenbein (57 N. Y. 604), 

712. 
Ahern v. Steele (115 N. Y. 203), 

792, 805. 
Aiken v. Blaisdell (41 Vt. 655), 

776. 
Aikens v. Stadell (9 Kan. App. 

298), 1425. 
Aikin v. Perry (119 Ga. 260), 847. 
Ainsworth v. Ritt (38 Cal. 89), 

1342. ■ 
Airey v. Weinstein (54 Ark. 443), 

1435. 
Alabama, etc. Co. v. Oliver (78 

Ala. 158), 386, 1118. 
Alabama Land Co. v. Kyle (99 Ala. 

474), 960. 
Albans v. Battersby (47 L. J. Q. B. 

571), 749. 



Albert v. State (66 Md. 337), 794,. 

805. 
Albin V. Lord (39 N. H. 196), 24. 
Albin V. Riegel C40 Ohio St. 339), 

1328. 
Albright v. Mills (86 Ala. 324)," 

1317. 
Alcorn v. Morgan (77 Ind. 184), 

156. 
Aklerson v. Marshall (7 Mont. 

288), 920, 965. 
Alderson v. Miller (15 Gratt. (Va.) 

279), 924. 
Aldred's Case (9 Rep. 586), 409. 
Alexander v. Carew (13 Allen 

(Mass.) 70), 678. 
Alexander v. Bailey (2 Lea 

(Tenn.) 639), 904. 
Alexander v. Bland (3 Tenn. 431)^ 

349. 
Alexander v. DeKernel (81 Ky. 

345), 351. 
Alexander v. Dorsey (12 Ga. 12), 

1155,1343. 
Alexander v. Gardner (96 S. W. 

Rep. 818), 274. 
Alexander v. Gibbon (118 N. C. 

796), 961. 
Alexander v. Jameson (5 Binn. 

(Pa.) 238), 332. 
Alexander v. Zeigler (36 So. 536), 

315. 
Alexandria Canal Co. v. Swann (5 

How. 83), 63. 
Alfred v. Vickery (Car. & M. 280), 

170, 174. 
Alger V. Kennedy (49 Vt. 109), 

1142,1152. 
Alleman v. Vink (28 Ind. App. 

142), 139. 
Allen V. Anthony (1 Mer. 287), 

497. 
Allen V. Bartlett (20 W. Va. 46), 

140. 
Allen V. Bates (3 L. J. Ex. 39), 

524. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XXXVU 



[references are to pages.] 



Allen V. Bryan (5 Bar. & Cres. 

512), 560, 1112. 
Allen V. Calvert (2 East, 376), 241. 
Allen V. Chatfield (8 Minn. 435), 

920. 
Allen V. Culver (3 Denio (N. Y.) 

290), 491, 867, 877, 882, 884, 1080. 
Allen V. Dent (4 Lea (Tenn.) 676), 

1014, 1032. 
Allen V. England (3 F. & F. 49), 

301. 
Allen V. Fosgate (11 How. Pr. 

218), 331. 
Allen V. Gales (74 Vt. 376), 1114. 
Allen V. Hall (61 Neb. 256), 491, 

922,1111. 
Allen V. Hill (Cro. Eliz. 238), 229. 
Allen V. Hooker (25 Vt. 137), 760. 
Allen V. Houston Ice & Brewing 

Co. (97 S. W. Rep. 1063), 1419. 
Allen V. Jaqulsh (21 Wend. 628), 

156. 
Allen V. Kelly (18 R. I. 197), 774. 
Allen V. Macon, D. & S. R. Co. (33 

S. E. Rep. 696), 579. 
Allen V. Mansfield (82 Mo. 68S), 

195. 
Allen V. Mooney (130 Mass. 155), 

1249. 
Allen V. Paul (24 Gratt. (Va.) 

332), 958, 965, 966. 
Allen V. Pryor (3 A. K. Marsh. 

(Ky.) 305), 519. 
Allen V. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 

(137 Mo. 205), 434. 
Allen V. Scott (21 Pick. (Mass.) 

29), 1115. 
Allen V. Van Houten (19 N. J. L. 

47), 49. 
Allen V. Whetstone (35 La. Ann. 

846), 361. 
Allen V. Wooley (1 Blackf. (Ind.) 

148), 1115. 
Allison Mfg. Co. v. McCormick 

(118 Pa. St. 519), 904. 
Almy V. Green (13 R. I. 350), 776, 

1093. 



Alschuler v. Schiff (59 111. App. 

51), 1222. 
Alsup v. Banks (68 Miss. 664), 42, 

1214,1215. 
Alt V. Gray (67 N. Y. Supp. 411), 

258,686. 
Althorpe v. Wolfe (22 N. Y. 355), 

843. 
Alton V. Railroad Co. (19 C. B. 

(N. S.) 213), 913. 
Alve V. Henderson (16 B. Mon. 

(Ky.) 131), 71. 
Alwood V. Mansfield (33 111. 452), 

920. 
Alworth V. Gordon (81 Minn. 445), 

150, 158, 174, 489. 
Amelung v. Seekamp (9 Gill & J. 

(Md.) 474), 724. 
American Bonding Co. v. Pueblo 

Inv. Co. (150 Fed. Rep. 17), 

1013.1238. 
American Express Co. v. Smith 

(33 Ohio St. 511), 904. 
American Ins. Co. v. Chicago R. 

Co. (74 Mo. App. 89), 1054, 1070. 
American Mortg. Co. v. Merrick 

Const. Co. (100 N. Y. Supp. 561), 

530. 
American Mortgage Co. v. Sire (92 

N. Y. Supp. 182), 1126. 
American Strawboard Co. v. Halde- 

man Paper Co. (27 C. C. A. 634), 

742. 
Ames V. Fletcher (17 R. I. 137), 

825. 
Ames V. Miller (65 Neb. 204), 393. 
Ames V. Trenton Brewing Co. (56 

N. J. Eq. 309), 1248. 
Amick V. Brubaker (101 Mo. 473), 

182, 191, 220. 
Amory v. Kannofsky (117 Mass. 

35), 1195, 1199, 1238. 
Amsden v. Atwood (69 Vt. 527), 

140, 460, 1185. 
Amsden v. Floyd (60 Vt. 386), 221. 
Amsley v. Woodward (6 B. & C. 

579), 1058. 



xxxvm 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[REFEBENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Anderson's Appeal (3 Barr. 218), 

1443. 
Anderson v. Ammonett (9 Lea 

(Tenn.) 1), 1291. 
Anderson v. Anderson (104 Ala. 

428), 938, 950. 
Anderson v. Brewster (44 Ohio St. 

576), 234. 
Anderson v. Brinser (129 Pa. St. 

376), 497. 
Anderson v. Chicago Marine & Fire 

Ins. Co. (21 111. 601), 1180. 
Anderson v. Connor (87 N. Y. 

Supp. 449), 100. 
Anderson v. Critcher (11 Gill & J. 

(Md.) 450), 335, 390. 
Anderson v. Darby (1 Nott & Mc- 

Cord, 394), 10. 
Anderson v. Dickie (26 How. Pr. 

(N. Y.) 105), 794. 
Anderson v. Hapler (34 111. 436), 

685, 1300, 1336. 
Anderson v. Henry (46 W. Va. 

319), 1401. 
Anderson v. Midland Ry. Co. (3 

E. & E. 614), 192. 
Anderson v. Miller (96 Tenn. 35), 

771, 1098. 
Anderson v. Miller (15 Gratt. 

(Va.) 279), 930. 
Anderson v. Nesmith (7 N. H. 

167), 685. 
Anderson v. Oppenheimer (49 L. 

J. Q. B. 708), 1153. 
Anderson v. Prindle (23 Wend. 

(N. Y.) 616), 179. 
Anderson v. Robbins (82 Me. 422), 

539. 
Anderson v. Steinrich (74 N. Y. 

Supp. 920), 302. 
Anderson v. Straub (98 111. 485), 

1325. 
Anderson v. Swift (106 Ga. 748), 

1277. 
Anderson v. Winton (137 Ala. 

432), 457, 1180. 



Anderton v. Milner (59 L. J. Ch. 

765), 608. 
Andrew v. Carlisle (4 Colo. App. 

336), 337, 470. 
Andrew v. Newcomb (32 N. Y. 

417), 1320. 
Andrew v. Stewart (81 Ga. o3), 

1423. 
Andrew v. Day Button Co. (132 

N. Y. 348), 1255. 
Andrews v. Erwin (25 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1791), 262. 
Andrews v. Hailes (2 El. & Black, 

349), 961, 962. 
Andrews v. Marshall Creamery 

Co. (92 N. W. Rep. 706), 1378. 
Andrews v. Minter (88 S. W. Rep. 

822), 694. 
Andrews v. Williamson (193 Mass. 

92), 814. 
Andrews Mfg. Co. v. Porter (112 

Ala. 381), 1425. 
Andrus v. Bradley-Alderson Co. 

(117 Mo. App. 322), 871. 
Angel V. Duke (44 L. J. Q. B. 78), 

382. 
Angell V. Randall (16 L. T. 489), 

526. 
Angres Boom Co. v. WTiitney (26 

Mich. 52), 451. 
Anheuser-Busch Brew. Ass'n v. 

Peterson (41 Neb. 897), 40, 794. 
Anthony v. New York P. & B. R. 

Co. (162 Mass. 60), 391. 
Anthony v. Smith (9 Humph. 

(Tenn.) 508), 105. 
Anton i v. Belknap (102 Mass. 

193), 210, 1253, 1269. 
Anzolone v. Paskusz (96 App. Div. 

188), 456, 597. 
Aperson v. Moore (30 Ark. 56, 58), 

1426, 1428. 
Appleton V. Ames (150 Mass. 34), 

212, 223, 1295, 1240. 
Api)leton V. Campbell (2 Car. & P. 

347), 772. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xxxix 



[references are to pages.] 



Appleton V. Marx (102 N. Y. Supp. 

2), 894. 
Appleton V. O'Donnell (173 Mass. 

398), 338, 519, 573. 
Applewhite v. Nelms (71 Miss. 

482), 1423. 
Arbenz v. Exley (52 W. Va. 476), 

140, 848, 1340. 
Arbuckle v. State (32 Ind. 34), 

1337. 
Arcade Inv. Co. v. Gierlet (109 N. 

W. Rep. 250), 178. 
Arcade Realty Co. v. Tunney (101 

N. Y. Supp.) 593), 524. 
Arden v. Sullivan (14 Q. B. g32), 

147, 196. 
Ardesco Oil Co. v. Richardson (63 

Pa. St. 162), 886. 
Arding v. Economic Printing & 

Publishing Co. (79 L. T. 420), 

1030. 
Ards V. Watkins (Cro. Eliz. 637), 

541. 
Ardsley Hall Co. v. Sirrett (86 N. 

Y. Supp. 792), 1147. 
Arent v. Bone (23 La. Ann. 387), 

390. 
Argall V. Pitts (78 N. Y. 239), 32. 
Arguelles v. Wood (1 Fed. Cas. 

520), 547. 
Armsby v. Woodward (6 Barn. & 

C. 519), 642, 645, 647, 1068. 
Armstrong v. Maybee (17 Wash. 

24), 883. 
Arkwright v. Colt (2 Y. & Coll. 

C. C. 4), 1041. 
Armiger v. Clark (Bumb. Ill), 

1382. 
Armory Board, In re (29 Misc. 

174), 57. 
Armour Packing Co. v. Des Moines 

Pork Co. (116 Iowa, 723), 1235. 
Armstrong v. Penn. R. Co. (38 N. 

J. Law, 1), 116. 
Armstrong v. Walker (9 Lea 

(Tenn.) 156), 1429. 



Armstrong v. Wheeler (9 Cow. 

(N. Y.) 88), 1093. 
Arnold v. Bennett (92 Mo. App. 

156), 679. 
Arnold v. Bidgood (Cro. Jac. 318), 

26,55. 
Arnold v. Clark (45 N. Y. Super, 

Ct. 252), 860. 
Arnold v. Phillips (59 111. App. 

213), 1400. 
Arnold v. R. Rothschild's Sons Co. 

(164 N. Y. 562), 248. 
Arnold v. Skale (Noy. 149), 688. 
Arnot V. Alexander (44 Mo. 25), 

1368, 1382, 1391. 
Arnson v. Spawn (2 S. D. 269), 

682. 
Arques v. Wasson (51 Cal. 620), 

1404. 
Arthur v. Bascon (28 Leg. Int. 

284), 349. 
Arthur v. Harty (40 N. Y. Supp. 

1091), 1029. 
Artt V. New York (28 N. Y. Su- 
per. Ct. 248), 140. 
Ascarete v. PfafE (78 S. W. Rep. 

974), 1046. 
Ashbrook v. Dale (27 Mo. App. 

649), 772. 
Ashby V. Ashby (59 N. J. Eq. 536), 

1263. 
Ashby V. Wilson (69 Law J. Ch. 

47), 744. 
Ashley V. Pease (1§ Pick. (Mass.) 

268), 439. 
Ashley v. Young (79 Miss. 129), 52. 
Ashley v. Warner (11 Gray 

(Mass.) 43), 192. 
Ashton V. Golden Gate Lumber Co. 

(58 Pac. Rep. 1), 937. 
Aslin V. Summersett (1 B. & Aid. 

135), 171. 
Aspdin V. Austin (5 Q. B. 671), 

603. 
Astor V. L'Amoreux (4 Sandf. (N. 

Y.) 524), 1090. 



xl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Astor V. Miller (2 Paige (N. Y.) 

68), 1101. 
Astor V. Turner Til Paige (N. Y.) 

436), 28, 34. 
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Morgan (42 

Kan. 23), 1247. 
Atherstone v. Bostock (2 Man. & 

G. 511), 135. 
Atkins V. Chilson (7 Mete. (Mass.) 

298), 723. 
Atkins V. Chilson (11 Mete. 

(Mass.) 2), 663. 
Atkins V. Sleeper (7 Allen (Mass.) 

487), 348. 
Atkinson v. Coatsworth (8 Mod. 

30), 953. 
Atkinson v. Dixon (96 Mo. 588), 

1271. 
Atkinson v. Morrison (3 Oreg. 

332), 946. 
Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt (54 

N. Y. 25), 729. 
Atlantic Product Co. v. Dunn (55 

S. E. Rep. 299), 1376. 
Attaway v. Hoskinson (37 Mo. 

App. 132), 1405. 
Attersoll v. Stevens (1 Taunt. 

183), 721. 
Attoe V. Hemmings (2 Bulst. 281), 

641. 
Attorney General v. Stephens (6 

De G., M. & G. Ill), 511. 
Attorney General v. Tomline (43 

L. T. Rep. 486), 962. 
Atwood V. Norton (31 Ga. 507), 

378. 
Aubuchon v. McKnight (1 Mo. 

312), 343. 
Audenreid v. Hull (45 Mo. App. 

202), 1466. 
Auer V. Penn (99 Pa. St. 370), 

1214. 
Auer V. Vahl (129 Wis. 635), 785. 
Auginbaugh v. Coppenheffer (55 

I'a. St. 347), 702. 
Aull Savings Bank v. Aull (80 Mo. 

199), 573. 



Ault Wooden-Ware Co. v. Baker 

(26 Ind. App. 374), 293. 
Austin V. Ahearne (61 N. Y. 6), 

80,482. 
Austin V. Field (7 Abb. Pr. N. S. 

29), 1342. 
Austin V. Harris (10 Gray (Mass.) 

296), 1078. 
Austin V. Hudson R. R. R. Co. (25 

N. Y. 340), 722. 
Austin V. Thomson (45 N. H. 113), 

223, 579, 1053, 1096. 
Austin V. Welch (72 S. W. Rep. 

(Tex.) 881), 1435. 
Austin V. Whitlock (1 Munf. (Va.) 

487), 332. 
Austin V. Wilson (46 Iowa, 362), 

965. 
Autrey v. Autrey (94 Ga. 579), 51. 
Auworth V. Johnson (5 Car. & P. 

239), 138, 851. 
Auxvasse Milling Co. v. Cornet 

(85 Mo. App. 251), 1460. 
Avan V. Frey (69 Ind. 91), 693. 
Averill v. Taylor (8 N. Y. 44), 244. 
Avery v. Cheslyn (3 Ad. & El. 75), 

1256. 
Avery v. Dougherty (102 Ind. 

443), 697, 699, 1132. 
Avery v. New York Central & H. 

R. R. Co. (7 N. Y. Supp. 341), 

440. 
Avery v. Scott (8 Exch. 500), 1271. 
Aydlett v. Neal (114 N. C. 7), 369. 
Aydlett v. Pendleton (114 N. C. 1), 

369. 
Aylet V. Dodd (2 Atk. 239), 765. 



B. 



Babcock v. Kennedy (1 Vt. 457), 

30. 
Babcock v. Scoville (56 111. 461), 

543, 1087. 
Backenstoss v. Stahler's Adm'r (23 

Pa. St. 251). 1316, 1329. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Xli 



[REFERENCES ARE TO PAGE^.] 



Backhouse v. Mohun (3 Swanst. 

434), 982. 
Backus V. Sternberg (59 Minn. 

403), 152. 
Bacon v. Bowdoin (22 Pick. 
(Mass.) 401), 243, 244, 250, 397, 
1365. 
Bacon v. Brown (9 Conn. 334), 

139. 
Bacon v. Carr (112 Iowa, 193), 

1454. 
Bacon v. Howell (60 Miss. 362), 

1403. 
Bacon v. Park (19 Utah, 246), 

1032. 
Bacon v. Parker (137 Mass. 309), 

379,382. 
Bacon v. Taylor (Kirby (Conn.) 

398), 15. 
Bacon v. Western Furniture Co. 

(53 Ind. 229), 632, 638. 
Badcock v. Hunt (60 L. T. 314), 

1009. 
Badger Lumber Co. v. Malone (8 

Kan. App. 121), 241. 
Badger Lumber Co. v. Marion Wa- 
ter Supply Co. (48 Kan. 182), 
442. 
Bagley v. Peddie (16 N. Y. 469), 

588. 
Bailey v. Campbell (82 Ala. 342), 

258, 955. 
Bailey v. Delaplaine (1 Sandf. (N. 

Y.) 5), 1199. 
Bailey v. Dunlap (138 Ala. 415), 

123. 
Bailey v. Foster (3 C. B. 215), 175. 
Bailey v. Schnitzius (23 N. J. Eq. 

235), 441. 
Bailey v. Seigel, etc. Co. (54 Mo. 

App. 50), 680. 
Bailey v. Snyder (13 S. & R. 

(Pa.) 160), 457. 
Bailey v. Ward (32 La. Ann. 839), 

195. 
Bailey v. Wells (8 Wis. 141), 1193. 



Bailey v. White (41 N. H. 337), 

336. 
Eailie v. Plant (11 Misc. Rep. 30), 

1379. 
Bailie v. Rodway (27 Wis. 172), 

496. 
Bain v. Clark (10 Johns. (N. Y.) 

424), 1309. 
Baines v. Burbridge (15 La. Ann. 

628), 100. 
Baird v. Evans (^0 111. 29), 868. 
Baird v. Milford Land, etc. Co. (89 

Cal. 552), 274, 371. 
Bajus V. Syracuse, etc. R. Co. (103 

N. Y. 316), 915. 
Bakeman v. Pooler (14 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 637), 536. 
Baker v. Allen (66 Ark. 271), 836. 
Baker v. Cotney (38 So. Rep. (Ala. 

1905) 131). 1457. 
Baker v. Fessenden (71 Me. 293), 

1248. 
Baker v. Hoag (3 Barb. (N. Y.) 

208), 1299. 
Baker v. Hotzzaffel (4 Taunt. 45), 

576, 1339, 1340. 
Baker v Jones (38 Hun (N Y) 

625), 37. 
Baker v. Jordan (3 Ohio St. 438), 

1316. 
Baker v. Kenney (69 N. J. L. 180), 

160, 163. 
Baker v. Kinney (54 Atl. Rep. (N, 

J.) 526), 150, 163. 
Baker v. McInturfE (49 Mo. App. 

505), 1308. 
Baker v. McClurg (96 111. App. 

165), 1252. 
Baker v. Pratt (15 111. 5681,1195. 
Baker v. Saunderson (3 Pick. 

(Mass.) 348), 680, 683. 
Baker v. White (2 Term. Rep. 

159), 171. 
Baker v. Winfrey (15 B. Mon. 

(Ky.) 504), 10. 
Balch V. Patten (45 Me. 41), 576. 



xlii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Baldwell v. Center (30 Cal. 539), 

250. 
Baldwin v. McCarthern (94 Ga. 

622), 1438. 
Baldwin v. Morgan (43 Hun (N. 

Y.) 355), 412, 752. 
Baldwin v. Thibaudeau (17 N. Y. 

Supp. 532), 585. 
Baldwin v. Walker (21 Conn. 

168), 30, 486. 
Bales V. Gilbert (84 Mo. App. 675), 

1271,1274. 
Ball V. Allen (15 Mass. 433), 340. 
Ball V. Cullimore (2 C. M. & R. 

120), 215. 
Ball V. Dunsterville (4 T. R. 313), 

332. 
Ball V. First National Bank (SO 

Ky. 501), 49. 
Ball V. Lively (2 J. J. Marsh, 

(Ky.) 181), 924. 
Ball V. Lively (4 Dana (Ky.) 369), 

471. 
Ball V. Montgomery (2 Ves. Jr. 

194), 22. 
Ballance v. City of Peoria (180 111. 

29), 463, 948. 
Ballard v. Johnson (114 N. C. 

141), 1438. 
Ballard v. Mayfield (107 Ala. 306), 

1411,1412. 
Ballard v. Stephen (92 Ala. 616), 

1464. 
Ball Brown & Co. v. Sledge (82 

Miss. 749), 1420, 1446. 
Ballock v. Domitt (6 T. R. 650), 

1340. 
Bally V. Wells (Wilmot, 344), 

1285. 
Balser v. Barcraft (76 Ala. 414), 

960. 
Baltimore, etc. Co. v. McCutcheon 

(13 Pa. St. 1), 61. 65. 
Baltimore & S. P. R. Co. v. Hack- 

ett (87 Md. 224), 686. 
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. West (57 

Ohio St. 161), 146, 383. 



Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Wins- 
low (18 App. D. C. 438), 329. 
Baltimore Dental Ass'n v. Fuller 

(101 Va. 627), 140, 167. 
Bamman v. Binzen (142 N. Y. 

636), 999, 1397. 
Banbury v. Sherin (4 S. D. 88), 

163. 
Bandy v. Cartwright (8 Exch. 

933), 698. 
Banergee v. Hevey (5 Mass. 11), 

97. 
Bank v. Getchett (59 N. H. 281), 

520. 
Bank v. Warner (22 Kan. 537), 

122. 
Bank v. Wise (3 Watts (Pa.) 

394), 539. 
Banker v. Braker (9 Abb. N. C. 

(N. Y.) 411), 1374. 
Bank, etc. v. Trumbull (35 How. 

Pr. (N. Y.) 8), 537. 
Bank of America v. Banks (101 

U. S. 240), 24. 
Bank of Commonwealth v. Mc- 

Chord (4 Dana (Ky.) 191), 343. 
Bank of Hamilton v. Dudleys Les- 
see (2 Pet. (U. S.) 492), 48, 53. 
Bank of Louisville v. Baumeister 

(87 Ky. 6), 978. 
Bank of Pennsylvania v. Wise (3 

Watts (Pa) 394), 495. 
Bank of Virginia v. Hedges (38 

Tex. 614), 961. 
Bank of Virginia v. Poitiaux (3 

Rand. (Va.) 136), 65. 
Banner, In re (149 Fed. Rep. 936), 

586. 
Banning v. Fades (6 Minn. 402), 

342. 
Baptist Church v. Bigelow (16 

Wend. (N. Y.) 28), 382. 
Baragiano v. Villani (117 111. App. 

372), 328. 
Barbee v. Greenberg (57 S. B. 

Rep. 125), 1392. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xliii 



Barbee v. Shannon (1 Ind. Ter. 

199), 679. 
Barber v. Clark (4 N. H. 380), 

447. 
Barber v. Stone (104 Mich. 90), 

646,649. 
Barchman v. Byrne {S3 Cal. 28), 

27. 
Barclay v. Morrison (16 S. & R. 

(Pa.) 129), 549. 
Barclay v. Steamboat Co. (6 

Phila. 558), 616, 1391. 
Bardlet v. Walker (93 111. App. 

609), 1214. 
Barker v. Allen (5 H. & N. 61), 

386. 
Barker v. Barker (3 Car. & C. 

557), 862. 
Barker v. Bradley (42 N. Y. 316), 

232. 
Barker v. Clark (4 N. H. 380), 445. 
Barker v. Fitzgerald (204 111. 

325), 470. 
Barker v. Hollis (50 Ala. 411), 

139. 
Barkley v. Holt (84 N. Y. S. 957), 

103. 
Barkley v. McCue (25 Misc. Rep. 

738), 103, 1213. 
Barkman v. Barkman (107 111. 

App. 332), 922. 
Barlin v. Commonwealth (110 Pa. 

St. 454), 1445. 
Barlow v. Dahm (97 Ala. 414), 

964. 
Barlow v. Jones (117 Ga. 412), 

1095. 
Barlow v. Rhodes (1 C. & M. 439), 

416. 
Barlow v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank 

(63 N. Y. 399), 1015. 
Barlow v. Wainwright (22 Vt. 88), 

220, 1208, 1222, 1239. 
Barium v. Berger T125 Mich. 504), 

219. 
Barnard v. Poor (21 Pick. (Mass.) 

378), 844. 

d 



[references are to pages.] 

Barnes v. Northern Trust Co. (169 

111. 112), 486, 1092, 1093. 
Barnes v. Strohecker (17 Ga. 340), 

868. 
Barnett v. Barnes (73 111. 216, 

217), 466, 555. 
Barnett v. Plummer (19 W. N. C. 

(Pa.) 117), 980. 
Barnett v. Warren (82 Ala. 557), 

1438. 
Barney v. Keith (4 Wend. (N. Y.) 

502), 698. 
Barneycastle v. Walker (92 N. C. 

198), 689. 
Barns v. Wilson (116 Pa. St. 303), 

1157,1158. 
Barnsdall v. Boley (119 Fed. Rep. 

191), 341. 
Barnum v. Fitzpatrick (27 Abb. 

N. C. (N. Y.) 334), 1132, 1152. 
Barnum v. Landon (25 Conn. 137), 

390. 
Barr v. Chandler (47 N. J. Eq. 

532), 550. 
Barr v. Glover (10 Ir. Com. L. 

Rep. 113), 634. 
Barr v. Kimball (43 Neb. 766), 

480. 
Barreth v. Trainer (50 111. App. 

420), 1072. 
Barrett v. Bell (82 Mo. 110), 447. 
Barrett v. Blagrave (5 Ves. 555), 

725, 757. 
Barrett v. Brodie (158 111. 479), 

1129, 1131, 1142, 1152, 1340. 
Barrett v. Cocks (12 Heisk. 

(Tenn.) 566), 17. 
Barrett v. Cox (112 Mich. 220), 

195. 
Barrett v. Jefferson (5 Houst. 

(Del.) 567), 262. 
Barrett v. Johnson (2 Ind. App. 

25), 320. 
Barrett v. Rolph (14 M. & W. 348), 

1048. 
Barrett v. Warren (3 Hill (N. Y.) 

348), 690. 



xliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Barroilhet v. Battelle (7 Cal. 450), 

1075. 
Barron v. Liedlogg (95 Minn. 

474), 862. 
Barrow v. Isaacs (60 L. J. Q. B. 

179), 669, 670. 
Barrow v. Richard (8 Paige, 351), 

742. 
Barry v. Hamburg-Bremen F. I. 

Co. (110 N. Y. 1), 1051. 
Barry v. Hoffman (6 Md. 78), 350. 
Barry v. Ryan (4 Gray (Mass.) 

523), 275. 
Barry v. Smith (23 N. Y. 129), 

275. 
Barry v. Stanton (Cro. Eliz. 331), 

1054. 
Bartel v. Brain (13 Utah, 162), 

457. 
Bartlett v. Baker (34 L. J. Ex. 

11), 128. 
Bartlett v. Farrington (120 Mass. 

284), 565, 1131, 1132, 1136, 1137. 
Bartlett v. Greenleaf (11 Gray 

(Mass.) 98), 632. 
Bartlett v. Haviland (92 Mich. 

552), 1252. 
Bartlett v. Hitchcock (10 111. App. 

87), 288. 
Bartlett v. Perkins (13 Me 

685. 

Robinson (52 



Wright (Cro. Eliz. 



St. 



Bartlett v. 

715), 937. 
Bartlett v. 

299), 340. 
Bartley v. Phillips (179 Pa. 

175), 645. 
Barton v. Banks (2 F. & F. 213), 

1079. 
Barton v. Dawes (10 C. B. 261), 

4G5. 
Barton v. Learnard (26 Vt. 192), 

941. 
Barwick v. Thompson (7 T. R. 

488), 922. 
Bascom v. Dempsey (143 Mass. 

409), 685. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 

Basham v. Commonwealth (76 Ky. 

36), 326. 
Baskin v. Seechrist (6 Pa. St. 

497), 924. 
Bass V. Metropolitan West Side 
El. R. Co. (82 Fed. Rep. 587), 
712. 
Bass T. Rollins (63 Minn. 226), 

1143. 
Bass V. West (110 Ga. 698), 1185. 
Basserman v. Society of Trinity 

Church (39 Conn. 137), 449. 
Bassett v. Hughes (43 Wis. 319), 

533. 
Bass Lake Co. v. Hollenbeck (5 

Ohio Cir. Dec. 242), 334. 
Bastin v. Bidwell (18 Ch. D. 238), 

1387. 
Bastow V. Cox (11 Q. B. 22), 187. 
Bateman v. Maddox (86 Tex. 546), 

379. 
Bateman v. Murray (1 Ridgw. 

170), 1383. 
Bates V. Bassett (60 Vt. 530), 73. 
Bates V. Boston & N. Y. R. R. Co. 

(10 Allen (Mass.) 251), 332. 
Bates V. Dunham (58 Iowa, 308), 

14. 
Bates V. Hoski (6 Ohio Dec. 1064), 

1264. 
Bauer v. Taylor (4 Neb. (Unof.) 

701), 470, 477. 
Baugher v. Crane (27 Md. 36), 

712. 
Baugher v. Wilkins (16 Md. 35), 

697, 1158, 1160. 
Baughman v. Partman (14 S. W. 

Rep. 342), 292. 
Baughman v. Reed (75 Cal. 319), 

315. 
Baum V. Bell (2S S. C. 201), 1466. 
Bauman v. James (L. R. 3 Ch. 

508), 387. 
Baumgardner v. Copying Co. (44 

111. App. 74), 1131. 
Baumier v. Antian (65 Mich. 31), 
1142,1187. 



87), 



Neb. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xlv 



[references are to pages.] 



Baxley v. Sechrest (85 Ala. 183), 

1464. 
Baxter v. Brown (2 W. Bl. 973), 

244. 
Baxter v. Bush (29 Vt. 465), 19, 

1425. 
Baxter v. Lansing (7 Paige, 350), 

666. 
Baxter v. Providence (40 Atl. Rep. 

423), 623. 
Baxter v. Taylor (4 B. & Ad. 72), 

679. 
Bayles v. Clark (100 N. Y. Supp. 

586), 475. 
Bayley v. Bradley (5 Com. Bench, 

56), 236. 
Bayley v. Fitzmaurice (9 H. L. 

Cas. 78), 386. 
Baylies v. Ingram (73 N. E. Rep. 

1119), 630. 
Baylis v. Jiggins (67 L. J. Q. B. 

793), 1030. 
Baylis v. Le Gros (4 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 537), 861. 
Bayis v. Prentice (75 N. Y. 604), 

103. 
Bayly v. Gaines (12 "Va. Law J. 

78), 1125. 
Bayly v. Lawrence (1 Bay. (S. C.) 

499), 1353. 
Baynes v. Lloyd (2 Q. B. 610), 

606. 
Baynham v. Guy's Hospital (3 

Ves. 295), 1372. 
Baynton v. Finnall (12 Miss. 193), 

21. 
Bazin v. Segma (5 La. Ann, 718), 

1422. 
Beach v. Barons C13 Barb. (N. Y.) 

305), 1316. 
Beach v. Grain (2 N. Y. 86), 883. 
Beach v. Parish (4 Cal. 339), 1340. 
Beach v. Gray (2 Denio (N. Y.) 

84), 520. 
Beachey v. Somerset (1 Stra. 447), 

667. 



Beakes v. Hass (36 Misc. Rep. 

796), 1164. 
Beakes v. Holzman (94 N. Y. Supp. 

33), 856, 877. 
Beal V. Bass (86 Me. 325), 620. 
Beal V. Boston Car Spring Co. (125 

Mass. 159), 491, 1096, 1112. 
Beale v. Sanders (3 Bing. (N. C.) 

850), 196, 385. 
Beall V. James Folmar Sons & Co. 

(122 Ala. 414), 1435. 
Beall V. White (94 U. S. 382), 

1195,1422. 
Beals V. Providence Rubber Co. 

(11 R. I. 381), 1023. 
Beamish v. Cox (16 L. R. Ir. 270), 

161. 
Bean v. Coleman (44 N. H. 539), 

441. 
Bean v. Pettengill (7 Rob. (N. Y.) 

7), 1188. 
Bear v. Bitner (16 Pa. St. 175), 

1316. 
Beardman v. Wilson (L. R. 4 C. P. 

57), 1199. 
Beardsley v. Town of Nashville 

(64 Ark. 240), 575. 
Beasley v. Clarke (102 Ala. 254), 

960. 
Seattle v. Parrott Silver & Cop. 

Co. (17 Pac. Rep. 451), 123L 
Beaty v. Gibbon (16 Bast, 116), 

1314. 
Beavan v. Dalahy (1 H. Bl. 5), 

1314. 
Bebb V. Crowe (39 Kan. 342), 124. 
Becar v. Flues (¥4 N. Y. 518), 379. 
Beck V. Flournoy Live Stock & R. 

E. Co. (12 C. C. A. 497), 40. 
Beck V. Minnesota & Western 

Grain Co. (107 N. W. Rep. 

1032), 943. 
Beck V. Western Grain Co. (131 

Iowa, 62), 1419. 
Beck V. Wisely (52 Mo. App. 242), 

1414. 



xlvi 



TiVBLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Becker v. Bullowa (36 Misc. Rep. 

524), 939. 
Becker v. Dalby (86 N. W. Rep. 

314), 1420. 
Becker v. De Forest (1 Sweeney 

(N. Y.) 528), 119, 267. 
Becker v. Walworth (45 Ohio St 

169), 45, 46. 
Beckham v. Newton (21 Ga. 187), 

1188. 
Bechtel v. Carslake (11 N. J. Eq. 

500), 441. 
Beckley v. Skroh (19 Mo. App. 

75) 794. 
Beckwith v. Bent (10 B. Mon. 

(Ky.) 95), 1436. 
Beckwith v. Boyce (9 Mo. 500), 

1253. 
Beckwith v. Howard (6 R. L. 1), 

605. 
Bedell v. Constable (Vaughn, 182), 

12. 
Bedford v. Kelly (61 Pa. St. 491), 

107. 
Bedford v. Terhune (30 N. Y. 453), 

1050, 1093, 1204, 1238. 
Bedford v. Winston (3 Rand. 

(Va.) 148), 1465. 
Bedman v. Murphy (35 Md. 154), 

1127. 
Beebe v. Coleman (8 Page (N. Y.) 

392), 390, 497. 
Beecher v. Duffield (97 Mich. 423), 

561,1176. 
Beekman v. VanDolsen (63 Hun 

(N. Y.) 487), 896. 
Beer v. Beer (12 C. B. 60), 86, 88. 
Beers v. St. John (16 Conn. 322), 

1264. 
Beeston v. Yale (78 N. Y. Supp. 

158), 1207. 
Behrman v. Barto (54 Cal. 131), 

1387. 
Beiler v. Devoll (40 Mo. App. 251), 

174. 
Belcher v. Mcintosh (8 Car. & P. 

720), 887, 



Belchers S. R. Co. v. Grain El. 

(101 Mo. 192), 72. 
Belches v. Grimsley (88 N. C. 88), 

1430. 
Belding v. Flynn (15 S. W. Rep. 

184), 395. 
Belding v. Texas Produce Co. (61 

Ark. 377), 139. 
Belger v. Sanchez (70 Pac. Rep. 

738), 579. 
Belfour v. Weston (1 T. R. 310), 

1340. 
Belknap v. Belknap (77 Iowa, 71), 

83. 
Bell V. Allen's Adm'r (2 Munf. 

(Va.) 118), 342. 
Bell V. Baker (43 Minn. 86), 469, 

481. 
Bell V. Barchard (16 Beav. 8), 

365. 
Bell V. Byerson (11 Iowa, 233), 

327. 
Bell V. Ellis' Heirs (1 Stew. & P. 

(Ala.) 294), 318. 
Bell V. Matheny (36 Ark. 572), 

1424. 
Bell V. Platteville (70 Wis. 139), 

72. 
Bell V. Rinker (30 111. App. 300), 

174. 
Bellamy, Elder v. Pearson, In re 

(53 L. J. Ch. 174), 20. 
Bellas V. Hays 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 

427), 106. 
Bellases v. Burbrick (1 Salk. 209), 

130. 
Belshe v. Batdorf (98 Mo. App. 

627), 1432, 1455. 
Belvin v. Raleigh Paper Co. (123 

N. Car. 138), 1250. 
Berais v. Wilder (100 Mass. 446), 

1054. 
Benedict v. Barling (79 Wis. 551), 

421. 
Benedict v. Everard (73 Conn. 

157), 1085. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



xlvii 



[reb^erences are to pages.] 



Benedict v. Morse (10 Met. 

(Mass.) 223), 228, 941. 
Beneteau v. Stubler (79 Minn. 

259), 847. 
Bendall v. Summersett (2 W. Bl. 

692), 48. 
Benfoy v. Congon (40 Micli. 283), 

201. 
Benlow v. Dry Dock Co. (112 N. 

Y. 263), 960. 
Bennet v. Farka.s (126 Ga. 228), 

992. 
Bennett v. Bittle (4 Rawle (Pa.) 

339), 399, 1183. 
Bennett v. Herring (3 C. B. (N. 

S.) 370), 490, 494. 
Bennett v. McKee (38 So. Rep. 

129) 1073. 
Bennett v. Judson (21 N. Y. 238), 

102. 
Bennett v. Robinson (27 Mich. 

26) 230. 
Bennett v. Sullivan, (100 Me. 

118) 782. 
Bennett v. Womack (7 B. & C. 

627), 364, 508, 607. 
Bennett's Case (1 Stra. 7«7), 1442. 
Bennock v. Whipple (12 Me. 346), 

201, 212. 
Benoist v. Rothschild (145 Mo. 

399), 84, 484. 
Bensel v. Gray 180 N. Y. 417), 

1071, 1077. 
Bensley v. Atwill (12 Cal. 231), 

351. 
Benson v. Aitken (17 Cal. 163), 

122. 
Benson v. Gottheimer (75 Ga. 

642), 1411. 
Benson v. Hobbs (4 Har. & J. 

(Md.) 285), 601, 604. 
Benson v. Suarez (43 Barb. (N. 

Y.) 408), 1057. 
Bentley v. Atlantic (92 Ga. 623), 

704. 
Bentley v. Metcalf (75 L. J. K. B. 

891), 295. 



Bentley v. Sill (35 111. 414), 1161. 
Bentley v. Taylor (81 Iowa, 306), 

674, 782. 
Benton, In re (92 Iowa, 262), 10. 
Berger v. Hoerner (36 111. App. 

360), 1253. 
Bergh v. Herring (136 Fed. Rep. 

368), 1288. 
Bergland v. Frawley (72 Wis. 

559), 622, 1225, 1226. 
Bergman v. Guthrie (89 Iowa, 

290), 1440. 
Bergner v. Palethrop (2 W. N. C. 

(Pa.) 297), 327. 
Berkey-Gay Furniture Co. v. Sher- 
man Hotel Co. (81 Tex. 135), 

1436. 
Berkley v. Smith (27 Gratt. (VL) 

299), 440. 
Berlin v. Belle Isle Scenic Ry. Co. 

(12 Det. Leg. N. 573), 66. 
Berliner v. Association (32 Misc. 

Rep. 470), 1296. 
Bernal v. Gleim (33 Cal. 668), 27. 
Bernal v. Hovious (15 Cal. 544), 

311. 
Bernard v. Bonner (Alleyn, 58), 

1200. 
Berner v. Bagnell (20 Mo. App. 

543), 327. 
Bernett v. Bittle (4 Rawle (Pa.) 

339), 1132. 
Bernham v. Hubbard (36 Conn. 

539), 594. 
Bernhard v. Reeves (6 Wash. 424), 

841. 
Bernheimer v. Adams (70 App. 

Div. 114), 1265. 
Berni v. Boyer (90 Minn. 469), 

772. 
Bernstein v. Heinemann (23 Misc. 

Rep. 464), 521, 583, 1367. 
Berrian v. Olmsted (4 E. D. 

Smith (N. Y.), 1302. 
Berridge v. Glassey (7 All. Rep. 

749), 454, 928. 



xlviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[EEFEREXCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Berriman v. Peacock (9 Bing. 

384), 715. 
Berrington v. Casey (78 111. 317), 

677, 693. 
Berry v. Berry (8 Kan. App. 584), 

1459. 
Berry v. Carle (4 Greenl. (Me.) 

269), 434. 
B«rry v. Lindley (3 Man. & G. 

496, 147. 
Berry v. Mutual Ins. Co. (2 Johns. 

Ch. (N. Y.) 603), 1108. 
Berry v. Potter (62 N. J. Eq. 664), 

271. 
Berry v. Van Winkle's Ex'rs (2 

N. J. Eq. 390), 874, 1292. 
Berry v. White (Bridgeman, 82), 

530. 
Berryhill v. Healey (89 Minn. 

444), 1056. 
Bertie v. Beaumont (16 Est. ), 

301. 
Bertie v. Flagg (161 Mass. 504), 

782, 795, 796. 
Bertram v. Cook (32 Mich. 518), 

920, 922, 947, 953, 955. 
Besley v. Besley (9 Ch. D. 103), 

1099. 
Bess V. Vernam (6 App. Div. 246), 

1127. 
Best V. Pold (18 Wall. (U. S.) 

112), 38. 
Best Mfg. Co. V. Cohn (86 Pac. 

Rep. 829), 1260. 
Betsinger v. Schuyler (46 Hun 

(N. y.) 349), 279, 1409. 
Bettesworth v. Dean, etc. of St 

Paul (3 Bro. P. C. 389), 1383. 
Bettinger v. Baker (29 Pa. St. 

66), 1306. 
Bettison v. Budd (17 Ark. 546), 

956. 
Bettisworth's Case (2 Coke, 516), 

399, 447. 
Betts V. June (51 N. Y. 274), 1391. 
Betz V. Maxwell (48 Kan. 142), 

208, 221. 



Betz V. Snyder (48 Ohio St. 492), 

326. 
Bevans v. Briscoe (4 Har. & J. 

149), 3, 1323. 
Beverly v. Lincoln Gas Co. (6 Ad. 

& E. 839), 581. 
Beyer v. Fenstermacher (2 Whart. 

(Pa.) 95), 1443. 
Bickford v. Parson (5 C. B. 920, 

930), 493, 639. 
Biddle v. Blackburn (5 Pa. Law. 

J. 419), 1005. 
Biddle v. Hussman (23 Mo. 597), 

541, 1178. 
Biddle v. Reed (33 Ind. 52^), 847. 
Biddulph V. Poole (11 Q. B. 713), 

1202, 1214. 
Bieler v. Devoll (40 Mo. App. 

251), 378. 
Bigelow V. Collamore (5 Cush. 

(Mass.) 226), 882, 1351. 
Bigelow V. Shaw (65 Mich. 341), 

435. 
Bigelow Co. V. Heintze (53 N. J. 

69), 1302. 
Biggs V. Brown (2 S. & R. (Pa.) 

14), 68$, 1314. 
Biggs V. Piper (86 Tenn. 589), 

1411. 
Biggs V. McCurley (76 Md. 409), 

879, 880, 1152. 
Biggs V. Stueler (93 Md. 110), 

1214, 1236. 
Bigler v. Furman (58 Barb. (N. 

Y.) 545), 927, 934. 
Biglow V. Biglow (75 App. Div. 

9S), 573. 
Biglow V. Biglow (56 N. Y. Supp. 

794), 958. 
Biglow V. Biglow (77 N. Y. Supp. 

716), 264, 685. 
Bilcher v. Parker (40 Mo. 113), 

139. 
Billany v. Smilh (4 Houst. (Del.) 

113), 1142. 
Billings v. Starke (15 Fla. 297), 

351. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



xlix 



[references are to pages.] 



Billings V. Tucker (6 Gray (Mass.) 

368), 1330. 
Binds V. Benbow (11 Rich. L. (S. 

C.) 24), 690, 958. 
Binford v. Bruso (22 Ind. App. 

512), 361. 
Bingham v. Allport (1 N. & M. 

398), 537. 
Bingham v. Honeyman (32 Oreg. 

129), 336. 
Bingham v. Vandegriff (93 Ala. 

283), 1448. 
Binney v. Chapman (5 Pick. 

(Mass.) 124), 938. 
Binney's Case (2 Bland (Md.) 

114), 437. 
Binns v. Hudson (5 Binn. (Pa.) 

505), 1415, 1443. 
Birch V. Dawson (6 C. & P. 658), 

1257. 
Birch V. Ward (111 111. App. 336), 

694. 
Birch V. Wright (1 T. R. 378), 

128, 130, 223. 
Bircher v. Parker (43 Mo. 443), 

1264, 1267, 1271. 
Bird V. Defonvielle (2 Car. & K. 

415), 1239. 
Bird V. Earle (15 Fla. 447), 82. 
Bird V. Elwes (37 L. J. Ex. 91), 

859. 
Bird V. Lord Treville (1 C. & E. 

317), 785. 
Birkhead v. Cummins (33 N. J. 

Law, 44), 1134. 
Birmingham Breweries v. Jame- 
son (67 L. J. Ch. 403), 750. 
Bischoff V. Trenholm (36 S. C. 

75), 1084. 
Bishop V. Blair (36 Ala. 302), 22. 
Bishop V. Howard (3 D. & R. 293), 

133, 140. 
Bishop V. Lalouette's Heirs (67 

Ala. 197), 941. 
Bishop V. Taylor (60 L. J. Q. B. 

556), 365. 



Bishop V. Trustees of Bedford 

Charity (28 L. J. 215), 638. 
Bissell V. Lloyd (100 111. 214), 804, 

876. 
Bissell V. Erwin's Heirs (10 La. 

524), 321. 
Bittinger v. Baker (29 Pa. St. 66), 

204, 1316, 1328. 
Black V. Delaware & R. Canal Co. 

(22 N. J. Eq. 130), 62. 
Black V. Ebner (54 Ind. 544), 877. 
Black V. Golden (109 Mo. App. 

37), 311, 315. 
Black V. Shreve (13 N. J. Eq. 

455), 349. 
Blacker v. Mathers (6 Bro. P. C. 

334), 607. 
Blackford v. Frenzer (44 Neb. 

829), 1098. 
Blackman v. Welsh (44 Mo. 41), 

638. 
Blackmore v. Boardman (28 Mo. 

420), 616, 1081, 1391. 
Blackwell v. Baily (1 Mo. App. 

328), 1299. 
Blackwell v. Bowers (67 Vt. 403), 

192. 
Blair v. Claxton (18 N. Y. 529), 

1178. 
Blair v. Macon (64 N. H. 487), 

164. 
Blair v. Ramkin (11 Mo. 440), 

1077. 
Blake v. Baker (115 Mass. 188), 

1023. 
Blake v. Chase, Counselman & Co. 

(95 Iowa, 219), 1452. 
Blake v. Clarke (6 Me. 436), 437, 

439. 
Blake v. Coats. (3 G. Greene 

(Iowa) 548), 689, 690, 1451. 
Blake v. Dick (15 Mont. 236), 

103, 469, 476, 785, 787, 1152, 1210. 
Blake v. Foster (8 T. R. 496), 953. 
Blake v. Fox (17 N. Y. Supp. 508), 

814, 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Blake v. Grammer (3 Fed. Cas. 

No. 1,496), 492. 
Blake v. Kurrus (41 111. App. 562), 

151. 
Blake v. Preston (67 Vt. 613), 579. 
Blake v. Ranous (25 111. App. 486), 

789, 796. 
Blakeman v. Miller (136 Cal. 138), 

1079. 
Blakeman v. Railroad (8 El. & Bl. 

1053), 913. 
Blanchard v. Ames (60 N. H. 404), 

987. 
Blanchard v. Baker (8 Me. 258), 

432. 
Blanchard v. Powers (67 Vt. 403), 

196, 220. 
Blanchard v. Raines (20 Fla. 467), 

1401. 
Blanchard v. Taylor (12 Mich. 

339), 350. 
Blanchard v. Warner (1 Blatch. 

(U. S.) 258) 62. 
Bland v. Burdick (Cro. Eliz. 46), 

1323. 
Blantin v. Whitaker (11 Humph. 

(Tenn.) 310), 941. 
Blarcom v. Kip (26 N. J. Law, 

351), 960. 
Blasdell v. Souther (6 Gray. 

(Mass.) 149), 467. 
Blauvelt v. Powell (59 Hun, 179), 

1160. 
Blazier v. Johnson (11 Neb. 404), 

334. 
Bledsoe v. Mitchell (52 Ark. 158), 

1430. 
Bleecker v. Smith (13 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 530), 648. 
Bless V. Jenkins (129 Mo. 647), 

100, 170, 173, 388. 
Blickley v. Luce (148 Mich. 133), 

866. 
Blight V. Dennet (13 Com. Bench, 

178), 179. 
Blight V. Rochester (7 Wheat. 

(U. S.) 453), 317. 



Bliss V. Collins (5 Barn. & Aid. 

876), 541. 
Block V. Ebner (54 Ind. 544), 563, 

659. 
Block V. Katz (68 N. Y. Supp. 

865), 1356. 
Block V. Smith (61 Ark. 206), 

319, 1410. 
Blood V. Goodrich (9 Wend. (N. 

Y.) 68), 97. 
Bloodworth v. Stevens (51 Miss. 

475), 49, 503, 563, 1112. 
Bloom V. West (3 Colo. App. 212), 

442.' 
Bloom V. Wolfe (50 Iowa, 286), 

17. 
Bloomer v. Merrill (1 Daly, 485), 

847, 1214. 
Bloomquist v. Johnson (107 111. 

App. 154), 1195. 
Bloomsburgh Land Imp. Co. v. 

Boro of B. (215 Pa. St. 452), 76. 
Blore V. Sulton (3 Mer. 237), 259. 
Blossom V. Knox (3 Chand. (Wis.) 

295), 703. 
Blount V. Connolly (110 Mo. App. 

602), 1391. 
Bludworth v. Lambeth (9 Rob. 

(La.) 256), 1315. 
Blue V. Sayre (2 Dana (Ky.) 213), 

968. 
Bluestone Coal Co. v. Bell (38 W. 

Va. 297), 363. 
Blum V. Robertson (24 Cal. 127), 

1,98. 
Blumberg v. McNear (1 Wash. T. 

141), 575. 
Blumenberg v. Myers (32 Cal. 93), 

150. 
Blumenthal v. Prescott (75 N. Y. 

Supp. 710), 802, 865. 
Blunden v. Baugh (Cro. Car. 304), 

20. 
Bly V. Edison Electric Illuminat- 
ing Co. (172 N. Y. 1), 704. 
Boardman v. Davidson (7 Abb. 

Prac. 439), 647. 



TABLE OP' CASES CITED. 



li 



[kefekences are to pages.] 



Boardman v. Osborn (23 Pick. 

Mass. 295), 522. 
Board of Directors v. Chicago Ve- 
neer Co. (94 III. App. 492), 

139. 
Bobb V. Syennite Granite Co. (41 

Mo. App. 642), 683. 
Boden v. Scholtz (91 N. Y. Supp. 

437), 831. 
Boddie v. Brewer (204 111. 352), 

780. 
Bodwell V. Crawford (26 Kan. 

292), 757. 
Bodwell Granite Co. v. Lane (83 

Me. 168), 212. 
Boefer v. Sheridan (42 Mo. App. 

226), 720. 
Bogendorfer v. Jacob (89 N. Y. 

Supp. 1051), 817. 
Bogert V. Dean (1 Daly, N. Y. 

259), 1227. 
Bogg V. Midland Ry. (36 L. J. Ch. 

440), 1385. 
Boggs V. Price (64 Ala. 514), 1431, 

1459. 
Bohannous v. Lewis (3 T. B. Mon. 

Ky. 376), 332, 883. 
Boiler V. Robinson (50 Mich. 264), 

1379. 
Boiling V. Stokes (2 Leigh, Va. 

178), 1024. 
Bolton V. Lambert (72 Iowa, 483), 

285. 
Bolton V. Landers (27 Cal. 104), 

182. 
Bolton V. Tomlin (5 Ad. & E. 856), 

383. 
Bonaparte v. Thayer (95 Md. 548), 

261. 
Bond V. Cartwright (1 Vent. 136), 

80. 
Bond V. Chapman (34 Wash. St. 

606), 167. 
Bond V. Lockwood (33 111. 212), 

708. 
Bond V. Rosling (1 B. & S. 371), 

332. 



Bonds V. Smith (106 N. C. 553), 

922. 
Bondurant v. Thompson (15 Ala. 

202), 52. 
Bonnecaze v. Beer (37 La. Ann. 

531), 862. 
Bonnell v. Allen (53 Ind. 130), 

1331. 
Bonelli v. Blakemore (66 Miss. 

136), 445. 
Bouetti V. Treat (91 Cal. 223). 

1086, 1222. 
Bonoyan v. Palmer (5 Mod. 171), 

90. 
Bonsail v. McKay (1 Houst. Del. 

520), 219. 
Booker v. Jones (55 Ala. 266), 

1445. 
Boone v. Darden (109 N. C. 74), 

1432. 
Boone v. Stover (66 Mo. 430), 243. 
Booraem v. Morris (N. H. 1906, 64 

Atl. Rep. 953), 1353. 
Boorman v. Wisconsin (36 Wis. 

207), 1292. 
Booth V. Gaither (58 111. App. 

263), 412. 
Booth V. Kehoe (71 N. Y. 341), 

1110. 
Booth V. Merriam (155 Mass. 521), 

788, 804, 813. 
Booth y. Oliver (67 Mich. 664), 

1407,1410. 
Boraston v. Green (16 East, 71), 

1314,1337. 
Borden v. Croak (131 111. 68), 

1428. 
Bordereaux v. Walker (85 111. App. 

86), 483. 
Borderre v. Den (106 Cal. 594), 

95,99. 
Boreel v. Lawton (90 N. Y. 293), 

1176. 
Borgard v. Gale (205 111. 511). 331, 

782, 788. 
Borjman v. Spellmire (4 Ohio 

N. P. 416), 616, 1026. 



lii 



TABLE or CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Boston y. Binney (11 Pick. Mass. 

1). 573, 579. 
Boston V. Gray (144 Mass. 531), 

826. 
Boston & Me. R. R. Co. v. Bartlett 

(3 Cush. Mass. 224), 981. 
Boston & Worcester R. R. Corp. t. 

Ripley (13 Allen, Mass. 421), 

541,1176. 
Boston-Block Co. v. Buffington (39 

Minn. 385), 1346. 
Boston CIo. Co. v. Solberg (68 Pac. 

Rep. 715), 261. 
Boston El. R. Y. Co. v. Grace (112 

Fed. Rep. 279), 629, 659, 1082. 
Boston Tailoring Co. v. Fisher (59 

111. App. 400), 65. 
Boston Water Power Co. v. Gray 

(6 Mete. Mass. 131), 571. 
Bostwick V. Losey (67 Mich. 554), 

875,1151. 
Bostwick V. Stiles (35 Conn. 198), 

904. 
Botting V. Martin (1 Camp. 318), 

380. 
Bourke v. Bourke (I. R. 8 C. 221), 

550. 
Bourland v. McKnight (79 Ark. 

427), 312. 
Bourn v. Salmon (95 L. T. 139), 

1009. 
Bovet V. Holzgraf (5 Tex. Civ. 

App. 141), 1244. 
Bowdish V. Dubuque (38 Iowa, 

341), 942. 
Bowditch V. Chickering (139 Mass. 

283), 1014. 
Bowditch V. Heation (22 La. Ann. 

356), 1353. 
Bowditch V. Ra\Tnond (146 Mass. 

109), 637. 
Bowe V. Hunking (135 Mass. 580), 

782, 804, 813, 847. 
Bowen v. Anderson (1 Q. B. 164), 

161,792. 
Bowen v. Beck (94 N. Y. 86), 729. 



Bowen v. Clarke (22 Oreg. 566), 

1207, 120S, 1215. 
Bowen v. Haskell (53 Minn. 480), 

1199. 
Bowen v. Hatch (Tex. 84 S. W. 

Rep. 336), 479. 
Bowen v. Schackter (72 N. J. Law, 

441), 1340. 
Bowen v. Wolff (23 R. I. 56), 475. 
Bower v. Highie (9 Mo. 256), 933. 
Bower v. Hill (1 Bing. N. C. 555), 

679. 
Bower v. Peate (7 Q. B. 321), 802. 
Bowers v. Graves (8 S. D. 385), 

309. 
Bowers v. Suffolk Mfg. Co. (4 

Cush. Mass. 332), 439. 
Bowes v. Croll (6 E. & B. 264), 

138. 
Bowler v. Electric Light Co. (10 

Dec. Rep. 582), 266. 
Bowles V. Lyon (6 Rob. La. 262), 

154, 156, 164. 
Bowman v. Bradley (151 Pa. St. 

351), 300, 303. 304. 
Bowman v. Foot (29 Conn. 331), 

635. 
Bowman v. Wright (Neb. 91 N. W. 

Rep. 580), 557, 1200. 
Bowser v. Colby (1 Hare. 109), 

649, 666, 667, 1051. 
Boyce v. Bakewell (37 Mo. 492),. 

1060. 
Boyce v. Graham (91 Ind. 420), 

676. 
Boyce v. Guggenheim (106 Mass. 

201), 847. 
Boyd V. Douglass (72 Vt. 449), 

1244. 
Boyd V. Fraternity Hall Ass'n (16 

111. App. 574), 743, 1050. 
Boyd V. Hunter (44 Ala. 705), 52. 
Boyd V. McCombs (4 Pa. St. 146). 

522. 
Boyd's Lessee v. Talbot (12 Ohio, 

212), 638. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



liii 



[befekexce:s aee to pages.] 



Boyer v. Commercial Building 

Inv. Co. (110 Iowa, 491), 479. 
Boyer t. Dickson (1 Phila. 190), 

1350. 
Boyer v. Smith (3 Watts, Pa. 449), 

930. 
Boynton v. Peterborough & Shir- 
ley R. Co. (4 Cush. Mass. 467), 

50. 
Bracebridge v. Bulkley (2 Price, 

200), 667. 
Bracebridge v. Cook (Plou-d. 418), 

20,27. 
Brackenridge v. Millen (16 S. W. 

620), 1435. 
Bracket v. Alvord (5 Cow. N. Y. 

18), 559. 
Bradburne v. Botfield (14 M. & W. 

567), 87. 
Bradfield t. McCormick (3 Blackf. 

Ind. 161), 232. 
Bradford v. Fox (38 N. Y. 289), 

547. 
Bradford v. Patten (108 Mass. 

153), 1377, 1378. 
Bradford Oil Co. v. Blair (113 Pa. 

St. 83), 518, 615. 
Bradley v. Bailey (36 Conn. 374), 

1322. 
Bradley v. Covel (4 Cow. N. Y. 

349), 139. 
Bradley v. De Goicouria (12 Daly, 

393), 1149. 
Bradley v. Metropolitan Music Co. 

(89 Minn. 516), 244, 245. 
Bradley v. Ousterhoudt (13 Johns. 

N. Y. 404), 1260. 
Bradley v. United States (98 U. S. 

104), 36. 
Bradley v. Walker (93 111. App. 

609), 1092, 1094. 
Bradstreet v. Huntington (5 Pet. 

IT. S. 402), 317. 
Brady v. Nagle (29 S. W. Rep. 

943), 641. 
Brady v. City of Brooklyn (1 Barb. 

N. Y. 584), 65. 



Bragg V. Fessenden (11 111. 544), 

97, 98, 100. 
Brain t. Mattison (54 N. Y. 663), 

53. 
Brainard v. Burton (5 Vt. 97), 

1404. 
Braman v. Dodge (100 Me. 143), 

329, 330. 
Bramhall v. Hutchinson (7 Atl. 

Rep. 873), 391, 1110. 
Bramwell v. Lacey (48 L. J. Ch. 

339), 739. 
Branahan v. Hotel Co. (39 Ohio 

St. 333), 405. 
Brancato v. Kors (74 N. Y. Supp. 

891), 810. 
Brandagee v. Fernandez (1 Rob. 

La. 260), 262. 
Brande v. Grace (154 Mass. 210), 

406. 
Brand v. Trumveller (32 Mich. 

215), 1398. 
Brandon v. Brandon (5 Madd. 

473), 959, 1124. 
Branger v. Manciet (30 Cal. 624), 

701. 
Brann v. Monroe (11 Ky. Law 

Rep. 324), 351. 
Branton v. O'Briant (93 N. C. 99), 

152. 
Bras V. Sheffield (49 Kan. 702), 

978. 
Brasfield v. Brasfield (12 Pickle, 

Tenn. 580), 22. 
Bratt V. Wooston (74 Md. 609), 

1392. 
Bratton v. Clamson (3 Strobh. S. 

C. 135), 462. 
Braythwaite v. Hitchcock (10 M. 

& W. 494), 134, 135, 187, 193, 198. 
Brayton v. Boomer (131 Iowa, 28), 

1057. 
Brayton v. Fall River (113 Mass. 

218), 405. 
Bream v. Dickenson (2 Humph. 

Tenn. 126), 614, 1285, 1292. 



Uv 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Breck, In re (12 N. B 

1122. 
Brecknock v. Pritchard (6 T. R. 

750), 883. 
Breeding v. Taylor (13 B. Mon. 

Ky. 477), 539. 
Breese v. Bank (2 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 474), 1108, 1231. 
Ereithaupt v. Thurmond (3 Rich. 

S. C. 216), 100. 
Brennan v. Jacobs (15 Atl. Rep. 

685), 677. 
Brennan v. Lachet (5 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 882), 805, 814. 
Brenner v. Bigelow (8 Kan. 496), 

941. 
Brent v. Chipley (104 Mo. App. 

645), 52, 53. 
Bressler's Appeal (2 York, Pa. 

57), 573. 
Bret V. Cumberland (Cro. Jac. 

399), 602. " 
Brett V. Berger (4 Cal. App. 12), 

847. 
Brett V. Rogers (1897, I. Q. B. 

525), 1028, 1029.. 
Breuer v. Frank (71 Ohio St. 540), 

819. 
Brewer v. Chappell (101 N. C. 

251), 1438. 
Brewer v. Dyer (7 Cush. Mass. 

337), 1074. 
Brewer v. Knapp (1 Pick. Mass. 

332), 141, 158, 550. 
Brewer v. National Union Bldg. 

Ass'n (166 111. 221), 1237. 
Brewer v. Palmer (3 Esp. 213), 

581. 
Brewer v. Thorp (35 Ala. 9), 597. 
Brewer, etc. Brewing Co. v. Boddie 

(181 111. 622), 69. 
Brewster v. Fremery (33 Cal. 341), 

782. 
Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co. (72 

C. C. A. 212), 670. 
Brewster v. McNab (36 S. C. 274), 

1438. 



[references are to pages.] 
R. 215). 



Parrot (Cro. Eliz. 



Brewster v. 

264), 1201. 
Briar v. Robertson (19 Mo. App. 

56), 378. 
Brice v. Williams (1 Mee. & Wei. 

6), 247. 
Brick V. Favilla (103 N. Y. Supp. 

1117), 839. 
Brick V. Hornbeck (43 N. Y. Supp. 

301), 1125. 
Bridge Co. v. Side (2 C. & P. 371), 

64. 
Bridges v. Longman (24 Beav. 

27), 648, 664. 
Bridges v. Potts (17 C. B. N. S. 

314), 140, 158, 173. 
Bridgham v. Frontec (3 Mod. 94), 

41. 
Bridwell v. Bancroft (2 Ohio Dec. 

697), 288. 
Brigg V. Thornton (73 L. J. Ch. 

301), 744. 
Briggs V. Austin (129 N. Y. 208), 

1406,1456. 
Briggs V. Dyer (7 Cush. Mass. 

337), 1214. 
Briggs V. Hall (4 Leigh, Va. 484), 

1180. 
Briggs V. Partridge (64 N. Y. 357), 

109. 
Briggs V. Thompson (9 Pa. St. 

338), 1183. 
Brigham v. Rogers (17 Mass. 571), 

459. 
Brigham Young Trust Co. v. Wag- 

ener (13 Utah, 236), 629. 
Bright V. McQuat (40 Ind. 521), 

186,227. 
Briles v. Pace (13 Ired. N. C. 579), 

384. 
Bringloe v. Goodson (5 Bing. N. C. 

738), 942. 
Brinkley v. Wolcott (10 Heislc. 

Tenn. 22), 144. 
Bristol, In re (33 N. W. Rep. 852), 

1120, 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Iv 



[references are to pages.] 



Bristol Hotel Co. v. Pegram (98 

N. Y. Supp. 512), 464, 729. 
Bristor r. Burr (120 N. Y. 427), 

231. 
Brittain v. McKay (35 Am. Dec. 

738), 291. 
Britton v. Dierker (46 Mo. 591), 

343. 
Broad v. Winsborough (1 North 

Co. Pa. 330), 876. 
Broadway & S. A. R. Co. v. Metz- 

ger (27 Abb. N. C. 160), 1380. 
Brock V. Dole (66 Wis. 142), 712. 
Brock V. Dwelling House Ins. Co. 

(61 N. W. 67), 572. 
Broekville, etc. Co. v. Butler (91 

Ind. 134), 435. 
Brogan v. Hanan (55 A. D. 92), 

798, 799, 859. 
Broker v. Charters (Cro. Eliz. 92), 

48. 
Brolasky v. Ferguson (48 Pa. St 

434), 573. 
Bromley v. Hopewell (14 Pa. St. 

400), 1441, 1442. 
Bronner v. Walter (44 N. Y. Supp. 

583), 855. 
Brookhaven v. Baggett (61 Miss. 

383), 297, 698. 
Brooklyn Bank v. De Graw (23 

Wend. N. Y. 342), 538. 
Brooks V. Allen (146 Mass. 201), 

479. 
Brook V. Biggs (2 Bing. N. C. 572), 

530, 545. 
Brooks V. Clifton (22 Ark. 54), 

729. 
Brooks V. Cook (Ala. 38 So. Rep. 

641), 106, 109. 
Brooks V. Cunningham (49 Miss. 

108), 512. 
Brooks V. Diaz (35 Ala. 599), 759. 
Brooks V. Drysdale (3 C. P. D. 52), 

599, 1070. 
Brooks V. Jackson (125 Mass. 

307), 50, 51, 52. 



Brooks V. Olmstead (17 Pa. St. 

24), 690. 
Brooks V. Reynolds (106 Mass. 

31), 411. 
Brooks V. Rogers (101 Ala. Ill), 

646, 685, 960, 1300, 1336. 
Brooks V. Stinson (44 N. C. 72), 

685. 
B. Roth Tool Co. V. Champion 

Spring Co. (93 Mo. App. 530), 

644. 
Broughton v. Smart (59 111. 440), 

575. 
Brouwer v. Jones (23 Barb. N. Y. 

143), 729. 
Brown v. Amyot (3 Hare, 173), 

540. 
Brown v. Bates (Brayton, Vt. 230), 

225. 
Brown v. Bridges (31 Iowa, 138), 

680. 
Brown v. Brown (109 N. C. 124), 

1418. 
Brown v. Burrington (36 Vt. 40), 

874. 
Brown v. Cairns (107 Iowa, 727), 

1200, 1215. 
Brown v. Cairns (63 Kan. 584), 

557, 560. 
Brown v. Carkeek (14 Wash. 443), 

448. 
Brown v. Chadbourne (31 Me. 9), 

434. 
Brown v. Coats (56 Ala. 439), 309. 
Brown v. Crump (1 Marsh. 569), 

730, 760, 763. 
Brown v. Curren (53 How. Pr. N. 

Y. 303), 1159. 
Brown v. Dysinger (1 Rawle, Pa. 

408), 927. 
Brown v. Eaton (21 Minn. 409), 98. 
Brown v. Oilman (13 Mass. 158), 

340. 
Brown v. Hamil (76 Ala. 506), 

1438. 
Brown v. Hardin (21 Ark. 325), 

451. 



Ivi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



rEEFEBENCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Brown v. Harper (54 Iowa, 546), 

572. 
Brown v. Hobson (3 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 380), 53. 
Brown v. Jaquette (94 Pa. St. 

113), 310. 
Brown v. Kayser (60 Wis. 1), 140, 

162,180. 
Brawn v. Keller (33 111. 151), 182, 

924,964. 
Brown v. Lindsay (2 Hill, S. C. 

542), 25. 
Brown v. Lyddy (11 Hun, N. Y. 

451), 569, 1273. 
Brown v. Magorty (156 Mass. 209), 

1335. 
Brown v. Matthews (3 La. Ann. 

198), 395. 
Brown v. Niles (165 Mass. 276), 

758. 
Brown v. Noel (21 Ky. Law Rep. 

648), 1425, 1467. 
Brown v. O'Connor (2 Hog. 77), 

1124. 
Brown v. Parsons (22 Mich. 24), 

317, 1369. 
Brown v. Quilter (Amb. 619), 1344. 
Brown v. Reno Electric L. & P. 

Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 229), 1250, 

1254. 
Brown v. Roberts (21 La. Ann. 

508), 254. 
Brown v. Samuels (24 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1216), 1378. 
Brown v. Schiappacassee (115 

Mich. 47), 454. 
Brown v. Schleier (118 Fed. Rep. 

981), 67. 
Brown v. Smith (83 111. 291), 213, 

229. 
Brown v. Story (1 M. & G. 114), 

30. 
Brown v. Straw (6 Neb. 536), 343. 
Rrown v. Susquehana Broom Co. 

109 Pa. St. 57), 904. 
Brown v. Tiiur.ston (56 Me. 126), 

1306, 



Brown v. Wakeman (16 N. Y, 

Supp. 846), 1180. 
Brown v. Water Co. (152 Mass. 

463), 1142. 
Browne, In re (3 Fed. Cas. 1741), 

547. 
Browne v. Raban (15 Ves. 528), 

365,607. 
Browne v. Tighe (8 Bli. N. S. 272), 

1371,1374. 
Browne v. Turner (60 Mo. 21), 

1306. 
Browne v. Warner (14 Ves. 156), 

251. 
Brownell v. Fuller (60 Neb. 558), 

1244. 
Brownell v. Tuzman (68 111. App. 

67), 1409. 
Brownell v. Walsh (91 111. 523), 

155. 
Browning's Case (Plowd. 133), 

648. 
Browning v. Dalesme (5 N. Y. Su- 
per. Ct. 13, 195), 420. 
Brown's Adm'r v. Bragg (22 Ind. 

122), 632. 
Brownson v. Roy (10 Det. Leg. N. 

302), 1112, 1118. 
Brubaker v. Poage (1 T. B. Mon. 

Ky. 123), 275. 
Bruce v. Bank (79 N. Y. 154), 1367, 

1373. 
Bruce v. Ruler (2 M. & R. 3), 1205. 
Bruce v. Welch (52 Hun, 524), 

130T. 
Bruce, In re (4 Fed. Cas. 2044), 

1119. 
Bruckman v. Hargadine, etc. Co. 

(91 Mo. App. 454), 297. 
Bruer v. Hayes (10 Ohio Dec. 583), 

54. 
Brugher v. Buchtenkirch (51 N. Y. 

Supp. 465). 810. ■ 
Brugman v. Noyes (6 Wis. 1), 733, 

743, 757. 
Brunifield v. Carson (33 Ind. 94), 

382. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ivii 



[eefebe:<;ces aee to pages.] 



Brummell v. Macpherson (14 Ves. 

173), 646. 
Brunker v. Cummins (133 Ind. 

443), 804, 832. 
Brunson v. Morgan (84 Ala. 578), 

957. 
Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. v. 

Rees (69 Wis. 442), 839. 
Brush V. Beecher (110 Mich. 597), 

1373. 
Brush V. Young (28 N. J. L. 237), 

53. 
Bryan v. Averett (21 Ga. 401), 90. 
Bryan v. Bradley (116 Conn. 474), 

354. 
Bryan v. Fisher (3 Blackf. Ind. 

316), 611, 867. 
Bryan v. Hanrick (8 S. W. Rep. 

282), 920. 
Bryan v. Sanderson (2 MacArthur, 

D. C. 431), 1436. 
Bryan v. Weatherhead (Cro. Jac. 

17), 448. 
Bryant v. Carr ^101 N. Y. Supp. 

646), 830. 
Bryant v. Hancock (67 L. J. Q. B. 

507), 751, 770. 
Bryant v. Logan (56 W. Va. 141), 

78. 
Bryant v. Pugh ('86 Ga. 525). 310. 
Bryant v. Sparrow (62 Me. 546), 

689. 
Bryant v. Tucker (19 Me. 383), 

204. 
Bryant v. Vincent (100 Mich. 426), 

148. 
Bryant v. Wells (56 N. H. 152), 

87, 109. 
Bryden v. Northrup (58 III. App. 

233), 748, 757. 
Brydges v. Lewis (3 L. J. Q. B. 

602), 489, 639. 
Bryson v. Boyce (92 S. W. Rep. 

820), 957. 
Buchanan v. Larkin (116 Ala. 

431), 941. 



Buchanan v. Munroe (22 Tex. 

537), 28. 
Buchana,n v. Whitman (151 N. Y. 

253), 345. 
Buck V. Lee (36 Ark. 525), 1436. 
Buck V. Lewis (46 Mo. App. 227), 

1192, 1207. 
Buck V. Marrow (2 Tex. Civ. App. 

361), 703. 
Buck V. Midland Tobacco Works 

(62 Mo. App. 775), 1467. 
Buck V. Pike (27 Vt. 529), 878. 
Buck V. Rodgers (39 In<L 322), 

877. 
Buckelew v. Snedeker (27 N. J. 

Eq. 82), 83. 
Bucker v. Warren (41 Ark. 532), 

632. 
Buckingham v. Smith (10 Ohio, 

288), 116. 
Buckland v. Butterfleld (2 Brod. 

& B. 54), 1256. 
Buckland v. Hall (8 Ves. 92), 

1383. 
Buckland v. Papillon (L. R. I. Eq. 

477), 365, 607. 
Buckle V. Fredericks (44 Ch. Div. 

244), 741. 
Buckley v. Briggs (30 Mo. 452), 

65. 
Buckley v. Clark (47 N. Y. Supp. 

42), 870. 
Buckley v. Cunningham (104 Ala. 

449), 441. 
Buckmaster v. Thompson (37 N. 

Y. 558), 978. 
Buckner v. Chambliss (30 Ga. 

652), 968. 
Buckworth v. Simpson (1 C. M. & 

R. 834), 1199. 
Budd V. Marshall (42 L. T. 793), 

1026. 
Buddie V. Lines (11 Q. B. 402), 

173. 
Budd-Scott V. Daniel (71 Law J. 
K. B. 706), 697. 



Iviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[refeeences are to pages.] 



Budgmans v. Wells (13 Ohio, 43), 

335. 
Buell V. Cook (4 Conn. 238), 938. 
Buerger v. Boyd (25 Ark. 441), 

1340. 
Buffalo Co. Nat. Bank v. Hanson 

(34 Neb. 752), 1195, 1199. 
Buffalo R. & P. Co. V. Lavery (75 

Hun, 396), 37. 
Buffalo Stone & C. Co. v. Radsky 

(14 N. y. St. Rep. 82), 1182. 
Buffum V. Deane (4 Gray, Mass. 

385), 1233. 
Buiney v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal 

Co. (8 Pet. U. S. 201), 117. 
Bulkley v. Devine (127 111. 406), 

337. 
Bulkley v. Dolbeare (7 Conn. 232), 

680. 
Bulkley v. Taylor (2 T. R. 600), 

524. 
Bull V. Ellis (1 Stew. & P. Ala. 

294, 317. 
Bull V. Follett (5 Cow. N. Y. 170), 

599. 
Bull V. Griswold (19 111. 631), 

1195. 
Bull V. Sibbs (8 T. R. 327), 577. 
Bullard v. Hudson (54 S. E. Rep. 

132), 922. 
Bulles V. Noyes (75 Tex. 540), 384. 
Bullitt V. Musgrave (3 Gill, Md. 

31), 762. 
Bullock V. Dommitt (6 T. R. 650), 

882. 
Bullock V. Grinstead (95 Ky. 261), 

1276. 
Bullock V. Hayward (10 Allen, 

Mass. 460), 90. 
Bullock V. Sneed (13 Sm. & M. 

Miss. 293), 50. 
Bullofk-McCall-McDonnell Elec. Co. 

V. Coleman (136 Ala. 610), 842. 
Bulwer v. Bulwer (2 B. & Ad. 

470), 224. 1309. 
Bulwer's Case (7 Rep. 1), 559. 
Bunker v. Pines (86 Me. 140), 419. 



Bunner v. Storm (1 Sandf. Ch. 

N. Y. 387), 54. 
Bunny v. Wright (1 Leon. 59), 61. 
Bunton v. Richardson (10 Allen^ 

Mass. 260), 236. 
Burbank v. Dyer (52 Ind. 392), 53. 
Burch V. Harrell (93 Ga. 719), 561. 
Burchell v. Clark (46 L. J. C. P- 

115), 344, 366. 
Burden v. Hal ton (4 Bing. 454), 

548. 
Burden v. Knight (82 Iowa, 584), 

219. 
Burden v. Thayer (3 Pick. Mass. 

76), 30, 486, 496. 
Burdett v. Withers (7 A. & E. 

136), 893. 
Burdick v. Cameron (42 N. Y. 

Supp. 78), 535. 
Burdick v. Cheadle (26 Ohio St. 

397), 913. 
Burdick v. Green (15 Johns. N. Y. 

247), 547. 
Burdin v. Ordway (88 Me. 375), 

573. 
Burdon Cent. Sugar Refining Co. 

V. Payne (81 Fed. Rep. 663), 

1415. 
Burford v. Unwin (1 C. & E. 494). 

1064. 
Burgess v. Kattleman (41 Mo. 

480), 1405, 1456. 
Burgess v. Rice (74 Cal. 590), 950, 

953. 
Burgess v. Thompson (1 N. & P. 

215), 182. 
Burgett V. Taliaferro (118 111. 

505), 955. 
Eurhans v. Monier (38 App. Div. 

466), 636. 
Burke v. Bragg (89 Ala. 204), 368. 
Burke v. Hullett (216 111. 545), 

813. 
Burke v. Tindale (33 N. Y. S. 20), 

1162. 
Burket v. Bonde (3 Dana, Ky. 

208), 1442. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



lix 



[BEFEEENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Burleigh v. Coffin (22 N. H. 118), 

22. 
Burn V. Phelps (1 Stark. 94, 2 E. 

C. L. 44), 1154. 
Burner v. Higman (127 Iowa, 

580), 817, Sl9, 820. 
Burnett v. Bealmear (79 Md. 36), 

1429. 
Burnett v. Lynch (5 B. & C. 589), 

1021,1082. 
Burnett v. Rlcli (45 Ga. 211), 948. 
Burnham v. Ayer (35 N. H. 351), 

549. 
Burnham v. Best (10 B. Mon. Ky. 

227), 561. 
Burnham v. Dunklee (34 N. H. 

334), 554. 
Burns v. Bryant (31 N. Y. 453), 

191, 218. 
Burns v. Cooper (31 Pa. St. 426), 

514. 
Burns v. Fuchs (28 Mo. App. 279), 

847, 874. 
Burns v. Luckett (3 Weekly Law 

Bui. 517), 848. 
Burns v. McCubbin (3 Kan. 221), 

663, 1017. 
Burnslde v. Weightman (9 Watts, 

Pa. 46), 1316. 
Buron v. Denman (2 Exch. 188), 

175. 
Burr V. Mills (21 Wend. N. Y. 

290), 410, 438. 
Burr V. Stenton (52 Barb. N. Y. 

377), 501. 699. 
Burrell v. Bull (3 Sandf. Ch. N. Y. 

15). 92. 
Burrows v. Gradin (1 Dowl. & L. 

213), 31, 149. 
Burt V. Hurlbut (16 Vt. 292), 533. 
Burt V. Warne (31 Mo. 296), 685. 
Burson v. Dow (65 111. 146), 122. 
Burton v. Perry (146 111. 71), 957. 
Burton v. Richardson (10 Allen, 

Mass. 260). 491. 
Burton v. Rohrback (30 Minn. 

393), 678. 



Burton v. Smith (13 Pet. 483), 

1422. 
Burton v. Barclay (7 Bing. 745), 

1228. 
Burton v. Brown (Cro. Jac. 643), 

400. 
Busbin v. Ware (69 Ala. 279), 

1465. 
Busby V. Jones (1 Scam. 111. 34), 

1115. 
Busch V. Huston (75 111. 343), 955. 
Buschman v. Wilson (29 Md. 553), 

1350. 
Bush V. Havird (12 Idaho, 352), 

1264,1294. 
Buskin v. Edmond (Cro. Eliz. 

415), 638. 
Bussing V. Bushnell (6 Hill, N. Y. 

382), 1444. 
Bussman v. Ganster (72 Pa. St. 

285), 92, 243, 1345. 
Buswell V. Marshall (51 Vt. 87), 

334, 390, 391. 
Buswell V. Pioneer (37 N. Y. 312), 

549. 
Butler V. Carillo (88 N. Y. Supp. 

941), 1176. 
Butler V. Gushing (46 Hun. 521), 

863. 
Burke v. Hullett (216 111. 545), 

803. 
Butler V. Kidder (87 N. Y. 98), 

1360. 
Butler V. Manny (52 Mo. 497), 

1016. 
Butler V. Mulvihill (1 Bligh, 137), 

471. 
Butler V. Newhouse (85 N. Y. 

Supp. 373), 1143. 
Butler V. Smith Pharmacy (5 N. 

Y. St. Rep. 885), 463. 
Butler V. Threlkeld (117 Iowa, 

116), 384, 996. 
Butler V. Walker (78 111. 622). 910. 
Butman v. James (34 Minn. 547). 

716. 
Butt V. Ellet (19 Wall. 544), 1428. 



Ix 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Butterfield v. Baker (5 Pick. Mass. 

522), 1427. 
Buxton V. Rust (L. R. 7 Exch. 1), 

386. 
Buzzard v. Capel (6 Bing. 151), 

446. 
Byrd v. Chase (TO Ark. 802), 572. 
Byrnes v. Douglass (23 Neb. S3), 

951. 



C. 



Cable V. Cable (146 Pa. St. 451), 

334. 
Cadden v. Barge Co. (83 Wis. 413), 

803. 
Cade V. Brownlee (15 Ind. 369), 

1072. 
Cady V. Quarterman (12 Ga. 386), 

146. 
Cadwalder v. Loerce (10 Tex. Civ. 

App. 1), 174. 
Cadwallader v. United States Exp. 

Co. (147 Pa. St. 455), 457. 
Caeser v. Karutz (50 N. Y. 229), 

1150. 
Caeser v. Robinson (174 N. Y. 

492), 584. 
Caffin V. Scott (7 Rob. La. 205), 

731. 
Cahn V. State (110 Ala. 56), 778. 
Cahoon v. Kinen (42 Ohio St. 

190), 83. 
Cain V. Gimon (36 Ala. 168), 924. 
Cain V. Head (1 Coldw. Tenn. 

163), 97. 
Cairns v. Llewellyn (2 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 599), 1379. 
Caldwell v. Evans (2 Mill. Const. 

S. C. 348), 1201. 
Caldwell v. Fulton (31 Pa. St. 

483), 274. 
Caldwell v. Moore (11 Pa. St. 58), 

1006. 
Caldwell v. Smith (77 Ala. 167), 

964. 



Caldwell v. Snow (8 La. Ann. 392), 

850. 
Caley v. Thornquist (89 Minn. 

348), 1378. 
Calhoun v. Atchison (4 Bush, Ky. 

261),117S. 
Calhoun v. Perrin (2 Bew. S. C. 

245), 966. 
California Conf. v. Seitz (74 Cal. 

287), 1284. 
California Dry Dock Co. v. Arm- 
strong (17 Fed. Rep. 216), 722. 
Callaghan v. Hawkes (121 Mass. 

298), 987. 
Callan v. McDaniel (72 Ala. 96), 

615,1391. 
Callen v. Hilty (14 Pa. St. 286), 

271. 
Calvert v. Bradley (16 How. XJ. S. 

580), 878. 
Calvert v. Frowd (4 Bing. 557), 

184. 
Calvert v. Hobbs (107 Mo. App. 

7), 1078, 1097. 
Calvert v. Rice (11 Ky. Law Rep. 

1001), 708, 716. 
Calvin's Case (7 Coke, 2b), 41. 
Cambridge Lodge, etc. v. Routh 

(163 Ind. 1), 573. 
Camden v. Batterbury (5 C. B. N. 

S. 808), 134. 
Cameron v. Little (62 Me. 550), 

539. 
Camley v. Stanfield (10 Tex. 546), 

954. 
Cammack v. Rogers (Tex. Civ. 

App. 74 S. W. Rep. 945). 313. 
Camp V. Camp (5 Conn. 291), 352, 

923. 
Camp V. Scott (47 Conn. 366), 638, 

648. 
Camp V. Wood "(76 N. Y. 92), 814. 
Campau v. Lafferty (43 Mich. 429), 

942. 
Campbell v. Arnold (1 Johns. N. 
Y. 511), 686. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixi 



[references are to pages.] 



Campbell v. Babcock (13 N. Y. 

Supp. 843), 992. 
Campbell v. Fowler (28 La. Ann. 

234), 1424. 
Campbell v. Johnson (44 Mo. 274), 

337, 462. 
Campbell v. Johnson (1 Sandf. Ch. 

N. Y. 148), 52. 
Campbell v. Lord Wenlock (4 F. 

& F. 716), 785. 
Campbell v. Luck (25 Ohio Civ. 

Ct. Rep. 356), 1346. 
Campbell v. McFaddin (71 Tex. 

28), 327. 
Campbell v. Porter (46 App. Div. 

628), 854. 
Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co. 

(62 Me. 555), 792. 
Campbell v. Proctor (6 Me. 12), 

212, 213. 
Campbell v. Schrum (3 Watts, Pa. 

60), 599. 
Campbell's Case (1 Roll. Abr. 

237,), 541. 
Canal Co. v. Bretts (25 Ind. 409), 

847. 
Canal Co. v. Wilmot (9 East, 360), 

64. 
Canale v. Copello (137 Cal. 22), 

354. 
Canal Elev. & W. Co. v. Brown (36 

Ohio St. 660), 1378. 
Canandaigua v. Foster (156 N. Y. 

354), 825. 
Candler v. Mitchell (119 Mich. 

564), 158, 174. 
Canfield v. Vacha (3 Ohio N. P. 

158), 774. 
Canham v. Fisk (3 Cromp. & J. 

126), 438. 
Cannan v. Hartley (9 C. B. 634), 

1208. 
Canning v. Fibush (77 Cal. 196), 

155. 
Cannock v. Jones (3 Exch. 233), 

911. 



Cannon v. Barry (59 Miss. 289), 

712.' 
Cannon v. Demming (3 S. D. 421), 

326. 
Cannon v. Hatcher (1 Hill Law, 

S. C. 260), 686. 
Cannon v. Wilbur (30 Neb. 777), 

634.1184. 
Cantine v. Phillips' Administrator 

(5 Par. Del. 428), 18. 
Cantrell v. Fowler (32 S. C. 589), 

849, 874. 
Cantwell v. Moore (44 111. App. 

656), 939. 
Capal's Heirs v. McMillan (8 Port. 

Ala. 197), 10. 
Capen v. Hall (21 R. L 364), 810. 
Caperton v. Stege (91 Ky. 351), 

1266. 
Capley v. Hepworth (12 Mod. 1), 

245. 
Carby v. Spadden (63 Mo. App. 

648), 219. 
Cardwell v. Lucas (2 M. & W. 

Ill), 953. 
Cardwell v. Martin (9 East, 180), 

343. 
Carelton v. Cate (56 N. H. 130). 

439. 
Carey v. Kreizer (57 N. Y. Supp. 

79), 459, 782. 
Carey v. Richards (2 Ohio Dec. 

630), 149, 270. 
Carger v. Fee (140 111. 582), 258. 
Carithers v. Weaver (7 Kan. 110), 

955. 
Carle v. Monkhouse (47 N. J. Eq. 

73), 1306. 
Carleton v. Herbert (14 W. R. 772), 

166. 
Carley v. Lewis (24 Ind. 23), 491, 

51S, 615. 
Carlin v. Ritter (68 Md. 478), 212, 

1269, 1287, 1290. 
Carlisle Cafe Co. v. Muse (67 L. 

J. Ch. 53), 412. 



Ixii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[eefebences are to pages.] 



Carlisle's Appeal (38 Pa. St. 259), 

52. 
Carlton v. Williams (77 Cal. 89), 

335. 
Carman v. Alabama Nat. Bank 

(101 Ala. 189), 1459. 
Carman v. Mosler (105 Iowa, 

307), 6. 
Carman v. Plass (123 N. Y. 286), 

591. 
Carmine v. Bowen (104 Md. 198), 

1311. 
Carnahan v. Tousey (93 Ind. 561), 

532. 
Carnegie v. Morrison (2 Mete. 

Mass. 381), 532. 
Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. Phil- 
adelphia Co. (158 Pa. St. 317), 

327,1075. 
Carnell v. Lamb (20 Johns. N. Y. 

207), 548. 
Carnell v. Vanartsdalen (4 Pa. St. 

364), 874. 
Carnes v. Hersey (117 Mass. 269), 

1020. 
Carney v. Mosher (97 Mich. 564), 

195, 384, 385, 1309, 1314. 
Carnhart v. Finney (40 Mo. 449), 

646. 
Carondelt v. Wolfert (39 Mo. 305), 

663. 
Carothers v. Covington (Tex. 1894, 

27 S. W. Rep. 1040), 958. 
Carpenter v. Gillespie (10 Iowa, 

592), 1425. 
Carpenter v. Jones (63 111. 517), 

315, 1309. 
Carpenter v. Pocasset Mfg. Co. (180 

Mass. 130), 647. 
Carpenter v. Shanklin (7 Blackf. 

Ind. 308), 465, 1441. 
Carpenter v. Stillwell (3 Abb. 

Prac. Rep. N. Y. 459), 575. 
Carpenter v. Thompson (3 N. H. 

204), 923. 
Carpenter v. Thornburn (76 Ark. 

578), 992. 



Carpenter v. United States (17 

Wall. U. S. 489), 198, 317, 519, 

573. 
Carpenter v. Wilson (100 Md. 13), 

634, 666. 
Carr v. Allott (3 H. & N. 964), 

1428. 
Carr v. Ellison (24 Wend. 178), 

1363,1369. 
Carraher v. Bell (7 Wash. 81), 648. 
Carre Hotel Co. v. Wells Fargo 

Co. (128 Fed. Rep. 587), 498. 
Carrig v. Dee (14 Gray, Mass. 

583), 409. 
Carrigan v. Woods (L. R. I. C. L. 

73). 198. 
Carroll v. Ballance (26 111. 9), 

1228. 
Carroll v. Bancker (43 La. Ann. 

1078), 1438, 1446. 
Carroll v. Peake (1 Peters, U. S. 

18), 693. 
Carson v. Arvantes (10 Colo. App. 

382), 583. 
Carson v. Blazer (2 Binn. Pa. 

475), 1314. 
Carson v. Broady (56 Neb. 648), 

958. 
Carson v. Codley (26 Pa. St 117), 

IIGO. 
Carson v. Electric Light Co. (85 
Iowa, 44), 14G2. 
Carson v. J. C. Ins. Co. (43 N. J. 

Law, 300), 1051. 
Carstairs v. Taylor (L. R. 6 Ex. 

217), 848. 
Carstens v. Taylor (40 L. J. 4), 

840. 
Carter v. Andrews (56 111. App. 

646), 1432. 
Carter v. Burr (39 Barb. N. Y. 

59), 1178. 
Carter v. Carter (5 Bing. 406), 

545. 
Carter v. Carter (109 Mass. 306), 

571. 
Carter v. Ely (7 Sim. 211), 64. 



T^VBLE OF CASES CITED, 



Lsiii 



[references are to pages.] 



Carter v. George (30 Kans. 451), 

562. 
Carter v. Hammett (18 Barb. N. 

Y. 608), 1060, 1090. 
Carter v. Marshall (72 111. 609), 

927, 942. 
Carter v. Thurston (58 N. H. 104), 

434. 
Carter! v. Roberts (140 Cal. 164), 

192, 218. 
Carter Publishing Co. v. Dennett 

(11 S. D. 956), 651. 
Cartwright v. Millar (36 L. T. 

398), 387. 
Carver v. Gough (153 Pa. St. 225), 

1244, 1304. 
Carver v. Hoffman (109 Ind. 547), 

83. 
Carver v. Palmer (33 Mich. 342), 

573, 579, 1096. 
Cary v. Daniels (5 Met. Mass. 

238), 684. 
Cary v. Edmonds (71 Mo. 523), 

958. 
Case V. Davis (15 Pa. St. 80), 

1443. 
Case V. Minot ri58 Mass. 557), 

408. 
Case Mfg. Co. v. Garven (45 Ohio 

St. 290), 1256. 
Casey v. Gregory (13 B. Mon. Ky. 

505), 934. 
Casey v. Hanrick (69 Tex. 44), 

964. 
Casey v. King (98 Mass. 303), 

678. 
Cassady v. Hammer (62 Iowa, 

359), 1023. 
Cassard v. Thornton (119 111. App. 

397), 1163. 
Cass Co. Sup'rs v. Cowgill (97 

Mich. 448), 573. 
Cassell V. Cooke (8 S. & R. Pa. 

268), 600. 
Cassily V. Rhodes (12 Ohio St. 88), 

1306, 1326. 



Castagnette v. Nichia (78 N. Y. 

Supp. 498), 847. 
Castleman v. DuVal (89 Md. 657), 

522. 
Castleton v. Samuel (5 Esp. 173), 

172. 
Castro V. Gaffey (96 Cal. 421), 252. 
Catholic Ins. v. Gibbons (7 Dec. 

Re. 576, 3 Bull, 581), 69. 
Caton V. Caton (56 L. J. Ch. 886), 

388. 
Cattley v. Arnold (1 John & H. 

651), 128, 133. 
Caugham v. King (Cro. Car. 221), 

884. 
Cavalier v. Pope (75 Law J. K. B. 

609), 860. 
Cavanaugh v. Clinch (88 Ga. 610), 

1224. 
Center v. Everard (19 Misc. Rep. 

156), 1247. 
Center Creek Min. Co. v. Franken- 
stein (179 Mo. 564), 190. 
Central Bank v. Peterson (24 N. 

J. Law, 668), 1414. 
Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz (20 

Kan. 430), 1265. 
Central City Bank v. Dana (32 

Barb. N. Y. 296), 547. 
Central Rd. Co. v. WTiithead (74 

Ga. 441), 368. 
Cesar v. Karutz (60 N. Y. 229), 

786, 795, 805. 
Chadbourn v. Rahilly (34 Minn. 

346), 255. 
Chadwick v. Woodward (1 City Ct. 

R. Supp. 94), 875, 1155. 
Chaffee v. Garrett (6 Ohio, 421), 

37. 
Chaffin V. Brockmeyer (33 Mo. 

App. 92), 934. 
Chalfin V. Malone (9 B. Mon. Ky. 

496), 291. 
Chalifonk v. Potter (113 Ala. 215), 

1265. 
Challoner v. Da vies (1 Ld. Ray, 

404), 86. 



Ixiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[REn:RENCES AKE TO PAGES.. 



Cbalmers v. Smith (152 Mass. 

561), 222, 726. 
Chalmers v. Vignand's Syndic 

(Mart. N. S. 189), 208. 
Chamberlain v. Donohue (45 Vt. 

50), 212, 216, 220, 250. 
Chamberlain v. Dumcrier (1 Bro. 

C. C. 166), 711. 
Chamberlain v. Dunlop (126 N. Y. 

4), 619. 1201, 1202, 1378, 1380. 
Chamberlain v. Godfrey's Adm'r 

(50 Ala. 530), 1340. 
Chamberlain v. Heard (22 Mo. 

App. 416), 1464. 
Chamberlain v. Iba (181 N. Y. 

486), 467. 
Chamberlain v. Letson (5 N. J. 

Law, 152), 462. 
Chamberlain v. Pybas (81 Tex. 

511), 958. 
Chamberlain v. Shaw (18 Pick. 

Mass. 278), 1329, 1330. 
Chamberlaine's Case (4 Mod. 151), 

1196. 
Chambers v. Irish (Iowa, 109 N. 

W. Rep. 787). 320. 
Chambers v. Pleak (6 Dana. Ky. 

426), 920, 943. 
Chambers v. Ross (25 N. J. Law, 

293), 258, 519, 573, 947. 
Chamblee v. McKenzie (31 Ark. 

155), 586. 
Champion v. Plummer (5 Esp. 

240), 387. 
Champ Spring Co. v. Roth Tool 

Co. (103 Mo. App. 103), 714. 
Chancellor v. Poole (2 Doug. 764), 

1090. 
Chandler v. McGinnins (8 Kan. 

App. 421), 634. 
Chandler v. Oldham (55 Mo. App. 

139), 1280. 
Chandler v. Ryder (102 Mass. 

268), 54. 
Chandler v. Thurston (10 Pick. 
205), 315. 



Channel v. Merrifield (106 111. 

App. 243), 110, 644, 861, 1210. 
Chapel V. Hull (60 Mich. 167), 

714, 760, 7.61. 
Chapman v. Bluck (4 Bing. N. C. 

187), 245, 256. 
Chapman v. Gray (15 Mass. 439), 

390, 392. 
Chapman v. Hainey (100 Mass. 

353), 638. 
Chapman v. Kirby (49 111. 211), 

632, 663. 
Chapman v. Lee r47 Ala. 143), 101. 
Chapman v. Long (10 Ind. 465), 

1315. 
Chapman v. McGrew (21 111. 201), 

1115. 
Chapman v. Plummer (36 Wis. 

262), 1117. 
Chapman v. Robertson (6 Paige, 

N. Y. 627), 452. 
Chapman v. Towner (6 Mee. & 

Wei. 100), 134, 192. 
Chapman v. Veach (32 Kan. 167), 

1315. 
Chapman v. Weiman (4 Ohio, N. 

S. 481), 1427. 
Chappell V. Brown (1 Bailey, S. 

Car. 528), 503. 
Charles v. Byrd (29 S. Car. 544), 

42, 44. 48, 1065. 
Charless v. Froebel (47 Mo. App. 

45), 1083. 
Charlton v. Columbia Real Estate 

Co. (64 N. J. Eq. 631), 245, 248. 
Charter v. Cordwent (6 T. R. 219), 

179. 
Chase v. Dearborn (21 Wis. 57), 

921. 
Chase v. Hall (41 Mo. App. 15), 

422. 
Chase v. Hazelton (7 N. H. 171), 

717. 
Chase v. Knickerbocker (53 N. Y. 

Supp. 220), 647. 
Chase v. Tacoma Box Co. (11 

Wash. 377), 1254. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixv 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Chase v. Turner (10 La. O. S. 19), 

1165. 
Chatard v. O'Donovan (80 Ind. 

20), 306. 
Chatauqua Assembly v. Ailing (46 

Hun, N. Y. 582), 734. 
Chatfield v. Parker (2 M. & R. 

540), 683. 
Chatterton v. Fox (12 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Duer, 64), 1182. 
Chattle V. Pound (1 Ld. Raym. 

746), 940. 
Chauncey v. Strong (2 Root, Conn. 

369), 22. 
Cheairs v. Coats (77 Miss. 846), 

541. 
Cheatham v. Kinl^e (1 Tenn. Ch. 

576), 1270. 
Cheeser v. Creed '(2 M. & P. 648), 

182. 
Cheetham v. Hampson (2 Ld. 

Raym. 304), 869. 
Cheever v. Pearson (16 Pick. 

Mass. 266), 189, 190. 
Cheney v. Bonnell (58 111. 268), 

1317. 
Cheney v. Pierce (38 Vt. 515), 23. 
Cheney v. Newberry (67 Cal. 125), 

281. 
Chenimant v. Thornton (2 Car. & 

P. 50), 538. 
Cherokee Strip Live Stock Ass'n 

V. Cass L. & C. Co. (138 Mo. 

394), 37. 
Cherry v. Arthur (5 Wash. 787), 

1261. 
Cherry v. Stein (11 Md. 1), 40. 
Chesebrough v. Pingree (72 Mich. 

438), 99, 1343, 1352. 
Chesley v. Welsch (37 Me. 106), 

156, 1318. 
Chesterman v. Gardner (2 Johns. 

Ch. N. Y. 29), 497. 
Chestnut v. Tyson (105 Ala. 149), 

17, 59. 
Chicago V. Peck (196 111. 260), 

145. 



Chicago Attachment Co. v. Davis 

Sewing Machine Co. (111. 25 N. 

E. E. Rep. 669), 385, 641, 1068. 
Chicago, B. & D. Ry. v. Kelly (211 

111. 498), 118. 
Chicago, etc. Co. ▼. Keegan (152 

111. 413), 925. 
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Linard (94 

Ind. 319), 1317, 1318, 1319. 
Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. Ward 
(128 111. 349), 445. 
Chicago Theol. Seminary v. Chi- 
cago Veneer Co. (94 111. App. 

492), 145. 
Chicago Union Bank v. Kansas 

City Bank (136 U. S. 223), 1122. 
Chiera v. McDonald (121 Mich. 

54), 652. 
Child V. Hurd (32 W. Va. 66), 

1265. 
Childers v. Lee (5 N. Mex. 576), 

192. 
Childers v. Smith (10 B. Mon. Ky. 

235), 1112. 
Childs v. Clark (3 Barb. Ch. N. Y. 

52), 1090. 
Chills V. United States (16 Ct. CI. 

79), 35. 
Chilton V. Niblett (3 Humph. 

Tenn. 404), 322. 
Chipraan v. Emeric (5 Cal. 49, 51), 

622, 638, 645, 910, 1059. 
Chipperfield v. Carter (72 L. T. 

487), 358. 
Chism V. Thomson (73 Miss. 410), 

1445. 
Chisolm V. Kilbreth (88 N. Y. 

Supp. 364), 1166. 
Chisolm V. Toplitz (82 App. biv. 

346), 1394. 
Choate v. Arrington (116 Mass. 

552), 52. 
Choctaw Nation v. United States 

(119 U. S. 1), 39. 
Chretien v. Doney (1 N. Y. 419), 

369, 1114, 1364. 



livi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Christian Ch. of Wolcott v. John- 
son (53 Ind. 273), 65. 
Christie v. Blakely (Pa. St. 15 Atl. 

Rep. 874), 471, 479. 
Christopher v. Austin (11 N. Y. 

216), 1180. 
Christy v. Casanave (2 Mart. N. S. 

451), 1222. 
Christy v. Tancred (7 M. & W. 

127), 236, 577. 
Church V. Bloom (111 Iowa, 319), 

1457. 
Church V. Brown (15 Ves. 265), 

1051. 
Church V. Gilman (15 "Wend. N. 

Y. 656), 343, 349. 
Church V. Walker (124 Mass. 69), 

438. 
Churchill v. Lammers (1 Mo. App. 

Rep. 155), 1192, 1223. 
Chrystie, Appeal of (85 Pa. St. 

463), 318. 
Cilley V. Hawkins (48 111. 308), 

694. 
Cincinnati v. Steinkamp (54 Ohio 

St. 284), 917. 
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Hooker (26 

Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 392), 267. 
City V. Leeds (24 Ind. App. 271), 

73. 
City Council of Charleston v. Page 

(Speers, S. C. Eq. 159). 390, 395. 
City of Clinton v. Franklin (26 

Ky. Law Rep. 1053), 686. 
City of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. R. 

Co. (Neb. 93 N. W. Rep. 766), 

442. 
City of New Albany v. Enders (143 

Ind. 192), 514. 
City of New York v. Cashman (10 

Johns. N. Y. 96), 1024. 
City of New York v. Mabie (13 

N. Y. 151), 563. 
City of New York v. Parker Vein 

S. S. Co. (21 N. Y. Super. Ct. 

300), 565. 



City of New York v. United States 

Trust Co. (101 N. Y. Supp. 574), 

453. 
City of Philadelphia v. Reeves (48 

Pa. St. 472), 591. 
City of Richmond v. Duesberry 

(27 Grat. Va. 210), 1437. 
Claflin V. Hoover (20 Mo. App. 

583), 326. 
Clancey v. Rice (5 Wash. 571), 

934. 
Clanton v. Eaton (92 Ala. 612), 

1414, 1418. 
Clapp V. Coble (21 N. Car. 177), 

926. 
Clapp V. Donaldson (Mass. 80 N. 

B. Rep. 486), 826. 
Clapp V. Paine (18 Me. 264), 139, 

156, 158, 234. 
Clapp V. Stoughton (10 Pick. Mass, 

463), 22. 
Clarges v. Funucan (2 Doug. 565), 

111. 
Claridge v. MacKenzie (4 M. & G. 

143), 923. 
Clark v. Abbott (1 Md. Ch. 474), 

30. 
Clark v. Aldridge (40 N. Y. Supp. 

440), 937, 1073. 
Clark V. Babcock (23 Mich. 164), 

783. 
Clark V. Banks (6 Houst. Del. 

584), 1314. 
Clark V. Barnes (76 N. Y. 301), 

119. 
Clark V. Burnside (15 111. 62), 15. 
Clark V. Butt (26 Ind. 236), 672. 
Clark V. Charter (128 Mass. 423), 

554. 
Clark V. Cobb (121 Cal. 595), 491. 
Clark V. Coolidge (8 Kan. 189). 

1018. 
Clark V. Devoe (124 N. Y. 120), 

604. 
Clark V. Dobbins (52 Ga. 656), 

1445. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED, 



Ixvii 



[references are to pages.] 



Clarke v. Fuller (16 C. B. N. S. 

24), 259. 
Clark V. Gellison (20 Me. 18), 334. 
Clark V. Greenfield (34 N. Y. Supp. 

1), 644, 1058. 
Clark V. Harvey (54 Pa. St. 142), 

780, 1315. 
Clark V. HajTies (57 Iowa, 96), 

1400, 1440. 
Clark V. Rowland (85 N. Y. 204), 

139. 
Clark V. Keliher (107 Mass. 406), 

166. 
Clark V. Merrill (51 N. H. 415), 

1378. 
Clark V. Rhoads (79 Ind. 342), 

369. 
Clark V. Royston (13 Mee. & Wei. 

732), 1314. 
Clark V. Smith (25 Pa. St. 137), 

196. 
Clark V. Smarridge (7 Q. B. 957), 

131. 
Clark V. Spaulding (20 N. H. 213), 

675. 
Clark V. Stringfellow (4 Ala. 353), 

974. 
Clark V. Wheelock (99 Mass. 14), 

210. 
Clark V. Wilson (103 Mass. 219), 

771. 
Clark & Stevens v. Gerke (Md. 

65 Atl. Rep. 326), 893. 
Clarke v. Cincinnati (1 Ohio Dec. 

10), 388. 
Clarke v. Cobb (121 Cal. 595). 539. 
Clarke v. Crego (51 N. Y. 646). 

941. 
Clarke v. Cummings (5 Barb. N. 

Y. 339), 609. 
Clarke v. Rowland (85 N. Y. 204), 

1288. 
Clarke v. .Tones (1 Denio, N. Y. 

516), 644. 
Clarke v. Mitchell (51 N. H. 415), 

393. 



Clarke v. Rawson (2 Denio, N. Y. 

135), 342. 
Clarke v. Spaulding (20 N. H. 

313), 782, 868. 
Clarke v. Webb (1 C. M. & R. 29), 

576. 
Clarke v. Welsh (87 N. Y. Supp. 

697), 834. 
Clarke's Appeal (79 Pa. St. 376), 

21. 
Clarkson v. Skidmore (4 N. Y. 

297), 702. 
Clary v. O'Shea (72 Minn. 105), 

924. 
Clason V. Bailey (14 Johns. N. Y. 

484), 982. 
Clason V. Gorley (5 Sandf. N. Y. 

447), 34. 
Clator V. Otto (38 W. Va. 89), 

1238. 
Claude v. Shepard (122 N. Y. 397), 

584. 
Clavering v. Clavering (2 P. Wms. 

388), 710. 
Clawson v. Primrose (4 Del. Ch. 

643), 441. 
Clayton v. Blahey (8 Term Rep. 

3), 147, 192. 
Clayton v. Greyson (6 N. & M. 

694), 459. 
Clayton v. Leach (41 Ch. D. 103), 

1099. 
Clayton v. Souther (1 Exch. 717), 

105. 
Cleighton v. Sanders (89 111. 543), 

162. 
Clegg V. Hands (62 L. T. 502), 

750, 768. 
Clegg v. Rowland (L. R. 2 Eq. 

P. Cas. 165), 710. 
Clemence v. Steere (1 R. I. 272), 

717. 
Clement v. Wheeler (25 N. H. 

361), 716. 
Clemm v. Wilcox (15 Ark. 102), 

953. 



Ixviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[befebences are to pages.] 
Broomfield (19 Mo. Cluett v. Sheppard (131 111. 636), 



Clemens v 

118), 1199, 1213. 
Clemens v. Murphy (40 Mo. 121), 

1285. 
Clements v. Collins (2 T. R. 502), 

399. 
Clements v. Welles (11 Jur. N. S. 

991), 740, 768, 1089. 
demons v. Knox (31 Mo. App. 

185), 478, 1014, 1023. 
Clendenning v. Currier (6 Gill & 

J. Md. 420), 49. 
Clendenning v. Lindner (9 Misc. 

Rep. 582), 1215, 1364. 
Clenighan v. McFarland (11 N. Y. 

Supp. 719), 460. 
Cleveland v. Crum (33 Mo. App. 

616), 1464. 
Cleveland v. Spencer (73 Fed. 

Rep. 559), 1015. 
Cleves V. Willoughby (7 Hill. N. 

Y. 83), 459, 785. 
Cleveland C. C. & St. Ry. Co. v. 

Wood (189 111. 352), 1095. 
Click v. Stewart (36 Tex. 280), 

1463. 
Clifford V. Atlantic Cotton Mills 

(146 Mass. 147), 799. 
Clifford V. Cotton Mills (146 Mass. 

47), 809. 
Clifford V. Gresslinger (96 Ga. 

789), 977. 
Clifford V. United States (34 Ct. 

CI. 223), 35. 
Clift V. Stockdon (4 Litt. Ky. 215), 

394. 
Clifton V. Montague (40 W. 207), 

783, 848, 904. 
Clinan v. Cooke (1 Sch. & Lef. 22), 

386, 1367. 
Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gard- 
ner (99 111. 1.'31). 139, 145. 
Cloney v. Richardson (34 Mo. 370), 

552. 
Close v. Wilberforce (1 Beav. 112). 
1105. 



401. 
Clun V. Clarke (Peake, Ad. C. 

239), 182. 
Clun's Case (10 Coke, 127), 539. 
Clyne v. Holmes (61 N. J. Law, 

358), 847, 859. 
Coale V. Hannibal, etc. Co. (60 

Mo. 227), 722. 
Coan V. Mole (39 Mich. 454), 146. 
Coats V. Darbey (2 N. Y. 517), 

690. 
Coatsworth v. Schoellkopf (75 N. 

Y. Supp. 753), 456, 616. 
Cobb V. Arnold (8 Met. Mass. 398), 

938. 
Cobb V. Kidd (8 Fed. Rep. 695), 

90, 519, 573. 
Cobb V. Lavalle (89 111. 331), 434. 
Cobb V. Stokes (8 East, 358), 155.. 
Ccburn v. Goodall (72 Cal. 498), 

1080. 
Coburn v. Palmer (8 Cush. Mass. 

124), 948. 
Cochran v. Ocean Dry Dock Co. 

(30 La. Ann. 1365), 431. 
Cochran v. Pew (159 Pa. St. 184), 

641. 
Cochrane v. Justice Min. Co. (16 

Colo. 415), 252, 465. 
Cochrane v. Mortgage & Trust Co. 
(Neb. 96 N. W. Rep. 1051), 656. 
Cochrane v. Philadelphia Co. (96 

N. W. Rep. 1051), 657. 
Cockburn v. Watkins (76 Ala 

486), 1416. 
Cockerline v. Fisher (Mich. lOa 

N. W. Rep. 522), 553. 
Cocking V. Ward (1 C. B. 868), 

380. 
Cockson V. Cock (Cro. Jac. 125), 

616. 
Coddington v. Dunham (3 J. & S. 

N. Y. 412), 851, 1148. 
Codman v. Freemen (3 Cush- 
Mass. 306), 1427. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixix 



[references are to pages.] 



Codman v. Hall (9 Allen, Mass. 

335), 85, 1019. 
Codman v. Jenkins (14 Mass. 93), 

938. 
Codman v. Johnson (104 Mass. 

491), 1023. 
Cody V. Quarterman (12 Ga. 386), 

41, 206. 
Coe V. Clay (5 Bing. 540), 671, 

698. 
Coe V. Hobby (72 N. Y. 141), 555, 

1196, 1199, 1201. 
Coe V. Wilson (46 Me. 314), 1328. 
Coffin V. Lunt (69 Mass. 80), 163. 
Coffin V. Yalman (8 N. Y. 465), 

1284. 
Coffman v. Hauck (24 Mo. 496), 

318. 
Coffman v. Huck (19 Mo. 435), 

317. 
Cofran v. Shepard (148 Mass. 

582), 213, 237. 
Coggins V. Flythe (113 N. C. 102), 

16. 
Cohen v. Candler (79 Ga. 427), 

1448. 
Cohn V. May (210 Pa. St. 615), 

814. 
Cohn V. Norton (57 Conn. 480), 

672, 694, 695. 
Cohn V. Smith (64 Wis. 816), 1432, 

1459. 
Cohen v. Dupont (13 N. Y. Super. 

260), 1138, 1141, 1182. 
Cohen v. Kyler (27 Mo. 122), 573. 
Coit V. Planer (30 N. Y. Super. Ct. 

413), 519. 
Coke V. Gutkie^e (80 Ky. 598), 

789. 
Coker v. Britt (78 Miss. 583), 

1412, 1467. 
Coker v. Pearsall (6 Ala. 542), 30, 

485. 
Colburne v. Mixstone (1 Leon, 

129), 1200. 
Colburn v. Morrill (117 Mass. 

262), 1180. • 



Colby V. lies (11 A. & E. 335), 

578. 
Colclough V. Carpeles (89 Wis. 

239), 245. 
Colcord V. Hall (3 Head, Tenn. 

625), 302. 
Cole V. Johnson (120 Iowa, 667), 

634. 
Cole V. Lake Co. (54 N. H. 242), 

432. 
Cole V. Manners (Neb. 1906, 107 

N. W. Rep. 777), 720, 723, 1463. 
Cole V. Maxfield (13 Minn. 235), 

931. 
Cole V. McKey (66 Wis. 500), 814, 

848, 849, 1097. 
Cole V. Patterson (25 Wend. N. Y. 

426), 1112. 
Cole V. Seeley (25 Vt. 220), 18. 
Colebeck v. Girdler's Co. (45 L. J. 

Q. B. 225), 849. 
Colegrove v. Dios Santos (2 Barn. 

& Cress. 76), 1264. 
Coleman v. Haight (14 La. Ann. 

564), 697. 
Coleman v. Reddick (25 U. C. C. 

C. 579), 1145. 
Coleman v. Siler (74 Ala. 435), 

1438, 1489. 
Colemore v. Whitroe (1 D. & Ry. 

1), 945. 
Coles V. Courtier (55 I. T. Rep. 

N. S. 574), 544. 
Coles V. Marquand (2 Hill, N. Y. 

47), 1095. 
Coles V. Peck (96 Ind. 333), 984, 

999. 
Coles V. Treoothick (9 Ves. Sr. 

234), 98. 
Collender v. Smith (20 Misc. Rep. 

612), 551. 
Coller V. Gardner (21 Beav. 151), 

97. 
Collett V. Curling (10 Q. B. 785), 

522. 
Collier t. Corbett (15 Cal. 183), 

8L 



Ixx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Collier v. Pierce (7 Gray, Mass. 

18), 410. 
Collins V. Canty (6 Cush. Mass. 

415), 178, 646. 
Collins V. Collins (26 Beav. 306), 

1273. 
Collins V. Harding (Cro. Eliz. 

607), 510. 
Collins V. Hasbrouck (56 N. Y. 

157), 1048. 
Collins V. Karatopsky (36 Ark. 

316), 1178, 1180. 
Collins V. Lewis (53 Minn. 78), 

702. 
Collins V. Pratt (181 Mass. 345), 

390, 1085, 1093. 
Collins V. Sillye (Styles, 265), 

639. 
Collins V. Weller (7 T. R. 478), 8. 
Collins V. Whildin (3 Phila. Pa. 

102), 544. 
Collins's Appeal (35 Pa. St. 83), 

1441. 
Collis V. Alburtis (9 Civ. Pro. 

Rep. N. Y. 80), 554. 
Collyer v. Collyer (113 N. Y. 442), 

561, 573. 
Coin V. Coin (24 S. C. 596), 349. 
Colored, etc. Ass'n v. Harvey (23 

Ky. Law Rep. 1009), 276. 
Colt V. Palmer (30 N. Y. Super. 

Ca. 413), 1069. 
Colton V. Gorham (72 Iowa, 324), 

644, 1057, 1212, 1213. 
Columbia Brewing Co. v. Miller 

(Mo. App. 101 S. W. Rep. 711), 

558. 
Columbia, etc. Co. v. Braillard (5 

Wash. 492), 934. 
Colville V. Miles (127 N. Y. 159), 

1320. 
Colwell V. Lawrence (38 N. Y. 

71), 586. 
Coman v. Thompson (47 Mich. 

22), 1316. 
Combs V. Midland Transfer Co. 

(58 Mo. App. 112), 327, 388. 



Comb's Case (9 Rep. 76), 106. 
Comegys v. Russell (175 Pa. St. 

■166), 1075. 
Commagere v. Brown (27 La. Ann. 

314), 775. 
Commercial Bank v. Pritchard 

(126 Cal. 600), 392. 
Commercial Bulletin Co., In re (6 

Fed. Cas. 3,060), 1119. 
Commissioners v. Brown (2 Colo. 

App. 473), 1249. 
Commissioners v. Clark (133 N. 

Y. 251), 139. 
Commissioner v. Younger (29 Cal. 

177), 469. 
Commissioners of Rusk Co. v. 

Stubbs (25 Kan. 322), 1265. 
Commonwealth v. Centner (18 Pa. 

St. 439), 505. 
Commonwealth v. Harrington (3 

Pick. Mass. 26), 778. 
Commonwealth v. McNeile (8 

Phila. 438), 454. 
Commonwealth v. Pa. R. Co. (51 

Pa. St. 351), 116. 
Commonwealth v. Sheriff (3 

Brewst. Pa. 537), 454. 
Compton v. Allen (Style, 162, 

Dyer, 33a), 882. 
Compton V. Cassada (32 Ga. 428), 

106. 
Compton V. Chelsea (55 Hun, 609), 

243. 
Comstock V. Cavanagh (17 R. I. 

233), 164. 
Comstcok V. Oderman (18 111. App. 

326), 863. 
Comstock V. Scales (7 Wis. 159), 

1426. 
Conant v. Bellows Falls Canal Co. 

(29 Vt. 263), 64. 
Conde v. Lee (55 App. Div. 401), 

940, 1254. 
Coney & Parker v. Brunswick & 

F. S. Co. (116 Ga. 222). 680. 
Conger v. Atwood (28 Ohio St. 

134), 52. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixxi 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Conger v. Duryee (90 N. Y. 594), 

1031. 
Congregational Society v. Fleming 

(11 Iowa, 533), 685, 1300. 
Congregational Soc. in Newport v. 

Walker (18 Vt. 600), 938. 
Congregational Soc. of Sharon v. 

Rix (Vt. 1889, 17 Atl. Rep. 719), 

550, 1086. 
Congress v. Evetts (10 Exch. 298), 

1428. 
Congreve v. Morgan (81 N. Y. 84), 

825. 
Conklin v. Carpenter (12 N. Y. 

St. Rep. 632), 1329. 
Conklin v. Foster (57 111. 105), 

1110. 
Conklin v. White (17 Abb. N. Y. 

315), 526. 
Conley v. Schiller (24 N. Y. Supp. 

473), 487, 698, 1171. 
Conn V. Conner (86 Iowa, 577), 

998. 
Connell v. Female Orphan Asylum 

(18 La. Ann. 513), 1005. 
Connock v. Jones (3 Excb. 233), 

603. 
Connolly v. Giddings (24 Neb. 

131), 29. 
Connor v. Bradley (1 How. U. S. 

25), 633, 638. 
Connor v. Withers (20 Ky. Law. 

Rep. 1326), 1364, 1391. 
Connors v. Clark (79 Conn. 100), 

1365. 
Conover v. Smith (17 N. J. Eq. 

51), 1292. 
Conrad v. Mining Co. (54 Mich. 

249), 1249. 
Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Hart 

(62 111. App. 212), 1161. 
Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co. (12 

Barb. N. Y. 27), 62. 
Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers (15 

111. 344), 275, 457, 588. 
Consolidated Coal Co. of St. Louis 

V. Peers (166 111. 361), 1092. 



Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers (39 

111.. App. 453), 534. 
Consolidated Coal Co. v. Rainey 

(69 111. App. 182), 1370. 
Conway v. Carpenter (30 N. Y. 

Supp. 315), 1224. 
Conway v. Starkweather (1 Den. 

N. Y. 113), 144. 
Conwell V. Mann (100 N. Car. 

234), 920. 
Coogan V. Parker (2 S. Car. 255), 

1353. 
Cook V. Anderson (85 Ala. 99), 

1154, 1155. 1340. 
Cook V. Bisbee (18 Pick. Mass. 

527), 373, 454. 
Cook V. Guerra (41 L. J. C. P. 89), 

500. 
Cook V. Champion (1 Denio N. Y. 

90), 722. 
Cook V. Cook (Cro. Car. 531), 718. 
Cook V. Cook (28 Ala. 660), 215. 
Cook V. Folsom (2 Lane. Law 

Rev. 185), 1254. 
Cook V. Humber (11 C. B. N. S. 

33), 283. 
Cook V. Neilson (10 Pa. St. 41), 

180. 
Cook V. Jones (96 Ky. 283), 1391. 
Cook V. San. Dist. of Chicago (67 

111. App. 286), 1287. 
Cook V. Sanford (3 Dana, Ky. 

237), 106. 
Cook V. Soule (45 How. Pr. N. Y. 

340), 563, 702. 
Cocke V. Brogan (5 Ark. 693). 333. 
Cooke V. England (27 Md. 14), 

860, 884, 878, 914. 
Cooke V. Loxley (5 T. R. 4), 576, 

921. 
Cooke V. Wilson (1 C. B. N. S. 

153), 105. 
Cooley V. Cummings (16 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 947). 429. 
Cooley V. Willard (34 111. 68), 567. 
Coolidge V. Hagar (43 Vt. 9), 447. 



Ixxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Coombe v. Greene (2 D. N. S. 

1023), 891, 912. 
Coomber v. Hefner (86 Ind. 108), 

155. 
Coomber v. Howard (1 C. B. 440), 

522. 
Coombs V. Jordan (3 Bland, Ch. 

Md. 284), 291. 
Cooper V. Adams (6 Cush. Mass. 

87), 223. 
Cooper V. Cole (38 Vt. 385), 1427. 
Cooper V. Gambill (146 Ala. 184), 

165. 
Cooper V. Johnson (143 Mass. 

108), 1269. 
Cooper V. Joy (105 Mich. 374), 

1378. 
Cooper V. Kimball (123 N. Car. 

120), 1435. 
Cooper V. Kollstadt (67 N. Y. Supp. 

181), 1142. 
Cooper V. Lawson (12 Det. Leg. 

N. 34), 831. 
Cooper V. Randall (59 111. 317), 

704. 
Cooper V. Rankin (5 Binn. Pa. 

612), 97. 
Cooper V. Robinson (10 M. & W. 

694), 343. 
Cooper V. Williams (4 Ohio 253), 

116. 
Cope V. Gilbert (4 Denio, N. Y. 

347), 568. 
Copeland v. Luttgen (40 N. Y. 

Supp. 653), 1176, 1347. 
Copeland v. State (60 Ind. 394), 

10. 
Copeland v. Watts (1 Starkie, 95), 

1221. 
Copper V. Fretnaransky (16 N. Y. 

Supp. 866), 555. 
Copper Mining Co. v. Beach (13 

Beav. 478), 1370, 1372. 
Coppinger v. Armstrong (5 111. 

App. 637). 336. 
Corbett v. Norcross (35 N. H. 99), 

334. 



Corbett's Case (3 Dyer, 280a), 

1200. 
Corby v. Brill Book, etc. Co. (76 

Mo. App. 506), 163. 
Corby v. MacSpadden (2 Mo. App. 

Rep. 950), 191. 
Cordes v. Miller (39 Mich. 581), 

872. 
Coro V. Greenwald (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 752), 527. 
Corey v. Bishop (48 N. H. 146), 

1333. 
Corle V. Monkhouse (47 N. J. Eq. 

73), 1313. 
Corn V. Rosenthal (1 Misc. Rep. 

168), 1190. 
Corneliss v. DriscoU (89 Mich. 

34), 1171, 1186. 
Cornell v. Lamb (2 Cow. N. Y. 

652), 504. 
Cornell v. Vanartsdalen (4 Pa. St. 

364), 848, 907. 
Cornish v. Cleife (11 L. T. 606), 

891. 
Cornish v. Searell (8 B. & C. 471), 

483, 512, 923, 1226. 
Cornish v. Stubbs (39 L. J. C. P. 

202), 140, 155. 
Corrigan v. Riley (26 N. J. L. 79), 

82, 83, 920, 931. 
Corrigan v. Stillwell (97 Me. 247), 

917. 
Coryton v. Litherbye (2 Saund. 

115), 610. 
Cosser v. Collinge (3 Myl. & K. 

283), 1098. 
Cotheal v. Talmage (9 N. Y. 551), 

586. 
Cottee V. Richardson (7 Ex. 143), 

1232. 
Cotton Mfg. Corporation v. Mel- 

ven (15 Mass. 268), 522. 
Couch V. Burke (2 Hill, S. Car. 

534), 190. 
Couch V. Davidson (109 Ala. 313), 

1454. 



TABLE OF CzVSES CITED, 



Ixxiii 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Couch V. steel (77 Eng. C. L. 402), 

916. 
Coudert v. Ck)hn (118 N. Y. 309), 

147. 
Cougle V. Densmore (57 111. App. 

591), 1165. 
Coughlin V. Coughlin (26 Kan. 

116), 124. 
Coulter V. Norton (100 Mich. 389), 

1142,1145. 
Countess ot Cumberland's Case 

(Moore's Rep. 812), 718. 
Countess of Plymouth v. Throg- 

morton (1 Salk. 65), 539. 
Coupe V. Piatt (172 Mass. 458), 

814. 
Courtney v. Lyndon (128 Cal. 35), 

312. 
Coward v. Gregory (15 L. T. 279), 

661. 
Cowan V. Henika (19 Ind. App. 

45), 522. 
Cowan V. Truefitt (67 L. J. Ch. 

695), 419. 
Cowell V. Lumley (39 Cal. 151), 

851,1340. 
Cowen V. Sunderland (145 Mass. 

363), 788, 805. 
Cowper V. Fletcher (6 B. & S. 

464), 89. 
Cox V. Bent (5 Bing. 185), 133, 

187,192. 
Cox V. Bishop (8 De G., M. & G. 

815), 1106. 
Cox V. Daughtery (62 Ark. 629), 

957. 
Cox V. Knight (18 C. B. 645), 511. 
Cox V. Sammis (68 N. Y. Supp. 

203), 155. 
Cox V. Wayt (26 W. Va. 807), 336. 
Coy V. Downie (14 Fla. 544), 1340. 
Coyle V. Franklin (54 Fed. Rep. 

644), 960. 
Coyne v. Feiner (16 N. Y. Supp. 

203), 243. 
Cozens v. Stevenson (5 S. & R. Pa. 

421), 463, 672. 



Craddock v. Riddlesbarger (2 

Dana, Ky. 205), 291, 1306, 1452. 
Craddock v. Stewart (6 Ala. 77), 

17. 
Craig V. Butler (156 N. Y. 672), 

1357. 
Craig V. Gray (1 Cal. App. 598), 

155. 
Craig V. Summers (47 Minn. 189), 

1014. 
Grain v. Wright (36 Hun, 74), 

351. 
Cram v. Dresden (4 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 120), 1176. 
Cram v. Kroger (22 111. 74), 920. 
Crane v. Guthrie (47 Iowa, 542), 

49. 
Cram v. Munro (1 Edw. Ch. N. Y. 

123), 1026. 
Cramer v. Grosecloes (53 Mo. App. 

684), 680. 
Crampton v. Van Ness (6 Fed. 

Gas. No. 3,348), 937. 
Crane v. Hardaman (4 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 339), 564. 
Crane v. Morris (6 Pet. U. S. .598), 

21. 
Crane v. O'Reiley (8 Mich. 312), 

198. 
Crane v. Partland (9 Mich. 493), 

366. 
Crane v. Patton (57 Ark. 340), 

270. 
Cranston v. Rogers (83 Ga. 750), 

1413. 
Crane Elevator Co. v. Lippert (63 

Fed. Rep. 942), 814, 815. 
Craske v. Christian Union Pub. 

Co. (17 Hun, N. Y. 319), 146. 
Cratty v. Collins (13 111. 567), 

1326. 
Crawford v. Armstrong (58 Mo. 

App. 214), 563. 
Crawford v. Bertholf (1 N. J. Eq. 

458), 349. 
Crawford v. Coil (69 Mo. 588), 

1467 



Lxxiv 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[eeferences are to pages.] 



Crawford v. Kastner (63 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 90), 1382. 
Crawford t. Longstreet (43 N. J. 

Law, 325), 63, 65. 
Crawford v. Morris (5 Gratt. Va. 

90), 162, 462. 
Crawford v. Newton (36 W. R. 

54), 888. 
Crawford v. Redding (8 Misc. Rep. 

306), 1152. 
Crawford v. West Side Bank (100 

N. Y. 50), 343. 
Crawford v. Wick (18 Ohio St. 

190), 384. 
Crawley v. Price (L. R. 10 Q. B. 

302), 622, 632, 1055. 
Creager v. Creager (10 Ky. Law 

Rep. 4240), 1119. 
Creagh v. Blood (3 Jr. & Lat. 133), 

1199. 
Creech v. Crockett (5 Cush. Mass. 

133), 234. 
Creech v. Grainger (106 N. C. 

213), 54. 
Creighton v. Finlayson (46 Neb. 

457), 103. 
Creighton v. Sanders (89 111. 543), 

384. 
Crescent City WTiarf & Lighterage 

Co. V. Simpson (77 Cal. 286), 61, 

331. 
Cressfield v. Morrison (7 C. B. 

286). 1089. 
Cressler v. Williams (80 Ind. 366), 

262. 
Creveling v. De Hart (54 N. J. 

Law, 338), 1093. 
Creveling v. West End Iron Co. 

(51 N. J. Law, 34), 641. 
Crewes v. Burcham (1 Black, 352), 

39. 
Crill V. Jeffrey (95 Iowa, 634), 

1414. 
Crinkley v. Egerton (11 N. C. 444), 

318, 1435. 
Crippen v. Morrison (13 Mich. 23), 

29,33. 



Cripps V. Blank (9 D. & R. 480)^ 

925. 
Crisp V. Churchill (4 R. R. 822), 

772. 
Crisp V. Price (5 Taunt. 548), 442. 
Critchfield v. Remsley (21 Neb. 

1-8), 158. 
Croade v. Ingraham (13 Pick. 

Mass. 33), 118, 518, 932. 
Crockett v. Althouse (35 Mo. App., 

404), 527, 924. 
Crockett v. Campbell (21 Tenn. 

411), 333. 
Crockett v. Crockett (2 Ohio St. 

180), 717. 
Croft V. Lumley (5 El. & Bl. 648)^ 

612, 736, 1067. 
Crofton V. Ormsby (2 Sch. & Lef. 

583), 1003. 
Cromie v. Hoover (40 Ind. 49), 

1264. 
Crommelin v. Thiess (31 Ala. 412), 

195, 1044, 1176, 1180. 
Cromwell v. Andrews (Cro. Eliz. 

15), 531. 
Croney, In re (6 Fed. Cas. 3411), 

1120. 
Cronin v. Rogers (1 Cob. & E. 

348), 890. 
Crook V. Crook (20 Abb. N. C. 

249), 1391. 
Crook V. Hewit (4 Wash. 749), 

430, 684. 
Crosby v. Brodbury (20 Me. 61), 

437. 
Crosby v. Donnowsky (69 S. W. 

Rep. 612), 956. 
Crosby v. Home & Danz Co. (45 

Minn. 249), 258. 
Crosby v. Loop (13 111. 625), 491, 

1112. 
Crosby v. Wadsworth (6 East, 

602), 385. 
Cross V. Tome (14 Md. 247), 505. 
Cross V. United States (81 U. S. 

479), 560. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixxv 



[references are to pages.] 



Cross V. Weare Commission (153 

111. 499), 1109. 
Crossman's Sons, J. v. Sanders 

(114 La. 958), 1112. 
Crotty V. Collins (13 111. 567), 676. 
Crouch V. Briles (7 J. J. Marsh. 

Ky. 255), 519, 573. 
Crouch V. Fowle (9 N. H. 219), 

698. 
Crouse v. Frothingham (97 N. Y. 

105), 1060. 
Crouse v. Mitchell (9 Leg. N. 74), 

lOSI. 
Crowder v. Shackelford (35 Miss. 

320), 52. 
Crowe V. Riley (63 Ohio St. 1), 

1044. 
Crowe V. Wilson (65 Md. 479), 720. 
Crowell V. Currier (27 N. J. Eq. 

152), 533. 
Crowell V. Railroad Co. (61 Miss. 
631), 704. 
Crowley v. Vitty (7 Ex. 319), 555, 

1199. 
Crowley v. Gormley (69 N. Y. 

Supp. 576), 1086. 
Crown Mfg. Co. v. Gay (9 Ohio 

Dec. 420), 1178, 1183, 1214. 
Crune v. Prideaux (10 East, 

187), 8. 
Crusoe v. Bugby (2 W. Bl. 776), 

743,1051. 
Crusselle v. Pugh (67 Ga. 430), 

873. 
Crutchfield v. Remaley (21 Neb. 

178), 139. 
Crystal Springs Distillery Co. v. 

Cox (67 Fed. Rep. 693), 905. 
Cubberly v. Cubberly (33 N. J. Eq. 

82),53i 
Cubbins v. Ay res (4 Lea, Tenn. 

329), 1250. 
Cudlip V. Rundle (Carth. 263), 

223. 
Cudworth v. Scott (41 N. H. 456), 

1427. 

f 



Culton V. Gilchrist (92 Iowa, 718), 

243, 252, 254. 
Culverhouse v. Worts (32 Mo. 

App. 419), 33, 1112, 1228. 
Cummings v. Adam (4 N. J. L. 

215), 1213. 
Cummings v. Ayer (188 Mass. 

292), 861. 
Cummings v. Kilpatrick (23 Miss. 

106), 920. 
Cummings v. Rosenberg (6 Misc. 

Rep. 538), 34. 
Cummings v. Smith (114 111. App. 

35), 483. 
Cummings v. Perry (169 Mass. 

150), 425. 
Cummings v. Watson (149 Mass. 

262), 54. 
Cunning v. Tittabawasee Boom Co. 

(88 Mich. 237), 937. 
Cunningham v. Pattee (98 Mass. 

248), 84, 1369. 
Cunningham v. Wathen (14 App. 

Div. 553), 470, 1072. 
Cunningham v. Baxley (96 Ind. 

367), 41, 47. 
Cunningham v. Holton (55 Me. 

33), 213, 223, 689. 
Cunningham v. Horton (57 Me. 

420), 690. 
Curds V. Forts (9 Ky. 43), 326. 
Curling v. Mills (7 Scott, N. R. 

709), 257. 
Curran v. Flammer (62 N. Y. 

Supp. 1061), 847. 
Currie v. White (45 N. Y. 822), 

536. 
Currier v. Earl (13 Me. 216), 212. 

230. 
Currier v. Gale (9 Allen, Mass. 

522), 237. 
Currier v. Perley (24 N. H. 219), 

162,208. 
Curry v. Bank (8 Port, Ala. 360), 

65. 
Curtice v. Thompson (19 N. H. 

471), 794. 



Ixxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[EEFEEENCFS ABE TO PAGES.] 



Curtis V. Blair (26 Miss. 309), 98. 
Curtis V. Galvin (1 Allen, Mass. 

215), 209. 
Curtis V. Hollenbeck (92 111. App. 

34), 573. 
Curtis V. Pierce (115 Mass. 186), 

1023. 
Curtis V. Smith (35 Conn. 156, 

158), 437. 
Curtis V. Spitty (1 Bing. N. C. 

17), 575. 
Curtis V. Sturgls (64 Mo. App. 

535), 1378. 
Curtis V. Treat (21 Me. 525), 258. 
Curtiss V. Miller (17 Barb. N. Y. 

477), 1238. 
Cusack V. Gunning System (109 

111. App. 588), 1386. 
Cuschner v. Westlake (43 Wash. 

690), 1096, 1099, 1240. 
Gushing v. Adams (18 Pick. Mass. 

110), 439, 440. 
Cushing V. Kenfield (5 Allen, 

Mass. 307), 679, 680. 
Cuthbert v. Kuhn (3 Whart. Pa. 

357), 507. 
Cuthbertson v. Irving (6 H. & N. 

135), 489, 923, 926, 941, 953. 
Cutter V. Hamlen (Mass. 18 N. E. 

Rep. 397), 796. 
Cutting V. Derby (2 Black, 1075), 

87. 
Cutts V. York, etc. Co. (18 Me. 

190), 343. 



Dahm v. Barlow (93 Ala. 120), 

644. 
Dair v. Buffum (51 Me. 160), 1264. 
Dakin v. Williams (21 Wend. N. 

Y. 457), 645, 1059. 
Dakota Hot Springs Co. v. Young 

(9 S. D. 577), 663. 
Dalay v. Rice (145 Mass. 38), 827. 
Dalay v. Savage (145 Mass. 33), 

792. 



Dale V. Southern Ry. Co. (132 N. 

C. 705), 686. 
Dale V. Wood (2 Barn. & Ad. 724), 

274. 
Daley v. Quick (99 Cal. 179), 96, 

788. 
Dallas V. Pool (3 Mete. Mass. 350), 

228. 
Dallemand v. Manon (4 Colo. App. 

262), 122. 
Dallman v. King (4 Bing. N. C. 

105), 909. 
Dalton V. Gidson (77 N. E. Rep. 

1035), 873. 
Dalton V. Laudahn (27 Mich. 529), 

523. 
Daly V. Wise (132 N. Y. 306), 476, 

782, 785, 786, 1051, 1355. 
Dame v. Dame (38 N. H. 429), 189, 

209. 
Damery v. Ferguson (48 111. App. 

224), 1315. 
Damren v. Power Co. (91 Me. 

334), 495. 
Dana v. Burke (62 N. H. 627), 

1248. 
Dana v. Fiedler (1 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 463), 537. 
Dananberg v. Reinheimer (53 N.' 

Y. Supp, 794), 1081. 
Danby v. Hoffman (3 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 361), 1094. 
Dand v. Kingscote (6 Mee. & Wei. 

197), 1115. 
Danforth v. Sargeant (14 Mass. 

491), 156, 158. 
Daniels v. Bond (21 Pick. Mass. 

367), 222. 
Daniels v. Brown (34 N. H. 454), 

309. 
Daniels v. Davison (16 Ves. 249), 

497,1075. 
Daniels v. Logan (47 Iowa, 295), 

1136,1182. 
Daniels v. Pond (21 Pick. Mass. 

367), 679, 1331. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Lxxvii 



[referexces are to pages.] 



Daniels v. Richardson (22 Pick. 

Mass. 565), 20, 24, 543. 
Daniels v. Straw (53 Fed. Rep. 

327), 1382. 
Daniels v. Willis (7 Minn. 295), 

571. 
Danielson v. Davidson (16 Ves. 

253), 996. 
Dann v. Spurrier (3 Bos. N. P. 

399), 374, 376. 
Danziger v. Falkenberg (64 Hun, 

635), 1238, 1347, 1348. 
Danziger v. Hoyt (46 Hun. N. Y. 

270), 549. 
Danziger v. Silberthau (18 N. Y. 

Supp. 350), 726. 
Danziger v. Williams (91 Pa. St. 

234), 535. 
D'Appuzo V. Albright (76 N. Y. 

Supp. 654), 583. 
Darby v. Anderson (1 Nott. & Me. 

S. C. 369), 920. 
Darby v. Jarndt (85 Mo. App. 

274), 1430. 
Darcey v. Steger (50 N. Y. Supp. 

638), 1076. 
D'Arcy v. Martin (63 Miph. 602), 

369. 
D'Arcy v. Miller (86 111. 102), 870. 
Darity v. Darity (71 S. W. Rep. 

950), 99. 
Dark v. Donelson's Lessee (2 Yerg. 

Tenn. 249), 223. 
Darke v. Bowditch (8 Q. B. 973), 

621. 
Darling v. Kelly (113 Mass. 29), 

685. 
Darlington v. De Wald (194 Pa. 

St. 305), 896. 
Darmstaetter v. Hoffman (120 

Mich. 48), 1086. 
Darnall v. Hill (12 Gill & J. Md. 

139), 22. 
Darrell v. Johnson (17 Pick. Mass. 

263), 156. 
Darrill v. Stevens (4 McCord S. C. 

39), 141. 



Darse v. Fischer (10 Ohio Dec. 

163), 814. 
Dart V. Barbour (32 Mich. 271), 

451. 
Dartford Co. v. Till (95 L. T. 636), 

752. 
Dartnal v. Morgan (Cro. ifac. 598), 

560. 
Darwin v. Potter (5 Denio, N. Y. 

306), 564, 879. 
Dasher v. Ellis (102 Ga. 830), 957. 
Dashiell v. Washington Market Co. 

(10 App. D. C. 81), 818. 
Dassori v. Zarek (75 N. Y. Supp. 

841), 1090. 
Dater v. Earl (3 Gray, Mass. 482), 

776. 
Dauchy Iron Works v. McKim Cas- 
ket & Mfg. Co. (85 111. App. 

584), 522. 
Dausch v. Crane (109 Mo. 323), 

484,958. 
Davenport v. Magoon (13 Oreg. 3), 

708. 
Davenport v. Regina (47 L. J. 

P. C. 8), 642, 655. 
Davenport v. United States (26 Ct. 

CI. 338), 895. 
David V. Beelman (5 La. Ann. 

545), 1178. 
David V. Ryan (47 Iowa, 642), 872,, 

883. 
David Bradley & Co. v. Peabody 

Coal Co. (99 111. App. 427), 35. 
Davidson v. Crump (99 Mich. 501), 

1265, 1270, 1375. 
Davidson v. Davidson (28 La. 

Ann. 269), 974. 
Davidson v. Ellmaker (84 Cal. 21), 

923. 
Davidson d. Bromley v. Stanley 

(4 Burr. 2210), 1201, 1202, 1214. 
Davies v. Edwards (3 M. & S. 3S0), 

559, 582. 
Davies v. Mayor, etc. of New York 

(83 N. Y. 207), 73. 



Ixxviii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Davies v. Oliver (1 Ridgw. P. C. 

1),479. 
Davies v. Thomas (6 Exch. 858), 

187. 
Davis V. Baldwin (66 Mo. App. 

577), 158, 388. 
Davis v.* Bridges (2 Roll's Abr. 

25), 112. 
Davis V. Brocklebank (9 N. H. 

73), 1306. 
Davis V. Buffum (51 Me. 160), 

1296. 
Davis V. Burrill (10 C. B. 822), 

1032. 
Davis V. Caldwell (12 Cush. Mass. 

512), 18. 
Davis V. Cincinnati (36 Ohio St. 

24), 1034. 
Davis V. Clancey (3 McCord, S. C. 

422), 686. 
Davis V. Days (42 S. C. 69), 1409. 
Davis V. Del. & Hud. Canal Co. 

(109 N. Y. 47, 51), 932. 
Davis V. George (67 N. H. 393), 

782, 787, 905. 
Davis V. Hamilton (71 Ind. 135), 

516. 
Davis V. Harkncss (6 111. 173), 11. 
Davis V. Jewett (13 N. Y. 88), 

679. 
Davis V. McGrew (82 Cal. 135), 

924. 
Davis V. Morris (31 N. Y. 569), 

1048, 1090, 1096. 
Davis V. Moss (38 Pa. St. 346), 

1250, 1288. 
Davis V. Murphy (126 Mass. 143), 

208. 
Davis V. Nash (32 Me. 411), 679, 

680. 
Davis V. Pacific Power Co. (107 

Cal. 563), 801. 
Davis V. Porter (10 Ohio Cir. Ct. 

Rep. 243), 1244. 
Davis V. Pou (108 Ala. 443), 938. 
Davis V. Robert (89 Ala. 402), 276. 



