Jurisdiction of municipal court, see "Courts," FRAUDS. STATUTE OF. GAMING. 1. Gambling contracts and transactions. Recovery of bet from stakeholder under 2 Rev. St. p. 1763, held not affected by Pen. Code, § 352, forfeiting money so bet to the people.-French v. Matteson (Sup.) 869. GARNISHMENT. 1. Promises to answer for debt, default, or miscarriage of another. Though the statute of frauds requires a guar- See "Attachment"; "Execution." anty to be in writing, it may be terminated by parol.-Picker v. Fitzelle (Sup.) 902. An agreement by an agent to pay the premium on a policy, if it should not be canceled, is not answering for the debt of another, where he thereby sought to secure his own commissions on the contract.-Hess V. Rothschild (Sup.) 957. 2. Requisites and sufficiency of writing. Where an agreement was not to be performed within a year, a writing which did not show consideration for defendant's promise was insufficient.-Seymour v. Warren (Sup.) 236. Where an agreement was not to be performed within a year, a writing which did not show the whole agreement was insufficient.-Seymour v. Warren (Sup.) 236. § 3. Pleading, evidence, trial, and review. GIFTS. Charitable gifts, see "Charities." Evidence held sufficient to show intent of decedent that money deposited in bank in the name of himself and wife should go to her on his death.-In re Meehan (Sup.) 9. Where a mother, after depositing her own funds in a bank in the name of herself and daughter, retained actual possession and control of the bank book, and always drew from the account, held, that the transaction did not constitute a gift to the daughter, and the fund was therefore liable for the mother's debts.Schwind v. Ibert (Sup.) 921. Of GOOD FAITH. purchaser, see “Vendor and Purchaser,”, GRAND JURY. In an action to enforce a contract creating an express trust in land, it is not necessary to allege in the complaint that such contract is in writing, and, if defendant wishes to avail him- See "Indictment and Information." self of the statute of frauds, requiring written proof of the contract, he must plead the statute as a defense, or he will be deemed to have waived it.-Miller v. Munroe (Sup.) 861. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. By bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 1. 1. Transfers and transactions invalid. A conveyance of defendant's real property held fraudulent, as made without adequate consideration and with the intent to delay the collection of plaintiff's judgment.-Maasch v. Parkin (Sup.) 187. Evidence held to show that conveyance by father to son was in fraud of the creditors of the father.-Breen v. Henry (Sup.) 627. Services of son on father's farm held insufficient consideration for transfer of property by the father to the son as against creditors. Breen v. Henry (Sup.) 627. 2. Remedies of creditors and purchas ers. The burden is on one, having alleged a fraud in the execution of a conveyance, to prove the facts from which the inference of fraud is to be deduced.-Edmondson v. Hamilton (Sup.) 857. GUARANTY. See "Indemnity"; "Principal and Surety." GUARDIAN AND WARD. see Guardianship of insane persons, see "Insane § 1. Guardianship in general. The supreme court has general jurisdiction of a guardian in relation to the care of the person and property of the ward.-Strubbe v. Kings County Trust Co. (Sup.) 1092. § 2. Actions. held not to show a cause of action.-Strubbe v. A complaint in an action against a guardian Kings County Trust Co. (Sup.) 1092. HABEAS CORPUS. § 1. Nature and grounds of remedy. Habeas corpus will not lie to review a convic tion for disorderly conduct, where the magistrate had jurisdiction and authority to inflict the punishment imposed.-People v. Hagan (Sup.) 451. and 103 New York State Reporter § 2. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and relief. Writ of certiorari to review defendant's de tention should not be sued out at the same time as a writ of habeas corpus to review his convic tion.-People v. Hagan (Sup.) 451. to that used in passing other teams.-Newell v. Town of Stony Point (Sup.) 583. The exercise of reasonable care by plaintiff. seated striking stones in the highway, held to who was injured by a wagon in which she was be inferable from circumstances disclosed by the evidence, and direct testimony as to such fact to be unnecessary.-Newell v. Town of Stony Point (Sup.) 583. The circumstances as shown by the case made in habeas corpus by a wife against her husband to obtain custody of their child held such that a former adjudication of the New Jersey chancery court awarding the child to respondent would not be disregarded, and that the writ should be dismissed.-People v. Win- See "Burglary." ston (Sup.) 452. In habeas corpus by a wife against her husband to obtain the custody of their child, the fact that the child is a nonresident is no bar to relief against respondent, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and has power to produce it.-People v. Winston (Sup.) 452. Return of writ inquiring into cause of relator's detention need not contain evidence on which conviction was based.-People v. Fox (Sup.) 545. On habeas corpus to inquire into cause of relator's detention, where it appears that he is detained under a valid judgment of conviction, the writ will be dismissed.-People v. (Sup.) 545. Fox continuance. An abutting owner has no absolute right to obstruct travel.on a highway by hitching horses thereon. Hence Laws 1899, c. 152, and Laws 1900, c. 640, are not unconstitutional because the bicycle paths authorized may interfere with such practice.