INDEX.

Assistant cashier of a bank, who is a stock-
holder therein, cannot lawfully take an
knowledgment of a mortgage given to secure
Of record on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- any part of a debt due the bank.-Wilson v.
peal and Error," § 6.
Griess (Neb.) 866.

(1137)

ADULTERY.

See "Fornication."

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a convic-
tion of adultery.-State v. Schaedler (Iowa) 91.

ADVANCEMENTS.

rupt adverse possession.-Illinois Steel Co. v.
Budzisz (Wis.) 1020.

§ 2. Pleading, evidence, trial, and re-
view.

An instruction as to adverse possession held
erroneous.-Knight v. Denman (Neb.) 863.

An occupant claiming by adverse possession
must show that he occupied adversely, during

See "Descent and Distribution," § 1; "Wills," the entire 10 years.-Knight v. Denman (Neb.)
§ 5.

ADVERSE CLAIM.

To real property, see "Quieting Title."

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

See "Limitation of Actions."

§ 1. Nature and requisites.

Title by adverse possession cannot be acquir-
ed to land the legal title of which is in the gov-
ernment.-Schlosser v. Hemphill (Iowa) 842.

Where a father conveyed real estate to his
son without consideration, and thereafter re-
mained in possession, held, that it was insuffi-
cient to establish adverse possession by the
father.-Collins v. Colleran (Minn.) 364.

Where a grantor of realty conveyed it in
fraud of his creditors and remained in posses-
sion, he cannot assert adverse title against his
grantee based wholly on lapse of time.-Col-
lins v. Colleran (Minn.) 364.

That a conveyance of property by a father to
his son was fraudulent as to creditors has no
bearing on the question of the continued pos-
session of the grantor being adverse to his
grantee.-Collins v. Colleran (Minn.) 364.

863.

Where a claimant entered upon land without
color of title, and the acts relied on to show
entry and occupation were consistent with an
intention to trespass, his testimony alone that
he intended to hold as owner held insufficient to
show adverse possession.-Knight v. Denman
(Neb.) 863.

ADVERTISEMENT.
Publication of process, see "Process," § 1.

AFFIDAVITS.

See "Depositions."

For continuance, see "Continuance."

Where a showing by affidavit is required as
to facts which are necessarily matters of in-
formation and belief, an affidavit on informa-
tion and belief is sufficient.-Leigh v. Green
(Neb.) 255.

AFTER-ACQUIRED TITLE.

Estoppel to assert, see "Estoppel," § 1.

AGENCY.

Where the relationship of father and son ex-
ists between the parties in possession of land. See "Principal and Agent."
the possession of the land of the one by the
other is presumed to be permissive, and not ad-
verse.-Collins v. Colleran (Minn.) 364.

Where possession of real estate commences un-

der acknowledgment of the right owner's estate, See "Contracts."

it will be presumed to be in subservience to the
rightful interest.-Collins v. Colleran (Miun.)

364.

AGREEMENT.

AGRICULTURE.

ALIMONY.

Adverse possession held not established by Property in crops, see "Crops."
general statements not based on facts warrant-
ing them, nor in the face of facts conclusively
established rendering adverse possession not
within reasonable probabilities.-Illinois Steel See "Divorce," § 2.
Co. v. Budzisz (Wis.) 1019.

The facts that during alleged adverse pos-
session the adverse owner exercised no more
ownership over one part of the land than over
the other, and many persons appropriated part
thereof without consulting him, held sufficient
to defeat a claim of adverse possession.-Il-
linois Steel Co. v. Budzisz (Wis.) 1019.

Where an owner of land is disseised by an-
other, any notorious re-entry by the former
for the purpose of dispossessing the disseisor
will interrupt the latter's adverse possession.-
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz (Wis.) 1019.

That which actually breaks the continuity
of adverse possession ends it for all time, and
the disseisor, by a fresh disseisin, starts a new

ALLOWANCE.

To surviving wife, husband, or children of de-
cedent, see "Executors and Administrators,"
§ 4.

ALTERATION.

Of geographical or political divisions, see
"Schools and School Districts," § 1.

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

A material alteration in an official bond al-
period.-Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz (Wis.) ready made may be ratified and adopted sub-
sequently. State v. Paxton (Neb.) 983; Brown
v. State, Id.

1019.

Where an adverse occupant of land attorns
to the true owner, the disseisin of the latter
is thereby interrupted.-Illinois Steel Co. v.
Budzisz (Wis.) 1019.

Entry by the true owner on premises not
physically occupied adversely held sufficient to
break the continuity of the disseisin.-Illinois
Steel Co. v. Budzisz (Wis.) 1019.

A re-entry, as against a disseisor, of a casual
or secret character, held insufficient to inter-

official bond must be made intentionally with
A ratification of a material alteration in an
respect to the very alteration relied on.-State
v. Paxton (Neb.) 983; Brown v. State, Id.

delivered, but not yet approved, who desire to
Sureties on an official bond, which has been
have the bond approved and the principal re-
tained in his office, may ratify all alterations.
-State v. Paxton (Neb.) 983; Brown v. State,
Id.

AMENDMENT.

bankruptcy of the partners is appealable, un-
der Rev. St. 1898, § 3069, subd. 2, unless the
cial discretion.-State v. German Exch. Bank
(Wis.) 570.

See "Judgment,” § 5; “Pleading," § 5; “Trial," order is found to be a proper exercise of judi.
$ 16.

See "Game."

ANIMALS.

Injuries from operation of railroads, see "Rail-
roads," § 2.

§ 14. Right of review.

