with the land, and a subsequent purchaser of the mill and mill
tract of land is obliged to fulfill the covenant. If the mill and
machinery are destroyed by fire subsequently to the grant, it is still
the duty of the owner of the servient estate to continue to furnish
the water power for the elevator. (Hottell v. Farmers' Protective
Assn., 109.)

See Homestead, 1, 2.

CORPORATIONS.

1. CORPORATIONS, INSOLVENT-CREDITOR'S RIGHT TO
DIVIDENDS IS NOT DIMINISHED BY HIS RECOVERY FROM
STOCKHOLDERS.-The fact that a creditor of an insolvent corpo-
ration has maintained actions against, and coerced payments from,
some of its stockholders does not impair his right to participate in
dividends declared by such corporation while in liquidation, provided
the amounts collected by him from both sources do not exceed the
aggregate due him from the corporation. (Sacramento Bank v. Pa-
cific Bank, 36.)

2.

-

-

CORPORATIONS INSOLVENCY DISPENSATION OF
FUNDS-STOCKHOLDER'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN DIVIDENDS.
The funds of an insolvent corporation are all to be dispensed solely
for the benefit of its creditors, and a stockholder is not permitted to
share in its dividends either by subrogation or otherwise. (Sacra-
mento Bank v. Pacific Bank, 36.)

3. CORPORATIONS-DOUBLE

LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDER-RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE-SUBROGATION.
A stockholder of a corporation is answerable to it for assessments
in the full amount of his subscription to the capital stock of the cor-
poration for the payment of creditors of the corporation, and he is
also individually answerable to each creditor for such proportion of
the latter's claim as the amount of stock held by such stockholder
bears to the whole of the capital stock. These two liabilities and the
remedies based thereon are concurrent. Hence, no part of whatever
he has paid, either directly to the corporation in the way of assess-
ments, or on account of his personal liability as a stockholder di-
rectly to the creditor, can be recovered back by him, either by sub-
rogation or otherwise. (Sacramento Bank v. Pacific Bank, 36.)

4. GOODWILL OF CORPORATION-TRANSFER OF BY
STOCKHOLDER.-A stockholder of a corporation cannot transfer
its goodwill, even if goodwill, as property, pertains to a corporation.
(Merchants' Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 94.)

5. GOODWILL OF CORPORATION-SALE OF, BY STOCK-
HOLDER-ESTOPPEL.-Although a stockholder in a corporation
pretends to dispose of the goodwill of the corporate business, with
a sale of his stock, yet the vendee must be presumed to know that
he has no vendible interest in such goodwill. The vendor, therefore,
is not estopped from denying the existence of such interest. (Mer-
chants' Ad-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 94.)

6. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS-CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT-EVIDENCE.-In an
action to enforce the statutory liability of stockholders of an in-
solvent banking corporation for its debts, upon certificates of de-
posit negotiable and transferable by indorsement, they must be
produced in evidence to show their present ownership, or must be
shown by competent evidence to be lost or destroyed, and the neces-
sity for such proof is not dispensed with by showing a list of
verified claims presented to the assignee of the corporation and
allowed by the court, including the certificates of deposit in ques-
tion upon which dividends have been ordered paid. Such allowance

does not constitute a judgment in personam against the bank
or its stockholders, and is at most a judgment in rem fixing the
status of the claimant toward the assigned property, and establish-
ing his right to participate in the benefits of the assignment. (Zang
v. Wyant, 145.)

7.

CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS-PARTIES.-In an action to enforce the statutory lia-
bility of the stockholders of an insolvent banking corporation for its
debts, the fact that the bank and its assignee are not made parties
defendant does not in any manner affect the rights or liabilities of
such stockholders. (Zang v. Wyant, 145.)

8.

CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH.-In an action to en-
force the statutory liability of the stockholders of an insolvent bank-
ing corporation for its debts, the pass-books issued to depositors
are no better evidence than the entries made in the balance-book
of the bank from deposit slips made at the time of deposit, and
though such entries are made by an officer of the bank, yet in
making them he acts as agent for the stockholders and the entries
are as binding upon them as upon the bank. (Zang v. Wyant, 145.)
9. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY - REMEDY-LIABILITY
OF STOCKHOLDERS.—A suit in equity by a creditor or creditors
for the benefit of all the creditors is the proper remedy to enforce
the liability of stockholders in an insolvent corporation for the debts
thereof. Neither the assignee nor receiver of an insolvent corpora-
tion can maintain such suit unless given the right by statute. (Zang
. Wyant, 145.)

10.

CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS-WHEN MAY BE ENFORCED.—If an insolvent cor-
poration makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, they
are not required to await the collection and disposition of all doubt-
ful claims and assets of the corporation before bringing action to
enforce the stockholders' statutory liability. The stockholders must
pay promptly and take upon themselves the onus of delay and risk
as to such claims. (Zang v. Wyant, 145.)

11. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.-Under a statute
Imposing upon the stockholders in a corporation a liability for its
debts "in double the amount of the par value of the stock owned by
them respectively," they are liable in such double amount in ad-
dition to their subscription to the stock, no matter whether they
have paid or are still indebted therefor. Such liability imposed for
the benefit of creditors, is in addition to any liability of the stock-
holder to the corporation for his subscription for stock. (Zang v.
Wyant, 145.)

12. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS FOR INTEREST.-If, from the nature of a contract or
debt of an insolvent corporation, interest is allowable against it.
that constitutes a part of its indebtedness, for which the stock-
holders are liable. (Zang v. Wyant, 145.)

13. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK-
HOLDERS-EVIDENCE.-The relation of stockholders to an in-
solvent corporation as stockholders is sufficiently shown by the pro-
duction in evidence of the stock-book of the corporation and the
testimony of its assignee, who had been its cashier, that such book
represented the stockholders, was the only book kept for that pur-
pose, that it was kept in the ordinary course of business, and that
the persons named therein took part in the stockholders' meetings
during the period of time that their names appeared on the book.
(Zang v. Wyant, 145.)

14. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LIABILITY OF STOCK.
HOLDERS-BOOKS AS EVIDENCE.-In an action to enforce the
stockholders' statutory liability for the debts of an insolvent cor-
poration, the books of the corporation, kept by its employés in con-
ducting its business, are admissible in evidence. (Zang v. Wyant,
145.)

15. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-LOAN TO.—A loan made
in good faith by a director and a third person to an insolvent cor-
poration may be validly secured by a mortgage on the corporate
property. (Millsaps v. Chapman, 547.)

16. CORPORATIONS-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS.-If a di-
rector in a corporation resigns, buys the corporate property shortly
thereafter, and is then re-elected a director, he is liable as though
he were a director when the property was purchased. (Millsaps v.
Chapman, 547.)

17. CORPORATIONS-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS-RESIG-
NATION-RE-ELECTION.-If a director in a corporation is re-
elected, serves his term, attends meeting, receiving pay therefor,
then resigns, but accepts re-election three months thereafter, and
permits himself to be advertised as a director during the entire
time, he must be held liable as a director during the entire period,
within the rule preventing a director in an insolvent corporation
from purchasing its property and paying therefor in the stock of
the corporation. (Millsaps v. Chapman, 547.)

18. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-PURCHASE BY DIREC-
TOR.-At the option of an insolvent corporation. or of its creditors,
a sale of the corporate property to a director may be set aside, and
he may be treated as a trustee for the corporation. (Millsaps v.
Chapman, 547.)

19. CORPORATIONS-INSOLVENCY-PURCHASE BY DIREC-
TOR.-If a contract of purchase of corporate property is made be
tween an insolvent corporation and its director, such contract may
be wholly annulled, if actual fraud entered into it, and the director
may be denied any reimbursement, and, if not corrupted by fraud,
the court may vacate or uphold the purchase, and in either event
may require the director to account for profits, or the difference
between the price actually paid and the real value at the time of
the purchase. The remedy must be molded to fit the circumstances
of each case. (Millsaps v. Chapman, 547.)

-

20. CORPORATIONS-FOREIGN CREDITORS-DOMESTIC
AND FOREIGN-STATUTES-CONSTRUCTION OF.-The stat
ute of South Carolina does not give to the creditors of an insolvent
foreign corporation who reside in that state the right to appropriate
to their claims corporate assets in that state, to the exclusion of
citizens of other states, who are also creditors. (Wilson v. Keels,
816.)

See Damages, 8; Pleading, 1; Pledge, 6; Statutes, 5-7; Water and
Watercourses, 3.
COTENANCY.

1. COTENANCY-LIEN FOR IMPROVEMENTS.-If a cotenant
expends money in making improvements on the common estate,
at the request of his cotenants and for their benefit, he is entitled
to a lien therefor upon the shares of such cotenants. (Williams v.
Harlan, 394.)

2. COTENANCY-LIEN OF THIRD PERSON FOR IMPROVE-
MENTS. If a third person lends money to a cotenant, to be ex-

pended in making permanent improvements on the common estate
at the request of the other cotenants, and such improvements are
made, the lender is subrogated to the rights of the borrowing coten-
ant and is entitled to a lien on the property for the amount so
expended. (Williams v. Harlan, 394.)

3. COTENANCY-ENFORCING LIEN FOR IMPROVEMENTS
-PARTIES.—In an action to subject land held in cotenancy to a
llen for improvements made thereon with money loaned by a third
person, a cotenant, who has parted with all his interest to a trustee
for creditors is not a necessary party. (Williams v. Harlan, 394.)

4. COTENANCY - LIEN FOR IMPROVEMENTS - INJUNC-
TION. An action for an injunction may be maintained to restrain a
contemplated partition of land held in cotenancy, whereby the lien
of a third person for money loaned by him for improvements made
on the common property by the cotenants may be destroyed. (Wil-
liams v. Harlan, 394.)

5. COTENANCY-PURCHASE OF OUTSTANDING TITLE-
CONTRIBUTION.-The purchase by a cotenant of an outstanding
title to or encumbrance on the joint estate inures to the common,
benefit and entitles the purchaser to contribution. (Carson v.
Broady, 691.)

