BANKS AND BANKING.

1. BANKING-Payment by Charging Amount of Check to Drawer's Account. If the payee in a check deposits it for collection in a bank, which forwards it to the drawee bank for payment, an entry on its books by the latter bank charging the amount of the check to the drawee's account discharges him from liability on the debt for which the check was given, notwithstanding the drawee bank withholds the money from the collecting bank and fails to enter the proper credit to its account. (Ga.) Smith Roofing etc. Co. v. Mitchell, 217.

2. BANKING-Liability of Bank Purchasing and Collecting Shipper's Draft.-A banker who purchases a shipper's draft of his consignees, accompanied by a bill of lading to the shipper's order, anl presents such draft and bill of lading to the consignee, and receives payment of the draft, and delivers the bills of exchange, does not thereby become a party to the contract of sale entered into between the shipper and the consignee, nor answerable for the difference in value between the amount of property specified in the bill of lading and the amount actually shipped, where the shipper had fraudulently procured a bill of lading in excess of the property shipped, but the bank was ignorant of the fraud and not guilty of any negligence or misconduct on its part. (Tex.) S. Blaisdell, Jr., Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank etc., 944.

3. BANKS AND BANKING-Insolvency.-Deposits of money in bank, subject to check, become due without demand, if the bank be-comes insolvent. (Mich.) Thompson v. Union Trust Co., 494.

4. BANKS AND BANKING-Insolvency-Setoff.-Deposits of money in bank when it becomes insolvent may be set off against the notes of the depositor to the bank not then due. (Mich.) son v. Union Trust Co., 494.

BASTARDS.

Thomp

1. BASTARDS are not "Children."-Prima facie, the word` "child" or "children," when used in a statute, will, or deed, means legitimate child or children; bastards are not within the term "child" or "children.'' (Ga.) Robinson v. Georgia R. R. etc. Co., 156.

2. PARENT AND CHILD-Legitimation.-Conflict of Laws.-A statute purporting to make legitimate an illegitimate child can have no effect as against its father, who was not, when the statute was enacted, a citizen of, nor resident within, the state, though he was such citizen and resident when the child was born. (Mass.) Irving v. Ford, 447.

3. PARENT AND CHILD-Legitimation, Effect of in a Case of Conflicting Domiciles. The law of the father's domicile at the time of the legitimating act is the law by which to determine the status of both parties. If, by that law, the act in question legitimates a bastard, the beneficial status thus created will, in general, be recognized elsewhere, including the bastard's domicile, though by the law of the latter state, the act is not sufficient to create legitimation.. (Mass.) Irving v. Ford, 447.

Note.

See Death, 2.

Bees, care which owners of must exercise as to place of keeping, 291. keeping of is not necessarily a nuisance, but may become such, 291.

liability for placing in the highways, 290.

liability of owners of for injuries inflicted by, 290.

BILLS AND NOTES.

1. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Holder for Value.—If a note is made payable to a named agent, and is by him sold, indorsed, and delivered before maturity for a valuable consideration, the purchaser is entitled to recover thereon. (Idaho) Yates v. Spofford, 267.

2. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—Burden of Proof.-If defendant admits the execution of the note in suit, but denies that the holder is the owner therof by purchase, before maturity, and alleges want of consideration, the burden of proving such allegations is on the defendant. (Idaho) Yates v. Spofford, 267.

3. NEGOTIABLE PAPER Title Derived from a Thief.-An innocent purchaser of negotiable commercial paper gets a good title, though he purchased from a thief. (Kan.) First Nat. Bank v. Gates, 383.

4. NEGOTIABLE PAPER.-County Warrants, Though Negotia ble in Form, are not negotiable in fact. Hence a purchaser from a thief does not acquire any title. (Kan.) First Nat. Bank v. Gates, 383.

