III. DECISIONS REVIEWABLE.

(D) Finality of Determination. 78(3) (Ind.) Ruling on demurrer to proceeding not "final judgment."-State v. Lanphar, 147 N. E. 328.

78 (6) (Mass.) Appeal from order directing new trial does not lie from appellate division immediately to Supreme Judicial Court. Demers v. Scaramella, 147 N. E. 894.

79(1) (Ind.) Appeal taken before final disposition as to all parties dismissed.-State v. Lanphar, 147 N. E. 328.

80 (6) (Ohio) Judgment on issue of reformation of contract is appealable.-Bingham v. Nypano R. Co., 147 N. É. 1.

84(1) (Mass.) Appellate division's order of new trial held not final decision.-Beacon Tool & Machine Co. v. National Products Mfg. Co.,

147 N. E. 572.

-Croatian Bros. Packing Co. v. Rice, 147 N.
E. 288.

(C) Exceptions.

restricted to ruling involving matter of law to 248 (Ind.App.) Appellate Court's review which complaining party took exception.Croatian Bros. Packing Co. v. Rice, 147 N. E. 288.

263 (3) (Ind.App.) To properly present incompleteness of instruction, request for further instruction should be made and exception saved.-Shockney v. Marsh, 147 N. E. 292.

265(2) (Ind.App.) Conclusion of law not reviewable without exception.-Ellis Bros. v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 147 N. E. 628.

274(2) (Ind.App.) Exception can be taken only by party to whom ruling is adverse.-Croatian Bros. Packing Co. v. Rice, 147 N. E. 288.

(D) Motions for New Trial.

301 (Ind.) Refusal to submit issues not reviewable on appeal unless specified in motion for new trial. Piggly-Wiggly Stores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771.

301 (Ind.App.) Overruling of motion for continuance cannot be basis of independent assignment of error.-Miles v. W. H. Miller & Sons, 147 N. E. 281.

302(3) (Ind.App.) Assignment of error, in admission of evidence not specific, presents no question for review.-Hollowell v. Wark, 147 N. E. 170.

VI. PARTIES.

336(1) (Ind.) Appeal held dismissible for misnomer of parties appellee in violation of Supreme and Appellate Court rules.-Millikin v. Lantz, 147 N. E. 919.

VII. REQUISITES AND PROCEEDINGS FOR TRANSFER OF CAUSE. (E) Entry, Docketing, and Appearance. 432 (Mass.) Appeal held dismissible for want of prosecution.-Robinson v. Donaldson, 147 N. E. 679.

X. RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS NOT IN

RECORD.

(A) Matters to be Shown by Record.

(A) Issues and Questions in Lower Court. 169 (Mass.) Only questions raised and passed on by trial court considered. Taxi Serv-499 (2) (Ind.App.) Refusal to carry demurice Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 147 N. E. 863. rer to answer back to complaint held not re173(13) (III.) In absence of request for in-viewable, when record showed no request or struction or evidence as to parents' violation refusal.-Irwin v. State Brokerage Co., 147 N. of statute in permitting employment of minor, question could not be considered on appeal.-499(3) (Ind.App.) Any error in permitting Rost v. F. H. Noble & Co., 147 N. E. 258. plaintiff to read in evidence ordinances held not presented for review.-Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. McGauhey, 147 N. E. 727.

(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings

Thereon.

E. 531.

500 (2) (Ind.App.) Refusal to carry demur187(3) (11.) Objection to want of proper rer to answer back to complaint held not reparties, whose rights will be materially affect-viewable, when record showed no request or ed by final decree, may be taken at hearing, or refusal.-Irwin v. State Brokerage Co., 147 N. on appeal or error.-Weeden v. Gher, 147 N. E. 531.

E. 388.

197(1) (Ind.App.) Alleged variance deemed waived, in absence of showing that it was called to court's attention.-Fast v. Judy, 147 N. E. 728.

197(4) (Ind.App.) Claimed variance not noticed by appellate court, where not called to attention of trial court.-Franklin Bank of St. Louis, Mo., v. Boeckeler Lumber Co., 147 N.

E. 722.

216(2) (Ind.App.) To properly present incompleteness of instruction, request for further instruction should be made and exception saved. Shockney v. Marsh, 147 N. E. 292.

