ABATEMENT.

1. The provisions of the Code directing the
continuance of an action by or against the
representatives of a party who has died
since the commencement thereof do not in-
clude a case where all the parties are dead
at the time of the action, and by the com-
mon law such action abates.-Holsman v.
St. John, 345.

2. An action to recover taxes, &c., which de-
fendant, as lessee, had covenanted to pay,
was commenced in 1859. Plaintiff died in
1864 and defendant in 1879. On motion of
plaintiff's administrator to continue the ac-
tion, Held, That the cause of action, arising
out of the contract, survived and passed to
plaintiff's administrator; that no revivor
was necessary, the only question being the
bringing in of the proper parties to con-
tinue the action.-Holsman v. St. John et
al., 511.

3. Section 757 of the Code is applicable to a
case where a sole plaintiff and a sole de-
fendant are both dead.-Id.
See WILLS, 1.

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

1. In an action of ejectment, defendant, to
show adverse possession, offered to testify
to a bargain made with one R., who con-
veyed to plaintiff's grantor, who was dead.
Held, Inadmissible under $ 829 of the
Code.-Pope v. Allen, 414.

2. The possession by a party concurrently
with one who has a deed of the premises
on record is not constructive notice. In such
case it will be inferred that such possession
was under the apparent owner by the re-
cord and in subordination to the true title.
-Id.

AFFIDAVIT.

See ATTACHMENT, 3, 5, 10-12, 15, 17.

AGENCY.

1. Where a party receives money through or
from an agent in satisfaction of his obliga-
tion against the agent, with notice of the
principal's rights, the principal may recover
of him to the extent of such rights, but
cannot recover at all if such party had no
notice of such rights.- Keator v. Smith et
al., 64.

2. Where the value of property sold is shown
the price will not be presumed to be less,
in the absence of evidence tending to show
it.-ld.

3. Where a person is appointed by a transpor-
tation company to contract with the United
States for the conveyance of its mails, he
is not necessarily the contractor simply be
cause the contract is in his name.
He may
act in a representative capacity, and there
is nothing in the Statute, U. S. R. S., 2d
Ed. (1878) $$ 3941 to 3953, which prohibits
such a contract being made between the
parties. Nothing in § 3963 prevents a per-
son who obtains a contract from the United
States to carry the mails from agreeing that
he will do so as the agent of another.-The
Oregon SS. Co. v. Otis, 165.

4. Evidence showing that an agent to collect
rents had frequently taken notes for rent,