Davis V. Ross 138 Pa. St. 346), 

1264. 
Davis V. Smith (26 R. I. 129), 790. 
Davis V. Thompson (13 Me. 209), 

208, 216, 1306. 
Davis V. Young (20 Ala. 151), 686. 
Davis V. "Washington (18 Tex. Civ. 

App. 67), 1422. 
Davis V. Watts (90 Ind. 372), 22. 
Davis V. Wiley (4 111. 234), 601. 
Davis V. Williams (Ala. 1901, 30 

So. Rep. 488), 922. 
Davis V. Wilson (86 Tenn. 519), 

1430. 
Davis' Adm'r v. Smith (15 Mo. 

467), 1340. 
Davison v. Donadi (2 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 121), 1238. 
Davison v. Gent (1 H. & N. 744), 

1213. 
Davison v. Stanley (4 Burr. 2210), 

1200. 
Dawes v. Dowling (31 L. T. 65), 

194,576. 
Dawson v. Coffey (48 Mo. App. 

109), 1431. 
Dawson v. Coffman (28 Ind. 220), 

708. 
Dawson v. Dyer (5 Barn. & Ad. 

584), 1387. 
Dawson v. Sloan (100 N. Y. 620), 

814. 
Day V. Adams (42 Vt. 510), 333. 
Day V. Austin (Owen, 70), 1256. 
Day V. Bisbitch (Cro. Eliz. 374), 

1256. 
Day V. Cochran (24 Miss. 261), 

234. . 
Day V. Hammond (57 N. Y. 479), 

569, 1274. 
Day V. Watson (8 Mich. 535), 1131, 

1182,1213. 
Dayton v. Cralk (26 Minn. 133), 

1198. 
Dayton v. Vandoozer (39 Mich, 

749), 1324, 1331. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixxix 



[references are to pages.] 



Deamond v. Harris (33 Tex. 634), 

1340. 
Dean v. De Lezardi (24 Miss. 424), 

342. 
Dean v. Murphy (169 Mass. 413), 

810. 
Deane v. Caldwell (127 Mass. 242), 

1120,1338. 
Deane v. Hutchinson (40 N. J. Eq. 

83), 1110, 1244. 
Dearmond v. Dearmond (10 Ind. 

191), 349. 
Deaton v. Taylor (90 Va. 219), 654. 
De Bardeleben v. Crosby (5 Ala. 

363), 1465. 
Debow V. Colfax (10 N. J. Law, 

128), 1309, 1310, 1331. 
Debozear v. Butler (2 Grant Cases, 

Pa. 417), 1228. 
Decliarms v. Harwood (4 Maule & 

Sel. 400), 90. 
Decker v. Adams (12 N. J. Law, 

99), 142, 234. 
Decker v. Clarke (26 N. J. Bq. 

163), 1111. 
Decker v. Gardner (124 N. Y. 334), 

1122. 
Decker v. Gaylord (8 Hun, N. Y. 

310), 331, 591. 
Decker v. Hartshorn (60 N. J. 

Law, 548), 262, 1214, 1221. 
Decker v. Livingston (15 Johns. 

N. Y. 479), 87, 90, 550. 
Decker v. Sexton (43 N. Y. Supp. 

167), 169. 
De Clurq v. Barber Paving Co. 

(167 111. 215), 1023. 
De Coursey v. De Coursey (64 S. 

W. Rep. 912), 939. 
De Coursey v. Guarantee T. Co. 

(81 Pa. St. 217), 1112. 
Deer v. Doherty (26 Pittsb. Leg. 

J. Pa. 104), 441. 
De Forest v. Byrne (1 Hilt. N. Y. 

43), 616, 757. 
De Friest v. Bradley (192 Mass. 

346), 1362. 



De Frieze v. Quint (94 Cal. 662), 

965. 
De Giberville v. Stolle (9 Mb. App. 

185), 173. 
Degnario v. Sire (34 Misc. Rep. 

163), 597. 
De Graffenreid v. Wallace (53 S. 

W. Rep. 452), 836. 
De Jarnette v. McDaniel (93 Ala. 

215), 968. 
Delamater v. Bush (63 Barb. 168), 

460. 
De Lancey v. Ganong (9 N. Y. 9), 

632,960. 
Delaney v. Flanagan (41 Mo. App. 

651), 139, 146, 151, 154. 
Delano v. Montague (4 Cush. Mass. 

42), 235. 
Delany v. Fox (2 C. B. N. S. 768), 

921,938. 
Delashman v. Berry (20 Mich. 

292), 1378. 
Delaware & H. C. Co. v. Van Storch 

5 Lack. Leg. N. 89), 1023. 
Deller v. Hofferberth (127 Ind. 

414), 836, 873. 
Dellinger v. Gillespie (118 N. C. 

737), 361. 
Delmar Inv. Co. v. Blumenfeld 

(118 Mo. App. 308), 1129, 1148. 
De Loach v. Delk (47 S. E. Rep. 

204), 311. 
De Loge's Adm'r v. Hall (31 Mo. 

473), 33L 
Delph V. White (12 N. Y. 296), 

1080. 
Deluise v. Long Island R. Co. (66 

N. E. Rep. 1106), 695. 
Demarest v. Willard (8 Cow. N. Y. 

206), 615, 1112. 
Demi v. Hosier (1 P. & W. Pa. 

224), 1308. 
De Morat v. Falkenhagen (148 Pa. 

St. 393), 1218. 
Dempsey v. Kipp (61 N. Y. 462), 

962. 



K'xx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Den V. Drake (14 N. J. Law, 523), 

191. 
Den V. Johnson (15 N. J. Law, 

116), 331. 
Den V. Kinney (5 N. J. L. 552), 

716. 
Den V. Post (25 N. J. Law, 285), 

622. 
Den V. Quimby (3 N. J. Law, 985), 

21. 
Den V. Rawlins (10 East, 261), 

511. 
Den ex dem. Bockover v. Post (25 

N. J. Law, 285), 1052. 
Denechaud v. Trisconi (26 La. 

Ann. 402), 712. 
Dengler v. Michelssen (78 Cal. 

125), 1087, 1190. 
Denham v. Harris (13 Ala. 465), 

1441. 
De Nicols t. Saunders (39 L. J. 

C. P. 297), 531. 

De Nicholls v. Saunders (22 L. T. 

661), 500. 
Denike v. N. Y. & Rosedale Co. (80 

N. Y. 599), 61. 
Denman v. Lopez (12 La. Ann. 

823), 1347. 
Denn. dem. Jacklin v. Cartright 

(4 East, 29), 130. 
Denn. d. Peters v. Hopkinson (3 

D. & R. 507), 466. 

Denn. d. Warren v. Fearnside (1 

Wils. 176), 196. 
Dennick v. Elkdahl (102 111. App. 

199), 1131. 1136, 1176. 
Dennis v. Maynard (15 111. 457), 

65. 
Dennis v. Miller (53 Atl. Rep. 

394), 1195. 
Dennison v. Grove (53 N. .1. Law, 

144), 480, 782. 
Dennison v. Read (3 Dana, Ky. 

586), 622. 
Dennlson's Ex'rs v. Wertz (7 S. 

& R. Pa. 372), 1220. 



Dennistoun r. Hubbel (10 Bos. N. 

Y. 155), 1062. 
Denton v. Taylor (90 Va. 219), 

645, 1058. 
Depard v. Wallbridge (15 N. Y. 

374), 1379. 
De Pere Co. v. Raynor (65 Wis. 

271), 317, 943. 
Depuy V. Silver (1 Clark, Pa. 388), 

564. 
Derby v. Brandt (90 N. Y. Supp. 

980), 1126. 
De Ridder v. Schermerhorn (10 

Barb. N. Y. 638), 331. 
Derrick v. Luddy (64 Vt. 462), 

927,948. 
De Rutte v. Muldrow (16 Cal. 

505), 981. 
Desban v. Pickett (16 La. Ann. 

350), 1446. 
Descarlett v. Dennet (9 Mod. 22), 

666. 
Desha v. Pope (6 Ala. 691), 1445. 
De Silva v. Flynn (9 City Prov. 

Rep. N. Y. 426), 291. 
Deslandes v. Gregory (2 E. & E. 

602), 105. 
Des Moines Co., etc. v. Tubbessing 

(87 Iowa, 138), 277. 
Despard v. Wallbridge (15 N. Y. 

374), 935. 
De Tarr v. Ferd. Heim Brewing 

Co. (62 Kan. 188), 836. 
De Taslet v. Croussellat (1 Wash. 

C. C. 504), 1042. 
Detwiler's Appeal (96 Pa. St. 323), 

1119. 
Devacht's Lessee v. Newsam (3 

Ohio, 57), 920, 934. 
Devoe v. Railway Co. (63 N. J. 

Law, 276), 836. 
Devlin & Co., In re (48 N. Y. Supp. 

950), 1062. 
Devonshire (Duke) v. Brookshaw 

(81 L. T. 83). 748. 
Doutsfh v. Chemical Co. (11 Ohio 

Dec. 495), 300. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



]yxxi 



[references are to pages.] 



Dewey v. Lambier (7 Cal. 347), 90. 
De Witt V. Harvey (4 Gray, Mass. 

486), 84. 
De Witt V. Pierson (112 Mass. 8), 

1136, 1160, 1168, 1176. 
De Witt V. Sullivan (8 Cal. 592), 

936. 
De Wolf V. Martin (12 R. I. 535), 

21,924. 
Dexter v. King (8 N. Y. Supp. 

489), 863. 
Dexter v. Manly (4 Cush. Mass. 

14), 697, 1185. 
Dexter v. Phillips (121 Mass. 178), 

539. 
Dexter v. Tree (117 111. 532), 409. 
Dey V. Greenbaum (152 N. Y. 641), 

1069. 
Deyo V. Bleakley (24 Barb. N. Y. 

9) 347. 
Dial V. Levy (39 S. C. 265), 1084. 
Diamond Plate-Glass Co. v. Ter- 
rell (22 Ind. App. 346), 456. 
Dickerson v. Merriman (100 111. 

342), 349. 
Dickinson v. Consolidated Traction 

Co. (119 Fed. Rep. 817), 66. 
Dickinson v. Conway (12 Allen, 

Mass. 487), 101. 
Dickinson v. Goodspeed (8 Cush. 

Mass. 119), f89, 690. 
Dickey v. Harper (6 Yerg. Tenn. 

280), 147. 
Dickson v. Hunt (Ohio, 13 Wkly. 

Law Bui. 13), 1173. 
Dickson v. Kempinsky (96 Mo. 

252), 473. 
Diehl V. Lee (Pa. 1887, 9 Atl. Rep. 

865), 1207, 1209. 
Dierig v. Callahan (70 N. Y. Supp. 

210), 1220. 
Dietz v. Kucks (Cal. 45 Pac. Rep. 

832), 1092. 
Dietz V. Winehill (6 Wash. 109), 

28. 
Diffenderfer v. St. L. Pub. School 

(120 Mo. 447), 1370. 



Digby V. Atkinson (4 Camp. 275), 

140, 144, 883. 
Dill V. School Board of City of 

Camden (47 N. J. Eq. 421), 441. 
Dillingham v. Jenkins (7 S. & M. 

Miss. 479), 41. 
Dillon V. Brown (11 Gray, Mass. 

179), 228. 
Dillon V. Carrol (2 Luz. L. R. 89), 

855. 
Dillon V. Wilson (24 Mo. 278), 

1309. 
Dilworth v. Rice (48 Mo. 124), 54. 
Dimmock v. Daly (9 Mo. App. 

354), 1131, 1145. 
Dinehart v. Wilson (15 Barb. N. 

Y. 595), 309. 
Ding V. Kennedy (7 Colo. App. 

72), 91. 
Dingley v. Buffum (57 Me. 381), 

223,1264. 
Dingman v. Kelley (7 Ind. 717), 

336. 
Dircks v. Brant (56 Md. 500), 

1309. 
Dishman v. Huetter (41 Wash. 

626), 741. 
Disselharst v. Cadogan (21 111. 

App. 179), 491, 492. 
District of Columbia v. Johnson 

(1 Mackey, D. C. 51), 925. 
District Township of Corwin v. 

Morehead (43 Iowa, 466), 382. 
Dix V. Atkins (130 Mass. 171), 

1364. 
Dixon V. Ahearn (19 Nev. 422), 

258, 573. 
Dixon V. Bradford (73 L. J. K. B. 

136), 165. 
Dixon v. Buell (21 111. App. 203), 

1117. 
Dixon V. Finnegan (Mo. 1904, 81 

S. W. Rep. 576), 336, 920. 
Dixon V. Haley (16 111. 145), 235. 
Dixon V. Nicolls (39 111. 372), 49, 

522. 
Dixon v. Roe (7 C. B. 134), 634. 



Ixxxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[references are to pages.] 



Dixon V. Stewart (113 N. C. 410), 

920. 
Doane V. Garretson (24 Iowa, 351), 

1409. 
Doane v. The Broad Street Ass'n 

(6 Mass. 332), 448. 
Dobschuetz v. Halliday (82 111. 

371), 1254. 
Dockham v. Parker (9 Me. 137), 

1318. 
Dockrill v. Schenck (37 111. App. 

44), 176. 
Dockstader v. Young Men's C. A. 

(109 N. W. Rep. 906), 272. 
Dodd V. Acklom (6 Man. & G. 673), 

1199, 1207, 1210, 1226. 
Dodd V. Bartholomew (44 Ohio St. 

171), 341. 
Dodd V. Butler (7 Mo. App. 583). 

326. 
Dodd V. Rothschild (31 Misc. Rep. 

721), 836, 837. 
Dodge V. Lambert (2 Bosw. N. Y. 

570), 758. 
Dodge V. Phelan (2 Tex. Civ. App. 

441), 950. 
Doe V. Allen (8 T. R. 148), 401. 
Doe V. Amey (12 Ad. & El. 476), 

147. 
Doe V. Ashburner (5 T. R. 163), 

240. 
Doe V. Ashman (22 N. J. Law, 

261), 936. 
Doe V. Bancks (4 B. & A. 401), 

642. 
Doe V. Benjamin (9 Ad. & E. 644), 

244. 
Doe V. Bevan (3 M. & S. 353), 

1054,1322. 
Doe V. Black (8 C. & P. 464), 370. 
Doe V. Boulter (6 Ad. & El. 675), 

483. 
Doe V. Brooks (2 Campb. 257), 

172. 
Doe V. Brown (5 IMackf. Ind. 309), 

24. 
Doo V. Burt (1 T. R. 701), 456. 



Doe V. Butcher (1 Doug. 50), 5. 
Doe V. Clayton (73 Ala. 359), 485. 
Doe V. Clare (2 T. R. 739), 246. 
Doe V. Clifford (4 Dowl. & Ry. 

248), 168. 
Doe V. Collings (7 C. B. 939), 147. 
Doe V. Dixon (9 East, 15), 454. 
Doe V. Edwards (5 Ad. & El. 95), 

483. 
Doe V. Elsom (1 M. & M. 189), 770. 
Doe V. Fleming (2 Ohio, 501), 84. 
Doe V. Giles (5 Ring. 421), 232. 
Doe V. Godwin C4 M. & S. 265), 

665, 770, 1055. 
Doe V. Gordan (4 M. & S. 265), 

622. 
Doe V. Gladwin (6 Q. B. 953), 659. 
Doe V. Groves (15 East, 244), 244. 
Doe V. Guy (4 Esp. 154), 55. 
Doe V. Hall, Benson (4 B. & Aid. 

588), 466. 
Doe V. Hayes (7 Taunt. 222), 55. 
Doe V. Hogg (4 Dowl. & R. 226), 

665. 
Doe V. Jones 115 M. & W. 580), 

962. 
Doe V. Keeling (1 M. & Sel. 95), 

770. 
Doe V. Lucas (5 Esp. 155), 175. 
loe V. Lyde (1 T. R. 393), 43. 
Doe V. Maisey (8 Bar. & Cres. 

767), 232. 
Doe V. Miles (1 Stark. 181), 44, 

370. 
Doe V. Morse (1 B. & Ad. 365), 515. 
Doe V. Palmer (16 East, 36), 177. 
Doe V. Peck (1 Barn. & Adol. 428), 

1038. 
Doe V. Porter (3 T. R. 13), 158. 
Doe V. Rees (4 Bing. N. C. 384), 

647. 
Doe V. Rees (6 Car. & P. 610), 962. 
Doe V. Sandham (1 T. R. 705), 

364, 1340. 
Doe V. Smith (8 Ad. & El. 255), 

483. 
Doe V. Smith (6 East, 530), 246. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Ixxxiii 



r REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Doe V. Spiller (6 Esp. 70), 166. 
Doe V. Spry (1 Barn. & Ad. 617), 

770. 
Doe V. Stevens (3 B. & Ad. 299), 

612, 663. 
Doe V. Turner (7 M. & W. 226), 

228. 
Doe V. Weller (7 T. R. 478), 25, 

160. 
Doe V. Wilkinson (3 Bar. & Cres. 

413), 511. 
Doe V. Withewick (10 J. B. Moore, 

267), 1331. 
Doe V. Woodbridge (9 Barn. & C. 

376), 659. 
Doe V. Woodman (8 East, 228), 

174. 
Doe V. Wrightman (4 Esp. 5), 174. 
Doe d. Agar v. Brown (2 El. & Bl. 

331), 485. 
Doe d. Ambler v. Woodbridge (4 

M. & Ry. 376), 659. 
Doe d. Aslin v. Summersett (IB. 

& Ad. 135), 89. 
Doe d. Baddeley v. Massey (17 Q. 

B. 373), 962. 
Doe d. Bailey v. Foster (3 C. B. 

215), 135. 
Doe d. Baker v. Jones (5 Ex. 498), 

659, 889. 
Doe d. Barker v. Goldsmith (2 C. 

& J. 674), 640. 
Doe d. Bennett v. Turner (7 Mee. 

& Wei. 226), 234. 
Doe d. Berkeley v. York (6 East, 

86), 1214. 
Doe d. Bish v. Keeling (1 M. & S. 

95), 739. 
Doe d. Bishop of Rochester v. 

Bridges (1 B. & Ad. 847), 1202. 
Doe d. Boscawen v. Bliss (4 Taunt. 

735), 661. 
Doe d. Bradford v. Watkins (7 

East, 551), 169. 
Doe d. Brammell v. Collinge (7 C. 

B. 939), 388. 



Doe d. Bryan v. Bancks (4 B. & 

Aid. 401), 647. 
Doe d. Bute (Marquis) v. Guest 

(15 Mee. & W. 160), 607. 
Doe d. Calvert v. Frowd (4 Bing. 

557), 965. 
Doe d. Chadburn v. Green (9 A. 

& E. 658), 44, 130. 
Doe d. Cheney v. Batten (Cowp. 

243), 647. 
Doe d. Clark v. Smarridge (7 Q. 

B. 957), 140. 

Doe d. Colnaghi v. Bluck (8 C. & 

P. 464), 44. 
Doe d. Cornwell v. Matthews (11 

C. B. 675), 160. 

Doe d. Courtail v. Thomas (4 M. & 

Ry. 218), 1237. 
Doe d. Croft v. Tidbury (14 C. B. 

304), 961. 
Doe d. Dalton v. Jones (1 N. & M. 

6), 908. 
Doe d. David v. Williams (7 Car. 

& P. 322), 184. 
Doe d. Davies v. Evans (9 M. & 

W. 48), 966, 967. 
Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter (3 T. 

R. 57), 1065. 
Doe d. Davies v. Thomas (6 Exch. 

854), 210, 215. 
Doe d. Dillon v. Parker (Gow. 

180), 967. 
Doe d. Earl of Egremont v. Cour- 

tenay (11 Q. B. 702), 1202. 
Doe d. Egremont v. Forwood (3 Q. 

B. 627), 1202. 
Doe d. Ellerbrock v. Flynn (1 C. 

M. & R. 137), 966. 
Doe d. Eyre v. Lambly (2 Esp. 

635), 160. 
Doe d. Fisher v. Giles (5 Bing. 

421), 233. 
Doe d. Flower v. Peck (1 B. & Ad. 

428), 648. 
Doe d. Foster v. Wandlass (7 T. R. 

117), 634. 



Ixxxiv 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[REFEBENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Doe d. Freeman v. Bateman (2 B. 

& Aid. 168), 640. 
Doe d. Fuller (Tyr. & G. 17), 952. 
Doe d. Gaskell v. Spry (1 B. & 

Aid. 617), 741. 
Doe d. Godfrey v. Beardsley (2 Mc- 

Clean C. C. 417), 38. 
Doe d. Graves v. Wells (10 Ad. & 

El. 427), 182. 
Doe d. Gray v. Stanlon (1 M. & W. 

695), 183. 
Doe d. Green v. Baker (2 Moore, 

189), 644. 
Doe d. Grubb v. Grubb (10 B. & C. 

816), 183, 965.' 
Doe d. Henniker v. Watt (8 B. & 

C. 308), 620. 
Doe d. Hiatt v. Miller (5 Car. & 

P. 595), 198. 
Doe d. Hollingsworth T. Stennet 

(2 Esp. 717), 140. 
Doe d. Hughes v. Jones (9 Mee. & 

Wei. 372), 380. 
Doe d. Higginbotham v. Barton (11 

Ad. & El. 307), 921. 
Doe d. Hindley v. Rickarby (5 

Esp. 4), 1070. 
Doe d. Hull V. Wood (14 M. & W. 

682), 136, 187, 190. 
Doe d. Jackson v. Ashbumer (5 

Term. Rep. 163), 257. 
Doe d. Joliffe v. Sybourn (2 Esp. 

667), 7. 
Doe d. Jones v. Jones (10 B. & C. 

718), 203. 
Doe d. Kensington v. Brindley (12 

Moore, 37), 658. 
Doe d. Knight v. Rowe (2 Car. & 

P. 246), 657. 
Doe d. Lewis v. Rees (6 C. & P. 

610). 961. 
Doe d. Lewis v. Cawder (1 C. M. 

& R. 392). 183. 
Doe d. Lloyd v. Powell (8 D. & R. 

35) 1066. 
Doe d. Lord v. Crago (6 C. B. 90), 

133. 141, 511. 



Doe d. McCartney v. Crick (5 Esp. 

196), 166. 169. 
Doe d. Manton v. Austin (2 M. & 

S. 107), 368. 
Doe d. Marecraft v. Meux (1 C. 

& P. 346), 651. 
Doe d. Martin v. Watts (7 Term 

Rep. 832), 3. 
Doe d. Mitchell v. Weller (1 Jur. 

624), 522. 
Doe d. Mitchlnson v. Carter (8 F. 

R. 57), 1322. 
Doe d. Moore v. Lawder (1 Stark. 

308), 230, 234. 
Doe d. Morgan v. Powell (8 Scott, 

N. R. 687), 247. 
Doe d. Morris v. Williams (6 B. 

& C. 41), 169. 
Doe d. Mustin v. Gladwin (6 Q. B. 

953), 659. 
Doe d. Nash v. Birch (1 Mee. & 

Wei. 402), 644, 648. 
Doe d. Nicholl v. McKeagg (10 

Bar. & C. 721), 203. 
Doe d. Parker v. Boulton (6 M. & 

S. 148), 198. 
Doe d. Parry v. Hazell (1 Esp. 94), 

159,161. 
Doe d. Peacock v. Raffan (6 Esp. 

4), 161. 
Doe d. Pearson v. Ries (8 Bing. 

178), 257. 
Doe d. Pennington v. Taniere (12 

Q. B. 998), 133. 
Doe d. Phillips v. Benjamin (9 A. 

& E. 644), 245, 256, 257. 
Doe d. Pievin v. Brown (7 A. & E. 

447). 925. 
Doe d. Pitt V. Hogg (4 D. & R. 

226), 1051. 
Doe d. Pittman v. Sutton (9 Car. 

& P. 706), 897. 
Doe d. Polk v. Marchetti (B. & Ad. 

715), 625, 626. 
Doe d. Poole v. Errington (1 Ad, & 

E. 750), 86. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



IXKXV 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Doe (1. Potter v. Archer (1 Bos. & 

P. 531), 8, 
Doe d. Price v. Price (2 M. & Scott, 

464), 215. 
Doe d. Prior v. Ongley (10 Com. 

Bench, 25), 952. 
Doe d. Pritchard y. Dodd (2 N. & 

M. 838), 193. 
Doe d. Rains v. Keller (4 Car. & 

P. 3), 519. 
Doe d. Rankin v. Brindley (1 N. & 

M. 1), 6. 
Doe d. Rawlings v. Walker (5 B. 

& C. Ill), 1200. 
Doe d. Rigg v. Bell (5 Term Rep. 

471), 147. 
Doe d. Roberts v. Polgrean (1 H. 

Black, 535), 20. 
Doe d. Roby v. Malsey (6 B. & C. 

767), 234. 
Doe d. Rochester v. Pierce (2 

Camp. 96), 166. 
Doe d. Rogers v. Pullen (3 Scott, 

271), 147. 
Doe d. Rutzen v. Lewis (5 A. & E. 

277), 662. 
Doe d. Sheppard v. Allen (3 Taunt. 

78), 658. 
Doe d. Shore v. Porter (3 Term 

Rep. 13), 42. 
Doe d. Simpson y. Bitcher (1 

Doug. 50), 7. 
Doe d. Sore v. Eykins (1 Car. & 

P. 154), 658. 
Doe d. Stanway v. Rock (6 Jui-. 

266), 198. 
Doe d. Strickland v. Spence (6 

Bast, 120), 158. 
Doe d. Taylor v. Johnson (1 Stark, 

411), 648. 
Doe d. Thompson v. Amey (4 P. & 

D. 177), 149. 
Doe d. Vaughan v. Meyler (2 M, 

& S. 276), 540. 
Doe d. Walker v. Groves (15 East, 

244), 257. 



Doe d. Warner v. Brown (8 East, 

165), 157. 
Doe d. West Moreland v. Smith (1 

M. & Ry. 137), 193. 
Doe d. Wetherill v. Bird (4 N. & 

M. 285), 747, 907. 
Doe d. Whitehead v. Pitman (2 W. 

& M. 672), 183. 
Doe d. Williams v. Cooper (1 Man 

& G. 135), 182, 183, 966. 
Doe d. Williams v. Pasquali (3 R, 

R. 188), 182. 
Doe d. Wood v. Clarke (7 Q. B, 

211), 260. 
Doe d. Wood v. Morris (12 East, 
■ 237), 582. 
Doepfner v. Bowers (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 920), 1379. 
Doepfner v. Michaelis (144 Fed. 

Rep. 1021), 799. 
Dolan V. Scott (25 Wash. 214). 535. 
Dolby V. lies (11 Ad. & El. 335), 

576,922. 
Dcld's Trustee v. Geiger's Adm'r 

(2 Gratt. Va. 98), 22. 
Dole V. Thurlow (53 Mass. 157), 

333. 
Dolese v. Barbreat (9 La. Ann. 

352), 154. 
Dollar V. Roddenbery (97 Ga. 148), 

1329. 
Dollard v. Roberts (130 N. Y. 269), 

800, 804, 814. 
Dolling V. Evans (15 W. R. 394), 

259, 386. 
Dolph V. White (12 N. Y. 296), 518, 

1086. 
Dolton V. Sickel (66 N. J. Law, 

492), 1175, 1180. 1214. 
Domestic Tel. Co. v. Met. Tel. Co. 

(39 N. J. Eq". 160), 984. 
Dominick v. Michael (4 Sandf. Ch. 

N. Y. 374), 53. 
Donahoe v. Rich (2 Ind App. 540), 

1213. 
Donohue v. Chicago Bank Note Co. 

(37 111. App. 552), 163, 



Ixxxvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Donald v. Elliott (32 N. Y. S. 821), 

721. 
Donaldson v. Smith (1 Ashm. Pa. 

197), 522. 
Donate v. Morrison (160 Mo. 581), 

1186. 
Donegal (Marquis) v. Grey (13 Ir. 

Eq. R. 12), 479. 
Donellan v. Read (3 B. & Ad. 899), 

265,381. 
Donlan Mfg. Co. v. Cannella (89 

Hun, 21), 1126. 
Donnelly v. Eastes (94 Wis. 390), 

666. 
Donnelly v. Frick & Lindsay Co. 

(207 Pa. St. 524), 1265. 
Donnewald v. Turner R. Estate 

Co. (44 Mo. App. 350), 1266. 
Donkersley v. Levy (38 Mich. 54), 

1195. 
Donohue v. Chicago Bank Note Co. 

(37 111. App. 552), 148, 151. 
Donovan v. Schoenhaefer Brew. 

Co. (92 Mo. App. 341), 247, 250. 
Doolan v. McCauley (66 Cal. 476), 

960. 
Doolittle V. Eddy (7 Barb. N. Y. 

78), 198. 
Doolittle V. Selkirk (28 N. Y. 

Supp. 43), 1207. 
Doran v. Chase (2 W. N. C. Pa. 

609), 1154. 
Doremus v. Howard (23 N. J. Law, 

390), 1318. 
Dorman v. Ames (12 Minn. 451), 

794. 
Dorman v. Plowman (41 Wash. 

477). 335. 
Dorman v. Wilson (39 N. J. Law, 

474), 549. 
Dorrace v. Bonesteel (64 N. Y. 

Supp. 307), 1207. 
Dorrance v. Jones (27 Ala. 633), 

1061. 
Donill v. Stei)hens (4 McCord, 

S. C. 59), 950. 



Dorrill v. Stevens (5 McCord, S. 

C. 49), 144. 
Dorsett v. Gray (98 Ind. 273), 49. 
Dorsey v. Eagle (7 G. & J. Md. 

321), 1314. 
D'Orval v. Hunt (Dud. Law S. C. 

180), 377. 
Dostal v. McCaddon (35 Iowa, 

318), 1264. 
Doty V. Burdick (83 111. 473), 843. 
Doty V. Gillett (43 Mich. 203), 

1096. 
Doty V. Heth (52 Miss. 530), 311, 

1095, 1096. 
Dougal V. McCarthy (4 Reports, 

402), 140. 
Douglas V. Cheesebrough Building 

Co. (67 N. Y. Supp. 755), 566. 
Douglas V. Murphy (16 U. C. Q. B. 

113), 1041. 
Douglass V. Wiggins (1 John. Ch. 

N. Y. 435), 712, 724. 
Dougherty v. Matthews (35 Mo. 

520), 1059. 
Dougherty v. Seymour (16 Colo. 

289), 771, 773. 
Dougherty v. Spencer (23 in. App. 

357), 1300. 
Dougherty v. Wagner (2 W. N. C. 

291), 1158. 
Dougherty v. Wilson (1 Blackf. 

Ind. 478), 672. 
Dowd v. Gilchrist (46 N. Car. 453), 

198, 940. 
Dowie V. Christen (115 Iowa, 364), 

1435. 
Dowdney v. The Mayor, etc. of the 

City of New York (54 N. Y. 186), 

1015. 
Dowling V. Nuebling (97 Wis. 

350), 785. 
Downing v. Jones (11 Daly, N. Y. 

245), 616, 1391. 
Downward v. Groff (40 Iowa. 597), 

288, 1326. 
Dows V. Morse (62 Iowa, 231), 327. 
Dowse v. Cole 1 2 Vent. 126), 892. 



TzVBLE OP CASES CITED. 



Ixxxvii 



[KEFEEETfCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Dowse V. Earle (3 Lev. 253), 892. 
Doxey Est. v. Service (65 N. E. 

Rep. 757), 329. 
Doyle V. Gibbs (6 Lans. N. Y. 80), 

191, 218.. 
Doyle V. Lloyd (64 N. Y. 432), 406. 
Doyle V. Lord (64 N. Y. 432), 399, 

442. 
Doyle V. Union Pac. R. R. Co. (147 

U. S. 413), 783. 
Doyly V. Capp (99 Cal. 153), 1404. 
Drake v. Chicago, etc. Co. (70 

Iowa, 59), 685. 
Drake v. Cockroft (4 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 34), 565. 
Drake v. Lacoe (157 Pa. St. 17), 

657. 
Drake v. Mitchell (3 East, 251), 

549. 
Drake v. Newton (23 N. J. Law), 

146. 
Drakford v. Turk (75 Ala. 339), 

1403. 
Draper v. Salisbury (11 Misc. Rep. 

573), 1060, 1062. 
Draper v. Stouvenal (35 N. Y. 

512), 24. 
Drennan v. Grady (167 Mass. 415), 

801. 
Dresser v. Dresser (40 Barb. N. Y. 

300), 83. 
Drew V. Billings-Drew (9 Det. 

Leg. N. 513), 1195, 1213. 
Drey v. Doyle (28 Mo. App. 249), 

152, 164, 176. 
Dreyfus v. Hirt ("82 Cal. 621), 486. 
Dreyfus v. W. A. Gage & Co. (84 

Miss. 219), 1452. 
Driggs V. Dwight (17 Wend. N. Y. 

71), 693. 
Driver v. Jenkins (30 Ark. 120), 

1428. 
Driver v. Maxwell (56 Ga. 11), 

852. 
Drohan v. Drohan (1 Ball & B. 

185), 56. 



Drought & Co. V. Stallworth (100 

S. W. Rep. 188), 122. 
Drucker v. Simon (4 Daly, N. Y. 

53), 1177, 1182. 
Druhan v. Adam (9 La. Ann. 527), 

731. 
Drury v. Connor (1 Har. & G. Md. 

220), 11, 15. 
Drury v. Molins (6 Ves. 328), 765. 
Duane v. Trustees (39 111. 578), 

218. 
Dubois V. Del. & Hud. Canal Co. 

(4 Wend. N. Y. 290), 1227. 
Dubois V. Marshall (3 Dana, Ky. 

336), 949, 950. 
Dubuque v. Miller (11 Iowa, 558), 

61, 141. 
Ducan v. Hartman (143 Pa. St. 

595), 100. 
Ducey Lumber Co. v. Lane (59 

Mich. 521), 298. 
Duchane v. Goodtitle (1 Blackf. 

Ind. 117), 47. 
Duckklee v. Webber (151 Mass. 

408), 106. 
Dudley v. Estell (6 Leigh, Va. 

562), 1136. 
Dudley v. Kelly (74 Me. 346), 195. 
Duer v. Allen (96 Iowa, 36), 844. 
Duff V. Hart (16 N. Y. S. 163), 

1169. 
Duff V. Wilson (69 Pa. St. 316), 

492. 
Duffiled V. Hue (129 Pa. St. 94), 

665. 
Duffield V. Rosensweig (144 Pa. 

St. 520), 687. 
Duffitt V. Tuhan (28 Kan. 292). 

957. 
Duffy V. Carman (3 Ind. App. 207), 

262. 
Duffy V. Day (42 Mo. App. 638), 

1235. 
Duffy V. Ogden C64 Pa. St 240), 

131. 
Duffus V. Bangs (122 N. Y. 423), 

1434. 



AXXXVIU 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[reitibexces are to pages.] 



Duke V. Compton (49 Mo. App. 

304), 486. 
Duke V. Harper (6 Yerg. Tenn. 

280), 196, 965, 966. 
Duke of Chandos v. Talbot (2 P. 

Wms. 606), 718. 
Duke of Leeds v. Amhurst (14 

Sim. 357), 726. 
Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell (5 B. 

& C. 875), 110. 
Dulaney v. Dickerson (12 Ala. 

601), 1432. 
Dulanty v. Pynchon (6 Allen, 

Mass. 510), 122. 
Dumper v. Syms (Cro. Eliz. 816), 

1054. 
Dumpor's Case (4 Coke, 1191), 

645. 
Duncan v. Blake (9 Lea, Tenn. 

534), 465. 
Duncan v. Hartman (143 Pa. St. 

595), 105. 
Duncan v. Moloney (115 111. App. 

522), 1196. 
Duncklee v. Webber (151 Mass. 

408), 245, 697, 1172. 
Dunklee v. Wilton R. Co. (24 N. 

H. 489), 438. 
Dundy v. Chambers (23 111. 369), 

333. 
Dunlap V. Bullard (131 Mass. 161), 

1021. 
Dunlap V. Dunseath (81 Mo. App. 

17), 1409, 1435. 
Dunlap V. Steele (80 Ala. 424), 

1434. 
Dunlop V. James (174 N. Y. 411), 

1031, 1080. 
Dunlop V. Mulry (85 App. Div. 

498), 1051. 
Dunn V. Barton (16 Fla. 765), 769. 
Dunn V. Dinuovo (3 Man. & G. 

105), 1176. 
Dunn V. Dunn (3 Colo. 510), 604. 
Dunn V. Jeffery (36 Kan. 408), 

372, 609. 
Dunn V. Kelly (57 Miss. 825), 1432. 



Dunn V. Mellon (147 Pa. St. 11), 

1163. 
Dunn V. Robbins (20 N. Y. Supp. 

341), 856. 
Dunn V. Rothermel (112 Pa. St. 

272), 133, 172, 197, 454. 
Dunn V. Spears (5 Rich. S. Car. 

17), 1415. 
Dunne v. Trustees (39 111. 578), 

192. 
Dunning v. Mauzy (49 111. 368), 

1222. 
Dunning v. Ocean Bank (61 N. Y. 

497), 53. 
Dunphy v. Goodlander (12 Ind. 

App. 609), 158. 
Dunsdale v. Robertson (2 Jones & 

Lat. 58), 572. 
Dunshee v. Grundy (15 Gray, 

Mass. 314), 944. 
Durand v. Curtis (57 N. Y. 7), 

1045, 1090, 1093. 
Durando v. Wyman (4 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 597), 1069. 
Durant v. Doe (6 Bing. 574), 173. 
Durkee v. Carr (38 Oreg. 189), 

634. 
Durrell v. Emery (64 N. H. 223), 

573. 
Duryee v. Turner (20 Mo. App. 

34), 522. 
Dussman v. Husband (6 La. Ann. 

279), 1347. 
Dutch V. Mead (36 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 427), 327. 
Dutcher v. Culver (24 Minn. 584), 

505. 
Dutton V. Gerish (9 Cush. Mass. 

89), 464, 782, 7'85, 786, 847. 
Duxbury v. Sandiford (80 Law T. 

N. S. 552), 269. 
Dwight V. Cutler (3 Mich. 566), 

198, 319. 
Dwinell v. Bliss (58 Vt. 363), 349. 
Dwyer v. Carroll (86 Cal. 298), 
852, 8G4, 1185. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



IxKxix 



[references are to pages.] 



Dwyer v. Rich (Ir. R. 6 C. L. 144), 

430. 
Dyer v. Bowley (2 Ring. 94), 545. 
Dyer t. Robinson (110 Fed. Rep. 

99), 831. 
Dyett V. Pendleton (8 Cow. N. Y. 

727), 700, 1167. 
Dymock v. Showell's Brewery Co. 

(79 Law T. N. S. 329), 1045. 



R 



Eadie v. Addison (62 L. J. Ch. 80), 

357. 
Ealiin v. Brown (1 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 36), 838. 
Earl V. Rogers (2 Wils. 26), 1197. 
Earle v. Fiske (103 Mass. 491), 

391. 
Earle v. Kingsbury (3 Cush. Mass. 

206), 539. 
Earle v. Washburn (7 Allen Mass. 

95), 1233. 
Earle's Adm'r v. Hale's Adm'r (31 

Ark. 470), 948. 
Earll V. Earll (60 Mich. 30), 122. 
Earl of Berkley v. Archbishop of 

York (6 East, 86), 1202. 
Earl of Egremont v. Courtnay (11 

Q. B. 702), 1201. 
Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas (1 

Cr. &M. 89), 1337. 
Earl Orchard Co. v. Fava (138 Cal. 

76), 171. 
Earsfield v. Healy (50 Barb. N. Y. 

289), 189. 
Eason v. Johnson (69 Miss. 371), 

1430. 
Eastham v. Anderson (119 Mass. 

526), 110, 920. 
Eastin v. Hatchitt (15 Ky. L. Rep. 

780), 49. 
Eastlock V. West Deptford (52 

Atl. Rep. 999), 793. 
Eastman v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. 

(44 N. H. 143), 794. 



Eastman v. Anderson (119 Mass. 

226), 505. 
Eastman v. Perkins (111 Mass. 

30), 243. 
Eastman v. Vetter (57 Minn. 164), 

219. 
East Norway, etc. Ch. v. Froislie 

(37 Minn. 447), 306. 
East Norway Lake N. E. Lutheran 
Ch. V. Froislie (37 Minn. 447), 
43. 
Eastern Tel. Co. v. Dent (78 L. T. 

713), 1052, 1064. 
Easton v. Mitchell (21 111. App. 

189), 369. 
Easton v. Pratt (2 H. & C. 676), 

58, 889. 
East River Bank v. Kennedy (9 

Bos. N. Y. 543), 547. 
East Ten. V. & G. Ry. Co. v. Mor- 
istown (35 S. W. Rep. 771), 
1006. 
Eaton V. Hunt (20 Ky. Law Rep. 

860), 321. 
Eaton V. Jacques (2 Dougl. 455), 

1106. 
Eaton V. Lyon (3 Ves. 692), 455, 

667. 
Eaton V. Whittaker (18 Conn. 

222), 382. 
Eberlein v. Abel (10 111. App. 626), 

163, 164, 344. 
Eberson v. Continental Inv. Co. 

(118 Mo. App. 67), 834, 867. 
Eberts v. Fisher (54 Mich. 294), 

1037. 
Eblin V. Miller Bx'r (78 Ky. 371), 

856, 865. 
Ebling V. Fuyleln (2 Mo. App. 

252), 1068. 
Eccleston v. Clipsham (2 Saund. 

115), 610. 
Ecclesiastical Comm'rs v. Merrall 

(38 L. J. Ex. 93), 138. 
Ecke V. Fetzer ^65 Wis. 55), 1283, 
1285. 



xc 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Eckhart v. Irons (128 111. 568), 

743. 
Ecldes V. Bocco (11 Colo. 522), 

938. 
Eckstrom v. Hall (90 Me. 186), 

1296. 
Eddy V. Coffin (Ud Mass. 463), 

563, 1172. 
Edelen v. Strong (34 Mo. App. 

287), 1435. 
Edelmuth v. McGarren (4 Daly, 

467), 775. 
Edesheimer v. Quackenbush (68 

Hun, 427), 609. 
Edgar v. Walker (106 Ga. 454), 

794. 
Edge V. Stafford (1 Tyrwh. 293), 

282. 
Edge V. Strafford (1 Cromp. & 

Jer. 391), 379, 382, 576. 
Edgerton v. Page, 1138, 1152, 1176. 
Edmisen v. Aslesen (4 Dak. 145), 

852. 
Edmison v. Lowry (3 S. D. 77), 

406, 1142, 1180, 1129. 
Edmonds v. Mounsey (15 Ind. App. 

399), 84, 641. 
Edmonson v. Kite (43 Mo. 176), 

258, 573. 
Edmundson v. Preville (12 Colo. 

App. 73), 164. 
Edney v. Benham (7 Q. B. 796), 

514. 
Edson V. Colburn (29 Vt. 632), 312. 
Edwards v. Anderson (82 S. W. 

Rep. 059), 1419. 
Edwards v. Barrington (85 Law T. 

650), 273, 1051. 
Edwards v. Candy (14 Hun, N. Y. 

576), 1139. 
Edwards v. Countess of Warwick 

(2 P. Wms. 176), 539. 
Edwards v. Derrickson (28 N. J. 

Law, 39), 547. 
Edwards v. McLean (122 N. Y. 

302), 780, 790, 795, 1356. 



Edwards v. Milbank (29 L. J. Ch. 

45), 58. 
Edwards v. Perkins (7 Oreg. 149), 

698, 1316. 
Edwards v. Railroad Co. (98 N. Y. 

245), 789, 790, 848, 860. 
Edwards v. RissFer (26 Ohio Cur- 

Ct. R. 428), 792. 
Edwards v. West (47 L. J. Ch. 

463), 990. 
Edwards & Bradford Lumb. Co. v. 

Rank (57 Neb. 323), 1248. 
Effinger v. Henderson (33 Miss. 

449), 552. 
Effinger v. Lewis (32 Pa. St. 367), 

373. 
Ege V. Ege (5 Watts, Pa. 134), 

1444. 
Egery v. Woodard (56 Me. 45), 

349. 
Eggliston V. Bradford (10 Ohio, 

312), 337, 462. 
Egler V. Marsden (5 Taunt. 25), 

581. 
Ehrich v. Winter & Co. (103 N. Y. 

Supp. 1023), 280. 
Ehrman v. Mayer (57 Md. 612), 

541, 551, 970. 
Ehrman v. Oates (101 Ala. 604), 

1432, 1459. 
Eichengreen v. Appel (44 111. App. 

19), 231, 307. 
Eichenlaub v. Neil (3 Ohio Dec. 

365), 634. 
Eichuer v. Cohen (48 Misc. Rep. 

541), 1012. 
Eichorn v. Peterson (16 111. App. 

601), 615, 1382, 1391. 
Eimermann v. Nathan (116 Wis. 

124), 181. 
Eisenhart v. Ordean (3 Colo. App. 

162), 1136, 1152, 1160, 1176. 
Ela V. Banks (37 Wis. 39), 209. 
Ela V. Card (2 N. H. 175), 21. 
Ela V. French (11 N. H. 356), 1042. 
Elder V. Robinson (19 Pa. St. 364), 

996. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCl 



[BEI'ERENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 

Eldred v. Heahey (31 Wis. 546), Elliott v. Royal Exch. Ins. Co. (L. 



697. 
Eldridge v. Hoefer (45 Oreg. 239), 

288, 1265. 
Elfe V. Cole (26 Ga. 197), 28. 
Elgar V. Watson (Car. & M. 494), 

581. 
Elgutter V. Drischaus (44 Neb. 

378), 176. 
Ellis V. Bradbury (75 Cal. 234), 

1019. 
Ellis V. Culver (2 Har. Del. 129), 

90. 
Ellis V. Fitzpatrick (64 S. W. Rep. 

567), 40. 
Ellis V. Jones (70 Miss. 60), 1414, 

1417. 
Ellis V. Paige (2 Pick. Mass. 71), 

156. 
Ellis V. Paige (1 Pick. Mass. 43), 

195, 208, 210, 216. 
Ellis V. Rice (195 Pa. St. 42), 524. 
Ellis V. Rowbotbam (1 Q. B. 740), 

560. 
Ellis V. Rowbotbam (69 Law. J. 

Q. B. 379), 526. 
Ellis V. Waldron (19 R. I. 369), 

817. 
Ellis V. Welcb (6 Mass. 246), 700. 
Ellis V. Wrigbt (76 L. T. 522), 

1232. 
EUicott V. Coffin (106 Mass. 365), 

571. 
Elliot V. Aiken (45 N. H. 30), 1199, 

1238. 
Elliot V. Gantt (64 Mo. App. 248), 

1014. 
Elliot V. Rogers (4 Esp. 59), 581. 
Elliott V. Dycke (78 Ala. 150), 

957. 
Elliott V. Hulme (2 M. & Ry. 483), 

170.' 
Elliott V. Knight (64 111. App. 87), 

84. 
Elliott V. Pray (10 Allen, Mass. 

;;78), 813. 
. g 



R. 2 Excb. 237), 572. 
Elliott V. Smitb (213 Pa. St 413), 

920. 
Elliott V. Smith (23 Pa. St. 131), 

954. 
Elliott V. Stone (12 Cush. Mass. 

174), 189. 
Elliott V. Stone State Bank (4 Ind. 

App. 155), 155, 162. 
Elliott V. Turner (13 Sim. 477), 

667. 
Ellsworth V. Hines (5 Wis. 613), 

20. 
Elphinstone v. Iron & Coal Co. 

(11 App. Cas. 332), 1057. 
Elsas V. Meyer (10 Ohio Dec. 518), 

868, 1293. 
Elsey V. Metcalf (1 Denio, 323), 

350. 
Elston V. Schilling (42 N. Y. 79), 

986, 1396. 
Elting V. Palen (60 Hun, 306), 

1332. 
Elwes V. Mawe (3 East, 38), 1256, 

1258. 
Elworthy v. Sandford (3 H. & C. 

330), 367. 
Ely V. Scofield 135 Barb. N. Y. 

330), 54. 
Ely V. Spiero (51 N. Y. Supp. 124), 

564. 
Emerick v. Tavener (9 Gratt. Va. 

220), 140, 938, 949, 964. 
Emerson v. Elmerson (35 S. W. 

Rep. 425), 227. 
Emerson v. Spicer (55 Barb. N. Y. 

528), 11. 
Emery v. Boston Terminal Co. (59 

N. E. Rep. 763), 379. 
Emery v. Emery (87 Me. 281), 

579. 
Emery v. Fugina (68 Wis. 505), 

1316, 1318. 1321. 
Imery v. Hill (67 N.H. 330), 1052, 

1378. 



XCll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Emmes v. Feeley (132 Mass. 346), 

539. 
Emmitt v. Lee (50 Ohio St. 662), 

390. 
Emmons v. Scudder (115 Mass. 

367), 192, 235. 
Emott V. Cole (Cro. Eliz. 257), 

510. 
Emrich v. Ireland (55 Miss. 390), 

1259. 
Engle V. Engle (3 W. Va. 246), 

1316. 
Engle V. McKinley (5 Cal. 153), 

1100. 
Engle V. Thorn (3 Duer N. Y. 15), 

723. 
English V. Duncan (14 Bush. Ky 

377), 1454. 
English V. Key (39 Ala. 113), 491. 

539. 
English V. Murtland (214 Pa. St. 

325), 1378. 
English V. Yates (205 Pa. St. 106), 

641, 644. 
Ennis v. Fourth Street Building 

Ass'n (102 Ind. 520), 905. 
Enrich v. Stock Yard Co. (86 Md. 

482), 262. 
Entelman v. Hapgood (95 Ga. 390), 

690. 
Enyeart v. Davis (17 Neb. 228), 

1203. 
Enys V. DonnitHorne (2 Burr. 

1197), 346. 
Eppes' Ex'rs v. Cole (4 H. & M. 

168), 500. 
Epi)lnger v. Canepa (20 Fla. 262), 

51. 
Equator Min. etc. Co. v. Guanella 

(18 Colo. 548), 69. 
Equelina v. Provident Realty Co. 

of N. Y. (84 N. Y. Supp. 1014), 

377. 
Erickson v. Peterson (47 Minn. 

525), 1316. 1329. 
Erickson v. Wallace (45 Kan. 430), 

252, 254. 



Ernst V. Crosby (140 N. Y. 364), 

772, 777. 
Ernst V. Strauss (99 N. Y. Supp. 

597), 1155. 
Erwin v. Olmsted (7 Cow. N. Y. 

227), 81. 
Esshom V. Hotel Co. (7 S. D. 74), 

1405. 
Esling V. Zantzinger (13 Pa. St. 

50), 1103. 
Estabrook v. Hughes (8 Neb. 496), 

1286. 
Estabrook v. Stevenson (47 Neb. 

206), 1283. 
Estes v. Cook (22 Pick. Mass. 293), 

391. 
Estes V. Furlong (59 111. 298), 982. 
Estep V. Estep (23 Ind. 114), 847. 
Esty V. Baker (48 Me. 495), 1073. 
Esty V. Baker (50 Me. 325), 209, 

228, 686. 
Eten V. Luyster (60 N. Y. 252), 

1044, 1098, 1201, 1205. 
Etheridge v. Osborn (12 Wend. 

N. Y. 532), 1167. 
Etter v. Edwards (4 Watts, Pa. 

65), 434. 
Ettlinger v. Degnon-McLean Cons. 

Co. (42 Misc. Rep. 215), 573. 
Eubank v. May & Thomas Hdw. 

Co. (105 Ala. 629), 369, 457. 
Evans v. Collins (94 Iowa 432), 

1430. 
Evans v. Conklin (71 Hun, 536), 

321, 328, 342. 
Evans v. Consumers' Gas Co. (29 

N. E. Rep. 398), 641. 
Evans v. Davis (48 L. J. Ch. 223), 

740, 767. 
Evans v. Elliot (9 Ad. El. 159), 

486. 
Evans v. Elliott (9 Ad. & El. 342), 

31. 
Evans v. Enloe (70 Wis. 345), 182, 

492. 
Evans v. Evans (3 A. & E. 132), 

573. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



XClll 



[refekexces are to pages.] 



Evans v. Hardy (76 Ind. 527), 51. 
Evans v. Lincoln Co. (204 Pa. St. 

448), 556. 
Evans v. Mathias (7 El. & Bl. 590), 

1127. 
Evans v. McKanna (89 Iowa, 362), 

1195. 
Evans v. Morris (6 Mich. 369), 

516. 
Evans v. Reed (5 Gray, Mass. 308), 

233, 234. 
Evans v. Warren (122 Mass. 303), 

1450. 
Evans v. Wyatt (43 L. T. 176), 

651. 
Eveleth v. Sawyer (96 Me. 227), 

207. 
Everett v. Saltus (15 Wend. N. Y. 

474), 537. 
Everett v. Williamson (107 N. Car. 

204), 1238. 
Everingham v. Braden (58 Iowa, 

133), 1325. 
Evermann v. Robb (52 Miss. 653), 

1434. 
Evers v. Shumacker (59 Mo. App. 

454), 313, 467. 
Evers v. Weil (17 N. Y. Supp. 29), 

806. 
Ewart V. Street (2 Bailey, S. Car. 

157), 900. 
Ewes V. Briggs Gas Co. (55 L. T. 

831), 400. 
Ewing V. Barnard (84 N. Y. Supp. 

137), 1207. 
Ewing V. Cottman (9 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 444), 944, 1142. 
Ewing V. Miles (12 Tex. Civ. App. 

19), 632, 1385. 
Ewing V. O'Malley (82 S. W. Rep. 

1087), 179. 
Eyck V. Rector, etc. of Protestant 

Episcopal Church (141 N. Y. 

588), 1026. 
Eyre v. Jordan (111 Mo. 424), 836. 



Fagan v. Vogt (SO S. W. Rep. 664), 

315. 
Fairbanks v. Meyers (98 Ind. 92), 

327. 
Fairbanks v. Metcalf (8 Mass. 

230), 350. 
Fairmount v. Tilton (122 111. App. 

626), 800. 
Falk V. Yarn (9 Rich. Eq. S. C. 

303), 352. 
Falkner v. Beers (2 Doug. Mich. 

117), 940, 950. 
Fall V. Hazelrigg (45 Ind. 576), 

317. 
Fall V. Moore (45 Minn. 515), 19.5, 

201. 
Falley v. Giles (29 Ind. 114), 1371, 

1377, 1378. 
Fallis V. Gray (115 Mo. App. 253), 

858. 
Fallon V. Robbins (16 Ir. Ch. R._ 

422), 374. 
Falls V. Carpenter (1 Dev. & Bat. 

N. C. 237), 985. 
Falls County v. De Lancey (73 

Tex. 463), 72. 
Fanning v. Stinson (13 Iowa, 42), 

520. 
Farewell v. Dickenson (6 B. & C. 

251), 510. 
Farley v. Craig (11 N. J. Law, 

262), 541. 
Farley v. McKeegan (48 Neb. 237), 

148, 258. 
Farley v. Rogers (1 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 245), 943. 
Farley v. Thompson (15 Mass. 18), 

486, 498. 
Farlow v. Stevenson (69 Law J. 

Ch. 106), 1029. 
Farmer v. Pickens (S3 N. C. 549), 

964. 
Farmers' Bank v. Cole (5 Har. 

Del. 418), 1441. 



XCIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[referei^ces are to pages.] 



Farmers' Bank v. Mutual Assur. 

Society (4 Leigh, Va. 69), 1079. 
Farmers' Dep. Nat. Bank v. W. 

Pa. Fuel Co. (215 Pa. St. 115), 

70. 
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Com- 
mercial Bank (11 Wis. 207), 442. 
Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Minn. E. 

& M. Works (35 Minn. 543), 

1256. 
Farnum v. Hefner (79 Cal. 575), 

1051, 1320. 
Faron v. Jones (49 Misc. Rep. 47), 

1348. 
Farrand v. Thompson (5 Bar. & 

Aid. 826), 685. 
Farrar v. Cooper (34 Me. 394), 

437. 
Farrar v. Heinrich (86 Mo. 521), 

958. 
Farrar v. Stackpole (6 Me. 157), 

1254. 
Farrar v. Nightingal (2 Esp. 639), 

1077. 
Farrington v. Forman (26 Atl. 

Rep. 532), 1188. 
Farrington v. Kimball (126 Mass. 

313), 1021, 1093. 
Farris v. Houston (74 Ala. 162), 

923, 924. 
Farrow v. Woley (36 So. Rep. 384), 

311. 
Farrow's Heirs v. Edmundson (4 

B. Mon. Ky. 605), 212, 213. 
Farfcon v. Goodale (8 Allen, Mass. 

202), 208, 1238. 
Farwell v. Easton (63 Mo. 446), 

659, 733, 767. 
Fash V. Blake (44 III. 302), 342. 
Faull<ner v. Adams (126 InS. 459), 

351. 
Faulkner v. Jones (12 Ala. 105), 

974. 
Faulkner v. Morse (3 T. R. 371), 

953. 
Faver v. McRae (56 Miss. 227), 42. 



Favrot v, Mettler (21 La. Ann. 

220), 860, 877. 
Fay V. Holloran (35 Barb. N. Y. 

295), 49. 
Fay V. Muzzy (13 Gray, Mass. 53), 

1331. 
Fay V. Richardson (24 Mass. 91), 

349. 
Faylor v. Brice (7 Ind. App. 551), 

32, 638. 
Featherstonhaugh v. Bradshaw (1 

Wend. N. Y. 134), 576. 
Featherstonhaugh v. Lee M. P. Co. 

L. R. 1 Eq. 318), 6L 
Fechet v. Drake (2 Ariz. 239), 

1244. 
Fegrelsen v. Sanchez (90 111. App. 

105), 345. 
Fehlhauser v. City of St. Louis 

(178 Mo. 635), 793. 
Feilhauer v. St. Louis (178 Mo. 

635), 782. 
Feinstein v. Jacobs (15 Misc. Rep. 

474), 805, 814. 
Fejavary v. Broesch (52 Iowa, 88), 

1447. 
Felch V. Harriman (64 N. H. 472), 

1318. 
Felch er v. McMillian (103 Mich. 

494), 1261. 
Fell V. Dentzel (42 Atl. Rep. 439), 

629. 
Fellows V. Gilhuber (82 Wis. 639), 

836. 
Felthous V. Bindley (11 C. B. N. 

S. 869), 386. 
Felton V. Cincinnati (95 Fed. Rep. 

336), 783, 874. 
Felton V. Millard (81 Cal. 540), 

176. 
Felton V. Strong (37 111. App. 58), 

653. 
Fenn v. Grafton (2 Bing. N. C. 

617). 282. 
Fenn v. Harrison (3 T. R. 68), 

108. 



T.VBLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCV 



[references are to pages.] 



Fenn v. Smart (12 East, 444), 490. 
Fennell v. Guffey (139 Pa. St. 341), 

518, 615. 
Fennell v. Guffey (155 Pa. St. 38), 

1087. 
Fen ton v. Clegg (9 Ex. 680), 55. 
Fera v. Child (115 Mass. 32), 795. 
Ferebee v. Proctor (2 Dev. & B. 

N. C. 439), 53. 
Feret v. Hill (15 C. B. 307), 480. 
Ferguson v. Bartholemew (67 Mo. 

212), 958. 
Ferguson v. Cornish. (2 Burr. 

1032), 374. 
Ferguson v. Etter (21 Ark. 160), 

955. 
Ferguson v. Murphy (117 Cal. 

134), 1435. 
Ferguson's Case (2 Esp. 590), 851. 
Fernwood Masonic Hall Ass'n v. 

Jones (102 Pa. St. 307), 1032. 
Ferrin v. Kenney (12 Met. Mass. 

294), 206. 
Few V. Perkins (36 L. J. Ex. 54), 

890. 
Field V. Harrick (5 111. App. 54), 

14. 
Field V. Herrick (10 HI. App. 591), 

697, 1182. 
Field V. Herrick (108 111. 110), 19. 
Field V. Mills (33 N. J. Law, 254), 

1052. 
Field V. Schieffelin (7 Johns. Ch. 

N. Y. 150), 15, 16. 
Field V. Swan (10 Met. Mass. 112), 

31. 
Fielden v. Slater (38 L. J. Ch. 

379), 740, 769. 
Fielden v. Tattersall (7 L. T. 718), 

764. 
Fielder v. Chiles (73 Ala. 567), 

83, 227. ■ 
Fielder v. Ray (3 M. & P. 659), 

581. 
Fields V. Brown (188 111. Ill), 

329, 772. 



Fields V. Law (2 Root, Conn. 320), 

10. 
Fife V. Irving (1 Rich. Law, S. 

Car. 226), 1441. 
Fifield V. Farmers' Nat. Bank (148 

111. 163), 1248. 
Filkins v. Steele (124 Iowa, 742), 

1143. 
Fillebrown v. Hoar (124 Mass. 

580), 1178. 
Filley v. Christopher (39 Wash. 

22), 1261. 
Filliter v. Phippard (11 Q. B. 347), 

843. 
Filton V. Hamilton City (6 Nev. 

196), 329. 
Finch V. Brook (1 Bing. N. Y. 

259), 536. 
Finch V. Miller (5 Com. Bench, 

428), 140, 525, 537. 
Finch V. Moore (50 Minn. 116), 

163. 
Finch V. Underwood (45 L. J. Ch. 

522), 1387. 
Finch's Case (6 Coke, 67b), 48. 
Findlay v. Carson (97 Iowa, 537), 

1079. 
Findlay v. Smith (6 Munf. Va. 

134), 717. 
Fine Realty Co. v. City of New 

York (103 N. Y. Supp. 115), 165. 
Finkelmeier v. Bates (92 N. Y. 

172), 1275. 
Finkelstein v. Herson (55 N. J. 

Law, 217), 172. 
Finley v. Bristol & Ex. Ry. (17 Ex. 

409), 578. 
Finney v. Cist (34 Mo. 304), 1391. 
Finney v. Harding (136 111. 573), 

1425. 
Finney v. Louis (39 Mo. 177), 139, 

1269. 
Finney v. Steele (41 So. Rep. 976), 

796. 
Finney v. Watkins (13 Mo. 291), 

1254, 1301. 



XCVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Finney's Trustees v. St. Louis (39 

Mo. 177), 229. 
Finnigan v. Bielil (30 Misc. Rep. 

735), 826. 
Fiquet v. Allison (12 Mich. 328), 

309. 
First National Bank v. Adam (34 

111. App. 159), 1136, 1295, 1404. 
First National Bank v. Consol. 

Elec. Light Co. (97 Ala. 465), 

1422. 
First Nat. Bank v. Lucas (21 Neb. 

280), 1293. 
Fischer v. Johnson (106 Iowa, 

181), 19L 
Fish V. Chapman (2 Ga. 349), 901. 
Fishback v. Woodruff (51 Ind. 

102), 116. 
Fishel V. Kerr (45 N. J. L. 507), 

1441. 
Fisher v. Barrett (4 Cush. Mass. 

381), 296. 
Fisher v. Cuthell (5 East, 491), 

171. 
Fisher v. Deering (60 111. 114), 

482. 
Fisher v. Fisher (1 Bradf. Sur. 

N. Y. 345), 45. 
Fisher v. Jansen (30 111. App. 91), 

SOO. 
Fisher v. Keane (1 Watts, Pa. 

278), 351. 
Fisher v. Lighthall (4 Mackey, 

D. C. 82), 785. 
Fisher v. Marsh (6 B. & S. 411), 

573. 
Fi.sher v. Milliken (8 Pa. St. 121), 

1340. 
Fisher v. Nergararain (112 Mich. 

327), 1381. 
Fisher v. Pforzheimer (93 Mich. 

650), 285. 1096. 
Fisher v. Saffer (1 B. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 611), 1244. 
Fisher v. Smith (48 111. 184), 635. 
Fisher v. Thirkell (27 Mich. 1), 

792. 



[references are to pages.] 

Fisher v. Thirkell (21 Mich. 20), 

825. 
Fisk V. Brayman (21 R. I. 195), 

503), 1115. 
Fisk V. Moore (11 Rob. La. 279), 

258, 1402. 
Fiske V. Ernst (62 N. Y. Supp. 

429), 244. 
Fiske V. Framingham Mfg. Co. (14 

Pick. 491), 303. 
Fisks V. Eldredge (12 Gray, Mass. 

474), 106. 
Fitch V. Gosner (7 Conn. 232), 

680. 
Fitch V. Gosser (54 Mo. 267), 680. 
Fitch V. Sargeant (1 Ohio, 352), 

1239. 
Fitchburg Cotton Mfg. Co. v. Mel- 

ven (15 Mass. 268), 30, 498, 539, 

1178, 1182, 1183. 
Fitz V. lies (62 L. J. Ch. 258), 741. 
Fitzgerald v. Anderson (81 Wis. 

341), 1264. 
Fitzgerald v. Beebe (7 Ark. 310), 

501. 
Fitzgerald v. Fowlkes (60 Miss. 

270), 1425. 
Fitzgerald v. Jones (96 Ky. 296), 

1391. 
Fitzgerald v. O'Connell (6 Ir. Eq. 

R. 455), 1387. 
Fitzgerald v. Timoney (34 N. Y. 

Supp. 460), 865. 
Fitzhugh V. Croghan (25 Ky. 429), 

333. 
Fitzherbert v. Shaw (1 H. Black, 

358), 1287. 
Fitzpatrick v. Childs (2 Brewst. 

Pa. 3G5), 179, 229. 
Flagg V. Geltmacher (98 111. 293), 
" 262, 4S3. 
Flagler v. Hearst (86 N. Y. Supp. 

398), 1302. 
Flaherty v. Nieman (125 Iowa, 

546), 788. 
Flannery v. Hightower (97 Ga. 

592), 957. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCVll 



[referexces are to pages.] 



Flannery v. Simons (93 N. Y. 

Supp. 544), 782. 
Flarslieim v. Dullaghan (58 111. 

App. 626), 466. 
Flaviell v. Gaskoin (7 Exch. 273), 

1314. 
Fleck V. Fieldman (104 N. Y. 

Supp. 366), 595. 
Fleetwood v. Hull (58 L. J. Q. B. 

341), 768. 
Fleischman v. Toplitz (134 N. Y. 

349), 1348. 
Fleming v. Chunn (57 N. C. 422), 

49. 
Fleming v. Collins (2 Del. Ch. 

230), 716. 
Fleming v. Fleming Hotel Co. (70 

N. J. Eq. 509), 634, 644. 
Fleming v. Gooding (10 Bing. 

549), 576. 
Fleming v. Ting (100 Ga. 449), 

1129, 1131, 1132. 
Fleming v. Mills (182 111. 464), 

947. 
Fleming v. Snook (5 Beav. 250), 

762. 
Fletcher v. Chamberlain (61 N. H. 

438), 599. 
Fletcher v. McFarlane (12 Mass. 

43), 1093. 
Fletcher v. McKeon (75 N. Y. 

Supp. 817), 33, 1126. 
Fletcher v. Nokes (76 L. T. Rep. 

107), 628. 
Flight V. Barton (3 Myl. & K. 282), 

769, 1098. 
Flight V. Bentley (7 Sim. 149), 

489. 
Flint V. Sheldon (13 Mass. 443), 

354. 
Flommerfeldt v. Englander (61 N. 

Y. Supp. 187), 353. 
Flood V. Flood (1 Allen, Mass. 

217), 235. 
Florence v. Robinson (24 L. T. 
705), 133. 



Flournoy v. Wardlaw (67 Ga. 378), 

1319. 
Flower v. Darby (1 Term Rep. 

159), 155, 172. 
Flower v. Pearce (45 La. Ann. 

853), 394. 
Floyd V. Floyd (4 Rich. S. C. 23), 

172. 
Floyd V. Herring (64 N. C. 409), 

52. 
Floyd V. Lyons (66 L. J. Ch. 350), 

1009. 
Floyd V. Maddox (68 Ind. 124), 

1293. 
Floyd V. Ministry (7 Rich. Law, 

S. C. 181), 964, 965, 966. 
Fludier v. Lombe (Cas. Temp. 

Hardw. 307), 283. 
Flynn v. Hatton (43 How. Pr. N. 

Y. 333), 860, 879. 
Flynn v. Trask (11 Allen, Mass. 

550), 882. 
Fogal V. Pirro (23 N. Y. Super. Ct. 

100), 349. 
Fogarty v. Junction City (50 Kan. 

478), 705, 766. 
Fogarty v. Sparks (22 Cal. 142), 

976. 
Fogg V. Price (145 Mass. 513), 

985. 
Foley V. Addenbrooke (4 Q. B. 

197), 609. 
Foley V. Constantino (43 Misc. 

Rep. 92), 1220. 
Foley V. McCarthy (157 Mass. 

474) 828. 
Foley V. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (138 

N. Y. 333), 11. 
Foley V. Southwestern Land Co. 

(94 Wis. 329), 310. 
Foley V. Wyeth (2 Allen, Mass. 

135), 224, 440, 686. 
Folker v. Richardson (67 N. H. 

509), 1222. 
Folkingham v. Croft (3 Anstr. 
700), 305. 



XCVIH 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Follin V. Coogin (12 Rich. S, C. 

Law, 44), 638. 
Folsom V. Harr (218 111. 3G9), 985. 
Foltz V. Prouse (17 111. 487), 49. 
Fonda v. Van Home (15 Wend. 

N. Y. 631), 10. 
Fonner v. Diplock (2 Bing. 10), 

925. 
Fontaine v. Schulenberg Lumber 

Co. (109 Mo. 55), 1014. 
Foot V. Calvin (3 Johns. N. Y. 

750), 309, 1316. ' 
Foote V. Manhattan Ry. Co. (58 

Hun, N. Y. 478), 445. 
Foquet v. Moore (7 Exch. 870), 

1214. 
Forbes v. Smiley (56 Me. 174), 

193,208. 
Forbus V. Watkins (62 S. W. Rep. 

36), 1264. 
Force & Hembling's Case (4 Coke, 

64a), 20. 
Ford V. Crewell (9 Houst Del. 

179), 1434, 1435, 1436. 
Ford V. Com. (11 Ky. Law Rep. 

860), 778. 
Ford V. Doyle (37 Cal. 346), 976. 
Ford V. Gregory's Heirs (49 Ky. 

175), 349, 350. 
Ford V. Hill (92 Wis. 188), 65. 
Ford V. Phillips (22 Rap. Jud. Que. 

C. S. 296), 903. 
Fordyce v. Hathorn (57 Mo. 120), 

528, 553. 
Fordyce v. Young (39 Ark. 135), 

944. 
Forgy V. Harvey (151 Ind. 507), 

942. 
Forgotson v. Becker (81 N. Y. S. 

319), 480. 
Forrest v. Durnoll (86 Tex. 647), 

1419, 1423. 1440. 
Forsalth v. Clark (21 N. H. 409), 

Forster v. Eborle (7 Misc. Rep. 
490), 1163. 



Forsythe v. Pogue (25 Oreg. 481), 

219. 
Forsythe v. Price (8 Watts, Pa. 

282), 687. 
Fort V. McGrath (7 111. App. 302), 

155. 
Fort V. Orndorff (7 Heisk. Tenn. 

167), 880. 
Fortescue v. Bowler (55 N. J. Bq. 

741), 724, 1244. 
Forward v. Pittard (1 T. R. 27), 

900. 
Foss V. Marr (40 Neb. 559), 1326. 
Foss V. Stanton (76 Vt. 365), 890. 
Foster v. Batt (6 Mass. 63), 906. 
Foster v. Fletcher (7 T. B. Mon. 

Ky. 534), 1315. 
Foster v. Goodwin (82 Ala. 384), 

319, 1423. 
Foster v. Gorton (5 Pick. Mass. 

185), 1329. 
Foster v. Juniata Bridge Co., 16 

Pa. St. 393), 434. 
Foster v. Morris (3 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 611), 486. 
Foster v. Oldham (8 Misc. Rep. 

331), 1069. 
Foster v. Peyser (63 Mass. 242), 

785, 1151. 
Foster v. Reid (78 Iowa, 205), 

1097, 1098, 1423. 
Foster v. Robinson (6 Ohio St. 

90), 1314, 1315. 
Foster v. Williams (Cowp. 622), 

182. 
Foucher v. Choppin (17 La. Ann. 

322), 1347. 
Fougera v. Cohn (43 Hun, N. V. 

454), 149, 331. 
Fculger v. Arding (71 L. J. K. B. 

499), 1029. 
Fountain v. Boatmen's Sav. Inst. 

(57 Mo. 553), 350. 
Fournier v. Cyr (64 Me. 32), 342. 
Fowke v. Beck (1 Speers, S. C. 
291), 319. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



XCIX 



[rki-fuexces aee to pages.] 



Fowle V. Freeman (9 Ves. 351), 

982. 
Fowler v. Atkinson (6 Minn. 578), 

106. 
Fowler v. Bell (35 S. W. Rep. 822), 

65. 
Fowler v. Bott (6 Mass. 63), 882, 

1340, 1345, 1346. 
Fowler Cycle Works & Fraser (110 

111. App. 126), 855. 
Fowler v. Hawkins (17 Ind. 211), 

1429. 
Fowler v. Payne (49 Miss. 32), 

1340, 1346, 1350. 
Fowler v. Rapley (15 Wall. 336), 

1422. 
Fowles V. Martin (76 Vt. ISO), 309. 
Fox V. Buffalo Park (163 N. Y. 

559), 798. 
Fox V. City of Cincinnati (104 U. 

S. 743), 116. 
Fox V. Jackson (8 Barb. N. Y. 

355), 690. 
Fox V. Longley (1 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 388), 321. 
Fox V. Lynch (64 Atl. Rep. 439), 

1304. 
Fox V. McKinney (9 Oreg. 493), 

1320. 
Fox V. Nathans (32 Conn. 348), 

160, 348. 
Fox V. Swan (Styles, 483), 1054. 
Foxworth V. Brown (120 Ala. 59), 

1429, 1432. 
Francis v. Cockrell (L. R. 5 Q. B. 

184), 814. 
Francis v. Hayward (52 L. J. Ch. 

291), 415. 
Francke v. Hewitt (56 App. Div. 

497), 248, 249. 
Frank v. Brunnemann (8 W. Va. 

462), 757. 
Frank v. McDonald (86 111. App. 

336), 775. 
Frank v. Nichols (6 Mo. App. 72), 

488. 



Frank v. Railroad Co. (122 N. Y. 

197), 1069, 1086. 
Frank v. Stratford-Handcock (13 

Wyom. 37), 991. 
Frank v. Taubman (31 111. App. 

592), 156. 
Frankfort Bank v. Anderson (3 A. 

K. Marsh. Ky. 1), 64. 
Franklin v. Brown (118 N. Y. 

110), 1355. 
Franklin v. Merida (35 Cal. 558), 

922. 
Franklin Land M. & W. Co. v. 

Card (84 Me. 528), 1266. 
Fraser v. State (112 Ga. 13), 339. 
Fratcher v. Smith (104 Mich. 537), 

163. 
Fratt V. Hunt (103 Cal. 288), 898. 
Frazer v. Robinson (42 Miss. 121), 

920. 
Frazier v. Caruthers (44 111. App. 

61), 646. 
Frazier v. Spear (2 Bibb. Ky. 385), 

90. 
Frazier v. Thomas (6 Ala. 169), 

1440. 
Frederick v. Callahan (40 Iowa, 

311), 616. 
Frederick v. Daniels (74 Conn. 

710), 879. 
Fredrikan v. M. L. Ins. Co. (62 N. 

Y. 392), 57.1. 
Free v. Stuart (39 Neb. 220), 

1264. 
Freeland v. Hyllested (24 La. Ann. 

450), 1424. 
Freeland v. Ritz (154 Mass. 257), 

264. 
Freeman v. Hunnewell (163 Mass. 

210), 813, 818, 873. 
Freeman v. Lynch (8 Neb. 192), 

1249. 
Freeman v. Moffitt (119 Mo. 280). 

482. 
Freeman v. Underwood (66 Me. 

229), 298, 1319. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Freer v. Stotenbur (34 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 440), 680, 710. 
Freetly v. Barnhart (51 Pa. St. 

281), 1002. 
French v. French (3 N. H. 234), 

333. 
French v. Fuller (23 Pick. Mass. 

104), 686, 679. 
French v. Gapen (105 U. S. 509), 

117. 
French v. Morse (2 Gray, Mass. 

Ill), 1120. 
French v. Mayor (29 Barb. N. Y. 

363), 1281. 
French v. Reed (6 Binn. Pa. 308), 

1042. 
Frey v. Drahos (6 Neb. 1), 447. 
Frey v. Johnson (22 How. Pr. N. 

Y. 316), 710. 
Frey v. Zabinski (40 Kulp, Pa. 

36), 848, 849. 
Friar v. Grey (5 Ex. 597), 376. 
Friary Holroyd & Healey's Brew. 

Co. V. Singleton (68 Law J. Ch. 

622), 998. 
Friedhoff v. Smith (13 Neb. 5), 

146. 
Friedland v. Myers (139 N. Y. 

432), 696, 875. 
Friedlander v. Ryder (30 Neb. 

783), 496, 1244, 1263, 1296. 
Friend v. Oil Well Supply Co. (179 

Pa. St. 290), 1162. 
Friesner v. Symonds (46 N. J. Eq. 

521), 10. 
Frigeris v. Stillman (17 La. Ann. 

23), 456. 
Frink v. Pratt (130 111. 327), 1424, 

1458. 
Frisbie v. McCarty (1 Stew. & P. 

56), 348. 
Frischberg v. Hurter (173 Mass. 

22), 823. 
Frissel v. Fickes (27 Mo. 557), 

1274. 
Fritton v. Foot (2 Bro. C. C. 630), 

1374. 



Frommer v. Roessler (12 Misc. 

Rep. 152), 1182. 
Fromtin v. Small (2 Ld. Raym. 

1418), 532. 
Frontz v. Wood (2 Hill Law, S. C. 

367), 950. 
Frost V. Akron Iron Co. (37 N. Y. 

Supp. 374), 1210, 1218. 
Frost V. Deutsch (13 S. W. Rep. 

981), 1445. 
Frost V. Earnest (4 Whart. Pa. 

86), 700. 
Frost V. Kellogg (23 Vt. 30o), 311. 
Fry V. Day (97 Ind. 348), 471. 
Fry V. Jones (2 Rawle, Pa. 12), 

308. 
Frye v. Hill (14 Wash. St. 83), 

1436. 
Fryska v. Prybeski (11 Det. Leg. 

N. 223), 1222. 
Fulkerson v. Lynn (64 Mo. App. 

649), 1452. 
Fuller V. Brownell (48 Neb. 145), 

1264, 1294. 
Fuller V. Ferguson (26 Cal. 546), 

27. 
Fuller V. Rose (110 Mo. App. 344), 

415. 
Fuller V. Ruby (10 Gray, Mass. 

285), 699, 1131. 
Fuller V. Sweet (30' Mich. 237), 

924. 
Fuller V. Wilson (3 Q. B. 58), 102. 
Fuller V. Whitlock (99 Ala. 411), 

122. 
Fuller Co. v. Manhattan Cons. Co. 

(88 N. Y. Supp. 1049), 553. 
Fullington v. Goodwin (7 Vt. 641), 

1259. 
Fulton V. Stuart (2 Ohio, 215), 

1053, 1096. 
Fulwood's Case (4 Coke, 65a), 42. 
Funk V. Haldeman (53 Pa. St. 

229) 274. 
Funk's Lessee v. Kincaid (5 Md. 

404), 486, 941. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CI 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Furlong v. Leary (8 Gush. Mass. 

409), 678. 
Furnival v. Carew (3 Atk. 83), 

1372, 1382. 
Fusselman v. Worthington (14 111. 

135), 212, 947. 



G. 



Gable v. Brooks (48 Md. 108), 326. 
Gable v. Wetherholt (116 111. 313), 

958. 
Gaffield v. Hapgood (17 Pick. 

Mass. 192), 1264. 
Gaffney v. Paul (29 Misc. Rep. 

642), 1213. 
Gage V. Acton (1 Salk. 745), 1228. 
Gage V. Bates (40 Cal. 384), 638. 
Gage V. Smith (14 Me. 466), 560. 
Gaggiano v. Giallorenzi (57 N. Y. 

Supp. 2), 1378. 
Gaines v. Keeton (68 Miss. 473), 

1453. 
Gaines v. McAdam (79 111. App. 

201), 1207, 1219. 
Gaither v. Hascall-Richards (121 

N. C. 384), 783. 
Gale V. Bates (3 H. & C. 84), 764. 
Gale V. Edwards (52 Me. 363), 491. 
Gale V. Heckman (10 Misc. Rep. 

376), 449. 
Gale V. Oil Run Petroleum Co. 

(6 W. Va. 200), 665. 
Galewski v. Appelbaum (32 Misc. 

Rep. 203), 108. 
Gallagher v. Connell (23 Neb. 391), 

968. 
Gallagher v. David Stevenson 

Brewing Co. (13 Misc. Rep. 40), 

11. 
Gallagher v. Shipley (24 Md. 418), 

1331, 1333. 
Galley v. Kellerman (123 Pa. St. 

491), 644. 
Galloway, Ex parte (21 Wend. N. 

Y. 32), 44, 46. 



Gallup V. Albany R. R. Co. (65 N. 

Y. 1), 1163. 
Galvin v. Reals (187 Mass. 250), 

850. 
Games v. Stiles (14 Pet U. S. 322), 

341, 342. 
Gandy v. Dewey (28 Neb. 175), 

1434. 
Gandy v. Jubber (5 B. & S. 78), 

128. 
Gannett v. Albee (103 Mass. 372), 

734, 757, 1382. 
Gano V. Prindle (6 Kan. App. 851), 

1044. 
Gano V. Vandeveer (34 N. J. Law, 

293), 697. 
Gans V. Hughes (14 N. Y. Supp. 

930), 429. 
Gansen v. Moarman (5 Ohio Dec. 

287), 42. 
Ganson v. Baldwin (93 Mich. 217), 

515. 
Ganson v. Tifft (71 N. Y. 48), 880, 

1048. 
Ganter v. Atkinson (35 Wis. 48), 

384, 686. 
Garber v. Gianella (98 Cal. 527), 

392. 
Garcewich v. Woods (7? N. Y. 

Supp. 154), 644, 1058. 
Garden v. Butler (Hay & J. 112), 

765. 
Gardener v. Webber (17 Pick. 

Mass. 407), 343. 
Gardiner v. Bair (10 Pa. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 74), 1223. 
Gardner v. Commissioners (21 

Minn. 33), 139. 
Gardner v. Hazleton (121 Mass. 

494), 191. 
Gardner v. Keteltas (3 Hill, 330), 

672, 676. 
Gardner v. McEwen (19 N. Y. 

125), 1427. 
Garlinghouse v. Mulvane (40 Kan. 

428), 122. 



Cll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Garner v. Byard (23 Ga. 289), 

1190. 
Garner v. Cutting (32 Iowa, 547), 

1409. 
Garner v. Hannah (6 Duer, N. Y. 

262), 667. 
Garnett v. Albree (103 Mass. 372), 

768. 
Garnhart v. Finney (40 Mo. 449), 

1391. 
Garr v. Haskett (86 Ind. 373), 18. 
Garranette v. White (92 Mo. 237), 

1096. 
Garrard v. Frankel (30 Beav. 445), 

474. 
Garred v. Macey (10 Mo. 161), 

1273. 
Garrett v. Jennings (19 Ky. S. 

Rep. 1712), 314. 
Garrett v. Lister (1 Ley. 25), 334. 
Garrett v. Somerville (98 App. 

Div. 206), 823, 834. 
Garrett's Appeal (100 Pa. St. 597), 

552. 
Garroute v. White (92 Mo. 237), 

1465. 
Garth v. Cotton (3 Atk. 756), 711. 
Garths v. Good (50 Mo. App. 149), 

1449. ■ 
Gartlan v. Hickman (56 W. Va. 

75), 1247, 1265. 
Garton v. Gregory (3 B. & S. 90), 

1284. 
Gartrell v. Clay (81 Ga. 327), 1448. 
Garusch v. Rutledge (79 Md. 272), 

351. 
Garvey v. Dobyns (8 Mo. 213), 523. 
Garvin v. Jennerson (20 Kan. 371), 

318, 319. 
Gaskill V. Trainer (3 Cal. 334), 

638, 653. 
Gaskins v. Blake (27 Miss. 675), 

956. 
Gassnick v. SteCfenson (112 Iowa, 

688), 1437. 
Gaston v. Tunison (10 N. J. Law 

J. 305), 1441. 



Gates V. Goodjoe (101 U. S. 612), 

1353. 
Gates V. Green (4 Paige Ch. N. Y. 

355), 1340, 1350. 
Gates V. Griffen (4 Paige, N. Y. 

355), 1345. 
Gates V. Hendrick (54 Hun, 92), 

910. 
Gates V. Home M. L. Ins. Co. (4 

Am. Law Rev. 395), 65. 
Gates V. Max (125 N. C. 139), 1112. 
Gates V. Steele (48 Ark. 539), 122. 
Cause V. Richardson (4 Houst. 

Del. 222), 1443. 
Gavan v. Norcross (117 Ga. 356), 

855, 857, 1349. 
Gay V. Davey (47 Ohio St. 396), 

1346. 
Gay V. Ihm (3 Mo. App. 588), 331. 
Gay Mfg. Co. v. Hobbs (128 N. C. 

46), 274. 
Gayetty v. Bethune (14 Mass. 49), 

445. 
Gaylord v. Soragen (32 Vt. 110), 

776. 
Gaynor v. Blowett (82 Wis. 313), 

1126. 
Gazzolo V. Chambers (73 111. 75), 

672. 
Gear v. Barnum (37 Conn. 229), 

397. 
Geddio v. Folliett (16 S. D. 610), 

1238. 
Gee V. Fleming (110 Mass. 39), 

679. 
Gee V. Moss (68 Iowa, 318), 478. 
Geer v. Traders' Bank (132 Mich. 

215), 56. 
Gehabee v. Stanly (1 La. Ann. 17), 

154. 
Geiger v. Braun (6 Daly, N. Y. 

506), 384. 
Gelston v. Rullman (15 Md. 260), 

1400. 
General Assur. Co. v. Woraley (15 

Reports, 328), 167. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cm 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Genet v. Del. & Hudson Canal Co. 

(13 Misc. 409), 452. 
Geneva Mineral Springs Co. v. 

Coursey (61 N. Y. Supp. 98), 

400. 
Genin v. Ingersoll (2 W. Va. 558), 

965, 966. 
Genter v. Morrison (31 Barb. N. Y. 

125), 342. 
Geode v. Gaines (145 U. S. 141), 

932. 
George Bauernschmidt Brewing 

Co. V. McColgan (89 Md. 135), 

1287. 
George v. Fisk (32 N. H. 32), 680, 

683. 
George v. Goldsby (23 Ala. 326), 

336. 
George v. Mahoney (62 Minn. 370), 

538. 
George v. Putney (4 Cush. Mass. 

351), 927, 1171. 
George's Creek Co. v. Detmold (1 

Md. Ch. 372), 723. 
Georgen v. Schmidt (69 111. App. 

538), 1094. 
Gerhardt Realty Co. v. Brecht (84 

S. W. Rep. 217), 1378. 
Gerken v. Smith (11 N. Y. Supp. 

685), 1093. 
Germain v. Pattison (46 Barb. 9), 

1060. 
German Bank v. Herron (111 

Iowa, 25), 210, 219, 1435. 
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Myers 

(8 N. Y. St. Rep. 349), 1141. 
German Sav. & Loan Soc. v. 

Weber (16 Wash. St. 95), 1297. 
Gerry v. Siebrecht (88 N. Y. 1034), 

458, 675. 
Gervis v. Peade (Cro. Eliz. 615), 

606. 
Gerzebeck v. Lord (33 N. J. Law, 

240), 861. 
Getz V. Phila. & Read. Ry. Co. n05 

Pa. St. 547), 705. 



Getzandaffer v. Caylor (38 Md. 

280), 49. 
Ghegan v. Young (23 Pa. St. 18)^ 

1093, 1094. 
Gibbon v. Kirk (1 Q. B. 850), 561, 

581. 
Gibbons v. Daj'ton (4 Hun, N. Y. 

45), 151, 156. 
Gibbons v. Dillingham (10 Ark. 

9), 491, 1315, 1319. 
Gibbons v. Hamilton (33 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 83), 533. 
Gibbs V. Ross (2 Head, Tenn. 437), 

437, 492, 522. 
Gibson v. Brockway (8 N. H. 4C5, 

471), 438. 
Gibson v. Carmthorpe (1 Dowl. & 

Ry. 205), 576. 
Gibson v. Doey (2 H. & N. 615), 

490. 
Gibson v. Farley (16 Mass. 280), 

29, 51, 52. 
Gibson v. Gautier (1 Mackey, D. C. 

35),144L 
Gibson v. Hanna (12 Mo. 162), 549. 
Gibson v. Holland ^L. T. I. C. P. 

1),386. 
Gibson v. Kirk (2 G. & D. 252),. 

577. 
Gibson v. Needham (96 Ga. 172), 

248, 250. 
Gibson v. Oliver (158 Pa. St. 277), 

641. 
Gibson v. Pearsall (1 E. D. Smith. 

N. Y. 90), 775, 776. 
Gibson v. Perry (29 Mo. 245), 1340. 
Gibson v. Wells (1 B. & P. 290), 

720. 
Giddens v. Boiling (93 Ala. 92), 

1467. 
Giddens v. Dodd (3 Drew, 485), 

375,376. 
Giddings v. Felker (70 Tex. 176), 

1096. 
Giergen v. Schmidt (69 111. App. 

538), 593. 



CIV 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[keferexces are to pages.] 



Gifford V. King (54 Iowa, 525) 

252, 254. 
Gigger v. Nesbitt (122 Mo. 675) 

991. 
Gilbert v. Greenbaum (56 Iowa 

211), 1436. 
Gilbert v. Port (28 Ohio St. 276) 

978. 
Gilbert v. Wiman Tl N. Y. 550) 

1013. 
Gilchrist v. Rea (9 Paige Ch. N. Y 

66), 53. 
Giles V. Bourne (6 M. & S. 73) 

342. 
Giles V. Comstock (4 N. Y. 270) 

524, 1183. 
Giles V. Ebsworth (10 Md. 333) 

920,934. 
Giles V. O'Toole (4 Barb. N. Y 

261), 695. 
Gilhooley v. Washington (4 N. Y 

217), 1160, 1166. 
Gill V. Johnson (1 Met. Ky. 449) 

1116. 
Gill V. Middleton (105 Mass. 477) 

801, 804, 865. 
Gillaspie v. Hagans (90 Cal. 90) 

877. 
Gillespie v. Hendren (73 S. W 

Rep. 361), 578. 
Gillespie v. Jones (26 Tex. 343) 

958. 
Gillespie v. Thomas (15 Wend. N 

Y. 464), 1178. 
Gillett V. Treganza (6 Wis. 343) 

274. 
Gilliam v. Mither (33 S. W. Rep 

984), 1451. 
Gilliam v. Moore (44 N. Car. 95) 

926. 
Gillick V. Jackson (40 Misc. Rei) 

627), 812. 
Gillilan v. Norton (29 Super. Ct 

Rep. 546), 757. 
Gilloon V. Reilly (50 N. J. Law 

26), 487. 



Gilman v. Milwaukee (31 Wis. 

563), 75. 
Gilman v. Wells (66 Me. 273), 288. 
Gilpin V. Adams (14 Colo. 512), 

514. 
Gilsey v. Keen (185 N. Y. 588), 

1093. 
Gimon v. Terrell (38 Ala. 208), 

1170. 
Ginch V. Causey (57 S. E. Rep. 

562), 469. 
Ginzburg v. Ecker (28 Mo. App. 

25S),1086. 
Girardy v. Richardson (1 Esp. 13), 

772. 
Givens v. Easley (17 Ala. 385), 

1423. 
Givens v. Mullinax (4 Rich. L. S. 

C. 590), 920. 
Glascott V. Day (5 Esp. 48), 537. 
Glasgow V. Ridgeley (11 Mo. 34), 

1414. 
Glazebrook v. Woodrow (8 T. R. 

366), 601. 
Gleason v. Boehm (58 N. J. Law, 

475), 804, 811, 816. 
Glein v. Rise (6 Watts. Pa. 44), 

924. 
Glen V. Dungey r4 Ex. 61), 577. 
Glidden v. Bennett (43 N. H. 306), 

1259. 
Gluck V. Elkln (36 Minn. 80, 81), 

640, 659. 
Goatley v. Paine (2 Camp. 520), 

861. 
Gocio V. Day (51 Ark. 46), 873, 

1244, 1278. 
Godard v. South Carolina R. Co. 

(2 Rich. Law, S. C. 346), 162. 

172. 
Goddard v. Hall (55 Me. 579), 579. 
Goddard v. King (40 Minn. 164), 

571. 
Goddard v Railroad Co. (2 Rich. 

S. C. 346), 158. 
Goddard 's Appeal (1 Walk. Pa. 

97), 1098. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



cv 



[EEFEBENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Godfrey v. Black (39 Kan. 193), 

757. 
Godfroy v. Disprow (Walk. Ch. 

260), 333. 
Godfrey v. India Wharf Brewing 

Co. (87 App. Div. 123), 880. 
Godfrey v. Walker (42 Ga. 562), 

199, 227. 
Godley v. Haggerty (26 Pa. St. 

Ill), 805. 
Godwin v. Collins (3 Del. Ch. 189), 

1002. 
Godwin v. Harris (98 N. W. Rep. 

439), 553. 
Goebel v. Hough (26 Minn. 252), 

563, 702, 863, 1156. 
Goedecke v. Baker (28 S. W. Rep. 

1039), 874. 
Goerges v. Hufsschmidt (44 Mo. 

179), 976. 
Goldberg v. Wood (60 N. Y. Supp. 

427), 261. 
Goldersleeve v. Overstolz (90 Mo. 

App. 518), 1185. 
Golding V. Brennan (183 Mass. 

286), 341, 1213. 
Goldman v. Corn (97 N. Y. Supp. 

926), 1188. 
Goldsborough v. Gable (36 111. 

App. 363), 139, 255, 466, 947. 
Goldsmith v. Schroeder (93 App. 

Div. 206), 522, 1219. 
Goldsmith v. Wilson (68 Iowa, 

685), 1044. 
Golob V. Pasinsky (76 N. Y. Supp. 

388), 831. 
Gomber v. Hacket (6 Wis. 323), 

645. 
Gomez v. Gomez (147 N. Y. 195), 

57, 1374. 
Gooch V. Clutterbuck (68 L. J. Q. 

B. 808), 1090. 
Gooch V. Furman (62 111. App. 

340), 423. 
Goodall V. Gerke (1 Ohio N. P. 
2S4),774. 



Goodbehere v. Bevan (3 M. & S. 

353), 1051. 
Goodenow v. Allen (68 Me. 308), 

191. 
Goode V. Howells (4 M. & W. 199), 

158. 
Goode V. Ruehle (23 Mich. 30), 

1017. 
Goode V. Webb (52 Ala. 452), 348. 
Goodfellow V. Noble (25 Mo. 60), 

146, 877. 
Goodhue v. Barnwell (1 Rice Ch. 

S. C. 198), 11. 
Goodland v. Blewelt (1 Camp. 477), 

531. 
Goodman v. Greenberg (103 N. Y. 

Supp. 779), 367. 
Goodman v. Hannibal & St. Jos. 

Ry. Co. (45 Mo. 33), 1267. 
Goodman v. Jones (26 Conn. 264), 

920. 
Goodman v. Malcolm (5 Kan. App. 

285), 965. 
Goodright v. Davids (Cowp. 804), 

647. 
Goodrich v. Jones (2 Hill, N. Y. 

142), 1259. 
Goodrich v. Sanderson (55 N. Y. 

Supp. 881), 701. 
Goodrich v. Thompson (4 Day, 

Conn. 215), 51. 
Goodrich v. Walker (1 John. Cas. 

N. Y. 250), 349, 350. 
Goodsell V. Rutland-Can. R. Co. (75 

Vt. 375), 336, 338, 339. 
Goodtitle v. Flnucan (12 Doug. 

575), 58. 
Goodtitle d. Galloway v. Herbert 

(4 T. R. 680), 196. 
Goodtitle v. Morse (3 T. R. 371). 

952. 
Goodtitle v. Way (1 T. R. 735), 

246. 
Goodwin v. Clover (91 Minn. 438), 

196. 
Goodwin v. Gilbert (9 Mass. olO), 
519. 



CVl 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Goodwin v. Holbrook (4 Wend. N. 

Y. 377), 601. 
Goodwin v. Noble (8 E. & B. 587). 

1061. 
Goodwin v. Perkins (134 Cal. 564), 

198. 
Goodwin v. Sliarlvey (80 Pa. St. 

149), 1426, 1444. 
Goodwine v. Barnett (2 Ind. App. 

16), 678. 
Goodwriglit v. Cordwent (6 T. R. 

219), 647. 
Gardeville v. Redon (4 La. Ann. 

40), 1068. 
Gordon v. Buckley (14 S. & R. Pa. 

331), 97. 
Gordon v. Cummings (152 Mass. 

573), 801, 817, 819. 
Gordon v. George (12 Ind. 408), 

884. 
Gordon v. Gilman (48 Me. 473), 

162, 218. 
Gordon v. Harper (7 T. R. 9), 113. 
Gordon v. Miller (63 N. E. Rep. 

774), 1293. 
Gordon v. Peltzer (56 Mo. App. 

599), 798, 799. 
Gordon v. Trevelyan (1 Price, 64), 

387. 
Fore V. Lloyd (12 M. & W. 463), 

257, 524. 
Gore V. Stevens (1 Dana, Ky. 201), 

1171. 
Goring v. Goring (3 Swan, 661), 

765. 
Gorman v. White (46 N. Y. Supp. 

1),810. 
Gormley's Appeal (27 Pa. St. 49), 

1000. 
Gorst V. Timothy (2 Car. & K. 

351), 172. 
Gosharn v. Stewart (15 W. Va. 

C57),91, 560, 561. 
Gosling V. Wolf (5 Reports, 12), 

1098. 
Gossett V. Drydale ^48 Mo. App. 

430), 1311. 



Gott V. Gandy (2 El. & BI. 845), 

138. 
Gottsberger v. Rajdway (2 Hilt. N. 

Y. 242), 855. 
Gould V. Bugby (6 Gray, Mass. 

371), 620, 632. 
Gould V. Eagle Creek (8 Minn. 

427), 1044. 
Gould V. Maring (28 Barb. N. Y. 

— ),331. 
Gould V. Steenberg (4 111. App. 

439), 685. 
Gould V. Thompson (4 Met. Mass. 

224), 198, 200, 317. 
Gourlay v. Somerset (19 Ves. 429), 

1390. 
Gove V. Watson "(61 N. H. 136), 

1302. 
Governors of Christ's Hospital v. 

Hattold (2 M. & G. 712), 507. 
Grabenhurst v. Nicodemus (42 Md. 

236), 1136. 
Grabf elder v. Gazetti (26 S. W. 

Rep. 436), 84. 
Grace v. Michaud (50 Minn. 139), 

219. 
Grady v. Ibach (94 Ala. 152), 574. 
Grady v. Warrell (105 Mich. 310), 

54. 
Grady v. Wolsner (46 Ala. 381), 

794. 
Gragg v. Brown (44 Me. 157), 

1445. 
Graham v. Alsopp (3 Ex. 186), 546. 
Graham v. Anderson (3 Harr. Del. 

364), 176, 1175. 
Graham v. Houghtaling (30 N. J. 

L. 552), 12. 
Graham v. James (30 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 435), 569. 
Graham v. Moore (4 S. & R. Pa. 

467), 923. 
Graham v. Seignious (53 S. C. 

132), 1432. 
Graham v. Way (38 Vt. 19), 278. 
Graham v. Womack (82 Mo. App. 

618), 045. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cvn 



[references are to pages. J 



Gramm v. Sterling (8 Wyo. 527), 

252, 262. 
Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. South 

Grand Rapids Co. (102 Mich. 

227), 436. 
Grand Trunk, etc. Co. v. Chicago, 

etc. Co. (141 Fed. Rep. 785), 265, 

457. 
Granite Building Corporation v. 

Greene (25 R. I. 586), 616, 645, 

748. 
Grannis v. Clark (8 Cow. N. Y. 

36), 701. 
Grant v. Chase (17 Mass. 443), 445. 
Grant v. Ramsey (7 Ohio St. 157), 

388. 
Grant v. White (42 Mo. App. 285), 

141, 155, 920. 
Grant v. Whitwell (9 Iowa, 152), 

1421, 1425, 1429. 
Graves v. Berdan (26 N. Y. 498), 

1158, 1340, 1342, 1343. 
Graves v. Graves (6 Gray, Mass. 

391), 336. 395. 
Graves v. Porter (11 Barb. N. Y. 

592), 464, 546, 1080. 
Graves v. Walter (101 N. W. Rep. 

297), 314. 
Graves v. White (87 N. Y. 465), 

1227. 
Gray v. Bompass (11 C. B. N. S. 

520), 577. 
Gray v. Bremer (122 Iowa, 110), 

1462. 
Gray v. Chamberlain (4 C. & P. 

260), 522. 
Gray v. Goff (8 Mo. App. 329), 

1165,1168. 
Gray v. Johnson (14 N. H. 414), 

88, 559. 
Gray v. Kaufman Dairy Ice Cream 

Co. (162 N. Y. 388), 1199, 1213. 
Gray v. Kehoe (90 Mich. 151), 

1261. 
Gray v. Murray (2 John. Ch. N. Y. 

167), 1042. 
h 



Gray v. Oyler (2 Bush, Ky. 256), 

1244. 
Gray v. Robinson (33 Pac. Rep. 

712), 312. 
Gray v. Rogers (30 Mo. 258), 498. 
Gray v. Stanion (1 Mee. & Wei. 

695), 192, 198. 
Gray v. Stevens (28 Vt. 1), 688. 
Gray v. Worst (129 Mo. 122), 1325. 
Gray v. Wilson (4 Watts, Pa. 39), 

572, 1443. 
Grayson v. Buie (26 La. Ann. 637), 

914. 
Greason v. Keteltas (17 N. Y. 

491), 983. 
Great Nat. Ry. Co. v. Harrison (12 

Com. Bench, 576), 614. 
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Smith 

(45 L. J. Ch. 235), 630. 
Greaves v. Whitmarsh Watson & 

Co. (75 L. J. K. B. 633), 1027. 
Greber v. Kleckner (2 Pa. St. 289), 

686. 
Greeley v. Greeley (73 Pac. Rep. 

295), 1467. 
Greeley v. Winsor (1 S. D. 117), 

279, 1405. 
Green v. Austin (3 Camp. 260), 

1459. 
Green v. Bell (3 Mo. App. 291), 

563, 882. 
Green v. Bridges (4 Sim. 96), 667, 

1038. 
Green v. Deitrich (114 111. 636), 

320. 
Green v. Dodge (64 Atl. Rep. 499), 

463. 
Green v. Eales (2 Q. B. 225), 882, 

888. 
Green v. Green (2 Redfield Sur. 

N. Y. 408), 42. 
Green v. Keppe (18 C. B. 149), 105. 
Green v. Low (22 Beav. 625), 979. 
Green v. Meter (54 N. J. Eq. 270), 

410. 
Green v. Redding (92 Cal. 548), 

862. 



CVlll 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Green v. Wilding (59 Iowa, 679), 

17, 19. 
Green v. Wilson (8 Ky. Law Rep. 

825), 948. 
Greene v. Cole (2 Wm. Saund. 

2590), 380, 720. 
Greene v. Hague (10 111. App. 

598), 840. 
Greene v. Klinger (10 Fed. Rep. 

689), 974. 
Greene v. Munson (9 Vt. 37), 922. 
Greene v. Tyler (39 Pa. St. 368), 

552. 
Greene v. Williams (45 111. 206), 

694. 
Greenewald v. Schales (17 Mo. 

App. 324), 159. 
Greenland v. Waddell (5 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 835), 49. 
Greenleaf v. Allen (127 Mass. 

248), 560, 1093. 
Greenough's Appeal (9 Pa. St. 18), 

298. 
Green's Case (Cro. Eliz. 3), 647, 

654. 
Green's Trustees v. Robinson 

(Wright, Ohio, 436), 349. 
Greenup v. Verner (16 111. 26), 

322. 
Greenwalt v. Horner (6 S. & R. 

Pa. 70) 439. 
Green way v. Hart (14 C. B. 348), 

530, 943. 
Greenwood v. Moore (79 Miss. 

201), 965, 966, 971. 
Greenwood v. Tyber (Cro. Jac. 

563), 25. 
Greenwood v. Wetterau (84 N. Y. 

Supp. 740), 699. 
Gregg V. Boyd (23 N. Y. Supp. 

918), 1330, 1331. 
Gregg V. Coates (23 Beav. 33), 

1340. 
Gregor v. Cady (82 Me. 131), 864. 
Gregory v. Doidge (3 Blng. 474), 

923. 
Gregory v. Hay (3 Cal. 332), 1462. 



Gregory v. Mighell (18 Ves. Jr. 

328), 1390. 
Gregory v. Rosenkrauz (72 Wis. 

220), 435. 
Gregory v. Thompson (68 Vt. 410), 

760. 
Gregory v. Wilson (9 Hare. 683), 

663, 667, 1038. 
Gregory's Heirs v. Crab's Heirs (2 

B. Mon. Ky. 234), 934. 
Greider's Appeal (5 Pa. St. 422), 

1198, 1238. 
Grenier v. Cota (92 Mich. 23), 1385. 
Greton v. Smith (33 N. Y. 245), 

193. 
Grey v. Cuthbertson (2 Chit. 482), 

1080,1284. 
Gribble v. Toms (71 N. J. Law, 

338), 486, 541. 
Gridley v. Einbigler (98 App. Div. 

160), 1012. 
Griffin v. Baust "(50 N. Y. Supp. 

905), 395. 
Griffin v. Bristol (39 Minn. 456), 

327. 
Griffin v. Dollins (53 S. B. Rep. 

1004), 15. 
Griffin v. Knisely (75 111. 411), 

250, 578. 
Griffin v. Manice (174 N. Y. 305), 

822. 
Griffin v. Marine Co. (52 111. 130), 

1110. 
Griffin v. Rochester (96 Ind. 545), 

291. 
Griffin v. Sheffield (38 Miss. 359), 

234, 940. 
Griffin v. Tomkins (42 L. T. 359), 

660. 
Griffith V. Burlingham (18 Wash. 

429), 1112. 
Griffith V. Brackman (97 1\nin. 

3S7),35. 
Griffith V. Chichester (7 Exch. 95), 

548. 
Griffith V. Gillum (31 Mo. App. 

33), 1453. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



cix 



[beferexces are to pages. J 



Griffith V. Hodges (1 Car. & P. 

419), 537. 
Griffith V. Parmley (38 Ala. 393), 

920. 
Griffith V. Tombs (7 C. & P. 810), 

1337. 
Griffiths V. Puleston (13 M. & W. 

358), 1314. 
Grifhahn v. Kreizer (62 App. Div. 

413), 820. 
Grimman v. Legge (8 B. & C. 324), 

1199,1239. 
Grimwood v. Moss (27 L. T. 268), 

651. 
Grissler v. Dudley (58 N. Y. 323), 

542. 
Griswold v. Chandler (5 N . W. 

492), 51. 
Grizzard v. Roberts (110 Ga. 41), 

950. 
Groff V. Levan C16 Pa. St. 179), 

1328. 
Grogan v. Bway. Foundry Co. (87 

Me. 321), 794. 
Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co. 

(147 111. 634), 147, 1092, 1214. 
Grore v. Portal (71 L. J. C!i. 299), 

1051. 
Gross V. Hartley (66 Miss. 116), 

1411, 1467. 
Gross V. Herkert (124 Wis. 314), 

693. 
Grosvenor v. Flint (20 R. I. 31), 

571. 
Grosvenor v. Green (32 L. T. Rep. 

252), 362, 1099. 
Grosvenor v. Vv'oodhouse (1 Bing. 

38), 923. 
Groton Mfg. Co. v. Gardiner (11 

R. I. 626), 1440. 
Grove v. Hodges (55 Pa. St. 504), 

327. 
Groves v. Groves (10 Q. B. 486), 

187. 
Grubb V. Bayard (2 Wall. Jr. U. S. 

81), 274. 



Grubb V. Grubb (10 B. & C. 816), 

182. 
Gruhn v. Gudebrod Bros. Co. (21 

Misc. Rep. 528), 554. 
Grummett v. Gingrass (77 Mich. 

379), 665. 
Grund v. Van Vleck (69 111. 478), 

690. 
Grundin v. Carter (99 Mass. 15), 

491, 1080, 1095, 1111. 
Grundy v. Martin (143 Mass. 279), 

213. 
Grymes v. Boweren (6 Bing. 437), 

1256. 
Grymes v. Sanders (93 U. S. 55), 

469. 
Guay V. Kehoo (70 N. H. 151), 

1277. 
Gude Co. V. Farley (28 Misc. Rep. 

184), 290. 
Gudgen v. Besset (6 L. & Bl. 986), 

581. 
Guest V. Opdyck (31 N. J. Law, 

552), 309. 
Guffey V. Hukill (34 W. Va. 49), 

634. 
Gugel V. Isaacs (21 App. Div. 503), 

503. 
Guinzburg v. Claude (28 Mo. App. 

258), 1087. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Smith 

(3 Tex. Civ. App. 483), 1320. 
Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dusen- 

berry (86 Tex. 525), 1320. 
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Harmonson (Tex. 

22 S. W. R. 764), 681. 
Gulick V. Conover (15 N. J. Law, 

420), 549. 
Gulick v. Grover (33 N. J. Law, 

463). 101. 
Gulliher v. Chicago, etc. Co. (59 

Iowa, 516), 361. 
Gulliver v. Fowler (64 Conn. 556), 

850, 855, 864, 879, 1358. 
Gullman v. Sharp (81 Hun, 462), 

442. 



ex 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Gun V. McCarthy (13 L. R. Ir. 

304), 474. 
Gunn V. Sinclair (52 Mo. 327), 164, 

1228. 
Gunizburg v. Claude (38 Mo. App. 

258), 92. 
Gunsolus V. Lormer (54 Wis. 630), 

1689. 
Gurney v. Ford (2 Allen, Mass. 

576), 438. 
Gushee v. City of New York (42 

App. Div. — ), 79. 
Guthman v. Vallery (51 Neb. 824), 

229. 
Gutteridge v. Munyard (7 Car. & 

Payne, 129), 885. 
Guy V. Downs (12 Neb. 532), 123. 
Gwin V. Melmoth (1 Freem. Ch. 

505), 441. 
Gwynn v. Jones (2 G. & J. Md. 

184), 970. 



K 



Haberdasher's Co. v. Isaac (3 Jur. 

N. S. 611), 365. 
Haby v. Koenig (2 Posey, Unrep. 

Case, 439), 440. 
Hack V. Leonard (9 Mod. 91), 663. 
Hacket v. Marmet (52 Fed. Rep. 

268), 341, 921. 
Hadden v. Knickerbocker (70 111. 

677), 1429, 1432. 
Hadley v. Baxendale (9 Ex. 341), 

695. 
Hadley v. Berners (97 Mo. App. 

314), 616. 
Haeussler v. Iloman Paper Box 

Co. (49 Mo. App. 631), 1112. 
Haflick V. Stober (11 Ohio St. 

482), 1264, 1269, 1270. 
Hagan v. Buck (44 Vt. 285), 666. 
Hagar v. Wirkoff (2 Okl. 580), 

922, 964. 
Haggerty v. Lee (45 N. J. Eq. 1), 

441. 



Hague V. Ahrens (53 Fed. Rep. 

58), 620, 623, 1055. 
Hague V. Powers (25 How, Pr. 

N. Y. 17), 537. 
Hahham v. Sherman (114 Mass. 

19), 1238. 
Haig V. Homan (4 Bligh, N. S. 

380), 1106. 
Haines v. Beach (90 Mich. 563), 

191. 
Haines v. Burnett (27 Beav. 500), 

365, 608. 
Haines v. Downey (86 111. App. 

373), 471, 475. 
Haizlip V. Rosenberg (63 Ark. 

430), 839. 
Halben v. Runder (1 C. M. & R. 

264), 1243, 1295. 
Haldane v. Johnson (8 Ex. 689), 

528. 
Hall V. Ball (3 Man. & G. 242), 

367. 
Hall V. Benner (1 Pen. & W. Pa. 

403), 351. 
Hall V. Boston (16 Misc. Rep. 

528), 855. 
Hall V. Burgess (5 B. & C. 333), 

1175, 1199. 
Hall V. Center (40 Cal. 63), 982, 

996. 
Hall V. Dewey (10 Vt. 593), 212. 
Hall V. Gerken (96 App. Div. 632), 

1190. 
Hall V. Gould (13 N. Y. 127), 629, 

1182. 
Hall V. Hoagland (38 N. J. Law, 

450), 1071. 
Hall V. Horton (79 Iowa, 352), 

456, 695. 
Hall V. Irvin (78 App. Div. 107), 

53, 420, 1156. 
Hall V. Jacobs (7 Bush, Ky. 595), 

258. 
Hall V. Myers (43 Md. 581), 130, 

139, 158. 
Hall V. Paulson Furniture Co. (4 

Wash. 644), 934. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXI 



[rei-eeexces are to pages.] 



Hall V. Phillips (164' Pa. St. 494), 

463. 
Hall V. Ryder (152 Mass. 528), 

481. 
Hall V. Smith (14 Ves. 426), 394. 
Hall V. Wallace (88 Cal. 434), 

197, 199. 
Hall V. Westcott (15 R. I. 373). 

957. 
Hall V. Western Trans. Co. (34 

N. Y. 284), 576. 
Hall V. Wood (10 N. H. 237), 106. 
Halladay v. Underwood (90 111. 

App. 130), 97. 
Hallenbeck v. Chapman (73 N. J. 

Law, 201), 858. 
Hallett V. Wylie (3 Johns. N. Y. 

44), 244, 251, 599, 883, 892, 1340. 
Halligan v. Chicago, etc. (15 111. 

558) 685. 
Halligan v. Wade (21 111. 470), 

1161, 1178, IISO, 1182. 
Halloway v. Lacy (23 Tenn. 468), 

604. 
Halo V. Schick (57 Pa. St. 319), 

278. 
Halpin v. Townsend (107 N. Y. 

683), 810. 
Halsey v. Lehigh Valley Co. (45 

N. J. L. 26), 680, 682. 
Hamby v. Wall (48 Ark. 135), 83. 
Hamer v. McCall (121 N. Car. 

196), 941, 1446, 1447. 
Hamerton v. Stead (3 B. & C. 

478), 192, 1201. 
Hamilton v. Ames (74 Mich. 298), 

1018. 
Hamilton v. Clanricard (5 Bro. 

P. C. 547), 108. 
Hamilton v. Dennison (56 Conn. 

359), 440. 
Hamilton v. Feary (8 Ind. App. 

615), 788. 
Hamilton v. Graybill (19 Misc. 

Rep. 521), 420. 1146. 
Hamilton v. Maas (77 Ala. 283), 

1434. 



Hamilton v. Pittock (158 Pa. St. 

457), 939, 942. 
Hamilton v. Wood (70 Ind. 306), 

343. 
Hamilton v. Wright's Adm'r (38 

Mo. 199), 698. 
Hamilton's Lessee v. Marsden (6 

Binn. Pa. 45), 920. 927. 
Hamit v. Lawrence (2 A. K. 

Marsh. Ky. 366), 156. 
Hammel v. Beardsley (31 Minn. 

314), 1094. 
Hammell v. Hammell (19 Ohio, 

17), 349. 
Hammill v. Jelonick (3 Okl. 223), 

920. 
Hammond v. Barton (93 Wis. 

183), 260, 344, 348, 514. 
Hammond v. Blue (132 Ala. 337), 

934. 
Hammond v. Hannin (21 Mich. 

374). 101. 
Hammond v. Winchester (82 Ala. 

470), 99, 252, 384. 
Hammond v. Woodman (41 Me. 

177), 437, 439. 
Hammons v. McClure (85 Tenn. 

65), 924. 
Hampshire v. Wickens (47 L. J. 

Ch. 243), 365, 607. 
Hanauer v. Doane (12 Wall. U. S. 

342), 777. 
Hanbury v. Litchfield (2 N. Y. 

629). 497. 
Hanchett v. Whitney (1 Vt. 315), 

130, 158. 
Hancock v. Austin (14 C. B. N. S. 

634). 272. 
Hancock v. Boggus (11 Ga. 884), 

1402. 
Hancock v. Caffyn (1 M. & Scott, 

521), 257. 
Hancock v. Morgan (17 Tex. 582), 

122. 
Hand v. Hall (L. R. 2 Ex. DIr. 

355), 244. 
Hand v. Liles (56 Ala. 143), 491. 



exn 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Hand v. Newton (92 N. Y. 88), 

72. 
Hand v. Osgood (107 Mich. 65), 

384. 
Hand v. Suravitz (148 Pa. St. 

202), 1031. 
Handrahan v. O'Regan (45 Iowa, 

298), 419. 
Handschy v. Sutton (28 Ind. 159), 

910. 
Handyside v. Powers (145 Mass. 

123), 820, 828. 
Hanerton v. Stead (3 B. & C. 478), 

256. 
Hanford v. McNair (9 Wend. N. 

Y. 54), 97. 
Hankins v. Kimball (57 Ind. 42), 

54. 
Hankinson v. Blair (15 N. J. Law, 

181), 219. 
Hanks v. Virtue (5 Adol. & Ell. 

367), 1135. 
Hanley v. Banks (6 Old. 79), 702, 

874. 
Hannan v. Towers (3 H. & J. Md. 

147), 267. 
Hannigan v. Ingersoll (20 Hun, 

N. Y. 316), 489. 
Hanrahan v. O'Reilly (102 Mass. 

201), 1250, 1252. 
Hanson v. Johnson (62 Md. 25), 

227. 
Hanson v. Kirtley (11 Iowa, 565), 

110. 
Hanson v. Meyer (81 111. 321), 

614, 1284. 
Hanson v. Cruse (155 Ind. 176), 

881. 
Hanson v. Hellen (6 Atl. Rep. 

837), 466, 555. 
Hanson v. Stevenson (1 B. & A. 

305), 1061. 
Harveck v. Sylvester (13 Wend. 

N. Y. 608), 490. 
Harburg v. May (153 Pa. St. 210), 

1136. 



Harcourt v. Lyman (3 Exch. 817), 

609. 
Hard v. Brown (18 Vt. 87), 59L 
Hardaman v. Shumate (19 Tenn. 

398), 1425, 1457. 
Harden v. Hesketh (28 L. J. Ex. 

137), 511. 
Hardin v. Bailey (79 Ala. 381), 

258. 
Harding v. Austin (93 App. Div. 

564), 629. 
Harding v. Coburn (12 Met. Mass. 

333), 1406. 
Harding v. Crethorn (1 Esp. 57), 

236. 
Harding v. Seeley (148 Pa. St. 

20), 1364. 
Harding v. Wilson (3 D. & R. 

506), 417, 442. 
Hardy v. Ackerly (15 Barb. N. Y. 

148), 920. 
Hardy v. Briggs (14 Allen Mass. 

473), 512. 
Hardy v. Matthews (101 Mo. App. 

708), 1461. 
Hardy v. Williams (31 N. Car. 

177), 109. 
Hardy v. Winter (38 Mo. 106), 

197. 
Hare v. Burgess (4 K. & J. 45), 

1370, 1374, 1375. 
Hare v. Groves (3 Anstr. 6S7), 

1345. 
Harger v. Edmonds (4 Barb. N. Y. 

256), 562, 868. 
Hargous v. Lahens (3 Sandf. N. 

Y. 313), 537. 
Hargrave v. King (40 N. Car. 

430), 1052. 
Hargroves v. Hartop (74 K. B. 

233), 804. 
Harker v. Smith (7 Ga. 461), 53. 
Harlan v. Coal Co. (35 Pa. St. 

287), 275. 
Harlan v. Harlan (15 Pa. St. 507), 

685, 1300, 1336. 



TABLE OP OASES CITED. 



CXlll 



[references are to pages.] 



Harlan v. Navigation Co. (35 Pa. 

St. 287), 783. 
Harley v. Deewitt (2 Hill, Eq. 

S. C. 367), 15. 
Harlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co. 

(36 Mich. 105), 453. 
Harman v. Ainslie (73 Law J. K. 

B. 539), 611. 
Harnan v. Allen (11 Ga. 45), 1100. 
Harman v. Cargill (73 S. W. Rep. 

1101), 1317. 
Harman v. Judge (6 La. Ann. 

768), 1439. 
Harmon v. Payton (68 Kan. 67), 

316, 1465. 
Harmony v. Rauch (62 111. App. 

97), 563, 877. 
Harmony Lodge v. White (30 Ohio 

St. 569), 1093, 1094. 
Harms v. McCormick (132 111. 

104), 84, 85. 
Harner v. Leeds (25 N. J. Law, 

106), 373. 
Harnett v. Maitland (16 Mee. & 

Wei. 256), 222, 720. 
Harper v. Gustin (12 N. J. Law, 

42), 943. 
Harrap v. Green (4 Esp. 198), 

173. 
Harrel v. Fall (63 Minn. 520), 

782. 
Harrell v. Fagan (43 Ga. 339), 

1446, 1447. 
Harrington v. Watson (11 Oreg. 

143), 1342. 
Harrington v. Wise (Cro. Eliz. 

486), 620. 
Harris v. Boardman (73 N. Y. 

Supp. 963), 839. 
Harris v. Boots Cash Chemists 

(73 L. J. Ch. 70S), 1090. 
Harris v. Carson (7 Leigh, Va. 

632), 1311. 
Harris v. Cleghorn (121 Ga. 314), 

1186. 
Harris v. Cohen (50 Mich. 324), 

793. 



Harris v. Corlies (40 Minn. 106), 

847, 902, 1359. 
Harris v. Dammann (3 Mackey, 

D. C. 90), 1441. 
Harris v. Elliot (10 Pet. U. S. 25), 

442. 
Harris v. Frink (2 Lans. N. Y. 

35), 258, 1306. 
Harris v. Gillingham (6 N. H. 11), 

1298. 
Harris v. Goslin (3 Har. Del. 340), 

615, 777, 885, 1336. 
Harris v. Greenberger (50 App, 

Div. 439), 673, 674. 
Harris v. Heackman (62 Iowa, 

411), 892, 1340, 1342. 
Harris v. Hickman (73 L. J. K. B. 

31), 1028. 
Harris v. Hiscock (91 N. Y. 340), 

1227. 
Harris v. Jones (1 Moo. & R. 173), 

889, 893. 
Harris v. Kelly (13 Atl. Rep. 523), 

1282. 
Harris v. Mantle (3 T. R. 307), 

720. 
Harris v. McDonald (79 111. App. 

638), 775. 
Harris v. Morrice (10 M. & W. 

260), 110. 
Harris v. Oil City (57 Ohio St. 

118), 622. 
Harrison v. Barnby (5 T. R. 246), 

87. 
Harrison v. Barry (7 Price, 690), 

524. 
Harrison v. Barrow In Furness 

(63 L. T. 834), 1064. 
Harrison v. Blackburn (17 C. B. 

N. S. 678), 355, 683. 
Harrison v. Jackson (7 T. R. 207), 

97. 
Harrison v. Jordan (194 Mass. 

496), 1187. 
Harrison v. Marshall (4 Bibb. Ky. 

524), 950. 



CXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Harrison v. Middleton (11 Gratt. 

Va. 527), 162, 191. 
Harrison v. Palmer (76 Ala. 157), 

246, 247. 
Harrison v. Phillips' Academy (12 

Mass. 426), 343, 350. 
Harrison v. Ricks (71 N. Car. 11), 

308. 
Harrison v. Taylor (3 A. K. 

Marsh. Ky. 168), 600. 
Harrison v. Wyse (24 Conn. 1), 

30. 
narrower v. Heath (19 Barb. N. 

Y. 331), 309, 311. 
Harry v. Windsor (12 Mee. & W. 

68), 848. 
Hart V. Cole (156 Mass. 475), 813. 
Hart V. Evans "(8 Pa. St. 14), 684. 
Hart V. Hart (117 Wis. 639), 1006, 

1277. 
Hart V. Hart (22 Barb. N. Y. 606), 

119. 
Hart V. Lindley (50 Mich. 20), 

163, 172. 
Hart Mfg. Co., In re (17 N. B. R. 

459), 1122. 
Hart V. Pratt (19 Wash. 560), 

1195, 1218. 
Hart V. Robinson (21 Cal. 346), 

81. 
Hart V. Stockton (12 N. J. L. 322), 

148. 
Hart V. Windsor (12 M. & W. 85), 

698, 785. 
Harter v. City of San Jose (141 

Cal. 659), 78. 
Hartford Iron Mfg. Co. v. Cam- 
bria Min. Co. (80 Mich. 491), 

66, 451. 
Harthill v. Cooke's Ex'r (19 Ky. 

Law Rep. 1524), 1367. 
Hartley v. Meyer (2 Misc. Rep. 

56), 33. 
Hartman v. McAllister (5 N. Car. 

207), 991, 992. 
Hartman v. Thompson (104 Md. 

339), 1092. 



Hartsell v. Myers (57 Misc. 135), 

460. 
Hartshorne v. Watson (4 Bing. 

N. C. 178), 629, 642, 1070. 
Hartwell v. Bissell (17 Johns. N, 

Y. 128), 291. 
Hartz V. Eddy (12 Det. Leg. N. 

251), 1214. 
Hartzog v. Hubbard (19 N. C. 

241), 960. 
Harvey v. Grabham (6 Ad. & El. 

61), 1337. 
Harvey v. Hampton (108 111. App. 

501), 1420, 1432, 1456. 
Harvey v. Harvey (2 Stra. 114), 

1256. 
Harvey v. McGrew (44 Tex. 412), 

1080. 
Harvin v. Blackman (108 La. 

426), 927. 
Harvin v. Riggs (1 Rich. Eq. S. C. 

287), 15. 
Hasbrook v. Paddock (1 Barb. N. 

Y. 635), 456, 733. 
Hasbrouck v. Winkler (48 N. J. 

Law, 431), 525. 
Haskell v. Putnam (42 Me. 244), 

955. 
Haskell v. Sutton (53 W. Va. 206). 

14. 
Haskill V. Sevier (25 Ark. 152), 

325. 
Haslage v. Krugh (25 Pa. St. 97), 

49. 
Haslem v. Lockwood (37 Conn. 

500), 1331, 1332. 
Hasler v. Lemoyne (5 Com. 

Bench, N. S.), 175. 
Hasting v. Livermore (7 Gray, 

Mass. 194), 440. 
Hastings v. Bangor House Prop. 

(18 Me. 436), 101. 
Hastings v. Belknap (1 Denio, N. 

Y. 190)., 1084. 
Hastings v. Lovejoy (140 Mass. 

260), 467, 557. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXV 



[referexces are to pages.] 



Hastings v. Vaughn (5 Cal. 315), 

351. 
Hasty V. Wheeler (12 Me. 434), 

714. 
Hatch V. Hatch (9 Mass. 307), 

352, 1237. 
Hatch V. Stamper (42 Conn. 28), 

1358. 
Hatch V. Van Dervoort (54 N. J. 

Eq. 511), 285, 578. 
Hately v. Myers (96 111. App. 217), 

158, 164. 
Hatfield v. Fullerton (24 111. 278), 

691. 
Hatfield v. Lawton (108 App. Div. 

113), 131, 1312. 
Hatton V. Gray (2 Ch. Cases, 164), 

982. 
Hausauer v. Dahlman (72 Hun, 

607), 1364. 
Hauxhurst v. Lobree (37 Cal. 

563), 229, 234. 
Havelock v. Geddes (10 East, 

559), 601. 
Haven v. Wakefield (39 111. 509), 

286. 
Havens v. W. S. Electric Light Co. 

(143 N. Y. 632), 1254. 
Haverstick v. Sipe (33 Pa. St. 

368), 409. 
Hawaralty v. Warren (IS N. J. 

Eq. 124), 982. 
Hawes v. Shaw (100 Mass. 187), 

930. 
Hawkins v. Coulthurst (5 Best & 

S. 342), 1042. 
Hawkins v. Giles (45 Hun, N. Y. 

318), 1320. 
Hawkins v. Gill (6 Ala. 620), 

1467. 
Hawkins v. Kelley (8 Ves. 308), 

539. 
Hawkins v. Sherman (3 Car. & P. 

459), 1082. 
Hay V. Cumberland (25 Barb. N. 

Y. 594), 336, 400, 1191. 



Haycock v. Johnson (83 N. W. 

Rep. 494), 457. 
Hayden v. Bradley (6 Gray, Mass. 

425), 860. 
Hayden v. Collins (81 Pac. Rep. 

1120), 189. 
Hayden v. Butcher (31 N. J. Eq. 

217), 409. 
Hayden v. Mining & Dredging Co. 

(84 Pac. Rep. 422), 979. 
Hayden v. Patterson (51 Pa. St. 

261), 84. 
Haj^es V. Arrington (68 S. W. Rep. 

44), 384. 
Hayes v. Goldman (71 Ark. 251), 

1194, 1195, 1210, 1236, 1247,1378. 
Hayes v. Kyle (8 Allen, Mass. 

300), 593. 
Hayes v. Lawyer (83 111. 182), 

483, 351. 
Hayes v. New York Gold Mining 

Co. (2 Colo. 273), 615. 
Hayes v. O'Brien (149 111. 403), 

982, 985. 
Hayes v. Shaw (100 Mass. 187), 

942. 
Hayes v. Sturges (7 Taunt. 217), 

55. 
Hayes v. Tindall (1 B. & S. 296), 

105. 
Hayford v. Wentworth (97 Me. 

347), 1247. 
Hayne v. Gumming (16 C. B. N. S. 

421), 332, 635. 
Hayner v. Smith (63 111. 430), 

1129, 1133, 1142, 1180. 
Haynes v. Aldrich (133 N. Y. 

287), 139, 145, 1224, 1236. 
Haynes v. Sanborn (45 N. H. 429), 

1450, 1460. 
Haynes v. Seachrest (13 Iowa, 

455), 101. 
Haynes v. Synnott (160 Pa. St. 

180), 1034. 
Haynes v. Union Inv. Co. (30 Neb. 

766), 634, 638, 1188. 



CXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Hays V. Garee (4 Stew. & P. Ala. 

170), 275. 
Hays V. Gerry (104 Iowa, 455), 

1432. 
Hays V. Moody (2 N. Y. Supp. 

385), 109, 847. 
Hays V. Schultz (68 N. Y. Supp. 

340), 1287. 
Hayt V. Parks (39 Conn. 357), 22. 
Hayward v. Parke (16 C. B. 295), 

607. 
Hayward v. Ramge (33 Neb. 836), 

729, 1136. 
Hayward v. Sedgly (31 Am. Dec. 

64), 225, 685. 
Haywood v. Fulmar (32 N. E. 

Rep. 574), 270. 
Haywood v. Miller (3 Hill, N. Y. 

90), 302. 
Haywood v. O'Brien (52 Iowa, 

537), 1116. 
Hazeltine v. Ausherman (87 Mo. 

410), 1425. 
Hazeltine v. Smith (3 Vt. 535), 

571. 
Hazelwood v. Pennybacker (50 S. 

W. Rep. 199), 1283. 
Hazlett V. Powell (30 Pa. St. 293), 

411, 783, 1145, 1146, 1158, 1160, 

1340. 
Hazwood V. Fulmer (32 N. B. 

Rep. 574), 275. 
Head v. Goodwin (2 Gush. Mass. 

294), 1427. 
Head v. Sutton (31 Kan. 616), 

49, 51. 
Healy v. Traut (15 Gray, Mass. 

312), 770. 
Heap V. Barton (12 Com. Bench, 

274), 1287. 
Heard v. Fairbanks (5 Met. Mass. 

Ill), 1329. 
Heard v. Russell (59 Ga. 25), 

1445. 
Hearle v, Greenbank (3 Atk. 695)- 

2L 



Hearn v. Gray (2 Houst. Del. 135), 

368. 
Hearne v. Lewis (78 Tex. 276), 

10,492. 
Heath v. Williams (25 Me. 209), 

920. 
Heatherly d. Worthington v. Wes- 
ton (2 Wils. 232), 86. 
Heathman v. Holmes (94 Cal. 

291), 123. 
Heavillon v. Farmers' Bank (81 

Ind. 249), 1317, 1325. 
Heavilon v. Heavilon (29 Ind. 

509), 1315. 
Hebbert v. Thomas (1 C. M. & R. 

861), 399. 
Hecht V. Dettman (56 Iowa, 679), 

1321, 1325, 1326. 
Hechtman V. Sharp (3 MacArthur, 

D. C. 90), 1436. 
Heckart v. McKee (5 Watts. Pa. 

385), 920. 
Hecklan v. Hauser (71 N. J. Law, 

478), 586. 
Hedderick v. Smith (103 Ind. 

203), 873, 1264, 1287. 
Heddleston v. Stoner (128 Iowa, 

525), 258. 
Hedekin v. Gillespie (33 Ind. 

App. 650), 788. 
Hedge v. Drew (12 Pick. Mass. 

141), 352. 
Hedwig V. Jordan (53 Ind. 21), 

792. 
Heelan v. Hoagland (10 Neb. 511), 

336. 
Heerdt v. Hahne (91 111. App. 

514), 1092. 
Heeter v. Eckstein (50 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 445), 644, 1057. 
Hefflin v. Campbell (5 Tex. Civ. 

App. 106), 567. 
Heffner v. Wenrich (32 Pa. St. 

432), 343. 
Heffron v. Treber (110 N. W. Rep. 

781), 597. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



cxvu 



[references are to pages.] 



Hegan v. Johnson (2 Taunt. 148), 

192. 
liegeman v. McArthur (1 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 147), 1178, 1182, 

1210. 
Heidelbach v. Slader (1 Handy, 

Ohio, 456), 519, 561, 573. 
Heidenreich v. Raggio (88 111. 

App. 521), 775. 
Heights Land Co. v. Randell (82 

Iowa, 89), 957. 
Heilbron v. Last Chance Water 

Co. (75 Cal. 117), 684. 
Heine v. Morrison (13 Mo. App. 

590), 1183. 
Heintze v. Bently (34 N. J. Eq. 

562), 874. 
Heiple v. Reinhart (100 Iowa, 

525), 455. 
Heisen v. Heisen (145 111. 648), 

946. 
Heise v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (62 

Pa. St. 67), 732. 
Heldon v. Wright (6 Ohio Dec. 

315), 614, 769. 
Hele V. Stewart (19 W. N. C. Pa. 

129), 412. 
Hellams v. Patton (44 S. C. 454), 

133,146. 
Heller v. Dailey (63 N. E. Rep. 

490), 1093. 
Heller v. Royal Ins. Co. (151 Pa. 

St. 101), 1155. 
Hemmenway v. Hemmenway (5 

Pick. Mass. 389), 105. 
Hemphill v. Flynn (2 Pa. St. 144), 

140. 
Hendershott v. Calhoun (17 111. 

App. 163), 1103. 
Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & 

Coke Co. (140 U. S. 25), 554, 

634. 
Henderson v. Cardwell (9 Bax. 

Tenn. 389), 1307. 
Henderson v. Fox (5 Ind. 489), 18. 
Henderson v. Hay (3 Bro. C. C. 

632), 607. 



Henderson v. Miller (53 Mich. 

590), 930, 949. 
Henderson v. Simmons (33 Ala. 

291), 51. 
Henderson v. State (109 Ala. 40), 

1412. 
Henderson v. Virden Coal Co. (78 

111. App. 327), 329. 
Henderson's Succession (24 La 

Ann. 435), 51. 
Hendrick v. Lindsay (93 U. S. 

143), 532. 
Hendricks v. Huffmeyer (27 S. W. 

777), 333. 
Hendrickson v. Beeson (21 Neb. 

61), 486, 491. 
Hendrix v. Dickson (69 Mo. App. 

197), 1021. 
Hendrix v. Hendrix (65 Ind. 329), 

51. 
Henley v. Branch Bank of Mobile 

(16 Ala. 552), 941. 
Henley v. Brockman (124 Ga. 

1059), 860. 
Hennessey v. Farrell (20 Wis. 

42), 487. 
Henning v. Savage (100 N. Y. 

Supp. 1015), 1183. 
Henning v. Warner (109 N. C. 

406), 964. 
Henry v. Allen (49 Ark. 122), 

326. 
Henry v. Davis (60 Miss. 212), 

1425. 
Henry v. Henry (11 Ind. 236), 

549. 
Henry v. Perry (110 Ga. 630), 

284. 
Henry v. Tupper (29 Vt. 358), 

666. 
Henson v. Cooper (3 Scott's N. R. 

48), 465. 
Henstead's Case (5 Coke, 10b), 20, 

88,207. 
Hentig v. Pipher (58 Kan. 788),. 

944. 



CXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[eefekences are to pages.] 



Henwood v. Cheeseman (3 Serg. 

& R. Pa. 500), 559. 
Hepburn v. Auld (1 Cranch, U. S. 

321), 538. 
Herbert v. Gallatin (163 N. Y. 

575), 261. 
Herlakin's Case (4 Coke, 64), 1256. 
Herman v. Roberts (119 N. Y. 37), 

441, 442. 
Herman v. Winter (105 N. W, 

Rep. 457), 990. 
Hermitage v. Tompkins (1 Ld. 

Rayd. 729), 952. 
Herandez v. Aaron (73 Miss. 434), 

1445. 
Herndon v. Kimball (7 Ga. 432), 

335. 
Herpolsheimer v. Funke (95 N. 

W. Rep. 688), 416, 743, 1141, 

1181. 
Herrel v. Sizelaiid (81 HI. 447), 

187, 191, 284. 
Herrick v. Graves (16 Wis. 157), 

123. 
Herrmann v. Hydeman (74 N. Y. 

S. 862), 384. 
Herron v. Gill (112 111. 247), 1400. 
Hersey v. Chapin (162 Mass. 176), 

679, 685, 731. 
Hersey v. Giblett (18 Beav. 174), 

375, 1376. 
Herter v. Mullen (9 App. Div. 

593), 145. 
Hertzberg v. Witte (22 Tex. Civ. 

App. 320), 1297. 
Hertzler v. Worman (1 W. N. C. 

Pa. 153), 463. 
Hess V. Newcomer (7 Md. 325), 

895. 
Hess V. Weingartner (12 Montg. 

Co. Law, Pa. 105), 848. 
Hessel v. Johnson (129 Pa. St. 

173), 1205. 
Hes.'^eltine v. Seavey (10 Me. 212), 

1193,1199. 
Hessher v. Moss (50 Miss. 208), 

172. 



Hessler v. Schafer (46 N. Y. 1076), 

864. 
Hester v. Hester (2 Ired. Eq. N. 

C. 330), 54. 
Hetrick v. Deutschler (6 Pa. St. 

32), 431. 
Hevenor, In re (144 N. Y. 271), 

629. 
Hewitt V. General Electric Co. 

(164 111. 420), 1294. 
Hewitt V. Watertown St. Engine 

Co. (65 111. App. 153), 1252. 
Hexter v. Knox (63 N. Y. 561), 

857, 875. 
Heydon's Case (11 Coke, 5a), 798. 
Heyer v. Lee (40 Mich. 353), 451. 
Hey ward v. Wilmarth (87 App. 

Div. 125), 460, 982. 
Hey wood v. Hey wood (42 Mo. 

299), 516. 
Hicks V. Doty (4 Bush, Ky. 420), 

1115. 
Hicks V. Downing (1 Lord Raym. 

99), 357, 1079. 
Hicks V. Martin (25 Mo. App. 

359), 1096. 
Hickman v. Rayl (55 Ind. 551), 

1190. 
Higginbotham v. Barton (11 Ad. 

& El. 307), 31. 
Higgins v. Halligan (46 III. 173), 

578. 
Higgins V. Kusterer (41 Mich. 

318), 435. 
Higgins V. Rosse (3 Bligh, 113), 7. 
Higgins V. Senior (8 Mee. & Wei. 

844), 107. 
Higgins V. Turner (61 Mo. 249), 

920, 954, 956, 1228. 
Higgon V. Mortimer (6 C. & P. 

616), 710. 
Higher v. Rice (5 Mass. 344), 

354. 
Highland Co. v. Rhoads (26 Ohio 

St. 411), 253. 
Hikill y. Myers (36 W. Va. 689), 

006. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CXIX 



[REn;j:i:.\cES abe to pages.] 



Hill V. Allen (18S Mass. 25), 991, 

995. 
Hill V. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co. 

(143 N. C. 539), 67. 
Hill V. Barclay (18 Ves. 56), 667, 

1384. 
Hill V. Barry (Hayes & J. 688), 

110. 
Hill V. Bishop (2 Ala. 320), 867. 
Hill V. Boutell (3 N. H. 502), 262, 

575. 
Hill V. Carr (1 Ch. Cas. 294), 602. 
Hill V. Coal Valley Min. Co. (103 

111. App. 46), 253, 264, 573. 
Hill V. Coates (109 111. App. 266), 

1408. 
Hill V. De Rochemont (48 N. H. 

87), 1331, 1333. 
Hill V. Gibbs (5 Hill, N. Y. 56), 

87, 90. 
Hill V. Hill (43 Pa. St. 528), 299. 
Hill V. Moore (40 Me. 515), 572. 
Hill V. Rudd (18 Ky. Law Rep. 

55), 479. 
Hill V. Saunders (4 B. & C. 536), 

12, 25, 953. 
Hill V. Sewald (53 Pa. St. 271), 

1248. 
Hill V. Shultz (40 N. J. Bq. 164), 

401. 
Hill V. Sidie (116 Wis. 602), 319. 
Hill V. Spear (50 N. H. 253), 777. 
Hill V. Taylor (22 Cal. 191), 710. 
Hill V. Taylor (15 Wis. 190), 1274. 
Hill V. Wentworth (28 Vt. 429), 

1248,1256. 
Hill V. Woodman (14 Me. 38), 255. 
Hillard v. N. Y. & C. Gas Co. (41 

Ohio St. 662), 411, 1158. 
Hillard's Estate (8 Luzon Leg. 

Reg. Pa. 237), 54. 
Hillary v. Gray (6 Gar. & P. 284), 

237. 
Hilburn v. Fogg (99 Mass. 11), 

224. 
Hildreth v. Conant (10 Met. Mass. 

298), 213, 228, 678. 



Hillman v. Hore (Carth. 247), 

952. 
Hill's Case (Plowden, 16Sa), 446. 
Hills V. Rowland (4 De G., M. & 

G. 430), 763. 
Hilsenbeck v. Guhring (131 N. Y. 

674), 810, 816. 
Hilsendegen v. Scherck (55 Mich. 

468), 522. 
Hilton V. Bender (4 Thomp. & C. 

N. Y. 270), 956. 
Hilton's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 351), 

1108. 
Himesworth v. Edwards (5 Har. 

Del. 376), 382. 
Hinchcliffe v. Earl of Kinnoul (5 

Bing. N. C. 1), 416. 
Hinckley v. Beckwith (13 Wis. 

31), 880. 
Hinckley v. Guyon (172 Mass. 

412), 108. 
Hinde v. Vince (2 Campb. 256), 

172. 
Hindle v. Politt (6 M. & W. 529), 

1334. 
Hindley v. Emery (L. R. 1 Eq. 

52), 725. 
Hines v. Duncan (79 Ala. 112), 

122. 
Hines v. Nelson (Tex. 24 S. W. 

Rep. 541), 123. 
Hines v. Willcox (12 Pickle, Tenn. 

148), 805. 
Hingham v. Inhabitants of Spra- 

gue (15 Pick. Mass. 102), 195. 
Hinks V. Hinks (46 Me. 423), 439. 
Hinsaman v. Hinsaman (52 N. C. 

510), 326. 
Hinter v. Le Conte (6 Cow. N. Y. 

728), 528. 
Hinton v. Fox (3 Litt. Ky. 380), 

368,1336. 
Hintze v. Thomas (7 Md. 346), 

1090. 
Hirsch v. Olmesdahl ,(78 N. Y. 

Supp. 832), 564 



cxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Hirschfield v. Alsberg (93 N. Y. 

Supp. 617), 836. 
Hirschfield v. Franks (112 Mich. 

448), 1175. 
Hirtenstein v. Farrell (69 N. Y. 

Supp. 886), 804. 
Hitchcock V. Bacon (118 Pa. St. 

272), 1163. 
Hitchcock V. Hassett (71 Cal. 

331), 1400, 1427. 
Hite V. Parks (2 Tenn. Ch. 373), 

1292. 
Hitner v. Ege (23 Pa. St. 305), 

848, 849, 874. 
Hixon V. Bridges (38 S. W. Rep. 

1046), 83. 
Hixon V. George (18 Kan. 253), 

122. 
H. L. Judd & Co. V. Bennett (59 

N. Y. Supp. 624), 1060. 
Hoadley's Adm'rs v. San Francisco 

(124 U. S. 639), 71. 
Hoag V. Hoag (35 N. Y. 469), 934. 
Hoagland v. Crum (113 111. 365), 6. 
Hoaglund v. N. Y., C. & St. L. Ry. 

Co. (Ill Ind. 443), 116. 
Hobart v. Murray (54 Mo. App. 

249), 344. 
Hobson V. McArthur (16 Pet. U. S. 

182), 568. 
Hobson V. Sherwood (19 Beav. 

575), 1124. 
Hobson V. Tulloch (67 L. J. Ch. 

502), 736. 
Hoby V. Roebuck (2 Marsh. 433), 

382. 
Hochenauer v. Hilderbrandt (6 

Colo. App. 199), 937, 1172. 
Hockenbury v. Snyder (2 Watts. 

& S. Pa. 240), 947, 930. 
Hodge V. Sloan (107 N. Y. 244), 

729. 
Hodges V. Fries (34 Fla. 63), 695. 
Hodges V. Gates (9 Vt. 178), 322. 
Hodges V. Shields (IS B. Mon. Ky. 
828), 920, 964. 