Petitioner in special proceeding to remove
clerk of circuit court for malfeasance held not
entitled, under Rev. St. 1898, § 3069, subd.
2, to appeal from order denying removal;
substantial right of his being affected thereby.
In re Aldrich (Wis.) 173; Appeal of Aldrich,
Id.

Animals distrained damage feasant cannot
be held under a general claim for damages not
limited to the damage done at the time of the
distraint.-Holaman v. Marsh (Iowa) 82.
Under Code, § 4164, a defendant in repleving
for animals distrained damage feasant cannot
interpose a general claim for damages occasion-
ed by the trespass of the animals in suit or
others.-Holaman v. Marsh (Iowa) 82.

Under Code, § 2317, a person distraining ani-
mals damage feasant cannot retain possession
of them without having the damage assessed
as provided.-Holaman v. Marsh (Iowa) 82.

ANSWER.

In pleading, see "Pleading," § 2.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

See "Certiorari"; "Exceptions, Bill of"; "New
Trial."

Appellate jurisdiction of particular courts, see
"Courts," § 2.

Review of proceedings of justices of the peace,
see "Justices of the Peace," § 3.

Review in particular civil actions.
See "Forcible Entry and Detainer," § 1.
From rejection of claim against decedent's es-
tate, see "Executors and Administrators,"
§ 5.

Review of criminal prosecutions.
See "Contempt," § 1; "Criminal Law," § 7;
"Homicide,' § 3.

1. Nature and form of remedy.

The proceedings of the district court in an
action at law cannot be reviewed in the su-
preme court on appeal.-Van Doren v. Empkie-
Shugart Co. (Neb.) 220.

In equitable actions, the remedy by appeal is
not exclusive, but the final order or decree may
be reviewed on error.- - Bannard v. Duncan
(Neb.) 947.

§ 12. Decisions reviewable.

Comp. Laws, § 10,504, authorizes an inde-
pendent bill of exceptions merely containing a
record of the proceedings had on a motion for a
new trial, and a writ of error to review the
order of the court on such motion.-Walker v.
Newton (Mich.) 328.

To entitle a party to a review, there must
have been a final order rendered in the cause.
-Bock v. Grooms (Neb.) 204.

An order vacating a decree rendered at a
former term, on the ground that the court had
no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, is a final
order, within Code Civ. Proc. § 581, and ap-
pealable.-Bannard v. Duncan (Neb.) 947.

Where a suit in which an injunction was
awarded plaintiff, and a bond given under
section 2778, Rev. St. 1898, was dismissed, and
subsequently a reference to determine the dam-
ages was ordered, an order confirming the ref-
eree's report was appealable under section 2778.
-Wisconsin Marine & Fire Ins. Co. Bank v.
Durner (Wis.) 435.

An order requiring the receiver in an action
to wind up the affairs of a banking partnership
to turn over all the property to the trustee in

2. Presentation and reservation in
lower court of grounds of review.
An objection to a judgment, because it was
rendered on the same day on which a motion
was entered to strike a part of defendant's an-
swer, cannot be urged first on appeal.-Chase
v. Wright (Iowa) 357.

It is sufficient, under the express provision of
Code, § 3709, if the exceptions to instructions
are taken in the motion for a new trial.-Shoe-
maker v. Turner (Iowa) 709.

On appeal from an order denying a new trial,
absence of the judge from the court room during
one of the arguments cannot be considered as a
ground for reversal, where the point was not
made on the motion.-Sharpless Co. v. Day
(Iowa) 814.

Where injury or prejudice is accomplished by
the asking of improper questions and making
of improper statements, it is not necessary that
objection be made to them, that complaint may
be made of them.-Welch v. Union Cent. Life
Ins. Co. (Iowa) 828.

Where pleadings in another action were prop-
erly admitted in evidence upon a certain issue,
the admissibility of one of them on account of
immaterial matter cannot be reviewed on appeal;
no specific objection having been made below.-
Holman v. Omaha & C. B. Ry. & Bridge Co.
(Iowa) 833.

Question not raised in the trial court will not
be considered on appeal.-Alpena City Water
Co. v. City of Alpena (Mich.) 323.

Where exceptions are not reserved, the_ag-
grieved party, desiring to avail himself of Gen.
Laws 1901, c. 113, dispensing with exceptions,
must specifically designate the errors to be re-
viewed in his motion for a new trial.-Cappis v.
Wiedemann (Minn.) 368.

A ruling refusing five instructions will not be
considered, where at least two of them were
properly refused.-Buck v. Hogeboom (Neb.)
635.

Where the correction of the errors complained
of involves the re-examination of no issue of

fact, a motion for a new trial is not a prerequi-
site to a review on error.-Bannard v. Duncan
(Neb.) 947.

Comp. Laws, § 5090, subds. 3, 4, requiring
the notice of intention to move for a new trial
on the bill of exceptions to state the particu-
lars in which the evidence is claimed to be in-
sufficient, and the particular errors of law re-
lied on, are mandatory; and, where not com-
plied with, neither the trial nor the supreme
court can consider the insufficiency of the evi-
dence or the errors of law not so specified.—
Hermon v. Silver (S. D.) 141.

Where the notice of appeal in the abstract
did not show that the appeal was taken from
the order denying a new trial, the evidence
cannot be reviewed.-State v. City of Pierre
(S. D.) 1047.

Exceptions to the refusal to give an instruc-
tion or to improper argument, taken after the
close of the trial, are ineffectual; Rev. St.
1898, § 2869, authorizing exceptions at any
time during the time, being expressly confined