236 (2) (Mass.) Any question as to competency and force of statement in death certificate not open, in absence of request to have parts thereof stricken.-Silva v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 147 N. E. 858.

242(1) (Ind.App.) Appellate Court's review restricted to ruling involving matter of law to which complaining party took exception.

501(2) (Ind.App.) Refusal to carry demurrer to answer back to complaint held not reviewable, when record showed no request or refusal or exception.-Irwin v. State Brokerage Co., 147 N. E. 531.

501 (3) (Ind.App.) Any error in permitting plaintiff to read in evidence ordinances held not presented for review.-Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. McGauhey, 147 N. E. 727.

(C) Necessity of Bill of Exceptions, Case, or Statement of Facts.

544(1) (Ind.App.) Alleged error in overruling motion to make complaint more specific not considered in absence of bill of exceptions. -Burns v. Mills, 147 N. E. 300.

554 (2) (Ohio) Petition in error dismissed where no motion for new trial in Court of Appeals, and no bill of exceptions was allowed showing evidence.-Cleveland, C., C. & St. L Ry. Co. v. Treasurer of Lorain County, 147 N. E. 506.

931

INDEX-DIGEST

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

(G) Authentication and Certification. 613(1) (11.) Purported bill of exceptions, not certified as part of record by clerk, not considered.-City of Chicago v. Wohlbach, 147 N. E. 121.

(1) Defects, Objections, Amendment, and

Correction.

out evidence.-Barksdale v. State, 147 N. E.
765.

757 (3) (Ind.App.) Overruling motion for
of evidence in brief.-Ellis Bros. v. Lake Erie
new trial not reviewed, in absence of statement
& W. R. Co., 147 N. E. 628.

with Supreme Court rule 22, cl. 5, as to reciting 757 (4) (Ind.) Brief held not to comply instructions complained of.-Barksdale v. State, held justified in 147 N. E. 765. court 648 (11.) Trial amending original bill of exceptions and certi-757 (4) (Ind.App.) Any error in giving of fying that it contained all evidence offered in instructions not presented for review when hearing bill.-People v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. those with which conflict claimed not in brief.— Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. McGaughey, 147 Co., 147 N. E. 371. N. E. 727.

(J)

Conclusiveness and Effect, Impeach-758 (2) (Ind.) Brief held not to comply with Supreme Court rule 22, cl. 5, as to pointing and Contradicting. 663(1) (Ind.App.) Trial court's certificate ing out objections to evidence.-Barksdale v. as to matter complained of in bill of exceptions State, 147 N. E. 765. imports absolute verity.-Croatian Bros. Pack-758 (2) (Ind.App.) Record held insufficient to present for review any question as to ading Co. v. Rice, 147 Ñ. E. 288. missibility of evidence.-Fast v. Judy, 147 N. E. 728.

(K) Questions Presented for Review. 691 (Ind.App.) Exclusion of evidence not reviewed, where bill does not set out all evidence or reserve questions of law relating thereto.-Van Blaricum v. Kerkhoff, 147 N. E.

633.

692(1) (Ind.) Refusal to permit witness to answer question not available error, where in not shown.-Piggly-Wiggly tended answer Stores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771. 1694(1) (Mass.) Master's findings of fact on unreported evidence are conclusive.-Wasserman v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co. of Boston, 147 N. E. 742.

694 (1) (Mass.) If evidence not reported, facts found by master conclusive unless inconsistent or plainly wrong.-Anagnosti v. Almy, 147 N. E. 854.

E. 121.

695(1) (III.) Questions as to evidence must be preserved in bill of exceptions containing all evidence.-City of Chicago v. Wohlbach, 147 N. instructions of 699 (2) (Ind.) Absence from record precludes consideration of question in regard to them.-Barksdale v. State, 147 N.

E. 765.

760(1) (Ind.) Brief held not to comply with Supreme Court rule 22, cl. 5, as to references to record.-Barksdale v. State, 147 N. E. 765.

760(2) (Ind.) Objections to admission of testimony deemed waived.-McAdams v. State, 147 N. E. 764.

761 (III.) Counsel should submit citations from other states when necessary.-Kelley v. Kelley, 147 N. E. 659.

