91 (Mich.) Trust instrument declaring two
trusts, second not to take effect in possession
invalid as testamentary disposition, though
and enjoyment until settlor's death, held not
power of revocation was reserved.-Wilcox v.
Hubbell, 163 N. W. 497.
11(5) (Wis.) In view of St. 1915, § 2282,
regulating execution of wills and the presump-
tion of regularity, held that, where signatures
of testator and witnesses are part of one con-
tinuous transaction, mere order of affixing the
signature of testator is not essential to validity
of will.-Enright v. Griffith, 163 N. W. 138.
120 (Wis.) It is not essential that witnesses
to will sign at request of testatrix, but either
an implied request or an assent to the sign-
ing is sufficient.-Enright v. Griffith, 163 N. W.
138.
121 (Wis.) A formal attestation certificate
or clause is not essential to the validity of a
will as neither is required by the statute.-En-
right v. Griffith, 163 N. W. 138.
(F) Mistake, Undue Influence, and Fraud.
17(8) (Iowa) Sentence for carrying conceal-
ed weapons for not exceeding 2 years should
be reduced to 30 days in county jail where
accused was 18 years of age, and court ap-
parently imposed extreme sentence because con- 155(1) (Mich.) Influence to vitiate a will
cealed revolver was discharged, killing by-
stander.-State v. Powers, 163 N. W. 402.
must amount to force and coercion, destroying
testator's free agency, and the will must be
procured by such influence, but the influence
need not be physical force, constraint, or coer-
cion, though it may consist of fraud, artifice,
or cunning or excessive kindness.-Soule v.
Henry, 163 N. W. 944.
163(2) (Iowa) That fiduciary relation exist-
ed between a testatrix and beneficiary does not
raise a presumption of undue influence on the
part of the beneficiary in procuring will.-Lid-
dle v. Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
See Descent and Distribution; Executors and 164(1) (Iowa) Statements
Administrators; Trial 244; Trusts.
I. NATURE AND EXTENT OF TESTA-
MENTARY POWER.
of beneficiary
made in presence of testatrix prior to execu-
show her dominance over or to persuade testa-
tion of will or shortly thereafter, tending to
trix with reference to disposition of her prop-
(Mich.) That law provides a manner of erty, were admissible as bearing directly on is-
distribution and descent does not preclude, ex-sue of undue influence, and were not merely
cept as to wife, willing of entire property to
strangers. In re Blodgett's Estate, 163 N.
907.
II. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY.
52(1) (Mich.) Under Pub. Acts 1915, No.
314, c. 17, § 58, the burden of proof to show
mental incompetency of testator is upon the
contestant.-Soule v. Henry, 163 N. W. 944.
53(2) (Iowa) Evidence that testatrix was
hysterical and an epileptic, and that while hys-
teria is a disease of nerves, epilepsy is a dis-
ease of brain, and being afflicted with either did
not necessarily indicate inability to transact
business, held proper to be considered by jury
on issue of mental unsoundness of testatrix in
connection with evidence of many witnesses
who recited incidents and expressed the
opin-
ion that she was not of sound mind.-Liddle v.
Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
53(9) (Iowa) Terms of will are to be consid-
ered with other evidence on issue of mental un-
soundness of testatrix.-Liddle v. Salter, 163
N. W. 447.
declarations or admissions of a devisee.-Liddle
v. Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
Testimony as to statement made by testa-
trix's attorney to her in presence of witness, a
brother of testatrix, and another beneficiary, to
the witness to keep him away from the testa-
effect that he would serve an injunction against
trix even if speaking impliedly for the testatrix,
held admissible to prove her feeling toward
witness.-Id.
Unfair disposition of property, or interposi-
tion of others, or that will was not in accord
with previously expressed or implied intentions
of testator or their converse, may be shown as
bearing on issue of undue influence, but seldom
are essential to a finding either way on issue.
Id.
166(1) (Wis.) In a will contest, evidence
held to support finding that testatrix did not
act under undue influence in executing the will.
