ASSOCIATIONS.

See "Building and Loan Associations."

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See "Use and Occupation"; "Work and Labor."
Evidence in assumpsit for a sum to be paid
in the sale of land considered, and held to
sustain a judgment for defendant.-Newman
v. Baker (Mich.) 1027.

ASSUMPTION.

fees from the county. - Hyatt v. Hamilton
County (Iowa) 508.

Proceedings for the disbarment of an attor-
ney should be entitled in the matter of the
accused, and not entitled as the state against
such offender.-Hyatt v. Hamilton County
(Iowa) 508.

It is the duty of attorneys to refrain from of-
fensive language, either to the court, counsel, or
witnesses.-In re Voss (N. D.) 15.

Where a state's attorney neglects to prose-
cute offenders against the prohibition law,
when the proofs are furnished him, he is, un-
der Rev. Codes 1899, § 7620, guilty of a mis-
izing disbarment or suspension. In re Voss (N.
D.) 15.

ATTACHMENT.

See "Execution"; "Garnishment."

§ 1. Property subject to attachment.
Sale to defendant held rescinded, and the
property not attachable as his.-Blaul v. Mayes
(Iowa) 730.

In an action to recover damages for breach
of contract between defendant trust company
and the plaintiff, an attachment levied on cer-
tain interest coupon bonds brought into the
state by the receiver of the estate of such cor-
poration in a foreign state for a lawful purpose
will be set aside.-Woodhull v. Farmers' Trust
Co. (N. D.) 795.
§ 2.

Quashing, vacating, dissolution, or
abandonment.

On the trial of a petition to dissolve an at-
tachment obtained on the ground that defend-
ant had disposed of property with intent to de-
prive creditors, testimony by defendant that he
did not know he owed the plaintiff anything
was admissible as bearing on his fraudulent in-
tent.-Dimmock v. Cole (Mich.) 333; Smith v.
Same, Id.; Goodwin v. Same, Id.

An attachment will not be set aside, where a
seizure was made prior to the appointment of a
receiver or prior to his taking possession within
the state of his appointment. Woodhull v.
Farmers' Trust Co. (N. D.) 795.

-

3. Claims by third persons.
Where property taken under a landlord's at-
tachment and claimed by an intervener had
been sold at sheriff's sale, testimony as to the
amount it sold for held competent.-Ohde v.
Hoffman (Iowa) 750.

Under Code, § 3594, an intervener in an ac-
tion, where property has been taken under a
landlord's attachment, claiming to own such
property, cannot recover for its use.-Ohde v.
Hoffman (Iowa) 750.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

Argument and conduct of counsel at trial in
civil actions, see "Trial," § 5.
Attorneys as public officers, see "District and
Prosecuting Attorneys."

Attorneys in fact, see "Principal and Agent."
Necessity of objection in trial court to argument
and conduct of counsel, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 2.

§ 1. The office of attorney.

An attorney prosecuting a disbarment pro-
ceeding under order of court, as authorized by
Code, §§ 323-329, held not entitled to attorney

Where a state's attorney on several occasions
gambles in a public gaming house, and will-
fully refrains from prosecuting the keeper of
such place, he is guilty of a misdemeanor, in
violation of his official oath and the express
command of Rev. Codes 1899, § 7243.-In re
Voss (N. D.) 15.

Evidence held to show that, in procuring
a judgment to be entered, an attorney was
guilty of deceit, whereby the court was misled
and fraudulently induced to enter a judgment
which it had not directed to be entered.-In re
Freerks (N. D.) 265.

An attorney held to have made a fraudulent
use of a fraudulent judgment.-In re Freerks
(N. D.) 265.

An attorney held guilty of deceit and un-
professional conduct, within Rev. Codes 1899,
427, subd. 3, and section 428, for which he
might be either disbarred or suspended from
practice as an attorney at law.-In re Freerks
(N. D.) 265.

While the supreme court has authority to
suspend an attorney, except in exceptional cas-
es, disbarment proceedings should be initiated
in the district court, as provided by Rev. Codes
1899, §§ 434, 437.-In re Freerks (N. D.) 265.

certain mitigating circumstances will be con-
In a proceeding for disbarment for deceit,
sidered by the court, and the punishment re-
duced to suspension for an indefinite period.-
In re Freerks (N. D.) 265.

