§ 4. Abandonment, waiver, or forfei- | Adultery, see "Adultery."

Competency of wife to swear out complaint
against husband for assault, see "Criminal
Law," § 2.

Rights of survivor, see "Executors and Admin-
istrators," § 4; "Homestead," § 3.

§ 1. Mutual rights, duties, and liabili-
ties.

Where a subcontractor, in painting defend-
ant's house, at the request of his wife did
extra work, he cannot recover therefor in the
absence of evidence that the wife was author-
ized by defendant.-Ross v. Dunn (Mich.) 296.
2. Disabilities and privileges of coV-

In an action for criminal conversation with
plaintiff's wife, evidence of the wife's death
Evidence on a prosecution for murder by poi- prior to the institution of the action was ad-
son, in which the defense was decedent's sui-missible.-Lee v. Hammond (Wis.) 1073.
cide, considered, and held to sustain a verdict
of murder in the first degree.-State v. Kuhn
(Iowa) 733.

In prosecution for assault with intent to kill,
evidence of noises made by some one in defend-
ant's house at the time held to warrant an
inference that they were made by defendant,
and to be admissible as tending to show that he of witness, see "Witnesses," § 6.
was in the house and could not have committed
the crime. Goodwin v. State (Wis.) 170.

Where questions asked of a witness did not

disclose the answers sought, and no offer of See "Assumpsit, Action of"; "Work and La-

On a prosecution for incest, evidence of the See "Descent and Distribution."
mutual conduct of the parties to the crime be-
fore its commission is admissible, but not of
their conduct thereafter.-State v. De Masters
(S. D.) 852.

Of fraudulent grantor, see "Fraudulent Con- § 2. Writ, order or decree, service, and
veyances," § 1.

as therein denounced is sufficient.-Peterson v. Estoppel, see "Estoppel," § 2.
State (Neb.) 964.

The guardian of an incompetent is his cus-
Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see todian, and may care for and control him in
"Bills and Notes," §§ 3, 4.

See "Adoption"; "Guardian and Ward"; "Par- subject to the power of a court to restrain an
ent and Child."
improper removal.-State v. Lawrence (Minn.)
769.

Gen. St. 1894, § 4511, relating to claims
Criminal accusation, see "Indictment and In- against estates of decedents, held not applicable
formation."
where a guardian has been appointed of the

"

Of banks, see "Banks and Banking," § 2.
Of corporation, see "Corporations,' § 6.
Of insurance company, see "Insurance," § 1.
§ 1. Assignment, administration, and
distribution of insolvent's estate.
In ruling on motion to set aside order allow
ing receiver's account in insolvency, specific
findings of law and fact need not be separately
stated.-Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Menage
(Minn.) 3.

An order allowing the receiver's account, and
refusing to surcharge the same under the claim
that the receiver was guilty of positive fraud,
involves the conclusion of fact that the receiv-
er's conduct was in good faith, without more
specific findings.-Minneapolis Trust Co. V.
Menage (Minn.) 3.

INSTRUCTIONS.

In civil actions, see "Trial," §§ 7-13.
In criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 4.

INSURANCE.

§ 1. Insurance companies.

Where a mutual insurance company becomes
insolvent, the order of the court appointing a
receiver cancels all policies, and the statute of
limitations then runs against the right of the
creditors of the company to enforce any liability
to the company by the holders of such policies.
-Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'n of Eau Claire
(Wis.) 1086.

§ 2. The contract in general.

Under Comp. St. 1899, c. 43, art. 2, § 46, an
insurance company doing business in the state
must cancel a policy on request and return the
net amount of the unearned premium.-State
Ins. Co. v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. (Neb.) 997.

Complaint in action to recover unearned pre-
miums held sufficient to withstand a demurrer
ore tenus made at the trial.-State Ins. Co. v.
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. (Neb.) 997.

Where new insurance was taken out before
presentation of first insurance policy for can-
cellation, and the first policy contained a clause
avoiding it in case of additional insurance, no
recovery can be had of unearned premiums.-
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co.
(Neb.) 1000.

A request for cancellation of an insurance
effect from the time of its receipt by the in-
policy and claim of unearned premium takes
surer, with tender of the policy.-Farmers' Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co. (Neb.) 1000.

$ 4.

Avoidance of policy for misrepre-
sentation, fraud, or breach of
warranty or condition.
Assured held not to have made false answer
to question as to whether any insurance com-
pany had ever declined to insure his life.-
Newton v. Southwestern Mut. Life Ass'n
(Iowa) 73.

That a certificate of health be obtained by
applicant for life insurance by fraud, it is not
enough that his answers to the medical ex-
aminer be untrue, but he must have known
them to be false, and the examiner must have
been thereby deceived.-Welch v. Union Cent.
Life Ins. Co. (Iowa) 828.

Misrepresentations as to the health of insured
by a person acting for him in procuring a rein-
statement of the policy held to avoid the policy.
-Fraser v. Etna Life Ins. Co. (Wis.) 476.

