V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL. (A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity. 133(3) (Mass.) Indemnity bond, not signed by employee at date of defalcation, held unenforceable.-Bartlett v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co., 150 N. E. 94. 136(5) (N.Y.) Failure to read policy held not to change its character, if terms assented to by insured.-Davern v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co.. 150 N. E. 129. 20 (111) Neither assault with intent to commit rape nor intent to have carnal knowl-141(1) (Mass.) Delivery of bond held not edge are elements of crime of taking immoral, waiver of condition.-Bartlett v. Massachusetts improper, and indecent liberties with female Bonding & Insurance Co., 150 N. E. 94. child under 15 years of age.-People v. Gilmore, Receipt of premiums without knowledge that 150 N. E. 631. bond was unsigned held not to estop insurer. -Id. Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of taking immoral, improper, and indecent lib-145(1) (IH.) Accident policy held renewed erties with female child under 15 years of age subject to condition that limitations therein (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 38, § 589).-Id. were amended by standard provisions statute.Dickirson v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 256. INJUNCTION. II. SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION AND (C) Contracts. (B) Construction and Operation. 150 (N.Y.) Rider attached to policy held to become part of insurance contract.-Davern 59(2) (Ind.App.) Company contracting. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 150 N. E. with operator of municipal light plant to furnish current held not entitled to sue for injunction against violation of contract by town.Town of Hagerstown v. Liberty Light & Power Co., 150 N. E. 116. 10 (Mass.) Evidence held not to warrant inference restaurant owner knew of dangerous substance in vestibule, on which customer slipped. O'Leary v. Smith, 150 N. E. 878. INSANE PERSONS. III. GUARDIANSHIP. 129. VIII. CANCELLATION, SURRENDER, 238(1) (Mass.) Statutory short-form mortgage deed deprives mortgagor of right to cancel insurance and receive return premiums (G. L. c. 183, § 19).-Parker v. La Plant, 150 N. E. 837. IX. AVOIDANCE OF POLICY FOR MISREP- 280 (N.Y.) Description of location of insured property in binder construed, and held warranty, truth of which was condition precedent to insurer's liability.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Patriotic Assur. Co., 150 N. E. 599. Misrepresentation as to location of insured property defeats liability though not knowingly made.-Id. 377 (1) (N.Y.) Person making material misrepresentation in application for insurance cannot be relieved from consequences thereof by showing that insurer by exercise of sufficient diligence might have discovered falsity of representation.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Patriotic Assur. Co., 150 N. E. 599. 43 (Mass.) Court held not without juris-377 (3) (N.Y.) That fire insurer had maps diction to grant letters of guardianship to a showing location of insured property, and might foreign guardian.-Wilkinson v. McIntyre, 150 by use thereof and investigation have discovN. E. 228. ered true location of property, did not relieve insured from effect of erroneously describing location of property.-American Surety Co. of New York v. Patriotic Assur. Co., 150 N. E. 599. VI. CONTRACTS. 73 (Ind.) Person who deals fairly with one who is insane is entitled to protection.-Wells v. Wells, 150 N. E. 361. Contract with insane person in good faith will not be set aside, unless parties can be restored to original position.-Id. IX. ACTIONS. 90 (N.Y.) Person declared insane in another state could not be sued without consent of court.-Dean v. Halliburton, 150 N. E. 141. Trial court had power to substitute committee on trial as defendant, and substitution tanta 379(1) (N.Y.) Company estopped from setting up defense of misrepresentation, where representation was wrongfully inserted in policy.-Davern v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 129. 