Diversion.

EJECTMENT.

See, also, "Adverse Possession"; "Quieting Title -Removal of Cloud."

A party entitled in equity to the enforcement of a contract for the purchase of land because of his entering into possession, and paying a part of the price, may enforce such right by ejectment after having been dispossessed.-Denson v. Denson (Ga.) 231.

a will which does not specifically describe the Plaintiff in ejectment, who claims only under land, can recover only such part of the premises as decedent was possesseu of, though the entire tract claimed by plaintiff was inventoried as belonging to decedent's estate.-Tripp v. Fausett (Ga.) 572.

Right of one to recover his own interest and that of his cotenants. - Marshall v. Palmer (Va.) 672.

Validity of a disclaimer made pending suit by plaintiff, without consideration or counsel.— Martin v. Walker (Ga.) 223.

Title to support.

One seeking to recover only an undivided interest must clearly show the extent of his interest.-Marshall v. Palmer (Va.) 672.

Right to a nonsuit in an action to recover land, plaintiff alleging title in fee simple, and setting up title under a deed by showing title merely as heirs.-Hobbs v. Beard (S. C.) 305.

Where plaintiffs claimed under a will, but

DIVORCE.

That plaintiff married defendant to avoid a prosecution for seduction does not entitle him to a divorce, on the ground that the marriage was contracted under duress.-Copeland v. Copeland (Va.) 241.

Documents.

As evidence, see "Evidence."

DOWER.

See, also, "Curtesy."

Will construed, and held, that a provision for the support of testator's wife was not in lieu of dower.-Rivers v. Gooding (S. C.) 310; Same v. Rivers, Id.

Draft.

See "Negotiable Instruments."

DURESS.

The making of a note because of the threats of a creditor to levy on the maker's property is not void as made under duress.-Perryman v. Pope (Ga.) 715.

EASEMENTS.

One who conveys land entirely surrounded by other land owned by him, by implication, gives the grantee a right of way to the land conveyed. -Boyd v. Woolwine (W. Va.) 1020.

A private right of way by prescription may be acquired by continued use for 20 years under a bona fide claim of right.-Boyd v. Woolwine (W. Va.) 1020.

Ejection.

Of passenger, see "Carriers."

years, it was insufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover.-Huneycutt v. Brooks (N. C.) 558. Defenses.

A defendant in ejectment may rely on an outstanding title in the commonwealth.-Reusens v. Lawson (Va.) 347. Evidence.

Where plaintiff introduces a deed containing an exception the burden is on him to show that the land in suit is not included in the exception. -Reusens v. Lawson (Va.) 347.

Plaintiff can introduce a deed under which he claims, though the calls therein do not correspond with those of a copy of a grant from the state previously introduced.-Campbell v. Morrison (N. C.) 303.

In ejectment by one claiming under a decree for specific performance of a contract. brought against the maker of the contract and his grantee, the decree is admissible in evidence, though the deed made in pursuance thereof makes no reference thereto.-Faulkner v. Vickers (Ga.) 233.

Where plaintiff in ejectment claims an entire tract of land under a will, only a part of which was in possession of testator, the will is admissible, though it contained no description of the land, but disposed of testator's estate as an entiretv.-Tripp v. Fausett (Ga.) 572.

Admissibility, on issue as to the title to land. of a judgment against another than defendant, forming a link in plaintiff's chain of title.--Bussey v. Dodge (Ga.) 151.

Admissibility of evidence in an action of ejectment wherein plaintiff claims by a prescriptive title, to show a disclaimer by plaintiff at the beginning of his possession. Wade v. Johnson (Ga.) 569.

Improvements.

One who enters and improves land under a conveyance from another, who was not in possession, and had no color of title, is not entitled to the value of improvements in ejectment by the owner.-Tripp v. Fausett (Ga.) 572.

A judgment for the recovery of land and for damages, held to be "executed," so that defend

ant could not petition for an assessment of the value of the permanent improvements, under Code, § 473.-Boyer v. Garner (N. C.) 180.

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

ELECTIONS AND VOTERS.

Constitutionality of Act March 6, 1894, providing for the Australian system of voting.Pearson v. Board of Sup'rs of Brunswick County (Va.) 483.

Act March 6, 1894, putting into effect the Australian system of voting, is not unconstitutional, as depriving persons unable to read or write of equal opportunity to cast their ballots.-Pearson v. Board of Sup'rs of Brunswick County (Va.) 483.

The provision of Act March 6, 1894, that a constable therein provided for may render assistance to an elector physically or educationally unable to vote, requires such an assistance to be rendered.-Pearson v. Board of Sup'rs of Brunswick County (Va.) 483.