-Enright v. Griffith, 163 N. W. 138.
V. PROBATE, ESTABLISHMENT,
AND ANNULMENT.
(H) Evidence.
55(1) (Wis.) In a will contest, evidence held
to support finding that testatrix was of testa-290 (Mich.) Where will is executed in dupli-
mentary capacity.-Enright v. Griffith, 163 N.
W. 138.
IV. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY.
(A) Nature and Essentials of Testamenta-
ry Dispositions.
cate, destruction of one copy by testator raises
rebuttable presumption of intent to revoke.
-In re Walsh's Estate, 163 N. W. 70.
(1) Hearing or Trial.
316(2) (Iowa) Evidence of mental unsound-
ness of the testatrix held to make a case for the
jury.-Liddle v. Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
81 (Iowa) A will may be valid even though
the disposition of property be unfairly made
or with interposition of others or not in ac-316(3) (Iowa) Evidence held to justify sub-
cord with previously expressed or implied inten-
tions of testatrix.-Liddle v. Salter, 163 N. W.
447.
mission of issue of undue influence on part of a
beneficiary in procuring will to jury.-Liddle v.
Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
317 (Iowa) It is to be preferred that an is-450 (Mich.) That construction must be in-
sue unsupported by sufficient evidence be with- dulged in which gives force and validity to all
drawn by the trial court, and that a finding be parts and all expressions in will.-In re Blod-
not exacted thereon.-Liddle v. Salter, 163 N. gett's Estate, 163 N. W. 907.
W. 447.
318(1) (Iowa) Where given interrogatories
submit issues in case, and are such that court
might have submitted without suggestion from
either side, it is not necessary for the court to
exhibit them to counsel, although they were
suggested by requested interrogatories unless
prejudice resulted.-Liddle v. Salter, 163 N. W.
447.
489(2) (Neb.) Bequest of “our land" to wife
for life and on her death for distribution be-
tween "our heirs," where there were no children
to whom such words could apply, presented an
ambiguity permitting parol evidence to ascertain
its meaning.-Dunn v. Elliott, 163 N. W. 333.
(B) Designation of Devisees, and Lega-
tees and Their Respective Shares.
324(4) (Mich.) Evidence held to make ques-524(2) (Mich.) Under will giving life estate
tion for jury whether testator by destruction
of one of duplicate wills intended revocation.-
In re Walsh's Estate, 163 N. W. 70.
330(1) (Iowa) Instruction on mental capac
ity held confusing and inaccurate.-Liddle v.
Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
in land to wife and providing that after her
death it should go to his children "or the sur-
vivors of them living at that time," testator
predeceasing wife, held, children only who sur-
vive wife were entitled to land.-In re Blod-
gett's Estate, 163 N. W. 907.
330(1) (Mich.) An instruction that evidence 524(2) (Minn.) Where gift is made by will
regarding a contract made by testatrix should to class and immediate distribution is contem-
be considered only upon questions of mental plated, persons constituting class are determined
capacity and undue influence, and that validity as of death of testator.-In re Savela's Estate,
of contract was not involved, held not erroneous. 163 N. W. 1029.
-In re Warring's Estate, 163 N. W. 50.
An instruction that validity of a gift by tes-
tatrix during her life to a daughter is not in-
volved held proper.-Id.
331(2) (Mich.) Instruction that, if a dupli-
cate copy was destroyed before testator handed
another copy to executrix, there can be no con-
clusive presumption that he destroyed duplicate
with intent to revoke, is not erroneous.-In re
Walsh's Estate, 163 N. W. 70.
400 (Iowa) In reviewing sufficiency of evi
dence of mental unsoundness to take case to
jury appellate court need not ascertain condi-
tion of human mind at a specified time, but is
only required to say whether there was showing
to carry such issue to jury, and, having done
so, need not review evidence adduced by pro-
ponents or express its view as to merits of
case.-Liddle v. Salter, 163 N. W. 447.
