Causes not reported in full.

Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., CREW and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

No. 9941.

LEMAN, RECEIVER, V. MACLENNAN.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

ERROR to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. Messrs. Smith, Beardsely & Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hoyt, Dustin & Kelley, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., CREW and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

No. 9942.

THE PARK NATIONAL BANK V. THE TRAVELER'S INSURANCE CO.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

ERROR to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. Messrs. Carr, Stearns & Chamberlain, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hoyt, Dustin & Kelley, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

SHAUCK, C. J., CREW and SPEAR, JJ., concur.

Memoranda of

No. 9957.

THE UPSON COAL & MINING CO. 7. WILLIAMS.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

ERROR to Circuit Court of Perry County.

Mr. J. B. Jones, for plaintiff in error. Mr. T. D. Price and Messrs. Donahue & Spencer, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

No. 9965.

MCCOMAS ET AL. 7. HANLON.

(Decided February 5, 1907.)

ERROR to Circuit Court of Belmont County. Messrs. Driggs, Heinlein & Armstrong, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. J. M. Lessick and Messrs. Kennon & Kennon, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

No. 10157.

THE PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY Co. v. WALCUTT, ADMR. (Decided February 5, 1907.)

ERROR to Circuit Court of Miami County.

Causes not reported in full.

Mr. C. B. Heiserman, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. Davy & St. John and C. A. Thatcher, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

PRICE, SUMMERS and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT OF CHILD-

Pendency of bastardy proceeding against father, is neither a
bar to, nor ground for abatement of, a criminal prosecution
against him. See State v. Veres, 138.

ABATEMENT-

Pendency of bastardy proceeding against father, is not a bar to,
nor a ground for abatement of, a criminal prosecution against
him under section 3140-2, Revised Statutes. See State v. Veres,
138.

ACCEPTANCE-

Unconditional acceptance of the application by the insurer is
consummation of contract of insurance, when. What facts
are not evidence of acceptance of application for insurance.
See Insurance Co. v. Whitman, 312.

ACCIDENT-

An employe, who, knowingly and voluntarily places himself in a
position of danger in respect to a dynamite magazine, assumes
the risk of all personal injury that might result from an acci-
dental explosion. See Davis v. Somers-Cambridge Co., 215.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT-

A deed which appears from its face to have been duly executed
and acknowledged, can not be set aside on the ground of undue
influence or unconsciousness of act of execution, except upon
clear and convincing proof of one of said grounds. See Willis
v. Baker, 291.

АСТІ
ACTION-

In an action by a corporation against an executor, etc., the
manager of the corporation is not, by section 5242, Revised
Statutes, disqualified to testify to facts which occurred before
the death of decedent of said executor. See Milling Co. v.
Bunn, 270.

In an action to have declared null and void a conveyance of lands
by wife to husband on the ground of undue influence, etc.,
where it appears from its face that it was duly executed and

647