Good faith in making misrepresentations as
to health of the insured on application for rein-
statement of policy held immaterial to defense
of misrepresentations.-Fraser v. Ætna Life
Ins. Co. (Wis.) 476.

§ 5. Forfeiture of policy for breach of
promissory warranty, covenant,
or condition subsequent.
Contention that persons who had undertaken
Furnace and boiler held to be parts of the the policy would be forfeited if they were not
to pay assured's insurance premiums knew that
realty, and covered by provision of fire policy paid at a certain date held untenable.-Newton
insuring house, and not by provision insuring. Southwestern Mut. Life Ass'n (Iowa) 73.
its contents.-West v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co.
(Iowa) 523.

Where a mutual insurance company is or-
ganized under Comp. St. 1897, c. 43, the pro-
visions of such statute, the articles of or-
ganization, the by-laws of the company, the
application for membership, and the certificate
of membership constitute a contract between
the company and its policy holder.-Farmers'
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kinney (Neb.) 926.

Insurance company held not entitled to for-
feit assured's policy without giving 30 days'
notice, as required by its articles of associa-
tion.-Newton V. Southwestern Mut. Life
Ass'n (Iowa) 73.

A by-law of a mutual insurance company.
providing that it shall not be liable for any
loss that may occur while a member is in de-
fault held reasonable.-Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co.
V. Kinney (Neb.) 926.

Member of a mutual fire insurance company
held bound by the subsequently enacted by-laws § 6. Estoppel, waiver, or agreements
as much as by those in force when his certifi-
cate was issued.-Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Kinney (Neb.) 926.

§ 3. Cancellation, surrender, abandon-
ment, or rescission of policy.
Under Comp. St. 1899, c. 43, art. 2, § 46, on
cancellation of policy, the commission actually
paid to the agent must first be deducted, and
the per cent. of the unearned premium to be
returned should be computed on the remainder.
-State Ins. Co. v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co.
(Neb.) 997.

After request for cancellation and return of
unearned premium by the party insured, his
right to the same becomes absolute and may be
assigned.-State Ins. Co. v. Farmers' Mut. Ins.
Co. (Neb.) 997.

affecting right to avoid or for-
feit policy.

Insurance company held estopped from con-
a forfeiture of as-
tending that there was
sured's policy for nonpayment of premiums
prior to a certain date.-Newton v. South-
western Mut. Life Ass'n (Iowa) 73.

Where the holder of a policy on his house-
hold goods delivers it to the local agent to at-
tach a vacancy permit, he has a right to rely
on statement of agent that the permit has been
attached.-Morgan v. Illinois Ins. Co. (Mich.)

40.

Where all the property covered by a policy
of mutual fire insurance company is not de-
stroyed, the receipt of a subsequent assess-
ment from the member while his policy was

Evidence considered, and held to justify a pol-
icy holder in considering a person to be an agent
of the insurance company, and in withholding
proofs of loss after such agent stated that the
company denied any liability.-Morgan v. Il-Regulation, see "Commerce."
linois Ins. Co. (Mich.) 40.

Proofs of a fire loss, made by the insured's
clerk, insured being ill, held a sufficient com-
pliance with a provision of the policy requiring
such proofs to be made by the insured himself.
-Burns v. Michigan Manufacturers' Mut. Fire
Ins. Co. (Mich.) 411.

Under indemnity insurance policy held, that See "Descent and Distribution."
notice given more than one year after the ac-
cident happened was not within reasonable time,
and not within the provision of the contract.
Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co. v. Maryland Cas-
ualty Co. (Minn.) 1110.

1180

had, a recovery cannot be had therein against
the dealer individually.-Carter v. Nicol (Iowa)
352.

Liquor dealer's bond, executed in pursuance
of Code, § 2390, held to cover sales and acts
only on the premises for which the permit was
issued.-Carter v. Nicol (Iowa) 352.

A stipulation, in a decree by consent against
defendant in a suit to enjoin the illegal sale of
liquor, that it should not prevent defendant in
the future from obtaining a liquor permit, held
ineffective on a subsequent application by de-
fendant, as against contestants who were not
parties to the injunction suit. In re Thoma
(Iowa) 581.

A decree by consent against defendant in a
suit to enjoin the illegal sale of liquor held con-
clusive against him on a subsequent applica-
tion for a liquor permit, under the statute re-
quiring the applicant for such permit to show
that he has not been guilty of previous violation
of the liquor law. In re Thoma (Iowa) 581.
Where bond, after its approval and the grant-
ing of the application for license, is withdrawn,
the municipal officers have no authority to is-
sue the license.-State v. Schreiner (Minn.)
401.

Where the question as to the qualifications of
certain signers to the application for a liquor
license has been passed on by the licensing
board, and the district court on appeal has ar-
rived at the same conclusion, the finding of fact
and order of the board will not be disturbed on
error in the supreme court, unless clearly wrong.
-Persinger v. Miller (Neb.) 242.