Under the statute prohibiting an attorney
from being a surety on any undertaking in any
suit or proceeding, an attorney is not liable as
surety on an injunctional undertaking.-Den-
nett v. Reisdorfer (S. D.) 138.

§ 2. Retainer and authority.

Action of attorney of mortgagee in foreclo-
sure in procuring the assignment of a judg
ment against mortgagor, under which his in-
terest in the premises was sold, held not vio-
lative of public policy.-Miller v. Cousins
(Iowa) 814.

§ 3. Duties and liabilities of attorney
to client.

Conveyance of land to an attorney in settle-
ment of fee and loans held not presumptively
fraudulent by reason of the relation between
the parties.-Lindt v. Linder (Iowa) 596.

§ 4. Compensation and lien of attor-

AUTHORITY.

Of agent, see "Principal and Agent," § 2.
Of attorney, see "Attorney and Client," § 2.
Of corporate officers or agents, see "Corpora-
tions," § 4.

Of justice of the peace, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 1.

BAGGAGE.

Of passenger, see "Carriers," § 2.

BAIL.

§ 1. In civil actions.

A recognizance in bastardy, conditioned that
the accused shall appear at the next term, held
limited to such term.-Perkins v. Milton (Neb.)
756.

BAILMENT.

A bank is not chargeable with notice of the
fraudulent acts of an officer, outside the scope
of his authority and in furtherance of his person-
al designs.-Jones v. First Nat. Bank (Neb.)
912.

Acts of a bank officer outside the usual scope

of his authority, in a matter to which the bank
Jones v. First Nat. Bank (Neb.) 912.
is not a party, held not binding on the bank.-

Where a bank is charged with notice of a
transaction, it continues to be affected by such
notice, whatever changes may occur in its offi-
cers.-United States Nat. Bank v. Forstedt
(Neb.) 919.

Where a bank held as collaterals a part of
the stock of another bank, and surrendered
the same and accepted in lieu thereof one-half
in new stock and one-half in certificates of de-
posit, and the certificates were issued without
consideration, it could not recover against the
receiver on its deposit certificates.-State v.
Bank of Ogallala (Neb.) 961.

Where a bank issues certificates of deposit to

BALLOTS.

See "Elections," § 2.

BANKRUPTCY.

after goes into the hands of a receiver, the lat-
ter can maintain an action to recover payment
on such certificates within four years from the
time of commencing such action.-State v. Bank
of Ogallala (Neb.) 961.

Certificates of deposit to stockholders on re-
ducing capital of bank held to be without con-

1. Petition, adjudication, warrant,
and custody of property.
Where, pending an action to wind up the af-
fairs of a banking partnership, the partners
are adjudged bankrupt, an order directing the
property to be turned over to their trustee,
and leaving the receiver's claim for his ex-
penses and services to be adjusted and ordered
paid by the federal court, is discretionary, and
an appeal therefrom should be dismissed.-State
v. German Exch. Bank (Wis.) 570.

2. Assignment, administration, and
distribution of bankrupt's estate.
Under Bankr. Act 1898, § 23b, state courts
may take jurisdiction of proceedings by a
trustee in bankruptcy to recover preferences
from a bankrupt's creditors.-Boudinot v.
Hamann (Iowa) 497.

Whether a creditor of a bankrupt had cause
to believe him insolvent, and that he was being
illegally preferred, within section 60b of the
bankruptcy act, is a question of fact for the
trial court.-Boudinot v. Hamann (Iowa) 497.

BANKS AND BANKING.

§§ 1, 2. Banking corporations and asso-

ciations.

When a bank mingles a trust fund with its
general funds, it may be followed, and a trust
impressed thereon, if it can be identified, or if
it has swelled the funds of the bank.-Officer v.
Officer (Iowa) 826.

A receiver of an insolvent bank need not
procure executions against himself and a re-
turn of nulla bona on all claims against the
bank before commencing actions to enforce
stockholders' liability.-Brinkworth v. Hazlett
(Neb.) 537.

It is no defense, in an action by the receiv-
er of an insolvent bank to enforce stockholders'
liability, that the receiver was in possession
of unreported assets.-Brinkworth v. Hazlett
(Neb.) 537.

Acts done by an officer of a bank away from
its place of business, and not authorized or rat-

the bank.-State v. Bank of Ogallala (Neb.) 961.
§ 3. Functions and dealings.

When a bank, receiving a deposit from an
executor, knows that it is a deposit of estate
funds, it is a special deposit.-Officer v. Officer
(Iowa) 826.

