136; Ferguson v. Covington, etc.;

50; State v. Tally, 102 Ala. 25, 15 South. 722; State v. Jones, 115 Iowa, 113, 88 N. W. 196; State v. Cox, 65 Mo. 29, 33.

17; People v. Lammerts, 164 N. Y. 187, 58 N. E. 22.

59.—Assignment of error. See ERrROn.—Assignment with preferences. AnD assignment for the benefit of creditors, with directions to the assignee to prefer a specified creditor or class of creditors, by paying their claims in full before the others receive any dividend, or in some other manner. More usually termed a “preferential assignment.”—Foreign assigmment. An assignment made in a _foreign country, or in another state. 2 Kent,

211; Moss vy. Peoples, 51 N. C. 142;

155. ;

729.

109; Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 122; People v. Morris, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 334.

221.

438.—Casual evidence. A phrase used to denote (in contradistinction to “preappointed evidence”) all such evidence as happens to be adducible of a fact or event, but which was not prescribed by statute or otherwise arranged beforehand to be the evidence of ane fact or event. Brown.—Casual ies er.

662.

898.

17.

39. But executed contracts are not properly contracts at all, except reminiscently. The term denotes rights in property which have been acquired by means of contract; but the onger bound by a contractual we Mettel v. Gales, 12 S. D. 682, 82 N. W.

289.

586; Valentine v. Hutchinson, 43

1. Exemplary damages are damages on an increased acale, awarded to the plaintiff over and above what will barely compensate him for his property loss, where the wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton and wicked conduct on the part of the defendant, and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of his feelings, shame, degradation, or other aggravations of the original wrong, or else to punish the defendant for his evil behavior or to make an example of him. for which reason they are aiso called ‘“punitive’ or “punitory” damages or ‘‘vindictive”’ damages, and (vulgarly) “smart-money.” id

895: Irwin v. Askew; 74 Ga. 581;

364: Benson v. Adams, 69 Ind. 353, 35 Am. Rep. 220; Zimmerman v. Cowan, 107 ill. 681, 47 Am. Rep. 476; Pulling v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 386.

99. l

791; In re Post, 54 Hun, 634, 7 N. Y.

810; Hollenbeck v. Hall, 103 Iowa, 214, 72 N. W. 518, 39 L. R. A. 734, 64 Agn.

175; Mosnat v. Snyder, 105 Iowa, 500, 75 N. W. 356.

565.

74; Dillman v. Hoffman, 38 Wis. 572; Stevens vy. Dennett, 51 N. H. 339.

851.

758.

726.

663; Kimberlin v. State, 130 Ind. 120, 29 N. BH 773, 14 L. R. A. 858, 80 Am.

208; Wickersham vy. Brittan, 93

74; Stevens v. Dennett, 51 N. H. 330;

820; Lake County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 74 Pac. 212. Indirect evidence is evidence which does not tend directly to prove the controverted fact, but to establish a state of facts, or the existence of other facts, from which it will follow as a logical inference. Inferential evidence as to the truth of a disputed fact, not by testimony of any witness to the fact, but by collateral] circumstances ascertained by com-

852.

17; Dumont v. Dufore, 27 Ind. 267.

848; Parker v. Hastings, 123 N. G 671, 31 S. B. 833.

844; State v. Barefoot, 89 N. CG. 567; State v. Ray, 32 N. C. 40; State v. Sowls, 61 N. C. 151; State v. Laney, 87 N. ©. 535.

1005; Meylette v. Brennan, 20 Colo. 242, 38 Pac. 75.

281.

825; Parsons v. San Francisco, 23

584.

810; Warren v. Thomaston, 43

314; Ogden y. Lathrop, 31 N. Y.

240; Kempf v. Kempf, 34 Mo. 213.

118; Henderson-Achert Lithographic Co. v. John Shillito Co., 64 Ohio St. 236, 60 N. B. 295, 88 Am. St. Rep. 745. Thus, insurance is a contract of indemnity. So an indemnifying bond is given to a sheriff who fears to proceed under an execution where the property is claimed by a stranger.

619; In re Guiteau (D. C.) 10 Fed. 164; People v. Finley, 38 Mich. 482; People v. Hoin, 62 Cal. 120, 45 Am. Rep. 651; Carr v. State, 96 Ga. 284, 22 S. E. 570; Wilcox v.

880.

672; State v. Swan, 1 N. D. 5, 44 N. W. 492; Smith v. U. 8., 22 Fed. Cas, 696;

396.—Lawful goods. Whatever is not prohibited tq be exported by the positive

740. .

306.

659; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 Pac. 576; Cherry v. Des Moineg Leader, 114 Iowa, 298, 86 N. W. 323, 3&4

656.

81.

157; People v. Enoch, 138 Wend. (N. Y.) 167, 27 Am. Dec. 197; Kent v. People, 8 Colo. 568, 9 Pac. 852; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 295, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Armstrong v. State, 30 Fla. 170, 11 South. 618, 17

299; way Co., 187 157 Mo. O18, 57'S. W. 770, 50 L. RB.

614; Bettman v. Warwick, 108 Fed. 46, 47 C. C. A. 185.

691.—Obligation of a contract.

898; Overhouser v. American Cereal Co., 118 Iowa, 417, 92 N. W. 74: Gorham y. Withey, 52 Mich. 50, 17 N. W. 272.

801; People v. General Sessions, 13 - Hun (N. Y.) 400; State v. Will, 49 La. Ann. 1387, 22 South. 378; Sundmacher vy. Block,

457.

882; People v. Burns, 77 Hun, 92,

116; Franke v. Franke (Cal.) 31 Pac. 574, 18 I. R. A. 375.— sicalinjury. Bodily harm or hurt, excluding mental] distress, fright, or emotional disturbance. Deming v.

740; Ruttledge v. Kress, 17 Pa.

589; Gould: v. McFall, 118 Pa. 455, 12 Atl. 336, 4 Am. St. Rep. 606; ‘First ‘Nat.

330.

746; Gambrill v. Schooley, 93 Md. 48, 48 Atl. 730, 52 L. R. A. 87, 86 Am. St

151; Carbondale Inv. Co. v. Burdick,

145; State v. Fahey, 3 Pennewill (Del.) 594, 54 Atl. 690; State v. Geer, 46 Kan. 529, 26 Pac. 1027.

858. .

739.—Mimisterial trusts. (Also called “instrumental trusts.’’) Those ‘which demand no further exercise of reason or understanding than every intelligent agent must_necessarily employ; as to convey an estate. They are a species of special trusts, distinguished from discretionary trusts. which necessarily re-. quire much exercise of the understanding. 2

92; Waterloo Min. Co. v. Doe, 82

831; State v. Kemp, 34 Minn. 61, 24 N. W. 349.