Palmer, 18 Tex. 595, holding prior occupation not sufficient to support ejectment, unless continuous; Alexander v. Gilliam, 39 Tex. 235, to same effect.

Mines and minerals.— Where a petition for adjudication of a Mexican mining claim fails to define its topographical features, or the particulars of the mining partnership, nor boundaries fixed, an alcalde had no jurisdiction to decree in favor of the claimant, nor will confirmation of the decree by the supreme government be presumed except on clear proof, in this case not furnished by the facts. pp. 200-201.

Cited with approval and applied in Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 68 Fed. 642, holding that courts could not confirm grant not located by survey. Cited in elaborate note on mining rights, in 63 Am. Dec. 103, on point that private ownership of soil includes mines and minerals beneath it.

Mines and minerals.- Steps which vested title in mining claimant, under Mexican law, stated, pp. 190-191, 202.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Buse v. Russell, 86 Mo. 215, sustaining instruction concerning law of accretion, where river is filled up; Shaw v. Erskine, 43 Me. 373, holding that a defeasance is not valid unless made by the parties to the first deed; Re Spencer, 5 Sawy. 197, F. C. 13, 234, defining good moral character; Sellers v. Union, etc., Co., 39 Wis. 527, holding grant of franchise to every person improving river according to statute, void for want of a certain grantee; Dwight v. Williams, 4 McLean, 586, F. C. 4,218, holding declaration should allege attempt to collect from debtor by due course of law as condition precedent to holding guarantor; Witherell v. Wiberg, 4 Sawy. 234, F. C. 17,917, defining “nature and duration of estate," as used in Oregon code; Oregon Trust Co. v. Shaw, 5 Sawy. 338, F. C. 10,556, holding mortgage and fee not merged where owner of mortgage transferred it before he acquired fee; Stubblefield v. Menzies, 8 Sawy. 46, 11 Fed. 273, discussing merger of wife's estates in husband's estate; Oats v. Walls, 28 Ark. 247, citing counsel's argument in principal case.

2 Black, 372-394, 17 L. 282, CALAIS, ETC., CO. v. VAN PELT.

Principal and agent.- Where a principal advances funds for building vessel under agent's name, leaving with agent indicia of ownership, ordering agent to sell without disclosing principal's interest, notice of principal's advances is insufficient to charge innocent purchaser for value, with principal's equitable interest in vessel, pp. 373–377.

Cited with approval and principle applied in Munroe v. Phila. Whse. Co., 75 Fed. 547, holding indorsees of bills of lading, without notice, for value, not chargeable with lien for advances on

goods; Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Capital City Ins. Co., 81 Ala. 328, 8 So. 225, holding builder of house had insurable interest therein as owner, though he had received installments thereon; Locke v. Lewis, 124 Mass. 7, 26 Am. Rep. 634, sustaining sale by partner, held out as sole owner of partnership goods, in payment of private debt; Peake v. Thomas, 39 Mich. 589, foreclosing mortgage held by innocent mortgagee, covering married woman's separate property, executed by her unknowingly; City Council of Charleston v. Ryan, 22 S. C. 348, 53 Am. Rep. 715, holding purchaser protected against mortgage containing fraudulent release written over mortgagee's name and seal; Consolidated Assn., etc. v. Avegno, 28 La. Ann. 552, sustaining title to stolen bonds of purchaser for value before maturity. Cited and applied by analogy in Price v. Winter, 15 Fla. 109, holding infant receiving purchase price after majority, cannot recover his estate in lands sold at trustee's sale. Cited ir elaborate note in 62 Am. Dec. 67, on question of when property passes in article manufactured or built for another. Cited in dissenting opinion in Moore v. Hill, 38 Fed. 354, Circuit judge hold ing factor liable to owner of cotton, fraudulently consigned to him for sale by master of vessel.

Distinguished in George v. Fourth Nat. Bk., etc., 41 Fed. 268, holding pledge of warehouse receipts for whiskey by agent, who held whiskey merely to pay government taxes, did not divest owner's title; Dize v. Beacham, 81 Md. 609, 32 Atl. 245, giving lienors for materials superior rights in marshalling assets, over mortgagees of vessels; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 391, 97 Am. Dec. 110, charging pledgee of trusteed stock, for trustee's debt, with notice.

Principal and agent.- Where an agent is apparent owner of vessel, secret arrangement between him and the principal cannot affect third persons, p. 375.

