158; Hand v. Hoffman, 8 N. J. Law.

575; State v. Anthony. 65 Mo. App. 543; State v. Baker, 19 Fla. 19; Ex parte Bollman, 4-Cranch, 101, 2 L. Ed.- 554.

495; . National Bank of Redemption v. Boston, 125 U. S. 60, 8 Sup. Ct. 772, 31 1.

124. In mercantile law. A license or authority given in writing from one person to another, very common among merchants, bankers, and those who travel, empowering a person to receive or take up money of their cor respondents abroad.— Domestic bill of exchange. A bill of exchange drawn on a person residing in the same state with the drawer; or dated at a place in the state, and drawn on a person living within the state. It is the residence of the drawer and drawee which must determine whether a bill is domestic or foreign. ale v. Franklin, 25 Miss. 143.—Foreign of exchange. A bill of exchange drawn in one state or country, upon a foreign state or country. A bill of exchange drawn in one country upon another country not governed by the same homogendous laws, or not governed throughout by the same municipal laws. A bill of exchange drawn in one of the United States upon a person residing in another state is a foreign bill. See Story, Bills, 22; :

643.

567; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 198;

505; State v. Hansford, 43 W. Va. 773, 28S. E 791; Androscoggin & K. R. Co. v. Androscoggin R. Co., 49 Me. Constructive (or indirect) contempts are those which: arise from matters not occurring in or near the presence of the court, but which tend to obstruct or defeat the administration of justice, and the term is chiefly used with reference to the failure or refusal of a party to obey a law-. ful order, injunction, or decree of the court laying upon him a duty of action or forbearance.

710.

783; .Code Civ. Proc. N. Y. 1899, 3% 3343.—Junior creditor. One whose claim or demand accrued at a date later than that of a claim or demand held by another creditor, who is called correlatively the “senior” creditor. —~Lien creditor. See LIEN.—Preferred creditor. See PREFERRED.—Principal creditor. One whose claim or demand very greatly exceeds the claims of all other creditors in amount is sometimes so called. See In re Sullivan’s Estate, 25 Wash. 430, 65 Pac. 793.— Secured creditor. See SECURED.—Subsequent creditor. One whose claim or demand accrued or came into existence after a given fact or transaction, such as the recording of - deed or mortgage or the execution of a volunconveyance. McGhee v. Wells. 57 S. C. . 85 S. E. 529, 76 Am. St. Rep. 567; Evans v. pag ‘80 Ohio St. 14.—Warrant creditor. A creditor of a municipal corpore ten to whom is given a municipal warrant for the amount of his claim, because there are no funds in hand to pay it. Johnson v. New Orleans, 46 La. nt: ‘714, 15 South. 100.

882; Whitney v. Ticonderoga, 58

579; Cass v. Cass, 31 N. J. Hq. 626; Ogilvie v. Ogilvie, 37 Or. 171, 61 Pac. 627; Tirrell v. Tirrell, 72 Conn. 567, 45 AtL 153, 47 L. R. A. 750; State v. Weber, 48 Mo.

23; In re Brown’s Estate, 38 Pa.

674.

625; Brown v. State, 46 Ala. 183 ;

174; Hallenbeck v. Hahn, 2 Neb. Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 191, 30

502; Dorr v. Harkness, 49 N. J. law, 571, 10 Atl. 400, 60 Am. Rep. 656.

40; Clark v. Pinckney, 50 Barb. (N.

1; Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 64;

191; Steele v. Hoe, 14 Adol. & El. 431; In re Morales (D. C.) 105 Fed. 761.

63.

295; Whitlock v. Greacen, 48 N.

700.—Incorporeal hereditaments.

397; In re Liquor Licenses, 4 Montg. Co. Law Rep’r (Pa.) 79; Kelly v. Excise

550; Lonas v. State, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 306; Douglass v. Stephens, 1 Del. Ch. 476.

245; Durham vy. Fire & Marine Ins,

730; State v. O’Brien, 18 Mont. 1, 43 Pac. 1091; Hymes v. Van Cleef, 61 Hun, 618, 15 N. Y. Supp. 341.—Intermediate toll. Toll for travel on a toll road, paid or to be collected from persons who pass thereon at points between the toll gates, such persons not passing by, through, or around the toll gates. ollingworth v. State, 29 Ohio St. 552._

745; Wolfe v. Marshal, 52 Mo. 168;

210. A special law is one relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. Kwing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 78: State v. Irwin, 5

287; Clark v. Lambert, 56 W. Va. 512, 47 S. E. 312. Constructive notice is information or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a penn (although he may not actually have it,) because he could have discovered the fact by proper diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it. Baltimore v. Whittington, 78 Md. 231, 27 Atl. 984; Wells v. Sheerer, 78 Ala. 142; Jordan Vv. Pollock Ga. - Jackson v. Waldstein (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 8S. W. 26; Acer v. Westcott, 46 N. Y. 384, 7 Am. Rep. 3565. Further as to the distinction between actual and constructive notice, see Baltimore v. Whittington, 78 Md. 231, 27 Atl. 984: Thomas v.

850; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127

552; Morse v. Pacific Ry. Co., 191

455.—Open policy. In insurance. One in which the value of the subject insured is not fixed or agreed upon in the policy, as

45.

291; Clarke v. Clarke, 133 Cal. 667, 66 Pac. 10; Alhambra Addition Water

628; First Nat. Bank v. Hartman, 110 Pa. 196, 2 Atl. 271; Coddington v. Davis, 1N. ¥. 186.

238.

308; Heyker v. McLaughlin, 1U0

634; Kamphouse v. Gaffner, 73 Ill. 458; Pannill v. Coles, 81 Va. 383; Hunt v.

576; Denning v. State,.428 Cals 816, 55 Pac.. 1000; .Shirk y. Mitchell, 13%:

115; Star Brewery Co. v. Primas, 163 Ill. 652, 45 N. E. 145; Reid v. Field, 83