157.

625; Wynegar y. State, 157 Ind. 577, 62 N. E. 38.

210.

337.—Agreed statement of facts. <A statement of facts, agreed on by .the parties as true and correct, to be submitted to a court for a ruling on the law of the case. United

836; In re Spencer. 83 Cal. 460, 23 Pac. 385, 17 Am. St. Rep. 266: Adams v. Storey, 135 Ill. 448, 26 N. E. 582. 11 L. R. A. 780, 25 Am. St. Rep. 392.

692; Holbrook v. Comstock, 16 Gray (Mass.) 109.

139, 73 N. ¥. Supp. 220; Von Gerichten v. Seitz, 94 App. Div, 130, 87 N. Y. Supp. 068.

440; Leonard v. White, 7 Mass. 6, 5

515. ;

572; Green v. Shumway. 39 N. Y. 431;

378, 36 N. Y. Supp. 668.

823; Pettus v. Dawson, 82 Tex. 18, 17

444; Fox v. Gibbs, 8 Me. 87, 29 Atl 940. ‘This word, as epee’ to objects or purposes, may refer to those which are in their nature charitable. and may also have a broader meaning and include objects and purposes not charitable in the mi sense of that word. Acts of kindness, friendship, forethought, or goodwill might properly be described as benevolent. It has therefore been held that gifts to trustees to be applied for “benevolent purposes” at their discretion, or to such “benevolent purposes” as they could agree upon, do not create a

474; Alvord v. Smith, 63 Ind. 62.

345; Eldridge v. Hill, 2 Johns. Ch. (N.

186.

578.

622; Nicholls v. State, 68 Wis. 416, 32

870; Migotti v. Colvil, 4 C. P. Div. 233; In re Parker’s Estate, 14 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 566.—Calendar year. The calendar year ig composed of twelve months, varying in len according to the common or Gregorian calendar. In re Parker's Estate, 14 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 566.

418.

72; Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Railroad Co.. 19 S. C. 364. By statute in several states it is declared that every one who offers to the publie to carry persons, property, of messages, excepting only telegraphic messages. is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry. Civ. Code Cal. § 2168: Civ. Code Mont. § 2870;

924; Historical Soc. v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 459, 8 S. W. 346; Ould v. Hospital, 95 U. 8. 308, 24 L. Ed. 450; Academy v. aeyier 150 Pa. 565. 25 Atl. 55; Gerke v.

695.—Close writs. In English law. Certain letters of the king, sealed with his great seal, and directed to particular persons and for rticular purposes, which, not being proper for public inspection, are closed up and sealed on the outside, and are thence called “writs close.” 2 Bl. Comm. 846; Sewell, Sheriffs 372. Writs directed to the sheriff, instead of to the lord. 8 Reeve, Wng. Law, 45

68; Decker v. Judson, 16 N. Y. 439;

753; People yv. Elliott, 172 N. Y. 146, 64 N. E. 837, 60 L. R. A. 318.

95; Robbins v. Robbins, 140 Mass. 528, 5 N. DB. 837, 54 Am. Rep. 488.

397.

46.

248; Chase v. De Wolf, 69 Ill 40;

712;; Gurnee v. Chicago, 40 Jl. 167; People v. Brie, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 326,

134; Little v. Gibson, 39 N. OG. 510°

164.

1; Osborn v. Leach, 135 N. C. 628. 47 S. B. 811, 66 L. R. A. 648; Gen. St. Minn. § 5418.—A firmative damagos. In ad-

145.—Legal day. A juridical day. See supra. And see Fleffner v. Heffner, 48 La. Ann. 1088. 20 South. 281.—Natural day. Properly the period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight. Co. Litt. 135; Fox _v. Abel. 2

591; In re Patterson, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 222. :

124; Ilill v. Railrodd ©Co. (Tex. Ctv. App.) 75 S. W. 876; Karnes v. Drake; 103

775; Warren v. Chambers, 25 Ark. 120, 91 Am. Dec. 588, 4 Am. Rep. 23; Sapp. v.

683 In practice. A set-off or defalcation ib an action. Vin. Abr. “Discount.” But see

852; Laird v. Kilbourne, 70 Iowa, 83, 380 N. W. 9; Howton v. Roberts, 49 8S. W.. 340, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1831; Marbourg v. Mc- Cormick, 23 Kan..43.

