unquestioned and the principal case is one falling within the doctrine. Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306, 21 Am. Rep. 514.

Just how an owner or occupier of premises should conduct himself so as to meet the requirement of ordinary care, is a matter that has also received the attention of the courts, and while in the very nature of the case no definite rule can be laid down that would be applicable to all cases, the authorities contain expressions indicating that where there is a defect in premises rendering them dangerous that the persons there by invitation of the owner should be warned of the danger, or placed upon inquiry. Just what will be sufficient will depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

JETSAM AND FLOTSAM.

INJUNCTIONS.

The Origin of Injunctions.-The remedy by injunction is of extremely ancient origin. In the Roman jurisprudence the Praetor and the Praeses constantly issued their "interdicts" prohibiting certain things from being done. In the reign of Henry I, 1100-1135, we find the first recorded instance of the writ of injunction being used in English jurisprudence, from which we derive both the writ and the principles which govern its use. This writ was issued in the name of the chancellor only, and was to prevent injury to property. Henry I was the fourth son of William the Conqueror by Matilda of Flanders. It is interesting to note that Henry I was a staunch friend of the plain people, who acquiesced cheerfully in his usurpation of the throne and who received from him shortly after his accession a charter in which their rights and liberties were reaffirmed. The Norman sovereigns appear to have retained to themselves the ancient Saxon prerogative, or rather duty, of protecting and assisting the poor, the impotent and defenseless who were unable to obtain redress in the ordinary tribunals. It was but natural, therefore, that the king's chancellor, versed as he was in the Roman law, should adopt from it into the English practice this writ for the administration of preventive justive and accordingly we find even the crabbed old Lord Cole exclaiming, in his 2d Institute, 328: "This is an excellent law. for prevention is better than cure, and preventing justice excelleth punishing justice."

It is not without interest, at this time, therefore, to observe that the first recorded use of this writ of injunction was in the reign of a popular champion, and was for the protection of property by the prevention of injury to it.

Recent Assaults Upon the Injunction.-The injunction has recently attained to a great degree of prominence in the public eye because of the vigorous assaults which have been made upon it by the labor-unions of the country. These assaults have varied in vehemence and violence. Some of the assailants would expunge the remedy from our system of jurisprudence. Others would substitute a trial by jury for the judgment of the judge as to the propriety of its issuance in the individual cases as they arise. This antagonism to such an ancient, serviceable and approved remedy calls for and should receive careful attention.

Is there anything in the nature of the writ which is fundamentally wrong or vicious? Let

us consider for a moment what this writ of injunction is and what it does. "It always issues out of the equity or chancery side of a court. The subject matter of the jurisdiction of the court of chancery is civil property. The court is conversant only with questions of property and the maintenance of civil rights. Injury to property, whether actual or prospective, is the foundation on which the jurisdiction rests. The court has no jurisdiction in matters merely criminal or merely immoral, which do not affect any right to property. If a charge be of a criminal nature, or an offense against the pubproperty, jurisdiction cannot be entertained. But if an act which is criminal touches also the enjoyment of property, the court has jurisdiction, but its interference is founded solely on the ground of injury to property.”

"Though the jurisdiction of the court of chancery is limited to matters which concern civil property, jurisdiction will not be entertained in all cases which touch the enjoyment of property. If the remedy to be had in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction is sufficient for the purposes of complete justice, the court of chancery will not entertain jurisdiction. If the remedy given by those courts is clear, certain, sufficient and extensive with the requisitions of the case, the court of chancery will not entertain jurisdiction. If. on the other hand, it falls short of what is required for the purposes of complete justice, the court will step in and supply the defect."

The above principles are settled in our courts beyond question. The essence of the doctrine of the court on the subject of injunctions is that it will interfere only in cases of injury to property or civil rights when its intervention is necessary to protect or preserve from irreparable damage. Who objects to such interference? The liberty of the individual is not curtailed by the existence of this injunctive process. Whatever it is lawful for him to do he may do. If he is restrained from irreparably injuring another's property can he justly complain?