773(5) (Ind.App.) Failure of appellee to file brief treated as confession of error.-Hensley v. Reichart, 147 N. E. 736.

774 (Ind.App.) Court may affirm on proposition of which nothing is said in appellee's brief.-Davis v. Steele, 147 N. E. 632.

XVI. REVIEW.

(A) Scope and Extent in General.

837(4) (Ind.) If demurrer to complaint rightfully sustained for any cause, relator canerroneous.-State v. not assert ruling Holmes, 147 N. E. 622.

was

837(4) (Ind.App.) Appellate Court cannot consider evidence in reviewing rulings on demurrers to pleading.-Friedman v. Citizens' 702 (1) (III.) Questions as to instructions must be preserved in bill of exceptions contain-Natural Gas, Oil & Water Co., 147 N. E. 294. ing all instructions.-City of Chicago v. Wohl-843(1) (Ind.App.) Questions not likely to arise on new trial not decided.-Ross v. FearCampbell Co., 147 N. E. 720.

bach, 147 N. E. 121.

706 (1) (Ind.App.) Ruling on motion for new trial for misconduct shown by affidavit only held not reviewable.-Croatian Bros. Packing Co. v. Rice, 147 N. E. 288.

XI. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS.

731 (2) (Ind.App.) Objections to complaint not considered where involved in assignment as to conclusion of law.-Eastern Rock Island Plow Co. v. Stout, 147 N. E. 160.

750(4) (Ind.App.) Contention held not germane to assignment of error.-Eastern Rock Island Plow Co. v. Stout, 147 N. E. 160.

XII. BRIEFS.

to

756 (Ind.) Appellant's brief, failing comply with rule, presented no question for review.-Barksdale v. State, 147 N. E. 765.

757(1) (Ind.App.) Assignment of error for overruling motion for continuance presented no question on appeal, where motion was not set out in brief.-Miles v. W. H. Miller & Sons, 147 N. E. 281.

757(2) (Ind.App.) Failure of appellant to set out demurrer and memorandum of deficiencies in brief, immaterial.-Burns v. Mills, 147 N. E. 300.

as

853 (Mass.) Ruling of court to which no exception is saved held to become law of case and not reviewable.-Phillips v. Davis, 147 N. E. 96.

854 (2) (III.) Right judgment for wrong 147 N. E. 404. reason affirmed.-City of Kankakee v. Small,

854 (5) (Mass.) Litigant held entitled to urge any ground in support of motion for directed verdict in Supreme Judicial Court reviewing case on exception.-Arruda v. Director General of Railroads, 147 N. E. 21.

863 (Mass.) Appeals from orders entering judgment on verdict and order that bond be entered nunc pro tunc bring up only matters of law.-Woogmaster v. Cutler, 147 N. E. 903.

882 (8) (Ind.) Admission of testimony that defendant operated chain of shores held not er ror, where similar testimony introduced by de fendant.-Piggly-Wiggly Stores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771.

757(2) (Ind.App.) Where sole error signed is overruling of demurrer to reply, nei-882 (11) (Mass.) Plaintiff held not precludther of which are in brief, nothing presented for ed by introduction of defendant's answers to interrogatories from claiming error in latter's review. Allen v. Allen, 147 N. E. 310. to comply story.-Washburn v. R. F. Owens Co., 147 N. 757 (3) (Ind.) Brief held not with Supreme Court rule 22, cl. 5, as to setting E. 564.

Trial of Cause Anew.

(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and | 1012(1) (III.) Findings of circuit court not palpably erroneous or against weight of evi893(2) (Ohio) Judgment on issue of ref-dence sustained.-Jones v. Jenkinson, 147 N. E. ormation of contract is tried de novo in Court of Appeals; right to trial on appeal not defeated by immediate submission of action for damages on alleged breach of contract as reformed.-Bingham v. Nypano R. Co., 147 N.

E. 1.

(E) Presumptions.

90! (Ind.) Burden on appellant to show reversible error by the record.-Barksdale v. State, 147 N. E. 765.

128.

(H) Harmless Error.