395 (Ind.App.) All defenses, except those stated in notice of rescission by insurer, are waived, and may not be presented in later suit on policy.-Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Fletcher American Nat. Bank of Indianapolis, 150 N. E. 1825. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Insurer may not assert misrepresentations in amount of mortgage debt was proper (G. L. defense to action on policy, which were not c. 235, § 8).-Warren v. Sherwood, 150 N. E. mentioned in previous notice of rescission.-Id. 902. XII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS. (C) Guaranty and Indemnity Insurance, INTERPLEADER. I. RIGHT TO INTERPLEADER. 430 (Ohio) One having exclusive posses-1 (Ohio) Insurer interpleading waives insion and control of a position occupies it.-terest in outcome of action on policy.-AtkinKornhauser v. National Surety Co., 150 N. E. son v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 921. Bonding company held liable for loss through fraud or dishonesty of employés occupying and performing duties of positions named in schedule.-Id. XIV. NOTICE AND PROOF OF LOSS. 748. INTOXICATING LIQUORS. II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTS AND ORDINANCES. 15 (Ind.) Provision of prohibition law as to liquor nuisance held valid.-Eisenshank v. State, 150 N. E. 365. 559 (2) (Ind.App.) Insurer denying liability excused beneficiaries from making proof.-17 (Ind.) Acts 1923, c. 33, § 1, regarding Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. stills and distilling apparatus, is constitutional. -Le Juste v. State, 150 N. E. 791. Campbell, 150 N. E. 31. XVI. RIGHT TO PROCEEDS. 587 (Ohio) Right to change beneficiary held absolute and exercisable at any time during insured's life without insurer's consent.Atkinson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 748. Mode and manner of changing beneficiary subject to reasonable regulations expressed in policy. Id. Any written notice by insured or his agent designating different beneficiary, and accompanied by policy, sufficient to effect change.-Id. Provisions as to mode of changing beneficiary may be waived by insurer.-Id. XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES. 610 (III.) Standard provisions statute held not applicable to policy in force when statute became effective.-Dickirson v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 256. 612(2) (Ohio) Failure of employer to comply with contract as to notice of dishonesty of employé precludes recovery.-Kornhauser v. National Surety Co., 150 N. E. 921. 623(1) (1.) Negotiations for adjustment of claim not justifying delay in suing insurer cannot estop insurer from setting up defense of limitations.-Dickirson v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.. 150 N. E. 256. 623 (3) (II.) When defense of limitations may be waived, stated.-Dickirson v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 256. 19 (Ind.) Liquor law held not invalid as failing to prescribe place of imprisonment, where place was prescribed in other statutes (Acts 1923, c. 33, § 1).-Le Juste v. State, 150 N. E. 791. VI. OFFENSES. 132 (Ind.) Statutes relating to prima facie evidence of possession of liquor inapplicable, where possession was not charged in indictment nor a crime under statute (Acts 1923, c. 23; Acts 1917, c. 4, §§ 28, 29).-Slick v. State, 150 N. E. 762. 139 (Ind.) Mere possession of intoxicating liquors was not an offense under Acts 1921, c. 250, § 1 (Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1921, § 8356d). -Chappell v. State, 150 N. E. 769. VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 209 (III.) Information for possessing still held sufficient.-People v. Nelson, 150 N. E. 249. 209. (Ind.) Affidavit sufficient to charge offense of having still and materials for manufacture of intoxicating liquor.-Dumas v. State, 150 N. E. 24. 211 (Ind.) Count of affidavit charging that accused did then and there unlawfully keep intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, barter. exchange, give away, and otherwise dispose of same, held sufficient.-Marsh v. State, 150 N. E. 773. 222 (Ind.) Affidavit charging manufacture of intoxicating liquor held valid.-Busch v. State, 150 N. E. 58. 