Terror Only to Lawbreakers.-This, then, is certain, that the injunction ought to have no terrors for anyone who respects and obeys the laws of his country; but is only a menace to those who desire to wreak unlawful vengeance by irreparably injuring the property or civil rights of others. The injunction is an extraordinary remedy and never issues except to prevent imminent and irreparable injury. The ordinary remedy is by suit at law to recover damages for the injury already done. But it is conspicuously obvious that in numerous cases this ordinary remedy can never repair the injury and restore the injured party to his original condition.

Injunctions Preserve Property.-The injunction is essential to the preservation of property and civil rights. The storms of nine hundred years have raged around its base since its adoption into English jurisprudence, but its head is still above the clouds of prejudice, in the sunshine of popular favor. Our government is a government of laws; reverence for law is a national attribute and so long as it continues so, the nation is safe.

And not only is this "strong arm of the court" interposed, but its interposition is both swift and certain. The efficiency of the law lies not so much in the vigor of its penalties as in the

BENTWICH'S PRIVATE PROPERTY IN WAR. The Law of Private Property in War, by Norman Bentwich, is a little volume which the author discusses briefly the law as it relates to private property in war. The book is very readable, the subject matter interesting, and authorities are cited in support of the text. The subject is first treated from the historical standpoint and is then presented in its present day development. While this phase of international law is not so important to the general practitioner in this country as would be the case in a more war-like nation, yet it will well repay a careful reading. Published by Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd., London, England.

WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, VOL. 5. Proessor Wigmore needs no introduction. Through his great work on evidence, in four volumes, published some years ago, he has become well known and his work is recognized everywhere as an authority upon the law of evidence. The present volume is supplementary and brings the treatise down to date, containing the statutes and judicial decisions from 1904 to 1907 inclusive. To those who have the original work, this supplementary volume will be of great value. There is a table of statutes cited also of the cases cited in addition to which, the volume contains a general index. Published by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, Mass.

UNITED STATES COMPILED STATUTES, 1907 SUPPLEMENT.

This volume of the Compiled Statutes is a supplement containing the legislation of the 57th, 58th and 59th congresses. compiled by John A. Mallory. It contains a table of the sections of the revised statutes which have been expressly amended, superseded, or repealed from their adoption to March 4th, 1907, chronological table of laws included in the compiled statutes of the United States, 1901, and supplement 1907, and a general index of the supplement of 1907. It is a convenient arrangement of the statutes containing notes showing the history of the various enactments and an index making reference to any desired subject as convenient as possible. Published by the West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.

HUMOR OF THE LAW.

Two of the leading attorneys of Memphis, who had been warm friends for years, happened to be opposing counsel in a case some time ago. The older of the two was a man of magnificent

physique, almost six feet four, and built in proportion, while the younger was barely five feet and weighed not more than ninety pounds.

In the course of his argument the big man unwittingly made some remark that aroused the ire of his small adversary. A moment later he felt a great pulling and tugging at his coat tails. Looking down, he was greatly astonished to see his opponent wildly gesticulating and dancing around him.

"What on earth are you trying to do there, Dudley?" he asked.

"By Gawd, suh, I'm fightin', suh!"

Two Irishmen meeting one day, were discussing local news.

"Do you know Jim Skelly?" asked Pat. "Faith." said Mike, "an' I do."

"Well," said Pat, "he has had his appendix taken away from him."

"Ye don't say so?" said Mike. "Well, it serves him right. He should have had it in his wife's name."

"Oh, Mr. Millyuns!" "Well?"

"Do you think a rich man can go through the eye of a needle?"

"I don't know, my boy. However, I will say that my lawyers have dragged me through some very small loopholes."

"You inherited quite a nice little fortune," said the lawyer.

"Yes," replied the fortunate youth.

"I suppose you will pay a lot of your debts now?"

"I had thought of it, but I concluded to make no change in my manner of living. I don't want to be accused of vulgar display."

2. Accord and Satisfaction-Sum Less Than Amount Due.-The payment and acceptance of a sum less than the amount due in full satisfaction and discharge of a debt is a defense to the collection of the balance.-Frye v. Hubbell, N. H., 68 Atl. Rep. 325.

