631; Wells v. New England Mut. L. Ins.

181, 88 Am. Dec. 539.

412, 18 Atl. 1112; Com. vy. Aid Ass’n, 04 Pa. 439.

450; Sedgwick County Com’rs v- Bailey, 18 Kan. 608; May v. Rice, 91 Ind. 349; State v. Hegeman, 2 Pennewill Wel.) 147, 44

562, 57 Atl. 39. A book kept for the purpose of charging goods sold and delivered, in which the entries are made contemporaneously with the delivery of the goods, and by the person whose duty it was for the time being to make them. J.aird v. Campbell. 100 Pa. 165; Ingraham v. Bockius, 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 285, 11 Am, Dec. 730; Smith v. Sanford, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 140, 22 Am. Dec. 415; Breinig v.

332; State v. Mannion, 19 Utah, 505, 57 Pac. 542, 45 lL. BR. A. 688, 75 Am. St.

516, 5 tl. 948; Robinson v. Turrentine MS ais 59 Fed, 559; Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29

336; Turnpike Co. v. McCullough, 25

303.

189; Railroad Co. v. Orton (C. C.) 32 Fined. 473 ; Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 51 N.

427; Jenkins v. Tobin, 31 Ark. 306; In re Dailey’s Estate, 43 Misc. Rep. 552, 89 N.

507, 81 Atl. 250; Viele v. Insurance Co., 26 Iowa, 56, 96 Am. Dec. 83.

29 Atl. 55; McKendry v. McKendry, 181 Pa. "24, 18 Atl. 1078, 6 L. R. A. 506.—Juse tice ejectment. A statutory proceeding in Vermont, for the eviction of a tenant holdi

246; Centre Turnpike Co. v. Smith, 12

116.—Free services. In feudal and old English law. Such feudal services as were not unbecoming the character of a soldier or a freeman to perform; as to serve under his lord in the wars, to pay a sum of money, and the like. 2 Bl. Comm. 60, 61.—Free shareholders. The free shareholders of a building and loan association are subscribers to its capital stock who are not borrowers from the association. Steinberger v. Independent B. & S&S.

438.

174; Gourlay v. Gourlay; 16 R. I. 705, 19

315, 4 Atl. 542; Gordon v. McCulloh, 66

245, 45 Atl. 988,

61, 16 Atl. 516. If the assured had no

138, 17 Atl. 238, 8 L. R. A. 219, 11 Am.

513.

217, 18 Atl. 508, 5 L. R. A. 508, 15 Am.

187, 25 Atl. 546, 34 Am. St. Rep. 636;

100.

95; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. State, 64

161, 48 Atl. 977, 55 L. R. A. 882; Yeager v. Weaver, 64 Pa. 425.

421.

88; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. House, 172 .

340.

136; In re Miller’s Will, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 57.

400, 4 Atl. Lewis v. Seifert, 116 Pa. 628, 11 ‘Atl. 514, » yen St. id ere ‘Minnea - olis’ v. Lundin, BS Fed. 525, 7 me Lindvall v. Woods (C. C.) ; v. Booth, 82 Minn. 191, 84 N. W. 739 ; Van

1, 18 Atl. 998, 7 L. R. A. 369; Massa. chusetts L. & T. Co. v. Hamilton, 88 Fed 592, 32 C. C. A. 46.

500. 100 Am. Dec. 586.—Special trust. Where the machjnery of a trust is jntroduced for the execution of some purpose particularly pointed out. and the trustee is not aA mere passive depositary of the estate, but Is called upon to exert himself actively in the execution of the settlor’s iniention: as, where 4 cénveyance is to trustees upon trust to sell for payment of debts. Special trusts have been divided into (1) ministerial (or instrumental) and (2) discretionary. _The former, such as demand no fur ther exercise of reason or understanding than every intelligent agent must necessarily employ: the laiter, such as cannot be duly administered without the application of a certain degree of pn and judement. Bouv. Inst. no. 896; Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N. ©. 154. 45

L. Reo. Pennsylvania Law Record, Philadelphia.