-Ryan v. Preston (Sup.) 100. 2. Regulation and use for travel. Where plaintiff's horse was injured by collision with defendant's team, and there was no negligence on the part of defendant's teamster, a judgment for plaintiff for damages should be reversed.-Watters v. John Simmons Co. (Sup.) 325. The traveled portion of a highway, which a town is bound to keep safe for travel, extends HOUSEBREAKING. HUSBAND AND WIFE. See "Marriage." Admissibility of admissions of husband as 1. Mutual rights, duties, and liabilities. A husband, by agreeing to account as trustee for money which his wife received from her father's estate, held to have waived his marital rights thereto.-Dorland v. Dorland (Sup.) 179. In an action against a husband for fees by an attorney who had been consulted by the wife in contemplation of divorce proceedings, it appearing that a divorce had been obtained subsequently, defendant was entitled to show that the divorce was granted to him because of the wife's misconduct.-Hahn v. Rogers (Sup.) 926. 2. Wife's separate estate. Facts held not sufficient to show a reliance on the credit of defendant, so as to make her liable for repairs made at request of her husband to furniture belonging to him and house belonging to her.-Hesselbach v. Savage (Sup.) 429. Where a husband and wife are sued jointly. the separate answer of the wife admitting her liability for part of the items sued on will not make her liable for the entire amount in a subsequent suit against her alone.-Hesselbach v. Savage (Sup.) 429. § 3. Actions. Where a married woman claims damages resulting from negligence, and there is no averment or proof that she labored on her own account, evidence of her earning capacity is inadmissible. Klapper v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 955. § 4. Enticing and alienating. Facts held insufficient to support a verdict for alienation of affection.-Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (Sup.) 1067. In an action for alienation of affection, a letter written two years after the commencement of the action held inadmissible to show the existence of affectionate relations.-Rubenstein v. Rubenstein (Sup.) 1067. § 5. Criminal conversation. Where plaintiff alleged that in consequence of criminal relations between his wife and de 1 fendant her affections became alienated, it was error to strike out an answer setting up the two-year period of limitations imposed by Code Civ. Proc. § 384, in actions for criminal conversation.-Currie v. Gardenier (Sup.) 245. IMPEACHMENT. Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3. IMPLIED CONTRACTS. See "Money Received"; "Work and Labor." IMPRISONMENT. See "Arrest"; "False Imprisonment." IMPROVEMENTS. Liens, see "Mechanics' Liens." IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE. See "Negligence," § 2. INCOMPETENT PERSONS. See "Insane Persons.". INDEBTEDNESS. INFANTS. See "Guardian and Ward"; "Habeas Corpus," § 2. Custody and support on divorce of parents, see "Divorce," 4. INFERIOR COURTS. See "Courts," § 3. INHERITANCE TAX. See "Taxation," § 9. INJUNCTION. Restraining cancellation of insurance policy, see "Insurance," § 2. collection of taxes, see "Taxation," § 7. nuisance, see "Nuisance," § 1. pollution of water course, see "Waters and Water Courses," § 1. proceedings for recovery of land, see "Landlord and Tenant," § 5. violation of liquor laws, see "Intoxicating Liquors," § 3. waste of public moneys, see "Municipal Corporations," § 7. § 1. Subjects of protection and relief. Where it was necessary, to determine plaintiff's rights as beneficiary of a trust, to investigate the transactions consolidating several corporations, held proper to continue a temporary injunction pendente lite restraining the discharge of one of the trustees.-Hamilton v. Of fraudulent grantor, see "Fraudulent Con- Faber (Sup.) 434. veyances," § 1. INDORSEMENT. Under a contract entitling plaintiff to a share of certain sums to be collected from the government and remitted by agents to defendant, plaintiff was not entitled to enjoin the agents from transmitting such sums to their principal.-Blumenstiel v. Fleitmann (Sup.) 665. An employé will not be enjoined from performing services for persons other than his employer, in breach of his contract, unless he has skill which cannot readily be supplied by others.-Universal Talking-Mach. Co. v. English (Sup.) 813. § 2. Actions for injunctions. An employé will not be enjoined from using inventions made by him during his employment, contrary to his contract, to the injury of his employer, where it is not shown that he has made any specific invention.-Universal Talking-Mach. Co. v. English (Sup.) 813. 3. Preliminary and interlocutory injunctions. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 620, an injunction to restrain summary proceedings for land should not be granted without an undertaking.-Potter v. Potter (Sup.) 183. An injunction restraining defendant from backing water, or permitting same to be backed, on plaintiff's water wheel, held unjustified.Of bill of exchange or promissory note, see Village of Keeseville v. Keeseville Electric Co. "Bills and Notes." § 3. (Sup.) 249. and 103 New York State Reporter An application for injunction to restrain a railroad company from purchasing another road should be denied, when the statements of facts are on information and belief and are met by sworn denials on knowledge.