524(6) (Minn.) Where bequest to class is
contingent, those constituting class are not de-
termined as of time earlier than vesting of es-
tate. In re Savela's Estate, 163 N. W. 1029.
Upon gift to class, postponing right to enjoy-
ment beyond time that it vests in right and until
determination of preceding estate, members en-
titled to take are determined when gift to class
vests in enjoyment.-Id.
531(2) (Neb.) Where testator gave life es-
tate to wife with remainder to "our heirs" ac-
cording to law, and there were no children of
their marriage, but each had children by former
marriages, and land was joint cumulation of
husband and wife, it would be divided one half
to his heirs and one half to his wife's heirs.-
Dunn v. Elliott, 163 N. W. 333.
(D) Description of Property.
561(1) (Wis.) That a lot devised and refer-
red to by street number was referred to with
addition of word "acre" following such number
held immaterial, where property intended is
identified without question.-Enright v. Griffith,
163 N. W. 138.
(F) Vested or Contingent Estates and In-
In view of Code, § 4604, where a witness tes-
tified that he visited testatrix and met there
one of beneficiaries and attorney who prepared
will, error in allowing question "without relat-
ing any transaction between yourself and [tes-
tatrix] state what was said either by [the oth-
er beneficiary] or [the attorney] or yourself,"
although there was no showing that the wit-
ness had not participated in conversation, was 629 (Mich.) The law favors vested estates,
without prejudice where answer disclosed that but it does not preclude creation of vested es-
all said was to testatrix by attorney who was tates subject to be divested upon happening of
not beneficiary.-Id.
future event.-In re Blodgett's Estate, 163 N.
W. 907.
Giving of a confusing instruction held not
prejudicial error.-Id.
404 (Wis.) In a will contest, St. 1915, 88
4041a or 4041b, held not to require allowance
of costs to guardian ad litem of some of con-
testants.-Enright v. Griffith, 163 N. W. 138.
405 (Wis.) In a will contest, St. 1915, §§
4041a or 4041b, held not to require that guard-
ian ad litem be burdened with costs notwith-
standing failure of contestants' appeal.-En-
right v. Griffith, 163 N. W. 138.
VI. CONSTRUCTION.
(A) General Rules.
(C) Advancements, Ademption, Satisfac-
tion, and Lapse.
439 (Mich.) Intent of testator must govern
unless it contravenes fixed rules of law. In re 758 (Minn.) Where a father makes an ad-
Blodgett's Estate, 163 N. W. 907.
If intent of testator is expressed in clear,
unambiguous language, there is no occasion for
application of technical rules of construction.
-Id.
If intent of testator is obscure, resort must
be had to well-understood rules applicable to
construction of wills.-Id.
vancement to his daughter and dies testate, the
advancement becomes a mere gift.-Kuhne v.
Gau, 163 N. W. 982.
Allegation that an advancement was made
cannot be construed as an allegation that a
loan was made, even though the donee after the
death of the donor makes an agreement to re-
pay.-Id.
782(13) (Mich.) Under Comp. Laws 1897, §
8935, wife may accept or reject a devise of a
life interest in her husband's homestead, which
was appraised at over $1,500.-Rasor v. Mott,
163 N. W. 38.
159(14) (Minn.) Gen. St. 1913, § 8378, does
not make interested witnesses incompetent to
testify to conversations with a testator since de-
ceased on the issue of testamentary capacity,
where the object is to lay a foundation for opin-
ions of the witnesses.-In re Chapel's Estate,
163 N. W. 771.
783 (Iowa) Under Code, §§ 3270, 3366,
3376, a husband for whom no provision has 160(1) (Neb.) In an action involving title
been made in the will of his deceased wife may to land, a wife whose husband claimed as a
be required to elect whether or not he consents purchaser under an oral agreement is competent
thereto.-Watrous v. Watrous, 163 N. W. 439. to testify to a conversation between her husband
Upon the death of the wife, the husband does and the vendor, since deceased, in which she took
not become seised immediately of an undivided no part.-McNea v. Moran, 163 N. W. 766.
one-third interest in her real estate, but be- 166 (Mich.) In bill by nephews of deceased
comes vested with a right to choose whether he
will take such share, or whether he will take
under the will, and the choice when made re-
lates back to the death of the wife.-Id.
