851; Armijo v. Abeytia, 5 N. M. 533, 25

1, 53 Cc. C. A. 513; Zimmerer v. Fremont Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 661, 81 N. W. 849;

201; Sharp v. Curtiss, 15 Conn. 526; Wallace v. Wilmington & N. R. Co., 8 Houst. {Del.) 529, 18 Atl. 818,

59; Morgan’s LL & T. R. S. 8S. Co. v.

772.

555, 13 C. C. A. 680.—Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. 1 Bl. Comm. 123. Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb. 890, 62 N. W. 320, 47 Am. St. Rep. 779; Smith v. Trust Co. . 4 Ala. 568. —Artificial presumptions. Also called “legal presumptions ;” those which derive their force and effect from the ne hl rather than their natural tendency to peve uce belief. 3 Starkie, Ev. 1235. Gulick v. der, 13 N. J. Law, 72, 23 Am. Dec. 711.— Artificial succession. The succession between predecessors and successors in a corporation aggregate or sole. Thomas v. Dakin, 22

653, 19 C. C. A. 316, 388 L. R. A. 33, 70;

424.

274; Id., 174 U. S. 510, 19 Sup. Ct. 851, 43 L. Ed. 1065; U.S. v. The William Arthur, 28 Fed. Cas. 624: The Peterhoff, 6 Wall. 50, ee Ed. 564; Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W. Va.

689; Casey v. Typographical. Union (C.

es 9C. C. A. 680.

6384; Wyatt v. Irr. Co., 1 Colo. App. 480, 29 Pac. 906. A common carrier may therefore be defined as one who, by virtue of his calling and as a regular business, undertakes for hire to transport persons or commodities from place to place, offering his services to all such as may choose to employ him and Rag his charges. Iron Works v. [Huribut, 158 N. Y. 34, 52 N.

855, 5 L. R. A. 78; Von Schmidt v.

239; Sewing Mach. Co. v. Boutelle, 56

656, 30 C. O. A. 880; The New York (D.

930, 46 C. C. A. 41.

41—Commercial paper. The term “commercial paper’? means bills of exchange, promissory notes, bank-checks, and other negotiable instruments for the payment of money, which, by their form and on their face, purport to be such instruments as are, by the lawmerchant, recognized as falling under the designation of “commercial paper.” In re Hercules

168; Gates v. Hester, 81 Ala. 857, I South. &48

869.

58.3 C. C. A. 426; T

14: Turner y. Heinberg, 30 Ind. App. 615, 65 N. EB. 204.

270; Miller v. Martin, 8 N. J. Law, 204;

248; Cromwell v. The Island City, 1

918, 43 C. C. A. 52.

50, 18 C. C. A. 324.

201, 18 C. C. A. 41; San Francisco Vv.

231; People ex rel. Rogers v. Caldwell, 142 Ill. 434, 82 N. E 691; Kendall v. Miller, 47 How. Prac. (N. ¥.) 448; Com. v. Carmalt, 2 Bin. (Pa.) 238.

94, 13 C. C. A. 349; Humphreys v. Third

210; Dolner v. The Monticello, 7 Fe&

39, 12 C. C. A. 505; Northrop v. Cooper, 23 Kan. 482."

167; U.S. v. Beach (D. C.) 71 Fed. 160; Gardner v. Heartt, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 232; Mon-

962.—Oollateral guaranty. A contract by which the guarantor undertakes, in case the principal fails to do what he has promised or undertaken to do, to pay damages for such failure; distinguished from an engagement of suretyship in this respect, that a surety undertakes to do the very thing which the principal has a i oy do, = reg Pagretad cages vy. Hawort nd. . 634, ‘

584, 32 C. C.’

455. The conformity of our actions and our will to the law. Toull. Droit Civil

433, 51 C. C. A. 267; Lightfoot v. Grove, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 477; Johnson v. Richardson, 83 Miss. 464; Mitchell v. Warner, 5 Conn. 517; Myers v. League, 62 Fed. 659, 10 C. G.

362.

788; Fincannon v. State, 98 Ga. 418, 21

53. As to local “Action,” “Agent,” “Allegiance,” “Custom,” “Government,” “Improvement,”

274; Fleming v. Bills, 3 Or. 289; Com. v. Manderfield, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 459.

757; Cessill v. State . 504; Dunlieth & D. Bridge Co. v. Dubuque County. 55 Iowa, 558, 8 N. W. 443.— -rent. Vassalage.—Main sea. See SEA.

781; Savannah & C. R. Co. v. Callahan, 49 Ga. 511; Berks County v. Bertolet, 13 Pa, 524.

425, 43 C. C. A. 620; Murray v. Allred, 100 Tenn. 100, 43 8S. W. 355, 39 L. R. A. 249, 66 Am. St. Rep. 740; Gibson v. Tyson, 5 Watts (Pa.) 38; Henry v. Lowe, 73 Mo. 99; Weatmoreland, etc. 8s Co. 235, 18 Atl. 724, 5 Ln

840, 41 C. OC. A. 88; U. 8. v. Youtsey — ee 91 Fed. 867; U. 8. v. Taintor, 28 Fed.

679.—Money-order office. One of the post-offices authorized to draw or pay money orders.—Money paid. In pleading. The technical name of a declaration in assumpsit, in which the plaintiff declares for money paid for the use of the defendant.—Public money. This term, as used in the laws of the United States, includes all the funds of the general government derived from the public revenues, or intrusted to the fiscal officers. See Branch v. United

425; Pharr v. State, Tex. App. 485;

802, 18 L. R. A. 549.—Open court. This term may mean either a court which has been formally convened and declared open for the transaction of its proper judicial business, or a court which is freely open to the approach of all decent and orderly persons in the character of spectators. Hobart v. Hobart, 45 Iowa, 501; Conover v. Bird, 56 N. J. Law, 228, 28 Ati. 28; Ex parte Branch, 63 Ala. 383;

706, 58 ©. C. A. 126; Rhodes v. Matthews, 67 Ind. 131.

2; Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18

1000.

83; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 23 L. Ed. 80; Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed.

729.—Proprietary chapel. See CHAP- EL.—Proprietary governments. This erxpression is used by Blackstone to denote governments granted out by the crown to individuals, in the nature of feudatory principalities, with inferior regalities and subordinate powers of legislation such as formerly belonged to the owners of counties palatine. 1 Bl. Comm 108.— Proprietary Those rights which an owner of property has by virtue of his ownership. When proprietary rights are opposed to acquired rights, such as easements, franchises, gtc., raed are more often called “natural rights.”

689.

763—Rule of the road. The popular English name for the regulations governing the navigation of vessels in public waters with a view to preventing collisions. Sweet.—Rule pies A rule of court, taken by a plainti of edurse,. Yequiring the defendant to plead

629.

393.

617. ,

274.

895, 47 ©. OC. A. 43. A temporary stat-

370.—Towage service. In admiralty law. A service rendered to a vessel, by towing, for the mere purpose of expediting her voyage, without reference to any circumstances of danger. It is confined to vessels that have received no injury or damage. The Reward, 1 W. Rob. 177; The

841; Queen Ins. Co. v. State, 86 Tex. 200, 24 S. W. 397, 22 L. R. A. 483.

758; Witte v. Gilbert, 10 Neb. 539, 7 N. W. 288; Stewart v. Lispenard, 26 Wend. (N. ¥.) 300.

51, 27 C. C. A‘ 50; Consolidated, etc,

775; Burnett v. Douglas County, 4 Or. 389; In re Winegard, 78 Hun, 58, 28 N. ¥.