3. Adjoining Landowner-Failure to Make Repairs. An owner of real estate held not negligent in failing to make repairs, and thereby prevent injury to an adjoining owner, within a reasonable time after notice of the defective condition causing the injury.-Fitzgerald Goldstein, 107 N. Y. Supp. 614.

V.

4. Adverse Possession-Boundary Line.-Defendant having occupied land up to a boundary line fence for 20 years, he acquired title thereto, though he did not know that the fence was not on the true line, and had never intended to claim more land than was included in the deed.-Daily v. Boudreau, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 218.

5. Prescription.-Prescription rests on the presumption of a grant which has been lost by process of time, and hence no prescription can have a legal origin where no grant could have been made to support it.-Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co., Or., 92 Pac. Rep. 1065.

6. Allens-Transmission of Property.-An alien in the absence of statutory authority cannot transmit property by hereditary descent because he has no title which is the subject of transmission at the moment of death.-Haley v. Sheridan, N. Y., 83 N. E. Rep. 296.

7. Appeal and Error-Amendment.-Where defendant appeals from a judgment against him on sustaining a demurrer to his amended plea in abatement plaintiff, without assigning crosserror. is entitled to raise the question that the court erred in granting leave to amend the plea. -Spencer v. Aetna Indemnity Co., Ill.. 83 N. E. Rep. 102.

8. Duplicity.-Where no demurrer to a declaration ambiguously setting forth two causes of action was interposed, and defendant answered and went to trial on the merits, he could not, on appeal, claim that a count in the declaration was had for duplicity.-Paine v. Kelley, Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 8.

9.

-Exceptions.-The refusal of an instruction because there was no evidence to support it will not be reviewed by the court of appeals, where no special exception presenting the question was taken.-B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Cumberland, Dugan & Co.. Md., 68 Atl. Rep. 351.

10. Joint Relief.-Where error is jointly assigned, and the prayer is for joint relief, and one party joining in the assignment is not entitled to the relief prayed, the assignment will be overruled.-Greenawalt v. Natrona Improvement Co., Wyo., 92 Pac. Rep. 1008.

a

11. Qualification of Witness.-Whether witness is qualified to testify to a matter of opinion held a preliminary question for the presiding judge, and his decision is conclusive unless clearly erroneous in matter of law.-Ft. Collins Development Ry. Co. v. France, Colo., 92 Pac. Rep. 953.

12. Arrest-Non-Resident. A non-resident voluntarily coming to this state becomes subject to the laws for the collection of debts, and not only a valid service can be made on him, but any personal property in his possession sub

ject to attachment may be seized, or he can be arrested and held to bail.-Paine v. Kelley, Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 8.

13. Assault and Battery-Conflicting Testimony. In a prosecution for assault, held, that it was error for the court to direct the jury to return a verdict of guilty without finding that certain necessary elements of the crime were present, where the evidence in relatio thereto was in conflict.-People v. Lemen, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 147.

14. Putting One Out of Store.-Where plaintiff entered a shop with permission of the owner, and defendant, trustee in bankruptcy of the tenant, attempted to eject him, held an assault for which plaintiff was entitled at least to nominal damages.-Wood v. Cummings, Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 318.

in

15. Attachment-Affidavit.-An affidavit attachment held sufficiently broad to include an intent to "hinder and delay their creditors."Clayton v. Clark, Kan., 92 Pac. Rep. 1117.

16. Attorney and Client-Lien.-Where plaintiff's attorney has some interest by way of lien on the judgment or by way of an equitable assignment of a part of the cause of action, upon giving proper notice the court is bound to protect such interest.-Stearns v. Wollenberg, Ore., 92 Pac. Rep. 1079.

17. Bankruptcy-Direction to Sell Property. -While a receiver in bankruptcy, appointed under Bankr. Act, c. 541, § 2 (3), may be authorized by the court to sell property when necessary for the preservation of the estate, the power to direct such a sale should be exercised only upon such showing as will satisfy the court that the immediate sale is necessary to preserve the value of the property to the estate. In re Harris, U. S. D. C., S. D., Ala., 156 Fed. Rep. 875.