A limitation of 2% minutes within which an elector may prepare his ballot is not so unreasonable as to render the law void.-Pearson v. Board of Sup'rs of Brunswick County (Va.) 483.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Right of cities to condemn for public use the right of a private corporation to bridge a street. -Trustees Atlanta University v. City of Atlanta (Ga.) 74.

Right to open and close in a proceeding to condemn land for railroad purposes.-Williams v. Macon & B. R. Co. (Ga.) 997.

In the absence of power in a charter to take private property for street purposes, and to make compensation therefor, a city cannot lay out a street over the land of a chartered railway company without the consent of the company.-Brunswick & W. R. Co. v. City of Waycross (Ga.) 145.

In a suit by a life tenant against a city for damage to land by a widening of a street a reversioner on request should be made a defendant. Jones v. City of Asheville (N. C.) 691; Appeal of Campbell, Id.

Enactment.

Of statute, see "Statutes."

Entry.

Of judgment, see "Judgment."

EQUITY.

See, also, "Fraudulent Conveyances"; "Injunction": "Marshaling Assets"; "Mortgages"; "Partition"; "Partnership"; "Quieting Title -Removal of Cloud"; "Receivers": "Specific Performance"; "Subrogation"; "Trusts." Relief against judgment, see "Judgment."

Code 1887, § 836, providing a method for resisting unjust claims against a county, affords a complete remedy at law and equity has no jurisdiction. - Pearson v. Board of Sup'rs of Brunswick County (Va.) 483.

-

In an action by a receiver of a corporation against its directors for negligence, where their

Power of equity to correct mistake made by insurance agent in entering in his memorandum an executory oral agreement for insurance, ne giving the wrong person as the assured.-Croft v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. (W. Va.)

854.

Right to have a deed reformed so as to convey a fee-simple instead of a life estate when the word "heirs" was omitted through a mistake of law.-Brock v. O'Dell (S. C.) 976.

Cancellation and rescission of con

tracts.

Right to rescind a contract for the sale of a lot, on the ground that it was induced by false representations that large sums were to be spent in securing manufacturing enterprises for the town.-Wilson v. Carpenter's Adm'r (Va.) 243.

The absence from a complaint to cancel a deed for fraud of a demand for judgment for the amount due plaintiffs will not prevent a judgment therefor, where the complaint contains allegations warranting it.-Sires v. Sires (S. C.) 115.

An action to cancel a deed executed to one cotenant under a power in a will as fraudulent can be brought by the other cotenants, though not in possession.-Sires v. Sires (S. C.) 115. Parties.

In an action in equity for the settlement of the estate of a deceased administrator, and to satisfy a judgment obtained in another state against his personal representative and the sureties on his bond, such sureties are proper parties.— Moore v. Smith (N. C.) 506.

Pleading.

A bill framed for a double purpose, but upon consistent state of facts, praying relief in the alternative, is not for that reason demurrable.United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spencer (W. Va.) 769.

A motion to amend a complaint first made on the hearing of exceptions to the master's report sustaining a demurrer to the complaint cannot be considered.-Milhous v. Sally (S. C.) 268.

On the hearing of a demurrer to a bill with which written documents are filed as exhibits, the documents themselves may be considered to ascertain what they contain, the court not being bound to accept the allegations of the bill.Lockhead v. Berkeley Springs Waterworks & Improvement Co. (W. Va.) 1031.

Evidence.

If defendant's answer is used to support complainant's bill it must be read and taken as a whole.-Clinch River Mineral Co. v. Harrison (Va.) 660.

An allegation in a bill denied by the answer cannot be taken as confessed until complainant has, after due notice, made a motion to that effect. Clinch River Mineral Co. v. Harrison (Va.) 660.

Where the effect of an answer is merely to present an issue and throw the burden of proof be overcome by the testimony of two witnesses, on complainant, denial of the answer need not Chapman v. Chapman (Va.) 813. or the corroborated testimony of one witness.Practice.

A summons in equity, on which is indorsed an order for an attachment, should be made return

EVIDENCE.

See, also, "Ejectment"; "False Imprisonment"; "Libel and Slander"; "Trespass."

In criminal cases, see "Burglary"; "Criminal Law"; "Homicide." ""

Newly discovered, as ground for new trial, see "New Trial."

Objections to, see "Trial."

Of agency, see "Principal and Agent."
Of boundary, see "Boundaries."

Of fraud, see "Fraudulent Conveyances."
Reception of, see "Trial."

Under Code, c. 13. § 4. courts take judicial notice of the law of another state.-Wilson v. Phoenix Powder Manuf' Co. (W. Va.) 1035.

The fact that one was a clerk of court at a certain time does not create a presumption that he held the office before that time.-Jarvis v. Vanderford (N. C.) 302.

Where the burden is on a party to a suit to prove a material issue, the failure, without excuse. to produce a necessary witness, raises a conclusive presumption that such witness' testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to such party.-Union Trust Co. v. McClellan (W. Va.) 1025.

