Fellow servants. A defect in a scaffold board held not so pat-§ 6. ent as to preclude a servant recovering from Plaintiff held entitled to recover for death of the master for injuries therefrom.-Edward his intestate, though the negligence of a fellow Hines Lumber Co. v. Ligas (Ill.) 225. servant contributed thereto.-Chicago & A. R. R. v. House (Ill.) 151. The duty of a master to furnish safe appliances and a safe place to work cannot be delegated to agents.-Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Ligas (Ill.) 225. Where defective boards were put in for foundation for a scaffold by servants, held, that knowledge of such defect must be imputed to the master.-Edward Hines Lumber Co. V. Ligas (Ill.) 225. A railroad company is liable for a failure to inspect a drawbar connecting cars standing on its sidetrack.-Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Gillison (Ill.) 657. Where a railroad company left unfilled spaces between the ties in the tracks in its yards, which caused an employé to be killed, held to justify a finding of negligence.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cozby (Ill.) 1011. Rev. St. 1891, § 7472, does not require mining operators to place props so as to interfere with the necessary working of the mine.-Island Coal Co. v. Greenwood (Ind. Sup.) 36. Failure to put on safety appliances, and to inclose an elevator to be used exclusively for carrying freight, does not constitute negligence. -Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Use of freight elevator by employés to ride on without knowledge of employer held not to affect the fact that it was for freight only, which was known to plaintiff employé.-Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, §§ 7466, 7472, 7473, imposing a liability to his servant upon a master for neglect of certain duties it required of him, it was held that the servant's negligence or notice of danger and assumption of risk did not relieve the master from liability for his negligence.-Boyd v. Brazil Block Coal Co. (Ind. App.) 368. Evidence held to justify verdict, for plaintiff in action by employé for injuries received. Spaulding v. Forbes Lithograph Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 543. ders. Evidence that employés rode on freight elevator on first day of its operation without the knowledge of the employer held not to show a custom of carrying employés.-Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Under the rules of a railroad company, held, that a verbal notice to an extra freight, passing over a part of its line occupied by a work train, amounted to a notice that the work train had orders to clear for the freight.-Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Heck (Ind. Sup.) 988. An employer held responsible for injuries to workman caused by negligent act of superintendent.-O'Brien v. Look (Mass.) 458. Where superintendent ascertained that if an order is carried out a workman will be injured thereby it is negligence on his part not to countermand the order.-Cavagnaro v. Clark (Mass.) 542. A fireman of a passenger train and a freight train crew are not fellow servants.-Chicago & A. R. R. v. House (Ill.) 151. Servants who laid the foundation for a scaf fold held not fellow servants of one who afterwards was ordered to complete it and work thereon.-Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Ligas (III.) 225. A foreman of a factory held a fellow servant of a laborer while they were acting together in performing manual labor.-Gall v. Beckstein (III.) 711. An employé in constructing an elevator is a vice principal, whose negligence is imputable to the master, where another employé is injured by using it after its construction. Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. A train dispatcher held not to be a fellow servant of trainmen, but a vice principal.-Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Heck (Ind. Sup.) 988. Under the rules of a railroad company, held. that a freight train could not depart from written orders indicating a clear right of way. though verbally notified to the contrary.-Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Heck (Ind. Sup.) 988. A servant's death held proximately due to the negligence of defendant railroad company, resulting in a collision between trains.-Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Heck (Ind. Sup.) 988. Act by which employé was injured held not an act of superintendence, so as to render master liable. Riou v. Rockport Granite Co. (Mass.) 525; Levique v. Same, Id. Evidence held insufficient to show negligence of superintendent whereby employé was injur ed.-Fleming v. Elston (Mass.) 531. Laws 1887, c. 270, § 1, making employer liable, held not to relate to employés on electric cars on street railways.