-Pine-Coffin v. Erie R. Co. (Sup.) 333. The owner of a bulkhead used in unloading vessels on the East river front in New York City held entitled to a temporary injunction against the maintenance of a floating dry dock in front of it till the rights of the parties could be ascertained on the trial.-Dimon v. Shewan (Sup.) 402. A refusal of a temporary injunction does not necessarily require that relief shall be refused when the whole case is disclosed on the trial. -Meyers v. City of New York (Sup.) 529. IN PAIS. Estoppel, see "Estoppel," § 1. INSANE PERSONS. § 1. Guardianship. The court has discretion whether to appoint 2. Forfeiture of policy for breach of promissory warranty, covenant, or condition subsequent. Defendant in action on life insurance policy held estopped to assert nonpayment or failure to tender final premiums; its general agent having declared that the policy had lapsed, and could be reinstated only on conditions.-Te Bow V. Washington Life Ins. Co. (Sup.) 289. Where tender of premiums on accident policy is rejected, and forfeiture declared, insured need not thereafter keep tender good in order to sue on policy.-Dennison v. Masons' Fraternal Acc. Ass'n (Sup.) 291. Where insured agrees to deposit money for premiums subject to order of insurer, depost in designated bank held performance by insured.-Dennison v. Masons' Fraternal Ace. Ass'n (Sup.) 291. Pending an action to test the validity of amendment to by-law imposing a lien on a Imember's life policy, he must pay his assess ments, and cannot enjoin the company from declaring the policy void for nonpayment.Friedlander v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n (Sup.) 618. affecting right to avoid or forfeit policy. a nonresident as committee of an incompe- 3. Estoppel, waiver, or agreements tent nonresident to take charge of his property in the state, or to appoint a resident.-In re Bartelme (Sup.) 468. INSOLVENCY. See "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors"; "Bankruptcy." Of corporation, see "Corporations," § 6. INSPECTION. Of writings, see "Discovery," § 2. INSTRUCTIONS. In civil actions, see "Trial," § 4. INSURANCE. Where a policy was delivered to the insured by an agent having general authority to deliver policies and collect premiums, and immediate payment was waived, but payment was subse quently made by check, the contract of insur ance was consummated, in absence of a showIng of fraud.-Genung v. Metropolitan Life Ins Co. (Sup. )1041. § 4. Risks and causes of loss. In an action on an accident policy, evidence held insufficient to show a total disability resulting immediately after the accident.-Hagadora v. Masonic Equitable Acc. Ass'n of the World (Sup.) 831. § 5. Extent of loss and liability of in surer. Provisions in accident policy that weekly indemnity shall not exceed weekly salary held not to apply where one is insured as a retired farmer. Dennison v. Masons' Fraternal Acc. Interpleader in action on policy, see "Inter- Ass'n (Sup.) 291. pleader," § 1. § 1. The contract in general. Furniture in a frame building, extending over and against the rear of a brick building, used in connection therewith, and the only building attached or connected with the brick, held cov ered by a policy insuring all furniture contained in such brick building and "additions attached."-Maisel v. Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia (Sup.) 181. Local usage and meaning of word in insurance policy held not binding, unless both parties to policy knew of and contracted with reference to it.-Cook v. Loew (Sup.) 614. An insurance policy covering lumber in a "yard" does not cover lumber in a clearing in A forest.-Cook v. Loew (Sup.) 614. Underwriters under a Lloyd's policy, where other insurance existed, held not liable for the whole amount of their subscriptions. Cook v. Loew (Sup.) 614. $52. Adjustment of loss. In a suit by insured to have the award of appraisers set aside, the companies' agent having fraudulently represented to insured that a certain arbitrator was an unprejudiced one, the referee having found damages amounting to $3,930.28, and the plaintiff's evidence showing that the loss was in excess of the ameiat awarded by the referee, held, that the award should be set aside.-Kaiser v. Hamburg-Bre men Fire Ins. Co. (Sup.) 344. In a suit to set aside an award of appraisers to adjust a fire loss on the ground of prejudice. evidence held to warrant the setting aside of Where an agent, representing several insur- health on its delivery, a motion to direct a ver- § 9. Mutual benefit insurance. An insured should have notice of the meet- Appraisers of a loss on a fire policy are not § 6. Notice and proof of loss. In an action on an accident policy, facts held 7. Right to proceeds. Where the owner of a life policy assigned it § 8. Actions on policies. Under the evidence, the question whether Insured, having right of action on accident ignation of the beneficiary, being neither of the Fraudulent, see "Fraudulent Conveyances," INTEREST. On awards in condemnation proceedings, see On claims against city, see "Municipal Cor- On legacy, see "Wills," § 4. INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT. INTERPLEADER. 1. Right to interpleader. Claimants under conflicting_benefit certifi- Where accident policy provides that suit must INTERSTATE EXTRADITION. Evidence held to support a finding that there Evidence held sufficient to go to the jury on Where the condition of a policy was that it INTERVENTION. In actions in general, see "Parties," 1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Revocation of liquor tax certificate as taking § 1. Local option. Under Laws 1900, c. 367, an order for a |