Principal and agent.- Party seeking to charge purchaser of owner's equitable interest in a vessel sold by agent as apparent owner, has burden of proof and must establish a clear case, pp. 877-378.

Sales. Where a vessel is built and installments paid as work progresses, person for whom vessel is being built is the owner, per Clifford, J., dissenting, p. 384.

Denied in The Revenue Cutter, No. 2, 4 Sawy. 150, F. C. 11,714, holding vessel, not accepted, not owned by United States, and liable to lien for materials furnished.

Shipping.- Registry of a vessel is not evidence of ownership, unless confirmed by proof that it was made by authority of person named as owner, and may be shown to have been fraudulently made, per Clifford, J., dissenting, p. 388.

Cited with approval and applied in Moynihan v. Drobaz, 124 Cal. 213, 56 Pac. 1026, holding entry in custom-house books of registry of vessel inadmissible in action for repairs, without showing consent to the entry of person named.

2 Black, 394-407, 17 L. 449, UNITED STATES v. GALBRAITH.

Public lands - California grants.- A fraudulent certificate of approval, bearing genuine signature of governor and secretary, who also signed the grant, where there was no possession under the grant, and the grantee shortly before the time of the alleged grant was 500 miles away from place where grant purported to have been made, raises presumption that all the title papers were fraudulent, pp. 404–407.

Cited and followed in Roland v. United States, 7 Wall. 747, 19 L. 185, refusing to confirm grant supported by fabricated title papers. Cited ex exemplo in Romero v. United States, 1 Wall. 745. 17 L. 633, refusing to confirm grant proved by parol evidence, where the archives show no grant.

Public lands - California grants. The finding of an expediente among the Mexican records of grants, is not evidence that it was made at its date where the certificate of approval was fabricated and the other title papers probably fraudulent, p. 405.

2 Black, 408-418, 17 L. 292, KING v. ACKERMAN.

Wills. While courts have sought to rescue a will from the construction imposed by the technical rule that a devise, without limitation, confers only a life estate, the intention of the testator must be gathered from the "four corners" of the will, and the rule cannot be defeated by parol evidence, pp. 414 415.

Cited with approval in Myar v. Snow, 49 Ark. 128, 4 S. W. 382. construing devise to daughter to be held by her and her heirs, not subject to her husband's debts, and in default of her heirs, to go to her sister and her heirs, as creating a life estate in the daughter.

Wills. Where a devisee of an undefined estate is directed by testator to pay a sum in gross, he takes an estate in fee, especially where the undefined estate is a remainder, and his possession indefinitely postponed, pp. 415-416.

Wills. A will devising messuages, with power to do and dispose of one as the devisee may think proper, and charging the devisee with payment of a gross sum, held, to confer an estate in fee in both messuages, pp. 416-417.

Wills.- Extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity as to person or property named in a will, but not to enlarge or diminish an estate devised, p. 418.

Cited with approval in Barber v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry., 166 U. S. 109, 41 L. 936, 17 S. Ct. 495, rejecting evidence as to testator's health or length of life, in construing a will devising an estate tail; Robinson v. Randolph, 21 Fla. 651, rejecting parol evidence to explain will held to devise separate, equitable estate in entire interest. Cited in learned and exhaustive note in 50 Am. St. Rep. 287, 291, on Extrinsic Evidence to Explain Wills," on point that latent ambiguity in will as to person or property may be removed by extrinsic evidence.

2 Black, 418-429, 17 L. 298, CHICAGO v. ROBBINS.

Municipal corporation is liable to any one who is injured through its neglect to keep its streets free from danger; but, unless also a wrongdoer, it has a remedy over against the person whose use of the street created the danger, pp. 422-423.

