§ 168 (Iowa) On an issue as to a master's negligence in employing an incompetent servant, his bodily and mental infirmities, disposition, age, experience, etc., were to be considered.Rosche v. Bettendorf Axle Co., 150 N. W. 663. § 179 (Wis.) Where an employé's injury happened after the enactment of St. 1911, § 23941, subd. 2, and the employer had four or more men in common employment, held, that the employer was responsible for the negligence of his engineer. De Grand v. Barkhausen Coal & Dock Co., 150 N. W. 945. 185 (Iowa) The fellow-servant rule held not to relieve an employer from liability for death of an employé while temporarily assisting another employé in full charge of the work.Hitchcock v. Artic Creamery Co., 150 N. W. 727. Where an employé is injured from the negligence of a coemployé attempting to discharge a duty which the employer owes to the injured employé, the employer is liable.-Id. $185 (Minn.) The duty to provide a safe place to work is not violated where the danger is caused by acts of coservants in carrying out the details of the work.-Arveson v. Boston Coal, Dock & Wharf Co., 150 N. W. 810. § 185 (Wis.) Act of plaintiff's fellow servant in dropping one end of a timber about a foot as they unloaded it from a wagon, by which plaintiff was injured, held not to constitute actionable negligence of the master.-Schmit v. Frederickson, 150 N. W. 426. § 190 (Minn.) Hoisters employed by a coal company, operating a dock, held vice principals, for whose negligence the company was liable.Arveson v. Boston Coal, Dock & Wharf Co., 150 N. W. 810. An employé charged with the duty of securing the observance of rules designed to render safe the place of work is a "vice principal."Id. (F) Risks Assumed by Servant. $203 (Wis.) Assumption of risk and contributory negligence may exist together or separately. Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. "Assumption of risk" arises where a servant serves under hazards incident to his employment, and no greater than those which ordinarily careful and prudent men usually serve under, whether he assumes such risks knowingly or not.-Id. § 204 (Iowa) A master failing to guard set screws on the shafting of a pumping engine, as required by the Factory Act, cannot set up the servant's assumption of the risk therefrom.-Winn v. Town of Anthon, 150 N. W. 1036. § 204 (Wis.) St. 1911, § 2394-1, subd. 1, abolishing the defense of assumption of risk related to such risks as would be assumed within the field of ordinary care, and, when their assumption amounted to negligence, the defense of contributory negligence, before its statutory repeal, was available.-Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. § 206 (Iowa) An employé assumes the risks incident to his employment.-Hitchcock v. Artic Creamery Co., 150 N. W. 727. § 208 (Neb.) A servant, in obedience to the requirements of his master using machinery which, though defective is not of such dangerous character that it may not with reasonable probability be safely used by exercise of reasonable care, does not assume the risk.-Usher_v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 150 N. W. 814, following Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Finlayson, 20 N. W. 860, 16 Neb. 578, 49 Am. Rep. 724. the windows for several years and was familiar § 213 (Minn.) Where a janitor had cleaned with the situation, he assumed the risk of falling while cleaning a window.-Davison v. Ressler, 150 N. W. 802. $216 (Wis.) An employé assumes only the ordinary risks of the business, and not the risk of negligent acts of his coemployés.-Graber v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 489. risks incident to his employment, he does not 8217 (Iowa) Although an employé assumes permitted by the employer to exist unknown to assume risks arising from dangerous conditions the employé.-Hitchcock v. Artic Creamery Co., 150 N. W. 727. tion of risk can be invoked, it must appear that § 217 (Minn.) Before the defense of assumpplaintiff appreciated the full extent of the danNorthwestern Knitting Co., 150 N. W. 804. ger to which he was subjected.-Graseth v. the negligence of his employer, the contributory § 226 (Neb.) Where an employé is injured by negligence of a fellow servant will not prevent recovery. Wenquist v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 637. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. § 227 (Wis.) When the act of a servant subjecting himself to a hazard is at the expense of the master, he may not unnecessarily assume a risk so great that an accident may reasonably be expected to follow, which is contributory negligence.-Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N W. 537. To constitute contributory negligence, the risk voluntarily served under must be an obvious hazard which suggests danger to an extent that a person of ordinary care would not usually serve under it.—Id. $229 (Wis.) Contributory negligence ariges where a servant fails to take such precautions for his own safety as one of ordinary care would usually take under the circumstances, and where he serves under a risk that an ordinarily careful man would not serve under.