Hodges v. Waters (124 Ga. 229), 

532. 
Hodginson v. Crowe (44 L. J. Ch. 

680), 365, 608. 
Hodgkin v. McVeigh (86 Va. 751), 

960. 
Hodgkins v. Price (137 Mass. 13), 

663. 
Hodgkins v. Robson (1 Vent. 276), 

1180. 
Hodson V. Coppard (7 Jur. N. S. 

11), 740, 769. 
Hodson V. Gascoigne (5 Barn. & 

Aid. 88), 1331. 
Hoerdt v. Hanne (91 111. App. 

514), 1213. • 

Hoeveler v. Fleming (91 Pa. St. 

322),- 1142, 1156. 
HofE V. Royal Metal Furn. Co. (103 

N. Y. Supp. 371), 1368. 
Hoffman v. Clark (63 Mich. 175), 

201, 202, 220. 
Hoffman v. McCallum (93 Ind. 

326), 369. 
Hogsett V. Ellis (17 Mich. 351), 

172, 221, 258, 483, 973. 
Hoisington v. Hoisington (2 

Aiken, Vt. 235), 336. 
Holbrook v. Chamberlain (116 

Mass. 155), 1264. 
Holbrook v. Young (108 Mass. 

83), 563. 
Holdane v. Sumner (82 U. S. 600), 

1425. 
Holden B. & L. Ass'n v. Wann (43 

Mo. App. 640), 487, 488. 
Holden v. Boring (52 W. Va. 

37), 7. 
Holden v. Cox (60 Iowa, 449), 

1425, 1457. 
Holden v. .loy (17 Wall. U. S. 

211), 38. 
Holder v. Taylor (Brownl. 23), 

602. 
Holderbaum's Estate (82 Iowa, 
69), 51. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXl 



FeEFEBENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Holderman v. Smith (3 Kan. App 

423), 1318. 
Holding V. Pigott (7 Bing. 465), 

1314. 
Holdridge v. Gillespie (2 Johns. 

Ch. N. Y. 30), 1104. 
Holey V. Hews (3 La. Ann. 704), 

1425. 
Holford V. Dunnett (7 Mees. & 

W. 352), 710, 730. 
Holgate V. Kay (1 Car. & K. 341), 

1178. 
Holladay v. Chicago Arc. L. & P. 

Co. (55 111. App. 463), 269. 
Holladay v. Rutledge (145 Ala. 

656), 1416. 
Holland v. Townsend (136 Pa. St. 

392), 1136. 
Hollenbeck v. Donnell (94 N. Y. 

342), 33. 
Holler V. Hedges (2 Ir. Ch. N. S. 

370), 1124. 
Holley V. Young (66 Me. 520), 

1364,1365. 
Holliday v. Marshall (7 Johns. N. 

Y. 211), 1072. 
Hollingsworth v. Atkins (46 La. 

Ann. 515), 847, 874. 
Hollingsworth v. Hill (69 Miss. 

73), 1411, 1423. 
Hollingsworth v. Stennett (2 Esp 

717), 155. 
Hollinsworth v. Johnson (48 Mich. 

140), 599. 
Hollis V. Brown (159 Pa. St. 3G0), 

785. 
Hollis V. Burns (100 Pa. St. 206), 

151, 153, 159. 
Hollis V. Carr (2 Mod. 87), 602. 
Hollis V. Pool (3 Mete. Mass. 350), 

234. 
Holloway v. Hill (1902, 2 Ch. 712), 

743. 
Holly V. Brown (14 Conn. 255), 

1131. 
Hollywood V. First Parish (192 

Mass. 269), 616. 



Holman v. Bonner (63 Miss. 131), 

964, 965. 
Holman v. De Lin River Co. (30 

Oreg. 428), 644, 1096, 1195. 
Holmes v. De Camp (1 Johns. N. 

Y. 33), 547. 
Holmes v. Drew (151 Mass. 579), 

813. 
Holmes v. Field (12 111. 424), 26. 
Holmes v. Ginon (44 Mo. 164), 

663. 
Holmes v. Seeley (17 Wend. N. Y. 

71), 12. 
Holmes v. Seeley (19 Wend. N. Y. 

507), 685. 
Holmes v. Tremper (20 Johns. N. 

Y. 29), 1252, 1260. 
Holmes v. W^illiams (16 Minn. 

164), 83. 
Holmes v. Wood (88 Mich. 435), 

219, 805. 
Holsman v. Abrams (2 Duer. N. 

Y. 435), 1267, 1271, 1276. 
Holsman v. Abrahams (9 N. Y. 

Super. Ct. Rep. 435), 569. 
Holston V. Noble (83 Cal. 7), 480. 
Holt V. Collyer (50 L. J. Ch. 311), 

749. 
Holt V. Nixon (73 C. C. A. 268), 

523,1381. 
Holton V. Waller (95 Iowa, 545), 

810. 
Holtzapfel v. Baker (18 Ves. Jr. 

115), 1345. 
Holroyd v. Marshall (10 H. L. 

Cases, 191), 1428. 
Holroyd v. Sheridan (53 App. Div. 

14), 798. 
Holywood V. First Parish (78 N. 

E. Rep. 124), 72. 
Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sherman 

(46 N. Y. 370), 1171, 1181. 
Hong Sing v. Wolf Fein (33 Misc. 

Rep. 60S), 1187. 
Honnemeyer v. Fisher (27 Ohio 

C. C. 8), 802. 



cxsn 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Hood V. Hartshorn (100 Mass. 

117), 1271, 1275. 
Hood V. McDonald (1 W. N. C. 

Pa. 299), 463. 
Hooker v. Eagle Bank of Roches- 
ter (30 N. Y. 83), 1117. 
Hooks V. Bellamy (1 Keb. 530), 

952. 
Hooks V. Farst (165 Pa. St. 239), 

1195, 1224. 
Hooper v. Farnsworth (128 Mass. 

487), 397, 431. 
Hoopes V. Bried (80 Pac. Rep. 

327), 1401. 
Hoops V. Fitzgerald (204 111. 325), 

481. 
Hooton V. Holt (139 Mass. 54), 

288, 234. 
Hoover v. Pennsylvania Oil Co. 

(41 Mo. App. 317), 99, 194. 
Hopcroft V. Keys (9 Bing. 202), 

923. 
Hope V. Atkins- (1 Price, 143), 465. 
Hoping V. Burnam (2 G. Greene, 

Iowa, 39), 391. 
Hopkins v. Oilman (22 Wis. 476), 

983, 1390. 
Hopkins v. Helmore (3 N. & P. 

453), 525. 
Hopkins v. Holland (84 Md. 84), 

652. 
Hopkins v. Organ (15 Ind. 188), 

1115. 
Hopkins v. Ratliff (115 Ind. 213), 

873. 
Hopper V. Wilson (12 Vt. 695), 29. 
Hoppock V. United N. J. R. etc. 

Co. (27 N. J. Eq. 286), 116. 
Horberg v. May (153 Pa. St. 216), 

1176. 
Horgan v. Krumweide (25 Hun, 

116), 467. 
Hornby v. Cramer (12 How. Pr. 

N. y. 490), 536. 
Horner v. Leeds (25 N. J. Law, 

106), 156, 369, 934. 



Hornridgo v. Wilson (3 P. & D. 

641), 46. 
Horry v. Frost (10 Rich. S. C. Eq. 

109), 602. 
Horsefall v. Mather (Holt. N. P. 

7), 138, 730. 
Horsefall v. Tester (7 Taunt. 385), 

861, 891. 
Horsey v. Graham (39 L. J. C. P. 

58), 380. 
Horton v. Miller (84 Ala. 537), 

564,1409. 
Horton v. N. Y. Cen. & H. R. R. 

Co. (12 Abb. N. C. N. Y. 30), 

663. 
Horton's Appeal (38 Pa. St. 294), 

549. 
Horwitz v. Davis (16 Md. 313), 

1060, 1061. 
Hosher v. Hostermann (58 111. 

App. 265), 403. 
Hoskins v. Paul (9 N. J. Law, 

110), 1084. 
Hosli v. Y^okel (57 Mo. App. 622), 

146, 155, 384, 397, 1316. 
Hosteller v. Eddy (128 Iowa, 401), 

124. 
Hotley V. Scot (Lofft, 316), 530. 
Hottenstein v. Lerch (104 Pa. St. 

454), 496. 
Houck v. Williams (34 Colo. 138), 

950. 
Hough V. Birge (11 Vt. 190), 318. 
Hough V. Brown (104 Mich. 109), 

314. 
Hough V. Dumas (4 Dev. & Bat. 

L. N. C. 388), 322. 
Houghton V. Bauer (70 Iowa, 314), 

1423. 
Houghton V. Cooper (6 B. Mon. 

Ky. 281), 717. 
Houghton, Ex parte (12 Fed. Cas. 

No. 6,725), 1120. 
Houghton V. Koenig (18 C. B. 235), 

367. 
Houghton V. Moore (141 Mass. 

437), 403. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXIU 



[refeeexces are to pages.] 



House V. Burr (24 Barb. N. Y. 

525), 1378, 1380. 
House V. Jackson (24 Oreg. 85), 

337, 339. 
House V. Metcalf (27 Conn. 631), 

792, 799. 
Houston V. Farris (71 Ala. 570), 

485,964. 
Houston V. Keenan (88 S. W. Rep. 

197), 775. 
Houston V. Spruance (4 Harr. Del. 

117), 601. 
Houts V. Showalter (10 Ohio St 

125), 1326. 
Hovendin v. Annesley (3 Sch. & 

Lef. 624), 965. 
Hovey v. Walker (90 Mich. 527), 

497, 563, 873, 899. 
How V. Kennet (3 A. & E. 659), 

576,582. 
How V. Norton (1 Lev. 598), 560 
Howard v. Carpenter (11 Md. 

259), 5, 94, 349. 
Howard v. Carpenter (22 Md. 10), 

234, 250. 
Howard v. Deens (39 So. Rep. 

346), 1450. 
Howard v. Doolittle (3 Duer. N. 

Y. 464), 729. 847, 1346. 
Howard v. Ellis (6 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 369), 757, 1069. 
Howard v. Heinerschit (16 Hun, 

177), 44. 
Howard v. Henriques (3 Sandf. 

N. Y. 725), 404. 
Howard v. Jones (123 Ala. 488), 

275. 
Howard v. Merriam (5 Cush. 

Mass. 563), 198, 209, 228. 
Howard v. Patrick (38 Mich. 795), 

54. 
Howard v. Shaw (8 Mee. & Wei. 

118), 198. 
Howard v. Thomas (12 Ohio St. 

201), 459. 
Howard v. Tomicich (81 Miss. 

703), 261, 



Howard v. Wadsworth (3 Me. 

471), 437. 
Howard v. Wemsley (6 Esp. 53), 

173. 
Howard Mfg. Co. v. Water-lot Co. 

(39 Ga. 574), 604. 
Howe V. Clark (23 111. App. 345), 

1429. 
Howe V. Gregory (2 Ind. App. 

477), 944. 
Howe V. Larkin (119 Fed. Rep. 

1005), 1369. 
Howell V. Ashmore (22 N. J. Law, 

261), 934. 
Howell V. Behler (41 W. Va. 610), 

959. 
Howell V. Denton (68 S. W. Rep. 

1002), 496. 
Howell V. Howell (29 N. C. 496), 

209, 215, 218, 223. 
Howell V. McCoy (3 Rawle, Pa. 

256), 450. 
Howell V. Ripley (10 Paige, N. Y. 

43), 32. 
Howell V. Schenck (24 N. J. L. 

89), 1306, 1308, 1325. 
Howell V. Schneider (24 App. D. 

C. 532), 782, 789. 
Howell V. Webb (2 Ark. 360), 

548. 
Howe's Cave Ass'n v. Houck (141 

N. Y. 606), 1290. 
Howeth V. Anderson (25 Tex. 

557), 895. 
Howland v. Coffin (9 Pick. Mass. 

559), . 

Howland v. Forlaw (108 N. C. 

567), 1400. 
Howland v. White (48 111. App. 

236), 486, 634. 
Hoy V. Holt (91 Pa. St. 88), 883, 

892. 
Hoyleman v. Kanawho & O. R. 

Co. (23 W. Va. 489), 869. 
Hoyle V. Bush (14 Mo. App. 408), 

337. 



CXXIV 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Hoystradt, In re (45 N. Y. Supp. 

841), 59. 
Hoyt V. Stoddard (2 Allen, Mass. 

442), 1122. 
Hubbard v. City of Toledo (21 

Ohio St. 379), 116. 
Hubbard v. Moss (65 Mo. 647), 

1467. 
Hubbard v. Russell (25 Barb. N. 

Y. 404), 794. 
Hubbard v. Shaw (12 Allen, Mass. 

120), 1336. 
Hubbard v. Shepard (117 Mich. 

25), 949. 
Hubbard v. Town (33 Vt. 283), 

409. 
Hubble V. Cole (85 Va. 87), 716, 

761, 762. 
Hubble V. Cole (88 Va. 236), 702. 
Huber v. Ryan (26 Misc. Rep. 

428), 879, 1131, 1142, 1356. 
Hudleston v. Johnston (McClel. & 

Y. 140), 180. 
Hudson V. Cripps (1 Ch. 265), 738, 

757. 
Hudson V. Puller (35 S. W. Rep. 

575), 503. 
Hudson V. Hudson (1 Ark. 400), 

48. 
Hudson V. Porter (13 Conn. 59), 

760. 
Hudson V. Stewart (110 Ga. 337), 

1096. 
Hudson V. White (17 R. I. 519), 

263. 
Hudson V. Williams (39 L. T. 632), 

891. 
Huerstel v. Lorillard (6 Rob. N. 

Y. 260), 1113. 
Huff V. Latimar (33 S. C. 255), 49. 
Huff V. Nickerson (27 Me. 106), 

602. 
Huff V. Walker (1 Ind. 193), 13, 14. 
Huff V. Watkins (15 S. C. 83), 308. 
Huffell V. Arniistead (7 Car. & P. 
56), 159, 160. 



Huffman v. Hill (47 Kan. 613), 

124. 
Huffman v. Stark (31 Ind. 474), 

378. 
Hufnagel, In re (12 Fed. Cas. No. 

6,837), 1119. 
Hugh V. Lillibridge (8 D. R. Pa. 

358), 528. 
Hughes V. Bucknell (8 Car. & P. 

566), 31. 
Hughes V. Edisto Cypress Shingle 

Co. (51 S. C. 1), 1255. 
Hughes V. Ford (15 Colo. 330), 

1264. 
Hughes V. Hood (50 Mo. 350), 

672. 
Hughes V. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 

(46 L. J. C. P. 583), 890. 
Hughes V. Par"ker (8 Mee. & Wei. 

244), 387. 
Hughes V. Railroad Co. (39 Ohio 

St. 476), 803. 
Hughes V. Robotham (Cro. Eliz. 

302), 1229. 
Hughes V. Vanstone (24 Mo. App. 

637), 847. 
Hughes V. Wait (28 Ark. 153). 

922,953. 
Hughes V. Windpfennig (10 Ind. 

App. 122), 1369, 1374. 
Hughes V. Whitaker (4 Heisk. 

Tenn. 399), 1400. 
Hughes V. Young (5 G. & J. Md. 

67), 1006. 
Hughes' Appeal (53 Pa. St. 500), 

15. 
Huglish V. Marvin (128 N. Y. 

380), 148. 
Huiest V. Marx (67 Mo. App. 418), 

1184. 
Hukill V. Myers (36 W. Va. 639), 

647, 665. 
Hulett V. Stockwoll (27 Mo. App. 

32S),109C. 
Huling V. Roll (43 Mo. App. 234), 
1192. 



TABLE OF CxVSES CITED. 



CXXV 



[references are to pages.] 



Hull V. Peters (7 Barb. N. Y. 331), 

537. 
Hull V. Stevenson (13 Abb. Pr. 

N. S. 196), 1090. 
Hull V. Stogdeel (67 Iowa, 251), 

516. 
Hull V. Vaughan (6 Price, 157), 

575. 
Hull V. Wood (14 M. & W. 682), 

134, 136. 
Hullen V. Runder (1 C. M. & R. 

266), 380. 
Hulme V. Brown (3 Heisk. Tenn. 

679), 565. 
Hultz V. Wright (16 S. & R. Pa. 

345), 459. 
Humble v. Langston (7 Mee. & 

Wei. 517), 1085. 
Hume V. Kent (1 Ball & B. 554), 

647, 658. 
Hume V. McClurken (10 Watts. 

Pa. 380), 560. 
Hume V. Riggs (12 App. D. C. 

355), 1410. 
Hume Bros. v. Taylor (63 111. 43), 

555. 
Humes v. Gardner (49 N. Y. Supp. 

147), 1170. 
Humiston, Keeling & Co. v. 

Wheeler (175 111. 514), 1135, 

1342. 
Humphrey V. Dale (7 E. & B. 266), 

107. 
Humphrey v. Herrick (5 Neb. 

unof. 524), 146. 
Humphrey v. Wait (22 U. C. C. P. 

5S0),814. 
Humphreys v. McKissock (140 U. 

S. 304), 442. 
Humphreville v. Billinger (62 111. 

App. 125), 1176. 
Humphries v. Humphries (25 N. 

C. 362), 187, 190. 
Hungerford v. Wagner (5 App. 

Div. 590), 150, 159. 163. 
Hunt V. Allgood (10 C. B. N. S. 

253), 965, 967. 



Hunt V. Bailey (39 Mo. 257), 143, 

145, 558. 
Hunt V. Bishop (8 Exch. 675), 

912. 
Hunt V. Comstock (15 Wend. N. 

Y. 665), 244, 263, 278, 369. 
Hunt V, Cope (Cowp. 242), 1132. 
Hunt V. Danforth (12 Fed. Cas. 

No. 6,887), 1081, 1283, 1284. 
Hunt V. Gardner (39 N. J. L. 530), 

1093, 1094. 
Hunt V. Potter (47 Mich. 197), 

1263,1304. 
Hunt V. Renout (9 Exch. 635), 

912. 
Hunt V. Thompson (2 Allen, Mass. 

341), 1115. 
Hunter v. Frost (47 Minn. 1), 139, 

162, 219. 
Hunter v. Hopetown (13 L. T. 

130), 1385. 
Hunter v. Hunt (1 C. B. 300), 546. 
Hunter v. Jones (2 Brewst. Pa. 

370), 1331. 
Hunter v. Osterhoudt (11 Barb. 

N. Y. 33), 552. 
Hunter v. Porter (10 Idaho, 72), 

783. 
Hunter v. Reiley (43 N. J. Law, 

480), 563, 564, 1180. 
Hunter v. Whitfield (89 111. 229), 

1429,1431. 
Huntington v. Parkhurst (87 

Mich. 38), 146, 180. 
Huntley's Case (3 Dyer, 326a), 87. 
Hunstock V. Palmer (4 Tex. Civ. 

App. 459), 772. 
Hurd V. Gushing (7 Pick. Mass. 

169), 373. 
Hurd V. Whitsett (4 Colo. 77), 

150. 
Hurlburt v. Post (1 Bosw. N. Y. 

28), 1191. 
Hurlburt v. Wheeler (40 N. H. 

73), 351. 
Hurley v. Hanrahan (15 W. R. 

990), 134, 511. 



CXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Hurley v. Sehring (62 Hun, 621), 

1195. 
Hurliman v. Seckendorf (18 N. Y. 

Supp. 756), 471. 
Hurst V. Dunlany (84 Va. 701), 

941. 
Hurtzberg v. Witte (22 Tex. Civ. 

App. 320), 1298. 
Hussey v. Peebles (53 Ala. 432), 

1432, 1458. 
Hutcheson v. Bennefleld (42 S. E. 

Rep. 422), 56. 
Hutcbins v. Martin (Cro. Efliz. 

605), 1222. 
Hutchinson v. Cummings (156 

Mass. 329), 806, 813. 
Hutchinson v. Jones (79 Mo. 496), 

1213. 
Hutchinson v. Ulrich (145 111. 

336), 743. 
Hutsell V. Deposit Bank (102 Ky. 

410), 1411. 
Hutton V. Warren (1 M. & W. 466), 

1314. 
Huxley v. Harrold (62 Mo. 516), 

343. 
Huyser v. Chase (13 Mich. 98), 

195, 219, 275. 
Hyatt V. Wood (4 Johns. 150), 

686. 
Hyde v. Moakes (5 Car. & P. 42), 

578. 
Hyde v. Skinner (2 P. W. 197), 

1363, 1374, 1391. 
Hyde v. Warden (47 L. J. Ex. 

121), 365, 495, 608, 1071, 1099, 

1234. 
Hyler v. Humble (101 Ind. 38), 

467. 
Hyman v. Boston Chair Co. (13 

N. Y. Supp. 609), 702. 
Hyman v. Jockey Club Wine, etc. 

Co. (9 Colo. App. 299), 563, 

1129, 1136. 
Hynes v. Ecker (34 Mo. App. 650), 

644. 1058, 1080. 



Ibbs V. Richardson (1 P. & D. 

618), 236, 577. 
Iggulden V. May (9 Ves. 325), 455, 

1374. 
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ross (26 

Ky. Law R. 1251), 573. 
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thompson 

ri61 111. 159), 578. 
Illinois Starch Co. v. Ottawa Hy- 
draulic Co. (125 111. 237), 1053, 

1456. 
Imbert v. Haloock (23 How. Prac. 

N. Y. 456), 678. 
Imler v. Baenish (74 Wis. 567), 

1113,1238. 
Inches v. Dickinson (7 Allen, 

Mass. 71), 45, 48. 
Independent Brewing Ass'n v. 

Powers (80 111. App. 471), 873. 
Independent Co. v. Richland Lodge 

(70 S. C. 572), 731. 
Independent Abattoir Co. v. Tem- 

perly (159 Ind. 651), 829. 
Indiana I. & I. R. Co. v. Patchette 

(59 111. App. 251), 679. 
Indianapolis D. & W. Ry. Co. v. 

First Nat. Bank (33 N. E. Rep. 

679), 522, 582. 
Indianapolis Mfg. Co. & Car. Union 

V. Cleveland C. C. & I. Ry. Co. 

(45 Ind. 281), 1048, 1059. 
Indianapolis National Gas Co. v. 

Pierce (25 Ind. App. 116), 491, 

1111. 
Ingalls V. Bissot (Ind. App. 57 N. 

E. Rep. 723), 554. 
Ingalls V. Hobbs (156 Mass. 348), 

785,786. 
IngersoU v. Sargent (1 Whart. 

Pa. 337), 507. 
Inglish V. Breneman (5 Ark. 377), 

343. 
Ingraham v. Baldwin (9 N. Y. 

45), 927, 941. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXVll 



[EEFEEEXCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Inman v. Stamp (1 Stark. N. P. 

126), 282, 379. 
Insteed v. Stonley (1 Ind. 82), 

1391. 
Insurance & Law Bldg. v. National 

Bank of Missouri (5 Mo. App. 

333), 1364. 
International Press Ass'n v. 

Brooks (30 111. App. 114), 864. 
International Trust Co. v. Schu- 
mann (158 Mass. 287), 1131. 
International Tr. Co. v. Weeks 

(203 U. S. 364), 1216. 
Investment Co. of Philadelphia v. 

Ohio & N. W. Ry. Co. (41 Fed. 

Rep. 387), 442. 
Ireland v. Bircham (2 Bing. N. C. 

90), 1134. 
Ireland v. Gauley (95 N. Y. Supp. 

521), 1145. 
Ireland v. Hyde (69 N. Y. Supp. 

889), 556. 
Ireland v. United States Mort. & 

T. Co. (72 App. Div. 95), 1239. 
Irick V. Fulton's Ex'r (3 Gratt. 

Va. 193), 363. 
Irons V. Reyburn (11 Ark. 378), 

100. 
Irvin V. Fowler (5 Rob. N. Y. 

482), 826. 
Irvine v. Wood (51 N. Y. 224), 

792. 
Irving V. Thomas (18 Me. 418), 

481. 
Irwin v. Mattox (138 Pa. St. 466), 

760, 761. 
Irwin V. Nolde (164 Pa. St. 205), 

1185. 
Isaac V. Minkofsky (29 Misc. Rep. 

347), 573. 
Isaacs V. Holland (4 Wash. 54), 

28. 
Isaac's Lessee v. Clarke (2 Gill. 

Md. 1), 927. 
Isabella Gold Min. Co. v. Glenn 

(37 Colo. 165), 1129. 



Isheham v. Morrice (Cro. Car. 

109), 111, 952. 
Ish V. McRae (48 Ark. 413), 319. 
Isherwood v. Oldknow (3 M. & S. 

382), 58, 530, 641. 
Island Coal Co. v. Coombs (152 

Ind. 379), 490, 640, 657. 
Isler V. Foy (66 N. C. 547), 974. 
Isman v. Hanscom (66 Atl. Rep. 

329), 1271. 
Isom V. Rex Crude Oil Co. (147 

Cal. 659), 710, 1076. 
Israel v. Israel (30 Md. 120), 83. 
Israel v. Simmons (2 Stark, 356), 

574. 
Ittner v. Robinson (35 Neb. 133), 

1023, 1024. 
Ive's Case (5 Coke, 11), 1200. 
Ives v. Sams (Cro. Eliz. 521), 

1222. 
Izard V. Bodine (11 N. J. Eq. 403), 

83. 
Izon v. Gorton (^ Bing. N. C. 501), 

576,1338. 



J. 



Jack V. Mclntyre (12 CI. & F. 

151), 400. 
Jackman v. Arlington Mills (137 

Mass. 277), 792. 
Jackson v. Allen (30 Ark. 110), 

333, 974. 
Jackson v. Allen (3 Cow. N. Y. 

220), 620. 
Jackson v. Andrews (18 Johns. N. 

Y. 434), 712. 
Jackson v. Bodle (20 Johns. N. 

Y. 198), 352. 
Jackson v. Bradt (2 Caines, N. Y. 

169), 191. 
Jackson v. Brownson (7 Johns. 

N. Y. 227), 609, 646, 714. 
Jackson v. Bryan (1 Johns. N. Y, 

322), 155. 
Jackson v. Cairns (20 Johns. N. 

Y. 301), 227. 



CXXVlll 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[kefebences ake to pages.] 



Jackson v. Corliss (7 Johns. 531), 

1065. 
Jackson v. Crysler (1 John Cas. 

N. Y. 125), 657. 
Jackson v. Davis (5 Cow. N. Y. 

123), 934, 958, 969, 971, 1096. 
Jackson v. Delacroix (2 Wend. N. 

Y. 433), 245, 250. 
Jackson v. De Walts (7 Johns. N. 

Y. 157), 11. 
Jackson v. Doll (109 La. Ann. 

230), 1376. 
Jackson v. Dunbar (68 Miss. 288), 

88, 90. 
Jackson v. Dunlap (1 Johns. Cas. 

N. Y. 114), 352. 
Jackson v. Eddy (12 Mo. 209), 

1140, 1182. 
Jackson v. Farmer (9 Wend. N. Y. 

20), 237. 
Jackson v. Farrell (6 Pa. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 31), 880. 
Jackson v. French (3 Wend. N. Y. 

337), 182, 220. 
Jackson v. Green (4 Johns. N. Y. 

186), 1100. 
Jackson v. Harper (5 Wend. N. Y. 

246), 924. 
Jackson v. Harrison (17 Johns. 

N. Y. 66), 635, 638. 
Jackson v. Hathaway (15 Johns. 

N. Y. 447), 447. 
Jackson v. Hughes (1 Blackf. Ind. 

421), 243, 1044. 
Jackson v. Jackson (19 E. L. & 

Eg. 546), 984. 
Jackson v. King (82 Ala. 432), 

955. 
Jackson v. Kingsley (17 Johns. 

N. Y. 158), 198. 
Jackson v. Kisselbrack (10 Johns. 

N. Y. 336), 244. 
Jackson v. Livingston (7 Cow. N. 

Y. 285), 996. 
Jackson v. Lodge (36 Cal. 28), 
28, 29. 



Jackson v. McLeod (12 Johns. N. 

Y. 182), 229. 
Jackson v. Miller (6 Cow. N. Y. 

751), 968. 
Jackson v. Miller (7 Cow. N. Y, 

747), 198. 
Jackson v. Moncrief (5 Wend. N. 

Y. 29), 198. 
Jackson v. Mowry (30 Ga. 143), 

519. 
Jackson v. Niven (10 Johns. N. 

Y. 335), 236, 320.. 
Jackson v. O'Rorke (98 N. W. 

Rep. 1068), 15, 52, 84. 
Jackson v. Pesked (1 M. & S. 234), 

679, 683. 
Jackson v. Rode (7 Misc. Rep. 

680), 252. 
Jackson v. Rowland (6 Wend. N. 

Y. 666), 288, 934, 956. 
Jackson v. Salmon (4 Wend. N. 

Y. 327), 139, 155. 
Jackson v. Schoonmaker (2 Johns. 

N. Y. 230), 342. 
Jackson v. Scissam (3 Johns. N. 

Y. 499), 969. 
Jackson v. Sheldon (22 Me. 569), 

349. 
Jackson v. Silvernail (15 Johns. 

N. Y. 278), 1052. 
Jackson v. Sternbergh (1 Johns. 

Cas. N. Y. 153), 204. 
Jackson v. Stiles (1 Cow. N. Y. 

575), 950, 959. 
Jackson v. Strieker (1 Johns. 

Cases, N. Y. 284), 447. 
Jackson v. Tibbitt (23 Wend. N. 

Y. 341), 713. 
Jackson v. Vosburgh (7 Johns. N. 

Y. 186), 250. 
Jackson v. Warren (32 111. 31), 

232. 
Jackson Brewing Co. v. Wagner 

117 La. 875), 1378. 
.Ta(!ksonville M. P. Ry. & Nav. Co. 
V. Hooper (160 U. S. 514), 1036, 
1042. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXIX 



fKEKEREXCKS ARE TO PACES.] 



Jacob V. Down (69 Law J. Ch. 

493), 647, 661. 
Jaques v. Millar (47 L. J. Ch. 

544), 259. 
Jackues v. Short (20 Barb. N. Y. 

269), 1080, 1090. 
Jaffe V. Harteau (56 N. Y. 398), 

782, 847. 
Jaffray v. Greenbaum (64 Iowa, 

492), 557. 
Jalageas v. Winton (119 III. App. 

139), 748, 757. 
.Jam-es v. Adams (64 Tex. 193), 

604. 
James v. Jenkins (34 Md. 1), 410. 
James v. Dean (11 Ves. 382), 42, 

43, 206. 



Jayne v. Gregg (42 111. 413), 350. 
Jaynes v. Hughes (10 Ex. 430), 

343. 
Jennings v. Sparkman (39 Mo. 

App. 663), 1108. 
Jefcoat V. Gunter (73 Miss. 14), 

1186. 
Jefferies v. Whittick (Gow. 195), 

182. 
Jeffers v. Bantley (47 Hun, N. Y. 

90), 564. 
Jeffers v. Easton Eldridge & Co. 

(113 Cal. 345), 1077, 1095. 
Jeffry v. Underwood (1 Ark. 108), 

326. 
Jegon V. Vivan (6 Ch. App. 742), 

726. 



James v. Emery (8 Taunt. 245), { jei^g y. Barrett (52 Miss. 315), 



88, 609. 



349. 



James v. Jenkins (Bull. N. 96), 7. I Jenckes v. Cook (9 R. I. 520), 927. 
James v. Plant (4 Ad. & El. 749), 

417. 
James v. Russell (92 N. Car. 194), 

920. 
James v. Smith (58 S. W. Rep. 

714), 941. 
Jamesin v. Thomen (24 Wkly. 

Law Bui. Ohio, 314), 1009. 
Jamison v. Acker (14 S. W. Rep. 

691), 1414. 
Janouch v. Pence (93 N. W. Rep. 

217), 573. 
Jaques v. Gould (4 Cush. Mass 

384), 48. 
Jacques v. Miller (47 L. J. Ch. 

544), 259, 696. 
Jarman v. Hale (68 L. J. Q. B. 

681), 210. 
Jarrell v. Daniel (114 N. Car. 

212), 1452. 
Jarrett v. State (5 Gill & J. Md. 

27), 10. 
Jarvis v. Henwood (25 N. J. Eq. 

460), 875, 878. 
Jarvis v. Seele Milling Co. (173 

111. 192), 442. 
Jay V. Stein (49 Ala. 514), 960. 



Jenkins v. Calvert (3 Cranch, C. 

C. 216), 550. 
Jenkins v. Church (Cowper, 482), 

5. 
Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co. (82 

Iowa, 618), 550, 1204. 
Jenkins v. Eldridge (13 Fed. 

Cases, 7,268), 261. 
Jenkins v. Green (27 Beav. 437), 

339. 
Jenkins v. Jenkins (63 Ind. 415), 

638. 
Jenkins v. Portman (1 Keen. 435), 

1105. 
Jenkins d. Yates v. Church (Cowp. 

482), 7. 
Jenkinson v. Winans (109 Mich. 

504), 488. 
Jenks v. Partman (1 Keene, 436), 

1041. 
Jenner v. Clegg (1 M. & Rob. 213), 

179. 
Jenner v. Morgan (1 P. Wms. 

392), 539. 
Jennings v. Alexander (1 Hilt. N. 

Y. 154), 1095. 



exxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[aEB'EEENCES AKK TO PAGES.] 



Jennings v. Bond (14 Ind. App. 

282), 629, 1137, 1182. 
Jennings v. Bragg (Cro. Eliz. 

447), 21, 112. 
Jennings v. Magor (6 Car. & P. 

237), 538. 
Jennings v. McComb (112 Pa. St. 

518), 194, 327. 
Jennings v. Van Schaick (108 N. 

Y. 530), 827. 
Jersey Co. v. United Co. (46 Fed. 

Rep. 264), 1012. 
Jesus College v. Gibbs (1 Y. & C. 

145), 62. 
Jesson V. Gosford (4 Burr. 2144), 

679. 
Jetter v. Railroad Co. (2 Abb. App. 

458), 916. 
June V. Baring (62 L. J. Ch. 50), 

544. 
Jevan v. Harridge (1 Sid. 308), 

41. 
Jewell V. Jewell (11 Rich. Eq. 

S. C. 296), 52. 
Jewel's Case (5 Co. 3), 509. 
Jewett V. Berry (20 N. H. 36), 

638. 
Jinks V. Edwards (11 Ex. 775), 

671. 
Job V. Bannister (2 Kay & J. 374), 

1038, 1387. 
John V. Jenkins (1 Cr. & M. 227), 

251, 1201, 1214. 
Johns V. Eichelbarger (109 III. 

App. 35), 800. 
Johns V. McDaniels (60 Miss. 

486), 150. 
Johnson v. Albertson (51 Minn. 

333), 385. 
Johnson v. Aldridge (93 Ala. 77), 

565. 
Johnson v. Barg (8 Misc. Rep. 

307), 1183. 
Johnson v. Bryant (61 Ark. 312), 

314. 
Johnson v. Camp (61 111. 220), 

1324, 1325. 



Johnson v. Crofoot (53 Barb. N. 

Y. 574), 279, 1320, 1405. 
Johnson v. Donaldson (17 R. I. 

107), 232, 233, 234. 
Johnson v. Douglass (73 Mo. 168), 

653. 
Johnson v. Emanuel (50 Ga. 590), 

1400. 
Johnson v. Garland (9 Leigh, Va, 

149), 1464. 
Johnson v. Grantham (104 Ga. 

558), 6. 
Johnson v. Hartshorne (52 N. Y. 

173), 44, 370. 
Johnson v. Hoffman (53 Mo. 504), 

310. 
Johnson v. Johnson (7 Allen, 

Mass. 196), 1233. 
Johnson v. Johnson (2 Hill's Eq. 

S. C. 277), 714. 
Johnson v. Johnson (13 R. I. 467), 

190. 
Johnson v. Jones (87 Ga. 85), 333. 
Johnson v. Jones (1 P. & D. 651), 

545. 
Johnson v. Jordan (2 Met. Mass. 

234), 439. 
Johnson v. Kindred State Bank 

96 N. W. Rep. 588, 589), 453. 
Johnson v. Mason (1 Esp. 89), 

945. 
Johnson v. Mcintosh (8 Wheat. 

453), 38. 
Johnson v. McMillan (1 Strob. S. 

C. 143), 961. 
Johnson v. McMillan (69 Mich. 

36), 828, 847. 
Johnson v. Mosher (82 Iowa, 29), 

1250. 
Johnson v. Nasworthy (Tex. 16 S. 

W. Rep. 758), 442. 
Johnson v. Oppenheim (55 N. Y. 

280, 12 Abb. Pr. 454), 459, 847, 

1157, 1178, 1182, 1348. 
Johnson v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co. 

(46 Conn. 92), 250, 390. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXl 



[references are to pages.] 



Johnson v. Samuelson (69 Kan. 

2G3), 125. 
Johnson v. Shelter Island Grove 

Camp Meeting Ass'n (122 N. Y. 

330), 440. 
Johnson v. Sherman (15 Cal. 287), 

29, 1045, 1090, 1101. 
Johnson v. Stagg (2 Johns. N. Y. 

510), 1108. 
Johnson v. Tacwean (23 La. Ann. 

453), 1409. 
Johnson v. Thrower (117 Ga. 

1007), 924. 
Johnson v. Warwick (17 C. B. 

516), 55. 
Johnson v. Weed (9 Johns. N. Y. 

310), 549. 
Johnson v. Wilkinson (139 Mass. 

3), 380. 
Johnson v. Woodbury (63 Kan. 

880), 934. 
Johnson's Lessee v. Haines (2 

Ohio, 55), 335. 
Johnstone v. Huddleston (4 B. & 

Cres. 922), 1200. 
Jokinsky v. Miller (88 N. Y. Supp. 

928), 390. 
Joliffe V. Syburn (2 Esp. 677), 

171. 
Jolly V. Bryan (86 N. Car. 245), 

492. 
Jones' Appeal (3 Grant Cases, Pa. 

250), 51. 
Jones V. Barnes (45 Mo. App. 

590), 331. 559, 1093. 
Jones V. Bridgeman (39 L. T. 

500), 537. 
Jones V. Carter (15 Mee. & Wei. 

718), 631. 651, 1238. 
Jones V. Clark (20 Johns. N. Y. 

51), 487. 
Jones V. Cowper (Willes, 169), 5. 
Jones V. Daly (175 N. Y. 529), 

644, 1057. 
Jones V. Dove (7 Oreg. 467), 943. 
Jones V. Durrer (96 Cal. 95), 311 



Jones V. Eubanks (86 Ga. 616 )> 

1418, 1464. 
Jones V. Felker (72 Ark. 405), 

849. 
.Jones V. Fox (23 Fla. 454, 461), 

1401, 1403. 
Jones V. Hamm (98 Mo. App. 433), 

1047. 
Jones V. Hoard (59 Ark. 42), 873. 
Jones V. Jones (10 B. & C. 718), 

198, 607. 
Jones V. Jones (2 Rich. Law. S. 

C. 542), 198. 
.Jones V. Jones (117 N. Car. 254), 

1403. 
Jones V. Marcy (49 Iowa, 188), 

378. 
Jones V. Marks (47 Cal. 242), 390, 

392. 
Jones V. Marsh (4 T. R. 464), 174, 

175. 
Jones V. Meehan (20 S. Ct. 1), 37, 

39. 
Jones V. Mills (10 C. B. N. S. 788), 

160, 182, 966. 
Jones V. Millsaps (71 Miss. 10), 

849. 
Jones V. Park (10 Phila. Pa. 165), 

439. 
.Tones v. Pashby (62 Mich. 614), 

451. 
Jones v. Phipps (9 B. & S. 761), 

171. 
Jones V. Reed (15 N. H. 68), 663. 
Jones V. Reilly (174 N. Y. 97), 

550. 
Jones V. Reynolds (4 A. & E. 805), 

574, 578. 
Jones V. Richardson (10 Met. 

Mass. 488), 1427. 
.Jones V. Ricketts (7 Md. 108), 

549. 
Jones V. Rigby (41 Minn. 530), 

486. 
Jones V. Shay (50 Cal. 508), 187, 
189, 19L 



cxxXii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[refekences are to pages.] 



Jones V. Shears ("4 Ad. & El. 832), 

356. 
.Jones V. Shefflin (45 W. Va. 729), 

6. 
Jones V. Spartanburg Herald Co. 

(44 S. Car. 526), 159. 
Jones V. Thomas (8 Blackf. Ind. 

428), 288, 1325. 
Jones V. Thorne (3 Dow & R. 152), 

747. 
Jones V. Tipton (2 Dana, Ky. 295), 

318. 
Jones V. Webster (48 Ala. 109), 

590. 
Joaes V. Western Pennsylvania 

Gas Co. (146 Pa. St. 204), 641, 

643, 644. 
Jones V. Whitehead (4 Clark, Pa. 

330), 717. 
Jones V. Willis (63 N. Car. 430), 

153. 
Jones V. Wingfield (3 M. & S. 846), 

510. 
Jordan v. Bryan (103 N. Car. 59), 

312. 
Jordan v. Benwood (42 W. Va. 

312), 683. 
Jordan v. Davis (108 111. 336), 

351. 
Jordan v. Helwig (1 Wils. Ind. 

447), 794. 
Jordan v. Indianapolis Water Co. 

(159 Ind. 337), 1093. 
Jordan v. Katz (89 Va. 628), 949. 
Jordan v. Mead (19 La. Ann. 101), 

258. 
Jordan v. Sullivan (181 Mass. 

348), 833. 
Jordan v. Ward (1 H. Bl. 97), 8. 
Jordan v. Wilkes (Cro. Jac. 332), 

25. 
.Toslin V. McLean (99 Mich. 480), 

1210. 
Joslyn V. Spellman (9 Ohio Dec. 

258), 1006. 
Josse V. Schultz (13 Fed. Cas. 
7,551), 547. 



Joules V. Joules (1 Brown, 39),. 

86. 
Jourdain v. Wilson (4 B. & Aid. 

266) 617. 
Journeay v. Brackley (1 Hilt. N. 

Y. 447), 1080. 
Journe's Succession (21 La. Ann. 

391), 41. 
Joy V. McKay (70 Cal. 445), 206, 

234. 
Joyce V. Martin (15 R. I. 558), 

792, 798, 825. 
Joyner v. Weeks (1891, 2 Q. B. 

31), 895. 
Jojmes V. Statham (3 Ark. 388), 

1002. 
Jucht V. Behrens (7 N. Y. Supp. 

195), 810. 
Jud V. Arnold (31 Minn. 340), 

378. 
Judge V. Curtis (72 Ark. 132), 

1456. 
Judson V. Gurley (52 Tex. 226), 

632. 
Juergen v. Allegheny Co. (204 Pa. 

St. 501), 1135. 
Julicher v. Connelly (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 620), 341. 
Junction Min. Co. v. Springfield 

Junction Coal Co. (122 111. App. 

574), 888. 
Jungerman v. Bovee (19 Cal. 354), 

1287. 
Jurdain v. Steere (Cro. Jac. 83), 

80. 
Juress V. Railroad Co. (61 N. J. 

Law. 314), 836. 



as' Estate (5 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 

55), 198. 
Kabley v. Worcester Co. (102 
Mass. 392), 244, 245, 519, 1364. 
Kabus V. Frost (50 N. Y. Super. 
I Ct. 74) 860. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXiXlH 



[references are to pages.] 



Kahler v. Hanson (53 Iowa, 398), 

553. 
Kahn v. Rosenheim (68 N. Y. 

Supp. 856), 526. 
Kahn v. Tobias (16 Misc. Rep. 

83), 584, 595. 
Kain v. Hoxie (2 Hilt. 311, 316), 

1069, 1095. 
Kaiser v. New Orleans (17 La. 

Ann. 178), 697. 
Kalis V. Shattuck (69 Cal. 593), 

793, 828, 836. 
Kalkhoff V. Nelson (60 Minn. 

284), 71. 
Kamerick v. Castleman (23 Mo. 

App. 481), 309, 314. 
Kane v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co. 

(15 Daly, 294), 368. 
Kane v. Mink (64 Iowa, 84), 204. 
Kankakee Coal Co. v. Crane (28 

111. App. 371) 1110. 
Kankauna Water Power Co. v. 

Green Bay, etc. C. Co. (142 U. S. 

254), 116. 
Kansas City El. Co. v. Union Pac. 

Ry. Co. (17 Fed. Rep. 200), 634, 

668. 
Kansas Indians (5 Wall. U. S. 

737), 39. 
Karbach v. Fogel (63 Neb. 601), 

1185. 
Karlson v. Healy (38 App. Div. 

486), 822. 
Kash V. Huncheon (1 Ind. App. 

361), 1288. 
Kassel v. Snead (21 Ky. Law Rep. 

777), 1464. 
Kastner v. Campbell (53 Pac. Rep. 

586), 1222, 1239. 
Kathman v. Walters (22 La. Ann. 

54), 772. 
Kauer v. Leahy (15 Pa. Co. Ct. 

Rep. 243), 328. 
Kaufman v. Clark (7 D. C. 1), 

847, 862, 863. 
Kaufman v. Underwood (102 S. 

W. Rep. 718), 1414. 



Kaufmann v. Liggett (209 Pa. St. 

97), 1390, 1397. 
Kay V. Curd (6 B. Mon. Ky. 100), 

322. 
Kean v. Kolkschneider (21 Mo. 

App. 538), 1190. 
Kearings v. Cullen (183 Mass. 

298), 835, 847. 
Kearney v. Post ("1 Sandf. N. Y. 

105), 1101. 
Keates v. Cadogan (10 C. B. 591), 

477. 
Keating v. Keating (Temp. Sugd. 

613), 56. 
Keating v. Mott (92 App. Div. 

156), 835. 
Keating v. Mott (86 N. Y. Supp. 

1021), 834. 
Keating v. Springer (146 111. 481), 

410, 1129, 1136, 1176. 
Keats V. Hugo (115 Mass. 204), 

410. 
Keay v. Goodwin (16 Mass. 1), 

86, 209, 228, 486, 541. 
Keech v. Hall (Doug. Eng. 21), 

1325. 
Keeler v. Eastman (11 Vt. 293), 

708. 
Keeler v. Keeler (31 N. J. Eq. 

181), 1256. 
Keeley Brewing Co. v. Mason (102 

111. App. 381), 1074, 1411. 
Keeley Brewing Co. v. Mason (116 

111. App. 603), 69. 
Keith V. Granite Mills (126 Mass. 

90), 915. 
Keith V. Nat. Teleph. Co. (63 L. J. 

Ch. 373), 179. 
Kelley v. Kelley (23 Me. 192), 942. 
Kelley v. Oil Co. (57 Ohio St. 

317), 454. 
Kelly V. Austin (46 111. 156), 1297. 
Kelly V. Bowerman (113 Mich. 

446), 1113. 
Kelly V. Duffy (11 Atl. Rep. 244), 

905. 



•cxxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Kelly V. Eyster (102 Ala. 325), 

262, 939, 1431. 
Kelly V. Noxon (64 Hun, 281), 

1195, 1207. 
Kelly V. O'Connor (106 Pa. St. 

321), 917. 
Kelly V. Partridge (23 N. Y. Supp. 

1027), 1348. 
Kelly V. Patterson (43 L. J. C. P. 

320), 140. 
Kelly V. Rochelle (93 S. W. Rep. 

164), 1457. 
Kelly V. Rummerfield (117 Wis. 

620), 308. 
Kelly V. Varnes (64 N. Y. Supp. 

1040), 1378. 
Kelly V. Waite (12 Met. Mass. 

300), 195, 213, 685. 
Kellenberger v. Foresman (13 Ind. 

475), 847, 1154. 
Keller v. Klopfer (3 Colo. 132), 

21. 
Kellogg V. Kellogg (6 Barb. 116), 

227. 
Kellogg V. Lavendar (9 Neb. 418), 

992. 
Kellogg V. Lowe (38 Wash. 293), 

1162. 
Kellogg V. Rockwell (19 Conn. 

446), 30. 
Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Peter- 
son (162 111. 158), 1400. 
Kelsey v. Tourtelotte (59 Pa. St. 

184), 349. 
Kelsey v. Ward (16 Abb. Prac. 

N. Y. 98), 563. 877. 
Kelso V. Kelly (1 Daly, N. Y. 419), 

1276. 
Kemp V. Derritt (3 Camp. 510), 

160, 346. 
Kemp V. Sober (1 Sim. N. S. 517), 

740. 
Kempf's Estate (34 Pittsb. Leg. J. 

82), 45. 
Kempton v. Walker (9 Vt. 191), 

520. 



Kenada v. Gardner (3 Barb. N. Y. 

589), 317. 
Kendal v. Talbot (2 Bibb. Ky. 

614), 599. 
Kendall B. & S. Co. v. Bain (55 

Mo. App. 264), 395, 1409. 
Kendall v. Carland (5 Cush. Mass. 

74), 91, 1115. 
Kendall v. Hill (64 N. H. 553), 

1222. 
Kendall v. Kendall (7 Me. 171), 

342. 
Kendall v. Kingsley (120 Mass. 

94), 348. 
Kendall v. Miller (9 Cal. 591), 10. 
Kendall v. Moore (30 Me. 327), 

201. 
Kendig v. Kendig (3 Pitts. Rep. 

Pa. 287), 547. 
Keneage v. Elliot (9 Watts, Pa. 

258), 504. 
Kenin v. Guvernator (48 Atl. Rep. 

1023), 216. 
Kennard v. Harvey (SO Ind. 37), 

1432. 
Kennedy v. Baltimore Ins. Co. (3 

Har. & J. Md. 367), 65. 
Kennedy v. Campbell (3 Brev. S. 

C. 553), 974. 
Kennedy v. Fay (65 N. Y. Supp. 

202), 831, 847. 
Kennedy v. Kennedy (66 111. 190), 

49L 
Kennelly, In re (92 N. Y. Supp. 

182), 1126. 
Kenney v. Rhinelander (163 N. Y. 

576), 816, 822, 834. 
Kenny v. Barns (67 Mich. 336), 

839, 840. 
Kenny v. Collier (79 Ga. 743), 

694. 
Kensie v. Farrell (17 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 192), 1239. 
Kenyon v. Nichols (1 R. I. 411), 

445. 
Keogh V. Daniell (12 Wis. 163), 

1303. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXV 



[references are to pages.] 



Keppler v. Heinrichsdorf (26 Ohio 

C. C. 16), 1383, 1387. 
Kerley v. Mayer (155 N. Y. 636), 

733, 755, 1164. 
Kern v. Myll (80 Mich. 525), 792. 
Kernochan v. Manhattan Ry. Co. 

(161 N. Y. 239), 679. 
Kernochan v. Wilkins (3 App. Div. 

596), 149. 
Kerper v. Booth (10 W. N. C. Pa. 

79), 547. 
Kerr v. Clark (19 Mo. 132), 146, 

1207, 1213. 
Kerr v. Dey (14 Pa. St. 112), 996. 
Kerr v. Hunt (1 W. N. C. Pa. 115), 

463. 
Kerr v. Kingsbury (39 Mich. 150), 

1271, 1288. 
Kerr v. Merchants' Exchange Co. 

(3 Edw. Ch. N. Y. 315), 1342. 
Kerr v. Merrill (4 Mo. App. 592), 

782. 
Kerrains v. People (60 N. Y. 221), 

300. 
Kershaw v. Supplee (1 Rawle, Pa. 

131), 885, 1228. 
Kerslake v. White (2 Stark. 508), 

448, 463. 
Kessler v. McConachy (1 Rawle, 

Pa. 435), 1183. 
Kessler v. Pearson (55 S. E. Rep. 

963), 777. 
Kessler v. State (119 Ga. 301), 

778. 
Ketaltas v. Coleman (2 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 408), 1052. 
Ketcham v. Ochs (70 N. Y. Supp. 

268), 1210. 
Ketcham v. Ochs (77 N. Y. Supp. 

1130), 139. 
Kew V. Merchant's Exch. Co. (3 

Ed. Ch. N. Y. 315), 1158. 
Kew V. Trainor (150 111. 150), 620, 

1055. 
Keyes v. Dearborn (12 N. H. 52), 

343, 346. 



Keyes v. Slate Co. (34 Vt. 81), 

760. 
Keyport Brick & Tile Mfg. Co. v. 

Lorillard (19 Atl. Rep. 391), 

990. 
Keys V. Forrest (90 Md. 132), 956. 
Kidd V. Dennison (6 Barb. N. Y. 

9), 712. 
Kidd V. Temple (22 Cal. 255), 29, 

33. 
Kidder v. West (3 Lev. 167), 399. 
Kidney v. Rohrback (3 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 574), 544. 
Kidwell V. Brummagim (32 Cal. 

436), 54. 
Kidwell V. Kidwell (84 Ind. 224), 

49. 
Kidwelly v. Brand (Plow, 71), 

641. 
Kieley v. Kahn (98 N. Y. Supp. 

774), 535. 
Kiernan v. Germain (61 Miss. 

498), 563, 868, 1238. 
Kiernan v. Linnehan (151 Mass. 

543), 198. 
Kiernan v. Terry (26 Oreg. 494), 

481, 922, 937. 
Kiersted v. O. & A. R. Co. (69 N. 

Y. 343), 106, 560. 
Kieth V. Kerr (17 Ind. 284), 326. 
Kieth V. Paulk (55 Iowa, 260), 

573. 
Kile V. Geihner (114 Pa. St. 381), 

1250. 
Kilgour V. Ashcomb (5 H. & J. 

82), 438. 
Killoren v. Murtaugh (64 N. H. 

51), 927. 
Kimball v. Cross (136 Mass. 30), 

1364. 
Kimball v. Doggett (62 111. App. 

528), 879, 1302. 
Kimball v. Lockwood (6 R. I. 

138), 486. 
Kimball v. Sumner (62 Me. 305) 

50, 52. 



■CXXXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Kime v. Brooks (9 Ired. N. Car. 

Law, 218), 97, 98. 
Kimpton v. Eve (2 Ves. & B. 349), 

725, 1304. 
Kimpton v. Walker (9 Vt. 191), 

520. 
Kindersley v. Hughes (7 Mee. & 

Wei. 139), 170. 
Kinear v. Shands (36 Mo. 379), 

1465. 
King V. Bird (148 Mass. 578), 

699. 
King V. Boiling (77 Ala. 594), 

950. 
King V. Bosserman (13 Super. Ct. 

480), 310, 523. 
King V. Connolly (51 Cal. 181), 

218. 
King V. Creekmore (25 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1292), 782, 836. 
King V. Davis (137 Fed. Rep. 198), 

974. 
King V. Dickerman (11 Gray, 

Mass. 480), 86. 
King V. Enterprise Ins. Co. (45 

Ind. 43), 457. 
King V. Fraser (6 East, 348), 559, 

581. 
King V. Grant (43 La. Ann. 817), 

700. 
King V. Hamilton (29 U. S. 311), 

1002. 
King V. Johnson (7 Gray, Mass. 

239), 198. 
King V. Jones (5 Taunt. 518), 51. 
King V. Kaiser (23 N. Y. Supp. 

21), 381. 
King V. Large (7 Phila. Pa. 282), 

409. 
King V. Lawson (98 Mass. 309), 

223. 
King V. Pedley (1 Ad. & El. 822), 

792. 
King V. Raab (123 Iowa, 632), 982, 

985, 1000. 
King V. Reynolds (67 Ala. 229), 

672. 



King V. Sharp (6 Humph. Tenn. 

55), 2. 
King V. Wilcomb (7 Barb. N. Y. 

263), 132, 1260, 1264. 
King V. Wilson (98 Va. 259), 140, 

1290, 1374. 
King V. Woodruff (23 Conn. 56), 

875. 
King V. Woodward* (3 B. & Aid. 

689), 171. 
Kingdon v. Nottle (1 M. & Sel. 

355), 51, 884. 
Kingsbury v. Collins (4 Bing. 

202), 1306. 
Kingsbury v. Westfall (61 N. Y. 

359), 596. 
Kingsland v. Clark (24 Mo. 24), 

1178. 
Kingsland v. Ryckman (5 Daly, 

N. Y. 13), 80. 
Kingsmill v. Millard (11 Ex. 313), 

961. 
Kinney v. Lamon (8 Blackf. Ind. 

350), 934. 
Kinney v. Watts (14 Wend. N. Y. 

38), 698. 
Kinsley v. Ames (2 Met. Mass. 

29), 232, 234. 
Kinsman v. Kinsman (1 Root, 

Conn. 180), 1315. 
Kiplinger v. Green (61 Mich. 340), 

315. 
Kirby v. Associates (14 Gray, 

Mass. 249), 808. 
Kirchner v. Smith (207 Pa. St. 

431), 828. 
Kirk V. Taylor's Heirs (8 B. Mon. 

Ky. 62), 317. 
Kirkland v. Wolf (3 Wkly. Law 

Bui. Ohio, 114), 1214, 1293. 
Kirkpatrick v. Peshine (24 N. J. 

Eq. 206), 756. 
Kirsley v. Duck (2 Vern. 684), 

343. 
Kirtland v. Pounsett (2 Taunt. 

145), 201. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXVll 



[references are to pages. 1 



Kirtland v. Pounsett (1 Taunt. 

570), 559. 
Kirton v. Braithwaite (1 Mee. & 

Wei. 310), 537. 
Kissam v. Barclay (17 Abb. Pr. 

N. Y. 360), 1244. 
Kistler v. McBride (65 N. J. Law, 

553), 522. 
Kistler v. Wilson (77 111. App. 

149), 1176. 
Kitchen v. Lee (11 Paige Ch. N. 

Y. 107), 15. 
Kitchen Bros. Hotel Co. v. Philbin 

(2 Neb. Unof. 340), 400, 416, 

697, 1142. 
Kites V. Church (142 Mass. 589), 

510. 
Kittle V. St. John (7 Neb. 73), 

1195. 
Klay V. Godwin (16 Mass. 1), 215. 
Kleckner v. Klapp (2 Watts & S. 

44), 106. 
Kleespies v. McKenzie (12 Ind. 

App. 404), 139. 
Klein v. Gehrung (24 Tex. 232), 

409. 
Klein v. Vinyard (38 Mo. 447), 

1465. 
Klie V. Von Broock (56 N. J. Eq. 

18), 713, 725. 
Kline v. Beebe (6 Conn. 494), 10. 
Kline v. Chase (17 Cal. 596), 204. 
Kline v. Jacobs (68 Pa. St. 87), 

561, 848, 874. 
Kline v. McLain (33 W. Va. 32), 

848, 904. 
Klingenstein v. Goldwasser (58 N. 

Y. Supp. 342), 163. 
Klingle v. Ritter (58 111. 140), 

454. 
Kloke V. W^olf (111 N. W. Rep. 

134), 124. 
Knapp V. Jones (143 111. 375), 

1110. 
Knapp V. Marlboro (29 Vt. 282), 

697. 



Knapp V. Smith (27 N. Y. 277), 

24. 
Kneeland v. Beare (11 N. D. 233), 

839. 
Kneeland v. Schmidt (78 Wis. 

345), 1195, 1198, 1235. 
Knefel v. Daly (91 111. App. 321), 

466. 
Knevett v. Poole (Cro. Eliz. 463), 

1307. 
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Pat- 

erson (75 N. Y. 589), 44. 
Knickerbocker v. Killmore (9 

Johns. N. Y. 106), 1088. 
Knickerbocker Tr. Co. v. Pa. Cord- 
age Co. (62 N. J. Eq. 624), 1248. 
Knight V. Bennett (4 Bing. 364), 

192, 1314. 
Knight V. Coal Co. (47 Ind. 105), 

186. 
Knight V. Orchard (92 Mo. App. 

466), 1279. 
Knight V. Mory (Cro. Eliz. 60), 

1054. 
Knight V. Quigley (2 Camp. 505), 

216, 228. 
?*night's Case (Moore, 199), 86. 
Knoepfel v. Fire Ins. Co. (68 N. 

Y. 639), 414, 753. 
Knoepker v. Redel (116 Mo. App. 

62), 362. 
Knolle's Case (Dyer, 5b), 1114. 
Knott V. Giles (27 App. D. C. 581), 

1416. 
Knowles v. Hull (99 Mass. .562), 

236. 
Knowles v. Inman (16 Colo. 385), 

938. 
Knowles v. Murphy (107 Cal. 107), 

334, 920, 945. 
Knowles v. Nichols (14 Fed. Cas. 

No. 7,897), 445. 
Knowles v. Sells (41 Kan. 171), 

1465. 
Knowles v. Steele (59 Minn. 452), 

377. 



cxxxvin 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Knox V. Bailey (4 Mo. App. 581), 

519, 573. 
Knox V. Hexter "(Tl N. Y. 461), 

691. 
Knox V. Hunt (18 Mo. 243), 1402, 

1441. 
Knutsen v. Clinque (99 N. Y. Supp. 

910), 898. 
Kobbi V. Underbill (3 Sand. Ch, 

N. Y. 277), 547. 
Koebler v. Brady (144 N. Y. 135), 

647. 
Koehler & Co. v. Kennedy (72 N. 

Y. Supp. 595), 1393. 
Koenig v. Miller Bros. Brewing 

Co. (38 Mo. App. 182), 1213. 
Kobne v. White (12 Wasb. 199), 

880. 
Koken Iron Works v. Kinealy (86 

Mo. App. 199), 164. 
Kolasky v. Micbels (120 N. Y. 

635), 1391, 1393, 1394. 
Kollock V. Kaiser (98 Wis. 104), 

1363, 1374. 
Kollock V. Scribner (98 Wis. 104), 

1373. 
Koons V. Steele (19 Pa. St. 203), 

964. 
Kooystra v. Lucas (1 D. & R. 506), 

417, 442. 
Koplitz V. Gustanes (48 Wis. 48), 

275. 
Kopp, In re (2 N. Y. Supp. 495), 

15. 
Korn V. N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. 

(60 Hun, N. Y. 583), 680, 681. 
Kornegay v. Collier (65 N. Car. 

69, 72), 492. 
Kower v. Gluck (33 Cal. 40), 1212, 

1231. 
Kramer v. Cook (7 Gray, Mass. 

550), 1378, 1379, 1364. 
Kratemeyer v. Brink (17 Ind. 

509), 317. 
Krause v. Krause (58 111. App. 

559), 1077. 



Krause v. Stein (173 Pa. St. 221), 

361. 
Krebs v. Dodge (9 Wis. 1), 958. 
Kreiss v. Seligman (8 Barb. N. Y. 

439), 776. 
Kretzer v. Wysong (5 Gratt. Va. 

9), 685. 
Kribbs v. Alford (120 N. Y. 519), 

1080, 1102. 
Krouse v. Ross (14 Fed. Cases, 

7,939), 1264. 
Kruegel v. Berry (75 Tex. 230), 

987. 
Kruger v. Ferrant (29 Minn. 395), 

782, 849. 
Krumdieck v. Ebbs (84 N. Y. 

Supp. 825), 1219. 
Krumweide v. Schroeder (58 Iowa, 

160), 678. 
Kugel V. Painter (166 Pa. St. 592), 

370. 
Kuhlman v. Meier (7 Mo. App. 

260), 1265. 
Kuhn V. Heavenrich Co. (115 Wis. 

147), 848. 
Kuhn V. Kuhn (70 Iowa, 682), 

219. 
Kuhn V. Smith (125 Cal. 615), 218. 
Kuschell V. Campau (49 Mich. 

34), 1408. 
Kuttar V. Smith (2 Wall. U. S. 

491), 874. 
Kuttner v. Haines (135 111. 382), 

1456. 



L. 



Lacey v. Davis (4 Mich. 140), 957. 
Lachman v. Deisch (71 111. 59), 

681, 704. 
Lack V. Wyckoff (11 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 678), 1153. 
Ladd V. Brown (94 Mich. 136), 

1313. 
Ladd V. Shattock (90 Ala. 134), 

718, 1336. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXXXIX 



[references are to pages.] 



Ladly v. Creighton (70 Pa. St. 

490), llOS. 
Ladner v. Balsey (103 Iowa, 674), 

478, 1449. 
Ladnier v. Stewart (38 So. Rep. 

748), 391. 
La Farge v. Mansfield (31 Barb. 

N. Y. 345), 561, 564, 674, 868. 
Laffan v. Naglee (9 Cal. 662), 996, 

1081. 
Lafferty v. Hawes (63 Minn. 13), 

1209. 
Lafferty v. Schuykill River East 

S. R. Co. (124 Pa. St. 297), 1320. 
Lageman v. Kloppenburg (2 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 126), 544. 
Lagerfelt v. McKie (100 Ala. 430), 

107, 328. 
Laguerenne v. Dougherty (35 Pa. 

St. 45), 139. 
Laimbeer v. Tailer (125 N. Y. 

725), 141. 
Laird v. McGeorge (37 N. Y. Supp. 

631), 847. 
Lake v. Campbell (18 111. 106), 

331, 334, 391. 
Lake v. Gaines (75 Ala. 143), 1438. 
Lake Erie Gas Co. v. Patterson 

(184 Pa. St. 364), 8. 
Lake Superior Ship Canal Ry. & 

Iron Co. V. McCann (86 Mich. 

106), 1409, 1410. 
Lakin v. Dolly (53 Fed. Rep. 333), 

927, 929. 
Lamar v. Dixon (L. R. 6 H. L. 

514), 192. 
Lamar v. McNamee (10 G. & J. 

Md. 126), 1193. 
Lamar M. & Elev. Co. v. Craddock 

(5 Colo. App. 203), 366. 
Lamb v. Lamb (146 N. Y. 317), 

573. 
Lamb v. Swain (3 Jones, N. C. 

370), 951. 
Lambert v. Hoke (14 Johns. N. Y. 

383), 439. 



Lambert v. Huber (50 N. Y. Supp. 

793), 937, 958. 
Lambert v. Huskell (80 Cal. 611), 

1185. 
Lambert v. Norris (2 M. & W. 

333), 580. 
Lambeth v. Ponder (33 Ark. 707), 

1436. 
Lambeth v. Warner (2 Jones, N. 

C. 165), 717. 
Lametti v. Anderson (6 Cow. N. 

Y. 302), 1283. 
Lamme v. Dodson (4 Mont. 560), 

960. 
Lampher v. Glenn (37 Minn. 4), 

1340. 
Lamphere v. Lowe (3 Neb. 131), 

1244. 
Lamson v. Clarkson (113 Mass. 

348), 934, 935, 936. 
Lancashier v. Mason (75 N. Car. 

455), 492. 
Lancaster v. De Trafford (31 L. J. 

Ch. 554), 386. 
Lancaster v. Roberts (144 111. 

213), 342. 
Lancaster v. Whiteside (108 Ga. 

801), 1429. 
Land Co. v. Manning (Mo. App. 

71 S. W. Rep. 696), 490. 
Landau v. O. J. Gude Co. (84 N. 

Y. Supp. 672), 110. 
Lander v. Bagley's Contract (61 

L. J. Ch. 707), 387, 607. 
Lander's Contract, In re (1892, 

3 Ch. 41), 345. 
Landsberg v. Tivoli Brew. Co. (10 

Det. Leg. N. 63), 202. 
Landsell v. Grover (17 Q. B. 589), 

182. 
Landt v. McCullough (121 111. 

App. 328), 1182. 
Landt v. Schneider (31 Mont. 15), 

847, 853, 1209. 
Lane v. Cox (1 Q. B. 415), 785. 
Lane v. Crockett (7 Price, 566), 

1459. 



J 



cxl 



TABLE OF CxVSES CITED, 



[refebexces are to pages.] 



Lane v. King (8 Wend. N. Y. 584), 

288, 1326. 
J.ane's Lessee v. Osment (9 Yerg. 

Tenn. 86), 945. 
Lane v. Nelson (167 Pa. St. 602), 

156. 
Lane v. Nelson (31 Atl. Rep. 864), 

567. 
Lane v. Pollard (88 Mo. App. 326), 

1435. 
Lane v. Young (66 Hun, 563), 934. 
Lane v. Loung (21 N. Y". Supp. 

838), 936. 
Laney's Estate (14 Pa. C. C. 4), 

15, 848. 
Lang V. Crothers (51 S. W. Rep. 

271), 956. 
Lang V. Henry (54 N. H. 57), 387. 
Langan v. Schief (55 Mo. App. 

213), 173. 
Langford v. United States (12 Ct. 

CI. 338), 35. 
Langraede v. Weaver (65 Ohio St. 

17), 333, 1111. 
Langsdorf v. LeGardeur (27 La. 

Ann. 364), 1215. 
Langton v. Horton (1 Hare, 549), 

1428. 
Lankin v. Terwillinger (22 Oreg. 

97), 446. 
Lanning v. Howell (2 N. J. Law, 

256), 560. 
Lansdale v. Richardson (1 W. N. 

C. Pa. 413), 459. 
Lansing v. Thompson (8 App. 

Div. 54), 840, 1347. 
Lapere v. Luckey (23 Kan. 534), 

409. 
Laphani v. Norton (71 Me. 83), 

317. 
La Plant v. LaZear (31 Iiul. Api). 

433), 813. 
Larkin v. Avery (23 Conn. 304), 

162. 
Larman v. Benson (8 Mich. 18), 

430. 



Larned v. Hudson (60 N. Y. 102), 

189, 191, 218. 
Larousini v. Werlien (52 La. Ann. 

424), 248. 
Larrabee v. Lumbert (34 Me. 79), 

322. 
Lash V. Ames (50 N. E. Rep. 996), 

209, 210. 
Lasher v. Graves (124 111. App. 

646), 539. 
Lassell v. Reed (6 Me. 222), 1331. 
Last V. Dinn (28 L. J. Ex. — ), 87. 
Lataillade v. Santa Barbara Gas 

Co. (58 Cal. 4), 937. 
Latham v. Atwood (Cro. Car. 515), 

1305. 
Lathers v. Coates (41 N. Y. Supp. 

373), 1149. 
Lathers v. Hunt (13 N. Y. Supp. 

813), 590. 
Lathrop v. Commercial Bank (8 

Dana, Ky. 114), 65. 
Lathrop v. Standard Oil Co. (83 

Ga. 307), 573. 
Latta V. Weis (131 Mo. 230), 1093. 
Lattimer v. Livermore (72 N. Y. 

174), 441. 
Laugher v. Williams (1 Salk. 

310), 884. 
Laughran v. Smith (75 N. Y. 206), 

197, 275. 
Law V. Haley (9 Ohio Dec. 785), 

412, 414. 
Lawrence v. Brown (5 N. Y. 394), 

1204. 
Lawrence v. Burrell (17 Abb. N. 

C. N. Y. 313), 1143. 
Lawrence v. Conlan (28 Misc. Rep. 

44), 28. 
Lawrence v. Edwards (7 Ohio St. 

194), 1406. 
Lawrence v. Fox (20 N. Y. 268), 

532. 
Lawrence v. French (25 Wend. 

443), 1134. 
Lawrence v. Haramett (3 J. J. 

Marsh, Ky. 287),' 559. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cxii 



[referk.vces are to pages.] 



Lawrence V. Mycenian Marble Co. 

(20 N. Y. Supp. 698), 1147. 
Lawrence v. Wardwell (6 Barb. 

N. Y. 623), 696. 
Lawrence v. Webster (44 Cal. 

385), 957. 
Lawson v. Mowry (52 Wis. 219), 

921. 
Lawton v. Lawton (3 Atk. 13), 

1251, 1269. 
Lawton v. Salmon (1 H. Black. 

259), 1250, 1252. 
Lay V. Bennett (4 Colo. App. 252), 

1167. 
Lazarus v. Hellman (11 Abb. N. 

C. N. Y. 93), 497. 
Lazarus v. Phelps (152 U. S. 81), 

573. 
Ld. Grey de Wilton v. Saxton (6 

Ves. 106), 725. 
Lea V. Netherton (9 Yerg. Tenn. 

315), 966. 
Lea V. Polk, etc. Co. (21 How. U. 

S. 493), 343. 
Leacester v. Biggs (1 Taunt. 367), 

23. 
Leach v. Beattie (33 Vt. 195), 311. 
Leach v. Thomas (7 Car. & P. 

328), 138. 
Leache v. Goode (19 Mo. 501), 

1005, 1006. 
Leadbeater v. Roth (25 111. 587), 

1136, 1141, 1154, 1182. 
Leahy v. Liebman (67 Mo. App. 

191), 163. 
Learned v. Tlllotson (97 N. Y. 

12), 1218. 
Learned v. Wannemacher (9 Allen, 

Mass. 416), 385. 
Leary v. Hutton (129 N. Y. 649), 

1371. 
Leary v. Hutton (58 Hun, N. Y. 

610), 1375. 
Leatherman v. Oliver (151 Pa. St. 

646), 644. 
Leaux v. City of N. Y. (87 App. 

Div. 405), 71. 



Leavitt v. Fletcher (10 Allen, 

Mass. 119), 883, 1351. 
Leavitt v. Murray (Wright, Ohio. 

707), 338. 
Leavitt v. Stern (55 111. App. 416), 

384. 
Lebanon School Dist. v. Lebanon 

Seminary (Pa. 12 Atl. Rep. S57), 

922. 
Lecatt V. Stewart (2 Stew. Ala. 

474), 957. 
Ledbetter v. Quick (90 N. Car. 

276), 1418. 
Ledger v. Stanton (2 John. & H. 

689), 534. 
Lee v. Adkins (1 Minor, Ala. 187), 

232. 
Lee V. Gaskell (1 Q. B. Div. 700), 

380, 1295. 
Lee V. Hernandez (10 Tex. 137), 

19L 
Lee V. Ingraham (94 N. Y. Supp. 

284), 834. 
Lee V. Kirby (10 Weekly Law Bui. 

449), 917. 
Lee V. Lee (83 Iowa, 565), 931. 
Lee V. Livingston (143 Mich. 203), 

84. 
Lee V. Mass. Ins. Co. (6 Mass. 

208), 342. 
Lee V. McDaniel (1 A. K. Marsh, 

Ky. 234), 958. 
Lee V. McLaughlin (86 Me. 410), 

809. 
Lee V. Meeker (2 Wis. 487), 6S2. 
Lee V. Mosley (1 You. & C. 607), 

604. 
Lee V. Payne (4 Mich. 106), 1080, 

1095. 
Lee V. Quan Wo Chong (91 Cal. 

593), 234. 
Lee V. Risdon (7 Taunt. 18S), 

1256, 1257. 1264. 
Lee V. Smith (9 Ex. 662), 147, 

525. 
Lee V. Smith (42 Ohio St. 458), 
917. 



cxlii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Leeds v. Burrows (12 East, 1), 

1337. 
Leeds v. Chatham (1 Sim. 146), 

883, 1345. 
Legg V. Strudwick (2 Salk. 414), 

385. 
Leggett V. La. Purchase Ex. (97 

S. W. Rep. 976), 1207. 
Legh V. Hewitt (4 East, 154), 763. 
Lehman v. Howze (73 Ala. 302), 

1423. 
Lehmann v. M'Arthur (L. R. 3 Eq. 

746), 1072. 
Lehman v. Nolting (56 Mo. App. 

549), 99, 150, 194, 195. 
Lehman v. Stone (16 S. W. Rep. 

784), 1431. 
Lehmaier v. Jones (91 N. Y. Supp. 

687), 615, 893, 1021. 
Lehmayer v. Moses (174 N. Y. 

518), 1360. 
Leick V. Tritz (94 Iowa, 322), 880. 
Leiferman v. Osten (64 111. App. 

578), 804. 
Leigh V. Dickson (L. R. 12 Q. B. 

Div. 194), 82, 84, 91. 
Leinenkugel v. Kehl (73 Wis. 238), 

Leischmann v. White (1 Allen, 

Mass. 489), 1180. 
Leitch V. Simpson (Ir. R. 5 Eq. 

613), 1071. 
Leiter v. Day (35 111. App. 248), 

1186. 
Leiter v. Pike (127 111. 387), 352. 

1178. 
Leithan v. Vaught (115 La. 249), 

808. 
Lemar v. Miles (4 Watts, Pa. 330), 

1250. 
LeMay v. Williams (32 Ark. 166), 

343. 
Lembeck Co. v. Kelly (63 N. J. 

Eq. 402), 390. 
Lemington v. Stevens (48 Vt. 38), 

334. 



Lemon v. Wolff (121 Cal. 272), 

1404. 
Lenderking v. Rosenthal (63 Md. 

28), 265, 1447. 
Lendle v. Robinson (65 N. Y. 894), 

812, 834. 
Lennon v. Napper (2 Sch. & Let. 

684), 1386. 
Lennon v. Palmer (5 L. R. 5 Jr. 

100), 941. 
Lent V. Curtis (24 Ohio C. C. 592), 

988. 
Lenz V. Aldrich (26 N. Y. Supp. 

1022), 824. 
Leonard v. Armstrong (73 Mich. 

577), 1145, 1153. 
Leonard v. Burgess (16 Wis. 41), 

492,1113. 
Leonard v. Gunther (62 N. Y. 

Supp. 99), 839. 
Leonard v. Hornelsville (58 N. Y. 

Supp. 266), 793. 
Leonard v. Kingman (136 Mass. 

123), 258. 
Leonard v. Storer (115 Mass. 86), 

828. 
Leonard v. White (7 Mass. 6), 

447. 
Leo Wolf V. Merritt (21 Wend. 

N. Y. 331), 523. 
Leppla V. Mackey (31 Minn. 75), 

1391, 1392. 
Lerch v. Times Co. (91 Iowa, 

750), 855. 
Leroy v. Piatt (4 Paige, N. Y. 

77), 438. 
Lesley v. Randolph (4 Rawle, Pa. 

123), 131, 172. 
Leslie v. Hinson (83 Ala. 266), 

1411, 1434. 
Leslie v. Smith (32 Mich. 65), 

1277. 
Lespini v. Porta (89 Cal. 464), 

1215. 
Lettick V. Honnold (63 111. 335), 

1177, 119L 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



C'xliii 



[BEFEUEXCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Lever v. Koffler (70 Law J. Ch. 

395), 252. 
Levering v. Langley (8 Minn. 

107), 1213. 
Levey v. Dyess (51 Miss. 501), 

896. 
Levi v. Lewis (6 C. B. N. S. 766), 

574. 
Levick v. Coppin (2 W. Bl. 801), 

25, 56. 
Levine v. Baldwin (87 App. Div. 

150), 841, 886. 
Levitsky v. Canning (33 Cal. 299), 

699,703. 
Levy V. Bend (1 E. D. Smith, N. 

Y. 169), 565. 
Levy V. Korn (61 N. Y. Supp. 

1109), 840. 
Lewis V. Adams (61 Ga. 559), 945. 
Lewis V. Angermiller (89 Hun, 

65), 1199, 1220, 1228. 
Lewis V. Arnold (13 Gratt. Va. 

454), 1432. 
Lewis V. Baker (75 Law J. K. B. 

848), 131. 
Lewis V. Beard (13 East, 210), 

198. 
Lewis V. Brandle (107 Mich. 7), 

111. 
Lewis V. Burr (8 Bos. N. Y. 140), 

1062. 
Lewis V. Carson (16 Mo. App. 

342), 51. 
Lewis V. Chisolm (68 Ga. 40), 

563, 852, 867, 875. 
Lewis V. Christian (40 Ga. 187), 

1463. 
Lewis V. Clark (86 Md. 326), 427. 
Lewis V. Culbertson (11 S. & R. 

Pa. 59), 564. 
Lewis V. Effinger (30 Pa. St. 281), 

874, 1278. 
Lewis V. Hughes (12 Colo. 208), 

554, 1349. 
Lewis V. Jones (17 Pa. St. 262), 

760, 133L 



Lewis V. Klotz (39 La. Ann. 259), 

1318, 1327. 
Lewis V. Lyman (22 Pick. Mass. 

437), 1331. 
Lewis V. North (87 N. W. 312), 

389. 
Lewis V. Ocean Nav. & Pier Co. 
(125 N. Y. 341), 1265, 1269, 

1287. 
Lewin v. Pauli (19 Pa. Super. Ct. 

447), 814. 
Lewis V. Payn (4 Wend. N. Y. 

423), 1154, 1180. 
Lewis V. Perry (149 Mo. 257), 

1289, 1378, 1379. 
Lewis V. Ringo (3 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 247), 41, 55. 
Lewis V. St Louis (69 Mo. 695), 

663. 
Lewis V. Stake (18 Miss. 20), 

1233. 
Lewis V. Stephenson (67 Law J. 

Q. B. 296), 962, 1075, 1370, 1373, 

1382. 
Lewis V. Wilkins (62 N. C. 303), 

492. 
Lewiston & A. R. Co. v. Grand 

Trunk R. R. Co. (97 Me. 261), 

1017. 
Leydecker v. Brintnall (158 Mass. 

292), 805, 813, 828. 
Leyman v. Abeel (16 Johns. N. Y, 

30), 1195. 
L'Hussler v. Zallee (24 Mo. 13), 

672. 
Libbey v. Staples (39 Me. 161), 

329,330. 
Libbey v. Tilford (48 Me. 316), 

782,855. 
Libby v. Cushman (29 Me. 429), 

1450. 
Lichtenthaler v. Thompson (13 S. 

& R. Pa. 158), 1443. 
Lichtig V. Poundt (52 N. Y. Supp. 

136). 836. 
Liebe v. Nicolai .(30 Oreg. 364), 

522. 



cxliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Lieberthal v. Montgomery (129 

Mich. 369), 1340. 
Liebmann's Sons Brew. Co. v. 

Lauter (76 N. Y. Siipp. 748), 

1058. 
Lienow v. Ritchie (8 Pick. Mass. 

235), 679, 682. 
Liebschutz v. Moore (70 Ind. 142), 

1228. 
Life V. Sechrest (1 Ind. 512), 937. 
Liggett V. Shira (159 Pa. St. 350), 

641. 
Lightbody v. Truelson (39 Minn. 

310,301. 
Lightfoot V. Tenant (1 Bos. & Pul. 

555), 461, 777. 
Lightner v. Brooks (15 Fed. Cas. 

No. 8,344), 690. 
Lile V. Barnett (2 Bibb. Ky. 166), 

1274. 
Lilley v. Associates (101 Mass. 

532), 517. 
Lincoln Trust Co. v. Nathan (175 

Mo. 32), 610, 872, 1042, 1340, 

1341, 1351. 
Lindblom v. Berkman (43 Wash. 

356), 421. 
Lindeke v. Associates Realty Co. 

(77 C. C. A. 56), 170, 605. 
Lindemayer v. Ganst (70 Miss. 

693), 958. 
Lindenbower v. Bentley (86 Mo. 

515), 685. 
Lindley v. Dakin (13 Ind. 388), 

4S2. 
Lindley v. Hoffman (22 Ind. App. 

237), 361, 362. 
Lindley v. Miller (67 111. 244), 

564. 
Lindley v. Tibbal (40 Conn. 522), 

386. 
Lindsay v. Leighton (150 Mass. 

285), 804, 813, 828. 
Lindsay v. Lindsay (11 Vt. 621), 

351. 
Lindsey v. First Nat. Bank (115 

N. C. 553), 411 



Lindsey v. Lindsey (45 Ind. 552), 

657. 
Lindsley v. Schnaider Brew. Co. 

(59 Mo. App. 271), 1057, 1080. 
Lindstrom v. Pennsylvania Co. 

(212 Pa. St. 391), 826, 836. 
Line v. Stephenson (6 Scott, 447), 

6^8. 
Lingles v. Phelps (20 Wis. 398), 

1427. 
Linke v. Walcutt (69 Ohio Ct. 

531), 848. 
Linn v. Ross (10 Ohio, 412), 1158, 

1340,1345. 
Linton v. Hart (25 Pa. St. 193), 

541. 
Linwood Park Co. v. Van Dusen 

(63 Ohio St. 183), 729. 
Liquid Carbonic Acid Mfg. Co. v. 

Lewis (32 Tex. Civ. App. 481), 

1435. 
Lisburne v. Davies (L. R. 1 C. P. 

260), 962. 
Lisle V. Rogers (18 B. Mon. Ky. 

528), 343. 
Lister v. Lane (62 L. J. Q. B. 583), 

887. 
Lister Ag. Chem. Works v. Selby 

(68 N. J. Eq. 271), 984. 
Litchfield v. Flint (104 N. Y. 543), 

532. 
Little V. Banks (85 N. Y. 258), 

532,586. 
Little V. Dyer (35 111. App. 85), 

469. 
Little Falls v. Hausdorf (127 Fed. 

Rep. 442), 1294. 
Little V. McAdaras (38 Mo. App. 

187), 847. 
Little Miami Elev. Co. v. City of 

Cincinnati (30 Ohio St. 629), 

116. 
Little V. Palister (4 Me. 209), 212. 
Little V. Pallister (3 Me. 6), 688. 
Little V. Pearson (7 Pick. Mass. 

198), 317, 318. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cxlv 



[references are to paces.] 



Littleton v. Clayton (77 Ala. 571), 

920,923. 
Littleton v. Wynn (31 Ga. 583), 

258, 519, 572. 
Lively v. Ball (2 B. Mon. Ky. 53), 

920. 
Livermore v. Eddy (33 Mo. 547), 

1207. 
Livingston v. Miller (8 N. Y. 283), 

528. 
Livingston v. Potts (16 John. N. 

Y. 28), 1204. 
Livingston v. State (96 Ala. 44), 

1248. 
Livingston v. Stickles (7 Hill, N. 

Y. 253), 743. 
Livingston v. Sulzer (19 Hun, N. 

Y. 375), 1250, 1252, 1283. 
Livingstone v. Reynolds (26 

Wend. N. Y. 122), 708. 
Livingstone v. Tanner (14 N. Y. 

480), 218, 229, 234. 
Livingstone v. Tonapkins (4 

Johns Ch. 415), 665. 
Lloyd V. Capps ( 29 S. W. Rep. 

505), 1184. 
Lloyd V. Cozens 12 Ash. Pa. 131), 

172,1093. 
Lloyd V. Crispe (5 Taunt. 249), 

1071. 
Lloyd V. Gregory (Cro. Car. 502), 

1201. 
Lloyd V. Langford (2 Mod. 17G), 

1199, 1226. 
Lloyd V. Powers (4 Dak. 62), 312. 
Loan & Discount Co. v. Drake (6 

C. B. 796), 1294. 
Lobdell V. Hayes (12 Gray, Mass. 

236), 49, 50. 
Lobdell V. Mason (71 Miss. 936), 

98. 
Locke V. Coleman (2 T. B. Mon. 

Ky. 12), 156. 
Locke V. Coleman (4 T. B. Mon. 

Ky. 315), 389. 
Locke V. Frasher (79 Va. 409), 

471, 930, 949. 



Locke V. Rowell (47 N. H. 46), 

122,123. 
Lockwood V. Lockwood (22 Conn. 

425), 146, 192, 196, 582, 877, 

1222, 1340. 
Lockwood V. Stradley (1 Del. Ch. 

298), 53. 
Lockwood V. Thunder Bay R. Boom 

Co. (42 Mich. 536), 258. 
Lockwood V. Walker (3 McLean, 

N. O. 431), 943. 
Lodge V. White (30 Ohio St. 569), 

1057. 
Loeser v. Liebman (137 N. Y. 

163), 1282, 1300. 
Lofft V. Dennis (1 E. & E. 474), 

851. 
Loftus Case (Cro. Eliz. 279), 27. 
Loftus V. Maxey (73 Tex. 242), 

691. 
Logan V. Anderson (2 Doug. Mich. 

101), 1199.1238. 
Logan V. Barr (4 Harr. Del. 546), 

1193. 
Logan V. Green (39 N. C. 370), 

1228,1233. 
Logan V. Herron (8 S. & R. Pa. 

459), 139, 156. 
Logan V. Simmons (3 Ired. Eq. N. 

C. 487), 21. 
Loggins V. Buck's Adm'rs (33 Tex. 

113), 1353. 
Lohmiller v. Water Power Co. (51 

Wis. 683), 794. 
Loley V. Heller (1 W. N. C. Pa. 

613), 463. 
Lomax v. Le Grand (60 Ala. 537), 

1425, 1431, 1454. 
Lombardi v. Shero (14 Tex. Civ. 

App. 594), 1316. 
Lomis V. Ruetter (9 Watts. Pa. 

516), 876. 
London v. Milford (14 Ves. 58). 

1383. 
London v. Warfield (5 J. J. Marsh. 

Ky. 196), 1336. 



cxlvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[refebences aee to pages.] 



London City v. Mitford (14 Ves. 

42), 1385. 
London City v. Richmond (Pre. 

Ch. 156), 1105. 
London & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Gar- 

nett (21 L. T. 352), 749. 
Long V. Fitzsimmons (1 W. & S. 

Pa. 530), 848. 
Long V. Fletcher (2 Eq. Abr. 5), 

479. 
Long V. Gieriet (57 Minn. 278), 

563,877. 
Long V. Madison & Flax Co. (1 A. 

K. Marsh. 105), 64. 
Long V. Noe (49 Mo. App. 19), 

678. 
Long V. Poth (37 N. Y. Supp. 

670), 101. 
Long V. Ramsay (1 Serg. & Pl. Pa. 

72), 333, 334. 
Long V. Stafford (103 N. Y. 274), 

1207, 1208, 1378. 1379. 
Long Bros. v. Bolen Coal Co. (56 

Mo. App. 605), 170. 
Longendyke v. Anderson (101 N. 

Y. 625), 446. 
Longfellow v. Longfellow (54 Me. 

240), 923. 
Longmore v. Tierman (3 Pitts. 

Pa. 62), 1023. 
Longobardi v. Yuliano (33 Misc. 

Rep. 472), 584, 597. 
Loomer v. Dawson (Cheeves, S. C. 

68), 386. 
Loomis V. Lincoln (24 Vt. 153), 

1400. 
Loomis V. O'Neal (73 Mich. 522), 

309,311. 
Loomis V. Pingree (43 Me. 299), 

350. 
Looney v. McLean (129 Mass. 33), 

804,813. 
Lopper V. Bouve (9 Pa. Super. Ct. 

452), 1215, 1379. 
Lord V. Johnson (120 111. App. 

55), 1456. 



Lord D'Arcy v. Askwith (Hob. 

234), 706. 
Lord Chesterfield v. Bolton (Conn. 

Rep. 627), 1340. 
Lord St. John v. Lady St. Joha 

(11 Ves. Jr. 526), 21. 
Lorenzen v. Wood (1 McGloin, La. 

373), 852. 
Lore's Heirs v. Truman (1 Ohio 

Dec. 510), 349. 
Loring v. Cooke (3 Pick. Mass. 

48), 538. 
Loring v. Harmon (84 Mo. 123), 

920. 
Loring v. Taylor (50 Mo. App. 81), 

258. 
Losee v. Buchanan (51 N. Y. 476), 

904. 
Loth V. Carty (85 Ky. 591), 1084. 
Lothrop V. Thayer (138 Mass. 

466), 843. 
Loughran v. Ross (45 N. Y. 792), 

1265, 1269, 1287. 
Loughran v. Smith (11 Hun, N. 

Y. 311), 146, 148. 
Louisville v. Terminal Co. (72 S. 

W. Rep. 945), 836. 
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith 

(143 Ala. 335), 686. 
Loupe V. Genin (45 N. Y. 119), 

782, 847. 
Loupe V. Wood (56 Cal. 586), 847. 
Lounsbery v. Snyder (31 N. Y. 

514), 148, 1131, 1132, 1136. 
Love V. Bdmonston (23 N. C. 152), 

198, 199, 212, 218. 
Love V. Edmonston (1 Ired. N. C. 

152), 949. 
Love v. Law (57 Miss. 596), 1402. 
Love v. Teter (24 W. Va. 741), 

472. 
Lovejoy v. McCarty (94 Wis. 341), 

1093,1218. 
Lovelock V. Franklyn (8 Q. B. 

371), 344. 
Lovering v. Lovering (13 N. H. 

513), 599. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



cxlvii 



Treferexces are to pages.] 



Lovett V. German Reformed 

Church (9 How. Pr. N. Y. 220), 

488. 
Lovett V. United States (9 Ct. CI. 

479), 882. 
Lowber v. Bangs (2 Wall. U. S. 

728), 601, 604. 
Lowe V. Adams (70 L. J. Ch. 783), 

273. 
Lowe V. Brown (22 Ohio, 463), 

568. 570. 
Lowe V. Emerson (48 111. 150), 

924,964. 
Lowe V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. (18 

Q. B. 632), 578. 
Lowe V. London R. R. Co. (14 

Bng. L. & E. R. 19), 62. 
Lowell V. Hilton (11 Gray, Mass. 

407), 602. 
Lowell V. Strahan (145 Mass. 1), 

290, 402, 412, 1050. 
Lowenstien v. Keller (3 Kulp. Pa. 

361), 1188. 
Lowery v. Peterson (75 Ala. 109), 

1117. 
Lowndes v. Fountaine (11 Ex. 

487), 764. 
Lowrey v. Reef (1 Ind. App. 

244), 5. 
Lowther v. Caril (1 Vern. 221), 

386. 
Lowther v. Troy (1 Jr. T. R. 162), 

1201. 
Lucas V. Brooks (85 U. S. 436), 

178,942. 
Lucas V. Comerford (3 Bro. C. C. 

166), 1105. 
L-ucas V. Coulter (104 Ind. 81), 

782,785. 
Lucas V. Daniels (34 Ala. 188), 

968. 
Lucas V. How (Sir T. Raym. 250) 

639. 
Lucas, Ex parte (3 Deac. & C. 

144), 607. 
Lucas V. McCann (50 Mo. App. 

638), 1023. 



Lucas V. Price (4 Ala. 672), 53. 
Lucas V. Rickerich (1 Lea, Tenn. 

726), 22. 
Lucas V. Sunbury, etc. R. Co. (32 

Pa. St. 458), 393. 
Lucente v. Davis (101 Md. 526), 

745. 
Luchs V. Jones (1 MacArthur, D. 

C. 345), 232. 
Luckenbill, In re (127 Fed. Rep. 

984), 1121. 
Lucy v. Lucy (55 N. H. 9), 51. 
Lucy V. Wilkins (33 Minn. 441), 

592, 1094, 1207. 1223. 
Ludford v. Barber (1 Term R. 

86), 3, 5. 
Ludington v. Garlock (55 Hun, 

612), 176. 
Ludington v. Seaton (66 N. Y. 

Supp. 497)v 1155. 
Ludlow V. McCarthy (5 App. Div. 

517), 564. 
Luff V. Burrows (12 East, 1), 

1273. 
Lukens v. Hedley (1 W. N. C. Pa. 

266), 855. 
Lumley v. Backus (73 Fed. Rep. 

767), 822. 
Lumley v. Gilruth (65 Miss. 23), 

1417. 
Lumley v. Hodgson (16 East, 99), 

575. 
Luna V. Gage (37 111. 27), 601. 
Lund V. Ozanne (84 Pac. Rep. 

710), 553. 
Lundin SchoefEel (167 Mass. 465), 

668. 
Lunn V. Gage (37 111. 19), 563. 
Lunsford v. Alexander (20 N. C. 

166), 948. 
Lunt V. Brown (13 Me. 236), 686. 
Lunt V. Norris (1 Burr. 290), 602. 
Luney v. Brown (Lutch. 99), 110. 
Lunsford v. Turner (5 J. J. Marsh. 

Ky. 104), 927. 
Lush V. Druse (4 Wend. N. Y. 

313), 337, 528. 



cxlviii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Lushington v. Baldero (15 Beav. 

1),726. 
Lutz V. Wainwright (193 Pa. St. 

541), 465. 
Lux V. Haggin (69 Cal. 390), 684. 
Luxmore v. Robinson (1 B. & Aid. 

584), 884, 897. 
Lybbe v. Hart '(54 L. J. Ch. 860), 

764. 
Lyde v. Russell (1 Barn. & Aid. 

394), 1264. 
Lyford v. Toothacher (39 Me. 28), 

685. 
Lyles V. Murphy (38 Tex. 75), 964. 
Lyman v. Townsend (24 La. Ann. 

625), 772. 
Lynch v. Baldwin (69 111. 210), 

564, 1131, 1133, 1142. 
Lynch, In re (15 Fed. Cas. No. 

8,634), 1119. 
Lynch v. Lynch (6 Ir. 7 R. 131), 

1194. 
Lynch v. Onondaga Salt Co. (64 

Barb. N. Y. 558), 519, 573, 698. 
Lynch v. Ortlieb (87 Tex. 590), 

802. 
Lynch v. Sauer (16 Misc. Rep. 1), 

471, 480, 699, 1173. 
Lynch v. Speed (15 Daly, 207), 

782. 
Lynde v. Hough (27 Barb. N. Y 

415), 1052. 
Lynn v. Reed (13 M. & W. 285), 

1194, 1199. 
Lynn v. Ross (10 Ohio, 412), 883. 
Lynn v. Waldron (36 Wash. 82), 

1263, 1289. 
Lyon V. Buerman (57 Atl. Rep. 

100), 847. 
Lyon V. Cunningham (136 Mass. 

532), 193, 198. 
Lyon V. Kain (36 111. 363), 341. 
Lyon V. La Master (103 Mo. 612), 

182, 183. 
Lyon V. Miller (24 Pa. St. 392), 
464. 



Lyon V. Woshburn (3 Colo. 201), 

920. 
Lyons v. Deppen (90 Ky. 305), 

1437. 
Lyons v. Gavin (88 N. Y. Supp. 

252), 783. 
Lyons v. Kain (36 111. 362), 342. 
Lyons v. Osborn (45 Kan. 650),. 

1369,1378. 
Lyons v. Tedder (7 S. C. 69), 1409. 
Lysaght v. Callinan (Hayes, 141), 

1387. 
Lysle V. Williams (15 S. & R. Pa. 

136), 346. 
Lyster v. Goldwin (1 G. & D. 463), 

175. 



M. 



Mabry v. Harp (53 Kan. 398), 

1329.1432. 
Macbean v. Irvine (4 Bibb. Ky. 

17), 64. 
Macdonough v. Starbird (105 Cal. 

15), 1251. 
Machen v. Hooper (73 Md. 342), 

783,899. 
Macher v. Foundling Hospital (1 

Ves. & B. 187), 733. 
Machinery Co. v. Flower (12 De- 
troit Leg. N. 214, 103 N. W. Rep. 

873), 1055. 
Mack V. Burt (5 Hun, N. Y. 28). 

527. 
Mack V. Dailey (67 Vt. 90), 645, 

647, 978. 
Mack V. Patchin (42 N. Y. 167), 

702,1184. 
Mackay v. Mackreth (4 Dougl. 

213), 42, 137. 
Mackin v. Havin (187 111. 484), 

484, 923, 969. 
Mackubin v. Whitecroft (4 Har. & 

McH. Md. 135), 629. 
Maclary v. Turner (9 Houst. Del. 

281), 1309. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cxlix 



[rkfeuences ark to pages.] 



Macon v. Dasher (16 S. E. Rep. 

75), 71. 
Mactier v. Osborn (146 Mass. 

399), 634, 666, 667. 
Macy V. Elevated R. R. Co. (59 

Hun, 365), 680. 
Madden v. McKensie (144 Fed. 

Rep. 64), 463. 
Maddox v. Gray (75 Ga. 452), 349. 
Maddox v. White (4 Md. 72), 721, 

757. 
Madigan v. McCarthy (108 Mass. 

376), 1244. 
Madison Female Sem. v. United 

States (23 Ct. CI. 188), 37. 
Maelzer v. Swan (75 Kan. 496), 

1431. 
Magam v. Lambert (3 Pa. St. 

444), 1183, 1340. 
Maggort V. Hansbarger (8 Leigh, 

Va. 532), 895. 
Magill V. Hinsdale (6 Conn. 464), 

106. 
Magoon v. Minnesota Transfer Pg. 

Co. (34 Minn. 434), 326. 
Magruder v. Peter (4 Gill & J. 

Md. 323), 13. 
Mahler, In re (105 Fed. Rep. 428), 

1175. 
Mahon v. Columbus (58 Miss. 

310), 71. 
Mahoney v. Alirso (51 Cal. 440), 

491. 
Main v. Davis (32 Barb. N. Y. 

461), 543. 
Main v. Feathers (21 Barb. N. Y. 

646), 518. 
Main v. Green (32 Barb. N. Y. 

253), 1060. 
Main v. Schwartzwaelder (4 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 273), 1257. 
Maitland v. McKinnon (1 H. & C. 

607), 444. 
Majestic Hotel Co. v. Eyre (53 

App. Div. 273), 1143, 1359. 
Majors v. Goodrich (54 S. W. Rep. 

919), 252. 



Makin v. Watkinson (40 L. J. Ex. 

33), 860. 
Makin v. "Wilkinson (23 L. T. Rep. 

N. S. 473), 860. 
Mallam v. Arden (10 Bing. 299), 

522. 
Mallan v. May (13 Mee. & Wei. 

511), 604. 
Mallett V. Hillyard (43 S. E. Rep. 

779), 1185. 
Mallett V. Page (8 Ind. 364), 349. 
Malloy V. Real Estate Ass'n (34 

N. Y. Supp. 679), 817. 
Mammock v. Creekmore (48 Ark. 

264), 311. 
Man V. Katz (40 Misc. Rep. 645), 
■ 1063. 

Manby v. Scott (1 Mod. 124), 21. 
Manchester v. Doddridge (3 Ind. 

360), 198', 206. 
Manchester, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ander- 
son (67 L. J. Ch. 568), 699. 
Manchester Bonded Whse. v. Carr 

(49 L. J. C. P. 809), 860. 
Mancuso v. Kansas City (74 Mo. 

App. 138), 828. 
Manett v. Simpson (61 Hun, 620), 

109. 
Maney v. Lamphere (11 Detroit 

Leg. N. 872), 690. 
Man. Stamping Works v. Koehler 

(45 Hun, 150). 295. 
Manle v. Ashmead (20 Pa. St. 

483), 701. 
Mann v. Antenrieth (17 Hun, N. 

Y. 162), 1358. 
Mann v. Lovejoy (R. & M. 355), 

134. 
Mann v. Nunn (43 L. J. C. P. 241), 

381,856. 
Mann v. Tonner (86 Iowa, 581), 

1100. 
Mann v. Watters (10 B. & C. 626), 

175. 
Manning v. West (6 Cush. Mass. 

463), 265. 



<d 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to PAGES.l 



Mansel v. Norton (L. R. 22 Ch. 

Div. 769), 1285. 
Mansfield v. Sherman (17 Atl. 

Rep. 300), 1002. 
Mantooth v. Burke (35 Ark. 540), 

920. 
Mantz V. Garing (4 Bing. N. C. 

451), 857, 889. 
Manufacturing Co. v. Porter (112 

Ala. 381), 1429. 
Mansony v. United States Bank (4 

Ala. 746), 30. 
Manuel v. Campbell (3 Ark. 324), 

600. 
Manvers v. Mizem (2 M. & Rob. 

56), 175. 
Manville v. Gay (1 Wis. 250), 

1160. 
Mapp V. Phillips (32 Ga. 72), 101. 
Marcum v. Hereford (8 Dana, Ky. 

1),1116. 
Marcy v. Pierce (14 111. App. 91), 

481. 
Marden v. Jordan (65 Me. 9), 689. 
Margart v. Swift (3 McCord, S. C. 

378), 1445. 
Margolius v. Muldberg (88 N. Y. 

Supp. 1048), 833, 848. 
Margrave v. Archibold (1 Dow. 

P. C. 107), 56. 
Marine I. Co. v. Railroad Co. (41 

Fed. Rep. 643), 71. 
Mariner v. Burton (4 Har. Del. 

G9).318. 
Mariner v. Chamberlain (21 Wis. 

251), 1174, 1183. 
Maring v. Ward (50 N. C. 272), 

no. 

Marje v. Dyche (42 Miss. 347), 

1429. 
Mark v. Noyes (1 Car. & P. 265), 

887. 
Mark v. Witzler (39 Cal. 247), 28. 
Marltham v. David Stevenson 

Brew. Co. (64 N. Y. Supp. 017), 

854,1155. 



Markin v. Crumble (35 N. Y. 

Supp. 1027), 800. 
Markin v. Whitaker (26 Ind. App. 

211), 1114. 
Markle's Estate (17 Pa. Co. Ct 

Rep. 337), 44. 
Markley V. Swartzlander (8 Watts. 

& S. 172), 333. 
Markowitz v. Greenwall Theat- 
rical Circuit Co. (75 S. W. Rep. 

74), 1046. 
Marks v. Delaglio (59 N. Y. Supp. 

707), 1149. 
Marks v. Gartside (16 111. App. 

177), 862, 863. 
Marks v. Ryan (63 Cal. 107), 1264. 
Marks v. Ryan (4 Ky. Law Rep. 

842), 1287. 
Marley v. Wheelwright (172 Mass. 

530), 836. 
Marlowe v. Rogers (102 Ala. 510), 

315. 
Marmiche v. Roumieu (11 La. Ann. 

477), 154. 
Marney v. Byrd (11 Humph. Tenn. 

95), 495. 
Maroney Hdwe. Co. v. Connelles 

(25 S. W. Rep. 448), 123. 
Maroney v. Hellings (110 Cal. 

219), 852, 877. 
Marquam v. Sengfelder (24 Oreg. 

2), 1406. 
Marr v. Ray (151 111. 340), 151. 
Marr v. Sheffner (2 East, 523), 

1422. 
Marrs v. Lumpkin (22 Tex. Civ. 

App. 448), 1419. 
Marsack v. Read (12 East, 57), 

175. 
Marsalis v. Pitman (68 Tex. 624), 

1432. 
Marseilles v. Kerr (6 Whart. Pa. 

500), 1207, 1216. 
Marsh v. Brace (Cro. Jac. 334), 

520. 
Marsh v. Bristol (65 Mich. 378), 

739. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



ClL 



[references are to pages.] 



Marsh v. Butterworth (4 Mich. 

575), 1171, 1173, 1182. 
Marsh v. Masterson (3 N. Y. Supp. 

414), 356. 
Marsh v. McNider (88 Iowa, 390), 

435. 
Marsh v. Reed (184 111. 263), 58. 
Marshall v. Berridge (51 L. J. Ch. 

329), 259, 387. 
Marshall v. John Grosse Clo. Co. 

(184 111. 421), 1217. 
Marshall v. Llnz (115 Cal. 622), 

1404, 1435. 
Marshall v. Lippman (16 Hun, N. 

Y. 110), 1096. 
Marshall v. Mosely (21 N. Y. 280), 

539. 
Marshall v. Rugg (6 Wyo. 270), 

727, 898. 
Marshall v. Scofield (47 L. T. 

406), 1344. 
Marshall v. Vickshurg (82 U. S. 

146), 665. 
Marshall v. White (Harp. 122), 

439. 
Marshall v. White's Co. (7 Cold. 

Tenn. 252), 342. 
Marsh, Merwin & Lemmon v. City 
of Bridgeport (75 Conn. 495), 
74. 
Marske v. Willard (169 111. 276), 

983. 
Marsters v. Cling (163 Mass. 477), 

228, 677, 688. 
Martens v. O'Connor (101 Wis. 

18), 7, 84, 88. 
Martin v. Allen (67 Kan. 758), 

237. 
Martin v. Black (9 Paige, N. Y. 

644), 1061. 
Martin v. Bliss (5 Blackf. 35), 

439. 
Martin v. Crompe (1 L. Ray. 340), 

87, 610. 
Martin v. Davis (96 Iowa, 718), 
248, 471. 



Martin v. Gilham (7 Ad. & El. 

540), 720. 
Martin v. Gilham (2 N. & P. 568), 

13S. 
Martin v. Judd (81 111. 488), 957. 
Martin v. Kepner (1 Ohio Dec. 

57), 1214. 
Martin v. Knapp (57 Iowa, 336), 

191, 1316. 
Martin v. Martin (7 Ind. 368), 

1176. 
Martin v. Martin (94 N. W. Rep. 

493), 531, 958. 
Martin v. O'Connor (43 Barb. 

514), 1048. 
Martin v. Rector (118 N. Y. 476), 

554. 
Martin v. Richards (155 Mass. 
• 381), 813. 
Martin v. Roe (7 E. & B. 236), 

1259. 
Martin v. Searcy (3 Stew. Ala. 

50), 1228. 
Martin v. Sexton (112 111. App. 

199), 1044. 
Martin v. Stearns (52 Iowa, 345), 

1193,1198. 
Martin v. Surman (116 111. App. 

262), 833, 847. 
Martin v. Tobin (123 Mass. 85), 

1073. 
Martin v. Watts (7 T. R. 85), 8, 

128, 147, 155, 158. 
Martinez v. Thompson (80 Tex. 

568), 885. 
Martin's Appeal (5 Watts. & S. 

Pa. 220), 1441. 
Martyn v. Clue (18 Q. B. 661), 617, 

912, 1080. 
Martyn v. Williams (1 H. & N. 

817), 493. 
Marvin v. Stone (2 Cow. N. Y. 

781), 604. 
Marwedel v. Cook (154 Mass. 

235). 800. 
Marwood v. Waters (13 C. B. 820), 
187. 



clii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages. J 



Marye v. Dyche (42 Miss. 347) 

1400. 
Marys v. Anderson (24 Pa. St 

272), 346. 
Mason v. Clifford (4 Fed. Rep 

177), 243. 
Mason v. Corder (2 Marsh. 332) 

1071. 
Mason v. Fenn (3 Peclv. 111. 525) 

12G7. 
Mason v. Gray (36 Vt. 308), 483. 
Mason v. Hill (5 B. & Aid. 1, 24) 

431. 
Mason v. Howes (122 Mich. 329) 

832. 
Mason v. Lenderoth (84 N. Y 

Supp. 740), 28, 34, 699, 1171. 
Mason v. Mason (F. & K. 429) 

1124. 
Mason v. Moyers (2 Rob. Va. 606) 

1311. 
Mason v. Payne r47 Mo. 517), 993 
Mason v. Smith (131 Mass. 510) 

1020. 
Mason v. Stiles (21 Mo. 374), 722. 

844. 
Mason v. Treadway (1 Lev. 145) 

1197. 
Massachusetts Hosp. Life Ins. Co 

V. Wilson (10 Met. Mass. 126) 

31. 
Massie v. Long (2 Ohio, 287), 84 
Massie v. State Nat. Bank (11 

Tex. Civ. App. 280), 377. 
Massy v. Mead (27 So. Rep. 837) 

616, 1391. 
Master v. Miller (4 T. R. 320) 

343. 
Masterson v. Girard's Heirs (10 

Ala. 60), 49. 
Mastin v. Metzinger (99 Mo. App. 

C13),156. 
Masury v. Southworth (9 Ohio St. 

340), 488, 614, 1040, 1080, 1284. 
Math v. Levy (74 Miss. 450), 

1254. 



Mather v. Trinity Church (3 S. & 

R. Pa. 509), 685, 1300, 1331. 
Mathes v. Staed (67 Mo. App. 

399), 1427. 
Mathews v. Burke (32 Tex. 419), 

1432. 
Mathews v. City of New York 

(78 App. Div. 422), 828. 
Mathews Slate Co. v. New Em- 
pire S. Co. (122 Fed. Rep. 972), 

989. 
Mathewson v. Wrightman (4 Esp. 

5), 172. 
Mathinet v. Giddings (10 Ohio, 

364), 1285. 
Mathis V. McCord (Wright, Ohio, 

647), 877. 
Matthews v. Hipp (66 S. C. 162), 

146,201. 
Matthews v. His Creditors (10 La. 

Ann. 718), 1422. 
Matthews v. Mayor, etc. (14 Abb. 

Pr. N. Y. 209), 61. 
Matthews v. Matthews (49 Hun. 

346), 284. 
Matthews v. New Empire Slate 

Co. (122 Fed. Rep. 972), 980. 
Matthews v. People's Nat. Gas. Co. 

(179 Pa. St. 165), 641. 
Matthews v. Tobener (39 Mo. 115), 

1199, 1207. 
Matthews v. Usher (68 L. J. Q. B. 

988), 628. 
Matthews v. Ward (10 G. & J. Md. 

),354. 

Matthews v. Whetton (Cro. Car. 

233), 647. 
Matthews v. Whitaker (23 S. W. 

Rep. 528), 1046. 
Matthew's Ai)peal (104 Pa. St. 

444), 954. 
Mattice v. Lord (30 Baii). N. Y. 

382), 629. 
Mattis v. Robinson (1 Neb. 3), 

922. 
Mattison v. Oliver (2 Leg. Op. Pa. 

48), 1006 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clii'i 



[referexces are to pages.] 



Mattoon v. Munroe (21 Hun, N. Y. 

74), 117, 1173. 
Mattox V. Helm (5 Litt. Ky. 186), 

191. 
Matts V. Robinson (7 M. & G. 701), 

953. 
Maughlin v. Perry (35 Md. 352), 

617,982. 
Maul V. Rider (59 Pa. St. 167), 

496. 
Mauldin v. Cox (07 Cal. 387), 965. 
Mauley v. Zeighler (23 Tex. 88), 

333. 
Maunsell v. Hart (1 L. R. Jr. 88), 

740, 769. 
Maus V. Worthing (4 111. 26), 97. 
Mausert v. Christian Feigenspan 

(68 N. J. Eq. 671), 381. 
Maverick v. Lewis (3 McCord, S. 

C. 211), 243. 
Mavor v. Northern Trust Co. (93 

111. App. 314), 32. 
Maxwell v. Habon (22 Tex. Civ. 

App. 565), 10. 
Maxwell v. Higgins (38 Neb. 671), 

958. 
Maxwell v. Stewart (22 Wall. U 

S. 77), 1466. 
Maxwell v. Urban (22 Tex. Civ. 

App. 565), 492, 697, 1075, 1112. 
Maxwell v. Ward (13 Price, 674), 

1387. 
May, In re (47 How. Prac. 87), 

1119. 
May V. Calder (2 Mass. 55), 10. 
May V. Ennis (79 N. Y. Supp. 

896), 801. 
May V. Gillis (169 N. Y. 330), 

1360. 
May V. McGaughey (60 Ark. 357), 

1425. 
May V. Rice (108 Mass. 150), 208. 
May V. Smith (3 Mackey, 55), 

446. 
May V. Thomson (20 Ch. D. 805), 

259. 



May V. Thompson (51 L. J. Ch. 

917), 2SS. 
Mayer v. Laux (43 N. Y. Supp. 

743), 918. 
Mayer v. Lyon (69 Ga. 577), 679. 
Mayer v. MoUer (1 Hilt. N. Y. 

491), 328, 782. 
Mayer v. Schrumpf (141 Mo. App. 

54), 837, 847. 
Mayer v. Waters (45 Kan. 78), 

1165. 
Mayfield v. Wadsley (3 B. & C. 

357), 1337. 
Mayhew v. Hardesty (8 Md. 479), 

1101,1107. 
Mayhew v. Suttle (4 E. & E. 347), 

301. 
Mayhew's Case (1 Coke, 147), 5. 
Mayn v. Beak (Cro. Eliz. 515), 

347. 
Maynard v. Maynard (10 Mass. 

457), 349, 1074. 
Mayne v. Jones (34 Cal. 483), 

976. 
Mayo V. Chenoweth (1 III. Breese, 

200), 340. 
Mayo V. Fletcher (14 Pick. Mass. 

525), 29. 
Mayor of New York v. Ketchum 

(67 How. Pr. N. Y. 166), 539. 
Mayor of New York v. Mabie (13 

N. Y. 151), 697. 
Mayor of Thetford v. Tyler (8 Q. 

B. 95), 141. 
Mayor, etc. Poole v. Whitt (18 M. 

& W. 571), 921. 
Maywood v. Logan (78 Mich. 135), 

791,805. 
McAdoo V. Galium (86 N. C. 419). 

136S. 
McAfee v. Ferguson (9 B. Mon. 

Ky. 475), 21. 
McAlester v. Landers (70 Cal. 79, 

82), 563, 699. 
McAlister v. Clark (33 Conn. 91), 

777. 



cliv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[eefekences aee to pages.] 



McAllister T. Reel (53 Mo. App. 

81), 1280. 
McAlpin V. Powell (70 N. Y. 126), 

848,918. 
McArthur v. Sears (21 Wend. N. 

Y. 190), 901. 
McAuliff V. Parker (10 Wash. 

141), 961. 
McAusland v. Pundt (1 Neb. 211), 

934. 
McAvoy V. Wright (137 Mass. 

207), 798. 
McBee v. Sampson (66 Fed. Rep. 

416), 1094. 
McBride v. Bank (28 Barb. N. Y. 

476), 1466. 
McBride v. Daniels (92 Pa. St. 

332), 907. 
McBrien v. Marshall (126 Pa. St. 

290), 1364. 
McBrier v. Marshall (126 Pa. St. 

390), 877. 
McCaffrey, In re (50 Hun, 371), 

57. 
McCaffrey v. Woodin (65 N. Y. 

459), 279, 1404, 1405, 1428. 
McCall V. Walter (71 Ga. 287), 

1295. 
McCampbell v. McCampbell (5 

Litt. Ky. 92), 2. 
McCardell v. Miller (22 R. I. 96), 

575. 
McCardell v. Williams (19 R. I. 

701), 483, 876. 
McCarthy v. Bank (74 Me. 415), 

828. 
McCarthy v. Brown (113 Cal. 15), 

212. 
McCarthy v. Foster (156 Mass. 

511 ).818. 
McCarthy v. Humphrey (105 

Iowa, 545), 428, 1009. 
McCarthy v. Noble (5 N. Y. 380), 

341. 
McCarthy v. Truemacher (108 

Iowa, 384), 1289. 



McCarthy v. York Co. Sav. Bank 

(74 Me. 315), 840. 
McCartney v. Auer (50 Mo. 395), 

484. 
McCaskle v. Amerine (12 Ala. 

17), 974. 
McCaw V. Barker (115 Ala. 543), 

83. 
McCarty v. Ely (4 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 375), 874. 
McCarty v. New York, etc. R. Co. 

(30 Pa. St. 251), 903. 
McClain v. Abshire (72 Mo. App. 

390). 1428. 
McClellan v. Krall (43 Kan. 216), 

291. 
McClellan v. Whitney (65 Vt. 

510), 310. 
McClelland v. Rush (150 Pa. St. 

57), 383, 385, 1379, 1380. 
McClenahan v. City of New York 

(102 N. Y. 75), 1154. 
McClenahan v. Gwynn (3 Munf. 

Va. 556), 1081. 
McClintock v. JojTier (77 Miss. 

678), 616, 1391, 1376, 1382. 
McClosky V. Miller (72 Pa. St. 

151), 573. 
McClowry v. Croghan's Adm'r (31 

Pa. St. 22), 606. 
McClung V. Condict (6 N. W. Rep. 

399), 535. 
McClung V. McPherson (47 Oreg. 

73), 168, 617. 
McClure v. Colelough (17 Ala. 89), 

349. 
McClure v. McClure (74 Ind. 108), 

156. 
McClurg V. Price (59 Pa. St. 420), 

1134,1190. 
McColgan v. Katz (GO N. Y. Supp. 

291), 106, 109. 
McComb's Appeal (43 Pa. St. 435), 

1423. 
McCombs V. Becker (5 Thomp. & 

C. 550), 1320. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clv 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



McConnell v. East Point Land Co. 

(100 Ga. 129), 1096. 
McCormick v. Anastaki (66 N. J. 

Law, 211), 836. 
McCormick v. Stephany (61 N. J. 

Eq. 208), 980, 987. 
McCord Rubber Co. v. St. Jos. 

Water Co. (181 Mo. 678), 797. 
McCoull v. Herzberg (33 111. App. 

542), 1149. 
McCourt V. Singers-Bigger (76 C. 

C. A. 73), 1393. 
McCoy V. Hill (2 Lltt. Ky. 372), 

867. 
McCoy V. Scott (2 Rawle, Pa. 222), 

52. 
McCracken v. Hall (7 Ind. 30), 

1256. 
McCready v. Lindenborn (172 N. 

Y. 400), 629. 
McCreery v. Everding (54 Cal. 

168), 974. 
McCrelish v. Churchman (4 

Rawle, Pa. 26), 601. 
McCroy v. Toney (66 Miss. 233), 

384. 
McCullough V. Fox (6 Barb. N. Y. 

386), 601. 
McCutcheon v. Crenshaw (40 S. 

C. 511), 303. 
McDermott v. Dwyer (91 Mo. App. 

185), 1464. 
McDevitt V. Lambert (80 Ala. 

536), 150, 151, 159, 163. 
McDewitt V. Sullivan (8 Cal. 592), 

934. 
McDonald v. Bromley (6 Phila. 

Pa. 302), 409. 
McDonald v. Flamme (13 Abb. N. 

Y. 356), 842. 
McDonald v. Hanlon (79 Cal. 

442), 485. 
McDonald v. May (69 S. W. Rep. 

1059), 1096. 
McDonald v. Schneider (27 Mo. 

405), 72. 

k 



McDonnel v. White (11 H. L. Cas. 

271), 1124. 
McDonnell v. Cambridge (151 

Mass. 159), 686. 
McDonough v. Starbird (105 Cal. 

15), 164. 
McDowell V. Hendrix (67 Ind. 

513), 49. 
McDowell V. Simpson (3 Watts. 

Pa. 135), 98, 133, 196, 197, 389. 
McElheny v. Musick (63 111. 328), 

16. 
McElvaney v. Smith (76 Ark. 

468), 1184. 
McEowen v. Drake (14 N. J. Law, 

523), 219. 
McFadden v. McCann (25 Iowa, 

252), 1378, 1387. 
McFadin v. Rippey (8 Mo. 738), 

1131, 1136, 1178. 
McFall V. McFall (35 S. C. 559), 

137. 
McFarlan v. Watson (3 N. Y. 

286). 1096. 
McFarland v. Chase (7 Gray, 

Mass. 462), 208. 
McFarland v. Heim (127 Mo. 327), 

1073. 
McFarland R. E. Co. v. Joseph 

Gerardi Co. (202 Mo. 597), 33. 
McFarlane v. Pierson (21 111. App. 

566) 1152. 
McFarlane v. Williams (107 III. 

33), 329, 505, 522, 1016. 
INIcGee v. Gibson (1 B. Mon. Ky. 

105). 203. 
:\IcGinley v. Alliance Trust Co. 

(168 Mo. 257), 800, 804. 
McGinnis v. Fernandes (32 111. 

App. 424), 1327. 
McGinnis v. Porter (20 Pa. St. 

80), 958, 966. 
McGlanflin v. Holman (1 Wash. 

St. 239), 334, 496. 
McGlashan v. Tallmadge (37 Barb. 

N. Y. 313), 783. 



clvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



McGlynn v. Brock (11 Mass. 219), 

518. 
McGlynn v. Moore (25 Cal. 384), 

348,638. 
McGrath v. Boston (103 Mass. 

369), 246. 
McGreary v. Osborne (9 Cal. 119), 

1254. 
McGregor v. Board of Education 

(107 N. Y. 511), 897. 
McGregor v. Brown (10 N. Y 

114), 716. 
McGuffie V. Carter (42 Mich. 497), 

934. 
McGuire v. Spencer (91 III. 303), 

825. 
McGunnagle v. Thornton (10 S. & 

R. Pa. 251), 98, 561. 
McHenry v. Maar (39 Md. 510), 

865. 
Mclntire v. Patton (9 Humph. 

Tenn. 447), 920. 
Mcintosh V. Hodges (70 N. W. 

Rep. 550), 195. 
Mcintosh V. Hodges (110 Mich. 

319), 201. 
Mcintosh V. Lown (49 Barb. N. Y. 

550), 883. 
Mcintosh V. Rector (120 N. Y. 7), 

1388. 
Mcintosh V. St. Phillips Church 

(120 N. Y. 7), 912. 
Mclntyre v. Strong (48 N. Y. 

127), 350. 
McKanna v. Merry (61 111. 177), 

18. 
McKay v. Bloodgood (9 Johns. N. 

Y. 285), 332. 
McKay v. McNally (4 L. R. Ir. 

438), 1051. 
McKay v. Mumford (10 Weiul, N. 

Y. 351), 83. 
McKean v. Smoyer (37 Neb. 694), 

1319. 
McKean & Elk L. Co. v. Mitchell 

(35 Pa. St. 269), 336. 



McKee v. Angelrodt (16 Mo. 283), 

1101. 
McKee v. Howe (17 Colo. 538), 42. 
McKelby v. Webster (170 Pa. St. 

624), 1328. 
McKenzie v. Cheetham (83 Me. 

543), 785. 
McKenzie v. Harrison (120 N. Y. 

260), 460, 556. 
McKenzie v. Hatton (141 N. Y. 6), 

1132, 1164, 1176. 
McKenzie v. Hesketh (47 L. J. Ch. 

231). 266. 
McKenzie v. Lexington (4 Dana, 

Ky. 129), 1195, 1240. 
McKenzie v. McLeod (10 Bing. 

385), 844. 
McKenzie v. Sykes (47 Mich. 294), 

250. 
McKeon v. Cutler (156 Mass. 296), 

428. 
McKeon v. Cutter (156 Mass. 296), 

785, 835, 839. 
McKeon v. Wendelken (55 N. Y. 

Supp. 626), 1080. 
McKeon v. Wliitney (3 Denio, N. 

Y. 452), 560. 
McKensie v. Farrel (4 Bosw. N. 

Y. 192), 595. 
McKesson v. Mendenhall (64 N. 

C. 286), 564. 
McKiernan v. Lenzen (56 Cal. 61), 

65. 
McKinney v. Herrick (66 Iowa, 

414), 361. 
McKinney v. Reeder (7 Watts, Pa. 

123), 1072. 
McKinnis v. Scottish-American 

Mortg. Co. (55 Kan. 259), 930. 
McKircher v. Hawley (16 .Johns. 

N. Y. 289), 31, 288. 
McKissack v. Bullington (37 Miss. 

535), 263. 
McKissick v. Ashby (98 Cal. 422), 

922, 950. 
McKlewey v. Canty (95 Ala. 295), 

1422. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



clvii 



[rekkrkxcss are to pages.] 



McLain Inv. Co. v. Cunningham 

(87 S. W. Rep. 605), 1250. 
McLarren v. Spaulding (2 Cal. 

510), 1162. 
McLaughlin v. Armfield (58 Hun, 

376), 916. 
McLaughlin v. Bishop (35 N. J. 

Law, 512), 462. 
McLaughlin v. Dunn (45 Mo. App. 

645), 573. 
McLaughlin v. Longan (4 Ir. Eq. 

325), 1124. 
McLaughlin v. McGovern (34 

Barb. N. Y. 208), 91. 
McLean v. Bovee (24 Wis. 295), 

1325. 
McLean v. Caldwell (107 Tenn. 

138), 1086, 1093. 
McLean v. Carroll (6 Rob. La. 43), 

1188. 
McLean v. McLean (10 Bush. Ky. 

167), 1465. 
McLean v. Nichol (43 Minn. 169). 

459. 
McLean v. Palmer (2 Kulp. Pa. 

349), 1247. 
McLean v. Spratt (20 Fla. 515), 

938. 
McLellan v. Whitney (65 Vt. 510), 

1318. 
McLennan v. Grant (8 Wash. 603), 

943, 944. 
McLeran v. Benton (73 Cal. 329), 

209, 234, 235. 
McLott V. Savery (11 Iowa, 323), 

591. 
McMahan v. Jacoway (105 Ala. 

585), 1228. 
McMann v. Autenrieth (17 Hun, 

163), 1152, 1355. 
McManus v. Fair Co. (60 Mo. App. 

216), 1015. 
McMaster v. Kohner (44 N. Y. 

Supp. Ct. 253), 555. 
McMillan v. N. Y. Water Proof 

Paper Co. (29 X. J. Eq. 610), 

124S. 



McMillan v. Solomon (42 Ala. 

356), 397, 1342. 
McMullen v. Erwin (58 Ga. 427), 

957. 
McMurphy v. Minot (4 N. H. 251), 

554. 
McMurray v. Harway (56 N. Y. 

337), 644. 
McNair v. Schwartz (16 111. 24), 

318. 
McNally v. Connolly (70 Cal. 3), 

1244. 
McNamara v. O'Brien (2 Wyo. 

447), 229. 
McNeal v. Ryder (79 Minn. 152), 

309, 311. 
McNeeley v. Hunter (30 Mo. 332), 

690. 
McNeely v. Hart (10 Ired N. C. 

Law, 63), 308. 
McNeil V. Kendall (138 Mass. 

245), 2049. 
McNulty V. Duffy (59 N. Y. Supp. 

592), 526. 
McQuade v. Emmons (38 N. J. 

Law, 397), 303. 
McQuestion v. Morgan (34 N. H. 

400), 638. 
McQuire v. Gerstley (26 App. Div. 

193), 463. 
McRickard v. Flint (114 N. Y. 

222), 916. 
McVicker Gaillard Realty Co. v. 

Garth (97 N. Y. Supp. 640), 

1023. 
McWilliams v. Hagan (4 Rob. La. 

374), 874. 
Mc Willie v. Hudson (1 Tread. 

Const. S. C. 119), 1441. 
Mead v. Madden (85 App. Div. 

10), 1086. 
Mead v. Thompson (67 111. 395), 

1439. 
Meader v. Brown (5 N. Y. St. Rep. 

839), 1265. 
Meadows v. Cozart (76 N. C. 450), 

343. 



clviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Meath v. Watson (76 111. App. 

516), 1059. 
Median v. Grifflng (3 Pick. Mass. 

149), 497. 
Medary v. Gathers (161 Pa. St. 

87), 848. 
Medinah Temple Co. v. Currey, 

647, 1050. 
Medway Cotton Co. v. Adams (10 

Mass. 360), 341. 
Medwin v. Sandham (3 Swanst. 

685), 364. 
Meehan v. Forrester (52 N. Y. 

277), 101. 
Meek v. Breckinridge (29 Ohio St. 

642), 442. 
Meeker v. Spalsbury (66 N. J. 

Law, 60), 1131. 
Meeks v. Bowerman (1 Daly, N. 

Y. 99), 783, 1160. 
Meeks v. Ring (4 N. Y. Supp. 

117), 345. 
Mees V. Ansell (3 Wils. 275), 465. 
Meffert v. Dyer (107 Mo. App. 

462), 1319, 1321. 
Megan v. Johnson (2 Taunt. 148), 

198. 
Megarge v. Tanner (1 Clark, Pa. 

331), 1443. 
Mehr v. Krewzberg (187 Pa. St. 

53), 922. 
Meier v. Thiemann (15 Mo. App 

207), 206, 233. 
Meig's Appeal (62 Pa. St. 28). 

1247. 
Melhop V. Meinhart (70 Iowa, 

685), 211. 
Melling v. Leake (16 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 652), 223. 
Mellor V. Watkins (L. R. 9 Q. B. 

400), 1206. 
Mem ford v. Brown (1 Wend. N. Y. 

53), 83. 
Memphis v. Miller (78 Mo. App. 

67), 825. 
Mendel v. Delano (48 Mass. 176), 

445. 



Mengelle v. Abadle (48 La. Ann. 

669), 689. 
Menger v. Ward (87 Tex. 622), 

997, 1046, 1100, 1251. 
Meni v. Rathbone (21 Ind. 454), 

638. 
Menk v. Cooper (2 Ld. Raym. 

147), 1340. 
Menough's Appeal (5 Watts & S. 

Pa. 432), 522. 
Merc. Loan & T. Co. (115 111. App. 

101), 803, 813. 
Mercer v. Cross (79 Ga. 432), 1411. 
Merceron v. Dawson (5 B. & C. 

479), 543, 1080. 
Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Mazange 

(22 Ala. 168), 1041. 
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stanton 

(55 Minn. 211), 212. 
Merchants' & Planters' Bank v, 

Meyer (56 Ark. 499), 1449. 
Merchants' State Bank of Fargo 

V. Ruettel (12 N. D. 519), 389. 
Meridith Machanic Ass'n v. Amer- 
ican Twist-Drill Co. (66 N. H. 

267), 877. 
Meriwether v. Booker (5 Litt. Ky. 

256). 20. 
Meriwether v. Garrett (102 U. S. 

472), 71. 
Merriam v. Cunningham (11 Cush. 

Mass. 40), 18. 
Merriam v. Ridpath (16 Wash. 

104), 1266. 
Merrill v. Bullock (105 Mass. 486), 

235, 236. 
Merrill v. Ressler (37 Minn. 82), 

1404. 
Merrill v. Willis (51 Neb. 162), 

1215. 
Merritt v. Brinkerhoff (17 Johns. 

N. Y. 306), 431. 
Merritt v. Dufur (99 Iowa, 211), 

478. 
Merritt v. Fisher (19 Iowa, 354),. 

1400, 1464. 
Merritt v. Judd (14 Cal. 59), 1277. 



TABLE OP OASES CITED. 



clix 



[REB'ERE-NCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Merrill v. Ressler (37 Minn. 82), 

279. 
Mershom v-. Williams (62 N. L. J. 

779), 1378. 
Merwin v. Camp (3 Conn. 35), 

923, 931, 946. 
Meserole v. Hoyt (161 N. Y. 59), 

1355. 
Messenger v. Armstrong (1 T. R. 

54), 155. 
Messenger v. Pate (42 Iowa, 444), 

916. 
Messent v. Reynolds (3 B. & C. 

201), 698. 
Metcalf V. Fosdlck (23 Ohio St. 

114), 1410. 1440. 
Metcalf V. Smith (106 Ala. 301), 

122. 
Metoyer v. Larenandier (6 Rob. 

La. 139), 964. 
Met. Concert Co. v. Sperry (9 N. 

Y. St. Rep. 342), 1281. 
Metropolitan Land Co. v. Man- 
ning (98 Mo. App. 248), 628, 

1036. 
Meyer v. Henderson (16 S. Rep. 

729), 1347. 
Meyer v. Huneke (55 N. Y. 412), 

547. 
Meyer v. Livesley (78 Pac. Rep. 

670), 313. 
Meyer v. O'dell (18 Tex. Civ. App. 

210), 1423. 
Meyer v. Rothschild, (46 La. Ann. 

1174), 1056. 
Meyer v. Smith (33 Ark. 627), 

1214, 1215. 
Meyer v. Thomas (131 Ala. 65), 

32. 
Meyers v. Burns (33 Barb. N. Y. 

401), 615. 
Meyers v. Sea Beach Ry. Co. (167 

N. Y. 581), 1185. 
Michael v. Curtis (60 Conn. 363), 

200. 
Michaels v. Fishel (169 N. Y. 381), 

459, 630. 



Michael v. O'Brien (6 Misc. Rep. 

408), 647. 
Michau v. Walsh (6 Mo. 346), 672. 
Michigan Central R. Co. v. Bul- 

lard (120 Mich. 416), 924. 
Mickle V. Douglas (75 Iowa, 78), 

211, 1286. 
Mickle V. Lawrence (5 Rand. Va. 

571), 243. 
Mickle V. Miles (31 Pa. St. 20), 

505. 
Midgett V. Brooks (12 Ired. L. N. 

C. 145), 599. 
Middlebrook v. Corwin (15 Wend. 

N. Y. 169), 763. 1331, 1332. 
Middlekauf v. Smith (1 Md. 329), 

879. 
Middleton's Ex'rs v. Middleton (35 

N. J. Eq. 141), 520. 
Miland v. Meiswinkel (82 111. App. 

522). 905. 
Miles V. Elkin (10 Ind. 329), 317. 
Miles V. Murphy, Jr. (R. 5 C. L. 

382), 171. 
Miles Co. V. Gordon (8 Wash. 

442), 292. 
Milford V. Holbrook (9 Allen, 

Mass. 17), 813. 
Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey (21 

Pick. Mass. 417), 467. 
Millard v. Baldwin (3 Gray, Mass. 

484), 533. 
Millard v. Robinson (4 Hill, N. Y. 

604), 1444. 
Miller, Ex parte (2 Hill, N. Y. 

418), 117. 
Miller v. Baker (1 Met. Mass. 27), 

132, 1260. 
Miller v. Bider (105 N. W. Rep. 

594), 1426. 
Miller v. Bonsadon (9 Ala. 317), 

923. 
Miller v. Bristol (29 Mass. 550), 

445. 
Miller v. Fitzgerald Dry Goods Co. 

(62 Neb. 270), 414, 419. 



clx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[ FJiFEREK CES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Miller v. Hancock (4 Rep. 478), 

814, 816. 
Miller v. Havens (51 Mich. 482), 

1324. 
Miller v. Havens (51 Mich. 999), 

665. 
Miller v. Hawes (58 111. App. 667), 

1094. 
Miller v. Hennessy (94 N. Y. Supp. 

563), 1300. 
Miller v. Hine (13 Ohio, 565), 24. 
Miller v. Johnson (12 Wend. N. Y. 

197), 1444. 
Miller v. Lampson (66 Conn. 432), 

168. 
Miller v. Lang (99 Mass. 12), 964. 
Miller v. Maguire (18 R. I. 770), 

776, 1129, 1132, 1136, 1164. 
Miller v. Mainwaring (Cro. Car. 

397), 5, 229. 
Miller v. McArdell (19 R. I. 304), 

857, 879. 
Miller v. McBaier (14 S. & R. Pa. 

385), 243, 927. 
Miller v. Mitchell (13 Ind. App. 

190), 1161, 1175, 1180. 
Miller v. Morris (55 Tex. 412), 

896. 
Miller v. Prescott (163 Mass. 12), 

655, 723, 770. 
Miller v. Rinaldo (47 N. Y. Supp. 

336), 859. 
Miller v. Sharp (68 L. J. Ch. 322), 

389, 1384. 
Miller v. Turney (13 Ark. 385), 

951. 
Miller v. Waddingham (25 Pac. 

Rep. 689), 1243. 
Miller v. Warren (182 N. Y. 539), 

957, 1100. 
Millers v. Augusta (63 Ga. 772), 

117. 
Millett V. Lagomarsino (39 Pac. 

Rep. 308), 965. 
Millhouse v. Patrick (0 Rich. Law, 
S. C. 350), 922, 948. 964. 



Milliken v. Faulk (111 Ala. 658), 

392, 395. 
Milliken v. Thorndike (103 Mass. 

382), 477. 
Milling V. Becker (96 Pa. St. 182), 

1207, 1208. 
Millot V. Conrad (112 La. 928), 

1425. 
Mills V. Goff (14 Mee. & Wei. 72), 

160. 
Mills V. Hamilton (49 Iowa, 105), 

487. 
Mills V. Hoaton (52 Iowa, 215), 

487. 
Mills V. Matthews (7 Md. 315), 

1447. 
Mills V. Merryman (49 Me. 65), 

49. 
Milltown V. Goodman, Jr. (R. 10 

C. L. 27), 351. 
Milner v. Cooper (65 Iowa, 190), 

1463. 
Milnes v. Branch (5 M. & S. 411), 

488. 
Milnes v. Gerry (14 Ves. 407), 

983, 1293. 
Milton V. Hayden (32 Ala. 30), 

933. 
Minard v. Burtis (83 Wis. 267), 

234. 
Miner v. Beekman (11 Abb. Prac. 

N. Y. 147), 28. 
Miner v. Taggart (3 Binn. Pa. 

205), 1042. 
Minneapolis Ry. Co. v. Columbia 

R. Mill Co. (119 U. S. 149), 991. 
Minn. Co-op. Co. v. Williamson 

(51 Minn. 53), 1147, 1358. 
Minor v. Sharon (112 Mass. 477), 

477, 795, 796, 1150. 
Minot V. Joy (118 Mass. 308, 310), 

1020. 
Minshull v. Oakes (2 H. & N. 793), 

1080. 
Minton V. Geiger (28 L. T. 449), 

398. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxi 



[P.p:rEREXCES ARE TO PA(;ES.] 



Mirick v. Bashford (38 Barb. N. 

Y. 191), 878. 
Mirick v. Hoppin (118 Mass. 582), 

30, 1136. 
Misamore's Estate (90 Cal. 169), 

51. 
Mississenewa M. Co. v. Andrew 

(22 Ind. App. 523), 514. 
Missouri, K. & T. Co. v. Fullmore 

(26 S. W. Rep. 238), 682. 
Missouri, Ky. & T. Ry. Co. v. 

Keahey (S3 S. W. Rep. 1102), 

1098. 
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Moffitt 

(94 Mo. 56), 443. 
Mitchell V. Badgett (33 Ark. 387), 

279,1404. 
Mitchell V. Bartlett (51 N. Y. 447), 

34. 
Mitchell V. Billingsley (17 Ala. 

391), 1259. 
l\Iitchell V. Blossom (24 Mo. App. 

48), 1198, 1223. 
Mitchell V. Commonwealth (37 Pa. 

St. 187), 264. 
Mitchell V. Ball (2 Har. & G. Md. 

159), 552. 
Mitchell V. Hazen (4 Conn. 495), 

599. 
Mitchell V. McNeal (4 Colo. App. 

136), 884. 
Mitchell V. Nelson (13 S. C. 105), 

907. 
Mitchell V. Pendleton (21 Ohio St. 

664), 573. 
Mitchell V. Plaut (31 111. App. 

148), 563, 877. 
Mitchell V. Printup (48 Ga. 455), 

1291. 
Mitchell V. Read (61 N. Y. 123), 

1104. 
Mitchell Y. Ryan (3 Ohio St. 377), 

352. 
Mitchell V. Scott (62 N. H. 596), 

774. 
Mitchell V. State (34 Tex. Cr. Rep. 

311), 778. 



Mitchell V. Stewart (13 S. & R. 

Pa. 295), 1444. 
Mitchell V. United States (9 Fet- 
ters, U. S. 711), 38. 
Mitchell V. Winslow (2 Story, 

644), 1428. 
Mittelstadt v. Wulfers (1 Misc. 

Rep. 215), 1157. 
Mixon V. Coffield (24 N. C. 301), 

1230. 
Mizner v. Moore (10 Gray, Mass. 

290), 213. 
Mobley v. Bruner (59 Pa. St. 481), 

90. 
Moderwell v. Mullison (21 Pa. St, 

257), 93. 
Moen V. Lillestal (5 N. D. 327), 

321. 
Moffat V. Henderson (50 N. Y. 

Super. Ct. R. 211), 1010. 
Moffatt V. Smith (4 N. Y. 126), 

877, 1113. 
Moffatt V. Strong (22 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 57), 564, 1178. 
Molineux v. Molineux (Cro. Jac. 

144), 634. 
Molitor V. Sheldon (37 Kan. 246), 

445. 
:\Iolony V. Kernan (2 Dr. & War. 

31), 474. 
Momrich v. Schwartz (96 N. W. 

Rep. 636), 1457. 
Montague v. Gay (17 Mass. 439), 

491, 541. 
Montague v. Mial (89 N. Car. 

137), 1424. 
Montague v. Sewell (57 Md. 412), 

277. 
Montanye v. Wallahan (84 111. 

355), 341, 1171, 1182. 
Monck V. Geekle (9 Ad. & EI. 

841), 130, 144. 
Monks V. Dykes (4 M. & W. 507), 

282. 
Monroe v. Carlisle (57 N. E. Rep. 

332), 798. 



clxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[refebences are to pages.] 



Montecon v. Faures (3 La. Ann. 

43), 1068. 
j*Tontgomery v. Hamilton County 

(76 Ind. 362), 1302. 
Montgomery v. Milliken (9 Miss. 

495), 53. 
Montgomery v. Willis (45 Neb. 

434), 141, 176. 
Moodle v. Garance (3 Bulst. 153), 

541. 
Moody V. Cummiskey (9 Pick. 

Mass. 104), 679. 
Moody V. Garnon (3 Bulst. 153), 

541. 
Moody V. King (74 Me. 497), 688. 
Moody V. Mathews (7 Ves. 183), 

20. 
Moody V. Vandyke (4 Binn. Pa. 

31), 53. 
Moody V. Wright (13 Met. Mass. 

17), 1427. 
Moody's Lessee v. Filmer (3 

Grant Cas. Pa. 17), 53. 
Mooers v. Wait (3 Wend. N. Y. 

104), 685, 717, 1300, 1336. 
Moore v. Beasley (3 Ohio, 294), 

139, 141, 388, 950. 
Moore v. Boyd (24 Me. 243), 214, 

216. 
Moore v. Chartiers Water Co. (216 

Pa. St. 467), 62. 
Moore v. Choat (8 Sim. 508), 1107. 
Moore v. Faison (97 N. Car. 322), 

1439. 
Moore v. Fletcher (16 Me. 63), 

437. 
Moore v. Foley (6 Ves. 232), 1363, 

1372, 1374. 
Moore v. Fursden (1 Show, 342), 

86. 
Moore v. Ferguson (2 Munf. Va. 

421), 22. 
Moore v. Gholson (34 Miss. 372), 

105. 
Moore v. Goedell (34 N. Y. 527), 

838. 



Moore v. Goodwin (161 Pa. St. 

175), 1144. 
Moore v. Grey (2 Ph. 717), 1107. 
Moore v. Guardian Trust Com. 

(173 Mo. 218), 1046. 
Moore v, Harter (67 Ohio St. 250), 

143. 
Moore v. Lawder (1 Stark. 308), 

155. 
Moore v. Levert (24 Ala. 310), 

870. 
Moore v. Mahney (1 Mich. N. P. 

143), 1329. 
Moore v. Miller (8 Pa. St. 272), 

243. 
Moore V. Moore (89 N. W. Rep. 

629), 1244. 
Moore v. Parker (63 Kan. 62), 

789, 79L 
Moore v. Rawson (3 Bar. & C. 

332), 409. 
Moore v. Smith (56 N. J. Law, 

446), 230, 234. 
Moore v. Smith (24 111. 512), 1254, 

1293. 
Moore v. Steljes (69 Fed. Rep. 

518), 831. 
Moore v. Titman (44 111. 367), 30. 
Moore v. Weber (71 Pa. St. 429), 

848, 850, 874, 1157. 
Morecraft v. Menx (1 Car. & P. 

346), 861. 
Morehouse v. Cotheal (22 N. J. 

Law, 521), 716. 
Moreland v. Myall (14 Bush. Ky. 

474), 22. 
Moreland v. Strong (115 Mich. 