125; Carroll v. Green, 148 Ind. 362, 47 N. B. 223; In re Nevitt, 117 Fed. 448, 54 C. C. A. ‘622; State v. Blair, 53 Vt. 28.

(Pa.) 84; State v. Salge, 2 Nev, 324.— District clerk. The clerk of a district court of either a state or the United States.—District courts. Courts of the United States, each having territorial jurisdiction over a dis-

116; Eames vy. Savage, 77 Me. 221. 52

793.

297, 77 N. Y. Supp. 854.—Constructive eviction, as the term is used with reference to breach of the covenants of warranty and of

509; Miller v. Insurance Co., 39 Minn. 548, 40 N. W. 839.

989; Silberman v. Clark, 96 N. Y. 523;

281; Flanagan v. Pearson, 42 Tex. 1, 19

634.

536.—Free-bench. A widow's dower out of copyholds to which she is entitled by the custom of some manors. It is regarded as an excrescence growing out of the husband’s‘ interest, and is indeed a continuance of his estate. Wharton.—Free-bhord. In old records. An allowance of land over and above a certain limit or boundary, as 80 much beyond or without a fence. Cowell; Blount. The right of claiming that quantity. Termes de la Ley.— Free borough men. Such great mer as did not engage, like the frank-pledge men, for their decennier. Jacob.-Free chapel. In English ecclesiastical law. A place of worship. so called because not liable to the visitation of the ordinary. It is always of royal foundation, or founded at least by private persons to whom the crown has granted the privilege. 1 Burn, Ece. Law, —-Free course. In admiralty law. A vessel having the wind from a favorable quarter is said to sail on a “free course,” or said to be “going free’’ when she has a fair (following) wind and her yards braced in. The

181; Williamson v. Johnson, 62 Vt. 378, 20 Atl. 279, 9 L. R. A. 277, 22 Am. St. Rep. 117; Flanders v. Blandy, 45 Ohio St. 113, 12 N. E. 321.

250.— Habeas corpus cum causa. (You have the body, with the cause.) Another name for the writ of habeas corpus faciendum et recipiendum, (g. v.) 1 Tidd, Pr. 348, 349.

689, 72 N. Y. Supp. 425.

519; Howell v. Gifford, 64 N. J. Ea. 180, 53 Atl. 1074.

191. But the doctrine of “idem sonane’”’ has been much enlarged by modern decisions, to conform to the growing rule that a variance, to be material, must be such ds has misled the opposite girty to his prejudice. State v. White, 34 §. C. 59, 12 S. E. 661, 27 Am. St. Rep. 783.

603; Ehberling v. State, 186 Ind. 117, 35

4832; Alling v. Burlock, 46 Conn. 510; Demars y. Koehler, 62 N. J. Law, 203, 41

830; Funk v. Voneida, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 112, 14 Am. Dec. 617; Farrington v.

500. a ‘

583; Pennsylvania R. Co. vy. Canal

165; Farley v. Gate City Gaslight Co., 105 Ga. 323. 81 S. E. 193: Wahle v. Reinbach, 76 Ill. 322; Camp v. Dixon, 112 Ga: 872. 88 S. E. 71, 52 L. R. A. 755. Wrongs of a repeated and continuing character, or which occasion damages that are estimated onlv by conjecture, and not by any accurate standard, are included. Johnson v. Kier, 3 Pittsb. R. (Pa.) 204.——Personal injury. A hurt or damage done to a man’s person, such as a cut or bruise. a broken limb, or the like, as distinguished from an injury to his property or his reputation. The phrase is chiefly used in connection with actions of tort for negligence,

811; Maconnehey v. State, 5 Ohio St. 77.

638 ; 171, 49 N. W. 3. The term “emotional ine sanity’ or mania transitoria applies to the case of one in the possession of his ordinary reasoning faculties who allows his passions to convert him into a pempere maniac. Mutual

239.

838.—Employer’s liability insurance. In this form of insurance the risk insured

284; Com’rs v. Taylor, 21 N. Y. 173;

790.

638; State v. Peel, 23 Mont. 358, 59

348.