18. Exemptions.-A court of bankruptcy has no power at the instance of a trustee to adjudicate the right of a creditor to the proceeds of property claimed by the bankrupt as exempt, and which the creditor had sold prior to the appointment of the trustee on a judgment recovered before the bankruptcy proceedings on a note waiving exemptions. In re Edwards, U. S. D. C., S. D. Ala., 156 Fed. Rep. 794.

19. Liability of Trustee.-A trustee in bankruptcy acting under orders of the bankruptcy court is nott liable to be sued in a state court for his acts done in performance of his duty thereunder.-Wood v. Cummings, Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 318.

20. Taking Forcible Possession of Bankrupt's Property.-An adverse claimant and his attorney, who obtained possession from a sheriff of property belonging to an alleged bankrupt after the filing of the petition against him, and disposed of the same, held guilty of contempt of the court of bankruptcy. In re Lutfy, U. S. D. C., S. D. N. Y., 156 Fed. Rep. 873.

21. -Transfers Within Four Months.-Tranfers by a bankrupt within four months prior to filing of a bankruptcy petition are presumed to be fraudulent under Bankr. Act. c. 541, § 67e, the bankrupt's purpose or intent in making them being immaterial.-Thomas v. Rodgy, 107 N. Y. Supp. 473.

22. Two Courts of Concurrent Jurisdiction. Where there are two district judges in a federal district having equal and concurrent authority, one of such judges sitting in bankruptcy within the district-the other judge being absent from the district-constitutes the court of bankruptcy, and has power to make a

valid and binding appointment of a referee in bankruptcy, and the absent judge cannot subsequently come into the district, while the judge making the appointment is holding court therein, and without the latter's concurrence set aside such appointment and remove the appointee from office.-In re Steele. U. S. D. C.. N. D. Ala., 156 Fed. Rep. 853.

23. Benefit Societies—Appointment of Beneficiaries. Where there is nothing in the charter or by-laws of a mutual benefit order or in the statutes restricting the appointment of beneficiaries, a member of a mutual benefit order may designate whomsoever he pleases.--Supreme Council Catholic Knights of America v. Fitzpatrick, R. I., 68 Atl. Rep. 367.

24. Physician's Services.-A sick benefit society whose physician on notice, failed to attend a member, held liable for value of services of a physician procured by him.-Geraci v. Italian Ass'n St. Bartholomew Eoliana of Mut. Aid of New York, 107 N. Y. Supp. 557.

25. Bills and Notes-Fraud.-Where a note has its inception in fraud, the burden of proof is shifted to the holder to show that he acquired it for a valuable consideration without notice.-Abmeyer v. First Nat. Bank, Kan., 92 Pac. Rep. 1109.

26. Fraud.-A negotiable note is not invalidated in the hands of one taking it for value before maturity unless there be actual fraud upon his part.-Aldrich v. Peckham, N. J., 68 Atl. Rep. 345.

27. Carriers-Emergency Action.-A carrier held not absolved from liability for negligence of its conductor, resulting in injury to a passenger, on the ground of its being an emergency action, for the benefit of the passenger. who was in danger.-Sheppard v. New York City Ry. Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 553.

28. Riding on Car Bumper.-A passenger riding on the rear bumper of a crowded street car and injured by the sudden slipping of the trolley pole from the wire held negligent as a matter of law.-Feidhein v. Brooklyn, Q. C. & S. R. Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 413.

29. Collision-Error in Extremis.-An error made by a tow in extremis, immediately before collision with a meeting tow in a fog, in turning to port instead of to starboard, held not to debar her from recovering her damages from the two tugs through whose faults the collision was brought about.-The John A. Hughes, U. S. D. C., S. D. N. Y., 156 Fed. Rep. 879.

30. -Wrongful Death.-Applying to a claim for death on the high seas by a collision of vessels of Delaware corporation the provisions of Act Del. Jan. 26, 1886, as amended by Act March 9, 1901, relating to actions for wrongful death, does not render such provision repugnant to the commerce or admiralty clauses of the federal constitution.-Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Gilmore, U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 133. 31. Commerce-Requiring Trains to Stop on Signal. An order made under state authority requiring a railroad to stop on signal fast mail trains between New Jersey and Florida at a small town in South Carolina held a regulation of interstate commerce.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121.