6. COTENANCY-LEASE-PRESUMPTION.-If a cotenant
leases the whole property, and remains in possession after the ter-
mination of his term, discharging the obligations imposed upon him
by the lease, he is presumed to hold under the lease, or an implied
renewal thereof, and subject to its provisions. (Carson v. Broady,
691.)

-

-

7. COTENANCY IMPROVEMENTS PARTITION.-If one
tenant in common has had exclusive possession of the common
property, and has made valuable improvements thereon without the
consent of his cotenant, there should, in partition, be set apart to
him that portion on which the improvements are made, if this can
be done without prejudice to the cotenant, but if the property is
not susceptible to physical division it should be sold and the pro-
ceeds divided equally among the cotenants, after deducting there-
from, for the benefit of the tenant in possession, such sum as the
salable value has been enhanced by such improvements. (Carson v.
Broady, 691.)

8. COTENANCY-PURCHASE OF OUTSTANDING TITLE-
CONTRIBUTION.-The purchase of an outstanding title or encum-
brance to property by a party before he becomes a cotenant therein
does not entitle him to contribution, when the purchase is not made
actually or constructively for the benefit of any future cotenant.
(Carson v. Broady, 691.)

COUNTIES.

See Judgment, 13, 14.
COURTS.

COURTS-POWER OF, AFTER CAUSE IS REMANDED,
WITH DIRECTIONS-JUDGMENT.—If an appellate court remands
a cause, with directions "to enter judgment for the plaintiff” in a
certain amount, the lower court has no judicial discretion in the
premises. It has no power to enter any other judgment, or to con-
sider or determine other matters not included in the duty of enter-
ing the judgment as directed. (Tourville v. Wabash R. R. Co., 650.)

See Judges.

CRIMINAL LAW.

1. CRIMINAL LAW-ACTS OF ACCOMPLICES-ADMISSI-
BILITY.-The acts and conduct of one accomplice, during the pend-
ency of the criminal act, not alone in its actual perpetration, but
also in its subsequent concealment, are admissible in evidence
against another accomplice. (Carter v. State, 262.)

2. CRIMINAL LAW-INDICTMENT-SUFFICIENCY.—An en-
tire omission from an indictment of the following words embodied
in the form prescribed by statute for such instruments, namely,
"contrary to the laws of said state, the good order, peace and dig-
nity thereof," is a material defect, which may be taken advantage
of by special demurrer before trial. Such statutory words are
mandatory and not merely declaratory. (Hardin v. State, 269.)

3. CRIMINAL LAW-FLIGHT-PRESUMPTION OF GUILT.
Flight or attempted flight of the accused before his arrest is at
most only a circumstance to be considered by the jury with the
reasons that prompted it, tending to show guilt, or by which an
inference of guilt may be raised, and it has no probative force un-
less it appears that the accused fled to avoid arrest. Flight of the
accused by itself does not authorize the jury to presume guilt.
(Smith v. State, 286.)

4. CRIMINAL LAW-PROFANITY, WHAT CONSTITUTES.-
To constitute profanity, it is not necessary that the name of the
Deity should be used. (State v. Wiley, 531.)

1.

See Arrest; Arson; Homicide; Trial, 7.

DAMAGES.

DAMAGES-AMOUNT OF RECOVERY-STIPULATION.—
In an action to recover damages, recovery to a date subsequent to
the time of bringing the action may be permitted if the parties
have stipulated to that effect in case any damages are awarded.
(Hottell v. Farmers' Protective Assn., 109.)

2. DAMAGES-MEASURE OF.-In an action to recover for
wrongfully preventing the use of water power for an elevator, the
cost of substituting steam power is the proper measure of damages.
(Hottell v. Farmers' Protective Assn., 109.)

3. DAMAGES-EVIDENCE-All the attending acts and cir-
cumstances, which accompany and give character to an assault,
may be given in evidence to enhance the damages. (Maisenbacker
v. Society Concordia, 213.)

DAMAGES-MENTAL

SUFFERING.-Mental

4.
as well as
physical suffering, when properly alleged, may be proved as an ele
ment of actual damage, and as naturally and directly resulting from
an assault. (Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 213.)

5. DAMAGES.-PUNITIVE damages, which are awarded with
the view of punishing the defendant for his wrongful act, may be
recovered in Connecticut. (Maisenbacker v. Society Concordia, 213.)
6. DAMAGES-PUNITIVE-WHEN ALLOWED.-The cases in
which punitive damages may be awarded are only those actions of
tort, founded on the malicious or wanton misconduct of the defend-
ant, or upon such culpable neglect of the defendant, as is tanta-
mount to malicious or wanton misconduct. (Maisenbacker v. So-
ciety Concordia, 213.)

recovery of ex-

7. DAMAGES-PUNITIVE-AGENCY.-No
emplary damages can be made against a principal for the tort of
an agent or servant, unless the defendant expressly authorized the
act as it was performed, or approved it, or was grossly negligent in