912.

17.

246; Vidal v. Commagere, 13 La.

806: Com. v. Burke, 105 Mass. aL KE Am. Rep. 531; Beyer v. People, 86 N.

45; In re Columbia Real Estate Co. (D. C.) 101 Fed. 970.

5388; Clayton v. Berry, 27 Ark. 129.

27.

166; Turney v. State, 60 Ark. 279, 29 S. W. 808 : Com. v. Lucas, 158 Mass.

904; Vanderlip v. Roe, 23 Pa. 82; McClaughry v. sy etOre: 6 Johns. (N.

705; In re Wilson, 19 D. C. 349, 12 L. R. A. 624; Henderson v. Com., 78

758.—Common-law courts. In Hngland, those administering the common law.

331.

637; Austin v. Saveland’s Estate, 77 Wis. 108, 45 N. W. 955; Downer v. To liff, 19 Vt. 399; Stichter v. Cox, 62 Neb. 532, 72 N. W. 848; Clark vy: Winchell, 58 Vt. 408. ontingent estate. An estate which depends for its effect upon an event which may or may not happen; as an estate limited to a rson not én esse, or not yet born. 2 Crabb, 1 Prop. p. 4, § 946; Haywood v. Shreve, 44 N. J. Law, 94; Wadsworth v. Murray, 29

368. This was abolished by St. 8 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 106, and 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, and is unknown in America. Const. U. 8S. art. 3, § 3.

461; Schmidt v. Deegan, 69

891; Atwood v. State. 53 Ala. 509; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 38 N. Y.

613.

635; Houghton v. Kendall, 7 Alien (Mass.) 72; Roberts v. Ogbourne, 37 Ala. 178.—Heir presumptive. The person who, if the ancestor should die immediately, would, in the present circumstances of things, be his heir, but whose right of inheritance may be defeated by the contingency of some nearer heirbeing born; as a brother or nephew, whose presumptive succession may be destroyed by the birth of a child. 2 Bl. Comm. 208; 1

834.—Urban homestead. The residence or dwelling place of a family in a city. claimed or set apart as a homestead, including the principal house and lot. and such Icts as are used in connection therewith, contributing to its enjoyment, comfort, and convenience. Ford vy. Fosgard (Tex. Civ. App.) 25

790; Sullivan vy. Coal Co., 94

811.—Double imsurance. Sea DOUBLE.—General and special insurance. In marine insurance a general insurance is effected when the perils insured against are such as the law would imply from the nature of the contract considered in itself and su posing none to be specified in the policy; the case of special insurance, further perils (in addition to implied perils) are expressed_in the policy. Vandenheuvel v. United Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Cas, (N. Y.) 127.—Insurance agent. An agent employed by an insurance company to solicit risks and effect insurances. Agents of insurance companies are called “general agents” when clothed with the general oversight of the companies’ business in a state or large section of country, and “local agents” when their functions are limited and confined to some petiole locality. See McKinney v.

216.

67; Bier v. McGehee, 148 U. 8S. 137, 138 Sup. Ct. 580, 37 L. Ed. 397.

30.—Law of the land. Due rocess of law, (q. v.) By the law of the land a most clearly intended the general law which

585; O’Neal v. McKinna, 116

379; Civ. Code Cal. 1903, § 2875.

928.

545.

740. ;

253.

218; Deniman v. Johnston, 85

52.—New fer old. In making an adjustment of a partial loss under a policy of marine insurance, the rule is to apply the old materials towards the payment of the new, by deducting the value of them from the grose amount of the expenses for repairs, and to allow the deduction of one-third new for old upon the halance. 3 Kent, Comm, 339.—New Inn. An inn of chancery. See INNS oF CHANCERY. New matter. In pleading. Matter of fact not previously alleged by either party in the pleadngs.—New promise. PROMISE.—New style. The modern system of computing time was introduced into Great Britain A. D., the 3d of September of that year being reckon as the 14th—New trial. See TRIAL.—New works. In the civil law. By a new work is understood every sort of edifice or other work which is newly commenced on any ground whatever. When the ancient form of work is changed, either by an addition being made to it or by some part of the ancient work being taken away, it is styled also a “new work.” Civ. Code

606.

638; State v. Ransick, 62 Ohip

893; Logan v. State, 5 Tex.

362; Mitchell v. Wall, 111 Mass. 497: Driggs v. Burton, 44 Vt. 146; Wanser Vv. Wyckof ! 9 Hun (N. Y.) 179; Lacy v. Mitchell, 23 Ind. ELS: ; Hutchinson v. Wenzel, 155

229.

414.

30; Hooper v. California, 155

891; Vidor v. Rawlins, 98 Tex. 258, 54 8. W. 1026.

1012; Campbell v. Mercer, 10%

624. —Seditious libel. See LIBEL.

795. As the old doctrine of corpores investiture Is no longer in force, the deivery of a deed gives seisin in law. Watkins v. Nugen, 118 Ga. 872, 45 S. EB. 262.—Seisin ox. In Scotch law. A perquisite formerly due to the sheriff when he gave possession to an heir noliing crown Jands. It was long ae ue verted into a payment in money, proportion to the value of the estate. Bell.

443; Proprietors of Mills v.

31; Calvert v. State, 34 Neb. 616, 52 N. W. 687. A temporary receiver is one appointed to take charge of property until a hearing is had and an adjudication made. Boonville Nat. Bank v. Blakey, 107

626; Miller v. State, 78 Ind. 92; Railway Co. v. Boyle, 115 Ga. 836, 42 8. E. 242, 58 L. R. A. 104.

741; U. S. v. Watkins, 28 Fed.

169; Luther v. Winnisimmet Co., 9 Cush. (Mass.) 171; Pyle v. Richards, 17 Neb. 180, 22 N. W. 370.