645(3) (Ind.App.) Proof of waiver of con-224 (Mass.) Inference that defendant was ditions may be made under general allegation keeper of liquor found on premises held permisof performance of conditions of insurance con- sible.-Commonwealth v. D'Amico, 150 N. E. tract.-Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Campbell, 150 N. E. 31. 646(4) (Ind.App.) Insurer has burden of proving nonpayment of any premium after the first.-Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Campbell, 150 N. E. 31. Burden on defendant to establish affirmative defense that second annual premium of life insurance policy had not been paid.-Id. 321. 226 (Ind.) Admission of evidence as to arrest of defendant's employer held error and presumably prejudicial.-Eisenshank v. State, 150 N. E. 365. 231 (Mass.) Witness' testimony that he became intoxicated by beer bought of defendant held admissible, though not to prove exact alcoholic content.-Commonwealth v. Campopiano, 150 N. E. 844. 646 (5) (Ind.App.) Plaintiffs had burden of showing waiver of provision in life insurance236(1) (Ind.) Evidence held to justify inpolicy. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Campbell, 150 N. E. 31. 665(1) (Ind.App.) Plaintiffs required to prove all material allegations of complaint to recover on insurance policy. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Campbell, 150 N. E. 31. ference that defendant furnished whisky within Acts 1923, c. 23, § 1, though no sale or giving away was shown.-Shacklett v. State, 150 N. E. 758. 236 (4) (Ind.) Evidence held to connect defendant with premises and possession or operation of still.-Snedegar v. State, 150 N. E. 367. 668(15) (II!.) Negotiations between insur-236(5) (Ind.) "Prima facie evidence" of ed and insurer held not to present any evidence of waiver of defense of limitations.-Dickirson v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 N. E. 256. See Usury. INTEREST. II. RATE. intent to possess intoxicating liquors for sale vields before evidence showing facts (Acts 1917, c. 4, $$ 28, 35 [Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1921, §§ 8356b1, 8356i1]).-Chappell v. State, 150 N. E. 769. Possession of intoxicating liquors alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction of possession with intent to sell.-Id. 38(1) (Mass.) Directing payment of inter-236(7) (Ind.) Evidence held insufficient to est at 6 per cent. from date of decree fixing sustain conviction for possession of intoxicating 150 N.E.-61 liquors with intent to sell.-Chappell v. State, 150 N. E. 769. 236(9) (Ind.) Evidence held to support inference that defendant maintained nuisance.Runck v. State, 150 N. E. 311. 236(11) (Ind.) Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for selling liquor.-Vukodonovich v. State, 150 N. E. 56. 236(11) (Ind.) Evidence held insufficient to sustain conviction for giving away or otherwise disposing of intoxicating liquors.-Post v. State, 150 N. E. 99. 236 (19) (Ind.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacture of intoxicating liq uor.-Hines v. State, 150 N. E. 371. 236 (19) (Ind.) Evidence of manufacture held sufficient to sustain conviction under charge. Slick v. State, 150 N. E. 762. 236 (20) (Ind.) Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for transportation of liquor. -Berry v. State, 150 N. E. 315. 236 (20) (Ind.) Evidence held insufficient to warrant conviction of married woman for transporting liquor in violation of Acts 1923, c. 34.-Welch v. State, 150 N. E. 761. 236 (20) (Ind.) Evidence held to support conviction for unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor.-Burnett v. State, 150 N. E. 765. 236 (20) (Ind.) Evidence insufficient for jury to convict of transporting intoxicating liquor.-Marsh v. State, 150 N. E. 773. 238(1) (Ind.) Evidence held for jury on question of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors.-Bronnenburg v. State, 150 N. E. 768. 238(1) (Mass.) Weight of evidence of sale of alcohol for jury.—Commonwealth v. D'Amico, 150 N. E. 321. 238(4) (Mass.) Evidence of keeping with intent to sell held sufficient for jury.-Commonwealth v. D'Amico, 150 N. E. 321. 238 (4) (Mass.) In prosecution for keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquor, evidence held sufficient for jury on each of three complaints.