792(4) (Mich.) Where wife, her attorneys,
and probate judge understood she elected not
to take under her husband's will, and she sold
land as executrix subject to widow's dower,
held, she elected to be endowed of land.-Rasor
v. Mott, 163 N. W. 38.
to set aside deed by her to brother, neither
nephews nor deceased's brother are competent
witnesses to facts equally within the knowledge
of the deceased, in view of How. Ann. St. 1912,
§ 12856.-Luce v. Luce, 163 N. W. 904.
182 (Iowa) Testimony as to a transaction
of deceased is not incompetent under Code, §
4604, forbidding testimony as to transactions
between deceased and a witness, unless it is
made to appear by the objecting party that the
witness did participate in such transaction.-
In re Hoyt's Estate, 163 N. W. 430.
792(5) (Iowa) In an action to set aside a
contract whereby a surviving husband sought to
create an annuity in favor of a devisee and se-183 (Mich.) In suit by relatives of dece-
cured by his share in the estate, evidence held dent claiming under his deed of trust, evidence
insufficient to show that he elected to take, his held not to support conclusion that mother of
distributive share as against the provisions of plaintiffs or attorney were agents for decedent;
the will.-Watrous v. Watrous, 163 N. W. 439. that either was person who acted as agent in
making or continuing of contract with any per-
son who may have died, within Pub. Acts 1901,
No. 239.-Wilcox v. Hubbell, 163 N. W. 497.
WITHOUT RECOURSE.
See Bills and Notes, 170.
See Appeal and Error, 1046, 1048; Contin-
uance, 22; Criminal Law, 629, 665,
11702; Evidence, 77; Perjury; Trial,
42, 140; Wills, 120.
(A) Capacity and Qualifications in Gen-
72 (Mich.) Comp. Laws 1897, § 11887,
merely makes grand jurors incompetent to tes-
tify to proceedings resulting in indictment, and
not as to deliberations resulting in an unau-
thorized libelous report.-Bennett v. Stockwell,
163 N. W. 482.
(D) Confidential Relations and Privileged
Communications.
219(6) (Mich.) Under statute prohibiting dis-
closure by physician of information received in
professional capacity, waiver by insured, in a
fraternal benefit policy, of a privilege, as to
disclosure by attending physician, held not to
render a physician's testimony admissible in
suit on policy.-Gilchrist v. Mystic Workers
of the World, 163 N. W. 10.
III. EXAMINATION.
(A) Taking Testimony in General.
226 (Neb.) Manner in which witness shall
be examined is largely within discretion of trial
court.-Jordan v. State, 163 N. W. 801.
240(1) (Neb.) Leading questions, suggesting
desired answer, should not ordinarily be allowed.
(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In--Jordan v. State, 163 N. W. 801.
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Title
or Interest of Persons Deceased or In-
competent.
140(4) (Minn.) A witness having no interest
in land, though a daughter of the deceased donor
and a sister of the donee, was not disqualified
under Gen. St. 1913, § 8378, from testifying to
her conversations with deceased in his lifetime
concerning the gift.-Drager v. Seegert, 163
N. W. 756.
140(16) (Minn.) In action against
fraternal insurer, the financial secretary of the
local lodge held competent under Gen. St. 1913,
§ 8378, to testify as to conversations with de-
ceased.-Havlicek v. Western Bohemian Fra-
ternal Ass'n, 163 N. W. 985.
141 (Mich.) In suit by relatives of a dece-
dent claiming under his deed of trust, where
plaintiffs' mother was not acting as agent for
her children in reference to trust agreement,
and attorney was not acting as her agent, they
were competent witnesses to making of trust
agreement, despite Comp. Laws 1897. § 10212,
as amended by Pub. Acts 1901, No. 239.-Wil-
cox v. Hubbell, 163 N. W. 497.