1033(3) (Ind.App.) Admission of letter, if error, held harmless, where not prejudicial to appellant.-Talge Mahogany Co. v. New Albany Veneering Co., 147 N. E. 781.

1039(2) (Ind.App.) Refusal. to require complaint to be separated into paragraphs harmless error.-Talge Mahogany Co. v. New Albany Veneering Co., 147 N. E. 781.

907 (3) (Mass.) Record not disclosing er-1039(13) (Ind.App.) Variance immaterial, ror in order permitting filing nune pro tunc, of in absence of showing of prejudice.-Fast v. bonds to dissolve attachment, order not inter- Judy, 147 N. E. 728. fered with.-Woogmaster v. Cutler, 147 N. E. 1041 (5) (Ind.) Rejection of additional answer not prejudicial, where it did not state facts constituting a defense.-Piggly-Wiggly Stores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771.

903.

931(1) (Ind.) Inferences will not be indulged in favor of special findings.-Fletcher Savings & Trust Co. v. American State Bank of Lawrenceburg, 147 N. E. 524.

1047 (!) (Mass.) Court's refusal to take judicial notice of proclamations of president held 931(4) (N.Y.) Supreme court presumed to error, though harmless.-Phillips v. Davis, 147 have found fact necessary to support of judg- N. E. 96. objection to ment.-Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corpora-1048 (5) (Ind.) Overruling tion v. Hooker Electro-Chemical Co., 147 N. E. 351.

(F) Discretion of Lower Court. 970(2) (Ind.App.) Trial court's admission of declarations as res gestæ is subject to review.-Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Scott, 147 N.

E. 315.

question not reversible error, where witness merely stated he could not answer yes or no. -Piggly Wiggly Stores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771.

1053 (2) (Mass.) Error in admission of evidence held without prejudice, where court instructed jury to disregard evidence.-Washburn v. R. F. Owens Co., 147 N. E. 564. 971(3) (Ind.) Extent of cross-examination 1058(2) (I.) Error in excluding testiwithin trial court's discretion.-Piggly Wiggly mony held not cured by statement not responStores v. Lowenstein, 147 N. E. 771. sive to question.-Rost v. F. H. Noble & Co., 147 N. E. 258.

981 (Ind.App.) New trial for newly discovered evidence discretionary and not disturbed except for abuse.-Eastern Rock Island Plow Co. v. Stout, 147 N. E. 160.

996 (Mass.) Appellate division cannot rule as matter of law that plaintiff can recover; facts found, unless including inferences, not affording basis for ruling.-Demers v. Scara

mella, 147 N. E. 894.

1002 (Ind.) Verdict on conflicting evidence not disturbed.-Piggly Wiggly Stores v. Lowen

stein, 147 N. E. 771.

1060 (1) (III.) Conduct of counsel in commenting on excluded evidence held prejudicial error.-Rost v. F. H. Noble & Co., 147 N. E. 258.

1061(4) (Ohio) Directing verdict on plaintiff's motion, without permitting defendant to withdraw its motion and submit disputed issues to jury held prejudicial and reversible error. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Luthy, 147 N. E. 336.

1061 (4) (Ohio) Evidence and agreed facts showing that operation of railroad was not proximate cause of fire, failure to direct verreversal.-Davis v. Atlas Assur. Co., 147 N. E. dict for railroad held prejudicial error requiring

Charge denying recovery if automobile was traction car held prejudicial.-Id. so negligently operated that it struck side of

of fraud, though not limited to fraud alleged in 1066 (III.) Giving instruction as to proof declaration, held not reversible error.-McRob1008(1) (Mass.) Supreme Court will not erts v. Combination Fountain Co., 147 N. E. review findings of fact.-Lipkin v. Nathans, 1471066 (Ind.App.) Reference in instruction 785.

N. E. 744.

1008(1) (Mass.) Finding of trial judge will not be set aside, unless plainly wrong.-Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Golub, 147 N. E. 847

1009(4) (H.) Chancellor's findings not reversed unless manifestly contrary to weight of evidence.-Hoffman v. Hoffman, 147 N. E. 110. 1010(1) (Mass.) Finding of death by drowning must stand, where supported by evidence.-Silva v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 147 N. E. 858.