-Commonwealth V. Campopiano, 150 N. E. 844. 238 (5) (Ind.) Question of whether sale of liquor was made held entirely for the jury. Fenwick v. State, 150 N. E. 764. IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FORFEITURES. 249 (Ind.) Search warrant issued by justice. of peace or mayor, acting as city judge, need not be under seal.-McDaniel v. State, 150 N. E. 50. Search warrant issued by city judge valid, though addressed to sheriff or constable.-Id. 249 (Ind.) Search warrant held not invalid or search illegal because wrongly naming owner of premises as person in possession of distilling apparatus.-Snedegar v. State, 150 N. E. 367. Sole purpose of "search warrant" is discovery and seizure of specific articles which constitute certain evidence of crime.-Id. Evidence held sufficient to show probable cause for searching premises for still and distilling apparatus.--Id. (B) Opening or Setting Aside Default. 138(3) (Ind.App.) Default judgment was properly vacated, where summons was left at place not defendant's residence.-Kilmer v. McCormick, 150 N. E. 794. 143(11) (III.) Placing case originally on trial call on short cause calendar of another judge held not error of fact authorizing setting aside judgment (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 110, §§ 27, 28, 30, 89).-Loew v. Krauspe, 150 N. E. 683. not Putting case set for trial on short cause calendar on trial call for succeeding week held error of fact authorizing setting aside judgment (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 110. §§ 27, 28, 30, 89; common-law rule 5 of the circuit court).-Id. Failure to give further affidavit and notice if necessary to restore case to short cause calendar, would be error of law, and not error of fact authorizing setting aside of judgment (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 110, § 89).-Id. VI. ON TRIAL OF ISSUES. (A) Rendition, Form, and Requisites in " General. 218 (N.Y.) Judgment incorporating findings of fact preceded by words, "it is ordered and decreed," held not in proper form.-Seaside Home for Crippled Children v. Atlantic Beach Associates, 150 N. E. 550. 249 (Ind.) Housekeeper cannot complain 294 (Ind.) Office of motion to modify judgof illegal search of premises not owned or pos- ment stated.-Wise v. Layman, 150 N. E. 368. sessed by her.-Hines v. State, 150 N. E. 371.299(I) (III.) Court has no authority to set JEOPARDY. See Criminal Law, 183–200. JOINT ADVENTURES. (Ind.App.) Agreement by stockholder to pay dividends to another to induce formation of pool to sell stock advantageous to him held supported by consideration.-Garber v. King, 150 N. E. 803. aside judgment for errors of law after expiration of term and can only amend in matters of form after notice.-People v. Omega Chapter of Psi Upsilon Fraternity, 150 N. E. 677. 305 (Ind.) Motion to modify judgment held properly overruled, when finding did not support contention.-Wise v. Layman, 150 N. Ê. 368. 312 (N.Y.) Plaintiff not entitled to modification of judgment permitting amendment of complaint after dismissal.-Brocia v. F. Romeo & Co., 150 N. E. 530. 4(4) (N.Y.) Under contract to pay one-half profits on transaction defendant held entitled to deduct overhead expenses in determining such 334 (I.) Errors of fact authorizing corprofits.-Vernon Metal & Produce Co., v. Jos-rection of judgment on motion must be such eph Joseph & Bros. Co., 150 N. E. 547. as if known to court would have prevented en For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER try, and not lack of knowledge by court of facts constituting cause of action or defense to it (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925. c. 110, § 89). -Loew v. Krauspe, 150 N. E. 683. IX. OPENING OR VACATING. ~~342(1) (III.) Court has no authority to set aside judgment for errors of law after expiration of term.-People v. Omega Chapter of Psi Upsilon Fraternity, 150 N. E. 677. JURY. II. RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. 13(11) (Ind.) Whether surety's mark was forged held question for jury.-Hartlep v. Murphy, 150 N. E. 312. In action on notes and mortgage, question of forgery of surety's mark on note held not within jurisdiction of equity.