39; Merchants’ Nat. Bank v. Jaffray, 36

527; Laflin v. Railroad Co. (C. C.) 33 . 417; Newman v. Metropolitan Bi. R.

444; People v. Fick, 89 Cal. 144, 26

681.

550; State v. Parry, 48 La. Ann. 1483, 21 South. 30; Haywood v. State, 41 Ark. 479;

300; Washington F. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 382 Md 421, 3 Am. Hep. 149; Harley Vv. O’Donnell, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. B. 56.

508; Kelly v. Richardson, 100 Ala. 584, 13 South. 785.—Indefinite legacy. One which passes property by a general or collective term, without enumeration of number or quantity; as, a bequest of “all” the testator’s “goods,” or his “bank stock.” Lown. Leg. &4.—Lapsed legacy. Where the legatee dies before the testator, or before the

344.

357; State v. Bauguess, 106 Iowa, 107, 76 N. W. 508.

239; Dailey v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 330;

802; State v. Slingerland, 19 Nev. 135, 7 Pac. 280.

157; U. S. v. King (C. C.) 34 Fed. 309;

199; De vio v. Freights of The Kate

759; Griffin v.: Wilcox, 21 Ind. 377. See, also, MILITARY Law. :

166; Wilcox vy. Wilcox, 46 Hun (N. Y.) oi. Also the living together of those who are legally husband and wife, the term carryin with it, in this sense, an implication of mutu rights and duties as to sharing the same habitation. Forster v. Forster, 1 Hagg. Consist. 144;

141, 65 N. Y. Supp. 629; Synnott v.

759.—MMfilit jurisdiction. ‘‘There are, under the constitution, three kinds of military jurisdiction,—one to be exercised both in peace and war; another to be exercised in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents; and a third to be exercised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or during rebellion within the limits of states maintaining adhesion to the national government, when the public danger requires its exercise. The first of these may be called ‘jurisdiction under military law,’ and is found in acts of congress prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise roviding for the government of the national orces; the second may be distinguished as ‘military government,’ superseding, as far as may be deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised by the military commander under the direction of the president, with the ress or implied sanction of congress; while the third may be denominated ‘martial law proper,’ and is called into action by congress, or temporarily, when the action of congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the president, in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights.” Per Chase, ‘a J., in Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 141, 18 L. Ed. 281.—Military law. A system of pu con for the government of an army. 1 Kent, Comm. 341, note. That branch of the laws which respects military discipline and the government of persons employed in the military service. De Hart. Mil. Law, 16. State v. nkin, 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 156;

153; Frey v. Torrey, 70 App. Div. 166, 75 N. Y. Supp. 40.

718

340, 29 N. Y. Supp. 694; Bramhall v.

680.

481.

526; Kimball v. Palmer, 80 Fed. 240, 25°

17 : Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush ae oY : Tllinois Cent. R. Co. v. Leiner. , BT N. EB. 398, 95 Am. St. Rep. 266.

22; Thomas v. State, 55 Ala. 260.

576: Wardell v. Williams, 62 Mich. 50, 28 N. W. 800, 4 Am. St. Rep. 814.

654; Bakzeger v. Carolina Midland R.

358; Parks v. State. 159 Ind. 211. 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190.

377.

696.—Payment into court. In practice. The act of a defendant in depositing the amount which he admits to be due, with the proper officer of the court, for the benefit of the plaintif and in answer to his clain.—Voluntary payment. A payment made by a debtor of his own will and choice, as distinguished from one exacted from him by process of execution or other pi gas Redmond v. New York, 125 N. Y. 632, 26 N. E. 727; Rumford Chemical

128; In re Pringle, 67 Kan. 364, 72

258.

261.—Port of entry. One of the ports designated by law, at which a custom-house or revenue office is established for the execution of the laws imposing duties on vessels and importations of goods. Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, 14 lL. Ed. 889.—Port-reeve, or portwarden. An officer maintained in some ports to oversee the administration of the local regulations: a sort of harbor-master.—Port-risk. In marine insurance. A risk upon a_ vessel while lying in port, and before she has taken

695.

23; Griffith v. Maxfield, 66 Ark. 513, 51 8. W. 832; Bouton v. Doty, 69 Conn. §31, 37 Atl. 1064; Dana v. Murray, 122 N. Y. 604, 26 N. K 21; Carson v. Cochran, 52

840; State v. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600, 71 S. W. 1041.