211), 84, 85. 
Morey v. Hoyt (62 Conn. 542), 

1285. 
Moran v. Bergin (111 111. App. 

313), 1340. 
Morgan v. Blrnle (9 Bing. 672), 

909. 
Morgan v. Bissell (3 Taunt. 65), 

247. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxiii 



[references are to pages.] 



"Morgan v. Goldberg (9 Misc. Rep. 

N. Y. 156), 1380. 
Morgan v. Griffiths (23 L. T. 783), 

382. 
Morgan v. Griffith (40 L. J. Ex. 

46), 460. 
Morgan v. Moody (6 Watts & S. 

Pa. 333), 1443. 
Morgan v. Morgan (65 Ga. 493), 

1306. 
Morgan v. Powell (7 Mann. & G. 

989), 64. 
Morgan v. Powers (31 N. Y. S. 

954), 177. 
Morgan v. Slaughter (1 Esp. 8), 

365, 607. 
Morgan v. Smith (70 N. Y. 537), 

1094, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1215. 
Morgan v. Yims (97 S. E. Rep. 

832), 869. 
Moritz V. Miller T87 Ala. 331). 32. 
Morrell v. Mackman (24 Mich. 

279), 297. 
Morris v. Apperson (13 S. W. Rep. 

441), 955. 
Morris v. Barry (Wils. 1), 80. 
Morris v. Dayton (84 N. Y. Supp. 

392), 1207. 
Morris v. Dayton (86 N. Y. Supp. 

172), 1219. 
Morris v. De Wolf (11 Tex. Civ. 

App. 701), 641. 
Morris v. Edington (3 Taunt. 24), 

417, 422. 
Morris v. Kettle (56 N. J. Eq. 

826), 404. 
Morris v. Kettle (57 N. J. Law, 

218), 1176, 1177, 1180. 
Morris v. Manufacturing Co. (83 

Ala. 565), 742. 
Morris v. McKee (96 Ga. 611), 

365. 
Morris v. Morris (3 De Gex & J. 

323), 726. 
Morris v. Niles (12 Abb. Pr. N. Y. 
103). 1113. 



Morris v. Palmer (44 S. Car. 462), 

186, 190, 193. 
Morris v. Parker (1 Ashm. Pa. 

187), 1084. 
Morris v. Summerl (2 Wash. C. C. 

203), 1042. 
Morris v. Tillson (81 111. 607), 

1131, 1136, 1137. 
Morris v. Wheat (11 App. D. C. 

201), 948, 971. 
Morris Canal & Banking Co. v. 

Mitchell (31 N. J. Law, 99), 

204. 
Morrison v. Bassett (26 Minn. 

235), 920. 
Morrison v. Chadwick (7 C. B. 

266), 1179, 1180. 
Morrison v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. 

Co. (117 Iowa. 587), 687. 
Morrison v. Galloway (2 Har. & 

J. Md. 461), 601. 
Morrison v. Marquardt (24 Iowa, 

35), 410. 
Morrison v. Rossingnol (5 Cal. 

64), 1367, 1373. 
Morrison v. Smith (90 Md. 76), 

641, 642, 644, 646. 
Morrison v. Sohn (90 Mo. App. 

76), 1205, 1240. 
Morrish, Ex parte (22 Ch. D. 410), 

650. 
Morrow, Ex parte (17 Fed. Cases, 

No. 9,850). 1407. 
Morrow v. Brady (12 R. I. 131), 

567. 
Morrow v. Williams (14 N. C 

264), 349. 
Morse v. Goddard (13 Met. Mass. 

177), 1171, 1182. 
Morse v. Merest (6 Madd. 25), 

1293. 
Mortimer v. Brunner (6 Bosw. N. 

Y. 653), 1177. 
Mortimer v. Orchard (2 Ves. Jr. 

242), 1384. 
Morton v. Pinckney (8 Bos. N. Y. 
135), 106L 



clxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Morton V. Weir (70 N. Y. 247), 

1280. 
Morton v. Woods (L R. 4 Q. B. 

306), 207. 
Moser v. Lower (48 Mo. 504), 310. 
Moses V. Loomis (156 111. 892), 

654, 655. 
Mosher v. Yost (33 Barb. N. Y. 

277), 47. 
Moshier v. Reding (12 Me. 478), 

139, 155, 243, 920, 964. 
Moskowitz V. Diringen (48 Misc. 

Rep. 543), 1240. 
Moss Appeal (35 Pa. St. 162), 1441. 
Moss V. Barton (35 Beav. 197), 

1375, 1377. 
Moss V. Gallimore (1 Doug. 269), 

29. 
Moss Point Lumber Co. v. Harri- 
son Co. (89 Miss. 899), 718. 
Mostyn (Lord) v. Fitzsimmons 

(71 L. J. K. B. 89), 1389. 
Mott V. Palmer (1 N. Y. 564), 

1259. 
Mound V. Barker (71 Vt. 253), 

772. 
Moule V. Garrett (L. R. 5 Ex. 132), 

1021, 1085. 
Moulton V. Robinson (27 N. H. 

550), 312, 763. 
Mcuntnoy v. Collier (1 E. & B. 

630), 925. 
Mounts V. Goranson (29 Wash. 

261), 156. 
Mowry v. Providence (16 R. L 

422), 71. 
Mowry v. AVhite (21 Wis. 421), 

1427. 
Moyer v. Gordon (113 Ind. 282), 
. 690. 
Moyer v. Mitchell (53 Md. 171), 

848. 
Moynihan v. Allyn (162 Mass. 

270), 788, 813, 815. 
Mudd's Ex'rs v. Reed (11 Ky. 

Law Rep. 998), 15. 



Muernberger v. Von Der Heldt (33 

111. App. 404), 312. 
Mugford V. Richardson (6 Allen, 

Mass. 76), 1298. 
Muhlenbrlnck v. Pooler (40 Hun, 

526), 1371, 1373, 1375. 
Mulcahy v. Dry Dock Co. (8 Daly, 

N. Y. 93), 873. 
Mulhaupt V. Enders (38 La. Ann. 

744), 1464. 
Mulheisen v. Lane (82 111. 117), 

1458. 
Mull V. Graham (7 Ind. App. 561), 

873. 
Mullen V. Pugh (16 Ind. App. 337), 

1276. 
Mullen V. Rainier (45 N. J. Law, 

520), 782. 
Mullen V. Strieker (19 Ohio St. 

135). 409. 
Muller V. Brumer (69 111. 108), 

15. 
Muller V. Kerler (115 La. 783), 

852. 
Muller V. Minken (5 Misc. Rep. 

44), 810. 
Mulligan v. Hollingsworth (99 

Fed. Rep. 216), 649. 
Mumford v. Brown (6 Cow. N. Y. 

475), 847, 874. 
Mumford v. Walker (71 L. J. K. 

B. 19), 751. 
Muncey v. Dennis (1 H. & N. 216), 

1314. 
Munday v. O'Neill (44 Neb. 724), 

1325. 
Municipality No. 2 v. Curell (13 

La. 318), 1023. 
Munroe v. Armstrong (179 Mass. 

165), 1248. • 
Munroe v. Carlisle (176 Mass. 

199), 837. 
Munroe v. Perkins (9 Pick. Mass. 

298), 467. 
Munsell v. Carew (2 Cush. Mass.. 

50), 1427. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxv 



[EEFERENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Munson v. Plummer (59 Iowa, 

120), 204, 291. 
Munson v. Ray (7 Black. Ind. 

403), 243. 
Murdock v. Ratcliff (7 Ohio St. 1), 

42. 
Murphej^ v. Illinois Trust & Sav- 
ings Bank (58 Neb. 428), 874. 
Murphy v. Century Bldg. Co. (90 

Mo. App. 621), 633, 1185. 
Murphy v. Hopcraft (142 Cal. 43), 

572. 
Murphy v. Hubbs (8 Colo. 17), 

1301. 
Murphy v. Insurance Co. (61 Mo. 

App. 323), 1271. 
Murphy v. Marshall (179 Pa. St. 

516), 675, 1132. 
Murphy v. St. Louis Type Foundry 

(29 Mo. App. 541), 766. 
Murray v. Albertson (50 N. J. 

Law, 167), 782. 
Murray v. Armstrong (11 Miss. 

209), 106, 159. 
Murray v. Cazier (23 Ind. App. 

600), 534. 
Murray v. Cherrington (99 Mass. 

229), 191. 
Murray v. Emmons (19 N. H. 483), 

21. 
Murray v. Harway (56 N. Y. 337), 

1058. 
Murray v. Moross (27 Mich. 203). 

1261, 1304. 
Murray v. Pennington (3 Grat. 

Va. 91), 1173. 
Murrell v. Jackson (33 La. Ann. 

1342), 731. 
Murrell v. Lyon (30 La. Ann. 

255), 356. 
Musgrave v. Horner (31 L. T. 

632), 763. 
Mussey v. Holt (24 N. H. 248), 84. 
Mussey v. Scott (32 Vt. 82), 237. 
Myer Bros.' Assignee v. Gaertner 

(21 Ky. L. R. 53), 1091. 



Myers v. Bolton (89 Hun, 342), 

437. 
Myers v. Burns (35 N. Y. 269), 

536, 857, 876. 
Myers v. Estell (48 Miss. 372), 

30, 32. 
Myers v. Gemmell (10 Barb. N. Y. 

537), 411. 
Myers v. Hunt (8 N. Y. St. Rep. 

338), 1060. 
Myers v. Kingston Coal Co. (126 

Pa. St. 582), 373. 
Myers v. Merrell (57 Ga. 516), 

883, 892. 
Myers v. Reade (98 N. Y. Supp. 

620), 1012. 
Myer v. Roberts (89 Pac. Rep. 

1051), 296, 1331. 
Myers v. Rosenback (25 N. Y. 

Supp. 521), 477. 
Myers v. Smith (29 Md. 91), 1461. 
Myer v. Whitaker (55 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 376), 435. 
Myers v. White (1 Rawle, Pa. 

355), 31. 
Myerson v. Neff (5 Ind. 523), 156. 
Myhre v. Schleuder (98 Minn. 

234), 865. 



N. 



Nachbour v. Wiener (34 111. App. 

237), 382, 1195. 
Nadel v. Fichten (34 App. Div. 

188), 806. 
Nagel V. League (70 Mo. App. 

487), 653. 663. 
Naglee v. Ingersoll (7 Pa. St. 185), 

1160. 
Nahm v. Register (27 Ky. SS7), 

802. 
Naish V. Tatlock (2 H. Black, 

319), 576. 
Nail V. Cazenove (4 East, 477), 

343. 
Nance t. Alexander (49 Ind. 516), 

573. 



clxvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[eefebences 

Nash V. Beckman (83 Ind. 536), 

146. 
Nash V. Grey (2 P. & F. 391), 545. 
Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. 

Heikens (112 Tenn. 378), 1340. 
Nashville, O. & L. Ry. Co. v. Heik- 
ens (79 S. W. Rep. 1038), 683, 

705, 721. 
Natelson v. Reich (99 N. Y. Supp. 

327), 556. 
Nation v. Tozer (1 C. M. & R. 

172), 576. 
National Lumber Co. v. Bowman 

(77 Iowa, 706), 1448. 
National Mahaiwe Bank v. Hand 

(80 Hun, 584), 1042. 
National Union Bldg. Ass'n v. 

Brewer (41 111. App. 233), 195, 

1227. 
Naundorf v. Schuman (41 N. J. 

Eq. 14), 53. 
Nave v. Berry (22 Ala. 382), 730, 

892, 1044. 
Neal V. Swind or Sweeney (2 C. 

& J. 377), 574. 
Neale v. Mackenzie (1 M. & W. 

747), 1178, 1180. 
Neale v. Radcliffe (15 Q. B. 916), 

911. 
Neale v. Wyllie (5 D. & R. 442), 

1080, 1097. 
Nedvidek v. Meyer (46 Mo. 600), 

561. 
Neeb v. McMillan (98 Iowa, 718), 

1432. 
Needy v. MiddlekaufE (102 Md. 

181), 429, 454. 
Needham v. Allison (24 N. H. 

355), 1333. 
Needham Piano Co. v. Hollings- 

worth (Tex. 40 S. W. Rep. 750), 

1440. 
Neeley v. Phillips (70 Ark. 90), 

1453. 
Neglia v. Lielouka (65 N. Y. Supp. 
500), 856. 



ABE TO PAGES.] 

Neidelet v. Wales (16 Mo. 214), 

1340. 
Neiderstein v. Cusick (81 N. Y. 

Supp. 1058), 1395. 
Neifert v. Ames (26 Kan. 515), 

1431. 
Neill V. Chessen (15 111. App. 266), 

491. 
Neiner v. Altemeyer (68 Mo. App. 

243), 554. 
Neiswanger v. Squier (73 Mo. 

192), 1269, 1301. 
Nellis V. Lathrop (22 Wend. N. Y. 

121), 541, 937. 
Nelson v. Brown (140 Mo. 580), 

388. 
Nelson v. Goree's Adm'r (34 Ala. 

565), 10. 
Nelson y. Thompson (23 Minn. 

508), 1198, 1199, 1210. 
Nelson v. Ware (57 Kan. 670), 

155. 
Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs (1 

J. J. Marsh. Ky. 138), 91. 
Nesbit V. Godfrey (155 Pa. St. 

251), 346, 348. 
Nesbitt V. Bartlett (14 Iowa, 485), 

1421, 1429. 
Nesham v. Selby (41 L. J. Ch. 

173), 268. 
Nessley v. Ladd (29 Or. 354), 971. 
Nestal V. Schmid (39 N. J. Law, 

686), 320. 
Nestell V. Hewitt (19 Abb. N. C. 

282), 279. 
Newall V. Wright (3 Mass. 138), 

30, 541. 
Newberg v. Cowan (62 Miss. 570), 

582. 
Newby v. Jackson (1 B. & C. 448), 

198. 
Newby v. Sharpe (8 Ch. Div. 39), 

858, 1132. 
Newcomb v. Presbrey (9 Met. 

Mass. 406), 599. 
Newcomb v. Stebbins (99 Mass. 
616), 52. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxvii 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Newcome v. Emery (Ky. 42 S. W. 

Rep. 105), 471. 
Newell V. Gibbs (1 Watts & S. Pa. 

491), 920. 
NewhofE V. Mayo (48 N. J. Eq. 

619), 963. 
Newman v. Anderson (5 Bos. & P. 

224), 505. 
Newman v. Anderton (2 W. R. 

224), 282, 510. 
Newman v. Bank (66 Miss. 323), 

1411, 1425, 1454. 
Newman v. French (45 Hun, N. Y. 

65), 877, 867. 
Newman v. Keffer (18 Fed. Rep. 

695), 90. 
Newman v. Mackin (21 Miss. 383), 

920, 943. 
Newman v. Metropolitan El. R. 

Co. (10 N. Y. gt. Rep. 12), 431. 
Newman v. Tolmie (SO N. Y. Supp. 

990), 454. 
Newman v. Tolmie (81 App. Div. 

Ill), 1369. 
Newman v. Ward (46 S. W. Rep. 

868), 1457. 
Newmarch v. Brandling (3 

Swanst. 99), 110. 
Newport Illuminating Co. v. As- 
sessors, etc. (19 R. I. 632), 442. 
Newron v. Calhoun (68 Tex. 451), 

122. 
News Co. V. Browne (103 111. 317), 

562. 
Newstedt v. Scarborough (13 Ohio 

Dec. 327), 335. 
Newton v. Allin (1 G. & D. 44), 

1178. 
Newton v. Harland (1 M. & G. 

644), 237. 
Newton v. Musen (61 N. Y. Supp. 

61), 378. 
Newton v. Roe (33 Ga. 163), 964. 
Newton v. Spearce Laundry Co. 

(19 R. I. 546), 1207. 
New York v. Kent (5 N. Y. Supp. 

567), 72. 



New York v. Mason (9 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 282), 458. 
New York C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. 

Randall (102 Ind. 453), 243. 
New York Cent. R. R. Co. v. B. N. 

Y. & E. R. R. Co. (49 Barb. N. 

Y 501), 447. 
New York El. R. Co. v. Manhattan 

Ry. Co. (63 How. Pr. N. Y. 14), 

70. 
New York, etc. Co. v. Randall 

(102 Ind. 453), 243. 
New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. (8 

Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 593), 361. 
New York Life Ins. & Tr. Co. v. 

Rector Ch. (6i How. Pr. Rep. 

511), 1387. 
New York R. Est. & Bldg. Imp. 

Co. V. Motley (143 N. Y. 156), 

1356. 
New York & T, Land Co. v. Cru- 

ger (Tex. 27 S. W. Rep. 212), 

564. 
New Era Mfg. Co. v. O'Reilly (197 

Mo. 466), 1144. 
New Hampshire Trust Co. v. Tag- 

gart (68 N. H. 557), 1063. 
New Ipswich Factory v. Batch- 
elder (3 N. H. 190), 439. 
New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Van 

Syckle (37 N. J. Law, 495), 686. 
New Orleans v. Darns (39 La. 

Ann. 766), 731. 
New Orleans v. Guillotte (14 La. 

Ann. 875), 61. 
Niagara Fire Insurance Co. v. 

Bishop (154 111. 9), 572. 
Nicholas v. Chamberlain (Cro. 

Jac. 131), 446. 
Nicholes v. Smith (118 Ga. 922), 

195. 
Nicholes v. Swift (118 Ga. 922), 

523. 
Nicholl V. McKaeg (10 B. & Cr. 

721), 186. 
Nicholls V. Atherstone (10 Q. B. 

944), 1213. 



clxviii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED, 



[references are to pages.] 



Nicholls V. Barnes (32 Neb. 195), 

194, 1405. 
Nicholls V. Barnes (39 Neb. 103), 

328. 
Nicholls V. Byrne (11 La. O. S. 

170), 1165. 
Nichols V. Dusenbury (2 N. Y. 

283), 563, 878. 
Nichols V. Luce (24 Pick. Mass. 

102), 439. 
Nichols V. Sargent (125 111. 309), 

17. 
Nichols V. Williams (8 Cow. N. Y. 

137), 204. 
Nicholson v. Smith (52 L. J. Ch. 

191), 1382. 
Nicoll V. Burke (78 N. Y. 581), 

555, 857. 
Nicoll V. New York Cent. R. R. 

Co. (12 N. Y. 121). 61. 
ISTickells v. Atherstone (10 Q. B. 

944), 1199. 
Nicrosi v. Phillippi (91 Ala. 299), 

928, 938. 
Nieland v. Mahnken (85 N. Y. S. 

809), 1287. 
Nigro V. Hatch (11 Pac. Rep. 177), 

1249. 
Niles V. Gonzales (82 Pac. Rep. 

212), 940. 
Nimo V. Harway (50 N. Y. Supp. 

686), 1347. 
Nimmo v. Harway (23 Misc. Rep. 

126), 852. 
Nindle v. Bank (13 Neb. 245), 356. 
Nitroglycerine Case (15 Wall. U. 

S. 524), 709, 73L 
Nixon V. Quinn (Ir. R. 2 C. L. 

247), 579. 
Noble V. Becker (3 Brewster, Pa. 

550), 1051. 
Noble V. Tyler (61 Ohio St. 432), 5. 
Nobles V. McCarty (61 Mi.ss. 456), 

277, 320, 1436. 
Nodine v. Richmond (Oreg. 1906, 
87 Pac. Rep. 775), 954. 



Noe V. Hodges (22 Tenn. 162), 

326. 
Noe V. Layton (89 S. W. Rep. 

1065), 1451. 
Noel V. Herman Bencke Lith. Co. 

(134 N. Y. 617), 1037. 
Noel V. McCrary (7 Coldw. Tenn. 

623), 140. 
Noke V. Awder "(Cro. Eliz. 373), 

618. 
Nokes V. Gibbons (3 Derw. 68), 

667. 1038. 
Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Shay (37 

111. App. 542), 1154, 1155, 1344. 
Noonan v. Orton (31 Wis. 265), 

617. 
Noonan v. Orton (27 Wis. 300), 

617. 
Noonan v. Orton (21 Wis. 283), 

617. 
Norcross v. Norcross (105 Mass. 

265), 28. 
Norfleet v. Cromwell (64 N. C. 

1),915. 
Norman v. Wells (17 Wend. N. Y. 

136), 615, 616. 
Norris v. Morrill (43 N. H. 213), 

178, 635. 
North American Tr. Co. v. Bur- 
row (68 Ark. 584), 35. 
North Chicago S. R. Co. v. Le 

Grand Co. (95 111. App. 435), 

377. 646. 663, 1102, 1391. 
North Haverhill Water Co. v. Met- 

calf (63 N. H. 427), 575. 
Northeastern F. Ins. Co. v. Schet- 

ter (38 111. 166), 65. 
Northern Trust Co. v. Snyder (76 

Fed. Rep. 34), 1041. 
Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Bastian 

(15 Md. 494), 65. 
Northness v. Ilillstead (87 Minn. 

304), 315. 
Northwestern Gas Co. v. Tiffin (59 

Ohio St. 420), 393, 1111. 
Norton v. Gale (95 111. 533), 383. 

569. 1272. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cLxix 



[references are to pages. 7 



Norton v. Herron (1 Car. & P. 

648), 105. 
Norton v. Sanders (1 Dana, Ky. 

14), 953. 
Norton v. Snyder (2 Hun, N. Y. 

82), 1392. 
Norton v. Vultee (1 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. Rep. 427), 560. 
Norton v. Webster (12 Ad. & El. 

442), 465. 
Norway v. Rowe (19 Ves. 144), 

723, 1278. 
Norwood V. Byrd (1 Rich. S. C. 

135), 462. 
Norwood V. Kirby (70 Ala. 397), 

964. 
Noyaille v. Flight (7 Beav. 521), 

892. 
Noyes v. Longhead (9 Wash. 325), 

286, 347. 
Noyes v. Stillman (24 Conn. 15), 

679, 683, 689. 
Nugent V. Riley (1 Met. Mass. 

117), 280. 
Nunn V. Fabian (35 L. J. Ch. 140), 

389.1384. 
Nute V. Hamilton Ins. Co. (6 Gray, 

Mass. 182), 572. 
Nye V. Patterson (35 Mich. 413), 

1324. 
Nyquist v. Martin (35 111. App. 

623), 261. 



Oakes v. Aldridge (46 Mo. App. 

11), 33, 501, 976. 
Oakes v. Oakes (16 111. 106), 519, 

573. 
Oakford v. Nirdlinger (196 Pa. St. 

162), 289. 
Oakford v. Nixon (177 Pa. St. 76). 

1129,1157. 
Oakley v. Monck (3 H. & C. 706), 

7,141. 
Oakley v. Stanley (5 Wend. N. Y. 

523), 446. 



Oastler v. Henderson (46 L. J. Q. 

B. 607), 1207. 
Oates V. Frithe (2 Rolle's Abr. 

447), 529. 
Ober V. Brooks (162 Mass. 102), 

630,999. 
Obermeyer v. Nichols (6 Binn. Pa. 

159), 601, 867. 
O'Brien v. Capwell (59 Barb. N. 

Y. 497), 782. 
O'Brien v. Cavanaugh (61 Mich. 

368), 689. 
O'Brien v. Greenbaum (4 N. Y. 

Supp. 852), 826. 
O'Brien v. Smith (59 Hun, 624), 

331, 674, 691, 1183, 1190. 
O'Brien v. Troxel (76 Iowa, 760), 

146. 
Ocean Grove C. M. Ass'n v. San- 
ders (54 Atl. Rep. 448), 505, 

632. 
Ocean Grove Land Ass'n v. Bert- 
hall (62 N. J. Law, 88), 645. 
Ocean S. S. Co. v. Hamilton (112 

Ga. 901), 847. 
O'Connell v. McGrath (14 Allen, 

Mass. 289), 770. 
O'Connor v. Andrews (31 Tex. 

28), 800, 807. 
O'Connor v. Delaney (53 Minn. 

247), 83. 
O'Connor v. IMemphis (7 Lea, 

Tenn. 219), 699. 
O'Connor v. O'Connor (19 W. R. 

90), 541. 
O'Connor v. Schnepel (33 X. Y. 

Supp. 562). 865. 
Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank v. Ban- 
ton (46 Cal. 603), 390. 
Odell v. Durant (62 N. Y. 524), 

119, 120. 
Odell V. Solomon (99 N. Y. 635), 

859. 
O'Donnell v. Hitchcock (118 Mass. 

401), 1253. 
O'Donnell v. Mclntyre (US N. Y. 

156),4S4.v 



clxx 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[reierences are to pages.] 



O'Donnell v. Rosenthal (110 111. 

App. 225), 830. 
O'Dougherty v. Felt (65 Barb. N. 

Y. 220), 28. 
O'Dwyer v. O'Brien (13 App. Div. 

570), 802. 
Oehme v. Shotland (90 N. Y. Supp. 

958), 753. 
Oetgen v. Ross (47 111. 142), 975. 
Oettinger v. Levy (4 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 288), 856. 
Offterdinger v. Ford (92 Va. 636), 

1465. 
Ofschlager v. Sinbeck (50 N. Y. 

Supp. 862), 302. 
Ogden V. Gety (91 N. Y. Supp. 

664), 1014. 
Ogden V. Hater (145 Pa. St. 640), 

641, 643, 644. 
Ogden V. Jennings (66 Barb. N. 

Y. 301). 442, 446. 
Ogden V. Rowe (3 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 312), 595. 
Ogden V. Sanderson (3 E. D. S. 

N. Y. 166), 1130, 1177. 
Ogden V. Smith (2 Paige Ch. N. Y. 

195), 55. 
Ogilvie V. Hall (5 Hill, N. Y. 84), 

1167. 
Ogilvie V. Foljambe (17 R. R. 13), 

386,387. 
Ogle V. Hubbel (1 Cal. App. 375), 

1003. 
O'Gorman v. Harby (18 Misc. 

Rep. 228), 1143. 
O'Hara v. Jones (46 111. 288), 1083. 
Ohio V. Shutt (78 Tex. 375), 1439. 
Ohio Oil Co. V. Kelley (6 Ohio Ct. 

Dec. 470), 454. 
Ohl V. May (5 Neb. 157), 391. 
Oil Co. V. Wilson (142 U. S. 313), 

1122. 
O'Keefe v. Kennedy (3 Cush. 

Mass. 325), 644, 1057. 
O'Kelly V. Ferguson (49 La. Ann. 

1230), 1454. 



Okie V. Person (33 App. D. C- 

170), 1180, 1238. 
Okolona Sav. Inst. v. Trice (60 

Miss. 202), 1441. 
Oland V. Burdwick (Cro. Eliz. 

461), 1310. 
Oloott V. Frazier (5 Hill, N. Y. 

562), 1444. 
Oloott V. Rathbone (5 Wend. N. 

Y. 490), 547. 
Olden V. Sassman (67 N. J. Eq. 

239), 1120, 1383, 1384, 1389. 
Oldewurtel v. Wiesenfeld (97 Md. 

165), 1214, 1236. 
O'Leary v. Delaney (63 Me. 584), 

847. 
Olin v. Rhoads (61 N. Y. Supp. 

817), 839. 
Oliphant v. Richman (67 N. J. Eq. 

286), 436. 
Oliver v. Dickinson (100 Mass. 

114), 431. 
Oliver v. Gary (42 Kan. 623), 944. 
Oliver v. Hook (47 Md. 301), 445, 

446. 
Oliver v. Moore (12 Heisk. Tenn. 

482), 1445. 
Oliver v. Moore (53 Hun, 472)^ 

283. 
Oliver v. Olmstead (112 Mich. 

483), 436. 
Olmstead v. Dauphiny (104 Cal. 

635), 562. 
Olsen V. Ausdal (13 S. D. 23), 315. 
Olson V. Schevlovitz (86 N. T. 

Supp. 834), 1155, 1176. 
Olson V. Schultz (67 Minn. 494), 

871. 
Olson V. Upsahl (69 Til. 273), 863. 
Ombony v. Jones (19 N. Y. 234), 

1244, 1264, 1269. 
Onderdonk v. Gray (19 N. J. Eq. 

65), 30. 
Oneal v. Orr (5 Bush. Ky. 649), 

1278. 
O'Neil V. Flanagan (2 Mo. App. 

Rep. 884), 1340, 1354. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxi 



[REFERE^-CES ARE TO PAGES.] 



O'Neill V. Manget (44 Mo. App. 

279), 1140, 1142. 
O'Neill V. Morris (28 Misc. Rep. 

613), 34. 
Oneto V. Restano (89 Cal. 63), 

348. 
Onslow V. Carrie (2 Madd. 330), 

518. 
Oppenheimer v. Clunie (142 Cal. 

313), 469. 
Oriental Investment Co. v. Bar- 
clay (Tex. Civ. App. 64 b. W. 

Rep. 80), 932. 
Orleans Theatre Co. v. Lafferan- 

diere (12 Rob. La. 472), 1182. 
Ormer v. Harley (102 Iowa, 150), 

83. 
Ormond v. Anderson (2 Ball & B. 

370), 982. 
Orne, In re (12 Fed. Rep. 779), 

1121. 
Orphan Asylum Society v. Water- 
bury (8 Daly, N. Y. 35), 453. 
Orrell v. Bay Mfg. Co. (Miss. 40 

So. Rep. 429), 113. 
Orthwein v. Thomas (13 N. E. 

Rep. 564), 975. 
Orton V. Noonan (27 "Wis. 272), 

1363, 1373. 
Osborne v. Butcher (26 N. J. Law, 

308), 439. 
Osborn v. Carden (Plowd. 293), 

12. 
Osborn v. Etheridge (13 Wend. N. 

Y. 339), 877. 
Osborn v. Nicholson (13 Wall. U. 

S. 657), 700. 
Osborn v. Wise (7 C. & P. 761), 

110. 
Osgood V. Dewey (13 Johns. N. Y. 

240), 561, 950, 951. 
Osgood V. Howard (6 Me. 452), 

1244. 
Oshinsky v. Greenberg (39 Misc. 

Rep. 342), 1205. 
O'Sillivan v. Norwood (8 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 3S8), 814. 

1 



Osmers v. Furey (32 Mont. 581), 

1157. 
Ostner v. Lynn (57 Mo. App. 187), 

522. 
Ostrander v. Livingston (3 Barb. 

Ch. N. Y. 416), 999. 
Oswald V. Fratenburgh (36 Minn. 

270), 1094. 
Oswald V. Gilbert (11 Johns. N. 

Y. 443), 1024. 
Oswald V. Godbold (20 Ala. 811), 

560. 
Otis, In re (101 N. Y. 580), 1123. 
Otis V. McMillan (70 Ala. 46), 

485, 491, 934, 1195, 1228, 1231. 
Otis V. Northrop (2 Miles, Pa. 

350), 1274. 
Otis V. Sill (8 Barb. N. Y. 162), 

1427. 
Ottens V. Fred Krug Brew. Co. (58 

Neb. 331), 550. 
Ottinger v. New York Elevated 

Co. (60 Hun, 5^3), 680. 
Otto V. Kreiter (110 Pa. St. 370), 

438. 
Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v. Haw- 
ley (44 Iowa, 57), 442, 1244. 
Outhwaite v. Luntley (4 Camp. 

179), 343. 
Outtoun V. Dulin (72 Md. 536), 

939. 
Overbach v. Heermance (Hopk. 

Ch. N. Y. 337), 15. 
Overby v. Overby (18 La. Ann. 

546). 100. 
Overdeen v. Lewis "(1 Watts. & S. 

Pa. 90). 201. 
Overmann v. Sasser (107 N. C. 

432). 1250. 
Overton v. Alpha (13 La. Ann. 

558), 1274. 
Overton v. Matthews (35 Ark. 

147). 343. 
Owen v. Brookport (208 111. 35), 

943. 
Owen V. Herzikoff (84 Pac. Rep. 

274), 538. 



cLxxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[referexces are to pages.] 



Owen V. Iglanor (4 Cold. Tenn. 

15), 1445. 
Owens V. Cowan (7 B. Mon. Ky. 

152), 53. 
Owens V. Lewis (46 Ind. 488), 

1306. 
Owens V. Shovlen (116 Pa. St. 

371), 1444. 
Owens V. Wight (18 Fed. Rep. 

865), 697. 
Owings V. Emery (6 Gill. Md. 

260), 710. 
Owings V. Jones T9 Md. 108), 825. 
Oxford V. Ford (67 Ga. 362), 319. 
Oxford Corporation v. Crow (3 

Ch. 535), 259. 
Oxley V. James (13 Mee. & W. 209), 

129 



Pabst V. Rochester L.aunary Co. 

(171 N. Y. 584), 1080. 
Pabst Brewing Co. v. Thorley (127 

Fed. Rep. 439), 700. 
Pace V. Goodson (56 S. E. Rep. 

363), 515. 
Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Kimball 

(114 Cal. 414), 72. 
Pacific Express Co. v. Haven (41 

La. Ann. 811), 697. 
Packard v. Chicago Title & Trust 

Co. (67 111. App. 598), 1409. 
Packard v. Cleveland, etc. Co. (46 

111. App. 244), 195, 197, 223. 
Packard v. Corporation of Prot. 

Ch. (77 Md. 240), 277. 
Packer v. Cockayne (3 G. Greene, 

Iowa, 111), 554, 1222. 
Packington's Case (3 Atk. 215), 

711. 
Padalford v. Padalford (7 Pick. 

Mass. 152), 716. 
Page V. Culver (55 Mo. App. 606), 

491, 1111, 1112. 
Page v. Esty (54 Me. 319), 490, 

1373. 



Page V. Hughes (2 B. Mon. Ky. 

439), 990, 1382. 
Page v. Kinsman (43 N. H. 328), 

923. 
Page V. Lashley (15 Ind. 152), 

491. 
Page V. Mann (6 L. J. O. S. K. B. 

63), 1213, 1214. 
Page V. McGlinch (63 Me. 472), 

258. 
Page V. Street (Speers, S. C. Eq. 

159), 303. 
Paget V. Gee (Ambl. 198), 539. 
Paige V. Perno (10 Vt. 491), 549. 
Paige V. Scott's Heirs (12 La. 

490), 258. 
Paige V. Wright (14 Allen, Mass. 

182), 206. 
Paine v. Mason (7 Ohio St. 198), 

1108. 
Paine v. McDowell (71 Vt. 28), 

1297. 
Paine v. Rector (7 Hun, N. Y. 89), 

1276. 
Paine v. Sykes (72 Miss. 351), 

1083. 
Palethorp v. Bergner (52 Pa. St. 

149), 897. 
Palethorpe v. Home Brewery, 

Lim. (75 L. J. K. B. 55), 752. 
Palmer v. Cheseboro (55 Conn. 

114), 14. 
Palmer v. City Livery Co. (98 

Wis. 33), 652. 
Palmer v. Elkins (2 Ld. Rayd. 

1550), 953. 
Palmer v. Fletcher (1 Lev. 132), 

409. 
Palmer v. Ford (70 111. 269), 665. 
Palmer v. Marquette, etc. Co. (32 

Mich. 274), 386. 
Palmer v. Myers (79 111. App. 

409), 1213. 
Palmer v. Nelson (76 Ga. 803), 

938. 
Palmer v. Palmer (13 Gray, Mass. 

326), 52. ' 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxiii 



[beferexces are to pages.] 



Palmer v. Sanders (49 Fed. Rep. 

144), 461. 
Palmer v. Steiner (68 Ala. 400), 

.53, 54. 
Palmer v. Wetmore (2 Sandf. N. 

Y. 316), 411, 1140, 1160. 
Palmer v. Young (108 111. App. 

252), 672, 723. 
Pamphere v. Lowe (3 Neb. 131), 

1434. 
Panton v. Isham (1 Salk. 19), 

223. 
Panton v. Jones (3 Camp. 372), 

578. 
Pappe V. Trout (3 Okl. J60), 152. 
Paradine v. Jane (Aleyn, 27), 882. 
Parish v. Rogers (20 App. Div. 

279), 119. 
Parish v. Stryker (41 N. Y. 480), 

120. 
Parish v. Vance (110 111. App. 50), 

442,426. 
Parker v. Brown (136 N. C. 280), 

311,315. 
Parker v. Gibbins (1 Q. B. 421), 

1344. 
Parker v. Hale (78 S. W. Rep. 

555), 315. 
Parker v. Mollis (50 Ala. 411), 

378. 
Parker v. McLaughlin (1 Jr. L. R. 
. N. S. 186), 941. 
Parker v. Meadows (86 Tenn. 

181), 869, 880. 
Parker v. Mott (43 App. Div. 338), 

312,314. 
Parker v. Raymond (14 Mo. 535), 

723. 
Parker v. Shackelford (61 Mo. 

68), 680. 
Parker v. Taswell (2 De G. & J. 

559), 332. 
Parker v. Whyte (1 H. & M. 167), 

740, 758, 767. 
Parker v. Winslow (7 El. & B. 

492), 105. 



Parker v. Wulstein (48 N. J. Eq. 

94), 1281. 
Parker's Appeal (5 Pa. St. 390), 

1444. 
Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt (14 

.Johns. N. Y. 15), 386. 
Parkman v. Aicardi (34 Ala. 393), 

757. 
Parks V. City of Boston (15 Pick. 

Mass. 198), 681. 
Parks V. Hays (92 Tenn. 161), 

634. 
Parks V. Simpson (124 Ga. 523), 

1420. 
Parrot v. Anderson (7 Exch. 93), 

548. 
Parrott v. Barney (Fed. Gas. No. 

10,773), 709, 721. 
Parrott v. Hungelburger (9 Mont. 

52H). 924, 942. 
Parry v. Harbett (Dyer, 45b), 

1054. 
Parry v. Hodgson (2 Wils. 129), 

13. 
Parsell v. Stryker (41 N. Y. 480), 

503. 
Parsons v. Johnson (68 N. Y. 62), 

445. 
Partington v. Woodcock (5 Nev, 

& Man. 672), 31. 
Parton v. Smith f66 Iowa, 75), 

321. 
Pascieszeuy v. Boydell (146 Mich. 

223), 820. 
Pastor V. Jones (3 N. C. 215), 884. 
Patchin's Ex'rs v. Dickerson (31 

Vt. 666), 1238. 
Pate V. Oliver (104 N. C. 458), 

1234. 
Pate V. Turner (94 N. C. 47), 922. 
Patten v. Deshon (1 Gray, Mass. 

325), 494, 1021, 1049, 1085. 
Patterson v. Ackerson (1 Edw. 

Ch. N. Y. 96), 892, 1340, 1345. 
Patterson v. Emerick (21 Ind. 

App. 614), 1215. 



clxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Patterson v. Graham (140 111. 

531), 403, 416, 442, 1129, 1130. 
Patterson v. Hansel (4 Bush, Ky. 

654), 965. 
Patterson v. Pease (5 Ohio, 190), 

333. 
Patterson v. O'Hara (2 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 58), 463, 550. 
Patterson v. Stoddard (47 Me. 

355), 198, 199, 319, 561. 
Pattison v. Hull (9 Cow. N. Y. 

747), 336. 
Paul V. Chickering (117 Mass. 

265), 1020. 
Pauley v. Steam Gauge Co. (131 

N. Y. 90), 915. 
Pawley v. Walker (5 T. R. 373), 

760. 
Paxson V. Potter (30 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 615), 1342. 
Paxton V. Kennedy (70 Miss. 865), 

1414. 
Paxton V. Meyer (58 Miss. 445), 

1439. 
Payne v. Burridge (13 L. J. Ex. 

119), 1028. 
Payne v. Haine (16 M. & W. 541), 

889, 893. 
Payne v. Harris (3 Strobh. Eq. S. 

C. 39), 42. 
Payne v. Irvin (144 111. 482), 810. 
Payne v. James (45 La. Ann. 381), 

878, 1359. 
Payne v. Still (10 Wash. 433), 28. 
Payton v. Sherburne (15 R. I. 

215), 219, 233. 
Payton v. Stath (Pet. U. S. 485), 

182. 
Peacock v. Dickenson (2 Car. & P. 

51), 538. 
Peacock v. Ruffun (6 Esp. 4), 159. 
Peale's Adm'r v. Thurman (77 Va. 

753), 15. 
Pearce v. Cheslyn (5 N. & M. {\r>2), 

257. 
Pearce v. Golden (8 Barb. N. Y. 

522), 1276. 



Pearce v. Nix (34 Ala. 183), 924. 
Pearce v. Pearce (184 111. 289), 

315. 
Pearce v. Shard (6 L. J. O. S. K. 

B. 354), 1097. 
Pearce v. Turner (150 111. 116), 

1374. 
Pearcy v. Henley (82 Ind. 129), 

24. 
Pearse v. Boultor (2 F. & P. 133), 

175. 
Pearson v. Davis (41 Neb. 608), 

333. 
Pearson v. Friedensville Zinc Co. 

(1 Pa. Ct. Ct. Rep. 660), 1331. 
Pearson v, Sanderson (128 111. 

88), 1272. 
Pease v. Christ (31 N. Y. 141), 

1089. 
Pease v. Coats (12 Jur. N. S. 684), 

749. 
Peck V. Christman (94 111. App. 

435), 1020. 
Peck V. Hiller (31 Barb. N. Y. 

117), 1132, 1138. 
Peck V. Ingersoll (7 N. Y. 528), 

544,1205. 
Peck V. Knickerbocker Ice Co. (18 

Hun, 183), 34, 1222. 
Peck V. Ledwidge (25 111. 109), 

1340. 
Peck V. Lloyd (38 Conn. 566), 445. 
Peck V. Northrop (17 Conn. 217), 

491, 499, 1112. 
Peck V. Scoville (43 111. App. 360), 

903. 
Peck V. Ward (18 Pa. St. 5061,24. 
Pedderick v. Searle (5 S. & R. Pa. 

236), 951. 
Peddicord v. Berk (74 Kan. 236), 

95. 
Peehl V. Bumtialek (99 Wis. 62), 

158, 162, 172. 
Peer v. O'Leary (28 N. Y. S. 687), 

216,219. 
Peer v. Wadsworth (67 N. J. Eq. 

191),712, 756, 1098. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxv 



[befekences 

Peers v. Sneyd (17 Beav. 151), 97. 
Pegg V. Wisden (16 Beav. 243), 

978. 
Peil V. Reinhart (127 N. Y. 381), 

814, 817. 
Pelan v. De Bevard (13 Iowa, 53), 

1283. 
Pelican Co., In re (47 La. Ann. 

935), 341. 
Pellew V. Wonford (9 Barn. & 

Cress. 134), 348. 
Pelton V. Draper (61 Vt. 364), 313. 
Pelton V. Place (71 Vt. 430), 1213. 
Pemberton v. King (2 Dev. N. C. 

376), 1250. 
Pence v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 

(28 Minn. 488), 1050. 
Pence v. Williams (14 Ind. App. 

86), 922. 
Pendill v. Fells "(67 Mich. 657), 

496. 1113, 1141. 
Pendill v. Maas (97 Mich. 215), 

454,1408. 
Pendill v. Neuberger (67 Mich. 

562), 345. 
Pendill v. Union Mining Co. (64 

Mich. 172), 554, 634. 
Penfold V. Abbott (32 L. J. Q. B. 

67), 6, 1171. 
Pengra v. Munz (29 Fed. Rep. 

830), 921. 
Penn v. Brashear (65 Mo. App. 

24), 361. 
Penn v. Kearney (21 La. Ann. 

23), 1346, 134^7. 
Penn v. Preston (2 Rawle, Pa. 14), 

602. 
Pennant's Case (3 Coke, 64), 639. 
Pennewell, In re (119 Fed. Rep. 

139), 623, 1055. 
Penniall v. Harborne (11 Q. B. 

368), 1038. 
Pennington v. Baehr (48 Cal. 

565), 826. 
Pennington v. Taniere (12 Q. B. 

998), 8, 147. 



AKE TO PAGES.] 

I Pennoch v. Coe 123 How. U. S. 

117), 1428. 
I Pennock v. Lyons (118 Mass. 92), 

645, 1059. 
Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U. S. 714), 

1401. 
Pennsylvania Iron Co. v. Deller 

(113 Pa. St. 635), 294. 
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. St. 

Louis, A. & T. H. R. R. Co. (118 

U. S. 290), 71. 
Penruddock v. Newman (1 Leon, 

279), 1197. 
Penton v. Barnett (67 L. J. Q. B. 

11), 662. 
Penton v. Hobart (2 East, 88), 

1260, 1265, 1269. 
Pentz V. Keuster (41 Mo. 447), 

934. 
People V. Annis (45 Barb. N. Y. 

304), 303, 307. 
People V. Ainslie (76 N. Y. 574), 

927. 
People V. Darling (47 N. Y. 666), 

159. 
People V. Erwin (4 Denio, N. Y. 

126), 778. 
People V. Freeman (110 App. Div. 

605), 658. 
People V. Gillis (24 Wend. N. Y. 

201), 246. 
People V. Haskins (7 Wend. N. Y. 

43), 507. 
People V. Kelsey (38 Barb. N. Y. 

269), 245. 
People V. Kerrains (60 N. Y. 221), 

305. 
People V. C. & N. W. R. Co. (57 

111. 436), 449. 
People V. National Tr. Co. (82 N. 

Y. 283), 70. 
People V. O'Melia (67 Hun, 653), 

778. 
People V. Robertson (Barb. N. Y. 

9), 356. 
People V. St. Nicholas Bank (3 

App. Div. 544), 244, 246. 



clxxvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



People's St. Ry. Co. v. Spencer 

(156 Pa. St. 85), 1000. 
People's Loan & Building Ass'n v. 

Whitmore (75 Me. 117), 927. 
Pepper v. Rowley (73 111. 262), 

563,1183. 
Pepper's Adm'r v. Harper (20 Ky. 

Law Rep. 837), 329. 
Peralta v. Ginochio (47 Cal. 459), 

923. 
Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Wabash 
R. Co. (104 N. W. Rep. 650), 
454. 
Perez v. Rabaud (76 Tex. 191), 

848. 
Perkerson v. Snodgrass (85 Ala. 

137), 491. 
Perkins v. Carr (44 N. H. 118), 

1331. 
Perkins v. Giles (50 N. Y. 228), 

571. 
Perkins v. Governor (Minor, Ala. 

352), 938. 
Perkins v. Hadsell (50 111. 216), 

981. 
Perkins v. Perkins (5 Atl. Rep. 

373), 189. 190. 
Perkins v. Perkins (Cro. Eliz. 

269), 1194. 
Perkins v. Potts (52 Neb. 110), 

484, 922, 964. 
Perkins v. Swank (43 Miss. 349), 

1250, 1260. 
Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co. (4 

Cow. N. Y. 645), 1042. 
Perniciaro v. Veniero (90 N. Y. 

Supp. 369), 1180. 
Perrett v. Dupre (3 Rob. La. 52), 

875. 
Perrin v. Repper (34 Mich. 292), 

1112. 
Perrin & Smith Printing Co. v. 
Cook, etc. Co. (93 S. W. Rep. 
337), 1123. 
Perring v. Brooke (1 Mood. & Ry. 
510), 251. 



Perrott v. Shearer (17 Mich. 48), 

771. 
Perry v. Bailey (94 Me. 50), 679, 

680. 
Perry v. Davis (3 C. B. N. S. 769), 

658. 
Perry v. Hamilton (138 Ind. 271), 

1317. 
Perry v. Perry (127 N. C. 23), 

1435. 
Perry v. Rockland & R. Lime Co. 

(94 Me. 325), 1377, 138L 
Perry v. Waggoner (68 Iowa, 403), 

1421,1434. 
Perry v. Wall (68 Ga. 70), 1130. 
Pesant v. Heartt (23 La. Ann. 

292), 852. 
Peter v. Kendall (6 B. & C. 703), 

110,1208. 
Peters v. Barnes (16 Ind. 210), 

1193. 
Peters v. Blake (170 111. 304), 216. 
Peters v. Elkins (14 Ohio, 344), 

31,288. 
Peters v. Grubb (21 Pa. St. 455), 

438, 442. 
Peters v. Newkirk (6 Cow. N. Y. 

103), 1199. 
Peters -v. Stone (193 Mass. 179), 

1282.1283. 
Peterson v. Edmonson (5 Har. 

Del. 378), 1155, 1340. 
Peterson v. Kinkead (92 Cal. 372), 

938. 
Peterson v. Smart (70 Mo. 38), 

913. 
Peticolas v. Thomas (9 Tex. Civ. 

App. 442), 856. 
Petre v. Ferrers (61 Law J. Ch. 

426), 1299. 
Petrie v. Wright (14 Miss. 647), 

65. 
Petsch V. Biggs (31 Minn. 392), 

172. 
Pettee v. Hawes (13 Pick. Mass. 
323), 438. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxvii 



[REI EKKXCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Pettengill v. Evans (5 N. H. 54), 

212,222. 
Petterson v. Sweet (13 111. App. 

255), 924. 
Pettibone v. Moore (73 Hun, 461), 

253. 
Pettibone v. Smith (150 Pa. St. 

US), 1023. 
Pettigrew v. Mills (36 Kan. 745, 

147), 920. 
Petty V. Kennon (49 Ga. 468), 195. 
Petty V. Maier (10 B. Mon. Ky. 

591), 234. 
Pettygrove v. Rothschild (2 Wash. 

St. 6), 647. 
Petz V. Voight Brewing Co. (116 

Mich. 418), 873. 
Pevey v. Skinner (116 Mass. 129), 

413. 
Pewaukee Milling Co. v. Howitt 

(86 Wis. 270), 295, 1302. 
Peyton v. Stith (5 Pet. U. S. 484), 

953,958.970. 
Pfanner v. Sturmer (40 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 401), 191, 1306. 
Phalen v. Dinger (4 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 379), 592. 
Pharis v. Jones (122 Mo. 125), 

958. 
Phelan v. Boylan (25 Wis. 679), 

712. 
Phelan v. Fitzpatrick (74 N. E. 

Rep. 326), 835, 847. 
Phelan v. Tedcastle (15 L. R. Ir. 

169), 259, 387. 
Phelps V. City of New York (61 

Hun, 521), 1369. 
Phelps V. Randolph (147 111. 335), 

690. 
Phelps V. Taylor (23 La. Ann. 

585), 958. 
Phene v. Popplewell (12 C. B. N. 

S. 334), 1207. 
Philadelphia v. Reeves (48 Pa. St. 

472). 609. 
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Baltimore 

City (50 Md. 397), 1019. 



Phillbrook v. Emswiler (92 Ind. 

590), 458. 
Phillips V. Aurora Lodge, I. O. 

G. T. (87 Ind. 505), 62. 
Philips V. Butler (2 Esp. 589), 

172. 
Phillips T. Burrows (2 Mo. App. 

Rep. 1001), 1096, 1423. 
Phillips V. Castley (40 Ala. 486), 

462. 
Phillips V. Covert (7 Johns. N. Y. 

1),222. 
Phillips V. Eastern Railway (138 

Mass. 122), 61. 
Phillips V. Everard (5 Sim. 102), 

1395. 
Phillips V. Fearnside (4 Hayw. 

Tenn. 158), 196. 
Phillips & Butorff Mfg. Co. v. Whit- 
ney (109 Ala. 645), 66. 
Phillips V. Library Co. (55 N. J. 

Law, 307), 836, 816. 
Phillips V. Maxwell (1 Baxt. 

Tenn. 25), 1430. 
Phillips V. Monges (4 Whart. Pa. 

226), 140, 564, 855. 
Phillips V. Mosely (1 Car. & P. 

262), 511. 
Phillips V. Rathwell (4 Bibb. Ky. 

33), 945. 
Phillips V. Robertson (65 Hayw. 

Tenn. 101), 922. 
Phillips V. Smith (14 M. & W. 

590), 710. 
Phillips V. Stevens (16 Mass. 238), 

882, 892, 1346, 1351. 
Phillips V. Tucker (3 Ind. 132), 

621, 638, 665, 1322. 
Phillips V. Vandergrift (146 Pa. 

St. 347), 641. 
Philpot V. Hoare (2 Atk. 219), 

1067. 
Phinney v. Foster (189 Mass. 

182), 1008. 
Phipps V. Ingraham (41 Miss. 

256), 384. 



clxxviii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Phipps V. ScultKorpe (1 B. & Aid. 

50), 188, 576, 578. 
Phoenixville v. Walters (147 Pa. 

St. 501), 172. 
Phyfe V. Warden (5 Paige, N. Y. 

279), 1104. 
Pickens v. Bozell (11 Ind. 275), 

5G3. 
Pickens v. Reed (1 Swan. Tenn. 

86), 1316. 
Pickens v. Webster (31 La. Ann. 

870), 1318. 
Pickerel v. Carson (8 Iowa, 544), 

1243. 
Pickering v. Moore (67 N. H. 532), 

1333. 
Pickering v. O'Brien (23 Pa. Supr. 

Rep. 125), 213. 
Pickering v. Pickering (11 N. H. 

141), 90. 
Pickett V. Ferguson (45 Ark. 177), 

697,1139. 
Pickle V. Byers (16 Ind. 383), 

798. 
Pidgeon v. Richards (4 Ind. 374), 

191. 
. Pier V. Carr (6'9 Pa. St. 326), 

1207, 1208. 
Pierce v. Brown (24 Vt. 165), 

1228. 
Pierce v. Cleland (133 Pa. St. 

189), 424. 
Pierce v. Hedden (105 La. 294), 

789. 
Pierce v. Joklersma (91 Mich. 

463), 876, 1151. 
Pierce v. Minturn (1 Cal. 470), 

337. 
Pierce v. Richardson (37 N. H. 

306), 342. 
Pierce v. Rollins (60 Mo. A pp. 

497), 484. 
Pierce v. Scott T4 W. & S. Pa. 

344), 1443. 
Pierce v. Sellick (18 C. B. 321). 
446. 



Pierce v. Shaw (2 M. & R. 418), 

140. 
Pierce Cequin Co. v. Meadows (86 

S. W. Rep. 1127), 1044. 
Pierson v. Hughes (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 528), 536. 
Pierson v. Hughes (78 N. Y. Supp. 

223), 1378. 
Plgot V. Garnish (Cro. Eliz. 678), 

10. 
Piggot V. Mason (1 Paige, N. Y. 

412), 570, 616, 1363. 
Piggott V. Stratton (1 De G., F. 

& .L 33), 1098. 
Pike V. Brown (7 Cush. Mass. 

133), 519. 
Pike V. Eyre (9 B. & Cr. 909), 128, 

953. 
Pike V. Leiter (26 111. App. 530), 

349. 
Pilgrim v. Beck (69 Fed. Rep. 

895), 40. 
Pilkington v. Peach (2 Show. 

135), 41. 
Pilkington v. Shaller (2 Vern. 

374), 1106. 
Pilling V. Armitage (12 Ves. 85), 

874.. 
Pillow V. Love (6 Tenn. 109), 

1254. 
Pinero v. Judson (3 M. & P. 497), 

257,576. 
Pingry v. Watkins (17 Vt. 379), 

1087. 
Pingrey v. Watkins (15 Vt. 479), 

543. 
Pinhorn v. Souster (S Exch. 763), 

223. 
Pinner v. Arnold (2 C. M. & R. 

613), 380. 
Pintard v. Irwin (20 N. J. Law. 

497), 1272, 1280. 
Pinto V. Rintleman (02 S. W. 

Rep. 1033), 378. 
Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. 
Fuller (57 Minn. 60). 1296. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxix 



[references are to pages.] 



Piper V. Cashnell (122 Fed. Rep. 

614), 939, 942. 
Piper V. Fletcher (115 Iowa, 263), 

784,1152. 
Piper V. Levy (114 La. 544), 1371. 
Pistor V. Cator (9 M. & W. 315), 

888. 
Pitcher v. Daniel (12 Rich. S. C. 

Eq. 349), 60. 
Pitcher v. Donovan (2 Campb. 

78), 158, 172. 
Pitcher v. Tovey (4 Mod. 71), 520. 
Pitman v. Woodbury (3 Exch. 11), 

330. 
Pitney v. Eldridge (58 Kan. 215), 

122. 
Pitt v. Hogg (4 Dowl. & R. 226), 

1051. 
Pitt V. Snowden (3 Atk. 750), 

1124. 
Pittsburg Amusement Co. v. Fer- 
guson (100 App. Div. 453), 358. 
Pittsburg Mfg. Co. v. Fidelity T. 

& Tr. Co. (207 Pa. St. 223), 95, 

1398. 
Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Thorn- 
burgh (98 Ind. 201), 243. 
Planters' Compress Co. v. Howard 

(80 S. W. Rep. 119), 1452. 
Planters' Ins. Co. v. Diggs (8 

Baxt. Tenn. 563), 663, 1032. 
Piatt V. Johnson (168 Pa. St. 47), 

525, 1240, 1444. 
Playter v. Cunningham (21 Cal. 

229), 700. 
Pleadall's Case (2 Leon. 259), 89. 
Ploen V. Staff (9 Mo. App. 309), 

861. 
Plumer v. Harper (3 N. H. 88), 

679,794. 
Plumer v. Plumer (30 N. H. 558), 

920. 
Pocher v. Hall (^8 N. Y. Supp. 

754), 289, 290. 
Poer V. Peebles (1 B. Mon. Ky. 1), 

1464. 



Poertner v. Russell (33 Wis. 193), 

724. 
Polack v. Pioche (35 Cal. 416), 

882, 900. 
Polland V. Fertilizer Co. (122 Ala. 

409), 32. 
Pollard V. Schaefer (1 Dall. Pa. 

210), 615, 1080, 1340, 1352. 
Pollen V. Brewer (7 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 371), 192, 215. 
Polley V. Johnson (52 Kan. 478), 

1329. 
Pollman v. Morgester (99 Pa. St. 

611), 911. 
Pollock V. Cronise (12 How. Prac. 

N. Y. 363), 492. 
Pollock V. Farmers' L. & T. Co. 

(157 U. S. 429), 504. 
Pollock V. Kitrell (4 N. C. 585), 

197. 
Pollock V. Stacy (9 Q. B. 103), 

574. 
Pomeroy v. Taylor (9 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 514), 1149. 
Pomfret v. Ricroft (1 Saund. 

323a), 222. 
Pond & Hasey Co. v. O'Connor (70 

Minn. 266), 1244, 1257. 
Ponder v. Cheaves (104 Ala. 306), 

965. 
Ponder v. Rhea (32 Ark. 435), 

309. 
Pontalba v. Domington (11 La. 

192), 862, 1178. 
Pool V. Hennessey (39 Iowa, 192), 

568. 
Poole V. Bentley (12 East, 168), 

63, 256. 
Poole v. Engelecke (61 N. J. L. 

124), 235, 237. 
Poole's Case (1 Salk. 369), 1256. 
Poor V. Sears T154 Mass. 539), 

813. 
Pope v. Harkins (16 Ala. 321), 

491. 
Pope V. WTiitehead (68 N. C. 101), 

81. 



elxxx 



TABLE OP CASES CITED, 



[references ABE TO PAGES.T 



Poposkey v. Munkwitz (68 Wis. 

322), 672, 695. 
Porch V. Fries (18 N. J. Eq. 204), 

19, 118. 
Porche v. Bodin (28 La. Ann. 

761), 1315, 1318. 
Pordage v. Cole (1 Saund. 320), 

600. 
Porter v. Bleiler (17 Barb. N. Y. 

149), 87, 90. 
Porter v. Groden (5 Yerg. Tenn. 

100), 384. 
Porter v. Johnson (96 Ga. 145), 

1185,1187. 
Porter v. Mayfield (21 Pa. St. 

264), 922, 964. 
Porter v. Merrill (124 Mass. 534), 

283, 644, 1057. 
Porter v. Sheppard (6 T. R. 665), 

601, 625. 
Porter v. Sweeney (61 Tex. 213), 

10. 
Portman v. Home Hospitals Ass'n 

(27 Ch. D. 81, n), 739. 
Post V. Kearney (2 N. Y. 394), 

1016, 1021, 1048. 
Post V. Post (14 Barb. N. Y. 253), 

191, 218. 
Post V. Vetter (2 E. D. Smith, N. 

Y. 248), 782. 
Post V. West Shore R. R. Co. (123 

N. Y. 580), 729. 
Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. 
Western Union Telegraph Co. 
(155 ni. 335), 612. 
Poston V. Jones (2 Ired. Eq. N. C. 

350), 1138, 1183. 
Poston V. Jones (37 N. C. 350), 

1178. 
Pott V. Lesher (1 Yeates, Pa. 57C), 

573. 
Potter V. Bassetl (35 Mo. Ai)p. 

417), 106. 
Potter V. Cunningham (44 Me. 

192), 1328. 
Potter V. Gilbert (177 Pa. St. 159), 
1265. 



Potter V. Greenleaf (21 R. I. 483), 

1455, 1460. 
Potter V. Gronbeck (117 111. 404), 

1116. 
Potter V. Mercer (53 Cal. 667), 

250, 256, 261. 
Potter V. New York Infant Asy- 
lum (44 Hun, N. Y. 367), 65. 
Potter V. Truitt (3 Har. Del. 331), 

582. 
Potts V. Hendrix (6 Ga. 452), 1315. 
rough V. Cerimedo (88 N. Y. 

Supp. 1054), 674. 
Poulter V. Killingbrick (1 Bos. & 

P. 397), 380. 
Powell V. Beckley (38 Neb. 157), 

874. 
Powell V. Bergner (47 111. App. 

33), 1250. 
Powell V. Dailey (163 111. 646), 

1400, 1428. 
Powell V. Dayton (16 Oreg. 33), 

721. 
Powell V. D. S. & G. R. R. Co. (12 

Oreg. 488), 600, 710. 
Powell V. Gossom (18 B. Mon. Ky. 

179), 100. 
Powell V. Hadden's Ex'rs (21 Ala. 

745), 319, 1402. 
Powell V. Lynde Co. (64 N. Y. 
Supp. 153), 362, 471, 478, 1075. 
Powell V. Rich (41 111. 466), 1315, 

1327. 
Powell V. Simms (5 W. Va. 1), 

409. 
Powell V. Smith (11 L. J. Ch. 

734), 374. 
Powell V. State (84 Ala. 444), 

1416. 
Powers V. Cope T93 Ga. 248), S33, 

849. 
Powers V. Schoeltens (79 Mich. 

290), 975. 
Powis V. Smith (1 D. & R. 490), 

87. 
Prahar v. Tousey (93 App. Div. 
507), 476, 785. 



T^VBLE OF CASES CITED. 



:li.xxi 



[Ri:ir:uENCES are to pai-es;.] 



Pratt V. Brett (2 Madd. 62), 725. 
Pratt V. Farrar (10 Allen, Mass. 

519), 210, 213. 
Pratt V. Foote (9 N. Y. 463), 547. 
Pratt V. Grafton Electric Co. (182 

Mass. 180)^ 847. 
Pratt V. Keith (33 L. J. Ch. 592), 

529. 
Pratt V. Levan (1 Miles, Pa. 358), 

1060. 
Pratt V. Lewis (39 Mich. 7), 405. 
Pratt V. Taller (186 N. Y. 417), 

808, 861. 
Pray v. Stebbins (141 Mass. 219). 

213,214. 
Preble v. Hay (32 Me. 456), 156 
Preece v. Corrie (2 M. & P. 57), 

1048. 
Prendergast v. Y'oung (21 N. H. 

274), 672. 
Prentiss v. Kingsley (70 Pa. St. 

120), 1120. 
Prentiss v. Warne (10 Mo. 601), 

1207, 1222. 
Presby v. Benjamin (169 N. Y. 

377), 737, 1066. 
Presbyterian Church v. Pichet 

(Wright, Ohio, 57), 454. 
Prescott V. Otterstatter (79 Pa. 

St. 462), 564, 876, 1302. 
Prescott V. White (21 Pick. Mass. 

341), 437, 438. 
Preston v. Hawley (130 N. Y. 

296), 573. 
Preston v. Neale (12 Gray, Mass. 

222), 1299. 
Pretley v. Bickmore (L. R. & C. B. 

401, 402), 792. 
Pretty v. Bickmore (L. R. 8 C. P. 

401), 826. 
Prettyman v. Unland (77 111. 206), 

1420,1429. 
Prettyman v. Walston (34 111. 

175), 1073. 
Prevost V. Lawrence (51 N. Y. 
219), 24. 



Price V. Assheton (1 Y. & Coll. 

441), 1370, 1384. 
Price V. Dyer (17 Ves. 363), 374. 
Price V. Haynes (37 Mich. 487), 

333. 
Price V. Pickett (21 Ala. 741), 

1306, 1310, 1315. 
Price V. Sanders (60 Ind. 310), IS. 
Price V. Warwood (4 H. & N. 512), 

648. 
Price V. Williams (1 Mee. & Wei. 

6), 249. 
Prichard v. Tabor (104 Ga. 64), 

322. 
Prickett v. Reed (31 Ark. 131), 

1429. 

Prickett v. Ritter (16 111. 96), 159. 

Pridgeon v. Excelsior Boat Club 

(66 Mich. 326), 431, 1142, 1145, 

1182. 

Priest V. Wheelock (29 Ind. 497), 

28. 
Prince v. Flynn (2 Litt. Ky. 40), 

690. 
Prindle v. Anderson (19 Wend. N. 

Y. 391), 159, 179. 
Prior V. Kizo (81 Mo. 241), 467, 

691, 1191, 1195. 
Pritchard v. Dodd (5 B. & Ad. 

689), 245. 
Probst V. Roch St. Laundry Co. 

(171 N. Y. 584), 1379. 
Proctor V. Benson (149 Pa. St. 

254), 249. 
Proctor V. Keith (12 B. Mon. Ky. 

252), 641, 856, 1340. 
Proctor V. Pool (4 Dev. N. C. 370), 

336. 
Proffltt V. Henderson (29 Mo. 325), 

707. 
Promer v. Railroad Co. (90 Wis. 

220), 803. 
Propert v. Parker (3 Mylne & K. 

280), 388, 607. 
Proprietors of Township No. 6 v. 
McFarland (12 Mass. 325), 198. 



clxxxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Proprietors, etc. v. Wood (3 Esp. 

127), 900. 
Proskey v. Cumberland Realty Co. 

(70 N. Y. Supp. 1125), 1189. 
Prospect V. Parker (3 Mylne & K. 

280), 364. 
Proudfoot V. Hart (59 L. J. Q. B. 

D. 43), 886. 
Prout V. Roby (15 Wall. U. S. 

476), 989. 
Prouty V. Prouty (5 How. Pr. N. 

Y. 81), 172. 
Providence v. St. John's Lodge (2 

R. I. 40), 1293. 
Providence Christian Union v. 

Eliot (13 R. I. 74), 519. 
Provost V. Lawrence (51 N. Y. 

219), 920. 
Prufrock v. Joseph (27 S. W. Rep. 

264), 123. 
Pryer v. Coulter (1 Bailey Law, 

S. C. 517), 106. 
Pryor v. Foster (130 N. Y. 171), 

4S1, 1144. 
Fugh V. Duke (Cowper, 714), 347. 
Pugh Printing Co. v. Dexter (8 

Ohio Dec. 557), 267. 
Pugsley V. Aikin (11 N. Y. 494), 

130. 
Pulford V. Whicher (76 Wis. 555), 

958. 
Pulliam V. Sells (99 S. W. Rep. 

289), 161. 
Pulteney v. Shelton (5 Ves. 147), 

765. 
Purcell V. English (86 Ind. 34), 

782, 814, 816. 822, 849. 
Purdy'B Appeal (23 Pa. St. 97), 

552, 1441, 1443. 
Pursel V. Teller "(10 Colo. App. 

488), 471, 478. 
Purssell V. Mayor of the City of 

New York (85 N. Y. 330), 1018. 
Purton V. Watson (2 N. Y. Supp. 

661), 727. 
Putnam v. Bond (100 Mass. 58), 

337. 



Putnam v. Lewis (8 Johns. N. Y. 

389), 547. 
Putnam v. Ritchie (6 Paige Ch. 

N. Y. 390), 15. 
Putnam v. Stewart (97 N. Y. 411), 

457, 1073, 1108. 
Putnam v. Wise (37 Am. Dec. 

309), 31L 
Pynchon v. Stearns (11 Met. Mass. 

304), 708. 



Q. 



Quackenboss v. Clarke (12 Wend. 

N. Y. 555), 1069. 
Quackenboss v. Lansing (6 Johns. 

N. Y. 49), 604. 
Quade v. Fitzloff (93 Minn. 115), 

1378. 
Quarman v. Burnett (1 Q. B. Div. 

321), 803. 
Quay V. Lucas (25 Mo. App. 4), 

913. 
Quay V. Westcott (60 Pa. St. 163), 

568. 
Quetermous v. Hatfield (54 Ark. 

16), 320. 
Quick V. Ludborrow (3 Bulst. 3), 

619. 
Quidort v. Bullitt (60 N. J. Law, 

119), 1371. 
Quiggle V. Vining (125 Ga. 98). 

1318. 
Quigley v. H. W. Johns Mfg. Co. 

(26 App. Div. 434), 838. 
Quiniby v. Shearer (56 Minn. 

534), 361. 
Quincey, Ex parte (1 Atk. 477), 

1256. 
Quincy v. Carpenter (135 Mass. 

102), 1038. 
Quincy M. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hum- 
phreys (145 U. S. 82). 1122. 
Quincy Parish v. Spear (15 Pick. 

Mass. 144), 198. 
Quinlan v. Bonte (24 III. App. 

240), 139. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxiii 



[references are to pages.] 



Quinn v. Crowe (88 111. App. 191), 

847. 
Quinn v. Perham (151 Mass. 162), 

813. 
Qainnette v. Carpenter (35 Mo. 

502), 139, 141, 559, 1222. 
Quinney v. Denny (18 Wis. 485), 

333. 



R. 



Race V. Groves (43 N. J. Eq. 280), 

991. 
RacklefE v. Norton (19 Me. 274), 

343. 
Rae V. Lewis (2 W. Bl. 1173), 191. 
Rafferty v. Schofield (66 L. J. Ch. 

448), 628. 
Ragar v. McKay (44 111. App. 79), 

922,947. 
Ragsdale v. Lander (80 Ky. 61), 

384. 
Ragsdale v. McKinney (119 Ala. 

454), 1464. 
Railroad Co. v. West (57 Ohio St. 

161), 140. 
Railton v. Taylor (20 R. I. 279), 

783, 830. 
Raines v. Keller (4 C. & P. 3), 

621. 
Raines v. Walker (77 Va. 92), 351. 
Rainey v. Caps (22 Ala. 288), 262, 

457. 
Ralph V. Lomer (3 Wash. St. 401), 

538. 
Ralston v. Boady (20 Ga. 449), 

772. 
Ramsay v. Wilkie (13 N. Y. Supp. 

554), 701, 1219. 
Ramsey v. Henderson (10 West. 

Rep. 33), 212, 182. 
Ranalli v. Zeppetelli (94 N. Y. 

Supp. 561), 458. 
Rand v. Barrett (66 Iowa, 731), 

1432. 
Rand v. Francis (67 111. App. 
225), 1060. 



Randall v. Alburtis (1 Hilt. N. Y. 

285), 1154. 
Randall v. Ditch (123 Iowa, 58), 

309, 1451. 
Randall v. Rich (11 Mass. 494), 

1238. 
Randall v. Rosenthal (31 S. W. 

Rep. 822), 1135. 
Randall v. Sanderson (111 Mass. 

114), 410. 
Randel v. Alburtis (1 Hilt. N. Y. 

285), 1132. 
Randel v. Chesapeake & D. Canal 

Co. (1 Har. Del. 233), 599. 
Randolph v. Carlton (8 Ala. 606), 

934,936. 
Randolph v. Feist (23 Misc. Rep. 

650), 802. 
Randol v. Scott (110 Cal. 590), 

665,1066. 
Randol v. Tatum (98 Cal. 390), 

644, 1057. 
Ranelagh v. Melton (2 Drew. & 

Sm. 278), 992. 
Ranger v. Bacon (3 Misc. Rep. 

95), 1093. 
Ranken v. Hunt (10 R. 249), 749. 
Rankin v. Kinsey (7 Brad. 111. 

215), 1325. 
Rankin v. Rankin (216 111. 132), 

988. 
Rankin v. Simpson (19 Pa. St. 

471), 950. 
Ranlet v. Cook (44 N. H. 512), 

1387. 
Rappe V. Front (3 Okl. 260), 920. 
RatclifE V. Belfont Iron Works (87 

Ky. 559), 484. 
Raubitscheck v. Semken (4 Abb. 

New Cas. N. Y. 205), 1205. 
Raventas v. Green (57 Cal. 254), 

291. 
Rawle V. Balfour (16 W. N. C. Pa. 

194), 848. 
Rawlings v. Briggs (2 C. P. Div. 

368),102S. 



clxxxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



Rawlings v. Walker (5 B. & Cr. 

Ill), 1233. 
Rawlin's Case (4 Coke, 53a), 952. 
Rawls V. Moye (98 Ga. 564), 1411. 
Rawson v. Babcock (40 Mich. 

330), 198. 
Rawstarne v. Bentley (4 Bro. Ch. 

417), 1383. 
Ray V. Gas Co. (138 Pa. St. 576), 

641,643. 
Raylyn's Case (4 Coke, 53a), 953. 
Raymond v. Fitch (2 C. M. & R. 

588), 51. 
Raymond v. Krauskopf (87 Iowa, 

602), 555. 
Raymond v. Mercliant (3 Cow. 

N. Y. 147), 547. 
Raymond v. Striclvland (124 Ga. 

504), 1257. 
Raymond v. Thomas (24 Ind. 

476), 522. 
Raymond v. White (7 Cow. N. Y. 

319), 1250. 
Rayne v. Irvin (144 III. 482), 804. 
Rayner v. Drew (72 Cal. 307), 

385, 957. 
Rayner v. Lee (20 Mich. 384), 368. 
Read v. Bolger (70 N. Y. Supp. 

757), 848. 
Readey v. American Brewing Co. 

(60 111. App. 501), 1090. 
Readfield T. & T. Co. v. Cyr (95 

Me. 287), 1248. 
Readman v. Conway (126 Mass. 

374), 804, 813. 
Reasoner v. Edmundson (5 Ind. 

393), 1129. 
Reckhow v. Schank (43 N. Y. 

448), 223. 
Rector v. Harford Deposit Co. (190 

111. 380), 10G4, 1092. 
Rector, etc. Trinity Church v. Hig- 

gins (48 N. Y. 533), 1013. 
Redden v. Barker (4 Har. Del. 

179), 317. 
Reddick v. HuLchlnson (94 Ga. 

675), 322. 



[references are to pages.] 

Redding v. Hall (1 Bibb. Ky. 536), 



Rede v. Farr (6 Maule & S. 121), 

642, 645, 1068. 
Redpath v. Roberts (3 Esp. 225), 

1216. 
Reed v. Bartlett (9 111. App. 267), 

288. 
Reed v. Campbell (43 N. J. Eq. 

406), 1367, 1368. 
Reed v. Deere (7 B. & C. 266), 

582. 
Reed v. Harrison (196 Pa. St. 

337), 896, 899. 
Reed v. Lewis (74 Ind. 433), 336, 

733, 757. 
Reed v. Munn (148 Fed. Rep. 737), 

954, 1228. 
Reed v. Reed (48 Me. 388), 206, 

228, 234. 
Reed v. Reynolds (37 Conn. 469), 

692, 1190. 
Reed v. Shepley (6 Vt. 602), 964 
Reed v. Swan (133 Mo. 100), 1325. 
Reed v. Todd (1 Har. Del. 138), 

920. 
Reed v. Van Nostrand (1 Wend. 

N. Y. 424), 547. 
Reed v. Ward (22 Pa. St. 144), 

541, 552. 
Reeder v. Anderson (4 Dana, Ky. 

193), 1299. 
Reeder v. Say re (70 N. Y. 180), 

133, 146, 197. 
Reeder v. Sayre (80 N. Y. 190), 

147. 
Reedy v. Smith (42 Cal. 245), 

327. 
Rees V. Perrot (4 Car. & Payne, 

230), 43. 
Reese v. Caffee (133 Ind. 14), 920. 
Reese v. Cochran (10 Ind. 195), 

24. 
Reese v. Rugely (82 Ala. 267). 

1417. 
Rpovo V. Berridge (20 Q. B. 523), 

1075. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



cixiLKV 



[references 

Reeve v. Bird (1 C. M. & R. 37), 

1199. 
Reeves v. Cattell (24 W. R. 485), 

737. 
Reeves v. Hyde (14 111. App. 233), 

855. 
Reeves v. McComeskey (168 Pa. 

St. 571), 785. 
Reffel V. Reffel (1 L. R. P. & D. 

139), 343. 
Regan v. Walsh (11 Ohio Dec. 61), 

1214. 
Regan v. Luthy (16 Daly, N. Y. 

413), 721. 
Regina v. Ponsonby (3 Ad. & El. 

N. S. 14), 301. 
Regina v. St. Giles (4 B. & S. 

509), 131. 
Regina v. St. Nicholas (5 Barn. & 

Adol. 227), 566. 
Regina v. Slawstone (18 Q. B. 

388), 174. 
Rehler v. Railway Co. (8 N. Y. 

Supp. 286), 870. 
Reich v. McCrea (59 Hun, 625), 

1215. 
Reichstetter v. Reese (39 S. W. 

Rep. 597), 958. 
Reid V. Hibbard (6 Wis. 175), 101. 
Reid V. Parsons (2 Chit. 247), 

644. 
Reid V. Town of Long Lake (89 

N. Y. Supp. 983), 394. 
Reid V. Weissner (88 Md. 234), 

644. 
Reinhardt v. Blanchard (78 111. 

App. 96), 1432. 
Reinhart v. Miller (22 Ga. 402), 

333. 
Reitanbaugh v. Ludwick (31 Pa. 

St. 131), 30. 
Reithman v. Brandenburg (7 Colo. 

480), 155. 
Relph V. Gist (4 McCord. S. C. 

267) 332. 
Remnant v. Brembridge (2 Moore, 

94), 45. 



ARE TO PAGES.] 

Remsen v. Conklin (18 Johns. N. 

Y. 447), 528, 554, 638. 
Renard v. Sampson (12 N. Y. 561), 

459. 
Rendall v. Andreae (61 Law J. Q. 

B. 630), 45. 
Renney v. Sweeney (14 R. I. 581), 

233. 
Rennie v. Robinson (7 Moore, 

539), 575. 
Reno V. Mendenhall (58 111. App. 

87), 563, 565, 868, 877, 881. 
Renoud v. Daskam (34 Conn. 512), 

1368, 1378. 
Renton v. Baraett (77 L. T. Rep. 

645), 628. 
Repplier v. Buck (5 B. Mon. Ky. 

96), 1434. 
Requa v. Domestic Pub. (32 N. Y. 

Supp. 125), 1236. 
Respell V. Carwin (72 111. App. 

623), 481. 
Retchie v. Atkinson (10 East, 

295), 601. 
Reusens v. Lawson (91 Va. 226), 

972. 
Reuss V. Picksley (L. T. I. Exch. 

342), 386. 
Rex V. Bardwell (6 Ad. & El. 278), 

301. 
Rex V. Chestnut (1 Barn. & Aid. 

473), 300. 
Rex V. Chipping Norton (5 East, 

239), 64. 
Rex V. Collett (R. & R. 498), 186, 

190. 
Rex V. Eatington (4 T. R. 181), 

566. 
Rex V. Fillongley (1 Term. Rep. 

458), 187, 190. 
Rex V. Flintshire (3 Dowl. & L. 

537), 343. 
Rex V. Inhabitants (5 Mod. 331), 

10. 
Rex V. .Jobling (R. & R. 525), 

186, 190. 



clxxxvi 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[references ake to pages.] 



Rex V. Manners (3 Ad. & El. 597), 

11. 
Rex V. Northwin^eld (1 B. «S; Ad. 

912), 461. 
Rex V. Oakley (10 East, 494), 11, 
Rex V. Rawdon (3 M. & Ry. 426), 

581. 
Rex V. Sutton (3 Ad. & El. 597), 

12. 
Rex V. Tynemouth (12 East, 46), 

301. 
Reynolds v. Black (91 Iowa, 1), 

1439. 
Reynolds v. Davidson (31 Md. 

662), 102. 
Reynolds v. Ellis (103 N. Y. 115), 

279, 1404, 1405. 
Reynolds v. Fuller (64 111. App. 

134), 1060. 
Reynolds v. Greenbaum (80 111. 

416), 349. 
Reynolds v. Hindman (88 Ga. 

314), 1415. 
Reynolds v. Lawton (55 Hun, 

603), 1069. 
Reynolds v. Pitt (19 Ves. 134), 

667, 1038. 
Reynolds v. Rej^nolds (48 Hun, N. 

Y. 142), 310, 314. 
Reynolds v. Shuler (5 Cow. N. Y. 

323), 1254. 
Reynolds v. Swain (13 La. 193), 

1222. 
Reynolds v. Van Buren (155 N. Y. 

120), 290, 837. 
Reynolds v. Welsh (8 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 404), 327. 
Reynolds v. Williams (1 Tex. 311), 

685. 
Reysen v. Roate (92 Wis. 543), 

435. 
Rhoades v. Seidel (12 Det. Leg. 

N. Rep. 1), 797, 855. 
Rhode V. Loiithain (8 Black. Ind. 

413), 97, 99. 
Rhodes v. Com. (7 Ky. Law Rep. 

520), 778. 



' Rhodes v. Robinson (3 Bing. N. C. 

677), 175. 
Rhodius V. Johnson (24 Ind. App. 

401), 819. 
Rhone v. Gale (12 Minn. 54), 349, 

1036, 
Rhyme v. Guevara (67 Miss. 139), 

934, 936. 
Ricardi v, Gaboury (115 Tenn. 

484), 14. 
Rice V. Brown (81 Me. 56), 329, 

330. 
Rice V. Dudley (55 Ala. 68), 1131, 

1175, 1213. 
Rice V. Pacific Realty Co. (35 

Wash. 535), 1137, 
Rice V. Whitmore (74 Cal. 619), 

111, 672, 
Rich V. Basterfield (4 C. B. 783), 

793, 825. 
Rich V. Bolton r46 Vt. 84), 187, 

216. 
Rich V. Doyenn (85 Hun, N, Y. 

510), 1207, 1214. 
Richards v. Bluck (6 C. B. 437), 

1335. 
Richardson v. Bates (8 Ohio St. 

257), 334. 
Richardson v. Bigelow (15 Gray, 

Mass. 154), 437. 
Richardson v. Callahan (73 Miss. 

4), 1184. 
Richardson v, Coddington (49 

Mich. 1), 552. 
Richards v, Gauffret (145 Mass. 

486), 435, 685. 
Richardson v. Gifford (3 N. & M. 

325), 385. 
Richardson v. Gifford (1 Ad. & 

El, 52), 139, 147, 196, 889. 
Richardson v, Gordon (188 Mass. 

279), 1013, 1216. 
Richard.son v. Hall (1 B. & B. 50), 

570, 582. 
Richardson v, Harvey (37 Ga. 

224), 923. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxvii 



[refebexces aee to pages.] 



Richards v. Knight (78 Iowa, G9), 

1325. 
Richardson v. Langridge (4 

Taunt. 128), 133, 134, 190, 191. 
Richardson v. McLaurin (69 Miss. 

70), 1429. 
Richardson v. Peterson (58 Iowa, 

724), 1425. 
Richardson v. Pond (81 Mass. 387, 

389), 409. 
Richardson v. Richardson (49 Mo. 

29), 13. 
Richardson v. Richardson (9 Gray, 

Mass. 213), 732. 
Richardson v. Thornton (52 N. C. 

458), 198. 
Richie v. McCauley (4 Pa. St. 471), 

1444. 
Richmond Ice Co. v. Crystal Ice 

Co. (99 Va. 239), 1340. 
Rickards v. Dana (75 Vt. 74), 335, 

1044. 
Rickert v. Snyder (9 Wend. N. Y. 

415), 497. 
Ricketson v. Galligan (89 "Wis. 

394), 921. 
Ricketts v. Garrett (11 Ala. 806), 

1171. 
Ricketts v. Weaver (12 M. & W. 

718), 51. 
Riddle v. Brown (20 Ala. 412), 

274. 
Riddle v. Littlefield (53 N. H. 

503), 412, 442. 
Rider v. Bagley (84 N. Y. 461), 

32. 
Ridge V. Railroad Transfer Co. 

(56 Mo. App. 50), 680. 
Ridgley v. Stillwell (27 Mo. 128), 

522. 
Ridgley v. Stillwell (28 Mo. 40), 

146. 
Ridgely v. Stillwell (25 Mo. 570), 

1G2. 
Ridgeway v. Hannum (129 Ind. 

App. 124), 139. 
m 



Ridgway v. Wharton (6 H. L. Cas. 

288), 249, 360. 
Rigge V. Bell (5 Term. Rep. 471), 

172. 
Riggin V. Maguire (15 Wall. U. S. 

549), 1120. 
Riggs V. Gray (72 S. W. Rep. 101), 

848. 
Riggs V. Pursell (66 N. Y. 193), 

738, 910, 1051. 
Right V. Bawden (3 East, 460), 

511. 
Right V. Cuthell (5 Esp. 149), 89. 
Right V. Darby (1 T. R. 159), 156, 

158, 217. 
Right d. Lewis v. Beard (13 East, 

210), 236. 
Riker v. Bagley (84 N. Y. 461), 

1125. 
Riley v. Hale (158 Mass. 240), 

703. 
Riley v. Jordan C122 Mass. 231), 

1074. 
Riley v. Lally (172 Mass. 244), 

1136, 1176. 
Riley v. Peltis Co. (96 Mo. 318), 

858. 
Ring V. Johnson County (6 Iowa, 

265), 65. 
Ringle v. Quigg (87 Pac. Rep. 

724), 471. 
Ripley v. Page (12 Vt. 353), 1259. 
Riseley v. Ryle (11 M. & W. 6), 

193. 
Rising V. Stannard (17 Mass. 282), 

206, 208, 209, 215, 217, 228, 1306. 
Rittmaster v. Brisbane (19 Colo. 

371), 349. 
Rives v. Dudley (3 Jones, N. C. 

Law, 126), 61. 
Rivett V. Brown (6 "\;VT<ly. L. Bui. 

Ohio, 378), 163. 
Rivis V. Watson (5 M. & W. 255), 

541, 1112. 
Roach V. Peterson (47 Minn. 291), 

868, 1346, 1358. 



cixxxvm 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[BEFEEE?rCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Robb V. Antonio St Rep. (83 

Tex. 392), 385. 
Robb's Appeal (41 Pa. St. 45), 51. 
Robbins v. Atkins (168 Mass. 45), 

802. 
Robbins v. Conway (92 111. App. 

173), 646. 
Robbins v. Jones (15 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 238), 913. 
Robbins v. Mount (27 N. Y. Super. 

553), 782, 783. 
Roberts v. Barker (1 C. & M. 808), 

1214, 1335. 
Roberts v. Brett (11 H. L. Cases, 

354), 625. 
Roberts v. Daver (4 B. & A. 664), 

642. 
Roberts v. Hay ward (3 Car. & P. 

432), 143. 
Roberts v. Holland (62 L. J. Q. B. 

621), 88. 
Roberts v. Jacks (31 Ark. 597), 

1410, 1428. 
Roberts v. Jones (71 S. Car. 404), 

1331. 
Roberts v. MePherson (63 N. J. 

Law, 352), 490. 
Roberts v. Sims (64 Miss. 597), 

1032. 
Robertson v. Banks (9 Miss. 666), 

106. 
Robertson v. Bid^ell (32 Fla. 304), 

934. 
Robertson v. French (4 East, 130), 

604. 
Robertson v. Hayes (83 Ala. 290), 

119. 
Robertson v. Pope (1 Rich. Law, 

S. C. 501), 106. 
Robertson v. St. John (2 Bro. P. 

C. 140), 1366. 
Robertson v. Simons (109 Ga. 

360), 139, 158. 
Robery v. Jervoise (1 Term. Rep. 

229), 1385. 
Robeson v. Pittenger (2 N. J. Eq. 
57), 44L 



Robey v. Prout (7 D. C. 81), 633. 
Robie V. Smith (21 Me. 114), 206, 

207, 234. 
Robins v. Cox (1 Lev. 22), 1112. 
Robinson v. Beard (140 N. Y. 107), 

1391. 
Robinson v. Clapp (65 Conn. 365), 

410. 
Robinson v. Deering (56 Me. 357), 

539. 
Robinson v. Glass (94 Ind. 211), 

361. 
Robinson v. Gould (26 Iowa, 89), 

350, 352. 
Robinson v. Henaghan (92 111. 

App. 620), 1155. 
Robinson v. Hoffman (1 M. & P. 

474), 90. 
Robinson v. .Tarvis (25 Mo. App. 

421), 361. 
Robinson v. Kline (70 N. Y. 147), 

716. 
Robinson v. Kruse (29 Ark. 575), 

1317. 
Robinson v. Lehman (72 Ala. 401), 

1096. 
Robinson v. L'Engle (13 Fla. 482), 

1340, 1345. 1352. 
Robinson v. Noel (49 Miss. 253), 

349. 
Robinson v. Perry (21 Ga. 183), 

1044. 
Robinson v. Robinson (116 III. 

250), 349. 
Robinson v. Robinson (1 N. H. 

161), 30. 
Robinson v. Root (90 Ala. 115), 

964. 
Robinson v. Troupe Min. Co. (55 

Mo. App. 662), 934, 936. 
Robinson v. Wheeler (25 N. Y. 

252), 351. 
Robinson v. Wright (2 MacArthur, 

D. C. 54), 1253. 
Robrecht v. Marling's Adm'r (29 

29 W. Va. 765), 696. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



clxxxix 



[referexces are to pages.] 
Robson V. Flight (4 De G., J. & S. i Roehrs v. Timmons (63 N. E. Rep. 



608), 19. 



481), 847. 



Roby V. Cossitt (78 111. 638), 101. I Rogan v. Dockery (23 Mo. App. 



Rochester v. Pierce (1 Camp. 466), 

64. 
Rockingham v. Penrice (IP. Wm. 

179), 632, 540. 
Rockport V. Rockport Granite Co. 

(177 Mass. 246), 274. 
Rodgers v. Bell (53 Ga. 94), 976. 
Rodgers v. Pitcher (6 Taunt. 208), 

512. 
Rodwell V. Phillips (9 Mee. & 

Well. 501), 1306. 
.Roe V. Archbishop of York (6 

East, 86), 1201. 
Roe d. Berkeley v. Tax (6 East, 

86), 1202. 
Roe V. Charnock (Peake, N. P. C. 

4), 158. 
Roe d. West v. Davis (7 East, 

363), 367. 
Roe V. Galliers (2 T. R. 133), 1065. 
Roe d. Gregson v. Harrison (2 T. 

R. 425), 647. 
Roe, Lessee of Bramford, v. Hay- 
ley (12 East, 464), 375. 
Roe d. V. Lees (2 W. Bl. 1173), 

192. 
Roe d. Goatley v. Paine (2 Camp, 

520), 890. 
Roe d. Shore v. Porter (3 T. R. 

13), 43. 
Roe d. Dingley v. Sales (1 M. & 

S. 297), 1053. 
Roe d. Blair v. Street (4 N. & M. 

42), 215. 
Roe V. Harrison (2 T. R. 133), 

1065. 
Roe V. Street (2 A. & EI. 329), 

198. 
Roe V. Summerset (2 W. BI. 692), 

53. 
Roe V. Ward (1 H. Bl. 96), 137, 

160, 229. 
Roe V. Wiggs (2 Bos. & P. N. S. 

330), 169. 



313), 847. 
Rogers v. Bemus (69 Pa. St. 432), 

880. 
Rogers v. Boynton (57 Ala. 501), 

922. 
Rogers v. Brokaw (25 N. J. Eq. 

497), 1255. 
Rogers v. Brown (57 Minn. 223), 

150. 
Rogers v. Dansworth (9 N. J. Eq. 

289), 604. 
Rogers v. Gosnell (51 Mo. 466), 

533. 
Rogers v. Grigg (29 S. W. Rep. 

654), 1436. 
Rogers v. Herron (92 111. 582), 

1100. 
Rogers v. Humphreys (4 Ad. & El. 

299), 31, 288. 
Rogers v. McGuffey (74 S. W. Rep. 

753), 696. 
Rogers v. McKenzie (65 N. Car. 

218), 492. 
Rogers v. Ostrom (35 Barb. N. Y. 

523), 1138. 
Rogers v. Pitcher (6 Taunt. 202), 

134, 923. 
Rogers v. Pullen (2 Bing. N. C. 

749). 193. 
Rogers v. Snow (118 IMass. 118), 

397. 
Rogers v. S. E. Grote Paint Co. 

(94 S. W. Rep. 548), 1350. 
Rogers v. Waller (4 Hayw. Tenn. 

205), 920. 
Rohrer v. Babcock (126 111. 222), 

309, 311. 
Rohrheimer v. Hoffman (103 Pa. 

St. 409), 555. 
Rolfe V. Harris (2 Price, 206n), 

667, 1038. 
Rollins V. Moody (72 Me. 135), 

1222. 



cxc 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Rollins V. Movers (25 Me. 192), 

1298. 
Rollins V. Proctor (56 Iowa, 326), 

1437, 1449. 
Rolls V. Miller (53 L. J. Ch. 682), 

739. 
Rolt V. Somerville (2 Eq. Cas. 

Abr. 739), 725. 
Roman v. Taylor (93 App. Div. 

449), 1360. 
Ronaldson v. Tabor (43 Ga. 230), 

941. 
Roney v, Aldrich (44 Hun, 320), 

870. 
Rook V. Warth (1 Ves. Sr. 462), 

844. 
Rooney v. Crary "(S 111. App. 329), 

1282, 1291. 
Rooney v. Gillispie (6 Allen, 74), 

209. 
Roosevelt v. Bull's Head Bank (45 

Barb. N. Y. 579), 537. 
Roosevelt v. Hopkins (33 N. Y. 

81), 1044, 1050. 
Roosevelt v. Hungate (110 111. 

595), 182. 
Ropps V. Barker (4 Pick. Mass. 

239), 1259. 
Rorbach v. Crossett (64 Hun, 637), 

180, 1224. 
Rose V. Davis (11 Cal. 133), 943. 
Rose V. King (49 Ohio St. 213), 

916. 
Rose V. Wynn (42 Ark. 42), 694. 
Rosen v. Rose (2 Ann. Cases, 194), 

385. 
Rosenan v. Syring (25 Oreg. 386), 

1301. 
Rosenbaum v. Gunter (3 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 203), 481, 1077. 
Rosenberg v. Schoolherr (101 N. 

Y. Supp. 505), 819. 
Rosenberg v. Sharper (51 Tex. 

134), 1084. 
Rosenberg v. Sprechie (103 N. W. 

Rep. 1045), 573. 



Rosenblat v. Perkins (18 Oreg. 

156), 146, 162. 
Rosenbloom v. Pinch (37 Misc. 

Rep. 318), 898, 1155. 
Rosenfield v. Newman (59 Minn. 

159), 839, 841. 
Rosenquist v. Canary (15 Misc. 

Rep. 148), 585. 
Rosenstein v. Cohen (96 Minn. 

336), 784. 
Ross V. Campbell (9 Colo. App. 

38), 1249. 
Ross V. Cobb (9 Yerger, Tenn. 

363), 10. 
Ross V. Com. (2 B. Mon. Ky. 417), 

778. 
Ross V. Dysart (33 Pa. St. 452), 

697, 1171. 
Ross V. Gill (1 Wash. Va. 7), 13. 
Ross V. Gill- (4 Call. Va. 250), 15. 
Ross V. Jackson (123 Ga. 607), 

801. 
Ross V. Kernan (31 Hun, 164),. 

485. 
Ross V. Schneider (30 Ind. 423), 

1072. 
Roth V. Adams C185 Mass. 341), 

592, 782. 
Roth V. Collins (109 Iowa, 501), 

1250. 
Rothermel v. Dunn (119 Pa. St. 

637), 250. 
Rothman v. Kosover (48 Misc. 

Rep. 538), 1190. 
Rothstein v. Steinbugler (102 N. 

Y. Supp. 470), 536. 
Rofh Tool Co. V. Champion Spring 

Co. (93 Mo. App. 530), 1047. 
RothwelFs Case (Hut. 91), 952. 
Roumage v. Blatrier (11 Rob. La. 

101), 1222. 
Round Lake Ass'n v. Kellogg (141 

N. Y. 348), 329, 729. 
Rousey v. Mattox (111 Ga. 883), 

1439. 
Rowan v. Anderson (33 Kan. 264),. 

1259. 



T.VBLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXCl 



[keferexces aee to pages.] 



Rowan v. Little (11 Wend. N. Y. 

616), 227, 1193, 1204. 
Rowan v. Riley (65 Tenn. 67), 49. 
Rowbothara v. Pearce (5 Houst. 

Del. 135), 1154, 1167. 
Rowe V. Baber (93 Ala. 422), 877. 
Rowe V. Hayley (12 East, 464), 

1391. 
Rowe V. Huntington (1 Vaughan, 

73), 346. 
Rowe V. Ream (105 Pa. St. 453), 

496. 
Rowe V. Ware (30 Ga. 278), 97. 
Rowe V. Williams (97 Mass. 163), 

524, 572. 
Rowell V. Klein (44 Ind. 290), 

1327. 
Rowlands v. Voechting (115 Wis. 

352), 310, 1318, 1319. 
Roxbury v. Huston (39 Me. 312), 

579. 
Royal Bank v. Railroad Co. (100 

Mass. 444), 332. 
Royce v. Guggenheim (106 Mass. 

201), 1129, 1131, 1140, 1167,1176. 
Royce v. Latshaw (62 Pac. Rep. 

627), 1297. 
Royston v. Royston (29 Ga. 82), 

16. 
Rubens v. Hill (213 Hi. 523), 456. 
Rubery v. Stevens (4 Barn. & 

Adol. 241), 46. 
Ruckman v. Astor (3 Edw. Ch. 

N. Y. 373), 492. 
Rudd V. Golding (6 Mov. 231), 

621. 
Ruggles V. Washington Co. (3 Mo. 

496), 101. 
Rummel v. New York, L. E. & W. 

Ry. Co. (9 N. Y. Supp. 404), 

503. 
Ruse V. Mutual B. Life Ins. Co. 

(223 N. Y. 516). 457, 459. 
Russell V. Allard (18 N. H. 222), 

934. 
Russell V. Allen (2 Allen, Mass. 
42), 30. 



Russell V. Darwin (2 Bro. 638), 

1374. 
Russell V. Doty (4 Cow. N. Y. 

576), 526. 
Russell V. Erwin (38 Ala. 44), 

924. 
Russell V. Fabyan (28 N. H. 543), 

523), 539. 
Russell V. Fabyan (27 N. H. 529), 

922, 1171. 
Russell V. Fabyan (34 N. H. 218), 

229. 
Russell V. Giblin (16 Daly, 258), 

295. 
Russell V. Irwin's Adm'r (38 Ala. 

44), 922, 943. 
Rundell v. La Fleur (88 Mass. 

480), 326. 
Russell V. McCartney (21 Mo. App. 

544), 160, 369. 
Russell V. Rush (2 Pitts. Pa. 134), 

848, 876. 
Rutgers v. Hunter (6 Johns. Ch. 

N. Y. 215), 1363, 1368, 1369, 

1382. 
Rutherford v. Wabash R. R. Co. 

(147 Mo. 441), 442, 445. 
Rutherford's Heirs v. Clark's 

Heirs (4 Bush. Ky. 27), 54. 
Rutledge v. Walton (4 Yerg. Tenn. 

458), 1423. 
Rutter V. Smith (2 Wall U. S. 

491), 1264. 
Rutz V. Kehn (143 111. 558), 434. 
Ryan v. Clark (14 Q. B. 65), 355. 
Ryan v. Jones (20 N. Y. Supp. 

842), 103. 
Ryan v. Jones (49 N. Y. St. Rep. 

140), 1144. 
Ryan v. Kirchberg (17 111. App. 

132), 1195. 
Ryan v. Potwin ('62 111. App. 134), 

775, 776. 
Ryan v. Wilson (87 N. Y. 471), 

873. 
Ryerson v. Eldre'd (18 Mich. 12), 

920, 922, 964. 



excii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[befeeences ake to pages.] 



Ryerson v. Quackenbusli (26 N. J. 

Law, 236), 541, 559. 
Ryley v. Hicks U Str. 651), 385. 



Sachererell v. Frogott (2 Saund. 

367), 48, 90, 530. 
Sackett v. Barnum (22 Wend. N. 

Y. 605), 321. 
Sadler v. Jefferson (143 Ala. 669), 

278, 934. 
Saffer v Levy (88 N. Y. Supp. 

144), 880. 
Sage V. Halverson (72 Minn. 294), 

924. 
Sage V. Wilcox (6 Conn. 81), 519. 
St. Albins v. Ellis (16 East, 352), 

602. 
St. Anthony Falls Water Co. v. 

Morrison (12 Minn. 249), 934. 
St. Bernard v. Kemper (60 Ohio 

St. 244), 1373. 
St. .John V. Quitzow (72 111. 334), 

934. 
St, Joseph & St. L. R. Co. v. St. 
L. Ry. Co. (135 Mo. 173), 243, 
885. 
St. Joseph & St. L. R. Co. v. St. 
Louis J. M. & S. Ry. Co. (102 
Mo. 173), 1095. 
St. Louis V. Merton (6 Mo. 476), 

72. 
St. Louis A. & T. Co. v. Trigg (63 

Ark. 536), 686. 
St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. Kalten- 

bach (108 Mo. App. 637), 592. 
St. Louis Brew. Ass'n v. Nieder- 
leucke (76 S. W. Rep. 645), 245, 
249. 
St. Louis Public Schools v. Boat- 
men's Ins. & Trust Co. (5 Mo. 
App. 91), 543. 
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Hall (71 

Ark. 302), 191, 225, 686. 
St. Louis Type Foundry v. Taylor 
(35 S. W. Rep. 691), 1446. 



St. Mich. P. E. Ch. v. Behrens (10 

N. Y. Civ. Pro. Rep. 181), 1151. 

St. Paul Title Ins. Co. v. Diagonal 

Coal Co. (95 Iowa, 551), 1439. 
Salina State Bank v. Burr (7 Kan. 

App. 197), 1435. 
Salisbury v. Marshal (4 C. & P. 

65), 784. 
Salisbury v. Shirley (66 Cal. 223), 

90. 518, 615, 1020, 1079. 
Sallade v. James (6 Pa. St. 144), 

1026. 1328. 
Salmon v. Matthews (8 Mee. & 

Wei. 825), 510, 541. 
Salmon v. Smith (1 Saund. 204), 

1180. 
Salmon v. Swan (Cro. Jac. 619), 

1228. 
Salomon v. O'Donnell (5 Colo. 

App. 35), 164. 
Salomon v. Weisberg (61 N. Y. 

Supp. 60), 250. 
Saloy V. Bloch ri36 U. S. 338), 

1438. 
Salter v. Burt (20 Wend. N. Y. 

205), 356. 
Sammis v. Poole (188 111. 396), 

1452. 
Sampson v. Camperdown (64 Fed. 

Rep. 939), 1265, 1294. 
Sampson v. Easterby (9 B. & C. 

505), 602. 
Sampson v. Grimes (7 Blackf. Ind. 

173), 491. 498. 
Sampson v. Grimes (3 Har. Del. 

82), 539. 
Sampson v. Henry (11 Pick. Mass. 

379), 237. 
Sampson v. Schaefer (3 Cal. 196), 

212, 575. 
Samson v. Rose (65 N. Y. 411), 

1323, 1327. 
Samuelson v. Mining Co. (49 

Mich. 164), 793. 
San Antonio v. French (80 Tex. 

575), 74. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cxcni 



[references are to pages.] 



San Antonio Brewing Ass'n v. 
Brentz (Vt. 1905, 61 Atl. Rep. 
368), 734. 
Sanborn v. Cree (3 Colo. 149), 

1077. 
Sanborn v. Randall (62 N. H. 

620), 88, 90. 
Sanborn v. Sanborn (104 Mich. 

180), 361. 
Sanborn v. "Van Duyne (90 Minn. 

215), 71. 
Sandel v. Douglass (27 La. Ann. 

629), 1318, 1325. 
Sanders v. Benson (4 Beav. 350), 

1105. 
Sanders v. Bryer (152 Mass. 141), 

717. 
Sanders v. Ellington (77 N. Car. 

255), 1306, 1311, 1334. 
Sanders v. Lord Annesley (2 Sch. 

& Lef. 106), 969. 
Sanders v. Partridge (108 Mass. 

556), 1045. 
Sanders v. Pope (12 Ves. 282), 

663, 666. 
Sanders v. Richardson (14 Pick. 

Mass. 522), 200. 
Sanders v. Smith (23 N. Y. Supp. 

125), 860. 
Sanderson v. Berwick-upon-Tweed 

Cor. (53 L. J. Q. B. 559), 1131, 

1160. 
Sanderson v. Dobson (1 Exch. 

145), 604. 
Sandhill v. Franklin (L. R. 10 C. 

B. 342), 512. 
Sandifer v. Grantham (62 Miss. 

412), 54. 
Sandill v. Franklin (44 L. J. C. P. 

216), 173. 
Sandford v. Clarke (57 L. J. Q. B. 

507), 160. 
Sands v. Hughes (53 N. Y. 293), 

958. 
Sandwith v. De Silver (1 Browne, 

Pa. 221), 518, 1025. 



San Filippo v. Posting Co. (98 N. 

Y. Supp. 661), 837. 
Sanford v. Johnson (24 Minn. 

172), 24, 191. 
Sanford v. Modine (51 Neb. 728), 

312. 
Saner v. Bilton (47 L. J. Ch. 267), 

858, 862, 904. 
San Francisco v. Itzell (80 Cal. 

57), 71. 
Sang Shing v. Sire (15 Misc. Rep. 

139), 585. 
Santa Rosa Irr. Co. v. Pecos R. I. 

Co. (92 S. W. Rep. 1014), 338. 
Sapsford v. Fletcher (1 T. R. 511), 

545. 
Sargent v. Adams (3 Gray, Mass. 

72), 398, 456, 462. 
Sargent v. Parsons (12 Mass. 

149), 83. 
Sargent v. Pray (117 Mass. 267), 

1014. 
Sartwell v. Young (126 Mich. 

304), 946. 
Saterfield v. Moore (110 Ga. 514), 

1402. 
Sauer v. Meyer (87 Cal. 34), 633. 
Saunder's Case (5 Coke, 12), 710. 
Saunders v. Blythe (112 Mo. 1), 

351. 
Saunders v. Moore (14 Bush, Ky. 

97), 922, 1411. 
Saunders v. Musgrave (6 B. & C. 

524), 134, 321. 
Sausser v. Steinmetz (88 Pa. St. 

324), 268, 377, 384, 562. 
Savage v. Mason (3 Cush. Mass. 

500), 614. 
Savings Bank of Cinn. v. Benton 

(2 Mete. Ky. 240), 65. 
Saving Fund v. Marks (3 Phila. 

Pa. 278), 550. 
Sawyer v. McGillicuddy (81 Me. 

318), 813. 
Sawyer v. Sargent (7 Pac. Rep. 

120), 964. 



CXCIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[EEFEFSNCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Sawyer v. Twiss (26 N. H. 345), 

1331. 
Sawyers v. Zachery (1 Head, 

Tenn. 21), 16. 
Savory v. Stocking (4 Ciish. Mass. 

607), 1120. 
Saxton V. Storage Co. (129 111. 

318). 615. 
Say V. Mattram (19 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 479), 602. 
Say V. Stoddard (27 Ohio St. 478), 

206. 
Sayles v. Kerr (4 App. Div. 150), 

1086. 
Scaife v. Argall (74 Ala. 473), 

122. 
Scaife v. Stovall (67 Ala. 237), 

1424,1429. 
Scaltock V. Heuston (1 L. R. C. P. 

Div. 106), 489, 494. 
Sehaeffer v. Henkel (75 N. Y. 

378), 109. 
Schaidt v. Blaul (66 Md. 141), 

441. 
Schanda v. Sulzberger (40 N. Y. 

Supp. 116), 831. 
Schee v. Wiseman (79 Ind. 389), 

41,47. 
Scheel v. Alhambra Mining Co. 

(79 Fed. Rep. 821), 442. 
Scheelky v. Koch (119 N. C. 80), 

1214. 
Scheldt V. Belz (4 111. App. 431), 

442,446. 
Schenck v. Mundorf (2 Brown, 

Pa. 106), 689. 
Schenck v. Vannest (4 N. J. Law, 

329), 523. 
Schenkel v. Lischinsky (90 N. Y. 

Supp. 300), 1044. 
Schermerhorn v. Gouge (13 Abb. 

Prac. N. Y. Rep. 313), 477, 783. 
Schieffelin v. Carpenter (15 Wend. 

N. Y. 400), 878, 898, 1193, 1201, 

1204. 
Schiff V. Potzlitzer (101 N. Y. 

Sui)p. 249), 831. 



Schilling v. Holmes (23 Cal. 227), 

169. 
Schlavone v. Callahan (102 N. Y. 

Supp. 538), 848. 
Schlemmer v. North (32 Mo. 206), 

1244. 
Schlitz Brewery Co. r. Nielson 

(110 N. W. Rep. 746), 750. 
Schloss V. Schloss (11 Det. Leg. 

N. 249), 1340. 
Schlumpf V. Sasake (38 Wash. 

278), 587. 
Schmalzried v. White (97 Tenn. 

36), 783, 915. 
Schmidt v. Cook (12 Misc. Rep. 

449), 824. 
Schmidt v. Pettit (8 D. C. 179), 

883, 892. 
Schmitt v. Cassilius (31 Minn. 7), 

1463. 
Schneider v. Lord (62 Mich. 141), 

133,146. 
Schneider v. White (12 Oreg. 

503), 533. 
Schofield V. Hincks (58 L. J. Q. B. 

147), 764. 
Scholtz V. Dankert (69 Wis. 416), 

464. 
School Dist. V. Batsche (106 Mich. 

330), 232, 300, 307. 
School District v. Long (10 Atl. 

Rep. 709), 927. 
Schott V. Harvey (105 Pa. St. 

222), 917. 
Schreiber v. Goldsmith (70 N. Y. 

Supp. 236), 284. 
Schroder v. Gemeinder (10 Nev. 

355), 989. 
Schroeder v. King (38 Conn. 78). 

756. 
Scbuck V. Schaub (84 N. Y. Supp. 

896). 1379. 
Schuetz v. Bailey (40 Me. 69), 97. 
Schuisler v. Ames (16 Ala. 73), 

1223. 
Schulte V. Schoring (2 Wash. St. 

127),334, 341, 496. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CXCV 



Freferexces are to pages.] 



Schumacher v. Pabst Brewing Co. 

(78 Minn. 50), 94. 
Schurz V. McMenamy (82 Iowa, 

432), 1467. 
Schutz V. Corn (5 N. Y. St. Rep. 

191), 862. 
Schuykill, etc. Co. (58 Pa. St. 

304), 958. 
Schuyler v. Coach Co. (29 W. N. 

C. 343), 1444. 
Schuyler v. Leggatt (4 Cow. N. Y. 

60), 146, 152, 196. 
Schuylkill, etc. Co. v. Schmoele 

(57 Pa. St. 271), 697, 701. 
Schwandt v. Metzger Lindseed Oil 

Co. (93 111. App. 365), 804, 859. 
Schwarze v. Mahoney (97 Cal. 

131), 947. 
Schwartz' Estate (14 Pa. St. 42), 

51. 
Schwartz v. Monday (98 N. Y. 

Supp. 978), 807. 
Schwartz v. Salter (40 La. Ann. 

264), 844. 
Schwoerer v. Connelly (88 N. Y. 

Supp. 818), 7'36. 
Scobey v. Walker (114 Ind. 254), 

351. 
Scoten V. Brown (4 Har. Del. 

324), 382. 
Scott V. Beecher (91 Mich. 590), 

1210, 1214, 1215. 
Scott V. Bourdillion (5 Bos. & Pul. 

213), 604. 
Scott V. Brown (69 J. P. 89), 

1027, 1030. 
Scott V. Elkins (83 N. C. 424), 

951. 
Scott V. Fisher (4 T. B. Mon. Ky. 

387), 552. 
Scott V. Fox Optical Co. (38 Pitts. 

L. J. 368). 412. 
Scott V. Gallagher (14 S. & R. Pa. 

333), 497. 
Scott V. Haversfraw (135 N. Y. 

141), 895, 914. 



Scott V. Hawsman (21 Fed. Cas. 

No. 12,532), 1195. 
Scott V. Levy (6 Lea, Tenn. 662), 

948. 
Scott V. Liverpool (3 De Gex & J. 

334), 572. 
Scott V. Montells (109 N. Y. 1), 

584. 
Scott V. Renfro (106 Ala. 611), 

1432. 
Scott V. Simons (54 N. H. 426), 

847, 1142, 1176. 
Scott V. Slaughter (35 Tex. Civ. 

App. 524), 1046. 
Scott v. State (29 Ga. 263), 778. 
Scott V. Willis (122 Ind. 1), 156, 

369. 
Scott Bros. V. Flood's Trustee (99 

S. W. Rep. 967), 1354. 
Scottish Mortg. Co. v. Taylor (74 

S. W. Rep. 564), 252. 
Scrantin v. Booth (29 Barb. N. Y. 

171), 519. 
Scruggs v. Railroad Co. (108 U. S. 

368), 1267, 1271. 
Sculley v. Porter (57 Kan. 322), 

1402,1429. 
Seaboard Rl. Co. v. Fuller (67 N. 

Y. Supp. 146), 1142, 1176. 
Seabrook v. Moyer (88 Pa. St. 

417), 1178. 
Seagram v. Knight (1867, 2 Ch. 

App. 628), 726. 
Sealey v. Maris (29 S. W. Rep. 

828), 960. 
Seaman v. Aschermann (51 Wis. 

678), 266. 
Seaman v. Civill (45 Barb. N. Y. 

267). 453. 
Seaman v. Ward (1 Hilt. N. Y. 9). 

519. 
Sear v. House Society (50 L. J. 

Ch. 77), 1045. 
Searle v. Powell (89 Minn. 278), 

160.163. 
Sears v. Smith "(3 Colo. 287), 378. 



excvi 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Seaver v. Thompson (189 111. 158), 

455. 
Seavey v. Jones (43 N. H. 441), 

447. 
Sebastian v. Hill (51 111. App. 

272), 150, 151. 
Sec.ar, In re (18 Fed. Rep. 319), 

1122. 
Secar v. Pestana (37 111. 525), 141. 
Second Nat. Bank v. Druiger (2 

N. J. Law J. 115), 1441. 
Second Nat. Bank v. Merrill (69 

Wis. 501), 133, 1268, 1288. 
Security Trust Co. v. Liberty 
Building Co. (89 N. Y. Supp. 
340), 1013. 
Seddon v. Senate "(13 East, 63), 

698. 
Seeley v. Alden (6 Pa. St. 352), 

686. 
Seem v. McLees (24 111. 192), 159, 

163. 
Seers v. Hind (1 Ves. Jr. 294), 

1065. 
Seftbn V. Juillard (71 N. Y. Supp. 

348), 1162. 
Segal V. Ensler (16 Misc. Rep. 

43), 562. 
Seiber v. Blanc (76 Cal. 173), 782, 

861. 
Seidel v. Bloesser (77 Mo. App. 

172), 397, 416, 442. 
Seidenberg v. Jones (63 Ga. 612), 

840. 
Seigel V. Neary (77 N. Y. Supp. 

854), 1131, 1145, 1156. 
Seisel v. Folmar (103 Ala. 491), 

1408, 1435. 
Seitzinger v. Alspach (42 L. I. 

68), 573. 
Selby V. Graves (h. R. 3 C. P. 50), 

272,1340. 
Selby V. Selby (3 Mer. 2), 388. 
Selden v. Camp (95 Va. 527), 

1386. 
Seld'onridge v. Connoble (32 Ind. 
375), 342. 



Semple v. Goehringer (52 Minn. 

428), 1273. 
Semmes v. United States (26 Ct. 

CI. 119), 36. 
Senae v. Pritchard (5 La. 480), 

1358. 
Serio v. Murphy (99 Md. 545), 854. 
Settle V. Henson (Morris, Iowa, 

111), 938. 
Setton V. Slade (7 Ves. 265), 982. 
Seudly v. Murray (34 Mo. 420), 

146. 
Severn's Case (1 Leon, 122), 603. 
Sevier v. Shaw (25 Ark. 417), 

1439. 
Sevier v. Shaw (50 Ga. 213), 1409. 
Sewell V. Moore [166 Pa. St. 570), 

917. 
Sexton V. Board of Sup'rs of Coa- 
homa (86 Miss. 380), 112. 
Sexton V. Carley (147 111. 269). 

948. 
Sexton V. Chicago Storage Co. 

(129 111. 318), 1048. 
Seyfert v. Bean (83 Pa. St. 450), 

108. 
Seymour v. Delancy (6 Johns. Ch. 

N. Y. 223), 1002. 
Seymour v. Wyckoff (10 N. Y. 

213), 101. 
Shafer v. Smith (7 Har. & J. 67), 

439. 
Shaffer v. State Nat. Bank (37 La 

Ann. 242), 440. 
Shaft V. Carey (107 Wis. 273), 

421, 697. 
Shahan v. Herzberg (73 Ala. 59), 

1199,1309. 
Shakel v. Hennessey (57 111. App. 

332), 106. 
Shallies v. Wilcox (4 Thomp. & C. 

N. Y. 591), 564. 
Shand v. McCloskey (27 Pa. Su- 
per. Ct. Rep. 260), 1222. 
Shanfelter v. Horner (81 Md. 

621), 554. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXCVll 



[reiekences aee to pages.] 



Shanks v. Greenville (57 Miss. 

168), 1441. 
Shannon v. Burr (1 Hilt. N. Y. 

39), 689. 
Shannon v. Grindstaff (11 Wash. 

St. 536), 1053, 1096. 
Share v. Porter (3 T. R. 13), 128, 

216. 
Shares v. Brooks (81 Ga. 468), 

691. 
Sharp V. Kinsman (18 S. C. 108), 

1311. 
Sharp V. Milligan (23 Beav. 419), 

365. 
Sharp V. Palmer (31 S. C. 444), 

1466. 
Sharp V. Sharp (Cro. Eliz. 483), 

112. 
Sharps v. Kelly (5 Denio, N. Y. 

431), 973. 
Sharpless' Estate (8 Lane. Bar. 

Pa. 125), 523. 
Sharpless v. Murphy (7 Del. Co. 

Pa. 22), 583. 
Shattuck V. Lovejoy (8 Gray, 

Mass. 204), 644. 
Shaw V. Bowman (91 Pa. St. 414), 

1324. 
Shaw V. Coffin (14 C. B. N. S. 

372), 622, 1055. 
Shaw V. Cummiskey (7 Pick. 

Mass. 576), 689. 
Shaw V. Cunningham (16 S. C. 

631), 351. 
Shaw V. Foster (27 L. T. 281), 

628. 
Shaw V. Hall (79 Mich. 86), 514. 
Shaw V. Hoffman (25 Mich. 162), 

172, 220, 1185. 
Shaw V. Partridge (17 Vt. 626), 

22, 492, 615. 
Shaw V. Shaw (Vern. & Scrir. 

606), 13. 
Shawhan v. Long (26 Iowa, 488), 

49. 
Shawmut Nat. Bank v. Boston 

(118 Mass. 125), 1343. 



Sheaff V. Husted (60 Kan. 770), 

488. 
Shealey v, Clark (117 Ga. 794), 

1453. 
Shear v. Fisher (27 111. App. 464), 

731. 
Shearer v. Winston (33 Miss. 

149), 931, 946. 
Sheary v. Adams (18 Hun, N. Y. 

181), 876. 
Sheble v. Curdt (56 Mo. 437), 

1425, 1457. 
Shedlinsky v. Budweiser Brewing 

Co. (163 N. Y. 137), 774. 
Sheen v. Ritchie (5 M. & W. 175), 

1243. 
Sheets v. Jozner (11 Ind. App. 

209), 605. 
Sheets v. Selden (7 Wail. U. S. 

423), 848. 
Shelby v. Heme (6 Yerg. Tenn. 

513), 489, 615, 884. 
Sheldon v. Connor (48 Me. 584), 

1434. 
Sheldon v. Davey (42 Vt. 637), 

141. 
Sheldon v. Edwards (35 N. Y. 

279), 1233. 
Sheldon v. Hamilton (22 R. I. 

230), 427, 428, 823. 
Sheldon v. Sherman (42 N. Y. 

484), 434. 
Shellar v. Shivers (171 Pa. St. 

569), 1252, 1265. 
Shelton v. Codman (3 Cush. Mass. 

318), 1081. 
Shelton v. Durham (76 Mo. 434), 

353. 
Shelton v. Esluva (6 Ala. 230), 

923. 
Sheo V. Seeling (89 Mo. App. 146), 

99. 
Shepard v. Martin (31 Mo. 492), 

920. 
Shepard v. Rosenkranz (109 Wis. 

58), 383, 1265, 1380. 



€XCV1U 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references ake to pages.] 



Shepard v. Spaulding (4 Mete. 

Mass. 416), 1231, 1265. 
Shepardson v. Elmore (19 Wis. 

424), 955, 1015. 
Shepherd v. Taylor (105 Ala. 

507), 1435. 
Sherbourne v. Jones (20 Me. 70), 

218, 322, 1306. 
Sheridan v. Farsee (106 Mo. App. 

495), 840. 
Sherlock v. Thayer (4 Mich. 355), 

523. 
Sherman v. Ballon (8 Cow. N. Y. 

304), 90. 
Sherman v. Fall R. I. Works (2 

Allen, Mass. 524), 705. 
Sherman v. Fisher (11 Detroit, 

Mich. Leg. N. 589), 934. 
Sherman v. Ludin (79 App. Div. 

37), 782. 
Sherman v. Wilder (106 Mass. 

537), 774, 776. 
Sherman v. Williams (113 Mass. 

481), 397. 
Shermer v. Paciells (161 Pa. St. 

69), 585. 
Sherwood v. Gardner (2 City Ct. 

Rep. N. Y. 88), 576. 
Sherwood v. Harral (39 Conn. 

333), 1035, 1040. 
Sherwood v. Seaman (15 N. Y. Su- 
per. Ct. Rep. 127), 847. 
Shields v. Atkins (2 Atk. 560), 

229. 
Shields v. Horback (49 Neb. 262), 

964. 
Shields v. Lozear (34 N. J. Law, 

496), 936. 
Shields v. Ohio (95 U. S. 319), 70. 
Shiff V. Ezekiel (23 La. Ann. 383), 

1464. 
Shindelback v. Moon (32 Ohio St. 

264), 822. 
Shine V. CxOugh (1 Ball & Beat, 

d36),1278. 
Shinkle v. Blrney (68 Ohio St. 

328), 476, 783. 



Shinn v. Guyton (109 Mo. App. 

557), 493. 
Shinn v. Holmes (25 Pa. St. 142), 

24. 
Shipley v. Associates (101 Mass. 

251), 808, 813. 
Shipley v. Caples (17 Md. 179), 

440. 
Shipley v. Smith (162 Ind. 526), 

19, 24. 
Shipman v. Beers (2 Abb. N. C. 

435), 410. 
Shipman v. Mitchell (64 Tex, 

174), 142, 152. 
Shippey v. Derision (5 Esp. 10), 

385. 
Shirack v. Shirack (44 Kan. 563), 

122. 
Shirk V. Adams (130 Fed. Rep. 

441), 1036. 
Shirk V. Hoffman (57 Minn. 230), 

150,164. 
Shirley v. Newman (1 Esp. 266), 

159, 176. 
Shirling v. Kennon (Ga. 46 S. E. 

Rep. 630), 1446, 1447. 
Shoemaker v. Crawford (82 Mo. 

App. 487), 30g, 677, 696. 
Shoenberger's Ex'rs v. Hay (40 

Pa. St. 132), 604. 
Shoninger v. Mann (219 111. 242), 

812, 818, 819. 
Shouse V. Krusor (24 Mo. App. 

279), 49, 284. 
Shrewsbury v. Gould (2 B. & Aid. 

487), 603. 
Shroder v. Brenneman (23 Pa. St. 

348), 439. 
Shropshire v. Behrens (77 Tex. 

275), 65. 
Shuffler v. Turner (111 N. C. 297), 

51. 
Shughart T. Moore (78 Pa. St. 

469), 460. 
Shult V. Barker (12 S. & R. Pa. 

272), 717. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CXCiX 



[references ake to pages.] 



Shuman v. Smith (100 Ga. 415), 

1184. 
Shumway v. Collins (6 Gray, 

Mass. 227), 733, 1180. 
ShurtlefE v. Rile (140 Mass. 213), 

15. 
Shuster v. Robinson (3 Har. Del. 

50), 1441. 
Shute V. Bills (191 Mass. 433), 

465, 807. 
Shy V. Brackhouse (7 Okl. 35), 

942. 
Sibbald's Case (83 N. Y. 384), 358. 
Sibley v. Lawrence (46 Iowa, 

563), 122. 
Sickles V. Shaw (76 N. Y. Supp. 

319), 525. 
Sldebotham v. Holland (64 L. J. 

Q. B. 200), 172. 
Siefke v. Koch (31 How. Pr. N. Y. 

383), 645, 1059. 
Siegel V. Colby (61 111. App. 315), 

456. 
Siggins V. McGill (72 N. J. L. 

263), 804, 813. 
Slglar V. Malone (3 Humph. Tenn. 

16), 291, 944. 
Sigmund v. Howard Bank (29 Md. 

324), 672, 1158, 1160. 
Sigmund v. Newspaper Co. (82 

111. ), 867. 

Sigur V. Lloyd (1 La. Ann. 421), 

874. 
Silbar v. Ryder (63 Wis. 106), 

362, 877. 
Silber v. Larkin (94 Wis. 9), 

1132, 1142. 
Sillers v. Lester (48 Miss. 524), 

1428. 
Silsby V. Allen (43 Vt. 172), 133. 
Silsendeger v. Scheich (55 Mich. 

468), 220. 
Silva V. Bair (141 Cal. 599), 1194, 

1238. 
Silva V. Campbell (84 Cal. 420), 

646. 



Silvermann v. Lurie (32 Misc. 

Rep. 734), 1176. 
Silvey v. Sumner (61 Mo. 253), 

956,1228. 
Sigmund v. Newspaper Co. (82 111. 

App. 178), 151. 
Simanek v. Nemetz (120 Wis. 42), 

1317. 
Simers v. Saltus (3 Denio, N. Y. 

214), 956, 123?. 
Slmkin v. Ashurst (1 Cr. M. & R. 

261), 229, 233. 
Simmons v. Jarman (122 N. C. 

195), 140, 172. 
Simmons v. McAdaras (6 Mo. 

App. 297), 1233, 1234. 
Simmons v. Pope (84 N. Y. Supp. 

973), 262. 
Simmons v. Simmons (46 Ala. 

304), 1096. 
Simmons v. Trumbo (9 W. Va. 

358), 342. 
Simon v. Seward (54 N. Y. super. 

Ct. 405), 840. 
Simons v. Detroit Twist Drill Co. 

(11 Detroit Leg. N. 141), 219. 
Simonson v. Burr (121 Cal. 582), 

122. 
Simonton v. Loring (68 Me. 164), 

808,838. 
Simpkins v. Cardele Compress Co. 

(113 Ga. 1050), 887. 
Simpkins v. Rogers (15 111. 397), 

1326. 
Simpson v. Applegate (75 Cal. 

342), 212. 
Simpson v. Biffle (63 Ark. 289), 

122. 
Simpson v. Butcher (1 Doug. 

50), 8. 
Simpson v. Gutteridge (1 Madd. 

609), 55. 
Simpson v. Moorhead (65 N. J. 

Eq. 623), 1044, 1079. 
Simpson v. Mundee (3 Kan. 172), 

334. 



cc 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Sims V. Eastland (3 Head, Tenn. 

368), 961. 
Sinclair v. Baggley (4 M. & W. 

312), 343. 
Sinclair v. Jackson (8 Cow. N. Y. 

543), 108. 
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Malean (105 

Ala. 316), 66. 
Sinley v. Brown (4 Pick. Mass. 

137), 561. 
Sioux Bank v. Honnold (85 Iowa, 

352), 1447. 
Sipe V. Bartlett (12 Ohio C. D. 

226), 296. 
Sire V. Long Acre Square Bldg. 

Co. (50 Misc. Rep. 29), 544. 
Sire V. Rumbold (39 N. Y. St. Rep. 

85), 460. 
Sisson V. Kaper "(75 N. W. Rep. 

),480. 

Sittel V. Wright (122 Fed. Rep. 

434), 177, 950. 
Skally V. Shute (132 Mass. 367), 

1131, 1136, 1180. 
Skidmore v. Hay (13 Hun, N. Y. 

441), 1015. 
Skinner v. Skinner (38 Neb. 756), 

258,573. 
Skull V. Glenister (11 W. R. 368), 

416. 
Slater v. Stone (Cro. Jac. 645), 

861. 
Slattery v. Slattery (120 Iowa, 

717), 958. 
Slaughter v. Mallet Land & Cattle 

Co. (72 C. C. A. 436), 986. 
Slee V. Manhattan Co. (1 Paige, 

N. Y. 48), 1104. 
Sleigh V. Bateman (Cro. Eliz. 

487), 1197. 
Slingsby's Case (5 Rep. 18b), 610. 
Slingerland v. Morse (7 Johns. N. 

Y. 474), 537. 
Sloan V. Cantwell (5 Cold. Tenn. 

(571), 623. 
Sloan V. Hudson (119 Ala. 27), 

1432. 



Slocum V. Brown (22 Fed. Cas. 

No. 12,934), 878. 
Slocum V. Seymour (36 N. J. Law, 

138), 1306, 1336. 
Sloper V. Saunders (29 L. J. N. S. 

Ex. 275), 193. 
Small V. Clark (97 Me. 304), 490. 
Smallman v. Agbarow (Cro. Jac. 

417), 25. 
Smart v. Allegaret (14 Phila. Pa. 

179), 1191. 
Smiley v. McLauthlin (138 Mass. 

363), 560. 
Smiley v. Van Winkle (6 Cal. 

605), 1048, 1231. 
Smith V. Ankrim (13 S. & R. Pa. 

39), 557. 
Smith V. Atkins (18 Vt. 461), 1404. 
Smith V. Aude (46 Mo. App. 631), 

500. 
Smith V. Barber (89 N. Y. Supp. 

317), 673, 691. 
Smith V. Bell (44 Minn. 524), 139, 

1381. 
Smith V. Berndt (1 N. Y. Supp. 

108), 62. 
Smith V. Blake (88 Me. 241), 513. 
Smith V. Boston (36 N. H. 458), 

1273. 
Smith V. Boyle (66 Neb. 192), 

1301. 
Smith V. Brinker (17 Mo. 148), 

1087. 
Smith V. Brown (5 Rich. Eq. S. C. 

291), 874. 
Smith & Bustard's Case (1 Leon, 

141),r.34. 
Smith V. Caldwell (78 Ark. 333), 

1286. 
Smith V. Caputo (14 Misc. Rep. 9), 

252. 
Smith V. Carroll (4 Greene, Iowa, 

146), 1259. 
Smyth V. Carter (8 Beav. 78), 713. 
Smith V. Chance (2 B. & Aid. 753), 

1335. 
Smith V. Clark (9 Dowl. 202), 175. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CCl 



[references are to pages.] 



Smith V. Clark (97 Me. 304), 629, 

645. 
Smith V. Colby (136 Mass. 532), 

253. 
Smith V. Collins (41 So. Rep. 825), 

471. 
Smith V. Cooper (39 Kan. 446), 

934. 
Smith V. Crosland (106 Pa. St. 

413), 920. 
Smith V. Day (2 M. & W. 684), 

111, 241. 
Smith V. Dayton C94 Iowa, 102), 

548, 1405, 1434, 1449. 
Smith V. Dodds (35 Ind. 452), 47. 
Smith V. Donnelly (87 N. Y. Supp. 

893), 785. 
Smith V. Dunn (75 Mo. 559), 122. 
Smith V. Egginton (43 L. J. C. P. 

140), 489. 
Smith V. Eldridge (15 Com. 

Bench, 236), 194, 577. 
Smith V. Faust (2 Man. & G. 84), 

577. 
Smith V. Faxon (156 Mass. 589), 

795. 
Smith V. Fortiscue (48 N. C. 65), 

685. 
Smith V. Fyler (2 Hill, N. Y. 648), 

505. 
Smith V. Gayle (58 Ala. 600). 976. 
Smith V. Gibson (25 Neb. 511), 

992. 
Smith V. Goodman (149 111. 75), 

1060, 1061. 
Smith V. Gummere (39 N. J. Eq. 

17), 15. 
Smith V. Hall (19 111. App. 17), 

567. 
Smith V. Hall (11 Me. 295), 563. 
Smith V. Harrison (42 Ohio St. 

ISO), 615. 
Smith V. Hart (68 N. Y. Supp. 

1127), 1400. 
Smith V. Hartogg (15 Rep. 641), 

557. 



Smith V. Heldman (93 Md. 343), 

551. 
Smythe v. Henry (41 Fed. Rep. 

705), 933. 
Smith V. Hess (48 N. E. Rep. 

1030), 1282. 
Smith V. Houston (16 Ala. Ill), 

235. 
Smith V. Huddleston (103 Ala. 

223), 1440. 
Smith V. Humble (15 C. B. 321), 

1007. 
Smith V. Ingram (90 Ala. 529), 

252, 253, 1060. 
Smith V. Kerr (108 N. Y. 31), 556, 

1199,1347. 
Smith V. Kerr (33 Hun, 567), 555. 
Smith V. Kincaid (1 111. App. 620), 

873. 
Smith V. King (22 Ala. 558), 51, 

52. 
Smith V. Leighton (38 Kan. 544), 

1315. 
Smith V. Low (1 Atk. 489), 10, 15, 

952. 
Smith V. Maberry (61 Ark. 515), 

318. 320, 1402. 
Smith V. Mapleback (1 T. R. 441), 

1197. 
Smith V. Marrable (11 M. & W. 5), 

784, 785, 1149. 
Smith V. Martin (3 Saund. 400), 

446. 
Smith V. Mattingly (96 Kj'. 228), 

726. 
Smith V. McGowan (3 Barb. N. Y. 

404), 1237. 
Smith V. McLean (22 111. App. 
451). 864. 1136. 1155, 1340, 1344. 
Smith V. Meyer (25 Ark. 609), 

1436. 
Smith V. Miller (49 X. J. Law, 

521), 641, 642. 
Smith V. Morse (20 La. Ann. 220), 

326. 
Smith V. Mundy (IS Ala. 182), 
923. 



ceil 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Smith V. Neale (2 Com. Bench, 

N. S. 67), 386. 
Smith V. Newman (62 Kan. 318), 

956. 
Smith V. Niles (20 Vt. 315), 115. 
Smith V. Niver (2 Barb. N. Y. 

180), 1195, 1213. 
Smith V. Ogg (16 Cal. 88), 182. 
Smith V. Park (31 Minn. 70), 53, 

1264, 1265. 
Smith V. Pendergast (26 Minn. 

318), 1198, 1199. 
Smith V. Perry (29 N. J. L. 74), 

97. 
Smith V. Phillips (43 Atl. Rep. 

183), 380. 
Smith V. Phillips (29 S. W. Rep. 

358), 696. 
Smith V. Phillips Church (107 N. 

Y. 610), 913. 
Smith V. Porter (10 Gray, Mass. 

66), 343, 351. 
Smith V. Putnam (3 Pick. Mass. 

221), 1054, 1065, 1322. 
Smith V. Raleigh (3 Camp. 513), 

1178, 1180. 
Smith V. Rice (56 Ala. 417), 309. 
Smith V. Robinson (5 Reports, 

469), 1029. 
Smith V. Rowe (31 Me. 312), 221. 
Smith V. St. Michael (3 E. & E. 

383), 283. 
Smith V. Scanlon (21 Ky. L. Rep. 

169), 934. 
Smith V. Schulenberg (34 Wis. 

41), 549. 
Smith V. Schultz (89 Cal. 526), 

809. 
Smith V. Sharpe (Busbee, N. C. 

91), 714. 
Smith V. Shepard (15 Pick. Mass. 

147), 1170, 1182, 1183. 
Smith V. Simons (1 Root, 318), 

270. 
Smith V. Singleton (71 Ga. 68), 

199,236. 



Smith V. Smith (62 Mo. App. 556), 

152, 164. 
Smith V. Smith 181 Tex. 45), 920. 
Smith V. Snyder (168 Pa. St. 514), 

165,176. 
Smith V. State (6 Gill. Md. 425), 

778. 
Smith V. Stewart (6 Johns. Ky. 

46), 317, 318. 
Smith V. Tabor (46 Hun, N. Y, 

313), 1404. 
Smith V. Tankersfey (20 Ala. 212), 

309. 
Smith V. Taylor (9 Ala. 633), 31. 
Smith V. Thayer (56 Minn. 93), 

1199. 
Smith V. Thomas (82 Tenn. 324), 

49. 
Smith V. Thurston (10 Mo. App. 

48), 1184. 
Smith V. Towart (2 Man. & G. 

841), 577. 
Smith V. Tritt (1 Dev. & B. N. C. 

241), 291, 1329. 
Smith V. Wagner (9 Misc. Rep. 

122), 1060. 
Smith V. Werwenz (185 Mass. 

229), 297. 
Smith V. Wheeler (8 Daly, N. Y. 

135), 1213. 
Smith V. Whitbeck (13 Ohio St. 

471), 638. 
Smith V. Whitney (147 Mass. 

479), 1252. 
Smith V. Wiggln (48 N. H. 105), 

439. 
Smith V. Wiley (1 Baxt. Tenn. 

418), 867. 
Smith V. Wise (58 111. 141), 1175, 

1180. 
Smith's Appeal (69 Pa. St. 474), 

716. 
Smithwick v. Ellison (2 Ired. N. C. 

326), 1333. 
Smoot V. United States (38 Ct. CI. 

418), 36. 
Smoot V. Wathen (8 Mo. 522), 90. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCIH 



[references are to pages.] 



Smoyer v. Roth (13 Atl. Rep. 191), 

978. 
Smucker v. Grinberg (27 Pa. Su- 
per Ct. Rep. 531), 1222. 
Smusch V. Kohn (22 Misc. Rep. 

344), 1250. 
Smythe v. Sprague (149 Mass. 10), 

391. 
Snead v. Tietjen (24 Pac. Rep. 

324), 463. 
Snedaker v. Powell (32 Kan. 395), 

302. 
Snedeker v. Warring (12 N. Y. 

170), 1256. 
Snell V. Rickette (28 Neb. 616), 

1400, 1403. 
Snideman v. Snideman (118 Ind. 

162), 156. 
Snodgrass v. Chestnut (105 Ala. 

149), 694. 
Snodgrass v. Reynolds (79 Ala. 

452), 673, 694. 
Snook & Austin Fur Co. v. Steiner 

(113 Ga. 363), 416, 442. 
Snook V. Steiner (117 Ga. 363), 

369. 
Snook V. Sutton (10 N. J. Law, 

133), 15. 
Snow V. Perkins (60 N. H. 493), 

1334. 
Snow V. Pulitzer (142 N. Y. 263), 

1146,1185. 
Snowhill V. Diamond (77 N. E. 

Rep. 412), 535. 
Snowhill V. Reed (49 N. J. L. 292), 

463, 897, 898. 
Snowhill V. Snowhill (23 N. J. L. 

447), 162. 
Snyder v. Gordon r46 Hun, N. Y. 

538), 795, 796. 
Snyder v. Harding (34 Wash. 

236), 28. 
Snyder v. Hersberg (33 Leg. Int. 

158), 413. 
Snyder v. May (19 Pa. St. 235), 

92. 



Snyder v. Parker (75 Mo. App. 

529), 1213. 
Snyder v. Webb (3 Cal. 83), 21. 
Soames v. Nicholson (71 Law J. 

K. B. 24), 165, 173. 
Sohier v. Coffin "(101 Mass. 179), 

111. 
Sohier v. Eldredge (103 Mass. 

345), 49. 
Soloman v. Evans (3 McCord, S. 

C. 274), 342. 
Solomon v. Fantozzi (43 Misc. 

Rep. 61), 1132. 
Sontag V. O'Hare (73 111. App. 

432), 859. 
Sorsbie v. Park (12 Mee. & Wei. 

146), 609. 
Souders v. Vansickle (8 N. J. Law, 

313), 482. 
Soulard v. Peck (49 Mo. 477), 

1018. 
Soule V. Union Bank (45 Barb. 

N. Y. Ill), 1042. 
Souter V. Drake (5 Barn. & Adol. 

992), 1077. 
South Baltimore Co. v. Muhlbach 

(69 Md. 395), 380. 
South V. Marcum (22 S. W. Rep. 

844), 958. 
South Cong. Meeting House v. 

Hilton (11 Gray, Mass. 407). 

624. 
South's Adm'x v. Marcum (15 Ky. 

Law, 339), 481. 
Southard v. Railroad Co. (26 N. J. 

Law, 21), 640. 
Southern Development Co. v. Sil- 
ver (125 U. S. 250), 475. 
Southern Oil Co. v. Colquitt (69 

S. W. Rep. 169), 124. 
Southern Ry. Co. v. Horine (Ky. 

1904, 49 S. E. Rep. 285), 686. 
Southwick V. Ellison (2 Ired. 

Law, N. C. 326), 1332. 
Soux Bank v. Honnold (85 Iowa, 

352), 1404. 



CCIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[rrferexces are to pages.] 



Soward v. Leggett (7 Car. & P. 

613), S88. 
Sowles V. Can- (69 Vt. 414), 1224. 
Sowles V. Martin (76 Vt. 180), 

311,316. 
Spafford v. Meagley (1 Ohio Dec. 

364), 885. 
Spaine v. Stiner (81 App. Div. 

481), 828. 
Spalding v. Hall (6 D. C. 123), 

158,678. 
Spalding v. Humford (Mo. App. 

281), 1349. 
Spalding Hotel Co. v. Emerson (69 

Minn. 292), 758. 
Span V. Ely (8 Hun, 258), 795. 
Spann v. Eagle Machine Works 

(87 Ind. 474), 571. 
Spangler v. Rogers (123 Iowa, 

724), 1377. 
Sparks v. Bassett (49 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 270), 876. 
Sparks v. Smith (2 Vern. 275), 

1106. 
Sparrow v. Pond (49 Minn. 412), 

1306. 
Spaulding v. Abbott (55 N. H. 

423), 446, 447. 
Spear v. Fuller (8 N. H. 174), 622. 
Speckman v. Boehm (36 App. 

Div. 262), 788. 
Speckles v. Sax (1 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 253), 459, 856, 1152. 
Speed V. Brooks (30 Ky. 119), 

349. 
Speers v. Black (34 Mo. 101), 

1279. 
Spellman v. Banigan (36 Hun, N. 

Y. 174), 804, 860. 
Spencer v. Burton (5 Blackf. Ind. 

57). 672, 1190. 
Spencer v. Campbell (9 W. & S. 

Pa. 32), 904. 
Spencer's Case (5 Rep. 16), 510, 

614. 
Spencer v. Commercial Co. (39 

Wash. 22), 1287. 



Spencer v. Hamilton (113 N. C. 

49), 879. 
Spencer v. Stevens (IS Misc. Rep. 

112), 616. 
Spendlomes v. Burkitt (Hob. 7), 

61. 
Spero V. Levy (43 Misc. Rep. 24), 

859. 
Sperry v. Miller (8 N. Y. 336), 

1239. 
Sperry v. Sperry (8 N. H. 477), 

638,1230. 
Spicer v. Lea (1 East, 312), 172. 
Spielman v. Kilest (36 N. J. Eq. 

199), 392, 1111. 
Spies V. Voss (16 Daly, 171), 1207, 

1210, 1215. 
Spofford V. United States (32 Ct. 

CI. 452)," 35, 164. 
Sposato V. City of New York (75 

App. Div. 304), 684. 
Sprague v. Quinn"(108 Mass. 553), 

189. 
Sprague v. Rooney (104 Mo. 347), 

773. 
Sprague N. Bank v. Railroad Co. 

(48 N. Y. Supp. 65), 288, 1297. 
Spratt V. Early (69 S. W. Rep. 

13), 122. 
Spratt V. Jeffry (10 B. & C. 249), 

1076. 
Spring Brook Ry. Co. v. Lehigh 

Co. (181 Pa. St. 294), 518. 
Springer v. Chicago R. E. Loan 

Co. (202 III. 17), 644. 1080. 
Springer v. Citizens' Natural Gas 

Co. (145 Pa. St. 430), 1076. 
Si)ringer v. Cooper (11 III. App. 

267), 254. 
Springer v. De Wolf (194 111. 218), 

1092. 
Springer v. Ford (88 111. App. 

529), 818. 
Springstein v. Schermerhorn (12 

.lohns. N. Y. 357), 1195, 1226. 
Sl)yvy V. Topham (3 East, 115), 

367. 



T.VBLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCV 



[references aee to pages.] 



Squire v. Ferd. Heim Brewing Co. 

(90 Mo. App. 462), 262, 1213. 
Squier v. Mayer (2 Freem. 249), 

1256. 
Squire v. Leonard (81 N. E. Rep. 

880), 1054. 
Squires v. Huff (3 A. K. Marsh. 

Ky. 18), 189. 
Staber v. Collins "(124 Iowa, 543), 

1432, 1457, 1459. 
Stables v. Ashley (1 Bos. & P. 49), 

798. 
Stack V. Harris (111 Ga. 149), 805. 
Stackberger v. Mosteller (4 Ind. 

461), 378. 
Stackpole v. Curtis (32 Me. 383), 

437. 
Stackpoole v. Parkinson, Jr. (R. 

8 C. L. 561), 171. 
Stacy V. Bostwick (48 Vt. 192), 

965,966. 
Stacy V. Vermont Cent. R. Co. (32 

Vt. 551), 318. 
Stadel V. Aikins (65 Kan. 82), 

1431. 
Stafford v. Adair (57 Vt. 63), 192. 
Stafford v. Pearson (26 La. Ann. 

658), 1418. 
StaiTord v. Staunton (88 Ga. 298), 

464, 1340. 
Stafford Corporation v. Til (4 

Bing. 75), 579. 
Stagg V. Eureka T. & Cr. Co. (56 

Mo. 317), 934. 
Stagg V. Jackson (1 N. Y. 206), 

51. 
Staines v. Morris (1 V. & B. 11), 

520. 
Siallard v. Gushing (76 Gal. 472), 

440. 
Stamford Bank v. Benedict (15 

Conn. 437), 552. 
Stamps V. Gilman (43 Miss. 456), 

1400,1465. 
Standard Brewery v. Kelley (66 

111. App. 267), 592. 



Standen v. Christmas (10 L. J. Q. 