1010(1) (Mass.) If on agreed statement of facts and inferences therefrom finding for plaintiff was warranted, judgment for plaintiff should have been entered thereon.--American Congregational Ass'n v. Abbot, 147 N. E. 895. ~1011(1) (Ind.App.) Maker's denial that check was given as partial payment on note held to raise issue of fact for trial court.-Miles v. W. H. Miller & Sons, 147 N. E. 281.

to money left with trustee as loan, while improper when contrary to evidence, held not misleading. Shockney v. Marsh, 147 N. E. 292.

1066 (Ind.App.) Error in omitting element less.-Utterback v. Gootee, 147 N. E. 726. of proximate cause from instruction held harm

1067 (Mass.) Refusal of request that defect of way must be sole cause of injury to permit recovery held harmless.-Conary v. Boston & M. R. R., 147 N. E. 883. festly just, case not reversed for giving or re1068(3) (Ind.App.) Where verdict mani728. fusal of instructions.-Fast v. Judy, 147 N. E.

(I) Error Waived in Appellate Court.

1078(1) (III.) Assignments of error, not argued, waived.-Goff v. Gerhart, 147 N. E. ¡ 419.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

(J) Decisions of Intermediate Courts.

ASSESSMENT.

408-507; Taxation,

297-496.

1083(1) (N.Y.) Question raised by proper See Drains, 72-89; Municipal Corporations, exceptions to charge as made and to refusals to charge survives unanimous affirmance.-Barnevo v. Munson S. S. Line, 147 N. E. 75.

1092 (N.Y.) Advisability of making lease of incompetent's realty held not reviewable in proceeding by lessee for order requiring committee to fulfill terms thereof.-In re Benedict, 147 N. E. 59.

1094 (2) (111.) Issues of fact not reviewable by Supreme Court, where Appellate Court affirmed judgment of circuit court.-McRoberts v. Combination Fountain Co., 147 N. E. 785.

1094 (3) (N.Y.) Court of Appeals reviewing judgment unanimously affirmed precluded from considering evidence to determine whether requested charges would have affected disposition of motion for nonsuit or directed verdict.Barnevo v. Munson S. S. Line, 147 N. E. 75.

ASSIGNMENTS.

1. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Property, Estates, and Rights. Assignable.

30 (Mass.) It is not a defense in equity that assignment sued on was only of part of fund, or that controversy is over enforceable rights of plaintiff.-Smith v. Weeks, 147 N. E. 676. ASSOCIATIONS.

See Insurance, 766-777.

ASSUMPSIT, ACTION OF.

See Work and Labor.

1094(3)(N.Y.) Findings unanimously affirmed by Appellate Division, conclusive on Court of Appeals.-Russian Reinsurance Co. v. See Stoddard, 147 N. E. 703.

(K) Subsequent Appeals.

1099 (6) (Ind.App.) Decision on former See appeal as to sufficiency of complaint not law of case on subsequent appeal, where complaint substantially amended.-United Telephone Co. v. Barva, 147 N. E. 716.

XVII. DETERMINATION AND DISPO-
SITION OF CAUSE.

(A) Decision in General.
1123 (Ohio) Judgment of Court of Ap-
peals stands affirmed where Supreme Court
equally divided in opinion.-Village of New
London v. Starbird, 147 N. E. 912.

(B) Affirmance.

1140 (2) (Ind.App.) Remittitur cannot be ordered where evidence as to basis of recovery is conflicting.-Wabash Ry. Co. v. Beach, 147 N. E. 631.

(D) Reversal.

ASSUMPTION OF RISK.

Master and Servant, 204.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Criminal Law, 726; Trial, 133. I. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY. (B) Privileges, Disabilities, and Liabilities.

32 (111.) Attorney seeking order or judgment should disclose all matters court should know.-People v. Burr, 147 N. E. 47.

(C) Suspension and Disbarment.

37 (II.) Power to discipline attorney ought to be exercised with judgment and great moderation.-People v. Hansen, 147 N. E. 431.

re

38 (III.) Duty of Supreme Court to discipline attorneys doing acts tending_to proach legal profession.-People v. Hansen, 147 N. E. 431.

That attorney's conduct placed him in position raising question as to his integrity as lawyer held not willful professional misconduct.