756; In re Smith (D. C.) 182 Fed. 303. —Legal process. This term is sometimes used as equivalent to “lawful process.” Cooley v. Davis, Iowa, 130. But properly it means a writ, warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a court of justice, such as an attachment, execution, injunction, etc. See In re Bininger. 3 Fed. Cas. 416; Loy v. Home

357; Accident Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 90

264; Railway Co. v. Whipple, 39 Kan. 581, 18 Pac. 730: Eddy v. Powell, 49 Fed. $17, 1 0. O. A. 448: Harrison v. State, 87

165; Wells v. Houston, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 629, ges W. 584; Hudson v. Wadsworth, 8

441; aa v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 70 App. Div. 60, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1113; Claypool v. Wigmore, 34 Ind. App. 35, 71 N. E. 509. oo ote age. Damage is said to be too remote to be actionable when it is not the legal and natural consequence of the act complained of.—Remote possibility. In the law of estates, a double possibility, or a limitation dependent on two or more facts or events both or all of which are contingent and uncertain; as, for example, the limitation of an estate to a given man provided that he shall marry a certain woman and that she shall then die and he shall marry another.

357. =—Personal replevin. A species of action to

158. The term is sometimes used as re-

626, 76 8S. W. 179. (2) Evidences of debt which bind the person of the debtor, not real roperty, are distinguished from such as are jens on land by the name of “personal securities.”” Merrill v. National Bank, 173 U. S. 131, 19 Sup. Ct. 360, 48 L. Ed. 640.—Public securities. Bonds, notes, certificates of indebtedness, and other negotiable or transferable instruments evidencing the public debt of a state or government.—Real security. The security of mortgages or other liens or incumbrances upon land. See Merrill v. National

504.

414; Republican Pub. Co. v. Mosman, 15 Colo. 399, 24 Pac. 1051; Civ. Code Ga. 1895, § 3837. :

366.

116, 65 N. Y. Supp. 5381; Josey v. Union L. & T. Co., 106 Ga. 608, 32 S. E. 628; Gilmer v. Stone,-120 U. S. 586, 7 Sup. Ct. 689, 30 L. Ed. 734.

359; Pearson v. Howey, 11.N. J. Law, 19; Bowman vy. Bowman, 24 Ill. App. 172.

625; Methodist Episcopal Church v.

752; Ashurst v. Peck, 101 Ala. 499, 14

564.

146.

398.

293.

65, 66 N. ¥. Supp. 806; Larson v. Daw-

70; Cushing v. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. 408;

75; MacDaniel v. U. 8., 87 Fed. 821, 30 C. OC. A. 670; People v. Chicago Gas Trust

211.

771. And see Collins v. State, ‘8 Ind.

204; Brayman v. Whitcomb, 134 Mass. 525; State v. Derkum, 27 Mo. App. 628.

887; Jones v. Hannovan, 55 Mo. 467;

880; Ribordy v. Murray, 177 Ill. 134, 52 N. EB. 825; Rait v. Furrow, 74 Kan. 101, 85 Pac. 9384, 6 L. R. ‘A. (N. 8.) 157; Dickinson v. Worcester, 7 Allen (Mass.) 19; Earl v. De Hart, 12 N. J. Eq. 284, 72 Am. Dec. 395; Barkley v. Wilcox, 86 N. Y. 140, 40 Am. Rep. 519; Simmons v. Winters, 21 Or. 35, 27 Pac 7, 28 Am. St. Rep. 727.

519: ay el v. Sheldon, 64 Vt. 491, 24

270.—Low-water mark. That line on the shore of the sea which marks the edge of the waters at the lowest point of the ordina ebb tide. See Stover v. Jack, 60 Pa. 342, 1 . Dee. * Gerrish v. Prop’rs of Union

(1, 2, etc.). OCoke’s English King’s Bench Reports.

t. Fimch. Reports tempore Finch, English Chancery.

t. Hard. Lee’s Reports tempore Hardwicke, English King’s Bench Reports.

t. Holt. Reports tempore Holt (English Cases of Settlement).

t.O. Br. Carter’s English Common Pleas Reports tempore O. Bridgman.