-Id. 13(14) (Ind.) Equitable, joined with legal, causes of action may be tried at same or different time, as court may direct.-Hartlep v. Mur 342(1) (III.) A judgment cannot be set aside or overcome by affidavit after adjournment of term of court at which it is entered.-phy, 150 N. E. 312. Loew v. Krauspe, 150 N. E. 683. 486 (!) (Mass.) A void judgment is not protected from collateral attack, and works no estoppel, even on parties thereto.-Carroll v. Berger, 150 N. E. 870. 21 (1) (Mass.) No jurisdictional requirement that all criminal trials be by jury.-Commonwealth v. Kemp, 150 N. E. 172. 29(3) (Mass.) Trial on merits and finding of guilty by judge without jury held permissible, so that question of law may be reported.Commonwealth v. Kemp, 150 N. E. 172. III. QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS AND EXEMPTIONS. 38 (III.) Female not entitled to have name placed on jury list; "elector."-People v. Barnett. 150 N. E. 290. 38 (Ind.) Qualifications of jurors are matters of legislative control.-Palmer v. State, 150 N. E. 917. Adoption of constitutional amendment makwhere jurors are selected from qualified elecing women electors qualifies them for jury duty, tors.-Id. IV. SUMMONING, ATTENDANCE, DIS- 489 (Mass.) Entry of judgment for defendant in replevin on appeal from police court held 59(5) (Ill.) Jury commissioner not entinot a final judgment good as against collateral tled to increased salary to be paid commisattack, where value of property involved exsioner to be appointed.-Barnett V. Cook ceeded jurisdiction of police court (G. L. c. 218, County, 150 N. E. 672. § 19, now St. 1922, c. 532, § 12A).-Carroll v. Berger, 150 N. E. 870. V. COMPETENCY OF JURORS, CHALLENG- XIII. MERGER AND BAR OF CAUSES OF 97(1) (III.) Every person charged with ACTION AND DEFENSES. (A) Judgments Operative as Bar. 559 (III.) Ordinarily acquittal in criminal case is no bar to civil suit.-People v. Small, 150 N. E. 435. Acquittal held not to bar suit by state based on same transactions.-Id. (B) Causes of Action and Defenses Merged, Barred, or Concluded. 621. crime is entitled to speedy public trial by impartial jury (Const. art. 2, § 9).-People v. Ortiz, 150 N. E. 708. 99(5) (ill.) Juror, expressing decided conviction on guilt of defendant before his acceptance, is disqualified, as not impartial.— People v. Ortiz, 150 N. E. 708. Statement by juror, if made, that if taken on jury he would "hang that Mexican," held to show prejudice, precluding impartial consideration of the evidence (Const. art. 2, § 9). -Id. 584 (Ohio) When former judgment is bar to subsequent action stated.-Toledo, F. & F. Ry. Co. v. Toledo & O. C. Ry. Co., 150 N. E. 10(5) (III.) In absence of knowledge of juror's prejudice, until after the trial, defendant held not to have waived right to challenge juror.-People v. Ortiz, 150 N. E. 708. KIDNAPPING. XIV. CONCLUSIVENESS OF ADJUDI CATION. (C) Matters Concluded. 720 (III.) Generally, matters solemnly adju- (Mass.) To convict father of kidnapping dicated by court is conclusive in subsequent litigation between parties.-People v. Small, 150 N. E. 435. minor child, knowledge of decree awarding its custody to the mother was not necessary (G. L. c. 265, § 26).-Commonwealth v. Bresnahan, 150 N. E. 882. (D) Judgments in Particular Classes of 3 (Mass.) Requests and rulings that deActions and Proceedings, fendant, assisting father in kidnapping minor 747 (2) (III.) Contentions of defendant set-child, could not be guilty, if father acted withtled by former decisions and decree.-Weber v. in legal rights, were properly refused (G. L. c. Kemper, 150 N. E. 339. 265. § 26).-Commonwealth v. Bresnahan, 150 N. E. SS2. subtenancy in second mortgagee.-Robbins v.suming lessee's duty to remove snow and ice Blackpool, 150 N. E. 196. from sidewalk is liable for its neglect.-Id. First chattel mortgagee held not entitled to set up assignment of lease to defeat enforcement of mortgagors' agreement to assign lease to second mortgagee.-Id. 77 (Mass.) Assignment of lease by first mortgagee not affected by second mortgagee's payment of enough to satisfy first mortgage with interest.-Robbins v. Blackpool, 150 N. E. 196. 