33.- -Public Use of Private Property.-Where the owner of property has devoted it to a use in which the public has an interest, he must to the extent of that interest submit to be controlled by the public for the common good.People v. Steele, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 236.

34. Requiring Constituent Ingredients of Articles to be Published.-Manufacturers and sellers of mixed paints containing other ingredients than those set forth in the statute held not deprived of liberty without due process of law by a statute making such manufacture and sale a misdemeanor unless the label shows the constituent ingredients and the quantity and amount of each.-Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst, U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114.

35.- -Special Assessments for Improvements. -While the state may, under the power of taxation, impose the cost of an improvement in whole or in part on the owners of property specially benefited thereby, it cannot arbitrarily select one or more of such owners and exempt the others. In re Water Front in City of New York, N. Y., 83 N. E. Rep. 299.

36. Contracts-Defense to Breach.-That persons who contracted to care for decedent found it more difficult to care for him than they expected it would be did not justify them in breaking the contract.-Ptacek v. Pisa, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 221.

37. Copyrights-Infringements. A separate action to recover penalty under Rev. St. U. S. § 4965 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3414), for every infringing copy of a copyrighted painting, held not maintainable after judgment of forfeiture of the infringing copies has been recovered.Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co.. U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124.

38. Counties-Mandamus of Supervisors.Mandamus to compel county supervisors to disconnect a strip of territory from one town and add it to another involved a franchise, requiring an appeal direct to the Supreme Court.-. People v. Eitel, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 86.

of

39. Courts-Federal Questions.-Decision state court that federal questions alleged to be involved were put out of the case by facts set forth in the return to the writ of mandamus presenting question obviously not a federal one will not be reviewed where there is nothing to justify a suspicion of an unreasonable construction of the pleading.-Vandalia R. Co. v. State of Indiana. U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130.

40. Criminal Law-Philippine Islands.-The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands on reversing a judgment in a criminal case on appeal by accused has jurisdiction to convict him on the same facts of a different offense, calrying an increased sentence.-Flemister v. United States, U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Pep. 129. 41. Criminal Trial-Leading Questions.-Permitting a district attorney in the trial of a criminal case to ask leading questions of friendly witnesses introduced by him, which suggested the answers and called for conclusions, held an abuse of discretion and reversible error.-Nurnberger v. United States, U. S. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 156 Fed. Rep. 721. 42. Drains-Variance in Proceedings.-General appearances in proceedings to sell land for delinquent drainage taxes held a waiver of a variance between the delinquent list and the notice of application for judgment.-People v. Warren, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 271.

43. Elections-Convict on Parole.-A convict out of the penitentiary on parole is not a qualified voter.-Widmayer v. Davis, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 87.

44.

Eminent Domain-Acquisition of Fee.The legislature may, in acquiring lands for public use, authorize the acquisition of the fee, in which case there is no right of reversion in the original owner.-In re Water Front in City of New York, N. Y., 83 N. E. Rep. 299.

45. Equity-Master's Findings.-It was competent for the presiding judge in reaching a decision to draw from the facts reported by a master such reference of fact as they warranted and which he deemed material.-Kennedy v. Welch, Mass, 83 N. E. Rep. 11.

the placing of the cover of a catch basin in a sidewalk so it would tip was done by an employee of the city may be shown by circumstantial evidence.-Bradbury v. City of South Norwalk, Conn., 68 Atl. Rep. 321.

47. Parol Testimony.-The rule that parol evidence is admissible to apply a contract to the subject-matter and to ascertain the true language as used by the parties applies only where the meaning of the writing is doubtful.-Strong v. Cave Cotton Gin Co., Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 328. 48. Executors and Administrators-Allowance of Claims.-The allowance of a claim against the estate of a decedent cannot be impeached by the administrator or heir, in the absence of fraud or collusion, so far as it affects personal property.-Sinnickson v. Perkins, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 194.