In an action on a policy, a defense that the property was fraudulently burned by the insured must be proved by preponderance of evidence only.-Blackburn v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (N. C.) 922.

Best and secondary evidence.

Right to show the contents of a deed which has been destroyed by the admissions of the grantor in a chancery suit.-Reusens v. Lawson (Va.) 347.

Declarations by a grantor of land after the conveyance of the land and surrender of possession are inadmissible to prove the existence or contents of the deed.-Hobbs v. Beard (S. C.) 305.

Right to give secondary evidence of the record of a deed without giving the statutory notice of an intention to introduce a record. Hobbs v. Beard (S. C.) 305.

Sufficiency of showing of the loss of an original telegram to justify the admission of oral evidence of its contents.-Blair v. Brown (N. C.) 434.

Where a written contract is collateral to the gravamen of the charge, and material only as to the measure of uamages, its contents may be shown by parol.-Carden v. McConnell (N. C.) 923.

Declarations and admissions.

On an issue as to whether a parol gift of land was made, evidence of declarations of the donor tending to show a motive for the gift are admissible.-Rives v. Lamar (Ga.) 294.

Effect of admissions by a grantor, in regard to boundaries, upon his grantee.-Reusens v. Lawson (Va.) 347

Admissions by defendant's general manager, after the injury sued for occurred, that the person at fault was an employé of defendant, is admissible. Williams v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. (N. C.) 298.

Declarations against title made by a mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage are not competent against one claiming under the mortgagee.-Jarvis v. Vanderford (N. C.) 302.

A wife is not bound by declarations made by her father to the effect that certain money was given to her husband, and not to her, these declarations being merely hearsay as to her.-Robinson v. Stevens (Ga.) 96.

Declarations made 20 minutes after an accident, by one who had been removed a con

siderable distance from the scene, are inadmissible as part of the res gestae.-Roach v. Western & A. R. Co. (Ga.) 67.

One suing for physical injuries cannot show by his wife that he frequently complained to her of pains resulting therefrom, and stated that he suffered a great deal.-Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Walker (Ga.) 48.

Sufficiency of showing of a conspiracy between a debtor and his assignee to defraud creditors to admit declarations of the former made after the assignment.-Blair v. Brown (N. C.) 434. Opinion evidence.

When witnesses admit that they cannot identify land as having been included in a certain description, it is error to allow them to express the opinion that the land was so included.-Holleran v. Meisel (Va.) 658.

One who testifies as to his feelings, pains, and symptoms cannot give his opinion that his injuries are permanent.-Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Walker (Ga.) 48.

Documents.

An office copy of a deed improperly recorded is inadmissible as evidence.-Clark v. Perdue (W. Va.) 735.

Admissibility of tax deed without showing that the person who signed it was in fact clerk.-Reusens v. Lawson (Va.) 347.

Where a deed, made under a decree, is offered in evidence as a link in plaintiff's title to land, it is necessary to introduce with it so much of the record of the suit in which such decree was made as will show that a person having the legal title to the land was a party to the suit.-McDodrill v. Pardee & Curtin Lumber Co. (W. Va.) 878.

A statement by the register of deeds as to how much property was listed for taxation by the defendant, certified to by the register, but not a copy of the list, is incompetent as evidence, under Code, § 1342.-State v. Champion (N. C.) 700.

A letter is not admissible without proof of its genuineness, and this is not supplied by what appears on the face of the letter itself.-Freeman v. Brewster (Ga.) 165.

A bill of sale having an attesting witness is not admissible as a muniment of title, without proof by that witness of its execution, unless his nonproduction is accounted for.-Giannone v. Fleetwood (Ga.) 76.

Where a complaint is amended, and a new answer filed, the original answer may be introduced by plaintiff as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.-Willis v. Tozer (S. C.) 617.

Admissibility, in action by corporate creditors against stockholders, of a judgment rendered in an action to set aside an assignment by the corporation, together with findings that the stockholder had drawn out all he had paid on his subscription.-Harmon v. Hunt (N. Ĉ.) 559.

Plaintiff cannot object to the admission in evidence of a paper which defendant has made a part of the record by attaching a copy to his answer.-Hill v. Georgia, C. & N. R. Co. (S. C.) 337.

An answer in another suit is admissible in evidence of an admission therein in behalf of one not a party to the suit in which it was filed.Wilson v. Phoenix Powder Manuf'g Co. (W. Va.) 1035.

Where a judge is ex officio clerk of court, both certificates of authentication specified in Code, c. 130, § 19, are not required; his certificate as judge being sufficient.-Wilson v. Phoenix Powder Manuf'g Co. (W. Va.) 1035.

Original deeds made outside of the state that are entitled to record in the state are admissible