5. BANKING Check-Bona Fide Purchaser of, Who is.-If a check payable to a creditor of a husband, and signed by a wife, is handed by her to her husband, to be delivered to the creditor in payment of a debt due from her to him, but is fraudulently handed by the husband to the creditor in payment of a debt due to him from the husband and is so accepted in good faith, such creditor is a bona fide purchaser of a check, and she cannot set up her husband's fraud in defense of the check, nor maintain an action for money had and received after the payment of it, on discovering the fraud. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

6. BANKING-Check-Payee of may be a Bona Fide Purchaser of. One named as a payee in a negotiable check may become a bona fide purchaser of it, with all the rights incident to a purchaser for value without notice. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426. 7. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—Purchaser for Value, Who is. The Payment of a Pre-existing Debt makes the holder a bona fide purchaser for value. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

8. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Check-Holder in Due Course, Who is.-One named as a payee in a check drawn by a married woman and delivered by her to her husband to deliver to such payee in payment of her debt is a holder thereof in due course, though it is delivered to him by the husband in payment of the latter's own debt, where it was received without notice of the misappropriation by the husband. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

9. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS—Holder in Due Course.—A pledgee of a check may be a holder in due course, under section 9 of the negotiable instruments act of 1898. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

10. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS -Check Blank as to Amount. A check or bill of exchange in which a blank is left as to amount is an incomplete instrument, and the rights of a purchaser depend upon the real authority which the signer has in fact given in the matter, under the negotiable instruments act, and if delivered in payment of a debt to one person, when the instructions of the signer were to deliver it in payment of the debt of another, the application of the check to the payment of the debt of the former cannot be sustained. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

11. EVIDENCE of Instructions Given in the Absence of the Person to be Affected.-Where a check, blank as to amount, is given by a wife to her husband, with instructions that he deliver it to the payee in payment of her debt, and it is in fact filled up as to amount and delivered in payment of the husband's debt, evidence of these instructions is admissible against the payee, though not made in his presence, nor brought home to his knowledge before receiving the check. (Mass.) Boston Steel etc. Co. v. Steuer, 426.

12. BILLS OF EXCHANGE-Liability of Purchasers or Payees.— One who has accepted or paid a bill of exchange drawn on him cannot defeat his acceptance by recovering the money paid because there was no consideration, or the consideration has failed as between him and the drawer, when the payee bought from the latter, for value, without notice of the defense. (Tex.) S. Blaisdell, Jr., Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank etc., 944.

13. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-Indorsement.-Parol Evidence is Admissible, as between the immediate parties, to show the circumstances under, and the time at which a negotiable instrunrent was made. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

Special

14. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Indorsements Agreement Between the Parties.-Any agreement between the parties to a note bearing an irregular indorsement as to the extent of their liability may be shown by parol evidence, and may be enforced as to all who are parties to the agreement. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

15. BILLS AND NOTES-Non-negotiable-Liability of Indorsers, When Collateral to that of the Maker. If a non-negotiable promissory, note is indorsed first by the payee and next by another person, the undertaking on the part of the indorsers is presumed to be collateral to, and not joint with, the maker. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

16. BILLS AND NOTES-Non-negotiable Paper-Parol Evidence to Vary. The rule against the admission of parol evidence to show the consideration, the relation of the parties, and the circumstances attending the execution of the paper, to the end that the true intent of the parties may be ascertained and effected, is not applicable to non-negotiable paper. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

17. BILLS AND NOTES-Non-negotiable-Makers and Indorsers -Parol Evidence to Show Respective Liabilities of. If a non-negotiable promissory note is indorsed by the promisee and another in such manner as would make them first and second indorsers if the note were negotiable paper, evidence is admissible to show the relation which they bear to one who asserts a liability against them on such note. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

18. BILLS AND NOTES-Non-negotiable-Maker and Indorsers -When Liable as Joint Parties.—Where a non-negotiable promissory note is drawn up by one person purporting to be payable to another, and is by the latter and another signed on the back as if they were first and second indorsers, for the purpose of procuring moneys for the benefit of the maker, the indorsement being to give him credit with such person as might accept it and furnish money upon it, the person so furnishing money may elect to hold all the parties as joint promisors, or to treat the indorsers as guarantors. (W. Va.) Young v. Sehon, 970.

19. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS-Release of Maker Without Affecting the Indorsers.-An agreement not to sue the maker of a ne

gotiable instrument may reserve all rights against the indorsers. (Mass.) Faneuil Hall Nat. Bank v. Meloon, 416.

20. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Payment Failure to Present, When Amounts to.-When a negotiable instrument is received in the conditional payment of a debt, the failure to present it for payment and to give notice of dishonor operates to make such conditional payment absolute. (Mass.) Coleman v. Lewis, 450.

See Banks and Banking; Husband and Wife, 4; Partnership, 5; Pledge.

BONDS.

See Principal and Surety.

BOUNDARIES.