A depositor in an insolvent bank may set
off the deposit standing to his credit when the
bank closed its doors against his notes, pay-
able to the bank, but not then due.-Thomp-
son v. Union Trust Co. (Mich.) 294.

An arrangement between a bank depositor
and the bank cashier, whereby a certain deposit
was to be credited on a certain note, held not
sufficient to authorize the crediting of the de-
posit to the account of the payee of the note,
while the note was in the hands of another
bank and beyond payee's control. Kunze v.
Tawas State Sav. Bank (Mich.) 668.

Trust funds do not lose their character as
such by being deposited in bank by the trustee
to his own account.-Union Stock Yards Nat.
Bank v. Haskell (Neb.) 233.

In an action against a bank for money de-
posited by a trustee to his own account, evi-
dence of payment by the bank of checks sub-
sequently drawn by the trustee, relying in good
faith on his apparent title to the fund, is in-
admissible to a general denial, as such fact, to
be available as a defense, must be specially
pleaded.-Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v.
Haskell (Neb.) 233.

The presumption is that the cashier of a
bank, in receiving money due one on a lease
and depositing it subject to his check, is acting
officially, rather than individually.-Knapp v.
Saunders (S. D.) 137.

A bank has power to act as agent in the
collection and remission of money, though it
be due and payable under a lease.-Knapp v.
Saunders (S. D.) 137.

BARBERS.

Validity of statute licensing barbers as a dis-
criminating measure, see "Constitutional
Law," § 6.

BASTARDS.

tract to indorse for a larger amount, to re-
cover on such renewal notes after paying them,
tract to indorse, and damages for a breach of
the contract to indorse could be recouped.-
Alderton v. Williams (Mich.) 661.

§ 1. Illegitimacy in general.

Declarations by a father, admitting the pa-
ternity of his bastard child, held admissible as
against interest, in a suit by the child to be al-
lowed to inherit from the father, under Code,
§ 3385.-Britt v. Hall (Iowa) 340.

Comp. St. c. 23, § 31, making an illegitimate
child an heir of a person who shall in writing
acknowledge himself to be his father, does not
require a statement of an intent to make the
child an heir.-Thomas V. Thomas' Estate
(Neb.) 630.

§ 2. Proceedings under bastardy laws.
Complainant has no authority to compromise
a judgment in bastardy.-State v. McBride
(Neb.) 209.

The mother, instituting bastardy proceedings,
held not entitled to costs under judgment ad-
judging generally that the father pay a cer-
tain sum as costs of the action.-Barry v.
Niessen (Wis.) 166.

BILLS AND NOTES.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.

Conceding that a promise in a note for com-
pound interest and attorney's fees was not en-
forceable, such fact held not to affect recovery
of the debt.-Marshall Field & Co. v. Oren
Ruffcorn Co. (Iowa) 618.

Note held not void, as obtained by duress,
though the payee threatened to disclose evi-
dence against the maker in a pending crim-
inal prosecution unless it was given.-Barger
v. Farnham (Mich.) 281.

A note given to an agent by his principal, in
settlement of the agent's claims under the con-
tract of agency, was based on a sufficient con-
sideration, though the contract itself provided
that the agent might terminate it at any time
after 90 days from its date, and his election to
terminate it may have been premature.-Bar-
ger v. Farnham (Mich.) 281.

An action, by an indorsee of notes given
in renewal of notes indorsed pursuant to a cou-

To constitute a complete delivery of a note,
it must be made in a manner evincing an inten-
tion to part presently and unconditionally with
all control over it.-Streissguth v. Kroll (Minn.)
577.

eration of which was the suppression of a crim-
No recovery can be had on a note, the consid-
inal prosecution.-Smith Premier Typewriter Co.
V. Mayhew (Neb.) 939.

Evidence in an action on a note held sufficient
ulent conspiracy.-Kirby v. Berguin (Š. D.) 856.
to show that the note was obtained by a fraud-

Where a person gives his check to another
on condition that it shall not be presented till
funds are in the bank by the payment of a
check given to it by such person upon another
bank, it is an implied agreement that the latter
Batavian Bank v. North (Wis.) 1016.
check shall be paid within a reasonable time.

§ 12. Construction and operation.
It is not error to refuse to instruct that, if
the note in suit was sent by the maker from
Nebraska to the payee in Oklahoma, it must
be governed in its provisions and effect by the
Nebraska laws.-Hewitt v. Bank of Indian
Territory (Neb.) 250.