-Fandek v. Bar nett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. § 247 (Minn.) Where a switchman stepped between moving cars to uncouple them, because of a defective coupler, held that his act was not the sole proximate cause of his injury, but that the violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act contributed thereto.-Otos v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 922. (H) Actions. § 250 (Wis.) The right to proceed in an_action for personal injuries under the federal Employers' Liability Act may be waived.-Graber v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.. 150 N. W. 489. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Mich.) Evidence held to support findings by the Industrial Accident Board as to the purpose of signs posted in the room and the duty of the employé in cleaning the machines.Redfield v. Michigan Workmen's Compensation Mut. Ins. Co., 150 N. W. 362. Findings by the Industrial Accident Board are final if supported by some proof of the facts found.-Id. An insurer under the Workmen's Compensation Act held to have had the opportunity to be heard and introduce evidence before the In For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and section (§) NUMBER dustrial Accident Board, required to be giv- tiff, and that burden of showing impossibility en by part 3, § 11, of that act.-Id. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Mich.) Under Workmen's Compensation Act, §§ 10, 11, an employé who, after an injury to his eye, returned to work at the same wages, is not entitled to recover for a permanent impairment of vision.-Hirschkorn v. Fiege Desk Co., 150 N. W. 851. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Minn.) Evidence held to sustain a finding entitling plaintiff to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.-State v. District Court of St. Louis County, 150 N. W. 211. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Minn.) Evidence in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, pt. 2, held to show the existence of the relation of employer and employé between defendant and decedent. -State v. District Court of Meeker County, 150 N. W. 623. Evidence in an action under Workmen's Compensation Act held to show that the cause of the death was accidental in course of employment, and not caused by intoxication.-Id. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Wis.) An order of the Industrial Commission (Laws 1911, c. 50) that a night watchman had been fully compensated for his injuries, objected to as made without jurisdiction, because .having no evidence to support it, as provided by Laws 1913, c. 599, § 2394-19, held sufficiently sustained by evidence of return to work, condition of health, release, etc., after injury.-Oldenberg v. Industrial Commission, 150 N. W. 444. $25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] of guarding them was upon defendant.-Winn v. Town of Anthon, 150 N. W. 1036. $265 (Wis.) Under St. 1911. § 2394 41, subdiv. 11, and section 2394-48, in employé's action for injuries from breaking chain, burden was on plaintiff to show that chain of sufficient strength was not furnished, and that this was the proximate cause of the injury.-Olson v. Whitney Bros. Co., 150 N. W. 959. § 276 (Iowa) Evidence, in an action for injury to a brakeman, held to support a finding that plaintiff at the time of his injury was engaged in interstate commerce.-Pelton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 150 N. W. 236. § 276 (Minn.) Evidence in an action under the federal Employers' Liability Act for the death of an employé struck by an engine while removing old ties from the tracks held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.-Bombolis v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 150 N. W. 385. § 276 (Neb.) Evidence, in an inexperienced employe's action for injuries, held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.-Krum v. Sullivan & Schaberg Transfer & Fuel Co., 150 N. W. 640. § 278 (Iowa) In action for injury causing servant's death, evidence held not to show negligence in placing a water-pressure gauge too close to the shaft of a pumping engine.-Winn v. Town of Anthon, 150 N. W. 1036. the federal Employers' Liability Act, held to § 278 (Minn.) Evidence, in an action under sustain a finding that defendant was negligent as to the brake step and to warrant an inference that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident.-Crandall v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 150 N. W. 165. § 278 (Minn.) In an action for the death of an employé, evidence held insufficient to show that the danger of a cornice falling was so obvious that a finding that defendant was negligent in failing to warn intestate of the dan (Wis.) The injuries for which compensation is to be paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act are only such as are incidental to and grow out of the employment.-Hoenig V Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 150 N. W. Under St. 1913, § 2394-19, held, that a find-ger was not sustained by the evidence.