-Fallon v. West End St. Ry. Co. (Mass.) 536. A master held not liable for negligently employing incompetent servants, through whose incompetency another servant was injured.McManus v. Staples (Mass.) 537. Employer held not liable for acts of superintendence of one who is a fellow workman with the employé injured. Cavagnaro v. Clark (Mass.) 542. Where a lineman was shaken from a tree by the pulling of a wire by men below, assisted by the foreman, held, that the giving of the order to pull the wire was not negligence.-Flynn v. Boston Electric Light Co. (Mass.) 937. § 7. Risks assumed by servant. A railroad engineer held not presumed to have known that fences and cattle guards were not constructed as required by law, so as to assume the risk incident thereto.-Terre Haute & I. Ry. Co. v. Williams (Ill.) 116. An instruction in relation to the risk assumed by a servant considered, and held properly refused.-Whitney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (III.) 242. A railroad company is not relieved from liability to an employé for negligence because of concurring negligence of a co-employé.--Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Gillison (III.) 657. The separation of a train by reason of a defective drawbar connecting the cars is not an ordinary risk of a brakeman's employment.— Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Gillison (Ill.) 657. A coal miner injured by coal falling upon him held to have assumed the risk.-Island Coal Co. v. Greenwood (Ind. Sup.) 36. Where plaintiff employé, by the exercise of ordinary care, would have known that a freight elevator was not provided with safety appliances, he assumes the risk incident to carriage on it. Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. An employé, by accepting an invitation of a co-employé to ride on elevator used for freight only, held to assume the risk.-Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Special verdict held to show that an injured employé was not guilty of contributory negligence.-Keller v. Gaskell (Ind. App.) 363. $ 9. Actions. Question as to whether a fireman assumed the risk occasioned by the want of a light attached to a switch held for the jury.-Chicago & A. R. R. v. House (Ill.) 151. Questions of contributory negligence and notice of defects decided by a jury, and affirmed by the appellate court, cannot be renewed in the supreme court.-Whitney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (III.) 242. In an action to recover for personal injury, an instruction in relation to the master's liability in case the accident was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant held properly refused. Whitney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (II.) 242. An objection to an instruction that, if the plaintiff was in the exercise of "due" care, he could recover, is removed by other instructions in effect defining "due" care to mean "ordinary" care. Whitney & Starrett Co. V. O'Rourke (Ill.) 242. An instruction in relation to the duty of an employer to keep a building about which an employé was at work reasonably safe considered, and held not erroneous.-Whitney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (Ill.) 242. Where a fact essential to plaintiff's recovery is omitted from an instruction purporting to give the facts required therefor, it is cured by a subsequent instruction including it.-Whitney & Starrett Co. v. O'Rourke (Ill.) 242. Evidence held admissible as to how an elevator, which caused plaintiff's injury by a defect in its machinery, was operated after the accident. Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Where the facts are found by special verdict, it is for the court to determine whether two persons are fellow servants.-Keller v. Gaskell (Ind. App.) 363. The fact that the superintendent received higher wages than ordinary laborer may be shown as bearing on the question whether his duty was that of superintendent.-O'Brien v. Look (Mass.) 458. Wages received by an employé when injured may be shown in action for personal injuries.O'Brien v. Look (Mass.) 458. Whether employé was guilty of contributory negligence held a question for the jury.-Cavagnaro v. Clark (Mass.) 542. Whether an employé was injured by negligence of one intrusted with and exercising superintendence held a question for the jury.Cavagnaro v. Clark (Mass.) 542. Evidence held to justify finding that employé, from assent of superintendent, could infer that he could safely enter an elevator whereby he was injured.-Cavagnaro v. Clark (Mass.) 542. In action for personal injuries received through defects in locomotive, the complaint must allege that employé had no knowledge of defects, or was informed by superior that they would be remedied.-Hesse v. Columbus, S. & H. R. Co. (Ohio) 354. § 10. Liabilities for injuries to third persons. ant's building used one of defendant's servants A contractor putting elevators into defendto run the elevators while used in the work in progress, and, by the negligence of such servant, plaintiff, an employé of the contractor, was injured. Held, that defendant was not liable.