§ 2.

Modification, renewal, and rescis-
sion.

An agreement between a merchant and his
creditor, whereby the former was to have an
extension of time in which to pay notes, held
without consideration.-Marshall Field & Co.
v. Oren Ruffcorn Co. (lowa) 618.

§ 3. Negotiability and transfer.

A note not payable at a bank is not nego-
tiable in West Virginia, and the indorsers need
not be served with notice of nonpayment.-
Barger v. Farnham (Mich.) 281.

A note payable in another state is governed
by the laws of such state in determining
whether or not it is negotiable.-Barger v.
Farnham (Mich.) 281.

4. Rights and liabilities on indorse-
ment or transfer.

Want of consideration is not a defense to an
action on a note against an accommodation in-
dorser, even though plaintiff acquired the note
mere
with knowledge that defendant was a
accommodation indorser.-Bankers' Iowa State
Bank v. Mason Hand Lathe Co. (Iowa) 612.

The conduct of an accommodation indorser
of a note secured by a chattel mortgage held
to preclude him from raising the objection that
the full value was not obtained for the mort-
gaged property.-Bankers' Iowa State Bank v.
Mason Hand Lathe Co. (Iowa) 612.

An indorsement on a nonnegotiable note mere-
ly operates to transfer the title, and does not
make the indorser liable in case of nonpay-
ment
V.
of the maker.-Barger Farnham

(Mich.) 281.

A telegraph company, which upon order by
telegraph delivers a check by mistake to the
wrong party, held liable to the amount thereof
to an innocent purchaser for value.-Burrows
v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Minn.) 1111.

Where a negotiable note is indorsed before
due as collateral for a loan of money, the
pledgee without notice is a holder for value.
-Connecticut Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v.
Trumbo (Neb.) 216.

Evidence in an action by the assignee of a ne-
gotiable note against the maker held sufficient
to justify a charge upon the issue whether plain-

tiff was a bona fide purchaser.-Kirby v. Ber-
guin (S. D.) 856.

A general verdict construed, under the facts
and Comp. Laws, § 4739, to show that the hold-
er of a certificate of deposit was not a bona
fide purchaser, notwithstanding a special finding
that the holder was without knowledge of his
indorser's fraud.-Dunn v. National Bank (S.
D.) 1045.

§ 5. Presentment, demand, notice, and
protest.

A waiver of protest by an indorser held, un-
der the evidence, to have been executed before
the maturity of the note.-Bankers' Iowa State
Bank v. Mason Hand Lathe Co. (Iowa) 612.

An indorser of a negotiable note is entitled
to notice of dishonor.-Barger v. Farnham
(Mich.) 281.

§ 6. Payment and discharge.

A debtor making a premature payment on his
note should not ordinarily be punished, for over-
diligence in meeting his obligation, by being
denied the resulting credit.-Union Stock Yards
Nat. Bank v. Haskell (Neb.) 233.

When payment is made to the agent of a hold-
er of a note, and the agent's authority to receive
payment is fully established, the payment is
binding on the holder of the note, though the
agent did not have the note in his possession
at the time of payment.-Union Stock Yards
Nat. Bank v. Haskell (Neb.) 233.

Renewals of note secured by mortgage held
not a payment and discharge thereof.-Lowry
v. Milwaukee Nat. Bank (Wis.) 178.

87. Actions.

Where a note was given by mistake, such
fact held a defense in an action by the original
payee or by an indorsee with notice.-Wilder-
man v. Donnelly (Minn.) 366.

Where indorsee of mortgage notes begins fore-
closure without making the indorser a party,
and pending suit transfers the notes as collater-
al, and secures dismissal of an intervention by
the first indorser setting up the latter's in-
solvency, he cannot complain that the holder of
the collateral did not commence proceedings
against his indorser.-Stoddart V. American
Nat. Bank (Neb.) 213.
§ 8.

Pleading.

Under Code, § 3640, denial by corporate de
fendant of signature to note held sufficient.
Marshall Field & Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co.
(Iowa) 618.

Under Code, §§ 3640, 3581, 3609, denial by
secretary of corporation of signature of note,
purporting to be made by defendant's president,
held sufficient.-Marshall Field & Co. v. Oren
Ruffcorn Co. (Iowa) 618.