248(1) (Iowa) Only the examining party
can move to strike out an answer of a witness
as not responsive.-In re Hoyt's Estate, 163 N.
W. 430.
Where the examining party adopts an answer
of a witness, it cannot be objected to by the
other party as voluntary or not responsive.-Id.
(B) Cross-Examination and Re-Examina-
268(13) (Minn.) In purchaser's
against vendor for deceit, where latter testified
as to the value of land which he had owned for
less than two years, it was not an abuse of dis-
cretion to permit cross-examination as to what
he had paid for it.-Humphrey v. Sievers, 163
N. W. 737.
269(1) (Iowa) Inquiry on cross-examination,
not relevant to anything said on direct exam-
ination, was properly refused.-Stutsman v.
Des Moines City Ry. Co., 163 N. W. 580.
270(1) (N.D.) The limits as to relevancy on
cross-examination are largely within sound dis
cretion of the trial judge.-Ruddick v. Buchan-
an, 163 N. W. 720.
159(3) (Neb.) A transaction or conversation 276 (Mich.) In action for injuries sustain-
within Rev. St. 1913, § 7894, is an action par- ed in automobile collision, requiring defendant
ticipated in by witness and decedent to which, on cross-examination to answer question, “your
if alive, decedent could testify of his personal car came around there with such force that the
knowledge.-Hlavaty v. Blair, 163 N. W. 330. rear wheel hit Fountain street curb, didn't it?”
was not error.-Snyder v. Mathison, 163 N. W. | ed to purpose of testing his credibility.-In re
104.
Walsh's Estate, 163 N. W. 70.
276 (Minn.) A. proceeding under Gen. St. 394 (Minn.) It is not permissible on redirect
1913, § 7433, for appointment of guardian of an to rebut prior written or verbal statements of
alleged incompetent, is not an adversary pro- witness inconsistent with his testimony by state-
ceeding, so that court properly refused to re- ments to contrary made by witness on other oc-
quire the alleged incompetent to be examined as casions.-George Gorton Machine Co. v. Grig-
an adverse party under section 8377.-In re non, 163 N. W. 748.
Wood, 163 N. W. 297.
(C) Privilege of Witness.
298 (Minn.) Defendant cannot be required
to produce document in his possession for use
at trial.-State v. Minor, 163 N. W. 514.
300 (Minn.) Const. art. 1, § 7, providing
that no one shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, does not
forbid contestant calling contestee as a wit-
ness, though, when so called, the contestee need
not incriminate himself.-Hawley v. Wallace,
163 N. W. 127.
330(1) (Mich.) In action for injuries receiv-
ed while boarding car of defendant company,
evidence of latter's claim agent that it was his
duty to get statements from witnesses as fa-
vorable to company as possible, for use in
negotiating settlements, held properly admitted
on cross-examination. Musliner v. Detroit Unit-
ed Ry., 163 N. W. 894.
3311⁄2 (Neb.) It is error to exclude evidence
which has a tendency to impeach a witness on a
material fact sworn to by him, the proper
foundation having been laid therefor.-State v.
Turnquist, 163 N. W. 329.
(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.
337(2) (Mich.) In prosecution of wife for
murdering husband, it is permissible, within
court's discretion, to discredit her as witness
on cross-examination by showing want of chas-
tity.-People v. Cutler, 163 N. W. 493.
337(4) (Mich.) On cross-examination of the
respondent on trial for rape, he may be asked
as bearing on his credibility whether he was
responsible for a child born to a woman em-
ployed in his office some years previously.-Peo-
ple v. La Londe, 163 N. W. 490.
349 (Mich.) On cross-examination, court has
considerable latitude of discretion in permitting
questions eliciting any information as to past
life and conduct of witness.-People v. Winney,
163 N. W. 119.
(C) Interest and Bias of Witness.
≈370(1) (N.D.) It is always competent to
show that a witness is hostile to a party against
whom he is called.-State v. Scott, 163 N. W.
$10.