B. 135), 639, 489, 576. 
Standley v. Stevens (66 Gal. 541), 

947. 
Stanley v. Towgood (3 Bing. N. 

C. 4), 893, 857, 889. 

Stanley v. Turner (68 Vt. 315), 

527, 554. 
Stannard v. Forbes (6 A. & E. 

572), 698. 
Stanton v. Allen (32 S. C. 587), 

756. 
Stanton v. Willson (3 Day, Conn. 

37), 18. 
Stantz V. Protzman (84 111. App. 

434), 388. 
Staples V. Emery (7 Greene, Me. 

201), 1332. 
Staples V. Wheeler (38 Me. 372), 

342. 
Starke v. J. M. Guffey Pet. Co. (86 

S. W. Rep. 1), 69. 
Starkey v. Horton (65 Mich. 96), 

1396. 
Starkweather V. Maginnis (196 111. 

274), 1175. 
Starr v. Jackson (11 Mass. 519), 

679, 680, 689. 
State V. Abraham (6 Iowa, 117), 

778. 
State V. Board of Public Works 

(42 Ohio St. 607), 117. 
State V. Boyce '(73 Md. 469), 805. 
State V. Boyce (109 N. C. 739), 

951. 
State V. Curtis (4 Dev. & B. N. C. 

222), 300. 
State V. Elmore (68 S. C. 140), 

1402, 1410. 
State V. Flavell (24 N. J. Law, 

370). 61. 
State V. Forsythe (89 Mo. 667), 

454. 
State V. Frazier (79 Me. 95). 778. 
State V. Gemmill (1 Houst. Del. 

9), 1306. 
State V. Hayes (59 N. H. 450), 24. 



CCVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



state V. Idler (54 N. J. Law, 467), 

486. 
State V. Martin (14 Lea, Tenn. 

92), 1021. 
State V. McClay (1 Har. Del. 520), 

676. 
State V. Page (1 Speers, S. C. 408), 

303. 
State V. Pottmeyer (33 Ind. 402), 

434. 
State V. Reeder (36 S. C. 497), 

1419. 
State ex rel. Attorney General v. 

Schweickart (109 Mo. 346), 78. 
State V. Sheppard (33 La. Ann. 

1216), 1338. 
State V. Shertinger (51 N. J. L. 

452), 150. 
State V. Skith (15 R. L 24), 778. 
State V. Turner (106 N. C. 691), 

1338. 
State V. Vandever (2 Har. Del. 

397), 1441. 
State Trust Co. v. Casino Co. (46 

N. Y. Supp. 292), 1110. 
Stautz V. Protzman (84 111. App. 

434), 527. 
Stavely v. Alcock (16 Q. B. 636), 

91. 
Stead V. Dowher (10 Ad. & El. 

57), 387. 
Stearns v. Godfrey (16 Me. 158), 

968. 
Stearns v. Sampson (59 Me. 568), 

1298. 
Steams v. Stearns (1 Pick. Mass. 

157), 51, 52. 
Stedraan v. Bates (1 Ld. Raym. 

640), 90. 
Stedraan v. Gassett (18 Vt. 346), 

232. 
Stedraan v. Mcintosh (27 N. C. 

571), 179. 
Stedraan v. Paxton (18 Vt. 346), 

141. 
Steed V. Hinson (76 Ala. 298), 

491. 



Steefel v. Rothschild (179 N. Y, 

273), 788, 789, 1240. 
Steel V. Frick (56 Pa. St. 172), 

310, 697. 
Steele v. Bond (32 Minn. 14), 988. 
Steele v. Buck (61 111. 343), 901. 
Steen v. Scheel (46 Neb. 252),. 

258, 1378, 1383. 
Steen v. Wardsworth (17 Vt. 297), 

941. 
Stees V. Bergmeier (90 Minn. 

513),138L 
Stees V. Kranz (32 Minn. 313), 

757, 1098. 
Staff ens v. Earl (40 N. J. L. 128^, 

150, 156, 159, 163, 172. 
Stein V. Hauck (56 Ind. 65), 409. 
Stein V. Rice (51 N. Y. Supp. 320), 

1347. 
Steinweg v. Biel (16 Misc. Rep. 

47), 839. 
Steketee v. Pratt (122 Mich. 80), 

1207. 
Stele V. Martin (4 B. & C. 273), 

343. 
Stenberg v. Willcox (12 Pickle, 

Tenn. 163), 792, 805. 
Stephens v. Adams (93 Ala. 117), 

1411, 1449, 1450. 
Stephen v. Bridges (6 Madd. 66), 

1230. 
Stephens v. Brown (56 Mo. 23), 

155,182. 
Stephens v. Eliot (Cro. Eliz. 4S4), 

112. 
Stephens v. Ely (162 N. Y. 79), 

1287. 
Stephens v. Graham (7 S. & R. Pa. 

505), 343. 
Stephens v. Hotham (1 Kay & J. 

571), 1395. 
Stephens v. Reynolds (6 N. Y. 

454), 120, 503. 
Stephens v. Taylor (36 S. W. 

Rep. 1083), 83. 
Stephenson v. Elliott (2 Ind. App. 

233), 676. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCVll 



[references are to pages.] 



Sterger v. Van Slclen (132 N. Y. 

499), 837, 859. 
Stern v. Murphy (102 N. Y. Supp. 

797), 526, 1213. 
Stern v. Sawyer (78 Vt. 5), 596. 
Sternberg v. Burke (84 N. Y. 

Supp. 862), 804. 
Sterne, Ex parte (6 Ves. 156), 43. 
Sterrett v. Wright (27 Pa. St. 

259), 519, 575. 
Stetson V. Briggs (114 Cal. 511), 

348. 
Stetson V. Day (51 Me. 434), 712. 
Steuber v. Huber (107 App. Div. 

599), 3, 945. 
Stevens v. Lessa (50 App. Div. 

547), 1112, 1118. 
Stevens v. "Pantlind (87 Mich. 

476), 1222. 
Stevens v. Peirce (151 Mass. 207), 

463, 782, 785. 
Stevens v. Pinney (8 Taunt. 327), 

582, 
Stevens v. Raab (9 Mo. App. 573), 

1183. 
Stevens v. Rose (69 Mich. 259), 

711. 
Stevens v. Salamon (31 Misc. 

Rep. 19), 406. 
Stevens v. Taylor (97 N. Y. Supp. 

925), 442, 444. 
Stevenson v. Hancock (72 Mo. 

612), 491, 1228. 
Stevenson v. Lambard (2 East, 

575), 1178. 
Steward v. Keener (131 N. C. 486), 

944. 
Stewart v. Apel (5 Houst. Del. 

189), 146. 
Stewart v. Brand (23 Iowa, 477), 

122. 
Stewart v. Doughty (9 Johns. N. 

Y. 108), 1306, 1310, 1315. 
Stewart v. Finch (31 N. J. Law, 

17), 258. 
Stewart v. Garter (70 Md. 242). 

121. 



Stewart v. Lanier House (75 Ga. 

582), 563, 857. 
Stewart v. L. L R. Co. (102 N. Y, 

601), 1080. 
Stewart v. Murrell (65 Ark. 471), 

163. 
Stewart v. Perkins (3 Oreg. 508), 

539. 
Stewart v. Pier (58 Iowa, 15), 

1279. 
Stewart v. Roderick (4 Watts & 

S. Pa. 188), 948. 
Stewart v. Sprague (71 Mich. 50), 

1175, 1215. 
Stewart v. Winters (4 Sandf. Ch. 

N. Y. 587), 729, 735, 757. 
Stickney v. Burlce (64 N. H. 377), 

221. 
Stickney v. Stickney (77 Iowa, 

699), 312. 
Stiefol V. Rothschild (72 N. Y, 

Supp. 171), 1239. 
Stiger V. Monroe (109 Ga. 457), 

1134. 
Stiles V. Brown (16 Vt. 564), 349. 
Stillman v. Harvey (47 Conn. 26), 

1057. 
Still's Estate (2 Pa. Dist. Rep. 

105), 54. 
Stines v. Dorman (25 Ohio St. 

580), 742. 
Stinson v. Stinson (38 Me. 593), 

49. 
Stirn V. Nash (19 Civ. Pro. R. N. 

Y. 184), 413. 
Stobie V. Dills (62 111. 432), 60. 
Stockdale v. Ascherberg (73 L. J. 

K. B. 206), 1028. 
Stocker v. Planet Building Society 

(27 W. R. 877), 862. 
Stockett V. Howard (34 Md. 121), 

616. 
Stockton V. Stockton (40 Ind. 

225), 1195. 
Stockton Savings & Loan Soc. v. 

Purvis (112 Cal. 236), 1404. 



ceviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[keferences are to pages.] 



Stockwell V. Hunter (11 Met. 

Mass. 448), 1342. 
Stockwell V. Marks (17 Me. 455), 

156, 234, 1264. 
Stockwell V. Sargent (37 Vt. 16), 

52. 
Stoddard v. Whiting (46 N. Y. 

627), 331. 
Stoepel V. Union Trust Co. (121 

Mich. 282), 1062. 
Stokes V. Burney (3 Tex. Civ. 

App. 219), 1423, 1446. 
Stokes V. Cooper (3 Camp. 513), 

1176. • 
Stokes V. Hoffman House (167 N. 

Y. 544), 1122. 
Stokes V. Moore (1 Cox. 219), 388. 
Stoker v. Wilson, 377. 
Stokoe V. Upton (40 Mich. 58), 

1264. 
Stoltz V. Kretschmar (24 Wis. 

283), 686. 
Stomfil V. Hicks (2 Salk. 413), 

130. 
Stone V. Ashley (13 N. H. 38), 

333. 
Stone V. Bohm (79 Ky. 141), 1425. 
Stone V. Evans (Peake, Ad. C. 94), 

1106. 
Stone V. Harmon (31 Minn. 512), 

989. 
Stone V. Knight (3 Met. Mass. 76), 

1112. 
Stone V. Oconomowoe (71 Wis. 

155), 72. 
Stone V. Patterson (19 Pick. Mass. 

476), 35, 531. 
Stone V. St. Louis Stamping Co. 

(155 Mass. 267), 1379. 
Stone V. Snell (109 N. W. Rei). 

750), 496. 
Stone V. Sprague (20 Barb. N. Y. 

509), 317, 537. 
Stone V. Stone (1 R. I. 425), 334. 
Stone's Succession (31 La. Ann. 

311), 1422. 
Stone V. Talbot (4 Wis. 442), 552. 



Stone V. Whiting (2 Stark. 235), 

181. 
Stoney v. Winterhalter (11 Atl. 

Rep. Pa. 611), 351. 
Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot (42 Cal. 

316), 139, 151. 
Storch v. Harvey (45 Kan. 39 )„ 

1378. 
Story v. Epps (105 Ga. 504), 284. 
Story V. Odin (12 Mass. 157), 1146. 
Story V. Ulman (88 Md. 244), 1229. 
Stose V. Heisler (120 111. 436), 

527, 1272. 
Stotesburg v. Vail (13 N. J. Eq. 

390), 1195, 1238. 
Stoughton's Appeal (88 Pa. St. 

198), 13. 
Stout V. Folger (34 Iowa, 71), 

1014. 
Stout V. Merrill (35 Iowa, 47), 

954. 
Stover V. Chasse (6 Misc. Rep. 

394), 1048. 
Stover v. Hazelbaker (42 Neb. 

393), 646. 
Stowman v. Landis (5 Ind. 430), 

522. 
Strafford v. Wentworth (9 Mod. 

21, Pre. Ch. 555), 540. 
Strahan v. Smith (4 Bing. 96), 

511. 
Strain v. Gardner (61 Wis. 174), 

310, 921, 1319. 
Strangeway v. Eiseman (68 Minn. 

395), 809. 
Strauss v. Baley (58 Miss. 131), 

1418, 1438. 
Strauss v. Hammersley (13 N. Y. 

Supp. 816), 796. 
Strautz v. Protzman (84 111. App. 

434), 1340. 
Street v. Nelson (80 Ala. 230), 

685, 1300, 1336. 
Street R. R. Co. v. Morrison (IGO 

111. 280), 46G. 
Streeter v. Ward (12 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 333), 1404, 1456. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCIX 



[references are to pages.] 



Strehl V. D'Evers (66 111. 77), 382. 
Strickland v. Hudson (55 Miss. 

235), 573. 
Strickland v. ParkQr (54 Me. 263), 

1247. 
Strickland v. Stiles (107 Ga. 308), 

1413, 1417. 
Strohecker v. Barnes (21 Ga. 430), 

868. 
Strohmeyer v. Zeppenfeld (28 Mo. 

App. 268), 601. 
Strong V. Crosby (21 Conn. 498), 

146, 196. 
Strong V. Doyle (110 Mass. 92), 

1333. 
Strong V. Schmidt (8 Ohio C. D. 

551), 1214. 
Strong V. Stringer (61 L. T. 410), 

655. 
Stroud, In re (8 C. B. 502), 133, 

466. 
Stuart V. Diplock (59 L. J. Ch. 

142), 741. 
Stuart V. Twining (112 Iowa, 154), 

1439. 
Stule V. Mart (6 D. & R. 392), 348. 
Stultz V. Dickey (5 Binn. Pa. 285), 

687. 
Stultz V. Locke (47 Md. 562), 885, 

915. 
Sturgeon v. Wingfield (15 M. & W. 

224), 941, 952. 
Sturges V. Van Orden (75 N. Y. 

Supp. 1007), 939. 
Sturm wald v. Schrieber (74 N. Y. 

Supp. 995), 825. 
Stuyvesant v. Davis (9 Paige, Ch. 

N. Y. 427), 644. 
Stuyvesant v. Woodruff (21 N. J. 

Law, 133), 445. 
Suddarth v. Robertson (118 Mo. 

286), 927. 
Suffern v. Townsend (9 Johns. N. 

Y. 35). 222. 
Sugg V. Parrar (107 N. Car. 123), 

1453. 



Sulphine v. Dunbar (55 Miss. 255), 

946. 
Sullivan v. Carberry (67 Me. 531), 

1269. 
Sullivan v. Cleveland (62 Tex. 

677), 1439. 
Sullivan v. Enders (3 Dana, Ky. 

66), 189. 
Sullivan v. Jones (3 Car. & P. 

579), 577. 
Sullivan v. Lueck (105 Mo. App. 

199), 500. 
Sullivan v. Schmitt (93 App. Div. 

469), 672, 673. 
Sullivan's Estate (23 L. R. Jr. 

255), 386. 
Sully v. Schmitt (147 N. Y. 248), 

1142, 1150, 1207, 1355. 
Sulzbacher v. Dickie (51 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 500), 802, 863. 
Summer v. Clark (30 La. Ann. 

436), 392. 
Summer v. Williams (8 Mass. 

163), 17. 
Summerville v. Kelliher (144 Cal. 

155), 1120. 
Summerville v. Stockton Milling 

Co. (142 Cal. 529), 312, 1409. 
Sunasack v. Mory (196 111. 519), 

678, 797. 
Sunday Coal Co. v. Dikeman (84 

111. App. 379), 1386. 
Sunday Lake Mining Co. v. Wake- 
field (72 Wis. 204), 668, 669. 
Sunderland v. Newton (3 Sim. 

450), 1304. 
Sunrlerlin v. Hollister (4 App. 

Div. 478), 811. 
Sun Ins. Co. v. Varble (20 Ky. L. 

Rep. 556), 847, 883, 1354. 
Sup. Conn. v. F. & C. Co. (63 Fed. 

Rep. 48), 342. 
Supplee v. Timothy (124 Pa. St. 

375), 178. 
Surget V. Arighi (11 S. & M. Miss. 
87), 701. 



ccx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Surplice v. Farnsworth (7. M. & G. 

576), 785. 
Sury V. Brown (Lutch, 99), 48. 
Sutcliffe V. Wardle (63 Law T. 

329), 992. 
Sutherland v. Goodnow (108 III. 

528), 615, 1383, 1391. 
Sutliff V. Atwood (15 Ohio St. 

186), 547, 616. 
Sutphen v. Seebas (14 Abb. 67), 

1152. 
Sutter V. Lackman (39 Mo. 41), 

42, 47. 
Sutton V. Foulke (2 Pa. Co. Ct. 

529), 1129. 
Sutton V. Hawkins (8 Car. & P. 

259), 537. 
Sutton V. Hiram Lodge (83 Ga. 

770), 229, 370. 
Sutton V. Temple (12 Mees. & W. 

52), 785, 787, 848. 
Suydam v. Jackson (54 N. Y. 450), 

1355. 
Swain v. Mizner (8 Gray, Mass. 

182), 282. 
Swaine v. Homan (Hob. 203), 

1200. 
Swan V. Busby (5 Tex. Civ. App. 

63), 946, 947, 948. 
Swan V. Castleman (4 Baxt. Tenn. 

257), 951. 
Sv.-an V. Clark (80 Ind. 57), 146. 
Swan V. Inderlied (187 N. Y. 372), 

1113. 
Swan V. Kemp (97 Md. 686), 121, 

453. 
Swansey v. Brooks (34 Vt. 451), 

446, 447. 
Swart V. Western U. Tel. Co. (12 

Det. Leg. N. 609), 192, 271. 
Swartz V. Swartz (4 Pa. St. 353), 

438. 
Swayze v. Monroo (40 So. Rep. 

926), 299. 
Sweeney v. St. John (28 Hun, N. 

Y. 634), 409. 



Sweet V. Meyers (3 S. D. 324), 

1250. 
Sweet V. Titus (4 Hun, N. Y. 639), 

547. 
Sweetser v. Lowell (33 Me. 446), 

350, 351. 
Sweetser v. McKenney (65 Me. 

225), 373, 1364. 
Sweesey v. Durnall (23 Neb. 531), 

519, 573. 
Swem V. Sharretts (48 Md. 408), 

561. 
Swibill V. Brown (1 Pa. Co. Ct. 

Rep. 359), 783. 
Swift V. Bennett (10 Cush. Mass. 

436), 18. 
Swift V. Coker (83 Ga. 789), 440, 

441. 
Swift V. Dean (11 Vt. 323), 924. 
Swift V. East Waterloo Hotel Co. 

(40 Iowa, 322), 674. 
Swift V. Goodrich (70 Cal. 103), 

931, 946. 
Swift V. New Durham Lumber Co. 

(64 N. H. 53), 579. 
Swift V. Occidental Mining & Pet. 

Co. (141 Cal. 161), 1387. 
Swift V. Sheehy (88 Fed. Rep. 

924), 1292. 
Swift V. Thompson (9 Conn. 63), 

1245. 
Swinburne v. Milburn (54 L. J. 

Q. B. 6), 1372. 
Swire v. Bell (5 T. R. 371), 334. 
Swords T. Edgar (59 N. Y. 28), 

792. 
Sykes v. Benton (90 Ga. 402), 5. 
Sylvester v. Ralston (31 Barb. N. 

Y. 386), 11, 317, 318. 
Syms V. City of New York (105 N. 

Y. 153), 1374. 



T. 



Taggard v. Roosevelt (2 E. D. 
Smith, N. Y. 100), 196. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXl 



[references aee to pages.] 



Tait's Ex'r v. Central Lunatic Asy- 
lum (84 Va. 271), 463. 
Talamo v. Spitzmiller (120 N. Y. 

37), 195,197. 
Talbot V. Cruger (151 N. Y. 117), 

1283. 
Talbot V. English (156 Ind. 299), 

1132, 1139, 1142, 1161, 1176. 
Talbot V. Hill (68 111. 106), 1315. 
Talbot V. Whipple (14 Allen, Mass. 

177), 1195. 
Talbot's Case (8 Co. Rep. 102b), 

543. 
Taliaferro v. Pry (41 Ga. 622), 

1446, 1447. 
Talley v. Alexander (10 La. Ann. 

627), 392. 
Tallmadge v. East River Bank (26 

N. Y. 105), 729. 
Tallman v. Bresler (56 N. Y. 635), 

1101. 
Tallman v. Coffin (4 N. Y. 134), 

1284,1397. 
Tallman v. Ely (6 Wis. 244), 487. 
Tallman v. Franklyn (14 N. Y. 

584), 386. 
Tallman v. Murphy (120 N. Y. 

345), 1142, 1355. 
Talman v. Earle (17 N. Y. Supp. 

7), 1195. 
Talman v. Gashwiler (1 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 270), 1356. 
Tanton v. Boomgaarden (89 111. 

App. 500), 1413. 
Tanton v. Van Alstine (24 111. 

App. 405), 139. 
Tapia v. Demartini (77 Cal. 383), 

1404. 
Tarlotting v. Bokern (95 Mo. 541), 

219. 
Tarry v. Tarry (14 N. Y. 430), 229. 
Tarte v. Darby (15 M. & W. 601), 

257. 
Tate V. Field (56 N. J. Eq. 35), 

726. 
Tate V. McClure (25 Ark. 168), 

910 



Tate V. McCormick (23 Hun, 221), 

1087. 
Tate V. Neary (65 N. Y. Supp. 40), 

67, 1087. 
Tatem v. Chaplin (2 H. B. 133), 

617, 768. 
Tatham v. Lewis (65 Pa. St. 65), 

327. 
Tatum V. Thompson (86 Cal. 203), 

862, 1350. 
Taunton v. Caspar (7 T. R. 431), 

237. 
Tax Court of Baltimore City v. 

West Md. R. R. Co. (50 Md. 274), 

453. 
Taylor v. Boulware (35 La. Ann. 

469), 410. 
Taylor v. Caldwell (113 E. L. L. 

824), 251, 1342. 
Taylor v. Calvert (138 Ind. 67), 

16. 
Taylor v. Carondelet (22 Mo. 105), 

61,72. 
Taylor v. Chapman (4 R. R. 884), 

181. 
Taylor v. Cole (3 T. R. 292), 237. 
Taylor v. Coney (101 Ga. 655), 

310. 
Taylor v. Cooper (104 Mich. 72), 

696, 1185. 
Taylor v. Donohue (103 N. W. 

Rep. 1099), 312. 
Taylor v. Felder (23 S. W. Rep. 

480), 1466. 
Taylor v. Finnegan (189 Mass. 

568), 423, 733, 854, 856. 1176. 
Taylor v. Coding (65 N. E. Rep. 

64), 463. 
Taylor v. Hibbert (2 Ves. Jr. 437), 

497. 
Taylor v. Kelly (56 N. C. 240), 

960. 
Taylor v. Kincaid (4 Ky. Law 

Rep. 837), 378. 
Taylor v. Nelson (54 Miss. 524), 

1411. 



ecxu 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Taylor v. Newcomb (123 Mich. 

637), 1333. 
Taylor v. O'Brien (19 R. I. 429), 

233. 
Taylor v. Preston (79 Pa. St. 436), 

599. 
Taylor v. Sandford (7 Wheat. U. 

S. 207), 552. 
Taylor v. Shum (1 Bos. & P. 21), 

518, 1091. 
Taylor v. Stibbert (2 Ves. 439), 

394, 1003, 1075. 
Taylor v. White (86 Mo. App. 526), 

941. 
Taylor v. Winters (6 Phila. 126), 

555. 
Taylor v. Wright (51 App. Div. 

97), 679, 682. 
Taylor v. Zamira (6 Taunt. 524), 

54-5, 1008. 
TeafE v. Hewitt (1 Ohio St. 511), 

1245. 
Teagarden v. Laughlin (86 Ind 

476), 689. 
Tean v. Pline, (60 Mich. 385). 100 
Teater v. King (35 Wash. 138), 

159, 163. 
Tebb V. Cave, (69 L. J. Ch. 282). 

1140. 
Teft V. Hinchman, (76 Mich. 672), 

158. 
Teitig V. Boesman (12 Mont. 404), 

65. 
Teller v. Boyle (132 Pa. St. 56), 

1222. 
Templeman v. Biddle (1 Har. Del. 

522), 130C, 1314. 
Templeman v. Gresham (61 Tex. 

50), 1400. 
Ten Eyck v. Sleeper (65 Minn. 

413), 555. 
Tenner v. Diplock (2 Bing. 10), 

923. 
Terhune v. Elberan (3 N. J. Law 

297), 1316. 
Terrell v. Cunningham, (70 Ala. 

100), 83. 



Territory v. Stone (2 Dak. 155), 

778. 
Terstegge v. First German M. & 

B. S. Co. (92 Ind. 82), 1210, 

1364. 
Teufel V. Rowan (179 Pa. St. 

408), 1240. 
Tew V. Jones (13 M. & W. 12), 

322. 
Tewksbury v. Magraff (33 Cal. 

237), 923, 926, 954. 
Texas & P. Coal Co. v. Lawson (10 

Tex. Civ. App. 491), 621. 
Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Magnum 

(68 Tex. 342), 836. 
Texas Loan Agency v. Fleming, 

(92 Tex. 458), 828. 
Thacker v. Henderson (63 Barb. 

N. Y. 271), 11, 13. 
Thalheimer v. Lempert (17 N. Y. 

St. Rep. 348), 1150, 1153. 
Tharn v. De Breteuil (83 N. Y. 

Supp. 849), 503. 
Thatcher v. St. Andrew's Church 

(37 Mich. 263), 349. 
Thayer v. Brackett (12 Mass. 450, 

452), 538. 
Thayer v. Cramer (McCord, S. C. 

Ch. 395), 28. 
Thayer v. Society (20 Pa. St. 60), 

927. 
Thayer v. United Brethren, (20 

Pa. St. 62), 959. 
Thetford Corporation v. Tyler (8 

Q. B. 95), 194, 580. 
Theriat v. Hart (2 Hill, N. Y. 

380), 1441. 
Thew V. Porcelain Mfg. Co. (5 

Rich, S. C. 415), 65. 
Thiebaud v. First Nat. Bank (42 

Ind. 212), 139, 1362. 
Thier v. Barton (Moore, 94), 1206. 
Thigpen v. Maget (107 N. Car. 

39). 1432. 
Thomas v. Bacon (34 Hun. N. Y. 

88), 1434. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CCXlll 



[references are to pages.] 



Thomas v. Black (8 Houst. Del. 

507J, 155. 
Thomas v. Blackmore (5 Yerg. 

Tenn. 113), 391, 1107. 
Thomas v. Cadwallader (Willes, 

496), 911. 
Thomas v. Cook (3 B. & Aid. 119), 

1199, 1213. 
Thomas v. Conrad (24 Ky. Law 

Rep. 1630), 474, 848, 1078. 
Thomas v. Dundas (31 La. Ann. 

184), 1464. 
Thomas v. Grant (5 Bush, Ky. 

142), 1264. 
Thomas v. Hay ward (20 L. T. N. 

S. 814), 771. 
Thomas v. Hooker-Calville Pump 

Co. (22 Mo. App. 8), 1023. 
Thomas-Houston Electric Co. v. 

Durant Land Improvement Co. 

(144 N. Y. 34), 881. 
Thomas v. Jenning (66 L. J. Q. B. 

5), 1295. 
Thomas v. Johnson (95 S. W. Rep 

468), 276. 
Thomas v. Kingsland (108 N. Y.), 

860. 
Thomas v. Meader (6 Ohio N. P. 

242), 1063. 
Thomas v. McManus (64 S. W. 

Rep. 446), 378. 
Thomas v. Nelson (69 N. Y. 118), 

103, 1207, 1208. 
Thomas v. Railway (10 Ohio Fed. 

Dec. 544), 466. 
Thomas v. Roberts, 16 M. & W. 

780), 136, 137. 
Thomas v. Sanford (71 Me. 548), 

195, 218. 
Thomas v. Sorrell (Vaughn, 351), 

272. 
Thomas v. Strauss Brewing Co. 

102 Md. 417), 988. 
Thomas v. Thomas (F. & K. 621), 

1124. 
Thomas v. Tucker (89 S. W. Rep. 

802), 1416. 



Thomas v. Walmer (18 Ind. App.), 

156. 
Thomas v. West Jersey R. R. Co. 

101 U. S. 70), 71. 
Thomas v. Wiggins (41 111. 470), 

294, 450, 1369. 
Thomas v. Wright (9 Serg. & R. 

Pa. 87), 155. 
Thomas v. Zumbalen (43 Mo. 

471), 1097. 
Thomasson v. Wilson (146 111. 

384), 486. 
Thompson v. Anderson (86 Iowa, 

703), 1421. 
Thompson v. Banks (43 N. H. 

540). 438. 
Thompson v. Chapman (57 Ga. 

16), 482. 
Thompson v. Christie (138 Pa. St. 

230), 393, 1076. 
Thompson v. Clemens (96 Md. 

196), 877. 
Thompson v. Cummings (39 Mo. 

App, 537), 906. 
Thompson v. Dearborn (107 111. 

87), 532. 
Thompson Houston Elec. Co. v. 

Durant L. Co. (144 N. Y'. 34), 

601, 867. 
Thompson v. Elliott (73 111. 221), 

567. 
Thompson v. Flathers (45 La. 

Ann. 120), 33. 
Thompson v. Fox (45 N. Y. Supp. 

1046), 582. 
Thompson v. Goble (15 Pac. Rep. 

713), 342. . 
Thompson v. Guano Co. (93 Ga. 

282), 546, 1095, 1423. 
Thompson v. Guyon (5 Sim. 65), 

667, 1038. 
Thompson v. Hakewell (19 C. B. 

N. S. 713), 494. 
Thompson y. Lapworth (L. Rep. S 

C. P. 149), 1030. 
Thompson v. Maberly (2 Campb. 

573), 172. 



CCilV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[BEFERE>fCES ARE TO PAGES.] 



Thompson v. Matthews (61 N. C. 

15), 368. 
Thompson v. Mead (67 111. 395), 

1439. 
Thompson v. Rose (8 Cow. N. Y. 

263), 614. 
Thompson v. Sanborn (62 Mich. 

141), 143. 
Thompson v. Stewart (60 Iowa, 

223), 453. 
Thompson v. Thompson (9 Ind. 

323), 342. 
Thomson v. Baltimore & S. Steam 

Co. (33 Md. 312), 1441. 
Thompson v. Williams (30 Kan. 

414), 549. 
Thompson's Estate (1 Kulp Pa. 

235), 575. 
Thomson v. Ludlum (74 N. Y 

Supp. 875), 1112. 
Thomson v. Smith (111 Iowa, 

713), 1244. 
Thomson v. Tilton (22 Ky. Law 

Rep. 784), 1419. 
Thorn v. Sutherland (123 N. Y. 

236), 1114. 
Thorndell v. Morrison (25 Pa. St. 

326), 24. 
Thorndike v. Burrage (111 Mass. 

531), 884. 
Thornton v. Carver (80 Ga. 397), 

1430, 1446. 
Thornton v. Payne (5 Johns. N. 

Y. 74), 250, 348. 
Thorsgood v. Richardson (7 Bing. 

420), 1442. 
Thousand Island Park Ass'n v. 

Tucker (173 N. Y. 203), 405. 
Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Co. (5 Neb. 

295), 953, 954. 
Thresher v. E. London Water- 
works (2 B. & C. 609), 1287. 
Thropp V. Field (26 N. J. Eq. 82). 

294, 664, 665. 
Thrnston v. Minke (32 Md. 487), 

723. 758. 



Thum V. Rhodes (12 Colo. App. 

245), 804. 
Thunder v. Belcher (3 East, 450), 

147, 234. 
Thurber v. Dwyer (10 R. I. 355), 

146. 
Thurlough v. Dresser (98 Me. 

161), 395. 
Thursby v. Eccles (70 Law J. Q. 

B. 91), 379. 
Thursby v. Plant (1 Saund. 240), 

494, 560. 
Thurston v. Minke (32 Md. 487), 

612. 
Tibbals v. Iffland (10 Wash. 451), 

390, 1045, 1090. 
Tibbits V. Moore (19 N. H. 369). 

96. 
Tibbits V. Percy (24 Barb. N. Y. 

39), 877. 
Tice V. Cowenhoven (63 N. J. L- 

24), 169. 
Tichborne v. Weir (4 Reports, 26), 

1069. 
Tidey v. Mollett (16 C. B. N. S. 

298). 332, 868. 
Tidrick v. Rice (13 Iowa, 214), 

101. 
Tidswell v. Whitworth (L. Rep. 

2 C. P. 320), 1028. 
Tiefenbrine v. Tiefenbrine (68 

Mo. App. 253), 388. 
Tiernan v. Miller (69 Neb. 764), 

112. 
Tiley v. Moyers (43 Pa. St. 404), 

1132, 1183. 
Tilford V. Fleming (64 Pa. St. 

301). 483, 486. 
Tilghman v. Cruson (4 Har. Del. 

341), 685. 
Tilghman v. Little (13 111. 239), 

922, 924, 954. 
Tilleny v. Knoblauch (73 Minn. 

108), 942. 
Tillotson V. Boyd (6 N. Y. Super. 

Ct. 516). 1081. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



ccxv 



[references are to pages.] 



Tillotson V. Kennedy (5 Ala. 407), 

212. 
Tilney v. Norris (1 Ld. Raym. 

553), 619. 
Tilt V. Stratton (4 Bing. 46), 155. 
Tilton V. Emery (17 N. H. 536), 

958. 
Tilton V. Sterling Coal & Coke 

Co. (28 Utah, 173), 980, 991. 
Tilyou V. Reynolds (108 N. Y. 

558), 951. 
Timbrell v. Bullock (Sty. 446), 

1200. 
Timlin v. Standard Oil Co. (126 

N. Y. 514), 805, 836. 
Timmes v. Metz (156 Pa. St. 384), 

1445. 
Timmins v. Rowlinson (3 Burr. 

1603), 166, 217. 
Timms v. Baker (49 L. T. 106), 

626. 
Tinder v. Davis (88 Ind. 99), 573, 

579. 
Tinman v. McMeekin (42 S. Car. 

311), 1455. 
Tippet V. Jett (10 La. O. S. 359), 

958. 
Tischer v. Rutledge (35 Wash. 

285), 1374. 
Tison V. Yawn (15 Ga. 491), 923. 
Title V. Kennedy (71 S. Car. 1), 

1327. 
Titsworth v. Frauenthal (52 Ark 

254), 1435. 
Toan V. Pine (80 Mich. 385), 532. 
Tobey v. County of Bristol (3 

Story, U. S. 819), 572. 
Tobey v. Matimore (104 N. Y. 

Supp. 393), 1088. 
Tobey v. Webster (3 Johns. N. Y. 

468), 685. 
Tobias v. Cohn (36 N. Y. 363), 

685. 
Tobin V. Young (17 N. E. Rep. 

625), 189, 217. 
Todd V. Blight (30 L. J. C. P. 21), 

792- 



iodd V. Philhower (24 N. J. Law, 

796), 462. 
Tod-Heatley v. Benham (58 L. J. 

Ch. 83), 747. 
Toleman v. Portbury (24 L. T. 

24), 625, 651, 721. 
Toler V. Hayden (18 Mo. 399), 

1274. 
Toler V. Seabrook (39 Ga. 14), 

516. 
Toles V. Meddaugh (106 Mich. 

398), 314. 
Tolle V. Orth (75 Ind. 298), 1218. 
Tollman v. Myrphy (120 N. Y. 

345), 1151. 
Tolman v. Smith (85 Cal. 280), 27. 
Tolsma v. Adair (32 Wash. 383). 

1233. 
Tomes v. Chamberlaine, (5 Mee. & 

Wei. 14), 198. 
Tomle V. Gampton (129 111. 379), 

792. 
Tomle V. Hampton (28 111. App. 

142), 792, 827. 
Tomlinson v. Day (2 Brod. & 

Bing. 680), 581, 1178. 
Tomlinson v. Greenfield (31 Ark. 

557), 1436. 
Tompkins v. Lawrence (8 Car. & 

P. 729), 128. 
Tompkins v. Snow (63 Barb. N. Y. 

525), 920. 
Tondro v. Cushman (5 Wis. 279), 

920, 953. 
Tone V. Brace (11 Paige, N. Y. 

566), 698. 
Toney v. Goodley (57 Mo. App. 

235), 1430, 1446. 
Took V. Glascock (1 Saund. 343J, 

683, 684. 
Toole V. Beckett (67 Me. 544), 808. 
Torrence v. Irwin (32 Yeates, Pa. 

210), 686. 
Torreson v. Walla (11 N. D. 481), 

852. 
Torrey v. Burnett (38 N. J. Law- 

457), 1264. 



CCXVl 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[refebexces are to pages.] 



Torrey v. Torrey (14 N. Y. 480), 

234. 
Torrey v. Wallace (3 Cush. Mass. 

442), 616, 1021, 1080. 
Torriono v. Young (6 Car. & P. 8). 

138. 
Totten V. Phipps (52 N. Y. 354), 

814. 
Toupin V. Peabody (162 Mass. 

473), 390, 392. 
Tourtellot v. Rosebrook (11 Met. 

Mass. 480), 844. 
Tourtelot v. Junkin (4 Blackf. 

Ind. 483), 592. 
Towell V. Tranter (3 H. & C. 458), 

374. 
Towerson v. Jackson (61 L. J. J. 

B. 36, 1891, 2 Q. B. 484), 34. 
Towne v. Bowers (81 Me. 491), 

1306. 
Towne v. Butterfleld (97 Mass. 

105), 198, 922, 940, 959. 
Tov/ne v. Campbell (3 Com. Bench. 

921), 154, 159, 160. 
Towne v. Thompson (68 N. H. 

317), 796. 
Townley v. Bedwell (14 Ves. 591), 

996. 
Townley v. Oregon Ry. Co. (33 

Oreg. 333), 686. 
Townsend v. Albers (3 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 560), 1210. 
Townsend v. Boyd (217 Pa. Sr. 

386), 940. 
Townsend v. Gilsey (1 Sweeney 

N. X. 155), 1168. 
Townsend v. Hubbard (4 Hill, N. 

Y. 351), 332. 
Townsend v. Isenberg (45 Iowa. 

670), 312, 1111. 
Townsend v. Tickell (5 E. C. L. 

31), 1074. 
Trabue v. McAdams (8 Bush. 

Ky. 74), 1045. 
Tracy v. Albany Exch. Co. (7 N. 
Y. 472), 1367, 1368, 1384. 



Traders' Bank of Kirwin v. First 
Nat. Bank (6 Kan. App. 400), 
1250. 
Traherne v. Saddleir (5 Bro. P. C. 

179), 1106. 
Traintor v. Cole (120 Mass. 162), 

84. 
Trapnall v. Merrick (21 Ark. 503), 

329, 559. 
Trappan v. Morie (18 Johns. N. Y. 

1), 1441. 
Trask v. Graham (47 Minn. 571), 

518, 615, 1021, 1080. 
Trask v. Wheeler (7 Allen, Mass. 

109), 490. 
Trathen v. Kipp (15 Colo. App. 

426), 563. 
Travers v. Cook (42 HI. App. 580), 

1425, 1442. 
Traylor v. Cabanne (8 Mo. App. 

131), 45, 327. 
Treackle v. Coke (1 Vern. 165), 

520. 
Treadwell v. Reynolds (47 Cal. 

171), 350, 351. 
Treat v. Lord (42 Me. 552), 434. 
Trebar v. Biggs (L. Rep. Ex. 151), 

1064. 
Trelvar v. Bigge (43 L. J. Ex. 95), 

i045. 
Tremeere v. Morrison (4 M. & 

Scott, 603), 47. 
Trenar v. Jackson (46 How. Prac. 

N. Y. 389), 721. 
Trenkman v. Schneider (56 N. Y. 

Supp. 770), 295, 564, 1143. 
Treport's Case (6 Coke, 14a), 86, 

953. - 
Tress v. Savage (4 E. & E. 36), 

147, 196, 332. 
Trevivian v. Lawrence (6 Mod. 

256), 953. 
Trill V. Eastman (3 Met. Mass. 

121), 614. 
Trimble v. Durham (70 Miss. 295). 

1418, 1449. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXVH 



[reff.rexces are to pages. 



Trimble's Heirs v. Ward (14 B. 

Mon. Ky. 8), 449. 
Trinity Church v. Cook (11 Abb. 

Pr. N. Y. 371), 1024. 
Trinity Church v. Higgins (4 Rob. 

N. Y. 1), 1034. 
Trinity Church v. Vanderbilt (98 

N. Y. 170). 1017. 
Tripp V. Hasceig (20 Mich. 254), 

1315. 
Tritton v. Barnhart (56 L. T. 306), 

757. 
Tritton v. Foote (2 Brown's Ch. 

497), 1363. 
Tritton v. Toole (2 Bro. C. C. 

636), 1372. 
Trout V. McDonald (S3 Pa. St. 

144), 25, 100. 
Trower v. Wahner (75 111. 655), 

800, 804. 
Truesdell v. Booth (4 Hun. N. Y. 

100), 1149, 1152. 
Trulack v. Donahue (76 Iowa, 

758), 1116. 
Trull V. Granger (8 N. Y. 115, 673. 

677. 
Truss V. Old (6 Rand. Va. 556), 

685, 1300, 1336. 
Trust Co. of North America v 

Manhattan Trust Co. (23 C. C. 

A. 30), 1420. 
Trustees v. Cowen (4 Paige, N. Y. 

510), 616. 
Trustees v. Lynch (70 N. Y. 440), 

742. 
Trustees v. Robinson (Wright, 

Ohio, 436), 343. 
Trustees v. Stevenson (1 Houst. 

Del. 451), 915. 
Tryon v. Davis (8 Wash. 106), 28. 
Tscheider v. Biddle (8 Fed. Cas. 

4210), 984, 1188. 
Tubb V. Fort (58 Ala. 277), 492. 
Tube V. Montgomery (7 Tex. Civ. 

App. 557), 1187. 
Tuberville v. Stampe (12 Mod. 

152), 843. 



Tucker v. Adams (52 Ala. 254). 

317. 
Tucker v. Bennett (81 Pac. Rep 

423), 853. 
Tucker v. Byers (57 Ark. 215), 

291. 
Tucker v. Keeler (4 Vt. 161), 33. 

232. 
Tucker v. Linger (51 L. J. Ch. 

713), 711. 
Tucker v. Morse (1 C. & Ad. 865), 

8. 
Tucker v. Whitehead (58 Miss. 

762), 1112. 
Tucker Zeve & Co. v. Thomas (35 

Tex. Civ. App. 499). 1414. 
Tudgay v. Sampson (30 L. T. 262), 

459. 
Tufts V. Stone (70 Miss. 54), 1448. 
Tulk V. Moxhay (2 Phil. Ch. 774), 

768. 
Tullis V. Tacoma Land Co. (19 

Wash. St. 140), 941. 
Tully V. Dunn (42 Ala. 262), 518, 

561. 
Tunis V. Grandy (22 Grat. Va. 

100), 1178. 1180. 
Tunis Lumber Co. v. R. G. Dennis 
Lumber Co. (97 Va. 682), 1250. 
Turbeville d. Darden v. Ryan (1 

Humph. Tenn. 113), 97. 
Turley Institute v. Memphis (8 

Heisk. Tenn. 845), 1019. 
Turner v. Bank, of Fox Lake (3 

Keyes N. Y. 425), 547. 
Turner v. Cameron's etc. Ry. (5 

Ex. 932), 575. 
Turner v. Cool (23 Ind. 56), 1315, 
Turner v. Davis (48 Conn. 397). 

258. 
Turner v. Doe dem. Bennett (9 M. 

& W. 643), 214, 215. 
Turner v. Ferguson (33 Tex. 505), 

112. 
Turner v. Gaither (S3 N. C. 357), 
19. 



ecxviii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[beferexces are to pages.] 



Turner v. Hutchinson (2 F. & F. 

185), 97. 
Turner v. Kennedy (57 Minn. 104), 

1265. 
Turner v. McCarthy (4 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 247, 804. 
Turner v. Power (7 B. & C. 625), 

581. 
Turner v. Strange (56 Tex. 141), 

1303. 
Turner v. Thompson (58 Ga. 268), 

409, 410. 
Turner v. Townsend (42 Neb. 376), 

874. 
Turner v. Wentworth (119 Mass. 

459), 1249. 
Tustin V. Faught (23 Cal. 237), 

27. 
Tuttle V. Bean (13 Met. 275), 663. 
Tuttle V. Manufacturing Co. (145 

Mass. 169), 806, 860. 
Tuttler V. Reynolds (1 Vt. 80), 

182. 
Twiss v. Boehmer (39 Oreg. 359), 

243, 258. 
Twycross v. R. R. Co. (10 Gray, 

Mass. 293), 1025. 
Tyler v. Davis (61 Tex. 674), 920, 

930. 
Tyler v. Disbrow (40 Mich. 415), 

784. 
Tyler v. Dyer (13 Me. 41), 571. 
Tyler's Estate v. Giesler (74 Mo. 

App. 543), 463, 644, 1058. 
Tyrringham's Case (4 Coke, 37a), 

446. 
Tyrwhitt v. Lambert (3 P. & D. 

676), 581. 
Tyson v. Chestnut (118 Ala. 387). 

694. 
Tyson v. Shueey (5 Md. 540), 685. 



U. 



Udden v. O'Reilly (180 Mo. 650) 

828. 
Udell V. Peak (70 Tex. 547), 973. 



Uggla V. Brokaw (102 N. Y. Supp. 

857), 807. 
Underbill v. Collins (132 N. Y. 

271), 1199. 
Underwood v. Birchard (47 Vt. 

305), 672, 701. 
Underwood v. Burrows (7 Car. & 

P. 26), 420. 
Underwood v. Hitchcock (1 Ves. 

Sr. 279), 1002. 
Underwood v. Stuyvesant (19 

Johns. N. Y. 181), 431. 
Unger v. Bamberger (6 Ky. Law 

Rep. 447), 1364. 
Ungles V. Graves (2 Blackf. Ind. 

191), 1441. 
Union Banking Co. v. Gittings (45 

Md. 181), 385, 566. 
Union Pacific R. Oo. v. Chicago R. 

I. & P. Ry. Co. (164 ni. 88), 561. 
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, R. 

L & P. Ry. Oo. (51 Fed. Rep, 

309), 67. 
Union Ry. Co. v. Chickasaw, Coop. 

Oo. (95 S. W. Rep. 171), 73. 
Union W. & El. Co. v. Mclntyre, 

(84 Ala. 78), 1467. 
Union Water Power Co. v. Chabot 

(93 Me. 339), 1420. 
Union Water Power Oo. v. Lewis- 
ton (95 Me. 471), 453. 
United States v. Boswick, (94 U- 

C. 66), 710. 
United States v. Brooks (10 How. 

U. S. 442), 38, 39. 
United States Flournoy Live Stock 

& R. E. Co.) 69 Fed. Rep. 886), 

40. 
United States Bank v. Athens 

Armory (35 Ga. 344), 28. 
United States v. Parrott (1 Mc- 
Allister U. S. C. O. 271), 710. 
United States Trust Co. v. New 

York W. S. & B. R. Co. (lOl N. 

Y. 483), 1122. . 
United States Trust Co. v. O'Brien 
(143 N. Y. 284), 692, 759. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXIX 



[references are to pages.] 



United States Mfg. Co. v. Stevens 

(52 Mich. 330), 1298. 
University v. Joslyn (21 Vt. 52), 

332, 559. 
Updegraff v. Lesem (Colo. App. 

1900, 62 Pac. Rep. 342), 628, 

1250, 1267. 
Updike V. Campbell (4 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 570), 775. 
Upham V. Head (74 Kan. 17), 865. 
Upper Appomatox Co. v. Hamil- 
ton (S3 Va. 319), 1437. 
Upton V. Greenless (17 Com. B. 

64), 1136. 
Upton V. Hosmer (70 N. H. 493), 

1045, 1294. 
Upton V. Townsend (17 C. B. 30), 

699, 1129, 1142, 1340. 
Usher v. Moss (50 Miss. 208), 139. 
Utah Loan, etc. Co. v. Garbutt (6 

Utah, 342), 55, 148, 151. 
Utah Optical Oo. v. Keith (18 

Utah 464), 1185. 
Uttendorfer v. Saegers (50 Cal. 

496), 685. 

V. 

Vai V. Weld (17 Mo. 332), 847. 
Vale V. Moorgate Buildings (80 L. 

T. 487), 744. 
Valentine v. Healey (86 Hun. 259), 

83, 85. 
Valle V. Fargo (1 Mo. App. 344), 

1014. 
Valpy V. St. Leonard's Wharf Co. 

(1 L. G. R. 305), 1028. 
Va. Min. & Improvement Co. v. 

Hoover (82 Va. 449), 282. 
Van V. Oorpe (3 Myl. & K. 269), 

364, 607. 
Van Arsdale v. Buck (81 N. Y. 

Supp. 1017), 573. 
Vanatta v. Brewer (32 N. J. Eq. 

268>, 620. 
Van Brunt v. Wallace (88 Minn. 

116), 219, 1207. 



Van Buskirk v. Gordon (10 N. Y. 

St. Rep. 351), 847, 877, 1214. 
Vance v. Lowther (45 L. J. Ex. 

200), 343. 
Vance v. Ranfurley (1 Ir. Ch. R. 

322), 1370. 
Vance v. San Antonio Gas Co. 

(Tex. 60 S. W. R. 317), 680. 
Vancleave v. VvMlson (73 Ala. 387), 

944. 
Van Cortlandt v. Underbill (17 

Johns. N. Y. 405), 1273. 
Vandegrift v. Abbott (75 Ala. 

487), 563. 
Vanderbeck v. Hendry (34 N. J. L. 

467), 804, 813. 
Vanderbilt v. Persse (3 E. D. 

Smith, N. Y. 727), 1149, 1167. 
Vanderheuvel v. Starrs (3 Conn. 

303), 317. 
Vanderpool v. Smith (1 Daly N. Y. 

311), 1134, 1190. 
Vanderpool v. Smith (2 Daly N. Y. 

135), 1349. 
Van Deusen v. Young (29 N. Y. 9), 

716, 1336. 
Vandoren v. Everitt (5 N. J. Law, 

460), 15, 1314, 1306. 
Van Doren v. Robinson (13 N. J. 

Eq. 256), 984. 
Van Driel v. Rosierz (26 Iowa 

575), 493. 
Vanduyn v. Hepner (45 Ind. 589), 

957. 
Vane v. Lord Barnard (2 Vern. 

738), 725. 
Van Every v. Ogg (59 Cal. 563), 

852, 862. 
Van Home v. Grain (1 Paige, N. 

Y. 455), 999. 
Van Hess v. Hyatt (28 Fed. Cas. 

16, 867), 390. 
Van Ness v. Pacard (2 Pet. U. S. 

137), 465, 1245, 1250, 1259. 
Vann v. Rouse (94 N. Y. 401), 

1154, 1360. 



ecxx 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[rEFEREXCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Van Patten v. Leonard (55 Iowa, 

520), 1408. 
Van Rensselaer v. Bradley (3 

Denio N. Y. 135), 541. 
Van Rensselear v. Gallup (5 Denio 

N. Y. 454), 541. 
Van Rensselear v. Jewett (5 Denio, 

121), 524. 
Van Rensselaer v. Jones (2 Barb. 

N. Y. 643), 543, 1095. 
Van Rensselaer v. Pennimann (6 

Wend. N. Y. 569), 1195, 1203, 

1276, 1397. 
Van Rensalaer v. Quackenboss (17 

Wend. N. Y. 34), 1444. 
Van Rensselear v. Read (26 N. Y. 

558), 504. 
Van Rensselaer v. Secor (32 Barb. 

N. Y. 469), 262, 1069. 
Van Schaick v. Third Ave. R. R. 

Co. (38 N. Y. 346), 1080. 
Van Siclen v. City of New York 

64, 688. 
Van Soligen v. Harrison (39 N. J. 

Law, 51), 333. 
Van Studdiford v. Kohn (46 Mo. 

App. 436), 173. 
Van Vleck v. White (72 N. Y. 

Supp. 1026), 1267, 1285. 
Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand (19 

Iowa, 422), 491. 
•Van Warden v. Winslow (117 

Mich. 564), 689. 
Van Wicklen v. Paulsen (14 Barb. 

N. Y. 654), 492, 593, 1111. 
Van Wickles v. Alpaugh (3 N. J. 

Law, 446), 960. 
Van Wormer v. Orane (51 Mich. 

363), 902. 
Varley v. Coppard (L. R. 7 O. P. 

505), 1053. 
Varley v. Leigh (2 Ex. 446), 560. 
Vatel V. Herner (1 Hilt, N. Y. 149), 

1131, 1136. 
Vaughan v. Blanchard (1 Yeates, 

Pa. 175), 1180. 



Vaughan v. Hancock (3 O. B. 766), 

379. 
Vaughan v. Menlove (3 Bing. N. C. 

468), 844. 
Vaughn v. Howell (83 Ga. 336), 

1318. 
Vaughn v. Matlock (23 Ark. 9). 

604. 
Veal V. Hanlon (123 Ga. 642), 801, 

853. 
Vegely v. Robinson (20 Mo. App. 

199), 522. 
Venable v. McDonald (4 Dansi, Ky. 

336), 198. 
Vere v. Lovenden (12 Vea. 179), 

607. 
Vermilya v. Austin (2 E. D. Smith, 

N. Y. 302), 1180. 
Vermont v. Society, etc. (28 Fed. 

Cases, 16, 919), 632. 
Vernam v. Smith (15 N. Y. 327), 

576. 
Verplanck v. Wright (23 Wend. 

N. Y. 506), 620. 
Ver Steeg v. Becker-More Paint 

Co. (108 Mo. App. 257), 153, 244, 

346. 
Vetter's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 52), 

505. 
Viany v. Ferran (5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 

N. Y. 110), 1390. 
Vick V. Ayres (56 Miss. 670), 322. 
Victory v. Foran (56 N. Y. Super. 

Ot. 507), 805. 
Victory v. Stroud (15 Tex. 573), 

258. 
Vigers v. St. Paul's (14 Q. B. 909), 

485. 
Vilas V. Mason (25 Miss. 310). 

1301. 
Villard v. Roberts (1 Strob. S. C. 

393), 395. 
Vincent v. Corbin (85 N. C. 108), 

162. 
Vincent v. Crane (10 Det. Leg. N. 

653), 559, 893, 906, 1054. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXXl 



[beferexces are to pages.] 



Vincent v. Frelich (50 La. Ann. 

378), 1349. 
Vincent v. Rather (31 Tex. 77), 

101. 
Viner v. Vaughan (2 Beav. 4GG), 

710. 
Vinson v. Graves (16 La. Ann. 

162), 1359. 
Vinz V. Beatty (61 Wis. 645), 275. 
Virden v. Ellsworth (15 Ind. 144), 

592. 
Viterbo v. Friedlander (120 U. S. 

707j, 783, 1359. 
Vivian v. Moat (50 L. J. Oh. 331), 

965. 
Voege V. Ronalds (83 Hun. 114), 

466, 1364, 1378. 
Voight V. Resor (80 111. 331), 262. 
Volmer v. Wharton (34 Ark. 691), 

1432. 
Von Glahn v. Brennan (81 Cal. 

261), 182. 
Voorhies v. Burchard (55 N. Y. 

98), 446. 
Voorhees v. McGinnis (48 N. Y. 

282), 1246, 1248. 
Vorse V. Des Moines M. & M. Co. 

(104 Iowa, 541), 1014, 1027, 1264, 

1267. 
Vose V. Baker (1 Cranch, C. C. 

104), 690. 
Vose V. Bradstreet (27 Me. 156), 

337, 462. 
Voss V. King (38 W. Va. 607), 920, 

936. 
Vyvyvan v. Arthur (1 Barn. & C. 

410), 768. 
Waddilove v. Barnett (2 Bing. N. 

C. 543), 545. 
Wade V. Halligan (16 111. 507), 

697, 1139, 1180. 
Vade V. Herndl, (127 Wis. 544), 

1169, 1186. 
Wade V. Smith Penn. Oil Co. (45 

W. Va. 380), 995. 
Wade V. South Penn. Oil Co. (45 

W. Va. 390), 936. 



Wades v. Figgatt (75 Va. 575), 

1437. 
Wadleigh v. Janvrin (41 N. H. 

503), 1260. 
Wadlington v. Hill (18 Miss. 560), 

604. 
Wadlow v. Markey (95 111. App. 

484), 1061. 
Wadman v. Burke (81 Pac. Rep. 

1012), 1287, 1288. 
Wadsworthville v. Jennings (40 S. 

C. 168), 967. 
Waggener v. McLaughlin (33 Ark. 

195), 956, 1005. 
Waggoner v. Jermaine (3 Denio, 

306), 794. 
Waggoner v. Snoddy (36 Tex. Civ. 

App. 514), 1046. 
Wahl V. Barroll (8 Gill. Md. 288), 

551, 1097, 1228. 
Wainscottv. Silvers (13 Ind. 497). 

844. 
Wainwright v. Ramsden (5 Mee. 

Wei. 602), 1179. 
Wait, In re (7 Pick. Mass. 100), 

51S. 
Waite V. O'Neil (76 Fed. Rep. 

408), 893, 1157, 1136, 1140. 1343. 
Walden v. Bodley (14 Pet. U. S. 

156), 921. 
Walden v. Conn. (84 Ky. 312), 679, 

688. 
Waldo V. Hall (14 Mass. 486). 

1077. 
Waldorff Astoria Segar Co. v. Sal 

omon (184 N. Y. 584), 745. 
Walker v. Cromley (14 Wend. N 

Y. 63), 1087. 
Walker v. Dohan (39 La. Ann. 

743), 1086. 
Walker v. Edmundson (111 Ga. 

454), 995. 
Walker v. Engler (30 Mo. 130), 

657. 
Walker v. Fisher (117 Mich. 72), 

936. 



cexxii 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.] 



Walker v. Gilbert (2 Rob. N. Y. 

214), 860, 861. 
Walker v. Harper (33 Mo. 592), 

920. 
Walker v. Jeffreys (1 Hare. 341), 

1385. 
Walker v. Patterson (33 Tex. Civ. 

App. 50), 1420. 
Walker v. Ricbardson (2 Mee. & 

Wei. 882), 1199. 
Walker v. Seymour (13 Mo. 592), 

1389. 
Walker v. Swayzee (3 Abb. Pr. N. 

Y. 138), 860, 879. 
Walker v. Tucker (70 111. 528), 

453, 455, 760, 1129, 1136. 
Walker v. Wadley (124 Ga. 275), 

1370. 
Walker v. Whittemore (112 Mass. 

187) 1023. 
Walker Ice Co. v. American Steel 

& Wire Co. (185 Mass. 463), 435. 
Walker's Case (3 Co. 22a), 559. 
Wall V. Hinds (4 Gray, Mass. 256), 

1019, 1093, 1300, 1349, 1354. 
Wallace v. Drew (59 Barb. N. Y. 

413), 431. 
Wallace v. Kennedy (47 N. J. Law, 

242), 1213. 
Wallace v. Lent (1 Daly, N. Y. 

481), 785, 1150. 
Wallace v. Patten (12 CI. & F. 

491), 1227. 
Wallace v. Wilcox (27 Tex. 60), 

958. 
Waller v. Edmonds Cockfield (111 

La. 595), 1130. 
Walls V. Atcheson (3 Bing. 462), 

1199, 1208. 
Walrond v. Hawkins (44 L. J. C. 

P. 116), 647, 1058. 
Wailser v. Graham (45 Mo. App. 

629), 976. 
Walsh V. Bourse (15 Super. Ct. Pa. 

219), 817. 
Walsh V. Lonsdale L. R. (21 Oh. 

Div. 9), 505. 



Walsh V. Martin (69 Mich. 29), 

464, 1200, 1398. 
Walsh V. Pemberton (Selw. N. P. 

613), 510. 
Walsh V. Sichler (20 Mo. App. 

374), 1264. 
Walter v. Dewey (16 Johns. N. Y. 

222), 528. 
Walter v. Maunde (1 J. & W. 181), 

1075. 
Walter v. Waterhouse (3 Saund. 

420), 1340. 
Walter Commission Co. v. Gille- 

land (98 Mo. App. 584), 664. 
Walters v. Hutchin's Adm'x (29 

Ind. 136), 1336. 
Walters v. Myer (39 Ark. 560), 

1400, 1403. 
Vv^alters v. Snow (32 N. Car. 292), 

867. 
Walton V. Jordan (65 N. Car. 170), 

1317. 
Walton V. Stafford (162 N. Y. 563), 

1063. 
Walton V. Wray (54 Iowa, 531), 

1250. 
Wamganz v. Wolff (86 Mo. App 

205), 1186. 
Wampler v. Weinmann (56 Minn. 

1), 1354. 
Ward V. Bull (1 Fla. 271), 1340, 

1345. 
Ward V. Day (5 B. & S. 359), 656. 
Ward V. Day (4 Best & Smith, 

327), 654. 
Ward V. Earl (86 111. App. 635), 

1252. 
Ward V. Edesheimer (17 N. Y. 

Supp. 173), 672. 
Ward V. Fagan (28 Mo. App. 110), 

800. 
Ward V. Fagin (101 Mo. 669), 847, 

849. 
Ward V. Hartpole (3 Bligh. 470), 

475: 
Ward V. Kelsey, (42 Barb. N. Y. 

582), 857, 864. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



cexxiu 



[BEFEREXCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Ward V. Langmade (9 0. Cir. Ct. 

Rep. 85), 757. 
Ward V. Lumley (5 H. & N. 87), 

1237. 
Ward V. Noel (37 Ala. 500), 409. 
Ward V. Philadelphia (6 Atl. Rep. 

263), 929. 
Ward V. People (6 Hill, N. Y. 144), 

435. 
Ward V. Sheppard (3 N. C 283). 

717. 
Ward V. Walker (111 Iowa, 611), 

1422. 
Ward V. Walton (4 Ind. 75), 1195. 
Ward V. Wandell (10 Pa. St. 98), 

585. 
Ward & Co. v. Robertson (77 Iowa, 

159), 418. 
Wardlow v. Herrington (54 S. E. 

Rep. 699), 1126. 
Ware v. Lithgow (71 Me. 62), 699. 
Ware v. Ware (6 N. J. Eq. 117), 

724. 
Warfield v. Oliver (23 La. Ann. 

612), 1415. 
Waring v. King (8 M. & W. 571) 

577. 
Warne v. Waggoner (15 Atl. Rep. 

1507), 1188. 
Warner v. Abbey (112 Mass. 345), 

686, 690. 
Warner v. Cochrane (128 Fed. 

Rep. 553), 645, 654, 1058, 1079. 
Warner v. Hitchins (5 Barb. N. Y. 

■666), 883, 895. 
Warner v. Rice (31 Ark. 344), 

1410, 1411. 
Warren v. Jones (70 Miss. 202), 

1430, 1432. 
Warren v. Wagner (75 Ala. 188). 

892, 1130, 1160, 1170, 1176, 1180. 
Warren, In re (4 Ct. CI. 526), 874. 
Warrill v. Barnes (57 Ga. 404), 

1424. 
Warstell v. Ward (1 Bush. Ky. 

198), 1466. 



Washburn v. Frank (31 La. Ann. 

427), 1446. 
AVashington v. Conrad (2 Humph. 

Tenn. 562), 924. 
Washington v. Williamson (23 Md 

244), 1441. 
Washington Co. v. Roger Williams 

Silver Co. (25 R. I. 483), 1069. 
Washington Natural Gas Co. v. 

Johnson (123 Pa. St. 576), 1081. 
Watchman v. Crook (5 Gill & J. 

239), 604. 
Waterhouse v. Joseph Schlitz .(12 

S. D. 397), 798. 
Waterman v. Clark (58 Vt. 601), 

1271. 
Waterman v. Harkness (2 Mo. 

App. 494), 1014. 
Waters v. Reuber (16 Neb. 99), 

1265. 
Watkins v. Duvall (69 Miss. 364), 

1412. 
Watkins v. Goodall (138 Mass 

533), 804, 813, 816. 
Watkins v. Green (22 R. I. 34), 

465. 
Watriss v. First National Bank 

(130 Mass. 343), 914. 
Watriss v. First Nat. Bank (124 

Mass. 571), 1269, 1287, 1290. 
Watson V. Almirall (70 N. Y. Supp 

662), 848, 855. 
Watson V. Duke of Northumber- 
land (11 Ves. Jr. 153), 572. 
Watson V. Home (7 B. & C. 2S5), 

1007. 
Watson V. Hospital (14 Ves. 333). 

874. 
Watson v. Hunkins (13 Iowa, 547), 

1112. 
Watson V. Huntoon (4 III. App 

291), 563. 
Watson V. Merrill (136 Fed. Rep. 

359), 1239. 
Watson V. Moulton (100 111. App. 

560), 847, 855. 



cexxiv 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[references ake to pages.] 



Watson V. Shackford (95 Me. 69), 

789. 
Watson V. Smith (10 Yerg. Tenn. 

476), 964. 
Watson V. Waud (8 Ex. 335), 556. 
Watt V. Scofield (76 111. 261), 1420, 

1431, 1432, 1457. 
Watts V. Coffin (11 Johns. N. Y. 

495), 877. 
Watts V. Kellar (56 Fed. Rep. 1), 

981. 
Watts V. Lehmann (107 Pa. St. 

106), 1301. 
Way V. Meyers (64 Ga. 760), 1131. 

1132. 
Way V. Reed (6 Allen, Mass 364), 

637, 1094. 
Wayland v. Mosely (5 Ala. 430), 

549. 
Weatherall v. Geering (12 Ves. 

504), 1066. 
Weatherbury v. Baker (25 La. 

Ann. 229), 1044. 
Weathersby v. Sleeper (42 Miss. 

732), 1250, 1264. 
Weaver v. Earle (5 Gush. 31), 723. 
Weaver v. Southern Oregon Co. 

(31 Oreg. 14), 575. 
Webb V. Arnold (52 Ark. 358). 

1465. 
Webb V. Austin (7 M. & G. 701), 

952, 953. 
Webb V. King (21 App. D. C 141), 

667, 1032. 
Webb V. Marshall (13 Wall. U. S. 

15), 1422. 
Webb V. Plummer (2 B. & Ad. 

746), 603, 1314. 
Webb V. Russell (3 T. R. 401), 

1206. 
Webb V. Sharpe (80 U. S. 14). 

1436, 1454. 
Webb V. Weaver (79 111. App. 657), 

573. 
Weber v. Gage (39 N. H. 182), 440. 
Weber v. Liebermann (94 N. Y. 

Supp. 460), 82f>. 



V/ebster v. Cooper (14 How. U. S. 

501), 640. 
Webster v. Nichols (104 111. 160), 

615, 644, 647, 1034, 1068, 1407. 
Webster v. Nosser (2 Daly, N. Y. 

186), 878. 
Weddall v. Capes (1 M. & W. 

5052), 1196. 
Weeber v. Hawes (80 Minn. 476), 

1358. 
Weed V. Crocker (13 Gray, Mass. 

219), 513, 1364. 
Weed V. Standley (12 Fla. 166), 

1402. 
Weeks v. International Trust Co. 

125 Fed. Rep. 370), 637. 
Weeton v. Woodcock (7 M. & Q. 

14), 1287. 
Wegner v. Lubenow (12 N. D. 95), 

503, 504. 
Weichelbaum v. Burlett (20 Kan. 

709), 956. 
Weide v. St. Paul Boom Co. (99 

N. W. Rep. 421), 1068. 
Weider v. McComb (10 Tex. Civ. 

App. 85), 933. 
Weigall V. Waters (6 T. R. 488). 

851. 
Weil V. Abraham (66 N. Y. Supp. 

244), 735. 
Weil V. Abrahams (100 N. Y. St. 

Rep. 244), 759. 
Weil V. Gilchrist (52 Ohio St. 677), 

899. 
Weil V. Monro (3 N. Y. Supp. 25), 

419. 
Weinberg v. Greenberger (93 N. 

Y. Supp. 530). 587. 
Weinberger v. Kratzenstein (71 

App. Div. 155), 820. 
Weiner v. Baldwin (9 Kan. App. 

772), 1222. 
Weinhandler v. Eastern Brewing 

Co. (89 N. Y. Supp. 16), 1070. 
Weinmann's Estate In re (30 Atl. 

Rep. 389), 1062. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXXV 



[references are to pages.] 



Weinstein v. Harrison (60 Tex. 

4J6), 848, 849. 
Weisbrod v. Dembowsky (25 Misc. 

Rep. 485), 644. 
Weiss V. Mendelson (24 Misc. Rep. 

692), 1205, 1240. 
Weitheimier v. Circuit Court (83 

Micli. 5), 1060. 
Welch, In re (108 Fed. Rep. 367), 

1254. 
Welch V. Fitterling (72 Minn. 483), 

641, 644. 
Welch V. Horton (73 Iowa, 250), 

491, 1112, 1115. 
Welch V. Walsh (177 Mass. 555), 

593. 
Welcome v. Hess (90 Cal. 507), 

1200, 1213, 1293. 
Welcome v. Labonte (63 N. H. 

124), 519. 
Weld V. Clayton le Moors Urban 

Council (86 Law T. 584), 1029. 
Weldon v. Harrison (17 Johns. 

N. Y. 66), 1052. 
Well V. Raymon (142 Mass. 206), 

1054. 
Weller v. McConnick (19 'Atl. Rep. 

1102), 825. 
Wellmaker v. Wheatley (123 Ga. 

201), 982. 
Wells V. Cody (112 Ala. 278), 1117. 
Wells V. Higgins (132 N. Y. 459), 

1123. 
Wells V. Mason (5 111. 84), 934, 

1171. 
Wells V. Sheerer (78 Ala. 142), 965. 

972. 
Wells V. Thompson (50 Ala. 83), 

1437, 1438. 
Welsh V. Phillips (54 Ala. 309), 

1228. 
Weltman v. August (11 Tex. Civ. 

App. 604), 1284. 
Weltner's Appeal (03 Pa. St. 302), 

1441. 
Went worth v. Railroad Co. (55 N. 

H. 540), 685. 



Werdner v. Foster (2 P. & W. Pa. 

26), 1080. 
Werner v. Footman (54 Ga. 128), 

465. 
Werner v. Padula (167 N. Y. 641), 

1358. 
Wertheimer v. Circuit Court (83 

Mich. 56), 733. 
Wertheimer v. Hosmer (83 Mich. 

56), 757. 
Wertheimer v. Saunders (95 Wis. 

573), 802, 803. 
Wescott V. Delano (20 Wis. 514), 

1316. 
Wesener v. Smith (85 N. Y. Supp. 

837), 834. 
Wessel V. Gerken (36 Misc. Rep. 

221), 817, 822. 
West V. Blakeway (2 Man. & Gr. 

727), 1281. 
West V. Davis (7 East, 363), 634. 
West V. Dobb (10 B. & S. 987), 612, 

1056. 
West V. Lassels (Cro. Eliz. 851), 

541. 
West V. Louisville, etc. Co. (8 

Bush, Ky. 404), 794. 
West V. Price (2 J. J. Marsh. Ky. 

380), 958. 
West V. Sink (2 Yeates, Pa. 374), 

1443, 1444. 
West Chicago Masonic Ass'n v. 

Cohn (192 111. 210), 825. 
Western v. Russell (3 Ves. & B. 

192), 982. 
Western Granite & Marble Co. v. 

Knickerbocker (103 Oal. Ill), 

409. 
Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal (90 

N. C. 110), 1232. 
Western N. Y. & P. Ry. Co. v. 

Rieck (83 App. Div. 576), 1369. 
Western Union Tel. Oo. v. Smith 

(64 Ohio St. 106), 681. 
West Ham Board v. East London 

Waterworks Co. (69 Law J. Ch. 

257), 707. 



cexx\a 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[eeferences are to pages.] 



West Koslikonong v. Ottesen (80 

Wis. 62), 944. 
Westlake Degraw (25 Wend. N. Y. 

669), 877. 
Westmoreland v. Cambria Co. (130 

Pa. St. 233), 634. 
Westmoreland v. Foster (60 Ala. 

44), 1118. 
Westmoreland v. Wooten (58 Miss. 

825), 1429, 1457. 
Westmoreland Natural Gas Oo. v. 

De Witt (130 Pa. St. 235), 645. 
Weston V. Collins (34 L. J. Cli. 

353), 991. 
West Shore Mills Co. v. Edwards 

24 Oreg. 475), 492,' 503, 920, 936. 

1111, 1112. 
West Shore R. Co. v. Wenner (79 

N. J. L. 233), 612 1051. 
West Side Auction House Co. v. 

Ct. Ins. Co. (85 111. App. 497), 

1216. 
West Side Savings Bank v. New- 
ton (76 N. Y. 616), 784, 1142, 

1148. 
West Transportation Co. v. Lan- 
sing (49 N. Y. 499), 1365, 1374. 
West Virginia, etc. v. Mclntire (44 

W. Va. 210), 616. 
Wetherell v. Joy (40 Me. 325), 552. 
Wetherill v. Gallagher (211 Pa. 

St. 306), 1261. 
Wetmore v. Robinson (2 Conn. 

529), 439. 
Wetsel V. Mayers (91 111. 497), 

1441. 
Wetzel V. Meranger (85 111. App. 

457), 1298. 
Wetzell V. Richcreek (53 Ohio St. 

62), 1077, 1088. 
Whalen v. Kauffman (19 Johns, 

N. Y. 97), 604. 
Wharton v. Anderson (28 Minn. 

301), 555. 
Wheat V. Watson (57 Ala. 581), 

1199. 



Wheeler v. Bedell (40 Mich. 693), 

1246. 
Wheeler v. Bedford (54 Conn. 

244), 440, 441. 
Wheeler v. Crawford (86 Pa. St. 

327), 850. 
Wheeler v. Dascomb (3 Cush. 

Mass. 285), 620. 
Wheeler v. Earle (5 Cush. Mass. 

35), 612, 616, 768, 769. 
Wheeler v. Foote (97 S. W. Rep. 

447), 957. 
Wheeler v. Gilsey (35 How. Prac 

N. Y. 139) 441. 
Wheeler v. Stevens (6 H. & N. 

155), 1236. 
Wheeler v. Walden (17 Neb. 122), 

1195, 1199, 1200. 
Wheeler v. Warschauer (21 Cal. 

309), 934. . . 

Wheelock v. Warshauer (34 Cal. 

265), 1171, 1173. 
Wheeton v. Woodcock (7 Mee. & 

Wei. 14), 1265. 
Whetstone v. Davis (34 Ind. 510) 

1381. 
Whetstone v. McCartney (32 Mo. 

App. 430), 559, 1093. 
Whidden v. Toulmin (6 Ala. 104). 

1441. 
Whipley v. Dewey (8 Cal. 35), 

1285. 
Whipple v. Foot (2 Johns. N. Y. 

418), 1306, 1329. 
Whipple V. Gorsuch (101 S. W. 

Rep. 735), 692. . 
Whipple V. Tucker (123 111. App. 

223), 465. 
Whitaker v. Hawley (Cy. 4 687), 

1342, 1342. 
Whitcomb v. Cummings (68 N. H. 

67), 1094. 
Whitcomb v. Mason (62 Atl. Rep. 

749), 423, 804, 813. 
Whitcomb v. Starkey (G3 N. H. 

607), 1081. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXXVU 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



White V. Albany Railway Co. (17 

Hun. N. Y. 95), 857. 
White V. Arndt (1 Whart. Pa. 91), 

1270. 
White V. Berry (24 R. I. 74), 1235. 
White V. Bradley (6G Me. 254), 410. 
White V. Campion (1 W. N. C. Pa. 

130), 855. 
White V. Grennish (11 C. P. N. S. 

209), 1229. 
White V. Griffing (44 Conn. 437), 

1121. 
White V. Harrow (86 L. T. 4), 409. 
White V. Hotel (1897) (1 Oh. 767), 

616, 769. 
White V. Kane (53 Mo. App. 300), 

1112. 
White V. Loomis (27 Hun, N. Y. 

328), 1083. 
White V. McAllister (67 Mo. App. 

314), 1452. 
White V. McMurray (2 Brewst. Pa. 

485), 665. 
White V. Molyneux (2 Ga. 124), 

1340, 1345. 
White V. Montgomery (58 Ga. 

204), 828, 840. 
White V. Southend Hotel Co. (66 

L. J. Ch. 387), 768. 
A\Tiite V. Thomas (52 Miss. 49, 52), 

1456. 
White V. Thurber (55 Hun, 447), 

700, 854, 864. 
White V. Wagner (4 Har. & J. 373), 

721, 733. 
White V. Wakley (26 Beav. 17), 

889, 962. 
White V. Walker (38 111. 422), 556. 
White V. Warner (2 Mer. 459), 667, 

1038. 
White V. Weaver (68 N. J. Eq. 

644), 982. 
White's Appeal (10 Pa. St. 252), 

1232. 
Whitehead v. Clifford (5 Taunt. 
518), 576, 1210, 1238. 



Whitehead v. Comstock Oo. (25 R. 

I. 423), 427, 783, 823. 
Whitehouse v. Aiken (77 N. E. 

Rep. 499), 408. 
Whitfield v. Brandwood (2 Stark.), 

1007. 
Whiting V. Edmunds (94 N. Y. 

309), 958, 965. 
Whiting V. Eichelberger (16 Iowa, 

422), 1404. 
Whitley v. Gough (2 Dyer, 140), 

1200. 
Whitlock V. Duffield (1 Hoff. Ch. 

N. Y. 110), 1363, 1367. 
Whitlock's Case (8 Coke, 69b), 

529. 
Whitman v. Louten (3 N. Y. Supp. 

754), 1236. 
Whitmarsh v. Cutting (10 Johns, 

360), 1306, 1311. 
'^Tiitmore v. Humphries (41 L. J- 

C. P. 43), 961. 
"Wliitmore v. Orono Co. (91 Me. 

297), 788. 
Whitney v. Allaire (4 Denio, N. Y. 

554), 480. 
Whitney v. Farrar (51 Me. 418), 

1450. 
Whitney v. Myers (8 N. Y. Super 

Ct. 266), 1195, 1201, 1213. 
Whitney v. Olney (3 Mason, U. S. 

280), 448. 
Whitney v. Railway (11 Gray, 

Mass. 359), 742. 
Whitney v. Sweet (22 N. H. 10), 

1299. 
Whitton V. Peacock (2 Bing. N. C. 

411), 941. 
Wick. V. Bredin (1S9 Pa. St. S3), 

1286. 
Wickenden v. Webster (5 El. & B. 

387), 739. 
Wickey v. Eyster (58 Pa. St. 501), 

1441. 
Wiener v. Baldwin (9 Kan. App. 
772), 1213. 



QCXXVIH 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[references are to pages.! 



Wiggin V. Wiggin (58 N. H. 235), 

927. 
Wiggins V. St. Louis, M. & S. E. R. 

Co. (95 S. W. Rep. 311), 681. 
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Railroad Co. 

(142 U. S. 396), 1249. 
Wigglesworth v. Dallison (1 Doug. 

210), 1313, 1314. 
Wilber v. Follansbee (97 Wis. 

577), 814. 
Wilbraliam v. Livesy (18 Beav. 

206), 607. 
Wilcox V. Gate (65 Vt. 478), 729, 

783. 
Wilcox V. Cartwright (1 Lack. Leg. 

Rec. Pa. 130), 638. 
Wilcox V. Hines (100 Tenn. 524), 

791, 859. 
Wilcox V. Pa. etc. Co. (15 W. N. 

Cas. Pa. 367), 1154. 
Wilcox V. Zane (167 Mass. 302), 

804. 
Wilcoxen v. McCray (38 N. J. Eq. 

466), 404. 
Wilcoxin v. Donnelly (90 N. Car. 

245), 492. 
Wilczinski v. Lick (68 Miss. 596), 

1436. 
Wilde V. Cantillon (1 Johns. Cas. 

N. Y. 123), 686. 
Wilder v. Beed (4 Ohio, N. P. 440), 

1060. 
Wildey Lodge v. City of Paris (73 

S. W. Rep. 69), 645, 1044, 1058. 
Wildman v. Taylor (4 Ben. 42), 

639. 
Wildrick v. Swain (34 N. J. Eq. 

167), 549. 
Wild's Lessee v. Serpell (10 Gratt. 

Va. 405), 923. 
Wiley V. Conner (44 Vt. 68), 1318. 
Wilgus V. Gettings (21 Iowa, 177), 

1250. 
Wilgus V. Whitehead (8 Pa. St. 

131), 460, 556. 
Wilkerson v. Farnham (82 Mo. 

672), 1277. 



Wilkerson v. Thorp (128 Cal. 221), 

1458. 
Wilkes V. Davis (3 Mer. 509), 1293. 
Wilkins v. Pensacola City Co. (36 

Fla. 36), 965, 972. 
Wilkins v. Wingate (6 Term. Rep. 

62), 581. 
Wilkinson v. Clauson (29 Minn. 

91), 698, 782. 
Wilkinson v. Colley (5 Burr. 2694), 

1124. 
Wilkinson t. Hull (1 Bing. 713), 

609. 
Wilkinson v. Ketler (69 Ala. 435), 

1315, 1424. 
Wilkinson v. Libby (1 Allen, Mass. 

375), 1015. 
Wilkinson v. Pettit (47 Barb. N. Y. 

230), 616, 1081, 1391. 
Wilkinson v. Rogers (10 Jur. N. S. 

5), 617, 737, 757. 
Wilkinson v. Stanley (43 S. W. 

Rep. 606), 1186. 
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson (62 Mo. 

App. 519. 
Willard v. Benton (57 Vt. 286). 

638. 
Willard v. Rogers (54 111. App 

583), 1423. 
Willard v. Tayloe (8 Wall. U. S. 

558), 981, 982. 
Willard v. Tillman (19 Wend. N. 

Y. 358), 1340. 
Willard v. World's Fair Encamp- 
ment Co. (59 111. App. 336), 140 7, 

1428. 
Williams v. Baker (41 Md. 523), 

448. 
Williams v. Bartholemew (1 Bos. 

& Pul. 326), 530. 
Williams v. Bosanquet (1 Brod. & 

Bing. 238), 1081, 1106. 
Williams v. Braden (2 Mo. App. 

Rep'r 846), 1419, 1457. 
Williams v. Burrell (1 Com. Bench 

402), 614. 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



CCXXIX 



[references ABE TO PAGES.] 



Williams v. Cash (27 Ga. 507), 920, 

949. 
William Clun's Case (10 Coke, 

127b), 531. 
Williams v. Craig (2 Edw. Ch. N. 

Y. 297), 1020. 
Williams v. De Lisle Store Com- 
pany (104 Mo. App. 567), 1432. 
Williams v. Downing (18 Pa. S*^^. 

60), 1074, 1107. 
Williams v. Earle (9 B. & S. 740), 

617. 
Williams v. Exhibition Co. (188 

111. 19), 1296. 
Williams v. Gabriel (75 L. J. K. B. 

149), 1180. 
Williams v. Garrison (29 Ga. 503), 

964. 
Williams v. Glover (66 Ala. 189), 

512. 
Williams v. Hay ward (1 El. & El. 

1040), 485, 1118, 1145. 
Williams v. Iliphant (3 Ind.), 694. 
Williams v. Kent (67 Md. 350), 

463, 1009. 
Williams v. Ladew (171 Pa. St. 

369), 578. 
Williams V. Lane (62 Mo. App. 66), 

1264, 1287. 
Williams v. Lilley (67 Conn. 50), 

999. 
Williams v. McAiley (Cheves, S. C. 

20), 958, 960. 
Williams v. McFall (2 S. & R. Pa. 

280), 798. 
Williams v. Mershon (57 N. J. 

Law, 242), 1382. 
Williams v. Michigan Cent. R. Co. 

(10 Det. Leg. N. 238), 1025, 

1096. 
William v. New Albany & S. R. 

Co. (5 Ind. 111.), 870. 
Williams v. Towl (65 Mich. 204), 

955, 956. 
Williams v. Vanderbret (145 111. 

238), 648, 657, 1195, 1200, 1213. 



Williams v. Wait (2 S. D. 210), 

927, 937. 
Williams v. Williams (12 East, 

209), 1258. 
Williams v. Williams (43 L. J. C. 

P. 382), 891. 
Williams v. Woodward (2 Wend. 

N. Y. 487), 1069. 
Williamson v. Crassett (62 Ark. 

393), 1195, 1236. 
Williamson v. Russell (18 W. Va. 

612), 955. 
Williamson v. Stevens (82 N. Y. 

Siipp. 1047), 695. 
Willi V. Drj'den (52 Mo. 319), 

1087. 
Willington v. Brown (8 Q. B. 169), 

942. 
Willis V. Astor (4 Edw. Ch. N. Y. 

594), 1363, 1369. 
AVillis V. Branch (94 N. Car. 142), 

5G5. 
Willis V. McKinnon (165 N. Y. 

612), 952. 
Willis V. Moore (59 Tex. 628), 

482, 1316, 1329. 
Willoughby v. Atkinson Furn. Co. 

(93 Me. 185), 820, 895, 1379. 
Vv illoughby v. Lawrence (116 111. 

11), 644, 1068, 1110. 
Wills V. Gas Co. (130 Pa. St. 222), 

641, 643, 644. 
Wills V. Summers (45 Minn. 90), 

1021, 1080. 
Willy V. Mulledy (78 N. Y. 310), 

916. 
Wilmot V. Smith (3 Car. & P. 

453), 537. 
Wilson V. Been (74 N. Y. 531), 

458. 
Wilson V. Douglas (2 Strobh. S 

C. 97), 672. 
Wilson v. Edwards (3 B. & Cr. 

734), 798. 
Wilson V. Gerhardt (9 Colo. 585), 

1092, 1093. 



■ci- xxx; 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



[eEFERENCES ABE TO PAGES.] 



Wilson V. Goldstein (152 Pa. St. 

524), 629. 
Wilson V. Hart (35 L. J. Ch. 569), 

740, 769, 77"1. 
Wilson V. Hatton (L. R. 2 Exch. 

Div. 336), 785. 
Wilson V. Hunter (14 Wis. 683), 

446. 
Wilson V. Jones (1 Bush, Ky. 

173), G32, 666. 
Wilson V. Leonard (3 Beav. 373), 

1105. 
Wilson V. Lerche (90 Mo. 473), 

958. 
Wilson V. Lunt (11 Colo. App. 56), 

1092. 
Wilson V. Lyons (94 N. W. Rep. 

636), 482. 
Wilson V. Pa. Trust Co. (114 Fed. 

Rep. 742), 1240. 
Wilson V. Phillips (2 Bing. 13), 

621. 
Wilson V. Raybould (56 111. 417), 

1186. 
Wilson V. Sewell (4 Burr. 1980), 

1201, 1202. 
Wilson V. Smith (5 Yerg. Tenn. 

379), 922, 953, 1132, 1133. 
Wilson V. State (39 So. Rep. 776), 

1449. 
Wilson V. Stewart (69 Ala. 302), 

1458. 
Wilson V. Treadwell (81 Cal. 58), 

873. 
Wilson V. Twamler (73 J. K. B. 

703), 770. 
Wilson V. Wilson (2 Vt. 68), 439. 
Wilson V. Woolfryes (6 M. & S. 

341), 953. 
Wimp V. Early (104 Mo. App. 85). 

1453. 
Winant v. Hines (14 Daly, N. Y. 

187), 1207, 1214. 
Windom v. Stewart (43 W. Va. 

711), 869. 
Windsor Hotel Oo. v. Hawk (49 

How. Pr. N. Y. 257), 453. 



Wineman v. Hug'hson (44 111. App. 

22), 1112. 
Winestein v. Ziglatski-Marks Co. 

(77 Conn. 404), 483. 
Winfrey v. Work (75 Mo. 55), 

1228. 
Wing V. Gray (36 Vt. 261), 462, 

760, 763. 
Wingard v. Banning (39 Cal. 543), 

1460. 
Wink V. Early (104 Mo. App. 85), 

1318. 
Winkler v. Gibson (2 Kan. App. 

621), 1323. 
Winn V. Bull (47 L. J. Ch. 139), 

388. 
Winn V. Spearing (26 La. Ann. 

384), 877. 
Winn V. State (55 Ark. 360), 910.. 

1283. 
Winn V. Strickland (34 Fla. 610), 

934, 968. 
Winne v. Hammond (37 111. 99), 

1445. 
Winne v. Kelley (34 Iowa, 339), 

879. 
Winship v. Pitts (3 Paige, N. Y. 

259), 713. 
Winslow V. Bait. & Ohio R. Co. 

(188 U. S. 646), 1374. 
Winslow V, Rand (29 Me. 362), 

491. 
Winston V. Academy (28 Miss. 

118), 679, 920. 
Winter v. Dumerque (12 Jur. N. S. 

726), 1071. 
Winterbottom v. Wright (10 Me. 

& Wei. 109^, 913. 
Winterfield v. Strauss (24 Wis. 

394), 492. 
Winterink v. Maynard (47 Iowa, 

366), 533. 
AVinton v. Cornish (5 Ohio, 477), 

1158, 1342, 1343. 
Winward v. Robbins (3 Humph. 

(Tenn. 614), 940. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXXXl 



[referexces are tg pages.] 



Wisdom V. Newberry (30 Mo. App. 

241), 879, 869. 
Wise V. Decker (30 Fed. Cas. No. 

17,906), 560. 
Wise V. Faulkner (51 Ala. 359), 

49i, 492. 
Wise V. Ffaaf (98 Md. 576), 1113. 
Wisner v. Ocumpaiigh (71 N. Y. 

113), 1408. 
Wister v. Campbell (10 Phila. Pa. 

359), 1238. 
Withers v. Larrabee (48 Me. 570). 

1208. 
Witherspoon v. Nickels (27 Ark. 

332), 1252. 
Withington v. Nichols (187 Mass. 

575), 541. 
Witman v. Watry (31 Wis. 638), 

1199, 1213. 
Witte V. Quinn (38 Mo. App. 681), 

1180, 1182. 
Witte V. Witte (6 Mo. App. 488), 

558. 
Witty V. Matthews (52 N. Y. 512), 

850. 
Witty V. Williams (12 W. R. 755), 

526. 
Wix V. Rutson (68 L. J. Q. B. 

298), 1027, 1030. 
Wolcott V. Hamilton (61 Vt. 79), 

1318, 1319. 
Wolcott V. Sullivan (6 Paige, Ch. 

N. Y. 117), 860. 
Wolf V. Holton (92 Mich. 136), 

949. 
Wolf V. Johnson (3 Miss. 513), 934. 
Wolf V. Weiner (2 Brewst. Pa. 

524), 1180. 
Wolfe V. Arrott (109 Pa. St. 473), 

459, 471. 
Wolgamot V. Brunner (4 Har. & 

McH. Md. 89), 547. 
Wolveridge v. Steward (1 Cr. & 

M. 644), 1085. 
Womack v. McQuarry (28 Ind. 

103), 1158, 1340. 



Womble v. Leach (83 N. C. 84), 

1418. 
Wood V. Bogle (115 Mass. 30), 

1020. 
Wood V. City of Williamsburg (46 

Barb. N. Y. 601), 685. 
Wood V. Day (7 Taunt. 646), 953. 
Wood V. Drouthett (44 Tex. 36.5), 

959. 
Wood V. Hubbell (10 N. Y. 479), 

1190, 1352. 
Wood V. Londonderry (10 Beav. 

465), 1116. 
Wood V. Partridge (11 Mass. 488), 

522, 539. 
Wood V. Sharpless (174 Pa. St. 

588), 456, 879, 869. 
Weed V. Turner (7 Humph. Tenn. 

517), 944. 
Wood V. Welz (167 N. Y. 570), 596. 
Woodbridge v. Connor (49 Me. 

353), 690. 
Woodbury v. Butler (67 N. H. 

545), 489. 
Woodbury v. Short (17 Vt. 387), 

431. 
Woodbury v. Swan (59 N. H. 22), 

957. 
Woodcock V. Carlson (41 Minn. 

542^ 1318. 
Woodhull T. Rosenthal (61 N. Y. 

382), 1048. 
Woodman v. Railroad Co. (149 

Mass. 335), 803. 
Woodrow V. O'Connor (28 Vt. 

776), 1274. 
Woodruff V. Halsey (8 Pick. Mass. 

333), 690. 
Woodruff V. Oswego Starch Co. 

(74 N. Y. Supp. 961), 1035. 
Woods V. Charlton (62 N. H. 649), 

1329. 
Woods V. Cotton Co. (134 Mass. 

357), 813. 
Woods V. Edison Elec. 111. Co. (184 

Mass. 523), 456. 



eexxxii 



TABLE OP CASES CITED. 



[refekexces are to pages.] 



Woods V. Hyde (31 L. J. Ch. 295), 

994. 
Woods V. Naumkeag Mfg. Co. (134 

Mass. 357), 782, 816, 822. 
Woodward v. Gyles (2 Vern. 119), 

765. 
Woodward v. Lindley (43 Ind. 

433), 1218, 1226. 
Woodworking Co. v. Southwick, 

(119 N. Car. 611), 1250. 
Woodworth v. Harding (77 N. Y. 

Supp. 969), 1120. 
Woodworth v. Thompson (44 Neb. 

311), 856. 
Woolcock V. Dew (1 F. & F. 337), 

886. 
Wooler V. Knott (45 D. J. Ex. 

313), 622. 
Wooley V. Osborne (39 N. J. Eq. 

54, 59), 874. 
Woolley V. Maynes (15 Utah, 341), 

1459. 
Woolley V. Watling (1 Car. & P. 

610), 576. 
Woolsey v. Abbott (65 N. J. Law, 

253), 1114. 
Woolsey v. Henke (125 Wis. 134), 

460. 
Worley v. Frampton (5 Hare. 

500), 1395. 
Worthington v. Ballauf (6 Ohio 

Dec. 1121), 1101. 
Worthington v. Cooke (58 Md. 

51), 541. 
Worthington v. Hewes (19 Ohio 

St. 66), 5G9. 
Worthington v. Lee (61 Md. 530), 

551. 
Worthington v. Parker (11 Daly, 

N. Y. 545), 864. 
Worrill v. Barnes (57 Ga. 404), 

1457. 
Wooten V. Gwyn (56 Miss. 422), 

1432. 
Wootley V. Gregory (2 Y. & J. 

536), 1237. 



Wray v. Rhinelander (39 How. Pr. 

N. Y. 299), 1276, 1283, 1398. 
Wray-Austin Mach. Co. v. Flower 

(12 Det. Leg. N. 214), 1222. 
Wright V. Bircher (72 Mo. 179), 

1405, 1427, 1428, 1434. 
Wright V. Burroughs (3 C. B. 

685), 490, 641. 
Wright V. DuBignon (114 Ga. 

765), 1244, 1256. 
Wright V. E. M. Dickey (83 Iowa, 

464), 1451, 1452. 
Wright V. Everett (87 Iowa, 697), 

76L 
Wright V. Freeman (5 Har. & J. 

487), 439. 
Wright V. Hardy, Miss. (24 So. 

Rep. 697), 489. 
Wright V. Heidorn (6 Ohio, Dec. 

151), 616. 
Wright V. Howard (1 Sim. & Stu. 

190), 432. 
Wright V. Jessup (87 Pac. Rep. 

930), 956. 
Wright V. Kelly (4 Lans. N. Y. 

57), 1090. 
Wright V. Lattin (38 111. 293), 

876, 1182. 
Wright V. MacDonnell (88 Tex. 

140), 1265, 1289. 
Wright V. Newton (2 C. M. & R. 

124), 1057. 
Wright V. Perry (188 Mass. 268), 

801. 
Wright V. Roberts (22 Wis. 161), 

1336. 
Wright V. Tuttle (4 Day, Conn. 

313), 599. 
Wrottesley v. Adams (2 Dyer. 

177), 1200. 
Wander v. McLean (124 Pa. St. 

334), 792. 
Wunderlich v. Reis (34 Hun. N. 

Y. 1), 1104. 
Wusthoff V. Schwartz (32 Wash. 

327), 1142, 1155, 1170. 



TABLE OF CASES CITED. 



CCXXXlll 



[referexces ake to pages.] 



Wyatt V. Stagg (5 Bing. N. C. 

564), 1197. 
Wyatt V. Turner (37 Ga. 640), 

1404. 
WyckofE V. Frommer (12 Misc. 

Rep. 149), 1176. 
Wyckoff V. Schofield (98 N. Y. 

475), 1125. 
Wyman v. Farrar (35 Me. 64), 

428. 
Wyndham v. Way (4 Taunt. 316), 

1259. 
Wynne v. Haight (27 App. Div. 

7), 802, 855. 
Wyoming Coal Co. v. Price (81 

Fa. St. 156), 951. 
Wyse V. Russell (16 Misc. Rep 

53), 1141. 



T. 



Yarborough v. Monday (2 Dev. S. 

C. 493), 332. 
Yarnall v. Haddaway (4 Har. Del 

437), 1466. 
Yates V. Bachley (33 Wis. 185), 

1176. 
Yates V. Kinney (19 Neb. 275), 

139, 312. 
Yates V. Smith (11 111. App. 459), 

1325. 1327. 
Yaw V. L'eman (1 Wils. 2), 1007. 
Yeager v. Weaver (64 Fa. St. 425), 

695. 
Yeazel v. White (40 Neb. 432), 

1326. 
Yellow Jacket Silver Min. Co. v. 

Stevenson (5 Nev. 224), 66. 
Yesler's Estate v. Orth (24 Wash. 

483), 159. 
Yocum v. Barnes (8 B. Mon. Ky. 

496), 599. 
Yonge v. Bradford (Hob. 3), 20. 
York V. Carlisle (19 Tex. Oiv. App. 

269), 1423, 1432. 



York V. Jones (2 N. H. 454), 1228. 
York V. Steward (21 Mont. 515), 

697, 1140. 
Youmans v. Caldwell (4 Ohio, St. 

71), 465. 
Young V. Burhans (80 Wis. 428), 

867, 878. 
Young V. Bransford (12 Lea Tenn. 

244), 805. 
Young V. Collett (6 N. W. Rep. 

115), 784, 1151. 
Young V. Ellis (91 Va. 297), 538. 
Young T. Gay (41 La. Ann. 758), 

313. 
Young V. Hefferman (67 111. App. 

354), 927. 
Young V. Kimball (23 Fa. St. 

193), 1460. 
Young V. Faul (10 N. J. Eq. 401), 

326. 
Young V. Feyser (3 Bos. N. Y. 

308), 1061. 
Young V. Smith (28 Mo. 65), 155, 

182. 
Young V. Spencer (10 Barn. & 

Cres. 145), 713. 
York V. Stewart (21 Mont. 515), 

782. 
Young V. Ward (33 Me. 359), 327. 
Young V. West Side Hotel Co. (2 

Ohio, Dec. 140), 1447. 
Young V. Wrightson (11 Ohio, 

Dec. 104), 570. 
Youngblood v. Enbank (68 Ga. 

630), 1264. 
Younggreen v. Shelton (101 111. 
App. 89), 679. 



Z. 



Zachry v. Stewart (67 Ga. 218), 

1412. 
Zapp V. Johnson (87 Tex. 641), 

1454. 



CCXXXIV 



TABLE OF CASES CITED, 



[eefekexces are to pages.] 



Zarkowski v. Astor (13 Misc. Rep. 

507), 1274. 
Zeiter v. Bowman (6 Barb. N. Y. 

133), 590. 
Zeysing v. Welbourn (4 Mo. App. 

352), 1228. 
Ziegler v. Brennan (75 App. Div. 

584), 812. 
Zigler V. McClellen (15 Oreg. 499), 

882. 
Zink V. Bohn (3 N. Y. Supp. 4), 

329, 489. 



Zink V. Grant (25 Oliio St. 352), 

776. 
Zimmer v. Black (59 Hun, N. Y. 

826), 1348. 
Zinnel v. Bergdoll (9 Pa. Super. 

Ct. 522), 303. 
Zouch d. Abbotts v. Parsons (3 

Burr. 1794), 1202. 
' Zouch d. Ward v. Willingdale (1 

H. Bl. 311), 648. 
Zule V. Zule (24 Wend. N. Y. 76), 

539. 



LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 

§ 1. The general rule. 

2. Leases by life tenants. 

3. Leases by life tenants under a power. 

4. The termination of terms created by a life tenant as a landlord. 

5. The validity of lease by tenants for years. 

6. Guardianship in general. 

7. The liability of an intruder as guardian. 

8. The power of a guardian in socage. 

9. The power of testamentary guardians. 

10. The power to lease of a guardian appointed by a court. 

11. When the permission of the court to the making of the lease is 

required. 

12. Limitations upon the power of a guardian to lease. 

13. The duty of the guardian to lease. 

14. The guardian's duty to collect rents. 
IZ. Formal requisites of the lease. 

16. Covenants by guardians. 

17. An infant's liability for rent. 

18. The ratification of a lease made by an infant. 

19. The invalidity of a lease made by a fevie sole. 

20. The effect of her marriage upon a lease made by a feme sole. 

21. The invalidity of a lease made by a feme covert at the common 

law. 

22. The husband's power at common law to lease lands of the wife. 

23. The right of a married woman to lease under the modern stat- 

utes. 

24. The effect of the death of the husband or wife upon a lease made 

by the wife. 

25. The control of the husband over leases held by the wife as ex- 

ecutrix. 

26. The disposition of a term by the husband of a lessee to take 

effect at his death. 

27. Leases of community property. 
The modern rule as to the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee. 

1 



28. 



2 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 29. The right of the mortsagee to the rent at the common law 

30. The appointment and powers of a receiver in foreclosure. 

31. The effect of a foreclosure upon the tenant's rights. 

32. The right to rents of the purchaser on a sale under foreclosure. 

33. The power of the Federal government to lease lands. 

34. The validity of leases of lands owned by Indians. 

35. Leases by aliens. 

36. Leases to aliens. 

37. The effect of the death of the lessee on leases for terms of years. 

38. The expiration of a lease for years on the death of the lessee. 

39. The liability of the personal representative of the deceased 

lessee of a term of years. 

40. The remedies of the personal representative of the lessee. 

41. The rights of an executor of a lessor. 

42. The liability of a personal representative for rents. 

43. The power of an administrator to lease the lands of his intes- 

tate. 

44. The power of an administrator with the will annexed to lease. 

45. The general rule as to the power of executor to make leases. 

46. A lease which is executed by one of several executors or admin- 

istrators. 

47. A lease by an executrix being a feme sole. 

48. The equitable jurisdiction over leases made by executors. 
48a. The power of trustees to grant leases. 

48b. The proper covenants in leases by trustees. 
48c. Signature by one of two or more trustees. 
48d. The personal liability of the trustee. 

§ 1. The general rule. As a general rule any person who 
has capacity to make a valid contract may enter into a lease 
either as landlord or tenant. This rule is subject to the excep- 
tions which are recognized by the law of contracts. In the fol- 
lowing sections we shall enumerate and examine certain parti- 
cular classes of lessors and lessees, and determine so far as pos- 
sible the extent of the power to contract so far as the power 
to contract is limited and defined by the particular facts of 
each case and the nature of the position occupied by the land- 
lord or tenant. 

§ 2. Leases by life tenants. A tenant of a life estate may 
convey all or any portion of his estate by deed or parol lease. 
If he conveys all his estate it is an assignment of it. If he 
grants a term for years it is a lease.^ Any lease he may grant, 

iMcC^mpbell v. McCampbell. 5 Litt. (Ky.) 92; King v. Sharp, 6 
Humph. (Tenn.) 55. 



PAETIES TO THE LEASE. 3 

no matter for how long a term of years, is good only for the 
life of the lessor and terminates with his death. So,, if a per- 
son has an estate for the life of another he may grant a lease 
for a term of years which will be good during the life of the 
cestui que vie but upon his death it is absolutely void even 
though the lessor in the meantime has acquired the reversion.^ 
The executor or administrator of a life tenant cannot maintain 
an action for rent accruing after the death of the life tenant.^ 
A lease executed by a tenant for life, who was then under age, 
in which the reversioner is named, if not executed by him is 
void on the death of the tenant for life. An execution by the 
reversioner afterwards is not a confirmation of the lease so as 
to bind the lessee in an action brought on his covenant con- 
tained in it.* Before the statute 11 George II, c. 19 the execu- 
tor of a tenant for life who made a lease for years and died 
before the rent was payable, could not recover rent from the 
tenant for years. That statute provided that the executors of 
the tenant for life might recover a proportion of the rent down 
to the death of their testator. The statute, however did not 
destroy the right of the reversioner or the remainderman to 
enter upon the tenant for years for the latter had no more right 
than his lessor, and the estate of his lessor having terminated 
by his death the tenant for years was simply a tenant at suffer- 
ence. If the executor of the tenant for life held over the re- 
mainderman might either eject him or regard him as his ten- 
ant and recover for use and occupation. The remainderman 
has the same rights and remedy against a tenant for years, as 
against a life tenant holding over on the death of his lessor.' 
§ 3. Leases by life tenants under a power. There is a 
marked and important distinction between a power to lease 
created by a will or a deed with a devise of the fee to another 
and a power to lease which is not expressly created in this man- 
ner but is merely the outcome of and an incident to the owner- 
ship of an estate for a limited period with a remainder or revci-- 
sion in another. In the first case a lease for any term of years 
not exceeding the limitations placed upon the power in the in- 

2 Co. Litt. 476, 6 Co. 15a. Watts, 7 Term Rep. 832, Esp. 501, 

s Steuber v. Huber, 107 App. Div. 4 R. R. 387. 

599, 95 N. Y. Supp. 348. s Co. Litt. 50, 2 Black Com. 145; 

■* Ludford v. Barber, 1 Term Rep. Fevans v. Briscoe, 4 H. & J. (iid.) 

86, 1 R. R. 56; Doe d. Martin v. 139, 140. 



4 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

strument will be valid and will be binding upon the owner of 
the reversion; while in the latter ease the lease created by the 
owner of the limited estate will terminate with the expiration, 
of the limited estate itself. Hence if an estate be granted to 
one for life with a power to grant leases for twenty years, his 
lease for twenty years will be valid and binding upon the re- 
mainderman though his own interest in the life estate may ex- 
pire the next day. But if the life tenant is not invested with 
an express power to grant leases for years he can only grant 
leases which will be good during his life. Though he grant a 
lease expressly for a term it will not be binding upon the re- 
versioner or remainderman after the death of the life tenant. 
A power to grant leases which shall be valid after the expiration 
of a life estate is of considerable value, both to the life tenant 
and to the remainderman or reversioner, for unless the life ten- 
ant possesses this power he cannot enjoy the use and profits of 
his estate to the best advantage. If he cannot give long leases 
it may happen that the premises will remain vacant, waste 
may occur, and the buildings be permitted to remain out of 
repair, owing to the fact that it is impossible to procure ten- 
ants who will accept a lease whose existence is dependant 
upon the uncertainty of the life of the life tenant. And on 
the other hand if the life tenant is permitted to give leases 
for a defijiite term of years which shall be binding on those 
who follow him in the ownership he will, by the receipt of 
a larger rent, be encouraged and enabled to keep the build- 
ings in better repair, and to pay taxes and interest charges, 
so that in the end his power will not only operate to his own 
advantage but also to that of his successor. But while the 
power to grant a permanent lease extended beyond the es.- 
tate owned by the lessor is to be favored if possible it will 
never arise by mere implication. It must be expressly con- 
ferred upon the life tenant or other persons owning the es- 
tate which is subordinate to the fee simple. 

A power of a life tenant to make leases at his discretion 
which shall bind the remainderman after his death, must be 
strictly pursued. Equity will aid a defective execution of 
such a power where the circumstances of the case, and the 
interests of the lessee demand it. But while equity will aid 
tlie defective execution of a power to grant leases, it will 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. D 

not interpose where there has been no execution of such a 
power for on general principles if the execution of the power 
in the life tenant is discretionary, it will leave it to his elec- 
tion freely to give or to refrain from giving a lease. If he 
has not executed it, equity will not do for him what he did 
not see fit to do for himself. The question of the execution 
by a life tenant of a power to lease, frequently arises between 
one who has entered under such a lease and the remainder- 
man. If the lessee can show circumstances which ordinarily 
would warrant the interference of equity, he will be protected 
imder his lease from the life tenant, though it may not have 
been executed in accordance with the express limitations of 
the power. Thus if the life tenant has given an agreement 
for a lease which was subsequently to be executed in proper 
form which has not been done, and the lessee had entered 
thereunder and had paid rent to the remainderman after the 
death of the life tenant the lessee will be protected in his pos- 
session of the premises upon the basis of an estoppel on the 
remainderman.* 

§ 4. The termination of terms created by a life tenant as a 
landlord. At the common law upon the death of a life tenant 
who has made a lease for a term, the lease for the term is at an 
end irrespective of its length, unless the life tenant has power 
to lease for a term. The term is not revived as to the remain- 
derman merely by the acceptance of rent by him.^ The lessee 
of a tenant for life upon the termination of the life estate of 
his lessor becomes a tenant at sufferance, of the owner of the 
fee. He may at once abandon possession as he is not bound 
to remain as the tenant of the reversioner with whom he has 
no relation or privity whatever. And if he promptly aban- 
don the premises he will escape all liability for rent subse- 
quently accruing whether to the personal representative of 
the life tenant or to the reversioner.^ The remainderman or 

6 Howard v. Carpenter, 11 Md. St. 432, 56 N. E. 199, 48 L. R. A. 
259, 283. 735; Lowrey v. Reef, 1 Ind. App. 

7 Doe V. Butcher, 1 Doug. 50; 244, 27 N. E. Rep. 626; Miller v. 
Jenkins v. Church, Cowper, 482; IMainwaring, Cro. Car. 399; Jones 
Mayhew's Case, I'Coke, 147; Lud- v. Cowper, Willes, 169. 

ford V. Barber, 1 T. R. 86; Sykes s Hoagland v. Crum, 113 111. 

V. Benton, 90 Ga. 402, 17 S. E. 365. 
Rep. 1002; Noble v. Tyler, 61 Ohio 



b LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

reversioner is not bound to give the lessee of the tenant for 
life a notice to quit upon the death of the tenant for life. 
The lessee of a tenant for life is presumed to know the limi- 
tations upon his landlord's title and the duration of his estate. 
If the subtenant shall remain in possession after the death of 
the tenant for life with the consent or acquiescence of the 
reversioner or remainderman, the latter may recover from 
him the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the 
premises for such period as he has been in possession.'' ■ But 
he may be e-victed by the reversioner after the expiration of 
the interest of the life tenant under whom he claims. He can- 
not maintain an action on the imi:)lied covenant for quiet en- 
joyment against the heirs of his landlord. ^° The tenant of 
a life tenant has as against the remainderman or reversioner 
no rights which can be enforced at law.^^ There is no privity 
of estate or contract between the subtenant and the owner of 
the fee in remainder. For this and other reasons the subten- 
ant cannot as against the remainderman remove his buildings 
or other fixtures on the termination of his lease by the death 
of the life tenant without the consent of the remainderman.^^ 
But the subtenant may on the death of his immediate lessor 
remove any crop which he may have sown during the term 
This is the rule under the common law principle of emble- 
ments. And he may enter after the death of the life tenant 
for the purpose of removing the crop for a reasonable period 
after the expiration of his term.^^ As to third persons who 
are not parties to the lease, the subtenant has no title which 
will enable him to secure damages for their acts in relation 
to the land. He cannot enjoin a third person from commit- 
ting waste nor can he recover damages for waste or for tres- 
pass committed upon the property.^* - 

» Guthman v. Vallery, 51 Neb. 12 Jones v. Shefflin, 45 W. Va. 

824, 71 N. W. Rep. 734. 729, 31 S. E. Rep. 975. 

10 Penfold V. Abbott, 32 L. J. Q. i3 Carman v. Hosier, 105 la. 367, 
B. 67, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 517, 7 L. T. 75 N. W. Rep. 322; Guthman v. Val- 
384, 11 W. R. 169; Adams v. Gib- lery, 51 Neb. 824, 71 N. W. Rep. 734. 
ney, 4 M. & P. 491, 6 Bing. 656, 8 1* Johnson v. Grantham, 104 Ga. 
L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 242, 31 R. R. 558, 30 S. E. Rep. 781. In West 
514. Virginia a yearly term created by 

11 Carman v. Mosler, 105 la. 307 a lease executed by a life ten- 
75 N. W. Rep. 323. ant runs to the end of the current 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. / 

Though the lease of a life tenant for a term is on his death 
so far as the remainderman is concerned, absolntely void, it 
is competent for the subtenant by holding over with the con- 
sent of the remainderman to make a new lease. The relation- 
ship of landlord and tenant may, after the death of a life 
tenant, arise between his subtenant and the remainderman by 
the acts of the parties. Thus a lease by the widow of the de- 
ceased owner of real property, who had only a dower interest 
when she made the lease may be ratified by the heirs of the 
deceased on the death of the widow.^^ The acceptance of 
rent by a remainderman and permitting the tenant to make 
improvements, are not an affirmance of the lease which is 
absolutely void at the death of the tenant for life.^® 

So a reversioner by accepting the rent from a subtenant 
after he comes into possession, does not thereby confirm a 
covenant for a perpetual renewal so as to make such cove- 
nant binding on him.^^ Where a lease is determined by the 
expiration of the estate of the landlord who is a life tenant, 
and the lessee continues to hold luider the remainderman, pay- 
ing the same rent, the question whether a new lease has been 
made, is a question of fact. If the tenant continues to hold 
under the remainderman, and nothing passes between them 
except the pajTnent and receipt of rent, the new landlord is 
not bound by a stipulation in the old lease which is unknown 
to him, and which is not in accordance with the custom of the 
country.^^ The fact that the remainderman received rent and 
sold the premises thereafter with a mention of the lease in 
the deed, and an exception of the lease in the covenant against 
encumbrances, and notice was taken of the lease in a subse- 
quent mortgage, does not prevent the lease from expiring 
with the interest of the tenant for life.^® The remainderman 

year in whicli the life tenant Yate v. Church, Cowp. 482; Doe d. 

dies unless it is renewed by the Jolliffe v. Sybourn, 2 Esp. 667. 

remainderman accepting the sub- i" Higgins v. Rosse, 3 Bligh. 

tenant as his tenant. Holden v. 113. 

Boring, '52 W. Va. 37, 43 S. E. 86. is Oakley v. Monch, 4 H. & C. 

15 Martens v. O'Connor, 101 Wis. 251, 35 L. J. Ex. 87; L. R. 1 Ex. 
118, 76 N. W. Rep. 774. 159, 12 Jur. (N. S.) 253, 14 L. T. 

16 James d. Aubrey v. Jenkins, 20, 14 W. R. 406. 

Bull. N. P. 96; Doe d. Simpson v. is Doe d. Potter v. Archer, 1 Bos. 

Bitcker, 1 Doug. 50; Jenkins d. & P. 531. And see Jordan v. 

Waj-d, 1 H. Bl. 97, 2 R. R. 728. 



8 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

who, on the death of the life tenant assents, either expressly 
or by necessary implication to the continued occupation of 
the premises by a subtenant who has taken a lease from the 
deceased life tenant creates a new tenancy which is either at 
will or from year to year as the case may be. Before the re- 
mainderman consents the subtenant is merely his tenant at 
sufferance. After a new lease is created by the consent of 
the remainderman he and the subtenant stand towards each 
other as landlord and tenant. There are then privity of con- 
tract and privity of estate between them and their relations 
are regulated by the terms of the new lease which has been 
made.^° In leasing premises for a long term it is always ad- 
visable to protect the interests of the lessee where a life 
tenant has no power to grant leases for a term to have both the 
life tenant and the reversioner or remainderman unite in the 
execution of the lease. Of course where the remainderman 
or the reversioner unites with the life tenant in the execution 
of a lease as lessors the term does not come to an end with 
the death of the life tenant during the term. On the death 
of the life tenant the term continues and the lease at once be- 
comes the lease of the remainderman or reversioner.^^ The 
interest which the subtenant has in the term rises out of the 
successive estates of the lessors as each of them in turn be- 
comes entitled to the ownership and possession of the prop- 
erty. So too, a remainderman or reversioner may by his con- 
duct and declarations made during the life of the life tenant 
so estop himself that after the death of the life tenant he will 
be taken and regarded as the lessor of the subtenant.-^ 

§ 5. The validity of leases by tenants for years. A lessee of 
a term for years may make a lease as to a portion of his term 
which will make him a lessor. Broadly speaking if he carves 
out a term less in duration than his own term it is a lease, while 
if he parts with all his term it is an assignment. This is not 
always so, and in any case, whether a term created by a lessee 

20 Bacon's Abr. "Leases." O. 1; 21 Lake Erie Gas Co. v. Petter- 

Pennington v. Taniere, 12 Q. B. son, 184 Pa. St. 364, 39 Atl. Rep. 68. 

998; Tucker v. Morse, 1 C. & Ad. 22 Simpson v. Butcher, 1 Doug. 

365; Martin v. "Watts, 2 T. R. 83; 50. 
Crune v. Prideaux, 10 East, 187; 
Collins V. Weller, 7 T. R. 478. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 9 

shall be a sublease or an assignment, depends upon the intention 
of the parties to the instrument. The importance of determin- 
ing whether an instrument is a sublease or an assignment arises 
from the fact that, if it is a sublease, the tenant for years has 
a reversion however small and may then pursue against his les- 
see all the remedies at law or in equity tor non-payment of 
rent and other breaches of condition which a landlord may have 
against his tenant. And also as is elsewhere fully explained, it 
is sometimes very important and in fact absolutely essential to 
determine whether an instrument is an assignment or a sub- 
lease where the tenant for years is expressly forbidden to assign 
and sublet or either. If in the instrimient transferring the term 
the termor reserves rent payable to himself, and a right to re- 
enter for a breach of condition, the writing, though conveying 
the whole interest of the termor, would be regarded in law as a 
sublease, and not as an assignment. Tenants from year to year 
and tenants for a fixed and certain period less than a year have 
usually the same power to grant lease less than their term as 
have tenants for years. Such leases are always subject to be 
determined by the expiration of the longer term out of which 
they are granted. From the peculiar nature of their tenancy 
tenants at will and tenants at sufference are precluded from 
granting leases which will be of any effect or value as against 
their lessor. The tenant of a tenant at will is as to tlie original 
lessor merely a tenant at sufference. whom the owner may oust 
as a trespasser, without notice to quit, for any alienation by a 
tenant at will of his term will tenninate the estate at the elec- 
tion of his lessor. 

§ 6. Guardianship in g-eneral. Several kinds or species of 
guardians are known to, and recognized by, the law, whose 
rights, powers and duties differ according to the class to which 
they belong. They are first, guardians by nature, as the father 
or mother of the infant ; second by nurture ; third, in socage ; 
fourth, by will or deed; fifth, by appointment by a competent 
tribunal, usually a probate court; sixth, volunteer and de facto, 
as where a person enters upon an infant's land or interferes with 
his property without claim of right. In such case equity will 
consider him responsible pro tanto as a guardian. The father of 
an infant is its guardian by nature until it attains majority, and 
after his death, during the infant's minority its mother becomes 



10 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

its guardian by nature,-^ until the infant arrives at tlie legal age 
when it may choose its own guardian. The right of the mother 
to act as the guardian by nature may be defeated by the will 
of the father of the infant. "Where both the parents of an in- 
fant are deceased, the paternal grandfather is the guardian by 
nature.-* Under the common law the natural guardian has 
jurisdiction and control only of the person of the infant,-^ 
find he cannot make a valid lease of the lands of his ward 
without an order of the court permitting and directing him 
to do so.-" It has been intimated that perhaps a lease at 
will made hy him would be good, in the absence of an express 
disaffirmance thereof by tlie infant when he attained his major- 
ity.^^ And where the mother, being only guardian by nature of 
several infants, enters into a lease for a long term of years 
which is joined in by her eldest child, he being then nineteen 
years of age, and the lessee builds upon the land and pays the- 
rent for many years to the infants after they had attained their 
majority; and where upon all the circumstances the execution 
of the lease had been very beneficial to the infants themselves, 
a court of equity, on the application of the lessee, will not hesi- 
tate to establish and coniirm the lease upon the ground that the 
infants had so acted that they weie estopped to disaffirm it.^^ 

zsCapal's Heirs v. McMillan, 8 (N. Y.) 631, 30 Am. Dec. 77; Rex 

Port. (Ala.) 197; Fields v. Law, v. Inhabitants, 5 Mod. 221; Rex 

2 Root (Conn.) 320; Jarrett v. v. Inhabitants, 3 B. & Ad. 714. 
State, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 27. The 26 Indian Land & Trust Co., 

mother is the natural guardian of (Jnd. Terr. 1904), 79 S. W. Rep. 

an illegitimate child and has a 134; May v. Calder, 2 Mass. 55; 

right to its control and custody. Anderson v. Darby, 1 Nott & Mc- 

Copeland v. State, 60 Ind. 394; Cord (S. C.) 369; Ross v. Cobb, 9 

Baker v. Winfrey, 15 B. Mon. Yerger (Tenn.) 363. In Texas a 

(Ky.) 504; Friesner v. Symonds, lease by a natural guardian is 

46 N. J. Eq. 521, 20 Atl. Rep. 257. good but a lease of lands by the 

24 In re Benton, 92 Iowa, 262; natural guardian of an infant ex 

60 N. W. Rep. 614. pires upon the guardian's death 

20 Nelson v. Goree's Adm'r, 34 when he is not the guardian of 

Ala. 565; Capal's Heirs v. McMil- the infant's estate. MaxAA-ell v. 

Ian, 8 Port. (Ala.) 197; Kendall v. Habon, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 565, 55 

Miller, 9 Cal. 591; Kline v. Beebc, S. W. Rep. 1124; Hearne v. Lewis. 

6 Conn. 494; Indian Land & Trust 78 Tex. 276. 14 S. W. Rep. 572; 

Co. (Ind. Ter. 1904). 79 S. W. Porter v. Sweeney, 61 Tex. 213. 
Rep. 134; Hyde v. Stone, 7 Wend. 27 pigot v. Garnish, Cro. Eliz 

(N. Y.) 354. 22 Am. Dec. 532; C78, 734. 
Fonda v. Van Home, 15 Wend. 28 Smith v. Low, 1 Atk. 489 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 11 

§ 7. The liability of an intruder as a guardian. A stranger, 
who as a wrongdoer and without claim of right, intrudes upon 
the lands of an infant or interferes with his property and re- 
ceives the rents and profits thereof may be treated by the infant 
as his guardian, by estoppel ; and he will be held accountable, in 
equity, for the rent of the lands which he has received, or which 
he might have received by the exercise of ordinary diligence in 
renting them.^® The infant may, after he has attained his ma- 
jority, maintain a bill in equity for the purpose of an account- 
ing for the rents, after he has recovered the land in ejectment. 
If the intruder continues in possession after the infant has be- 
come of ag-e, equity will include this time in the accounting.^" 

§ 8. The power of a guardian in socage. Guardianship in 
socage is a consequence and outcome of the descent of land 
held in socage tenure to an infant, and the guardianship de- 
volves, by the common law, upon the next of kin to whom the 
inheritance cannot descend.'^ This species of guardianship con- 
fers more than the control and custody of the person. The guar- 
dian in socage has absolute control of the lands until the heir 
attains the age of fourteen, and is entitled to the profits for the 
benefit of the heir. At the age of fourteen the infant may choose 
his own guardian, but if he fails to do so, the authority of the 
guardian in socage continues.^- A guardian by socage has ab- 
solutely no power or control over the personal property of the 
ward,^^ but he may lease the real property of the ward in his 
own name, and this lease will bind the ward to the same extent 
as though made in the name of the latter.^* In modern times 

29 Davis V. Harkness, 6 111. 173, 33 Foley v. Mutual Life In. Co., 
41 Am. Dec. 184. 138 N. Y. 333, 34 N. E. Rep. 211; 

30 Drury v. Connor, 1 Har. & G. 34 Am. St. 456, 20 L. R. A. 620 
(Md.) 220. See, also, Goodhue v. (affirming 64 Hun, 63, 18 N. Y. 
Barnwell, 1 Rice Ch. (S. C.) 198. Supp. 615). 

312 Black. Comm. 88; Co. Litt. 3* Byrne v. Van Hoesen, 5 

87b. Johns, (N. Y.) 66; Thacker v. 

32 Byrne v. Van Hoesen, 5 Henderson, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 271; 

Johns. (N. Y.) 66; Jackson v. De Emerson v. Spicer, 55 Barb. (N. 

Walts, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 157; Syl- Y.) 528; 38 How. Prac. 114 (af- 

vester V. Ralston, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) firmed in 46 N. Y. 594); Galla- 

S86; Rex v. Oakley, 10 East, 494; gher v. David Stevenson Brewing 

Rex V. Sherrington, 3 B. & Ad. Co., 13 Misc. Rep. 40, 34 N. Y. 

714; Rex v. Manners, 3 Ad. & El. Supp. 94, 25 Civ. Proc. Rep. IOC: 

597. Wade v. Baker, 1 Lord Raym. 130; 



12 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

at least as will be subsequently explained, the father has full 
power to appoint a guardian by his will whose authority on the 
death of the father will supersede that of the guardian in soc- 
age. The father of an infant cannot, however, be his guardian 
by socage as such guardian must be a person M'ho cannot in- 
herit from the ward.^^ The authority of a guardian by socage 
to lease, and this is also true of all species of guardians, continues 
onlj' daring the minority of the ward. And, moreover, if the 
ward of a guardian by socage on attaining the age of four- 
teen years elect to enter upon his lands he may repudiate the 
lease so far as it has still to run.^® The death of the ward ter- 
minates the lease, and so, also, does tlie death or removal of the 
guardian by socage. ^^ 

§ 9. The power of testamentary guardians. In England by 
the statute 12 Car. 2, c 24, all tenures of land with a few ex- 
ceptions were converted into tenures in socage, and, by the 
same statute, guardianship in chivalry with all its inconveniences 
and opportunities for injustice was abolished. It was also pro- 
vided that the father of any minor, being under the age of 
twenty-one years and not married at the time of his death, 
might by a deed or will executed in the presence of at least two 
witnesses, appoint a guardian of such minor who would have 
the custody and tuition of the minor until he or she should have 
attained the age of twenty-one. By the same statute the guard- 
ian thus appointed was authorized to assume the complete cus- 
tody and control of all the ward's property, both real and per- 
sonal; and to manage the same for the use and benefit of the 
ward until he should have attained his majority, when the 
guardian must account to him for the property as well as for 
the rents and proceeds of the same. The testamentary guardian 
thus appointed had in law the same right to begin actions and 
take other proceedings for the infant as the guardian in soc- 
age might do. This statute also enabled the father, who could 

Rex V. Oakley, 10 East, 491; Hill Bedell v. Constable, Vaughn, 182; 

V. Saunders, 4 B. & C. 536. Wade v. Baker. 1 Lord Raym. 

86 Graham v. Houghtaling, 30 N. 130; Rex v. Sutton, 3 Ad. & El. 

J. L. 552. Contra by statute in 597. 

New York, Holmes v. Seeley, 17 't Balder v. Blackborn, Browl. 

Wend. (N. Y.) 71. 79. 

30 Osborn. v. Garden, Plowd. 293; 



PAKTIES TO THE LEASE. 13 

not be himself the guardian in socage to supersede such guard- 
ian by appointing a guardian for his child by an instrument 
properly executed. In England it has always been held that a 
guardian appointed by deed or will possesses the same power 
and authority as a guardian in socage, and that he may lease 
the lands of his ward, unless expressly restrained from doing 
so by the instrument by which he was appointed.^* 

§ 10. The power to lease of a gnardian appointed by a court. 
A guardian appointed by a court has usually under most of the 
modern statutes, the power to lease, though it may not be ex- 
pressly conferred upon him by the statute authorizing the court 
to appoint him.^^ The possession of this power to lease is in 
most cases assumed to exist and indeed if not expressly conferred 
must be implied from the duty which in all the states is incum- 
bent upon the guardian to secure the greatest possible profit or 
income from the real property of his w^ard and from his liability 
for rent in case he fails to use due diligence in doing so. The 
guardian, in leasing, may reserve the rents either to the ward 
or to himself and in either case the pa\Tuent of the rent to the 
guardian and his receipt wdll release the lessee and be binding 
on the ward.*" So also, a guardian has the power to enter into 
an agreement with another person permitting the latter to 
raise a crop on the land of the ward, and to keep two thirds of 
it, rendering to the infant the balance as rent.*^ In the ab- 
sence of a permissory statute the guardian has no power to sell 
land of the ward without recourse to a court of competent juris- 
diction and obtaining its permission. Hence a guardian cannot 
lease land for the purpose of developing it by drilling oil wells 
as the oil, being a part of the land itself is also a part of the 
corpus of the estate of the ward over which the guardian has 
no control.*^ 

88 Bedell v. Constable, Vaughn, (Md.) 323; Richardson v. Richard- 

179; Parry v. Hodgson, 2 Wils. son, 49 Mo. 29; Tracker v. Hender- 

129; Shaw v. Shaw, Vern. & son, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 271. 

Scriv. 606. The rule would doubt- <« Ross v. Gill, 1 Wash. (Va.) 

less be the same in this country. 7. 

Thacker v. Henderson, 63 Barb. 4i Weldon v. Lytle, 53 Mich. 1, 

(N. Y.) 271. 18 N. W. Rep. 533. 

39 Huff V. Walker, 1 Ind. 193; 42 stoughton's Appeal, 88 Pa. 

Magruder v. Peter, 4 Gill & J. St. 198. 



14 LAW OF LANDLORD .\JS^D TENANT. 

§ 11. When the permission of the court to the making of the 
lease is required. In all cases it is advisable, and in most cases 
absolutely necessary, to obtain the approval of a court of com- 
petent jurisdiction to the action of the guardian before he can 
execute a lease of the laud of his ward.*^ If a statute provides 
that the guardian may act under the direction of the court,'** or 
if it clearly requires that he shall apply to the court to sanction 
his actions in the management of the estate of the ward,'*^ a 
lease executed without the sanction and approval of the court 
may be rescinded by the lessee or by the ward.*® So, too, in 
England, a guardian appointed by the chancellor being, as it 
were, in the position of a receiver, cannot execute a valid lease 
without the prior permission of the court of chancery.*^ A 
court of equity on an application by a guardian for leave to 
execute a lease of land belonging to infants, will order the exe- 
cution if the best interests of the infant owners seem to re- 
quire it. Thus, permission was given to lease property for a 
term of ninety-nine years, where the lessee was to improve the 
property at his own expense, with a provision for a readjust- 
ment of the rent every twenty years, where it appeared that an 
increase in the rent would result only if betterments were made 
upon the land. These improvements would of course have to be 
made by the owners, if the lease were not executed, and the cir- 
cumstances that some of the infant owners were females, and that 
this arrangement would give them a fixed income whereas before 
this the land had been unproductive call loudly to a court of 
equity to give the relief demanded.*^ 

. § 12. Limitations upon the power of a guardian to lease. 
The power of the guardian to lease will not enable him to make 
a valid lease of the land of his ward for a longer period than 

43 Field V. Harrick, 5 111. App. was construed, provided that con- 
54 (affirmed in 101 111. 110). servators "shall have the charge 

44 Bates V. Dunham, 58 Iowa, of" and "shall manage" the es- 
308 12 N. W. Rep. 309. tates of their wards and the court 

« Huff V. Walker, 1 Ind. 193. held that they might lease the 

4c Haskell v. Sutton, 53 W. Va. real property of their wards with- 

206, 216, 44 S. E. Rep. 553; Field out the approval of the court. 

V. Ilerrick, 5 111. App. 54 (affirmed t^ Rex v. Sutton, 3 Ad. & El. 597. 

in 101 111. 110). Contra, in Palmer '^ Ricardi v. Gaboury, 115 Teun. 

V. Chesehoro, 55 Conn. 114, 10 Atl. 4S4, 89 S. W. Rep. 98. 

Rep. 508, where the statute, which 



P.SJBTIES TO THE LE.VSE. 



15 



the majority of the ward. But a lease by a guardian for a term 
extending beyond the term of his guardianship is not void on 
the ward becoming of age, but is voidable only. Such lease may 
therefore be confirmed by the ward by parol, or by any act 
equivalent to an affirmance, such as the receipt of rent by the 
ward after he is of age." So, a lease by a guardian of an infant 
under the age of fourteen, for a term of years extending beyond 
the arrival of the infant at that age may be avoided by another 
^ardian chosen by the infant when he attains that age.^*» 

§ 13. The duty of the gn^ardian to lease. A guardian of an 
infant owning real property has the duty incumbent upon him 
to lease the same for the best rent that can be procured and if 
he shall fail to do so he is liable personally for the rent which he 
might have obtained.^^ In some states it is provided by statute 
that the guardian cannot himself occupy the lands of his ward, 
but that he must lease them under the direction of the court. ''^ 
But the rule is otherwise at common law.^^ A guardian who is 
a cotenant of land with his ward is liable to him for rent, 



*o Field V. Heriick, 108 111. 110 
114; Van Doren v. Everitt, 5 N. J. 
Law, 528; Ross v. Gill, 4 Call. 
(Va.) 250; Bacon v. Taylor. Kir- 
by (Conn.) 398; Jackson v. 
O'Rorke (Neb. 1904), 98 N. W. 
Rep. 1068; Field v. Schieffelin, 7 
Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 150; Putnam v. 
Ritchie, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 390; 
Smith V. Low, 1 Atk. 489; Overbach 
V. Heermance. Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 
337; Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige Ch. 
(N. Y.) 107. 

50 Snook V. Sutton, 10 N. J. 
Law, 133. 

51 Clark V. Burnside, 15 111. 62; 
Griffin v. Collins (Ga. 1908), 53 S. 
E. Rep. 1004; Mudd's Ex'rs v. 
Reed, 11 Ky. Law Rep. 998; 
Drury v. Connor, 1 Har. & G. 
(Md.) 220; Shurtleff v. Rile, 140 
Mass. 213. 4 N. E. Rep. 407; Smith 
V. Gummere, 39 N. J. Eq. 17; In 
re Kopp, 2 N. Y. Supn. 495, 15 Civ. 
Pro. Rep. 282; In re Laney's Es- 



tate, 14 Pa. Co. St. Rep. 4, 2 Pa. 
Dist. Rep. 800; Hughes' Appeal, 
53 Pa. St. 500; Harvin v. Riggs, 
1 Rich. Eq. Cases (S. C.) 287; Har- 
ley V. Deewitt, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 
367; Peale's Adm'r v. Thurman, 
77 Va. 753. 

52 Muller V. Brumer, 69 111. 108. 

53 In Louisana a father and the 
natural tutor or guardian of his 
minor child who has for several 
years cultivated land which was 
the common property of himself 
and the minor child, will be 
charged with the yearly rent of a 
one undivided half which was 
owned by the child, together with 
legal interest thereon. The infant 
cannot be charged with the losses 
of the cultivation as the relation- 
ship between the father and child 
in the land is that of landlord and 
tenant and it cannot be said that 
they cultivated it jointly. Succes- 
sion of Trosclair, 34 La. Ann. 326. 



16 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

thoiigli he may not have used more than his own portion of 
the land, as it is his duty as guardian to see to it that the land 
of his ward is made productive.^* He is only the agent or 
bailiff of the ward, and if he occupy the land of the ward, he 
becomes thereby the tenant of his ward and he is responsible for 
the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the land, less 
the reasonable value of the improvements, if any, made by him.^^ 
If the guardian does not himself occupy the ward's land he is 
not liable for an error in judgment in leasing it for a lower rent 
than could have been obtained by further inquiry where he has 
acted in manifest good faith and has obtained the approval of 
the court/'^ 

§ 14. The guardian's duty to collect rents. The guardian 
may sue in his own, name and usually without joining the ward 
as a party, for rent which accrues under a lease made by him. 
He must employ due diligence in collecting the rents promptly 
as they accrue. If it appears that he did not use proper efforts 
to collect the rent, the ward can hold him liable for the reason- 
able rental value of the land.^^ AVhere a guardian allows the 
administrator of the estate in which his Avard has an interest, to 
take charge of the real property of his ward, he is liable for the 
rents up to the time the land was sold to pay decedent's debts.^® 

§ 15. Formal requisites of the lease. The lease of a guardian 
is valid and will bind the ward though it be made in the name of 
the guardian individually and delivered as his individual deed.^* 
It is always advisable that a lease of a guardian shall be in 
writing but this is by no means indispensable where the statute 
of frauds does not apply; though, if by statute, a guardian's 
lease must be in writing, an oral lease is absolutely void."" A 

54 Harvey v. Dewitt, 2 Hill Eq. r,8 Coggins v. Fly the. 113 N. C. 

(S. Car.) 367. 102, 18 S. E. Rep. 96, and to the 

05 Taylor v Calvert, 138 Ind. 67, same effect Appeal of Wills, 22 

37 N. E. Rep. 531; In re Kopp, Pa. St. 325. 

2 N. Y. Supp. 495, 15 Civ. Pro. Rep. so whyler v. Van Tiger (Cal. 

282; see, also, Royston v. Royston, 1887), 14 Pac. Rep. 846; Field v. 

29 Ga. 82, as to the guardian's lia- Schiefflin, 7 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 

bility for the improved rent. 150, 11 Am. Dec. 441. 

scMcElheny v. Musick, 63 111. eo Sawyers v. Zachery, 1 Head 

328. (Tenn.) 21. A guardian's stipula- 

67 Mudd's Ex'rs v. Reed, 11 Ky. tion in his lease to pay for im- 

Law Rep. 998. provenients on the land does not 



PAETIES TO THE LEASE. 17 

person who in giving a 1( ase, describes himself as guardian of 
another will be held personally liable thereon unless something 
. appears in the contract clearly showing a contrary intent even 
though the execution of the lease may have been approved by 
the court.*^^ 

§ 16. Covenants by ^ardians. A guardian cannot covenant 
so as to bind the property of his ward. Hence if, in executing a 
lease, a guardian, or other person standing in the position of a 
trustee, enter into general covenants such as a covenant for 
quiet enjoyment, he fails to bind the beneficiary or the estate 
which he represents. The guardian is, however, bound person- 
ally by such covenants and a.s to him they stand upon the same 
footing as though the lease had been made by the guardian or 
other q^iasi trustee in his individual right.®^ A covenant in a 
lease made by a guardian to renew it at the end of the term, is 
not binding where by statute the consent of the court is required 
to a lease executed by a guardian.®^ 

§ 17. An infant's liability for rent. The general rule of 
law is that an infant can bind himself or his estate for neces- 
saries. This is so, however, only where he is living apart from 
his father, and where he is laboring, receiving the profits of his 
own labor and appropriating them to his own use. In all such 
cases as the parent whose duty it is to support the infant, is not 
receiving any of tlie fruits of the infant's industry, the latter 
will be liable either on his express promise, or the law will imply 
a promise on the part of the infant to pay for necessaries which 
have been furnished him.^* In applying the rule the principal 
difficult}' is to determine what, in the particular case, are neces- 
saries. Though we are without any direct adjudication upon 
this question in its relation to the occupancy of real property 
by an infant, inasmuch as shelter from the extremes of tempera- 
ture, and protection from the vicissitudes of the weather, are 

bind the ward. Barrett v. Cocks, Wolfe, 50 Iowa, 286; Sumner v. 

12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 566. Williams, 8 Mass. 163; Whitney 

61 Nichols V. Sargent, 125 111. v. Dewey, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 428. 

209. 17 N. E. Rep. 475, 8 Am. St. 63 Globe Soap Co. v. Louisville 

Rep. 378. & N. Ry., 27 Ohio C. C. 759. 

«2 Craddock v. Stewart, 6 Ala. e* Green v. Wilding, 59 Iowa, 

77; Chestnut v. Tyson 105 Ala. 679, 13 N. W. Rep. 764, 44 Am. 

149, 16 So. Rep. 723; Bloom v. Rep. 696. 
2 



18 LAW OF LANDLORD ^VND TENANT. 

prime necessities of hiunan existence without which human life 
is neither safe nor tolerable, it would seem that the infant would 
be liable for the rent of premises which he had occupied as a 
dwelling, whether upon an express contract to pay rent for them 
or for their reasonable value. The rule is that what are neces- 
saries for which an infant would be liable is a question for the 
jury depending on all the circumstances of the case.®^ The prin- 
cipal facts by which they ought to be guided in their inquiry are 
whether the articles were suitable to the infant's estate and con- 
dition and whether he was without the means of supply.®' 
Thus under this rule the jury may consider, in determining 
the liability of the infant for rent, the size, character and loca- 
tion of the premises in question in comparison with his parent's 
abode, and his own financial condition and usual manner of 
living, the size of his family if he have a family, and whether 
or not his parent or guardian is willing and of means sufficient 
to provide a dwelling place for him. So, too, inasmuch as the 
husband, though an infant, is liable for necessaries furnished 
his wife, he would doubtless be liable for rent or for the use 
and occupation of premises occupied by her as a dwelling^ 
under such circumstances as would render him liable if he were 
an adult. ''^ But on the other hand, inasmuch as articles pur- 
chased by an infant to be used in or to enable him to carry on 
business are not in law necessaries, he would not be liable for 
the rent or for the use and occupation of premises occupied by 
him solely for business purposes.®* 

85 Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day essaries belongs to the court or 

(Conn.) 37, 3 Am. Dec. 255; to the jury. Many cases hold that 

Swift V. Bennett, 10 Gush. (Mass.) whether articles of a certain class 

43G. or kind are such as infants would 

06 Davis V. Caldwell, 12 Cush. be liable for, or whether certain 

(Mass.) 512. kinds of expenditures are neces- 

67 As to the liability of an in- saries, must be determined by the 
fant for his wife's necessaries see court; but whether a particular 
Cantine v. Phillips' Administra- class is suitable to the condition 
tor, 5 Har. (Del.) 428; Price v. and estate of the infant is for the 
Sanders, 60 Ind. 310; Cole v. See- jury. McKanna v. Merry, 61 111. 
ley, 25 Vt. 220. 177; Garr v. Haskett, 86 Ind. 373; 

68 The authorities are not alto- Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 
gether harmonious upon the ques- (Mass.) 40; Henderson v. Fox, 
tion whether the jurisdiction to 5 Ind. 489. 

determine what articles are nee- 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 19 

§ 18. The ratification of a lease made by an infant. Accord- 
ing to the general rules relating to the making of contracts by 
infants, a lease executed by an infant is not void but is voidable 
at the election of the infant on his becoming of age. The lessee 
of the infant cannot set up the infancy of his lessor to invalidate 
the lease or to exempt him from the payment of rent.*^^ The in- 
fant has a reasonable time after his attaining his majority, in 
Avhich he may elect whether to ratify or to repudiate his lease.'" 
The ratification cannot be implied. A direct promise to pay 
rent or an express agreement to ratify the lease is essential. 
There must be an express confirmation or a new promise, volun- 
tarily and deliberately made, with a knowledge that there is no 
existing legal liability on the lease.^^ Subject to these limita- 
tions and qualifications, an infant who, on reaching his majority, 
retains land leased to him during his infancy ratifies the lease."- 
It is not necessary in order to effect a disaffinnance by an infant 
lessee that he shall place the lessor in statu quo. The infant is 
not bound to pay or to tender back the benefit or advantage 
which he has received under the lease.^^ This general rule has 
not been repealed by a statute which provides that the marriage 
of any female infant to an adult shall be a discharge of her 
guardian and that the guardian shall thereupon render his ac- 
count to the ward. The statute does not release the married 
woman from the disability of infancy and she may still disaffirm 
her lease,'* when she subsequently attains her majority. 

§ 19. The validity of a lease at will made by a feme sole. A 
feme sole may at the common law execute a valid lease of her 
lands. The marriage of a feme sole does not of itself determine 
a lease at will made by her as lessor before her marriage, though 
her husband has the right thereafter to put an end to it. The 
reason of this is the consideration which the common law has 
for the rights of the husband for it might be that the lease at 

60 Field V Herrick, 108 111. 110, 72 Baxter v. Bush, 29 Vt. 465; 

114; Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. Robson v. Flight, 4 De G. J. & S. 

204,' 209. €08. 34 L. J. Ch. 226, 11 Jur. N. S. 

70 Green v. Wilding, 59 Iowa, 147, 11 L. T. 725. 13 W. R. 393. 
679, 13 N. W. Rep. 761, 44 Am. t3 Shipley v. Smith, 162 Ind. 526, 
Rep. 696. 72 N. E. Rep. 803, 804. 

71 Turner v. Gaither, 83 N. C '* Shipley v. Smith. 162 Ind. 526, 
357, 35 Am. Rep. 574. 72 N. E. Rep. 803, 804. 



20 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TEiNANT. 

will would be for the benefit of the husband when he assumed 
the ownership of the chattels of the wife. Hence the lease at 
will of the woman did not determine except by some express 
declaration or act on the part of the husband evincing his in- 
tention that it should come to an end,'^ So also, where a feme 
sole as lessee takes a lease at will, her subsequent marriage is 
not a determination of the will for though, by the marriage, she 
at the common law came under the will of her husband the law 
required some express act on his part before the lease at will 
was determined."^ 

§ 20. The effect of her marriage upon a lease made by a 
feme sole. By the common law as we have seen, the husband 
upon the marriage became entitled absolutely to all the personal 
property of the wife in possession, as well as to the rents and 
profits of the real estate owned by her. If she were possessed 
as lessee of a term of years it became his property during her 
life. He could sell, forfeit, surrender or otherwise dispose of 
the term during coverture without her consent,^^ and, if he sur- 
vived the wife the lease became to all intents and purposes his 
own by marital right,'^* without the necessity of his taking out 
administration upon his wife's estate.'^ During the life of the 
wife, the interest of the husband in a lease for years in which 
she was lessee was liable under an execution against him.^° If, 
however, the husband made no disposition of the lease during 
his life, on his death it went absolutely to his wife if she sur- 
vived him ; *^ nor could he dispose of the lease by his will because 
the jus disponendi exists and can operate only during the life 
of the husband.*^ A woman being possessed as lessee of a term 

75 Henstead's Case, 5 Coke, 10; ''^ Doe d. Roberts v. Polgrean, 1 

Forse & Hembling's Case, 4 Coke, H. Black. 535; In re Bellamy, El- 

64a; Co. Lltt. 55b. tici" v. Pearson, 53 L. J. Ch. 174, 

7« Blunden v. Baugh. Cro. Car. 25 Ch. D. 620, 49 L. T. 708, 32 W. 

