APPEAL AND ERROR-Continued.

6. An objection not mentioned by appellant in his original brief cannot properly be urged as a ground of reversal in a supplemental brief. Anketell v. Hayward, 525.

7. The court cannot affirm a judgment on the ground that an erroneous instruction on one of the questions in the case was, in view of other questions, without prejudice, where the record does not purport to contain all the evidence, and there is nothing to indicate that such other questions were presented in the trial court. First National Bank of Niles v. Shue, 560.

See CERTIORARI; EMINENT DOMAIN; EXECUTION (1); GARNISHMENT (4); JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (2); MANDAMUS; PROBATE COURTS (1); REPLEVIN (2); RES JUDICATA (2); TRIAL.

ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE-See MORTGAGES (5).

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.

A conveyance to a trustee of all the property and accounts of a corporation, to be sold and collected by him, and the proceeds applied, first, to the payment of certain debts in order, as specified in a schedule attached, second, to the payment of a stated compensation to the trustee, the balance, if any, to be turned back to the company, is void for the preferences created, since it constitutes, not a mortgage, but an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Conely v. Collins,

519.

See CORPORATIONS (3); CREDITOR'S BILL (3).

ASSUMPSIT-See ACTIONS; SALE (9); TAXES (9).

ASSUMPTION OF RISK-See MASTER AND SERVANT (2, 4, 5). ATTACHMENT.

1. 2 How. Stat. § 7991, as amended by Act No. 129, Pub. Acts 1895, relating to the execution of writs of attachment issued out of the circuit court, provides that if property is found and seized in the county where the writ issues, but it is insufficient to satisfy the demand and costs, the officer shall seize other property, sufficient, with that seized within his county, to satisfy the same, wherever it may be found within the State, and shall serve a copy of the attachment and inventory upon the defendant, if found within either county where property has been seized. Held, that a writ which commands service upon defendant, "if he can be found in either county where property has been seized under the writ," is not invalid for failure to command service in the county where the writ issues if defendant can there be found. Skeels v. Oceana Circuit Judge, 290.

2. The further provision of the amended statute that, in case defendant shall not be found in either county where property has been seized, service may be made by the sheriff of any county where defendant may be, authorizes service by the

ATTACHMENT-Continued.

sheriff of another county in any case where defendant is not
found in the county or counties where property is seized.
Id.

See PLEADING (9).

ATTORNEY GENERAL-See QUO WARRANTO (1, 2).

BALLOTS-See ELECTIONS.

BANKS AND BANKING-See PUBLIC OFFICERS (2); TRUSTS AND
TRUSTEES.

BETTERMENTS.

1. The "good-faith" occupancy which, when accompanied by
color of title, entitles a defendant in ejectment, under 3
How. Stat. § 7836, to compensation for betterments in case
of plaintiff's recovery, means simply occupancy under an
honest belief in his right or title. Petit v. Flint, etc., R. Co.,
492.

2. The fact that the exercise of diligence would have disclosed to
the occupant that he had no title does not necessarily nega-
tive the good faith of his occupancy. Id.

3. The value of the improvements in such a case is to be deter-
mined by the actual relative value of the land with or with-
out the improvements, and not by their cost or peculiar
value to the occupant, or what they may be worth to the
plaintiff in view of the purposes to which he intends to
devote the property. Id.

See COLOR OF TITLE.

BIGAMY.

A married person who contracts a common-law marriage is
guilty of bigamy equally as if the second marriage were at-
tended with the statutory formalities. People v. Mendenhall,
404.

BILL OF PARTICULARS.

1. In a case where, if recovery is had, it must be for specific
amounts paid to specific parties or due under contract, and
concerning which the declaration contains only general allega-
tions, a bill of particulars is demandable, though the declara-
tion, as a whole, sounds not in assumpsit, but in tort. Anti-
Kalsomine Co. v. Kent Circuit Judge, 434.

2. One alleging fraudulent interference with his business,
whereby customers of his were discouraged through unfair
and arbitrary treatment, and salesmen were employed to en-
tice away his customers, cannot be required to give a bill of
particulars setting forth the names of such customers and
salesmen, but, in refusing to do so, he assumes the risk of
his declaration's not being sufficiently specific to admit proof
of the damages sought to be recovered. Id.

BILL OF REVIEW.

The comptroller of the currency refused to permit the receiver of an insolvent national bank to carry out an agreement made by him with two other banks to join in the purchase of land to be sold under first mortgage, upon which land the three banks held a second mortgage. Upon being advised of the comptroller's refusal, the receiver sought to reopen the decree of foreclosure for the purpose of having moneys paid by the bank for taxes declared a first lien upon the land. Held, that the necessity of asserting the right having arisen after the decree, the receiver should, under the circumstances of the case, be permitted to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review to test his claim. Noeker v. Howry, 626; Giff v. Howry, 630.

See TAXES (4, 6).

BILLS AND NOTES.

1. A promissory note payable on demand, with interest, is not a continuing security, on which the indorsers will remain liable until actual demand, however long delayed, but, on the contrary, such a note must be presented within a reasonable time, in order to hold indorsers. Home Savings Bank v. Hosie, 116.

2. A delay of 2 years in presenting such a note for payment, where all the parties reside in the same city and might be readily notified, will release indorsers. Id.