1. BOUNDARIES Government Survey.-The Lines actually run by the original government surveyors become the true boundaries, and, if they can be ascertained through the monuments they will control; and courses, measurements, plats, and field-notes must yield. (Iowa) Rowell v. Weineman, 310.

2. BOUNDARIES Evidence of Where Monuments were.-In determining where monuments were established by the government surveyors, it is proper to consider the testimony of persons who saw them when discernible, evidence of their practical location at a time when presumably in existence, acquiescence of the parties concerned, acts of public authorities, boundaries of contiguous tracts, and reputation and tradition. (Iowa) Rowell v. Weineman, 310.

3. BOUNDARIES-Estoppel of Vendor to Deny.-If the owner of land points out the boundaries, and his vendee purchases believing them to be correct, the vendor is thereafter estopped to insist that they are incorrect and should be re-established in accordance with government plat and field-notes. (Iowa) Rowell v. Weineman, 310.

4. MEANDERED WATERS.-The Title of Abutting Owners on meandered waters extends, in Iowa, only to high-water mark, the title of the bed being in the state. (Iowa) Carr v. Moore, 292.

5. MEANDER LINES do not Establish Character of Area Beyond. The running of a meander line does not conclusively establish the character of the area beyond the line, as to whether it is river, lake, marsh, or unsurveyed land. (Iowa) Carr v. Moore, 292.

6. BOUNDARIES-Meander Line as.-A meander line is not, in a strict sense, a boundary, and the title of purchasers extends to the actual water line; but if there is no body of water corresponding to the meander line, to which the ownership of adjoining lands extends, then the meander line limits the extent of the land conveyed. (Iowa) Carr v. Moore, 292.

Note.

Boundaries, surveys of public lands actually made control, 313.

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

See Contracts, 24-26.

BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.

1. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS Usury.-By-laws of a building and loan association fixing a minimum premium, greater than the legal rate of interest, at which loans may be made, are inconsistent with a statute requiring free and open competition in bidding for loans, and render a loan made thereunder usurious, although a larger bid is made therefor than the usurious rate arbitrarily made by such by-laws. (Mo.) McDonnell v. De Soto Savings etc. Assn., 592.

2. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS—Usury-Estoppel to Plead. Although under a by-law of a building and loan association a loan made by it is usurious, yet if property covered by a deed of trust given to secure such loan is sold under foreclosure for default in payment of interest and premium dues, and the mortgagor solicits others to attend the sale and bid on the property, and himself attends and makes no objection to the validity of the loan or the manner of sale, he is estopped from setting the sale aside and the purchaser thereat takes title. (Mo.) McDonnell v. De Soto Savings etc. Assn., 592.

3. TRUSTEES in Deeds of Trust.-An Officer of a building and loan association may legally become a trustee in a deed of trust given to secure a loan made by such association. (Mo.) McDonnell v. De Soto Savings etc. Assn., 592.

CARRIERS.

1. CARRIERS-Limitation of Liability-Conflict of Laws.—If a contract containing a stipulation limiting liability for negligence by a common carrier is made in one state, but with a view to its performance by transportation through or into one or more other states, it must be construed in accordance with the law of the state where its negligent breach, causing injury, occurs. Such contract, though valid in the state where made, must be declared void in the etate where the injury occurs, if contrary to the policy of the law of the latter state. (Pa. St.) Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.,. 713.

2. CARRIERS-Limitation of Liability-Conflict of Laws-Interstate Commerce.-If a contract limiting the liability of a common carrier for loss or injury caused by negligence, though valid in the state where made, is void in the state where a loss occurs, and suit is brought, the court in the latter state may enter judgment for the full value of the property negligently lost, disregarding the terms of the contract, without in any way interfering with the legitimate exercise of interstate commerce. (Pa. St.) Hughes v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 713.

8. CARRIER-Notice to Consignee of Arrival of Goods.-One who consigns goods to himself at a place where he does not reside nor have any agent, is not entitled to notice of their arrival. (Colo.) Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Peterson, 76.

4. CARRIER-When Becomes a Warehouseman.-When a cart shipped by railroad is destroyed by fire in the freight depot four days after reaching its destination, due notice of its arrival having been given the consignee, the liability of the railroad company, if any, is reduced to that of a warehouseman. (Colo.) Denver etc. R. R. Co. v. Peterson, 76.

5. CARRIER Goods Destroyed at Destination.-In an action to recover for goods shipped by railroad and burned in the freight house Am. St. Rep., Vol. 97-68