-Higgins v. Western Union Tel. Co. (N. Y.) 500. An owner of real estate, who has engaged a contractor to remove rock from his prem ises by blasting, is not responsible for the negligence of such contractor or his employés in doing the work.-Berg v. Parsons (N. Y.) 957. MASTERS IN CHANCERY. The condition of a drawbar at the time a train separated may be shown by evidence of See "Equity," § 4. rust thereon two hours after.-Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Gillison (Ill.) 657. MEASURE OF DAMAGES. Evidence held to warrant a finding that the unfilled condition of the track between ties was See "Damages," § 2. the proximate cause of a switchman's death.Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cozby (Ill.) 1011. Evidence largely circumstantial held for the jury on the question whether a switchman in railroad yards used ordinary care. - Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cozby (II.) 1011. In action for injuries, where the question was whether a red light on a railroad track was a danger signal, an instruction as to what inference the jury would draw if it was a danger signal was erroneous, as infringing on province of jury. -Abbitt v. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. (Ind. Sup.) 729. Evidence held to show that an employer was not negligent in the construction of an elevator by which an employé was injured.-Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 877. Where an elevator injured plaintiff by reason of a defect in or about its gearing, evidence is not admissible to show that after the injury said gearing was fastened differently to the shaft. Sievers v. Peters Box & Lumber Co. (Ind. Sup.) 871. MECHANICS' LIENS. § 1. Right to lien. Oil well, together with appliances attached thereto, held a structure, within Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 7255.-Haskell v. Gallagher (Ind. App.) 485. Work done by one under a subcontractor, and after the latter had abandoned his contract and the owner had taken charge of the work, held not done with consent of owner.-O'Driscoll v. Bradford (Mass.) 628. Work done by a contractor simply for the purpose of enlarging the time for filing a claim for a lien held not available for that purpose.O'Driscoll v. Bradford (Mass.) 628. § 2. Operation and effect. A mechanic's lien on a building erected on a mortgaged lot, as to the building itself, held superior to the mortgage, under Rev. St. 1894, $$ 7255, 7256.-Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. Coburn (Ind. Sup.) 885. Under Pub. St. c. 191, § 1, providing that any person who performs labor on a building shall have a lien, does not apply to a public school building.-Lessard v. Town of Revere (Mass.) 533. In order that a mechanic's lien shall attach to an amount due a subcontractor, who has surrendered his contract, to be finished by the contractor, the lienor must show that there is an actual surplus due the subcontractor over the cost of completion. - Brainard v. Kings County (N. Y.) 263. § 3. Waiver. Agreement by mortgagor that material man should not waive right to lien by taking security held invalid against the mortgagee without notice.-George S. Lyon & Sons Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Equitable Loan & Investment Ass'n (Ill.) 1006. Material man, by taking owner's note with a third person as surety, held to waive right to lien. -George S. Lyon & Sons Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Equitable Loan & Investment Ass'n (Ill.) 1006. $ 4. Enforcement. A mortgagor's interest in the property after sale under foreclosure will not support a mechanic's lien.-Stone v. Tyler (Ill.) 688. Under Laws 1895, p. 241, § 40, all actions to enforce mechanics' liens pending when the act took effect must be governed by prior laws.— Stone v. Tyler (Ill.) 688. The mechanic's lien law of 1874 does not authorize a personal execution, without first providing for a sale of the premises to satisfy the lien.-Stone v. Tyler (Ill.) 688. MEMORANDA. Required by statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of," § 2. MILITIA. Where record of military examining board, on inquiry into qualifications of officer, discloses that he was present, but did not object to the conclusion of the board, it is not reviewable.-Devlin v. Dalton (Mass.) 632. The purchase of a sheriff's certificate of sale by a third person under mortgage foreclosure. at the instance of the mortgagor, held to be a sale of the premises, and not a mortgage to secure advances.-Burgett v. Osborne (Ill.) 206, § 2. Recording. A mortgage with but one attesting witness besides the mortgagee held not valid, though re corded, as against a subsequently properly exe cuted and recorded mortgage.