AGREEMENT. See CONTRACT. ALIAS WRIT. See REPLEVIN. ALIBI. See EVIDENCE, 89. ALIMONY. See DIVORCE, 5, 9. APPEAL. In chancery, as to final order: See EQUITY PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE, 6, 10, 12. APPEAL BOND. As to judgment against sureties: SEE PRACTICE IN SUPREME COURT. ASSIGNEE. As to right to insure and collect: See PRACTICE IN CIRCUIT COURT, 4. ASSIGNMENT. Assignment for benefit of creditors: Selection of exempt property. Where a bona fide assignment of personal property, including that exempt by law, is made by a debtor for the benefit of creditors, the assignment is in effect a transfer of the whole property, subject to the right in the assignor to select those portions which the law, on the selection being made, absolutely sets aside for the benefit of the debtor and his family. The assignment passes for the benefit of creditors the same interest which an officer would seize by virtue of an execution, and there is no more difficulty in making the selection of exempt property in the one case than in the other. - Brooks v. Nichols, 39. When assignee collects insurance on goods assigned: IN CIRCUIT Court, 4. ASSUMPSIT. See PRACTICE Adverse title: Use and occupation. Assumpsit for use and occupation can not be maintained when the relation of landlord and tenant did not exist during the occupancy, or when the holding has been adverse to the owner. A disputed title can not be tried in an action of assumpsit. But where the relation exists, and the occupancy has been beneficial to the defendant, the law implies a promise to pay a reasonable compensation, unless there be an express contract, or other circumstances inconsistent with such promise or with the duty to pay. - Hogsett v. Ellis, 351. ATTACHMENT. 1. Writ of attachment: Return day: Omission of year. Where a writ of attachment was tested and issued on the 7th day of February, 1867, but made returnable on "Tuesday, the 2d day of April," without expressing the year, held, that it must be understood as referring to April of the then current year.-Nash v. Mallory, 232. 2. Writ of attachment: Return day. Where a writ of attachment was made returnable on "Tuesday, the 2d of June," without mentioning the year; held, in law to mean after the date of the writVinton v. Mead, 388. As to possession: See REPLEVIN. As to dissolution of: See CIRCUIT COURT COMMISSSIONER, 1. As to "Debt due": See AFFIDAVIT, 3. ATTORNEY. Effect of account rendered: See ACCOUNT RENDERED. ATTORNMENT. See LANDLORD AND TENANT. BANKS. See NATIONAL BANKS. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 1. Settlement of, after death of party. A bill of exceptions is not irregular, although signed and settled after the death of the opposing party, and before there has been any revival of the judgment. If regular notice has been given to the administrator to attend such settlement, no further steps can be required to complete it; but if such notice is not given, an opportunity may be granted on cause shown to obtain amendments. - Van Valkenburg v. Rogers, 322. 2. 3. Where a judge has gone out of office after signing a regular bill of exceptions, it will not be disturbed, but will stand as a part of the record for review. -Ibid. When signed by judge after resignation: New trial. Where a bill of exceptions appeared on its face to have been signed while the judge who tried the cause was still in office, and it was in fact signed by stipulation afterwards upon condition, the court refused to allow effect to evidence to contradict the record and show this fact, and that the conditions had not been complied with, inasmuch as, under the circumstances, it was inequitable. A party will not be allowed to lose a right by the resignation of a judge, if there is any way to presume it.-Tefft v. Windsor 425. As to recitals in judgment: See JUDGMENT RECORD. BILL TO QUIET TITLE. When regularity of appointment of administrator will not be inquired into: See PROBATE COURT, 1. As to costs: See PROBATE COURT, 5. 1. BOARD OF REGISTRATION. Power of Where a person appears before the Ward Board of Registration and claims to be registered, the Board are bound to examine him under oath and hear testimony offered by him. They have no right to pass upon the question of his legal right by mere personal inspection. - People v. Fourth Ward, Detroit, 427. 2. Mandamus: Issue. In an application for a mandamus to compel the Board to meet for the purpose of acting on the case of the relator, it was held that no issue for trial could be ordered, as the duty to meet and consider the testimony was an imperative one. It is the duty of the Ward Board on such a case to pass upon the question one way or the other. They have no right to reserve questions for the consideration of the City Board of Review. Ibid. BONA FIDE PURCHASER. As to notice of fraud: See PROBATE COURT, 7. BOND. As to judgment against sureties: See PRAC. IN SUPREME COURT. Of Clerk: See COUNTY CLERK, 1, 3. BURDEN OF PROOF. In criminal cases, as to insanity: See EVIDENCE, 6. CARRIERS. See COMMON CARRIERS. CASES IN MICHIGAN REPORTS CITED AND COMMENTED UPON. * Adair v. Adair, 5 Mich. 204; cited 280. American Transportation Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368; cited 62. Angell v. Rosenbury, 12 Mich. 257; cited 107. Baker v. Pierson, 5 Mich. 456; cited 363. Batty v. Snook, 5 Mich. 231; cited 46. Caruthers v. Humphrey, 12 Mich. 270; cited 363. Dann v. Cadney, 13 Mich. 239; cited 109. D. & M. R. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; cited 435. Drew v. Dequindre, 2 Doug. 93; cited 234. Jones v. Phelps, 5 Mich. 218; cited 280. Ladue v. D. & M. R. R. Co. 13 Mich. 380; cited 363. Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458; cited 451. Maher v. People, 10 Mich. 212; cited 22, 27. M. S. & N. I. R. R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515; cited 300. Mundy v. Monroe, 1 Mich. 68; 242. Nash v. Mallory, 17 Mich. 232; cited 389. Norris v. Showerman, 2 Doug. 16; cited 185. Norris v. Showerman, Walk. Ch. 206; cited 280. Parmer v. Rich, 12 Mich. 414; cited 332. Pennsylvania Mining Co. v Brady, 16 Mich. 332; cited 126, 280. People v. Auditor General, 7 Mich. 84; cited 92. People v. Circuit Court, 1 Doug. 434; cited 360. People v. Detroit & Pontiac R. R. Co. 1 Mich. 458; cited 83, 89. People v. Horton, 4 Mich. 67; cited 109. People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; cited 27. People v. Judges, 1 Doug. 319; cited 182. People v. Oakland Co. Bank, 1 Doug. 282; cited 170. People v. Regents, 4 Mich. 98; cited 180. People v. Simonson, 9 Mich. 462, cited 450. People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 212; cited 185. Robinson v. Cromelien, 15 Mich. 316; cited 46. Schneider v. Fort St. & Elmwood Railway Co. 15 Mich. 74; cited 66. Scribner v. Gay, 5 Mich. 511; cited 326, 426. Sisson v. C. &. T. R. R. Co. 14 Mich. 489; cited 105, 301. Smith v. Mitchell, 12 Mich. 180; cited 40. |