On denial by corporation, under Code, § 3640,
of signature to note, the verification being by
an officer, held, that he should show knowledge
of facts. Marshall Field & Co. v. Oren Ruff-
corn Co. (Iowa) 618.

Objection that a note was void because a
part of the consideration was to suppress a
criminal prosecution, and to suppress evidence
in a pending prosecution, was bad, where the
plea contained no notice of such a defense.
Barger v. Farnham (Mich.) 281.

An allegation in a petition on a note that it
was executed in Oklahoma, under the laws of
that territory, which provided that by special
contract such a rate of interest as that "men-
tioned in said note" may be made a legal rate,
is sufficient, on a general denial, to admit evi-
dence of the Oklahoma statute.-Hewitt
Bank of Indian Territory (Neb.) 250.

9.- Evidence.

V.

Statement of counsel held no admission of
matters in issue.-Marshall Field & Co. v. Oren
Ruffcorn Co. (Iowa) 618.

The admission of a note the signature to
which had been denied, under Code, § 3640,
held prejudicial error.-Marshall Field & Co. v.
Oren Ruffcorn Co. (Iowa) 618.

Where, in a suit on a note, defendant denies
the signature, under Code, 8 3640, the note is
not admissible in evidence until the authority
for the signature is shown.-Marshall Field &
Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn Co. (Iowa) 618.

Possession of notes by one who indorsed
them before delivery to the payee is, in an ac-
tion by him to recover against the makers,
prima facie evidence that he paid the notes
in full at maturity. Alderton v. Williams
(Mich.) 661.

Where, in an action on a note, the defense
was want of consideration, held not necessary
for defendant to show that he was not guilty
of laches in making the defense.-Wilderman v.
Donnelly (Minn.) 366.

Evidence in an action on a note and to fore-

close a mortgage examined, and held to sus-
tain certain findings of the trial court as to a
credit.-Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Has-
kell (Neb.) 233.

In an action on a note alleged to have been
executed in Oklahoma, evidence that the note
was given for a pre-existing debt contracted
and due in Oklahoma is relevant, as tending to
establish an Oklahoma contract.-Hewitt v.
Bank of Indian Territory (Neb.) 250.

Evidence in an action by the assignee of a ne-
gotiable note held sufficient to sustain a find-
ing of the jury that plaintiff was not a bona
fide purchaser.-Kirby v. Berguin (S. D.) 856.

In an action on a note, evidence of the circum-
stances leading up to the execution of the note
held admissible to show a fraudulent conspiracy
to secure the note.-Kirby v. Berguin (S. D.)
856.

Where a negotiable instrument is shown to
have been obtained by fraud or duress, the bur-
den is on a subsequent holder to show that he
was a bona fide purchaser for value without no-
tice.-Kirby v. Berguin (S. D.) 856.
§ 10. Trial.

In an action on a note, held error to instruct
that the name of the husband, affixed by his
v. Hill
wife, was binding on him.—Beard
(Mich.) 1065.

In an action on a note, held error, in submit-
ting the question of the wife's authority to
sign, to instruct that, though the apparent con-
sent to affixing the signature was procured by
fraud, it was binding on defendant.-Beard v.
Hill (Mich.) 1065.

Where there is no evidence, in an action on
a note, of any compliance with the conditions
upon which a payment was made by a third
party, it is not error to instruct that defendants,
to entitle themselves to credit for such payment,
must show that it was unconditional.-Hewitt
v. Bank of Indian Territory (Neb.) 250.

BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.

Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see
"Bills and Notes," § 4.

Of lands, see "Vendor and Purchaser," § 4.
Of property fraudulently conveyed, see "Fraudu-
lent Conveyances," § 2.

BONDS.

Liquor dealers' bonds, see "Intoxicating Liq-
uors," $ 3.
Municipal bonds, see "Municipal Corporations,"
§ 10.

Parol evidence to identify bond, see "Evidence,"
§ 9.

Right of co-surety to purchase property sold at
execution sale, see "Execution," § 4.
Sureties on bonds, see "Principal and Surety."
Bonds for performance of duties of trust or
office.

See "Guardian and Ward." § 2: "Officers,"
3; "Sheriffs and Constables," § 2.

Bonds in legal proceedings.

See "Appeal and Error," § 18; "Bail"; "In-
junction," 4; "Replevin," § 4.

On appeal from justice, see "Justices of the
Peace," § 3.

§ 1. Requisites and validity.

A statutory bond needs no consideration to
support it.-State v. Paxton (Neb.) 983; Brown
v. State, Id.