Cited and applied in Washington Gas Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 161 U. S. 327, 40 L. 718, 16 S. Ct. 568, holding District could recover from gas company damages adjudged against it for injury caused by defective gas-box; Boston v. Crowley, 38 Fed. 204, holding Boston city liable for damages to vessel from failure to keep drawbridge at required width; Greenwood v. Westport, 60 Fed. 569, 63 Conn. 591, holding town liable for negligent operation of drawbridge owned by it; Albrittin v. Huntsville, 60 Ala. 495, 31 Am. Rep. 51, holding town liable for injury caused by failure to guard street adjoining precipice; Montgomery v. Wright, 72 Ala. 420, holding city under duty to keep street in repair for its entire width; Birmingham v. McCrary, 84 Ala. 476, 4 So. 634, holding city liable for injuries resulting from failure to guard a ditch opened by a contractor; Jacksonville v. Drew, 19 Fla. 115, 45 Am. Rep. 11, holding city liable for injury from defective bridge, forming part of street, under repair by independent contractor; Logansport v. Dick, 70 Ind. 79, 36 Am. Rep. 174, holding city liable for injury from negligent blasting in construction of water-works; Collins v. Council Bluffs, 32 Iowa, 328, 7 Am. Rep. 202, holding city liable for injury resulting from accumulation of ice and snow on street; Eyler v. Allegany County, 49 Md. 276, 33 Am. Rep. 257, holding county liable for damages from defective bridge which canal company was under duty to keep in repair; Baltimore v. O'Donnell, 53 Md. 118, 36 Am. Rep. 397, holding city liable for injury from rope stretched across street by servants of independent contractor, without notice to him or city; Chesapeake, etc., Canal Co. v. Allegany County, 57 Md. 219, 40 Am. Rep. 434, holding canal company liable for amount of judgment and costs paid by county for damages from canal company's failure to keep bridge in repair; Gray v. Boston Gas Light Co., 114 Mass. 154, 19 Am. Rep. 328, holding owner of building to which gas company affixed wire, could recover from gas company damages paid by him for injury from the wire;

1

Savannah v. Waldner, 49 Ga. 322, holding city liable for damages from sewer negligently left unguarded by contractor, if city charged notice; Bloomington v. Bay, 42 Ill. 507, holding city liable for injury from defective sidewalk, which abutting owner was under duty to repair; Springfield v. Le Claire, 49 Ill. 479, holding city liable for injury from sewer left unguarded by independent contractor; Centerville v. Woods, 57 Ind. 196, holding city could recover for cost of filling sewer left unguarded by defendant; McCullom v. Black Hawk Co., 21 Iowa, 414, holding town, and not county, liable for injury from defective bridge within corporate limits of town; C. & N. Ry. v. Dunn, 59 Iowa, 621, 13 N. W. 723, allowing railroad recovery for damages paid for injury to horse caused by defendant's wrongful removal of gate; B. & Y. Turnpike Road v. Parks, 74 Md. 288, 22 Atl. 400, holding turnpike company liable for injury to traveller, from defect in road caused by city employees in repairing water-works; Atchison Co. v. Sullivan, 7 Kan. App. 156, 53 Pac. 144, holding county liable for injury caused by removal of superstructure of bridge by contractor in building new bridge; Palmer v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 144, 25 Am. Rep. 474, holding owner liable for damages paid by city for injury to traveller, caused by contractor's excavations; Omaha v. Olmstead, 5 Neb. 452, holding city liable for injury caused by hole in sidewalk, and discussing duties imposed by accepting a corporate franchise; Clemence v. Auburn, 66 N. Y. 341, holding question of condition of sidewalk, in action against city for injury from defect, proper for jury; Brusso v. Buffalo, 90 N. Y. 680, holding city liable for injury from contractor's excavations; Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. Y. 556, holding city entitled to recover amount of damages paid for injury from defendant's excavation, though city gave no notice of prior action; Wilson v. Wheeling, 19 W. Va. 331, 42 Am. Rep. 782, reviewing many cases, holding city liable for injury from unguarded excavation made by independent contractor building sewer; Southwell v. Detroit, 74 Mich. 449, 450, 42 N. W. 121, holding city liable for buggy accident caused by excavation made by inde pendent contractor; Shartle v. Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 314, holding city liable for injury from defective bridge, where it was empowered to levy taxes to keep streets in repair; Lincoln v. Walker, 18 Neb. 249, 20 N. W. 115, holding city liable for injury from accident by falling into excavation in street; Zanesville v. Fannan, 53 Ohio St. 618, 53 Am. St. Rep. 669, 42 N. E. 706, reviewing many cases, and deciding that city was liable for damage caused to plaintiff's property, by railroad track blocking access to his lot; Galveston v. Posnainsky, 62 Tex. 129, collecting many cases, sustaining $10,000 verdict against city, existing under charter, for injuries to child from falling into uncovered ditch; Lenzen v. New Braunfels, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 351, 35 S. W. 348, holding city liable for injury from fire which could have been extinguished by proper operation of municipal water-works.