-Velin ing of the Industrial Commission' that plain-V. Lauer Bros., 150 N. W. 169. 996. tiff's husband was not killed in consequence of any hazard peculiar to his employment could not be disturbed by the courts when support ed by substantial evidence.-Id. § 25034 [New, vol. 16 Key-No. Series] (Wis.) Plaintiff held not entitled to deny that the parties were not within the Workmen's Compensation Act.-Milwaukee Western Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 150 N. W. 998. nicked knives on a § 278 (Minn.) Evidence held to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent in having plaintiff was working, causing his injury hand jointer on which Puls v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 150 N. W. 175. Evidence held to justify a finding that defendant was liable for failure to guard the knives on a hand jointer, as required by the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin.-Id. § 278 (Minn.) Evidence in action for inju Right to review findings of the Industrialries due to defendant's failure to provide a Commission for actions without or in excess of its powers, conferred by St. 1913, § 239419, held limited to acts without or in excess of jurisdiction.-Id. Evidence held to support a finding of the Industrial Commission that decedent, while in the course of his employment, fell into a river and was drowned by accident and not with suicidal intent.-Id. § 252 (Wis.) A minor servant cannot recover from his master for personal injuries without giving the notice required by St. 1913, § 4222, subd. 5, of all claims for personal injuries. Staszczuk v. Gilman Mfg. Co., 150 N. W. 982. A release of all claim for damages for personal injuries executed by a minor servant to his employer is not a sufficient notice of injuries to comply with St. 1913, § 4222, subd. 5, which requires the notice to state that satisfac tion is claimed.--Id. § 264 (Iowa) In an action against a railroad company under the federal Employers' Liability Act, where plaintiff alleged that his injury occurred while engaged in interstate commerce, a general denial will not raise an issue as to that fact.-Pelton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 150 N. W. 236. § 265 (Iowa) In action for death of servant injured by unguarded set screws, held, that burden of showing such use was upon plain safe place to work held to conclusively show no negligence on the part of defendant.-Hanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 380. § 278 (Minn.) Evidence held insufficient to show that the team which ran over plaintiff was so wild and unsafe as to make it negligence for defendant to use it for husking corn in the usual manner.-Schultz v. Duel, 150 N. W. 786. $278 (Minn.) Evidence held to sustain a finding that the plank causing plaintiff's fall was negligently placed.-Quinn v. St. Paul Boiler & Mfg. Co., 150 N. W. 919. § 278 (Neb.) Evidence held to sustain verdict for plaintiff.-Usher v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 150 N. W. 814. § 278 (Wis.) Evidence held insufficient to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of a master.-Schmit v. Frederickson, 150 N. W. 426. § 278 (Wis.) Evidence held to support finding that chain used in moving pile driver was safe if the work had been done in the customary manner and in the way in which it could be reasonably anticipated that it would be done.Olson v. Whitney Bros. Co., 150 N. W. 959. § 279 (Minn.) Evidence, in an employe's ac tion for injuries due to defendant's negligence, wherein the defense was negligence of fellow servant, held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. | gence to the jury.-Nelson v. Michigan Tan-Quinn v. St. Paul Boiler & Mfg. Co., 150 N. ning & Extract Co., 150 N. W. 317. W. 919. § 280 (Minn.) Evidence held to justify a finding that plaintiff did not assume the risk of defective appliances or of failure to guard machinery.-Puls v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 150 N. W. 175. § 280 (Minn.) Evidence held to show assumption of risk.-Johnson v. United Flour Mills Co., 150 N. W. 902. $280 (Minn.) Evidence, in an employé's ac tion for injuries due to defendant's negligence, wherein the defense was assumption of risk, held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.-Quinn v. St. Paul Boiler & Mfg. Co., 150 N. W. 919. $281 (Minn.) Evidence, in an employé's action for injuries due to defendant's negligence, wherein the defense was contributory negligence, held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.Quinn v. St. Paul Boiler & Mfg. Co., 150 N. W. 919. $281 (Neb.) Evidence in an experienced employé's action for injuries received while running a gasoline engine held to show contributory negligence.-Nickel v. Butke, 150 N. W. 652. § 281 (Wis.) Evidence in an action for the death of a servant injured by the falling of a heavy spout in which he was engaged in unloading and piling held to sustain a finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence.-Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. § 284 (Iowa) Where an employé in charge of work was present, it was not error to submit the issue whether he heard his assistant request decedent to help them, though he testified positively that he did not hear such call.-Hitchcock v. Arctic Creamery Co., 150 N. W, 727. § 284 (Iowa) In action against a town for death of an employé, held, that it was for jury to say whether employment of decedent and his rendition of services pursuant thereto was with express or implied consent of town council.-Winn v. Town of Anthon, 150 N. W. 1036. § 284 (Minn.) The court cannot determine as a question of law that the rule of respondeat superior does not apply, unless the evidence conclusively shows that the alleged employer possessed no power to control the alleged employé as to the transaction out of which the injury arose.-State v. District Court of St. Louis County, 150 N. W. 211. § 284 (Minn.) Where a section foreman was injured while loading rails taken from the main line of an interstate railroad onto a flat car, whether he was employed in interstate commerce within federal Employers' Liability Act, held for the jury.-Cherpeski v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 1091. § 284 (Wis.) Where the facts are undisputed, whether the employment of the injured servant was in interstate commerce, so as to be subject to the federal Employers' Liability Act, is for the court.-Graber v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 489. § 286 (Minn.) Where car repairer was injured by fall of car door, the questions whether defendant was under obligation to furnish a safe car door, and whether the duty of repair rested on plaintiff, were for the jury.-Bauer v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 394. § 286 (Minn.) Whether defendant negligently started its log carriage without giving the proper signals held for the jury.-Johnson v. Sartell Bros. Co., 150 N. W. 784. § 286 (Minn.) Evidence held to take the case to the jury on the issue of defendant's negligent failure to provide a mangle with a hand guard and failure to instruct and warn.-Graseth v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 150 N. W. 804. $ 286 (Wis.) In employe's action for injuries while loading cars, held, that whether defendrules requiring a signal was for the jury.-De ant was negligent in failing to promulgate Grand v. Barkhausen Coal & Dock Co., 150 N. W. 945. Whether the engineer was negligent in starting the machinery without blowing a whistle was for the jury.-Id. $287 (Iowa) Evidence held to require submission of the question of the fellow servant's incompetency and whether defendant's negligent continuance of his employment was the proximate cause of decedent's death.-Rosche v. Bettendorf Axle Co., 150 N. W. 663. $287 (Minn.) Where plaintiff was injured while loading rails onto a flat car, whether he was injured by the negligence of his fellow servants was for the jury.-Cherpeski v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 1091. $ 287 (Neb.) An instruction reciting that "the defendant having pleaded that the injuries complained of were caused by the act of a fellow servant" held not misleading, where answer alleged such to be the fact.-Wenquist v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 637. § 288 (Minn.) Under the evidence, held, that the assumption of risk was for the jury.-Graseth v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 150 N. W. 804. § 288 (Wis.) In most cases it is primarily for the jury to say whether the servant's conduct shows mere assumption of risk or contributory negligence.-Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. $ 289 (Mich.) Evidence held to require submission of the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury.-Nelson v. Michigan Tanning & Extract Co., 150 N. W. 317. § 289 (Minn.) In an action for injuries to a servant, evidence held insufficient to show contributory negligence as a matter of law.-Velin v. Lauer Bros., 150 N. W. 169. § 289 (Minn.) Where plaintiff was performing his regular duties and relied on customary signals from the head sawyer which were not given, he was not negligent as a matter of law. Where the facts as to an injured servant's-Johnson v. Sartell Bros. Co., 150 N. W. 784. employment are in dispute, the existence of such facts is for the jury, the legal conclusion as to the applicability of the federal Employers' Liability Act is for the court.-Id. § 285 (Neb.) Evidence held to authorize submitting to the jury whether defendant's inspectors misplaced the "controller," which was the primary cause of the accident.-Wenquist V. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 637. § 285 (Wis.) Whether the death of a servant struck by a tree felled by another servant was the proximate result of the master's negligence held for the jury.-Gillett v. Flanner-Steger Land & Lumber Co., 150 N. W. 987. § 289 (Minn.) Under the evidence, held, that contributory negligence was for the jury.Graseth v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 150 N. W. 804. § 289 (Wis.) An employé held not negligent as a matter of law when injured.