-Amick v. Woodworth (Ohio) 437. § 3. Construction and operation. Mortgage construed, and held to be given to secure mortgagees as sureties of the mortgagor and all debts for which the mortgagees were liable as such.-Chambers v. Prewitt (Ill.) 145. A mortgage by a mother, and foreclosure thereof, carries her interest as heir in her daughter's legacy, which was made a lien on the land mortgaged.-Mortgage Trust Co. of Pennsylvania v. Moore (Ind. Sup.) 72. A mortgage to secure pre-existing debts does not cut off prior equities.-Warford v. Hankins (Ind. Sup.) 468. 8 4. Rights and liabilities of parties. against the maker of the note, though the prop A mortgagee can proceed on nonpayment erty has been sold to third persons, who have assumed the mortgage debt.-Hazle v. Bondy (Ill.) 671. Possession of a note and mortgage is prima facie evidence of title.-Magel v. Milligan (Ind. Sup.) 564. Where mortgage is given to secure a sum, part of which was paid and the balance to be paid on completion of a house within a certain time, which was not done, such balance not having been advanced, no interest can be recovered thereon.-Lewin v. Folsom (Mass.) 523. § 5. Assignment of mortgage. Assignee of notes secured by mortgage after maturity takes subject to all defenses existing against his assignee.-Hazle v. Bondy (Ill.) 671. § 6. Transfer of property mortgaged or of equity of redemption. A grantee, by agreeing to assume a mortgage debt, becomes personally liable therefor.-Ingram v. Ingram (Ill.) 198. Under Const. Amend. art. 4, and St. 1893, c. 367, a militia officer may be lawfully ordered Where grantee expressly agreed to assume to appear for a second examination as to qual-sonal liability therefor held not changed by a a mortgage on land conveyed to him, his perifications, though he has passed his first.-Devlin v. Dalton (Mass.) 632. voluntary reconveyance to the grantor.-Ingram v. Ingram (Ill.) 198. Rights of subsequent purchaser of mortgaged property held not affected by deed to his grantor. containing assumption of mortgage, which was destroyed by consent, and new deeds made, pot containing such provision.-Hazle v. Bondy (Ill.) 671. Mortgage of part of land subject to judg ment liens held to require the liens to be satisfied from remainder in the hands of the second mortgagee, who afterwards bought the liens.-Bank of Commerce v. First Nat. Bank (Ind. Sup.) 566. Where property subject to liens was successively mortgaged in parcels, held governed by rule of inverse order of alienation.- Bank of Commerce v. First Nat. Bank (Ind. Sup.) 566. § 7. Payment or performance of con dition and release. Money deposited with agent of mortgagee to secure release of part of the premises will not be applied as payment in a suit to foreclose.-Hazle v. Bondy (Ill.) 671. § 1. Requisites and validity. In absence of notice that third parties are inTo establish a deed absolute in form a mort-terested in part of the lots, the mortgagee may gage by parol, the proof must be clear and con- release a portion, and retain the lien on the vincing.-Burgett v. Osborne (Ill.) 206. remainder.-Iazle v. Bondy (Ill.). 671. In absence of evidence, the court will not presume that a release from mortgage was not for a sufficient consideration.-Hazle v. Bondy (Ill.) 671. § 8. Foreclosure by exercise of power of sale. Pub. St. c. 181, §§ 17. 21, held not to apply to a trust deed securing debts with power to trustee to sell without notice.-Judge v. Pfaff (Mass.) 524. § 9. Foreclosure by action. A decree directing the sale of mortgaged premises on foreclosure held proper.-Hyde Park Thomson-Houston Light Co. v. Brown (Ill.) 127. The sale of a lot under foreclosure, where bill alleges that it was released from the mortgage lien, is error.-Domestic Bldg. Ass'n v. Nelson (Ill.) 194. Nature of decree, on foreclosure of mortgage on certain lots, providing for release of separate lots for certain distinct sums, determined.-Domestic Bldg. Ass'n v. Nelson (Ill.) 194. Specified solicitor's fees can be recovered on foreclosure if not unreasonable.-Abbott v. Stone (Ill.) 328. Where mortgagor fails to pay taxes, and they are paid by mortgagee, the amount can be recovered on foreclosure. - Abbott v. Stone (III.) 328. Where bill of foreclosure alleges interest in a third person, and asks that he may be made a party, such person is entitled to have his lien satisfied, though he files no cross bill.-Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson (Ill.) 1089. Statute prohibiting sale of equity of redemption does not preclude a resale for a deficiency after redemption by mortgagor.-Mitchell v. Ringle (Ind. Sup.) 30. Issuance of an execution instead of an alias decretal order to resell mortgaged land for a deficiency after a redemption by mortgagor hela an irregularity waived by failure to object before sale.