Where, on the hearing in the district court,
on appeal in a proceeding for a liquor license,
it is found that a portion of the record and pro-
ceedings before the licensing board has not been
sent up, it is proper, on an application, to or-
der the same brought up and filed.-Persinger v.
Miller (Neb.) 242.

Objections not set forth in the remonstrance
to an application for a liquor license, and not
urged before the license board, should not be
considered on appeal to the district court, nor on
a petition in error to the supreme court.-Per-
singer v. Miller (Neb.) 242.

§ 4. Offenses.

Under Code, §§ 2387, 2388, 2392, providing
for a permit for the sale of intoxicating liquors,
a permit issued for sales in a particular building
held not to authorize sales in another building
on a different lot.-Carter v. Nicol (Iowa) 352.
Laws 1901, c. 252, prohibiting the maintain-
ing of blind pigs, does not repeal any part of
Gen. St. 1894, § 2029, providing for the pun-
ishment of the sale of liquors without a license.
-State v. McCoy (Minn.) 305.

A sale of liquor on Sunday by a servant
without any authority of the master is not a
sale by the master, within Comp. St. 1901, c.
50, § 14.-Moore v. State (Neb.) 553.

Under Rev. St. 1898, §§ 1548-1550, a manu-
facturer of liquor is guilty of a misdemeanor
if he sells liquor without a license from his de-
livery wagon to a customer in his own town.-
Michels v. State (Wis.) 1096.

§ 5. Criminal prosecutions.

failing to state the crime charged_with_suffi-
cient definiteness. - Anderson v. Van Buren
Circuit Judge (Mich.) 692.

An information against a druggist for vio-
lation of Pub. Acts 1899, No. 183, § 1, in keep-
ing a place where liquors were sold, kept, etc.,
in violation of law, charges only the offense of
Circuit Judge (Mich.) 692.
keeping the place.-Anderson v. Van Buren

Under Pub. Acts 1899, No. 183. § 1, an in-
formation for keeping a place where liquors
were sold in violation of the act is sufficient,
without setting out the specific sales.-Ander-
son v. Van Buren Circuit Judge (Mich.) 692.

An information for violation of Pub. Acts
1899, No. 183, § 1, in keeping a place where
liquors were sold during a certain period, char
ges only one offense, for which only one pen-
alty can be imposed.-Anderson v. Van Buren
Circuit Judge (Mich.) 692.

An indictment against a druggist for keeping
a place in violation of Pub. Acts 1899, No.
V. Van
183, § 1, which negatives the terms of the
proviso, held sufficient.-Anderson
Buren Circuit Judge (Mich.) 692.

An indictment for selling beer in a village
after it has voted against the issuance of li-
cense is not defective for failing to allege that
the beer sold was to be consumed within the
village.-State v. Johnson (Minn.) 161.

An information charging one with keeping
liquors with intent to sell without a license held
not fatally defective because it fails definitely
to describe the place where the liquors are
kept.-Peterson v. State (Neb.) 964.

§ 7.

-

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to show an unlawful
sale.-State v. Johnson (Minn.) 161.

Evidence by a clerk in a drug store, the own-
er of which was charged with illegal sale of
liquor, as to the knowledge of defendant as
to the sale, and under what instructions the
witness was acting, was competent.-State v.
Lewis (Minn.) 318.

On trial of a druggist for selling intoxicating
liquors, certain evidence held competent, and not
objectionable as tending to convict defendant
of another offense.-State v. Lewis (Minn.) 318.

To justify a conviction under Comp. St. 1901,
c. 50, § 14, of an illegal sale of liquors on Sun-
day, it must appear that defendant, by himself
or his agent, sold liquors on Sunday.-Moore
v. State (Neb.) 553.

In a prosecution under Comp. St. c. 50, § 20,
for keeping liquors for sale in violation of law,
the possession of such liquors by the accused
held presumptive evidence of guilt in the dis-
trict court, as well as before the examining
magistrate.-Peterson v. State (Neb.) 964.

Evidence examined, and held sufficient to sup-
port a verdict of guilty of keeping liquor with
intent to sell the same illegally.-Peterson v.
State (Neb.) 964.

Whether instructions by a master to his
servant not to sell or give away intoxicating
liquors on Sunday were given in good faith
held a question for the jury.-Moore v. State
(Neb.) 553.

Where an information charges the keeping of
Under an ordinance providing for the issu-
ance of a liquor license, it is no defense to a liquors with intent to illegally sell the same,
complaint for selling without a license that de-heid proper to charge that the time and "place"
fendant had paid the license fee and that the as alleged must be found from the evidence in
city council had approved his bond and voted order to warrant a conviction. — Peterson v.
him a license, where no formal license had issu- State (Neb.) 964.
ed. City of Jordan v. Bespalec (Minn.) 1052.
Indictment and information.
§ 6.
An information charging a druggist with
violation of Pub. Acts 1899, No. 183, in mak-
ing certain sales of liquor, held insufficient, as

§ 9. Abatement and injunction.
Liquor nuisance abated, and objection that
there was already an injunction in force against
the defendants and the premises held unten-
able.-Hill v. Dunn (Iowa) 705.