-De Grand v. Barkhausen Coal & Dock Co., 150 N. W. 945. § 291 (Iowa) Where the evidence in an action against a railroad company under the federal Employers' Liability Act contains sufficient undisputed facts to bring the case within the act, the court should construe the federal act in its application thereto.-Pelton v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 150 N. W. 236. 286 (Mich.) Evidence held to require sub- § 293 (Minn.) Where car repairer was inmission of the question of defendant's negli- jured while repairing a car door, instruction that defendant must furnish safe door, and refusal to instruct that plaintiff could not recover if the duty of repairing rested with him, held error.-Bauer v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 150 N. W. 394. § 293 (Neb.) An instruction that a master is not required to furnish the newest or safest motor car and machinery, but that if such car and machinery were reasonably safe, it was sufficient, is properly denied.-Usher v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 150 N. W. 814. $ 297 (Neb.) In an action for injuries to a servant brought against his master and its foreman, verdict for foreman and against the master is not inconsistent, unless plaintiff would not have been injured but for negligence of foreman.-Usher v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 150 N. W. 814. § 297 (Wis.) In servant's action for injury, certain findings held to relate to the issue of contributory negligence, rather than that of assumed risk. Fandek v. Barnett & Record Co., 150 N. W. 537. IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT. (A) Amount and Extent of Lien. § 178 (Iowa) There is nothing in Code, § 3092, relating to the time for filing a claim by a materialman, to suggest loss of lien if the owner dies within such time, and hence the owner's death does not affect the right to perfect and enforce a lien.-G. J. Stewart & Co. v. Whicher, 150 N. W. 64. (C) Priority. failure to file a lien within time shall not de198 (Iowa) Code, § 3092, providing that feat it except against incumbrances in good faith, does not contemplate claims of ordinary creditors of a decedent against whose property a lien is filed out of time.-G. J. Stewart & Co. v. Whicher, 150 N. W. 64. VII. ENFORCEMENT. where almost three years have expired from $260 (Iowa) Under Code, § 3447, par. 4, the date of the last item of an account for materials to the date when notice and claim IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO is filed, right to foreclose is barred.-G. J. THIRD PERSONS. Stewart & Co. v. Whicher, 150 N. W. 64. $ 271 (Minn.) An affidavit, stating that the averments in a lien claimant's pleading were true of his own knowledge, and that the attached bill of items was correct, held a sufficient verification of such bill of items under Gen. St. 1913, § 7031.-Lyons v. Jarnberg, 150 N. W. 1083. § 291 (N.D.) On foreclosure of a mechanic's lien on property of a discharged bankrupt, held that the judgment should be that the property be sold for payment of the lien debt with costs, but no deficiency judgment be entered.-Moreau Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 150 N. W. 563. MEDICAL WORKS. See Criminal Law, § 489; Evidence, § 558. See Corporations, § 194. MEMORANDA. See Appeal and Error, § 1096; Bankruptcy, 8 See Frauds, Statute of, § 113. 192; Dower, § 116. II. RIGHT TO LIEN. (A) Nature of Improvement. §31 (Minn.) A mechanic's lien claimant held not entitled to a lien on the realty for the value of electric lighting fixtures.-Lyons v. Jarnberg, 150 N. W. 1083. (B) Services Rendered and Materials Fur nished. § 35 (Minn.) An actual improvement is not necessary to the existence of a lien under Gen. St. 1913, § 7020 et seq.-Lamoreaux v. Andersch, 150 N. W. 908. § 36 (Minn.) Under Gen. St. 1913, § 7020, an architect is entitled to a lien for preparing plans, though he does not supervise the construction of the building and though the owner abandons the construction.-Lamoreaux v. Andersch, 150 N. W. 908. III. PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT. § 132 (Minn.) A lien statement filed by an architect held filed in time when filed within 90 days after the owner repudiated the contract, though the last work on the plans was done more than 90 days prior thereto.-Lamoreaux v. Andersch, 150 N. W. 908. § 157 (Minn.) Where a lien claimant performed his contract only in part, but filed a lien for the full amount, he divested himself, under Gen. St. 1913, § 7085, of all right to a lien.-Lyons v. Jarnberg, 150 N. W. 1083. MISCONDUCT. See Trial, §§ 304, 311. MISREPRESENTATION. See Fraud. MISTAKE. See Guaranty, § 19; Reformation of Instru ments, §§ 16, 18; Taxation, § 539. MITIGATION. See Libel and Slander, §§ 56-66, 95. MONEY RECEIVED. §18 (Minn.) In an action for money had and received, evidence held to sustain findings for plaintiffs.