49.-Fee of Executors.-Allowance to executors of an attorney's fee of $1,000 for services rendered by their attorneys in a chancery cause, which fee had been approved by three courts, would not be disturbed by the Supreme Court though the latter deemed the fee excessive.Giger v. Bishop, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 289.

or

50. Where Supposed Decedent is Alive.Payment to an administrator of an absentee who is not in fact dead is no defense as against him his legal representatives.-Marks V. Emigrant Industrial Sav. Bank, 107 N. Y. Supp. 491. 51. False Imprisonment-Justification. At common law an officer could not avail himself of process to justify arrest unless he returned the writ or produced the prisoner, unless the prisoner was estopped to interpose the omission.-Clark v. Tilton, N. H., 68 Atl. Rep. 335.

52. Justification.-An action for false imprisonment may be justified by proof that a crime was committed and that the officer making the arrest had reasonable ground to suspect that the person arrested was the offender.Schultz v. Greenwood Cemetery, N. Y., 83 N. E. Rep. 41.

53. Frauds, Statute of-Collateral Promises. -Promises in form of collateral are in reality original when founded on an independent consideration and when the promisor receives the benefit.-Jefferson Bank v. Starr, 107 N. Y. Supp.

582.

54. Fraudulent Conveyances-Son Working for Father.-It was competent, in the absence of fraud, for a bankrupt son to work for his father, without adequate compensation, in a business which brought the father large returns, without subjecting the fruit of the son's labors in the father's hands to the son's debts.-Spencer v. Clohesey, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 199.

55. Gifts Causa Mortis.-A gift causa mortis is not valid unless accompanied by actual deliv

ery and a transfer of the dominion and control of the property in the lifetime of the donor.Day v. Richards, Mass., 83 N. E. Rep. 324.

56. Guaranty-Notes.-Though notes were delivered with another, yet held that the execution and delivery of all the notes would not be treated as one transaction, so as to read into the guaranty of the latter note a provision found in the guaranty of the former notes.-Sinnickson v. Perkins, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 194.

57. What is Sufficient to Constitute.Where defendant is guaranteed that H. would be ready and willing to carry out a contract, it was equivalent to a guaranty that he would perform.-Murphy v. Hart, 107 N. Y. Supp. 452.

58. Highways-Adoption of Labor System.After a lapse of 23 years, proof that a petition for the adoption of the labor system for paying highway taxes was not on file in the office of the township clerk held insufficient to overcome the presumption that taxes were legally levied in such township on the assumption that the labor system was in force.-People v. Toledo St. L. & W. R. Co., Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 193.

59. Homestead-Not Joined in by Wife.-A deed of a homestead from husband to wife held none the less void because not joined in by her, though executed at the same time as his will.Smith v. Hollenbeck, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 206.

60. Indictment and Information-Philippine Bill of Rights.-Requirements of Philippine Bill of Rights that accused be advised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him held satisfied where complaint leaves no doubt that it means to charge accused with falsification of documents contrary to Penal Code.-Paraiso v. United States, U. S. S. C., 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127.

-

61. Infants Actions Against. Actions against an infant in respect to real estate must be brought directly against the infant and process served upon him the same as if he were an adult, or the court obtains no jurisdiction.Harrison v. Western Const. Co., Ind., 83 N. E. Rep. 256.

62. Injunctions-Who May Punish for Violation. It is not indispensable that the violatio of an injunction be punished by the judge who made the decree.-Menuez v. Grimes Candy Co., Ohio, 83 N. E. Rep. 82.

-

63. Judgment Cancellation. Equity may cancel judgments, orders or decrees, or enjoin their enforcement, in whole or in part, for fraud; but the jurisdiction will only be exercised in cases of necessity, and where there is no adequate remedy a law.-Matthews v. Carman, 107, N. Y. Supp. 694.

64. Foreign Decree.-Where paternity of petitioner was established in Germany 20 years ago, a commission will not be issued at petitioner's request to take testimony to impeach the correctness of such determination.-In Neiding's Estate, 107 N. Y. Supp. 590.

re

65. Landlord and Tenant Holding Out Against Landlord.-A tenant held entitled to purchase the premises from a purchaser at a sale under a deed of trust executed by the landlord, and to hold the premises as against the landlord or his heirs without first surrendering possession.-Spafford v. Hedges, Ill., 83 N. E. Rep. 129.

66. Landlord's Right Over Leased Premises. -A lease of land did not devest the landlord of the power to put the lessee in possession, or of such a right of possession as is necessary.