372(1) (Mich.) Questions tending to show
hostility to and prejudice towards one of plain-
tiff's attorneys were proper on cross-examina-
tion.-Snyder v. Mathison, 163 N. W. 104.
373 (Mich.) After witness had denied on
cross-examination making certain statements
showing prejudice towards one of plaintiff's at-
torneys, it was proper in rebuttal to contradict
him; it affecting his credibility.-Snyder v.
Mathison, 163 N. W. 104.
(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.
387 (Minn.) Prior written or verbal state-
ments of witness inconsistent with his testi-
mony on stand may be brought out in cross-ex-
amination.-George Gorton Machine Co. v. Grig-
non, 163 N. W. 748.
390 (Mich.) Testimony as to conduct and
statements of proponent held properly restrict-
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.ru/books/content?id=3xA8AAAAIAAJ&hl=ru&output=html_text&pg=PA1161&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:STANFORD36105063506062&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U26jWUcMCBI78ktgV1I0ad8o5SOiQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=480,260,415,29)
398(3) (Mich.) In prosecution of wife for
murdering husband, it is not permissible to dis-
credit her as a witness by showing by other
witnesses that her answers as to questions af-
fecting her chastity were untrue.-People v.
Cutler, 163 N. W. 493.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
"Abortion."-Gilchrist v. Mystic Workers of the
World (Mich.) 163 N. W. 10,
"Accident."-Landers v. City of Muskegon
(Mich.) 163 N. W. 43.
"Accidental injury."-State v. District Court of
St. Louis County (Minn.) 163 N. W. 755.
"Action."-Fischer v. Sklenar (Neb.) 163 N. W.
861.
"Agreement."-McHenry County v. Brady (N.
D.) 163 N. W. 540.
"Arising out of and in the course of his em-
ployment."-State V. District Court of
Stearns County (Minn.) 163 N. W. 667.
"Assessment."-State v. Wisconsin Tax Com-
mission (Wis.) 163 N. W. 639.
"Assignment."-Reed v. R. M. Chapman Basting
Co. (Minn.) 163 N. W. 794.
"Bona fide purchaser."-Higby v. Bahrenfuss
(Iowa) 163 N. W. 247.
"Cash value."-Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. Re-
public Tp. (Mich.) 163 N. W. 90.
"Charges and expenses of town."-Town of
"Chattel mortgage."-Davis v. Caldwell (N. D.)
Humboldt v. Schoen (Wis.) 163 N. W. 177.
"Civil action."-Fischer v. Sklenar (Neb.) 163
"Compact."-McHenry County v. Brady (N.
D.) 183 N. W 540.
"Compensation."-Stutsman v. Des Moines City
Ry. Co. (Iowa) 163 N. W. 580.
"Concealment."-Murray V. Brotherhood
American Yeomen (Iowa) 163 N. W. 421.
"Consignee."-People v. Bola (Mich.) 163 N.
W. 893.
"Consignor."-People v. Bola (Mich.) 163 N.
W. 893.
"Conveyance."-Shraiberg v. Hanson (Minn.)
163 N. W. 1032.
"Damages for loss of or injury to."-McElwain
v. Union Pac. R. Co. (Neb.) 163 N. W. 845.
"Debt."-Codington County v. Lindner (S. D.)
163 N. W. 573.
"Debtor and creditor."-State v. Kiefer (Iowa)
163 N. W. 698.
"Dependency."-Parson v. Murphy (Neb.) 163
N. W. 847.
"Dependent."-Koenigstein v. Finke (Neb.) 163
Deposit."-State v. Kiefer (Iowa) 163 N. W.
N. W. 758.
"Depositor."-In re Farrens (Neb.) 163 N. W.
318.
"Depreciation."-Miles v. People's Telephone
Co. (Wis.) 163 N. W. 652.
"Doing business in the state."-Duluth Log Co.
v. Pulpwood Co. (Minn.) 163 N. W. 520.
"Equitable estoppel."-Anfenson
V. Banks
(Iowa) 163 N. W. 608.