-Rippa v. Hogan, 150 N. W. 167. MONOPOLIES. II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINA. § 17 (S.D.) A contract, whereby defendant agreed to sell plaintiff's patterns and not to sell those of any other make, does not violate Laws 1909, c. 224, prohibiting monopolies.Sullivan v. Rime, 150 N. W. 556. MONUMENTS. See Executors and Administrators, §§ 215, 261. MORTALITY TABLES. See Evidence, § 383. MORTGAGES. See Alteration of Instruments, § 10; Appeal and Error, § 193; Chattel Mortgages; Constitutional Law, §§ 149, 278; Courts, § 7; Executors and Administrators, § 483; Fraudulent Conveyances, § 166; Insurance, §§ 580, 581; Limitation of Actions, §§ 44, 60; Principal and Agent, §§ 23, 137; Receivers, § 145; Subrogation, §§ 14, 23; Trusts, §§ 20, 206; Usury, 8130; Vendor and Purchaser, § 231. § 86 (Mich.) On an issue whether a deed of trust, given in an exchange of property, was a forgery, evidence of the relative value of the properties held irrelevant.-Curtis v. Mueller, 150 N. W. 847. Evidence held to require a finding that a deed of trust was not a forgery.-Id. II. RECORDING AND REGISTRA- § 95 (Iowa) Where a mortgage duly executed was changed but there was no new acknowledgment, the defect of recording and of constructive notice extended only to eliminate in legal effect the inserted clause from the record. -Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 150 N. W. 596. III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA TION. (C) Property Mortgaged, and Estates of Parties Therein. § 139 (Neb.) A deed absolute in form passes the legal title, though intended as security and treated for most purposes as a mortgage.Minick v. Reichenbach, 150 N. W. 1001. § 143 (Wis.) The possession of the mortgagor is presumed to be subordinate to the rights of the mortgagee until it is shown to be in fact adverse.-Bur v. Bong, 150 N. W. 431. IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTIES. § 199 (Mich.) On an accounting during the time a grantee in a deed in fact a mortgage was in possession, evidence held to fix the rental value at a specified sum per acre, plus taxes and insurance.-Miller v. Peter, 150 N. W. 554. $ 200 (N.D.) A mortgagee authorized to pay taxes need not determine at his peril the validity of an apparent tax.-Farmers' Security Bank of Park River v. Martin, 150 N. W. 572. 8201 (Iowa) Where a mortgage provides that on the failure of the mortgagor to insure the property the mortgagee may do so at the expense of the mortgagor, he can insure at the expense of the mortgagor, and cannot declare the whole sum due.-Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 150 N. W. 596. VI. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MORTGAGED OR OF EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. § 280 (Iowa) A purchaser of land, subject to a mortgage which he assumes, assumes the stipulation in the mortgage for insurance for the benefit of the mortgagee.-Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 150 N. W. 596. IX. FORECLOSURE BY EXERCISE OF POWER OF SALE. advertisement held void, under Rev. Laws 1905, § 331 (Minn.) An attempted foreclosure by § 4457, where the mortgage contained no power of sale.-Purcell v. Thornton, 150 N. W. 899. X. FORECLOSURE BY ACTION. (B) Right to Foreclose and Defenses. $399 (N.D.) In foreclosure for nonpayment. of taxes which were paid by the mortgagee, it was no defense that the description on the assessment roll was defective.-Farmers' Security Bank of Park River v. Martin, 150 N. W. 572. § 414 (Iowa) Where a mortgagor procured a fire policy to comply with the mortgage, the mortgagee could not declare a default without giving notice of objections to it and a reasonable opportunity to meet them.-Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 150 N. W. 596. (D) Limitations and Laches. § 425 (Wis.) A suit to foreclose a mortgage is equitable in its nature and is subject to the doctrine of laches.-Bur v. Bong, 150 N. W. 431. Plaintiff's laches held to bar foreclosure of a mortgage.-Id. (E) Parties and Process. § 440 (S.D.) A mortgagee may foreclose his mortgage on the accrual of his right to do so, though personal service cannot be had on any defendant, where a deficiency judgment is not sought.-Froelich v. Swafford, 150 N. W. 476, 893. (I) Judgment or Decree and Execution. § 490 (Wis.) A judgment may be entered against the mortgagor for breach of his covenant to pay taxes.-Ogden v. Bradshaw, 150 N. W. 399. XI. REDEMPTION. § 591 (S.D.) A junior mortgagee's right to redeem from the senior mortgage is distinct from his right to foreclose his mortgage, and may be enforced at any time after the accrual of the right to redeem.-Froelich v. Swafford, 150 N. W. 476, 893. § 592 (N.D.) The requirement of Laws 1907, c. 127, that notices of redemption shall be recorded rather than filed, held constitutional.— Heitsch v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 150 N. W. 457. § 596 (Neb.) Where the grantee under a security deed is in possession, the grantor's equity of redemption may be defeated by a parol settlement defeating his right to an accounting. -Minick v. Reichenbach, 150 N. W. 1001. $597 (Minn.) Where the mortgagor knew of defects in the foreclosure, and remained silent while a purchaser made improvements, satisfied a prior mortgage, and sold the property, which greatly increased in value held, that he |