304; Henstead's Case, 5 Coke, 10; ^- 358. 

Co Litt 55. ^° Bacon, Abr. "Baron & Fem- 

" Meriwether v. Booker, 5 Litt. "le" C; Co. Litt. 46, 351. 
(Ky.) 256. SI Co. Litt. 351; Druce v. Benni- 
es 2 Black. Comm. 432, 433; son, 6 Ves. 394; Moody v. Math- 
Yonge V. Radford, Hob. 3; Ells- ews, 7 Ves. 183; Wildman v. Wild- 
worth V. Hines, 5 Wis. 613; Dan- man, 9 Ves. Jr. 177, 7 R. R. 153. 
iels V. Richardson, 22 Pick (Mass.) '^2 Bracebridge v. Cook, Plowd. 
565_ 418; Co. Litt. 300a, b; 351b; Cro. 

Car. 344. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 21 

for years on marrying- an alien the marriage is not a gift in law 
of her interest in the term.*' If a woman who is a lessee for 
years marries, the act of the husband thereafter in taking a 
new lease for both their lives is in law a surrender of the lease 
and binding on the wife."* 

§ 21. The invalidity of a lease made by feme covert at the 
common law. A lease executed by a feme covert of her own 
lauds during coverture is by the common law, absolutely void, 
from the execution, and cannot be enforced.^'' In equity how- 
ever the rule is different for in that jurisdiction a married wo- 
man upon whom a power to lease lands has been expressly con- 
fered by will or deed may execute such power without the con- 
currence of the husband provided, however, that from the instru- 
ment conferring the power to lease it is clear that the donor of 
the power intended to exclude the disability of coverture **^ But 
at the common law the husband is entitled to the receipt and 
use of the rents and profits of the wife's lands and she cannot 
by any action on her part which will be binding upon him, di- 
vest him of them.^^ And it has also been held that in equity 
the husband acquirea at once upon his entering into an en- 
gagement to marry an inchoate right to the rents. A con- 
tract by the woman with whom he has contracted to marrj- exe- 
cuted between the engagement and the marriage by which, with- 
out his consent and knowledge she parts with her real property 
is in equity a fraud upon his rights. The chancellor will set 
such a contract aside although it would be binding at common 
law.^* For it is well settled in equity that the concealment from 
the husband of the execution of a deed conveying her property 

83 Theobalds v. Duffoy, 9 Mod. Lord St. John v. Lady St. John, 

102, 104, and the wife may sue and 11 Ves. Jr. 526, 531; 1 Black, 

be sued thereon as a feme sole not- Comm. 444. 

withstanding her marriage to the so Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk. 

alien. 695. 

S4 2 Roll. Abr. 495. «' Den v. Quimby, 3 N. J. Law. 

85 Snyder v. Webb, 3 Cal. 83; 985; Baynton v. Finnall, 12 :\Ii?s. 

Keller V. Klopfer, 3 Colo. 132; Ela 193; Clarke's Appeal, V9 Pa. St. 

V. Card, 2 N. H. 175; Murray v. 376. 

Emmons, 19 N. H. 483; De Wolf v. ss Logan v. Simmons, 3 Ired. Eq, 

IMartin, 12 R. I. 533; see, also, (N. C.) 487, 494; McAfee v. Fer- 

IManby v. Scott, 1 Mod. 124, 127; guson. 9 B. Mon. Ky. 475; Crane 

Jennings v. Bragg, Cro. Eliz. 447; v. Morris, 6 Peters (U S.) 598. 



22 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

prior to her marriage by which his rights will be defeated is 
presumptive fraud, and will be sufScient to convince any equity 
on his application.^^ The marriage of a single woman who is a 
lessee under a lease executed prior to her marriage renders her 
husband liable to all the covenants of her lease.^^ He is thereby 
responsible for all the rent in arrears at the date of the mar- 
riage and for all the rent which may subsequently become due 
during the coverture. He will be liable for the rent even after 
the death of the wife.°^ And during the coverture the husband 
and wife may be sued jointly upon any of the covenants of the 
lease.®^ 

§ 22. The husband's power at common law to lease lands 
of the wife. The common law from the date of the marriage 
regarded husband and wife as but one person, and therefore 
recognizes but one will between them which is placed in the hus- 
band as the better able to provide for and to govern the family. 
A distinction however is made by the common law as to the 
power and control which the husband shall have over the wife's 
estate between real and personal property, for he has ab- 
solute control of the personal property so that no act of hers 
has any force to affect his disposition or control of it.^^ At the 
common law the husband acquires by the marriage the absolute 
right to receive the rents and profits of lands owned by the wife. 
This right continues during the coverture as to all lands owned 
by the wife which are not settled to her separate use by an in- 
strument Avhich will be recognized and enforced in a court of 
equity.^* Hence from this rule it follows that, at the common 
law, the husband may, during the coverture, execute leases of 

89 Ball V. Montgomery, 2 Ves. land v. Myall, 14 Bush. (Ky.) 474; 

Jr. 194; McAfee v. Ferguson, 9 B. Darnall v. Hill, 12 Gill & J. (Md.) 

Mon. Ky. 475, 478. lo9; Clapp v. Stoughton, 10 Pick. 

00 Anon. 6 Mod. 239. (Mass.) 463, 470; Baynton v. Fin 

81 Roll's Abr. "Baron and Feme" nail, 12 Miss. 193; Burleigh v. 

(G) pi. 1; Anon. G Mod. 239. Coffin, 22 N. H. 118, 53 Am. Dec. 

i'2 Anon. 6 Mod. 239. 236; Lucas v. Rickerich, 1 Lea. 

03 10 Co. 42; 2 Inst. 510; Ba- (Tenn.) 726, 728; Brasfield v. 

con's Al)r. "Baron and Feme" C. Brasfield, 12 Pickle (Tenn.) 580, 

i'4 Weens V. Bryan, 21 Ala. 302; 583, 36 S. W. Rep. 384; Shaw v. 

307; Bishop v. Blair, 36 Ala. 302; Partridge, 17 Vt. 626; Moore's Ex. 

Chancey V. Strong, 2 Root (Conn.) v. Ferguson, 2 Munf. (Va.) 421; 

369; Hayt v. Parks, 39 Conn. 357; DoKl's Trustee v. Geiger's Adm'r, 

Davis V. Watts, 90 In-l. 372; Moio- 2 Gratt. (Va.) 98. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 23 

the lands of his wife, not settled upon her as her separate prop- 
erty and may enforce all his rights as lessor under such leases 
in an action brought in his name alone without joining that of 
his wife.''^ He may, however, by an appropriate instrument in 
writing relinquish to the wife the rents and profits to which he 
is entitled,"^ in which case they are absolutely free from his con- 
trol and the wife may then collect the rents from the lessee and 
give receipts for the same.^'^ This he may also do by his course 
of action as when, without remonstrance on his part, he permits 
his wife to collect the rents of her land and apply them to her 
own use.®® The rents accruing during the life of the wife be- 
long to the husband and if a tenant not having notice of the 
marriage pay rent to the wife during coverture, the husband may 
collect it again. On his death they do not belong to the wife 
but are assets in the hancU of the personal representative of 
the husband and may be collected by him.®* On the other hand 
the husband's personal representative cannot charge the wife 
for services rendered by the husband in caring for the land of 
the wife during the coverture or for money expended by the 
husband for improvements made upon them during that period.^ 
It is perhaps needless to say that the rules of the common law 
just stated have been largely and perhaps universally modified 
and abrogated by modern statutory legislation in the United 
States. But a statute forbidding the sale of the wife's property 
to pay the husband's debts and forbidding the husband to sell 
the wife's lands wdthout her consent does not deprive the hus- 
band of his right to the rents and profits of her land.^ The rule 
at common law just stated is applicable to a dower interest held 
bj' the wife in the land owned by her former husband.^ Upon 
the death of the husband the wife at common law regains the 
rights which she had as a feme sole over all her lands remaining 

95 Shaw V. Partridge. 17 Vt. on Shaw v. Partridge, 17 Vt. 626, 
626, 631; Clapp v. Stoughton, 10 631. 

Pick. Mass. 470. i Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 N H. 118, 

96 See Cheney v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 58 Am. Dec. 236. 

515, 524. 2 Brasfleld v. Brasfield, 12 Pickle 

97Hayt V. Parks, 39 Conn. 357, (Tenn.) 580, 583, 36 S. W. Rep. 

3C1. 384. 

98 Leacester v. Biggs, 1 Taunt. ^ Shaw v. Partiidge, 17 Vt. 62C, 

367; Cheney v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 515, 631. 

524. 



24 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

unsold at his death,* and the same result follows where the wife 
obtains a divorce a vinculo from the husband.^ 

§ 23. The right of a maiTied woman to lease under the mod- 
ern statutes. The rules of the common law denying a married 
woman the powder to lease her lands during coverture have 
been greatly modified and in most cases entirely abrogated in 
the United States. Under modern statutes she has in general 
the same power to take, enjoy and dispose of her property, real 
or personal, with its rents, issues and profits as though she were 
a single woman. Hence she may lease her real property and as- 
sign or sublet any terms for years, which she may own substan- 
tially to the same extent as though she were unmarried." In many 
of the states under the local statutory regulations which must 
in each case be consulted the consent of the husband or his 
joinder in the lease is still required.'^ In other jurisdictions 
she may lease without the concurrence of her husband.* 
So too. under some statutes she may lease her lands to 
her husband.^ A married woman may without the consent or 
participation of her husband make a lease of her land for a 
period not to exceed three years, such lease not being a convey- 
ance of or incumbrance upon her land within the meaning of a 
statute which denies her the power to convey or incumber except 
by deed in which her husband shall join.''' 

§ 24. The effect of the death of the husband or wife upon a 
lease made by the wife. At the common law the power of the 
husband to execute a lease of the lands of the wife without her 
consent and which shall be bindinir on her during the coverture 
is undoubted. The question arises, Has the husband the power 

4 Daniels v. Richardson. 22 sota Gen. Stat. 1858, C. 61, § 108; 

Pick. (Mass.) 565. Maryland Gen. Laws, C. 45, §§ 1- 

G Doe V. Brown, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 3; Rhode Island Gen. Stat. 1857, 

309. C. 136, §§ 4-8; Vermont R. S. C. 

sKnapp V. Smith, 27 N. Y. 277; 65, § 2, C. 71, § 1. 
Draper v. Stouvenal, 35 N. Y. 512, s Prevost v. Lawrence, 51 N. Y. 

7 Reese v. Cochran, 10 Tnd. 195; 219. 
Den V. Lawahee, 4 Zab. N. J. 613; o Albin v. Lord, 39 N. H. 196; 

Miller v. Hlne, 13 Ohio, 565; San- state v. Hayes, 59 N. H. 450; 

ford v. Johnson, 24 Minn. 172; Bank of America v. Banks, 101 

Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 142; u. S. 240. 

Thorndell v. Morrison, 25 Pa. St. lo Pearcy v. Henley, 82 Ind. 129; 

326; Peck v. Ward, 18 Pa. St. 506. Shipley v. Smith. 162 Ind. 526, 

The following statutes amonj; 70 X. E. Rep. 803, 804. 
others may be consulted: Minne- 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 25 

to lease the wife's land for a terra which will extend boyond his 
own life? In other words would a lease made by the husband 
of the lands of the wife terminate with his death? It is settled 
that upon the death of the husband before the wife a lease made 
by him does not become ipso facto void but the M'ife has the 
right to reject or accept it. She may repudiate it by a re-entry 
on the land or she may affirm it by accepting the rent.^^ For 
if she accepts rent after the death of her husband she will be re- 
garded as having affirmed the lease. It was also held in an early 
case that where rent was reserved under the lease of the wife's 
land made by the husband: and, after the entn- of the less;^e. 
the husband died before the rent became due, his widow by mar- 
rjang again became estopped from rejecting the lease where her 
second husband received the rent. For by her re-marriage the 
widow was presumed at the common law to have transferred to 
her second husband aU the power which she possessed as a widow 
to disaffirm or to accept the lease and for this reason his ratifi- 
cation of the lease was binding on her.^^ At the common law 
a lease by the husband and wife of land which she did not own 
as her separate property was voidable on the death of the wife 
by her heirs who may enter upon the land and terminate the 
lease. It is valid, however, until the actual entrj^ of the heirs. 
But, by a statute ^* the interest in the lease of the lessee was 
protected by continuing him in possession, preventing the heirs 
of the wife from taking possession until the end of the term 
while it was the same time held that they might collect the rent." 
§ 25. The control of the husband over leases held by the 
wife as executrix. At the common law the husband had con- 
siderable power over and control of personal property held by 

11 Greenwood v. Tyber, Cro. Jac. Saund. 180 note; 1 Roll. Abr. 349 
5G3; Doe v Weller, 7 T. R. 478; (Y) pi. 2. 

Jordan v. Wikes, Cro, Jac, 332, i3 Hill v. Saunders, 2 Bing. 112, 

Smallman v. Agbarow, Cro. Ja^. 9 Moore 288, 1 Car. & P. 80; see, 

417; Brown v. Lindsay, 2 Hill (S. also, 7 D. & R. 17; 4 B. & C. 529, 

C.) 542; Winstell v. Hehl, 6 Bush. 28 R. R. 375; Bac. Ab.". 302; Co, 

(Ky.) 58. See, also, Jackson v. Litt. 45b, 
Mordant, Cro. Eliz. 112. i* Dyer, 159a, Rolle's Abr. 321; 

12 Greenwood v. Tyber, Cro. Jac. 1 Bac. Abr. tit. "Baron and Feme," 
5C3; Worthington v. Young, 6 6, 498. 

Ohio, 313; Trout v. McDonald, 83 "32 Henry VIII C. 28, 

Pa. St. 141; Wotton v. Hele, 2 



26 LAW OF LANDLORD AXD TENANT. 

the wife as executrix.^® lie did not of course take the absolute 
right to or become the absolute owner in law of any property 
which she lield when he married her or which she acquired dur- 
ing the coverture in a representative eapacit}^ The common 
law did not give him the absolute property in chattels such as 
leases Avhich she held in autre droit?' The husband might 
however at the common law grant or demise a lease which she 
held as an executrix subject to the interest of those whom she 
represented. Thus, where a wife was administratrix of a former 
husband and as such was possessed of a term of years as lessee, 
her second husband had power to grant the term.^^ Upon the 
death of a wife who is an executrix or administrator no prop- 
erty in terms of years held by her as such passes to the husband 
but they devolve upon the administrator de bonis non of the 
deceased wife.^* A feme sole, at the common law can act as a 
guardian in socage or by appointment under a statute. By her 
marriage her husband acquires no authority to possess or con- 
trol the property of the ward or to receive its rents or profits, 
and a payment to him on account of the ward, unless with the 
consent of the wife is not binding either on the guardian or the 
ward.^" 

§ 26. Disposition of a term by the husband of a lessee to 
take effect at his death. Though the husband may not be- 
queath a term which lie holds by his marital right he may dur- 
ing the coverture grant subleases out of the term to begin after 
his death which will bind the wife. As he may during cover- 
ture dispose of the whole term, nothing prevents him from dis- 
posing of any part of it during the coverture. His irrevocable 
disposition of a portion of the term during coverture binds his 
estate at once though it has no operation until his death. This 
disposition of the chattel differs i-adically from a devise for a 
devise not being operative until his death comes too late to pre- 
vent the operation of the rule Avhich on his death at once vests 
the term in the surviving wife and nullifies the devise. The 
portion of the term remaining after the sublease by the husband 

leWankford v. Wankford, 1 Wankford, 1 Salk. 299, 30C; and 

Salk. 299, 306. Arnold v. Bidgood, Cro. Jac. 31S. 

17 Co. Litt. SFila. 10 Co. Litt. 351a. 

isLevick V. Coppin, 3 Wils. 277; 20 Holmes v. Field, 12 111. 424. 
2 W. Bl. 801; See Waukford v. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE, 27 

on the termination thereof and which he has failed to dispose 
of belongs to the surviving wife.-^ If, however, the husband dur- 
ing coverture grants the whole term on condition "^^hich is 
broken, his executor may enter and the wife though surviving 
him is barred for there was an absolute conveyance during the 
coverture, and the breach of the condition was contingent and 
uncertain. So. too, as the breach happened after the death of 
the husband the disposition was continuous and unbroken dur- 
ing his life. On the other hand if the breach occurs during the 
life of the husband and he re-enters for the breach the status quo 
is restored and his possession thereafter is precisely the same 
as it was before. If the wife survive liim she will take precisely 
as though the disposition never had been made by him. If, 
however, the husband shall merely charge the term with the 
payment of a rent and die, the wife is no longer bound because 
the term itself, not having been disposed of, all intermediate 
grants end with his life.-- 

§ 27. Leases of community property. In some of the west- 
ern states an ownership of property by the husband and wife 
called "community property" is recognized. The decisions are 
not harmonious on the question of the power of the husband to 
make a valid lease of the community property. In the state of 
California the courts hold, in accordance with the law of Mexico 
from which the California law is derived, that the title to the 
property held in community is in the husband and for that 
reason he can dispose of it absolutely as though it were his own. 
He may sell it ^^ or he may mortgage ^* without the wife's con- 
sent. That is to say he can transfer or incumber it by a deed 
signed by him alone. It follows therefore that he may lease the 
community property for a term of years and collect and use the 
rents of the same. In AA^ashington the law- is otherwise. In that 
state the matter is regulated by a statute under which a lease of 
the community property must be signed by the wife. The stat- 
ute forbids the husband to encumber the community property. 
In that state unless the wife joins in the lease of the community 

21 Loftus Case, Cro. Eliz. 279. 24 Bernal v. Gleim, 33 Cal. 668; 

22 Co. Litt. 4Gb, 351a; Brace- Tolman v. Smith, 85 Cal. 280; 
bridge v. Cook, Plowd. 418. Earchman v. Byrne, 83 Cal. 23. 

23 Fuller V. Ferguson. 26 Cal. 
546; Tustin v. Faught, 23 Cal. 237. 



28 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

property, it is void,-'^ and the lessee enjoys no rights thereunder 
provided he knew the land was community property. It seems 
under the statute that a tenant who did not know the lease was 
community property may abandon the land. He must, however, 
demand a valid lease before he does so and the refusal of the 
wife to grant it will exempt him from the payment of rent.-* 
Not only may the tenant refuse to pay rent but he may, after 
the wife has refused to sign the lease recover damages against 
her.-^ And if a tenant has entered under a lease signed by the 
husband only he may procure a specific performance of the 
lease against the wife where it was executed with her knowledge 
and consent though not sigTied by her.-^ 

§ 28. The modern rule as to the relation of the mortgagor 
and mortgagee. In order to understand the position of the 
tenant of a mortgagor as regards the mortgagee before the con- 
dition of the mortgage is broken, we must state a general prin- 
ciple relating to the law of real estate mortgages. By the mod- 
ern rules of law, and also in equity, a mortgagor in possession 
of the premises is regarded as the legal owner and the mortgage 
conveyance is regarded as a security. The mortgage conveys no 
title to the land. The mortgagee has but a chattel interest and 
the mortgagor continues to hold the freehold. The mortgagor, 
being the legal owner and in possession, may lease the land and 
he and his grantee are entitled to the rents and profits and they 
may sue the lessee to recover them.-^ A mortgagor has a right 
to the possession in modem times at least until entry by the 

2» Snyder v. Harding, 34 "Wash. 30 Iowa, 26S; Norcross v. Norcross, 

236, 75 PaG. Rep. 812. 105 Mass. 265; Miner v. Beekman, 

2« Isaacs V. Holland, 4 Wash. 54, 11 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 147; 

57, 29 Pac. Rep. 976; Tryon v. Da- O'Dougherty v. Felt, 65 Barl). 

vis, 8 Wash. 106, 35 Pac. Rep. 598. (N. Y.) 220; Mason v. Lenderoth, 

2T Dietz V. Winehill, 6 Wash. S8 A. D. 38, 84 N. Y. Supp. 740; 

109, 32 Pac. Rep. 1056. Wyckoff v. Scofield, 98 N. Y. 475; 

28 Payne v. Still, 10 Wash. 433, Williams v. Beard, 1 S. Car. 309; 
38 Pac. Rep. 994. Ihayer v. Cramer, McCord, (S. 

29 Jackson v. Lodge, 36 Cal. 28, Car.) Ch. 395; Buchanan v. Mun- 
41; Mark v. Witzler, 39 Cal. 247: loe, 22 Tex. 537; Whalin v. White, 
Elfe V. Cole, 26 Ga. 197; United 25 N. Y. 462. 465; Astor v. Turner, 
States Bank v. Athens Armory, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 436; Lawrence v. 
35 Ga. 344; West v. Adams, 106 Conlan, 28 Misc. Rep. 44. 56 N. Y. 
111. App. 114; Priest v. Wheelock, Supp. 345. 

59 Ind. 497; White v. Wittemeyer, 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 29 

mortgagee or until the premises are sold under a foreclosure. 
After a breach of the condition his possession, may be terminated 
at any time by the mortgagee,, though he is not on that account 
a tenant of the mortgagee. So long as the mortgagor or his 
tenants are by the mortgagee permitted to remain in possession, 
whether before or after condition broken, the mortgagor is en- 
titled to receive the rents and use them for his own account and 
benefit.^" The law will not imply a contract between a mort- 
gagor holding over after a default and a mortgagee, that rent 
or even the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the 
premises shall be paid.^^ The same rules apply to a deed which 
is absolute in form and without any defeasance if the purpose 
of the deed is to secure a debt.^^ The possession which the mort- 
gagor holds is, according to the above considerations a possession 
in his own right. It is not a possession as a tenant at suffer- 
ance of the mortgagee. ^^ It follows therefore that all leases 
made by him subseqeunt to the mortgage are valid as against 
the mortgagee down to the sale under foreclosure. Hence, a 
mortgagee who takes a lease of the mortgaged premises from 
the mortgagor before condition broken and while the mortgagor 
is in the actual occupation of the land is a tenant of the mort- 
gagor.^* A lease by the mortgagee is absolutely void, where 
under the statute or otherwise, the mortgagor is entitled to 
possession until foreclosure. The lease confers no right to pos- 
session.^^ 

§ 29. The rig'ht of the mortgagee to the rent at common law. 
The common law regards a mortgage in substance and effect as 
an assignment of the reversion. Thus, a mortgage transfers 
all the title which the mortgagor had and confers on the mort- 
gagee the right to enter and hold possession of the estate in the 
absence of a stipulation that until a breach of the condition the 
mortgagor should hold possession. The mortgagee having en- 

30 Willington v. Gale, 7 Mass. 28-41; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 

138; Mayo v. Fletcher, 14 Pick. 287. 

(Mass.) 525, 531; Moss v. Galli- 33 Hopper v. Wilson, 12 Vt. 695; 

more, 1 Doug. 269, 282. Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 23; 

81 Mayo V. Fletcher, 14 Pick. Kidd v. Temple, 22 Cal. 255. 

(Mass.) 525, 533; Gibson v. Far- 34 Wood v. Felton, 9 Pick, 

ley, 16 Mass. 280; Wilder v. (Mass.) 171. 

Houghton, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 87. ss Connolly v. Giddings, 24 Neb. 

s2 Jackson v. Lodge, 36 Cal. 131, 134, 37 N. W. Rep. 939. 



30 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

tered is held responsible for the rents and profits of the premises 
for which he must account to the mortgagor. He must apply 
them to the payment of the mortgage debt and, if there is a sur- 
plus, it would have to be paid to the owner of the equity of re- 
demption.^® "Where the premises are not occupied by a tenant 
the mortgagee may enter at once and lease them according to 
the rule of the common law. If the premises at the date of the 
mortgage are under lease for a term of years the mortgagee can- 
not disturb the possession of the lessee who has a prior title to 
his and therefore he cannot enter. But inasmuch as at common 
law the mortgage is regarded as a conveyance of the reversion 
the mortgagee may give notice to the lessee of the mortgagor 
who is in possession under a lease prior to the mortgage, and he 
will thereafter become entitled to collect the rent due under the 
lease and which may subsequently become due and also to en- 
force all the remedies which the mortgagor has and ever had 
against the tenant.^^ Tenants who have not received notice 
of the mortgagee who pay rent to the mortgagor are protected.^'^ 
But rents which are due and payable when the mortgagee re- 
ceives his conveyance or which become due and payable before 
he notifies a prior lessee of his right to collect rent, are mere 
chattel interests or debts due from the tenant to the mortgagor, 
which are wholly disconnected from the reversion and do not 
pass by an assignment of it."'^-* The tenant of a mortgagor whose 
lease is prior to a mortgage by continuing in possession after a 
notice from the mortgagee to pay rent to him, becomes by im- 
plication the tenant of the latter, according to the terms of the 
lease signed by the mortgagor.^'^ The mortgagee cannot however 

36 Robinson V. Robinson, 1 N. H. 1 Vt. 457; Newall v. Wright, 3 

161; Onderdonk v. Gray, 19 N. J. Mass. 138, 159; Fitcliburg Cotton 

Eq. 65; Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. Mfg. Co. v. Melven, 15 Mass. 268, 

372; Kellogg V. Rocliwell, 19 Conn. 270; Burden v. Thayer, 3 Met. 

446; Harrison v. Wyse, 24 Conn. (Mass.) 79; Miriclv v. Hoppen, 118 

1; Reitanbaugh v. Ludwick, 31 Pa. Mass. 282; Moss v. Gallimore, 

St. 131. Doug. 278, 279. 

■■i7 Mansony v. U. S. Bank, 4 Ala. 37a Russell v. Alien, 2 Allen 

746; Coker v. Pearsall, 6 Ala. 342; (Mass.) 42. 

Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. 168, r.Tb Burden v. Thayer, 3 Met. 

181; Moore v. Titman, 44 111. 367; (Mass. 79. 

Russell V. Allon, 2 Allon (Mass.) ^^c Brown v. Story, 1 M. & G. 

42, 43; Clark v. Abbott, 1 Md. Ch. 114. 
474, 478; Babcock v. Kennedy, 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE, 31 

by giving the prior lessee notice to pay rent to him after con- 
dition broken compel him to remain as his tenant on the terms 
of the original lease. Unless the lease has been in fact or in 
legal contemplation assigned to the mortgagee no privity of con- 
tract exists between him and a lessee whose lease antedates his 
mortgage. The lessee may therefore on receipt of notice from 
the mortgagee surrender possession if he shall do so in a rea- 
sonable time and he cannot thereafter be held liable for rent ei- 
ther to the mortgagor, who was his lessor, or to the mortgagee. 
His payment of rent to the mortgagee is a good defense in an ac- 
tion by the mortgagor or by the grantee of the reversion.^^ The 
rules and the rights and liabilities of the parties at common law 
are very different where a lease is made after a mortgage by a 
mortgagor who remains in possession by his lessee of the mort- 
gaged premises. There is in such case no privity of contract 
or estate between the mortgagee and the lessee who stands in 
the place of and is subject only to the obligations of the mort- 
gagor to the mortgagee, of whom rent cannot be collected so 
long as he is allowed to remain in possession of the premises. 
Hence until the mortgagee has actually entered or some equiva- 
lent act has occurred, the mortgagee can maintain no action 
against the lessee for the recovery of rent except on an express 
promise to pay."'^ 

§ 30, The appointment and powers of receivers in foreclosure. 
The rules regulating the appointment of receivers in foreclosure 
proceedings belong more properly to the subject of mortgages 
than they do to the topic of landlord and tenant. Some general 

38 Smith V. Taylor, 9 Ala. 633; Watts v. Coffin, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 
Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. 495; Partington v. Woodcock, 5 
Wilson, 10 Met. (Mass.) 126; Nev. & Man. 672, 36 E. C. L. 
Myers v. White, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 41S, 6 Ad. & El. 690, 698; and see, 
35.5; Weidner v. Foster, 2 P. & W. also, Peters v. Ellcins, 14 Ohio, 
(Pa.) 23. 344; Rogers v. Humphreys, 4 Al. 

39 Baldwin v. Walker, 21 Conn. & El. 299, 313; Hughes v. Buck- 
168, 181; Fitchburg Cotton Mfg. nell, 8 Car. & P. 566; Evans v. 
Co. V, Melven, 15 ^lass. 268; Field Elliot, 9 Ad. & El. 342; Higgin- 
V. Swan, 10 Met. (Mass.) 112, botham v. Barton, 11 Ad. & EI. 
114; The Massachusetts Hosp. 307; Burrows v. Grandin, 1 Dow!. 
Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 10 Met. & L. 213; Wheeler t. Branscombe, 
(Mass.) 126, 127; McKircher v. 5 Q. B. 373. 

Hawley, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 289; 



32 LAW OF IxAJSDLOED AIsD TENAIsT. 

consideration, however, may be touched upon in this place. In 
the first place the mortgagee, unless he has stipulated for the 
rents and profits of the estate, is not entitled to receive them 
until he has acquired possession. It follows therefore that 
something more than merely the failure to pay the debt is re- 
quired to entitle the mortgagee to the appointment of a re- 
ceiver. Where the mortgagor is insolvent, or where there is 
danger that the rents wiU be wasted or misappropriated, or the 
property neglected or wasted during the foreclosure, a receiver 
of the rents may be appointed. The purpose of the appointment 
of the receiver is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation. 
In order therefore that the receiver may be appointed it must 
be shown that there is a likelihood of the mortgagee suffering 
a loss. If on the other hand it appears that there is no apparent 
danger that the mortgagee will suffer if a receiver of the rents 
is not appointed, the court will not give him this relief. *° If it 
appears from the circumstances that a receiver ought to be ap- 
pointed it will be his duty to collect the rents of the mortgaged 
premises and to apply the net proceeds thereof, after de- 
ducting the expenses of administration to the payment of the 
mortgage debt. Notice of the appointment of the receiver 
should be brought promptly to the tenant's knowledge.*^ A 
receiver appointed in foreclosure is entitled to collect rents that 
accrue in the future or which, if they have accrued, are in the 
hands of the tenant when he receives notice of the receivership. 
He has no title to, nor can he collect rents from the lessor or 
owner which the latter has received prior to the appointment 
of the receiver.*^ And even where a tenant has paid rent in ad- 

40 Myers v. Estell, 48 Miss. 372, and there is danger that the rents 
406; Meyer v. Thomas, 131 Ala. due from the sub-tenants may be 
65, 21 So. Rep. 494; Moritz v. wasted, the court may, in an ac- 
Miller, 87 Ala. 331, 6 So. Rep. 209; tion to foreclose a lien contained 
Pcllan.d V. Fertilizer Co., 122 Ala. in the original lease appoint a re- 
409, 25 So. Rep. 169. ceiver of these rents. The charac- 

41 The right to the appointment ter of the lease and its language 
of a receiver in an action to fore- creating the lien will always be 
close a lien for rent created by considered. Mavor v. Northern 
the lease, would presumably be Trust Co., 93 111. App. 314. 
based upon the same considera- 42 Howell v. Ripley, 10 Paige 
tions as are recognized in the (X. Y.) 43; Argall v. Pitts, 7S N. 
foreclosure of a mortgage. If the Y. 239, 242; Whycoff v. Scofield, 
tenant has sublet the premises 9S N. Y. 475, 478; Rider v. Bagley, 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 33 

vance to the mortgagor before the appointment of a receiver in 
foreclosure was known to the tenant, the receiver cannot recover 
the rent from the tenant. ^^ But a receiver may prevent a les- 
sor from collecting the rents of the premises from the subtenants 
of the lessee though the latter has paid his rent in advance to the 
owner of the freehold.** In conclusion it may be said that the 
tenants may, by the process of the court, be compelled to pay 
their rent to the receiver and that his right to collect the rent 
is superior to the rights of the creditor of the mortgagor under 
a judgment which is rendered after the receiver was appointed.*^ 
§ 31. The effect of a foreclosure on the tenant's rights. Ac- 
cording to modern theories, a tenant of a mortgagor is entitled 
to possession as against the mortgagee. There is no privity of 
contract between the tenant of the mortgagor and the mortgagee 
by which, before the foreclosure, the tenant owes any duty to 
the mortgagee; but the sale under a foreclosure which cuts off 
the equity of redemption destroys all the rights of tenants whose 
leases were executed subsequently to the mortgage which is fore- 
closed provided they are made parties to the action.*^ The ten- 
ants are divested of their estate by the decree and the sale there- 
under and they are thereafter trespassers, or at the best tenants 
at sufferance of the purchaser, at the foreclosure sale.*^ A lessee 
takes the property subject to all rights of a mortgagee whose 
mortgage is on record at the date of the lease. But the fact that 
the mortgage gives the mortgagee a right to have a receiver ap- 
pointed does not destroy any rights which the tenant may have 
under the lease except that, upon notice to him, he must pay the 
receiver the rents. *^ And the receiver can collect only such 
rents as accrue and are not paid to the owner of the equity 

84 N Y. 461, 465; Hollenbeck v. Cal. 255; Tucker v. Keeler, 4 Vt. 

Donnell, 94 N Y. 342. 161; Thompson v. Flathers, 45 

43 Hartley v. Meyer, 2 Misc. Rep. La. Ann. 120; Hartley v. ileyer, 2 

56, 49 N. Y. St. Rep. 351, 20 N. Y. Misc. 56, 20 N. Y. Supp. 855. 

Supp. 855. 47 McFarland R. E. Co. v. Jo- 

4* Fletcher v. McKeon, 75 N. seph Gerardi Hotel Co., 202 Mo. 

Y. Supp. 817, 71 A. D. 278. 597, 607, 100 S. W. Rep. 577; Cul- 

45Woodwatt V. Connell, 38 111. verhouse v. Wortz, 32 Mo. App. 

App. 475. 419. 

46 0akes v. Aldridge, 46 Mo. 48 Fletcher v. McKeon. 71 A. D. 

App. 11; Crippen v. Morrison, 13 278, 75 N. Y. Supp. 817. 
Mich. 23, 35; Kidd v. Temple, 22 

3 



34 I^VW OF LANDLORD .VND TENANT. 

of redemption.*^ Any rights which the lessee may have to 
remove his fixtures, or to recover on a covenant of the lease 
from his landlord, he will be able to enforce down to the time 
that the property is sold on the foreclosure. The mere fact that 
the tenant whose lease was subsequent to the mortgage continues 
in possession after the mortgagee notifies him of the mortgage 
and demands rent from him does not constitute him a tenant of 
the mortgagee in the absence of other circumstances from which 
a tenancy could be implied.^" 

§ 32. The right to rents of the purchaser at the sale under 
foreclosure. The mortgagor may collect rents accruing from 
his tenants down to the day of the delivery of the deed to the 
purchaser at foreclosure.^^ To protect himself the purchaser, 
as soon as he receives the deed, should at once notify all the 
tenants that he claims to receive all rent from them which may 
thereafter accrue. Usually the decree directs tliat he be let into 
possession on the presentation of the deed. The title of a pur- 
chaser on foreclosure is not perfect nor is he entitled to any 
rent payable in advance until he has fully complied with a di- 
rection in the decree in foreclosure requiring him to produce to 
the tenant the deed of the sheriff and a certified copy of an 
order confirming the sale.^^ Where a judgment in foreclosure 
provides that the purchaser at the foreclosure sale shall be let 
into possession upon the production of the deed, he does not ac- 
quire title, or the right to collect the rents until he receives his 
deed. The mortgagor up to that time continues to be the owner 
and may legally collect the rents. Nor can the purchaser sub- 
sequently recover from him rents which he has collected prior 
to the delivery of the deed. Neither can he recover rents from 
the tenants which are payable in advance after the foreclosure 
sale, unless he shall promptly notify the tenants that he is 

49 Wyckoff V Scofield, 98 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 538, 27 N. Y. Supp. 134, 
475; Rider v. Bagley, 84 N. Y. 461. 58 N. Y. St. Rep, 11; O'Neill v. 

50 Towerson v. Jackson, 61 L. Morris, 28 Misc. Rep. 613, 59 
.T. J. B. 36 (1891), 2 Q. B. 484, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1075; Mason v. Lende- 
L. T. 332, 40 W. R. 37, 56 J. B. 21. roth, 84 N. Y. Supp. 740, 741; As- 

oiWhalin) v. White, 25 N. Y. tor v. Turner, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 

462, 465; Mitchell v. Bartlett, 51 436; Clason v. Gorley, 5 Sandf. (N. 

N. Y. 447, 451; Peck v. Knicker- Y.) 447. 

booker Ice Co., 18 Hun (N. Y.) r,2 whalin v. White, 25 N. Y. 462, 

183; Cummiugs v. Rosenberg, 6 464. 



PAETIES TO THE LEASE. 35 

the owner." And this rule as to the collection of rents, applies 
to a case where the mortgagor himself remains in possession after 
the foreclosure sale. The purchaser on foreclosure may treat 
him as a trespasser, or as a tenant; but he cannot collect rent 
from a mortgagor holding over after foreclosure prior to a de- 
mand on him for possession or for the payment of rent if he de- 
sires to remain.^* This rule applicable to the mortgagor holding 
over does not apply however where the mortgage expressly de- 
clares that the mortgagor shall become the tenant of the pur- 
chaser at the foreclosure sale. The purchaser may collect rent 
from the day of the delivery to him of the deed without demand, 
or notice to the mortgagor holding over."^ 

§ 33. The power of the federal government to lease lands. 
Express power to lease land for governmental purposes is usually 
conferred by act of congress upon those federal officials within 
the scope of whose duties lies the occupation of land. The oc- 
cupation of land by the federal government, with the consent 
of the owner and without an assertion of ownership on the part 
of the United States, raises a presumption that the relationship 
of landlord and tenant exists between the government and the 
owner of the land.^® The federal government will then be held 
liable to pay the owner tlie reasonable value of the use and occu- 
pation of the land where no rent has been agreed upon between 
the parties." For the presumption in all such cases is that the 

53 David Bradley & Co. v. Pea- titled to rent from that date. If 
body Coal Co., 99 111. App. 427. the owner has collected rents in 

54 North American Trust Co. v. advance, and this was not known 
Burrow, 68 Ark. 584, 60 S. W. Rep. to the purchaser when he bought, 
950. he will be entitled to a rebate 

55 GrifiBth v. Brackman, 97 Tenn. upon his bid to that amount. 
387, 37 S. W. Rep. 273. "Winfrey v. Work, 75 Mo. 55. 

In; Massachusetts it has been &« Chills v. United States, 16 

held that a mortgagee who enters Ct. CI. 79; Langford v. United 

on breach of condition may coi- States, 12 Ct. CI. 338. The local 

lect rent from the tenant in pos law of landlord and tenant is then 

session and may expel him if he applicable. Clifford v. United 

does not pay the rent. Stone v. States, 34 Ct. CI. 223. Spofford v. 

Patterson, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 476. United States, 32 Ct. CI. 452. 

The purchaser at partition is en- s? Clifford v. United States, 34 

tilled to possession from the date Ct. CI. 223, which also holds that 

of the sale. If a tenant be in pos- proof of the use and occupation 

session, the purchaser will be en- of the premises by the Federal 



36 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

entry of the federal officials upon tlie land was made with an in- 
tention on their part of observing the constitutional obligation 
not to take property without due process of law and that they 
expected to pay adequate and proper compensation and also that 
the assent of the owner to the use of the land by the government 
was given with an expectation on his part that he would re- 
ceive compensation.^^ Aside from statutory authorization a post- 
master has no power to bind the United States by a lease of 
premises for use as a postoffice. But the occupation of premises 
b}' a postmaster for governmental purposes in connection with 
the performance of his duties as postmaster may raise an im- 
plied contract on the part of the federal authorities to pay the 
owner the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the 
premises.^^ It has also been held that a lease entered into by an 
officer of the government for a term of years is obligatory upon 
the United States only until the end of the fiscal year in which 
it was made with an option in the government to renew it from 
year to year until the end of the term specified ; and, if the gov- 
ernment abandons the premises in the middle of the fiscal year, 
or at any time during such year, the landlord may recover the 
rent down to the end of that fiscal year but no longer.^" Nor 
will the occupancy of the premises after the expiration of such 
year by a federal official have the effect of continuing the lease, 
or afford the landlord an opportunity to treat the government 
as holding over where the occupancy by the official is unauthor- 
ized.*^^ In order that the United States shall be liable in an ac- 
tion for the use and occupation of land the use and occupation 
must have been with the owner's consent. "Where the United 

government is sufficient to es- igencies of the oHice, and leave 

tablish the relationship of land- the owner to his remedy in the 

lord and tenant. courts for compensation on an im- 

B8 Clifford V. United States 34 plied assumpsit, which would 

Ct. CI. 223. arise under the constitution 

C9 Postoffice: "While no con- whenever private property is ta- 

tract that a postmaster can make ken for public use. Semmes v. 

for the use of a building can be United States, 26 Ct. CI. 119, dis- 

binding on the governjnent, as to tinguishing Bradley v. United 

the time of occupying or price to States, 13 Ct. CI. 166, 98 U. S. 104. 

be paid, or any other matters co Smoot v. United States, 38 Ct. 

whatever, he may undoubtedly CI. 418. 

take possession of any building oi Smoot v. United States, 38 

suitable and necessary for the ex Ct. CI. 418. 



PARTIE.S TO THE LEASE. 37 

States in the prosecution of the war of the Rebellion took pos- 
session of certain promises on land adjacent to that upon which 
a battle was fought, and used the same as a hospital for sick and 
wounded soldiers for several months, leaving the premises ulti- 
mately in a dilapidated and ruinous condition, the owner cannot 
in the absence of statute recover for their use and occupation. 
The relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the 
parties, as the land was occupied without the consent of the 
owner. Congress, however, has provided by statute that under 
certain circumstances the owner of land may be compensated 
for the use of his land occupied by the government. But the stat- 
ute does not create the conventional relation of landlord and 
tenant between the owner and the government or render the 
latter liable for remuneration for being deprived of the use of the 
premises during the period he was necessarily occupied in repair- 
ing the damages done while the army was in occupation.®^ 

§ 34. The va'idity of leases of land owned by Indians. In 
theory at least the Indians are regarded as the wards of the 
federal government. It has been held that a state legislature has 
no power to authorize leases of Indian lands held in reserva- 
tion.®^ The matter is always regulated by treaty or federal 
statute. In the absence of treaty or act of congress expressly 
-conferring power upon Indians who are settled upon raserva- 
tions to lease their lands, a lease by them of such land, particu- 
larly to a white person, is void.®* So a note for rent of reserva- 
tion land cannot be enforced where the leasing of such land is 
forbidden by act of congress.®^ For it is the general rule that 
the right of the Indian nations or tribes to their lands within 
the United States is a right of possession or occupancy only. The 
title to the fee of the lands occupied by Indians is in the United 
States and the Indian title cannot be conveyed wholly or in part 
to any one except to the United States.®® A good and valid 

«2 Madison Female Sem. v. land from any Indian nation 

United States, 23 Ct. CI. 1S8, 101. "shall be of any validity in law 

G3 Buffalo R. & P. Co. V. Lavery, or in equity unless the same is 

75 Hun, 396, 27 N. Y. Supp. 443. made by treaty or convention en- 

64 Baker v. Jones, 38 Hun (N. tered in pursuant to the constitn- 
Y.) 625. tion. Cherokee Strip Live-Stock 

65 Chaffee v. Garrett. 6 Ohio, 421. Ass'n v. Cass Land & Cattle Co., 
Act. Cong. July 30. 1834 (U. S. R. 138 Mo. 394, 40 S. W. Rep. 107. 

S. § 2116) provides no lease of ec Jones v. Meehan, 20 S. Ct. 1, 



38 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



grant of a part of lands owned or occupied by an Indian tribe- 
or nation may be made to an individual passing to. and vesting 
in him the fee simple of said lands by the execution of a 
treaty between the Indian occupants of the land and the United 
States. The title becomes vested by virtue of the treaty as soon 
as it goes into operation without the passage of any act of con- 
gress or the issuance of any patent from any executive depart- 
ment of the federal government.*^' So also, where by a treaty 



175 U. S. 1, 44 Law. ed. 49, citing 
cases. In the early and leading 
case of Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 
Wheat. 453, 5 Law. ed. 681, de- 
cided in 1823, it was held that 
grants of land northwest of the 
river Ohio made in 1773 and 1775 
by the chiefs of certain Indian 
tribes to private individuals con 
veyed no title which could be re- 
cognized in the Federal Courts 
and Chief Justice Marshall in de- 
livering judgment said: "The us- 
ual mode adopted by the Indians 
for granting lands to individuals 
has been to reserve them in a 
treaty, or to grant them under 
the sanction of the commissioners 
with whom the treaty was nego- 
tiated." The early statute on 
this topic is act of July 22, 1790, 
which invalidated the sale of In- 
dian lands to any person unless 
Etch sale was made and duly ex- 
ecuted at some public treaty held 
under the authority of the United 
States, 1 Stat, at L. 138. See, 
also, act of March 1, 1793, 1 Stat. 
at L. 330, in which it was pro- 
vided that no purchase or grant 
of lands, or of any title or claim 
thereto from any Indians or na- 
tion or tribes of Indians shall be 
valid unless the same be made by 
treaty or convention. This pro- 
vieion was subsequently re-en- 
aeted in acts May 19, 179G, chap. 



30, sec. 12, and March 3, 1799, sub- 
stituting for the words "purchase 
or grant" the words "purchase, 
grant, lease or other conveyance." 
See, 1 Stat, at L. 472, 746. This 
language of the temporary acts of 
1796 and 1799 was repeated in- 
the first permanent enactment 
upon the subject bein,g the act of 
March 30, 1802, ch. 13 § 12. 2 
Stat, at L. 143. 

G7 Jones V. Meehan, 20 S. Ct. 1, 
175 U. S. 1, 44 Law. ed. 49; citing 
Mitchell V. United States, 9 Pet- 
ers (U. S.) 711, 748, 9 Law. ed. 
283, 296; Doe d. Godfrey v. 
Beardsley, 2 McLean C. C. 417, 
418; United States v. Brooks, 10' 
How. (U. S.) 442, 460, 13 Law. ed. 
489, 496; Holden, v. Joy, 17 Wall. 
(U. S.) 211, 247, 21 Law. ed. 523,. 
53.j; Best v. Fold, 18 Wall. (U. 
S.) 112, 116, 21 Law. ed. 805, 807. 
In construing a treaty between 
the United States and an Indian 
tribe or nation in order to ascer- 
tain whether some stranger to it 
may claim a valid title to land 
under it the character of the par- 
ties to the treaty must be taken 
into consideration. The fact 
must be remembered that the ne- 
gotiations are carried on by fed- 
eral officials who are skilled in di- 
plomacy, masters of a written 
language, understanding the pro- 
per and technical language em- 



PiVKTIES TO THE LEASE, 39 

between the United States and an Indian tribe' the rights of the 
nation are extinguished and certain portions of the land which 
was formerly occupied by the Indians as a tribal reserv^ation are 
reserved, by the treaty, to certain Indians in severalty as indi- 
viduals, the individual Indian allottees take the fee simple 
which is alienable at their pleasure unless the United States has 
by act of congress or by a provision in the treaty expressly or 
impliedly prohibited alienation. The reservation to certain indi- 
vidual Indians is part of the consideration of the cession by the 
tribe of its right by the treaty. Nor does it follow because be- 
fore the reser\'ation only the government can purchase from the 
Indians that after the reservation and creation of absolute indi- 
vidual rights by and under the treaty and with the consent of 
the United States the individual reservees cannot alien. The 
title thus created is property and alienable unless the government 
has forbidden its sale. And if the property can be sold it can 
with equal propriety be leased by its individual owner.^^ It is 
always competent however for congress to provide that land al- 
lotted to Indians in severalty shall not be alienable. Hence it 
follows that in a case where by an act of congress reservation 
lands are alloted to the Indians in severalty, and it is also pro- 
vided that these Indians shall on recei\ang the lands in severalty 

ployed to create estates at com- meaning ot the words to lawyers 
men law and assisted by an in- but the sense in which they 
terpreter employed by them- would naturally be understood by 
selves on the oae hand and by In- the Indians. Kansas Indians, 5 
dians a weak, ignorant and de- Wall. (U. S.) 737, 760, sub nom.; 
pendent class of persons, possess- Blue Jacket v. Johnson County 
ing no written language of their Com'rs, 18 Law. ed. 667; "Wan- Jap- 
own, usually not familiar with E Ah v. Miami County Com'rs, 18 
the language in which the treaty Law. ed. 674; Choctaw Nation v. 
which they sign is written and United States, 119 U. S. 1, 27, 28, 
wholly ignorant of legal language 30 Law. ed. 306, 314, 315, 7 Sup. 
or phraseology even when it may Ct. 75. 

happen that they have some cs Jones v. Meehan, 20 Sup. Ct. 

knowledge of English. It follows 1, 175 U. S. 1, 44 Law. ed. 49, af- 

because of this condition of af- firming 70 Fed. Rep. 453; United 

fairs that when it becomes neces- States v. Brooks, 10 How. (U. S.) 

sdry to ascertain the extent and 442, 13 Law. ed. 489; Crews v. 

character and an interest in land Burcham, 1 Black. 352, 17 Law. ed. 

which is claimed under a treaty 91; see also Wilcoxen v. Hybar- 

its language must be construed. ger, 1 Ind. Ter. 135, 38 S. W. Rep. 

not according to the technical 669, 670. 



40 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

become citizens of the United states and have and enjoy all the 
rights of such citizens, but the statute forbids the alienation of 
such lands, a lease of land thus held by an Indian is void.^* A 
lease of land in Indian Territory by citizens of the United States 
is valid to all intents and purposes where all the requisites of a 
valid contract have been complied with. A law of an Indian 
nation prohibiting the leasing of lands in that territory does not 
apply to the leasing or holding by citizens of the United States 
of lands located there. The lessee of such lands being a white 
man is subject to the general rules of the law of landlord and 
tenant as if the property were located in any state of the union 
and to the provisions of the statutes enacted by congress for the 
government of the territory.^** In unlawful detainer between 
persons not citizens of the Cherokee nation, a demurrer to the 
complaint on the ground that it was based on a refusal to pay 
rent, which was prohibited by law, is without merit as there is 
no law prohibiting the payment of rent in such territory. Thus 
a law of an Indian nation requiring all persons, not citizens of 
the nation owning houses for the purpose of renting them, to 
dispose of them within a certain time, does not, as between par- 
ties who are citizens of the United States but not citizens of the 
Indian nation, invalidate a lease of property held in violation 
of that law.''^ For it is a general rule that the validity of a con- 
tract between citizens of the United States which is valid under 
the laws of the United States and of the state in which it is 
made cannot be affected by the customs or laws of the Indian 
tribes in whose territory the contract is execut' d.'^ 

«9 Beck V. Flournoy Live Stock tween persons not citizens of tlie 

& Real Estate Co., 12 C. C. A. 497. Cherokee nation, a demurrer to 

65 Fed. Rep. 30, 27 U. S. App. 618; the complaint on the ground that 

United States v. Flourney Live it was based on a refusal to pay 

Stock & Real Estate Co., 69 Fed. rent, which was prohibited by 

Rep. 886; Pilgrim v. Beck, 69 law, is without merit as there is 

Fed. Rep. 895. no law prohibiting the payment 

70 Walker Trading Co. v. Grady of rent in such territory. 
Trading Co., 1 Ind. Ter. 191, 39 ti Walker Trading Co. v. Grady 

S. W. Rep. 354; In Ellis v. Fitz- Trading Co., 1 Ind. Ter. 191, 39 

Patrick, (Ind. Ter.) 64 S. W. Rep. S. W. Rep. 354. 
567 this case was cited and ap- 72 Anheuser-Busch Brewing 

proved and it was expressly held Ass'n v. Bond, 66 Fed. Rep. 633, 

that in unlawful detainer be- 13 C. C. A. 665. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 41 

§ 35, Leases by aliens. At the common law an alien friend 
may take a fee simple in land though, he has no capacity to hold, 
for, upon office found, the king takes the land under his preoga- 
tiveJ^^ The alien may while in possession lease his land and his 
lease will be valid as against himself. The lessee's interest 
in and title to the term being founded solely on the title of 
his alien lessor will be subject to the possibility of termination 
by a proceeding which terminates the title of the latter, 

§ 36. Leases to aliens. At the common law an alien being 
a friend might take, hold and transfer personal property to the 
same extent and with the same power as a citizen. In relation to 
real estate he was under certain disabilities whicli are not neces- 
sary to enumerate here. As to the capacity of an alien to hold 
land under lease under the English law a distinction was made 
between the lease of a house for the habitation of a merchant, 
being an alien friend and a lease of premises consisting of mead- 
ows, pastures, forests or farm lands. His holding of the latter 
under a lease for a term of years was always subject to office 
found." He might, however, hold under a lease a house for hab- 
itation as against all the world for this was necessary and allow- 
able in favor of trade, for without a dwelling he could not carry 
OD his trade in the kingdom.'^* But in England by statute it 
was also provided " that all leases of houses or shops to aliens 
being artificers or handicraftsmen should be void. The courts, 
however, in construing this statute, when it was set up as a de- 
fense in an action to recover rent on a lease were very prone to 
confine its operation very strictly."^ 

§ 37. The effect of the death of the lessee on leases for terms 
of years. The interest of lessees in leases for years being at the 
common law mere chattel interests, though the terms which are 
created by the leases may be for a thousand years, on the death of 
the lessee passes to and becomes vested in the executor or admin- 
istrator of the lessee." For terms for years, unlike leases at will, 

72a Co. Litt. 2b. tt Cody v. Quarterman, 12 Ga. 

73 Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 2b. SS6; Schee v. Wiseman, 79 Ind. 

74 Co. Litt. 2b. 389; Cunningham v. Baxley, 96 
76 32 Henry VIII., c. 16, s. 13. Ind. 367; Lewis v. Ringo, 3 A. K. 
TeBridgham v. Frontec, 3 Mod. INTarsb. (Ky.) 247; Journe's Siic- 

'94; Pilkington v. Peach, 2 Show. cession, 21 La. An. 391; Dilling- 
135; Jevan v. Harridge, 1 Sid. ham v. Jenkins, 7 S. & M. (Miss.) 
308, 2 Keb. 116. 479, 487 (lease for ninety nine 



42 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



not ordinarily terminated by the death of the lessee during the 
term but survive and pass to his personal representative.'^* It 
is not material in connection with this rule that a lease for years 
be expressly given to a man and his heirs or anciently to a sole 
corporation and his successors as in any case it goes to the les- 
see's personal representative upon the death of the lessee.'® So, 
also, a lease to A, his executors, etc., for a j-ear, and so on from 
year to year for so long as it shall please the lessor and A, his 
executors, etc., does not expire on the death of A, but on that 
event happening, vests in his executors.^" A lease for years 
to one without naming heirs or executors, would by operation 
of law, in case the lessee dies testate, vest in his executors, 
and no words of limitation would alter the succession.*^ The 
personal representative, if there is one, is entitled to notice to 



years). Webster v. Parker, 42 
Miss. 465, 471 (lease for ninety 
nine years); Faber v. Mc Rae, 56 
Miss. 227, 229; Sutter v. Lack- 
man, 39 Mo. 91; Green v. Green, 
2 Redfield Sur. (N. Y.) 408; Doe 
d. Shore v. Porter. 3 Term Rep. 
13, 1 R. R. 626. S. P., James v. 
Dean, 15 Ves. 241, 8 R. R 171; 
Murdock v. Ratcliff, 7 Ohio St. 1, 
Wiley's Appeal, 8 Watts & S. 
(Pa.) 244; Payne v. Harris, 3 
Strobh. Eq. (S. Car.) 39. Contra 
in McKee v. Howe, 17 Colo. 538, 
31 Pac. Rep. 115, where a statute 
was construed which provided that 
"real estate" should embrace chat- 
tels real and all interests in land 
in fee, for life or for years, and 
lands, tenements and heredita- 
ments and all interests therein, it 
was held that a lease for years was 
. real property on the death of the 
lessee and devolved upon his heir 
and not upon his administrator. 
See also as to the character of a 
perpetual lease which in Ohio has 
been by the statute divested of its 
chattel qualities and is now de- 
scendible to the lessee's heirs. 



Gansen v. Moarman, 5 Ohio S. & 
C. P. Dec. 287. 

7s Alsup V. Banks, 68 Miss. 664, 
9 So. Rep. 895, 24 Am. St. Rep. 
294, 13 L. R. A. 598; In re Walk- 
er's Estate, 6 Pa. , Co. Ct. Rep. 
515; Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. Car. 
544, 8 S. E. Rep. 1. 

70 Co. Litt. 46b; Fulwood's Case, 

4 Coke, 65a. 

80 Mackay v. Mackreth, 4 Dougl. 
213, 2 Chit. 461. 

SI Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. C. 544, 

5 S. E. Rep. 1, 4; 1 Wms. Ex. 464. 
Where a term of years is be- 
queathed to A. for his life and on 
his death to his heirs, or to the 
heirs of his body, the word "heirs" 
under the rule in Shelly's case is 
a word of limitation and not a 
word of purchase. A. under such 
circumstances takes the whole 
term as personal property and 
upon his death it devolves upon 
his personal representatives. If 
the rule in Shelly's has been abro- 
gated by a statute as in most of 
the states or if from the language 
of the will it is clear that the 
testator, In disposing of the term 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 43- 

quit where such notice is required to be given before tlie lessor 
can bring ejectment.*"- "Where the defendant in ejectment alleges 
that notice to quit was not served on the representative he must 
show that there was a personal representative of the lessee on 
whom the notice to quit might have been served. It will not 
be presumed there was a personal representative as he can only 
exist by appointment by will or by the issuance of letters of ad- 
ministration. Hence until it be shown that there was an ad- 
ministrator of a tenant from year to year, service of a notice to 
quit upon his widow in possession of the premises is sufBcient.^^ 
§ 38. The expiration of the lease for years on the death of 
the lessee. The general rule that a lease for years upon the 
death of the lessee devolves as personal property upon his per- 
sonal representative is of course subject to an exception where 
the lease is expressly or by implication to terminate by opera- 
tion of law on his death. If the lessee is the employee of the 
lessor and his occupation of the premises is a mere incident of 
the contract of hiring, the occupation will terminate with the 
death of the servant. The relationship of landlord and tenant 
under certain circumstances existing between a servant and his 
employer will therefore terminate on the death of the tenant. 
Thus, where a church had employed a pastor on a yearly salarj^ 
together with the use by the pastor of the parsonage as a resi- 
dence the relationship of landlord and tenant between the par- 
ties terminates at his death ; and the right of occupancy by the 
pastor then ceasing, there is nothing to pass to his personal rep- 
resentative.®* So, an exception to the general rule will be recog- 
nized where the lessee by the terms of the lease is bound to ren- 
der service to the lessor about the demised premises which ser%"- 
ices are personal to the less;'e and which no one besides him- 

for years intended that "heirs" 82 Roe on dem. of Shore v. Por- 

should operate as a word of pur- ter, 3 T. R. 13; James v. Dean, 11 

chase and not as a word of limi- Ves. 393; Rees v. Perrot. 4 Car. & 

tation, A., the ancestor, will take Payne, 230. 

a life estate in the term and his ss Rees v. Perrot, 4 Car. & 

heir a remainder as a purchaser. Payne. 230. 

The personal representative of A. s* East Norway Lake N. E. Lu- 

takes nothing. Williams' Execu- theran Church v. Froislie, 37 

tors, 678; Fearne Contingent Rem. Minn. 447, 35 N. W. 260. 

490; Doe v. Lyde. 1 T. R. 393; Ex 

parte Sterne, 6 Ves. 1.56.. 



44 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

self could render. The fact that a tenant of a farm is ex- 
pressly bound by his lease to see that the land, is Avell cultivated 
and is fertilized, that no waste is committed, that buildings and 
fences are kept in good repair and that certain houses are 
erected in particular places upon the land does not imply that 
his death shall terminate the term as these are services which 
any good tenant may perform, either himself or bj^ others whom 
he may hire for the purpose.'- The ordinary rule above stated 
does not apply to a lease to a firm or a partnership of a building 
which is owned by one of the partners for the purpose of carry- 
ing on the business of the partnership. Under such circum- 
stances when, by reason of the death of any of the partners the 
partnership is dissolved, the term is at an end.^^ But where the 
agreement between the partners provides that the firm shall not 
be dissolved upon the death of one of the partners, but the per- 
sonal representative of his estate is to be substituted for him, the 
rule that the death of a partner terminates the lease does not 
apply. This provision of the copartnership articles exempting 
them from the operation of the ordinary in^ile that the death of 
a partner dissolves the firm, being known to all the parties to 
the lease will be read as a part of it and as though written in 
it.8^ 

§ 39. The liability of the personal representative of the de- 
ceased lessee of a term of years. The personal representative 
of a lessee for years on the death of the lessee becomes an as- 
signee of the term. But the executor of a lessee is not liable as 
assignee until he takes actual possession of the premises. After 
he takes actual possession he becomes liable for the rent.^* In 
this respect his character and liability as an assignee or quasi as- 
signee of the lessee differ very materially from those of an as- 
signee by contract who is liable for the rent from the date of 
the assignment whether he takes the possession or not. By tak- 
ing possession the personal representative becomes liable in his 

85 Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. Car. Rt in re Markle's Estate, 17 Pa. 

544, 8 S. E. Rep. 1, 4. Co. Ct. Rep. 337, 5 Pa. Dist. Rep. 

8" .Johnson v. Hartshorne, 52 N. 47. 

Y. 172, 177; Doe v. Miles, 1 Stark. ss Ex parte Galloway, 21 Wend. 

181; Doe on d. Colnaghi v Bluck, (N. Y.) 32; Howard v. Heln- 

8 C. & P. 464, in which the part- erschit, 16 Hun, 177. See, Knick- 

nership having heen dlssolverl no- erbocker Life Insurance Co. v. 

tice to quit was dispensed with. Patterson, 75 N. Y. 589, 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 45 

representative capacity on the lessee's covenant to pay rent.^' 
But the personal representative of a deceased lessee who takes 
possession of and occupies the premises which had been leased 
to the person whom he represents does not by this action render 
himself personally liable to the lessor for the rent subsequently 
accruing under the lease while he is in the occupation of the 
premises. He is liable personally only for the actual profits of 
the land or for so much as it is reasonably worth. And for that 
proportion of the rent payable under the lease which exceeds 
the profits he is liable only as in his representative capacity out 
of the estate.^" In any case, however, his personal liability to 
the lessor does not exceed what the premises yield and he may 
show what the net profits are in a suit against him personally 
for the rent brought b}^ the lessor. The law looks upon him as a 
quasi assignee and he is none the less an assignee because his 
personal responsibility is less than an assignee in fact.^^ AVhere 
the personal representative is sued in his representative capacity 
on a lease which has been signed by his decedent the estate is lia- 
ble according to the express covenants of contract entered into by 
the deceased and the representative cannot defend by showing 
the rental value of the premises is less than the rent agreed to 
be paid. Where an executor is sued personally as having entered 

89 The lessee's administrator Andreae, 61 Law J. Q. B. 630; 
who does not at once quit and sur- Tiaylor v. Cabanne, 8 Mo. App. 
render the leased premises on his 131; Remnant v. Brembridge, 2 
appointment or on a notice to quit, Moore, 94; 8 Taunt. 191, 19 R. R. 
but keeps the decedent's property 495. 

on the premises for several weeks, ^^ Becker v. Walworth. 45 Ohio 

and claims rent from an under- St. 169, 172, 12 N. E. Rep. 1. 

tenant which accrued after the The executor of a lessee cannot 

death of his intestate will be pre- be made liable as assignee of a 

sumed to have taken possession of term without an entry and an 

the premises. He is personally li- actual taking possession by him of 

able to the lessor down to the date the demised premises; but, if he 

of the service of the notice to quit enter and take possession, he may 

for the actual value of the use of be made liable as assignee, though, 

the premises. Inches v. Dickin- by proper pleading, he may limit 

son, 7 Allen (Mass.) 71, 79 Am. such liability for rent to the yearly 

Dec. 765. value which the premises might 

90 Fisher v. Fisher. 1 Bradf. Sur have yielded, Rendall v. Andreae, 
(N. Y.) 345; In re Kemp's Estate, 61 Law J. Q. B. 630. 

34 Pittsb. Leg. J. 82; Rendall v. 



46 LAW OF LANDLORD xVND TENANT. 

on, and being in possession of, the premises, or where he is sued 
vHS being the assignee of the term he may plead in defense that 
he is an executor, that he is without assets and that the prem- 
ises are of less value than the yearly rent. These defenses must 
be specially alleged in the answer for the presumption is that the 
value of the premises is greater than the rent reserved and that 
he has received or is receiving enough from the land to pay the 
rent. The plea of the personal representative that the yearly 
value of the premises is less than the rent agreed to be paid where 
he is siied as executor and has entered as such will show that he 
is not personally liable by reason of any excess due from the es- 
tate but that as executor he is liable only for the amount he has 
actually received.^^ The plea of an administrator that the prem- 
ises were of less value than the arrears of rent and that he had 
paid all the profits he had received from them is not supported 
by evidence that the deceased had underlet them and that the ad- 
ministrator had been unable to collect the rent from the under- 
tenant or by proof that the premises were out of repaii*, where 
the lease contained a covenant by the deceased to repair the prem- 
ises.^^ The liability of an executor who takes possession under a 
lease to his testator on a covenant to repair, contained in the lease 
is usually personal. He may refuse to take possession but if he 

92 Traylor v. Cabanne, 8 Mo. App. him for enforcing a personal lia- 
131, 134; In re Galloway, 21 Wend. bility against him. The mere fact 
(N. Y.) 32; Rubery v. Stevens, 4 that receipts signed by the lessor 
Barn. & Adol. 241; Wollaston v. acknowledged payments by the ex- 
Hakewill, 3 Man. & Gib. 297. The ecutor as such does not alone 
lessor has the right, when the ex- show that the lessor elected to 
ecutor of the lessee enters upon hold him liable for the rent in 
the premises to look for his rent that capacity only, where the re- 
either to the estate or to the ex- ceipts were given thus at the ex- 
ecutor personally. The remedies ecutor's request so that he might 
against the estate and against the use them as vouchers in the pro- 
executor are not inconsistent. bate court and when the insolvency 
The executor on entering upon the of the estate was unknown to th> 
premises is in contemplation of lessor when he signed the receipts, 
law the assignee of the lease and Becker v. Walworth, 45 Ohio St. 
can avoid personal liability for 169, 173, 12 N. E. Rep. 1. 
rent only by showing an express o=* Hornidge v. Wilson. 3 P. & D. 
contract by the lessor to look to 641, 11 A. & E. 645; 9 L. J. Q. B. 
him as executor only or such con- 72. 
duct by the lessor as will piec.lude 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 47 

does so he must keep the premises in repair where the person 
under whose rights he claims was bound to do so. So while an 
executor who has occupied premises held by his testator under a 
lease with covenants to pay taxes and rent and to keep in repair 
is liable on the covenant to pay taxes and rents only so far as he 
has received profits, he is liable for the breach of the covenant to 
repair to the same extent as any other assignee.^* 

§ 40. The remedies of the personal representative of the 
lessee. The personal representative of the lessee may usually 
sue to enforce any express covenant in the lease binding on the 
lessor. Thus, a personal representative of the lessee may sue to 
recover damages for trespass on the premises committed by the 
landlord or any other person before or after the death of the 
intestate,^^ or he may sue to recover the possession of a life es- 
tate.^® So, too, the personal representative of the lessee may sue 
the landlord for damages resulting from a forcible entry by 
the landlord made at the death of the lessee."^ The personal 
representative of the deceased lessee is entitled to the possession 
of the premises for the remainder of the term sub.ject to his 
obligation to pay the landlord for the use of the same. The per- 
sonal representative cannot, because he is entitled to the posses- 
sion, make a parol surrender to the landlord of the unexpired 
term and take a lea^e to himself personally. The surrender being 
by parol would be invalid under the statute of frauds. It would 
also be set aside in equity as a violation of the duty which the 
representative owes to the estate. It need not be shown that the 
taking of the lease to himself personally would be beneficial to 
him, as that will be presumed and the law will not permit him to 

91 Tremeere v. Morrison, 4 M. & 96 Cunniiigham v. Baxley, 96 

Scott, 603, 1 Bing. (N. C.) 89, 3 L. Ind. 367, 369; Sutter v. Lackman, 

J. C. P. 260. "The general rule is, 39 Mo. 41. 

that the executor of a lessee is lia- a^ Smith v. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452; 

ble as an assignee, except that construing 2 Gav. & H. St. P. 527. 

with respect to rent, his liability Where the testator at his death 

does not exceed what the property held land under a lease for a term 

yields; no such exception applies of years his executor is the proper 

to the covenant to repair." Tre- person to begin ejectment against 

meere v. Morrison, 1 Bing. N. C. a trespasser. Duchane v. Good- 

89. title, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 117; Mosher 

o'Schee v. Wiseman, 79 Ind. v. Yost, 33 Barb. (X. Y.) 277. 
389. 



48 LAW OF Lu\.NDLOED AND TENANT. 

obtain an advantage to himself at the expense of the estate which 
he represents. ^^ A representative of the deceased lessee may 
execute a valid sub-lease for any period short of the term which 
devolves upon him by the death of the lessee. The rent which he 
collects from the sub-tenant is assets of the estate for the purpose 
of distribution among the next of kin.^^ "While the executor may 
grant a sub-lease before letters testamentary are issued to him, 
an administrator cannot do so, nor can he assign the premises 
until he has received his letters. The authority of the adminis- 
trator to sublet is derived from his letters of administration, 
while the authority of the executor is derived from the will in 
which he is appointed. The issuance of letters testamentaiy to 
the executor confirms all his acts done prior thereto.^ Any dam- 
ages which may be recovered against any person by a personal 
representative of the lessee are personal property of the estate 
and are assets in the hands of the personal representative to be 
applied to the paying of debts or to be distributed according to 
law.^ 

§ 41. The rights of an executor of a lessor. If in the lease 
the lessor reserve rent to himself by name in the case of a lease 
for years, the rent will be determined by the death of the lessor 
during the term. If, however, he shall reserve the rent generally 
without stating to whom it shall go it will go to his heirs on his 
death during the term, and in such case the law will make the 
distribution.^ If the lessor reserve rent to himself, his execu- 
tor and assigns, and the lessee covenants to pay the executor, tlie 
lease survives the death of the lessor and the heirs and devisee 
may sue and recover the rent though it is expressly reserved to 
the executor. The rather technical character of these rules of the 
old common law have been modified in modern times. As a gen- 
eral principle rents which have accrued and become due and 

88 Charles v. Byrd, 29 S. Car. i Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's 

544, 559, 8 S. E. Rep. 1. Lessee, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 492, 493. 

99 Bacon's Abr. tit. Lease, (1)7; 2 Schee v. Wiseman, 79 Ind. 389, 

Finch's Case, G Coke, 67b; Inches 392. 

V. Dickinson, 2 Allen (Mass.) 71, 3 Co. Litt. 47; Plow. 171; Whit- 

78 Am. Dec. 765; Bendall v. Sum- lock's Case, 8 Co. 68, 71; Sachere- 

mersett, 2 W. Bl. 692; Hudson v. rell v. Frogott, 2 Saund. 367; Sury 

Hudson, 1 Ark. 400; Wankford v. v. Brown, Lutch, 99, 101; Jaques 

Wankford, 1 Salkeld, 299, 301; v. Gould, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 384, 387. 
Broker v. Charters, Cro. Eliz. 92. 



PARTIES TO THE LK.VSE. 49 

payable during the lifetime of the lessor, if he is the owner in 
fee simple of the land, go to his personal representative on his 
death and are assets in his hands for the payment of debts. It 
is not material whether the rents are reserved to the lessor alone 
or whether they are reserved to him and his executors.* But 
rents accruing subsequently to the death of the lessor are an. in- 
cident of the reversion and go to the heirs and devisees of the 
lessor at the death of the lessor. ITie personal representative of 
the deceased lessor has no title to, nor can he recover from the 
lessee rents which have acciiied after the death of the person 
whom he represents.^ The fact that the will of the deceased 
lessor confers upon his executor a power of sale for the purpose 
of paying debts or legacies does not confer a power upon the 
executor to collect the rents which accrue after the death of the 
testator, or to use them as assets of the estate." For the power 
in the executor to sell is merely a power in trust and confers no 
estate in the land on him which entitles him to its possession, or 
which places him in the position of a landlord, as respects any 
tenant who may occupy the land. The power of sale is a mere 
naked power. The land devolves upon the heir or devisee of the 
lessor subject to be divested by the exercise of the power of sale. 
Until that takes place the heir or devisee may occupy the land 

4 Wells V. Cowles, 4 Conn. 182; 280; Lobdell v. Hayes, 78 Mass. 
McDowell V. Hendrix, 67 Ind. 513; 236; Bloodworth T. Stevens, 51 
Ball V. First National Bank, 80 Miss. 475; Shouse v. Krusor, 24 
Ky. 501; Sohier v. Eldredge, 103 Mo. App. 279; Allen v. Van Hou- 
Mass. 345; Bloodworth v. Stevens. ten, 19 N. J. L. 47; In re Spears, 
51 Miss. 475. 89 Hun. 49, 35 N. Y. Sup. 35; Fay 

5 Masterson v. Girard's Heirs, v. Holloran, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 295; 
10 Ala. 60; Dixon v. Niccolls, 39 Fleming v. Chunn, 57 N. C. 422; 
111. 372, 89 Am. Dec. 312; Foltz v. Haslage v. Krugh, 25 Pa. St. 97; 
Prouse, 17 111. 487; Dorsett v. Adams v. Adams, 4 Watts (Pa.) 
Gray, 98 Ind. 273, 275; Kidwell v. 160; Huff v. Latimar, 33 S. C. 255, 
Kidwell, 84 Ind. 224; Crane v. 11 S. E. Rep. 758; Smith v. 
Guthrie, 47 Iowa, 542; Shawhan v. Thomas, 82 Tenn. 324: Rowan v. 
Long, 26 Iowa, 488, 492, 96 Am. Riley, 65 Tenn. (6 Baxt.) 67. 
Dec. 164; Head v. Sutton, 31 Kan. s Clendenning v. Currier, 6 Gill 
616, 3 Pac. Rep. 280; Eastin v. &J. (Md.) 420; Greenland v. Wad- 
Hatchitt, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 780; Ball dell, 5 N. Y. St. Rep. 835; Watts' 
V. First Nat. Bank, 80 Ky. 501; Estate. 168 Pa. St. 430, 433, 32 Atl. 
Stinson v. Stinson, 38 Me. 593; Rep. 26, 36 W. N. C. 372, 47 Am. 
Mills V. Merryman, 49 Me. 65; St. Rep. 893. 

Getzandaffer v. Caylor, 38 Md. 

4 



50 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



himself or he may lease it to others, reserving and enjoying its 
rents and profits. This rule applies to a power of sale conferred 
by a statute upon the executor or other personal representative 
of a deceased lessor, for the purpose of paying the debts of the 
decedent.^ So also, an administrator of the deceased lessor can- 
not by a bill in equity have the rents which accrue and become 
payable after the death of his intestate from a creditor of the 
intestate, set off against a judgment obtained by the creditor, 
against the administrator. The reason of this is that the admin- 
istrator has no rights in or to the real property or to the profits 
unless the estate is insolvent.^ The executor of the landlord 
may sue the tenant for damages caused by a breach of covenant 
by the tenant which happened during the life of the landlord. 



7 Lobdell V. Hayes, 12 Gray 
(Mass.) 236; Brooks v. Jacken, 
125 Mass. 307, 309. 

s Bullock V. Sneed, 13 Sm. & M. 
Miss. 293. "The probate court 
does not necessarily have any ju- 
risdiction over the rents. The ad- 
ministrator neither has the right 
against the consent of the heirs, 
nor Is he required, to occupy the 
estate or collect the rents there- 
from. He may receive the income 
of the real estate by the request 
of the heirs, or with their acqui- 
escence. He would not be re- 
garded as a trespasser in so do- 
ing, unless done in opposition to 
their interests, or in defiance of 
their wishes. It is often conveni- 
ent, and sometimes of decided ad- 
vantage for him to do so; as 
where heirs are minors without 
guardians; or are of affairs 
abroad, or unacquainted with the 
management of affairs, and where 
the administrator may be himself 
an, heir, or have intimate business 
or family relations with the estate 
and in other cases. In many cases, 
there is an understanding or agree- 
ment, that the administrator shall 
take the rents, and account for 



them as assets for the benefit of 
the estate, where such a course 
may save the sale of the real es- 
tate for debts, or where the heirs 
get the advantage of them on the 
general distribution. In such case 
the administrator would account 
in the probate court for such rents 
with the general assets according 
to such agreement, but not neces- 
sarily by force of any requirements 
of the statute. Such we believe 
to be a somewhat common prac- 
tice." By Peters, J., in Kimball 
V. Sumner, 62 Me. 305. 310. In 
Boynton v. Peterborough & Shir- 
ley R. Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 467, 
the court, by Shaw, C. J., said: 
"The heir takes the estate accord- 
ing to the well-known rule of in- 
heritance, at the time of the de- 
cease of the ancestor, subject only 
to be divested by a sale, pursuant 
to law, conducted in the manner 
prescribed by statute. All the le- 
gal consequences of this relation 
are held to follow. The heir is 
the owner until he is divested; he 
has the exclusive possession and 
right of possession; he may take 
the rents and profits to his own 
use and without account." 



P.VRTIES TO THE LEASE. 51 

This nile applies to all covenants entered into by the tenant, 
unless the covenant is expressly in favor of the heir of the land- 
lord, in which case, only the heir can sue; or nnl&ss the covenant 
is a mere personal contract, the benefit of which dies with the 
person of the landlord. This rule has been applied to breaches 
■of a covenant to repair occuring during the life of the landlord.^ 
§ 42. The H'ability of a personal representative for rents. 
If the personal representative of a deceased lessor takes pos- 
session of tlie lands of his decedent, and occupies them for his 
own use or leases them and retains the rents he must pay the 
heirs or devisees the rental value of the lands.^" They may re- 
cover the rents from him in an action at law,^^ and in equity he 
■will be regarded as a trustee for the heirs and devisees to the ex- 
tent of the money which came into his hands from the rents of 
the premises.^- But where the personal representative is an heir 
of the decedent and he collects the rent it will be presumed that 
he collected it as an heir and he cannot be compelled to account 
for it to the next of kin/'' A personal representative who collects 
the rents has no right or duty to account for them to the next of 
kin in making up his account. He is not chargeable on his ac- 
counting but he is personally liable to the heirs at law for money 
received and in equity as a trustee for those who by law are en- 
titled to receive the rents of the real property of the person he 
represents." If the personal property is insufficient to pay the 

9 Raymond v. Fitch, 2 C. M. & 20 S. E. Rep. 431; Jones' Appeal, 

R. .588; Kingdon v. Nottle, 1 M. & 3 Grant Cases (Pa.) 250; Robb's 

Sel. 355; King v. Jones, 5 Taunt. Appeal, 41 Pa. St. 45. 

518, 1 Marsh. 107; Ricketts v. is Schwartz' Estate, 14 Pa. St. 

Weaver, 121 M. & W. 718, 723, 13 L. 42. 

J., Ex. 195. 1^ Smith v. King, 22 Ala. 558; 

IP Henderson v. Simmons, 33 Goodrich v. Thompson, 4 Day 

Ala. 291, 70 Am. Dec. 590; In re (Conn.) 215; Eppinger v. Canepa, 

Misamore's Est., 90 Cal. 169, 27 20 Fla. 262; Hendrix v. Hendrix, 

Pac. Rep. 6; In re Holderbaum's 65 Ind. 329, 331; Evans v. Hardy, 

Est., 82 Iowa, 69, 72, 47 N. W. Rep. 76 Ind. 527; Head v. Sutton, 31 

898; Stearns v. Stearns, 1 Pick. Kan. 616. 3 Pac. Rep. 280; Hen- 

(Mass.) 157; Shuffler v. Turner, derson's Succession, 24 La. Ann. 

Ill N. C. 297, 16 S. E. Rep. 417. 435; Lewis v. Carson, 16 Mo. App. 

11 Brooks V. Jackson, 125 Mass. 342; Lucy v. Lucy, 55 N. H. 9, 10; 

307, 309; Gibson v. Farley, 16 Griswold v. Chandler, 5 N. W. 492; 

Mass. 280. Stagg v. Jackson, 1 N. Y. 206; 

i2Autrey v. Autrey, 94 Ga. 579, Fisher v. Fisher, 1 Bradf. (N. Y.) 



52 



LAW OF LANDLORD jVKD TENANT. 



debts, or if tlie estate is insolvent, the personal representative 
may sell the land for the purpose of paying debts ; but until that 
time the heirs are entitled to receive the rents and profits, and 
the mere fact that the personal estate is insolvent does not author- 
ize the administrator or executor to collect the rents.^^ And an 
administrator who, without the consent of the widow of the de- 
ceased, leases land which had been assigned to her for her dower, 
will be liable to her personally for the rents which he has re- 
ceived under the lease.^" 

§ 43. The power of an administrator to lease the lands of 
his intestate. An administrator, as such, has ordinarily no 
power to execute leases of the real property of his intestate 
though where an administrator is permitted by the heir to 
lease land whether for the purpose of paying the debts of the 
deceased, or meeting the expenses of administration or for 
any other proper and legal purpose, the heir will be estopped 
from subsequently questioning the validity of the action of 
the administrator.^^ For an administrator may, with the 



355; Campbell v. Johnson, 1 Sandf. 
Ch. (N. Y.) 148; Floyd v. Herring, 
64 N. C. 409; Conger v. Atwood, 
28 Ohio St. 134, 22 Am. Rep. 462; 
Carlisle's Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 259; 
McCoy v. Scott, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 
222; Jewell v. Jewell, 11 Rich. Eq. 
(S. C.) 296; Stockwell v. Sargent, 
37 Vt. 16. 

15 Kimball v. Sumner, 62 Me. 
305; Gibson v. Farley, 16 Mass. 
283; Boynton V. Peterborough, etc., 
Co., 4 Cush. (Mass.) 467, 469; Pal- 
mer V. Palmer, 13 Gray (Mass.) 
326; Stearns v. Stearn, 1 Pick. 
(Mass.) 157; Newcomb v. Steb- 
bins, 99 Mass. 616, 617. 

16 Boyd Y. Hunter, 44 Ala. 705. 
A statute which requires an ex- 
ecutor or an administrator who 
uses any part of the rral estate, 
to account for the income of the 
same in the probate court means 
that he shall accoun't for the rents 
only to such persons to whom they 



belong. He must account for them 
to the heirs or devisees unless 
they expressly or by necessary im- 
plication agree that the rents shall 
be applied with other assets to 
pay the legacies, the debts and the 
expenses of administration. Brooks 
V. Jackson, 125 Mass. 307, 310. 
Where by a statute an adminis- 
trator has power to rent the lands 
of his decedent it would seem rea- 
sonable that he should account for 
the rents received as assets and 
in a court of probate. See, Bon- 
durant v. Thompson, 15 Ala. 202; 
Smith V. King. 22 Ala. 558. 

17 Crowder V. Shackelford, 35 
Miss. 320, 359; Ashley v. Young, 
79 Miss. 129, 29 So. Rep. 822; 
Stearns v. Stearns, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 
157; Choate v. Arrington, 116 
Mass. 552; Brent v. Chipley, 104 
Mo. App. 645, 78 S. W. Rep. 270. 
See, also. Jackson v. O'Rorke (Neb. 
1904), 98 N. W. Rep. 1068. 



PARTIES TO THE LEASE. 53 

knowledge of the heirs and without their dissent rent the lands 
of his intestate for the purpose of paying the debts of the estate 
and the rent is then assets in his hands for that purpose.^^ In 
some states it is expressly provided by statute that an executor 
or administrator may rent or sell lands for the purpose of paying 
the debts of the deceased person whom he represents.^' Such a 
lease is not likely to be of much value or to meet with favorable 
consideration from a prospective tenant. It is in some cases pro- 
vided that an administrator's lease shall be terminated with his 
ofi&ce.^®^ And in all cases where the execution of a lease by an 
administrator is in question it is ver^^ advisable, if not indispen- 
sable, for the protection of all parties, to secure the approval of 
the court having jurisdiction of the estates of decedents to the 
execution of the lease by the administrator.^" 

§ 44. The power of administrator with the will annexed to 
lease. Inasmuch as a power to sell or to lease lands conferred 
upon an executor by the will is a special power in trust which 
indicates and is based upon some special trust or confidence 
which the testator had and reposed in the executor personally it 
is a general rule that such special testamentary power to sell or 
lease does not devolve on an administrator with the will annexed. 
So far as leasinu- the property of the testator is concerned the 
administrator with the will annexed has such powers only as are 
conferred upon an administrator by statute.-^ In some of the 
states by express statute the administrator with the will an- 
nexed possesses and may exercise all powers which might have 

18 Ashley v. Young, 79 Miss. 129, Ga. 461; Hall v. Irwin, 7 111. 176; 
29 So. Rep. 822. Owens v. Cowan, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 

19 Palmer v. Stiner, 68 Ala. 400. 1.52; Brown v. Hobson, 3 A. K. 
isaBurbank v. Dyer, 52 Ind. Marsh. (Ky.) 380, 13 Am. Dec. 187; 

392; Smith v. Park, 31 Minn. 70. Montgomery v. Milliken, 9 Miss. 

20 Bank V. Dudley, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 49.5; Brush v. Young, 28 N. J. L. 
492; Roe v. Summerset, 2 W. Bl. 237; Naundorf v. Schuman, 41 X. 
692. See, also, Brent v. Chipley, J. Eq. 14, 2 Atl. 609; Dominick 
104 Mo. App. 645. v. Michael, 4 Sandf. Ch. (X. Y.) 

21 The following cases refer only 374; Gilchrist v. Rea, 9 Paige Ch. 
to a power of sale conferred on the (X. Y.) 66; Brain v. Mattison, 54 
executor by the will but by anal- X. Y. 663; Dunning v. Ocean Bank, 
ogy they would doubtless be ap- 61 N. Y. 497; Ferebee v. Proctor, 2 
plicable to a testamentary power Der. & B. (X. C.) 439; Moody v. 
to lease laads: Lucas v. Price, 4 Vandyke, 4 Binn. (Pa.) 31; :Moo- 
Ala. 679; Lockwood v. Stradley, 1 dy's Lessee v. Filmer, 3 Grant 
Del. Ch. 298; Harker r. Smith, 7 Cas. (Pa.) 17. 



54 LAW OF LANDLORD AKD TENANT. 

been exercised by the executor including a power to sell the 
land of the testator.-- 

§ 45. General rule as to the power of executors to make 
leases. As a general rule and speaking broadly, it may 
safely be said that in the absence of an express direction in 
the will creating in the executor some power over the real 
estate of his testator an executor has no interest in or control 
over the real property of the testator which will enable him 
to execute a valid lease of the same.-^ In Michigan it has been 
held that an executor's lease for two years of the real estate 
of his testator, which he has taken possession of and occupied 
with the consent of the heirs or devisees, though void as a 
lease for two years, under a statute allowing an executor to lease 
the real property of his testator "from year to A^ear," is valid 
as a lease from year to year.^* Inasmuch as the legal title to 
land undisposed of by will is in the heir alone an administrator 
cannot sue a tenant at will of his decedent for rent in the ab- 
sence of any contract of renting between the administrator and 
the tenant.'^ 

§ 46. A lease which is executed by one of several executors 
or administrators. One of several executors having power to 
lease may execute a lease which will be valid and binding on all 
of them though by the will creating the power to lease the power 
is in express words confen^ed upon all the executors.-® So, a 

22 Kidwell V. Brummagim, 32 tive has the power to rent or 
Cal. 436; Dilworth v. Rice, 48 Mo. to sell the lands for the purpose 
124; Sandifer v. Grantham, 62 of paying the debts of the de- 
Miss. 412; Hester v. Hester, 2 ceased and where in the exercise 
Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 330; Creech v. of this power he claims the rents 
Grainger, 106 N. C. 213; 10 S. E. which have accrued after the 
Rep. 1032; In re Still's Estate, 2 death of the decedent he may re- 
Pa. Dist. Rep. 105, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. cover the same as his title to the 
Rep. 379, 31 W. N. C. 252. rents is the same as to any other 

23 Hankins v. Kimball, 57 Ind. chose in, action. Palmer v. 
42; Rutherford's Heirs v. Clark's Steiner, 68 Ala. 400. 

Heirs, 4 Bush. (Ky.) 27; Ely v. 24 Grady v. Warrell, 105 Mich. 

Scofield, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 330; In 310, 63 N. W. Rep. 204. 

re Hillard's Estate, 8 Luzon Leg. 25 Cummings v. Watson, 149 

Reg. (Pa.) 237; Bruer v. Hayes, Mass. 262, 21 N. E. Rep. 36.G. And 

10 Ohio Dec. 583. The rule of the compare, Howard v. Patrick, 38 

text has been modified by statute Mich. 795. 

in some states. Thus where by a 20 Chandler v. Ryder, 102 Mass. 

statute the personal representa- 268; Bunner t. Storm, 1 Sandf. 



TARTIES TO THE LEASE. 55 

lease for years may be assigned by one of several administrators 
so as to bind the others.-^ But where by a statute the majority 
of several executors named must join in the execution of a con- 
tract a lease signed by one is not valid as to the others. Nor 
can such a. lease signed by one of two or more executors be re- 
garded as binding on the others upon any presumption that the 
executor who signed acted as their agent when its term exceeds 
one year and the statute requires that the authority of an agent 
to make a lease for more than one year shall be in writing.-' 
The rule is that where a term for years is specifically bequeathed 
it will on the death of the testator vest in the executor for the 
purposes of administering the estate. The legatee will acquire 
title through the executor and not directly from the testator. 
The legatee has no right to enter or to demand or receive the 
rents until the executor has given his assent to the bequest or 
has accounted and turned the term over to the legatee. Hence 
a person who proposes to take an assignment of the lease from 
the executor or to whom the executor proposes to sublet ought to 
ascertain whether or not the latter has assented to the bequest 
for if he has his power over the term is at an end. The lega- 
tee must be consulted and if he does not agree to the new tenant 
or assignee he may eject him by judicial proceedings.^® 

§ 47. A lease by an executrix being a feme sole. At the com- 
mon law the power of a feme sole who was also an executrix to 
lease a term as a feme sole is terminated by her marriage and 
thereafter her husband must be the lessor in all leases which she 
desires to make in her representative capacity.'" AVhether she 

Ch. (N. Y.) 387; Ogden v. Smith, when done by one only without the 
2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 195; Doe v. concurrence or knowledge of the 
Hayes, 7 Taunt. 222; Simpson v. others. The rule is different as 
Gutteridge, 1 Madd. 609, 617 (as- to the torts of one executor and as 
signment of a lease); Hayes v. to acts of the executors, which 
Sturges, 7 Taunt. 217. It is a could not lawfully be done by all. 
very old an/d well recognized rule 2- Lewis v. Ringo, 3 A. K. 
of the common law that a release, Marsh. (Ky.) 247. 
surrender of a term, the confes- 2s Utah Loan & Trust Company 
sion of a judgment, an attorn- v. Garbutt, 6 Utah, 342. 23 Pac. 758. 
ment of one executor and any 29 Doe v. Guy. 4 Esp. 154; .John- 
other lawful act which all the ex- son v. Warwick. 17 C. B. 516, Fen- 
ecutors may lawfully do, will be ton v. Clegg, 9 Ex. 680. 
binding and conclusive on all «o Arnold v. Bidgood, Cro. Jac 



ub LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

joins with him or not in the execution of the instrument does, 
not affect its validity at the common law.^^ 

§ 48. The equitable jurisdiction over leases made by execu- 
tors. Leases which have been made by the personal represen- 
tative though they be valid in law, may, under some circum- 
stances, be set aside in equity on the application of interested 
parties. In order that a lease made by an executor may be valid, 
it must appear that the lease was made by him in order to se- 
cure a due and proper administration of the property of the 
deceased person whom he represents. Hence, if a lease is made 
by the personal representative which is clearly improvident and 
unprofitable to the persons who take the estate of the deceased 
it may be annulled in equity on application of the persons who 
have been prejudiced by the action of the personal representa- 
tive in making the lease.^^ If the lessee is not responsible for 
the waste committed by the personal representative, and particu- 
larly, where he had entered upon the premises and made im- 
provements, equity may decree that he should receive compensa- 
tion so far as the next of kin were benefited by what he had con- 
tributed. So, also, if a lease made by a personal representative 
is tainted with fraud on his part to the prejudice of the benefi- 
ciaries of the estate, the latter may have it set aside in equity.^' 
So, generally if a sale of the land of the decedent be necessary 
to enable the personal representative to pay legacies and debts of 
the estate, or, if under all the circumstances a sale is more bene- 
ficial to the legatees than a lease, the latter, when made by a per- 
sonal representative, may be set aside in equity and a sale may be 
ordered.^* 

§ 48a. The power of trustees to grant leases. A trustee in 
whom is vested the legal estate may grant leases for reasonable 
times and at reasonable rents where the term of the lease does 
not exceed the duration of the legal estate in the trustee.^^ In 

318; Levick v. Coppin^ 2 W. Bl. ss Keating v. Keating, Loyd v. 

801. Gov. Co. temp. Sugd. 613. 

81 Leviclf V. Copin, 2 W. Bl. 801; 34 Drohan v. Drohau, 1 Ball & B. 

1 Piatt on Leases, 3G8; Wood- 185. 

fall, Landlord and Tenant, 51, 52. 35 Hutcheson v. Bennefield (Ga. 

32 Margrave v. Archibold, 1 1902), 42 S. E. Rep. 422; Geer v. 

Dow P. C. 107. Traders' Bank, 132 Mich. 215, 93 

N. W. Rep. 437, 9 Det. Leg. N. 578. 



PARTIES TO TUE LE.VSE. 57 

some states the permission of the court is required before the 
trustee can lease property. For example, in the state of Xew 
York b}^ statute a trustee may lease real estate during the life 
of the beneficiary for a term not to exceed five years without ap- 
plication to the court but if a tei^m exceed that limit he must se- 
cure the permission of the supreme court.^^ As a general rule 
a trustee has no power to make a lease which was extended be- 
yond the term of his trust.^^ A trustee, unless expressly author- 
ized to do so by the person who has created the trust has no 
power to make leases extending beyond the term of the trust. 
If the trust estate is terminated by the death of the beneficiaiy 
or by his marriage or by his attainment of his majority or by 
the happening of any event which has been designated by the 
creator of the trust as working its termination the lease becomes 
ipso facto void.^* If the rule were otherwise it would be possible 
for a trustee by granting long leases, or by making leases with 
covenants of renewal, to deprive the person on whom the legal 
title will devolve at the termination and expiration of the trust 
term of the possession and beneficial enjoyment of the property. 
The person in whom the legal interest would devolve would take 
it encumbered with outstanding leases and have tenants thrust 
upon him without his choice whom he could by no means get rid 
of until the termination of their terms. The same rule would 
apply where the trust instrument provides that on the happen- 
ing of the event which terminates the trust the trustees shall 
convey the trust estate to a person designated. A lease entered 
into by the trustee during the existence of the trust does not 
last until the estate is in fact conveyed. It terminates at the 
same instant as the trust estate and a formal conveyance of the 
trust estate by the trustee is unnecessary and is usually dis- 
pensed with.?® Very often powers to lease in express language 
are inserted in trust deeds or in wills creating trusts. Ajid 
where there is a power to grant leases for twenty years a lease 
by the trustee for any period short of the twenty years is 

36 Weir V. Barker, 93 N. Y. Supp. 31 N. Y. Supp. 206, 208; In re Mc- 
742. Caffrey, 50 Hun, 371, 3 N. Y. Sup. 

37 In re Armory Board. 29 Misc. 96. 

174, 60 N. Y. Supp. 882. 94 N. Y. 39 Watlcins v. Reynolds, 123 N. 

St. Rep. 882, 30 Civ. Pro. Rep. Y. 211, 25 N. E. Rep. 322. 

38 Gomez v. Gomez, 81 Hun, 566, 



58 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

valid.^" So. a. power to lease for any time not to exceed twenty- 
one years Avill authorize a lease for twenty-one years which 
is detenninable at the option of the lessee at the expiration 
of a less number of years.*^ To state the rule concisely any 
lease by a trustee for a term which is less than the term permit- 
ted to be made by a power vested in him is valid though it may 
exceed the duration of the trust. But the power to lease for 
twenty-one years or to make building, and repairing leases for 
sixty-one years will authorize a lease for forty years containing 
the usual covenant by a tenant to repair.*^ 

§ 48b. The proper covenants in leases by trustees. In the 
absence of anj^ instructions contained in the instrument creat- 
ing the trust prescribing what conditions or covenants shall be 
inserted in the lease, any covenants may be inserted in leases 
by trustees which are consistent with the general intention of 
the creator of the trust and which do not prejudice the interest 
of the beneficiary or of the person who takes the legal interest 
after the trust has terminated.*^ There ought, however, always 
to be a covenant by the lessee to pay the rent. If this be not 
inserted an assignment of the lease by him will prevent the col- 
lection of rent in case the term created by the lease shall extend 
beyond the term of the trust. There ought always to be a coven- 
ant providing for a re-entry upon the breach of a condition by 
the lessee so that the remainderman may be protected as well as 
the trustee. A trustee cannot, unless expressly authorized to do 
so by the terms of the trust insert covenants of renewal in the 
lease. His covenants for a renewal though perhaps binding on 
him during the trust term will not bind those who take the prop- 
erty after the expiration of the trust.** The trustee will him- 

40 Isherwood v. Olclknow, 3 M. & tinf? trustees to lease, it was held 
S 382. that the trustees might execute a 

41 Edwards v. Milbank, 4 Drew. lease for a much longer term than 
606, 29 L. .T. Ch. 45. the period during which the trust 

42 Easton v. Tratt, 2 H. & C. 676. w^ould exist. Marsh v. Reed, 184 
In a case where the circumstances 111. 263, 56 N. E. Rep. 306. affirm- 
of the property, its location and ing 64 111. App. 535. 

the conditions surrounding the 43 Goodtitle v Finucan, 12 Doug. 

estate generally, were such that a 575. 

court of equity could see that tho ■'■' Gomez v. Gomez, 31 N. Y.. 

interest of the beneficiary of the Supp. 200, 81 Hun, 5G0. 

trust would * e favored by permit- 



TARTIES TO THE LEASE. 59 

self be personally liable on the covenant for quiet enjoyment.*'' 
A trustee whose sole power is to receive the rents and profits, 
sell the land and invest the proceeds has no power to lease.*' 

§ 48c. Signature by one of two or more trustees. A lease 
for a term of years signed by one only of several trustees in 
whom the title to the property is vested is invalid. Such a lease 
is an important and material act vrhere the making of it was 
essential to carry out the trust contained in the instrument under 
Avhich the trustees were appointed and inasmuch as it required 
an exercise of judgment and discretion should have been parti- 
cipated in by all the trustees. The signature of one trustee does 
not bind the others nor will there arise an implication of agency 
in the case of trustees which might perhaps be recognized in the 
case of joint tenants or partners. Doubtless one of several trus- 
tees may under some circumstances, be entrusted by his asso- 
ciates with the business of the trust as their agent. This rule, 
however, will not apply to such acts as a trustee ought to as- 
sume the responsibility for and which properly require a de- 
liberate exercise of the will and judgment of all of them. Nor 
will a lease which is invalid because not signed by all the trus- 
tees become valid by the acquiescence or subsequent recognition 
of its existence by the other trustees who have not signed it. 
The trustees may sign at different dates and the lease will bind 
all as soon as all have signed. But until all have signed it is 
no lease and if it purports to lease a term of years it will be in- 
valid under the statute of frauds. This being the case, mere 
silence or recognition vnW not validate it for it is, at most, only 
a lease at will where the lessee has gone into possession.*'^ 

§ 48d. The personal liability of the trustee. The instrument 
of lease will not be invalidated merely because it does not refer 
to the power though it is always fitting and advisable that it 
should do so. In case the right to grant a lease of the character 
in question does not exist by reason of any interest which the 
lessor may possess aside from the power the intention will be 

45 Chestnut v. Tyson. 105 Ala. 47Winslo'^ v. Baltimore & Ohio 

149, 16 So. Rep. 723. Railroad. 188 U. S. 646. 23 S. Ct. 

<5 In re Hoysradt, 45 N. Y. Supp. 443, 47 Law. ed. 635, reversing 18 

841. 20 Misc. 265, 79 N. Y. St. Rep. App. D. C. 438. 
841. 



60 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

presumed to execute the power on his part.*^ If the lessor has 
an interest and estate in the land as well as a power and the in- 
strument does not clearly indicate whether he means to make 
the lease by virtue of his estate or by virtue of his power and 
it is immaterial whether the lease shall operate by the power 
or by the estate of the lessor it will then be presumed that the 
lessor intends not to execute the power but to grant the lease out 
of his own estate or interest. If, however, a lease created by a 
lessor who has both an estate and a power will be invalid if re- 
ferred to an intention to grant a lease out of the estate and valid 
if refen^ed to an intention on his part to execute the power it 
will be by implication referred to an intention to execute a lease 
under the power and not under the estate or interest. Trustees 
■who execute a lease in their individual names, and in the body 
of the lease covenant to pay the rent without using any language 
showing an intention to bind the beneficiary, are liable person- 
ally on the covenant to pay rent although in the caption of the 
lease they are described as "trustees of" an organization men- 
tioned. The word trustees is merely descriptio personarum and 
the court will not receive parol evidence to show the intent of 
the parties.** 

48 Pitcher V. Daniel, 12 Rich. (S. « Stohie v. Dills, 62 111. 432, 438. 

Car.) Eq. 349. 



CHAPTER IL 

CORPORATION LEASES. 

§ 49. The common law power of corporations to grant leases. 

50. The common law rule as to the power of a corporation to be- 

come a lessee. 

51. The form .of corporation leases. 

52. The necessity for seal on a corporation lease. 

53. By what officer a corporation lease should be executed. 

54. The period for which a corporation lease may run. 

55. When leases are ultra vires. 

56. The effect of the dissolution of a corporation upon an existing 

lease. 

57. The power of municipal corporation to grant leases, 

58. A municipal corporation as a tenant. 

59. Ultra Vires leases by municipal corporatioms. 

60. Leases of park grounds by municipal corporation. 

§ 49. The common law power of corporations to grant leases. 

At the common law a private corporation which by express 
grant or by necessary implication has power to o\^ti and control 
real estate may grant leases thereof and receive and use the 
rents of the same in aU cases where the granting of the lease is 
proper or necessary to enable the corporation to carry on its 
business, or to carry out the purposes and object of the corpo- 
ration.^ The power and capacity of the corporation in this re- 
spect are the same as though it were an individual. It is usually 
advisable to ascertain if tlie corporation has charter power to 

1 Phillips V. Aurora Lodge, 87 etc., 14 Abb. Pr. (N.Y.) 209; Den- 

Ind. 505; Dubuque v. Miller, 11 ike v. N. Y. & Rosedale Co., 80 N. 

Iowa, 558; Crescent City Wharf, Y. 599; Rives v. Dudley, 3 Jones 

etc., Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 286, 19 (N. C.) Law, 126; Baltimore, etc., 

Pac. Rep. 426; New Orleans v. Guil- Co. v. McCutcheon, 13 Pa. St. 1; 

lotte, 14 La. Ann. 875; Phillips v. Co. Litt. 44a; Attorney General v. 

Eastern Railway, 138 Mass. 122; Moses, 2 Madd. 308; Spendlomes 

Taylor v. Carondelet, 22 Mo. 203; v. Burkitt, Hob. 7; Bunny v. 

State V. Flavell, 24 N. J. Law, 370; Wright, 1 Leon, 59; Featherston- 

Nicoll V. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 12 haugh v. Lee, M. P. Co., L. R. 1 

N. Y. 121; Matthews V. Mayor, Eq. 318. 



62 . LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

lease. But it is not always necessary that an express authority 
to lease the real estate of a corporation shall be conferred upon 
it by its articles of incorporation. The circumstances of the par- 
ticular case may be such that a lease will be valid without ex- 
press charter authority. For if a corporation is in such a condi- 
tion that it cannot continue its operations successfully, and is in 
failing financial circumstances, it may lawfully lease its entire 
property, though it may not be expressly authorized to do so.- 
So also the trustees of a corporation who by its charter are vested 
with the control of its property may lease the same as an assem- 
bly room when the premises are not being used by the corpora- 
tion itself.^ But a lease which by its operation suspends the 
ordinary business of the corporation may be absolutely void and 
is unquestionably so where a statute provides that the suspension 
of the business of the corporation for a specific period shall work 
a forfeiture of all the rights, privileges and franchises of the 
corporation.* 

§ 50. The common law rule as to the power of a corporation 
to become a lessee. It is undisputed that a corporation -whether 
lay or ecclesiastical, aggregate or sole, at the common law" pos- 
sessed the implied power to take and hold real property under a 
lease from its owner so far as it is necessary to do so to carry 
out the purposes for which it was incorporated. The right to 
hire premises which are necessary to the cariying on of the 
business of the corporation is a power which is inherent to every 
corporation. So thoroughly is this recognized that the question 
is hardly ever raised.^ If a corporation has actually used and 
occupied land as a lessee which is necessary for its business, and 

2 As to the statutory power of been held that a lease to a corpo- 
a water company to lease its prem- ration in another state was valid, 
ises to another water company see Black v. Delaware & R. Canal Co., 
Moore v. Chartiers Valley Water 22 N. J. Eq. 130. The charter 
Co., 216 Pa. St. 467, 6.^ Atl. Rep. power to erect and maintain docks 
936. confers by implication the power 

3 Phillips V. Aurora Lodge, I. O. to lease such docks after their 
G. T., 87 Ind. 'jO'>. erection. Smith v. Berndt, 1 N. Y. 

4Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co., Supp. 108. 

12 Barb. (N. Y.) 27. In conetru- s Blanchard v. Warner, 1 Blatch. 

ing an express statutory power (U. S.) 258; Jesus College v. 

conferred upon a corporation to Gibbs, 1 Y. & C. 145; Lowe v. 

lease its property to a company London R. R. Co., 14 Eng. L. & 

"in this state or otherwise" it has E. R. 10. 



CORPORATION LEASES. 63 

wliieli has been occupied for the carrying on of the corporation 
business, with the consent of the owner it may be sued in as- 
sumpsit for use and occupation.^ An express power vested in a 
corporation by its charter to hire premises for corporation pur- 
poses by implication vests in it all powers which are necessarily 
incidental thereto and which are required to render the posses- 
sion and occupation of the premises beneficial to the corporation. 
The corporation would therefore enjoy the incidental power to 
enter into the usual covenants in a lease as, for example, the 
covenant to repair even though it would thereby become liable 
to rebuild in case of the destruction of the premises by fire.'' So, 
too, the power of a corporation to lease land from the owner in- 
cludes by implication the incidental power to agree to pay a 
specific sum of money for rent or to pay such a sum as arbitra- 
tors may agree upon.^ A coi-poration which, as a lessee of land, 
has entered and occupied the same cannot defend an action for 
rent or for iLse and occupation on the ground that it is not a 
corporation de jure. It is sufficient so far as the landlord's 
rights are concerned that it is a corporation de facto while he. on 
the other hand, is estopped to repudiate his obligations under 
the lease upon the ground that the corporation has no legal exis- 
tence where he has recognized and dealt with it as a corporation.® 
The plaintiff in an action for rent is relieved from proving the 
existence of a corporation in answer to a plea of nul tiel c&rpo- 
raiion where it appears that there has been the execution and de- 
livery of a valid lease by the landlord to the corporation. The 
existence of a lease or other writing in which the corporation is 
described in its corporate capacity, executed and delivered to 
the corporation is prima facie proof of the existence of the cor- 
poration.^" 

§ 51. The form of corporation leases. Aside from the neces- 
sity for a seal, no particular form is requisite to be followed in 
the execution of a lease by a corporation. No different language 

6 Lowe V. London R. R. Co., 14 s The Alexandria Canal Co. v. 
Eng. L. & E. Rep. 19. There can Swann, 5 How. (46 U. S.) 83, 12 
be no question that a corporation Law. ed. 60. 

may become a tenant from year to o Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 

year. Crawford v. Longstreet, 43 145. 151, 46 Am. Rep. 151. 

N. J. Law, 325. lo West Side Auction House Co. 

7 Abby V. Billups, 35 Miss. 618, v. Connecticut, etc., Ins. Co., 186 
72 Am. Dec. 143. 111. 15S, 57 N. E. Rep. 839. 



64 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

is required from that used in cases where the parties are nat- 
ural persons." The lease to bind the corporation either as les- 
see or lessor must be in its form the instrument of the corpora- 
tion and not of its individual officer or agent. It may not al- 
ways be necessarj^ that the signature of the lease shall be tech- 
nically the signature of the corporation, though that is always 
advisable. If from the body of the lease it is clearly apparent 
that Uie corporation is intended to be bound, and particularly 
if the corporation being the lessor shall have permitted the les- 
see to go into possession and to pay rent, it cannot repudiate the 
instrument because it has not subscribed to it the name of the 
corporation or because it is not sealed with its corporate seal. 
Hence where the agent of a corporation had made a contract 
agTeeing to give a person a lease ; and the corporation had per- 
mitted the latter to enter and had received the rent from him it 
it bound to give him a lease and cannot refuse to do so upon the 

ground that the contract was not sealed and signed by the cor- 
poration.^2 

§ 52. The necessity for a seal on a corporation lease. By 

the ancient common law it was a rule that a corporation could 
transfer or grant its real property, and in fact, could make a 
contract of any description only under its corporate seal. This 
doctrine, however, that a corporation can contract only under its 
corporate seal is now universally repudiated.^^ Such a rule based 
as it was upon the almost superstitious reverence which the early 
common law tribunals in England entertained for a seal could 
only be tolerated when corporations were not numerous. As 
soon therefore as the increase in commercial enterprise brought 
about the formation of large companies by which the capital of 
numerous individuals was combined in the form of corporate 
capital to carry on the increasing trade of the community the rule 
was entirely abrogated. The modern rule is that all corporations, 

11 Poole V. Bentley, 12 East, 168; ter v. Ely, 7 Sim. 211; Canal Co. 
Morgan v. Powell, 7 Man. & G. 989. v. Wilmot, 9 East, 360; Macbean 

12 Conant V. Bellows Falls Canal v. Irvine, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 17; Long 
Co., 29 Vt. 2G3. V. Madison & Flax Co., 1 A. K 

13 Sustaining the common law Marsh. 105; Franlifort Bank v. An- 
rule see Rochester v. Pierce, 1 derson, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 1; 
Camp. 466; Rex v. Chipping Nor- In re Cape Sable Co., 3 Bland 
ton, 5 East, 239; Bridge Com- (Md.) 606. 

pany v. Side, 2 C. & P. 371; Car- 



CORPORATION LEASES. 



C5 



in the absence of a restraining statute, may make all contracts 
which are within the scope of their general powers without the 
use of a corporate seal. Applying this general rule to the sub- 
ject under discussion, it follows that the lease must be one which 
the corporation has a right to make, under its charter or under 
the statute law of the state in order to carry out the purpose of 
its creation. And the effect of the modem repudiation of the 
ancient rule is only to place a corporation upon an equality with 
the individual so far as the necessity for a seal is concerned. If 
a contract when executed by an individual must be under seal 
in order to possess validity the same contract when executed by 
a corporation must also be under seal.^* 

§ 53. By what officer corporation lease should be executed. 
Until the contrary appears it may safely be presumed upon the 
general principles of the law of corporation contracts that the 
president of a corporation has power to lease the lands of the 
corporation.^^ The leasing of land on his part where the corpo- 
ration has power to own land, is so manifestly for the benefit of 
the corporation and seemingly so far an incident of his general 
powers as its president that it will require some affirmative proof 



1* Shropshire v. Behrens, 77 Tex. 
275, 13 S. W. Rep. 1043. The 
modern rule that a corporation 
may contract without seal as ap- 
plicable to contracts generally is 
sustained by the following cases: 
Curry v. Bank, 8 Port. (Ala.) 360; 
McKiernan v. Lenzen, 56 Cal. 61; 
Dennis v. Maynard, 15 111. 457; 
Northeastern F. Ins. Co. v Schet- 
ter, 38 111 166; B. S. Green Co. v. 
Blodgett, 55 111. App 556; Chris- 
tian Church of Wolcott v. John- 
son, 53 Ind. 273; Ring v. Johnson 
County, 6 Iowa, 263; Lathrop v. 
Commercial Bank, 8 Dana. (Ky.) 
114, 33 Am. Dec. 481; Kennedy v. 
Baltimore Insurance Co., 3 Har. & 
J. (Md.) 367, 6 Am. Dec. 499; Pe- 
trie V. Wright, 14 Miss. G47; Buck- 
ley V. Briggs. 30 Mo. 452; Teitig 
V. Boesman, 12 Mont. 404. 31 Pac. 
Rep. 371; Brady v. City of Brook- 



lyn, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 584; Gates v. 
Home M. L. Ins. Co., 4 Am. Law 
Rev. 395; Thew v. Porcelain Mfg. 
Co., 5 Rich (S. C.) 415; Fowler v. 
Bell (Tex. 1896), 35 S. W. Rep. 
822; Ford v. Hill, 92 Wis. 188, 66 
N. W. Rep. 115; Bank of Virginia 
V. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.) 136. In 
Crawford v. Longstreet, 43 N. J. 
Law, S25, a lease for years by a 
corporation not sealed was held 
valid. 

15 Baltimore & P. Steamboat Co. 
V. McCutcheon, 13 Pa. St. 13. See, 
also, as sustaining the general 
rule Boston Tailoring Co. v. 
Fisher, 59 111. App. 400; Savings 
Bank of Cincinnati v. Benton, 2 
Met. (Ky.) 240; Northern Cent. 
Ry. Co. V. Bastian, 15 Md. 494; Pot- 
ter V. New York Infant Asylum, 
44 Hun (N. Y.) 367. 



66 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

to show he has not the power. But where, by tlie charter of the 
corporation, the power to lease is vested exclusively in the board 
of directors a court of equity may enjoin a lessee from entering 
upon the possession of corjDorate real estate imder a lease made 
by the president of the corporation without the authority and 
consent of the board of directors.^* The general manager of a 
corporation will, unless it is proved that the other contracting 
parties had knowledge of the limitation of his authority be pre- 
sumed to have authority to lease land which is owned by the cor- 
poration.^^ This rule is based on the principle of estoppel. A 
corporation which permits its general manager or any other offi- 
cial to deal with the public as its general agent, as for example, 
in buying and selling its real or personal property, and in hir- 
ing and discharging its employes, will be estopped, as against 
a lessee of premises owned by the corporation, to assert that the 
powers of the general manager to act for the corporation in leas- 
ing land were restricted by orders emanating from its direc- 
tors.^* In all eases one who takes a lease of land owned by a 
corporation should make diligent inquiries as to authority of the 
agent with whom he is dealing. It has been held in one case 
that the agent or other officer making the lease must have ex- 
press authority to do so and that individual directors cannot 
bind a corporation by a lease.^^ A lease may be binding on a 
corporation when made by an agent without express authority 
and at the same time the lease may not be enforced by the cor- 
poration. So, a corporation cannot enforce a lease made by its 
agent without the authority of its board of directors.^" 

§ 54. The period for which a corporation lease may run. At 
the common law a corporation owning the fee simple of land 
may lease it for any term of years however long. If by statute 
or at common law a corporation has power to lease its property 
and franchises the fact that the lease is for so long a time as to 
practically constitute a lease of the property in fee does not, as 
between the parties of the lease, effect its validity.^^ Nor will 

18 Yellow Jack^ Silver Min. Co. is Hartford Iron Mfg. Co. v. 

V. Stevenson, 5 Nev. 224. Cambria Min. Co., 80 Mich. 491. 

17 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Malean, 105 20 Berlin v. Belle Isle Scenic Ry. 
Ala. 316, 16 So. Rep. 913. Co., 12 Det. Leg. N. 573, 105 N. W. 

18 Phillips & Buttorff Mfg. Co. Rep. 130. 

V. Whitney, 109 Ala. 645, 20 So 21 Dickinson v. Con.solidated 

Rep. 333. Traction Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 817. 



CORPORATION LEASES. 67 

a court of equity annul a lease for a very long term made by a 
corporation on the application of a minority stockholder, if the 
action of the corporation in making the lease was approved by the 
majority of the stockholders, unless it can be sho^vn that the 
making of the lease was procured by fraud, or that its execution 
was detrimental to the interest of the corporation.-- The mere 
fact of the length of the tenn of the lease will not alone be con- 
sidered as ground for annulling the lease. The fact that the 
lease extended beyond the term of the life of the corporation 
does not invalidate it. The lease is valid during the corporate 
life of the corporation. If by statute the corporate existence can 
be extended the lease may also be valid for such period as the life 
of the corporation is extended.-* A lease to a corporation which 
is to extend beyond the period of the existence of the corporation 
as limited by its charter is not void for that reason. Such a case 
is analogous to that for a time certain if the lessee shall live 
so long. Thus a lease to a corporation for nine hundred and 
ninety-nine years is valid though the corporation is to expire in 
forty years particularly where it is binding on the corporation 
and its successors and in the charter provisions are made for a 
renewal of the charter by the state legislature.-* By statutory 
enactment of the Congress the charter of a national bank may be 
extended upon the expiration of its corporate existence almost 
as a matter of course. It may readily be assumed from this stat- 
ute that a national bank is not limited in the making of leases 
of premises for banking purposes to terms which shall be lim- 
ited by the corporate existence of the bank."^ The lease of prem- 
ises entered into by a national bank as lessee for the sole purpose 
of transacting its banking business is not invalid though the 
term shall extend beyond the period of the life of the bank under 
its charter. Accordingly it has been held that a lease to a na- 
tional bank of premises for a term of ninety-nine years is valid.-* 
The fact that a lease of property to a corporation runs to its 

22 Dickinson v. Consolidated 309, 329, 2 C. C. A. 174, 10 U. S. 
Traction Co., 119 Fed. Rep. 871. App. 98. 

23 Hill V. Atlantic & N. C. R. 25 Weeks v. International Trust 
Co., 143 N. Car. 539, 55 S. E. 854, Co., 125 Fed. Rep. 370, 374, 60 C. 
864; Tate v. Neary, 65 N. Y. Supp. C. A. 236; reversing 116 Fed. Rep. 
40. 898. 

24 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 2c Brown v. Schleier, 118 Fed. 
R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. Rep- Rep. 981, 984, 55 C. C. A. 475, 478. 



68 LiAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

assignees or successors may avoid an objection that its term does 
not expire until after the existence of the corporation is at an 
end. And it is not material if the lease under such circumstances 
is assignable, th.at it is assignable only with the consent of the 
lessor. Thus a national bank may validly lease a building for 
its own occupancy for a term extending beyond its existence 
though the lease is assignable only upon the assent of the land- 
lord." 

§ 55. When leases are ultra vires. A lease, like any other 
contract of a corporation, may under certain circumstances be 
ultra vires. In determining whether a lease is ultra vires it 
should be borne in mind that a corporation has no powers ex- 
cept such as are expressly given to it by and in its charter, or 
which are incident and necessary to its corporate existence. It 
will be presumed to possess such powers as are necessary to en- 
able it to carry into effect the express powers conferred upon it 
by its charter. Corporations have almost universally the ex- 
press power to own real property conferred upon them by char- 
ter; and, where this is the case, the act of the corporation in 
leasing lands owned by it cannot be ultra vires as the leasing of 
land is an inseparable incident of their ownership and necessary 
to the full enjoyment of such ownership for otherwise the o\vner 
will be absolutely prevented, unless he is able to cultivate or 
otherwise occupy the land himself, from deriving any profit 
from his ownership. In regard to corporations leasing their 
lands, the general principle should always be kept in mind by 
the lessee that persons dealing with coi-porations are chargeable 
with notice of the limitations imposed upon them by the terms 
of their charters. The lessee ought to employ care to see to it 
that the provisions of the charter, if any there be, regulating 
the leasing of the property of the corporation with which he is 
dealing are being complied with. But where he acts in good 
faith in entering into the lease, and he is permitted to enter into 
possession and to pay rent to the corporation, it will be estopped 
to plead snljsequently that it acted ultra vires in making the 
lease. Accordingly a lease made by a company is not ultra vires 
merely because it did not receive the approval of the company as 
provided for by the charter. The fact that the lessee under such 

27 Weeks v. International Trust Co., 125 Fed. Rep. 370, 374; reversing 
116 Fed. Rep. 898. 



CORPORATION LEASES. 69 

a lease entered into possession and began working the land and 
with the permission of the lessor was permitted to do so for more 
than three months estops the lessor.-^ A corporation having 
by its charter the poAver to brew, and to sell beer and to lease 
premises for that purpose has power to lease a saloon for the 
purpose of selling its own beer.-^ And the fact that after taking 
a lease itself of premises for that purpose it sublets them to an- 
other for the same purpose will not avail the corporation to 
plead ultra vires.^" So, the lease of premises by a company 
which has charter power to buy and sell lager beer is not invalid 
because a portion of the premises is used for saloon purposes.*^ 
So also, a corporation which has charter power "to carry on a 
general brewing and malting business and to manufacture and 
sell soda water" may execute a valid lease of premises "to be 
occupied for a saloon and for no other purpose." A lease for 
saloon purposes would be by implication within the power of the 
corporation.^^ It is usually held that a corporation which pur- 
poses to act as a lessor cannot by its action disable itself from 
performing the purpose for which it was created. If the pur- 
pose of the occupation by the tenant is similar to that for which 
the corporation which is the lessor was incorporated there can 
be no question of the validity of the lease. Thus, a corporation 
which has been created to bore for oil may lease its land to a 
person who intends to take the oil from it, upon a royalty to be 
paid to the lessor. The lease is not an abandonment by tlia 
corporation of the purpose for which it was created.^^ So also, 
a corporation organized for literaiy and scientific purposes may 
lease a portion of its building for theatrical and similar pur- 
poses. A national bank has implied power under its charter to 

2s Equator Min., etc., Co. v. Gu- S3 Starke v. J. M. Guffey, Pe- 

anella, 18 Colo. 548, 33 Pac. Rep. tr oleum Co. (Tex. 1905), 86 S. W. 

613. Rep. 1, affirming 80 S. W. Rep. 

29 Welsh V. Ferd. Herm Brewing 1080. 

Co., 47 Mo. App. 608. s* Catholic Institute v. Gibbons, 

30 Welsh V. Ferd. Herm Brewing 7 Dee. Re. 576, 3 Bull, 581, af- 
Co., 47 Mo. App. 608. firmed in Gibbons v. Catholic In- 

31 Keeley Brewing Co. v. Mason, stitute, 7 Dec. Re. 548, 3 Bull, 887; 
116 111. App. 603. Gibbons v. Catholic Institute. 34 

32 Brewer, etc.. Brewing Co. v. Ohio St. 289. 
Boddie, 181 111. 622, 55 N. E. Rep. 

49. 



70 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

erect office buildings for its own use and to rent out offices in 
them so far as the renting- of offices does not constitute an aban- 
donment of the purpose for which the bank was incorporated.^^ 
§ 56. The effect of the dissolution of a corporation upon an 
existing lease. In the absence of express statutory provision 
the dissolution of a corporation operates as an extinguishment 
of all debts due from or to it. In most of the states of the union 
provision has been made by statute for the winding up of cor- 
porations and saving the rights of those who have claims against 
them at the date of their dissolution. The United States supreme 
court has held that the executory contracts of a corporation are 
not extinguished by its dissolution.^^ And in the state of New 
York it has been expressly held that a lease to a corporation is 
not terminated by its dissolution but that the obligation to pay 
the rent due and which has accrued before dissolution may be 
enforced against the receiver of the corporation.^" Where a 
corporation on the petition of its stockholders is voluntarily dis- 
solved and a receiver appointed for its property, it comes under 
the rule that, in the case of an executory contract containing con- 
tinuing mutual obligations, where one party voluntarily disables 
himself from further performing the contract, the injured party 
may sue at once for the entire damage sustained during the 
whole period caused by the loss of the contract. The obligation 
of the corporation to pay rent during the term is an executory 
agreement the perfoniiance of which in the future may be of 
value to the lessor and which the corporation by its voluntary 
action disables itself from performing. The case is stronger to 
protect the rights of the lessor where the receiver after his ap- 
pointment elects, as he may do, to vacate the premises and to 
abandon the lease as an asset of the corporation. The breach 
of the covenant to pay rent is then complete and final and the 
lessor may at once present his claim for damages to the receiver 

35 Farmer's Deposit National receiver where a corporation had 

Bank v. Western Pennsylvania leased property and the lease was 

P'uel Co., 215 Pa. St. 115, 64 Atl. to run for 999 years and as long 

Rep. 374. as the lessee corporation shall con- 

sc Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319, tinue to exist as such and be cap- 

24 Law. ed. 357. able of exercising all its functions. 

37 People V. National Trust Co., New York El. R. Co. v. Manhat- 

82 N. Y. 283. See fuither as to tan Ry. Co., C3 How. Pr. (.N. Y.) 

the effect of the appointment of 14. 



CORPORATION LEASES. 71 

and sue at once if he shall refuse to pay. To accept any oth?r 
view of the matter would be to confer an unlimited power upon 
all corporations of repudiating all their executory covenants by 
instituting proceedings by the stockliolders for voluntary dis- 
solution. True the damages for such a breach of contract are 
unliquidated, indefinite and difficult of proof, but a right to 
bring an action at once exists which is not to be defeated by any 
real or apparent difficulty in the remedy.*^ 

§ 57. Power of municipal corporations to grant leases. In 
determining the existence of a power in a municipal corporation 
to grant leases of the property which it holds and owns as such, 
a clear distinction must be made, and is made b}^ most of the 
cases, between property which the corporation owns in a private 
or semi-private capacity, and property which it owns as a quasi 
trustee for a public or charitable use. or for some public purpose. 
"Where the property is held in trust for the general use of the 
public the corporation cannot, without some express legislative 
authority lease or alienate the same to private persons or corpo- 
rations.^® This would be the case as regards lands devoted to 
the use of the general public as streets and highways, parks, 
wharves, levees, bridges and the like. Thus a lease by a city of 
such land for private purposes will generally be invalid in the 
absence of specific legislative authority in the city.*° Where 
by the statute of title of school-houses is vested in the board of 

38 Kalkhoff V. Nelson, 60 Minn. by a city of property in wliich it 
284, 288, 62 N. W. Rep. 332. had an easement only for levee 

39 Weekes v. City of Galveston, purposes is void and confers no 
21 Tex. Civ. App. 102, 51 S. W. rights of possession as against the 
Rep. 544, which related to a lease grantor of the easement. San- 
hy a city of an island in its har- born v. Van Duyne, 90 Minn. 215, 
bor originally conveyed to the 96 N. W. Rep. 41. 

city by the state for the use and ^o See on the general subject 

benefit of the general public and Alve v. Henderson, 16 B. Mon. 

for the advancement of naviga- (Ky.) 131, 168; Macon v. Dasher 

tion and fishing. See Leaux v. (Ga. 1893), 16 S. E. Rep. 75; 

City of New York, 87 App. Div. Mowry v. Providence, 16 R. I. 422. 

405, 84 N. Y. Supp. 514; Pennsylva- 16 Atl. Rep. 511; Warren Co. Sup. 

nia R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & v. Patterson, 56 111. Ill; Hoad- 

T. H. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290; Ma- ley's Admr's v. San Francisco, 124 

rine T. Co. v. Railroad. 41 Fed. U. S. 639; San Francisco v. Itzell, 

Rep. 643; Thomas v. West Jersey 80 Cal. 57; Meriwether v. Gai'rett, 

R. R. Co., 101 U. S. 70; Mahon v. 102 U. S. 472. 
Columbus, 58 Miss. 310. A lease 



/2 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

education or in similar bodies in trust for the use of public 
schools, a lease of a public school for the purpose of carrying on 
therein a private or select school^, is invalid as in violation of the 
trust. The use of the school by the lessee will be restrained at 
the suit of a taxpayer though he may not show any special in- 
jury and the mere fact that the use to which the lessee puts it 
is of the same character as the public use to which it was re- 
strained, is not material, for by putting it to a private use it is 
evident that some portion of the public would be prevented from 
availing themselves of an opportunity to receive education.*^ 
In respect to property which the municipal corporation owns 
in a quasi private capacity the power to lease is much more ex- 
tensive and usually may be exercised without express statutory 
authority. The municipal corporation may lease its private 
property whenever it is deemed expedient and profitable to do 
so.*^ If the lease be valid it will not be set aside for some ir- 
regularity in form or in the use of the corporate name.*^ Under 
this rule would come all cases where the municipal corporation 
should assume the power to lease buildings, such as town halls, 
engine houses, sichool-houses and similar structures owned and 
used by it in a semi-private capacity. Thus it is a very common 
occurrence, particularly in small towns, for the municipality to 
rent the town hall or city hall to private persons or to associa- 
tions and lodges as a place in which to give concerts, fairs and 
similar entertainments. A person who has entered in possession 
under such a lease cannot be heard to plead its ultra vires char- 
acter as against the city who is the lessor.** So also, where a 
building, which has been devoted to public uses is no longer used 
for such purposes, it may be repaired and rented to private per- 

41 Weir v. Day, 35 Ohio St. 143. enabled a county to "sell or other- 

42 Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Kim- wise dispose of its school land" 
ball, 114 Cal. 414, 46 Pac. Rep. enables the county to lease the 
271; Belchers S. R. Co. v. Grain land as well as to sell it and hav- 
Elevator, 101 Mo. 192, 13 S. W. ing leased it its lessees will be 
Rep. 822; Holywood v. First Par- protected by the courts in their 
ish (Mass.) 78 N. E. Rep. 124; possession. Falls County v. De 
Taylor v. Carondelet, 22 Mo. 105; Lancey, 73 Tex. 463, 11 S. W. Rep. 
Hand v. Newton, 92 N. Y. 88. 492. 

43 New York v. Kent, 5 N. Y. 44 Bell v. Platteville, 70 "Wis. 
Supp. 567; McDonald v. Sfhnei- 139; Stone v. Oconomowoc, 71 
der, 27 Mo. 405; St. Louis v. Mer- Wis. 155. 

ton, 6 Mo. 476. A statute which 



COEPORATION LEASES. 73 

sons by the city.'*" A municipal corporation may lease a part 
of a public building for private purposes if the portion leased 
is not necessary for municipal use, and the lease is valid and en- 
forcible until some urgent public necessity arises for the use of 
the land leased for its original purposes. The use, however, must 
be a public and municipal use and the susequent lease of the 
same land to another person for a private use, does not give 
the latter any right to occupation or to deprive the first lessee 
of his possession unless the second lessee shall see fit to compen- 
sate him. And upon general principles under such circumstances 
the second lessee has no action against the city for a failure to 
deliver possession where he Imows or can ascertain by reasonable 
inquiries that the land was in the possession of another person 
as lessee/® 

§ 58. A municipal corporation as a tenant. Broadly speak- 
ing a municipal corporation has the right to lease a building for 
its use for city purposes, whenever the public necessities require 
it and it is deemed more expedient to lease than to buy.'*^ 
This is so even in the absence of express statutory authorization 
as it is a necessary incident to municipal government and essen- 
tion to the accomplishment of the municipal purposes. If the 
charter limits the length of the term, or prescribes the charac- 
ter of the buildings which may be hired or the formalities with 
which the lease must be executed it must be consulted and its 
terms followed. But in the absence of such statutory require- 
ments the length of the term for which the city may legally con- 
tract to hire the building will depend upon all the circum- 
stances among which may be mentioned the character of the 
building demised, its condition when the lease is executed, the 
purpose for which it is to be used by the corporation, the diffi- 
culty in securing other property, the prospects as to other similar 
buildings being erected, the financial condition of the city and 
other relevant facts.*^ A distinction is made between those pow- 
ers of the corporation which are public and legislative and those 
which are of a purely business and semi-private nature. The 

<5 Bates V. Bassett, 60 Vt 530. <7 Davies v. Mayor, etc., of XeTV 

reunion Ry. Co. v. Chickasaw York, 83 N. Y. 207. 

Cooperage Co. (Tenn.), 95 S. W. 48 City of Michigan City v. 

Rep, 171. Leeds. 24 Ind. App. 271, 55 N. B. 

Rep. 799, 



74 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

power to execute a lease is merely a power to do a species of 
municipal business essential to the corporation's existence. And 
if the power to execute a lease is not required to be evidenced in 
a particular way the municipal corporation may be bound by 
an implied hiring arising from its use and occupation of prem- 
ises to the same extent as an individual.*^ If tlie liability of the 
city to pay rent is, by the express tenns of the lease made to 
depend upon the making of an appropriation to pay it by the 
city council, the city is not liable in an action for the rent if 
no appropriation has been made though the city has power to 
make the appropriation and, having received the benefit of the 
use and occupation of the premises, morally ought to have done 
gQ GO Jq Texas the courts have refused to apply the well recog- 
nized rule that a tenant holding over after the expiration of his 
term will by implication of law be regarded as agreeing at the 
option of the landlord to hold for another year upon the terms. 
of his prior lease to municipal corporations. Hence, where a 
city rented premises for one year, with the right of a renewal ; 
and the officers of the city occupied the premises and rent was. 
paid for several years, no agreement for the creation of a tenant 
from year to year will be implied from holding over. The law 
will not imply a contract of lease from the fact that city offi- 
cials, not by law authorized to execute a lease, have continued 
in the occupation of the demised premises after a valid lease for 
the same has expired. Where the municipal charter or other 
statute expressly prescribes in what manner and by what board 
or officials municipal contracts can be validly executed by the 
city, the municipal corporation cannot become bound by a lease 
which is not executed by the persons, or in the manner prescribed. 
And, although a contract may in a sense be implied on tlie part 
of the city to do justice where it has received the benefit of a 
contract which, under the statute, it had the power to make, but 
which was not executed in the statutory mode, the corporation 
cannot be held under an implied contract, where the contract is 
wholly exeeutory.°^ It has been held that a city under a charter 
providing that it shall have a general power of municipal cor- 

<» City of Michigan City v. City of Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 495, 

Leed, 24 Ind. App. 271, 55 N. E. 04 All. Rep. 196. 
Rep. 799. f^i City of San Antonio v. French,. 

BO Marsh, Merwin & Lemmon v. 80 Tex. 575, 16 S. W. Rep. 440. 



CORPORATION LEASES. ii> 

poration at common law, and expressly authorizing it to lease 
real estate for the convenience of the inhabitants has power to 
lease private land for temporary use as a public street or high- 
way, where the convenience of the inhabitants requires it. For, 
though it is true that ordinarily the fee simple title to streets 
and public highways is vested in the municipal corporation, yet 
it is conceivable that circumstances may arise calling for a tem- 
porary'- use only of private grounds for public traffic. Thus, it 
may be necessaiy for the city to secure a temporary right of 
way around some temporary obstruction in a street or to open 
a temporary street betAveen two points while a permanent street 
is being built or repaired, particularly when the very dilatory 
process of taking land by right of eminent domain is consid- 
ered. In the case of a lease under such circumstances, the only 
right the public acquires, is a right to use the premises tempo- 
rarily as a street. AVhen the term is at an end, the landlord may 
resume possession and after that date, his right becomes abso- 
lute as against the public. The premises thus used temporarily, 
never become public, but always remain private property, so 
that the principles which apply to ordinary city land do not 
apply here, and if the city at the expiration of the term fails to 
quit, and deliver up the possession, but continues to use it for 
public purposes, the landlord may at his option, hold the city as 
a tenant from year to year upon the terms of the lease._^^ Unless 
it is expressly empowered to do so by its charter, a municipal 
corporation cannot lease land from a private owner for the pur- 
pose of carrying on a park or pleasure ground as a private enter- 
prise for profit to be derived from subletting the land or privi- 
leges in the park or from payments by the public for admis- 
sions. Neither a charter power to hold real estate nor the power 
to make such necessary regulations as may be for the health, 
benefit or general welfare of the public, authorizes a municipal 
corporation to hire land for the purpose of engaging in private 
business. The rule would be different if the pui-pose for which 
the land was leased were a public one, such as the maintenance 
of a public park, a public wharf, or hospital or the opening of 
a street or an avenue for public travel or traffic. But the leasing 
of land for private business purposes is ultra vires, and will be 

62 Oilman v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 563. 



76 LAW OF LANDLORD AJOT) TENANT. 

restrained by a court of equity upon the application of a tax- 
payer, and if such a lease is executed it will neither be enforced 
on the application of the lessee, nor can the lessor collect rent 
for its occupation by the municipal corporation.^^ 

§ 59, Ultra vires leases by municipal corporations. The 
general principles of the doctrine of contracts ultra vires, so far 
as it relates to and regulates the contracts of municipal cor- 
porations, are applicable to their leases. The authority of the 
officers of a municipal corporation to make leases is limited to 
such leases as are either expressly or by implication within the 
purposes for which the corporation was created and these pur- 
poses are customarily such as are specified in the charter or other 
statute under which the corporation has been incorporated. 
Municipal officers are held strictly within the scope of the pow- 
ers and authority conferred upon them by statute, though of 
course such powers may be implied as well as express, and hence, 
it follows that no municipal officer can bind the municipal cor- 
poration either as lessor or lessee unless the lease be such a 
one as he has statutory authority to make. Persons dealing in 
contractual relations with municipalities are presumed to know 
the powers and authority under the statute of the officers with 
whom they deal; and, though this is simply a practical applica- 
tion of the rather far fetched fiction that every one is presumed 
to know the law, yet the principle is so well esta,blished and so 
well recognized by the courts that it behooves every intending 
lessee or lessor of a municipal corporation, not only to inform 
himself of the general characteristics of its charter but also of 
the specific powers, authorities and duties of the officer or offi- 
cial board with whom he is dealing. "Whether or not a given 
lease is ultra vires can usually be determined only upon a careful 
examination of the municipal charter and collateral legisla- 
tion, affecting and controlling the powers of municipal coi-po- 
rations in general, or of the particular city or town in question. 
There is, however, a wide distinction as to their enforcement be- 
tween contracts which are illegal because beyond the corporate 
powers or because contrary to public policy, and those which 
are within the corporate powers but which have been made by an 
officer not possessing the power to execute them. The unauthor- 

03 Bloomsburg Land Imp. Co. v. Borough of Bloomsburg, 215 Pa. St. 
452, 64 Atl. Rep. 602. 



CORPORATION LEASES. 77 

ized act of the municipal official in executing the contract with- 
out the authority to do so may be ratified, either by words or 
conduct on the part of the city, if it has the charter power to 
make such a contract. But a contract ultra vires cannot be rati- 
fied, unless the power to do so is expressly conferred by the 
legislature. Thus, where a municipal official hires or rents city 
property for a use or purpose which is consistent and compat- 
able with the purposes of the charter, his action may be ratified 
by the action of the city in accepting or delivering possession, 
and paying or receiving rent according to the circumstances 
whether the city is the landlord or the tenant. But a lease ab- 
solutely ultra vires may be revoked by the city and the lessee 
cannot recover any damages he may have sustained thereby, 
though, if the consideration which has been received by the city 
has not been restored a court of equity will order that this shall 
be done before relieving the city from its obligation upon the 
lease."* 

§ 60. Leases of park grounds by municipal corporation. In 
the absence of an express statutory prohibition it is generally 
admitted that a municipal corporation owning and controlling 
grounds which are dedicated to, and used for a public park, may 
lease such grounds to private persons to be used by them for 
purposes which are germane to the general purpose for which 
the park was established. The principal and indeed the sole 
purpose of the establishment of public parks is to provide amuse- 
ment and recreation for the general public and to give an op- 
portunity to those who frequent them to enjoy the fresh air and 
quiet which they can find in no other place in the crowded city. 
As subsidiary purposes may be mentioned the opportunity to 
enjoy the beauties and delights of natural scenery as they have 
been enhanced by the skill and industry of the landscape gar- 
dener and to visit museums and art galleries which may be lo- 
cated within the confines of the parks. In making leases the 
city authorities must use care to secure such tenants only who 
will not by the use which they make of the ground leased to them 
seriously interfere with the purposes for which the public parks 

B4 An ultra vires lease, exe- lessee for the sum he paid for it. 

cuted by a city and afterward re- Weekes v. Galveston, 21 Tex. Civ, 

voked by it. does not render the App. 102, 51 S. W. Rep. 544. 
city liable to an assignee of the 



78 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

exist. It cannot be doubted that a lease of park lands for such 
a use as would materially prevent the free, uninterrupted and 
convenient use of the park by the public generally or by any 
numerous class of persons would be held by the court to be an 
unwarranted abuse of the municipal discretion. Leases of park 
land for hotel purposes have generally been sustained. ^^ If the 
hotel is conducted in a proper manner it cannot fail to add to 
the advantages which the public will derive from the use of the 
park. For if it is proper for the city to provide recreation and 
amusement for the public it is certainly proper to provide for 
the rest and refreshmeoits of those who resort to the parks for 
what the city has provided for them. And inasmuch as it is 
usually inexpedient if not illegal for a city to engage in hotel 
keeping, it is surely in its discretion for it to delegate this work 
to others under proper restrictions. By a long established cus- 
tom refreshments have been for years served to visitors to the 
great parks of our country, so that it is too late now for a valid 
objection to be raised on the grounds of the diversion of the parks 
from their primary purpose by a lease of a portion of them for 
use as a hotel or restaurant.^*' In the absence of an express stat- 
utory prohibition, a municipal corporation, or its park depart- 
ment may lease a building on park lands for restaurant pur- 
poses to a private party. Such a building properly conducted 
as a restaurant will be of great public service to the frequenters 
of the park, add to its attractions, and conduce to the further- 
ance of the purposes for which parks are maintained, which is 
the recreation and amusement of the public. The municipal 
authorities cannot give a lease for an unreasonable term, or ab- 
dicate the general control which they must exercise under their 
charter powers over the city property. And if the effect of the 
lease is to prevent the park officials from performing any of the 
duties which they owe to the public, of the operation of the res- 
taurant or other buildings which has been leased interferes ma- 

88 Harter v. City of San .Tose, lie park for trainine; and rnnnin.^ 

141 Cal. 659, 75 Pac. Rep, 344, 346; race horses is not necessarily ul- 

Gushee v. City of New York, 58 tra vires. But the absolute ex- 

N. Y. Supp. 967; State ex rel. At- elusion of the public from the 

torney General v. Schweickart, park will n,ot bo permitted. Bry- 

109 Mo. 346, 19 S. W. Rep. 47. ant v. Logan, 56 W. Va. 141, 49 S. 

6« A lease of a portion of a pub- E. Rep. 21, 



CORPORATION LEASES. 79 

terially with the use of the park by the public, or tends to dimin- 
ish its utility for the purpose for which it has been created and 
for which it is supposed to be maintained, a court of equity will 
interfere and set aside the lease upon the instance and applica- 
tion of a resident taxpayer or other person having a legal capac- 
ity to sue. Thus a lease must always be subject to the power 
of the park officials to make such rules and regulations for the 
necessary government of the park as they may be authorized and 
commanded to mal^e by the statute. On the other hand as soon 
as the lease is made and the lessee enters he is protected by the 
court from capricious and unnecessary interference by the park 
officials.^'^ 

67 Gushee v. City of New York, ing 26 Misc. Rep. 287, 56 N. Y. 
5,8 N. Y. Supp. 967, 42 App. Div. Supp. 1002. 
37, 92 N. Y. St. Rep. 967; affirm- 



CHAPTER III. 

LEASES BY JOINT OWNERS. 

§ 81. Leases by Joint tenants and tenants in common distinguished. 

62. Tenancy in common. 

63. The relation of landlord and tenants among tenants in common. 

64. Tenants in common as lessors. 

65. Actions by tenants in common to recover rent. 

66. Effect of a lease by joint owners. 

67. The right of joint tenants to the rent. 

68. The liability of joint lessees for rent. 

69. The liability for rent of co-partners in business. 

§ 61. Leases by joint tenants and tenants in common dis- 
tinguished. An important distinction exists as to the execu- 
tion and operation of leases between tliose made by joint tenants 
and those made by tenants in common. If all the joint tenants 
unite in the execution of a lease it is regarded in law as but one 
lease made by one lessor. Where several tenants in common join 
in the execution of a lease it is regarded as several leases of 
their separate and respective shares.^ While the joint owner- 
ship lasts joint tenants taken together constitute but one tenant 
of the land and therefore they are said to be seized per tout. 
For purposes of alienating the land each is seized per my and for 
this reason all the joint tenants are said to be seized per my et 
per tout. This being the case either of the joint tenants may 
make a lease of the whole property though it will not bind the 
others unless they shall assent thereto. In other words a lease 
of the property to be binding on all the joint tenants must eitlier 
be executed or subsequently ratified by all of them.^ 

1 Comyn's Digest, Title, Estates 136, 162. A lease by one of sev- 
(G) 6; see Jurdain v. Steere, Cro. eral joint tenants "to the extent 
jac. 83. of his interest" carries not only 

2 Kingsland v. Ryckman 5 Daly an undisputed interest owned by 
(N. Y.) 13; Co. Litt. 168&; Rolle's him, but also an interest in the 
Abr. 488; Morris v. Barry, Wils. premises claimed by him but 
1; Bond V. Cartwright, 1 Vent. which is in litigation when the 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 81 

§ 62, Tenancy in common. This species of tenancy differs 
from a joint tenancy in tliat in the case of a tenancy in common 
there need be no nnity except a unity of possession. One of the 
tenants in common may hold the fee and another a life estate or 
a term for years. As to the quantity of land one may own the 
half and several others may own the other half, either equally 
or unequally among them.^ Neither of the several tenants in 
common is entitled to the exclusive possession of all the land 
to the exclusion of the others nor, until partition shall have 
been made, to possession of a particular part of it. Hence inas- 
much as he cannot exclude his co-tenants by his own occupa- 
tion of the land he is unable without their consent or their 
ratification to lease either all or any particular portion of the 
land in such a way that his lessee shall have the right to an. 
exclusive possession of what the lessor has presumed to demise 
to him. A lessee of one tenant by a lease in which the others 
have not joined is as to them a trespasser so far as he occupies 
any portion of the land owned in common and liable to an ac- 
tion quare clansum fregit.^ The co-tenant in common cannot, 
before partition, lease a distinct portion of the estate by metes 
and bounds unless with the assent of his co-tenant but he may do 
so after a partition even though the partition shall have been 
made by parol.^ Though as to the lessor's co-tenant, a lessee of 
one tenant in common is a trespasser, yet, as to strangers, he is 
entitled to the occupation and possession of what he has been de- 
mised and may maintain his possession by the same means as 
though his lea,se had been executed by all the tenants in common.' 
As between him and his lessor the same rules are applicable that 
regulate the relation of landlord and tenant generally. The lessee 
•cannot deny the title of his lessor nor the title of the co-tenants of 
his lessor where all the tenants in common derive their title from 
the same source. On the other hand his lessor is bound to se- 
cure him in his possession and if he is ousted by the act of the 
co-tenants of his lessor it is an eviction as to his lessor and stops 
the running of rent as to him. 

lease is signed but wtiich he sub- b Wood v. leet. 36 N. T. 499, 

sequently acquires. White v. Stu- 509; Pope v. Whitehead, 68 N. C. 

art, 76 Va. 546. 101; Whaley v. Dan^er. 28 Ch. & 

8 2 BlacliStone's Com. 192. Cef. 267. 