"Estoppel."-Howe v. Sioux County (Iowa) 163
N. W. 411.
"Estoppel in pais."-Anfenson v. Banks (Iowa) | "Trade fixture."-
e."-Waverly Park Amusement
163 N. W. 608.
"Evasion."-Murray v. Brotherhood of Ameri-
can Yeomen (Iowa) 163 N. W. 421.
"Fellow servant."-Brienen v. Wisconsin Public
Service Co. (Wis.) 163 N. W. 182.
"Forgery."-State v. Larson (S. D.) 163 N. W.
566.
"Gross negligence."-Halloran v. Michigan Ry.
Co. (Mich.) 163 N. W. 1009.
"Head of family."-Armstrong-McClenahan Co.
v. Rhoads (Iowa) 163 N. W. 356.
"Holder for value in due course."-Badger Ma-
chinery Co. v. Columbia County Electric
Light & Power Co. (Wis.) 163 N. W. 188.
"Income."-State v. Wisconsin Tax Commis-
sion (Wis.) 163 N. W. 639; State v. Widule,
Id. 641.
"Loan."-State v. Kiefer (Iowa) 163 N. W. 698.
"Miscarriage."-Gilchrist v. Mystic Workers of
the World (Mich.) 163 N. W. 10.
"Municipal."-Posch v. Lion Bonding & Surety
Co. (Minn.) 163 N. W. 131.
"Necessary household articles and supplies."-
Lewis v. France (Minn.) 163 N. W. 656.
"Our heirs."-Dunn v. Elliott (Neb.) 163 N. W.
"Public nuisance."-People v. Wabash Ry. Co.
(Mich.) 163 N. W. 996.
Co. v. Michigan United Traction Co. (Mich.)
163 N. W. 917.
"Transfer."-State v. Probate Court of Henne-
pin County (Minn.) 163 N. W. 285.
"Trial."-MacGillis v. Alcona County (Mich.)
163 N. W. 485.
"Trustee of express trust."-Steen v. Neva (N.
D.) 163 N. W. 272.
"Upon."-Rolfs v. Mullins (Iowa) 163 N. W.
232.
"Upon traversing."-Rolfs v. Mullins (Iowa) 163
N. W. 232.
"Voluntarily living apart from her husband.”—
State v. District Court, Ramsey County
(Minn.) 163 N. W. 509.
"Willfully."-Rhoads v. First Nat. Bank (N.
D.) 163 N. W. 1046.
WORK AND LABOR.
See Mechanics' Liens.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
See Master and Servant, 348-417.
"Purchaser."-Shraiberg v. Hanson (Minn.) 163 See Evidence, 70, 169.
"Railway."-City of Duluth v. Duluth St. Ry.
Co. (Minn.) 163 N. W. 659.
"Redemptioner."-Farmers' Bank of Mercer See Appeal and Error; Costs, 256.
County v. Knife River Lumber & Grain Co.
(N. D.) 163 N. W. 1053.
"Renewal."-State v. Kiefer (Iowa) 163 N. W.
698.
"Resident."-In re Liquor Election in Beltrami
County (Minn.) 163 N. W. 988.
"Services growing out of and incidental to his
employment."-Brienen v. Wisconsin Public
Service Co. (Wis.) 163 N. W. 182.
"Sodomy."-State v. Nelson (N. D.) 163 N. W.
278.
"Static electricity."-Toney v. Interstate Pow-
er Co. (Iowa) 163 N. W. 394.
"Suppression."-Murray
V. Brotherhood of
American Yeomen (Iowa) 163 N. W. 421.
"Tax."-Loomis v. Rogers (Mich.) 163 N. W.
1018.
"To sell."-Fawley v. Sheldon (Iowa) 163 N.
W. 585.
See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Gar-
nishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Jus-
tices of the Peace, 208; Mandamus; Pro-
cess; Prohibition; Replevin.
WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT.
See Attachment, 361.
X-RAY PHOTOGRAPHS.
See Costs, 178.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
|