-Mitchell v. Ringle (Ind. Sup.) 30. Where a complaint to foreclose makes junior lienors defendants in such a manner as to raise a question of priority among them, notice of filing a cross complaint is unnecessary.-Thompson v. Harlow (Ind. Sup.) 474. On mortgage of land by husband without his wife's joinder, the purchaser on foreclosure holds subject to the wife's right of redemption. -Frain v. Burgett (Ind. Sup.) 873. A suit having been brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage, from which a part of the land originally mortgaged had been released, and the complaint correctly describing the premises by reference to the release, but the decree reversing the description, and directing the sale of the released land, held, that the court had no power to decree the sale of such land, and the plaintiff, who bought it at the sale, took no title.-Clapp v. McCabe (N. Y.) 274. Upon the facts in a case in which it was sought to hold a defendant upon an assumption of a mortgage contained in a deed of the mortgaged premises to defendant, held, that it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. Blass v. Terry (N. Y.) 953. own decree in a second foreclosure suit.-Beadle v. Cole (Ill.) 809. Where plaintiff took a bond for deed on land subject to a mortgage which was afterwards foreclosed, the land being sold to a purchaser without notice, held, that plaintiff's equitable La Fleur v. Chace (Mass.) 456. right to a conveyance was extinguished.- A trustee who takes a deed to secure debts with power to sell can bind the estate by contract of sale, and grantor wishing to redeem takes the estate subject to the equities imposed thereon.-Judge v. Pfaff (Mass.) 524. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. See, also, "Counties'; "Schools and School Districts," § 1; "Towns." Injunctions affecting, see "Injunction," § 1. Regulation of railroads, see "Railroads." § 4. 81. Creation, alteration, and existence. circuit court, on appeal from decision of board Under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, §§ 4224-4227, the of commissioners in a proceeding to annex territory to a town, has power to hear the case de novo.-Paul v. Town of Walkerton (Ind. Sup.) 725. Petition under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, §§ 4426, 4427, for annexation of contiguous territory to a town, held sufficient.-Paul v. Town of Walkerton (Ind. Sup.) 725. General law authorizing annexation of contiguous territory held constitutional.-Paul v. Town of Walkerton (Ind. Sup.) 725. Under Pub. St. c. 153, § 6, the superior court may report questions of law arising out of the report of commissioners to divide the property of towns, even though the statute provides that their award shall be binding.-Inhabitants of Tisbury v. Inhabitants of West Tisbury (Mass.) 522. St. 1892, c. 216, providing for the division of a town, and the apportionment of its debts in the ratio of seven-tenths and three-tenths, does not require a similar apportionment of town property.-Inhabitants of Tisbury v. Inhabitants of West Tisbury (Mass.) 522. § 2. Proceedings of council. An ordinance can be repealed only by an ordinance, and not by mere resolution or order of the city council.-Hibbard v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 256. § 3. Officers and employés. Relator was tried by the police commissioners of Poughkeepsie for making an illegal arrest, and dismissed for incompetency and deceit, or for these causes and the false arrest. Held an excess of power and erroneous.-People v. Humphrey (N. Y.) 860. A town board can order a street paved without petition of property owners therefor.Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crownpoint (Ind. Sup.) 741. Invalidity of an ordinance to compel conconstruction different from that prescribed. Drew v. Incorporated Town of Geneva (Ind. Sup.) 871. struction of a sidewalk does not warrant a The board of trustees of a town has plenary jurisdiction over streets, including sidewalks, under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, §§ 4404, 4352, 4394 4397.-Drew v. Incorporated Town of Geneva (Ind. Sup.) 871. § 5.- Preliminary proceedings and Under Rev. St. p. 273, art. 9, § 39, providing no defense shall be made in an application for judgment in special assessment proceedings which could have been made in application for confirmation, an ordinance valid on its face cannot be collaterally attacked on an appeal from such judgment.-Kunst v. People (II.) 168. If a datum for a city or village has been ectablished by ordinance, it is sufficient, in subsequent ordinances for public improvements, to refer to it as a standard of measurement.Kunst v. People (Ill.) 168. Ordinance authorizing city improvement held invalid, as not sufficiently describing the work. -Holden v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 181. An uncertainty in a report of estimated cost of street improvements held removed by an ordinance to which the report referred.