^Erwin v. Olmsted, 7 Cow. (N. e Collier v. Corbett, 15 Cal. 183; 

Y.) 227. Hart v. Robinson, 21 Cal. 346. 
6 



82 LAW OF LANDLORD xVND TENANT. 

§ 63. The relation of landlord and tenants among tenanxs 
in common. It is permissilbe for two or more tenants in com- 
mon to agree between or among- themselves by an express lease 
that one or more of them shall have the exclusive use, control 
and possession of the premises, paying rent for the same to the 
others. If such an agreement is made the relationship of land- 
lord and tenant exists between those who are in possession pay- 
ing rent and those who are out of possession receiving it. But 
where there is no such express agreement the relation of -land- 
lord and tenant does not exist between one tenant in common 
in actual possession and the others.'^ It is entirely competent 
for one tenant in common to make a lease of his undivided share 
to his co-tenant and to contract with him for that purpose.* Un- 
doubtedly they may create among or between themselves the re- 
lationship of landlord and tenant by an express oral or written 
agreement.® Of course such a contract can exist only by the 
mutual intention and assent of the tenants in common. There 
must be an express contract of lease to create the relationship 
of landlord and tenant. The mere fact that one of two or more 
tenants in common is permitted the undivided occupation and 
control of the entire property and agrees to pay his co-tenants 
a reasonable compensation for the use of the whole property or 
for the use of his undivided share, does not create the relation 
of landlord and tenant. Nor would this relation be created if 
instead of the parties agreeing that one tenant in common should 
pay the other what the use of the shares of the others were rea- 
sonably worth they should fix and agree upon the precise sum 
of money which one tenant should pay the others for the use of 
the property. Nor would the use of the word "rent" to signify 
a share of the monthly income thus paid establish the existence 
of the relation of landlord and tenant.^" For a tenant in com- 
mon in the possession of property is not liable to his co-tenants 
for rent or for use and occupation unless there was an express 
promise to pay rent or unless the tenant in possession excludes 

7 Bird V. Earle, 15 Fla. 447; Cor- » Lsigh v. Dickson, L. R. 12 Q. 
rigan v. Riley, 26 N. J. Law, 79, B. Div. 194. 

783. 10 Smitli v. Smitli, 98 Me. 597, 

8 Smith V. Smith, 98 Me. 597, 57 601, 57 Atl. Rep. 999. See, also, 
Atl. Rep. 997.. Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 

562, 27 S. E. Rep. 411. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 83 

his co-tenant from possession in which event he must account 
for the value of the property.^^ The rule is not altered by the 
fact that if the tenant in common had not occupied the land no 
rent V70uld have been received for it.^^ A tenant in common 
though he does not exclude his co-tenant will be liable to account 
for the rent if he shall rent the premises to another.^^ "Where a 
tenant in common goes into possession of the whole of the prem- 
ises under a lease thereof signed by his co-tenant as lessor and 
holds over after the expiration of the term he will be presumed 
to be holding over under the lease and not by virtue of his title 
as a tenant in common. The ordinary rule as to tenants holding 
over will then be applicable and the lessor may treat his co-ten- 
ant as a trespasser or as a tenant from year to year and collect 
rent according to the terms of the lease which has expired. This 
rule, however, is confined to cases where the co-tenant expressly 
leases the whole premises and occupies them solely by virtue of 
the terms of the lease for if he claims to be in possession under 
his own title a different rule is invoked.^* Married women who 
are tenants in common owning their share as separate property, 
may lease to their co-tenants and may thereafter, without join- 
ing their husbands as parties plaintiff, sue for rent due.^° If the 

11 Terrell v. Cunningliam, 70 ser v. Dresser, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 

Ala. 100; Fielder v. Chiles, 73 Ala. 300; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 48 Barb. 

567; Hamby v. Wall, 48 Ark. 135, (N. Y.) 327, 329. 

2 S. W. Rep. 705, 3 Am. St. Rep. 12 Stephens v. Taylor (Tex. 

218; Belknap v. Belknap, 77 Iowa, 1896), 36 S. W. Rep. 1083. 

71, 73, 41 N. W. Rep. 568; Israel is Ormer v. Harley, 102 Iowa, 

V. Israel, 30 Md. 120, 125, 96 Am. 150, 71 N. W. Rep. 241; McCaw v. 

Dec. 571; Sargent v. Parsons, 12 Barker, 115 Ala. 543, 22 So. Rep. 

Mass. 149; Holmes v. Williams, 16 131, 132. 

Minn. 164; Izard v. Bodine, 11 N. i* Valentine v. Healey, 86 Hun 
J. Eq. 403, 69 Am. Dec. 595; Bucke- (N. Y.) 259, 261; O'Connor v. De- 
lew V. Snedeker, 27 N. J. Eq. 82; laney, 53 Minn. 247, 249, 54 
Valentine v. Healey, 86 Hun, 259, N. W. Rep. 1108, 39 Am. St. Rep. 
33 N. Y. Supp. 246, 247; Gaboon 601. An agreement between ten- 
V. Kinen, 42 Ohio St. 190; Ward ants in common, as to a mode of 
V. Ward, 40 W. Va. 611. 21 S. E. enjoying the property pending a 
Rep. 746, 52 Am. St. Rep. 911, 29 L. controversy as to its possession 
R. A. 449; Hixon v. Bridges (Ky. does not necessarily create the 
1897), 38 S. W. Rep 1046; Carver relation of landlord and tenant 
V. Hoffman, 109 Ind. 54?, 10 N, E. between them. Corrigan v. Riley, 
Rep. 567; Mumford v. Brown, 1 26 N. J. L. 79. 
Wend. (N. Y.) 53; IMcKay v. Mum- is Gaboon v, Kinin, 42 Ohio St. 
ford, 10 Wend. (X. Y.) 351; Ores- 190. 



84 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

relationship of landlord and tenant is established or shown to 
exist between the tenant in common who is in occupation and 
those who are not in possession, the rent stipulated for in the 
instrument of letting may be collected by an action,^® and the 
parties to the lease, though they are tenants in common of the 
reversion, have the ordinary rights and obligations of landlord 
and tenant to one another. Thus the tenant in common who is 
the landlord has a lien upon the goods of the tenant in common 
who is a lessee for the rent of the premises.^'' "Where one tenant 
in common has by a lease demised his interest to his co-tenant 
if the tenant in common, who was the lessee, continues in the 
occupation as a tenant at sufferance after the expiration of the 
lease he will be liable in an action for use and occupation at 
the suit of his co-tenant/® 

§ 64. Tenants in common as lessors. It is very well settled 
that one tenant in common cannot make a valid lease of the 
entire premises, which shall bind his co-tenants.^^ For example, 
an agreement by one of several tenants in common allowing a 
stranger to erect sign boards on the land owned in common, does 
not bind his co-tenants.-" A lease of land owned by several per- 
sons as tenants in common is valid as to all of them only when 
all join in its execution or subsequently ratify it. Such a lease 
is not binding upon those of the tenants in common who neither 
join in it nor ratify it. The lease is not, however, absolutely 
void as it is voidable merely by those who did not consent to its 
execution.2^ The tenants in common who have not actually 

i« Elliott V. Knight, 64 111. App, McCorniick, 132 111. 104, 22 N. E. 

87. Rep. 511; Edmonds v. Mounsey, 

17 Grabfelder v. Gazetti (Tex.), 15 Ind. App. 399, 44 N. E. Rep. 196; 
26 S. W. Rep. 436. Benoist v. Rothschild. 145 Mo. 

18 Leigh V. Dickesen, 54 L. J. Q. 399, 46 S. W. Rep. 1081; Mussey 
B. 18, 15 Q. B. D. 60, 52 L. T. 790, v. Holt, 24 N. H. 248, 55 Am. Dec. 
33 W. R. 538. 234; Hayden v. Patterson, 51 Pa. 

10 Lee V. Livingston, 143 Mich. St. 261; Jackson v. O'Rorke (Neb. 

203, 206, 106 N. W. Rep. 713. 1904), 98 N. W. Rep. 10G,S; Mar- 

ao Walker v. Marion, 143 Mich. tens v. O'Connor, 101 Wis. 18, 76 

27, 106 N. W. Rep. 400; Moreland N. W. Rep. 774. Tenants in com- 

V. Strong, 115 Mich. 211. men of land may make a joint 

21 De Witt V. Harvey, 4 Gray lease. Massie v. Long, 2 Ohio, 

(Mass.) 486, 49; Cunningham v. 287, 15 Am. Dec. 547; Doe v. Flem- 

Pattee, 99 Mass. 248; Traintor v. ing, 2 Ohio, 501. 
Cole, 120 Mass. 162, 164; Harms v. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 85 

joined in the lease may subsequently ratify it expressly or by 
necessary implication. The acceptance of rent from a lessee by 
one or more of the tenants in common who have not signed 
the lease, a demand for rent made by them, their express recog- 
nition that the occupant is a lessee or any other fact show- 
ing an understanding on their part that he occupies the rela- 
tionship of a tenant will be relevant to show a ratification. 
Their silence and neglect to object to the action of their co-tenant 
in executing the lease after the fact of its execution or the fact 
of the occupation of the premises by a person claiming to be in 
possession as a tenant may also be equivalent to a ratification. 
The lessee may rightfully assume that one of several tenants in 
common who alone executed his lease was authorized to do so by 
his co-tenants from the fact of their acquiescence and acceptance 
of rent.^^ They may elect after its execution whether they will 
or will not ratify the acts of their fellow tenants in executing 
the lease and, if they desire to do this, a lessee who has occupied 
the premises under the lease cannot escape the payment of rent 
upon the ground that the lease is void and of no effect. Thus a 
sealed lease signed by one tenant in conunon for himself indi- 
vidually and as an agent for the other is not absolutely void nor 
can a tenant refuse to pay rent under his covenants therein, 
where he has remained in possession.-^ 

The lessee of one tenant in common who has entered and re- 
mained in possession of the premises with the consent of the other 
joint owners cannot when sued for the rent claim that the lease 
is void because it was not executed by all. Having enjoyed the 
possession he must abide by his covenant to pay rent.-* In theory 
a lease of land by two or more tenants in common is not regarded 
as one lease by all of them of the premises in their entirety but as 
several leases by the tenants in common of their undivided sep- 
arate and respective shares. The relation of landlord and ten- 
ant does not exist between a lessee of one tenant in common of a 

22 Valentine v. Healey, 158 N. 24 Codman v. Hall, 9 Allen 
Y. 369, 373, 52 N. E. Rep. 1097, re- (Mass.) 335, 338. where one party 
versirLg 1 App. Div. 502, 37 N. Y. executes a deed, it is his deed 
Siipp. 287. though the other party does not 

23 Harms v. McCormick, 132 111. execute his part. Com. Dig. Fait. 
104, 108, 22 N. E. Rep. 511. See C. 2. 

Moreland v. Strong, 115 Mich. 211, 
73 N. W. Rep. 140. 



86 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

portion of the premises and the tenants in common of the lessor 
"unless the lessee shall in fact attorn to the other tenants in com- 
nion.^^ For tenants in common, having each several and dis- 
tinct estates in the land cannot make a joint lease of the whole 
estate; but any lease made by them shall be taken to be the lease 
of each of his respective share, and the cross confirmation of 
each for the share of the other, with no estoppel on either part.-' 
And though tenants in common join in making a lease using joint 
words, the lease operates in law as the separate lease of each for 
his moiety. The estates are several and the reversion is also sev- 
erable.^^ The lessee of the tenants in common is the lessee of each 
of them and each one is a lessor and may sue separately for the 
rent unless it is expressly reserved to them jointly. The lessee 
of any one tenant in common of such tenant's share in the prop- 
erty which is owned in common upon his entry thereon, will have 
the same rights in relation to the other tenants in common which 
his lessor possessed before the demise.^^ Hence one tenant in com- 
mon of land cannot regard the lessee of the share of another 
tenant in common as holding the relation of lessee to the former 
so as to give him a right to oust him from his possession of the 
undivided share which has been leased to him.-^ "Where a lessee 
occupies under a lease from one of two or more tenants in com- 
mon paying the rent reserved to his lessor, he is not liable for use 
and occupation to another tenant in common to whom he has not 
attorned and to whose occupation of his share of the property 
he has not objected. But by an attornment to the other tenants 
in common, with the consent of his lessor, his lease becomes bind- 
ing on both and both are equally bound by its terms as from the 
beginning.^" 

25 Austin V. Ahearne, 61 N. Y. Knight's Case, Moore, 199, 202; 
6, 16, 17. Heatlierly d. Worthington v. Wes- 

26 Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 81, ton, 2 Wils. 232; Clialloner v. 
21 L. J. C. P. 124, 16 Jur. 923; Davies, 1 Ld. Ray. 404; Doe d. 
Doe d. Poole v. Errington, 1 Ad. & Poole v. Errington, 1 Ad. & E. 
E. 750, 755, 3 N. & M. 646, 1 Mo. 750, 755. 

& Rob. 343; Joules v. Joules, 1 28 Keay v. Goodwin, 16 Mass. 

Brown, 39; Trepart's Case, 6 Rep. 1, 4. 

14b; Moore v. Fursden, 1 Show, 29 King v. Dickerman, 11 Gray 

342. (Mass.) 480. 

27 1 Rolle, Abr. Estoppel (B.) so Austin v. Ahearne, 61 N. Y. 
p. 4, p. 877; Bac. Abr. Joint-Ten- 6, 17. 

ants (H.); Co. Litt. 45 a., 197 a. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 



87 



§ 65. Actions by tenants in common to recover rent. By 
the ancient common law of England ^^^ where land owned by ten- 
ants m common was leased,, the lessors could recover arrears of 
rent by an action of debt in which all were obliged to join.^^ 
This is possibly law where the rent is reserved on general terms. 
But as the ordinary rule is that while it is always allowable and 
usually advisable for all the tenants in common to join in an 
action for the rent yet if the payment of the rent is reserved to 
each of them separately each must bring a separate action. If 
the leasing is for an entire rent and the lease fails to state that 
it is reserved to each of the tenants lessors in proportion to his 
share in the reversion all the tenants ought to join, and the sum 
recovered is to be divided by the tenants in common according 
to their respective shares.'^ But there are some authorities which 
hold that where the rent is reserved in an entire sum it is within 
the election of the several co-lessors whether they shall or shall 
not unite in an action to recover the same.^^ And where there 
has been a severance of the ownership of the rent, understood 
and acted on alike by the parties, one tenant in common may 



30a By the English cases, on a 
lease by joint tenants reserving 
the entire rent they may join in an 
action to recover the rent. If there 
he a separate reservation of rent 
to each of them, each must bring 
a separate action. In trespass or 
an injury to the possession, ten- 
ants in common must join. Por- 
ter V. Bleiler, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 
149, 155. In Decker v. Livington, 
15 Johns. (N. Y.) 482, it was said, 
"two tenants making a lease of 
their tenements for a term of 
years, the rent being behind, shall 
have an action of debt against the 
lessee, and not divers actions, for 
the action is in the personalty." In 
Hill V. Gibbs, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 56, 
the rule is laid down generally 
that tenants in common must sue 
separately when the action is in 
the realty, and that they must join 
when the action relates to per- 
sonalty. Judge Bronson said, "the 



action is not in the realty merely 
because it has some relation to 
land. Thus, debt for rent and 
covenant on not repairing upon 
a joint demise is a personal ac- 
tion, and tenants in common must 
join. So, too, they must join in 
actions for trespass or nuisance 
to the land," he adds, "the English 
rule was they may, ours say they 
must join." 

31 Co. Litt. 198b, 316, 317. 

32 Bryant v. Wells, 56 N. H. 152, 
153; Powis v. Smith, 1 D. & R. 490. 

5 B. & Aid. 850, 851, 24 R. R. 587. 
See Harrison v. Barnby, 5 T. R. 
246. 2 R. R. 584; Cutting v. Derby, 
2 Black, 1075; Porter v. Bleiler, 
17 Barb. (N. Y.) 149, 155. 

33 Martin v. Crompe, 1 L. Ray. 
340; Bradbume v. Botfield, 14 M. 

6 W. 567; Last v. Dinn, 28 L. J. 
Ex. 94; HunUey's Case, 3 Dyer, 
326a. 



88 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 



sue in his own name for what is due him without joining his co- 
tenant as a party to the action.^* In the case of a joint demise 
by two tenants in common without specifying to whom the rent 
is reserved the rent follows the reversion and on the death of 
one of them the reversion being split tlie share of the deceased 
lessor goes to his heir who is thereafter entitled to the rent.^^ 
§ 66. Eifect of a lease by joint owners. A lease of property 
by one of two joint owners, executed by one of them only, but 
with the consent and at the request of the other, is a lease of 
both.^^ Where all those who hold in joint tenancy make a lease 
of the land which they thus hold and one of the tenants dies the 
term still endures, though it was a lease at will, and the rent 
inures to the survivors. The lessee if he shall continue in pos- 
session after the death of one of two joint tenants may be sued 
by the survivor for the whole rent thereafter accruing.^^ Other- 



34 Wolsey V. Lasher, 35 App. Div. 
108, 54 N. Y. Supp. 737; Sanborn 
V. Randall, 62 N. H. 620. 

A covenant to pay rent to sev- 
eral lessors is a joint or a several 
obligation, according to the inten- 
tion of the parties. If a lessee 
covenant with two or more lessors 
jointly to pay to each a specified 
share of the rent, the covenant is 
several, as the interest of each 
lessor is several, though the cove- 
nant to pay is joint. Each lessor 
may therefore sue for his propor- 
tion of the rent without joining 
the others. Gray v. Johnson, 14 
N. H. 414, 418; Withers v. Bircham, 
3 B. & C. 254; James v. Emery, 8 
Taunt. 245. 

30 Beer v. Beer, 12 C. B. 60, 81, 
21 L. J. C. P. 124, 16 Jur. 923. 

A tenant in common of a rever- 
sion may maintain an action for 
an injury to the reversion with- 
out joining his co-tenant as a 
plaintiff. So, too, he may bring an 
action for the breach of a covenant 
iu a lease running with the land 
without joining his co-tenants 
where the severance of the rever- 



sion takes place after the demise. 
Roberts v. Holland, 62 L. Q. Q. B. 
621, (1893) 1 Q, B. 665, 5 R. 370, 
41 W. R. 494. A lease by a widow 
who is tenant of an estate in 
dower does not bind the heirs who 
are tenants in common with her. 
It gives the lessee no right to the 
use or possession of the land. The 
heirs who are co-tenants with the 
widow may ratify the lease and 
render it a valid and binding lease 
on them. The lease, however, is 
not void, but is voidable merely. 
Where one of the heirs is an in- 
fant he cannot ratify it. Where 
some of the tenants owning land 
subject to the widow's dower ratify 
her lease and the others take no 
action and the lessee goes in pos- 
session under the lease, an illegal 
combination between those who 
had ratified which shall result in 
an injury to the lessee is action- 
able. Martens v. O'Connor, 101 
Wis. 18-21, 76 N. W. Rep. 774. 

30 Wenger v. Raymond, 104 Pa. 
St. 33, 36, 31 Pitts. L. J. 493. 

37 Jackson v. Dunbar, 68 Miss. 
288, 290, 10 So. Rep. 38. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 89 

wise the survivor would lose the whole fruits and benefit of 
the survivorship and no injury can come to the lessee as he 
would have to pay the whole rent in any event.^^ In the case of 
a tenancy at will where the lessors are joint tenants, either may 
terminate the will without or even against the consent of the 
other.^^ Where there is a lease by joint tenants from year to 
year, either may, without the consent of the other and even 
against his express wishes, give a notice to quit to the lessee. A 
notice to quit signed by one of several joint tenants who are 
lessors is the notice of all.*® If, however, a lease provides that 
the lessors being joint tenants shall all give notice to quit, a no- 
tice not signed by all is ineffectual to terminate the term. Thus 
where a lease provides that the lessor or his heirs or executors 
may give notice to quit under his or their respective hands and 
seals, and the lessor dies appointing tliree executors by his will 
all the executors must unite in the notice to quit and a notice 
signed by only two of them is not sufficient.*^ One or two 
joint tenants may demise his or their portion to another so as 
to create the relation of landlord and tenant between them with 
a right to distrain as to rent in arrears.*- This would be the 
case where one joint tenant for the pajonent of an annual sum 
places another in exclusive possession of the whole of the prem- 
ises and retires from its possession. The parties would then be 
estopped to deny they were landlord and tenant.*^ 

§ 67. The right of joint tenants to the rent. Where all the 
joint tenants unite in a lease reserving rent to all any one of 

38 Henstead's Case, 5 Coke, 10. that tenancy; the tenant has a 

39 Co. Litt. 186; Whayman v. right, upon such a notice, to give 
Chaplin, 3 Taunt. 120. up the whole, and, unless he comes 

ioDoe d. Aslin v. Summersett, to a new arrangement with the 

1 B. & Ad. 13&, 141, in which case other joint tenants, as to their 

Lord Tenterden, C. J., said: shares he is compellable to do so." 

"Upon a joint demise by joint ten- ■*! Right v. Cufhell, 5 Esp. 149, 

ants, upon a tenancy from year to 5 East, 491, 499. If the lease does 

year, the true character of the not require a notice by all execu- 

tenancy is this, not that the tenant tors, a notice by one of two or 

holds of each, the share of each more executors will be sufficient, 

so long as he and each shall *2 Cowper v. Fletcher, 6 B. & S. 

please, but that he holds the whole 464, 473, 34 L. J. Q. B. 187, 11 

of all so long as he and all shall Jur. (N. S.) 780, 12 L. T. 420, 13 

please; and as soon as any one of W. R. 739; Coke, Litt. 186a, Bac. 

the joint tenants gives a notice to Abr. Leases (1), 5, p. 776. 

quit, he effectually puts an end to *3 Pleadall's Case, 2 Leon. 259. 



90 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

them may collect the rent and his release will release all the 
others.^* And a reservation of rent to one joint tenant only 
enures to the benefit of all.*^ One joint tenant cannot sue sep- 
arately for his share of the rent or for the rent which is due all 
of them. He must join with him as parties plaintiff in any and 
eveiy action regarding the property or its income all the joint 
tenants/^ On the death of one or more joint tenants who are 
lessors, the right of action to collect the rent is in the survivors.*^ 
On the death of one of two joint lessors, the survivor is the prop- 
er party to sue to recover for a breach of a covenant in the lease. 
Under such circumstances no right of action passes to the per- 
sonal representative of the deceased lessor.** And where a 
joint lease was executed by the deceased lessor as a guardian, 
his ward, after attaining his majority, may join with the sur- 
viving lessor to enforce a covenant made for his benefit.'*" Inas- 
much as all the authorities hold that parceners whatever may be 
their number, constitute but one heir and hold by unity of title 
as well as by unity of interest, it follows that none of them can 
sue for rent or for use and occupation or distrain for the same 
without joining the others.^" Where one joint tenant receives 
more than his share of the rents from a lessee of the lands he 
is accountable in equity to his co-tenants for as much of the 

44 Newman v. Keffer, 18 Fed. (N. Y.) 149; Cobb v. Kidd, 8 Fed. 
Cases, No. 10,177; Robinson v. Rep. 695, 696. Contra, Sanborn 
Hoffman, 1 M. & P. 474, 4 Ring. v. Randal], 62 N. H. 620. If after 
562, 3 Car. & P. 234, 6 L. J. (0. S.) an action has been commenced by 
C. P. 113, 29 R. R. 627. several joint tenants to recover 

45 Sacheverel v. Frigate, 1 Vent. rent one dies, the action may be 
161; Co. Litt. 47a. 192a, 214a. prosecuted by the survivors. Cobb 

46 Dewey v. Lambier, 7 Cal. 347; v. Kidd, 8 Fed. Rep. 695, 696. 
EllLs V. Culver, 2 Har. (Del.) 129; 47 .Jackson v. Dunbar, 68 Miss. 
Frazier v. Spear, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 288, 10 So, Rep. 38; Bryan v. 
385; Bullock v. Hayward, 10 Allen Averett, 21 Ga. 401, 402, 68 Am. 
(Mass.) 460; Smoot v. Wathen, 8 Dec. 464. 

Mo. 522; Pickering v. Pickering, 11 48 Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 

N. H. 141; Mobley v. Bruner, 59 Pa. 223, 226. 

St. 481, 98 Am. Dec. 360; Bonoyan 49 Salisbury v. Shirley, 66 Cal. 

V. Palmer, 5 Mod. 171; Decker y, 223, 225. 

Livingston, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 479; co Decharms v. Harwood, 4 

Hill V. Gibbs, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 56; Maule & Sel. 400, 10 Bing. 526, 

Sherman v. Ballou, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 529, 3 L. J. C. P. 198; Stedman v. 

304; Porter v. Bleiler, 17 Barb. Bates, 1 Ld. Rajin. 640. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 91 

rents as he has collected which exceeds what he is entitled to.^^ 
Where rent has become due to several joint lessors an assignment 
of the revereion by one of them does not alter the nature of 
the bygone rent and hence the right of distress is lost.^^ 

§ 68. The liability of joint tenants for rent. "Where the 
premises are leased to two or more tenants jointly all are both 
severally and jointly liable according to the exact language of 
the covenant to pay rent. Under a lease to two persons jointly, 
both are liable for the rent though only one has occupied. The 
occupation of one makes both liable on the joint and several 
covenant to pay the rent.^^ For the enti-y of one of two or more 
joint lessees under a lease which is signed by all at the date 
which is designated in the lease for the beginning of the term 
is the entry of all the lessees. All are bound thereafter to pay 
the rent, or for use and occupation though some never enter 
upon the premises.'** On the other hand, if two persons to whom 
a lease is made as joint lessees enter, both are liable upon the 
covenant to pay rent though only one of them has in effect exe- 
cuted the lease.^^ Where the liability of joint lessees is both 
joint and several, a judgment for rent or for use and occupa- 
tion may be recovered against any one of them separately.^^ Or 
a judgment may be recovered against them jointly and severally, 
and execution issued against only one of them in the discretion 
of the lessor. One of several joint lessees may show, when sued 
on the joint obligation to pay rent, that the lessor has, for a 
valuable consideration, released the joint and several liability 
and has accepted in its place a separate obligation and promise 
to pay rent for each joint lessee.^'' Among, or between joint 
lessees it will be presumed that relations of a confidential char- 
acter exist. They may be regarded as qiiasi trustees towards 
each other so that no benefit can be acquired by any one of them 
from the lessor under the lease which shall not enure to the bene- 

61 Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's Heirs, 657, 665; Glen v. Dungey, 4 Exch. 

1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 138, 23 Am. 61. 

Dec. 387. ss McLaughlin v. McGovem, 34 

52Stavely v. Alcock. 16 Q. B. Barb. (N. Y.) 208. 

636, 20 L. J. Q. B. 320, 15 Jur. 628. 56 Ding v. Kennedy, 7 Colo. App. 

63 Kendall v. Carland, 5 Cush. 72, 41 Pac. Rep. 1112; Wolz v. San- 

(Mass.) 74, 80. ford. 10 111. App. 136. 

6* Goshorn v. Stewart, 15 W. Va. ? ' Walker v. Githens, 156 Pa. St. 

178, 181, 27 Atl. Rep. 36. 



92 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

fit of his co-lessees. Thus, a renewal of a lease in which two or 
more are jointly interested as lessees which is procured in the 
name of one lessee only, but which was intended to be for the 
benefit of all will enure to the benefit of all the joint lessees.^^ 
One of several lessees jointly and severally liable to pay rent 
who is compelled to pay the whole rent which becomes due under 
a covenant to pay rent has an action for contribution against 
those who are jointly liable with him. This is equally true in 
the case of a covenant by lessees jointly liable to repair the 
premises. But one tenant in common of a house who expends 
money on ordinary repairs, not being such as are necessary to 
prevent the house from going to ruin, has no right of action 
against a co-tenant for contribution.^^ 

§ 69. The liability for rent of co-partners in business. The 
members of a firm which is a tenant under a lease are liable 
jointly and severally on the covenant to pay rent and also for 
use and occupation. A signature by the firm name subscribed 
by one partner will be binding upon all upon the theory that 
each partner is in law the agent of all. So, a lease signed by* 
one partner individually as lessee and witnessed by all the others 
who signed their names individually binds the firm.*^" But a 
lease in writing under seal to several partners which is only 
signed by one for himself and as an agent for the other partners 
is not binding upon the others unless there is an agency also 
under seal.®^ One who becomes a partner after the execution of 
a lease by his co-partners becomes liable thereby individually 
and jointly for the rent to the same extent as those who have 
executed the lease. But this rule applies only where the lease 
has actually become in some manner one of the partnership as- 
sets.®^ A lease by one member of a firm owning real estate is 
binding upon all where it is authorized or ratified by them. A 
lease of real estate which is brought into a partnership business 
and is used as partnership property made by one partner in his 

68 Burrell v. Bull, 3 Sandf. Ch. eo Busman v. Ganster, 72 Pa. St. 

(N. Y.) 15. 285. 

BO Leigh V. Dickeson, 54 L. J. ei Snyder v. May, 19 Pa. St. 235, 

Q. B. 18, 15 Q. B. D. 60, 52 L. T. 240. 

790, 33 W. R. 538. 02 Guinzburg v. Claude, 28 Mo. 

App. 258. 



LEASES TO JOINT OWNERS. 93 

own name to a third party will not inure to his individual bene- 
fit. It will be for the benefit of the firm and he will be regarded 
as a trustee for the firm to the extent of the rents received by 
him.^^ Where there is a lease by partners and one of them dies 
the other may sue for the rent as a survivor. This is the rule 
where they sue on the covenant to pay rent. A surviving part- 
ner, however, who sues for use and occupation taking place after 
the death of the other partner may sue in his iudvidual name and 
for his own benefit.®* 

63 Moderwell v. Mullison, 21 Pa. «* Wheatley v. Boyd, 7 Ex. 20. 
St. 257. 



CHAPTER IV. 
LEASES BY AGENTS. 

5 70. The agent's authority to lease must be strictly pursued. 

71. The apparent authority of the agent 

72. Lease under seal made by an agent. 

73. An agent's authority in writing under the statute of frauds. 

74. The ratification of a lease executed by an agent without authority 

from the principal. 

75. The fraud and false representations by an agent. 

76. The authority of an agent to accept possession on abandonment 

by the tenant. 

77. The power of an agent appointed to manage property. 

78. "WTiere the agent renders himself personally liable. 

79. Undisclosed principal where a lease is under seal. 

§ 70. The agent's authority to lease must be strictly pursued. 

An agent whether he has been authorized in writing or by parol 
to lease the premises, must proceed strictly according to the 
powers which have been conferred upon him by his principal, 
and if he exceeds his authority his principal is not bound by 
his acts.^ Thus an agent who has a general power to make leases 
for his principal does not, by implication, possess the power to 
grant leases of his principal's lands which shall contain particu- 
lar or unusual covenants or which confer special and peculiar 
privileges upon the tenant. So an agent who has merely the 
power to lease for a term of years does not bind his principal to 
give a renewal where, in making a lease for a term of years, he 
inserts in the lease, without the consent of his principal, a clause 
giving the tenant the right to a renewal.^ The authority vested 
in an agent to make a lease for one year does not permit him to 
bind his principal by a lease for a longer term. Nor will an 

1 "An attorney either at law or or client, unless authority for such 
in fact iias no authority either to purpose is expressly given." How- 
make a lease, or to ratify or con- ard v. Carpenter, 11 Md. 259, 281. 
firm an imperfect one, or to per- - Schumacher v. Pabst Brewing 
feet an inchoate agreement for a Co., 78 Minn. 50, 80 N. W. Rep. 
lease of property of his principal 838. 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 95 

agent who has power to lease a tract of land at a rent specified 
by implication have power to lease a portion of the tract.^ An 
agent who has the authority to lease his principal's land which 
is vacant and unimproved cannot bind his principal by a clause 
in the lease to build houses or to make improvements upon the 
land.'* Even though the agency be created by an instrument 
conferring very wide powers and discretion upon him, nothing 
will be implied in favor of the agent, and against the principal. 
Thus a power of attorney by which the attorney is to hold pos- 
session of a farm providing that it is to be "the same as if it 
were your owtq, I intend it will be" does not empower the at- 
torney to lease it to a creditor and to apply a part of the rent 
on his own debt.^ Some of the cases, however, construe the power 
of an agent to lease with considerable more liberality Thus, a 
general power to lease, to rent or to let conferred upon an agent 
has been considered sufficient, not only to enable him to make a 
new lease, but also to extend a lease which has expired.® Usually 
a general agent of the landlord or a general manager of his 
property has a more extensive power in relation to leasing his 
principal's property than an agent whose sole duty it is to col- 
lect rent. The power and authority of an agent to collect rent are 
very limited. This matter is regulated by the general rules of 
the law of agency. It has been held that an agent who has the 
general and exclusive charge of the business of his principal may 
have the power to modify the terms of existing leases. Thus, in 
New York it has been held that a general agent has power to 
modify the express terms of a lease which was executed by his 
principal by agreeing that a tenant of premises which have been 
destroyed by fire may occupy the premises rent free until re- 
pairs have been made or until the premises have been restored 
to a tenantable condition. The modification is valid and binding 
on the principal though not made with his knowledge, as the 
remaining in possession of the tenant is the consideration of the 
agreement by the agent for under the New York statute the ten- 
ant has the right to abandon the premises and the rent ceases.'^ 

3 Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594, e Pittsburg Mfg. Co. v. Fidelity 

600, 39 Pac. Rep. 94(3. Title & Trust Co., 207 Pa. St. 223, 

■* Peddicord v. Berk, 74 Kan. 236, 56 Atl. Rep. 436. 

86 Pac. Rep. 465. ■ Ireland t. Hyde, 69 N. Y. Supp, 

c Ward V. Thrustin, 40 Ohio St. 8S9. 
347. 



96 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

An agent who is empowered to attend to the repairs of premises 
owned by his principal will not be permitted to exceed his au- 
thority. Doubtless his authority will permit him to bind his 
principal by contracts to furnish labor and material for the or- 
dinarj^ repairs of the premises leaving it for the court to deter- 
mine what shall constitute ordinary repairs. But he has little, 
if any, power to bind his principal in other respects. Thus, for 
example, his representation as to the safety or healthfulness of 
the premises made to the tenant when the lease is executed are 
not binding on the landlord. His power to bind his principal by 
statements as to the condition of the premises is not as exten- 
sive as that of an agent who is employed to rent the premises.* 
§ 71. The apparent authority of the agent. A lessee of land 
dealing with an agent who has an apparent authority to make 
the lease, may rely upon that appearance of authority, and the 
principal will be bound by the acts of the agent within the scope 
of the apparent authority. But, the lessee who relies upon such 
apparent authority to sustain a lease which has been made by 
the agent must either show that the agent has done similar acts 
in excess of his real authority which were subsequently ratified 
by the principal or that the particular lease in question was 
actually ratified by the principal either expressly or by impli- 
cation. Generally speaking, an agent whom the landlord has 
appointed merely for the purpose of collecting the rents of his 
real estate cannot be regarded as having an implied power to 
lease the premises. He is not a general agent but merely a 
special agent for a single purpose. Of course, his actions in 
making a lease may be ratified by his principal as would be the 
ease where the agent collected the rent on a lease made by him, 
and the principal, knowing of the making of the lease, accepted 
and retained the rent. According to some authorities, the agent 
whose sole power is to collect the rents may make a lease at will 
which is binding on the landlord, for it is said that, having to 
make a return of the rents to his principal, the latter might 
suffer a loss if the agent were not by implication given the power 
to lease the premises at will.® An agent whose duties are merely 
the care and supervision of land, as for example, a steward or 

« Daley v. Quick, 33 Pac. Rep. o Woodfalls' Landlord & Tenant, 

859, 99 Cal. 179. C3; Tibbitts v. Moore, 19 N. H. 

369. 



LEASES BY AGENTS. C7 

land atrent, cannot nsiially bind his principal either by a con- 
tract to make a lease or by a lease itself.^" But in one case 
it was held that the power vested in a steward to manage and 
superintend a landed estate will authorize him to bind his prin- 
cipal by an agreement to make the usual and customary leases 
according to the nature and extent of the property.^^ But, it 
has been held in England that a farm bailiff upon whom express 
authority had been conferred to lease lands from year to year 
upon the ordinary terms which were recognized in the neighbor- 
hood, and to receive the rents accruing under such leases, has 
not the implied authority from such circumstances to let the land 
upon unusual terms unknown to the owner and to insert express 
stipulations in the lease? without express authority to do so on 
the part of his principal. ^^ So, also, a general agent among 
whose duties is that of collecting rents, making repairs and at- 
tending to the care of the premises belonging to a non-resident 
landlord has no power to change the terms of existing leases by 
discounting rents which are not due and by accepting for the 
same less than is due." 

§ 72. Lease under seal made by an agent. At the common 
law where a lease executed by an agent is executed under seal, 
or where a lease must be executed under seal and an agent exe- 
cutes it, his authority to execute it must also be under seal.^* 
On the other hand, the authority of the agent to make a parol 

loColler V. Gardner, 21 Beav. (N. Car. Law) 218, 220; Hanford 

151. . V. McNair, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 54; 

11 Peers v. Sneyd, 17 Beav. 151. Blood v. Goodrich., 9 Wend. (N. 

12 Turner v. Hutchinson, 2 F. & Y.) 68; Cooper v. Rankin, 5 Binn. 
F. 185. (Pa.) 612; .Gorden v. Buckley, 14 

isHalladay v. Underwood, 90 S. & R. (Pa.) 331; Cain v. Head, 

111. App. 130. 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 163; Turbeville 

14 As to the rule in the case of d. Darden v. Ryan, 1 Humph, 

deeds generally, see Rowe V. Ware, (Tenn.) 113; Harrison v. Jack- 

30 Ga. 278; Bragg v. Fesenden, 11 son, 7 T. R. 207; 3 Bacon's Abr. 

111. 544; Maus v. Worthing, 4 111. tit. "Leases," 408. The only ex- 

20, 27 (Breeze, J., dissenting) ; ception to this rule occurs in a 

Rhodes v. Louthain, 8 Blackf. case where the agent or attorney 

(Ind.) 413; Wheeler v. Nivins, 34 affixes the seal and signs the name 

Me. 54; Banergee v. Hevey, 5 of the principal in the actual pres- 

Mass. 11, 23; Shuetz v. Bailej', 40 ence of the latter. Maus v. War- 

Me. 69, 75; Smith v. Perry, 29 N. thing, 4 111. 27. 
J. L. 74; Kime v. Brooks. 9 Ired. 

7 



98 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

lease which is to be executed by him for his principal or his au- 
thority to make an agreement for a lease, which is to be executed 
under seal by the principal, need not be in writing.^^ An agent 
may be authorized by parol to make a lease which may be valid 
without writing.^'^ And an agent may be authorized by parol, 
to execute a written contract binding his principal to make a 
lease for more than one year.^^ The common law rule which re- 
quires the authority of an agent to execute an instrument under 
seal to be evidenced by some writing itself under seal is admit- 
tedly technical and the courts in modern times have sought 
strenuously to relax it. No authority under seal was required to 
execute a writing not under seal. And the reason of this is that 
such writings not under seal, such as notes and the like are usual- 
ly barred by statute unless they are sued on and enforced within 
a comparatively short period. But deeds being usually evi- 
dence of the title to real property and being capable of being 
produced to enforce rights after some considerable lapse of time 
when the conditions and circumstances under which they were 
executed by the agent are incapable or at least difficult to be 
proved are on an entirely different footing. In such cases it 
is but reasonable in order to avoid forgery and fraud in the use 
of deeds to require the person who relies upon the deed to show, 
in a case where it is executed by an agent, by some writing of 
equal solemnity and formality with the instrument he claims 
under, that the agent was authorized to execute it.^^ And where 
an agent has without authority under seal, executed a sealed in- 
strument, the subsequent action of the principal in executing an- 
other instrument under seal to take the place of the invalid in- 
strument constitutes such a ratification of the latter as will vali- 
date it from the time of ite execution,^^ and estop the principal 
from asserting its invalidity. So, where an agent without any 
authority under seal, executes a sealed instrument in the name 
of his principal and, on the instrument being shown to the prin- 

iB Brown V. Eaton, 21 Minn. 409; 15 So. Rep. 44; Curtis v. Blair, 26 

Coles V. Trecothick, 9 Ves. Sr. 234, Miss. 309. 

250. 18 Kime v. Brooks, 9 Ired. Law 

i«M'Gunnagle v. Thornton, 10 (N. Car.) 218,221. 

S. & R. (Pa.) 251, 253; McDowell J» Bragg v. Fesenden, 11 111. 544, 

V. Simpson, 3 Watts (Pa.) 129. 545. 

17 Lobdell V. Mason, 71 Miss. 936, 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 99 

cipal after his name and seal have been put upon it by the 
aofent, the principal acknowledges it to be his act and deed, or 
uses words which are equivalent to such acknowledgment, its 
ratification will be implied and it will be valid ah initio.-'^ 

§ 73. The agent's authority in writing under the statute of 
frauds. In some states under the statute of frauds, the agent's 
authority to make a lease for more than one j'car, must be in 
writing.'^ Where it is provided by statute that no lease of 
lands to exceed one year can be executed by an agent unless he 
is authorized in writing to do so, a lease for more than one year 
which is executed by the agent of the lessor and which is deliv- 
ered to the lessee is void if the agent was not authorized in writ- 
ing to sign the lease. And the fact that the duplicate copy re- 
tained by the principal was afterwards signed by him does not 
validate the lease w^here it does not appear that this signing was 
ever brought to the knowledge of the lessee.-^ In the absence of 
statute, a lease for one year in writing and not under seal, may 
be executed by an agent whose authority is created by parol.^^ 
Under the statute of frauds, a lease for a term of three years, 
though signed by an agent, is not binding upon the lessee unless 
the agent's authority from the lessor is in writing.^* So the 
agent must be authorized in writing in order to bind his prin- 
cipal in the adoption of the lease for more than one year.-^ The 
performance of the conditions of an invalid lease by the lessee 
wiU take the lease out of the statute of frauds. Thus a lessee 
who has been in the possession of the premises and paid rent 
for more than a year, cannot object that a lease in writing is in- 
valid under the statute of frauds, or refuse to pay rent because 
it was executed by an agent who was not authorized in writing 

20 Rhode v. Louthain, 8 Blackf. App. 549; Hoover v. Pacific Oil 

(Ind.) 413. Co., 41 Mo. App. 317. 

2iCal. Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. 5; 24 Hoover v. Pacific Oil Co., 41 

How. St. Mich., § 6179. Mo. App. 317; Lehman v. Nolting, 

22 Ohesebrough v. Pingree, 72 56 Mo. App. 549; Chesebrough v. 
Mich. 438, 445, 40 N. W. Rep. 747, Pingree, 72 Mich. 438, 40 N. W. 
1 L. R. A. 529. See, also. Ham- Rep. 747. See, also, Borderre v. 
mond V. "Winchester, 82 Ala. 470, 2 Den, 106 Cal. 594, 600, 39 Pac. Rep. 
So. Rep. 892; Darity v. Darity 946. 

(Tex.), 71 S. W. Rep. 950. 25 Sheo v. Seeling, 89 Mo. App. 

23 Lehman v. Nolting, 56 Mo. 146. 



100 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

by the landlord to execute the lease. ^^ But it has also been held 
that a lease made by an agent which is absolutely void under 
the statute of frauds because the authority of the agent to make 
the written lease is not in writing, is not good as an oral lease 
for a year. If the statute expressly declares such lease to be 
void, it cannot be valid for any portion of time however short.-^ 
§ 74. The ratification of a lease executed by an agent with- 
out authority from the principal. Upon general principles of 
the law of agency there can be no question that a lease which 
has been executed by an agent in the name of his principal 
which either exceeds the authority of the agent, or which the 
agent had no authority to execute, may be ratified and subse- 
quently confirmed by the principal so that it will become valid 
and binding upon him. The principal may ratify and validate 
the invalid action of the agent, either by express oral language, 
by writing or by some act, such as receiving rent, which will 
estop him from afterwards rejecting the lease.-^ A ratification 
by the principal may be inferred from his acts and conduct as 
well as from his express language. In order to constitute a rati- 
fication by conduct, the acts and conduct which are relied upon 
must be clearly proven to the satisfaction of the jury. No rati- 
fication of the lease will be implied from weak or doubtful cir- 
cumstances which are capable of a construction which is consis- 
tent with a repudiation of the action of the agent. The action 
of the principal in putting a tenant in possession and receiving 
rent from him which agrees with the terms of the lease is a 
ratification by the principal.^" The knowledge of the action of 

26Tean v. Pline, 60 Mich. 385, Bank v. Mortley, 19 Wis. 62; 

27 N. W. Rep. 557. Trout v. McDonald, 83 Pa. St. 144; 

27 Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594, Ducaii v. Hartman, 143 Pa. St. 
600, 39 Pac. Rep. 946. 595, 22 Atl. Rep. 1099, 48 L. I. 441, 

28 Irons V. Reyburn, 11 Ark. 378; re-affirmed, 149 P. St. 114, 24 Atl. 
Borderre v. Den, 106 Cal. 594, 609, Rep. 190. 

39 Pac. Rep. 946; Bragg v. Fessen- 29 Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647, 

den, 11 111. 544; Powell v. Gos- 31 S. W. Rep. 938. The failure of 

som, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 179, 192; a married woman to notify one 

Adams v. Power, 52 Miss. 828, 833 ; who leased her property from her 

Anderson v. Connor, 87 N. Y. Supp. husband in the name of the hus- 

449; Ovcrby v. Overby, 18 La. Ann. band, and without the knowledge 

546; Baines v. Burbridge, 15 La. or consent of the married woman, 

Ann. 628; Breithaupt v. Thurmond, of her ownership, does not estop 

3 Rich. (S. C.) 216; Wisconsin her from disputing the validity of 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 101 

the agent in signing and executing the lease must be brought 
home to the principal and when knowing exactly what the agent 
has done in leasing the property he enjoys the benefits and fruits 
of the agent's acts, he will not be permitted to repudiate his acts. 
Under this rule it is unquestioned that the receipt of rent by 
the principal under a lease which had been made by the agent 
without the authority of the principal would constitute a rati- 
fication of the lease. ^** And where the principal receives rent 
after the execution of a lease by an agent without authority or 
where the lease is invalid because not under seal, equity will 
compel the principal to ratify the lease, and will order a seal 
attached thereto and direct the principal to do anything eise 
which will validate the lease. "^ Where the actions and eon- 
duct of the principal are relied upon to constitute a ratification 
of a lease made by an agent without authority, it must appear 
that the principal was acting with a full knowledge of all the 
material facts in the case. For the actions of the principal done 
in complete ignorance of the conduct of the agent cannot be re- 
garded in law as a ratification.^- Where an agent of a landlord 
having power to rent for one year only, rents for two years, and 
during the second year the principal received the rent agreed 
upon, it is a question for the jury to determine whether the prin- 
cipal ratified the letting by the agent. The jury might infer 
from such evidence that he was a general agent for the renting 
of the property. If being such, he was limited by instructions 

the lease. The fact that the prop- Reid v. Hibbard, 6 "Wis. 175; Wis- 

erty stood in the name of the true consin Bank v. Morley, 19 Wis. 62. 
owner on the record is always ma- 3i Story on Agency, § 239. 

terial. So it is not material, so far 32 Chapman v. Lee, 47 Ala. 143; 

as the power of the wife is con- Mapp v. Phillips, 32 Ga. 72; Tid- 

cerned to deny the validity of the rick v. Rice, 13 Iowa, 214, 221; 

lease, that the lessee always paid Dickinson v. Conway, 12 Allen 

his rent to the husband, and in do- (Mass.) 487; Hammond v. Han- 

ing so always supposed he was the nin, 21 Mich. 374; Gulick v. Gro- 

sole owner of the premises. Long ver, 33 N. J. Law, 463; Seymour 

V. Poth, 73 N. Y. St. Rep. 251, 37 v. Wyckoff, 10 N. Y. 213; Meehan 

N. Y. Supp. 670, 16 Misc. 85. v. Forrester, 52 N. Y. 277; Wright 

soRoby V. Cossitt, 78 111. 638; v. Burbank, 64 Pa. St. 247; Will- 

Haynes v. Seachrest, 13 Iowa, iams v. Storm, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 

455; Ruggles v. "Washington Co., 203, 207; "Vincent v. Rather, 31 

3 Mo. 496; Hastings v. Bangor Tex. 77. 
House Proprietors, 18 Me. 436; 



102 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

to rent for one year, and in violation of his instructions, rented 
for two years, slight evidence of ratification by the landlord 
would be sufficient. Under such circumstances the principal is 
responsible to the innocent third persons not having knowledge 
of a limitation upon the power of an agent to lease the premises 
for the act of the agent; providing he does not promptly re- 
pudiate such acts before the tenant has entered.^^ 

§ 75. Fraud and false representations by an agent. The 
question of the binding character upon a principal, of fraudu- 
lent conduct and false representation by the agent in the leas- 
ing of property has frequently been discussed. Unquestionably 
a principal who is proved to have instructed his agent to mis- 
represent the condition of the premises, or the rate of rent whic!i 
he has received from them, or who at the time of the execution 
of the lease, knows that his agent has been guilty of fraud or 
falsehood in this respect, though not by his direction, will 
be held responsible for his agent's acts. Thus, if an owner of 
property, knowing that the premises were unsafe, uninhabitable 
or objectionable on account of a nuisance existing in or near 
them should employ an agent to lease the same who was ignorant 
of these facts ; and the agent, being thus ignorant of these facts 
represents the premises as being desirable and safe the principal 
would be liable for the representation of his agent. So. where 
the owner of a house who employed an agent to let it for him and 
stated to the agent that it was in good condition and unobjec- 
tionable in every respect, and the agent, relying on these state- 
ments, rented the house which was objectionable because it was 
located next door to a disorderly house, it was held that the 
lease was not binding on the tenant because of the misrepresen- 
tation made by the agent.^^ 

§ 76. The authority of an agent to accept possession on aban- 
donment by the tenant. The tenant must prove that an agent 
to wliom he may have delivered the keys of the premises had 
authority as the agent of the landlord to accept them and thus 
assent to a surrender. The agent's authority to assent to a sur- 
render will not be inferred from authority in the agent to col- 
lect the rent of the premises. Nor will the failure, neglect or 

82 Reynolds v. Davison, 31 Md. 33 Fuller v. "Wilson, 3 Q. B. 58, 

662, 688. 68; Bennett v. Judson, 21 N. Y. 

238. 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 103 

refusal of the landlord to return a tey delivered to the agent by 
the tenant on the abandonment of the premises by the latter 
amount to a ratification of the acceptance by the acrent and 
create a surrender by operation of law where the landlord does 
nothing else conclusively indicating an intention on his part 
to accept the keys in token of surrender.^* The power to 
accept a new tenant in the case of a lease executed under seal for 
a term which exceeds a year and to release the former tenant 
by the acceptance of his surrender must be expressly conferred 
and will not be implied. The mere fact that the agent has 
general power to act for the landlord in the care of his prop- 
erty does not necessarily confer on the agent the power to ac- 
cept a surrender of the premises or to make a new lease to a 
new tenant. Thus, an agent whose duties are to make leases, 
to receive rents, to give receipts for the same and to allow for 
the expenses of repairs made by tenants, possesses no implied 
power to accept a Siurrender of a lease which is in writing and 
which is under seal.^^ The surrender of a key to an agent of 
this character, unless with the direct consent of the landlord, 
or with his subsequent ratification, does not constitute a sur- 
render by implication of law. But a general agent will have 
his power to act for the landlord given a fairly reasonable 
construction. An agreement bj^ him to pay the expenses which 
a tenant might incur in moving if he would promptly move 
from the premises on the expiration of his term is within the 
scope of the power of a general agent who has power to lease, 
to collect rent and to look after the premises generally.^® 

§ 77. The power of an agent appointed to manage property. 
Real estate agents who make it their business to let houses or 
other real estate, are, if shown to be in possession of the keys 
of the house, at least prima facie authorized to grant leases for 
the premises upon such terms as they may see fit to make and 
also to give the tenant possesion. But this presumption may be 

34 Blake v. Dick, 15 Mont. 236, 35 Wallace v. Dinning, 11 Misc. 
38 Pac. Rep. 1072; Thomas v. Nel- Rep. 117, 32 N. Y. Supp. 159; Wil- 
son, 69 N. Y. 118; Baylis v. Pren- son v. Lester, 64 Barb. (N. Y.) 
tice, 75 N. Y. 604; Ryan v. Jones, 431, 433. 

20 N. Y. Supp. 842, 2 Misc. Rep. so Creighton v. Finlayson, 46 

65; Barkley v. McCue, 55 N. Y. Neb. 457, 459, 64 N. W. 1103. 
Supp. 608, 25 Misc. Rep. 738; 
Barkley v. Holt, 84 N. Y. S. 957. 



104 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

rebutted by proof on the part of the landlord that the authority 
of the agent was restricted by him. It is the duty of the 
tenant, in dealing with the agent, to ascertain the limits and 
character of the authority which the principal has delegated 
to him. The existence and scope of the authority of the real 
estate agent to let premises and to bind his principal is to be 
determined in the same manner as the authority of any other sort 
of agent. The court in determining the scope of his authority 
will take into consideration the facts in the case, the usages 
of the locality if there are any and particularly the conduct of 
the principal in prior transactions with the agent. A written 
authority "to act as our agent for our properties and to man- 
age said properties" is very general and at the same time very 
vague in its terms. The precise limit of a power to manage land 
would depend largely upon the circumstances and conditions 
of the land as they are shown in the evidence. On the one 
hand the power to manage land would clearly not authorize an 
agent to sell it. It is also clear that it would clearly authorize 
him to make leases in the ordinary form and on the ordinary 
terms. Construing this power it may safely be said that a power 
to manage land implies authority in the agent to do all that had 
been done prior to the creation of the power by the principal, 
or by other persons with the express or implied assent or con- 
sent of the principal except to sell the land or to mortgage it. 
In other words it is implied that the agent may do what is 
usual and customary to do with property of the kind in that 
locality. Under such a power the agent could lease farmland 
for terms and on conditions usual for farms in the vicinity 
where the land is located. And an agent having such power 
could unquestionably lease dwelling or business property, lo- 
cated in a town or city, upon such terms and conditions as are 
customary in the town or city where the property is located. 
So, for illustration, if there were an open mine on the land the 
management of it might include the working or leasing of the 
open mine by the agent. And on the other hand the opening of 
a mine where none had been opened before, or the making of a 
lease conferring the power to open mines, would be a doubtful 
act unless perhaps the land were located in a mining country and 
its use for other purposes is thereby necessarily limited. But 
an agent with power to manage property, or with a general 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 105 

power for a limited period, has no power thereby to make a 
lease for a long term which shall extend beyond the period 
during which he has a right to act. Thus, an agent to manage 
land appointed for one year only cannot grant a lease for fif- 
teen years of the sole right to quarry, take or sell stone or coal 
from the land which is already improved and is valuable min- 
eral land. And the consideration in this case would be that 
this was not a grant of an annual profit which, when taken out 
of the land, would be replaced by the operation of nature, but 
a permanent diminution of the body and value of the land itself 
which would be similar to the opening of a mine where none 
had been opened before and hence would be clearly not within 
the power of the agent appointed for the ordinary manage- 
ment of property.^' An agent who is instructed or who has an 
agent's power to lease to a responsible tenant is answerable in 
damages to his landlord if he fails to exercise reasonable dili- 
gence in ascertaining the responsibility of the tenant. He must 
make the same inquiry regarding the tenant as a prudent man 
would make in carrying on his own affairs.^^ So, an agent 
authorized to let premises must act in good faith to his prin- 
cipal and he cannot let the premises to himself without the 
consent of his principal given after a full disclosure of all the 
circumstances by the agent to the principal."' 

§ 78. Where the agent renders himself personally liable. In 
order to escape personal liability, the agent who executes the 
lease should always sign the name of his principal by himself 
as agent, thus, ''John Doe by Richard Rowe his agent" or "his 
attorney" as the case may be.*" For in the case of a lea.se 
or other writing which is signed "John Doe agent for Richard 

37 Duncan v. Hartman, 143 Pa. S.) 15o; Green v. Keppe, 18 C. B. 
St. 595, 606, 22 Atl. Rep. 1099, 24 149; Deslandes v. Gregory, 2 E. & 
Am. St. Rep. 570; Id., 149 Pa. St. E. 602; Clayton v. Souther, 1 Exch. 
114, 24 Atl. Rep. 190. 717; Parker v. Winslow, 7 El. & 

38 Hayes v. Tindall, 1 B. & S. B. 492. A person who describes 
296; Hemmenway v. Hemmenway, himself in an agreement to make 
5 Pick. (Mass.) 389; Moore v. a lease as making it on behalf of 
Gholson, 34 Miss. 372; Anthony v. another will be personally liable 
Smith, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 508. if in subsequent part of it he prom- 

39 Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 ises that he will himself execute it. 
Ves. 746. Norton v. Herron, 1 Car. & P. 648, 

40 Cooke V. Wilson, 1 C. B. (N. R. & M. 229, 28 R. R. 797. 



106 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

Rowe" or '"for John Doe, Richard Rowe agent" all the words 
that follow after the name of the agent are treated as mere 
descriptio personae, and the lease or other writing will be bind- 
ing on the agent individually upon the ground that he has not 
disclosed the name of his principal.*^ But the principal and 
not the agent will be bound if it appear from the language of 
the lease itself that it was signed by the agent for the prin- 
cipal and not for the agent himself.*^^ A person who, on being 
sued for rent of premises leased by him in his own name, claims 
that he was the agent of another in making the lease, will have 
the burden on him to convince the court of that fact.*^ Thus 
an authorized agent who executes a lease under seal in which 
he states he is the agent of a disclosed and known principal, 
and who assumes to contract for such principal only and not for 
liimself personally or individually is not bound by the lease per- 
sonally or individually though he has signed his individual 
name.*^ So also, a lease which reads "We have leased to" a 
lessee named, and which is signed "L. and Son, agents for W." 
is the lease of the principal, and not of the agents.** And it has 
been held that the mere fact alone, that an agent executes a 
lease in his own name does not make him individually liable 
thereon, unless the language of the lease shows a clear intent 
that he shall be liable individually." The fact that a lease 
is executed by an agent in his own name, does not alone neces- 
sarily render it invalid.** It is binding on the lessee who is 
estopped to show that the lessor, though styling himself an 

<xCompton v. Cassada, 32 Ga. (Ky.) 237; Hall v. Woods, 10 N. 

428; Fisks v. Eldredge, 12 Gray H. 237. 

(Mass.) 474; Fowler v. Atkinson, 42 shakel v. Hennessey, 57 111. 

6 Minn. 578; Robertson v. BanlvS, App. 332. 

9 Miss. 666; McColgan v. Katz, 29 43 whitford v. Laidlaw, 94 N. Y. 

Misc. Rep. 136, 60 N. Y. Supp. 291; 145, 149; Kiersted, V. O. & A. R. 

Bellas V. Hays, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) R. Co., 69 N. Y. 343, 345, 25 Am. 

427, 436. 438; Pryer v. Coulter, 1 Rep. 199. 

Bailey Law (S. Car.) 517, 520; 44 Duncklee v. Webber, 151 Mass. 

Kleckner v. Klapp, 2 Watts & S. 408, 24 N. E. Rep. 1082. 

44; Robertson v. Pope, 1 Rich. Law *'> Frambach v. Frank, 33 Colo. 

(S. Car.) 501; Comb's Case, 9 Rep. 529, 81 Pac. Rep. 247. 

76; White v. Cuyler, 6 T. R. 17C; 4o Murray v. Armstrong, 11 Mo 

Co. Lltt. 48c. 209; Potter v. Bassett, 35 Mo, 

4iaMagill v. Hinsdale, 6 Conn. App. 417. 
464, 469; Cook v. Sanford, 3 Dana 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 107 

agent, had no title to the premises.*'^ These niles apply also to 
a lease which is signed by an agent acting for an undisclosed 
lessee. Thus a lease signed by a person in the capacity of a 
lessee in his individual name, is binding on him individually, 
though it may be recited in the lease that he is acting for an- 
other. The lease is his individual lease and he and not his 
principal is liable on the covenant to pay the rent though the 
principal may have had the use and occupation during the term. 
The covenants in such a lease can be enforced only by or 
against the person who actually covenants though in fact he 
covenants for another's benefit and this fact is known to the 
lessor. Nor can he escape individual liability where he signs as 
an individual merely by showing he was authorized to sign the 
lease as an agent and that he intended to do so as an agent and 
not as a principal. For the intention of the parties under such 
circumstances is a question of fact and the presumption is that 
it was intended to be binding on the agent as an individual 
unless an express ratification by the principal is proved.*^ But, 
while parol evidence is not admissible to exonerate the agent 
of an undisclosed principal from his liability for rent on a lease 
where the liability of his principal on the covenants does not 
appear upon the face of the lease** such evidence is received to 
charge the principal upon a lease and to enable him to sue or 
to be sued thereon.^" A tenant who has enjoyed the use and 
occupation of the premises, cannot defend in an action for the 
rent by showing that the lease was not signed by the landlord 
as the principal. Thus in an action against the tenant upon 
notes given for rent the defendant is estopped to show that the 
lease was not signed by the real owner, where the tenant had in 
fact signed the lease, and the real owner's agent had signed 
his name individually in place of that of the owner." So that a 
person who styles himself in the lease "sole lessor," and signs 
the lease with his own name, followed by the word agent is, so 

*7 Bedford v. Kelly, 61 Pa. St. <» Higgins v. Senior, 8 Mee. & 

491. Wei. 844. 

48 Kiersted v. O. & A. R. R. Co., so Hlggins v. Senior, 8 Mee. & 

69 N. Y. 343, 1 Hun (N. Y.) 151, Wei. 844; Humphrey v. Dale, 7 E. 

55 How. Prac. 51; Whitford v. & B. 266. 

Laidler, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 136, 140. si Lagerfelt v. McKie, 100 Ala. 

430, 14 So. Rep. 281. 



108 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

far as .the lessee is concerned, the landlord and he alone can 
recover rent and distrain for the non-payment therefor.^^ And 
generally an agent who has the full management of his prin- 
cipal's real estate with the power to rent it, may maintain an 
action for the possession of the premises where a tenant to 
whom the agent has leased it, fails to pay the rent.^^ A prin- 
cipal may ratify a lease which was executed by his agent as a 
lessor in such manner as to bind the agent only. After the prin- 
cipal has I'atified the lease, he may sue upon any covenant •"'* 
contained in the lease signed by his agent. A lease executed by 
the agent in which he exceeds the authority conferred upon him 
by the principal without the knowledge of the party with whom 
he is contracting though it may not bind the principal, is bind- 
ing upon the agent. But when an agent acts in good faith and 
discloses to the other contracting party the extent of his real 
authority the lease will not be obligatory upon the agent in 
case it shall turn out that he has exceeded his authority.^^ For 
if the party contracting with him actually knows the extent of 
his authority and accepts a lease from him which is in excess of 
his authority, he must take the consequences.-''^ 

§ 79. Undisclosed principal where a lease is under seal. The 
principal cannot maintain an action for rent on a covenant in 
a lease under seal which is executed by the agent only under the 
agent's seal and which does not disclose the fact that the prin- 
cipal is a party to it. An action upon such a sealed instrument 
must be brought by a party to it and can be brought by no 
other person. The agent who executes a lease under his own 
name and seal is alone responsible for he and not his principal 
has entered into the covenants and inasmuch as he alone can be 
held liable for the performance of these covenants it follows 
that he alone can enforce the obligations which are incumbent 
on the other party. Where the agent of the owner executes a 
lease under the name and seal of himself and not of his prin- 

f.2 Seyfert v. Bean, 83 Pa. St. P. C. 547; Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. 

450, 34 L. I. 213. R. 758. 

■'^- Hinckley v. Guyon, 172 Mass. (".g Sinclair v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 

412, 52 N. E. Rep. 523. (N. Y.) 543; Galewski v. Appel- 

M Brooks V. Cook (Ala.), 38 So. baum, 32 Misc. Rep. 203, 65 N. Y. 

Rep. 641. Supp. 694, 

65 Hamilton v. Clanricard, 5 Bro.. 



LEASES BY AGENTS. 109 

cipal he and not the owner is the proper person to bring an 
action for the rent.'^^ The executor of an e.'itate cannot sue on 
a lease executed under seal by an agent in the agent's name 
as lessor where the lease does not show who was the principal.'* 
The contrary rule is recognized where there is a written lease 
not under seal. It may then be shown by parol that the prin- 
cipal and not the agent is the real party in interest and the un- 
disclosed principal may sue as landlord to recover the rent.^® 
But the fact that a lease is not required to be under seal does 
not always permit a lease actually under seal to be regarded as 
a simple contract and allow an undisclosed principal to sue 
thereon. Under some circumstances a seal may be treated as 
surplusage. Thus if it appear on the face of the sealed instru- 
ment itself that the lease was actually made on behalf of the 
principal and from parol evidence that he has derived a benefit 
from it, he may sue and be sued on it, though it has been signed 
only by the agent in his own name. The mere fact that an agent 
signs a sealed lease as agent not mentioning the name of the 
principal either in the signature or in any part of the lease 
is not enough alone to admit parol evidence of the existence 
of the principal or to permit the principal to sue thereon.®*' 

sTSchaeffer v. Henkel, 75 N. Y, 153; Brooks v. Cook (Ala.), 81 

378, 381, 7 Abb. N. C. 1; Briggs v. Pac. Rep. 247. 

Partridge, 64 N. Y. 357. eo Manett v. Simpson, 61 Hun, 

58 McColgan v. Katz, 60 N. Y. 620, 15 N. Y. Supp. 448. See Hays 

Supp. 291, 29 Misc. Rep. 136. T. Moody, 2 N, Y. Supp. 385; 

68 Bryant v. Wells, 56 N. H. 152, Hardy v. Williams, 31 N. Car. 177. 



CHAPTER V. 
THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 

S 80. What may be leased. 

81. A lease of land held adversely. 

82. Leases of public land. 

83. The lease of land or houses with chattels to be used therewith. 

84. Lease of surplus waters of canaLs. 

85. Leases by a tenant in dower or curtesy. 

86. Agricultural leases in New York. 

87. The power to lease a homestead. 

83. The lease of a portion of a homestead. 

89. The mode of the execution of a lease of a homestead. 

§ 80. What may be leased. At the common law not only 
land itself but all chattels and heriditaments, corporeal or in- 
corporeal, might be the subject of a lease. Thus, an advowson^ 
might be leased. So, also, corrodies,^ estovers,^ ferries,* fish- 
eries,° offices, franchises,*^ rights to tolls, '^ rights of common,^ 
rights of way,^ and rights of herbage,^" may be the subject of a 
lease at common law. So, a stall in a market may be leased.^^ So, 
also, there may be a lease of the right to take herbage, timber 
or minerals from the land ;^- of water power,^^ and of the priv- 
ilege of putting up advertising sig-ns upon a wall,^* all of which 

•1 Anonymous, 3 Dyer, 323, b. pi. s Luney v. Brown, Lutch. 99. 

30. » Newmarch v. Brandling, 3 

2 Bacon's Abr. tit. Leases (A). Swanst, 99; Osborn v. Wise, 7 C. 

sBro. Abr. tit. Leases, 40; Ba- & P. 761, 764. 

con's Abr. tit. Leases (A) ; 1 Piatt i" Hill v. Barry, Hayes & Jo, 

on Leases, 24. 688. 

4 Peter v. Kendal, 6 B. & C. 703, n Washington Market Co. v. 

711; Hansen v. Kirtley, 11 Iowa, Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 25 L. Ed. 

565. 782. 

6 Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell, 12 Maring v. Ward, 50 N. Car. 
5 B. & C. 875, 884; Eastham v. An- 272, 275. 

derson, 119 Mass. 526, 530; Water- i3 Channel v. Merrifleld, 206 111. 

town v. White, 13 Mass. 477. 278, 69 N. E. Rep. 32. 

« 2 Inst. 221, 400. n Landau v. O. J. Gude Co., 84 

7 Harris v. Morricc, 10 M. & W. N. Y. Supp. 672. 
260. 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. Ill 

are distinct from a lease of tlie land itself and do not pass any 
interest in the land except to occupy it temporarily within the 
limits of the authority expressly conferred. 

§ 81. A lease of land held adversely. At the common law an 
actual or constructive possession of the land by the lessor is 
always required as the basis of a lease. Hence, it follows that 
a lease in presenti creating a right to an immediate possession in 
the lessee, executed and delivered while the premises demised 
are in the adverse possession of a third person is absolutely 
void.^° So far as the validity of the lease is concerned it does 
not matter whether the adverse possession has or has not ripened 
into a title, or whether the lessor knew of the adverse posses- 
sion or not.^* In some cases by statute it is provided that prop- 
erty held adversely may be transferred. Such a statute vali- 
dates a lease of property in the adverse possession of another 
than the lessor.^' A lease by a person against whom property 
is held adversely to the person who claims title against him is 
valid. The execution of the lease puts an end to the adverse 
possession because by it the occupant admits its ownership to be 
in the lessor which he will be subsequently estopped to deny.^^ 
But the rule that land held adversely cannot be the subject of a 
valid lease at the common law does not apply to the case of a 
lease which is to take effect as soon as another lease which is 
then in existence shall terminate. The rule does not apply to 
leases in reversion. The possession of the tenants is then not 
adverse to the landlord. During the possession of the first ten- 
ant the lessee under the lease in reversion is the owner of an 
interesse termini which vests in possession at the expiration of 
the earlier lease. This lease may be granted with or without a 
deed.^" Unless the common law rule is superseded by a statute 
the only mode by which one whose land is held adversely may 
lease it is by the execution of a lease and the delivery of it in 
escrow to a third person with a power of attorney to make an 

15 Iseham v. Morrice, Cro. Car. 623, 16 Pac. Rep. 5011, 5 Am. St. 
109. Rep. 479. 

16 Sohier v. Coffin, 101 Mass. 179, is Abbey, etc., Ass'n v. Welland, 
183. See Warner v. Bull, 13 Met. 48 Cal. 614. 

(Mass.) 1. 19 Winter v. Loveday, 2 Salk. 

17 Lewis V. Brandle, 107 Mich. 537; Clarges v. Funucan, 2 Doug. 
7, 9; Rice v. Whitmore, 74 Cal. 619, 565, 568; Smith v. Day, 2 M. & W. 

684, 699. 



112 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

entry upon the land and to deliver the lease to the lessee after 
the entry and while in actual possession. The common law 
authority regulating this method of procedure will be found in 
the notes.-" A lease for years executed by an heir after the 
death of his ancestor but before his own actual entry on the 
land which is required to vest him with the possession at the 
common law is valid. The law presumes that he is in posses- 
sion the instant the ancestor dies. If, however, a stranger to 
the title actually enters before the heir takes possession and 
sets up an adverse possession to the heir, the lease of the heir 
will be void at common law.-^ 

§ 82. Leases of public land. Vacant or unappropriated pub- 
lic land which is owned by the state or the United States and 
which is subject to pre-emption by settlers cannot be leased in 
the absence of a statute permitting it.^- In some States the 
leasing of public land by the state or the county is permitted 
by statute. A lease which is contrary to the statute is invalid 
and passes no title to the lessee. The invalidity of the lease is 
absolute and beyond the effect of subsequent curative statutes." 
The statutory provisions regulating the leasing of public land 
have for their object either the prohibition of the making of 
leases by the public authorities or the prohibition of the making 
of leases by the claimants of the land. In the absence of an ex- 
press statutory prohibition a lease of public land which is 
executed by a claimant to it before his entry has been per- 
fected by him, is valid. If the title has been perfected in the 
claimant and he has occupied the land he will unquestionably 
have the same right to lease it as any other owner,-* but if it 
appears to be the intent of the parties to the lease that the lessee 
of the claimant shall enter upon the land and occupy it under 
the lease before the title of the claimant has been confirmed or 
perfected according to law it is very doubtful if the lease 
would be obligatory on the claimant who subsequently enters 

20 4 Bacon's Abr. tit. Leases (H) 22 Turner v. Ferguson, 33 Tex. 
4; Co. Litt. 48&; Sharp v. Sharp, 505, 508, 509. 

Cro. Eliz. 483; Stephens v. Eliot, 23 Sexton v. Board of Sup'rs of 

id. 484; Jennings v. Bragg, id. 447; Coahoma, 86 Miss. 380, 38 So. Rep. 

Davis V. Bridges, 2 Roll's Abr. 25. 636. 

21 Comyn's Digest, tit. Seizin 24 Tiernan v. Miller, 69 Neb. 764, 
(A), Sheppard's Touchstone, 269. 96 N. W. Rep. 661. 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. IIS 

and attempts to repudiate the lease.^' Where a lease by a 
patentee of public land who has entered upon it is valid, his 
lessee has the same rights during the term to the possession and 
enjoyment of the land as has any other tenant.-^ 

§ 83. The lease of land or houses with chattels to be used 
therewith. In England the validity of leases of chattels is ad- 
mitted. Thus a lease of a dwelling house and the furniture or 
of a mill and the machinery in it is valid. During the term for 
which chattels are leased the tenant has an interest in them as 
will deprive the owner or landlord of his possession of them. 
The relation of the landlord to the chattels is precisely the same 
as the relation of the landlord of the land to the demised laud. 
By the execution of the lease for a term the landlord is pre- 
vented from bringing an action against a third party for any 
injury to the cliattels during the term which does not amount ta 
a permanent destruction of them. This rule has been applied 
to leases of furnished houses. Thus, wdiere the landlord of a. 
house demises it furnished to a tenant, and the furniture of the 
house belonging to the landlord but in the actual possession 
of the tenant is taken from the house on an execution against 
the tenant, the landlord cannot recover in trespass for th^- 
goods against the sheriff though the sheriff knew that the 
landlord owned the furniture. For in this case the injury is not 
to the landlord but to the tenant by depriving him of the use 
of the furniture.^^ And the tenant may therefore sue. Nor can 
a landlord under such circumstances where the chattels which 
he has leased to a tenant are taken by a third person maintaiu 
an action of trover or conversion to recover the chattels for the 
right to the possession of the chattels continues in the tenant 
during the term, and the only action which the landlord may 
maintain during the term in regard to the chattels is an action 
for the destruction or their substantial and permanent impair- 
ment.^® 

25 Orrell v. Bay Mfg. Co. (Miss. affords an answer to it. If, in- 

App., 1906), 40 So. Rep. 429. stead of the household goods, the 

28 Tiernan v. Miller & Leith, 69 goods here taken had been ma- 
Neb. 764, 96 N. Wj Rep. 661. chines used in manufacture which 

27 Ward v. Macauley, 17 R. 4S0. had been leased to a tenant, no 

28 Gordon v. Harper, 7 T. R. 9. doubt could have been made but 
In this case the court said: "The that the sheriff might have seized 
very statement of the proposition them under an execution against. 



114 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



One who leases a farm together with the live stock, farm- 
ing tools, and other articles to be used therewith and binds him- 
self to return these articles of personal property or others of 
equal value at the end of the term, acquires thereby no absolute 
title to the personal property. His creditors have no claim to 
these articles of personal property as against the landlord, 
though the tenant may use the personal property during the 
term and may also sell it providing he shall return property 
of equal value at the end of the term. Under these circum- 
stances, it will be necessary at the expiration of the term, 
whether by lapse of time or otherwise, for the landlord or the 
tenant to determine by an agreement between them, or by some 
proceeding of an equitable nature, who owns the personal prop- 
erty then on the farm. On the other hand, an agreement as to 
the ownership of such property may be implied from the lan- 



the tenant, and the creditor would 
have been entitled to the bene- 
ficial use of the property during 
the term; the difference of the 
goods, then, cannot vary the law. 
The cases which have been put at 
the bar do not apply; the one on 
which the greatest stress was laid 
was that of a tenant for years of 
land whereon timber is cut down, 
in which case it was truly said, 
that the owner of the inheritance 
might maintain trover for such 
timber, notwithstanding the lease. 
But it must be remembered that 
the only right of the tenant is to 
the shade of the trees when grow- 
ing, and by the very act of felling 
it, his right is absolutely deter- 
mined; and even then the property 
does not vest in his immediate 
landlord, for if he has only an es- 
tate for life, it will go over to the 
owner of the inheritance. Here, 
however, the tenant's right of pos- 
session during the term cannot be 
divested by any wrongful act, nor 
can it thereby be revested in the 
landlord. I forbear to deliver any 



opinion as to what remedy the 
landlord has in this case, not being 
at present so called upon to do; 
but it is clear that he cannot main- 
tain trover." Ashurst, J., said: 
"I have always understood the rule 
of law to be, that in order to main- 
tain trover, the plaintiff must have 
a right of property in the thing 
and a right of possession, and that 
unless both these rights concur 
the action will not lie. Now, here 
it is admitted that the tenant had 
the right of possession during the 
continuance of his term, and con- 
sequently one of the requisites is 
wanting to the landlord's right of 
action. It is true that in the pres- 
ent case it is not probable that the 
furniture can be of any use to any 
other than the actual tenant of 
the premises; but supposing the 
things leased had been manufac- 
turing engines, there is no reason 
why a creditor seizing them under 
an execution should not avail him- 
self of the beneficial use of them 
during the term." 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 115 

guage of the lease, or the conduct of the parties. If, for example, 
the landlord attaches the stock and farming implements on the 
farm as the tenant's property when the lease is forfeited and 
a trustee of the tenant.' or the tenant himself, or his creditors 
sue the landlord for conversion it may reasonably be implied 
that the parties had agreed that the personal property belonged 
to the tenant.-' Where the lessor delivers to the lessee certain 
movable personal property, as stock, feed or utensils on a farm, 
which are to be used by the lessee in connection with his occu- 
pation of the leased premises, and for the benefit of the lessee, 
with a proviso that the personal property is to be returned at 
the end of the term a bailment or lease of the personal property 
is created and not a sale. The right of the lessee to the pos- 
session of the personal property during the term is paramount 
to the right of the lessor and, a fortiori to the right of an at- 
taching creditor of the lessor. The property cannot legally be 
taken out of his possession as his right thereto is perfect and 
absolute but only for the term.^° One who hires a furnished 
house must determine for himself what articles of furniture 
he shall claim as within the lease. It is his duty when the 
lease is executed to make a personal examination of the prem- 
ises in order to ascertain what furniture is contained therein, 
and, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, it will be 
presumed that by the lease of a house together with the fur- 
niture therein the tenant takes only the furniture that is ac- 
tually contained in the house at the execution of the lease. A 
lease of a house with the furniture therein raises no implied 
covenant on the part of the landlord that the house is completely 
furnished. Nor can the tenant prove by parol evidence that 
the landlord orally promises to supply any deficiency in the 
furniture.^^ 

29 Wilson V. Griswold, 79 Conn. supply all deficiencies in the fur- 
18, 66 Atl. Rep. 783. niture was rejected. The tenant 

30 Smith V. Niles, 20 Vt. 315, 320, never went into possession, but 
49 Am. Dec. 782. See note 1 Dyer, sued to have the lease cancelled 
767. for fraud or reformed on the 

31 Wilson V. Deen, 74 N. Y. 531. ground of mistake, and the court 
In this case an offer of evidence held that he was entitled to no re- 
by the tenant that the landlord lief, no fraud or mistake being 
orally promised at the time of the shown. 

execution of a written lease to 



116 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 84, Lease of surplus waters of canals. In many of the 
states it is by statute provided that a private corporation or the 
State itself controlling and operating a canal may lease the use 
of the surplus water which accumulates in, and which is not 
required for the operation and maintenance of the canals. Where 
a lease of this sort is made the lessor reserving the right to 
resume the possession of the water when it is needed for naviga- 
tion, the lessee takes the lease subject to the implied right of 
the State to discontinue its canals whenever the legislature 
deems it expedient to do so.^- So generally even though by 
express reservation of this sort may be inserted in the lease, the 
lease so-called is in law a mere license to use the surplus water, 
and hence without any obligation on the part of the State to 
create or to maintain a surplus of water. The abandonment of 
the canal as a canal imposes no liability for damages on the 
State for the agreement is a license and it is hence revocable, 
unless an express provision be inserted to the contrary.^^ For 
canals are authorized, constructed and maintained by the State 
for pblic purposes only and as an aid to the farming and mer- 
cantile classes of the community in forwarding heavy freight 
cheaply from one part of the state to another. They are not 
primarily designed to afford cheap water power to be leased 
or sold for use by private persons or corporations. Hence the 
latter use is subordinate to the general public use for traffic-, 
and the right to this private use may be terminated by the 
State whenever, in the exercise of its discretion, it abandons 
or relinquishes the primary and public use.^* 

32 Fox V. City of Cincinnati, 104 U. S. 743, 26 Law Ed. 928; Fish- 
U. S, 743, 26 Law ed. 928; Wa- back v. Woodruff, 51 Ind. 102; 
bash, etc.. Canal Trustees v. Butt, Hoagland v. New Yorlt, C. & St. 
2.5 Ind. 49; Armstrong v. Pennsyl- L. Ry. Co., Ill Ind. 443, 13 N, E. 
vania R. Co., 38 N. J. Law, 1; Hop- Rep. 472, affirming, 111 Ind. 443, 
poclt V. United New .Jersey R., etc., 12 N. E. Rep. 80; Hubbard v. City 
Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 286; Bucliingliam of Toledo, 21 Ohio St. 379; Com- 
V. Smith, 10 Ohio, 288; Cooper v, monwealth v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 
Williams, 4 Ohio, 253, 22 Am. Dec. 51 Pa. St, 351, 

745, 5 Ohio, 391, 24 Am. Dec. 299; 34 Little Miami Elev. Co. v. City 

Kankauna Water Power Co. v. of Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St. 629, 

Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., 142 U. where an abandoned canal was by 

S. 254, 12 S. Ct. 173, 35 L. Ed. a municipal corporation converted 

1004. into a highway. A statute au- 

33 Fox V. City of Cincinnati, 104 thorizing payment for the damage 



CIIAUACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 117 

If the lease of surplus water expressly i)enuits a resumption 
of the water whenever in the opinion of the State officials the 
lease shall cease to be of advantage to the State, no reason need 
be given for the action of the officials ^^ in resuming the use of 
the water nor is the lessee entitled to compensation or damages. 
And where a statute provides that every lease of surplus canal 
waters shall contain a reservation to the lessor of the privilege 
of resuming the use of such water wherever it is necessary 
to do so an agreement by State officials with the lessee, that when 
he is deprived of the use of the water under this reservation the 
State shall compensate him for his permanent erection of mills 
or the like is invalid as a contract tending to retard or prevent 
the proper performance of official duty.^® Hence under such a 
lease a lessee who builds dams, mills or factories cannot re- 
cover the value of the same when the lease is unexpectedly ter- 
minated by the State. Successive lessees of the power to be 
derived from surplus water of a canal not required for the use 
and operation of the canal, must, in case the surplus becomes 
inadequate to supply all of them sufficiently, be supplied in the 
order of the execution of their leases.^" in point of priority in 
time according to the dates on which their respective leases were 
executed.^^- 

which has been caused by the ed. 917. If, however, a company- 
state resuming leased surplus owning a canal has been holding 
water of a canal does not apply the canal out as a source of 
to a lease permitting a revocation water supply for power and ex- 
or resumption without payment of pensive manufacturing establish- 
damages. Ex parte Miller, 2 Hill ments have been erected along the 
(N. Y.) 418. banks of the canal in reliance on 

35 Ex parte Miller, 2 Hill (N. Y.) obtaining power, the company, in 

418; Mattoon v. Munroe, 21 Hun equity, may be compelled to lease 

(N. Y.) 474. its surplus water, if it be reason- 

S6 State V. Board of Public ably within its power to do so. 

Works, 42 Ohio St. 607. Millers v. Augusta, 63 Ga. 772. In 

3' Wabash & E. Canal Trustees one case it was held to be the 

V. Reinhart, 22 Ind. 463. clear duty of the state to lease cer- 

38 Usually the state or a com- tain water of a state-owned canal 

pany operating a canal is not re- where the legislature of the state 

garded as bound to lease surplus had provided that the contractors 

water to all applicants in the ab- who had dug it were to be paid 

sence of statute requiring it. out of the rents of the water- 

Buiney v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal power. French v. Gapen, 105 U. 

Co., 8 Pet. (U. S.) 201, 8 Law. S. 509, 26 Law Ed. 951. 



118 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 85. Leases by a tenant in dower or curtesy. Inasmuch as 
the right of dower is during the lifetime of the husband and 
Until dower is assigned to the widow a mere personal right and 
confers no estate in the land, it is not capable of being leased.'® 
However, after dower has been assigned to her, a Avidow may 
lease the land which she holds in dower for a term or for her 
life. The rights of the lessee of the widow are the same as the 
rights of any lessee of any tenant for life. It has been held 
that a covenant contained in a so-called lease of the right to 
have dower assig-ned by which the tenant agrees to pay the 
widow rent in consideration of her forbearing to exercise her 
right to dower, is a personal covenant. Hence, it does not run 
with the land so as to bind the tenant's assignee. Nor is the 
widow's contract a release of her dower if it is merely an 
agreement on her part to forbear asserting her dower for a cer- 
tain time.*** The tenant of an estate by the curtesy may execute 
a lease to the same extent as a tenant of any other life estate. 
Where the husband during the lifetime of the wife with or 
without her consent, leases her land for a term, the vesting in 
him of the estate by the curtesy will validate his lease to the 
extent that the term is unexpired. But, if before the death of 
the wife the husband makes a lease of her land in his own name 
and agrees to confer the possession on the lessee when the lessor 
shall become a tenant by the curtesy the future lease is subject 
to being defeated by the act of the wife in conveying or devising 
to another than her husand her real property,*^ as a result of 
which the husband's estate by the curtesy is defeated. 

55 86. Agricultural leases in New York. In New York, prior 
to the constitutional provision which we are now to discuss, a very 
large portion of the manorial lands were leased in fee, or for 
very long terms, by their proprietors reserving an annual rent 
in money, produce or services. As the population increased and 
farming became widespread it was very soon apparent that 
such a mode of land tenure was unfavorable to progress for the 
tenants, owning only the usufruct, subject at any moment to be 
forfeited by breach of condition, felt none of the pride of in- 

3« Chicago, B. & D. Ry. v. Kelly, <» Croade v. Ingraham, 13 Pick. 

221 111. 498, 77 N. B. Rep. 619; (Mass.) 33, 35, 36. 

Hyatt V. O'Connell, 130 Iowa, 567, 11 Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq- 

107 N. W. 599. 204, 209. 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 110 

dependent ownership and had no desire or incentive to improve 
or even to cultivate in a husbandlike manner, land which was 
liable at any time to pass from them or their heirs without com- 
pensation. To remedy this evil the framers of the constitution of 
1846, abrogated such tenures and provided furthermore "that 
no lease or grant of agricultural land for longer period than 
twelve years, thereafter made, in which should be reserved any 
rent or service of any kind, should be valid." The rents or 
services mentioned are only such as are certain and periodical 
and issue out of the land and are paid for its use. Construing 
the New York statute some of the cases have held that a lease 
for more than twelve years is void in toto.*- Other cases have 
held that the lease is good for the period limited by the statute 
or constitution but that it is void as to the excess of the term 
over that period.*^ So a lease of farm land for twelve years 
or a covenant to renew every twelve years during the life of a 
landlord is void except as to the first twelve years.** A lease 
of farm land for twelve years to commence at the expiration 
of a prior term of eight years is invalid.*^ Where a tenant 
holding farm land under a valid unexpired lease surrendered 
it and then executes two leases, one for eight and one for twelve 
years to run successively, the two leases are construed together 
as one lease and both are invalid. But the fact of their in- 
validity does not revive the valid lease which has been surren- 
dered.*® The statutes and constitutional prohibition do not apply 
to life estates or to leases for life as they are for an indefinite 
period depending for their duration wholly on the contingency 
of death, though they may possibly exceed twelve years in 
duration.*^ For as a general rule in order that the lease shall 
be void it must in fact extend beyond the twelve year period. 
The possibility that it may extend beyond the period is not 

42 0dell V. Durant, 62 N. Y. 524; (N. Y.) 606, 14 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 
Clark V. Barnes, 76 N. Y. 301, 32 418. 

Am. Rep. 306. *'^ Clark v. Barnes, 76 N. Y. 301, 

43 Hart V. Hart, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 304, 32 Am. Rep. 706. 

606; Robertson v. Hayes, 83 Ala. 46 Clark v. Barnes, 76 N. Y. 301, 

290, 3 So. Rep. 674; Parish v. Rog- 304, 32 Am. Rep. 706. 

ers, 20 App. Div. 279, 46 N. Y. 4- Parish v. Rogers, 20 App. Div. 

Supp. 1058. 279, 46 N. Y. Supp. 1058; Wegner 

44 Becker v. De Forest, 1 Swee- v. Lubenow, 12 N. D. 95, 95 N. W. 
ney, 52S; Hart v. Hart, 22 Barb. Rep. 442, 445. 



120 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



sufficient/^ A statute which limits the duration of leases in 
which rent or service is reserved does not apply to a life estate 
for which a gross sum is paid. The terms of the statute as they 
are restrictive of the free alienation of landed property will not 
be extended by construction. The terms "rent or service" will 
be construed in their strict and technical sense. Eent is usually 
a profit arising out of the income or yearly profits of land, and 
differs from a lump sum paid as the consideration for the trans- 
fer of an estate in land. Hence a life lease for which no rent 
is to be paid is not void under the statute though tlie considera- 
tion for it be paid in instalments or consist of services so long 
as the payment or rendition of services be not made by way of 
rent.*® A lease of agricultural land is within the prohibition 
though the land is leased for other than agricultural purposes, 
for it is the character of the land, not the purpose of its use 
which determines the validity of the lease.^° 



<s In Parish v. Rogers, 20 App. 
Div. 279, 46 N. Y. Supp. 1058, it 
is said: "A particular proliibition 
upon the free alienation of prop- 
erty cannot be extended or en- 
larged beyond the terms in which 
the restriction is expressed by the 
application of any rule of liberal 
interpretation. On the contrary, 
the provision must be made to 
bear a restrictive interpretation, 
and be limited in its operation and 
effect by the language employed. 
If we hold that an estate for life 
is per se an estate exceeding 
twelve years in duration, and 
therefore void, it follows that such 
estate in agricultural lands, with 
a reservation of rent, are entirely 
abrogated and the owner of prop- 
erty is prohibited from creating 
such an estate either for his own 
life or that of another. . . . 
The • purpose of the constitution 
was not to Interdict the creation 
of such estates, but to limit the 
time beyond which they shall not 
extend. Where the time is speci- 



fied in the lease and exceeds the 
limit it is void per se, but where 
it is left indefinite, and its termi- 
nation depends upon the contin- 
gency of death, which may happen 
within the period of limitation, it 
cannot be said to be void ipso 
facto, as being made for a period 
longer than twelve years." 

40 Stephens v. Reynolds, 6 N. Y. 
454; Wegner v. Lubenow, 12 N. D. 
95, 95 N. W. Rep. 442, 444; Par- 
sell V. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480. The 
lease "must reserve rent, as rent, 
payable at stated periods, and a 
grant or lease of land for life or 
for a long term of years, for a 
specified consideration, whether 
payable in instalments or at one 
time is not such a lease." Parsell 
v. Strylter, 41 N. Y. 480. 

soodell V. Durant, 62 N. Y. 524, 
525. In Maryland by Acts 1884, 
page 649, chapter 485, it is pro- 
vided that all leases for a period 
in excess of fifteen years shall be 
redeemable at the option of the 
tenant on his paying a sum of 



CHARACTER OF PROPEETY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 121 

§ 87. The power to lease a homestead. The occupant of real 
estate which is exempt from a sale under execution by a statute 
because it is claimed to be the homestead of the occupant may 
execute a valid lease of all or of a portion of the same to the 
same extent as the owner of any other sort of real estate. This 
rule is subject to the exception that where the owner of the 
homestead is a married man it is usually necessary that his wife 
shall join in the lease. As between the homesteader and his 
lessee the validity of the lease cannot be questioned by either on 
the g-round that the premises are the homestead of the lessor. 
This rule has been so well recognized that there are few, if any, 
direct adjudications upon it. Assuming the lease itself is 
valid as between the parties to it, the question remains to be 
considered, to what extent third parties are affected by it. In 
other words,, the question is to what extent does the leasing of 
a homestead by the owner and its actual occupation thereafter 
by the lessee constitute an abandonment or a waiver of the home- 
stead privilege by the lessor so far as the rights of his creditors 
are concerned? The waiver or abandonment of a homestead 
exemption once established in good faith is largely a matter of 
intention depending on the circumstances in any particular case. 
Some sort of an occupancy by the homesteader is essential to 
the existence of the exemption. But actual occupancy of the 
whole tract embraced in the exemption is not required. This 
is often impracticable or very inconvenient, particularly in the 
case of farm land or land which is located in the country. Hence 
a constructive occupation and use as a homestead has often 
been held sufficient if the homestead claim continues to be main- 
tained in good faith. A temporary absence although it may be 
prolonged for months and perhaps years, is not of itself alone 
an abandonment of the right and the fact that a portion and 
even the whole of the land is rented does not destroy the home- 
stead exemption unless the statute expressly or by necessary 

money which is to be fixed under being remedial must be liberally 

rules therein set forth. The ob- construed. Its provisions cannot 

ject of the statute was to abolish be waived by the consent of the 

long leases which it was believed parties. It applies to land which 

were injurious to the prosperity of is to be built upon as well as to 

the city of Baltimore. Stewart v. land which has buildings on it. 

Garter, 70 Md. 242, 16 Atl. Rep. Swan v. Kemp, 55 Atl. Rep. 441, 

€44. 2 L. R. A. 711. The statute 443, 97 Md. 6S6. 



122 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



implication requires an actual occupancy by the homestead 
claimant. ^^ Accordingly it has been held that the leasing of 
land which Mas claimed to be the homestead of an old man whose 
extreme age and illness compelled him to i^eside with one of his 
children elsewhere,'^- or the leasing of the homestead by a per- 
son who, for reasons of his own, had temporarily removed there- 
from ^^ but intended subsequently to return thereto ^* cannot be 
regarded as an abandonment of the homestead and hence will it 
not subject the premises to be levied on under an execution. ^^ 



51 Hixon V. George, 18 Kan. 253; 
Bank v. Warner, 22 Kan. 537; Gar- 
linghouse v. Mulvane, 40 Kan. 
428, 19 Pac. Rep. 798; Shirack v. 
Shirack, 44 Kan. 653, 24 Pac. Rep. 
1107. See, also, as sustaining the 
text, Scaife v. Argall, 74 Ala. 473; 
Metcalf V. Smith, 106 Ala. 301. 17 
So. Rep. 537; Fuller v. Whitlock, 
99 Ala. 411, 13 So. Rep. 80; Hines 
V. Duncan, 79 Ala. 112, 58 Am. 
Rep. 580; Gates v. Steele, 48 Ark. 
539, 4 S. W. Rep. 53; Simpson v. 
Biffle, 63 Ark. 289, 38 S. W. Rep. 
345; Dallemand v. Mannon, 4 Colo. 
App. 262, 35 Pac. Rep. 679; Simon- 
son V. Burr, 121 Cal. 582, 54 Pac. 
Rep. 87; Stewart v. Brand, 23 
Iowa, 477; Sibley v. Lawrence, 46 
Iowa, 563; Pitney v. Eldridge, 58 
Kan. 215, 48 Pac. Rep. 854; Du- 
lanty v. Pynchon, 6 Allen (Mass.), 
510; Earll v. Earll, 60 Mich. 30, 
26 N. W. Rep. 822 ; Spratt v. Early 
(Mo.), 69 S. W. Rep. 13; Locke 
V. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46; Wetz v. 
Beard, 12 Ohio St. 431; Hancock 
V. Morgan, 17 Tex. 582; Newron v. 
Calhoun, 68 Tex. 451, 4 S. W. Rep. 
645; C. B. Carter Lumber Co. v. 
Clay (Tex. 1888), 10 S. W. Rep. 
293; H. P. Drought & Co. v. Stall- 
worth (Tex. 1907), 100 S. W. Rep. 
3 88. Contra, Benson v. Aitken, 17 
Cal. 163; Burson v. Dow. r,r, 111. 
146; Smith v. Bunn, 75 Mo. 559; 



Warren v. Patterson, 32 Neb. 727, 
49 N. W. Rep. 703. 

52 Gates V. Steele, 48 Ark. 539, 4 
S. W. Rep. 53. 

53 Stewart v. Brand, 23 Iowa, 
477. 

54 Hixon V. George, 18 Kan. 253; 
Dulanty v. Pynchon, 6 Allen 
(Mass.) 510; Earl v. Earl, 60 
Mich. 30, 26 N. W. Rep. 822; Wetz 
V Beard, 12 Ohio St. 431; Han- 
cock V. Morgan, 17 Tex. 582; Hines 
V. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. 
W Rep. 541. 

55 In Alabama, Code 1876, sec- 
tion 2843, provides that the leas- 
ing of a homestead for a period of 
more than twelve months at any 
one time shall be deemed an aban- 
donment of it. Under this statute 
a lease for twelve months, with 
a new lease to begin at its expira- 
tion, is an abandonment of the 
homestead. Scaife v. Argall, 74 
Ala. 473. In California the leas- 
ing of the homestead after the 
death of the wife of the occupant, 
upon an agreement by the lessee 
to keep the occupant's infant child, 
is an abandonment of the home- 
stead, though some furniture was 
loft in the house and the debtor, 
after his remarriage, reoccupied 
the premises. Benson v. Aitken. 17 
Cal. 163. In Texas where the 
plaintiffs rented, for a few months. 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LEASED. 



123 



§ 88. The lease of a portion of a homestead. Premises which 
are occupied by a person who has made and filed a declaration 
that they are his homestead, are no less his homestead, because 
he leases a portion of them to anotJier party while continuing to 
occupy the remainder himself. ^^ Hence M'here the occupant of a 
homestead leased a bam on his premises, and temporarily left 
his residence there, he did not lose the homestead exemption as 
to the groimd covered by the barn, though the statute in terms 
required that the premises shall not only be owned but also 
occupied by the claimant as a homestead.^' So the owner of a 
homestead consisting of a farm, who fences otf a portion of it, 
and leases it for a term with the privilege of a renewal for 
another term does not by his lease and the separation of one 
part of the farm from the other, lose his exemption as to either 
portion.*^ 



their city home, which they had 
occupied for a number of years as 
a homestead, and went to live on 
a ranch, but with no intention of 
abandoning their city home, to 
which they soon returned, such 
temporary lease does not consti- 
tute an abandonment. Hines v. 
Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 
Rep. 541. In Wisconsin it has 
been distinctly held that a debtor 
who removes from his homestead, 
without any intention of acquir- 
ing another elsewhere, for tempo- 
rary purposes merely, or from 
some necessity, and with the in- 
tention of returning again to oc- 
cupy the same as and for his 
homestead as soon as circum- 
stances will allow, does not for- 
feit or lose the exemption of the 
same from sale on execution, 
though he should, while absent 
therefrom, rent it to a tenant. 
Herrick v. Graves, 16 Wis. 157. In 
New Hampshire nothing short of 
a voluntary abandonment of a 
homestead, so understood by all 
the parties, will divest the estate 



in the homestead; and no infer- 
ence of an intent to abandon the 
homestead will be made from a 
kase of the premises for one year 
at a time by the person holding 
the homestead right when the in- 
tention to retain the residence is 
clearly evidenced by other facts. 
Locke V. Rowell, 47 N. H. 46. 

5« Bailey v. Dunlap, 138 Ala. 415, 
419, 35 So. Rep. 451; Heathman v. 
Holmes, 9i Cal. 291. 29 Pac. Rep. 
404; IMaroney Hardware Co. v. 
Counelles (Tex. Civ. App. 1894), 
25 S. W. Rep. 448; Prufrock v. 
Joseph (Tex. Civ. App. 1894), 27 
S. W. Rep. 264. 

5" Guy V. Downs, 12 Neb. 5^2, 12 
N. W. Rep. 8. 

5s Pitney v. Eldredge, 58 Kan. 
215, 48 Pac. Rep. 854. The fact 
that an owner does not exclusively 
occupy an entire homestead does 
not destroy the exemption. A part 
may be used for other purposes 
than a homestead where the whole 
amounts to but one tract of land 
not exceeding the area permitted 
to be exempt under the law. And 



124 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 89. The mode of the execution of a lease of a homestead. 
The statute usually requires that both husband and wife must 
join in a deed of conveyance affecting a homestead except where 
the deed of conveyance is executed as a security for the pur- 
chase price. In the latter ease the signature of the husband is 
sufficient. Usually the husband has no power of encumbering the 
homestead by a lease or other conveyance without the signature 
of his wife. In Texas the lease of a homestead for a term, with 
the privilege of an indefinite renewal which is not signed and 
separately acknowledged by the wife, has been held as invalid.'® 
A statute which requires the wife to join in the execution of 
the conveyance of the homestead is mandatory. It follows 
necessarily that an instrument which purports to affect or to 
encumber the homestead in which the wife has not joined Is 
invalid as to her. Her privileges in the homestead will be re- 
served as against the holder of the void conveyance and it is 
not material under the statute that the title to the homestead is 
in the husband alone for any conveyance by him which confers 
a possession which interferes in any way with the enjoyment of 
the premises by the wife as a homestead is invalid.^" Cir- 
cumstances may arise, however, where the wife will be estopped 

where the part which is claimed cupancy of the entire farm is not 
to be not a part of the homestead essential, and the circumstance 
has not been totally abandoned as that the tenant cultivated the part 
a part thereof by making it, for leased to him in the same manner 
instance, another person's home- as his lessor is very material in 
stead, or by using it or permitting showing that there has been no 
it to be used in some other way abandonment of the homestead, 
inconsistent with the homestead, Bebb v. Crowe, 39 Kan. 342; Huff- 
it is still a homestead. Thus, to man v. Hill, 47 Kan. 613. 
show that property though leased eg Southern Oil Co. v. Colquitt 
Is still a homestead it may be (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. Rep. 
proved that rent was to be paid 169. See, also, Wiliams v. Galves- 
in six month Instalments and a ton (Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. Rep. 
default in the payment of any of 551. 

the instalments entitled the owner so Hosteller v. Eddy, 128 Iowa, 

of the homestead to re-enter. So, 401, 104 N. W. 485; Coughlin v. 

under the lease he was entitled to Coughlin, 26 Kan. 116, 118; Kloke 

go on the land to see that waste v. Wolf (Neb. 1908), 111 N. W. 

was. not committed and that the Rep. 134; Wea Gas, etc., Co. v. 

covenants in the lease were per- Franklin Land Co., 54 Kan. 533, 

formed. Actual and continuous oc- 535, 38 Pac. Rep, 790. 



CHARACTER OF PROPERTY WHICU MAY BE LEASED. 125 

to assert the invalidity of a lease of a liomestead which Avas 
executed without her joining in it. Her acquiescence after she 
knows of the execution of the lease and with knowledge of the 
occupation by the tenant, and of his cultivation of the land as 
a tenant after the lease had been signed may all be proved, and, 
if it appears equitable from her silence and her conduct that 
the lease should be supported, the court may act accordingly. 
If, for illustration, the tenant, relying upon the wife's silence 
and failure to object, shall have planted a crop which is about 
to be reaped when the wife raises the question of the validity 
of the lease, it is very likely that the court would not declare 
the lease void in an action by the wife against the tenant with- 
out compelling her to compensate the tenant for the value of 
the crop.** 

61 Johnson v. Samuelson, 69 Kan. 263, 76 Pac. Rep. 867. 



CHAPTER VI. 

TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 

§ 90. The origin of tenancy from year to year. 

91. The continuity of the several yearly periods. 

92. The use of express language in creating a tenancy from year 

to year. 

93. The character of the cultivation of the land as determining the 

period of the tenancy. 

94. The payment of a yearly rent as creating a tenancy from year 

to year. 

95. The effect of the death of either party upon a tenancy from year 

to year. 

96. The rule as to repairs by a tenant from year to year. 

97. A tenancy from year to year created by a tenant holding over. 

98. Rebutting the presumption which arises on a tenant holding 

over. 

99. The modification of the terms of the original lease as against a 

tenant holding over. 

100. Holding over excused when it is caused by the action of the 

board of health. 

101. Statutory modification of the rule that a holding over creates a 

tenancy from year to year. 

102. Tenancies from year to year created by leases void under the 

statute of frauds. 

103. Tenancies from year to year arising from defective and unexe- 

cuted leases. 

104. The necessary incidents of a tenancy from year to year. 

105. Tenancies from month to month. How created. 

106. Tenancy from month to month by holding over. 

107. The commencement of the monthly period. 

108. The conversion of tenancies from month to month into ten- 

ancies from year to year. 

109. The statutory rules creating a tenancy from month to month by 

holding over. 

110. Tenancies from week to week. 

111. The necessity of notice to quit at common law. 

112. The length of time required by the notice to quit. 

113. The length of the notice to quit in weekly and monthly ten- 

ancies. 

114. Statutory regulation of the notice to quit. 

115. The necessity and the sufficiency of a notice to quit in the case 

of tenancy from month to month. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 127 

■■§ lie. The statutory regulation of the notice to quit in tenancies from 
month to month. 

117. Notice to quit when required by the express terms of the lease. 

lis. The form and the character of the notice to quit. 

119. The construction of the language of the notice to quit. 

120. To whom notice must be given. 

121. By whom the notice to quit must be given. 

122. The date upon which the period stated in the notice must termi- 

nate. 

123. The necessity of personal service of the notice to quit. 

124. A notice to quit given by an agent. 

125. Waiver of defects in the notice to quit. 

126. Waiver of a notice to quit by a subsequent notice. 

127. The effect of a notice to quit. 

128. The withdrawal of a notice to quit. 

129. The waiver of a notice to quit by the receipt of rent 

130. When a notice to quit may be dispensed with by a surrender. 

131. A disavowal of the landlord's title by the tenant may dispense 

with giving a notice to quit by the landlord. 

§ 90. The origin of tenancy from year to year. The relation 
of landlord and tenant in a hiring or a tenancy from year to 
year imquestionably had its origin in the reluctance of the 
English courts to enforce the arbitrary will of the landlord 
in determining estates at will and in their desire to protect the 
rights of the tenants to their crops growing on the land upon 
the determination of the estate. The precarious and uncertain 
character of the tenure which was at the will of the landlord 
and the inducement which this tenure offered for the landlord 
to terminate it without notice because of which a tenant of agri- 
cultural land might be unjustly deprived of the fruits of his 
industry in sowing and cultivating the land appealed to the 
courts. The tenancy from year to year is the offspring of ten- 
ancy at will which in early times was almost the sole tenancy 
recognized. In the quaint language of the early law the tenancy 
from year to year was substituted for the vague and uncertain 
tenancy at will to uphold and effectuate the just maxim 
that he "who sows, may reap."^ Hence so long ago as the 
time of the year books, a general occupation of land no time or 

1 This desire to secure to the early gave rise to the doctrine of 

tenants the crops which were emblements which still endures, 

growing on his land at the termi- Litt. § 68. 
nation of the tenancy at will very 



128 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

duration of the tenancy being mentioned was by implication 
tind in favor of the cultivation of the soil construed by the com- 
mon law judges to be a tenancy from year to year and that the 
tenancy could not be determined and the tenant put out of his 
land without a reasonable notice by the landlord of his inten- 
tion to terminate the tenancy, which notice was very early 
required to be given at least six months before the termination 
of any year.^ 

§ 91. The continuity of the several yearly periods. On a 
mere cursory examination of the tenancy from year to year it 
would seem that each annual term constitutes a separate and 
distinct estate or term. Though this is true in fact the law con- 
sider the several yearly terms as merged as soon as two or more 
of them have passed and the law then looks forward to each fu- 
ture recurring year as it arrives as a separate term only until 
it is consolidated with those which have preceded it. Every 
year after the first is a springing interest or estate arising from 
and based on the first annual term, assimilating to it and soon 
to become a parcel of it. But on the other hand each recurring 
yearly tenancy is for a separate period so that the term may be 
pleaded against the tenant as commencing with the first day of 
the current year though the tenant has in fact occupied the 
premises for several years previously thereto.^ It may be said 
however that, though the lessor may adopt this course in plead- 
ing, it is not compulsory upon him to do so. He may declare on 
the demise from year to year either as a new .demise or as a 
part of an old contract. So, it has been said that if a tenant 
from year to year shall hold for two years or more either he or 
his landlord may then plead the lease as having been made for 
so many years from the date of its original making of the lease.* 
So too at common law in the case a tenant from year to year 
holding over and dying during the third year of his tenancy, 
it was held that the landlord might, even after his tenant's 

2 See remarks of Lord Kenyon A tenancy from year to year is not 

in Martin v. Watts, 7 T. R. 85, and to be considered as a continuous 

Share v. Porter, 3 T. R. 13. tenancy, but as commencing every 

8 Cattley v. Arnold, 1 John. & year. Tomliins v. Lawrance, 8 

H. 651, 657; Bartlett v. Baiter, 34 Car. & P. 729; Gandy v. Jubber, 5 

L. J. Ex. 11; Tomkins v. Law- B. & S. 78, 33 L. J. Q. B. 151, 10 

ranee, 8 Car. & P. 729, 731. .lur. (N. S.) 652, 9 L. T. 800, 12 

« Birch V. Wright, 1 T. R. 380. W. R. 52G. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 



129 



death in the third year, distrain for the unpaid rent of the 
second year on the theory that when a tenant from year to 
years holds over, his holding over must be regarded as an agree- 
ment which is a part of the original contract and in execution 
of it, and that the third year was not in the nature of a sep- 
arate term of one year but that it was merely an offshoot and 
incident of the first year.^ 

§ 92. The use of express language in creating a tenancy from 
year to year. In England bj^ many of the earlier common law 



5 Legg V. Strudwick, 2 Salk. 414. 
"Leases from year to year appear 
at first view to give several dis- 
tinct estates. In truth, they give 
only one time of continuance. 
That time, however, may be con- 
fined to one year, or extended to 
several years, according to circum- 
stances attending the tenancy in 
its progress. In the first place, the 
lease is for one year certain, and 
after the commencement of every 
year, or perhaps after the expira- 
tion of the period in which a no- 
tice determining the tenancy may 
be given, it is a lease for the sec- 
ond year; and in consequence of 
the original agreement of the par- 
ties every year of the tenancy con- 
stitutes a part of the lease, and 
eventually becomes a parcel of the 
term, so that a lease which is in 
the first instance but for one year 
certain, may, in the event of a 
term, be one hundred years or 
more. Under this species of ten- 
ancy the law considers the lease 
with a view to the time which has 
elapsed, as arising from an estate 
for all that time, including the 
current year. For, as all the time 
for which the land may be held 
under a running lease is originally 
given, and in effect passes, by the 
same instrument or contract, the 
whole time is consolidated, and 
every year as it commences forms 

9 



a part of the time." Preston on 
Estates, p. 76. The importance of 
the principles just enumerated lies 
in the somewhat technical charac- 
ter of the laws of common-law 
pleading in their relation to fram- 
ing a declaration in an action on 
the covenant for rent. In Cattley 
V. Arnold, 1 Johns. & H. 651, 28 
L. J. Ch. 352, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 361, 
7 W. R. 245. Vice Chancellor Wood 
says: "In the case of Oxley v. 
James, 13 Mee. & W. 209, 214, I 
find some observations of Lord 
Wensleydale, which, while they 
state the reasons for the decision 
of the court both in that case and 
in a previous case of Pike v. Eyre. 
9 B. & Cr. 909, appear to me cor- 
rectly to express the result of the 
authorities as to the nature of 
this tenancy. 'Legg v. Strudwick," 
he saj'-s, 'and Bacon's Abridgment, 
Leases, L. 3,' show what is the na- 
ture of an estate from year to 
year; namely, a lease for a year 
certain, with a growing interest 
during every year thereaftrr. 
springing out of the original con- 
tract and parcel of it. A demise, 
therefore, by such a person for a 
term of years is no assignment: 
he never means to part with tha 
whole benefit of that interest. It 
is a term for so many years, sub- 
ject to determination by the cessa- 
tion of the original interest.' " 



130 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



authorities it was at one time heicl that a lease, whether it were 
oral or in writing being couched in express language "from 
year to year so long as the parties were pleased to continue," 
was at least a lease for two years certain and that for that 
reason the lease was not terminable by a notice to quit served 
during the first year.® But the more recent rule is that an 
express agreement whether in writing or by parol creating a 
lease by which one becomes a lessee "from year to year" at a 
certain definite and fixed annual rent, constiutes an express 
lease from year to year which is determinable by either party 
to it at the end of the first year, to the same extent that it is 
determinable at the end of any subsequent year, by the service 
of a proper and timely notice to quit.'^ Hence it follows that 
where a tenancy from year to year has been by implication 



6 Agar d v. King, Cro. Eliz. 775; 
Legg V. Strudwick, 2 Salk. 414; 
Doe d. Chadburn v. Green, 9 A. & 
E. 658, 8 L. J. Q. B. 100, 1 P. & D. 
454; Birch v. Wright, 1 T. R. 380; 
Monck V. Geekie, 5 Q. B. 841; Hall 
V Myers, 43 Md. 581; Hanchett v. 
Whitney, 1 Vt. 315. 

T Wood V. Beard, 46 L. J. Q. B. 
100, 2 Ex. D. 30, 35 L. T. 866; 
Clarke v. Smarridge, 7 Q. B. 957, 
14 L. J. Q. B. 327, 9 Jur. 721. In 
which case Lord Denman said: 
"Now a tenancy from year to year 
lasts fully as long as both parties 
please; and that is, it is deter- 
minable by either party at the end 
of any year, by giving notice to 
quit one-half a year before the end 
of the year. There is no reason 
why it should not be so determined 
at the end of the first year as well 
as at the end of any subsequent 
year, unless the parties have by ex- 
press contract precluded such de- 
termination. In the cases of Agard 
V. King, Cro. Eliz. 775; Denn. dem. 
Jacklin v. Cartright, 4 East, 29 
Bellases v. Burbrick, 1 Salk. 209 
Legg V. Strudwick, 2 Salk. 414 
Birch V. Wright, 1 T. R. 378, 380 



Doe dem. Chadburn v. Greene, 9 

A. & E. 658, such express contract 
appears either by the proceedings 
or by the evidence. In this case 
there is no such express contract 
but the tenancy for two years at 
least is supposed to be implied by 
necessity of law." The court, how- 
ever, held that no such necessity 
existed. "If A. demise lands to 

B. for a year, and so from year to 
year, this is not a lease for two 
years, and afterwards at will; but 
it is a lease for every particular 
year, and, after the year is begun, 
the defendant cannot terminate 
the lease until the year is ended." 
Stomfil V. Hicks, 2 Salk. 413, Ld. 
Ray. 680. A lease at an annual 
rent, "for the term of one year 
and an indefinite period there- 
after," where the tenant enters 
and occupies for several years, is 
a lease from year to year, and on 
the tenant's death passes to his 
personal representatives, who in 
their representative capacity are 
liable for the rent so long as they 
occupy. Pugsley v. Aikin, UN. 
Y. 494, reversing 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 
114. 



TENAXCY FROM YEAR TO ^'EAR. 131 

created by a tenant for a term of years holding over and paying 
rent after the expiration of his term the landlord may termi- 
nate the tenancy from year to year by a notice to go into effect 
at the end of the first year.* A lease from year to year may be 
created by an indefinite hiring with a power in tlie tenant to 
leave at the end of any year. The renting of premises for an 
indefinite period and their occupation by a tenant for one year 
constitutes a tenancy from year to year.® A lease of land for 
one year, with a privilege of continuing the same from year to 
year so long as both parties agree, creates a tenancy from year 
to year.^° A lease for one year with the privilege of three years 
from a certain day, confers on the tenant the right to remain 
from year to year not exceeding three years, and he may quit at 
the expiration of any year of the three. In a lease for one year 
from a certain day the landlord's right to re-enter does not 
begin until the first moment of the corresponding day on the 
following year.^^ A lease for "one year, and so on from year 
to year." is a lease for one year absolutely, and if the tenant 
continues for a second year without the dissent of the landlord, 
it is then a lease for another year, and so on for each succeeding 
year.^- A lease from the first day of a certain month "until 
such time as the tenancy shall be terminated as. hereinafter pro- 
vided" at a yearly rent with a provision "that it shall be law- 
ful for either party to determine the tenancy herein created by 
giving to the other three calendar months notice of his inten- 
tion in writing is a yearly tenancy determinable by three months 
notice to expire at the end of any year of the tenancy and not 
an indefinite tenancy determinable by three months notice.^' 

§ 93. The character of the cultivation of the land as de- 
termining- the period of the tenancy. The principle, that he 
who sows shall reap, founded as it is upon the broad basis of 
equitable and fair dealing between man and man and upon the 
well-recog-nized rule that the acceptance, possession and enjoy- 

R Clark V. Smarridge, 7 Q. B. n Duffy v. Ogden, 64 Pa. St. 240, 

957, 14 L. J. Q. B. 327, 9 .Tur. 721. 27 L. I. 77, 2 Leg. Gaz. 73. 

!^Reg. V. St. Giles, 4 B. & S. 509, 12 Lesley v. Randolph. 4 Rawle 

33 L. J. M. C. 3, 10 .Tur. (N. S.) (Pa.) 123. 

205, 9 L. T. 411, 12 W. R. 125. " Lewis v. Baker. 75 Law J. K. 

10 Hatfield v. Lawton, 108 App. E. 848; (1906) 2 K. B. 599, 95 L. T. 

Div. 113. 95 N. Y. Sui)p. 451. 10, 22 L. T. 680. 



132 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

ment of the benefits and i)rivileges of the contractual relations 
by implication creates and imposes corresponding and reciprocal 
obligations was the moving cause that in very early times mod- 
ified estates at will and changed them into tenancies from year 
to year. The bulk of land held in tenure was then agricultural 
and the necessity was very apparent and indeed urgent that 
some protection should be thrown around tenants to protect 
them from losing, by a sudden and arbitrary termination of 
their tenancy at will, the advantages and beneficial results of 
their labors in husbandry. The possession and enjoyment of the 
products of the tilled land was the consideration which moved 
and impelled the tenant cultivator to agree to pay and to pay 
the rent. And as the crops were usually 3'early the tenancy was 
also yearly. So, on the same principle where land is hired at 
a yearly rental for use as a nursery for fruit trees which do not 
yield their produce annually but only after the trees have 
reached maturity and after several years of growth the lease will 
be regarded by the law as a lease from year to year so long as 
is necessary for the purj30se of the tenancy.^* In certain 
peculiar circumstances where a crop, after being planted, re- 
quires two years to reach the condition in which it is ready for 
reaping a general hiring, no term being specified, might, it 
seems, be regarded by the common law as a tenancy from two 
years to two years, which cannot be terminated by a notice to 
quit at the end of the second or third year. Crops of madder 
and liquorice would very likely come under the rule. "We are, 
however, without direct judicial authority on this question and 
at the most have merely the suggestions or opinions of text book 
writers to guide us.^^ 

1* King V. Wlllcomb, 7 Barb. (N. When it is a lease of an inherit- 

Y.) 263; Miller v. Baker, 1 Met. ance, the fruits of which are gath- 

(Mass.) 27. ered at intervals of several years, 

15 See Adams on Ejectment, 138. the lease is deemed to continue for 

"If the parties have omitted to ex- all the time that is requisite to 

press the duration of the term, the enable the tenant to gather in the 

lease will nevertheless be valid. If fruits. In a case where a person 

It is a demise of an inheritance had leased land, no term being 

of which the fruits are gathered mentioned, for the purpose of 

every year, such as a meadow, brick-making, agreeing to pay the 

vineyard, etc., the lease is deemed lessor so much per one thousand 

to have been made for a year. bricks upon the quantity made,. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 



133 



§ 94. The payment of a yearly rent as creating a tenancy 
from year to year. While it may safely be said that a mere 
general letting and occupation of real property, nothing having 
been expressly agreed upon by the parties thereto as to the dura- 
tion or termination of the occupancy, constitutes ordinarily 
only a tenancy at will, the circumstance in connection with such 
a lease that the rent is payable annually, or not being thus 
payable is calculated and fixed at so much per year, though pay- 
able at shorter intervals is often, though not always, a controll- 
ing fact in converting what would otherwise be a tenancy at will 
into a tenancy from year to year.^® So, also, it has been held 
that though when the tenant goes into the occupation of the 
premises under an agreement for a lease but paya no rent he 
is merely a tenant at will, yet, as soon as he begins to pay rent 
by the year for his occupation under the agreement for a lease 



the court, in holding that the 
lessee was merely a tenant from 
year to year, relied upon the facts 
that no premium for the lease was 
paid to the lessor by the lessee, 
that there was no power of dis- 
tress, and no right of re-entry in 
the lessor and no obligation on 
the part of the lessee to work out 
the brick earth. Consequently the 
lessee unless the tenancy was by 
the year might hold the land for 
ever which evidently was not the 
intention of the lessor. In re 
Stroud, 8 C. B. 502, 530, 19 L. J. 
C. P. 117. 

16 Bishop V. Howard, 2 B. & C. 
100, 3 Dowl. & L. 293; Richardson 
V. Langridge, 4 Taunt. 128, 131; 
Cattley v. Arnold, 1 John. & H. 
651. See, also, Braithwayte v. 
Hitchcock, 10 Mee. & Wei. 497; 
Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 6 Com. 
Bench, 96, 98; Cox v. Bent, 5 Bing. 
185, 2 M. & P. 281; Doe d. Penning- 
ton V. Taniere, 12 Q. B. 998, IS L. 
J. Q. B. 49, 13 Jur. 119; Dumn v. 
Rothermel, 112 Pa. St. 272; Mc- 
Dowell V. Simpson, 3 Watts (Pa.) 



135; Hellams v. Patton, 44 S. C. 
454; Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 
180, 26 Am. Rep. 567; Barlow v. 
Wainwright, 22 Vt. 88; Silsby v. 
Allen, 43 Vt. 172; Second Nat. 
Bank v. O. E. Merrill Co., 69 Wis. 
501, 34 N. W. Rep. 514; 4 Kent's 
Com. ni et seq. Thus an oral 
lease for the term of one year at 
the rate of $10 per month, which 
rent is to be increased to .$11 for 
another and succeeding year, does 
not create a monthly tenancy but 
a hiring by the year, the rent 
though being payable by the 
month. Schneider v. Lord, 62 
Mich. 141, 28 N. W. Rep. 773. "It 
is clear that upon proof of the 
payment of rent in respect of the 
occupation of premises ordinarily 
let from year to year, the law will 
imply that the party making such 
pajTuents holds under a tenancy 
from year to year." Doe d. Lord 
v. Crago, 6 Com. Bench, 90, 98. A 
lease from a certain date "at a 
yearly rent" creates a tenancy 
from year to year. Florence v. 
Robinson, 24 L. T. 705. 



134 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

he becomes a tenant from year to year, ^" Thoiigli if the pay- 
ment of a yearly rent be unexplained a tenancy from year to 
year is presumed, this presumption is purely one of fact and 
it may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. ^^ The receipt 
of rent may be explained so as to rebut the implication of a 
Yearly tenancy arising out of the payment of rent by the year.^* 
Hence, from this it follows that whether a tenancy is from year 
to year, is a question of fact on all the evidence.-" A tenancy 
from year to year may be inferred from periodical yearly pay- 
ments only where it is impossible to account for such payments 
except upon the hypothesis that the payments were for rent. 
It may always be shown that the payments w^ere for another 
purpose. Thus, it may be shown that a building contract and 
not a lease existed between a landowner and an occupant of land, 
and that the payments made to the owner were made on such a 
contract for the privilege of erecting buildings of which the 
payee was to have a lease in the future.-^ So, too, the landlord 
may show that the yearly payment of rent was received by him 
under some mistake of fact, or under a misapprehension or in 
ignorance of certain circumstances where it is apparent that, 
if he had full knowledge of such circumstances, he would not 
have received the payments. Thus, where a landlord had con- 
tinued to receive rent from a tenant after the termination of a 
lease for lives because the death of the lessees had been con- 
cealed from him, it was held that no tenancy from year to year 

17 Chapman v. Towner, 6 Mee. & though nothing were said about 
Wei. 100, 103; Braithwayte v. the duration of the term, it is an 
Hitchcoclc, 10 Mee. & Wei. 497; Cox implied letting from year to year. 
V. Bent, 5 Bing. 185. See, also, But if two parties agree that one 
Hull V. Wood, 14 M. & W. 682; shall let, and the other shall hold, 
Mann v. Lovejoy, R. & M. 355; so long as both parties please, thai 
Saunders v. Musgrave, '6 B. & C. is a holding at will, and there is 
524. nothing to hinder, parties from 

18 Rogers v. Pitcher, 1 Marsh, making such an agreement." By 
541, 1 Taunt. 202; Williams v. Lord Mansfield in Richardsen v. 
Bartholomew, 1 Bos. & Pul. 326. Langridge, 4 Taunt. 128, 130. 

in Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 6 Com. 21 Camden v. Batterbury, 5 C. B. 

Bench, 90, 17 L. J. C. P. 263, 12 (N. S.) 808, 817, 28 L. J. C. P. 

Jur. 705; Hurley v. Hanrahan, 15 187, 5 Jur. (N. S.) 627, affirmed 

W. R. 990. 7 C. B. (N. S.) 864, 28 L. J. C. P. 

20 "If there were a general let- 335. 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1405, 7 W. R. 

ting at a yearly rent, though pay- 616. 
able half yearly or quarterly, and 



TENAN'CY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 135 

existed and as soon as he discovered this fact, which had been 
concealed from him, he might eject the occupier without pre- 
vious notice to quit.-^ An actual payment of rent by the year 
is not ahvays necessarj^ An admission by a person who has 
entered on premises under an executory contract to make a lease 
that he owes the owner a half year's rent, in response to a bill 
rendered him for a half year's rent by the landlord, creates 
a tenancy from year to year though no rent is actually paicl.-^ 
For an admission by a tenant that rent is payable by the year 
is usually sufficient. An agreement for a lease to be executed 
in the future for the term of twenty-one years, with a further 
agreement that the tenant shall go into possession at once, and 
that, until such lease should be executed, a yearly rent should 
be payable and recoverable by distress or otherwise in like man- 
ner as if such lease should have been executed, creates a tenancy 
from year to year, before any rent is paid.-* But an agreement 
to pay rent by the year, though usually it creates a tenancy 
from year to year, does not control an express tenancy for a 
shorter period. A letter written by the lessee in which he states 
that he will agree to occupy the premises for three months if 
furnished, or will take them "at the rate of a specified sum per 
year" if unfurnished, does not, by the words "at the rate of 
so much per year," create a tenancy for a year.^" 

22 Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 6 Com. only. In the present case, there 
Bench, 90. was distinct proof of the paj-ment 

23 Cox V. Bent, 2 M. & P. 281, 5 of rent for two quarters of a year. 
Eing. 185, 7 L. J. (N. S.) C. P. 68, There is the additional fact of an 
30 R. R. 566. occupation for more than a year; 

24 Doe d. Bailey v. Foster, 3 C. but in the case of Cox v. Bent, 5 
B. 215, 15 L. J. C. P. 263. Bing. 185, 2 M. & P. 281, where a 

25 Atherstone v. Bostock, 2 Man. party under an agreement for a 
& G. 511, 10 L. J. C. P. 113. "Pay- lease had occupied for more than 
ment of rent, indeed, must be un- a year, the court held that a ten- 
derstood to mean a payment with ancy from j^ear to year existed, 
reference to a yearly holding; not on the ground of the occupa- 
for in Richardson v. Longridge, 4 tion, but because the party had 
Taunt. 128, a party who had paid during that occupation paid a 
rent under an agreement of this half year's rent." By Parke, B., 
description, but had not paid it in Braythwaite v. Hitchcock, 10 
■with reference to a year, or any M. & W. 494, 12 E. J. Ex. 38, 6 Jur. 
aliquot part of a year, was held 976. 

nevertheless to be a tenant at will 



136 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT, 

§ 95. The effect of the death of either party to a tenancy 
from year to year. It is well settled that a tenancy from year 
to year is not tenninated by the death of either the landlord 
or the tenant during the current year. On the death of the 
landlord, in case of a tenancy from year to year, the unexpired 
term passes to his administrator or executor as a part of the 
landlord's personal estate and is assets in the hands of the repre- 
sentative for the payment of debts and legacies or for distribu- 
tion among the next of kin to the same extent as other per- 
sonal property is.^^ So, also, on the death of the tenant of an 
estate from year to year the estate still continues and the per- 
sonal representative may enter and he becomes responsible as 
such and not personally for the rent to the extent that he has 
assets of the tenant. And the fact that on the death of the ten- 
ant his widow enters and pays rent to the landlord does not 
terminate the tenancy from year to year.-' The estate of the 
deceased tenant for years is responsible for rent which has ac- 
crued and if the executor enters for that which will accrue. The 
tenancy from year to year survives the lessor and vests in his 
heirs. An exception to this general rule occurs where the interest 
of the landlord of an estate from year to year itself terminates 
on his death as where the landlord has only a life estate or inter- 
est in the land with the fee in another. Under such circumstances 
the tenant from year to year of one who himself is only a life 
tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance on the death of his land- 
lord, unless, as sometimes happens, the life tenant had a power 
to lease, which he has exercised, to bind the estate of the re- 
mainderman or reversioner. If this be not the case, the latter 
may, without notice or demand of possession, eject the tenant 
from year to j'^ear of the life tenant on '^e death of the latter.^* 
If the remainderman is of age at the death of the life tenant, 
his action in receiving rent from the tenant from year to year 
and in continuing him in the possession may, after the life ten- 
ancy has terminated, by constituting a new tenancy from year 
to year as between him and the tenant holding over, prevent 
the remainderman from ejecting the tenant from year to year 

20 Doe d. Hull v. Wood, H M. & 27 Hull v. Wood, H M. & W. 082. 

W. 682. See Robie v. Mulh, 21 Me. 2? Thomas v. Roberts. 16 M. & 

114. W. 780. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO Y'EAR. 137 

"without g"ivin<? him notice to qnit.-^ Such an estoppel by re- 
ceiving- rent is not created by a tenant from year to year holding- 
over vehere the remainderman is an infant, because the executors 
of the life tenant accept rent from the tenant from year to 
year.^*^ The action of the executors who represent the deceased 
life tenant does not bind the infant remainderman and would 
not bind a remainderman though he were an adult. The delay 
•of the personal representative of the tenant for years in enforc- 
ing his right to possession as against a person who remains in 
possession on the death of a tenant for years does not prejudice 
the rights of the representative. He has a right to have a period 
>of consideration in order that he may ascertain whether it is or is 
not advantageous to the estate that he should take possession 
and the fact that during this period the widow of the deceased 
tenant from year to year remains in possession and pays rent 
to the landlord does not prevent the personal representative from 
ousting her.^^ In the absence of a specific statutory require- 
ment to the contrary, after the death of either the landlord or 
tenant of a tenancy from year to year the personal representa- 
tive of the deceased may give or receive a notice to quit where 
the tenancy itself has sur\'ived.^" So, also, a tenancy from year 
to year is never terminated by the insanity of either the land- 
lord or the tenant. If during any year the lessor becomes in- 
sane and is judicially pronounced incompetent to manage his 
affairs, the committee appointed becomes the lessor of the term 
and the tenant must deal with him as his landlord. The same 
would be true in a case where the tenant became incompetent.^' 
§ 96. The rule as to repairs by a tenant from year to year. 
A tenant from year to year is bound only to make such repairs 

28 Roe d. Jordan v. "Ward, 1 H. It is more than a mere lease from 

Black. 96. year to year for if it had been 

30 Thomas v. Roberts, 16 M. & such, says Lord Mansfield in this 

W. 780. case, it would have expired with- 

81 Doe d. Hull V. Wood, 14 Mee. out notice at the end of the year 

& Wei. 682. after the death of A. B. The 

32 A lease to A. B., his execu- term, however, continues after the 

tors, etc., from year to year for death of A. B. until it is termi- 

so long time as it shall please the nated by his executor. Mackay v. 

lessor and A. B. his executors, Mackreth, 4 Doug. 213, 219. 
etc., does not expire on the death 33 McFall v. McFall, 35 S. C. 559, 

of A. B., but vests in his executors. 14 S. E. Rep. 985. 



138 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



as will keep the house in a tenantable position. lie is not re- 
sponsible for ordinary wear and tear, nor for permissive waste. ^* 
He is not liable to make substantial and lasting repairs.^" And 
is only bound to keep the house which he occupies in such a 
condition that it may be habitable.^^ If, however, the occupant 
is tenant from year to year under a void lease, which contains 
the usual covenants by the tenant to repair, he will be bound by 
such covenants and will be compelled to make the repairs which 
are called for bj^ them."' Thus where a lease was made by a 
corporation for the term of three years and the tenant agreed 
to put, maintain and deliver the premises in tenantable repair 
and he entered thereon, he was held to be a tenant from year to 
year as the lease was void because the seal of the corporation 
was not on it, and the tenant was liable to keep in repair ac- 
cording to its terms though he was a tenant from year to year.^* 
On the other hand the landlord of a tenant from year to year 
is not bound to make substantial repairs of the premises in the 
absence of an express agreement on his part.^^ 



34 Torriono v. i'oung, 6 Car. & 
P. 8, 12. See Martin v. Gilham, 2 
N. & P. 568, 7 A. & E. 540, 7 L. J. 
Q. B. 11. 

35 Ferguson v. , 2 Esp. 

590, 5 R. R. 757; Horsefall v. 
Mather, Holt, N. P. 7, 17 R. R. 589; 
Leach v. Thomas, 7 Car. & P. 328. 

36 Auworth V. Johnson, 5 Car. & 
P. 239. 

37 Beale v. Sanders, 3 Bing. (N. 
C.) 850, 5 Scott, 58, 3 Hodges, 147, 
6 L. J. C. P. 283, 1 Jur. 1083. 

38 Ecclesiastical Comm'rs v. Mer- 
rall, 38 L. J. Ex. 93, L. R. 4 Ex. 
162, 20 L. T. 573, 17 W. R. 67G. 

30 Gott V. Gandy, 2 El. & Bl. 845, 
2 C. L. R. 392, 23 L. J. Q. B. 1, 18 
Jur. 310, 2 W. R. 38. A covenant 
to build or to do such substantial 
repairs as are not usually done 
by a tenant from year to year will 
not usually be implied in the case 
of a tenancy from year to year. 
Such covenants will not be im- 
posed even though the agreement 



for a lease stipulates for such cov- 
enants or stipulates for the inser- 
tion of the usual covenants. Bowes 
V. Croll, 6 E. & B. 264. But where 
a tenancy is created by an entry 
of a tenant under a void agree- 
ment to make a lease by the terms 
of which the tenant was to keep 
the premises in good and tenant- 
able repair the covenant to repair 
will be implied and will bind the 
tenant from year to year. Thus 
where a tenant went into posses- 
sion under an agreement by which 
he was to have a lease for three 
years and a quarter, he to keep 
the premises in tenantable repair 
during the said term, and the 
agreement was void for the reason 
that it was neither stamped as a 
lease nor signed by the parties, it 
was held that the tenant was 
bound to repair during his occu- 
])ancy, though the agreement was 
void under the statute of fraud''. 
In (his case (Richardson v. Gif-- 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR, 



139 



§ 97. A tenancy from year to year created by tenant holding 

over. Where the tenant holds over after the expiration of the 
lease, and the lessor receives rent accruing subsequently to the 
expiration of the term, or does any act from which it inay be 
inferred that he intends to recognize him still as a tenant, he 
becomes thereby by implication a tenant from year to year upon 
all the terms of the original lease.'"* And the same rule is true 



ford, 1 Ad. & El. 52) the court by 
Parke, .J., said: "He did not le- 
gally agree for the term of three 
years, but, in point of law, he was 
tenant at will for the first year, 
subject to the terms of the agree- 
ment on his own part, and after- 
wards tenant from year to year 
subject still to the same agree- 
ment, which bound him to keep 
the premises in good repair as 
long as he should occupy." And, 
hence, generally, when a tenant 
goes into possession under an 
agreement for a lease, or under a 
void lease, he will, after payment 
of rent under it, be treated as sub- 
ject to the terms and conditions 
of the agreement or lease so far 
as the same are applicable to a 
tenancy from year to year but no 
further. If any of the conditions 
are inconsistent with such a ten- 
ancy from year to year they will 
be rejected. 

40 Belding v. Texas Produce Co., 
61 Ark. 377, 33 S. W. Rep. 421; 
Parker v, Hollis, 50 Ala. 411; 
Stoppelkamp v. Mangeot, 42 Cal. 
316; Bacon v. Brown, 9 Conn. 334; 
Robertson v. Simons, 109 Ga. 360, 
362, 34 S. E. Rep. 604; Crutchfield 
V. Remaley, 21 Neb. 178, 31 N. W. 
Rep. 687; Tanton v. Van Alstine, 

24 111. App. 405; Quinlan v. Bonte, 

25 111. App. 240; Board of Direct- 
ors V. Chicago Veneer Co., 94 IlT. 
App. 492; Belding v. Texas Pro- 
duce Co., 61 Ark. 377, 33 S. W. 



Rep. 421; Goldsborough v. Gable, 
140 111. 269, 29 N. E. Rep. 722, 15 
L. R. A. 294; Kleespies v. Mc- 
Kenzie, 12 Ind. App. 404. 40 N. E. 
Rep. 648; Wheat v. Brown, 3 Kan. 
App. 431, 43 Pac. Rep. 807; Mos- 
hier v. Reding, 12 Me. 478; Wig- 
gins V. Ferry Co., 82 111. 230; Clin- 
ton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 99 
111. 151, 165; Clapp v. Paine, 18 
Me. 264; Alleman v. Vink, 28 Ind. 
App. 142, 62 N. E. Rep. 461; Thei- 
band v. Bank, 42 Ind. 312; Hall v. 
Myers, 43 Md. 416; Gardner v. 
Commissioners, 21 Minn. 33; 
Hunter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 1, 49 N. 
W. Rep. 327; Smith v. Bell, 44 
Minn. 524, 47 N. W. Rep. 263; 
Usher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208; Fin- 
ney V. St. Louis, 39 Mo. 177; Quin- 
ette V. Carpenter, 35 Mo. . 502; 
Bilcher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 113; De- 
laney v. Flanagan, 41 Mo. App. 
651 ; Yates v. Kinney, 19 Neb. 275 ; 
Ketcham v. Ochs, 77 N. Y. Supp. 
1130, 70 N. Y. Supp. 268, 34 Misc. 
Rep. 470; Ridgeway v. Hannum, 
129 Ind. App. 124, 64 N. E. Rep. 
44; Bradley v. Covel, 4 Cow. (N. 
Y.) 349; Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 
N. Y. 287, 31 N. E. Rep. 94, 45 N. 
^'. St. Rep. 243. affg. 14 N. Y. Supp. 
951; Commisioners v. Clark, 133 
N. Y. 251; Clark v. Howland, 85 
N. Y. 204; Jackson v. Salmon, 4 
Wend. (N. Y.) 327; Moore v. Beas- 
ley, 3 Ohio, 294; Laguerenne v. 
Dougherty, 35 Pa. St. 45: Logan v. 
Herron, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 459; 



140 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



under a lease for two years.*^ It is not material as influencing 
this construction whether the same rent is paid by the tenant 
holding' over as was paid under the lease which had expired.*^ 
or whether the tenant holding over has agreed to pay an in- 
creased rent during the period he continues to hold over.*' In 
all these cases the payment of rent creates the tenancy from 
year to year. If the rent is paid by the year or so much per 
year the inference is almost irresistible that he had in mind a 
tefiancy from year to year, but the fact that the rent is payable 
semi-annually has in one case at least been held insufficient to 
rebut the presumption.** This rule applies to municipal and 
other corporations as well as to individuals^ so that a corpora- 
tion holding over after the expiration of its lease with the as- 
sent of the lessor becomes a tenant from year to year.*^ There 
is a presumption of law that a tenant holding over with the 
assent of the lessor becomes a tenant from year to year, and such 



Hemphill v. Flynn, 2 Pa. St. 144; 
Phillips V. Monges, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 
229; Simmons v. Jarman, 122 N. 
C. 195, 29 S. E. Rep. 332; Gladwell 
V. Holcomb, 60 Ohio St. 427, 433, 
54 N. E. Rep. 473; Railroad Co. 
V. West, 57 Ohio St. 161; Amsden 
V. Atwood, 35 Atl. Rep. 311, 67 
Vt. 289, 31 Atl. Rep. 448; Noel v. 
McCrary, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 623; 
Emerick v. Tanner, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 
220, 58 Am. Dec. 217; Allen v. 
Bartlett, 20 "W. Va. 46; Arbenz v. 
Exley, 52 W. Va. 476, 44 S. E. Rep. 
149; King v. Wilson, 98 Va. 259, 
35 S. E. Rep. 727; Baltimore 
Dental Ass'n v. Fuller, 101 Va. 627, 
44 S. E. Rep. 771; Brown v. Kay- 
ser, 60 Wis. 1; Bishop v. Howard, 
3 D. & R. 293, 2 B. & C. 100, 1 L. 
J. (O. S.) K. B. 243, 26 R. R. 291; 
Kelly V. Patterson. 43 L. J. C. P. 
320, L. R. 9 C. B. 6S0, 30 L. T. 842; 
Cornish v. Stubbs, 39 L. .T. C. P. 
202, L. R. 5 C. P. 334, 22 L. T. 21, 
18 W. R. 547; Doe d. Clarke v. 
Smarridge. 7 Q. B. 957, 14 L. .T. 
Q. B. 327, 9 Jur. 781; Doe d. Hol- 



lingsworth v. Stennet, 2 Esp. 717; 
Doe d. Rogers v. Pullen, 3 Scott, 
271, 279, 2 Ring. (N. C.) 749, 2 
Hodges, 39, 5 L. J. C. P. 229; Digby 
V. Atkinson, 4 Camp. 275, 278; 
Finch V. Miller, 5 Com. Bench, 
428; Pierce v. Shaw, 2 M. & R. 418; 
Bridges v. Potts, 17 Com. Bench 
(N. S.), 314, 335; Dougal v. Mc- 
Carthy, 4 Reports, 402; (1893) 1 
Q. B. 736. 

4' Belding v. Texas Produce Co., 
01 Ark. 377, 33 S. W. Rep. 421. 

42 Wheat V. Brown, 3 Kan. App. 
431, 43 Pac. Rep. 807. 

*"■ Zippar V. Reppy, 15 Colo. 260, 
25 Pac. Rep. 164, citing Digby v. 
Atkinson, 4 Camp. 275, in which 
Lord Ellenborough says: "The 
mere advance of the rent, in my 
opinion, makes no difference." 

44 Adams v. Cohoes, 127 N. Y. 
175, 28 N. E. Rep. 25, affg. 53 Hun, 
260, 6 N. Y. Supp. 617, 25 N. Y. St. 
Rep. 523. 

45 Artt V. New York, 28 N. Y. 
Super. Ct. (5 Rob.) 248.' 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR, 



Ml 



presaimption may be rebutted by proof that the holding was in 
some other character or for some other purpose.*" 

§ 98. Rebutting the presumption which arises on a tenant 
holding over. The presumption that a tenant holding over 
and paying rent after the expiration of his term, is a tenant 
from year to year is as a general rule regarded as only a pre- 
sumption of fact and continues only until the contrary is 
shown.*^ It may be shown by a landlord who denies that a ten- 
ancy from year to year has been created by his receipt of rent 
from a tenant holding over, that the landlord accepted or re- 
ceived the rent from the tenant under some mistake, misunder- 
standing or misapprehension of fact or in ignorance of a mater- 
ial fact which if it had been known to him at the time he re- 
ceived or accepted the rent would have caused him to decline to 
receive it.*^ The receipt of rent by the year creates a tenancy 
from year to year solely because the law presumes that such was 
the intention of the parties. It is presumed that they thereby 
contracted for a yearly lease and as an intention is always an 
essential element of a contract if there is no intention there is 



46 Williamson v. Paxton, 18 
Gratt. (Va.) 475. The silence of 
the landlord where a tenant for 
a year holds over may and in fact 
in most cases as has been set forth 
in the text create a tenancy for an- 
other year and so on from year to 
year. But this rule does not apply 
to the case of a tenant whose term 
i.s for a very short period only, 
less than year holding over with 
the acquiesence of the landlord 
and upon the tenant promising to 
pay rent at the same rate as under 
the lease which has expired. Mont- 
gomery V. "Willis, 45 Neb. 434, 63 
N. W. Rep. 794. A tenancy from 
year to year, beginning on the first 
day of November, is created, 
where by an oral lease of premises 
situated in New York city it is in 
express terms agreed that the hir- 
ing shall be for one year from the 
first day of November, and the ten- 



ant remains in possession for a 
number of years without any fur- 
ther agreement between the par- 
ties. 3 Rev. St. N. Y. (7th ed.) 
p. 2200, § 1, does not apply to such 
a case. Laimbeer v. Tailer, 125 N. 
Y. 725, 26 N. E. Rep. 756, affg. 4 
N. Y. Supp. 588, 21 St. Rep. 380. 