1170(5) (Ind.App.) Variance between com--Id. plaint and proof deemed immaterial, where de-45 (N.Y.) Attorney may be disciplined for fendant not misled thereby.-Franklin Bank of misconduct outside his professional acts.-In St. Louis, Mo., v. Boeckeler Lumber Co., 147 re Dolphin, 147 N. E. 538. N. E. 722.

53 (2) (III.) To justify disbarment, proof of misconduct and of fraudulent and dishonest motives must be clear and satisfactory.-People v. Hansen, 147 N. E. 431.

Evidence held insufficient to disbar attorney. -Id.

57 (N.Y.) Bar Association instituting disciplinary proceedings held not "aggrieved" within provisions relating to appeals. In re Dolphin, 147 N. E. 538.

II. RETAINER AND AUTHORITY.

1194(2) (III.) Judgment reversing judgment denying permission to file information in nature of quo warranto not adjudication of invalidity of district, rendering curative act inap-104 (Ohio) Generally notice of attorney is plicable.-People v. Kinsey, 147 N. E. 408.

APPEARANCE.

9(1) (Mass.) Entry of special appearance without more held equivalent to general appearance.-Wrinn v. Sellers, 147 N. E. 899.

20 (Mass.) Director General of Railroad's special appearance to question jurisdiction, in action in which he had been substituted as

notice to client.-American Export & Inland
Coal Corporation v. Matthew Addy Co., 147
N. E. 89.

Notice to attorney held notice to client.-Id.
III. DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF AT-
TORNEY TO CLIENT.

109 (Ind.App.) Attorney holding money of client for investment bound to exercise care of reasonably prudent person in dealing therewith.

party defendant, held waiver of issuance of pro-Shockney v. Marsh, 147 N. E. 292. cess.-Phillips v. Davis, 147 N. E. 96.

ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

See Criminal Law, 726; Trial, 133.

ARREST.

II. ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.

123(1) (Mass.) Conditions governing ordinary mercantile bargaining do not apply to contracts between attorney and client.-Smith v. Weeks, 147 N. E. 676.

IV. COMPENSATION AND LIEN OF

ATTORNEY.

(A) Fees and Other Remuneration.

66 (Ind.) Warrant by court of foreign state ineffectual, unless supported by one is-163 (Mass.) In attorney's action on assignsued by proper officer of Indiana.-Martin v. Newland, 147 N. E. 141.

ment of part of interest in estate, in consideration of services and payment of certain of as

IV. NATIONAL BANKS. 260 (4) (Mass.) Guaranty of consideration to be paid to trust company for sale of assets, held not ultra vires.-Warren v. Boston Nat. Bank, 147 N. E. 887.

262 (Mass.) Action of board of directors of national bank in employing attorney to furnish plan for purchase of assets of trust company, held not beyond their power.-Warren v. Boston Nat. Bank, 147 N. E. 887.

VI, LOAN, TRUST, AND INVESTMENT
COMPANIES.

192(2) (III.) Evidence held to show letter did not constitute contract as to attorneys' 315(1) (Mass.) Depositor's pledge of deposit book, held not loan to institution without compensation for legal services.-Lyon consent of commissioner, invalid under statute. Oliver, 147 N. E. 251. Evidence held to warrant finding letter pur--Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Golub, 147 N. E. porting to state terms under which attorneys would undertake litigation was forgery.-Id.

171(6) (N.Y.) In absence of special agreement, bank held liable for loss occasioned by default of its correspondents.-Isler v. National Park Bank of New York, 147 N. E. 66.

Special agreement held not to relieve bank from liability for correspondent's negligence in delivering bill of lading without payment of draft; "collect."-Id.

228 (Mass.) Question of employment of attorney for bank, held for jury.-Warren v. Boston Nat. Bank, 147 N. E. 887.

847.

Pledge of deposit book held not violation of by-law of credit union prohibiting payment or receipt of money when deposit book not presented.-Id.

315(1) (Mass.) Trust company may deal in foreign exchange, and invest funds in foreign currency.-Corsino v. Hanover Trust Co., 147 N. E. 868.

Fact that trust company did not have at all times sufficient lire to cover transaction held not to make it illegal.-Id.