80(1) (N.Y.) Tripartite agreement, whereby proposed sublessees guaranteed performance by sublessor, in consideration for lessor's consent to sublease, held sublease and not assignment of lease.-Leibowitz v. Bickford's Lunch System, 150 N. E. 525. 167 (8) (Mass.) Landlord owes to guest of lodger no greater duty than she owes to lodger.-Webber v. Sherman, 150 N. E. 89. 168(8) (Mass.) Owner of building held not liable to plaintiff, injured in building when calling on tenant therein.-Lack v. McMahon, 150 N. E. 225. 169(11) (Mass.) Verdict for landlord rightly ordered.-Williams v. Pomeroy, 150 N. E. 90. VIII. RENT AND ADVANCES. (A) Rights and Liabilities. 184(2) (N.Y.) Sublessee held entitled to have deposit applied on claim for deficiency after reletting.-Kottler v. New York Bargain (C) Extensions, Renewals, and Options to House, 150 N. E. 591. Purchase or Sell. 191 (III.) Taking of part of leased premises by eminent domain does not release tenremaining is tenantable under lease.-Yellow ant from payment of any part of rent, if part Cab Co. v. Stafford-Smith Co., 150 N. E. 670. 86(1) (N.Y.) Option in sublease for renewal for period for which sublessor might renew not authorized.-Leibowitz v. Bickford's Lunch System, 150 N. E. 525. Original lessor held not to have waived right209 (N.Y.) Claim for deficiency after reletto refuse renewal to sublessee by acceptance tler v. New York Bargain House, 150 N. E. ting held one for rent; "term"; "time.”—Kotof rent after notice that sublessee elected to 591. exercise purported option of renewal.-Id. (D) Termination. 100 (111.) Lease covering premises which were in part condemned in eminent domain proceeding, held not affected by deed by and payment of compensation to owner where lessee continued to occupy premises.-Yellow Cab Co. v. Stafford-Smith Co., 150 N. E. 670. 104 (N.Y.) Attempt of lessee to give sublessee option for extension held not to forfeit lessee's rights.-Leibowitz v. Bickford's Lunch System, 150 N. E. 525. 106 (Mass.) Forfeiture of lease will not be declared, because of want of repair which is not substantial, or is of trifling character.-Kaplan v. Flynn, 150 N. E. 872. Lessor, who executed instrument extending lease without complaint of tenant's failure to repair, cannot, enforce forfeiture without first giving notice to lessee, affording him opportunity to repair.-Id. Equity relieves against forfeiture of lease, where no real fault committed, or breach is induced or waived by conduct.-Id. Agreement for "surrender of possession" held not ending of lease term.-Id. Lessee, reletting for sublessee, not entitled to recover rent deficiency accruing after surrender of his own lease.-Id. LARCENY. See Receiving Stolen Goods. 1. OFFENSES AND RESPONSIBILITY THEREFOR. 12 (Mass.) It is not essential to conviction that property stolen should have been in sole possession of defendant.-Commonwealth V. O'Hare, 150 N. E. 840. 13 (11.) There can be no larceny, where owner of property voluntarily parts with possession.-People v. Schueneman, 150 N. E. 664. II. PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT. (B) Evidence. See Landlord and Tenant. LEGISLATIVE POWER. 162 (Mass.) Landlord not bound to guard against collapse of roof, caused by unanticipat-5 (III.) Subdistricts should be organized ed natural force.-Williams v. Pomeroy, 150 N. when portions of land in need of more particular E. 90. drainage than remainder.-Commissioners_of McGee Creek Levee Dist. v. Wabash Ry. Co., 150 N. E. 259. 167(2) (N.Y.) Lessor of building not liable for death of pedestrian from collapse of scaffolding during demolition of old building by les-25 (II.) Special assessment cannot exceed see.-Metzroth v. City of New York, 150 N. benefits to be derived from proposed improveE. 519. ment.-Commissioners of McGee Creek Levee and Drainage Dist. v. Wabash Ry. Co., 150 N. E. 259. 167 (5) (Mass.) Landlord occupying part of premises and controlling nuisance is not exempt from liability because tenant agreed to remove snow and ice from sidewalk.-Donahue v. M. O'Keeffe, Inc., 150 N. E. 905. Sublessee taking over lease on store and as Issues to be submitted to jury ordered to make assessment for levee and drainage purposes stated.-Id. Assessment against railroad held more than its |