47 Secar v. Pestana, 37 111. 525; 
Dubuque v. Miller, 11 Iowa, 583; 
Brewer v. Knapp, 1 Pick (Mass.) 
332; Quinnette v. Carpenter, 35 
INIo. 502; Grant v. White, 42 Mo. 
285; Darrill v. Stevens, 4 McCord 
(S. C.) 39; Moore v. Beasley, 3 
Ohio, 294; Sheldon v. Davey, 42 
Vt. 637; Stedman v. Gassett, 18 
Vt. 346; Williams v. Paxton, 18 
Gratt. (Va.) 475; Mayor of Thet- 
ford V. Tyler, 8 Q. B. 95. 

48 Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 6 Com. 
Bench, 90, 98; Oakley v. Monck, 3 
H. & C. 706. 



142 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

no lease. The parties are permitted to show what was the true 
intention by any relevant evidence and the true intention when 
proved ma\^ overcome the implied intention.*^ The right of 
the landlord to rebut the presumption as against the tenant nec- 
essarily confers upon the tenant the reciprocal right to rebut the 
presumption of a tenancy from year to year as against the land- 
lord seeking to recover rent from him upon the assumption that 
he is a tenant from year to year. If on the termination of a 
lease for a definite period the landlord expresses no intention 
of leasing the premises to the tenant for a new definite period 
but simply permits him to remain in possession and to pay rent 
as before, he is a tenant from year to year. If, however, at or 
before the expiration of the lease the landlord informs the ten- 
ant that he will not be allowed to occupy the premises after tht 
expiration of the term except as tenant from month to month, 
no implied tenancy from year to year will arise, for an implied 
tenancy arises only from the presumed intention of the parties 
where they are silent and where they permit the facts and cir- 
cumstances of the case to speak for them and where the land- 
lord expressly states his intention and the tenant is silent, the 
tenant will be presumed to have assented to the proposition.^'" 
§ 99. The modification of the terms of the original lease as 
against a tenant holding over. The presumjitiou that the ten- 
ancy from year to year which arises from a tenant holding over 

49 "When a tenant, whose term the part of the landlord from 

has expired by efflux of time, in- which a renewal of the contract 

stead of quitting the premises as may be implied, the person in pos- 

he ought to do, remains in posses- session continues a wrong-doer, is 

sion, holding over as it is called, liable to be treated as such and 

he is g. wrong-doer and may be must attribute to his original 

treated as such by the owner, his wrong and subsequent folly, any 

landlord. By the consent of his inconveniences which may ensue, 

landlord, his tenancy may be con- The mere unbroken silence and in- 

tinued, and if such continuance by action of the owner will not im- 

consent be without any fixed limit, prove or enlarge the character of 

he becomes a tenant from year to the tenant's possession." By the 

year, as it is called. This consent court, Ewing, C. J., in Den ex dem. 

may be either express or inii)lied; Decker v. Adams, 12 N. J. Law, 

actual or constructive by words or 99, on page 100. 

by some act recognizing or treat- •'''" Shipmau v. Mitchell, G4 Tex. 

ing him as a tenant. But without 174. 
a new contract, or some act on 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 113 

is on the same terms as to rent, etc., as was the oriyinal lease, 
may be overcome by clear proof that the parties to the original 
lease on or before its expiration agreed that the rent should be 
modified on the holding over. The presumption that a tenant 
holding over with the consent of the landlord is a tenant at will, 
or from year to year, as the case may be. upon the same terms 
so far as the amount of rent is concerned as he had under the 
original lease is conclusively rebutted if it is shown that a new 
agreement was made to pay an advanced rental during the hold- 
ing over. And if either after or prior to the termination of the 
lease the landlord informs the tenant that in case he holds over 
after the expiration of an existing term a greater rent will be 
expected from him than he has paid under the original lease, 
and the tenant holds over iwthout saying anything in reply co 
the landlord's demand or notice for an advanced rent, his con- 
tinuing in possession taken in connection with his silence will 
be regarded as an assent on his part to pay the advanced rental. ^^ 
AVhere a tenant holding under a lease in writing from year to 
year is told by his landlord during any one of the yearly periods 
that his rent will be greater on the ensuing year and he there- 
after holds over, it will be conclusively presumed that he has 
agreed to pay an increased rental and the terms of his lease will 
be modified accordingly. He will thereafter be liable to pay the 
increased rent from year to year so long as he continues to hold 
unless the rental contract is again modified by a restoration of 
the rent to the original figure.^- So, if a tenant is told by his 
landlord before the expiration of his tenn that if he remains 

51 Hunt V. Bailey, 39 Mo. 257. tantamount to saying 'I will con- 
See, also, Roberts v. Hayward. 3 tinue in on the terms of your pro- 
Car. & P. 432, in which the court posal.' I am of the opinion that 
by Best, C. J., said on page 433: under the circumstances the di.s- 
"The tenancy under the agreement tress was regular. I think the 
expired at midsummer, 1826. Im- landlord had the right to make 
mediately after that time, the any terms he pleased for the time 
plaintiff (the tenant) was a tres- subsequent to Lady's Day, 1827, 
passer but the landlord was not and if the plaintiff would not ac- 
obliged to treat him as such, but cept them, to turn him out of pos- 
might make proposals to him to session." 

renew the relation of landlord and 52 Moore v. Harter. 67 Ohio St. 

tenant between them. This he did 250, 65 N. E. Rep. 883: Thompson 

and the plaintiff did not say 'I will v. Sanborn, 52 Mich. 141. 
go out directly.' His silence is 



144 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

thereafter he will have to pay an increased rent which is dis- 
tinctly specified, the tenant becomes liable for the rent for an- 
other year at the increased rate though on the notice of the in- 
crease of the rent he has notified his landlord that he remains 
under protest and only until he can secure another place.^^ The 
tenant's conduct in continuing in possession after notice by tlie 
landlord is an acceptance of the landlord's proposition. An ad- 
vance or a reduction of the rent made by agreement or by as- 
sent on the part of the tenant does not always conclusively rebut 
the presumption or implication that a tenant holding holds over 
under the terms of the former lease so far as such terms are ap- 
plicable to the new holding. An agreement for an alteration of 
the rent on holding over, nothing else being said by either party, 
does not necessarily amount to a new demise which will render 
inadmissable the terms and the facts and circumstances of the 
original letting. Though the tenant holding over does not ac- 
tually hold under the original lease which has expired, still, 
where the parties have made no new arrangements after the 
original lease has terminated except to alter the amount of rent 
which is to be paid, the law will imply that they had at all times 
the terms and provisions of the old lease in mind and that they 
made their new arrangement with reference to it. The landlord 
cannot sue a tenant holding over after the expiration of the 
original lease on any covenant of it, where any of the implied 
covenants are broken during the new holding, but he may sue him 
in assumpsit for rental and the former lease should be received in 
evidence to show the character of the covenant which it is claimed 
to have been implied. °* The periods at which the rent is pay- 
able under the original lease, whether yearly, monthly or other- 
wise will determine when the rent shall be payable under the 
lease implied from the holding over.°° And in conclusion it 
should be sjiid that the presumption that a tenant Avho holds 
over is holding over upon the terms of the original lease is not 
rebutted by proof of a different intention on the part of the 

c3 Brinkley v. Wolcott, 10 Heisk. ■■•• Conway v. Starkweather, 1 

(Tenn.) 22. Den. (N. Y.) 113; Dorrlll v. Ste- 

o*Digby V. Atkinson, 4 Camp. vens, 5 McCord (S. C.) 49. 
276, 27.S; Monck v. Geekle. 9 Ad. 
& El. 841. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 145 

tenant alone which is not communicated to or assented in by the 
landlord.'" 

§ 100. Holding over — Excused when caused by action of the 
Board of Health. The power of Boards of Health conferred 
upon them by legislative enactment under the exercise of the 
police power to regulate the care and transportation of persons 
ill with infectious or contagious diseases is very broad and far 
reaching. In the state of New York and perhaps in most of the 
states of the Union which have adopted codes of sanitary rules 
and regulations, the isolation of such persons is strictly en- 
joined. It is provided that all communication with a house or 
famil}^ infected with any contagious, infectious or pestilential 
disease may be forbidden by a Board of Health, except by 
.means of physicians, nurses or messengers, to carry the neces- 
sary advice, medicines or provisions to the afflicted. The Board 
of Health has jurisdiction to act summarily in determining 
whether a condition of affairs has arisen which will justify it in 
forbidding general access to or egress from the infected prem- 
ises; its action, though open to judicial review in a direct pro- 
ceeding to which the board is a party, cannot be questioned in 
a collateral proceeding. A landlord knows, or rather, in law, he 
will be presumed to know the law in this respect and the parties 
to a lease will be presumed to have contracted with reference to 
the existence of the law giving Boards of Health such discre- 
tionarj' powers, and they will be presumed to have had in view 
in contracting any contingency which would give occasion for the 
exercise of such powers. Hence a holding over which is invol- 
untary for the reason that the tenant is prevented from remov- 
ing by the orders and direction of the Board of Health will not 
be equivalent to a renewal of the lease by the tenant nor will the 
landlord be permitted to recover double rent under a statute 
providing for double rent in a case of a holding over by a tenant 
after he has given notice that he will quit.^^ 

66 Chicago V. Peck, 196 111. 260, ner. 99 111. 151. 165. See Hunt v. 

63 N. E. Rep. 711, afg. 98 111. App. Railey, 39 Mo. 257. 
434; Board of Directors of Chi- st Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 

cago Theological Seminary v. Chi- 2S7, 31 N. E. Rep. 94; Herter v. 

cago Veneer Co., 94 111. App. 492; Mullen, 9 App. Div. 593, 41 N. Y. 

Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Card- S. 708. 

10 



146 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 101. Statutory modification of the rule that a holding over 
creates a tenancy from year to year. The common law rule 
that, where a tenant for years holds over, and continues to pay 
rent, a tenancy from year to year is established, is abrogated by 
statute in some states. Thus in Iowa, it is enacted by statute 
that any person in possession of land with the assent of the 
owner is presumed to be a tenant at will until the contrary is 
shown.^^ Where such statutes exist a mere tenancy at will is 
created by a tenant holding over in the absence of proof of a 
special contract to the contrary, though he may pay rent by the 
year. So, also, where a statute expressly provides that the time 
agreed on in a definite letting shall be the termination thereof 
for all purposes and the premises are leased in express terms 
for one year, a tenant who holds over after the expiration of 
the year becomes a tenant at sufferance only and not a tenant 
from year to year.^® 

§ 102. Tenancies from year to year created by leases void 
under the statute of frauds. A tenancy from year to year may 
be created by a tenant going into possession of land and paying 
rent computed by the year under a parol lease for a term of 
years when the lease for years is void as such under the statute 
of frauds.^*^ On the entry of the tenant into possession, the 

6S O'Brien v. Troxel, 76 Iowa, v. Newton, 23 N. J. Law, 111; 

760, 40 N. W. Rep. 704. Loughran v. Smith, 75 N. Y. 205; 

59 Wood V. Page, 24 R. L 594, 54 Craske v. Cliristian Union Pub. 
Atl. Rep. 372. Co., 17 Hun (N. Y.), 319; Fried- 

60 Lockwood V. Lockwood, 22 lioff v. Smitti, 13 Neb. 5, 12 N. W. 
Conn. 425; Strong v. Crosby, 21 Rep. 820; Humphrey Hardware 
Conn. 398; Stewart v. Apel, 5 Co. v. Herrick, 5 Neb. (unof.) 524, 
Houst. (Del.) 189; Cady v. Quar- 99 N. W. Rep. 233, 234; Schneider 
terman, 12 Ga. 386; "Western v. Lord, 62 Mich. 141, 28 N. W. 
Union TeL Co. v. Fair, 52 Ga. 18; Rep. 773; Schuyler v. Leggett, 2 
Swan V. Clark, 80 Ind. 57; Nash Cow. (N. Y.) 660; Reeder v. Sayre, 
V. Beckmen, 83 Ind. 536; Coan v. 70 N. Y. 180, 184; Condert v. Cohn, 
Mole, 39 Mich. 454; Huntington US N. Y. 309, 313, 23 N. E. Rep. 
V. Parkhurst, 87 Mich. 38, 49 N. 298, aff'g 43 Hun, 454, 6 N. Y. St. 
W. Rep. 597; Delaney v. Flanagan, Rep. 733; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. 
41 Mo. App. 651; Hosli v. Yokel, v. West, 57 Ohio St. 161, 49 N. E. 
58 Mo. App. 169; Ridgley v. Still- Rep. 344; Rosenblat v. Perkins, 
well, 28 Mo. 40; Goodfellow v. ]8 Or. 156, 22 Pac. Rep. 598; Thur- 
Noble, 25 Mo. 60; Kerr v. Clark, ber v. Dwyer, 10 R. I. 355, 357; 
19 Mo. 132; Scudly v. Murray, 34 Hellams v. Patton, 44 S. C 454, 22 
Mo. 420, 86 Am. Dec. 116; Drake S. E. Rep. 608; Matthews v. Hipp, 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 



U7 



parol lease, though it be invalid so far as the creation of a term 
in writing is concerned, creates a tenancy at will and is also 
recognized as indicating the intention of the parties as regards 
all other conditions and terms of the original letting. The 
amount of the rent fixed in the parol lease will be the rent 
which the tenant must pay, in the absence of an express agree- 
ment to the contrary, and generally all the covenants and condi- 
tions which are contained in the void oral lease except those 
which fix the term of the letting, will regulate the hiring from 
year to year.^^ A person who had entered upon premises under 
a lease which is void under the statute of frauds is merely a 
tenant at will. His continuing in possession for over a year 
after the date of his entry' and also his paying rent upon a yearly 
basis turns his holding into a tenancy from year to year."^ 
Generally the payment of the rent for one year at a yearly rate 
with a holding over by the tenant after the expiration of the 
first year will constitute the tenancy a tenancy from year to 
year.®^ Tenancies for other periods, as for example, by the 



66 S. C. 162, 44 S. E. Rep. 577; 
Doe d. Rogers v. Pullen, 3 Scott, 
271, 2 Ring. (N. C.) 749, 2 Hodges, 
39, 5 L. J. C. P. 229; Dicke v. Har- 
per, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 2S0; Rerrey 
V. Lindlej^ 3 INIan. & G. 496; 
Thunder v. Relcher, 3 East, 449; 
Clayton v. Rlahey, 8 Term Rep. 3, 

4 R. R. 575; Doe d. Rigge v. Rell, 

5 Term Rep. 471, 2 R. R. 642. 

61 Baylies v. Ingram, 84 A. D. 
360, 82 N. Y. Supp. 891; Coudert 
V. Cohn, 118 N. Y. 309, 313, 23 N. 
E. Rep. 298, aff'g 43 Hun, 454, 6 
N. Y. St. Rep. 733; Reeder v. 
Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180, 184; Richard- 
son V. GifEord, 1 Ad. & El. 52; Doe 
V. Collings, 7 C. B. 939; Tress v. 
Savage, 4 El. & B. 36; Lee v. 
Smith, 9 Exch. 662; Martin y. 
Watts, 7 T. R. 83; Riggs v. Bell, 

5 T. R. 471; Clayton v. Blakely, 
8 T. R. 3; Pennington v. Taniere, 
12 Q. B. 998; Arden v. Sullivan. 
14 Q. B. 832; Doe v. Amey, 12 Ad. 

6 El. 476. 



62 Mathews v. Hipp, 66 S. C. 
102, 44 S. E. Rep. 577. 

63 "Though the agreement is void 
by the statute of frauds as to the 
duration of the lease, it must reg- 
ulate the terms on which the ten- 
ancy subsists in other respects, as 
to the rent, the time of the year 
when the tenant is to quit, etc. 
So, where a tenant holds over 
after the expiration of his term, 
without having entered into any 
new contract, he holds upon the 
former terms. Now, in this case, 
it was agreed that the tenant 
should quit at Candlemas; and, 
though the agreement is void as 
to the number of years for which 
defendant was to hold, if the 
lessor choose to determine the 
tenancy before the expiration of 
the seven years he can only put an 
end to it at Candlemas." By Lord 
Kenyon in Doe d. Rigge v. Bell, 5 
T. R. 471. 



148 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

month, or by tlie quarter, may be created by an entry into pos- 
session under a lease which is invalid under the statute of frauds 
and a payment of rent with reference to a particular period 
short of a year. So, a tenancy from month to month is created 
by the acceptance of rent under a lease void under the statute 
of frauds, where the rent is payable monthly,®* and the tenant 
goes into possession. For a reservation of rent in the void lease 
according to a particular period may convert a holding under 
the void lease into a monthly or yearly tenancy according to the 
circumstances. But it has been held that the rule that an an- 
nual reservation of rent is necessary to turn a lease for an un- 
certain term into a lease from year to year does not apply to a 
parol tenancy for years, void under the statute of frauds, where 
the rent has been paid in advance, and such tenancy becomes a 
tenancy from year to year, though no rent was reserved by the 
year.®^ So an oral agreement by which a tenant under a written 
lease for five years relets a portion of the premises to his land- 
lord for the same term becomes, under the statute of frauds, a 
tenancy from year to year.®^^ But a tenancy from year to year 
cannot be created by an occupancy for two years under a parol 
lease for five years, since such contract is void as one not to be 
performed in a year and the relation of landlord and tenant is 
not created at all.*'® 

§ 103. Tenancies from year to year arising from defective 
and unexecuted leases. AVhere a tenant enters and pays a 
yearly rent under a lease for a term of years which is void for 
any reason, he will be regarded as a tenant from year to year. 
Thus, for example, where a long absent owner of property re- 
turns and repudiates the lease made by a guardian of his heirs, 
on the supposition of his death,®'' or the mortgagee fails to join 
in a lease of the mortgaged premises,®^ or a lease for five years 
is executed by the tenant alone,^® or a lease is imperfectly exe- 

84 Utah L<oan, etc., Co. v. Gar- ee Huglish v. Marvin, 128 N. Y. 

butt, 6 Utah, 342, 23 Pac. Rep. 758, 380. 

and see, also. Donohue v. Chicago "^ Farley v. McKeegan, 48 Neb. 

Bank Note Co., 37 111. App. 552. 237, 67 N. W. Rep. 161. 

80 Brant v. Vincent, 100 Mich. 88 Hart v. Stockton, 12 N. J. L. 

426, 59 N. W. Rep. 169. 322. 

e.'.a Loundsberry V. Snyder, 31 N. "o Loughran v. Smith, 11 Hun 

y. 5U. (N. Y.) 3n. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 14:9 

cuted SO that it is void/" or is void because it is unacknowl- 
edged.'^^ A tenant who enters into possession of the premises 
and pays rent under an agreement for a lease, as he becomes a 
tenant from year to year, is thereafter bound by all the cove- 
nants mentioned in the agreement for a lease so far as those 
covenants are consistent with a lease from year to year.'^^ 

§ 104. The necessary incidents of a tenancy from year to 
year. A tenant from year to year possesses a demisable inter- 
est in his term and may sublet for any period less than a year 
subject to all the limitations and restrictions which are appli 
cable to his own lease, unless expressly forbidden by his lease. 
If he or his landlord shall elect to terminate the tenancy from 
year to year, all subleases are terminated thereby irrespective 
of the fact that otherwise the sublease would have held over af- 
ter the termination of any year. The tenant from year to year 
may also mortgage his term.'^ He may also, unless expressly 
restrained by some agreement not to do so, assign the term which 
he has and his assignee takes the estate subject to all the restric- 
tions and covenants which were attached to it in the hands of 
the original lessee. A tenant from year to year may unques- 
tionably sublet a portion of his premises. But where he does 
this and then surrenders to his landlord the portion remaining 
in his own possession without either receiving a notice to quit 
or giving one to his sub-tenant, or surrendering the part occu- 

'0 Fougera v. Cohn, 43 Hun (N. was in its form a lease by them 

Y.) 454; Carey v. Richards, 2 Ohio not as trustees but as individuals 

Dec. 630. only. It was not signed by one 

"1 Thurber v. Dwyer, 10 R. I. of the trustees. The tenant, how- 

355. The lessee is a tenant from ever, knew that they were trustees 

year to year after he has entered and Icnew what power they had to 

and paid rent by the year. If he lease. He went into possession 

has not paid rent by the year he and occupied the demised premises 

would be a tenant at will, and for five years, paying rent by the 

after the lease was pronounced year. The lease, of course, was 

void perhaps a tenant at suffer- void as a lease by the trustees, but 

ance. In Kernochan v. Wilkins, it was held that though it was void 

3 App. Div. 596. 38 N. Y. Supp. as a lease for the full term, yet 

236, 78 N. Y. St. Rep. 853, the cir- it created a valid lease from year 

cumstances were as follows: Cer- to year. 

tain trustees deriving their pow- t2 Doe d. Thompson v. Amey, 

ers to lease land from a will made 4 P. & D. 177, 12 A. & E. 476. 
a lease for the term of ten years. '3 Burrows v. Gradin, 1 Dowl. 

The written instrument of lease & L. 213. 



150 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

pied by his sub-tenant, the landlord cannot recover rent against 
the sub-lessee. There is no privity of contract between the 
original landlord and the sub-tenant ; the former shall give no- 
tice to quit in his own name for as to the part sublet the original 
tenancy still exists '^* as between the primary landlord and his 
tenant and the latter continues to be liable for the rent until he 
sei'ves a notice to quit or until the landlord accepts a surrender 
by the tenant. 

§ 105. Tenancies from month to month — Hov^r created. A 
tenancy from month to month will generally arise where no defi- 
nite term of letting is specified by the parties and the rent is 
payable monthly.'^^ So a lease at will with the rent payable in 
monthly instalments becomes a tenancy from month to month."^ 
Such a tenancy also arises where the tenant holds over after the 
expiration of a term for years, and pays rent by the month under 
a provision permitting the tenant to occupy the premises by 
the month after the expiration of the term/'^ or where the ten- 
ant was to have the premises as long as he paid the rent thereon, 
which was in terms payable monthly, and the landlord was to 
have the premises whenever he wanted them.'^^ Similarly an 
agreement to let premises for one year from" April 1st, the rent 
payable monthly, is simply a tenancy from month to month. '^ 
So, where a tenant for a term paid a month's rent and took a 
receipt for the same commencing at the expiration of the old 
term, the new tenancy was from month to month and it was not 
a renewal of the expired term.^° An express provision in the 
lease that the tenancy may be determinable on a notice of a 
month or thirty days may sometimes determine the length of 
the term of a letting^ as, for instance, a parol agreement made 

74 Pleasant Lessee of Hayton v. "" McDevitt v. Lambert, 80 Ala. 

Benson, 14 East, 234. 536, 2 So. Rep. 438; Shirk v. HofE- 

70 Hurd V. Whitsett, 4 Colo. 77; man, 57 Minn. 230, 58 N. W. Rep. 

Wall V. Kllman, 2 Chest. Co. Rep. 990. 

(Pa.) 178; Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. 78 Rogers v. Brown, 57 Minn, 

J. L. 128; State v. Schertinger, 51 223, 58 N. W. Rep. 981. 

N. J. L. 452. 79 Hungerford v. Wagoner, 5 

76 Sebastian v. Hill, 51 111. App. App. Div. 590, 39 N. Y. Supp. 369. 

272; Lehman v. Nolting, 56 Mo. so Baker v. Kinney (N. J.), 54 

App. 549; J. B. Barnaby Co. v. Atl. Rep. 526; Blumenberg v. 

Johnston, 28 R. I. 105, 65 Atl. Rep. Myers, 32 Cal. 93, 91 Am. Dec. 560; 

613; Rogers v. Brown, 57 Minn. Alworth v. Gordon, 81 Minn. 445, 

223, 58 N. W. Rep. 981. 84 N. W. Rep. 454. 



TENANCY FROM TEAR TO YEAR. 151 

Lgfore the expiration of a lease under seal for the occupation of 
the premises after the expiration of the lease until terminated 
by thirty days notice, converts the lease into a tenancy from 
month to month. ^^ A tenancy from month to month is created 
where the term of letting is for one month only and is to expire 
at noon on the first day of the following month, and the tenant 
holds over.^^ The tenant is thereafter a tenant from month to 
month. And an entry into possession under a verbal letting with 
an agreement to pay rent by the month, which is void under the 
statute of frauds becomes a tenancy from month to month. ^^ 
For if the term is not fixed in a parol letting, but a monthly 
rent is reserved, a tenancy from month to month and not from 
year to year usually arises.^* A tenant who occupies the prem- 
ises under a lease which is void because the element of mutual- 
ity is lacking is a tenant from month to month where he has an 
option to terminate the lease by a month 's notice. And this pre- 
sumption or construction is very materially strengthened by the 
fact that the tenant is to pay rent only for the period he ac- 
tually occupies the premises.^^ So also a monthly hiring is 
created Avhere a person having made a lease which is invalid un- 
der the statute of frauds, goes into possession and pays rent by 
the mouth. Ordinarily this would be a tenancy at will but the 
circumstance that the tenant pays by the month converts it 
into a lease from month to month.®^ Where a tenant for a term 
of years has an option to continue in possession as a tenant by 
the month at the expiration of his term, the tenant holding over 
at once becomes a tenant from month to month." In one or two 
states of the Union it is expressly provided by the statute that a 
tenant going into possession under a lease which is void under 

81 West Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. 1029, 26 L. R. A. 799, affirming, 50 
Morrison, 160 111. 288, 43 N. B. 111. App. 415; Utah Loan, etc., Co. 
Rep. 393. V. Garbutt, 6 Utah, 342, 23 Pac. 

82 Gibbons v. Dayton, 4 Hun (N. Rep. 758. 

y.) 451; Stoppelkamp V. Mangeot, 84 Hollis v. Burns, 100 Pa. St. 

42 Cal. 316. 206, 45 Am. Rep. 379. 

83 Warner v. Hale, 65 111. 395; ss Sigmund v. Newspaper Co., 82 
Brownell v. Welch, 91 111. 523; 111. App. 178. 

Donohue v. Chicago Bank Note so Sebastian v. Hill, 51 111. App. 

Co., 37 111. App. 552; Blake v. 272. 

Kurrus, 41 111. App. 562; Marr v. 87 McDevitt v. Lambert, SO Ala. 

Ray, 151 111. 340, 37 N. E. Rep, 536, 2 So. Rep. 438. 



152 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

the statute of frauds shall be taken and regarded as a tenant 
from month to month.^^ The fact that rent is payable quarterly 
and that the tenant gives security to pay one quarter's rent in 
advance, is conclusive that the tenancy is a quarterly tenancy 
and not a tenancy from year to year.^^ 

§ 106. Tenancy from month to month by holding over. A 
tenancy from month to month may be created by holding over. 
Thus a tenant under a lease for one month ^\\\o holds over with 
the consent of his landlord and pays rent thereby creates a ten- 
ancy from month to month which can only be terminated upon 
one month's notice to quit.*^" And in Missouri a tenant of prem- 
ises located in any city by holding over becomes under the stat- 
ute a tenant from month to month.'*" Similarly where a tenant 
remained in possession of certain property two months after the 
expiration of his term, paying rent each month at the rate pro- 
vided for in the lease, a mere tenancy from month to month is 
created.®^ And a lease of premises for a certain term at a 
monthly rental, under which the tenant holds over for several 
months without a new agreement, paying the same rent consti- 
tutes such tenant a tenant from month to month. ^- AYhere the 
lease specially provides that after the expiration of the term the 
holding shall be from month to month, the tenancy is one from 
month to month.''^ The fact that a tenant is distinctly told that 
if he holds over it must be as a tenant from month to month, a 
tenancy from month to month is created and no other contract 
of letting can be implied."* 

•s^Delany v. Flanagan, 41 Mo. oiShipman v. Mitchell, 64 Tex. 
App. 651. 174. A tenant who enters under 
88 Wilkinson v. Hall, 4 Scott, a parol demise which is void under 
301, 3 Bing. (N. C.) 508, 3 Hodges, the statute of frauds and pays rent 
&6, 6 L. J. C. P. 82. by the year becomes thereby a ten- 
se Stopplekamp v. Mangeot, 42 ant from year to year, and the 
Cal. 316; Shirk v. Hoffman, 57 terms of the agreement, though It 
Minn. 230, 58 N. W. Rep. 990. is void, is permitted to regulate 

90 Drey v. Doyle, 28 Mo. App. all the other incidents of the ten- 
249; Smith v. Smith, 62 Mo. App. ancy from year to year, as, for ex- 
596, 1 Mo. App. Rep. 580. ample, the date when the yearly 

91 Backus V. Sternberg, 59 Minn. rent shall be payable, the amount 
403, 61 N. W. Rep. 335. of the rent and the time of the 

92 Branton v. O'Briant, 93 N. C. year when the tenant must quit. 
99. Schuyler v. Leggatt, 4 Cow. (N. 

93Pappe V. Trout, 3 Okl. 260, 41 Y.) 60. 
Pac. Rep. 397. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 153 

§ 107. The commencement of the monthly period. The date 
iipon which an entry is made upon the demised premises may, 
in the absence of an express agreement upon this point, indicate 
the day upon which the monthly period of tenancy shall com- 
mence. But usually either by custom or by an express agree- 
ment between the parties, the month begins with the first day of 
the next succeeding month to that in which the tenant moves into 
the premises, at least where the tenant does not move in or be- 
gin to pay rent on the first of that mouth. So, where a lessee 
went into possession on the sixth of the month and paid his rent 
up to the first of the following month the period of renting is 
from the first day of the month to the first day of the month. ^' 

§ 108. The conversion of tenancies from month to month into 
tenancies from year to year. Where a tenant enters into 
possession of premises under a lease which expressly states that 
it is from month to month, the court will refuse to convert his 
tenancy into a tenancy from year to year simply because he has 
continued in occupation for more than a year.''*^ Similarly where 
a tenant from month to month holds over for more than a year, 
and the landlord elects to treat him as a tenant, he does not 
thereby become a tenant from year to year but continues under 
the terms of the former lease so far as applicable, and will pre- 
sumptively remain a tenant from month to month in the absence 
of a new hiring for a different period.'*' 

§ 109. The statutory rules creating a tenancy from month to 
month by a holding over. An exception to the general rule 
that a parol lease, void under the statute of frauds, or a holding 
over creates a tenancy from year to year has been created by 
statute in some states of the Union. Thus in Missouri it is pro- 
vided by statute that oral lettings of stores^ shops, houses, tene- 
ments and other buildings in cities, towns, and villages shall be 
tenancies from month to month.^* Hence where a lease of such 
premises which is invalid under the statute of frauds is made 
or where a tenant of such premises holds over after the termina- 
tion of a lease for a definite period, he is a tenant from month 
to month under the statute. The statute being in derogation of 

05 Ver Steeg v. Becker-Moore o" Hollis v. Burns, 100 Pa. St. 

Paint Co. (Mo. App., 1904), 80 206. 

S. W. Rep. 346. »« Missouri Rev. St. 1879, § 3078. 

9c Jones V. Willis, 53 N. Car. 430. 



.154 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

the common law will be strictly construed and it lias been held 
inapplicable to the oral letting of land in a city, the buildings 
on which are the property of the tenant.®^ There is a somewhat 
similar statute in Louisiana applicable to estates which are 
usually tenancies at will. By the Louisiana statute it has been 
expressly provided that "if the renting of a house or other edi- 
fice or an apartment has been made without fixing its duration, 
the lease shall be considered to have been made by the month." ^ 
The effect of this statute is to make a holding over after the ex- 
piration of a tenn, in the absence of a new agreement, a mere 
tenancy from mouth to month. - 

§ 110. Tenancies from week to week. It is very well settled 
that there maj^ be a tenancy from week to week of land leased 
This is aside from the letting of furnished rooms or apartments 
as lodgings where the rent is paid weekly and the occupant is 
a licensee. Whether a letting is from week to week in the ab- 
sence of an express stipulation in the lease to that effect, depends 
largely upon the facts and circumstances in each case, the most 
important of which are the character and condition of the prem- 
ises and the purpose for which they are to be used by the tenant. 
The payment of rent by the week is a suggestive fact though 
by no means conclusive. Where the contract is silent the court 
may imply a tenancy from week to week exists from the fact 
that the leased premises were a furnished house and that noth- 
ing was said in the lease about a quarterly letting or periodical 
payment of rent.^ Obviously no such implication of a weekly 
tenancy would usually arise in the case of an unfurnished house 
or in the case of the leasing of agricultural lands because the 
obvious purpose of the occupation of the tenant would be nulli- 
fied by presuming a weekly hiring. Where the letting of prem- 
ises was expressly from week to a week, a stipulation in the lease 
that after the expiration of the tenancy by the usual week's no- 
tice to quit the tenant shall have a reasonable time after the ex- 
piration of the term to remove his goods is valid. It operates 
also as a quasi extension of the term so as to give the tenant a 

»8 Delany v. Flanagan, 41 Mo. 17; Dolese v. Barbreat, 9 La. Ann. 

App. 651. 352; Marmiche v. Roumieu, 11 La. 

1 La. Code Act, § 2655. Ann. 477. 

2 Bowles V. Lyon, 6 Rob. (La.) 3 Towne v. Campbell, 3 Com. 
262; Gehabee v. Stanly, 1 La. Ann. Bench, 921. 



TENANCY FROM TEAR TO YEAR. 155 

right to enter and to do what is necessary to effect the removal.* 
but obviously does not permit him to hold over from week to 
week. A provision that rent shall be payable at the rate of so 
much per week may indicate a weekly hiring-, but where it is 
also provided that the rent is not to be increased during a par- 
ticular period, the presumption of a tenancy from week to week 
is overcome.^ 

§ 111. The necessity for a notice to quit at the common law. 
At the common law a notice to quit must usually be given by the 
landlord prior to bringing ejectment in all cases of a tenancy 
from year to year.* If, however, a lease is to end on a precise 
date, as where it is for one year or for a term of years, no notice 
to quit is required to be served by the landlord before bringing an 
action for ejectment.'^ A tenant for a definite term is not en- 
titled usually to a notice to quit. AYhere a lease has a definite 
time to run, or the term is to end at a certain time, a notice to 
quit is not necessary.^ In the case of a lease for a year or for a 
term of years, which is to expire on a day certain and fixed, no 
notice to quit is required to be served upon the tenant by the 
landlord but the term expires by its own limitation, and, as soon 
as the end of the term arrives, the landlord has a right to re-en- 
ter without delay or notice.^ So. too, where by the express terms 

* Cornish v. Stubbs, 39 L. J. C. Thomas v. Wright, 9 Serg. & R. 

P. 202, L. R. 5 C. P. 334, 22 L. T. (Pa.) 87; Rich v. Keyser, 54 Pa. 

21, 18 W. R. 547. St. 86. But see Nelson v. Ware, 

5 Adams v. Cairns, 85 L. T. 10. 57 Kan. 670, 47 Pac. Rep. 540. 

6 Hollingsworth v. Stennett, 2 ^ Cobb v. Stokes, 8 East, 358, 9 
Esp. 717, 5 R. R. 769; Martin v. R. R. 464; Messenger v. Arm- 
Watts, 7 Term Rep. 83, 2 Esp. 501, strong, 1 T. R. 54. 1 R. R. 148; 
4 R. R. 387; Moore v. Lawder. 1 Flower v. Darby, 1 T. R. 162, 1 R. 
Stark. 308; Warner v. Brown, 8 R. 169; Tilt v. Stratton, 4 Bing. 
East, 166, 9 R. R. 397; Thomas v. 46, 1 M. & P. 183, 3 Car. & P. 164, 
Black, 8 Houst. (Del.) 507, 18 Atl. 6 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 50. See Cox 
Rep. 771; Coomber v. Hefner, 86 v. Sammis, 68 N. Y. Supp. 203. 
Ind. 108; Elliott v. Stone State s Young v. Smith, 28 Mo. 65; 
Bank, 4 Ind. App. 155, 30 N. E. Stephen v. Brown, 56 INfo. 23. 
Rep. 537; Moshier v. Kedwig, 12 » Canning v. Fibush, 77 Cal. 196, 
Me. 478; Grant v. White, 42 Mo. 198, 19 Pac. Rep. 376; Craig v. 
App. 285; Hosli v. Yokel, 58 Mo. Graj^ 1 Cal. App. 598, 82 Pac. Rep. 
App. 169; Jackson v. Bryan, 1 699; Reithman v. Brandenburg, 7 
Johns. (N. Y.) 322; Jackson v. Colo. 480, 4 Pac. Rep 788; Walker 
Salmon, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 327; v. Ellis, 12 111. 470; Brownell v. 
AVilliams v. Ackerman, 8 Or. 405; Walsh, 91 111. 523; Fort r. Mc- 



156 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



of a lease the tenure of the tenant is to come at once to an ena 
upon the happening of some contingent event, no notice to 
quit is essential and the term is absolutely at an end upon the 
occurrence of the event. Thus where it was agreed by an ex- 
press provision in the lease of a mill that the term should end 
in case the machinery should break down no notice to quit is 
required and the term is at an end at once as soon as the machin- 
ery breaks down.^° ' But the right of the tenant under a lease 
from year to year to receive notice to quit and the reciprocal 
obligation of the landlord to give such notice are inseparable 
and essential incidents of the tenancy. The tenant may by his 
own conduct or by his acquiescence in and assent to, conduct on 
the part of the landlord, waive his rights to a notice to quit at 
the end of the current year. Such would be the case where the 
tenant abandoned the premises during the year and refused to 
pay rent for them. Indeed it has been held that a notice to 
quit is required to be given the tenant though the lease from 



Grath, 7 111. App. 302; Frank v. 
Taubman, 31 111. App. 592; Alcorn 
V. Morgan, 77 Ind. 184, 786; Mc- 
Clure V. McClure, 74 Ind. 108, 110; 
Myerson v. Neff, 5 Ind. 523; 
Thomas v. Walmer, 18 Ind. App. 
112, 46 N. E. Rep. 695; Hamit v. 
Lawrence, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 
366; Locke v. Coleman, 2 T. B. 
Mon. (Ky.) 12, 15, 15 Am. Dec. 
18; Bowles v. Lyon, 6 Rob. (La.) 
262; Chesley v. Welch, 37 Me. 106, 
109; Preble v. Hay, 32 Me. 456; 
Clapp V. Paine, 18 Me. 264, 265; 
Stockwell V. Marks, 17 Me. 455, 35 
Am. Dec. 266; Darrell v. Johnson, 
17 Pick. (Mass.) 263; Danforth v. 
Sargeant, 14 Mass. 491; Ellis v. 
Paige, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 71; Wilson 
V. Wodd (Miss. 1904), 36 So. Rep. 
609; Mastin v. Metzinger, 99 Mo. 
App. 613, 616, 74 S. W. Rep. 431; 
Horner v. Leeds, 25 N. J. Law, 
106; Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. .L Law, 
128, 133, 29 Am. Rep. 214; Allen 
V. Jaquish, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 628; 
Gibbons v. Dayton, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 



45; Logan v. Herron, 8 S. & R. 
(Pa.) 459; Cobb v. Stokes, 8 East, 
358; Right v. Darby, 1 T. R. 159; 
Adams v. City of Cohoes, 53 Hun, 
260, 6 N. Y. Supp. 611; Logan v. 
Herron, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 459; 
Lane v. Nelson, 167 Pa. St. 602, 
31 Atl. Rep. 864, 865; Mounts r. 
Goranson, 29 Wash. 261, 69 Pac. 
Rep. 740; Williams v. Bennett, 26 
N. C. 122. Notice to quit is not 
usually required upon the expira- 
tion of a term of one year. But 
where a notice in writing is ac- 
tually given by the landlord it 
may be admitted in evidence in 
an action by him to recover the 
possession brought subsequently 
to the expiration of the term. 
Snideman v. Snideman, 118 Ind. 
162, 20 N. E. Rep. 723. One who 
occupies land under a mere license 
is not entitled to notice to quit, 
but can be ejected by the owner. 
Johns V. McDaniel, 60 Miss. 486. 

10 Scott V. Willis, 122 Ind. 1, 22 
N. E. Rep. 786. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 157 

year to year expressly provides that tlie term is to continue so 
long as the rent is paid.^^ A distinction has been mac'e by the 
authorities as to the necessity for a notice to quit between that 
class of cases where the tenancy is of an indefinite duration or 
for an indefinite number of years as was the universal character 
of these tenancies from year to year in their original condition ; 
and the class of tenancies from year to year which arises when 
a tenant holds over with the consent of his landlord after the 
expiration of a definite term. In the former class of cases, and 
particularly where the premises consisted of agricultural land, 
a six months' notice to quit was required from the landlord be- 
cause of the fact that the tenant from year to year could not 
otherwise know at any time during the existence of his holding 
when his landlord might determine it. In theory a tenant 
from year to year under an indeterminate lease has in each cur- 
rent year a growing interest in the year next ensuing, which 
cannot be arbitrarily destroyed by his landlord without notice 
to quit. Where, however, a tenant holds over after the expira- 
tion of a definite term, and by so doing creates a tenancy from 
year to year, no year of the tenancy thus created by holding 
over arises out of or is connected with the year which precedes 
it but each year of the holding over creates a new and separate 
contract for a year between the parties which, being for a fixed 
and definite period may, according to the rule, be terminated 
without notice. The assent of both parties to the original lease 
is necessary to create the new lease from year to year by holding 
over. This assent on the part of the tenant is usually implied 
from the fact of his remaining in possession and paying rent 
after his term has expired. His action in vacating the premises 
and not electing to hold over is so clear a m-anifestation of his 
intention not to creae a new yearly tenancy that no other notice 
on his part is required. And though by remaining in possession 
the tenant is presumed to offer to take the premises for another 
year, the landlord is not bound to accept the offer, and unless 
he does so by accepting rent or otherwise, the tenancy is ter- 
minated and notice to quit is not required to be given by him.' = 
A notice to quit is not required to be served by a landlord in the 

11 Doe d. Warner v. Brown, 8 v. Holcomb, 60 Ohio St. 427, 54 N. 
East, 1G5. See, also, as to neces- E. Rep. 473. 
sity for a notice to quit, Gladwell 12 Gladwell v. Holcomb, 60 Ohio 



158 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

case of a lease expressly "for one year" coupled with a further 
agreement that the term, might continue as long as the parties 
should agree, where the tenant tells his landlord during any one 
of the yearly periods that he does not wish to hold for another 
year.^^ Generally one who has entered upon land with the con- 
sent of the owner to, cultivate it upon shares is a mere cropper 
and has no interest as a tenant in the land itself. His possession 
is the possession of the owner and his only right under this con- 
tract is to have a fair and equitable division of the crop. Hence 
he is not usually entitled to notice to quit nor need he serve 
notice to quit upon the owner.^'* 

§ 112. The length of time required for the notice to quit. At 
the common law and in the absence of a statutory requirement 
prescribing a different time a six month 's notice to quit is usually 
required in the case of tenancies from year to year.^^ It has 
also been held that where the parties themselves have failed to 
stipulate what shall be the length of the notice to quit the mat- 
ter may be regulated by the custom of the locality.^° The cus- 
tom must be clearly proved and the burden of proof to show the 
custom is upon the tenant alleging its existence. It has also 
been held that a notice to quit must be given a reasonable time 
before the expiration of the calendar year.'^^ And that the ques- 
tion what is a reasonable time to give notice to quit under a lease 
from year to year is always a question for the determination of 

St. 427, 437, 54 N. E. Rep. 473; 332; Ellis v. Paige, 19 Mass. 71; 

Adams v. City of Colioes, 127 N. Murray v. Armstrong, 11 Miss. 

Y. 175. But see PeeM v. Bum- 209; Critchfield v. Remaley, 21 

balek, 99 Wis. 62, 74 N. W. Rep. Neb. 178, 31 N. W. Rep. 687; God- 

745; Robertson v. Simons, 109 Ga. ard v. Railroad Co., 2 Rich. (S. 

360, 34 S. E. Rep. 604. Car.) 346 (three months* notice); 

13 Dunphy v. Goodlander, 12 Ind. Hanchet v. Whitney, 1 Vt. 311, 315; 

App. 609, 40 N. E. Rep. 924. Doe d. Strickland v. Spence, 6 

i4Davies v. Baldwin, 66 Mo. East, 120; Bridges v. Potts, 17 C. 

App. 577. And compare Teft v. B. N. S. 314, 333; Goode v. How- 

Hinchman, 76 Mich. 672, 43 N. W. ells, 4 M. & W. 199; Right v. Darby, 

Rep. 680. 1 T. R. 162; Doe v. Porter, 3 T. R. 

15 Spalding v. Hall, 6 D. C. 123; 13; Pitcher v. Donovan, 1 Taunt. 

Hamitt v. Lawrence, 2 .J. J. Marsh. 555; Martin v. Watts, 7 T. R. 85. 

(Ky.) 366; Clapp v. Paine, 18 Mp. I'iRoe v. Charnock, Peake, N. P. 

264; Hall v. Myers, 43 Md. 446; C. 4. 

Danforth v. Sargeant, 14 Mass. i" Hately v. Myers, 96 111. App. 

491; Brewer v. Knapp, 18 Mass. 217. 



TENANCY FEOM YEAR TO YEAR. 159 

the jury.^^ In one case it was held that half a year's notice to 
quit in order to terminate a tenancy at will must be given either 
by the tenant or b}" his executor before an action of ejectment 
will lie.^® And the fact that the rent under a lease from year to 
year is payable quarterly does not dispense with the necessity 
for six months' notice to quit.^°^ In the case of tenancies for 
periods running less than a year it has been well settled from an 
early date that, in the absence of statute, notice to quit is to be 
regulated by the term of the letting and must at least be equiva- 
lent to one rental period. Short terms less than a year are of 
modem origin as compared with terms for years and terms from 
year to year. The English judges have admitted that the rule of 
less than six months' notice is not based upon any judicial deter- 
mination,-" but have recognized and applied it as a custom grow- 
ing out of the necessity of the case. For it was impracticable as 
well as unfair to both parties to these short terms to require from 
either of them the six months' notice that was demanded as a rea- 
sonable notice to quit in the case of tenancies from year to year. 
Nor was it fair to the parties to apply the rule of a notice of half 
the period which was required in the case of yearly holdings to 
these much shorter terms. But whatever may be the reason of 
the rule it has been repeatedly recognized and held by the courts 
of both the United States and England. In the case of a ten- 
ancy from mouth to month a notice to quit of at least one month 
must be served.-^ The period of the notice to quit in the case 

18 Jones V. Spartanburg Herald (by statute Mo. R. S. § 3978); 
Co., 44 S. Car. 526, 22 S. E. Rep. Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. Law, 128, 
731. 134, 29 Am. Rep. 214; Prlndle v. 

19 Walker v. Constable, 3 Wils. Anderson, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 391, 
25. 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 616; Hunger- 

10 Shirley v. Newman, 1 Esp. ford v. Wagner, 5 App. Div. 590, 

266, 5 R. R. 737. 591, 39 N. Y. Supp. 369; People ex 

2oHufEell V. Armistead, 7 Car. rel. Botsford v. Darling, 47 N. Y. 

& P. 56; Towne v. Campbell, 3 C. 6G6; HollLs v. Burns, 100 Pa. St. 

B. 921. 206, 45 Am. Rep. 379; Teater v. 

2iMcDevitt V. Lambert, 80 Ala. King, 35 Wash. 138, 76 Pac. Rep. 

636, 2 So. Rep. 438; Prickett v. 688, 690; Yesler's Estate v. Orth, 

Ritter, 16 111. 96; Seems v. Mc- 24 Wash. 483, 64 Pac. Rep. 723; 

Lees, 24 111. 192; Walker v. Sharp, Doe d. Parry v. Hazell, 1 Esp. 94; 

14 Allen (Mass.) 43; Greenewald Peacock v. Ruffun, 6 Esp. 4. 
V. Schaales, 17 Mo. App. 324, 327 



160 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT' 

of a monthly tenancy must expire with the end of some monthly 
term. The notice must be to quit at the end of the period.-- As 
regards the particular day upon which the tenant is notified to 
quit, it may be the day which corresponds with the date of the 
original letting.-^ If the tenancy begins on a particular day, 
the notice must be to terminate on the corresponding day of the 
succeeding month.^^* Apparently the notice to quit, in the ab- 
sence of a statute, may be to quit on one of the recurring periods 
of the holding and if the notice be served on a day of the corres- 
ponding date in the preceding month, it will be sufficient.-^ On 
the other hand it has been held that a notice directing a monthly 
tenant to remove on the day his monthly term expires is both 
usual and proper. But a notice directing him to vacate on the 
following day is not insufficient or defective. -° 

§ 113. The length of the notice to quit in weekly and monthly 
tenancies. By some of the English cases it has been laid down 
that, in the case of an ordinary weekly tenancy, a notice to quit 
is not by implication a part of the contract of hiring unless a 
usage to that effect binding on both parties is proved.-^ But the 
courts have very frankly admitted the manifest injustice of 
turning out a Aveekly tenant without notice to quit though clear- 
ly the necessity for notice is neither so apparent nor so urgent 
in the ease of a monthly or a weekly tenant as it is in the case 
of a tenant from year to year of agricultural land. Hence it 
has been held that a week's notice to quit is indispensible and 
sufficient in the case of a tenancy from weelc to week and that 
such tenanc}" can be terminated only by such notice.-^' And if 

22 Fox V. Nathan, 32 Conn. 348; 134, 29 Am. Rep. 214; Baker v. 
Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. Law, 128, Kenney, 69 N. J. Law, 180, 54 Atl. 
135, 29 Am. Dec. 214; Hungerford Rep. 526. 

V. Wagner, 5 App. Div. 590, 592, 2g Searle v. Powell, 89 Minn. 278, 

39 N. Y. Supp. 369; People ex rel. 94 N. W. 868. 

Bottsford V. Darling, 47 N. Y. 666. 27 Towne v. Campbell, 3 Com. 

23 Doe d. Eyre v. Lambly, 2 Esp. Bench, 921; Huffell v. Armistead, 
635; Kemp v. Derrett, 3 Camp. 7 Car. & P. 56. See, also, Jones v. 
510; Roe v. Ward. 1 H. Black. 97; Mills, 10 Com. Bench (N. S.) 788, 
Doe V. Weller, 7 T. R. 478; Mills 797; Sandford v. Clarke, 57 L. J. 
V. Goff, 14 Mee. & Wei. 72; Doe d. Q. B. 507, 21 Q. B. D. 398, 59 L. T. 
Cornwell v. Mathews, 11 C. B. 675. 226. 

24 Russell V. McCartney, 21 Mo. 28 steffens v. Earl, 40 N. .T. Law, 
App. 544. 128, 134, 16 Atl. Rep. 186; Harvey 

25 Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. Law, v. Copeland, 30 L. R. Ir. 412; Jones 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 



161 



it be said that a tenant from week to week is entitled only to a 
reasonable notice to quit and the question as to what is a reason- 
able notice be left to the jury where it belongs, it cannot be 
doubted that they would be guided by evidence of a usage or 
give a notice of the length of the term in all cases of weekly or 
monthly tenancies and that evidence of such a custom would be 
received by the court. "^ 

§ 114. The statutory regnlations of notice to quit. In many 
of the states of the United States the length of time which is 
required in the notice to terminate the tenancy is fixed by stat- 
ute, and the duty of giving this notice is reciprocal. Hence 
either party to the lease who desires to terminate it must cause 
the required notice to quit to be served on the other. Iowa, Con- 



V. Mills, 10 Com. Bench (N. S.) 
788, 30 L. J. C. P. 66, 8 Jur. (N. 
S.) 387; Doe d. Peacock v. Raffan, 
6 Esp. 4; Bowen v. Anderson 
(1894), 1 Q. B. 164, 10 R. 47, 42 
W. R. 236, 58 J. P. 213. 

20 As to length of notice to quit 
in the case of monthly tenancies, 
see Doe d. Parry v. Hazell, 1 Esp. 
94; and Beamish v. Cox, 16 L. R. 
Ir. 270, affirmed, I6 L. R. Ir. 458. 

soPulliam v. Sells (Ky., 1906), 
99 S. W. Rep. 289. In HufEell v. 
Armlstead, 7 C. & P. 56, the court, 
by Parke, Baron, said: "The only 
question is whether the tenancy 
commenced on the Saturday or 
Monday. If it commenced on the 
Monday, I think the defendant, 
who entered on that day, was at 
liberty to quit on the same day in 
another week. I cannot say a 
week has been exceeded by hold- 
ing six days and two fractions of 
a day. Upon the question of a no- 
tice to quit, the law is clearly set- 
tled that a yearly tenancy cannot 
be determined without a half 
year's notice. But that rule can- 
not be applied to a weekly taking, 
for the effect of it would be to 
show that a half week's notice 

11 



was necessary to put an end to 
such a tenancy. I am not aware 
that it has ever been decided 
that in the cases of an ordinary 
monthly or weekly tenancy that 
a month's or a week's notice must 
be given. A tenant who enters 
upon a fresh week may be bound 
to continue until the expiration of 
that week or to pay the week's 
rent, but this is a very different 
thing from giving a week's notice 
to quit." In Parry v. Hazell, 1 
Esp. 94, the tenant took a house 
by the month and he had a 
month's notice to quit, which the 
court held sufficient. In the case 
of Peacock v. Ruffin, 6 Esp. 4, 
which was an action of ejectment 
under a weekly hiring, it appeared 
that a week's notice to quite had 
been given. As it appeared from 
the evidence that the landlord had 
agreed to give the tenant four 
weeks' notice, he was nonsuited. 
Lord Ellenbo rough saying: "A 
week's notice is certainly sufficient 
where the holding is weekly, but 
the rule of law as to the legality 
of notice is still controllable by 
the agreement of the parties." 



162 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



necticut, Illinois and Wisconsin require thirty days,'^ Missouri, 
sixty days,^- Mississippi, two months,"^ Kentuclry and Oregon, 
ninety days.^* Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, INIaine, IMassaeliu setts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Caro- 
lina, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island require three months' notice 
to quit.^^ Virginia requires three months' notice for land within 
a town or city and six months for land not so situated ; ^^ Mary- 
land requires six month's notice to quit in the counties,^^ while 
the North Dakota and Oklahoma statutes provide for notice at 
least as long before the expiration of the term as the term of 
the hiring itself, not exceeding one month.^^ The other states 
have apparently failed to provide by statute the length of time 
in which notice must be given to terminate a tenancy from year 
to year, so it may be presumed that they follow the common law 
requirement as to such notice which is six months.^" 



81 Larkin v. Avery, 23 Conn. 304; 
Iowa Code 1897, § 2991; S. & B. 
Ann. St. § 2187, construed in Peehl 
V. Bumbalek, 99 Wis. 62, 74 N. W. 
Rep. 545; Cleighton v. Sanders, 
89 111. 543. 

32 Mo. Rev. St. 1899, p. 987, 
§ 4109. A month's notice to quit 
will not terminate the tenancy. 
Ridgely v. Stillwell, 25 Mo. 570; 
Wheat v. Brown, 64 Mo. App. 505, 
43 Pac. Rep. 807. 

33 Miss. Ann. Code 1892, § 2544. 

34 Ky. St. 1894, §§ 2295, 2296; 
Misc. Laws Or. Code, § 11, sub. 2, 
§ 13, p. 615, in the case of farm 
lands. The notice prescribed in 
Oregon Code, § 2987, for the ter- 
mination of estates at will, applies 
also to the termination of estates 
from year to year. Rosenblat v. 
Perkins, 18 Or. 156, 22 Pac. Rep. 
598. 

35 Del. Rev. Code 1893, c. 120, 
§ 4; Ind. Rev. St. 1881, §§ 5208, 
5209, construed in Elliott v. Stone 
City Bank, 4 Ind. App. 155, 30 N. 
E. Rep. 537; Kan. Gen. St. 1889, 
§ 55; Wheal v. Brown, 3 Kan. 



App. 431, 43 Pac. Rep. 807; Ware 
v. Nelson, 4 Kan. App. 258, 45 Pac. 
Rep. 923; Gordon v. Gilman, 48 
Me. 473; Withers v. Larrabee, 48 
Me. 570 (no statute in this 
state). Mass. Rev. Laws 1902, 
c. 129, § 12; Mich. Comp. Laws 
1897, § 9257; Minn. St. 1894, 
§ 5873; Hunter v. Frost, 47 Minn. 
1, 49 N. W. Rep. 327; N. H. Rev. 
St. c. 209; Currier v. Perley, 24 
N. H. 219; N. J. Gen. St., p. 1921, 
§ 29; Snowhill v. Snowhill, 23 
N. J. L. 447; N. C. Pub. St. 1873, 
c. 64, § 9; Vincent v. Corbin, 85 
N. C. 108. 

36 Va. Code 1887, § 2785; Craw- 
ford V. Morris, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 90, 
107; Harrison v. Middleton, 11 
Gratt. (Va.) 527, 532. 

37 Md. Pub. Gen. St. art. 53, 
§ 6. 

38 N. Dak. Rev. Code, § 4085; 
Okl. Rev. Stat., § 868. 

30 Goddard v. South Carolina R. 
Co., 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 340; Brown 
V. Kayser, 60 Wis. 1, 18 N. W. Rep. 
523. 



TEN.ysrCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 163 

§ 115. The necessity and the sufficiency of a notice to quit in 
the case of tenancies from month to month. In order to ter- 
minate a tenancy from month to month, a notice to quit is usu- 
ally necessary. In the absence of a statutory provision or of a 
stipulation in the lease requiring a longer notice, a tenant from 
month to month is entitled to one month's notice to quif" A 
notice to quit given on May 31st to quit within thirty days and 
not later than June 30th is sufficient to terminate a monthly ten- 
ancy.*^ The notice to quit in the case of a monthly tenancy must 
be served before the beginning of the succeeding rental month. 
so that a notice served on June 1st is insufficient to terminate the 
tenancy on July Ist.^- Where a statute requires the notice to 
quit to be given to terminate a tenancy from month to month a 
mere tender of the keys of the premises is not equivalent to the 
statutory notice.*^ The notice should be to quit at the end of 
one of the recurring periods of the holding and if served on the 
corresponding date of the preceding month is sufficient.** But 
while it is proper to notify a tenant from month to month to 
quit on the day upon which his tenancy expires, still the suffi- 
ciency of the notice is not affected by the fact that it orders him 
to vacate the premises on the day following the last day of the 
month.*^ 

§ 116. The statutory regrdations of the notice to quit in ten- 
ancies from month to month. In California in the case of 

40McDevitt v. Lambert, 80 Ala. 180, 54 Atl. Rep. 526; Klingenstein 

536, 2 So. Rep. 438; Stewart v. v. Goldwasser, 58 N. Y. Supp. 342, 

Murrell, 65 Ark. 471, 47 S. W. Rep. 27 Misc. 536; Hungerford v. Wag- 

130; Eberlein v. Abel, 10 111. App. oner, 39 N. Y. Supp. 369, 5 App. 

626; Donohue v. Chicago Bank Div. 590. But see Teater v. King, 

Note Co., 37 111. App. 552; Seem 35 Wash. 138, 76 Pac. Rep. 688. 
V. McLees, 24 111. 192; Coffin v. ■" Leahy v. Liebman, 67 Mo. App. 

Lunt, 69 Mass. 80; Steffens v. 191. 

Earl, 40 N. J. L. 128, 29 Am. Rep. ^2 Corby v. Brill Book, etc., Co., 

214; Rivett v. Brown, 6 Wkly. L. 76 Mo. App. 506. 
Bui. (Ohio) 378; Wall v. Ullman, 4-. Minn. Gen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 40, 

2 Chest. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 178; Will- construed in Finch v. Moore, 50 

lams V. McAnany, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Minn. 116, 52 N. W. Rep. 384. 
191; Banbury v. Sherin, 4 S. D. ** Baker v. Kinney (N. J.), 54 

88, 55 N. W. Rep. 723; Fratcher v. Atl. Rep. 526. 

Smith, 104 Mich. 537, 62 N. W. 45 Searle v. Powell, 89 Minn. 

Rep. 832; Hart v. Lindley, 50 Mich. 278, 94 N. W. Rep. 868. 
20; Baker v. Kenney, 69 N. J. L. 



164 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

monthly tenancies **' fifteen days' notice to quit is required by 
statute. In Minnesota,*^ ]\Iissouri,*^ and New Hampshire,*^ the 
statutes require the giving of a month's notice to terminate a 
montlily tenancy. In Illinois ^'^ and in Colorado a ten days' no- 
tice to quit is sufficient in the case of monthly tenancies.^^ 
Louisiana and Rhode Island require by statute fifteen days'^^ 
and Marj^land requires a thirty days' notice in the city of Balti- 
more.^^ In New York a five days' notice to quit is sufficient both 
in yearly and monthly tenancies.^* A government lease of prop- 
erty in the District of Columbia can be terminated only by giv- 
ing one month's notice and giving up possession of the property 
as required by law.^^ 

§ 117. Notice to quit when required by the express terms of 
the lease. In some cases the parties to a written lease in ex- 
plicit terms provide for the notice to quit. A provison in the 
lease for a notice to quit supersedes the statutory require- 
ment for such a notice in the absence of a direction to the con- 
trary by the parties to the lease. Thus the parties will be bound 
to give a notice to quit according to the character of the notice 
mentioned in the lease though it may differ in the length of time 
from the period mentioned in the statute. So, if the lease re- 
quires a thirty day notice to quit to be given on the sale of the 
premises by the landlord, such notice must be given though the 

*c Civil Code, § 827; McDonough Edmundson v. Preville, 12 Colo. 

V. Starbird, 105 Cal. 15. App. 73, 54 Pac. Rep. 394. 

4TGen. St. 1878, c. 75, § 40; 02 La. Civ. Code, art. 2655, con- 
Shirk V. Hoffman, 57 Minn. 230, strued in Bowles v. Lyon, 6 Rob. 
38 N. W. Rep. 990. (La.) 262; R. I. Pub. St., c. 232, 

4«Mo. Rev. St. 1879, § 3078; § 3; Comstock v. Cavanagh, 17 R. 
Withnell v. Petzold, 104 Mo. 409; I. 233, 21 Atl. Rep. 498. 
Smith v. Smith, 62 Mo. App. 556, ss Md. Code, art. 4, §§ 885, 886, 
1 Mo. App. Rep. 580; Drey v. construed in Kinsey v. Minneck, 
Doyle, 28 Mo. App. 249; Gunn v. 43 Md. 112. A tenant in the en- 
Sinclair, 52 Mo. 327; Koken Iron joyment of premises of which he 
Works v. Kinealy, 86 Mo. App. is in rightful possession and enti- 
199. tied to remain in such possession 

*o Blair v. Macon, C4 N. H. 4^87. will be duly protected by a court 

50 Eberlein v. Abel, 10 111. App. of equity until he is served with 

626. statutory notice to quit. Hately 

61 Mills Ann. St., § 1976, con- v. Myers, 96 111. App. 217. 

strued in Salomon v. O'Donnell, 54 Code Civ. Proc. § 2231. 

5 Colo. App. 35, 36 Pac. Rep. 893; ■" Spofford v. United States, 32 

Ct. CI. 452. 



TENANCY FROM YEAE TO YEAR. 165 

statate permits a three days' notice under ordinary circum- 
stances. ^"^ Where a lease requires a notice to quit of a particular 
character to be given in the event of a certain contingency a 
statutory notice to quit is proper under other circumstances. A 
provision in a lease requiring a notice of a particular descrip- 
tion differing in the length of time from the statutory notice will 
be strictly construed. A provision in a lease for a term of years 
that it may be terminated at the expiration of one year on sixty 
days' notice means a notice of sixty days to terminate at the 
end of the first year and the first year having passed, the right 
to terminate on notice is gone.^^ If the lease for years is silent 
as to when the period of notice shall expire, the notice should be 
to quit at the expiration of the year or some other rental period. 
Thus a three months' notice to quit, expressly provided for by 
the lease must expire on the day which is the anniversary of the 
commencement of the lease, in the absence of any provision to 
the contraiy.^^ Where a lease provides that it shall be sub- 
ject to three months' notice on either side at any time to ter- 
minate the agreement, the notice may be given at any time, 
though the rent be payable quarterly, if it is not clearly appar- 
ent that the hiring is from year to year,''" in which latter ease 
the notice to quit must be given to terminate on a rent day. A 
tenant who is under an agreement to vacate the premises upon 
their sale by the landlord is entitled to receive notice that they 
have been sold. He must have reasonable notice. The notice 
may properly be given him by the purchaser. The length of 
time which the tenant may need to secure premises of a like 
character is no criterion of what may be a reasonable notice. 
Under such circumstances a thirty days' notice will be regarded 
as sufficient.'"' 

§ 118. The form and the character of the notice to quit. 
Ordinarily a notice to quit, particularly where the lease is in 
writing ought itself to be in writing. But a parol notice to quit 

BBBuhman v. Nickels & Brown 1 K. B. 444, 90 L. T. 122, 20 T. L. 

Bros., 1 Cal. App. 266, 82 Pac. R. 159. 

Rep. 85. =3 Soames v. Nicholson, 71 L. J. 

57 M. Fine Realty Co. v. City of K. B. 24. (1902) 1 K. B. 157, 85 
New York, 103 N. Y. Supp. 115. L. T. 614, 50 W. R. 169. 

58 Dixon V. Bradford and Dis- so Cooper v. Gambill, 146 AJa. 
trict Railway Servants' Coal Sup- 184, 40 So. Rep. 827. 

ply Co., 73 L. J. K. B. 136, (1904) 



166 LAW OF LANDLORD AKD TENANT. 

g-iven by a tenant who is holding under a parol lease has been 
held suffieient.^^ So an oral notice to quit given by an em- 
ployee of a corporation t<) its tenants is prima facie sufficient 
without any affirmative evidence of the agent's authority to 
give it,^- though his lack of authority may be shown by the ten- 
ant. The giving of an oral notice to quit by the tenant which is 
received ^vithout objection by the landlord is a waiver of the 
right of the landlord to have a written notice to quit.^^ A writ- 
ten notice to quit need not be directed to the tenant eo nomine 
if it is proved to have been delivered to him at the proper time."* 
So., any error in the direction of the notice to quit either in the 
address or in designating the tenant or describing the premises 
will be cured by the tenant's retention without objection of the 
notice to quit.®^ So a mere variance in the notice from the 
description of the premises contained in the lease will not in- 
validate a notice to quit where the tenant was not misled there- 
by.°® In all cases where the party .served with a notice to quit 
claims that it is irregular either in form or in the manner of its 
service he ought to return it to the party Mnthin a reason- 
able time indicating his objection to it. His retention of an ir- 
regular or informal notice to quit particularly in a case where 
the other party is prejudiced thereby may be regarded as a 

61 Eberlein v. Abel, 10 111. App. where the signature was omitted 
626; Timmins v. Rawlinson, 3 from the notice to quit, see Carle- 
Burr. 1603, 1 W. Bl. 533; Doe d. ton v. Herbert, 14 W. R. 772. A 
Macartney v. Crick, 5 Esp. 196, notice to quit is not invalidated 
8 R. R. 848. by a mistake in the Christian 

62 Doe d. Rochester v. Pierce, 2 name of the tenant if he or his 
Camp. 96. family on receiving it understand 

63 Smith v. Snyder, 168 Pa. St. it to be intended for him and re- 
541, 32 Atl. Rep. 64, in this case tain it. Clark v. Keliher, 107 
the tenant in informing the agent Mass. 406. The date given in a 
of the landlord of his intention to written notice to quit is immate- 
qtiit told him he would hold from rial except when the period of no- 
month to month, and the agent tice is to run from such date. The 
replied he would see his principal date of its service is usually con- 
and would let the tenant know trolling, and this may always be 
what the landlord would do before shown by parol evidence under 
the end of the term but neglected general rules. 

to do so. CO Consolidated Coal Co. v. 

«r. Doe V. Spiller, 6 Esp. 70, 9 Schaefer, 135 111. 210, 25 N. E. 

R. R. SIO. As to the validity of Rep. 788. 
a notice required under a lease 



TENANCY FROM TEAR TO YEAR. 167 

waiver of the irregularity or informality in form or mode of 
servdce. If a landlord accepts a notice to determine a tenancy 
as such at the time of its service, the fact that the notice is im- 
perfectly expressed does not affect its validity.*^ The courts 
will always consider the substance rather than the form of the 
notice to quit and will usually disregard all technical irregular- 
ities and informalities pro-vdded it shall appear that the party 
who was served with the notice to quit has not been misled or 
prejudiced thereby. A notice to quit served on the tenant ought 
to be signed by the landlord or his- agent duly authorized to do 
so.®® The notice must not be conditional, but absolute and posi- 
tive. A notice by a tenant that he would quit unless the land- 
lord would repair is not a good notice to quit.®^ So, a notice 
served by a landlord upon the tenant that he must quit or pay 
an advanced rent, or make repairs, or do any other thing in the 
alternative which will be a condition of his remaining in posses- 
sion is not a good or proper notice to quit. 

§ 119. The construction of the language of the notice to quit. 
The courts will construe the language of the notice to quit in 
a reasonable manner. If the meaning of the language is doubt- 

67 General Asur. Co. v. Worsley, street number when possible), 
15 Reports, 328. which you now hold of me (him) 

68 A notice prepared and signed on the — day of , 190" — , 

by a clerk of the authorized agent next, or at the expiration of the 

of the owner, and with the owner's year of your tenancy thereof, 

and agent's names signed by the which shall expire next after the 

direction of the agent, is sufficient. end of one half-year from the date 

Bond V. Chapman, 34 Wash. St. of this notice. Dated the — day 

606, 609. 76 Pac. Rep. 97. , 190—. D. E." A notice to 

69 Baltimore Dental Ass'n v. quit, given by or on behalf of the 
Fuller, 101 Va. 627, 44 S. E. Rep. tenant, may be in the following 
771, 772. A notice to quit, given form, the words between paren- 
by or in behalf of the landlord, thesis being used when the notice 
may be in the following form, the is given by an agent: "To E. F. 
words in parenthesis being used I hereby (as agent for and on be- 
when the notice is by an agent: half of Mr. C. D., your tenant) 
"To Mr. A. B. I hereby (as agent give you notice that on the — day 

for and on behalf of Mr. D. E., of next I shall (he will) va- 

your landlord) give you notice to cate No. — , , street, city of 

quit and deliver up the possession , county of , state of 

of the premises, situate at , which I (he) now hold 

in the county of , city and (holds) of you as tenant thereof. 

state of (adding street and Dated, the — day of , 190 — ." 



168 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

fill or if it is ambiguous, the court will so construe it to make 
it sensible rather than declare it void. The intention of the 
person who signs the notice to quit, if it be apparent from the 
whole notice, will prevail over minor inconsistencies in the no- 
tice.'° The notice to quit must be such when it is given that the 
tenant could safely act under it. And if he could not, i. e., if the 
notice as given was not the act of the landlord and not binding 
on him, it is extremely doubtful whether any subsequent ratifi- 
cation by the landlord will validate it and make it binding upon 
the tenant. A statutory notice to quit must usually be in writ- 
ing and must contain a description of the premises sufficiently 
certain for identification. It ought also to require the tenant 
to remove from the premises on the specified day.'^^ The notice 
to quit should include the whole premises, and a notice to quit 
only a part of the premises where the whole are held under the 
one lease is insufficient to terminate the tenancy.'^- Whether the 
notice to quit must be absolute or whether it may be conditional 
has been differently decided. A notice to quit delivered by the 
landlord to the tenant "unless he (the tenant) desires to re- 
main" upon the terms proposed by the landlord has been held 
a sufficient notice.'^^ But on the other hand, a notice by the land- 
lord that he would not renew the tenant's term unless the latter 
agreed to make repairs is not a sufficient notice to quit. It was 
held that the notice to quit ought to be absolute and not in the 
alternative.'^* 

§ 120. To whom notice must be given. The notice to quit 
when given by a landlord must usuallj^ be served on the actual 
tenant. Notice to quit to one of several lessees holding as ten- 

ToDoe V. Culliford, 4 Dowl. & v. Lampson, 66 Conn. 432, 34 Atl. 

Ry. 248. Under Conn. Gen. St., Rep. 39. 

§ 1355, which provides that a no- ^i McClung v. McPherson, 47 

tice to quit shall be "substantially" Oreg. 73, 81 Pac. Rep. 8G7, 82 Pac. 

in the following form, "I (or we) Rep. 13. 

hereby give you notice that you 72 Alworth v. Gordon. 81 Minn. 

are to quit possession of the 445, 84 N. W. Rep. 454. 

premises now occupied by you," a 73 Candler v. Mitchell, 119 Mich, 

notice that "you are hereby noti- 564, 78 N. W. Rep. 551. 

fied to quit possession" of certain 74 Baltimore Dental Association 

premi.scs on or before a given date, v. Fuller, 101 Va. 627, 44 S. E. 

duly signed, is sufficient. Miller Rep. 771. 



TENANCY FROM YEAE TO YEAR. 169 

ants in common lias been held 5?ufficient and binding on all.^° 
Where a lease is to several persons as lessees, if one of them, 
acting for himself only, remains in possession after the expira- 
tion of the term, a notice to quit addressed to him alone is suffi- 
cient to terminate the tenancy resulting from his holding over.''® 
A party found in possession who entered after a tenant had va- 
cated, may, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be pre- 
sumed to be in as the tenant's assignee so that notice to quit may 
properly be served upon him.'^ It is a safe and advisable ruie 
to serve notices to quit upon all persons who may be upon the 
premises though the landlord may know they are not his ten- 
ants. Their status ought to be accurately described in the no- 
tice to quit as for example, that they are occupants or sub-ten- 
ants, though a misdescription where no one has been misled will 
not estop the landlord. A notice to quit ought to be served upon 
all under tenants as such by the superior landlord. But where 
on notice being given to a lessee, he serves notices to quit on his 
under tenants and the lessee then quits so much of the premises 
as is occupied by himself, but his under tenants do not quit, 
ejectment may be maintained against the lessee by the original 
lessor for so much of the premises as the under tenants continue 
to occupy. The possession of the under tenant is the possession 
of the lessee.'^* On the other hand, it has been held that though 
the service of a notice to quit on sub-tenants may be prudent 
and advisable, it may be regarded as sufficient service to deliver 
a notice to quit personally to the original lessee. His lessee takes 
subject to the rights of his lessor against him and the under 
tenant is bound by a notice to quit though it be not served on 
him.''' The rules which are applicable to the service of a no- 

75 Doe d. Macartney v. Crick, 5 ^s Roe v. Wiggs, 2 Bos. & P. 
Esp. 196, 8 R. R. 848: As to a case (N. S.) 330. 

where one tenant lived elsewhere ^9 Schilling v Holmes. 23 Cal. 

than the premises in question. 227. In New York it is not neces- 

Doe d. Bradford v. Watkins, 7 sary to serve a notice on sub-ten- 

East, 551, 3 Smith, 517, 8 R. R. ants under Laws 1882, c. 303, re- 

670. quiring noti<e to a monthly ten- 

76 Tice V. Coweiihoven, 63 N. J. ant of the landlord's election to 
L. 24, 42 Atl. Rep. 1054. terminate the tenancy as a pre- 

77 Doe d. Morris v. Williams, 6 requisite to summary proceedings. 
B. & C. 41, 9 D. & R. 30, 30 R. R. Decker v. Sexton, 43 N. Y. Supp. 
244. 107, 19 Misc. Rep. 59. 



170 LAW OF LuVNDLORD AND TENANT. 

tiee to quit by the landlord upon his tenant are also applicable 
to the service of a notice to quit by a tenant on his landlord. A 
lessee of land from tenants in common must serve notice of his 
intention to quit on all the lessors who hold as tenants in com- 
mon.®^ But notice to quit by a tenant served on one of several 
joint lessors would probably be sufficient. And there being no 
privity of contract or estate between a sub-tenant and the orig- 
inal landlord, the service of a notice to quit by a sub-tenant upon 
the original landlord may be dispensed with. A notice to quit 
in the ease of a corporation being tenants, may be served upon 
its treasurer,^^ or other officer qualified to receive service of 
court process. A statutory requirement that notice to quit shall 
be served on "any person in possession" is not fulfilled by a 
service on any other person than the lessee. ^^ 

§ 121. By whom the notice to quit must be given. As a gen- 
eral rule only that person who is the immediate owner of the 
reversion can serve a notice to quit. A landlord who during a 
tenancy from year to year grants a lease of the same premises to 
a third person for a term of years cannot thereafter serve on the 
yearly tenant a valid notice to quit.^^ In such case the notice 
to quit must be served by the tenant for years who after he has 
received his lease, stands in the place of the landlord so far as 
the tenant from year to year is concerned. A notice to quit 
signed by one of two or more joint lessors is valid and binding 
on all of them. In one case it has been held that a notice to quit 
in the names of all of the joint lessors but signed by only one is 
a good notice to quit.®* And so, too, such a notice given by an 
agent authorized to do so by one of several joint lessors deter- 
mines the tenancy as to all the lessors.*^ On the other hand, it 
was held that a notice to quit to a tenant from year to year from 
joint lessors must be signed by all the joint lessors at the time 
it is served, if it is given by one of them, but if given by an 

so Bless V. Jenldns, ]29 Mo. 647, 82 Baragiano v. Villani, 117 111. 

31 S. W. Rep. 9:]S. Long Bros. v. App. 372. 

Bolen Coal Co., 5C Mo. App. 605. 83 Wordsley Brewery Company 

81 Lindeke v. Associates Realty v. Halford, 90 L. T. 89. 

Co., 77 C. C. A. 56, 146 Fed. Rep. si Elliott v. Hulme, 2 M. & Ry., 

630. Also holding that a statute 483, 6 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 345. 

regulating the service of summons 85 Kindersley v. Hughes, 7 Mee. 

on a corporation is applicable to & Wei. 139, 10 L. J. Ex. 185. 
the service of a notice to quit. 



TENANCY FROM TEAR TO YEAR. 171 

agent on behalf of the joint tenants, if his authority is recog- 
nized by all of them subsequently, it is sufQcient.^^ But a no- 
tice to quit given by two of three joint trustees who are lessors, 
is bad, though all three are named and the third afterwards 
adopts it and joins in the ejectment.*^ On the other hand it has 
been held where four trustees under a deed of trust were 
joint landlords of a house, that a notice to quit served on the 
tenant but signed by only three of them was sufficient to put an 
end to the connection between all the parties as landlords and 
tenant.** If four joint tenants enter into a joint lease from year 
to year, such of them only as give notice to quit may recover 
their several shares in ejectment.*^ A notice to quit leased 
premises owned by two tenants in common, signed and served 
by one, acting for both, with the knowledge of the lessee, is suffi- 
cient.*° A notice to quit signed by one of the several joint ten- 
ants on behalf of the others will terminate a tenancy from year 
to year as to all.^^ A general agent may give a valid notice to 
quit in his own name, but it is otherwise if given by an agent 
holding only a special or limited authority."^ An infant who 
has become entitled to the reversion of an estate leased from year 
to year, must give notice to quit before he can eject the tenant.^' 
A notice to quit signed by a mortgagor who had a general au- 
thority from the mortgagee to determine tenancies, is sufficient 
to determine a tenrncj^ created before the mortgage, even though 
the notice does not purport on the face of it to be on behalf of 
the mortgagee.®* But a mortgagor who remains in possession 
after the day of default has passed, and received the rents and 
has given receipts in his own name, cannot by notice to quit, 
signed by himself only, determine a tenancy, which existed at 
the time of the execution of the mortgage.®^ 

86 King V. Woodward, 3 B. & 9i Aslin v Summersett, 1 B. & 
Aid. 689; Jolliffe v. Sybourn, 2 Aid. 135, 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 369. 
Esp. 677. 92 Jones v. Phlpps, 9 B. & S. 761, 

87 Fisher v. Cuthell, 5 East, 491, 32 L. J. Q. B. 198; L. R. 3 Q. B. 
2 Marsh. 83, 5 Esp. 149, 7 R. R. 303. IS L. T. 813, 16 W. R. 1044. 
752. "3 Baker v. White, 2 Term Rep. 

88 Alford V. Vickery, Car. & M. 159. 1 R. R. 453. 

280. »* Stackpoole v. Parkinson, Ir. 

89 Whayman v. Chaplin, 3 Taunt. R. 8 C. L. 561. 

120, 12 C. R. 615. "c Miles v. Murphy, Ir. R. 5 C. L. 

90 Earl Orchard Co. v. Fava, 138 382. 
Cal. 76, 70 Pac. Rep. 1073. 



172 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



§ 122. The date upon which the period stated in the notice 
must terminate. Where a notice to quit is given at common 
law or where by statutory provision a tenancy from year to 
year can be tenninated only by a notice to quit given at a speci- 
fied date during the pendancy of the lease it is always necessary 
that the period for which the notice was given should terminate 
at the expiration of the current year, or month, in case the ten- 
ancy is from month to month.^^^ A tenancy from year to 
year in South Carolina looks to the end of the calendar year for 
its termination without regard to the time of the commencement 
of the tenancy.^^ But it has been held that a notice to quit "at 
the expiration of the year's tenancy" is sufficient, although it 
does not appear on the face of it that it was given six months 
before the period therein specified for quitting.''^ And a notice 
to quit on the anniversary of the day "at" or "on" or "from" 
or "on and from" which the tenancy commenced is generally 
good.®" When the lease expressly provides that the notice to 



98 Hessher v. Moss, 50 Miss. 208; 
Prouty V. Prouty, 5 How. Pr. (N. 
Y.) 81; Pinkelstein v. Herson, 55 
N. J Law, 217, 26 Atl. Rep. 688; 
Lloyd V. Cozens, 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 
131; Lesley v. Randolph, 4 Rawle 
(Pa.) 123; Dumn v. Rothermel, 
112 Pa. St. 272; Peehl v. Bumba- 
lek, 99 Wis. 62; Godard v. South 
Carolina R. Co., 2 Rich. Law (S. 
C.) 346; Floyd v. Floyd, 4 Rich. 
Law (S. C.) 23; Phoenixville v. 
Walters, 147 Pa. St. 501, 23 Atl. 
Rep. 776; Flower v. Darby, 1 
Term Rep. 159; Rigge v. Bell, 5 
Term Rep. 471; Phillips v. Butler, 
2 Eop. 589; Castleton v. Samuel, 
5 Esp. 173; Pitcher v. Donovan, 
2 Campb. 78; Thompson v. Mab- 
erly, 2 Campb. 573; Mathewson 
V. Wrightman, 4 Esp. 5, 6 R. R. 
834; Hinde v. Vince, 2 Campb. 
256; Doe v. Brookes, 2 Campb. 
257; Spicer v. Lea, 1 East, 312, 4 
Kent. Com. 113. 

ooa Hart v. Lindley, 50 Mich. 
20; Hogsett v. Ellis, 17 Mich. 366; 



Shaw V. Hoffman, 25 Mich. 163; 
Steffens v. Earl, 40 N. J. Law, 128, 
29 Am. Rep. 214. Where in a ten- 
ancy from month to month the 
month commences on the first day 
a notice served before the day 
named in it requiring the tenant 
to quit on the last day of the 
month is sufficient. Petsch v. 
Biggs, 31 Minn. 392. A statute 
which provides that a notice to 
quit shall end with the month in 
the case of a monthly tenancy 
must be strictly observed. Hence 
a notice to quit at the end of 
thirty days given during a month 
for which rent has been paid in 
advance is invalid as regards the 
month in which it was given. 
Simmons v. Jarman, 122 N. C. 
195, 29 S. E. Rep. 332. 

»7 Wilson V. Rodeman, 30 S. C. 
210; Floyd v. Floyd, 4 Rich. (S. 
C.) 23. 

OS Gorst V. Timothy, 2 Car. & K. 
351. 

>'9 Sldcbotham v. Holland, 64 L. 



TENANCY FROM YEzVR TO YEAR. 173 

quit may be given at any time, it is not necessary that the period 
of the notice to quit should expire at the end of the current year.^ 
To illustrate the rule let us cite a few English cases, thus: 
Under a letting from year to year which is dated Dec. 20th, 1872, 
but specifying no date for the commencement of the term, a 
notice to quit given by the landlord on the 24th of June, 1874, 
was held a good notice of six months.^ So, a notice on Sept. 28th, 
to quit on the ensuing March 25th, is a sufficient half year's 
notice.^ Likewise a notice given on Sept. 26th to quit at the end 
of six calendar months will determine a holding commencing on 
March 25th. and this is true if the word "calendar" had been 
omitted or the notice had expressly said half a year.* A notice 
to quit to terminate a tenancy for a term of years, given on Dec. 
24th to quit on June 24th next was good.'^ 

§ 123. The necessity for personal gervice of a notice to quit. 
The notice to quit ought to be personally sei^ved upon the tenant 
usually at some place upon the property,* and maist be served 
upon all lessees or on all lessors who have the title to the term 
or to the reversion who hold as tenants in common.'' Though 
the notice to quit ought if possible to be personally served 
upon the tenant upon the premises it is likely that a service by 
leaving it upon the premises while the tenant is absent therefrom 
with some person of mature age, under such conditions that the 
tenant would be likely to receive it upon his return, would be 
sufficient in a case where the tenant attempts to avoid service by 
absenting himself from the premises.* A statute which requires 
the service of a written notice to quit to terminate a tenancy 
from month to month requires the personal service of the written 

J. Q. B. 200, [1895] 1 Q. B. 378, * Howard v. Wemsley, 6 Esp. 53, 

14 R. 135, 72 L. T. 62, 43 W. R. 9 R. R. 806. 

228. » Buddie v. Lines, 11 Q. B. 402, 

1 Bridges v. Potts, 17 C. B. N. 17 L. J. Q. B. 10 8, 12 Jur. 80. 

S. 314; Soames v. Nicholson, 71 e De Giverville v. Stolle, 9 Mo. 

Law J. K. B. 24 [1902] 1 K. B. 157, App. 185; Van Studdiford v. Kohn, 

85 Law T. 614, 50 Wkly. Rep. 169. 46 Mo. App. 436. 

2 Sandill v. Frankim, 44 L. J. t Bless v. Jenkins, 129 Mo. 647, 
C. P. 216, L. R. 10 C. P. 377, 32 L. 31 S. W. Rep. 9S8. 

T. 309, 23 W. R. 473 s The statute must always be 

3 Durant v. Doe, 6 Bing. 574, 4 consulted as to the metuod of 
M. & P. 391, 8 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. Berving the notice to quit. 

227, 31 R. R. 499; Harrap t. 
Green, 4 Esp. 198. 



174 



LxVW OF LANDLORD AND TENxVNT. 



notice at least in all cases where such service can conveniently be 
made.® Hence under such a statute the mere reading of the 
notice to quit to the tenant is not sufficient as the statute requires 
personal service, and the personal delivcTy of the notice to the 
tenant. On the other hand a notice to quit sent by mail and 
which is actually received by the tenant within the required time 
is sufficient, though this mode of service is not expressly author- 
ized. The tenant accepts all risks in receiving the notice.^" In 
the absence of express statutory regulation, a notice to quit nec- 
essary to terminate a tenancy from year to year may be served 
upon the wife of the tenant, she being in possession in case where 
it is impossible to serve the tenant in person. ^^ Ex 7iecessitate 
rei where the tenant is a corporation a notice to quit given by 
the landlord may be served on one of its officers.^^ If a notice 
to quit is served by mail it seems that the day on which it is de- 
livered by mail to the tenant will be considered as the date from 
which the notice to quit is to run.^^ 



9 Van Studdiford v. Kohn, 46 Mo. 
App. 436; construing Rev. St. 1889, 
§ 637. See, also, Langan v. 
Schlief, 55 Mo. App. 213. 

»a Langan v. Schlief, 55 Mo. 
App. 213. 

10 Alwoilh V. Gordon, 81 Minn. 
445, 84 N. W. Rep. 454; Candler 
V. Mitchell, 119 Mich. 564, 78 N. 
W. Rep. 551. A notice to quit put 
under the door of the tenants 
house will be valid as a common 
law notice if it can be proved to 
have come into the tenant's hands 
half a year before the expiration 
of the current year. Alfred v. 
Vickery, Car. & M. 280. 

11 Beiler v. Devoll, 40 Mo. App. 
251; Earl Orchard Co. v. Fava 
(Cal.) 70 Pac. Rep. 1073. Bell v, 
Rlnker, 30 111. App. 300; Cadwal- 
lader v. Loerce, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 
1, 29 S. W. Rep. 666, 917. See, 
also, Jones v. Marsh, 4 T. R. 464. 
The service of a notice to quit is 
not suflBcient where, in case of a 
tenancy from month to month, it 



is served upon the tenant who is 
a storekeeper by delivering it to 
a salesman, of the tenant who, ow- 
ing to the temporary absence of 
his employer,, was in possession of 
the store and who was accus- 
tomed to receive papers for his 
employer delivered in his absence 
and to put such papers in a box 
provided for that purpose. Such 
person is not an agent of the ten- 
ant for the purpose of accepting 
service of such a notice within the 
meaning of Rev. St. 1889, 6371 and 
it not appearing that the said no- 
tice ever reached the principal the 
service was manifestly insufficient. 
Van Studdiford v. Kohn, 46 Mo. 
App. 436. 

12 Doe V. Woodman, 8 East, 228. 

13 See Reg. v. Slawstone, 18 Q. 
B. 388. It is not necessary that 
the notice to quit should be di- 
rected to the tenant if it can be 
proved to have been delivered to 
him at the proper time. Doe v. 
Wrightman, 4 Esp. 5. It may 



. TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 175 

§ 124. A notice to quit given by an agent. Speaking gen- 
erally a notice to quit signed by an agent of either party to a 
lease is good if at the time of the agent's signing it he had author- 
ity to do so. The agent's authority may be inferred from his 
previous course of acting in reference to the landlord and to the 
premises. An agent to collect rents has presumptively no author- 
ity to sign or serve a notice to quit. In order that a notice given 
by an agent be sufficient, he must have had authority at the 
time it was given^ and it is not made good by its adoption by the 
principal after the proper time for giving it.^* "Where a notice 
to quit was given by an agent in the names of A and B and also 
several other parties, unnamed it was held valid only as to A 
and B.^^ As a general rule an agent with power to let premises 
as well as to receive the rents can determine the tenancy by a 
notice to quit.^® But a notice to quit given by an agent of the 
landlord whose only authority is to receive rents is not sufficient 
without a ratification by the landlord.^'^ A receiver with a gen- 
eral authority to let lands to tenants from year to year has also 
authority to determine such tenancies by a regular notice to 
quit.^* In the absence of a statutory requirement to that effect 
the authority of an agent to sign or serve a written notice to 
quit need not be in writing.^' 

either be served personally npon (N. C.) 677, 4 Scott, 396; 3 Hod- 
him or upon his attorney or it may ges, 84; 6 C. L. C. P. 235, 1 Jur. 
be left with his wife or his serv- 356. See also, Pearse v. Boultor, 
ant at his dwelling house or at 2 F. & F. 133; Hasler v. Lemoyne, 
the demised premises, Jones v. 5 Com. Bench. (N. S.) 550. 
Marsh, 4 T. R. 464, but in all such is Marsack v. Read, 12 East, 57. 
cases a statement of the character As to the form of the signature 
of the notice should be made to the name of the principal by A., 
the person with whom it is left. his agent, is preferable. But the 
See Doe v. Lucas, 5 Esp. 155, signing "H., agent for" the land- 
Smith V. Clark, 9 Dowl. 202. lord to a notice to quit is as effec- 

1* Lyster v. Goldwin, 1 G. & D. tual as though the notice were 

463, 2 Q. B. 143, 10 L. J. Q. B. 275; signed with the landlord's name 

Mann v. Watters, 10 B. & C. 626, 5 by "H., agent." Earl Orchard Co. 

M. & Ry. 357, 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. v. Fava, 138 Cal. 76, 70 Pac. Rep. 

297. 1073. A notice given by an agent 

15 Bailey v. Foster, 3 C. B. 215, should be given and signed in the 
15 L. J. C. P. 263. name of his principal according to 
• 18 Manvers v. Mizem, 2 M. & the English cases. Buron v. Den- 
Rob. 56. man, 2 Exch. 188. 

17 Rhodes v. Robinson, 3 Bing. lo No written authority is neces- 



176 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT^ 

§ 125. Waiver of defects in the notice to quit. The service 
of a written notice to quit is waived by the acceptance of an 
oral notice.^*^ In general it may be said that all defects either 
in the substance or the form of a notice to quit or in the manner 
or time of its service are waived by delay in objecting if the 
party serving it has been induced to act relying upon the as- 
sumed validity of the notice and its service/^ Thus all object- 
ions to a notice to quit which has been served by the tenant is 
waived by the lessor resuming possession of the premises with 
the consent of the tenant.-^ A compliance with the notice to 
quit by the tenant waives all irregularities and informalities in 
it. So the action of the tenant in notifying his landlord, after 
he has received from him a notice to quit that he intends to 
move estops him from claiming subsequently that the notice to 
quit was insufficient.-^ A refusal to quit also constitutes a 
waiver by the tenant. The refusal of a tenant to quit on the 
ground that he is a tenant from year to year, waives any formal 
insufficiency^ of a notice to terminate a tenancy from month to 
month.^* 

§ 126. Waiver of a notice to quit by a subsequent notice. A 
notice to quit which has been properly and timely served may 
be waived by the party who served it subsequently serving an- 
other notice the terms of which are inconsistent with the carrying 
out of the former notice to quit by the person upon whom it was 
served. Thus the service of a notice to the effect that in default 
of the payment of rent upon a certain day the lease will be con- 
sidered as terminated is an acknowledgment of the existence of 
the lease' when the notice was served and waives the effect of a 

sary under Cal. Civ. Code, § 2309, 612, 9 N. Y. Supp. 24, 27; Shirley 

when there is notice to quit, pur- v. Newman, 1 Esp. 266. 

porting to be signed for the land- 22 Williams v. Jones, 1 Bush, 

lord by his attorney, if the attor- (Ky.) 621; Graham v. Anderson, 3 

ney has in fact authority to sign Har. (Del.) 364; Elgutter v. 

it. Felton v. Millard, 81 Cal. Drischaus, 44 Neb. 378, 63 N. W. 

540, 21 Pac. Rep. 533. Rep. 19. 

2« Smith V. Snyder, 168 Pa. St. 29 Baltimore Dental Ass'n v. 

514, 543, 32 Atl. Rep. 64, 36 W. N. Fuller, 101 Va. 627, 44 S. E. Rep. 

C. 425; Montgomery v. Willis, 45 771, 773. 

Neb. 434, 438, 63 N. W. Rep. 794. 2* Drey v. Doyle, 28 Mo. App. 

21 Ludington v. Garlock, 55 Hun, 249 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 177 

prior notice to terminate the lease.-^ So if the landlord of a 
tenancy at will after the expiration of the time limited in a 
notice to quit serves a second notice to qnit he waives his right 
to proceed under the first notice.-® 

§ 127. The effect of a notice to quit. The effect of the ser- 
vice of a notice to quit is absolutely to put an end to the relation 
of landlord and tenant between the parties as of the date men- 
tioned in the notice. The former tenant is thereafter under no 
obligations to pay rent as such nor is he liable to the former 
landlord for any breach of covenant occurring after the service of 
the notice to quit. He is still bound however for rent which may 
have accrued before the date which is named in the notice for 
the termination of the tenancy. "When the period of the notice 
has expired the landlord is at once entitled to possession and the 
tenant is thereafter a trespasser; or, at the most a tenant by 
sufferance unless, while he holds over, the landlord creates a new 
tenancy by receiving- rent or other similar acts constituting a 
waiver of the notice to quit. But the service of a notice to quit 
by the landlord does not make the holding of the tenant adverse 
to the title of the landlord. It will not permit the tenant there- 
after to deny the title of the landlord nor will it set running the 
statute of limitations in favor of the tenant and against the land- 
lord or in favor of any other preson. The tenant is still a tenant. 
Prior to the notice to quit he is a tenant under the lease. Subse- 
quent to the notice, provided it is effective to terminate the ten- 
ancy if he remains in possession he is a tenant holding over and 
may therefore be a trespasser or a tenant at will or for a new 
term, according to the circumstances and the conduct of the 
landlord toAvards him.^^ If after the termination of this period 
of notice mentioned in the notice to quit the tenant holds over 
and the landlord receives rent from him the tenant is a tenant 
from year to year on the terms of the former lease. If the land- 
lord does not receive rent from him he may eject him as a tres- 
passer. 

25 Dockrill v. Schenk. 37 111. 954, 83 Hun, 298. See Doe v. Pal- 
App. 44. mer, 16 East, 36. 

26 Morgan v. Powers 31 N. Y. S. 2" Sittel v. Wright. 122 Fed. Rep. 

434, 436, 58 C. C. A. 416. 

12 



178 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

§ 128. The withdrawal of the notice to quit. Either party 
to the lease, having served a notice to quit, may subsequently 
withdraw it orally or in writing by appropriate language. The 
withdrawal by the party who has served the notice must be con- 
sented to by the other or it will be ineffectual to restore the par- 
ties to their original position. For if the party on whom the 
notice has been served has acted upon it either by securing a new 
tenant, if he be the landlord, or by hiring new premises if he be 
the tenant, he may refuse to accept the withdrawal of the notice 
and the other party is estopped to compel him to continue the 
relationship of landlord and tenant. So the party who has been 
served with a notice to quit has an absolute right without giving 
a reason to refvise to assent to its withdrawal. Where a lessee 
has received from his lessor the notice to quit which is required 
to be given by the lease and later on the lessee going to the land- 
lord he is told he may stay, which he does, the notice to quit is 
altogether withdrawn and both parties are then remitted to the 
terms of the original lease, the covenants of which, being mutual, 
are a good and sufficient consideration for the new arrangement 
under which the tenant continues in possession. ^^ 

§ 129. The waiver of a notice to quit by the receipt of rent. 
The duty to give notice of an intention to quit is reciprocal and 
consequently is a right which may be waived by either party 
to the lease who is entitled thereto. The waiver of a notice to 
quit after it has been given, is always in part at least a ques- 
tion of intent.'® A lessor may nullify the effect of a notice to 
quit served by him by his subsequent actions or language. Thus 
the effect of a notice to quit is waived by the landlord consenting 
that the lessee may continue in possession after the service of 
the notice to quit upon him.^" So, also it is unquestionably true, 
that the demand and acceptance of rent, as such by the landlord 
which becomes due after the service of the notice to quit and its 
payment by the tenant constitute a waiver of the notice to 
quit.^^ The receipt of the rent by the landlord raises an impli- 
cation of an intention on his part that the tenant shall continue 

2s Supplee V. Timothy, 124 Pa. ■''o Arcade Inv. Co. v. Gieriet 

St. 375, 384. 16 All. Rep. 864, 23 (Minn. 1906), 109 N. W. Rep. 250. 

W. N. C. 386. 31 Collins v. Canty, 6 Gush. 

20 Lucas V. Brooks, 85 U. S. 436, (Mass.) 415; Norris v. Morrill, 43 

21 L. Ed. 779. N. H. 213; Stedman v. Mcintosh, 



TEX-VNCY FROil YE.Ui TO YEAR. 179 

in possession which intention is inconsistent with the effect of a 
notice to quit. The same result follows when the landlord dis- 
trains for the rent after the expiration of the time mentioend in 
the notice to quit.^- But the money must have been received by 
the landlord as rent. Hence where, after the service of a notice 
to quit, a tenant holds over and the landlord brings an action of 
ejectment, and, pending- this action, the tenant surrenders posses- 
sion the action of the landlord in suing for and recovering a 
judgment against the tenant for the value of the use and occupa- 
tion of the property for the time the tenant has held over is not 
a waiver of the notice to quit as the money is not paid as a rent 
but for another purpose.^^ The landlord may, however, accept 
from the tenant after the service of a notice to quit the payment 
of rent which had accrued and was due and payable before the 
service of the notice without losing the benefit of the notice.^* 
The service of a notice to quit after the expiration of the time 
named in a prior notice is not a waiver of the effect of the prior 
notice in a case where a suit had been begun after the service of 
the latter notice and its prosecution was continued thereafter."^ 
It has also been held that mere acceptance of money though 
called by the tenant rent after a notice to quit has been given 
is not of itself a waiver on the part of the landlord of the notice 
but is merely a circumstance, to be taken with the other circum- 
stances of the case from which such intent may possibly be im- 
plied.^® For the money must not only be received as rent but 
it must in fact be rent and calling it rent by either party to the 
lease is not conclusive.^^ Thus, the presumption of a waiver 
which arises from the recept of rent by the landlord after the 

27 N. C. 571, 573; Charter v. Cord- 33 Stedman v. Jrdntosh, 27 N. C. 

went, 6 T. R. 219, 220, 3 R. R. 161; 571, 573. 

Keith V. Nat. Teleph. Co., 63 L. J. 3* Norris r. Morrill, 43 N. H. 

Ch. 373 [1894] 2 Ch. 147, 8 R. 776, 213. 

70 L. T. 276, 42 . R. 380, 58 J. P. 35 Ewing v. O'Malley (Mo. 
573; Prindle v. Anderson, 19 Wend. App. 1904), S2 S. W. Rep. 1087. 
(N. Y.) 391; Anderson v. Prindle, se Cheany v. Batten, Cowp. 24n, 
23 Wend. (N. Y.) 616. 9 East, 314n, 9 R. R. 570n; Fryett 
32 Ward V. Willingale, 1 H. Bl. v. Jeffreys, 1 Esp. 393; Fitzpatrick 
311, 2 R. R. 770. See. also. Jenner v. Childs, 2 Brews. (Pa.) 369. 
V. Clegg, 1 M. & Rob. 213, and s- in the recent case of West- 
Blight V Dennet, 13 Com. Bench, ern Union Telegraph v. Pennsyl- 
178 as to effect of a demand for vania R. R. Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 362, 
rent the rule was stated to be that the 



180 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

service of tlie notice to quit may be entirely overcome by proof 
that the rent was received by an agent without authority to re- 
ceive it, who received it in ignorance of the steps taken by his 
principal to determine the tenancy.^® 

§ 130. When a notice to quit may be dispensed with by a 
surrender. Where from all the circumstances of the case or 
. from the conduct of the parties to a lease from year to year it Is 
clearly evident that they intended to terminate any particular 
yearly teiin without a notice to quit, the notice to quit will be 
wholly dispensed with.^^ Where the rule recjuiring a notice to 
quit in order to terminate a tenancy from year to year exists a 
tenant cannot dispense with the necessity for giving such notice 
by vacating the premises during the term or while the tenancy 
exists, and he will be liable for the use and occupation of such 
premises until the relation of landlord and tenant has been 
legally terminated by giving the notice required by the statute.*" 
But in some of the states where a tenancy from year to year 
arises from a holding over it has been held that the tenant may 
quit at the end of the specified term without giving any previous 
notice to quit.*^ An actual surrender by the tenant with an ac- 

acceptance of rent accruing after not only received but retained and 

a notice to quit had been given by collected. It was held that the ac- 

the landlord was not necessarily ceptance of the checks as rent 

an absolute <waiver of the notice. operated not only as a waiver of 

Such an act by the landlord may the notice to quit, but of the notice 

be proved but is only one fact to of the increase of the rent, 

be considered in connection with Murphy v. Little, 69 Vt. 261, 37 

all the evidence as showing an in- Atl. Rep. 968. 

tention on the part of the landlord. 39 Critchfield v. Remaley, 21 
And a notice to quit once given Neb. 178, 31 N. W. Rep. 687. Cit- 
cannot be withdrawn without the ing Brown v. Kayser, 60 Wis. 1, 18 
consent of both parties. If this be N. W. Rep. 523. 
done it practically amounts to a *« Huntington v. Parkhurst, 87 
new hiring. Mich. 38; Buck v. Lewis, 46 Mo. 
38 Ash V. Calvert, 2 Campb. 387. App. 227; Hall v. Wadsworth, 28 
After notice to quit coupled with Vt. 210; Mollett v. Brayne, 2 
a notice of a raise of rent the Campb. N. P. 103. See also Hud- 
landlord accepted checks mailed dleston v. Johnston, McClel. & Y. 
by the tenant accompanied by let- 140. 

ters which expressly stated that 4i Rorbach v. Crossett, 46 N. Y. 

the checks were for the rent at the St. Rep. 426, 64 Hun, 637, 19 N. Y. 

rate which had been recognized Supp. 450; Cook v. Neilson, 10 

before the raise. The checks were Pa. St. 41; Brightly N. P. 463. 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 



181 



ceptanice by the landlord at or before the end of any rental 
period dispenses with the necessity for a notice to quit. And the 
surrender need not be express for an implied surrender arising 
from the granting of a new lease or the substitution of a new 
tenant will be sufficient.*^ Thus a parol agreement between a 
landlord and a tenant from year to year, that another tenant 
shall be substituted in the place of the tenant as soon as such 
substitution actually takes place, is a surrender which is suffi- 
cient under the statute of frauds and no notice to quit is neces- 
sary.*' And so where a tenant quitted in the middle of his term, 
apartemnts which he had hired for a year, and the landlord let 
them to another tenant, the former tenant was not liable for the 
rent for a subsequent portion of the year during which the apart- 
ments had remained unoccupied.** An abandonment of the prem- 
ises acquiesced in by the landlord dispenses with the necessity for 
notice by the landlord. But it is not sufficient if the third per- 
son does not take possession.*^ The acceptance by a tenant 
from year to year of a lease for a definite term, will terminate 



42 In one case a notice to quit 
seems to have been implied from 
a surrender of the premises. 
There it was held that where a 
tenant from year to year left the 
premises in the middle of the year 
and tendered possession to the 
landlord and thereafter the ten- 
ant refused to pay rent for the re- 
mainder of the year until com- 
pelled to do so by suit, his lia- 
bility for rent terminated at the 
end of the current year and no 
further notice on his part was nec- 
essary. Adams v. Cohoes, 127 N. 
Y. 175, 28 N. E. Rep. 25, 38 N. Y. 
St. Rep. 678, affirming 53 Hun, 
260, 25 N. Y. St. Rep. 523, 6 N. Y. 
Supp. 617. 

43 Stone v. Whiting, 2 Stark. 235, 
19 R. R. 710. 

44 Walls V. Atcheson, 3 Bing. 
462, 11 Mjore, 379, 2 Car. & P. 268, 
4 L. J. (O. S.) C. P. 154, 28 R. R. 
657. 



45 Taylor v. Chapman, Peake Ad. 
C. 19, 4 R. R. 884. Eimermann 
V. Nathan, 116 Wis. 124, 92 N. W. 
Rep. 550, may be cited as an illus- 
tration of the rule that a surren- 
der may dispense with a notice to 
quit. The facts in that case were 
substantially as follows: The 
landlord of a tenant from year to 
year refused to make repairs and 
his tenant then told him he would 
give him notice in two or three 
days. He failed to do so but the 
landlord advertised the premises 
to let and put up a "to-let" sign 
upon them. This notice was up 
for more than thirty days before 
the expiration of the term at which 
time the tenant moved and the 
landlord took the keys. The court 
held that the landlord was es- 
topped to assert that no notice to 
quit had been given. 



1S2 



LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



the prior tenancy as it is a surrender and no notice to quit is re- 
quired to terminate the tenancy prior to the end of the term.*^ 
§ 131. A disavowal of the landlord's title by the tenant may 
dispense with giving notice to quit by the landlord. A notice 
to quit need not be given by the lessor when the lessee has during 
the term done or said anything which amounts to a disavowal of 
the lessor's title.*" It is consequently very important to deter- 
mine what language or action coming from a tenant amounts to 
a disavowal of his landlord's title.*'' A disclaimer has been de- 
fined to be "a ren,unciation by the party of his character as ten- 
ant, either by setting up title in another, or by claiming title in 
himself."*^ Usually whether there is a disclaimer depends on 
the language and conduct of the tenant. The mere fact that on 
a demand for the payment of the rent the tenant asks whom he 
shall pay it to while he admitted himself to be a tenant and 
offered to pay the rent to the right person is not a disclaimer.^" 



40 Roosevelt v. Hungate, 110 111. 
595. 

47Grubb V. Grubb, 10 B. & G. 
816, 8 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 321; Doe 
d. Williams v. Pasquali, 1 Peake, 
2.59, 3 R. R. 188; Smith v. Ogg, 
16 Cal. 88, Bolton v. Landers, 27 
Cal. 104; Ramsey v. Henderson 

91 Mo. 560, 4 S. W. Rep. 408. 
Amick V. Brubaker, 101 Mo. 473, 
14 S. W. Rep. 627; Lyon v. La 
Master, 103 Mo. 612. 15 S. W. Rep. 
767; Young v. Smith, 28 Mo. 65; 
Stephens v. Brown, 56 Mo. 23; 
Ramsey v. Henderson (Mo.) 10 
"West. Rep. 33; Payton v. Stath, 5 
Pet. (U. S.) 485; Wolf v. Hoi ton, 

92 Mich. 136, 52 N. W. Rep. 459; 
Tuttle V. Reynolds, 1 Vt. 80; 
Brown v. Keller, 32 111. 151; Jack- 
son V. French, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 
337; Evans v. Enloe, 70 Wis. 345, 
34 N. W. Rep. 918; Williams v. 
Pasquali, 1 Peake, 259, 3 R. R. 
688; Jefferies v. Whittick, Gow. 
195, 21 R. R. 828; Clun v. Clarke, 
Peake Ad. C. 239; Foster v. Wil- 
liams, Cowp. 622; Cheeser V: 



Creed, 2 M. & P. 648, sub nom.; 
Davis V. Creed, 5 Bing. 327, 7 L. J. 
(O. S.) C. P. 138; Burgess v. 
Thompson, 1 N. & P. 215, 5 A. & 
E. 532, 6 L. J. K. B. 57; Landsell 
V. Grover, 17 Q. B. 589, 21 L. J. Q. 
B. 57, 16 Jur. 100. 

48 "It is sometimes said that a 
tenancy from year to year is for- 
feited by disclaimer; but it would 
be more correct to say that a dis- 
claimer furnishes evidence in an- 
swer to the disclaiming party's as- 
sertion that he has had no notice 
to quit; inasmuch as it is idle to 
prove such a notice where the 
tenant has asserted that there is 
no longer a tenancy." By Patter- 
son, J., in Doe d. Graves v. Wells, 
10 Ad. & El. 427, 2 P. «&; D. 396. 
See, also. Von Glahn v. Brenn^n. 
81 Cal. 261, 22 Pac. Rep. 296. 

40 By Tindal, C. J., in Doe d. Wil- 
liams V. Cooper, 1 M. & G. 135, 1 
Scott N. R. 36; approved in Jones 
V. Mills, 10 Com. Bench (N. S.) 
788; on p. 796. 

CO Jones v. Mills, 10 Com. Bench 



TENANCY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 183 

So, too, a refusal to pay rent to a devisee of the premises under 
a will which is being contested,"'^ is not a disclaimer. So where 
a tenant from year to year agreed to purchase the premises and 
thereafter he remained in possession for several years paying 
neither rent nor interest on the purchase money it is no dis- 
claimer of the lessor's title for him to tell his lessor that he had 
bought the property and was able to procure and ready to pay 
the purchase money. This statement is not a disavowal of title 
as it is not a claim that the tenant holds the estate on any ground 
which is of necessity inconsistent with the continuance of a ten- 
ancy from year to year.^^ So, Avhere a tenant for years on a de- 
mand being made y a andlord for possession under a belief on 
the part of the landlord that the lease had expired refused to give 
Tip possession claiming the term had not expired, and where he 
said in reply to a demand for rent that he would not pay the 
party demanding as he did not know but that some some one 
else might afterwards claim the rent it was held no disavowal or 
disclaimer of the title of the landlord.^^ Upon the other hand 
where a tenant said "I have no rent for you because A has 
ordered me to pay none, " ^* or where the lessee of a life tenant 
on the death of the latter says to his personal representative: 
"I will not pay rent to you; I am a tenant of another," a dis- 
claimer and disavowal of the tenancy and of the lessor's title, dis- 
pensing with notice to quit is very clearly made out. A tenant 
who after his lessor has granted the reversion takes a lease from 
a third party by thus attorning to a stranger, repudiates the 
relation existing between his landlord and himself and is not en- 
titled to a notice to quit.^« The right of the landlord to oust the 
tenant without notice to quit which he acquires by the disclaimer 
of the tenant may be waived by the subsequent conduct of the 
landlord The right of a landlord to maintain ejectment with- 

(N. S.) 788, 31 L. J. C. P. 66, 8 Jur. v. Cawder, 1 C. M. & R. 398, 4 Tyr. 

(N. S.) 387. 852, 3 L. J. Ex. 239. 

Bi Doe d. Grubb v. Grubb, 10 B. si Doe d. Whitehead v. Pittman, 

& C. 816. 2 W. & M. 672. 

62 Doe d. Gray v. Stanion, 1 M. ss Doe d. Calvert v. Frowd. 1 M. 

& W. 69.5, 2 Gale, 154, 5 L. J. Ex. & P. 480, 4 Bing. 557, 560, 29 R. R. 

253. 624. 

■•^ Doe d. Williams v. Cooper. 1 bg Lyon v. La Master, 103 Mo. 

Scott (N. R.) 36, 1 Man. & G. 135, 612, 15 S. W. Rep. 767. 
9 L. J. C. P. 229; see Doe d. Lewis 



]S4 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



out serving a prior notice to quit after a disavowal may be 
waived by the landlord. Such a waiver would be implied where 
after the disclaimer or disavowal the landlord by conduct or 
language recognizes the existence of the relationship of landlord 
an dtenant. By distraining for rent after a disclaimer the land- 
lord waives the operation of the disclaimer.^^ 



57 Doe d. David v. Williams, 7 
Car. & P. 322. The reason that a 
notice to quit is regarded as un- 
necssary in a case where the ten- 
ant has denied the landlord's title 
is that by his action he has de- 
nied the existence of the relation- 
ship of landlord and tenant and 
is therefore estopped to assert 
any rights which he could have 
claimed as a tenant. As to 
whether the tenant has done or 
said that which amounts to a dis- 
claimer is usually a mixed ques- 
tion of fact and law. If the facts 
or the language of the tenant are 
not denied by him it is for the 
court to determine if they con- 
stitute a disclaimer. The ques- 
tion then is has the tenant done 



or said anything which amounts 
by a reasonable construction to a 
denial on his part that the rela- 
tionship of landlord and tenant 
exists. If what he has said or 
done amounts to a setting up of 
a title on the part of the tenant or 
in some third person it Is a dis- 
claimer. The fact that the ten- 
ant did not mean to repudiate the 
relationship of landlord and ten- 
ant will not protect him for the 
effect of what te said or did. 
Thus a refusal to pay rent to a 
person legally entitled until such 
person proves his right is a dis- 
claimer although the tenant does 
not assert a better title in himself 
or another. Calvert v. Frowd, 4 
Bing, 557 



"CHAPTER VII. 

TENANCY AT WILL. 

§ 133. The definition of an estate at will. 

134. A reservation of rent is not necessary to create a tenancy at 

will. 

135. The liability of a tenant at will for rent. 

136. Tenancy at will by express agreement. 

137. The mere occupation of the land by the permission of the owner. 

138. Leases of an uncertain duration. 

139. Entry under an agreement for a lease. 

140. Tenancy at will created by a defective or unexecuted lease. 

141. Leases void under the statute of frauds. 

142. The vendee of the land having gone into possession under a 

contract to buy. 

143. Tenancy at will by holding over. 

144. The occupancy of the premises incident to the employment of 

the occupant. 

145. The judgment debtor holding over after sale under execution. 

146. The lessee of a judgment debtor holding over after the sale 

under the execution. 

147. The determination of the will. In general. 

148. The termination of a tenancy at will by the death of either 

party to it. 

149. The partition of the demised premises by tenants in common. 

150. Termination of the tenancy by the surrender and abandonment 

of the premises. 

151. The termination of a tenancy at will by the landlord's aliena- 

tion of the premises. 

152. Denial of the title of the landlord by a tenant at will. 

153. The tenancy at will may be determined by the giving of a new 

lease. 

154. The entry of the landlord on the land as terminating the ten- 

ancy. 

155. Notice to quit when required in tenancies at will at common 

law. 

156. Notice to quit and demand of possession as terminating a ten- 

ancy at will. 

157. Statutory notice required to terminate a tenancy at will. 

158. The termination of the period of notice. 

159. The commission of waste by a tenant at will. 

160. The assignability of the tenant's interest in an estate at will. 

161. The right of a tenant at will to recover damages for an injury 

to the land. 



186 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT 

§ 133. The definition of an estate at will. A tenancy at will 
may be defined to be a tenancy of land the duration of which is 
determinable by either party thereto. Here the lessee has no cer- 
tain estate for the lessor may determine it any time he wills to 
do so while on the other hand the tenant is not tied down to any- 
fixed and definite occupancy of the premises as he may, in turn, 
determine the tenancy at his will. In other words a tenancy at 
will is at the will of both parties to the tenancy.^ This proposi- 
tion however must be qualified by the statement that the tenant 
at will who sows the land is entitled to the emblements accord- 
ingly. Though a strict tenancy at will may be arbitrarily deter- 
mined insianter by the landlord, yet if he do this while the ten- 
ant's crops are unreaped, he must permit the tenant to remove 
the crops and to have free and unresricted ingress and egress 
upon the land for that purpose.^ 

§ 134. A reservation of rent is not necessary to create a ten- 
ancy at will. Inasmuch as a person who occupies land rent free 
may be under certain circumstances a tenant at will it is never 
necessary that there should be an actual reservaton of rent to 
the landlord in order to create a tenancy at will.^ Hence a per- 

1 Knight V. Coal Co., 47 Ind. minable at the will of either party 

105, 17 Am. Dec. 692. "Tenant at to the demise." 1 Washburn on 

will is, where lands or tenements Real Property, 370, quoted in 

are let by one man to another, to Bright v. McQuat, 40 Ind. 521, on 

have and to hold to him at the page, 523. See, also, Willis v. Har- 

will of the lessor; by force of rell, 118 Ga. 906, 908, 45 S. E. Rep. 

which lease the lessee is in posses- 794. "A tenancy at will is where 

sion. In this case the lessee is the land is held by the tenant as 

called tenant at will, because he long as lessor and lessee please 

hath no certain or sure estate; that the tenancy shall continue, 

for the lessor may put him out at No notice from either party is nec- 

what time he pleases." Coke, Lit. eesary to terminate a tenancy at 

ch. XXII, p. 55a; 2 Black. Com. will, strictly so-called; any act by 

145; 4 Kent, 111, quoted in Mor- either party, affording to the other 

ris y. Palmer, 44 S. Car. 462, 464, proper evidence of his determina- 

22 S. E. Rep. 726; Woodfall, L. & tion that the tenancy should no 

T. 226. "An estate at will in lands longer continue, is sufficient." 

is that which a tenant has, by an Digby's History of the Law of 

entry made thereon under a de- Real Propery, p. 212. 
mise to hold under the joint wills 2 2 Black. Com. 146. 

of the parties to the same. It does s Rex v. Jobling, R. & R. 525; 

not arise until actual possession Rex v. CoUett, R & R. 498; Nicholl 

taken by the lessee, and is deter- v. McKaeg, 10 B. & Cr. 721; Rex 



TENANCY AT WILL, 187 

son who is permitted b}^ the owner of land to occupy the land 
without any agreement for the pay meat of rent having been 
made merely upon condition that he shall take care of the same 
is a tenant at will so long as he fulfills his agreement.* And a 
person who is placed in the possession and occupancy of land by 
the owner without any contract to pay rent but with an express 
understanding that he will surrender possession whenever the 
owner shall require him to do so is a tenant at will.® On the other 
hand the fact alone that the person who it is claimed is a tenant 
at will does pay rent does not overcome the fact or presumption 
that he is a tenant a will unless it shall appear that the rent 
is paid by him upon the basis of a yearly or monthly holding." 
§ 135. The liability of a tenant at will for rent. Except per- 
haps in the case of a tenancy at Avill arising from the occupation 
of premises by a vendee before taking title, a tenant at 
will is liable for rent to the landlord. In this respect a tenant 
at will differs from a tenant at sufferance who in the absence of 
statute, is not liable for rent to the owner for the reason that he 
is in possession by the oversight of the owner and is as to him a 
mere trespasser. If the o\^Tier at the common law receives rent 
from a tenant at sufference he at once becomes a tenant at will 
or from year to year according to the length of the rental period. 
But the owner may recover rent or for use and occupation from 
a tenant at will unless he has agreed to let him occupy the prem- 
ises rent free. Where the amount of the rent which the tenant 
at will is to pay has been fixed by the parties the landlord may 
distrain for it.' On the other hand if no fixed sum as rent has 
been agreed upon the landlord is entitled to recover a fair and 
reasonable sum for use and occupation.* Unless the tenant can 

V. Fillongley, 1 T. R. 459, 8 L. J. 7 Jur. (N. S.) 411, 3 L. T. 809; 

(O. S.) K. B. 310; Rich v. Bolton, Cox v. Bent, 5 Bing. 185, 5 M. & 

46 Vt. 84. R. 281, 17 L. J. (O. S.) 68, 30 R. R. 

4 Jones V. Shay, 50 Cal. 508; 5G6; Braythwayte v. Hitchcock, 10 
Herrell v. Sizeland, 81 111. 457; M. & "W. 494, 497; Doe dem. Hull 
Groves v. Groves, 10 Q. B. 486. v. Wood, 14 M. & W. 682. 

5 Humphries v. Humphries, 3 ^ Davies v. Thomas, 6 Exch. 858; 
Ired. (N. C.) Law, 362; Rex v. Anderson v. Midland Railway Co., 
Fillongley, 1 T. R. 458. 30 L. G. B. 94. 

eBastow v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 22; s Marwood v. Waters, 13 C. B. 

Anderson v. Midland Railway Co., 820. Contra, Hyde v. Moakes, 5 
3 El. & El. 614, 30 L. J. Q. B. 94, Car. & P. 42. 



188 LAW OP LANDLORD AND TENAN' 

show that it hai been agreed that he should pay no rent, the pre- 
sumption is that the tenant at will is to pay something for the 
use of the premises and the burden of proof is usually upon him 
to show that he should not. In order that a landlord may re- 
cover against a tenant at will for use and occupation, the tenant 
must have been in by the permission of the landlord and as his 
tenant. The landlord cannot recover where the tenant at will is 
a subtenant being the tenant of a lessee unless the landlord has 
accepted the subtenant as his own tenant at will.® 

§ 136. Tenancy at will by express agreement. At common 
law all estates and terms the duration of which was indefinite 
and uncertain were estates at will. Such interests and estates 
being extremely precarious on account of the readiness with 
Avhich they might arbitrarily be terminated by the landlord were 
of little value to the tenants who because of these facts could 
be greatly inconvenienced if not ruined by an arbitrary exercise 
of the will of the landlord. Such estates by a course of judicial 
legislation commenced at a very early period were gradually 
transformed into tenancies from year to year which were still 
determinable at the will of either but only on the giving of 
six months' notice according to the English common law.^° The 
courts in this process of transforming one species of tenancy into 
another seized upon two circumstances, i. e., the yearly harvest- 
ing of the crops by the tenant at will and the payment of a 
rent by the year as determining factors in the working of the 
transformation. But they did not wholly abolish tenancies at 
will, recognizing them and affirming them in all cases of hold- 
ing for an indefinite term, where these factors are not discovered 
to be present as well as in all cases where the parties by express 
language or by necessary implication, may fairly be presumed 
to have created a tenancy at will. Though the ancient tenancies 
at will are now largely considered as tenancies from year to 
year and are terminable only upon proper notice to quit by either 
party there is no question that there may be still tenancies at 
will created whenever the parties expressly stipulate to that 
effect." In Indiana by statute it is provided that a tenancy at 
will cannot arise or be created without an express agreement 

Phipps V. Sculthorpe, 1 B. & lo i Washburn on Real Property, 

Aid. 50, 18 R. R. 42G; Hyde V. 382. 
Moakes, 5 C. & P. 42. n Sullivan v. Enders, 3 Dana 



TENANCY AT WILL 189 

and that all general tenancies in which the premises are occu- 
pied by the consent, either express or constructive of the land- 
lord, shall be tenancies from year to year.^- "Where a notice to 
quit is required in the case of a tenancy from year to year a fa- 
ther who permits his son with his family to remain in possession 
of premises for several years, and, upon the son's death, tells 
the widow that she may remain for that year, if he allows the 
year to pass and another to begin can terminate her tenancy 
only by the notice required by statute and a mere demand for 
rent will not be sufficient.^ ^ 

§ 137. The mere occupation of the land by permission of the 
owner. An occupation of land by the permission of the owner 
without any lease or agreement by the occupant to pay him 
rent, and without any rent being paid by the occupant, and also 
without any definite term or period of occupation agreed upon 
by the parties, undoubtedly creates a tenancy at will. The oc- 
cupation of the land must be with the consent of the owner, 
which may be either express or implied, in the absence of a 
statute requiring the consent to be express, or the occupant will 
be a trespasser or at the most a tenant at sufferance of the own- 
er. So, too, the period of occupation must be undefined and un- 
limited for if a definite period be agreed upon or implied from 
the payment periodically of rent, it is either a tenancy for years 
or from year to year according to the circumstances of each 
case.^* Thus, for example, a widow who, with the knowledge of 

(Ky.) 66, citing Squires v. Huff, v. Stone, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 174; 

3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 18. A parol Sprague v. Quinn, 108 Mass. 553, 

agreement to pay rent in advance 554. 

does not constitute a conditional 1= Rev. St. 1881, § 5208. 

limitation of a tenancy at will so is Tobin v. Young (Ind.), 17 N. 

as to entitle the landlord, upon the E. Rep. 625. 

failure of the tenant to pay rent i* Haj'den v. Collins (Cal. App. 

in advance, to dispense with a 1906) 81 Pac. Rep. 1120; Jones v. 

statutory notice to quit, or to enter Shay, 50 Cal. 308; Perkins v. Per- 

on the premises at once, or to Idns (Conn. 1886) 5 Atl. Rep. 373; 

maintain a summary proceeding White v. Elwell, 48 Me. 360, 77 

to secure possession, provided by Am. Dec. 231; Cheever v. Pearson, 

a statute. Nor can the tenant, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 266; Wilson v. 

a fortiori terminate a tenancy at Merrell, OS Mich. 707; Larned v. 

will by failing to pay rent alone Hudson, 60 N. Y. 102; Dame v. 

and without giving a required Dame, 38 N. H. 429, 75 Am. Dec. 

statutory notice to quit. Elliott 159; Earsfield v. Healy, 50 Barb. 



190 LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

the lessor after the death of her husband remains in possession 
of the premises which her deceased husband had occupied under 
a lease by the year/^ a divorced wife who, with her husband's 
consent, occupies land which is owned by him/^ or a person who, 
with the owner's consent, erects buildings on land and occupies 
them with his consent without paying rent to the owner,^'^ is a 
tenant at will. So, where a parish voted that certain persons 
should have the privilege to erect a seminary on public and un- 
occupied land owned by the parish with liberty to remove the 
building at their pleasure and that the same persons have cer- 
tain land to be used in connection therewith for seminary pur- 
poses, the parties who are thus privileged become tenants at 
will of the parish. ^^ But, a tenancy at will is never created 
where the occupation is without the consent of the owner. So, 
one who occupies land without the owner's consent and during 
his occupation agrees to pay the owner rent for the time he has 
occupied it on condition that, if he paid the rent, he might con- 
tinue in the occupation does not thereby become a tenant at will 
or lose his condition as a trespasser until he shall actually pay 
the rent.^^ 

§ 138. Leases of an uncertain duration. A lease in writing 
or by parol and reserving rent in .general and providing for its 
payment but not specifying any period during which the term 
is to continue creates only a tenancy at will. If the parties to 
a lease do not name or fix the duration of the term or do not 
designate its duration so that its length remains indefinite and 
uncertain, there is a presumption that the lease is meant to 
create a tenancy at will.^*' A written lease in which the dura- 

(N. Y.) 255; Humphries v. Hum- isperkins v. Perkins (Conn. 

phries, 25 N. C. 362; .Johnson v. 1886) 5 Atl. Rep. 373. 

Johnson, 13 R. I. 467; Rex v. Col- le Wilson v. Merrill, 38 Mich. 

lett, R. & R. 498; Rex v. Jobling, 707. 

R. & R. 525; Rex v. Fillongley, 1 " Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429, 

Term Rep. 458; Doe d. Hull v. 75 Am. Dec. 195; Couch v. Burke, 

Wood, 14 Mee. & Wei. 682, 687, 15 2 Hill (S. Car.) 534. 

L,. J. Exch. 41; 9 .Tur. 1060; Rich- isCheever v. Pearson, 16 Pick. 

ardson v. Langridge, 4 Taunt. 128 (Mass.) 266. 

(holding that a mere general let- m Center Creek Min. Co. v. 

ting is a tenancy at will). See, Frankenstein, 179 Mo. 564, 78 

also, Morris v. Palmer, 44 S. Car. S. W. Rep. 785. 

462, 464, 22 S. E. Rep. 726. 20 st. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Hall, 



TENANCY AT WILL. 



191 



tion of the term is not stated expressly or by implication creates 
a strict tenancy at will.-^ So, a lease for a period of time com- 
mencing on a certain date stated and to continue until the 
lessor is prepared to improve the grounds with new buildings,-- 
or a lease for as long as the parties please to continue it,-' or 
a lease giving a right to occupy land for a stated consideration 
so long as the occupant pleases to occupy,-* or a lease for such 
a time as may be agreeable to us both,-^ or a letting from month 
to month with an express understanding in the lease that the 
tenant should vacate the premises whenever the landlord desired 
possession of them,^® or a lease expressly for a term of years 
but which is to determine without notice whenever the premises 
are sold,-' or permission to occupy a house at a fixed rent until 
the wife of the occupant recovers from an illness,-^ creates a 
tenancy at will.-^ An agreement by the parties that a tenant 



71 Ark. 302, 74 S. W. Rep. 293; 
Jones V. Shay, 50 Cal. 508; Herrell 
V. Sizeland, 81 111. 457; Pidgeon v. 
Richards, 4 Ind. 374; Fischer v. 
Johnson^ 106 Io\Ya, 181, 76 N. W. 
Rep. 658; Martin v. Knapp, 57 
Iowa, 342, 10 N. W. Rep. 721; 
Mattox V. Helm, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 186, 
15 Am. Dec. 64; Goodenow v. Al- 
len, 68 Me. 308. 311; Gardner v. 
Hazleton, 121 IMass. 494; Haines 
V. Beach, 90 Mich. 563, 51 N. W. 
Rep. 644; Sanford v. Johnson, 24 
Minn. 172; Den v. Drake, 14 X. J. 
Law, 523; Larned v. Hudson, 60 
N. Y. 102; Jackson, v. Bradt, 2 
Caines (N. Y.) 169; Post v. Post, 
14 Barb. (N. Y.) 253; Burns v. 
Bryant, 31 N. Y. 453; Woodrovv 
V. Michael, 13 Mich. 187; Amick 
V. Brubaker, 101 Mo. 473, 14 S. W. 
Rep. 627; Corby v. MacSpadden, 
63 Mo. App. 648. 2 Mo. App. Rep. 
950; Sanford v. Johnson, 24 Minn. 
72; Lee v. Hernandez, 10 Tex. 137, 
138; Harrison v. Middleton, 11 
Grat. (Va.) 527; Richardson v. 
Langridge, 4 Taunt. 128, 13 R. R. 
570; Rae v. Lewis, 2 W. Bl. 1173; 
Com. Dig. tit. Estates, H, 1. "All 



leases for uncertain terms are 
prima facie leases at will; it is 
the reservation of an annual rent 
that turns them into leases from 
year to year." Roe v. Lees, 2 W. 
Bl. 1173. 

21 Amick V. Brubaker, 101 Mo. 
473. 14 S. W. Rep. 627. 

22 Corby v. MacSpadden, 2 Mo. 
App. Rep. 950, 63 Mo. App. 648. 

23 Richardson v Langridge, 4 T. 
R. 128; Bartow v. Cox, 11 Q. B. 
122. . 

21 Pidgeon v. Richards, 4 Ind. 
374. 

25 Murray v. Cherrington, 99 
Mass. 229. 

26 Woodrow V. Michael, 13 Mich. 
187. 

27 Pfanner v. Sturmer, 40 How. 
Pr. (N. Y.) 401; Lee v. Hernan- 
dez, 10 Tex. 137. 

2s Doyle v. Gibbs, 6 Lans. (X. 
Y.) ISO. 

29 A parol lease of premises to 
endure only until the owner shall 
sell them is a valid lease at will 
though by its terms the rent was 
to be paid every two months. 
Hence upon the sale being made 



192 



LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 



may occupy premises as a school so long as ^e "kept a good 
school," is a tenancy at will. And the requirement that the 
occupant shall keep a good school constitutes a conditional limi- 
tation, the breach of which terminates the estate of the tenant 
without entry^ by the landlord. Evidence that the tenant was 
an incompetent teacher is admissible to show that he no longer 
keeps a good school.^" 

§ 139. Entry under an agreement for a lease. AVhere parties 
have made an agreement to execute a lease in the future, and 
pending this agreement, the prospective tenant enters upon and 
occupies the premises with the landlord's consent, he becomes at 
once a tenant at will of the future landlord and continues so 
until the execution of the lease which has been agreed on which 
is the principal contract and into which the tenancy at will is 
then merged. But if during the tenancy at will, rent is paid by 
the year, the party who has entered under the agreement is a 
tenant thereafter from year to year which tenancy is also ter- 
minable by the execution of the future lease. ^^ The payment 



the lease terminates at once Avith- 
out notice to the tenant. Clark v. 
Rhoads, 79 Ind. 342. "Leases for 
uncertain times, are, prima facie, 
leases at will; it is the reservation 
of annual rent that turns them in- 
to leases from year to year." Roe 
ex. d. V. Lees, 2 W. Bl. 1173. An 
entry by the tenant under an oral 
lease for the term of fifteen years 
■was held to be a tenancy at will 
where the premises upon which 
the tenant entered consisted of a 
house which the landlord erected 
for the tenant upon the land of a 
third person with an agreement 
on the part of the landlord that 
he would remove it whenever he 
was directed to do so. It follows 
therefore that a notice to quit is 
required. Blackwell v. Bowers, 
67 Vt. 403, 31 Atl. Rep. 848; fol- 
lowing Stafford v. Adair, ,57 Vt. 
63. 

30 Ashley v. Warner, 11 Gray 
(Mass.) 43. 



31 Carteri v. Roberts, 140 Cal. 
164, 73 Pac. Rep. 818; Carbett v. 
Cochrane, 67 Conn. 570, 35 Atl. 
Rep. 509; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 
22 Conn. 425, 433; Weed v. Lind- 
say, 88 Ga. 686, 694; Dunne v. 
Trustees, 39 111. 578, 582; Emmons 
V. Scudder, 115 Mass. 367; Swart 
V. Western Union Telegraph Co.,, 
12 Detroit Leg. N. 609, 105 N. W. 
Rep. 74; Childers v. Lee, 5 N. Mex. 
576, 25 Pac. Rep. 781; Hamerton 
V. Snead, 3 Bar. & Cr. 483, 10 E. 
C. L. 159; Chapman v. Towner, 6 
Mee. & Wei. 100; Anderson v. Mid- 
land Ry. Co. 3 E. & E. 614; Pollen 
V. Brewer, 7 Com. Bench (N. S.) 
371; Clayton v. Blakey, 2 Smith 
Lead. Cas. 116, note; Hegan v. 
Johnson, 2 Taunt. 148, 149; Gray 
v. Stanion, 1 Mee. & Wei. 695; Cox 
V. Bent, 5 Bing. 185; 2 M. & P. 
281; Lamar v. Dixon, L. R. 6 II. L. 
514; Knight v. Benett, 11 Moore, 
222, 3 Bing. 361, 4 L. .1. (O. S.) 
C. P. 94, 28 R. R. 640; Doe d. 



TENANCY AT WELL. 193 

of rent by the tenant at will must be in reference to a yearly 
holding in order to convert such a tenancy at will into a yearly 
tenancy or a tenancy from year to year for if the party who has 
entered on the premises under an agreement for a lease pays rent 
not Avith reference to a year or any aliquot part of a year but 
merely pays rent generally, he is still a tenant at will.^^ One 
payment of yearly rent is sufficient. But the presumption that 
a tenancy at will has been transformed into a tenancy from year 
to year by one payment of a yearly rent may be strengthened by 
a repetition of the pa.jinents and a continuance in possession for 
more than a year.^^ A lessor may under particular circumstances 
be estopped by his conduct, as by the deliberate failure or neglect 
to sign a lease that the tenant has signed, to assert that such a 
lease creates only a tenancy at Avill. He cannot accept as much 
of the contract to make a lease as proves, or as is likely to prove, 
favorable to his interests, while rejecting that portion of it 
which is not likely to be of advantage to him. Thus, where the 
assignee of a lessee's interest in the term enters upon the pos- 
session of the land with the consent of the lessor who, there- 
upon, prepares a new lease for the unexpired term which new- 
lease is executed by the assignee but is not executed by the les- 
sor, the latter is estopped to claim that the new agreement which 
he has neglected to execute is a revocation of the lease which was 
assigned and he is also estopped at the same time to assert that 
by reason of his failure to sign the new lease, it operates only to 
create a tenancy at will in the assignee.^* The tenant who thus 
enters on land under an agreement to make a lease will be held 
liable to the landlord for use and occupation during the period 
he is in possession, in the absence of an express agreement to the 
contrary between the parties.^^ Tenants who have been admitted 
into the possession of the premises under an agreeemnt to exe- 

West Morland v. Smith, 1 M. & 33 Braj'thwaite v. Hitchcock, 10 

Ry. 137; 6 L. J. (O. S.) 44; Doe d. M. & W. 494, 497. 

Pritchard v. Dodd, 2 N. & M. 838, s* Morris v. Palmer, 44 S. Car. 

5 B. & Ad. 689; Braythwaite v. 462. 469, 22 S. E. Rep. 762. 

Hitchcock, 10 M. & W. 494, 12 L. as Forbes v. Smiley. 56 Me. 174; 

J. Ex. 38, 6 Jur. 976; Riseley v. Lyon v. Cunningham, 136 Mass. 

Ryle, 11 M. & W. 6, 12 L. J. Ex. 532, 540; Greton v. Smith, 33 N. 

38. Y. 245; Rogers v. Pullen. 2 Bing. 

32 Richardson v. Langridge, 4 (N. C.) 749; Sloper v. Saunders, 

Taunt. 128. 29 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 275; Smith. 
13 



lO-i LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT. 

cute a lease of them for a term of years cannot, where they sub- 
sequently refuse to execute the lease offered to them in con- 
formity with the contract for a lease, continue in the possession 
of the premises as tenants at will merely because the landlord 
had not erected upon the premises such a building with respect 
to plan and finish as was contemplated in the agreement. The 
tenants' remedy is either to execute the lease, pay the stipulated 
rent, occupy the premises, and compel by an appropriate equi- 
table action the specific performance of the contract to build or 
to vacate the premises at once and sue for any damages they 
may have sustained. If they do neither they are simply tenants 
at will and after proper notice to quit is given to them as is re- 
quired by the statute they may be summarily removed as ten- 
ants at sufferance holding over.''^^ 

§ 140. Tenancy at will created by a defective or unexecuted 
lease. Somewhat similar to the case of one who, with the 
owner's consent, enters upon land pending negotiations between 
him and the owner for a lease to be executed in the future is 
the case of a person who enters under a lease which purports to 
have been executed by both the parties but w^hich is invalid and 
not binding on the landlord because he has not authorized its 
execution by the person who signed it as his agent. In some 
of the states such a lease by the statute of frauds creates an 
estate at will only, though it may expressly provide for the pay- 
ment of a yearly rental.^'' So. where a lease which is signed 
by the lessee is not executed by the lessor, it has been held to 
create a tenancy at will only though the lease stipulated for the 
payment of a monthly rental.^^ And a lessee who, by taking 
possession under a lease which is invalid because it was not au- 
thorized by the lessor becomes a tenant at will, though he may 
be liable for use and occupation, cannot be sued for rent under 
the invalid lease.^^ And finally, one who having been in posses- 
sion under a valid lease which has expired, continues in posses- 

V Eldridge, 15 Com. Bench, 236; App. 549; see, also. Hoover v. Pa- 

Thetford v. Tyler, 8 Q. B. 95; cific Oil Company, 41 Mo. App. 

Dawes v. Bowling, 22 W. R. 770. 317. 

ssaWeed v. Lindsay, 88 Ga. 686, 87 Nicholls v. Barnes, 32 Neb. 

695, 15 S. E. Rep. 836, 20 L. R. A. 195, 49 N. W. Rep. 342. 

33. 38 .Jennings v. MrComb, 112 Pa. 

so Lehman v. Nolting, 56 Mo. St. 518, 4 Atl. Rep. 812. 



TEN^VNCY AT WILL,. 



195 



sion under a void lease, is a tenant at will and not a tenant hold- 
ing; over nndcr the former lease. ^® 

§ 141. Leases void under the statute of frauds. Where a 
tenant enters under an oral lease which is for more than a year 
and which is for that reason invalid under the statute of frauds, 
or in fact under any invalid lease, he is according to very many 
of the authorities, merely a tenant at will. In most of the states 
this is expressly so provided according- to the language of the 
statutes which substantially provide that all parol leases which 
in duration shall exceed a certain term shall have the force and 
effect of leases at will only. In other words, the statute express- 
ly determines and fixes the tenancy between the parties.**' The 



39 Carney v. Mosher, 97 Mich. 
554. The execution of a lease for 
years by an agent of the lessor 
who is without authority to do is 
a nullity. Nevertheless a lease 
made under such circumstances 
creates a tenancy at will as soon 
as the tenant enters under it. And 
where after his entry he pays rent 
by the month a monthly tenancy 
is created which is binding upon 
both the parties to the written 
lease, though the writing is un- 
enforcible as a lease for a term of 
years. Lehman v. Nolting, 56 Mo. 
App. 549. A tenancy at will has 
been held to have been created 
under the following facts and cir- 
cumstances: 

A lease for twenty-one months 
was void for want of authority in 
the agent of the lessor who signed 
it. The lessee entered and occu- 
pied the premises for twelve 
months and paid rent for that 
period and then vacated the prem- 
ises. It was held that this did 
not create a tenancy from year to 
year but that the lease being void 
as such was simply evidence of a 
tenancy at will and hence was ad- 
missible in an action for use and 
occupation. Mcintosh v. Hodges 



(Mich. 1897) 70 N. W. Rep. 550. 
See, also, as to the effect of the 
acceptance of a month's rent by 
the landlord where the tenant had 
for some time held under a lease 
which had expired and which he 
had refused to renew at an ad- 
vanced rental. Fall v. Moore, 45 
Minn. 515, 48 N. W. Rep. 404. 

4oCrommelin v. Thiess, 31 Ala. 
412, 70 Am. Dec. 499; Petty v. 
Kennon', 49 Ga. 468; Western 
Union Tel. Co. v. Fain, 52 Ga. IS; 
Nicholes v. Smith, 118 Ga. 922, 
925, 45 S. E. Rep. 708; Packard v. 
Cleveland C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 
46 111. App. 244; Bailey v. Ward, 
32 La. Ann. 839; Thomas v. San- 
ford, S. S. Co., 71 Me. 548; Duley 
v. Kelly, 74 Me. 346; Ellis v. 
Parge, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 43; Huyser 
V. Chase, 13 Mich. 98, 103; Hing- 
ham V. Inhabitants of Sprague, 
15 Pick. (Mass.) 102; Mcintosh 
V. Hodges, 110 Mich. 319, 70 X. W. 
R. 550; Kelly v. Waite, 12 Met. 
(Mass.) 300; Barrett v. Cox, 112 
Mich. 220, 70 N. W. Rep. 446; 
Goodwin v. Clover, 91 Minn. 438, 
98 N. W. Rep. 322; Allen v. IMans- 
field, 82 Mo. 688; Talamo v. Spitz- 
miller, 120 N. Y. 37. 23 N. E. Rep. 
980, 8 L. R. A. 980, 17 Am. St. 



196 LAW OF LANDLORD AJS'D TENANT. 

statute fixes and determines the character of the tenure and the 
duration of the term but leaves the other incidents of the rela- 
tionship between the parties to be determined according to their 
original intention as expressed by them. Inasmuch as the lease 
is not binding upon either party, either can at any time dissolve 
the relationship whatever it may be, that exists and hence neces- 
sarily the holding which is created by an entry under a void 
lease can be nothing else but a tenancy at will. The courts, 
however, will respect the original intent of the parties so far as 
possible. The tenant at will under the lease void under the 
statute of frauds, will be presumed to hold the premises subject 
to the terms of the void lease except as to its duration and tcT*- 
mination. So far as such terms are applicable, they will be 
applied.^^ One of the ever-present and most striking character- 
istics of an estate at will is its easy convertibility into a tenancy 
from year to year by the payment and acceptance of a yearly 
rent. Hence, though a parol lease which is invalid under the 
statute creates in the first instance only a tenancy at will, this 
tenancy, like any other tenancy at will, may be turned into a 
tenancy from year to year without any violence to or any evasion 
of the express language of the statute of frauds. This conversion 
may result from the payment of the rent by the year or from 
other circumstances showing an intention on! the part of the 
parties to create a tenancy from year to year. Such an impli- 
cation from the payment of rent is not in contravention of the 
statute which recognizes as valid, leas