-McChesney v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 191. An uncertainty in an ordinance as to description of a street to be improved held removed by reference to other parts of the ordinance.-MeChesney v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 191. An estimated cost of building a sidewalk held to show that the owner had not built it, as allowed by the ordinance.-McChesney v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 191. An ordinance held void for failure to set forth the nature, character, locality, and description of the proposed improvements.-People v. Warneke (Ill.) 221. A municipality may invoke an injunction against the construction of a sidewalk contrary to the manner provided by its ordinance.— Drew v. Incorporated Town of Geneva (Ind. Sup.) 871. Where resolution for improvement of alley is made by proper board of a city, subsequent amendment to the law, whereby the power to make such improvement is conferred on another board, held not to work a discontinuance of the pending improvement.-City of Cincinnati v. Davis (Ohio) 918. § 6. Assessments for benefits, and special taxes. Committee estimating cost of improvement cannot omit any part of the improvement to Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Effingham (III.) remedy insufficient description in ordinance.— 103. The affidavit of commissioners as to their posting and mailing notices of a special assessment may be amended on due notice at a subsequent term of court, after judgment was entered confirming their report. -Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. Under 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.) p. 762, the affidavit of commissioners to make a special assessment need not state the place where notices of assessment were posted.-Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. A judgment confirming an assessment for improvements provided for by a city ordinance such where the ordinance provided for seven, held re assessments being payable in five installments, versible error.-Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. Where commissioners appointed to make a special assessment have mailed notices thereof, the court can confirm the assessment, and the nocommissioners' affidavit of service fails to fully tices are not necessarily defective because the set out their acts-Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. In estimating the cost of an improvement made by a city, commissioners appointed to make a special assessment therefor may consider court costs and costs of advertising.-Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. the clause, "the ordinance for the same being on A special assessment notice need not contain file in the office of the * * clerk," included in the form of notice provided by 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.) p. 762.—Michael v. City of Mattoon (Ill.) 155. The mere fact that other sewers were connected with those for which complainants' lands were assessed held no ground for not paying the assessments. — Heinroth v. Kochersperger (Ill.) 171. Certain fraudulent practices by city officials held to be no reason for relieving landowners from paying special assessments for sewers.Heinroth v. Kochersperger (Ill.) 171. A city is a necessary party to a bill for an injunction relieving lot owners from paying special assessments for sewers.-Heinroth v. Koch An ordinance which vests discretionary power with reference to the character and locality of a public improvement in a body other than the common council is void.-People v. War-ersperger (Ill.) 171. neke (Ill.) 221. It is unnecessary that an ordinance under which an assessment is to be collected should set out the particular statute under which it was made.-Andrews v. People (Ill.) 335. Ordinance providing for paving of street held to sufficiently describe the street.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crownpoint (Ind. Sup.) 741. Recital in ordinance directing public improvement, that it was passed by a two-thirds vote, held conclusive on collateral attack.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Town of Crownpoint (Ind. Sup.) 741. Under the statute requiring the joint action of three commissioners in the making of a special assessment roll, and in certifying such roll to the court, it was insufficient for only two of them to sign the report and certificate.-Larson v. City of Chicago (Ill.) 179. A city held a necessary party to a bill to enjoin the county treasurer from selling land for delinquent special assessments.-Smith v. Kochersperger (Ill.) 187. Parol evidence is admissible to establish publication of a notice of a petition for confirmation in special-assessment proceedings.-Lingle v. City of Chicago (III.) 192. |