§ 2. Construction and operation.

A bond not within the purview of the stat-
nte may be sustained as a common-law con-
tract.-State v. Paxton (Neb.) 983; Brown v.
State, Id.

BOUNDARIES.

See "Schools and School Districts," § 1.
§ 1. Description.

Where the government survey shows a mean-
der line, but there was no water to be meander-
ed, such line becomes a boundary beyond which
the title of the owner of adjacent lots does
not extend.-Schlosser v. Hemphill (Iowa) 842.

The grant of land on a nonnavigable river by
the general government with reference to the
plat of the survey, which shows a meandered
line along the river bank, conveys such unsur-
veyed islands or parts of islands as lie within
that limit.-McBride v. Whitaker (Neb.) 966.

Grants of land on an unnavigable river car-
ry with them the exclusive right to the center of
the stream, unless the terms of the grant de-
note the intention to stop at its margin.-Mc-
Bride v. Whitaker (Neb.) 966.
§ 2.

Evidence, ascertainment, and es-
tablishment.

Where a boundary fence was built on what
the parties supposed was the true line, and
there was no dispute, and it was not known
that there was any uncertainty, no estoppel
by contract was shown; and hence no title
could be claimed thereby on a possession of
less than 20 years.-Peters v. Reichenbach
(Wis.) 184.

and sells the property at an advance, he is ac-
countable to the owner for the profits.-Merriam
v. Johnson (Minn.) 116.

Where a real estate agent induces the owner
to fix a net price on certain property for a sale
the property and realize a greater profit than a
to a third person, he cannot himself purchase
reasonable commission.-Merriam v. Johnson
(Minn.) 116.

§ 3. Compensation and lien.

Where a real estate broker is employed by an
owner of lands to exchange them, and effects an
exchange, there is no legal inference of an im-
plied promise by the other party to pay the
broker a commission.-Dartt V. Sonnesyn
(Minn.) 115.

Though an agreement by a real estate owner
to pay an agent a commission is invalid on its
face, yet, where the agent acts thereunder,
though he does nothing more, it is a sufficient
partial performance to render the contract en-
torceable.-Lapham v. Flint (Minu.) 780.

An instruction that, if a real estate agent con-
tracted to sell the land on other or different
terms than those authorized by his principal, he
could not recover commissious, held proper.-
Huffman v. Ellis (Neb.) 552.

An instruction that, where an agent is em-
ployed to sell property without an agreement
as to the time of agency, either party may de-
termine the agency by notice, is proper.-Huff-
man v. Ellis (Neb.) 552.

Where the evidence showed an interest on the
part of the broker in the contract of purchase,
sions, he must have acted in good faith, was
an instruction that, to entitle him to commis-
proper.-Buck v. Hogeboom (Neb.) 635.

Real estate broker held not entitled to a com-
mission.-Frenzer v. Lee (Neb.) 914.
§ 4. Actions for compensation.

Where a real estate agent contracts with an
owner of land as to its sale, and there is a dis-
pute as to the terms of the contract, the ques-
tion as to the agreement is for the jury.-Mer-
riam v. Johnson (Minn.) 116.

Where complainant claims compensation for
procuring a purchaser of lands, an instruction
that the seller had a right to trade his own
property, and that, if the broker was not in-
strumental in bringing about the contract, he
could recover no commission, was proper.-
Buck v. Hogeboom (Neb.) 635.

BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.
§ 1. In general.

Where a building association had 15 directors
chosen from the stockholders, a contention that
its methods were unlawful as putting all real
power into the hands of the directors was of
no merit.-Bullman v. Citizens' Loan & Build-
ing Ass'n (Wis.) 199.

Where the by-laws of a building association
authorize fines against delinquent members, the
grantee of a mortgagor to the association and
assignee of his stock, who failed to pay accord-
ing to the association's requirements, cannot
contend against the enforcement of the fines.-
Bullman v. Citizens' Loan & Building Ass'n
(Wis.) 199.

In an action by a mortgagor for an account-
ing, where the mortgagee building association
is not endeavoring to enforce a provision for
proceedings on three months' default, the ques-
tion whether such provision was lawful, under
Sanb. & B. Ann. St. § 2011, is immaterial.-
Bullman v. Citizens' Loan & Building Ass'n
(Wis.) 199.

§ 2. Stock.

Under the by-laws and certificates of stock
of a building and loan association, held, that a