must transfer the property to a trustee, or
declare that he holds it himself in trust.-
Young v. Young et al., 137.

4. In case of voluntary settlements or gifts, a
trust will not be implied where one was not
in fact contemplated.—Id.

5. Defendant purchased a mortgage made by
one B., relying upon B.'s sworn statement
that it was given for a full consideration, and
afterward sold it for the full sum secured by
it. In an action to establish a trust in favor
of B.'s assignees for the difference between
the face of the mortgage and the sum paid
for it by defendant, Held, That no trust could
be implied; that B.'s representation estopped
him from denying its truth.-Grissler et al. v.
Powers, 196.

6. Where a deposit is made in the savings bank
by a person in his or her name, as trustee for
another, it is a' complete and valid transfer
of the title to the fund.-Boone v. The Citi-
zens' Savings Bk., 208.

7. Where in an action by a judgment creditor
of the beneficiary a judgment is rendered
fixing the surplus income of a trust estate,
and directing the trustees to pay the debt
and costs out of such surplus, the trustees are
bound by the judgment, and if they disobey
its command become personally liable for
the debt.-Williams v. Thorn et al., 332.

8. D., S. & Co. gave their check on themselves
to plaintiffs for a sum due plaintiffs. These
checks were known as cashier's checks. By
general arrangement with the National Bank
of the State of New York, such checks were
cashed by said last named bank through the
clearing house. After the check in suit was
drawn, D., S. & Co. made a deposit of securi-
ties with said National Bank for the payment
of certain over-drafts of cashier's checks, of
which the check aforesaid was one. After
depositing such securities, D., S. & Co. made
a general assignment before the check in
suit had been paid. Held, That such securi-
ties deposited created an irrevocable trust
for the benefit of the holders of the checks,
and that the holders of such checks were
entitled to payment from such securities in
preference to the general creditors of D., S.
& Co.-Watts v. Shipman et al., 360.
See FACTORS.

TURNPIKE COMPANIES.

See NEGLIGENCE, 32, 33.

UNDERTAKING.

See APPEAL, 30, 31; REPLEVIN, 5.

USAGE.

1. Proof of usage will not make a contract where
the parties have made none, and it can only
be admitted to interpret the meaning of the
language employed.-The Nat. Savings Bk. of
D. C. v. Ward, 330.

2. Proof of a custom which is general is not ob-
jectionable when there is nothing in the con-
tract to exclude its application. Parties are
presumed to contract in reference to a gen-
eral usage or custom which prevails in the
particular trade or business to which the
contract relates.-Fuller et al. v. Robinson,
487.

2.

USURY.

Defendants' intestate being indebted to plain-
tiff, procured a loan from him, on mortgage,
nothing being said about the rate of interest.
A statement of the indebtedness, a receipted
attorney's bill and a check for the balance
were handed to intestate as covering the
loan. He objected to an item in the attor-
ney's bill of $150 for commissions in procur-
ing the loan, and plaintiff said it was all
right; that he could not do any better,
Held, That while intestate was deprived of
the $150 by false pretence, it was not done
by virtue of any agreement, and therefore,
there could be no usury.-Guggenheimer v.
Geiszler et al., 287.

It is enough that the facts making out usury
are stated with sufficient certainty in the
pleading to enable the other party to know
what he would be called upon to meet.-
Leon v. Bernheimer, 288.

3. Defendants applied to certain brokers for a
loan on mortgage, agreeing to pay them 12
per cent. for procuring it. One B agreed to
make the loan, and left with one O, his at-
torney, checks signed in blank. O filled up
the checks during B.'s absence, one of which
was for the 12 per cent.; this was endorsed
by defendants and handed to the brokers
who transferred it to O, and the latter re-
tained all but a small commission which he
paid the brokers. No portion of this sum
was received by B or the estate he repre-
sented. Held, That this did not constitute
usury.-Van Wyck et al. v. Walters et al.,

ducts of other states, are required to pay
wharfage fees which are not exacted from
vessels landing thereat with the products of
the state, is in conflict with the National
Constitution.-Id.

WILLS.

1. Testator by his will gave to his wife the use
of all his real and personal property for life;
the income of the estate was given to his
four daughters to be divided equally among
them during their lives, with remainder to
their respective children, heirs and assigns.
The will also provided that in case of the
death of either of the daughters without
issue, her share should be divided equally
among the survivors and to their children |
respectively. Held, That there was no illegal
suspension of the power of alienation; that
the bequest to the daughters of the income
for life was equivalent to a devise of a life
estate in the land; that the remainder vested
on the death of testator in the children of
the daughters then living, subject to open
and let in afterborn children.- Monarque v.
Monarque et al., 118.

2. Testator by his will bequeathed to his wife
one-third of all his property real and per-
sonal, and the control of his farm as long as
she remained a widow, and at her death
directed all his property to be equally divided
between his children. Held, That the widow
took an absolute fee in one-third of the prop-
erty mentioned and the use of the whole
during widowhood.-Roseboom v. Roseboom
et al., 309.

3. Testator by his will bequeathed $50,000 to
his daughter A., and the same amount to
"the children of I.," a deceased daughter:
and after other bequests, he directed the re-
mainder of his estate to be divided between

A., the children of I., the son of another de-
ceased daughter, and his sons. Held, That
the residuary legatees took per stirpes and
not per capita.—Ferrer et al. v. Pyne et al.,
334.

4. Testator by his will bequeathed a sum of
money to
"the Presbyterian cemetery."
There was a cemetery known by that name,
but no corporation in the town known to the
law by that name. Held, That the bequest
must fail for want of a beneficiary capable of
taking, and that it was not such a charitable
bequest as the court could execute - The
First Presbyterian Soc. v. Bowen et al., 400.
5. An executor who drew the will is a compe-
tent witness to prove its execution.-Rugg et
al. v. Rugg et al., 401.

6.

7.

8.

Mere failure of memory on the part of the

witnesses will not defeat a will if the attesta-
tion clause and other circumstances are satis-
factory to prove its execution.-Id.

An alien devisee, upon acceptance of the de-
vise, takes a conditional title, absolute against
the heirs of the testator, but defeasible by
the state until he makes and files the depo-
sition required by statute; this he may do at
any time before the state recovers the lands,
upon paying the costs of any proceeding for
escheat which may have been instituted.-
Hall et al. v. Hall et al., 414.

Under chap. 115, Laws of 1845, where a de-
vise is made to aliens, and one of the devisees
files the requisite deposition, the estate vests
in such devisee.-Id.

See EVIDENCE, 3; TRUSTS, 1.

WITNESS.

See EVIDENCE, 3, 14, 17; NEGOTIABLE PAPER,
7; WILL, 5.