3. One who receives negotiable paper, before maturity, as collateral security to a loan then made, without notice of any infirmity in the paper, is a bona fide holder. First National Bank of Niles v. Shue, 560.

See CONSIDERATION (2); GARNISHMENT (5); MARRIED WOMEN (2-6); SALE (5).

BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS.

Mandamus to compel a board of supervisors to pass upon relator's claim will be denied, where it appears from the sworn answer of the chairman and clerk of the board that, on receiving the order to show cause, it met, notified relator of a time and place for hearing his claim, and disallowed the same. Gallagher v. Board of Sup'rs of Cheboygan Co., 271. See. CERTIORARI (4); COUNTIES; DRAINS (3).

BONA FIDE PURCHASER-See BILLS AND NOTES (3); SALE (2); VENDOR AND PURCHASER (2, 3).

BONDS-See CONSIDERATION (1); GUARANTY (2); PRINCIPAL AND SURETY; PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

BOOKS OF ACCOUNT-See EVIDENCE (1).

BOUNDARIES-See PUBLIC LANDS.

BRIDGES.

1. Act No. 62, Pub. Acts 1889 (3 How. Stat. § 1310a et seq.),
relating to the construction of bridges on township lines,
will not be given such retrospective action as would destroy
lawful agreements between townships, which existed at the
date of its passage and had long been acted upon. Bigelow v.
Brooks, 208.

2. It is the duty of townships to rebuild and keep in repair a
bridge upon a line road between them, although it stands upon
a portion of the highway allotted to one of them, where the
construction of bridges was not included in the allotment,
and the former bridge, as well as its approaches, was con-
structed and repaired by both townships. Id. 209.

See HIGHWAYS (3); MANDAMUS (1).

BURDEN OF PROOF-See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (3, 8);
GARNISHMENT (10); INSURANCE (5); TAXES (10).

CAPIAS.

1. An affidavit for a capias ad respondendum alleged that, on a
day specified, defendant said of and concerning deponent,
"You (meaning this deponent) stole my wheel;" that de-
fendant charged deponent with the larceny of said bicycle,
saying to a certain police officer, "That woman (meaning
this deponent) stole my wheel, and I want her locked up;
and that thereupon defendant caused deponent to be arrested
by the police officer there present. Held, that the language
sufficiently imported that some of the statements were made
to affiant personally, and that she had personal knowledge of
the facts stated in the affidavit. Wright v. Wayne Circuit
Judge, 499.

2. The fact that a writ of capias ad respondendum, following the
form prescribed by Circuit Court Rule No. 1, states the time
within which defendant may enter his appearance as 15 days
after service of the writ, while the statute (2 How. Stat. §
7306), which must govern in such cases, allows 20 days
after the return day, does not render the writ void. Id.

CARRIERS.

On entering, on invitation of the carrier, a car from which
the engine is detached, the passenger has a right to select any
seat he chooses, and may presume that he will have time to
do so before the engine is backed against the car in such a
manner as to endanger him unless he is sitting down. Moore
v. Saginaw, etc., R. Co., 613.

See CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE (3, 4); NEGLIGENCE (4).

CERTIORARI.

1. The ruling of a justice in allowing a peremptory challenge to
a juror may be reviewed on certiorari, though appeal is the
better remedy. Eldridge v. Hubbell, 61.

2. The Supreme Court will not, on certiorari, entertain objec-

CERTIORARI-Continued.

tions to the jurisdiction which were not made in the court below, nor stated in the petition as a reason for allowing the writ. Bigelow v. Brooks, 208.

3. Circuit court commissioners are not authorized to interfere with proceedings in the circuit court by granting the writ of certiorari to a party aggrieved by a ruling of the circuit judge. Church v. Anti-Kalsomine Co., 437.

4. In certiorari to review a mandamus issued out of the circuit court to compel a supervisor to spread upon his roll a certain drain tax, as directed by the board of supervisors, the circuit judge's return that the answer below raised no question as to the board's having made the order, and that the fact appeared from the proceedings of the board furnished at the hearing, is conclusive that the tax was ordered spread. Scholtz v. Smith, 634.

CHATTEL MORTGAGES- See ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS; FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (6-8); GARNISHMENT (9).

CIRCUIT COURT COMMISSIONERS-See CERTIORARI (3).

CITIES AND VILLAGES-See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. COLLATERAL SECURITY-See BILLS AND NOTES (3); MORT. GAGES (5, 6).

COLOR OF TITLE.

That a deed of premises limits their use to a particular purpose does not prevent it from constituting color of title under 3.How. Stat. § 7836. Petit v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 492.

COMMERCIAL PAPER-See BILLS AND NOTES.

COMMERCIAL REPORTS-See SALE (3).

COMMISSIONS-See REAL-ESTATE BROKERS.

COMMON CARRIERS-See CARRIERS.

COMMON COUNTS-See ACTIONS (2).

COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE-See BIGAMY.

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS-See EMINENT DOMAIN.

CONDITIONAL SALE-See SALE (9).

CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT-See PARTNERSHIP (1).
CONSIDERATION.

1. A bank, under an agreement with the stockholders of a cor-
poration, accepted their bond as a continuing security for